OF THE CHURCH, FIVE BOOKS.  
BY RICHARD FIELD DOCTOR OF DIVINITY AND SOMETIMES DEANE OF GLOUCESTER.  
THE SECOND EDITION VERY MUCH AVGmented, in the third book, and the Appendix to the same.  
·PECCATA·TOLLE·QVI·EMISTI·O·AGNE·DEI·IESU·CHRISTE  
ECCE·AGN▪ DEI▪   printer's or publisher's device 
AT OXFORD Imprinted by WILLIAM TURNER, Printer to the famous University. 1628.   

TO THE ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCE THE DUKE OF BUCKINGAM HIS GRACE LORD HIGH ADMIRAL OF ENGLAND etc.  
RIGHT HONOURABLE,  
THat especial favour which your Grace was pleased to show unto the Author of this work while he lived, hath emboldened me to commend the work itself as it is now enlarged unto your Gracious protection. And though the Author's particular obligement had not directed me in my choice, I know not unto whom I might more fitly have presented it then unto your Grace, who in a more peculiar manner than others, have undertaken the protection of Scholars. One example amongst many this Author might have been, had he lived but a little longer, of your honourable care, for the advancement of learning, and encouragement of Scholars. The volume which I present unto your Grace, for the bulk and bigness is not great, especially if it be compared with the writings of our Adversaries; whose voluminous works would make the ignorant believe, that they had engrossed all learning unto themselves. But asmany times we may find in little men that strength of body and vigour of mind which is wanting in those of greater stature; so experience telleth us that amongst books the greatest are not always the best. 
Saepius in libro memoratur Persius uno,  
Quam levis in tota Marsus Amazonide.  And those that are acquainted with the writings of our Adversaries are not ignorant, how for the most part their great volumes are stuffed. If a man will take the pains to read them, like those that dig in mines for gold, he must expect to find paruum in magno, but a little gold in a great deal of unprofitable earth. Of this work I think I might safely say thus much, that it compriseth much in a little: but I intent not a Panegyrique in the praise thereof. If I give it not that praise which it deserves, my near relation unto the Author may be my excuse; seeing whatsoever I should say would seem rather to proceed from affection then judgement. What my opinion of it is, I think I have sufficiently expressed in that I have thought it not unworthy your Grace's patronage. And thus praying for the continuance of your Graces prosperous and happy estate I remain  
Your Grace's most humbly obliged servant NATHANIEL FIELD.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, MY VERY GOOD LORD, THE LORD Archbishop of CANTERBURY his Grace, Primate and Metropolitan of all England.  
MOst Reverend in Christ, the consideration of the unhappy divisions of the Christian world, and the infinite distractions of men's minds, not knowing in so great variety of opinions, what to think, or to whom to join themselves, (every faction boasting of the pure & sincere profession of heavenly truth, challenging to itself alone the name of the Church; and fastening upon all that dissent, or are otherwise minded, the hateful note of Schism and Heresy) hath made me ever think, that there is no part of heavenly knowledge more necessary, than that which concerneth the Church. For, seeing the controversies of Religion in our time, are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that, few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which amongst all the societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that household of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the Pillar and ground of truth; that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement. Hence it cometh, that all wise and judicious men; do more esteem books of doctrinal principles, than those that are written of any other argument; and that there was never any treasure holden more rich and precious by all them that knew how to prise and value things aright, than books of prescription against the profane novelties of Heretics: for that thereby men that are not willing, or not able to examine the infinite differences that arise amongst men concerning the faith, have general directions what to follow, and what to avoid. We admit no man, saith Tertullian in his book of prescriptions, to any disputation concerning sacred and divine things; or to the scanning and examining of particular questions of Religion, unless he first show us, of whom he received the faith, by whose means he became a Christian, and whether he admit and hold the general principles, wherein all Christians do, and ever did agree; otherwise, prescribing against him, as a stranger from the commonwealth of the Israel of God, and having no part, nor fellowship in this business. But as in the days of the Fathers, the Donatists, and other Heretics, including the Church within the compass of Africa, and such other parts of the world, where they & their consorts found best entertainment, rejected all other from the unity of the Church, excluded them from hope of salvation, and appropriated all the glorious things that are spoken of it, to themselves alone: so in our time, there are some found so much in love with the pomp and glory of the Church of Rome, that they fear not to condemn all the inhabitants of the world and to pronounce them to be Anathema from the Lord jesus, if they descent from that Church, and the doctrine, profession, and observations of it; So casting into hell, all the Christians of Graecia, Russia, Armenia, Syria, and Aethiopia, because they refuse to be subject to the tyranny of the Pope, and the Court of Rome: besides the heavy sentence which they have passed, against all the famous States and Kingdoms of Europe, which have freed themselves from the Aegyptiacall bondage, they were formerly holden in. These men abuse many with the glorious pretences of antiquity, Unity, Universality, Succession, and the like; making the simple believe that all is ancient which they profess, that the consent of all ages is for them, and that the Bishop's succeeding one another, in all the famous Churches of the world, never taught, nor believed any other thing, than they now do: whereas it is easy to prove, that all the things wherein they descent from us, are nothing else but novelties, and uncertainties; that the greatest part of the Christian world hath been divided from them for certain hundreds of years; that none of the most famous, and greatest Churches, ever knew, or admitted, any of their heresies; and that the things they now publish, as Articles of faith to be believed by all that will be saved, are so far from being Catholic, that they were not the doctrines of that Church, wherein they and we sometimes lived together in one communion, but the opinions only of some men in that Church, adulterating the doctrine of heavenly truth, bringing in, and defending superstitious abuses disliked by others, and serving as vile instruments to advance the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome. Wherefore for the discovery of the vanity of their insolent boastings, for the confirming of the weak, the satisfying of them that are doubtful, and that all men may know, that we have not departed from the ancient faith, or forsaken the fellowship of the Catholic Church, but that we have forsaken a part to hold communion with the whole, (led so to do, by the most prevailing reasons that ever persuaded men, and the greatest authority on earth) I resolved to communicate to others, what I had long since in private for mine own satisfactien observed, touching the nature of the Church, the notes whereby it may be known, and the privileges that pertain to it. These my simple labours, most Reverend in Christ, I thought it my duty to offer to your Grace's censure, before they should present themselves to the view of the world; that so, either finding approbation, they might the more confidently make themselves public, or otherwise be suppressed like the untimely fruit, that never saw the Sun. The condition of the times wherein we live is such, that many are discouraged from meddling with the controversies of Religion, because they are sure (besides the vile slanders, wicked calumniations, and bitter reproaches, of the common adversaries) to pass the censures of those men, who, though they will do nothing themselves, yet in the height of a proud and disdainful spirit, with many a scornful look, smile at the follies of other men's writings, as they esteem them. The sinister judgements of either of these sorts of men, I shall the less regard, for that it pleased your Grace so lovingly to accept, and so favourably to approve these my poor pains, bestowed for the clearing of sundry questions concerning t●…●…rch, which by your direction and appointment I first entered into. It hath bi●… 〈◊〉 ●…he vaunt of the adversaries of the Religion established amongst us, that 〈◊〉 written many books against us, and none have been found to oppose any ●…g against them; & that they desire nothing more, then by writing, or disputing, to ●…ic the goodness of their cause. But, I doubt not, but this national Church, the government whereof under our most gracious Sovereign, is principally committed to your fatherly care, shall yield men more than matchable, with the proudest of the adverse faction: who being animated and heartened by your favour, & guided by your directions, shall no longer suffer these proud Philistims, to defy the armies of the Lord of Hosts. For though they proclaim their own praises with loud sounding trumpets, that might have been piped with an oaten straw; and though they magnify themselves, as if they were the only Paragons of the world, and as if all wit, & learning, had been borne with them, & should die with them: yet whosoever knoweth them, will little regard the froth of their swelling words of pride and scorn: seeing when they have done vaunting, they have done their best, and that which remaineth is little worth; their allegations being for the most part nothing but falsifications: their testimonies of antiquity, the marks & notes of their ancient forgeries; their reasons, sophisms: their reports, slanders, and wicked calumniations: their threats, the venting of their malice, and pouring out of their impotent desires; their predictions, only manifesting what they wish might be, but no way showing what shall be. In the later days of our late dread Sovereign Elizabeth of famous & blessed memory, all their books were nothing but fearful threatenings of bloody confusions, and horrible dissipations, of Church and commonwealth, which they hoped for, and looked after, so soon as it should please God to cut off the thread of her blessed life. But, he that sitteth in heaven hath laughed them to scorn, and branded them with the mark of false Prophets. For, Elizabeth is gathered to her fathers in peace, full of days, and full of honour, & yet they have not bathed their swords in blood as they desired; but God hath disappointed all their purposes, frustrated their hopes, and continued our happiness. josua hath succeeded Moses: and Solomon, David: and he that disposeth the kingdoms of men, & giveth them to whom he will, hath set upon the Throne of Majesty amongst us, a King of a Religious, Virtuous, and peaceable disposition, to whom he hath given a wise and understanding heart, large as the sands of the sea shore, whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, who hath chosen his testimonies to be his Counsellors; whose constant resolution in matters of faith and Religion, daunteth the enemies of it; whose admirable understanding in things Divine, more than for many ages, the world hath found in any of his rank, giveth us good assurance, that no frauds of any deceivers shall ever be able to seduce or mislead him: whose blessed Progeny, and Royal issue, maketh us hope, that the felicity of these united kingdoms, shall continue as long as the Sun and Moon endure: which whosoever desireth, and seeketh to procure, Peace be upon him, & upon the Israel of God. Thus craving pardon for this my boldness, and humbly beseeching Almighty God, long to continue your Grace's happy and prosperous estate, and to make you a glorious instrument of much good to his Church, I rest.  
Your Graces, in all duty, RICHARD FIELD.   

WHAT THINGS ARE HANDLED IN THE BOOKS FOLLOWING.  

The first Book is concerning the Name, Nature and Definition of the Church; and the different sorts of them that do pertain unto it.  
CHAP. 1. OF the Church consisting of men and Angels, in the day of their creation. pag. 1.  
Chap. 2. Of the calling of grace, whereby God called out both men and Angels from the rest of his creatures, to be unto him a holy Church and of their Apostasy. 4.  
Chap. 3. Of the Church, consisting of those Angels that continued in their first estate by force of grace upholding them, and men redeemed. 5.  
Chap. 4. Of the Church of the redeemed. 7.  
Chap. 5. Of the Christian Church. 9  
Chap. 6. Of the definition of the Church. 11.  
Chap. 7. Of the diverse sorts of them that pertain to the Church. ibid.  
Chap. 8. Of their meaning, who say, that the Elect only are of the Church. 13.  
Chap. 9 Of the difference of them that are in and of the Church. 14.  
Chap. 10. Of the visible and invisible Church. ibid.  
Chap. 11. Of the divers titles of the Church, & how they are verified of it. 17.  
Chap. 12. Of the divers sorts of them that have not yet entered into the Church. 18.  
Chap. 13. Of the first s●…rt of them, that, after their admission into the Church of God, do voluntarily depart and go from the same. 19  
Chap. 14. Of the second sort of them that voluntarily go out from the people of God. 20.  
Chap. 15. Of them whom the Church casteth out by excommunication. 22.  
Chap. 16. Of the errors, that are, and have been, touching the use of the discipline of the Church, in punishing offenders. 24.  
Chap. 17. Of the considerations moving the Church, to use indulgence towards offenders. 25.  
Chap. 18. Of their damnable pride, who condemn all those Churches wherein want of due execution of discipline, and imperfections of men are found. 26.   

The second Book is of the notes of the Ch●…h.  
CHAP. 1. OF the nature of notes of difference, and their several kinds. 29.  
Chap. 2. Of the diverse kinds of notes whereby the true Church is discerned from other societies of men in the world. 30.  
Chap. 3. Of Bellarmine's reasons against the notes of the Church assigned by us. 32.  
Chap. 4. Of Stapletons' reasons against our notes of the Church. 34.  
Chap. 5. Of their notes of the Church, and first of Antiquity. 37.  
Chap. 6. Of succession. 39  
Chap. 7. Of the third note assigned by them, which is Unity. 40.  
Chap. 8. Of Universality. 41.  
Chap. 9 Of the name and title of Catholic. 42.   

The third Book showeth which is the true Church demonstrated by those notes.  
CHAP. 1. OF the division of the Christian World into the Western or Latin Church, and the oriental or East Church. 47.  
Chap. 2. Of the harsh and unadvised censure of the Romanists, condemning all the oriental Churches as Schismatic all, and heretical. 75.  
Chap. 3. Of the nature of heresy, of the divers kinds of things wherein men err, and what pertinacy it is that maketh an heretic. 76.  
Chap. 4. Of those things which every one is bound expressly to know and believe; and wherein no man can err, without note of heresy. 77.  
Chap. 5. Of the nature of Schism, and the kinds of it, and that it no way appeareth that the Churches of Greece, etc. are heretical, or in damnable Schism. 80.  
Chap. 6. Of the Latin Church, that it continued the true Church of God even till our time, and that the errors, we condemn, were not the doctrines of that Church. 81.  
Chap. 7. Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries, wherein some in the Church erred, but not the whole Church. 83.  
Chap. 8. Of the true Church, which, and where it was bef●… Luther's time. 84.  
Chap. 9 Of an Apostasy of some in the Church. 86.  
Chap. 10. Of their error, who say, nothing can be amiss in the Church, either in respect of doctrine or discipline. 89.  
Chap. 11. Of the causes of the manifold confusions and evils, formerly found in the Church. ibid.  
Chap. 12. Of the desire and expectation of a reformation of the corrupt state of the Church, and that the alteration which hath been, is a reformation. 91.  
Chap. 13. Of the first reason brought to prove that the Church of Rome holdeth the faith first delivered; because the precise time wherein errors began in it, cannot be noted. 93.  
Chap. 14. Of diverse particular errors which have been in the Church; whose first author cannot be named. 94.  
Chap. 15. Of the second reason brought to prove that they hold the ancient faith; because our men, dissenting from them, confess they descent from the Fathers, where sundry instances are examined. 96.  
Chap. 16. Of Limbus Patrum, concupiscence, and satisfaction, touching which, Calvin is falsely charged to confess, that he dissenteth from the Fathers. 99  
Chap. 17. Of Prayer for the dead, and Merit. 101.  
Chap. 18. Of the Father's strictness in admitting men into the Ministry: of single life, and of their severity in the discipline of repentance. 103.  
Chap. 19 Of the Lent Fast, of laymen's Baptism, and of the sacrifice of the Mass. 106.  
Chap. 20. Of the invocation and adoration of Saints: touching which the Century writers are wrongfully charged to descent from the Fathers. 109.  
Chap. 21. Of Martyrdom, and the excessive praises thereof found in the Fathers. 114.  
Chap. 22. Wherein is examined their proof of the antiquity of their Doctrine, taken from a false supposal, that our doctrine is nothing else but heresy long since condemned. 115.  
Chap. 23. Of the heresy of Florinus, making God the author of sin, falsely imputed to Caluine and others. 117.  
Chap. 24. Of the heresies of Origen, touching the Image of God, and touching hell, falsely imputed to Calvin. 133.  
Chap. 25. Of the heresy of the Peputians, making women Priests. 134.  
Chap. 26. Of the supposed heresy of Proclus and the Messalians, touching concupiscence in the regenerate. 135.  
Chap. 27. Of the heresies of Novatus, Sabellius and the Manichees. 139.  
Chap. 28. Of the heresies of the Donatists. 141.  
Chap. 29. Of the heresies of Arrius, and Aerius. 142.  
Chap. 30. Of the heresies of jovinian. 143.  
Chap. 31. Of the heresies of Vigilantius. 146.  
Chap. 32. Of the heresy of Pelagius touching original sin, and the difference of venial and mortal sins. 147.  
Chap. 33. Of the heresy of Nestorius, falsely imputed to Beza, and others. 149.  
Chap. 34. Of the heresies of certain touching the Sacrament, and how our men deny that to be the body of Christ that is carried about to be gazed on. 150.  
Chap. 35. Of the heresy of Eutiches, falsely imputed to the Divines of Germany. 151.  
Chap. 36. Of the supposed heresy of Zenaias Persa, impugning the adoration of Images. 152.  
Chap. 37. Of the error of the Lampetians; touching vows 153.  
Chap. 38. Of the heresy of certain, touching the verity of the body and blood of Christ, communicated to us in the Sacrament. ibid.  
Chap. 39 Of succession, and the exceptions of the adversaries against us, in respect of the supposed want of it. 154.  
Chap. 40. Of succession, and the proof of the truth of their doctrine by it. 159.  
Chap. 41. Of unity, the kinds of it, and that communion with the Roman Bishop, is not always a note of true and Catholic profession. 160.  
Chap. 42. That nothing can be concluded for them, or against us from the note of Unity, or division opposite unto it. 164.  
Chap. 43. Of Universality. 169.  
Chap. 44. Of the Sanctity of doctrine: and the supposed absurdities of our profession. 170.  
Chap. 45. Of the Paradoxes and gross absurdities of Romish religion. 172.  
Chap. 46. Of the efficacy of the Church's doctrine. 174.  
Chap. 47. Of the Protestants pretended confession, that the Roman Church is the true Church of God. ibid.  
Chap. 48. Of Miracles confirming the Roman faith. 175.  
Chap. 49. Of Prophetical prediction. 177.  
Chap. 50. Of the felicity of them that profess the truth. 178.  
Chap. 51. Of the miserable ends of the enemies of the truth. ibid.  
Chap. 52. Of the Sanctity of the lives of them that are of the Church. 179.   

An Appendix to the third book wherein it is proved that the Latin Church was, and continued a true orthodox and protestant Church, and that the maintainers of Romish errors were only a faction in the same, at the time of Luther's appearing.  
AN answer to M. Brerelyes' objection concerning the mass publicly used in all Churches at Luther's appearing pag. 185.  
Chap. 1. Of the canon of the Scriptures. 224.  
Chap. 2. Of the sufficiency of the Scripture. 232.  
Chap. 3. Of the original text of Scripture, of the certainty and truth of the originals, and of the authority of the vulgar translation. 238.  
Chap. 4. Of the translating of the Scripture into vulgar languages, and of the necessity of having the public liturgy and prayers of the Church in a tongue understood. ibid.  
Chap. 5. Of the three supposed different estates of mere nature, grace, and sin: the difference between a man in the state of pure and mere nature, and in the state of sin: and of original sin. 250.  
Chap. 6. Of the blessed virgin's conception. 264.  
Chap. 7. Of the punishment of original sin; and of Limbus puerorum 270.  
Chap. 8. Of the remission of original sin, and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate. 272.  
Chap. 9 Of the distinction of venial and mortal sin. 277.  
Chap. 10. Of free will. 279.  
Chap. 11. Of justification. 290.  
Chap. 12. Of merit. 324.  
Chap. 13. Of works of supererogation and Counsels of perfection. 331.  
Chap. 14. Of Election and Reprobation depending on the foresight of something in the parties elected or rejected. ibid.  
Chap. 15. Of the seven Sacraments. 332.  
Chap. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time. ibid.  
Chap. 17. Of transubstantiation. 333.  
Chap. 18. Touching oral Manducation. 334.  
Chap. 19 Of the real sacrificing of Christ's body on the Altar, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead. 335.  
Chap. 20. Of remission of sins after this life. ibid.  
Chap. 21. Of Purgatory. 336.  
Chap. 22. Of the Saints hearing of our prayers. 337.  
Chap. 23. Of the superstition and idolatry committed formerly in the worshipping of Images. 338.  
Chap. 24. Of Absolution. ibid.  
Chap. 25. Of Indulgences and Pardons. 339.  
Chap. 26. Of the infallibility of the Pope's judgement. 340.  
Chap. 27. Of the power of the Pope in disposing the affairs of Princes and their states. ibid.   

The fourth Book is of the Privileges of the Church.  
CHAP. 1. OF the divers kinds of the privileges of the Church, and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church. 343.  
Chap. 2. Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church. 344.  
Chap. 3. Of the meaning of certain speeches of Caluine touching the erring of the Church. 345.  
Chap. 4. Of their reasons who think the present Church free from all error in matters of faith. 346.  
Chap. 5. Of the promises made unto the Church, how it is secured from error, & of the different degrees of the obedience, we owe unto it. 348.  
Chap. 6. Of the Church's office of teaching and witnessing the truth; and of their error, who think the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith, and that she may make new articles of faith. 350.  
Chap. 7. Of the manifold errors of Papists; touching the last resolution of our faith, and the refutation of the same. 351.  
Chap. 8. Of the last resolution of true faith, and whereupon it stayeth itself. 355.  
Chap. 9 Of the meaning of those words of Augustine, that he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him. 358.  
Chap. 10. Of the Papists preferring the Church's authority before the Scripture. ibid.  
Chap. 11. Of the refutation of their error, who prefer the authority of the Church before the Scripture. 359.  
Chap. 12. Of their error who think the Church may make new articles of faith. 361.  
Chap. 13. Of the Church's authority to judge of the differences that arise, touching matters of faith. 362.  
Chap. 14. Of the rule of the Church's judgement. 364.  
Chap. 15. Of the Challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture, charging it with obscurity, and imperfection. 365.  
Chap. 16. Of the interpretation of Scripture and to whom it pertaineth. 366.  
Chap. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers, and how far we are bound to admit it. 368.  
Chap. 18. Of the divers senses of Scripture. 369.  
Chap. 19 Of the rules we are to follow, and the helps we are to trust to in interpreting the Scriptures. 372.  
Chap. 20. Of the supposed imperfection of Scriptures, and the supply of Traditions. 373.  
Chap. 21. Of the rules, whereby true Traditions may be known from counterfeit. 378.  
Chap. 22. Of the difference of books Canonical and Apocryphal. ibid.  
Chap. 23. Of the Canonical and Apocryphal books of Scripture. 379.  
Chap. 24. Of the uncertainty and contrariety found amongst Papists, touching books Canonical and Apocryphal now controversed. 382.  
Chap. 25. Of the divers editions of the Scripture, and in what tongue it was originally written. 385.  
Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek. 387.  
Chap. 27. Of the Latin translations, and of the authority of the vulgar Latin. 388.  
Chap. 28. Of the truth of the Hebrew Text of Scripture. 390.  
Chap. 29, Of the supposed corruptions of the Greek text of Scripture. ibid.  
Chap. 30. Of the power of the Church in making Laws. 393.  
Chap. 31. Of the bounds, within which, the the power of the Church in making laws is contained, and whether she may make laws concerning the worship of God. 394.  
Chap. 32. Of the nature of Laws, and how they bind, 397.  
Chap. 33. Of the nature of Conscience, and how the conscience is bound. ibid.  
Chap. 34. Of their reasons, who think that humane Laws do bind the Conscience. 399.   

The fifth book is concerning the diverse degrees, orders and callings of those men, to whom the government of the Church is committed.  
CHAP. 1. OF the Primitive and first Church of God in the house of Adam, the Father of all the living; and the government of same. 409.  
Chap. 2. Of the dignity of the first borne amongst the sons of Adam, and their Kingly, and Priestly direction of the rest. 410.  
Chap. 3. Of the division of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sons of jacob, when they came out of Egypt, and the Church of God became national. 411.  
Chap. 4. Of the separation of Aaron and his sons, from the rest of the sons of Levi, to serve in the Priest's office, and of the head or chief of that company. 412.  
Chap. 5. Of the Priests of the second rank or order. 413.  
Chap. 6. Of the Levites. 414.  
Chap. 7. Of the sects and factions in religion, found amongst the jews in latter times. ibid.  
Chap. 8. Of Prophets, and Nazarites. 416.  
Chap. 9 Of Assemblies upon extraordinary occasions. 417.  
Chap. 10. Of the set Courts amongst the jews; their authority and continuance. 418.  
Chap. 11. Of the manifestation of God in the flesh, the causes thereof; and the reason why the second Person in the Trinity rather took flesh, then either of the other. 423.  
Chap. 12. Of the manner of the union that is between the Person of the Son of God, and our nature in Christ, and the similitudes brought to express the same. 429.  
Chap. 13. Of the communication of the properties of either nature in Christ, consequent upon the union of them in his Person, and the two first kinds thereof. 432.  
Chap. 14. Of the third kind of communication of properties, and the first degree thereof. 434.  
Chap. 15. Of the third kind of communication of properties, and the second degree thereof. 438.  
Chap. 16. Of the work of Mediation; performed by Christ in our nature. 441.  
Chap. 17. Of the things which Christ suffered for us, to procure our reconciliation with God. 445.  
Chap, 18. Of the nature and quality of the passion and suffering of Christ. 450.  
Chap. 19 Of the descending of Christ into hell. 453.  
Chap. 20. Of the merit of Christ: of his not meriting for himself, & his meriting for us. 464.  
Chap. 21. Of the benefits which we receive from Christ. 469.  
Chap. 22. Of the Ministry of them to whom Christ committed the publishing of the reconciliation between God and men, procured by him. 471.  
Chap. 23. Of the Primacy of power imagined by our Adversaries to have been in Peter, and their defence of the same. 479.  
Chap. 24. Of the preeminence that Peter had amongst the Apostles, and the reason why Christ directed his speeches specially to him. 486.  
Chap. 25. Of the distinction of them to whom the Apostles dying left the managing of Church-affaires, and particularly of them that are to perform the meaner services in the Church. 488.  
Chap. 26. Of the orders and degrees of them that are trusted with the Ministry of the word, and Sacraments, and the gogovernment of God's people: and particularly of Lay-elders falsely by some supposed to be Governors of the Church. 493.  
Chap. 27. Of the distinction of the power of Order and jurisdiction, and the preeminence of one amongst the Presbyters of each Church, who is named a Bishop. 497.  
Chap. 28. Of the division of the lesser titles, and smaller Congregations or Churches, out of those Churches of so large extent, founded and constituted by the Apostles. 501.  
Chap. 29. Of Chorepiscopi, or Rural Bishops, forbidden by old Canons to encroach upon the Episcopal office, and of the institution, & necessary use of Archpresbyters or Deans. 504.  
Chap. 30. Of the form of the government of the Church, and the institution and authority of metropolitans, and patriarchs. 510.  
Chap. 31. Of patriarchs, who they were: and the reason why they were preferred before other Bishops. 515.  
Chap. 32. How the Pope succeedeth Peter, what of right belongeth to him, and what it is that he unjustly claimeth. 518.  
Chap. 33. Of the proofs brought by the Romanists for confirmation of the universality of the Pope's jurisdiction and power. 521.  
Chap. 34. Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's universal jurisdiction, taken out of the decretal Epistles of Popes. 524.  
Chap. 35. Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's Supremacy, produced and brought out of the writings of the Greek Fathers. 533.  
Chap. 36. Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's Supremacy, taken out of the writings of the Latin Fathers. 539.  
Chap. 37. Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's universal power, taken from his intermeddling in ancient times, in confirming, deposing, or restoring Bishops deposed. 550.  
Chap. 38. Of the weakness of such proofs of the supreme power of Popes as are taken from their laws, Censures, dispensations, and the Vicegerents they had in places far remote from them. 556.  
Chap. 39 Of Appeals to Rome. 561.  
Chap. 40. Of the Pope's supposed exemption from all humane judgement, as being reserved to the judgement of Christ only. 571.  
Chap. 41. Of the titles given to the Pope, and the insufficiency of the proofs of his illimited power and jurisdiction taken from them. 582.  
Chap. 42. Of the second supposed privilege of the Roman Bishops, which is infallibility of judgement. 585.  
Chap. 43. Of such Popes as are charged with heresy, and how the Romanists seek to clear them from that imputation. 593.  
Chap. 44. Of the Pope's unjust claim of temporal dominion over the whole world. 602.  
Chap. 45. Of the Pope's unjust claim to intermeddle with the affairs of Princes, and their States, if not as Sovereign Lord over all, yet at least, in ordine ad Spiritualia, and in case of Princes failing to do their duties. 609.  
Chap. 46. Of the examples of Churchmen deposing Princes, brought by the Romanists. 618.  
Chap. 47. Of the civil dominion which the Popes have by the gift of Princes. 632.  
Chap. 48. Of general Counsels and of the end, use, and necessity of them. 642.  
Chap. 49. Of the persons that may be present in general Counsels, and who they are of whom general Counsels do consist. 645.  
Chap. 50. Of the Precedent of general Counsels. 649.  
Chap. 51. Of the assurance of finding out the truth, which the Bishops assembled in general Counsels have. 660.  
Chap. 52. Of the calling of Counsels, and to whom that right pertaineth. 667.  
Chap. 53. Of the power and authority exercised by the ancient Emperors in general Counsels, and of the Supremacy of Christian Princes in causes, and over persons Ecclesiastical. 677.  
Chap. 54. Of the calling of Ministers, and the persons to whom it pertaineth to elect and ordain them. 686.  
Chap. 55. Of the Popes disordered intermeddling with elections of Bishops and other Ministers of the Church, their usurpation, intrusion, and preiudicing the right, and liberty of others. 696.  
Chap. 56. Of the ordinations of Bishops and Ministers. 702.  
Chap. 57 Of the things required in such as are to be ordained Ministers, and of the lawfulness of their Marriage. 704.  
Chap. 58. Of digamy, and what kind of it it is that debarreth men from entering into the Ministry. 727.  
Chap. 59 Of the maintenance of Ministers. 733.   

What things are Occasionally handled in the Appendix to the fifth Book.  
THat Protestants admit trial by the Fathers. 749.  
Of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead. 750. 764. 776. 783. 787. 792.  
Whether general Counsels may err. 761.  
The opinion of the greeks concerning Purgatory. 764.  
Of Transubstantiation. 770.  
The opinion of some of the Schoolmen, thinking that final Grace purgeth out all sinfulness out of the soul, in the moment of dissolution. 772.  
Of the heresy of Aerius. 789.  
Nothing constantly resolved on concerning Purgatory in the Roman Church at Luther's appearing. 790.  
Abuses in the Roman Church disliked by Gerson. 795.  
Grosthead opposing the Pope. 809.  
The agreement of diverse before Luther with that which Protestants now teach. 813.  
Of the difference between the Germane Divines and us, concerning the Ubiquitary presence and the Sacrament. 819.  
The differences, of former times amongst the Fathers, and of the Papists at this day, compared with the differences that are found amongst Protestants. 823.  
Of the Rule whereby all controversies are to be ended. 827.  
That the Elect never fall totally from grace once received. 833.  
What manner of faith is found in infants that are baptised. 837.  
Of the saying of Augustine that he would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Church did not move him. 841.  
Of the last resolution of our faith. 844. 856.  
Of the sufficiency of the Scripture. 847.  
Of Traditions. 849. 892.  
Of the merit of works and justification. 861.  
Of the things required for the attaining of the right understanding of the Scripture. 863.  
Of the means whereby we may know that the Scriptures are of God. 868.  
Of the differences that have been amongst protestants. 869.  
That there remained a true Church under the papacy when Luther began. 880.  
The Roman Church is not the same now that it was when Luther began. 881.  
That we have not departed from the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, but only from the faction that was in it. 883.    

Errata.  
Pag. Line.  10. 8. Negleing for neglecting. 27. 50. either sort for either God.   marg. respicio te for respicio. 36. 1. which is that society for which is the true Church, we ask which is that society. 81. marg. ep. 161. for ep. 162. 92. 41. undoubtfully for undoubtedly. 102. 30. lacis for lacus. leonus for leonis. 107. marg. Alcu●…io for Alcuino. 189. marg. immediately it for immediately after it. 191. 2. nothing of for nothing for 201. 55. which for with 244. 22. Crocovia for Cr●…couia 289. 4. and effect for an effect 292. 2. nor to be for nor be  39 not only in a twofold for not only a two fold. 322. 45. fortitudinem for formidinem 338. marg. Rational. divinorum l. 2. for Rational. divinorum l. 1.  36. obtaineth for obtaineth grace 340. 24. ut for us 345. 47. Church for the Church.  50. to err for or err 348. 46. Thus he for This he 349. 14. evious for envious 353. marg. C●…nus lib. 1. for C●…us l. 2. 357. 24. dubium for dubiam 358. 31. of deltatur 359. 5. definition for definitions 360. marg. lect. for lect. 2. 362. marg. Canonum for Canonem 363. marg. certa & veridica for certa & veridica 364. 24. generalily for generality 372. 27. For for Fiftly 375. 55. is was for it was 377. 11. in the matter for in matter 380. 27. Helenists for Hellenists 479. 38. for for forth 495. 4. as deleatur 496. 23. writing for writeth 520. 12. An●…tolius for Anatolius 532. 〈◊〉. Byz●…zenus for Byz●…zenus 541. 32. are for or 551. 52. as deleatur 554. 12. fearing for fearing not 593. 20. toherwise for otherwise 729. 34. non deleatur. 752. marg. fide for fine 779. 54. say for shall say  55. sitteth for sitteth 792. 24. take for taketh 81●…. 52. the for him and the 820. 55. Bc. for 〈◊〉.   

THE FIRST BOOK CONCERNING THE NAME, NATURE, AND DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH.  

CHAP. 1  
Of the Church consisting of men and Angels, in the day of their Creation.  
Whatsoever cometh within the compass of man's conceit and apprehension, is either the universal perfection of being itself, wherein there is nothing intermingled of not being, nothing of possibility to be that which already it is not, which is the nature of God, whose name is 
a Exod. 3. 14. and 6. 3.  jehova, 
b Reve. 1. 8.  Which is, which was, and is to come: or else it is finite limited and restrained to a certain degree, measure; and kind of being, which is the condition of all things under God. So that as we cannot think aright of God, but with resolved and undoubted assurance that he is, (For what can be, if being itself be not?) that he is infinite, and hath no limitation of his perfections, (for within what bounds or limits shall we compass that, wherein the fulnesseof being is found?) that he is from everlasting to everlasting, and knoweth neither beginning nor end of his continuance: (For how should that have either beginning or end, wherein there is nothing intermingled of not being, and so no time nor moment can be imagined wherein it was not, or shall cease to be?) so we cannot think of any thing else but as finite and limited, having certain bounds set unto it, within the compass whereof, all the perfection it possesseth and enjoyeth is contained, as having being after not being, and so receiving it from another, as limited in continuance aswell as in measure and kind of perfections, having set and certain terms before which it was not, and a necessity of ceasing to be, if the hand that upholdeth it withdraw itself but for a moment. Hence it followeth that such is the nature and condition of all things under God, that they are mixed and compounded of being and not being, perfection and imperfection, fullness and want. For howsoever they want nothing, which to the perfecting of their own kind is required, yet they fail, and come infinitely short of that perfection, which is found in God the fountain of all being; yea, much is denied to every of them, which is bestowed on others, and even in respect of themselves, they are oftentimes that in possibility, which actually they have not attained unto. Seeing therefore the imperfection of each thing, presupposeth perfection before it, out of which it is taken, whereunto it tendeth and endeavoureth to attain, and whereof it faileth; all things under God having imperfection found in them, and having some part of his Divine perfections committed unto them, but not in sort answerable to that whence they are taken, and wherein they are origanally found, look back and hasten to return to that beginning, whence they came forth, and with fixed eyes, bowed knees, and hands lifted up, present themselves before him that liveth for ever, which is, which was; and which is to come, with great joy and exultation pouring forth and returning thankful praises to him, 
c Revel. 5. 1●…. & 4. 11.  for whose sake they were created; desiring continuance of that they are, supply of that they want, and thinking it their greatest happiness, to have but the least resemblance of his Divine perfections.  

d Gasper Contarenus lib. 7. primae Philosophiae.  The proceeding of each thing from the first, is like to a strait line drawn out in length which of all other is the weakest; neither can it be strengthened, but by being redoubled & bowed back again, whereby it draweth nigh to the nature of a circular line, which of all other is the strongest, as wherein each part yieldeth stay and support to other. All things therefore after they are come forth from the presence of God, taking view of themselves, and finding their own imperfect and defective nature, fearing to remove too far, fly back unto him that made them, for support, comfort and stay, and like a reflected line return towards the presence of him, for whose sake they are, and have been created: yet is there nothing found in degree of nature inferior unto man, that returneth so far, and approacheth so near, as to know, see and delight in God, as he is in himself, but all rest contented and seek to discern, know and enjoy no more of his Divine perfections, than in themselves they possess and partake of him. So that they express not the nature of a perfect circle, in which the lines, drawn forth in length, are in such sort reflected and bowed back again that in their return they stay not, till they come to the very same point whence they began. This is peculiar to men and Angels, which are carried back with restless motions of unsatisfied desires, & stay not till they come to the open view, clear vision and happy fruition of GOD their Creator. 
e Quis fecisti nos ●…d te, & inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te. Aug. lib. 1. Confess. in ●…tio.  O Lord, saith Augustine, thou madest us for thyself, and our hearts are restless and unquiet, till they rest in thee.  
The reason of this so different condition of men and Angels, from other things, who so taketh a view of the divers degrees and sorts of things in the world, cannot but with exceeding great sweetness of delight observe and discern.  
There is nothing which, in sense of want and imperfection, doth not endeavour to return towards God, from whom all good and happy supply of defect and want proceedeth: neither is there any thing found in the world, (all things being full of defect,) which is not carried with some inclination of desire, either seeking that it hath not, or desiring the continuance of that it hath already received from him, in whom the fullness of all happy good is found. From hence it cometh, that all things incline, tend, and move to that place, condition and estate, wherein they may enjoy the utermost of that perfection they are capable of. This inclination of desire ariseth and groweth in each thing out of the form thereof, which giveth it that degree, measure and kind of being it hath, neither is there any form whence some inclination doth not flow. Those things therefore which have no form, but that which giveth them their natural being, different and distinct from other things, have no inclination of desire, but natural, to enjoy and possess themselves and continue that they are, to grow and increase till they come to the full period of their natural perfection, and to continue the same by turning into their own substance and nature such things, by addition whereof they may be nourished, increased and continued. But those things, wherein besides their natural forms giving them being, by reason of their more spiritual and immaterial nature, the forms and formal resemblances of other things do ●…ine and appear, have far more large desires, growing out of the forms thus shining into the, and apprehended by them. And as they are of more or less●…rgenesse of apprehension so are their desires larger and more free, or shut up within the narrower compass.  
The 
f Contarenus lib. de libero Arbitrio.  most perfect and excellent creatures in the world, below the condition of man have not a general apprehension of all things, but only of some outward sensible things, in the getting or declining whereof their good doth stand and consist; and therefore have their desires likewise contained within the same straits, and are like prisoners subject to the will of him that restraineth them, which cannot go at large whither they will. But man is by condition of his creation free, having no bounds of any one kind of good things within the compass whereof he is enclosed; but as his understanding is so large, that it reacheth to all things that are, though in kind never so different, and number never so numberless; so his desires have no limitation to things of any one kind alone, but are freely carried to the desiring of whatsoever in any kind or degree of goodness appears to be good. And because in this multiplicity of good things nothing is good, but as partaking of the chief good; nothing better than other, but as coming nearer unto it: therefore for the direction of all his desires, that he may rightly value and prise each thing, either preferring or less esteeming it according to the worth thereof, it is necessary that he know and desire as the chief good, that which indeed is the chief and principal good, the measure of all the rest, before he can rightly discern the different degrees of goodness found in things, and so rightly prefer one before another.  
And this doubtless is the reason why no other creatures but only men and Angels are capable of felicity and bliss; because the greatest good they know or desire is but some particular thing, and that not better than themselves; but men and Angels, in whom so great perfection of knowledge is found, that they apprehend the whole variety and multiplicity of things, and all the different degrees of goodness in them, never have their desires satisfied till they possess and enjoy that sovereign; infinite and everlasting good; by participation whereofall things else in their several kinds and degrees are judged good. This glorious society of men and Angels, whom the most high God; (passing by all his other creatures) made capable of felicity and bliss, calling them to the view, sight, & enjoying of himself, is rightly named Ecclesia, coetus evocatus, the Church of the living God, the joyful company of them among whom his greatness is known and his name called upon, the multitude which by the sweet motions of his Divine grace he hath called out to the participation of eternal happiness.   

CHAP. 2  
Of the calling of grace, whereby God called out both men and Angels from the rest of his creatures, to be unto him a holy Church: and of their Apostasy.  
ALl 
a Virtus naturae ordinat act●…●…um in bonum per naturam, quia non est supra naturam, & ideo potest in illum ordinem & sine dispositione nova ferre ad●…ocum. Actus rationali●… creaturae meritorius oportet quòd o●…dmetur ad bonum, quod est supr●… ipsam, quod est summum bonum & infinitum. Quia ergo non 〈◊〉 possibilis, extensio rationals creaturae supra seipsam, ideo non est ei possibile per naturam ut ordinet suum actum, sive perveniat in suum finem: & ideo necesse est ut invetur gratia. Et post. Duplex est cognitio de Deo. una per effectus su●…, & haec est fine gratia, alia per praesentiam sui apud animam, & haec est pe●… g●…atiam. Praesen●… autem est in quantum p●…sentat, seu p●…sentemfacit beatitudinem, quae est in ipso; in habitu tantum, ut in par●…ulis; in affectu tantum, ut in adultis; in habitu, affectu & intellectu, ut in beatis. Alex. de H●…es part. 3. ●…61. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 1.  other things seeking no higher perfection nor greater good, than is found within the compass of their own nature, by natures guiding without the help of any other thing attain thereunto: but men and Angels which seek an infinite and Divine good, even the everlasting and endless happiness, which consisteth in the vision of God, at whose right hand are pleasures for evermore, cannot attain their wished good, which is so high and excellent, and far removed from them, unless by supernatural force, which we call grace, they be lifted up unto it. For though by nature they know God, so far forth as by his effects and glorious works he may be known; yet as he is in himself they know him not, farther than in the light of grace and glory he is pleased to manifest himself unto them, thereby addmitting them to the joyful sight, and blessed view of his glorious Majesty, Which dwelleth in light that no creature, by itself, can approach unto. 
b Oftendam tibi o●…e bon●…. Exo. 33. 19  This is true and perfect happiness, to see the face of God: which to behold is the height of all that good which any creature can desire. 
c joan Picus Heptapli l. 7. in pro●…mio  To this the Angels may be lifted up, to this they cannot ascend by themselves; to this man cannot go, to this he may be drawn, according to that our Saviour delivereth of himself, 
d john 6. 44.  No man cometh unto me, unless my Father draw him. Those things which are inferior unto man, can neither attain by themselves, nor be drawn, nor lifted up to the partaking of this so happy and joyful an estate. The vapour of water goeth up on high, but not unless it be drawn with the beams and sweet influence of the Sun: but more gross and earthly things, can neither ascend of themselves, nor admit into them these heavenly beams, to raise and draw them up. Among bodily substances, some are carried only with a strait and direct motion, either to the highest or lowest places of the world: which motion expresseth the condition of those things to the which God hath denied the knowledge and immediate enjoying of himself, which are established in the perfection of their own nature, and therein rest without seeking any further thing. Some with circular motion, by which they return to the same point whence they began to move. The motion of these expresseth the nature and condition of men and Angels, who only are capable of true happiness, whose desires are never satisfied, till they come back to the same beginning whence they came forth, till they come to see God face to face, and to dwell in his presence. None but immortal and incorruptible bodies are rolled with circular motions: none but Angels that are heavenly spirits, and men whose souls are immortal, return back to the sight, presence, and happy enjoying of God their Creator. Each thing is carried in direct motion, by nature's force, in circular, by heavenly movers. Every thing attaineth nature's perfection, by nature's force and guidance; but that other which is Divine and supernatural, consisting in the vision and fruition of God, they that attain unto it, must impute it to the sweet motions and happy directions of Divine grace.  
This grace God vouchsafed both men and Angels in the day of their creation, thereby calling them to the participation of eternal happiness, and giving them power that they might attain to the perfection of all happy and desired good if they would, and everlastingly continue in the joyful possession of the same. But such was the infelicity of these most excellent creatures, that knowing all the different degrees of goodness found in things, and having power to make choice of what they would, joined with that mutability of nature which they were subject unto in that they were made of nothing, 
d August. de Civitate Dei. lib. 12. c. 8.  they fell from the love of that which is the chief and greatest good to those of meaner quality, and thereby deprived themselves of that sweet and happy contentment they should have found in God; and denying to be subject to their great sovereign, and to perform that duty they owed unto him, were justly dispossessed of all that good, which from him they received, and under him should have enjoyed; yea all other things which were made to do them service, lost their native beauty and original perfection, and became feeble, weak, unpleasant and untractable, that in them they might find as little contentment as in themselves. 
e August. de libero Arbitrio. lib. 3. cap. 15.  For seeing nothing can prevail or resist against the laws of the omnipotent Creator: no creature is suffered to deny the yielding of that, which from it is due to God. For either it shall be forced to yield it by right using of that which from him it received, or by losing that which it would not use well; and so consequently, if it yield not that by duty it should, by doing and working righteousness, it shall by feeling smart and misery. This than was the fall of men and Angels from their first estate, in that by turning from the greater to the lesser good, they deprived themselves of that blessedness which though they had not of themselves, yet they were capable of, & might have attained unto, by adhering to the chief and immutable good, and so by their fault fell into those grievous evils they are now subject unto; yet in very different sort and manner.   

CHAP. 3.  
Of the Church, consisting of those Angels that continued in their first estate by force of grace upholding them, and men redeemed.  
THe Fall of Angels was irrecoverable; For without all hope of any better estate, or future deliverance out of those evils, (into the bottomless gulf whereof, by their rebellious sin they plunged themselves,) they are reserved in chains of darkness, to the judgement of the great day. But concerning the sons of men, the Lord knew whereof they were made, and remembered that they were but dust. He looked upon them with the eye of pity and in the multitude of his compassionate mercies, said of them as it is in the Prophet 
a jerem. 8. 4.  jeremy, Shall they fall, and shall they not arise? shall they turn away, and shall they not return? as high as the heavens is above the earth, so great was his mercy towards them: As far as the East is from the West, so far removed he their sins from them, he redeemed their life from hell, and crowned them with mercy and compassion.  

b Alex. de Hales part. 3. q. 1. memb. 2.  The reason of this so great difference, as the Schoolmen think, is: First, for that the Angels are not by propagation one from another, but were created all at once, so that of Angels some might fall and others stand: But men descend by generation from one stock or root, and therefore the first man falling and corrupting his nature, derived to all his posterity a corrupted and sinful nature: if therefore God had not appointed a redemption for man, he had been wholly deprived of one of the most excellent creatures that ever he made; whereas among the Angels, notwithstanding the Appostasie of some, he held still innumerable in their first estate. Secondly, the Angels fell of themselves, but man by the suggestion of another. Thirdly, the Angels in the height of their pride, sought to be like unto God in omnipotency, which is an incommunicable property of divine being, and cannot be imparted to any creature. But men desired only to be like unto God in omniscience and the general knowledge of all things, which may be communicated to a creature, as in Christ it is to his humane soul: which notwithstanding the union with God, yet still remaineth and continueth a created nature, and therefore the degree of sinful transgression was not so grievous in the one, as in the other. Fourthly, the Angels were immaterial and intellectual spirits, dwelling in heavenly palaces, in the presence of God and the light of his countenance, and therefore could not sin by error or misperswasion, but of purposed malice which is the sin against the holy Ghost, and is irremissible: But man fell by misperswasion, and being deceived by the lying suggestion of the spirit of error. Fiftly, the Angels have the fullness of intellectual light; when they take view of any thing, they see all that any way pertaineth to it; and so do all things with so full resolution, that they never alter nor repent: But man who findeth out one thing after another, and one thing out of another, doth dislike upon farther consideration, that which formerly he liked. Whereupon the Schoolmen note that there are three kinds of wills; The first of God, which never turneth nor altereth; the second of Angels, that turneth and returneth not; the third of men, that turneth and returneth. Sixtly, there is a time prefixed both to men and Angels, after which there is no possibility of altering their estate, bettering themselves, or attaining any good; Now as death is that time prefixed unto men, so was the first good or bad deliberate action to the Angels; that who would, might be perpetually good; who would not, no grace should ever after restore them again. 
c Damasc. lib. 2. Orthodoxae fidei. cap. 4.  Hoc est Angelis casus, quod hominibus mors. saith Damascene. The reason why God limited so short a time to them, and assigned so long a time to men, was, because they were spiritual substances, all created at once, and that in the empyreal heavens; and so both in respect of nature, condition, and place, were most readily prepared, disposed, and fitted for their immediate everlasting glorification; so that it was fit there should be set unto them a short time to make choice of their future state, never after to be altered again, to wit, till their first deliberate conversion unto him, or aversion from him.  
But man being created in a natural body, to fill the world with inhabitants by procreation, being set in a place far removed, even in an earthly paradise, had a longer time set him before he should be in final stay, or have his last judgement pass upon him, to wit, till death for particular, and till the end of the world for general judgement, when the number of mankind shall be full. These are the reasons that moved Almighty God that spared not the Angels, to show mercy unto the sons of men.  
So that as god, in the day of the creation, called forth all both men and Angels from among the rest of his creatures, to whom he denied the knowledge & enjoying of himself, that these only might know, fear, and worship him in his glorious Temple of the world, and be unto him a selected multitude and holy Church; so when there was found amongst these a dangerous Apostasy, and departure from him, 
d 1. Tim. 〈◊〉. 21. et jude verse 6.  he held of the Angels so many as he was pleased, and suffered them not to decline or go aside with the rest; and raised up and severed out of the mass of perdition, whom he would among the sons of men. The Angels now confirmed in grace, and those men whom in the multitude of his mercies he delivereth out of the state of condemnation, and reconcileth to himself, do make that happy society of blessed ones, whom God hath loved with an everlasting love. This society is more properly named the Church of God, than the former, consisting of men and Angels, in the state of that integrity wherein they were 
e Maior libertas est necessaria adversus tot & tantas tentationes quae in Paradiso non fuerunt dono perseverantiae munita et firmata, ut cum omnibus amoribus, terroribus, erroribus suis vincatur hic mundus. Hoc Sanctorum martyria docuerunt: denique ille Adam, & terrente nullo & insuper contra Dei terrentis imperium libero usus arbitrio non stetit in tanta felicitate, in tanta non peccandi facilitate. Isti autem non dico terrente mundo sed saeviente ne starent, steterunt in fide: cum videret ille bona praesentia quae erat relicturus, isti futu●…a quae acceptuti fuerunt non viderent. unde illud, Nisi donante illo, etc. Aug. de Correp. & gratia. Cap. 12.  created, in that they which pertain to this happy company, are called to the participation of eternal happiness, with the calling of a more mighty, potent and prevailing grace then the other. For whereas they were partakers only of that grace, which gave them power to attain unto, and continue in the perfection of all happy good, if they would, and then In tanta felicitate, & non peccandi facilitate, in so great felicity and facility of not offending, left to themselves to do what they would and to make their choice at their own peril; These are partakers of that grace, which winneth infallibly, holdeth inseparably, and leadeth indeclinably, in the ways of eternal blessedness.   

CHAP. 4.  
Of the Church of the Redeemed  
ALl these, aswell Angels that stood by force of grace upholding them, as men restored by renewing mercy, have a most happy fellowship among themselves, and therefore make one Church of God: yet for that the sons of men have a more full communion and perfect fellowship, being all delivered out of the same miseries, by the same benefit of gracious mercy; Therefore they make that more special society, which may rightly be named the Church of the redeemed of God. This Church began in him in whom sin began, even in 
a Wisd. 10. 1.  Adam the father of all the living, repenting after his fall and returning to God. For we must not think, that God was without a Church among men at any time; but so soon as Adam had offended, and was called to give an account of that he had done, (hearing that voice of his displeased Lord and Creator, 
b Gen. 3. 9  Adam, where art thou? that so he might know in what estate he was by reason of his offence) the promise was made unto him, 
c Gen. 3. 1 5.  that the seed of the woman should break the serpent's head. Yet for that 
d Gen. 4. 4.  Abel was the first that the Scripture reporteth to have worshipped God with sacrifice, and to have been divided from the wicked in whom GOD had no pleasure, even 
e Gen. 4. 8.  cursed Cain, that afterward shed his innocent blood, therefore we usually say the Church or choose company of the redeemed of the Lord began in Abel: who being slain by Cain, God restored his Church again in 
f Gen. 4. 25.  Seth, in whose race and posterity he continued his true worship 
g Gen. 6.  till Noe. 
h Gen. 7.  In whose time the wickedness of men being full, he brought in the flood & destroyed the whole world, No only and his family excepted, whom he made a preacher of righteousness to the world, before and after the flood, and chose (from among his children) 
i Gen. 10. 21.  Sem his eldest son, in whose race he would continue the pure and sincere knowledge of himself, and the expectation of that promised seed that should break the serpent's head.  
This Sem was the father of all the sons of Heber (of whom the people of god were afterwards named Hebrews) who was also 
k Hieron. in Epist. ad Evagrium. 1. Gen. 9 26.  as some think Melchisedech, in whose posterity the true Church continued; so that God vouchsafed to be called the God of Sem, till the days of Abraham, in whose time there being a great declining to Idolatry after the flood, as there was in the days of No before the flood, so that the defection was found not only amongst those that descended of Cham and japhet, but even among the children of Sem and the sons of Heber also, of whom Abraham was; 
l Gen 12. 1.  God called him out from his father's house, 
m Gen 15. 5.  and gave him the promise that he would make his seed as the stars of heaven in number, & that 
n Gen. 12. 3.  in his seed all the nations of the world should be blessed, and 
o Gen. 17. 9  gave him the seal of circumcision, so that all posterities have ever honoured him with the name and title of the father of the faithful. This man obtained a son by 
p Gen. 15. 4. & 17. & 21. 2. 3.  promise in his old age, when Sara his wife was likewise old, and it ceased to be with her after the manner of women, and named his name Isaac, of whom came Esau and jacob, concerning whom GOD pronounced ere they were yet borne, or had done good or evil, 
q Gen. 25. 23.  The Elder shall serve the younger, 
r Malac. 1. 2. 3.  I have loved jacob, and hated Esau. 
s Gen. 32. 28.  jacob therefore prevailed with God, and was named Israel, the father of the twelve patriarchs, of whom came the twelve Tribes of Israel, and that chosen Nation of holy Hebrews, who were also named jews of judah the Patriarch, to whom the Sceptre and kingly dignity pertained, 
〈◊〉 Gen. 49. 8. 10  to whom his father's sons bowed according to the tenor of Jacob's blessing, concerning whom the Lord did promise, that the Sceptre should not depart from judah, nor a law giver from between his feet, till the Shilo were come. Great was the honour of this people above all the Nations of the World, for 
u Rom. 3. 2.  unto them were committed the Oracles of GOD, 
x Rom. 9 4. 5.  to them pertained the adoption and glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of GOD, and the promises, of whom were the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all blessed for ever, the propitiation for sins, the merit of reconciliation, 
y Luke 2. 32.  the glory of Israel, and the light of the Gen●…iles, 
a Philip. 2. 9 10  to whom God gave a name above all names, that at the naming thereof all knees do bow, both of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, 
b Nazianz. Orat. 4. de filio 〈◊〉.  in whom all things appear full of mercy, and full of marvel. God, before all eternities, yet made man in time; begotten before all times, yet borne in time; borne of a woman, yet a Virgin, enclosed in the womb of Mary his Mother, yet even then known of john his forerunner, yet in the womb of Elizabeth his Mother likewise, who sprang for joy at the presence of the Eternal Word. He was borne in Bethlehem the meanest of the cities of judah, wrapped in swaddling bands, and laid in a manger, yet glorified by the Angels, pointed to by a star, and adored by the Sages that came from far. He was no sooner borne into the World, but Herod sought his life, so that he was forced to fly into Egypt whilst he did yet hang on his mother's breasts, but he overthrew & broke in pieces all the Idols of Egypt. The jews saw no beauty in his face, nor glory in his countenance, yet David in spirit long before pronounced, that he was fairer than the sons of men; and being transfigured in the mount, his face did shine like the Sun, and gave a taste of that glory, wherein he will return to judge the quick and dead: he was baptised as a man, but forgave sins as God, not washed by those waters, but purifying them rather, and filling them with sanctifying force and power; he was tempted as a man, but overcoming as GOD, maketh us confident, because he hath overcome the world; he was hungry, but fed many thousands, and was the true Bread that came down from Heaven; he thirsted but cried aloud, If any man thirst let him come unto me, and promiseth, to every one that believeth in him, that rivers of waters shall flow out of his belly. He was weary, but promised rest to all them that are weary and come unto him; he slept, but waking stilled the tempest, and commanded the wind and the sea; he paid tribute, but out of the mouth of a fish taken in the sea; he prayed, but heareth our prayers; he wept, but wipeth all tears from our eyes; he was sold for thirty pence, but redeemed the World with a great and inestimable price; he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, but he is the great shepherd that feedeth the Israel of God; he was beaten and wounded, but cureth all our weakness, and healeth all our sickness; he died, was buried, and descended into hell, but he rose again, and ascended into heaven, where he sitteth on the right hand of the highest Majesty, till all his enemies be made his foot stool. This was he whom all the Fathers looked for, all the Prophets prophesied of, whom all the Ceremonies, Sacrifices, and jewish observations led unto, in whom that which was foretold was fulfilled, that which was imperfect supplied, and all things changed into a better estate, so that by his coming all things are become new, a new Priesthood, a new Law, a new Covenant, new Sacraments, and a new people, 
c john 4. 23.  that worship not at jerusalem, or in the Temple alone, but (without respect of place) worship God in spirit and truth.   

CHAP. 5.  
Of the Christian Church.  
THE society of this new & blessed people began in the Apostles, whom Christ the anointed Saviour of the World did chose to be his followers, & to be witnesses of all the things he did & suffered among sinful men. To these our Saviour Christ after his resurrection, gave most ample Commission 
a Mat. 28. 19 20.  to teach the Nations and people of the world, 
b Luke 24. 45. 46. 47. 48.  and to preach repentance and remission of sins in his Name, opening their understandings that they might understand the Scriptur●…, that so it be●…oued him to suffer, and to rise again the third day, whereof they were witnesses, 
c Acts 1. 4.  Yet commanded he them to tarry in jerusalem, till they were endued with power from above, 
d Acts 2. 1.  which was performed unto them in the feast of Pentecost, when all they that looked for the redemption of Israel by this anointed Saviour, and had been his followers, after his departure from them and returning to the heavens, were assembled into one place, and suddenly heard as it were the noise of a mighty and rushing wind, and there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fire; and sat upon every of them, and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance; so that though there were dwelling at jerusalem, men that feared God of every nation under heaven, yet they all heard them speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. here was the beginning of that blessed company, which for distinctions sake we call the Christian Church, as consisting of them that believe in Christ now already come in the flesh.  
And though the Church of the Old and New Testament be in essence the same, yet for that the state of the Church of the New Testament is in many respects far more glorious and excellent, the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers forth mostpart appropriate the name of the Church, to the multitude of believers sincethe coming of Christ, & call the faithful people that were before by the name of the Synagogue. If this difference of names be retained only for distinction sake, (that men may know when we speak of that moiety of the people of God that was before, and when of that other that is and hath been since the coming of Christ) we dislike it not.  
The Greek words which we turn Church and Synagogue, the one originally and properly signifieth a multitude called out, or called together, which is proper to men; the other a multitude congregated and gathered together, which is common to men with brute beasts. If any man having an eye to the different original significations of these words, do thereupon infer, that the people of GOD, before the coming of Christ, did seek nothing but earthly, outward, and transitory things, and so were gathered together like brute beasts, and like oxen fatted to the day of slaughter, we detest and accurse so wicked and damnable a construction. 
e Catech. Trident. in explicatione Symboli.  And herein surely the Catechism of Trent cannot well be excused, which abusing the authority of Augustine upon the 
f Quimv●… proprie dicatur syn●…ga Iud●…corum, Ecclesia verò Christianorum, quia Congregatio magis pec●…um. Convocatio magis hominum intelligi solet, ta●…en & illam dictam invenimus Ecclesiam, & nobis fortassis magis convenit dicere, Salva no●… Domine noster, & congrega no●… de Gentibus, ut consite●…mur nomini sancto tuo●…neque dedignari no●… oportet, imo gratias incffabiles agere, quia famous oves 〈◊〉 eius, quas praevidebat cum dicere●…, Habeo alias over. Aug. in Psal. 77.  Psalm 77, and 
g Synagoga dicitur populus Israel, cum utique quamvis vero Deo mancip●…us vider●…tur, pro magnis tamen & sum●…is bonis ab illo car●…lia 〈◊〉 & temporalia requir●…bat. Aug. in Psal. 8●…. Sed in Psal. 72. ostendit, vt●…que multi animadertentes quae promiserit Deus populo sito, ●…empe 〈◊〉 ●…sum terren●…, patriam, p●…, & 〈◊〉 ●…errenam, & non considerantes in his omnibus figur●… esse, 〈◊〉 intelligentes quid ibi laterer, pa●…rent non habere Deum melius quod daret diligentibus se●…suisse tamen Prophetas & alios quosdam intellectores reg●…i coele●…is & ae●…i, qui non pro temporalibus sed spiritualibus bonis Domino servirent.  81. affirmeth that the name of Synagogue is therefore applied to the pe●… that were under the Law, because like brute beasts (which most properly are said to be congregated or gathered together) they respected, intended, and sought nothing, but only outward, sensible, earthly, and transitory things. Which unadvised speech, howmuch it advantageth the Anabaptists, H who think the faithful people 
Calvin. institut. lib. 2. cap. 10. 1.  before Christ did only taste of the sweetness of God's temporal blessings, without any hope of eternal happiness, any man of mean understanding may easily discer●…e. It is therefore not to be doubted, but that the 〈◊〉, before the manifestion of Christ in the flesh, 
i Hebr. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16.  were so instructed of the L●…d, that they assured themselves 〈◊〉 was a better life for them else where ●…nd that, neglecting this earthly, ●…any & w●…ched life they principally sought the other, which is Divine and Heavenly. Notwithstanding, some 〈◊〉 there was between their estate and ours, in that though the Lord raised their minds from base and earthly things, to know, seek, and desire the heau●…ly inheritance, and life of the world to come, yet that they might the better●… strengthened, in the hope and expectation thereof, he made them take a ●…ew of it, & taste the sweetness of it in those temporal and earthly blessings and benefits, which most abundantly he bestowed upon them: whereas now, the grace of the life that is to come being more clearly revealed by the 〈◊〉 (omitting all that inferior kind of manuduction or leading by the hand, through the consideration, sight and enjoying of these meaner things) he doth more directly, and immediately fasten our thoughts on things divine.  
For the expressing of this difference, and the more easy distinction of the two moities of the people of God, the one before, the other after the work of redemption was performed by Christ, though both be rightly, and most aptly named the Church of God; yet it hath been and is religiously observed, that by a kind of appropriation the one is named the Synagogue, the 〈◊〉 the Church. Neither do any of our Divines (for aught I know) call this society of Christians a Synagogue, though (following the rule of 
k Aliud est Etymologia nominis, & aliud significatio nominis. Etymologia attenditur secundum id à quo imponitur nomen ad significandum: Nominis vero significatio secundum id ad quo significandum imponitur. 2. 2. q. 92. art. 1.  Thomas, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not so much respect their original, exact, and precise signification, or d●…rivation, as whereunto they are by use of speech applied) we use the word congregation, which is the Latin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and fear not to say that the people of God, in the state of the new Testament, are the Congregation of Christ, and are congregated in his faith and name: even as, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ecclesia, 〈◊〉 catio, caetus evocatus, a multitude called out, or called together, both Greek Latin, and English words, do originally signify one and the same thing; yet there are many meetings, societies, and assemblies of men, which may rightly be called convocations, multitudes called together, or multitudes of men called out from others, which if we should endeavour to express by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or by the English word Church, it would seem absurd, and no man would understand us. It followeth not therefore, that we call the company and society of Christians a Synagogue, though we name it the Congregation of Christ, warranted thereunto by the authority, example, and Practise of the Apostles of Christ, and other holy and Catholic men that have been before us. Let us consider one another to provoke unto love, and good works, saith the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 10, 
l verse. 25.  chapter, not forsaking our assembling or congregating, and gathering together, or the fellowship we have among ourselves, as the manner of some is; where the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the same Apostle to the 
m 1. Cor: 5. 4.  Corinthians, when you are congregated, and ●…y spirit in the midst of you, I will deliver, this man, that hath done this thing unto Satan. And who knoweth not that 
n Ignatius Epist. ad Tralli●…nos saith, that without the Bishop and Pr●…yters there can be no congregation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  all writers, since the Apostles times, have freely used the word Congregation, applying it to signify the multitudes and assemblies of Christians. In the Council of Constance nothing more often repeated, than Synodus in spiritu sancto congregata etc. Yet I hope that Gregory Martin, and other such verbal companions, will not say that the fathers assembled in that Council, which ended the Schism of three Popes, and settled the succession of the Bishops of Rome again, were congregated, and gathered like bruit beasts. It is not therefore with so great scorn, and imputation of dangerous and heretical meaning to be rejected, that our translatours of the Scriptures did, and do sometimes translate the word Ecclesia, used to express the Christian people of the new Testament, by the name of the Congregation.  
The reason why our translatours, in the beginning, did choose rather to use the word Congregation than Church, was not as the adversary maliciously imagineth, for that they feared the very name of the Church; but because, as by the name of religion and religious men, ordinarily in former times, men understood nothing but factitias religiones, as 
o Religio Christiana quamvis extendat se ad omnem Christianum, attamen appropriato quodam usu loquentium restringitur ad religiones quas Anselmus appellat Factitias Gerson. de Relig. perfectione & moderatione, Consid. 3. et ibid. addit ecclesiae nomen ad Clerum solere restringi, sicut religionis ad Religatos circa consilia Christi.  Gerson out of Anselm calleth them, that is the professions of Monks and Friars: So all the ordinary sort, when they heard the name of the Church, understood nothing else thereby, but either the material place where men met to serve and worship God, or the Clergy, jurisdictions, and Temporalities belonging to them; as the same Gerson showeth, 
p Sermo in die Circumcisionis Dom. Consid. 1.  affirming that the state of the Church in his time was mere brutish, so that men judged him a 
q De origine iuris et legum consid. 13.  good Bishop and governor of the Church, that looked well to the Edifices, Mansions, Lands, Rents, and Revenues pertaining to the Clergy, not much respecting, what care he took of the spiritual welfare of them that were committed to his charge. When this error in the conceit and apprehension of men was removed, the former name of Church was more ordinarily used again. Wherefore leaving this contention about words, wherein our adversaries most delight, let us come to the thing itself.   

CHAP. 6.  
Of the definition of the Church.  
COncerning the Church, five things are to be observed. First, what is the definition of it, and who pertain unto it. Secondly, the notes whereby it may be known. Thirdly, which is the true Church demonstrated by these notes. Fourthly, the privileges that do pertain unto it. Fiftly, the diverse degrees, orders, and callings of those men, to whom the government of this Church is committed.  
Touching the first; the Church is the multitude and number of those, whom Almighty God severeth from the rest of the world by the work of his grace, and calleth to the participation of eternal happiness, by the knowledge of such supernatural verities as concerning their everlasting good he hath revealed in Christ his son, and such other precious, and happy means, as he hath appointed to further and set forward the work of their salvation. So that it is the work of grace, and the heavenly calling, that give being to the Church, and make it a different society from all other companies of men in the world, that have no other light of knowledge, nor motion of desire, but that which is natural; whence, for distinction from them; it is named Ecclesia, a multitude called out.   

CHAP. 7.  
Of the divers sorts of them that pertain to the Church.  
THey that are partakers of the heavenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of divine truth, and the use of the means of salvation, are of very diverse sorts. For there are some that profess the truth delivered by Christ the Son of God, but not wholly, and entirely, as Heretics, some that profess the whole saving truth, but not in unity, as schismatics; some that profess the whole saving truth in unity, but not in sincerity, and singleness of a good and sanctified mind, as Hypocrites and wicked men, not outwardly divided from the people of GOD; and some that profess the whole saving truth in unity, and sincerity of a good and sanctified heart.  
All these are partakers of the heavenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of the truth, and consequently are all in some degree and fort of that society of men, whom GOD calleth out unto himself, and separateth from Infidels, which is rightly named the Church. These being the different ranks of men, made partakers of the heavenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of saving truth, there are diverse names by which they are expressed, and distinguished one from another.  
For as the name of the Church doth distinguish men that have received the revelation of supernatural truth, from Infidels; and the name of the Christian Church, Christians from jews; so the name of the Orthodox Church, is applied to distinguish right believing Christians from Heretics; the name of the Catholic Church, men holding the Faith in unity, from Schismatics; the name of the invisible Church, 
a Heb. 12. 23,  the Church of the first borne, whose names are written in heaven, the mystical body of Christ, and the like, to distinguish the elect from all the rest: so that many were of the Church which were not of the Christian Church, as the jews before the coming of Christ; many of the Christian Church that are not of the Orthodox; many of the Orthodox, that are not of the Catholic; and many of the Catholic, that are not of the invisible, and Church of the first borne, whose names are written in heaven.  
Thus than the Church having her being & name, from the calling of grace, all they must needs be of the Church, whom the grace of God in any sort calleth out from the profane, and wicked of the world, to the participation of eternal happiness, by the excellent knowledge of divine, supernatural, and revealed verity, and use of the good, happy, and precious means of salvation: but they only perfectly, and fully in respect of outward being, which profess the whole truth in unity; and they only principally, fully, and absolutely are of the Church, whom divine grace leadeth infallibly, and indeclinably by these means, to the certain and undoubted possession of wished blessedness; because in them only grace manifesteth her greatest and most prevailing force, without which efficacy of grace, winning infallibly, holding inseparably, and leading indeclinably, no man ever attained to salvation; & of which whoso is partaker shall undoubtedly be saved.  
In the benefits of this grace, none but the elect and chosen of God, whom he hath loved with an everlasting love, have any part of fellowship, though others concur with them in the use of the same means of salvation, and be partakers with them of sundry inward motions inclining them to good. When we say therefore that none but the elect of God are of the Church; we mean not that others are not at all, nor in any sort of the Church, but that they are not 
b Ecclesia praecipuè & ex intentione sideles tantum colligit, qui veram fidem in cord habent. Cum autem admiscentur aliqui ficti qui verè non credunt, id accidit praeter intentionem Ecclesiae. Si enim eos nosse posset, nunquam admitteret, aut casu admissos continuo exclude et. Bellarm. de Ecclesia lib. 3. cap. 10.  principally, fully, and absolutely; and that they are not of that especial number of them, who partake and communicate in the most perfect work, force, and effect of saving grace.   

CHAP, 8.  
Of their meaning, who say, that the Elect only are of the Church.  
THis was the meaning of Wickliff, Husse and others, who therefore define the Church to be the multitude of the Elect, not for that they think them only to pertain to the Church, and no others, but because they only pertain unto it principally, fully, effectually, and finally, and in them only is found that which the calling of grace (whence the Church hath all her being) intendeth, to wit, such a conversion to God, as is joined with final perseverance, whereof others failing and coming short, they are only in an inferior and more imperfect sort, said to be of the Church.  
The elect and chosen of God are of two sorts; some elect only and not yet called; some both elect and called. Of the latter there is no question but they are the most principal parts of the Church of God. Touching the former, they are not actually of the Church, but only secundùm praescientiam & praedestinationem, in God's prescience, and predestination, who hath purposed what they shall be, and knoweth what they will be.  
It is frivolous therefore, that 
a Lib. 3. de Eccles. milit. cap. 2  Bellarmine, 
b Cont. 1. q. 2. art. 2.  Stapleton and others of that faction allege against us, that the elect before they are called are not of the Church. For it is true, if they speak of actual admission into the fellowship of God's people; but false, if they speak of the intent and purpose of Almighty God, whereby they were chosen to be made his in this present world, before the world itself was made. Secundùm praescientiam saith Augustine, 
c Lib. 4. de Baptismo cont. Donatistas'.  multi etiam qui apertè foris sunt, & haeretici appellantnr, multis & bonis Catholicis meliores sunt: In the prescience of God, many that are apparently without, and named Heretics, are better than many, and those good and right believing Catholic Christians. And in his tract upon john, Secundùm praescientiam, & praedestinationem, quam multae ovesforis, quam multi lupi intus? Quidest, inquit, quod dixi? Quam multae oves foris? quam multi luxuriantur casti futuri? quam multi 
Cap. 45.  blasphemant Christum credituri in Christum? & high oves sunt, veruntamen modò alienam vocem audiunt, alienos sequuntur. Item quam multi intus laudant blasphematuri? Casti sunt fornicaturi? stant casuri? & non sunt oves; de praedestinatis enim loquimur: Accord unto God's prescience and predestination, how 
Electorum quidam adhue in haeresibus aut Gentilium superstitionibus sunt: & tamen etiam illic novit Dominus qui sunt ejus. Aug. lib. 1. de Baptismo contra Donatist.  many sheep are there without, and wolves within? what is it, saith Augustine, that I said? How many sheep are there without? how many are there that now wallow in all impurity and filthiness, that hereafter shall be chaste and undefiled? How many now do blaspheme Christ, which hereafter shall believe in Christ? and these are sheep, yet for the present they hear the voice of a stranger, and follow strangers: On the other side, how many are there now within, which presently praise God, that hereafter will blaspheme him? which now are chaste, that hereafter will become impure adulterers? now stand, that hereafter will fall? and these are not sheep for we speak of the predestinate. It is true therefore that Wickliff, Husse, Calvine, and others do teach, that none but the elect do pertain to the Church in such sort as hath been before expressed, and that all the electare of the Church either actually, as they that are already called, or potentially and according to the purpose of God's will, as they that are elect and not yet called.   

CHAP. 9  
Of the difference of them that are in, and of the Church.  
BY that which hath been said, that none but the elect are of the Church in that principal and high degree before mentioned, we may easily understand their true meaning, and the truth of their meaning, who say that Hypocrities, wicked men, and castaways, are in, but not of the Church. Puto (saith 
a De Baptismo. lib. 7. c. 51. & de Civitate Dei l. 20. cap. 9 Regnant cum illo qui eo modo sunt in regno ejus, ut sint etiam ipsi regnum eius.  Augustine) me non temerè dicere alios sic esse in domo Dei, ut ipsi etiam sint domus Dei; alios sic esse in domo Dei, ut non pertineant ad compagem domus, nec ad societatem frugiferae pacificaeque iustitiae. I think I may very advisedly and considerately say, some are in such sort in the house of God, that they also are the house of GOD; and that some are so in the house of God, that they pertain not to the frame and fabric of it, nor to the society and fellowship of fruitful and peaceable righteousness.  

b Stapleton Relect. Contr. 1. de Ecclesia in se. q. 2. art. 1. in explicat. articuli notabili tertio.  Of them that are in the Church there are three sorts. For there are some only numero, some numero & merito, some numero, merito, & electione: that is, there are some, that only in external profession; some that in profession and affection; and some that, in profession and affection with never altering resolution, ioy●… themselves to the company of the believers, and have their hearts knit unto God for ever. As, the elect of God called according to his purpose: these are intrinsecus & in occulto intus, as 
c Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo, contra Donatistas'. cap. 27. & ib. Est certus numerus sanctorum praedestinatus ante mundi constitutionem qui est tanquam lilium inter spinas: multitudo vero spinarum sive occultis, sive apertis separationibus extrinsecus adiacet sup 〈◊〉 numerum.  Augustine speaketh; and whosoever are thus in the Church, are most fully of the Church, and are of the special number of them, that communicate in the most precious effects, and most happy benefits of effectual and saving grace. In the two former sorts many are in the Church, which though they be also of the Church, in 
d Munera concessa divinitus partim sunt propria electorum sicut in hoc tempore infatigabilis charitas, & in suturo vita aeterna, partim vero cum malis & perversis communia, sicut omnia caetera in quibus sunt & sacrolancta mysteria. Aug. ibid.  that they have fellowship in some outward things with the elect and chosen servants of God, yet principally, fully and absolutely are not of it, nor of that special number of those, that have part in the benefits of effectual and saving grace.   

CHAP. 10.  
Of the visible, and invible Church.  
HEnce it cometh, that we say there is a visible and invisible Church; not meaning to make two distinct Churches, as our adversaries falsely and maliciously charge us, though the form of words may seem to insinuate some such thing, but to distinguish the diverse considerations of the same Church: which though it be visible in respect of the profession of supernatural verities revealed in Christ, use of holy Sacraments, order of Ministry, and due obedience yielded thereunto, and they discernible that do communicate therein; yet in respect of those most precious effects, and happy benefits of saving grace, wherein only the elect do communicate, it is invisible; and they that in so happy, gracious, and desirable things have communion among themselves, are not discernible from others to whom this fellowship is denied, but are known only unto God. That Nathaniel was an 
a joh. 2. 47.  Israelite, all men knew; that he was atrue Israelite, in whom was no guile, Christ only knew.  
The persons then of them of whom the Church consisteth are visible; their profession known even to the profane and wicked of the world, and in this sort the Church cannot be invisible, neither did any of our men teach that it is or may be. For seeing the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saved, and no man can be saved unless he make confession unto salvation, (for faith hid in the heart and concealed doth not suffice) it cannot be but they that are of the true Church, must by the profession of the truth make themselves known in such sort, that by their profession and practice they may be discerned from other men.  
Notwithstanding, because the truth and excellency of the faith and profession of Christians, is not discerned by the light of nature, but of faith alone; the excellency of this society of Christians above other profane companies in the world, and their happiness that are of it, is invisible, hidden, and unknown to natural men, and is known only to them that are spiritual: and who they are that have fellowship among themselves, not only in the profession of heavenly verities and outward means of salvation, but also in the benefits of effectual and saving grace, is known neither to the natural nor spiritual man, but to God alone.  
If any man shall further urge, that Luther, and some other that were in the beginning of the reformation of the Church, did think the Church to be sometimes invisible, not only in those respects above specified, but even in the truth of profession, and practise of those things that to salvation are necessary, we deny that any such thing can be collected, out of any of their writings which they have left unto posterity. For how should there be a Church in the world, the perpetuity whereof they all most constantly defend, and none found to profess the saving truth of God which all are bound to do that look for salvation? But this surely both they and we do teach, that though always the open, known, and constant profession of saving truth, be preserved and found amongst men, and the ministry of salvation continued and known in the world, (For how should there be a Church gathered without a ministry?) that yet sometimes errors and heresies so much prevail, that the most part not only of them that apparently are without, but even of them also that hold and possess great places of office and dignity in the Church of God, either for fear, flattery, hope of gain, or honour, or else misled through simplicity, or directly falling into error and heresy, depart from the soundness of Christian faith, so that the sincerity of religion is upholden, and the truth of the profession of Christians defended and maintained, but only by some few, and they molested, persecuted, and traduced, as turbulent and seditious men enemies to the common peace of the Christian world. In this sense then the Church is said to be sometimes invisible, not because there are none seen, known, or found that profess the truth of God; but because even in that company which is the true church of God, many and those the greatest are carried into error, so that but some few, and they such, as (if we should judge by outward appearance) are most unlike to uphold and maintain the truth, are left to defend the same; multitude, authority, reputation and opinion of greatness in others, obscuring them in such sort, that they which measure things by outward appearance, can possibly take no notice of them. This was the state of the Christian world in the time of Athanasius, when in the 
b Tunc Ousiae nomen abolitum est, tum Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est, ingemuit totus orbis & Arrianum se esse miratus est. Igitur alij 〈◊〉 suam communionem remanere, alij ad eos co●…fessores, 〈◊〉 sub Athanasij nomine exulabant; coeperunt literas mittere etc. Hieron contra Luciferianos.  Council of Seleucia and Ariminium; the Nicene faith was condemned, and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time fell from the soundness of the faith, only Athanasius excepted, and some few confessors that sub Athanasii nomine ex●…labant, as Hierome noteth writing against the Luciferians; Ingemuit totus orbis, & miratus est se factum esse Arrianum: The world poured forth sighs, marvelling how it was become an Arrian. At that time it was, when 
c Hillarius contra Auxentium.  Hilarius writing against Auxentius Bishop of Milan, complained that the Arrian faction had confounded all, and therefore admonished all men to take heed, how they suffered themselves to be led with outward appearances: Malè vos parietum amor cepit; malè ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedificiisque veneramini; malè sub his pacis nomen ingeritis; arm ambigu●…m est inijs Antichristum esse sessurum? montes mihi, & syluae, & lacus, & carceres, & voragines sunt tutiores, in his enim Prophetae manentes aut demersi prophet abant. It is not well, saith he, that you are in love with walls, that you esteem the Church in respect of houses and buildings, and in and under those shows and outward appearances, pretend and urge the name of peace: Is there any doubt of Antichrist's sitting in these places? The Mountains, the Woods, the Lakes, the prisons, the deep pits and devouring gulfs, seem to me more safe. For in these the Prophets either remaining, abiding, & making them their dwelling places, or as it were drowned and overwhelmed in them, prophesied in old time. And to this purpose it is that 
d Aug. ep. 48. Chrisu temp over, deficientibus in fide Apostolis, integra & omnino perfectissima fides in sola virgine Domini matre remansit: & Arrianae haereseos fervente persecutione Athanasius ferè solus pro Catholica fide agens inventus est. Francise. Picus Mirand▪ Theorem. 13.  Augustine writeth, most aptly distinguishing between the stars of heaven, and the sands of the sea, according to the number whereof God promised Abraham that his seed should be. Ecclesia aliquandò obscuratur, & tanquam obnubilatur multitudine scandalorum, sed etiam tunc insuis firmissimis eminet, qui sunt quasi stellae coeli in semine Abrahae, at multitudo illa carnalium & infirmorum fidelium, quae quasi arena maris est: aliquandò tranquillitate temporis, libera & quieta apparet, aliquandò autem tribulationum & tentationum fluctibus operitur, atque turbatur. The Church of God, saith he, sometimes is obscured, darkened, and as it were over-shadowed with the multitude of offences and scandals that are found in it, yet even then doth it appear and show itself in those worthies of most strong and constant resolution, which are as the stars of heaven among those of Abraham's seed and posterity; but for the multitude of weak and carnal Christians, which is like to the sand on the sea shore, in peaceable times they are free, and quiet, but in dangerous times troubled, covered, and hidden with the waters, and raging waves of tribulation and temptation.  
This and no other thing our Divines meant, that affirmed the Church to be sometimes invisible, and therefore it is most true that 
e Tom. 1. contr. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13.  Bellarmine noteth, that many of his companions have taken much needless pain in proving against us the perpetuity of the Church, which (as he confesseth) none of us ever denied; but it is as true that he also laboureth in vain, in proving that there is, and always hath been a visible Church, and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministry, or use of Sacraments; for, all this we do most willingly yield unto, howsoever perhaps some few have been of opinion, that though all others failing from the Faith, the truth of GOD should remain only in some few of the laity, yet the promise of Christ concerning the perpetuity of his Church, might still be verified.  
This question was disputed by 
f Dialog. l. 5. 1. part. c. 32.  Occam, and 
g Quaest Vesperiatum de Re●…umpta.  Cameracensis, long before our times, & who knoweth not that 
h Canus lib. 4 c. 5. ostendit Turrecremat. & alios putas●…e in sola virgine fidem permansisse, idque significare dixisse candelam, quae 〈◊〉 corum dierum sola non extinguitur, unde discipuli lumen quod amiserant receperunt. Idem Turrecremat. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Summ●… cap. 16. 〈◊〉, Apostolos omnes fuisse infideles tempore mortis Christi. vid. C●… ibidem.  Cardinal Turrecremata, and other great Divines have been of opinion, that during the time that Christ was touching his body in the grave, all the Apostles being fallen from the Faith, the same continued in the blessed Virgin alone; but these disputes we leave to them that are delighted in them, resting in the assured and undoubted persuasion of the truth of these things which we have delivered touching the visibility, and invisibility of the Church; by which it may easily appear, in what sense the Church may be said to be sometimes invisible, and how the same Church is at the same time, both visible and invisible in diverse respects.   

CHAP. 11.  
Of the divers titles of the Church, and how they are verified of it.  
Having thus declared the divers considerations of the Church of God, and the different conditions of them that are of it; for our better directions, left we mistake and misapply those things that are spoken of it, we must further observe that the names and titles given unto it are of two sorts: for there are some that are verified of it in respect of the whole considered generally, and as it comrehendeth all those that; concur in the same entire profession of heavenly verities, and outward means of salvation, though they be of very divers, different, and contrary condition; so it is named, 
a 2 Tim. 2. 20.  a great house, wherein there are vessels of honour and dishonour, in 
b Phil. 3. 16. 17.  which there are that walk according to the rule of Christianity and 
c 1 Thes. 2. 12.  worthy of God; and 
d 2 Thes. 3. 11.  others that walk inordinately. It is named 
e Mat. 13. 25.  a field, in which is wheat mingled with tares: It is a 
f Mat. 3. 12.  floor, in which there is wheat and chaff: It is a 
g Mat. 25. 2.  company of Virgins attending the coming of the bridegroom, whereof some are wise, having oil in their lamps, others foolish, having none: It is a 
h Mat. 13. 47.  net cast into the sea, that gathereth into it good fishes and bad. 
i Non omnibus ●…aequè conveniunt praeconia filiorum, sed vocabula summae laudis & excellentiae tituli, quamvis indistinctè per Scripturas de tota legantur Ecclesia, tamen de sola gloriosa parte ejus debent intelligi ut quod sit sponsa agni, quod sit civitas sancta Jerusalem, nova descendens decoelo, a Deo parata, etc. Waldens. lib. 2, art. 2. c. 11,  Other names and titles there are, which are not verified of the Church considered generally in all her parts, but only in respect of some parts, and those the best and principal; so it is named the 
k Revel. 19 7.  spouse of Christ, and the wife of the Lamb, a 
l 1 Pet. 2. 9  royal Priesthood, an holy nation, and a peculiar people, the Love of Christ, all fair, undefiled, and without spot, the only Do●…, an orchard enclosed, a Well sealed up, a fountain of living water, a Paradise with all precious, delectable, and desirable fruit, and that nothing may be added to the honour of it: It is the mystical body of Christ, which he doth animate, formalize, and quicken with his own spirit: 
n Distinguenda est Ecclesia Christi in sua latitudine à corpore Christi mystico propriè dicto. Inprimis enim etsi malus non sit membrum corporis Christi, in quo perpetuus est influxus, & participatio gratiae, vivum, operativum, adeoque reipsa univocè dictum, tamen ipsius Ecclesiae Christi, quae ut est corpus Christi in uno sensu propter internam gratiam, ita est domus magna Christi, est area & ager Dominicus in alio sensu propter externam collectionem, professionem, & societatem per Sacramenta: hujus inquam Ecclesiae in ho sensu, qui-etiam verus & proprius est, verè & proprie membrum est. Stapleton Contro. 1. q. 2. art. 1: notab. 5. Ad unionem corporis mystici sive Ecclesiae nunquam propriè pertinent existentes in peccato mortali, tamen refert dicere unitatem Ecclesiae, et corporis Ecclesiae. In unitate Ecclesiae sunt boni & mali, unitas verò corporis Ecclesiae non est nisi per fidem Charitate formatam. Alexan. de Hales part. 3. q. 12. memb. 3. artic. 3. Hieron. Non audeo 〈◊〉 peccatores & gehennae reos negare m●…bra magni corporis Christi, & grandis Ecclesiae speciosae, & fuscae, quos Apostolus dicit: Cum to o●…es in uno spiritu baptizatos, ut unum corpus efficerentur in Christo & membra de membro, nec tamen ●…io introducere eos in Ecclesiam Electorum quam dicit Apostolus gloriosam ut membra cjus, quamvis inter eos corporaliter habitent: sed ut mali humores, non ut membra in corpore minus sano, & August. Tom. 9 Quidam sic sunt in corpore Domini ut membra in non sano, quidam ut humores mali: Corpus non plenè curatur nisi istos evomuerit, exierunt ex me humores isti, sed non erant ex me. Non sunt ergo membra in Christi corpore glorioso, qui forsan in Christi corpore magno illo regno coelorum sunt membra. Waldens●… lib. 2. artic. 2. cap. 11. haec verba. Hieron. & Aug. citat. Augustinus de doctrina Christia●… lib. 3. cap. 32. negat esse de corpore Christi qui cum illo non erunt in aeternum: fatetur tamen esse in Ecclesia, ideo●…e Ecclesiam vocari posse permixtam, non autem corpus Christi permixtum 〈◊〉 bip●…titum. Stapleton Relect. Cont. 1. q. 2. art. 1. notab. 5.  of this body the wicked are not members, though they be members of the body of the Church generally considered. It is therefore 〈◊〉 vain dispute between them that say, they are members of the mystical body of Christ, though not living members, and them that say, they are parts, but not members: For they are neither parts, nor members, of the mystical body of Christ, 
m Cantic. 1. 2, etc.  though they be both in respect of the body of the Church considered generally. And it is false that 
o De Ecclesia militante lib. 3. cap. 2.  Bellarmine affirmeth, that we require inward qualities to make a man to be of the Church, thereby making it unknown, who are that Church, to whose authority and direction the Lord commandeth us to submit ourselves. For we do not require inward qualities in a man, before he can be at all of the Church; but before he can be fully, & of the mystical body of Christ. We say therefore that all they are of the Church that outwardly hold the faith of Christ; and that that society wherein the sincere outward professi●… of the truth of God is preserved, is that true Church of God, whose comm●…on we must embrace; that happy mother, in whose womb we are conceiu●…, with whose milk we are nourished, & to whose censures we must submit ourselves. And so it is untrue that the same Bellarmine imputeth unto us, charging us that we affirm that none of the privileges, which Christ hath bestowed on his Church, do pertain to the Church generally considered, but only to that more special number of the elect of God, who communicate in the benefits of effectual & saving grace; which who they are is known to none, but God only. For though we know they were all granted for their sakes, & do benefit them only, yet we say not that they pertain only unto them. For whereas there are 4 sorts of things pertaining and belonging to the Church, to wit; First, the promises of everlasting love & mercy; secondly, the knowledge of God, and means of salvation; thirdly, the ministry and dispensation of the word and sacraments; and fourthly, the performance of such duties as God requireth; The first sort of things pertain only to the more special number of the elect of God; the second to the whole multitude of Christians in general; the third, to such as are lawfully called thereunto; the fourth, if they be general duties, pertain to all; if special, to special degrees and sorts of men in the Church, according to their several differences. Thus than we see the divers considerations of the Church, and the different condition of them that do pertain to it, & of whom it doth consist; notwithstanding all which differences, for that they all concur in the same holy profession, and use of the same happy means of salvation, they make one holy Catholic Church, in which only the light of heavenly truth is to be sought, where only grace, mercy, remission of sins, and hope of eternal happiness are found. 
p Lactantius l. 4. cap. ultimo divinarum institut.  Sola Catholica Ecclesia est quae verum Dei cultum retinet; hic autem est fons veritatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc templum Dei, quod si quis non intraverit, vel à quo si quis exierit, à spe vitae ac salutis aeternae alienus est. It is only the Catholic Church that hath the true worship and service of God; this is the wellspring of truth, the dwelling place of faith, the temple of God, into which whoso entereth not, and from which whoso departeth, is without all hope of life and eternal salvation.   

CHAP. 12.  
Of the diverse sorts of them that have not yet entered into the Church.  
THey that have not entered into this society are of two sorts; Infidels and Catechumen; that is, infidels, and such as, though they be believers, are not yet baptised. The former are without, of whom the Apostle speaketh when he pronounceth, that he hath nothing to do to judge them that are without. The latter, for that they make profession of the truth of God, and with longing desires thirst after the full enjoying of the blessed communion of the Saints of God, wishing for nothing more than by baptism to be admitted into the family of Christ, and household of faith, are in vestibulo pietatis as 
a Nazanzen. Orat. 〈◊〉 in sanctum Bapt●…ma.  Nazianzen noteth, and are like children form and fashioned in the womb and come to the birth, though not yet brought forth.  

b joh. de Turrecremata in summa de ecsia. l. 1. cap. 8. ad arg. 8. & post cum Bannes in secundam secundae q. 1. art. 10 docent Catechumenos non numero sed merito ●…e de ecclesia, quod verum esse posse ut Ecclesia est corpus Christi mysticum, agnoscit Stapleton. Contro. 1. q. 2. art. 2.  And therefore the constant resolution almost of all Divines is, and hath been, that if without contempt and neglect, by any unavoidable impediment, they be hindered from enjoying the benefit of this sacramental assurance of their adoption, they do, notwithstanding the want thereof, live and die in the state of salvation. These therefore are within, as the Apostle speaketh, though not by that solemn, outward, and sacrament●… admission which they do desire, yet in desire, purpose and preparation fitting them unto it, which is so far forth necessary to, salvation, that no man ever was, or shall be saved, that either wilfully neglected or contemned the same.  
And therefore it is not without great cause, that Nazianzen in the place above mentioned taxeth the folly of some in his time, who for that they knew the greatness of the benefit of grace which is received in baptism, which, by no other means in so full and ample sort is bestowed on the sc●…nes of men, lest, by the evils they might through humane frailty easily run into, they should fall from it, which could not in the same degree and measure be recovered again, deferred and put off their baptism as long as they could, so that 
c Nazienzenus Orat. in sanctum baptisma, & Nicetas in Commentarijs negant eos, qui vel per ignorantiam vel per tyranni dem à Baptismo exciderunt, coelesti gloriâ aut supplicijs á iusto indice afficiendos esse, nec ad vim Baptismi obtinendam ipsius cupid●…ate teneri satis esse censent.  some were lifted up to Bishop's chairs, before by baptism they had set one foot within the doors of the house of God: not considering, as he wisely observeth, that while they sought so providently to avoid the danger of losing the benefits once received in Baptism, they did run into as great or greater danger, never to receive the same: And that, if the fear of losing the benefit of the grace of Baptism once received may cause us justly to defer the seeking and obtaining of it, we may with as good reason defer and put off to be Christians at all, lest happily in time of persecution and trial we might fall away. This was the fault of sundry in the Primitive Church; and which was yet more to be condemned, many did therefore differre and put off their Baptism, that so whatsoever evil things they did in the mean time, might in that Laver of new birth be washed away, thereby taking greater liberty to offend, for that they had so present means of full remission, and perfect reconciliation; so making that which was ordained against sin, and for the weakening and overthrow of it, to be an encouragement thereunto, and to give life and strength unto it.  
Seeing therefore we are but in vestibulo pietatis, while we remain unbaptized, and our feet stand but in the outward courts of the Lord of hosts, we must not rest till we enter into his holy habitation, till we may look into the holiest, of all, and behold his glorious presence in the midst of his Saints. 
d In vità Ambrosijs à Paulino Presbytero ad beatum Aug. conscriptâ.    

CHAP 13.  
Of the first sort of them, that, after their admission into the Church of God, do voluntarily depart and go out from the same.  
THey which, after their entrance and admission into the house of God, depart and go out again, are of two sorts; For either they depart of themselves, leaving the fellowship and forsaking the faith, as Schismatics, and Heretics; or else they are cast out by the censures of the guides of the Church, for their wicked, ungodly, and scandalous conversation, as excommunicate persons, and such as are enjoined public penance.  
Concerning the first sort, 
a Inter haeresim & schisma hoc intere s●…e arbitrantur qd heresis perversum dogma habeat, schis●… propter episcopalem dissensionem ab Ecclesia separetur. Quod quidem in principio aliqua ex parte intelligi potest. Caeterum nullum schisma non sibi aliquam confingit haeresim ut rectè ab Ecclesia recessisse videatur. Hiero in 3. ad Ti●….  Schismatics are they that break the unity of the Church, and refuse to submit themselves, and yield obedience to their lawful Pastors and guides, though they retain an entire profession of the truth of God; as did the Luciferians & some others in the beginning of their Schism, though for the most part the better to justify their Schismatical departure from the rest of God's people, Schismatics do fall into some error in matters of faith. This is the first sort of them that depart and go out from the Church of God, and company of his people, whose departure yet is not such, but that notwithstanding their Schism, they are and remain parts of the Church of God. For whereas in the Church of God is found an entire profession of the saving truth of God, order of holy Ministry, Sacraments by virtue thereof administered, and a blessed unity and fellowship of the people of God, knit together in the bond of peace, under the command of lawful Pastors and guides, set over them to direct them in the ways of eternal happiness; Schismatics, notwithstanding their separation, remain still conjoined with the rest of God's people in respect of the profession of the whole saving truth of God, all outward acts of Religion and Divine worship, power of order, and holy Sacraments which they by virtue thereof administer, and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God: but, as their communion and conjunction with the rest of God's people, is in some things only, and not absolutely in all, wherein they have and aught to have fellowship; so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church, nor of that more special number of them, that communicate entirely and absolutely in all things necessary, in which sense they are rightly denied to be of the Church; which I take to be their meaning that say they are not of the Church.   

CHAP. 14.  
Of the second sort of them that voluntarily go out from the people of God.  
Heretics are they that obstinately persist in error contrary to the Church's faith; so that these do not only forsake the fellowship but the faith also; and therefore of these there may be more question, whether, notwithstanding their heretical division, they still continue in any sort parts of the Church of God. But this doubt in my opinion is easily resolved. 
a Propter characterem Baptismalem haereticus quadátenus ad militantem Ecclesiam pert●…et: unde recedens à fide non dimittitur ut pa ganus, sed punitur ut transfuga: Reconciliatus non de novo initiatur ut pro●…sus alienus, sed reparatione aliquâ fact●… ad militiam sine novo sacramento recipitur. Stapleton Contr. 1. de Ecclesia in se, q,2. art. 3. notable. 3.  For in respect of the profession of sundry divine verities, which still they retain in common with right believers, in respect of the power of order, and degree of ministry, which receiving in the Church they carry out with them, and sacraments which by virtue thereof they do administer, they still pertain to the Church. But for that they hold not an entire & full profession of all such saving truths, as to know and believe is necessary unto salvation, 
b Potest dici quod potestas 4 ex reperitur in ministris Ecclesiae. Q●…aedam namque est funda●… super ordinem principaliter, ut potestas conficiendi▪ quaedam supra iurisdictionem Canonicam p●…ncipaliter, ut potestas Excomunicandi: quaedam supra ordinem & eminentiam, ut potestas ordinandi: quaedam supra ordinem & iurisdictionem, ut potestas absolvendi & ligandi in foro paenitentiae: & quoniam character auferri non potest ideo potestas, quae consequitur characterem de facto, auferri non potest. sed quoniam iurisdictio descendit ordinate à superiore, potest auferri: unde potest auferri potestas absolvendi & excommunicandi sed non ordinandi. Bonavent. lib. 4. distinct. 25. q. 2.  for that their Pastors and Priests, though they have power of order, yet have no power of jurisdiction, neither can perform any act thereof, for that they retain not the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, they are rightly denied to be of the Church: not for that they are not in any sort of it, but for that they are not fully and absolutely of it, nor of that more special number of them, which communicate in all things wherein Christians should. This more special number of right believing Christians, is, for distinction sake, rightly named the Catholic Church, because it consisteth of them only, that without addition, diminution, alteration, or innovation, in matter of doctrine, hold the common faith once delivered to the Saints, and without all particular or private division or faction, retain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.  

c Aug. de Baptismo contra Donatistas' l. 5. c. 27. 28. ostendit ab Ecclesiâ in suis perfectissis membris confideratâ, & secundum unitatem cum Christo coniunctissim●…, non secus separari & extra ●…lam esse impio●…: quam apertè per haerisim praeciso●…. Stapl. Contro. 1. q. 2. art. 1. ad 4.  To this purpose is it that Saint Augustine against the Donatists, (who therefore denied the baptism of Heretics to be true Baptism, and did urge the necessity of rebaptising them that were baptised by them, for that they are out of the Church) doth show that all wicked ones, feigned Christians, and false hearted hypocrites, are secluded from the Church of God, considered in her best and principal parts, and in the highest degree of unity with Christ her mystical head, aswell as ●…retikes and Schismatics. As therefore all they that outwardly profess the truth, and hold the faith of Christ, without schism or heresy, are of the Church, and are within as the Scripture speaketh, 
d Ex illis omnibus qui (●…t ita dicam) intrinsecus & in occulto intus sunt, constat ille 〈◊〉 conclusus, fons signatus, puteus aquae vi●…ae, paradisus cum fructu pomorum. Aug. lib. 6. de Baptismo contra Donatist. cap. 27.  yet are not all ofthat more special number of them that are intrinsecus & in occulto intus, but in more general sort: So likewise Heretics and Schismatics, though they be not of that special number of them that in unity hold the entire profession of divine truth, are of the Church generally considered, and of the number of them that profess the truth of God revealed in Christ. And this surely Augustine most clearly delivereth.  
For when the Donatists did object that Heresy is an harlot, and that, if the baptism of Heretics be good, sons are borne to God of heresy, and so of an harlot, than which, what can be more absurd, & impious; 
e De Baptis. cont. Donatist. lib. 1. cap. 10. una est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur, & quicquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum, à sua unitate separatis, per hoc quod suum in iis habet ipsa utique generat, non ille. Et lib. 1. cap. 1. Isti in quibusdam rebus nobiscum sunt, in quibusdam à nobis exierunt. Et l. 1. c. 〈◊〉. Quiseipsos à societate caeterorum separantes charitate violatâ, unitatis vinculum 〈◊〉, si non●…ulla eadem 〈◊〉 non se in iis separave●…t, & ex ea parte in texturae compage detin●…ur in caeterâ 〈◊〉. Proinde si quem sociaverint sibi, ex eâ parte 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae, in quâ nec illi seperati sunt.  his answer was, that the conventicles of Heretics do bear children unto God, not in that they are divided, but in that they still remain conjoined with the true and Catholic Church; not in that they are Heretics, but in that they profess and practise that, which Christians should, and do profess and practise.  
It is not therefore to be so scornfully rejected by Bellarmine, Stapleton, and others of that faction, that we affirm that both Heretics and Schismatics are in some sort, though not fully, perfectly, and with hope of salvation, of the Church; seeing Augustine, in the just and honourable defence of the Church's cause against Heretics, did long since affirm the same, not doubting to say, that Heretics remain in such sort conjoined to the Church, notwithstanding their Heresy that the true Church in the midst ofthem, and in their assemblies by Baptism ministered by them, doth bear and bring forth children unto God. The not conceiving whereof gave occasion to Cyprian and the African Bishops, of error, and afterwards to the Donatists of their heresy, touching the rebaptisation of them that were baptised by Heretics. For seeing there is but ●…e Lord, one faith, one Baptism, seeing God gave the power of the keys, and the dispensation of his word and sacraments only to his Church, if Heretics be not of the Church, they do not baptise.  
This their allegation they amplified and enlarged from the nature and condition of heresy and Heretics, and the high precious and divine quality, force, and working of the sacraments; thereby endeavouring to show, that so excellent means, pledges, and assurances of our salvation cannot be given by the hands of men so far estranged from God. 
f Concilium Carthaginense hebetur inter opera Cypriani.  There is, say they, one faith, one hope, one Baptism, not among heretics, where there is no hope, and a false faith where all things are done in lying, false, and deceivable manner, where he adjureth Satan, that is the vassal of Satan, and possessed of the devil. He proposeth the sacramental demands and words of holy stipulation, whose mouth & words send forth a canker; He giveth the faith, that is himself an infidel; He giveth remission of sins, that is himself most wicked and sinful; Antichrist baptizeth in the name of Christ; he blesseth, that is himself accursed of God; he promiseth life, that is, himself dead; he giveth peace, that is himself an enemy to peace, he calleth on the name of God, that is a blasphemer of God; he administereth and executeth the holy office of Priesthood, that is profane; he prepareth, furnisheth, and attendeth the Altar of God, that is a sacrilegious person. All which objections, howsoever carrying a fair show at the first sight and view, yet are most easily answered, if we consider, that heretics, notwithstanding their heresies, do in some sort still pertain to the Church, and so consequently have that degree, order, office, ministry, and calling which is holy, by virtue whereof they do administer the holy Sacraments; even as in the true and Catholic Church, many wicked ones are found, that are no less the vassals of Satan, and possessed of the devil, dead in sin, accursed of God, profane, sacrilegious, and enemies of peace, than heretics and ●…hismatikes, who yet for that they have that order, office, and degree of ministry, which is holy, do no less, nor with less effect, administer the holy Sacraments, than they that are the samplers of all sanctity, piety and virtue.  

g Bonaventur. lib. 4. distinct. 13. qu. 1.  Whereupon the schoolmen rightly note, that there are four sorts of Ministers, to wit, good; secretly bad, openly and apparently wicked, but not put from their office and place, nor cast out of the Church; and lastly such as are deprived of their office, and dignity, and removed from the happy fellowship of right believers. The first administer the Sacraments with benefit, profit, and good to themselves & others. The second with benefit to others but not to themselues. The third with hurt to themselves and scandal to others, but yet to the everlasting good of them that receive them, if the fault be not in themselves. The fourth administer those Sacraments that are holy, & in their own nature the means, pledges, & assurances of salvation, but without any benefit to themselues, or others, because they are in division and schism: 
h Si quis ad Haereticos aut Schismaticos reiectus ab Ecclesiâ transeat, & si occilus propter nomen Domini postmodum fuerit extra Ecclesiam constitutus, & ab unitate atque charitate diui●… corona●… in morte non potest. Cyprian. lib. 4. epist. 2.  Whereas nothing, though never so good & excellent, is avaleable to their good, that are out of the unity, the people of God should have among themselves. 
i 1. Cor. 13. 3.  If I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing, saith the Apostle.   

CHAP. 15.  
Of them whom the Church casteth out by excommunication.  
HItherto we have treated of such, as, being once of the Church, of themselves go out from the company of right believers, by schism, or heresy. Now it remaineth to speak of them whom the Church casteth out by excommunication. Excommunication is that sentence of the Church, whereby she ejecteth and casteth out wicked sinners out of her communion. Which communion what it is, and wherein it consisteth, that we may the better understand, we must observe, that communion is sometimes taken for having the same things in common, and sometimes for mutual doing and receiving good to and from each other. In the former sense the communion of the Church is of two sorts; outward and inward. The outward consisteth in those things, which all they that are of the Church have in common, as the profession of the truth revealed in Christ, and the Character of Baptism, which as a note distinctive separateth Christians from Infidels and unbelievers. The inward consisteth in those things, which only the best parts of the Church have in common, as faith, hope, love and the like.  
The Communion of the Church in the later sense consisteth in a mutual and interchangeable course of action, whereby the parts thereof do and receive good to and from one another, one supplying the want and defect of another. This is of two sorts: Public and private. The public consisteth, first in the prayers which the Church poureth forth for every the least and most contemptible member thereof; thereby obtaining of God, the giving, supply, and continuance of all necessary good, joined with a most happy protection keeping them from falling into those evils they are subject unto; Secondly in the dispensation of Sacraments by the hands of her Ministers: Private, in mutual conversation of one man with another.  

a Non ita eijcitur fidelis ab Ecclesiâ per excommunicationem, quin illi maneat subiectus ratione characteris & unitus per fidem si alioqui illi non amittit; sed solum privatur dicto iure morali ad utendum ecclesiasticâ communicatione & participatione. Suarez tom. 5. disp. 8. sectione 1. Quomodo excommunicatus privatur suffragijs ecclesiae, idem ostendit in eodem tomo, disp. 9 secti. 3. 4. 5.  Excommunication doth not deprive the Excommunicate, of the former kind of communion. For, every sentence of excommunication is either just, or unjust. If it be unjust, they may still retain all those things which the best parts of the Church have inward or outward, as sometimes it falleth out through the prevailing of factious, seditious, and turbulent men, that the best men are unjustly and undeservedly cast out of the true Church, as 
b Aug. de verâ religione. c. 6.  Austin noteth; who though they never be permitted to return again and reenter, yet if they continue without gathering any conventicles, or broaching of heresies, and still love, profess, and seek to promote what in them lieth, the truth of God which is holden and professed in the Church of God, from the assemblies whereof they are unjustly excluded and banished, who dare deny them to be of the Church? And therefore 
c Bell. 1. Tom. 4. contro, lib. 3. cap. 6.  Bellarmine himself, though he make show as if he meant to prove that excommunicate persons are not of the Church, as he endeavoureth to do that Heretics and Schismatics are not, yet he altereth the matter clean, and saith only they are not in the Church, corpore & externâ communicatione, as if he would only prove that they are excluded from the meetings and assemblies of the Church, and conversing with the people of God. There is therefore no doubt but that they are of the Church, and that, if they patiently endure these indignities, injuries and wrongs, they shall be highly rewarded of Almighty GOD: but, saith Bellarmine, they are not of the Church corporally, and in outward Communion; than which, what could be more frivolously spoken? For who maketh any doubt, but that they are thrust out of the assemblies, so that they may not be bodily present when the people of God do meet together, to perform the acts of divine worship; but that therefore they are not properly of the visible Church, who that advisedly considereth what he saith, would ever say? Seeing they have still the communion, which only is essential and maketh a man to be of the Church, in that they have all those things, both inward & outward, which the best among them that remain not ejected have, as faith, hope, love, and profession of the whole truth of God, the character of baptism, obedient and humble submission to their lawful superiors; which things and no other are required to make a man to be of the Church. For, the performance of holy duties is an action of them that are already of the Church, and doth not make a man to be of the Church. Yea the performance of these duties is a thing of that nature, that by violence and the unjust courses holden by wicked men, we may be hindered from it without any fault of ours.  
If the sentence of excommunication be just, yet it doth not cut the excommunicate off from the mystical body of Christ, but doth presuppose that they have already cut off themselves, or that, if this sentence being duly and advisedly pronounced make th●… not relent, but that still they hold out against it, they will cut off themselves▪ and deprive themselves of all inward grace and virtue. From the visible Church of Christ it doth not wholly cut them off▪ for they may and often do retain the entire profession of saving truth, together with the Character of Baptism, which is the mark of Christianity, and so far forth notwithstanding their disobedience still acknowledge them to be their lawful pastors and guides, by whose sentence they are excommunicate, that they would rather endure and suffer any thing, than schismatically join themselves to any other communion. It doth therefore only cut them off, from communicating with the Church in the performance of holy duties, and deprive them of those comforts which by communicating in the sacraments, etc. they might have enjoyed.  
This excommunication is of two sorts; the greater and the lesser. The greater putteth the excommunicate from the sacrament of the Lords body & blood, & depriveth them of all that comfort and strength of grace, which from it they might receive, it denieth to them the benefit of the Churches public prayers, & so leaveth them to themselues as forelorn & miserable wretches, without that assistance, presence, & protection which from God she obtaineth for her obedient children. Whence it is, that they are said to be delivered unto Satan, because they are left (naked, & void of all means to make resistance) unto his will & pleasure: & as if this were not enough, they are denied that solace which they might find in the company and conversation of the people of God; who now do no less fly from them, than in old time they did from the Lepers, who cried, I am unclean, I am unclean. The lesser excommunication excludeth only from the Sacramental pledges, and assurances of God's love, which, when it is pronounced against them that stubbornly stand out, and will not yield themselves to the Church's direction & disposition, is properly named excommunication; but when it is pronounced against them that yield when they have offended, and seek the blessed remedies of the evils they have committed, it is not so properly named excommunication, but it is an act of the discipline of repentance, and of that power and authority which Christ left unto his Church, whereby she imposeth and prescribeth to her obedient children, when they have offended, such courses of penitency, whereby they may obtain remission of their sins, and recover the former estate from which they are fallen.   

CHAP. 16.  
Of the errors that are and have been, touching the use of the discipline of the Church, in punishing offenders.  
TOuching this discipline of repentance and power of the Church in ordering offenders, and the use thereof, there are, and have been sundry both errors and heresies. The first of the Pelagians in former times, & the Anabaptists in our times, who for every the least imperfection cast men out of their societies, denying that any are or can be in, or of the Church, in whom the least imperfection is found. Which if it were true, there should be no Church in the world; all men being subject to sin and sinful imperfection, that either are or have been. For it is a vain dispute of the Pelagians, whether a man may be without sin or not; whereof see that which 
a Aug. de perfect. just. cont. Coelestinum.  Augustine and 
b Hier. cont. Pelagianos.  Hierom have written against the madness and folly of those men. 
e Aug lib. de perfect. justit.   
For confirmation of their error touching absolute perfection, they allege that of the 
c Chap. 4 7.  Canticles, Thou art all fair my Love, and there is no spot in thee: And that of the Apostle to the 
d Chap. 5, 25. 26. 27.  Ephesians; that Christ gave himself for his Church, that he might make it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, but that it should be holy, and without blame. For answer whereunto, first we must remember that which formerly was observed, to wit, that sundry glorious titles are given to the Church, which agree not to the whole totally considered, but to some parts only; so it is said to be fair, glorious, and without spot or wrinkle, not for that all or the most part of them that are of the Church are so, but because the best and principal parts are so; and for that the end, intent, and purpose of the gift of grace given to the Church is to make all to be so, if the fault be not in themselves. Secondly, we must observe that there is a double perfection, purity, and beauty of the Church without spot or wrinkle, to wit, absolute; and according to the state of this life. The first is not found in any among the sons of men, while they are clothed with the body of death. And therefore if we speak of that absolute purity, and perfection, the Church is said to be pure, all fair, and to have no spot or wrinkle, 
f Hoc ag●…tur utique in hoc seculo, utad istam quam omnes sancti cupiunt immaculatissimam puritatem Ecclesia sancta perveniat, quae in fururo seculo neque aliquo malorum hominum permixto, neque aliqua in se leg●… peccati resistente●…egimentis, ducat mundis●…imam vitam in 〈◊〉 divina. Aug. cont. Pelag de natura & gratia c. 63.  not for that actually, and presently it is so, but for that it is prepared to be so hereafter, as Augustine fitly ●…teth. The second kind of purity, which is not absolute, but according to the state of this life, consisteth herein, that all sins are avoided, or repent of, and in Christ forgiven, and his righteousness imputed. In this sense the Church is now presently pure, and undefiled, and yet not free from all sinful imperfection, as the Pelagians and Anabaptists vainly and fond imagine, contrary to all experience, and the words of the Apostle, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us.  
The second error, touching the power of the Church in the ordering of sinners, and the use thereof, was that of the 
g Miror quo●…dam sie obstinatos esse ut dandam non pu●…ent lapsis poenitentiam Cypr. l. 4. epist. 2. in e●…dem episto. oftendit Novatianos moechis, & fraudatoribus communicare qui libellaticis & sacrificatis deteriores sunt. Novatus refused only to communicate with idolators: the Novatians exclude men from the communion for other sins, referring unto God alone the power of remitting them Socrates. lib. 7. cap. 25.  Novatians, who refused to reconcile, and restore to the Church's peace, such as grievously offended, but left them to the judgement of God, without all that comfort which the sacraments of grace might yield unto them; and if any fell in time of persecution, and denied the faith, how great and unfeigned soever their repentance seemed to be, they suffered them not to have any place in the Church of God. The third of certain of whom 
Apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pace●… m●…chis non putaverunt, & in totum poenitentiae locum contra adulteria clauserunt: non tamen á Coepiscoporum collegio recesserunt Cypr. in eadem epist.  Cyprian speaketh, that would not reconcile nor restore to the Church's peace, such as foradultery were cast out.  
The fourth, of the 
i Plusquam quadraginta anni sunt inter Cypriani passionem & divinorum codicum exustionem: unde isti calumniarum suarum fumos iactantes occasionem faciendi schismatis invenerunt. Aug. lib. 5. de Bapt contra Donatistas'. cap. 1.  Donatists, who would not receive, into the lap & bosom of the Church, such as having in time of persecution, to save their own lives, delivered the books and other holy things into the hands of the persecutors, did afterwards repent of that they had done, and with tears of repentant grief seek to recover their former standing in the Church of God again; yea they proceeded so far in this their violent and passionate zeal, that they abandoned the society of them that did, held them not Christians, and rebaptised them which came from them, to their pretended purer societies.  
The fifth of the 
k Hiero. contra Luciferianos.  Luciferians, who received men returning from heresy to the Catholic faith, without rebaptisation, and enjoined them penitence, & gave them imposition of hands. But Bishops that had been drawn into heresy, they would not admit, unless they forsook their office and ministry: against these, Hierom writeth his book against the Luciferians. All these did err, urging overmuch the Church discipline in casting off the wicked, and not admitting the unworthy, to her happy fellowship.   

CHAP. 17.  
Of the considerations moving the Church, to use indulgence towards offenders.  
But the true Church admitteth and receiveth all, that with sorrowful repentance return and seek reconciliation, how great soever their offences have been: not forgetting to use due severity, which yet she sometime remitteth, either upon due consideration, or of negligence. The due and just consideration moving the Church to remit something of her wont severity, is either private, or public peril. Private, as when the party being of a tender, timorous, and relenting disposition, if he be proceeded with rigorously, is in danger to fall into despair, or to be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. In this case the 
l Cor. 2. 8. 9 10.  Apostle, having excommunicated the incestuous Corinthian, writeth to the Church of Corinth, speedily to receive him again, lest he should be swallowed up with overmuch grief: and in this sort the ancient Bishops were wont to cut off great parts of enjoined penance; which remission and relaxation, was called an indulgence. 
n Caietan 〈◊〉 puscu. tom. 1. tractat. 15. c. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Quid●… distinguences forum Dei, & forum Ecclesiae, dixerunt relaxationes non fieri nec intelligi quantum ad forum Dei, sed quantum ad forum Ecclesiae: hoc au tem sic intelligunt: sacri canones promortalibus peccatis graves, & diuturnas poenitentias quas pa●…ci facere volunt, taxant, & ideirco constituerunt relaxationes aliquando fieri. Bonaventura lib. 4. dist. 20. quest. 2. aliam ipse sequitur opinionem.  Out of the not understanding whereof, grew the popish pardons, and indulgences. Public peril is then, when the multitude, authority, and prevailing of the offenders is so great, as that if they be cut off, and separated from the rest, a schism may justly be feared, without hope of any good to be effected thereby; in this case there is just cause why the Church forbeareth to proceed to excommunication. 
n Si contagio peccandi multitudinem invaserit, consilia sepe rationis & inania sunt & pernitiola, atque sacrilega, quia et impia & superba sunt, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos quam corrigunt animosos malos. Aug. con. Epist. Patmeniani. l. 3. cap. 2.  For whereas the end of excommunication is, that evil doers being put from the company of right believing Christians, and forsaken of all, may be made ashamed of their evil doing, and so brought to repentance, this cannot be looked for, when the multitude of offenders hath taken away all shame.  
These are the due and just motives, which cause the Church sometimes to forbear to punish with that extremity, which the quality and condition of the offender's fault may seem to require. But sometimes of negligence, not led by any of these considerations, she omitteth the due correction of such as have offended God and scandalized his people. So the 
o 1. Cor. 5. 1. 2.  Corinthians before the Apostles Letter written unto them, suffered an incestuous person, & seemed not much to be moved with so vile a scandal. And the like negligence is often found in the Churches of God, which notwithstanding their fault in this behalf continue the true Churches of God still; 
p Auferte, inquit, maulm ex vobis; ut si fortè non possent auferre malos à congregatione suâ auferendo malum ex seipsis, id est, non cum ipsis peccando, nec iis ad peccandum consentiendo, aut favendo, integerrimi inter eos & incorruptissimi versarentur. Aug. lib. 3. cont. epist. Parmeniani cap. 1.  and private men may communicate with them that through the Church's negligence are thus tolerated and suffered, and that both in public acts of religion, and private conversation, without being partakers of their sins, if they neither do the same things, nor approve, like, and applaud them that do, and if they neglect not by all good means, to seek their correction and amendment.   

CHAP. 18.  
Of their damnable pride, who condemn all those Churches wherein want of due execution of discipline, and imperfections of men are found.  
THere are and have been always some, who possessed with a false opinion of absolute sanctity, and spotless righteousness, reject the societies and companies of them in whom any imperfection may be found; which was the furious zeal of the Pelagians in old time, and the Anabaptists in our time. Others there are, which, though they proceed not so far, yet deny those societies of Christians to be the true Churches of God, wherein the severity of discipline is so far neglected, that wicked men are suffered, and tolerated without due and condign punishment. These, while they seem to hate the wicked, and fly from their company for fear of contagion, do schismatically rend, and inconsiderately divide themselves from the body of God's Church, and forsake the fellowship of the good, through immoderate hate of the wicked. Both these do dangerously and damnably err; the first in that they dream of heavenly perfection to be found amongst men on earth, when as chose the Prophet 
a Esay, 64. 6. Nostra si qua est, humilis iustitia, recta for sitan, sed non pura, nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros, qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiebant, omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris. Bernard de verbis Esaiae sermo 5. hinc afflictus job. verebar omnia opera mea, ait Deo: & iterum, si volueris contendere mecum, non potero respondete unum pro mille: cui conformis est oratio prophetica, non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo: & rursus, si ini quitates observaveris etc. Porrò quod Esaias se cum caeteris involuens, fibique vilescens humili confessione protulerit, legimus, omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstivatae; quis igitur iustitias suas velut gloriabundus ostentavetit Deo plusquam pannum confusionis suae mulier viro Gers. de consol. theolog. l. 4. pros. 1.  Esay pronounceth, that all our righteousness is like the polluted and filthy rags of a menstruous woman. And ᵇ David desireth of 
〈◊〉 Aug. in Psal. 142. in illa verba non iustificabitur omnis vivens, sic habet: forte iustificare potest se cosam se, non coram te: quomodo coram se? sibi placens, tibi displicens: noli ergo intrate mecum in iudicium Domine, quantumlibet rectus mihi videar: producis tu de the sauro tuo regulam coaptas me ad eam, & praws invenior: ad te cum respitio te nihil aliud meum quam peccatum inve nio: nolo tecum habere causam, ut Ego propo. nam just tiammeam, tu con vincas iniquitatem meam: commemorate iustitias vestras, ego novi facinora vestra, inquit Dominus. Aug. conf ●…li 9 c. 13.  Almighty God, that he will not enter into judgement with him, for that in his sight no flesh shall be justified: And Augustine denounceth a woe against our greatest perfections, if God do straight look upon them. The later, though they do not require absolute and spotless perfection in them that are in and of the Church, yet think it not possible that any wicked ones should be, found in so happy & blessed a society: not remembering that the Church of God is compared to 
c Math. 13. 47.  a Net, that gathereth into it all sorts of fishes great and small, good and bad, which are not separated one from another, till they be cast out upon the shore; that it is like a 
d Math. 13. 24 25.  field sown with good seed, wherein the envious man soweth tares; like a 
e Math. 3. 12.  floor wherein wheat and chaff are mingled together; like the 
f Genesis 7. 13.  Ark of Noah, wherein cursed CHAM was aswell preserved from drowning as blessed SEM.  
But they will say, there may be Hypocrites, who, for that their wickedness is not known, cannot be separated from them who in sincerity serve and worship God; but if their wickedness break forth, that men may take notice of it, either they are presently reform, or by the censures of the Church cut off from the rest: which course if it be not so holden, but that wicked ones without due punishment be suffered in the midst of God's people, those societies wherein so great negligence is found, cease to be the true Churches of God, and we may and must divide ourselves from them. This was the error of the 
g Canus lib. 4. c. 3.  Donatists in former times, and is the error of certain proud & arrogant Sectaries in our time. But if the Church of God remained in Corinth, 
h 1. Corinth. 33.  where there were divisions, sects, emulations, contentions, and quarrels, 
i 1, Corinth. 6. 1.  and going to law one with another for every trifle, end that under the infidels; where that 
k 1. Cor. 5. 1.  wickedness was tolerated, and winked at, which is execrable to the very heathens; where 
l 2. Corin. 10. 10.  Paul's name and credit was despitefully called in question, whom they should have honoured as a father; 
m 1. Cor. 15. 12.  where the resurrection of the dead, which is the life of Christianity was with great scorn denied; who dare deny those societies to be the Churches of God, wherein the tenth part of these horrible evils and abuses is not to be found? We see then the difference between the turbulent disposition of these men, and the mild affection of the Apostle of Christ, who writing to the Corinthians, and well knowing to how many evils and faults they were subject, yet doth not thunder out against them the dreadful sentence of Anathema, exclude them from the kingdom of Christ, or make a division & separation from them, but calleth them the Church of Christ, and society of Saints. What would these men have done, if they had lived amongst the Galathians, who so far adulterated the Gospel of Christ, that the Apostle pronounceth that they were 
n Galat. 3. 1.  bewitched, and if they still persisted to join circumcision and the works of the law with Christ, they 
o Gal. 5. 4.  were fallen from grace, and Christ could profit them nothing; whom yet the Apostle acknowledgeth to be the Church of God, writing to the Church which is at Galathia?  
Excellent to this purpose is the counsel of Augustine in his third book against Parmenian & second chapter, which he giveth to all that are of a godly & peaceable disposition, ut misericorditer corripiant, quod possunt, quod non possunt patienter ferant, & cum dilectione gemant & lugeant, donec aut emendet Deus ac corrigat, aut in mess eradicet zizania, & paleas ventilet. That with merciful affection they should dislike, reprove, & correct, as much as in them lieth, what they find to be amiss; what they cannot amend, that they should patiently endure & suffer, and in loving sort bewail & lament, till either God do here in this world correct and amend it, or otherwise in that great harvest in the end of the world, pluck up all tares, and coming with his fan in his hand purge the wheat from the chaff. Thus than we have hitherto showed, who are of the Church, the definition of it, & the meaning of such sayings of our Divines, as have been by our adversaries mistaken or perverted, together with all such errors, & heresies, as are or have been concerning the nature & being of the Church.    

THE SECOND BOOK, CONCERNING THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH.  

CHAP. 1.  
Of the nature of notes of difference, and their several kinds.  
NOw it remaineth that we come to the second part of our principal and general division, to find out the notes whereby the true Church may be known and discerned from all other companies and societies of men in the world. A note, mark, or character, is that, whereby one thing may be known and differenced from another. The Philosophers observe that of things not the same, there are two sorts; some wholly divers, which have no common condition of nature wherein they agree 〈◊〉 are the same. These cannot be apprehend●… 〈◊〉 us, but the diversity of nature and condition, found in them, must of necessity be conceived and known likewise; so that no man, having any apprehension of the nature of a voice or sound, enquireth wherein it differeth from a circle or line, not finding any thing wherein they are the same. These need not any notes, or marks of difference whereby to be known one from another.  
Other things there are which have many things in common wherein they agree and are the same, and some other which are so found in one of them that not in another. These are not properly said to be wholly divers, as the former, having many things in common wherein they agree and are the same; but to differ one from another, in that some thing is so found in one of them that it is not in another. The distinction of these things thus differing, cannot be known by any other means, but by observing what is peculiarly found in each of them: neither is there any thing proper or peculiar to any ofthem which may not serve for a note or mark of distinction, to discern one of them from another.  
That which is proper to a thing, and peculiarly found in it alone, is of two sorts: For either it is said to be proper and peculiar respectively, and at some one time only; or absolutely, and ever. Respectively that is proper to a thing, which, though it be not found in it alone, but in sundry other, yet if we take view of it, and only some certain and definite things besides, is so in it that in none of them, and serveth for a sufficient note of distinction to know it from any of them. So if we seek to difference and discern the nature of man, only from those things that are void of life; sense and motion serve for notes of difference, and distinction, and are proper to man for that they are not found in any thing void of life. But if we seek to difference the nature of man from all other things whatsoever; we must find out that which is in man and in 〈◊〉 thing else; in which sort also a thing may be proper and peculiar at some o●… time, that is not perpetually and ever so, as wee●…ng, laughing, and the like; which though not always found in a man, (for sometimes he neither weepeth nor laugheth) yet when they are, they be notes of difference, distinguing man from all other things, for that nothing else is at any time capable of any of these.  
Perpetually and absolutely that is proper to a thing, which is inseparable and incommunicable, as never being not found in that to which it is proper, nor ever being found in any thing else. Those things which are thus and in this sort proper to a thing, either are of the essence of that to which they are proper, or that is of the essence of them: by both these, a thing may be known from all other whatsoever, but more specially by them that are of the essence of that which we desire to know. These things thus generally observed touching the nature of the notes of difference, whereby one thing may be discerned and known from another, if we apply particularly to the Church, we shall easily know which are the true, certain, and infallible notes thereof, about which our adversaries so tediously contend and jangle, delivering them confusedly without order, and doubtfully without all certainty.  
Wherefore, seeing by that we have already observed it is evident, that there is nothing not proper that may, nor proper that may not serve as a note of difference to distinguish one thing from another; Seeing likewise of things proper and peculiar, there are two sorts, some respectively; and some absolutely; and of these again, some not perpetually, but at some one time only; and some perpetually and ever; and these either essential to that to which they are pecul●…ar, or essentially depending of it and flowing from it. Let us first see, what things are proper to the Church respectively considered; and secondly, what (without such respective consideration) absolutely, generally, and perpetually; which only are perfect notes of difference, whereby the true Church may be perpetually and infallibly kn●…en from all other societies of men, professions of religion, and diversities o●…ine worship that are in the world and thirdly, suchas are generally and absolutely but not perpetually proper.   

CHAP. 2.  
Of the divers kinds of notes, whereby the true Church is discerned from other societies of men in the world.  
THere are presently, and were formerly, but three main differences of religion in the world, Paganism, judaism, and Christianity. Paganism is, and was, that state of religion and divine worship, wherein men having no other light than that of nature, and the uncertain traditions of their erring fathers to guide them, 
a Rom. 1. 25.  did and do change the truth of God into a lie, and worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator; who is blessed for ever. judaism is that state of religion, wherein men embrace the Law which God gave to the children of Abraham, and sons of jacob, reforming heathenish impiety, teaching salvation to be looked for through one, whom God would send in the last days, and exalt to be Lord over all. Christianity is the religion of them that believe jesus Christ to be that Saviour promised to the jews, and 
b Math. 16. 16.  acknowledge him to be the son of the living God. They which hold this profession, are called the Church of Christ: neither is there any other society or company of men in the world, that profess so to believe but they only.  
If we take a view of this Church respectively considered, seeking only to difference and distinguish it from the society of Pagan Infidels, the profession of Divine, supernatural, and revealed verities is so found in the Church, that not amongst any of these; and so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, respectively, it is proper to the Church, & may serve as a note of difference, distinguishing it from these profane and heathenish companies; but from the jews it doth not sever it; for it is common to it with them; both holding the sacred profession of many heavenly and revealed verities. So that, if we will distinguish Christians from jews, we must find out that which is so proper and peculiar to the companies and societies of Christians, that it is not communicated to the jews. Such is the profession of divine verities revealed in Christ, whom only these societies acknowledge to be the son of God and Saviour of the world. But for that, when neither heathenish superstition, nor the jews perfidious impiety, could any longer prevail, or resist against the knowledge and glory of Christ, 
c Christi adventis detectus & prostratus inimicus, sed videns ille idola derelicta, & per nimium credentium populum sedes suas ac templa deserta, excogitavit nova fraudem, ut sub ipso Christiani nominis titulo fallat incautos. haereses invenit, & schismata, quibus subverteret fidem. veritatem corrumperet, scirideretunitatem. Cypr de unitate Ecclesiae.  but that all the whole world went after him, Satan the enemy of mankind stirred up certain turbulent, wicked, and godless men, who professing themselves to be Christians, under the name of Christ brought in damnable doctrines of error, no less dangerously erring, than did the Pagans and jews. This profession of the faith of Christ, though it distinguish the Christian Church from the jews and Pagans, and is so far proper unto it, that it is not found in any of them, yet doth it not separate the multitude of right believing Christians (which is the sound part of the Christian Church, and is named the Orthodox Church) from seduced miscreants, being common to both.  
We must therefore further seek out that which is so peculiarly found in the more special number of right believing Christians; that not in any other, though shadowed under the general name of Christianity. Such is the entire profession of divine verities, according to the rule of faith, left by Christ, and his first disciples, and scholars, the holy Apostles.  
This entire profession of the truth revealed in Christ; though it distinguish right believers from Heretics, yet it is not proper to the happy number, and blessed company of Catholic Christians, because Schismatics may, and sometimes do, hold an entire profession of the truth of God revealed in Christ. It remaineth therefore, that we seek out those things that are so peculiarly found in the companies of right believing and Catholic Christians, that they may serve as notes of difference, to distinguish them from all, both Pagans, jews, Heretics, and Schismatics. These are of two sorts; for either they are such as only at sometemes, and not perpetually; or such as do perpetually, and ever sever the true Church from all conventicles of erring and seduced misereants. Of the former sort was multitude, largeness of extent, and the name of Catholic, esteemed a note of the Church, in the time of the Fathers. The notes of the later sort, that are inseparable, perpetual, and absolutely proper and peculiar, which perpetually distinguish the true Catholic Church, from all other societies of men, and professions of religions in the world, are three: First, the entire profession of those supernatural verities which God hath revealed in Christ his son; secondly, the use of such holy ceremonies, & sacraments as he hath instituted and appointed, to serve as provocations to godliness, preservations from sin, memorials of the benefits of Christ, warrants for the greater security of our belief, and marks of distinction to separate his own from strangers; thirdly, an union, or connexion of men in this profession, and use of these sacraments; under lawful pastors and guides, appointed, authorised, & sanctified, to direct, and lead them in the happy ways of eternal salvation. That these are notes of the Church, it will easily appear, by consideration of all those conditions that are required in the nature of notes. They are inseparable, they are proper, and they are essential, and such things as give being to the Church, and therefore are in nature more clear and evident, and such as that from them the perfect knowledge of the Church may and must be derived. Notwithstanding, for that our adversaries take exception to them, I will first examine their objections, and secondly prove, that neither they, nor any other that know what they write or speak, can or do assign any other. And because Bellarmine and Stapleton have taken most pains in this Argument, I will therefore propose the objections I find in them, assuring myself that there are not any other of moment, to be found in the writings of any other of that side.   

CHAP. 3.  
Of Bellarmine's reasons against the notes of the Church assigned by us.  
BEllarmine his first objection is; 
a Bell. 1. tom. 4. contra. de. con●…ilijs & ecclesia militante, lib. 4. cap. 2  By these notes we know not who are elect; therefore by these we do not certainly know which is the true Church. The consequence of this reason we deny, as being most fond and false. He proveth it in this sort. The Church, according to the doctrine of the Protestants, is only the number of the elect; and therefore if the elect be not known and discerned by these from the reprobate and castaways, the Church cannot be known by them. But the Antecedent of this argument is likewise false, as appear by that which I have formerly delivered, touching the nature and being of the Church: for we do not say that the Church consisteth only of the elect, but principally, intentionally, and finally. For otherwise it consisteth of all that partake in the outward calling of grace, and enjoying of the means of salvation, and so may be known by these notes. For that society doubtless hath & enjoyeth the means of salvation, to which the notes above specified do agree.  
Secondly, he reasoneth thus; The true and certain notes whereby the Church is known, are inseparable; but there may be true Churches that hold not the entire and sincere profession of supernatural truths revealed in Christ; therefore this profession is no note of the Church. That there may be true Churches without the entire & sincere profession of the truth of God, appeareth by the examples of the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and other, to whom Paul wrote, and gave them the titles and names of the Churches of God, and yet they erred in the matter of the resurrection, and the necessity of the law of Moses to be joined with the Gospel. To the minor proposition of this argument, we answer by a double distinction: the first taken out of 
b Relect. con. 1. q 4. art. 5. expoposit. articuli.  Stapleton; that a multitude or company of Christians may be said to be a true Church, either only because it hath the true nature & essence of a Church, or because, besides that, it hath all those things that pertain to the integrity, and plenitude thereof. The second, that there is a double sincerity, and purity of the profession of the truth of God revealed in Christ; the first free from all damnable, fundamental, and pertinacious error; the other from all error whatsoever. The former is an inseparable note of the true Church: For there is no being of a Church to be found where that sincerity, and purity of profession is not. The later is a note of a pure and perfect Church, and is inseparably proper unto it. So that proportionably, sincerity, and purity of profession is always inseparably proper to the Church: Absolute to the Church, that is absolutely perfect; and in an inferior degree and sort, to that which is in any sort a Church. For seeing, as Stapleton rightly affirmeth, the true faith is the life of the Church, it cannot be the true Church, that pertinaciously erreth in the substance and main grounds of the faith. What is a fundamental error, & what that pertinacy, that cannot be found in the true Church of God, I will then make manifest when I come to speak of the nature of Schism and Heresy.  
His third reason he proposeth in this sort: Notes of the Church must be proper to the Church, and such things as are not to be found in any society or company of men besides; but this sincerity and soundness of profession may be found in other societies and companies of men besides, namely amongst Schismatics, as appeared in the Luciferians, and some others in the beginning of their schism, 
c Hieron. in Epist. ad Titum cap. 3.  though for the most part the better to justify their schismatical separation, they add heresy to schism. To the Mayor proposition of this argument we answer, that the notes of the Church are of two sorts; either absolute, full, and perfect, generally differencing and distinguishing it from all other societies whatsoever; or only from some certain. Those notes, that absolutely, & generally distinguish the Church from all other societies and companies whatsoever, are so peculiar to the true Church, that they are not found any where else; but they which do distinguish it but only from certain, are proper only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and respectively, that is, so that they are not found in any of those things, from which they do distinguish it. Notes of the former sort are all those three things jointly concurring, whereof I spoke in the beginning, to wit, entire profession of saving truth, and right use of sacraments, and union under lawful Pastors. These jointly cannot be found among Pagans, jews, Heretics, Schismatics, nor any other seduced or misled people whatsoever. But the entire profession of saving truth singly and by itself, is a note distinguishing the Church from Infidels, & Heretics only, and so is not absolutely, but respectively proper to the true Church, so far forth that it is not found in any of these.  
Fourthly he reasoneth, that purity of profession can be no note of the Church, for that absolute purity is not necessarily required to the being of the Church; for that the Church may be without it: and that other purity free from essential and fundamental error, is no note, for that it doth not distinguish the Church from Heretics; For there have been, and may be Heretics, which err not in any matter directly fundamental. But who seeth not that he reasoneth sophistically, from an imperfect division of the purity of the Church's profession? For there are three sorts of it; the first absolute, and that is not necessarily required in the being of the Church; the second free from fundamental and essential error, and that is necessarily required in the Church, and company of right believers, but it is not peculiar to it; for it may be found among Heretics; and a third free from pertinacious error, and that is ever found in the true Church; and never among Heretics. It is this last kind of purity of profession, which we make a note of the Church.  
Lastly, he endeavoureth to improve the notes assigned by us, for that notes must not only be inseparable and peculiar, but they must be such as may not be challenged or pretended by any other. As if he should thus say, I may not direct my man to seek out one whom I desire to speak with, being in company with two or three more, by this note that he is the tallest man of the company, though evidently he be so; if any one of the rest foolishly imagine himself as tall or taller: Or by wearing a garment of some certain colour or die, because some one or other not exactly distinguishing the diversities of colours, may think himself to have the like. But, saith he, they must be so proper, that no other must pretend or challenge them with any probability. This likewise is false even in the notes which himself bringeth: for who knoweth not, that the Grecians & others pretend Antiquity, Succession, Universality, and the like, aswell as the Church of Rome, and that not without all probability? Thus we see how weakly this great Champion hath performed that which he undertook.   

CHAP. 4.  
Of Stapletons' reasons against our notes of the Church.  
LEt 
a Relect. con. 1. de Ecclesia in se q. 4. art. 5. refuta tio notarum in quibus haeretici convenire videntur.  us see if Stapleton quit himself any better. His first reason is taken from the uncertainty of our doctrine, in this sort: The doctrine of the Protestants is most uncertain, doubtful, and full of contradiction; therefore they do unadvisedly make truth of doctrine a note of the Church; for the notes of the Church must be constant and perpetual. The Antecedent of this Argument We reject as most false, and calumnious. For the whole course of our doctrine is most constant and certain, as shall appear by that which followeth. That which he allegeth that we agree not touching the nature, quality, and members of the Church, is sufficiently refuted by that which I have already delivered touching that matter in the former part.  
Secondly, he reasoneth from our confession; for, saith he, 
b Non dico ubicunque praedicatur verbum, illic fructum mox exoriri, sed nullibi recipi & statam habere sedem, nisi ut suam efficaciam proserat: utcunque ubi revetenter auditur Evangelij praedicatio, neque lacramenta negliguntur, illic pro illo tempore neque fa'lax, neque ambigua ecclesiae facies. Cal. instit. li. 4, c. 1. sect. 10. idem sentit Melancthon.  Calvin and Melancthon acknowledge these notes to be uncertain. This, who so taketh a view of the places cited by him, shall find to be most false. Calvine indeed saith, that not the bare preaching of the truth, but the receiving, embracing, and professing of it is necessary to the being of the Church; but touching the uncertainty of these notes he saith nothing. That which he objecteth, that we make the Church to be only the number of the elect, and that therefore it cannot be known by these notes, is answered in the refutation of Bellarmine's first reason.  
His third allegation is this: There are many that do truly pertain to the Church, to whom these notes agree not; therefore they are no notes of the Church. The Antecedent we deny. He proveth it out of our own doctrine. Many not yet called pertain to the Church; but these notes agree not to such; therefore there are many to whom these notes agree not, which yet pertain to the Church. To the mayor proposition we answer thus. Of them that pertain to the Church, there are two sorts; For some pertain to it actually, some potentially only, and according to the purpose of Gods will. To both these, these notes agree, but in different sort and manner; To them that are actually of the Church, they actually agree; For they do presently make profession of the truth of God, and join with the people in the use of holy Sacraments appointed by him: To them that potentially and according to the purpose of Gods will pertain to the Church, as do all the elect not yet outwardly called, these notes agree only potentially, and according to the purpose of God's will, for that in due time they shall come to the knowledge and profession of the truth, and use of those happy means of salvation, which others actually enjoy.  
His fourth objection, that the entire profession of the truth agreeth to schismatics, is answered already, being likewise objected by Bellarmine.  
Fiftly he reasoneth thus; The truth of heavenly doctrine and right use of Sacraments are no notes of the Church, because they do not show us which is the Church. We answer that they do: he proveth they do not, because the true Church is known of us before we can know any of these. This we deny; For we say a man must know which is true doctrine, and what is the right use of Sacraments, before he can know which is the true Church. This he thinketh impossible, because we seek to learn the truth, of the Church; and therefore we must in the beginning of our enquiry know, which is the true Church, and where assuredly truth is found, or else our whole search and enquiry is doubtful, uncertain, and often without success. For the clearing of this doubt, we must observe, that seeking is a motion of the mind, desiring to know where a thing is, or what it is, He that desireth to know where a thing is, either knoweth the place, within compass whereof he is sure it is, or else his search is doubtful, uncertain, and often in vain. What a thing is, we desire to know, either by our own discourse, or by the instructions or directions of another: He that seeketh after a thing, desiring to know it by the directions of another, either knoweth not particularly and certainly of whom to inquire, with assurance that from him he shall receive satisfaction, and this kind of search and enquiry is always doubtful, and often without success; Or else he knoweth particularly of whom to inquire with assurance of resolution and satisfaction. Now if we apply this which hath been said, to that which Stapleton allegeth, we shall easily answer his objection. For when Infidels, and men wholly ignorant of the truth of God, begin first to seek it, they do not know certainly where they may find it; and being left to themselves, would often seek in vain, as he saith but being directed by divine providence, and the help of others, to the true Church which they know not, and being taught by her, they are established in the persuasion of the truth taught by her, in such sort, as they make no doubt of it; and are farther resolved that that must needs be the Church of God, and company of them whom he loveth, where these truths are in such sort known and taught, as they find them to be there. It is therefore untrue that Stapleton saith, that the Church is better and sooner known then the doctrine of it. For the doctrine is in some sort known, before we can know the Church that teacheth us. For even as a man wholly ignorant, and knowing none of the precepts and principles of Geometry, cannot possibly know who is learned in that kind of knowledge, but either casually, or by direction of others meeting with one excelling therein, learneth of him, & then by that which he hath learned of him, knoweth him to be a skilful professor thereof, and ever after resorts unto him, if in any thing he be doubtful, with assurance of satisfaction; whose perfections when he began to learn, he knew not, but either casually met with him, or by the directions of others, and not of his own choice: So we know not the Church, what it is, which it is, nor how excellent it is, till we have learned some part of the doctrine it teacheth, and are directed to it without any certainty of our own knowledge; but being once established in the certainty of the truth of the things she teacheth, we thereby know her to be the Church of God, beloved of him, led into all truth by him, and appointed a faithful witness, and skilful mistress of heavenly truth; and then in all our doubts and uncertainties, we ever after resort unto her, with full assurance of satisfaction and resolution. Thus than we see, how both the Church showeth us the truth of heavenly doctrine, and that again the Church; but in different sort: the Church doctrinally proposing to us what we must embrace and believe; and the doctrine of the truth believed and embraced by us, really demonstrating to us that to be the Church, in which so precious & saving truths are taught and professed: and that the first repair and resort of Infidels, to the Church, proceedeth from the direction of others, or some thing which they see, that maketh them inquire farther after her; but not from their own knowledge of her infallibility, and the precious treasures ●…f heavenly truth which she possesseth, as Stapleton vainly fancieth.  
In his sixth objection first he saith; Truth of doctrine and right use of sacraments are things without which the Church is not entire and full: contrary to Bellarmine, who therefore excludeth them from being notes, because they are separable & the Church may be without them. Secondly, in the same place he saith, that these things do depend of the Church, flow from it, and are in order of nature after the being of it, not giving being to it, or concurring in the constitution of it; & therefore cannot be notes; ᶜ but elsewhere he saith the things that give being to the 
a Eadem cont. q. 4. art. 5. notabili, 3.  Church, are the same with the Church; and so cannot be more evident, nor easy to be known then the Church itself. Thirdly, in his seaventh reason he saith; These are the notes whereby wise and spiritual men do know the Church: and again in his ninth: That to demonstrate the Church by these notes, is demonstrare idem per idem, to demonstrate the same by the same. For, saith he, when we ask which is that society that holdeth the true profession, &c. and they that assign these notes, answer, it is that which holdeth the true profession, etc. If this man beenot possessed with a spirit of giddiness, saying, and unsaying; affirming, denying the same things in the very same page, and so indeed saying he knoweth not what, let the Reader, how partial so ever he be, judge.  
To that which he addeth, that faith is known from infidelity, religion from superstition, a believer from an infidel, and a Catholic from an heretic, by true doctrine and right use of sacraments, that they are essential to them and give them their being, but that the whole collected multitude of right believers, must be known by those things which are proper and essential to such an united multitude, as universality and the like: We say, that there is nothing, besides sincerity of profession & right use of Sacraments, essential to the Church as a collected multitude, but only order and orderly connexion or union of men concurring in these, while some authorised there unto do teach, direct, and command, others obey; which if we add to the former two, we shall find all and only those notes which we assign. Neither are sincere profession, and right use of Sacraments so essential to believing and catholic men, that they do sufficiently distinguish them from schismatics, unless this be added, that they hold the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace: so that as they do not sufficiently distinguish the whole body of the Church from the Conventicles of schismatics, unless an orderly connexion of men concurring in them be added; which orderly union or connexion is essential to the Church as a collected multitude; so do they not a catholic from a schismatic: but on the other side, who is so foolish as to deny, that the profession of truth and right use of Sacraments are essential to the whole body of the Church? seeing, as Stapleton himself saith, 
d Cont. 1. de ecclesia in se. q. 3. art. 6. expo. art. notabili 3.  Recta fides est anima ecclesiae, Right faith is the very life and soul of the Church; which is nothing else but an orderly multitude of right believers, and is collected and gathered in the true faith of Christ, and hope of eternal happiness: which as it cannot be known and discerned from the Conventicles of schismatics, by right faith and due use of Sacraments only, without the addition of orderly connexion, so likewise on the contrary side, it cannot be known without these, and therefore of necessity they must be notes, though not sole and only notes.  
In the seaventh there is nothing but that which refuteth that himself else where saith, or is refuted by him. For when he saith that wise men do know & discern the Church by the notes assigned by us, he doth acknowledge that they do demonstrate the Church in the perfectest sort that may be; which in his ninth he denieth, saying that to demonstrate the Church by them, is to demonstrate the same by the same: and in his eight maketh it savour of heresy at least, to think to find out the true Church by them. Whereas in the same place he appropriateth these notes only to the wiser sort of men, as not being within the compass of ignorant men's conceit. Surely those which he assigneth are less obvious to the knowledge of the vulgar sort than these, as shall appear in that which followeth.  
His eight reason, that the notes of the Church must be such as may not be challenged or pretended by the heretics, is answered already in the refutation of the reasons brought by Bellarmine. That which he addeth concerning their notes, of Antiquity, Unity, Succession, and Universality, that they are so clearly proper and peculiar to the Church of Rome, that we do not deny them to agree to it, but deny them to be notes of the true Church; is wholly false. For we peremptorily deny any of these notes to agree to the Romish Church; and with such explication, as they (forced with our arguments) now make of them, we most willingly admit them, and will prove, that they differ not really from them assigned by us.  
His ninth, that the notes assigned by us are no notes of the Church, because to demonstrate the Church by them, is to demonstrate the same by the same, (for that when we ask which is the true Church, we ask which is the Church that holdeth the true profession and right use of the Sacraments;) is a mere sophistical cavillation. For the better manifestation whereof, we must observe, that he that seeketh to find out the true Church, at the first is wholly ignorant of whatsoever pertaineth to the nature and being of it, as Insidels that know not what the very name of the Church importeth; and then surely the first thing, that he, who is thus wholly ignorant, enquireth after, is not, which is that society that holdeth the profession of saving truth, as STAPLETON saith; (For, he knoweth not, that there is any such profession, or society so professing;) But about the signification of the word, and meaning of the name of the Church: whom we satisfy, if we say no more, but that it is a society or company of men, called by the working of grace to the hope of eternal happiness. But if, when he knoweth thus much, and is not ignorant what the word importeth, he do farther desire to know which among all the societies of men in the world it is, that hath this happy and precious hope; We satisfy him by showing him, what things are so peculiar and proper to it, that wheresoever he findeth them, he may assure himself, that that company and society of men hath the assured hope of eternal happiness, and is the true Church of God; as namely, the entire profession of revealed truth, according to the rule of faith left by Christ, and the right and due use of Sacraments, under lawful pastors and guides appointed to conduct the sons of God, in the ways of their eternal bliss and happiness. Now when he knoweth the entire profession of saving truth &c. to be proper and peculiar to the true Church, if yet still he know not truth from error, and the right use of Sacraments from the profanation of them, and therefore ask of us in the third place which is the true profession, & which is the multitude that hath it, we will not tell him, as Stapleton vainly fancieth, that it is that which holdeth and embraceth the truth; but we will show him how to know truth from falsehood; that so, wheresoever he findeth it professed and taught, he may know that society that so professeth, as he now knoweth the truth in Christ to be, is the true Church of God. Even as, if one ask of us, how he may know such a noble man's servants in the Prince's Court, we satisfy him, if we tell him they are clothed with scarlet, if none other but they only be so clothed; But if he know not scarlet, and so ask of us in the second place, which is scarlet, and who they are that wear it, we will not tell him, they that wear it, but show him how he may know it, that so, when he seeth it, he may assure himself he hath found the men he enquired after.   

CHAP. 5.  
Of their notes of the Church, and first of antiquity.  
THus having answered the reasons brought by our adversaries against the notes of the Church assigned by us, let us proceed to take a view of such as are allowed by them, and see if they be not the very same in substance with ours. The 
a Bellar. 1. tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. & alij.  notes that they propose unto us, are Antiquity, Succession, Unity, Universality, and the very name and title of Catholic, expressing the Universality. Antiquity is of two sorts; primary, and secondary. Primary is proper unto God, who is eternal, whose being is from everlasting, who is absolutely the first, before whom nothing was, & from whom all things receive being, when as before they were not. This kind of antiquity is a most certain proof, and demonstration of truth and goodness. Of this they speak not, who make Antiquity a note of the Church. Wherefore letting this pass, let us come to the other; which for distinction sake, we name secondary Antiquity. This is of two sorts; The first we attribute to all those things, which began to be long ago, and since whose first beginning there hath been a long tract of time. This is no note, or proof of truth or goodness: For the devil was both a liar, & a murderer long ago, even immediately after the beginning. And there are many errors, and superstitions which began long since, yea before the name of Christians was once named in the world, and sundry heresies, that were coaetaneall and as ancient as the Apostles times, and that began before the most famous Churches in the world were planted. This kind of Antiquity it is, that Cyprian speaketh of; 
b Epist. 63.  Non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos fecerit, aut faciendum putaverit; sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed dei veritatem. Et 
c Ep. ad Quint. 7.  alibi; Non est de consuetudine praescribendum, sed ratione vincendum. 
d Epist. 74.  Et ad Pompeium; Consuetudo sine veritate, vetustas erroris est. We must not regard what any other did before us, or thought fit to be done, but what Christ did, who was before all. Neither must we follow the customs of men, but the truth of God. And in another place; We must not prescribe upon custom, but persuade by reason. And writing to Pompeius; Custom without truth, is nothing else but inveterate error. There is therefore another kind of Antiquity, which is not long continuance, or the being before many other, but the prime, first, and original being of each thing: this is a sure proof of goodness, and perfection. For all defects, found in things, are swervings, deelining, and departures from their original, and first estate. For truth is before falsehood, and good before evil, and the habit before privation. Veritas, saith Tertullian, in omnibus imaginem antecedit, 
e In his book of prescript against haretickes. Contra Praxean; id verum quodcunque primum: id adulterum quodeunque posterius.  postremò similitudo succedit. The truth is before any counterfeit, similitude, on representation; the truth is first, and then afterwards there are imitations. That therefore that is first in any kind, or sort of things, is truest and best: and consequently, that Church that hath prime and absolute Antiquity, is undoubtedly the true Church.  
This Antiquity, a Church may be said to have, three ways, either only because the first constitution of it was most ancient, as taking beginning from the first publishers of heavenly knowledge, the Apostles of Christ, the immediate, indubitate, and prime witnesses of the truth of God, whatsoever her declinings have been since; Or because as her first constitution was most ancient, in that she received the faith from the Apostles, or such as she knew undoubtedly to hold communion with them, so she is not since gone from it, in whole, or in part, but still hath the same being she first had: or thirdly, because the profession it holdeth is the same that was delivered by the prime, immediate, and indubitate witnesses, and publishers of the truth of God, though it began to be a Church but yesterday. The Antiquity of the first constitution of a Church is no sufficient proof, or note of the truth or soundness of it: Neither do they that plead most for Antiquity, think it a good proof for any company or society of Christians, to demonstrate themselves to be the true Church of God, because they have had the profession of Christianity ever since the Apostles times, by whose means they were first converted to the faith, & established in the profession of the same. For then the Church of Ephesus might at this day prove itself a true Church of God; yea many Churches in Aethiopia are yet remaining, which have continued in the profession of Christianity, ever since the Apostles times. But this is all they say, that if any Church founded by the Apostles, or their coadjutors, & left by them in the true profession, as were the Churches of Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, & the like, can demonstrate that they have not since departed from their first, and original estate, they thereby do prove themselves to be the true Churches of God. And if any other that began since, as innumerable did, can show that they have the faith first delivered to the Saints, they thereby prove themselves no less to be the true Church of God, than the former, which had their beginning from the Apostles themselves, and have continued in a state of Christianity ever since. Do we not see then, that it is truth of doctrine, whereby the Church is to be found out, even in the judgement of them that seem most to say the contrary? they admit no plea of Antiquity on the behalf of any Churches whatsoever, though established by the Apostles, unless they can prove that they have not left their first faith. So that this is still the trial, if they may be found to have the truth of profession, etc. Whereupon Stapleton saith, 
f Contr. 1. de Ecclesia q. 4. art. 1. exposit. art. notabili. 3.  Ad notam Antiquitatis sibi vendicandam, non satis est quòd aliqua societas sub titulo Ecclesiae diu perduraverit, aut prior extiterit, sed praetereà necesse est quòd sanam doctrinam semper, & prius retinuerit. Hoc autem contra veteres haereses, maximè ipsis Apostolis coetaneas, notandum est. It is not a sufficient reason, for a society of Christians, to challenge to itself the note of Antiquity, because it hath long continued, and been before others in the profession of Christianity; but besides it is required, that it have anciently, and ever holden the doctrine of truth: This is specially to be noted against old heresies, whereof some began in the Apostles times. 
g Ibidem in solutione argumentotum.  And he saith of the Churches of Greece, Aethiopia, and Armenia, that, though their Antiquity did reach as high as the Apostles times, yet notwithstanding propter doctrinae novitates postea inventas, veram antiquitatem non habent; because they have brought in new doctrine, they have no true Antiquity.   

CHAP. 6  
Of Succession.  
HItherto we have spoken of Antiquity, which they make the first note of the Church. It followeth in the next place that we speak of Succession. The ministry of pastors and teachers is absolutely, and essentially necessary to the being of the Church. For how should there be a Church gathered, guided, and governed without a ministry? Therefore the ministry of those whom God sanctified to himself, to teach, instruct and govern his people, is an essential mark and note of the Church, as we have already showed. Now because the Church is not to last only for some short time, & so to cease, but to continue to the end of the world, this ministry must continue likewise; which because it cannot continue in the same persons (all being subject to death) it is necessary, that when some fail, others possess the places they formerly held, which is to Succeed, Neither is this Succeeding of one into the place of another, necessary, only by reason of that failing which is by death, but because the places of sacred ministry must not be unfurnished; if either the wickedness of them that are in place, cast them out, or their weakness cause a voluntary relinquishment of their office, and standing, others must succeed. Lawful and holy ministry therefore is an inseparable, and perpetual note of a true Church; for no Church can be without it; but Succession not so; For the Churches in the first establishment in the Apostles time had it not, and many Churches, which in sundry ages since have been founded, had none, their Bishops being the first, and succeeding none, in those episcopal chairs wherein they sat. If therefore we should cavil against them as they do against us, we might deny Succession to be a note of the Church, because there have been, and may be true Churches without it; as all at the first in the beginning of Christianity, and all others since newly founded, in their first beginnings. But because we know they make not Succession of pastors and Bishops a note of the Church absolutely considered, but of that which being formerly established, is still to be continued, by multitudes of men and people continually succeeding, and coming into the places of others that went before them, in the same profession of Christianity; Let us see whether Succession of Bishops, and pastors may truly be said to be a note of the Church.  
Absolutely and without limitation, doubtless it is not: For there may be a continued Succession of Bishops, where there is no true Church, as at this day amongst the Grecians, Armenians, and Aethiopians, which yet are not the true Churches of GOD, in the opinion of them that plead for succession. 
a Bellar. 1. tom. cont. 4. l. 4. c. 8. Ecclesia Constantinopolitana habet sucessionem à tempore Constantini, sed argumentum à successione aftertur ad probandum non esse ecclesiam ubi non est &c.  Bellarmine therefore saith, that Succession is inseparable, so that there can be no Church without it; but that it is not proper, so that wheresoever it is found, we may assure ourselves that there is the Church; so forgetting himself, who requireth in the notes that they be proper, and rejecteth our note of purity of doctrine free from pertinacious error, because it may be found among schismatics, though it be inseparable, and the true Church cannot be without it.  

b Contr. de Ecclesia in se. q. 4. art. 2. expos. art. notabili. 5.  But Stapleton, handleth this point of Succession much better. For he saith, that Succession is an inseparable, and proper note of the true Church: but not every Succession, but that which is true, and lawful. Let us therefore see what he requireth to make a true and lawful Succession. First, there must be a place void, by resignation, deprivation, or death; 
c Neque qui per vim irrupit successor haben dus est, sed qui vim perpes. sus: nec qui contratiam sententiam tuetur, sed qui eâdem fide praeditus est, nisi quis fortassis ita successorem dicat, quemadmodum morbum sanitati, tenebras luci, tempestatem tranquillati, dementiam prudentiae succedere dicimus. Nazianz. in laudem Athanasijs.  Secondly, they that succeed must have election, and ordination from them to whom it appertaineth to elect, and ordain, Thirdly, they must not depart from the faith that was formerly holden, by them that went before, unless any of them did first decline, and go aside from the way of the first, and most ancient, that held those places before: and therefore in the catalogue of Bishop's succeeding one another in each several See, wheresoever any first began to teach any new and strange doctrine, different from that which was formerly delivered, the thread and line of succession was by him either wholly broken, or somewhat endangered, according to the quality of the error and the manner of defending, and maintaining the same. So that this is all which Stapleton saith, that wheresoever we find a Church once established, under a lawful ministry, in the undoubted profession of the truth, if afterwards there be a Succession of Pastors and Bishops in the same place, and that none of them depart from the faith of the former, that so it may be evident, that what faith was first holden, is still holden by them that presently are in place, there we may assure ourselves to find the true Church.  
Thus still we see, that truth of doctrine, is a necessary note whereby the Church must be known and discerned, and not ministry, or Succession, or any thing else without it.  
But, saith he, the people must not judge, which is true doctrine and which is false, by the particular consideration of the things themselves, but only by the newness, strangeness, contrariety it hath with that which they have learned of their pastors, guides, & forefathers. He alloweth then a kind of judgement to the vulgar sort, who must discern which is the true doctrine & which is the false, though not by particular consideration of the things themselves that are taught, yet by the newness & strangeness of them. Touching the judgement the people of God ought to have of the doctrine of Christianity, I will speak when I come to the fourth part of my first and general division. In the mean while it sufficeth, that not bare & naked Succession, but true, & lawful, wherein no new, or strange doctrine is brought into the Church, but the ancient religiously preserved, is a mark, note, or character of the true Church.   

CHAP. 7.  
Of the third note assigned by them, which is Unity.  
THe third note of the Church assigned by them is Unity. There are many sorts & degrees of Unity found in the Church: The first, in respect of the same beginning, and original cause, which is GOD that hath called us to the fellowship of his Son, and to the hope of eternal life. 
a vers. 44.  10. 6. No man cometh unto me, unless my father draw him. The 2d, in respect of the same last end, whereunto all they that are of the Church do tend, signified by that penny given to every one of the labourers. 
b Math. 20. 8. 9 10.  Matth. 20. The third is in respect of the same means of salvation, as are faith, sacraments, holy laws, and precepts, according to that 
c Eph. 4. 5.  Ephesians 4. One faith, one Baptism, etc. The fourth, in respect of the same spirit, which doth animate the whole body of the Church: There are diversities of graces, but the same spirit. 
d 1. Cor. 12. 4.  1. Cor. 12. The fifth, in respect of the same head Christ, and guides appointed by him; who, though they are many, yet are all holden in a sweet coherence and connexion amongst themselves, as if there were but one episcopal chair and office in the world. Which Unity of Pastors and Bishops, though they be many, and joined in equal commission, without dependence one of another, Christ signified by directing his words specially to Peter, Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, as 
e Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae.  Cyprian most aptly noteth. The sixth is in respect of the connexion, which all they of the Church have amongst themselves, and with Christ, and those whom he hath appointed in his stead to take care of their souls. 
f Rom. 12. 5.  Rom. 12. We are one body, and members one of another. These being the diverse kinds, and sorts of Unity in the Church, let us see what Unity it is, which they make a note of the Church. The Unity which they make a note of the Church is, first, in respect of the rule of faith, and use of the sacraments of salvation; secondly, in respect of the coherence and connexion of the Pastors and Bishops amongst themselves; thirdly, in the due and submissive obedience of the people to their Pastors.  
This is it then which they say, that wheresoever any company, and society of Christians is found in orderly subjection to their lawful Pastors not erring from the rule of faith, nor schismatically rend from the other parts of the Christian world, by factious, causeless and impious division, that society of men is (undoubtedly) the true, and not offending Church of God. This note thus delivered, is the very same with those assigned by us. But if any of them shall imagine that any Unity, and agreement whatsoever of Christian people amongst themselves, doth prove them to be the Church of God, we utterly deny it. For the Armenians, Aethiopians, and Christians of Muscovia, and Russia, have every of them an agreement amongst themselves, though divided each from other, more perfect than they of the Church of Rome have; which yet in the judgement of the Romanists, are not the true Churches of God.   

CHAP. 8.  
Of Universality.  
THe next note assigned by them is Universality. Concerning Universality, 
a 1. Tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. c. 7.  Bellarmine observeth three things: First, that to the Universality of the Church is required, that it exclude no times, places, nor sorts of men; in which consideration the Christian Church differeth from the Synagogue, which was a particular Church tied to one time, being to continue but to the coming of Christ; to a certain place, to wit, the Temple at Jerusalem, out of which they could not sacrifice; and to one family, the sons of jacob. Secondly, he noteth out of Augustine, that to the Universality of the Christian Church it is not required, that all the men of the world should be of the Church, but that at the least there should be some, in all provinces of the world, that should give their names to Christ. For till this be performed, the day of the Lord shall not come, 
b Math. 24. 14.  Mat. 24. Thirdly, he noteth out of Dried●…, in his fourth book, chap. 2. part. 2. de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, that it is not required, that this should be all at once, so that at one time necessarily there must be some Christians in all places of the world; For it is enough, if it be successively. Whence, saith he, it followeth, that though but only one Province of the world, should retain the true faith, it might truly and properly be named the Catholic Church, if it could clearly demonstrate itself, to be one with the Church and company of believers; which if not at one time, yet at diverse times hath filled the whole world. This it cannot demonstrate, but by making it appear, that it hath neither brought in any new, and strange doctrine in matter of faith, nor schismatically rend itself from the rest of the christian world.  
This note of Universality, thus understood, we willingly admit: For it is the same with those we assign. For we say, what Church soever can prove itself to hold the faith once delivered to the saints, and generally published to the world, without heretical innovation, or schismatical violation, and breach of the peace, and unity of the Christian world, is undoubtedly the true Church of God. But out of this which Bellarmine hath thus truly, wisely, & fitly observed touching Universality, we may deduce many corollaries of great consequence in this controversy touching the Church.  
The first, that it may be the true and Catholic Church, which neither presently is, nor ever hereafter shall be, in all or the most parts of the world, if it can continuate itself, and prove itself one, with that Church which formerly at some time or times, hath been in the most parts thereof. From whence it is easy to discern the vanity of that their silly objection against us, who say our Church began not at Jerusalem, in the feast of Pentecost, but at Wittenberg, or Geneva, in this last age of the world; & that it is not likely, beginning so late, that ever it will so far enlarge itself, as to fill all the whole world, & so become Catholic, or Universal. For we do not imagine, that the Church began at Wittenberg, or Geneva, but that in these and sundry other places of the Christian world, it pleased God to use the ministry of his worthy servants, for the necessary reformation of abuses in some parts of that Catholic Church, which beginning at Jerusalem, spread itself into all the world, though not at all times, nor all places, in like degree of purity, and sincerity. So that, though the reformed Churches neither presently be, nor perhaps hereafter shall be, in all, or the most parts of the world, yet are they catholic, for that they do continuate themselves with that Church, which hath been, is, or shall be, in all places of the world, before the coming of Christ, and undoubtedly already hath been in the most parts thereof. The second, that the true Church is not necessarily always of greater extent, nor the multitude of them that are of it greater, than of any one company of Heretics, or misbelievers. The third, that the true Church cannot be at all times infallibly known from the factions of heretics, by multitude, and largeness of extent. The fourth, that this contrarieth not the sayings of 
c Aug. psal. 101. conc. 2. reprehendit Donatistas dicentes ecclesiam in sola Africa remansisse. hunc locum Augustini explicat Bellarminus loco superius notato.  Augustine, and others of the Fathers, who urge the ample extent of the Church as a proof of the truth thereof; For that they lived and wrote in those times, when the Church was in her growth, and we are fallen into the last and worst times, wherein she is in her declining.   

CHAP. 9  
Of the name and title of Catholic.  
THe 
a Bell. 1. Tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 4.  fifth note assigned by them is the name and title of Catholic; which they say, is an undoubted proof of the true Catholic Church wheresoever it is found. And because our adversaries do not more insolently boast, and glory of any thing, than of the bare and empty name, and title of Catholic; I will therefore make it evident to all them, that know their right hand from their left, that howsoever it was in the days of the fathers, it is not now proper to the true Church, but common to schismatics, and Heretics; and therefore, that it cannot now serve as a mark or note distinctive, whereby the true Church may be known from misbelievers. This therefore is to be reckoned amongst those things that are proper and peculiar to the true Church, but not perpetually proper; and so amongst those notes that may difference the true Church from the false, at some times and not at others.  
The title of Catholic doth most fitly express those, both Christian men and societies of Christians, which hold the common faith, without particular divisions from the main body of Christianity. While therefore there was but the main body of Christianity at unity in itself, and such portions of seduced and misled people, as apparently divided themselves from it, the name of a Catholic was a note and distinctive mark, or character to know and discern a Catholic from an Heretic, or Schismatic by, and the naming after the name of any man, a note of particularity, and heretical or Schismatical faction. Whereupon 
b Paclanus in epist. ad sempronianum citatur à Bellar. loco superius notato.  one of the ancient said fitly to this purpose, Christian is my name, and Catholic is my surname: by the one I am known from Infidels, by the other from Heretics and schismatics. But when the main body of the Christian Church divided itself, partly by reason of different ceremonies, uses, customs, and observations; partly through the ambitious strive of the Bishops, and Prelates of the greatest, richest, and most respected places; partly by occasion of some different opinions; the name of Catholic remained common to either of the parts thus divided, sundered, and rend one from another, though on the one side rested not only error, but heresy also in the opinion of the other. For who knoweth not, that the Christians of the Greek, and oriental Church, are and have been as generally named Catholics, as the friends and followers of the Western or Latin Church? Neither have they any name, or note of faction, as all ancient Heretics had, but as in former times before this schism began, for distinction sake the whole Christian Church was divided into two moities, the one called the Occidental, or Latin: and the other the oriental, or Greek Church: so are they by the same notes of difference and no other known at this day. Yet are the Grecians, Armenians, Aethiopians, and other in the East parts of the world, in the judgement of the Romanists, not only schismatics, but Heretics also.  
It 
c 1. Tom. cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 4.  was therefore more than ordinary impudency in Bellarmine to affirm, that the name of a Catholic is a note of true Catholic profession, when he knew it to be common to such as himself pronounceth Heretics. And it is yet more intolerable that he saith, there is no heresy which receiveth not her name from some particular man the author and beginner of it: and that whosoever are named after the names of men are undoubtedly Heretics. For of what man had the Apostolici their name, whose author and first beginner was never known, (as 
d Ceterae huiusmodi pestes singulae singulos magistros, homines habuisae noscuntur, à quibus originem duxere, & nomen: quo nomine isto●… tituloque censebis? nullo; quoniam non ab homine illorum haereles etc. Bernard●… cantica ser. 66.  Bernard saith) that we might assure ourselves the Devil was author of that damnable Sect? and who dare pronounce all the Thomists, Scotists, Benedictines, and the like, to be Heretics? That we may therefore make his folly to appear in that he saith concerning Heretics, and the naming after the names of men, as we did in the former part, touching the name and title of Catholic, we must observe, that Heretics sometimes have their names from the matter wherein they err, as the Monothelites in old time, and the Anabptists in ours; the first affirming, that there is but one will in Christ, whence they were named Monothelites; the other urging rebaptisation of such as are baptised by Heretics, whence they are named Anabaptists, that is, rebaptizers: sometimes of that they arrogantly challenge to themselves and make pretence of, 
e Nempe iactant se esse Apostolorum, successores, & Apostolicos nominant, ●…lum tamen Aposto●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 valentes, ostendere. Ber. in Cant. serm. 66.  as the Apostolici, for that they challenged to themselves more than ordinary perfection, as equalling the Apostles, or coming nearer to their examples, and precedents, than other men: sometimes of the place where they began and most prevailed, as the Cataphriges: sometimes of the first author of their heresy, as Maronites, Donatists, and the like. Thus than we see all Heretics have not their names from men.  
But they will say, they were all Heretics that were named after the names of men. Surely it is not to be denied but that the naming after the names of men was in the time of the Primitive Church, peculiar and proper to Heretics and schismatics only.  
Neither were there any Christians in the first ages of the Church called after the names of men, but such as followed wicked seducers in Schism, or Heresy: whereupon it was a sure rule in ancient times, that whosoever professing themselues Christians, were named after the names of men (as Novatians of Novatus, Pelagians of Pelagius) they were to be holden for Heretics. This rule is delivered by Hierom, against the 
f Contra Luciferianos prope finem.  Luciferians. sicubi etc. If any where thou find men professing Christianity, called after the particular names of men, know them to be the Synagogue of Antichrist, and not the Church of Christ. But as the honourable title of Catholic, sometimes a note of the true and Orthodox Church, is now ceased to be so; in like sort the naming after the names of men, sometimes a note of Heresy, is now ceased to be so: which to be most true the sundry, manifold and diverse names of Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictins, Augustinians, Thomists, Scotists, and the like, do make it most apparent. And besides this, there are at this day innumerable Christians in the East parts of the world, that are 
g Onuphrius in supplemento Platinae in vita julij. 3.  called Nestorians, that hold not the Heresy of Nestorius, nor any other special Heresy, whence they might have any such name of division, faction, or particularity.  
For the better clearing of whatsoever may seem doubtful in this matter of names, titles, and appellations, we must observe, that they, which profess the faith of Christ, have been sometimes in these later ages of the Church, called after the special names of such men, as were the Authors, devisers, and beginners of such courses of monastical profession, as they made choice of to follow, as Benedictins, and the like; sometimes of such principal men, whose judgement and opinion they embraced, and followed, in sundry matters of great moment in the controversies of religion, not yet determined by consent of the whole universal Church; and so in our times amongst the school Divines, some following Thomas, and others Scotus, in many and sundry main contradictory opinions, some were named Thomists, others Scotists; sometimes of such men, whose new, strange, and private opinions contrary to the Church's faith, they pertinaciously embraced and followed, as Arrians, of Arrius, Eutichians, of Eutiches: yea, sometimes of some archhereticke, whose opinions & heresies they hold not, as at this day the greater part of Christians that are in Assyria, Persia, and the rest of the Eastern provinces, are called 
h Onuphrius in vita iulij. 3.  Nestorians, by all other Christians in those parts, as the jacobites, Maronites, Cophtis, & the like; yet do they hold nothing that savoureth of Nestorius' heresy, as Onuphrius reporteth in the life of julius the third, in whose time sundry of them came to Rome.  
These in likelihood are called Nestorians, for that in former times the heresy of Nestorius prevailed much in those parts of the world: which now being clearly banished, the right believing Christians of those parts are still notwithstanding called by that odious and hateful name: or else it is by wrong and unjust imputation; as the Armenians are judged by many to be Eutichians, for that they receive not the council of Chalcedon 
i In Concilio Florentino in decreto Eugenij 4.  which they refused to subscribe unto, upon a false suggestion and apprehension, that in it the heresy of Nestorius condemned in the Council of Ephesus, was revived again: sometimes of such as collected, gathered, and brought into a certain Order, for the better direction of God's people in his service, the prayers of the Church, and forms of administering the sacraments, and other holy things, or else augmented, altered, or reform those that were before; So when there grew a division among the Churches of this part of the world, some following the form of Divine administration left by Ambrose, others embracing that prescribed by Gregory, some were called 
k In Ecclesia Gregorianâ est haec forma, per istam sanctam unctionem etc. in Ambrosianâ est haec, ungo te etc. Bonavent. lib. 4. dist 23. q. 4. de sacramento unctionis, Cassandet in praefat. in l. or d. Rom. Petrus Voraginisis in legenda Gregorij. 1.  Ambrosian, and some Gregorian Churches: as likewise in our times when Luther, Caluine, and other worthy servants of God had persuaded some states of Christendom to reform, correct, and alter some things that were amiss, and to remove and take away sundry barbarismes, errors, and superstitions crept into the prayers of the Church, with many gross abuses, and grievous abominations formerly tolerated in the midst of the Church of God; those States, people, and Churches, which reform themselves, abandoning superstition, and error, were by some called reform Churches; by other, Lutherane Churches. Neither was it possible, that so great an alteration, as the corrupt state of the Church required, should be effected, & not carry some remembrance of them by whom it was procured. We see the sincerity of our Christian profession concerning the Son of God, (whom we acknowledge coessential, coequal, and coeternal with the Father,) cleared, & published in the Nicen Council, was ever after, for distinction from the manifold turnings and windings of Heretics, endeavouring to obscure, corrupt, alter, & adulterate the same; called the Nicene faith.  
That the Church needed reformation when Luther began, and that it was not necessary, nor behooveful to expect the consent of the whole Christian world in a general Council, I will make it evident when I come to the third part of my first general division. In the mean while, it is most clear and evident, that the naming after the names of men is now no certain note of Heresy, or Schism. For if the naming after the names of men were a certain note of Heresy, or Schism, then should all orders of Monks and Friars, that are named after the names of their first authors, be proved Heretics: yea, the followers of Thomas, and Scotus, should be convinced of Heresy: and all the Christians that are named Nestorians, should be found Heretics; which they which know them best, do deny; yea then, all the Ambrosian and Gregorian Churches, must be charged with Heresy, and Schism.    

THE THIRD BOOK, OF THE TRUE CHURCH DEMONSTRATED BY THE NOTES BEFORE AGREED UPON.  

CHAP. 1.  
Of the division of the Christian world into the Western, or Latin Church, and the oriental, or East Church.  
THus then having sufficiently examined those things which concern the notes of the Church, so that it is evident to all not wilfully contentious, which are the true notes whereby the Church may be known: it remaineth, that by application of them we seek out, which among so many diversities, and contrarieties in matters of religion, as are at this day found in the World, is the true, and Orthodox Church of God. And because our controversies are not with jews, nor Pagan Infidels, as in the times of the fathers, but with such as together with us profess themselves Christians, letting pass all those notes which serve to prove the truth of Christian profession in general, against heathenish and jewish errors, let us come to take view of the diversities that are found among Christians, and, by the direction of the notes agreed upon, see which is the true Church of God.  
The Christian Church is divided at this day into the Western, or Latin Church, and the oriental or East Church. The oriental or East Church is divided, into the Greek Church, the Nestorian or Assyrian Churches, and the Churches of the supposed Monophysits, as the jacobites, Armenians, Cophtis or Christians of Egypt; the Aethiopians or Abissens, and the Maronites who are thought to be Monothelites. The Christians that are of the Greek religion are of two sorts. First such as presently are, or lately were, subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Secondly such as never were under that jurisdiction and yet are of the same Communion: as the Melchites of Syria, and the Georgians. Of the first sort are all the Christians of Anatolia except Armenia the lesser, and Cilicia; the Christians of Circassia and Mengrellia, and Russia, in Europe the Christians of Greece, Macedon, Epirus, Thrace, Bulgaria, Rascia, Servia, Bosina, Walachia, Moldavia, Podolia, and Moscovia, together with all the Lands of the Aegean sea as far as Corfu, besides a great part of the king of Polonia his dominions and those parts of Dalmatia, and Croatia that are under the Turk. The reason of this large extent of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople was. First the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, subjecting unto him all Thracia and Anatolia except Isauria and Cilicia belonging to Antioch, 28 Roman Provinces. Secondly the voluntary submission of the Grecians upon the separation of the Churches. For thereby not only Greece, Macedon, Epirus, Candie, and the Isles about Greece, in all about 7 Provinces came under him, but Sicily also, and Calabria fell from Rome, and for a long time were subject to the jurisdiction of Constantinople. Whereupon in 
a prope finem.  Curopalates the Metropolitans of Syracuse and Catana in Sicilia, of Rhegium, Severiana, Rosia and Hydruntum in Calabria are registered amongst the Metropolitans of that jurisdiction. Thirdly the conversion of sundry nations and people to the Christian faith by his suffragans and ministers wrought a great enlargement of his jurisdiction. The first of the Slavons, saith 
b Lib. 3. pa. 31.  Cromerus, that were converted to the faith, were those of Bulgaria, who became Christian the year 860 in the time of Nicholas the first. About these there was much contention a long time between Rome and Constantinople, either of them claiming jurisdiction over them as having won them to the true knowledge and worship of God. But in the end the Grecians prevailed, and they were wholly put under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. Some thirty years after these, they of Rascia, Servia, Bosina, Croatia, Dalmatia and Illiricum received the Christian faith from their neighbours the Grecians, and Italians, in the time of the reign of Suatoplugus amongst the Moravians, who gave his name to Christ, and was the means of the conversion of Borivoius Duke of the Bohemians about the year 900. Not long after the conversion of the Bohemians about 980 years after Christ in the time of the reign of Basilius and Constantine Emperors of Constantinople, the Russees began publicly to profess the Christian faith, Volodomirus their prince having married the Emperor's sister and received teachers from the Patriarch of Constantinople. This prince after he became a Christian, placed a Metropolitan at Kiovia, an Archbishop at Novograd, and in other city's Bishops consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Since which time the Russians adhere most constantly to the Greek religion, & rites. After this the Polomans possessed themselves of sundry parts of Russia, but the Russians not long enduring that subjection, cast off the yoke and became free again; yet continued not long so: for within short time after Russia in a great part became subject to the Lituanians partly by conquest, and partly by marriages, and from them was passed over again to the Polonians. For Ludovicus King of Hungary, and Poland, had two daughters, of which the younger named Heduigis succeeded him in the kingdom of Polonia, who was married to jagello prince of Lituania; and thereby all Lituania, and that part of Russia also that was subject to Lituania was joined to the kingdom of Polonia for ever. But the histories report that while the Russees were divided into many principalities, which fell out immediately after the death of Volodomirus, one john the son of Daniel, a prince amongst them, taking a good liking of the river, and tower of Mosqua repaired the tower before mean, and base; and made it the seat of his principality. So that the Russees subject to him were named Moscovites from the river and tower of Moscow. And when long after they of the posterity of john, having joined unto them partly by marriages, partly by fraud, partly by force such people of that nation and language as lay near unto them formerly weakened by the incursions of the Tartars and others, and so enlarged their principality. All such Russees as were joined to that empire, though much more noble and mighty than the Moscovites, were content to be named Moscovites, and yet still retained the name of Russees also, as the Podolians are Russees and yet have a peculiar name. These Moscovites by conquest obtained Novograde, and after that, those Russees that were called Severianenses fell from the subjection of the Lituanians to the Moscovites, either moved so to do by the injuries they had received from them as they pretended, or rather by reason of the difference in religion between them; and the good correspondence they held with the Muscovites in this respect, so that the principality of Moscow grew to be exceeding great. The Duke of Moscow growing thus great obtained of the Patriarch of Constantinople to have a metropolitan of Moscow, who was named Metropolitan of Russia, both by the Patriarch and others: aswell as the Bishop of Kiovia, who was long before so named and continueth yet still so to be. In that part of Russia that is subject to the King of Polonia there are seven Bishoprickes, whereof the Bishop of Kiovia is the Metropolitan. In the other which is subject to the great Duke of Moscow there are eleven Bishoprickes, whereof the Bishop of Moscow is Metropolitan, the Bishop of Novograde & Rascavium are Archbishops, the rest ordinary Bishops. All these as being at the first consecrated and placed by the Patriarch of Constantinople were under his jurisdiction. 4ᵒ The Turks conquests have been an occasion of the enlargement of the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction; for when sundry parts of the Christian world formerly subject to Rome were brought under the bondage of the Turks, the Bishops and Pastors like hirelings forsook their flocks, over which, the Patriarch of Constantinople pitying their case, placed Bishops and Pastors of the greek religion, who by little and little won them to the liking of the same. Thus we see how far the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction spreads itself, so that I think it will be found that the number of Christians under that Bishop with the Melchites and Georgians that are joined in communion with him, though never under his jurisdiction, doth far exceed them of the Roman communion, unless they draw in their new converts in the Indies to fill up the number. 
c Annotatio Onuphrij in vitam Bonifacij, apud Platinam.  The division & separation between the Greek & Latin Churches grew out of the ambitious contentions of the Bishop of Rome, & the Patriarch of Constantinople in this sort. In the time of the Nicen Council and before, as appear by the 
d Nicen. council. can. 6.  acts of the Council limiting their bounds, there were three principal Bishops or Patriarches of the Christian Church; namely, the Bishop of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. After which time, Constantinople before named Byzantium made great by Constantine, & being the seat of the Emperors, the Bishop of this See, not only obtained to have the dignity of a Patriarch among the rest, 
e Sub Theodosio seniore can. 3. & Socrates l. 5. cap. 8.  but in the second general Council holden at Constantinople was preferred before both the other of Alexandria and Antioch, & set in degree of honour next unto the Bishop of Rome. 
f Acts. 16. can. 28. in Graecis Codicibus.  In the great Council of Chalcedon, he was made equal with him, & to have all equal rights, privileges, & prerogatives, because he was Bishop of new Rome: as the other of old. But not long contenting himself with this equality; the magnificency, and glory of his City daily increasing, making him proud, and insolent, he challenged to be superior, and would be named universal B. not challenging to himself to be B. alone but encroaching upon the right of all other, 
g Caeterarum sedium privilegia, & earundé episcoporum consecrationem ad se unum revocare, eosque in ordinem cogere, & sibi subdere conatus, est. Leo epist. ad Anatolium; post consecrationem Antiocheni episcopi quam tibimet contra canonicam regnlam vindicasti etc. epist. 53.  & thereby declaring himself greater, and more honourable than any of the rest, and the chief Bishop of the whole world, because his city was the chief city of the world. 
h Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 76. 78. 82. lib. 6. epist. 168. 169.  About this, was the contention between Gregory the first, and john of Constantinople; which not being ended in the days of Gregory, because the Emperor Mauritius was averse from him, favouring the claim of his adversary, 
i Beda in lib. de temporum ratione. Platina in vita Bonifacij, 3.  Bonifacius obtained of Phocas to have the matter in such sort concluded between them, that the B. of Rome should have the first and chief place in the Church of God, and the Patriarch of Constantinople the second: which conclusion was not of such force, but that the succeeding Bishops of Constantinople continued the same challenge their predecessors made, & as any opportunity was offered, sought to advance their pretended title, till at length there growing some difference between them in the matter of the proceeding of the holy G, whom the Latins affirmed to proceed from the Father and the Son, the greeks from the Father only, either pronounced the other to be heretics & schismatics.  
Wherefore let us see what the religion of the Greek Church is, and whether these Christians be so far forth orthodox, that we may account them members of the true Catholic Church of God, or so in error, that we may reject them as schismatics & heretics, though in number never so many. 
k De consid. ad Eugenium, l 3. cap. 2.  Bernard speaking of them, saith, nobiscum sunt & non sunt, iuncti fide, pace divisi, quanquam & fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis. That is, they are with us and they are not with us, they are of the same profession with us touching matters of faith, but they hold not the unity of the spirit in the band of peace; although they have halted also, and in some sort declined from the strait paths in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. Touching the state of these Christians, the Romanists lay down these propositions. First, that there is a double separation from the Church of God, the one by heresy overthrowing the faith, the other by schism breaking the unity. The second, that schismatics, though they fall not into heresy, are out of the Church, cut off from being members of the same, and consequently in state of damnation. Believe certainly, and no way doubt, saith St 
l De fide ad Petrum, c. 38.  Augustine, that not only all Pagans, but all jews, heretics, & schismatics also, dying out of the communion of the Catholic Church, shall go into everlasting fire. The third, that the Grecians are Schismatically divided from the Roman Church, that they have long continued so, that they are excommunicate with the greater excommunication thundered out against all Schismatics in bulla coenae Domini, and consequently are in state of damnation. 
m Tho: à jesus l. 6. c. 8. p. 281.  But whether they be not only Schismatics but heretics also as some fear not to pronounce, they are not yet agreed. 
n Institut. moral. l. 8, c. 20. q. ●…0.  Azorius thinketh they are not to be censured as heretics, and yieldeth a reason of his so thinking: because in those articles of the faith where they are thought to err, they differ verbally only, and not really from those that are undoubtedly right believers; and giveth instance first in the question touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, wherein he thinketh they differ but in form of words from them that seem to be their opposites: and secondly, in the questions touching the Pope, his power, privileges, and authority, concerning all which he affirmeth, they have no other opinion than Gerson & the Parisians, who were never yet pronounced heretics, for they yield a primacy to the Bishop of Rome, but no supremacy. They acknowledge him to be Patriarch of the West amongst all the patriarchs in order & honour the first as long as he continueth orthodox, and seeketh not to encroach upon the jurisdiction of others. But they deny as also the Parisians do, that his judgement is infallible, or his power & authority supreme & absolute, they teach that he must do nothing of himself in things pertaining to the state of the universal Church, but with the concurrence of others his colleagues, and that he is subject to a general Council. All which things were defined in the Counsels of Constance and Basil, and the contrary positions condemned as haereticall. Neither want there at this day many worthy Divines living in the Communion of the Roman Church, who most strongly adhere to the decrees of those Counsels, and peremptorily reject those of Florence and Trent, wherein the contrary faction prevailed. For the whole kingdom and state of France admit those and reject the other, and would no less withdraw themselves from all communion with the Roman Bishop then the Grecians do if they should once be pressed to acknowledge that his power and authority is supreme and absolute, that he cannot err, and that he may dispose the kingdoms and depose the kings & sovereign princes of the world as the Jesuits and other the Pope's flatterers affirm, and defend. Whence it will follow that they are not only free from heresy, as Azorius resolveth but from schism also. So that after so great clamours, and so long contendings they must of necessity be forced in the end to confess, they have done them infinite wrong and sinned grievously against God in condemning to hell for no cause so many millions of Christian souls redeemed with the most precious blood of his dearest Son. There are, saith 
o De eccls lib. 4 cap. 2.  Andrea's Fricius, who think that the Russians, Armenians, and other Christians of the East part pertain not to the Christian Church; but seeing they use the same sacraments which we do, seeing they profess to fight under the banner of Christ crucified, and rejoice in their sufferings for his sake, far be it from us ever to think that they should be cast off and rejected from being fellow citizens with the Saints and of the household of God, having borne the burden, & endured the heat of the day, so many ages in the vineyard of the Lord. Nay rather I think there can be no perfect consociation & union of the whole Church without them. For the Latin Church alone cannot be taken for the universal Church, that which is but a part cannot be the whole. But some man happily will say, whatsoever we think of these differences touching the power & authority of the B. of Rome, yet in the article of the proceeding of the holy ghost they err damnably, & so are heretics, & that Azorius was deceived when he thought otherwise. Wherefore for the clearing of this point; first I will make it evident that not only Azorius but sundry other great and worthy Divines think the difference about the proceeding of the holy Ghost to be merely verbal. Secondly, I will show how the seeming differences touching this point may be reconciled. Thirdly, I will note the beginnings and proceedings in this controversy. The Grecians, saith 
p Lib. 1. d. 11.  Peter Lombard, affirm, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father only, & not from the Son, yet we must know that the greeks do acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the spirit of the Son, aswell as of the Father; because the Apostle saith, the spirit of the Son: And truth itself in the Gospel, the spirit 
Galat. 4.  of truth. Now seeing it is no other thing to be the spirit of the Father and the Son, then to be from the Father & the Son; they seem to agree with us in judgement touching this article of faith, though they differ in words. 
q In notula quadam super finem epistolae de trisagio apud Scotum l. 1. d. 11. q. 1.  Grosthed the famous and renowned Bishop of Lincoln, writing upon a part of Damascen, delivereth his opinion touching this controversy in these words. The Grecians are of opinion that the holy Ghost is the spirit of the Son, but that he proceedeth not from the Son but from the Father only, yet by the Son; and this opinion seemeth to be contrary to ours. For we say the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father & the Son. But happily if two wise and understanding men, the one of the Greek Church, the other of the Latin, both true lovers of the truth, and not of their own sayings, because they are their own, might meet to consider of this seeming contrariety, it would in the end appear that this difference indeed, and in truth is not real, but verbal only. For otherwise either the Grecians, or we that are of the Latin Church are truly Heretics. But who dares charge this Author john Damascen, or those blessed ones Basil, Gregory the Divine, or Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril, and other Greek Fathers of like esteem with heresy. And again on the other side, who dares brand blessed Hierome, Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, and other like Latin Fathers with the note of heresy. Therefore it is likely that though there be contrariety in the words of these fathers, so that they seem to be contrary one to another; yet in judgement & meaning they agree. 
r De Ecclesia l. 4. cap. 2.  Stanislaus, Orichovius, as Andrea's Fricius reporteth, a man renowned for wit, eloquence, & profound science in divers kinds, hath written of the opinions of the Russians, and in an epistle to Peter Gamrat an Archbishop in Polonia, he showeth how the differences touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, where they seem especially to be contrary unto us, may be agreed and composed. 
s Lib. 6. p. 24●…  Thomas à jesus resolveth clearly that this question touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost is only de modo loquendi, and that the difference is not real, which he showeth to be true in this sort. The greeks, who deny the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son, acknowledge that he is the spirit of the Son, and that he is given unto us by the Son. We do not say, saith Damascen, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, but we name him the spirit of the Son. If any man, saith the Apostle, have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And we affirm, that he appeared by the Son, & was given unto us by him, for he breathed upon his disciples, & said unto them, receive the holy Ghost, but we never say that the Son is the son of the holy Ghost, or proceedeth from him. They teach therefore, that the spirit is, & proceedeth from the Father by the Son: as the brightness is from the Sun, by the beam. And that, as we may say, the brightness is the brightness of the Sunbeam, aswell as of the Sun, but not that the beam is the beam of that brightness: so the spirit is the spirit of the Son, but the Son is not the son of the spirit, So then they say, the holy Ghost proceedeth or receiveth essence & being from the Father only, as from the original & fountain, but by the Son as a middle person in order of subsistence between them, receiving being immediately from the Father, & so mediately deriving & communicating it to him. Neither greeks nor Latines therefore deny the holy Ghost to receive being & essence from the Son, and consequently to proceed from him as from a middle person in order of subsistence between the Father & him in such sort, as the brightness that floweth from the sun is from the sunbeam between the sun and it. Neither of them deny the Father to be the fountain, and the original: as the sun is the fountain whence floweth both the beam, & brightness of light. And both agree that the Father from whom, & the Son by whom the spirit receiveth being, are one cause, or one beginning: and that by one eternal breathing the spirit receiveth essence or subsistence from them both, in such sort as the son and beam are one cause, and do by one action send forth that shining brightness that floweth from them. By that which hath been spoken saith Thomas à jesus, it is easy to understand that those greeks which seem to differ from the Latins, differ but in words only, and that the Churches may easily be brought to a reconciliation and agreement, if they will but endeavour to understand each the other: But the Latins and those greeks that agree with them speak more fitly, & express the thing whereof they speak better than the other. Howsoever it is certain that some of the Fathers expressed that they conceived of this mystery in one sort, and some in another. 
t Contr. Praxeam.  Tertullian saith, the holy spirit is from the Father by the Son; his words are, Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium. 
u Lib. 2. de trinitate.  Hilary saith, he is from the Father and the Son. His words are de patre & filio authoribus confitendus est, etc. When the holy spirit is 
x In epist. ad Hedibiam.  sent, saith Hierom, he is sent of the Father, and the Son; and in Scripture he is called sometimes the spirit of the Father, sometimes of the Son. And 
y Esai. 〈◊〉. 7.  again Spiritus à Patre egreditur, & propter naturae societatem à filio mittitur. That is, the spirit proceedeth from the Father, and in that he is of the same nature and essence with the Son he is sent of him. Why should we not believe, saith 
z Tract. in Ioann. 99  Augustine, that the holy spirit, proceedeth from the Son also, seeing he is the spirit of the Son. The greeks say not expressly, that he proceedeth from the Father and the Son; for in the creed of Athanasius as it is found in the Greek, the words are, the spirit is of the Father not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding; without the addition of the Son. 
a Nyssen in vita Greg. Thaumaturg.  But some of them say he is, or received being from the Father, that he appeared by the Son, and is a perfect image of the Son. 
b Chrys. hom. 76. in joan.  Others, that not only the Father but the Son also sendeth the holy spirit. 
c Epiphan. hear. 69.  Some that he proceedeth from the Father, and receiveth of the Son. And 
d Maxim. in Zach. c. 4. citat. à Bessario. Tha●…. in epist. ad patriarchas orient. habetur in 7. Synodo actio. 3.  others that he is from the Father by the Son. In all which diversity of words and forms of speaking there was one & the same meaning, and therefore no exception was taken by one against another. But the controversy that now is touching this point began in this sort. The first publishers of the Gospel of Christ delivered a rule of faith to the Christian Churches which they founded, comprehending all those articles that are found in that epitome of Christian religion, which we call the Apostles creed. But in process of time, when Arrius and his complices questioned the deity of Christ, and denied him so to be the son of God as to be coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the father, Constantine called a Council and assembled the Bishops of the Christian world at Nice a city in Bithynia; these Bishops cleared the point in controversy, and with unanimous consent, composed a Symbol, containing a full explication of whatsoever might be questioned touching the deity of Christ. This form of Christian profession was called the Nicen creed, and was received as a most excellent rule of faith by all right believers throughout the world. In this creed there was nothing expressly put down touching the holy Ghost more than was found in the Apostles creed, that we believe in the holy Ghost. But when Macedonius and Eunomius denied the deity of the holy spirit, the Fathers assembled in the first Council of Constantinople, added to the Nicen creed these words. I believe in the holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. So expressing his proceeding from the Father, without any mention of the Son. This creed, or form of Christian profession was confirmed in the council of Ephesus, and all they accursed that should add any thing unto it: meaning as it may well be thought to condemn such addition as might make any alteration, and not such as might serve for more full and definite explication. But howsoever, this Nicen creed thus enlarged in the Council of Constantinople without any farther addition was confirmed, and proposed to the Christian world for a rule of faith in all the general counsels that ever were holden, and was so publicly received in sundry Christian Churches in their liturgies. But in time the Bishops of Spain began to add the proceeding from the Son, saying; We believe in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son: And the French not long after admitted the same addition; but the Romans admitted it not, Whereupon Charles the great in his time called a Council at Aquisgrane, in which it was debated, whether the Spaniards, and after them the French had done well in adding to the creed the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Son. And whether supposing the point of doctrine to be true, it were fit to sing and recite the creed in the public service of the Church with this addition, the Church of Rome, and some other Churches refusing to admit it. Besides this, some were sent to Leo the third about that matter, but he would by no means allow of this addition, but persuaded them that had given way unto it, by little, & little to put it out, and to sing the creed without it. The same Leo caused the symbol to be translated and written out in a table of silver, in such sort as it had been delivered in the Counsels, placed the same behind the altar of S Peter, and left it to posterity, out of the careful desire of preserving the true faith as he professed. And in this Symbol in the article touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, the Father only is named in this sort: and in the holy Ghost the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father. Neither was this the private fancy of Leo only, for after his time john the 8th showed his dislike of this addition likewise, for writing unto Photius patriarch of Constantinople he hath these words. Reverend 
e vid. Pithaeum.  Sir, that we may give you satisfaction touching that addition in the creed (and from the Son) we let you know, that not only we have no such addition: but also we condemn them as transgressors of the direct word, that were the first authors of this addition. And afterwards he addeth, we carefully labour, and endeavour to bring it to pass that all our Bishops may think as we do; but no man can suddenly alter a thing of such consequence, and therefore it seemeth reasonable to us: that no man be violently constrained by you to leave out this addition. But in the year 883 the Romans also made the same addition to the creed in the time of Pope Nicholas the first. here by the way we may note the inconstancy, irresolution, and uncertainty of the Roman Bishops, one of them admitting that as right and good which another not long after condemned as a transgression of the direct law. And farther that in matters of great importance other Bishops have gone before them, and drawn them to do that in the end which at first they misliked, so that all direction in former times was not sought from Rome. By that which hath been said it appeareth that the difference between the Churches touching this point is not such as it should cause any division, or breach. Yet was this addition no sooner made, but so great dislikes grew upon it, (many thinking nothing might be added, at least without a general Council, to the creed formerly published in so many general Counsels as a rule of faith:) that though the difference in truth and in deed were but verbal, yet either side endeavoured to show the other erred dangerously; and so this verbal difference was an occasion amongst other things to cause a schism and separation between them.  
Thus having cleared this point, wherein, if in any thing, the Grecians may be thought to have erred, let us see what other errors are imputed to them. 
f Citatus à Pratcolo.  Guido Carmelita, and after him Prateolus impute unto them sundry errors which 
g Apud Possev. bibls. l. 6. c. 1.  Lucinianus of Cyprus a learned Dominican and a worthy man, as he is accounted by Possevine, showeth to be falsely ascribed unto them. As first, that simple fornication is no sin. 2dly, that they condemn second marriages which he showeth to be untrue likewise, though the Priest bless only in the first, and not in the second. Thirdly, that they think the contract of marriage may be broken, and the band dissolved at the pleasure of the parties. Whereas chose, he affirmeth, they allow no divorce so as to permit a second marriage, while both the parties live. Fourthly, they are said to affirm that the sacrament consecrated on maundy Thursday, is of more force, virtue, and efficacy, then consecrated any other day. Wherein he showeth, that they are no less wronged then in the other imputations. Fiftly, they are charged to teach that it is no sin to lend upon usury; and which is worse, that it is not necessary to make restitution of things unjustly taken away. In both which imputations he saith, they are much wronged. For they think usury to be sin, and urge the necessity of restitution. Sixtly, they are said to think, if a Priest's wife die, he ceaseth to be a Priest any longer, which is as mere a slander as the rest were. So that it is true that Tho: à jesus hath, that one of the principal things that maketh the Grecians so averse from the Latins is that they are wronged by them by untrue reports and unjust imputations. The things wherein they differ indeed from the Church of Rome are these. First they deny the Pope to be head of the universal Church, or to have any supreme commanding authority in the Church and over other Bishops: they say that there are five patriarchs or chief bishops of the Christian Church; to wit, the Bishop of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and amongst these they yield a primacy of order and dignity to the Bishop of Rome. So that in all Counsels and meetings he is to have the first place in sitting, or giving voice, in subscribing, or defining and determining things concerning the faith and state of the Church, but not any power or commanding authority over them. We, saith Marcus Ephesinus, think the Pope to be one of the five patriarchs if he be Orthodox. But they that met in the Florentine Council and subscribed to the union there made, do teach, that he is the Vicar of Christ, the father and teacher of all Christians. Secondly, in the ministering of baptism they differ much from the Roman Church. For first the words of form with them are; let the servant of the Lord be baptised, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost: and not I baptise thee as in the Latin Church. 2ly, they dip the baptised thrice in the water, whereas many among the Latins do only pour water upon the top of the head. 3ly, they use not salt, spittle, and the like as the Latino's do. 4 l, they 
h Cyrill. catech, pag. 524.  anoint them with chrism or holy oil in the forehead, so as in the Latin Church they are anointed in confirmation. And in some other parts also; saying, sigillum & obsignatio donispiritus sancti. that is, the seal and obsignation of the gift of the holy Ghost, and use no other confirmation. Whereas the Latins make it a sacrament to be ministered by none but a Bishop. 5ly, According to the old custom used in the Primitive Church they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist to children when they baptise them. 3ly, They differ much more from the Latins touching the sacrament of the eucharist. For first they use leavened bread, and some of them proceed so far as that they think it no sacrament if it be ministered in unleavened bread. 2ly, They consecreate one loaf which they divide into many parts, and give to the communicants. 3ly, They keep the bread and wine covered until they come to bless, and then drawing aside the curtain they bring them into sight, and lift them up from the mystical table, that the people may see what heavenly food is prepared for them. And to this purpose with them serveth the elevation. 4ly, They think the consecration is made by the prayers and blessing, and that the reciting of the words of Christ, this is my body, etc. serveth only to put us in mind what was then done when he first instituted this Sacrament, and to give a power or aptness to the sacramental elements to be changed mystically into his body and blood, whereas the Latins think the bare recital of the words of Christ do work the consecration. 5ly, They pronounce the words of Christ aloud, that all may hear and understand; the Latins so that they are not heard. 6ly, They give the sacrament to the hands of the communicants, the Latins put it in their mouths. 7ly, They condemn private masses, as appeareth by Marcus Ephesinus, who saith, the Priest in the Latin Church eateth all and drinketh all himself, giving no part to any that are present, no not to the Deacon that assisteth him, and yet cryeth aloud take and eat. So do they many things, saith he, in the celebration of this holy mystery, contrary to the tradition received from the fathers, contrary to the words of Christ, and contrary to themselves, and their own words. 8ly, They minister the communion in both kinds to all communicants, and think it necessary so to do, the Latins minister it only in one kind to the lay people, and such Priests, and clergy men as consecrate not, but are present only to communicate. 9ly, They teach that there is a conversion of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ. But such as that is, whereby the iron is turned into fire, or rather into a fiery nature, & being; whence it becometh burning iron. In which there is no abolishing of the substance, but such a change, that it is no longer merely iron, but the nature and properties of fire appear in it, rather than of iron. So that as iron is turned into fire, not by an absolute ceasing to be, or losing of former properties, but by a suspension of them for a time, so that they appear not, and by becoming one in such sort with the fire, that it hath all the properties and actions of it: so the bread is turned into the body of Christ, not by an absolute ceasing to be; but by becoming one in such sort with Christ's body through the presence of the spirit descending and coming down upon it, as that the communicating in the one, is the partaking in the other, and an imparting of all such graces as may, or do flow from any union with the same. The bread and wine, saith 
i Orthodoxae fid. lib. 4. c. 14.  Damascen, are so changed into the body & blood of Christ by the presence of the spirit, descending and coming down upon them, as that they are no longer two, but one and the same thing. And as the coal is no longer mere wood or iron, but so united to the fire, that it is become one with it; so the bread wherein we communicate is no longer mere bread but united unto the deity. He doth not say, the bread ceaseth to be, or is abolished, but that it ceaseth to be that it was, mere bread. What kind of conversion this is, we may learn out of 
k Catech. 3. pa. 525.  Cyrill. Vosuncti estis, saith he, unguento, facti participes & consortes Christi, caeterum vide ne illud putes unguentum tantum. Quemadmodum enim panis eucharistiae post sancti spiritus invocationem non amplius est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed corpus Christi; sic sanctum hoc unguentum non amplius est unguentum nudum post invocationem, neque, siquis ita malit appellare, common, sed donum Christi. here we see, he maketh the consecrated and holy ointment to be the gift of Christ, as the bread is the body of Christ; and so to cease to be mere oil or ointment: as the bread which we break ceaseth to be mere bread, whereas yet no man imagineth any such transubstantiation of the oil, or holy ointment, as to abolish the nature and substance of it. But that the Greckes never dreamt of any such conversion of the bread and wine as should utterly abolish the former substance, it is evident by 
l Dialog. in confus.  Theodoret in his dialogues. For whereas the Eutichian heretic objects, that as the outward signs in the Sacrament of the eucharist are changed after they are consecrated, so the body of Christ after it was assumed, was changed into the divine substance: The Orthodox and right believer answereth, that he is taken in that snare which he laid for others. For the mystical signs do not change their nature after consecration, but remain and continue in the same substance, figure, and shape, and are visible, and may be handled as before, but they are conceived and believed to be that which now they are made, and are adored as being that which they are believed to be. here we see is no such change of the mystical signs, as to abolish their substance and former being, for then the conversion in the Sacrament had been such as the Heretic imagined it to be in the body of Christ assumed; and so Theodoret could not truly have said, he was taken in the snare which he laid for others. Wherefore to conclude this point, the Crecians teach that there is a conversion of the sacramental elements, but of that kind which I have before showed, that abolisheth not the things which were, but maketh them to be that they were not. Which may farther appear in that they say likewise, there is a change of the communicants into the being of Christ, and make the end of the Sacrament to be nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transubstantiation into Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the making of them that communicate partakers of the divine nature, according to that of the Apostle, who saith, We are made the body of Christ; and yet is not our former being abolished, but we are made to be that which we were not, in a divine, and supernatural sort, according to that of 
m Orthodoxae fider l. 4. c. 14.  Damascen. Let us come and receive the body of him that was crucified, let us partake of that divine burning coal that the fire of desire being kindled in us by that coal, may burn up our sins, and lighten our hearts, and that being changed into that divine fire, we may become fire, and be in a sort deified, and made partakers of the divine nature. All which changes neither abolish nor confound substances. For as 
n De caen●… Do. mind.  Cyprian saith well, nostra & ipsius contunctio, nec miscet personas, nec unit substantias, sed affectus consociat & confaederat voluntates. That is, the union and conjunction that is betwixt Christ and us, neither causeth any mixture of the persons, nor maketh them to be substantially the same, but joineth affections and confederateth the wills. Lastly, touching the sacrament of the Lords boby and blood, they teach that it is a sacrifice, and that we may the better conceive what they mean, they lay down these propositions. First, that under, the Law, two sorts of things were presented unto God, gifts, and sacrifices. Gifts, as vessels of gold, or silver, and things of like nature: which were dedicated unto God, and set apart from profane, and ordinary uses. Sacrifices, as sheep, oxen, and the like things, when they were slain and their blood poured out; and generally all such things as were consumed in the fire. The second proposition is, that the body of Christ was both a gift and a sacrifice: for he was dedicated to God from his first entrance into the world, as the first fruits of our nature, & as the first borne of Mary his mother; and afterwards he became a sacrifice when he was crucified. The third, that bread and wine are presented unto God in the holy sacrament in the nature of gifts before they are consecrated. The fourth, that the bread and wine are consecrated, and so changed as to become the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. The fifth, that it may be truly said, that there is not only an oblation in the holy eucharist, but a sacrifice also, in that the body of Christ which was once sacrificed is there. The sixth, that the bread cannot be said to be sacrificed, for then the sacrifices of the new Testament should not excel those of the old. The seaventh, that in the sacrificing of a living thing, the kill of it is implied. The eight, that the body of Christ cannot be said to be sacrificed in the eucharist, because he can die no more, but is immortal and impassable. The ninth, that Christ may be said to be newly sacrificed and slain commemoratively, in that the sacrificing of him on the altar of the cross is there commemorated & lively expressed, and the benefits of it communicated to them that are made partakers of those holy mysteries, according to that of 
o In Hebr. 10.  Lyra: Si dicas, sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in ecclesia; dicendum, quod non est ibi sacrificij reiteratio, sed unius sacrificij in cruse oblati quotidiana commemoratio. Secundum illud Lucae 22. hoc facite in meam commemorationem. That is, If thou say, the sacrifice of the altar is daily offered; the answer is clear and easy, that the body of Christ is not newly sacrificed on the altar, but whereas Christ once offered himself as a sacrifice on the cross, the same is daily commemorated; according to that, Luk. 22, Do this in remembrance of me. And therefore Chrysostome writing upon the 
p Cap. 10.  epistle to the Hebrews having named it a sacrifice, addeth by way of explication, or correction, that it is a sacrifice, or rather the commemoration of a sacrifice. So that herein they differ from the Romanists, who teach, that there is a new real sacrificing of Christ. In the doctrine of freewill they do not so clearly express themselves as S. Augustine, & others that follow him. For they teach, that we must first will the things that are right and good, and that God then helpeth, confirmeth, and setteth us forward, so that they suppose he followeth our wills and goeth not before them, lest the liberty thereof might be prejudiced. Their meaning I think is, that no good can be wrought in us without our consent, which S. Augustine also confesseth to be true, but it is God's grace that winneth, inclineth, and boweth us to consent to that good which itself suggesteth, in which respect it may be truly said to go before our will, and yet not to prejudice our liberty. If they speak not so distinctly touching this point as some others do, it is not to be marvailed at; seeing the Greek fathers are not so clear in this point as the Latins are. Whereupon Aloisius Lippomannus in catena aurea in his preface to the reader hath these words. I have thought good to admonish thee, that if in this whole work thou shalt any where find any such sayings of Chrysostome; as that when man endeavoureth, and doth that which pertaineth to him, God will abundantly give grace: thou wisely and warily read that holy Doctor, lest thou fall into any such error, as to believe that God's grace is given for our merits. For if out of merit, it is not grace. But far be it from us so to think, seeing we cannot so much as endeavour, or do any thing that pertaineth to us without God's grace preventing us. According to that in the Psalm, His mercy shall prevent me, and again, his mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. And that of holy Church, Let thy grace O Lord we beseech thee prevent and follow us. Sixtly touching justification they lay down these propositions. The first, that we must have faith to believe the things revealed unto us of God. The second, that this faith maketh us see what the estate of man's nature should be what it was at first, and how much we are fallen from that we were. The third, that out of this faith must flow a dislike of those sinful evils, into which we are fallen, and a fear of woeful consequents, if we be not freed from them. The fourth, that hence must grow a desire of remission of that which is past, of grace that we may cease to do evil & learn to do well, and of assistance of the same grace that we may go on, continued, and not be turned out of the good way when we are entered into it. The fifth, that no man obtaineth remission of sins without dislike of sin, and desire, and purpose to leave off to do evil. The sixth, that being thus converted unto God, in longing desires of reconciliation, we must not doubt but assure ourselves of the obtaining of it. The seaventh, that being justified, no man can be saved without the study & care of well doing, and that works are necessary unto salvation. The eight, that when we have done all, we must confess we are unprofitable servants, that in many things we sin all. That if God do mark and observe our defects, we cannot abide it. That we must not trust in our works, but in God's mercy. That even those things which seem small to us, deserve great punishment if God enter into judgement with us. And that it is not our well doing, but his mercy that maketh us escape condemnation. So that they differ from the Romanists touching the perfection of inherent righteousness, the merit of congruence, and condignity, and works of supererogation. 7ly, The Romanists teach, that sins committed after baptism, are not so remitted for Christ's sake, but that we must suffer that extremity of punishment which they deserve, and therefore either we must afflict ourselves in such sort and degree of extremity as may answer the desert of our sin, or be punished by God here, or in the world to come in such degree and sort that his justice may be satisfied. But they that are Orthodox, teach; First, that it is injustice to require the payment of one debt twice. Secondly, that Christ suffered the punishment due to all sins committed before and after baptism, and therefore so satisfied the justice of God, that they that are partakers of the benefit of his satisfaction, so far forth as they are made partakers of it, are freed from the guilt of punishment. Thirdly, that the satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated unto us upon the condition of our faith and repentance without suffering the punishment that sin deserveth. 4ly, That it is no less absurd to say, as the Papists do, that our satisfaction is required as a condition, without which Christ's satisfaction is not appliable to us; then to say, Peter hath paid the debt of john, and he to whom it was due accepteth of the same payment conditionally if he pay it himself also. Fiftly, that as one man payeth another man's debt, and the payment of it is accepted upon condition of his dislike of former evil courses, and promise of amendment, and not otherwise: so it may be truly said, that neither Christ hath paid our debt, or God the Father accepted the payment of it for us, but upon condition of our sorrowful conversion and repentance. Sixtly, That the penal and afflictive courses which the sinner putteth himself into, may be named satisfactions dispositiuè, in that they put us into an estate wherein we are capable of the benefit of Christ's satisfaction freeing us from the punishment of sin. In this sort, the greeks urge the necessity of satisfactions, and not as the Romanists do, which appeareth by the reasons and causes which they deliver. Whereof the first is, that correcting ourselves, & amending that which otherwise God by his chastisements must drive us to do, we may escape punishment. The second, that we may pull up the root of sinful evils, that is, the inordinate desire and pleasure we had in things which either we should not desire or not so as we do. The third, that this correction may serve us as a bridle to restrain us from running into the like or worse evils hereafter. The fourth, that we may frame ourselves to labour and a straight course of life, virtue being a laborious thing and requiring painful endeavours. The fifth, that we may make it appear to ourselves and others that we hate sin truly and from the heart. These are true reasons why men should put themselves into penitential courses, and these only are assigned by the Grecians; but they never give any such reason thereof as the Romanists fancy. And as they receive not the Romish doctrine of satisfactions: so they never admitted any use of such indulgences as are granted in the Roman Church, nor ever dreamt of any power in the Church of communicating the overplus of one man's satisfactions & sufferings, to supply the want of another. Eightly, touching the estate of the departed; First they think that neither the Saints are already entered into the kingdom prepared for them, nor that the sinners are already cast into hell: but that both are in an expectation of that lot that remaineth for them, and shall so continue till the resurrection and judgement. This opinion prevaileth generally amongst all the Eastern Christians, and it was the opinion of many of the ancient Fathers. Secondly, they believe that the souls of such men as excel in virtue, are worthy of eternal life, and such as merely embrace this present world, of eternal punishment. But that they who were in a course of virtue, yet not without sundry defects, and die in the same, are not to be punished eternally, nor yet to be made partakers of God's glory till they have obtained remission of those sinful defects in which they die without particular repentance. So that they believe there is remission of some sins, not remitted here, obtained after this life. But whether they, whose sins are so remitted, be subject to any punishment after their departing hence, or God do freely, without inflicting any punishment, remit them out of his merciful disposition, & at the entreaty of the Church they do not so clearly resolve. 
q A pologia Graecorum de Purgato rio.  Though they incline to think that this remission is free, and amongst many other reasons for proof of the same allege, that as some few good things in them that are generally & principally evil, shall have no reward in the world to come; so some few evil things in them that principally embrace virtue, shall not be punished. But if they be subject to any punishment, they all agree, that it is only the wanting of the clear light of God's countenance that shineth upon others; or the being in a straight or restraint, or the sorrowful dislike of former evils, and not any punishment inflicted from without, to give satisfaction to the justice of God, or to drive them to dislike that they formerly liked well; and so to purge them from the impurity of sin, as they of the Church of Rome imagine. Thirdly, they pray for the dead, not as the Papists, to deliver them out of purgatory, but for their resurrection, & the remission of their sins, and public acquittal in the day of judgement, the perfecting of whatsoever is yet wanting unto them, the possessing of them of heavenly happiness, and in the mean while the placing of them where in best sort they may expect till they be perfected. Lastly touching the Saints departed they lay down these propositions. First that truly and properly God only is to be invocated. Secondly, that Saints are invocated improperly and by accident only. Thirdly, that Peter and Paul hear none of those that invocate them, but the grace and gift that they have, according to the promise, I am with thee till the end of the world. Meaning; as it may be conceived, that the Saints hear not them that invocate them, but Christ the Son of God who was given unto them, and promised to be with them: and the holy Ghost which is likewise given unto them, and abideth and dwelleth in them for ever. So that whatsoever their words seem to import when they speak to the Saints, their meaning is to direct their petitions to that God that promised to be with them, and to hear the petitions, and grant the requests of all such, as by them should be converted, and should seek to him, in hope to obtain such things as by them he made them promise of. The question is proposed, saith Hugo de Sancto Victore, whether the Saints when we entreat them to intercede for us, do pray for us and how? The answer hereunto is, that the Saints are no otherwise said to pray for us; but in that the favour, and acceptation they have with God, induceth him to do good to such as he findeth well affected towards them for his sake. So that it is nothing whether they hear us or not; for it sufficeth that God heareth us to whom we principally direct ourselves. Ninthly touching Images. First they differ from the Church of Rome, in that they allow no Image of God. Who can make an Image, saith 
r Damascen l. 4. c. 17.  Damascen, of God, who is invisible, incorporeal, incircumscriptible? it is great folly and impiety to seek to have any representation of him that is an infinite and incomprehensible Spirit. Secondly, they admit no graven, carved, or molten Images, of gold, silver, wood, or stone, but think they savour of Heathenish superstition. Thirdly, they have the Pictures of the Saints, not only for history and ornament, which might be allowed but so as in reference to Christ and his Saints, to bow and incline themselves before them, this they do following the 2d Nicene Council, which though it condemn all religious adoration of the Saints, and their pictures, & seemeth to permit no other acts of outward reverence and respect to be done to pictures of Saints, than they yield to all sacred and holy things, as books, vessels, vestments, and places dedicated to the service of God; nor the expressing of any other affections towards them, or remembrances of them, then holy men here in this World bear one towards another, and so come far short of the conceit of the Romanists; yet the Western Church in the time of Charles the Great, & a long time after, condemned that Council, and the Image-worship, which they that met in that Council, sought to bring in; neither can the greeks be excused from superstition in this point. Tenthly, they permit such as are to be Priests, if they like not to live single, to marry wives before they be ordained, and made Priests, & to live with them after they are entered into that degree, & order: knowing that God hath ordained marriage, that it is honourable amongst all men, & that they that condemn Priests marriage, are the occasion of much sinful impurity. The Romanists, saith Photius, do so press the law of single life, that many grievous scandals follow the same. For with them many Virgins become mothers that never were wives, & many mothers are found to nurse the Children of such Fathers as may not be known. And yet these endeavour to make the true Priests of God, that live in lawful marriage, to be odious, and hateful. So then the Grecians leave it free to them that are to be ordained Priests to take unto them wives before their ordination, and to live with them afterwards: but if they then refuse so to do, they permit them not to marry afterwards. Yet if any do, they dissolve not the marriage, but put them from the execution of their office and ministry. Lastly, touching abstinence they differ not a little from the Church of Rome: for they fast Wednesday because on that day judas agreed with the jews to betray Christ, and Friday, because on that day Christ was crucified. But they fast no Saturday in the whole year, but only Easter Eue. In the Lent they abstain on Saturday from flesh, but all the year besides they freely eat flesh that day. They keep four Lents in the year. The first, that which the Western Christians observe. The 2ᵒ from the Octaves of Whitsuntide, until the holidays of Peter and Paul, which they call the fast of S. Peter. The 3d from the first of August until the assumption of the blessed Virgin. The 4th 6 weeks in the Advent, beginning presently upon the feast of S. Philip according to the Calendar of the Russions, and therefore call it the Fast of S. Philip. Their Monks and Bishops, as having been Monks, do never eat flesh. Lastly, they all abstain from things strangled, and blood, observing as they suppose the Canon of the Apostles. Thus we see the extent of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Religion of them that are under the same. This jurisdiction hath been greatly straightened within these few years, for both the Russiaes'; both that under the Moscovites, and the other subject to the King of Polonia are fallen from the same. But the number of them that profess the Greek Religion is not diminished. For all those Christians still retain their former religion, rites, and ceremonies. The metropolitan of Moscow, saith Possevine, was wont to be confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but now he is chosen by the Prince and consecrated by two or three of his own Bish. without seeking any confirmation from the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom yet the Emperor of Russia sendeth yearly a certain somme of money by way of alms. The occasion of this breach and falling off, Possevine saith, was the coming of a certain Priest from Constantinople unto Russia, in the time of Basilius. For this Priest finding the Muscovites to differ in some things pertaining to religion, not only from the Latins, but the greeks also, freely reprehended them, and showed his mislike, this his reproof so enraged the Emperor, that though he had sent for him before he came, yet he cast him into prison, and would never release him, though the Great Turk wrote unto him on his behalf. Since this time the Moscovites seek no confirmation of their metropolitan from the patriarch of Constantinople. The Russians that are under the King of Polonia in the year 1595 finding they could not have recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople living under the tyranny of the Turk, in such sort as was fit, fell from that jurisdiction, and submitted themselves to the Roman Bishop, yet not without reservation of the Greek religion, and sundry limitations in subjecting themselves to that government, as we may see at large in 
f l. 6. pag. 328.  Thomas à iesu.  
With these Christians, that presently are, or lately were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Melchits of Syria, and the Georgians hold communion, and are of the same religion with them. Touching the Melchites, were must observe, that after the ending of the Counsel of Chalcedon, there grew a very great distraction in the East part of the world, for many disliked and questioned the proceedings in that Council, and would not consent to the decrees of it. Amongst those that thus refused to admit the Council, some ran into dangerous errors and heresies, the Emperor Leo therefore for the remedying and preventing of evils of this kind, required the Bishes. of those parts by their subscription, to confirm the faith established in that Council; and they that so did at the Emperor's command, were by the rest in scorn and contempt, called Melchites, as if you would say, men of the King's religion, of Melchi, which in the Syrian tongue signifieth a King, but they were indeed, and were reputed right beleivers, by all the sounder parts of the Church throughout the world. These fell from the Communion of the Roman Church when the greeks did, and are wholly of the same religion; yet were they never subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople but of Antioch, 
t Boter. relat. p. 3. l. 2. cap. de Melch.  These for their number are reputed the greatest sort of Christians in the Orient. Their Patriarch resideth at Damascus whither the patriarchal seat was translated; Antioch itself, (where they that believed in Christ were first called Christians, and which was therefore named Theopolis the City of God;) lying in a manner waste, or broken and dissevered into small villages, of which only one, of about threescore houses, with a small temple, belongeth to Christians; but in Damascus there are above a thousand houses of Christians. The Maronites which inhabit mount Libanus have a Patriarch of their own, whom they honour as Patriarch of Antioch; as likewise the jacobites of Syria have a Patriarch of their own residing in Mesopotamia, whom they account patriarch of Antioch. But the Melchites, who retain the ancient religion of Syria, acknowledge none for Patriarch but their own chief Bishop residing at Damascus, and reject the other as having departed from the faith, obedience, and Communion of the true Patriarch. The Georgians inhabit Iberia, they are, saith Volateran, great warriors, and cruel to their bordering neighbours. They are named Georgians, as some think, from S. George, whose banner they carry when go to war against Infidels. But he rather inclineth to think they were the same that were named Georgians by Pliny, before Saint George was borne; and that it is not a name of sect, but of their Country named Georgia and Iberia. 
r Thom. à jesus l. 7. c. 21  They follow the opinions of the Grecians touching matters of Religion, and in their divine service & writings, they partly use the Greek tongue, and partly the Chaldee. They have an Archbishop residing in mount Sina, in a Monastery of S. Katherine, whom they obey without any further relation, or dependence. Between these and the river Tanais along the coast of Meotis and the Euxine sea, lie the Mengrellians, and the Circassians, who are not only of the Greek Religion, but subject also to the Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Thus having spoken of the Christians of the Greek Religion, it remaineth, that we come to the rest. Amongst whom the first that offer themselves to our consideration are the Assyrians, commonly named Nestorians. What the Heresy of Nestorius was, is known to all. For he professed to believe, that the Son of Mary is a divine Man, and that GOD is with him, but would not acknowledge that he is GOD, and therefore would not yield, that it may be truly said, that Mary is the Mother of GOD. But they that are now named Nestorians acknowledge, that Christ was perfect GOD, and perfect Man, from the first moment of his conception, and that Mary may rightly be said to be the Mother of the Son of GOD, or of the Eternal Word; but think it not fit to call her the Mother of GOD, left they might be thought to imagine that she conceived and bore the Divine Nature of the three Persons, the Name of GOD containing Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This scruple might be tolerated in them; but they have another leaven that soureth the whole lump. For they are said to affirm, that the nature of man is imperfect without personality, and therefore that the Son of God who assumed not an imperfect humane nature, assumed the nature of man, together with the personality of the same. Whence it seemeth to follow, that there are two persons in Christ. For the clearing of this point it is to be noted, that personality is nothing but the existence of nature in itself; which is in two sorts, potentally, or actually. The humane nature which the Son of GOD assumed, potentially existeth in itself, and would have existed actually, if it had been left unto itself. And in this sense they say the Son of GOD assumed the nature of man, together with the personality of the same, that is, with a potential aptness to exist in itself. But it was not left, but prevented before it might actually exist in itself, and assumed into the Divine Person, and so suspended from actual existing in itself. In which sense we rightly say the Son of God assumed the nature of man without the personality of the same, and that it must not be granted, that there are two persons in Christ, as there are two natures. Neither do these Christians so say there are two persons in Christ, as if the humane nature did actually exist in itself, but only to imply, that there is a potential aptness in it so to exist, if it were left unto itself. Yet the form of words which they use is not to be allowed: for it savoureth of Heresy, and took beginning from Heresy. But that they have no heretical meaning it is more than probable, because otherwise they should contrary and overthrow their former true Confession: that Christ was perfect GOD and perfect Man from the first moment of his conception. And that Mary that conceived and bore him, may truly be said to be the Mother of the Son of GOD. And also because the Archbishop of the Indians was permitted to retain his ancient Religion, when first he submitted himself to the Church of Rome. Which he might not have been suffered to do, if he had erred in the article of the incarnation. These Nestorians inhabit, though mixed with mahumetans and Infidels, a great part of the Orient. For▪ besides the countries of Babylon, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Media, where very many of them are found, they are scattered in the East Northerly to Cataia, and Southerly to India. So that in the histories we find mention of them, and no other sort of Christians in sundry regions of Tartary. These have a Patriarch residing in Muzall on the river Tigris in Mesopotamia. This Muzall either is the city of Seleucia, so honoured in times past, that the government of those parts was committed to the Bishop thereof with the name of a Catholic, and place of Session in Counsels next the Patriarch of Jerusalem; or, if that were destroyed, the patriarchal seat was thence translated to Muzal. In this city, though subject to mahometans, the jacobites have three temples, the Nestorians fifteen, being esteemed to be about forty thousand souls. 
x Onuphr. in jul. 3. Thomas à jesus l. 7. part. 1 c: 3. & 4.  In the time of julius the third, certain of these Nestorians fell from the Bishop of Muzal, and took for their head Simon Sulaca of the order of Saint Basil. Who submitted himself to the Bishop of Rome, exhibited an orthodox confession of his faith, and was by him confirmed bishop of Muzal in title & name: but the other held the place still. So that when he returned, he was forced to abide in Caramit. This Simon Sulaca made certain Archbishops and Bishops, and caused the memory of Nestorius to be put out of their liturgies, and in the end he was slain by the Turks ministers. But Abdesu of the same order succeeded him, and after him Aatalla, after him the Archbishop of Gelu, and Salamas, renouncing the obedience of the Bishop of Muzal, was elected Patriarch, and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. So that there were four patriarchs successively following one another, that held communion with the Church of Rome, but no one of them ever possessed that city, but resided either in Caramit, Serit, or Zeinalbach in the confines of Persia. All these were undoubtedly orthodox touching the article of the incarnation of the Son of God. And 
y Leonard. Episcop. Sidon. citat: à Thom. à iesu. ibidem.  Elias one amongst the Bishops that held the seat at Muzal, desired to be joined in communion with the Church of Rome, & sent his confession which was found to be orthodox and right: so that they of that faction also, seem not to have differed much in judgement touching any article of faith. The Nestorians are subject to these two patriarchs to this day. The Patriarch of Muzal hath under him 22 Bishops, more than 600 territories, in which there are at the least 22 rich and flourishing cities, and in every of them 500 families; in Muzal 1000, whereof every one containeth about forty persons. And other-lesser territories containing about 200, or 300 families a piece, and thirty monasteries. In India also there are many families subject to this Patriarch, by the name of Patriarch of Babylon, to whom he was wont to assign Bishops. There were in India before the Portugals coming, about some 15, or 16 thousand families. About some thirty years since, their Archbishop fell from the Patriarch of Muzal, or Babylon to the Bishop of Rome, by the persuasion of the Portugals, yet retaining the ancient religion which was permitted. But his successor in another Synod holden at Diamper, not far from Maliapur by the Archbishop of Goa in the year 1599, received the religion of Rome also, and suffered their liturgy so to be altered as we find it in Bibliotheca patrum. 
z Auctarij tom. 2 in fine.   
But let us proceed to take a view of the particular points of their religion. First all clergy men amongst the Chaldeans, and also all lay men that excel in devotion, receive the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood in their own hands under both kinds. The rest receive into their mouths the body of the Lord dipped into the blood. They contract marriages within the degrees prohibited, marrying in the second degree without dispensation. Their Priests are married, and after the death of the first wife, have liberty to marry the second or third time, or oftener. They minister the communion in leavened bread. They use not auricular confession, nor confirmation. They deny the supremacy of the Pope. The specialties of the religion of the Indians or Christians of S. Thomas before they admitted any alteration were these. First they distributed the sacraments in both kinds. Secondly they used bread seasoned with salt, and in stead of wine (India affording none) the juice of raisins softened one night in water, and so pressed forth. Thirdly they baptised not their children till they were forty days old except in danger of death. Fourthly their priests were married, but excluded from the second marriage. Fifthly they had no images in their Churches but the cross only: Sixtly they denied the supremacy of the Pope.  
From the Assyrians and Indians unjustly named Nestorians, let us pass to those Christians that are supposed to be Monophysits, as the jacobites, Armenians, Cophtis or Christians of Egypt, the Aethiopians or Abissens. These believe that the nature of God and man were so united in the person of Christ, that he is truly God and truly man, and that after the union they remain distinct in their being of essence and property, so that the divinity is not of the same essence, substance and nature with the humanity: for the divinity is infinite incomprehensible and increated, and the humanity is finite and a created essence, yet because they are united and conjoined in the unity of the same person, they say they are but one nature, and will not acknowledge as we do, that there are two natures in Christ. That we may the better know what we are to think of these Christians differing thus from us. I will first historically show how this difference grew. Secondly more largely refute their opinion. And thirdly make it appear that in respect of this difference they are not to be rejected as heretics.  
There lived at Constantinople a certain man whose name was Eutiches, a priest and an abbot. This Eutiches in opposition to Nestorius, who divided the person of Christ, proceeded so far that he confounded the natures, imagining a conversion of the divinity into the humanity, or of the humanity into the divinity, or a kind of mixtion of them. This Eutiches was well acquainted with Eusebius Bish. of Dorilaeum, who understanding by conference with him that he was fallen into such a damnable haerisie, made the matter known to Flavianus the B. of Constantinople, wishing him to call Eutiches unto him and sharply to rebuke him, lest the faith might be endangered. Flavianus as soon as he understood thus much, called together 30 of his Bish. and in their presence asked of Eutiches, whether he did believe that Christ's body is of the same substance with ours. He answered he had never said so hitherto but would seeing they would have it so: to whom Flavianus replied, that not they, but the fathers required him so to profess, and therefore if he did so believe, he should anathamatize all that thought otherwise. To whom Eutiches answered he had never hitherto professed so to believe, yet would now for their sakes; but would never be induced to anathematise them that think otherwise, for that if he should, he must as he supposed, accurse the holy Fathers and Scriptures, which do so speak, that they deny Christ's body to be of the same substance with ours. When Flavianus heard him thus speak, he put him out of the order of Presbyters, and removed him from his office and dignity of an Abbot. Eutiches thus degraded and deprived, resorted oft to the Emperor, complaining that he was wronged by Flavianus; whereupon Theodosius then Emperor called a Council at Ephesus, that it might be there examined whether Eutyches were duly proceeded against or not; and made Dioscorus Bish. of Alexandria precedent of the Council: who caused the proceedings of Flavianus to be read, but suffered him not to say any thing in his own defence, neither would he give him leave to ask any question if any doubt arose; & for Eusebius who was to accuse Eutiches he would not so much as suffer him to speak. The conclusion was he deposed Flavianus, & restored Eutiches. Things being thus violently carried, they that supplied the place of the B. of Rome, returned, home and made all known to Leo the Bish. He presently went to Valentinian, who wrote to Theo●…osius to call another Council, but he refused so to do, thinking Dioscorus had duly proceeded. But after his death Martianus called a Council at Chalcedon. In the first Session of this Council, Dioscorus appeared, where he clearly anathematised those that bring in either a confusion, conversion, or commixtion of the Natures of God and man united in Christ. So condemning Eutyches, whom out of partiality and sinister respect he had formerly acquitted. But yet professed, that after the union we must not say there are two Natures, but one Nature of the Son of God incarnate, and told them he had to this purpose sundry testimonies of the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyrill. For confirmation of this his saying, Eustathius Bishop of Beretum produced an Epistle of Cyrill to Acacius Bishop of Melitinum, Valerianus of Iconium, and Successus Bishop of the Province of Diocaesarea, wherein more fully explaining certain things contained in his former Epistles, he saith expressly, we must not say, there are two natures in Christ, but one nature of the Son of God incarnate. Which when they of the East disliked, he brought forth the book, & read the very same words unto them, and after the reading of them, broke forth into these words. Whosoever saith, there is one nature, to deny the flesh of Christ which we believe to be consubstantial with ours, let him be anathema: and whosoever saith there are two natures to make a division in Christ, let him be accursed also; adding that Flavianus admitted this doctrine of Cyrill, and therefore that he was unjustly condemned by Dioscorus. But Dioscorus answered, that he condemned him, because he affirmed that there are two natures in Christ after the union, whereas the Fathers tell us, we must not say there are two natures after the union, but one of the Word, incarnate. And after this time he refused to appear any more in the Council. Whereupon for his former violent, and sinister proceedings, and for his present contumacy he was condemned, and deposed; and not for heresy, as is expressly delivered by Anatolius in the Council. For whereas there was a form of Confession composed, which Asclepiades recited in the Council; wherein was contained, that Christ consisted of two natures: there arose presently a great doubt amongst the Bishops; the Nobles and great men therefore that moderated, spoke unto them in this sort. Dioscorus saith, that Christ consisteth of two natures; Leo that he consisteth in two natures, without mutation, confusion, or division, whom follow ye? to whom the Bishops rising up, answered with one voice, as Leo so we all believe: accursed be Dioscorus. At the hearing hereof Anatolius said, Dioscorus was not deposed for erring in faith, but because he excommunicated Leo Bishop of Rome, and refused to come into the Council when as he was required so to do. Neither was the form of Confession recited by Asclepiades rejected as ill, but as imperfect. That which some allege, that Dioscorus had been condemned as an Heretic, if he had appeared, is childish. For if the Fathers there assembled had judged his sayings heretical, they might, and no doubt would have condemned him as an heretic though absent: aswell as the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius though absenting himself, and as much as in him lay declining their judgement. So the Council of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches as an Heretic, and deposed Dioscorus for his contumacy, and other sinister, violent, and disordered proceedings in that second Council, wherein he was Precedent, & so ended. But after the ending thereof there arose woeful distractions & divisions in the Christian world. For besides those that followed Eutyches in his Heresy, there were many found; who though they were far from adhering to cursed Eutyches, yet disliked the proceedings against Dioscorus, and stiffly maintained that form of Confession that was published by Asclepiades, not only as good, but as perfect & sufficient. Affirming that 2 natures were united in Christ without mutation, conversion, commixtion, or confusion: but that being united they are no longer two, but one. So that we may say Christ consisted of 2 natures, but we must not say he consisteth in 2 natures as Leo and the council. Urging to this purpose that authority of Cyrill. That we must not say there are 2 natures in Christ, but one of the Word incarnate. His words are, Post unionem, sublata in duo division, unam esse credimus filij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Nestorianus agnoscit Verbum incarnatum, sed dum duas nominat naturas, dividit & seiungit ab invicem.  
This opinion prevailed mightily in those times, & continueth in many Christian Churches till this day. For the Christians of Egypt, Aethiopia, Armenia, & the jacobites of Syria defend the same, accursing Eutiches as an Heretic; and acquitting Dioscorus, yea honouring him as a good, and holy man. Wherefore seeing it is against the law of charity to condemn so many millions of souls to hell, unless they be clearly convinced of heresy, let us more exactly consider what it is they say. First therefore they teach, that Christ is truly God and truly man, that he received his divine nature of his Father before all eternity, his humane nature from his mother in the fullness of time. Secondly, they accurse all them that spoil him of either of these natures. Thirdly, they say that these natures were so united, that there was no confusion, mixtion, or conversion of one of them into another; nor such composition as that a third nature might arise out of them. Fourthly, that the deity, and humanity of Christ, are not all one. Fiftly, they confess, that it may truly be said, the Divinity of Christ is aliud natura; that is, a thing of different condition and nature from his humanity. Sixtly, that they are not of the same nature and substance. Seaventhly, that their properties are not the same, the one being finite, and the other infinite. So that this is it which they say; that the 2 natures which were united in Christ remain after the union, without mixtion, confusion, or conversion in their distinct being of essence, and properties: but are become one, first in the being of subsistence; 2 in respect of mutual inexistence; and 3 in communion of mutual operation, in that the one doth nothing without the communion, and concurrence of the other. And in this sort is that saying of Cyrill to be understood, when he saith, there are not 2 natures in Christ, but one nature of the Word incarnate, that is, the 2 natures united, are not 2 and distinct, but one in subsistence. For the nature of man hath no subsistence, but that of the Word communicated unto it, in which they are one. And so it is expounded in the 8 Canon of the fifth general Council. 
a Apud Thom. à jesu, l. 7 par: 〈◊〉. c. 14.  Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth, that when he conferred with the Patriarch of the jacobites to this purpose, he clearly accursed Eutyches confounding the natures of God and man in Christ; but yet affirmed that they are so united, that there is one personated nature, arising out of 2 natures not personated. Professing that they think as the Latins do touching the thing itself, but differ from them in form of words, more aptly expressing the thing, as they suppose. 
b Apud Thom: à jesu, l. 7. p. 1. c. 13.  Tecla Abissen, saith the Aethiopians think there is but one nature in Christ. Being asked whether they think there is one nature resulting out of the two natures that were united. He answereth, that they say no such thing: but that they profess simply that there is one nature, and that is the divine nature, meaning, as it seemeth, that the divine nature only subsisteth in its own subsistence, and that the humanity is drawn into the unity of the same. 
c Thom. à jesus, l 7. c. 6.  Thomas à jesus reporteth, that in the time of Gregory the 13th, there were certain learned men sent into Egypt to win the Christians of those parts, to join in communion with the Roman Church. And that in the year 1582, a Synod was holden at Cair, where at the third meeting after six hours' disputation touching the 2 natures of Christ, all with one consent by God's happy direction decreed, as the truth is, touching the thing itself: anathematising all them that should spoil him of either nature; who being God and man received his deity from the Father, and his humanity from his mother. And though the Christians of Egypt refuse to say there are 2 natures in Christ, yet they confess him to be God, and man. 
d Lib. 17 Orthodoxiae citatus à Genebrardo Chron. ad annum, 1153.  Nicetas saith, the Armenians are Monophysits, and that Immanuell the Emperor, in the year 1170 sent Theorianus to confer with their Catholic, or chief Bishop, and to reclaim them if it might be from that heresy. The disputation between them he setteth down at large. But Genebrard feareth not to censure him, pronouncing that both he, and Theorianus were deceived, if that be indeed the answer of the Armenian Bishop to the objections of Theorianus, as is there put down. For nature being sometimes taken for a part, sometimes for the whole consisting of the several parts; as in Aristotle sometimes it importeth the whole, sometimes the parts of which the whole consisteth; the Armenian Bîshop said truly, the things whereof Christ consisteth are of different nature, or difference in nature, and that they are but one nature in that they are so joined & put together, that they are one in the being of subsistence, that one of them inexisteth in the other, and either of them hath a communion of operation with the other. But he in no sort imagineth that they are so one as if a compounded nature did arise out of the putting of them together, in such sort as the nature of man is a compound nature, arising out of the putting together of the soul and body. So that these Christians are unjustly charged with the heresy of the Monophysits anciently condemned. For they imagined that the two natures united in Christ are become one in the being of essence, and property, but these confess them to remain distinct in both these respects, and to become one only in respect of the being of subsistence, mutual inexistence, and the communion the one hath with the other in action, and operation: comparing this union to that of the iron and fire. Neither is it to be marvailed at, that they are thus wronged. For as Genebrard noteth, the greeks often thus wrong the oriental Christians, laying an imputation of heresy upon them out of sinister respects. So that they are to be suspected as often as writing of the Syrians, Maronits, Aetbiopians, Persians, Indians. Georgians, Egyptians; they call them jacobits, or Nestorians. For they that travel into these parts find them to be orthodox and right believers, differing from other parts of the true Church rather in certain ceremonies then in substance. Having thus cleared these Christians from the imputation of heresy undeservedly laid upon them: let us proceed more particularly to consider of the specialties of religion professed by them, and first of the religion of the jacobits.  
The jacobits have their name from one jacobus of Syria surnamed Zanzalus, living about the year of our Lord 530. Who, amongst others that rejected the Council of Chalcedon, laboured greatly to persuade the people of Syria to refuse the same; and taught them to believe, that the two natures which were united in Christ, after the union are become one, not in such sort as Eutiches imagined, who confounded them into one, but as Dioscorus taught who made them to be one by adunation without mixtion, or confusion. That this was his opinion it is evident by his followers. Who honour Dioscorus as a Saint, and condemn Eutyches as an heretic. These, as Leonardus Bishop of Sidonia reporteth are dispersed throughout the c●…ties, regions, and towns of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylon, mixed with other sects, and their number is so great, that there are fifty thousand families of them. They chiefly inhabit in Aleppo of Syria, and in Caramit. They have, and long have had, a Patriarch of their own; to whom they yield obedience. For we read of the Patriarch of the jacobits in the time of Heraclius the Emperor. This Patriarth resideth in Caramit, but the patriarchical Church is in the monastery of Zafra, without the city Moradin in Mesopotamia. They were before the breach subject to the Patriarch of Antioch, but when they fell off from other Christians in opinion, they departed from the Patriarch that then was, and entitled one of their own making to that honour: supposing the other to be in error, and themselves right. And even to this day they account their chief Bishop Patriarch of Antioch, calling him always Ignatius. And to him the Metropolitan of Jerusalem, whom the jacobites call the fifth Patriarch, is subject. As anciently the Bishops of Jerusalem were before the Council of Chalcedon. Which took from Antioch the 3 Provinces of Palestina, and assigned them to the Bishop of Jerusalem, for his patriarchical jurisdiction. Besides the Bishop of Jerusalem who acknowledgeth him for his Superior, he hath under him 7 Archbishops, with many Bishops. Let us therefore take a view of their Religion. Touching the 2 natures in Christ, they believe as I have already delivered. The other particulars of their Religion are these. First, they confess their sins to God only, and not to the Priest, or but very seldom; so that many communicate without confession. Secondly, they admit not Purgatory nor prayers for the dead. Thirdly, their Priests are married. Fourthly, they consecreate the Eucharist in unleavened bread. Fifthly, they minister the Eucharist in both kinds. Sixthly, they use circumcision even of both sexes. Seventhly, they sign their children before Baptism, with the sign of the Cross, imprinted with a burning iron, some in the arm, some in the forehead, that they may be known to be Christians, and that if ever they fall away, they may by this mark be known to be Apostates. Hence grew the false report, that they baptised with fire. Eightly, they add to the trisagium this Appendix, qui crucifixus est pro nobis. And hereupon are charged to attribute the passion of death to the Divinity, and consequently to the whole Trinity: which is made more probable, because they acknowledge but one nature in Christ. Touching this Hymn it is to be noted, that in the time of Theodosius the Emperor there was a most fearful Earthquake, which specially appeared in Constantinople, where the wall with 57 towers fell down, so that the people were forced to go out of the City, and to abide in the fields to avoid the danger of the ruins. While they were crying Curie eleeson, a child was suddenly taken up into the air, and upon the prayers of the godly, let down again to the ground without any hurt, who when he was come down, told them he had heard a Choir of Angels singing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Willing them so to sing, that the Earthquake might 〈◊〉. When Proclus the Bishop heard this, he commanded the whole Congregation so to sing, and the Earthquake ceased, and immediately the child died. H●…vpon Theodosius the Emperor commanded this Hymn to be sung in all Christian Churches throughout the world. So that it grew to be in great request. 
e C●…nt. 〈◊〉 pag. 14●…6  Petrus Gnapheus Bishop of Antioch, added to this Hymn, qui crucifixus est pro nobis, and was bitterly reproved by many Bishops for so doing. 
f 〈◊〉. Bibl p. 〈◊〉  Ephraim, Bishop of Antioch, finding that certain were divided from the communion of other Christians in respect of this addition, telleth them, that they of the East understand this Hymn of Christ, and so sin not in adding, qui crucifixus est pro nobis. But they that inhabit Constantinople, & the Nestorian parts understand it of the Trinity, & therefore endure not this addition, because it is impious to attribute the passion of death to the blessed Trinity. The Vicar of the Patriarch of the jacobites being conferred with by some Western Christians about this addition; told them, that they understand this Hymn of Christ, & so apply the passion of death on the cross to Christ only, & not to the holy Trinity. 9 They deny the supremacy of the Pope. Next to these in order are the Armenians, these inhabit Asia in that part which lieth between the mountains Taurus & Ca●…casus: their country Armenia reacheth from Cappadocia to the Caspian sea. They are subject to 2 Patriarches: for the greater Armenia is subject to one, & the lesser to another. The Patriarch of the greater Armenia resideth in the monastery & Church of E●…meazin near the city Eruan in Persia. The families that are subject to this Patriarch, are more than 150000, besides exceeding many monasteries, Bishops, Priests, religious men, & Deacons. There are also certain primats, or rather patriarchs, of this Armenian nation in the remotest parts of Persia, & in Constantinople: who though of right they should be subject to this Patriarch, yet sometimes acknowledge no such thing. The Patriarch of the lesser Armenia resideth in the city Sis in Cilicia named at this day Caramania. This Patriarch hath under him 24 Prelates, Archbishops, and Bishops, besides three hundred Priests, and exceeding many Deacons and Clerks living of alms and their own labour, and about twenty thousand families of Christians which live in City's villages and Castles of Syria, and Cilicia: and twenty monasteries, in every of which there are an hundred religious persons. These Armeniaes', both the greater & the lesser, are lately taken by the Persians from the Turk and added to the Persian Empire. Touching their religion, Nicephorus attributeth unto them sundry damnable haerisies concerning the Trinity, and the incarnation of Christ, but most untruly according to Genebrards' observation, before mentioned, as may appear by their own confession extant, sent by the mandate of the Catholic of Armenia to the Patriarch of Constantinople not 50 years ago: by which it is evident that they are Orthodox in these points. The specialties of their religion are these. First touching the two natures in Christ they are of the same opinion with the jacobites formerly expressed. Secondly they admit only three general Counsels; they reject that of Chalcedon: they condemn Leo Bishop of Rome: they accurse Eutiches, and honour Dioscorus. Thirdly theyadde to the Trisagium as the jacobites also do, qui crufixus est pro nobis: but in the same sense as they do, and without any haereticall meaning. Fourthly they affirm with the Grecians, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father only. Fifthly they think the souls of the just shall not enjoy heaven happiness till after the resurrection. Sixthly they deny purgatory, and pray not for the dead. Seaventhly they deny marriage to be a Sacrament. Eightly they deny the local presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. Ninthly they deny that the Sacraments give grace. Tenthly they think that the Eucharist is to be given to all that are baptised together with their baptism. Eleaventhly they mingle not water with wine in the holy Eucharist. Twelfthly they condemn the adoration of images. Thirteenthly they admit married priests, and as some say admit none to be saecular priests except they be married, and yet exclude the second marriage. Fourteen they fast Wednesday and Friday, and on those days eat neither oil nor fish, neither do they drink wine, and they abstain in like sort the whole lent; save that on Saturday and Sunday they eat butter, cheese, & eggs. Fifteenthly in the Lent they never consecrate but on Saturday, and Sunday, what days they fast not. 16 Out of Lent they eat flesh on all Saturdays throughout the year. 17 From Easter till Whitsuntide they fast not any Friday but freely eat flesh. 18 They know not the ember fasts. 19 They solemnize not Christmas day on the 25th of December but fast that day, and in steed of it keep the day of the Epiphany, as Christ birth day, according to an ancient 
g See Casaub.  Custom, as we may read in Epiphanius, and Chrysostom. 20 On Saturday before Easter they eat eggs and cheese in the evening, saying that Christ rose in the evening. 21 They eat not of such beasts as are judged unclean in the Law. 22 
h Thom. à jesus l. 7. c. 23.  They admit not the Sacrament of auricular confession as it is in the Roman Church, neither of confirmation or extreme unction. 23 They deny the supremacy of the Pope. Lastly they are charged to deny original sin, but unjustly as it seemeth seeing they teach 
i Thom. à jesus l. 7. c. 17.  that the children of infidels not baptised go to hell with their unbelieving parents.  
Having spoken of the jacobites and Armenians, it remaineth that we come to take a view of the religion and rites of the Cophtis, and Abyssens or Aethiopians. The word Cophtis is not a name of sect, but of country, importing no more than an Egyptian Christian. The particulars of the religion of the Cophtis are these. First they reject the Council of Chalcedon, they condemn Leo Bishop of Rome, they accurse Eutyches, and honour Dioscorus, and jacobus Syrus as holy men, and touching the incarnation, teach as the jacobites & Armenians do: refusing to acknowledge two natures in Christ, and yet confessing him to be truly God, and truly man: and accursing them that spoil him of either nature, or deny that they remain in him distinct, and unconfounded, in being and property, in sort before expressed. Secondly, they add to the Trisagium as the former, but in the same sense, and without all touch of heresy. Thirdly, they permit none to baptise but a Priest in what necessity soever, nor any where else but in the Church, nor before the fortieth day. Fourthly, they dip the baptised into the water after the manner of the greeks, but pronouncing the words as the Latins do. Fiftly, they presently anoint the baptised and minister the Eucharist to them in both kinds. They sometimes used Circumcision, but now have abrogated that custom at least in Alexandria and Cair: happily since the Synod there holden, whereof I spoke before. Sixtly, they minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds; the Priests never celebrate without the assistance of the deacons, and the subdeacons: and these always communicate with the Priest, but the saypeople seldom, but only at Easter. Seaventhly, they consecreate in leavened bread. Eightly, they neither minister extreme unction, nor the Eucharist to the sick. Ninthly, they give the inferior holy orders even to children so soon as they are baptised. 10 They acknowledge that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, yet leave out those words, and from the Son in the creed. 11, They contract marriage in the presence of the Priest, and in the face of the Church, after the manner of the Roman Church, but with more ceremonies. 12 They sometimes dissolve marriage, and permit a second marriage. 13, They admit married Priests. 14, They admit not purgatory nor prayer for the dead. 15, They read in the Churches certain fabulous things, as the book called secreta Petri and the gospel of Nicodemus. 16, They deny the supremacy of the Pope, and think him no less subject to error than other Bishops. They condemn the Latin Church, as erring in sundry points of religion, and thereupon refuse to communicate with the Christians of these parts. And though Baronius have a large narration of an embassage, sent from the Church of Alexandria to Clement the eight; wherein is reported that Mark the Patriarch, and with him all the Bishops and people subject to that jurisdiction, submitted themselves to the Bishop of Rome, as to the head of the Church: yet afterwards it was found to be a mere imposture, and cozenage, as Thomas à jesus reporteth. But Casaubone telleth us, that the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote a most pious letter to the now Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, desiring to join in communion with the Churches of England, etc. Which letter under his patriarchical seal is to be seen: besides another letter to the same purpose from a Bishop of Asia. To this Patriarch are subject all the Christians of Egypt, the Christians of Habassia, that small remainder of Christians that are found about the Bay of Arabia, and in mount Sina Eastward, or in Africa as far as the greater Syrteses Westward. And under this jurisdiction, the Nubians also were, as some think, before their defection from Christianity. Nubia being a part of Habassia, which was put under the Bishop of Alexandria by the 
k Concilij Nicen: l. 3 c. 36.  Nicen Council. The number of Christians in Egypt is greatly diminished. For whereas 
l Descrip. terrae sanctae, part. 2. c. 〈◊〉.  Burchardus reporteth, that in his time, about 320 years since there were found in Cair alone above forty Christian temples, 
m Bar. tom. 6. ●…n fine.  now there are but three in Cair, and no more in Alexandria. And the number of Christians is esteemed to be about fifty thousand in that great, and populous Country. But in Habassia almost innumerable. For the kingdom of Habassia subject to that great Monarch, whom we by error call Praester john, they john Encoe or Belul, is as large in circuit, and compass of ground, as Italy, Germany, France, and Spain: but nothing so populous, nor without mixture of Mahumetans and Pagans in some parts of it.  
The Habassines have a Patriarch of their own, whom in their Language they call Abuna, that is, our father. This Patriarch was to have the seventh place in sitting in general Counsels next after the Bishop of Seleucia, 
n Concil. Nicen. l. 3. Can. 36  as appeareth by the Arabic Book of the Nicene Council, translated by Pisanus, but he is subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and being elected by the Habassine Monks of S. Antony's order residing at Jerusalem, he is consecrated & confirmed by him, and so sent to Habassia. And answereably hereunto in their 
o Liturg AEthiop▪ tom 6. ●…iblioth. Patrum.  Liturgy they pray for the Patriarch of Alexandria before their own Patriarch, terming him the Prince of their Archbishops. Wherefore let us descend to take a view of their Religion. First, touching the Holy Trinity they are orthodox professing as we do. Concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God, they think as the jacobites, Armenians, and Egyptians beforementioned; teaching, that two natures were united in Christ: but that after the union they are become one; not by mixtion, conversion, confusion, or such a composition, as that a third should arise, and result out of them, but by coadunation only in sort before expressed. So that they may be said to be one nature not in the being of essence, or property, which cannot be conceived without confusion: but in respect of the being of subsistence, the mutual inexistence of one of them in another, and the Communion of action, or operation, one of them doing nothing without the other 
p Tecla Abis●…. apud Thom à jesus l. 7. c. 13  Thirdly, they reject the Council of Chalcedon, they condemn Leo Bishop of Rome, they accurse Eutyches, and honour Dioscorus, and jacobus his Disciple. Fourthly; they are baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in such sort as other Christians are, but they are also circumcised both Male and Female, which may seem to cut them off from the fellowship of true Christians, and the hope of salvation: according to that of the Apostle, if ye be circumcised ye are fallen from grace, and Christ can profit you nothing.  
For the clearing of this point, 
q Lib. 7 c. 12  Thomas à jesus delivereth these propositions. First, that Circumcision and other legal observations were so abrogated after the promulgation of the Gospel, that the continuing of them became not only a dead thing, and of no force, but deadly also. So that Cerinthus & Ebion thining otherwise, were condemned as Heretics. 2 That some legal observations, though not as legal, may be, nay are retained and continued amongst Catholic Christians. For the better understanding of this proposition he noteth, that legal and ceremonial things may be observed four ways. First, as they are legal, that is, with an intention to keep the Law, and to do as the Law prescribeth, and in this sort Christ submitted himself to be circumcised. Secondly, that things prescribed or forbidden in the Ceremonial Law may be done or omitted, not only in respect of obedience to the Law, but as figuring the coming of Christ, or as figures of Christ to come, as 
r ●…a 2ae qu. 104. art. 3  Thomas Aquinas showeth. So the holy Fathers that lived before Christ kept this observation. Thirdly, we may do or omit such things as are commanded or forbidden in the Ceremonial Law, neither as figures of Christ to come, nor as being bound by the Law so to do, or not to do; but only to make it known that such Laws were not evil▪ but of God, howsoever they are now no longer to have any binding force. Thus the Christians after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, before the full promulgation of the Gospel, retained circumcision for a time, that they might bury the Synagogue with honour. Fourthly, such things may be done or omitted as the Law forbiddeth or prescribeth, materialitèr sine ullâ formalitate vel respectu ad legem veterem; that is, though the same thing be done that is there prescribed, yet it is not done as there prescribed, but for other ends; as we keep the feast of Pentecost which the jews observed, but not because it was prescribed in the law, nor for the same reasons for which they kept it; for it was therefore a solemn day with them, because as on that day the law was given unto them upon mount Sina, but with us because on that day the law of the spirit and life was given: so in like sort some Christians consecreate in unleavened bread, yet are they not to be condemned as jewish, seeing the reasons of their observation are very different from those motives the jews had. So that to omit or do such things as are forbidden or Commanded in the ceremonial law, materialiter tantum, that is, without any of the former respects, is undoubtedly lawful: as if a man should be circumcised, or should abstain from swine's flesh, for physical considerations, or keep Saturday holy as many Christians do: but to omit or do such things as are forbidden or prescribed in the ceremonial law, because they are there forbidden or prescribed, or as figures of Christ, is heretical: wherefore let us see in what sort the Abissens use circumcision. 
s Apud Damian: à Goes.  Zagazabo professeth that they use it only as an ancient observation of their Country, which they had received before they became Christians, even from the time that the Queen of Sheba went to see Solomon, and that they retain it only for the honour of their nation, that they may thereby show that they are of the stock of David: and indeed Herodotus speaking of certain nations that were circumcised, before the coming of Christ, amongst the rest he numbereth the Aethiopians: which being so, I see not why we should censure them as heretics for this observation. William Reinolds speaking of the Abyssens hath these words. The Abyssens Christianly, and as we that believe as Christians should, do Baptise their infants, and that they may show from how noble a stock they are come, circumcise them also, but not as if circumcision were of any force, or a man might put any trust in it as the jews do: which being so, I would no more condemn them in respect of Circumcision, than a man that should abstain from swine's flesh which was forbidden by the Law, upon the advice of his physician only. Caietan and Bartholomeus de Medina think they sin not in retaining this observation; but supposing it to be lawful, whether it be fit they should be tolerated still so to do, many taking offence at it; I had rather (saith Caietan) hear the Church speak, than other particular authors. Some impute to them that they are not Circumcised, only, or principally for the causes before expressed, but in imitation of Christ, and consequently to fulfil the law, which was the end of circumcision, and thereupon condemn them as observers of the Ceremonial Law. But first it will hardly be proved, as I think, that they use circumcision in imitation of Christ's circumcision. And secondly it will not follow if it be so, that they are circumcised to the same end he was: but only that they desire to be like unto him, in the outward act, and to have that done unto them in the honour of him. So that I rather incline to the opinion of Caietan, and Bartholomeus de Medina, who acquit them; then to that of Soto and others that condemn them upon this supposal. The particular points of their religion are these. First they think that the soul is ex traduce. Secondly they use the same form of words in baptising that the Latins do: saying, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, & of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 3 None baptizeth with them but the Priest or in his absence the Deacon. 4 Their males are not Baptised till the 40th day, their females till the 80th: till which time the mother is not purified, nor entereth into the Church, but if there be danger of death they are baptised sooner: but they must not suck the breasts of the mother until she be purified. They are unjustly charged, that they Baptise with fire: for there is none amongst them that do so; but in some Provinces they 
t 〈◊〉.  sign themselves in the forehead; either that they may differ from the mahometans, or for the cure of diseases incident to the eyes. 5 On twelve day in memory of the baptism of Christ they go forth in great multitudes to the river, and after many prayers said by the priests they put themselves into the water, but no man is newly baptised. 6 They think that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb: as Hieremie, and john the Baptist were: and therefore if they die without Baptism dare not pronounce of them as the Romanists do. 7 They deny confirmation & extreme unction to be sacraments. 8 Touching the Eucharist they consecreate ordinarily in leavened bread, but on Maundy Thursday in unleavened bread and in wine; or the juice of raisins moistened in water and so pressed out. They minister the Communion in both kinds to all, both Clergy men, and Laymen. The priest ministereth the bread, and the Deacon the wine in a spoon. They give this Sacrment to infants, when they are baptised, in this sort. The priest dippeth his finger into the consecrated wine and putteth it into the mouth of the child. They have neither elevation, nor reservation, nor circumgestation, as the Roman Church hath. They all Communicate twice every week, but the Sacrament is never ministered in private houses no not to the Patriarch, or Emperor himself. 9 Touching purgatory they believe that souls after death are detained in a certain place named in their tongue Meccan aaraft (id est) locus alleviationis, that is, a place of refreshing: in which the souls of such as die, not having repent of their former sins in such full and perfect sort as was sitting, are detained, and so whether the souls of good men do enjoy the vision of God before the resurrection they resolve not. 10 They say no masses for the dead; they bury them with crosses, and prayers, but specially they use the beginning of St john's Gospel. The day following they give alms and so a certain number of days and make feasts also. 11 They grant no indulgences. 12 They have no cases reserved. 13 They believe that the Saints do intercede for us; they pray unto them; they have painted images but none molten or carved: they much esteem them in respect of those holy ones they represent, and make sweet perfumes before them. 14 Their Priests receive no tithes, but they have lands on which they live. 15 Their Bishops and Priests are married but may not marry a second wife and continue in those degrees and orders, unless the Patriarch dispense with them. 16 They think it unlawful to fast on Saturdaie, or Sunday: and urge to that purpose the Canon of the Apostles. 17 They keep Saturday holy as well as Sunday; following the Ancient Custom of the East Church, they eat flesh on that day throughout the whole year; except only in Lent: and in some Provinces they eat flesh on that day even in the Lent also. 18 They fast Wednesdays and Saturdays till the Sun setting, and celebrate not on those days till the evening. 19 Between Easter and Whitsuntide they eat flesh freely on those days. 20 They abstain from things strangled, and blood, observing the Canon of the Apostles in so doing, as they suppose. and besides forbear to eat of such kinds of meat as were forbidden by Moses Law. 21 The Emperor hath a supreme authority in all causes, aswell Ecclesiastical, as Civil, though the Patriarch also exercise a spiritual jurisdiction. 22 They deny the supremacy of the Roman Bish. But they yield a primacy unto him acknowledging him to be the first amongst Bishops.  
Having spoken of the Grecians, Assyrians, and supposed Monophysites, it remaineth that we come in the last place to treat of the Maronites. Touching the name ● Baronius showeth that it was not from any heretic named Maron, but that there was a holy man so named: and that in honour of him a certain 
〈◊〉 Tom. 7. ann, 518. num: 49. Synod. sub Menna act. 5.  monastery was founded: which was named the monastery of St Maron: & that all the monks of that monastery were named Maronites. These in time as it may be thought joined themselves to the Monophysites formerly described, though happily not without some little difference. And hence all the Christians that professed to believe so as these did, were named Maronites. They have a Patriarch of their own who claimeth to be Patriarch of Antioch. He resideth in a monastery some 25 miles from Tripoli in Syria. He hath under him some 8 or 9 suffragan Bishops. These Maronites inhabit mount Libanus, and some of them in Damascus, Aleppo, and some parts of Cyprus. Mount Libanus is of such extent that it is in compass 7 hundred miles. It hath no cities but villages which are neither few nor small. Within this compass none inhabit but Christians, though under the Turk. For they redeem it at a high rate, and pay an intolerable tribute to live without mixture of Mahumetans. The particulars of their Religion are these. First, they believe that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father only. 2 They bless & consecrate the water so often as any are to be baptised; And not as in the Roman Church, on the Saturday before Easter only for the whole year. The reason of which observation is, for that at Easter and at Whitsuntide only in the Primitive Church they ministered Baptism, which they did because in baptism men are mortified to sin, & quickened in the life of grace by virtue of Christ's death, resurrection, and giving of the spirit. All which things were commemorated in these solemnities. 3 They never baptise males and females together, lest they should contract a kind of affinity. 4 None baptizeth with them in what necessity soever but a Priest or Deacon. 5 They require not the intention of the Minister, but think the faith of the Church sufficeth. 6 They baptise not a male till the 40th day, nor a female till the 80th, in respect of the impurity of the mother which they think continueth so long. 7 They seek no confirmation from the Bishop, nor have any other anointing then that which is used in baptism. 8 They consecrat the Eucharist in unleavened bread in a massy loaf, out of which they give a piece to every communicant. 9 They give the Sacraments to Lay men in both kinds. 10 They celebrat but once in one day, upon one & the same altar. 11 They think the Person of the Holy Ghost to be in the holy oil, in such sort as the Person of Christ is in the Eucharist. 12 They think that the Eucharist received into the mouth, goeth not into the stomach, but presently diffuseth itself through all the members of the body. 13 On fasting-dais they celebrate not till the evening, which custom Thomas▪ à jesus saith, is not to be altered, affirming that it was most ancient in the Church of God; the Council of Cabilon related in the 
u De ●…ons dist. 1 Can. 〈◊〉.  decrees, prescribing that they should celebrate the Sacrament in the Ember fasts, in the evening, & on the saturday before Easter in the beginning of the night. And although, saith he, the Church yielding to our infirmity, permit the Latins to do otherwise, yet where the old custom may be kept, it is not only not to be taken away, but much to be commended; that men when they fast may put it off as long as may be before they eat any thing. In former times they did not eat in Lent till the evening, as appeareth by the Council formerly mentioned. Which custom continued till the time of Tho: Aquinas, for he saith, they did eat nothing in his time on their fasting days till the 9th hour, in which hour Christ gave up the ghost. 14 they 
〈◊〉 2a 2ae q. 147. art. 7.  think it not lawful to carry the Eucharist to them that are sick. 15 Touching marriage they have these opinions. 1 they think the state of marriage is not inferior to virginity. 2 they think if the son contract without consent of the father, the father may void the marriage, & so likewise the father of the wife. 3 they think the bond of marriage is dissolved by adultery, & that the parties separated may marry again. 4 they permit not the father & the son to marry with the mother & the daughter: nor 2 brethren with 2 sisters. 5 they dislike the marriage of widows of 60 years of age. 6 they allow not the 4th marriage, whereas Hierom saith, non damno bigamos imò nec trigamoes, ac si dici potest octogamoes, that is, I dare not condemn them that marry the 2d, 3d, or 8th time. 16 touching orders. 1 they ordain children of 5 or 6 years of age deacons. 2 no man is ordained a Priest or deacon amongst them except he have first contracted matrimony, & that with a virgin, not with a widow or woman dishonoured; but neither of these is permitted to marry a 2d wife. 17 they think it unlawful to eat of things strangled, or blood. 18 they judge it unlawful to fast Saturday or Sunday. Lastly they teach that no man entereth into the kingdom of heaven until the general judgement. These Maronites are now said to be joined in Communion with the Church of Rome since the time of Clemens the eight; but how far forth they have changed either their opinions or their rites and ceremonies, it doth not appear. These only and the Indians of all the Christians of the Orient hold Communion with the Church of Rome.  
Out of all that which hath been said, two things are observable. First, that by the merciful goodness of God all these different sorts of Christians, though distracted and dissevered, by reason of diversity of ceremonies and outward observations, different manner of delivering certain points of faith, mistaking one another, or variety in opinion touching things not fundamental, do yet agree in one substance of faith, and are so far forth orthodox, that they retain a saving profession of all divine verities absolutely necessary to salvation, and are all members of the true Catholic Church of Christ. The second, that in all the principal controversies touching matters of religion between the Papists and those of the reformed Churches, they give testimony of the truth of that we profess. For first they all deny and impugn that supreme universality of ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the Bishop of Rome claimeth. Secondly, they think him subject to error as all other Bishops are. Thirdly, they deny that he hath any power to dispose the principalities and kingdoms of the world, or depose kings. Fourthly, they acknowledge all our righteousness to be imperfect, and that it is not safe to trust thereunto, but to the mere mercy and goodness of God. Fiftly, they admit not the merit of congruence, condignity, nor works of supererogation. Sixtly, they teach not the doctrine of satisfactions, as the Romanists do. 7 They believe not Purgatory, neither pray to deliver men out of temporal punishments after this life. 8 They reject the doctrine of the Romanists touching indulgences and pardons. 9 They believe not there are seven Sacraments. 10 They omit many ceremonies in baptism which the Roman Church useth, as spittle, etc. 11. They have no private masses. 12 They minister the communion in both kinds to all communicants. 13 They believe not transubstantiation, nor the new real sacrificing of Christ. 14 They have the divine service in the vulgar tongue. 15 Their priests are married, and though they permit them not to marry a second wife without special dispensation, yet if any do, they do not void nor dissolve the marriage. 16 They make no image of God. 17 They have no massy images but pictures only. 18 They think that properly God only is to be invocated, and howsoever they have a kind of invocation of Saints, yet they think that God only heareth them and not the Saints.   

CHAP. 2.  
Of the harsh and unadvised censure of the Romanistes, condemning all these Churches as Schismatical, and heretical.  
ALL these Churches & societies of Christians, in number many, in extent large, in multitudes of men and people huge and great, in continuance most ancient, in defence of the Christian faith constant, and undaunted (though enduring the malice, and force, of cruel, bloody, & potent enemies) the Bishop of Rome with his adherents judgeth to be heretics, or at least Schismatics, & consequently, to have no hope of eternal salvation; for that it is, on the peril of everlasting damnation, imposed upon every soul, to bow, & do reverence, at the sight of his triple crown, to kiss his sacred feet, & to believe nothing, more, nor longer, than his holiness shall decree, & define. And therefore the most part of the Christian world is plunged into hell, abandoned into utter darkness, & reserved in chains unto the judgement of the last day, 
a In concilio 2. Episcopus Constantinopolitanus suit antepositus Alexand●…no & Antiocheno in concilio chalcedonensi act: 6. ad istum canonem addiderunt oportere eum p●…a habere privilegia cum Romano Pontifi●…e: sed c●…m a legatis reclamatum esset, non ausi●…t pa●…um priuilegio●…um mentionem facere Bellar. 1. Tom. contro. generali de pontifice. l. 2. c. 18.  ever since that schismatical act, of the base, ignoble, & contemptible Council of 600 Bishops assembled at Chalcedon; who, forgetting themselves, presumed to equal another B. to the peerless and incomparable Vicar of Christ, his Vicegerent general on earth; in comparison of whose greatness, all other Episcopal, and patriarchical dignity, regal or Imperial majesty, is no more than the light of a candle at midday, when the sun shineth in strength. But because we have not received the mark of this Antichrist and child of perdition in our foreheads, nor sworn to take the foam of his impure mouth, and froth of his words of blasphemy, wherein he extolleth himself above all that is named God, for oracles and infallible certainty and the rule of our faith. Let us therefore see what that heresy & schism is, that cutteth of from the company of right believers, in such sort, that whosoever is convinced of it, is thereby clearly without all hope of eternal life.   

CHAP. 3.  
Of the nature of heresy, of the divers kinds of things, wherein men err, and what pertinacy it is that maketh an heretic.  
Heresy is not every error, but error in matter of faith; nor every e●…ror in matter of faith; (For neither jews, nor Pagans, are said to be heretics, though they err most damnably in those things, which every one that will be saved must believe, and with all the malice, fury, and rage that can be imagined, impugn the Christian faith, and verity) but it is the error of such as by some kind of profession have 
a Occam di●…l. l. 3 partis 1. cap. 2. 3.  been Christians; so that only such, as by profession being Christians, depart from the truth of Christian religion are named heretics.  

b Occam dial. l. 4. partis 1. cap. 3. tract. 1. 2. partis. cap. 10.  These are of two sorts: For there are haeretici scientes, and there are haeretici nescientes; that is, there are some that are wittingly heretics, some unwittingly. For though no man do, or can wittingly err, or be deceived; yet a man may wittingly be an heretic, and though no man think that to be true which he knoweth to be false, or that to be false which he knoweth to be true, which were wittingly to err; yet a man may forsake that which he knoweth to be the profession of Christians, judge it erroneous, false and impious, & choose some other kind of religion: which is wittingly to be an heretic. Such are Apostates, which depart from that which they know to be the Christian faith.  
Heretics unwittingly are such as think, that they do most firmly cleave to the doctrine of Christ, his blessed Apostles, and holy Church, and will not be induced to think the whole profession of Christians to be false, and erroneous, as do Apostates; yet do err in many particulars that pertain to the faith, and think that to be the only true Christian profession which indeed is not, as did the Marcionites, Manichees, and the rest of that sort.  
The things that pertain to the Christian faith and religion, are of two sorts: for there are some things explicitè, some things implicit credenda; that is 
〈◊〉 Occam dial. Tract. 1. 2. part. cap. 10.  there are some things that must be particularly and expressly known and believed, as that the father is God, the son is God, and the holy Ghost God, and that yet they are not three Gods, but one God; And some other, which though all men, at all times, be not bound upon the peril of damnation to know and believe expressly, yet whosoever will be saved must believe them at least implicitè, & in generality, as that JOSEPH, MARIE, & IESVS●…edde ●…edde into Egypt.  
Men are bound to know and believe things particularly, and expressly; either in respect of their office, and standing in the Church of God; in which consideration, the pastors, & guides of the Church, (who are to teach others) are bound to know many things, which others of more private condition are not: or else for that they are particularly offered to their consideration; and so a Layman, finding it written in the Scripture, that Onesimus was a fugitive servant, and recommended to Philemon his master by Paul, is bound particularly to believe it, which a great Bishop not observing, or not remembering, is not: or lastly, because they do essentially and directly concern the matter of our salvation. 
d Dubius in fide est Hereticus & infidelis, quod utique veritatem habet, cum quis deiis dubitat quae per eruditionem sacrae scripturae certâ tenetur & explicitâ fide tenere: neque enim generalis sufficeret credulitas in multis. Gers. p. 3. l. 〈◊〉. de co so●…at, prosa 1.  He that erreth in those things which every one is bound particularly to believe, because they do essentially, and directly concern the matter of our salvation, is without any farther enquiry to be pronounced an Heretic.  
Neither need we to ask, whether he join obstinacy to his error: for the very error itself is damnable; as if a man shall deny Christ to be the Son of GOD, coessential, coequal, and coeternal with his Father, or that we have remission of sins by the effusion of his blood. But other things, that do not so nearly and directly touch the substance of Christian faith, and which a man is not bound upon the peril of damnation expressly to know and believe, but it sufficeth if he believe them implicité, and in praeparatione animi, that is, if he carry a mind prepared, and ready to yield assent unto them, if once it shall appear that they are included in, and by necessary consequence to be deduced from those things which expressly he doth and must believe; 
e Deut 34. 4.  as that Moses saw the promised land, but entered not into it: 
f 1 Kings 1●…  or, that the Queen of the South came from the uttermost ends of the world to hear the wisdom of Solomon. A man may be ignorant of, and be deceived in them, and yet without all touch of heresy, or peril of damnation, unless he add pertinacy unto error. Neither doth every pertinacy joined with errors in this kind, make them Heresies: For, all they are in some degree to be judged pertinacious, that neglect the censure, and judgement of them, whom they should reverence, and regard; and stand in defence of those errors, which if they had used that careful diligence which they should, in searching out the truth, they had not fallen into; but that only, when men erring in things of this kind, they are so strongly carried with the streams of misperswasion, that rather than they will alter their opinion, or disclaim their error, they will deny some part of that which every one that will be saved, must know and believe.  

g Socrat. l. 7. c. 32.  So in the beginning, Nestorius did not err, touching the unity of Christ's person in the diversity of the natures of GOD and man: but only disliked, that Mary should be called the Mother of GOD: which form of speaking, when some demonstrated to be very fitting, and unavoidable, if Christ were GOD and Man in the unity of the same person, he chose rather to deny the unity of Christ's person, then to acknowledge his temereity, and rashness; in reproving that form of speech, which the use of the Church had anciently received and allowed.   

CHAP. 4.  
Of those things which every one is bound expressly to know and believe; and wherein no man can err, without note of heresy.  
SEeing then the things which Christian men are bound to believe, are of so different sort and kind, let us see which are those that do so nearly touch the very life, and being of the Christian faith, and religion, that every one is bound particularly and expressly to know and believe them, upon peril of eternal damnation. They may most aptly be reduced to these principal ●…heads.  
First, concerning God, whom to know is eternal life, we must believe and acknowledge the unity of an infinite, incomprehensible, and eternal essence full of righteousness, goodness, mercy and truth; The trinity of persons subsisting in the same essence; the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, coessential, coeternal, and coequal; the Father not created, nor begotten; the Son not created, but begotten; the holy Ghost not created, nor begotten, but proceeding.  
Secondly, we must know, and believe, that God made all things of nothing, that in them he might manîfest his wisdom, power, and goodness; that he made men and Angels capable of supernatural blessedness, consisting in the vision and enjoying of himself; that he gave them abilities to attain thereunto, and laws to guide them in the ways that lead unto it; that nothing was made evil in the beginning; that all evil entered into the world by the voluntary aversion of men and Angels from God their Creator; that the sin of Angels was not general, but that some fell, and others continued in their first estate; that the sin of those Angels that fell, is irremissible, and their fall irrecoverable; that these are become devils and spirits of error, seeking the destruction of the sons of men; that by the misperswasion of these lying spirits, the first man that ever was in the world, fell from God by sinful disobedience and apostasy; that the sin of the first man is derived to all his posterity, not by imitation only, but by propagation and descent, subjecting all to curse and malediction; yet not without possibility, and hope of merciful deliverance.  
Thirdly, we must believe, that for the working of this deliverance, the Son of God assumed the nature of man into the unity of his divine person; so that he subsisteth in the nature of God, and man, without all corruption, confusion, or conversion of one of them into another: that in the nature of man thus assumed he suffered death, but being God could not be holden of it, but rose again, and triumphantly ascended into Heaven: that he satisfied the wrath of his father, obtained for us remission of sins past, the grace of repentant conversion, and a new conversation, joined with assured hope, desire, and expectation of eternal happiness,  
Fourthly, we must constantly believe, that God doth call, and gather to himself out of the manifold confusions of erring, ignorant, and wretched men, whom he pleaseth, to be partakers of these precious benefits of eternal salvation: the happy number and joyful society of whom we name the Church of God; whether they were before, or since the manifestation of Christ the son of God in our flesh. For both had the same faith, hope, and spirit of adoption, whereby they were sealed unto eternal life; though there be a great difference in the degree, and measure of knowledge, and the excellency of the means, which God hath vouchsafed the one, more than the other.  
Fiftly, we must know, and believe, that for the publishing of this joyful deliverance, and the communicating of the benefits of the same, the Son of God committed to those his followers, whom he chose to be witnesses of all the things he did and suffered, not only the word of reconciliation, but also the dispensation of sacred and sacramental assurances of his love, set means of his gracious working: that those first messengers, whom he sent with immediate commission, were infallibly led into all truth, and left unto posterities that sum of Christian doctrine that must for ever be the rule of our faith: that these blessed messengers of so good and happy tidings, departing hence, left the ministry of reconciliation to those, whom they appointed to succeed them, in the work so happily begun by them.  
Lastly, we must know, and be assuredly persuaded, that seeing the renovation of our spirits and minds is not perfect, and the redemption of our bodies still remaining corruptible is not yet; therefore God hath appointed a time when Christ his son shall return again, raise up the dead, and give eternal life to all, that with repentant sorrow, turn from their evil and wicked ways, while it is yet the accepted time and day of salvation; and contrary ways, cast out into utter darkness, and into the fire that never shall be quenched, all those that neglect, and despise so great salvation.  
That all these things, and these only, do directly concern the matter of eternal salvation, is evidently proved by unanswerable demonstration. For how should they attain everlasting happiness, that know not God the original cause and end of all things, the object, matter, and cause of all happiness? that know not of whom they were created, of what sort, to what, whereof capable, and how enabled to it, how far they are fallen from that they originally were, and the hope of that which they were made to be, whence are those evils that make them miserable, and whence the deliverance from them is to be looked for, by whom it is wrought, what the benefits of it are, the means whereby they are communicated, to whom, and what shall be the end both of them that partake, and partake not in them? We see then that all these things, and these only essentially and directly touch the matter of eternal salvation.  
Other things there are that attend on them, as consequents deduced from them, or some way appertaining to them: whereof some are of that sort, that a man cannot rightly be persuaded of these, but he must needs see the necessary consequence, and deduction of them from these, if they be propounded unto him: as that there are two wills in Christ; that there is no salvation, remission of sins, or hope of eternal life out of the Church; 
a Theodoret. in ep. decretorum divinorum. Aug. de moribus Manicheorum, lib. 2. cap. 15: Tertul. contra Marcio, l. 1.  that the matrimonial society of man and wife is not impure, as the Marcionites, Tatianus, and other supposed; nor any kind of meats to be rejected as unclean by nature, as the Manichees and some other Heretics fond and impiously dreamt: other things there are that are not so clearly deduced from those indubitate principles of our Christian faith; as namely, concerning the place of the Father's rest before the coming of our Saviour Christ; concerning the local descending of Christ into the hell of the damned.  
In the first sort of things which are the principles that make the rule of faith, a man cannot be ignorant and be saved. In the second, which are so clearly deduced from those principles, that who so advisedly considereth them, cannot but see their consequence from them, and dependence of them, a man cannot err and be saved; because if he believe those things which every one that will be saved must particularly know, and believe, he cannot err in these. The third a man may be ignorant of, and err in them without danger of damnation, if error be not joined with pertinacy.  
The principal grounds of Christian doctrine, above mentioned, are the whole platform of all Christian Religion; The rule of faith so often mentioned by the Ancient, by the measure of which all the holy Fathers, Bishops, and Pastors of the Church, made their Sermons, Commentaries, and Interpretations of Scripture. This rule (every part whereof is proved so nearly to concern all them that look for salvation) we make the rule to try all doctrines by; and not such platforms of doctrine, as every Sect-master by himself can deduce out of the Scriptures understood according to his own private fancy, 
b Annot. in Rom. 12.  as the Rhemists falsely charge us. This rule is delivered by 
c De praescriptionibus adversus hereticos & adversus Praxean.  Tertullian. 
d Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 3.  Irenaeus, and other of the Fathers: and with addition of conclusions most easily, clearly, and avoidable deduced hence, by Theodoret in his Epitome Dogmatum.   

CHAP. 5.  
Of the nature of Schism, and the kinds of it, and that it no way appeareth that the Churches of Greece, etc. are heretical, or in damnable schism.  
Out of this which hath been delivered, it is easy to discern what is Heresy, and what errors they are, that exclude from possibility of salvation. It remaineth to speak of Schism and the kinds and degrees of it. Schism is a breach of the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consisteth in three things: First, the subjection of people to their lawful Pastors; Secondly, the connexion, and communion which many particular Churches, and the Pastors of them have among themselves: Thirdly, in holding the same rule of faith. The unity of each particular Church depends of the unity of the Pastor, who is one, to 
a Ecclesiae salus in su●…itacerdotis dignitate pe●…et, ●…ui si non exors quaedam & ab on 〈◊〉 eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesia eff●…entur s●…hismata quot sacerdotes. Hier. contra Luciferianos.  whom an eminent and peculiar power is given, and whom all must obey: In respect of this first kind of unity, consisting in the subjection of each people, or portion of the flock of Christ to their lawful Pastors, if they who should obey this one Pastor, as being in the stead & place of Christ, do either wholly withdraw themselves, refusing to be subject to any Ministry, like 
b Numb. 16, 1. 23.  Core and his complices, pretending that all the people of God are holy, and that the guides of the Church take too much upon them; or when one is elected, do set up an other against him, and forsaking the right, cleave to him that hath no right: This is the first kind of Schism.  
Secondly, because there must be 
c Cyprian. de v●…tate Ecclesiae.  an unity, not only among the parts of each particular Church, but also of many particular Churches, and the Pastors, and guides of them among themselves: the Churches which forsake the communion of other Churches without just cause, do fall into Schism. And if they not only refuse to communicate with them, in the performance of the acts of religion, upon causeless dislike, but swerve from the rule of faith, the other do constantly hold; they become not only schismatical, but heretical also.  
These are the several kinds of Schism, of which one is much more dangerous than another. The forsaking the rule of faith, or absolute refusal to be subject to the holy Ministry, saying as they did, Are not all the people holy? you take too much upon you, etc. is damnable Schism. In each Church, wherein there must be one Pastor, having eminent, and peerless power, when one is lawfully called, they who presume to set up an other, if they know the former to be lawfully possessed of the place, or their ignorance thereof be affected, or they be so violently carried with the streams of contention and faction, that they would not yield, though the right should appear unto them, this Schism is likewise damnable. 
d In sch●…mate prae●… tam du●…o, temerarium, ini●…osum & scandalosum est, a●…ere omnes tenentes istam partem vel al●…eram, vel omnes neutral●…●…sse vniversa●…ter extra statum 〈◊〉, vel  But if it be doubtful, and men carry minds ready to yield, when they shall see the right, it is not so.  
When whole Churches with their Pastors, and guides, divide themselves from other, refusing to communicate with them, if this separation grow out of pride, and pharisaical conceit of fancied perfection, and absolute holiness, as did the Schism of Novatus, Donatus, Lucifer, and others of that sort, it is damnable Schism; but if out of ignorance, or error, not overthrowing the rule of faith; or over earnest urging of ceremonies, rites, and observations, as the 
e c●…mmunicatos, vel 〈◊〉 de schis●…e 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 ●…de mo●… h●…endi tempore schis●…. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ecc●…es. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. ●…3.  separation of Victor Bishop of Rome, and the Churches of Asia, had been, if Irenaeus had not interposed himself, or striving for precedence; it is dangerous, but not damnable, unless it be joined with such pertinacy, that though it should appear they were in error, or did amiss, and contrary to the rule of charity, they would not yield.  
This being the nature of Schism and Heresy, and these the kinds and degrees of them more or less dangerous, let us in the next place see, what is to be thought of all those Churches of Graecia, Armenia, Aethiopia, Russia before mentioned; Every of which is in some sort rend, and divided from other. We dare not with the proud Romanists, condemn so famous Churches, as culpable of damnable Heresy and Schism, and cast so many millians of souls into hell, for every difference in matter of opinion, or rend from the other parts of the body of the Church.  
All 
f Diligenter consider ●…dum esset, quid dicere vellent; vel inveniendum esset medium expediens, ut omnia ponerentur ad concordiam, non persistendo in omnimodâ probatione huius articuli contra eos; vix enim convincerentur homines qui velint repugnare. Nota hic, quomodo aliquae determinationes Parisijs factae duntaxat ligant diocessanos, & si sic dici posset de Latinorum Ecclesiâ, Notate si de uno articulo fieri posset non articulus, ponendo res in talem statum in quali erant ante determinationem, exemplum; determinatio Bonifacij annihilata fuit per quendam successorem eius. si Graeci habeant consuetudinem conferendi beneficia etc. & ad hoc facit, quod dicunt aliqui, eos aliâs scripsisse Papae, potentiam tuam recognoscimus, avaritiam tuam implere non possumus, vivite per vos. Gers. part. 4. serm. de pace & unitate Graecorum.  these therefore holding the rule of faith, and believing all those things, that are on the peril of eternal damnation to be particularly and expressly known and believed, and their separation not growing (for aught we know) out of pharisaical and damnable pride, as did that of Novatus, Donatus, and the like, but out of error, not directly contrary to the rule of faith, or some other humane infirmity, and defect; and it no way appearing that their obstinacy is such, that, though they knew they did amiss, they would still continue so to do; we account them in the number of the Churches of God, and doubt not but that innumerable living, and dying in them, notwithstanding their sundry defects, imperfections, and wants, are, and have been saved. We conclude therefore, that their Schisms, and separations are sinful, wicked, and dangerous, and their errors inexcusable, ensnaring the consciences of many to endless perdition, and greatly endangering all that are, or have been misled with them; but not damnable, excluding from all possibility of salvation. 
g Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nullâ pertinaci 〈◊〉 defendunt, praesertim quam non audacia suae praesumptionis pepererunt, sed à seductis & in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cautâ solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati, cum iuvener●…t, ne quaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi. Aug. epist. 162. Glorio Eleusio etc.  We make a great difference between them, that were the first Authors and beginners of these divisions, and such as walk in the ways, and insist in the steps of their misled, and seduced fathers: between such as are more, and such as are less deeply plunged into error.   

CHAP. 6.  
Of the Latin Church, that it continued the true Church of God even till our time, and that the errors we condemn, were not the doctrines of that Church.  
TOuching the Latin Church likewise we are of the same opinion, that it continued still a part of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding the manifold abuses and superstitions that in time crept into it, and the dangerous and damnable false doctrine that some taught, and defended in the midst of it. It is therefore most fond and frivolous, that some demand of us where our Church was before Luther began? For we say it was, where now it is: if they ask us, which? we answer, it was the known and apparent Church in the world, wherein all our Fathers lived and died; wherein Luther and the rest were baptised, received their Christianity, ordination, and power of ministry. If they reply, that that Church was theirs, and not ours, for that the doctrines they now teach, and we inpugne, the ceremonies, customs, and observations, which they retain and defend, and we have abolished as fond, vain, and superstitious, were taught, used, and practised in that Church wherein our fathers lived, and died; we answer, that none of those points of false doctrine and error which they now maintain, and we condemn, where the doctrines of that Church constantly delivered, or generally received by all them that were of it, but doubtfully broached, and devised without all certain resolution, or factiously defended by some certain only, who as a dangerous faction adulterated the sincerity of the Christian verity, and brought the Church into miserable bondage.  
Touching the abuses and manifold superstitions which we have removed; it is true they were in that Church wherein our fathers lived, but not without signification of their dislike of them, and earnest desire of reformation, as shall appear by that which followeth. 
a Epist. ad Corint. 1. Epist. ad ga●…atas. reuel. 2 12. 18.  As therefore the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Pergamus, and Thyatira, had in them emulations, divisions, neglect of discipline, contempt of the Apostles of Christ, some that denied the resurrection of the dead, that joined circumcision and the works of the law with Christ in the work of salvation, them that maintained the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, & suffered the woman jesabel, which called herself a Prophetess to deceive the people of God, & make them commit fornication, & eat things sacrificed unto Idols, etc. yet it is not to be thought, that all that were of these Churches, with one consent denied the resurrection, & fell into all the errors, & evils above mentioned; For then doubtless these societies had ceased to be the true, and Catholic Churches of God: so though sundry dangerous, and damnable errors were broached in the midst of the Church and house of God, in the days of our Fathers, which did fret 
b Gers. part. 1. de potestate ec●…es. consid. 12.  as a canker, as Gerson confesseth, yet were they not with full approbation generally received, but doubted of, contradicted, refuted, and rejected, as uncertain, dangerous, damnable, and heretical. And as in the reformation of those Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Pergamus, and Thyatira, if some had still persisted in the maintenance of those errors and abuses reproved by the Spirit of God, and the blessed Apostles of our Saviour Christ, whiles other moved by the admonition of the Spirit of God, and the words of the holy Apostles, reform themselves; and so a division or separation had grown, it had been a vain challenge for the stiff maintainers of errors and abuses, to challenge the reformed part for novelty, to ask of them where their Church was before this reformation began, seeing it was even the same, wherein in one communion they formerly lived together, with toleration of all those evils which the one part still retained, and the other justly rejected: So when many Princes, Prelates, and great States of the Christian world, have in our days shaken off that yoke of miserable bondage, whereof our fathers complained, removed those superstitious abuses they disliked, condemned those errors in matters of doctrine, which they acknowledged to be dangerous, and damnable, fretting as a canker, and ensnaring the consciences of many: It is no less vain and frivolous for the Patrons of error, to ask us which, and where our Church was, before the reformation began; for it was that wherein all our Fathers lived, longing to see things brought back to their first beginnings again, in which their predecessors as a dangerous and wicked faction tyrannised over men's consciences, and perverted all things, to the endless destruction of themselves and many others with whom they prevailed.  
If they shall further reply, that that Church wherein our fathers, lived was not ours, because there were many things found in it, which we have not; who seeth not, that this reason stands as strong against them, as against us? For there are many errors and superstitions, which they have rejected, and do not retain at this day, which were in being in the days of our Fathers. And besides, this objection would have served the Patrons of error in the Church of Corinth, Galatia, and the rest: For they might have said, after those Churches were reform, that they were new, and not the same that were before; For that in the former, the resurrection of the dead was denied, circumcision urged and practised, discipline neglected, and the Apostles of Christ contemned, which things afterwards were not found in them. As therefore this had been a shameless objection of those erring miscreants against the godly and well-affected in those times, so it is in ours. And as those errors were not general in those Churches, so were not they which we have condemned, in the Churches wherein our Fathers lived. As those errors and heresies were not the doctrines of the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and the rest; but the lewd assertions of some, perverting, and adulterating the doctrine of the Churches: so likewise the errors, which we condemn at this day, whereupon the difference groweth between the Romish faction, and us, were never generally received, nor constantly delivered, as the doctrines of the Church: but uncertainly, and doubtfully disputed, and proposed as the opinions of some men in the Church, not as the resolved determinations of the whole Church.   

CHAP. 7.  
Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries, wherein some in the Church erred, but not the whole Church.  
FOr neither did that Church, wherein our Fathers lived, and died, hold that Canon of Scripture, which the Romanists now urge; nor that insufficiency they now charge it with; nor corruption of the originals; nor necessity of following the vulgar translation; nor the heresies touching man's creation brought into the Church by certain barbarous Schoolmen, as that there are three different estates of men; the first of pure nature, without addition of grace, or sin; and two other, the one of grace, the other of sin: That all those evils, that are found in the nature of man, since his fall, as ignorance, concupiscence, contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the soul, difficulty to do well, and proneness to do evil, were all natural, the conditions of pure nature, that is, of nature, as considered in itself, it would come forth from God: That these evils are not sinful, nor had their beginnings from sin, that they were the consequents of Nature in the state of creation, but restrained by addition of supernatural grace, without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect: That men in the state of pure nature, that is, as they might have been created of GOD in the integrity of Nature, without addition of grace, and in the estate of original sin, differ no otherwise, but as they that never had, and they that have lost rich and precious clothing; so that original sin is but the loss of that, without which natures integrity may stand: that no evils are brought in by the fall, but Nature left to herself to feel that which was before, but not felt, nor discerned while the addition of grace bettered Nature. None of these errors touching the estate of man's creation were the doctrines of the Church, but the private fancies and conceits of men.  
So likewise touching original sin, there were that taught, that it is not inherent in each particular man borne of Adam, but that Adam's personal sin is imputed only: that the propagation of sin is not general, Mary being conceived without original sin: That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart, or positive evil, but privative only; and that therefore there is a third place, neither hell nor heaven, named Limbus puerorum; which is a place, where, as some think, they who are condemned thither, though they be excluded from the kingdom of Heaven, and all possibility of ever coming thither, yet are in a state of natural happiness, and do enjoy the sweet content of eternal life. These Pelagian heresies were taught in the Church of God, but they were not the doctrines of the Church; being condemned, rejected, and refuted, as contrary to the Christian verity, by many worthy members and guides of the Church: who as they never received these parts of false doctrine: so likewise the Church wherein they lived, neither knew, nor approved that distinction and difference of venial and mortal sins, which the Romanists now teach, nor power of nature to do the works of the Law according to the substance of the things commanded, though not according to the intention of the Lawgiver, to love God above all and to do actions morally good, or not sinful, without concurrence of special grace, nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of some thing in us positive or privative; nor merit of congruence and condignity; nor works of supererogation; nor counsels of perfection, as they now teach; nor justification by perfection of inherent qualities; nor uncertainty of grace: nor seven Sacraments properly so named: nor local presence: nor Transubstantiation: nor oral manducation of the body of Christ, nor real sacrificing of it for the quick & the dead: nor remission of sins after this life: nor tormenting of the souls of men dying in the state of salvation in a part of hell, hundred of years, by devils in corporal fire (out of which, prayer should deliver them) nor that the Saints hear our prayers, know or are acquainted with our particular wants: nor the gross Idolatry in those times committed, and intolerable abuses found in the number, fashion, and worship of their images: nor their absolution, as now they define it: nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superfluity of Saints merits not rewardable in themselves, to be disposed by the Pope for supply of other men's, wants to release them out of Purgatory by way of indulgence: nor the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depose Princes, and dispose of their crowns, and dignities, and that whatsoever he doth he may not be brought into order, or deposed by authority of the whole Christian world in a general Council. These are the errors which we condemn and our adversaries maintain and defend: these, we are well assured, were not the doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, though, we do not deny, but they were taught by some in that Church. All these we offer to prove to be error in matter of our Christian faith, and that seeing we could no longer have peace with our adversaries, but by approving these impieties, we had just cause to divide ourselves from them, or (to speak more properly) to suffer ourselves to be accursed, anathematised, and rejected by them, rather than to subscribe to so many errors, and heresies, contrary to the Christian, and Catholic verity.   

CHAP. 8.  
Of the true Church, which, and where it was before Luther's time.  
THus than it appeareth, which we think to have been the true Church of God before Luther or others of that sort were heard of in the world: namely that, wherein all our Fathers lived and died, wherein none of the errors, reproved by Luther, ever found general, uniform, and full approbation, in which all the abuses removed by him were long before by all good men complained off, and a reformation desired. And therefore though we accknowledge Wickliff, Husse, Hierome of Prague, and the like; who with great magnanimity opposed themselves against the Tyranny of the See of Rome, and the impiety of those who withheld the truth of God in unrighteousness, who being named Christians served Antichrist (
a Serm. 33. omnes amici & omnes inimici, omnes necessarij & omnes adversarij, omnes domestici & nulli pacifici, serui Christi serviunt Antichristo.  as Bernard complained of some in his time) to have been the worthy servants of God, and holy martyrs, and confessors, suffering in the cause of Christ against Antichrist: yet do we not think that the Church of God was found only in them, or that there was no other appearance, of succession of Church and ministry, as Stapleton and other of that faction falsely impute unto us. For we most firmly believe, all the Churches in the world, wherein our Fathers lived and died, to have been the true Churches of God, in which undoubtedly salvation was to be found: and that they which taught, embraced, and believed those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend against us, were a faction only in the Churches, as were they that denied the resurrection, urged circumcision, and despised the Apostles of Christ, in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia.  
If any of our men deny these Churches to have been the true Churches of of God, their meaning is limited in respect of the prevailing faction, that was in the Church, and including them and all the wicked impieties by any of them defended, in which sense their negative is to be understood. For howsoever the Church (which is not to be charged with the errors and faults of all, that in the midst of her did amiss) held a saving profession of the truth of God: yet there were many, and they carrying the greatest show of the Church, that erred damnably, and held not a saving profession of divine truth: whereupon 
b De potestate ecclesiastica consid. 12.  Gerson saith, that before the council of Constance, the false opinions touching the power of the Pope did fret like a Canker, & prevailed so far, that he would hardly have escaped the note of heresy, that had said but half so much, as was defined in the Council of Constance, by the universal consent of the whole Christian world.  

c Lib. 2. distinct. 26. q. 1. art. 1. dist. 30. q. 3.  Gregorius Ariminensis showeth, that touching the power of nature to do things morrally good; and to fulfil the law without concurrence of special grace, touching the works of infidels, predestination, reprobation, and punishments of original sin, the heresies of Pelagius were taught in the Church; and that not by a few, or contemptible men, but so many and of so great place, that he almost feared to follow the doctrine of the Fathers, and oppose himself against them therein. The same doth 
d Dial. Apolog. iudicium de concilio Constantien●….  Gerson report concerning sundry lewd assertions prejudicial to the states of Kings and Princes, which the Council of Constance could not be induced to condemn, by reason of a mighty faction that prevailed in it, though many great ones much urged it, and though they made no stay to condemn the positions of Wicklife and Hus, seeming to derogate from the state of the Clergy, though many of them might carry a good and Catholic sense, if they might have found a favourable construction. Whereupon he breaketh into a bitter complaint of the partialities, and unequal courses holden in the Church, and protesteth, that he hath no hope of a reformation by a council, things standing as they then did.  
The like complaint did 
e In libro de praedestinatione.  Contarenus make in our time, that if any man did debase the nature of man, deject the pride of sinful flesh, magnify the riches of the grace of God, and urge the necessity of it, he was judged a Lutheran, and pronounced an Heretic; though they that gloried in the name of Catholics, were themselves Pelagian heretics, if not worse than Pelagians. Alas, saith 
f Occam prol: comp. err. johannis 22.  Occam, the time is come the blessed Apostle Saint Paul, 2. Timoth. 4▪ prophesied of, When men will not suffer wholesome doctrine, but having their ears itching, after their own lusts, get them a heap of Teachers, turning their ears from the truth, and being given, unto fables. This Prophecy is altogether fulfiled in our days. For behold, there are many that pervert the holy Scriptures, and deny the sayings of the holy Fathers, reject the Canons of the Church and civil constitutions of the Emperors, which molest, persecute, bring into bondage, and without mercy torment and afflict even unto death, them that defend the truth; And, that I may conclude many things in few words, with harl●…ttes foreheads, and execrable boldness, do endeavour to subvert imperial and regal power, and to overthrow all laws both of GOD and man. Neither are these young men, or unlearned, but they are the elders of the people, High Priests, Scribes, pharisees, and Doctors of the Law, as they were that crucified Christ: so that we may rightly say of our times, that which Daniel long▪ since pronounced in his 13 Chapter, Iniquity is gone out from Babylon, from the elders and judges which seemed to govern and rule the people: For many that should be pillars in the Church of God, and defend the truth even unto blood, do cast themselves headlong into the pit of heresies. Thus spoke he in his time of the corrupt 〈◊〉 of the Church, wherein so damnable a faction prevailed, dangerously perv●…ting all things, that in the end he submitteth all his writings to the judgement & correction of the true and Catholic Church; but not of the Church of malignant miscreants, heretics, schismatics, and their favourers.   

CHAP. 9  
Of an Apostasy of some in the Church.  
THus than we think with 
a In 2. Thess. 2 nisi venerit disces●…io primum, exponunt aliqui de discessione à Romano imperio: alii de recessu à rom. Ecclesia, à quá ●…am diu est quod recessit Graecia: sed saluo melio●…i iudicio, mihi videtur melius intelligendum de recessu à fide Catholica: non tamen in telligendo, quod omnes sint à fide catholica (sicut exponunt aliqui) recessu●…, quia durabit in aliquibus usque ad finem mundi; sed quia maior pats credentium discedet ab câ.  Lira, that as there was an Apostasy or revolt of many kingdoms from the Roman Empire, and of many Churches from the communion of the Roman Church; so there hath been an Apostasy from the Catholic faith in the midst of the Church not for that all at any time did forsake the true faith, but for that many fell from the sincerity of the faith, according to the saying of our Saviour, ᵃ when the time of Antichrist draweth on, iniquity shall abound, and the charity of many shall wax cold: and that 1 Timoth. 4, In the last times some shall depart from the faith, attending to spirits of error: and 2 Timoth. 3. In the last days there shall be perilous times, men shall be lovers of themselves, men of corrupt minds, reprob●…e concerning the faith. This he speaketh, of an Apostasy in the midst of the Church itself; answerably to that of ● Nazianzen, who saith, that as when one taketh water into his hand, not only that which he taketh not up, but that also which runneth forth and findeth passage between his fingers, is divided 
b Orat▪ in laudem Athanasii.  and separated from that which he holdeth enclosed in his hand: so not only the open and professed enemies of the Catholic verity, but they also that seem to be her best and greatest friends, are sometimes divided one from another.  
There is no cause then, why it should seem so strange to our Adversaries, that our Divines affirm, there hath been an Apostasy from the Faith, not of the whole Church, but of many in the Church, dangerously erring and adulterating the Doctrine of Faith delivered by Christ and his blessed Apostles. And that some say, this Apostasy began sooner, some later: For if we speak of those grossest illusions, wherewith men were abused in these latter ages, surely that degree of Apostasy did not enter into the Church in former times. For there was no thought in any Christian man living six hundred years ago, 
c No mention of Indulgences in Peter Lombard, nor others of that time, and the Schoolmen speak very doubtfully of them.  that the Pope could dispense the merits of the Saints, and give pardons; 
d Nimi●…um, ut pace omnium bonorum dixerim, haec novitas non dicam haeresis, necdum in mundo emerserat, ut sacerdotes illius qui regna●…e facit hypocritam propter peccata populi, docerent populum: quod malis regibus nullam debeat subiectionem, et licèt iis sacramentum fidelitatis fecerit, nullam tamen debeat fidelitatem. Sigebertus in Chron. an. 1088.  that he might depose Princes for supposed heresy: 
e Diu haec consue●…udo obtinuit, ut praesentibus omnibus Eucharistia distribuere●…ur. Et certè ●…ota sacrae precis quam canonem vocant compositio, publicae tantum missae accommodata videtur: quo fit, 〈◊〉 nonnulli ●…eteris rom. ordinis expositores, qui apud nos sunt, canonem in publicá tantum, non autem quotidi●…â et privatâ actione legend●… contendunt▪ Cassander Praef. in li. ord: Rom. à se editi.  that the Sacrament not received, but elevated, gazed on, and adored, is a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead; 
f ●…onavent. l. 3. dist. 3. q. 2.  that Mary was conceived without original sin; that the people are to be partakers of the Sacrament but only in one kind: and sundry other things of like nature. But if we speak of a declination from the sincerity of the Christian Faith, it is certain it began long ago, even in the first ages of the Church.  
Of this sort was the error, that the souls of the just are in some part of hell till the last day, as 
g De anima, cap. 32. habes etiam de paradiso à nobis libellum quo constituimus omnem ●…nimam apud inferos sequestrari in diem Domini.  Tertullian, 
h Irenaeus contra haereses prope finem.  Irenaeus, and sundry other of the ancient did imagine: 
i Sixtus Senens. Biblioth. li. 6. annot. 345  & that they see not God, nor enjoy not heaven's happiness till the general resurrection, which was the opinion of many of the Fathers.  
That all Catholic Christians, how wickedly soever they live, yet holding the foundation of true Christian profession, shall in the end, after great torments endured in the world to come, be saved as it were by fire. This was the error of sundry of the ancient, who durst not say, as Origen, that the Angels, that fell, shall in the end be restored; nor as some other, mollifying the hardness of origen's opinion, that all men, whether Christians or Infidels; nor as a third sort, that all Christians, how damnably soever erring in matter of faith, shall in the end be saved; 
k Sicut diaboli & omnium negatorum & impiorum qui dixerunt in cord suo non est Deus, credimus aeterna tormenta, sic peccatorum atque impiorum, quorum opera in igne probanda sunt, moderatam arbitramur & mixtam clementiae sententiam iudicis. Hiero. in comment in Esaiae 66. prope finem. Et contra Pelagianos, l. 1 Christianos in peceato praeventos saluandos post poenas scribit.  but thought it most reasonable, that all right believing Christians should find mercy, whatsoever their wickedness were. This opinion was so general in 
l Aug: de civitate Dei li. 21. cap. 24. 25. 26. 27. proponit opinionem Origeni●… & aliorum, & enchiridio ad Laurentium, c. 67. ait eos, qui credunt Christianos impios & peccatores post poenas saluandos, & tamen Cátholici sunt, humanâ quadam benevolentiâ sibi falli videri.  Augustine's time, that very fearfully he opposed himself against it, and not daring wholly to impugn that which he found to have so great and reverend authors, he qualified it, what he could, and so doubtingly broached that opinion, which gave occasion to the Papists of their heresy touching Purgatory. For, saith he, if they would only have us think, that the souls of men living wickedly here in this World, may through the goodness of God, and the prayers of the living find some mitigation of their pains in hell, or have their punishments suspended, and differred for a time, yet so, that they be confessed to be eternal; I would not strive with them: yea, saith he, it may be, that men for some lighter sins and imperfections cleaving to them while they are here, may find pardon & remission in the world to come, and be saved as by fire: which whether it be so, or whether there be no other purging but in this life by the fire of tribulation, he professeth he knoweth not, nor dareth not pronounce.  

m Sixtus Senensis bibliothecae sancta li: annotatione, 233. ubi ostendit Hiero: & August: summâ cum reverentiá dissenti●…e, quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum & multi martyres Chiliastarum opinionem amplectebantur.  Of this sort was the opinion of a double resurrection; the first of the good, who should live in all happiness on the earth, a thousand years before the wicked should be awaked out of the sleep of death; and another after the thousand years expired, when the wicked also should rise and go into everlasting fire, and the good into everlasting life, which they supposed to be the second resurrection. How generally this error spread itself in the true Church, they that have but looked into the writings of the fathers, and monuments of antiquity, cannot be ignorant.  

n Cyprianus de lapsis Aug: contra 2. Epistolas Pelag: ad Bonifacium li. 1. cap. 22. H●…pogno: l. 5. epist. 107. Vitali. Rhenanus in lib. Tertull. de corona militis ostendit baptizatos statim sanctae communionis participes effecto●…. Maldonatus in 6. joh. Missam inquit facio Aug. & Innocentij 1. sententiam, quae sexcentos circiter annos viguit in ecclesia, Eucharistiam etiam infantibus necessari●….  The opinion of the necessity of infants receiving the sacrament of the Lords body and blood, as well as Baptism, did possess the minds of many in the Church, for certain hundreds of years, as appeareth by that Augustine writeth of it in his time, and 
o Hugo de S. Victo. eruditionis theolog. de sacramentis, l. 1. c. 20. Pueris recens natis idem sacramentum in specie sanguinis est ministrandum digito sacerdotis, etc.  Hugo de sancto victore, so many hundred years after him; 
p Censura orientalis ecclesiae. c. 9  yea, the Greek and 
q Damianus a Goes.  Aethiopian Churches continue that error and the practice of communicating infants as soon as they are baptised even unto this day.  
Touching predestination, how many obscurities uncertainties, and contrarieties shall we find? 
r Sixtus Senensis bibliothecae sanctae, l. 6. annotatione, 251.  Surely before Augustine's time, many great & worthy prelate's, and doctors of the Church, not having occasion to enter into the exact handling of that part of Christian doctrine, did teach, that men are predestinate for the foresight of some thing in themselues. And Aug, himself, in the beginning of his conflicts with the Pelagians, was of opinion, that at the least, for the foresight of faith, men are elected to eternal life: which 
s 1 Retractatio, c. 23. & de praedest. sanctorum cap. 3.  afterwards he disclaimed as false and erroneous, and taught that man's salvation dependeth on the efficacy of that grace which God giveth: and not his purpose of saving, upon the uncertainty of man's will. This doctrine of Augustine was received and confirmed in the Church against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. And 
t Bellar. li. 2. c. 11. de gratia & libero arbitrio.  Bellarmine professeth that Augustine's doctrine, in this case, is the doctrine of the Church; yet so, that many followed the former conceit, as we 
u Refutat Grego. Arim. lib. 1. dist. 40. q. 1. art 2.  may easily see by the writings of the School men, many of which do teach that men are elected for the foresight of some thing positive or privative in themselves.  
How, far some did Montanise in the matter of second marriage, so far disliking it, that they would not have it blessed in the Church, but imposed penance on them that married a second wife after the death of the first; Hierome against jovinian & 
x Presbyter in conviu●…o secundarum nuptiarum interesse non debet, maximè cum praecipiatur secundis nuptijs poenitentiam tribuere: quis ergo erit presbyter, qui propter convivium illis consentiat nuptijs? concilium Neocesariense can. 7. Amb. in cap. 7. 1 Cor: Primae, inquit, nuptiae sub benedictione dei celebrantur solenniter: secundae etiam in praesenti carent-gloriâ, id est, benedictione. Rhenanus in arg: in e●…hort. Tertull ad castitatem: omnes (inquit) veteres, atque adeo Hiero: ipse matrimonio parum aequi suerunt: certè constat Hiero: hac de causà Romae malè audisse.  certain ancient provincial Counsels, are proofs more than sufficient.  
Touching the state of Saints departed, their generality of presence in all places, their universal knowledge of all things, and admirable working every where, where their memories are solemnised: are not more confidently affirmed by 
y Hier: contra Vigilantium.  Hierome, and 
a Greg. dial. 4. cap. 33.  Gregory, than they are modestly denied, and doubted of by 
b Aug. de cura pro mortuis. Si tanti Patriarchae quid erga populum a bijs procreatum ignoraverunt etc.  Augustine, 
c Hugo eruditionis theologicae de Sacramentis fidei. l. 2. part. 16. cap. 11.  Hugó de sancto victore, 
d Glossa in Esaiae 63.  the Author of the gloss and others.  
That there were superstitions and abuses in the primitive Churches, we have such witnesses, as the Romanists dare not except against. Doth not 
e Hier. Contra Vigilantium.  Hierome confess, that the burning of lights at noon day, used in some Churches, was an act of zeal, but not according to knowledge? Did not a 
f Concilium Elibertinum can: 34. 35.  Council forbid those pernoctations in the cemeteries and places of the martyrs burial: which when Vigilantius reproved, 
g Hier. contra Vigilantium.  Hierome with such fierceness and rage, as cannot well be excused, traduced him as the vilest monster the earth did bear. 
h Bellar: l. 3 de cultu sanctorum. cap. 17. quoniam paulatim occasione nocturnarum vigiliarum ab●… quidam i●…repere coeperant, vel potius flagitia committi, placuit ecclesiae nocturnos conventus, & vigilias proprie dictas intermittere, ac solum in ijsdem diebus ieiunia celebrare.  Are not these vigils long since abolished?  
Doth not 
i Aug. de moribus ecclesiae cath. l. 1. c. 34. in ipsavera religione quidam superstitiosi sunt etc.  Augustine confess there were certain adoratores sepulchrorum, et picturarum, worshippers of Tumbes and Pictures in the Church in his time. It is therefore much to be marvelled at, that our adversaries charge us with I know not what impiety, for that we say, there hath been a defection not only of heretics from the Church, and faith, but also in the Church, of her own children, from the sincerity of the heavenly truth, sometimes more, and sometimes less; in some things by some, and in some other by others: That this defection began long ago, but found greater and stronger opposition in the first six hundred years then after; there being in later times a great decay of the ancient piety: whence it came, that many moe and worse errors than ever before were broached: and they which were in some beginnings before, were augmented, and more dangerously defended. In which sense some of our men have said, that 
k Greg. ita vixit ut usque ad nostra tempora neminem ex successoribus parem habuerit. Platina in vitá Greg. idem in vita Stephani 3. severos & graves viros reformidat hic noster clerus: quid ita? quia in tanta licentia malunt vivere, quam bene monenti aut cogenti obtemperare: ob eam rem Christiana religio quotidie in peius labitur.  Gregory was the last of the Good Bishops, and the first of the bad. For that all things since his time, have greatly decayed: and the state of the Church been much corrupted.   

CHAP. 10.  
Of their error who say, nothing can be amiss in the Church, either in respect of doctrine or discipline.  
IT is vain, saith 
a Gers. declarat defectuum virorum Ecclesiasticorum.  Gerson, that some object, the Church is founded on a Rock, and therefore nothing can be amiss either in the doctrine or discipline of it, nothing that should need any reformation. If it be so, saith he, then where is the observation of that Canon, that Clarks go not into Inns or Taverns? that Monks in their own places attend only prayer, and fasting, without intermeddling with Ecclesiastical or secular business? whence is the superfluous pomp and Princely state of Cardinals and Bishops, making them forget that they are men? what say they to that abomination, that one man holdeth two hundred or three hundred Ecclesiastical benefices? That the sword of excommunication is so easily drawn out against the poor for every trifle, as for debts? and that the Lords of the Clergy, use it for the maintenance of their own temporal states? That strangers are appointed by the Pope to have cure of souls, not understanding the language of them, over whom they are set, nor living amongst them?  
Open your eyes, saith he, and see if the houses of Nuns be not stews of filthy harlots: if the consecrated Monasteries be not Fairs, Markets, and Inns; Cathedral Churches, dens of thieves, and robbers; Priests, under pretence of maids, keep harlots: consider, whether so great variety of pictures and images be fit, and whether it occasion not Idolatry in the simple. Look upon the number & variety of religious orders, the canonising of new Saints, though there be too many already, as Bridget of Suetia, Charles of Britain, the feasts of new Saints being more religiously kept than of the blessed Apostles. Inquire, if there be not Apocryphal Scriptures, hymns, and prayers in process of time, either of purpose, or of ignorance brought into the Church, to the great hurt of the Christian faith. Consider the diversities of opinions, as of the conception of Mary, and sundry other things. 
b Gers. de directione cordis consideratione 16. et sequentibus.  See, if there be not intolerable superstition in the worshipping of Saints, innumerable observations without all ground of reason; vain credulity in believing things concerning the Saints, reported in the uncertain Legends of their lives: superstitious opinions of obtaining pardon and remission of sins, by saying so many Pater nosters in such a Church before such an Image: as if in the Scriptures and authentical writings of holy men, there were not sufficient direction for all acts of piety & devotion without these fabulous and frivolous additaments: nay, which is yet worse, see if these observations, in many Countries and Kingdoms of the World, be not more urged than the Laws of God; even as we shall find in the decrees and decretals, a Monk more severely punished for going without his cowl, then for committing adultery or sacrilege.   

CHAP. 11.  
Of the causes of the manifold confusions and evils, formerly found in the Church.  
THese are the evils, deformities, and sores of the Church, which this worthy man in his time complained of: The causes where of he thought to be principally two. First, the neglecting of the Laws of GOD, and direction of the Scriptures, & following humane inventions: Secondly, the ambition, pride, & covetousness of the Bishop of Rome. Touching the first, which is the neglect of divine laws, & infinite multiplying of humane inventions, he pronounceth confidently, there can be no general reformation of the Church, without the abolishing of sundry canons and statutes, which neither are, nor reasonably can be observed in these times, which do nothing else but ensnare the consciences of men to their endless perdition. 
a Gers. part. 1. sermo. in die circumcisi. consid. 1.  That no tongue is able sufficiently to express, what evil, what danger, what confusion, the contempt of holy Scripture (which doubtless is sufficient for the government of the Church, for otherwise Christ had been an unperfect lawgiver) and the following of humane inventions hath brought into the Church. For proof hereof, saith he, let us consider the state of the clergy, to which heavenly wisdom should have been espoused: but they have committed whoredom with that filthy harlot, earthly, carnal, and devilish wisdom: so that the state of the Church is become merely brutish & monstrous; heaven is below, and the earth above: the spirit obeyeth, and the flesh commandeth; the principal is esteemed, but as accessary; and the accessary, as principal: yet some shame not to say that the Church is better governed by humane inventions, than by the divine law, and the law of the Gospel of Christ; which assertion is most blasphemous. For the evangelical doctrine, by the professors of it, did enlarge the bounds of the Church, and lifted her up to heaven; which these sons of Hagar, seeking out that wisdom which is from the earth, have cast down to the dunghill. And that it is not wholly fallen, and utterly overthrown, and extinct, it is the great mercy of our God and Saviour.  
Touching the second cause of the Church's ruin, which is the ambition, pride and covetousness of the Bishop and Court of Rome, he boldly affirmeth that whereas the Bishops of Rome challenging the greatest place in the Church, should have sought the good of God's people, they contrarily sought only to advance themselves: 
b Gers. post tractatulum de unitate ecclesiae addit 4. considerationes ad sulcimentum praemis●…orum in 4 habentur haec verba.  ad imitationem Luciferi adorari volunt ut dij, neque reputant se subditos esse cuiquam, sicut filij Belial sine iugo; nec sibi posse dici, cur ita facis, nec Deum timent, nec homines reverentur. In imitation of Lucifer, they will be adored and worshipped as Gods. Neither do they think themselves subject to any, but are as the sons of Beliall that have cast off the yoke, not enduring whatsoever they do, that any one should ask them why they do so. They neither fear God, nor reverence men. 
c Gers. de concilio generali unius obedientiae.  Whereupon he feareth not to deliver the opinion of many good and worthy men in his time: That there being a Schism in the Church, by reason of the contention of the three Popes, which continued for a long time in that age wherein he lived, it were good to take the advantage of the time, and never to restore to any Pope again that universal administration of the temporalities of the Church, and swaying the jurisdiction of the same; but that it were best, that all things were brought back to that state they were in the times of the Apostles, or at least in the times of Sylvester and Gregory; when each prelate in his own jurisdiction was permitted to govern them committed to his charge, and dispose of the temporalities belonging to the Church, without so many reservations, & exactions, as have been since brought in; 
d Gers: part. 3. de potestate ecclesiae, papa ita praesideat bonis Ecclesiasticis, ut de iis statum habeat sufficientem & decentem, sed non ita ut caput gravidum m●…ra reliqua ob●…uat mole suâ. De concilio generali unius obedientiae.  The Popes in time getting all into their own hands, with so many abuses, frauds, and Simonies, all serving to maintain the state of the Romish Court, and of that head thereof, which long since grew too heavy for the body to bear.  
Neither was this the private opinion & conceit of Gerson only, but Petrus de Aliaco, Cardinalis Cusanus, Picus Mirandula, & innumerable more of the best, wisest, and holiest men the Church had, saw those abuses, errors, uncertainties, and barbarismes, wherewith the glory of the Church was greatly blemished, and almost quite defaced, and wished and expected a reformation. 
e Gers. de signis ruinae ecclesiae. Moderno tempore v●…squisq. interpretariet trahere n●… veretur sacram Scriptur●…, iura sanctorumque patrum instituta, ad libitum suae voluntatis, etc.  Yea, nothing was more certainly looked for, a long time before Luther was borne, than the ruin of that pompous state of the Church, the staying of the furious, covetous, and tyrannous proceedings of the Court, and Bishop of Rome, and the freeing of the Church from that Aegypticall bondage, wherein it was holden.   

CHAP. 12.  
Of the desire and expectation of a reformation of the corrupt state of the Church; and that the alteration which hath been, is a reformation.  
WHen 
a Innocentius 4 in Matheo Parisi. in Henrico 3. 844. nun Rex Anglorum noster est 〈◊〉 & mancipium &c. Pagin: 847. papam Antichristum pronunciat. Pagin. 848. eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis: eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis.  the Pope resolved to accurse, Anathematise and excommunicate Grostead the renowned Bishop of Lincoln, because he contemned his papal Bulls and Letters (who was therefore in his time named Romanorum malleus & contemptor) The Cardinals opposed themselves, saying, he was a right good man, and holier than any of them: the things he charged the Pope with, most true, and that therefore it was not safe thus to proceed, lest some tumult should follow; especially, say they, seeing it is known there must be a departure from us, and a forsaking of the Roman See. The same Grosteade, a little before his death, complaining of the wicked courses holden by the Romanists, whose scourge he was; said, the Church should never find any ease from the oppressive burdens laid upon her, nor be delivered from the Aegyptiacall bondage, she was holden in, till her deliverance were wrought in o'er gladij cruentandi, in the mouth of the sword all bathed in blood.  

b Philip de Comines, l. 8. c. 2. He preached that the state of the C●…urch should be reform by the sword, etc.  Savanorola, holden by many for a Prophet, surely a renowned man for piety and learning, told the French King Charles the eight, he should have great prosperity in his voyage into Italy, and that God would give the sword into his hand: and all this, to the end he should reform the corrupt state of the Church, which if he did not perform, he should return home again with dishonour, and God would reserve the honour of this work for some other; and so it fell out. 
c Guicciardin.  At that time, when Luther began to reprove the abuses of the Church of Rome, things were in so bad state, that not only the blood of Christ was profaned, the power of the keys by abuse made contemptible, and the redemption of souls out of purgatory, set as a stake at dice by the pardon-sellers to be played for: but so many grievances there were besides, that all the world sighed under the burden of them, and wished that some man of heroical magnanimity would oppose himself. When God had stirred up so worthy an Instrument, what did the Pope and his adherents: Surely, as Guicciardin reports, there were that year many meetings in Rome, to consult what was best to be done. The more wise and moderate sort 
Hist. lib. 13.  wished the Pope to reform things apparently amiss, and not to persecute Luther, lest continuing those intolerable disorders, abuses, and villainies whereof all good men complained, and persecuting him, that reproved them with so great applause of the whole Christian world, men should think innocence, virtue, and piety in him to be persecuted and oppressed, and so be incensed against so pertinacious and stiff maintainers of the Church's confusions. This counsel would not be followed; whence ensued this alteration of things we now see, resisted by the Pope and Papists, set forward by many Christian Countries: kingdoms, and States, and long before wished for, and foretold, before it came to pass. For what is now done in this reformation, which Cameracensis, Picus, Savanorola, Gerson and innumerable other worthy guides of God's Church long before thought not necessary to be done, as appeareth by that we have already delivered touching that matter. 
d Reformatio ecclesiae fieri non potest sine abolitione statutorum multorum super excommunicationibus & caeteris traditionibus nimis multiplicatis etc. Gers. de Concilio unius obedientiae.  Thus than it being evident, that the number of laws, canons, and customs formerly in use, and by us taken away, was a burden to the Church, and an ensnaring of men's consciences: That in the feasts, fasts, holy-days, worship of God, and honour of his Saints, there were abuses in that very kind, which we have reprehended, and that a reformation was wished for, and the Popes were so far from setting it forward, that when they saw the States of the world ready to accomplish it, even with division of themselves from them, they would in no sort consent unto it (though the wisest about them persuaded them to it as the likeliest way to keep all in quietness:) seeing it was necessary for the good of the Church, to free itself from that bondage it was formerly holden in under the Pope, taking all into his own hands by innumerable sleights, and treading down under his feet the Crowns of Kings, and jurisdictions of Bishops, as hath been showed, and proved out of Authors not to be excepted against: seeing in matters of doctrine, wherein we descent from them, we found uncertainty, contradiction, and contrariety, some saying that we now say, and others that which they defend, and the things they defend, not haviug the consenting testimony of other Churches in the world, as of Armenia, Grecia, Aethiopia etc. nor the certain approbation of antiquity; and the places of Scripture, on which they were grounded, being most apparently mistaken, as now in this light of the world themselves are forced to confess: 
e Picus Theor. 〈◊〉. loquens de erratis glos●…atoris, non mirum est, inquit, aetatis vitium fuit: perierunt enim tum & in desuetudinem abierunt bonae literae & excultiores disciplinae pessundabantur. Haec non referrem, nisi conduceret in common notari scriptorum huiusmodi, non dicam, imperitiam, sed arrogant●…m impudentiam, perinde, quasi pec●…dibus aut truncis scribant, non hominibus. Erasm. in scholiis in praefat. Hier. in Pentateuchum Mosis.  seeing it is certain, there was great ignorance of tongues, and all parts of good learning, 
f Bonaventura recedit â curiositate quantum potest, non immiscens positiones extraneas, vel doctrinas seculares, Dialecticas aut Philosophicas terminis Theologic●…s obumbratas, more multorum: unde factum est, ut ab indevo●… scholasticis, quorum (proh dolour) maior est numerus, ipse minus extiterit frequentatus. Gers de exam. doctr.  neglect of the study of Scripture, & mixture without all judgement of things profane with divine, 
g Multa quae in decretis nominantur Apocrypha. & ita apud Hier. habentur, nihilominus in officiis divinis leguntur: multa item quae apud nonnullos vera non creduntur. Picus theo. 6. Propter barbariem nescio quam latinitati & compositio●… additam abhorrent viri docti à lectione officii. Platina in vita Gregor. 1. Sunt meo iudicio iila de Constantino Apocrypha, sicut fortassè quaedam alia longa & magna scripta Sanctis Clementi & Anacleto Papis attributat in quibus volentes Romanum sedem plusquam Ecclesiae expedit, exaltare, se penitus fundan●…. Cusan. concord. cath. lib. 3. cap. 2. See the censure of Erasmus and other. upon the books falsely attributed to Ambr. jer. August. and the rest.  seeing innumerable errors, superstitions, barbarismes, and tautologies were crept into the prayers of the Church: 
h Gers. part. 3. dial. apolog. iudicium de Concilio Constantiensis.  seeing there was great corruption, ignorant mistaking, and shameless forgeries, of the monuments of antiquity, & writings of Ecclesiastical Authors, in favour of errors then maintained, which have been detected in this age wherein learning is revived, and with, and out of learning, the purity of Religion: seeing it was long before resolved, the Church must be reform: 
i Remotiones statutorum & canonum antiquorum aut additione novorum fieri nequeunt rationabilitèr pro totá Ecclesiâ, sine communi consens●…, alias possit esse statim nimi●… diversitas: no●…o tamen dicere quin in multis partibus possit Ecclesia per suas partes reformari: immò hoc necesse esset, & ad hoc sufficerent Concilia Provincialia. Gers. de Concilio unius obedientiae.  that this reformation was never likely to be obtained in a general Council, and that therefore several kingdoms were to reform themselves: seeing it was then feared the proceeding in this reformation thus severally without general consent, would breed too great difference in the courses that would be taken, as we see it hath now fallen out, to the great grief of all well affected, who mourn for the breaches of Zion: seeing notwithstanding this disadvantage, in that one part of Christendom, knew not what another did in this work of reformation, nor consulted with other, that so they might proceed in the same, in one and the same sort; yet it so fell out by the happy providence of God, that there is no essential, fundamental, or material difference among those of the reformed Religion, whose confessions of faith are published to the view of the world: (howsoever the heat, ignorant mistaking, & inconsiderate writings of some particular men, & the diversity of ceremonies, rites, & observations, make show of a greater division, than indeed there is) it is most undoubtfully clear, and evident, if we be not wilfully blinded, that this alteration of things in our times, was a reformation, & not as our adversaries blasphemously traduce it, an heretical innovation.   

CHAP. 13.  
Of the first reason brought to prove that the Church of Rome holdeth the faith first delivered; because the precise time, wherein errors began in it, cannot be noted.  
NOtwithstanding, to stop the mouths of our adversaries, whom a spirit of contradiction hath possessed, and to satisfy all such as be any way doubtful, I will by application of the notes of the Church formerly agreed upon, examine the matter of doubt, and answer all such reasons as from thence are taken, and by them urged against us, either for proof of their profession & faith, and the soundness of their own Church, or reproof of ours. The first note assigned by them is Antiquity; by which they understand not simply & absolutely long continuance in the profession of Christianity, but the retaining and having that faith which was first delivered to the Saints by the Apostles, the immediate and prime witnesses of the truth which is in Christ. Let us therefore see, how they endeavour to make proof that they now hold that ancient profession. This they endeavour to demonstrate three ways. First it being confessed the Church of Rome was the true Church, established in the faith by the blessed Apostles, and the faith thereof commended and renowned throughout the world; they think they can prove there hath been no change, alteration, or departure from that sincerity which some times was found in it. Secondly, they offer to show the consent and agreement of that form of doctrine they now teach, and that the Fathers of the Primitive Church did teach in their times, and commended to posterity in their writings. Thirdly, they presume they can show, that our doctrine, who descent from them, is nothing else but the renewing of old heresies long since condemned, in the best times of the Church, by consent of the whole Christian world: If they could as easily prove these things, as they confidently undertake it, there were no resisting against them. But seeing they fail therein so much, that very children may discern their weakness, therefore I will propose whatsoever I find alleged by any of them in this kind, that carrieth any show of probability; that all men may see, how weakly their persuasion is grounded in these things which are of greatest consequence. First therefore let us see, how they prove there hath been no change in the doctrine, discipline, profession, and state of the Roman Church since the Apostles times.  

a Bellar. Tom. 1. contro. 4. lib. 4. cap. 5. de nota Antiquitatis.  In every great and notable mutation, say they, may be observed the author, the time, place, beginnings, increasings, and resistance made against it. But the protestants are not able to note these circumstances in that mutation in matters of religion, which they suppose hath been in the Church of Rome. Therefore it is evidently convinced, there hath been no such mutation. For the more full answering of this objection we must observe, that there are 4 kinds of mutation, or change in matters of religion: The first when the whole essence of religion is changed; such is the change from Paganism to Christianity, or from Christianity to Paganism. The second when the essence remaining the same, the state is changed; such was the change of judaism into Christianity, there being in the later, new sacraments, ceremonies, and a new ministry, that was not in the former, and the performance of that which was but in expectation only before. The third is, when not the whole essence and state of religion, but some parts of it only are so changed, that some impugning, and denying those things, which others always did and do hold most certain, the opposition is so great, that there groweth an apparent separation between them, the one sort refusing to communicate with the other. As when the Arrians denied the Son of God to be coessential, coequal, and coeternal with his Father. The fourth, when men so bring in new opinions, and observations into the Church, that yet both they and other, not led away in the same error, hold communion still. In the three first kinds of mutation, all those circumstances they speak of may be noted, but not always in the fourth. Now the mutation in matters of faith and religion which hath been in the Roman Church, is of the fourth and last sort. For the errors thereof were so brought in, that both they that were the authors of them, and others that never fell into them, were both of one communion, as I will make it most clear and evident in that which followeth. And therefore it is most absurd to require us to show these circumstances they speak of.  
Secondly, for the better clearing of this matter, we must note, that the aberration which hath been in the Church of Rome from her ancient purity and simplicity, consisteth in four things: First, in certain canons, laws, and traditions, evil and hurtful from the beginning. Secondly, in the multitude of laws and canons, in respect of the number growing to be a burden. Thirdly, in that the state of things, and conditions of men altering, the same constitutions and ordinances become hurtful, that were formerly good; or in that, things instituted to one end, are in process of time applied to another; or evil and dangerous opinions, corrupting the use of that which was not wholly to be misliked in the beginning, are newly added. Fourthly, in errors in matter of faith. Touching that aberration of the Church of Rome, which consisteth in the bringing in of laws, canons, and constitutions hurtful from the beginning, we can note the beginning of it, and assign who were the authors of such laws. But when the laws themselves are not evil, but the number of laws, Canons, and constitutions is a burden to the Church, and the evil complained of, it is most foolish to urge us to show the first author thereof. As likewise, when laws not evil in the beginning, by alteration of times grow hurtful, or when things from one use grow to another. 
b Eruditionis theologicae de sacramentis. li. 1. cap. 20.  Hugo de sancto Victore, noteth that the custom was to communicate little children in the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood: which being in time ceased, yet still they continued in his time to give wine, though not consecrated, to children new baptised, which he confesseth to be a superstitious and foolish custom; yet it is not possible to show the beginning of it. The aberration in the Church of Rome, in matters of doctrine, was in such things, and so carried in the beginnings, that the Authors of those new and false opinions, were not disclaimed and noted as damnable heretics, as were those that erred in things most clearly resolved before: or that erred with such pertinacy, that they divided themselves from all that thought otherwise; But the Authors of these errors, and they that were free from them, were, notwithstanding these differences, both of one communion. And therefore the circumstances by them required in these mutations, cannot be showed, as it will easily appear by these instances following.   

CHAP. 14.  
Of diverse particular errors which have been in the Church; whose first Author cannot be named.  
THe opinion of two resurrections of men's bodies, the first of the 
See the ninth cha. of this book, where they are named that defend these erroneous opinions, whose Authors and first devisers are not know●….  good, the second of the wicked, (there being between the one and the other a thousand years) was an error; but the Author of it is not known. For I hope the Romanists will not say, the Fathers learned it of any heretic the first author of it. The opinion that the souls of the just are in hell, and see not God till the general resurrection, was an error; but they cannot tell who was the first author of it. The opinion that all Catholic Christians how wicked soever, shall in the end be saved as by fire, was an error, but the Author is not known. The opinion that men are elelected for the foresight of some thing in themselves, is an error, or else the doctrine of Augustine, who was of that opinion sometimes, but afterwards condemned it in himself and others. The opinion that infants could not be saved, unless they were not only baptised, but did receive the Sacrament of the Lords body, was anerrour; but the Author of it is not known. The opinions, that the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, and the like, are Apocryphal, and that they are Canonical, are contradictory, and the one of them an error in matter of Faith; yet is not the Author of that error known. The innumerable contradictory opinions holden in the Church of Rome, touching matters of Faith, 
a Bellar lib 5. de potestate temporali Pontificis cap. 1. Waldensis doctrinalis fidei. l. 2. art. 3. q. 78, negat potestatem Papae quoad regna Principum, & Sigebertus in Chro nico an. 1088. Stapleton controv. 3. q,4. proponit contratias opiniones de infallibili Papae iudicio, & ait, non esse de fide quòd non possit errate.  as that the Pope is Sovereign temporal Lord of all the World, and all Kings and Princes hold of him in fee, and that he is not: that he may depose Kings erring in Faith, and persecuting the faithful, and that he may not: that papally he cannot err, and that he may, and sometimes doth; and many other like; must needs be errors on the one side or other; yet is not the author of those errors to be nominated.  

b Liquet ex lectione antiquorum, Eucharistiam laicis in manus datam olim, nunc in os: olim dominicumsanguinem ●…stulis hauriebant, & etiam Rom. Pontifex quoties publicè sacrificat, aureo calamo sugit sanguinem dominicum è calice cum diacono & subdiacono. Rhenanus in annot. in lib. Tertul. de coronâ militis.  It was doubtless, in the confession of the adversaries, the custom of the Western or Latin Church aswell as of the rest, to communicate in both kinds: when and where that custom of communicating the Lay-people only in one kind began, cannot be precisely noted. 
c Apud veteres absolutio nisi satisfactione purgatis ferè non impertiebatur. Lindan. panopliae l. 4. c. 70.  It was the custom to impose penance first, and after the performance of it, to give absolution: now, absolution is first given, and then penance imposed to be performed afterwards: when this alteration began, it cannot be noted. 
d Bonavent. l. 3. dist. 3. q. 2.  It was the general opinion, that Mary was conceived in sin: it grew afterwards to be generally thought, she was not. The first Author of this latter opinion cannot be known, nor of the former neither, as I suppose. 
e Caiet. opusculorum tom. 1. tract. 15. c. 7. seruavit Ecclesia multo tempore hunc stilum, ut exprimeret in literis relaxationem ab iniunctis poenitentiis, etc. in tantum ut dubitet an Papa dederit aliquando indulgentiam, non ●…olum ab iniunctis. sed â quom odosibet debitis poenis pro peccatis: & tamen fatetur Petrum Paludanum, & johannem Monachum in extravaganti Bonifacii de jubilei expositione, tale aliquid refer, & formam plenariae indulgentiae tale aliquid probare agnoscit: sed ait ed●…tam illam formam secundum illam opinionem valdeut videtur communem, scilicet quod indulgentia liberet ab iniunctis et non iniunctis poenis  The custom was to grant Indulgences or Relaxations only from enjoined penance: the form of these was afterwards altered: I think it can hardly be noted by whom, etc. 
h Lindan. Panopl. l. 3. c. 11.  The custom was on the days which they kept as Fasting-days, not to eat till three a clock in the afternoon, or till the even; so that to dine and not to fast were Synonymies in the Primitive Church; but in the Romish Church they did dine on their Fasting-days, and therefore said their Evensong between ten and eleven a clock in the morning: I think it hard to note precisely the time when this alteration began. Thus than we see there may be, & have been many alterations in the state of Religion, and matters of Faith in the Church of Rome, though all those circumstances they urge us to show, cannot be noted in them. And therefore the first reason brought to prove, that the Romish Church is not departed from the first and original purity, is found too weak.   

CHAP. 15.  
Of the second reason brought to prove that they hold the ancient faith; because our men, dissenting from them, confess they descent from the Fathers; where sundry instances are examined.  
LEt us see the other. The other way, whereby they endeavour to prove the antiquity of their faith and religion, is by showing the agreement and consent between it, and the doctrine of the Primitive Fathers. This, they say, they cannot do, but either by proposing the several parts of Christian doctrine delivered by the Fathers, and comparing the doctrine of their Church with it, or out of our own confession. The first course they think would be too tedious, and therefore they endeavour to prove by o●… own confession that the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and of the ancient Fathers, is all one.  
The greatest Divines, say they, of the reformed Chuches, when they impugn the assertions of the Romanists, confess they go against the stream of all Antiquity. Therefore they are forced to confess the doctrine of the Fathers, and of the Church of Rome to be all one. This is a vile and wicked calumniation: neither are they able to justify it. 
a Bellar. lib. 4. cap. 9 de concilijs, & Ecclesia Calvin. institut. l. 2. c. 2. 4.  But let us see what they say: Caluine (they say) in the article of free will condemning the Roman Church of error, is forced to reject, and refuse the judgement of all Antiquity. For the clearing of this, we must observe, that the will of man may be said to be free in divers sorts. First from necessity of seeking and having divine support, help, and assistance: secondly, from divine direction and ordering: thirdly, from sin: fourthly, from misery: five, limitation of desire, natural necessity, and constraint. These being the divers kinds that may be conceived of the freedom of man's will, Caluine denyeth the will of man to be, or ever to have been free from the necessity of seeking, and having divine support, help, and general assistance, without which it hath no force or faculty at all. Secondly he denyeth it to be free from divine direction, ordering, and guidance: for in this sort, neither the wills of men nor Angels, were so free in the day of their creation, as to exempt themselves from the ordering of the divine providence, which most sweetly disposeth all things. Thirdly, from misery there is no freedom in this world, nor from the bondage of sin, without the benefit of grace making free. Habemus (saith 
b De gratia & libero arbitrio.  Bernard) liberum arbitrium, sed nec cautum a peccato, nec tutum a miseria. We have saith Bernard, free will, but neither so wary as to avoid sin, nor so safe, as to be free from danger. From limitation of desire, natural necessity, and constraint, he confesseth the will to be free, though it be subject to a condicional or moral necessity, which by Bernard is most aptly named malè libera necessitas. The will of man being thus over ruled by divine providence, and in so divers sorts enthralled to sin and misery, Caluine thinketh the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and liberum arbitrium, taken from the Philosophers, and used by the Fathers, to be too glorious to express a thing so weak and miserable; and that in his opinion it is not safe to use these words, unless we add, for the clearing of our meaning, the limitations with which the Fathers do restrain them; which yet many will not so carefully observe, as they will unadvisedly suck the poison of error out of the words themselves. Thus than we see Caluine confesseth, the Fathers used these words in a good and godly sort.  
But, saith Bellarmine, he feareth not to pronounce, that all the Fathers (Augustine excepted) are so uncertain, perplexed, and doubtful in the delivering of this point, that a man can gather no certainty out of them: Surely it is most true that he saith of them, they are doubtful & uncertain in this point; yet so that it appears, that in this ambiguity ascribing little or nothing to the power of man's will, they give all the praise of well doing to the holy Spirit of God. 
c Calvin. instit. lib. 2. c. 2. 9  To this purpose he allegeth sundry excellent sentencesout of Cyprian, Eucherius, and Chrysostome, and concludes, that it was the drift of these Fathers, howsoever they seem sometimes too much to amplify the power of man's will, yet wholly to drive men from the confidence in their own strength, to seek their strength in God. This then is all that Caluine saith, that before Augustine was stirred by the Pelagians, exactly to examine these things that concern the grace of God, and power of nature, the Fathers delivered not this point so distinctly, as afterwards it was, nor so fully, but that some things were found in their writings not so fit, as was to be wished. 
d Prosper. in epist. ad Aug. de reliquijs Pelagianae haereseos. obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt: ut ea, quae de epist. ad Romanos, ad manifestationem Dei gratiae praevenientis electorum merita proferuntur á nullo unquam ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta, ut nunc sentiuntur, affimant.  That this is most true, the writings of the Fathers themselves will witness, and the Testimonies alleged out of them by the Pelagians against Augustine, will sufficiently prove it; which are no otherwise answered by him, than they are by Caluine, 
e Aug. de praedestinatione sanctorum cap. 14. quid opu●… est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad soluendum quest. one versari etc. eodem modo respondet. Bellar. lib. 2. de gratia & libero arbitrio. c. 14.  that their drift was to deject the pride of sinful flesh, and extol the greatness of God's mercy and goodness; That if they spoke some things not so distinctly and fully as men did afterwards, it is not to be marvelled at, seeing they did not purposely enter into the examination of these things, before the Pelagian heretics (whose heresy was in these things) were known in the world.  
For the farther justifying of calvin's censure, let the Reader consult 
f Bibliothecae sanctae lib. 6. annot. 251. epist. Prosper. & Hi'arij inter opera Aug.  Sixtus Senensis, alleging many testimonies out of the Fathers, affirming, that men are elected to eternal life, for the foresight of some thing in themselves. And surely this should not seem incredible, that many of the Fathers were in this error; seeing Augustine himself was of this opinion, before he entered into conflict with the Pelagians: which error when he corrected, most men disliked his doctrine touching election, the grace of God, and power of nature, as it appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hilarius, for that he seemed unto them to ascribe so much unto the grace of God, and detract so much from the power of man's will, that they greatly feared his doctrine would weaken that carefulness that should be in men to arise from sin, discourage them from all good endeavours, and give an occasion of negligence, and careless slouhfulness. That which Bellarmine addeth, that Calvin disliketh that saying of Augustine that man's will concurreth with grace, not as precedent unto it, but as following after it, and as a handmaid attending on it, is most false. For 
g Calvin. instit. lib. 2. cap. 3. 7.  he approveth the saying of Augustine, but reproveth the Master of sentences for misseunderstanding and misseapplying it.  

h Ibidem. Calvin. l. 3. cap. 11. sect. 15.  That which followeth, that Caluine dissenteth from Augustine in the matter of justification, is of the same nature. For he saith only, that, though nothing be to be disliked in the matter itself delivered by Augustine, for 
i In Psalm. 142. & in libro de perfectione iustitiae, cum rex iustus sederit in throno quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor? aut quis gloriabitur se mundum esse à peccato? nisi fortè qui volunt in suâ justitia non in ipsius iudicis misericordia gloriari, & Hieron, contra Pelagianos, lib. 1. tunc iusti sumus cum nos peccatores fatemur, & iustitia nostra non ex proprio merito sed ex Dei consistit misericordia.  that it is plain, that acknowledging the imperfection of inherent justice, and thinking it our greatest perfection to know our own imperfections, and seek remission of our sinful defects, he cannot but acknowledge the imputation of Christ's righteousness to be that, in confidence whereof we stand in the sight of God: yet his manner of delivering this article is not so full, perfect, and exact, as we are forced to require in these times, against the errors of the Romanists: For that, when he speaketh of grace, he seemeth for the most part to understand nothing else thereby, but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth us to become new creatures: seldom mentioning the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  

k Ibidem. Lib. 2. 14. 3.  That which Bellarmine chargeth Calvin with, in the next place, argueth his intolerable impudency. Calvin (saith he) doth think, that the son of God is subject to the father in respect of his Deity: which because all the Fathers deny, he pronounceth they all erred, and that their error cannot be excused. Let the Reader peruse the place, and he shall find that Calvin saith no such thing, but the clean contrary.  
Indeed Hugo de S. Victore in his questions on the 1 Epist. to the Corinth. 15. saith, that CHRIST is subject to his Father according to his divine nature, and showeth that many have been of that opinion. But Calvin saith no such thing; neither doth he charge the Fathers with any error touching the distinction of the Natures of God and Man in Christ, or the unity of his Person: but saith only, that some of them applying those things distinctly to one of the natures of Christ, which are appliable to the whole Person of the Mediator, entangle themselves in some doubts, which otherwise might easily be cleared; which will easily appear by that place of Hugo before mentioned. The kingdom (saith Hugo) which Christ shall deliver to his Father, & so become subject unto him, either was given unto him in that he was God, and then he cannot resign it, nor become subject to his Father, because in that respect he is equal unto him, whence we say, equalis Patri secundùm divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem: Or in that he was man; and that seemeth not conceivable; For the nature of man is not capable of that infinite power, that is employed in the Kingdom which God gave his Son. He answereth, that he may be said to be subject to his Father, in that he is God, because though he have the same essence with him, yet he hath received it from him. How aptly this may be said, I will not now examine: but how in this sense he may be said to give up his kingdom to his Father, is yet more hard to conceive.  

l In 1 corinth. 15. Filius ostendet non se esse ex quo ●…mnia, sed per quem sunt omnia: & hoc erit tradere regnum Deo & patri.  Ambrose saith, he may be said to give it up, not by real resigning of that he had, but by bringing us to his Father, and showing us that Fountain whence he received it, and all that fullness whereof we are partakers: These are doubts, which Calvin saith, that the Fathers do not clear, attributing the Kingdom of Christ unto him distinctly, in respect of this or that nature. But he affirming, that the Kingdom of Christ doth not agree unto him distinctly or severally in respect of this or that nature, but to the whole person considered in both natures, easily expresseth himself. For, saith he, God gave to his Son by eternal generation, the same essence he had in himself, and with it the same power and kingdom, and this he shall never resign. 
m Hereunto agreeth Hugo in the place abovementioned, saying, Secundum humanam naturam ad aequalitatem patris sublimatus est dum verbo consubstan tiali patri in un am person●… humana natura unita est.  Secondly, he gave to the nature of man not by formal transfusion, but in the Person of his Son, (which in the admirable work of the Incarnation he bestowed on it, to support and sustain it) all that power he had originally in himself, and eternally gave his Son: so that the Son of God, after the taking of our nature into the unity of his person, administereth not his Kingdom without the union, knowledge, assent, and cooperation of the nature of man, which he shall continue to do, while we need mediation, and till he have brought us to his Father's presence, and to the clear view, and sight of his Majesty. Then shall he cease to rule in this sort any more; his humane nature shall not need to be interposed any longer, but he shall appear in the glory of his Godhead; then shall he be subject to his Father in the nature of man, in more special sort then now he is; because though now he be inferior unto God in that he is man, and so subject to him, yet that nature of man intermeddleth with the administration of the Kingdom in such sort, as than it shall cease to do, though it shall never lose that power and kingdom which in the Person of the Son of God it is honoured with.   

CHAP. 16.  
Of Limbus patrum, concupiscence, and satisfaction, touching which, Caluine is falsely charged to confess, that he dissenteth from the Fathers.  
THe 
a Ibid. l. 2. 16. 9  next imputation is touching Limbus patrum, supposed to be a place below in the earth near hell, if not a part of hell, which Calvin pronounceth to be but a fable, though it have great authors and patrons; as if this were so strange a thing, that a fable and mere fancy should find approbation among some of the Fathers. The opinion of the Millenaries, I suppose, Bellarmine thinketh but a mere fancy; yet had it great and reverend patrons. If he say, that all the Fathers did hold the opinion of Limbus, and that Calvin opposeth himself against them all, he is clearly refuted by 
b In Epist. 99 ad Euodium. unde illis iustis qui in sinu Abrahae erant cum ille ad inferna descenderet nondum quid contulisse●… inveni, à quibus secundum beatificam praesentiam divinitatis nunquam video recessisse, & ibid. Quia ne ipsos quidem inferos uspiam scripturatum locis in bono appellatos potui reperire. Quod si nusquam in divinis authoritatibus legitur, non utique sinus ille Abrahae, id est secretae cuiusdam quietis habitatio aliqua pars inferorum credenda est.  Augustine, who doubted of it. Besides that their popish Limbus supposed to have been a receptacle for the souls of the patriarchs, but only till the death and resurrection of Christ, as being then emptied by him, is a mere private conceit of their own, wanting the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers. 
* Supra. cap. 9  For Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others did think the souls of all men to be holden in hell till the last day. And if it were resolved that there was such a 
c Ibid. l. 3. 3. 10.  Limbus, as they fancy, yet their Schoolmen are not agreed of the place; neither dare they affirm, that it was below in the earth, though they seem most inclineable to that opinion.  
The next false report that Bellarmine maketh of Calvin, is, that he opposeth himself against all Antiquity, in the question whether concupiscence in the regenerate be sin or not. This he endeavoureth to make good in this sort. Calvin (saith he) professeth, that Augustine hath truly and faithfully gathered the opinions of all the Fathers, and that his judgement is their judgement; but he opposeth himself against Augustine; therefore against all the Fathers.  
This assumption we deny. For Calvin no way dissenteth from Augustine, but saith only, it may seem, that there should be some little difference between Augustine and us; For that we affirm concupiscence in the regenerate to be sin, but he is fearful to call it sin, unless it be consented unto; naming it rather an evil, sickness, infirmity, or the like. But elsewhere taking away this doubt, he saith, that Augustine feareth not sometimes to call it sin: whereby the consent and agreement between Augustine and Calvin appeareth. It were easy to show, that not only Augustine, but the Fathers generally were of the same opinion, that we are of, and that the popish opinion is a most dangerous and damnable error, if this were a fit place to enter into the exact handling of that question.  
But let us see the rest of his objections. Calvin (saith he) in the matter of 
d Ibid. l. 3. 4. 38.  satisfaction, chargeth all the Fathers with error. This is as true, as the rest. For Calvin doth not say, they erred in this matter of satisfaction; for he showeth plainly, they were far from the absurdity of the Popish conceit: but he saith disiunctively only, that either they erred, or at least used some phrases and forms of speech that may seem hard, and need a good, and favourable construction; rather than to be wrested to a worse sense than they were uttered in, as the manner of the Popish Sophisters is to deal with the writings of the Fathers.  
For the clearing of this matter we must observe, that, in sin, there are two things; the sinfulness, & the punishment which for it the justice of God inflicteth. Both these are taken away by Christ, but in a different sort. The sinfulness, by the operation, working, & infusion of grace; & the punishment by the imputation of Christ's sufferings, who suffering that he deserved not, freeth us from that we were deservedly to have suffered. From one of these we cannot be freed, unless also we be freed from the other; and in what degree we are delivered from the one, we are discharged from the other: if we be freed only from the dominion of sin, we are only discharged from the condemnation of eternal death; if from all sinfulness, we are discharged from all touch of any pwishment. 
e Poena aeterna in temporalem in remissione culpae: temporalis magna & supra vires, in temporalem quae viribus competit, in sacerdotis absolutione commutatur. Alex, de Hales part, 4. q. 2 1. memb. 2▪ a●…t. 1. 2. God upon our repentance pardoning the sin and the eternal punishment due unto it, through Christ doth exact of every man a temporal satisfaction answerable to the fault committed. Reformat. of a the form Cathol. by D. B. P. cap. 6. of satisfaction.  But the Romanists do teach touching sins committed after Baptism, that God contenteth not himself, with the most perfect abolishing and extinguishment of all sinfulness, by working of Divine grace, & the satisfaction of Christ's sufferings, but that he doth require that we suffer the extremity of that we have deserved, only some little mitigation procured by the bloodshed of Christ, and the eternity excepted, from which our ceasing from sin doth free us: the punishment of sin being eternal, because sin is eternal.  
Hence it cometh, that they teach, that if we will not suffer and endure the extremity of punishment we have deserved, we must make some other recompense to God's justice for it. This is a blasphemous assertion, and contrary to the doctrine of all the Fathers, who know and teach as we do, that the justice of God, and his wrath against sin is satisfied in Christ; that this satisfaction is imputed to us, not continuing in, but ceasing from sin; that according to the degree of our ceasing from sin, this satisfaction is diversely imputed; 
f Sane ubi prorsus de medio factum fuerit omne peccatum, causa quidem ●…mnino sublat●…, nec ipse quidem de▪ inceps manebit effectus. Ber. in Psal. Qui habitat. Serm. 10.  So that if we cease from sin only so, that it hath no more dominion over us, it is imputed in such sort as it dischargeth us only from condemnation: but if we wholly cease from sin, it is so imputed unto us, as that it freeth us from all punishment whatsoever. So that if there were found in any of us a perfect leaving & forsaking of sin, GOD'S justice would lay no punishment upon us. But the Romanistes think it might and would for precedent sin, though now wholly forsaken and quite abolished.  
It is true indeed, that the Fathers sometimes used the name of satisfaction in their writings, but to another purpose than the Romanists do. They knew, that evils are cured by contraries, and therefore in the curing of sinful souls they prescribe that, which Caluine also doth, that men having offended in yielding too much to their own desires, pleasures, delights, and profits, should, for the freeing of themselves from the evil of sin, deny something to themselves which otherwise they might lawfully enjoy: which if they do not, they shall in the punishments which God will bring upon them, taste the bitterness of that that seemed sweet unto them in sin. This exercise of repentant mortification, the Fathers called satisfaction; not as if the justice of God were not satisfied in Christ, or we were tied, yea though we should wholly forsake sin, yet to satisfy for that is past, by suffering so much as our sins have deserved; or else to do some painful thing equivalent to such sufferings, which is the popish error: But because we must do that in this kind of repentant mortification, which may be sufficient, for the finding out of the depth of that wound which sin hath made in the soul, for removing the causes of it, the extinguishment of that remaineth of it, the taking away the occasions, and the preventing of the reentrance of it again. This if we do, we shall prevent the hand of GOD, which otherwise would smite us, not to be satisfied in the course of his justice, (which at our hands cannot be looked for, and which is abundantly satisfied in Christ, and would not touch us for any thing past, if by perfect forsaking of sin we were fully joined unto him) but to drive us by bitter sorrow to purge out that sinfulness, and those remainders which our precedent sins left behind them, in respect whereof we are not yet fully joined to Christ. These remainders of sin, if we dislike, cast off, and forsake, and judge and condemn ourselves, as the Apostle speaketh, we shall not be judged of the Lord for them. This happy course of preventing the hand of God, & turning away his punishments by bitter and afflictive recounting of our sins, the Fathers call Satisfaction. Some sayings of the Fathers it may be there are which are hard, and must with a favourable construction be reduced to the sense we have expressed: and that is all that Calvin saith; for which how justly he is blamed, let the Reader judge.   

CHAP. 17.  
Of Prayer for the dead, and Merit.  
THe 
a Ibid. l. 3. c. 10.  next calumniation is concerning prayer for the dead. Let the Reader observe, what it is that Bellarmine is to prove, and he shall find that he doth nothing but trifle. For, he is to prove that Calvin confesseth, that more than a thousand & three hundred years since, the Popish doctrine, and custom of prayer for the dead did prevail, and was generally received in the whole Church of God throughout the world. This if he will prove, he must reason thus. The custom of praying to deliver the souls of men out of the pains of Purgatory, is the custom and practice which the Roman Church defendeth, and Calvin impugneth: but this custom Calvine confesseth to have been in use more than a thousand and three hundred of years since: therefore he acknowledgeth the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church to be most ancient, and to have been received a thousand & three hundred years ago. The Minor proposition of this reason is false: and Calvin in the place cited by Bellarmine, protesteth against it, most constantly affirming, that the Fathers knew nothing of Purgatory, and therefore much less of prayer to deliver men from thence. But Bellarmine will reply, that the custom of praying for the dead, was most ancient. We answer, The custom of remembering the departed, naming their names at the holy Table in the time of the holy mysteries & offering the Eucharist (that is the sacrifice of praise) for them, was a most ancient and godly custom, neither is it any way disliked by us. 
b Epiph. haeres. 75.  And surely it appears, this was the cause that Aerius was condemned of heretical rashness, in that he durst condemn this laudable and ancient custom of the commemoration of the dead. 
c Liturgia Chrysostomi. We offer this reasonable service, that is, the Eucharist of praise & thanksgiving, to thee O Lord, for all that are at rest in the saith of Christ, even for the Patriarches, Prophets, etc.  In this sort they did most religiously observe and keep, at the Lords Table, the commemoration of all the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, & confessors, yea of Mary the Mother of our Lord, to whom it cannot be conceived, that by prayer they did wish deliverance out of Purgatory, sith no man ever thought them to be there: but if they wished any thing, it was the deliverance from the power of death, which as yet tyranniseth over one part of them; the speedy destroying of the last enemy, which is death, the hastening of their resurrection, and joyful public acquittal of them in that great day, wherein they shall stand to be judged before the judge of the quick and dead. This was the practice of the whole church, and this the meaning of their commemorations and prayers, which was good, and no way to be disliked. Notwithstanding, it is most certain that many particular men extended the meaning of these prayers farther, and out of their own private errors and fancies used such prayers for the dead, as the Romanists themselves (I think) dare not justify: and so it is true, that Calvin saith, that many of the Fathers were led into error in this matter of prayer for the dead, and not that all, as if the whole Church had fallen from the truth, as Bellarmine falsely imputeth unto Calvin, who saith no such thing.  
First therefore, it was an opinion of many of the Fathers, that there is no judgement to pass upon men till the last day; that all men are holden either in some place under the earth, or else in some other place appointed for that purpose, so that they come not into heaven, nor receive the reward of their labours, till the general judgement. Out of this conceit grew that prayer in 
d Liturgia jacobi 2.  james his Liturgy, that God would remember all the faithful that are fallen asleep in the sloepe of death, since Abel the just, till this present day, that he would place them in the land of the living, etc. And the like are found in the mass book. 
e Sixtus Senensis bibliothec. sanct. lib. 6. annot. 345.  Of this opinion was justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, Ambrose, 
f Gerts. serm. in festo Paschae. Hodie, in quit Christus, mecum eris in Paradiso. Lucae, 23. Propter quod insuper apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae, johan, 22, quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum vel tubarum coram Philippo avu nculo tuo per theologos Parisienses de virgine beata, & credidit potius theologis Parisiensibus quam Curiae.  johannes Romanus Pontifex, and sundry other.  
The second opinion was, that men may be delivered from the punishments of sin after this life, if they die in the profession of the true faith, how wickedly soever they lived, or at least, if the punishment of such be eternal and cannot be ended, yet it may be deferred, or mitigated. 
g Supra pag. 87  How many of the Fathers were in this error, and made prayers for the dead upon this false persuasion, that all Christians, how wickedly soever they lived, may find mercy at God's hands in the world to come, at the entreaty of the living, they that have read any thing can soon report.  
Thirdly, whereas there are three estates of the souls of men, the first, in the body; the second, when they are severed from the body, and stand before God immediately and instantly upon the dissolution; and the third, after they have received their particular judgement; the 
h Preces pro commendatione ani●…ae apud Cassandrum in lib. Precum Ecclesiast.  godly do not only recommend them unto God while they are yet in their bodies; but when departing thence, they go to stand before the judgement seat of God, they accompany them with their prayers and best good wishes, even to the presence of the Lord. Hence were all those prayers, that were used on the days of the obites of the Saints, conceived respectively to their passage out of this world, and the dangers they do by the goodness of God escape in that fearful hour of their dissolution, which prayers were again repeated in the anniversary remembrances of their obites. 
i Officium pro defunctis in Anniversarijs.  Of this sort was that prayer in the Mass book. Libera Domine animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni, & de profundo lacis: libera eas de ore leonus, ne absorbeat eas tartarus, ne cadant in obscurum: etc. Deliver, O Lord, the souls of all faithful ones departed, from the pains of hell, and the deep Lake; deliver them from the month of the Lion, that hell swallow them not up, and that they fall not into the dungeons of utter darkness. How hard this was, to use these prayers in a set course, in the days wherein they did only commemorate, and represent the days of men's departure hence, and so to pray for them long after their death, as if they were but even then in the passage, and so in danger of falling into the hands of their ghostly enemies, and not yet secure and assured of their eternal future state; (
k Bellar. lib. 2. cap. 5. de Purgatorio.  which yet Bellarmine confesseth, is the best construction can be made of them) I leave to the consideration of the wise. These are the several kinds of praying for the dead, all which I hope Bellarmine dareth not justify: but for the Romish manner of praying for the dead, it hath no certain testimony of Antiquity, no man ever thinking of Purgatory, till Augustine, to avoid a worse error, did doubtingly run into it; after whom many in the Latin Church embraced the same opinion, but the Greek Church never received it to this day. Thus than we see how unjustly Calvin is traduced by Bellarmine, in this matter of prayer for the dead, and how weakly he proves, that it is confessed, that their opinion and the doctrine of Antiquity is the same. His 
l Ibid. l. 3 15. 2.  next challenge is scarce worth the mentioning, much less the refuting. Calvin saith, the Fathers were far from the popish error touching merits, and that yet they used the word, whence men have since taken occasion of error. Therefore he dissenteth from all Antiquity, and acknowledgeth the Roman faith to be the ancient faith and religion. Truly, I am weary in following of him in these senseless fooleries.   

CHAP. 18.  
Of the Father's strictness in admitting men into the ministry: of single life, and of their severity in the discipline of repentance.  
THat 
a Ibid. 4. 4. 10.  which followeth is altogether of the same kind: Calvin saith, the Fathers were too severe, in that they required more in them, that were to be ordained to serve in the holy ministry of the Church, than the blessed Apostle Saint Paul doth require; Therefore saith Bellarmine he dissenteth from all Antiquity, and confesseth the Romish doctrine and practice to be most ancient. This consequence is very weak. For the Romanists retain nothing of that ancient severity, but break all the Canons of discipline that the Fathers observed, by their ordinary dispensations, or rather dissipations of all order, and neglect of all rules of orderly government. 
b Synodus. sex. can. 14. & Neocaesariensis can. 11.  For where is that Canon observed, that no man attain to the order and degree of a Presbyter, till he be thirty years of age: 
c Synodus Chalcedonensis can. 6.  that no man be ordained loosely, or at random, but to be employed in some certain charge of ministry; that 
d Gerson. declarat. defectuum virorum Ecclesiasticorum.  one man have no title, interest, and living in two Churches; whereas, in the Church of Rome, one man hath two hundred, or three hundred ecclesiastical livings; 
e Synodus Sardicensis. can. 1.  that men ambitiously and covetously go not from one Church, because it is meaner, to another because it is greater? Calvin therefore was not so ignorant as to think the Romanists to be too severe in the observation of discipline, and therein to be like the primitive Fathers; he saith therefore the clean contrary to that which Bellarmine imputeth unto him; that in the choice of such as were to be admitted into the holy Ministry, the Fathers of the Primitive Church followed the prescription of Saint Paul, and the examples of the blessed Apostles, that they proceeded therein with very great and religious reverence, and invocation of the name of God, that they had a set form of trial and examination, according to which they made inquiry both into the life and doctrine of them that were to be chosen; but that chose in the Church of Rome there have been very few found to be chosen for the space of an hundred years last passed, that the old Canons reject not as wholly unworthy of ecclesiastical honour & employment, as Drunkards, Adulterers, Sodomites, and the like Monsters, to pass by less matters, as that boys of ten years of age, by the Pope's dispensations have been admitted to Bishoprickes. The Church of Rome then, by her pactise, condemneth the whole course of proceeding in former times, which Calvin reverenceth as most religious, and wisheth that things were brought back to that ancient order again. Only he saith, that the Fathers of those times may seem a little to have exceeded, in too much severity, in that they required more things in them that were to be elected, than the blessed Apostle Saint Paul doth. This censure need not seem so strange unto us, if we remember 
f Concilium Neocaesari. Cano. 12. Eusebius. lib. 6. c. 42. Cornelius speaking of Novatus his ordination saith many withstood the fact, affirming that none baptised in bed, as he was, should be admitted into Ecclesiastical order.  that such as had been baptised by heretics, or when they were in fear and danger of death, which were named Clinici in those times, might not (unless their conversation, learning and deserts afterwards were very highly approved) be admitted into the ministry; 
g Concilium ●…elense canon. 5. Leo in Epist. episcopis per Campaniam, etc. ne vidua●…um mariti.  that he which had married a widow, though he were now free, she being dead, might not enter into the degree and order of Ministry; that he which had one wife, yea, though it were before he became a Christian, or were baptised, and after his being a Christian, his first wife being dead, married another, was judged uncapable of Ministerial order; against which Jerome declaimeth in his Epistle to Oceanus: Behold, saith he, Men suppose Adulteries, whoredoms, Incests, Sodomitries, Parricides, impieties against God, and whatsoever things are so wicked, that they are not to be named, are washed away in Baptism, and that after all these horrible crimes a man may be admitted to the Ministry, as being washed from them in the laver of new birth: but if a man had a wife before, which was no crime, and after his Baptism she being dead, marry another, he may not. Thus, saith he, these hypocrites (for so in the heat of his passion he calls them) do strain at a gnat, and swallow a Camel. For this, Ruffinus challengeth him, as a contemner of the constitutions and decrees of the Fathers, though he show that innumerable not only Presbyters, but Bishops, were in all the parts of the world admitted, contrary to the prescript of these pretended Canons. That which Calvine addeth, that in process of time they forbade marriage, and forced all them that would enter into the holy Ministry to live single, was never general, nor in one sort.  

h Socrates l. 1. c. 8.  In the Council of Nice, Paphnutius dissuaded the Bishops from putting those of the Clergy from the matrimonial society of their wives, affirming that marriage is honourable among all men, and the bed undefiled, and that the forcing of single life would bring many evils into the Church. This Counsel and persuasion of Paphnutius was not only yielded unto by the Fathers of that Council, but 
i Can 13.  in the sixth general Council, the Fathers there assembled, condemned the practice of the Roman Church in forbidding marriage, not only as hard, injurious, and being an occasion of many evils, but as contrary to the Canons of the Apostles of Christ; from whence it is, that all the Churches of the world (the Church of Rome only excepted) admit married men, continuing in the state of marriage, into the holy ministry: as, the Churches of Armenia, Graecia, Syria, Aethiopia, Russia, and whatsoever Christians there are in any part of the world.  

k Sigebertus in Chronico 1074. Greg. Papa celebrata Synodo uxoratos sacerdotes a divino officio removit, & laicis missam corum audire interdixit: ex quâ re tam grave oritur scandalum, ut nullius haeresis tempore, Sancta Ecclesia graviori schismate s●…ssa sit: paucis continentiam tenentibus, aliquibus eam causa quaest●…s & iactantiae simulantibus, multis incontinentiam periurio aut multipliciori adulterio cumulantib●…, etc. Laici sacra mysteria temerant, baptisant infants, sordido aurium humore pro sacro chrismate ut●…. Lambertus Schafnaburgensis, Fol. 201. si●… scribir, Hildebrandus Papa cum Episcopis Italiae decreverat, ut sacerdotes non habeant u●…ores, habentes aut dimittant, aut deponantur. Adversus hoc decretum vehementer infre●… to●…a factio Clericorum, hominem planè haereticum & vesani dogmatis esse, etc. Hildebrandus moriens confes●… est Deo, Sancto Petro, & to●…i Ecclesiae, se valdè peccasse in curâ pastorali, & suadente Diabolo contra 〈◊〉 genus odiu●… & iram concitasse. Sigebertus in Chronic. An. 1088.  How long it was before this decree of forced single life prevailed in the Latin Church, and what resistance there was made against Pope Hildebrand for the same, by the whole Clergy of Christendom, calling him heretic, monster, and enemy of mankind, author of all mischief, impurity, and confusion; the histories of those times report; affirming that upon the publishing of that his decree, there followed such disturbance of the peace of the Church, such confusions, indignities, contempts, and profanations of all holy things, as that the Church was never so grievously and dangerously afflicted in any of her most bloody persecutions under the Heathen Emperors, nor in her greatest conflicts with heretics. What good success this decree had after it prevailed, and what a pure and holy Clergy it represented to the world, let 
l Gers. de vitâ spirituali ani●… 〈◊〉. 4. corrolar. 14. et part. 4. de exterminatione schismatis.  Gerson report, who acknowledgeth that the places of holy Ministry were possessed by adulterers, wantoness, Sodomites, and such like monsters: that the number of the offenders in this kind was so great, as that there was no proceeding against them; that the canons against Concubinaries notorioussie so known, requiring all men to refrain from communicating with them, could not now be continued; that it were best to permit them to keep harlots, for the avoiding of greater evils, and to tolerate their wickedness in that kind, as the stews are permitted.  
Thus than I hope it doth appear to be true that Calvin saith, that they did ill deserve of the Church, that forced her Ministers to single life; 
m Platina in vita Pii 2.  and that, the speech of Pope Pius the second, was most true, that what reason soever they had that forbade marriage in former times, there were more reason in our times to leave it free again. Now 
n Ibid. l. 4. 12. 〈◊〉.  let us proceed to consider his next exception against Caluine; in proposing whereof he reasoneth thus. Caluine thinketh that all the Fathers were of opinion, that after the remission of sin men must suffer the punishment their sins deserve, to satisfy God's justice; and that therefore they were so severe in imposing penance on them that had offended: but this is the opinion of the Romanists, which Caluine so much disliketh; therefore he confesseth the doctrine of the Romanists to have been the doctrine of all the Fathers. The Mayor or first proposition of this reason is a most vile calumniation: for Caluine denieth that the Fathers were of that opinion the Romanists are of, touching the punishments of sin after remission of them, as hath been sufficiently cleared already. Neither doth he dislike the Father's severity upon that ground; for than he should condemn their imposing of penance, absolutely, as a thing wholly unlawful; which he doth not, but most highly commendeth it: only whereas the end of these penitential corrections was, and is, to remove and take away ill examples, to provide that neither God's name be blasphemed, nor others provoked and encouraged to do evil, by seeing them that offend to escape without condign punishment, and that the sinner may be brought to a right sense, knowledge, dislike, and forsaking of his sin: when it appeareth that the sinner is truly penitent, and carefully indeavoureth to satisfy the Church which was scandalised by him, there must be great consideration had, lest he be swallowed up with overmuch heaviness, and so fall into desperation. In this respect, Caluine thinketh those courses of ancient discipline, in putting men from the communion of the Church, for the space of three, four, or seven years, and sometimes for the whole time of their life, to have been very dangerous, unless they were wisely moderated by the discretion of the Pastors, as he confesseth they were: without which moderation, who doth not see they were carnificina conscientiarum; a cruel, bloody, and merciless tormenting, and murdering of the souls of men? Now as the severity of the Primitive Fathers was very great in the prescription of these Canons, yet mixed, tempered, and sweetened with good moderation in the execution of them, and therefore not to be disliked; 
o Aug. epist. ad Macedonium 54. Conc. Tolletan. 6. Can. 8. l. Erasmus in●…epitaphio Fabiolae ait August. semel lapso aperire Ecclesiae fores, relapso claudere: nec tamen huic claudere fores caeli cui claudit fores templi. Ambros. de poenitentiá li. 2. c. 10. S●… verè agerent poenitentiam, iterandam posteà non putarent: quia sicut unum baptisma, ita una penitentia: quae tamen publicè agitur. nam quotidiani nos debet poenitere delicti: sed haec delictorum leviorum, illa graviorum.  so their extreme severity towards those that fell after penitency, whom they ejected, and cast out of the Church, without hope of a second reconciliation, cannot well be excused. This denying of reconciliation to such as fell after they had once before done open and public penance, the 
p Bellar. l. r. de paenitentia c. 21. Lindan. Panop. l. 4. c. 62. ubi reprehendit Rhenanum, qui dicit nonnullos veteres in h●…cfuisse opinion, & inter eos August.  Papists restrain to solemn penitency; which they distinguish from public and open, as being imposed for sins of the highest nature; otherwise confessing, that the Father's severity cannot be excused. But this distinction of public and solemn penitency, is a mere devise of their own, without any ground of authority or show of proof. For how doth Bellarmine prove the difference of these two kinds of penitency? Surely he saith, solemn penitency is imposed only for the most grievous crimes; public, for those that are not so grievous; but proveth it not. Further he addeth, that solemn penitency could not be twice imposed, public might, and they that had done it be admitted into the Clergy; that solemn penitency could not be imposed upon married folks without consent, nor upon young folks, public might; that none but Bishops might reconcile those that were enjoined solemn penitency, but those that had been enjoined public penitency, others of meaner condition might absolve. 
q August. Seleucia epist. 109. distinguit 3 'em poenitentiam: quarum prima agitur ante baptismum: secundam agunt homines, si post baptismum ita peccaverint ut excommunicari & posteà reconciliari mereantur: est etiam poenitentia, bonorum & humilium penè quotidiana, in qua pectora tundimus, dicente●… dimitte etc. illa utique quae humanae fragilitati quamvi●… parua tamen crebra subrepunt.  These feigned distinctions of theirs between solemn & public penitency have no testimony of Antiquity, but it is clear and evident they were all one: and therefore seeing they mislike the denying of reconciliation generally to such as fell after public penitency, they cannot justify the Fathers who did so deny it.   

CHAP. 19  
Of the Lent fast, of laymen's Baptism, and of the sacrifice of the Mass.  
THe 
a Ibid. Lib. 4 12. 20.  next allegation is touching the Lent fast: wherein, as in the former, Calvin is charged to condemn the judgement and practice of all antiquity. That the falsehood of this allegation may the better appear, we will lay down what Calvin liketh or disliketh in the matter offasting in general, and particularly in the set Fast of forty days, anciently observed in the Church before the joyful solemnities of the resurrection of Christ. First therefore he acknowledgeth the use and necessity of fasting, to be continued amongst Christians to the end of the world, as well as formerly it was amongst the jews. Secondly, he showeth that fasting is not a thing that God requireth in respect of itself, but respectively to certain ends, and as serving to express, and set forward the inward affections of the heart. Thirdly, he showeth what those ends are; namely, to tame the flesh, to give a greater edge unto our prayers, to testify, express, and set forward what may be our dislike of sin, and of ourselves for sin, to testify our humiliation and dolour proceeding from the fearful apprehension of God's displeasure, to make it appear we take no pleasure in any thing till God be reconciled to us, to amerce and punish ourselves for our manifold abuses of Gods good creatures, and lastly to show that in holy meditations and contemplations we foretaste the sweetness of that heavenly Manna, which maketh us for a time to forbear to taste of any sweetness of corporal meats; thereby showing the excellency of that spiritual life, which we shall live in heaven, without any of these outward nourishments, being filled with the happy fruition, vision, and enjoying of him that is the fountain of life.  
The faults, he findeth, are, when men sever this outward exercise from the inward affection, when they think it a thing for itself respected, and coommanded by almighty God, and a matter of rare and special virtue, & merit in it own nature. The Fathers, he confesseth, did rightly and truly deliver the nature of religious fasting; yet so, that, by their exceeding great admiration and commendation of it, they may seem to have given some occasion of that erroneous persuasion, that it is in itself highly pleasing to God. This, saith Calvine, I do the rather think, for that there was, and appeared superstition even in their times, in the observing of that principal fast of forty days, in that both the common people thought the keeping thereof in it own nature a thing highly pleasing God, (whereas no fast is accepted, but respectively to the ends above mentioned;) and the Fathers commended it under the name of an Imitation of Christ; 
b jansenius comment. in concord●…m eyang●…am, c. 15. in 〈◊〉 ●…ba cum 〈◊〉 quadraginta dies.  whereas it is plain, that Christ did not fast principally for that end, that we should follow his example, but to begin the new law, as Moses did the old: and therefore to take it as imposed upon us, by Christ's example, in the nature of a precept, and to be done in imitation of Christ, and as being in itself a thing pleasing unto GOD, for that it is an imitation of his Son's action, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Calvin rightly noteth, and not void of superstition, and error.  
Now that the Fathers either erred themselves in this sort, or sought to abuse others, neither Calvine, nor we ever thought. For they never imagined, that the principal reason that moved the authors and beginners of this fast to prescribe it, was the only imitation of Christ's fast, or because they thought it it in it own nature a thing respected by God, merely as an imitation of his Son's action; but that, whereas it is very fit, there be a solemn time at lest once in the year, wherein men may call themselves to an account for all their negligences, repent them of all their evil doings, and with prayers, fastings, and mournings turn unto the Lord; this 
c Bellar. lib. 2. cap. 16. de bonis operibus in particulari ostendit istas fuisse rationes instituendae quadragesimae.  time was chosen as fittest, both because that herein we remember the sufferings of Christ for our sins, which is the strongest and most prevailing motive that may be to make us hate sin, and with tears of repentant sorrow bewail it, (which could no otherwise be taken away but by the blood shed of the Son of GOD) as also for that after this meditation of the sufferings of Christ, and conforming ourselves to them, his joyful resurrection for our justification, doth immediately present itself unto us in the days following; in the solemnities whereof, men were wont with great devotion to approach to the Lords Table, and they which were not yet baptised, were by Baptism admitted into the Church. Thus than it was not without great consideration, that men made choice of this time, wherein to recount all their negligences, sins, and transgressions, and to prepare themselves by this solemn act of Fasting, both for the better performance of their own duties in those ensuing days of joyful solemnity, as also to obtain at God's hands, the gracious acceptance of such as they offered unto him to be entered into his covenant. For 
d Synod. Antisiodorensis Can. 18. Leo ep. 4. ad universos episcopos per Siciliam constitutos, prohibet baptisare nisi tantum in Festis Paschatis & Pentecostes, nec permittit in Festo Epiphaniae, licèt eo die Christus putetur baptisarus á johanne. Rhenanus in lib. de corona militis per tempora Caroli Magni & Lu. dovici Augusti, neminem, excepto mortis articulo, praeterquam in Pascha & Pentecoste, baptisant, ut indicant leges ab illis sancitae prohibentes aliis temporibus baptismum celebrari.  the manner was in the Primitive Church, never to present any unto Baptism, unless it were in the case of necessity and danger, but only in the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost. Thus than these being the reasons moving to institute a set and solemn Fast, and to appoint it at this time and season of the year, rather than any other; for the limitation of the number of days, men had an eye as to a convenient direction, to Christ's Fast of forty days in 
e Mat. 4. 2. Exod, 34. 28. 1 Kings 19 8.  the dedication of the new Covenant, which number also Moses, as being the giver, and Elias as being the restorer of the old Law, kept and observed before him: not as if they had been precisely and absolutely tied by force of these examples; for than they would precisely have kept that number, which yet they did not: for the saturdays and Sundays deducted, which 
f Ambrose in lib. de Eliâ & ieiunio. c. 10 Quadragesimâ, totis, praeter Sabbatum & dominicum ielunatur diebus.  were not anciently fasted, neither in the Greek Church, nor in some of the Latin Churches, there remain not forty days; and if only the Sundays be deducted as in the Latin Church, there will want of the number: for those in capite jeiunii, which being added to the rest, make up the number of 40. were not observed from the beginning, 
g Hanc additionem esse valdè antiquam in Latinâ ecclesiâ, patet ex Alcnuio, inquir Bellar. l 2. c. 15. de bonis operibus in particulari. Greg. homil. 16. dicit ieiunium quadragesimae constare 36. diebus: tametsi enim non ignoraret addi solere 4 dies ad numerum 40. perficiendum, tamen sciebat etiam quadragesimam propriè dictam non ultra 36 dies extendi. Bellar. l. 2. c. 16. de bonis operibus in particulari.  but added afterwards.  
Our Divines therefore do teach, that Fasting is commanded by Almighty GOD, not as a thing in itself regarded, but respectively to those ends before mentioned; that GOD hath set no certain times of Fasting, but that the Church may appoint upon set and ordinary, or special and extraordinary occasions and causes, times of fasting, and that men are bound to obey.  
The Fast of Lent they do not dislike, but think it may be kept as a convenient tradition of Antiquity, (dispensable by authority of the Church, upon due consideration of times and persons,) so that no false nor superstitious opinions be added; but the practice of the Romanists they condemn: for that whereas they pretend to follow the ancient custom of fasting, & to be tied unto it, they retain no 
h jeiunia no stra quae & vini copia natant, & piscium varietate carnis superant delicias, adeòque cum Deo ludere videntur dum pro intercepto qui ex ovis oritur calore, olei flammas, vini aestum, omnisque generis aromatum ignes infare●…nt stomacho, veteribus Christianis omnibus fuisse non modò incognita, sed & intolerabilia, adeoque a●…ominanda constat: umbra tantum veri ieiunij cernitur in catholicâ ecclesiá, ieiunium, quod ante non nisi ad horam tertiam pomeridianam soluebatur. antè meridiem 〈◊〉, atque in eam rem non modo mysteria, sed vesperae suum mentientes tempus anticipantur. Lindan. Panopliae. lib. 3. cap. 11.  show of the ancient fast, but make a mere mock of God & man, as their own best friends are forced to confess, besides their erroneous opinions of merit & satisfaction, & gross superstition in the difference of meats. Thus than we did not put down the true & right use & exercise of fasting, but the mockery of it, & do wish that in the full establishment of the Churches, the ancient discipline of fasting, due consideration had of times & conditions of men, may be restored again. If any of our Divines seem to dislike that there should be any set fasts, as being jewish, it is not the general resolution of the reformed Churches, but the private opinion only of some particular m●…, who were carried with the hate of Romish errors and superstition in the set fasts, to dislike them wholly; which advisedly I see not how they could do, and I am well assured many of very great esteem, do allow and approve the use of them.  
The next objection is most frivolous. Calvin saith, 
i Ibid. Lib 4, 15. 12.  Lay men long since presumed in times of necessity to baptise; werein, whether they did well or not, the Fathers in those times, wherein they were suffered thus to do, could not, nor did not resolve: what can be inferred of this? Whether they did well, or not, Calvin saith, the Fathers were not resolute, and he thinketh their doing can hardly be excused from usurpation of that which no way pertained to them; therefore, saith Bellarmine, he dissenteth from all antiquity, & confesseth the doctrine of the Romish Church to be most ancient. Let Bellarmine give us leave to reason from his speeches in the same sort, & he will soon perceive he hath wronged Caluine. 
k Lib. 1 de sacramento baptismi. cap. 7.  Bellarmine saith, the Fathers were doubtful whether, if men not yet baptised, should attempt to baptise, it were baptism or not; he pronounceth peremtorily it is; therefore he dissenteth from all antiquity. As likewise they 
l August. l 7. de bapt. cap. 53. non audet definire, sed ait expectandam Detrevelationem: at Bellar. de sacramentis in genere lib. 1. cap. 28. ait definitum in concilijs, scilicet Florentinó & Tridentino.  doubted, whether baptism administered sportingly, were true baptism or not: he & his consorts make no question of it: therefore they descent from all antiquity.  
But 
m Ibid. Lib. 4. 18. 21.  let us proceed to the next allegation. Calvin saith it is most certain, that all antiquity is clearly against the Romish doctrine of the real sacrificing of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, & that the Fathers did most rightly conceive of this sacred mystery, without derogating any way from the sufficiency and plenitude of Christ's sacrifice. A man would hardly think any man would allcage this place, to prove that Calvin confesseth the doctrine of the Fathers, and the opinion of the Romanists are all one: and yet this doth the jesuit: so forcible and powerful he is in reasoning, that what a man most constantly denieth, he can prove he affirmeth. But he will say, that Calvin in the same place doth except against the Fathers. Surely he saith, he thinketh they cannot be altogether excused, in that they so much urged the mystical sacrificing of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and thereby made it carry a kind of show of a new, and newly repeated sacrifice: for that by misconstruction of that they meant well, others turned the Sacrament into a new offering of the Son of God for the quick and dead. The reason doubtless, that moved the Fathers so much to urge that mystical sacrificing of CHRIST in the blessed Sacrament, was, for that they lived in the midst of jews and Gentiles: both whose religion consisted principally in sacrifice: the Fathers therefore to show that Christian Religion is not without sacrifice, & that of a more excellent nature than theirs were, did much urge that Christ once offered for the sins of the World upon the altar of his Cross, is daily in mystery offered, slain, and his blood poured out, on the holy Table: and that this sacrifice of Christ, slain for the sins of the world, thus continually represented, and living in our memories, is the sacrifice of Christians. If any man shall allege, that these were reasons sufficient to move the Fathers to speak as they did, notwithstanding any occasions of error that might by ignorant men be taken, Caluine doth not pertinaciously resist, for he said only what he thought, not peremptorily judging, or condemning those, whom so just and good causes have made honourable in the Church for ever.   

CHAP. 20  
Of the invocation and adoration of Saints: touching which the Century-writers are wrongfully charged to descent from the Fathers.  
THus than I hope it appeareth, that Caluine doth not confess that the doctrine of the Romanists hath any testimony, or approbation of Antiquity. 
a Ibid.  Bellarmine therefore passeth from him to the writers of the Centuries, in whom he hopeth to find something for his purpose; but they stead him as little as Caluine did. Let us therefore take a view of that he saith. Touching freewill, justification, merits and the like, there is nothing in them, but that which hath been sufficiently, I hope, cleared in Caluine; the things they say, being the same. 
b Centur. 3. c. 4 col. 83.  Only two things I find imputed to them by Bellarmine, and not to Caluine. For first they are supposed to acknowledge the Popish invocation of Saints, to have been in the time of the Fathers, and allowed, by them. 
c Centur. 3. 4. col. 85.  Secondly, they are charged to blame the Fathers, for magnifying too much the excellency of Martyrdom, the praises whereof Bellarmin saith they dislike, because they will not admit that Martyrdom is a kind of baptism, serving for the expiation, & washing away of sin.  
Touching the invocation of Saints, it is evident it was not known in the first ages of the Church, nor approved by the Primitive Fathers: but because it hath mightily prevailed in these later times, & the superstition and idolatry there in committed, hath been such as cannot be excused; therefore for the better answering of Bellarmine's cavils, and the satisfying of ourselves and others, let us consider from what grounds, and by what degrees it entered into the Church.  
First there was in the Church from the beginning, a true and certain resolution, that the Saints departed do in general tender, respect, and wish well unto their brethren, and fellow servants, whom they have left behind them, in the warfare of Christ in this world. Secondly, men grew afterwards to think, that men departing out of this world, carry with them the remembrance of the state of things, wherein, departing hence, they leave them: and that out of their love which never falleth away, they do most carefully recommend unto God the particular necessities of their brethren made known unto them while they lived there. 
d Si quis istu●… nostrum prior divinae dignationis celeritate praecesserie, perseveret apud Dominum nostra dilectio pro fratribus & sororibus nostris, apud misericordiam patris non cesset oratio. Cypr. epistola ●…7.  Thirdly, from hence it came, that men entreated their friends yet living, that if they prevented them, and came before them into Christ their master's joyful and happy presence, being freed from the dangers, miseries, and evils of this present life, they would not forget to recommend them unto God, that are in them still. Fourthly, whereas by an ancient custom, they did remember the names of the departed, at the LORDS table, giving thanks unto GOD that had made them so glorious in their life and death through his goodness, and praying him by their examples to frame them to the like, and besides kept the anniversary remembrances of the days of their death, as if they had been their birth days, with all tokens of joy: in the orations they 
e Nos autem Martyribus nostris non templa sicut dijs etc. nec sacrificamus Martyribus, sed uni Deo & Martyrum & nostr●… sacrificium immolamus: ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei qui mundum in confession eius vicerunt suo loco & ordine nominantur: non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur. Aug. de civitate Dei lib. 22, cap. 10. Sacrificia pro iis semper ut meministis offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones & dies anniversariâ commemoratione celebramus. Cypr. epist. 34.  made to set forth the goodness of GOD towards them, and to propose their example for imitation, they did sometimes by way of Apostrophe speak unto them, as if they had been present, and had sense and apprehension of that they spoke (whereof yet they were doubtful, as appeareth by 
f Oratione in laudem Gorgoniae: Si hoc praemium sanctis animabus á Deo confertur, ut ista persentiscant etc. & in julianum, alloquitur pias animas Imperatorum, dicens, si quis mortuis sensus, etc.  Gregory Nazianzen, 
g In Epitaphio Nepotiani stupet animus, manus tremit, caligant oculi, balbutit lingua, quicquid dixere, quia ille non audit, mutum videtur.  Hierome, & others; and not contented thus to commune with them, they entreated them, if they had any sense or knowledge of things in this world, to be remembrancers for them, and the Church here below. This was a kind of doubtful compellation & soliciting of them, If their state were such, as that they could take notice of these things, that they would not forget to procure the good of their brethren; but was no invocation, which is a retiring of ourselves in all our needs, necessities, and distresses, with assured hope of help, to him that we know can stead us in what distress soever we be.  
Thus then, though the Fathers did sometimes, when they had particular occasions to remember the Saints, and to speak of them, by way of Apostrophe turn themselves unto them, and use words of doubtful compellation, praying them, if they have any sense of these inferior things to be remembrancers to God for them, yet shall our adversaries never prove, that they did prostrate their bodies, bow their knees, or make prayers to them, in a set course of devotion, but this both adoration and invocation of Saints and Angels, was directly condemned by them. We honour the Saints, saith 
h Adversus Vigilantium ad Ripatium Presbyterum 110.  Jerome, but do not worship or adore any creature, neither Angels, Archangels, nor any name that is named in this world, or that which is to come. 
i Theodoret: in Epist. ad Colos. qui legem defendebant, eos etiam ad angelos colendos inducebant, dicentes fuisse legem per illos datam. Mansit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia & Pysidia: quo circa Synodus quoque quae convenit Laodiceae, quae est Phrygiae metropolis, lege prohibuit ne precatentur Angelos: & in hodiernum usque diem licèt videre apud illos & eorum finitimos oratoria Sancti Michaelis, Illi ergo hoc consulebant, utique humilitate utentes dicentes, universorum deum nec cerni, nec comprehendi, nec ad eum 〈◊〉 posse. & oportere per Angelos divinam conciliare benevolentiam: hoc autem dixit in humilitate et cultu Angelorum.  The Council of Laodicea, reported by Theodoret, directly condemneth this kind of adoration and invocation, not of Saints only, but of Angels also.  
The Popish distinction of Latria and Doulia, doth not answer these authorities and testimonies of Antiquity: for those erring miscreants mentioned by Paul, the Council of Laodicea, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others, did not think the Angels to be God, or equal to the Most High, neither did they worship them in such sort, as to ascribe infinite greatness unto them, which the Papists mean by their Latria: but they gave spiritual worship and adoration unto them, in an inferior and lower degree, such as the Papists call Doulia: because they thought them to mediate between God and mortal men in very high and excellent sort. Either then the Fathers condemned these without cause for worshipping creatures, or they meant to restrain more than that adoration, which ascribeth infinite greatness to him that is adored; which undoubtedly they did, even the least and lowest degree of spiritual worship, or worship in spirit and truth. This most clearly appeareth to be so, by that of the seventh 
l Con●…um Nicenum 2.  general Council, which though it did not only confirm the placing of pictures in the Church, but prescribed that they should be worshipped, yet the Fathers of that Council expounded themselves, that they meant nothing else thereby, but a reverend usage of them, approaching to them, embracing and kissing of them, in such sort as men use to do to the books of holy Scriptures, and all sacred vessels, and things consecrated to the use of God's service; but permit not any the least part of spiritual worship, or worship in spirit and truth the Scripture speaketh of, to be given unto them; for if it be, they judge it Idolatry. But the Romanists at this day give spiritual worship to creatures, and think they sin not, if it be not in so high a degree, as to ascribe unto them infinite greatness. 
Epiphanius contra Collyridianos haeresi 79 omnem adorationem creaturarum damnat.   

m Dicunt Walsingam & Henricus: revereri, est animo reputare magna bona quae quis videt aut existimat esse in alio, parui pend●…ndo in comparatione eorum bona quae considerat in seipso: honorare, est reverentiam existentem intus in anima, opere exterius indicare: hinc est, quod honor ●…icitur exhibitio reverentiae in testimonium virtutis eius quem reveremur: laudare est honoratum p●…o bonis quae in ipso sunt aliis commendare: glorificare autem, est laudes honorati largè, latèque praeconizare. propter quod dicitur esse gloria frequens fama cum laude: adoratio est, in id, quod reverendum, laudandum, ●…onorandum glorificandum est propter eminentiam sanctitatis & virtutis, totam spem ac fiduciam subijciendo se illi proij●…ere, propter quod ado●…atio dicitur cultus propter diligentem intentionem erga id quod adoratur: illud enim coli dicitur, cui quis studiosè intendit operam suam illi exhibendo. Waldensis tom, 3. titulo 12. de sanctis adorandis, cap. 118.  Adoration implieth in it three acts. First, an apprehension of the excellency of that which is adored. Secondly, an act of the will, desiring to do some thing to testify our acknowledgement of this greatness, and our subjection and inferiority. Thirdly, an outward act expressing the same. We say therefore that Adoration proceeding out of the apprehension of the excellency of that is worshipped, and the desire to testify our acknowledgement of it, is of two sorts or kinds: For either it is limited to certain times, places and things, when, where, and wherein, the excellency of that we worship, presents itself unto us, and requireth our acknowledgement of it; as is the worship of Kings, Princes, Prelates, and Prophets, in their kingdoms, Courts, Churches, and Schools, ruling, guiding, teaching, and instructing: or else it is spiritual, which in all places, at all times, and in all things causeth him that worshippeth to bow himself before that he worshippeth, and thereby to testify his acknowledgement of the excellency of it, which he findeth in every time, place, and thing to present itself unto him. This kind of Adoration, subiecteth not only the body, but the spirit and mind also, to him whose greatness it thus acknowledgeth. This worship, we say, is proper to God. For he only at all times, and in all places and things, seeth, beholdeth, guideth, and taketh care of us, and ruling, disposing, and commanding us, inwardly and outwardly, worketh our good.  
But the Romanists say, the Saints do so likewise, though not in so excellent sort as God doth: for they suppose, that they know all things that concern us, that they watch over us with a careful and vigilant eye, that they carry us in their hands, and by their mediation procure our good from God, the fountain of all good; and therefore they worship them with spiritual worship. The miracles that God wrought in times passed by them made many to attribute more to them, than was fit, as if they had a generality of presence, knowledge, and working; but the wisest, and best advised never durst attribute any such thing unto them.  

n August. de cura pro mortuis.  Whether, saith Augustine, the Saints be present every where, or at least wheresoever their memorials are kept, or whether they remain in one place only, and praying only in general for the Militant Church, God do work by himself, or his Angels, that which is fit for the confirmation of the faith they professed, and the good of such as remember them, I dare not pronounce. And who knoweth not, that he inclineth to that opinion, that they do not particularly see, know, and intermeddle with humane things, and confirmeth this his judgement with sundry excellent reasons and authorities? This opinion did the 
o Interlinearis glossa in Isaiae 63.  Author of the gloss follow, and 
p Hugo de sancto victore erudit. Theolog. de sacramentis fidei, lib. 2. part. 16. cap. 11. quaerunt nonnulli de animabus carne solutis, utrum cognitionem habeant eorum quae in hac vitâ gerunt●…r, & an preces supplicantium audiant, difficile est de huiusmodi dijudicare: quidam ex patribus quaedam dixerunt, quasi nihil sit quod non videant, qui vident omnia videntem: sed ego non praesumo ita iudicare, etc.  Hugo de sancto victore, and the Church of God never defined otherwise: howsoever Jerome in his passion against Vigilantius seem to say the contrary, and 
q Greg. dial. 4. cap. 33.  Gregory endeavour to confirm it, saying, he that seeth God, who seeth all things, cannot but see all things in him. But 
r Occam tract. 1. part. 2. cap. 3. ubi confutat johannem 22. haeresem esse pronunciat dicere videntes Deum nulla ignorare, etc. Magister lib. 2. distinct. 11. accipiendum dicit dictum, Greg. de his quorum cognitio beatum sacit cognitorem, ut sunt ea quae pertinent ad mysteria trinitatis etc. sed haec explicatio verbis Greg. non conue●…t moral. 12. c. 13. nullo modo credendum est quia foris sit aliquid qd ignorent.  Occam, and sundry other excellent Schoolmen, reject this saying of Gregory; and Gregorius Ariminensis resolveth peremptorily, that neither Saints, nor Angels know the secrets of our hearts, but that this 
s Greg. Arimi. l. 2. distinct. 9 10. q. 1. ex 2. Paralip. ex dicto Salomonis. Tu solus nosticorda filiorum hominum. & ex libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, secrctacordis ille solus novit, probat nullam creaturam cognoscere cogitationes cordium nostrorum.  is reserved as peculiar to God alone.  
If then the Saints (for aught we know) do not see, know, and intermeddle with our particular affairs, but pray only in general, there remaineth nothing else safely to be done by us, but to seek unto GOD; and then all these both Saints and Angels shall love us in him, and what in them lieth procure our good. 
t August. de vera religione c. 55.  Behold, saith Augustine, I worship one God, one beginning of all things, that fountain of wisdom and happiness whence all things that are wise and happy have their wisdom and happiness; whichsoever of the Angels loveth th●… GOD, I am sure he loveth me, whosoever abideth in him, and can hear the prayers, and take notice of the wants of mortal men, I am well assured, he doth hear me, when I pray to God, and endeavoureth to give me the best furtherance he can. Let therefore those Adoratores partium mundi, worshippers of parts and portions of the world, tell me, what good Saint or Angel he doth not assure unto himself, which worshippeth that one God, whom every one that is good doth love and desire to please. Hence it came, that though some particular men did anciently, at sometimes, when they had occasion to speak of them, doubtfully solicit the Saints, and desire them, if they had any apprehension of these inferior things, to be remembrancers for them unto God: yet no man prayed unto them with bowed knees, in set courses of devotion and prayer. Neither was there any form of invocation of Saints brought into the service of the Church for a long time, as appeareth by that of 
u De civitate Dei li. 22. c. 10.  Augustine, who saith, they are named by the Minister in the time of the holy mysteries, but not innocated.  
For how could there be any invocation of them generally received and allowed, or constantly resolved on and used, in the set courses of the prayers of those primitive Christians; when they knew not, nor were not certainly resolved, whether the Saints do know, or intermeddle with the particular affairs of men in this world: seeing the Romanists themselves confess, it were not fit nor safe to pray to Saints, if they did not hear us? Now it is no way likely, that any general opinion was holden in those times, of the universal presence, knowledge, and hability of Saints to stead them that seek unto them, seeing it was a long time doubtful in the Church, whether the faithful departing out of this world, be immediately received into heaven, and enjoy the happy presence of God, or whether they remain, or stay in Abraham's bosom, or some place of rest, till the day of the resurrection. Yea it is known to all them that have perused the monuments of Antiquity, that 
x See cap. 9  Iraeneus, justin Martyr, Tertullian, and sundry others were of opinion, that none of the just are in Heaven till the end and consummation of all things, but that they are below in some part of hell, or in some hidden & invisible place sequestered from the presence of God, till the second coming of the son of man. Now seeing the invocation of Saints presupposeth that they pray for us in particular, and particular prayer for us knowledge of our wants, which the presence and sight of God is supposed to afford them; if they do not yet enjoy the presence of God, as many of the Ancient (though falsely) did think, we see not how in their judgement there should be any safe and fruitful invocating of them. 
y Bel. l. 1. de sanctorum beatitudine cap. 20.  For the absence from GOD, and the not enjoying of his sight and presence, is the reason alleged by our adversaries, why the Fathers in the time before Christ, neither prayed in particular for the Church on earth, nor were prayed unto, as being in Lymbus, and not in heaven.  
Howsoever, it is most certain, if we look into the ancient practice of the Church, that the Saints in their anniversary solemnities and holy days, were not prayed unto, but remembered only, proposed for imitation, & rather prayed for, then prayed unto, as it appeareth by that 
a Bicl. lect. 85. in canonem missae.  Innocentius reporteth, that in the Feast of blessed Leo, the ancient custom was, to pray that the solemnity of that day, and the oblations then offered might be available to his soul, for the increase and consummation of his glory: which since hath been altered, & the prayer is now, that by his mediation this Festival solemnity may avail, and be to the good of them that observe and keep it. So that it cannot be showed by our adversaries, 
b See how the ancient missals were abandoned, in praefat. Cassandris in libr●… Romani ordinis à se editi & in vitâ Greg. 1. apud Voraginensem.  that, before the ancient Liturgies were abandoned, and those brought in by Gregory had gotten into their place, there was any invocation of the Saints found in the public prayers of the Church; but when their names were remembered, men prayed only to God, that he would give them grace to follow their examples, & make them partakers of that happiness, which those blessed ones already enjoy. And at that time, when this alteration began, the invocation was not brought into the Liturgy and public prayers of the Church, in direct form, but men prayed still unto God only, though desiring him the rather to respect them, for that not only their brethren on earth, but they also that are in heaven, cease not (prostrate before his sacred Majesty) to pray for them. Neither is there any other form of prayer found in the Missal, 
c Ab bas Nocherius de sancto Gallo sequentias pro pneumis composuise dicitur, quas Nicholaus Papa ad missam cantari concessit. Hugo de sancto Victore erudi●…. theol. de officiis eccles. l. 2. c. 11. Durand. rational. divin. office l. 4. ait Nocherium sequentias pro pne umis alleluia composuisse, sed alios post plerasque addidisse.  but in the sequences and Litanies only.  
Wherefore to conclude this matter concerning the invocation and adoration of Saints and Angels, seeing the Fathers did not in their set courses of devotion make prayers to the Saints; but when they had particular occasions to speak or think of them, used doubtful compellations, desiring them, if they had sense of these things, to be remembrancers for them unto God, seeing for aught we know, the Saints are not particularly acquainted with the state of things here below, seeing no degree of spiritual worship is to be given to any creature: we invocate them not, but pray unto God only, assuring ourselves, that if they can hear us, or any way further our suits, they will do it, when we pray unto God, as Augustine rightly observeth.  

d Aug. de verâ reli gione 55.  We adore them not, but rest in the judgement of the same Augustine, that the Saints are to be honoured for imitation, but not to be adored for Religion: that they do not seek, desire, or accept any such honour, but will have us to worship God only, being glad, that we are their fellow-servants in well-doing. The Romanists evasion, that God is only to be adored with that highest kind of religious worship which is named Latria, which yieldeth to him that is worshipped infinite greatness: but the Saints may be adored with an inferior kind of religious worship, named Doulia, is directly contrary to 
e De verâ religionc c. 55  Augustine, who speaking of Saints & Angels, saith, Honoramus eos charitate, non servitute: We honour them with the honour of love, but not of Doulia, or service. If they say, they have this distinction from Austin, it is true: but he doth not use it to this purpose, (to make difference of two sorts of religious or spiritual worship, the highest degree whereof should be Latria, the lowest Doulia: neither doth he anywhere call the honour given to Saints Doulia, but nameth it the honour of love and fellowship, but he useh to distinguish religious worship (every degree whereof he calleth Latria) from that external and civil worship, duty, and service, that men yield to their Princes, Masters, and Rulers, which is fitly named Doulia, a service: but it is 
f De verâ religione c. 55.  servitus corporis, non animae, a service of the body, and not of the mind. For men, notwithstanding this servitude, have their minds and their thoughts free, as being known to none, nor overruled by none but GOD only. But the service of the spirit and mind, in the lowest degree that can be imagined, is due unto GOD only, and not to be given to any creature: for no creature knoweth the secrets of our hearts; no creatute can prescribe laws touching the inward actions & thoughts of the mind, not having knowledge of them, nor power to punish them that should offend.  
It is therefore an impious conceit of the Papists, that the Saints both can and do know all our inward actions and secret thoughts, approving, or reproving, excusing or accusing them: and that as precedents of our whole life and conversation; and that therefore they are to be honoured and worshipped, with spiritual service, or service of the spirit and mind. Thus than it is true the Centurie writers report, that in the third and fourth age after Christ, there were some beginnings of that superstition, which afterwards grew to be intolerable in the adoration and invocation of Saints and Angels; but neither they, nor we are so ignorant, as to think, that the invocation of Saints, or the adoration of them prevailed in the Church within the compass of the first six hundred years; neither do they (as Bellarmine is pleased to slander them) tax that, as idolatry in the Roman Church, which they find to have been the practice of all the Fathers; for they find nothing of the Romish Idolatry in these glorious lights of the Christian world.   

CHAP. 21.  
Of Martyrdom, and the excessive praises there●…f found in the Fathers.  
THe next allegation, against them, is touching Martyrdom; which, Bellarmine saith, they suppose the Fathers did too immoderately and excessively magnify and extol. The reason of this their censure, he thinketh, is, because they will not admit it to be a kind of Baptism, and to wash away sin, as both the Romanists and the Fathers teach. For the better clearing of this point, and the answering of this objection, we must remember, that whereas the ordinary and set means of salvation is Baptism, so that no man carelessly neglecting, or wilfully contemning it, can be saved; The Fathers notwithstanding do constantly teach, that if men be excluded by inevitable impossibility, they may be saved without it; and that faith and the inward conversion of the heart, flying unto GOD in Christ, through the gracious instinct and sweet motion of the sanctifying spirit, may be reckoned a kind of Baptism: because thereby they obtain all that which should have been sought in the Baptism of water: And because if an ordinary degree of faith do sometimes obtain salvation without the Baptism of water, much more that which maketh men willing to suffer death for CHRIST; therefore they affirm, that Martyrdom, and the constant suffering for Christ, is also fitly named Baptism.  
So that there are three kinds of Baptism: Flaminis, Fluminis, Sanguinis; Of water, of the spirit, and blood.  
It appeareth by 
a Epist. 77.  Bernard's Epistle to Hugo de sancto victore, of this Argument, that there were some in his time, who, though they thought that Martyrdom doth supply the defect of Baptism, yet would not grant, that faith, and the inward conversion of the heart, without such suffering, doth so; and therefore though they confessed that Martyrs, not baptised with the Baptism of water, may be saved, yet they denied, that others, though repenting, believing, and converting unto God, can possibly obtain remission of their sins without the sacramental washing. Against these, Barnarde reasoneth in this sort. If Martyrdom do supply the defect of Baptism, it is not poena, but fides; not the suffering, but the faith of the sufferer that makes it be of so great force. Nam absque fide, quid est Martyrium, nisi poena? For were it not for faith, what were the passions of Martyrs, but bitter and uncomfortable torments only? Shall then that which maketh Martyrdom be esteemed in stead of Baptism, be so infirm and weak, that what it gives to another thing, it shall be denied to have itself? The shedding of our blood for Christ, is an undoubted proof and demonstration of a very great, constant, and unmoveable faith; but it is not God, but men that take notice of faith by these proofs. For God doth often see and pronounce the faith of a man dying in peace, to be as great, as the faith of a Martyr: for that though it be not proved by Martyrdom, it is ready for Martyrdom, and animates him that hath it, to suffer any thing if need should require.  
This which Barnarde hath thus delivered touching this point, is the constant doctrine of the Fathers; neither do we, or the Authors of the Centuries dislike any thing in it, but we condemn the vain and idle disputes of the Romish Schools, touching these three kinds 
b Bellar. li 1. de sacr: Bapt. cap. 6. N●… des●…t Theolog. ut Dom●…us à Soto, Martinus Ledes. in 4. d. 3. q. vnic. art. 11. qui docent martyrium non dare gratiam ex opere operato, nec dare ullum gradum gratiae, praeter eum qui respondet merito charitatis ipsius martyris. Probabilior sententia est, martyrium ex opere operato conferre primam gratiam, ita ut si quis ad martyrium accedat adhuc in peccatis existens, tamen sine affectu ad aliquod peccatum et cum fide et dilectione in●…hoata, & poenitentia t●…li qualis requiritur ad baptismum aquae, in virtute mar●…yrij justificab●…tur.  of Baptism, especially in that they teach concerning Martyrdom, that it giveth grace ex opere operato; so that if a man not justified, nor yet in the state of grace come unto it, and do not ponere obicem, he shall by virtue thereof obtain grace, & have the effects of it wrought in him, in such sort as in the Baptism of water. This not only we condemn, but many amongst themselves, affirming that Martyrdom hath no force to work or procure our good, farther than the greatness of our faith and love, which is therein tried, approved, and made manifest, doth work it.  
The Centurie writers reprove not the Fathers for any such error, as the Papists do maintain, touching the force of Martyrdom, but they dislike that the Fathers did use so many Hyperboles, and Rhetorical amplifications, in the praising of Martyrdom, (though in a good sense:) that the Romish Sophisters have from thence taken occasion of their error, touching the merit, satisfaction, and expiation of sins, which they fancy to be in the blood of Martyrs, of which impiety the Fathers never thought. Thus than it doth not appear by any thing which Bellarmine hath, or can allege, that we confess the faith of the Romanists to be the ancient profession of the primitive Christians, but rather the contrary is constantly defended by all our Divines in the places produced by him.   

CHAP. 22.  
Wherein is examined their proof of the Antiquity of their doctrine taken from a false supposal, that our doctrine is nothing else but heresy long since condemned.  
LEt 
a Ibid.  us therefore come to his third part, wherein he undertaketh to prove that the doctrine of the reformed Churches, opposite to the faith and profession of Rome, is the same with the old heresies long since condemned by the universal consent of the whole Christian world. In this part he is so shameless, that I blush at the very thought of that he so doctorally and gravely delivereth, as if it were truer than truth itself; whereas in his conscience he knoweth it to be an untruth, so gross and apparent, that the devil himself will be ashamed of it. He reckoneth twenty several heresies of damned Arch-heretickes, every of which he pronounceth, that we silly men defend and embrace as the sacred truth of God.  
Let us for our better satisfaction, and refutation of so vile a slander, take a view of the particulars. He placeth in the front the heresy of Simon Magus, and his disciples, 
b Irenaeus, l. 1. contra haereses, cap. 20.  which was, that the Angels made the world, that the Prophets were inspired from them, and delivered their pleasure, not the will and pleasure of the high God, and that therefore the things commanded by them, were not in themselves good, or to be respected; that God was displeased with their government, and would exempt his own from it, & have them free to do what they list, for that men are saved by his favour, and not in doing those things, which though they were commanded and imposed as good, by Moses and the Prophets mislead by the Angels, yet were not naturally so, but by accident only. This, he saith, is the error of the Protestants; for they think God made the world, and not the Angels, that Moses and the Prophets spoke as they were inspired of him, that the things they commanded are just and holy, that there is no way of salvation, but by having that righteousness the Law of Moses prescribeth, which all they that are saved, have; First, by imputation of that perfect righteousness and obedience to Moses Law which was found in Christ, to merit our good; & secondly, by the operation & infusion of sanctifying grace from him, making them to hate sin, to love righteousness, & walk in the ways of God's commandments; so that sin hath no more dominion over them. Surely, I think, if the devil himself fate as judge in this case, he could not but condemn the impudency of this his shameless disciple.  

c Ibid.  But he addeth; Eunomius taught, that if a man would embrace his profession, he should be saved, though he continued without repentance & remorse in all manner of most damnable wickedness; & that others, whom Augustine refuteth in his book, De fide & operibus, were of opinion, that all Christians, how damnably soever they live, holding the truth of Christian profession, may, and shall be saved, This, he saith, is the doctrine of the Protestants. If any of us ever wrote, spoke, or thought any such thing, let GOD forget ever to do good unto us, and let our prayers be rejected from his presence: but if this be as vile a slander, as ever Satanist devised, the Lord reward them that have been the Authors & devisers of it, according to their works. But let us see, doth he make no show of proof? doubtless he doth.  

d De captivitate Babylonica cap. de Eucharistia.  Luther, saith he, pronounceth, that there is no way to have access unto God, to treat with him touching reconciliation, & acceptation into his favour, but by faith; that God regardeth not works; that a true Christian is so rich in faith, that he cannot perish though he would, nor how wickedly soever he live, unless he refuse and cease to believe.  
For the clearing of these places of Luther, we must remember that which 
e In clave Scripturae, de varia ope●…um praedicatione. tract. 6. titulo. duplex iustitia et iustificatio.  Illyricus hath fitly noted to this purpose: that there are two Courts of God's judgements & most righteous proceeding towards the sons of men: the one, he calleth forum iustificationis, the other novae obedientiae: In the first he saith, God requireth perfect righteousness, fully answering that his Law prescribeth; which being no where to be found but in Christ, no way apprehended but by faith: in this respect, & sitting in this Court of exact trial, he regardeth no works, virtues, or qualities, finding nothing of worth, or worthy to be respected, but looketh to our faith only, & for Christ's sake only, at the sole and only suit of Faith, forgiveth sin, & imputeth righteousness. Notwithstanding because he never saith to any sinner, Thy sins are remitted, but that he addeth, go and sin no more, & that upon peril of forfeiting the benefit received, and that some worse thing should betide unto him: therefore there is another Court, wherein he sitteth & giveth commandment for new obedience and works of righteousness, though not requiring so strictly that perfection which formerly he did, but accepting our weak endeavours, & study of well doing: and in this sort it is, that he will judge us in the last Day according to our works.  
Thus than we see, how that, though Faith be never alone, yet in procuring us acceptation with God, it is alone: and that though God regard none of our virtues, actions, & qualities, as being of any worth in the strictness of his judgement, but reject them as unpure, & unclean, & respect nothing but the humble suit & petition of Faith, for the purpose of justification: yet when we are justified, he requireth of us a new obedience, judgeth us according to it, & crowneth us for it. That which Luther addeth, that a man cannot perish though he would, and how wickedly soever he live, unless he cease to believe; may seem hard at the first sight, but not to them that do know, that Luther is far from thinking that men may be saved, how wickedly soever they live; for he constantly teacheth, that justifying faith cannot remain in that man, that sinneth with full consent, nor be found in that soul wherein are peccata vastantia conscientiam, (as Melancthon speaketh, following Augustine) that is raging, ruling, prevailing, laying waist and destroying the integrity of the conscience, which should resist against evil and condemn it.  
This is all than that Luther saith, that no wickedness with which faith may stand, can hurt us, so long as faith continueth: but if sin once become regnant, and so exclude faith, we are in the state of damnation. Against this doctrine of Luther, or any part thereof, neither Bellarmine, nor the gates of hell shall ever be able to prevail. We see then how justly we are charged with the heresies of the Simonians, Eunomians, and the like monsters; surely as justly, as Bellarmine may be charged with true and honest dealing, in this imputation and other that follow.   

CHAP. 23.  
Of the heresy of Florinus, making God the author of sin, falsely imputed to Caluine and others.  
THe 
a Ibid.  next heresy which they say we are fallen into, is the heresy of Florinus; who taught that God is the cause and author of sin. This he saith, Calvin, Luther, Martyr, and sundry other of the greatest Divines of the reformed churches have defended in their writings. Of this sinful, wicked, and lying report, we are sure GOD is not the Author, but the devil; and therefore we do not fully accord with Florinus. But that it may appear, how truly these men write, and speak of things of so great moment, I will only positively lay down what we think of this matter, and the adversaries slanders will be sufficiently refuted. For the clearing of our opinion touching this point, I will first set down the different kinds of sin. Secondly what God may be said to will or decree touching the first entrance thereof. And thirdly what when it is entered.  
Sin as we know is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the law. The law is partly affirmative requiring, partly negative forbidding the doing of a thing. Hence it followeth that all sin is either of omission or commission, Sin of omission is the not doing of that the Creature is bound to do. Sin of Commission is the doing of that the creature is bound not to do.  
The not doing of that the creature is bound to do, God may be said to will and decree four ways. First by effectual opposing against the doing of it; & in this sort it is impious to think, that God decreed the omission or not doing, of that the creature stands bound to do. Secondly by discouraging and dissuading from the doing of it: which is no less absurd and impious than the former. Thirdly, by denial of that grace, concurrence, and assistance, without which it cannot be done; this cannot be imagined in respect of the state of man's first creation, but we must make God the Author of sin: and therefore there is none of us that doth attribute any such thing unto God. But contrariwise 
b Instit. l. 1. 15. 8. lib. 2. 3. 1●…. citat. Aug. de correptione & gratia.  Calvin whom Bellarmine seemeth most to challenge, noteth fitly to this purpose out of Augustine: that God gave Adam posse si vellet, sed non velle quod potuit, power to stand and continue in his uprightness if he would, though he did not inseparably hold him to it, but left him to his own choice: whence followed that evil we now complain of. Fourthly, by denial of that grace, assistance, and concurrence, without which he seeth the creature will not be moved nor won to do it; though it have other more than sufficient graces, motives, and encouragements, to induce it thereunto. In this fourth sense many fear not to say, that God negatively, or privatively, decreed the sin of omission, or the not doing of that the creature was bound to do, in that he decreed the denial of that, without which he knew it would not be done. But some there be that fear thus to speak, choosing rather to say, that God only permitted, then that in any sense he decreed the sin of omission, in the first entrance of it. Yet these, if they rightly understand that permission which they speak of, agree with the other in sense and meaning. For God may be said to permit the not doing of a thing three ways. First, when he requireth not the doing of it, neither will dislike the omission of it: and in this sense it is impious to say, that God permitteth the sin of omission: For he requireth the doing, and will punish the not doing of that, the omission whereof is sin. Secondly, God may be said to permit a man's not doing of a thing, in that he leaveth him to himself, to do, or not to do the same, without any particular providence or care, in ordering, or disposing, the motions, and resolutions of his will: which to think is no less impious than the former. Thirdly, he may be said to permit the not doing of a thing, when he doth not work upon a man in such sort, as only he knoweth he will be wrought to the doing of the same. Deum permittere, saith 
c Cumel. dis▪ varia in primam & primam secundae pa. 162.  Cumel, nihil aliud videtur esse, quam subtrahere illam maiorem gratiam, quam si tribueret, Petrus non peccaret, & hoc quoad primum peccatum: ut servet suavem modum providendi in omnibus; vel ut servet multipliciter dispositionem concurrendi cum libero arbitrio; vel ut ostendat se dare gratis illam gratiam cuicunque dat. When God is said to permit sin, saith Cumel, no other thing seemeth to be meant, but that he de●…eth that more potent and prevailing grace, which if he should give, he that now sinneth, would not sin; and this he doth in respect of the first sin, that he may hold a sweet course in guiding all things, so as to suffer them to work according to the condition of their nature, that in divers and different sorts, he may dispose of his concurrence with the liberty of man's will; and that he may make it appear, that to whomsoever he giveth that more potent and prevailing grace, he giveth it freely. In this sense, God may truly be said to permit the sin of omission. And because he knoweth infallibly such omission will be, whensoever he doth not so work upon a man, as he knoweth he must be wrought upon, if ever he be brought to the doing of that good which is required of him, he may be said privatively to decree it: seeing he may rightly be said in a sort, to decree the not doing of a thing, when he decreeth the denial of that, without which he knoweth it will not be done. Praefinitio duplex est, saith 
d Li. 〈◊〉. q. 1. con●…. 1.  Rispolis, positiva, negativa: positiva, quâ Deus apud se quasi deliberate, velle in tempore determinare physicè per aliquod auxilium voluntatem hominis alicuius: negativa quâ deliberat non confe●…re alicuisuum auxilium efficax; & quia voluntas infallibiliter deficiet circa quamcunque materiam virtutis, nisi efficaciter moveatur à divina voluntate ad bene operandum; in materia verbi gratiâ temperantiae, cognoscit evidenter voluntatem creatam peccaturam. Sic bona cognoscuntur praefinitione positiuâ; mala negatiuâ, quam potius permissionem appellabimus. Et post; Nos, quando dicimus Deum praefinijsse peccatum, hoc non intelligimus quantum ad decretum impositionis malitiae, sed quantum ad subtractionem gratiae. There is a two fold decree of God, the one positive, the other negative; the positive is that whereby God determineth with himself, in such time as he thinketh good, to incline the will of man to the doing of a thing, by his effectual working and powerful help: the negative is when he determineth not so to work a man to the doing of a thing; and because man will not do the same, unless he be so effectually wrought unto it, he seeth it will not be done, and that man will sin in omitting it. So that God knoweth future good things, because he hath positively decreed them; and future evil things, because he hath privatively decreed them; the which we rather ●…all permission. And again; When we say God hath decreed sin, we speak not of any positive decree of making a man evil; but of a privative decree of not working him to do good. So that if there be any difference amongst Divines touching this point, it is only in form of words.  
The sin of commission, which is the doing of that the creature is bound not to do, is merely positive. For as the affirmative part of God's Law is broken, by the not putting that in being which it requireth, or not so as it requireth: so the negative is violated precisely, by putting that in being which it would not have to be, or by putting it in being in such sort as it would not have it to be; & yet every sin is an evil, & the nature of evil is privative. For the clearing therefore hereof, the 
e Ariminens. l. 2. d. 34. 35. 36. 37. q. 1. art. 1.  Divines do note, that we speak of evil formally, and denominatively. Formally, evil is nothing but the not being of some good, in that thing wherein it should be. Denominatively a thing may be said to be evil, either by active denomination, because it depriveth some thing of that good it should have, in which sort poison is said to be evil; or by passive denomination, as those things are said to be evil, that want, and are deprived of that good they should have. The sin of omission is formally evil, because it is negatio boni debiti inesse, the not doing of that good act which should be done, & from it the sinner is denominated evil by passive denomination, as wanting that good which he should have. Sin of commission is an evil act. Evil acts are of 2 sorts; for either they are evil only ex fine & circumstantiis, in that they are not done to a right end & rightly: or ex genere & obiecto: the former are denominated evil by passive denomination, as wanting some circumstances that should make them good: the latter are such as no circumstances can make good, neither are they denominated evil from the want of circumstances, which they should or might have, but by active denomination, because by way of contrariety, they deprive the sinner of that orderly disposition, that should be found in him; & some other of that good which pertaineth to him. As it appeareth in the acts of injustice, spoiling men of that which is their own; and in the acts of blasphemy against God, or the hate of God, in which the sinner as much as in him lieth, by attributing unto God that which is contrary to his nature, or denying that which agreeth unto the same, maketh him not to be that which he is, & hating him, wisheth he were not, & endeavoureth to hinder what he would have done. From this kind of sin; the sinner is denominated evil, partly by denomination passive, in that he wanteth that orderly disposition that should be in himself: & partly by active, in that he depriveth as much as in him is, some other of that good which pertains to him. Some not rightly observing these things, & finding that some sins are positive acts, whereas the nature of evil is privative, distinguish that which is material in the sins of commission, & that which is formal; the substance of the act, & the difformity of it: making the one positive, & the other privative, consisting in the want of that rectitude which should be in it. But these men seem not rightly to conceive the things whereof they speak. For the sin of omission is formally evil, & a want of rectitude, in that the good act that should be done, is omitted. But the sin of commission if it be an evil act, ex genere & obiecto, is denominatively evil, not by passive denomination, as wanting that rectitude that should be in it: but by active, in that by way of contrariety, it depriveth the sinner of that orderly disposition that should be found in him: & others of that good that pertaineth to them. That that sin of commission, that is, an evil act ex genere & obiecto, is not denominated evil passively, from the want of rectitude due unto it, it is evident, in that no rectitude is due to such an act. For what rectitude is due to the specifical act of hating God? or what rectitude is it capable of? Greg. de Valentia, finding this to be true, & yet willing to defend the distinction, of that which is formal, & that which is material, of some thing positive, & some thing privative in the sin of commission, saith; that evil acts, as particularly the act of injustice, may be considered 2 ways. First in the proper & specifical nature of injustice; & so it is no subject capable of the perfection of virtue, neque huius perfectionis negatio est in illo privatio, sed pura negatio; neither is the denial of this perfection in respect of such an act so considered a privation, but a mere & pure negation. 2 l, Secundum communem quandam rationem illi & actui iustitiae; ut versantur circa materiam communem ipsi, & iusticiae, scilicet rem alienam; & sic subiectum aptum est ad perfectionem iustitiae, et hui●… perfectionis negatio est in illo privatio. In a generalitatie, in respect of that which is common to it & the contrary act of justice, as they are both conversant in things pertaining to other men; and in this sort it is a subject capable of rectitude, and the perfection of virtue: his meaning is, that a moral act, conversant in things pertaining to other men, considered in a generality, is indifferent either to be an act of justice giving to every one his own: or of injustice depriving others of that which pertaineth to them: & that the omission of the act of justice, is a privation of such rectitude, as might be found in this kind. So that whensoever any act of injustice is done: first there is a want of rectitude, that is, an omission of the good act of justice, which might & aught to have been done, & 2ly the producing of an evil act, contrary to that good act that is omitted: & 2 kinds of sin do always concur, the one of omission, the other of commission, the one is a mere privation of rectitude, & the difformity of it is privative, in the other which is a sin of commission specifically considered, there is no privative want of rectitude, for it is capable of none: & in it there is nothing but merely positive: & the difformity that is found in it, is precisely a positive repugnance to the Law of God. 
f Lib. 6. de auxilijs divinae gratiae. disp. 44.  Aluarez saith, the sin of commission is a breach of a negative law which is not broken but by a positive act contrary to the prescript of right reason: as Tho: Aquinas teacheth 2a 2ae. q. 79. ar. 2. 3. 4. And the same is further confirmed, because the same Thomas 
g Quest. 2. de malo ar. 1. ad. 4.  elsewhere saith, that in the sin of omission there is nothing but privation, if we consider it as it is in itself: but the sin of commission is some positive thing. Because saith 
h In primam secundae q: 79. ar. 1. & 2.  Caietan sin consisteth aswell of a conversion to an object contrary to the object of virtue, as of an aversion from the Law; there is in sin a double nature of evil, the one arising from the object, the other from the not observing of the law; the first is positive, the 2d privative; the first inferreth the 2l. For it cannot be that a man should hate God, but that in so doing, he must break the Law. For there are some acts simply & intrinsically evil, so that to do them is to sin: of which sort is the act of hating God. Besides one contrary depriveth the subject wherein it is found, & maketh it uncapable of the other, so long as it is in it: as the hate of God maketh a man uncapable of the love of God, & of the hate of such things as are contrary to God, & should be hated. So that there is a double nature of evil; the one positive, the other privative: & the one of these is the cause of the other. 
i Tom. 2. d 2. q. 13. punc. 3. ar●…. 5.  Greg. de Valentia saith, it is consequent upon the opinion of Caietan: that sin formally as sin is a positive thing: which thing he also expressly affirmeth in 1am 2ae q. 71. are. 6. There are that hold (saith 
k Disp. vatia ad primam & primam secundae. pa. 104.  Cumel) that the formal nature of sin (he meaneth the sin of commission) consisteth in some positive thing, to wit in the manner of working freely, with positive repugnance, to the rule of reason, & the Law of God. Difformitas in actu commissionis (saith 
l Lib 3. Sent. q. 12.  Ockam,) non est nisi ipsemet actus elicitus contra praeceptum divinum, & nihil penitus aliud dicit: Q●…ando elicit quis actum quem non debet; si non teneatur ad oppositum actum, difformitas non est carentia alicuius rectitudinis debitae inesse, nec illi actui, nec voluntati; sed si teneatur, tunc est duplex peceatum, commissionis & omissionis, et hoc est carentia alterius actus debiti inesse, et ita rectitudinis debitae inesse voluntati. that is, The difformity in an act of commission, is nothing but the very act which is done contrary to the Law of God neither doth it imply any thing else. So that when a man produceth an action which he should not do; if he be not bound to do the contrary, the difformity that accompanieth such an action, is not the want of any rectitude, that should be either in that action, or in the will; but if he be bound to do the contrary, then there are 2 sins found in him, the one of commission, the other of omission, & this latter is the want of another act that should be done, & consequently of a rectitude that should be in the will but is not, when it faileth to bring forth that action, that in duty it is bound to do. But some man will say, this must not be granted; for if we admit not the distinction of that which is formal, & that which is material in the sin of commission; the difformity, & the substance of the act; & that the one is positive, and the other privative; God having a true efficiency in respect of the substance of the act, & that which is positive in it, we must acknowledge that he hath a true efficiency in respect of the whole, even the difformity aswell as the substance, & consequently make him the author of sin. They who make this objection, seem to say some thing, but indeed they say nothing: for this distinction will not clear the doubt they move, touching God's efficiency & working in the sinful actions of men. Whensoever, saith 
m l. 2. d. 37. q. 〈◊〉.  Durandus, two things are inseparably joined together, whosoever knowing them both & that they are so inseparably joined together, chooseth the one, chooseth the other also: because though happily he would not choose it absolutely as being evil, yet in that it is joined to that which he doth will, neither can be separated from it, it is of necessity that he must will both. As it appeareth in those voluntary actions that are mixed: as when a man casteth into the sea those rich commodities, which he hath dearly bought, & brought from a far, to save his own life, which he would not do but in such a case. Hence it followeth that the act of hating God & sinful difformity, being so inseparably joined together, that the one cannot be divided from the other, (for a man cannot hate God but he must sin damnably,) if God doth will the one he doth will the other also. This of Durand is confirmed by 
n Metaphystom. 1. d. 2●…. Sec. 4. p. 522,  Suarez, who saith, he shall never satisfy any man that doubteth, how God may be cleared from being author of sin, if he have an efficiency in the sinful actions of men: that shall answer, that all that is said touching God's efficiency & concurrence, is true in respect of the evil motions & actions of men's wills materially considered, & not formally in that they are evil & sinful. For the one of these is consequent upon another. For a free and deliberate act of a created will, about such an object, & with such circumstances, cannot be produced but it must have difformity annexed to it. There are some operations or actions, saith 
o Disp. vari ad primam & primam secundae pag. 104.  Cumel, that are intrinsically evil, so that in them we cannot separate that which is material, from that which is formal, & wherein the sinfulness of sin consisteth: as it appeareth in the hate of God, & in this act when a man shall say & resolve, I will do evil. So that it implieth a contradiction, that God should effectually work our will to bring forth such actions, in respect of that which is material in them, & not in respect of that which is formal. And this seemeth yet more impossible if we admit their opinion who think, that the formal nature & being of the sin of commission, consisteth in some thing that is positive, as in the manner of working freely, so as to repugn to the rule of reason & law of God. So that it is clear in the judgement of these great divines, that if God have a true real efficiency, in respect of the substance of these sinful actions, he must in a sort produce the difformity, or that which is formal in them.  
Wherefore for the clearing of this point, we must observe, that there are 3 opinions touching God's concurrence with 2d causes in producing their effects. The 1st, that God hath no immediate influence, but mediate only, in respect of voluntary agents. And according to this opinion it is easy to clear God from the imputation of being author of sin, & yet to acknowledge his concurrence with 2d causes in producing their defective effects. If the will of the creature, saith 
p Lib. 2. dist. 37. q. 1.  Scotus were the total and immediate cause of her action, & that God had no immediate efficiency but mediate only in respect thereof as some think: it were easy according to that opinion, to show how God may be freed from the imputation of being author of sin, and yet to acknowledge his concurrence with second causes, for the producing of their effects. For whether we speak of that which is material or formal in sin, the will only should be the total cause of it, and God should no way be a cause of it but mediately, in that he caused and produced such a will, that might at her pleasure do what she would. Durandus seemeth to incline to this opinion, supposing that 2d causes do bring forth their actions & operations, by & of themselves, & that God no otherwise concurreth actively to the production of the same, but in that he preserveth the 2d causes, in that being & power of working, which at first he gave them. But they that are of sounder judgement resolve, that as the light enlighteneth the air, & with the air all other inferior things: so god not only giveth being & power of working to the 2d causes, & preserveth them in the same, but together with them hath an immediate influence, into the things that are to be effected by the▪ God, saith Caietan, being the first cause, worketh & produceth the effects of all 2d causes immediately, tum immediatione virtutis, tum immediatione suppositi, that is, not only so, as that the virtue & power of God the first agent, immediately showeth itself in the production of the effect, but so also that he is an immediate agent, between whom & the effect produced, no secondary agent intercedeth. Yet are we not to conceive that he is an immediate agent, immediatione suppositi, as he is immediatione virtutis, for he produceth immediately every effect of every 2● cause, in respect of all that is found in any such effect, immediately immediatione virtutis, that is, so as that his virtue and power, more immediately & effectually showeth itself in the production of every such effect, than the power and virtue of the 2d cause; but he produceth every effect of every 2d cause, immediately immediatione suppositi, that is, as an immediate agent between whom and the effect, no secondary agent intercedeth, not in respect of all that is found in such an effect, but of some things only, as existence, and the last perfection of actual being. For to give being, is proper to God, as to make fire is proper to fire. So that between God the supreme agent, and being, communicated to the effects of 2d causes, there is nothing that cometh between, that by force and power of it own, can produce any such effect. So that God as an immediate agent bringeth forth such effects, and all 2 causes in respect thereof are but instruments only. But in respect of those things found in the same effects, into which the 2d causes have an influence by virtue of their own proper for me, Caietan confesseth that God doth not so produce them as an immediate agent, but that the 2d causes do mediate between him and them, & as secondary principal agents bring forth their effects. Yet are not these, that is, the first & the 2d causes partial, but total causes of all those effects which they produce. For the clearing whereof we must observe, that a cause may be said to be total, either totalitate effectus, that is, because it bringeth forth the whole effect, though some other cause have such efficiency also in respect of the same, that without the help of it, it cannot bring forth any such effect; as when 2 men draw a ship, either of them produceth the whole effect, and moveth the whole ship, but yet not so wholly, but that either hath need of the others help and concurrence. Or secondly a cause may be said to be total, totalitate causoe, and that in 2 sorts: either so, as to produce the whole effect without any concurrence of any other cause: in which sense neither God, nor the creature, neither the first, nor the 2d cause, must be said to be a total cause; or so, as that though some other do concur, yet the being, power of working, and actual cooperation of it, is wholly from the agent with which it doth concur, and so God is a total cause of all those effects, that he produceth by, and together with the 2d causes. So that the opinion of them who think, that God hath no immediate influence into the effects of 2d causes, nor immediate concurrence with such causes in producing their effects, is to be exploded out of all Christian schools & Churches as profane & heathenish. Wherefore there are, who finding that this first opinion is not to be admitted, fly to a 2d, little better than the former. For they acknowledge that God hath an immediate influence into the effects of all 2d causes, but they think it to be general, indefinite, & to be ●…ted & determined, by the different concourse of 2d causes. It is true indeed; that God worketh all things as an universal cause: but this may be understood; ways. For first a cause may be said to be universal, in the universality of predication, as opposite to special or particular; as an artificer in respect of this & that special kind of artificers, is general, and is an universal cause of all works of art, and they of such special works, as are incident to their several kinds. Secondly, a cause may be said to be universal, in that it extendeth itself to effects of all sorts, in respect of something common to them all, and not in respect of that which is proper to each of them; unless the working of it be limited and directed by something else. The fire warmeth the water with which poison is mingled, in the same sort that it doth any other water, and without any difference of it own action. And the actions of the sun & fire are such, as that men make use of them to what purposes they please, & accordingly as their working is differently applied, bring forth different effects. Thirdly, a cause may be said to be universal, because the efficiency and working of it, extendeth itself to many things, according to the several differences of them, without being limited and determined by any other thing. These men suppose that God is an universal cause in the second sense, and that his concurrence & influence, is indefinite & general, and such as may be taken and applied by second causes, in what sort they will. So that the actions of free will, & the actions of every other second cause, have from the freedom of the will, & the particular quality of the second causes, that they are of this or that sort, good or bad: & not from the concourse or influence of the first cause, which is finde●…init, as is the concourse & influence of the sun with other inferior causes, and as one man may make offer of his help & concurrence, to whatsoever another will make use of it. So they suppose that God offereth his concourse to second causes, to be used by them, to what purpose & in what sort they will. According to this conceit, they suppose they can easily clear the doubt, and free God from all imputation of being author of sin, though he concur immediately with second causes, in, & to the producing of those actions that are sinful. For, say they, his concourse & influence is indefinite, and is by them applied in ill sort, to ill purposes. But first, this conceit cleareth not God, from being author of sin. And secondly, it cannot stand with the grounds of Philosophy or divinity. That it cleareth not God from being author of sin, but rather layeth this imputation on him, it is evident. For if the concourse of God be general, indefinite, & indifferent, and to be determined by the creature, to the producing of good or evil, it followeth; that when the will of the creature determineth itself to the specifical act of sin, God also determinately concurreth with it in particular, to the producing of such an act in kind. That this consequence is good it is evident, because whosoever shall offer his help, concurrence, & cooperation, to another indifferently, for the producing of good, or evil, the acts of sin, or virtue, as it shall please him, he concurreth in truth & indeed, to the producing of the act of sin in particular, as it is such an act, if by the will of the other, his concurrence & cooperation be determined to such an act in particular. Wherefore if God for his part, offer only a general concourse, & such as is indifferent to the producing of acts of virtue or sin, accordingly as the will of the second cause shall determine it: it will follow that God concurreth determinately or in particular, to the producing of the act of sin; as being determined to the producing of such an act in particular, by the will of the creature, before he come to actual cooperation or concurrence. Secondly, this conceit cannot stand with the grounds of true Philosophy or divinity. For if God's concourse were only general and indefinite, to be determined by the will of the creature, the will of the creature should be before the will of God, in respect of the particularity of things: yea in respect of some real act, as an act, it should be simply the first agent. For according to this fancy, because the creature inclineth to such an act, & to put a thing in being, therefore God cooperateth. Whence it will follow, that there are 2 beings of things, & that God is not simply the first cause of all those things that have being. 2ly It pertaineth to divine providence, determinately to will, & aforehand to appoint, what afterwards shall be: to move second causes to certain and determinate effects, & so to dispose all things, that they may attain the ends for which they were created. But this could not be, if his concourse were indefinite, & general only. 3ly If it were as these men imagine, the determination of the will of the creature, should not be within the compass of things ordered by divine providence, and so God should not have particular providence of every particular thing. That this is consequent upon the fancy of indefinite concourse, it is evident. For if God's concourse be indefinite and in general only, then doth he not truly and efficiently work, that the will of the creature shall in particular incline to, and bring forth such an individual action. And if he be not the cause that it so inclineth & worketh; his providence extendeth not to such working, seeing his providence extendeth to those things only, wherein he hath a working. So that if these things were so as these men imagine, God's providence should extend itself to contingent things, in a generality only, in that he hath given to intellectual creatures a freedom, to what, when, & how it pleaseth them, & in particular in respect ofthings, of this nature, he should have a presidence only and no providence. Neither doth that which is alleged by these men, touching the indifferent concourse of the Sun, or that of a man offering his concurrence in a generality only, prove that God's concourse is such. For the Sun is a finite and limited thing, having something in act, & something in possibility, & so is man likewise; & therefore they may be determined, to produce such & such individual acts, by the concourse of some other cause. But God is a cause of infinite perfection, and a pure act, having nothing admixed of possibility: so that his action and will, cannot be determined & limited by any other. Wherefore the resolution of the best divines is; that God's concourse & influence, is not into the effects of 2d causes only, but into the 2d causes themselues. So that he doth not only by an immediate concourse & influence, concur with the 2d causes, for the bringing forth of such effects as they determine themselves unto, but he hath an influence into the 2d causes themselues, moving & working them to bring forth effects; & such effects, as he thinketh good to work them unto. This is proved by sundry reasons. First (as we see) 2d causes do not only produce some certain effects & operations, as within some certain kind, but they give unto them their last actual perfection, & to be. But this they cannot give, unless they be made complete in virtue active, by the first agent: because an agent must be no less actual, than the effect or operation it bringeth forth. But every created agent is mixed & compounded, of actual being & possibility, & is not so actual, as an execution, that is a 2d act; therefore before it can bring forth any execution or effect, it must be made complete in virtue operative, by the actual motion of the first agent. 2ly, To be is a most universal act, & the proper effect of God only; therefore if we will speak formally, & properly, 2d causes, in that they give being to their own effects, are but instruments of God: whence it will follow, that they must be moved by him in nature, before they give being to any of their effects. For an instrument doth nothing, towards the producing of the effect of the principal agent, unless it be actually moved by the principal agent. 3ly Every such thing as is sometimes an agent in act, sometimes but potentially only, must be moved by some mover that is a pure act, & hath nothing mingled with it of possibility, before it eam bring forth any action. But the will of the creature is sometimes actually in action, sometimes but potentially only: therefore it must be moved by the first act, before it can bring forth any action. Which must be granted; for that otherwise the will of the creature, in respect of some actions, should be the first mover of itself, and the first determiner. That which is wrought by God, in and upon the second causes, to make them actually to be in action, is a thing that hath a kind of incompleate being, in such sort as colours have a being in the air, and the power of the act in the instrument of the artificer; and so often as 2● causes, whether of natural or supernatural order, have in respect of the form inherent in them, a sufficient active power in the nature of the first act, to bring forth their effects; the help or precedent motion of God, whereby he moveth and applieth the same active powers to operate, is not a quality, but is more properly named a powerful motion, whereby the first, and most universal agent so worketh upon them, that the 2d causes are actually in action, every one in sort fitting to the nature & condition of it. And to this purpose it is that Tho: Aquinas hath, that habitual grace is a quality, but the actual help whereby God moveth us to will a thing, is not a quality, but a certain motion of the mind. And surely it will easily appear, that there is a great difference between these. For the habit doth perfect the power of the soul, as a form or first act, implying possibility in respect of actual operation; because the habit doth not determine the power actually to work, but fitteth it only for action, & inclineth it thereunto. But this actual help & moving, putting forth the 2d causes into their actions, doth not perfect the power of working, but makes them actually to be in action. Lastly, the habit in respect of the nature of it, may be the cause of divers actions, but that actual help & moving whereof we speak, determineth the will to one individual action, & yet taketh not from it a power of dissenting, and doing otherwise. 
q Disp. 24. part. 238.  Alvarez a great & learned Archbishop, that hath lately written with good allowance of the Church of Rome, layeth down these propositions. First, that God by an effectual will, predetermined all such acts of men and Angels, as are good; and all such as are not evil ex obiecto, though in individuo they be evil, & sins ex malâ circumstantiâ, Which he proveth out of the 10th of Esay, where Almighty God saith, Assur is the rod of my wrath, he is my staff, I will send him to a deceitful nation, & against the people of my fury will I give him a command. & a little after. Shall the axe boast against him that cutteth with it? or shall the saw be lifted up against him that draweth it? as if a rod should be lifted up against him that lifteth it, & the staff which is but wood. Here it is evident that Assur sinned ex malâ circumstantiâ, in subduing the nations; and yet it is clear that God predetermined, that he should waste and destroy the nations, & that he sent him to that purpose, and moved him so to do. His 2d proposition is this, that whatsoever is positive, & of being, in an act of sin, though intrinsically, & ex obiecto evil, it hath God for the first moving cause, & he doth primarily & originally predetermine the will of the creature by an actual motion, to such an act, in that it is an act, & in that it hath being, and yet not to the difformity of it. But Cumel disputeth strongly against this proposition in this sort. There are certain acts, saith he, intrinsically evil, so that in them that which is material, cannot be separated à formali malitiâ peccati, that is, from the difformity or sinfulness of such an act. So that it implieth a contradiction, that God should determine our wills freely to bring forth such an action, in respect of that which is material in it, and not to determine it to bring forth the same action, in respect of that which is formal. And this reason hath greater force against them, that hold that the formality of sin, consisteth in some thing that is positive, as in the manner of working freely, with positive repugnance to the Law of reason, and of God. For if God predetermine, and effectually move, to the producing of evil actions, in respect of that which is material in them, and the substance of the act; he must necessarily also predetermine the same actions, in respect of all their positive conditions and circumstances: as the freedom of working, and the positive repugnance to the Law of God. And if he determine the will to work repugnantly to the Law, he must needs move and determine it to sin; seeing to sin is nothing else, but to repugn unto the law. So that it must not be said, that God is the original cause, that man hath any such action of will, as is evil ex obiecto. For if he should originally and out of himself will any such act, he must be the author of sin: seeing such an act is intrinsically evil, so that it cannot be separated from difformity: but whosoever willeth the substance of such an act, must also will the difformity annexed thereunto, in the same sort as he willeth the substance of it, as is already proved.  
Wherefore that we may rightly conceive, how God may be said to will actions of this kind: I will lay down these propositions. First, that of the sin of omission no higher cause needeth to be sought, than the deficient will of the creature; and that God no otherwise decreed the entrance of it, but in that he decreed the denial of that grace, without which he knew such omission would be. The second, that the sin of omission is in order before the sin of commission. The sin of omission was first in the Angels, saith Wickliff, as it is also in every man that sinneth. Omission, saith Alexander of Hales, in the order of sins, so far forth as we may conceive, that there is any order amongst them, is before commission. The third, that the sinner falling into the sin of omission, putteth himself, not only into an estate of aversion from God, but of opposition also, and being adverse unto God: and so into a necessity of committing sin, so long as he continueth in that state. For he that is opposite to God, if he have any action at all, must of necessity have such as are repugnant to the will and law of God. The fourth, that God the universal mover, who moveth and worketh all things, to bring forth such actions, as are fitting to their condition, ceaseth not, to work and move upon men, & Angels, after they are become averse: but he still moveth, and impelleth them to do things, fitting to that condition wherein he findeth them, as he doth all other things, and as he worketh in and together with all second causes, such effects as are fitting to their condition. So he bringeth forth in and with these thus averse, actions fitting to such an estate of aversion, and adverse opposition, that is, such as are beside and contrary to the rule of righteousness. So that to conclude this point, God neither worketh the creature to be evil, for it becometh evil of itself, by falling into the sin of omission; nor simply and absolutely moveth and determineth it to do evil: but he moveth it to do things fitting to the condition wherein it is, even after by it own fault it is become evil, and produceth in and together with it, such actions as are fitting to that estate: that is, such as are evil. And his will being that nothing shall be without action, nor without action fitting to the condition thereof, he hath settled it by an effectual and positive decree, that he that will be averse and evil, shall not but do evil, so long as he is and will be, in such an estate and condition. If we speak, saith Gregorius Ariminensis de prima mala voluntate, non habuit causam efficientem, quia nulla res fuit quae aliquid faciendo faceret illam malam, sed ipsa desistendo à bona volitione facta est mala: sed malae volitionis aliqua est causa. That is, If we seek out how the will of the creature at first became ill, there is no efficient cause thereof to be found, for there was nothing that did any thing to make it evil, but of itself by desisting to will that it should, it became evil: but of the act of willing what it should not, there is a positive cause. It is excellent to this purpose that Luther hath, in his book de servo arbitrio against Erasmus. Reason yieldeth, saith he, that God worketh all in all, and that nothing can be done without him; for he is omnipotent, and this pertaineth to his omnipotency, as Paul saith to the Ephesians. Now Satan and man fallen from God, and forsaken of him, cannot will that which is good, that is, such things as please God, or such as he would have to be done; but being turned away to desire such other things as shall please themselves, they cannot but seek those things that are their own. This nature of men and Angels thus turned from God, is not nothing, neither is Satan and a wicked man nothing; neither can we say they have no nature, nor will; though they have a corrupt and averse nature. Therefore that which remaineth of nature in a wicked man, and in Satan, as a creature and the work of God, is no less subject to omnipotency, and the action of God, than all other creatures and works of God are. Whereas therefore God moveth, and worketh all in all, he moveth and worketh also in Satan, and the wicked man, and he worketh in them in such sort, as is fitting to that they are, and as he findeth them, that is, so, that being evil and averse, & yet carried on with the motion of divine omnipotency, they cannot but do such things as are averse, & evil. As if a horseman shall drive a horse that goeth but on two, or three feet; he maketh him go so as he must needs go, if he go at all, so long as he is thus lame, that is, haltingly. But what should the horseman do? he driveth on the lame horse, with the other that are sound: they go well, this ill. It cannot be otherwise, unless the horse be freed from his lameness. here we see by this comparison, how that when God worketh, in and by them that are evil, such things are done as are evil, but that God cannot do evil, though he produce in and by them that are evil, such things as are evil, because he being good cannot do evil. Yet doth he use ill instruments, which cannot but be moved with the motion of his power, nor cannot but do evil if they be moved. So that the fault is in the instruments which God moveth, and will not suffer to be idle, that evil things are done, when he moveth them; no otherwise than if a Carpenter using an ill axe, should cut, or rather tear the timber ill favouredly. And hence it cometh, that the wicked cannot but always do amiss, and sin. Because being carried on by the motion of divine power, they are not suffered to do nothing, but are forced to will, desire, and do that which it fitting to the state wherein they are: till they be altered by God's holy grace, and spirit. And hereunto agree all the best learned in the Roman Schools. If the name of sin, saith Gregorius Ariminensis, be taken improperly for an evil act, as for such an act as whosoever doth sinneth, for example, for the act of 
v Li. 2. d. 34 3●…. 36. 37. q. 1. art, 3.  willing something, that should not be willed, or for some other inward or outward act which the sinner doth; there is some doubt whether God be an immediate efficient cause of such a sinful act, or not: and there are solemn opinions one contrary to another touching that point. But without peremptory defence of the one or the other, which might argue rashness, for the present I hold the affirmative as more probable, and as it seemeth to me, more consonant to the sayings of the Saints. And he addeth, whereas some speak of the difformity of such a sinful act, denying God to be any efficient cause thereof; Si per difformitatem intelligatur aliqua entitas, quaecunque & ubicunque sit, illam coagit Deus, nec scio oppositum dici à Sanctis. Doctores aliqui moderni dicunt, quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo, difformitas tamen ipsa non est à Deo. Quod dictum potest habere bonum intellectum, non quidem concipiendo quòd difformitas sit aliqua entitas ab actu distincta, quae non causetur à Deo: sed intelligendo quod licet actus difformis sit à Deo, non tamen est difformis, in quantum est à Deo. Nam non est difformis nisi in quantum contra rectam rationem fit ab homine, non autem à Deo qui nihil agit contra id quod ab eo agendum esse recta ratio indicat. Deus non est eiusdem rei secundum idem actor & ultor; sed est eius actor, in quantum entitas quaedam, eius verò ultor in quantum est malum. Est autem malum in quantum malè fit, & ideo punit eum à quo male fit pro eâ. If by the difformity they understand any being, or any thing that is positive, whatsoever and wheresoever it is, God is a cause thereof, neither do I know, saith he, that the contrary is delivered by the Saints. Indeed there are certain modern Doctors that say, that though the act wherein difformity is, be from God, yet the difformity is not; which their saying may have a good sense, not conceiving that the difformity is any positive thing distinct from the act, whereof God should not be an actor: but so understanding it, that though the act which is done otherwise then it should be done, be of God, yet it is not done otherwise then it should be done, as it is done by God: for God doth nothing in producing such an act that he should not do but the creature only. So that, as the Divines do tell us, God is not an actor and a punisher of the same thing in respect of the same: but he is an actor of the thing in that it is a thing done, but a punisher in that it is ill done. And therefore he punisheth him that hath done ill in doing ill, himself, having done the same thing well. Quid mirum, saith 
s De casu Diaboli c. 20.  Anselm, si dicamus Deum facere singulas actiones, qu●… fiunt mala voluntate, cum fateamur eum facere singulas substantias, quae fiunt iniustâ voluntate, & inhonestâ actione: that is, What strange thing is it, if we say, that God produceth all those actions which sinful men do wickedly, seeing we confess he produceth all those substances, which are brought forth by a sinful desire of the will, and an unhonest action? God produceth & formeth the same child in the womb, which a man begetteth in adultery, & yet man only sinneth, & not God. 
t Hug. eruditi Theolog. de Sacram. lib. 1. part. 4. c. 12. 13.  Si verò dicitur, saith Hugo de S. Victore, Deus vult malum, grave est auditu, & non facilè recipit hoc pia mens; de bono quod malumvult, Videtur enim hoc solum dici cum dicitur Deus vult malum, quia bonus malum diligit, & approbat quod pravum est, & amicam sibi reputat iniquitatem, & gaudet quasi de consimili, & bonum put at quod malum est: & ideo refutat hoc menspia, non quia quod dicitur non benè dicitur, sed quia quod bené dicitur, non benè intelligitur. Non enim hoc solùm dicitur, sed ex eo quod dicitur, aliquid intelligitur quod non dicitur. Quoniam malum esse vult, & malum non vult: that is, If it be said, that God willeth the thing that is evil, men hardly endure to hear it, and a pious and good mind doth not easily admit, that he that is good, willeth the thing that is evil: for we conceive nothing else when we say, God willeth that which is evil, but that he that is good, loveth that which is evil, and approveth that which is wicked. And therefore a good mind rejecteth such a speech, not because it is not right and good, but because that which is rightly said, is not rightly understood, For this speech is not so to be taken, as if God loved, or approved that which is evil, but something is to be understood which is not expressed. And the meaning of this speech is, that God willeth the being of evil, or that evil shallbe, and yet willeth not evil, that is, approveth it not. Now when it is said, that God willeth the being of evil, or that evil shallbe, the meaning of this saying of Hugo is; concerning the sin of omission, that he willeth it no otherwise, but only in that he denieth that grace, which only he knoweth, would work the doing of the contrary good; and concerning the sin of commission, that he produceth in and together with them, that by falling into the sin of omission are become evil, such actions as are evil. There are, saith 
u Li. 1. q. 13. art. 1.  Cameracensis, who hold, that God hath an efficiency, and is a cause producing the action that is sinful, and that he may and doth cause & will that which is sin; as Ockam, Bradwardine, and sundry other renowned Doctors. 
x Lib. 1. q. 14.  And elsewhere he saith, that according to the opinion of the master of the sentences, God only permitteth those evils which are sin, & that he neither willeth their being, or not being. For if he did will their being, he should be the cause of them; which he thinketh must not be granted; and if he did will their not being, they should not be. But Bradwardine, and others hold, that God willeth those evils that are sins, & that in respect of every thing, he hath an act of will, either that it shallbe, or not be, and not a mere negation of such act. If we speak saith 
y In sen. l 3. q. 12  Ockam of the sin of commission, we must not think that the will of the creature hath an efficiency, and is so the cause of that act, but that God also who as immediately produceth every act of the creature, as the creature doth itself, hath his efficiency, and is a cause also even of the difformity that is found in such an act, aswell as of the substance of the act. Seeing as we have already showed, the difformity in an act of commission, is nothing else but the very act itself that is done contrary to the precept. Yet doth not God originally move the creature to do any such evil act; but contrariwise so made it, and would have so continued it, if the fault had not been in itself, that it should never have done any evil act. But finding it by it own fault averse and turned from him, notwithstanding all the gracious means he used to retain it, he goeth on moving & carrying it forward with restless motions, and produceth in and with it thus averse, actions fitting to such an estate, and such as it must needs bring forth, if it bring forth any at all; that is, such as are evil. Thus he doth without all fault of his, who must not cease to do his work of moving and carrying forward all things with restless motions, though by their own fault being put out of due course, they do not attain their wished good, but run themselves into endless evils. Thus than God did only by substraction and denial of that grace, without which he saw the creature would not be won to continue in that state of good wherein it was to be created, decree & purpose, the entrance of the sin of omission and aversion; but presupposing this purpose, and foreseeing that which would follow upon it, by his consequent & conditiovall will, he positively decreed the other which is of commission. For seeing man must needs seek an infinite good, & love it infinitely, & if he seek it not in God, must seek it elsewhere; God did decree that man not continuing to adhere to him, should seek his chief good in himself, & so consequently fall into self-love, pride, & all other evils of that kind. This is the opinion of many worthy divines in the Roman Church, and this is that Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, & the rest meant, if any where they affirmed that God doth effectually move, impel, and incline sinful creatures, to do such things as are evil: namely that God hath settled such a course in things, that they that will not do what they should, shall do that they should not; & that he will not suffer them that fall from him to do nothing, but will effectually move them to will, desire, & do that, which is fitting to the estate into which they put themselves, so long as they continue in the same, & will not be reclaimed & won to return to him again. And this is agreeable to that of S. Augustine that God inclineth or moveth no man to evil, but that he inclineth such as are evil, to this or that evil. With whom 
z Cap. 〈◊〉.  Anselm writing upon the epistle to the Romans agreeth, where he saith, that God may be said to deliver men up to their own hearts desires, when being prone to evil; he stayeth them not: & addeth, that it is also manifest, that God doth work in the hearts of men, to incline their wills whither soever he pleaseth, either to choose things that are good out of his mercy, or to choose things that are evil according to their deserts, the reasons of his judgement being sometimes manifest, sometimes hid, but always just. For because men have run into some sins, they afterwards fall into many: & God, that long expecteth the sinner, looking that he should return, when he findeth that he returneth not, but contemneth both his justice & mercy, he casteth some thing in his way, at which he may stumble & fall yet worse than before. Inter primum peccatum apostasiae, & ultimam poenam ignis, media quae sunt, & peccata sunt, & poenae peccati. Whatsoever sins do come between the first sin of apostasy, & the last punishment which is that of eternal fire, they are both sins & punnishmennts, & therefore God may justly deliver up such as fall from him by the first sin of apostasy, & depart from him, unto their own hearts desires, for the committing of such things as are not seemly.  
Thus than we may resolve touching the entrance of sin. First, God purposed eternally to make man a rational and intellectual creature, endued with knowledge of all things, and faculty and power to make choice of what he would. Secondly, Man could not be thus made, and be naturally free from possibility and danger of making an evil choice, disposing amiss of himself, & offending against the laws of his righteous Creator. Thirdly, God wanted not gracious means whereby to hold him inseparably to himself, and to preserve him infallibly from falling away, though he were not, nor could not be, naturally free from possibility of falling. Fourthly, God foresaw, that, if man were so created and left to himself as afterwards he was, he would sinfully depart from him. Fifthly, he saw that it was best to create and leave him so, and that if sin should enter, he could take an occasion thereby of the manifestation of greater good, than the world otherwise could ever know. Sixtly, seeing the determination of man's will, that if he should be thus created and left, he would avert from him and sin would enter, he determined so to create him and leave him, and to give way that sin might enter. Thus than we do not say that God did absolutely, without all prescience of the determination of man's will, determine and decree that sin should enter; but that, foreseeing what would be the determination of his will, if he were so created and left to himself, as in his divine wisdom he saw it to be fittest, he determined so to create and leave him, and purposed by subtraction of grace to give way unto the sin of aversion, or omission, and permissively to suffer it for to enter; and by a positive decree resolved, that averting himself from the fountain of all goodness, and the rule of all righteousness, he should run into innumerable dangerous evils, and grievous sins of commission.  
But Bellarmine will say, Calvine denieth that God's determination, decreeing what shall be, dependeth on this prescience, and that his prescience presupposeth his purpose and decree. 
* Scotus, li. 1. dist. 41. quest. unica sola permissio alicuius actus, & certitudo de permissione non facit ce●…titudinem de illo actu, quia oportet habere aliquam causam effectivam: igitur ex hoc quod Deus prae●…t se velle permitter Luum●… peccare, ex hoc, in●… quam, solo non videtur quòd sc●…t Luciferum peccaturum. Soluitur haec objectio, quia Deus non solum scit se permissurum, sed etiam scit se non coop●… aturum c●… ad actum necessarium, et per consequens omittet: & scit se cooperatu●… ad substantiem actus prohibiti sine debitis circumstantijs, & per consequens committet. This expl●…catio. of Scotus g●…f●…luine ●…luine & Beza, when they say. God cannot foreknow fu●… t●…thinas, unless he co●…cur otherwise than by bare pe●…issie. See the places objected by Bell●…mine l. 2. c. 4. de a●…one gratiae & statu p●…cati.  For answer hereunto we must remember, that there is a double prescience; simplicis intelligentiae, and visionis. The first is of all those things that are possible, and which upon any supposed condition may be; as was that prescience of God, whereby he foreknew, that if in Tyrus and Sidon those things should be done, which afterwards were done among the jews, they would repent. This doth not presuppose the decree of God, but extendeth to many things God doth not decree, nor purpose to be, as it appeareth in the example proposed, The other is of those things only which hereafter shall be; and this presupposeth some act of Gods will. For seeing nothing can be unless some act of Gods will do pass upon it, at least not to hinder the being of it, nothing can be thus foreseen, as being hereafter for to be, unless some decree of God do pass upon it. Of this kind of prescience, Calvin speaketh, and not of the other. For that first kind of prescience what the creature would do, if it were so created, and left to itself, as afterwards it was, was before any decree of God, or determination what he would do. But that other, to wit, what hereafter shall be, not so; and therefore Calvin rightly affirmeth, that God's foresight of the entrance of sin, presupposed his decree that it should enter.  
Thus I see not what can be disliked by our adversaries in our doctrine thus delivered, nor what difference can be imagined between them and us, touching the entrance of sin. But, 
e Lib. 2 cap. 17. de ●…one g●…ae & statu p●…ati.  saith Bellarmine, Caluine affirmeth, that the end, for which God purposed to make man, was the manifestation of the severity of his justice, and the riches of his mercy; and that the consideration of this end, was the first thing that was found in God, when he thought of creating man: so that this purpose was before and without respect unto the prescience of any thing that afterwards might or would be in man; And that because there was not any thing wherein he could show either mercy or justice, unless sin did enter, therefore secondly he purposed, that sin should enter. So that first he purposed to punish before he saw any cause, and then purposed the entrance of sin, that there might be cause; which is no less inexcusable from injustice, cruelty, and tyranny, than if he should purpose to punish, and so do, without any cause at all. Thus, saith he, it should seem, that the first original and spring of sin, is from the will of God, according to Calvines' opinion.  
For answer hereunto we must note, that Caluine doth no where say, that God did purpose the manifestation of his mercy and justice before all prescience, but only before that, which is named praescientia visionis. Secondly, that Calvin doth no where pronounce, that simply & absolutely the end wherefore God purposed to make man, was the manifestation of the severity of his justice, & the riches of his mercy, or that he might save some, and condemn others; But as I conceive according to calvin's opinion, four things are implied in God's purpose of creating man. First, what he meant to bestow upon him. Secondly, what he meant to deny unto him. Thirdly, the foreknowledge what would fall out, upon the bestowing of such benefits only, and the denying of others, namely, Sin, & Apostasy. Fourthly, his purpose, notwithstanding his foreknowledge, to bestow upon him only such benefits of his rich and abundant goodness, and no other. So then the end of those benefits, which God purposed in such sort, and in such degree and measure, to bestow upon man in his creation, was not the manifestation of his mercy and justice, neither did he purpose the entrance of sin originally out of his own liking, that he might have matter of punishment, as Bellarmine injuriously chargeth Calvine to affirm; But the end of his purpose of bestowing such benefits only, and no other, notwithstanding his foreknowledge what would fall out, if so he did, was, that he might show his mercy and justice in saving and condemning whom he would. And against this, Bellarmine neither doth, nor can except.  
Thus having cleared those doubts that occur in the doctrine of the Divines of the reformed Churches, touching the entrance of sin; Let us come to the second part, and see what it is, that they attribute unto God, when sin is entered. The actions they attribute to God, when sin is entered, are three: Limitation, direction, and condign punishing of one sin with another. For the first, that God setteth bounds to wicked men in their wickedness, not only in respect of the effect and event, but also of the very inward purpose, affections, and designs, and at his pleasure stoppeth them when he will; I think none of our adversaries will make any question. For the devil himself was limited how far he should proceed in afflicting 
f job c 1. ●…z. Math. 8. 31.  job: and could not enter into an herd of swine, without leave obtained. For though the will to do evil be not of God, yet the power is; for there is no power that is not of God.  
Touching the second; which is direction, though God be not the Author and causer of evil, nor may be thought without impiety to put it into men, yet when he findeth it in them, he directeth it, not only in respect of the kind wherein; the persons against whom, and the time when it shall break forth; But also in respect of the end and effect: in which sense it is that 
g Lib. 2. c. 13. de amis●…ione gratiae & statu peccati.  Bellarmine and Stapleton both say, that though GOD incline not simply and absolutely unto evil, yet he inclineth and bendeth the wills of them that be wicked, that they shall be wicked in this sort, rather than that, at this time, than at some other, against such men, rather than against those they more malign and desire to despite, if they were left to themselves. 
h Hugo de S. Victore lib. 1. de sacramentis part. 5. cap. 29.  This God doth in that he openeth the passage, and maketh way for wickedness to come forth and show itself in what sort he pleaseth, and stoppeth all other. Even as a man being in a high Tower, and desiring to cast himself down, there being many passages through which he might cast himself out, if a man should stop all but one, though he might not justly be said to be the cause of the fall of him that should thus cast away himself, 
i Ibid. Hugo. Qui praecipiti qua vult ad rumam viam aperit, quodammodò ipsum inclinat, non impellendo, sed permittendo, & non tenendo: nec author illiest ruendi, sed incedendi ordinator.  yet might he rightly be said to be the cause, why he fell rather this way, and out of this window or passage, than any other. So doth God order, dispose, and direct the wickedness of men, to break out in what sort, at what time, and against what persons he pleaseth, and no otherwise; and is author ordinis in malo, though not mali. 
k Thomas in comment. c. 9 ad Rom. citatut a Bella●…. l. 2. c. 13. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati.   
When we say he openeth the way & passage for wickedness to break forth, we must understand that he doth this in two sorts; either by not hindering it from breaking forth in some one kind, which he suffereth no otherwise to show itself, or in that he positively inclineth it hither rather than thither, not by way of cause but of occasion offered. In which sense it is, that David saith, God 
l Sam. 16. 10.  commanded Shemei to curse him, not as if God had either inwardly or outwardly persuaded him so to do; But because, finding him full of malice against David, he so prospered David before, that he durst not revile him, not had no cause to insult upon him: But now he presented him to his eyes in such a miserable estate, forsaken of many, and pursued by his own son, as he knew would occasion these words of insultation, and bitter malediction. Thus than God commanded Shemei to curse David, not by precept, outwardly requiring him so to do, nor by persuasion, inwardly inclining him to so vile an action; but by, direction, inclining him, by words of malediction to express his bitter affection (which long before desired to vent itself) now at this time, and for the punishment of David's sins, rather than at an other time and in another sort.  
So when wicked men had spoilt 
m job. 1. 21.  job he said, The Lord hath given, & the Lord hath taken away, imputing it to God; not as if he had made them to become Robbers, but for that being such, he directed their wickedness, and used it to the trial of his servant, opening a passage for their wickedness, and presenting to them such things as he knew would occasion this outrage. 
n Acts 2. 23.  As lakewise the jews, in crucifying Christ, are said to have done nothing but that which God had before resolutely determined, not as if God had purposed their wickedness, but only because knowing what was in them, he was pleased to direct, guide, and turn their wickedness and furious malice, to the effecting of his own purposes.  
The third action that we attribute unto God, is, that he punisheth one sin by an other. In punishments, 
o In annotationibus clucidatorijs quaestionum in epistolam Pauli ad Roman. 1. cap. illa verba, Tradidit illos Deus.  Hugo de sancto victore noteth three things: The matter, with which a man is punished; the contrariety between it, and the party punished; and the order of consequence, that where such an offence went before, such an evil shall follow, to make the party offending feel the smart of it. In those punishments which be punishments only, & not sins, God is the author and cause of all these three things employed in the nature of punishments: in those which be punishments, and sins, God is author only of the order of consequence, & the contrariety between them, & the nature of the parties punished; not of the matter wherewith they are afflicted & punished. As for example: Pride is punished by envy; Envy is not of God, but the contrariety between it, and the soul of man, which maketh it bitter and afflictive, is: And the order of consequence, that where pride went before, envy must follow. Neither doth God only punish one sin with another, when there is such a dependence of one upon the other, that where one goeth before, the other must follow: But oftentimes, when there is no such necessary dependence, yet he withdraweth his grace, and for the punishment of one sin, letteth men run into another. In this sense, there are three things attributed to God, in the punishment of wicked and godless men: The blinding of their urderstanding: The hardening of their hearts, and the giving of them up unto a reprobate sense.  
These things God is said to do three ways: First, by subtraction and denial of that grace which should lighten the understandings, and soften and mollify the hearts of men: Secondly by giving leave to Satan to work upon them, & no way either strengthening them against him, or weakening his force: Thirdly, occasionally and by accident, when God doth that which is good, which yet he knoweth, through the evil disposition that is in men, will increase their wickedness, and make it greater than it was before.   

CHAP. 24.  
Of the heresies of Origen, touching the Image of God; and touching hell, falsely imputed to Calvin.  
IN the third place, the jesuit, fearing that men should think he were near driven and wanted store, he chargeth Calvin at once with two heresies of Origen. The first concerning the Image of God; the second touching Hell and the punishments of it.  

a Heresi. 64. & in Epistola ad johannem Episcopum Hierosolymitanum.  Touching the first, it is true that Epiphanius chargeth Origen with heresy, For saying that Adam lost the Image of God by his disobedience and sin: but how justly, it is very doubtful; Seeing neither Hierome, nor Theophilus Alexandrinus, most diligently noting his errors, make any mention of it. And therefore it may be probably thought, as 
b Contra Hereses: lib: z. Adam & Eua.  Alphonsius à Castro noteth, that if any such thing was found in the works of Origen, it was so delivered by him, as that it might carry a good construction, and free from heresy. But leaving it uncertain what it was that Origen meant by the loss of God's Image. For the clearing of Calvin, we must note that which 
c 1. Parte summae quaest. 93. art. 4. ubi ait glossam distinguere triplicem imaginem: creationis, recreationis, & similitudinis, prima invenitur in omnibus; 2. in iustis tantum: tertia verò solum in beatis.  Thomas Aquinas (no heretic I hope in Bellarmine's judgement,) being a Canonised Saint of the Romish Church, hath fitly observed to this purpose.  
He noteth, first, that the Image of God consisteth in the eminent perfection which is found in men, expressing the nature of God in an higher degree, than any excellency of other creatures doth. Secondly, that this perfection is found principally in the soul. Thirdly, that it is threefold. First, natural, which is the largeness of the natural faculties of understanding and will, not limited to the apprehension or desire of some certain things only, but extending to all the conditions of being and goodness, whose principal object is God; So that they never rest satisfied with any other thing, but the seeing and enjoying of him.  
The second kind of this perfection is supernatural; when the soul actually, or at the least habitually knoweth and loveth God aright, though not so perfectly as he may, and shall be loved hereafter. The third is when the soul knoweth and loveth God in fullness of happiness. The first is of nature, the second of grace, and the third of glory. The first of these is never lost, no not by the damned in hell. The second, Adam had, but lost it, and it is renewed in us by grace. The third we expect in heaven. To think the Image of God, considered in the first sort, to be lost, is heresy; but Calvin is free from it. To think it lost in the second sort, is the Catholic doctrine of the Church: for, who knoweth not that man hath lost all right knowledge and love of God, by Adam's fall?  
Some restrain the name of the Image of God, to the excellency of the soul's nature, framed to know all things, and never to rest satisfied in any thing, under God: And so generally and absolutely deny, that the Image of God can be lost or blotted out. These make a difference between the Image of God, thus restrained to the largeness and and admirable perfection of the natural faculties of the soul, and the similitude or likeness of God, which appeareth in the qualities and virtues of it, making him that possesseth them, partaker of the divine nature, which they confess to be lost.  
Now this similitude is all one, with the Image of God in the second consideration set down by Aquinas; and therefore in this matter Calvin erreth not, but writeth that which is consonant unto the truth.  
Touching the second part of this imputation, it is true that 
d Hier. in Epist. ad Avitum.  Origen erred, thinking hell to be nothing else but horror of conscience; But he that looketh in the place in Calvin cited by the jesuit, shall see, that he saith no such thing, but the clean contrary. So that the Reader shall find Bellarnne to be constant, and still like himself, adding one calumniation to another.   

CHAP. 25.  
Of the heresy of the Peputians, making women Priests.  
THe fourth Heresy, imputed unto us by our adversaries, is that of the Peputians, who gave women authority to intermeddle with the sacred ministry of the Church. That we do so likewise, they endeavour to prove, by misreporting the words of Luther. There are two things therefore which Luther saith, in the place alleged by them. First, that in absolution and remission of sins in the supposed Sacrament of Penance, a Bishop or ordinary Presbyter may do as much, as the Pope himself; which 
a Lib. 2. verb. absolutio.  Alphonsus à Castro, writing against Heresies, confesseth to be true. The second, that when, and where, no Presbyter can be found to perform this office, a Lay man, yea or a woman in this case of necessity, may absolve; which our adversaries need not to think so strange, seeing themselves give power to women, to baptise in case of necessity: which (I think) is as much a ministerial act, as to absolve the penitent, in such sort as absolution is given in the Church of Rome. And yet they would think themselves wronged, if from hence it should be inferred, that they make women Priests and Bishops. But Bellarmine reporteth the words of Luther, as if he should say absolutely, that a woman, or child, hath as much power and authority from God in these things, as any Presbyter or Bishop: wherein he is like himself.  
Absolution, in the Primitive Church, was the reconciling and restoring of penitents to the peace of the Church, and to the Communion of the Sacraments, from which during the time of their penitency, they were excluded. This in reason none could do, but they to whom the dispensation of the Sacraments was committed, and who had power to deny the Sacraments. The Popish absolution is supposed to be a Sacramental act, Sacramentally taking away sin, and making the party absolved partaker of the remission of it. This is a false and erroneous conceit. LUTHER thinketh it to be a comfortable pronouncing, and assuring of good to the humble, penitent, and sorrowful sinner: which though ordinarily, and ex officio, the Minister be to do, yet may any man do it with like effect, when none of that rank is, or can be present. Thus when the matter is well examined, it is merely nothing, that Bellarmine can prove against Luther.  
But that which he addeth, touching our late dread Sovereign ELIZABETH of famous memory, that she was reported and taken as chief Bishop within her dominions of England etc. is more than a Cardinal lie, and might beseem the father of lies, better than any meaner professor of that faculty.  
For the Kings, and Queens of England, neither do, nor have power to do, any ministerial act, or act of sacred order, as to preach, administer Sacraments, and the like: But that power and authority, which we ascribe unto them, is, that they may by their princely right, take notice of matters of Religion, and the exercise of it in their kingdoms; That they may, and in duty stand bound, to see, that the true Religion be professed, and God rightly worshipped: That God hath given them the sword to punish all offenders against the first or second Table, yea though they be Priests or Bishops. That neither the persons, nor the goods of Churchmen are exempted from their power: That they hold their Crowns immediately from God, and not from the Romish Antichrist; That it was the Lucifer-like pride of Antichrist, which appeared in times passed in the Popes, 
b Matheus Paris in Hentico 3. de Innocentio 4. p. 844.  wheme they shamed not to say that the Kings of England were their villains, vassals, and slaves. Thus than the fourth supposed heresy we are charged with, proveth to be nothing but a devilish slander of this shameless jesuit.  
We say therefore, to silence this slanderer, that we all most constantly hold the contrary of that he imputeth unto us; And that we think, there is no more dangerous or presumptuous wicked boldness, then for any man not called, set a part, and sanctified thereunto, to intermeddle with any part of the sacred ministry of the Church.   

CHAP 26.  
Of the supposed heresy of Proclus and the Messalians, touching concupiscence in the regenerate.  
THe fifth heresy, which he endeavoureth to fasten upon us, is, he saith, the heresy of Proclus, of whom 
a Heres. 64.  Epiphanius maketh mention. But what was the heresy of Proclus? Let Bellarmine tell us, for our learning. It was (saith he) that sin doth always continue and live in the Regenerate: for that concupiscence is truly and properly sin, which is not taken away by Baptism, but only allayed, stilled, and brought, as it were, into a kind of rest and sleep by force thereof, and the working of faith. In this, Bellarmine showeth his intolerable either ignorance, or impudence, or both. For Epiphanius, in the place cited by him, refuteth the heresy of Origen, who denied the resurrection of the bodies of men, as thinking such bodily substances, which we see are continually subject to alteration here in this world; not capable of immortality; And that God did put these bodies upon Adam and Eve, after their sin, at that time when he is said to have made them coats of skins. This Epiphanius refuteth, showing that God, who only hath immortality, made man though out of the earth, yet by the immediate touch of his own hands; that he breathed into him the breath of life, for that he meant he should be immortal; that man had flesh and blood, and a true bodily substance before his fall, as is proved by that of Adam concerning Eve, This is now flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone; that there was no evil found in the World, such as death is, in the beginning; that man voluntarily sinned against God, and thereupon God brought in death; that even as the Schoolmaster useth correction, not for any delight he hath in it, but for that thereby he intendeth to bring his Scholars to forsake their negligent and disordered courses, and to do those things he prescribeth to them; in like sort, God seeing that sin was entered, brought in punishments to repress it: and seeing that it would be eternal, if man did continue immortal, he brought in death to make an end of it. For (saith Epiphanius) sin is so deeply rooted in us, that it cannot be quite killed nor pulled up by the roots, while the body and soul remain together, Even as (saith he) when some wild fig tree groweth in the walls of a Goodly and stately building, and defaceth and hideth the beauty and glory of it, the boughs and branches may be cut or broken off, but the root which is wrapped into the stones of the building, cannot be taken away, unless the walls be thrown down, and the stones cast one from another: So the sin which dwelleth in us, hath the roots of it so enwrapped into our nature & the parts of it, that howsoever the boughs and branches may be cut and broken off, the root remaineth while we carry about us this body of death, & will cause more branches to grow forth till by death, the parts of our nature, to wit, the soul and the body, be sundered and divided. And as the brickwall may be raised again, and the stones thereof in due sort laid together, when the roots of the trees, which formermerly grew into it, be taken forth: So when the root of sin is removed by death out of man's nature, God will bring these parts of his nature together again, and give him that immortality both of body and soul, which he intended to him in his creation, and would have given him, had not death been necessary for the rooting out of that sin he voluntarily fell into.  
That sin is so deeply rooted in the nature of man, that it cannot be plucked up but by death, Epiphanius saith it is evident, by that of the Apostle, who pronounceth of himself, that to will was present with him, but he found no ability to perform: That the good he would do, he did not, and the evil that bee would not do, that he did; And, that yet it was not he that did it, but sin that dwelleth in him; By this (saith he) it is proved, that sin is not pulled up by the roots, that it is not dead but living, that there is no man but hath evil thoughts and desires, which grow from this bitter root of sin, which neither Baptism, nor faith do wholly remove or kill, that sin is only repressed, resisted, and stilled from raging and prevailing in such sort as it did before, but not wholly taken away.  
Thus than we see, that Epiphanius most excellently delivereth that, in the defence of the truth against Origen; and such like heretics, which Bellarmine imputeth unto us, as heresy condemned by Epiphanius. Wherein surely he was either grossly abused by others, making him beleeu Epiphanius saith that, which most peremptorily he denyeth; or else he was willing to deceive and abuse others.  
Howsoever, this advantage we have gotten thereby, that our assertion, that sin remaineth after Baptism, and that the root of it is not taken away, nor killed, till by death the soul and body be divided, is proved to be the ancient doctrine of the Primitive Fathers.  
But if Epiphanius fail him, Bellarmine hath another author, whereon to rely. For he saith, 
b Hereticarum fabularum: li. 4. These heretics thought, that baptism doth not take away original sin, which is the root of all other, nor deliver us from the power of Sata●…, nor give spirit & grace to resist sin. These errors we condemn, & therefore we are ●…ly charged with the heresy of the Messali●…ns.  Theodoret reporteth, that the Messalians were condemned for heretics, because they thought that Baptism as a Razar shaveth away sins past, but doth not take away the root of sin, and that therefore for that purpose we must fly to the force of prayer.  
This opinion of the Messalians, touching the not taking away the root of sin, in such sort as they understood it, and Theodoret disliked it, we also condemn. For we think, that Baptism doth not only take away sins past, but the very root of all sins, which is Original sin, though not wholly; (for then we should descent from Epiphanius before alleged) yet in such sort, as I will deliver in that which followeth.  
The error of the Messalians, Bellarmine attributeth unto us, because we teach that concupiscence in the Regenerate is sin. For the better clearing of this point, we must observe, that the Romanists do err most dangerously in the matter of original sin, and natural concupiscence. For first they teach, that the contrariety between the spirit and the flesh, the proneness inordinately to desire things transitory, sensible and outward, and the difficulty to that which is best, are the primitive conditions of the nature of man: And consequently, that concupiscence, neither after, nor before Baptism, in the Regenerate nor unregenerate is sin or punishment of sin, but a condition of pure and sole nature. For if man had been created in a state of pure nature (that is, having all that pertaineth to the integrity of nature, and nothing else) it would have been found in him. Neither do they make any doubt, but that GOD might have created man in the beginning, with all those defects he is now subject unto, and yet without all sin.  
For, the being subject to them argueth not sin: but whereas they were restrained, bridled, and suppressed by addition of supernatural qualities, the having of them at liberty, by voluntary loss of those qualities, is not without sin.  
Thus then, howsoever they talk of concupiscence in the Regenerate, and would seem to deny it to be sin in them only, yet they do as well deny it to be sin in men not Regenerate, as in the Regenerate, and make it only a punishment of sin, if yet they yield so much unto the truth. For indeed according to their erroneous conceit, concupiscence is a sequel of nature, and not a punishment of sin: so that all that they do or can say, is nothing but this, that concupiscence was natural, and such a thing as might be found in the integrity of nature, that it was restrained by supernatural grace, added above that nature requireth for the perfecting of her integrity; that the having it now free and at liberty, to provoke, move, and incline us to sin, is the punishment of that sin, whereby we deprived ourselves of supernatural grace.  
But we say, contrary to this absurd conceit of theirs: First, that all these defects and evils, to wit, contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the soul, proneness to do evil, and difficulty to do good, do arise and grow out of the want of that original righteousness, the property whereof is, to subject all unto God, and to leave nothing void of him.  
Secondly, that this righteousness was essentially required to the integrity of nature. So that there is no state of sole and pure nature, without addition of sin or grace, as the Papists fond imagine; for that the nature of man is such, as must either be lifted above itself by grace, or fall below itself, and be in a state of sin.  
Thirdly, that all declinings and swervings from that perfect subjection unto God, and entire conjunction with God, which grace worketh, are sins and decays of nature's integrity: and consequently, that concupiscence, being a declining from that entire subjection to, and conjunction with God, is truly and properly sin, whatsoever our adversaries teach to the contrary.  
Fourthly, that original righteousness is said to be a supernatural quality, because it groweth not out of nature, and because it raiseth nature above itself; But that it is natural, that is, required to the integrity of nature.  
Neither should it seem strange to any man, that a quality not growing out of nature, should be required necessarily for the perfecting of nature's integrity; seeing the end and object of man's desires, knowledge, and action, is an infinite thing, and without the compass & bounds of nature. And therefore the nature of man cannot, as all other things do, by natural force, and things bred within herself, attain to her wished end; but must either by supernatural grace be guided and directed to it, or being left to herself, fail of that perfection she is capable of, and fill herself with infinite evils, defects, and miseries.  
This may suffice for refutation of the vain and idle conceits of the Papists, concerning three estates of man, the one of grace, the other of nature, and the third of sin. Out of which we may observe, that howsoever they endeavour to make show of the contrary, yet indeed they think that concupiscence is not sin, neither in the regenerate, nor unregenerate. Whereupon it is that 
c Lib. 5. c. 13. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati. Hugo de sancto Victore dicit concupiscentiam spiritus inordinatam esse culpam: concupiscentiam carnis poenam & culpam, etc. Alex. de Alice p. 2. q. 105. memb. 2. art. 〈◊〉.  Bellarmine, speaking of the guilt of concupiscence, which the Divines say is taken away in Baptism, though the infirmity remain, saith, it must be understood of that guilt, which causeth concupiscence, not which is caused of it. For (saith he) original sin maketh guilty, and subjecteth men to concupiscence, but concupiscence doth not make them guilty that have it, and therefore it is not sin, neither before, nor after Baptism.  
But we say with, 
d Contra julianum lib. 5.  Augustin, Sicut caecitas cordis, quam removet alluminator deus, & peccatum est, quo in deum non creditur; & poena peccati, qua cor superbum dignâ animadversione punitur; & causa peccati, cum mali aliquid caeci cordis errore committitur: ita concupiscentia carnis, adversus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus, & peccatum est, quia inest ei inobedientia contra dominatum mentis; & poena peccati est, quia reddita est meritis inobedientis; & causa peccati est, defectione consentientis, vel contagione nascentis. As the blindness of heart, which God removeth, when he lighteneth those that were formerly in darkness, is a sin, in that by reason of it, men believe not in GOD; and a punishment of sin, wherewith the proud hearts of wicked men are justly punished; and a cause of sin, when, erring by reason of this blindness of heart, they do those things that are evil: so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit doth strive and covet, is a sin, because there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind; and a punishment of sin, in that it falleth out by the just judgement of God, that they who are disobedient unto God, shall find rebellious desires in themselves; and it is a cause of sin, in that men either by wicked defection consent unto it, or by reason of the general infection of humane nature, are borne in it.  
We think therefore there should be no question made of concupiscence, and other like defects and evils found in the nature of man, but that they are in their own nature sinful defects. And hereof, I am well assured, none of the Fathers ever doubted: but how far they are washed away and remitted in Baptism, which is the matter about which Bellarmine wrangleth and taketh exception against us, let us now consider.  

e part. 4. qu. 8. de sacramento baptismi. membro. 8. art. 2.  Alexander of Hales, the first and greatest of all the Schoolmen, noteth diverse things most fitly to this purpose, out of which we may easily resolve, what is to be thought of this matter. First therefore he observeth, that there are two sorts of sins: some natural, which are in the person from the general condition of nature; some personal, that are acted by the person, and so defile the nature, as all actual sins. Secondly, that concupiscence is of the first kind, being an evil contracted and cleaving to nature, not personally acted, or wrought by us. Thirdly, that concupiscence may be considered, either as it hath full dominion, and is a prevailing thing in them that have it: or as it is weakened, and hath lost that strength, dominion, and command which formerly it had. 
f Dicitur concupiscentia culpa ante baptismum quia tum dominatur & habet carentiam dibitae iustitiae sibi conjunctam Alex. de Hales part. 2. q. 105. membro. 7. art. 1.  Fourthly, that concupiscence, while it hath dominion, is a sin defiling, and making guilty, both the nature & person in which it commandeth all: But if it lose this dominion, it cleaveth to the nature only, and is not imputed to the person for sin, unless he some way yield unto it, be drawn by it, or suffer himself to be weakened in well doing, by the force of it. Fiftly, that the benefits of grace are not general, but special, & of privilege, not freeing the whole nature of man from sin and punishment, as sin corrupted and defiled all, but that they extend only personally to some certain. Sixtly, that when men are borne anew in baptism, they are freed from all that sin which maketh their persons guilty before God, and consequently from all punishments due to them, for any thing their persons were chargeable with. 
g Peccatum originis transit reatu, manet actu. in actuali peccato praecedit actus, sequitur reatus, nec dicitur in originali peccato actus peccati quo fit, vel quo est, sed quo ●…emanet ad exercitium. Alex. de Hales part. 2. q. 105. membro. 6  But because they still remain in that nature, which is of the mass of malediction, therefore sin cleaveth to their nature still, and they are subject to the common punishment of hunger, thirst, death, and the like. Seaventhly, that the dominion of that sin, which is of nature, is taken away by the benefit of regeneration in Baptism. Whence it cometh, that the persons of men baptised are not chargeable with it, though they remain still in that nature wherein it is. And consequently that the punishments, which they are subject unto (because they remain in the communion of that nature which is not generally free, from sin,) cease to be unto them in the nature of destroying evils, serve to divers good purposes, and turn to their great benefit.  
So then we say with the Fathers, and best learned of the Schoolmen, that concupiscence in men not regenerate is a sin, corrupting and making guilty both the nature and the person wherein it is; and that in the Regenerate it cleaveth to nature as a sin still, but having lost the dominion it had, so that it cannot make the person guilty, not prevailing with it, nor commanding over it. Regnum amittit in terra, perit in caelo: It is driven from the kingdom it formerly had in the Saints of God, while they yet remain on earth, but it is not utterly destroyed till they go from hence to heaven. Thus then, I hope, it appeareth that we are far from the error of the Messalians, and do fully accord with the Catholic Church of God, and that the Romanists are not far from the heresy of Pelagius.   

CHAP. 27  
Of the heresies of Novatus, Sabellius, and the Manichees.  
THe sixth heresy, that we are charged with, is that of Novatus, who would not have those that fell in the time of persecution, reconciled and received again to the communion of the Church upon their repentance. But we receive all Penitents whatsoever, and therefore this lying slander may be added to the rest to make up a number.  
But they will say, the Novatians were condemned for denying penance to be a Sacrament, and that therein at least we agree with the Novatians. This is as false as the rest: for it is most certain, that the absolution which was given in the Primitive Church, disliked by Novatus, was not taken, as a sacramental act, giving grace, & remitting sins, but as a judicial act receiving them to the peace of the Church, and the use of the Sacraments, which had been formerly put from them. 
a See that which-wee have noted cap. 7. out of Alex. of Hales & Bonauent affirming that the Minister is a mediator between God and men, dealing with God by way of entreaty, with men by way of command: by prayer and petition obtaining for sinner's remission at God's hands: and by authority and power resting in him, restoring them to the Church's peace.  This, the best and most judicious of the Schoolmen confess, besides the infinite testimonies that might be alleged out of the Fathers to prove the same. It was then an admitting to the use of the Sacraments, not itself a Sacrament.  
But Calvin saith, that the speech of Hierome that poenitentia is secunda tabula post naufragium is impious, and cannot be excused, and therefore it seemeth he inclineth to the Novatians heresy, in denying the benefit of penitency to distressed and miserable sinners, that seek it. 
b Li. 1. de mendacio, ad Consentium, cap. 4.  Augustine in his book De mendacio ad Consentium, maketh it a disputable question, whether a man, that usually lieth, speaking truth at some one time, with purpose to make men think it like the rest of his lying speeches, wherewith they are well acquainted, may not be said to lie when he speaketh truth, because he intendeth to deceive, and doth deceive. Surely, if this man should speak any truth, I fear the Reader would think it a falsehood, because his ordinary manner is seldom or never to speak any truth. Doth Caluine say the speech of Hierome is impious, and not to be excused, as he reporteth he doth? Surely no: but that if it be understood as the Papists understand it, it cannot be excused. For they conceive thereby, that the Sacrament of Penance is implied, which Hierome never thought of.  
But he will say, the Novatians refused to have those, that they baptised, to receive imposition of hands, with which was joined in those times the anointing of the parties with oil. Surely so they did, but so do not we: for we t●…inke of the use of imposition of hands, as Hierome doth in his book against he Luciferians. But touching the use of oil though at that time there was no cause for the Novatians to except much against it, yet now that it is made the matter and element of a Sacrament, and that by a kind of consecration, the ground whereof we know not, we think we do not offend in omitting it, 
c See Dionysius ecclesiastical ●…ierarchie. cap. 2. part, 2. where a great number of ceremonial observations arch mentioned, whic are long since grown out of use in the Church of Rome.  no more than the Church of Rome, in omitting innumerable ceremonial obsevations of like nature, that were in use in those times.  
The seaventh is the heresy of Sabellius, which he saith was revived by Servetus. So it was indeed, that Seruetus revived, in our time, the damnable heresy of Sabellius, long since condemned in the first ages of the Church. But what is that to us? How little approbation he found amongst us, the just and honourable proceeding against him at Geneva, will witness to all posterity.  
The eighth is the heresy of the Manichees, which taught, that evils which are found in the World, were from an evil beginning, so making two original causes, the one good, of things good; the other evil, of things evil. It is true that this was the damnable opinion of the Manichees. But will the shameless companion charge us with this impiety? I think he dareth not: for he knoweth that we teach, that all the evils that are in the World had their beginning, and did proceed from the freedom of man's will, which while he used ill, he overthrew, and lost both himself and it, that while he turned from the greater to the lesser good, and preferred the creature before the Creator, he plunged himself into innumerable defects, miseries, perplexities, and discomforts, and justly deserved, that GOD, from whom thus wickedly he departed, should make all those things which formerly he appointed to do him service, to become feeble, weak, unfit, and unwilling to perform the same.  
But, saith he, Luther affirmeth, that all things fall out by a kind of absolute necessity, whence the heresy of the Manichees may be inferred. The answer to this objection is easy; for Luther taketh necessity for infallibility of event, thereby meaning that all things fall out infallibly, so as God before disposed and determined: but doth not imagine a necessity of coaction enforcing, nor a natural and inevitable necessity, taking away all freedom of choice, as our adversaries injuriously impute unto him.  
If this of Luther fail, as in deed it doth, Bellarmine hath another proof and demonstration that we are Manichees, for that Calvine denyeth man to have freedom of choice in any thing whatsoever. This is a most false and injurious imputation. For, though Calvine deny that man can do any thing in such sort, as therein to be free from the direction and ordering of Almighty GOD; yet he confesseth that Adam's will in the day of his creation was free, not only from sin and misery, but also from limitation of desire and natural necessity, and left to her own choice in the highest matter, and of most consequence of all the rest; and that man, by making an evil choice, did run into those evils, which he is now subject unto. Calvin then is not worse than the Manichees, as making God the Author of those evils, which the Manichees attribute to an evil beginning, as Bellarmine is pleased to pronounce of him: but is farther from that hellish conceit, than Bellarmine is from hell itself, if he repent him not of these his wicked and hellish slanders.  
But, saith he, the Manichees blamed and reprehended the Fathers of the Old Testament, and so also doth Calvine, therefore Calvin is a Manichee. This is as if a man should thus reason with Bellarmine Porphyry blamed Paul, as an arrogant man, for reprehending Peter, that was his ancient, and before him in the faith of Christ, and Bellarmine dili●…eth him for persecuting the Church of GOD in the time of his infidility, therefore Bellarmine is as bad or worse than Porphyry. For the Manichees thought that the Old Testament was from an evil beginning and therefore exaggerated all the faults and sins of the Fathers that then li●…ed, for confirmation and strengthening of this their blasphemy. But Calvin hateth this impiety more than the Romanists, who imagine a greater difference betwixt the state of the jews and the Christians, that he doth. 
d Ad illud de jacob. Licet aliqui conentur multum saluare cum, & aliquos patres veteris Testamenti non fuisse mentitos, cum tamen in aliis concedant eos habuisse legem imperfectam, & gratiam modicam respectu nostri, qui & legem habemus perfectam, & gratiam superabundantem, & de multis non negatur aliquando mentiri, vel fuisse mentitos, non videtur multum rationabile negare illos fuisse mentitos vel potuisse mentiri: quia si ita est, & si laudemus bona facta eorum, & illa sumamus in exemplum, mala tamen nec recipimus in exemplum, nec pertinaciter excusamus. Et Iudeth ipsa se ornavit ea intention, ut Holofernes caperetur in aspectu suo, & hoc volendo eum velle peccare secum mortaliter, & velle alium velle peccare mortaliter est peccatum mortale: unde non videtur omnino certum, quod excusata sit ab omni peccato mortali: & licèt factum eius natretur in Scriptura, & recitetur in Ecclesiâ tanquam laudabile, quantum ad aliqua quae erant ibi religiositatis, aliqua tamen ibi annexa, nec laudantur, nec licent. Scotus lib. 3. distinct. 58. quaest. unicâ.  It is therefore an ill consequence, Caluine doth not hide, nor excuse, but condemn the murder, and adultery of David, the drunkenness of No, and the incest of Lot, therefore he is like the Manichees that thought the old Testament was from an evil beginning. Surely there is neither good beginning, nor ending to be found in the writings of this slanderous jesuit.   

CHAP. 28  
Of the heresies of the Donatists.  
THe next heresy imputed unto us, is that of the Donatists, who denied those societies of Christians to be the Churches of God, wherein wicked men are tolerated, and the rules of discipline are not observed: and thought, that the Church whose communion we must hold, doth consist only of the good and elect people of God.  
Touching the first part of this imputation, we disclaim it as most unjust & injurious. For, as I have showed in the first part, we confess, that wicked and godless men are oftentimes tolerated in the true Church of God, either through the negligence of the guides thereof, or upon due consideration of the scandals and evils, that would follow if they should be ejected and cast out, by reason of their greatness, power, or number.  
Touching the second part, in what sense only the good and elect people of God are of the Church, and how and in what degree hypocrites, wicked men, and reprobates, while they hold the profession of the truth, may be said to be of the Church, I have likewise cleared in the first part.  
But, saith Bellarmine, the Donatists thought the Church to be only in Africa, & the Protestants think it to be only in the Northern parts of the world, and therefore they are not far from Donatisme. Surely, as far as he is from any honest and sincere meaning. For, none of the Protestants have any such conceit as to think the Church of God so straightened, as that it should be no where found, but in the Northern parts of the world, where themselves do live. But the Romanists may muchmore justly be charged with Donatisme, who deny all the societies of Christians in the world, wherein the Pope's feet are not kissed, and his words holden for infallible Oracles, to pertain to the true Church of God: who acknowledge no true Churches of Christ, but their own conventicles, so casting into hell all the Christians of Aethiopia, Syria, Armenia, Graecia, and Russia, for that they stand divided from the communion of the Church of Rome. Which unchristian censure we are far from, thinking that all those societies of Christians, notwithstanding their manifold defects and imperfections, be, and continue parts and limbs of the true and Catholic Church of God.  
Lastly he saith, the Donatists committed many outrages against true Catholic Bishops, spoilt the Churches of God, & profaned the holy things they found in them. But what can he conclude from hence against us? With which of these impieties can he charge us? Our blood hath been spilt by them like water in the streets, our bodies tormented and consumed with fire, and sword; and all this by the procurement of the Antichristian Bishops, sworn enemies of Christ, and vassals of Antichrist. Yet have we hurt none of them, but in patience possessed our souls, knowing that our judgement is with God, and that when he maketh inquiry for blood, he will find out all their barbarous acts of cruelty, which they have done against us. We have profaned nothing that is holy, we have removed and abolished nothing, but the monuments of gross idolatry, and therefore we are not to be compared to the Donatists. If in any place in popular tumults, or confusions of war, whereof ever the Romanists have been the causes, there have been any thing done in fury, that was not fit, we cannot excuse it, nor could not remedy it.   

CHAP. 29.  
Of the heresies of Arrius, and Aenrius.  
THe tenth imputation is of arianism, which heresy we accurse to the pit of hell, with all the vile calumniations of damned slanderers, that charge us with it. Neither did ever any of our men incline unto it, or give any occasion of so execrable an heresy. 
a Hae voces, quae extra Scripturam sunt, nullo casu a nobis suscip●…ntur. Maximinus apud Aug. contra Ma●…. lib. 1. in initio. unde Aug l●… 3. c. 14. contra eundem sic habet. Pater & filius unius sunt eiusdemque substantiae: hoc est illud homoousion, quoth in Concilio Niceno adversus haereti●…os Arr●…os à Catholicis patribus ve●…s auc●…tate & au●…ritatis veritate firmatum est, quod posteà in Concilio Ariminensi propter novitatem in verbis minus quam oportuit intellectum. quam tamen fides antiqua pepererat, multis paucotum fraude deceptis, haeretica impietas sub haer●…tico Imp●…tore Constantio labefactare tentavit: sed post non longum tempus libertate Catholicae fidei praevalente, po●…aquam vis verbi, sicut debuit intellecta est, homoousion illud Catholicae fidei sanitate longè latèque defensum e●… quid est enim homoousion, nisi unius eiusdemque substantiae? quid est homoousion, nisi ego & pater unum sumus? Sed nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam praeiudicaturus, proffer Concilium, nec ego huius auctorit●…, nec tu illius de●…neris: ●…turarum aucto ritatious, non quorumcunque proprijs, sed; triusque communibus test●…us, ●…es cum ●…e, ●…ausa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concerter.  Touching traditions, which, Bella●…mine saith the Arrians did refuse, they were not blamed, for denying unwritten verities. For, I hope the Romanists will not disadvantage the Catholic cause so much, as to confess that the Godhead of Christ, which was the thing the Arrians denied, cannot be proved by Scripture, & that the Fathers were forced to fly to unwritten traditions for proof of it. But they were blamed, for that, when the thing had proof enough by Scripture, they refused the word Consubstantial (most happily devised to express the truth against the turnings and sleights of heretics) only because they found it not in Scripture: as if no words nor forms of speech might be allowed, but those only that are there expressly found.  
The eleventh is the heresy of Aenrius. Aenrius condemned the custom of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar, and offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is, of thanksgiving for them. He disliked set fasts, and would not admit any difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. For this his rash and inconsiderate boldness and presumption in condemning the universal Church of Christ, he was justly condemned. For, the practice of the Church, at that time, was not evil in any of these things, neither do we concur with Aerius in the reprehension of that Primitive and ancient Church. For howsoever we dislike the Popish manner of praying for the dead, which is to deliver them out of their feigned Purgatory, yet do we not reprehend the Primitive Church, nor the Pastors and guides of it, for naming them in their public prayers, thereby to nourish their hope of the resurrection, and to express their longing desires of the consummation of their own, & their happiness, that are gone before them in the faith of Christ. If any of the Fathers did doubtfully extend the prayers then used, further than they were originally or generally intended or meant, it was not to be imputed to the whole Church.  
Of our allowance of set fasts, I have spoken before: and of the difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, I shall have a fit occasion to speak in examining the note of succession, and the exceptions of the Romanists against us touching the same. If it be said, that sundry of our Divines seem to acquit Aerius in these points, they are to be conceived, as understanding his reprehension to have touched the errors and superstitions, which even then perhaps began in some places, and among some men, to grow into practices & doctrines of the Church, which were not evil nor erroneous. For otherwise his reprehension, if it be understood to extend to the general practice and judgement of the Church, is not, nor may not be justified.   

CHAP. 30.  
Of the heresies of jovinian.  
THe twelfth heresy imputed to us, is the heresy of jovinian, concerning whom we must observe, that Augustine ascribeth unto him two opinions, which Hierome mentioneth not, who yet was not likely to spare him, if he might truly have been charged with them.  

a Aug. lib. de haeresibus c. 82  The first, that Mary ceased to be a virgin, when she had borne CHRIST; the second, that all sins are equal. If these were the opinions of jovinian, as it may very well be doubted, we condemn them, and his error therein, as much as the Romanists do. For, we think, that Mary continued a Virgin, in, and after the birth of CHRIST. But they will say, many of the Protestant Divines do teach, that the doors of Mary's womb were opened when CHRIST was borne, and from thence it will follow, that she ceased to be a Virgin. This consequence we deny: for otherwise 
b Tertul. de carne Christi.  Tertullian, 
c Lib 2. c. 7. in Lucae 2.  Ambrose, 
d Lib. 2. contra Pelagianos. Tertul. dicit Mariam patefacti corporis lege peperisse, & Tertul. divus Ambrose quoque subscribit. Rhena. in arg. in lib. Tertul. de carne Christi.  Hierome, and sundry other of the Fathers shall be proved to have denied the virginity of Mary after the birth of CHRIST, which yet they all most constantly believed. But they know well that no such thing can be concluded from thence. For, as 
e Lib de carne Christi.  Tertullian aptly noteth, there is virgo â viro; and virgo à partu; that is, a virgin may be so named, because she hath not been a mother, nor the doors of her womb opened by bearing a child; or because she hath known no man, though she have borne a child. In this sort a virgin may remain a virgin, and yet be a mother and bear a child, with the opening of the doors of her womb, if this child thus conceived in her, and borne of her, were not begotten by man, nor the doors of her womb opened by the knowledge of a man. So that though it be granted, that CHRIST, when he was borne, opened the womb of Mary his mother, yet she remained a Virgin still, because that which was conceived in her, was of the Holy Ghost. Neither should our adversaries in reason press this argument so much, 
f Durand. l. 4 d. 44. q. 6. Verissimum est beatam virginem Mariam permansisse virginem in partu, & post partum, sicut ante: fuit enim virgo non solum ex carentia experientiae delectationis venereae per quam propriè amittitur virginitas, sed etiammembri corporalis integritate: nec tamen propter hoc suerunt duo corpora simul, quia fieri potuit dilatatio membrorum & meat●…um naturalium sine interruptione vel aliquâ fractione: sicut, secundum Aug. 14. de civet. Dei, fuisset in omnibus mulieribus, in statu innocentiae. Nolim equidem dicere, quod viros nonnullos doctos certè atque Catholicos sine cuiuspiam reprehensione nostrâ aetate dixisse, video, Christum modo quodam matris uterum aperuisse. Maldonatus in Lucae 2, 23.  seeing their own Schoolmen confess there may be an opening of the womb, in such as still remain virgins. Thus than we say with the Fathers, that CHRIST being Mary's firstborn, may be said more properly to have opened the womb of Mary his mother, than any other firstborn do: because he found it shut when he came to the birth, which they do not. But, that from hence a denial of Mary's virginity will follow, we deny. And therefore we are wronged in this challenge, as in the rest.  
Touching the opinion of the parity of sins, which is in the second place imputed to jovinian, we hold it to be a Stoical Paradox. Their argument to prove that we think all sins to be equal, because as they suppose, we deny the difference of Venial and Mortal sins, and think all sins to be mortal, is very weak; first, because we do not deny the difference between venial and mortal sins, as shall appear in that which followeth; and secondly, because if we did make all sins to be mortal, yet of mortal sins one may be, and is greater, and more grievous than another.  
The opinions, that 
g Hier. l. 1. & 2. contra jovinianum.  Hierome imputeth to jovinian, are four: the first, that there is an equality of joys and rewards in heaven. This opinion we do not hold, neither can it be deduced by necessary consequence from the words of Luther, where he saith, that all Christians are as holy and just as the mother of God. For he speaketh of imputed righteousness, which is equal in all men, from which no imparity of joy can flow; but he never denieth inherent righteousness to be more in one than in another, and more in Mary the mother of Christ, then in any other. Now from this imparity of inherent righteousness it is, that there are so different degrees of joy and glory found among the Saints of God that are in heaven.  
The second opinion which Hierom condemneth in jovinian, is, that there is no difference between abstinence from meats, and the sober and due taking of them with thanksgiving. This we judge not to be so truly delivered by him, as was to be wished. For, eating with thanksgiving is a matter of ordinary sobriety and temperance, but abstinence is an extraordinary act of Christian mortification, and humiliation, and being rightly used hath those effects the other hath not; though neither meat, nor abstinence from meat, do simply commend us unto God, fasting being a thing not absolutely, and for itself, but only respectively to certain ends, to be judged good.  
The third assertion of jovinian was, that they which are baptised with water and the holy Ghost, are not subject to temptation, nor sin. This is not only an error, but a damnable heresy, if it were so delivered by him as it is reported by Hierome. That which Calvin saith, that true faith which is found in them that are called according to purpose (as Augustine speaketh, following blessed Paul) cannot be wholly extinguished, nor finally lost, is most true, but hath no agreement with that of jovinian, that the regenerate is neither subject to temptation, nor sin. For Calvin denieth not, but that the elect and chosen servants of God may & do oftentimes fall very dangerously, but that such is the love of God towards them whom he hath called according to purpose, that he is always with them, to raise them up again, if they fall: and that this is the difference between them, and such as God hath not ordained unto life, that they fall into the hands of God, who suffers them not to be broken, or utterly to perish; whereas the hand of God, even his heavy hand falleth upon the other, to crush and break them to pieces, as 
h De sacramentis fidei. lib. 2. p. 13. in tractatu, an charitas semel habita amitti possit.  Hugo de Sancto Victore hath most excellently observed. This therefore is but a calumniation like the rest, when Bellarmine doth charge Caluine with the heresy of jovinian in this respect.  
The fourth and last assertion of jovinian is, that married persons, virgins, and widows, if they differ not in other works of virtue, and therein excel one another, are of equal merit. This assertion, howsoever it pleaseth Hierome to tax, I am well assured the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoolmen do approve. For, virginity in that it addeth, over and above the ordinary chastity and purity, which ought to be found in married folks, though it be a kind of splendour & beauty of virtue, yet it is no virtue, nor degree of virtue, as 
i Gers. p 3. de consilijs Euangelicis & statu perfectionis so, 67. Occam. li. 3. q. 11. in sentent●… ostend●…t, quomodo connexae sunt omnes virtutes, non obstante apparenti repugnantia, & quomodo matrimonio iuncti virtutem virginitatis habere dici possunt: ad virginitatem, inquit, requiritur abstincatia carnis co modo quo Deus vult talem ab stinentiam es se, & similiter actus carnis co modo quo Deus vult esse.  Gerson proveth. For that then married folks could not have all virtues: nay, because all virtues are connexed, not having this of virginity they could have none. Besides that, no virtue is lost but by sin, whereas virginity may be lost by that which is no sin, as by the act of Matrimony. All virtues in their times and places are commanded, and not left free and counselled only: but virginity is never imposed by precept, and therefore it is no virtue. Lastly, there is no virtue, but being lost, by repentance may be recovered again: but virginity being lost cannot be recovered again, therefore it is no virtue. These reasons are laid down by Gerson, whereby in his judgement it is most clearly proved, that virginity in that it addeth, over and above ordinary chastity and purity, is no virtue; and consequently that the bare and sole having of it, maketh not them that have it more acceptable unto God, than others that have it not, unless they excel them in virtue. It is then a state of life wherein if all things be answerable in the parties that embrace it, there are fewer occasions of distractions from God, and more opportunities of attaining to the height of excellent virtue, then in the opposite estate of marriage; yet so, as that it is possible for some married men so to use that estate, that they may be no way inferior to any that are single. This doth Gregory Nazianzen most confidently and peremptorily defend, in his oration made in the praise of Gorgonia his sister. Our whole life, saith he, is divided into two sorts or kinds, to wit, marriage and single life; whereof the one, that is single life, as it is more excellent and divine, so it is of more labour and peril. The other as it is more mean, and of less esteem, so it is subject to less peril. Gorgonia avoiding the inconveniences of both estates, whatsoever she found in either of them behooveful, beneficial and commodious she took, & made the height of the excellent perfection of the one estate, and the safety and security of the other, to concur and meet together. She was chaste and undefiled, without scornful disdain, mixing the commodities of single life, with marriage, and showing by evident proof, that neither of those estates is in it own nature such, as that it should wholly join us to God, or the world, or wholly divide, & separate us from these, so that the one of these should be a thing altogether to be avoided, & the other to be desired; but that it is the mind which doth rightly use both marriage & single life, & that either of these is as fit a matter for a skilful workman to work upon, and to bring forth the excellent work of virtue. And in his 
k In laudem Basilij. pa. 496.  Oration in the praise of Basill, he saith There have been some found that living in the state of Marriage have so carried themselves, as that they made it evident, that marriage is no impediment or hindrance, but that therein man may attain to as great glory of virtue, as in virginity or single life. By which it may appear, that marriage and virginity are rather divers sorts and kinds of life, than differences and degrees of living better or worse.  
These sentences of Nazianzen are very different, from the inconsiderate speeches of Hierome, that he is wont to use in comparing these two states of life together. For, who knoweth not, that he was so far in love with the one, and carried away with the admiration of it, in such sort, that he spoke too basely of the other, and indeed otherwise then truth and reason would permit. If this be not so, let them that think otherwise tell me what they think of these sayings of his. 
l Contra jovinianum, his books against jovinian were excepted against by those of the Church of Rome. whereupon he writeth an apology. Certè constat Hiero. hac de causa Romae malè audisse. Rhen. in arg. in lib. Tertul. de exhortatione ad castitatem.  Melius est nubere quam uri: si per se nuptiae sint bonae noli illas incendio comparare, sed dic simpliciter, Bonum est nubere. Suspecta est mihi omnis bonitas eius rei, quam magnitudo alterius mali, malum esse cogit inferius. Ego autem non levius malum, sed simplex per se bonum volo. Si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum est ergo tangere; nihil enim bono contrarium est, nisi malum. etc. So then as we do not approve any private opinion of jovinian, contrary to the judgement of God's Church: So on the contrary side, we dare not approve these and the like rash and inconsiderate speeches of Hierome, being contrary to the truth of scripture, and the judgement of the rest of the Fathers, who are wont so to compare marriage and virginity, that the difference between them should be bonum & melius, both good, but the one better than the other; not bonum & malum, the one good and the other evil. For so to think is to fall into the heresy of Martion, and Tatianus.   

CHAP. 31.  
Of the Heresies of Vigilantius.  
THe next heresy that we are supposed to fall into, is that of Vigilantius. The opinions imputed to him by Hierome, and disliked, are these. The first, that the Saints departed pray not for the living. The second, that they abide in some certain place, and are not everywhere. The third, that the vigils of the Saints are not to be kept, nor their bodies, and the relics, and the ashes that remain of them to be honoured, but despitefully trampled under feet. The fourth, that Bishops are bound to marry, and 
a Nulli áutem animae omnino inferos patere satis dominus in argumento illo paupe ris requiescentis & divitis ingemiscentis ex persona Abrahae sanxit non posse inde religari renunciatorem dispositionis infernae etc. Tertul. de anima. Luc. 16.  may not be admitted unless they do first marry. The fifth, that it is better to give alms of our goods, according to that ability we have, and to retain a sufficiency to ourselves, then to sell away all, and give whatsoever we have, at once to the poor. Two other assertions there are where with Bellarmine chargeth Vigilantius, to wit, the impugning of the invocation of Saints, and the condemning of the adoration of Saints, and their relics. Thereby intending to make his Reader believe, that there was a controversy between Hierome & Vigilantius about these things; That Hierome did defend invocation of Saints, whereof yet he speaketh not one word, and that he justified the adoration of Saints, and their Relics, which yet in express words he disclaimeth and condemneth, saying, that the Church honoureth them, but adoreth them not.  
For the opinions wherewith Hierome chargeth him, this we briefly answer. First, if he absolutely denied that the Saints departed do pray for us, as it seemeth he did by Hieromes reprehension, we think he erred. For we hold they do pray in genere. Touching the second, whether the Saints do abide in some one place appointed for their rest, or be present everywhere, how peremptory soever Hierome be, we wish the Reader to consider how doubtfully Augustine hath written of this matter in his book de curâ agenda pro mortuis: And that Tertullian, 
b Athanasius aut quisquis auctor est quaestion: ad Antiochum quaest. 11. 13. Isid. l. 3. Ety molog. c. 9 The●…philact. in 8, Mather prorsus negant animas mortuor●… viventibus vn quam apparere, & cur fieri non conveniat multas rationes a●…erunt. Maldonatus in Lucae 16, & 27. 28.  Athanasius, and sundry other have resolutely delivered, that the souls of men departed do never return nor intermeddle with the living, any more. 
c Vide supra c. 9  Touching the third, which is the keeping of the vigils of the Saints, we know they were long since by the decree of a Council condemned and forbidden, and that the Church of Rome doth not continue nor retain any such use or custom at this day. But whereas he is said to have denied any honour to be given to the bodies of God's Saints, and despitefully to have used them, if so he did, we cannot but as much condemn his impiety therein, as Hierome did. Neither do we suffer any with us to despise the blessed Saints of God, to trample their bodies under feet, or cast them into the fire, as Bellarmine most falsely & unjustly accuseth us. But this indeed we confess we have done, remembering 
d In Romans ●…el totius occidentis partibus intolerabile est et sacrilegium si sanctorum corpora tangere qu squam fortas●…s voluerit. et ib●…d: quis praesumat in●…ere? l. 3. in. d●…ctione. 12. 〈◊〉. 30.  the saying of Gregory and other of the Fathers, affirming that neither the bodies of the Saints, nor any parts of them ought to be brought into open view, or handled with the hands of men; and that the burying of them, and hiding them from the sight of men is a duty we owe unto them: we have caused Relics which were wont superstitiously to be adored, and offered to be seen and handled of men, to be honourably buried. If any thing have been disorderly done in the confusions of war, and popular tumults, they know our answer, we cannot excuse it, nor could not remedy it. Touching the fourth we say, that Bishops neither are bound to marry, nor abstain from marriage. Touching the last, we say, that Christian perfection standeth in this, that we set not our hearts upon riches, that we be not proud of them, nor trust in them, that we be ready if it be for God's glory or our own souls good, to leave all: But, for giving away all at once, or retaining to ourselves a sufficiency, neither the one nor the other is absolutely a matter of more perfection. For, sometimes and for some men it is better to keep and retain a sufficiency, and to give according to the proportion of their ability, then to give away all at once: and sometimes, for some men, upon some occasion, and in some state of things, it argueth more perfection, to give away, relinquish, and forsake all at once. Perfection therefore essentially consisteth not in riches or poverty, nor in the refusing to have any property in any thing, as thereby expressing the state of things in the time of man's innocency: but in the affection of the mind, always ready to forsake all for the glory of God, the profession of the faith of Christ, and the attaining of eternal salvation. See to this purpose Gerson in his book de consilijs evangelicis, wherein he excellently handleth, and cleareth this matter of Christian perfection.   

CHAP. 32.  
Of the heresies of Pelagius touching original sin, and the difference of venial and mortal sins.  
THe fourteenth heresy we are charged with, is Pelagianisme, which Bellarmine endeavoureth to fasten upon us three ways. First, because Zuinglius did sometimes seem to deny original sin, as did the Pelagians. Secondly, because Calvine and others teach, that the children of the faithful are holy, by the right of their birth. Thirdly, because we say that all sins are by nature mortal.  
To the first of these objections we say, there is no more reason to charge us with the private opinion of Zuinglius which himself afterwards corrected, and none of his followers ever in the Helvetian Church defended, then for us to charge them with the error of 
a Bell. l. 5. c. 16. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati, proponit & damnat errorem Pighij et Catharini  Pighius and Catharinus, who taught more peremptorily the same error that Zuinglius did, if not a worse & more dangerous. For whereas he acknowledged most grievous evils to be found in the nature of man since Adam's fall, which no way could have been in the integrity of nature, though he will not call them by the name of sin; They hold, that original sin is not subiectively & inherent in every of us, but that Adam's sin is imputed to us, and we punished for his offence, that all the evils the sons of Adam are subject to, are the conditions of nature, & consequently not newly brought in by Adam's sin, with sundry other erroneous conceits of the like nature.  
Touching the second objection, that Bucer, and Calvine deny original sin, though not generally, as did Zuinglius, yet at least in the children of the faithful: If he had said that these men, affirm the earth doth move, and the heavens stand still, he might have as soon justified it against them, as this he now saith.  
For they most constantly defend, the contrary of that he imputeth to them. But, saith he, they teach that the children of the faithful are borne holy, or are holy by the right of their birth. O inconsiderate jesuit! is this the ground of that vile and unjust imputation? 
b 1. Corinth. 7. 14.  Doth not Paul say so in express words, and wilt thou make him a Pelagian like wise? But, saith he, Calvin and Bucer teach that the children of Christians by the right of their birth are comprehended in the covenants of grace, and so understand the holiness attributed to them; whence it will follow that they are borne without original sin. To this we answer, that the children of believing parents may be understood to be comprehended in the covenants of mercy and grace, by the right of their birth, either as being already in the covenants by actual admission, in that they are borne of such parents, or for that in the covenant between God and their parents, their parents offering them unto God, and his admission of them, and taking them to be his children upon such offer made, are covenanted and agreed upon. If Calvin and Bucer did teach, that the children of believing parents are already in the covenant by actual admission, in that they are borne of such parents, it would follow that they were the children of grace by nature, and not of wrath, and consequently not borne in sin. But they teach no such thing, but understand the comprehension in the covenants in the other sense, namely that the offering of them unto God by their parents, and his acceptation of them upon such offer made, are covenanted and agreed upon in the covenants between God and their parents. Now then as believing parents have good assurance that God will receive their children as his own children by adoption, and forgive them the sin they are borne in, if they present and offer them to Baptism, as they are bound by covenant to do, as much as in them lieth; So if by inevitable impossibility they be hindered and cannot, they hope of God's goodness in this behalf, & are moved so to hope, by sundry Rules of equity, whereof 
a Gers. 3. part: serm: de nativitate Virginis Mariae cons. Caietanus in 3 Thomae quaest. 9 alias 68 art. 2.  Gerson and divers others do speak, whom I hope Bellarmine will not pronounce to be Pelagian heretics.  
The second thing, wherein Bellarmine supposeth we agree with the Pelagians, is the denial of the difference or distinction of venial and mortal sins. That the Pelagians did expressly and directly deny this distinction of sins, there is no ancient writer that reporteth. Bellarmine therefore proveth it to be consequent upon that which they taught concerning the perfection of righteousness, supposed by them to be so full & absolute, as not to admit any imperfection, or any the lightest sins to be where it remaineth. How good this consequence is, & how well he proveth that he intendeth, I refer to the judgement of the Reader, & will not now examine. But whether the Pelagians were in an error touching the difference of sins, or no, I will make it clear & evident that we are not. For we do not deny the distinction of venial and mortal sins: but do think, that some sins are rightly said to be mortal and some venial; not for that some are worthy of eternal punishment, & therefore named mortal, others of temporal only, and therefore judged venial, as the Papists imagine: 
b Caietanus in primam secundae quaest. 87. art. 5.  but for that some exclude grace out of that man in which they are found, and so leave him in a state wherein he hath nothing in himself that can or will procure him pardon: and other, which though in themselves considered, and never remitted, they be worthy of eternal punishment, yet do not so far prevail, as to banish grace, the fountain of remission of all misdoings.  
All sins then in themselves considered are mortal, ᵃ as Gerson doth excellently demonstrate. First, because every offence against God may justly be punished 
c De vita spirituali animae lect. 1.  by him in the strictness of his righteous judgements with eternal death, yea with annihilation; which appeareth to be most true, for that there is no punishment so evil, and so much to be avoided, as the least sin that may be imagined: so that a man should rather choose eternal death, yea utter annihilation, than commit the least offence in the world. Secondly, the least offence that can be imagined, remaining eternally in respect of the stain and guilt of it, though not in act, as do all sins unremitted, must be punished eternally: for else there might some sinful disorder and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remain not ordered by divine justice. But wheresoever is eternity of punishment, men are repelled from eternal life and happiness: and consequently every offence that eternally remaineth not remitted, excludeth from eternal glory and happiness, and is rightly judged a mortal and deadly sin. All sins than are mortal in them that are strangers from the life of God, because they have dominion and full command in them, or are joined withsuch as have; and so leave no place for grace which might cry unto God for the remission of them. But the elect and chosen servants of God, called according to purpose, do carefully endeavour, that no sins may have dominion over them, & therefore notwithstanding any degree of sin they run into, they retain that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences.  
Thus all sins in themselves considered, and never repent of, forsaken, nor remitted, are mortal. All sins (that against the Holy Ghost excepted) are venial, ex eventu, that is, such as may be, and oftentimes are forgiven through the merciful goodness of God, though there be nothing in the parties offending while they are in such state of sin, that either can or doth cry for remission. The sins of the just not done with full consent (and therefore not excluding grace, the property whereof is to procure the remission of sins) are said to be venial, because they are such, and of such nature, as leave place in that soul wherein they are, for grace that may and will procure pardon.  
By that which hath been said, I hope it doth appear, that we teach nothing touching the difference of venial and mortal sins, that Bellarmine himself can except against, and that we differ very much from the Pelagians, who thought that no sinful defect can stand with grace, or a state of acceptation and favour with God. For we reject this their conceit, as impious and heretical, & do confess that all sins not done with full consent, may stand with grace, and so be rightly named venial.   

CHAP. 33.  
Of the heresy of Nestorius, falsely imputed to Beza and others.  
THe next heresy, it pleaseth this heretical Romanist to charge us with, is that of the Nestorians. Let us see how he indeauoureth to fasten this impiety upon us. First, saith he, the Nestorians contemned the Fathers, and so do the Protestants, therefore they are Nestorians. The consequence of this argument we will not now examine. But the Minor proposition is most false. For we reverence and honour the Fathers much more than the Romanists do, who pervert, corrupt, and adulterate their writings, but dare not abide the trial of their doctrines, by the indubitate writings of antiquity.  
Secondly, (saith he) the Nestorians affirmed, that there were two persons in Christ, and so divided the unity of his Person. But the Protestants think so likewise. Therefore they are Nestorians. The assumption we deny, and he doth not so much as endeavour to prove it, but proceedeth particularly to prove Beza a Nestorian heretic: in which he hath as ill success as he had in the rest of his slanderous imputations.  
Beza (saith he) teacheth, that there are two hypostatical unions in Christ; Ergo two hypostases or persons: which was the heresy of Nestorius. The consequence of this argument is too weak to enforce the intended conclusion. For when Beza saith, There are two hypostatical unions in Christ, the one of the body and soul, the other of the nature of God and man, he doth not conceive that the union of the body and soul do in Christ make a distinct humane person or subsistence, different from that of the Son of God: (for he everywhere confesseth, that the humane nature of Christ, hath no subsistence, but that of the Son of God, communicated to it) 
a Deus dupliciter habet esse in creaturis. 1 per illapsum in omni naturâ & creaturâ. 2 per circuminsessionem in naturâ assumpts, & licet per illapsum Deus sit intimus omni creatura, & interior quam ipsa sibi aut forma materiae, tamen per circuminsessio nem fit intimior naturae assumptae, quia necesse est naturam assumptam amittere proprium esse subsistentiae, si quod ante assumptionem in eâ fuit: velsi nunquam ipsum habuit, subintrare esse subsistentiae naturae ad quam assumitur, ut sit idem suppositum subsistens in duplici naturâ. Picus Apolog. q. 4.  but he therefore calleth it an hypostatical union, because naturally it doth cause a finite & distinct humane person or subsistence, and so would have done here, if the nature flowing out of this union, had not been assumed by the son of God, and so prevented and stayed from subsisting in itself, and personally sustained in the person of the son of God. This doctrine is so far from heresy, that he may justly be suspected of more than ordinary malice, that will traduce it as heretical. Yet hath Beza, to stop the mouths of such clamorous adversaries, long since corrected and altered this form of speech, which he had sometimes used.   

CHAP. 34.  
Of the heresies of certain touching the Sacrament, and how our men deny that to be the body of Christ that is carried about to be gazed on.  
THe sixteenth heresy, imputed to us, is the heresy of certain, who, what they were, the jesuit knoweth not, nor what their heresy was, as it should seem by his doubtful and uncertain manner of speaking of it. This unknown heresy, defended by he knoweth not whom, he saith Caluine, Bucer, Melancthon, and other worthy and renowned Divines (with whom he is no way matchable either in piety or learning, though he wear a Cardinal's hat) do teach. But what monster of heresy is it, that these men have broached? 
a Hugo de sancto victore de sacram. fidei. li. 2. p. 9 c. 13. Bonauent. l. 4. dist. 13. art. 2. q. 1. 2.  Surely, that Christ's body is not in the Sacrament, or sacramental elements, but in reference to the use appointed by Almighty God; nor longer than the Sacrament may serve for our instruction, and the working of our spiritual union with Christ; and that therefore it is not the body of Christ, that dogs, swine, and mice do eat, as the Romanists are wont to blaspheme: and that it is not fit to dispute, as their impious Sophisters do, of the passage of it into the stomach, belly, and draught, of vomiting it up again, and resuming it when it is vomited, with infinite other like fooleries, which every modest man loatheth and shameth to hear mentioned. Secondly, that it is not the body of Christ, which the Popish Idolaters carry about in their pompous, solemn, and pontifical Processions to be gazed on and adored, to drive away devils, to still tempests; to stay the overflowing of waters, to quench and extinguish consuming and wasting fires: But that the body of Christ is present in and, with the sanctified elements, only in reference to the use appointed, that is, that men should be made partakers of it.  
This participation, according to the ancient use, was first and principally in the public assembly; secondly, in the primitive Church the manner of many was, to receive the Sacrament, and not to be partakers of it presently, but to carry it home with them, and to receive it privately when they were disposed, 
b De corona milit●…s. l. 2. ad uxotem. Hieron, adversus lovin. quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias, etc. Rhenanus annotat. in lib. de corona militis.  as Tertullian and others do report. 
c justinus martyr apolo. 2. prope finem.  Thirdly, the manner was to send it by the Deacons, to them, that by sickness, or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent; 
d Euseb. l. 5. c. 23.  and to strangers. Yea, for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not every day, reserve some part of the sanctified elements, to be sent to the sick, and such as were in danger of death.  

e Non tamdiu leruabatur, ut ru●…c: nam sequitur in can. de septimo in septimum diem semper mutetur, & alia eodem die consecrata in: locum 〈◊〉 subto●…etur, at vetustissimus can. Clementis apud But char dum vetat Eucharistiam asseruari: hodie muc●…das particulas comedere coguntur sacerdotes quas olim vetustas igne consumpsit Rhena. in annot, in Tertul. de corona militis. pag. ●…38.  This reservation was not generally observed, as may appear by the Canon of Clemens, prescribing, that so much only should be provided for the outward matter of the Sacraments, as might suffice the Communicants; and that if any thing remained, it should presently be received by the Clergy. Neither could there be any place for, or use of, reservation, where there was a daily Communion, as in many places there was: nor in any place for such reservation as is used in the Church of Rome, for weeks, and months, seeing there was generally in ancient times in all places, twice a week, or at least once every week, a Communion, from whence they might be supplied that were absent.  
The Romanists consecreate every day, but make their reservations from some solemn time of communicating, as Easter, or the like; and this not only, or principally, for the purpose of communicating any in the mysteries of the Lords body and blood, but for circumgestation, ostentation, and adoration, to which end the Fathers never used it. Neither is that, which is thus unto this purpose reserved, the body of Christ, as our Divines do most truly pronounce. The manner of the primitive Church was as Rhenanus testifieth, if any parts of the consecrated elements remained so long as to be musty and unfit for use, to consume them with fire, which I think they would not have done to the body of Christ. This showeth they thought the sanctified elements to be Christ's body no longer, than they might serve for the comfortable instruction of the faithful, by partaking in them. But the Romanists at this day, as the same Rhenanus fitly observeth, would think it a great and horrible impiety, to do that which the Fathers then prescribed and practised.  
So then Caluine doth think that the Romish reservation doth not carry about with it the body of Christ, as the Papists foolishly fancy, and yet I hope is in no heresy at all. Neither doth he any where say, that the elements consecrated and reserved for a time, in reference to an ensuing receiving of them, are not the body of Christ; but saith only, that there were long since great abuses in reservation, and greater in that every one was permitted to take the Sacrament at the hand of the public Minister in the Church, and carry it home with him: which I think this Cardinal will not deny, if he advisedly bethink himself.   

CHAP. 35.  
Of the heresy of Eutiches, falsely imputed to the Divines of Germany.  
THe next heresy, imputed unto us, is Eutichianisme; which is directly opposite and contrary to the former error of Nestorius. This he chargeth first upon Zuinck feldius, whom we reject as a frantic & seduced miscreant, and do in no wise acknowledge him to be a member of our Churches. Secondly, upon Brentius, jacobus Smidelinus, and other learned Divines of the Germane Churches.  
The heresy of Eutiches was, that as before, so after the incarnation there was but one only nature in Christ, for that the nature of God was turned into man, that there was a confusion of these natures. Do any of the german Divines teach this blasphemous doctrine? No, saith Bellarmine, not directly and in precise terms, but indirectly, and by consequent they do. If we demand of him what that is which they teach, whence this impiety may by necessary consequence be inferred, he answereth, the ubiquitary presence of the body and humane nature of Christ. For, saith he, ubiquity being an incommunicable property of God, it cannot be communicated to the humane nature of Christ, without confusion of the divine and humane natures. But he should remember that they, whom he thus odiously traduceth, are not so ignorant, as to think, that the body of Christ, which is a finite and limited nature, is every where, by actual position or local extension, but personally only in respect of the conjunction and union it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no where severed from God, who is every where.  
This is it then, which they teach, That the body of Christ doth remain in nature and essence finite, limited, and bounded, and is locally in one place; but that there is no place where it is not united personally unto that God that is everywhere: in which sense they think it may truly be said to be everywhere. For the better clearing of this point, we must remember that it is agreed upon by all Catholic Divines, that the humane nature of Christ hath two kinds of being, the one natural, the other personal. The first, limited and finite; the second, infinite and incomprehensible. For, seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence, it cannot be but finite: 
a Vniti Hypostatice Deum & hominem, nihil est aliud quam naturam l●…manam non habere propriam subsistentiam, sed assumptam esse à verbo aeterno, ad ipsam verbi subsistentiam. Bellarm. de incarn. l. 3. c. 8.  and seeing it hath no personal subsistence of it own, but that of the Son of God communicated to it, which is infinite, and without limitation, it cannot be denied to have an infinite subsistence, and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort, and consequently everywhere. Thus than the body of Christ secundum esse naturale, is contained in one place; but secundum esse personale, may rightly be said to be everywhere.  
It were easy to reconcile all those assertions of our Divines touching this part of Christian faith, in show so opposite one to another, and to stop the mouths of our prattling adversaries, who so greedily seek out our verbal & seeming differences (whereas their whole doctrine is nothing else but an heap of uncertainties and contrarieties) if this were a fit place. But let this briefly suffice for the repelling of Bellarmine's calumniation, and let us proceed to examine the rest of his objections.   

CHAP. 36.  
Of the supposed heresy of Zenaias Persa, impugning the adoration of Images.  
THe next heresy, he imputeth unto us, is the impugning of the adoration and worshipping of Images: the first author of which impiety, as this impious Idolater is pleased to name it, was Zenaias Persa, as Nicephorus reports. But whatsoever the jesuit think, Nicephorus credit is not so good, that upon his bare word we should believe so shameless a lie. For Augustine, which was before this Persian, (in his book De moribus Ecclesiae, libro primo, capite tricesimo quarto) hath the same heresy, as it pleaseth these heretics to call it. Nolite, inquit, consectari turbas imperitorum, qui in ipsà verâ religione superstitiosi sunt. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores, quos mores Ecclesia condemnat, & quotidiè corrigere studet. And 
a Greg. Sereno Massiliensi lib. 9 c. 9 frangi non debuit quod non ad adorandum in Ecclesiis, sed ad instruendum solummodò mentes fuit nescientium collocatum.  Gregory, after the time of this supposed Persian, doth condemn the adoration of Images. And 
b Auctores antiqui omnes conveniunt in hoc quod in Concilio Francofordiensi sit reprobata Synodus 7, quae decreverat imagine●… adoranda●… ita Hincmarus, Aimoinus Regino, Ado, et alii. Bellarmin. lib. 2. de sanctorum imaginibus cap 14.  the Council of Frankford likewise after his time, as appeareth by Hincmarus, and others.  
Besides, if Nicephorus follow the judgement of the Fathers of the second Nicene Council, he meaneth nothing else, by that adoration of Images, which he approveth, but the embracing, kissing, and reverend using of them, like to the honour we do the Books of holy Scripture, not that Religious worship which consisteth in spirit and truth, which the Papists yield to their Idols. And so there is as great difference of judgement between him and Bellarmine, as between him and us.  

c Quis adorat vel orat intuens simulacrum, qui non sic afficitur ut ab eo se exaudiri putet? itsque homines talibus superstitionibus obligati plerumque ad ipsum solem dorsum ponentes preces fundunt statuae, quam solem vocant: & cum sonitu maris a tergo feriantur, Neptuni statuam quam pro ipso mari colunt, quasi sentientem gemitibus feriunt: hoc enim facit, & quodammodo extorquet illa figure a membrorum. etc. Hoc venerantur quod ipsi ex auro & argento fecerunt: sed dicent, & nos habere instrumenta & vasa ex huiusmodi materia in usu celebrandorum sacramentorum, etc. & sunt profecto ista instrumenta, seu vasa, quid aliud quam opera manuum hominum? caeterum num quid os habent, & non loquuntur, etc. numquid iis supplicamus quia per ea supplicamus Deo? illa causa maxima impietatis insanae, quod plus valet in affectibus miserorum forma similis viventi, quae sibi efficit supplicari, quam quod manifestum est, non esse viventem, ut debeat a vivente contemni. Aug. in Psal. 113. vide Walafridum Strabonem de rebus eccles. de imaginibus etc.  That which Bellarmine addeth against Caluine and others, touching the time that Images were first brought into the Church, if this place did require the examination of it, we should find him as notable a trifler therein, as in all the rest.   

CHAP. 37  
Of the error of the Lampetians, touching vows.  
THe error of the Lampetians was, as Alphonsus à Castro supposeth, that it is not lawful for men to vow, and by vowing to lay a necessity upon themselves of doing those things, which freely and without any such tye, might much better be performed.  
If they disliked simply all vowing, we do not approve their opinion, as may appear by that which Kemnisius, Zanchius, and others have written to this purpose, and therefore we are unjustly said to favour their error. That which Bellarmine addeth, for the strengthening of this his unjust imputation, is a mere calumniation. For Luther doth not say, that a man should vow to do a thing as long as he shall be pleased, and then to be free again, when he shall dislike that which before he resolved on: but that all vows should be made with limitation, 
a The Ronanists admit dispensations wholly discharging from Vows and Commutations: whereby men are taught, it sufficeth to perform some other thing instead of that they vowed.  to be so far performed, as humane frailty will permit, & that it is better after a vow made to break it, & to descend to the doing of that which is lawful & good, though not carrying so great show of perfection as that which by vow was promised, than, under the pretence of keeping it, to live in all dissolute wickedness as the manner of the Popish votaries is: 
b Si autem perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est ut nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant. Cypr: lib. 1 Epist. 11 Epiphanius heresi 61 ostendit melius esse post votum iungi matrimonio & acta poenitentia recipi in Ecclesiam, quam quotidiè telis occultis vulnerari. August de bono viduitatis, Though be do mislike them that vow, and perform not, yet he reproveth them also, that think marriages after vows to be void, and to be dissolved.  whereupon the Fathers are clear, that marriage, after a vow made of single life, is lawful, and that it is better to marry than continuing single to live lewdly and wantonly.   

CHAP. 38.  
Of the heresy of certain, touching the verity of the body and blood of Christ, communicated to us in the Sacrament.  
THe last heresy might well have been omitted. For those heretics condemned by 
a Impatibilis Dialog. 3. mirum est, Bellarm. hanc haerisin tam antiquam putare, cum Alphonsus à Castro haeresi 4. de Eucharistia, dicat, omnes qui huius perversi dogmatis mentionem fecerunt asserere fuisse Beringarij inventionem.  Theodoret, Ignatius and others, denied the verity of Christ's humane nature, and thereupon condemned the Sacrament of his body and blood. So that it was not the impugning of Popish Transubstantiation, as Bellarmine idly fancieth, that was reproved in them, but the denying of the truth of that body and blood, which all true Christians do know to be mystically communicated to them in the Sacrament, to their unspeakable comfort. How then can we be charged with the heresy of these men, seeing we neither deny the verity of Christ's humane nature, nor make the Sacrament to be a naked figure or similitude only, but acknowledge that it consisteth of two things, the one earthly, and the other heavenly; and that the body of Christ is truly present in the Sacrament, and communicated to us, though neither Capernaitically to be torn with the teeth, nor popishly to be swallowed, and carried down into the stomach and belly.  
Thus than we see, how fond this Cardinal heretic hath endeavoured to prove us heretics, and to hold the old condemned heresies of those cursed Arch-heretikes, whose frenzies we condemn much more than he, and his fellows do. So that he is so far from demonstrating either our consent with condemned heretics that were of old, or their consent with the ancient Fathers, and consequently the antiquity of their profession, that contrarily all that are not blinded with partiality, may easily see, that the whole course of Popish doctrine is nothing but a confused mixture of errors; and all that they write against us, nothing but mere calumniation & slander.   

CHAP. 39  
Of Succession, and the exceptions of the adversaries against us, in respect of the supposed want of it.  
THus then, having taken a view of whatsoever they can or do allege, for proof of the antiquity of their doctrine, which is the first note of the Church assigned by them; 
a Bellar. 4. de notis ecclesiae, c. 8. not. 5.  let us come unto the second, which is Succession, and see if they have any better success in it, than in the former. In what sense Succession may be granted to be a note of the true Church, I have showed already: let us therefore see how, and what our adversaries conclude from thence against us, or for themselves.  
By this note, say they, it is easy to prove, that the reformed Churches are not the true Churches of God. 
b Contra Luciferianos.  Ecclesia non est, quae non habet sacerdotem, saith Hierome against the Luciferians. It can be no Church, that hath no Ministry. And Cyprian to the same purpose pronounceth, that the Church is nothing else, but, Plebs episcopo adunata. Thus therefore from these authorities 
1 Lib. 4. Ep. 10.  they reason; Where there is no ministry, there is no Church. But, amongst the Protestants there is no Ministry: therefore, no Church. The Minor proposition or assumption of this argument we deny; which they endeavour to prove in this sort; There is no lawful calling to the work of the Ministry, amongst the Protestants; therefore no Ministry. The defects they suppose to be in the calling of our Bishops and Ministers, are two fold: first, for that they that ordained them, in the beginning of this alteration of things in the state of the Church, had no power so to do. Secondly, for that no man may be ordained, but into a void place, either wherein there never was any Pastor or Bishop before, as in Churches in their first foundation: or, wherein there having been, their place is now void, by the death, deprivation, or voluntary relinquishment of them that possessed it before, that so they who are newly elected and ordained, may succeed into the void rooms of such as went before them, and not intrude upon their charge, whereunto they are still justly entitled: Our Bishops and Pastors were ordained and placed in the beginning of the reformation of religion, where there were Bishops already in actual possession. These being the defects, which they suppose to be in the calling of our Bishops & Ministers, let us see how they prove that they say.  
That they, who ordained our Ministers in the beginning of the alteration of Religion, had no power so to do, thus they prove. No Bishop may be esteemed and taken as lawfully ordained, unless he be ordained of three Bishops at the least; and they, such as have been ordained in like sort, and so ascending till we come to the first, whom the Apostles did constitute by their apostolic authority, received immediately from Christ the Son of God, whom the Father sent into the world. But the Pastors and Bishops of the reformed Churches had no such ordination; therefore they wanted that calling which should make them lawful Bishops and Pastors.  
It is true, that the ancient Canons regularly admit no ordination, as lawful, wherein three Bishops at the least do not concur. 
d Bellarm. l. 4. de notis Ecclesiae c. 8. nota 5  But Bellarmine and his fellows do not think this number of Bishops imposing hands, to be absolutely and essentially necessary. For they confess, that by dispensation, growing out of due and just consideration of the present occasions and state of things, one Bishop alone may ordain, assisted with Abbots, which are but Presbyters and no Bishops; nay which by the course of their profession, and original of their order, are less interessed in the government of the Church, than the meanest Presbyter having care of souls. 
e Hier. contra Vigilantium non procul á fine: er ad Heliodorum. Alia monachorum est causa, alia clericorum: clerici pascunt oves, ego pascor illi de altari viv●… mihi quasi infructuosae arbo●…i securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad altare non defero. Lindan. Panop. l. 4. c. 75. Monachi olim omnes erant laici, et omnes templi choro excludebantur. Hugo erudit. theol. de Sacram. fid. lib. 2. part. 3. c. 4. ut intrinsecus quietius vivant ordines ministerii divini, per indulgentiam Monachis conceduntur, non ad exercendam praelationem in populo Dei, sed ad celebrandam intrinsecus communionem Sacramenti Dei, quod tamen in principio non ita fuisse dicunt: Monachi quippe et Eremum habitantes olim Presbyteros habuisse dicuntur.  Monachus plangentis non docentis officium habet. A Monk is a mourner, he is no teacher in the Church of GOD. The Romanists thinking therefore, that in some cases, the ordination which is made by one Bishop alone, assisted with Presbyters, is lawful and good, cannot generally except against the ordination of the Bishops and Pastors of all reformed Churches. For in England, Denmark, and some other places, they which had been Bishops in the former corrupt state of the Church, did ordain Bishops and Ministers, though perhaps precisely three did not always concur, in every particular ordination.  
But they will say, whatsoever may be thought of these places, wherein Bishops did ordain, yet in many other, none but Presbyters did impose hands; all which ordinations are clearly void: and so, by consequent, many of the pretended reformed Churches, as namely those of France, and others, have no ministry at all. The next thing therefore to be examined, is, whether the power of ordination be so essentially annexed to the order of Bishops, that none but Bishops may in any case ordain. For the clearing whereof we must observe, that the whole Ecclesiastical power is aptly divided into the power of order, and jurisdiction. Ordo est rerum parium dispariumque unicuique sua loca tribuens congrua dispositio: that is, Order is an apt disposing of things, whereof some are greater, and some lesser, some better, and some meaner, sorting them accordingly into their several ranks and places. First therefore, order doth signify that mutual reference or relation, that things sorted into their several ranks and places, have between themselves. Secondly, that standing, which each thing obtaineth, in that it is better or worse, greater or lesser than another, and so accordingly sorted and placed, above or below other, in the orderly disposition of things. The power of holy or Ecclesiastical order, is nothing else, but that power which is specially given to men sanctified and set apart from others, to perform certain sacred, supernatural, and eminent actions, which others of another rank may not at all, or not ordinarily meddle with: As to preach the word, administer the Sacraments, and the like.  
The next kind of Ecclesiastical power, is that of jurisdiction. For the more distinct and full understanding whereof we must note, that three things are employed in the calling of Ecclesiastical Ministers. First, an election, choice, or designment of persons fit for so high and excellent employment. Secondly, the consecrating of them, and giving them power and authority to intermeddle with things pertaining to the service of God, to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy, and admirable force, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men, and to yield unto them, whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood, all the comfortable means, assurances, and helps, that may set forward their eternal salvation. Thirdly, the assigning and dividing out to each man, thus sanctified to so excellent a work, that portion of God's people which he is to take care of, who must be directed by him in things that pertain to the hope of eternal salvation. This particular assignation giveth, to them that had only the power of order before, the power of jurisdiction also, over the persons of men.  
Thus than it is necessary, that the people of God be sorted into several portions, and the sheep of Christ divided into several flocks, for the more orderly guiding of them, & yielding to them the means, assurances, and helps that may set them forward in the way of eternal life; and that several men be severally and specially assigned, to take the care and oversight of several flocks and portions of God's people. The Apostles of Christ and their successors, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyt●…s ●…y by ●…y, a●…d 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 allo●…. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. ●…stus, ut Damas●… air, titulos in vib●… Rot●…. Presbyt●…s d●…it. 〈◊〉 in ●…ta 〈◊〉.  when they planted the Churches, so divided the people of God converted by their minsterie, into particular Churches, that each City and the places near adjoining, did make but one Church. Now because the unity and peace of each particular Church of God, and flock of his sheep, dependeth on the unity of the Pastor, and yet the necessities of the many duties that are to be performed in Churches of so large extent, require more Ecclesiastical Ministers then one; therefore though there be many Presbyters, that is, many fatherly guides of one Church, yet there is one amongst the rest, that is specially Pastor of the place, who, for distinction sake, is named a Bishop; 
g 〈◊〉. contra ●…anos.  to whom an eminent and peerless power is given, for the avoiding of Schisms and factions: and the r●…st are but his assistants and coadiutours, and named by the generali name of Presbyters. So that in the performance of the acts of Ecclesiastical Ministry, when he is present and will do them himself, they must give place: 
h As Christ doth nothing wit●…ut 〈◊〉 Father, so do 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉. whe●… be Pres●…, Deacon or 〈◊〉 man. 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ha●…. ad 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pres●…rs & D●…. 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…he Ch●…ch. Cen●…. 〈◊〉. 1. can●…. Presbyteri. sine conscienti●… Episcopi nihil faciunt.  and in his absence, or when being present he needeth assistance, they may do nothing without his consent and liking. Yea so far for order's sake is he preferred before the rest, that some things are specially reserved to him only, as the ordaining of such as should assist him in the work of his ministry, the reconciling of Penitents, 
i Epiphanius haeresi. 75. Concilium Anciranum can. 13. ●…ero. ●…pist. 〈◊〉 ●…um: quid facit Episcopus, except●… ordinatione, quod non facit Presbyter.  confirmation of such as were baptised, by imposition of hands; dedication of Churches, and such like.  
These being the divers sorts and kinds of Ecclesiastical power, it will easily appear to all them that enter into the due consideration thereof, that the power of Ecclesiastical or sacred order, that is, the power and authority to int●…ddle with things pertaining to the service of God, and to perform emi●…t acts of gracious efficacy, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of th●… sonn●…s of men is equal and the same in all those whom we call Presbyters, that is fatherly guides of God's Church and people: & that, only for order's sake, and the preservation of peace, there is a limitation of the use and exercise of the same. Hereunto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists themselves, freely confessing that that, wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter, is ●…t a distinct & higher order, or power of order, but a kind of dignity & office 〈◊〉 employment only. Which they prove, because a Presbyter, ordained persaltum, 
k Concil. Carth. 〈◊〉 can. 4. ●…arth. 3. ●…an. 31. 32. 158.  
l Hiero. contra Luciferianos: ob honorem sacerdotij fit, ut soli Episcopi manus im●…nt. 〈◊〉 Thom●… 〈◊〉 ●…addit. quaest. 40. art. 5. Bonaven. l 4. dist. 24. ar. 2 q. 3. Dominicus á Soto l. 10. de iustitia & 〈◊〉 q. 〈◊〉. a●… 2. & in 4. dist. 24. q. 2. art. 3. Armacanus l. 〈◊〉. ostendit nullum praelatum plus habere de potestate sacramen●… siu●…or ●…nis, quam sim●…ces sacerdotes. Cameracensis in 4. quaest. 4. Contarenus de Sacramentis. lib. 4.  that never was consecrated or ordained Deacon, may notwithstanding do all those acts that pertain to the Deacons order, (because the higher order doth always imply in it the lower and inferior, in an eminent and excellent sort:) But a Bishop ordained per saltum, that never had the ordination of a Presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lords body, nor ordain a Presbyter, himself being none, nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters. Whereby it is most evident, that that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter, is not a distinct power of order, but an eminency and dignity only, specially yielded to one above all the rest of the same rank, for order sake, and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church. Hence it followeth, that many things which in some cases Presbyters may lawfully do, are peculiarly reserved unto Bishops, as Hierome noteth; 
n Contra Luciferianos.  Potius ad honorem Sacerdotij, quam ad legis necessitatem; Rather for the honour of their Ministry, than the necessity of any law. And 
o Peruenit ad nos quosdam scandalizatos fuisse quod Presbyteros Chrismate tangere in front eos qui baptizati sunt prohibuimus etc. Greg januario episcopo l. 3. in dict. 12. Epist. 26.  therefore we read, that Presbyters in some places, and at some times, did impose hands, and confirm such as were baptised: which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he left it free again. And who knoweth not, that 
p Carth. 3. can: 32.  all Presbyters in cases of necessity may absolve & reconcile Penitents; a thing in ordinary course appropriated unto Bishops? and why not by the same reason ordain Presbyters & Deacons in cases of like necessity? For, seeing the cause, why they are forbidden to do these acts, is, because to Bishops ordinarily the care of all churches is committed, and to them in all reason the ordination of such as must serve in the Church pertaineth, that have the chief care of the Church, and have Churches wherein to employ them; which only Bishops have as long as they retain their standing: and not Presbyters, being but assistants to bishops in their Churches; If they become enemies to God and true religion, in case of such necessity, as the care and government of the Church is devolved to the Presbyters remaining Catholic & being of a better spirit: so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeed them in the work of the Ministry pertains to them likewise. For if the power of order, and authority to intermeddle in things pertaining to God's service, be the same in all Presbyters and that they be limited in the execution of it, only for order sake, so that in case of necessity, every of them may baptise & confirm them whom they have baptised, absolve & reconcile Penitents, & do all those other acts, which regularly are appropriated unto the Bishop alone; there is no reason to be given, but that in case of necessity, wherein all Bishops were extinguished by death, or being fallen into heresy, should refuse to ordain any to serve God in his true worship; but that Presbyters as they may do all other acts, whatsoever special challenge Bishops in ordinary course make unto them, might do this also. Who then dare condemn all those worthy Ministers of God, that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry Churches of the world, at such times as Bishops in those parts, where they lived, opposed themselves against the truth of God, and persecuted such as professed it? Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome, in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to be void. For not only 
q Videtur quod si omnes Episcopi essent defuncti, sacerdotes minores possent episcopos ordinare. Armachanus l. 11. in q. Armenorum cap. 7. Alex, de Hales. part. 4. q. 9 memb. 5. art. 1. dicunt quidam quod ex demandatione Papae ordinatus potest conferre ordinem quem habet.  Armachanus, a very learned and worthy Bishop, but, as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many learned men, in his time and before, were of opinion, that in some cases, and at some times, Presbyters may give orders, and that their ordinations are of force, though to do so, not being urged by extreme necessity; cannot be excused from over great boldness and presumption. Neither should it seem so strange to our adversaries, that the power of ordination should at some times be yielded unto Presbyters, seeing their Chorepiscopi, Suffragans, or Titular Bishops that live in the Diocese and Churches of other Bishops, and are no Bishops according to the old course of discipline, do daily in the Romish Church, both confirm Children and give orders.  
All that may be alleged out of the Fathers, for proof of the contrary, may be reduced to two heads. For first, whereas they make all such ordinations void, as are made by Presbyters, it is to be understood according to the strictness of the Canons in use in their time, and not absolutely in the nature of the thing; which appears in that they likewise make all ordinations sine 
〈◊〉 Synodus Chalced. can. 6  titulo to be void: 
s Episcopus praeter iudicium metropolitanis & finitimorum episcoporum non ordinandus. Council, Laodicen: can. 12. si episcopus ab omnibus episcopis qui sunt in provinciâ aliquâ urgente necessitate non ordinatur, certè tres episcopi debent in unum esse congregati, ita ut etiam caeterorum qui absente●… sunt consensum literis teneant, Concil. Nic. can. 4. ●  All ordinations of Bishops ordained by fewer than three Bishops with the Metropolitan: 
t Concil. Antiochenum can. 13.  all ordinations of Presbyters by Bishops out of their own Churches without special leave: whereas I am well assured, the Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void, though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault. Secondly, their sayings are to be understood regularly, not without exception of some special cases that may fall out.  
Thus than we see, that objection, which our adnersaries took to be unanswerable, is abundantly answered out of the grounds of their own Schoolmen, the opinion of many singularly learned amongst them, and their own daily practice, in that Chorepiscopi or Suffragans, as they call them, 
u Concil. Ancitanum can. 13. decrerum johannis 3. cp. ad Germaniae episcopos. Antiochenum can. 10.  being not Bishops, but only Presbyters, whatsoever they pretend, and forbidden by all old Canons to meddle in ordination, yet do daily with good allowance of the Roman Church, ordain Presbyters, and Deacons, confirm (with imposition of hands) those that are baptised, and do all other Episcopal acts, whiles their great Bishop's Lord it like princes, in all temporal ease, and worldly bravery.  
The next thing they object against us, is, that our first Ministers, what authority soever they had that ordained them, yet had no lawful ordination, because they were not ordained & placed in void places, but intruded into Churches, that had lawful Bishops at the time of those pretended ordinations; and consequently, did not succeed, but encroach upon other men's right. To this we answer, that the Church is left void, either by the death, resignation, deprivation, or the people's desertion and forsaking of him that did precede. In some places, our first Bishops and Pastors found the Churches voydby death, in some by voluntary relinquishment, in some by deprivation, and in some by desertion, in that the people, or at least that part of the people that adhered to the Catholic verity, who have power to choose their Pastor, to admit the worthy, and refuse the unworthy, did forsake the former that were wolves and not Pastors, and submitted themselves to those of a better spirit. Of the three first kinds of avoidance, there can be no question; of this fourth, there may: and therefore I will prove it by sufficient authority, and strength of reason.  
Cyprian, Cecilius, Polycarpus, and other Bishops, writing to the Clergy, 
1 Li. 1. Ep. 4:  and people of the Churches in Spain, whereof Basilides and Martialis were Bishops, who fell in time of persecution, denied the faith, & defiled themselves with Idolatry, persuade them to separate themselves from those Bishops, assuring them that the people being holy, religious, fearing God, and obeying his laws, may and aught to separate themselves, from impious and wicked Bishops, and not to communicate with them in the matters of God's service, 
y Lib. 1: Ep. 4.  quando ipsa plebs maximè habeat potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi; that is, seeing the people hath authority to choose the worthy, and to refuse the unworthy. And Occam to the same purpose saith on this sort: 
a 1 Part. l. 5. 28  Si Papa & maximè celebres episcopi incidant in haeresin, ad Catholicos devoluta est potestas omnis iudicandi. If the Pope & the principal Bishops of the Christian world do fall into heresy, the power of all Ecclesiastical judgement is devolved to the inferior Clergy and people remaining Catholic. This opinion of Cyprian and the rest, if our adversaries shall dislike or except against, may easily be confirmed by demonstration of reason. For if it do fall out, that the Bishops and a great part of the people fall into error, heresy, and superstition, I think our adversaries will not deny, but that the rest are bound to maintain and uphold the ancient verity; who being not so many, nor so mighty, as to be able to eiect those wicked ones by a formal course of judicial proceeding, what other thing is there left unto them, but either to consent to their impieties, which they may not do, or to separate themselves, which is the thing our adversaries except against, in the people of our time. Now having separated themselves from their former supposed and pretended Pastors; what remaineth, but that they make choice of new to be ordained and set over them; if not by the concurrence of such and so many, as the strictness of the Canon doth ordinarily require to concur in ordinations, yet by such, as in cases of necessity, by all rules of equity are warranted to perform the same.   

CHAP. 40.  
Of Succession, and the proof of the truth of their doctrine by it.  
THus having examined the allegation of the Papists, endeavouring to prove against us, that we have not the true Church amongst us, because, as they falsely suppose, we lack the visible Succession of Pastors and Bishops, let us see what they can conclude from this note of Succession, for themselves. In this part 
a Denotis Ecclesiae, cap. 8.  Bellarmine showeth himself to be a notable trifler. For first he saith, that if there be no Church where there is no succession, then where there is succession continued, the true Church doth remain still. Secondly, being pressed with the example of the Grecians, amongst whom a continual succession of Bishops hath ever been found, he answereth, that succession doth not prove affirmatively, that to be the true Church where it is found, but negatively, that not to be the true Church, where it is wanting: contrary to himself, who requireth in the notes of the Church (amongst which he reckoneth succession to be one of the prinpall,) that they be not only inseparable, without which the true Church cannot be, but proper also, and such as cannot be found in any other society, but that which is the true Church of God. Thirdly, again forgetting himself, he maketh succession proper to the true Church, and such a note as may prove 
c Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. illis Presbyteris obediendum esse dicit, qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma acceperunt veritatis. Tertul. de praescrip. praeter ter ordinem Episcoporum ab initio decurrentem requirit consanguinitatem doctrinae. Aug. Epist. 165. enumeratis episcopis Romanis: in hoc (inquit) ordine nullus invenitur Donatista.  all those societies of Christians true Churches which have it: & disliketh Calvin, for saying that more is required to find out the true Church than personal succession; and that the Fathers did not demonstrate the Church barely by personal succession, but by showing, that they that succeeded, held the faith of those that went before them. Thus he showeth plainly that he knoweth not what he writeth.  
This matter of succession 
b Staplet. contro. de ecclesia in se quaestione 4. art. 2. expositione articuli notabili, 5.  Stapleton hath much more aptly delivered than Bellarmine, confessing, that not bare and personal succession, but lawful succession is a note of the true Church: And defineth that to be lawful succession, when not only the latter succeed into the void rooms of those that went before them, being lawfully called thereunto, but also hold the faith, their predecessors did. In this sort the Fathers were wont to reason from succession, in the controversies of Religion. First, they reckoned up the successions of Bishops, from the Apostles times; & then showed, that none of them taught any such thing, as was then called in question, but the contrary; and consequently, that the Apostles delivered no such thing, but the contrary.  
To Bellarmine's disjunction, that either the Fathers made it appear to Catholics or to Heretics, that the succeeding Bishops held the same faith, the former did; we answer, They made it appear to both. For so doth 
d Irenaeus, l. 3. cap 3.  Irenaeus prove the tradition of the Apostles to be for him, and against the Heretics he refuteth, because he can number all the Bishops in the principal Churches from the Apostles times downward, none of which ever taught any such thing, as those heretics dreamt, but the contrary. That which Bellarmine addeth, that if it had appeared to heretics, that the true faith had been kept by succeeding Bishops they would have yielded to it, is as little to the purpose as the rest. For, we do not say, it did appear unto them, they held the truth, but that they held the same faith their predecessors held. Now, though the Fathers made this appear unto them; yet they feared not to oppose themselves, as the same 
e Lib. 3. cap. 2.  Irenaeus witnesseth, affirming, that when it was proved against the heretics of those times, that in the succession of Bishops those that succeeded, held the same faith the former did, without any alteration, and consequently, the Apostles doctrine was still continued in their Churches; they thought themselves wiser than the Apostles themselues, affirming that they mingled the Law and the Gospel together, taking exceptions of ignorance and imperfection against them and their doctrine.  
Thus than we see, the Fathers did not reason barely from personal sucession, but by showing affirmatively, the faith they defended to have been received by all those Bishops, whose succession they urged against their adversaries; and negatively, by proving that none of them ever believed any such things, as their adversaries dreamt. If the Romanists will dispute against us in this sort, and demonstrate that the Fathers successively held those opinions they do, and that none of them were of that judgement in matter of faith that we are of, we will most willingly listen unto them. But this they do not, and therefore their talking of the Father's reasoning from succession, when they dare not reason as the fathers did, is most vain, and idle.   

CHAP. 41.  
Of Unity, the kinds of it, and that Communion with the Roman Bishop is not always a note of true and Catholic profession.  
THe 
a Bellar. de notis Ecclesiae, li. 4 cap. 10. nota 7.  next note of the Church assigned by them, is Unity. The Unity of the Church consisteth principally in three things. First, in observing and holding the Rule of faith once delivered to the Saints. Secondly, in the subjection of the people to their Pastors: and thirdly, in the due connexion of many Pastors, and the flocks depending on them, among themselves. All these kinds and sorts of unity we think necessarily required, in some degree, in all those societies of Christians, that will demonstrate themselves to be the true Churches of God; and deny not, but that unity, in this sort expressed and conceived, is a most apt note of the true Church.  
The papists suppose, that besides these kinds and sorts of unity before expressed, there is also required another kind of unity to the being of the Church, namely subjection to, and union with that visible head, which, as they think, Christ hath left in his stead to govern the whole body of the Church, and to rule both Pastors and people. This head, as they suppose, is the Bishop of Rome, from whose communion sith we are fallen, they infer, that we are divided from the unity of the true Church.  

b Dicunt quidam articulum esse fidei quod Benedictus ex●…ph gr●…tia sit Papa. quod absque co non stet salus, cum tamen salus Ecclesiae in solum Deum ordinetur absolutè & essentialiter, in hominem Christum de ordinatalege, sed accidentaliter in papam mortalem: alio quin cum vacat sedes per mortem naturalem vel civilem Papae, utpote si sit haereticus depositus, quis hominum saluus esse possit? Gers. part. 1. consid. 1. de pace, idem p●…tte 4. ser. de Angelis papam agnoscere de necessitate salutis esse ambigunt nonnulli, sufficere dicentes ut verum Ecclesiae caput Christus agnoscatur.  This last kind of unity, devised by the Papists, we deny to be necessarily required to the being of the true Church. First, therefore, let us see what may be said for, or against the necessity of this kind of unity; and in the next place consider, what our adversaries can conclude for themselves, or against us, from that kind of unity, which we acknowledge to be necessarily required to the being of the true Church.  
If the union of all Christians with this supposed visible head, which is the Bishop of Rome, were necessarily required as a perpetual duty, than was there no true Church in the time of the Anti-popes', 
c Gers. de modo habendi se tempore schismatis.  when the wisest knew not, who were the true Popes, and who were usurpers. If they shall reply, that it is necessary to hold Communion with the true, if he may be known; this hath no more warrant of reason than the former, seeing the best learned amongst themselues think, that not only the Pope, but also the whole clergy & people of Rome may err, and fall into damnable heresies: in which case it is the part of every true Christian, to disclaim all communion with them, and to oppose himself against them, and all their heretical impieties. 
d See cap. 7.  That it is possible for the Pope to err, and become an heretic, so many great Divines in the Church of Rome have at all times most constantly defended, that the greatest patrons of the infallibility of the Pope's judgement at this day, are forced to confess, it is not necessary to believe, that the Pope cannot err, but that it is only a matter of probable dispute.  
Thus than it is evident to all, that will not wilfully oppose themselves against the truth, that consent with the Roman Bishop cannot be made a perpetual and sure note of the true Church. Nay, the Grecians most constantly affirm, that the Pope's taking all to himself, and challenging to be head of the universal Church, hath been the cause of the Church's division. But because Bellarmine is so excellent a Sophister, that he is able to prove any thing to be true, though never so false and absurd. Let us see how he proveth, that consent with the Bishop of Rome is a note of the true Church, in such sort, that whosoever holdeth Communion with him, is a Catholic, and contrarily whosoever forsaketh his Communion, is an Heretic or Schismatique.  
This he endeavoureth to make good by the testimonies of sundry of the ancient Fathers, wrested against their known meanings, and undoubted resolutions, in other parts of their works and writings. His first allegation is out of Irenaeus, in his third book and third Chapter, against heresies. But if we consider the circumstances of the place, and the occasion of the words ci●…d by Bellarmine, we shall easily see, they prove no such thing as he laboureth to enforce. For Irenaeus in that place showeth, how all heresies may be refuted, by opposing against them the tradition of the Apostles; which he saith, we may easily find out and discern, how contrary it is to the frantic conceits of heretics, by taking a view of them, which were ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches of Christ, and their successors to this present time, which never taught nor knew any such thing as these men dream. Now because it would be tedious to reckon all the successions of Bishops succeeding one another in every Church, therefore he produceth the succession of the Bishops in the Roman Church, in steed of all; because, that being the most famous and renowned Church of the world, constituted and founded by the two most principal and glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, whatsoever was successively taught and received in that Church, and consequently delivered unto it by those blessed Apostles, must needs be the doctrine and tradition of the rest of the Apostles, delivered to all other Churches of the World. For what was there hidden from these Apostles, that was revealed unto any of the rest? and what would they hide from this principal Church, that was any way necessary to be known? Therefore, saith Irenaeus, the producing of the Roman succession, is in stead of all. For it must needs be, that what this most principal Church received from these great Apostles, that, & nothing else, the other did receive from their Apostles, & first preachers: which he expresseth in these words: Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos, qui sunt undique fideles. Bellarmine's sense of these words, that all Churches must frame themselves to believe what the Church of Rome believeth, and prescribeth to others to be believed, no way standeth with the drift of Irenaeus in this place, as may appear by that which hath been said: and therefore this allegation might have been spared.  
His next authorities are out of Cyprians Epistles: 
e Lib. 1. Ep. 3.  in the first of which Epistles we shall find, that there were certain Schismatics, that fled from their own lawful Bishop and superiors, with complaints to other Bishops and Churches, and amongst the rest to the Church and Bishop of Rome; not knowing, (saith Cyprian) or at least, not considering, that the Romans are such as will not give entertainment to such perfidious companions, nor listen to lying and false reports. For that is the meaning of those words, Ad quos perfidia non possit habere accessum. But Bellarmine wresteth the words to another sense, to wit, that infidelity and error in faith can never find place among the Romans, as being secured from all possibility and danger of erring. So that, that which Saint Cyprian speaketh of perfidious dealing, that he interpreteth of infidelity and error of faith. So good construction the jesuit is wont to make of the words of the Fathers. 
f But be will say, Cyprian calleth the Rome Church the principal Church, whence sace●…dotall unity hath her spring: hereunto we answer, that the R●…m. Church not in power of overrusing all, but in order is the first and principal: & that therefore while she continueth to hold the truth, and incrocheth not upon the right of other Churches, she is to have the priority: but that in either of these cases she may be forsaken, without breach of that unity, which is essentially required in the parts of the Church.  But let this suffice for the clearing of the first place alleged out of Cyprian, and let us proceed to the 
g Cyprian, l. 4. Epist. 8.  second; the circumstances whereof are as followeth. Cornelius was elected and ordained Bishop of Rome: A Schism grew in that Church about this his election: Cyprian, though he approved the election of Cornelius, yet did forbear to write unto him as Bishop, till others also might be satisfied touching the validity of the same; at which Cornelius seemed to be grieved: Cyprian showeth him the reasons that moved him to do as he did, and withal how carefully, to avoid all scandals, he wished all that went to Rome, to hold the root of the true Catholic Church, which was on Cornelius part, and not to be carried away with the faction of Schismatics, who opposed themselves against their lawful Bishop, and broke the unity of the Church. How this will prove, that all Christian men and Churches must perpetually hold communion with the Roman Church, and that this is a note of the true Church, I see not. There was a division in the Roman Church about the election of Cornelius: Cornelius in Cyprians judgement, was rightly chosen●… and so the root and ground of the true Church was with him and his partakers and not with his adversaries, that factiously and Schismatically opposed themselves against him: Cyprian wisheth all men to adhere unto their lawful Bishop, and not to the faction of Schismatics, rend from the root of the true Church's unity. Therefore, say our adversaries, all Churches must for ever hold communion, upon peril of damnation, with the Church of Rome. How weak this consequence is, he is very weak in understanding that doth not see. But howsoever, surely Cyprian is very unadvisedly alleged to this purpose, who peremptorily standeth upon it, that every Bishop ought to have his liberty of judgement, (as being accountable only unto God) and that no Bishop should make himself a judge of another: 
h Lib. 2. Ep. 1.  Who dissenteth from Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and feareth not to challenge him for pertinacy; yea, so hot was the contention between Cyprian and Stephen, that Cyprians 
i Fi●…milianus Cypriano, Ep. 75.  consorts feared not to charge him with heresy, and favouring of heretics. So far were the Bishops of those times, from prostrating themselves at the Pope's feet, and thinking it their duty to submit themselves upon pain of damnation to all his determinations, as his vassals are every where now taught to do.  
The next allegation is out of Ambrose; who in his funeral oration, he made upon the death of Satyrus his brother, reporteth of him, that being desirous to be partaker of the holy mysteries, yet before he would proceed in an action of that consequence, he called to him the Bishop of the place, and asked of him, if he held communion with the Catholic Bishops; and because he should not mistake him, whether he held communion with the Bishop of Rome, who at that time both in the truth of the thing, and in the opinion of Satyrus was Catholic, and best known both to him, and the Bishop, of whose faith he inquired. This was done in the time of the Schism of the Luciferians, as appeareth by the place of Ambrose. Now what consequence is this? Satyrus asked of the Bishop, of whom he was to receive the holy mysteries, whether he held communion with the Catholic Church; and to avoid all ambiguity, expressed what he meant, by ask him, whether he agreed with the Roman Church, which at that time, in his opinion, held the true profession; therefore the Roman Church can never err. As if I being in France, or Germany, meeting with some Christians, of whose faith I doubt, should demand of them, whether they hold the true Catholic religion; and add, for explication of the meaning of my question, whether they hold the profession of the reformed Churches in England and Scotland, which at this time I think to be the true Churches of God: doth it follow, that I think these Churches can never err, or fall from the sincerity of the Christian profession? or that for ever it must be a note of the sincere professors of the Christian faith, to hold communion with these Churches, howsoever they degenerate? The same answer serveth for the places alleged out of Hierome, Optatus, & Augustine; and particularly touching 
k In Catalogo scriptorum Ecclesiast.  Hierome, who knoweth not that he affirmeth directly, that Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, fell into heresy? and 
l Hiero. Euagrio.  disliketh the customs of the Roman Church? and will not have that See, and the Bishops of it, to give laws to all Christendom; saying, Orbis maior est urbe? and that though he say 
m Epist. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostasis.  here, that Peter's chair is the rock the Church is builded upon, yet against 
n Lib. 1. contra jovinianum.  jovinian he professeth, that super omnes ex aequo ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur, The Church is equally founded upon all the Apostles. And in 
o Hiero Euagrio.  another place, A Bishop, whether of Rome, or of Eugubium, is eiusdem meriti, eiusdem sacerdotij; equal in merit and office, howsoever riches and the honour of places seem to make some difference. Hierome was a man of a violent spirit, and wrote many things, that must have a favourable construction, to make them accord with that, which elsewhere he hath delivered. Touching 
p Epist. 89. ad Episcopos Viennensis provinciae.  Leo, who saith, that, that which Christ meant, should pertain to the office of all the Apostles, was principally yielded to Peter, and from him, as from an head, derived to the rest, must be understood only of a principality of order, and that he first in time received the promise of that which was meant to all, to express the unity that must be in all. For otherwise it neither standeth with the truth, nor the judgement of the Fathers, that the Apostles received their office and authority by derivation from Peter, or held it in a subordination under him; seeing they were all called and constituted immediately by Christ himself, without any dependence on Peter, or receiving any thing from him, as is easy to demonstrate out of Cyprian, and the consent of the most ancient Fathers. But because these authorities are too weak to prove the thing intended, therefore from these Bellarmine fleeth to experience, from whence he thinketh he may fetch a better proof.  
All Churches of the world, saith he, that ever divided themselves from the fellowship of the Roman Church, like boughs broken from a tree, and deprived of the nourishment they formerly received from the root, did presently wither away and decay. The falsehood of this saying of Bellarmine, is too apparent. For the Churches of Greece, Armenia, Aethiopia, and Syria, continued a long time after they had forsaken the communion of the Roman Church. Yea, many of them continue to this day, holding a more sound and sincere profession of Christian verity, than the Romanists do. It is true indeed, that many of the famous Churches of the world have been swallowed up of Mahometisme, and Barbarism: but to attribute that their fall to their separation from the Church of Rome, is upon as good ground, as to attribute the cause of Goodwin-sands to Tenterton-steeple. That which he addeth, that none of the Churches divided from Rome, had ever any learned men after their separation, showeth plainly, that his impudency is greater than his learning. For what will he say of Oecumenius, Theophylactus, Damascenus, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Elias Cretensis, Nilus Carbasilas, and innumerable more, living in the Greek Churches, after their separation from the Church of Rome? Surely these were more than matchable with the greatest Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue. But, saith he, they could never hold any Council since their separation. If he mean general, it is not to be marvailed at, seeing they are but a part of the Christian Church: If national or Provincial, it is most childish, and by sundry instances to be reproved.   

CHAP. 42.  
That nothing can be concluded for them, or against us, from the note of Unity, or division opposite unto it.  
THus having cleared that which Bellarmine objecteth, to prove, that subjection to, and union with the Bishop of Rome, is employed in that unity which is required to the being of the Church. Let us come to the other part, and see, whether any thing may be concluded from that unity, which we confess to be required to the being of the true Church, either against us, or for them. First therefore, the jesuit reasoneth against us in this sort; All they, that are of the true Church, must hold the unity of the faith once delivered to the Saints: but there are sundry Heretics, erring damnably in matters of faith, as Zuincheldians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and the like, gone out of the reformed Churches: therefore they are not the true Churches of God.  
If this kind of reasoning were good, he might prove, that those Churches, wherein the Apostles lived, were not the Churches of God; because out of them proceeded sundry heretics, as 
a 〈◊〉 Tim c. 17.  Hymenaeus, Philetus, 
b Revel 2. 6.  Nicolaus, 
c Acts ●…. 18.  Simon Magus, and the like. But, saith he, there be two differences between the apostolic Churches, and the reformed Churches in this respect: the first, that the doctrine of the reformed Churches itself, and of it own nature, breedeth dissension: the second, that when there is difference grown, they have no rule by direction whereof to make an end of controversies. But the divisions that grow from the Catholic Church, proceed merely from the malice of Satan, and have no foundation in the doctrine of it; and if any difference do arise, it hath a m●…anes to end all controversies by, which is, the determination of a Council or the chief Pastor. Both these differences we deny: for, neither doth our doctrine of itself breed dissension and diversity of opinions: neither are we without means of composing controversies, if they arise. If Bellarmine will prove, that our doctrine of itself breedeth division, he must show that the grounds and principles of it are uncertain, and such as may occasion error, contrariety, and uncertainty of judgement; which he neither doth, nor can do. For the ground of all our doctrine is the written word of God, interpreted according to the rule of faith, the practice of the Saints from the beginning, the conference of places, and all light of direction, that either the knowledge of ●…gues, or any part of good learning may yield. This surely is the rule to end all controversies by, and not the authority of a Council, or the chief Pastor, as Bellarmine fond imagineth. 
d Ne●… movere quenquam debet quod con●…dem professionem patrum praeposus decreto generalo. Consilii, quam fide de toto 〈◊〉 existentes convenitent e●…copi: quin ●…mo in tractatibu●… 〈◊〉 ●…uic ●…ost ●…ptaras 〈◊〉 Conciliorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. art. 〈◊〉 1●….  For, they both must follow the direction of this rule in all their determinations. 
e 〈…〉  Whereupon, the Book of God, and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  monuments of Antiquity, were always wont to be brought into the Counsels, whereby the Fathers might examine all matters controversed, or any way doubted of. Now as we want not a most certain rule, whereby to judge of all matters of controversy and difference, so in examining things by the direction of this rule, we require that Christian moderation in all men, that ever was found in the servants of God; that no man presume of his own wisdom, judgement, and understanding, nor hastily pronounce, before conference with others: ● For the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets; and God is the 
〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14 32, 33.  God of order, and not of confusion. It is therefore a vile calumniation of Bellarmine, when he saith, that with us every one preferreth himself before others, and every one taketh on him peremptory judgement of another. For, chose, we teach all men to submit their private opinions to the examination of others, the meaner to respect those of greater place, and quality, the fewer the more; and those men which pertinaciously contradict the doctrine agreed upon by consent of all that are in authority, or the greater part, we reject from the communion of our Churches, and so, with us, an end is made of all controversies.  
The rule then with us, is most certain and infallible, known to all; to wit, the scripture or the written word of God, expounded according to the rule of faith, practice of the Saints, and the due comparing of one part of it with another, in the public confessions of faith, published by the Churches of our communion. In all which there is a full consent, whatsoever our malicious adversaries clamourously pretend to the contrary: and all those, that stubbornly resist against this rule, or any thing therein contained, and refuse to be ordered by it, we reject as factious and seditious schimatickes. Thus do we disclaim all Anabaptists, Familists, Zuinchfeldians, Trinitarians, and all other Sectaries whatsoever. But, saith Bellarmine, how is it then, that there are so many divisions, not only from your Churches, but also in your Churches, and amongst them that you take for your brethren, and men of your own communion, as Lutherans, Caluinists, Flaccians, Melancthonists, Hosiandrines, and the like? To this we answer, that this diversity is to be imputed wholly to our adversaries. For, when there was a reformation to be made of abuses and disorders in matters of practice, and manifold corruptions in very many parts of Christian doctrine; & in a Council by general consent it could not be hoped for, (as 
g P. 3. dialog. apolog. iudicium de Concilio Constanciensi.  Gerson long before out of his own experience saw and professed) by reason of the prevailing faction of the Pope's flatterers, but this was necessarily to be assayed severally, in the particular kingdoms of the world; it was not possible but that some diversity should grow, while one knew not, nor expected to know what another did. Yet it so fell out by the happy providence of God, and force of that main truth they all sought to advance, that there was no material or essential difference amongst them, but such as, upon equal scanning, will be found rather to consist in the divers manner of expressing one thing, and to be but verbal upon mistaking, through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men, than any thing else. Yea I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, 
h See Chap. 35.  there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the ubiquitary presence, or the like, between the Churches reform by Luther's ministry in Germany, and other places, and those whom some men's malice called Sacramentaries: that none of the differences between 
i That which Illyricus said touching original sin, which he affirmed to be an essential corruption, was not so meant, as if sin were a positive thing, or an essence and substance, as many did conceive: for he acknowledged, that sin is formally nothing, but a want of r●…ctitude, and an aberration: but as we call that action sin, wherein defect and want of rectitude is found, so likewise he feared not to call the essential powers of the soul, averse from God, and disordered in their motions and inclinations, by the name of original sin, because they are originally sinful, Smidelinus cleareth Hosiander, showing that his opinion was that by the active and passive righteousness of Christ, performed in his humane nature, as by causes meritorious, we find favour with God and have communion with him, and are made partakers of his essential righteousness: not transfusing it into us or confounding it withus as many mistocke him, but by such a kind of participation as that, is wherein all creatures partake of God's divine perfections, and that so partaking of his righteousness we may do ●…hat is right in his sight.  Melancthon and Illyricus except about certain ceremonies, were real: that Hosiander held no private opinion of justification, howsoever his strange manner of speaking, gave occasion to many so to think and conceive. And this shall be justified against the proudest Papist of them all.  
But, saith Bellarmine, your Churches are so torn and rend with dangerous divisions, that not only one of you dissenteth from another, but the same man often times from himself: and herein giveth instance in Luther, whose judgement varied in divers things of great consequence. Touching Luther, we answer, that he was a most worthy Divine, as the world had any in those times, wherein he lived, or in many ages before; & that for the clearing of sundry points of greatest moment in our Christian profession, much obscured & entangled before, with the intricate disputes of the Schoolmen, and Romish Sophisters, (as of the power of nature, of free will, grace, justification; the difference of the Law and the Gospel, faith and works, Christian liberty, and the like) all succeeding ages shall ever be bound to honour his happy memory. In all these things he was ever constant: yea, all these things he perfectly apprehended, and to the great joy of many men's hearts delivered both by word and writing, before he departed from the Romish Synagogue; and out of these, and more diligent search of the Scripture and Fathers, than was usual in those times by degrees saw and descried those Popish errors, which at first he discerned not.  
That herein he proceeded by degrees, and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approve, is not so strange a thing, as our adversaries would make it seem to be. Did not Augustine, the greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times) write a whole book of Retractations? Do we not carefully observe, what things he wrote, when he was but a Presbyter, and what, when he was made a Bishop, what, before he entered into conflict with the Pelagians, and what afterwards? Did he not formerly attribute the election of those that were chosen to eternal life, to the foresight of faith, which afterward he disclaimed, as a mere Pelagian conceit? So that his adversaries, as appeareth by the Epistles of Prosper and Hillarius, did not only charge him to be contrary to the Fathers, but to himself also. Did 
k De t●…ibuna. lib. atque administrationis insulis ad sacerdotium raptus, do●…ere vos copi, quod ipse non did●…ci, itaque factum est, ut prius docere inciperem, quam discerem: ●…endum ergo milu simul & docendum est, quoniam non vacavit ante discere; & quantum libet quisque profecerit, nemo est, qui doceri non egeat, dum vivit, Ambr. officiorum li. 〈◊〉. 1. ●…uther in his preface 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wo●…kes. 〈◊〉. Bellar. l. 4. c. 10 de notis ecclesiae ait, Lutherum sic dicere in libro de ●…ous Monasti cis.  not Ambrose in his time complain, that he was forced to teach before he had learned, and so to deliver many things, that should need and require a second review? Doth not their Angelical Doctor, in his Sum of Theology, correct, and alter many things that he had written before? Let not our adversaries therefore insult upon Luther, for that he saw not all the abominations of Popery at the first, but let them rather consider of, and yield to the reasonableness of the ● request, which in the preface of his works he maketh to all Christian and well minded readers, to wit, that they would read his books and writings with judgement, and with much commisseration, and remember that he was sometimes a Friar. nourished in the errors of the Romish Church, so that it was more painful to him to forget those things he had formerly ill learned, than to learn anew that which is good.  
But, say they, Luther himself witnesseth, that contrariety and cotradiction is a note of falsehood; and therefore his writings being contradictory, the later to the former, his whole doctrine must needs be false, even in his own judgement. Let them, that thus reason against Luther, know, that his meaning is not, that whosoever retracteth and correcteth that he formerly taught, is thereby convinced of falsehood, and his whole doctrine proved to be erroneous; but that those assertions, that do imply contradicton, and contrariety, that stand wholly upon doubtful, uncertain & perplexed disputes, and so overthrow themselves, do thereby appear to be false. Of which nature are all the principal parts of the Romish doctrine. For example; Transubstantiation is one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion, and all Papists at this day do firmly hold and believe it: yet it is demonstratively proved by their own best Divines, that such a total conversion, or transubstantiation of the Sacramental elements into the body & blood of Christ, is impossible, & implieth in it sundry contradictions, & consequences of horrible impieties.  

n The conversion or turning of one thing into another, is then, when upon the ceasing of the former, the later beginneth to be in such sort as the conversion is: if it be substantial, the former ceasing to be that substance it was, the later begins to be that substance it was not before. Wherefore if bread be substantially turned into Christ's body, the ceasing of the substance of bread is the beginning of the substance of his body: this is called by Scotus, transubstantiatio productiva: and is confessed to be impossible in respect of the substance of bread, and the body of Christ. Wherefore they say that one substance may be said to be turned into the other, when upon the ceasing of the former, the later begins to have the same qualities, apparel, place and employment the former had: and s●… suppose the body of Christ filling the same place that the bread did, but now ceaseth to do, (returning into that nothing out of which it was taken) that the bread may be said to be turned into Christ's body: and this is called by them transubstantiatio adductiva. Bielin Canonem missae lect. 40. hath a more foolish conceit than the former: See Scotus in quartum distinct. 11. 〈◊〉 Scotus in 4. distinct. 10. q. 1.  For is it not employed in the nature of the transubstantiation, or total conversion of one substance into another, that the one must succeed the other in being? and that the former must cease to be, & the later thereupon begin to be? whence it will follow, that the later of the two substances, into which the conversion is made, was not, nor had no being before. Now what greater blasphemy can there be, than to think Christ's body had no being, till the Massing Priests had wrought this miraculous Transubstantiation? It is true, that one substance may be changed into another, as was Lot's wife into a pillar of salt: but that one substance should pass, and be totally transubstantiated into another, having the same being, without all difference before the supposed Transubstantiation, that after it hath, and nothing being new in it, in respect of substance, or being, implieth a contradiction; and therefore the sacramental elements cannot be transubstantiated into Christ's body & blood.  
That which Bellarmine hath out of Scotus, of Transubstantiatio productiva and adductiva, is the most childish folly that ever was. For this is that he saith; The substance of the sacramental elements is annihilated, and they return into that nothing out of which they were formerly taken, and then Christ's body cometh into the place, where they were before; Therefore the one substance may be said to be changed into the other. If this reason be good, when one man removeth out of his place, into which another upon his remooue doth enter, the former may be said to be transubstantiated into the later. For, as the former of the two supposed men, goeth out of his place into some other, whereupon the other succeedeth him, not in being, but in place: so the sacramental elements go out of their place, and return to that nothing, out of which they were created, and the body of Christ succeedeth them, not in being, which it had the very same while they were, but in place.  
● Neither can this supposed conversion of the elements into the body of Christ, be the cause of Christ's being in the Sacrament, but rather of their own ascension and going up into heaven. For, though when one substance is turned into another not being before the conversion, but by the conversion beginning to be, that, into which the conversion is made, occupieth and possesseth the place the other held: as when Lot's wife was converted into a pillar of salt, the pillar stood in that place, where she was when she was converted: yet if one substance should be changed into another preexistent, the converted should get the place of that into which it were converted; so that the bread and wine on the mystical table, being converted into the body and blood of Christ sitting in heaven at the right hand of God, should go up into heaven, and not bring him to the table. And yet this was the principal reason, that moved the authors of Transubstantiation, to like better of that, than of any other construction of Christ's words. For that they supposed thereby, the body of Christ might be made present in the Sacrament, without any change of place or local motion, in respect of itself. Which yet 
p Scot in 4. dist. 10. quest. 1.  Scotus 
q In 4 quaest. 6.  Occam, and the latter Schoolmen do utterly reject. So sweetly do these men agree, that talk so much of unity. Verily I am persuaded, there are more material, and real differences amongst them, touching this one sacrament, than there are appearing differences or controversies amongst those of our religion, touching all points of Religion.  

r Cameracensis ●…ut. 〈◊〉. in●…q 6.  For is it not so, that there are four opinions touching the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and three of them different from Transubstantiation? So that notwithstanding the decree of the Lateran Council, many of the wisest and best learned were of opinion, that Transubstantiation cannot be deduced from the scripture, or the Church's determination Did. not 
s Thomas in quo●…libetalibus q●…onibus quodlibeto 3 q. 1. art. 2 Dutandu●… lib. 4. distinct. 11. qu●…st. 1.  Thomas Aquinas, and the rest of that time deny that one body may be locally in more places than one, at one time, and reject it as a thing impossible, and implying contradiction? and do not the Papists at this day judge us heretics for being of the same opinion? Did 
t Cons●… Berengar●… est, panem & vinum post consecrationem esse verum corpus & sanguinem Christi; & sensualiter non solum in sacramento, sed etiam in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, & frangi, & fidelium ●…entibus atter●….  they not in Berengarius time think, that the very body of Christ is torn with teeth, and yet without hurt, by a strange miracle? And was not Berengarius in his recantation forced to say so much? yet at this day, this conceit is holden most absurd and foolish. Do not some of them say, that the body of Christ goeth down into the stomach and belly, and is eaten of mice, and dogs? and do not others detest this blasphemous impiety? Do not some of them say, there are accidents in the Sacraments without substance? and do not others affirm, that those accidents are inherent in the air? Do not some of them say, that when the Priest breaketh that which he holdeth in his hands after consecration, it is no true breaking, but a deceiving of the sense? Others, that he truly breaketh, and yet nothing is broken? Others, that Christ's body is broken? and others, that the accidents are broken? Such a broken religion have these men devised, that neither the Fathers, nor any, before Barbarism had possessed all, ever thought of. 
u Corpus Christi est totum in tota ho●…ia & totum in qualibet parte: hinc dubitatur an retineat distantiam partitium? distinguit Scotus ordinem partium in toto, & in loco: primum retinere dicit, non secundum. Occam probat secundum non posse esse sine primo, nec pri mum sine secundo; unde probat corpus Christi, in Eucharistia, non habete distantiam ●…el ordinem partium in toto 〈◊〉, et per consequens nullam figuram, nec esse organieum, & proinde nec animatum. Occam li. 4. q. 4 Cameracensis. in 4. quaest 5.  Do not some of them say, that Christ in the Sacrament retaineth his own proportion of parts, figure and fashion? and do not others say and demonstratively prove, that if he be in the Sacrament, he hath no distance of parts, no figure, no fashion, nor organical disposition of body, and consequently no life? The rest of the infinite mazes, that these men turning out of the direct way, have lost themselves in, I have no pleasure to tread out. But those few examples may suffice to show that their whole doctrine is full of uncertainty, contrariety, and contradiction, and doth testify against itself, that it is not of God.  
It were easy to show, that all Popish doctrine is nothing else but a mass of uncertainties and contradictions, showing that they are out of the way, that pro●…esse it, and know not how to find either it, or themselves. If any Papist dare deny this, it shall be proved against him in particulars. But they will say, notwithstanding all these differences, yet they submit their judgements to the censure of the Pope and Council, and therefore their divisions are not dangerous nor heretical.  
How false and shameless this answer is, the 
x Quod 〈◊〉 errate in ●…udicando possit, asseverantissimè à plerisque pronunciatur. Picus Theoremate 4. 〈◊〉 etiam concilia errare cosse ostendit.  infinite number of them that have ever judged, that the Pope may err and become an Heretic, doth apparently demonstrate.  
If they shall say, that though they dare not rely upon the infallibility of the pope's judgement, yet they rest in the determination of general Councils; it will be found that they are as doubtful touching the authority of Councils, as they are concerning the Pope, 
y Pighius hierarch. lib. 6. cap. 1. 2. 4. putavit universalium conciliorum Constantinum ●…ntorem fuisse: quem divinorum mysteriorum atque adeo Romani pontificis auctoritatis 〈◊〉 fuisse pronunciat: hunc reprehendit Andradius de generalium conciliorum auctoritate lib 1. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. ●…dem Andradius ait, si universi patres in Synodo aliquid definitent unanimiter, cui definitioni sola pe●…ona Papae contradiceter, Synodo standum es●…e, & non iudicio papae: & idem sen●…sse ait Turrecremat: & tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnabant, ut patet ibidem. Gallia Synodum Florentinam pro Oecumenicâ nunquam habuit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nec perfectam admisit. Andrad. des●…rip. & tradit. auctoritate lib. 2 fol. 251. Constantiensem Synodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cai●…anus, affirmat Andradius in eodem lib. fol. 2●….  some saying, they are mere humane inventions; others, that they are nothing, if the Pope confirm them not; others that they are, though he refuse to confirm them; and others, that both may err: some rejecting one Council, and some another, as appear by the contrary judgement of Papists, of the Councils of Constance, Basill, Pisa, and Florence.  
But they will say, they all hold that, which the Catholic Roman Church doth hold, and in other things, not yet agreed upon, think every man at his pleasure. This is as much, as if they should have said, that wherein soever they all agree, they all agree, and wherein soever they differ, each faction doth differ from another, and carefully provideth, that nothing shall pass against it by public consent, as appeareth in the matter of Mary's conception, & sundry other things, which no Council durst ever determine, for fear of offending the contrary factions dissenting about these things. Thus then, I hope, it appeareth out of that which hath been spoken, that by the note of unity and division, the Romanistes are found to be in error, and not we. What degree of unity is necessarily required in the true Churches of God; and what divisions may be found among the societies of Christians, and yet not cause them to cease to be the true Churches of God, I have sufficiently cleared in that part, wherein I showed, what is the nature of schism and heresy.   

CHAP. 43  
Of Universality.  
THe next note of the Church, is universality: concerning which many things have been spoken in the former part, touching the notes of the Church in general. Wherefore passing by those things, let us in this place observe only these few things following. First therefore to the Universality of the Church it is required, that it extend to all times, places, and sorts of men. Secondly, this Universality is not found in any one Church, limited either in respect of time or place. Thirdly, from hence it followeth, that it is no where found, but in that blessed number of Christians, that have been, are and shall be. Fourthly, it cannot be a note of the true Church, that is the multitude of men now living in the world, as being found in it; For that multitude is not universal, but limited in respect of time, being only the number of them, that live at one time, 
a Bellar. lib. 4. c. 7. de notis Ecclesiae nota. 4.  and may be limited also in respect of place: for it is not necessary, that the Church be in all places at one time, but it sufficeth if it be successively. Fiftly, universality may be a note of the true Church, in respect of particular societies of Christians, limited in time, and place, though not by having it, yet by demonstrating themselves, to pertain to the unity of that Church that hath it. This no particular Church can do, but by proving, that it holdeth the common faith once delivered to the Saints, without heretical innovation, or schismatical violation, of the unity and peace of the Christian world.  
This being the way for particular Churches to demonstrate themselves to be Catholic, by proving they hold the Catholic faith, it is easy from hence to conclude, that the reformed Churches are the Catholic Churches of God. First, for that, that being Catholic, as 
b Contra profanas haereticorum novitates.  Vincentius Lirinensis defineth it, which is and hath been holden at all times, and in all places, by all Christians, that have not been noted for novelty, singularity, and division; whatsoever hath been so received, we receive as the undoubted truth of God: neither is there any of the things which we impugn, and the Papists defend, that is Catholic, but they all carry the marks of novelty and uncertainty. Secondly, touching the communion the people of God should have among themselves, our adversaries shall never prove, that we have at any time given occasion of those breaches that now appear; But we will prove against them that they have, and so the note of Universality maketh nothing for them, or against us.  
Touching the name of Catholic, devised to express those both men, and societies of men, which hold the common faith without faction or division, I have spoken sufficiently in the former part, touching the notes of the Church, and so need not here to insist upon it. Thus have we run through the examination of the principal notes of the Church, assigned by our adversaries: but, because they add unto these certain other, I will briefly examine their proofs taken from thence, for themselves, or against us.   

CHAP. 44.  
Of the Sanctity of Doctrine; and the supposed absurdities of our profession.  
THese notes are, Sanctity and efficacy of doctrine, our own confession, miracles, and predictions, the felicity and infelicity of such as defend or impugn the truth; and lastly, the holy and religious conversation of the Professors of the truth. Let us take a view of these in such sort and order, as they are proposed by them. They place in the front the Sanctity and efficacy of doctrine.  
A liar (they say) should have a good memory; but surely our adversaries, of all the liars that ever were, have the worst memories: by reason whereof every second page of their writings, if not every second line, is a refutation of the first. Bellarmine divideth his tract of the notes of the Church, into two parts. In the first he showeth, what things are required in the notes of the Church, and there he saith, truth and Sanctity of doctrine is no note of the Church. In the latter, he doth particularly assign the notes, whereby he supposeth the Church may be known, and reckoneth truth, sanctity, and efficacy of doctrine, amongst the rest. But let us pardon him this oversight, and see how he proveth by this note, that we are not, and that their faction is, the true Church of God.  
Our doctrine is false, absurd, and unreasonable; and theirs, full of truth, reason, and equity: Therefore our Churches are not the true Churches of God, and theirs are. Both parts of the Antecedent of this argument we deny. For, he shall never be able to prove the absurdities he imputeth unto us; but we are able to demonstrate against him, that the whole course of Popish doctrine is most absurd, false and impious.  
But lest he should seem to say nothing, he produceth four instances, wherein he supposeth there is apparent and very gross absurdity. The first he proposeth in this sort: The Protestants teach, that a man is justified by special faith, whereby he persuadeth himself that he is just. Now than he reasoneth thus; When men begin to believe, either they are just, and then their faith justifieth not, being in nature after their justification, and finding them already just, when it beginneth; or else they are not just, and then special faith making a man believe he is just, is false, and so a man is justified by a lie. To this horned argument we answer, that special faith hath sundry acts, but to this purpose specially two: the one, by way of petition humbly entreating for acceptation and favour; the other, in the nature of comfortable assurance, consisting in a persuasion that that is granted, which was desired. Faith, by her first act, obtaineth and worketh our justification, and doth not find us just when we begin to believe: by her second act, she doth not actively justify, but finding the thing done, certifieth and assureth us of it, and so is no lying persuasion, as this lying companion is pleased to pronounce it to be. So then, special faith in her first act, which is a kind of petition, is before justification, and procureth or obtaineth it, but then she hath not the persuasion of it; in her second act, she presupposeth the thing done, and already obtained, and so truly persuadeth the believer of it, but procureth not the doing of it.  
The second palpable and gross absurdity of the Protestants doctrine is, that it is not lawful to say the Lords prayer. This the Cardinal proveth, because no man of the Protestants Religion can, without dissimulation, ask forgiveness of sins, which is one of the principal petitions of that prayer. This petition they cannot make, because they hold, that all right believing and justified men are without sin, and know themselves so to be; and therefore cannot be excusable from vile dissimulation, and mocking of God, in ask the remission of their sins. The impudency of this imputation is such, as I think all moderate Papists are ashamed of it. For, doth any of us think, that the justified man is void of all sin? Or is it consequent, if a man know himself to be justified, that then he may not ask remission of his sins? Do not many right learned and wise amongst themselves teach, that a man may 
a Alex. of Alice, joh. Bacon, Vega, Ambrose Catharinus, & d●…uers other, of whom see cap. 7.  be sure he is in state of grace, and justification, by the ordinary working of God's spirit? and do not all Papists think, that by special revelation men may be sure they are in state of grace, as Paul and sundry others were? Do all these teach, that men thus assured of their justification, know themselves to have no sin, & consequently, nothing whereof they should ask forgiveness? Surely, herein I think both they & we agree, that in the justified, the dominion of sin ceaseth, sin hath no longer dominion over them, & that proportionably the guilt of condemnation is taken away; but that there are still remainders of sin in them, not perfectly extinguished; & that, though while they remain in the state of justification, they ●…n not with full consent, to the excluding of grace, and subiecting of themselves to the guilt of condemnation, yet there are many sinful evils they run into, which subject them to God's displeasure, & for which he will not fail to judge them, if they judge not themselves. For the weakening & abolishing of these sinful evils, and the averting of that displeasure, wherewith God is displeased with men for them, the justified do pray unto God, which is, to ask forgiveness of sins, as in the Lord's prayer is meant. 
b Est poenitentia bonorum & humilium fidelium pene quotidiana, in quâ pectora tundimus, dicentes, dimitte nobis debita nostra, illa utique quae humanae fragilitati parua, tamen crebra, subrepunt. Aug. Seleucianae Epist. 109. oratio quotidiana, quam docuit Dominus, delet quidem quotidiana peccata, cum quotidie dicitur, dimitte nobis debita nostra. De civitate Dei, l 21 cap. 27.  For, the petition is understood of the sins of the servants of God, and such as are in state of grace, as Augustine teacheth. Thus than the justified man knoweth, that the dominion of his sins is taken away, and that the guilt of condemnation, whereunto they subject such as are under the dominion of them, is already removed, and therefore he doth not desire, nor ask forgiveness of sins in this sort: but the inherence of sin he acknowledgeth in himself, notwithstanding his justification, which still subiecteth him to God's displeasure, & punishments, accompanying the same. These things he desireth to be removed, and in this sense asketh forgiveness of sins.  
If it be replied, that the remission of the sins of the justified is full and perfect, and that therefore they that know themselves to be justified, cannot ask remission, which they know they have perfectly already; We answer, that the remission of the sins of the justified, is full and perfect, not for that they are already freed actually from the inherence of sin, and the displeasure of God disliking it, but because they have full title unto, & right in that mercy of God; which, as it hath already delivered them from the dominion & condemnation of sin, so it will in the end wholly free them, from the inherence of it, and the displeasure of God disliking it.  
His next allegation is more frivolous than the former. The Anabaptists, saith he, do most certainly & assuredly persuade themselves, that they are accepted of God, & therefore they have true faith, according to the doctrine of the Protestants, who define faith to be the assurance of the merciful goodness of God; yet do the Protestants deny them to be justified, unless they forsake their errors, and so by consequent do say, they have true faith, & yet are not justified; which is to affirm that they are just, & not just. To this we answer, that there is as great difference between true confidence and assurance, (which only is to be named faith) and that which is found in heretics, as between the joy and gladness that is fantastical, and is found in men dreaming, and that which is true and in men waking.  
That quietness of mind either proceedeth from senseless stupidity in men having cauterised consciences, though there be just cause of fearful apprehensions; or from the not finding or having any matter of condemning remorse: even as some men are touched with no grief, nor afflicted with any smart or pain, though no part be sound or well in them, because they are in a dead & senseless stupidity: and others feel not pain, because they are perfectly well. It is not therefore every assured confidence that is faith, but true confidence. Neither is it to be doubted, but that heretics do oftentimes confidently persuade themselves they please God, and think they embrace true piety, as men dreaming do persuade themseles they enjoy and possess all things, though they possess nothing. But as men waking know the things they apprehend, are so indeed as they apprehend them, and not in fancy only, as men sleeping are deluded: so 
c johan: Baconus lib. 3. dist. 30. q. 1. art. 2. ait, habentem charitatem posse certitudinaliter scirese esse in charitate.  true Christians know the persuasion they have of God's goodness towards them, groweth from due & just consideration, & not from deceivable fancy and imagination only, as in heretics it doth. This point is excellently cleared by 
d Part. 3. quaest. 61. membr. 7. art. 3.  Alexander of Hales, the first, and greatest of all the Schoolmen, whose reasons and proofs, that true Christians may be assured, they are in state of grace and acceptation with God, Bellarmine cannot answer.  
Thus we have seen the supposed absurd positions, wherewith the jesuit chargeth all Protestants in general. In the next place, he produceth such as are proper to the Lutherans; and in the last place, such as are peculiar to the Caluinistes. For thus it pleaseth him to term us, by these names of faction and division; whereas it is antichrist's pride that hath made all the breaches in the Christian world, and would have laid all waist if God had not preserved a remnant.  
The error wherewith he chargeth the Lutherans, is, that children, when they are baptised, have faith, hope, and love. Is this an error? are they justified, sanctified, and made the temple of the holy Ghost, when they are baptised; and have they neither faith, hope, nor love? doth not justification imply all these in it? But they have not the act of faith; Noah more they have of reason: have they not therefore the faculty of reason? This then is that which these men ●…each, whom it pleaseth these Antichristian sectaries odiously to name Luthe●…ans, namely, that children, when they are adopted, and made the sons of God, when they are justified and sanctified, are filled with the habits or po●…ntiall habilities of these virtues, and that they have the beginning, root, and seed of faith, hope, and love. For the farther clearing of this objection, read Kemnisius in his Examen of the Tridentine Council.  
The error of the Caluinists, touching absolute necessity, and that God is the author of sin, is but the imagination of the Romanists, as I have already sufficiently showed. For Calvin and we all detest both these absurdities.   

CHAP. 45.  
Of the Paradoxes and gross absurdities of Romish Religion.  
THus than the Paradoxes and gross absurdities, which this Cardinal adversary of God's true religion imputeth unto us, are but the fancies of his own idle brain. But, if we should enter into the examination of the several parts of their profession, it were not hard really to convince them, of the most senseless follies, that ever the world was acquainted with. But because it would be tedious and unseasonable, in this general controversy of the Church, to enter into the particular handling of things more fitly reserved to their own proper places; I will only touch some few things, that may seem to concern the whole frame and fabric of their Religion,  
They all hold at this day, that the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, is the rock on which the Church is builded; and that this is the difference between a Catholic and an heretic, that, though both believe many divine and supernatural truths, yet they build not themselves upon the same grounds of persuasion. For the Catholic builds himself upon the sure ground of the infallibility of the Churches chief Pastors' judgement: but the Heretic upon other things, yielding him satisfaction concerning the truth of that he believeth, whatsoever the judgement of the Pope be. 
a Papam in decreto fidei errare non posse, veritas certa & recepta est. etsi non de fide, propter multos Catholicos qui contrarium tenuerunt: ut Gers: Occam, Almaynus, omnes ferè Parisienses, & omnes qui concilium supra Papam esse credunt. Alph. Acastro Adrian: 6. & Durand. Stapleton contro: 3. q,4.  And yet the same men which thus teach, do say, it is no matter of faith, to acknowledge, or not to acknowledge, the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, and that a man may be a true Catholic, that thinketh the Pope may err.  
These two assertions are directly contradictory. The first they embrace, because they find the authority Papal to be the surest stay of all their false faith, and Antichristian profession: and the second they are forced unto, because they dare not condemn so many famous, renowned, and great Divines as have been of that opinion, as Durandus, Gerson, Cameracensis, Almain, Waldensis, and innumerable moe. By this their contradicting of themselves, not yet knowing whereon to ground their faith, it is evident they have no faith at all.  
Secondly, if we should grant them to have any faith, yet will it be found to be Sophistical, or merely humane. For the reason, ground, and cause of their persuasion, touching things Divine, is the testimony of the Church, infallibly led into all truth; and that there is a Church thus led into all truth, whose testimony is undoubtedly certain and true, they believe, because the Church telleth them so: as, if a man should believe the reports of such a man, because he is wise, faithful, and honest, and believe him to be so, only because he saith so.  
To avoid this Sophistical circulation, sundry of the Schoolmen do freely confess, that the ground of their faith is nothing else, but the multitude and consent of men, nations, and people agreeing in the profession of it; and consequently, that it is merely an humane persuasion, and that they have no faith at all; which always stayeth itself upon the certainty of the first truth,  
Thirdly they teach, that mortal men are never bound to give GOD thanks, for the greatest benefit that is bestowed on them in this world. Nay, that to give him thanks for it, were grievous sin. This is most evident; for the greatest benefit of all other is justification: but for this no man may give God thanks, because no man knoweth whether he hath received it or not, nor can assure himself of it without intolerable and inexcusable presumption. Nay, some of these seducers are not ashamed to write, that every man is bound to doubt of it, with so fearful doubting, as may cause trembling; applying that place of the Apostle to that purpose; Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Now I think, he which should come to God, and give him thanks for that, which, whether he hath received or not, he is so doubtful, that he trembleth for fear, should but mock God, and mistake his own meaning.  
Fourthly, they hold that Paul, and so many more, as knew certainly they were in state of justification, did sin damnably in saying the Lords Prayer, and that they did as foolishly, as if a man should come to God, and ask of him the creation of the world, which was made long ago.   

CHAP. 46.  
Of the efficacy of the Church's doctrine.  
THus were it most easy for us, to show in many other particulars, that the course of their doctrine is full of palpable absurdities. But let these few instances suffice, and let us pass from the sanctity of the Church's doctrine, to that the jesuit addeth touching the efficacy of it: where he affirmeth two things: the first, that heretics never convert any, from infidelity to the faith: the second, that the Church of Rome hath converted. This which the jesuit so confidently delivereth, is partly false, and partly to no purpose at all. For whereas he saith, heretics never convert any from infidelity to Christianity, the conversion of the Moscovites, by the Greek Church, at that time, when it was in his judgement heretical and schismatical, abundantly refuteth him, besides some other examples, that might be alleged.  
Touching the other part of his speech, that the Church of Rome hath converted many nations to the faith, it maketh nothing to the purpose. For we have already showed, that we doubt not, but the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome with more than Lucifer-like pride exalted himself, was notwithstanding the true Church of God; that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ, and by force thereof did convert many from error to the way of truth; yet was not the state of that Church such, but that a damnable faction of wicked ones was found in the midst of it, who, being the vassals of that cursed Antichrist, adulterated the truth of God, and brought his people into a miserable estate, holding men in worse than Babylonical captivity. These men the Romanists succeed at this day. For the clearing of this matter, see that which I have noted before to this purpose.   

CHAP. 47  
Of the Protestants pretended confession, that the Roman Church is the true Church of God.  
THe 
a Bellar. cap. 16 nota. 15.  next note, whereby Bellarmine endeavoureth to prove the Romish Synagogue to be the true Church of God, is our own confession. Surely if he can prove, that we confess it to be the true Church, he needeth not use any other arguments. Let us see therefore, how he proveth, that we confess the Roman Church to be the true Church of God. 
b In lib. contra Anabaptista●….  Luther, saith he, clearly yieldeth it; & Calvin, and others in effect acknowledge the same. This we deny: for, neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor any of us do acknowledge, that the Popish religion, is true religion; or the Romish faction, the Orthodox Church of God. It is true indeed, that Luther writing against the Anabaptists doth affirm, that the life of true Christianity was preserved in the midst of those Churches, wherein the Pope did formerly tyrannize; which thing we have more fully cleared before: But, that any part of that doctrine, the reformed Churches have rejected, was to be accounted the doctrine of the Church, or that those wicked ones, (in whose steps the Romanists at this day do insist, perverting the straight ways of God, and adulterating his heavenly truth) were lively members of the Church, Luther did never so much as dream.  
That which is alleged out of 
c Caluinus, inquit. Bellar. eodem cap. vocat Bernardum pium scriptorem: at certè papista suit Bernardus: & nemo est pius sine verâ fide, Idem probat ex Luthero & Philippo ib.  Calvin, touching Bernard, and other holy men, living & dying in the Roman Church, is to no purpose. For we never doubted, but that the Churches, wherein those holy men did live and die, were the true Churches of God, and held the saving profession of heavenly truth, though there were innumerable in the midst of them, that adulterated the same to their endless perdition; whose successors the Romanists are at this day. There is therefore a great difference to be made, between the Church wherein our Fathers formerly lived, and that faction of the Pope's adherents, which at this day resist against the necessary reformation of the Churches of God, and make that their faith and religion, which, in former times, was but the private and unresolued opinion of some certain only. In former times, a man might hold the general doctrine of those Churches, wherein our Fathers lived, and be saved, though the assertions of some men were damnable; Now it is clean contrary touching the present state of the Romish Church; For, the general & main doctrine, agreed upon in the Council of Trent, in sort as it is most commonly conceived, is damnable: but there are (no doubt) some of a better spirit, and have in themselves particularly a better conceit of things, than generally is holden. Formerly, the Church of Rome was the true Church, but had in it an heretical faction: now the Church itself is heretical, & some certain only are found in it, in such degree of Orthodoxy, as that we may well hope of their salvation. Thus then, this great objection taken, from our own confession, is easily answered.   

CHAP. 48.  
Of Miracles, confirming the Roman faith,  
THe 
a Cap. 14. not. 11.  next note of the Church, is, Gods own testimony, which he giveth of the truth, & sanctity, of the faith and profession it holdeth. This doubtless is the most absolute & excellent note of all other. For that must needs be the true Church, which holdeth the true faith and profession; and that the true profession, which God, that neither himself can be deceived, nor deceive others, doth witness & testify to be so. For who dare make any doubt, whether that be the true religion, or that the true Church, which the God of truth witnesseth to be so? Let us see, therefore, how God doth testify concerning the truth of religion, and the happy condition of them that profess it.  
Surely, this testification is of two sorts: the one by the inward operation of his enlightening spirit, satisfying our understandings in those things, which by nature's light we could not discern, and filling our hearts with joy and gladness, such and so great, as nothing within nature's compass can yield. For by this so great, happy, and heavenly an alteration, which we find in ourselves upon, and together with this receiving of this doctrine; which the spirit of truth doth teach us, he doth most clearly witness unto us, that it is heavenly indeed; and such as we could not have attained unto, but by divine revelation. The other kind of testification, is, when being desired by them, that teach and learn this doctrine, to give some outward testimony, that it is true, he doth some such thing for the good of them that receive it, or hurt of such as refuse it, as none but God can do. But because, partly by reason of the manifold illusions, wherewith Satan can, and often doth abuse men, making it seem unto them that those things are done which are not; and partly, because we do not exactly know, what may be done by the force of natural causes; 
b Ante approbationem Ecclesiae non est evidens, aut certum certitu dine fidei, de ullo miraculo, quod sit verum miraculum. Bellar. in eodem cap.  we cannot infallibly know, concerning any outward thing performed before our eyes, that it is in deed immediately and miraculously wrought by Gods own most sacred hands. This kind of testification is not matchable with the other: Nay, we cannot be infallibly assured of any thing done, that it is Gods own work, and in deed a miracle, unless this assurance grow out of the former testification. For we may justly fear some fraud, till finding, by the inward testimony of God's spirit, the truth of that for proof whereof this strange thing is done, we are assured it is the immediate and peculiar work of God. 
c Aug. de utilitate credendi cap. 16. m●…aculum, inquit, voco, quod arduum, aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet: qu●…dam solum faciunt admitationem: quaed●…m magnam gratiam benevolentiamque conciliant qualia suerunt Christi miracula. Hunc locum producit Scotus prolog sentent. quaest. de ●…tauo.  This assurance the quality of the things done, and the difference between the works of Satan which only cause admiration and wonder, and the miraculous works of God, that are full of gracious goodness, winning the hearts of such as see them, will greatly strengthen.  
To what purpose then (will some man say) served all the miracles that were done by Christ and his blessed Apostles? This doubt is easily cleared: for whereas the things then taught, were new, strange, and incredible to natural men, they would not at all have listened unto them, made inquiry after them, or search into them, had not the strange works that followed the publishers of them, made them think the things credible, that were accompanied with so strange attendants. Now while they gave heed to the things that were spoken, the Word was mighty in operation, and entered into them in such sort, that they discerned it was Gods own word, and that the way of salvation, which by it they were directed unto.  
Thus than we see, that miracles are no sure notes of the truth of Religion, nor certain mark to know the Church by, unless they be strengthened by some other means: not for that a miracle known to be so, is insufficient to testify of the truth of God; but because it is not possible infallibly to know, that the things which seem unto us to be miracles, be so in deed; unless being assured of the truth of that, for confirmation whereof they are wrought, we thereby be persuaded they are of God. All that hath been hitherto said, is confessed to be true, by the best learned Divines of the Roman Church. 
d Tom. 2. opuscul. tractat. 1. de conceptione virgin. 〈◊〉 c. 1.  Yea, Cardinal Caietan proceedeth so far, that he pronounceth, it cannot be certainly known, that those miracles are true miracles, which the Church admitteth and approveth, in the canonising of Saints, seeing the truth of them dependeth on men's report, that may deceive, and be deceived.  
Thus having declared what the use of miracles is, and how far they give testimony of the truth, let us see what our adversaries conclude from hence, for themselves, or against us. They have miracles for confirmation of their faith and Religion, and we have none: therefore they hold the true faith, and we are in error. For answer hereunto; first, we say, that the truth of Religion cannot infallibly and certainly be found out by miracles, especially in these last times; because, as Gerson noteth in his book De distinctione verarum & falsarum visionum, in this old age of the world, in this last hour, and time so near Antichrist his revelation, it is not to be marvailed at, if the world like a doting old man, be abused by many illusions, and fantasies most like to dreams.  
Secondly we say, that howsoever it may be, some miracles were done, by such good men as lived in the corrupt state of the Church, in the days of our Fathers; yet that is no proof of those errors which the Romanists maintain against us. For we peremptorily deny, that ever any miracle was done, by any in times past, or in our times, to confirm any of the things controversed, between them and us. 
e Fit aliquando in ecclesiàmaxima deceptio populi in miraculis fictis à sacerdotibus vel iis adhaerentibus propter lucrum temporale: talia extirpanda sunt, sicut ista extirpata sunt à Daniele. Lyra in 14 Danielis.  What credit is to be given to the reports of their miracles, they may easily conceive, in that in all the differences they have had amongst themselves, either in matters of opinion, or of faction, they have had contrary visions, revelations, and miracles, to confirm the persuasion of either side: as appeared in the differences touching Mary's conception, and in the times of the Anti-popes'. Whereupon Cajetan, writing to Pope Leo, about the controversy of Mary's conception, wisheth him not to suffer his judgement to be swayed, by show of miracles, and giveth many good reasons of the uncertainty, of finding out the truth by that means.  
Thirdly, whereas they say, we have no miracles, and therefore not the true faith and Religion; we deny both the antecedent and the consequent. For first, the restoring of the purity of religion in our age, hath not been, without wonderful demonstration of the power of God, to confirm the truth of our doctrine, and the equity of our cause, as may appear by that which is reported, 
f Tom. 2. opuscul. tractat 1. de conceptione virgins cap. 5. beata Brigitta sibi revelatum dixit, virginem praeservatam fuisse ab originali peccato: Catharina de senis. dixit sibi revelatum oppositum.  by 
g In Catalogo testium veritatis.  Illyricus, the English Martyrologue, and other histories of better credit, than those out of which they report their miracles. And besides we say, though we had no miracles, we are not thereby convinced of error. For the use of miracles was specially, if not only, in respect of infidels, as Cajetan showeth in the place above mentioned, out of 1 Corinthians 11. and the authority of Gregory, in his tenth Homily, and served to make the mysteries of God seem credible, to such as were wholly averse from them. So that now the faith being already generally planted & received in the world, and confirmed by the miracles done by Christ and his Apostles, and nothing being taught by us, but the same which was delivered by them in the beginning, nothing contrary to the confirmed and received doctrine of the Church of God then in the world, when those differences between us and our adversaries began, there is no reason they should urge us, to confirm our doctrine by miracles. If they require us to confirm our calling and Ministry, as being extraordinary, we say, it is not extraordinary, as hath been sufficiently cleared in the note of succession. That which Bellarmine addeth, that Luther and Calvine attempted to do miracles, but could do none, is but the lying report of his own companions, their sworn enemies, whose testimony in this case is not to be regarded.   

CHAP. 49.  
Of Prophetical Prediction.  
THe 
a Bellar. cap. 15. nota 12, in eodem lib.  next note of the Church, urged by them, is Prophetical prediction. The certain foreknowledge of future contingent things, is proper unto God, and therefore none can foretell such things before they come to pass, but they to whom God revealeth them: but that this kind of revelation is made only to them that are of the true Church, I think Bellarmine will not say. For than what shall we think of Balaam, and the Sibyls? so that prediction of future things is no certain, nor proper note of the true Church. But if it were, it would not help them, not hurt us. For, those men they speak of, that lived in the days of our fathers, & prophesied of things to come, were of the true Church, 
b As Grosted, Gers. Savanarola, and many other before mentioned.  and many of them did most certainly foresee, & foretell, the ruin of the Pope his estate, and the alteration, & reformation of the Church in our time, & gave most clear testimony unto that, which we have done. Neither is there any better proof of the goodness of our cause, than that that, which we have done in the reformation of the Church, was before wished for, expected, & foretold, by the best men that lived in former times, in the corrupt state of the Church.  
That which Bellarmine scornfully reporteth of Luther's false & lying prophecy, that if he continued but two years in preaching the Gospel, the kingdom of the Pope should be overthrown; shall (we doubt not) be found true, to the confusion of the enemies of God's truth & Religion, notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Jesuits to make up the breaches of Babylon, which must be thrown down, till not a stone be left upou a stone. 
c In jabel demonstr. certitudinis sacrarum literarum & Christianae religionis.  But that Luther foretold many things before they came to pass, wherein his predictions were found most true, we have the testimony of Melancthon, Illyricus, & diverse others.   

CHAP. 50.  
Of the felicity of them that profess the truth.  
THe next note of the true Church, assigned by Bellarmine, is the temporal felicity of them that are of it. It was but his private fantasy, that moved him to assign this note of the Church. For his fellows, the Divines of Rheims, in their annotations upon the fifth of Matthew, do utterly disclaim it, saying in express & precise words, We see then that the temporal prosperity of persons and countries, is no sign of better men, or truer Religion.  
But, let us suppose these petty Divines are deceived in this their judgement, (though if they be, we must condemn all the Primitive Christians, that were in the times of the ten bloody persecutions) and let us grant, that the Cardinal saith truly, that temporal felicity and prosperity is a note of the true Church and Religion, what doth he gain by it? surely nothing at all: for he is most blind, that seeth not the prosperity of all those Countries of Germany, Denmark, England, Scotland, and the like, where the reformed Religion is maintained; and the long life, & happy Reign of those Princes, that have most favoured and sought to advance the same, as of great ELIZABETH of famous memory, late Empress of England, etc. who as she was the great & glorious protector of the Reformed Churches, so was she the wonder of the world, in respect of the happy success she had in all things she took in hand, and the perpetual course of felicity, and prosperity, that ever attended her, notwithstanding the dangerous attempts of bloody miscreants, the hired slaves of the son of perdition. How the professors of this Religion, though fewer in number, forsaken & destitute of all worldly assurances, and being, by the falsehood & treachery of their bloody enemies, oftentimes brought as it were to nothing, in France & other places, have yet strangely, and indeed miraculously lifted up their heads again, to the terror and confusion of their proudest enemies; he that seeth not, is a stranger in the world. Wherefore I I will leave the consideration of this note to the indifferent Reader, not fearing any great prejudice, that can grow from thence against our cause.   

CHAP. 51.  
Of the miserable ends of the enemies of the truth,  
THe next is the miserable end of such as are enemies of Gods true Religion. It is true, that God hath oftentimes showed his judgements most clearly, against the wicked enemies of his truth and glory; so that in the end, the impiety of their former courses was made to appear, as we see in Herode, Arrius, Nestorius, and others: but that any such thing fell out to Luther, Caluine, or any of those worthy men Bellarmine is pleased in this place to slander, we utterly deny. And to the lewd and lying reports of Coclaeus, & Bolsecus, we oppose the testimony of junius, Melancthon, and others. And surely it was the world's wonder, that Luther opposing himself against the bloody Romanists, against whom no King nor Emperor in later times resisted, but he wrought his own overthrow, should notwithstanding live so long, die so peaceably, and be buried so honourably, as few of his rank have ever been.  
Touching Caluine, there were many witnesses of the manner of his sickness; but of his death, none but the worthy 
a junius animadvers. in Bellarm. controv. 2 lib. 4 c. 8.  Scofferius, whose true report, we oppose against the wicked and vile slanders of that base and branded runagate Bolsecus. That Zuinglius died in the field, with his Countrymen in defence of their lives, liberties, and Religion, is no certain note (as I take it) that his Religion was false: but rather an excellent proof, and demonstration, of the Christian magnanimity, and resolution, that rested in him.  

b Charles the fifth, that famous Emperor, formerly so fortunate in all his attempts, after he began to oppress the Duke of Saxony, the Landgrave, and others of the reformed Religion, prospered not, and was put to the w●…rse by one poor Duke, Maurice. Francis Spira, denying the truth of our Religion, which he had formerly processed, died in horrible despair: the woeful end of Saunders, that Antichristian Arch traitor, is well known to all men: the overthrow of the Invincible Navy in 88, and the miserable ends of so many Traitors in the days of ELIZABETH, beside t●…e late Sulphurian and hellish miscreants, perishing in their sins, having blown up all good opinion any man might have had of such companions.  How infortunate they have been in their attempts, how unhappy in their ends, that have most opposed themselves against the truth of that Religion, which we profess, we are able to produce many examples.   

CHAP. 52.  
Of the Sanctity of the lives of them that are of the true Church.  
THe last note of the Church, assigned by them, is the sanctity, holiness, and good conversation, of such as are of it. In assigning of this note, as in some of the former, they show how sweetly they conspire and agree together, For Cardinal Allen, in his preface, before his book of Purgatory, confesseth, that by the guile and crafty conveyance of our common enemy the devil, falsehood is often so cloaked in shadow and shape of truth, and the masters thereof make such show of virtue and godly life, that you would think it had no affinity with vice, nor origine of man's misbehaviour at all. So did he cover the wicked heresies of Manicheus, Martion, Tatianus, and the like, with a feigned flourish of continency and chastity. So did he overcast the enemy of God's grace Pelagius 
* Aug. Ep. 120.  with the appearance of all gravity, constancy, and humility. And so hath he always, where craft was requisite to his intent, made show of a simple sheep, in the cruel carcase of a wily wolf, transfiguring himself into an Angel of light, And that his scholars play the like parts, our Master Christ, of his singular love, gave his flock this watchword, for a special proviso; 
a Math. 7. 15  Take heed of false Prophets, that come in sheep's vesture, but within are ravening Wolves. So that in all cloaked heresies, men must have an eye to the fruit of the doctrines preached, and not only, or principally, to the lives of such as teach them, by the outward appearance whereof, it is not always safe to judge.  
This the Rhemists do more fully express, in their annotations upon this place, saying, the fruits that heretics are known by, are division from the whole Church, division amongst themselves, inconstancy in doctrine, and such like: and that these are lightly common to all heretics, but that there are some other, more peculiar to certain, as wickedness of life, and doctrine, directly tending to corruption of good life, in all states of men.  
Thus than we see, that appearing sanctity, gravity and godliness, are no sure, certain, infallible, and perpetual notes, to know the true professors by, from such as err and are deceived. But passing by this their oversight, in that they make such things to be notes of the Church, as are not proper unto it, nor do not clearly distinguish it from heretics; let us see what they endeavour to prove against us, or for themselves, by the force and evidence of this note.  
Thus therefore they reason; The chief guides of the reformed Churches, and professors of the reformed religion, are apparently wicked, and godless men, of vile and scandalous conversation, and the people wicked, yea much worse than they were in the Papacy; but their priests, Prelates, Monks, Friars and people, are holy and religious; therefore the truth of religion is theirs. This imputation of wickedness, Bellarmine fasteneth upon Wickliff and Luther. and from them descendeth to the people.  
Touching Wickliff, it is a most impudent and shameless challenge: 
b Lib. 1. doctrinae pra●…ssiua 8. tom. 1.  for Waldensis showeth, that his conversation was such, and his manner of life so shadowed with shows of virtue, that he thereby prevailed much: & thereupon showeth at large, that it is not safe to discern the truth of religion, by the appearance of sanctity, and good conversation of them that profess it; and that heretics have and often do cloth themselves, with the robes and garments of seeming virtue and piety. But hath he no proof, that Wickliff was a wicked and godless man? Doubtless he hath, and that very pregnant. 
c Lib. 2 doctrinallfidei. c. 6.  For Waldensis reporteth upon an uncertain rumour, that a Bishop of Salisbury, in a very great and solemn assembly of the Clergy of the Provence of Canterbury, affirmed, that Wickliff affected the Bishopric of Worcester; which when he obtained not, he grew discontented, and so became an enemy to the Catholic Church, impugned the different degrees of Ministry, and the dignity of Bishops. If this kind of proof be good, innocence itself will not be able to abide the trial.  
Wherefore passing from Wickliff, against whom it seemeth our adversaries, are able to say little; let us see what are those grievous crimes, wherewith they charge Luther. First, they say, he began to impugn the sale and merchandise of indulgences, not led by any just reason, moving him to dislike them, but because the publishing of them was not committed to the Friars of his order but to the Friar's predicant. This vile slander hath no better ground than the former against Wickliff. For who will regard the malicious report of Coclaeus, his sworn enemy, against the whole course of things that passed in those times, and the clear evidence of the truth itself. 
d Histor. lib. 13.  Guicciardine reporteth, that the abuses in the merchandise of those pardons were so intolerable, that the pardon sellers set the price of redemption, and deliverance of souls out of Purgatory, as a stake at dice, to be played for, in every Inn and Ta●…erne where they came: that all good men disliked much this impious and irreligious abusing the people of God, and that thereupon Luther began his opposition against them, not without the great applause of the Christian world.  
But to make it most clear to all not wilfully blinded, that no such sinister respect moved Luther to impugn the Kingdom of the Roman Antichrist; It is certain, he had, before this occasion was offered unto him, cleared the doctrine of Original sin, of Nature and Grace, of the difference between the spirit and the letter, the Law and grace, of freewill and the like, which are the main grounds of all that doctrine, wherein he dissenteth from the Romish Synagogue.  
But (saith Bellarmine,) Coclaeus reporteth, that Luther in the disputation at Lipsia between him & Eckius said, his opposition against the Pope & Popery, was never begun out of any desire of God's glory, nor would ever have any good end. This is is a devilish slander: for Luther said no such thing, but that this disputation was not begun on his adversary's part, out of any desire of the glory of God, or the good of his Church, and that therefore it would never have any good end.  
That which he writeth to them of Strawesborough, that he would willingly be of their opinion, and deny the real presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament, if the evidence of truth did not convince him, and force him to be otherwise minded, for that he might thereby disadvantage his adversaries of the Romish faction, no way proveth that, which Bellarmine intendeth. For this is all he saith: Let no man think, that it is wilfulness, and a prejudicate opinion, that maketh me descent from Zuinglius, and the rest; for in my affection and desire, I should rather Wish to consent with them in this point, then with the Romanists, (whose manifold damnable errors I detest,) if it were affection, and not reason, and the clear evidence of truth, that must prevail in things of this kind. 
e An cum Apostoli ungebant infirmos & cu●…abant, illa unctio fuerit sacramentalis, duae sunt opiniones: 1, negativa: 2. affirmativa: posterior interpretatio, inquit Bellar. eo nomine mihi gratior est, quòd videam Lutherum, Caluinum & Chemnicium, esse in priore opinion. Bellar. 2. tom. 5. contr. l. 1. c. 2.  Indeed the Romanists are wont to temper their opinions, and sway their judgements, accordingly as they find, they may most advantage their own cause, and disadvantage their adversaries. As appeareth by 
f Bellar. l. 1. de sacramento ordinis. cap. 5.  Bellarmine, who in the question, whether the eminent degree of Bishops above Presbyters, be a distinct order of Ministry, doth incline to the opinion of them that think it is, contrary to the judgement of the best learned of the Schoolmen; for that thereby he may the more easily impugn the opinion of them that think, Bishops and Presbyters to be all one, iure divino.  
That which followeth, is as little to the purpose as the rest. It is true, that in the assurance of the truth he professed, and the certain victory of the same over all the enemies of it, of what kind, degree, or sort soever, he esteemed all the greatness of the malicious adversaries thereof, as vile as the dirt underneath his feet, though otherwise out of this comparison with the truth, and opposition to it, he respected them as the greatness of their place did require. That he saith, he regardeth not a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Augustine's, if they should be produced, proveth not, that he thinketh them to be against him in the cause of religion, or that he contemneth them, but that no authority of men or Angels, shall ever remove him from that he knoweth to be the truth of God, as the Apostle requireth the Galathians, If an Angel come from heaven, and preach otherwise to them, than they had been taught, to hold him accursed: not as if the holy Angels in heaven, now confirmed in grace, 
g Galat. 1. 3.  could either err themselves from the truth of the Gospel, or pervert others, or that they should be vilely esteemed of, in the messages they bring unto us; but that, if it were possible for them to err, and mislead others, we should not listen unto them, but hold them accursed.  
That out of his book of corner masses, is as devilish a slander as the rest. For, Luther doth not say, he learned of the devil, that the Mass is impious and wicked, but that having learned that in the school of Christ, the devil thereupon tempted him to despair, for that he had so often said such Masses, and thereby dishonoured God, and misled his people: what this can prove against him, I see not.  
That he was of a violent spirit, we deny not: nay himself gloried in it: that he had an heroical spirit, made to contemn the fury and folly of the Romanists; neither had he been fit to oppose against enemies of this kind, if he had been of another spirit. That he was carried too much with the violent stream of his passions, we impute it to the infirmity of flesh and blood, and the perverseness of the manifold adversaries he found in those times. Neither was this the peculiar or proper fault of Luther: for who knoweth not, that Hierome, and Chrysostome, and divers other lights of the World were not without their blemishes in this kind.  
That the Tigurines, Gesnerus, and others, disliked the distempered passions of Luther, is not to be marvelled at; or that there were some differences amongst them; seeing the like were in former times, between 
h How many unkindnesses passed between Chrysostome & Epiphanius, who knoweth not? Did not the one refuse to pray with the other? did not the one challenge the other for manifold breaches of the Canons? did not the one, inv●…ighing against the other, profess that he hoped be sh●…uld never d●…e a bishop? and the other that he sh●…uld never c●…me alive into his country? Socrat. l. 6. c. 13  Epiphanius, and Chrysostome; 
i The invectiu●…s of Hier. and Ruffinus one a 'gainst another, are extant, and Aug. Epist. wherein he sorroweth for their bitter dissensions  Hierome, Ruffinus, 
k The Epistles of Aug. and Hier. which the one wrote unto the other, show what differences were between them.  Augustine, and others.  
From Luther, the jesuit cometh to the people of our profession, pronouncing that there are many wicked amongst his consorts, but that there are none good, amongst those that are of the Reformed Religion. Thus, with the breath of his mouth, he thinketh to blow up all that standeth before him. But how proveth he that he saith? Our own confession, saith he, is proof enough. But against this pretended and imagined confession, we protest, and profess before God, men and Angels, that we never thought, much less spoke or wrote any such thing. If Luther in his sermons complain, that the world is every day worse than other, who was there ever found that used not words of the like complaint? If he say, that the men of the world abuse the grace of God unto want oneness, and the more and better means they have, be the worse, what strange thing, saith he? Did not S. Paul find, that, when he magnified the riches of the grace of God, and showed, that where sin hath abounded, grace more abounded, many took occasion to say; It is good to continue in sin, that grace may abound. Doth he not charge the Corinthians, that there 
m 1 Cor. 5. 1.  was fornication amongst them, and such as was not once named among the Gentiles? that they went to law one with another, and that under Infidels, to the slander of the Gospel of Christ? that there was not a wise man amongst them to interpose himself, and stay these their proceedings one against another?  
That which is alleged out of Smidelinus, tendeth to the same purpose, and requireth no other, nor farther answer. Touching the judgement of Erasmus, it was so variable and uncertain, in things of this kind, that neither they, nor we, can take any advantage by it. But for the extraordinary sanctity of the Romish Priests, Friars, Monks, and other irreligious amongst them, whereof they insolently boast, and brag, if we should stir the 
o De Silvest 〈◊〉 2. legitur, quod diabolo fecit homagium. qu●…m etiam in papatu existens c●…nsuluit. Occam 〈◊〉 part 1. cap. 2 sicut legitur in chronicis johan. 3. erat venator & totus lubricus, adeo quod foeminas publicè tenebat: propter quod quidam Cardinalium & Romanorum scripserunt occultè, & cito imperatori Saxonum, ut Scandalo compatiens Ecclesiae Rome, sine mo●… properaret. Hoc papa percipiens, johan, diacono Cardinali tanquam huius facti conciliatio. nasum, & alteri johan: subdiacono, qui literas scripsit, manum amputari fecit. Occam 1. part. l. 5. c. 5. Stephanus corpus formosiè sepulchro in concilium protractum, & papali veste exutum, & laicali indutum, & abscissis duobus digitis dextrae manus eius, in Tyberim praecipitari fecit. Sigeb in Chron. fol. 113. Anno 902. Alii idem narrant de Sergio, erat quidem pontifex qui nullum Deum credens, universum infidelitatis culmen excessit: alius professus est se non credere immortalitatem animae: qui mortuus, eidem, cui hoc aperuerat, apparuit, manifestans se, quam mortalem crediderat, tum maximo cum damno et perpetuis cum ignibus immortalem experiri. Picus Theor. de fide et ordine credendi.  dunghills of their own histories, wherein the lives of these Saints are described unto us, the stench of them would infect the air: if we should make report of that we read in Authors not partial, men would stop their ears, and pronounce against us, that such things ought not once to be named amongst men. This is so evident, that Bellarmine in his preface before his books of the Pope, is not ashamed to make the wickedness, and prodigious villainies of the Popes, a proof and demonstration of the Sanctity of that Chair in which they sit, and of God's provident care of it. Which argument, though it seem strange at the first sight, yet it is in 
1 Rom. 3. 8.  his judgement very forcible, and unanswerable; For that such, and so great hath been the wickedness of the Roman Bishops, that, if God had not strangely 
n 1 Cor. 6. 1. 5.  upholden it, the Sea and Chair, in which they sit, had long since sunk down into hell. Thus I hope, it appeareth to all, not wilfully blinded, that this note of the sanctity of the lives of the Professors of Religion, maketh very little for them, or against us. And thus have we run through, and examined all the notes of the Church, by which they desire to be tried.    

AN APPENDIX, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY PROVED, THAT THE LATIN, OR WEST CHURCH IN WHICH THE POPE TYRANNISED, W AS, AND CONTINUED A TRVEORTHODOXE AND PROTESTANT CHURCH; AND THAT THE DEVISERS AND MAINTAINERS OF ROMISH ERRORS and superstitious abuses, were only a faction in the same, at the time when Luther, not without the applause of all good men, published his propositions against the profane abuse of Papal indulgences.   

To the Reader.  
THis Appendix, when first published by the Author, contained only some brief quotations, upon several points of difference, between us and the Papists; showing that the now Romish faith, was never generally received in the Western or Latin Church, in the days of our Fathers; no not then, when the dark mist of Popery seemed to have overshadowed all things. The Author not long before he died, intended an inlargment of it, in the several particulars; but being prevented by death, lived not to finish what he had begun. So much as was finished of it coming to my hands, I thought myself bound in duty not to deprive the world of. I have therefore so far adventured to hazard the credit of the Author, as to make it public, though something imperfect, and wanting that lustre, and beauty, which it might have received from the last hand of the Author, if God had lent him longer life. As it is, it may serve, if for no other use, yet for this, as a platform to show, what might be done in this kind and what the Author intended. I make no question but a favourable Reader will look on it, as we use to look on the foundations of stately buildings, the finishing whereof hath been hindered by some fatal accident; the very ruins whereof breed in us astonishment and amazement, while we consider, not what they are, but what they might have been. The twelve first chapters of this Appendix are enlarged, the rest remain as they were formerly set forth. The quotations contained in that part which hath been added, I have compared and amended if any where they differed, from the Originals whence they were taken: and the truth of them I am able to justify. If the world shall reap any benefit by the work, or if I may be thought by my pains bestowed on it, to have performed that duty, which I owe unto the memory of a dear father, I have my desire, and so I rest.  
Yours in all due respect. NATHANIEL FIELD.   

AN ANSWER TO Mr Brerelyes objection concerning the Mass, publicly used in all Churches at LUTHERS appearing.  
WHereas to silence our adversaries, who never cease challenging us for departing from the faith of our Fathers, and the doctrine of the Church, wherein they lived and died; I affirmed in my 3● Book, that none of those erroneous positions, which at this day they of the Romish faction do defend, and we impugn, were ever constantly received in the days of our Fathers, as the doctrine of that Church wherein they lived and died: but only doubtfully disputed of, as things not clearly resolved, or broached only as the private fancies and conceits of particular men: and for proof hereof heretofore added an Appendix, wherein I produced the testimonies of sundry worthy Pastors and guides of the Church in every age; teaching as we do, touching the points now controversed; It hath pleased some of the adverse faction, to take exceptions to the same my assertion. I will first therefore set down such objections, as they have made, and answer the same, and then enlarge my former proofs, that all that will not be wilfully blind, may see the truth of that which I affirmed.  
The principal man that showed himself in this kind is M ● Brerelie, the Author of the book entitled the Protestant Apology. And after him the author of the answer to Mr D Whites way to the Church. M Brerelie in the first tract pag. 139, hath these words. It is beyond belief and very wonderment, that D Field, a man otherwise grave, and learned, should not be abashed by his public writing, so confidently to aver, of our so many Christian Catholic Churches, dispersed through the world at Luther's first appearing; that they were all of them the true Protestant Churches of God. And that they which then believed those damnable errors which the Romanists now defend, were a particular faction only, contrary to the confession of so many learned Protestants. And in his 2 tract, cap. 2. sect. 2, pag. 329. he hath these words. In this undue sort doth Illyricus place in his catalogue of Protestant witnesses, Gerson, Aquinas, and sundry of our Schoolmen, all of them undoubtedly known Catholics; and we could give like farther example of S. Bernard, Erasmus, Mirandula, and sundry other known Catholic Writers, whom our adversaries in like manner do unjustly claim to be of their Church. D Field a prime adversary (and for such, was together with the Bishops and Deans, summoned to the conference before his Majesty in januarie 1603, as appeareth by the said conference) forbeareth not in these straits to enforce the like undue and intolerable bold claim to the many Catholics (a particular faction of them only excepted) dispersed through the world, at, and next before Luther's first appearing. And in his third Book of the Church, cap. 12. pag. 85, saith, nothing is done in the Protestant reformation, which Camaracensis, Picus, Savanarola, Gerson, and innumerable other worthy guides of God's Church, long before thought 〈◊〉 fit to be done. And pag. 330, Mr Brerelie addeth these words. D. Field of the Church l. 3. c. 6. saith, it is most fond & frivolous that some demand, where our Church was before Luther began. For we say it was where now it is, and that it was the known & apparent Church in the world, where all our Fathers lived & died. And most exceeding boldly he there farther saith, none of the points of false doctrine & error, which the Romanists now maintain, & we condemn, were the doctrines of that Church, constantly delivered, or generally received, but doubtfully broached, and factiously defended by some certain only. And book the third, cap. 8. pag. 76, he proceedeth yet farther with like incredible boldness, saying, we must farther believe, that all the Churches in the world, wherein our Fathers lived & died, were the true Churches of God, & that they that taught the errors the Romanists now defend against us, were a faction only, as they that denied the resurrection, urged circumcision, & despised the Apostles of Christ, were in the Churches of Corinth & Galatia. Who can without amazement and wonder, behold this incredible boldness? For was not the Mass, wherein are comprehended so many chief points of our Religion, the public liturgy solemnly celebrated in all Churches, at Luther's first appearing? Was then the external face of religion, any other than our now professed Catholic faith? Was protestancy then so much as in being? No marvel then, if our adversaries doubt not to make undue and pretended claim to the ancient Fathers, seeing they blush not to affirm the same, exceeding boldly & untruly, of the time in which Luther first began, which is yet within the memory of this present age. Others affirm the Church to have been then invisible, directly against that, which M. D. Field next before so boldly affirmed; into which bold assertion he ventured, only thereby to avoid the other absurd paradox of the supposed Churches being invisible, which so many learned Protestants have also disclaimed heretofore; as on the other part, they who so affirmed their Churches then being invisible, affirmed the same, as enforced thereunto, in regard of the known pregnant untruth, of M. D. Fields other assertion, in affirming the Church to have been then known & visible. Upon such dangerous rocks are our adversaries driven in their thus sailing between Scylla & Charybdis  
here we see is much ado, as if some thing had been written by me, that were beyond all belief, and a very wonderment. But what strange thing is it, that is thus wondered at? Surely it is nothing else, but that I have affirmed; that all those Christian Catholic Churches, in the West part of the world, where the Pope formerly tyranized, and where our Fathers lived and died, were the true Protestant Churches of God; and that the maintainers of those errors, superstitious abuses, & Papal tyranny, which we dislike, were in that they maintained, the same, and so far forth as they maintained any of them, but a faction only in those Churches. If this be all, I doubt not but so to make good what I have written, that Mr Brerelie shall in the end wonder at himself, why he contradicted it. For if by a Protestant Church, we mean a Church believing & teaching in all points as Protestants do, and believing & teaching nothing but that they do, it shall be proved & demonstrated, that the Latin or West Church, wherein the Pope tyrannised before Luther's time, was & continued a true Protestant Church. For the Church that then was, believed & taught all that we do, and nothing else; it condemned those profane & superstitious abuses which we have removed; and groaned under that tyranny, the yoke whereof we have now cast off; howsoever there were many in the midst of her, that taught otherwise, that brought in & maintained, intolerable, & superstitious abuses, & sought to advance the Pope's overruling greatness and supremacy. But if by a Protestant Church they understand, a Church that not only complaineth of Papal tyranny, and usurpation, & showeth her dislike of the same, but that hath cast off the yoke, and that not only disliketh abuses, but removeth them, & that not only teacheth all necessary & saving truth, but suffereth none within the compass of her jurisdiction to teach otherwise: we confess that no part of the Western Church, was in this sort a Protestant Church, till a reformation was begun of evils formerly disliked. But M Brerelie saith, protestancy was not in being before Luther's time, & that therefore the Christian Catholic Churches, wherein our Fathers lived & died, could not in any sort truly be said to be Protestant Churches. Whereunto our answer is, that ifby protestancy be meant, the believing of all that, and that only, which they that are now named Protestants do believe, & the professing of a dislike of such abuses, & Papal usurpations, as they have now cast off: it was in being many ages, and long before Luther was borne; and all those Christian Catholic Churches, wherein our Fathers lived & died were Protestant Churches. But this Master Brerelie thinketh unaunswerablie to confute, because the Mass, where so many points of the Romish Religion are contained, was the public liturgy solemnly celebrated in all Churches, at & before Luther's appearing, and the external face of religion was no other, than the now professed Roman faith. For answer whereunto, I will first show that the using of the Mass as the public liturgy, is no good proof of that Master Brerely undertaketh to prove. Secondly I will make it to appear, that the external face of Religion before Luther's time, was not as Master Brerelie would make us to believe, the Roman faith now professed.  
Touching the Mass four things are to be observed. The name, The canon itself, The sinister consecrations & manifold abuses in practice besides and contrary to the words of the canon, & the intendment of them that first composed the same; and lastly sundry apocryphal vain superstitious & idle things crept into the public service of the Church.  
Touching the first it is known, that the celebration of the holy mystery, & sacrament of the Lords body & blood, had the name of Mass, from the dismissing of all non-communicants before the consecration began. So that none stayed, but such as were to communicate. The ancient custom was, saith Cassander in his consultation, that none might be present at the consecration, but such as were to communicate. For, as Chrysostome showeth, as they 
Art. 24. p. 213  that were not baptised might not stay, no more might they that were impure & guilty of any grievous sin, so that they were not fit to communicate. 
b Rhen. annot. in Tertull. de corona militis.  And to this purpose was that most ancient observation of all Churches, that by the voice of the deacon, missa seu missio denunciabatur, catechumenis & non communicantibus ante consecrationem, that is, that the Catechumen & all non-communicants were dismissed before the consecration; the deacon crying out with a loud voice, si quis non communicet exeat; si quis non communicet det locum, if any communicate not, let him depart. So that hence it came, that the name of Mass was given to sundry parts of the liturgy; for whereas all might be present at some part of the divine service; that part was called missa catechumenorum, for that the catechumen might be present at it; and it was ended before their dismissing. But the other part, which consisteth in the consecration, oblation, & participation, is called missa fidelium; for that the faithful only who were fit to communicate, might be present at it, all non-communicants being first dismissed & sent away. This maketh against the present abuse of the Roman Church wherein all stay, and yet none communicate but the priest alone; & many are made believe, it is sufficient to be present, though they do not prepare themselves, so as to be fit, to communicate; nay oftentimes such as would communicate are repelled. This was the fault of some, in the Church wherein our Fathers lived, but not without the dislike of the better sort. And therefore, as Cassander telleth us, Henricus de Gorrichem in tractatu de effectu missae propos. 23, reprehendeth certain pastors of his age, who could hardly endure, that some of their Parishioners, desired every Sunday to receive the Sacrament, though they lived laudably. And he addeth, that seeing the same devotion that was in the Primitive Church, when men communicated every day, is still to be found in some, the Pastor should not dislike it, if any amongst the common people be so devout, as to desire to communicate every Sunday, and some other days also. So that there wanted not of the people in former times, that desired to communicate aswell as to be present, nor of the guides that encouraged them so to do; and therefore hitherto nothing can be proved against my assertion. Wherefore let us come to the Mass itself;  
Amongst all the Sacraments of the Church, that is the principal, saith 
c Rational div●…. l 4. 〈◊〉. 1.  Durandus, that is celebrated upon the table of the most holy Altar, representing that Feast, & banquet of the Church, wherein the father upon the return of his lost son, caused the fatlings to be slain, & setteth out the bread of life, & the wine which wisdom hath mixed for her friends & lovers. These mysteries, & this holy Sacrament, Christ then instituted, when he made his new and last testament, disposing to his heirs a kingdom, as his father had disposed to him, that upon his Table they might eat & drink in his kingdom, that which the Church hath consecrated, for as they were at supper, jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, blessed it, broke it, & gave it to his Disciples, saying, take, & eat, this is my body which shallbe given for you, do this in the remembrance of me. The Apostles following this institution, began to celebrate these mysteries for the same end that Christ had expressed, keeping the same form in words, and using the same matter of bread & wine that he did, as the Apostle witnesseth to the Corinthians, where he saith, what I have received of the Lord, I have delivered unto you, who the same night that he was betrayed, took bread, etc. and added to the form of words used by Christ, the Lords prayer. And S. Peter is said in this sort to have celebrated first of all in the East parts. Wherefore in the beginnings of the Church, these mysteries were celebrated in another sort then since they have been. Afterwards, the reading of some parts of sacred scripture, & particularly of the Epist. & Gospel was added. Pope Celestinus instituted the introitus, & other things were added at other times, & by others. Howsoever this is certain, there were, & are at this day, diverse forms of celebrating this mystery. For the forms of the East Churches are different from those of the West, & it appeareth that anciently in France, Spain, & sundry parts of Italy, they had other forms then now are used, more like to those 
d Durand. rational 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the East, which being in some things enlarged and perfitted by S. Ambrose, were called the Ambrosian forms of divine service. These continued till the time of Charles the great. For though Gregory, as Io. Diaconus tells us, taking the forms of celebrating mass which Gelasius had composed, adding somethings, detracting others, & changing others, brought in a new form which the Church of Rome followed, yet the other churches of the west retained the old forms, which they had received from their ancestors. And to this purpose it is, that Berno Augiensis testifieth, that amongst the monuments of his Abbey, there was found an old ●…all much different from those of Rome. But Charles the great, sought to bring the Provinces subject to his Empire, to receive the Roman form by threats & punishment. We read, saith Durandus, in the life of blessed Eugenius, that while 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the form of divine service which was named the Ambrosian form, was more followed & observed by the Church, then that of Gregory, Adrian the Pope called a council, in which it was ordered, that the Gregorian form should everywhere be observed. To the observation whereof Charles the Emperor by threats and punishments, forced the Clergy in sundry Provinces, burning the old Ambrosian books. And further he addeth, that Saint Eugenius coming to a certain council called about this business, finding that the Bishops were gone, and the council ended three days before his coming, induced the Pop●… to call the Bishop's back again, which he did, and the council being again renewed, it was agreed on by common consent, that both the missals, both that of Saint Ambrose and the other of Saint Gregory, should be laid on the altar of Saint Peter the Apostle, that the doors of the Church should be fast locked, and sealed with the seal of sundry Bishops, and that then they should spend the whole night in prayer, beseeching God that he would show by some sign, which of these he would have to be observed in his Church; and in the morning entering, they found that of Gregory torn in pieces, and scattered all over the Church, the other opened, but yet still lying entire and whole on the altar; of which accident they made this construction, that that of Gregory was to be used every where through the world, the other only at Milan in S. Ambroses' own Church, and so saith Durand, it is used unto this day. For by the help of Charles the great, that of Ambrose was disused in many Churches, & that other brought in place.  
Only the Christians of Spain admitted not this alteration, notwithstanding all these endeavours, till the time of Gregory the seaventh, what time they were constrained by Alphonsus the sixth to give way, which they did most unwillingly, and not without tears. 
f Archiep. Tolet. lib. 6. c. 25. & 26.  Rodericus reporteth, that when this alteration was urged by the Pope's legate, and the king, there being an assembly of all the states; the Clergy, Nobility, and people resisted mainly against it; whereupon in the end it was resolved, that that matter should be tried by cumbate, and one being chosen for the new, and another for defence of the old, he that undertook the defence of the old prevailed, which caused a great rejoicing among the people. But the king not regarding this trial, nor thinking it to be any sufficient clearing of the matter questioned, it was agreed that both the books should be cast into the fire, that that which should be preserved in the fire might be allowed as best, which accordingly being done, the book of the old form came forth untouched, and the other was consumed: yet would not the king be persuaded to desist, but threatening death, and utter confusion to all gainsayers, made this innovation in his Church and kingdom, all his subjects weeping and sorrowing, and then began the proverb Quo volunt reges vadunt leges. So that we see, howsoever our adversaries would make the simple believe, that things were ever as now they are, yet there have been great alterations in the form of divine service, and it is not to be doubted, but that the ancient forms as different from the latter, were more pure and sincere than they that are now used.  
They that have diligently looked into the monuments of antiquity, saith Rhenanus, upon tertullian's book de corona militis, do think, that anciently the mass began when the priest did say, The lord be with you, & immediately after, Lift up your hearts, and Let us give thanks to our Lord God, and again, It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto thee holy Father almighty and everlasting God, through our Lord jesus Christ. And that then immediately followed these words. Who the night before he suffered taken bread etc. For they think, that howsoever the latter part of the Roman canon now used, ipsissimam prae se serat antiquitatem, & admirabilem spiret sanctitatem, that is, appears to be ancient and breathing forth nothing but admirable sanctity, yet the former parts of it do not so; and that they were composed by Scholasticus, not long before the time of Gregory the first, as himself telleth us. What is to be thought of this Scholasticus, whether he were a man so named, or whether Gregory more to express unto us the quality of him that composed the canon, that he was but a man though a professor of learning, and that therefore he might add 
All that followeth after the Lord's prayer, and that immediately it is named Embolismus, as added afterwards.  the Lords prayer unto that form, that had but a man for the composer of it, I leave uncertain, because some think it was composed by Gelasius, and that he was styled Scholasticus before he was Bishop. But this is certain, that some things have been added to the canon, since the time of Gregory, and that in the celebration of the holy mysteries, so many tautologismes and barbarismes are found, that ingenuous men abhor from the celebration thereof, as Platina testifieth, and so many & so gross corruptions are crept into the service of the Church, that all good men long since and yet still complain of it. 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Claudius' Elpen●…us affirmeth, that the public services are full of old fables, and allea ●…geth Petrus abbess Cluniacensis, l. 5. cap. 29. saying, that the songs & hymns of the Church had very many toys, as namely a hymn in the praise of Saint 〈◊〉; in the which though reading it over somewhat hastily, and not staying to search all, yet he found at the least four & twenty lies. He allegeth likewise Petrus Pictaviensis, epist. 31. reproving a false & fond hymn in the pra●…se of Maure running upon the waters; and Cardinal Cameracensis de re●…●…lesie, consideration the third, advising the council of Constance to take oder, that unsound writings might be no longer read in the Church, and the oration of Picus Mirandula to the same purpose; and Volateran complaining, that in the daily prayers there are read manifest lies; to whom he addeth Adrian the sixth afterwards Pope, misliking superstitious forgeries in holy matters, and concludeth, that the Catholics may lament on the behalf of the Church, as Hieremie lamented on the behalf of the Synagogue. Thy Prophets have seen false & foolish things for thee, & addeth, that the grief which he doth feel and express, for these toys & dotages, is common to him with all good men for the most part. Bishop 
h De optimo ●…nere inter●…. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Lindan to the same purpose hath these words; Quod si nostra conspiceret Agobertus episcopus Lugdu●…rsis antiphonaria; Deum immortalem! quomodo ea pingeret? ubi non Apochrypha modo exevangelio Nicodemi & aliis nugis sunt inserta, sed ipsae adeo secretae pr●…es su●… mendis turpissimis conspurcatae. That is, If Agobertus sometimes Bishop of 〈◊〉 that could not endure the corruptions of his time, were now alive, and should see our antiphonaries; good God! how would he paint them out? in which not only apocryphal things out of the gospel of Nicodemus, and such other toys are ●…ed, but even the very prayers themselves named secretae, are defiled with ●…st ●…rosse and vile absurdities and faults. Many things, saith Picus Mirandula, which in the decrees are accounted apocryphal, and are so censured by Hierome, are in the service of the Church; and many things also that by many are n●…t thought to be true. I mean not, saith 
i 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  Melchior Canus, to defend all the histories which are every where read in the Church, I see there are so many of the vulgar sort & condition, not only amongst those of the laity but of the clea●…gie also, that most willingly embrace those fables, which the Church long since exploded. In this kind it behooveth the Bishops to do something; but they must be wise, aswell as diligent, lest while they go about to cure the looseness of the skin about the fingers, they hurt the head. These happily go about, to put grave histories into the place of such as are apocryphal, but they change the divine service of the Church so much, that scarce any show of the old religion seemeth to be left in the daily prayers: wherefore this must ●…nd firm, that the histories of the Saints which are wont to be read in the Church, must not be despised; though some of them be uncertain, apocryphal, light, and false; for they are credible, and true for the most part, & some of them certain.  
Ferdinand caused it to be proposed to the council of Trent, amongst other articles of reformation, that the breviaries and missals might be purged, that all things that are found in them not taken out of the Scripture, might be taken away, that the prolixity of prayers & Psalms might be abridged, good choice being made of such as should be used. apud Goldast. imper. const. tom. 2. pag. 3●…. These it seemeth are those mysteries of Romish religion, found in the liturgy of the Church, at & before Luther's time, whereof M Brerely speaketh, but they had no general approbation, but the dislike of all good men, as it appeareth by that which hath been said. For otherwise the very form & words of the liturgy, condemn the abuses of private masses, & half communions, & make nothing of that propitiatory sacrifice, whereof the Papists fable, which are those greatest mysteries of Romish religion, that they insist upon in their Mass.  
Touching the first of these parts of Romish religion, which is that of their private masses, wherein the Priest receiveth alone without any communicants; making the people believe that that which he doth is a propitiatory sacrifice, and that he can apply the benefit of it to whom he will, and that it is enough for them to be present, or to give something for the procuring of it; their error is clearly refuted, by the form of prayers that are used in the mass, which show, that they only have the benefit that is here sought, that communicate. For immediately after the consecration the Priest and people pray in this sort. Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens deus, iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altar tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae, ut quicunque ex hac altaris participatione sacrosancti filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti & gratiâ repleamur, per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum, Amen. That is, We as humble suppliants, beseech thee, O God Almighty, to command that these our sacrifices and oblations, may be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel, to thy Altar on high, and to the sight of thy divine Majestic, that so many of us as shall receive the sacred body and blood of thy Son, by partaking of this Altar, may be filled with all benediction and grace, through the same Christ our Lord, Amen. And after the communion they pray again in this sort grant Lord that we may receive with a pure mind, what we have received with the mouth. And again; Let this communion, O Lord, purge us from sin, and make us partakers of the heavenly remedy. Whereupon Micrologus inferreth, that they must not neglect to communicate, that think to have any benefit by these prayers. These prayers remain as witnesses of the old observation. 
k Rational. l. 4. 53.  Durandus saith, that in the Primitive Church, all that were present at the celebration of the Mass, were wont to communicate every day, and that to this purpose they did offer a great loaf, that might suffice for the communicating of them all: which custom, saith he, the Grecians are said to keep still. Afterwards when the multitude of believers increased, and devotion decreased, it was ordained, that at least every Sunday they should communicate. In process of time, when this could not be kept, there was a 
* Lombardus l. 4. d. 12. saltem ter in anno homines communicent.  third constitution, that at least thrice every year, each Christian man should communicate, if not oftener. In the end it was ordered, that at the least at Easter every one should come to the Sacrament; and instead of the daily communicating, the Priest gave daily the kiss of peace to the minister, saying in some places, take you the bond of peace, and love, that you may be fit for these sacred mysteries, which were words that were wont to be used, when they used to salute one another before the communion, & did import an ensuing communion. 
l 56.  The anthem which is named post communio, is so named, because it is sung after the communicating, or in sign that the communion is past. For in the Primitive Church, all the Faithful did daily communicate, and presently after their communicating, this song was sung; that it might appear the people did give thanks to God for the body & blood of Christ which they had received. 
m In canonem.  Odo Cameracensis saith, that in old times there was no mass celebrated, without some assembly of such, as might offer together with him that celebrateth, & partake with him of the sacrament. 
n l. 4. c. 1.  Generally we may say, saith Durandus, that that is a lawful mass, at which are present, the Priest, such as answer unto him, & such as offer & communicate. And 
o De rebus Eccles. cap. 22.  Walafridus Strabo agreeth with him; saying, that the very form of the prayers used in the mass show so much, where there is mention expressly made of such as offer & communicate. And the book of Ecclesiastical observations, entitled Micrologus, written 500 years since, saith, it is to be known, that according to the ancient Fathers, only the communicants were wont to be present, at the celebration of the sacred mysteries, and that the catechumen & penitents were all sent out, as not being fit to communicate. Which the very form of celebrating importeth, in which the priest prayeth not, for his own oblation, & communion alone, but that of others also; & especially in the prayer after the communion, he seemeth to pray only for the communicants. Neither can it properly be said to be a communion, unless divers do partake of the same sacrifice. 
p Homil. 3.  Chrysostome writing upon the Ephesians, saith, that he that standeth by, and communicateth not, is impudent and shameless. And that not only they that sit down at table, but they that are present at this feast, without their wedding garment, are subject to a fearful judgement. For the master of the feast will not ask, friend how dared thou sit down, but how durst thou come in not having thy wedding garment? thou abidest, thou singest the himme with the rest, thou professest thyself worthy, in that thou goest not out with the unworthy; how darest thou abide and not communicate? They that are in the state of penitency, are commanded out: if thou be in thy sins, how continuest thou? if thou be unworthy of the sacramental participation, thou art so also of the communion in the prayers. For the spirit descendeth, and cometh by them aswell as by the mysteries there proposed. And surely how any can be present, that are not fit at least in desire and in as much as in them is, to communicate, I know not. In old time they communicated every day, or so often that they might seem to communicate every day, and the holy canons debar all such as did not communicate from hearing of the mass, as it appeareth De consecr. dist. 2. can. peract. Caietan in 3am Aquinat: q: 80. art. 12. Yet so did devotion decay, and abuses grow, that in many places the whole people stayed and were present, yet none but the Clergy alone communicated; and afterwards, none but the Deacon and subdeacon. Whence it came, that whereas the mystical bread, was wont to be broken into 3 parts, whereof the first was for him that celebrated, the 2● for the Clergy, and the 3● for the people; 
q Durand. rational. li. 4. 54.  in time it was so ordered, that a division being made into 3 parts he took the one to himself, & gave the other two to the deacon and subdeacon, and in some places did eat all himself. Whatsoever the neglect or abuses were, 
r Cassa. consult pag 238. ar. 24.  it is evident by the composition of the canon, that the mystical action in which the canon is used was public, & that there were always some present, that offered the sacrifice of praise together with the priest, & participated of the sacrament, as these words do clearly show. Quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus & sanguinem filii tui sumpserimus. Item, prosint nobis domini sacramenta 
〈◊〉 Citat à Cassan. Ibidem pag. 220.  quae sumpsimus. And therefore john Hofmeister, a learned man, expounding the prayers of the mass hath these words. Res ipsa inquit clamat, tam in Graecâ quam in Latinâ Ecclesia, non solum sacerdotem sacrificantem, sed & reliquos presbyteros, diaconos, nec non & reliquam plebem, aut saltem plebis aliquam partem, communicasse: quod quomodo cessaverit mirandum est, & ut bonus ille usus in Ecclesiam revocetur, laborandum. that is, The thing itself proclaimeth it, that aswell in the Greek, as Latin Church, not only the priest which sacrificeth, but the other priests, and deacons, also, yea and the people or at least some part of them did communicate: which good custom how it grew out of use I know not, but surely we should labour to bring it in again. That it was not lawful for the priest to celebrate without the Deacon, who was to receive the sacrament at his hand 
t Epist. ad cle●…um l●…ratosque Bohem. 〈◊〉 Cap 25.  Cusanus showeth by that which is in the missal. Sumpsimus domini sacramenta, we have received the Sacraments of the Lord etc. In the ● Interim published by the Emperor Charles the fifth, in the assembly at Augusta in the 15 of May 1548, we find these words. Atque hic expedierit, cum verissimum illud & singular sacrificium offertur, veterem Ecclesiae morem revocare; quo non solum sacrificans ipse, sed & diaconi, & reliqui Ecclesiae ministri, qui diebus solennioribus velut testes tanti sacrificii, & necessar●…rū ministeriorum coadiutores adhibentur, ut perceptionis corporis & sanguinis domini nostri jesu Christi participes se preberent, seria canonum sanctione iubebautur; sed & fideles omnes pro recolendà mortis domini & nostrae redemptionis memorià, ad hoc mediatoris nostri sacrificium confluentes, sedulis exhortationibus monendi & excitandi sunt, ut prius explorati, confessi, & absoluti, sacrosanctae communionis gratiam sumant, & divinissimae Eucharistiae participationem unà cum sacerdote sedulo & devotè frequentent. that is, And here truly it were expedient, that, when that most true and singular sacrifice is offered, we should renew the old custom of the Church; by which not only he that celebrateth, but the Deacons also, and the other ministers of the Church, which on the more solemn days are used as witnesses of so solemn an act, & as coadjutors in respect of sundry necessary ministeries, were commanded by a serious sanction of the canons, to be partakers of the sacrament of the Lords body & blood: but all such faithful & believing men, as resort to this sacrifice of our mediator, to renew the memory of the death of our Lord, and our redemption by the same, should be admonished and stirred up, by effectual and often exhortations, having examined themselves, confessed their sins, and obtained absolution to receive the grace of the holy communion, and carefully and devoutly to frequent the participation of the divine Eucharist together with the priest.  
By this which hath been said it appeareth that the priests receiving alone, & neglecting or excluding the communicating of others as not much necessary, (his act being available to apply the benefits of Christ's passion without receiving the sacrament) is indeed a point of Romish religion, but not contained in the mass; for it is contrary to the name of the mass, the words of the canon, & intendment of them that composed it; contrary to the old canons & the practice of the Church; it proceeded from the indevotion of the people, or rather the negligence or error of the guides of the Church, that either failed to stir them up to the performance of such a duty, or made them believe their act was sufficient, to communicate the benefits of Christ's passion to them, not without the dislike of the better sort. So that hitherto no proof is made, that the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, was no Protestant Church, but rather the contrary, for this Church did ever protest against this abuse, professed her dislike of the same, & acknowledged that this custom was much different from the ancient.  
Honorius in gemma animae, saith, it is reported that anciently the priests were 
x Cap. 58.  wont to receive meal of every house or family, which custom the Greeks are said to continued still, & that out of this they made the Lords bread which they did offer for the people, & having consecrated it, distributed it to them. For every of them that offered this meal, were present at the mass, & respectively to them it was said in the canon; & omnium circumstantium, qui tibi hoc sacrificium laudis offerunt, that is, consider the devotion of all that stand round about, who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise. But after that the Church increased in number, but decayed in devotion, it was decreed in respect of carnal men, that they that could, should communicate every Sunday, or on the chief feast days, or thrice in the year. And now because the people ceasing to communicate, so great a quantity of bread was no longer necessary, it was decreed that it should be form in fashion of a penny, & instead of offering meal, they offered every one a penny, by which they acknowledged Christ's being sold for a certain number of pence. These pence were converted either to the benefit of the poor, or for providing of something pertaining to the sacrifice: & in stead of the consecrated bread they were wont to receive, there was given them holy bread as they called it. Whatsoever men think of this which Honorius hath of offering meal, 
y Durand. lib. 4. 53.  it is certain that in the Primitive Church, they did offer those things that were to be consecrated in the sacrament; and that the bread that was there consecrated, was usual and loafie bread, and in form 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  round, as it appeareth by 
z Pag. 492.  Epiphanius in Ancoratu, & 
a Lib. 4. c. 55.  Gregory in his dialogues, who calleth the bread of consecration coronas round ●…aues; all which things show a Protestant Church.  
Wherefore let us come to the next point of Romish religion, supposed to be contained in the mass, which is the depriving of the people of the one part of the Sacrament, and the giving them the same only in one kind. In the Primitive Church, saith ● Lyra, the Sacrament was ministered in both kinds. 
b In Prov. c. 9  Dionysius Carthusianus agreeth with him, affirming the same; which thing may 
c●…n ●…n 1. Cor. cap. 11.  be proved by innumerable testimonies of antiquity. 
d Ad Philadelph.  Ignatius saith, there is one bread broken to all, & one cup distributed to all. After the offering is made, let every one saith Clement, in order take the Lords body and his precious blood, with all reverend shamefastness & fear. The bread, saith Dionysius, which 
e Const●…. l. b. 2. c. 61.  was one, is broken in parts, & the cup that is but one, is divided amongst al. justin 
〈◊〉 Hieratch. cc●…. cap 3 p. 3.  Martyr in his 2 Apology saith, that after he that is the precedent hath finished his thanksgiving, & the people by a joyful acclamation have approved & consented to the same, the deacons & minister's divide unto every one of them that are present, that each one may partake of that bread, wine, & water, over which the blessing & thanksgiving hath been poured out, and they do bear the same to them that are absent. Of whose hand, saith 
g Ad wo●…em l. 〈◊〉 c. ●…6.  Tertullian (speaking of a faithful woman married to an Infidel) shall she receive, & of whose cup shall she partake? 
h Epist. ●…4.  Cyprian in his Epist. to Cornelius, How do we teach or provoke them, in & for the confession of Christ's name to shed their blood, if we deny unto them when they are to enter into this warfare, the blood of Christ? or how shall we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we shall not first admit them to drink the cup of the Lord, iure communicationis, by the right of communicating? & in another place, Therefore they daily drink the cup of Christ's blood, that they may shed their blood for Christ. And in a 
i S●…m. de laps.  3 place, speaking of a certain child, that had been polluted in the idols temple, he saith, When as the solemnities were fulfilled, the deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, & when other had received, her course came, but the little girl by the instinct of God, turned away her face, & began to close her mouth with her lips, & to refuse the cup; but the deacon desisted not, but though she resisted, poured into her mouth out of the chalice. And disputing against them that were named Aquarii, he saith, In ministering the cup to the people, contrary to that which Christ did & taught, they give water instead of wine; Let them tell us, saith 
k in Numer. homil. 16.  Origon, what people that is, that use to drink blood. Ambrose: If so often as the blood of Christ is poured out, it be poured out for the remission of sins, it behoveth 
〈◊〉 Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c 6  me always to receive it, that my sins may be forgiven me. 
m Amb●…os. l. 1. off●…. c. 41.  Laurence the deacon saith, Sixtus the B. committed unto him the dispensation of the Lords blood, & made him his consort in consummating the Sacraments. 
n Cap. 3.  Hierom upon Sophonie; the Priests which do serve about the Eucharist, and distribute the blood of the Lord unto his people, do wickedly against the Law of Christ when they think that the words, not the life of him that prayeth, make the Eucharist. 
o Aug. in sent. Pr●…. & de consecred. 2. c. cum frangitur.  Augustine, cum frangitur hostia, dum sanguis de chalice in or a fidelium funditur, quid aliud quam dominici corporis in cruse immolatio, eiusque sanguinis de latere effusio designatur? That is, When the host is broken, & the blood poured out of the chalice into the mouths of the faithful, what other thing is represented thereby, but the offering of Christ's body on the cross, & the pouring of the blood out of his side? ● Nazianzen, Reverere mysticam mensam ad quam accessisti, panem quem participasti, poculum cui communicasti, passionibus Christi initiatus. Reverence 
●…rat. 40. in sanct baptisma.  the Lords Table to which thou hast access, the bread whereof thou hast been partaker, the cup in which thou hast communicated, being initiated in the passions of Christ. ● Cyrill of Jerusalem, Concauâ manu suseipe corpus Christi dicens, Amen. tum verò post communionem corporis Christi accede, & 
〈◊〉 Ca●…hes. mystag●….  ad calicem illius etc. dicens, Amen. That is, Receive the body of Christ with a hollow hand, saying, Amen. and after the partaking of the body of Christ, come also to the cup of the Lord, &c, saying, Amen. And 
r Hom●…. 1 8. in 2 Co●….  Chrysostome most fully to this purpose, It is not now as in the time of the Old testament, where the Priest did eat same things, and the people some other; and where it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things whereof the Priest did partake; but one body is proposed to all, and one cup. Gregory, His body is there received, his flesh is there divided for the salvation of the people, his blood is not now shed upon the hands 
〈◊〉 l. 〈◊〉. c.  of Infidels, but into the mouths of believers. ● Ordo Romanus put forth by Cassander; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 23.  The Archdeacon taking the chalice, confirmeth all them with the Lords blood, whom the Pope had ceased to communicate in the body of the Lord. And again; As the Archdeacon doth confirm those that the Pope communicateth in the body of the Lord, so do the other deacons confirm them that the other Bishops or priests communicate. 
* Citat. à Cassand. liturg. c. 31.  Liber sacramentorum put out by Gregory, prescribeth thus; When the priest giveth the Lord's body, let him say, the body of our Lord jesus Christ keep thee unto eternal life, amen. And let him that receiveth say, I will receive the celestial bread, & will call on the name of the Lord. Also when the priest giveth the cup, let him say; the blood of our Lord jesus Christ keep thee unto eternal life, & let him that receiveth it say, I will receive the cup of salvation. 
u Inter homilias hiemales de sanctis tom. 7. p. ●…20.  Beda; The body of Christ is not killed nor his blood shed by the hands of Infidels to their own destruction, but it is received by the mouth of believers to salvation. The 11t council of Toledo provideth, that such as through weakness cannot receive the whole sacrament, but only drink of the mystical cup, shall not for this be separated from the body of Christ. 
y De imag. l. 4. c. 14  Charles the great: The mystery of the Lords body & blood is daily 
x Apud Binium.  received of the faithful in the sacrament. Rabanus Moguntinus: God would have the sacraments of his body, and blood, received into the mouths of the faithful, that by the visible work, the invisible effect might be showed. Paschasius: 
z De institut. cler. l. 1. c 3.  It is he only that breaketh this bread, & by the hands of his ministers distributes it to the believers, saying, take ye & drink ye all of this, aswell 
a De corpore & sanguine Dom. c. 15.  ministers as other believers: for this is the cup of my blood of the new & eternal testament. Haimo upon the 1. Cor. 10. The cup is called a communication, as it were a participation: because all do communicate of it, & do take part of the blood of the Lord which it containeth in it. 
b De divinis officijs, l. 2. c 9  Rupertus Abbas; The priest distributeth the bread & wine, putting them into the mouths of the faithful. 
c 1 Cor. 10.  Anselm; All we which receive of one bread & one cup of the Lord, are made one body. 
d De eucharist.  Lanfrancus hath the same words that afore we cited out of Augustine. 
e De sacramento. l. 2. c. 3.  Algerus; Because we live so by bread & drink, that we cannot want either of them, Christ would have them both in his sacrament, lest if either were wanting, the signification of life being imperfect, he might be thought to be imperfect life. Petrus Cluniacensis abbess; The flesh of Christ was given to man to be eaten under the form of bread, & the blood of Christ to be drunk under the form of wine, that as men do principally use bread & wine, for the maintaining of this present life: so for the life that is eternal, they might be said with the body & blood of Christ, here spiritually, & hereafter both spiritually & corporally. In the primitive Church, saith Caietan, 
f In tertiam Aquin. 80. q. art 12.  the people did communicate in both kinds, as appeareth in the 1 Cor. 11. This custom continued, not only in the time of persecution, & in the time of the martyrs, whom Cyprian would have to be comforted & strengthened with drinking the cup of the Lord, before they came to drink of the cup of Martyrdom, but even in the time of peace also. And therefore we read not only of the making & providing of dishes, but of ministerial chalices, much different from those, wherein they now consecrate, & out of which the priest receiveth; which were therefore named ministerial chalices, because they served not to offer, but to minister the blood of Christ to the people. In the 
g Citat à Cassandro liturg. cap. 31.  pontifical of Damasus in the life of Sylvester, we read, that Constantine builded a Church in the city of Naples, where he offered two plates or dishes, and 10 ministerial chalices weighing every one of them two pounds. Of this sort was that of blessed Remigius as we find in Hincmarus, in which these verses were,  
Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro, etc. That is, let the people draw life out of this sacred blood. Our Fathers, saith 
h Aphorism. de eucharist. l. 6. p. 231.  joachimus Vadianus, did see, in the greater Church of Sangalli, a chalice guilded with gold, that weighed threescore and ten marks of silver, provided no doubt for the public communion of the people, formerly used. 
i In Tertul. de coronâ mil.  Beatus Rhenanus saith, that Conradus Pellicanus, a man of wonderful sanctity and learning, did find in the first constitution of the Carthusians, that they are forbidden to possess any vessels of price, besides a silver chalice, and a pipe, with which the lay people might suck out the blood of our Lord. Besides, the book written more than four hundred years since, concerning the treasures of the Church of Mentz, amongst chalices of gold of a great weight, having handles and golden Crosses &c: reckoneth also silver pipes, six in number, if I be not deceived, deputed to this use of sucking out the blood of our Lord; which I suppose, saith he, the Archbishop was wont to use. Ordo Romanus showeth, that when the Bishop of Rome doth celebrate, the Archdeacon giveth him to drink of the holy chalice, and afterwards poureth a little out of the same into a greater chalice or cup, which the acoluth doth hold, that the people may be confirmed or receive the sacrament of the Lords blood, out of the sacred vessel. For the wine that was not consecrated, being mingled with the blood of Christ is altogether sanctified. The Bishops therefore come in order to receive of the hand of the Pope, and after them all the Priests come up, that they may communicate at the altar; and while the Archdeacon communicateth, the chief Bishop that is present holdeth the chalice: for as Bishops attend the Pope in the Church of Rome, so priests should attend and assist Bishops in other Churches. The Archdeacon after he hath communicated, receiveth the chalice back again from the Bishop, and confirmeth all those with the Lords blood, to whom the Pope hath given the communion of the body of our Lord. This service being performed by the altar, having received by the Subdeacon the pipe with which the people are to be confirmed; the Archdeacon delivereth the chalice to be carried to the acoluth, to be laid up by him in the vestery. Then doth the pope go down, to give the communion to the Princes of the people, and their wives; and as the Archdeacon doth confirm those to whom the Pope giveth the Communion of the Lords body: so do the other Deacons confirm them, to whom (after the Pope hath ministered to those of the better sort) the other Bishops and Priests do give the Communion: and as soon as the pope beginneth to minister the Communion to the Clergy, and people, the school of singers beginneth to sing the anthem appointed for the Communion; and after that, when the Pope thinketh fit, Glory be to the Father etc.  
Here we see a cloud of witnesses testifying for the Communion in both kinds: whereupon, ● Cassander feareth not to pronounce, that he verily thinketh, 
〈◊〉 De communione sub utraque specie.  it cannot be showed, that the sacrament of the Eucharist was any otherwise ministered, in any part of the Catholic Church to the faithful people in the holy assembly from the Lords table, for a thousand years and more, but under both the sacramental signs of bread and wine. Neither can this saying of Cassander be refuted, by that in the second of the Acts where the faithful are said to have continued in the breaking of bread and prayer. Nor by that we read in antiquity of the Lay communion, which Caietan childishly urgeth. For sundry worthy divines in the Roman Church, have sufficiently showed the weakness of these silly allegations.  
Let us see therefore how the Communion in one kind came into the Church. It appeareth by 
l Serm. de quad●…ag. 〈◊〉.  Leo the first, that the Manichees, as they denied Christ to have been borne in the truth of our flesh, so they denied him to have truly died and risen again, and therefore they used to fast upon that day, that is to us the day of salvation and joy. And whereas to hide their infidelity and heresy, they came sometimes to the Churches of Catholics, and were present at the celebration of the sacred mysteries, they did so temper the matter, that with unworthy mouths they received the Lords body, but declined to drink the blood of our redemption. Leo carefully endeavoured to make this thing known to all, that by these signs they might be descried, that their sacrilegious dissembling might be found out, and that being discovered, they might by sacerdotal authority be cast out of the society of the Saints. By this of Leo it appeareth, that the Manichees out of an heretical conceit, began to communicate in one kind, and that all were wont to communicate in both kinds: that hereby the Manichees might be discovered, and known from other right believers, in that they would communicate but in one kind alone. Which thing also Andradius doth rightly note.  
In the 
m Cano. Comperimus de consec, dist. 2.  time of Gelasius there were certain found, that out of some superstitious conceit would not communicate in both kinds. We have found, saith Gelasius, that certain having received a portion of the sacred Body only, abstain from the cup of the most holy blood. Which men because they are said to be holden with I know not what superstition, either let them receive the whole Sacrament, or let them be put and kept from the whole, seeing there can be no division of one and the same mystery, without grievous sacrilege.  
Thirdly, whereas in case of necessity, as when children, or such as were sick and weak were to receive the communion, the ancient did sometimes dip the mystical bread into the consecrated wine, and so gave it unto them, as it appeareth by the history of Serapion, by that which 
n Serm. de laps.  Cyprian, and 
o De promise. Dei dimid. temporis. c. 6  Prosper report: and by that which the 
p Apud Ivonem decret. part. 2. cap, 19  Council of Turon prescribeth, that the Eucharist which is reserved for the voyage provision of such as are ready to depart hence, shall be dipped into the blood of the Lord, that so the Priest may truly say. The body and blood of our Lord be beneficial unto thee unto eternal life. 
q Ex institutis Cluniacensium l. 2. c. 35. de sacerdote hebdomadario apud Cassand. liturgic. c. 31.  Some began to bring in this manner of dipping into the ordinary communion, under pretence of careful avoiding the danger of shedding the blood of Christ, and greater reverence towards the same. For certain Monks brought the same custom into their Monasteries, ingenuously confessing that herein they did contrary to the custom of other Churches. But that they were forced so to do, by the rudeness of their novices, who they feared would run into some gross neglect, if they should receive the blood of Christ apart; Neither did this custom stay here, but it made an entrance into other Churches abroad also; for 
r Apud Cassand, ibid.  Ivo Carnotensis about the year 1100, hath these words. Let them not communicate in the bread dipped: but (according to the decree of the Council of Toledo,) let them communicate in the body apart, and in the blood apart, those only excepted, to whom it is not prescribed, but permitted to communicate in the bread dipped, out of due consideration of the fear of spilling and shedding the blood of Christ. But this attempt was disliked and resisted: for the author of the book entitled 
s Cap. 19  Micrologus saith, It is not authentical that certain do dip the body of the Lord, and having so dipped it, give it to the people, thinking thereby to make up unto them the whole communion. But the Roman order is against this, and doth prescribe, that upon Good friday when they consecreate not, but use the bread consecrated the day before, they shall take wine that is not consecrated, and consecreate it with the Lords player, and dipping of the Lords body into it, that so the people may receive the whole Sacrament; which prescription were superfluous, if it were enough to dip the body of Christ the day before, & so to keep it, & to give it so dipped to the people to communicate in. Pope julius in order of Popes the 36th, writing to the Bishops of Egypt, doth altogether forbid any such dipping, & commandeth the bread & cup to be received apart. What the credit of this Epistle is, which the author of this book citeth as the Epistle of Pope julius, I know not, neither do I think that any such custom of giving the Sacrament to the people in the Church in such sort, was so ancient as to be reprehended by Pope julius. But it appeareth that such dipping when it began to be used in the Church, found great opposition; & therefore this supposed constitution of julius is renewed, & confirmed in the 3d council of 
t Can. 1.  Bracar. & Micrologus adds, that blessed Gelasius in order of Popes the 51th writing to certain Bishops, commandeth them to excommunicate all those, that receiving the Lords body, abstained from the participation of the cup: pronouncing in the same decree, that such division of the Sacrament cannot be without horrible sacrilege. By this of Micrologus it is evident, that they thought in those times, that not only the communicating in one kind alone, out of such erroneous conceits as those of the Manichees and other like; but all communicating in one kind alone is sacrilegious. And that they could not endure the dipping of the sacramental bread, whereby yet the people did in a sort partake of both kinds. Neither doth Micrologus alone show the dislike that then was of such dipping, but the like we may find in the writings of sundry worthy men. 
u Epist. 64.  Hildebertus Cenomanensis. Hoec ideo tibi, frater, exaravi, ut excitatus evigiles, ut videas quoniam traditioni sacramentorum altaris quae in vestro celebris est monasterio, nec Evangelica traditio consonat, nec decreta concordant. In eo enim consuetudinis est eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dare, quod nec ex dominica institutione, nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum; si Mathaeum, si Marcum, si Lucam consulas, seorsim panem traditum invenies, seorsim vinum, &c: nam intinctum panem aliis praebuisse Christum non legimus, excepto tantummodo illo discipulo, quem intincta buccella proditorem ostenderit; non quod huius sacramenti institutionem fignaret, & sic Papa julius ait, etc. That is, Brother I have therefore written these things unto thee that being stirred by me, thou mightest be awakened, to see that the manner of delivering of the sacrament of the altar which is grown into use in your monastery, is neither consonant to the evangelical tradition, nor agreeing with the decrees. For in your monastery it is become a custom, to give the mystical bread to none but dipped; which will never be found to have taken beginning from the Lords institution or authentical constitutions. For if thou consult Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, thou shalt find that the bread was delivered apart, and the wine apart, etc. for we read not that Christ gave dipped bread to any other but only to that disciple, whom by the dipped sop he meant to show to be the traitor, and not that he would have the sacrament so ministered, and so, Pope julius saith, etc.  
From the custom of dipping the mystical bread into the blood, & giving it so dipped unto the people, for fear of shedding the blood of Christ, if it should have been ministered apart, some proceeded farther, and began to teach the people, that seeing the body & blood of Christ cannot be separated, in that they partake of the one, they partake of the other also, and that therefore it is sufficient to receive in one kind alone. But herein they gave no satisfaction, either to themselves, or others. For though it be true, saith 
x Rational. div. l 4. c. 42.  Durandus, that they are not separated, and that he that receiveth the one receiveth the other also; yet neither part of the sacrament is superfluous, but both are to be received. For whereas wine breedeth blood, wherein the soul & life is seated, according to that in Leviticus, The soul of all flesh is in the blood of it, and whereas in the offerings that were of old, the flesh of those beasts that were sacrificed, was offered for the body, and the blood of them for the soul; if we should receive Christ's body, and together with it the blood under the form of bread signifying and exhibiting the flesh of Christ, and not under the form of wine signifying & exhibiting unto us the blood of Christ, we might be thought to neglect the salvation and good of our souls. And elsewhere he saith, that he that receiveth only the consecrated bread, receiveth not the whole & entire Sacrament. For howsoever it be true, that the blood of Christ is in the host or consecrated bread: yet is it not there sacramentally, seeing bread doth not signify the blood but the body of Christ, neither the wine the body but the blood of Christ. And in the former place he addeth out of Innocentius tertius, that though the blood of Christ be received with the body, under the form of bread, and the body with the blood under the form of wine; yet neither can we drink the blood of Christ, under the form of bread which we eat, nor eat the body of Christ, under the form of wine which we drink. And sundry of the Schoolmen agree with him in this point, resolving, that though Christ be whole, and entire in either part of the sacrament, yet both parts are necessary. First because the exhibiting of the body & blood of Christ distinctly, representeth his passion, in which his blood was separated from his body. And secondly, because in this sort Christ's body is more fitly, and significantly exhibited unto us in the nature of food, and his blood of drink. If this sacrament be worthily received under both kinds, saith 
y Quartâ parte lum. q. 32. memb. 1. ar. 2.  Alexander of Hales, there is a greater efficacy and working of grace, causing an unity between the mystical body & Christ the head; then when it is received in one kind only. And therefore, he saith, 
z q. 53.  though the receiving under one kind be sufficient, yet that which is under both, is of more merit, in that it augmenteth devotion, enlargeth the apprehension of faith, and is a more complete, & full receiving. And again, 
a q. 31.  The receiving under both kinds, which manner of receiving the Lord delivered, is of more efficacy and compliment. And he that receiveth the sacrament under the form of bread only, doth not perfectly receive the same in respect of sacramental receiving. With him agree 
b In 4 sent. d. 8. ar. 13.  Albertus magnus. 
c In 4. d. 11. ar. 1.  Petrus de Palude. 
d In 4. sent. d. 8. part. 2. art. 2. q. 2.  Bonaventura, and sundry other. By all which it is evident, that though they gave way to the custom that grew in, and began to prevail in their time, yet they signified, and sufficiently expressed that in their opinion, the communicating in both kinds, as Christ at first did institute, and the Church for a long time observed, is fit, convenient, complete, perfect, of more efficacy, and more clear representation than the other under one kind alone.  
And therefore many still retained the ancient manner of communicating, after other had admitted & received the new. 
e tertia part. q. 80. ar. 12.  Aquinas saith of his time, that the communicating under one kind alone was received in many Churches, not in all. 
f P. 4. q. 31. memb. 1.  Alexander of Hales saith, that lay men almost every where communicated in one kind. 
g Lib 4. d. 11. q. 1.  Petrus de Palude saith, it was the custom in some Churches, to give the communion to the people in both kinds. Durandus reporteth, that it was the custom of some Churches in his time, that the priest should consecrate such a quantity of wine, that after he had drunk of the same, there might still some of the sacrament of Christ's blood remain in the chalice, into which more wine not consecrated might be poured, that the other communicants might partake of the blood of Christ. And then they began to dispute the question, whether the wine that was put into the cup, by contact of Christ's blood, became consecrated & sacramental or not. But whether it did or not they resolved, that all by this means did partake, and drink of the blood of Christ, which was mingled with every part of the wine, newly poured into it. After this some proceeded farther, & left none of the sacramental, or consecrated wine, in the cup, or chalice: but poured mere wine into it, that the communicants might wash their mouths with it, after they had received the body of Christ; teaching them that they had been sufficiently partakers of the blood of Christ, in that they had received his body, from which his blood cannot be separated. But 
h Citat. à Cassand. Liturg. c. 31.  Willielmus de Lauduno saith, that he that receiveth the body of Christ under the form of bread, receiveth the whole verity,. but not the whole sacrament, and that therefore in many places, they communicated in both kinds. And we shall find, that where they admitted the communion under one kind, yet they put a difference between the communicants, and permitted some to communicate in both kinds. 
i De summa trinitate & fide Catholica.  Linwood saith, that in the lesser Churches, only they that consecreate receive the blood of Christ, under the form of consecrated wine, insinuating thereby, that in the greater it was otherwise: and that within the compass of the same nation and people, the greater and more honourable Churches, had the communion in both kinds; when the meaner had it but in one. Yea we shall find that in the same particular Church, some communicated in both kinds, when other communicated but in one. For 
Citat. à Cassan. in li. de communione sub utraque.  Richardus de mediâ villâ, and Petrus de Tarantasia, afterwards named Innocentius the 4t report, that in their time, not only the Ministers of the Altar, but the more principal of the people communicated in both kinds. 
l Lib. de sacr. tom. 2. c. 88  Thomas Waldensis provincial of the Carmelites here in England, saith of his time. We permit the Pastors of the Churches to give the Sacrament in both kinds, to such persons as are strong in faith, and discreet: as the Bishop of Rome doth use to give the communion to the deacon, and other Ministers of the Altar, and other excelling in faith, or of high place and dignity; as Doctors and Kings. Or as the Churches of religious men, and of great places, do still continue to give the Sacrament to their brethren, and such persons as are worthy of so great a thing. And in 
m Cap. 94.  another place he hath these words: Neither do we deny unto all Lay men generally, to drink of the blood of Christ under the form of wine; neither do we generally, and without distinction, or difference, grant and yield it unto all, for we know that by the custom of the Church, it is left to the discretion of the greater Prelates, to admit certain of the Ministers of the Altar, or certain other illustrious persons amongst the people, that are faithful, reverend, and devout, to the solemn communicating in both kinds. Thus did he write, more than a thousand and four hundred years after Christ, in the time of Pope Martin, who was elected in the Council of Constance, and who as B. Lindan telleth us, went home from the Council of Constance, and ministered the communion to sundry, both of the Clergy, and Laity, under both kinds. So that the communion under both kinds continued after the Council of Constance: which, as the same Lindan saith, did not simply forbid the ministering of the Sacrament in both kinds, but the teaching of the people, that of necessity it must be so ministered. To this purpose see the 13th session of the Council. The Council of Basil permitted the Bohemians to continue the use of the communion in both kinds, & Cassander telleth us, that good & credible authors do testify, that in 
n De comm. sub utraque fol. 33.  France the whole communion was ministered, though not everywhere, in ordinary Churches, yet in Chapels, even a little before the memory of our fathers, as also it is ministered to the French Kings to this day. 
o in●…. q. 80. art. 〈◊〉.  Caietan saith of his time, that the Church of Rome, & almost all the Churches of the west, had the communion in one kind. He saith not all, but almost all; for as it appeareth by the same Caietan, the Cistercian monks in some places did communicate under both kinds, even in his time: their order as it may be thought, being instituted while the communion under both kinds continued in general observation. For otherwise it is not to be thought, that any Monastery would have presumed, to renew an abolished custom. So that we see, that the Churches of this part of the world, were never wholly deprived of the necessary, and comfortable use of the Sacrament under both kinds. And for those that were, we see by what degrees, and in what sort, not without complaining of the wrong done unto them, they were forced to give way to the innovation, by a prevailing faction. Yet did they not cease to be members of the true and orthodox Church, that were thus wronged. The Armenian in the Dialogues of Armachanus, objecting the saying of Christ, except a man eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, he can have no life: to prove the necessity of the Communion in both kinds; Armachanus answereth, that if the words of Christ be understood of the Sacramental drinking, they must be understood with some qualification, to wit, that it is necessary to salvation, and the attaining of eternal life, for each man to receive both at some time, or to be willing and ready, as much as is in his power to receive both. Which was no doubt the condition of many thousands, under the papacy, that much desired to have enjoyed this comfort, so that in this point we see, the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, was a true Protestant Church, as ever before, so at the appearing of Luther.  
Which is yet more confirmed, in that after Luther's prcaching, many of the greatest Princes of these parts of the world, that never joined wholly with him, nor ever broke with the B. of Rome, urged this point of communicating in both kinds most earnestly; as Ferdinand, Maximilian, the French king, the Duke of Bavaria, and sundry other. 
p Apud Goldast. imperial. constitut. tom. 2. 377.  There is extanta writing, exibited by the Ambassadors of the Emperor Ferdinand, to the council of Trent in the year 1562 june 27. Wherein first it is showed, that the custom of communicating in both kinds, which was in use in Bohemia, when the council of Constance was called, hath been retained there ever since, and that the Bohemians could never yet be brought by any persuasions, and entreaties, or by any force, and war, to relinquish this custom, and to suffer the cup to be denied unto them. From which cup or chalice, that part of the people that maintained this liberty, were called Calixtini, and subutraque; which sort of men spread itself exceedingly in that kingdom, and there are of that number many prime men, and certain great officers and magistrates. To these the Church permitted the free use of the cup upon due considerations. But Pius the second upon some dislike, revoked the former concession; whose proceedings in that kind having no good success, but rather causing a greater alienation, Paulus the third, and julius the third sent their legates, to reconcile them to the Church, and to permit them to use their former custom. Neither is it to be marvailed at, that these Bohemians, cannot be brought from this persuasion, of the necessity of communicating in both kinds, seeing we find that there are many most learned, pious, & Catholic men that do think, that they that communicate under both kinds, obtain more grace, than they that communicate under one only. Besides these Bohemians, there are in sundry other famous and noble kingdoms & provinces, certain pious & Catholic men, as in Hungary, Austria, Moravia, Silesia, Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, Bavaria, Suevia, and many Provinces of Germany, that with great earnestness desire the use of the cup to be left free unto them. Hitherto we have heard the words of the Emperor; showing the desires, of many states and provinces: and after the urging of the dangers that may follow, if their desires be not satisfied, the Ambassadors earnestly desired the Bishops assembled, to consider of this motion. The same desire of the Emperor Ferdinand is excellently 
q Apud Coldast. ubi supra pag. 399.  expressed, in an oration made by Andraeas Dudithius the Emperor's Ambassador in the council of Trent. 
r Ibid. pag. 381.  Maximilian in his rescript to Pius the fourth touching the marriage of priests, showeth that in his opinion it is fit, not only to gratify the people by the concession of the cup, as he saith Pius had already yielded to do, but the Clergy also by granting them the liberty of marriage. 
* Trident. council. quaedam membra avu●…a edit ab Arnoldo Birkmanno Coloniae anno 1565.  There is extant also an oration made by the Ambassador of the Duke of Banaria in the council of Trent in the year 1562: wherein we find these words. Not a few are offended & fall away, & join themselves to the sectaries, by reason of the prohibition of the communion under both kinds. For they think there is an express word of God, for the communion under both kinds, and no word for the other under one. To which they add, that the use of the communion in both kinds was not only in the time of the Primitive Church, but is now also in the Eastern Churches of the world: and that the Roman Church anciently did not abhor from the same, as it appeareth by many histories. Neither doth it move men a little especially in Bavaria, that Paul the third by his bull granted the communion under both kinds to certain Bishops in Germany. 
s Apud Gold. ubi sup. 399.  The same Duke in an Epistle written to Pius the fourth in the year 1564 concerning the same matter, hath these words. We have conferred touching this thing, which the most reverend and illustrious Arch-chauncelours and electours spiritual of the Roman Empire, and they agree with me to beseech your holiness' help, for the confirming of them that stand, and the raising up of them that are fallen, as being the supreme Monarch in respect of things pertaining to Christianity; so that you need not to make any doubt of the willingness of the electours, if your holiness shall be pleased to yield any thing in this kind, to embrace the same, and to put it in execution. Wherefore together with the Emperor's majestic, I humbly & most earnestly beseech your holiness, to grant the free use of the cup, at the least to them who being persuaded as they are, will hearken to no better advice at this time. 
t lib. ●…6. anno. 15●…5.  Thuanus reporteth, that Maximilian in the very beginning of his reign, when he saw that men were exceedingly discontented, especially in Bohemia, & Austria, that they had no satisfaction given them by the council of Trent, as they expected, touching the concession of the cup, and the freedom of priests marriages, that he might bring them to be better content, and that they might be willing to do what he expected of them, for the good of the commonwealth, he was earnest with the Pope, that the promises which he might well remember he had made to Ferdinand, & to himself, by Cardinal Moronus, a little before the council ended, might now be made good, in a time wherein it was so needful: seeing the council determining nothing, had left power to him, to take order in this kind. The Pope denied not to perform what the Emperor desired, being persuaded so to do by Moronus, and not being much averse from it of himself before. But Philip King of Spain, by the instigation of Cardinal Pacecus, fearing this example in the Low-countries, sent Peter Avila to Rome, at the same time that he understood, the Emperor would send his ambassadors, to dissuade the Pope, from listening to any such motion, as being very hurtful to the Christian Church, etc. The Pope at the instance of the Cardinals, deferring & putting off the matter till a longer time, for the present eluded the Emperor's petition. Thus did this good Emperor insist in the steps of Ferdinand his worthy father, ● who when he was moved by the Pope, to cause the 
〈◊〉. l. 3●…. 〈◊〉.  council of Trent to be promulgated in Germany showed himself willing to do any thing that was fit, but earnestly urged the Pope to permit & leave free the use of the cup to the lay people, being moved so to do by Charles the Archduke his son, & the Duke of Bavaria his son in law, and the due consideration of the necessity of his subjects. 
x 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  There are extant certain articles concerning reformation of manners & Church discipline, proposed in the council of Trent, by the ambassadors of Charles the ninth the French King; amongst which the 18 article is, that the ancient decree, of Leo and Gelasius, touching the communion under both kinds, might be revived, & brought to be in use again. But when the French perceived, that there were scarce any footsteps, of the liberty of ancient counsels to be discerned, in the council of Trent; that all things were swayed, and disposed by the absolute command of Pius the fourth then Pope; the ambassadors were commanded to make a protestation, in the name of the King their master, the words of which protestation are these. We refuse to be subject to the command, & disposition of Pius the fourth. We reject, we refuse, & contemn all the judgements, censures, & decrees of the same Pius. And although most holy Fathers, your religion, life, and learning, was ever, and ever shall be of great esteem with us, yet seeing indeed you do nothing, but all things are done at Rome, rather than at Trent, and the things that are here published, are rather the deerees of Pius the fourth, then of the council of Trent, we denounce, & protest here before you all, that whatsoever things are decreed, & published in this assembly, by the mere will & pleasure of Pius, neither the most Christian King will ever approve, nor the French Church ever acknowledge, to be the decrees of a general council. Besides this, the King our master commandeth all his Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Abbots, to leave this assembly, and presently to depart hence; then to return again, when there shall be hope of better, & more orderly proceedings.  
Wherefore from this point of Romish Religion touching the communion in one kind, which findeth no help in the public liturgy used in the days of our Fathers, by which it is evident that the people were wont to communicate in both kinds, when that form of divine service was first composed, nor no liking or approbation of the best and worthiest guides of God's Church then living: let us come to the next, which is the propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead. This indeed is a grand point of Romish Religion, and if M Brerelie can prove that it is contained in the public Liturgy, that was used in the Church, at, and immediately before Luther's appearing, and consequently, that all that used that Liturgy had such an opinion of a sacrifice, he hath said much to prove, that the Church under the Papacy, was no Protestant Church; but this neither he, nor all the most learned Papists in the world will ever be able to prove. First therefore, I will make it appear, that the Canon of the Mass, importeth no such sacrifice. And secondly, I will show at large, that neither before nor after Luther's appearing, the Church believed, or knew any such, new, real sacrificing of Christ, as is now imagined.  
Touching the canon of the Mass, it is true that therein there is often mention of sacrifice and oblation: but Luther professeth, that the words may be understood in such a sense, as is not to be disliked, and he saith, he could so expound it, and that somewhere he hath so expounded it; but seeing it is obseure, and may bear diverse senses, and a better, and more clear form of divine celebration may be brought in, he will not honour it so much, as to give it that sense which it may well carry, and in which the first composers of it, and others after did use it, but that wherein they of Rome will now needs have it to be understood. That the form of words used in the canon, are obscure in sundry parts of it, and hard to be understood, even by the learned, 
y Consult. pag. 242.  Cassander confesseth, and therefore thinketh it fit it were explained & illustrated by some brief scholies put in the margin, or inserted into the text by way of parenthesis. The obscurity that is in it, groweth, as he rightly observeth, partly out of the disuse, & discontinuing of certain old observations, to which the words of the canon composed long since have a reference, and partly from the using of the word sacrifice, in diverse and different senses, though all connexed: & the sudden passing from the using of it in one sense, to the using of it in another. It is not unknown to them that are learned, that in the Primitive Church the people were wont to offer bread & wine, and that out of that which they offered, a part was consecrated to become unto them the Sacrament of the Lords body & blood, & other parts converted to other good & holy uses. Respectively to this ancient custom are those prayers conceived, that are named secretae; & the first part of the canon, wherein we desire that God will accept those gifts, presents, offerings, and sacrifices which we bring unto him, and that he will make them to become unto us, the body & blood of his Son Christ, which only are that sacrifice, that procureth the remission of our sins, and our reconciliation and acceptation with God. So that to take away this obscurity, & that the words may have a true sense, the ancient custom must be brought back again; or at least it must be conceived that the elements of bread & wine that are set upon the mystical table, & are to be consecrated, are brought thither, and offered in the name of the people, and that as being their presents, they are symbols of that inward sacrifice whereby they dedicate and give themselves and all that they have unto God. Touching the second cause of the obscurity of the words of the Canon, which is the using of the word sacrifice and ●…ffering, in so manifold and different senses, and the sudden passing from the one of them to the other; we must observe; that by the name of sacrifice, gift, or present, first the oblation of the people is meant, that consisteth in bread, and wine, brought and set upon the Lord's table. In which again 2 things are to be considered: the outward action; and that which is signified thereby, to wit the people's dedicating of themselves, and all that they have, to God by faith, and devotion, & offering to him the sacrifice of praise. In this sense is the word sacrifice used, in the former part of the canon, as I have already showed. In respect of this is that prayer poured out to God, that he will be mindful of his servants that do offer unto him this sacrifice of praise, that is, these outward things in acknowledgement, that all is of him, that they had perished if he had not sent his son to redeem them, that unless they eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, they have no life; that he hath instituted holy Sacraments of his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, in which he will not only represent, but exhibit the same unto all such as hunger and thirst after righteousness; and therefore they desire him so to accept and sanctify these their oblations, of bread and wine, which in this sort they offer unto him, that they may become unto them the body, and blood of Christ, that so partaking in them, they may be made partakers of Christ, and all the benefits of redemption, and salvation, that he hath wrought. Secondly, by the name of sacrifice is understood, the sacrifice of Christ's body; wherein we must first consider the thing offered, and secondly the manner of offering. The thing that is offered is the body of Christ, which is an eternal, and perpetual, propitiatory sacrifice, in that it was once offered by death upon the cross, and hath an everlasting, and never failing force, and efficacy. Touching the manner of offering Christ's body and blood, we must consider, that there is a double offering of a thing to God. First so as men are wont to do, that give something to God out of that they possess, professing that they will no longer be owners of it, but that it shall be his and serve for such uses, and employments as he shall convert it too. Secondly, a man may be said to offer a thing unto GOD, in that he bringeth it to his presence, setteth it before his eyes, and offereth it to his view, to incline him to do something, by the sight of it and respect had to it. In this sort Christ offereth himself and his body once crucified, daily in heaven, and so intercedeth for us; not as giving it in the nature of a gift, or present, for he gave himself to God once, to be holy unto him for ever; nor in the nature of a sacrifice, for he died once for sin, and rose again never to die any more: but in that he setteth it before the eyes of GOD his Father, representing it unto him, and so offering it to his view, to obtain grace, and mercy for us. And in this sort we also offer him daily on the altar, in that commemorating his death, and lively representing his bitter passions, endured in his body upon the cross, we offer him that was once crucified, and sacrificed for us on the cross, and all his sufferings, to the view and gracious consideration of the Almighty, earnestly desiring, and assuredly hoping, that he will incline to pity us, and show mercy unto us, for this his dearest sons sake, who in our nature for us, to satisfy his displeasure, and to procure us acceptation, endured such and so grievous things. This kind of offering, or sacrificing Christ, commemoratively, is twofold, inward, and outward. Outward, as the taking, breaking, and distributing the mystical bread, and powering out the cup of blessing, which is the Communion of the blood of Christ. The inward consisteth, in the faith, and devotion of the Church, & people of God, so commemorating the death and passion of Christ, their crucified Saviour, and representing and setting it before the eyes of the Almighty, that they fly unto it as their only stay and refuge, and beseech him to be merciful unto them for his sake, that endured all these things, to satisfy his wrath, & work their peace & good. And in this sense, and answerable hereunto that is, which we find in the canon, where the Church desireth Almighty God, to accept those oblations of bread and wine, which she presenteth unto him, & to make them to become unto the faithful communicants, the body & blood of Christ, who the night before he was betrayed taken bread into his sacred hands, lifted up his eyes to heaven, gave thanks, blessed it, & gave it to his disciples; saying, take and eat ye all of this, for this is my body. And in like manner after he had supped, took the cup and gave thanks, blessed it and gave it to his disciples: saying, drink ye all of this, for this is the new Testament in my blood: do this as oft as you shall drink it, in remembrance of me. And then proceedeth and speaketh unto Almighty GOD in this sort. Wherefore o Lord we thy servants, and thy holy people, mindful of that most blessed passion of the same CHRIST thy son our Lord, as also of his resurrection from the dead, and his glorious ascension into heaven, do offer to thy divine majesty, out of thine own gifts consecrated, and by mystical blessing made unto us, the body and blood of thy son Christ, a pure sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, and an undefiled sacrifice: the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of everlasting salvation, that is, we offer to thy view, and set before thine eyes, the crucified body of Christ thy son, which is here present in mystery, and sacrament, and the blood which he once shed for our sakes, which we know to be that pure, holy, undefiled, and eternal sacrifice, wherewith only thou art pleased, desiring thee to be merciful unto us, for the merit and worthiness thereof, and so to look upon the same sacrifice, which representatively we offer to thy view, as to accept it for a full discharge of us from our sins, and a perfect propitiation: that so thou mayest behold us, with a pleased, cheerful, and gracious countenance. This is the meaning of that prayer in the canon: supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere digneris etc. as the best interpreters of the canon do tell us. 
z Odo Camaracen●…: 〈◊〉 can. exposit. in bibliotheca pat. tom. 6. p. 468. Stephan. Eduensis Epis. de sacram. altaris ibid. pag. 491.  And when in the same prayer, we desire that this sacrifice may be accepted for us, as the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedec were, they observe that this comparison, must not be understood in quantity, but in similitude only. For the thing itself, is infinitely better than the figure; and the sacrifice that CHRIST offered, and we here commemorate, is incomparably more excellent, than those of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedec. And that therefore the meaning of those words is. That as God accepted those sacrifices which his servants offered unto him, before the coming of CHRIST his son, as prefigurations of that sacrifice which he was afterwards to offer, and as a profession of their hope, of remission of sins by the same; so it will please him, to accept the sacrifice which CHRIST once offered, and we now commemorate, for us; and us for it: That so our sins may be remitted, and we received to favour. After this there followeth another prayer in the canon, wherein as humble suppliants, they that come to celebrate, and to communicate, beseech Almighty God to command the oblations which they offer to be carried by the hands of his holy Angel, unto his altar that is on high, and into the view, and sight of his divine Majesty; that so many as shall by partaking of the altar receive the sacred body and blood of his son, may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace through the same Lord JESUS CHRIST. This form of prayer we find to have been very ancient, but what the meaning of it is, it is not so easy to find out. For how may we be understood to desire, that the body of CHRIST which we represent unto GOD, in this commemorative sacrifice, should be carried into heaven, seeing it is always there? Wherefore let us hear what the holy Fathers have said to this purpose. Quis fidelium haberet dubium, saith Saint Gregory, in ipsâ immolationis hora, ad vocem sacerdotis coelos aperiri, in illo jesu Cristi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse, summis in a sociari, terrena coelestibus iungi, unum quid ex visibilibus, & invisibilibus fieri? That is, What faithful man or believer will ever make any doubt, but that in the hour of the oblation, the Heavens are opened; that so soon as the voice of the Priest is heard, Quires of Angels are present, the lowest and highest things enter into a society, earthly things are joined with those that are celestial, and things visible, and invisible become one. And in another place: At one and the same time and moment that which is presented on the altar, is caught up into Heaven, by the ministry of Angels, to be joined in a near sort unto the body of Christ, and is at the same time before the eyes of the Priest upon the altar. So then the oblations which we present unto God on the Altar, are then carried by the hands of Angels, into Heaven, when those sacramental elements which we bring thither, though they be still visible on the altar, as Gregory saith, yet being changed, and become unto us in mystery, and exhibitive signification, the body and blood of Christ, once sacrificed and shed for us: and now in heaven continually represented unto God to intercede for us; may rightly be said to be carried up into heaven. But seeing by the precedent words of mystical blessing and prayer, the sacramental Elements are so changed before the pronouncing of this prayer, that they are already become in sort before expressed, the body and blood of Christ, which is in heaven, we do not in these words desire any such thing to be done, but this is that we say, Lord we here commemorate the death and sacrifice of thy Son Christ, that once died for us, and now continually representeth the same his death unto thee, to procure us good, humbly beseeching thee, that for his sake thus dying for us, & now continually in heaven representing himself unto thee, & setting the same his passions and sufferings before the eyes of thy Divine Majesty, as if even now he did hang on the Cross, all evil may be far removed from us, & all good brought upon us. And that all we that by communicating in these holy mysteries, receive the body & blood of the same thy Son Christ, may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace. So that to command the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood once offered, & here by us commemorated, to be carried into heaven, and to be represented unto God, is no more but to make it appear, that that body of Christ which he once offered by the passion of death, and which we now commemorate, is in Heaven, there so represented unto God, that it procureth for us all that we desire.  
There is nothing therefore found in the Canon of the Mass rightly understood, that maketh any thing, for the new real offering of Christ to God his Father, as a propitiatory sacrifice to take away sins, neither did the Church of God, at, & before Luther's time, know or believe any such thing, though there were some in the midst of her, that so conceived of this mystery, as the Romanists now do. Wherefore for the clearing of this point I will first set down what the conceit of the Romanists now is, & then make it appear, that all the best learned, at, and before Luther's time, thought otherwise touching this matter then these now do.  
These that now are, express their conceit touching this point in this sort. First they show what an oblation is. Secondly, what the nature of a sacrifice is. And thirdly how and in what sort they imagine, Christ is now newly, & really, not offered only, but sacrificed also to take away our sins. An oblation they rightly define to be, the bringing of some thing that we have into the place where the name of God is called on, and where his honour dwelleth; a representing of it there unto God, a professing that we will own it no longer, but that God shall be the owner of it, that it shall be holy unto him, to be employed about his service, if it be an irrational thing; or to serve him in some special sort, if it be rational, as when parents presented and offered their children to God, to be holy unto him as were the Nazarits, who were to serve him in some peculiar and special sort: and in this sort Christ presented, and gave himself to God his father, from his first entrance into this world, and was holy unto him, and an oblation. But in this sort it is not for us to offer Christ to God his father, whatsoever any Papist may imagine. For it were a woeful thing for us so to give up Christ to his father, as to profess that we will own him no longer, nor have any interest in him, nor claim to him, any more. And besides, if it were fit for us so to do, yet who are we that we should present Christ unto God his father, to be holy unto him? that so presented and gave himself unto him, from his first entrance into the world, that he bringeth us also to God, to be holy unto him. A sacrifice implieth more than an oblation. For if we will sacrifice a thing unto God, we must not only present it unto him, professing that it shall be his, and that we will own it no more, nor make any claim unto it; but we must destroy, and consume it also. As we see in the old law, when living things were sacrificed, they were slain and consumed in fire; when other that had no life were sacrificed, they were consumed in fire. And answerably hereunto, Christ was sacrificed on the cross, when he was crucified, and cruelly put to death by the jews. But how he should now be really sacrificed, sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing sacrificed, it is very hard to conceive. First therefore they say, that Christ may truly be said to be really sacrificed; because when the words of consecration, are pronounced over the bread, they so cause the body of Christ to be, where the bread was, that they cause not the presence of the blood; and in like sort the words, pronounced over the wine, cause the presence of Christ's blood, and not of his body, so that upon the pronouncing of the words of consecration; there would be in the sacrament the body of Christ without the blood, and the blood without the body, and so a slain, and a crucified Christ, if that natural concomitance, by reason whereof the one of them will not be absent, where the other becometh present, did not hinder their being asunder. Thus than they say, there is a true real sacrificing of Christ, in that, as much as is on the part of the words pronounced, and him that pronounceth them, Christ's blood is again poured out, and he consequently slain. This is the conceit of Gregorius de Valentia: and in this sort he imagineth Christ is daily, newly sacrificed on the altar: But (besides that it is an impious thing, for the priest to endeavour as much as in him lies to slay Christ, and to pour out his blood again) this proveth not a real sacrificing of Christ, but only an endeavour so to do. For his blood is not poured out, neither is he slain indeed. So that as in the time of the old law, if the priest reaching forth his hand, to slay the beast that was brought to be sacrificed, had been so hindered by something interposing itself, that he could not slay the same, he had offered no sacrifice, but endeavoured only so to do; so is it here. Bellarmine therefore rejecteth this conceit, and hath another of his own. For he saith, that Christ hath a two fold being: the one natural, the other sacramental. The jews had him present amongst them visibly, in his natural being; this being they destroyed, and so killed, and sacrificed him. The Romish Priests have him not so present, neither can they destroy his natural being, and so kill him; but they have him present in a sacramental presence, and in a sacramental being, this being they destroy. For consuming the accidents of bread and wine, which are there left without substance, and with which he is present, they make his presence there to cease, and so cause him to lose that being, which formerly he there had. Thus do they suppose that they newly sacrifice Christ, and destroy him in that being, wherein he is present with them, And the Priests eating, is not for refection, but for consumption, that he may destroy Christ in that being, wherein he is present; as the fire on the altar, was wont to consume, and destroy the bodies of those beasts, that were put into it. But first it is impious to think of destroying CHRIST in any sort. For though it be true, that in sacrificing of Christ on the altar of the cross, the destroying and killing of him was employed, and this his death was the life of the world; yet all that concurred to the kill of him: as the jews, the Roman soldiers, Pilate and judas, sinned damnably, and so had done, though they had shed his blood, with an intention, and desire, that by it the world might be redeemed. So in like sort, let the Romish priests have what intention they will, it is hellish and damnable, once to think of the destroying of Christ in any sort. And besides, if it were lawful for them so to do, yet all that they do, or can do, is not sufficient to make good a real sacrificing of CHRIST. Because all they do, or can do, is no destroying of his being, but only of his being somewhere, that is, in the Sacrament. For as if the things which were brought to be sacrificed in the time of the Law, had been only removed out of some place, into which they were brought, or only caused to cease to be, where they were, and not what they were; they could not truly have been said to have been sacrificed: no more can it be truly said, that Christ is really sacrificed, in that the priests consuming the accidents of bread and wine, under which they supposed him to be, make him cease to be there any longer.  
Having thus in their erring imaginations framed to themselves a real sacrificing of Christ, they begin to dispute of the force and efficacy of it affirming that this real offering, and sacrificing of CHRIST by the 
a Bellar de mi●…. l. 2. c. 4.  priest, is propitiatory in that it pacifieth God, and procureth and obtaineth grace, and the gift of repentance, that the sinner may come to the sacrament, and so be justified: satisfactory, in that it applieth the satisfaction of Christ, and procureth remission of temporal punishments, to them that by faith and repentance are already free, from the guilt of eternal condemnation; meritorious, because it obtaineth that grace, whereby we may merit; and impetratory, in that it obtaineth for us, and procureth to us, all desired good. This force and efficacy they say it hath, ex opere operato, that is, the very offering and sacrificing of Christ in sort before expressed, of itself hath force and power, to obtain and procure grace, remission of sins, and the like, for all them for whom such offering is made; if there be no hindrance or impediment in themselves. And that God hath tied himself by promise, to confer such gifts, and work such effects, so often as the body and blood of his son shall be thus offered. And farther they add, that it conferreth good and removeth evil, not infinitely, but in a stinted and limited sort. Nor in that limited sort equally in respect of all, but in proportionable sort, as the intendment of the Church is to apply this sacrifice more or less, to the procuring of more or less. And that therefore the benefit that this sacrifice procureth, is in one degree communicated to all faithful ones living and dead; in another to such, as by the Church's appointment are specially named, as the Pope, King, and Bishop or the like; in another to them that procure the offering of this sacrifice: in another to them that are present and stand by: in another to them that minister and attend; in another to the priest that sacrificeth: and in another to whomsoever it pleaseth the priest, to impart and communicate the benefit and effect of this sacrifice. For as Gregorius de Valentia allegeth out of ● Scotus, it is to be thought, that the priest that is the minister of this sacrifice, may apply to whom he will, not only that which by worth 
b Quodli. 2●….  of his personal merit, in the religious performing of this service he may deserve, but some part also of that effect which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato: and that God hath committed unto him the effect which it hath in this kind, in some degree and sort, to be dispensed by him to whom he thinketh good, in recompense of his service. And further they resolve, that those effects which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato, and are by the intendment of the Church, communicated in different sort, and degree, to those diverse sorts of men before specified, are equally communicated to each of those sorts, according to their several differences, whether the sacrifice be offered for more or fewer. As they that procure Mass to be said for them, whether they be more or fewer, shall have like effects wrought in them. But that portion of this efficacy, force, and power of working gracious effects, that is committed to the disposition, and distribution of the Priest, is so limited, that accordingly as he intendeth good, to more, or fewer, he procureth more, or less unto them. here we see a goodly frame of building raised, but it hath an ill foundation, for it is most absurd to say, that the very offering of Christ's body and blood, ex opere operato, and of itself, should have force to obtain any thing at God's hand, or to procu●…e any good unto us. For there is no offering that can have any acceptation unless it be offered by an accepted offerer, according to that in the 4● of Gen●…sis, God had respect to Abel and to his offering; first to Abel, and then to his offering; and that in the 21th of Luke, where Christ saith; this poor widow hath cast in more into the treasury than any of the rest; because she cast it in, out of a larger, more free, better, and more accepted will. And hereupon Saint Gregory, in his Homily on that of Matthew 4. jesus walking, etc. saith, non pensat Deus quantum in eius sacrificio deferatur, sed ex quanto: that is, God doth not so much weigh and consider how much, or how good that is which is presented to him in sacrifice, as out of how great and good affection it is presented. And therefore if a jew had offered Christ unto his father, willing so to be offered, or not willing, this oblation had not been so acceptable, as when he offered himself: nay it had not been accepted at all, according to that in 
c Cap. 34.  Ecclesiasticus, He that offereth sacrifice out of the substance of the poor, is as he that slayeth, and sacrificeth the son in the sight of his father. And Bellarmine saith well to the same purpose, that though 
d De Miss. l. 2. c. 4  the thing offered be acceptable of itself, yet the oblation is not acceptable, unless the offerer be accepted, which is especially true in respect of God, whose all things are, and who needeth nothing. So that in this supposed sacrifice, the worthiness and acceptation of the offerer, is principally to be considered, for it is not so much the worth of the thing offered, as the esteem the offerer hath of it, and his good affection in offering it, that God respecteth. Who therefore is the offerer of this their supposed sacrifice? They will say, Christ is the supreme, and the Priest the inferior, and subordinate: and that therefore whatsoever the condition of the Priest be, the sacrifice is accepted for the principal offerers sake. But this is nothing, for though Christ be offered on the Altar, as they imagine, yet he doth not offer himself immediately. For then this offering would be equivalent to that former on the Cross, which yet they will not acknowledge. And besides, that of the Apostle should be found false and untrue, Heb. 9 that he doth not often offer himself. Neither can it be said, that Christ offereth himself mediately by the Priest, and so giveth price and worth to the offering. For if it be said that Christ offereth himself mediately by the Priest, either it is because he appointeth, authoriseth, and encourageth the Priest to make this offering, and this will give no more value and worth to the offering then the immediate offerer hath, as we see it was in the offerings of the Priest under the Law: or else in that the Priest doth this in his name, as a Legate presents a thing to a foreign Prince, in the name of the King; and this cannot be; for whatsoever a legate may do, in the name & person of his king, the king may do in his own person, if it please him; but Christ can no more offer himself in his own person, therefore this is not to be admitted. Wherefore passing by this idle fancy, we shall find, that the of●…erer is the priest, and so many as do procure, or desire the doing of the same; and that therefore the whole Church in a sort, may be said to offer this sacrifice. For though it be offered ministerio sacerdotis, by the ministry of the Priest, yet it is offered voto ecclesiae, out of the devotion & desire of the Church, in which there are ever some found, that are acceptable unto God; and therefore the offerer of this sacrifice is ever acceptable: and according to the merit, & worthiness of this offerer, the sacrifice here offered findeth acceptation. So then these men imagine, that there is a real, external sacrifice in the Church, which they daily offer unto God; that it worketh great effects of grace; that Christ is offered in it; but that the acceptation of it, is not wholly, nor principally from the dignity of the thing offered, but from the merit of the offerer.  
This is the present doctrine of the Roman Church: but this was not the doctrine of the Church at the time of Luther's appearing: for the best & principal men that then lived, taught peremptorily, that Christ is not newly offered any otherwise, then in that he is offered to the view of God; nor any otherwise sacrificed, then in that his sacrifice on the cross, is commemorated & represented. The things that are offered in the sacrament are two (saith the author of the Enchiridion of Christian religion, published in the provincial council of Colen:) the true body of Christ with all his merits, & his mystical body, with all the gifts which it hath received of God. In that therefore the Church doth offer, the true body & blood of Christ to God the father, it is merely a representative sacrifice, & all that is done, is but the commemorating, & representing of that sacrifice, which was once offered on the cross. But in that it dedicateth itself, which is the mystical body of Christ unto God, it is a true, but a spiritual sacrifice, that is, an eucharistical sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, & of obedience due unto God. Christ therefore is offered & sacrificed on the altar, but sacramentally & mystically: in that in the sacrament there is a commemoration & remembrance of that which was once done. Christ is not often slain, which once to think were abominable; but that which was once done is represented, that we might not forget the benefit bestowed on us, but rather be so stirred up & moved by this sacrament, as if we saw the Lord jesus hanging upon the cross. The passion of the Lord, saith 
e Epist. ad Cae●…ilianum.  Cyprian, is the sacrifice that we offer to God, that is, that we offer to the view of God, and represent unto him. 
f pag. 68  Neither is it to be marvailed at, that we offer the true body of Christ, to revive the memory of the former sacrifice, and to represent it unto God: seeing the son of God was given unto us, that we might oppose him to the wrath of God, as a reconciler, and that distrusting our own strength, we might represent to the father, this most potent sacrifice. 
g In cant. serm. 22.  Cum defecerit, saith Bernard, virtus mea, non conturbor, non diffido, scio quid faciam: calicem salutaris accipiam. That is, When my strength shall fail, I will not be troubled, neither will I despair. I know what I will do, I will take the cup of salvation. And in another place. 
h Serm. 1. de Epi●…h.  Totum quod dare possum miserum corpus istud est, id si minus est, addo & corpus ipsius. Nam illud de meo est, & meum est: parvulus enim natus est nobis, & filius datus est mihi, de te Domine suppleo, quod minus habeo in me. O dulcissima reconciliatio! O suavissima satisfactio! That is, All that I can give is this miserable body, if that be too little, I add his body, for that is of mine, and it is mine: a little child is borne unto us, a son is given unto me; from thee I take o Lord to supply what I find wanting in myself. O most sweet reconciliation! O most sweet satisfactoin! Who doth not see, that God doth by such a faith as that is, that is 
i Paulo post.  exercised in the celebration of this representative sacrifice, and in the eating of the body of Christ, the sufferings whereof are here represented, apply the benefit of Christ his dearest son to his faithful ones. Neither do we attribute this application to the priest, but to God, nor to our work, but to God's benefit. Which yet we receive no otherwise but by faith, with the assent of our own will. Hitherto we have heard the words of the author of the Enchiridion, and the same author 
k pag. 66.  elsewhere saith, that the orthodox divines, deny the external action which we call the sacramental oblation, to confer grace, or to have any spiritual effect, ex opere operato. It is true, saith he, that a wicked man may pronounce the words of Christ, and so make the elements of bread & wine, to become the sacrament of the Lords body and blood, and this sacrament ex opere operato, that is, out of the very nature of a sacrament, & of itself, how ill soever the minister be, will confer grace instrumentally, to all such as receive it, without such indisposition, as might hinder the working of it. But if we speak of the offering of Christ representatively, it hath no force farther than the faith of the offerer extendeth. If the priest therefore not only outwardly, but inwardly also, by the act of faith, present the sufferings of Christ in the body of his flesh to God, in desire by the merit thereof, to escape his wrath: he bringeth much good upon himself: & if he devoutly beseech God for his Christ's sake, whose sufferings he representeth unto him, to be merciful to the people committed to his charge, or to any other, there is no doubt but this his prayer, in the nature of a prayer, is most powerful to obtain in this kind. But if he be wicked, & faithless, his representative offering of Christ, of & merely in respect of itself, worketh no good to himself, nor any other. For in the representative offering of Christ's passion to God, must be included, a supplication made to God for that passion sake, and a desire of those good things that we need. Now the prayer of such a sinner God heareth not, but the people spiritually representing unto God by the act of their faith, that which the priest doth sacramentally, obtain all desired good, and the removing of all evil, not by force of that the priest doth, but by their own faith, which is stirred up by that outward act done by him.  
The most reverend Canons of the Metropolitical Church of Colen, agree with the author of the Enchiridion: their words are these. 
l pag. 88 & 89.  Consecratione factâ in missâ, Christus Dominus qui seipsum aliquando in corpore suo mortali Deo patri coelesti cruentum sacrificium pro peccatis mundi obtulit, denuo totius ecclesiae nomine, modo incruento, spirituali representatione, & commemoratione sacratissimae suae passionis, offertur: quod ipsum fit, quando ecclesia Christum & eius verum corpus, verumque sanguinem, Deo Patri cum gratiarum actione, & oratione attentâ, pro suis & totius mundi peccatis proponit, seu repraesentat: quanquam enim sacrificium illud, in eâ formâ quâ in cruse offerebatur, semel tantum oblatum sit, & semel tantum sanguis effusus; ut ita repeti, iterumque offerri non possit; nihilominus tamen consistit, & manet tale sacrificium coram Deo, perpetuò in suâ virtute & efficaciâ acceptum; ita ut sacrificium illud in cruse oblatum, non minus hodierno die in conspectu patris sit efficax, & vigens, quam eo die quo de saucio latere sanguis exivit & aqua. Quapropter cum vulnerati corporis nostri plagae pretio redemptionis semper opus habeant, ecclesia proponit Deo Patri pretium illud, in verâ fide & devotione iterum, sed figuratiuè, & spiritualitèr, ad consequendam remissionem peccatorum: non quod huic operi suo, quo videlicet commem or at & repraesentat sacrificium illius, meritum ascribat remissionis peceatorum, ut quam solus Christus cruentâ suâ oblatione in cruse nobis promeruit; verum tali suo commemorativo, & mystico fidei sacrificio, in quo repraesentat ecclesia, & sistit in conspectum patris verum corpus & sanguinem eius unigeniti, applicat sibi & accommodat magnum illud donatiwm remissionis peccatorum, quod Christus impetravit, cum accipiat remissionem peccatorum per nomen eius, qui credit in eum, Act. 10. That is; So soon as the consecration is done in the Mass, Christ the Lord who sometime offered himself in his mortal body a bloody sacrifice to God his heavenly father, for the sins of the whole world, is now offered again after an unbloody manner, by representation and commemoration of his most sacred passion; which thing is then done, when the Church doth propose and represent, Christ and his true body ' and blood to God the Father with thanksgiving, and with earnest prayer for the remission of her sins, and the sins of the whole world: for although that sacrifice in such sort as it was offered on the Cross, was offered only once, and his blood only once poured forth, so that he can no more be so offered: yet notwithstanding that sacrifice remaineth and abideth before God perpetually, in its virtue and efficacy; and is so acceptable unto him, that being but once offered on the Cross, it is no less effectual, and of force in the sight of God to day, than it was that day, when water and blood streamed out of his wounded side. Wherefore seeing the soars and hurts of our wounded bodies, have always need of the price of redemption, the Church proposeth to God in faith and devotion that price again, but figuratively and spiritually, to obtain remission of sin, not as if she did ascribe to this her work, whereby she commemorateth, and representeth that his sacrifice, the meriting of remission of sins, which Christ only merited for us, by his bloody sacrifice on the Cross; but by such her commemorative and mystical sacrifice of faith, in which she representeth and setteth before the eyes of God the Father, the true body and blood of his only begotten Son, she applieth to herself that great donative of remission of sins, which Christ obtained, it being so that every one that believeth in him, receiveth remission of sins by his Name, as it is in the 10th of the Acts.  

m 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 Caesare proposit. ad rationem concordiae incundam in controversiis religionis artic. 1 9 apud Goldast. imperialium constitutionum tom. 2. pag. 1●…7.  In the book proposed by Charles the 5th, written by certain learned and godly men, much commended to him by men worthy to be credited, as opening a way for the composing of the controversies in Religion, we shall find the same explication of this point, touching the sacrifice, that I have already delivered out of the former authors; the words are these. Omnis ecclesia missam, in qu●… verum corpus & verus sanguis Christi conficitur, sacrificium esse consentit; sed incruentum & spirituale; in eâ enim (modò religiosé, & piè agatur,) Deo quatuor spiritualiter offeruntur. Initio enim Christus, qui seipsum patri in mortali corpore, cruentam, sufficientem, & beneplacentem, pro totius mundi peccatis hostiam, cruci affixus obtulit, idem ille in missâ, totius ecclesiae nomine, repraesentativo sacrificio, eidem deo patri immolatur; quod certè fit, cum ecclesia illum, eiusque verum corpus & sanguinem, Deo patri pro totius mundi peccatis piâ prece sistit: nam etsi oblatio illa in cruse semel facta, transiit non reiterabilis; victima tamen ipsa immolata perpetuá virtute consistit, ut non minus hodiè in conspectu patris oblatio illa, in iis qui eum Deo religiosa fide repraesentant, sit efficax, quam eo die quo de sacro latere, sanguis & aqua exivit. In quam sententiam patres corpus & sanguinem Christi in altari praesentia, nunc pretium pro peccatis totius mundi, nunc pretium redemptionis nostrae, nunc victimam salutarem appellare consueverunt. Et Chrysostomus testatur nos eandem hostiam, quae semel oblata est, in sancta sanctorum semper offer, at que unum esse utrobique sacrificium, unum Christum, & hic plenum existentem, & illic plenum; sic tamen ut quod nos agimus sacrificium exemplar sit illius, in commemorationem eius, quod factum est semel. Nec ab re, Deus enim in hoc donavit nobis Christum jesum Filium suum, ut de nostris viribus diffisi ●…deque nostris peccatis nobis probè conscii, illum tanquam unicam & potissimam victimam pro nostris peccatis satisfactoriam Deo patri repraesentemus: ipse enim natus est, ipse datus est nobis, ut quicunque in eum credimus, non pereamus, sed pacem cum Deo reconciliati per sanguinem eius habeamus. Secundò, Ecclesia in hoc missae sacrificio seipsam quoque, quatenus Christi corpus mysticum est, per Christum Deo offer, non dubitat. Tertiò, In missâ sacrificium laudis offertur. Postremo Ecclesia & dona quaedam, tam panis quam vini, ex quibus partim corpus & san●…uis Christi conficiebantur, offerebat, partim & eleemosynae fiebant: & iustum est quod populus in hoc sacrificio se non tantum verbis deo consecret, sed & symbolo aliquo externo testetur, quod se totum dedicet Deo. Nam is mos in Ecclesiis penè abolitus est; cum olim omnibus diebus dominicis, panis & vinum, & res aliae, ab omnibus tum viris tum mulieribus, ad altare offerebantur, quemadmodum decreta quae Fabiano tribuuntur testantnr, that is, The whole Church doth consent, that the mass in which the bread and wine are consecrated, to become the true body and blood of Christ, is a sacrifice, but unbloody and spiritual, for in it (if it be Godly and religiously celebrated,) four things are spiritually offered unto God. For first Christ himself, who being fastened to the cross offered himself to his Father in his mortal body, a bloody, sufficient, and well pleasing sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, is in the mass offered to the same God his Father, in the name of the whole Church, by a representative oblation: which thing truly is then done, when the Church piously, to entreat mercy for the sins of the whole world, presenteth him and his true body and blood to God the Father: for although that oblation that was once made on the cross be past and cannot be reiterated, yet the thing that was then sacrificed and offered abideth, having a never failing virtue and efficacy: so that that oblation, in them that by a religious faith do represent it unto God, is no less effectual and prevailing, to procure them favour in the sight of God, than it was that day, that water and blood streamed out of his sacred side. And in this sense the fathers are wont sometimes to call the body and blood of Christ present on the altar, the price for the sins of the whole world, sometimes the price of our redemption, sometimes the sacrifice that bringeth salvation. And Chrysostome witnesseth, that we continually and daily offer the same sacrifice, that was once offered and presented into the holiest of all; and that both there and here there is one sacrifice, one Christ, perfect here, and perfect there; yet so, that that which we do is but a representation, and done in remembrance of that which was once there done: and this not unfitly; for therefore did God give us Christ jesus his son, that distrusting our own strength and being guilty to ourselves of many sins, we might represent and set him in the sight of God the Father, as the only and most excellent satisfactory sacrifice for our sins. For he was borne, and he was given unto us, that whosoever of us believe in him, might not perish, but might have peace with God, being reconciled by his blood. Secondly the Church in this sacrifice of the mass, doubteth not to offer itself as the mystical body of Christ, unto God by Christ. Thirdly, in it is offered the sacrifice of praise. Lastly, the Church was wont to offer certain gifts, of bread and wine, out of which some part was consecrated, to become the body and blood of Christ to the faithful people, and the rest was given in alms to the poor. And truly it is very just and right, that the people in this sacrifice, should not consecrate themselves to God in words only, but so as to testify by some outward symbol, that they wholly dedicate themselves to God; and therefore it is not well, that this custom is almost utterly abolished; whereas anciently every Lord's day, bread and wine and other things were offered on the altar, both by men and women, as the decrees attributed to Pope Fabian do testify. After this follow these words in the same place. I am si canon ille missae in hunc quem diximus sensum intelligatur, nihil habet incommodi, superstitiosa tantum absit opinio quia quidam de naturâ & energiâ huius sanctissimi sacrificii male edocti, virtutem eius ex solo externo opere quod facit Sacerdos, in se derivari putabant, tametsi illi nullam vivam fidem adferrent, nullam pietatem adhiberent, nulla communione vel precum seu orationis, sacrificio assensum praeberent: quales erant qui nullâ suae nefandae impietatis & execrandorum flagitiorum habitâ ratione se huic sacratissimae & divinissimae actioni damnabiliter miscuerunt, missam solius externi operis quod sacerdos facit virtute prodesse put ants, etsi ipsi nihil probae mentis adferrent. That is, If the canon of the Mass be understood in this sense which we have expressed, there is no evil in it; so that men have no superstitious conceit of things: for there were some, who being ill instructed touching the nature of this sacrament, supposed that virtue might be derived unto them, by the sole extern action of the priest, although they brought no lively faith, no piety, nor gave any consent to the sacrifice, by any communion so much as of prayer: of which sort they were, who having no consideration of their own horrible impieties, & evils committed by them, persevering in the purpose of sinning damnably, presumed to be present at this most holy action, and put themselves in a sort into it, persuading themselves that the mass, by the virtue of the extern work of the priest alone would do them good, though they brought no motions, affections, or desires of a good mind with them.  

n Hosius Tom: 〈◊〉. cap. 41. pag. ●…4.  Hosius was of the same opinion with these before recited: When the priest (saith he) lifteth up the eucharist, let men remember that sacrifice wherein Christ being lifted up to the cross, offered himself to God a sacrifice for us. Let them think how bitter the torments were that he sustained, & let them know that men's sins were the cause of such his sufferings; let them grieve as it is fit they should for them, and let them show by all means that they hate them. And because by his precious death he hath so fully satisfied for all sins, that there are none that are not abolished; let them with good assurance & confidence, go unto the throne of grace; and whereas we have no merit of our own, let them plead that of Christ, let them present that his body that did hang on the cross, and his blood which was shed for the remission of our sins, to God the Father, and let them humbly beseech him to turn away his face from their sins, and to look upon the face of his son Christ, who bore our infirmities, to look upon his face, for his merit to remit their sins, and to grant that they may derive unto themselves, all that fruit which that sacrifice of the cross that is represented on the altar, brought to the world, Thus he saith the people were taught by our forefathers, and this he saith is enough for them to know. Notwithstanding he showeth, that Michael Bishop of 
* Merspurg●…nsis de mis●…ae sa 〈◊〉 sermon. 〈◊〉. Christum ●…n 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 ●…dendo off●…mus Deo sed 〈◊〉 mysterio & spi●…ali ratione.  Merspurge, a man learned, godly, and truly catholic published certain sermons touching the sacrifice of the mass●…, which he wisheth to be in the hands of all men; in these sermons the same explication is made of the sacrament so often mentioned, that I have already delivered. And with him agreeth another learned Bishop Thomas Watson sometimes Bishop of Lincoln in his 
o Sermon. 12.  sermons upon the seven sacraments; his words are these.  
Christ in heaven and we his mystical body on earth do but one thing: for Christ being a Priest for evermore, after his passion and resurrection entered into heaven, and there appeareth now to the countenance of God for us; offering himself for us, to pacify the anger of God against us, and representing his passion and all that he suffered for us, that we might be reconciled to God by him: even so the Church our mother being careful for us her children that 
Greg. 〈◊〉. ●…7.  have offended our father in heaven, useth continually by her public minister to pray & to offer unto God the body & blood of her husband Christ; representing & renewing his passion and death before God, that we thereby might be renewed in grace, and receive life, perfection, and salvation: and after the same sort the holy Angels of God, in the time of this our sacrifice do 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  assist the priest and stand about the host, thinking that the meetest time to show their charity towards us and therefore holding forth the body of Christ pray for mankind, as saying thus, Lord we pray for them whom thou hast so loved that for their salvation thou hast suffered death, & spent thy life upon the cross; we make supplication for them, for whom thou hast shed this thy blood, we pray for them for whom thou hast offered this same thy very body. In that hour when Christ's death is renewed in mystery & his most 
Chrys. in Act. hom. 3.  fearful and acceptable sacrifice is represented to the sight of God, then sitteth the King on his Mercy-seat, inclined to give and forgive whatsoever is demanded and asked of him in humble manner. In the presence of this 
Cyprian. serm. de Coena.  body and blood of our Saviour Christ, the tears of a meek and humble man never beg pardon in vain, nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart is never put back, but hath his lawful desires granted & given. By resorting to this sacrifice of the mass, we evidently declare & protest before God & the whole world, that we put our singular & only trust of grace & salvation in Christ our Lord, for the merits of his death & his passion, & not for the worthiness of any good work that we have done, or can do, & that we make his passion our only refuge. For when wisdom faileth, which only cometh by the doctrine of 
Bern. in Cant. serm. 22.  Christ; when righteousness lacketh, which only is gotten by the mercy of Christ; when virtue ceaseth, which only is received from him who is the Lord of all virtue, then for supplying of these our lacks & needs, our refuge is to Christ's passion, than we run, as the Prophet saith, to the cup of our Saviour 
Psal. 115.  and call upon the Name of our Lord: that is to say, we take his passion, & offer to God the Father in mystery, the work of our redemption, that by this 
Aug. in Psal. 75  memory & commemoration of it, it would please his merciful goodness to innovate his grace in us, & to replenish us with the fruit of his Sons passion. We are become debtors to Almighty God for our manifold sins & iniquities done against him, we can never pay this debt, no scarce one farthing of a 1000 pounds, what remedy then have we but to run to the rich man our neighbour that hath enough to pay for us all; I mean Christ our Lord, who hath paid his heart blood, for no debt of his own, but for our debt: & there whiles we celebrate the memory of his passion, we acknowledge & confess our sins, which be without number, & grant, that we are not able to satisfy for the least of them, & therefore beseech our merciful Father to accept in full payment & satisfaction of our debts, his passion, which after this sort as he hath ordained to be done in the sacrifice of the mass, we renew & represent before him; & where our sinful life hath altogether displeased him, we offer unto him his well-beloved Son with whom we are sure he is well pleased, most humbly making supplication to accept him for us, in whom only we put all our trust, accounting him all our righteousness, & the author of our salvation. Thus doth the Church daily renew in mystery the passion of Christ, & doth represent it before God in the holy mass, for the attaining of all the graces & benefits purchased by the same passion before, after the measure of his goodness: & as our faith & devotion is known unto him. And again, The Church offereth Christ God's Son, to God the Father, that is, representeth to the Father the body and blood of Christ, which by his omnipotency he hath there made present, and thereby reneweth his passion not by suffering of death again, but after an unbloody manner, not for this end that we should thereby deserve remission of sins, & deliverance from the power of the devil, which is the proper effect of Christ's passion, but that we should by faith, devotion, & this representation of his passion, obtain remission & grace already deserved by his passion to be now applied to our profit and salvation etc. not that we can apply the merits of Christ's death as we list, & to whom we list, but that we by the representation of his passion, most humbly make petition & prayer to Almighty God to apply unto us the remission & grace which was purchased & deserved by Christ's passion before, after the measure of his goodness, and as our faith and devotion is known unto him. The thing offered both in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, & in the sacrifice of the Church on the Altar is all one in substance being the natural body of Christ our high Priest, and the price and ransom of our redemption, but the manner and effects of these two offerings are divers, the one is by the shedding of Christ's blood extending to the death of Christ the offerer for the redemption of all mankind; the other is without shedding of his blood, only representing his death whereby the faithful and devout people are made partakers of the merits of Christ's passion.  
Hitherto the Bishop of Lincoln, and to the same purpose the 
p  Author of the Enchiridion of Christian religion hath these words. Diligenter ergo haec omnia nobis intuentibus, nihil vel absurdi, vel scrupulosi in toto missae contextu occurret, sedomnia (praesertim quae canon complectitur) pietatis plenissima ac plané reverenda (ut sunt) videbuntur. Aut enim Ecclesia respicit ad corpus & sanguinem Christi, pro se in cruse oblata, & vi omnipotentis verbi in altari praesentia, & non veretur haec appellare hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vitae aeternae, & calicem salutis perpetuae; aut ad oblationem repraesentativam, & commemorativam passionis seu corporis Christi veri, (quae fide misericordiam per Christum apprehendente & redemptionem quae est in Christo deo patri opponente peragitur:) & non dubitat hoc sacrificium laudis offer, pro se suisque omnibus pro spe salutis & incolumitatis suae; nimirum spem salutis & incolumitatis, ac redemptionem animarum, debitalaude ac gratiarum actione deo accepta referens; petitque ut hanc oblationem seruitutis suae Deus placatus accipiat, diesque nostros in sua pace disponat, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum suorum grege iubeat numerari, non quidem ex meritis nostris, aut ex dignitate nostrae seruitutis, sed per Christum dominum nostrum. that is, If we rightly look into these things, nothing will occur unto us, in the whole context of the mass, that may justly seem absurd, or cause any scruple, but all things there found, especially such as are contained in the canon, will appear unto us, as they are indeed, full of piety, and much to be reverenced; for either the Church hath respect, to the body and blood of Christ offered for her on the cross, and by force of his Almighty word, present on the altar, and so feareth not to call these a pure host, an holy host, an immaculate host, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of eternal salvation; or else she hath an eye to the representative and commemorative oblation, of the passion or true body of Christ, which consisteth in faith, apprehending mercy by Christ, and opposing unto God the redemption that is in Christ, and so she doubteth not to offer this sacrifice of praise, for herself and all her members, for the hope of her salvation and safety; that is, with all due praise and thanksgiving she acknowledgeth that she hath received from GOD, the hope of salvation, safety, and the redemption of the souls of her sons and daughters, and desireth that God will take in good part this oblation of her service and bounden duty, that he will dispose our days in peace, that he will deliver us from eternal condemnation, and that he will make us to be numbered with his elect, not for our merits or the worthiness of this service, but through Christ our Lord.  
With these 
q .  Georgius Wicelius, a man much honoured by the Emperor's Ferdinand and Maximilian, fully agreeth; defining the mass to be a sacrifice rememorative, and of praise and thanksgiving; and in another place he saith, the mass is a commemoration of the passion of Christ celebrated in the public 
.  assembly of Christians, where many give thinks for the price of redemption. With these agreeth the Interim published by Charles the fifth in the the assembly 
.  of the states of the Empire at Augusta March 15t 1548 and there accepted by the same states.  
But some man happily will say, here are many authorities alleged, to prove that sundry worthy divines in the Roman Church, in Luther's time, denied the new real offering, or sacrificing of Christ, and made the sacrifice of the altar to be only representative, and commemorative, but before his time there were none found so to teach. Wherefore I will show the consent of the Church to have been clear for us to uching this point, before his time, and against the Tridentine doctrine now prevailing.  
Bonaventura in his exposition of the mass hath these words. The body of Christ is elevated and lifted up in the mass for diverse causes; but the first and principal is, that we may obtain and regain the favour of God the Father which we have lost by our sins, for there is nothing that offendeth God and provoketh him to be dipleased but sin only, as the Psalmist saith, they provoked and displeased God with their inventions: the Priest therefore lifteth up the body of Christ on the altar, as if he should thus say. O heavenly Father, we have sinned and provoked thee to anger, but now look on the face of Christ thy son, whom we present unto thee to move thee to turn from thy wrath and displeasure, to mercy and grace; turn not away thy face therefore from this thy holy child jesus, from this thy son, but remember that thou hast said of this same thy son; this is my well-beloved son in whom I am well pleased: correct therefore mercifully in us, whatsoever thou findest in us fit to be corrected, and turn us unto thee and turn thy wrath from us.  
The question is proposed, saith 
t Epistolâ 1. contra Petrobusianos.  Petrus Cluniacensis, why this sacrifice is so often repeated, seeing Christ once offered on the cross, is sufficient to take away the sins of the whole world, especially seeing here and there, not a diverse, but the same sacrifice, that is, the same Christ, is offered. For if that on the cross sufficed, this seemeth to be supefluous; but it is not superfluous etc. for after he had said do this, he addeth in remembrance of me. This then is the cause of this Sacrament, even the commemoration of CHRIST. Our Saviour knew what he had done, and what he would do for man; he knew how great and singular that work was which he had done, in putting on the nature of man; he knew how wonderful that work would be that he was to do, when he should die for man; he knew that by this work he should save man; but that no man could be saved without the love of this work; he knew that this work of his becoming man, and dying for man, as it was renowned above all his works, so it was especially to be recommended unto men, for whom it was done: it was specially to be commended to them, seeing his flesh was tormented for them, his soul grieved and death seized on him, that they might live; this was solemnly to be commended unto them, that Christ might be beloved, that being beloved, he might be possessed, that being once had, he might never be lost. But this love of him could not have been retained by men, if they should-have forgotten him, neither could they have retained the memory of him, unless they should have been put in mind of him, by some fitting outward sign. For this cause was this sign proposed and appointed by CHRIST, which yet is so a sign, that it is the same thing that it signifieth, and herein it differeth from the sacrifices of the old Law, which were not that they signified. Sed istud nostri sacrificij signum, non aliud sed ipsum est quod signat, ita vero est ci idem quod signat, ut quantum ad corpus, id est, ad veritatem carnis & sanguinis Christi pertinet, sit idem quod signat, non quoad mortem & passionem, neque enim ibi Christus ut olim dolorem & mortem patitur, cum tamen immolari dicatur, cum videlicet inviolabiter in altari frangitur, dividitur, comeditur, cum iis, & quibusdam aliis signis in quantum fieri potest mors domini maximè repraesentatur, unde sicut dixi, quantum ad veritatem corporis & sanguinis Christi pertinet, est idem quod signat non quoad mortem & passionem, quam tamen maximè signat. that is, This sign of our sacrifice is no other but the same thing that it signifieth, but we must so understand it to be the same thing that it signifieth, in respect of the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ which it signifieth, but not in respect of his passion & death, though it very lively express & signify that also, for Christ doth not there suffer grief or death, as once he did, though he be said there to be offered & immolated, when he is inviolably broken upon the altar, distributed & eaten, & when by these & the like signs, Christ's death is represented as much as possibly it may be, so that as I said, if we speak of the truth of the body and blood of Christ, this sign is the thing it signifieth, but if we speak of the death and suffering of Christ it is not so, though it do very clearly & expressly represent & signify that his death and passion. Thus we see, he maketh the sacrifice to be merely representative.  

u De Sacram. l. 1. c. 16.  Algerus excellently expresseth the same thing in these words. Notandum quia quotidianum nostrum sacrificium, idem ipsum dicit cum eo; quo Christus semel oblatus est in cruse, quantum ad eandem veram hic & ibi corporis substantiam; quod verò nostrum quotidianum illius semel oblati dicit esse exemplum, id est, figuram, vel formam, non dicit ut hic vel ibi alium Christum constituat, sed ut eundem in cruse semel, in altari quotidiè, alio modo immolari & offerri ostendat; ibi in veritate passionis quâ pro nobis occisus est; hic in figurâ & imitatione passionis ipsius, quâ Christus non iterum verè patitur, sed ipsius verè memoria passionis quotidiè nobis iteratur: quod & ipse Ambrosius notans subiicit. Quod nos facimus, in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est; hoc enim facite, inquit, in meam commemorationem, non aliud sacrificium sed ipsum semper offerimus, magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur. Non ergo est in ipsius Christi veritate diversitas, sed in ipsius immolationis actione, quae dum veram Christi passionem & mortem quâdam suâ similitudine figurando repraesentat, nos ad imitationem ipsius passionis invitat, & accendit, contra hostem nos roborat, & munit, & à vitiis purgans, & virtutibus condecorans, vitae aeternae idoneos & dignos exhibet. That is, It is to be noted, that our daily sacrifice is the same thing with that sacrifice whereby Christ was once offered upon the cross, in that the same true substance is offered here, that was offered there, whereas therefore he saith, that the sacrifice which we daily offer, is a similitude, figure, or representation of that sacrifice which Christ once offered, he is not to be conceived to imagine, that there is one Christ essentially here, & another there, but his meaning is to show that the same Christ once offered on the cross, is daily offered in another sort on the altar, there in the truth of his passion being slain for us, here in figure and imitation of his passion: not suffering again indeed, but having the memory of his passion which once he endured, daily renewed: which thing Ambrose himself also observing, hath these words. That which we do is done in remembrance of that which was then done, for he saith, do this in remembrance of me. We do not therefore offer another sacrifice, but we always offer the same, or rather that we do, is a remembrance of that sacrifice, which was once offered. There is therefore no diversity in the truth and being of that Christ that offered himself, and that we offer, but in the action of offering. For while that which we do, representeth the true passion and death of CHRIST, and by a certain similitude it hath of the same, setteth it lively before our eyes, it inviteth and inflameth us to the imitation of his passion, it strengtheneth & confirmeth us, against the enemy, it purgeth us from sin, beautifieth us with virtues, and maketh us meet & worthy to enter into eternal life. And afterwards he hath these words. Semel passus in cruse, qui non manifestè sed invisibilitèr est in sacramento, quotidie non passus, sed quasi pa●… repraesentatus, hanc immolationem non vero sed imaginario actu passionis & mortis fieri, & tamen veram salutem operari testatur, Gregorius dialog. 4. c. 58. That is, Christ suffered once on the cross, who not visibly but invisibly is in the sacrament; neither doth he daily suffer, but his suffering is daily represented, this immolation or offering Gregory saith consisteth not in the truth of passion or death, but in a mere representation of the same, and that yet it worketh true salvation. And after he addeth, Licet non verâ sed imaginariâ passione in seipsa immoletur; verâ tamen & non imaginariâ passione in membris suis immolatur, quando nos qui in memoriam passionis suae, sacramentum tantae pietatis suae agimus sacrificando ipsum, flendo, & cor nostrum verâ compunctione atterendo, mortem tam pij & dilecti Domini & patris annunciamus. That is, Though Christ be not offered by any real passion in himself, but in a mere representation of his passion, yet he is offered by a true and more than imaginary passion in his members, while we who in memory of his passion celebrate this sacrament, of his so great goodness & loving kindness towards us, & offer this sacrifice by weeping & breaking our heart with true compunction, show forth the death of our so gracious and dear beloved Lord and father.  
Paschasius maketh the same construction of the sacrifice; and 
x Lib. 4. dist. 12.  Peter Lombard proposing the question, whether that the priest doth, may properly be named a sacrifice, or immolation, answereth, that Christ was only once truly & properly offered in sacrifice, and that he is not properly immolated or sacrificed, but in sacrament & representation only.  
Bellarmine's shift to avoid this testimony is very silly, for he saith that Peter Lombard did not propose the question, whether and how Christ may be said to be sacrificed, but how he may be said to be so sacrificed, as to be slain, and that in this sense he saith truly, that Christ was only once properly sacrificed, for that he cannot be said any more to be killed or slain, but in mystery and signification or representation only. Whereas it is most clear and evident, that he proposeth the question simply, and in general, whether he may be said to be sacrificed or not; and seeing the sacrificing of a living thing, doth import the kill and destroying of it, and the sacrificing of Christ the kill of Christ, he 
y Li 4. d. 12.  pronounceth that as Christ can die no more, so he can no more be properly sacrificed, and that therefore when he is said to be sacrificed or offered in the eucharist, we must understand that he is offered only in representation, and not really. That this is his meaning, it appeareth by that which he hath, writing upon the epistle to the 
z Cap. 10.  Hebrews, where he doth not propose the question whether Christ may be said to be so offered often, as to die often, but how it cometh to pass, that the Church daily offereth sacrifice, seeing, as the Apostle saith, where there is one sacrifice having force to take away sin once offered, there is no need that any more sacrifices should be offered; and answereth hereunto, that the thing now offered is the same that was offered on the cross; that the offering of it now is commemorative, & that that which we do, is but recordatio sacrificij, the calling to mind of Christ's sacrifice once offered, that it may be applied unto us, for the remission of our sins; so absolutely excluding all sacrifice for sin properly so called, of what kind soever it be. And 
a Hebrae. 10.  Thomas Aquinas on the same place, proposing the objection of the repetition, and daily reiteration of sacrifice in the Church, which seemeth to import, that that of Christ was not sufficient to take away sin, answereth, that we offer not any other, but the very same sacrifice that Christ did, that is, his body & blood; & that it is no new or different oblation properly so named, but a commemoration only of that sacrifice which Christ once offered.  

b In 4 sent. d. 12  Henricus Gorrichem writing upon the sentences saith, that in the eucharist there is the offering of a sacrifice, not really or in the thing itself, but in similitude; for that which is there daily done, is a sign bringing to our remembrance, and figuring or representing that oblation, that was once made. With whom 
c In Hebrae. 10.  Lyra agreeth, his words are. Si dicas sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in Ecclesia; dicendum quod non est ibi sacrificii iteratio, sed unius sacrificii in cruse oblati quotidiana commemoratio. that is If thou say the sacrifice of the altar is daily offered in the Church, it must be answered, that there is no reiteration of the sacrifice, but a daily commemoration of that sacrifice, that was once offered on the cross. This he saith in answer to that objection, that seeing now as in the time of the law, there is often offering for sin, it seemeth no sufficient sacrifice hath been offered, which objection could not be cleared by his answer, unless he denied the often offering of any kind of sacrifice for sin whether bloody or unbloody.  
Wherefore that which 
d De missa l. 1. cap. 〈◊〉.  Bellarmine hath, that Aquinas & the other Schoolmen for the most part, do no otherwise say that the sacrifice of the mass is an immolation of Christ, but in that it is a representation of Christ's immolation on the cross, or because it hath like effects with that true & real sacrificing of Christ that employed his death, is most true: his evasion is found too silly, & it is made clear & evident, that the best & worthiest amongst the guides of God's Church before Luther's time, taught as we do, that the sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving, and a mere representation and commemoration of the sacrifice once offered on the cross, and consequently are all put under the curse, and anathematised by the 
e De missa canon. 3.  Tridentine council. So that the face of religion was not the same, before, and at Luther's appearing, that now it is, as M Brerely would have us to believe.  
Wherefore to conclude this point, it appeareth by that which hath been said, that neither the canon of the Mass rightly understood, includeth in it any such points of Romish Religion, as some imagine, but in sundry, yea in all the capital differences, between us and them of the Roman faction, witnesseth for us, and against them; & that the Prelates and guides of the Church formerly made no such construction of it, as now is made. That it may have a good sense, our men confess. I could, saith Luther, make such a construction of the canon of the Mass, as might stand with the rule of faith, and I have somewhere so done, but seeing it is obscure, and the rule of the Lawyers is, that he that will speak obscurely, shall have his words construed against him, and not for him, I will not saith he take so much pains, as to seek out and declare the best meaning, that may be conceived of it, but a better form being found out will leave this and embrace that. That it is obscure I showed out of Cassander, and that if it be to be retained it must have some scholies, or explications, either added in the margin, or inserted into the text, that it may be understood and rightly used, which thing if it be done, it will seem a new one, and if it have such explications as he would have, it will differ little or nothing from our liturgy.  
There is extant a ceraine 
f Apud Gold. imperialium constitutionum. Tom. 2. pag. 332. c. 12.  form of reformation exhibited by Charles the fifth to the ecclesiastical states of the Empire, and accepted and received by them, wherein they profess, that the canon of the mass, which the Church of God hath used and retained so many ages, containeth nothing in it that is not consonant to the courses of antiquity, so that it is not to be condemned or changed, by any private authority, so insinuating that by public it may, but touching the other parts of the mass, though for the most part they be nothing but praises of God, prayers of the Church, and holy lessons, and readings, and so far forth not to be despised, yet if there be any new collects, sequences, or prefaces, either unlearned or depending upon Apocryphal histories, or not so fitting to the sacrifice of the mass, which later ages have brought in, they prescribe that they be removed, and that things may be brought back to their ancient purity. Besides this we have extant certain 
g apud Gold. ibid. pag. 376.  articles concerning the reformation of the Church proposed by the embassadors of Ferdinand the Emperor, in the council of Trent, amongst which these are found. That the breviaries and missals should be purged; that all those things which are not taken out of divine scripture, should be removed; that the prolixity of Psalms and prayers should be contracted, good choice being made; that a new agend or form of divine service should be composed, and that then all that would not use it, should be severely punished.  
So that M Brerelies main objection which he thought unanswerable, falleth to the ground. For the Canon of the Mass rightly understood, is found to contain nothing in it, contrary to the rule of faith, & the profession of the protestant Churches; the abuses of private Masses & half communions, are found to have been beside, & against the words & meaning of them that composed the canon, and not without the dislike of many good men, before and since Luther's time; and the construction that they now make of the word sacrifice, so often used in it, appeareth to be a mere perverting of the meaning of the Canon; to a sinister sense, never intended by the authors of it, nor ever allowed by the best men in the Church. This Canon notwithstanding, is found to have some passages, that in the judgement of men right learned, can not well have any true meaning, unless the old custom of offering bread and wine on the Lord's Table, out of which the Sacrament may be consecrated, be restored; so that those parts, that custom being discontinued, may well be omitted. Some other parts are obscure, & need explication, which being added, ot inserted, it will differ little or nothing from those forms of consecration of those holy mysteries that now are in use in the reformed Churches of England, & some other places, therefore brought in, because in later ages many things were added to the canon anciently in use, which the best & gravest in the Church thought fit to be taken away, & a new form of divine service to be composed. So that the Church that formerly was, having no different judgement touching matters dogmatic, no liking of those abuses in practice which some had brought in; & wishing things to be brought to such a course as Protestants now have brought them, it may well be said to have been a Protestant Church, in such sort as I have formerly showed.  
Only two things may be objected against that which hath been said; the one touching prayer for the dead; the other touching the commemoration of the Saints, & prayer that God through their intercession, & for their merit, will give unto us such things as we desire; both which seem to make much against the Religion of Protestants, & to be points of Roman Religion, & contained in the very canon of the Mass, which the Church used in the days of our Fathers; so that that Church wherein they lived and died could be no Protestant Church. But the answer hereunto is easy. For touching the first of these two, which is prayer for the dead, it is well known that Protestants do not simply condemn all prayer in this kind, For they pray for the resurrection, public acquittal in the day of judgement, & the perfect consummation & bliss, of them that rest in the Lord, and the perfecting of whatsoever is yet wanting unto them.  
The Apology of the confession of Augusta, saith expressly in the name of all those worthy Prince's People & States that subscribed the Augustane confession, that they do not condemn nor forbid prayer for the dead. And 
h Exam. part. 3. pag. 92.  Chemnicius saith, it is a bestial apathy for men not to be affected with the death of their friends, presently so soon as ever they are gone to put all remembrance of them out of their minds, and not to wish good unto them, nor to pray that it may be well with them; which desires and prayers yet must be moderated according to the word of God.  
That it is lawful to pray for the acquittal & public remission of sins in the day of judgement, and the performing & perfecting of whatsoever is yet behind, there is no question that I know made by any; and I am well assured that in so doing, we exceeding christianly express our love towards the departed, and give testimony of our persuasion, that the souls of them that die do live; and that their bodies also shall be raised up at the last day; which thing, as Cassander saith truly, all the Christian Churches throughout the world, as well those of the East, as of the West, do & ever did; though they do not so certainly resolve what their state is that are departed hence, what is yet wanting unto them, or wherein or how far forth they may be benefited by our prayers; but the Romish conceit of Purgatory, and their praying to deliver thence, none of the Eastern Churches admit, neither do we.  
This is that which our Adversaries must find in the Canon of the Mass, if they will say any thing against us, for the proof of the Romish religion, out of the canon. Let us hear therefore what the form of the prayer for the dead is, which is found in the canon of the Mass. The words of it are; Remember Lord thy servants and thine handmaids; N. or N. which are gone before us with the badge of faith, and do sleep in the sleep of peace. O Lord we pray thee to grant to them and to all that are at rest in Christ, a place of refreshing, of light and peace. That this prayer hath no respect to Purgatory, or to the deliverance thence, it is evident. For how do they sleep in peace that are tormented in Purgatory? and whose pains are no less than those of hell, though they be not eternal? Or who is so void of sense as to think, that all that are at rest in Christ are tormented in Purgatory, and that to all these God is entreated in this prayer to grant a place of refreshing, of light & peace.  
So that first it is evident, that a place of refreshing, light, and peace is wished, to such as are not in Purgatory. For it is wished to all that are at rest in the Lord. But all that are at rest in the Lord, are not in Purgatory; whence it will further follow, that the Church prayeth for them that she doth not think to be in Purgatory, and consequently that prayer for the dead proveth not Purgatory, as they would make the world believe that it doth. And secondly, that the Church at that time when this form of prayer was first composed, did not believe or think that there is any Purgatory. For if she had had any such persuasion, she would not have forgotten to recommend to God, the woeful estate of men so afflicted as they are supposed to be that are there.  
That this prayer can have no reference to the state of men in Purgatory pains, it is so clear, that 
i Ock. compend▪ error. Papae joan. 22. c. 7.  john the 22▪ (who supposed, (as many of the ancient also did long before him, and the Eastern Christians still do;) that the souls of the just are so at rest in Christ, that yet they remain under the altar, that is, under the protection and comfort of the humanity of Christ, in a state & place of happiness foretasted, but not fully enjoyed, and that they shall not be lifted up above, to the view of the deity of Christ as it is in itself, & the vision of God the Father Son and holy Ghost till the judgement,) produceth this prayer for confirmation of his opinion, supposing that seeing a place of refreshing & peace is here wished to them that are at rest in Christ, (which cannot in any sense be understood of such as are in purgatory,) therefore there is some state of men free from pain & punishment, wherein they are & expect the accomplishment of happiness. To which though 
k Ockam in dialog. p. 2. tract. 2. c. 3.  Ockam so answer, that he would have this prayer to have reference to the estate of distressed souls in Purgatory; yet in the end he saith, it may be understood of the souls of holy men that are in heaven, & the meaning of it is, that the souls of such men as sleep in the sleep of peace, having resumed their bodies may enter into that place of refreshing light & peace, that includeth the highest essential & accidental degree of eternal peace, which they cannot have till the resurrection. And 
l Ribli●…thecae tom. 6. p. 228.  Florus that lived in the time of Carolus Calvus, in his exposition of the Mass, saith, it is most clear that the souls of perfect just men, so soon as they are loosed from the body are received into heaven; but this is to be understood of the souls of Apostles, Martyrs, and confessors, and men of great perfection of life. For the souls of certain just men are not presently admitted into the heavenly kingdom; but though they be in blessed rest, yet are stayed in certain mansions, by which their stay and not enjoying presently what they most desire, it appeareth they come short of perfect righteousness. Besides these, he thinketh there is a third sort, of such as are in Purgatory. Bernard, as it appeareth in the place of 
m Cap. 5.  Ockams' dialogues above cited, maketh three estates of the soul; the first in corpore corruptibili, the second in requie, the third in beatitudine consummatâ; the first in the body subject to death & corruption, the second in rest, the third in consummate happiness. The second excludeth all punishment & affliction, the third all desire of having any higher perfection, or attaining any farther good. A man of great place & worth that hath written not long since, feareth not to deliver his opinion, that the souls of the just are so in rest & peace, and in heavenly mansions immediately after their departure hence, that yet they come not into the highest heaven & place of greatest felicity till the resurrection. Which of these opinions the author of this form of prayer followed, it doth not certainly appear. But sure it is he thought those who are there commended to God, to be in a state of rest, far from pain & torment; and so desired the perfecting of whatsoever is yet wanting unto them, without any reference to purgatory, or the delivering of any thence.  
From this of prayer for the dead, let us come to the other objection touching the commemoration of the blessed Apostles, & other Saints & holy Martyrs, by & through whose intercession, & for whose merits, the priest & people desireth God to grant that they may in all things be kept safe & strongly defended, by the help of divine protection.  
That the Saints do pray for us in genere, desiring God to be merciful to us, and to do unto us whatsoever in any kind he knoweth needful for our good, there is no question made by us; and therefore this prayer wherein the Church desireth God to be gracious to her, & to grant the things she desireth, the rather for that the Saints in heaven also are suppliants for her, will not be found to contain any point of Romish doctrine disliked by us.  
But they will say, there is mention made in this prayer of the merits of those holy Apostles & Martyrs, and the Church desireth God to grant her petitions for those merits, which is contrary to the doctrine of Protestants, that deny all merit properly so named, and therefore cannot but condemn the opinion of one man's meriting for another.  
For answer hereunto we must observe, as 
n Cassand. consult, articulo. 2●…  Cassander rightly noteth, that there is no merit properly so named, to be attributed to mortal & miserable men; and that though the ecclesiastical writers use the word merit, and when they speak of holy men's works call them merits, yet they think them not to be properly so; but do so name the good actions of holy men that proceed from faith, and the working of the holy Ghost, because Almighty God, though they be his gifts, and joined in them, by whom they are wrought, with defect & imperfection, yet is so pleased to accept of them out of his goodness, that he not only rewardeth the doers of them with ample & great rewards in their own persons, but so as to do good to others for their sakes. So God said to Abraham, if there were but fifty righteous in the city, he would spare the whole city for their sakes. Neither only doth he good for their sakes whose works he thus rewardeth, while they live, but even after they àre dead also. And therefore God promiseth that he will protect Jerusalem for his own sake, and for David his servant, which he must be understood to do, not only in respect of the promise made unto him, but with respect had to his virtue, according to the which we read 1 Reg. 15. 3. that God left a little light in Jerusalem, to Abiam the son of Roboam King of judah for David's sake; who did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. This David, saith 
o In Ps. 50. hom. 2.  Chrysostome, did not only please God while he was in the body, but he is found to have yielded great comfort after his death, to such as he left behind him alive. The Prophet Esay cometh to Hezekiah and saith unto him, I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for David my servant's sake. David is dead, but his virtues that pleased God do still live. O strange thing! O ineffable clemency! a man long since dead, patronizeth him that liveth. In this sense than it is that the Church desireth God to be gracious unto her, in granting her petitions for the merit of those his holiest Ones, that she remembreth, no way derogating from the merits of Christ, but putting a great difference between them and those of the Saints, for Christ's merit is the only price of our redemption, by which only we are redeemed from sin & eternal death, and being reconciled to God, are adopted to be sons and heirs of eternal life: but the merits of the Saints here mentioned, are nothing but those imperfect good works which they did while they lived here; which God was pleased so to accept, that he promised not only to reward them with great and ample rewards in their own persons, but to do good for their sakes that did them to others also.  

p Citat. a Cassandro Disp. Rati●…bonae an. 1546.  Bucer speaking of the public prayers of the Church, which we call Collects, in which the intercession and merits of Saints are commemorated, hath these words. Seeing in these prayers, whatsoever is attributed to the intercession and merits of Saints, all that is asked, not of the Saints, but of our merciful God through jesus Christ, they that so pray, do thereby profess and testify, that they acknowledge, that those things which they ask of God, by the intercession, and for the merits of the Saints, are the free gifts of God, &c: And a little after: We willingly acknowledge, and publicly profess, that GOD doth reward the works of his Saints, not only in their own persons, but in those also that pertain unto them, and for whom they intercede, for he hath promised to do good to a thousand generations to them that love him, and study to keep his Commandments; hence it was that he would not heal those of the house of Abimelech, till Abraham interceded and entreated for them, and hence it was that God granted and gave the deliverance and salvation of all the people to Moses, when he entreated for the same. These are the words of Bucer, which not being contradicted by any of our profession, it is evident that no part of Romish Religion disliked by us, can be proved out of this part of the Canon of the Mass.  
Thus having cleared that great objection of Mr Brerelie touching the public Liturgy, used in the Church in the days of our Fathers, and made it appear, that the using thereof, is no proof that the Church that then was, was not a Protestant Church, and having made it clear and evident that both the Liturgy itself, and the profession of such as used it, show plainly that the Church that then was, never allowed any Romish error, howsoever some did in the midst of her: it remaineth that I now proceed to show in the particulars, that the outward face of Religion, at, and before Luther's appearing, was not, as M ● Brerelie telleth us, the now professed Roman Religion, and that whatsoever we have done in the reformation of the Church, was long before wished for, and desired by the best men amongst the guides of the Church.  

CHAP. 1.  
Of the Canon of the Scriptures.  
THat the Church did not admit the Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now do, nor ever accounted those books Canonical which we think to be Apocryphal, it will easily appear, in that all the most famous Divines, from the beginning of the Christian World, even till the time of Luther, did reject those books as Apocryphal that we do. The Church of the jews (to whom as S. Paul saith, the oracles of God were committed) admitted but only 22 Books, as delivered to them from 
Rom. 〈◊〉. 1. 2.  God, to be the Canon of their faith, as 
q Lib. 1. contra Appion.  josephus witnesseth. Neither did the Christian Church ever admit any more.  

b Euseb. lib. 4. c. 25.  Melito Bishop of Sardis being desired by Onesimus to send him a catalogue of the books of the old and new Testament, writeth thus unto him. Having diligently sought out the books of the old Testament, and put them in order, I have sent them unto you: the names whereof are these: the 5 books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie; then jesus the son of Nave, judges, Ruth, the 4 books of Kings, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbes, which is also called the Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, job, the Prophets, Esay, Hieremie, one book of the twelve Prophets, Daniel, Ezechiel, Esdras. Some so translate the words of Melito, as if he reckoned the wisdom of Solomon, as a separate book, and so meant the book that is commonly called the Wisdom of Solomon, and is by us accounted to be apocryphal: but Ruffinus translateth as we do; and that we have rightly expressed the meaning of this worthy Bishop, and that he only added this, as a glorious title to the book of Salomon's Proverbs, which (as 
c Lib. 4. 22.  Eusebius saith) the ancients usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the reader will soon be satisfied, if he peruse that, which D. Raynolds hath touching this point in his 
d Praelect. 14.  prelections. 
e Lib. 3. c. 10.  Eusebius she weth that josephus according to the ancient tradition of the jews, numbered only 22 Canonical 
f Paulo ante annum mundi 4890.  books of the old Testament, as we do, and in his Chronicle he saith expressly, that the books of the Macchabees, are not in the canon.  
Read (saith Cyrill 
g Cateche: 4.  of Jerusalem in his Catechism) the divine Scriptures, that is, the 22 books of the old Testament: and a little after, Read therefore these 22 books, but with the apocryphas have nothing to do; meditate upon the divine Scriptures, which we confidently read in the Church: the holy Apostles, the guides of truth, who delivered unto us these books, were more wise and religious than thou art. Seeing therefore thou art but a son; transgress not the precepts of the Fathers. Now these are the books which thou must read, and then numbereth all the books of the old Testament, and omitteth all those that are controversed; saving that he addeth that of Baruch, thinking it a part of Hieremies' prophecies. Of the same opinion is 
h De mensuris & ponderibus & contra Epicureos, haeresi octauá.  Epiphanius, making no mention of any of the books rejected by us as apocryphal, but only the book of Wisdom, and jesus the son of Sirach; which he saith are profitable, but not to be esteemed as the 22 books (or 27 as some count them) that were kept in the ark of the covenant, which are the books by us acknowledged to be canonical.  

i Amphilochius ad Seleucum de rectâ ●…ducatione inter opera Nazianzeni.  Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium, writing to Seleucus hath these words I will reckon unto thee all the books that proceeded from the holy Ghost; and that thou mayest clearly conceive that which concerns this matter, I will first number unto thee the books of the old Testament, & then he nameth the 5 books of Moses, josua, and the judges, Ruth, 4 books of the Kings, 2 of the Chronicles; 2 of Esdras, job, the Psalms, 3 of Solomon, the proverbes, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, 12 Prophets, Hose, Amos, Micheas, joel, Abdias, jonas, Naum, Abacuch, Sophonie, Ha●…ge, Zacharias, Malachias, the 4 Prophets Esai, Hieremie, Ezekiel, Daniel, and concludeth that to these some add Hester. The reason why some doubted of Hester I have elsewhere showed, out of Sixtus Senensis, to have been, the Apocryphal additions to the book. I have some where cited this book as a part of Gregory Nazianzens works: because some think it so to be, and put it amongst his works. But 
k De. veris & genuinis scripturae libris pag. 952.  Gregory hath delivered his opinion clearly touching this matter, though that book happily be not his. Be conversant (saith he) day and night in the divine oracles; but least such books as are not of this sort, deceive thee, (for many erroneous books are inserted:) receive the true and just number of books that are divine: and then nameth all the books that we admit: save that he omitteth the book of Hester, upon the same reason that I noted out of Sixtus Senensis: and when he hath named these, he addeth those of the new testament; and then pronounceth, that whatsoever is not within this number, is to be accounted amongst bastard & counterfeit books.  
Origen, expounding the first Psalm, putteth down a catalogue of the holy Scriptures of the old Testament, writing thus in precise words, as 
l 〈◊〉 l. 6. c 24. editione grae. Pa. 〈◊〉: c. 25.  Eusebius telleth us; We must not be ignorant that the books of the old Testament, as the Hebrews do deliver, are 22, which is the number of their letters: and then nameth all the books admitted by us, and addeth, that the books of Macchabees are without this number. 
m In Synop●… 〈◊〉 Scripturae  Athanasius agreeth with Origen, writing in this sort: All our Scripture, that are Christians, was given by divine inspiration; neither hath this Scripture infinite books, but a definite number, and contained in a certain canon; and these are the books of the old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie, josuáh, judges, Ruth, the first and second of Kings accounted one book: the third & fourth of Kings accounted one book: Chronicles first & second accounted one book; Esdras the first & second one book; the Psalms of David 151. Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, job, 12 Prophets contained in one volume, Osee, Amos, Micheas, joel, Abdias, jonas, Naum, Ambacum, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias, 4 other Prophets Esai, Hieremie, Ezechiel, Daniel; the books therefore of the old Testament are 22 in number, answerable to the Hebrew letters; Beside these there are certain other books of the old Testament, that are not in the canon, and these are read only to the Catechumen or Novices: Amongst these he numbereth the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of jesus the son of Sirach, judith, Tobit; but mentioneth not the books of Macchabees at all; to these he addeth the book of Hester, accounting it Apocryphal, being mispersuaded of the whole, by reason of those Apocryphal additions, as before I noted out of Sixtus Senensis. In the conclusion of his Synopsis he mentioneth together with the former, four books of Macchabees, and the story of Susanna; but, saith, they are in the number of them that are contradicted.  
The council of Laodicea decreeth in this sort: Let no books be read in the Church, but the books of the old & new Testament, and then addeth, 
n Canone 59  these are the books of the old Testament that are to be read. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie, josuah, judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 2 of Chronicles, Esdras, the book of the Psalms 150. the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, job, Hester, 12 Prophets Osee, &c: Esay, Hieremie, Ezekiel, Daniel. The canons of this council are confirmed by the sixth general council holden in 
o Canone 2..  Trullo. To these we may add 
p Orthodoxae fidei ●… l. 4 c. 18.  Damascene, who having numbered all those books, and those only, as canonical, that we do; addeth, that the book of Wisdom, and of jesus the son of Sirach, are good books, and contain good lessons of virtue, but that they are not numbered in this account, neither were laid up in the ark. 
q De sectis scholae actione secunda in Bibliotheca 〈◊〉. tom 4.  Leontius advocatus Byzantinus saith, there are only 22 books of the old Testament, & reckoneth all those, and those only, that we do. All these worthies that we have hitherto produced to testify in this case, are of the Greek Church, wherefore let us pass to them of the Latin. 
r In Prologue. in ●…almos.  Hilary Bishop of Poitiers saith, the law of the old testament is contained in 22 books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters; which are so disposed, and put in order, according to the tradition of the ancient, that there are five books of Moses, that josuah is the sixth; the judges, and Ruth, the seaventh: the first and second of Kings the vl; the third and fourth the ninth; 2 of Chronicles the tenth: Esdras the eleventh; Psalms 12; solomon's Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles 13, 14, 15; the 12 Prophets 16; Esay, Hieremie with the Lamentations and epistle, Daniel, Ezechiel, job, & Hester, do make up the number of 22 books; some have thought good to add Toby, and judith, and so to make the books to be 24 in number, according to the number of the Greek letters.  
Ruffinus in the explanation of the Creed, which is found amongst the works of Cyprian, and so attributed to him, setteth down a Catalogue of those books, which according to the tradition of the ancient, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and delivered to the Churches of Christ, containing all those books which we admit, secluding all those that are now in question: It must be known, saith he, that there are other books which are not called Canonical, but Ecclesiastical, by the ancient: as the Wisdom of Solomon, and that of the son of Sirach. And in the same rank we must put the book of Tobias, and judith, and the books of the Maccabees: and in the New Testament the book of Pastor, all which truly they would have to be read in the Church, but not to be alleged for proof of any matter of faith that was questioned, or doubted of; and then concludeth, that he held it very fit to put down these things, which were delivered by tradition from the Fathers, that they that are to learn the first elements and rudiments of Christian Religion, may know out of what fountains to draw.  

s In Prologo galeato.  Hierome in his prologue, which he prefixed before the books of the Old Testament, by him translated out of Hebrew into Latin, saith, There are 22 books of the Old Testament; and that as there are but 22 Hebrew Letters, by which we write whatsoever we speak; so there are 22 books, by 
Praefat. in Esdram & Nehemiam ad Domnionem & Rogatianum. Quae non habentur apud Hebraeos, nec de viginti quatuor senioribus sunt procul abiicienda.  which as by Letters and beginnings in the doctrine of God, the tender infancy of the just man, that yet is like a child hanging on the breast, is informed and instructed: and then nameth all the books which we admit, and after addeth, Whatsoever is beside these, is to be put amongst the Apocrypha; and that therefore the book of Wisdom, of jesus the son of Sirach, of judith, Tobias, and Pastor, are not in the Canon. And the same Hierome in his Preface before the Books of Solomon, having made mention of the book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, and delivered his opinion, that it is untruely called the Wisdom of Solomon, and attributed to him; then addeth, that, as the Church readeth the books of judith, Tobias, and the Macchabees, but doth not account them amongst the Canonical Scriptures; so these 2 Books may be read for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of any doubtful point of doctrine. 
t Lib. 8. haeres. 12.  Sixtus Senensis confesseth that Philastrius rejecteth the Books of Macchabees. And the same 
u In Bibl. pat. de haeres. cattle. 3. cap. 9  Philastrius in the he heresy of the Prodianitae, taxeth them amongst other things, that they used the book of Wisdom, which jesus the son of Sirach wrote long after Solomon's time.  

x Lib. 2. c. 32. Dan. 13.  The Author of the Book De mirabilibus Scripturae, that goeth under the name of Augustine, hath these words, De lacu verò & Abacuch translato, in Belis Draconisque fabula, idcirco in hoc ordine non ponitur; quod in authoritate divinae Scripturae non habentur. It is true, that Augustine, and the African Bishops of his time, and some other in that age, finding these books which Hierome and the rest before cited, reject as Apocryphal, to be joined with the other, and together read with them in the Church, seem to account them to be Canonical. Caietan and others answer, that those Fathers speak of the Canon of manners, not of faith: and of Books not simply, hut in a sort canonical, so that they differ not from the other Fathers before alleged, that deny them to be Canonical, as not being simply, and absolutely so. How fit and true this answer is, I will not stand to examine: but this is most certain, that Augustine himself seemeth something to lessen the authority of this Book: for whereas the example of 
a Contra Ep. Gaudentii, l. 2. c. 23.  Razias killing himself, is pressed against him, to prove that it is lawful for a man to kill himself: after other answers, he saith, the jews do not esteem this Scripture called the history of Mac●…bees, in such sort as the law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which Christ giveth testimony as to them that bear witness of him, saying, it behoved that all those things should be fulfiled 
Luke 24. v. 44.  that are written of me, in the Law, the prophets, and the Psalms; but it is received of the Church not unprofitably, if it be soberly read, and heard: especially in respect of those Macchabees, that as true martyrs, endured grievous and horrible things of the persecutors, for the law of God: And the council 
b Canon: 2 4  of Carthage, whereat Augustine was present, prescribing that no books should be read in the Church as canonical, but such as indeed are canonical, leaveth out the books of Macchabees, as it appeareth by the Greek edition; though they have foisted them into the Latin.  
But howsoever these did not so exactly look into these things, as they of the Greek Church, and many of the Latin Church before named, but admitted those books as in a sort canonical, that they found joined together with the other indubitate scriptures, which they had of the translation of the Septuagint: yet after Hierome had translated them out of the Hebrew, and prefixed his prologues and prefaces, before the books translated by him; almost all the Bishops and men of account in the Latin or West Church, so approved the same, that they admitted no other books as Canonical, but those that he did  
Pope 
c Moral: in job. l. 19 c. 17.  Gregory the first, citing a certain testimony out of the first book of Macchabees hath these words: we offend not if touching this thing we allege and produce a testimony out of books though not canonical, yet published for the edification of the people. This was the opinion of Pope Gregory, Gregory the first, Gregory the great, our Apostle as they of the Romish faction tell us, and therefore it will not be safe for us to leave the faith first delivered unto us. To the Pope I will add certain Cardinals.  
Bonaventura in his preface before his exposition of the Psalter, undertaketh to show which are the books of Scripture: Scripture, saith he, consisteth of the old and new Testament, and the whole body of canonical Scripture is contained in these 2; then passing by the books of the new Testament, he reckoneth all those, and those only that Hierome doth: sorting them into their several ranks and orders, as the Hebrews do. And in another place he saith, 
d In Hexaemeron. serm. 19 p. 57  there are 4 sorts of writings in which a student must be conversant; the books of holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, such sayings as have been gathered out of them, and the writings of Philosophers. And because in the books of Philosophers, there is no knowledge to give remission of sins: nor originally in the sums, because they have been extracted out of the originals of the Fathers; nor in them, because they have been taken out of the Scripture; therefore that is principally and in the first place to be studied, and there we must seek that knowledge as in the fountain; and then, that all may know which and how many these books of Scripture are that he will have to be thus studied, he saith, according to Hierome there are 22 in the old Testament, and in the new there are eight.  

e prologo in josuam.  Hugo cardinalis repeateth certain verses, expressing which books are Canonical, and which Apocryphal, the verses are these:  

Quinque libros Moisi, joshua, judicum, Samuelem,  
Et Melachim, tres praecipuos, bis sexque Prophetas,  
Hebraeus reliquis censet praecellere libris.  
Quinque vocat legem, reliquos vult esse Prophetas.  
Post hagiographasunt, Daniel, David, Hester, & Esdras,  
job, Paralipomenon, & tres libri Solomonis.  
Restant Apocrypha, jesus, Sapientia, Pastor,  
Et Machabaeorum libri, judith, atque Tobias.  
Hi, quia sunt dubii, sub canone non numerantur:  
Sed quia vera canunt Ecclesia suscipit illos.   
Here he numbereth the books Canonical and Apocryphal as we do. And the same Hugo in prologum galeatum, speaking of the books rejected by us saith, that these books are not received by the Church for proof of doctrine, but for information of manners. And in another 
f Prologo in Tobiam.  place he saith, they are not counted amongst the Canonical. Cardinal 
g In ult. Hester. Item praefat. comment ad Clem. 7.  Caietan saith, those books only are to be accounted Canonical which Hierome so accounted, and admitteth none of those that are now questioned: this he wrote at Rome as himself telleth us in the year 1532.  
From the Church of Rome, which was the principal amongst these of the West, let us proceed to see what other Churches thought of this matter. 
h Sum: part. 〈◊〉 q. 89. artic. 8.  Thomas Aquinas, proposing the question whether the souls of them that are departed, do know what things are done here: it being objected, that the dead do often appear unto the living, as Samuel appeared unto Saul: concerning Samuel he answereth that it may be said that he appeared by divine revelation, according to that in Eccle siasticus 46. or else, if the authority of that book be not admitted, because it is not in the Canon of the Hebrews, it may be said, that that apparition was procured by the devil.  

i Part: 3. tit. 18. c. 6. paragr. 2.  Antoninus' Archbishop of Florence, affirmeth that the authority of the six books questioned, is not sufficient to prove any thing that is in controversy, and that Thomas secunda secundae, and Lyranus in his prologue before the book of Tobias, do say, that those books are not ofsoe great authority, that any sufficient proofs may be drawn from them in matters of faith, as from the other books. And therefore pronounceth, he thinketh they have such authority as the writings of the Father's approved by the Church. And 
k Ibid. paragr 3.  he mentioneth a certain work entitled Catholicon, the author's name is not known: but the same author, as he telleth us, pronounceth, that none of these books were received for proof of matters of faith, but only for information of manners. By this of Antoninus, who was present at the council of Florence, it will easily appear to be merely supposititious, that we find in the abridgement of that council by Caranza, that these books were pronounced to be canonical: for had they been so, neither would he nor others have rejected them after the holding of this council: neither would such a decree have been omitted by all others that put out the counsels, at large and abridged.  

l Praefat. lib. 14.  Radulphus Flaviacensis, in his commentaries upon Leviticus, speaking of books pertaining to the sacred history, hath these words. The books of Tobias, judith, and of the Macchabees, though they be read for the edification of the Church yet have no perfect authority. 
m De 6 aetatibus mundi.  Beda, after the history of Ezra, addeth; thus far the divine scripture containeth the course of times, what things afterwards we found digested among the jews, they are taken out of the book of Macchabees, josephus, & the writings of Africanus. It appeareth by the Epistle of Hilary B. of Arles, that in Massilia & in some other places of France, there were that took exception to Augustine alleging a place out of the book 
n Inter opera Aug. tomo. 7.  of Wisdom cap. 4. Raptus est ne malitia mutaret intellectam eius; and affirmed, that this testimony, as not being canonical, should have been omitted.  

o De scriptures & scriptoribus sacris c. 6. item cap. 12.  Hugo de sancto victore, having reckoned the 22 books of the old Testament, saith: there are besides certain other books as the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of jesus the son of Sirach, judith, Tobias, and the book of Macchabees, which are read, but are not written in the canon: these he matcheth 
p Exceptionum l: 2. c. 9  in authority with the writings of the Fathers. Richardus de sancto victore, delivereth his opinion of the same books in the same sort; and maketh them to be 
q De authorit. vete: test am: Epistol. contra Petrobrusiano●….  of no greater authority than the writings of the Fathers.  
Petrus Cluniacensis abbess, after an enumeration of all the books that are canonical, saith; there are yet besides these authentical books, 6 other books not to be rejected, judith, Tobias, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Macchabees; which though they attain not to the high dignity of the former, yet they are received of the Church as containing profitable and necessary doctrine. Ockam, to the same purpose saith, that according to Hierome in his Prologue before the book of Proverbes: and Gregory 
Dialog. part. 3. tract. 1. lib. 3. cap. 16.  in his Morals, the book of judith, Tobias, and the Macchabees, Ecclesiasticus, and the book of Wisdom, are not to be received for confirmation of any matter of faith. For Hierome saith, as Gregory also doth, that the Church readeth the books of judith, Tobias, and the Macchabees, but accounteth them not amongst the Canonical Scriptures. So also it readeth those 2 volumes of Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom for the edification of the people, but not for confirmation of points of faith and Religion.  

s in quaest. Armen l. 19 c 19  Richardus Radulphus Archbishop of Armach, and Primate of Ireland, saith, it is defined in general Counsels, that there are 22 authentical books of the Old Testament. 
t Lib. z. doct. fid. art. 2. c. 22.  Thomas Waldensis Provincial of the Carmelites here in England, an enemy to Wickliff, whose works were greatly approved by Pope Martin and the Cardinals at that time, hath these words: The length, breadth, and depth of the city are equal; for as in breadth it can enlarge itself no farther, then to the love of GOD and our neighbour: nor in height nor depth, then to GOD the rewarder of all; so in length, which is the Catholic Faith, it cannot grow beyond the 12 Articles contained in the Symbol, and found scattered in some of the 22 books; especially seeing the Holy Ghost saith in the conclusion of all Canonical Scripture, Let him that will, take of the water of life freely. I profess unto every one that heareth the words of this prophecy, if any man shall add, GOD shall add to his plague.  

u Praefat. exposit. in Tobiam.  Lyra writeth thus: Now that I have by Gods help written upon the Canonical books of holy Scripture, beginning at Genesis, and so going on to the end; trusting to the help of the same GOD, I intent to write upon those other books that are not Canonical; such as are the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, judith, Tobias, and the books of Macchabees: and addeth, that it is to be considered that these books which are not Canonical, are received by the Church, and read in the same, for the information of manners, yet is their authority thought to be too weak to prove things that are in controversy. And writing upon the first of Esdras, 1. c. he saith, that though the books of Tobias, judith, and the Macchabees, be historical books, yet he intendeth to paste them over: because they are not in the Canon, neither with the jews, nor with the Christians. 
x Praef. in Mar. quaest. 2.  Tostatus Bishop of Abulen, approveth the judgement of Lyra. Ximenius that was made a Cardinal in the time of Leo the 10●, put forth the Bible's called Biblia Complutensia; and in the Preface before the same, treating of the books by us thought to be Apocryphal, he saith, they are not in the Canon; and that the Church readeth them rather for edification of the people, then to confirm any doubtful points of doctrine: and that therefore they are not Canonical.  
Dionysius Carthusianus in his Prologues before the books of Ecclesiasticus, and Tobias, denyeth them to be Canonical: as also the book of judith: and writing upon the first Chapter of Macchabees, he denieth it to be Canonical. 
a De tradendis discip. l. 5.  Ludovicus Vives, treating of History sacred and profane; now come in, saith he, the books of Kings, and the Chronicles, the Apocryphal books of Hester, Tobias, and judith; Esdras, which being divided into four books, the two first are accounted Canonical by the Hebrews, the two latter are Apocryphal. And in 
b Comment. in Aug. de civ. dei. l. 18. c. 31.  another place, speaking of the History of Susanna and Bell: he putteth them amongst the Apocrypha. With these acordeth 
c De Eccles. dogm. l. 1. c. ult.  Driedo.  
To these may be added the Glosses: The ordinary Gloss, was begun by Alcuinus, as Antoninus Florentinus, & 
d Hist Franc. l. 4. c. 1.  Gaguinus do think; or by Strabus, Fuldensis, as Trithemius & 
e Bibliothecae, lib. 4.  Sixtus Senensis think: but it was afterwards enlarged by divers, which gathered sundry sentences, and sayings, out of the writings of the Fathers, and put them into it. This Gloss grew to be in great request, and used in all Churches of the West. In the preface thereof are these words: There are some books canonical, some not canonical; between which there is as great difference, as there is between that which is certain, and that which is doubtful. For the canonical books were composed by the immediate direction and suggestion of the holy spirit; they that are not canonical, are very good and profitable, but their authority is not reputed sufficient to prove the things that are questionable. This the author thinketh so clear, that he fasteneth the note of ignorance upon all such as think otherwise; and professeth, that therefore he held it necessary to prefix this preface, because there are many, who not giving themselves much to the study of holy Scripture, suppose that all those books that are bound up together in the Bible, are to be in like sort honoured and esteemed; not knowing how to put a difference between books canonical, and not canonical, which the Hebrews separate from the canon, and the greeks account apocryphal; and so oftentimes make themselves ridiculous to them that are learned. He citeth the authority of Origen, Hierome, and Ruffinus, rejecting the six books questioned; and though he knew the opinion of Augustine, yet doth he not follow it, only he saith, that amongst the books not canonical, they that are rejected by Augustine, as Baruch and the third and fourth of Esdras, are less to be esteemed, than those that he alloweth. And immediately after this preface, followeth Hieromes epistle to Paulinus, and afterwards, his prologus galeatus; and his prologue before the books of Solomon. And the gloss every where inculcateth, when it cometh to these six books, that they are not canonical. Incipit liber Tobiae, etc. here begins the book of Tobias which is not canonical: etc. In the edition of the Bibles with the Glosses there is found an exposition of the prologues of Hierome; written and composed by Brito, more ancient than Lyra, for he is cited by 
f 2 prolog. in exposit. suas.  him,: and honoured with the title of a famous and worthy man, who professeth that the books questioned are not canonical.  

g Dist. 15 canone sancta Roman●….  Gratian in the decree maketh no mention of the opinion of Gelasius, touching the canonical Scriptures, disliking, as it seemeth, his opinion, and yet not willing to oppose against it. But the 
h Dist. 16. cano●… canon's qui, glossa in verbum apocryphas.  Gloss upon the next distinction saith; there are certain apocryphal books that is without author, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of jesus the son of Sirach, called Ecclesiasticus, the book of judith, the book of Tobias, and the books of the Macchabees; these books are said to be apocryphal, and yet they are read but happily not generally. 
i De Eccles. dogma. l. 1. c. 4.  Driedo citeth this place of the gloss, and reprehendeth the author of it, as not giving the true reason why these books are called apocryphal, but yet thinketh as he doth, that they are apocryphal.  
saints Pagninus, in his epitome of historical books that are canonical, prefixed before the Bible, translated by him into Latin, accounteth all those that Hierome doth, to be canonical; the rest hagiographall. Bruciolus, in the preface of his commentaries upon the Bible, translated by him into Italian, saith, he hath commented upon all the books of the old testament, & yet he hath not commented upon the six books that are questioned. In the Bibles put out at Antwerp, by Arias Montanus, with the interlineall translation, all those books are omitted. In the edition of the Bible printed at Antwerp by Birkmannus, that very year that the council of Trent was holden, to determine this point, touching the Canonical and Apocryphal Scriptures and the like: the author, suppressing his name, prefixeth a preface before the same his edition: and in it rejecteth all the books now questioned, in more peremptory sort, than many of the former did.  
Here we see a cloud of witnesses, in all ages, and in all parts of the world, witnessing to the truth of that we affirm, touching the canon of the Scripture, and rejecting those books as Apocryphal, or not Canonical, which we reject, even till and after the time of Luther: so that the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died is found as I said, to be in this point a Protestant Church: wherefore let us proceed to other particular points of controversy.   

CHAP. 2.  
Of the sufficiency of the Scripture.  
THat the Church formerly did not deny the sufficiency of the Scripture for the direction of Christian men in matters of faith and religion, as the Romanists now do; but acknowledged and taught, that it containeth all things necessary to salvation, accordingly as we now profess, it appeareth by the testimonies of these divines 
a Lib. 1. d. 1. q. 1. artic. 2.  Gregorius Ariminensis, sometimes Prior general of the friars Heremites of the order of Saint Augustine, writing upon the sentences, hath these words: That is properly a theological discourse, that consisteth of sayings or propositions contained in the holy scripture, or of such as are deduced thence, or at the least of such as are consequent, and to be deduced from one of these: this saith he, is proved, ex communi omnium conceptione; nam omnes arbitrantur tunc solum theologicè aliquid probari, cum ex dictis probatur sacrae scripturae, out of the common conceit and apprehension of all men: for all men do think that then only a thing is proved theologically, when it is proved out of the sayings of holy Scripture: and if we distinguish theological conclusions, from principles theological, I affirm that all those verities that are not formally and in precise words contained in holy scripture, but are necessarily deduced from things so contained in it, are conclusions theological, whether they be determined by the Church or not: for the Church determineth that a proposition is to be believed precisely, because it seeth, it is necessarily deduced from the words of holy Scripture: but no other that is not so deduced, is to be accounted a theological conclusion: which is proved out of the sayings of Saint Augustine in his fourteenth book de Trinitate cap. 1. where he saith, he doth not conceive, that all that, that may be known by man in humane things, pertaineth to this science, but those things only whereby the most wholesome faith, that leadeth to true happiness is begotten, nourished, defended, and strengthened: but it is evident, that every such thing, is either expressly and in precise terms contained in holy scripture, or is deduced from things so contained in it: for otherwise, the Scripture should not be sufficient to our salvation, and the defence of our faith, which is contrary to Saint August: 2 de doctrinâ Christianâ where he saith, Quicquid homo extra didicerit, si noxium est ibi damnatur, si utile, ibi invenitur: that is, whatsoever a man shall learn without and beside the scripture, if it be hurtful, it is there condemned, if profitable it is there found. Here we have a pregnant testimony, of a man of eminent place, and great worth, peremptorily resolving for the sufficiency of the Scripture, and assuring us, that this was not his private conceit, but the general opinion of all men in his time, and be fore.  

b Prologue. 1. sent q. 2.  Scotus agreeth with Ariminensis, his words are these, Whatsoever pertaineth to the heavenly and supernatural knowledge, and is necessary to be known of man in this life, is sufficiently delivered in the sacred Scriptures; and in 
c Prologue q 3. ad tertiam q.  another place, Sicut theologia beatorum habet terminum, ita & nostra ex voluntate Dei revelantis: terminus autem praefixus â voluntate divinâ, quantum ad revelationem generalem, est eorum quae sunt in sacrâ scripturâ: quia sicut habetur Apocalyp. ultimo, Qui apposuerit ad haec, apponet ei Deus plagas quae apponuntur in libro isto; igitur theologia nostra de facto non est nisi de his quae continentur in scripturâ, & de his quae possunt elici ex ipsis; that is, As the Theology of those blessed ones that are in heaven hath a certain bound, without, and beyond which it extendeth not itself; so also that theological knowledge that we have, hath bounds set unto it by the will of God, that revealeth divine and heavenly truth unto us, and the bound prefixed by the will of God, who generally will reveal no more, is within the compass of such things, as are found in the holy Scripture; because, as it is in the last of the Revelation, whosoever shall add unto these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are added in this book.  

d Prologue. l. 2. p. 1. c. 1  Ockam in his Dialogues saith; There is one opinion, that only those verities are to be esteemed Catholic, and such as are necessarily to be believed for the attaining of salvation, which either expressly are delivered in Scripture, or by necessary consequence may be inferred from things so expressed; and that they that follow this opinion, allege sundry authorities for proof of the same, as that of Augustine: Ego solis scripturarum libris 
e Epist. ad Hieron.  didici hunc timorem, honoremque defer, ut earum nullum authorem in aliquo errasse firmissimè credam, etc. alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate, quantave doctrinâ polleant, non ideo verum putem quia ita ipsi senserint, sed quia per alios authores canonicos, vel probabiles rationes, quod à vero non aberrent, mihi persuadere potuerunt. I have learned to give this honour and reverence only to the books of Scripture, as that I should believe that none of the authors of them in ought have erred, &c: But others I so read, that how great soever their sanctity and learning be, I do not therefore think that to be true which they have written, because it was their opinion, but because they are able to persuade me, either by some other canonical Authors, or by probable reasons, that they have not erred from the truth. And in another place; Quis nesciat sanctam scripturam 
f De unico baptism.  canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenti certis terminis suis contineri, eamque posterioribus omnibus Episcoporum libris praeponi, ut de illâ omninò dubitari & disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in eâ scriptum esse constiterit: Episcoporum autem literas, quae post confirmatum canonem; vel scriptae sunt, vel scribuntur, & per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cuiuslibet in eà re peritioris, & per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem, doctioremque prudentiam, & per concilia reprehendi licere, si quid in iis forté à veritate est deviatum? Who knows not that the holy Canonical Scripture, as well of the Old as the New Testament, is contained within its certain bounds: and that it is preferred before all the Books of Bishops that have been written since: so that there may be no doubt made, nor dispute raised concerning it, whether whatsoever is certainly known to be registered in it, be true or right. But that the letters of Bishops, which either have been or are written since the confirmation of the Canon, may be reprehended if in any thing they have strayed from the truth, both by the speech perchance wiser, of some one better skilled in that matter, and by the more grave authority & more learned wisdom of other Bishops, and by general counsels. And Hierom; Quod de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur: That which hath not authority and confirmation from the Scriptures is with like facility rejected as it is urged. Others he showeth to be of a contrary opinion; but being pressed to give instance of things necessarily believed, and yet not contained in the Scripture, they give no other but certain matters of fact; as that the Apostles composed the Symbol called the Apostles creed, that Peter was at Rome, & things of that nature.  
Ockam in this place delivereth not his own opinion, but only reciteth the contrary opinions of other men: but in another place, inveighing against the Canonists, & going about to prove that it principally pertaineth to divines, to define, & determine, what is catholic, and what heretical; after many convincing reasons, he addeth this in the conclusion. 
g Dialog. l. 〈◊〉. p. 1. cap. 2.  The defining of things in this kind, pertaineth principally to the professors of that science, to which nothing may be added, and from which nothing may be detracted; but of this sort is the profession of divines; and therefore Moses saith in the person of God Deuteronomie 4. Ye shall not add unto the word I speak unto you, neither shall ye take from it: to which that of Solomon answereth, Proverb. 30. where speaking of the word of God, he saith: Add nothing to his words, lest thou be reproved, & found a liar: And hence it is that the holy Ghost doth terribly threaten by john the Evangelist, in the last of the Revelation, all them that add or take any thing from the holy Scripture; saying, If any man shall add more than this, God shall add unto him the plagues that are in this book, and if any man shall take any thing from the words of the Prophecy of this book, God shall take his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city. By all which it is evidently collected, that nothing is to be added to the holy Scripture, nor nothing to be taken from it.  

h Lib. 1. sent. q. 1. EE.  Cardinal Cameracensis agreeth fully with Ariminensis before cited; for first he distinguisheth principles, and conclusions theological; principles he maketh to be the verities of the sacred canon; conclusions to be those verities which are not sound formally, and in express words, or precise terms, in Scripture, but may necessarily be deduced from things so contained; whether they be articles, or not; whether they be determined by the Church, or not determined: and then pronounceth, that that only is a theological discourse which consisteth of sayings and propositions contained in the sacred Scriptures, or of such as may be deduced from them, and that then only we say a thing is theologically proved, when it is concluded out of the words of holy Scripture.  
To these we may add 
i Doctrinal. fid. l. 2. art. 2. c. 19  Waldensis, his words are these, That Wickliff affirmeth, that neither Friars nor Prelates may define any thing in matters of faith, unless they have the authority of sacred Scripture, or some special revelation, I dislike not, but I condemn his way wardness & craft, and think it necessary lest we wrest the Scriptures & err in the interpretation of them, to follow the tradition of the Church, expounding them unto us, and not to trust to our own private & singular conceits. ● Gerson acknowledgeth as 
k Sermon: in die circumcisionis domini consid. prim●….  much as the rest: his words are these: What evils, what dangers, what confusions have followed the contempt ofsacred Scripture, which is sufficient for the government of the Church, or else, Christ was an imperfect lawgiver, experience will teach us. The author of that most pious and worthy work called 
l Part. 6. c. 79.  Destructorium vitiorum hath sundry things for confirmation of this point: As, saith he, corporal things here below may in some sort be known, without the benefit of corporal light: for one may know the length, breadth, and other dimensions of such a thing, and may in the dark discern, whether it be long or short, but whether it be fair or foul, white or black, we cannot certainly know: So it is in things that are to be discerned intellectually, for though Philosophers excelling in mundane wisdom, & lacking the light of faith, had some kind of knowledge of God, as that he is the beginning & cause of all things, yet could they not know how fair, how good, how merciful, and how glorious he is: neither did ever any man know it; but either by divine revelation, or by the information of the holy Scripture; so that the holy Scripture is that light, by which in this state of wayfaring men, we may have sufficient knowledge of all things necessary to salvation: whence it is, that the Psalmist saith: Thy word is a lantern to my feet, & a light to my steps. But as experience doth teach, that he that will be lighted by the light of a candle, must have the candle before him, and must follow it: but that if he shall cause it to be brought after him in the darkness of the night, it will not give him light to any purpose: so they that walk in the darkness of this life, if they desire to be lighted by the candle of God's word, and to direct their goings in the way of truth without falling, they must have the light of God's word before their eyes, and must follow it by well doing. But even as, if a candle be carried out in the darkness of the night, where bruit beasts, as horses and the like, are, they will run from it: whereas birds will come towards it: So bestial men that are like horses & mules, fly from the light of the Scriptures, according to that of john. 3. Every one that doth evil, hateth the light, neither doth he come to the light, lest his works should be reproved.  
For confirmation of that he saith, he allegeth a most excellent discourse of Bishop 
m Super Evangel.  Grosthead: who entreating of that history in the 1 Kings. 19 where the Angel of the Lord said to Elias, go forth and stand in the mountain before the Lord, and he stood and saw, and behold a wind passed by him, overthrowing the mountains, and tearing the rocks in sunder, but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake fire, but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice, and there was the Lord: showeth that God is not found in any other science, but in the holy Scripture only which is given by divine inspiration: and for farther illustration hereof noteth, that there were three wells digged by Isaak, Genesis, 26. For he digged the first, and the Philistines strove for it: likewise the second, and they claimed it also: wherefore he left them both, and digged a third, which he peaceably enjoyed, and called the name of it Robooth, that is, latitude, because the waters of it were enlarged: and to the first of these wells, he compareth natural sc●…ences, to wit, the seven liberal arts, as logic, in which there is much brawling & contending: to the second, such science as we learn for gain sake, and to get preferment, as is the knowledge of humane laws, according to those verses. 
Dat Galenus opes & sanctio justiniana.  
Ex aliis paleas, existis collige grana.  To the third he compareth divine knowledge, and saith, that that well was rightly named Robooth, that is, latitude, because the waters of it were enlarged: So the heavenly doctrine was published to all parts of the world by the Apostles, and other faithful preachers, according to that of the Psalmist, Their sound is gone forth into all the earth: and the Lord inviteth his elect to come and drink the waters of this well, saying, all ye that are thirsty come to these waters; and the words of Christ move all earnestly to thirst after these waters, when he saith, Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: but the ungodly having tasted of the wine of mundane joy, and temporal riches, hate, dislike, and put from them this water, and therefore the Lord saith well of them by the Prophet Esay: 8. Because this people have refused the waters of Siloe that run softly and without noise, and have taken rather Rasin and the son of Romelia, I will bring upon them the mighty waters of of the flood. Siloe is interpreted sent, and it signifieth the doctrine of the divine Law, sent unto us by Christ, the Apostles, and other faithful ones, which doctrine the Pastors of the Church are bound under the pain of damnation to know and teach; whereupon Isidore saith, de summo bono lib. 3. c. 46. The Priests shall be damned for the iniquity of the people, if either they neglect to teach them being ignorant, or to reprove them when they offend, the Lord having said by the Prophet, I have set thee as a watchman over the house of Israel, and if thou shalt not tell the wicked of his wickedness, that he forsake his evil way, he shall dye in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. Notwithstanding all this, many of the modern Priests cast from them this learning, and say, we will none of it, because it is not the pane lucrando, that is, it serveth not to bring in gain and profit; and give themselves to the study of humane laws, which are not so necessary for the saving of souls as the law of God: because as Odo saith here upon the Gospel, sermone 39 If Christ had known, that we might more easily attain salvation by the Laws of justinian, he would surely have taught them us with his own mouth, and have let that alone which he taught us, and delivered unto us, et in quâ continetur implicitè, vel explicitè, omnis scientia ad salutem necessario requisita, and in which is contained expressly or implicitly all knowledge necessarily required to salvation, according to that of S. Augustine 2. de doctrinâ Christianâ in fine. Whatsoever a man learneth without and beside the holy Scripture, if it be hurtful it is there condemned, if it be profitable it may there be found. But many Churchmen leave this learning, and take unto them Rasin, and the son of Romelia; Rasin signifieth a picture; and Romelia, high and mighty thunder, so that by Rasin, and the son of Romelia we may understand painted and glorious words, and that wordy thunder of humane laws, which kinds of learning many Ecclesiastical persons assume, that they may be by such profession exalted in the courts of great Lords; and for this cause, as the Prophet addeth, the Lord shall bring upon them the mighty and great waters of the flood, that is, infernal punishments, so saith Odo.  
Hitherto he hath alleged the words of Grosthead and Odo. In 
n Part. 4. c. 12.  another place he saith concerning them that so contemn the word of God, that the Lord complaineth of such by the Prophet jerem. 2. saying, My people hath done two evils, they have forsaken me the fountain of living water, and have digged to themselves broken cisterns, to which, as Gulielmus Parisiensis saith, the decree or canon law may fitly be compared, which is a broken cistern that cannot hold water, which though it have water to day, shall have none to morrow, because it shall be abrogated: whereas touching the Law of God it is otherwise: and therefore the Psalmist saith: thy righteousness, O Lord, is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is truth. Yet is the holy Scripture much contemned by the profession of the Canonists; so that the knowledge of holy Scripture, and profession of Divinity, may say to an ill Advocate, or Lawyer, as Sara said to Abraham, in the 16 of Genesis: Thou dealest ill with me: I gave thee my handmaid into thy bosom, who seeing that she had conceived, despised me: for, as Gulielmus Parisiensis saith, de vitiis part. 4. cap. 6. The profession of Canonists contemneth the profession of Divines, and science of holy Scripture, because they are not so gainful, as it is. When Ishmael and Isaac played together, Ishmael mocked Isaac, so that Sar●… was forced to entreat Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son. So happily it were behooveful and profitable for the Church, that this Science in a great part should be cast out; because it not only contemneth the divine Science, and Law of God, but blasphemeth it: and in so doing contemneth and blaspheameth God himself, who is the lawgiver.  
Here we have the opinion of three worthy men touching the sufficiency of the Scripture, and the dangers, confusions, and horrible evils, that followed upon the multiplying of humane inventions. Many more might be alleged to the same purpose; but these may suffice to let us know what the doctrine of the Church was in the days of our Fathers; for they deliver not their private conceits, but tell us what all good and judicious men conceived of these things in their times.  
But some men will say, we find often mention of traditions in the writers of former ages, so that it seemeth, they did not think the Scriptures to contain all things necessary to salvation. For the clearing of this doubt, we must observe that by the name of tradition, sometimes, all the doctrine of Christ and his blessed Apostles is meant, that was first delivered by lively voice, and afterwards written. Sometimes the delivering of the divine and canonical books from hand to hand, as received from the Apostles, is named a tradition. Sometimes the sum of Christian religion contained in the Apostles creed, which the Church receiveth as a rule of her faith, is named a tradition; but every one of those articles is found in the Scripture, as Waldensis rightly noteth, though not together nor in the same form; so that this collection may rightly be named a tradition, as having been delivered from hand to hand in this form, for the direction of the Church's children; and yet the Scriptures be sufficient. Sometimes by the name of traditions the Fathers understand certain rites and ancient observations; And that the Apostles delivered some things in this kind, by word, and lively voice, that they wrote not, we easily grant; but which they were, it can hardly now be known, as Waldensis rightly noteth. But this proveth not the insufficiency of the Scripture; for none of those Fathers speak of points of doctrine, that are to be believed without and besides the Scripture, or that cannot be proved from thence; though sometimes in a general sort, they name all those points of religion, traditions, that are not found expressly, and in precise terms, in Scripture, and yet may necessarily be deduced from things there expressed. Lastly by the name of tradition, is understood the sense and meaning of the Scripture, received from the Apostles and delivered from hand to hand together with the books.  
There are, saith 
o Defence: lib. de officio pij. viri prope principium.  Cassander, 3 sorts of traditions; for some concern the doctrine of faith, others rites and ceremonies; and a third sort, things done. They that concern rites and ceremonies, are variable according to the different circumstances of times; they that are historical, are for the most part uncertain and are not necessary to salvation: they that are dogmatic are certain and perpetual: but 
p De officio pij viri in principio.  by dogmatic traditions we understand, not any divine verity not written, or any point of doctrine not contained in the Scripture, but such points of doctrine, as though they are not found in precise terms in holy scripture, yet are deduced from the same rightly understood, and interpreted; as the Apostles did understand, and expound them to their hearers, and they to such as came after them. So that this tradition is nothing else but the explication and interpretation of the Scripture: and therefore it may be said not unfitly, Scripturam esse implicatam quandam & obsignatam traditionem, traditionem vero esse Scripturam explicatam & resignatam. that the Scripture is a kind of tradition involved and sealed up: and that tradition is Scripture unfolded, explained, and opened. This is that, which 
q Contr. haeres. cap. 2.  Vincentius Lyrinensis long since delivered, to wit, that the Scripture is sufficient, and containeth all things necessary to be known of a Christian man, for the attaining of salvation: but that for the avoiding of the manifold turnings of heretics, perverting the same to their own perdition, we must carefully look to the tradition of the Church, delivering unto us the true sense and meaning of it. By this which hath been said, it appeareth, that the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, was, in this point touching the sufficiency of the Scripture, an orthodox and true Protestant Church, as it was in the former, touching the canon of the Scripture.   

CHAP. 3.  
Of the original text of Scripture, of the certainty and truth of the originals, and of the authority of the vulgar translation, I have discoursed at large in my fourth book, and the 27. 28. chapters of the same; and made it appear, that the principal and best learned divines, at, & since Luther's time, taught no otherwise touching these points than we now do, so that I need not insist upon the proof hereof.   

CHAP. 4.  
Of the translating of the Scripture into vulgar languages, and of the necessity of having the public liturgy, and prayers of the Church, in a tongue understood.  
TOuching the translating of the Scriptures, it is evident, that both anciently, and of late time, they have been translated into the several languages, of almost all the countries and kingdoms of the whole world, where ever Christianity prevailed. 
a Sixtus Senensis biblio sa●…ct: l 4. ubi de Chrysostomo loquitur.  There is extant a translation of the old & new testament in the Armenian tongue, which the Armenians now use, put forth, as they suppose, by Chrysostome: of this, George the patriarch of Alexandria maketh mention, in the life of Chrysostome; reporting, that when by the Emperor's decree, he was sent in banishment into Armenia, and stayed at Cucusum, he brought the inhabitants of that region to the faith of Christ; and caused the Psalms of David, together with the holy gospels, and other histories of the old Testament, to be translated into the Armenian tongue; that so the people of that country, might the sooner and more easily attain the knowledge of holy Scripture. And 
b Lib. 5. de cu randis graecorum affectibus post medium.  Theodoret testifieth that the holy Scriptures were translated into the Armenian tongue before his time, though he name not the author.  
The Slavonians affirm, that they have the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue, turned by Saint Hierome; and Hierome himself, in his epistle to Sophronius, seemeth to some learned men to intimate so much. But yet there is another translation also of the Scriptures into the Slavonian tongue, later than that of Hieromes, as 
c Diat tib. de linguis Europae  Scaliger hath observed, written in the Servian character, & used in Rascia, Bosina, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Russia, Moscovia, and other nations, of the Slavonian language, that celebrate their liturgies after the Greek ceremony; of which later Methodius the companion of Cyrill is reported to have been the author. The former imputed to Hierome, is written in the Dalmatian character, and is used amongst the Liburnians, and Dalmatians, Istrians, Moravians, Silesians, Bohemians, Polonians, etc.  
Vulphilas the Goth, (of whom 
d Sixtus Senensis bibl. l. 4.  Socrates maketh mention in his ecclesiastical history) who lived in the year 370, first found out the Gothicke alphabet, and first of all delivered to the Goths all the divine Scriptures, translated 
e 〈◊〉. 4. c. 27.  by him out of Greek into the Gothicke tongue; and catholicly expounded them, striving much against the Arrians; yet in the end, as Theodoret reporteth, he declined to the part of Valens the Arrian Emperor, moved so to do by the threats and promises of Eudoxus the Arrian.  
Neither were the Scriptures translated only into these languages, but into the languages of many other nations, as 
f 〈◊〉, Indi, Per●…●…opes, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysost. hom. 〈◊〉 ●…an.  Chrysostome and 
g Hier. praefa: in Evangelia.  Hierome affirm: and in particular into the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Scythian, and Sarmatian tongues; and into the languages of all other nations that received the Christian faith, as 
h Lib. 5 de curandis Graecorum affect. post medium.  Theodoret telleth us. As likewise in the times following, we read of the like translations of the Scripture, into sundry languages of such Nations, as were afterwards converted to the Faith, or whose languages after altered. So 
i Vasaeusin chro. Hisp. ad annum 717.  john Archbishop of Seville about the year 717, translated it into the Arabic, which then was the vulgar speech of that part of Spain. And 
k joannes Treu. l. 5. c. 24.  Beda about the same time some part of it, into the Saxon or English. 
l Aventinus l. 4. annal. p. 434.  Methodius about the year 860, into the Slavonique; jacobus de Voragine, Archbishop of Genua, about the year 1290, translated the whole divine Scripture into the Italian tongue, and so did Bruciolus in our age. 
m Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. sanct. l. 4. in jacobus Archicp. Genuensis.  About 200 years since the whole Bible was translated into French, in the time of Charles the 5th; and as the Rhemists tell us, in their preface before the New Testament by them translated into English, since Luther's time, divers learned Catholics have published the Bible, in the several Languages of almost all the principal provinces of the Latin Church; so that the Papists themselves do not simply condemn the translating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues. 
n Preface to the Rhemish Testament.   
But there are some amongst them, as 
o Controu. 5. q. 3. art. 4. explicatione articuli.  Stapleton telleth us, who out of zeal rather than knowledge, do think the Lay people should be wholly restrained from reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues: others more moderate and discreet than these (as they would be thought) are of opinion that all are not to be restrained, nor all permitted to read them, but some certain only. And therefore the 
p Preface to the New Testament.  Rhemists tell us, that order was taken by the Deputies of the 
q Indice lib. pro●…b. regulâ 4  Council of Trent in this behalf, and confirmed by supreme authority, that the holy Scriptures, though truly and catholicly translated into vulgar tongues, yet may not be indifferently read of all men, nor of any other than such as have express licence thereunto by their lawful ordinaries, with good testimony from their Curates or Confessors, that they are humble, discreet, and devout persons, and like to take much good, & no harm thereby. This was the decree of Pius 4: but Clement the 8th, in a later edition of the same Index, with new additions, 
r Observat. in regulam. 4.  saith, that this power of permitting Laymen to have the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, was taken away by the mandate, and practise of the Roman Church, and of the general inquisition, so that they may not permit any to have the whole Bible in the vulgar tongue, or any parts of the Old or New Testament, or any summaries or epitomies, though historical of the same Bibles; and this he prescribeth to be inviolably kept. Thus doth he condemn the practice of all the Churches of God, which had the Scriptures translated into vulgar Languages; (for to what end should they be translated, if no man might use them?) and together with them his Predecessor Pius the 4th, and all the learned Prelates that concurred with him; and falleth into the folly or indiscretion which Stapleton condemneth, as we heard before. Thus variable and uncertain are these Roman Bishops, who yet would be taken not only to be built upon the Rock, but to be that Rock upon which the Church is builded, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.  
But, as Stapleton telleth us, in the place above cited, There were certain Catholic and great men, (and in the margin he nameth Sir 
* In Dialog. Anglicanis.  Thomas More) who thought it fit, as tending to the honour of God, and salvation of the people, to deliver unto them the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without any restraint, leaving it free to all to read them that will; for that so many good and godly Christians who would receive great comfort, and be much edified thereby, are not to be deprived of that most excellent benefit, which they may have by reading them, in respect of few or many unlearned or unstable men, who deprave the scripture to the perdition of themselves and others, as S. Peter saith in his 2 Epistle cap. 32. No more than it had been fit that Christ the Lord, should have forborn to come and save others, in respect of such wicked ones, to whom his coming is a rock of offence, & a stone to stumble at: or that he that is the true light, that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world should therefore have kept himself away, or not appeared to the world, because men loved darkness more than light; And surely if the vulgar free and ordinary reading of the scripture, were to be denied and restrained, in respect of the wicked who abuse it, the scripture must never have been in the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin tongues; for all these tongues were vulgar to the jews, Grecians, and Romans; This opinion Stapleton confesseth to be probable and godly, and yet he disliketh it.  
And yet it is confirmed by the authority of the Fathers, who earnestly exhort the people to the reading of the scripture, as a thing necessary to salvation. So doth Chrysostome, in sundry places, 2 Homily upon Matthew. 
b Semper horror & hortari non desinam, ut non hic tantum attendadatis iis quae dicuntur, verum etiam quum domi fue●…s, assidue divinatum scripturarum lectioni 〈◊〉.  3. 
〈◊〉 Lectionem divinarum scripturarum ad solos monachos putatis pertinere cum multo magis vobis quam illis sit necessaria.  Homily upon Lazarus. 
c At nescio inquit quae scripto sunt in scriptures. Q●…? Nam●…n 〈◊〉, numb Roman●…. num alia lingu●… dicta sunt? an non 〈◊〉 dicuntur?  3. Homily upon the second to the Thessalonians. 
d non solum c●… 〈◊〉 ●…tis, sed & 〈◊〉 divinos libros in manus sumite  28. Homily upon Genesis. 9 Homily upon the Epistle to the Colossians, where he saith, the Apostle commandeth secular men that are married to read the scripture; and whereas St Paul to the Colossians 3. hath these words, Let the word of Christ dwell plentifully in you in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing yourselves in Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, Chrysostome in his ninth Homily and Hierome in his commentaries upon the same place, collect, and infer, that the Scriptures are to be read of Lay men, and that by the precept of the Apostle. It is therefore untrue, that 
e Stapleton ubi supra art. 4. 〈◊〉 fol. ●…rgumenti.  Stapleion hath, that Chrysostome doth not exhort the people to the reading of the scripture, as a thing necessary, but as fit and profitable for them, that lived idly in a rich city, thus to occupy themselves; as if it had been only to keep them from doing nothing, that they were to read the book of God. Neither is it any better, that he hath in answer hereunto, that Chrysostome spoke not exactly, but as a preacher or orator; as if in the pulpit a Preacher might exhort the people with all earnestness, to that which is not fit to be done; or as if there were not many now adays, that live idly in rich cities.  
From the translating of the Scriptures into vulgar tongues, and the people's private reading of the same, let us come to speak of the public liturgy of the Church, and the common prayers in the vulgar tongue. Here I will first show what the practice of the Church hath been; and secondly, what the opinion of judicious men is and hath been touching this point: That in the Primitive Church they had the service in the vulgar tongue, it is evident by the testimonies of the ancient. For first 
f Lib. 〈◊〉. p. 799.  Origen writing against Celsus, and answering that calumniation of them that said, Christians used certain barbarous words and names of God, in their prayers, supposing virtue to be in them, more than in Greek or Latin words, or names; telleth them, there is no such thing: but that they that are true and right Christians, in their prayers use not the names of God found in the Scripture written in Hebrew; but the Grecians use greek words; the Latins, latin: and all pray, and praise God, in their own tongue; & he that is the Lord of all tongues heareth them, in what tongue soever they pray: and vnderstandeth them speaking in so different languages, no less then if they all used one language.  
Bellarmine saith, in the time of the Apostles the whole people was wont to answer Amen in the celebration of divine service, and not as now by one appointed in their steed: For justin Martyr testifieth expressly in his 2 apology that the whole people was wont to answer amen, when the Priest ended his prayer or thanksgiving; and it is evident that the same use was continued a long time after, both in the East and West, as it appeareth by the liturgy of Chrysostome, where the things that were to be said by the priest, deacon, and people, are distinctly set down. And by Cyprian in his sermon upon the Lord's prayer: where he saith, the people do answer, we lift them up unto the Lord, when the priest willeth them to lift up their hearts, and by Hierome praefat: lib. 2. in epist. ad Galatas, who writeth that in the Churches of the city of Rome the people are heard with so loud a voice, sounding out amen, as if it were a thundering from heaven. Thus far Bellarmine in his 2 book de verbo Dei, chap. 16: which argueth that they had their service in a known tongue, for otherwise how could they thus have answered to the several parts of the divine service as they were appointed to do: surely the long answers of the people to the priest in their prayers, found in sundry 
* Anaphora Syror. etc.  liturgies are a demnostration that it was so.  

u cap. 9  August. de chatechizandis rudibus, hath these words. Let them know, that there is no other voice that entereth into the ears of God, but the affection of the mind: and then they will not deride the prelate's and minister's of the Church, if happily they discern any of them to use barbarismes, or solecisms, in the invocation of God, or not to understand the words they pronounce, nor aptly and distinctly to utter them: not as if these faults were not to be amended, that so the people might answer amen, to that which plainly and distinctly they understand: but that they should learn lovingly to bear with these defects, having learned, ut sono in foro, sic voto in ecclesiâ benedici: and that forensis illa nonnunquam fortè bona dictio, nunquam tamen benedictio dici potest.  

x Aluar. histor. Aethiop. c. 159.  The Aethiopians or Habassines anciently had, and still have the common prayers, & whole liturgy, in their own vulgar tongue, into which language 
y Supplement. ●…ist. lib. 8.  Sabellicus reporteth, that both the old and new Testament were translated out of the Chalde. The Armenians have their divine service in the Armenian tongue, as 
1 Hist. oriental. cap. 78.  jacobus à vitriaco, 
2 descript. terrae sanctae.  Brocardus, 
3 De Sarmatia li. 2 c. 1.  Michovius, 
4 Peregrinat. c. de Armen.  Breitenbachius, and many others, partly out of their own knowledge and partly from certain relation have recorded. The 
5 Guagnin. descrip. Moschoviae: cap. 〈◊〉. 5 Possevin. de rebus Moscoviticis. p. 4. 5 Sigismond: de rebus Moscoviticis. p. 34.  Moscovites and Russians have their service in their vulgar language, which is a kind of Slavonian, intermingling sometimes certain greek hymns: the epistle, and gospel, that the people may the better hear and understand, are read with a loud voice without the quire, in the middle of the Church. Neither have those Russians only their service in the vulgar, that are subject to the great Duke of Moscow, but they also that are subject to the King of Polonia. 
6 Vitriac. hist. Oriental. c. 76. 7 Osorius de rebus Emanuel. l. 3.  The Nestorians have their service in a degenerate Chalde, or Syriack, and so have the 
7 Possevin. apparat. sacr: in Diamperiense concilium.  Indians from which their vulgar differeth very little. The jacobites of Mesopotamia, Babylon, Palestine, Syria, and Cyprus, have their liturgy in the Syriaque tongue, (and it is that which is called 
8 In biblioth. patrum rom. 6. p. 27.  anaphora Basilii as it is thought) which though it be not well understood by their common people (their vulgar, as now it is, differing something from it,) yet that it was commonly understood, when that liturgy was first ordained, it appeareth by the long answers of the people to the priest, in their prayers which we find in it. The Maronites likewise have their service in the Syriaque, their vulgar being the Arabic. As also the Egyptians have their service in the same bastard Chaldee or Syriaque, their vulgar being the Arabic: but these first read the Gospel in Chalde & afterwards in Arabic.  

a Apud Thom. â iesu. li. 7. c. 11.  Marianus Victorius Reatinus saith, that as the Chalde tongue dependeth of the Hebrew, and groweth out of it, so the Syriaque, Arabic and Aethiopian tongues have dependence on the Chalde, and are grown out of it, so that they also have the name of the Chalde: and these five tongues have such agreement amongst themselves, and are so like, that he that perfectly understandeth 
* Guido Fabritius in his preface before the new Testament saith, the Hebrew tongue is divided into 3. dialects, the babilonical or Chaldaicall: the Syrian, or Hierosolymitan: the Arabic, or tongue of Ishmael as the jews call it. The first was the dialect of such jews as never returned after the captivity of Babylon, where they had learned a kind of mixed language, the second of such as returned to jerusalem and brought back a mixed language, and after their return by new mixtures made it farther to degenerate from the original surity.  one, may in a great part understand the other. And therefore it is not to be maruailled, if all these Churches last mentioned have their service in the Chaldee or Syriaque: for it is in a sort their mother tongue, and no doubt was perfectly understood by them, when their liturgies were first devised. The Georgians, Circassians, and Mengrellians, are said to have their service in Greek; and so are the Syrians, or Melchites, but if that Liturgy which Andraeas Masius translated out of the Syriaque, and which is found in the 6 Tome of Biblioth. Patrum, and is named Anaphora Basilii, be theirs, then surely they celebrate not in Greek.  
But to leave these Eastern Churches, and to come to those that are nearer to us; we may divide all the Churches of this part of the world into three sorts; For some of them anciently understood and spoke Latin, as they did in Augustine's time in those parts of Africa wherein he lived, and therefore it is not to be marvailed at if they had their Liturgy in the Latin tongue, for they understood it better than the Punic: so that he preached unto them in Latin. That generally they understood and spoke Latin, it is evident by that which 
b Confess. l: 〈◊〉. c. 14.  Augustine saith of himself: Latina didici sine ullo metu, atque cruciatu, inter etiam blandimenta nutricum, & ioca arridentium, & laetitias alludentium. That is, I learned Latin without any fear or vexation, whiles the nurses sought to please me, while men sported and played with me. In another place, he hath these words. 
c Deverbis Apost. serm. 26.  Proverbium notum est Punicum, quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam, quia Punica non omnes nostis: That is, The Punic Proverb is known, which I will utter unto you in Latin, because you do not all understand the Punic tongue: whereby it appeareth, that the Latin tongue was better understood in some parts of Africa, than the Punic. The Latin tongue was also vulgar in Italy, in France, and Spain; for when they received the Roman Laws, they learned the tongue also, and began to speak Latin, though their own tongue were not presently extinct. So that it is not improbable but that they had their service in Latin; but whether they had, or not, it is evident they had it in a tongue they understood.  
For touching France, 
d in vit. Mart. l. 1  Severus Sulpitius writeth, in the life of Martin, that when there was no little difference about his election, the Lector whose course it was to read that day, enclosed in the multitudes, was kept out from the place, and could not perform that duty: whereupon the Ministers being troubled, while he came not that was looked for; one of them that stood by, took the Psalter, and read that verse, that he first found; and the Psalm was this: Our of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained praise, that thou mayst destroy the enemy, & defensorem, and the defender; which, when the people heard, they made a great shout, and that part that was opposite to Martin, was confounded, for the principal man that opposed him was named Defensor, and the people thought that it was by God's special direction, that this Psalm was read, to put down the faction that opposed against Martin. By this it appeareth, that the Scripture was read in Latin, and yet in a tongue understood by the people; for otherwise how could they have been thus affected?  
And that it was so read in ancient times, as to be understood, it is clear by the form of blessing, used in the constituting of Lectors, which was this, as it appeareth by an old manuscript cited by 
e Ex vetusto manuscript. l. de ordin. lect. Apud Cassand. liturg. c. 26.  Cassander: Benedicere dignare hos famulos tuos, in officium lectorum, ut assiduitate lectionis sint apti pronunciare verba vitae, & mentis ac vocis distinctione populo monstrare intelligibilia: That is, Vouchsafe to bless these thy servaunts designed and appointed to the office of Lectors, that by the daily and ordinary use of reading, they may be fitted to pronounce to the people the words of life, and with distinction both of understanding and voice, to show unto the people the things they read, so as that they may be understood of them that hear them. And in the 
f Pontif. Rom. excus. Venet. 1561. in ordin. Lect.  Pontifical we find these words directed to the Lectors, Studete verba Dei videlicet lectiones sacras, distinctè, & apertè, ad intelligentiam, & aedificationem fidelium, absque omni mendacio falsitatis, proffer. That is. Be ye careful to utter, publish, and rehearse the words of God, to wit, the sacred lessons, distinctly, and clearly, to the understanding, and edification of the faithful without all lying, falsehood, and untruth.  
How generally they understood and spoke Latin in Spain heretofore, it may appear by their present language, a barbarism of Latin; as also by the laws the Goths gave unto them, called the Gothique Code, written in good Latin; And by Lucan, Seneca, and sundry other principal lights of the Latin tongue. So that 
g Hist. Hispan. l. 5. c. 4.  Marineus Siculus feareth not to say, that if the Goths and Moors and other barbarous nations, had not come into Spain, the Spaniards would still have spoken as good Latin, as the Romans did in the time of Tully. So that it is not unlikely but that the Spaniards anciently had their service in Latin; but whether they had or not, it is evident they had it in a tongue understood, by that we read in 
h Isidor. Hispalensis de office eccles. l. 1. c. 10.  Isidore. Oportet ut quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibus; cum lectio legitur, facta silentio aequè audiatur á cunctis. That is, It is fit that when the singing beginneth, all should sing; when the lesson is read, there being a general silence kept, all should equally, and in one and the same sort hearken to that which is read; And again; Ideo & diaconus clarâ voce silentium admonet, ut sive dum psallitur, sive dum lectio pronunciatur, ab omnibus unitas conseruetur, ut quod omnibus praedicatur, aequaliter ab omnibus audiatur. That is, And therefore doth the deacon also with a clear and loud voice call upon all to keep silence; that aswell when the singing is, as when the lesson is read, all may do one and the same thing, that all may hear that which is pronounced equally to all.  
Some other parts there were that had not such use of the Latin tongue as these had; who having Alphabets, and characters of their own; so that they could write & express things in their own tongues, had the whole liturgy and divine service, in their vulgar tongue; Of this sort were all those nations, kingdoms, and people, that speak the Slavonian tongue, 
i Hos. de sacro vernacule legendo.  which was the language of more than the third part of Europe: besides the Mengrellians, Circassians and Gazarites in Asia. The 
k brerewood's inquiries, c. 8.  characters of this language are of two sorts, for there is the Servian character, and the Dalmatian. All the Christians of Rascia, Bosina, Servia, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Russia, Moscovia, and all other nations of the Slavonian language in the Eastern parts, that celebrate their liturgies after the Greek ceremony, and profess obedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople, have the Scriptures in their own tongue translated as it is said by Methodius, the companion of Cyrill, in preaching the gospel to Gentile nations, and written in the Servian character, as also their liturgies are. 
l Postel. de linguâ Dalmatica.  The Dalmatian characters are in use in Dalmatia, Liburnia, Istria, Moravia, Silesia, Bohemia, Polonia, etc.  
It is a received opinion, that Hierome first devised the Dalmatian characters, and translated the Scriptures into the Dalmatian tongue; but it seemeth that in process of time his translation was neglected, the Latin service brought in, and those characters out of use; For 
m Lib. 4. p. 434.  Aventinus reporteth, that Methodius having found out 
* Litteras Venedas.  letters, and translated the Scripture into the Slavonian tongue, persuaded the Dalmatians to explode the Latin tongue, to hiss out the Roman rite or ceremony, and make use of their own tongue in the holy service of God.  

n De missá latinè faciendâ, in locis communibus.  Eckius confesseth that heretofore the divine service was in the Dalmatian tongue throughout all Illyricum. The priests of Liburnia, saith 
o Vbi supra.  Aventinus, which in this our age is subject to the Archduke of Noricum, are yet still ignorant of the Roman tongue, and do say their divine service in their own, that is, in the Slavonian tongue. And 
p De ration: scribendi citatus à Cassandro liturgic: cap. 36.  johannes Baptista Palatinus, saith, the Slavonians and those of Illyricum have their service and common prayers in their vulgar tongue, and all the people understand it as we do our native language. Auentinus saith, that Methodius went into the kingdom of Boiaria, and sought to persuade the inhabitants of Liburnia, Noricum, Pannonia, and Veneda, to abandon the 
〈◊〉 Vbi supra.  Latin, and to have their service in the vulgar; but Richovalda the Bishop, and Adeluinus the Archbishop of Salsburge, and the priests of 
* Salsburge hodie appellatur.  〈◊〉 which successively had governed the Churches in those parts, for the space of 85 years, according to the decree of Charles the great; resisted him, and forced him to fly into Moravia. But afterwards that which he attempted taken effect as it appeareth by Auentinus in the words before cited; for they of Liburnia had their service in the vulgar in his time.  

s De sacro vernacule legendo.  Hosius confesseth, that the service in the vulgar tongue was in Bohemia & Polonia, and that there were some living when he wrote, that might remember, when in Clepardia in the temple of St Cross the priests said service in the vulgar or Slavon tongue. 
t De rebus Poloni. l. 3. p. 32.  Cromerus saith that the two Bishops Methodius, and Cyrillus, did good service in bringing the people of those parts to the knowledge of God in Christ, and that they caused the Slavonians to have their service in their own tongue, the Pope giving assent and approving that they did. And the same 
u Lib. 15. pag. 249.  Cromerus saith, the service was in the Slavon tongue in Croconia.  
That the Moravians had the service in their own tongue we have proof sufficient, for john the eight took precise order, and commanded it should be so. His 
x Apud Baron. tom. 10. anno. 880. numero. 19 pag. 662. & inter epist. joannis. 8. apud Binnium. epist: 247.  Epistle written to the Prince of Moravia is extant, in which epistle he hath these words. Whereas one Constantine a Philosopher found out letters and characters of the Slavon tongue, that so in it they might sound forth the praises that are due to God; we exceedingly commend the same, and do command that the praises of Christ our God and his works be uttered and set forth in the same; for we are admonished to praise God not in three tongues only but in all, by the sacred authority that commanded saying, Praise the Lord all ye Gentiles, and praise him together all people, Psalm 117.. And the Apostles being filled with the holy Ghost spoke in all tongues and uttered the great and wonderful works of God Act: 2. Hence also Paul, that heavenly trumpet, soundeth forth and exhorteth every tongue to confess, that our Lord jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father: concerning which things he admonisheth us sufficiently, and manifestly, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, requiring us no otherwise to speak with tongues, but so, that we may edify the Church. Neither is it contrary to the right faith and sound doctrine, to sing mass in the same Slavon tongue, or to read the holy Gospel, or the divine lessons of the old or new Testament, rightly translated and interpreted, or to sing all other parts of divine service, appointed for certain hours and times; because that he that made 3 principal tongues, to wit, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, created also all other, for to set forth his praise and glory. Notwithstanding we command, that in all the Churches of your country the Gospel be first read, for the greater honour, in Latin; and afterwards the translation into the Slavonian tongue, in the hearing of the people that understandeth not Latin; as it seemeth the custom is in some Churches; and if it seem good to thee and thy judges, and great men, to hear mass rather in Latin, we command that the mass be celebrated for thyself and them in Latin.  

y Hist. Bohem: cap. 13.  Aenaeas Silvius, afterwards Pius the second, reporteth that Cyrill, having brought Suatocopius to become a Christian, & to be baptised, won the Mora●…, and sundry other nations of the Slavonians, to Christianity: & afterwards being at Rome, besought the Pope, that with his good liking he might say service in the Slavonian tongue, to the people of that Nation, whom he had baptised; concerning which thing when there was no little dispute in the sacred Senate, and many disliked this motion, there was suddenly heard a voice, as it had been from Heaven, saying, Let every spirit praise the Lord, and let every tongue confess unto him, whereupon the Pope yielded to his motion, & gave consent that he should do as he desired.  
There is no doubt, but that there were many cross in this kind, and that sometimes they had the service in one tongue, and sometimes in another, not only in divers countries, but even in the same accordingly as the different factions prevailed. Vuratizlaus Duke of the Bohemians desired of Pope Hildebrand, that he would give consent that they might say divine service in the Slavon tongue, and it seemeth by the Pope's answer, it had been so before, as in other places, so here; for he 
z 7 Lib. ep. 11.  saith, neque ad excusationem iuvat, quod quidam religiosi viri, hoc quod simplicitèr populus quaerit, patienter tulerunt, seu incorrectum dimiserunt, cum Primitiva Ecclesia multa dissimulaverit, quae à sanctis Patribus postmodum firmatâ christianitate, & religione crescente, subtili examinatione correcta sunt. That is, neither doth it serve to excuse, and make good this petition, that some religious men patiently endured and suffered that to be done, that the people simply desired, or that they let it alone uncorrected, or altered it not, seeing the Primitive Church was content to wink at divers things, which the holy Fathers afterwards, when Christianity was firmly settled, and Religion increased, upon diligent and exact examination, thought good to correct and alter. 
a Derebus Eccles. c. 7.  Walafridus Strabo testifieth, that in his time the divine service was still celebrated in the vulgar german tongue, amongst certain Scythian Nations, especially those that are called Tomitani, and that certain Germans do inhabit in those parts.  
There was a third sort of people to whom the Gospel was preached, that were so 
* Otfridus inter epistolas Hincmari Rhemensis in epistolâ ad Luitberium excus. Par. 161●…. pag. 633. Theotisca lingua velut agrestis habetur, dum à propriis nec scripturâ, nec arte aliquâ ullis est temporibus expolita: quip qui nec historias suorum antecessorum ut multae gentes caeterae commendant memoriae. Quod si raro contigit, aliarum gentium linguam, id est Latinorum, vel potius Graecorum explanant.  rude and unlettered at the time of their conversion, that they knew not how to write any thing in their own tongue, having no characters or letters of their own, nor any monuments of antiquity, or report of things past, but in the Latin tongue: these could have no form of divine service delivered unto them at the first in their own tongue. So that happily to some in this case, the Book of God was at first delivered in Latin, to be expounded by such as understood it, to them that understood it not: not as thinking it best so to have it in a tongue not understood, but because they could not do otherwise. And therefore john the 8th, understanding that they of Moravia had an alphabet & characters, so that they could express things in writing, commandeth them to have their service in the Slavonian tongue. And so in those places where they could not have the book of God in the vulgar tongue at the first, yet so soon as they had means, they caused the same to be put into the vulgar.  
And therefore 
b Inter epistolas Hincmari praefatio in librum antiqu●… linguá Saxonicâ scriptum pag. 634.  it is reported that Ludovicus the Emperor, having a great care of Religion, and seeking the salvation of his subjects souls, whereas till that time the people of Germany, that understood nothing but the Theudiscall tongue, could not read the Scriptures, but the learned only, having now met with one Otfridus, a learned and holy Monk, commanded him to 
* Poeticè transfer.  translate the Old & new testament into the Germane tongue, quatenus non solum liteteratis, verumetiam illiteratis, sacra divinorum praeceptorum lectio panderetur, that so the sacred reading of the divine precepts might be made common to the learned & unlearned: which work he took in hand, & perfected, at the Emperor's command, very willingly, having been moved & admonished from above so to do, & it was approved by Luidbertus Archbishop of Mentz. If the Index of prohibited books had been out, which Pius 4. first, & Clement the 8t since, published to the world, the Emperor, Archbish. Translator, & people using the translation, had incurred grievous censures, and had been branded as Heretics. But this point of the new religion of Rome, was not then known, and therefore as they could, in all parts of the world, they translated the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue.  
Whether the Saxons at the coming of Augustine into England, could write any thing in their own tongue, it is much doubted, and many think they could not: so that happily the Bible was not delivered to them in the vulgar at the first; but afterwards when they knew how to write in that tongue, it was. For, as we read, 
c Io. Trevilan. ubi supra.  Beda translated a part of it into the Saxon tongue. 
d Hist. Anglor. l. 4. cap. 24.  And the same Beda reporteth, that before his time there was a certain brother, in the monastery of the Abbess Hilda, who having received excellent grace of God, was wont to make poems, fit to set forward religion & piety; so that whatsoever he learned by interpreters out of the holy books, the same things presently after he would express in verse, in his own tongue, that is, in English, most sweetly, and so as that he would pierce the hearts of such as heard him; and therefore the abbess commanded, that he should be taught the whole series and course of the holy history, that he might express the same in his own tongue: and so he did, for whatsoever by hearing he could possibly learn, he turned into most sweet poems, so that his teachers became his hearers; for he composed poems & songs, concerning the creation of the world. and the beginning of mankind, the whole history of Genesis, Israel's going out of Egypt, and entering into the land of promise, and sundry other histories of holy Scripture; of the incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into heaven, of the coming of the holy Ghost, the doctrine of the Apostles, the terror of the future judgement, the fear of hell punishment, and the happiness of the kingdom of heaven: and sundry other benefits and judgements of God. In all which he sought, to draw men from delighting in things that are evil, to the love and practise of that which is good. Which poems no doubt were written, if they knew how to write at that time. Thus were they willing in those days, to take all occasion to make the Scripture known to the people, as far forth as possibly they might.  
And therefore it is not to be doubted, but that when they had the Scripture only in Latin, yet it was interpreted to the people, that they might understand it, according to that of john Billet, 
e In proemio citatus à Cassandro liturgy. c. 36.  in summâ de divinis officijs; In the primitive Church no man was permitted to speak in a tongue not understood, unless there were one to interpret: for to what purpose were it for a man to speak & not to be understood? truly to none at all. Hence grew that laudable custom in some parts of the Church, that so soon as the gospel should be read in the Latin, it should presently be expounded to the people in the vulgar. And this which he saith is confirmed, by the authority and testimony of 
f In fine lib: 3. contra haereses.  Epiphanius; who describing all the several orders in the Church, amongst others he reckoneth them that were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, Interpreters that expressed in one tongue, that which was uttered in another, aswell when the lessons were read, as when the preacher spoke to the people.  
By all that which hath been said, it appeareth, that the desire of God's Church was ever, to communicate the Scriptures and books of God, to all people in the tongue they understood; That the most part of the Christian Churches, had the book of God in their own tongue; And that if any had not, it was either because they could not tell how to write any thing in their barbarous tongues: or because the tongue, wherein they first received them, altering, they were not understood then, as formerly they had been of their ancestors, to whom they were first delivered in the same. So in Italy, France, & Spain, anciently they generally understood and spoke Latin, and therefore had the Scriptures delivered unto them in that tongue; but in time the Latin which they spoke was so corrupted, and so degenerated into barbarism, that the people of those parts understood very little, of that which was written in the purer Latin formerly understood; and therefore in process of time they were forced to have the Scriptures newly translated, into this new dialect, or rather corruption of the Latin. So had they the Bible translated into Italian, French, and Spanish, as before I showed.  
Their prayers and liturgies indeed were not altered; yet was there never any judicious man, that thought it fittest, to have the service of God performed without understanding; but all the best & most pious in every age, thought it necessary by all good and possible means to provide, that the people might have their service of God, in a tongue they understood. We have heard already john Billet peremptorily affirming, that in the primitive Church no man was permitted, to speak in a tongue not understood, unless there were one to interpret; and that it was the custom of some Churches, so soon as the gospel was read in the Latin, to expound the same in the vulgar tongue: but, saith he, 
g Vbi supra.  What shall we say of our times, wherein scarce, or not at all, either he that readeth, or heareth, understandeth what he heareth or readeth? So that we may say truly, as the Prophet sometime complained, The priest shall be as one of the people: Videtur ergo tacendum potius esse quam psallendum, it seemeth therefore it were better to keep silence then to sing.  
Haymo a worthy and learned Bishop, writing upon the 
h Cap. 14.  1 Epist. to the Cor. hath these words, If he that understandeth only that tongue, wherein he was borne and bred, stand by thee, when thou solemnly celebratest the mystery of the mass, or makest a sermon, or pourest forth the words of blessing, how shall he answer amen to thy blessing, not knowing what thou sayest? that is, how shall he answer that confirmatory word, amen, when he 
Sedulius in 1. Cor. 14. Qui nullam praeter propriam intelligit linguam, quod proprium est auditoribus, quomodo dicet amen? hoc est, quomodo tuae benedictioni perhibebit testimonium vel consensum, cum ignoret ipsius linguae qualitatem?  understanding only his own tongue, knoweth not what thou sayest in that barbarous tongue? And lest any man should take advantage, and urge, as the Papists are wont to do, that because he speaketh of a barbarous tongue, his words are not to be understood, of him that speaketh in one of the three learned tongues, he showeth, that he that speaketh in the Hebrew tongue, to him that understandeth nothing but Greek, or in the Greek, to him that understandeth nothing but Latin, or in Latin, to him that understandeth nothing but Greek, is a barbarian. Yea if a Roman, and such a one, as is not a Grecian, pronounce the symbol or creed in Greek, he is a barbarian to him, that understandeth nothing but Latin, though he be of the same nation, and people.  

i In 〈◊〉 Cor. 14.  Thomas Aquinas mentioneth this, but giveth another interpretation of the word, but not so fit; making them to be barbarians, that excel in strength of body, but are defective in strength of reason, which how far wide it is from the scope of the Apostle, a blind man may see. But in the same place, proposing the question, how he that understandeth no other tongue, but that of the country wherein he was borne, can conform himself and say, amen, to the prayers he vnderstandeth not; his answer is, that he may comforme himself in a generality, but not in particular, seeing he knoweth not in particular, what it is that the minister sayeth, though in general he know that he prayeth, or blesseth. And farther, ask why the prayers and blessings are not in the vulgar, that more fully & particularly the ignorant might conform themselves unto the same; his answer is; that happily it was so in the primitive Church, but now that the faithful are instructed, and know what it is they hear in the service of the Church, the blessings are in Latin; How weak an answer this is to proceed from such a man, who seeth not? for when he saith they know what they hear, either he meaneth in particular, and then he contrarieth his former words; or only in general; and then, they can give no consent, but in general: and so the question is not answered, why the prayers and blessings are not in the vulgar, that so being distinctly understood, there might be a distinct conforming to the same.  
Lyra writing upon the same place hath these words. When a Lay man saith the Lord's prayer, or any other, devoutly, his affection is lifted up toGod; reficitur affectus, non intellectus: sed quandò intelligit, reficitur affectus, & intellectus: and this the Apostle showeth to be true in respect of the public prayers, because if the people understand the prayer or blessing of the Priest, melius reducitur in deum, & devotius respondet Amen. And then proceeding to those words, If thou bless, etc. hath these words, What shall he do that supplieth the place of the unlearned? Which words import as much, as what doth it profit the simple people that understand not? as if he should say, little or nothing, because they know not how to conform themselves, to him that is the minister of the Church, by answering Amen, and that for this cause in the Primitive Church, the blessings and all other things pertaining to the public service of God, were in the vulgar tongue; but after that people were multiplied and increased, and they had now learned to conform themselves to the Priest, by standing when the Gospel is read, and by adoring the Eucharist, the service was in Latin, and that it sufficeth now, that the Clerk doth answer for the whole people.  
Here is confession, that the people profiteth little or nothing, when the prayers and blessings are in a tongue they understand not; that therefore the Primitive Church had the service in the vulgar; that while it is in Latin they cannot themselves, but another must answer Amen for them; and that yet, now they have learned by standing or kneeling, differently to conform themselves to the Priest, according to the different things he doth; (which a deaf man that never heard word, may do by observation of the eye) it is well enough.  
But Cardinal Caietan upon the same place hath these words: Out of this doctrine of the Apostle Paul, it may be gathered, that it were better, & more for the edification of the Church, to have the public prayers that are read in the hearing of the people, pronounced in a tongue common to the clergy and people, and understood of them both, then in Latin. 
k opusc. tom. 3. tract. 15.  And when he was challenged by the Parisians for saying, it were better to have the prayers said in the Church in the vulgar, rather than in the Latin tongue; his answer was, that they recited not his words fully: for he had not said, it were better, but it were better for edification, nor that the prayers should be said, but that the public prayers should be said in the vulgar tongue; and this his assertion, he said, was grounded upon the authority of the Apostle.  

l instruct. Christian.  Cardinal Contarenus, proposing the question, what is to be thought of such prayers as ignorant men make without understanding, answereth, that it is to be conceived that they are of force, in respect of the affection of the mind, and intention they have to pray unto God, though they know not what they desire, or pray for; but that they want the fruit which they should have, if they understood those prayers that they utter with their mouths: for than they would direct the intention of their minds, and their desires to God, for the obtaining in particular of such things as with the mouth they pray for; and they would be more edified, by the pious sense and understanding of their prayers; And he concludeth, that they pray not in vain, but that they would pray better, if they understood the meaning of their prayers. And to the same purpose 
m 〈◊〉 Article ●…3. division.  Harding against Bishop jewel, saith, it were better the people should say their prayers in their own tongue, that they might the better understand them.  

n Cap. Quoniam in ple●…que extra: de officiis iudicis ordinarii.  Innocentius the 3d seemeth to have had due consideration hereof, & therefore he prescribeth, that, because in sundry parts there are mixed within the same city or diocese, people of different languages, having in the unity of the same faith, different rites and manners; the Bishops of such Cities or Dioceses, shall provide fit men to celebrate divine service, according to the diversities of their rites and languages, & to minister the sacraments of the Church unto them, instructing them both by word, and example. Some restrain the words of Innocentius to the Greek and Latin tongues only, as if he had only allowed the having of the service in different tongues, in those cities and places, where Greeks and Latins met. 
* Hosius de sacro vernacule legendo p 665. saith the Pope meant not to make any innovation, but his meaning was that the Grecians and Sclavonians that already 300 year had the service in their own tongue should have priests to say service unto them in the same.  But I see not why these words should be thus restrained; seeing there is no question but this Pope would allow that which john the 8● his predecessor & others had done, in permitting, nay in commanding the service to be in the Slavonian tongue. And besides, how he could say that the Greeks in some parts of the world agreed with the Latins in the faith, whom he so bitterly reproveth for very main differences in religion, and who as Thomas à jesus testifieth most stiffly hold their own religion, though they live under Princes of the Roman profession, I know not.  
Wherefore to grow to a conclusion, it appeareth that anciently all Churches, & that ever most of the Christian Churches, had their service in a tongue vulgarly understood; that if any had not, it was either because they knew not how to write any thing in their own tongue; or because that which was their natural tongue ceased to be so, after they first had the service in it; that many had so in the West Church when Luther first showed his dislike of Romish errors & abuses: that there never wanted worthy divines, Bs & Praelates of great esteem, who urged the unfitness, of having it in a tongue not understood, & the necessity of the vulgar; that all in whom there was any spark of grace, sought to have it understood; And therefore as I noted before out of john Billet, sundry Churches though they had their service in Latin, yet caused the same things that they read in Latin to be expounded in the vulgar; others, as the Bs in the third 
o Cap. 71.  council of Tours, that such things should be read to the people in the vulgar, as might inform & instruct them, in all points of Christian faith & religion: their words are these. We all with unanimous consent have thought fit to ordain, that every B. shall provide and have homilies containing necessary admonitions, that so they that are under him, may be taught: our meaning is, that these homilies shall contain instructions touching the catholic faith, according to their capacities, concerning the everlasting rewards of the good, & eternal damnation of the wicked, the resurrection & last judgement, & such works & course of life, whereby men may attain, or whereby they are sure to be excluded from eternal life. And we ordain, that every B. take care, to translate the same homilies, plainly and perspicuously, into the vulgar Roman or Germane tongue, that all may the more easily understand the things that are uttered unto them.  
Among other articles proposed in the council of Trent by the Ambassadors of Ferdinand the Emperor, concerning the necessary reformation of the Church, one was, that 
p Anno 1562 apud Goldastum constit imperial tom. 2 p. 376.  Happily it were to be permitted, that in some places, prayers faithfully translated into the vulgar tongue, might be intermingled with those things that are sung in latin. Likewise in the articles of reformation exhibited to the council of Trent, by Charles the 9●. 
q Apud Gold. constit. imper. tom. 3. p. 570.  In sacrificio paraecialibus Euangelium apertè & dilucidè & pro populi captu copiose ex suggestu exponatur, quo in loco quae plebano praeeunte fient preces linguâ fiant vernaculâ, peractâ autem re divinâ latin & mysticis precibus, lingua etiam vernacula publicae ad Deum preces fiant. & ibidem plura. Which thing if it had been granted by the council, no new nor strange thing had been brought in, for as 
r De sacramen. eucharist. pag. 134.  Hosius testifieth, the Church never forbade, to sing in the Churches in the vulgar tongue, in time and place.  
It were to be wished, saith Erasmus, that the whole service of God, might be celebrated and performed, in a tongue understood of the whole people, as in ancient times it was wont to be, and that all things should be so plainly and distinctly sounded out, that they might be understood of all that list to 
s De mod orandi.  attend. And 
t Defensio. li de officio pij viri. pag. 141.  Cassander, fully agreeing with Erasmus, and alleging to this purpose the Pope's permitting of it to the Slavonians upon the hearing of a voice from heaven, & the authority of Caietan, saith; It were to be desired that according to the mandate of the Apostle, and the ancient custom of the Church, consideration might be had of the people in the public prayers of the Church, and in the hymns and lessons, which are there read and sung for the people's sake; and that the ordinary and vulgar sort of believers, might not for ever be wholly excluded, from all communion of prayers and divine readings: and he addeth; that unless there be a reformation in this and other things, there is no hope of any durable peace or consent of the Church: and professeth, he cannot see but that they to whom the government of the Church is committed, shall one day give an account, why they suffered the Church to be thus miserably disquieted and rend in sunder, and neglected to take away the causes, whence heresies & schisms do spring, as in duty they should have done. So that in this point as in the former, we see the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died was a true Protestant Church.   

CHAP. 5.  
Of the three supposed different estates of mere nature, grace, and sin: the difference between a man in the state of pure and mere nature, and in the state of sin; and of original sin.  
THey of the Church of Rome at this day imagine, that God might have created a man in the state of pure nature, or nature only, aswell without grace, as sin; 
a Cameracensis 〈◊〉 senten: d. 1. q 2. Scotus lib 3. d 27. quaest. 〈◊〉  and that in this state of pure or mere nature, without any addition of grace, he might have loved God above all, and have kept all the commandments of God collectively, so as to break none of them, at the least for a short time, though happily he could not have holden on constantly so to keep them all, as never to break any of them: seeing there would have been a contrariety, between reason, and that appetite that followeth the apprehension of sense, in that state of pure or mere nature. So that, according to this conceit, grace was added not to enable man to love God above all, to keep the several commandments, which he hath given, & to do the works, of moral virtue, (For all these he might have been able to perform, out of the power of nature, without any such addition,) but to make him able constantly to keep all the commandments of God collectively, so as never to break any one of them, and to keep them so as to merit eternal happiness in heaven.  
Hence they infer divers things: First, that the loss of grace or original righteousness, that was given to Adam, doth not deprive those of his posterity of the power of loving God their Creator above all, of keeping his commandments divisively, and doing the several works of moral virtue, though happily not with that facility, that in the state of grace he might have done them. Secondly, That Infidels and such as have no fellowship with the Saints & people of God, nor any part in his grace, may decline sin, and do the works of moral virtue. Thirdly, That all the contrariety that is found in the powers of the soul, the rebellion of the inferior faculties against the superior, the proneness to evil, and difficulty to do good, would have been the conditions, of mere nature without addition of grace or sin, and consequently, that they are not sin in the state wherein we are; that these evils are not newly brought into the nature of man by the fall; that as man would have been mortal in the state of mere nature, because compounded of contraries, so out of the contrariety of sensitive and rational desire, he would have found a rebellion in himself, of the inferior faculties against the superior; that as a heavy thing falleth not downward while it is stayed, but falleth so soon as the stay is taken away, by reason of the same nature it had, while it was stayed, and as a ship that lay quietly while it was stayed with an anchor, upon the removing of the same is driven with the winds, yet in no other sort than it would have been before, if it had not been stayed; so all these contrarieties, differences, and proneness to desire things contrary to the prescript of right reason, would have been in mere nature as the conditions of it, & would have showed themselves if grace had not hindered them; and that there is no other difference between a man in the state of pure or mere nature, and in the state of original sin, than there is between a man that never had any clothing, and him that had, but by his own fault and folly is stripped out of all; between whom there is no difference in the nature of nakedness, but all the difference standeth in this, that the one is in fault for not having clothes, the other not so. For they suppose man would have been carried as strongly to the desire of sinful things, in the state of pure nature, as now, that freewill is not made more weak, then in that state it would have been, nor the flesh become more rebellious than it would have been without grace, before the entrance of sin.  
This opinion ● Bellarmin followeth, and professeth, that though some of excellent 
b Degratiâ primi hominis l. unic. c. 5.  learning think, that both Thomas, and the best and most approved of the schoolmen, were of a contrary judgement, yet they are deceived in so thinking, and that this is the opinion of them all.  
Against these erroneous conceits, that are indeed the ground of all the points of difference, between them and us, touching original sin, freewill, the power of nature, the works of infidels, and the like, we oppose this proposition: That no state of pure or mere nature can be conceived, but that either a man must be lifted above himself by grace, or fall below himself by sin. And this proposition is proved by unanswerable reasons: For if the principal powers of the soul, cannot perform their own proper actions, by any natural faculty, nor without the addition of grace, and a kind of divine force, and help, then can there be no conceit of a state of pure or mere nature, seeing the nature of a thing implieth the powers pertaining to it, and a possibility to bring forth the actions of such powers: But it is evident that the principal powers of man's soul, cannot by any natural faculty perform their proper actions, because the first truth and chiefest good, are the objects of the reason, and the will, and these are infinite, and the natural capacity of reason and the will is finite, so that whatsoever we understand and conceive concerning God, is so much less, and cometh so much short of his infinite perfection, as the capacity of our understanding is less than the infinite being of God.  
But how then will some man say, can man attain his good being so high, excellent, & far removed from him, and so infinitely beyond, & without the compass of his natural faculty. The answer hereunto is, that though nothing can be lifted up, to be any thing above the nature of it, yet by foreign help a thing may be carried or lifted above itself, or above the nature of it, that is, above that to which the natural faculty of it extendeth itself, as a stone may by the hand of man be cast up on high, whether it hath no faculty to move itself: so the soul may be raised and lifted by grace in the acts of her powers, above that to which by any natural faculty, they can extend themselves: For though by nature men cannot know God as he is in himself, but only so far forth as by his effects and glorious works he may be known, yet God may present himself unto them in the light of grace, as he is in himself, and make his infinite greatness to appear unto them: 
* All the knowledge that naturally we have of God is by considering those perfections that are found in the creatures, that imply in them no imperfection, and which whatsoever hath, is better than those things are that have th●… not: for persuading ourselves that they are some where found in the highest degree, and without that mixture of imperfection that cleaveth to them in this or that particular, we name that thing God, wherein they are so found in so excellent sort: now all these perfections that we conceive and apprehend are finite, for they are perfections found and discerned in the creatures, and the degrees of them, are the degrees of things finite, so that unless we have another illumination by grace, whereby we may come to some apprehension of God, as he is in himself, we know not God as God, neither do we worship and honour him as God, because not as infinite, and all our worship is idolatry, giving that unto the resemblance, that pertaineth to the truth, as Cusanus showeth at large de doctâ ignorantiâ l. 〈◊〉 c. 26.  and so he must, or else man can never attain that which is is his proper good. Actus rationalis creaturae, saith Alensis. p: 3: q: 61: memb. 1. oportet quod ordinetur ad bonum quod est supra naturam, quod est summum bonum & infinitum; quia ergo non est possibilis extensio rationalis creaturae supra seipsam, ideo non est eipossibile per naturam ut ordinet suum actum sive perveniat in suum finem, & ideo necesse est quod iwetur à gratiâ. The act of a reasonable creature, must be directed to a good above nature which is the chief good, and infinite; because therefore a reasonable creature cannot raise itself above itself, therefore it is not possible that by the power of nature it should order its act, or attain its end: and therefore it must be holpen by grace.  
So then there is no immediate knowledge of God, as he is in himself, no knowledge that in time for his own sake he made all things of nothing, no knowledge how and in what sort we depend on him, how his providence reacheth to us, how he guideth us in all our ways, and consequently how we should love him, fear him, and trust in him, and depend upon him; And if within the compass of nature there be no such knowledge of God, then is there no right love of God; For no man can rightly love God, unless he rightly know him; And if we do not rightly love God, we can do nothing well, nay we cannot but continually do evil; 
c Grego: Ariminensis l. 2. d. 〈◊〉. q. 〈◊〉.  For every thing that a man willeth and affecteth, is either God, or some other thing besides God; If a man love God & not for himself but for some other thing, this act is sinful and culpable, and not morally good. If a man love any other thing besides God, and love it not finally for God, the act of his love resteth finally in some other thing that is not God, and he loveth it for itself without any further reference, and so enjoyeth some other thing besides God, as if it were the uttermost and most principal good, which act is culpable. Now if a man remaining within the compass of nature without addition of grace, cannot but do evil, then can there be no state of nature that is not sinful, without grace, and consequently there can be no state of pure or mere nature, seeing every thing that is culpable and faulty in any kind, is contrary to the nature of the thing wherein it is found, and a corruption of nature. But that all the principal actions of men without grace are culpable and faulty it is evident; because they love God for some other thing and not for himself, never coming to any knowledge of him as he is in himself, and they love other things for themselves, and finally, without any reference to God. So that grace is necessarily required in man, for the performance of his actions, so as not to sin. And it is true that 
d ubi supra.  Gregorius Ariminensis hath, that Adam in the state of his creation, was not sufficiently enabled, to perform any act morally good, or so to do any good thing as not to sin in doing it, by any thing in nature, if he had not had special grace added. Whence it will follow that there is no power to do good, or not to sin, in the nature of a man, but from grace; that when grace is lost, there is an impossibility of doing good, and a necessity of doing evil.  
The Papists and we agree that original sin is the privation of original righteousness; but they suppose there was in nature without that addition of grace, a power to do good, and that it was not given simply to make man able to do good, but constantly, and so as to merit heaven; so that it being taken away, a man may decline each particular sin, and do the several works of virtue, though neither so as never to sin, nor so as to merit heaven thereby; But we say there neither was nor could be any power in nature as of itself, to do any act morally good, or not sinful; that grace was given to enable men, to perform the actions of their principal powers, about their principal objects, and to do good; and that it being taken away, there is found in them an impotency to do any act of virtue, and a necessity of sinning in all their moral actions, till they be restored again to the state of grace; that the difficulty to do good, proneness to evil, contrariety between the powers and faculties of the soul, and the rebellion of the meaner against the superior and better, are not the conditions of nature, as it was or might have been in itself before the entrance of sin, but that all these proceed from the putting of the powers of the soul, by the loss of grace, out of that course, which by the law of GOD and nature they were to hold. For doth not the condition of man's nature require, that amongst things inquired after, thought of, and known, God should be the first? and amongst things desired and loved, nothing should be desired and loved more or before him, nor otherwise then for him? and is it not clear and evident, that if God be the first thing that is thought of, sought after, and loved, and that nothing be sought after or respected, but after and for GOD, that there will be no proneness to evil, difficultire to do good, contrariety between the powers of the soul, and rebellion of the meaner and inferior against the better and superior? surely there is none that can or will make question of it. Now it is confessed by the best learned amongst the Schoolmen, that howsoever it be not so in the course of our understanding, in this state wherein we are, yet according to the course of the nature of our understanding simply considered, it should be so, that 
* Sensitivus appetitus rationis quasi particeps fuerat effectus, sed cum á deo voluntas ad seipsam defecir, appetitus spreto rationis imperio sui iuris esse caepit: atque hinc innumerae cupidirates, innumeri timores atque morbi, ex quo etiam factum est, ut cum in primo actionum suarum prncipio occaecatus sit intellectus, & in particulari bono ultimum sinem collocarit, & suae dignitatis ignarus in corpus sese & sensum demerserit, & in corporis naturam degenerarit, in corporis volupratibus assequendis, & doloribus fugiendis finem suum constituerit. Contarenus de libero arbitrio.  GOD should be the first thing sought after and known by us.  
Secundum naturam (saith 
e 1. Sent. d. 3. q. 1.  Scotus) Deus est primum cognitum, quia naturalis cognitio procedit ab indeterminato ad determinatum, indeterminatum negatiuè est magis indeterminatum, quam priuatiue indeterminatum: ergo praeconcipitur illi; & illud indeterminatum priuatiue secundum nostram cognitionem praeconcipitur determinato, quia ens & res prima impressione imprimuntur in animâ nostrâ secundum Auicennam 1. Metaphys. c. 5. ergo indeterminatum negatiue omnino primo est objectum nostro intellectui. At rationalitèr posterius creaturâ cognoscitur: quia primo concipitur hoc bonum, deinde bonum universale abstractum secundâ abstractione, puta quod est indeterminatum privatiuè, deinde bonum primâ abstractione abstractum, quod scilicet est indeterminatum negatiuè. And therefore it is noted by the learned, that there is a double knowledge and apprehension of things; the one distinct, the other confused; in the confused knowledge of things that is first apprehended by us, that first affecteth the sense, but in distinct knowledge cognitorum primum est communissimum, & quae propinquiora sibi sunt priora, & quae remotiora, posteriora; quia nihil concipitur distinctè, nisi quando concipiuntur omnia quae includuntur in ratione eius essentiali.  
And to the same purpose it is that 
f Bonaventura itinerarium mentis in deum. c. 5.  Bonaventura hath, Cum non esse privatio sit essendi, non cadit in intellectum nisi per esse; esse autem non cadit per aliud; quia omne quod intelligitur, aut intelligitur ut non ens, aut ut ens in potentia, aut ut ens in actu; si igitur non ens non potest intelligi nisi per ens, & ens in potentiâ non nisi per ens in actu, & esse nominat ipsum purum actum entis, esse igitur est quod primo cadit inintellectum, & illud esse est, quod est purus actus: sed hoc non est esse particular, quod est esse arctatum, quia permixtum est cum potentiâ, nec esse analogum, quia minime habet de actu, eò quòd minimè est: restat igitur quod illud esse, est esse divinum: mira igitur est coecitas intellectus, qui non consider at illud quod prius videt, & sine quo nihil potest cognoscere: sed sicuti oculus intentus in varias colorum differentias, lucem per quam videt caetera, non videt, & si videt non tamen advertit: sic oculus mentis nostrae intentus in ista entia particularia, & universalia, ipsum esse extraomne genus, licet primo occurrat menti, & per ipsum alia, tamen non advertit; unde verissimè apparet, quod sicut oculus vespertilionis se habet ad lucem: ita se habet oculus mentis nostrae ad manifestissima naturae. Quia assuefactus ad tenebras entium, & phantasmata sensibilium, cum ipsam lucem summi 
* Esse.  entis intuetur, videtur sibi nihil videre: non intelligens, quod ipsa caligo summa est mentis nostrae illuminatio, sicut quando videt oculus puram lucem, videtur sibi nihil videre.  
By this which hath been said, it is evident, that according to the course of nature not disordered, nor put out of course, the first thing that is inquired after, thought of and known, is GOD, and that he is the first good that is desired & loved, & that no other thing is desired or loved but after him, & for him. So that none of the things formerly mentioned can be found in the nature of man, unless it be put out of course. Whence groweth the contrariety between the meaner and better, superior and inferior faculties of the soul, but from hence, that the soul in this state of her aversion from God, taketh the beginning of all her knowledge from the senses, apprehendeth particular things as good upon the first view, & to be desired, which afterwards upon better consideration, in respects not considered at the first, she findeth are not good nor desirable? And whence is the rebellion of the inferior against the superior, but from hence, that the superior having cast off the dependence it formerly had upon God & respect unto him, the inferior also casteth off the respect it had to it? 
g Bernard. serm. ad milit. Templi c. 11. de sepulchro.  Quid iustius esse poterat, quam talionem recipere? Vita Deus animae est, ipsa corporis; peccando voluntariè volens perdidit vivere, nolens perdat & vivificare; sponte repulit vitam-cùm vivere noluit, non valeat eam dare cui, vel quatenus voluerit; noluit anima regi à Deo, non queat regere corpus: si non non paret superiori, inferiori cur imperet? Invenit conditor suam sibi rebellem creaturam, inveniat animasuam sibirebellem pedissequam; transgressor inventus est homo divinae legis, inveniat ipse aliam legem in membris suis repugnantem legi mentis suae, & captivantem se in legem peccati: porrò peccatum separat inter nos & Deum, separet proinde mors inter corpus nostrum & nos.  
From hence likewise is that danger of erring, whereunto man is subject; for apprehending particular things first, his knowledge is imperfect, and confused; & not without much labour, and danger of erring, doth he come to the distinct knowledge of any thing, And hence also floweth that ignorance that is found in men; for taking the beginning of all the knowledge they have from the senses, they know no more touching any thing than may be discerned by the accidents and outward effects of it, and so never come to know any thing in the essence of it, or immediately as it is in itself. So that according to that which before I noted, out of the book called Destructorium vitiorum; as a man may know in the dark, the length, breadth, and other dimensions of a thing, but not whether it be fair or foul, white or black. So men in this obscurity of discerning, may find out that there is a God, and that he is the beginning and cause of all things: but they cannot know how fair, how good, how merciful, and how glorious he is, that so they may love him, fear him, honour him, and trust in him as God, unless they have an illumination of grace,  
The difference therefore between those of the Church of Rome and us, touching original sin, consisteth in two points. First, In that they make the former defects of ignorance, difficulty to do good, proneness to evil, contrariety between the powers of the soul, and the rebellion of the meaner and inferior, against the better and superior, consequents of nature, as it might and would be in itself simply considered, without all defection and falling from God: that original righteousness was given, to prevent and stay the effects that these naturally would have brought forth, and that these are not the consequents of Adam's sin, but that only the leaving of them free to themselves to disorder all, is a consequent of the loss of that righteousness which was given to Adam, and by him forfeited and lost: that they proceed from the guilt of sin, but that they make not them guilty in whom they are. But we say that these are no conditions of nature simply considered, that they cannot be found but where there is a falling from God, that they are the consequents of Adam's sinful aversion from God his Creator, that they are a part of original sin, and that they make men guilty of grievous punishment, so long as they remain in them.  
The second thing is, that original sin is indeed according to their opinion the privation of original righteousness: but as original righteousness was not given simply to enable men to decline evil and do good, but collectively, constantly, and meritoriously to decline evil & do good: so the privation of it doth not deprive men of all power of declining evil & doing good, but only of the power of declining all evil, and doing all good collectively & meritoriously. But we say that original righteousness was given, simply to enable men to decline evil & to do good, and that without it the nature of man could not perform her proper and principal actions, about her principal objects: So that the privation of it, depriveth a man of all power of knowing, loving, fearing, honouring, or glorifying God as God, and of all power, of doing any thing morally good or not sinful; and putteth him into an estate, wherein he cannot but love and desire things that God would not, or so as he would not have him; yea of loving other things more than God: and and so as to dishonour God in any kind, rather than not to enjoy the things he desires.  
So that if we speak of original sin formally, it is the privation of those excellent gifts of divine grace, enabling us to know, love, fear, serve, honour, and trust in God, and to do the things he delighteth in, which Adam had & lost. If materially, it is that habitual inclination that is found in men averse from God, carrying them to the love and desire of finite things more than of God, and this also is properly sin, making guilty of condemnation, the nature and person in which it is found. This habitual inclination to desire finite things inordinately, is named concupiscence; and this concupiscence is two fold as 
* p. 2. q. 105. memb. 2. art. 1.  Alensis noteth out of Hugo, for there is concupiscentia spiritus, and concupiscentia carnis, there is a concupiscence of the spirit, or superior faculties; & of the flesh or inferior; the former is sin, the latter sin and punishment. For what is more just than that the will refusing to be ordered by God, and desiring what he would not have it, should find the inferior faculties rebellious and inclined to desire things the will would have to be declined?  
It remaineth therefore that we proceed to prove, that this doctrine was received, taught, & continued in the Churches wherein our Fathers lived & died, till & after Luther's time. I have showed already that Gregorius Ariminensis professeth, that Adam in the state of his creation, was not enabled to perform any act morally good, or so to do any good thing, as not to sin in doing it, by any thing in nature, without addition of grace; which thing he proveth out of the master of the sentences, whose words are these, speaking of the first man before his fall. 
g 2 sent. d. 29.  Egebat itaque homo gratiâ, non ut liberaret voluntatem suam quae peccati serva non fuerat, sed ut praepararet ad volendum efficaciter bonum, quod per se non poterat. That is, The first man needed grace, not to free his will, for it never had been in bondage, but to prepare and fit it effectually to will that which is good, which of itself it could not do.  
And he confirmeth the same out of Saint August: his words are these, 
h De correption. & great. c. 11.  Istam gratiam non habuit homo primus, quâ nunquam vellet esse malus; sed habuit in qua si permanere vellet, nunquam malus esset; & sine quâ etiam cum libero arbitrio bonus esse non posset; sed eam tamen per liberum arbitrium deserere posset; nec ipsum ergo Deus esse voluit sine suâ gratiâ, quem reliquit in eius libero arbitrio, quoniam liberum arbitrium ad malum sufficit, ad bonum au●…m 
* nihil  parumest, nisi adiwetur ab omnipotenti bono: quod adiutorium si homo ille per liberum non deseruisset arbitrium, semper esset bonus, sed deseruit, et desertus est. that is, The first man had not that grace, that might make him so will good, as never to become evil; but truly he had that, wherein if he would have continued, he should never have been evil, and without which, notwithstanding all the freedom of his will, he could not be good; yet by the freedom of his will he might lose it; wherefore God would not have him to be without his grace, whom he left in the freedom of his will, because free will is sufficient of itself to do evil, but it is of little force, (or rather as the true reading is of no force, & nothing) to do good, unless it be holpen of the omnipotent good, which help if man had not, forsaken by his free will, he had ever been good; but he forsook it, and was forsaken.  
Thirdly he proveth the same in this sort: Si Adam ante peccatum potuisset per suas vires naturales praecise agere actum moraliter bonum, ipse potuisset facere se de non bono bonum, posito quod aliquando fuisset sine omni actu voluntatis, cum suis tantum naturalibus; aut de bono meliorem, deo illum non specialiter adiuvante. that is, If Adam had power before the entrance of sin precisely by the strength of his natural faculties to do an act morally good, than he might have made himself good of not good, supposing that sometimes in the state of mere nature he had no act of will; or at the least he might have made himself of good better, without the special help of God; but this consequent must not be admitted; for if Adam might thus have done, the good Angels might have done so, but that is contrary to St Augustine, his words are these: Si boni Angeli fuerunt prius sine bonâ voluntate, eamque in seipsis deo non operante fecerunt: ergo meliores à 
i De civitate Dei li. 12. c. 9  seipsis, quam ab illo facti sunt; Absit. At si non potuerunt seipsos facere meliores, quam eos ille fecerat, quo nemo melius quic quam facit: profecto & bonam voluntatem quà meliores essent, nisi operante adiutorio creatoris, habere non possent. that is, If the good Angels were first without any good motion of will, or the goodness of the will, and afterwards, God not working, wrought it in themselves, than they made themselves better than they were made of him, which God forbid we should ever think. But if they could not make themselves better than he made them, than whom no man can do any thing better, truly unless the help of their Creator wrought them to it, they could not have that goodness of will whereby they might become better than they were before.  
That which he thus proveth touching the state of man before the fall, is undoubtedly true in the state of the fall; and therefore all the most pious and judicious men in every age, have taught as we now do, that since the fall of Adam, there is no power left in any of his posterity before they be renewed by grace, to decline sin or to do any work morally good, and that may be truly named a work of virtue. And these cannot but farther agree with Ariminensis and us touching the impotency of nature before the entrance of sin, to do any good act, or act of virtue, of itself, without the addition of grace. For if grace had not been given in the state of the creation simply to enable to do good, but that there had been a power of doing good in nature, without and before the addition of grace, then upon the loss of it there had followed no such impotency in the present state, as these men affirm there did, and they that hold the other opinion deny. All these affirm that all the posterity of Adam are plunged into such an estate of ignorance by this fall, that without special illumination of grace, they know not sufficiently concerning any thing that is to be done or committed, that it is to be done or committed, and wherefore, & in what sort: & into such an estate of infirmity & impotency in respect of the will, that they cannot will any thing that is to be willed, for such cause, and in such sort as it is to be willed, and withsuch circumstances as are required, to make an act to be morally good, and truly virtuous.  

k De libero arbit. l. 3. c. 17.  St Austin saith, that Adam and Eve, so soon as they had sinned, were cast headlong into error, misery, and death, & that it was most just they should so be; for what saith he is more just than ut amittat quisque quo bene uti noluit, cum sine ulla posset difficultate si vellet; id est, ut qui sciens rectè non facit, a●…ittat scire quid rectum sit; & qui rectè facere, cum posset, noluit, amittat posse cum velit? that every one should lose that which when with ease he might he would not use well; that is, that he that having knowledge doth not right, should lose the knowledge of that which is right: & that he that would not do well when he might, should lose the power of doing well when he would. 
l Enchirid. c. 24.  And elsewhere speaking of the first sin of the Angels and men; he saith, that, when they fell, Subintravit ignorantia rerum agendarum, & concupiscentia noxiarum; that is, there entered in ignorance of things to be done, and desire of things hurtful that are to be declined. Prosper in his 
m Cap. 39  book in defence of the preachers of grace against Cassian, reprehendeth him because he had said in his collation the protectione Dei, that Adam gained the knowledge of evil after his fall, but lost not the knowledge of good which he had received, & telleth him that both these propositions are untrue; so that he thinketh that Adam lost the knowledge of good.  

n De sacram. fidei l. 1. part 6 c. 12. 13. 14.  Hugo de sancto Victore saith, the first man was endued with a threefold knowledge, cognition scilicet creatoris sui, ut cognosceret à quo factus erat; & cognition sui, ut cognosceret quid factus erat, & quid sibi faciendum erat; deindè cognitione quoque illius quod secum factum erat, & quid sibi de illo, & in illo faciendum erat. That is, he was endued with knowledge of his Creator, that he might know of whom he was made, with knowledge of himself, that he might know what he was made, and what he was to do; lastly, with knowledge of that which was made together with him, & what he was to do with, & in it. For no man is to doubt but that man had perfect knowledge of all those visible things, that were made for him, & with him, as much as pertained either to the instruction of his soul, or the necessity of bodily use. This knowledge man hath not lost by the fall, neither that whereby he was to provide things necessary for the flesh, and therefore God was not careful afterwards to instruct him touching these things by the Scriptures, but he was to be taught that knowledge that concerneth the soul only, when he was to be restored, because he had lost that only by sinning. And in the same place he excellently describeth the knowledge of God that Adam had, to have been not by hearing only from without, as now, but by inspiration within, not that whereby now believers by faith seek after God as absent, but that whereby by presence of contemplation, he was more manifestly seen of him as knowing him. And concludeth, it is hard to express the manner of the divine knowledge the first man had, but that only this is certain, that being taught visibly by inward inspiration, he could no way doubt of his Creator.  
In like sort the same 
o ibid. part. 7. c. 11. & 17.  Hugo showeth most excellently, that man hath lost all rectitude of will; for whereas there was given to man a double desire, iusti, & commodi: of that which is just, and that which is pleasing: the one voluntary, the other necessary; that by the one he might merit, or demerit; by the other he might be punished or rewarded (for if he had no desire of that is pleasing, he could neither be rewarded by having, nor punished by being deprived.) He hath lost the one, & is punished in the other which remaineth: when either he is kept from enjoying the things he orderly desireth, or left free to desire such things, as orderly are not to be desired. If man have lost all desire of that which is just as just, as here he saith he hath; then surely he sinneth in all his actions, and is deprived of all moral rectitude; for what moral rectitude is in him, that loveth nothing, because it is just, farther than it may be commodious, and in that respect pleasing?  
The schoolmen are wont to urge, that a man may naturally love God above all; for seeing he naturally loveth that which appeareth unto him to be good, why should he not love God above all, who is the chief good? To this Luther's answer is this, that there is a twofold love; for there is amor amicitiae, & amor concupiscentiae, a love whereby a man willeth the good of him that he loveth, & a love whereby he desireth to make use of the good of that he loveth, and to make it serve his turn. In the first sort a man loveth his friend; by the latter his horse: now saith Luther, it is true, that every sinful man loveth God with the latter kind of love, desiring to make use of God to serve his own turn: but it is not possible for a natural man to love God as a man loveth his friend, that is, to desire that God may rule, & reign, & be glorified as God, to rejoice when his will is done, though it be contrary to that we desire; to be grieved when he is offended. And this surely is confirmed by 
p Epist. 11. pag. 1406.  Bernard, for he saith, that there are 4 degrees of love. For 1, a man loveth nothing but himself. 2● Heloveth other things, & amongst other things God for himself finding that he cannot be without him. Thirdly, He loveth God, for God. Fourthly he loveth himself for God. The two former are natural, and as I think finfull: the two latter I am well assured in the judgement of Saint Bernard proceed from grace, and not from nature, for he saith, That is first that is natural, and then that which is spiritual; and that scarce any of the elect of God go beyond the first of these two latter degrees in this life. So that according to that which before I alleged out of Gregorius Ariminensis, every one that willeth any thing, either willeth God, or some other thing that is not God; if God, & not for God, but for some other thing expected to be had from him, or by him, this is uti fruendis, to make use of that, for the having of some thing as more loved, that should be enjoyed as the best and most loved of all other things, and this is most perverse, as Saint Augustine telleth us. If we love any thing else besides God, and not for God, it is likewise an iniquity. So that seeing naturally it is impossible to love for God, it is impossible to love any thing rightly; and consequently all the actions of natural & unregenerate men are sin. And that they are so indeed, it is proved by such authorities as may not be excepted against. Cyprian de bono patientiae in principio saith, the true virtue of patience cannot be in Infidels; now there is the same reason of one virtue and of all, his words are these. Hanc se sectari Philosophi quoque profitentur, sed tam illis patientia est falsa, quam & falsa sapientia; unde enim vel sapiens esse vel patience posset, qui nec sapientiam nec patientiam Dei novit, quando ipse de iis qui sibi sapere in mundo videntur moneat & dicat, perdam sapientiam sapientum, & prudentiam prudentum reprobabo? 
q Contra julianum Pelagianum, l. 4. c. 3.  Augustine saith, Thou wilt say if a Gentile shall clothe the naked, is it sin, because it is not of faith? truly in that it is not of faith, it is sin; not because the action of clothing the naked in itself is sin: but to glory in such a work and not in the Lord, none but an impious man will deny to be sin. If a Gentile that liveth not by faith, shall clothe the naked, deliver him that is in danger, bind up the wounds of him that is wounded, bestow his goods to honest & friendly purposes: and shall not suffer himself to be brought by any torments to bear false witness; I ask of thee, whether he do these good works well or ill? for if he do these things ill, that are good, thou canst not deny but that he sinneth, that doth any thing ill: if thou say he doth these good things, and doth them well, than an evil tree bringeth forth good fruit, which he that is truth itself saith cannot be. If thou shalt say that a man that is an Infidel is a good 
Sequitur ibidem apud Augustinum. Sed forte dicturus es miseri●…ors voluntas bona est. Recte istud dice●…etur, si que madmodum fides Christi, id est, fides quae per dilectionem operatur, semper est bona, ita misericordia semper esset bona; si autem reperitur & misericordia mala, qua persona pauperis accipitur in judicio, propter quam postremo rex Saul meruit à Domino utique misericorde damnari, quia contra eius praeceptum captivo regi per humanum pepercit affectum, attentius cogita ne forte misericordia bona non sit, nisi quae huius bonae fidei fuerit. Imò respond, ut hoc sine dubitatione perspicias, utrum bonam misericordiam existimes infidelem. Porto si vitium est male misereri, procul dubio vitium est infideliter misereri. Quod si & ipsa per seipsam naturali compassione opus est bonum, etiam isto bono male utitur qui infideliter utitur, & hoc bonum male facit, qui infideliter facit, qui autem male facit aliquid, profecto peccat. Ex quo colligitur etiam ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene utitur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata, quibus & bona male faciunt, quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, h●…c est, stulta & noxi●… voluntate faciunt. Qualis voluntas nullo Christiano dubitante est arbor mala, quae facere non potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est.  tree, than he pleaseth God, for that which is good cannot but please God who is good.  
But julian the Pelagian answereth, as the Papists do at this day: I acknowledge, saith he, that they are steriliter boni, that is, their good is barren and bringeth forth no fruit, who not doing the good things they do for God, receive not from him the reward of eternal life. The answer of Saint Augustine is out of the 6 of Matthew: If thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness, &c: Know that this eye is the intention, with which every one doth that he doth; and learn by this, that he that doth not his good works, out of a good intention of a good faith, that is, of that faith that worketh by love, all the whole body that consisteth of such works as members, is full of darkness, that is, the blackness of sins. Or truly because thou grantest that such works of infidels as seem to thee to be good, bring them not to eternal salvation and the kingdom of heaven: know thou that we say that that good will, that good work by which only a man may be brought to the everlasting gift and kingdom of God, can be given to none, without that grace that is given by him, that is the only mediator between God and man. All other things that seem to be commendable amongst men, let them seem to thee to be true virtues, let them seem to thee to be good works, and done without all sin. For my part this I know, that the will is not good that doth them, for an unbelieving will and ungodly is not good. Let these wills be according to thy judgement good trees, it sufficeth that with God, or in God's judgement, they are barren, and so not good. Let them be fruitful amongst men, amongst whom also they are good, upon thy credit & authority, thy commendation, thy planting, if thou wilt have it so: so that I obtain this whether thou wilt or not, that the love of this world, whereby every one is a friend of this world, is not of God; and that the love that maketh a man enjoy the creatures whatsoever they be without the love of the creator, as the chiefest and utter most good, is not of God. Now the love of God whereby we come to God, is not but from God the Father by jesus, together with the holy Ghost. By this love of the creator, each one useth the creatures rightly, and without this love of the creator, no man useth the creatures well.  
And again, 
s August. ibid.  Noveris non officiis, sed finibus à vitiis discernendas esse virtutes. Officium est autem quod faciendum est: finis vero propter quod faciendum est. Cum itaque facit homo aliquid ubi peccare non videtur, si non propter hoc facit propter quod facere debet, peccare convincitur. Quae tu non attendens fines ab officiis separasti, & virtutes veras officia sine finibus appellandas esse dixisti. Ex quo te tanta absurditas sequitur, ut veram cogaris appellare iustitiam, etiam cuius dominam repereris avaritiam. Siquidem manus abstinere ab alieno, si officium cogites, potest videri esse iustitiae. Sed cum quaeritur, quare fiat, & respondetur, ne plus pecuniae litibus pereat: quomodo iam hoc factum verae poterit esse iusticiae, cum serviat avaritiae?  
And again. 
t Ibid.  Absit ut virtutes verae cuiquam serviant, nisi illi vel propter illum cui dicimus Psal. 79. Deus virtutum converte nos. Proinde virtutes quae carnalibus delectationibus, vel quibuscunque commodis & emolumentis temporalibus serviunt, verae prorsus esse non possunt. Quae autem nulli rei servire volunt, nec ipsae verae sunt. Verae quippe virtutes Deo serviunt in hominibus, á quo donantur hominibus. Quicquid autem boni fit ab homine, & non propter hoc fit, propter quod fieri debere vera sapientia praecipit, etsi officio videatur bonum, ipso non recto fine peccatum est. & ideo, 
u De civitate Dei, l. 19 c. 25.  Virtutes non relatae ad Deum, vitia potius sunt, quam virtutes: Nam licet à quibusdam tunc verae & honestae putentur esse virtutes, cum ad seipsas referuntur: nec propter aliud expetuntur, etiam tunc inflatae ac superbae sunt: & ideo non virtutes virtutes, sed vitia iudicandae sunt. 
a August. in Ps. 31.  Bona opera extra fidem, simillima sunt celerrimo cursui extraviam.  
And again, 
b De civet. Dei l. 19 c. 25.  Quamlibet videatur animus corpori, & ratio vitiis laudabiliter imperare, si tamen Deo animus & ratio ipsa non seruit, sicut sibi serviendum esse ipse Deus praecepit, nullo modo corpori vitiisque rectè imperat. Nam qualis corporis atque vitiorum potest esse mens domina, veri Dei nescia, nec eius imperio subiugata, sed vitiosissimis daemonibus corrumpentibus prostituta? Proinde virtutes quas sibi habere videtur, per quas imperat corpori & vitiis ad quodlibet adipiscendum vel tenendum, nisi ad Deum retulerit, etiam ipsae vitia sunt potius quam virtutes.  

c 1 Lib. de vocatio: gentium cap. 7.  Prosper agrees with Saint Austin: his words are these sine cultu veri Dei etiam quod virtus videtur esse, peccatum est; nec placere ullus Deo sine Deo potest. Qui verò Deo non placet, cui nisi sibi & Diabolo placet? That is, without the worship of the true God, even that which seemeth to be virtue is sin; neither can any man please God without God; And whom doth he please that pleaseth not God but himself and the devil? And the same Prosper in his 
d Cap. 1.  3d book de vitâ contemplatiuâ, Apostolus non dixit, omne quod non est ex fide, nihil est; sed dicendo, Omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est: declaravit quod omnia gesta, sinon fuerint ex fide, non sint aliqua bona credenda, sed vitia, quae non invant suos operarios, sed condemnant, inflatosque praecipitant, atque à finibus aeternae salutis eliminant; That is, the Apostle did not say whatsoever is not of faith is nothing, but by saying it is sin, he declareth that whatsoever things have not been done out of faith, are not to be thought good, but faults and vices, which do not help the workers of them, but condemn them, and cast them headlong down being puffed up, and banish them out of the confines of eternal salvation. And the same 
e Lib. sent. ex Augustino sentent. 106.  Prosper in another place, Omnis infidelium vita peccatum est, & nihil bonum sine summo bono, ubi enim deest agnitio aeternae, & incommutabilis veritatis, falsa virtus est etiam in optimis moribus, That is, the whole life of Infidels is sin, and there is nothing good without the chief good; and wheresoever the knowledge of the eternal and incommutable verity is wanting, let a man's manners be never so good, it is no true virtue he seemeth to have.  
There is nothing good without faith, saith Chrysostome, and that I may use a similitude, and make a comparison, they that flourish in good works and know not God, seem to me to be like the relics of the dead wrapped up fairly. Basil in his 
f Qu●…st. 7.  second book de baptismate, proposing the question whether it be possible, or whether it be acceptable to God, that he that serveth sin, should do the works of righteousness, bringeth the explication of this question out of the Old Testament, where GOD saith; the sinner that offereth to me a calf, is as he that killeth a dog, and in the New Testament the Lord saith, he that doth sin is the servant of sin, and no man can serve two masters; wherefore we are to be exhorted to make the tree good and her fruit good, and first to purge and make clean that which is in the inside of the cup and of the platter, and then all that is without will be clean.  

g Lib. 22. c. 10. super 31. cap. job.  Gregory in his morals, writing upon those words of job, If my mouth have kissed my hand, hath these words. Sancti viri sciunt se non virtute propri●… sed praeveniente supernâ gratiâ ad meliora vota vel opera commutatos; & quicquid sibi mali inesse cognoscunt de mortali propagine sentiunt meritum: quicquid verò boni in se inspiciunt, immortalis gratiae cognoscunt donum, eique de accepto munere debitores fiunt, qui & praeveniendo dedit eis bonum velle quod voluerunt, & subsequendo concessit bonum posse quod volunt. Let them that are otherwise minded, tell us, whether the moral actions of Infidels be good or evil, if good, than they are from grace, whereof they are not partakers, if evil, then have they the thing proved about which we contend.  
Beda writing upon the 14th to the Romans upon those words, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, saith as Prosper, that all the whole life of Infidels is sin, that nothing is good without the chief good, that where the knowledge of the eternal and incommutable verity is not, if the manners and conversation of them that have it not, be never so good, they have no true virtue.  
Bernard in his book 
h Cap, 40.  de gratiâ & libero arbitrio: Liberi arbitrii conatus ad bonum & cassi sunt si non gratiâ adiuventur: & nulli si non excitentur: caeterum in malum dicit scriptura proni sunt sensus & cogitationes hominis. That is, the endeavouring of freewill to do good is in vain, if it be not holpen by grace, and none at all if it be not stirred up by grace; but the scripture saith the senses and thoughts of men are prone to evil. Neither can they say that he speaketh only of meritorious good, and such as is rewardable in heaven; for he speaketh generally of good; as it appeareth, in that he opposeth it not to some other kind of good, but to evil.  

i Comment: in 14. caput: epistolae ad Romanos.  Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury fully agreeth with the rest, affirming in the same words that Prosper and Beda did before, that the whole life of infidels is sin, that there is nothing good without the chief good, and that where the knowledge of the eternal and incommutable verity is wanting, if the manners and conversation of them that have it not be nover so good and commendable, they have no true virtue. Peter Lombard the master of the sentences sometimes Bishop of Paris writing upon the same place, hath the same words: and so hath the ordinary gloss.  

k Citatus ab Ariminensi li. 2. d. 26. 27. 28. q. 1. artic. 1.  Grosthead the renowned Bishop of Lincoln in his sermon upon the Aduent, the beginning whereof is this, There shall be signs in the sun and in the Moon, hath these words; Bright and glittering stars of virtue seemed to shine and appear in the moral doctrine of natural men, and in the conversation of many Gentiles, as of the Scipios and others: but now it is truly manifest and clear, that without the faith of Christ there is no true virtue, in the doctrine or conversation of any man. And in his 
l cap. 37.  Enchiridion he saith, that this was the opinion of St Augustine; where treating of the four Cardinal virtues, and proposing the question, whether Cato and the Scipios had such virtues, he saith thus: We grant with Augustine that no man ever had or could have true virtue without the faith of jesus Christ: and proveth it immediately after in this sort. Non enim potest esse amor ordinatus, ubi contemnitur & non amatur quod maximè amandum est, cum non ametur nisi quod scitur aut creditur: unde patet, quod qui nescit, aut non credit dominum jesum Christum, non amat aut contemnit quod maximè amandum est, quapropter in tali virtus non est: quod etiam probat Augustinus talibus argumentis, dicens, Absit ut in aliquo sit vera virtus nisi sit iustus &c: that is, There can be no orderly love of things where that is contemned and not loved, that is to be loved most of all, whence it is clear and evident, that seeing nothing can be loved but that which is known or believed, he who knoweth not or believeth not the Lord JESUS CHRIST, contemneth or at least loveth not, that which is most of all to be beloved, and therefore in such a one there can be no true virtue, which also Augustine proveth by arguments of this sort, saying, GOD forbid that true virtue should be conceived to be in any man unless he be just etc. By these passages of the Bishop of Lincoln it appeareth, saith Ariminensis, that he thought, as we do, that no act morally good, can be done without the special grace of GOD, for if there be no virtue without such grace, then can there be no act morally good: which is yet more fully cleared: for every virtuous and moral good act, either is orderly love, or presupposeth it: so that if there can be no orderly love without GOD'S grace, there can be no act of virtue, or act morally good. With this famous Bishop of LINCOLN we may join Thomas Bradwardine, the no less famous and renowned Archbishop of CANTERBURY, who is his Sum de causa Dei contra Pelagium at large confirmeth and proveth the same. So that it seemeth by Beda, Anselm, Grosthead and this BRADWARDINE, that this was ever the doctrine of the Church of England, as now it is.  

m De libertate Christianâ li. 2. cap. 34.  Pupperus Gocchianus that lived a little before Luther's time, saith, The whole life of infidels is sin, there is nothing good without the chief good: where there wanteth the knowledge of the eternal truth, if men's manners be never so commendable they have no true virtue; he that offendeth in one, that is, in charity is guilty of all; he therefore that hath not faith and charity, every action of his is sin. And he addeth, 
n Cap. 35.  that when Augustine saith, that they that have not charity may do good things, but not well, his words are not to be understood, as if the things which they do without charity were good, when they do them without charity, but that they would be good, if they were done in charity, or that they are of such nature and kind, which being done in charity, may be good: otherwise he should be contrary to himself, where he saith that every action of him that hath not charity is sin.  

o Explicat. Orthodoxae fidei pag 273.  Andradius saith, that there was much difference touching this point not only amongst the latter, but the more ancient divines also: and that some did so deject all the actions and endeavours of infidels, as to affirm that none of them are or can be without sin; It is true indeed that there were ever some in the latter ages of the Church that contradicted this verity, which we have hitherto proved, but they were such as had a touch of Semipelagianisme.  

p Lib. de gratiá & libero arbitrio contra Cassianum, c ●…9. definite. 8.  Prosper speaketh of a rule found in the collations of Cassian, Cavendum nobis est, ne ita ad Deum omnia sanctorum referamus, ut nihil nisi id quod malum est, humanae ascribamus naturae. That is, We must take heed lest we so attribute all the merits of the Saints to God, as to ascribe nothing to nature, but that which is evil and perverse. This rule sundry carefully followed in the midst of the Church in all the latter ages, who so acknowledged that no man can merit heaven without God's grace, that yet they thought they might do many things morally good, by nature without grace. But Prosper bitterly reprehendeth this; his words are these. Quasi natura ante gratiam non sit in damnatione, non sit in caecitate, non sit in vulnere: aut non gratis iustificati sint, quorum inde sunt merita unde iustitia. That is, As if nature before grace were not in a state of condemnation, were not in blindness, and greivously hurt, or as if we were not freely justified, all whose merits are from thence, whence is our righteousness. And all they that rightly understood the doctrine of the Church, cleared by Saint Augustine against the Pelagians, concurred with Prosper, and taught as we do now, that all the works of infidels and men not renewed and justified by God's special grace were sins.  
Yea so great is the force of this truth, that since the council of Trent, some of great esteem and place, in a sort give way unto it. For Didacus' Alvarez an Archbishop within the dominions of the king of Spain, hath written a learned work de Auxiliis gratiae, and dedicated it with good allowance to the king that now is; wherein he 
q Lib. 6 d. 〈◊〉. pag. 4●… 〈◊〉. 431. etc.  saith, that though every moral act that is good ex genere & obiecto, as to give alms to a poor man out of natural compassion, be of that nature, that it may be done in reference to God, as loved above all, as the author of nature, or as the cause and object of supernatural happiness, yet no such can be so done de facto, but by the act of charity. So that by a man unregenerate, no such act can be done in reference to God, formally, or virtually. Now I suppose there is no moral act that can be done by man, but it must be referred, formally or virtually to some last end, and if not to God, as he saith the works of Infidels cannot, then to some other end, and then of necessity they must be sin, for whatsoever is done in reference to any thing besides God as the last end, is done perversely and sinfully, The good man, no doubt, saw the truth touching this point; and therefore saith, that there is no true virtue without charity, that the works of Infidels are not only not meritorious, but not truly good, nor the works of virtue: and proveth the same at large out of Augustine; whence it will follow that they are sin; for every moral act is either a work of virtue and truly good, though in an inferior sort, or sin; but this he durst not say, 
* He therefore saith. Dupliciter potest dici vera virtus. Primo. in ordine ad bonum particular, & ad finem proximum eiusdem virtutis sive ad obiectum illius particulare non apparens sed verè bonum, velut ordinabile quantum est in se ad principale bonum quod est ultimus finis, ut dare eleemosynam ex naturali pietate non apponendo malam circumstantiam, est actus verae virtutis comparatione obiecti seu boni particularis. Secundo comparatione ultimi finis seu boni universalis ut non tantum in se ille actus sit ordinabilis ad bonum principale quod est finis ultimus, sed etiam ex parte operantis referatur actu vel virtute.  and so putteth himself into a necessity of contradicting himself: for if an infidel when he giveth an alms, cannot do this act in reference to GOD, as the last end, either formally, or virtually, than he must do it formally, or virtually, in reference to some other thing most loved by him; and if he do so, than he putteth an ill circumstance to this his action, and so it cannot but be sin.  
Thus than we have strongly proved, out of the testimonies of such as best understood the doctrine of the Church, that grace was given to Adam in the day of his creation, not only to make him constantly and collectively to do all the moral duties that were required of him, and to merit supernatural happiness, as if he might have done the several duties, and performed the several acts of moral virtue without it; but simply to enable him to do good, and decline evil, so that it being taken away, man knoweth not his true good, nor is any way inclined to seek it as he should do. For whereas there was a threefold eye in Adam, as 
r Institutionis monasticae serm. 35.  Hugo de Sancto Victore noteth; Carnis, quo mundum & quae in mundo cernebat: rationis, quo se, & quae in se: contemplationis, quo deum: primum perfectè habet, secundum ex parte, tertium omninò non habet, nam postquam tenebrae peccati intraverunt; oculus contemplationis extinctus est ut nihil videret; oculus rationis lippus factus est, ut dubiè videret: solus oculus carnis in suâ claritate permansit. That is, Of the flesh by which he saw the world, and the things that are in it: of reason whereby he saw and understood himself, and all the things that were in himself: and of contemplation, by which he was to see God: the first he hath still in perfection, the second in part, the third he hath wholly lost; for after the darkness of sin entered, the eye of contemplation was put out, so as to see nothing at all; the eye of reason was dimmed so as to see doubtfully; only the eye of the flesh remained in perfection. And two kinds of evil are brought into the nature of man, Privativa, amissio notitiae in intellectu, & rectitudinis in voluntate, & conversionis ad deum tanquam ad proprium obiectum: positiva, perpetuae & tristes dubitationes de Deo, de providentiá Dei, iudicio, promissionibus, comminationibus, in voluntate conversio ad obiecta contraria legi: That is, there are 
* Bellarm. de amissione gratiae & statu peccati l. 5. c. 15 No new inclination positively carries us to evil, but the old set free by loss of grace, as a thing propendeth to fall not by addition of new weight, but by taking away the former stay, and as a horse is incited to run, not by the spur, but by taking away the bridle.  newly brought into the nature of man, evils of two sorts: privative, as the loss of the true & right knowledge of God in the understanding, of rectitude in the will, and of due conversion to God as her proper object: positive, as perpetual doubtings of God, of the providence of God, his judgement, promises, threats, in his will a conversion to the desiring of things the Law forbiddeth.  
This corruption of man's nature is excellently described by 
s De vocatione gentium l. 1. c. 6.  Prosper, Humana natura in primi hominis praevaricatione vitiata, etiam inter beneficia, inter praecepta & auxilia Dei, semper in deteriorem est proclivior voluntatem, cui committi, non est aliud quam dimitti. Haec voluntas vaga, incerta, instabilis, imperita, infirma ad efficiendum, facilis ad audendum, in cupiditatibus caeca, in honoribus tumida, curis anxia, suspicionibus inquieta, gloriae quam virtutum avidior, fame quam conscientiae diligentior, & per omnem sui experientiam, miserior fruendo his quae concupiverit, quam carendo: nihil in suis habet viribus nisi periculi facilitatem. And again, 
t Cap 7.  Omnes homines in primo homine sine vitio conditi sumus, & omnes naturae nostrae incolumitatem, eiusdem hominis praevaricatione perdidimus, inde tracta mortalitas, inde multiplex corporis, animique corruptio, inde ignorantia, & difficultas, curae inutiles, illicitae cupiditates, sacrilegi errores, timor vanus, amor noxius, iniusta gaudia, poenitenda consilia, & non minor miseriarum multitudo, quam criminum.  
By this which hath been said it appeareth, that the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, ever taught as we do, touching the state of man's creation, fall, and original corruption: and ever rejected the fancies of those more than Semipelagians, that brought in the errors the Romanists now maintain, and so was in this as in the former points, a true, orthodox, and Protestant Church.   

CHAP. 6.  
Of the blessed Virgin's conception.  
Having spoken of Original sin and showed the nature of it; the next thing that is questioned, is the generality of it; for we say that amongst all them that have been borne of women, there never was any found that was not conceived in sin, besides Christ the Lord, who had God for his father, and a virgin for his mother; of whose spotless conception, his Father's divinity, and mother's virginity, were proof sufficient. But they of the Church of Rome at this day, for the most part say, that the blessed virgin the mother of our Lord, was conceived likewise without spot of original sin.  
Leo the tenth was moved to determine this question touching the conception of the virgin in the council of Lateran; But Cardinal 
a Opuscul. tom. 2. tractatus 1. de concep: B. virgins. c. 〈◊〉.  Caietan writeth a learned discourse touching the same matter, and offereth it to Leo praying him to be well advised: and in this tract, for proof of her conception in sin, he produceth the testimonies of 15 canonised Saints; For first S. Augustine writing upon the 34 Psalm, saith, that Adam died for sin, that Mary who came out of the loins of Adam died for sin, but that the flesh of the Lord which he took of the virgin Mary, died for to take away sin. And in his 2d book de baptismo parvulorum, He only who ceasing not to be God, became man, never had sin, neither did he take the flesh of sin, or sinful flesh, though he took of the flesh of his mother that was sinful. And in his tenth book de Genesi ad litteram, he saith, Though the body of Christ were taken of the flesh of a woman, that was conceived out of the propagation of sinful flesh: yet because he was not so conceived of her, as she was conceived, therefore it was not sinful flesh, but the similitude of sinful flesh. And Saint Ambrose upon those words, Blessed are the undefiled, hath these words: The Lord jesus came; and that flesh that was subject to sin in his mother, performed the warfare of virtue. And Crhysostome upon Matthew saith: Though Christ was no sinner, yet he took the nature of man, of a woman that was a sinner. And Eusebius Emissenus in his second sermon upon the nativity, which beginneth, Ye know beloved etc. hath these words, There is none free from the tie and bond of original sin, no not the mother of the redeemer. Saint Remigius, upon those words of the Psalm, O God my God, look upon me: saith; The blessed virgin Mary was made clean from all stain of sin, that the man Christ jesus might be conceived of her without sin. Saint Maximus in his sermon of the assumption of the blessed virgin, saith; The blessed and glorious virgin was sanctified in her mother's womb from all contagion of original sin, before she came to the birth, and was made pure and undefiled by the holy Ghost. Saint Beda in his sermon upon missus est (and the same is in the ordinary gloss) saith, that The holy spirit coming upon the virgin, freed her mind from all defiling of sinful vice, and made it chaste, and purified her from the heat of carnal concupiscence, tempering and cleansing her hart. Saint Bernard in his epistle to them of Lions saith: It is believed that the blessed virgin after her conception, received sanctification while she was yet in the womb; which excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception. Saint Erardus a Bishop, and a martyr, in his sermon upon the nativity of the virgin, crieth out: O happy damsel, which being conceived in sin, is purged from all sin, and conceiveth a son without sin. Saint Anthony of Milan in his sermon of the nativity of the blessed virgin saith: The blessed virgin was sanctified from sin by grace in her mother's womb, and borne without sin. Saint Thomas Aquinas (for he also was a canonised Saint) in the third part of his sum quaest. 27. art. 2. saith, that the blessed virgin because she was conceived out of the commixtion of her parents, contracted original sin. Saint Bonaventure upon the third of the sentences, distinct. 3. p. 1. artic. 1. quaest. 1. saith, We must say the blessed virgin was conceived in original sin, and that her sanctification followed her contracting of original sin: this opinion is the more common, the more reasonable, and more secure. More common, for almost all hold it. The more reasonable because the being of nature precedeth the being of grace. The more secure because it better agreeth with the piety of faith, and the authority of the Saints, than the other. Saint Bernardine, in sermonum suorum opere tertio, in his tract of the blessed virgin, sermon the fourth, saith. There was a third sanctification, which was that of the mother of God, and this taketh away original sin, conferreth grace, and removeth the proneness to sin mortally, or venially. Saint Vincentius the Confessor, in sermone de conceptione virgins, saith, The blessed virgin was conceived in original sin: but that the same day and hour, she was purged by sanctification from sin contracted, so soon as ever she had received the spirit of life. And besides all these holden to be Saints in the Church of Rome, he saith, there were a great multitude of ancient doctors, who speaking particularly and distinctly of the virgin, say she was conceived in original sin: whose sayings who pleaseth may find in the originals: or may find them in the books of johannes de Turrecremata, and Vincentius de Castro Novo writing upon the conception of the virgin, whence they are taken. Thus far Caietan.  

b In 3. sent: d. 3. part. 1. artic. 1. q. 2.  Bonaventura professeth, that the opinion of the blessed virgins spotless conception was so new in his time, that he had never read it in any author, neither did he find it to be holden by any one, that he had ever seen, or heard speak. And 
c In 3. l sent. d. 3: citatus à Caietano ubi supra.  Adam Angelicus saith: If the sayings of the Saints be to be believed, we must hold that the blessed virgin was conceived in original sin: and none of the Saints is found to have said the contrary. Yet in time some began to bring in this opinion, and to make it public; as Scotus, and Franciscus de Maironis: but very doubtfully, and fearfully: for 
d In 3. sent. d. 3. q. 1.  Scotus having spoken of both opinions touching the conception of the virgin, saith in the conclusion: that God only knoweth, which of them is the truer: but if it be not contrary to the authority of the Church or of holy Scripture, it seemeth 
e 3. Lib. dist. 3.  probable to attribute that to the virgin, that is more excellent. And that indeed he had reason to fear lest he should contrary the Fathers and holy men that went before, it will easily appear by that of the master of Sentences: It may truly be said, and we must believe according to the consenting testimonies of the Saints, that the flesh which CHRIST took was formerly subject to sin, as the rest of the flesh of the virgin, but that it was so sanctified, and made pure, and undefiled, by the operation of the holy Ghost, that free from all contagion of sin, it was united to the word.  
But see how strangely things were carried: this opinion which was unknown to the Church for more than a thousand years, and at the first broaching of it had few patrons, yet in time grew to be so generally approved, that almost all they of the Latin Church, thought they did God good service in following this opinion●… many visions, revelations, and miracles were pretended in favour of it, and the Council of Basil decreed for it. Bridget canonised for a Saint, professed it had been particularly revealed to her: but Catharina Senensis, a Prophetess also, and more authentically canonised then the former, professed that the contrary was revealed to her, as the 
f Antoninus' sum. p. 1. tit. 8. c. 2. prope finem.  Archbishop of Florence reporteth in his sum. And 
g Tractatus citati superius c. 1  Caietan saith; if miracles be pretended for proof, great caution is to be used, both in respect of the strange works: and in respect of the illusions that may fall out in things of this kind. In respect of the strange works that are done, because the Angel of Satan transformeth himself into an Angel of light; and can do many great and strange things, which we would think to be true miracles, and such things as God only can do: as the works of healing, strange mutations in the Elements, and the like. Whence it is, that it is said, Antichrist shall do so many miracles in the sight of men, that if it were possible the very elect should be deceived. Moreover as the Apostle testifieth 1 Cor. 14, and blessed Gregory in his tenth Homily, miracles were given to Infidels, not to believers; but to the Church, as faithful, and not faithless, the prophetical and Apostolical revelation was given for her direction. So that though that course of proof that is by miracles, was appointed by Christ, Mark the last, in respect of Infidels: and though it be 
h Cap. cum ex iniuncto extra: de haereticis.  allowed by the Church, to make good the personal condition of some man, as when one pretendeth to be sent extraordinarily of God: yet unless most clearly a true and undoubted, not wonder, but miracle, were done in the sight of the Governors of the Roman Church, expressly to testify that this particular is true, the Roman Bishops ought not to determine any doubtful thing in matter of faith, upon the doing of a miracle. And the reason is, because God hath appointed an ordinary course for the resolving of points of faith, so that if an Angel from Heaven should say unto us any thing contrary to this way, we were not to believe him, as the Apostle saith in the first to the Galathians. Add hereunto, that the miracles which the Church admitteth in the canonisation of Saints, which yet are most authentical, are not altogether certain, seeing the credit of them dependeth upon the testimony of men, and every man is a liar. And he concludeth, that 
i Cap, 3.  these things being so, wise men think, that pretended miracles and revelations in this kind, contrary to so many Saints, and ancient Doctors, argue rather that the Angel of Satan is transformed into an Angel of light, and that whatsoever things are alleged in this kind are mere fancies, and counterfeit stuff, then that they prove the truth of this conceit; and that proofs in this kind are fitter for silly women, then counsel to take notice of.  
It appeareth by Saint 
k Epist. 174.  Bernard, that in his time they of Lions in France, out of a superstitious conceit, as he rightly censureth it, began to celebrate the Feast of the Conception of the blessed Virgin, supposing that she was conceived without sin; but he opposeth himself against this innovation, and saith, the observation of the Church hath no such thing, reason inferreth it not, nor ancient tradition commendeth it, that we are not more learned & devout than our Fathers, that in like sort others may bring in the Feast of her parent's Conception, that patriae non exilii frequentia haec gaudiorum, & numerositas festivitatum cives non exules decet: That, whereas some brought out a certain pretended writing of divine revelation, it was not to be regarded, and that another might bring forth the like writing, wherein the holy Virgin might be found to command the same thing to be done, in honour of her parents, according to the command of the Lord, Honour thy father and thy mother, so did he show his dislike. Yet after this many Churches received the same observation; and in process of time all were brought to keep the same day holy: yet so that many of them professed, that they would keep it holy, not in respect of her preservation, but of her sanctification from sin. So that we see, that this point of Romish superstition, was never admitted by the Church, but protested against by all the most worthy members of it; which thing besides that which hath already been alleged, the reader may find farther confirmed by Ariminensis; who not only contradicteth this fancy himself, but produceth many authorities for the reproof of it. So that herein also the Church wherein our Fathers lived, and died, is found to have been a Protestant Church, as in the former.  
But some man will say, many of those that we produce for witnesses that she was conceived in sin, yet think that she was sanctified in the womb, and borne without sin. For answer hereunto, we must observe that which Gregorius Ariminensis hath, that many thought she was sanctified in the womb, 
l Dist. 31. q. z. artic. 3.  and borne without original sin, as sin, and making guilty of condemnation: but not without concupiscence inclining to evil, which was wholly taken away, or so restrained by the superabundance of grace, when the holy spirit overshadowed her, that she might be the mother of God; that it should never be an occasion of sin: this opinion the 
m Li. 3. d. 3.  master of sentences followeth: and this opinion the Schoolmen follow for the most part.  
But 
n De praesentiâ Dei ad Dardanum ep. 57 post medium. p. 319.  August: saith, Ista sanctificatio quâ efficimur & singuli templa Dei, & in unum omnes templum Dei, non est nisi renatorum, quod nisi nati homines esse, non possunt. Si homo regenerari per gratiam spiritus in utero potest, quoniam restat illi adhuc nasci, renascitur ergo antequam nascitur, quod fieri nullo modo potest. Seeing therefore none can be sanctified before he be borne, neither can any man be cleansed from original sin before his birth; in as much as that is not taken away, but by the infusion of grace. And the gloss upon the vl to the Romans saith, Christ was the first that was borne without sin. And Anselm in his second book cur Deus homo, hath these words: Though Christ's conception were pure, and without the sin of carnal delight, yet the virgin herself, of whom he took flesh, was conceived in iniquity, and her mother conceived her in sin, and she was borne with original sin, because she also sinned in Adam in whom all sinned.  
And divers of the Fathers feared not to make her subject to actual sin. 
Rom. 5. 12.  
p Homil. 17. in Lucam.  Origen writing upon Luke, insisting upon those words of Simeon to Mary, a sword shall pierce through thy soul, hath these words: What is this sword that pierced the heart, not only of others, but of Mary also? It is plainly written, that in the time of his passion all the Apostles were scandalised, as the Lord himself had said, you shall all be scandalised this night: they were all therefore so scandalised, that even Peter the prince of the Apostles denied him thrice. What shall we think that when the Apostles were scandalised, the mother of our Lord, was free from being scandalised? Surely if she suffered no scandal in the time of the Lords passion, Christ died not for her sins; but if all have sinned, and have been deprived of the glory of God, & are justified by his grace, & redeemed, then surely Mary was scandalised at that time: and that is it that Simeon now prophesieth, And even thy soul, (which knowest that being a virgin, and never knowing man, thou broughtest him forth, which heardest of the Angel Gabriel, the holy Ghost shall come upon thee, & the power of the most high shall overshadow thee,) a sword of infidelity shall pierce; thou shalt be stricken with a sword of doubting: and thy thoughts shall rend thee into divers parts, when thou shalt see him whom thou heardest to be the son of God, and whom thou knewest to be generated in thee without the seed of man, to be crucified, to die, to be subject to humane punishments, and at the last with tears & strong cries complaining & saying, if it be possible let this cup pass from me.  

q Apud Sixtum Senensem. li. 6. cap. 138.  Chrysostome upon the 13 Psalm agreeth with Origen: his words are these: When Christ was crucified, there was none found that did good: the Disciples all fled away, john ran away naked, Peter denied him, the sword of doubting went through the soul of Mary herself. And 
r Quaest: veteris & novi Testimenti q 73.  Augustine to the same purpose hath these words. And that which he addeth saying, and a sword shall pierce thy soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed: thereby doubtless, he signified, that even Mary herself, of whom the son of God took flesh, should doubt in the time of Christ's death, but so, as to be confirmed in his resurrection. And 
s In 2. Luc.  Theophylact upon the same place of Luke, Happily by the sword he understandeth the dolour, happily the scandal wherewith Mary was scanalized, for seeing him to be crucified, happily she thought how he that was borne without the seed of man, who had done miracles and raised the dead, could be crucified, spit upon, and die: and that he saith, the cogitations of many hearts shall be revealed, importeth no more but the thoughts of many that shall be scandalised, shall be revealed: and being reprehended, they shall find present remedy: and so shalt thou o virgin, be revealed, and manifested, what thou thoughtest of Christ: and then thou shalt be confirmed in the faith: so likewise Peter shall be manifested, when he shall deny him: but the power of God shall be showed when he receiveth him upon his repentance.  

t Homil. 45. in Mathaeum.  Chrysostome writing upon those words: behold thy mother and thy brethren etc. and those words of Christ, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? saith, that Christ uttered these words, not as being ashamed of his mother, or denying her that bore him, (for had he been ashamed of her, he would not have passed through her womb:) but showing that it would nothing profit her, that she was his mother, unless she did all those things that beseemed her: for this that she now attempted, argued too much ambition: for she would make it known to the people, that she had power over and could command her son, not conceiving any great matter of him, and therefore she came unseasonably. See therefore, saith he, the want of discretion, in her and them, for it had been fit for them to come in, and to have heard with the multitude: or if not, to have stayed till he had ended his speech, and then to have come unto him: but they call him out, and this they do before all, showing too much ambition, and willing to show that with great power they command him. And in another place, 
u Homil. 46. in Mathaeum.  It is admirable to see, how the disciples, though very desirous to learn, yet knew when it is fit to ask him: for they do not this in the sight and hearing of all: and this Matthew showeth saying, and coming unto him: and Saint Mark, they came unto him privately, or when he was alone: It had been fit his mother and his brethren had done so, & that they should not have called him out and made such a show as they did. And writing upon john, and entreating of those words of the virgin (when the wine began to fail,) they have no wine, saith, 
x Homil. in joannem 20.  She was willing to do them a pleasure, and to make herself the more illustrious by her child: and happily she was carried with some humane affection, as his brethren were, when they said, show thyself to the world, desiring to reap glory from his miracles: and therefore he auswereth something sharply, saying, what have I to do with thee? my hour is not yet come: & a little after, speaking of her calling him out mentioned in the former place, he saith: She had not that opinion of him that was fit, but because she had brought him forth, she thought to command him in every thing, after the manner of other mothers, whom she should have honoured and worshipped as her Lord: and therefore he saith, who is my mother? And 
y Super Mathaei 12. v. 48.  Theophylact writing upon the same words, saith: the mother of Christ would take upon her to be a mother, and show that she had power over her son, for as yet she conceived no great thing of him: and therefore she would draw him out unto her, while he was yet speaking, being a little proud, that she had such a son at her command. What doth Christ therefore? because he knew her intention, hear what he saith. Who is my mother? which he said not to wrong his mother, but to correct her mind, desirous of glory, & subject to such affections as men are wont to be. Euthymius in his Commentaries observeth the former place in Chrysostome, but dareth not reprehend it, as 
z Lib. 6. c. 58.  Sixtus Senensis telleth us.  
But they will say 
a De naturà & gratiâ contra Pelagianos lib. uni●…. cap. 36.  Augustine affirmeth, that the Mother of our Lord was without sin; surely it will be found that he saith no such thing; the circumstances of that they allege out of Augustine are these; The Pelagian commemorateth sundry holy ones, which are reported not only not to have sinned, but to have lived righteously, as Abel, Enoch, Melchizedech, Abraham, Isaak, jacob etc. and addeth to these certain women, as Deborah, Anna, samuel's mother, judith, Esther, another Anna the daughter of Phanuel, Elizabeth, and the mother of our Lord and Saviour, whom he saith that piety requireth us to confess to have been without sin. The words of Augustine, in answer to the Pelagian are these: except therefore the holy Virgin Mary, (of whom for the honour of our Lord, I will make no question at all, now that we are to speak of sins; for hence do we know that more grace was given to her wholly to over come sin, who was honoured so much as to conceive and bear him, whom we know to have had no sin; this Virgin therefore excepted) if we could gather together all those holy men and women, as now living, and ask of them whether they were without sin, what answer think we would they make? I pray tell me whether that which this man saith, or that which the Apostle john? surely how much soever they excelled in sanctity while they were in this body, they would all cry out with a loud voice, If we say, we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us.  

b ubi suprà.  Gregorius Ariminensis noteth, that Augustine speaketh not of original sin, but actual, and that this ample grace to overcome sin, was not given her till the spirit over-shadowed her, and the power of the most High came upon her, that she might conceive and bear him that never knew sin, so that before she might commit sin, which yet he will not affirm, because the modern Doctors for the most part think otherwise, so intimating that all did not. And surely the words of Augustin, do not import that she had no sin, but that she overcame it, which argueth a conflict: neither doth he say, he will acknowledge she was without sin, but that he will not move any question touching her, in this dispute of sins and sinners. So passing by the point, and not willing to enter into this dispute with the Pelagian, who conceived it would be plausible for him, to plead for the purity of the Mother of our Lord, and disgraceful for any one to except against her. By that which hath been said it appeareth, that the Church of God never resolved any thing, touching the birth of the blessed Virgin without sin, nor whether she were free from all actual sin, or not.  
If happily it be alleged, that the Church celebrated the Feast of her nativity, and therefore believed that she was borne without sin. First, touching the celebration of this Feast, it is evident, that it was not ancient: 
c vide Baronii Martyrologium mens. Septemb.  That it was not in the days of Saint Augustine, (as some imagine, because on that day there is read in the Church a Sermon of Saint Augustine's, touching the solemnity of that day,) it is proved out of Saint Augustine himself, for in his 21 Sermon de sanctis he hath these words. We celebrate this day the birthday of john the Baptist, which honour we never read to have been given to any of the Saints. Solius enim Domini & beati joannis dies nativitatis in universo mundo celebratur, & colitur: That is, For the birthday of our Lord only, and of john the Baptist is celelebrated & kept holy throughout the whole world: illum enim sterilis peperit illum virgo concepit, in Elizabetha sterilitas vincitur, in beatâ Mariâ conceptionis consuetudo mutatur; That is, A woman that was barren bore the one, and a virgin the other, in Elizabeth barrenness is overcome, in blessed Mary the ordinary course of conceiving is changed. And in his 20 ●h sermon, he hath these words: Post illum sacrosanctum Domini natalis diem, nullius hominum nativitatem legimus celebrari, nisi solius beati Ioannis Baptistae. In aliis sanctis & electis Dei, novimus illum diem coli, quo illos post consummationem laborum, & devictum triumphatumque mundum, in perpetuas aeternitates praesens haec vita parturit. In aliis consummata ultimi diei merita celebrantur, in hoc etiam prima dies, & ipsa etiam hominis initia consecrantur; pro hac absque dubio causà, quia per hunc Dominus adventum suum, ne subito homines insperatum non agnoscerent voluit esse testatum. That is, After that most sacred day of the birth of our Lord, we read not that the nativity of any one amongst men is celebrated, but of john the Baptist only; touching other Saints, and other the chosen of God, we know that that day is celebrated, in which, after the consummation of their labours, after their victories and triumphs over the world, this present life bringeth them forth to begin to live for ever. In others the consummate virtues of the last day are celebrated, in this the first day, and the beginnings of the man are consecrated; for this cause no doubt, because the Lord would have his coming made known to the world by him, lest if his coming had not been expected and looked for, it might happily not have been acknowledged. Neither doth the reading of the sermon of Saint Augustine on that day pertaining to the solemnity of the day, prove that this day was kept holy before his time; for as 
d ubi supra.  Baronius showeth, the sermon was fitted originally to the solemnity of the feast of the Annunciation, & the words were these, Let our land rejoice illustrated with the solemn, day of so great a virgin, which are altered and read in the breviary in this sort, Let our land rejoice illustrated by the birth day of so great a virgin. And it is evident by the 
e Can. 36.  council of Mentz holden in the time of Charles the great in the year 813, that this feast was not celebrated in the Church of Germany and France in those times. As likewise it appeareth by the 
f Ex capitularibus Caroli magni & Ludovici Pij, l. 1. c. 164 l. 2 c. 35. l. 6. c. 186. citat. à Baronio in Martyrol. septemb.  constitutions of Charles and Ludovicus Pius.  
Secondly, the celebrating of the birthday of the blessed virgin, will no more prove that she was borne without all sin, then that john the Baptist was so borne; concerning whom Bernard saith, he knoweth he was sanctified before he came out of the womb, but how far this sanctification freed him from sin, he dareth not say or define any thing. Thus we see that the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, was a Protestant Church, in these points touching the conception & birth of the blessed virgin, aswell as in the former.   

CHAP. 7.  
Of the punishment of original sin and of Limbus puerorum.  

a De amissione gratiae & statu peccati, l. 6. c. 1.  BEllarmine showeth, that there are four opinions in the Roman Church touching the punishment of original sin, and the state of infants dying unregenerate; for Ambrose Catharinus in his book of the state of children dying unbaptized, Albertus Pighius in his first controversy, and Savanarola in h●…s book of the triumph of the cross, do teach, that infants dying without baptism, shall after the judgement enjoy a kind of natural happiness, and live happily for ever, as it were in a certain earthly paradise: howsoever for the present they go down into those lower parts of the earth, which are called Limbus puerorum. These men suppose, that infants incur no stain or infection by Adam's sin; but that for his offence being denied the benefit of supernatural grace, which would have made them capable of heaven happiness, they are found in a state of mere nature, in which as they cannot come to heaven, so they are subject to no evili that may cause them to sorrow. For though they see that happiness in heaven, whereof they had a possibility, yet they no more grieve that they have not attained it, then innumerable men do that they are not Kings and Emperors, as well as others, of which honours they were capable as well as they, in that they were men. The second opinion is, that infants dying in the state of original sin not remitted, are excluded from the sight of God, and condemned to the prison house of the infernal dwellings for ever, so that they suffer the punishment of loss but not of sense; and that they are subject to no dolour or grief inward or outward, this he saith is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, and some other Schoolmen. The third opinion is, that they are in a sort subject to the punishment of sense, that is, to grief and dolour, which floweth out of the consideration of their great and inestimable loss of eternal happiness, but because they cannot have remorse, not having lost that eternal good by their own negligence and contempt, therefore they are not subiectto that dolour that is properly named the worm that never dieth, whereof we read in the ninth of Mark. Their worm dieth not and their fire never goeth out 
* But Bonaventura sent. l. 2. d 33. art. 2. quaest. 2: sheweth, that if they have any such dolour and grief it is without patience and hope, & so joined with murmuring and despair; and if it proceed from deliberation, it cannot be without actual obliquity, neither can it but redound into the flesh: so that if there be any such grief, there is not only privative, but positive and sensible grief also, there is therefore a worm and bell punishment.  There is a fourth opinion, which is that of 
b De fide ad Petrum, c. 27.  Augustine, who saith: We must firmly believe, and no way doubt, that not only men that have had the use of reason, but infants also, dying in the state of original sin, shall be punished with the punishment of eternal fire; because though they had no sin of their own proper action, yet they have drawn to themselves the condemnation of original sin, by their carnal conception. To this opinion Gregorius Ariminensis inclined, fearing exceedingly to depart from the doctrine of the Fathers, and yet dareth not resolve any thing, seeing the modern doctors went another way. And to the same opinion 
c De gratiá & libero arbitrio, l. 1 tract. 3. c. 2.  Driedo inclineth likewise.  
Thus than we see that Pelagianisme was taught, in the midst of the Church wherein our Fathers lived, and that not by a few but many; For was not this the doctrine of many in the Church, that there are four mansions in the other world of men sequestered from God, and excluded out of his presence. The first ofthem that sustain the punishment as well of sensible smart, as of loss, and that for ever, which is the condition of them that are condemned to the lowest hell. The second of those that are subject to both these punishments, not eternally, but for a time only, as are they that are in purgatory. The third of them that were subject only to the punishment of loss, and that but for a time, named by them Limbus patrum. The fourth of such as are subject only to the punishment of loss, but yet eternally; and this named by them Limbus puerorum? nay were there not that placed these in an earthly paradise? and was not this Pelagianisme? Surely 
d Contra juli. anum, l. 5. c. 8.  August: telleth us, that the Pelagians excluded such as were not made partakers of God's grace, out of the kingdom of heaven, and from the life of God, which is the vision of God, and yet supposed that they should be for ever in a kind of natural felicity; so that they imagined a third state and place, between the kingdom of heaven and hell, where they are that endure, not only the punishment of loss, but of sensible smart also; where they are whose worm never dieth; and whose fire never goeth out; and this is the opinion of Papists, against which Saint 
e Hypognost. l. 5.  Austin mightily opposeth himself. The unregenerate is excluded out of the kingdom of heaven, where Christ remaineth that is the fountain of the living. Give me, besides this another place, where there may be a perpetual rest of life; the first place the faith of Catholics by divine authority, believeth to be the kingdom of heaven: the second Hell, where every apostata, and such as are aliens from the faith of Christ, shall suffer everlasting punishment: but that there is any third place we are altogether ignorant, neither shall we find in the holy Scripture, that there is any such place. There is the right hand of him that sitteth to judge, and the left; the kingdom, and hell; life, and death; the righteous, and the wicked: On the right hand of the judge are the just, and the workers of iniquity on the left. There is life to the joy of glory, and death to weeping and gnashing of teeth. The just are in the Kingdom of the Father with Christ; the unrighteous in eternal fire prepared for the devil and his Angels. By which words of Augustine it is evident, that there is no such place to be admitted, as the Papists imagine their Limbus puerorum to be: neither did the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, believe any such thing, though many embraced this fancy,  
And therefore Gregorius Ariminensis having proved out of Augustine, and Gregory, that infants that die in the state of original sin not remitted, shall not only suffer the punishment of loss, but of sense also, concludeth in this sort. Because I have not seen this question expressly determined either way by the Church, and it seemeth to me a thing to be trembled at, to deny the authorities of the Saints: and on the contrary side, it is not safe to go against the common opinion, and the consent of our great Masters, therefore without peremptory pronouncing for the one side, or the other, I leave it free to the Reader to judge of this difference, as it seemeth good unto him.   

CHAP. 8.  
Of the remission of original sin, and of concupiscence remaining in the regenerate.  
IN the remission of all sin there are two things employed; the taking away of the stain or sinfulness, and the removing of the punishment, that for such sinfulness justice would bring upon the sinner. In actual sin there are three things considerable. First, an act or omission of act. Secondly, an habitual aversion from God, and conversion to the creature remaining after the act is past, till we repent of such act, or omission of act; and this is the stain of sin remaining, denominating the doers sinners, and making them worthy of punishment. And thirdly, a designing to punishment after the act is past. In remission therefore of actual sin there must be; first, a ceasing from the act or omission; secondly, a turning to God and from the creature, and thirdly, for Christ's sake, who suffered what we deserved, a taking away of the punishment that sin passed made us subject to.  
In original sin there are only two things considerable; the stain or sinfulness, and the designing of them that have it to punishment. The stain of original sin consisteth of two parts: the one privative, which is the want of those divine graces that should cause the knowledge, love, and fear of God: the other positive, and that is an habitual inclination to love ourselves more than God, and inordinately to desire whatsoever may be pleasing to us, though forbidden and disliked by God; and is named concupiscence. This sin first defileth the nature, and then the person; in that it so misinclineth nature, as that it hath the person at command, to be swayed whether it will. The remission of this sin implieth a donation of those graces, that maycause the knowledge, love, and fear of God, a turning of us from the love of ourselves, to the love of God, and forchrists' sake a removing of the punishment we were justly subject to, in that we had such want, and inordinate inclination. The donation of grace maketh original sin cease so to misincline nature, as formerly it did, and so as to have the person at command to be swayed whether it will; it maketh it not cease to misincline nature in some sort, and so to be a sin of nature, it maketh it cease to be a sin of the person, freeing it from being subject to it, and putting it into an opposition against it; so that it is no farther a sin of the person, than it is apt to be led by it, to be hindered from good, or drawn to evil. The nature and person are freed from the guilt of condemnation; the nature in respect of the sin that remaineth in it is subject to punishment; the person is not free from those punishments which the remaining sin of the nature it hath, bringeth upon it, as death &c: The person is freed from being subject to any punishment, farther than it must needs be in respect of nature. So that original sin or concupiscence remaineth in act in the regenerate, moving to desire things not to be desired; and so a sin of nature, making it subject to punishment; but it doth not remain in act illiciendo & abstrahendo mentem, eiusque consensu concipiendo, & pariendo peccata; that is, it doth not so remain in act, as to allure and draw the mind, and to gain the consent of it to conceive and bring forth sin, and so remaineth not in the guilt of condemnation, nor as a sin of the person.  
If therefore when the question is proposed, whether concupiscence in the regenerate which grace restraineth and opposeth, be sin; we understand by sin a thing that is not good, an evil that is not a punishment only, but a vice and fault; and such an evil as positively and privatively repugneth, against the law which the spirit of God writeth in the hearts of the believers; an iniquity; a thing that God hateth, and which we must hate and resist against by the spirit, that it bring not forth evil acts; if we understand by sin such a disposition of nature, as God by the law of creation at first forbade, and ceaseth not still to forbid to be in the nature of man; it is undoubtedly sin, a sin I say of nature, though not of person. And hereunto 
a De doctrine. iustificationis l. 3. c. 7. p. 67.  Stapleton agreeth; for whereas it is objected out of 
b Contra julian. lib. 5. c. 3.  Augustine, to prove that concupiscence in the regenerate is sin; that as blindness of hart is a sin, in that men by reason of it believe not in God, and a punishment of sin wherewith the proud hart of man is punished, and a cause of sin, when men through error of their blind hart do any evil thing; So that concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit opposeth good desires, is a sin, in that there is in it disobedience against the mind that should command; and a punishment of sin, because it was justly brought upon him, whose disobedience against God deserved so; and a cause of sin, when it obtaineth a consent: he answereth, setting aside all other answers as not sufficient, that concupiscence in that place is said by Augustine, not only to be a punishment and cause of sin, but sin also, not as if it were truly and properly a sin, making God displeased with the regenerate in whom it is; but that it is a sin of nature, respecting the first integrity of it, and not of the person; according to that of the Apostle, It is not I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me that is in my flesh. For the reason which he bringeth why it is sin, doth evidently show this. Because, saith he, there is in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind, it is therefore a certain sin, or fault, contrary to the integrity of nature, in which there was no disobedience of the flesh: as it is a fault of the eye, to be dim, and of the ear to hear imperfectly. And though Sapleton say he had no author to follow in this interpretation: yet he might easily have found, that Alexander of Alice long since was of the same opinion, making concupiscence in the regenerate a sin of nature and not of the person, as I have 
c Lib. 3. c. 26  else where showed at large.  
If this be so, what then will some man say is the difference, between the Romanists and those of the reformed Churches? surely it is very great, for these teach that concupiscence was newly brought into the nature of man by Adam's sin, that in the unregenerate it is properly sin, that it maketh them guilty and worthy of eternal condemnation that have it. But the Romanists say it was not newly brought in by Adam's fall: that it is a consequent of nature: that it is more free, and at liberty to produce the proper effects of it now, than it would have been if grace had not been lost, but not more than it would have been in nature simply considered without grace or sin; and that it never made them guilty that had it. These say, that in the regenerate it is so far weakened, as that it hath no power to sway him that is so renewed, to what it pleaseth; that the guilt of condemnation which it drew upon man before his regeneration, is taken away; that yet still it is a sin of nature, making guilty of punishment, that yet still it is hated of God, and must be hated of us: But the Romanists say, the guilt that is taken away, is not the guilt whereby concupiscence maketh guilty, but out of which it came, that man deserved to have concupiscence free and at liberty: And therefore 
d De amiss. gratiae & statu peccati, l. 5. c. 13.  Bellarmine saith, the guilt of concupiscence may be conceived in three sorts. First, To be a guilt rising from it, and founded in it, making him guilty that hath it, as the guilt of theft is that whereby he is guilty that hath committed theft. Secondly, That may be said to be the guilt of concupiscence, not that floweth from it, but from which it floweth; as if a man should cut off his hand, he might be said to be guilty of the hand that is cut off, not because it is a sin making guilty to have a hand cut off, but because he is guilty of the not having a hand, that hath cut it off himself: so we are to understand the guilt of concupiscence, not as if the having of it did make a man guilty, but because Adam by sin, made himself guilty of having concupiscence at liberty to solicit him to ill, that was formerly restrained. Thirdly the guilt of concupiscence is that which it causeth, if it obtain consent to those motions it maketh; not for that a man is guilty because he hath concupiscence, but because he yieldeth to it. So that according to their opinion, when there is a remission of the offence, that set concupiscence at liberty, it is no guilt to have it, for it is natural. Four things therefore are to be proved by us. First, That concupiscence was no condition of nature. Secondly, That it maketh guilty of eternal condemnation, if it be not remitted. Thirdly, That God hateth it, and that we must hate it, as long as any remains of it are found in us. Fourthly, That the first motions of it are sin.  
The first of these four is clearly delivered by Saint Augustine in his 
e Cap. 13.  third book against julian, his words are these, An vero cuiuscunque frontis sis, audeas suspicari, in primâ hominum constitutione, priusquam culpam debita damnatio sequeretur, istam carnalem concupiscentiam aut extitisse in paradiso, aut inordinatis, ut eam nunc videmus motibus, pugnas adversus spiritum faedissimas edidisse? And in his 
f Cap. 14.  fourth book where julian objecteth, that if we grant, that that concupiscence of the flesh, against which we resist by continency, was not in paradise before sin, but that it flowed from that sin, which the devil first persuaded the first man to commit, it will be consequent that the senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and handling, are not of God but of the devil; he answereth, that julian is ignorant or maketh show to be ignorant, per quemlibet corporis sensum, aliud esse sentiendi vivacitatem, vel utilitatem, vel necessitatem; aliud sentiendi libidinem, Vivacitas sentiendi, quâ magis alius, alius minus, in ipsis corporalibus rebus, pro earum modo atque naturâ quod verum est percipit, atque id à falso magis minusve discernit. Vtilitas sentiendi est, per quam corpori vitaeque quam gerimus, ad aliquid approbandum, vel improbandum, sumendum vel reijciendum, appetendum, vitandumve consulimus; Necessitas sentiendi est, quando sensibus nostris etiam quae nolumus ingeruntur. Libido autem sentiendi est, de quâ nunc agimus, quae nos ad sentiendum, sive consentientes ment, sive repugnantes, appetitu carnalis voluptatis impellit. Haec est contraria delectationi sapientiae, haec virtutibus inimica. And in his 
g Cap. 〈◊〉.  fifth book he hath these words; Dixi inobedientiam carnis, quae in carne concupiscente adversus spiritum apparet, diabolico vulnere contigisse. And again, Hanc legem peccati repugnantem legi mentis, á Deo illatam propter ultionem, & ideo poenam esse peccati. But I will no longer insist upon this point, having sufficiently proved in that part that is of original sin, that all these evils did flow from Adam's transgression, & were no conditions of nature,  
The next thing that is to be proved is, that concupiscence till it be remitted, maketh them in whom it is, guilty of eternal condemnation: This is proved out of Saint 
i Contra julian. l. 6. c. 6.  Augustine, his words are these: julianus concupiscentiam bonam praedicat, Nos autem qui eam malam dicimus, & manner tamen in baptizatis, quamvis reatus eius (non quo ipsa erat rea, neque enim aliqua persona est, sed quo reum hominem originaliter faciebat) fuerit remissus, atque vacuatus; absit ut dicamus sanctificari, cum quâ necesse habent regenerati, si non in vacuum Dei gratiam susceperunt, intestino quodam bello tanquam cum hoste confligere, atque ab eâ peste desiderare atque optare sanari. And afterwards, Et concupiscentia quae manet oppugnanda atque sananda, quamvis in baptismo dimissa sint cuncta omninò peccata, non solùm non sanctificatur, sed potius ne sanctificatos aeternae morti obnoxios possit tenere, evacuatur.  

* Contra julianum l. 2. prope finem pag. 332. In baptismate mortuum est peccatum in to reatu quo nos tenebat: & iam non eodem modo appellatur peccatum quo facit reum, sed quod sit reatu primi hominis factum, & quod rebellando nos trahere nitatur ad reatum, nisi adiuvet nos gratia Dei per sefum Christum Dominum nostrum, ne sic etiam mortuum peccatum rebellet, ut vincendo reviviscat & regnet.  Gregorius Ariminensis fully agreeth with Augustine, and contradicteth Bellarmine: his words are these, Original sin is in a sort taken away, and in a sort remaineth after Baptism: for it is taken away in respect of the guilt, not of the essence; that is, that vice, or that quality that is named concupiscence, and is before Baptism original sin, abideth truly in the essence of it after Baptism, but not in the guilt; that is, it maketh not men guilty of condemnation after Baptism, as it did before; and for proof hereof he allegeth the testimony of S. Augustine in his book de peccato originali: his words are these: Obesset ista carnalis concupiscentia etiam tantummodo quod inesset; nisi peccatorum remissio sic prodesset, ut quae in eyes est, & nato, & renato, nato quidem & inesse & obesse, renato autem inesse quidem, sed non obesse possit. In tantum enim obest natis, ut nisi renascantur, nihil possit prodesse, si nati sunt de renatis. Manet quip in prole, ita ut reatum faciat, originis vitium, etiamsi in parent reatus eiusdem vitii remissione ablutus est peccatorum. That is, Carnal concupiscence by only being in a man would undo him; if remission of sins did not so help the matter, that it being in men borne, and borne a new; in men. as borne into the world, it is, and is to their hurt, and evil: in men 
k L. 2. d. 31. q. 1. art 4.  borne anew, it only is, but is not to their hurt. For it is so far forth hurtful 
l Cap. 39  to men borne, that unless they be borne a new, it nothing profiteth them to have been borne, of such as were new borne. For original sin doth so abide in the child, as to make him guilty, though the guilt of the same sin be taken away in the parent, by remission of sins.  
The Master of sentences in his 
m Dist. 3●….  2d book, agreeth with Saint Augustine: his words are these: Unless it be by an ineffable miracle of the Creator, Baptism doth not cause the Law of sin which is in our members to be extinguished, and not to be: it causeth indeed all the evil a man hath thought or done, to be abolished, and to be accounted as if it had never been done: but it suffereth concupiscence (the bond of guilt, where with the devil by it, held the soul, and separated it from God her Creator, being loosened) to remain, that there may be a continual fight. Bonaventura writing upon the same place, saith: Concupiscence importeth in the unregenerate an immoderate desire of commutable good, in such sort as to captivate reason, and to pervert the soul, so that it must prefer commutable good, before that which is incommutable: this concupiscence cannot be found in any, but it must make him, in whom it is, guilty of condemnation; the strength of this concupiscence, is so broken and overthrown, by the grace of regeneration, that it hath no power to captivate reason, to pervert the soul, & bring upon it a necessity of preferring things finite before infinite; and so the guilt of condemnation is taken away: but it hath still power to move and solicit us to evil, and we by God's grace have power to resist & overcome. For as the Master of the sentences saith in the same place; though concupiscence remain after Baptism, yet doth it not rule & reign as before, but it is diminished, weakened, & made less forcible, that it may rule no longer, unless any man will give strength unto his enemy, by going after the lusts thereof.  
So that it is evident, that the Church of God taught as we do, that concupiscence in it own nature is a sin, making guilty of grievous punishment: that when it is weakened, and ceaseth to be so potent as formerly it was, yet it ceaseth not to be of the same kind that formerly it was, as 
n Vbi supra.  Gregorius Ariminensis showeth: and therefore seeing it was before a sin, it is still in some sort a sin that God hating it before, he hateth it still: & we also are to hate it, & by all means to seek to weaken and destroy it. 
o In consultatione de articulis religionis artic. 2.  Cassander saith, that a very worthy and famous divine affirmeth, that it is sin in the regenerate, though it be not imputed. And he addeth that the difference between them that say it is sin; and them that say it was sin properly, & made guilty of condemnation, but now being weak ned, & the guilt taken away, it is not properly sin, is a mere logomachia.  
And therefore in the conference at Worms, the collocutors agreed touching this point: 
p formula concordiae de peccato originis & concup●…centiá i●…ta Wormatiae ann. 1541. inter Eccium & Mensingum, item Bucerum & Philippum Melancthonem, ut reperitur ibidem apud Cassandrum.  the form of their agreement is this; We confess with unanimous consent, that all that come of Adam according to the ordinary course, are borne in original sin and under the wrath of God. Original sin is the privation and want of original righteousness, joined with concupiscence. We agree also, that the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, together with all other sins, by the merit of Christ's passion. But we think that concupiscence, a vice or fault of nature, an infirmity and disease, remaineth: taught so to think, not only by the apostolical scriptures, but by experience also. And touching this disease we agree, that that which is material in original sin, remaineth in the regenerate, that which is formal being taken away by baptism. And we call that the material part of original sin, that took beginning from sin, that inclineth unto sin, and repugneth against the law of God, as Paul also calleth it: and in this sort it is briefly said in the Schools, that the material part of original sin, remaineth in the baptised: and that the formal is taken away: By the formal part of sin they understand the privation or want of those divine graces, that should cause the knowledge, love, and fear of God, the inordinate inclination to love ourselves and finite things, so as not to regard God, and the consequent guilt of condemnation accompanying such privation and inordinate inclination: by the material part they understand, not concupiscence as it is in strength, captivating all to the sinister love of ourselves, and things finite: but as weakened it still soliciteth to evil, but so that easily it may be resisted, if we make right use of the grace, that God hath given us: this remainder of concupiscence is evil, inclineth to evil, God hateth it, and we must hate it etc. And therefore it is most absurd that the council of Trent hath, that God hateth nothing in the regenerate, and the reason they give is very weak, that therefore he hateth nothing in them, because there is no condemnation unto them: for many things may be disliked, in them that shall not be condemned.  
It remaineth that we speak concerning first motions, Bonaventura describeth 
p Compend. theolog. veritatis. lib. 3. qui inscribitur de corruptelà pecca: cap. 10.  first motions to be, the motions of sensuality according to the impulsion of concupiscence, impetuously tending to the fruition of a delectable creature. First motions (saith he) are either primò primi, or secundò primi: primò primi sunt naturales, secundò primi sunt sensualitatis: primò primi sequuntur naturalium qualitatum actionem, secundò primi imaginationem: these first motions he pronounceth to be sin for three causes. First, because they move to that which they should not, and to that which is unlawful. Secondly because they are in a sort voluntary: though not in themselves, yet in that they are not hindered by the will, or in respect of precedent apprehension. Thirdly, they are sin in respect of delight annexed: for when the soul is joined by delight to the creature, it is darkened and made worse, as when it is joined to God, it is enlightened and bettered. These saith he are venial sins, because the will hath not a complete dominion over these motions of sensuality, as over those acts that proceed from the command of the will, but yet it might have hindered them, & therefore they are venial sins; & so they continue, so long as they stay & proceed not so far as to have the will's consent; but if they proceed so far, as that the will consenteth to take delight therein, though not to proceed to action, it is a mortal sin. This is the opinion of Bonaventure a cardinal and a canonised Saint, and with him agree sundry others: so that in this point, the Church formerly taught as we do now.   

CHAP. 9  
Of the distinction of venial and mortal sin.  
BEllarmine saith, that the Romanists with one consent do teach, that some sins in their own nature, (no respect had to predestination, or reprobation; 
a De amissione gratiae & statu peccati l. 1. c. 4.  to the state of men regenerate, or not regenerate) are mortal, other venial; and that the former make men unworthy of the favour of God, and guilty of eternal condemnation; the other only subject them to temporal punishments and fatherly chastisements. But we know the Church of God believed otherwise. For first, 
b Ce vitâ ispirituali lect. 1.  Gerson proveth, that every offence against God, may justly be punished by him in the strictness of his righteous judgement, with eternal death, yea with utter annihilation; because there is no punishment so evil, and so much to be avoided, as the least sin that may be imagined. So that a man should rather choose eternal death, yea utter annihilation, then commit the least offence in the world. Secondly he proveth the same, because all divines do agree, that wheresoever there is eternity of sin, there must be eternity of punishment; now where there is no remission, there sin must of necessity remain for ever: for though sin soon cease in respect of the act, yet every sin remaineth after the act is past, in respect of the stain and guilt, till it be remitted; whence it followeth, that every sin in it own nature, and without grace to remit it, remaineth eternally, and deserveth eternity of punishment and is mortal.  
We say therefore that some sins are mortal and some venial, not because some deserve eternity of punishment, and others do not; for all deserve eternity of punishment, and shall eternally be punished, if they remain without grace, and unremitted eternally: but because some sins, either in respect of the matter wherein men do offend, or ex imperfectione actus, in that they are not committed with full consent, exclude not grace, the root of remission, and pardon, out of the soul of him that committeth them: whereas other, either in respect of the matter wherein they are conversant, or the full consent wherewith they are committed, cannot stand with grace. So that, contrary to Bellarmine's position, no sin is venial in it own nature, without respect had to the state of grace. And this is proved against him, by the authority of such men, living in the Church in the days of our fathers, as he must not except against. 
c Primâ lecundae quaest. 87. art. 5.  Thomas Aquinas saith, eternity of punishment answereth not to the grievousness of sin, but to the eternal continuance of it without remission: and that therefore, eternity of punishment is due, to every sin of the unregenerate so continuing, ratione conditionis subiecti, in respect of the condition and state of him that committeth it, in whom grace is not found, by which only sin may be remitted. Whence it will follow, that every sin of the unregenerate so continuing, is worthy of eternal punishment, and shall so be punished, and therefore is mortal: And on the contrary side every sin of the regenerate, that may stand with grace, and not exclude it, is rightly said to be venial: that is, such as leaveth place for that grace, that can and will procure remission: of which sort are all the sins of the elect of God, called according to purpose, which are not committed with full consent.  
Cardinal Caietan writing upon those words of Thomas Aquinas, cleareth this point exceeding well: Grace only, saith he, is the fountain whence floweth remission of sin: nothing therefore positively maketh sin venial, or remissible, but to be in grace: nor nothing maketh a sin positively irremissible, or not venial, but the being out of the state of grace: for to be in the state of grace, is to have that which will procure remission of sin, & to be out of the state of grace, is to be in a state wherein remission cannot be had. So that that which positively maketh sin venial, or not venial, is the state of the subject wherein it is found: if we respect therefore the nature of sin, as it is in itself, without grace, it will remain eternally in stain, & guilt, and so will subject the sinner to eternal punishment: so that every sin in itself, deserveth eternal punishment and is mortal: but yet such is the nature of some sins, either in respect of the matter wherein they are conversant, or their not being done with full consent, that they do not necessarily imply an exclusion of grace, out of the subject in which they are found, & so do not necessarily put the doers of them, into a state positively making them not venial, by removing grace the fountain of remission. So that to conclude, no sin is positively venial, as having any thing in it that may claim remission: for no sin implieth or hath any thing in it of grace the fountain of remission: but some sin either ex genere, or ex imperfectione actus, in respect of the matter wherein a man offendeth, or in that it is not done with full consent, to the exclusion of grace, may be said to be remissible or venial, negatiuè, per non ablationem principii remissionis, in that it doth not necessarily imply the exclusion of grace the fountain of remission: and some sins either in respect of the matter, or manner, do imply such exclusion, and are therefore named mortal.  

d Part. 1. sol. ●…43.  Richardus de Sancto Victore agreeth with the former, and more clearly confirmeth our opinion than they do. The circumstances of that we find in him touching this point are these: One had written unto him desiring to be resolved in a certain doubt; the doubt was this: how it could be true, that he had learned of his teachers, that venial sins deserve only temporal punishments, & mortal eternal; whereas yet in those that go to hell, if any of those sins that they call venial be found, they must be punished, and every punishment sustained in hell, is eternal, seeing out of hell there is no redemption; whence it will follow, that even those sins that are named venial, deserve eternal punishment: for they are punished eternally in the damned, and it must not be thought, that the punishment inflicted for them, is more than they deserve. All this concerning the eternity of the punishment of every sin of the reprobate, he acknowledgeth to be true: and therefore showeth that some sins are said to be venial, and mortal: but for other considerations than some supposed. His resolution therefore of the doubt proposed is expressed in these words, That sin seemeth unto me to be veviall, which found in the regenerate in Christ, of itself alone never bringeth upon them eternal punishment, though they repent not particularly of the same: & that is mortal, which though it be alone, bringeth eternal death upon the doers of it, without particular repentance: that therefore is a venial sin, which of itself alone, & if there be nothing else to hinder, is ever sure to be pardoned and remitted in the regenerate, so as never to bring condemnation upon them: & that is mortal, that of itself alone, putteth the doer into a state of condemnation and death.  
Here we see sins are distinguished, some are said to be venial, & some mortal; but none are said to be venial, without respect had to a state of regeneration, as Bellarmive imagineth. To these we may add 
e jacobus Almain in tractatu 3. c. 20. Roffensis in refutatione articuli 32 Lutheri citat●… à Bellarmino de am●…ssione gratiae l. 1. c. 4.  Almain and Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and sundry other: but it needeth not; for howsoever our Adversaries make show to the contrary, they all confess that to be true that we say; for every sin eternally punishable, deserveth eternal punishment; but every the least and lightest sin, that we can commit, without grace, and remission, remaineth eternally in stain and guilt; and is eternally punishable, whence it will follow, that every sin deserveth eternal punishment; and so is by nature mortal 
* Bellarmine c. 11. affirmeth, that venial sins are not against, but beside the law; but Durandus, and others teach, that when men sin venially, they do that the law forbiddeth, & so do contrary to the law, not only besides it: Dur. l 2. d. 42 q 6. . So that in this point as in the former, the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, is found to have been a Protestant Church.   

CHAP. 10.  
Of free will.  
Cardinal Contarenus hath written a most divine and excellent discourse touching free will; wherein he showeth the nature of free will, & how the freedom of will is preserved or lost; in this discourse, First, he showeth what it is to be free; and then 2●, what that is, which we call free will. What it is to be free, he showeth in this sort; As he is a servant that is not at his own dispose to do what he will, but is to do what another will have him to do, so he is said to be free who is at his own dispose, so as to do nothing presently because another will have him, but what seemeth good unto himself, & he hath a liking to do. The more therefore that any thing is moved by, & of itself, the more free it is. So that in natural things we shall find, that accordingly as they are moved by any thing within or without themselves in their motions, they come nearer to liberty, or are farther from it: so that a stone is in a sort free when it goeth downward, because it is carried by something within: but it suffereth violence, and is moved by something from without, when it ascendeth: yet doth it not move itself, when it goeth downward, but is moved by an impression of that weight, which it put not into itself, but the author of nature, & moveth but one way; so that it is far from freedom & liberty even in this motion also. Living things move themselves; & not one way only, as the former, but every way; as we see plants, & trees, wherein the first & lowest degree of life is discerned, move themselves downwards, upwards, on the right hand, & on the left: yet discern they not whether, neither do they move themselves out of any discerning, & so are far from liberty. Bruit beasts are moved by themselves in a more excellent sort: for having discerned such things as are fitting to their nature & condition, there is raised in them a desire of the same: so that they may very properly & truly be said to move themselves, because they raise in themselves the desire that moveth them: yet is there no freedom or liberty in them.  
For there is no liberty truly so called, but where there is an apprehension, not of things of some certain kind only, but of all things generally, of the whole variety of things, of the proportion which they have within themselves, & of the different degrees of goodness found in them: & answerable hereunto a desire of good in general, & a greater or less desire of each good, according as it appeareth to be more or less good, and so a preferr●…ng of one before another, & a choosing of what it thinketh best. So that reason is the root of all liberty: for in that reason discerneth good in general, the will in general desireth it, in that it showeth there is a good, wherein there is all good & no defect, the will if it have any action about the same, cannot but accept it: in that it showeth that one thing is better than another, the will preferreth or less esteemeth it, in that it showeth some reasons of good, & some defects and evils, the will chooseth, or refuseth: when reason finally resolveth a thing now & in this particular to be best, the will inclineth to it.  
This generality of knowledge is not found in any thing below the condition of man: other living creatures have an apprehension of some certain things only; they have no knowledge of good in general, but of certain good things only, nor no desire of good in general, in the extent of it, but of such particular good things as are fitted to them: these therefore have neither free and illimited apprehension nor desire of good; but limited, restrained, and shut up within a certain compass: so that they are like to a man shut up in prison, who though he may move himself and walk up and down, yet cannot go beyond a certain limitation and bounds set unto him. But man was made to have an apprehension of all things, to discern the nature of each, and the different degrees of goodness found in them: and accordingly to desire good in general, to desire each thing more or less, as it appeareth more or less good: never to rest satisfied, till he come to an infinite good: to desire the same for itself, as originally good, and as the last end, because above or beyond it there is nothing to be desired: & to desire nothing but in reference unto it, seeing nothing is good but by partaking of it.  
And hence it is easy to see, how the liberty of our will is preserved: and how and in what sort it is lost: for seeing the desire of the chief good and last end, is the original of all particular desires: if God be proposed unto us as our last end, and chief good, in whom, from whom, and for whom all things are: then our will without restraint, and without all going aside, and intangling, or intricating itself, shall freely love whatsoever is good: and each thing more or less, according as it comes nearer to God, and nothing but that which is pleasing to him: thus is our liberty preserved and continued. But if we depart from God, and make any other thing our chief good, & last end: then we seek that which is infinite, within the compass of that which is finite, and so languish, never finding that we seek, because we seek it where it is not to be found: and besides bring ourselves into a straight, so as to regard nothing though never so good, farther than in reference to this finite thing, which we esteem as if it were infinite: neither do we set up any other thing unto ourselves to be our chief good, but ourselves. For as Picus Mirandula noteth, the ground of the love of friendship is unity: now first God is more near to every of us than we are to ourselves: then are we nearer to ourselves, than any other thing: & in the third place there is a nearness and conjunction between other things and us. So that in the state of nature instituted, we loved God first, and before, and more than ourselves: and ourselves no otherwise but in and for him: but falling from that love, we must of necessity decline to love ourselves better than any thing else, and seek our own greatness, our own glory, and the things that are pleasing to us, more than any thing else: and because the soul unmindful of her own worth and dignity, hath demersed herself into the body & senses, & is degenerated into the nature and condition of the body, she seeketh nothing more than bodily pleasures as fitting to her, & declineth nothing more as contrary to her, than the things that grieve & afflict the outward man.  
This is the fountain of all the evils that are found in our nature: this putteth us into horrible confusions: for having raised ourselves into the throne of God by pride, and fancied unto ourselves a peerless and incomparable greatness, we are no less grieved at the good of other men: then if it were our evil: nay indeed it is become our evil: for how can our excellence be pearls, and incomparable, if any other excel or equal us, or have any thing wherein he is not subordinate to us: thus do we run into envy, and all other evils, and endleslely disquiet and afflict ourselves. And secondly we are hereby deprived of our former liberty; for neither do we know all the variety of good things, as we did, our knowledge being from sense nor their different degrees, that so we might have power to desire them, and to prefer each before other, according to the worth of it; neither can we desire any good but as serving our turn; so that what doth not so, we cannot esteem.  
Touching the will of man since the fall; it is resolved by all divines, that it hath lost the freedom it formerly had from sin, and misery; but some understand this in one sort, and some in another. For some affirm, that men have so far forth lost their liberty from sin by Adam's fall, that they cannot but sin, in whatsoever moral act they do; which thing I showed to have been believed, by the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died. But they of the Church of Rome at this day, dislike this opinion, for they suppose, that though our will be not free from sin, so as collectively to decline each sin, and that though in the state wherein presently we are we cannot but sin, at one time or other, in one thing or other; yet we may decline each particular sin divisively, and do the true works of moral virtue. Much contending there is, & hath been touching freewill; wherefore for the clearing of this point two things are to be noted. 1 from what, and 2dly wherein this liberty may be thought to be.  
The things from which the will may be thought to be free are five. 1 The authority of a superior commander, and the duty of obedience. 2ly The inspection, care, government, direction, and ordering of a superior. 3ly Necessity, & that either from some extern cause enforcing, or from nature inwardly determining, and absolutely moving one way. 4ly, Sin, & the dominion of it. 5ly Misery. Of these five kinds of liberty, the 2 first agree only to God, so that in the highest degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, freedom of will, is proper to God only; and in this sense Calvin and Luther rightly deny, that the will of any creature is, or ever was free. The third kind of liberty, is opposite not only to coaction, but natural necessity also: In opposition to coaction, the understanding is free; for howsoever a man may be forced, to think & believe, contrary to his inclination, that is, such things as he would not have to be true; yet the understanding cannot assent to any thing contrary to her own inclination, for the understanding is inclined to think so of things as they are, & as they may be made to appear unto her to be, whether pleasing to nature or not: but the understanding is not free from necessity.  
But the will in her action is free, not only in opposition to coaction, but to natural necessity also. Natural necessity consisteth herein, that when all things required to enable an agent, to produce the proper effect thereof are present, it hath no power not to bring forth such effect, but is put into action by them. So the fire having fit fuel in due sort put unto it, & being blowed upon, cannot but burn. The liberty of the will therefore appeareth herein, that though all those things be present, that are prerequired to enable it, to bring forth the proper action of it, yet it hath power not to bring it forth, and it is still indifferent & indeterminate, till it determine and incline itself; God indeed worketh the will to determine itself; neither isit possible that he should so work it, and it should not determine itself accordingly; yet doth not God's working upon the will, take from it the power of dissenting, and doing the contrary; but so inclineth it, that having liberty to do otherwise, yet she will actually determine so.  
Here Luther, and Calvin are charged with the denial of this liberty of the will; & many strange absurdities are attributed to them; for first Luther is said to have affirmed, that the will of man is merely passive; that it produceth not any act, but receiveth into it such acts, as God alone without any concurrence of it, worketh & produceth in it. But all this is nothing but a mere calumniation; for Luther knoweth right well, that men produce such actions as are externally good & evil, willing, & out of choice; & confesseth that we do the good things that God commandeth us, when we are made partakers of his grace, but that God worketh us to do them; We believe, we fear, we love: but it is God that worketh us to believe, fear, & love. Certum est nos facere cum facimus, saith Saint 
f De gratiâ & libero arbit. c. 16  Augustine, seà Deus facit ut faciamus. It is most certain that we do those things we are said to do, but it is God that maketh us to do them, not only by persuading, inviting, & inwardly drawing us by moral inducements, but by a true & real efficiency. So that according to Luther's opinion, we move not but as moved; nor are active, but as having first been passive: nor turn ourselves, but as first wrought upon, and made to turn: yet do we truly move ourselves, and truly, freely, and cheerfully choose that which is good, and turn ou rselues from that which is evil, to that which is good. 
g Alvarez de auxiliis divinae gratiae disput. 86. lect. 8.  Divines say that 
* Facere ut velimus est operar●… in nobis aliquid quo disponamur & efficaciter inclinemur & determinemur ad volendum Alva:  facere ut velimus, and facere ipsum velle, differ very much: that is, they say it is one thing to make us to will, and another to produce the act of willing. God worketh both, but in a different sort, the first sine nobis facientibus nos velle: Secundum autem operatur, nobiscum simul tempore consentientibus & cooperantibus; that is, God worketh the first of these alone; we make not ourselves to will, the second he produceth together with us, willing that he would have us, and producing that we do. So that in the former consideration we are merely passive, in the latter active: which neither Luther nor any of his followers ever denied. Calvine, they say, confesseth, that the will concurreth actively to the act which God produceth; but without any freedom at all: unless we speak of that freedom, which is from coaction. It is true indeed that Calvine denyeth us to be free from necessity: but he speaketh of the necessity of sinning; but he never denyeth us to be free 
h Vide Chemnicij examen de cretide libero arbitrio.  from natural necessity, that is, from being put into action, so as natural agents are, that is, without all choice and liking ofthat we incline to do. It is evident that Calvine confesseth the will of man to be free to do evil; and he denyeth it not to be free to perform acts civilly good, or morally good ex genere, & obiecto; yea he thinketh that the will freely and out of choice, willeth whatsoever it willeth; as in the state of aversion it freely willeth that it should not, so when God converteth it, he turneth the course of the actions and desire of it, and maketh it freely and out of choice to turn to good. 
i En●…hirid. cap. 30.   
That men have lost the freedom from sin, and put themselves into a necessity of sinning Saint 
Al●…recte faciendi licentiam.  Augustine showeth: Libero arbitrio male utens homo, & se perdidit, & ipsum: sicut enim qui se occidit, utique vivendo se occidit, sed se occidendo non vivit, nec seipsum potest resuscitare cum occiderit: ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio, victore peccato, amissum est & liberum arbitrium, à quo enim quis devictus est, huic & servus addictus est. Quae sententia cum vera sit, qualis quaeso potest servi addicti esse libertas, nisi quando eum peccare delectat? Liberaliter enim seruit, qui sui domini voluntatem libenter facit. Ac per hoc ad peccandum liber est, qui peccati servus est; unde ad iustè faciendum liber non erit, nisi à peccato liberatus; esse institiae caeperit servus. Ipsa est vera libertas propter rectè facti 
k Bernard in cant. serm. 81.  laetitiam, simul & piaservitus propter praecepti obedientiam. Sed ista libertas ad bene faciendum, unde erit homini addicto & vendito, nisi redimat ille cuius illa vox est, si vos filius liberaverit, verè liberi eritis? Quod antequam fieri in homine incipiat, quomodo quisquam de libero arbitrio in bono gloriatur opere, qui nondum liber est ad operandum benè: nisi se vanâ superbiâ inflatus extollat, quam cohibet Apostolus dicens, Gratiâ salui facti estis per fidem?  
Here we see necessity of sinning, and freedom from natural necessity, do stand together in the corrupted nature of man: 
* Anima●…a carentia ratione carent libertate, sensu aguntur, feruntur impetu, rapiuntur appetitu, neque enim iudicium habent quo se diiudicent sive regant●…sed ne instrumentum quidem iudicij rationé. Hanc vim à natur●… solus homo non patitur, & ideo solus inter anim●…tia liber: & tamen interveniente peccato patitur quandam vim & ipse, sed à voluntate non à naturá; ut ne sic quidem ingenitá libertate privetur; quod enim voluntarium, & liberum Bernard. ibidem. joan. 8.  Nescio quo pravo & miro modo ipsa sibi voluntas peccato quidem in deterius mutata, necessitatem facit; ut nec necessitas cum voluntaria sit, excusare valeat voluntatem; nec volnntas, cum sit illecta, excludere necessitatem. Est enim necessitas haec quodam modo voluntaria: est favorabilis vis quaedam, premendo blandiens, & blandiendo premens; voluntas est quae se cum esset libera servam fecit peccati, peccato assentiendo; voluntas nihilo minus est, quae se sub peccato tenet voluntariè serviendo. Vide quid dicas, inquit aliquis mihi: tune voluntarium dicis, quod iam necessarium esse constat? Verum quidem est quod voluntas seipsam addixerit, sed non ipsa se retinet, magis retinetur & nolens. Bene hoc saltem das, quod retinetur. Sed vigilanter retine voluntatem esse, quam retineri fateris. Itaque voluntatem nolentem dicis? Non utique voluntas retinetur non volens: voluntas enim volentis est, non nolentis. Quod 〈◊〉 volens retinetur, ipsa seretinet. Quid ergo dicet, aut quid respondebit ei, cum ipsa fecerit? Quid fecit? Seruam se fecit; unde dicitur, qui peccatum facit, servus est peccati. Propterea cum peccavit (peccavit autem, cum peccato obedire decrevit) servam se fecit. Sed fit libera si non adhuc facit. Facit autem in eâdem servitute se retinens: neque enim non volens voluntas tenetur: voluntas enim est. Ergo quia volens, servam seipsam fecit: non modo fecit, sed facit. Sed non me, inquis, decredere facies necessitatem quam patior, quam in memetipso experior, contra quam & assiduè luctor. Vbinam quaeso hanc necessitatem sentis? Nun in voluntate? Non ergo parum firmiter vis, quod & necessario vis. Multum vis quod nolle nequeas, nec multum obluctans. Porro ubi voluntas, & libertas; quod tamen dico de naturali, non de spirituali, quâ libertate (ut dicit Apostolus) Christus nos liberavit. Nam de illâ idem ipse dicit: ubi spiritus Domini, ibi libertas. Ita anima miro quodam & malo modo, sub hâc voluntariâ quâdam & malè liberâ necessitate, & ancilla tenetur & libera: ancilla propter necessitatem, libera propter voluntatem: & quod magis mirum, magisque miserum est, eò rea quo libera, eoque ancilla quo rea; ac per hoc eo ancilla, quo libera. And afterward, Non quod volo hoc ago, said me non alio prohibente: & quod odi illud facio, sed me non alio compellente. Atque utinam haec prohibitio & haec compulsio, ita esset violenta, ut non esset voluntaria: forsitan enim sic possem excusari: aut certe ita esset voluntaria, ut non violenta: profecto enim sic possem corrigi.  
It is true that natural men may do things that are good ex genere & obiecto, and perform such external actions, as serve to entertain this present life; but to do any thing morally good, not only ex genere & obiecto, but ex fine & ci cumstantiis, there is no power left in corrupted nature. It is excellent to this purpose that we read in Saint 
l Hypognost. l. 3. August. lib. 1. retract. c. 15. voluntas in tantum libera est, quia in tantum liberata est: alioquin tota cupiditas, quae voluntas propriè nuncupanda est. Ep. 106. sine gratiâ nos dicimus ad non peccandum nihil voluntatis arbitrium valere. Prosper contra: Collatorem c 19 saith that man since the fall Labitur memoriâ errat iudicio, nutat incessu. And cap. 21. Infidelitas rapuit fidem, captivitas abstulit libertatem, nec potuit illic ulla portio residere virtutum, quo t●…ta irruperat ●…ma vitiorum. Aug. de spiritu & literâ c. 3. Liberum arbitrium nihil nisi ad peccandum valet si lateat veritatis 〈◊〉 ●…ut si agnita veritas non delectet & ametur.  Augustine: Per velle malum, rectè perdidit posse bonum, qui per posse bonum, potuit vincere velle malum. Per peccatum igitur liberum arbitrium hominis possibilitatis perdidit bonum, non nomen & rationem. Esse fatemur liberum arbitrium omnibus hominibus, habens quidem iudicium rationis, non per quod sit idoneum, quae ad Deum pertinent, sine Deo aut inchoare aut certe peragere: sed tantum in operibus vitae praesentis, tam bonis, quam etiam malis. Bonis dico, quae de bono naturae oriuntur; id est, velle laborare in agro, velle habere amicum, velle habere indumenta, velle fabricare domum, artem discere diversarum rerum bonarum, velle quicquid bonum ad praesentem pertinet vitam etc. Malis vero dico, ut velle idolum colere, velle homicidium. And again, de verbis apostoli serm: 13. Agis quidem Deo non adiuvante liberâ voluntate, sed male. Ad hoc idonea est voluntas tua, quae vocatur libera, & malè agendo fit damnabilis ancilla. Cum dico tibi sine adiutorio Dei nihil agis, nihil boni dico: nam ad malè agendum habes sine adiutorio Dei liberam voluntatem; quanquam non est illa libera. A quo enim quis devictus est, huic & servus addictus est: & omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. And again contraduas epistolas Pelag: ad Bonifacium lib: 1. c. 3. Arbitrium in bono liberum non erit, quod liberator non liberaverit, sed in malo liberum habet arbitrium. And afterward, Haec voluntas quae libera est in malis, quia delectatur malis, ideo libera in bonis non est, quia liberata non est. And again, De gratia & libero arbitrio, lib. 1. cap. 15. Semper est in nobis voluntas libera, sed non semper est bona. Aut enim à iustitiâ libera est, quando seruit peccato, & tunc est mala: aut à peccato libera est, quando seruit iustitiae, & tunc est bona. Gratia vero Dei semper est bona, & per hanc fit ut sit homo bonae voluntatis, qui prius fuit malae voluntatis. And in his book the correptione & gratiâ, cap. 1. Liberum arbitrium & ad malum, & ad bonum faciendum confitendum est nos habere: sed in malo faciendo liber est quisque iustitiae, servusque peccati: in bono autem liber esse nullus potest nisi fuerit liberatus. And ad Bonifacium, lib. 3. cap. 8. Liberum arbitrium captivatum non nisi ad peccatum valet, ad iustitiam vero nisi divinitus liberatum, adiutumque non valet. Again, epistola 107. ad Vitalem: Liberum arbitrium ad diligendum Deum primi peccati granditate perdidimus. 
m Lib. 2. d. 29 art. 2.  Ariminensis saith, Voluntas determinata est ad malum actum, scilicet quod si sine speciali Dei auxilio eliciet actum, utique eliciet malum. And I have showed that many other concurred with him. It is excellent therefore that 
n Hypognost. l. 〈◊〉.  Augustine hath. Ergo damnas (inquit Pelagianus) opera liberi arbitrij? Audi haeretice stulte, & inimice fidei veritatis: Opera liberi arbitrij bona, quae ut faciant praeparantur per gratiae praeventum, nullo liberi arbitrij merito, & ipso faciente, gubernante, & perficiente, ut abundent in libero arbitrio non damnamus, quia ex his vel huiusmodi homines Dei iustificati sunt, iustificantur, iustificabuntur in Christo. Damnamus verò authoritate divinâ opera liberi arbitrij quae gratiae praeponuntur, & ex his tanquam meritis, in Christo iustificari extolluntur. 
o L. 2. d. 28. q. 1. art. 1.  Ariminensis: Ex his infero corollarium; quod nemo potest mereri primam gratiam de condigno, nec etiam de congruo, contra aliquorum sententiam modernorum: nomine autem gratiae intelligo quodcunque Dei speciale adiutorium ad benè operandum. 
p Compend. theol. veritatis l. 〈◊〉. c. 2.  Bonaventura. Sciendum quod habilitatio sive praeparatio ad gratiam triplex est; scilicet Efficiens, formalis, materialis; prima est à Deo, secunda à gratiâ gratis datâ; tertia à nobis. Anima namque habet facultatem & instrumenta cognoscendi & diligendi Deum ex Naturâ; sed non habet cognitionem veritatis, & ordinem dilectionis nisi ex gratiâ.  
In another place he hath these words, 
q Compend. theol. veritatis l. 2. c. 56. Aqui, ●…a adae. q. 109. art. 6. Praeparatio ad fruendum Deo per donum habituale: ad susceptionem huius doni, per auxilium Dei intus moventis animam & inspirantis bonum propositum.  Libertas arbitrij triplex est, scilicet à necessitate, à peccao, à miseriâ. Prima libertas est naturae, secunda, gratiae: tertia, gloriae: item prima est bonorum & malorum, secunda est tantummodò bonorum, tertia est in coelo regnantium. Libertas malorum est velle peccare, & etiam posse peccare. Liberum arbitrium liberius est in bonis, quam in malis, quia in bonis est tantummodo servitus miseriae, in malis autem est servitus miseriae & peccati: sed in patriâ est liberrimum, quoniam omnis talis servitus destruetur. Nota quod licet Deus non possit malè facere & similiter Angelus, & animae beatae, tamen est in eyes liberum arbitrium: quia bonum eligunt, & malum declinant, non ex infirmá necessitate, sed liberâ voluntate. Eodem modo dicendum est de diabolo, quòd habet liberum arbitrium, bonum tamen semper respuit, & malum eligit: sed hoc non facit in eo violenta coactio, sed voluntaria obstinatio. Liberum arbitrium habet se in quibusdam indifferentèr ad bonum & ad malum, ut in primis parentibus ante lapsum: in quibusdam plus se habet ad malum, quam ad bonum, ut in regeneratis per baptismum: in quibusdam plus se habet ad bonum quam ad malum, ut in sanctificatis in utero: in quibusdam necessariò se habet ad malum, ut in infidelibus non regeneratis: in quibusdam necessario se habet ad bonum, ut in confirmatis, sicut fuit beata Virgo post conceptionem filij.  
And in another place. 
r Compend. theol. veritatis l. 〈◊〉. qui est de corruptel●… peccati c. 10. Sap. 9  Homo pronior ad malum quam ad bonum; & hoc multis de causis. Primò quia sicut dicitur: corpus quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam trahens illam ad malum, & non sic erigens ad bonum. Secundò Quia sicut dicit Augustinus: plus valet malum inolitum, quám bonum insolitum. Tertiò, Quia naturalitèr facilius est descendere, quam ascendere: & unus magis trahit deorsam, quam decem sursum. Quartò, quia incitans ad malum praesens est, sed finis virtutum incitans ad bonum absens est. Delectabile autem apprehensum persensum, vel imaginationem, quasi de necessitate movet concupiscentiam. Quintò, quia plures circumstanti'ae requiruntur ad bonum, quam ad malum. Sextò, quia tendimus ad nostrum principium, scilicet ad nihilum. 7ᵒ Quia foams, qui movet ad malum semper intra nos est: gloria vero quam quaerimus extra nos est. 8o Quia vires animae sunt activae ad diligendum temporalia: sed passivae & materiales ad ea, quae sunt gratiae & gloriae. Quia non possunt haberi virtutes per modum acquisitionis, sed per modum receptionis. Vnde malum possumus facere per nos, sed bonum non possumus facere sine gratiâ adiutrice.  
Peter 
s Lib. 2. d. 41.  Lombard, proposing the question whether all the intentions, and actions of them that lack faith be sin, hath these words; Simo sides intentionem dirigit, & intentio bonum opus facit; ubi non est fides, nec intententio bona, nec opus bonum esse videtur. Quod à quibusdam non irrationabiliter astruitur, qui dicunt omnes actiones & voluntates hominis sine fide malas esse, quae fide habitâ bonae existunt, unde Apostolus ait, Omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est. Quod exponens Augustinus ait, Omnis infidelium vita peccatum est, & nihil bonum est sine summo bono: ubi deest agnitio aeternae veritatis, falsa virtus est etiam in optimis moribus. Et Iacobus in epistolâ canonicâ ait, Qui offendit in uno, scilicet in charitate, factus est omnium reus. Qui ergo fidem & charitatem non habet, omnis eius actio peccatum est, quia ad charitatem non refertur. Quod enim ad charitatem non refertur (ut supra meminit Augustinus) non fit quemadmodum fieri oportet, ideoque malum est. Non ergo mandata custodit, qui charitate caret, quia sine charitate nullum mandatorum custoditur. Impossibile est (ut ait Apostolus) sine fide aliquid placere Deo. Quae ergo sine fide fiunt, bona non sunt: quia omne bonum placet Deo. His autem obijcitur quod supra dixit Augustinus, scilicet quod in seruili timore, etsi bonum fiat, non tamen benè: nemo invitus bene facit, etiamsi bonum est quod facit. Hic enim dicit bonum fieri sed non benè, ab illo qui charitatem non habet. Qui enim seruiliter timet chiritate vacuus est: de quo tamen hic dicit, quia bonum facit, sed non benè. Qui etiam super illum locum Psalmi. Turtur invenit sibi nidum ubireponat pullos suos dicit, quod judaei, haeretici, & Pagani opera bona faciunt, quia vestiunt nudos, & pascunt pauperes, & huiusmodi, sed non in nido ecclesiae, id est, in fide: & ideo conculcantur pulli eorum. Quibus illi respondent, dicentes bona opera appellari huiusmodi, quae sine charitate siunt, non quia bona sint quando sic siunt, quod evidenter supra Augustinus docuit: sed quia bona essent, si aliter fierent: quae in suo genere sunt bona, sed ex affectu sunt mala. But he saith, there are others of another opinion, making the actions of men to be of three sorts, & denying all the actions of infidels to be sin. Opera cunsta quae ad naturae subsidium siunt, semper bona esse astruunt. Sed quod 
a In Psal. 13.  Augustinus mala esse dicit, si malas habeant causas; non ita accipiendum est, quasi ipsa mala sint: sed quia peccant, & mali sunt, qui ea malo fine agunt.  
Thomas Bradwardin in his sum against the Pelagians of his time, clearly resolveth, that the will of man since the fall, hath no power to bring forth any good action, that may be morally good, ex fine & circumstanti●…s. And Aluarez, though he think that all the actions of infidels are not sin, yet saith, that none of them is truly an act of virtue, Noah not in respect to the 
b Lib. 6. d. 50.  last natural end. 
c Consult. art. 18.  CASSANDER saith, that the article of the Augustane confession touching original sin, agreeth with the doctrine of the Church, when as it teacheth that the will of man hath some kind of liberty, to bring forth a kind of civil justice, and to make choice in things subject to reason: but that without the spirit of God, it hath no power to do any thing that may be just before God, or anything spiritually just. And all orthodox divines agree against the Pelagians, that it is the work of grace, that we are made just of unjust, truly, and before God; that this grace createth not a new will, nor constraineth it against the liking of it, but correcteth the depravation of it, and turneth it from willing ill, to will well; drawing it with a kind of inward motion, that it may become willing of unwilling, and willingly consent to the divine calling.  
The Pelagians the enemies of God's grace, being urged with those texts of Scripture, wherein mention is made of grace, sought to avoid the evidence of them, affirming that by grace, the powers, faculties, and perfections of nature, freely given by God the Creator at the beginning, are understood; when this would not serve the turn, they understood by grace the remission of sins past, and imagined that if that were remitted wherein we have formerly offended, out of that good that is in nature we might hereafter so bethink ourselves, as to do good & decline evil. Thirdly, When this shift failed likewise, they began to say, that men happily will not bethink themselves of that duty they are bound to do, or will not presently and certainly discern what they are to do without some instruction or illumination; but that if they have the help of instruction and illumination, they may easily out of the strength of nature decline evil, and do that they discern to be good. Against this it is excellent that Saint Bernard hath, Non est eiusdem facilitatis, scire 
d De gratia & li●…o arbitrio 〈◊〉 ●…tio.  quid faciendum sit, & facere. Quoniam & diversa sunt, caeco ducatum, ac fesso praebere vehiculum Non quicunque ostendit viam, praebet etiam viaticum itineranti: aliud illi exhibet qui facit ne deviet, & aliud qui praestat ne deficiat in viâ. Itanec quivis doctor statim & dator erit boni, quodcunque docuerit. Porro duo mihi sunt necessaria, doceri, ac iuvari; tu quidem homo rectè consulis ignorantiae, sed si verum sentit Apostolus, spiritus adiuvat infirmitatem nostram. Immo vero qui mihi per os tuum ministrat consilium, ipse mihi necesse est ministret per spiritum suum adiutorium, quo valeam implere quod consulis.  
When they were driven from this device also, they betook themselves unto another; to wit, that the help of grace is necessary, to make us more easily, more constantly, and universally to do good, then in the present state of nature we can; and to make us so to do good, as to attain eternal happiness in heaven. And this is, and was the opinion of many in the Roman Church, both anciently, and in our time. For many taught that men in the present state of nature as now it is, since Adam's fall, may decline each particular sin, do works truly virtuous & good, fulfil the several precepts of God's law, according to the substance of the work commanded, though not according to the intention of the lawgiver; 
e Camaracensis. 1. sent. d. 1. q. 2. art. 2. ait multos doctores asserere hominem e●…tra gratiam per sola naturalia posse diligere Deum super omnia.  that they may love God above all, as the author and end of nature. So that to these purposes there was no necessity of the gift of grace, but that grace is added to make us more easily, constantly, & universally to do good, and to merit heaven. And therefore 
f De justificat. l. 2 cap. 4. Respectu prima gratia, meritum ex congruo jampridem explosum est. Stapleton ibid.  Stapleton confesseth, that many written unadvisedly, aswell amongst the Schoolmen heretofore, as in our time, in the beginnings of the differences in religion, but that now men are become wiser. I would to God it were so, but it will be found, that howsoever they are in a sort ashamed of that they do, yet they persist to do as others did before them: for 
g Bellarmide gratia & libero arbitrio, l. 〈◊〉. c. 〈◊〉. & cap. 9  they teach still that men may decline each particular sin, do the true works of moral virtue, do things the law requireth, according to the substance of the things commanded, though not so as to merit heaven, or never to break any of them. 
h De gratia & libero ●…bit. 10, l. 6. c. 7.  Bellarmine indeed denyeth, that we can love God above all in any sort, without the help of grace. But 
i I●… primam secundae quaest. 109. art. 3.  Cardinal Caietan saith, that though we cannot so love God above all, as to do nothing but that which may be referred to God as the last end, yet so as to do many good things in reference to him as the last end. And Bellarmine if he deny not his own principles must say so; for first he defendeth, 
k ubi supra, l. 5. c. 9  that man may do a work morally good without grace, and do it to obey God the author of nature: And elsewhere he proveth, 
l L. 5. c. 5.  that man cannot perpetually do well in the state of nature without grace, because it is so turned away from God to the creature by Adam's sin, & specially to himself, that actually, or habitually, or in propension, he placeth his last end in the creature, & not in God: & so cannot but offend, if he be not watchful against this propension. Whence it followeth, that seeing a man must place his chief good in God, if he do good, & that naturally he can do good, he can naturally place the same in God. That which he somewhere hath, 
m ubi supra l. 5. c. 9  that it is enough to intend the next end explicitè, & that it will of itself be directed to GOD the last end, seeing every good end moveth virtute finis ultimi, is idle: for it moveth not but virtute finis ultimi amati: nam finis non movet nisi amatus, ergo amat finem ultimum.  
So that many formerly, & almost all presently in the Church of Rome, are more than Semipelagians, not acknowledging the necessity of grace to make us decline evil, & do good, but to do so constantly, universally, & so as to merit heaven: But Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, Gregory, Beda, Bernard, Anselm, Hugo, many worthy Divines mentioned by the Master of Sentences, yea●…he Master himself, Grosthead, Bradwardine, Ariminensis, the Catholic Divine that Stapleton speaketh of, those that Andradius noteth, Alvarez, and other, agree with us, that there is no power left in nature to avoid sin, & to do any one good action, that may be truly an action of virtue, & therefore they say, grace must change us, and make us become new men.  

n De liber. arb.  Cardinal Contarenus noteth, that the Philosophers perceiving a great inclination to evil to be found in the nature of mankind, thinking it might be altered & put right, by inuring them to good actions, gave many good precepts & directions, but to no purpose: for this evil being in the very first spring of humane actions, that is, the last end chiefly desired, which they sought not in God, but in the creature, no help of Nature or Art was able to remedy it: as those diseases of the body are incurable, which have infected the fountain of life, the radical humidity. GOD only therefore who searcheth the secret & most retired turnings of our soul & spirit, by the inward motion of his holy spirit, changeth the propension & inclination of our will, and turneth it unto himself. And in 
o De praedest.  another place, he hath these words. We must observe that at this present, the Church of God by the craft of the devil, is divided into two sects, which rather doing their own business then that of Christ, & seeking their own glory, more than the honour of GOD & the profit of their neighbours, by stiff & pertinacious defence of contrary opinions, bring them that are not wary and wise to a fearful downfall. For some vaunting themselves to be professors of the Catholic Religion, & enemies to the Lutherans, while they go about too much to maintain the liberty of man's will, out of too much desire of opposing the Lutherans, oppose themselves against the greatest lights of the Christian Church, and the first & principal teachers of Catholic verity, declining more than they should unto the heresy of Pelagius. Others when they have been a little conversant in the writings of S. Augustine, though they have neither that modesty of mind, nor love towards God, that he had, out of the pulpit propose intricate things, & such as are indeed mere paradoxes to the people. So that touching the weakness of nature, & the necessity of grace, we have the consent of all the best and worthiest in the Church, wherein our Fathers lived and died.  
The nextthing to be considered is, the power of freewill in disposing itself to the receipt of grace. 
p In 1. sent. q. 6. prolog. art. 3. & 2. sent. d. 28. q. 5.  Durandus is of opinion, that a man by the power of free will, may dispose and fit himself for the receipt of grace, by such a kind of disposition, to which grace is to be given by pact, and divine ordinance, not of debt. Amongst the latter divines there are that think, that as one sin is permitted that it may be a punishment of another, so God in respect of alms, and other moral good works done by a man in the state of sin, useth the more speedily and effectually to help the sinner, that he may rise from sin; and that God infallibly and as according to a certain law, giveth the helps of preventing grace, to them that do what they can out of the strength of nature: & this is the merit of congruence, they are wont to speak of in the Roman Schools.  
But as I noted before, Gregorius Ariminensis resolutely rejects the conceit of merit of congruence. Stapleton saith it is exploded out of the Church. And 
q Lib. 7. d. 55.  Aluarez, that S. Augustine, & Prosper, whom Aquinas & the Thomists follow, reject the same. August. l. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelagii c. 8. Si sine Dei gratià per nos incipit cupiditas boni, ipsum caeptum erit meritum, cui tanquam ex debito, 
* Aug. l. 1. quaestionum ad Simplicianum Quare tamen & huic ita, & huic non ita? Homo tu quis es? debitum si non reddishabes quod gratuleris: si reddis non habes quod quetaris.  gratiae veniat adiutorium, ac sic gratia Dei non gratis donabitur, sed meritum nostrum dabitur. etc. 6. lib. 4. & lib. de praedest. sanctorum: & de dono perseverantiae. Et Prosper lib de gratiâ & libero arbitrio ad Ruffinum, ait; Quis ambigat tunc liberum arbitrium cohortationi vocantis obedire, cum in illo gratia Dei affectum credendi, obediendique generaverit? Alioquin sufficeret moneri hominem, non etiam in ipso novam fieri voluntatem, sicut scriptum est, Praeparatur voluntas à domino. Neque obstat (saith 
r ●…bi supra.  Aluarez) quod idem Solomon Proverb. cap. 16. inquit, hominis est praeparare animam. Intelligit enim hominis esse, quia libere producit consensum, quo praeparatur ad gratiam: sed tamen id efficit, supposito auxilio speciali Dei inspirantis bonum & interius moventis, sic explicat istum locum August. lib. 2. contra duas epistolas Pelag. cap. 8. And so those words are to be understood, If any one open the door I will enter in, Revela. 3, and Isa●… 30. The Lord expecteth that he may have mercy on you: for he expecteth not our consent, as coming out of the power of nature, or as if any such consent were a disposition to grace, but that consent he causeth in us. Fulgentius lib de incarnatione cap. 19 Sicut in nativitate carnali omnem nascentis hominis voluntatem, praecedit operis divini formatio: sic in spirituali nativitate, quâ veterem hominem deponere incipimus. Bernard, de gratiâ & libero arbitrio, in initio: Ab ipsâ gratiâ me in bono praeventum agnosco, & provehi sentio, & spero perficiendum. Neque currentis, neque volentis, sed dei miserantis est. Quid igitur agit ais liberum arbitrium? breviter respondeo: saluatur; tolle liberum arbitrium, non erit quod saluetur, tolle gratiam non erit unde saluetur, opus hoc sine duobus effici non potest: uno á quo fit, altero cui vel in quo fit, Deus author est salutis, liberum arbitrium tantum capax; nec dare illam nisi Deus, nec capere valet nisi liberum arbitrium: quod ergo a solo Deo, & soli datur libero arbitrio, tam absque consensu esse non potest accipientis, quam absque gratiâ dantis, & ita gratiae operanti salutem cooperari dicitur liberum arbitrium, dum consentit, hoc est, dum saluatur: consentire enim saluari est.  
Yet must we not think that God moveth us, and then expecteth to see whether we will consent: Concilium Arausicanum Can. 4. Si quis ut a peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram Deum expectare contendit, non autem ut etiam purgari velimus, per sancti spiritus infusionem, & operationem in nos, fieri confitetur: resist it ipsi spiritui sancto, per Salomonem dicenti, praeparatur voluntas a domino, & Apostolo salubriter praedicanti Deus est qui operatur in nobis, & velle & perficere pro boná voluntate. So that God doth not stir and move the will, and so stay to see whether it will consent or nor, but worketh, moveth, and inclineth us to consent. 
s Aluarez. li. 9 disp. 97.   
The good use of grace proceedeth, not from the mere liberty of our will, but from God working by the effectual help of preoperating grace, and causing a man freely to consent and cooperate. If not, God were not the total cause, which as the first root bringeth forth all that, which discerneth the righteous from the sinner. Quis te discernit? Our consent, and effect of predestination. The will doth not first begin her determination and consent: The influx of free will into a good action, or the good use of grace exciting, is supernatural: as being about a supernatural object, therefore it must proceed from a supernatural cause &c: God is a cause, and the first eause: in that a cause, he hath reference to the effect, in that the first to the second; when therefore by his helping grace, he worketh together with us to will and perform, his operation hath a double respect: first to our will, which it effectually moveth to work this; and secondly to our act of willing which it produceth together with our will: for our will hath no operation but in one respect only, that is, of the act it bringeth forth; but it hath no influence upon itself, antecedently to the production of the act. So then God is the first determiner of our will; for i●… the created will originally begin her own determination, it will follow that it is the first free, the first root, and the first cause of her own determination: which must not be granted: for seeing a created thing that is free, is free by participation, it must of necessity be reduced to a first free, as to a former cause: otherwise duo prima, principia. So that God by his effectual grace, not only morally, but truly efficiently, moveth and inclineth the will, to the love and liking of what he will, in such sort that it cannot but turn, nor cannot descent in sensu composito, though it may in sensu diviso: The meaning of this is, that the effectual motion of God's grace, and an actual dissenting, resisting, or not yielding, cannot stand together: but the efficacy of God's grace, and a power of disenting, do stand together. For the efficacy of grace doth not take away the power, but so directeth the will, as infallibly in such liberty to bring forth that he pleaseth. 
* Cap●…eolus.  Est simultas potentiae ad opposita, non autem potentia simultatis ad opposita simul habenda: there is in some created thing at the same time, a possibility of having or doing things opposite, as to sit or walk, but there is no possibility of having these together. So there is in free will moved by effectual grace a power to do, or not to do in sensu diviso, because the efficacy of grace and power of dissenting may stand together, but not in sensu composito, that is, that the motion of grace and actual dissenting should stand together. This is the opinion of 
t Lib. 9 d. 94.  Aluarez and many other opposing the Jesuits: neither had Calvin or Luther any other apprehension of these things. So that the necessity, efficacy, power, and working of God's grace, is rightly delivered by sundry in the Roman Church even till this day. It is not to be marvelled therefore if it be said, that the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, believed and taught as we now do.  
Aloisius Lippomannus, in catenâ, ad lectorem, hath these words. Illud te admonitum esse volumus, ut si in toto hoc opere Chrysostomum aliquando legeris dicentem, homini quoties is sua attulerit, & conatum omnem fecerit, abundè postea à Deo gratiam suppeditari, caute, & prudenter pium doctorem legas, ne in errorem illum decidas, ut credas gratiam Dei dari propter merita nostra: nam si ex meritis, non est gratia: cum nec istud ipsum sua afferre, & conatum omnem facere, sine praeveniente Dei gratiâ possit esse, juxta illud Psalmi: & misericordia ejus praeveniet me; itemque, & misericordia ejus subsequetur me in omnibus diebus vitae meae, ac illud sanctae Ecclesiae: tua nos quaesumus domine gratia semper praeveniat & sequatur: cui nos quoque scrupulo providè occurrentes, in duobus fortassis aut tribus locis paucula quaedam in Chrysostomum apposuimus.  
Gocchianus de libertate christianâ l. 2. c. 23. Maria salutatur gratia plena, ut quic quid in eâ & per eam divina dispositione fieri conspicitur, totum ex dono dei nullis praecedentibus meritis, designetur etc. habes qualiter in exordio humanae reparationis praesumpsio humanae facultatis dejicitur. In eo, quod Maria plena gratiâ nunciatur, praedicatur in eaplenitudo gratiae, ut nihil proprii meriti, sed totum quod in ea est gratia esse designetur. August. in enchirid. Quid humana natura in homine Christo meruit, ut in unitate personae unici filii Dei, singulariter esset? Quae bona voluntas? cuius boni propositi studium? quae bona praecesserunt, quibus mereretur iste homo, ut una fieret persona cum Deo? nempè ex quo homo esse caepit, non aliud caepit esse quam Dei filius, idemque hominis filius, etc. Magna hic & sola Dei gratia ostenditur, ut intelligant homines, per eandem gratiam eius se iustificari a peccatis, per quam factum est ut homo Christus nullum habere posset peccatum. Eccehabes in Mediatore Christo gratiam commendatam, qui cum esset unicus Dei filius, non gratiâ, sed naturâ, & ob hoc plenus veritatis, factus est hominis filius; ut esset etiam gratiae plenus, verbum caro factum est. cum in Christo in quo omnia instauranda, tanquam in fonte unde totius humani generis derivatur salvatio, nihil aliud invenitur, quam gratia; unde alicui aliquid aliud de proprio potest provenire, per quod potest salvari? Miranda quidem, imò potius miseranda humanae praesumptio facultatis, quae cum per humilitatem gratis salvari possit, propriâ impediente superbiâ salvari non velit, Omnes, inquit Esaias, sitientes venite ad aquas; & qui non habetis argentum & aurum, properate, emite, & comedite, emite absque ullâ commutatione vinum & lac. 
u Gocch. ibid. l. 2. c. 23.  Idem spiritus movet hominis voluntatem, ut bonum velit quod prius noluit, & bonam voluntatem adiuvat ut bonum volitum ad effectum perducat, nullâ cooperatione propriae voluntatis facultatis, sed sanatae & renovatae. 
x Cap. 20.  Aug. de patientia; Gratia non solùm adiuvat iustum, verum etiam iustificat impium; & ideo etiam cum adiuvat iustum, & videtur eius meritis reddi; nec sic desinit esse gratia, quoniam id adiuvat, quod ipsa est largita. 
y M●…scel. 2. l. 2. ut. 137.  Hugo de Sancto Victore: Benefaciendi tres sunt gratiae; praeveniens, cooperans, & subsequens; prima dat voluntatem; secunda facultatem, tertia perseverantiam. So that in the matter of free will and grace, the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, is found to have been a Protestant Church.   

CHAP. 11.  
Of justification.  
THey of the Church of Rome do teach, that there is a threefold justification. The first, when a man borne in sin, and the child of wrath, is first reconciled to God, and translated into a state of righteousness and grace. The second, when of righteous he becometh more righteous: And the third, when having fallen from grace, he is restored again.  
The first justification implieth in it three things, remission of sins past, acceptation and receiving into that favour, that righteous men are wont to find with God; and the grant of the gift of the holy spirit, and of that sanctifying & renewing grace, whereby we may be framed to the declining of sin, and the doing of the works of righteousness. These being the things employed in the first justification of a sinner, it is agreed by all, that when in sorrowful dislike of former misdoings we turn unto God, all our sins past are freely remitted, through the benefit of Christ's satisfaction imputed unto us; as also that for the merit of Christ's active righteousness, consisting in the fulfilling of the Law, we are accepted and find favour with God, as if we had always walked in the ways of God, and pleased him. And both these are necessary; 
a Scotus l. 1. d. 17. q. 2. art. 2. & l. 4 d. 1. q. 6.  for if a man cease to be an enemy, he doth not presently become a friend; and though he pardon him that offended him, so as not to seek revenge of the offence, yet doth it not follow that presently he receiveth him into favour; but it is possible he should neither respect him as an enemy, nor as a friend; and neither will evil unto him as to an enemy, nor good as to a friend. So likewise it sufficeth not that God remit our sins, and seek not our evil, for Christ's passion, but it is necessary also that he be so reconciled, as to embrace us as friends, and to do good unto us: this we have by the merit of Christ's active righteousness, who having a two fold right to heaven, the one of inheritance, because borne the son of God; the other of merit, because he had done things worthy the reward of heaven; made use only of the one, and communicateth the other unto us. Neither is this all, that the sinner when he is to be justified, seeketh after; for he never resteth satisfied, till he have not only obtained remission of sins past, and acceptation with God, but the grant of the gift of the spirit also, and of that grace that may keep him from offending God so as formerly, and incline him to do the things that are pleasing unto him. And therefore in the conference at 
b Annos 541.  Ratisbon, the Divines of both sides agreed, that no man obtaineth remission of sins, nisietiam simul infundatur charitas sanans voluntatem; ut voluntas sanata, quemadmodum ait Augustinus, incipiat implere Legem. Fides ergo viva est, quae, & apprehendit misericordiam Dei in Christo, & credit iustitiam quae est in Christo sibi gratis imputari, & quae simul pollicitationem spiritus sancti, & charitatem accipit.  
So that it is evident that to be justified, hath a three fold signification? For first it importeth as much as to be absolved from sin, that is, to be freed from the woeful consequents of that disfavour and dislike, that unrighteousness and sin subjecteth us unto. Secondly, To be accepted and respected so as righteous men are wont to be: And thirdly to be framed to the love and desire of doing righteously. And in this sort doth Dominicus à Soto explicate this point: and with him do all they agree, who say, that grace doth justify formaliter charitas operatiuè, and opera declaratiuè, that is, that grace doth justify formally, charity as that which maketh men do the works of righteous men, and that good works by way of declaration make it manifest, that they are righteous that do them. For they understand by grace a state of acceptation, that is, such a condition, wherein men are not disfavoured as having done ill, but respected as if they had done all righteousness: which is in truth a relation, as the Protestants teach: For what is it but a relation, in reference to another, to be respected by him, and accepted to him? And in this sense a man may be justified, that is, accepted as if he had never done ill, or failed in any good, for the righteousness of another 
* And to this purpose it is that the Protestant divines do urge that the word of justifying is verbum forense, & that it signisyeth as much as to pronounce for one in judgement; which may be conceived two ways; first so as to clear him from the imputation of having sinned, that bath sinned, and to pronounce that he hath done righteously that hath not; and in this sense if God should justify the sinner, his judgement were not right; and to atas this to him were absurd, as our adversaries rightly tell us: or else, to clear and free one from punishment, as if he had never offended, and to adjudge such freedom to him as righteous men are wont to enjoy, such as he might look for, if righteous, and to grant him the gift of renovation making him accline ill and do good. . Nay they all confess, that all they that are justified, are so accepted, for the obedience, merit, and satisfactory sufferings of Christ, when they are first reconciled to God. So that it is strange that they should urge as sometimes they do, that a man can no more be justified, that is, accepted as if righteous, for the righteousness of another, than a line can be, or be accounted strait, for the straightness of another: For, as Durandus rightly noteth, though one man's merit and well doing, cannot be imputed to another, as to be, or be accounted his merit, and he esteemed to have merited and done well; yet it may be so communicated, as that the fruit, benefit, & good of it, shall redound to him, & he be accounted worthy respect, for the others sake, as if he had done well. Neither do they nor can they make any question hereof, if they will but understand what they say; For whereas three things are required of a man, if he will be subject to no evil, and enjoy good: viz. not to have done evil; to have done good; and to do good in the present and time to come: though we be framed to the doing of good hereafter, yet we can neither be freed from the punishment our former evil doings deserved, but by the benefit of his sufferings, that suffered what he deserved not, to free us: nor to be accepted having done nothing worthy acceptation, but for his merit: who did all good in our nature to procure us acceptation.  

c Lib. 15: c. 5.  Andrea's Vega confesseth that men may be absolved from their sins, that is, freed from the punishment of them, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness: and that they may become acceptable and dear unto God, in such sort as just men are, formally, by being beloved of him: but that if we speak Philosophycally of justice, it is in the predicament of quality & not of relation: which we willingly yield unto. And though he say, 
d Lib. 15. c. 2.  no man ever in express words affirmed before Bernard's time, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to 
e Epistol. 109.  us: yet he thinketh it may rightly be said to be imputed, both for satisfaction & merit: that is, so as to free us from punishment, & bring good upon us, as if we had merited it: and that to these purposes it is imputed to us, as if it were ours. 
f Cap. 3.  And farther he addeth, that as God doth nothing in nature, but by his son as God: so he will do nothing pertaining to our justification and restauration, but for him, as he is man: and that there is no benefit bestowed on us, or good done unto us, but it presupposeth a new application, and imputation of the merits of Christ. So that every one is newly made partaker of Christ's merits, and oweth new thanks to him, so often as new gifts and benefits, are conferred and bestowed upon him: and he feareth not to pronounce, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, not only when we are baptised, (as he saith a man excellently learned unadvisedly affirmeth,) but in other sacraments, and as often as men receive any new gift from God: yea that a new 
g Cap. 10.  imputation of Christ's righteousness is necessarily required, for the remission of those venial sins, into which the justified fall, and the freeing of us from temporal punishments. 
h Sermon. in coena domini.  Bernar: Nemo levia peccata contemnat, impossibile est enim cum iis saluari, impossibile est ea dilui, nisi per Christum, & à Christo: & 
i L. 83. q. q. 68  August: tam de eo qui levioribus peccatis obnoxius est, quam de eo qui gravioribus pronunciat: quod si sibi relinquerentur interirent.  
All therefore acknowledge, as he thinketh, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed; but there are, as he telleth us, 2 opinions in the Church of Rome touching this point, the one, that Christ's righteousness is no otherwise communicated or imputed to us, but in that for the merit of it, we are accepted, all things necessary to fit us for justification are given unto us, righteousness making us formally just, that is, inclining us to decline evil & do good, is infused into us, and what soever is profitable to set us forward, and to make us continue in the same, is bestowed on us.  
Others renowned for learning and piety do think, that for the attaining of heaven happiness, not only in a twofold righteousness is necessary, the one inherent, the other imputed, as to the former; but that this imputed righteousness of Christ, is twice offered and presented, by Christ to God the Father; First that we may be justified, that is, that our sins may be remitted, we accepted, and renewing grace may be given unto us. And secondly that we may avoid and decline, the extremity and severity of God's judgement, that he may accept our weak endeavours, and admit us to heaven, notwithstanding the imperfection and defects thereof: that for his sake the imperfection & impurity of our righteousness may be covered.  
This opinion is clearly delivered by Cardinal 
k De iustificatione.  Contarenus: & he tellethus' it was allowed in the conference at Ratisbon, by the divines of both sides: his words are these. Seeing we have affirmed that we artaine a twofold righteousness by faith: a righteousness inherent in us, as charity, and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature, and the justice of Christ given and imputed unto us, as being grafted into Christ, and having put on Christ: it remaineth that we inquire, upon which of these we must stay and rely, and by which we must think ourselves justified before GOD, that is, to be accepted as holy and just, having that justice which it beseemeth the sons of God to have. I truly think, that a man very piously and Christianly may say, that we ought to stay, to stay I say, as upon a firm and stable thing, able undoubtedly to sustain us, upon the justice of Christ given & imputed to us, and not upon the holiness and grace that is inherent in us. For this our righteousness is but imperfect, and such as cannot defend us, seeing in many things we offend all, etc. But the justice of Christ which is given unto us, is true & perfect justice, which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God, & in which there is nothing that offendeth God. Upon this therefore as most certain & stable, we must stay ourselves, & believe that we are justified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians, which whosoever findeth, selleth all that he hath to buy it.  

l Art. 8. pag. 28 29. 30.  Ruard Tapper followeth the other opinion, and saith, that whereas according to Bernard; our righteousness is impure, though sincere and true, we must not conceive that this impurity defileth our righteousness, as if itself were stained, or any thing were wanting in it, for so it should not be true, and right; but that it is said to be impure, because there are certain stains and blemishes together with it, in the operations of the soul; for GOD only is absolutely free from sin, and in many things we sin all: our righteousness therefore according to his opinion, is imperfect in virtue and efficacy, because it cannot expel and keep out all sin, out of the soul wherein it is, by reason of the infirmity of the flesh; but the good works of the just, do abide the severity of God's judgement, neither can they be blamed, though tried most exactly, and discussed in all their circumstances, yea though the devil should be permitted to say what he can against them, for they have no fault nor deformity.  
Here for the better clearing of this point, it is to be observed, that it is confessed by all, that the most righteous live not without sin, & consequently that they have need continually of remission of sins.  
It is resolved amongst all Catholics, saith 
m L. 14. c. 17  Andrea's Vega, that there was never any found amongst the Saints, the blessed Virgin only excepted, that in the whole course of their lives, avoided all venial sins. 
n job. 14  job asketh who shall be clean from filthiness? and answereth himself, according to the translation which the ancient Doctors followed, & namely Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and others, no one though he live but one day upon earth. And 
o Psal. 143. ps. 32.  David saith generally, no man living shall be justified in thy sight, and in another place, for this impiety of sin shall every holy one pray unto thee: he saith not every sinner, but every holy one (saith Saint 
p 2 de peccat. meritis c. 7.  Augustine) for it is the voice of the Saints, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, & there is no truth in us, and Solomon saith, there is no man righteous on earth, that doth good, and sinneth not; and those sayings of the Apostles are well known; in many things we sin all: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. And who is he that never needed in his whole life to say that part of the Lords Prayer, forgive us our trespasses?  
And all this is strongly proved, in that if we look on the lives of all the Saints, which are marvailously commended in Scripture, we shall find none of them that had not some blemish, as in the most beautiful body. Let us begin with the more ancient, for we intent not to accuse the just, but to show the infirmity of man, and the mercy of GOD, upon, and towards all. Enoch, as Ecclesiasticus testifieth, pleased GOD, and was translated into paradise, but in that it is written in Genesis, he pleased GOD, after he begat Methusalem, 
q Homil 57  Basil doth not without cause collect, that he formerly did not so please GOD; and the same Basil saith, that that great Father of the faithful, is found to have been somewhere unfaithful: and not without cause, for when God first promised Isaak unto him, though he fell on his face, yet he laughed in his heart, saying, thinkest thou that a son shall be borne, to him that is an hundred years old, and that Sarah who is ninety years old shall bring forth? Whereupon Hierome speaketh of Sarah and him in this sort; they are reproved for laughing, and the very cogitation and thought is reprehended, as a part of infidelity; yet are they not condemned of infidelity, in that they laughed, but they received the garland of righteousness, in that afterwards they believed. Besides these the Scripture giveth ample testimony, to Noah, Daniel, & job, who only in Ezechiel it saith, may escape the anger of God ready to come on men; & yet Noah fell into dr●…nkennes, which is a sin; and Daniel professeth he prayed unto the Lord, and confessed his own sin, and the sin of his people: job also is commended in the Scripture, and of God himself, as being a sincere man, righteous, fearing God, and departing from evil, and that not in an ordinary sort, but so as that none of the most righteous then in the world, might be compared unto him, as St Austin rightly collecteth, out of the words of God unto Satan: This man though he were a singular example, of innocence, patience, and all holiness, and though he endured with admirable patience, horrible tribulations and trials, not for his sins, but for the manifestation of the righteousness of God; yet as Augustine and Gregory (who as loud sounding trumpets set forth his praises) freely confess, he was not without venial sin. Which thing is strongly confirmed, in that the same most sincere lover of righteousness, confesseth of himself, saying, 
r job. 7.  I have sinned, what shall I do unto thee o thou ●…eeper of men? And being reproved by the Lord, and in a most mild sort willed, to say what he could for himself, he answered without any circuition, that he had spoken foolishly: and therefore the Scripture as it were carefully declining, the giving occasion to any one, to attribute so great innocence to job, as to make him sinless, said not, that he sinned not, but that he sinned not in all those things, that he suffered before that time, when he answered his wife, if we have received good things of the hand of the Lord, why should we not patiently suffer the evils he bringeth upon us? 
s Numer. 20.  Moses beloved of God & men, and the most meek of all the inhabitants of the earth, 
t Aug. de utilitate p●…t.  doubted something of the promise of the Lord, when he struck the rock twice with the rod, to bring out water for the people, being distressed for want of water: and that his doubting, displeased the Lord God, and he let him know so much, both by reproving him and punishing him, and therefore presently he said to him & Aaron, because ye believed me not, to sanctify me before the children of Israel, you shall not bring in this people, into the land which I will give them. The Scripture also highly commendeth Samuel, but as August: noteth; that neither he, nor Moses, nor Aaron, were 
v Aug 2. de pecc●…torum meritis & re●…:  without sin, David sufficiently declared, when he said; thou wast merciful unto them, and didst punish all their inventions, for as August: noteth, he punisheth them that are appointed to condemnation in his wrath, the children of grace in mercy, but there is no punishment, no correction, nor no rod of 
〈◊〉 P●… 9●….  God due, but to sin. Zacharie and Elizabeth are renowned for eminent righteousness, for they are both said to have been just before God, walking in all his commandments without reproof; but that Zacharie himself was not without fault & sin, Gabriel showed when he said unto him, behold thou shalt be silent, and not able to speak. And the same may be proved out of Paul who saith, that Christ only needed not daily as the priests of the law, to offer sacrifice first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people. And it is one thing (as the fathers of the council of Milevis, have well noted, in their epistle to Innocentius) to walk without sin, & another thing to walk without reproof, for he that walketh so, that no man can justly complain of him, or reprehend him, may be said to walk without reproof, though sometimes through humane frailty, some lighter sins do seize upon him; because men do not reprove, nor complain, but only of the more grievous sins. And to what end should we run through other examples of the Saints? Whereas the lights of the world, and salt of the earth, the Apostles of Christ, that received the first fruits of the spirit, confessed of themselves, that in many things they offended and sinned.  
And therefore the Church taught this ever with great consent. 
a 2 contra Marc.  Tertullian: Quis hominum sine delicto? 
b Li. 3. ad Quirin.  Cyprian proveth by job, David, and john, that no man is without sin, and defiling: 
c In Ps. 118.  Hilary upon those words, thou hast despised all them that depart from thy righteousness; If God should despise sinners he should despise all; for there is none without sin, 
d In jonam.  Hierome showing that the Ninivites upon good ground and for good cause, commanded all to fast, both old and young, writeth thus; The elder age beginneth, but the youngger also followeth in the same course, for there is none without sin, whether he live but one day or many years; for if the stars be not clean in the sight of God, how much less a worm, rottenness, and they that are holden guilty of the sin of Adam, that offended against God. And in another place, we follow the authority of the Scripture, that no man is without sin. 
e Q●…r 8. ad A gas.  And 
f Li 2. de pec cat. meritis & re●…i: cap. 14.  Saint Augustine; whosoever are commended in Scripture, as having a good heart, and doing righteously, and whosoever such after them, either now are, or shall be hereafter, they are all truly great, just, and praise worthy, but they are not without some sin, nor no one of them is so arrogantly mad, as to think he hath no need, to say the Lords prayer, and to ask forgiveness of his sins. And in his 31 sermon de verbis Apostoli, he hath these words: Haehetici Pelagiani & Coelestiani dicunt iustos in hac vitâ nullum habere peccatum, redi haeretice ad orationem, si obsurduisti contra veram fidei rationem, Dimitte nobis debita nostra dicis an non dicis? Si non dicis, etsi praesens fueris corpore, foris tamen es ab ecclesiâ. Ecclesiae enim oratio est, vox est de magisterio Domini veniens. Ipse dixit, sic orate, discipulis dixit, Apostolis dixit, & nobis qualescunque agniculi sumus dixit, arietibus gregis dixit, sic ●…rate. Videte quis dixerit & quibus dixerit, Veritas discipulis, pastor pastorum arietibus dixit, sic orate, Dimitte nobis debita nostra; &c: Rex militibus, dominus servis, Christus Apostolis, veritas hominibus loquebatur, sublimitas humilibus loquebatur. Scio quid in vobis agatur. Ego vos appendo, ego de trutinâ meâ renuncio, prorsus dico quid in vobis agatur. Hoc enim ego plus quam vos scio, dicite, Dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut &c: Oratio ista regeneratorum est, id est, baptizatorum: Postremo quod totum superat filiorumest. Nam si non est filiorum, quâ fronte dicitur Pater noster? etc. And in his retractations he saith expressly, no man doth so keep the mandates of 
g Cap. 13.  righteousness, as that it should not be needful for him in praying to say, forgive us our debts. And 
h De bono perseverantiae.  elsewhere; that amongst those three articles, which the Church defendeth against the Pelagians, one is, In quantâcunque iustitiâ, sine qualibuscunque peccatis, in hoc corruptibili corpore neminem vivere. 
i Homil. 58.  Basil: No speech is so profitable unto me, as that touching repentance, because there is no man without sin. 
k De ecclesiast. dogmat. c. 49.  Gennadius: There is no holy nor just man that is without sin; yet doth he not therefore cease to be holy. 
l Moral. 18. c. 4.  Gregory inquireth how that may be understood, that job saith; his heart reproved him not; whereas before he had accused himself saying, I have sinned: and he professeth, that if he shall go about to justify himself, his own heart will condemn him: and he answereth himself in this sort; that there are sins that may be avoided by the just, and that there are some that even the righteous cannot decline; of the first kind he saith it is to think evil, of the second to consent to evil thoughts. Rightly therefore he that confesseth himself a sinner saith, his heart reproved him not, because though sometimes happily he were wanting in rectitude, in that he thought evil, yet by a strong fight of the mind he resisted the same. 
m De precept. & dispens.  Bernard. Ipsi de se fatentur apostoli in multis offendimus omnes, & si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus; that is, the Apostles confess of themselves, in many things we sin all, and if we say, we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. 
o De perfect. iustit. resp. 17.  August. treating of those words, that we may be holy and undefiled. Hoc agitur, inquit, ut hoc simus, si immaculati intelligendi sunt, qui omninò sine peccato sunt; si autem immaculati sunt, qui sunt sine crimine, etiam in hâc vitâ fuisse atque esse, negare non possumus: legitur homo sine crimine, legitur sine querelâ; at non legitur sine peccato, nisi filius hominis, unus idemque filius Dei unicus. And 
p Moral. 21. c. 9  Gregory: In hâc vitâ multi sine crimine, nullus verò esse sine peccatis valet.  

* Vegal. 14. c.  Yea the Fathers teach, not only that no man doth, but also that no man can live without venial sin. 
q Ps. 118.  Hilary in illa verba, amputa à me opprobrium, &c, Propheta in corpore positus loquitur, & neminem viventium scit sine peccato esse posse. Augustin, Homil. 2. in Apocalyps. Non Angels indigent poenitentiâ sed homines, qui sine peccato esse non possunt, & subiungit. Non dicam Laici, sed etiam Sacerdotes, unâ die esse non debent fine poenitentia, quia quomodò nullus dies est, in quo homo possit esse sine peccato, sic nullo die debet esse sine satisfactionis remedio. Et de bono perseverantiae cap. 13. citat ex Ambrosio, & approbat, Cavere difficile; exuere autem impossibile surreptiones, in quibus dubium non est, quandoque nos peccare venialiter. In lib. de fide ad Petrum cap. 41. ut firmissimè tenendum traditur, neminem ex adultis sine peccato esse posse. Gregorius homil. 17. in Evangel; Humana vita sine culpa transiri non potest. Et alibi, Etiam a just is peccata haec minuta asserit inevitabilia 18, Moral. c. 4. Beda in illa verba, Ecce agnus Dei. Quamdiu sunt sancti in hoc corpore, peccato carere nequeunt. 〈◊〉 Bernard. in lib. de praecepto & dispens. Fateor sane impossibile cuivis mortalium, vel venialiter interdum non delinquere. And the Council of Trent anathematizeth all those that shall say, that the justified man may so avoid & decline all venial sin, as not to commit any in the whole course of his life, unless it be by special privilege, as in the blessed Virgin.  
But yet Andrea's 
r L. 14. c. 21.  Vega thinketh, that the just by the assistance of God's grace, may decline all venial sin, so as in the whole course of their life to fall into none; which his saying he confesseth, will seem hard to most men, even as it seemed formerly to himself. But he saith, if it be not granted that the commandments of GOD may be kept collectively, as well as divisively, then that he requireth is impossible, for he requireth the fulfilling of all collectively, so as not to do any of them is sin. If a man command his servant, to carry so much of something, out of the field into his house every hour, though he have power to carry so much any hour, yet if he have not power to carry it every hour, it seemeth he requireth that which is impossible, and his mandate is unjust. And besides, if we have power to do the things the Law requireth, divisively only, and not collectively, than we cannot fulfil the Law, ex toto, sed ex parte tantum, which is the opinion of the Protestants, whom the Council condemneth.  
It is true that he noteth touching this point, that they cannot avoid, but that God hath commanded things impossible, who say, that men may divisively do each thing the Law requireth, but not collectively all the things it requireth, seeing God commandeth us to do all these things collectively; and yet this is the opinion of most Divines in the Roman Church. So that they are forced by the evidence of truth, to confess together with us, that God hath commanded such things, as in the present state, by reason of the infirmity of our sinful nature, cannot be fulfilled by us.  
Neither can Vega avoid the evidence of the testimonies of the Fathers, & the Decree of the Council of Trent, so that he must be forced to confess, that no man can so collectively fulfil the Law as not to sin, and consequently, that no man can perform that the law requireth. For his distinction of logical or metaphysical, and moral impossibility, will not help the matter; for howsoever it be true, that God may give grace, freeing the will, and enabling it to do good, in such sort as to decline all ill, (and in his opinion every justified man might have such grace, if he were not wanting to himself) yet according to the course, which generally he hath, doth, and will ever hold, for reasons best known to himself, he giveth not that superexcellent grace, and man's condition is still such, as that continuing in it, he cannot avoid all sin.  

a justificat. l. 6. cap. 2.  Sapleton treating of the fullfilling of the law, layeth down these propositions. 1 They that are renewed in Christ jesus, receive the grace of the ho●…y spirit, whereby they may fulfil the law, 
b De spiritu & littera. c. 19  Lex, saith S. Augustine, data est ut gratia quaereretur, gratia data est ut lex impleretur, & 
c Cap. 9  voluntas ostenditur infirma per legem, ut sanet gratia voluntatem, & voluntas sanata impleat legem, non constituta sub lege, nec indigens lege. Item, 
d Cap. 30.  Lex non evacuatur per fidem, sed statuitur, quia fides impetrat gratiam, quà lex impleatur. 
e Contra Faustum l. 19 c. 31.  Ad praecepta facienda adiwat per gratiam, sicut promissa implenda curat per veritatem. 
f Lib. 17. c. 6.  Impletur lex cum vel fiunt quae ibi praescripta sunt, vel cum exhibentur quae ibi Prophetata sunt, gratia pertin●…t ad charitatis plenitudinem, verit as ad prophetiarum impletionem, & quia utrumque per Christum, ideo non venit soluere legem aut Prophetas, sed adimplere.  
This first proposition he qualifieth by a second, in this sort. Haec impletio 
g Cap. 3.  legis non intelligitur, necessario & praecise, in omnibus mandatis legis, toto tempore & cursu iustitiae humanae, sed ille censetur implere, qui voluntatem & affectum habens implendi, universa legis eatenus implet, quatenus humana fragilitas, in reliquiis naturae corruptae, per gratiam adiuta implere in hac vita vel potest, vel solet. And this proposition he saith is clearly proved, and strongly confirmed, by the known doctrine of the Church, 
h Concil. Milevita. Can. 6. 7. & 8. Concil. Aphrica. c. 81. & sequen. Aug. l 2 de peccato: meritis & remissi. De spiritu & litt. lib. 4. contra ep. Pelagiani de perfect: justitiae.  long since clearly delivered against the Pelagians, that none of the just do live without sin. Whereas therefore, it is said of Zachary and Elizabeth, that they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments, and iustifications of the Lord, without blame; and of David, that he was a man after Gods own hart, doing all his will; and of Asa, that he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, as David his father did, and that his hart was perfect before the Lord all his days, as likewise it is said of jehosaphat, Ezechias, josias; It is not to be understood that they were so just, as to be without sin, for the sins of them all are recounted in scripture. Zachary was incredulous, and therefore became dumb; the adultery and murder of David are well known; 
i 2 Chron. 19  jehosaphat is reprehended by the Prophet for helping wicked Ahab: 
k 2 Chron. 32.  Ezechias fell through the pride of his hart; josias sinned grievously, in not resting in the words of Necho, 2 Chron. 35. But they are said to have been just, because they had a desire to fulfil all, though through frailty they offended in many things. 
l Contra Pelag. lib. 3.  Hierome showeth that men are so just in this life, as that yet they are not without sin, Positum, inquit, est in nostrâ potestate non peccare, sed hoc pro modo, & tempore, & conditione humanae fragilitatis, perpetuitas autem impeccantiae, soli Deo reservatur, nec quia ad breve tempus abstinere possum, coges me ut possim iugiter, & dicimus hominem posse non peccare si velit, sed hoc pro tempore, pro loco, pro imbecillitate coporis, quamdiu intentus est animus, quamdiu chorda nullo vitio laxatur in cithara. And Saint Augustine. Nullus sanctus & iustus caret peccato, nec tamen ex hoc desinit esse iustus, cum affectu teneat sanctitatem. 
m Lib. de ecclesiasti: dogmatibus c. 86.   
Thirdly to this proposition he addeth in the same place, That the just though they be not without sin yet decline those that are mortal, or if 
n cap. 5.  at any time they fall into them they rise again by repentance.  

o cap. 6.  Fourthly, though the righteousness of the just be not perfect in this world, so as to be free from all mixture of sin, yet it is perfect suo modo, in that it continually endeavoureth to be free from sin, going on from day to day. 
p Leo de qua. dra●…. ser. 2.  Haec est perfectorum vera iustitia, ut nunquam praesumant se esse perfectos: ne ab itineris nondum finiti intentione cessantes, ibi incidant in deficiendi periculum, ubi proficiendi deposuerint appetitum. 
q August. in Ps. 〈◊〉.  Quantumcunque hic profecerimus, nemo dicat sufficit mihi, iustus sum, qui sic dixit remansit in viâ, non novit pervenire. Vbi dixit sufficit ibi haesit.  

r Cap. 8.  Fiftly, justit ia bonorum operum in fide, est vera coram Deo iustitia, utcunque mixta peccatis & imperfecta, tum quoad universa mandata implenda, tum quoad modum implendi, verèque & plenè legi Dei satisfacit, non solum quia quam proximè arcedit ad plenam & perfectam iustitiam, aut quia gravioribus saltem criminibus caret, aut etiam quia id agit proficiendo de die in diem, ut omni prorsus peccato careat, & plene satisfaciat, sed adhuc praeterea, quia quicquid deest ad plenam, & perfectam adimpletionem, mandata praetermittendo, & frequenter venialiter peccando, sive propter imperfectionem, in modo & ratione implendi, id totum Christi misericordia & gratia indulget, atque ignoscit, facitque indulgendo, ut perinde simus coram Deo iusti, ac si untuersa ad amussim omnia mandata, eademque perfectissimè fecissemus.  
This doctrine of Stapleton thus delivered, is such as no Protestant can dislike, neither can he descent from them, if he constantly persist in the same, but that he may make show of some difference between him and them, he saith, that a three fold fraud of the Protestants touching remission of sins, is to be avoided. First, In that they make our justification, so consist in the sole remission of sins by faith, that the sacraments confer nothing to our justification. But this is untrue, for they teach no such thing, but that baptism and repentance, are necessarily required, in them that are to be first justified. The second supposed fraud is, that actions of virtue, and the careful endeavour to walk in the commandments of God, are not necessary to our second justification, or the augmentation, progress, and daily perfecting of the same more and more. But this is a calumniation as the former; for they make the second justification, to consist of two parts. The daily progress in well doing, whereby the righteousness inherent is more and more perfected. And the daily remission of such sinful defects, as are found in their actions. Neither do they say, that mortal sins, and such as do vastare conscientiam, stand with justification; and therefore the daily remission which the justified man seeketh, is not of those. The third fraud, to wit, that this remission of sins is obtained by faith only, without all those means that are necessary to attain the same, is but his own imagination; for howsoever faith only apprehend this remission, yet other things necessarily concur, as fitting to the receiving of the same.  
Hitherto we have strongly proved that no man can live in this world without venial sin, and consequently that no man fulfilleth the law exactly. We have likewise showed that the best learned in the Roman Church do think, that the justified do so fulfil the law, as that they have need of continual remission of sins. Only onething may be alleged against this that we have hitherto insisted upon, 
* Chemnitius (saith Bellarmine de iustific. l 4. c. 14.) v●…geth that he that fulfilleth the whole law a●…b no sin, that in many things we si ne all and that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole law. This argument they do not well answer, that think venial sins to be properly sins and against the law, s●…●…cy must ●…ay it is possible to fulfil, not because it may wholly be kept, but in the greater part. Thomas 1. 2. quest. 88 art. 1. a●…serit peccata ven●…ia, non esse peccata simpliciter, sed imperfectè, & secundum quid, neque esse contra legem, sed praeter legem.  that venial sins are not against but besides the law, that they are improperly sins, and that they do not offend nor displease God, and that therefore the committing of those no way hindereth, but that the fulfilling of the law may be accounted perfect. But 
s Lib. 14. cap. 13.  Andreas Vega learnedly refuteth this fancy, and showeth at large, that they are properly and absolutely sin, for that they are actus mali simpliciter, quip qui voluntarij & circa materiam indebitam, & à rectâ ratione deviant, ac dissentiunt, & poenâ, ac reprehensione digni iure apud omnes censentur. And sundry others agree with him in the same. So that it is clear, that though the gift of righteousness be given to the justified, and they inclined to do the things the law requireth, yet it doth not make them to decline all evil, or to do all good that the law requireth, but so to decline evil, as not to suffer it to be predominant, and so to do good, as principally to delight in well doing, and above all things to desire to please God.  
Only one thing remaineth that is questionable, whether the good works of the justified be sin or not. That they are we have the testimony of 
t 9 Moral. c. 1:  Gregory, Sanctus vir omne meritum virtutis nostrae vitium esse conspicit, si ab interno arbitro districtè iudicetur, ideo recte subiungit, si voluerit contendere cum eo, non poterit ei respondere unum pro mille, et 9 Moral. c. 28. Quamvis lamentis supernae compunctionis infundar: quamvis per studia rectae operationis exe●…cear, in tuâ tamen munditiâ, video quia mundus non sum. Intentam quip in Deum animam, ipsam adhuc corruptibilis caro diverberat, eiusque amoris pulchritudinem, obscaenis & illicitis cogitationum motibus faedat. Et 9 Moral. c. 14. Omnis humana iustiva iniustitia convincitur si districtè iudicetur: prece ergo post iustitiam indiget, ut quae succumbere discussa poterat, ex solà iudicis pietate convalescat.  
And 
u Li. 11. c. 40.  Vega confesseth, that not only the life of all the holiest in this world, is stained with many venial sins, but also that the good works of the most perfect, come short of that goodness, with which it were fit, we should worship, praise, and honour God, they are not so pure, so holy, so fervent, as the greatness of God and of his benefits bestowed on us, might justly require and exact of us.  

x De justific. li. 6. c. 21.  Stapleton saith Non est tanta eorum iustitia ut vel sine peccato semper sit, vel nihil illi addi queat. 
y De perfect. iustitiae.  August: contra Coelestium, In illâ plenitudine charitatis praeceptum illud implebitur, Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, & ex totâ animâ tuâ, &c: Nam cum est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnimodo ex totâ animâ diligitur Deus. 
z Stapl. ib. c. 10.  Propter concupiscentiam minuitur, distrahitur, & impeditur illa dilectio. Non amatur Deus perfectè ex tota anima in hac vita: non quia avertitur à Deo, sed quia avocatur, non quia à Deo abstrahitur, sed quia distrahitur. Denique non quia charitas Dei per hunc conflictum tollitur, sed quia usus ipsius charitatis impeditur, ut scitè distinguit Thomas 2. 2, q. 44. ar. 4. ad 2. Fit autem haec avocatio, haec distractio, haec diminutio delectationis sanctae in ipsà animâ, quia sine animâ caro non concupiscit, quamvis caro concupiscere dicatur, quia carnaliter anima concupiscit. 
a August. l. 4. c. 2. contra julian  Concupiscentia inquantum inest nocet, non quidem ad perdendum de sorte sanctorum nisi ei consentiatur, tamen ad minuendam spiritualem delectationem sanctarum mentium, illam scilicet de quâ dicit Apostolus, Condelector legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem. There is an imperfection in our love of God, and we come short of that which the Law requireth of us, for we should love him so, as to love or desire nothing more, nothing so much, nothing but for him, nothing that he would not have loved, nothing otherwise then he would have us: but this we do not, therefore we break this law. Their 
b Stapl 16. c. 11.  answer is, that these laws do only teach us, what we are to desire, and what we are hereafter to attain, but do not bind us under the pain of sin. If we ask them why, they answer, because our nature is so corrupted, that we cannot fulfil them, and thus doth Stapleton answer this question; but himself presently showeth the insufficiency of this answer, for he telleth us out of August: that the righteousness of the first man was such, as to obey God, and to have no law of concupiscence, De peccat: merit: & remission. lib. 2. cap: 23. And out of the same August. De Civitate Deil. 14. c. 10 Erat amor eius imperturbatus in Deum, that is, he was wholly carried unto God without distraction or perturbation. And addeth, that this primitive righteousness, (which the law of nature bound man to have,) the law was to prescribe and require, quia ideo data est, ut extinctam propemodum naturae legem in hominibus restauraret; August. qu: in vetus testiment. q. 4. And that the rule of the law, which is a perpetual and immutable law of justice in God, was not to be altered or any way bowed and iuclined in respect of the depravation of our nature; He saith therefore that the rule, without any change remaineth the same, and commandeth all manner of perfection: and that not to have the perfection it requireth, is a transgression of the law, in all them that by Adam's sin are so corrupted, unless this corruption be remitted. So then this law bindeth the unregenerate; and do the regenerate owe less to God? It remaineth therefore a clear truth, that the most just do not perform the works of virtue, with that purity and fervency of affection, that the law requireth, according to that of S. Paul who confesseth, that what he would do that he did not, and what he would not that he did, that to will, was present with him, but that he found no ability to perform.  
Ambrose de fugâ saeculi citatus ab August. contra duas epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium lib. 4. cap. 11. hath these words, Frequenter irrepit terrenarum illecebra cupiditatum, & vanitatum offusio mentem occupat, ut quod studeas vitare, hoc cogites animoque voluas. Quod cavere difficile est homini, exuere autem impossibile. Non in potestate nostrâ est cor nostrum, & nostrae cogitationes, quae improviso offusae, mentem animumque confundunt, atque alio trahunt quam tu proposueris, ad saecularia revocant, mundana inserunt: voluptaria ingerunt, illecebrosa intexunt, ipsoque in tempere quo elevare mentem paramus, insertis inanibus cogitationibus, ad terrena plerumque deijcimur.  
And 
c Contra Luciferianos.  Hierome, Fiat tibi inquit Deus secundum fidem tuam, hanc ego vocem audire nolo, si enim secundum fidem meam fiat mihi peribo. Et certè credo in Deum patrem, credo in deum filium, & credo in Deum spiritum sanctum, credo in unum Deum: & tamen secundum meam fidem nolo mihi fieri. Saepe quippe venit inimicus homo & inter dominicam messem zizania interserit. Neque hoc dico, quod maius quicquam sit quam sacramenti fides, quam puritas animae: sed indubitata ad Deum fides arduè reperitur. Verbi gratiâ dictum sit, ut quod volumus perspicuum fiat, ad orationem assisto, non orarem si non crederem, sed si verè crederem, illud cor quo Deus videtur mundarem, manibus tunderem pectus, genas lacrimis rigarem, corpore inhorrescerem, ore pallerem, iacerem ad Domini mei pedes eosque fletu perfunderem, crine tergerem, haererem certè trunco crucis, nec prius amitterem, quam misericordiam impetrarem. Nunc vero creberrimè in oratione meâ aut per porticus deambulo, aut de faenore computo, aut abductus turpi cogitation, etiam quae dictu erubescenda sunt gero. Vbi est fides? siccine putamus or ass jonam? sic tres pueros? sic Danielem inter leones? sic certè latronem in cruse?.  
And this is confirmed by the author of the book called Scala coeli, written in English long since a manuscript whereof I have seen, When thou wouldst have the mind of thy hart upward to God in thy prayer, thou feelest so many thoughts in vain, and of thine own deeds before done, or what thou shalt do, that it cannot be so: yet do we rightly require it should be so. Thou shalt love God with all thy hart, and all thy soul, and thy might, it is impossible to any man, to fulfil this bidding so fully as it is said, living in earth, and yet nevertheless our Lord bade us to love so, for this intent as S. Bernard saith, that we should know thereby our feebleness, and then meekly cry mercy, and we shall have it.  
Saint 
d In Cantica serm. 50.  Bernard making two constructions of that precept, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God etc. The one, that it requireth that we should first taste the sweetness of the Lord, and love him as the first thing that is dear unto us, and ourselves in and for God, no otherwise, as finding nothing in ourselves worth regarding, but for him, without whom we are nothing. The other, that it requireth us to love nothing so much as God, to be affected towards him as most worthy to be beloved, & to desire that we might so taste of his goodness, as to love him first, & nothing but for him. The former of these 2 he saith, is impossible to be had in this life. Quis enim sibi arrogare id audeat quod se Paulus ipse fatetur non comprehendisse? Nec latuit praeceptorem praecepti pondus hominum excedere vires, sed iudicavit utile, ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficientiae admoneri: & ut scirent sanè ad quem iustitiae finem niti pro viribus oporteret. Ergo mandando impossibilia, non praevaricatores homines fecit, sed humiles, ut omne os obstruatur, & subditus fiat omnis mundus Deo. Quia ex operibus legis, non iustificabitur omnis caro coram illo. Accipientes quippe mandatum, & sentientes defectum, clamabimus in coelum, & miserebitur nostri Deus, & sciemus in illâ die, quia non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam saluos nos fecit.  
And that all our best works are defective, and that it is not safe to trust to them; the same Bernard showeth in his sermon De verbis Apostoli, 
* Qui gloriatur in domino glorietur.  Perfecta & secura gloriatio est, cum veremur omnia opera nostra, sicut testatur beatus Iob de seipso, & cum Esaiâ Prophetâ omnes iustitias nostras, non aliud quam panum menstruatae reputandas esse cognoscimus; nihilominus tamen confidimus etiam, & gloriamur in domino, cuius misericordia tanta est super nos, ut à gravioribus quidem, quae ad mortem peccata sunt, custodiat nos, & tam benignè imperfectionis nostrae delicta, & conversationis impuritatem nobis manifestare, cognitam condonare dignetur, quatenus in humilitate & sollicitudine, & gratiarum actione firmiter radicati, iam non in nobis, sed in domino gloriemur.  

e De justificat. art. 8. p. 19  Ruard Tapper saith, our righteousness is imperfect, in virtue and efficacy, in that it cannot expel, and keep all sin out of the soul: whence it will follow, that it is sinfully defective in itself. For righteousness keepeth out sin by way of contrariety, and each contrary if it be in such degree as it should, keepeth out the contrary; if therefore it be in such degree as it should be, it will suffer no sin. For God requireth of us an entire obedience; and as he that will leave a sin in such sort as he should, must leave all: so he that will have any one virtue so as he should, must have all, and consequently can have no sin. Bellarmine de justificat: lib: 4. cap: 14: saith, He that keepeth the whole law, and offendeth in any one, is guilty of all, and that therefore if those sins which we call venial, (as many the best in the Roman Church defend,) be simply and absolutely sins, and violations of the law, whosoever committeth any one of them and breaketh the law in so doing, is in a sort guilty of the breach of all, and keepeth no one of them as he should.  
Wherefore by the clear confession, of many the worthiest in the Church in former times, and by necessary consequence from that all taught, it is evident, that our righteousness is imperfect, not only by reason of the mixture of sins, but of the sinful defect and imperfection, found in the good works which we do Which thing Augustine long since excellently delivered, ad Bonifacium lib. 3. cap. 7. Virtus quae nunc est in homine iusto, hactenus perfecta nominatur, ut ad eius perfectionem pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis, & in veritate agnitio, & in humilitate confessio. Tunc enim est secundum hanc infirmitatem, pro suo modulo perfecta, ista parva iustitia, quandò etiam quid sibi desit intelligit. & 1 Retract. c. 19 Omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. & in Confess. Vae hominum vitae quantumvis laudabili si remotâ misericordiâ iudicetur.  
Wherefore seeing it is clearly confessed, that the righteousness of the just is impure, as Bernard speaketh, not only in respect of the mixture of sin, but of sinful imperfection, found in the best works of virtue, done by them. I think we may safely follow their opinion who say, that for the attaining of heaven happiness, not only a twofold righteousness is necessary, the one inherent, the other imputed, but that this imputed righteousness of Christ, is twice offered and presented by Christ to God the Father, first that our sins may be remitted, we accepted, and renewing grace may be given unto us: and secondly, that for his sake the imperfections & defects of our inherent righteousness found in us, by renewing grace may be covered, that we may avoid the extremity and severity of God's righteous judgement, & that he may accept our weak endeavours, and admit us into heaven, notwithstanding all our failings.  

f Posid. de vitâ Aug. c. 27.  Pos●…idonius writeth of Ambrose, that when he was ready to dye he used these words, Non sic vixi ut me pudeat inter vos vivere: sed nec mori timeo, quia bonum Dominum habemus: and he saith that S. August. when he was now aged, was wont much to admire and praise this saying of S. Ambrose, Ideo enim eum dixisse nec mori timeo, quia bonum Dominum habemus; ne crederetur praefidens de suis purgatissimis moribus praesumpsisse, Non sic vixi ut me pudeat inter vos vivere: Hoc dixerat ad illud quoa homines de homine nosse poterant. Nam sciens examen aequitatis divinae, de bono Domino se dicit magis, quam de meritis suis confidere: cui etiam in oratione quotidianâ Dominicâ dicebat: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, etc. And Cuthbertus that writeth the life of Beda saith, that he also was wont often to repeat this saying of S. Ambrose.  
S. Aug. cont. Crescon l. 3. c. 80. speaketh thus, Ad existimationem hominum magna testium qui me noverunt suppetit copia, ad Dei vero conspectum sola conscientia, quam contra vestras criminationes, cum intrepidam geram, non me tamen sub oculis omnipotentis iustificare audeo, magisque ab illo effluentem misericordiae largitatem, quam judicij summum examen expecto, cogitans quod scriptum est, Cúm rex iustus sederit in throno, quis gloriabitur castum se habere cor, aut quis gloriabitur mundum se esse à peccato? Which thing Gerson also showeth De verbis Christi, Venite ad me omnes. Haec & his similia Diabolo tentanti, & peccatum suae diffidentiae vel desperationis ingerere volenti soleo respondere: ne quando praevaleat inimicus meus super me. At si quando me cogitatio in conspectu divinae maiestatis rapuerit, ibi certè longèaliter procedo, quia tunc me pulveren cineremque esse recognosco. Tunc me peccatorem miserrimum, & supplicio dignissimum profiteor, & cum omni reverentiâ veniam deprecor. Tunc quasi super terram sto, & alas submitto, quas in altercatione Diaboli quasi in coelo volans extensas teneo: ut semper & coram Diabolo erectus inveniar, & humilis coram Deo.  

g Guil. in vitâ Bernard. c. 12.  Of S. Bernard it is reported, cum extremum iam spiritum trahere videretur, in excessu mentis suae, ante tribunal domini sibi visus est praesentari, affuit antem & Satan ex adverso, improbis eum accusationibus pulsans; ubi vero ille omnia fuerat prosecutus, & viro Dei pro suâ fuit parte dicendum, nihil territus aut turbatus ait, Fateor non sum dignus ego, nec proprijs possum meritis obtinere regnum coelorum; caeterum duplici iure illud obtinens Dominus meus, haereditate scilicet patris, & merito passionis; altero ipse contentus, alterum mihi donat, ex eius dono iure illud mihi vendicans non confundor. In hoc verbo confusus inimicus, conventus ille solutus, & homo Dei in se reversus est. 
h De simil. c. 6.  Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury bringeth in a godly man thus speaking to the Angels, Quod in regno Dei vestrâ quaerimus aequalitate beari, dono & gratiae jesu Christi Domini nostri id ascribimus: qui ad hoc dignatus est homo fieri, pati, mori, ut nos ab omni delicto, in sanguine suo iustificatos, ipsius regni consortes efficeret.  
And the same Anselm is 
i Hosius Tom. 1. pag. 291. confessionis Cathol. c. 73.  said, to have prescribed certain interrogatories, to be proposed to such as were ready to die, Inter quas extrema est, Credis te non posse nisi per mortem Christi saluari? respondet infirmus etiam. Tum illi dicitur: age igitur dum superest in te anima, in hâc solâ morte fiduciam tuum constitue; in nullâ re aliâ fiduciam habe; huic morti te totum commit, hâc solâ tetotum contege, totum te immisce in hâc morte, totum confige, in hâc morte totum involve; & si Dominus Deus voluerit te iudicare, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri jesu Christi obijcio inter me & iudicium tuum: aliter tecum non contendo; & si tibi dixerit quia peccator es, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri jesu Christi pono inter te & peccata mea; si dixerit tibi, quòd meruisti damnationem, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri jesu Christi obtendo inter me & mala merita mea, ipsiusque mortem offero pro merito, quod ego debuissem habere, nec habeo; si dixerit, quod tibi est iratus, dic: Domine, mortem Domini nostri jesu Christi oppono inter me & iram tuam.  
And 
k Ibid p. 292.  Hosius saith, the book called Hortulus animae hath the same interrogatories; and that the Franciscan Friars observant, had the same in the friary at Trent, translated into Italian, & that he had seen Sacerdotale Romanum, in which this interrogation is found, Credis non propriis meritis, sed passionis Domini nostri jesu Christi virtute et merito, ad gloriam pervenire? Respondet infirmus, credo: Iterum sacerdos, Credis quod Dominus noster Iesus Christus pro nostrâ salute mortuus sit; & quod ex propriis meritis, vel alio modo, nullus possit saluari, nisi in merito passionis eius? Respondet infirmus credo; Et in fine dicit sacerdos; si Dominus Deus voluerit te secundum peccata tua iudicare, dicas: Domine Deus, ego pono mortem Domini nostri jesu Christi inter me & iudicium tuum: et quamuis meruerim aeternam mortem propter peccata mea, interpono tamen meritum passionis eiusdem, loco meriti, quod ego miser habere deberem & non habeo Item, Domine pono eandem passionem & mortem Domini mei jesu Christi inter me et iram tuam, & in manus tuas Domine commendo spiritum meum. 
l Citat: ab Hosio: ibid.  There is extant a certain form of confession attributed to S Bernard, in which he speaketh to God in this sort, Recordare Domine jesu, quia tuum non est perdere quicquam eorum, quae Pater tuus dedit tibi: quin tibi proprium est misereri semper & parcere, neminem perdere sed salvare; nam Pater tuus misit te in mundum, non ut iudices mundum: sed ut vitam habeamus per te; ut sis propitiatio nostra, & advocatus noster, non contra nos. Quod enim debuimus, tu soluisti, quod peccavimus, tu luisti; quod negleximus, tu supplesti; proficiat ergo nunc Domine, et in extremis meis plenaria, imò superflua satisfactio, amarissima mors tua, & pretium inaestimabile fusi sanguinis tui, commemoratio satisfactionis tuae, &c: 
m Hosius ibid.  Ante annos 200, quidam Dominicanus Coloniae, quomodo forent aegroti consolandi, docuit his verbis, Morti jam vicinus, prorsus nihil suis bonis operibus confidere debet, nec propter mala diffidere: sed omnem spem in merita Christi, & ejus immensam misericordiam collocare; haec est fides Catholica, & Christiana, quae neminem fallere potest. So that hitherto we find, the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, was a Protestant Church, and that they were taught to die in the same faith, that we now are.  
But some man will say, howsoever these disclaimed all merit, and confidence in works, as living in bad times, wherein iniquity abounded, and charity was waxen cold, yet others of a more excellent quality, pleaded their own righteousness and innocency, desiring to be judged according to the same. So David Ps. 26. and elsewhere. And so when the Lord had said to Ezechias, set thy house in order, for thou must die, he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, & said, 
n Es: 38.  I beseech thee Lord remember, how I have walked before thee in truth, & with a perfect hart, & have done that which is good in thy sight. And Paul 2. Tim. 4. with more confidence, when his dissolution was at hand, & he was ready to be offered up, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, & henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge shall give me in that day. Of Hilarion Hierom reporteth, that when he was ready to die, he used these words, Egredere, quid times, egredere anima mea, quid dubitas, sexaginta annis seruivisti Christo, & mortem times? & in haec verba spiritum exhalavit.  
But the answer hereunto is easy, for the divines do note, that there is justitia causae, facti, personae, a righteousness of some particular cause, of some particular fact, & of the person. Causae, & so David oftentimes desired of God, to be judged in the differences, between him & his adversaries that wronged him, according to his righteousness & innocency in those quarrels. Of fact, so it is said that Phinees stood up & wrought vengeance, & it was imputed to him for righteousness, that is, he was judged to have done a righteous act in so doing. The righteousness of the person is twofold, for there is a righteousness that is sincere, true, & pure; & there is a righteousness that is true, & sincere, but not pure. None of the Ss ever pleaded the former kind of righteousness, nor desired to be judged according to the same. For David in that respect declineth judgement saying, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for no flesh is righteous in thy sight; & again, If thou Lord shouldest be extreme to mark what is done amiss, who should be able to abide it? But in the latter sort, they do plead the truth, & simplicity of their hearts, & the sincerity of the righteousness that is found in them. And this for 2 reasons, first in that hereby they are assured, that they pertain to God, that hath thus begun to do good unto them, & so confirm themselves, in the hope & expectation of that they desire, by the consideration of the good he hath already done unto them. And besides also, for that they know this is the condition, wherewith all the promises of God made unto them for their good are limited; and therefore if they found not this they could expect nothing of God, & finding this they need not to doubt to obtain any thing that is necessary for them. And in this sort do Cardinal Contarenus, & Albertus Pighius men of no small esteem in the Roman Church, clear these objections. So that it remaineth firm which I have delivered, that the righteousness which is inherent in the just, is impure & unperfect, & that it is not safe to rely upon it.  
But because this is a matter of great consequence, I will demonstrate, that the same was taught before, at, & after Luther's time, by men of best place and quality, in the Church wherein our fathers lived. 
o De verbis Esaiae Vidi dominum sedentem etc. serm. 5.  Bernard distinguisheth 4 kinds of righteousness. Our righteousness he saith is Recta, sed non pura: of which our Fathers said no less truly then humbly, All our righteousness is as the polluted rags of a menstruous woman. For how can our righteousness be pure, wherein it cannot be but there should be sin? The righteousness of the first man, was both right, and pure, but because it was not firm and constant, it lost purity, and retained not so much as the rectitude it had. In the Angels there is righteousness right, pure, and firm, of an high and excellent nature, but much inferior to that of God. Non enim innata est iis, sed à Deo collata, ut natura ipsa, quod ex se est, non modo iustitiae, sed etiam iniustitiae capax inveniatur. Numquid non ista est pravitas quaedam quam in angelis suis vera illa iustitia legitur invenisse? That is. The righteousness that is found in the Angels, is not inborn, but given to them, & bestowed on them: so that their nature, as of it self, is capable not only of righteousness, but of unrighteousness also. And is not this a kind of pravity and iniquity, which that true and perfect justice is said to have found in his Angels? For he that was not ignorant of the justice of God, saith, no one living shall be justified in thy sight. He saith not, no man, but no one living, happily that thou mayst know that he excepteth not the Angelical spirits. For they live, and so much more truly than men, as they are nearer to him in whom is the fountain of life. Yet these are just, sed ex eo non coram eo, munere eius, non in eius comparatione, that is, from him, not before him, by his gift, but not in comparison with him.  
For the clearing of this point Pet. Pomponatius noteth, that there is defectus in specie, defectus in genere, and defectus in latitudine entis, that is, Things do fail & come short of perfection 3 ways, for there are some things that want that perfection that pertaineth to things of their particular kind: some things that want not that perfection, & yet come short of that, which some other of the same general kind have: & somethings that have all perfection, that any thing of their kind any way can have, & yet come short of that which is found in the latitude & extent of perfection & being. Examples of the first, ignorance, error, blindness, etc. in men. Of the second, the want of reason in bruit beasts, which are living creatures as well as men, & yet come short of that perfection that is found in men; and likewise the sons of men come short of that perfection of intellectual light, that is found in the Angels. Of the third in all the most perfect creatures, which come short of that which is found in God, who is being itself: they are this, and not that, they have being after not being, and would have not being after being, if they were left to themselves, they are good, but not connaturally, they are no less capable of evil then of good, they are good, but mutably good, and so in respect of GOD, imperfectly good. In this sense job saith, God found folly in his servants, and vanity in his Angels. This kind of defect or evil, is without all fault, sin, or blame of things wherein it is found: and is incident to the nature and condition of all created things, which are compounded of being and not being, perfection and want: and consequently have some thing of good, and some thing of evil. That defect that is in respect of perfections, that other things of the same general kind have, is likewise a natural consequent of the different degrees of things, and nothing is blamed for being thus defective. So the righteousness that was in Adam, was inferior to that of the Angels confirmed in grace, yet was it not sinful.  
But the righteousness of the just, cometh short of that which pertaineth to men. And though it be right, true, sincere, and not dissembled, yet hath it such defects, that it is impure. What may all our righteousness be before God? will it not be found and esteemed as the Prophet saith, to be like the rags of a menstruous woman, and if it be strictly examined, will not all our righteousness be found to be unrighteous and defective? What therefore will become of our sins, when our righteousness is not able to answer for itself? Therefore crying out earnestly with the Prophet, Lord enter not into judgement with thy servant, let us with all humility fly to mercy, which only is able to save our souls. Bernardus super Cantica serm. 61. Vbi tuta firmaque infirmis securitas & requies, nisi in vulneribus saluatoris: Tanto illic securior habito, quanto ille potentior est ad salvandum; fremit mundus, premit corpus, diabolus insidiatur, nec cado: fundatus enim sum super firmam petram. Peccavi peccatum grande, turbatur conscientia, sed non perturbabitur, quoniam vulnerum Domini recordabor. Ego vero fidenter quod ex me mihi deest, usurpo mihi ex visceribus Domini, quoniam misericordia effluit, nec desunt foramina per quae effluat. 
p Ps. 22.  Foderunt manus eius etc. & per has rimas licet mihi sugere mel de petrâ, oleumque de saxo durissimo. Cogitabat cogitationes pacis, & ego nesciebam. Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? At clavis ●…eserans, clavus penetrans factus est mihi, ut videam voluntatem Domini. Meum meritum, miseratio Domini: non planè sum meriti inops, quamdiu ille miserationum non fuerit. Nunquid iustitias meas cantabo? Domine memorabor iustitiae tuae solius: ipsa est enim & mea: nempe factus es tu iustitia mihi à Deo. Nunquid mihi verendum nè una ambobus non sufficiat? non est pallium breve, quod (secundum Prophetam) non possit operire duos. But because happily some exception may be taken to Saint Bernard, as if he had some singular opinion, I will show that all the glorious lights of the Church, ever believed as he did, and as we do. Theodoret in Ps: 23. Quae existimantur remunerationes, propter solam divinam benignitatem hominibus praebentur. Omnes enim hominum iustitiae, nihil sunt ad dona, quae à Deo nobis suppeditata sunt, nedum ad futura munera, quae omnem humanam cogitationem transcendunt. Chrysost: in Ps. 4. Etiamsi innumerabilia recte fecerimus à miserationibus & clementiâ audimur. Etiamsi ad ipsum virtutis fastigium pervenerimus, servamur à misericordiâ. Et in Ps. 6. super illa verba, Miserere mei Domine quoniam infirmus sum. Hâc voce omnes egemus, etiamsi innumerabilia rectè & ex virtute fecerimus, & vel ad summam pervenerimus iustitiam.  
August: in Ps. 142. Omnes dereliquistis me dicit Dominus: quid vultis mecum in iudicium intrare, & vestras iustitias commemorare? Commemorate iustitias vestras; ego novi facinora vestra. Nolo tecum habere causam, ut ego proponam iustitiam meam, tu convincas iniquitatem meam. Ne intres in iudicium cum servo tuo, Quare hoc? Quare times? Quoniam non iustificabitur coram te omnis vivens. Omnis itaque vivens iustificare forte potest se, coram se, non coram te. Quomodo coram se? sibi placens, tibi displicens, coram te autem non iustificabitur omnis vivens. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videar, producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam, coaptas me ad eam et pravus invenior.  
Grego: moral: ult. Si autem de his divinitus districtè discutimur: quis inter ista remanet salutis locus, quando & mala nostra pura mala sunt; & bona quae nos habere credimus, pura bona esse nequaquam possunt? Beda in explicatione Ps. 24. Ne memineris delicta, sed potius memento mei Domine, ut miserearis secundum misericordiam tuam, id est, te condignam, non secundum iram me condignam; tu dico ad quem pertinet, qui solus misereris, solus mederis, solus peccata dimittis; & hoc non facias propter merita mea, sed propter bonitatem, id est suavitatem tuam. Et in Ps. 31. Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, etc. Instruit videlicet, ut nemo vel libertatem arbitrii vel merita sua sufficere sibi ad beatitudinem credat, sed solâ gratiâ Dei se salvari posse intelligat. Alcuinus in Ps. 50. Sordidare me potui, sed emundare nequeo, nisi tu Domine jesu sancti sanguinis tui aspersione, mundum me facias. Et in Ps. 142. Ad meum cum respicio nihil aliud in me nisi peccatum invenio, tota liberatio mea tua est iustitia, item, Dei miseratione in nomine salvatoris, non nostris meritis vivificati sumus.  
Radulphus Arden's, homil: super Evangelium Dominicae quartae Adventus. Quid ergo dicemus fratres, nisi vel quantumcunque bonum fecerimus, semper nos indignos dicamus? Nec hoc dicamus solo ore, quasi mentiendo ex humilitate, sed ment credamus, ore confiteamur. juxta quod ipsa veritas admonet, dicens. Cum omnia feceritis quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite, servi inutiles sumus, quod debuimus facere non fecimus. Et Homil: super Evang. Dominicae Septuagesimae. Sicut Deus est liber ad promittendum, ita est liber ad reddendum, praesertim cum tam merita quam praemia sint gratia sua. Nihil enim aliud quam gratiam suam coronat in nobis Deus, qui si vellet in nobis agere districtè, non iustificaretur in conspectu eius omnis vivens. Vnde Apostolus qui plus omnibus laboravit, dicit: Existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis, etc.  
Gerson de consolat: theolog: l. 4. pros. 1. Quis gloriabitur se mundum cor habere? &c: Quis non constitutus sub iudicijs Dei terribilis in consilijs suis super filios hominum trepidaverit? Hinc afflictus job, verebar omnia opera mea, etc. Et iterum, Si voluerit mecum contendere, non potero unum respondere pro mille; cui conformis est oratio prophetica, Non intres in iudicium cum seruo tuo Domine, quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens; & rursus, Si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine quis sustinebit. Porro quid Esaias se cum caeteris involuens sibique vilescens protulerit legimus, Omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae. Quis igitur iustitias suas velut gloriabundus ostentaverit Deo, plus quam pannum confusionis suae mulier viro?  
Gabriel Biel writing upon the Canon of the Mass fol. 209. lect. 82. Allegeth and approveth this saying of Bernard serm. 5. de dedicatione ecclesiae; Nonnunquam de animâ meâ cogitans, videor mihi in eâ fateor velut duo contraria invenire; si ipsam prout in se est, & ex se intueor, nihil de eá verius sentire possum, quam ad nihilum esse redactam, cum sit onerata peccatis, obfusa tenebris, irretita illecebris, pruriens concupiscentiis, obnoxia passionibus, & impleta illusionibus, prona semper ad malum, & in vitium omne proclivis, &c: nimirum si ipsae quoque iusticiae nostrae omnes ad lumen veritatis inspectae, velut pannus menstruatae inveniuntur, iniustitiae quales deinceps reputabuntur? si lumen quod in nobis est tenebrae sunt, ipsae tenebrae qnantae erunt? Facile cuique est si sua plenius universa, & sine dissimulatione vestiget, & judicet sine acceptione personae, attestari per omnia apostolicae veritati, & libere proclamare, qui se putat aliquid esse cum nihil sit, ipse se seducit. Quid est homo quia magnificas eum, ait fidelis & devota confessio; aut quid apponis erga eum cor tuum? Quid? sine dubio vanitati similis 
Gal. 9 job. 7.  factus est homo; ad nihilum redactus est homo; nihil est homo; Quomodo tamen penitus nihil est, quem magnificat Deus? Quomodo nihil erga quem appositum est cor divinum. Tanquam nihil reputatur homo in judicio veritatis tuae, sed non sic in affectu pietatis tuae; nimirum vocas ea quae non sunt, sicut ea quae sunt: & non sunt, ergo quia vocas ea quae non sunt: & sunt, quia vocas: licet enim non sunt quantum apud se, apud te sunt utique juxta Apostolum; non ex operibus, sed ex vocante. Sic nimirum consolaris in tuâ pitate, quem in veritate tuâ humiliasti; ut magnificè dilatetur in tuis qui merito angustiatur in suis: siquidem universae viae domini misericordia & veritas requirentibus testamentum tuum & testimonia tua Pupperus Gocchianus de libertate Christ. part. 3. c. 12, Christus sic operatur iustificationem in sanctis suis, quamdiu sunt in hâc vitâ, ut tamen semper in iis sit aliquid adijciendum, quod petentibus benignè adijciat, & confitentibus misericorditèr ignoscat. And the same Gocchianus hath many things against the merit of works, as I will farther show, when I come to speak of merit.  
But to leave particular men, it is evident that the Church of God taught so as we now do, by those questions whereof I spoke before, which were wont to be proposed to men that were ready to dye. Casper Vlenbergius saith, our Fathers throughout the Christian world, even till our time, by those questions by them used, and the answers which they taught men to make to them, lead as it were by the hand the simpler sort to the knowledge of Christ, and the attaining of eternal salvation. And because those questions and answers, contain and comprise in a brief sort, the whole sum of the doctrine of salvation, and the very marrow and kernel of Christianity, as the same Vlenbergius rightly noteth, I will set them down together, as they are found in the book entitled De arte benè moriendi. Primo quaeratur sic, frater laetaris quod in fide Christi morieris? respondeat etiam. Frater poenitet te non tam benè vixisse sicut debuisses? respondeat etiam. Frater habes emendandi animum si spatium vivendi haberes? respondeat etiam. Frater credis te non posse nisi per mortem Christi salvari? respondeat etiam. Agis ei gratias ex toto corde de hoc? respondeat etiam. Age ergo dum est in te anima tua ei semper gratias, & in hâc ejus morte te totum contege, in hâc solâ morte fiduciam tuam constitue, in nullâ aliâ re fiduciam habe, huic morti te totum commit, hâc solà te totum contege, totum immisce te in hâc morte totum confige, in hâc morte te totum involve, & si Dominus Deus te voluerit judicare, dic, Domine, mortem Domini mei IESV CHRISTI objicio inter te & me, & judicium tuum, aliter tecum non contendo; si dixerit quod mereris damnationem, dic, mortem Domini mei IESV CHRISTI objicio inter te & me, & mala merita mea, ipsumque dignissimae passionis meritum offero, pro merito quod ego habere debuissem, & heu non habeo; dicatur iterum. Domine, mortem Domini mei IESV CHRISTI pono inter me, & iram tuam: deinde dicat ter, In manus tuas Domine commendo spiritum meum.  
And as this was the doctrine of the Church even till our days, so in Luther's time, and after, many that joined not with him in the through reformation of the Church, yet concurred with him in this point. Pope 
q In 4. sent. de sacram. Euchar. ●…ol. 61.  Adrian the sixth, Non sine magna temeritate, & damnabili elatione animi, quis innititur propriis meritis, aut praeparationi per confessionem oris, cordis compunctionem, aut alias tanquam ex iis dignus sit, venerabile Sacramentum Eucharistiae sumere; sunt enim merita nostra & praeparatio, velut baculus arundineus, cui dum quis innixus fuerit confringitur, & perforat manum innitentis, & quasi pannus menstruatae sunt omnes justitiae nostrae, ut habetur Esa. 64: jugiter enim supra pannum bonae vitae, quem justitiae operibus reximus, stillamus saniem diversorum criminum. Quae igitur ex iis poterit esse fiducia ad Deum, qui neminem diligit nisi ex toto corde conversum? Recte igitur suasit salvator cum feceritis omnia quae praecepta sunt vobis, dicite servi inutiles sumus, quae debuimus facere fecimus, Luc. 16. etc. Restat igitur ut nemo confidat in se homine, quia sic recedit cor ejus à Deo. Hierem. 17. Maledictus qui confidit in homine, & ponit carnem brachium suum, &c: sed pro dignâ praeparatione, diffidat de omni suâ industriâ, & cum Daniele non in suis justificationibus proferat preces suas, sed in miserationibus domini multis & magnis nimis Dan: 9 sic habitabit in adjutorio altissimi, & in protectione Dei coeli commorabitur: quia ad neminem Deus aspicit, nisiad pauperculum, id est, humilem spiritu, qui se non effert in cogitation velut taurus, sed parua de se sentiens, totum projicit in Deum: Es: ult. Ad quem aspiciam nisi ad pauperculum?  
The 
r Fol. 138.  Enchiridion of Christian institution, published in the provincial council of Colen, hath these words. Scimus quandam esse plenam & absolutam justiciam, seu charitatem, quam in hac vitâ nemo assequitur, sed tantum in futurâ, quando videbimus facie ad facien, & cognoscemus sicuticogniti sumus: sed alia minor est huic vitae competens, quâ ex fide vivimus & ambulamus. Haec etsi omnes motus terrenae cupiditatis, nondum omnino absorbeat atque consumat, consensum tamen prohibet ac extinguit, ac insuper facit, ut magis ac magis in bono proficere pergamus: quae etsi à perfectione iusticiae longè adhuc absit, ea tamen imperfectio iustificationem nostram non remoratur, nec accusationi seu damnationi legis subjacet, saltem in iis qui sunt in Christo jesu. Nam qui Christo (in quo lex quod accusaret, nihil invenit) per fidem concorpores facti sunt, legis imperium beneficio Christi evaserunt: adeo ut, silex imperfectionem eorum accusare pergat, respondere possint. Quid nobis tecum est lex? non tui sed alterius sumus. Tu quae es quae judicas seruos alienos? domino nostro stamus aut cadimus, huic sic visum est ex gratuitâ misericordiâ nos indignos assumere, & quicquid in nobis imperfectionis est condonare, quid ad te? Quid nobis alienum invides beneficium? Recepit nos ille in membra sua, scuto suae bonae voluntatis protexit nos, suâ justitiâ nos induit. Quamobrem si nos impetere pergas, eum tibi opponemus, cui per fidem inhaerescimus, in eo certè non habes quicquam, proinde nec in nobis, qui de corpore ejus per gratuitam misericordiam facti sumus. 
s Fol. 138.  Et ibid. paulo ante. Per fidem donum iustificationis tunc demum accipis, cum perterrefactus ac concussus in poenitentiâ, rursus erigeris per fidem, credens tibi remissa esse peccata propter meritum Christi, qui in se credentibus remissionem peccatorum pollicitus est: & cum simul sentis te jam alio affectu quam prius rapi, hoc est, eo affectu quo peccata quae prius delectabant, jam ex animo odis, & ad faciendum bonum, carnis infirmitati fortiter repugnans, intus accenderis, tametsi is affectus nondum sit in bono perfectus & absolutus. Hanc enim imperfectionem quam viribus tuis supplere non potes, supplebis ex fide in Christum, credens justitiam Christi (cujus membrum factus es) tuum imperfectum suppleturam, si tamen perpetuo pro viribus quas tibi dominus suppeditaverit, coneris eam quam accepisti gratiam promovere, & praeteritorum oblitus, non respiciens iterum retro, in anteriora te extendere annitaris.  
Martinus 
t De certitudine salutsses.  Eisengreinius, allegeth & alloweth this of the council of Colen, & sundry other passages of learned and renowned men, in the latter ages of the Church before our time, tending to the same purpose, as namely those things I formerly cited out of Anselm and Hortulus animae: to these 
u Pag. 500  he addeth Thaulerus a famous preacher amongst the Dominicans at Colen more than two hundred years since, who prescribing how the Pastors should comfort the sick, hath these words, Morti jam vicinus, prorsus nihil suis bonis operibus confidere debet, firmâ fiduciâ in meritum Christi saluatoris, & in abyssum maris ejus misericordiae, in cruenta vulnera ejus, cum omnibus suis peccatis se totum immergat: minutissima Christi vulnera omne peccatum mortalium obnubilare ac tegere possunt.  
And with him he joineth Ludovicus Berus, who in his book de mortis periculo 
x Pag. 463.  writeth thus. The devil is wont to tempt men that are ready to die, but let the sick man reject all those temptations, & let him invocate God and say thus Auerte faciem tuam à peccatis meis, & respice in faciem Christi tui jesu saluatoris nostri. Tentator; Scelera tua superant arenam maris. Aegrotus. Copiosior est Domini misericordia. Tentator. Quomodo speras iustitiae praemium tu totus iniustus? Aegrotus. justitia mea Christus est. Tentator. Tu sceleribus opertus quomodo migrabis in requiem? Aegrotus. Cum latrone qui audivit in cruse hodie eris mecum in Paradiso. Tentator. Vnde ista fiducia qui nihil boni feceris? Aegrotus. Quia bonum habeo Dominum, exorabilem iudicem, gratiosum advocatum, Christum jesum omnipotentem saluatorem. Tentator. Detraheris in tartara. Aegrotus. Caput meum in coelo est.  

b In confutatione Prolegomenon Brent●…l. 5. in fine.  Hosius hath these words, Non gloriamur de meritis nostris, non habemus in illis fiduciam nostram collocatam, de hoc solo gloriamur, in hoc solo confidimus, quod membra sumus illius corporis tui, quod pro nobis passum, crucifixum, & mortuum, abundè pro peccatis totius mundi satisfecit. Quamobrem si merita requiris, ecce proferimus tibi merita corporis tui, quod cum de nostro sit, nostra sunt & illius merita: proferimus tibi meritum passionis tuae, ineritum crucis tuae, meritum mortis tuae: haec sunt merita nostra, quae tu clementissime Domine nobiscum pro immensâ benignitate tuâ communicare dignatus es: Secundum haec merita abs te iudicari postulamus, his meritis freti coram tribunali tuo nos intrepidisistimus: nostra sunt quia nostri sunt capitis; nostra sunt quia nostri sunt corporis, á quo nos nefario schismate nunquam praecidimus: haec merita interponimus inter nos & iudicium tuum, aliter tecum iudicio contendere nolumus: de quo solenniter protestamur. These words of Hosius, Eisengreinius saith, are worthy to be written in letters of gold. 
c pag. 475.   

d In fide & justific. fol. 45.  Albertus' Pighius writeth thus, In hominibus duplex considerari potest iustitia, sicut duplex invenitur regula cui conformari debeant: altera quâ iusti sunt coram hominibus, aut inter homines, nempe respondentes legibus quibus constat iustum inter homines; ut neminem afficientes iniuriâ, imo benevolentiâ, humilitatis, charitatisque officijs prosequentes proximos, omnibus in omni ordine, reddentes quod suum est. Altera est iustitia quâ iusti sunt coram Deo. Quod tamen trifariam ferè intelligere possumus. Vel quod nostra iustitia, cum divinâ conferatur. Sic non iustificatur in conspectu eius ulla creatura: ut cuius puritate, merito inquinantur omnia. Velintelligitur homo iustificari coram Deo, hoc est coram tribunali divini iudicij, dum regulae divinae iustitiae, quâ parte ipsum respicit, exactè respondet. Regula est lex: illam dupliciter intelligere possumus, vel in suâ illâ absolutâ perfectione; Vt cum praecipitur ut diligamus Deum, ex totâ animâ, totâ ment, totis viribus, 
e pag. 46.  Vel prout illa ipsa divinae iustitiae lex & regula nos respiciens, nostrae infirmitati aptata condescendit & convenit. Si hoc modo intelligas, ex voluntatis humanae inconstantiâ, & inclinatione quâdam ad carnis sui hospitis amica & desideria, quae ab illâ lege divinae iustitiae nos deflectere, & ad se attrahere, ac sollicitare nunquam cessat, adhuc invenire non est iustum quenquam coram Deo inter filios Adae, sed verum reperietur etiam de hâc ipsâ quamvis imperfectâ iustitiâ, quod non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens; Siquidem iustitia haec, est ad suam regulam, etiam nostrae infirmitati attemperatam exacta correspondentia, & commensuratio in actionibus nostris omnibus. Totum enim universumque hominem denominans iustitia haec, secundum omnes eius parts, & omnes singularum partium actiones, ut illi regulae suae correspondeat, & in officio suo constet necesse est, cuicunque haec iustitia convenit. Neque enim qui partem unam aliquam legis seruaverit, praevaricator in caeteris, hic iustus est. Imo: Quicunque (inquit jacobus) totam legem servaverit, offendit autem in uno, factus est omnium reus. Si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, etc. Christus omnes nos neminem quantumvis iustum excipiens docuit orare, Di●… nobis debita etc. Aversatur Deus omnem iniustitiam. Constat ergo quae de nobis omnibus foret sententia, si Deus voluisset districto nobiscum judicio agere: si non misericordissimè nobis succurrisset in filio: & nostrâ justitiâ vacuos, ejus involuisset justitiâ. Quod verissime intellexit ille, qui ait: Si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine quis sustinebit? Ne intres in judicium, etc. 
f Fol. 47.  In Christi autem obedientiâ, quòd nostra collocatur justitia; inde est, quòd nobis illi incorporatis, ac si nostra esset accepta ea fertur: ita ut eâ ipsâ, etiam nos justi habeamur. Et velut ille quondam jacob, cum nativitate primogenitus non esset, sub habitu fratris occultatus, atque eius veste indutus, quae odorem optimum spirabat, seipsum insinuavit Patri, ut sub aliena persona benedictionem primogeniturae acciperet. Ita & nos, sub Christi primogeniti fratris nostri preciosâ puritate delitescere, bono eius odore fragrare, eius perfectione, vitia nostra sepeliri, & obtegi, atque ita nos piissimo patri ingerere, ut iustitiae benedictionem, ab eodem assequamur necesse est. This of Pighius is acknowledged by our adversaries, and they are wont to allege his example, to show how dangerous it is to read the writings of Protestants, seeing a man so well grounded as he was; was drawn into this opinion by reading of Calvin.  
The most reverend Canons of the Metropolitical Church of Colein, in their antididagma opposed against the book of reformation of Religion, intended by their Archbishop Hermannus, follow the same opinion that Pighius doth, their words are these. 
g Fol. 30.  justificamur à Deo justitiâ duplici, tanquam per causas formales & essentiales. Quarum una & prior est consummata Christi justitia: non quidem quomodo extra nos in ipso est, sed sicut & quando eadem nobis (dum tamen fide apprehenditur) ad iustitiam imputatur. Aliter verò iustificamur formaliter per iustitiam inhaerentem. Cu●… tamen inhaerenti iustitiae (quod sit imperfecta) non innitimur principaliter: sed eâ tanquam interiori quodam experimento, certificamur, nobis (qui talem renovationem spiritus nostri, in nobis sentimus & experimur) remissionem peccatorum factam, & Christi consummatam iustitiam nobis imputari, atque ita Christum per fidem in nobis habitare. Non ignoramus nos nulli alii merito praeterquam solius Christi, neque item ulli alii iustitiae, quam iustitiae Christi, sine qua omninò nulla est iustitia, tanquam fundamento fidei nostrae inniti debere. Quanquam oporteat nos interim, internae illius renovationis, quae fit per charitatem, quam spiritus sanctus in corda nostra diffundit, tanquam arrabonis, aut certè experientiae impetratae remissionis peccatorum, & imputationis justitiae Christi, rationem habere.  

h Apud Goldast. constit. imper. tom. 2.  The book commended to Charles the fifth, as opening a way for the composing of the controversies in Religion then moved, and by him offered and recommended to the Divines, appointed of both sides in the assembly at Ratisbon, for to confer about the composing of the differences in Religion, clearly containeth the same doctrine that the most reverend Canons of Colein delivered before. For in the 5 Article of the same book, the Authors and composers of it, amongst other good things communicated to us in our justification, reckon the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and say, that we are said to be justified by faith, that is, accepted and reconciled unto God, in that it apprehendeth mercy, and the righteousness that is imputed to us for Christ's sake and his merit, and not for the dignity and perfection of the righteousness which is communicated unto us in Christ; And farther they say, that the faithful soul doth not rely upon that righteousness that is inherent in it, but upon the only righteousness of Christ given unto us, without which there neither is, nor can be any righteousness. And they add hereunto, that they that truly repent of their sins, should most firmly, and with great assurance of faith, resolve, that they please God for Christ's sake, who is a Mediator between God and them, because he is a worker of propitiation, a High Priest, and an Intercessor for us, whom the Father hath given unto us, and all good things together with him. And therefore though they say not, as the Canons of Colen, that Christ's righteousness is the formal cause of our justification: yet 
i Lib. 7. c. 21.  Vega thinketh they followed the same opinion, because besides inherent righteousness, they affirm that another righteousness, namely that of Christ, is communicated to us, by which especially we are made righteous, and upon which only we must rely.  
The Interim published by Charles the 5, with the assent of the imperial states, delivereth the same touching justification, that the former authors have done. And the divines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon, agreed in the same explication of the article of justification that we have hitherto delivered.  
A great contention there is and hath been, whether the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, be the formal cause of our justification, and whether we be formally justified by his imputed righteousness or not. But 
k Lib. 7. c. 23.  Andraeas Vega supposeth, that it is a mere logomachy, and verbal contention; which his conjecture I think will be found more than probable. For as I have already showed, in the justification of a sinner three things are employed. 1 To be free from dislike, disfavour, and punishment, as if he had never offended. Secondly, to be respected, favoured, and endeared unto God, in such sort as righteous men are wont to be, as if he had done all righteousness. And thirdly To have the grant of the gift of righteousness, to keep from evil, and incline him to good in the time to come. All these denominations are respective, and a man may be so denominated from something without. For one man is reconciled to another, in that he no longer intendeth evil unto him: and one man is dear unto another, and we are dear unto God formally, by that love whereby we are beloved of him. And because that which giveth satisfaction to God, and that which maketh him well pleased towards us, is that for which formally, or in respect whereof, God willeth our good & not evil; by both these we may be said though in a different sort, to be formally justified. Wherefore having sufficiently cleared the point of controversy, touching the first justifying, and reconciling of a sinner to God, and made it appear, that the Church ever believed as we now do; it remaineth that we speak of the second justification.  
The second justification consisteth, in the 
* 1. john 1. If we say we have ●…o sin we deceive ourselves &c. but if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to remit unto us our sins, and to cleanse us ●…om all iniquity; this perpetuali wishing away of sins C●…rist sign●…fied lotione pedum.  remission of such sins, as the justified man daily through infirmity falleth into, and the progress and going on in well doing, and the daily prevailing against sin, whereby the kingdom of sin is weakened, and the kingdom of grace and righteousness is confirmed, and more strongly established in us. Touching the second justification, there is no difference between us & them that so delivered the doctrine of the first justification, as I have before expressed, but between the Romanists & us, there are sundry things controverted. For 1 ᵗ many of them, deny the venial sins into which the regenerate do fall, to be properly sins, & therefore think not aright of the remission of them. 2● They imagine, that sundry external observations ex opere oper●…to give grace, & remit those sins, whereas in truth, & in the opinion of others, they avail no otherwise, than they stir up devotion, and raise in us good motions and desires, to purge out the remains of sin, and to seek the remission of it. Thirdly, they make the good works of men justified, to deserve increase of grace, & the reward of eternal life, of condignity. But I will show in that which followeth, that the doctrine of merit was never admitted in the Church, neither before, nor after Luther's time. In this justification, men are justified merely by faith as in the first, so far forth as it importeth remission of sins: but in that it importeth an increase, confirmation, and growth in that good that is begun in us: our working of virtue and good endeavours causing the same, may be said to justify, that is, to make us more just inherently than before, & more strongly inclined to good; in which sense S. john saith, Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc.  
The third kind of justification, which is said to be the restoring of men once justified, and afterwards fallen from grace, to the state of grace again, is merely imaginary. For they that are called according to purpose and so justified, do never totally nor finally fall from God.  
The sins which men run into, I have elsewhere showed to be of 2 sorts: Inhabiting only, or Reigning: the former in the judgement of our adversaries themselves, do stand with grace, & the state of justification. Sins regnant are (as Theodoret writing upon the sixth to the Romans, & after him, others do rightly note) of 2 sorts: for either they reign as a tyrant, or as a king: a king reigneth with the love & liking of his subjects, who wish nothing more than to live under him, & think there is no happiness but in his slavery: a tyrant with dislike. They that are justified & called according to purpose, never have sin reigning in them as a king, but sometimes as a tyrant they have. 
* Hugo de sancto victore de sacramentis fidei l. 2. part. 13. c. 12. sed dicunt. si Dauid peccando charitatem amisit: quomodo ergo verum est, qd scriptum est de ipso, quòd spiritus Domini non recedebat a David, ab eo die & de inceps? Si enim charitas recessit: quomodo spiritus Domini remansit? Quasi vero spiritus domini secundum multa alia remanere non potuerit, etiamsi secundum donum charitatis recesserit. Nun & in illis sive cum illis remanet, quos cadentes custodit nè pereant: quos tamen stantes non custodit nè cadant? justus cum ceciderit non collidetur: qiva Dominus supponit manum suam.  For though David & Peter were strangely transported, with the violent passions of fear & lust, yet who will ever think, that these lost all their former good affections towards God, & thought it their happiness to be subject to his enemies? Nay it is clearly delivered concerning Peter, by Theophylact, and sundry others, that though the leaves were shaken off, yet the root remained unmarred.  
justification likewise, as I have showed in the same place, importeth 2 things, An interest, right, & title to the kingdom of heaven, & a claim to it by virtue & force of the same right & title: the one of these may cease & be suspended, when the other remaineth. If a man that hath much due unto him upon good assurances, do some act for which he is excommunicated, or outlawed, he looseth not the title & right he had to the things due unto him upon those assurances, but if the same things be detained, all prosecution of his right is suspended, & all actual claim ceaseth, during the time he continueth in that estate. So in like manner, if a man called according to purpose & justified, who can never finally fall from God, fall into grievous sin, & such as is in some sort regnant, as David did, he looseth not the right & title he formerly had: but the actual claim to that whereto he hath title is suspended. So that he falleth not totally from justification, but so only as for the present to have no actual claim to any thing by virtue o●… it. The remission of his original sin, the right to heaven obtained in baptism, the force and virtue of repentance of former sins, and the right to the rewards of actions of virtue formerly done, remain still: neither needeth he newly to seek remission of sins formerly remitted, but of this only, & the remission of the other will be revived again, & he may make claim to all those things he had formerly right unto, by virtue of the former right. This is clearly delivered by Alexander of Alice p. 4. q. 12. memb. 4. art. 6. 
l In 4. sent. dist. 22. q. 1. art. 2.  Scotus, 
m In 4. senten. d. 22. q. 1.  Durandus; & the rest of the Schoolmen. So that the elect & choose of God once justified, never falling totally from justification, are never to be newly justified again: but the daily & lighter sins they run into, stand with the right they have to the favours of God, & eternal happiness, & the actual claim to the same by that right. The more grievous deprive than of the claim only, & not of the right; & when they are justified & acquitted from these by particular repentance, they are restored to their former claim only, having never lost their right; so that they cannot properly be said to be newly justified, but only to be justified from such particular sins, as they newly run into.  
Having spoken of justification and the nature of it, as it is considered in itself; it remaineth that we come to speak of the things required in men, for the disposing and fitting of them, that they may be capable of this grace. There were amongst the Schoolmen, as 
n St. de. justific. l. 2. c. 4.  Stapleton telleth us, and after them in the beginning of these controversies in religion, who extenuating the corruption of nature, taught unadvisedly, that men without and before the motions of grace, may do certain moral good works, in such sort, as thereby to fit themselves, for the receipt of the grace of justification, and to merit it ex congruo. Who to express this their false conceit, were wont to say, facienti quod in se est, Deum non denegare gratiam, that is, that God will not fail to give grace, to such as do the uttermost that lieth in them. But the same Stapleton telleth us, that the more sound and judicious ever taught, that there is no power nor will in man to dispose and fit himself, for the receipt of this grace, unless he be moved by preventing grace, stirring, inciting, and inclining him to turn to God; and that the merit of congruence, hath been long since hissed out of all Schools.  
Touching these preparations wrought in men by preventing grace. First it is agreed between those of the Church of Rome, and those of the reformed Religion, that faith to believe in general the truth of things revealed and contained in Scripture, is necessary in the first place, and before all other things. Secondly, that in particular there must be a viewing of the things there found; that the consideration of man's original state there described, the fall, corruption of nature, and manifold sinful evils into which each man is plunged, together with the apprehension of God's displeasure against the same, is necessarily required. Thirdly, a fear & sorrow, growing out of the discerning of this unhappy condition wherein we are. Fourthly, an enquiry by what means we may escape out of these evils. Fiftly, faith to believe, that God most inclinable to relieve us, rather than man should utterly perish, sent his own Son into the world, to suffer the punishment of sin, to satisfy his justice, to bring grace, & dissolve the works of the devil; that so all that in sense of former evils, fly to him for mercy and deliverance, may escape & be saved. Sixtly, having found so happy means of escape, a flying unto God, in earnest desire to be received to mercy for Christ's sake, to be freed from the guilt of sin, to be reconciled to God, and to have grace to decline evil, and do good in the time to come. All these things in the judgement of the Divines of both sides, are necessarily required, in them that are to be justified.  
The most reverend Canons of the Metropolitical Church of Colen, in the book called Antididagma Coloniense, make the things required in them, on whom the benefit of justification is bestowed, to be of two sorts. For there are some that only dispose & prepare us, other by which we receive the same. Of the former sort is the general persuasion of faith, touching the truth of things in Scripture; the particular consideration of things concerning the knowledge of God, and ourselves; sorrow, fear, dislike of our present estate, desire to be delivered out of it, to be reconciled to God, & to have grace to decline evil and do good. Of the latter sort is the persuasion of faith, whereby we assure ourselves without doubting, that God will not impute our sins unto us, that thus penitently turn unto him, but that the course of his mercies now and ever, shall be turned towards us for his Son Christ's sake,  
This is that special faith, they of the reformed Religion speak of, and the Romanists seem so much to dislike: whereas yet the best and most judicious amongst them, ever did, and still do admit the same. Andraeas Vega l. 9 c. 7. saith, that there hath been a great controversy about this matter, not only between Catholics, and such as they esteem heretics, but even amongst the most learned Catholics of this age, at Rome, at Trent, at Ratisbone, and in sundry other places: many affirming that a man without special revelation, may undoubtedly believe, and certainly assure himself, that he is in grace, and hath obtained remission of all his sins. This persuasion rising as a conclusion out of, 
* In that God ●…ath promised r●…ssion to all that truly turn, and he findeth his heart to be so turn●…d.  two propositions, the one of faith, the other evident unto us in our own experience, is a persuasion of faith; because whensoever a conclusion is consequent upon two propositions, the one of faith, the other evident in the light of reason and experience, it is to be believed by faith, or as john Bacon, certitudine consequente fidem. This opinion, as 
a L. 9 c 36.  Vega telleth us, 
b Considerate. 2. ult. cap. 2. ad Tim.  Claudius Belliiocensis followed, in his Commentaries upon Timothy: And the most reverend Canons of the Metropolitical Church of Colen, together with the Authors of the Enchiridion of Christian Religion, published in the Provincial Council of Colen under Hermannus, so much esteemed (as 
c Consult. art. 4.  Cassander telleth us) in Italy, & France; The Authors of the book offered by Charles the 5, to the Divines of both sides; And as some say, Hieron. Angestus.  
But for the better clearing of this point, First I will produce the testimonies of such as lived before Luther's time. Secondly, I will make it appear, that the same truth was defended after Luther's time, till the Council & after. Origen writing upon those words, Rom. 8. Ipse spiritus testimonium perhibet spiritui nostro &c: writeth thus, Ipse spiritus adoptionis per quem in filium quis adoptatur, reddit testimonium & confirmat spiritum nostrum, quod sumus filij Dei, posteaquam à spiritu seruitutis in adoptionis spiritum venerimus, cum jam nihil inest timoris, id est, nihil propter poenam gerimus, sed propter amorem patris cuncta perficimus.  
Cyprianus ad Demetrianum hath these words, Viget apud nos spei robur & firmitas fidei, & inter ipsas saeculi labentis ruinas erecta mens est, & immobilis virtus, & de Deo suo semper anima secura. De coena Domini; An ma se sanatam et sanctificatam agnoscens, fletibus se abluit, & lachrymis se baptizat. De mortalitate; Quis hic anxietatis et sollicitudinis locus est? Quis inter haec trepidus & maestus est, nisi cui spes & fides deest? Ejus enim est mortem timere, qui ad Christum nolit ire: eius est ad Christum nolle ire, qui se non credat cum Christo incipere regnare. Scriptum est enim, justum fide vivere, si justus es & fide vivis, si verè in Deum credis, cur non cum Christo futurus, et de Domini pollicitatione securus, quod ad Christum voceris amplecteris? And again in the same place; Deus de hoc mundo recedenti tibi immortalitatem atque aeternitatem pollicetur, & tu dubitas? Hoc est Deum omnino non nosse; hoc est Christum credentium Dominum et magistrum, peccato incredulitatis offendere; hoc est in ecclesiâ constitutum, fidem in domo fidei non habere.  
Ambrose serm. 5. writeth thus; Quisquis illi fermento Christi adhaerescit, efficitur & ipse fermentum, tam sibi utilis, quam idoneus universis, & de suâ certus salute, & de aliorum acquisitione securus. And S. Chrysostome writing upon those words Rom. 8. Ipse spiritus etc. affirmeth, that from the testimony of the spirit we have such certainty, as leaveth no place for doubting.  
Augustine serm. 28. de verbis Domini; O homo faciem tuam non audebas ad coelum attollere, oculos tuos in terram dirigebas, et subito accepisti gratiam Christi. Omnia tibi peccata dimissa sunt. Ex malo seruo factus es bonus filius. Ideo praesume non de operatione tuâ sed de Christi gratiâ. Non ergo hic arrogantia est sed fides: praedicare quod acceperis non est superbia sed devotio. Ergo attolle oculos ad patrem, qui te per lavachrum genuit, ad patrem qui per filium te redemit, & dic, Pater noster etc. And in his 22 tract, upon john; ' Credo promittenti, saluator loquitur, veritas pollicetur, ipse dixit mihi, Qui audit verba mea, & credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, et transitum facit de morte in vitam, & in judicium non veniet: ego audivi verba Domini mei, credidi. I am infidelis cum essem, factus sum fidelis, sicut ipse monuit, transij à morte ad vitam, ad judicium non venio, non praesumptione meâ, sed ipsius promissione. In Ps. 149. Est quidam modus in conscientiâ gloriandi, ut noveris fidem tuam esse sinceram, noveris esse spem tuam certam, noveris charitatem tuam esse sine simulatione. Ser. 6. de verbis Apostoli; Ex ipsâ dilectione justitiae, integrâ fide, catholicâ fide, spiritum Dei nobis inesse cognoscimus. Trac. 75. in joan. In illo die, inquit, vos cognoscetis, quia ego in patre, & vos in me, & ego in vobis. In quo die; nisi de quo ait, & vos vivetis? Tunc enim erit, ut possimus videre quod credimus, nam & nunc est in nobis, & nos in illo: sed hoc nunc credimus, tunc etiam cognoscemus, quamvis & nunc credendo noverimus, sed tunc contemplando noscemus. De trinitate li. 13. c. 1. Non sic videtur fides in cord in quo est, ab co cuius est, sed eam tenet certissima scientia, clamatque conscientia. Cum itaque propterea credere jubeamur, quia id quod credere jubemur videre non possumus, ipsam tamen fidem quando inest in nobis videmus in nobis: quia et rerum absentium praesens est fides, & rerum quae foris sunt intus est fides, & rerum quae non videntur, videtur fides. Lib. 8. cap. 8. Qui diligit fratrem, magis now it dilectionem quâ diligit quam fratrem quem diligit. Tractat: 5. in epist. joannis; nemo interroget hominem: redeat unusquisque ad cor suum, si ibi invenerit charitatem fraternam, securus sit quia transijt a morte ad vitam. Tractat: in Psal. 85. Dicat unusquisque fidelium, Sanctus sum. Non est ista superbia elati, sed confessio non ingrati. De bono perseverantiae cap: 2. Sicut ergo sanctus cum Deum rogat ut sanctus sit, id utique rogat●…t sanctus esse permaneat; ita utique & castus, cum rogat ut castus sit: continens, ut continens sit: justus, ut justus sit: pius, ut pius sit: & caetera quae contra Pelagianos dona Dei esse defendimus, hoc sine dubio petunt, ut in eyes perseverent bonis, quae se accepisse noverunt.  
Leo in his 8. sermon on the Epiphanie saith; Ipsam matrem virtutum omnium charitatem, in secretis suae mentis inquirat: & si in eâ dilectionem Dei & proximi toto cord intentè repererit, ita ut etiam inimicis suis eadem velit tribui, quae sibi optat impendi, quisquis hujusmodi est, Deum & rectorem & habitatorem sui esse non dubitet. Gregory moral. l. 9: c: 17. upon these words of job, Etiamsi simplex fuero hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea: writeth thus; Plerumque si scimus bona quae agimus, ad elationem ducimur: si nescimus minimè seruamus. Quis enim aut de virtutis suae conscientiâ non quantulumcunque superbiat? Aut quis rursum bonum in se custodiat quod ignorat? Sed contra utraque quid superest, nisi ut recta quae agimus, sciendo nesciamus: ut haec & recta aestimemus & minima: quatenus & ad custodiam sensificet animum scientia rectitudinis, & in tumorem non elevet aestimatio minorationis. And cap. 27. he saith: Sciendum vero est, quod viri sancti ita incerti sunt ut confidant, atque ita confidunt, ut tamen ex securitate non torpeant.  
Anselm, writing upon the 8. chapter of the epistle to the Romans saith: Ipse spiritus divinus testimonium reddit spiritui nostro, id est, recognoscere & intelligere facit spiritum nostrum, quia sumus filij Dei. Et per hoc quod ipse spiritus sanctus charitatem nobis infundit, quae nos facit imitatores esse divinae bonitatis, ut diligamus inimicos nostros, & benefaciamus his qui oderunt nos, sicut pa●…er coelestis solem suum oriri facit, super bonos & malos, atque pluit super justos & iniustos, evidenti testimonio declarat menti nostrae, nos esse filios Dei, cuius bonitatem pro modulo nostro sequimur. In 2. Cor. 13. Qui fidei sensum in cord habet, hic scit Christum jesum in se esse, & vos ita scitis eum in vobis esse, nisi fortè reprobi estis, hoc est enim reprobum esse, nescire fidem professionis suae. Et vos cognoscitis, quia per sensum fidei, & per affectum dilectionis, ac strenuitatem rectae actionis, est Christus in vobis nisi forte reprobi estis, id est, ab eo quod prius caepistis, retro conversi, & a Deo rejecti.  
Bernardus epist. 107. justus autem quis est, nisi qui amanti se Deo, vicem rependitamoris? Quod non fit nisi revelante spiritu per fidem homini aeternum Dei propositum super suâ salute futurâ. Quae sanè revelationon est aliud quam infusio gratiae spiritualis: per quam dum facta carnis mortificantur, homo ad regnum praeparatur quod caro et sanguis non possident, simul accipiens in uno spiritu et unde se praesumat amatum, et unde redamet nè gratis amatus sit. In Cantica serm. 69. Prorsus habet ecclesia Dei spirituales suos, qui non modo fideliter, sed & fiducialiter agant in eo, cum Deo quasi cum amico loquentes, testimonium illis perhibente conscientiâ gloriae ejus. Da mihi animam nihil amantem praeter Deum, et quod propter Deum amandum est: cui vivere Christus non tantum sit, sed & diu jam fuerit: cui studij et otij sit providere Deum in conspectu suo semper: cui sollicitè ambulare cum Domino Deo suo, non dico magna, sed una voluntas sit, & facultas non desit: da mihi inquam talem animam, & ego non nego dignam sponsi curâ, majestatis respectu, dominantis favore, sollicitudine gubernantis: & si voluerit gloriari non erit insipiens, tantum ut qui gloriatur in domino glorietur. And afterwards, Ex propriis quae sunt penes Deum, agnoscit nec dubitat se amari quae amat. And a little afterwards. Vides quomodo non solum de amore suo certum te reddat, si quidem tu ames illum: sed etiam de sollicitudine sua quam pro te gerit, si te senserit sollicitum sui. In Octauâ Paschae, Serm. 2. Sanè novum supervenisse spiritum, certissimè conversatio nova testatur.  
Idem Epist. 107. Ponamus hominem in seculo seculi adhuc & suae carnis amore retentum: & cum terrestris hominis imaginem portet, incubantem terrenis, nil de coelestibus cogitantem: quis hunc non videat horrendis circumsusum tenebris, nisi qui in eâdem mortis umbra sedet: quip cui nullum adhuc suae salutis signum eluxerit, cui necdum in aliquo interna testetur inspiratio an boni de se quippiam aeterna teneat praedestinatio? At verò si superna eum miseratio dignantèr quandoque respexerit, immiseritque spiritum compunctionis, quatenus ingemiscat & resipiscat, mutet vitam, domet carnem, amet proximum, clamet ad Deum, proponatque de caetero vivere Deo, non seculo: ex quâ deinde superni luminis gratuitâ visitatione, & subitâ mutatione dexterae excelsi, agnoscat se merito quidem non iam irae sed gratiae filium, quip qui paternum erga se divinae bonitatis experitur affectum, quod se utique hactenus in tantum latuerat, ut non solum nesciret utrumnam dignus foret amore, an odio, verumetiam odium magis & non amorem propria conversatio testaretur, erant enim tenebrae adhuc super faciem abyssi: nun is tibi videtur quasi de abysso profundissimâ, & tenebrosissimâ horrendae ignorantiae, in aliam quandam quoque trahi abyssum, èregione amoenam & lucidam claritatis aeternae? & tunc demum quasi dividit Deus lucem à tenebris, cum peccator sole illucescente iustitiae, abiectis operibus tenebrarum induitur arma lucis: & is quem prior vita ac propria conscientia tanquam reverâ filium gehennae deputaverat ardoribus sempiternis, ad tantam visitantis se orientis ex alto dignationem respirans, gloriari etiam incipit, praeter spem in spe gloriae filiorum Dei, quam iam nimirum è vicino revelatâ facie exultans novo in lumine speculatur, & dicit: Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui Domine: dedisti laetitiam in cord meo. O Domine, quid est homo quia innotuisti ei: aut filius hominis quia reput as eum? iam se o bone Pater, vermis vilissimus, & odio dignissimus sempiterno, tamen confidit amari, quoniam se sentit amare: imo quia se amari praesentit, non redamare confunditur. jam apparet in lumine tuo ô inaccessibilis lux, quid boni penes te, etiam cum malus esset, miserum maneret homunculum. Amat proinde non immerito, quia amatus est sine merito. Amat sine fine, quia sine principio se cognoscit amatum. Prodit in lucem ad miseri consolationem, magnum consilium quod ab aeterno latuerat in sinu Aeternitatis: quod nolit videlicet Deus mortem peccatoris, sed magis ut convertatur & vivat. Habes homo huius arcani indicem spiritum iustificantem: eoque ipso testificantem spiritui tuo quod filius Dei & ipse sis. Agnosce consilium Dei in iustificatione tui. Confitere & dic: Consilium meum iustificationes tuae. Praesens namque iustificatio tui, & divini est consilii revelatio, & quaedam adfuturam gloriam praeparatio.  
Idem de quatuor modis orandi. Surge, tolle lectum tuum, etc. Et tu ergo si iam surgis desiderio supernorum, si grabatum tollis, corpus scilicet a terrenis elevans voluptatibus, ut iam non feratur anima à concupiscentiis eius, sed magis ipsa ut dignum est, regat illud, & ferat quo non vult, si demum ambulas quae retro sunt obliviscens, & ad ea quae ante sunt, te extendens desiderio, & proposito proficiendi, curatum te esse non dubites. Item serm. 1. in annunciatione beatae Mariae. Si credis peccata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccasti, & in quem peccatum non cadit, bene facis: sed adde adhuc, ut & hoc credas, quia per ipsum tibi peccata donantur. Hoc est testimonium quod perhibet in cord nostro spiritus sanctus, dicens: Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua. Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus, gratis iustificari hominem per fidem.  
Gulielmus Altisiodorensis in sent. lib. 3. tract. 6. Quidam dicunt, quod quidam sciunt se non habere charitatem, scilicet qui sunt in actu vel proposito peccandi. Alij dubitant se habere charitatem cum habent aequè fortes rationes ad utramque partem contradictionis. Alij putant se habere charitatem. Alij sciunt se habere charitatem, scilicet qui gustaverunt dulcedinem Dei, & in quibus ferè extinctus est foams, ut Maria Magdalena et Aegyptiaca post multos fletus. And a little after distinguishing 2 kinds of knowledge properly so named, he saith, by the one we know we are in grace and not by the other.  
The book called 
d part. 〈◊〉.  regimen animarum agreeth with Altisiodorensis, making 5 sorts; some that know they have not; some that doubt; some that think they have; quidam qui experiuntur se habere charitatem, ut illi qui gustant divinam dulcedinem, in quibus fomes ferè extinctus est, & qui semper vel bona faciunt vel affectant; quidam certi sunt se habere charitatem ut sunt illi quibus Deus revelavit secreta coelestia, sic fuit Paulus.  

e part. 1. de grata, c. 10.  Pantheologia likewise saith, Quidam dicunt, quod aliqui sciunt se esse in gratia experimentaliter, sicut illi qui sentiunt dulcedinem divinae bonitatis, & in oratione gustant quam suav is est Dominus. Alios scire se esse in gratia Dei supernaturaliter sicut sunt illi qui ita dotati sunt à Deo & perfecti quod jam non habent rebellionem fomitis, sed habent plenam pacem spiritus, & sentiunt se elevatos in contemplatione divina sicut fuerunt Paulus, & Maria Magdalena.  
Alexander of Alice 3. part. 9 61. memb. 7. art. 3. First reckoneth the opinion of 5 sorts of men formerly mentioned, to wit, of men knowing they are not in grace; of men doubting; of men thinking they are; of men experimentally knowing it, as do they, qui sentiunt dulcedinem divinae bonitatis in oratione, & gustant quam suavis est Dominus. And lastly of men who have knowledge that they are in grace; qui ita sunt dicati Deo & perfecti, quod iam non habent rebellionem fomitis, sed habent plenam pacem spiritus, & sentiunt concupiscentias carnis in se consopitas, & sentiunt se omninò elevatos in divinam contemplationem, sicut fuit Beata Magdalena, & Paulus qui ait ad Rome 8. Quis separabit etc. And then he distinguisheth contemplative and affective knowledge, that some make a knowledge by science, and a knowledge by experiment, the one an infallible the other a fallible medium, and thinketh that we may know by certain experiments that we are in grace; which experiments are, charitas apud vim rationalem, pax apud irascibilem, laetitia apud concupiscibilem. That a man may have certain knowledge that he is in grace, he proveth out of Revel. 〈◊〉. To him that overcommeth I will give the hidden Manna, etc. which no man knoweth but he that reeciveth it, therefore he that receiveth it doth know it; but that hidden Manna &c: is not understood only, of the enjoying of diviine sweetness in glory in heaven, but by grace in this world; but he that receiveth it knoweth it, therefore he that receiveth the divine sweetness by grace knoweth it, therefore he knoweth he hath grace, by it, as by a certain experiment. Besides, the taste that is well affected, cannot but discern the sweetness that is put unto it, therefore if the soul be rightly affected, it cannot but discern the divine sweetness put to it; but the discerning of divine sweetness is by grace, therefore a soul rightly affected, cannot but know that it hath grace, therefore grace is experimentally known, as by the sense of divine sweetness. 2. Cor. ult. Do ye not know yourselves that Christ jesus is in you except you be reprobates? This the Apostle speaketh to the Corinthians, therefore there is some man who if he be not a reprobate, knoweth that Christ is in him, and if he know this, he kuoweth he hath grace, because Christ is not in us but by grace; whence it followeth, that he knoweth experimentally that he hath grace.  
john Bachon, lib. 3. dist. 30. q. 1. saith expressly that men may be certain they are in grace by a certainty following faith, or flowing out of faith. In our age Cardinal Caietan, Commentar: in joan. 14. Dat Deus etiam hoc, ut sciamus quae à Deo nobis donata sunt, etc. Cuilibet diligenti ipsum promittit, non quod se manifestabit, sed quod se insinuabit, dictio enim graeca significat velut tacitè & clam indicare, quoniam Iesus cuilibet diligenti se, indicat sei psum intus, internâ illustratione & inspiratione, diversimodè, prout electi experiuntur, accipientes manna absconditum, quod nemo novit nisi qui accepit. And writing upon those words, 1. Io: 2: In hoc scimus quontam cognovi●…us eum, he saith. Intendit Iohannes ad litteram monstrare, signum infallibile internae lucis divinae in nobis esse, si mandata eius servaverimus. Roffensis saith, Sacramenta ideo potissimum sunt instituta, ut per usum illorum citra ullam dubitationem confidamus, gratiam nos esse consecutos. de sacr. eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 6.  

a Vega. l. 9 c. 7.  The Authors of the book offered by Charles the fifth to the Divines apppointed for the conference at Ratisbon, in the fifth article plainly affirm, Oportere ut verè paenitentes fide certissimâ statuant, se propter mediatorem Christum Deo placere. The same was agreed unto by the Divines of both sides. Cardinal Contarenus precedent of the meeting and conference approved it; and as the same Vega saith, many Catholics in the Council at Trent; before the publishing of the decree, followed the same opinion as most probable, and sought to confirm it by many arguments. 
b Vega. l. 9 c. 46  And he reporteth, that amongst others there was one learned man, that professed, he held the denying of the certainty of grace, to be a worse error than that imputed to Luther, for whereas the Lutherans attribute too much to faith, this opinion derogateth from faith, the sacraments, & the merits & works of virtue.  
Yet in the end there was a 
* Sessio 6. can. 13. Si quis dixerit, omni homini ad remissionem peccatorum assequendam necessarium esse, ut credat certò, & absque ullâ haesitatione propriae infirmitatis & indispositionis peccata sibi esse remissa, anathema sit.  decree passed for the uncertainty of grace, but in such sort, that who would held their former opinions still, and made such constructions of the decree as they pleased: as it appeareth by Ambrose Catharinus, in his apology against Dominicus à Soto, wherein he defendeth an absolute certainty of grace, and a certainty of faith, and yet will not be thought to be touched, by the censure of the council.  
Martinus Eisingreinius, a man of no small account, hath a whole book in explication and defence of this one decree of the council, and telleth us, the council never meant simply to condemn the certainty of grace, but only that kind of certainty that heretics imagine, which is without all examination of themselves, their estate, the truth of their profession, their dislike of sinful evils, and desire of reconciliation, and grace to decline evil and to do good, to persuade themselves they are justified. And whereas most men, conceive the meaning of the council to be, that he is accursed, that thinketh it necessary for the attaining of remission of sins, that every man should persuade himself, without any doubting in respect of his own indisposition, that his sins are remitted, & that thus to persuade himself procureth remission: he maketh the meaning of it to be, that whosoever without consideration of his estate whether he be rightly disposed or otherwise, presumeth of God's grace & favour, is worthily anathematised, but if a man having examined himself, find a disposition, in dislike of former evils, to return unto God, to seek remission & grace not to offend in like sort any more, he may notwithstanding the decree of the council, nay he ought to assure himself of remission, and grace. And there upon bringeth forth a cloud of witnesses for confirmation of the certainty of grace. But whatsoever we think of the construction he maketh of the words of the decree, he 
c pag 162.  resolveth, that a man may be as certain that his sins are remitted, and he received to grace, as that twice two are four, twice four eight, and that every whole is greater than his part, or as a man is resolved touching the things he seeth with his eyes, and handleth with his hands.  

d 1. parte iustitiae quadripartitae, l. 2. fol. 222.  Gaspar Casalius a Bishop of Portugal, that was present in the council of Trent, writeth largely against that kind of imagined certainty, which Eisingreinius saith the council meant to condemn. And then goeth forward; An non licet homini unquam credere firmiter se esse iustum á peccatis, saltem á mortalibus? Quidem in eâ formâ nunquam licet ut ex dictis patet, quia est illa fides sive confidentia, & superba & imprudentissima. An licet in aliâ formâ? Vtique licet. In quâ formâ licet? habendo respectum ad divinas promissiones conditionales, & add conditiones quas requirunt. Etenim omnes tenemur firmiter credere, fide diviná cui non potest subesse falsum, tam de nobis ipsis quam de aliis, omnes Adae filios de facto iustos esse, aut iustificari, quotquot habent eas conditiones, quas divina promissio, sive divina lex conditionalis, ad id requirit in nobis. Hoc constat, quia omnes tenemur tali fide credere, Deum veracem in omnibus dictis suis, pertinentibus ad doctrinam, promissiones, & cunctis aliis: adhibito autem diligenti in nobis de nobis examine, dum quis seipsum probat, & ad iudicium rationis ac legis trahit, licet unicuique iudicare de se, prudenter tamen procedendo cum examine & discretion, quòd eas conditiones requisite as habet, vel non habet, Si enim hoc non liceret nobis, non diceret Paulus 1 Cor. 11. Probet autem seipsum homo, & sic de pane illo edat, & de chalice bibat. Nec diceret Apostolus joannes, 1 joh. 4. Nolite omni spiritui credere, sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint, quoniam multi Pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum. Ecce committitur nobis probatio adhibitis his quae ad rem ipsam adhiberi debent tum nostritum spirituum. Licet ergo nobis iudicare de nobis benè vel malè, prout in nobis invenerimus: dummodo prudenter agamus, cum prudentiâ intuentes, discurrentes, & concludentes. Mox vero prout quis cum prudentiâ de se iudicaverit, quod conditiones á Deo requisitas habeat, potest etiam iudicare de seipso quod iustus sit, si certò, certò, si cum formidine, cum formidine, firmae enim praestant divinae promissiones iuxta suas conditiones, & ex parte illarum nullus est defectus nec esse potest.  
So that according to this opinion, a man certainly finding in him the performance of the condition required, may assure himself of his justification & acceptation with God: and this assurance is an act of faith. No man living, saith 
e L. 9 c. 39  Vega, should ever draw me to doubt, neither indeed could I doubt if I would, of my being in the state of grace, if I might infer it out of two propositions, the one believed, and the other some other way evident unto me. For there are many propositions de fide, which can no otherwise be proved to be de fide, but because they clearly follow upon things believed, & some proposition evident in the light of nature; As Scotus showeth, that this proposition, the father differeth really from the son, is a proposition of faith, because it is inferred out of these two, The father begat and the son was begotten, and this other evident in the light of nature, Omnis generans realiter differt à genito. Qui pertinaciter dubitaret de propositione illatâ evidenter ex vn●… credit●…, & alia evidenti, esset haereticus, hic enim cum non posset dubitare de consequentiâ, nec de evidenti, dubitaret de credita.  
It will be said, that granting such a proposition to be de fide, as followeth out of two propositions, whereof one is believed, and the other some other way evident unto us: yet it will not follow that we may be certain, that we are in the state of grace. Because that cannot be inferred out of two such propositions, seeing one of them must depend on experience, and the knowledge of our inward actions, which as some think cannot be certainly known by us. Let us see therefore whether a man may certainly discern; the quality and condition of his soul, and the motions, actions, and desires of the same. There are that think, that our inward actions are unknown unto us, and that the nature of the heart is such, as is known only to God; But Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 2. that the spirit of a man, knoweth the things that are in him. And besides, if we could not know our inward actions, we should not be commanded or forbidden to do such actions, neither should we be required to confess our inward sins, if we could not know them. All which things are absurd and heretical. It is clear therefore, that we may know and discern our inward actions, that we may know what we do, what we will, and in what sort, and to what end we will it. We may know therefore, whether we sorrow for sins, because we have thereby displeased God, or for some other reason; whether we esteem the loss of God's favour the greatest evil; whether we would rather regain it, then have all things without it; whether we would not be willing to leave any thing, though never so dear unto us, if we should understand, that we must either leave it, or not come into favour with God.  
It is true, saith 
* Vega l. 9 ca 47. Dispositio non unum aliquem actum, comprehendit, sed observationem omnium mandatorum divinorum, & dolorem de omnibus peccatis, & in nullo peccato perseverare, neque per ignorantiam, neque per negligentiam, neque per oblivionem aut in considerationem●…  Vega, that we may know all these things; but because there may be some sin, that we think not of, through forgetfulness, ignorance, or want of consideration, from which if we depart not, we cannot obtain the favour of God; therefore we cannot certainly know, whether we be so disposed, as is required for the receipt of grace. But this is a silly allegation, for Roffensis adversus Lutherum artic. 14. saith. Ignoratio peccatorum nihil obstat, quo minus quisquam vere conteri posset, nisi velis cavillum ex vocabulo quaerere; neque enim dubito quin Maria Magdalena verè contrita fuerat, quam si Christus interrogasset an verè fuisset contrita, potuit respondisse, se verè contritam esse, verèque doluisse pro peccatis, nec tamen est credibile, quod singula peccata quae prius in tot vanitatibus suis admisit, integre venerint in ejus memoriam. Sed omittamus hanc quae singulare poenitudinis exemplar fuerat: de communibus loquamur peccatoribus. Num aliquot ex his opinaris, ad sacramentum absolutionis accedere cum vero dolore? Num eos usque adeo stupidos arbitraris, ut non sentiant an verè & non fictè doleant? Quod si conscientia fuerit iis judex quod verè doleant, cur (te quaeso) respondere non licet se verè dolere? Quid huic rei peccatorum obsistit ignoratio? cum pro cunctis dolere possint tam ignoratis quam cognitis. Nam qui damni perpendit immensitatem, quod ex peccato conquisivit, is odiet facile peccatum, & detestabitur tam in aliis quam in seipso, neque minus id quod occultum est quam quod est agnitum. So that we may reason thus, If a man sorrow, or sorrow not for sin; or not for the true causes, or not so much as he should; either he may know when he doth right, and when he faileth, or not: If he may, than a man may know when he is in such a disposition, as is required in him that is to be justified. If he may not, than he hath no power to sorrow, or to sorrow in this or that sort. For no man hath power to do that act, that he knoweth not how to do: neither doth any man know how to do a thing, but he knoweth likewise when he doth the same thing, whether he do so or not. If he have no power to sorrow for sin, or to sorrow so and in such sort as he should, than God hath commanded things impossible to be done, Impossible, I say, in respect both of Nature and grace.  

s Vega. l. 9 c. 39  They will say a man knoweth when he sorroweth rightly for each particular sin, but not when for all in general: But against this as before, if he know how rightly to sorrow for all, than he knoweth when he doth so, but he knoweth how rightly to sorrow for all. If he know not rightly how to sorrow for all, than he cannot rightly sorrow for all; If he cannot rightly sorrow for all, then either God hath not commanded so to do, or he hath commanded impossibilities: if he have not commanded us in this sort to sorrow for all, then for none, for we 
* If a man may know that he sorroweth rightly for one sin, he is sure he sorroweth for all as much as is necessarily required to justification.  cannot rightly sorrow for one, unless we sorrow for all: for if we might, we might have remission of one, and not of another, than we might be in the state of salvation & damnation together.  

g L●…. 9 c. 46.  Vega having debated the matter, alleging the objections and answers of both sides, for and against the certainty of grace, in the end concludeth, that having maturely considered all that is said on either side, he thinketh it more probable, that some spiritual men, may so far profit in spiritual exercise and in divine familiarity, that without all rashness, they may believe certainly, and without all doubting, that they have found grace and remission of sins with God; and bringeth many excellent proofs of that his saying; As, that the law of friendship requireth so much; for it cannot be, that one friend should not pour forth his very soul to another. And that familiarity and exceeding love, that the Canticles show that God beareth towards his Church, and sometimes showeth to it, make it evident, there are always some to whom God speaketh so familiarly, that they are certain, and no way doubt of his love. Besides, the resolution and security with which many of the Saints of God go out of this world, that ardent desire, quo charitas cum perfecta fuerit, clamat, Cupio dissolui & esse cum Christo, illa laetitia, quâ permulti exultant, dum intelligentes sibi propinquum esse diem mortis, dicunt cum Davide: Laetatus sum in his quae dicta sunt mihi, in domum Domini ibimus. Alacritas etiam & admiranda constantia Martyrum, & despicientia omnium tormentorum, are a sufficient proof of this; they would never do so that doubted of their estate. 
h Ibid. apud Veg.  Ambrose in Ps. 118. Videmus in saeculo innocentes laetos ad iudicium festinare, odisse moras, celeritatem affectare iudicij. Beatus itaque ille qui coeleste judicium laetus expectat: scit enim sibi regnum coelorum, Angelorum consortium, coronam quoque bonorum repositam esse meritorum. And 
i Ib. apud Veg.  Catharinus in his purgation of himself, showeth the same in the examples of many Saints; Such confidence Ezechias may be thought to have had, 2. Reg. 12. when he prayed thus; Remember Lord how I have walked before thee &c: where this his prayer is approved by God's answer, I have heard thy prayer etc. 
k Ibidem.  The testimony of the spirit seemeth to require, ut aliquibus saltem viris perfectis, & spiritualibus, hoc ipsum de adoptione in particulari semper contestetur interius: ut quilibet iustorum ex eo testimonio verè possitaudacter clamare, Abba, pater; Et verbum istud spiritui nostro, huc videtur nos vocare & inflectere. Cumque illud testimonium, quicquid sit de intelligentiâ Pauli, dubium non sit, ut & sancti doctores saepe tradiderunt, persaepe interius exhiberi à spiritu sancto, loquente interius familiarissime cum his, qui ei toto corde famulantur, consentaneum non est, neque verisimile, quin aliquando ita sese illis aperiat, ut omnem abigat for●…dinem de ipsorum poenitentiâ, & eorum iustificatione, praesertim cum teste Paulo, ad hoc detur nobis, ut sciamus, quae nobis à Deo sunt donata.  
This certainty he calleth moral, distinguisheth it from the certainty of ●…aith, that he may avoid the decree of the council of Trent: and yet saith it excludeth all doubt and fear, of the being otherwise of that he is thus certain of: and saith if any man will name this a certainty of faith he will not strive. 
l  The difference he maketh between them is this, that in the one men are sure and know, they neither are nor can be deceived: in the other they know and are certain that they are not, not that they cannot be deceived. But this difference cannot stand, for if a man know and be certain that he is not deceived, he must certainly know, that no such thing doth now fall out, as doth fall out when men are deceived in apprehensions of this kind, and consequently, that now and things so standing, he cannot be deceived. For example, a man dreaming, thinketh he is waking, and undoubtedly persuadeth himself, he seeth or doth something, wherein he is deceived, because it is but representation in a dream; but he that is waking, knoweth that he waketh, that he seeth that which he thinketh he seeth, that in this persuasion he is not, nor cannot be deceived things so standing.  
Amongst the Articles agreed upon in the 
m Apud Bucer. pag. 45.  conference at Ratisbon, 1541, this is one, Docendum est ut qui vere penitent, semper fide certissimâ statuant, se propter Mediatorem Christum Deo placere: quia Christus est propitiator, Pontifex, & interpellator pro nobis, quem pater donavit nobis, & omnia bona cum illo. Quoniam autem perfecta rectitudo in hac imbecillitate non est, suntque multae infirmae & pavidae conscientiae, quae cum gravi saepe dubitatione luctantur, nemo est à gratiâ Christi, propter ejusmodi infirmitatem excludendus: sed convenit tales diligenter adhortari, ut iis dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant, & augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent: juxta illud, Adauge nobis Domine fidem. So that touching this point it is evident that the Church of God ever taught, that which we now teach.  
Neither have we departed from the doctrine of the Church, in that we teach that faith only justifieth. For many of the ancient have used this form of words; as Origen ad Rom. 3. Dicit Apostolus sufficere solius fidei justificationem, ita ut credens quis tantummodo justificetur, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum. Hilar. can. 8. in Math. Fides sola justificat. Basil. homil. de humilitate. Haec est perfecta & integra gloriatio in Deo, quando neque ob justitiam suam quis se iactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indigum, solâ autem fide in Christum justificatum. Ambros. ad Rom. 3. justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei. Chrysost. Homil. de fide & lege naturae: Eum qui operatur opera iustitiae sine fide non potes probare vivum esse, fidem absque operibus possum monstrare, & vixisse, & regnum coelorum assecutam, nullus sine fide vitam habuit, latro autem credidit tantum, & iustificatus est. Aug. l. 1. contra 2 Epistolas Pelag. c. 21. Quantaelibet fuisse virtutis antiquòs praedices justos, non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris. 83. q. q. 76. Si quis cum crediderit mox de hâc vita decesserit, iustificatio fidei manet cum illo: nec praecedentibus bonis operibus, quia non merito ad illam, sed gratiâ pervenit, nec consequentibus, quia in hac vita esse non sinitur. Theophylact. ad Galat. 3. Nunc planè ostendit Apostolus, fidem vel solam, iustificandi habere in se virtutem. Bern. ser. 22, in Cantic. Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus, esurit & sitit iustitiam, credat in te qui iustificas impium, & solam iustificatus per fidem, pacem habebitad te. Et ep. 77. citans illud. Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit salvus erit. Cautè, inquit, non repetiit, qui vero baptizatus non fuerit, condennabitur, sed tantum qui vero non crediderit, innuens nimirum solam fidem interdum sufficere ad salutem, & sine illâ sufficere nihil.  
Sometimes by these phrases of speech they exclude all that may be be without supernatural knowledge, all that may be without a true profession. Sometimes the necessity of good works in act or external good works. 3. The power of nature without illumination and grace. 4. The power of the Law. 5. The sufficiency of any thing found in us to make us stand in judgement, to abide the trial, and not to fear condemnation. And in this sense faith only is said to justify, that is, the only mercy of God, and merit of Christ apprehended by faith: and then the meaning of their speech is, that only the persuasion and assured trust that they have, to be accepted of God for Christ's sake, is that that maketh them stand in judgement, without fear of condemnation. And in this sense all the Divines formerly alleged, for proof of the insufficiency of all our inherent righteousness, and the trust which we should have in the only mercy of God, and merit of Christ, do teach as we do, that faith only justifieth. For neither they nor we exclude from the work of justification, the action of God as the supreme and highest cause of our justification: for it is he that remitteth sin, and receiveth us to grace: nor the merit of Christ, as that for which God inclineth to show mercy to us, and to respect us: nor the remission of sins, gracious acceptation, and grant of the gift of righteousness, as that by which we are formally justified: nor those works of prenenting grace, whereby out of the general apprehension of faith, God worketh in us dislike of our former condition, desire to be reconciled to God, to have remission of that is past, & grace hereafter to decline the like evils, & to do contrary good things. For by these we are prepared, disposed, and fitted for justification; without these none are justified. And in this sense, & to imply a necessity of these to be found in us, sometimes the fathers & others say, that we are not justified by faith only. And we all agree, that it is not our conversion to God, nor the change we find in ourselves, that can any way make us stand in judgement without fear, and look for any good from God, otherwise then in that we find ourselves so disposed and fitted, as is necessary for justification, whence we assure ourselves, God will in mercy accept us for Christ's sake.   

CHAP. 12.  
Of Merit.  
MErit as Cardinal Contarenus rightly noteth, if we speak properly, importeth an action, or actions, quibus actionibus aut earum autori, ab altero iusticia postulante, debeatur praemium. No man can merit any thing of God. 
a Vide janseni um●…n concordiam euangeli●…am cap. 98. p. 704.  First because we are his servants, & owe much more service unto him than bondslaves that are bought for money owe unto their masters: & though no reward were promised, we were bound to obey his commands. Yet if we look on the bounty of God, he deals with us being bondmen, as 
〈◊〉 Lib. 1. d. 17 q. 1. in solutione quaest.  with hired servants, recompensing that with a reward which we stood bound in duty to perform. 2. Because no profit cometh unto God from any thing we can 
* Apostolus ad rom. 8. Aestimo inquit qd non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis, ad futu●…am gloriam quae re●…elabitur in nobis. S●… non sunt cond●…gnae non ergo ex debito justitiae, sed ex dono gratiae, gloria pro il●…s datur, unde Glossa ibidem. passiones hujus temporis non s●…t omnes s●…mul con●…g nae, id est, sufficientes, si districte ageretur nob●…m, ad promerendam ●…tam aeternam.  do: the good & salvation of our souls he accounteth his gain, and out of his goodness so esteemeth of our good works, as if they were profitable unto him. 3. Because though our works were profitable unto God, and though we were able to do them of ourselves, yet we could never repay unto him so much good, as we have already & do daily receive from him: but now it is so, that he first bestoweth on us one gift, which he may afterwards reward with another. 4 Because in many things we offend all, & so have need of pardon: so far are we from meriting any thing at God's hands. 5 Because no meritorious act is so great a good as eternal life, & so not equivalent unto it, and therefore so great a reward cannot in strictness of justice be due unto it. Actus secundum se consideratus (saith ● Scotus) absque acceptatione divinâ secundum strictam justitiam, non fuisset dignus tali praemio ex intrinseca bonitate, quam haberet ex suis principiis, quod patet, quia semper praemium est majus bonum merito, & justitia stricta non reddit melius pro minus bono: ideo bene dicitur quod semper Deus praemiat ultra meritum condignum, universaliter quidem ultra dignitatem actus qui est meritum; quia quod ille actus sit condignum meritum, hoc est ultra naturam & bonitatem actus intrinsecam, ex mera gratuita acceptatione divina. Et forte adhuc, ultra illud ad quod de communi lege esset actus acceptandus, quandoque Deus praemiat ex mera liberalitate. And again, Lib. 4. dist. 49. q. 6. de tertio dubio. De praemio quod est aeterna beatitudo, dico quod loquendo de stricta justitia, Deus nulli nostrum propter quaecunque merita, est debitor perfectionis reddendae tam intensae, quam est beatitudo, propter immoderatum excessum illius perfectionis ultra illa merita: sed esto quod ex liberalitate sua determinasset, meritis conferre actum tam perfectum tanquam praemium, tali quidem justitia qualis decet eum, scilicet, supererogantis in praemijs: tamen non sequitur ex hoc necessario, quòd per illam justitiam sit reddenda perfectio perennis tanquam praemium: imo abundans fieret retributio in beatitudine unius momenti.  
6. To merit is to make a thing due, that was not due before, whence it followeth that no man can merit eternal life. 
b Bellarm. de justificat. lib. 5. c. 12.  For they that define merit do say, that no man can merit so great a good as eternal life ex condigno, unless he be first justified, reconciled to God, and made partaker of the divine nature, but whosoever is so justified, reconciled to God, and made partaker of the divine nature, hath right to eternal life, in that he is justified, reconciled, and made partaker of the divine nature. Therefore seeing to merit, is to make that due that was not due before, no man can merit eternal life. And 
c De justificat. l. 5. c. 20.  Bellarmine confesseth, that many think eternal life cannot be merited; but only some degrees in the same. and for this reason, as it appeareth by the epistle of Cardinal Contarenus to Cardinal Farnesius, the divines of both sides in the conference at Ratisbon, thought good to omit and suppress the name of merit. 1 For that it might be thought a derogation to the goodness and bounty of God, that giveth us freely eternal life, to say that we merit it. And secondly, for that it might be conceived, that it was not due before in respect of free gift, and that our working could merit it, though it were not due to us by gift. Let us see therefore what the Church of God hath taught touching merit.  
The Author of the answer to Bells challenge named by him the downfall of Popery, article the fifth chapt: 3. pag. 220. protesteth, that Bell doth greatly wrong the Romanists, in saying it is a part of their faith, and that it was defined in the council of Trent, that good works done in God's grace, are condignly meritorious of eternal life; for the council defined no such thing, and they that hold it, hold it not as a point of faith, but as an opinion only. Whereupon Vega, who was one of the duines of the council of Trent, writeth the fide & operib●… quaest: 4. that some noble School divines, being moved with no light arguments, and using a certain sober and prudent moderation, have denied that there is any condign merit of eternal happiness; and he saith quest. 5. 
* Gregor. 1. d. 17. q. 1. Duran. q. 2. Marsil. in 2. Walden. de sacram. c. 7. Burgensis in psal. 35. Eckius in centur: de praedest.  that Gregory, Durand, Marsil, Walden, Burgensis, and Eckius, do deny condign merit. Sotus also another divine of the said council lib. 3. de naturâ & gratiâ cap. 7. saith, that there is some difference amongst catholics about condign merit, and chap: 8. after he had proved condign merit out of the council and otherways, yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith, but only calleth it conclusionem probatissimam, a most approved conclusion. And Bellarmine lib: 5: de iustificatione cap: 16: after he had rehearsed two opinions of catholics, whereof the one seemeth to deny condign merit, the other admitteth it only in a large sense, proposeth and defendeth the third opinion, which defendeth condign merit absolutely, only as verissimam, & communem sententiam theologorum, most true, and the common opinion of divines. This confession might suffice to prove, that the Church never admitted of the doctrine of merit of condignity, as any point of her faith, in the days of our Fathers, seeing even since these differences grew that are now afoot, between those of the reformation, and the stiff maintainers of all confusions formerly found in the state of the Church and religion, there are many found amongst the enemies of reformation, that reject the merit of condignity. Yet for the better satisfaction of the reader, I will more fully and at large set down the opinions, of them that opposed against the doctrine of merit properly so named before LUTHER'S time.  

d Lib. 1. d. 17. quaest. 1.  Gregorius Ariminensis, besides the reason formerly alleged, that no act of man, though done in, & out of the habit of charity, is so great a good as eternal life, and equivalent to it, & consequently that so great a reward as eternal life, cannot be due unto it ex debito iustitiae; hath sundry other reasons for proof of the same. Intelligendum est, saith he, etiam ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera, quibus cum vita aeterna redditur, quid aliud nisi gratia pro gratia redditur? haec Augustinus. Idem Antecedens probatur ratione: Nam constat quod animae carenti charitate simul & gloriâ: Deus quantum ad neutram est illi debtor: & si dat charitatem, gratis donat. Nunc autem nullus diceret, quod ex eo quod Deus donat aliquod munus alicui, fiat ei alterius muneris debtor. Ergo non ex eo quod Deus gratis dat charitatem, debetur consequenter ipsi animae gloria, sive beatitudo aeterna. Et si dicatur quod non ideo debetur alicui vita aeterna, quia habet charitatem, aut quia data est charitas illi, sed quia secundùm acceptam charitatem operatur. Contra, quòd omnes operationes nostrae secundùm charitatem factae, & omnia merita nostra sunt Dei dona, ut dicit Augustinns 13 de trinitate cap. 10. & autoritate ejusdem praeallegatâ, & per consequens non ex illis est Deus debitor alterius praemij. Ad quartum dicendum, quod cum sit justitia unicuique reddere quod suum est, id est, sibi debitum, secundùm sententiam Augustini 1. de Libero Arbitrio, sic vita aeterna juste meritoriè redditur operanti. Et dicitur corona justitiae, sicut ei debita est, pro talibus operibus meritorijs. Eyes autem non est simpliciter debita, nec ex natura ipsorum, sed solùm ex gratuita ordinatione Dei, qui ex abundantia misericordiae suae, statuit tales actus vitâ aeternâ praemiare: propter quam statutam gratiae legem, sibi debita dicitur & justè retribui, & secundùm hanc considerationem, posset etiam dici stipendium bonorum operum vita aeterna. Ad quem intellectum loquitur etiam Augustinus in lib. de gratia, & lib. arbit. & tamen simpliciter gratis donatur, & ut ibi dicit Augustinus gratia pro gratia redditur. Vnde & glossa super illud Apostoli 2 ad Tim. 4. Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi: in reliquo reposita est mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die justus judex, etc. dicit, quod vita aeterna est gratia pro gratia. Et ideò sicut notat Augustinus super eisdem verbis 1. lib. ad Simplicianum, quamvis Apostolus dixerit reddet, quasi jam sit ex debito, cum tamen ascendit in altum, scilicet Christus, captivavit captivitatem, non reddidit, sed dedit dona hominibus, volens per hoc Augustinus innuere, quod cum aeterna vita datur justis, non tam redditur quam donatur. Ex eodem sensu intelligendae sunt glossae, cum justus dicitur retribuendo bona pro bonis, & misericors retribuendo bona pro malis, non quia non sit utrobique misericordia, sed quia magis apparet misericordia in dando bona pro malis, & in dando bona pro bonis generaliter loquendo, videtur quaedam justitia ratione conformitatis meriti ad praemium, in hac generali ratione, quia utrumque bonum est, in hac tamen speciali retributione utique misericordia est, unde in glossa prius allegata sequitur immediate, & ipsa tamen justitia, quâ retribuuntur bona pro bonis, non est sine misericordia. Huic etiam concordat commune dictum doctorum dicentium, quod Deus praemiat ultra condignum, ergo vita aeterna non debetur ex condigno meritis nostris.  

e L. 2. d. 27. q. 2. item l. 1, d. 17. q. 2.  Durandus clearly and fully agreeth with Scotus and Ariminensis, distinguishing merit of condignity, making it to be of two sorts. Quoddam est meritum de condigno largè sumpto, pro quadam dignitate quam Deus ex ordinatione requirit in operibus nostris, ad hoc ut remunerentur vita aeterna, & haec dignitas est in nobis per gratiam & charitatem habitualem. Aliud est meritum de condigno strictè & proprie accepto, & tale meritum est actio voluntaria, propter quam alicui merces debetur ex justitia, sic quod si non reddatur, ille ad quem pertinet reddere injuste facit, & est simpliciter & propriè injustus, & tale meritum de condigno invenitur inter homines, sed non est hominis ad Deum. Quod patet, quia quod redditur potius ex liberalitate dantis, quam ex debito operis, non cadit sub merito de condigno stricte sumpto; sed quicquid à Deo accipimus, sive sit gratia, sive sit gloria, sive bonum temporale, vel spirituale, praecedente in nobis propter hoc quocunque bono opere; potius & principalius accipimus ex liberalitate Dei, quam reddatur ex debito operis; ergo nihil penitus cadit sub merito de condigno sic accepto. Facilius & minus est reddere aequivalens ejus quod quis accepit ab alio, quam eum constituere debitorem, sed nullus potest reddere Deo aequivalens; Deo & parentibus nemo potest reddere aequivalens secundum philosophum; ergo multo minus est possibile, quod ex quocunque nostro opere Deus fiat nobis debtor: All that we are and have, whether good actions, good habits or good use of things, it is all from the goodness of God, ex dono gratuito nullus obligatur ad dandum amplius, sed potius recipiens magis obligatur danti, ideo ex bonis habitibus, & ex bonis actibus sive usibus nobis à Deo datis, Deus non obligatur nobis ex aliquo debito justitiae, ad aliquid amplius dandum, ita quod si non dederit sit injustus, sed potius nos sumus Deo obligati: & sentire seu dicere oppositum est temerarium seu blasphemum. Ex hoc quod Deus dat quaedam non obligatur ad dandum alia, ita ut non dando sit injustus, & si quid pro bonis operibus nostris nobis datur vel redditur, potius & principalius est ex liberalitate Dei dantis, quam ex debito nostri operis. Quod si quis dicat quod quamvis Deus non constituatur nobis debitor ex aliquo nostro opere, constituitur tamen debitor ex suâ promissione. Non valet propter duo; Primum est quia promissio divina in scriptures sanctis, non sonat in aliquam obligationem, sed insinuat meram dispositionem liberalitatis divinae; Secundum est quia quod redditur, non ex debito praecedentis operis, sed ex promissione praecedente, non quidem redditur ex merito operis de condigno; sed solum vel principaliter ex promisso. Sicut reddere justum precium pro re acceptâ ab aliquo est actus justitiae, ita recompensare mercedem, vel praemium laboris nostri operis est actus justitiae. Et ideo in illis in quibus est simpliciter justum, etiam simpliciter ratio meriti & praemij seu mercedis; in quibus autem non est simpliciter justum sed secundum quid, in his non est simpliciter ratio meriti, sed secundum quid: inter Deum autem & hominem, non potest esse justum simpliciter, sicut nec aequale, sed solum justum secundum quid, scilicet domina-, tivum, quia totum bonum qvod est hominis, est Dei & à Deo, & multo amplius quam actiones serui sint sui Domini in humanis, propter quod meritum hominis apud Deum, non potest esse meritum simpliciter de condigno, sed solum secundum praesuppositionem divinae ordinationis, ita scilicet ut homo id consequatur á Deo per suam operationem quasi praemium, ad quod Deus ei virtutem operandi deputavit. Et supra dicit; maximam esse inaequalitatem inter opus nostrum & vitam aeternam, nec valere quod quidam dicunt, quod sit quaedam aequalitas secundum quod ex gratiâ spiritus sancti procedit, & quoth valour ejus attenditur secundum virtutem spiritus sancti moventis nos in vitam aeterternam. Bellar. the justific. l. 5. c. 16. Durandus videtur omnino velle merita nostra ex gratiâ Dei procedentia, & positâ promissione, adhuc non esse talia ut iis ex justitiâ debeatur merces, sed ex solâ Dei liberalitate.  
Thomas Waldensis tom. 3. de sacramentalibus c. 7. confuting this saying imputed to Wickliff, Confidat homo in merito proprio, quia ad mensuram illius Deus necessario praemiabit, allegeth out of Aug: Deus non inveniret aliquid in hominibus nisi ad interitum, si cum iis ageret per pondera meritorum. Super illud Ps. 94. Praeoccupemus facien ejus in confession. Quomodo distinguis, vota quae reddis Deo: ut eum laudes, te accuses, quia illius est misericordia, ut peccata nostra dimittat: nam si vellet pro meritis agere, non inveniret, nisi quos damnaret; haec Aug: Et cum illud obiiceretur 2 Tim. 4. Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi &c: Quamvis bona opera recoluit, tamen non in eyes confidit, qui soli Deo gloriam dedit. Et cum omnia faceret: non autem ego, inquit, sed gratia Dei mecum. Hanc item normam observat Psalmista cum dicit. Retribuet mihi Dominus 
Psal. 17.  secundum iustitiam meam, & secundum innocentiam meam super me. sed his verbis praemisit: quoniam voluit me. Gratiam ergo voluntatis ejus prae ●…umens, descendit ad innocentiam actionis. Et Cassiodorus: dicit Apostolus, De reliquo reposita est mihi corona justitiae &c: none qd suis aliquid meritis humilis applicabat, sed quia praemissis beneficijs domini, jam deberi posse praemium confidebat. Hoc non erat in meritis confidere, sed in beneficijs Domini. Et supra: Nec hoc dico quin accepta gratia fiduciam praestet orandi, sed omnino non oportet ut fiduciam in eâ constituat quisquam impetrandi. Hoc solum conferunt haec prima dona, ab eâ misericordiâ, quae tribuit haec, ut speremus & ampliora. And he addeth, Quantum mea sapit modicitas, haec ipsa determinatio scripturarum, quam sic ex Apostolo & Psalmistâ annotant sancti patres, congruentius jungeretur locutionibus de meritis hominum, quam absolute diceretur quod homo ex meritis est dignus regno coelorum, aut hac gratiâ, vel illâ gloriâ: quamuis quidam Scholastici invenerunt ad hoc dicendum, terminos de condigno & congruo. At Chrysostomus dicit, Quid dignum facimus in hoc seculo, ut participes domini nostri, in regnis coelestibus fieri mereamur? Ideo justè dicit Apostolus, Existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam. Reputo igitur saniorem theologum, fideliorem catholicum, & scriptures sanctis magis concordem, qui tale meritum simpliciter abnegat, & cum modificatione Apostoli & scripturarum, concedit quia simpliciter quis non meretur regnum coelorum, sed ex gratia Dei, aut voluntate largitoris. Sic enim dicit Apostolus, Non qd sufficientes simus existimare aliquid à nobis: sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est. 2. Cor. 3. Haec locutio crebra esset in ore peritorum fidelium, ut Pelagianis qui gratiam Dei ●…acent vel abnegant, & in meritis hominum omnino confidunt, ex parte gratiae Dei inveniremur esse discords, sicut omnes sancti priores usque ad recentes Scholasticos, & communis scripsit ecclesia. Vnde in oratione Canonis ad Deum. Non aestimator meriti, sed veniae quaesumus largitor admit &c: Feriâ quartâ passionis: Vt qui de meritorum qualitate diffidimus, non judicium tuum, sed misericordiam consequi mereamur. Et in secretâ oratione dominicae secudae adventus: Vbi nulla suppetunt suffragia meritorum, tuae nobis indulgentiae succurre praesidijs. Meritum nostrum in articulo minimè Deus attendit, sive rationem congrui, vel condigni, sed gratiam suam, aut voluntatem suam, aut misericordiam suam.  
Paulus Burgensis in additione in Psalm. 35. Manifestum quod misericordia Dei maximè relucet in Coelo, ubi beati misericordiam Dei plenè consequuntur, ut in Math: 5. cujus ratio est, nam gloriam coelestem nullus de condigno secundum legem communem meretur. Vnde Apostolus ad rom. 8. Non sunt condignae passiones &c: 
f Epist. 19  Cassander saith, he found it thus written by a certain schoolman in an old manuscript, Nota quod cum dicitur, Deus pro bonis meritis dabit vitam aeternam: pro, primo notat signum, vel viam, vel occasionem aliquam: sed si dicatur propter bona merita dabit vitam aeternam, propter, notat causam efficientem. Ideo non recipitur à quibusdam, sed hanc recipiunt, pro bonis meritis, & consimiles earum, assignantes differentiam inter pro & propter. 
g Lib. 1. c. 39  Thomas Bradwardin in summa contra Pelagianos, Disputat meritum non esse causam aeterni praemij, cumque scriptura & doctores confirment, Deum praemiaturum bonos propter merita sua bona, propter non significare causam propriè, sed impropriè, vel causam cognoscendi, vel ordinem, vel denique dispositionem subjecti. Bernard: de gratiâ & libero arbitrio. Merita nostra sunt via regni non causa regnandi. Camaracensis in 4. quaest: 1: artic: 1. Quia causa est illud ad cujus esse sequitur aliquid. Dupliciter potest aliquid dici causa: uno modo propriè, quando ad praesentiam esse unius, virtute ejus ex naturâ rei sequitur esse alterius, & sic ignis est causa caloris: alio modo impropriè, quando ad praesentiam esse unius sequitur esse alterius, non tamen virtute ejus, nec ex natura rei, sed ex solâ voluntate alterius, & sic actus meritorius dicitur causa respectu praemij: (subdit autem) causa sine quâ non, non debet simpliciter & absolutè dici causa, quia propriè non est causa. And the same Cameracensis proveth at large, that there is no condign meriting of eternal life.  
Manipulus Curatorum, fol. 129. Quare melius dicimus, adveniat regnum tuum, quam dicamus adveniamus in regnum tuum? dico quod ad denotandum, quod gloria Paradisi non habetur ex propriis meritis, sed ex mera gratia Dei, iuxta verbum Apostoli dicentis, Non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos. Sed secundùm misericordiam salvos nos fecit, non autem dicimus, adveniamus, quia ut dictum est, ex meritis nostris non possumus ad illud venire, nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater meus traxerit illum, ut dicitur joan. 
h Citatus ab Hosio conf. cathol. c. 73. tom. r. p. 286.  Stephanus Brulepher l. 1. d. 17. following the opinion of Scotus, layeth down two propositions, the first, Nullus actus elicitus ex charitate, & secundùm inclinationem charitatis, quantum cunque bonus sit, est dignus vitâ aeternâ ex naturâ rei: probatur, Non sunt condignae passiones etc. Christus in Evangelio cum feceritis omnia, etc. Sed si homo faceret actus ex naturâ rei dignos aeterno praemio, non esset servus inutilis: the second, Omnis actus elicitus ab habente charitatem; & secundùm inclinationem charitatis, solum est dignus vitâ aeternâ, propter passivam acceptationem Dei. Quid sit autem acceptare, Scotus explicat ipse dicens, acceptare est velle aliquem secundùm dispositionem quam nunc habet, esse dignum tali praemio, quem prius non voluit esse dignum; verbi gratia, sit aliquis gravis peccator, non modo non dignus coelesti praemio, verumetiam dignissimus qui sempiterno supplicio afficiatur, convertatur is ad Deum, studeat eum placare jejuniis, orationibus, eleemosynis; quamvis haec omnia naturâ suâ non sint ejusmodi, ut sint coelesti praemio digna; tamen secundùm has dispositiones acceptat Deus hominem ex gratuita sua bonitate, & vult esse dignum tali praemio.  
Anselm. Si homo mille annis serviret Deo etiam ferventissime, non mereretur ex condigno dimidium diem esse in regno coelorum, l. the mensurat. crucis. 
i Apud. Hos. ib.  Simon de Cassia, Neminem Deus nisi per misericordiam salvat, nec reprobat nisi justo judicio. Drogo l. de Sacramento dominicae passionis: Terra mentis nostrae est velut chaos quoddam, confusione teterrimum & involutum, ignorans tam sinem suum quam principium, & naturae suae modum, nisi quod a summo Creatore de nihilo mirabiliter factam se credit, & post hanc vitam, vel ad inferos pro suis meritis, vel ad coelos pro misericordiâ sui autoris transferendam. 
k Citatus ab Hosio ibid.  Rogerus Benedictinus scribens vitam Brunonis Archiepiscopi Colon. ante annos 500 sic orditur, sapientiae nimirum est scire, unde sit donum quod quis accipit, nè à se sibi hoc esse, aut à Deo quidem sed sibi debitum putet, si enim quaerimus quid nobis debeatur, nihil inveniemus nisi supplicium, misericordia autem Dei praerogavit nobis gratiam, ut haberet quibus redderet gratiam pro gratia, & hoc jam esset debitum, quia Deus voluit, non quiahomo meruit, quid enim habes, ait Apostolus, quod non accepisti, si autem accepisti quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis? Bernard, Sufficit ad meritum, scire quod non sufficiunt merita; in Cantica ser. 68 Et serm. 61. Meum proinde meritum miseratio domini: non plane sum meriti inops, quamdiu ille miserationum non fuerit; quod si misericordiae domini multae, multis nihilominus ego in meritis sum; quid enim si multorum sim mihi conscius delictorum? nempe ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit & gratia. Et si misericordiae domini ab aeterno, & usque in aeternum, ego quoque misericordias domini in aeternum cantabo. Num quid justitias meas? Domine memorabor iustitiae tuae solius: ipsa est enim & mea, nempe factus es mihi tu justitia à Deo. & ser. 68 Merita habere cures, habita donata noveris, fructum speraveris Dei misericordiam, & omne periculum evasisti, paupertatis, ingratitudinis, praesumptionis. Haimo in ps. 131. Nemo debet de suis meritis praesumere, sed omnem salvationem ex Christi meritis expectare Hier. in Es. 64. Si nostra consideremus merita desperandum est, si tuam autem clementiam qui flagellas omnem filium quem recipis, audemus preces fundere, tu enim pater noster es. Orig. in 4. ad Ro. Cum considero sermonis eminentiam, quòd dicit, operanti secundum debitum reddi, vix mihi suadeo quod possit ullum opus esse, quod ex debito remunerationem Dei deposcat.  
Theodoret: explicans illud 
l Sophoniae ult. , Vae qui accepit super eam opprobrium, Hominum inquit salus ex solâ Dei misericordiâ pendet, neque enim hanc adipiscimur praemium & mercedem iustitiae, sed Dei bonitatis donum est. Explicans illud Psalmi 23. Hic accipiet benedictionem à Domino. Ingeniosè admodum misericordiam cum benedictione coniunxit. Etenim quae existimantur remunerationes, propte●… lamb divinam benignitatem hominibus praebentur. Omnes enim hominum iustitiae nihil sunt ad dona, quae â Deo nobis suppeditata sunt, nedum ad futura munera, quae omnem humanam cogitationem transcendunt. Basil: in Psal. explicans illud, Propter nomen tuum propitiaberis peccato meo. Ego te inquit oro ut propitius sis peccatis meis, non propter exactam meam poenitentiam, sed propter benignitatis nomen quod habes; explicans illum Psal. 142. locum Exaudi me in iustitiâ tuâ. Quid facuô homo? infra dicis non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens, & si iniquitates observaveris &c: & hic secundum iustitiam exaudiri petis? quid est igitur quod dicit? iustitiam hic benignitatem Dei dicit, & hoc multis in locis vider●… potest, & valde merito. Apud homines enim iustitia misericordiâ caret, apud Deum vero non ita, sed immixta est misericordiâ, atque ita immixta, ut ipsa iustitia benignitas vocetur. Chrysost: in Psal. 4. Etiamsi innumerabilia rectè fecerimus, á misericordiâ & clementiâ audimur, etiamsi ad ipsum fastigium virtutis pervenerimus, servamur á misericordia. Ambros: in Psal: 118. Semper homo etiamsi sanctus & iustus sic debet orare, ut exaudiat eum secundum misericordiam suam, non secundum meritum virtutis alicuius.  
Hitherto I have sufficiently proved, that both the latter Schoolmen & the more ancient fathers, rejected the merit of condignity; I will only add the testimony of a great learned man, that lived immediately before Luther's time, and the opinion of some of the best learned after his time, and so conclude this point. Gocchianus part: 3. c. 6. Aquinas scripto tertio in sent: d. 18. dicit actum charitate informatum, mereri vitam aeternam ex condigno, quia inter huiusmodi meritum & praemium, invenitur aequalitas secundum rectam aestimationem, & huiusmodi meritum innititur divinae iustitiae. Contra Paulus Rom. 4. si Abraham ex operibus &c: ubi dicit glossa Aug. in lib. de spiritu & litterâ, quod actus hominis quantumvis sit informatus charitate, tamen non potest esse tam perfectaeiustitiae, ut ex debito mereatur praemium beatitudinis aeternae, & examplificat de Apostolis, In multis offendimus omnes, & iterum, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus &c: Quis vestrum habens servum &c: docet suos quod ex operibus iustitiae de fide formatâ procedentibus, non debet expectari praemium aternae beatitudinis ex debito iustitiae, tanquam fecissent Deum sibi debitorem per huiusmodi. 1 Quia nihil utilitatis Deo ex nostris operibus accrescit. 2 Quia quicquid facere possumus, ex debito servitutis debuimus; Attend servum tam in agro quam domo laborantem, & tamen à Domino suo ex debito iustitiae nec gratias merentem; Vt ex praemissis advertere potes, homo per quoscunque actus suos qualitercunque factos, mereri non potest, quia omnium operum suorum quae facere potest debitor est, & ideo ecclesia i●… fide Christi fundata innititur meritis Christi, & per ease credit & sperat saluari, ipse enim meruit nobis à peccatis & á diabolo liberationem, vitae iustificationem & glorificationem, ut in omnibus honorificetur Deus. 3 Ostendit idem Esaias, facti sumus ut immundi omnes nos, & quasi pannus menstruatae universae iustitiae nostrae; Quae ergo proportio nostrorum bonorum operum, quae tam erunt judici abominabilia, & aeternae beatitudinis, quae tantae pulchritudinis & dulcedinis perfectione abundat?  
Anno 1541. In the time of Charles the fifth and by his appointment, there was a conference between six learned divines at Ratisbon, for the conposing of the differences in religion, whereof three were chosen for the Roman, and three for the reformed part; at which conference Cardinal Contarenus was present. At this conference the collocutors of both sides, agreed in all the points that concern justification, composed the differences touching the same, and offered the form of their agreement to the Emperor and the imperial states. In this agreement they left out the matter of merit; which when some disliked, & there wanted not in Rome that took exception to their so doing; Cardinal Contarenus writeth to Cardinal Farnesius, and showeth at large, that there is no merit properly so named, out of the grounds of Philosophy and Divinity. And strongly proveth, that there is no merit of eternal life; because if there be, than either men merit it before or after justification, not before, than enemies &c: not after, because to merit is to make that due that was not due before, whereas the happiness of eternal life is due to the justified, by the right of his justification, so that the works of the justified do not make the same newly due.   

CHAP. 13.  
Of works of Supererogation and counsels of perfection.  
THe Papists imagine certain degrees of moral goodness: the lowest whereof, who so attaineth not, doth sin, as not doing that the precept requireth; the higher, such as men are counselled unto, if they will be perfect, though not by any precept urged thereunto; they that attain to such height of virtue, are said by them to do works of supererogation. But 
a De consilijs Evangelicis & statu perfectionis.  Gerson showeth, that these men err, in that they discern not between the matter of precepts and counsels, imagining that the precept requireth the inferior degrees of virtue, and the counsels the more high and excellent: whereas the precept requireth all the actions of virtue in the best sort they can be performed, and the counsels are conversant in another matter, namely, in showing us the means whereby most easily, if all things be answerable in the parties, men may attain to the height of virtue. Hereunto agreeth 
b In concordiam evangelicam, c. 100  jansenius, alleging the authority of Aquinas, secundâ secundae quaest. 184. Artic. 3. who affirmeth that the perfection of Christian life, consisteth essentially in keeping the commandments: and of another, who saith, that watchings, fastings, nakedness, and forsaking all, are not Christian perfections, but the instruments of perfection, not the ends of Christian discipline, but the means whereby men do oftentimes attain to the height of virtue: so that as Gerson, and 
c In sent. l. 3. d. 34. qu. 3.  Paludanus do show, some men at sometime, and in some state of things, may attain to as great height of perfection, living in marriage, and possessing much, as they that live single, and give away all they have: 
d Bellar. lib. 2. de Monachis. cap. 6.  But the conceit of the Jesuits is, that the entering into a Monastical life, wherein are implied the vows of single life and voluntary poverty, is essentially of so great merit, and acceptation with God, that it is a kind of Baptism freeing from all temporal punishments otherwise due for precedent sins.   

CHAP. 14.  
Of Election and Reprobation depending on the foresight of something in the parties elected or rejected.  
WHy these or these men are predestinated or reprobated, 
a Li. 1. d. 40. qu. 1. art. 2.  Ariminensis saith, some yield a positive reason, to wit, works, or the well using of free will; others, a privative, to wit, the not resisting against grace: against these opinions he opposeth these conclusions; the first, that no man is predestinated, for that God foresaw he would use the liberty of his will aright; the second, that no man is predestinated, because God foresaw, he would not resist against his grace; the third, that whom God did predestinate, he did freely, and only of mercy predestinate them, according to the good pleasure of his will. See the divers opinions touching Predestination formerly found in the Roman Church, in 
b In 1 sent. q. 12  Cameracensis.   

CHAP. 15.  
Of the seven Sacraments.  
DVrandus 
a L. 4. d. 26. q. 3.  denyeth Matrimony to be a Sacrament properly so named, and of the same nature with the rest, or to give grace. 
b L. 8. c. 5.  Canus saith, the Divines speak uncertainly of the matter and form of Matrimony, and that they do not certainly resolve, whether it give grace or not. 
c Part. 4. q. 5. memb. 2. art. 1. q. 5. memb. 3. art 2. q. 9 memb. 2. art. 2.  Alexander of Hales saith, that there are only four, which are in any sort properly to be said Sacraments of the new Law, that the other three supposed Sacraments had their being long before, but received some addition by Christ manifested in the flesh, that amongst them which began with the new Covenant, only Baptism and the Eucharist were instituted immediately by Christ, received their forms from him, and flowed out of his wounded side: whence it cometh, that water is the matter of Baptism, and bread and wine of the Eucharist, without any other consecration, but that which they receive from the words of Sacramental form: but the matter of the other two supposed Sacraments, requireth consecration, and hallowing, before it can be the matter of those Sacraments, so that though the words of form be pronounced, they have no virtue of Sacraments, but from precedent consecration: Whereby it appeareth, that they take their force from the prayers of the Church, by the Ministry whereof they were appointed, and not from the words of form, as the other do. Hence also it cometh, that they are variable both in their matter and form. The Apostles, saith Alexander of Hales, confirmed with the only imposition of their hands without any certain form of words or outward matter or Element, but afterward it was otherwise ordained, both in respect of the one, and the other: the forms of Baptism, and the Eucharist being apppointed by Christ, are kept inviolably without all change: but touching the words of form to be used in any other of the supposed Sacraments, there is no certainty, but they are diversely and doubtfully desivered. The reason whereof is, because they are of humane devising. By this which hath been said, it may appear, that the other pretended Sacraments are not of the same nature with Baptism and the Eucharist, as even 
d De sacram. in genere l. 1. de definite. Sacram. c. 9  Bellarmin himself is forced to confess: the sacred or holy things, saith he, which the Sacraments of the new Law signify, are threefold; the grace of justification, the Passion of Christ, and eternal life, as Thomas teacheth; touching Baptism, and the Eucharist, the thing is most evident, concerning the other it is not so certain.   

CHAP. 16.  
Of the being of one body in many places at the same time.  
THE possibility of the being of one body in many places at the same time, was ever denied by many worthy members of the Church, and consequently the local presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, whether definitive, or circumscriptive, was likewise rejected, as a thing impossible. To affirm, saith 
a Quolib. 3. q. 1. art. 2.  Aquinas, that one body may be locally in this place, and yet also in another at the same time, implieth a contradiction: and therefore the power of God extendeth not to the effecting of any such thing. 
b Lib. 4. dist. 10. quaest. 2.  Scotus confesseth, that Egidius, Godfredus de font, Alanus, and Henricus, are of the same opinion with Thomas. 
c Lib. 4. dist. 11. q. 1. &. 11.  Durandus saith, that which is present in one place definitively or circumscriptively, cannot in any such sort be in many places at the same time. Whereupon he pronounceth, that the body of Christ is no otherwise in the Sacrament, but by reason of a certain habitudinary union between it, and the sacramental elements: whence it was wont to be said, that Christ's body is personaliter in verbo, localiter in coelo, sacramentaliter in Eucharistia: Personally in the eternal word, locally in heaven, sacramentally in the Eucharist. The first that taught otherwise, and brought in the local presence, was Scotus, whom 
d Li. 4. q 4.  Occam followed, though he deny not, but the former opinion had great favourers.   

CHAP: 17.  
Of Transubstantiation.  
THe conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, all of us, saith 
a In 3 part. qu. 75. art. 1.  Caietane, do teach in words, but in deed many deny it, thinking nothing less. These are diversely divided one from another: for some by the Conversion that is in the sacrament, understand nothing but Identity of place, that is, that the bread is therefore said to be made the body of Christ, because where the bread is, the body of Christ becomes present also; others understand by the word Conversion, nothing else but the order of succession, that is, that the body succeedeth, and is under the veils of those accidents, under which the bread, which they think to be annihilated, was before. This opinion in substance Scotus followeth, though in the manner of his speech he seemeth to decline it. Some admit both the word and thing, but yet not wholly, but only in part, as Durandus. 
b Lib. 4. dist. 11. qu. 2.  Bonaventura saith, that some seeing the accidents to remain both in their being and operation, think the matter of the sacramental element still remaineth; Other, the form; but that the more Catholic or general opinion is, that the whole substance of the elements is turned into Christ's body and blood. We see, he maketh the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be but an opinion. 
c Centilogij conclus. 39  Occam saith, there are three opinions of Transubstantiation, of which, the first supposeth a coversion of the sacramental elements; the second an annihilation; the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated into the body of Christ, that it is no way changed in substance, or substantially converted into Christ's body, or doth cease to be, but only that the body of Christ in every part of it becomes present in every part of the bread. This opinion he saith, the Master of sentences mentioneth, not much disliking it; yet is it not commonly holden. 
d 4. sent. q 6.  Cameracensis saith, that the more common opinion is, that the substance of bread doth not remain, but wholly ceaseth; and that though this opinion be not evidently deduced from the scriptures, nor concluded out of any determination of the universal Church for aught he can see, yet he is resolved to follow it. 
e Tom. 2. de sacram. Eucharistiae, cap. 43.  Waldensis saith, he found in a certain old book of decrees, that in the year 1049. there was a meeting of Archbishops, Bishops, and other religious persons in a Synod, and that when they were come together, they began to speak of the body and blood of Christ, some saying one thing, some another; but that before the third day of meeting, they that denied the substantial conversion of the sacramental elements, were silent. 
f Cap. 19  But in the same book he reporteth out of Christopolitanus Zacharias, his book entitled Quatuor unum, that there were some, perhaps many, but hardly to be discerned and noted, that thought still, as Berengarius did, whom they then condemned, and yet condemned him with the rest, in this respect only disliking him, for that refusing the form of words the Church used, with the nakedness of his manner of speaking, he gave offence, not following the use of the Scriptures, which every where call things that are signs, by the names of things signified, especially in the matter of Sacraments, the more lively to express their virtue and efficacy: these men ceased not to charge others secretly, that they knew not the nature of figurative speeches, & therefore not without gross error, killing the soul, took signs for the things, whereof they are signs; scorning not a little the folly, of them that say, the appearing accidents of bread and wine after the conversion, do hang in the air, or that the senses are deceived. In the same place he saith, that Guitmundus reporteth some other that were not of the faction of Berengarius, but with great vehementie, contrary and opposite unto him, to have been of opinion, that the bread and wine in part are changed, and in part remain; these supposed so much only to be changed, as is to serve for the communicating of the worthy receivers: others thought the whole to be changed, but that when unworthy men come to communicate, the body and blood of Christ cease to be present, and the substances of bread and wine return, and are there present to be received by them. But that it may yet more clearly appear, that the opinion of Transubstantiation never passed currently in the Church, let us add another testimony of the same Waldensis, 
g Cap. 64:  who saith, that some supposed the conversion that is in the Sacrament, to be in that the bread and wine are assumpted into the unity of Christ's person: some thought it to be by way of Impanation: and some by way of figurative or Tropical appellation. The first and second of these opinions, found the better entertainment in some men's minds, because they grant the essential presence of Christ's body, and yet deny not the presence of the bread still remaining to sustain the appearing accidents. These opinions he reports to have been very acceptable to many, not without sighs, wishing the Church had decreed, that men should follow one of them; Whereupon john Paris writeth, that this way of Impanation so pleased Guido the Carmelite, sometimes Reader of the holy Palace, that he professed, if he had been Pope, he would have prescribed and commanded the embracing of it. Neither was it less pleasing to many in Waldensis time, who, as he saith, did as it were wish in their hearts, it were free from them to defend it, and that a decree in the Church were passed in the favour of it.   

CHAP. 18.  
Touching or all Manducation.  
ALexander 
a 4. part. qu. 1●…. memb. 2. art. 2.  of Hales, and 
b Lib. 4 sent. dist. 12. art. 3. qu. 1.  Bonaventura do teach, that no man can eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, without faith: and that the eating of Christ is mystical, not corporal, Bonaventura showeth; for that whereas there are three things implied in corporal eating, to wit, a mastication or chewing, a traiection into the stomach and belly, and a conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater; this later, which is most essential in eating, cannot agree unto the body of Christ, which is not turned into our substance, but rather in mystical sort turneth us into itself. It appeareth by that of Waldensis cited before, that many thought, the wicked do not eat the flesh of Christ, seeing they supposed so much only of the bread to be turned into the body of Christ, as is to be received by the believers; or if all be turned, that yet the body of Christ ceaseth to be in the Sacrament, when a wicked man is to receive it, and that the bread returneth again.   

CHAP. 19  
Of the real sacrificing of Christ's body on the Altar, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead.  
TOuching the real sacrificing of Christ's Body on the Altar, the Church never taught any such thing, as the Romanists now teach, as appeareth by these testimonies following. Although, saith 
a In Canonem Missae lect. 85  Biel, Christ were once offered, when he appeared in our flesh, he is offered notwithstanding daily hidden under the veils of Bread & wine, not touching any of those things which import punishment or suffering (for Christ is not daily wounded, he suffereth not, he dyeth not) but for two other causes, the consecration and receiving of the holy Eucharist, may be named a sacrifice & oblation: first, because it is a representation and memorial of the true sacrifice & holy oblation made on the Altar of the Cross; secondly, because it maketh us partakers of the effects of the same: now the resemblances of things, as Augustine noteth, writing to Simplicianus, are called by the names of those things whereof they are resemblances, as we are wont to say, when we behold a painted table or wall, this is Cicero, this Salustius. Wherefore seeing the celebration of this sacrifice is a lively resemblance of the Passion of Christ, which is the true sacrificing of him, it may rightly be named the sacrificing of him. Peter Lombard, Thomas, and the other Schoolmen, saith 
b 2 Tom. contr. 3. l. 5. de Eucharistia qui est 1. de missa, c. 15.  Bellarmine, were not careful of that, which is now in question, touching the daily renewed Real sacrificing of Christ, but only sought to show how the sacrifice of the Mass, may be called an offering of Christ, that is, a slaying of him; & therefore proposing the question, whether the Eucharist be a sacrifice, they answer, for the most part, that it may be said to be an offering or sacrifice, because it hath a resemblance of the true and Real offering which was on the Altar of the Cross, and because it communicateth unto us the effects of the true and Real killing of Christ.   

CHAP. XX.  
Of Remission of sins after this life.  
THat Remission of sins after this life was not taught, nor believed in former times by the Church, appeareth by the judgement of these Divines who teach the contrary. The prayers of the living, saith 
a L. 1. dist. 45. quaest. 1.  Durandus, may be understood to benefit the dead two ways: either in respect of remitting the fault, or diminishing or taking away the punishment: in the first sort, the prayers of the living cannot profit the dead, because either the sin, wherein they depart out of this life, is mortal, or venial; if it be mortal, he that so departeth is not capable of Remission: if venial, he needs no help, because such remission of sin consisteth in the ordering the will aright again, whereby men rightly dislike, that they ill affected before: now the wills of them that depart hence in grace, & yet with venial sin, so soon as they are out of the body, are brought into due order, because, as weight and lightness, carry the things that are heavy or light, if there be no impediment, to their own places; so Grace and Charity carry men going hence, to the possessing of eternal happiness, so that all things hindering or staying, from the present enjoying thereof, are bitter and unpleasant. Now because not only punishments for mortal sins formerly committed, but also venial sins, if any be found in him that dyeth in state of grace, hinder from such desired enjoying, therefore they must needs be disliked: in which dislike, the will is reordered again, which in the liking of that it should not, was disordered, etc. The merits, saith 
b Lib. 4. dist. 21. quaest. 1.  Scotus, of him that dyeth in charity, are a sufficient cause of the remission of venial sins, neither is this cause hindered from working the proper effect thereof, in him that dyeth, as it often is, in him that liveth; for in him that liveth, there is a stop and hindrance, so long as he remaineth actually in sin; but after death there is no stop, because then a man committeth no sin, and therefore by such merits sins are remitted: Whence it followeth, that in the instant of death, all venial sins are remitted, to men dying in state of grace. 
c Lib. 4. q. 15. mem. 3. art 3.  Alexander of Hales maketh grace to be of three sorts; the first, that which is given in baptism; the second, that which is found in men repenting of sin committed after Baptism; and the third, that which is in men departing hence, which he calleth final grace: this last, he saith, taketh away all sinfulness out of the soul, because when the soul parteth from the body, all proneness to ill, and all perturbations which were found in it, by reason of the conjunction with the flesh, do cease, the powers thereof are quieted, and perfectly subjected to grace, and by that means all venial sins removed: so that no venial sin is remitted after this life, but in that instant, wherein grace may be said to be final grace, it hath full dominion and absolute command, and expelleth all sin. Whereas therefore, the Master of sentences, and others do say, that some venial sins are remitted after this life, we must so understand their sayings, that therefore they are said to be remitted after this life, because it being the same moment or instant, that doth continuate the time of life, and that after life, (so that the last instant of life, is the first after life) they being remitted and taken away in the very moment of dissolution, are said to be remitted after this life: for otherwise, the wills of men after death are unchangeable, and there is no more place left for merit. Hereunto 
d Dialog. lib. 4. c. 46.  Gregory seemeth to agree, saying, that the very fear that is found in men dying, doth purge their souls going out of their body, from the lesser sins. Seeing therefore, as 
e In Psal. qui habitat, ●…er. 10.  Bernard saith, if all sin be perfectly taken away, whi●… is the cause, the effect must needs cease, which is punishment: it followeth, that seeing after death, there is no sin found in men dying in state of grace, there remaineth no punishment, and consequently no purgatory.   

CHAP. 21.  
Of Purgatory.  
TOuching Purgatory, 
a Bellarm. li. 2. de Purgatorio, cap. 11.  whether they, that are to be purged, be purged by material fire, or by some other means, it is doubtful: likewise 
b Cap. 6.  touching the place, the Roman Church hath defined nothing. Whereupon some think, that souls are purged, where they sinned, some in one place, some in another: neither is there any more certainty 
c Cap. 9  touching the continuance of sinful souls in their purgation. 
d In dist. 19 qu. 3. art. 2.  Dominicus â Soto thinketh, that no man continueth in this purgation ten years: his reason is, for that seeing, men may pacify God's wrath, by very short penance in this life, where they can neither endure any great extremity, nor are perfectly apprehensive of smart & grief, therefore much sooner in the other, where they may endure greater extremity, and are more apprehensive of it; so that the extremity of their passion, may countervail long continuance in pain. This of Soto, if we grant to be true, saith Bellarmine, no soul needs stay in purging one hour: neither indeed can he prove, that any doth, by Scripture, or Fathers, or any resolution of the Church, but only because they use to pray for men departed a long time after their death; which doth no more prove, that they need prayers so long as they are prayed for, then pardons for thousands of years prove Purgatory to continue so long; and by certain visions, which sometimes 
e Cap. 13.  he regardeth not. For howsoever sundry visions reported by Beda, Dionysius Carthusianus, and in the first book of the life of Bernard import, that the souls of men in Purgatory are tormented by devils, yet he thinketh that the children of God, overcoming Satan in the last conflict, & being secure of their future state for ever, are never molested by Satan any more. Thus than we see, that notwithst●…ding any thing defined in the Church, the souls of men may be purged from all the dross of sinful remainders, and freed from all punishments, in the very moment of dissolution, which is that we say. Hereupon 
f Li. 4. dist. 45. quaest: 1.  john Bacon saith, there be some, who think that Purgatory after this life cannot be proved by the authority of the Scripture, & that these do say, the books of Macchabees are not Canonical, and that the Apostle, 1. Cor. 3. speaketh of that fire, that shall purge the elements of the world, in the last day: And touching that saying of Christ, of sin, that shall never be remitted in this world, nor that to come, they say it proveth not the remission of any sins in the other world, but that this form of speaking is used, only for the better enforcing of that he intendeth to deliver; as if a man should say to a barren woman, thou shalt never bear child, neither in this world nor in that which is to come.   

CHAP. 22.  
Of the Saints hearing of our prayers.  
THat the Saints do hear our prayers, or are acquainted with our particular wants, was never resolved in the Church of God. 
a In canone●… missae, lect. 31.  Biel saith, that the Saints by that natural, or evening knowledge, whereby they see and know things, as they are in themselves, do not know or discern our prayers, neither mental nor vocal, by reason of the immoderate distance between them and us: and touching that morning knowledge, whereby they see things in the eternal word, it no way pertaining to their essential felicity, to see and know our desires, and it being uncertain, whether it appertain to their accidental happiness, he saith, it is not certain, but that it may seem probable, that God revealeth unto them all those suits, which men present unto them. The 
b Lib. 4. d. 45.  Master of sentences saith, it is not incredible, that the souls of the Saints, that delight in the secrets of God's countenance, in beholding the same, see things that are done in the world below. 
c De Sacram: lib: 2. cap. 11.  Hugo de Sancto Victore leaveth it doubtful whether the Saints do hear our prayers or not, and rejecteth that saying of Gregory, brought to prove that they do, Qui videt videntem omnia, videt omnia. The interlineall gloss upon Esay 63. saith Augustine, was of opinion, that the dead, though Saints, know not what the living, though they be their own children, do here in this world. Which appeareth to be true by his own words, pronouncing, that if so great patriarchs as was Abraham, knew not what befell to the people that came of them, it is no way likely that the dead, do intermeddle with the affairs of the living, either to know them, or to further, and set them forward: whereupon he concludes, that, for aught is known to the contrary, the Saints remaining only in heaven, and praying for us only in general, God by the ministry of Angels, or immediately by himself, without their particular intermeddling, giveth us the things we have need of. 
d In 4 sent. li. 3. tract. 8. cap. 5. quaest. 6.  Willihelmus Altisiodorensis saith, that many do think, that neither we do properly pray to the Saints, nor they pray for us in particular, but that improperly only we may be said to pray to them, in that we desire God that the favour which they find with him, resting from their labours, and their works being gone after them, may procure us their brethren, acceptation likewise, whom they have left behind them in the warfare of this world. Whereupon the prayers are, Adiwent nos eorum merita etc. In the margin he saith, that this was a common opinion in his time.   

CHAP. 23.  
Of the Superstition and Idolatry committed formerly in the worshipping of Images.  
THat many in the Roman Church did see the abuse & superstition, that was in the use of Images, appeareth by Picus Mirand. his Apology of his conclusion proposed in Rome, that neither the Cross, nor any other image is to be worshipped with divine worship; by 
a Rational. divin l. 2. de picturis.  Durand. blaming many things in the practice of the Church at that time, and by 
b De defect. viror. Eccles.  Gerson, disliking the honour then given to Images, their number and fashion, as being occasions of Idolatry in the simple; which to be true, the words of 
c In Psal. 113.  Augustine are proof sufficient, who demandeth who it is, or where he may be found, that adoreth or prayeth, beholding an Image, as the manner was in the Roman Church, & is not in such sort affected, that he persuadeth himself it heareth him, and is able and ready to grant him the things he desireth, and seeketh in his prayer.   

CHAP. 24.  
Of Absolution.  
ABsolution is now supposed by those of the Church of Rome, to be a Sacramental Act, giving grace, ex opere operato, and so remitting sin, both quoad culpam & poenam: but in the Primitive Church it was nothing else, but a restoring of men formerly put from the Sacrament, & cast out of the Church, to the Church's peace, and use of the Sacraments again; as appeareth by Cyprians Epistles. Neither was Absolution given in those times till penance were first performed. Amongst the ancient, saith 
a Panopliae l. 4. c. 70.  Lindan, Absolution was seldom given, but after penance performed; only in time of persecution, pestilence, war, or dangerous sickness of the party, the manner was, sometimes to give absolution presently at the suit of the penitent, & to require of him the performance of penance afterward, if he escaped those dangers. Hence in time it came, that ordinarily, they gave Absolution first, and then imposed penance to be performed afterward, Now because they could not conceive, from what this Absolution should free them, not being formerly subjected to any censure of the Church, some began to think, that it freeth them from the stain of sin, and the punishments due unto the same, thereby making it a Sacramental Act, yet so, as many retained a right persuasion still. The Priest, saith 
b Part. 4. q. 21. memb. 1. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 18. art. 2. q. 1.  Alexander of Hales, is a Mediator between God & man: to God he ascendeth, as an inferior, by way of petition, and as a suitor; to man he descendeth, as a Commander and judge. In the first sort, he obtaineth for men, by his prayer, and procureth acceptation with God: in the second, he reconcileth them to the Church, his prayer obtaineth grace, his absolution presupposeth it, so that the Keys of the Church extend to the remission of sin, by way of request obtaining it, not by way of authority giving it.   

CHAP. 25.  
Of Indulgences and Pardons.  
TOuching Indulgences or Pardons; they were originally nothing else, but the releasing of some part of that penance, that had been enjoined, as appeareth by the whole course of antiquity. Whereupon it was a long time, the opinion of many in the Roman Church, that Indulgences are of force, only in indicio Ecclesiae, not in iudicio Dei: and that they free men only from enjoined penance, which the form of them was wont to import, it being ever added in those relaxations, ab iniunctis poenitentiis; and 
a Opusc. tom. 1. tract. 15. c. 1. 2. 3.  Caietan showeth the same, affirming, that an Indulgence is principally an act of jurisdiction, and the freeing from enjoined penance. That which bred another conceit in the Roman Church in later times, was an error in practice: for whereas anciently they never remitted any part of the penance they had enjoined, but out of the consideration of the extraordinary signs of repentance, appearing in the penitent, arguing that to be performed in shorter time, than was expected, which was intended; in later times they granted these relaxations and remissions in favour, when there was no inducement, in respect of any thing, appearing in the parties. Now because to free them from these penitential exercises, tending to the preventing of God's judgements, before so much was performed, as was necessary for the turning away of his displeasure, might seem hurtful, rather than beneficial to them, to whom such favours were showed, in that they were left to God's judgements, into whose hands it is fearful to fall, they began to bethink them, how they might supply the defects of penitential conversion unto God, in those they thus pardoned, and not leave them to the danger of his future judgement. This they could not otherwise devise to do, but by casting the overplus of other men's satisfactions upon them, and relieving them out of the treasury of the Church: which groweth, as they suppose, out of the satisfactory sufferings of Christ and his Saints, multis tamen doctoribus adversantibus, as 
b Opusc. tom 1. tract. 8 qu. 3.  Caietan noteth; where he showeth, that Durandus teacheth, that the Saints had no superfluous merits, not rewarded in themselves. Touching Indulgences, 
c In 4. dist. 20. quaest. 3.  Durandus saith, little can be said of any certainty, or as undoubtedly true, seeing the Scripture speaketh not expressly of them, neither the Fathers, as Augustine, Hilary, Ambrose, Hierome, and the rest; so that in speaking of them, we must follow the common course. Touching the force of these pardons, how uncertainly and unconstantly their greatest doctors dispute, it is not unknown; for Bonaventura noteth, that many were of opinion, that pardons have no other use, nor have any further force or virtue, but only to remit certain days penance, if the cause, in respect whereof they be granted, be equivalent unto the penance, which was to have been performed; so making them to be, but only a commutation of penance, and not a relaxation or remission. 
d De indulgen. tijs consid. 2.  Gerson saith, the judicial and public power of the keys extendeth not itself principally, or directly, to the diminishing or taking away of any punishments, but such, as itself inflicted, or might have inflicted, as are the punishments of Excommunication, irregularity, and other disabling to perform Civil or Ecclesiastical acts. And in 
e Consid. 11.  another place he saith, the granting of Indulgences extendeth not itself to punishments, following the corruption of nature, and flowing from original sin; for it is certain that the Pope doth not absolve, and free men from thirst, hunger, infirmities and death; so that such absolutions extend only to the punishments above mentioned, & such as may be inflicted by the just judgement and prescription of him that imposeth penance for actual sins. When there the power of the Keys extend only, to such as are on earth, or to them also that are in Purgatory, the opinions, he saith, of men are contrary & uncertain: 
f Consid. 8.  but howsoever, this he pronounceth confidently, that only Christ can give such pardons for thousands of days and years as many Popes assume to themselves power to grant.   

CHAP. 26.  
Of the Infallibility of the Pope's judgement.  
TOuching the infallibility of the Pope's judgement: it was so far from being a thing resolved of in the Church of God before our time, that 
a Cont. 3. q. 4.  Stapleton confesseth, it is yet no matter of faith, but of opinion only; because so many famous and renowned Divines, have ever holden the contrary, as Gerson, Almain, Occam, almost all the Parisians, all they that thought the council to be above the Pope, Adrianus Sextus, Durandus, Alfonsus à Castro: and many more.   

CHAP. 27.  
Of the power of the Pope, in disposing the affairs of Princes and their states.  
LAstly, Touching the power of the Pope, in disposing the affairs of Princes & their States, there were ever many worthy men, that opposed themselves against his unjust and Antichristian claims. There are some saith 
a Doctrinal. fidei, lib. 2. art 3. quaest. 78.  Waldensis, that err, supposing, that the root of all terrene power, dependeth in such sort of the Pope, that it is derived unto Princes, by commission from him; and that if they abuse the same, he may take the disposing of such affairs as belong unto them, into his own hands. This they endeavour to prove, because the Ecclesiastical power is more eminent and excellent than the power of Princes; but this their proof is too weak: for let ut run through all examples of things which are different in degree of excellency, and one of them more worthy than another, we shall see that the Sun is better than the Moon, yet the power and virtue of moistening that is in the Moon, is not imparted to it from the Sun; the soul is more excellent than the body: yet the body was before the soul came into it, and in it many works of sense are performed, which the spirit by itself cannot perform; gold is better than lead, yet doth it not give being unto it: so that though it were granted, that Episcopal dignity is more high and eminent than the authority of Princes, yet the first spring of Regal power, is in the King from God, and not from the Pope. There is, saith Waldensis, one doctor Adam, a Cardinal, who in a dialogue between a Bishop and a King, indeauoureth altogether to derive the authority of Kings from the Papal power, both in the being and excercise of it, and reserveth only a power of execution to Princes, at the command of the high bishop: this error he condemneth, and saith, that howsoever the solemnities of the oath, unction, crowning, and the like are performed to Kings by Bishops, yet hath not kingly dignity her beginning from Priesthood, but by the ministry of Priests, Kings receive it from God, and are put in possession of it. Fawning and deceitful flattery, saith 
b De potestate ecclesiastica cnosid. 12.  Gerson, whispereth in the ears of Ecclesiastical persons, especially of the Pope, in shameless manner saying unto them, O sacred Clergy, how great, how great is the height and sublimity of thy Ecclesiastical power! how is all secular authority, compared thereunto, altogether nothing! For as all power in heaven and earth was given to Christ, so Christ left it all to Peter, and his Successors: so that Constantine the Emperor gave nothing to Pope Sylvester, that was not his before, but only restored that which had been unjustly detained: besides, as there is no power but of God, so is there none, whether Temporal or Ecclesiastical, Imperial or Regal but from the Pope, in whose thigh CHRIST hath written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: of whose power to dispute, is sacrilegious boldness, to whom no man may say, Sir, why do you so? though he alter, overturn, waste and confound all States, Rules, Dominions, and Possessions of men, whether Civil, or Ecclesiastical; let me be judged a Liar, saith he, if these things be not found written, by them that seem wise in their own eyes, and if some Popes have not given credit to such lying and flattering words. Nay, I am greatly deceived, if before the holding of the sacred Synod of Constance, this tradition did not so far forth possess the minds of very many men, rather literal then literate, that whosoever should have taught the contrary, should have been noted and condemned for heresy.    

THE FOURTH BOOK, OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE CHURCH.  

CHAP. 1.  
Of the divers kinds of the privileges of the Church, and of the different acceptions of the name of the Church.  
NOw it remaineth, that we proceed to the other parts of our first general division, to wit, the privileges that pertain to the Church, & the divers and different degrees, orders, and callings of them, to whom the government of it is committed. The privileges, that pertain to the Church, are of two sorts: The first, proper to the best, and most essential parts of it, to wit, the elect and chosen of God; as are the promises and assurances of everlasting love and happiness: the second, such as are communicable unto others, not partaking in that highest degree of unity, the parts of the Church have amongst themselves, or with Christ their head. These are specially four: the first, the possession of the rich treasure of heavenly truth; whence it is called by 
a Contra haereses l 3. c. 4.  Irenaeus Depositorium diues; & by the 
b 1 Timothy, 3. 15.  Apostle, the pillar and ground of truth. The second is the office of teaching and witnessing the same truth. The third, the authority to judge of such differences, as arise amongst men, concerning any part of it. The fourth, is power to make laws, for the better guiding & governing of them, that profess this truth.  
Touching the first, that we may the better understand, in what degree and sort, and upon what assurances, the Church is possessed of the knowledge and profession of the truth revealed in Christ; we must observe the divers acceptions of the name of Church: for accordingly, more or less in this kind is attributed to it, and verified of it. The Romanistes make the Church to be of three sorts. For there is (as they say,) Ecclesia virtualis, repraesentativa, & essentialis. By the name of virtual Church, they understand the Bishop of Rome, who, being by Christ's appointment (as they suppose) chief Pastor of the whole Church, hath in himself, eminently and virtually, as great certainty of truth, & infallibility of judgement, as is in the whole Church, upon whom dependeth all that certainty of truth, that is found in it. By the name of representative Church, they understand the assembly of Bishops in a general Council, representing the whole body of the Church, from the several parts whereof they come. By the name of the essential Church, they understand the whole multitude of the believers.  
This essential Church, either comprehendeth all the faithful, that are and have been, since CHRIST appeared in the flesh; or all that are, and have been since the Apostles time; or only those that now presently live in the world.   

CHAP. 2.  
Of the different degrees of infallibility found in the Church.  
IF we speak of the Church, as it comprehendeth the whole number of believers, that are, and have been, since CHRIST appeared in the flesh, it is absolutely free from all error and ignorance of Divine things, that are to be known by revelation, Quid enim latuit Petrum, etc. For, as Tertullian saith rightly and aptly to this purpose, What was hidden and concealed from Peter, upon whom Christ promised to build his Church, and to whom he gave 
a Lib. de prescript adversus haereticos.  the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? from john the Disciple he so dear loved, which leaned on his breast at the mystical Supper? and the rest of that blessed company? that should after be manifested to succeeding generations? so that touching the Church taken in this sort: there is no question, but it is absolutely led into the knowledge of all truth, without any mixture of ignorance, error, or danger of being deceived.  
Let us come therefore to the second acception of the name of the Church, as it comprehendeth only all those believers, that are, and have been since the Apostles time. The whole Church, taken in this sort, may be ignorant in sundry things, which though they be contained within the compass of revealed truth, yet are not of necessity to be expressly known by all that will be saved: but that the whole Church in this sort conceived, should err in any thing of this nature, it is impossible; seeing error, which is an aberration, declining, or swerving from the truth once delivered, necessarily implieth a kind of particularity and novelty.  
Neither only is the whole Church (comprehending all the believers that are, and have been since the Apostles time) freed from error in matter of faith; But we think it impossible also that any error, whatsoever, should be found in all the Pastors and guides of the Church, thus generally taken. Secondly, though there may be some question, whether any error may be found in all them, whose writings now remain, yet because they have all written of nothing, but that which is absolutely necessary to be known, for the attaining of everlasting salvation, and that was ever generally received, it is not possible they should all be convinced of error. Thirdly, though all, whose writings remain, have not written of a thing; yet if all that mention it, do constantly consent in it, and their consent be strengthened by universal practice, we dare not charge them with error. Yea, though their consent be not strengthened by such practice, if it be concerning things expressed in the Word of truth, or by necessary and evident deduction to be demonstrated from thence, we think no error can be found in all them, that speak of things of that nature, if in every age of the Church some be found to have written of them. 
b Eorum quae dull 〈◊〉 esse possunt circa fidem, quaedam sunt quae ex Scripturis divinis deductione infallibili inferri p●…ssunt: quaedam, quae non possunt: quemadmodum per beatum Hieronymum beatam Virginem esse corporaliter in coelo, ex scripturis certitudinaliter haberi non potest: sicut etiam ●…c quod 〈◊〉, de quibus dicitur Math. 27. multa corpora sanctorum surrexeru●…t cum eo, etc. corporaliter ascenderint in coelum▪ nec quod corporaliter non ascenderint infallibiter deduci non potest ex scripturis divinis. Occam. lib. 3. 1. ●…ractat 3. part. cap. 10.  But in things that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith, and word of divine and heavenly truth, we think it possible, that all that have written of such things, might err and be deceived.  
This matter is excellently handled by 
c Pererius in Genesim. lib. 7. q. 7. Cornelius jansenius cap. 14●…. concordiae Euangelicae. Bellarm. de gratiâ 1. hominis li. 1. c. 12, 14. ostendit neminem ex veteribus dicere paradisum perijsse, & omnes qui de eo scripserunt, affirmar●… adhuc superesse; & tamen aliter sentire Pererium Eugubinum, jansenium, Hieron. ab Oleastro & Vatablum.  Pererius, Augustinus Eugubinus, Cornelius jansenius, & Hieronymus ab Oleastro: who hold it probable, that Paradise doth not remain in original beauty, notwithstanding the consent of all the ancient (that have written of that matter) to the contrary. So likewise, 
d Caietan: in proaem. comm: in Genes.  Caietaine and 
e Andradius de script: sacrae & traditionum authoritate. li. 2. fol. 257. 260.  Andradius profess, they dare go against the torrent of all the Doctors, and descent from them, in the interpretation of some parts of Scripture.  

f Bellarm. de gra. prim: hominis lib. 1. cap. 14.  Bellarmine blameth Pererius, Eugubinus, and the rest, for that they durst embrace an opinion contrary to the judgement of antiquity: yet doth he not fasten upon them any note of heresy, or savouring of heresy.  
Touching the Church, as it comprehendeth only the believers that now are, & presently live in the world, it is most certain & agreed upon, that in things necessary to be known & believed expressly and distinctly, it never is ignorant, much less doth err. Yea, in things that are not absolutely necessary to be known & believed expressly & distinctly, we constantly believe, that this Church can never err, nor doubt pertinaciously, but that there shall ever be some found ready to embrace the truth, if it be manifested unto them, and such as shall not wholly neglect the search and inquiry after it, as times and means give leave.  
As therefore we hold it impossible, the Church should ever by Apostasy and missebeliefe wholly depart from God (in proving whereof, 
h Bellar. de ecclesia militante lib. 3. c. 13.  Bellarmine confesseth, his fellows have taken much needless pains, seeing no man of our profession thinketh any such thing;) so we hold that it never falleth into any heresy: so that he is as much to be blamed, for idle & needless busying himself, in proving that the visible Church never falleth into heresy, which we most willingly grant. 
g Occam dialog. 1. part. lib. 3. cap. 28.    

CHAP: 3.  
Of the meaning of certain speeches of Caluine, touching the erring of the Church.  
THat 
a Bellar. de ecclesia militant, l. 3. c. 13.  which he allegeth out of Caluine, and others, as if they supposed the true Church to be sometimes altogether invisible, and that the outward profession of the truth doth sometimes wholly fail, is to no purpose; for they mean not that it is wholly invisible at any time, but that it is not always to be esteemed by outward appearance; that sometimes the state of things is such, that the greatest, in place of Ministry in the Church, pervert all things; & that they, that defend the truth, make themselues a reproach.  
To this purpose, 
b Dialog. part. 1. li. 5. cap. 28.  Occam hath divers excellent things out of Hierome: and 
c Con●…: profanas haer: novitates.  Vincentius Lirinensis showeth, that the poisoned doctrine of the Arians did infect, not only a part, but almost the whole Church: so that almost all the Bishops of the Latin Church were misled, and few found to defend and maintain the truth, as beseemed them.  
There are therefore four things, 
d Calvin. instit▪ l. 4. c. 8. sect. 11. 12. cited by Bel. de militante ecclesia lib. 3. cap. 14.  which Calvin saith. The first, that the Church may not so far presume of the assistance of the spirit of truth, as that she may devose new articles of faith; and, without the certain direction of the word of God, proceed in the determination of doubts in matters of religion. The second that she must not rely upon traditions, & a pretended unwritten word, but must contain herself within the compass of that heavenly doctrine, which is comprehended in the scripture. The 3d, that so containing herself she cannot err. The 4th, that we have no assurance, that Church shall always so precisely follow the directions of the word of truth, as that she shall never err; but so farrefoorth only, that she shall ever be free from all error in things necessary to salvation, and such things that men cannot be ignorant of, to err in, without pertinacy, or over-grosse and damnable negligence; yea, that she is secured from erring in any thing, with heretical pertinacy.  
This last part of Calvins' speech it is, that the jesuit disliketh, that he saith, The Church is not absolutely freed from error, but from some kind of error only. Yet 
e Melchior Canus de auctorirate ecclesiae Catholicae, li. 4. c. 2. Picus theoremate 4. ecclesia universalis in iis quae pertinent ad substantiam fide●… errare non potest: in aliis potest, ut ostendit Thomas etc.  Melchior Canus confesseth, that sundry great Divines seem to be of this opinion: as the Author of the Interlineall gloss; Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Turricremata, and Alfonsus á Castro; Yea, Picus Mirand●…la in his theorems is of the same opinion, confirming it by the authority of Aquinas, who thinketh, that the Church may err in Canonising of Saints, and proposing such to be honoured, whom God rejecteth from his presence, as vessels of his wrath.  
Notwithstanding, the 
f Bellarm. de eccle sia militante. l. 3. c. 14.  Romanists at this day seem to hold, that the whole Church, that presently is in the world, cannot err in any thing, that either concerneth faith or manners, which they endeavour to prove by these reasons.   

CHAP. 4.  
Of their reasons, who think the present Church free from all error in matters of faith.  
FIrst, for that it is the pillar and ground of truth: secondly, for that it is guided by Christ her head, and spouse: and thirdly, because it is led by the spirit of truth. These reasons will be found exceeding weak, if we examine them. Let us therefore take a particular view of them.  

a 1 Tim. 3. 15.  First the Apostle (say they) calleth the Church the Pillar and ground of truth; therefore it cannot err. These words cannot prove that, for confirmation whereof our adversaries allege them; seeing he speaketh in this place of a particular Church, to wit, the Church of the Ephesians, in which he left Timotheus, when he departed from it. Now, that particular Churches may err in matter of faith, and become heretical, our adversaries make no question.  
That the Apostle speaketh of the Church of Ephesus, and calleth it The pillar and ground of truth, it appeareth by all circumstances of the place. These things have I written, saith he, hoping to come shortly unto thee; but if I tarry longer, that thou mayest know, how to behave thyself, in the house of God. That house of God, in which Paul left Timothy, in which he directeth him, how to behave himself till he come, he calleth The Church of God, and Pillar of truth; that Timothy might bethink him the better, how to demean himself in the government of it.  
The Church of God is named the Pillar of truth; not, as if the truth did depend on the Church; or, as if God could not otherwise man fest it, than by her Ministry; or, that our faith should be built on the authority of it; or, that we should think it absolutely free from all ignorance and error: but because it doth strongly hold and maintain the saving profession of the truth, notwithstanding all the violence of wicked and cruel enemies, as both the Ordinary gloss, and that of Lyra do interpret it; and for that by instructions, admonitions and comforts, it strengtheneth, stayeth, and supporteth such as otherwise would fall, as the Interlineall gloss seemeth to express it. So then the Church is The pillar of truth, not, because it is absolutely free from all error, or, that our faith should be builded upon the infallibility of it; but because it always retaineth a saving profession of heavenly truth, and by strength of reasons, force of persuasions, timeliness of admonitions, comforts of Sacraments, and other means of saving grace, (The powerful force whereof the sons of God do feel) it strengtheneth and stayeth the weakness of all them, that depend upon it.  
This is it, that Calvine meaneth, when he saith the Church is called, The pillar of truth, because it firmly holdeth the profession of it, and strengtheneth others by the knowledge of it. Bellarmine's cavil, that, if this were all, the Church might more fitly be compared to a chest, than a Pillar, is not worth the answering: for it doth not only preserve the truth as a hidden treasure, but by public profession (notwithstanding all forces endeavouring to shake it) publisheth it unto the world, & stayeth the weakness of others, by the knowledge of it; in which respect it is fitly compared to a Pillar, and not unto an Ark or chest:  
The second reason is much more weak than the former. For thus they argue: The Church is governed by Christ, as by her head and spouse; and by the spirit, as by the soul and fountain of her life; therefore if she err, her error must be imputed unto Christ, and to the spirit of truth. This their consequence is blasphemous and impious. For who knoweth not, that particular men, companies of men, and Churches are governed by Christ, as by their head and spouse, & by the spirit of truth, as being the fountain of their spiritual life; as the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and the 
b Revel. 〈◊〉. 12.  Churches mentioned in the Revelation of S. john, called golden Candle sticks, in the midst whereof the Son of God did walk, yet had they their dangerous and grievous errors, and defaults, for which they were blamed; so that by the argument of our adversaries men may blame the spirit of truth for their errors.  
That which the jesuit addeth, that Christ the husband of the Church is bound to free it from all error in matter of faith, whence any great evil may ensue, is as childish an argument, as may be devised. For if great and grievous evils may be found in the Church, then, notwithstanding this argument, errors also. Now that the Church is subject to great & grievous evils, he that maketh any question, seemeth to know nothing at all. As therefore God giveth that grace, whereby the children of the Church may avoid great and grievous evils, and never withdraweth the same, but for punishment of former sin, and contempt of grace: so he giveth the gracious means of illumination, and never withdraweth the means of knowledge, but when the contempt of the light of knowledge, and the abusing of it, procure the same. So that the sins and errors of the children of the Church, proceed from themselves, and not from any defect, or want of Christ, the husband of the Church.  
The third reason is, he that heareth not the Church, must be holden for an Ethnic, therefore it cannot err. 
c See the same proved at large by Erastus, writing of the Presby teries and excommunications, and by Doctor Bilson now B. of Winch in his book of the perpetual government of the Church c. 4.  But they should know, that Christ speaketh in that place of the Sanedrim of the jews, which whosoever refused to obey, they held him as an Ethnic. Yet was not that great Council of State, among the jews, free from danger of erring. If these words of our Saviour be applied to the Church, as they are ordinarily by the Fathers, they must be understood by the censures of the Church, which are not always just and righteous, 
d De vera religione c. 6.  as Augustine showeth, and not of her doctrinal determination.  
But, saith Bellarmine, the Counsels were wont to denounce Anathema to all that obey not their decrees: therefore they thought they could not err. To this we answer, that they denounce Anathema, not because they think every one that disobeyeth the decree of the Council to be accursed, but because they are persuaded in particular, that this is the eternal truth of God, which they propose, therefore they accurse them that obstinately shall resist, as 
e Gal. 1.  Paul willeth every Christian man, to Anathematise an Angel coming from Heaven, if he shall teach him any other doctrine, than he hath already learned, yet is not every particular Christian, free from possibility of erring.  
The other argument, that because the Church is holy, and her profession holy, therefore she cannot err, will prove as well, that particular Churches cannot err, as the universal. If they say, the universal Church is holy, and the profession of it holy, in such adegree as freeth it from error, it is petitio principii.  
Their next argument is, that if the Church be not free generally from erring, but only from erring in things necessary to salvation, many Catholic verities may be called in question & doubted of: for that there are many things that pertain to faith, which are not necessary to salvation. This argument holdeth not: for though the Church which comprehendeth only the number of believers, that are at one time in the world, may err, yet have men other means to find out the truth, as namely, the Scriptures, and resolutions of former times, which whosoever findeth, is bound to believe, though the rest of the Church not finding them, may in the mercies of God be saved.  
That which is alleged out of the Fathers, is to no purpose: for they speak of the Church, as it comprehendeth the faithful that are, and have been, which we confess cannot err in matters of faith.   

CHAP. 5.  
Of the promises made unto the Church, how it is secured from error, and of the different degrees of the obedience, we owe unto it.  
THe right understanding of the promises made, and due consideration of the parties to whom they are made, will lead us to the right understanding of the Church's infallibility, and assurance of truth. For, seeing, though they be made to all the faithful generally, and to the particular Churches as well as to the whole, yet they are understood to be performed proportionably, according to the measure, and degree, of each part, but to the whole Church wholly, and entirely; the Church being particular, not only in respect of place, but also of time, the whole is not necessary to be performed, to the Church of one time, (unless we speak of the Primitive, wherein the whole was originally) but to the Church that comprehendeth the whole number of believers, that are and have been: in which sense that promise is to be understood, 
a joh. 16. 13.  that the spirit shall lead the Church into all truth.  
Hither we may refer, those different degrees of obedience, which we must yield to them, that command and teach us, in the Church of God, excellently described, and set down, by 
b W●…ldensis doctrinal. fidei lib. 2. art. 2. cap. 27.  Waldensis. We must, saith he, reverence, and respect, the authority of all Catholic Doctors, whose doctrine and writings the Church alloweth: we must more regard the authority of Catholic Bishops: more than these, the authority of the Apostolic Churches; amongst them, more specially the Church of Rome; of a general Council, more than all these: yet we must not listen so to the determinations of these, nor so certainly assent unto them, as to the things contained in the Scripture, or believed by the whole universal Church, that hath been ever since the Apostles time, but as to the instructions of our Elders, & fatherly admonitions. We must, saith he, obey without scrupulous questioning, with all modesty of mind, and reverence of body, with all good allowance, acceptation and repose in the words of them that teach us, unless they teach us any thing, which the authority of the higher and superior controlleth; yet so as then the humble, and obedient children of the Church, must not insolently insult upon them, from whom they are forced to descent, but must descent with a reverend, childlike, and respectful shamefastness.  
Thus he proveth out of 
c Lib. 2 de baptismo, contra Donatistas' c. 3.  Augustine, Tom: 7. lib. 2. De baptismo contra Donatistas'. Who knoweth not, (saith S. Augustine) that the sacred and Canonical Scriptures of the old and new Testaments, are contained within their set & certain bounds; and that they are so, & in such sort, set in a higher degree of authority, than any of the writings of the succeeding Bishops, that of them we may not doubt nor make any question, whether it be true or right, that is there contained: but the writings of the Bishops of the Church, which either have been published since the perfecting of the Canon of Scripture, or which shall be hereafter, may be censured and reproved, by the wiser judgement of any, that are skilful in the same things, whereof they write; or by the graver authority of other Bishops, and the wisdom of them that are learned themselves, and able to teach others: and by the determinations of Counsels, if happily they have gone aside from the truth; And the Counsels themselves, which are holden in several Countries and Provinces, must give place to the authority of general counsels, gathered & assembled out of the whole Christian World: & of plenary Counsels, oftentimes, the former are to be corrected by the later, when by experience, & more perfect knowledge of things, that which was shut, is opened, and that known which was hidden before. Every of these must be content to yield one to another, without the puff of sacrilegious pride, without swelling arrogancy, without evious contending, with all holy humility, with all Catholic peaceable disposition, and Christian charity.  
Thus than we think, that particular men and Churches may err damnably, because notwithstanding, others may worship God aright, but that the whole Church, at one time, cannot so err; for that then, the Church should cease utterly for a time, and so not be Catholic, being not at all times; and Christ should sometimes be without a Church; yet, that errors, not preiudicing the salvation of them that err, may be found in the Church that is at one time in the world, we make no doubt; only the whole symbolical and catholic Church, which is, and was, being wholly free from error.  
Thus touching the possession of the rich treasures of heavenly truth, I have sufficiently cleared our judgement, which is the same, that all wise and learned men have ever been of, to wit, that the Church which comprehendeth the whole number of believers, that are and have been, since Christ appeared in the flesh, (so including the Apostles) can neither err in, nor be ignorant of any thing that was to be revealed by Christ, the eternal Word and Angel of the great Covenant of God. Secondly, that the Church, that comprehendeth all the faithful that are and have been since the Apostles, may be ignorant of some things, which in process of time shall be known, but cannot err in any thing. Thirdly, that all the Pastors of this Church, cannot err. Fourthly, that all the Pastors, that have committed the treasure of their wisdom & learning to writing, cannot err in any thing wherein they consent in their writings: because it is not possible, that they should all have written of any thing, but such as touch the very life of the Christian faith generally received in all their times. Fiftly, that it is not possible, that all that do speak of a thing, consenting together, should err, if it be a matter of substance, and if in every age some have written of it, though many that have written, be silent and say nothing of it. Sixtly, that the most famous & renowned in all ages, consenting in any thing, that toucheth the substance of the Christian faith, & no man dissenting from them, (without note of novelty & singularity,) may not without intolerable rashness, be charged with error. 
d Vincentius Lirinensis saith, if heresies be inveterate, and so have time and means to corrupt the monuments of antiquity, for the confutation of them, we must flee to the Scriptures only. So did Luther and the rest in the beginning, seeming to decline the trial by the Fathers, because the corruptions of their writings were so many, as could not easily be discovered at the first: but now having found out by the help of so many learned men, both of our adversaries, and amongst ourselves, that have traveled in that kind, which are their undoubted works, and which doubtful or undoubtedly forged, we willingly admit the trial by the Fathers.  Seventhly, that though the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted, so that the consent of antiquity cannot always be easily known, yet there will be ever some means to find it out, & to descry the errors, and frauds of the corruptors: & so I understand that of Vincentius Lirinensis, that the judgement of antiquity is to be sought out, at the very first rising of heresies & not afterwards when they are grown inveterate; for that then they will corrupt the monuments of antiquity. 8, That the whole present Church may be ignorant of some things, and err in them; but that in matters necessary to be known and believed expressly, it cannot err, and that it cannot err in any the least thing, with pertinacy, such and so great as is found in Heretics. Ninthly, that Counsels and Popes, may err in matters of greatest consequence.  
This our opinion thus laid down, is defended by Waldensis, Occam, and others. 
e Waldensis doctrine. fidei l. 2. art. 2. cap. 19 ibidem certiores iudices esse dicit in causa fidei patres successiuè, quam Synodum Antisti●…um generalem, & cap. 20 ait Gregorium non comparare 4. concilia scriptures, sed similitudinem quandam insinuate, sicut Christus in Evangelio, Volo ut sitis perfecti sicut pater vester.  Waldensis saith, the Church, whose faith never faileth, according to the promise made to Peter, who bore the figure of the Church, when Christ said, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, is not any particular Church, as the Church of Africa, within the bounds whereof Donatus did enclose it: nor the particular Roman Church, but the universal Church, not gathered together in a general Council, which hath sometimes erred, as that at Ariminium under Taurus the Governor, and that at Constantinople under justinian the younger, but it is the Catholic Church, dispersed through the whole world, from the Baptism of Christ unto our times, which doth hold and maintain the true faith, and the faithful testimony of jesus.   

CHAP. 6.  
Of the Church's office of teaching and witnessing the truth; and of their error, who think the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith, and that she may make new articles of our faith.  
THus having spoken of the Churches assured possession of the knowledge of the truth, in thenext place we are to speak of her office of teaching, & witnessing the same: touching the which, our adversaries fall into two dangerous errors: the first, that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei, & ratio credendi, the rule of our faith, & the reason why we believe. The second, that the Church may make new articles of faith.  
Touching the first of these erroneous conceits, the most of them do teach, that the last thing to which the persuasion of our faith resolveth itself, & the main ground whereupon it stayeth, is the authority of the Church guided by the spirit of truth. For (say they) if infidels and misbelievers demand of us, why we believe the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the same Divine essence, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come: we answer, because these things are contained in the Scriptures. If they proceed farther to ask, why we believe the Scripture: we answer, because it is the word of God: if, why we believe it to be the word of God: because the Church doth so testify of it: 
f Primum inter credibilia, quod est ratio credendi alia, & ad quod fit ultima ma resolutio credibilium, est, credere Ecclesiam regi à spiritu sancto. Durand. l. 3. dist. 24. quaest. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vera esse contenta in scriptura, & a Christo revelata, per nullam viam scimus, nisi quia hoc credit Ecclesia, & sic audivimus à patribus nostris. Greg. Arimin. l. 1. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 4.  if, why we believe the testimony of the Church, because it is guided by the spirit of truth: so that, that upon which our faith settleth her persuasion touching these things, is the authority of the Catholic Church, led and guided by the spirit of truth.  
If it be said, that it is one of the things to be believed, that the Church is thus guided by the spirit, & therefore that the authority of the Church cannot be the reason & cause of believing all things, that pertain to the Christian faith, because not of those things which concern her own authority: 
g Relect. con●…o. 4. de potestate ecclesiae in se. q. 3. art. 2. resp. ad argumentum 5.  Stapleton who professeth to handle this matter most exactly. Sometimes seemeth to say, that this article of faith, that the Church is guided by the spirit, and appointed by God to be a faithful mistress of heavenly truth, is not among the Articles of faith, nor in the number of things to be believed. Which the Rhemists upon these words, The 
h 1 Tim. 3. 15.  Church is the pillar and ground of truth, most constantly affirm, saying, We must believe, hear, and obey the Church, as the Touchstone, Pillar, and firmament of truth: for all this is comprised in the principle, I believe the holy Catholic Church.  
Sometimes, that though perhaps in that Article it be employed, that we believe whatsoever the Church teacheth us, yet not necessarily, that we believe, that the Church is a faithful and infallible witness, & mistress of truth.  
And sometimes, as in his 
i Fol. 189.  triplication against Whitaker, he saith, that when we profess that we believe the holy Catholic Church, we do not only profess to believe that there is such a Church in the world, but that we are members of it, and do believe and embrace the doctrine of it, as being guided infallibly by the spirit of truth; and that we are taught in the Articles of our faith, that the Church ought to be listened unto, as to an infallible mistress of heavenly truth. Surely it seemeth, his brain was much crazed when he thus wrote, saying, unsaying, & saying, he knew not what. That which he addeth, that this proposition, God doth reveal unto us his heavenly truth, & teach us the mysteries of his kingdom by the ministry of his Church, is a transcendent, whereupon that article, wherein we profess to believe the Catholic Church, doth depend, as all the rest do, & is not an Article of the Creed; doth but more & more show the distemper of his head. But in that which he addeth for confirmation hereof, that we do not profess in the first Article of our faith, to believe God as the revealer of all hidden and heavenly truth, and to rest in him as in the fountain of all illumination, is the note & brand of an impious miscreant. For this doubtless is the first thing employed in our faith towards God, that we yield him this honour, to be the great master of all truth, upon whose authority we will depend, renouncing all our own wisdom, & knowing, 
k 1 Cor. 2. 11.  that as no man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man; so no man knoweth the things of God, but the spirit of God; 
l Math. 16. 17.  and, that flesh and blood cannot reveal these things unto us, but our father which is in heaven.  
That the precept of loving God above all, is not distinctly set down among the rest of the ten commandments, but is employed, though principally in the first, yet generally in all, is to no purpose. If he think, it is not at all contained in the Decalogue, his folly is too too great.   

CHAP. 7.  
Of the manifold errors of Papists, touching the last resolution of our faith, and the refutation of the same.  
THus we see, he cannot avoid it, but that the Church is one of the things to be believed, & therefore cannot be the first & general cause of believing all things that are to be believed. For when we are to be persuaded of the authority of the Church, it is doubtful unto us, and therefore cannot free us from doubting, or settle our persuasion; because that which settleth the persuasion, must not be doubted of.  
There is no question then, but that the authority of the old Testament may be brought to prove the new, to him, that is persuaded of the old, and doubteth of the new; and the authority of the new, to prove the old, to him, that is persuaded of the new, and doubteth of the old: but to him that doubteth of both, we must not allege the authority of either of these, but some other thing: so likewise, we may prove the authority of the Scripture by the Church, to him that is already persuaded of the Church; & of the Church by the Scripture to him, that is persuaded of the Scripture; but to him that doubteth of both, we must bring other reasons. For no man proveth a thing doubtful, by that which is as much doubted of, as itself. So that to prove the authority & infallibility of the Church, by the testimony and authority of the Church, which is the thing doubted of, is, as if one taking upon him to be a Lawgiver, whose authority is doubted of, should first make a law, and publish his proclamation, and by virtue there of give himself power, to make laws; his authority of making the first law, being as much doubted of as the second.  
Thus than it being clear and evident, that it is one of the things that are to be believed, that the Church is guided by the spirit, if Stapleton be asked, why he beleeveeth it to be so guided, he saith, he so believeth, because the spirit moveth him so to believe. But he should know, that three things concur to make us believe that whereof we are doubtful. The light of Divine understanding, as that whereby we apprehend the things of God; The spirit, as the author of this illumination; and the reasons and motives, by force whereof, the spirit induceth, moveth, and persuadeth us. Even as in the apprehension of things within the compass of the light of nature, when we are to be persuaded of a thing, seeming doubtful unto us, not only the action of him that persuadeth us, and the light of natural understanding, are required to the effecting of it, but also the force of reasons winning us to assent to that, we are to be persuaded of. We therefore demand not of Stapleton, who it is that persuadeth us to believe, or what that light of understanding is, that maketh him capable of such persuasion; but, what those reasons, or motives are, by force whereof, the spirit settleth his mind, in the persuasion of the truth of those things, he formerly doubted of.  

a Triplicatio fol. 188.  Surely he saith, the highest and last reason, that moveth a man to beleeu the things that pertain to faith, is the authority of the Church. Let us suppose it to be so, touching all other things; yet can it not be so, in respect of those things, we are to believe touching the authority of the Church itself. What is the motive then, whereby the spirit moveth us to believe, that the Church hath divine authority? He saith, because it is so contained in the Scripture; and in the Articles of the Creed. See then if he be not forced to run round in a circle. He believeth other matters of faith, because contained in the Scripture; and the Scripture, because it is the word of God; and that it is the word of God, because the Church delivereth it to be so; and the Church, because it is led by the spirit; and that it is led by the spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture, and the Creed. This kind of circulation, 
b Campiani 10 rationes.  Campian reckoneth amongst the Sophisms, he wrongfully imputeth unto us: but it will ever be found true, that the Prophet pronounceth of the wicked; 
c Psalm. 11. 10.  Impij ambulant in circuitu; The wicked run round, till they be giddy, and are in the end, where they were, when they began.  
Out of this maze Stapleton cannot get himself, unless he fly to humane motives and inducements, and make them the highest and last reason of his faith, and so indeed he doth. For fearing that he hath not said well, in saying he believeth the Church is guided by the spirit, because it is contained in the Scripture, he addeth another reason, why he so believeth, because it is the general opinion, and conceit of all Christian men, that it is so guided: and so indeed his persuasion stayeth itself upon humane grounds, though he be unwilling that men should so think, and conceive.  
Th●…se mazes and labyrinths, other Papists seeking to avoid, run without any such show of fear, as Stapleton bewrayeth, into most gross absurdities; some thinking, that the authority of the Church is the reason moving us to believe all other things; and that we believe that the Church is led and guided by the spirit, and that the truth of God, which the Church teacheth us, moved thereunto by humane motives; namely for that, that must needs be the truth, which so many miracles have confirmed, which a few weak and silly men, contemptible in the eyes of the world, have won all the world to believe, & have holden out the defence of it, against all the furies of enemies whatsoever: which they could not have done, had not the spirit and power of the most high been with them, making them more than conquerors. This is the opinion of 
d Durandus. li. 3. dist. 24. q. 1. art. 1. & distin: 25. q. 3.  Durandus, who maketh humane motives and inducements, the highest and last reason of his faith; to which also Stapleton flieth, though unwillingly. Others think, that we believe by the sole and absolute command of the will, either finding nothing, or nothing of sufficient force to persuade us. Both these conceits are to be examined by us.  
Concerning the first, we are to observe, that the Schoolmen make two kinds of faith, calling the one fidem infusam, an infused faith, wrought in us by the enlightening spirit of God, and staying itself upon the truth of God: the other fidem acquisitam, a humane and natural faith, grounding itself upon humane authority, and wrought by humane motives and persuasions. So that according to the opinion of these men, we believe the Articles of our Christian faith, and whatsoever is contained in the books of the Prophets and Apostles, because we are persuaded, that they were revealed by Almighty God; and this pertaineth to infused faith, as they think: but that they were revealed, there is nothing that persuadeth us, 
e Greg. A●…iminensis l. 1. d. 1. q. 1 fol. 7.  but the authority of the Church, and because we have so learned, & received of our forefathers: and this pertaineth to humane faith, and is merely a natural and humane persuasion, like that the Saracens have, touching the superstition of Mahomet, who therefore believe them, because their Ancestors have delivered them unto them.  
If this opinion were true, (as Melchior Canus rightly noteth, the final stay of our infused faith, and the first reason moving us so to believe, should not be the truth of God, but humane authority. For we should believe the Articles of our faith, because they were revealed, and believe they were revealed, because our Ancestors so delivered unto us, and the Church so believeth. And from hence it would farther follow, that seeing the assent yielded to the conclusion, can be no greater, nor more certain, then that which is yielded to the premises, whence it is deduced & inferred, we should have no greater certainty of things Divine and revealed, than such as humane means and causes can yield. 
f Canus l. 1. c. 8.  And so, seeing we can never be so well persuaded of any man, or multitude of men, but that we may justly fear, either they are deceived, or will deceive: if our faith depend upon such grounds, we cannot firmly & undoubtedly believe. Nay it is consequent upon this absurd opinion, that the Children of the Church, and they of the household of faith, have no infused or Divine faith at all: for that, whatsoever is revealed by the God of truth, is true, the Heathens make no doubt, but doubt whether any thing were so revealed: and that any thing was so revealed, if these men say true, we have no assurance but by humane means and causes.  
But the absurdity hereof, the same Canus out of Calvin, doth very learnedly demonstrate, reasoning in this sort. If all they that have been our teachers, nay, if all the Angels in Heaven, shall teach us any other, or contrary doctrine to that we have received, we must hold them accursed, and not suffer our faith to be shaken by them, as the Apostle chargeth us in the Epistle to the Galatians: therefore our faith doth not rely upon humane causes or grounds of assurance. 
g Calv. instit. l. 1. c. 7. 4.  Ne mens nostra vacillet, altius petenda, quam ab hominum vel ratione, vel auctoritate, scripturae authoritas. Besides, our faith, and that of the Apostles and Prophets, being the same, it must needs have the same object, & the same ground and stay to rest upon, in both: but they builded themselves upon the sure and unmovable rock of Divine truth, and authority: therefore we must do so likewise. If any man desire farther satisfaction herein, let him read Canus, and Calvin, to whom in these things Canus is much beholding.  
Others therefore, to avoid this absurdity, run into that other before mentioned, that we believe the things that are divine, by the mere and absolute command of our will, not finding any sufficient motives & reasons of persuasion: & hereupon they define faith in this sort: Fides est assensus firmus inevidens, that is, faith is a firm, certain, & full assent of the mind, believing those things, the truth whereof no way appeareth unto us. For father explication, and better clearing of this definition of faith, they make two kinds of certainty; for there is, as they say, certitudo evidentiae, and certitudo adhaerentiae; that is, there is a certainty of evidence, which is of those things, the truth whereof appeareth unto us; and another of adherence and firm cleaving to that, the truth whereof appeareth not unto us. This later they suppose to be the certainty that is found in faith, and there upon they hold, that a man may believe a thing merely because he will, without any motives or reason of persuasion at all: the contrary whereof when Picus Mirandula proposed, among other his conclusions to be disputed in Rome, he was charged with heresy for it. But he sufficiently cleared himself from all such imputation, and improved their fantasy that so think, by unanswerable reasons, which I have thought good to lay down in this place.  
It 
h Apologia qu. 8. de liberta te credendi.  is not, saith he, in the power of a man, to think a thing to be, or not to be, merely because he will; therefore much less firmly to believe it. The truth of the antecedent we find by experience, and it evidently appeareth unto us, because if a doubtful proposition be proposed, concerning which the understanding and mind of man resolveth nothing, seeing no reason to lead to resolve one way or other, the mind thus doubtful cannot incline any way, till there be some inducement, either of reason, sight of the eye, or testimony or authority of them we are well conceited of, to settle our persuasion. Secondly, a man cannot assent to any thing, or judge it to be true, unless it so appear unto him; but the sole act of a man's will, cannot make a thing to appear and seem true or false, but either the evidence of the thing, or the testimony and authority of some one, of whose judgement he is well persuaded. Thirdly, though the action of understanding quoad exercitium, as to consider of a thing, and think upon it, or to turn away such consideration from it, depend on the will; yet not quoad specificationem, as to assent or descent: for these opposite and contrary kinds of the understandings actions, are from the contrary and different appearing of things unto us. Fourthly, the sole command of the will cannot make a man to believe that, which being demanded why he believeth, he giveth reasons and allegeth inducements: but so it is, that in matters of our Christian faith, we allege sundry reasons, moving us to believe as Christians do, as appeareth by the course 
i Scotus prol. sententiarum qu. 2.  of all Divines, who lay down eight principal reasons moving men to believe the Gospel; namely the light of prophetical prediction, the harmony and agreement of the Scriptures, the diligence of them that received them, carefully seeking to discern between truth and error, the authority & gravity of the writers, the reasonableness of the things written, & the unreasonableness of all contrary errors, the stability of the Church, and the miracles that have been done for the confirmation of the faith it professeth. Fiftly, if there be two, whereof one believeth precisely, because he will, and another, only because he will not believe, refuseth to believe the same thing, the act of neither of these is more reasonable than the other, being like unto the will of a Tyrant, that is not guided at all by reason, but makes his own liking, the rule of his actions. Now, who is so impious to say, The Christians, that believe the Gospel, have no more reason to lead them so to do, than the Infidels that refuse to believe?  
With Picus, in the confutation of this senseless conceit, we may join 
k Sententiarum quaest. 1. art. 2. sicut impossibile est assentiri sine ratione, ita videtur impossibile assentiri plus quam ratio probat, vel vi detur probare.  Cardinal Cameracensis, who farther showeth, that as a man cannot persuade himself of a thing, merely because he will, without any reason at all; so, having reason, he cannot persuade himself more strongly and assuredly of it, than the reason he hath, will afford; for if he do, it is so far an unreasonable act, like that of a Tyrant before mentioned. 
l Durandus 3. ●…nt. distinct. 24 quaest 3.  Durandus likewise is of the same opinion. Assentiri nullus potest, nisi ei quod apparet verum: igitur oport●…t quèd illud quòd creditur, appareat rationi verum, vel in se, vel ratione m●…dij per quod assentitur; & si non in se, sed tantùm ratione medij, illud medium apparebit verum, vel in se, vel per aliud medium; & si non est processus in infinitum, oportet quòd deveniatur ad primum, quod apparet rationi esse verum in se, & secundum se: That is, No man can yield assent to any thing, but that which appeareth to him to be true: therefore whatsoever a man believeth, must seem and appear unto him to be true, either immediately and by itself, or in respect of that medium, by force whereof he is persuaded to believe; and if it do not appear unto him to be true in and by itself, but only in respect of the medium, that medium must appear true, either in respect of itself, or by another medium; and because there is no infinite proceeding in these things, we must at last come to some first thing, which in and by itself, must appear to be true.   

CHAP. 8.  
Of the last resolution of true faith, and whereupon it stayeth itself.  
IN natural and humane knowledge, there are two sorts of things: some that are evident unto us immediately in, and by themselves; and some, that are not. The former of these, are likewise of two sorts: for there are some known only by intuitive knowledge, as contingent things: so that we cannot apprehend the truth of any proposition framed of such things, unless we intuitively apprehend the things, whereof such propositions are framed; (as, that Peter & john now walk, now leap for joy, or tremble for fear, we cannot know, unless we intuitively behold, both these men, and these things to agree unto them.) Other things there are universal, necessary, and always of one sort: these may be evidently known by abstractive knowledge. Of these, there may be framed two sorts of propositions: for there are some propositions per se notae, originally clear and evident, the termini or single words whereof, being rightly conceived by us, we cannot but know the truth of the whole propositions: (as, that every whole and entire thing, is greater and better than any part of it.) 
a Aliacensis 1. sent, citat. Lincoln. 1. poster. cap. 1.  And other propositions there are, which are not thus originally clear and evident, upon the right understanding of the termini or single words whereof they are composed, but a man doubteth of them, till he see them deduced by clear and evident consequence from the former; these things a man is properly said to learn.  
Thus having spoken of things evident in themselves, let us come to the things that in themselves are never evident unto us, either that they are or what they are: but that they are, and what they are, appeareth unto us by a foreign medium, without the compass of the things themselves. Of this sort are those things we are persuaded of, upon the report of others; this is the certainty we have of things believed: the truth of them in themselves appeareth not unto us, nor is seen of us; in which sense faith may rightly be named a firm assent without evidence; and there may be a certainty of adherence, as the Schoolmen call it, without evidence; yet must the credit of him that speaketh, be known unto us, and we must evidently discern, that he doth speak unto us, upon whose testimony we rely.  
The Schoolmen make three sorts of things; some that are believed because they are first known, as the first principles originally clear and evident unto us, and the conclusions demonstratively proved out of those principles: other things, that are believed and never known, as all the matters of fact that are reported in the Scripture, which we can never know by the immediate evidence of the things themselves, but mediately, in that we know they are delivered unto us by him that cannot lie. And a third sort of things that are first believed, and afterwards the understanding being enlightened, and the heart cleansed, they are discerned of us to be true.  
The opinion of the ordinary Papists is, that the things pertaining to our faith, are believed, because God revealeth and delivereth them to be so, as we are required to believe; but that we know not that God hath revealed any such thing, but by humane conjectures and probabilities: so weakly do they make our faith to be grounded. We confess, that faith may rightly be said to be a firm assent, without evidence of many of the things believed, in themselves: but the Medium, by force whereof we are drawn to believe, must be evident unto us, as Durandus doth rightly demonstrate.  

b De utilit credendiad Honoratum c. 1●….  Augustine noteth, that there are three things found in the soul of man; Opinion, Belief or Faith, and Science; the first of these is necessarily and ever joined with imperfection and defect, to wit, danger and fear of erring: the third is ever perfect, excluding both: the second, standing in the midst, is of a middle nature, and dependeth upon the third. For otherwise, to believe their reports, whose credit is not known unto us, is levity and rashness. Faith therefore, that is commendable, and without fault, presupposeth knowledge, & right believing groweth out of it. We hold therefore, that every true Christian doth most evidently discern and know, that it is God that speaketh in the Scriptures; which Calvin excellently expresseth. 
c Lib. 1. instit. c 7. 5.  Illius virtute (saith he) illuminati, iam non aut nostro, aut aliorum iudicio credimus â Deo esse Scripturam, sed supra humanum iudicium certo certius constituimus, non secus, ac si ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur, hominum ministerio ab ipsissimo. Dei ore fluxisse. After we are enlightened by the spirit, we do no longer trust, either our own judgement, or the judgement of other men, that the Scriptures are of God; but above all certainty of humane judgement, we most certainly resolve, as if in them we saw the Majesty and glory of God, as Moses saw it in the Mount, that by the ministry of men, they came unto us from Gods own most sacred mouth  
Hereunto doth S. Augustine fully agree, showing that the authority of the Church, is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of divine things, and that men rest not in it. Whereupon he saith, 
d De vtil. credendi adHonoratum c. 16.  Homini non valenti verum intueri, ut ad id fiat idoneus, purgarique se sinat, praesto est auctoritas, quam partim miraculis, partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit: that is, Men that are not yet able to discern the heavenly truth, that they may be fitted to it, and suffer themselves to be purged from their impurity, hindering them from it, have the benefit of the direction of authority, which standeth upon two things: the one, the greatness of miracles, and wondrous works done; the other, multitude. Christ 
e Cap. 14. 15 16  saith Augustine) being to bring a salving medicine into the World, and to reform the most corrupt and wicked manners of the sons of men, by miracles got himself authority, by authority won credit, by the credit he had gotten; drew multitudes after him, which cotinuing long in one course of profession, in tract and continuance of time, gained the reverend estimation of antiquity, and so strengthened the opinion of Religion professed by them. These things (saith 
In sententiis.  Augustine) are not necessary to men of spiritual & heavenly understanding: but we are now to show how men may become wise, & attain the knowledge of spiritual things, This they cannot attain to, unless they be purged from their soul's uncleanness: from which they cannot be purged, unless they listen to them, that are already wise and exercised in things that are divine, and therefore they must begin with authority.  
Hugo de Sancto Victore maketh three sorts of believers: for there are (saith he) qui solâ pietate credere eligunt, qui utrùm credendum sit, vel non credendum, ratione non comprehendunt, alii ratione approbant quod fide credunt, alii puritate cordis, & mundâ conscientiâ, interius iam gustare incipiunt, quod fide crediderunt. The first are moved to believe out of piety, finding the Majesty of God to present itself unto them in the word of truth, and happy communion of the people professing the same, challenging their attention and readiness to be taught by him: In the second the light of divine reason causeth approbation of that they believe: In the third sort, the purity of divine understanding, apprehendeth most certainly, the things believed, and causeth a foretasting of those things, that hereafter more fully shall be enjoied. They that are thus established in the faith, do now already begin to foretaste that, which they long in heaven distinctly to know and enjoy, and begin already to have God present with them, by force of divine contemplation; so that if all the world should be turned into miracles, they could not remove them from the certainty of their persuasion. Hence it is, that Pycus saith in his Conclusions, that as faith which is but a bare credulity, is in degree of perfection less than Science, so true faith is greater and more certain, than any science gotten by demonstration.  
Thus than we may easily discern, what is the formal reason of our faith, or inducing us to believe. In things that are therefore believed, because known, as in the principles & conclusions of natural knowledge, the evidence of things appearing to us, is the formal reason of our belief and persuasion. In things first believed, and afterwards known, the evidence of the things appearing unto us, being enlightened by the light of grace. In things only believed, and not known, the authority of God himself whom we do most certainly discern, to speak in the word of Faith, which is preached unto us. Si 
g Calvin. instit: lib. 1. cap. 7. 4.  puros oculos, & integros sensus, illuc afferamus (saith Calvin) statim occurret Dei majestas quae subactâ reclamandi audaciâ, nos sibi parere cogat. If we bring pure eyes, and perfect senses, the Majesty of God presently presenteth itself unto us, in the divine Scripture, and beating down all thoughts of contradicting or doubting of things so heavenly, forceth us to obey. 
h Lib, 1. 7. 5.  For Non dubium vim numinis illic vigere & spirare sentimus, quâ ad parendum scientes quidem, ac volentes, vividiùs tamen & efficaciùs, quam pro humana, aut voluntate, aut scientia, trahimur ac accendimur. We find a greater light of understanding, shining unto us in this doctrine of faith, then is found within the compass of nature: a satisfaction touching many things, in which humane reason could not satisfy us in: a joy & exultation of the heart, such and so great, as groweth not out of nature. This maketh us assure ourselves, the doctrine which thus affecteth us, is revealed from God: that they are the only people of God, and have the means of happiness, where this treasure of heavenly wisdom is found: that those books are the richest jewel, that the world possesseth, and aught to be the Canon of our faith, which this people delivereth unto us, as received from them, to whom these things were first of all made known, and revealed.  
So than that God speaketh in the Scripture, and is the Author of it, we know more certainly, than any thing that is known by natural light of reason: and thereupon we believe all things therein contained, though many of them are such, as can never be known of us, as those that are historical and other such as are not known at first, though after we have believed, we begin to understand and know them. Hereunto agree the best learned, and most devout and religious amongst the Schoolmen. For the greater part of them were given to curious disputes, but void of all devotion, as 
i Gers. de examinatione doctrinarum.  Gerson complaineth. 
k Lib. 1. qu. 1. sum: theologicae memb. 4. art. 2.  Alexander of Hales saith, there is a certainty of speculation, and a certainty of experience: a certainty in respect of the understanding, and a certainty in respect of the affection: a certainty in respect of the spiritual man, and a certainty in respect of the natural man: and pronounceth that the things apprehended by us in divine knowledge, are more certainly discerned by such as are spiritual, in the certainty of experience, in the certainty which is in respect of affection, and by way of spiritual taste and feeling, than any thing is discerned in the light of natural understanding. quam dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua! 
l Psalm. 118.  (saith the Prophet David) How sweet are thy words (O Lord) unto my mouth! They are sweeter than the honey, and the honey comb. And again, I have known long since, that thou hast established them for ever. Thus than it is true, that the authority of God's Church, prepareth us unto the faith, and serveth as an introduction, to bring us to the discerning and perfect apprehension of divine things, but is not the ground of our faith, and reason of believing. And that doubtless is the meaning of those words 
m Contra ep. fundamenti, c. 5.  of Augustine, that he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him thereunto.   

CHAP. 9  
Of the meaning of those words of Augustine, that he would not believe th●… Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him.  
THe Divines give two explications of these words of Augustine. For 
a Dialog. l. 1. part. 1. c. 4. ubi ait totam multitudinem viventium non esse ma●…oris auctoritatis quam evangelium sanctum, quia debet illud defendere usque ad sanguinem.  Occam and some others say, the Church, whereof he speaketh, is not the multitude of believers, that now are in the World, but the whole number of them, that are, and have been, since Christ appeared in the flesh; so including the Apostles: in which sense, they confess the Church comprehending in it the Apostles, and writers of the whole Scripture of the new Testament, is of greater authority, than the books of the Gospel written by them, and delivered to posterities. Others, taking the name of the Church, to signify only the believers that now presently are in the world, say the meaning of Augustine is, that he had never believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Church had not been an introduction unto him: Not that, his faith rested upon it, as a final stay, but that it caused him so far to respect the word of the Gospel, to listen unto it, and with a kind of acquisite and humane faith, to believe it, that he was thereby fitted to a better illumination, by force whereof he might more certainly know, and believe it to be of God. To which purpose 
b Doctrinal. fidei li. 2. art. 2. cap. 21. ubi ad. fert exemplum Nathanielis, quem Philippus induxit ad credendum in Christum, quemadmodum nos inducunt parents & paedagogi: nec tamen sunt maioris auctoritatis quam Christus.  Waldensis out of Thomas Aquinas observeth, that as the Samaritans believed that Christ was the promised Saviour, upon the report of the woman, that talked with him, made unto them; but afterwards having seen him, and talked with him, they professed that they believed, not for her saying any longer: for themselves had heard him speak, and did know that he was the Saviour of the world indeed. So men at the first begin to believe moved so to do, by the authority of the Church; but rest not in it, but in the infallible assurance of divine truth. Upon the mistaking of this saying of S. Augustine, and an erroneous conceit, that our faith stayeth wholly upon the authority and testimony of the Church, hath grown that opinion, that the authority of the Church is greater, than the authority of the Scriptures.   

CHAP. 10.  
Of the Papists preferring the Church's authority before the Scripture.  
TOuching which odious comparison, I find some show of difference amongst the Papists, but none indeed. Some affirm, that the authorities of the Church, and of the Scripture, being in divers kinds, may in divers sorts, and respects, either of them be said to be greater, than the other: to wit, the one in nature of an evidence, the other of a judge; and that therefore the comparing of them in authority is unfit and superfluous. Others say, that the Church is greater than Scriptures. 
a Annotat. in 2. ad Galat.  The Rhemists seem to be of the first sort, seeking to conceal that, which indeed they think, because they would not incur the dislike and ill opinion of men, naturally abhorring from so odious a comparison. Yet in the same place they do make the comparison, and prefer the Church before the Scriptures. 1. In respect of antiquity, in that it was before them. 2. In excellency of nature, in that the Church is the spouse of Christ, the Temple of God, the proper subject of God, and his graces, for which the Scriptures were, and not the Church for the Scriptures. 3. In power of judging of doubts and controversies, the Church having judicial power, the Scripture not being capable of it. 4. In evidence, the definition of the Church being more clear and evident, than those of the Scriptures.  

b Relect. contro. 4. de potestate ecclesiae in se. q. 5. in explicatione q.  Stapleton saith, the comparison may be made, and the Church preferred before the Scriptures, four ways. 1. So, as if the Church might define contrary to the Scriptures, as she may contrary to the writings of particular men, how great soever. In this sense, they of the Church of Rome make not the comparison, neither do we charge them with any such thing, though Stapleton be pleased to say so of us. 2. So, as the Church may define, though not contrary to, yet beside the Scripture or written Word of God. This comparison is not made properly, touching the pre-eminence of one above another in authority, but the extent of one beyond the other, as Stapleton rightly noteth. In this sense the Romanists make the Church greater in authority than the Scriptures, that is, the extent of the Church's authority, larger than of the Scriptures, to bring in their traditions: but this we deny, and will in due place improve their error herein. Thirdly, in the obedience they both challenge of us, where they all say, that we are bound with as great affection of piety, to obey and submit ourselves unto the determinations of the Church, as of the Scriptures: both being infallible, of divine and heavenly authority, against which no man may resist, and that it is a matter of faith so to think. Yea, some of them, as Stapleton in the same place, are not ashamed to say, that we are bound with greater certainty of faith, to subscribe unto the determinations of the Church, than of the Scriptures; and that it is the authority of the Church, that maketh us accept, embrace, and believe the Scriptures. Fourthly, in the nature of the things themselves, in which respect, they prefer the Church before the Scriptures; as being in itself more excellent than the Scriptures: as the subject by which the spirit worketh, is more excellent than the thing he worketh by it.   

CHAP. 11.  
Of the refutation of their error, who prefer the authority of the Church before the Scripture.  
THat we may the better discern, what is to be resolved, touching these two latter comparisons between the Church and the Scriptures; we must remember that which I have before noted, touching them both. For first, the name of the Church sometimes comprehendeth only the believers, that now presently are living in the world. Sometimes not only these, but all them also, that have been since the Apostles times. Sometimes all that are, and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh.  
If the comparison be made between the Church, consisting only of the faithful that now are and the Scripture, we absolutely deny the equality of their authority; and say it is impiety to think, that both may challenge an equal degree of obedience, and faith to be yielded to them: for it cannot be proved, that the Church, thus taken, is free from error; nay themselves with one consent confess, 
a Canual. 5. c. 〈◊〉 p. 170.  that general Counsels, representing this Church, may err, though not in matters of substance, which they purposely meet to determine, yet in other passages, and in the reasons, and motives, leading to such determinations: and consequently the whole Church may err in the same things: the one, in their opinion, being no more infallible, than the other. Yea, some of them fear not to pronounce, 
b Multi opinannantur concilium generale errare posse, quia non innititur praecise divinae reuclationi, led procedit secundum sensum proprium assistente sibi influentia generali etc. Occam lib. 3. tract: 1. part. 3. cap: 8.  that Popes and general Counsels may err damnably, and that the Church itself may err in matters not fundamental, though without pertinacy, as Picus in his theorems, and Waldensis, who freeth only the universal Church, consisting of the faithful that are, and have been, from error, and not the present Church, as I showed before. We are so far then, from preferring the Church thus taken, (as Stapleton in the place above mentioned, professeth he taketh it) in authority before the Scripture, that we think it impiety, to imagine it to be equal.  
That the authority of the Church maketh us to believe, with an humane, and acquisite faith, we deny not, but that it maketh us to believe with a divine faith, we deny, as before. If the comparison be made, between the Church consisting of all the faithful that have been since, & besides the Apostles, & writers of the holy Scriptures, though we think the Church thus taken to be free from any error; yet dare we not make it equal to the Scripture: For that the Scripture is infallibly true, as inspired immediately from the spirit of truth, securing the writers of it from error; The Church not in respect of the condition of the men, of whom it consisteth, or the manner of the guiding of the spirit, (each particular man being subject unto error) but in respect of the generality and universality of it, in every part whereof, in every time, no error could possibly be found: And for that, whatsoever is universally delivered by it, is thereby proved to be from the Apostles, of whose faith we are secure. Thus than the whole Church thus taken, is subject to the Scripture, in all her parts, and hath her infallibility from it: and therefore in her manner of having the truth, is inferior unto it, neither are we bound to receive her doctrines as the sacred Scriptures. Besides, though the Church taken in this sort be free from error, yet not from ignorance of many things, wherein we may be instructed by the scripture. So that it is possible for a man to understand the natural & literal sense of some parts of Scripture, and from thence some things, that were not in such sort known and delivered by any, that went before: as Andradius, and Caietanus, do prove at large.  
If the comparison be made between the Church, consisting of all the believers, that are and have been, since Christ appeared in the flesh, so including the Apostles, and their blessed assistants the Evangelists: we deny not, but that the Church is of greater authority, antiquity, and excellency than the Scripture of the new Testament, as the witness is better than his testimony, and the Lawgiver greater than the Laws made by him, as Stapleton allegeth. But he is to prove the present Church greater in authority than the Scripture: which he undertaketh, but performeth not. His reason, that the Scripture was given for the good of the Church, and that therefore the Church is better than the Scripture, proveth not the thing intended. For, as the people are more excellent in degree of being, and nature of things, than the laws that be made for their good, yet are the laws of more authority, and must overrule and direct the people: so though the Scriptures, being but significations, declarations, and manifestations of divine truth, be not better in degree of things, than the Church, yet in power of prescribing, directing, and overruling our faith, they are incomparably greater. That which the Rhemists add, to show the greatness of the Church above the Scripture, because the Church hath judicial power, to determine doubts and controversies, whereof as they suppose, the Scripture is not capable, I will examine in the next part, when I come to speak of the power of judging, which the Church hath.  
This error of the Romanists imagining the authority of the Church to be greater than the Scripture, all the best learned in the Church of Rome ever resisted, as 
c Waldens'. doct. fidei lib. 2. art. 2. cap. 21.  Waldensis, 
d Occam lib. 1. part. 1. c. 4.  Occam, 
e Gers. de vita spiritual. animae. lect. co●…ollario. 7.  Gerson, and sundry others.   

CHAP. 12.  
Of their error who think the Church may make new articles of faith.  
Unto this error is joined, and out of this hath grown another not unlike, that the Church may make new articles of faith; which though Stapleton and some other of our time seem to disclaim, yet do they indeed fall into it. For the better understanding whereof we must observe, as 
a Dialog. 1. part. l. 2. c. 14.  Occam fitly noteth, that an Article of faith is sometimes strictly taken, only for one of those divine verities, which are contained in the creed of the Apostles: sometimes generally for any Catholic verity. This question is not meant of articles of faith in the first sense, but in the second; and so the meaning of the question is, whether the Church that now is, may by her approbation make those assertions and propositions to be Catholic verities, that were not before, or those heretical that were not. A Catholic vetity is a divine truth, which every Christian is bound to believe. The things which Christian men are bound to believe, are of two sorts, and consequently there are two sorts of Catholic verities; to wit, some so nearly touching the matter of eternal salvation, that a man cannot be saved, unless he expressly know and believe them; others farther removed, which if a man believe implicitè, and in praeparatione animi, it sufficeth; These must be believed expressly and distinctly, if their coherence with, or dependence on the former, do appear unto us, so that the manifest deduction of them from the former, will make them such, as must be expressly believed.  
Our adversaries confess, that the approbation and determination of the Church, cannot make that a truth which was not, nor that a Divine or Catholic truth, that was not so before: but they think, that the Church by her bare and sole determination, may make that verity to be in such sort Catholic, that every one, understanding of such determination, must expressly believe it, that was not so, and in such degree Catholic before. But we think, that it is not the authority of the Church, but the clear deduction from the things which we are bound expressly to believe, that maketh things of that sort, that they must be particularly and distinctly known & believed, that were not necessarily so to be believed before: 
b Diceret fortè aliquis quod simplices non debent credere nisi ea quae Papae & Cardinals tradunt credere explicitè, nec debent investigare secreta scripturae, sed communibus contenti de intellectu praeoprio non debent prsumere, ut aliquid credant explicitè nisi quòd iis Papa & Cardinals tradiderint: dicendum est quod simplices non debent praesumere, sed sacrae scripturae firmiter inhaerere, ut quod evidenter conspexerint ex sacris scripturis inferri, hoc explicitè credant, sive fuerit sive non fuerit à Papa & Cardinalibus declaratum: & ratio hujus est, quoniam Papa & Cardinals non sunt regula fidei nostrae: sed si contra regulam fidej, quam scriptura docet, definire praesumpserint, non sequendi, sed Turrian Catholicis arguendi sunt. Occam tractat. 2. part. 2. cap. 10. Quidam moderni dicunt multas esse veritates consonas scripturae, quae non sunt Catholicae, quia non definitae á Papa: & multos errores non habendos pro haeresibus, quia non damnati à Papa: sed si aliqua sit veritas scripturae consona, & definiatur à Papa, dicunt quod sit Catholica. Occam li. 2. part. 1. cap. 11. 12. improbat hanc opinionem: & cap. 14. ostendit Papam non sacere novam Catholicam veritatem, sed tantum ut nec asserendo nec opinando dicatur contrarium illius quod antè fuit Catholica veritas: & quod dicentes contrarium, excommunicationis sententiae subdantur. Waldens'. doctrinal. fidei: lib: 2. art. 2. c. 22. ait, ecclesiam non posse condere nowm articulum fidei. cum iam creverit in perfectum etc.  and therefore before, and without such determination, men seeing clearly the deduction of things of this nature from the former, and refusing to believe them, are condemned of heretical pertinacy; and men not seeing that deduction, after the decree of a Council hath passed upon them, may still doubt and refuse to believe, without heretical pertinacy.  
We cannot therefore condemn the Grecians as heretics, as the Romanists do, because we cannot persuade ourselves of them generally, that they see that, which they deny touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, deduced from the indubitate principles of our Christian faith, or that they impiously neglect the search of the truth. What is it then (will some men say) that the decree of a Council doth effect? Surely nothing else, but the rejecting of such as are otherwise minded, from the societies of those men and Churches, with whom the decree of the Council doth prevail; and with all wise men, the more wary and fearful pronouncing any thing of those matters, concerning which so grave authority hath passed her sentence. The Papists proceed further, and think it heretical pertinacy, to gainsay the decrees of a Council, though they find the reasons, by which they of the Council were moved so to think and determine, to be too weak, and not to conclude the thing intended, 
c Scotus in 4. dist. ●…1. q. 3. soluti omnes rationes adductas pro confirmatione dogmatis transsubstantiationis, et tamen tenet, quia definitum ab ecclesia. Biel in Canonum missae. lect. 41. ostendit rationes probantes transubstantiationem non esse efficaces, tenendam tamen hanc veritatem propter Ecclesiae determinationem.  as, in the matter of Transubstantiation, they think it heresy to gainsay the decrees of those Counsels that have defined it, and yet many of them judge all the reasons, alleged to prove it, too weak to prove it. In deed if it were certain, as they suppose, that a general Council could not err, this were a sufficient deduction, These things are decreed in a general Council: Therefore ture; because it is consequent, that that is true, which is affirmed by him that cannot err.  
Thus we see what it is to be thought, touching this question, whether the Church may make new Articles of faith: only one thing must be added for the further clearing hereof. The Papists think, that the Church may add to the Canon of the Scripture books not yet admitted, as the books of Hermas the Scholar of Paul, entitled Pastor, and the constitutions of Clement; which if it should do, we were to receive them with no less respect, than the Epistle of james, and other books of the New Testament. 
d Qui adhuc credunt Scripturarum canonem imperfectum, et posse adhuc augeri per authoritatem Ecclesiae, cum Iudaeis plenitudinem temporis expectant sub judaico forsitan Messiâ. Wald. doctr. fidei l. 2. art. 2. cap. 20.  This we think to be a most gross heresy, and contrrry to their own principles, who making the number of Canonical books a tradition, must necessarily receive it from a certain and constant report of the ancient. But hereof no more in this place, because the exact handling of it pertaineth to another place, to wit, touching the Scriptures.   

CHAP. 13  
Of the Church's authority to judge of the differences that arise, touching matters of faith.  
THus having spoken of the Churches assured possession of divine truth, and her office of teaching, testifying, and proposing the same, the next thing that followeth, is her authority to judge of the differences that may arise, touching matters of the faith taught by her, or any part thereof, and more specially touching the interpretation of the Scriptures and word of God. judgement is an act of reason, discerning whether a thing be or not, and whether it be that it seemeth to be, and is thought or said to be.  
This judgement is of two sorts: The first, of definitive and authentical power. The second of Recognition. The judgement of authentical power, defining what is to be thought of each thing, and prescribing to men's consciences so to think, is proper to God: being originally found in the father, who by his son as by the immediate and prime messenger, and Angel of his secret Counsel, and by the holy Ghost as the spirit of illumination, maketh known unto men what they must think, and persuadeth them so to think. So that the supreme judgement wherein the conscience of men doth rest, in the things of GOD, is proper to GOD, who only by his spirit teacheth the conscience, and giveth unto it assurance of truth. Neither is God the supreme judge, only in respect of the godly, who stay not, till they resolve their persuasions into the certainty of his divine testimony and undoubted authority, but also in respect of the wicked, who in their erroneous conceits are judged by him, and of whose sinister and vile courses he sitteth in judgement, while he confoundeth their tongues, divideth them one from another, maketh them cross themselves, and bringeth all they do to nothing. This judgement all are forced to stand unto, and this is that, that maketh a final end of all controversies, according to that of 
a Acts. 3. 34.  Gamaliel; If this thing be of God it will prosper and prevail, and we inresisting it, shall be found fighters against God, if not it will come to naught. Thus than the judgement of God the father as supreme, the judgement of the son as the eternal word of God, of the spirit as the fountain of all illumination, making us discern what is true, is that, in which we finally rest. The judgement or determination of the word of God is that, wherein we rest as the rule of our faith: and the light of Divine understanding, as that, whereby we judge of all things.  
The judgement of Recognition is of three sorts. For there is a judgement of discretion, common to all Christian men, a judgement of direction proper to the guides of the Church, and a judgement of jurisdiction proper to them, that are in chief places of authority. The first of these is nothing else, but an act of understanding, discerning whether things be or not, and whether also they be that which they seem to be. The second endeavoureth to make others discern likewise: and the third by authority suppresseth all those, that shall think and pronounce otherwise, than they judge that have the judgement of jurisdiction.  
Touching the judgement of Recognition, we acknowledge, the judgement of the universal Church, comprehending the faithful that are and have been, to be infallible. In the Church that comprehendeth only the believers that live at one time in the world, 
b Est iudicium certa & veridi-, ca cognitionis quo unusquisque bene iudicat de iis quae noscit, & illud iudicium pertinetad quemlibet in qualibet arte peritum. est aliud iudicium authoritatis seu iudicialis sententiae: 1 Modo loquendo de iudicio in ecclesia militante est certum iudicium de iis quae necesse est credere explicitè: & semper erunt aliqui Catholici, qui tali modo in vera fide explicite permane bunt: sed circa illa quae non sunt necesaria explicitè crededere, non semper erit tale iudicium: quia de multis, licet piè dubitare, nunquam tamen omnes circa lista pertinaciter errabunt vel dubitabunt: iudicium verò authoritatis non est semper certum in ecclesia, sicut patuit tempore Liberii. Occam. dial. l. 5. part. 1. c. 28.  there is always found a right judgement of discretion, and right pronouncing of each thing necessary, all never falling into damnable error, nor into any error pertinaciously; but a right judgement of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining the truth, and suppressing error, is not always found.  
So that sometimes almost all, may conspire aga●…nst the truth, or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession, as they did in the Counsels of Ariminium & Seleucia, in which case as Occam aptly observeth out of Hierome, men have nothing left unto them, but with sorrowful hearts to refer all unto God. If (saith Hierome) iniquity prevail in the Church which is the house of God, if justice be oppressed, if the madness of them, that should teach & guide others, proceed so far, as to pervert all the strait ways of God, to receive rewards, to do wrong, to tread down the poor in the gates, and to refuse to hear their complaints, let good men in such times hold their peace, let them not give that which is holy unto dogs, let them not cast pearls before swine, lest they turn again and trample them under ●…eete, let them imitate jeremy the Prophet, who speaketh of himself in this sort, I sat alone, because I was full of bitterness. Even so (saith Occam) when heresies prevail in the Christian world, when truth is trampled under feet in the streets, and Prelates, & Princes being enemies to it, endeavour with all their power to destroy it, when they shall condemn the doctrine of the Fathers, molest, disquiet, and murder the true professors, let good men in such times, hold their peace, keep silence, and be still, let them not give holy things to dogs, nor cast pearls before swine, lest they turn and tread them under feet, lest they wrest and abuse the Scriptures to their own perdition, and the scandal of others: but let them with the Prophet sit alone, and complain that their souls are full of bitter heaviness.   

CHAP. 14.  
Of the rule of the Church's judgement.  
THus having set down the divers kinds of judgement, which must determine and end all controversies in matter of faith and religion, it remaineth to show what is the rule of that judgement, whereby the Church discerneth between truth and falsehood, the faith and heresy, and to whom it properly pertaineth to interpret those things which touching this rule are doubtful.  
As the measure of each thing is that, by virtue whereof we know what it is, and the quantity of it; so the rule is that, by application whereof, we know whether it be that which it should be, and be so, as it should be. The rule of action is that whereby we know whether it be right, and performed as it should be, or not. The rule of doctrine is that, whereby we know whether it be true or false.  

a Theologorum sententiam de foelicitate supernaturali altissimis philosophiae radicibus nixam & stabilitam stare dilucidè comprobabo: foelicitas est possessio atque adeptio primi boni: bonum adipisci dupliciter possunt res creatae aut in seipsis, aut in ipso, nam & in seipso hoc bonum est super omnia exaltatum, suae inhabitans divinitatis abyssos, & per omnia diffusum in omnibus invenitur: vmb●…a potius foelicitatis quam vera foelicitas est attingere Deum in creatura, non in ipso Deo quemadmod●… creatura non summabonitas, sed summae bonitatis, id est divinae, tenuis umbra est: Vnde vera & consummata foelicitas ad De●… faciem contuendam quae est omne bonum, ut ipse dixit, & ad perfectam cum illo principio, à quo emanavimus, v ●…em, nos reu●… 〈◊〉 ●…dducit: ad hanc ●…licitatem sola religio Christiana nos dirigit, & impellit Pi cousin Heptapl●…, l●…. 7. in prooemio.  The rule of our faith in general, whereby we know it to be true, is the infinite excellency of God; (who in eminent sort possesseth all those perfections, which in the creatures are divided, and found in an inferior sort:) in the full & perfect union with whom, and enjoying of whom, consisteth all happiness.  
For by this rule we know, that the doctrine of faith, which only professeth to bring us back to God, to possess and enjoy him, (not as he is participated of us, but as he is in himself) and maketh us, already, to begin to taste the sweetness of so great and happy an union, is not only true, but Divine and Heavenly, such as nature could not teach us, but is to be learned only of God himself.  
It being presupposed in the generalily, that the doctrine of the Christian faith is of God and containeth nothing but heavenly truth; in the next place we are to inquire, by what rule we are to judge of particular things contained within the compass of it. This rule is first, the summary comprehension of such principal articles of this divine knowledge, as are the principles whence all other things are concluded, and inferred. These are contained in the creed of the Apostles. Secondly, all such things as every Christian is bound expressly to believe, by the light & direction whereof he judgeth of other things, which are not absolutely necessary, so particularly to be known. These are rightly said to be the rule of our faith, because the principles of every science are the rule whereby we judge of the truth of all things, as being better and more generally known, than any other thing, and the cause of knowing them.  
Thirdly, the Analogy, due proportion, and correspondence, that one thing in this diviue knowledge hath with another, so that men cannot err in one of them, without erring in another; nor rightly understand one, but they must likewise rightly conceive the rest. Fourthly, whatsoever books were delivered unto us, as written by them, to whom the first and immediate revelation of divine truth was made. Fiftly, whatsoever hath been delivered by all the Saints with one consent, which have left their judgement and opinion in writing. Sixtly, whatsoever the most famous have constantly and uniformly delivered, as a matter of faith, no man contradicting, though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent, and say nothing of it. Seventhly, that which the most and most famous in every age constantly delivered, as matter of faith, and as received of them that went before them, in such sort that the contradictors and gainsayers w●…re in their beginnings noted for singularity, novelty and division, and afterwards in process of time (if they persisted in such contradiction) charged with heresy.  
These three latter rules of our faith we admit, not because they are equal with the former, & originally in themselves contain the direction of our faith, but because nothing can be delivered, with such and so full consent of the people of God, as in them is expressed, but it must needs be, from those first Authors and founders of our Christian profession. The Romanists add unto these the decrees of Counsels, and determinations of Popes, making these also to be the rules of faith: but because we have no proof of their infallibility, we number them not with the rest.  
Thus than we see, how many things, in several degrees and sorts, are said to be rules of our faith. The infinite excellency of God, as that whereby the truth of the heavenly doctrine is proved. The articles of faith, and other verities ever expressly known in the Church, as the first principles, are the canon, by which we judge of conclusions from thence inferred. The Scripture, as containing in it all that doctrine of faith, which Christ the Son of GOD delivered. The vnifor●…e practice, and consenting judgement of them that went before us, as a 〈◊〉 and undoubted explication, of the things contained in the Scripture.  
The Scripture (saith 
b Contra profanas haeret: novitates.  Vincentius Lirinensis,) is full and sufficient to all purposes: but because of the manifold turnings of heretics, it is necessary▪ that the line of Prophetical and Apostolical interpretation, be drawn●…●…owne, and directed unto us, according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense. So then, we do not so make the Scripture the rule of our faith, but that other things, in their kind, are rules likewise, in such sort, that it is not safe, without respect had unto them, to judge of things by the Scripture alone. For without the first rule, we cannot know the Scripture to be of God. Without the second and third, we have no form of Christian doctrine, by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions: without the other rules, we cannot know the authors, and number of the Books of Scripture, nor the meaning of the things therein written. 
c The Apostles wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large: neither can the scriptures be understood now, but only by such as will ●…ee taught by the successors of the Apostles and guides of the Church, though being so taught, they may find assuredly by the scriptures themselves, that they do understand them aright.  For who shallbe able to understand them, but he that is settledin these things, which the Apostles presupposed, in their delivery of the Scripture.  
We do not therefore, so make the Scripture the rule of our faith, as to neglect the other, nor so admit the other, as to detract any thing from the plenitude of the Scripture, in which all things are contained that must be believed.   

CHAP. 15.  
Of the challenge of Papists against the rule of Scripture, charging it with obscurity, and imperfection.  
THis rule our adversaries lest esteem of, charging it with obscurity and imperfection, and thereupon rely upon humane interpretations, and uncertain traditions. Touching their first challenge made against this rule of the scripture, as being obscure and dark, and so not fit to give direction to our faith, unless it borrow light from some thing else: we answer, there is no question, but there are manifold difficulties in the scripture, proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the things therein contained, which are without the compass of natural understanding, and so are wholly hidden from natural men, and not known of them that are spiritual, without much travail, and studious meditation; partly out of the ignorance of tongues, and of the nature of such things, by the comparison whereof, the matters of divine knowledge are manifested unto us. But the difference between their opinion and ours, concerning this difficulty is, first in that they think the scripture so obscure and hard to be understood, that Heretics may wrest and abuse it at their pleasures, and no man be able to convince their folly, by the evidence of the Scripture itself. Secondly, in that they think, that we cannot by any helps be assured out of the Scripture itself, and the nature of the things therein contained, that that is the true meaning of it, which we think to be, but that we rest in it, only for the authority of the Church. But we say, that men, not neglecting that light of direction, which the Church yieldeth, nor other helps and means, may be assured out of the nature of the things themselves, the conference of places, the knowledge of tongues, and the suitable correspondence, that one part of divine truth hath with another, that they have found out the true meaning of it, and so be able to convince the adversaries and gainsayers.   

CHAP. 16.  
Of the interpretation of Scripture, and to whom it pertaineth.  
TOuching this point, there are two questions usually proposed; the one to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth: the other by what rules and means, men may find out t●…e true meaning of it. T●…ching the first, our Adversaries jangle m●…ch, with many declamations, against private interpretations, and interpretations of private spirits, and make the world believe, that we follow no other rule of interpretation, but each man's private fancy.  
For answer hereunto, we say with 
a Cont. 5. q. 4. art. 2. explicat. 〈◊〉.  Stapleton, that interpretations of Scripture may be said to be private, and the spirits whence they proceed, named private, either Ratione personae, modi, or finis: That is, in respect of the person who interpreteth, the manner of his proceeding in interpreting, or the end of his interpretation. A private interpretation, proceeding from a private spirit in the first sense, is every interpretation delivered by men of private condition. In the second sense, is that, which men of what condition soever, deliver, contemning and neglecting those public means which are known to all, and are to be used by all that desire to find the truth.  
In the third sense that, which proceeding from men of private condition, is not so proposed and urged by them, as if they would bind all other to receive and embrace it, but is intended only to their own satisfaction. The first kind of interpretation, proceeding from a private spirit, is not to be disliked, if the parties so interpreting neither neglect the common rules & means, of attaining the right sense of that they interpret, contemn the judgement of other men, nor presumptuously take upon them, to teach others, and enforce them to believe that, which they apprehend for truth, without any authority so to do.  
But private spirits in the second sense, that is men of such dispositions, as will follow their own fancies, and neglect the common rules of direction, as Enthusiasts, and trust to their own sense, without conference and due respect to other men's judgements, we accurse. This is all we say touching this matter: wherein I would fain know, what our adversary's dislike. Surely nothing at all, as it will appear to every one, that shall but look into the place above alleged out of Stapleton. But say they, there must be some authentical interpretation of Scripture, which every one must be bound to stand unto, or else there will be no end of quarrels and contentions, The interpretation of Scripture is nothing else, but the explication and clearing of the meaning of it. This is either true or false. The true interpretation of the Scripture, is of two sorts. For there is an interpretation, which delivereth that which is true, and contained in the Scripture, or from thence to be concluded, though not meant in that place which is expounded.  
This is not absolutely and perfectly a true interpretation, because though it truly delivereth such doctrine as is contained in the Scripture, and nothing contrary to the place interpreted, yet it doth not express that, that is particularly meant, in the place expounded. There is therefore another kind of true interpretations, when not only that is delivered which is contained in the Scripture, but that which is meant in the particular places expounded.  
Likewise false interpretations are of two sorts: some delivering that which is utterly false, and contrary to the Scripture; some others only failing in this, that they attain not the true sense, of the particular places expounded. An example of the former, is that interpretation of that place of 
b Genesis 6. 2.  Genesis, The sons of God saw the daughters of men, etc. 
c Tertul. de ivelandis Virg nibus. Debet adumbrari facies tam periculosa, quae usque ad coelum scandola i●…culata est etc. justinus Martyr & Clemens, Gen. 6. Dei filios qui hominum filias conspexerunt Angelos interpretan●… Andrad: de script. & traditionum authoritate. l. 2. fol. 262.  which some of the Fathers have delivered, understanding by the sons of God, the Angels of Heaven, whose fall they suppose proceeded from the love of women. Which error they confirm by that of the Apostle, that women must come veiled into the Church for the Angels: that is as they interpret, lest the Angels should fall in love with them. A false interpretation of the later kind; 
d Andrad: ib: fol. 257.  Andradius showeth, some think that exposition of the words of the Prophet Esaie, 
e Esay. 53.  Quis enarrabit generationem eius? Who shall declare his generation, delivered by many of the Fathers, understanding thereby the eternal generation of the son of God, which no man shall declare. Whereas, by the name of generation, the Prophet meaneth that multitude, that shall believe in Christ, which shall be so great, as cannot be expressed.  
An authentical interpretation, is that, which is not only true, but so clearly and in such sort, that every one is bound to embrace and to receive it. As before we made 3 kinds of judgement, the one of discretion common to all, the other of direction common to the Pastors of the Church, and a third of jurisdiction, proper to them that have supreme power in the Church: so likewise we make three kinds of interpretation; the first private, and so every one may interpret the Scripture, that is, privately with himself conceive, or deliver to other, what he thinketh the meaning of it to be; the second of public direction, and so the Pastors of the Church may publicly propose what they conceive of it; and the third of jurisdiction, and so they that have supreme power, that is the Bishops assembled in a general Council, may interpret the Scripture, and by their authority suppress all them that shall gainsay such interpretations, and subject every man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent upon, to excommunication and censures of like nature.  
But for authentical interpretation of Scriptures, which every man's conscience is bound to yield unto, it is of an higher nature: neither do we think any of these to be such, as proceeding from any of those before named & specified; to whom we grant a power of interpretation. Touching the interpretations which the Fathers have delivered, we receive them as undoubtedly true, in the general doctrine they consent in, and so far forth esteem them as authentical: yet do we think that holding the faith of the Fathers, it is lawful to descent from that interpretation of some particular places, which the greater part of them have delivered, or perhaps all that have written of them, and to find out some other not mentioned by any of the Ancient.   

CHAP. 17.  
Of the interpretation of the Fathers, and how far we are bound to admit it.  
THe Fathers, (
a Andradius defence. etc. l. 2. fol. 257. et 260.  saith Andradius) especially they of the Greek Church, being ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, following Origen, did rather strive, with all their wit and learning, to devise Allegories; and to frame the manners of men, then to clear the hard places of the law and the Prophets. Nay, even Hierome himself, who more diligently than any of the rest, sought out the meaning and sense of the Prophetical and divine Oracles, yet often to avoid the obscurities of their words, betaketh himself to Allegories. In this sense it is that 
b Caietan prooemio comment. in Gen.  Cardinal Caietan saith, he will not fear to go against the torrent of all the Doctors; for which saying Andradius showeth, that Canus and others do unjustly blame him. For though we may not go from the faith of the Fathers, nor from the main truth of doctrine, which they deliver in different interpretations, yet may we interpret some parts of the Scripture otherwise, than any of the Ancient ever did, weighing the circumstances of places, the nature and force of words in the Original, and having other helps necessary.  
Neither is this to contemn the uniform and main consent of the Fathers, but rather more exactly to illustrate and explain those things, which they did allegorically understand, or not so diligently travail in, as is fit for them that come after, to do. It is not then so strange a thing to say, that there are many places of Scripture, the true literal, and natural sense whereof, we cannot find in any of the Ancient. Neither is this to charge them with error in faith: seeing the sense they give, tendeth to the furtherance of the true faith, and the better forming of men's manners to godliness. Wherefore, we fear not to pronounce with Andradius, that whosoever denyeth, that the true and literal sense of sundry texts of Scripture hath been found out in this last age (wherein 
c I●… praefat. in Novi Testamenti Syriaci Latinam interpret.  as Guido Fabritius rightly noteth, all things seem to be renewed, and all learning to be newly borne into the world, that so Christ might be newly fashioned in us, and we new borne in him) is most unthankful unto God, that hath so richly shed out his benefits upon the children of this generation, & ungrateful towards those men, who with so great pains, so happy success, and so much benefit to God's Church, have travailed therein.  
Neither is Andradius only of this opinion, but jansenius, & Maldonatus also, who both of them do in sundry places profess, they rest not satisfied in any interpretation given by the Fathers, but prefer other found out in this age. For example, in the explication of that place of john, Of his fullness, we have all received, grace for grace; 
d Comment. in joh. c. 1.  Maldonatus, refuseth all the interpretations of the Fathers, and giveth this of his own, We have received, of Christ's fullness, most excellent gifts of grace, yet no man hath received all, but every one is defective, yea, every one lacketh something, that another hath. But he may acknowledge the goodness of God towards him, in that he hath some other in stead of it, which the other hath not, and so may rightly be said to have received grace for grace, because in stead of that grace he wanteth, and another hath, he hath received some other, which the other wanteth. Many other instances might be given out of Cajetan, Andradius, jansenius, Maldonatus, and other worthy Divines of the Church of Rome: but this may suffice.   

CHAP: 18.  
Of the diverse senses of Scripture.  
THus having set down to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth, it remaineth, that we speak of the rules, directions, and helps, that men have to lead them to the finding out of the right meaning of it. But, because some suppose the Scripture hath many & uncertain senses, before we enter into the discourse of the rules, which must direct us in interpreting, we must speak something of the multiplicity of senses, supposed to be in the words of Scripture, which may seem to contrary all certainty of interpretation. There is therefore a double sense of the sacred words and sentences of Scripture, for there is a literal sense, and a spiritual or mystical sense. The literal sense is either proper, or native, when the words are to be taken, as originally in their proper signification they import, or figurative, when the words are translated from their natural and proper signification, to signify something resembled by those things, they do primarily import. 
a john 10. 16.  As when Christ saith, he hath other sheep, which are not of this fold.  
The spiritual or mystical sense of the Scripture is, when the words either properly, or figuratively, signify somethings, which are figures and significations of other things. This is Threefoold: Allegorical, Tropological, Anagogical. The first is, when things spoken of in the old Testament, are figures of somethings in the New. So it was literally true, that 
b Galat. 4. 22.  Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free: but these two sons of Abraham imported some other thing in the state of the new Testament, to wit, two different sorts of men. 
c Illyrycus in clave Ser pturae, de multiplici sacra●…um literarum sensu, haec doctissimè tradit collecta ex varijs authoribus.  And here we may observe the difference, between an Allegory and a Type. A Type is, when some particular person, or fact, in the old Testament, demonstrateth, and shadoweth out unto us some particular person, or fact in the new. An allegory, when something in the old Testament, in a spiritual, and mystical sort, shadoweth out unto us in a generality, things in some proportion answering in the new. So 
d 1. Sam. 17. 50.  David, overcoming Goliath, was a Type of Christ, and allegorically did shadow out that victory, which we obtain in the state of the new Testament, over those ghostly enemies that rise up against us.  
The Tropological sense of Scripture is, when one thing delivered and reported in the Scripture, signifieth some other thing, pertaining to the behaviour and conversation of men: as when God forbade to 
e Deut: 25 4. 1 Cor. 9 9  muzzle the mouth of the ox, that treadeth out the corn. This prohibition did literally signify, that God would not have labouring oxen restrained from feeding, while they were treading out the corn. But this respect, which God had unto these his creatures of inferior condition, did signify, that much less they which labour for our souls good, are to be denied the things of this life.  
Anagogical, when the things literally expressed unto us, do signify something in the state of heaven happiness. 
f Psal. 95, 8. Hebr: 4. 1.  God swore in his wrath, to the Israelites, that they should not enter into his rest, meaning the land of Canaan: but the Apostle from thence concludeth, that unbelievers shall not enter into that eternal rest of the Saints in heaven; because the rest of the Israelites in the land of Canaan, after their manifold dangers, vexations and travels, was a figure of the eternal rest in heaven. This division of the manifold senses of Scripture is taken out of Eucherius.  
Hierom maketh three kinds of exposition of Scripture, Historical, Tropological, and Spiritual: that which he nameth spiritual comprehendeth both those before expressed by Eucherius, to wit, Allegorical & Anagogical. Augustine maketh the exposition of the Scripture to be twofold, Historical, & Allegorical. The former he maketh to be twofold, to wit, Analogical, & Aetiologicall: and the later he maketh to comprehend that, which properly is called Allegorical, and the other two, to wit, Tropological, and Anagogical.  
The reason of this diversity of mystical senses is, because the old Testament was a figure of the new; and the new, of future glory. This multiplicity of senses breedeth no uncertainty in the Scripture, nor Aequivocation, because the words of the Scripture do not doubtfully signify so diverse and different things, but the things certainly signified by the words, are signs & significations of diverse things. All these are founded upon one literal & certain sense, from which only in matter of question and doubt an argument may be drawn. The thing wherein Origen offended, was not, that he found out spiritual and mystical senses of the divine Scripture, but because he thought there is no literal true sense of them, but mystical only, so overthrowing the truth of the sacred history of the book of God. And the fault of many others in former times was, that following him too much, they neglected the literal sense, and over-curiously sought out allegories, and mystical senses; whereas yet the literal sense alone hath force and power to establish truth, and improve error. 
g Sixtus Sennens▪ Bibliothecae l. 3. de usu & utilitate historicae & mysticae expopositionis.  And this doubtless is the first and chiefest use and necessity of following the literal sense. Another is, for that, being the foundation of the mystical, if we find it not out, we may run into many errors. The Manichees out of those words of the Psalmist, where he saith, that God hath made a Tabernacle for the Sun in heaven, out of which, it cometh in the morning, as a Bridegroom out of his chamber, to show the brightness of his countenance to the sons of men; reading, Posuit tabernaculum suum in sole, God placed his Tabernacle, or appointed and made himself a Tabernacle in the Sun, inferred, that Christ ascended into the highest heavens, without our flesh, leaving his body behind him, within the compass of the globe of the Sun, so that his flesh is to be adored in the Sun, as in a Tabernacle wherein it resteth and remaineth. 
h Intellectus sacri eloquij, inter textum & mysterium, magna est libratione pensandus. Multae enim eius sententiae tantâ allegoriarum conceptione sunt gravidae, ut quisquis eas adsolam tenere historiam nititur, earum noticiá per suam incuriam privetur▪ nonnulli verò ita exterioribus inseruiunt, ●…t si quis eas subtilius penetrare desiderat, intus quidem nihil inveniat, sed etiam sibi quod foris loquuntur abscondat. Greg. moral. l 21. in cap. 31. cap. 1.  Now as their course is not to be excused, which follow the mystical sense only, & neglect the literal: so they are no less faulty, that follow the literal sense only, and do not at all consider the mysteries of spiritual understanding, and information of Christian and godly conversation, which in the word of God, do offer themselves unto them. For they make the Scriptures, especially of the old testament, where so many things of outward observation, ceremony, and purification were prescribed, unsavoury, and to seem less divine, than the laws and prescriptions of the Gentiles, as the Athenians, Lacedæmonians, and other, and the manifold histories of former times, to serve little to edification.  
Between both these extremes, a mean is to be kept, that neither the one, nor the other be neglected: so that we must neither be like them, that rejecting the literal exposition, seek out fond and childish Allegories, and so overthrow the truth of the divine history, as Origen did, or neglect the knowledge of it, publishing their own idle and ridiculous conceits, as if they were the great & hidden mysteries of the Christian faith and religion; nor like those, which rest in the bare and naked words, and syllables, without collecting from thence, such instructions as are fit. The former (saith Sixtus Senensis) are to know, that howsoever they imagine, the literal exposition of the Scripture to be easy, obvious, and trivial, yet it is indeed the hardest of all other. Whereupon, both Hierome and Augustine confess, that at first, to decline the obscurities and difficulties of the text of Scripture, they followed mystical senses, as being more easy; but afterward when they grew in age, & so in ripeness of judgement they sought out the other, which is literal.  
Thus we see the difference between the literal and mystical sense of Scripture, and how and in what sort the one is the ground of the other. Which that we misconceive not, nor take one for another, we must remember, that by the literal sense of Scripture, we understand not that only, which the words do properly afford, but which they primarily afford, according to the intention of him that useth them, and the construction of them that hear them. The mystical sense opposite hereunto, is that which is not primarily intended by him that speaketh words, having such mystical sense. All the allegories therefore, parables, and Enigmatical speeches which are used in Scripture, not being verified either in the intention of the speaker, or construction of the hearer, in sort as the words properly import, but as signifying things resembled by the things they properly import, do literally signify that, which by comparison of such things, they make us understand.  
Here it is not out of place, to observe the difference between a proverb, parable, allegory, and enigmatical speech or riddle. A proverb is a sententious saying, much in use, and famous, for the most part somewhat obscure, by metaphorical words expressing something to us, and alluding to something not distinctly expressed. Though sometimes any famous and common saying, be named a Proverb. A Parable is, when one thing is compared and resembled to another; so Christ compared the kingdom of Heaven to leaven, to a grain of mustard seed, to ten virgins, to a net cast into the sea. Though sometimes the similitude of a thing, and not any such speech, wherein comparison is made between one thing, and another, is named a Parable.  

i jansenius in concordiam Evangel. c. 52. fol. 402.  Abraham recepit filium suum in parabola, that is, Abraham received his son from such an estate, as was most like to the state of the dead. An allegory is, when he that speaketh intendeth to signify, and insinuate some other thing, than his words in their primary use, and signification do import. 
k Math. ●…7. 3.  Behold, saith Christ, the sour went out to sow, etc. A Riddle, or Enigmatical speech, is an obscure allegory. 
l judicum c. 9  The trees went forth to anoint them a King: and again: 
m Cap. 14.  Out of the eater came meat, & out of the strong came sweetness. The Scripture is full of these Allegories, Parables, Proverbial and Enigmatical speeches; GOD in teaching us, taking that course, he knoweth fittest for us, and making us understand things heavenly, and invisible, by those that are earthly and visible.  
And as God doth thus speak unto us in parables, Allegories, and Riddles, so did he show the Prophets of old, in dreams and visions, the things that are heavenly, by those that are earthly, and the things that are invisible, by those that are visible: as in the Revelation, 
n Revel. 〈◊〉.  Saint john saw seven golden Candlesticks, and one like the Son of man walking in the midst of them. 
o Occam l. 3. 〈◊〉. tract. part. 3. c. 19  There is none of these Enigmatical, Allegorical, or parabolical speeches, nor none of these visions, but either by some things known to them, to whom they were proposed, or by special explication added to them, or per novi facti exhibitionem, by seeming the thing performed, that was so obscurely shadowed only, may be understood. 
p Not from ehe mystical or spiritual senses above mentioned.  From these without these helps of understanding; we can conclude nothing that is doubtful. An example of understanding Enigmatical and hard speeches, by force of some things known unto us, giving light unto them, is the riddle of Samson, Out of the eater came meat, etc. which sny one, knowing that out of a Lion he had taken honey, would understand, but another could not. By explication added, 
q Revel. 1. 20.  as the mystery of the seven stars, and seven golden Candlesticks, is expounded to john, that saw the vision of them. By evidence of the thing exhibited and performed, 
r john 2. 19 22.  Destroy this Temple, (saith Christ) and in three days I will build it, and raise it up again. The disciples after they saw him risen from the dead, remembered these words, & understood that they were spoken of our Saviour, of the Temple of his body, and the resurrection of it. 
s Math. 24. 15  So likewise, when they saw the miserable and abominable overthrow of jerusalem, and the Temple, they could not but understand what was meant by the prophecy of Daniel, touching the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place.  
Thus having cleared that doubt, which some make, touching the multiplicity of senses of the words of Scripture, as if there were no certain meaning of them, and having showed which is that sense, we must principally seek after, as being the foundation of the rest, it remaineth that we come to speak of the rules of direction, & the helps we have, to attain to the understanding of the true meaning of the Scripture. For as Hierome fitly noteth, 
t In epist. ad Gal. in cap. 1.  Non putemus in verbis scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu, non in superficie, sed in medulla, non in sermonum folijs, sed in radice rationis. We must not think that the Gospel consisteth in the words of Scripture, but in the sense and meaning, not in the outward rind and skin, but in the inward pith and marrow, not in the leaves of the words, but in the root and ground of reason.   

CHAP: 19  
Of the rules we are to follow, and the helps we are to trust to, in interpreting the Scriptures.  
TOuching the rules we are to follow, the helps we are to trust unto, and the things required in the interpretation of Scripture, I think we may thus resolve. First there is required an illumination of the understanding: for the natural man perceiveth not the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned, but the spiritual man judgeth all things, and himself is judged of none. Secondly a mind free from the thought of other things depending on God, as the fountain of illumination, desirous of the truth, with resolution to embrace it, though contrary to the conceits of natural men. Thirdly, the knowledge of the rule of faith, formerly set down, and the practice of the Saints according to the same. Fourthly, a due consideration, what will follow upon our interpretation, agreeing with, or contrary to, the things generally received, and believed among Christians: in which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture, and the things there delivered is necessary. For the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted, the occasion of the words the things going before, and following after. Sixtly, the knowledge of all those Histories, Arts, and Sciences which may help us. For, seeing grace presupposeth nature, and the Scripture doth not teach us, but presupposeth we know already, the things that may be discerned by the light of nature, many do not understand sundry passages of Scripture, because they bring not with them, to the study of it, that degree of natural knowledge, which is requisite. Seventhly, the knowledge of the original tongues, and the phrases and Idiotismes of them. So that to resolve this matter yet more distinctly and fully, there are some things required for the attaining of the right understanding of Scripture, as making us capable of such understanding, of which sort is the illumination of the mind: some things as means, whereby we attain unto it. These are of two sorts, either disposing and preparing only, as often reading, meditating, and praying, or else guiding us in the very search itself. Themse are either general and most infallible, as the rule of faith, which if we follow, we are sure not to depart from the general verity of the Christian faith: or more proper and special, directing us to the true finding out of the meaning of particular places of Scripture. There is therefore between our adversaries, and us, no difference in this matter, if they will understand themselves. For we confess, that neither conference of places, nor consideration of the antecedentia & consequentia, nor looking into the originals, are of any force, unless we find the things, which we conceive to be understood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of faith. 
a Stapl. cont. 6. q. 7. exp. art.  And they confess, that though alone, and without respect had to the rule of faith, they be but probable means of direction, and not absolutely certain, yet that being joined with the rule of faith, they help and are exceedingly necessary.  

b De causis difficultatis scripturae & remedijs. remed. 2.  Illyricus in his Clavis scripturae, speaking of the difficulties that are found in Scripture, and how they may be cleared, showeth that nothing is more necessary for the understanding of the Scripture, than to be rightly taught the general principles, and axioms of Divinity, out of which do flow, and on which do depend, whatsoever things are contained in the Scripture; and then cometh to the other media assigned before. Neither is there any of our Divines, that ever thought otherwise.   

CHAP: 20.  
Of the supposed imperfection of Scriptures, and the supply of Traditions.  
THus having showed what that difficulty and obscurity is, which is found in Scripture, who must interpret it, and by what rules they must be guided in the interpretation of it; it remaineth, that in the next place, we clear the scriptures, from the other imputation of our adversaries, which is imperfection, which they endeavour to supply by addition of traditions. The necessity of writing, for the preservation and safe keeping of those treasures of learning, and wisdom, which we desire should remain and be known to posterities, appeareth, in that few things remain, of Socrates, Pythagoras, & others, renowned, in the times wherein they lived for wisdom and learning, because they left nothing in writing, as also by that 
a job. 19 24.  of blessed job, Oh that my words were written &c. as if there were no other means to preserve the remembrance of things, that they should never be forgotten, but writing only. The Ancients had the knowledge of God without writing, but how soon it decayed, it easily appeareth. Surely it failed in every family, in one at the least, till the time of jacob father of the 12. patriarchs. And therefore, after God took the whole posterity of jacob to be his peculiar people, (a favour which he showed not to any of his fathers before) he gave them his laws in writing: which Scripture or writing was so full and perfect, 
b Bellar. l. 4. c. 8. de verbo non scripto. Non de●…unt inquit, aliqui Catholicorum, qui negant ullam fuisse traditionem non scriptam apud judaeos.  that the jews had nothing delivered unto them, pertaining to the knowledge or service of God, that was not written.  
The instance that our adversaries give to the contrary, is concerning the females, and males dying before the eighth day, who not being circumcised, they presume they were sanctified to God, and found remission of their Original and birth sin, by some other sacred rite, and Sacramental means appointed by God, though not written. 
c Andrad. defen. l. 2. fo. 125.  This instance is clearly refuted, by Andradius. If (saith he) we shall more diligently look into the thing itself, we shall find, that the jews had no set, or certain rite of religion, wherewith to sanctify & cleanse their women children, or males that died before circumcision, from the pollution of original sin: and if perhaps any did sometimes use any form, or rite, it was rather a matter of private, & voluntary devotion, than of necessity. For whereas parents stand bound, by the general law of God and nature, with all thankful acknowledgement, to receive their children, as a great and special benefit from God, this their faith, piety, and thankfulness joined with desire of, and prayer for their Good, prosperous, and happy estate, was accepted, and found favour with God, on the behalf of their children. Whereupon 
d Moral. l. 4. c. 2.  Gregory pronounceth, that the faith of the parents, was of the same force with them of the old time, that the Baptism of water is with us. And whereas Augustine saith, it is not likely that the people of God, before the institution of Circumcision, had no Sacrament wherewith to present their children to GOD, though the Scripture have not expressed it, it is not to be understood, (saith Andradius) of any outward ceremonies necessary for the sanctification of those Infants, but of any rite, & offering them to GOD, whether mental only, or outwardly object to the eye, and sense.  
That which Andradius addeth, that it could not be known, but by tradition only, that the faith of the parents was in stead of circumcision, before circumcision was instituted, and after the institution of it to them that might not lawfully, or could not possibly be circumcised, is frivolous; for men knew it, & concluded it out of the general, and common rules of reason, and equity.  
Touching the state of the people of God, since the coming of Christ, our adversaries make no doubt, but they can easily prove, that the writings, which the Church that now is, hath, are defective and imperfect. This they endeavour to prove: First, because the Scriptures of the New Testament, were written upon particular occasions offered, and not of purpose to contain a perfect rule of faith. Secondly, because they were written by the Apostles and other apostolic men, out of their own motions, and not by commandment from Christ the Son of GOD. But unto both these Arguments alleged by our Adversaries, we answer, that they contain matter of very gross error.  
For first, who seeth not plainly, that the Evangelistes writing the history of Christ's life and death, Saint Luke in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, describing the coming of the Holy Ghost; the admirable gifts of grace poured upon the Apostles, and the Churches established, and ordered by them: and the blessed Apostle Saint john, writing the Revelations which he saw, concerning the future state of things, to the end of the world; meant to deliver a perfect sum of Christian doctrine, and direction of Christian faith. It is true indeed, that the Epistles of the Apostles, directed to the Christian Churches that then were, were occasionally written, yet so, as by the providence of God, all such things as the Church believeth, not being found in the other parts of Scripture purposely written, are most clearly, & at large delivered in these Epistles.  
Secondly, touching the other part of their Argument, which they bring to convince the Scripture of imperfection, because they that wrote it, had no commandment to write, we think it needeth no refutation, for 
e Aug. lib. 1. de consensu Evangelista●…um cap. ult. quicquid il le de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit.  the absurdity of it is evident and clear of itself. 
f 2 Pet. 1. 20. 21.  For who knoweth not, that the Scriptures are not of any private motion, but that the holy men of God, were moved, impelled, and carried by the spirit of truth to the performance of this work, doing nothing without the instinct of the Spirit, which was unto them a Commandment.  
The imperfection & defect supposed to be foundin the Scripture, our adversaries endeavour to supply, by addition of traditions. The name of Tradition, sometimes signifieth every Christian doctrine, delivered from one, to another, either by lively voice only, or by writing, as Exod. 17. Scribe hoc ob monumentum in libro, & trade in auribus josuae: Write this for a remembrance in a Book, and deliver it in the ears of josuah, Act. 6. 14. The written Law of Moses, is called a Tradition. Audivimus eum dicentem, quoniam jesus destruet locum istum, & mutabit traditiones quas tradidit nobis Moses. We heard him say, that jesus shall destroy this place, and change the traditions, which Moses delivered unto us. Sometimes the name of tradition signifieth that which is delivered by lively voice only, and not written. 
g 1 Cor. 11. 23  That which I received of the Lord, saith the Apostle, that I delivered unto you. In this question, by tradition, we understand such parts of Christian doctrine or discipline, as were not written by them, by whom they were first delivered.  
For thus our Adversaries understand Traditions, which they divide into divers kinds. First, in respect of the Authors, so making them of three sorts, Divine, Apostolical & Ecclesiastical. Secondly, in respect of the matter they concern, in which respect they make them to be of two sorts: for either they concern matters of faith, or matters of manners: and these latter again either temporal or perpetual, universal or particular. All these in their several kinds they make equal with the words, precepts, and doctrines of Christ, the Apostles & Pastors of the Church left unto us in writing. Neither is there any reason why they should not so do, if they could prove any such unwritten verities. For it is not the writing, that giveth things their authority, but the worth & credit of him that delivereth them, though but by word and lively voice only.  
The only doubt is, whether there be any such unwritten traditions or not.  
Much contention there hath been, about Traditions, some urging the necessity of them, and other rejecting them. For the clearing whereof we must observe, that though we reject the uncertain and vain traditions of the Papists, yet we reject not all. For first we receive the number and names of the authors of books Divine & Canonical, as delivered by tradition. This tradition we admit, for that, though the books of Scripture have not their authority from the Approbation of the Church, but win credit of themselves, and yield sufficient satisfaction to all men, of their Divine truth, whence we judge the Church that receiveth them, to be led by the spirit of God; yet the number, Authors, and integrity of the parts of these books, we receive as delivered by tradition.  
The second kind of tradition which we admit, is that summary comprehension, of the chief heads of Christian doctrine, contained in the Creed of the Apostles, which was delivered to the Church, as a rule of her faith. 
h Illa verba quae audiuisti●… per divinas Scripturas sparsa sunt inde collecta & ad unum redacta etc. Aug. ad catechumenos lib. 1. de symbolo cap. 1.  For though every part thereof be contained in the Scripture, yet the orderly connexion, & distinct explication of these principal articles gathered into an Epitome, wherein are employed, and whence are inferred, all conclusions theological, is rightly named a tradition. The 3d is that form of Christian doctrine, and explication of the several parts thereof, which the first Christians receiving of the same Apostles, that delivered to them the Scriptures, commended to posterities. This may rightly be named a tradition, not as if we were to believe any thing, without the warrant and authority of the Scripture, but for that we need a plain and distinct explication of many things, which are somewhat obscurely contained in the Scripture: which being explicated, the Scriptures which otherwise we should not so easily have understood, yield us satisfaction that they are so indeed, as the Church delivereth them unto us.  
The fourth kind of tradition, is the continued practice of such things, as neither are contained in the Scripture expressly, nor the examples of such practice expressly there delivered, though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice, be there contained, and the benefit, or good that followeth of it. Of this sort is the Baptism of Infants, which is therefore named a tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture, That the Apostles did baptise infants, nor any express precept there found, that they should so do. Yet is not this so received by bare and naked tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it. The fifth kind of traditions, comprehendeth such observations, as in particular, are not commanded in Scripture, nor the necessity of them from thence concluded, though in general without limitation of times, and other circumstances, such things be there commanded. Of this sort, many think the observation of the lent fast to be, the fast of the fourth and the sixth days of the week, and some other.  
That the Apostles delivered by lively voice, many observations, dispensable, and alterable, according to the circumstances of times, and persons, we make no question. Only this we say, 
i Waldensi●… tom. 3. titulo 7. cap. 63. traditiones apostolicas à purè ecclesiasticis iam temporis vastitate nescimus discernere.  that they are confounded with Ecclesiastical traditions; so that which they are, doth hardly appear, and that they do not necessarily bind posterities. The custom of standing at prayer on the Lord's day, and between Easter and Whitsontinde, was generally received, as delivered by apostolic tradition, and when some began to break it, is was confirmed by the 
k Concilium Nicen. can: 20. The custom of ministering baptism only at Easter and Whitsuntide except in case of necessity was very general. whereupon Leo reprehendeth the Bishop's ●…f Sicilia for that contemning this tradition of the ancient they did baptise on the day of Epiphany.  Council of Nice, yet is it not thought necessary to be observed in our time.  
Out of this which hath been said, we may easily resolve what is to be thought touching traditions. For first the Canon of scripture being admitted as delivered by Tradition, (though the divine truth of it, be in itself clear and evident unto us, not depending of the Church's authority,) there is no matter of faith delivered by bare and only tradition, as the Romanists seem to Imagine. Yea this is so clear, that therein they contrary themselves, endeavouring to prove by scripture the same things they pretend to hold by tradition as we shall find, if we run through the things questioned between them and us. The only clear instance they seem to give, is touching the perpetual virginity of Mary, which they say cannot be proved by scripture, and yet is necessary to be believed.  
But they should know, that this is no point of Christian faith. That she was a Virgin before, in, and after the birth of Christ, we are bound to believe as an article of our faith, and so much is delivered in scripture and in the Apostles Creed: but that she continued so ever after, is a seemly truth, delivered unto us by the Church of God, fitting the sanctity of the blessed Virgin, and the honour due to so sanctified a vessel of Christ's incarnation, as her body was: and so is de pietate, but not the necessitate fidei, as the Schoolmen use to speak. Neither was Heluidius condemned of Heresy, for the denial hereof, but because pertinaciously he urged the denial of it, upon misconstruction of scripture, as if the denial of it had been a matter of faith. Touching this Allegation of our Adversaries, concerning Mary's perpetual Virginity, we must know, that howsoever they pretend to hold it only by tradition, 
l They proved it out of the 44. of Ezechiel 2. as Hiero. showeth in his comment upon this place. Index biblicus in regijs biblijs vacabulo Maria multis scripturae locis significari perpetuam virginitatem Mariae ostendit  yet the Fathers, that defend it against Heluidius, endeavour to prove it by the Scripture. Their instance of children's Baptism, is most apparently against themselves, for they confess it may be proved by scripture. 
m Bellar. de sacra. baptis. lib. 1. cap. 8.  Bellarmine proveth it by three reasons, taken from the scripture. The first is, from the proportion between Baptism and Circumcision, the Circumcision of Children then, and the Baptism of them now. This argument he saith as they propose it, cannot be avoided. The second from these two places john. 3. Except a man be borne a new, of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And that other, Suffer little children to come unto me, for unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven.  
This Argument he saith is strong, effectual, and pregnant, to prove the necessity of the Baptism of Infants. The third is taken from the Baptising of whole families by the Apostles, in which by all likelihood, there were infants.  
Surely in this point of traditions, our adversaries bewray their great folly & inconstancy, making it evident to the whole world, they know not what they say. Bellarmine saith, that many things, touching the matter and form of sacraments, are holden by tradition, as not being contained in scripture: and yet in the particulars, 
n We shall find an uncertainty touching the form and words of form of all those pretended Sacraments of marriage, penance unction and confirmation: which in scripture are not 〈◊〉 unto us as sacraments.  there is nothing defined in the Church of Rome touching these things, which he indeauoureth not to prove by scripture. Some allege, for proof of tradition, the consubstantiality of the son of God with the Father, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost from them both. Others constantly affirm, that these things are proved by scripture. Some of them say Pugatory is holden by tradition, others think it may be proved by scripture, ᵍ Melchior Canus endeavouring to prove the necessity of traditions, produceth sundry things as not written, as invocation of Saints, worshipping of images, the Priests consecrating, and partaking in both parts of the sacrament. That ordination and confirmation, are to be conferred, and given, but only once: which when he hath alleged, he dareth not say, the scripture doth not deliver them for fear of gainsaying the truth in some of them, and his own 
o Canus lib. 3. c. 3. fundamentum. 3.  fellows in other. And therefore he saith, These things perhaps, the scripture hath not delivered. 
p L. 1. de sanct. beatit. & l. 2. c. 12. de sanctorum imaginibus probat testimoniis scripturae imagines esse colendas.  For Bellarmine thinketh, the Scripture doth strongly prove the Invocation and worship of Saints and Angels: and who is so impudent to deny, that the Ministers of the Church, are bound by the commandment of Christ, contained in the Scripture, to consecrate and participate in both parts of the Sacrament? That confirmation, and ordination, once conferred, are not to be reiterated, may be concluded out of the nature of them, described unto us in the Scripture. So that for matters of faith, we may conclude according to the judgement of the best and most learned, of our adversaries themselves, that there is nothing to be believed, which is not either expressly contained in Scripture, or at least by necessary consequence from thence, and other things evident in the light of nature, or in the matter of fact, to be concluded. That there were many speeches and divine sayings of our Saviour Christ, which though they were never written by the Evangelists, the Apostles, and others conversant with him in the days of his flesh, knew and faithfully preserved and kept, 
q Lucae 2. 19  as Mary did all things, which she heard him speak, and saw him do, (of which sort was that, alleged by the Apostle, 
r Acts 20. 35  It is more blessed to give then to receive) we make no question: but that there are any of those unwritten speeches, or Actions, necessary to be known for our salvation, or containing any other matter of divine knowledge, then is written, or that are certainly known unto the Church now, we utterly deny. All the historical things (
s Panopl. l. 4. c. 20.  saith Bishop Lindan) which are reported concerning Christ, not contained in Scripture, are fabulous, or uncertain. Which doubtless was the reason, why more errors were found in the writings of the first 
t Tertul. Iraen. Arnobius, Papias, Lactantius, etc.  Fathers of the Primitive Church, then in those that were further removed from those first beginnings, because they were abused by the false and uncertain reports of traditions, which in those times men greedily harkened after, as living with them, which had been conversant with the Apostles or their Scholars, as we shall find by that is reported of 
u Euseb. l. 3. c. 35. Pererius in Genesin l. 3. q. 5. ait errorem Chiliastarum quo multi veterum fuerunt implicati ab Asiae presbyteris esse proseminatum. Iraeneus l. 3: advers. haereses c. 39 persuadere studet Christum dominum annos prope 50 in terris vixisse, idque probat vel eo potissimum argumento quod presbyteri Asiae Apostolorum discipuli id sibi ab Apostolis traditum docuerunt.  Papias, and it appeareth by the writings of others.  
Thus having made it clear and evident, that it is not safe to rely upon traditions in things concerning the faith, let us come to those traditions, which concern the manners and conversation of men.  
That the Apostles delivered many things of this nature to the Churches, some by way of precept, some by way of Council and advice only, some to particular Churches, and some to all, some to continue but for a time, and some to continue for ever, we make no doubt. Of this sort is the observation of the Lords day, the precept whereof is not found in Scripture, though the practice be, and so may be named a tradition. And sundry other things there are, which doubtless the Apostles delivered by tradition, but they are confounded with Ecclesiastical traditions, as 
x Tom. 3. tit. 7. c. 63.  Waldensis aptly noteth, that we might the more reverence the constitutions of the Church, and are dispensable by the guides of the Church: because the Apostles, and apostolic men that delivered them, did not deliver them as reporting the immediate precepts of Christ himself, but by virtue of their Pastoral power and office; and so it little concerneth us, exactly to know, whether they were delivered by the Apostles themselves, or their next aftercommers: For if they were delivered by the Apostles, yet are they dispensable by the authority of the Church: and if not by them, but by others, they may not be dispensed with, nor altered, but by the same authority.   

CHAP. 21.  
Of the rules, whereby true Traditions may be known from counterfeit.  
THus having set down the kinds and sorts of traditions, it remaineth to examine, by what means we may come to discern, and by what rules we may judge, which are true and indubitate traditions. The first rule is delivered by 
a Lib. 4. contra Donatistas', c. 23.  Augustine; Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolicâ traditum, rectissimè creditur. Whatsoever the whole Church holdeth, not being decreed by the authority of Councils, but having been ever holden, may rightly be thought, to have proceeded from apostolic authority. The second rule is, whatsoever all, or the most famous, and renowned, in all ages, or at the least in divers ages, have constantly delivered, as received from them that went before them, no man contradicting or doubting of it, may be thought to be an Apostolical tradition. The third rule, is the constant Testimony, of the Pastors of an apostolic Church, successively delivered: to which some add, the present testimony of any apostolic Church, whose declinings when they began, we cannot precisely tell. But none of the Fathers admit this rule. For when they urge the authority and testimony of apostolic Churches, for the proof, or reproof of true or pretended traditions, they stand upon the consenting voice, or silence, of the Pastors of such Churches, successively in divers ages concerning such things. Some add the testimony of the present Church: but we inquire after the rule, whereby the present Church may know true traditions from false: and besides, though the whole multitude of believers, at one time in the world, cannot err pertinaciously, and damnably, in embracing false traditions, in stead of true; yet they that most sway things in the Church may, yea even the greater part of a general council; so that this can be no sure rule for men to judge of traditions by. And therefore 
b De traditionibus, l. 3. c. 4.  Canus reasoneth foolishly, that whatsoever the Church of Rome practiceth, which she may not do without special warrant from God, and yet hath no warrant in Scripture so to do, the same things and the practice of them she hath received by tradition. He giveth example in the present practice of the Romish Church, in dispensing with, & remitting vows and oaths, and in dissolving marriages, (not consummate by carnal knowledge,) by admitting men into orders of Religion. But this practice of the Romish Church, we condemn, as wicked, and Antichristian.   

CHAP. 22.  
Of the difference of books Canonical and Apocryphal.  
THus having answered our adversary's objections, touching the obscurity, and imperfections, of the scripture, which we affirm to be the rule of our faith; it remaineth, that in particular we consider, which are the books of this Scripture, containing the rule of our faith, and where the indubitate, and certain verity of them, is to be found, whether in the originals, or in the Translations. The books which Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles delivered to the world, contain the Canon, that is the rule of piety, faith, and religion, which the sons of men received by Revelation from heaven, and therefore are rightly named Canonical. The matter of these books, we believe to have been inspired from the holy Ghost, for our instruction; whose authority is so great, that no man may doubt of them. The writers of these books, were in such sort guided, and directed by the spirit of truth, in composing of them, that not to believe them, were impious. Whereupon 
a Aug Hieronym.  Augustine writing to Hierome, saith, Ego solis eis scriptoribus, qui Canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem, honoremque defer, ut nullum eorum scribendo errasse firmissimè teneam; at si quod in iis invenero, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud existimem, quam mendosum esse codicem, vel non esse assecutum interpretem, quod dictum est, vel me minimè intellexisse non ambigam: alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate, doctrinâve polleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ita senserunt, sed quia mihi per illos auctores canonicos vel probabiles rationes, quod à vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. That is, I have learned to yield that reverence and honour to those writers only that are called Canonical, to think that none of them could err in writing; but if in them I find any thing that may seem contrary to the truth, I persuade myself that either the Copy is corrupt, or the interpreter defective and faulty, or that the fault is in my not understanding of it: but other authors I so read, that how great soever their learning & sanctity be, I do not therefore think any thing to be true, because they have so thought, but because they persuade me that it is true, by the authority of the Canonical authors,, or the probability of Reason.  
Besides the indubitate writings of those Canonical Authors, there are other books written of the same argument, which because the credit and authority of the authors of them is not known, are named Apocryphal.  
Books are named Apocryphal, first because the author of them is not known: and in this sense some of the Books of Canonical Scripture, as the books of Chronicles, of Hester, and a great part of the Psalms may be named Apocryphal, though unproperly, and unfitly: (The authority of the authors of them, not being doubted of, though their names, and other personal conditions be not known.) 
a De lib. canonicis, l. 3. fo. 287  And therefore Andradius reprehendeth the Gloss, which defineth those things to be Apocryphal, quae incerto authore prodita sunt, the author and publisher whereof is not known.  
Secondly, books are therefore named Apocryphal, because the authority and credit of them is called in question, it being doubted, whether they proceeded from the inspiration of the holy spirit; so that they cannot serve for the confirmation of any thing that is called in question. In this seuse 
b In prologo Galiato.  Hierome calleth the books of the Macchabees, and the rest of that kind, Apocryphal, though they were read privately and publicly, for the edification of the people, and the information of manners.  

c Lib. Apocryphi appellantur, non quòd habendi sint in aliqua auctoritate secreta, sed quia nulla testificationis luce de nescio quo secreto, nescio quorum praesumptione prolati sunt Aug. contra Faustum Manichaeum. l. 11. cap. 2.  Thirdly, such books are named Apocryphal, as are merely fabulous and full of impiety, and therefore interdicted, and forbidden to be read, or regarded at all. The ancientest of the Fathers, name these only Apocryphal, and so doth Hierome sometimes, calling those of the second rank, Hagiographall: 
d Andrad. de lib. canonicis fol. 286.  though this name be sometimes given to those Canonical books which pertain not to the Law nor the Prophets, as the book of job, the Psalms, the books of Solomon, Esdras, the Chronicles, etc. so dividing the whole Canon of the Scripture, of the old Testament, into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographall books, that is, those, which not having any proper name of difference, retain and are known, by the common name of holy writ.   

CHAP. 23.  
Of the Canonical and Apocryphal books of Scripture.  
THe books of the old Testament were committed to the Church of the jews: whereupon that is one of the things in respect whereof, the 
a Rom. 3. 1, 2.  Apostle preferreth them before the Gentiles, that to them were committed the Oracles of God. This Church of the jews, admitted but only 22 books, as delivered unto them from God, to be the Canon of their faith, according to the number of the letters of their Alphabet, as 
b Cont. Appianum l. 1. Eusebius l. 3. c. 10  josephus showeth. For though they sometimes reckon four and twenty, and sometimes seven and twenty, yet they add no more in one of these accounts, than in the other. For, repeating Iod thrice, for honour of the Name of GOD, and so the number of the letters rising to four and twenty, they number the books of Canonical Scripture to be four and twenty, dividing the book of Ruth from the judges, and the Lamentations from the Prophecies of jeremy, and reckoning them by themselves, which in the former account they joined with them. These books thus numbered 
c Prefat. in lib. Reg.  Hierome fitly compareth to the four and twenty Elders mentioned in the Revelation, Qui adorabant, & prostratis vultibus, offerebant coronas suas, Which prostrating themselves, adored and worshipped the Lamb, acknowledging that they received their Crowns of him: Stantibus coram quatuor animalibus, oculatis antè, & retrò, in praeteritum & futurum respicientibus. Those four admirable living creatures, having eyes before, and behind, looking to things past, and to come, standing before him. And because five of the Hebrew letters are double, 
d Damascen l. 4 orthodoxae fid. c. 18  they sometimes reckon the books of the holy Canon so, as that they make them rise to the number of seven and twenty, reckoning the first and second of Samuel, of Kings, of Chronicles, and of Esdras, by themselves severally, which in the first account were numbered together, two of every of these being accounted, but as one book, and dividing Ruth from the judges. These only did the ancient Church of the jews receive, as Divine and Canonical.  
That other books were added unto these, whose authority not being certain and known, are named Apocryphal, fell out on this sort. 
e Acts, 6. 1.  The jews in their latter times, 
f Glossa ordinatia &  before, and at the coming of Christ, were of two 
g Lyrani in eundem locum.  sorts; some properly and for distinctions sake named Hebrews, commorant at Jerusalem, and in the holy Land; others named Helenists, that is, jews of the dispersion, mingled with the Grecians. These had written sundry books in Greek, which they made use of, together with other parts of the Old Testament, which they had of the Translation of the Septuagint: but the Hebrews received only the two and twenty books before mentioned. Hence it came, that the jews delivered a double Canon of the Scripture, to the Christian Churches: the one pure, indubitate, and divine, which is the Hebrew Canon; the other in Greek, enriched with, or rather adulterated by the addition of certain books written in those times, when God raised up no more Prophets among his people. This volume thus mixed of diverse sorts of books, the Christians received of the jews. These books joined in one volume, were translated out of Greek into Latin, and read by them of the Latin Church, in that Translation: 
h judaeus, Aquila, Symachus, & Theodosion, judaizantes haeretici sunt recepti Hier. praef. in lib. jobi.  for there was no Catholic Christian, that ever translated the Scriptures of the old Testament, out of Hebrew into Latin, before Hieromes time, nor none after him, till our age.  
Hence it came, that the Fathers of the Greek Church, having Origen, and sundry other learned in the Hebrew tongue, and making search into the antiquities and originals of the jews, received as Canonical, only the two and twenty books, written in the Hebrew, and did account all those books, which were added in the Greek to be Apocryphal. The Latins receiving them both in one Translation, and bound up in one volume, used sundry parts of the Apocryphal books, in their prayers, and readings, together with the other, and cited them in their writings: yet did none of them make any Catalogue of Canonical, and Apocryphal books, and number them amongst the Canonical, before the 
i Concilium Carth. 3. can. 47  third Council of Carthage, wherein Augustine was present, at which time also 
k Innocentius E●…uperio ep. 5. cap. ult.  Innocentius lived; which Fathers seem to add to the Canon diverse books which the Hebrews receive not. Hierome translating the Scriptures out of the Hebrew, and most exactly learning what was the Hebrew Canon, rejected all besides the two and twenty Hebrew books, as the Grecians did before, and as after him, all men of note in the Latin Church did.  
There was great exception taken to Hierome, for adventuring to translate the scripture out of Hebrew, and among others 
l Aug: Hieron. epist. 10.  Augustine and the Africans, seemed not much to like it. They therefore reckon the books of Scripture, according as they found them in use in the Latin Church, not exactly noting the difference of the one, from the other: yet not denying, but that the Hebrew Canon consisted only of two and twenty books, and that many took exceptions to them, when they alleged any testimonies out of those books, the Hebrews admit not. Against which exceptions, 
m De praedestinatione Sanctorum. c. 14.  Augustine no otherwise justifieth himself but by the use of the Church in reading them. Which proof is too weak to prove them Canonical, seeing the prayer of Manasses, confessed by our adversaries to be Apocryphal, the third and fourth of Esdras, the book called Pastor, and some other, were likewise read by them of the Church, cited by them in their writings, and many things translated out of them, into the public prayers, and Liturgies of the Church.  
Thus than these Fathers not looking carefully into the originals, name all those books Canonical, which the use of God's Church approved as profitable, and containing matter of good instruction, and so numbered the books of Wisdom, & the rest with the Canonical. Whose opinion yet, as Cajetan thinketh, was not that they were absolutely Canonical, but in a sort, in that they contain a good direction of men's manners. These the Greek Fathers rejected from the Canon, admitting only those which the reformed Churches at this day admit, as also almost all the divines of the Latin Church, after Hierome, do.  
That some of the Greek Fathers rejected the book of Hester, it was, (as 
n Bibliothecae sanctae. l. 1. pag. 20.  Sixtus Senensis rightly noteth) by reason of those Apocryphal additions, which they not being skilful in the Hebrew tongue, did not discern from the true parts of it, which error made them to reject the whole book as Apocryphal, This was also the reason, why they admitted those Apocryphal additaments, joined to the book of Daniel.  
Howsoever, it appeareth that all they, which diligently looked into these things, did admit all those books which we admit and reject all those which we reject. Neither is there any one amongst all the ancient, before the third Council of Carthage, that clearly, and of set purpose, numbereth the books 
q In Synopsi.  controversed between us and our adversaries, with the books of the Canon. 
o Eusebius l. 4. cap. 25.  Melito, than Bishop of Sardis, going purposely into the East parts of the world, that he might diligently search out the monuments and sacred books of divine knowledge, reckoneth those only Canonical, which we do, save that he addeth the book of Wisdom. 
p Eusebius 6. c. 24.  Origen admitteth and acknowledgeth only two and twenty books of the old Testament. Athanasius likewise numbereth the books of the Canon in the same sort, and addeth, There are also certain other books which are read only to the Catechumen, and novices. 
r In prolog. explanat. Psalmorum.  Hilarius saith, the law of the old Covenant, is contained in two and twenty books, answerable to the number of the Hebrew letters. 
s De genuinis scripturae libris, & cygneorum carminum. lib: ad Seleucum de recta educatione.  Nazianzen also, is of the same opinion, and 
t 4. Catechesision.  Cyrillus Bishop of Jerusalem, only he addeth the book of Baruch, thinking it to be a part of jeremy's Prophecies: but suffereth not any others to be added, saying, The Apostles and first Bishops which delivered these only, were wiser, and much more to be esteemed, than such as now go about to add others. Of the same judgement are 
u Contra Epicur. haeres. 8. & de mensuris, & ponderibus.  Epiphanius, 
x In expositione Symboli.  Ruffinus, 
y In prolog. Galiato.  Hierome, and 
z In job. li. 19 cap. 17.  Gregory. And 
a Eusebius. li. 3. cap. 10.  josephus confirmeth the opinion of these Father's saying, that from the time of Artaxerxes, till the age wherein he lived, all things were committed to writing, which concerned the state of God's people and Religion: but that they were not of equal authority, with those, which were formerly written, because after that time, the indubitate succession of the Prophets ceased.  
Unto these authorities of the Fathers, some of our adversaries (as 
b De lib. Canonicis, l. 3. pap: 289.  Andradius and others) do answer, that they speak of the Canon of the Hebrews, and not of the Canon of the Church; so not denying absolutely these books to be canonical, but that they are not so esteemed by the jews: but this answer 
c Praefatio in lib. Solom. Ep. Chromatium & Heliodorum.  the words of Hierome do most clearly refute. As (saith he) the Church, not the Synagogue of the jews, readeth the books of judeth, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but receiveth them not as Canonical Scriptures: so likewise it may read these two books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, but not for confirmation of doubtful points of doctrine. And therefore Bellarmine, Sixtus Senensis, and others, clearly confess, that this answer of Andradius is insufficient.  
They therefore add another, to wit, that the Canon was not perfectly known, and confirmed, in the time of those Fathers. We ask them when it was confirmed. If they say, in the Council of Nice, which (as 
d In praefat. in lib. judeth,  Hierome saith some report) received the book of judeth, as Canonical, though 
e Ponopliae li: 3. cap. 3. Si Nicena Synodus olim hunc ludeth libr. cum aliis, in Canonem redegerat, cur annis 80. post came non recenset Laodicena? cur Nazianz: eius non meminit? sed legitur computasse ait Hier. quod mihi dubitantis suspicionem subindica●…e videtur.  Lindan say it is not likely it did, and that Hierome did not say it did so, but that some reported so; we ask how it came to pass, that so many Catholic Divines, after the Nicene Council, rejected these books as they did before. If they say, they were confirmed in the Council of Cartharge, that was but a provincial Council, as was that of Laodicea, in which they are not mentioned. If they say the Council of Carthage was confirmed in the sixth general Council holden at Trullo; we answer, first, that it was no more confirmed there, 
f Laodicense Conc lium manifestè confirmatum est à Synodo Trullan●…: Canus lib. 2. cap: 9  than that of Laodicea: and as 
g Lib. 2. cap. 9  Canus noteth, the sixth Council doth not expressly name the third Council of Carthage, but only speaketh of Canons agreed upon in new Carthage. 
h Quod acta 6, Synodi parengrapha sint Alberti Pighij Diatribae.  Secondly, we say, that those Canons of the sixth Council, wherein this pretended confirmation is found, are of no credit with the Romanists; so that it is clear, that neither the Nicene Council, nor this other, did confirm the authority of the books questioned, as appeareth by the consent of almost all the worthiest Divines in the Church, after those Counsels till our age, as 
i Moral. lib. 19 in cap 29. jobi 1. 17.  Gregory, 
k Lib. 4. cap. 18, Orthodoxae fidei.  Damascenus, 
l Eruditionis Didascalicae, lib. 4. cap. 2.  Hugo de Sancto Victore, 
m Exceptionum lib. 2. cap. 9  Ricardus de sancto Victore, 
n De auctoritate veteris Testamenti, folio 25.  Petrus Cluniacensis, 
o In praefat. in lib. Tobiae.  Lyranus, 
p Prologue. in Ecclesiasticum.  Dionysius Carthusianus, 
q In prolog. in Ecclesiasticum.  Hugo Cardinalis, 
r In summa theologica. 1, part. quaest. 89, art. 8. ad. 2.  Thomas Aquinas, 
s Dialog. lib. 3. 1. tractatus part. 3. cap. 16.  Occam, 
t Theoremat: 5.  Picus Mirandula, 
u Doctrinal. fidei, lib. 2. art. 2, cap. 22.  Waldensis, 
x Lib. 19 cap. 19 in quaest. Armeniorum.  Armacanus, 
y De Eccles. dog. lib. 1. cap. ult.  Driedo, Cajetan, and others.   

CHAP. 24.  
Of the uncertainty and contrariety found amongst Papists touching books Canonical and Apocryphal now controversed.  
But let us come particularly to the books controversed, and see how sweetly our adversaries agree with themselves, in admitting or rejecting them. First, touching the book of Baruch, though the Council of Florence and Trent, have confirmed it to be Canonical: yet 
a Li. 2. c 9  Melchior Canus saith, it is doubtful, whether it be or not; and yet saith, if it be not Canonical, the Counsels of Florence & Trent have erred, and the people of God been long abused, and the Church in grievous error. 
b Lib. 12. cap. 6.  And elsewhere again he saith, the Church hath not certainly resolved, that it is Canonical, and that it yieldeth no certain, clear, and indubitate proof in matters of faith. 
c In cattle. scripture. l. r. c, 4.  Driedo denyeth it to be canonical, & saith, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others of the Fathers cited the Book of Baruch, as also the third and fourth of Esdras, not as Canonical, but as containing matter of good instruction, not contrary, but consonant to the faith. The additions of the book of Hester, 
d Biblioth. l. 〈◊〉. p. 19  Sixtus absolutely rejecteth, as vain and foolish, contrary to the judgements of the Papists; yet admitteth the additions to Daniel. These also 
e In cat. scripture. lib. r. c. ult.  Driedo rejecteth, notwithstanding the decree of the Tridentine Council, 
f Lib. 2. cap. 32.  as the author of the book De mirabilibus Scripturae did long before, calling the story of Bell and the Dragon a fable. 
g Lib. 2. cap. 9  Melchior Canus professeth he dareth not pronounce it heretical, to deny any, or all of the controversed books of the Old Testament, and yet confidently pronounceth it heretical to deny any of the books of the New Testament, which were sometimes doubted of; so that it seemeth a man may descent from a general Council, and not be an Heretic, and that the Council of Trent proceeded not upon so good grounds of reason, in approving the one, as the other, contrary to their judgement, who say, we may as well doubt of the Books of the New Testament, whereof some doubted in former times, as of these of the Old.  
But it is easy to show their error who so think, and to confirm the opinion of Canus, that there is not so great reason, why we should doubt of the one, as the other. For first, the Books of the New Testament were never doubted of, but by some few, in comparison of them that received and approved them: the most and most renowned for piety, learning, and right judgement, ever receiving them. For, to begin with those, of which there hath been most doubt, The Epistle to the Hebrews, and the book of the Revelation of S▪ john. 
h In epist. ad Dardanum de terra promissionis.  Hierome witnesseth, that they never wanted the approbation of the worthiest and greatest parts of God's Church. Illud (saith he) nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab Ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retrò Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli Epistolam suscipi, licèt eam plerique vel Barnabae, vel Clementis, arbitrentur esse, etc. Let our men know, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, is not only received, and approved, by all the Churches of the East, that now presently are, but by all Ecclesiastical writers of the Greek Churches, that have been heretofore, as the Epistle of Paul: though many think it rather to have been written by Barnabas or Clemens: and that it skilleth not who wrote it, seeing it was written by an Author approved in the Church ofGod, and is daily read in the same. If the custom of the Latins receive it not among the Canonical Scriptures, no more do the Greek Churches admit the Revelation of Saint john: and yet we following the authority of the Ancient, receive them both. Secondly, the Churches of the Gentiles, to which the Books of the New Testament were delivered, were in parts of the world far remote one from another, and did not immediately all of them receive all the parts of these divine books, from the Authors of them, but from those particular Churches, to which they were specially directed, or in the midst whereof the writers of them remained, at the time of the writing of them. And therefore it is not to be marvailed at, if being delivered and transmitted from one to another, some received them sooner, and some later. But the Books of the Old Testament were delivered to one national Church only, and yet these now controversed were never received by it. Thirdly, these Books of the New Testament, whereof some informer times did doubt, were written in the Apostles times, whom GOD honoured with the first, immediate, and undoubted revelation of Divine truth: these, after the succession of the Prophets were ceased. Fourthly, the books of the Old Testament now controversed, were not written in the Hebrew, but in Greek, by such of the jews as were of the dispersion, and therefore never received by the Hebrews, nor counted amongst the sacred Books of the Canon; which they divided 
i Aug. li 2. cont epist. Gaudentij, c. 23. scripturam quam appellant Maccabaeorum, non habent judaei, sicut Legem, & Prophetas & Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet ta●…quam testibus suis, Lucae 24. 4●…. Sixtus Bibliothecae Sanctae li. 1. de varia partitione librorum canonicorum.  into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; to which Christ giveth testimony in the Gospel. Lastly, the reason moving some, to doubt of the books of the new Testament, was the uncertainty of the names of the authors, or something mistaken, misconstrued, or not understood in the books, which in time was cleared, and they afterward generally received. But the Apocryphal books of the old Testament, were rejected, as being written, when there was no more undoubted succession of Prophets, by the whole Church of the Hebrews, and ever after by the best and worthiest guides of the Christian Churches.  
That the books of the new Testament, called in question by some, were doubted of upon such weak reasons, as hath been said, will easily appear. The Epistle to the Hebrews was therefore doubted of by some, because the difference, and diversity of the style, made them think it not to be Paul's, whose name it carried, and by others, because the author of it seemed to them, to favour the error of the Novatians, in denying the reconciliation of such, as fall after baptism. The second Epistle of Peter some doubted of, because of the diversity of the style, which Hierome rejecteth. The Epistle of james, because of the uncertainty of the author, it being doubtful, which james was the author of it. The Epistle of jude, because the author of it, allegeth the authority of an Apocryphal book of Enoch, as they imagined. The second and third of john, because they are said to have been written by john the elder, some denied to be the Epistles of john the Apostle, ascribing them to another john. The Revelation was doubted of, first, because of the doubtfulness of the Title of john the Divine; secondly, because of the difficulty, and obscurity, of the words of this Prophecy, or Revelation; and lastly, because the author of this book, seemeth to favour the heresy of the Millenaries. But the Latin Church received this book, as Canonical, as also the best and most learned of the greeks, 
k Euseb l. 7. c: 24  as Dionysius Alexandrinus, though he deny it to have been written by john the Evangelist: 
l Heresi 51, 75.  Epiphanius condemneth the Alogi, as heretics, because they deny the Gospel, and Revelation of Saint john. 
m De praescriptionibus.  Tertullian reckoneth it among the errors of Cerdon, that he rejected the books of the Acts, and the Revelation: and writing against 
n Lib. 4.  Martion, he showeth, that he also did deny the same book. 
o Lib. 1. cap. ult.  Irenaeus saith, this Revelation was manifested unto john, and seen of him, but a little before his time. 
p Dialog. cum Triphone.  justinus Martyr doth attribute this book to john, and doth account it a Divine Revelation. Origen in his Preface before the Gospel of john, saith, that john the son of Zebedee, saw in the Revelation, an Angel flying thorough the midst of heaven, having the eternal Gospel. The Council of 
q Conc. Anci ran. cap ult.  Ancyra pronounceth it to be sacred, and that john was the author of it. 
r Graecoes qui Hier. teste, Apocalypsin non recipiebant, & paucos & obscuros fuisse necesse est. Bellar: de vet bo Dei l 1. c. 19  Thus than I hope it doth appear, that there is not so much reason to doubt of the books of the new Testament, called sometimes in question, as of those of the old: seeing the former were never doubted of, but by some few, upon reasons frivolous, the weakness whereof being discovered, all Catholic Christians, with one consent received them, accounting them no better than Heretics, which either doubted of them, or denied them; whereas the later were rejected by the whole Church of the jews, by all antiquity, and the whole current of God's Church, some few only excepted, being ignorant of the tongues, and not exactly looking into the monuments of antiquity, 
s Canon's Apostolorum, can. 84. Tobiam, judeth, & E●…clesiasticum inter canonicos non numerant. Gelasius Papa cum concilio 70, Episcoporum nullam 2. Maccabaeo●…um mentionem facit. Genebrard. in Chronolog. pag. 9 4. Esdrae ad canonem pertinere vult. Bellar. de verbo Dei, lib. 1. c. 20. ubi ostendit dubium esse qui●… multi sen●…erint de;, Es ●…rae.  and divided amongst themselves, some admitting more, and some not all those, which our adversaries now receive.  
Wherefore as we cannot but condemn the inconsiderate rashness, of such either 
t Caiet●…n: Luther.  of the Romish, or reformed Churches, as in our time make question of any of the books of the new Testament, that are, and have been, long read in the Churches of GOD, as Canonical, throughout the whole world; so likewise we think their boldness inexcusable, who in these last ages make those books Canonical, which never were so esteemed by God's Church before; and go about to bind all men's consciences so to receive them, against the current of antiquity and the judgement of the best learned, in every age, even to our times.   

CHAP: 25.  
Of the diverse editions of the Scripture, and in what tongue it was originally written.  
THus having showed, that the Scripture containeth a perfect rule of our faith, and having likewise made it appear, what books they are, which are canonical, and contain this rule of our Christian faith and Religion; it remaineth that we search out, what editions there are of these Scriptures, and which are authentical, and of indubitate authority and credit. The whole Scripture of the old Testament, was written in Hebrew, 
a junius in Bellar. contro: 1. li. 2. art. 9  save that some few things, were translated into the books of Esdras, and Daniel, out of the public records, and monuments of the Chaldees in that tongue, as the copies of letters, and public acts and proceedings, all things which the spirit of God did absolutely deliver, being expressed unto us in the same books in Hebrew.  
The opinion of some hath been, that the whole Scripture of the old Testament perished, and was lost in the time of the captivity of Babylon, and that it was newly composed by Esdras. To which purpose they allege the authority of 
b In epist: ad Chilonem, ep. 181. in monte Carmelo secessu facto, Esdras omnes▪ divinos libros ex mandato Dei eructavit.  Basil who seemeth to say some such thing: and likewise the testimony of the author of the fourth book of Esdras, where it is said, that the books of the law being burnt, God sent the holy Ghost into Esdras, separated him from the people, for the space of forty days, caused him to provide box tables, and men writing swiftly, and that in forty days they wrote twoe hundred and four books; but this book being Apocryphal, & full of Cabalistical vanity, doth rather weaken, then strengthen this opinion. That which is alleged out of the second of Esdras, and the eight, doth not prove, that Esdras did newly compose the books of Scripture, but only that he brought them 
c Bellar. l. 2. c. 1. de verbo dei.  forth: which implieth, that they were not utterly lost, nor did wholly perish. Neither indeed is it likely, though that Scripture which was kept in the Temple was burnt, that Ezechiell, Daniel, jeremy, Haggai, Zacharie, Mardocheus, and Esdras himself, were so negligent, as not to preserve the books of the Scripture. So that all that Esdras did, was nothing else, but the bringing together, and putting into order the scattered parts of this scripture, and the correcting of such faults, as in time by the negligence of the writers, were crept into the several Copies of it. This point is handled at large by Bellarmine, and excellently cleared by him, and therefore it is needless to insist upon it longer. So then the same scripture, which Moses and the Prophets delivered, Esdras sought out and religiously commended unto the people.  
Only 
d In prolog. Galeato.  Hierome is of opinion, that he found out new Hebrew letters, and left the old to the Samaritans, which Bellarmine out of 
e In 9 Ezechiclis.  Hierome confirmeth, because the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, was like the Greek T, and had a similitude of the Cross, as that of the Samaritans now hath, but that now, hath no similitude with it. 
f Epist. ignoto amico. 5. d.  Picus Mirandula professeth, that having conferred with sundry jews, about this matter, they all constantly denied this alteration of letters. And to what purpose should Esdras alter the form of letters, which MOSES and the Prophets had used? Neither doth Hierome, in the place cited by Bellarmine, speak of the Greek T, but saith only, that the last of the ancient Hebrew letters, had a similitude of the Cross, as now that of the Samaritans hath.  
But this being a matter of no great moment, let every man judge as he thinketh best. This than we constantly hold, that as the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew, so the same never perished wholly, in any of the captivities of the jews, but was religiously preserved, even the same which Moses and the Prophets delivered to the people of God.  
After the return of the people from Babylon, their tongue & language was mixed of the Hebrew, & Chaldee, and named the Syriac tongue, from the Region or Country where it was used; in which Christ made all his Sermons to the people, as being best understood of them. Yet were not the books of the New Testament written in this Language, but in Greek, because they were to be made common to the Churches of the Gentiles, among which, the Greek tongue was most generally understood.  

g Hugo de S. Victore erudit: theologicae in speculum ecclesiae de celebratione missae cap. 7.  There are three tongues most famous in the world, as Hugo de Sancto Victore noteth: the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, propter regnum, sapientiam, legem: the first, because of the Monarchy of the Romans, who, as they subjected the people, which they did conquer, to their laws & customs, so they did force them to learn their language: the second, because in it, the great Philosophers and Wise men of the world, left the monuments of their wisdom, & learning to posterities: the third, because in it, God delivered his Law, & the interpretation of it, by Moses, and the Prophets, to the people of Israel, his chosen. Amongst all these, the Greek was most generally understood by the learned of all Nations, because in it, all the renowned wise men of the world, had written, & all that were studious, learned it, that they might understand their writings.  
Hence it came, that the books of the New testament were written in Greek, because God would not honour one Nation of the world more than another, nor force his people to borrow the books of Scripture one from another.  
Only some doubt there is, touching the Gospel of Matthew, & the Epistle to the Hebrews, which are supposed to have been written in Hebrew, and the Gospel of Mark, written, as some say, in Latin. That the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, 
h In Catal. Script. Eccles. de Matthaeo verba faciens.  Hierome, & others affirm. 
i In praef. Novi Test. Syriaci Trans.  Guido Fabritius saith, it was written in Hebrew, but in vulgar Hebrew, which is the Syriac, that they of Jerusalem did speak: which opinion 
k Bellarm. l. 2. de verbo dei c. 4. Andrad. de lib. canon. l. 3. fol 320.  others seem to incline unto, the Gospel in Hebrew, which some bring forth, being of no credit. The Epistle to the Hebrews, 
l Euseb. l. 6. c. 13 l. 3. c, 33.  some say was written in Hebrew, & translated by Luke, or Barnab as into Greek. 
m Guido Fabritius in praef. praedicta. The original latin text of Mark is said to be kept at Venice till this day.  The Syrians say, the Gospel of Mark was first written in Latin, & that afterward he translated both it, and the whole New Testament beside into Syriac, which they say, they have preserved to this day. This Syriac Translation of the New Testament, was not known in these parts of the world, till our age, as 
n Eadem praef.  Fabritius Boderianus noteth▪ who thereupon breaketh out into the praises of our times, if the men of this generation either knew the happiness thereof, or how to use it. Howbeit that Mark was Author of this Syriac translation, which the Syrians in this age have delivered unto us, 
o Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei c. 4.  we cannot persuade ourselves, because none of the Fathers that lived in Syria, and Egypt, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Theophilus, Epiphanius, Hierome, Cyrill, Theodoret, and Damascen, make any mention of it: & besides, it is apparently defective in divers things: as the learned note. So then, the indubitate originals of these parts of the New Testament in Hebrew or Syriac, if they were written at first in these tongues, being lost, and the Church deprived of them, the Greek is holden to be Original, in respect of all the books of the New Testament. For that, either they were all written in it, or translated into it, by the Apostles, or apostolic men.   

CHAP. 26.  
Of the translations of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek.  
THus having delivered, in what tongues the Scriptures, and books of God were written, it remaineth that we inquire, what the principal translations of them have been, and whether the indubitate verity of them, be in the originals, or in the translations. 
a Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei c. 5: ostendit aliquos ita sensisse.  There was, as some suppose, a translation of the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek, before the time of Alexander the great: but the first that was in note, and remained long in esteem in the world, was that of the Septuagint, in the time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus; 
b Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus.  Who, intending to furnish a Library at Alexandria, with all the choicest books the world would afford, amongst other places, sent to Jerusalem, to the rulers & guides of the people there, who sent unto him, the books of Moses and the Prophets, written in Hebrew, in letters of gold. Which he not understanding, sent the second time, for interpreters, and they 
f De doctrina Christiana, l. 2. c. 15.  sent unto him 72, in imitation of Moses, who when he went up to the Mount to receive the Law, being commanded to take with him 70, of the Elders of Israel: added two to the number prescribed, lest taking six out of some Tribes, and but five out of other, some dislike might have grown amongst them. These in 70, days translated the whole old Testament, out of Hebrew into Greek. For though josephus and the jews say, they translated only the books of Moses, 
c Bellar: de verbo Dei, l. 2. c. 6.  yet the consenting voice of all the Fathers, affirming that they translated the whole, moveth us rather to think, the whole was translated by them, then only the books of Moses; unless we say with 
d junius in Bellar: contro: 1. lib. 2. cap. 6.  junius, for the reconciling of this difference, that only the books of Moses, were translated by the first 72. sent to Ptolomee, and the rest afterwards, by 72 also, though not the same.  
That which some report, that they were shut up in several celles, which long after were to be seen at Alexandria, 
e Hiero: in Pentateuchum Mosis praefat.  Hierome rejecteth as a fable; showing, that no such thing is reported by Aristaeus, that was present at the business, 
h Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus.  and that no remainder of any such celles, was to be found at Alexandria, but that they met in one place, and conferring together every day, till the ninth hour, in 70 days, perfected the whole work; and Augustine leaveth it doubtful. This fable is urged by some to prove, that these translatours were 
g Aug. saepe ac saepius 72 prophetas appellat, et eodem quo prophetae, spiritu incitatos illa etiam scripsisse, in quibus ab Hebraea oratione dissentiunt, confirmat, Andrad. de vulgatae editionis auctoritate l. 4. fol. 355.  guided by a prophetical spirit, and so could not err: which false and absurd conceit, Hierome condemneth likewise.  
The second translation of the old Testament, out of Hebrew into Greek, was that of Aquila, in the time of Adrian the Emperor: the 3. of Theodotion, in the time of Commodus. The fourth, of Symachus, in the time of Severus. The fifth, without name of author, was found in the City of Hiericho, in the time of Antonius Caracalla. The sixth, in Nicopolis, in the days of Alexander the son of Mammca. The 
i Hiero: ad Aug. ep. & praefat. lib. job.  seaventh, of Origen, who translated not, but corrected the translation of the Septuagint, adding some things out of Theodotions translation, which additions he noted with the mark of a shining star, detracting other things, which he pierced through with a spit. 
k Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus.  The eight, of Lucian the Martyr, was not a translation, but a correction only of such faults, as were crept into the translation of the Septuagint. This was found at Nicomedia, in the time of Constantine, 
l Eusebius lib. 9 cap: 6: Hiero: in li. 16. comment. Esaiae ad Eustochium prooem: de illis verbis, sepulchrum pate●…s est gu●…ur eorum, ait non haberi in Hebraico, nec esse in 70 interpretibus, sed in editione vulgata, quae communis dicitur, & in toto orbe diversa est.  Lucian being martyred long before, in the days of Dioclesian the Emperor.  
The ninth, of Hesichius, was likewise but a correction of such things as were amiss in the vulgar editions of the Septuagint. It appeareth by Hierome, in his preface before the books of Chronicles, that they of Alexandria & Egypt, used that edition of the Septuagint, which Hesichius corrected: they of Constantinople, that of Lucian the Martyr: and they of the Provinces, and Countries lying between these, that which Origen corrected.  
The Greek translation found to need correction, and corrected by these, as it seemeth, was called by the name of the common edition, not as being a different translation, from that of the Septuagint, but as being that, which was common in all men's hands, and much altered, and corrupted, from the original purity which these worthy men endeavoured to restore it to again. 
m Hiero. in Epist. ad Suniam & Fretellam.  And was so named because there was another, preserved in greater purity, in that worthy work of Origen, that filled all the famous libraries in the world, in those times; 
n Epiphanius de mensuris & ponderibus. Eusebius lib. 6. cap, 16.  in which first dividing every page into six columns, or pillars, in the first, he put the Hebrew in the Hebrew Characters; in the second, in Greek; in the third, the interpretation of Aquila; in the fourth, of Symmachus; in the fifth, of the Septuagint; in the sixth, of Theodotion, and named the volumes thus disposed, in respect of the four translations, Tetrapla, a four fouled work; in respect of these translations, and the Hebrew in two kind of Characters, placed in two several pillars or Columns, Hexapla, a sixefould work; to which afterwards adding in two other pillars, or columns, the fifth and sixth translations, before mentioned, found in Hiericho, and Nicopolis, he named the whole Octapla, an eightfould work.   

CHAP. 27.  
Of the Latin Translations, and of the authority of the vulgar Latin.  
THus having delivered what translations there are, and have been of the old testament out of Hebrew into Greek, let us see, what translations there are, and have been of the old, and new Testament, into Latin. They, saith 
a De doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 11.  Augustine, that translated the old Testament, out of Hebrew into Greek, may easily be numbered; but they that translated the old and new Testament out of Greek into Latin, cannot be numbered. Yet amongst so many and divers translations, it seemeth there was one more common than the rest called by 
b Ad Leandrum episcopum in expositionem beati job. epist. cap. 5. novam translationem dissero, sed ut comprobationis causa exigit, nunc novam nunc veterem per testimonia assumo: Sedes apostolica utraque utitur.  Gregory, the old translation, and by Hierome upon 
c In Esaiae cap. 49.  Esay, the vulgar; who disliketh it, & preferreth the translation of Symmachus, and Theodotion, before it, in the interpretation of the place of the Prophet he there expoundeth. The first that translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin was Hierome, and the last, till our age; whereupon great exception was taken to him for it, as appear by his several Epistles, wherein he excuseth and defendeth himself. Yet notwithstanding all these dislikes, and exceptions, it appeareth by 
d In a place above cited.  Gregory, that a new translation began to be in use in the Church, not long after Hieromes time: which is thought to be that, we now call the vulgar. 
e Bellar. li. 2. ca 9 de verbo dei.  Whether this translation be Hieromes, or not, there is great variety of judgement. Some, as Pagnine, and Paul Bishop of Forosempronium, deny it to be Hieromes: others, as Augustinus Eugubinus, and Picus Mirandula, affirm it to be his: Other, as Driedo, and Sixtus Senensis, think it to be mixed of the old and new.  
Bellarmine delivereth his opinion in certain propositions, whereof the first is, that we have the Latin text of the new Testament, not of Hieromes translation, but of his correction only: the second, that we have the Psalms of the old translation, formerly in use: the reason whereof is thought to be, because the Church fearful to give any offence to the weak, would not admit any alteration in them, being daily read, and sung in the assemblies of the faithful: the third, that we have the books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the Maccabees, of the old translation, the author whereof is not known: the fourth, that we have all the rest of Hieromes translation.  
This translation, some think so perfect, as that it is not to be corrected according to the Originals, if in any thing it descent from them, but that rather, they are to be holden corrupt, in all such places of difference. Now because this Translation in many places, and sundry things, is found to descent from the Originals, therefore they infer a great corruption of the originals. This is the erroneous conceit of Lindan, 
f L. 2. c. 13.  Canus, and others of that sort, against whom in the just defence of the truth of the originals, the best learned in the Church of Rome oppose themselves, as john Isaac, 
g Arrias Montanus de varia in Hebraicis lib. lectione, ac de Mazzoreth ratione et usu in Regiis Bibliis.  Arrias Montanus, Driedo, 
h Andrad. in his 4. book entreating of the authority of the vulgar translation, showeth his own opinion, as also the judgement of john Isaac, and Driedo for the iu●…ification of the originals.  Andradius, Sixtus Senensis, and many more. The chiefest argument of the adverse part is, for that if this translation be not pure and faultless, the Church had not the word of God, so long as it used this translation only. For answer hereunto, Andradius demandeth, if the Church were not as perfect, and as assuredly possessed of the truth, before this translation of Hierome, as since; if it were, he demandeth if they that lived in those times, did not as much admire the Translation of the Septuagint, and the Latin translations out of it, as they do the vulgar. Now, that they did, he proveth at large, out of sundry of the ancient, who held that the Septuagint were led in translating, with a prophetical spirit, freeing them from danger of error, so far forth, that Hierome was greatly disliked, for adventuring to translate after them, as if he could correct any thing that they had done. Yea so great opposition did he find, 
i Praefat. in Paralip. etc. scribit: Si versio 70, integra haberetur ut ab iis edita fuit, se frustra laboraturum in Bibliis transferendis.  that he was forced to give way to the clamours, and outcries of his adversaries, to attribute much unto them, and to make show that he would never have begun this work of a new translation, if that of the Septuagint had remained, & been preserved in original purity; 
k In 2. & 8. cap. Esaiae, & 17: jeremiae, aliaquia ante Christi adventum interpretati sunt nequaquam percepisse, alia, ne gentis suae gloriam obscurarent, noluisse sub Egyptiorum oculos subiicere. Andrad. l. 4. defence. fid. Trid. Ibidem.  though sometimes he fear not to pronounce, that they passed by many things of purpose, mistook many things of ignorance, and suppressed other, because they would not make known the dishonour of their nation to strangers. Now (saith Andradius) I would know, whether in all the places, wherein the translations then in use, differed from the originals; the originals were corrupted. If they were, than our translation, which cometh nearer to the originals, & leaveth the former translation this corrupt, & so while these men endeavour to defend, they overthrow the authority of the vulgar translation. But some perhaps will demand, whether the Church of God in those times, had not the true Scriptures of God, & whether the Church of God at any time have been without an approved translation. Hereunto Andradius answereth, that the Church doth approve translations, not pronouncing that there is nothing amiss in them, or that they depart not from the true sense, and right meaning of any particular place, but that the Divine Mysteries are therein truly delivered, and nothing that concerneth faith, religion, or good manners, ignorantly, or fraudulently suppressed.  
The Council of Trent defined, that the vulgar Latin translation shall be holden as authentical; but he saith, Andreas Vega who was present at the Council, reported that the Fathers of the Council meant not to determine, that it is not defective, or faulty, but that it is not erroneous, and faulty, in such sort, as that any hurtful, or pernicious opinion in matters of faith, or manners, may necessarily be deduced from it. And that this was the meaning of the Council, he saith, Andreas Vega alleged the authority of the Cardinal of Saint Cross, afterwards Pope, who delivered so much unto him. So that the Church of God doth not receive any translation, as free from all error, and in that sense authentical, but thinketh that to be the peculiar excellency of the originals, which are by some unjustly disgraced, and called in question, as if they were so corrupted, that translations should be preferred before them.   

CHAP. 28.  
Of the truth of the Hebrew text of Scripture.  
FOr first, touching the Hebrew text, which some suppose hath been corrupted by the jews, it is not likely that of purpose they would corrupt it: for than they would specially have corrupted those places, which make most clearly against them, and for the Christians; but those places are not corrupted, as Andradius showeth, and proveth by the testimony of john Isaake, who was won to Christianity, by the pregnancy of a Chapter of Esayes prophecy in Hebrew.  
Neither is it likely, 
a Aug. lib. 15. de civitate Dei cap: 13.  dum aliis inviderent authoritatem, sibi abstulisse veritatem; that while they were unwilling that we should have any authority, for confirmation of our faith in their Scriptures, they would deprive themselves, of the truth of them, which they ever held the richest treasure in the world. 
b Ipsa prophetia quid aliud nisi â nostris putaretur conficta, si non inimicorum codicibus probaretur. I deo ne occideris eos, ne ipsius entis nomen extinxeris, ne quando obliviscantur legis tuae; disperge illos in virtute tua: Si enim in uno loco essent terrarum, non adiuvarent testimon o praedicationem evangelij quae fructificat in toto orbe terrarum: ideo disperge illos in virtute tua, ut eius ipsius, cuius fuerunt negatores, persecutores, interfectores, ubique sint testes per legem, etc. Aug. Paulino epist. 59  Especially seeing it hath ever been thought by the wisest in God's Church, that God in his providence, hath therefore preserved these forlorn, and forsaken Creatures, and dispersed them into the several Nations, and kingdoms of the World, that they might give testimony to the truth of our faith, by those monuments of Moses, and the Prophets, which they honour and embrace, as received from God himself.  
Thus then, we are persuaded, that there is no great nor general corruption of the Hebrew text of Scripture, and that the faults which by negligence, in time crept into it, are but few, and such as by help of the Mazzoreth, may easily be amended. But because 
c Lib. 4. desensionis fidei Tridentinae.  Andradius, 
d Lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 2.  Bellarmine, and other of our adversaries, have undertaken the defence of the truth, and confutation of their fellow's error in this point, I will no longer insist upon it: let us come therefore to the new Testament.   

CHAP. 29:  
Of the supposed Corruptions of the Greek text of Scripture.  
IN the new testament, saith, 
a Bibliothecae li: 7. haeres. 1.  Sixtus Senensis, out of 
b Ad Suniam & Fritellam.  Hierome, if any question arise amongst them that read the Scriptures, in Latin, and there appear difference & variety amongst the translations, we must have recourse to the Greek as to the fountain, assuring ourselves, that there were ever some incorrupt and true Copies of the new Testament, found amongst them, that read the same in Greek, out of which the Latin might be corrected; and that if some faults be found in the Greek Copies, by the negligence, or mistaking of them that wrote them out, they may easily be discerned, by laying together sundry Copies, casually corrupted, it so falling out, that what in one book is depraved, by the fault of the writers, in another is found right. Now saith he, whereas certain heretics did say, that either Hierome did not translate the same Greek that now is, or that he translated it very ill, it is to be answered, that the Greek is the same, which all Christians read & translated, before and after Hierome; but that he translated it not, but only in some things corrected the old translation, he found in use before, and that yet notwithstanding, that vulgar and old translation, is not wholly to be abandoned and rejected: for that, though it do not exactly agree with the Greek, which is the original, yet it omitteth nothing in matter of faith, or truth of story, nor hath any thing contrary to the truth of religion.  
The Romanists, to prove that the Greek text of the new Testament is corrupted, and consequently that it is not safe to correct the Latin translations by it, allege certain places, which they presume, they can easily demonstrate to be corrupted. 
c Lib. 2. cap. 7. de verbo dei.  Bellarmine giveth instance in these that follow. In the 1 Cor: 15. the Greek that now is, hath in all Copies, The first man was of the earth, earthly, the second man is the Lord from heaven: the later part of this sentence, 
d Lib. 5. contra Marcionem.  Tertullian supposeth to have been corrupted, and altered by the Marcionites, instead of that the Latin text hath, The second man was from heaven, heavenly, as 
e In 1. Cor. 15.  Ambrose, 
f In eundem locum.  Hierome, and many of the Fathers read also. Touching this place we answer, that not only the Greek Copies now extant have it, as we read and translate, but the Syriac & Arabic also, and that 
g De Orthodoxa fide l. 3. c. 12  Damascene de Orthodoxa fide readeth in the same sort.  

h Contra judaeos lib. 2. c. 8.  Notwithstanding because many of the Fathers both Greek and Latin, follow the other reading, we think it very doubtful which is the original verity. This difference of the reading of the Apostles words, is a matter of no great moment, seeing neither of them contain any thing contrary to the rule of faith, or verity of Christian religion, The second place they produce, is 1 john: 4. 3. Where the Greek hath, Every spirit that confesseth not &c. but the Latin, every spirit that dissolveth jesus. It is true, that Socrates in his history, 
Li. 7. 32:  saith, that the ancient Greek Copies had as the Latin now hath, and that these words were put out, by such as divided the person of Christ: yet seeing not only all copies of the Greek text, but the Syriac translation also hath, Every spirit that confesseth not &c. and Cyprian so citeth the place, and 
i Exposi. in ep: johan: tractatu, 6.  Augustine readeth and interpreteth both; we think it likewise very doubtful, which is the original verity.  
The next place is the 1. Cor: 7. where in the vulgar Latin we read in this sort. He, that is with a wife, is careful for the things of the World, how he may please his wife, and is divided, that is, distracted with many cares: but in the Greek it is thus, He that hath a wife, is careful for the things of the world, how to please his wife; there is a difference between a wife and a virgin, or they are divided one from another. That the former is the true reading of the Apostles words, Bellarmine proveth, because Hierome against 
k Lib. 1: loquitur de latinis codicibus & in illis ait legi, divisa est mulier & virgo: quod quanquam habeat suum sensum, & à se quoque pro qualitate loci sic edissertum sit, tamen non esse apostolicae veritatis pronunciat.  jovinian affirmeth it to be so, and some other of the Fathers follow the same.  
But he should know, that not only the most part of all the Greek Copies have as we translate, but the Syriac, and Arabic translations also. Besides, Basil, the Greek Scholiast, Theophylact, and Hierome himself against▪ Heluidius, and to Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis. So that this proof of the corruption of the Originals, proveth too weak. The next allegation concerning the 12. to the Romans, of serving the Lord, and serving the time, is much weaker. For Beza showeth that some Greek Copies have, as the vulgar hath, and as Bellarmine saith, the truth is, serving the Lord. That the story of the Adulteress in the 8 of john, is not found in many Greek Copies, doth not prove the general corruption of the Greek text, which is the thing our adversaries undertake to prove. For if it did, the Latin also should be rejected, as corrupted and false. For as 
l Lib: 2. contra Pelagianos.  Hierome witnesseth, many of the Latin Copies wanted this story, as well as the Greek. 
m Sixtus bibliothecae li. 1. de 2. ordine librorum novi testamenti.  Some of the ancient, were of opinion, that this story was first found, in the Apocryphal Gospel, according to the Hebrews. But whatsoever we think of it, it maketh nothing against the authority of the Greek text, seeing it was ever found in some Greek Copies though not in all.  

n In their preface before the new testament translated by them.  The Rhemists, to disgrace the Greek, allege sundry places, where they say, our translators choose rather to follow the vulgar Latin, than the Greek, thereby acknowledging, that it is corrupt. But if we examine the particulars, we shall find, that this their allegation, is nothing else, but a lying and false report. For they ever follow some, and those the best and most incorrupt Greek Copies, as 
o In his annotations upon the several places objected by the R●…emists.  Beza showeth. Wherefore failing in this allegation, they betake themselves to another, not of falsehood, but of superfluity: the first instance whereof that they give, is the sixth of Matthew, where the Lords prayer in the vulgar Latin, endeth with that petition, deliver us from evil, leaving out for thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, which they suppose to be superfluously added in the Greek. But these men should know, that though it were granted, that these words were superfluous, yet nothing is thereby derogated from the Greek, seeing some Greek Copies, and they very ancient, omit them, as Beza showeth. Their next instance, is Rom. 11. where the vulgar Latin hath, If of grace, not of works: otherwise grace should be no more grace: to which is added by way of Antithesis, and opposition, in the Greek, If of works, not of grace, otherwise works, should be no more works. It will be very hard for our adversaries to prove, that these latter words are superfluously added, being found not only in the most Greek Copies, but in the Syriac translation. But if it were granted, yet there is one Greek Copy of great antiquity, that omitteth these words, as well as the vulgar Latin. The next instance is the sixth of Mark, and the 11. Verily I say unto you, it shall be easier for Sodom and Gomorrha, etc. If it were granted, that these words were superfluously added, which yet there is no reason to do, seeing besides very many Greek Copies, the Syriac translation hath them also, yet would this make nothing for the improving of the credit of the Greek, seeing as Beza professeth, there are three Greek Copies that omit them. The like may be said, touching the next allegation of Matthew, the 20, 22, 23. where these words, and be baptised with the baptism, that I am baptised with, are supposed to be superfluous; for there are some Greek Copies that omit them, as well as the vulgar.  
Thus having examined the several allegations of our adversaries, against the authority, and credit, of the Greek Text of the New Testament, we see that they fail in them, neither being able to convince it of falsehood, nor superfluity. Wherefore to conclude this matter, we say with Hierome, that the Latin editions are to be corrected by the Greek; & that by the providence of GOD, the verity of the Scriptures of the New Testament, hath ever been preserved in the original: That those faults and errors which are crept into some Copies, may easily by the help of others, be corrected, and that there is no difference in matter of substance, in so great variety of Copies, as are found in the world. If any man say, the Greek hath been corrupted since the days of Hierome, and that therefore, though he in his time, thought the translations might be corrected by the originals, yet now we may not take the same course; we answer, it may easily be proved, that all those supposed corruptions, which they now find in the Greek, were found in it, in Hieromes time. For there are but two places, to wit, 1. Corinth. 15. and 1. john 4. 3. where all Greek Copies, have otherwise then they say the truth is, and these places were corrupted, (if there be any error in the present reading,) before Hieromes time. Thus much touching the sufficiency of the Scriptures, and the editions, wherein the authentical verity of the same is to be sought.   

CHAP. 30.  
Of the Power of the Church in making Laws.  
NOw it remaineth that we come to the next part of our division touching the power of the Church, in making laws. 
a Cameracensis in principio in primum sententiarum.  As the will of God, willing and purposing the being of each thing, is the first, and highest cause, of things: so the same will of God, determining what is fit to be, what, of what kind, in what sort, each thing must be, that it may attain, and possess, the uttermost degree of perfection, the orderly disposition of things, requireth, to be communicated to it, is the first and highest law to the whole world. And as the will of God determining what is fit, defining what ought to be, and what must be, if the Creatures attain their highest perfection, is a general law to all Creatures: so when he maketh known to creatures rational, and of an understanding nature, which have power to do or omit things thus fit to be done, that though he leave it in their power, and freedom of choice, to do, or omit them, yet they shall be tied, either to do them, or to lose the good they desire to enjoy, & incur the evils they would avoid: It is more specially named a law of commandment, precept, or direction, binding them upon whom it is imposed, to the performance of that it requireth.  
The Precepts and Commandments of Almighty God, are of two sorts: for either they are such, as in respect of the nature and condition of the things themselves, are good, and so bind all men, at all times: or else they are positive, prescribing things variable according to the diversities of times, and the different condition of men living in them, The former kind of laws, God imposed upon men, in the day of their creation, or redemption, and restauration, together with the very nature, and being, which he gave them: the later prescribing things not naturally and perpetually good, but good only at some time, to some men, and to some purposes and uses, to which they serve, were not imposed at first, together with the institution of nature, or the restauration of the same by grace, but are then imposed, when the things they prescribe are judged good, and beneficial, So God prescribed, before the coming of Christ his son, those sacrifices, and offerings, which now he regardeth not: and hath now instituted those Sacraments, Ceremonies, and rites of Religion, which before were not known in the world.  
Thus we see, that the original of all laws is the will of God: who, as he reserveth for himself, the honour of being the supreme, first, and highest cause of all things, and yet communicateth part of his Divine power, to subordinate and inferior causes: so though he alone be the great lawgiver to every creature, yet he communicateth part of his authority, to such among the sons of men, as he is pleased to make greater than others, giving them power to command, and prescribe laws unto them.  
Touching this matter thus generally delivered, there is no difference between us, and our adversaries. For it is confessed on both sides, that God who is the great lawgiver to the whole world, hath chosen out some from amongst the rest of the sons of men, whom he hath been pleased to honour with his own name, to set upon his own seat, and to make rulers and lawgivers unto his people: but the question is, within what bounds this power is contained, and how far the band of laws, made by such authority extendeth.   

CHAP. 31.  
Of the bounds, within which, the power of the Church in making laws is contained, and whether she may make laws concerning the worship of God.  
TOuching the first, the question is usually proposed, whether the Rulers of God's Church, and people, may make laws concerning God's worship, and service. For the clearing whereof, 
a Contro 5. de potestate ecclesiae circa cultum religionis quaest. 6. art. 1. in explicatione articuli.  Stapleton distinguisheth the things pertaining to the worship and service of God, into three sorts. The first, such as are seals, assurances, and in their sort, and kind, causes of grace; as the sacrifices in old time, and the sacraments now: the second, such as remove the impediments of grace, dispose to the receipt of it, and work other spiritual and supernatural effects, though they give not grace in so high degree as the first; as the signing with the sign of the Cross, sprinkling with holy water, and the like: the third, such as are used only for order, and comeliness, in the performance of the principal, and essential duties of God's worship, and service. These being the divers sorts of things, pertaining to the worship and service of God, the question and controversy between us and our adversaries, is only touching things of the second rank. For they confess, the Church hath no power, to institute things of the first sort, and we willingly grant unto it, a most ample power, in things of the third sort. Let us first therefore lay down their opinion, and then examine the truth, or falsehood of it.  
Their opinion is, that the Church hath power to institute Ceremonies, and observations, though not to justify, and give grace, as do the sacraments, yet to cure diseases, drive away devils, purge out venial sins, and to work other the like spiritual, and supernatural effects; and that not only by way of imp●…tration, and by force of the prayers of the Church, which hath prayed, that they that use such things may enjoy such happy benefits, but ex opere operato, by the very work wrought, the use of these things, applying the merits of Christ, to the effecting of these inferior effects, as the Sacraments do, to the effects of justification and remission of sins.  
The sign of the Cross, saith 
b De ima●…inib. Sanctorum l 2. cap. ●…0.  Bellarmine, driveth away Devils, three ways; first, by the devotion of them that use it, it being a kind of invocation of his name, that was crucified for the redemption of the world, expressed not by words, but by this sign: Secondly, by the impression of fear, which the very sight and apprehension of it worketh in the devil, as being the thing whereby Christ wrought his overthrow: Thirdly, ex opere operato; in which sort Infidels using this sign, have wrought these effects.  
The Rhemists upon 1. Tim, 4. 5. Every Creature is good, etc. have these observations: First, that every creature is by nature, and condition of creation good: Secondly, that Satan unjustly usurpeth upon these creatures, in, & by them, seeking to hurt the bodies, and souls of men: Thirdly, that by prayer, and invocation of God's name, notwithstanding the curse upon all creatures, & Satan's readiness to do us harm, they are good and comfortable to us, so that in them we taste the sweetness of Divine goodness: Fourthly, that the blessings of God's Church, and her Ministers, do not only stay and hinder Satan's working, remove the curse, and make the creatures serve for our good, accordingly as at the first they were appointed, but apply them also to so sacred uses, as to be instruments of remission of sins, justification, and infusion of grace; as appear in the sacraments instituted by Christ: Fiftly, that besides, and out of the use of Sacraments, the prayers and blessings of the Church, do sanctify diverse creatures, to the working of spiritual, and supernatural effects, as to expel Devils, cure diseases, and remit venial sins; and that not only, as sanctified things are wont to do, in that they stir up, and increase devotion, and the fervour of piety, but in that the Ministers of the Church, by their sovereign authority, have annexed to the use of them, power to work such effects. This last proposition containeth the whole matter of difference between them and us; for touching all the former, we consent and agree with them.  
For clearing of this point, we lay down these propositions: First, that by ordinary prayers, the Creatures of God are sanctified to ordinary uses. Secondly, that the presenting them, or some part of them, in holy places, and to holy persons, to be blessed of them, maketh the use of them more comfortable, than the former blessing, but addeth no supernatural force, efficacy or grace unto them. Thirdly, that Christ appointed, and the Church daily sanctifieth, the Creatures of God, and elements of this world, to be the matter of his Sacraments. Fourthly, that bread being appointed to be the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ, and water of Baptism, the Christians in ancient time, held that bread, which had been offered and presented at the Lords Table, (out of which a part was consecrated for the use of the Sacrament,) more holy than other bread: And this is that bread, 
c Lib. 2. de peccatorum merit. & remiss. c. 26.  Augustine saith, was given to the Catechumen: as also they religiously kept of that water, which had been hallowed for the use of Baptism, and by the use of it, strengthened their assurance, of enjoying the benefits, which are bestowed on men, in Baptism. Neither can our adversaries clearly prove, any separate sanctifying of water to have been used in the Primitive Church. If they could, it were nothing else but the bringing of some part of this element, into holy places, with humble desire, that they which in memory of Baptism, should use it, and so have their faith strengthened, might more and more receive the effects of saving grace, as the Christians of Russia, and 
d Damianus Agoes de moribus Aethiop.  Aethiopia, unto this day, on the Epiphany, on which day they remember the Baptism of Christ, go into the water, praying unto God, that the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, may more & more be seen and appear in them. Fiftly, that the Church consecrateth sundry outward things, to the use of God's service, not giving them any new quality, force, or efficacy, but only praying, that God will be pleased to accept that, which is done in, or with them, and to work in us, that, the use of them importeth. Sixtly, holy men having the gift of miracles, did use sometimes water, sometimes oil, sometimes other things, and gave them to be used by other, for the working of miraculous effects, after the example of Elizeus, and Christ himself: of which sort is that of joseph mentioned by 
e Haeresi 30  Epiphanius, who filling a vessel with water, signing it with the sign of the Cross, and casting it into a certain fire, caused it to burn, though Satan hindered it before, that it could not burn; as likewise that of 
f Hier. in Hilar. vit.  Hilarion, who gave a kind of hallowed oil to certain, who, by using it, were cured of their diseases. But the consecrating of oil, salt, water, and the like things, by men not having the gift of miracles, to drive away devils, cure diseases, remit venial sins, and work other spiritual and supernatural effects ex opere operato, by application of the merits of Christ, was never known in the Primitive Church, nor any such form of exorcising or blessing as they now use.  
That which the Rhemists allege, touching the Liver of a fish used by 
g Tob. 11.  Toby, the piece of the holy earth where Christ was buried, preserving a man's chamber from the infestation of devils, and the force of holy relics, tormenting them, maketh nothing to this purpose, all these examples being miraculous. 
h 〈◊〉 Sam. 16. 23.  Touching the harp of David, quieting Saul, there is a reason for it in Nature, though the repressing of Satan's rage, were miraculous. That Infidels have sometimes driven away devils by the sign of the Cross, it was by the special dispensation of Almighty God, who would thereby glorify his Son; whose Cross the world despised; and not as if this Ceremony had force, ex opere operato, to work such effects. That the name of jesus, did miraculously cast out Devils, in the Primitive Church (which is the next allegation) who ever made doubt? but what maketh this to the purpose? That which they allege, that Saint Gregory did usually send his benediction, and remission of sins, in, and with such tokens, as were sanctified by his blessing, and touch of the Martyr's relics, as now his successors do the like hallowed remembrances of religion, is very vain. 
i Epist. lib. 3. indict: 12. cap. 30. l. 7. indict. 1. cap. 34.  For Gregory did not send any such blessing of of his own, or remission of sins, by force of it, as now his successors do, but only certain things, that had pertained to Christ or his Apostles: 
k These were often accompanied with miraculous effects in those times, as appeareth by Gregory in the places cited.  as part of the wood of the cross of Christ, or of the chains wherewith the Apostles were bound, and with them the blessing of Christ and those Apostles, to such as should conform themselves, to his sufferings, or their faith. That which they allege out of the 
l Canon. 24.  third Council of Carthage, touching the blessing of milk, honey, grapes and corn, bewrayeth their ignorance. For that Canon speaketh not of any such blessing; but forbiddeth any thing, besides bread and wine mingled with water for the matter of the Sacrament, and grapes and corn to be presented on the Altar. 
m Canon. 3.  The Canon of the Apostles is to the same effect, forbidding any thing, but new grapes, and corn in their season, and oil for the lights, & incense to be used, in the time of the oblation, to be presented on the Altar, willing the first fruits, to be carried to the Bishop's house, and prescribing what shall be done with such presents. The 
n Can: 28.  sixth general Council, finding that some did give to the people, with the Sacrament, these grapes &c: forbade it, and prescribed that being blessed, they should be delivered privately to the Catechumen, and others, that they might praise God, who hath given so good, and pleasing things, for the nourishment of men's bodies; but speaketh nothing of blessing of them, to be instruments of remission of sins, and of the like spiritual and supernatural effects.  
Thus we see, our adversaries cannot prove, that the Church hath power to annex unto such Ceremonies, and observations, as she deviseth, the remission of sins, and the working of other spiritual, and supernatural effects, which is the only thing questioned between them, and us, touching the power of the Church. So that all the power the Church hath, more than by her authority, to publish the Commandments of Christ the son of God, and by her censures, to punish the offenders against the same, is only in prescribing things that pertain to comeliness and order.  
Comeliness requireth, that not only that gravity, and modesty, do appear in the performance of the works of God's service, that beseemeth actions of that nature, but also that such rites, and ceremonies, be used, as may cause a due respect unto, and regard of the things performed, and thereby stir men up, to greater fervour and devotion. Caeremoniae, Ceremonies, are so named, as 
o Lib. 5. & Valerius Maximus lib. 1. ca 1.  Livy thinketh, from a Town called Caere, in the which the Romans did hide their sacred things, when the Gauls invaded Rome. Other think, Ceremonies are so named a Carendo, of abstaining from certain things, as the jews abstained from swine's flesh, and sundry other things, forbidden by God as unclean.  
Ceremonies are outward acts of religion, having institution either from the instinct of nature, as the lifting up of the hands and eyes to heaven, the bowing of the knee, the striking of the breast, and such like: or immediately from God, as the sacraments, or from the Church's prescription, and either only serve to express such spiritual and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions, and desires, as are or should be in men; or else to signify, assure, and convey unto them, such benefits of saving grace, as God in Christ is pleased to bestow on them. To the former purpose, and end, the Church hath power to ordain Ceremonies; to the later God only.  
Order requireth, that there be set hours for prayer, preaching and ministering the sacraments, that there be silence, and attention, when the things are performed, that women be silent in the Church, that all things be administered according to the rules of discipline. Thus we see within what bounds, the power of the Church is contained, and how far it hath authority to command, and prescribe, in things pertaining to the worship and service of God.   

CHAP. 32.  
Of the nature of Laws, and how they bind.  
Now it remaineth that we examine, how far the band of such laws extendeth, as the Church maketh, and whether they bind the conscience, or only the outward man. For the clearing whereof, first we must observe, in what sense it is, that laws are said to bind; and secondly, what it is, to bind the conscience. Lawgivers' are said to bind them, to whom they give laws, when they determine and set down, what is fit to be done, what things they are, the doing whereof they approve, and the omission whereof they dislike, and then signify to them whom they command, that though they have power and liberty of choice, to do, or omit, the things prescribed, yet that they will so, and in such sort, limit them, in the use of their liberty, as that either they shall do that they are commanded, or be deprived of the good they desire, and incur the evils they would avoid. None can thus tie and limit men, but they that have power to deprive them of the good they desire, and bring upon them the contrary evils. So that no man knowing what he doth, prescribeth, or commandeth any thing, under greater penalties, than he hath power to inflict, nor any thing but that whereof he can take notice, whether it be done or not, that so he may accordingly reward or punish, the doing, or omission of it.  
Hence it followeth, that mortal men forget themselves, and keep not within their own bounds, when either they command, under pain of eternal damnation, which none but God can inflict, (according to that of our Saviour, 
a Math. 10. 28.  Fear not them, that can kill the body: but fear him rather, that hath power, to cast both body and soul into hell fire.) 
b Gers. de vita spirituali animae lect. 4. Corollar. 1. 2.  or take upon them to prescribe inward actions, of the soul or spirit, or the performance of outward actions, with inward affections; whereas none but God that searcheth the heart, can either take knowledge of things of this kind, or convent the offenders, and judge and try them. Thus than we see, what it is to bind, and that none can bind men to the performance of any thing, but by the fear of such punishments, as they have power to inflict.   

CHAP. 33.  
Of the nature of Conscience, and how the Conscience is bound.  
IN the next place we are to see, what the nature of Conscience is, and how the Conscience is bound. Conscience is the privity, the soul hath, to things known to none, but to God & herself. Hence it is, that conscience hath a fearful apprehension of punishments for evils done, though neither known, nor possible to be known, to any, but God, and the offendor alone. The punishments that men can inflict, we never fear, unless our evil doings be known to them. For, though we have conscience of them, & be privy to them, yet if they be hidden from them, we know they neither will, nor can punish us. To bind the conscience then, is to bind the soul and spirit of man, with the fear of such punishments (to be inflicted by him that so bindeth) as the conscience feareth, that is as men fear, though none but God & themselves be privy to their doings. Now these are only such as God alone inflicteth: & therefore seeing none have power to bind but by fear of such punishments, as they have power to inflict, none can bind the conscience, but God alone. 
a Quamvis peccet quis transgrediendo leges humanas, non tamen ligant conscientiam: patet per simile de praeceptis medicorum, quae despicere quis non potest sine peccato, & tamen non ligant conscientiam. Gers. de vita spirituali anim. lect. 4. corol. 5. ubi reprehendit eos qui fulminant et tot condunt leges, quot nunquam legere possumus.  Neither should the question be proposed, whether humane laws bind the conscience, but whether binding the outward man, to the performance of outward things, by force, & fear of outward punishments, to be inflicted by men, the not performance of such things, or the not performance of them with such affections as were fit, be not a sin against God, of which the conscience will accuse us, he having commanded us to obey the Magistrates and Rulers he hath set over us. For answer whereunto we say, there are three sorts of things commanded by Magistrates. First, evil, and against God. Secondly, injurious in respect of them to whom they are prescribed, or at least unprofitable to the Commonwealth in which they are prescribed. Thirdly, such as are profitable, and beneficial to the society of men, to whom they are prescribed. Touching the first sort of things, God hath not commanded us to obey, neither must we obey, but rather say to them that command us such things, with the 
b Acts 4. 19  Apostles, whether it be fit to obey God, or men, judge you. Yet we must so refuse to obey, that we show no contempt of their office, and authority, which is of God, though they abuse it. Touching the second sort of things, all that God requireth of us, is that we show no contempt of sacred authority, though not rightly used, that we scandalise not others, and that we be subject to such penalties, and punishments, as they that command such things, do lay upon us; so that God requireth our willing, and ready obedience, only in things of the third sort. The breach & violation of this kind of laws, is sin, not for that humane laws have power to bind the conscience, or that it is simply, and absolutely sinful to break them, but because the things they command, are of that nature, that not to perform them, is contrary to justice, charity, and the desire we should have, to procure the common good of them, with whom we live. We are bound then sometimes to the performance of things prescribed by humane laws, in such sort that the not performance of them is sin; 
c Stapleton contro. 5. de potest. eccles. circa leges mor. quaest. 7. art. 2. in explic. art.  not ex sola legislatoris voluntate, sed ex ipsa legum utilitate, as Stapleton rightly observed. But some man will say, What do the laws than effect? seeing it is the Law of justice, and charity that doth bind us, and not the particularity of Laws, newly made. To this we answer, that many things are good and profitable, if they be generally observed, which without such general observation, will do no good: as for one man to pay tribute, or for one man to stay his goods from transportation, is no way beneficial to the Commonwealth; which would be very profitable, if all did so. Now the Law procureth a general observation: whence it cometh that a man is bound by the Law of charity, and justice, to that, after the making of a Law, which before he was not bound unto.  
And this is it that Stapleton meaneth, when he saith, that humane Laws do bind the conscience, not ex voluntate legislatoris, sed ex ipsa legum utilitate, & ratione. Not because they prescribe such things, but because the things so prescribed, if they be generally observed, are profitable to the Commonwealth.  
By this which hath been said, it appeareth, that they do impiously usurp, and assume to themselves that which is proper to God, 
d Gers. de auferribilitate Papae considerate. 8. aequali tenore quaeritur observari lex humana, sive sit illa canonica, secularis, vel civilis, quemadmodum custodiri divinam absq: ulla variatione necesse est: inde venit illa Christi quaestio Math. 5. Irrit●… fecistis mandatum Dei propter ●…aditiones vestras.  who will have all their Laws taken for divine Laws, and such as bind the conscience no less than the Laws of GOD, who publish all their Canons and constitutions in such sort, that they threaten damnation to all offenders: Whereas no creature hath power, to prescribe, command or prohibit any thing, under pain of sin, and eternal punishment, unless the party so commanded, were formerly either expressly, or by implication, either formally, or by force and virtue of some general duty, bound unto it by God's law before; because God only, hath power of eternal life or death.  
The soul of man, as it receiveth from GOD only, the life of grace, so it loseth the same, when he for the transgression of his laws, and precepts, forsaketh it. For as none but he, can give this life, so none but he, can take it away: he only hath the keys of DAVID, he openeth, and no man shutteth, he shutteth and no man openeth. Hence it followeth, that no lawgiver may command any thing, under pain of eternal punishment, but God only, because he only hath power to inflict this kind of punishment. And that no man incurreth the guilt of eternal condemnation, but by violating the laws of God. Whereupon Augustine defineth sins, to be thoughts, words, and deeds, against the law of God.  
That men do sin, in not keeping, and observing the laws of men, it is because, being generally bound by God's law to do those things, which set forward the common good, many things being commanded, and so generally observed, grow to be beneficial, which without such general observation, flowing from the prescript of law, were not so: and so though not formally, yet by virtue of general duty, men are tied to the doing of them, under pain of sin, and the punishments that deservedly follow it.   

CHAP. 34:  
Of their reasons, who think, that humane Lawes do bind the Conscience.  
THe reasons which 
a Bellar. 1. tom. contro. 5. l. 3. de laicis c. 11.  Bellarmine and other of that faction bring, to prove that humane laws do bind the conscience, are so vain and frivolous, that they deserve no answer: yet lest our adversaries should think, we therefore pass them over without examination, because we fear the force and weight of them, I will briefly take a view of them, and let the Reader see their weakness. To bind, saith Bellarmine, is either the essence or essential property of a law; therefore all laws, whether they be of God, or of men, do bind in the same sort. He should have said, therefore all laws doc bind, whether they be of God, or of men. For to say. It is the essential property of a law to bind, therefore all laws do bind in the same sort, is as if a man should thus reason, It is essential to all natural bodies to have motion, therefore the same kind of motion; whereas yet the fire goeth upward, and the earth downwards, things without life move but one way, either towards, or from the centre of the world; things living every way. His next reason is more childish than this: for he reasoneth thus, If laws do bind only in that they are divine, than all divine laws should equally bind. This reason concludeth nothing against us. For first, no man saith, that laws bind only, because divine, (for it is essential to every law to bind) but that they bind the conscience, because they are divine. And secondly, we add, that all divine laws, do equally bind the conscience. For the conscience doth as much fear God's displeasure, and eternal punishment, for one sin, as for another, though not so great displeasure, nor so grievous punishment. And so they equally bind the conscience; though there be no equality, either of the sins, or of the punishment, the conscience feareth, and seeketh, to decline.  
His third reason, that God's commandment maketh those actions that were before indifferent, to be actions of virtue, therefore men by their precepts, do so likewise, is very strange, and therefore he endeavoureth to confirm it. The reason (saith he) why Gods precepts, and commandments, make actions that were indifferent, as to eat swine's flesh, or not to eat it, to be actions of virtue, is because they are rules of men's manners and conversation, but men's laws likewise are rules of men's lives, manners and conversation, therefore they in like sort make those actions that were before indifferent to be actions of virtue. To this we answer, that there are many great differences, between these two rules. First, for that, the one containeth, a certain, and infallible direction; the other oftentimes leadeth out of the way. Secondly, that the laws of God, are rules in such sort, that the very thoughts of the heart, diverting from that, which they prescribe, are sinful; but men's laws are kept and fulfiled, with how bad affections soever, the things be done, that are prescribed. Thirdly, because the use of nothing being lawful unto us, in respect of conscience, longer, nor farther, than God the supreme Lord of all, alloweth the same; it is an action of virtue, to abstain from things, denied unto us by GOD, either in the first institution of nature or by his positive law: but men having no such power, no such thing is consequent upon their commandments, or prohibitions. Lastly, God's law, both that which is natural, that is, given when nature was first instituted, and that which is positive, is the rule of men's lives absolutely: which if they be conformed unto, they are morally good; if they vary from, they are evil and wicked: but the laws of men, are rules only in respect of outward conversation, framing it to the good of the commonwealth. So that a man, even according to the rules of Philosophy, may be a good Citizen, that is not a good man. His next reason is taken, from the comparison of a King and his Viceroy, the Pope, and his Legate, and the laws, and edicts of these, binding in the same sort.  
To this we answer, that the comparison holdeth not: first, because the King and his Viceroy, command the same things, and to the same ends; but if we compare God, and men, the laws of God, and the laws of men, we shall find a great difference between them, both in the things they command, and the ends for which they command; the one requiring inward actions, and the performance of outward with inward affections; the other outward only. Secondly, because both the King, and his viceroy, have power to take notice of all kind of offences, committed against both the one and the other, and to punish them with the same kind of punishment; but there are many offences committed against God, by every man, whereof men can take no notice; and if they could, yet have no power to inflict such punishments, as God doth. 
b That which Bellarmine h●…th, that faults and punishments are relatives, and that therefore none can subject a man to punishment but he that can bind him to the doing of that under pain of sin against God, for the no●… doing whereof he is punishable, is too childish a parologisme. For it is true, that faults and punishments are relatives, but proportionably: faults against God and punishments inflicted by him: and faults against men and the punishments, men are wont to inflict: We may therefore conclude; that wheresoever there is any punishment some fault w●…nt before: the reproof that an unskilful Painter is subject v●…to is a punishment of his fault in painting ill: but not of his sin against God: for defects, in this kind are not breaches of his law.  His last reason is taken from that place of the Apostle, where he requireth us to be subject, to power and authority, for conscience sake. To this we answer, first that it is a matter of conscience, to be subject in all things: for subjection is required generally, and absolutely, where obedience is not. Secondly, we say, that it is a matter of conscience, to seek and procure, the good of the commonwealth; and that therefore, it is a matter of conscience to obey good, and profitable laws, so far, as we are persuaded, our obedience is profitable. Thus have we briefly examined their reasons, who think, that humane laws bind the conscience, the weakness whereof, I hope all men of any judgement will easily discern.  
Wherefore to conclude this matter, touching the Church's power in making laws, there are three things which we dislike in the doctrine, & practise of the Roman Church. First, that they take upon them to prescribe Ceremonies, and observations, having power to confer grace, for the remission of venial sins, and the working of other spiritual & supernatural effects. Secondly, that they assume unto themselves that which is proper unto God, & seek to rule in the conscience. Thirdly, that by the multiplicity of laws, they dangerously ensnare the consciences of men, and oppress them with heavy burdens. To this purpose, is the complaint that 
c De vita spirituali animae: & in eodem loco ait hanc fuisse querelam quam olim ad beatum Bernardum detulerunt quidam ex Monachis, & propter quam compescendam scripsit volumen pulcherrimum de praecepto & dispensatione: et idem de Vibano 5. inquit, quod gloriabatur se Papa esse ob hanc causam praecipue quod nullis poenis excommunicationum et irregularitatum esset obnoxius, qui si dilexisset proximos sicut seipsum et hoc adver tisset, relaxasset fortassis tot laqueos, tot onera, tot pe●…icula.  Gerson long since made, that the Laws of the Church were too many, and in a great part childish and unprofitable, bringing us into a worse estate then that of the jews, as 
d Scotus l. 〈◊〉. d. 40 q. 1. Quantum ad caeremonialia, lex nova est longè facilior quam vetus, in quantum à Christo data est: et in margin, Pondera hoc contraprae sumptuosos Praelatos, slatuta in laqueum damnationis subditorum quotidiè multiplicantes.  Augustine to januarius complained, when things were much better than in latter times they have been. Neither saith Gerson, are they content to burden us with the multiplicity of their laws; but as if they preferred their own inventions before the Laws of God, they most rigorously exact the performance of the things their own laws prescribe, & neglect the Laws of God, as Christ told the Pharisees, and hypocrites of his time, pronouncing against them, that by their vain traditions, they made the laws of God of none effect. To show how unjust and unreasonable the Roman Lawgivers are, in burdening men with so many traditions, 
e De vita spirit. animae lect. 2.  the same Gerson fitly observeth, that Adam in the time of his innocence, had but one commandment, which yet unhappily he broke: and that therefore, they seem to have no sense of man's miserable & wretched condition, nor any way to compassionate his infirmity, that charge him with so many precepts, besides those of God and Nature. Whereupon he gravely and wisely concludeth, that he supposeth, that the wisest, and best, amongst the guides of God's Church, had not so ill a meaning, as to have all their constitutions, & ordinances taken for laws, properly so named, much less strictly binding the conscience; but for threatenings, admonitions, counsels, and directions only. And that, when there groweth a general neglect, they seem to consent to the abolishing of them again. For seeing, lex instituitur, cum promulgatur, vigorem habet, cum moribus utentium approbatur, Laws are made, when they are published by such as have authority, but have life, force, and vigour. when the manners of men receiving, and obeying them, give them allowance. General, & long continued disuse, is, and justly may be thought, an abolishing, and abrogating of humane laws: Whereas contrariwise, against the Laws of God, and Nature, no prescription, or contrary use, doth ever prevail; but every such contrary custom, or practise, is rightly judged a corruption, and fault.    

THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE CHURCH TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING A DEFENCE OF SUCH PARTS AND PASSAGES OF THE FORMER BOOKS, AS HAVE BEEN EITHER EXCEPTED AGAINST. OR WRESTED, TO THE MAINtenance of Romish errors.  
By RICHARD FIELD, Doctor of Divinity.  
OXFORD, Printed by WILLIAM TURNER, Printer to the famous University, Ann. Dom. 1628.   

The Epistle to the Reader,  
AS in the days of No they all perished in the waters, that entered not into the Ark prepared by Gods own appointment, for the preservation of such as should escape that fearful and almost universal destruction: So is it a most certain and undoubted truth, good Christian Reader, that none can fly from the wrath to come, and attain desired happiness, but such as enter into that society of men which we call the Church, which is the chosen multitude of them whom God hath separated from the rest of the world, and to whom he hath in more special sort manifested himself by the knowledge of revealed truth, then to any other. So that nothing is more necessary to be sought out and known, than which, and where this happy society of holy ones is, that so we may join ourselves to the same, and inherit the promises made unto it: according to that of the holy Patriarch No: Blessed be the God of Sem, and let Chanaan be his servant: the Lord persuade japhet to dwell in the tents of Sem. The consideration whereof moved me, when I was to enter into the controversies of these times, first and before all other things, carefully to seek out the nature and being of this Church, the notes whereby it may be known, which it is amongst all the societies of men in the world, and what the privileges are that do belong unto it: of all which things I have treated in those four Books of that argument, which not long since I offered to thy view and censure. Now it remaineth that in this insueing Book then promised, I show in what sort almighty God, who sitteth between the Cherubins in this his holy Temple, revealeth himself from off the mercy seat, to such as by the calling of grace he hath caused to approach & draw near unto himself, and how he guideth, and directeth them, to the attaining of eternal felicity. Many & sundry ways did God reveal himself in ancient times, as it is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For sometimes he manifested himself to men waking, by visions: sometimes to men sleeping, by dreams: sometimes he appeared in a pillar of a cloud: sometimes in flaming fire: sometimes he came walking a soft pace among the trees of the garden, in the cool of the day: sometimes he rend the rocks, and clave the mountains in sunder: sometimes he spoke with a still and soft voice: sometimes his thunders shook the pillars of heaven, and made the earth to tremble, as in the giving of the law, when he came down upon Mount Sinai; what time the people by Moses direction went forth to meet him: but when they heard the thunders, and the sound of the trumpet, and saw the lightnings, and the mountain smoking, they fled & stood a far off, & said unto Moses, Talk thou with us, and we will hear thee, but let not God talk with us, lest we die.  
This their petition Almighty God mercifully granted, and knowing whereof they were made, resolved no more to speak unto them in so terrible and fearful manner, but rather to put heavenly treasures into earthen vessels, that is, to enlighten the understandings, and to sanctify the mouths & tongues of some amongst themselves, and by them to make known his will & pleasure to the rest. In this sort after the giving of the law he employed the Priests & Levites in a set and ordinary course, appointing that the people should seek the knowledge of the same at their mouths; and in case of great confusion, and general defects of these ordinary guides, raised up Prophets, as well to denounce his judgements against offenders, and to reform abuses; as also to foreshow the future state of things, and more & more to raise in men, a desire, hope, and expectation of the coming of the promised Messias, whom in the fullness of time he sent into the world as the happiest Messenger of glad tidings, that ever came unto the sons of men, and the Angel of the great covenant of peace, causing this proclamation to be made before him, This is my well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him. In him were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, so that as it was said of him, He hath done all things well, so likewise, that Never man spoke, as he spoke. But because he came not into this lower world, to make his abode here perpetually, but to carry up with him into heaven, our desires first, and then ourselves: after he had wrought all righteousness, and performed the work for which he came, he returned back to God that sent him; Choosing out some of them that had been conversant with him in the days of his flesh, that had heard the words of his divine wisdom, & were eye-witnesses of all the things he did & suffered; & sending them as his father sent him, who were therefore named Apostles. These had many excellent preeminences, proper to those beginnings, and fit for the founding of Christian Churches: as immediate calling, infallibility of judgement, general commission, the understanding and knowledge of all tongues, power to confirm their doctrine by signs and wonders, and to confer the miraculous gifts of the spirit upon other also, by the imposition of their hands. In which things, when they had finished their course, they left none to succeed them; yet out of their more large, ample, and immediate commissions, they authorised others to preach the Gospel, administer Sacraments, to bind and lose, and to perform other like pastoral duties, sanctifying and ordaining them to this work, by the imposition of hands. These they honoured with the glorious title of Presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of God's Church and people; and knowing the weight of the burden they laid on their shoulders, added unto them as assistants, other of an inferior degree and rank, whom they named Deacons or Ministers. Amongst these fatherly guides of God's Church and people, for the preventing of dissension, the avoiding of confusion, and the more orderly managing of the important affairs of Almighty God, they established a most excellent, divine, and heavenly order, giving unto one amongst the Presbyters of each Church, an eminent & fatherly power, so that the rest might do nothing without him: whom for distinctions sake, and to express the honour of his degree and place, afore and above other, we name a Bishop. And farther, by a most wise disposition provided, that amongst Bishops all should not challenge all things unto themselves, but that there should be in several provinces, several Bishops, who should be first and chief amongst the brethren: and again constituted and placed certain other, in greater cities, who might take care of more than the former. The former of these were named metropolitans, the later were known by the name of Patriarches, or chief Fathers, who also in order and honour were one before and after another, By means of this order established by the Apostles of Christ among the guides of God's people, and received and allowed by the first and Primitive Christians, unity was preserved, the parts of the Church holden fast together, in a band of concordant agreement; questions determined, doubts cleared, differences composed, and causes advisedly & deliberately heard, with all indifferency and equity. Fow how could there be any breach in the Christian Churches, when none were ordained Presbyters in any Church, but by the Bishop, the rest of the Presbyters imposing their hands on them, together with him? None admitted to the degree and order of a Bishop, but by the Metropolitan, and other Bishops of the Province, sufficiently approving that they did, to the people over which they set him? None received as a Metropolitan, unless being ordained by the Bishops of the Province, upon notice given of their orderly proceeding, & the sincerity of his faith and profession, he were confirmed by the Patriarch? Nor none taken for a Patriarch, though ordained by many neighbour Bishops, till making known the soundness of his profession, and the lawfulness of his election and ordination, to the rest of the patriarchs, he were allowed & received by them as one of their rank and order? Or what fear could there be of any wrong, injustice, or sinister proceedings in the hearing of causes, and determining of controversies, unless there were in a sort a general failing? When if there grew a diffence between a Bishop and his Presbyters, or if either Presbyter, Deacon, or inferior Cleargy-man, disliked the proceedings of his Bishop, there lay an appeal to the Metropolitan, who had power to re-examine the matter in a Synod, and to see they were not wronged? And if either Clerk or Bishop had aught against the Metropolitan, it was lawful for them to appeal to the Primate, or Patriarch, who in a greater and more honourable Synod, was to hear the matter, and to make a final end? When if any variance rose between any of the Patriarches and their Bishops, or amongst themselves, it was lawful for the Patriarches that were above and before them, in order and honour, to interpose themselves, and with their Synods to judge of such differences; and in such cases as could not so be ended, or that concerned the faith, & the state of the whole universal Church, there remained the judgement and resolution of a general Council; wherein the Bishop of the first See was to sit as Precedent, and Moderator; and the other Bishops of the Christian world, as his fellow judges, and in the same commission with him. This order continued in the Church from the Apostles times, and wrought excellent effects, till the Bishop of Constantinople first sought, and after him the Bishop of Rome obtained, to be not only in order and honour before the rest, as anciently he had been, but to have an absolute and universal commanding power over all, that either by fraud, or violence, he could bring into subjection. Whence followed horrible confusion in the Christian Church, and almost the utter ruin and desolation of the same. For after that this child of pride, had in this Lucifer-like sort advanced himself above his brethren, he thrust his sickle into other men's harvests, he encroached upon their bounds and limits; he pretended a right to confer all dignities, whether elective or presentative, to receive appeals of all sorts of men, out of all parts of the world; nay, without appeal or complaint, immediately to take notice of all causes, in the Dioceses of all other Bishops: so overthrowing their jurisdiction, and seizing it in his own hands. He exempted Presbyters from the jurisdiction of their Bishops, Bishops of their Metropolitans, and metropolitans of their Primates and patriarchs; and leaving unto the rest nothing but a naked and empty title, took upon him to determine all doubts and questions of himself alone, as out of the infallibility of his judgement: to excommunicate, degrade, & depose, & again, to absolve, reconcile, and restore, & to hear and judge of all causes, as out of the fullness of his power. Neither did he there stay, but having subjected unto him, as much as in him lay, all the members of Christ's body, and trampled underneath his feet, the honour & dignity of all his brethren and colleagues, he went forward, and challenged a right to dispose of all the kingdoms of the world, as being Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. To this height he raised himself by innumerable sleights and cunning devices, taking the advantage of the ignorance, superstition, negligence, and base disposition which he found to be in many of the guides of the Church in those days, and by their help and concurrence, prevailing against the rest that were of another spirit. Neither did he demean himself any better after he had attained to this his desired greatness; for such was his pride, insolency, and tyranny, and such, so many, and unsupportable were the burdens he laid on the shoulders of them that were no way able to bear them, that the voices of complaint and murmuring were every where heard, and the minds of all men filled with discontentment, and desire of alteration, which after many longing desires of our ancestors, hath been effected in our time. God, at the last, hearing the cries of his people, and stirring up the heroical spirits of his chosen servants, to work our deliverance, to take the burdens from our shoulders, the yoke from our neck, and to bring us out of that Babylon, wherein we were captives, and that spiritual Egypt, wherein we were formerly holden in miserable bondage. But as there were some of the children of the captivity, that after long continuance abroad forgot Jerusalem, and preferred Babylon before Zion, never desiring to return into their own country any more: And as many of the Israelites brought out of the house of Pharoahs' bondage by God himself, and conducted by Moses and Aaron to take possession of Canaan, the land of promise, a land that flowed with milk and honey, in their hearts returned back: so are there many that would never be induced to come out of the spiritual Babylon: and other that are easily persuaded to look back, and in their hearts to return into Egypt again. For the winning and gaining of the former, and the staying of the latter, I have endeavoured by the true description of them out of the Scripture, & the authentical recordsof antiquity, to make it appear, how far Canaan exceedeth Egypt, and Zion Babylon, how different the government of Christ is from that of Antichrist: how happy the people are that live under the one, and how miserable their condition is that are subject to the other.  
Beseeching God for his mercy's sake, to enlighten them that sit in darkness, to bring back them that are gone astray, to raise up them that are fallen, to strengthen them that stand, to confirm them that are doubtful, to rebuke Satan, to put an end to the manifold unhappy contentions of these times, to make up the breaches of Zion, to build the walls of Jerusalem, and to love it still.  
R. F.   

THE fifth BOOK, OF THE DIVERS DEGREES, ORDERS AND CALLINGS OF THOSE men to whom the government of the Church is committed.  

CHAP. 1.  
Of the Primitive and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the living, and the government of the same.  
ALMIGHTY GOD, the fountain of all being, who to manifest the glory of his power, and the riches of his goodness made all things of nothing, disposed and sorted the things he made into three several ranks. For to some he gave being without any apprehension or discerning of it. Others he made to feel, and sensibly discern that particular good he was pleased to do unto them: And to a third sort of a more eminent degree and quality, made after his own image, he gave generality of knowledge of all things, and extent of desire answerable thereunto; causing them without all restraint or limitation, to take view of all the variety of things that are in the world, and never to rest satisfied till they come to see, enjoy, and possess him that made them all.  
These he separated from the rest of his creatures, causing them to approach and draw near unto himself; and to compass about his sacred throne, and called them forth to be a joyful company of blessed ones, praising and worshipping him in the glorious Temple of the world; & to be unto him an holy Church, in the midst whereof his greatness should be known, and his name called upon. These are of twoe sorts: Angels, dwelling in heavenly palaces: and Men, made out of the earth, dwelling in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust. The Angels are immortal, immaterial, and spiritual substances, made all at once: and immediately after their creation, so many as turned not from God their Creator, corfirmed in grace, and perfectly established in the full possession of their uttermost good, so that they need no guide to lead them to the attaining of the same: howsoever in the degrees of their natural or supernatural perfections, and in the actions of their ministry wherein GOD employeth them, they are more great and excellent one then another, and are not without their order and government. But concerning men made out of the earth, and compounded of body and spirit, it is far otherwise: For God did not create them all at one time, but made only one man, and one woman immediately with his own hands; appointing that the rest should descend and come of them by natural generation. Whereupon we shall find, that as in the Creation the tree was first, and then the seed, but in the natural propagation of things the seed is first, and then the tree. So the first man whom God made out of the earth, and the first woman whom he made of man, were perfect at the first, as well in stature of body, as in qualities of the mind, (both because whatsoever is immediately from God is perfect, as also for that the 
a Prima omnia perfecta sunt: caetera autem omnia, quae ex ipsis oriuntur, & post ipsa sequuntur, nisi per inter valla temporum crescendo ad perfectionem venire non possunt. Hugo citat. ab Alex. de Hales. part. 2. quaest. 89. memb. 2.  first things whence all other have their being, must be perfect) but afterwards the beginnings of all the sons of men are weak, and they grow by degrees to perfection of body and mind, having need to receive nourishment, support, guidance, and direction from them, from whom they receive their being. So that nothing is more natural then for children to expect these things from their parents, nor for parents then to nourish, guide, and direct their children. This care pertaineth as well to the mother that bore them, & in whose womb they were conceived; as to the father that begat them, and out of whose loins they came. Yet because the man was not of the woman, but the woman of the man: the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man: the original disposition and sovereign direction of all doth naturally rest in the man, who is the glory of God, the woman's head, and every way fittest to be chief commander in the whole Family and household. Hereupon Adam the father of all the living, was appointed by that God that made him, to instruct, guide, and direct those that should come of him, even in the state of nature's integrity, though without any forcing with terrors, or recalling with punishments while there was yet no proneness to evil, nor difficulty to do good. And when he had broken the Law of his Creator, was called to an account, made know his sin, and recomforted with the promise, that the seed of the woman should break the Serpent's head: he was to teach his children the same things, & sanctified to be both a King to rule in the little World of his own Family: and a Priest, as well to manifest the will of God to them of the same, as to present their desires, vows, and sacrifices unto him: than which course, what could be devised more fitting? For when there were no more in the World but the first man whom GOD made out of the earth, the first woman that was made of man, and the children which GOD had given them, who could be fitter to rule and direct, than the man for whose sake the woman was created, and out of whose loins the children came?   

CHAP. 2.  
Of the dignity of the firstborn amongst the sons of Adam, and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest.  
AND seeing nothing is more natural, then that as the Father is to instruct, direct, and set forward the children that GOD hath given him in the way of virtue and well-doing, so amongst the children the elder should help the younger: the stronger, and more excellent the weaker, and more mean; none could be fitter to assist him in the Kingly, and Priestly office, while he lived, and to succeed him in the same when he died, than the firstborn, 
a Gen. 49. 3.  the beginning of strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power. And hereupon we shall find, that from the beginning the first borne excelled the rest in three things. For first he was Lord over his brethren, according to that of Isaac, blessing jacob the younger in steed of the elder, and thereby preferring him to the dignity of the firstborn: 
b Gen. 27. 29.  Be Lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's children bow down unto thee. Secondly, he had a double portion; & thirdly he was holy unto God, which dignity as it belonged formerly even from the beginning to the firstborn, as being most worthy & excellent: so was it confirmed 
c Num. 3. 13.  when God striking all the first borne in Egypt, spared the first born of the Israelites. This praeeminence of the first borne continued, the eldest ever succeeding in the Kingly and Priestly office, unless for impiety, or cause best known to God he were rejected by him, till the time that Israel came out of Egypt, and the Church of God became national. For then according to the tenor of Jacob's 
d Gen. 49. & 49  blessing, these privileges were divided. judah had the Sceptre, Levi the Priesthood, and joseph the double portion, in that two of his Sons Ephraim and Manasses became patriarchs and Heads of tribes, and had equal inheritance in the land of promise with the sons of jacob. So that in the societies of faithful and holy ones, from the first man that God made, till Aaron was sanctified to be a Priest unto God in steed of the first borne, the eldest always (unless for impiety, or other cause best known to God, he were rejected by him) had the Kingly, and Priestly direction of the rest. So when Cain the eldest Son of Adam, and first that was borne of a woman, to whom the dignity of the first borne did pertain, was for his impiety rejected from that honour, and Abel who by faith offered a better sacrifice than he, was slain by him, God raised up 
e Gen: 4. 25.  Seth, who being taught by Adam his father touching the Creation, the fall, the punishments of sin, and the promised Saviour, assisted him while he lived in guiding the people and Church of God, and succeeded him in the same government after his death. In like sort 
f Chap: 5.  Enosh assisted and succeeded Seth, and dying left that honour to Kenan: Kenan to Mahalaleel: Mahalaleel to jered; jered surviving Enoch his son, whom God translated, left it to Methusalem, Methusalem to Lamech the father of No, in whose time the children of God, that is, the posterity of Seth, marrying with the daughters of men, that is, such as came of wicked Cain, highly displeased almighty God, who thereupon appointed 
g Chap. 6: et 7.  him to be a preacher of repentance unto them; whom when they contemned and despised, he brought in the flood, and destroyed both them, and all the inhabitants of the world, No and his family only excepted. No governed the Church before and after the flood, and left the same office and dignity to Sem his eldest son, saying, 
h Chap: 9 ver. 26. 27.  Blessed be the God of Sem, and let Canaan be his servant: The Lord persuade japhet to dwell in the tents of Sem. 
i Chap: 10. 11.  Sem begat Arphaxad: Arphaxad, Sale: Sale, Heber: Heber, Phaleg: Phaleg, Rehu: Rehu, Serug: Serug, Nachor: Nachor, There: There, Abraham, and Abraham, Isaac. All these, only Heber, and Isaac excepted, he survived: so that dying, he left the right of his office & dignity to Isaac, Heber having corrupted his ways. This 
k Hieronym. in epist. ad Euagrium.  Sem the jews think to have been Melchizedek that 
l Gen: 14. 18.  met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, that brought out bread and wine, to refresh his wearied troops, and blessed him in the name of the Lord, as being a Priest of the high God. Thus then Sem governed the Church in his time, and dying, in part left his honour to Isaac, sojourning as a stranger in Canaan: Isaac to jacob: jacob to judah and his sons; who living in Egypt in bondage with the rest of their brethren, could not freely exercise the Kingly and Priestly office, nor perform the things pertaining thereunto. So that none of these succeeded Sem in the fullness as well of Kingly as Priestly power.   

CHAP. 3.  
Of the division of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sons of jacob when they came out of Egypt, and the Church of God became national.  
But when it pleased Almighty God, who chose unto himself the posterity of Israel and sons of jacob as his peculiar portion and inheritance, above all the nations of the world, to bring them with a mighty hand, and out stretched arm out of the land of Egypt and the house of bondage to the land which he promised to their father's Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, & to make of them a mighty people; then the former kind of government, which was domestical, not so well fitting a people as a household, he settled another; & in steed of the first borne which formerly in each family and kindred was both a King and Priest, he chose the tribe of judah to sway the sceptre, and to be a lawgiver to the rest of of his people: and the tribe of 
a Numb: 3.  Levi to attend his Tabernacle and service: and out of all the families of that tribe, took 
b Exod. 28.  Aaron and his sons to serve in the Priest's office, appointing the rest to meaner services about the Sanctuary, or to be assistants to the Priests, and rulers in the government of the people.   

CHAP: 4.  
Of the separation of Aaron and his sons from the rest of the sons of Levi, to serve in the Priest's office, and of the head or chief of that company.  
THE Priests, the sons of Aaron, whom God separated from the rest of their brethren the sons of Levi, were of two sorts. For there was an high Priest: and there were others of an inferior condition. 
a Sigonius de Rep. Hebraeor: lib. 5. c. 2.  Touching the high Priest, four things are to observed. First, his consecration. Secondly, the things that were required in him that was to be consecrated to so sacred a function. Thirdly, his employment, and Fourthly, his attire. The consecration of the high Priest was seven days in performing, in this sort: 1. He that was to be consecrated, was brought before the Altar. 2. Then he was washed with water, and clothed with those sacred garments which God had prescribed; holy oil was poured on his head, sacrifice was offered on the Altar for his sanctification, and his garments were sprinkled with the blood of it. The things that were required in him that was to serve in the high Priests office, were these. He might not be defective nor deformed in body; His wife must be a virgin, not a widow, not one that had been divorced, nor that had been infamous, but of good parentage, and of his own people. He might not uncover his head, rend his garments, nor go in to mourn over any that was dead, Noah though it were his father or mother. His employment was to go daily into the Sanctuary, to light the Lamps, to burn incense, and every week to provide the shewbread or bread of proposition: on the feast days to offer the people's sacrifices together with the other Priests: and once in the year, on the day of expiation, to enter into the holiest of all, to cleanse, and hollow it from the sins of the people, and to make prayer for himself, and them. The holy vestments, in which he was to perform this service of God, are described to have been a Breastplate, an Ephod, a Robe, a broidered Coat, a Mitre, and a Girdle. The Ephod was of gold, blue silk, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen of broidered work: In the shoulders of the Ephod were two Onyx-stones, and upon them the names of the children of Israel graven; six names upon the one stone, and six other names upon the other stone according to their generations. These were stones of remembrance of the children of Israel before the Lord. Of these 
b josephus' citatus à Sigonio ibid.  josephus writeth, that they showed when God was present with his people, when he accepted the Sacrifices they offered unto him, and was pleased with them, and likewise when he was displeased with them and rejected them: in that when God was pleased with his people and accepted their sacrifices, the stone which was on the right shoulder shined in such sort, that it might be seen a far off, whereas otherwise no such shining brightness appeared in it. The Breastplate of judgement was of broidered work, like the work of the ●…phod: of gold, blue silk, purple and scarlet, and fine twined linen. It was set full of places for stones, even four rows of stones. The stones that were set in these rows were twelve, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, and in them the names of the twelve tribes were graven. In this Breastplate likewise were put Vrim and Thummim which were upon the heart of the high Priest, when he went in before the Lord. By these twelve stones that were in the Breastplate of the high Priest, God did show unto his people the success of their battles when they intended to make war. For if he meant to prosper their enterprise, these stones did so shine, that they were thereby well assured God would go forth with their armies; and fight their battles for them, otherwise they were discouraged from attempting any thing. The 
c Arias Mo●… tanus in apparatu, & Sigonius de Repub. Heb. l. 5. c. 9  Vrim and Thummim likewise some of the jews think to have been two stones, by which the high Priest understood what things were to come, & revealed the same unto the people: For if nothing new & strange were to fall out, they held their colour: but if any great & extraordinary mutation were to follow, the bright shinings of these stones did foreshow it. 
d Rabbi Salom. citatus à Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3.  Others suppose that they were the Name of God, jehovah in letters of gold, by the shining brightness whereof they understood the answer of God when they sought unto him, but 
e Aug. quaest. ●…17. in Exod.  Augustine is of opinion, that these very words were written in letters of gold in the middle of the breastplate that did hang before the breast of the high Priest.   

CHAP. 5.  
Of the Priests of the second rank or order.  
TOuching the Priests of the inferior Rank, they had the same kind of consecration which the high Priest had: in sacrificing they were like unto him, & in the service of the Sanctuary, in burning incense, providing the Shewbread, and preparing, & looking to the lamps & lights: neither was there any other difference between him and them in the performance of these things: but that he was chief, and they assistants unto him. The only thing that was peculiar unto him, was the 
a Exod. 28. 30.  consulting of God by Vrim & Thummim, and the 
b Levit. 16. 30.  entering into the Holiest to make an Atonement. Their vestments were the same, 
c Sigon. de Rep. Heb. l. 5. c. 3. exHier. & Eucherio.  save that the high Priest only had the Breastplate, & an Ephod of gold: for the rest did also sometimes wear a linen Ephod. The things required in them that were to serve in the Priestly office were these. They might not be 
d Levit. 21. 18.  deformed nor defective in body: they might 
e Levit. 10. 9  drink no wine nor strong drink, when they were to enter into the Sanctuary: they 
f Levit. 11. 1.  might not defile themselves by the dead, nor come near unto any that was dead, except it were their father, or mother, son, or daughter, or sister unmarried: they 
g Ibid. vers. 5.  might not shave their heads, nor beards, nor cut their flesh: they might 
h Ibid. vers 7  marry no harlot, nor woman divorced: The 
i Levit 8.  first that were consecrated Priests, were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar the sons of Aaron, 
k 1 Chron. 24. vers. 2.  Nadab, and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: they both perished, because they 
l Levit. 10.  offered strange fire upon the Altar, so that Eleazar & Ithamar only remained, of whom the whole number of Priests that were afterwards, did come. 
m 1 Chr. 14. 4.  From Eleazar in David's time were issued sixteen Families, and from Ithamar eight. These David sorted into twenty four Classes or Courses, and named every Classis or Course after the name of him who was then chief of each Family: and for the ordering of them, and setting one before another, they cast lots. The reason of the sorting of them into these ranks was, for that he would not have all the Priests to attend every day, but that they should have some intermission, and times of vacation, one Classis performing the service one week, & another, another. Though, saith 
n joseph. l. 2 contra Appionem citat. à Sigon. ubi suprá.  josephus, there be twenty four Classes or Courses of Priests amongst us, whereof every one hath more than five thousand, yet they wait not all at once, but on certain days appointed & assigned unto them, which being passed, others succeed, who are called into the Temple at Noon, & have the keys thereof delivered unto them, and the sacred vessels by tale. In this sense it is said in the book of Chronicles, that 
o 2 Chr. 23. 8.  jehoiada the Priest dismissed not the Courses, that is, sent not away the Troops and Companies of Priests, that attended the service of the Temple, when their time was expired, and according to order they should have departed, and others succeeded them: for that he meant to make use of them in the deposing of wicked Athaliah, and the establishing, and settling of the true and lawful King in the Royal Throne of judah. In these Courses they were wont to cast lots what kind of service every one should do in the week of his attendance, as for example: Who should sacrifice, and who should burn Incense: whereupon it is said in the Gospel of Luke, that 
p Luk. 1. 5.  in the time of Herod King of judaea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abiah; 
q Ibid: ver. 8. & 9  and it came to pass as he executed the Priest's office before God, as his course came in order, according to the custom of the Priest's office, that his lot was to burn incense when he went into the house and Temple of the Lord. 
r Sigon. de rep. Hebr. l. 5. c. 3.  Over every of these companies of Priests in their courses attending, there were certain priests set, that were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Principes Sacerdotum, that is chief Priests, or rulers of the Priests. Of these the Evangelist S. Mark speaketh when he saith, 
s Mark. 14. 53.  They brought jesus to the High Priest, and the Chief Priests sought false witness against him: that is, the Heads of the Companies of Priests, who came to consult with the high priest about the putting of jesus to death. For while the policy appointed by almighty God continued, there was but one that properly was named the high Priest.   

CHAP. 6.  
Of the Levites.  
HAving spoken of Aaron and his sons, whom God chose out of all the families of the tribe of Levi, it remaineth that we speak of the employment of the rest of that tribe, called by the common name of Levites. 
a Sigonius de rep. Hebraeor. li. 5. c. 4. 5. 6, & 7.  These were sorted by David into four ranks: for some he appointed to be ministers of the Priests and Temple, who were most specially named Levites: some Singers: some Porters: and others Scribes and judges. Touching the Levites more specially so named, that attended the service of the Sanctuary, their office was to carry the Tabernacle, and the Ark of the Covenant in the Removes of the people, till God fixed the same in one place; and then they were to take care of it, and the sacred vessels that were in it appointed to be used about the service of God. In later times also they flayed the Beasts appointed for the Sacrifices. according to that in the second of Chronicles: 
b 2 Chron. 35. ver. 10. & 11.  The service was prepared, and the Priests stood in their places; also the Levites in their orders according to the King's commandment, and they slew the Passeover, and the Priests sprinkled the blood with their hands, and the Levites flayed them. Of the singers we read in the first of Chronicles, how they were apppointed 
c 1. Chron: 25. 1:  by David to sing prophecies with Harps, with Viols, and with Cymbals. The 
d 1. Chron. 2 6.  Porters were appointed to see that no uncircumcised, polluted, or unclean person should enter into the house of the Lord; and to guard the same that all things therein might be in safety, as the sacred vessels, the treasure of the house, and the treasure of the dedicated things. To these were added as assistants the 
e 1 Chron. 9 2. Ez●…a 2. 70.  Nethinims or Gibeonites, who served as 
f josuah. 9 23.  hewers of wood, and drawers of water: The Scribes were such as read, and interpreted the Law of God in the Temple at Jerusalem, and in the Synagogues that were in other parts of the land, and are also called Doctors of the Law, that is, Interpreters of the Law of God.   

CHAP. 7.  
Of the Sects, and factions in Religion, found amongst the jews in later times.  
ANd here because we have made mention of such Levites as were Scribes, that is, Doctors and Interpreters of the Law of God, it is not out of place to speak of the doctrine of the jews in later times, and the several sects into which their teachers and guides were divided. Epiphanius showeth that there were 
a Epiphan. contra haeres. lib. 1.  seven principal sects amongst them; the first whereof was that of the 
b Haeres. 15.  Scribes, who were Interpreters of the Law, but such as delivered many traditions as from their Elders, that were not contained in the Law, and sought to bring in a more exact kind of worship of God, than Moses and the Prophets taught, consisting in many voluntary observations and customs devised by men.  
The second, 
c Haeres. 14.  Sadduces, which were of the race of the Samaritans; these had their name from one Sadoc a Priest; they denied the resurrection, and believed not that there is any Angel or Spirit, and consequently overthrew all Religion.  
The third sort were 
d Haeres. 16.  Pharisees; these were the strictest of all other, and most esteemed: they believed the resurrection of the dead, that there are Angels and Spirits, as the Scribes also did, and that all shall come into judgement to receive according to the things they do in this body, whether they be good or evil: they much honoured virginity and single life: they paid tithes of the smallest things they possessed: they washed cups, platters, and all kind of vessels they used: they fasted twice every week: they brought in the doctrine of fatal necessity: and differed in their habit from other men.  
The fourth sort were the 
e Haeres 17.  Hemerobaptists, who did think that no man could be saved, if he were not washed every day, that so he might be cleansed from the impurity of sin; but, as Epiphanius rightly noteth in refutation of the error of these men, it is not the whole flood jordan wherein Christ was baptised, nor the sea, nor any fountain abounding with water, that can wash away the impurity of sin by any natural force thereof or voluntary use; but repentance, and the use of such sacred ceremonies, and sacramental elements, as God appointeth to signify, express, and communicate unto us the virtue of Christ jesus, and the sanctifying grace of the Spirit of God.  
Next unto the Hemerobaptists were the 
f Haeres. 19  Essenes'. These withdrew themselves from the society of other men. They despised marriage, and lived without the company of women, having no children of their own, they adopted such as voluntarily came unto them, 
g Plinius nat. hist. l. 5. c. 17.  Quos vita fessos (saith Pliny) ad mores eorum fortunae fluctus agitat: Ita per saeculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens aeterna est, in quâ nemo nascitur; tam faecunda illis aliorum vitae poenitentia est. That is, Such as wearied with the turmoils of this life, were by the experience of fortunes uncertainties, forced to like their retired manner of living; so that for many ages (which is a thing not credible) there hath been a never-failing nation, in which no man is borne. So many doth other men's dislike of their own manner of living send unto them. These were something like the Monks and Religious men, that are, and have been amongst Christians.  
The sixth sort were the 
h Epiphan li: 1. haeres. 18.  Nazaraei, who in all other things were jews, but held it unlawful to kill any living thing, or to eat the flesh of any thing wherein the Spirit of life had been; they condemned the bloody sacrifices prescribed in Moses law, and therefore could not be induced to think, that Moses was author of those books that go under his name; yet did they honour Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and other holy men mentioned in them.  
The seaventh and last sort were the 
i Haeres. 20.  Herodians, who were of the jews Religion in all other things, but thought Herod to be the Christ; because the sceptre departed from judah, and the Lawgiver from between his feet, when Herod who was a stranger obtained the title and power of a king, and ruled over the people of God.  
These were the sects and Heresies, that prevailed in the Church of the jews before the coming of Christ, amongst whom the Pharisees and Sadduces were chief; so that the whole state seemed to be divided into these two factions, 
k Sigon. de rep. Hebr. lib. 5. cap. 11. ex josepho.  the nobles and great ones inclining for the most part to the Sadduces, and the common people to the Pharisees; whereupon we read in the acts of the Apostles, that Paul standing before Ananias the high Priest, and the rest of the chief Priests and Rulers of the people to be judged, knowing that the one part of them were Sadduces, and the other part Pharisees, cried aloud; 
l Act. 23. 6.  I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee, I am accused of the hope and resurrection of the dead: and that upon the hearing of these words, there was a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadduces, so that the whole multitude was divided; that there was a great cry; and that the Scribes of the Pharisees part arose up, and strove, saying, 
m Ibid, ve●…▪  We find no evil in the man: But if a Spirit or an Angel hath spoken unto him, let us not fight against God.   

CHAP. 8.  
Of Prophets and Nazarites.  
BEsides the Priests and Levites, whom God chose to attend his Service & Sanctuary, rend and divided in latter times into the manifold factions and Heresies abovementioned, there were other who meddled not with the Ministry of holy things, and yet were specially dedicated and sanctified unto God. These were either such as dedicated their bodies and persons unto God, as the Nazarites; or such as God raised up extraordinarily to fore-shew future things, and to reform abuses and errors, as were the Prophets.  
The vow of the Nazarits is described in the book of Numbers, where the Lord God spoke unto Moses, saying, 
a Numb. 6. 2.  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man or woman doth separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate himself unto the Lord, he shall abstain from wine and strong drink, no razorshall come upon his head, but he shall let the locks of the hair of hishead to grow, during the time that he separateth himself unto the Lord: He shall come at no dead body, he shall not make himself unclean at the death of his father or mother, brother or sister: for the consecration of the Lord is upon his head.  
The Nazarites were of two sorts: for some did separate themselves unto the Lord but for a time, and others perpetually. Nazarites of the former sort they were, of whom james, and the Elders do speak in the Acts, saying unto Paul, 
b Act. 21. 23.  We have four men which have made a vow: them take, and purify thyself with them, and contribute with them, that they may shave their heads, and all shall know that those things whereof they have been informed concerning thee, are nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest and keepest the Law. Of the latter sort the Scripture mentioneth only two: Samson and Samuel. Concerning Samson we read, that the Angel of God appeared unto the wife of Manoah his mother, and said unto her; 
c judges 13. 7.  Behold now thou art barren, and bearest not, but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now therefore beware that thou drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing. For lo thou shalt conceive, and bear a son, and no razor shall come on his head; For the Child shall be a Nazarite unto God from his birth, and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hands of the Philistines. And of Samuel, his mother said before he was borne: 
d 1 Sam. 1. 11.  I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head. To these 
e Hier. Catal. Script. Eccles. in lacobo.  Hierome addeth out of Egesippus, james the just, the brother of our Lord.  
Prophets properly are such as foreknow and foretell things that are to come: but because, as 
f Greg. hom. l. sup. Ezekielem.  Gregory fitly noteth, it is as hard to know the things that are past, whereof there is no report, and the things that are done a far off, or in secret, or that are but contrived, and resolved on in the purposes of the heart, as to foresee what shall come to pass hereafter; the knowledge of all these things pertaineth to prophetical grace and illumination; and it was no less a prophetical spirit that directed Moses in writing the story of the Creation, fall, and propagation of mankind, nor no less a Prophetical illumination that made Elizeus know what was done in the King of Arams' privy chamber, than it was in Esay and the rest, that enabled them to foretell and fore-shew the things that were to come. And therefore the Divines make divers sorts of Prophets; some to whom principally things past were revealed, or hidden things then being: and some to whom things that were after to come to pass, were more specially manifested or made known: 
g Hugo de S. Vict. Erudit. Theol de Sacr. fidei lib. 1. part. 1 prolog. c. 17.  Some that were Prophets both in grace and mission, some in grace only: In grace and mission, as they that were specially sent to foreshow the people of God what was to come to pass, to tell them of their transgressions, and the judgements that were to follow: In grace only, as were all such as were not specially employed to this purpose, and yet had the knowledge of secret things, as Daniel and some other.   

CHAP. 9  
Of Assemblies upon extraordinary occasions.  
THUS having spoken sufficiently of the persons that God sanctified to serve him in the Temple, and to teach, direct, and instruct his people; as also of such as voluntarily dedicated themselves unto him, or were extraordinarily raised up by him: Let us see what the government of the Church, and people of God was under them during the time of the law, until the coming of Christ.  
The Scriptures show us, that God appointed for the government of his people, extraordinary Assemblies; and set judgements: Whereunto the Prophet David seemeth to allude, when he saith, The 
a Psal. 1. vers. 5.  wicked shall not rise up in judgement, nor Sinners in the assembly of the righteous. In assemblies were handled things concerning the state of the whole commonwealth: In the set Courts, things concerning particular parts of it. Assemblies were of two sorts: either of the whole people, or of the Elders and Rulers only. Assemblies of the whole people were gathered together to hear the commandments of God: to make public prayers unto him, or to perform and do some extraordinary thing: as to appoint a King, a judge, or a Prince, to proclaim or wage war, or the like.  
These Assemblies were either of the whole people of Israel, or only of the whole people of one tribe or city. For the calling of these assemblies God commanded 
b Numb. 10▪ 2.  two trumpets of silver to be made and to be in the custody of Moses and his successors: with this direction, that when they blowed with them both, all the congregation should assemble unto them: but when they blowed but with one, the Princes or Heads over the thousands of Israel only should come.  
The set Courts and Tribunals were of two sorts, the one in the gates of every City, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judgement; the other at Jerusalem, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Council: whereunto Christ seemeth to have alluded, when he said, 
c Math. 5. 22.  Whosoever is angry with his brother unadvisedly, shall be guilty of judgement: but whosoever saith, Racha, shall be guilty of a Council: and he that saith, Thou fool, shall be worthy to be punished with Gehenna of fire, or the fiery Gehenna. Thereby showing us, that one of these offences and faults, is more grievous and worthy of greater punishment than the other: for the Council or Sanedrim did handle weightier causes, and might inflict more grievous punishments, than the set Courts of justice in the gates of every city. So that this is it he meant to say. He that is angry with his brother unadvisedly shall be guilty of judgement, that is, of some lighter punishment; and he that saith, Racha, shall be subject to the council, that is, punished more grievously: but he that saith, Thou fool, shall be punished with all extremity, answering in proportion to the cruel and merciless burning of of men in the 
d 2. Chron. 33. vers. 6.  valley of Hinnon, or the fiery Gehenna.  
S. Augustine in his first book 
e Cap. 19 Apparet Augustinum iudicialis rationis Hebraicae notionemnon habuisse. Sigonius de rep. Hebr. l b. 6. cap. 7.  De Sermone Domini in monte, doth somewhat otherwise, but very excellently, express the meaning of Christ's words in this sort. There are saith he, degrees of sin in this kind mentioned by Christ: itaque in primo unum est, id est, ira sola: in secundo, duo:: & ira, & vox quae iram significat: in tertio, tria: & ira, & vox quae iram significat, & in voce ipsa certae vituperationis expressio. Vide nunc etiam tres reatus, judicij, Concilij, & Gehennae ignis. Name in judicio adhuc defensioni datur locus: ad Concilium pertinet sententiae prolatio, quando non jam cum reo agitur, utrum damnandus sit, sed inter se qui iudicant, conferunt, quo supplicio damnari oporteat, quem constat esse damnandum. Gehenna vero ignis nec damnationem habet dubian, sicut judicium, nec damnati poenam sicut Concilium: in Gehenná quippe ignis certa est & damnatio, & poena damnati. That is: In the first degree there is but one thing, that is, anger only: In the 2d two: anger & a voice expressing anger: In the third three: anger, the voice that giveth signification of it, and in the voice itself an expressing of some certain reproach. See now also three guilts, of judgement, of Council, and the Gehenna of fire: For in judgement there is yet place left for defence; to Council pertaineth the pronouncing of the sentence, when there is no more to be done with the party guilty, nor no further doubt whether he be to be condemned or not, but they that judge take counsel and confer amongst themselves, to what punishment they shall condemn him, of whose condemnation they are already resolved: but in the Gehenna of fire, there is neither doubtfulness of condemnation, as in judgement, nor of the punishment of the condemned, as in Council: For there both the condemnation is certain, and the punishment also.  
The Papists allege the words of Christ for proof of venial sins, because only the last degree of unadvised and causeless anger, is pronounced worthy to be punished with Gehenna of fire, or hell fire. Whence they think it may be concluded, that other degrees of causeless anger, though sinful, yet do not subject men to any punishment in hell, and consequently are by nature venial. But if we understand that Christ alluded to the different courts of justice amongst the jews, their proceedings in the same, and the diversity of punishments which they inflicted more or less grievous, as Sigonius in his book 
f Loco suprà citato.  Derepub. Hebraeorum, and other excellently learned do; then by Gehenna of fire, is not simply meant hell fire, which is the general punishment of damned sinners: but the greatest extremity of punishment in hell, expressed by comparison with the cruel torments, which they endured that were consumed in fire in Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnon, far more intolerable than were the punishments inflicted by the judgement or Council, to which the lighter and lesser punishments in hell, due to lesser and lighter sins, may be resembled. And though we understand the words as Augustine doth, yet is not their error confirmed by this place: for as he fitly noteth, whereas to kill is more grievous then to wrong by contumelious and railing speeches, amongst the Pharisees only killing was thought to make a man guilty of judgement; But here anger, the least of all the sins mentioned by Christ, is by him pronounced guilty of judgement; and whereas amongst them, the question of murder was brought before the judgement seat of men, here all things are left to the judgement of God, where the end of the condemned and guilty is hell fire. And for farther clearing of this point he addeth, that if any man shall say, that murder, as more grievous, is to be punished more grievously, according to the rule of justice, then with hell fire, if railing speeches be punishable with hell fire, he will force us to acknowledge divers hells, or kinds and degrees of punishments in hell. So far was Augustine from imagining any such difference of sins, whereof some should be worthy to be punished in hell, and some not, to be proved out of this place, as our adversaries would enforce and urge.   

CHAP. 10.  
Of the s●…t Courts amongst the jews, their authority and continuance.  
TOuching the Tribunals and judgements that were in every city, God said unto Moses: Thou shalt appoint thee judges and Magistrates in all thy cities; 
a Deut: ●…6. ●…8.  and again: They shall go up to the judges that sit in the gates of the city. But the Sanedrim or great Council of State, consisted of the King, the twelve Princes of the people, the seaventy Elders, the high Priest, the chief Priests, and the 
b Si gone. de rep: Hebr. l. 6: c. 7.  Scribes. And this Council was first in Siloh, afterwards at Jerusalem; first in the tribe of Ephraim, and after in the tribe of judah: and after the rent of the ten tribes, none but the elders of judah, and Benjamin, and the Priests and Levites entered into this Council.  
This Council either the King or high Priest called, according as the matter to be heard, touched Religion or the commonwealth: But after the return from Babylon, the high Priest was always chief, and governed with the Elders and chief Priests: For there were no more kings of judah after that time, but the kings of Persia, Egypt, and Syria had the command over judaea, and made the jews pay tribute unto them. Of this Council almighty God did speak when he said: 
c D●…. 17. 8.  If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood, between plea & plea, between plague and plague, in matters of controversy within thy gates, then shalt thou arise & go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the Priests of the Levites, & unto the judge that shall be in those days, & ask, & they shall show thee the sentence of judgement: & thou shalt do according unto that thing which they of that place which the Lord hath chosen, show thee: & thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee, according to the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, shalt thou do; thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall show thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left: And that man that will do presumptuously not harkening to the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there, or unto the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away evil from Israel.  
This was the highest Court amongst the jews, & from this there was no appeal: and this Court some think to have enjoyed so great and ample privileges, as that it could not err: and thereupon infer, that Popes in their Consistories cannot err, to whom Christ hath made as large promises of assistance and direction, as ever he did to the high Priests and Rulers in the time of Moses Law.  
That the Priests and Rulers in the time of the Law could not err, they endeavour to prove, because he was to answer it with hisbloud whosoever disobeyed the sentence & decree of those judges; & God required every man without declining to the right hand or the left, to do that they commanded.  
If it be objected that the words of Almighty God, requiring all men so strictly to obey the sentence and decree of those Rulers, are not to be understood concerning matters of faith, but Causes Civil and Criminal; and that therefore this place maketh not any proof of the infallibility of their judgement in matters of faith; it will be answered, that there is no reason to doubt of their judgement in matters of faith, of whose right judgement in matters Civil and Criminal we are assured.  
Surely, it is true, that if those judges in the time of the Law, could not err in matters Civil and Criminal; they were undoubtedly much more freed from danger of erring in matters of faith: but it is one of the strangest paradoxes, as I think, that ever yet was heard of, that the Priests and judges in the time of the Law were privileged from danger of erring in matters of fact, and that they were so assisted in their proceedings, as that they could not be misled by any passions or sinister affections, to pervert judgement and do wrong. For besides that it is refuted by sundry instances, of sinister and wicked judgements passed by those judges, against the Servants and Prophets of Almighty God, it maketh the Ministry and government under the Law, incomparably more glorious and excellent than the Ministry of the Gospel. For it is by all confessed, that the Popes and Counsels may err in things of this nature. But that the Priests in the time of the Law did sometimes err in judgement, condemning them whom God would not have had condemned, appeareth evidently by that we read in the book of the Prophecies of jeremy, where 
d jerem. 26. 8  when jeremy had made an end of speaking all that the Lord commanded him to speak, than the Priests and the Prophets, and al●… the people took him, and said, Thou shalt dye the death. 
e Ibid. ver. 10▪  And when the Princes of judah heard of these things, they came up from the King's house into the house of the Lord, & sat down in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House. Then spoke the Priests & the Prophets unto the Princes & to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to dye, 
f Ver. 16.  but the Princes said, This man is not worthy to dye: for he hath spoken unto us in the Name of the Lord our God. Here we see the Priests erred, and were resisted by the Princes of the Land: but elsewhere we read, that 
g jerem. 37. 15.  the Princes also were angry with jeremy, & smote him, and laid him in prison in the house of jehonathan the Scribe, and said unto the King: 
h jer. 38. 4.  We beseech thee, let this man be put to death, for he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that are in the City, and the hands of all the people. So that both Priests and Princes, might, & did sometimes err in judgement. But some man perhaps will say, that howsoever they might err in matters of fact, yet they could not err in any matter of substance pertaining to the worship & service of God. This also is clearly demonstrated to be false, & their errors in things pertaining to the worship and service of God proved by sundry examples.  
In the second book of Kings we read, that 
i 2. Kings 16. 3.  Ahaz k●…ng of judah walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, made his sons go through the fire, after the abominations of the heathen, and offered burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree. This wicked Ahaz 
k Ibid. ver. 10. 11.  sent from Damascus to Urias the Priest, the pattern of the Altar he saw at Damascus, and the fashion of it, and all the workmanship thereof; and Urias the Priest made an Altar, in all points like to that which King Ahaz sent from Damascus. So did Urias the Priest before King Ahaz came from Damascus; 
l Ver. 15.  and the King commanded Urias to offer sacrifice on the Altar, and 
m Ver. 16.  Urias did whatsoever the King commanded him. Yea we read of many Priests, especially about the time of the Maccabees, that forsook the law of God, and followed the abominations of the heathen Idolaters; and many judges and Kings likewise; so that, David, Hezekiah, & josias only excepted, there was none of the Kings that did not decline more or less to Idolatry.  

n Lyra in Deuteron, 17. & alij.  The meaning therefore of Almighty God according to the judgement of the best Divines was not, that Priests and judges in the the time of the law should be obeyed in all things without exception, but when they commanded and judged according to the divine law and verity: and in the same sort must we understand the words of Christ, when he saith, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on the Chair of Moses; and commandeth the people to observe and do whatsoever they prescribe to be observed and done. For otherwise 
oh Math. 23. 2.  Christ should be contrary to himself, who elsewhere willeth men to 
p Math. 16. 6.  beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, (which S. Matthew interpreteth to be their 
q Ibid ver. 12.  doctrine) & teacheth men by his own example to contemn their traditions. Yea, it is most 
r Math. 15.  certain, that the Pharisees erred dangerously and damnably in many things, notwithstanding their sitting on Moses chair: and therefore Christ doth oftentimes sharply reprove them for misinterpreting the law of God.  
Some man perhaps will say: they taught less than is implied in the Law, in that they condemned murder, adultery, and the like crimes, but not lust, hatred and such other sinister affections of the heart: and that therefore Christ did not reprove them as teaching any thing contrary to the Law, but as teaching less than is contained in it, and coming short of it. This evasion will not serve: for it appeareth evidently, that they did not only come short of that the Law requireth; but were also contrary unto it, and that Christ taxeth them for the same. 
s Au●…ust. cont. Faust. Manichaeum Lib. ●…9. cap. 2●….  Quia non intelligebant, (saith Saint Augustine,) homicidium nisi per interemptionem corporis humani per quam vitâ privaretur, aperuit Dominus omnem iniquum motum ad nocendum fratri in homicidij genere deputari: unde & johannes dicit, Qui odit fratrem suum, homicida est: & quoniam putabant tantummodo corporalem cumfoeminâ illicitam commixtionem vocari moechiam, demonstravit Magister etiam talem concupiscentiam nihil esse aliud: That is, they understood no other Kind of murder, but that which is the sundering of soul and body, and the taking away of life, therefore our Lord showed, that every unrighteous motion to hurt our brother is to be accounted murder, Whence also S. john saith, He that hateth his brother, is a manslayer: and because they thought the unlawful conjunction of man and woman only to be adultery, our Master showed, that even the desire is no less. Now I think, that to say, that is not murder nor adultery which Christ pronounceth to be murder and adultery, is not only to teach less than is in the Law, but to teach contrary to it.  
But to make this point more clear and evident, and that there may be no doubt, but that their doctrine was contrary to the Law, the Scripture reporteth, nay our Saviour Christ telleth us in the Scripture (whose report we may not doubt of) that they taught a man 
t Math. 〈◊〉. ●…3.  to love his friend, and to hate his enemy: whereas by the Law of God we are bound to love our enemies, to bless them that curse us, to do good to them that hate us, and to pray for them that hurt us, and persecute us. It is true indeed, that 
Aug. d●… Se●…: Do●…. in monte l●…b. 1. c. 41.  S. Augustine not observing this gloss of hating our enemies, to be the lewd tradition of the pharisees, but thinking it to be written in the Law, doth in one place say, that that which is said in the Law, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, is not to be taken as the voice of him that commandeth and prescribeth what the just should do, but permitteth what the infirmity of the weak requireth; and in another place writing against the Manichees saith, 
x Contra Faustum Manichaeum. li. 19 c. 24.  that that which is in the old Scripture, Hate thine enemy, and that which is in the Gospel, Love your enemies, do agree together very well. For every unrighteous man in quantum iniquus est, odio habendus est, & in quantum homo, diligendus, in that he is unrighteous, is to be hated, and in that he is a man, is to be loved. This saying he saith the Pharisees did not rightly understand, and that therefore Christ laboured to teach and instruct them better, and to let them know, that they were so to hate their enemies, that they should also love them.  
This which S. Augustine delivereth is most Catholic and true: For we are to hate the vices, and love the persons of our enemies; but neither is there any mandate in the Scriptures that we should hate our enemies, neither had that precept of the Pharisees that sense wherein S. Augustine conceiveth a man may lawfully hate his enemies: but as himself confesseth, they thought they were so to hate their enemies, that they were not bound to love them; against which erroneous conceit Christ opposeth himself, saying, But I say unto you, love your enemies. Neither doth he oppose an evangelical counsel of greater perfection than the Law requireth, to that imperfect thing the Law prescribeth, as some men have ignorantly fancied; but the true meaning of the Law, to the false construction of the same made by the Pharisees, as likewise he doth in all other his oppositions to that which had been said to them of old time.  
But let us let this pass, and come to the other errors of the Pharisees taxed by our Saviour Christ in such sort as no man can excuse them, 
y Math. 15. 3.  Why do ye transgress, saith he, the commandment of God by your traditions? for God hath commanded; saying, Honour thy Father, and thy Mother; and he that curseth Father or Mother, let him die the death: but ye say, Whosoever shall say to Father or Mother, By the gift that is offered by me thou mayst have profit, though he honour not his Father or Mother, shall be free: Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect, by your own tradition. Again, they taught that it is 
z Math. 23. 18.  nothing if a man swear by the Altar, but that he that sweareth by the gift or offering that is on the Altar is a Debtor, that is, bound to do that he sweareth. Many other like fond & wicked glosses of the Pharisees we read of, whereby they made the commandments of God of none effect, whereupon our Saviour saith: 
a Math. 5. 20.  Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Thus than I hope it appeareth to all that are not wilfully blinded, that Christ meant not, when he said, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses chair, therefore whatsoever they bid you, that observe and do, that they could speak nothing but truth, and that whatsoever they said was to be received without any examination; but that whatsoever things they spoke pertinentia ad Cathedram (as the author of the 
* In illum locum.  interlineall Gloss interpreteth the words) and whatsoever things they delivered as sitting in Moses chair, that is, doing the duty of Teachers, they should be listened unto, howsoever otherwise they were wicked, and godless men.  
They that teach, judge, and rule the people of God, are described to perform those things sitting, to put them in mind that they must do all things with settled, composed, and well advised resolution, and not rashly, hastily, and inconsiderately: whereupon Princes have their thrones, judges their Tribunals and judgement seats, and Teachers their chairs. Hence Moses office of teaching the people the laws of God and the performance of the same, is metaphorically named Moses chair; and the succeeding of Moses in this office and duty of delivering the laws of God to the people, & the performance of the same, is rightly expressed by the sitting on the chair of Moses: & in this sense the Scribes & Pharisees are rightly said to have sit on Moses chair, because they succeeded him in the office and duty of teaching the people the laws of God, and in the performance of the same duty in some part, though not wholly. And therefore our Saviour Christ requireth all men, notwithstanding their wicked conversation and manifold errors in matters of doctrine, to do whatsoever they commanded while they sat on Moses chair, that is, performed the duty belonging to Moses office and place.  
It is strange that any man should seek to extend the words of Christ any farther, as if they meant to clear the Scribes & Pharisees from all possibility and danger of erring, in that they possessed the room of Moses, and had the places of Teachers in the Church; when it is 
b Bell. de auth. Concil. l. 2. c. 8.  confessed by the best learned of all sides, that the Priests of the Law had no privilege of not erring in teaching the people of GOD after Christ appeared, and began to teach in his own person, whatsoever they had before; and 
c Idem de Eccl. milit. l. 3. c. ●…7  that this was foretell by jeremy the Prophetwhen he said, Peribit lex à Sacerdote, verbum à Propheta, consilium à Sapiente; The Law shall perish from the Priest, the word from the Prophet, and counsel from the wise. But such is the impudency of some 
d Vt refert Bell. de author. council. l. 2, c. 8.  of the friends & lovers of the Church of Rome, that they fear not to defend & clear the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees from error, wherewith Christ so often chargeth them, & to justify the proceedings of the high Priest, and the rest of the Priests and Rulers assembled in Council against Christ himself, affirming, that the sentence pronounced against him was true and just: for that he was truly guilty of death, in that he had taken upon him our sins to purge them in himself, and that it was indeed expedient that he should dye for the people, according to the 
e joh. 18. 14.  saying of Caiphas, who in so saying is said to have prophesied, as being the high Priest that year. But Bellarmine ingenuously acknowledgeth the oversight of his friends and companions, and saith, that howsoever those words of Caiphas admit a good sense (though not intended by him) for he meant it was better that Christ being but one should die, then that the whole people (whose destruction he thought unavoidable, if Christ were suffered to live) should perish & come to nothing: Yet there are other words of Caiphas, that in no sense are justifiable, as when he said, 
f Math. 26. 65  He hath blasphemed, what need we any more witnesses? Touching his former speech, it was the will of God, for the honour of the Priesthood, that he should utter that he meant ill, in such words as might have a good sense, though not meant nor intended by him, whereupon he is said to have prophesied: but the latter words are words of cursed blasphemy, & without horrible impiety cannot be excused in any sense. Therefore there are others, who confess that Caiphas and his assistants erred when they condemned Christ, but that it was but a matter of fact wherein they erred, in mistaking the quality of Christ's Person, & in being misinformed of him, in which kind of things Counsels may err. This conceit the Cardinal likewise rejecteth & explodeth as absurd: for that howsoever it was a question of fact, & concerning the Person of him that stood to be judged, yet it enwrapped in it a most important question concerning the Faith, to wit, whether JESUS the Son of Mary were the true Messias & Son of God: & therefore Caiphas with his whole Council resolving that he was not, erred damnably in a matter of Faith, & pertinaciously, in that they rejected him as a blasphemer of God, whom the Angels from Heaven testified to be the Son of God: the Star designed to be that light, that lighteneth every one that cometh into the World: the Sages from a far adored, as being that King of the jews, that is to sit upon the Throne of David for ever, whose Dominion is from Sea to sea, & from the River to the end of the Land: whom the seas & winds obeyed, & at whose rebuke the Devils went out of those they had formerly possessed. But if this defence of the hellish sentence of wicked Caiphas be too weak, as indeed it is, our adversaries last refuge is, that this Council erred, because Caiphas & his fellows proceeded in it tumultuously, & not in due sort: which is a most silly shift. For how are Counsels privileged from erring, which is the thing these men seek so carefully to defend (though it be with excusing of the Fact of those men who shallbe found unexcusable in the day of judgement) if Counsels may proceed tumultuously, & so define against the truth.  
Thus we see that the great Council of state amongst the jews, to which all matters of difficulty were brought, & from which there was no appeal, might and did err sometimes dangerously, & damnably. This Council continued in some sort as well after the captivity of Babylon, & the return from the same, as before: 
g Sigon. de rep. Hebr. l. 7. c. 4  though with this difference, that whereas before, the king had a principal interest in the same, afterwards the High Priest always was chief, there being no more Kings of judah, but the kings of Persia, Egypt, and Syria, commanding over the jews, and making them tributaries unto them. In this sort were they governed, till some differences growing amongst them for the place of the high Priest, they were by Antiochus Epiphanes king of Syria deprived both of their liberty and exercise of religion, and brought into miserable bondage; the indignity whereof the Assamonaei of the tribe of Levi could not endure, but by force and policy in a sort freed the state of the jews again, and took unto themselves first the name of Princes, and then of Kings. In the book of Maccabees we read, that Mattathias was constituted Priest, Prince, and Ruler, and that many came down to him to seek judgement and justice. judas Maccabaeus succeeded Mattathias, and joined the dignity of the high Priest to the princely power. jonathas succeeded Macchabaeus, of whom we read, 
h 1 Maccab, 9 30.  Now this day do we choose thee to be unto us a Prince instead of judas, and a captain to fight our battles. Simon succeeded jonathas, and in his time Demetrius king of Syria and Antiochus his son remitted all tributes; so that then the jews recovered their ancient liberty in as ample manner as they had formerly enjoyed it under their kings. john succeeded Simon, and Aristobulus john, who put upon himself a Diadem, and assumed the name of a King. After Aristobulus succeeded Alexander his brother, marrying Solina his wife. Alexander being dead, Alexandra obtained the kingdom, & after her Hircanus, whom Aristobulus his brother expulsed. Pompey took this Aristobulus prisoner, subdued judaea, brought it into the form of a province, and appointed Antipater Ascalonita to be Procurator of it; but not long after, Antigonus the son of Aristobulus recovered the city of Jerusalem, & invaded the kingdom; against whom the Romans set up Herod the son of Antipater and gave him the name of a King.  
Thus the direction and government of the jews rested principally in the Sanedrim, as well before as after their return from Babylon; and the Sanedrim, which was the highest Court, and swayed all, consisted for the most part of men taken out of the house of David, and therefore the Sceptre did not depart from judah so long as that Court continued, and retained the authority belonging to it; though there were no king of the posterity of David and tribe of judah, but the high Priests first, and then other of the tribe of Levi, assuming to themselves Priestly, and Princely dignity, had the chiefest place and highest room in this court of state. But when Herod swayed the Sceptre, slew all those that he found to be of the blood royal of judah, and took away all power and authority that the Sanedrim formerly had, than the Sceptre departed from judah, and the Lawgiver from between his feet; so that then was the time for the Shiloh to come.   

CHAP. 11.  
Of the manifestation of God in the flesh, the causes thereof, and the reason why the second Person in the Trinity rather took flesh, then either of the other.  
GOd therefore in that fullness of time sent his Son in our flesh to sit upon the throne of David, and to be both a King and Priest over his house for ever; concerning whom, three things are to be considered. First, his humiliation, abasing himself to take our nature, and become man. Secondly, the gifts and graces he bestowed on the nature of man, when he assumed it into the unity of his Person. Thirdly, the things he did and suffered in it for our good.  
In the Incarnation of the Son of God, we consider first, the necessity, that God should become man; secondly, the fitness and convenience, that the second Person rather than any other: Thirdly, the manner, how this strange thing was wrought & brought to pass. Touching the necessity that God should become man, there are two opinions in the Roman schools.  
For some think, that though Adam had never sinned, yet it had been necessary for the exaltation of humane nature, that God should have sent his Son to become man; but others are of opinion, that had it not been for the delivering of man out of sin and misery, the Son of God had never appeared in our flesh. 
a Bonauent. in 3 Sent. dist: 1. quaest. 2.  Both these opinions, saith Bonaventura, are Catholic, and defended by Catholics: whereof the former seemeth more consonant to reason, but the later to the piety of faith, because neither Scripture nor Fathers do ever mention the Incarnation, but when they speak of the redemption of mankind: so that seeing nothing is to be believed, but what is proved out of these, it sorteth better with the nature of right belief, to think the Son of God had never become the Son of man, if man had not sinned, then to think the contrary. 
b Aug. de verb. Apostoli. Serm. 70. tractans illud Lucae, Venit filius hominis saluum facere quod perie●…at: & illud 1. ad Timoth: 1. Venit in hunc mundum peccatores saluos facere.  Venit filius hominis, saith Augustine, saluum facere quod perierat: Si homo non perijsset, filius hominis non venisset: nulla causa fuit Christo veniendi, nisi peccatores saluos facere. Tolle morbos, tolle vuluera; & nulla est medicinae causa: that is, The Son of man came to save that which was lost; If man had not perished, the son of man had not come, there was no other cause of Christ's coming, but the salvation of sinners: Take away diseases, wounds and hurts, and what need is there of the Physician or Surgeon? Wherefore resolving with the Scriptures and Fathers, that there was no other cause of the incarnation of the Son of God, but man's redemption, let us see whether so great an abasing of the son of God, were necessary for the effecting hereof.  
Surely there is no doubt, but that Almighty God, whose wisdom is incomprehensible, and power infinite, could have effected this work by other means, but not so well beseeming his truth and justice; whereupon the Divines do show, that in many respects it was fit and necessary for this purpose, that God should become man.  

c Thomas Sum. Theol part. 3. quaest. 1. art. 2.  First, ad fidem firmandam; to settle men in a certain and undoubted persuasion of the truth of such things as are necessary to be believed: ut homo fidentiùs ambularet ad veritatem, saith 
* August. de Civit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 2.  Augustine, ipsa veritas, Dei filius homine assumpto, constituit & fundavit fidem: that is, That man might more assuredly, and without danger of erring, approach unto the presence of sacred truth itself, the son of God, assuming the nature of man, settled and founded the faith, and showed what things are to be believed.  
Secondly, ad rectam operationem, to direct men's actions; for whereas man, that might be seen, might not safely be followed, and God, that was to be imitated and followed could not be seen, it was necessary that God should become man, that he, whom man was to follow, might show himself unto man, and be seen of him.  
Thirdly, ad ostendendam dignitatem humanae Naturae, to show the dignity and excellency of humane nature, that no man should any more so much forget himself, as to defile the same with finfull impurities. 
d Aug. de ver. 〈◊〉 Religione c. 16.  Demonstravit nobis Deus, saith Augustine, quam excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura, in hoc quòd hominibus in vero homine apparuit; that is, God showed us how high a place the nature of man hath amongst his creatures, in that he appeared unto men in the nature, and true being of a man. 
e Leo Serm. 1. in na●…u. Dom.  Agnosce (saith Leo) O Christiane dignitatem tuam, & divinae consors factus naturae noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conversatione redire: that is, Take knowledge o Christian man of thine own worth and dignity: and being made partaker of the divine nature return not to thy former baseness by an unfitting kind of life & conversation. Lastly, it was necessary the Son of God should become man, ad liberandum hominem à seruitute peccati, to deliver man from the slavery and bondage of sin. For the performance whereof, two things were to be done: For first, the justice of God displeased with sin committed against him, was to be satisfied: and secondly the breach was to be made up that was made upon the whole nature of man by the same: neither of which things could possibly be perforned by man or Angel, or by any creature. For touching the first, the wrath of God displeased with sin, and the punishments which in justice he was to inflict upon sinners for the same, were both infinite: because the offence was infinite, and therefore none but a person of infinite worth, value, and virtue, was able to endure the one, and satisfy the other.  
If any man shall say, it was possible for a mere man stayed by divine power and assistance, to feel smart and pain in proportion answering to the pleasure of sin, which is but finite, and to endure for a time the loss of all that infinite comfort & solace that is to be found in God, answering to that aversion from God that is in sin, which is infinite, and so to satisfy his justice; he considereth not, that though such a man might satisfy for his own sin, yet not for the sins of all other, who are in number infinite, unless his own person were eminently as good as all theirs, and virtually infinite. Secondly, that though he might satisfy for his own actual sin, yet he could not for his original sin, which being the sin of nature, cannot be satisfied for but by him, in whom the whole nature of man in some principal sort is found. Thirdly, he considereth not, that it is impossible that any sinner should of himself ever cease from sinning; and that therefore, seeing so long as sin remaineth, the guilt of punishment remaineth, he must be everlastingly punished, if he suffer the punishment due to his everlasting sin: and consequently, that he cannot so suffer the punishments due to his actual sins, as having satisfied the wrath and justice of God to free himself from the same If it be said, that by grace he may cease from sinning, and so suffer the punishment due to sin so ceasing, and not eternal; it will be replied, that God giveth not his grace to any till his justice be first satisfied, and a reconciliation procured: for he giveth it to his friends, not to his enemies.  
Touching the second thing that was to be done for man's deliverance, which was the making up of the breach made upon the nature of man, & the freeing him from the impurity of inherent sin, that so the punishment due to sin past being felt and suffered, he might be reconciled to God; it could not be performed by any mere creature whatsoever. For as all fell in Adam, the root and beginning of natural being, who received the treasures of righteousness and holiness for himself, and those that by propagation were to come of him: so their restauration could not be wrought, but by him that should be the root, fountain, and beginning of supernatural and spiritual being, in whom the whole nature of mankind should be found in a more eminent sort than it was in Adam: as indeed it was in the second Adam, 
f joh 1. 16.  of whose fullness we all receive, grace for grace. And this surely was the reason, why it was no injustice in God to lay upon him the punishments due to our sins, and why his sufferings do free us from the same. It is no way just, that one man having no special communion with another, should suffer punishment for another man's fault; but the whole nature of man being found in him in a more eminent sort, then either in Adam, or any one of them that came of him, & he having undertaken to free & deliver it, it was just & right he should feel the miseries it was subject unto: & that being felt, and sustained by him in such sort as was sufficient to satisfy divine justice, they should not be imposed or laid on us.  
Hereupon some have said, that Christ was made sin, not by acting or contracting sin (for so to say were horrible blasphemy) but by taking on him the guilt of all men's sins: which yet is wisely to be understood, lest we run into error. For whereas the guilt of sin implieth two things; a worthiness to be punished, & a destination unto punishment; the former implieth demerit natural or personal in him that is so worthy to be punished, & this could not be in Christ: the other, which is obligatio ad poenam, a being subject unto punishment, may grow from some communion with him or them that are worthy to be punished. And in this sense some say, Christ took the guilt of our sins, not by acting or contracting sin, but by communion with sinners, though not in sin, yet in that nature, which in them is sinful & guilty, as those good men that are parts of a sinful City, are justly subject to the punishments due to that City, not in that they have fellowship with it in evil, but in that they are parts of it being evil: as the son of a traitor is justly subject, to the grievous punishment of forfeiting the inheritance, that should have descended upon him from his father, though he no way concurred with him in his treason, in respect of his nearness & communion with him, of whom he is as it were a part. Whereupon all Divines resolve, that men altogether innocent, yet living as parts of the societies of wicked men, are justly subject to those temporal punishments those societies are worthy of: & that the reason why one man cannot be subject to those spiritual punishments which others deserve, is, for that in respect of the spirit & inward man, they have no such derivation from, dependence on, or communion with others, as in respect of the outward man they have.  
Wherefore to conclude this point, we may safely resolve, that no other could satisfy divine justice, and suffer the punishments due to sin in such sort as to free us from the same, but Christ the Son of God, in whom our nature by personal union was found in an excellent sort; and that it was right and just, that having taken our nature upon him, & undertaken to free and deliver the same, he should suffer & endure whatsoever punishments it was subject unto. For the illustration of this point the learned observe, that 
g Cameracensis in principio in 3. lib. sent.  when God created Adam, he gave him all excellent & precious virtues, as Truth to instruct him, justice to direct him, Mercy to preserve him, and Peace to delight him with all pleasing correspondence; but that when he fell away, & forgot all the good which God had done for him, these virtues left their lower dwellings, and speedily returned back to him that gave them, making report what was fallen out on earth, and earnestly moving the Almighty concerning this his wretched and forlorn creature; yet in very different sort and manner. For justice pleaded for the condemnation of sinful man, and called for the punishment he had worthily deserved; and Truth required the performance of that which God had threatened; but Mercy entreated for miserable man made out of the dust of the earth, seduced by Satan, and beguiled with the shows of seeming good; & Peace no less carefully sought to pacify the wrath of the displeased God, and to reconcile the Creature to the Creator. When God had heard the contrary pleas and desires of these most excellent Orators, and there was no other means to give them all satisfaction, it was resolved on in the high Council of the blessed Trinity, that one of those sacred Persons should become man, that by taking to him the nature of man he might partake in his miseries, and be subject to his punishments, and by conjoining his divine nature and perfection with the same, might fill it with all grace and heavenly excellency. Thus were the desires of these so contrary Petitioners satisfied: for man was punished as God's justice urged; that was performed which God had threatened, as Truth required: the offender was pitied, as Mercy entreated; and God & man reconciled, as Peace desired; and so was fulfilled that of the Psalmist: 
h Psal. 85. 10.  Mercy and Truth are met together, Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other.  
Wherefore now let us proceed, to see which of the Persons of the blessed Trinity was thought fittest to be sent into the world to perform this work. Not the Father; for being of none, he could not be sent: Not the holy Ghost; for though he proceed, yet he is not the first proceeding Person; and therefore, whereas a double mission was necessary, the one to reconcile, the other to give gifts to reconciled friends; the first proceeding Person was fittest for the first mission, and the second for the second. Secondly, who was fitter to be cast out into the Sea, to stay the tempest, then that jonas for whose sake it arose? Almighty God was displeased for the wrong offered to his Son, in desiring to be like unto God, and to know all things in such sort as is proper to the only begotten Son of the Father, therefore was he the fittest to pacify all again. Thirdly, who was fitter to become the Son of man, than he that was by nature the Son of God? 
i Bernard de advent. Domini, Serm. 1.  Patrem habuit in coelis, Matrem quaesivit in terris: He had a Father in heaven, he sought only a mother on earth. Who could be fitter to make us the Sons of God by adoption & grace, than he that was the Son of God by nature? who fitter to repair the Image of God decayed in us, than he that was the brightness of glory, and the engrauen form of his Father's Person? Lastly, who was fitter to be a Mediator, than the middle Person, who was in a sort a Mediator in the state of creation, and before the fall?  
Whereupon Hugo de Sancto victore bringeth in Almighty God speaking to the Sons of men concerning Christ his Son in this sort: 
k Hugo. erudit. Theol. de Trinit, sum. per visib. agnition. lib. 7. c, 24.  Nolite putare, quòd ipse tantùm sit Mediator in reconciliatione hominum, quia per ipsum etiam commendabilis & placita fit aspectui meo conditio omnium creaturarum: that is, think not that he is a Mediator only in the reconciliation of men, for by him the condition of all creatures is grateful unto me, and pleasing in my sight. Magni consilii Angelus, saith Hugo, nobis mittitur, ut, qui conditis datus fuit ad gloriam, idem perditis veniat ad medelam: that is, the Angel of the great Counsel is sent unto us, that he who was given unto us, when we were made, to be the crown of our glory, and Prince of our excellency, might relieve, help, and restore us when we were lost.  
Yet our adversaries take I know not what exceptions against Calvin for saying, that Christ was a Mediator in the state of creation; but they should know, that there is a Mediator of reconciliation of parties at variance, and a Mediator of conjunction of them that are far asunder, and remote one from another: and that in this later sort, between the Father, that no way receiveth any thing from another, and the creatures, that so receive their being from another, that they are made out of nothing, he may rightly be said to mediate, that receiveth being from another, but the same that is in him from whom he receiveth it. If any man shall say, that the holy Ghost also in this sort cometh between him, in whom the fullness of being is originally found, and the creatures that are made of nothing, as well as the Son, and that therefore in this sense, he also may be said to be a Mediator, it is easily answered, that the Son only cometh between the Father, in whom the fullness of being is originally found, & the creatures made of nothing, as he by whom all things were made; the holy Ghost, as he in whom all things do consist and stand; and that therefore he hath not the condition of a Mediator being not considered as he by whom all things are bestowed upon us, but as that gift in which all other things are given unto us: so that the Son only is the Mediator, because by him, from the Father, in the holy Ghost, we receive all that which we have and enjoy.  
Neither needeth there any Mediator to conjoin him to us, and us to him: for the medium conjoineth both the extremes, first with itself, and then within themselves, in that it hath something of one of them, and something of another, in something agreeing with, and in something differing from either of the extremes: So the Son of God agreeth with us, in that he receiveth the being and Essence he hath from another, in which respect he is distinguished, though not divided from the Father, but in that the nature he receiveth from the Father is not another, but the same which the Father hath, he is unlike unto us, but agreeth with the Father. And here we may see the malice and ignorance of 
l Genebrard. l, 1 de Trinitate Lindanus in 2. Dialogo qui inscribitur Dubitantius Petrus Canisius praefat. lib. de Sancto johanne Baptista. citat. à Bellar.  them that charge Caluine with heresy, for affirming that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of himself, as if he denied the eternal generation of the Son of God, and were contrary to the decree of the sacred Nicene Council, which defineth that he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine: for these men should know, that Christ may be said to be from another in two sorts; either by production of Essence, or by communication of Essence: the Nicene Council defined that Christ the Son of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, consubstantial with the Father, is notwithstanding God of God, that is, hath his Essence & Deity communicated unto him by eternal generation from the Father, even the same the Father had originally in himself. All which Caluine most willingly acknowledgeth to be true, and therefore denyeth not, but that it may be truly said according to the sacred decree and definition of that worthy Council, that Christ the Son of God is God of God, and light of light: but to imagine, as Valentinus Gentilis, and other damnable heretics did, that he is from the Father by production of Essence, whence it will follow, that he hath not the same essence with the Father, but another different from it, inferior to it, and dependant on it, is impious and heretical: and in opposition to this impious conceit of these Heretics, and in the sense intended by them, Caluine rightly denied Christ to be God of God. For this their conceit was ever detested by all Catholics, as wicked & blasphemous, yea so far are they from approving any such impiety, that no axiom is more common in all their Schools, then that Essentia nec generat, nec generatur, that is, the divine Essence neither generateth, nor is generated: and surely, howsoever 
m Book 3, Chap. 1.  Kellison in his Survey saith the contrary, and opposeth his affirmative against the negative of all the most famous and renowned Schoolmen, yet I am persuaded he did so rather out of ignorance, than any reason leading him so to do, & do think it more than improper and hard to say, that the divine Essence doth either generate or is generated.  
Thus than Christ is truly said by Caluine to be God of himself, by way of opposition to that kind of being from another, which is by production of Essence, and yet is rightly acknowledged by him with the Nicene Fathers to be from another, to wit, the Father, and to be God of God, in that he receiveth the eternal Essence by communication from him.  
This 
n Bellarm. de Christo lib. 2. c. 19  Bellarmine saw, and acknowledged to be true, pronouncing that touching this point Calvin erred not in judgement, & that his opinion is rather an error in form of words, & expressing ill that he meant well, then in the thing itself. That Calvin erred not in the thing itself he delivered, he proveth at large, specially out of the doctrine of Calvin's followers: for Beza in axiom. de trin. & in the 14 axiom, affirmeth, that the Son is from the Father by ineffable communication of the whole divine Essence: & josias Simlerus in his epistle to the Polonians, defendeth the opinion of Calvine, and expresseth his own opinion & Calvins' in this sort: Non negamus filium habere essentiam à patre, sed essentiam genitam negamus: that is, we do not deny the Son to have received his Essence from the Father, but that his Essence is generated. This doctrine of Simlerus, why it should not be Catholic, Bellarmine professeth, he cannot see: yet his fellows in all their Pamphlets traduce Calvins' Autotheisme as an execrable heresy: and muster the Autotheani, as they call them, amongst the damned Heretics of this time: which is not to be marvailed at; for the manner of these men is, odiously to object things again and again, that have been often cleared both by themselves and us, little regarding whether it be true or false they say, so they may fasten some note of disgrace upon them whose persons and professions they hate.  
One memorable example of hellish impudency in this kind, worthy never to be forgotten, but to be remembered and recorded to the shame and reproof of the slandering Sect of Papists, we have in Matthew 
o Book 1. ch. 4 p. 47.  Kellison his late Survey of the new Religion: who, to prove that the Protestants contemn the Fathers, affirmeth that Beza called Athanasius (that worthy Champion of the Catholic faith) Sathanasius, and judged the Fathers of the Nicene Council to have been blind Sophisters, ministers of the Beast, and slaves of Antichrist: whereas Beza esteemeth of Athanasius as one of the worthiest Divines that the World for many ages had, in whose lap and bosom our wearied Mother the Church, in her greatest distresses, forsaken of her own children, was forced to repose and lay her head in those restless and confused turmoils during the time of the Arrian heresy: 
p For proof hereof see Stapleton in his triplication against Whith●…ker. pag. 210. and 211. And the Author the treatise of of the grounds of the old religion. part. 1. c. 〈◊〉. 9 pag. 102.  and professeth, that he thinketh the Sun in Heaven never beheld a more sacred and divine assembly or meeting than that of the Nicene Fathers, since the Apostles times: yea he pronounceth, that there was never any found to resist against the proceedings and decrees of that Council, but their woeful and unhappy ends made it appear to all the World, they were fighters against God: and condemneth the Arrians as execrable miscreants, to the pit of hell, for using those words wherewith this Surveyour chargeth him. Wherefore let the Reader beware, how without due examination he give credit to the sinister reports of these lewd companions, who have sold themselves not only to speak lies, but to write them, and leave them upon record to all posterity.  
But let us see whether Calvin have not erred at least in the form of words, and ill expressed that he meant well, as Bellarmine chargeth him. Surely we shall find, if we take a view of that which Calvin hath written, that the Cardinal's reprehension of him in this behalf is most unjust: for Epiphanius a worthy Bishop, and great Divine, writing against heresies, and therefore endeavouring to be most exact in his forms of speech, calleth the Son of God 
q Epiphanius contr●… Haeres. haeres. 69.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as Caluine doth. It is true, saith Bellarmine, he doth so: but when he saith, Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he meaneth only, that he is truly God: whereas Calvin affirmeth, that he is so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he is God of himself, which is false: for neither the Father, nor the Son is God of himself, the Son being of the Father, and the Father of none, because he receiveth being from none: as if it were so strange a thing to say, God is of himself, or as if it were all one for a thing to be of itself, and to be produced, or to receive being of, or from itself, 
r Scalig. exerc. 6 sect. 3.  Omne ens (saith Scaliger) aut est à se, aut ab alio; that is, every thing that hath being, either is of itself, or of another. 
s Scotus 1. sent. dist. 2. quaest. 2.  Cuius rationi (saith Scotus) simpliciter repugnat esse ab alio, illud si potest esse, potest esse â se; sed rationi primi effectivi repugnat esse ab alio: ergo potest esse à se, ergo est à se, quia quod non est à se, non potest esse à se: quia tunc non ens produceret aliquid ad esse, & idem causaret se, & ita non erit incausabile omnino. That thing, with the nature and condition whereof it cannot stand, to be of, or from another, if it may be at all, it may be of itself: but it standeth not with the nature and condition of the first efficient cause, to be of or from another; therefore it may be, nay therefore it is of itself; because that which is not of itself, cannot afterwards be of itself: For then a thing not being might cause a thing to be, yea the same might be the cause of itself, and so the highest and first cause of all things might have a cause giving being unto it, which is impossible. These men feared not to speak, as Caluine speaketh, and yet I think Bellarmine dareth not reprehend them also as he doth Caluine; but if he do, I suppose the world will think they knew how to speak as properly as he.  
Thus than we see the Son of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, God of himself, & that yet he received his essence from the Father but the same that was in the Father, not another caused, made, or produced by him: and that so he was a Mediator in the state of creation between God and his Creatures, in that he was of a middle condition between him that no way was of any other, and those things that by another were made and produced out of nothing, knitting and joining them together in an indissoluble band: and that in this respect he was fittest to become Man, and to be a Mediator of reconciliation, when between God and his creatures there was not only a great distance as before, but a great division, difference, and breach also.   

CHAP. 12.  
Of the manner of the union that is between the Person of the Son of God, and our nature in Christ, and the similitudes brought to express the same.  
WHerefore let us proceed to see how the natures of God and Man were united in Christ, and what kind of union it was, that made God to become Man, & Man God. For the clearing hereofthe 
a Alex: de Alice Sum Theolog. part. 3, quaest. 7. memb. 1. art. 1.  Divines do note, that there is Vnum per unitatem, & Vnun per vnionem, that is, that sometimes a thing is said to be one by unity or oneness, & sometimes by union. Vnum per unitatem est illud in quo non est multitudo, quod scilicet non est in multis, nec ex multis; that is, That thing is one by unity, wherein there are not many things found, which neither consists in many things, nor of many things: in which sort God only is most properly said to be One, in whom there is neither diversity of natures, nor multiplicity of parts, nor composition of perfection and imperfection, being and not being, as in all creatures. One by union, is that, which either consisteth in many things, or of many things: and is either in a sort only, or simply One. In a sort only a thing consisting in or of many things, is said to be one three ways. First, when neither the one of the things whereof it consisteth hath denomination from the other, nor the property of it, as when stones are laid together to make one heap. 2ly When the one hath the property of the other, but no denomination from it, as is the union between the hand and those sweet spices it holdeth in it. Thirdly, when the one hath denomination from the other, but no property of the other, as a man is said to be apparelled from his apparel, but no property thereof passeth from it unto him, as the savour of the sweet spices doth into the hand. Union simply is of divers sorts. First when one of the things united is turned into the other: this falleth out so often as there is a repugnance between the things united, and one is predominant, and prevailing, as when a drop of water is poured into a whole vessel of wine. Secondly, when both the things united are changed in nature and essence; and that cometh to pass so often as the the things united have a repugnance between themselves, and yet no prevailing of one over the other: In this sort the elements are united to make mixed or compound bodies. Thirdly, when there is no transmutation of the things united, but the constitution of a third nature out of them, because they have no repugnance, but mutual dependence. Of this sort is the union of the soul and body. Fourthly when there is neither transmutation of the natures united, nor constitution of a third out of them, but only the founding, settling, and staying of the one of the things united in the other, and the drawing of it into the unity of the personal being or subsistence of the other: this cometh to pass, when there is neither repugnance nor mutual dependence of one of the things united upon the other, but a dependence of another kind; so the branch of a tree being put upon the stock of another tree, is drawn into the unity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is put; and whereas if it had been set in the ground, it would have grown as a separate tree in itself, now it groweth ●…n the tree into which it is grafted, and pertaineth to the unity of it. Here is neither mixture of the natures of these trees, nor constitution of a third out of them, but only the drawing of one of them into the unity of the subsistence of the other: so that here is not Compositio huius ex his, but Huius ad hoc, that is, not a composition 
Dutand. in 3. Sentent. dist. 6. quaest. 3.  of a third thing out of the things united, but an adjoining of one of the things united to the other. And this kind of union doth of all other most perfectly resemble the personal union of the natures of God and man in Christ; wherein the nature of man, that would have been a person in itself, if it had been left to itself, is drawn into the unity of the divine person, and subsisteth in it, being prevented from subsisting in itself by this personal union and assumption.  
This that we may the better conceive, we must consider what the difference is between nature and person, and what maketh an individual nature to be a person. Some think that nature and person differ, as that Quod est, and Quo est, that is, as the thing that is, and that whereby it is. Other, that the condition of personal being, addeth to an individual nature a negation of dependence or being sustained by another: but to leave all uncertainty of opinions, to be this or that, is individual; to be this or that in and for itself, is personal being; to be this or that in and for another, is to pertain to the person or subsistence of another: so that every thing that is in or for itself, is a subsistence or thing subsisting, and every such rational individual nature is a person. Amongst those created things which naturally are apt to make a subsistence, or to subsist in and for themselves, there is very great difference: for some naturally may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kind, as we see in all those things wherein every part hath the same nature and name that the whole hath, as every drop of water is water, and, being left to itself, is a subsistence in itself, and hath that being, quality, and nature that is in it, in and for itself; but being joined to a greater quantity of water, it hath now no being, quality or operation, but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is poured. Other things there be, that cannot naturally or by the working of natural causes, put themselves into the unity of any other thing, but by the help of some foreign cause, they may be made to pertain to the unity of another thing different in nature & kind: So the branch of a tree of one kind, which put into the ground would be an entire distinct tree in itself, growing, moving, and bearing fruit in and for itself, may by the hand of man be put into the unity of the subsistence of a tree of another kind and sort, and so grow, move, and bear fruit, not distinctly in and for itself, but jointly in and for that tree into which it is implanted. A third sort of things there are, which being left to themselves become subsistences; and cannot by force of natural causes, nor the help of any foreign thing, ever become parts of any other created thing, or pertain to the unity of the subsistence of any such thing: such is the nature of all living things; and such is the nature of man, which cannot be brought by force of any cause to pertain to the unity of any created subsistence; because it cannot have such dependence on any created thing as is required to make it pertain to the subsistence thereof; yet by divine and supernatural working, it may be drawn into the unity of the subsistence of any of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, wherein the fullness of all being, and the perfection of all created things is in a more eminent sort then in themselves. For though all created things have their own being, yet seeing God is nearer to them then they are to themselves, and they are in a better sort in him then in themselves, there is no question, but that they may be prevented, and stayed, from being in & for themselves, & caused to be in & for one of the divine Persons of the blessed Trinity. So that as one drop of water, that formerly subsisted in itself, poured into a vessel containing a greater quantity of water, by continuity becometh one in subsistence with that greater quantity of water: & as a branch of a tree, which being set in the ground, & left to itself, would be an entire & independent tree, becometh one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graffed; they both lose their own bounds, within which contained, they were distinctly severed from other things, & the relation of being total things; so the individual nature of man assumed into the unity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, loseth that kind of being, that naturally left to itself, it would have had, which is, to be in & for itself, & not to depend of any other, & getteth a new relation of dependence & being in another. And as it is continuity that maketh the former things one with them to which they are joined: so here a kind of spiritual contact between the Divine Person, & the nature of man, maketh GOD to be Man. For as situation and position is in things corporal, so is order and dependence in things spiritual.  
There are many similitudes brought by Divines, to express this union of the Natures of God, & Man, in the same Christ, as of the soul & body; of a flaming & fiery sword; of one man having two accidental forms: & lastly, of a tree, & a branch or bough that is graffed into it. The similitude of the soul & body making but one man, is very apt, & used by the 
b Athanasius in Symbolo.  Ancient, yet is it defective & imperfect: first, for that the soul & body being imperfect natures, concur to make one full & perfect nature of a man: secondly, for that the one of them is not drawn into the unity of the subsistence of the other: but both depend of a third subsistence: which is, that of the whole: whereas in Christ, both natures are perfect, so that they cannot concur to make a third nature or subsistence; but the Eternal Word subsisting perfectly in itself, draweth unto it, & personally sustaineth in it, the nature of man, which hath no subsistence of it own, but that of the Son of God communicated unto it. Touching the similitude 
c Basil. in orat. Sanct. nativit. & Damas. l. 3 de orthod. fid. c. 11.  of a fiery & flaming sword, it most lively expresseth the union of the two Natures in Christ, in that the substances of fire, & of the sword, are so nearly conjoyned, that the operations of them for the most part concur, & there is in a sort, a communication of properties from the one of them to the other. For a fiery sword in cutting & dividing, wasteth & burneth; & in wasting and burning, cutteth and divideth; and we may rightly say of this whole thing wherein the nature of the fire, and the nature of the Steel, or Iron (whereof the sword is made) do concur & meet, that it is fire, & that it is steel, or Iron: that this fiery thing is a sharp piercing sword, and that this sharp piercing sword is a fiery & devouring thing. But this similitude is defective, because the nature of Iron is not drawn into the unity of the subsistence of fire, nor the fire of Iron, so that we cannot say, this fire is steel or Iron, or this steel or Iron is fire. The third similitude of one man having two qualities, or accidental forms, (as the skill of Physic and Law) hath many things in it most aptly expressing the personal union of the two Natures of God & Man in Christ. For first, in such a man there is but one person: and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in the same: the qualities are different, and the things had, not the same: But he that hath and possesseth them, is the same. Secondly, the person being but one, is denominated from either, or both of these different forms, qualities, or accidental natures, and doth the works of them both: and there is a communication of properties consequent upon the concurring of two such forms in one man. For we may rightly say of such a one: This Physician is a Lawyer; and, this Lawyer is a Physician. This Lawyer is happy in curing diseases: and, this Physician is careful in following his Clients causes. 
d Scotus in 3. sent. d. 1. q. 1.  Scotus especially approveth the similitude of the subject, and accident; first taking away that which is of imperfection in the subject, as that it is potential in respect of the accident to be informed of it, and in a sort perfected by it: Secondly, that which is of imperfection in the accident, as that it must be inherent: for otherwise the 
Durand. in 3. sent. d. 6. q. 4.  nature of man is joined to the Person of the Son of God per modum accidentis, for that advenit enti in actu completo, that is, it cometh to a thing already complete and perfect in itself. In which sort, one thing may be added and come to another, either so, as not to pertain to the same subsistence, as the garments that one putteth on; or so, as to pertain to the same subsistence, but by inherence; or thirdly, so, as to pertain to the same subsistence, without the inherence of the one in the other, by a kind of inexistence, as the branch is in the tree into which it is graffed: which is the 
e Alex. de Ales. Sum. Theolog. part 3. quaest. 7. Memb. 1. art. 1.  fourth similitude, and of all other most perfect. For there are but two things wherein it faileth and cometh too short: whereof the first is, for that the branch hath first a separate subsistence in itself, and after looseth it, and then is drawn into the unity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted: the second, for that it hath no root of it own, and so wanteth one part pertaining to the integrity of the nature of each tree. But if a branch of one tree should by divine power be created and made in the stock of another, this comparison would fail but only in one circumstance, and that not very important; seeing, though the humane nature want no part pertaining to the integrity and perfection of it, (as the implanted branch doth of that pertaineth to the integrity of the nature of a tree, in that it hath no root of it own) yet the humane nature in Christ, hath no subsistence of it own, but that of the Son of God communicated unto it; and therefore in that respect it is, in some sort, like to the branch that hath no root of it own, but that of the tree, into which it is implanted, communicated unto it. This comparison is used by Alexander of Hales, and diverse other of the Schoolmen, and, in my opinion, is the aptest and fullest of all other. For as between the tree and the branch there is a composition, not Huius ex his, but huius ad hoc, that is, not making a tree of a compound or middle nature, and quality, but causing the branch, though retaining it own nature, and bearing it own fruit, to pertain to the unity of the tree into which it is implanted, and to bear fruit in and for it, and not for itself: so the Person of Christ is said to be compounded of the nature of God and Man, not as if there were in him a mixed nature arising out of these, but as having the one of these added unto the other in the unity of the same person. And as this tree is one, and yet hath two different natures in it, and beareth two kinds of fruit: so Christ is one, and yet hath two different natures, and in them performeth the distinct actions pertaining to either of them. Lastly as a man may truly say, after such implanting, this Vine is an Olive tree, and this Olive tree is a Vine; and consequently, this Vine beareth Olives, and this Olive tree beareth Grapes: so a man may say, this Son of Mary is the Son of God: and on the other side, this Son of God, and first borne of every creature, is the Son of Mary, borne in time: the Son of God, and Lord of life was crucified, and the Son of Mary laid the foundations of the earth, & stretched out the Heavens like a curtain.   

CHAP. 13.  
Of the Communication of the properties of either nature in Christ, consequent upon the union of them in his Person, and the two first kinds thereof.  
Having spoken of the assuming of our nature by the Son of God into the unity of his divine Person, it remaineth, that we speak of the consequents of this union, and the gifts and graces bestowed upon the nature of Man when it was assumed. The first and principal consequent of the personal union of the natures of God and Man in Christ, is, the Communication of their properties: of which there are three kinds or degrees. The first is, when the properties of either nature considered singly and apart, as the properties of this or that nature, are attributed to the person from whichsoever of the natures it be denominated. The second is, when the different actions of two natures in Christ concur in the same works and things done. The third, when the divine attributes are communicated unto the humane nature, and bestowed upon it. Usually in the Schools, only the first degree or kind of communication, is named the communication of properties. Which that we may the better understand, we must observe, that there are abstractive & concretive words: the former whereof do precisely note the form or nature of each thing, the latter imply also the person that hath the same nature or form; as, Humanitas and Homo, Sanctitas, and Sanctus. Manhood and Man: Holiness & Holy. 2ly We must observe that abstractive words, noting precisely the distinct natures, cannot be affirmed one of the other, nor the properties of one nature attributed to the other abstractively expressed. For neither can we truly say, that Deity is Humanity, or Humanity, Deity; nor that the Deity suffered, or the Humanity created the world; but we may truly say God is Man, and Man is God: God died upon the Cross, and Mary's babe made the world; Because the person which these concretive words imply, is one: & all actions, passions, and qualities, agree really to the Person, though in, and in respect sometimes of one nature, and sometimes of another. When we say, God is Man, and Man is God, we note the conjunction that is between the nature's meeting in one person: and therefore this mutual & conversive predication cannot properly be named communication of properties; but the communication of properties is, when the properties of one nature are attributed to the Person, whether denominated from the other, as some restrain it, or from the same also, as others enlarge it. This communication of properties is of diverse sorts: first when the properties of the divine nature are attributed to the whole Person of Christ subsisting in two natures, but denominated from the divine nature, as when it is said: 
a john 5. 19  Those things which the Father doth, the Son doth also. Secondly, when the properties of the humane nature are attributed to the person denominated from the divine nature, as when it is said, 
b 1 Cor: 2. 8.  They crucified the Lord of glory. 
c Acts. 3. 15.  They killed the Lord of life. Thirdly, when the properties of the divine nature are attributed to the person denominated from the nature of man, as when it is said: 
d john 3. 13.  No man ascendeth into Heaven, but the Son of man that came down from Heaven, even that Son of man that is in Heaven. 4ly, When those things that agree to both natures are attributed to the person denominated from one of them, as when the Apostle saith: 
e 1 Tim: 2. 5.  There is one God, & one Mediator between God & man, which is the man Christ jesus. Fiftly, when the properties of one nature are attributed to the person, neither denominated precisely from the one nature, nor from the other, but noted by a word indifferently expressing both; as when we say, Christ was borne of Mary. If any man list to strive about words not admitting any communication of properties, but when the properties of one nature, are attributed to the person denominated from the other, as when we say, the Son of God died on the Cross, the Son of Man made the world: besides that he is contrary to the ordinary opinion, he seemeth not to consider, that it is a person consisting in two natures that is noted, by what appellation soever we express the same; and that therefore the attributing of the properties of any one of the natures unto it, may rightly be named a communication of properties, as being the attributing of the properties of this or that nature to a person subsisting in both, though denominated from one. For the better understanding of that hath been said touching this first kind of communication of properties, & the diverse sorts thereof, there are certain observations necessary, which I will here add. The first is, that the communication of properties wherein the properties of the one nature, are affirmed of the person denominated of the other, is real, and not verbal only. The second, that the properties of the humane nature are not really communicated to the divine nature. The third is, that the properties of the divine nature, are in a sort really communicated to the humane nature, whereof we shall see more in the third kind of communication of properties. The fourth observation is, that in the sacred and blessed Trinity, there is Alius & Alius but not Aliud & Aliud, diversity of persons, but not of being & nature: but that in Christ there is aliud & aliud, and not alius & alius, that is, diversity of natures, but so that he that hath them is the same: whence it cometh that the properties of either nature may be affirmed of the person, from which soever of them it be denominated: yet so that more fully to express our meaning, it is necessary sometimes to add for distinction sake that they are verified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum aliud; that is, according unto the other nature, and not according unto that whence the person is denominated. This explication, or limitation is then specially to be added, when such properties of one nature, are attributed to the person denominated from the other, as seem to exclude the properties of the other: so when we say, Christ the Son of God, is a creature, we must add, that we neither scandalise them that hear us, nor give any occasion of error, that he is a creature in that he is man. Now it followeth that we speak of the second kind or degree of communication of properties, which is in that the actions of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deiviriles, Divinely-humane, & Humanely-divine, & each Nature so worketh it own work, according to the natural property thereof, that it hath a kind of communion with the other. But lest we fall into error touching this point, we must observe, that the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandricall, that is, Divinely-humane, three ways. First so, as if there were one action of both Natures, and so we must not understand the actions of Christ to be Divinely-humane, for this is to confound the Natures; whereas we must undoubtedly believe, that 
f Epist. Agathonis recitata & approbata in 6. Synodo. act. 4.  Omnia in Christo sunt duplicia, naturae, proprietates, voluntates, & operationes, solâ exceptâ subsistentiâ, quae est una: that is, that all things in Christ are twofold, or double, as his Natures, properties, wills, & actions: his subsistence only or Person excepted, which is but one. Secondly, the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandricall, that is, Divinely-humane, for that both the actions of Deity, & Humanity, though distinct, yet concur in one work: to which purpose Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his, which we read in the ●…6 t general Council, doth distinguish 
g Actione 11.  3 kinds of the works of Christ, making the first merely divine, as to create all things: the second merely humane, as to eat, drink, & sleep: the third, partly divine, & partly humane, as to walk upon the waters: in which work, walking was so humane, that the giving of firmness & solidity to the waters to bear the weight of his Body, was an action of Deity. Thirdly, the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandrical, that is, Divinely-humane, in respect of the Person that produceth & bringeth them forth, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God-man. In either of these two latter senses, the actions of Christ may rightly be understood to be Theandricall: & that of Leo is most true concerning Christ. 
h Leo ep. 10. c. 4.  In Christo utraque forma operatur cum alterius communione quod proprium est: that is, in Christ both natures do work that which is proper unto them, with a kind of communion the one hath with the other: for this saying is true, first in respect of the Person, & the communion which either nature hath with other therein. Secondly, in respect of the work & effect, whereunto by their several proper actions they concur, though in different sort, as in healing of the sick, not only the force of Deity appeared, & showed itself, but the humane nature also did concur, in respect of the body, in that he touched those that were to be healed, laid his hands upon them, & spoke unto them: in respect of the soul, in that he desired, applauded, & rejoiced in that, which by divine power he brought to pass: thirdly, in that the actions of humane nature in Christ have in them a greater perfection than can be found in the actions of any mere man, from the assistance of the Deity, that dwelleth bodily in him.   

CHAP. 14.  
Of the third kind of communication of properties, and the first degree thereof.  
NOw let us come to the third kind of communication of properties, which is that whereby divine & precious things are really bestowed on the nature of man. The things which are thus communicated & bestowed, are of 2 sorts. The first finite, & created: as qualities or habits, formally, habitually, & subjectively inherent in the humane nature: the 2●, the essential attributes of the divinity itself, communicated to the humane nature, not formally by physical effusion, or essential confusion, but by dispensation of personal union. Touching the things of the first sort, there is no question but that they were bestowed upon the nature of man, in all perfection, when it was united to the Person of the Son of God: so that in it was found the fullness both of grace & virtue, according to that of S. john, 
a joh. 1. 14.  The word was made flesh, & dwelled amongst us. & we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace & truth. 
b Thom. Sum. Thcol. part. 3. q. 7. art. 9  The fullness of grace (as the Schoolmen excellently note) is of two sorts; first in respect of grace itself: and secondly, in respect of him that hath it: The fullness of grace in respect of grace itself, is then, when one attaineth to the highest and uttermost of grace, both quoad essentiam, & virtutem, intensiuè, & extensiuè: in the Essence and virtue of it, intensively, and extensively, that is, when he hath it as far forth as it may be had, and unto all effects and purposes whereunto grace doth or can extend itself; as he is said, to have life perfectly, or the fullness of life, that hath it not only in the essence, but according to all the operations and acts of life, sensible, rational, intellectual, spiritual, and natural; in which sort, man only hath the perfection and fullness of life in him, and no other thing of inferior condition. This kind of fullness of grace is proper to Christ only, 
c joh. 1. 16.  Of whose fullness we all receive. The fullness of grace in respect of the subject or him that hath it, is then when one hath grace fully and perfectly, according to his estate and condition, both intensively to the uttermost bound that God hath prefixed to them of such a condition; and extensively in the virtue of it, in that it extendeth to the doing and performing of all those things that may any way pertain to the condition, office, or estate of such as are of his place and Rank. In this sort Stephen is said to 
d Acts. 7. 55.  have been full of the holy Ghost, who is the fountain of grace; and Marry the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord, is by the Angel, pronounced: 
e Luke, 1. 28.  Blessed amongst women, and full of grace: for that she had grace in respect of the Essence of it, intensively, in as perfect sort as any mortal creature might have it, and in respect of the virtue of it, extending to all things that might any way pertain to her that was chosen to be the sacred vessel of the incarnation of the Son of God: So that there was never any but Christ, whose graces were no way stinted, and to whom the spirit was not given in measure, that was absolutely full of grace; which fullness of grace in Christ, the Divines do declare and clear unto us, wherein it consisted, by distinguishing a double grace in Christ, the one of union, the other of unction, or habitual; and do teach, that the grace of union, in respect of the thing given, which is the personal subsistence of the Son of God, bestowed on the nature of man form in Mary's womb (whence that which was borne of her, was the Son of God) is infinite, howsoever the relation of dependence found in the humane nature, whereby it is united to the person of the Son of God, is a finite, & created thing. Likewise touching the grace of unction, they teach, that it is in a sort infinite also: for that howsoever it be but a finite, and created thing, yet in the nature of grace it hath no limitation, no bounds, no stint, but includeth in itself whatsoever any way pertaineth to grace, or cometh within the compass of it. The reason of this illimited donation of grace, thus without all stint bestowed on the nature of man in Christ, was, for that it was given unto it, as to the universal cause, whence it was to be derived unto others. from the fullness of grace in Christ, let us proceed to speak of the perfection of his virtues also. 
f Alex. de Ales. part. 3. qu: 61. memb. 2. art. 4.  Virtue differeth from grace, as the beam of light from light: for as light indifferently scattereth itself into the whole air, & all those things upon which it may come, but the beam is the same light as it is directed, specially to some one place or thing: so grace replenisheth, filleth, & perfecteth the whole soul, & spirit of man; but virtue more specially this or that faculty or power of the soul, to this or that purpose or effect. In respect of both these the soul of Christ was perfect, being full of virtue as well as grace; whereupon the Prophet Esay saith: 
g Esay, 15. 1.  The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon the flower of Ishai, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel & strength, the Spirit of knowledge & of the fear of the Lord. Wisdom is in respect of things divine: understanding of the first principles; science of conclusions; counsel of things to be done: fear maketh men decline from that which is ill, and strength confirmeth them to overcome the difficulties wherewith welldoing is beset. So that seeing the spirit, that is the giver of all these virtues (within the compass whereof all virtue is confined) is promised to rest on our Saviour Christ, we may undoubtedly resolve, that there is no virtue pertaining to man (
h Paludanus in 3 Sentent. dist. 14. qu. 2.  neither including in it imperfection, as Faith, & Hope, nor presupposing imperfection in him that hath it, as Repentance, which presupposeth the penitent to be a sinner) but it was found in Christ's humane nature, & reasonable soul, & that even from the very moment of his incarnation. How is it then, will some man say, that the Scripture pronounceth, that he 
i Luke 2. 25.  increased in the perfections of the mind, to wit, both in grace & wisdom, as he grew in stature of body. And here that question is usually proposed & handled, whether Christ did truly and indeed profit, and grow in knowledge, as not knowing all things at the first, as he grew in stature of body from weak beginnings; or only in the farther manifestation of that knowledge he had in like degree of perfection from the beginning. For the clearing whereof, we must note, that there were in Christ two kinds of knowledge: the one divine, and increate: the other humane and created. Touching the first, there is no doubt but that being the eternal Wisdom of the Father, by whom all things were made, he knew eternally all things that afterwards should come to pass; and therefore the Arrians impiously abused those places of Scripture which they brought to prove, that Christ grew in knowledge, and learned something in process of time, which he knew not before; in that they understood them of his divine knowledge which he had in that he was God: and thereby went about to prove, that he was not truly and properly God, nor consubstantial with the Father, but so only, and in such a sense, as that wherein the Apostle saith, 
k 1. Cor. 8. 5.  There are many Lords, and many Gods. The later kind of knowledge found in Christ, which is humane, the Schoolmen divide into two kinds; the one, in verbo, the other in genere proprio, that is, the one in the eternal Word, wherein he seeth all things; the other, that whereby he seeth things in themselves: for he hath an immediate and clear vision of the Godhead, and in it of all things, and he hath also the knowledge and sight of things in themselves. 
l Durand. in 3. Sentent. dist. 14. qu. 2.  By virtue of the first of these two kinds of humane knowledge, the soul of Christ beholding the divine Essence, in it seeth all things in respect of that they are, and taketh a perfect view of the Essence and nature of every thing that is, may be, or is possible to be, as in that sampler, according to which God worketh all things: but the actual being of things it cannot know by the vision and sight of God's Essence, but merely by his voluntary revelation, and manifestation of the same; seeing though the Essence of God be naturally a sampler of all things that are or may be, according to which all things are wrought, yet he produceth things voluntarily, and according to the good pleasure of his will, & not naturally & necessarily: so that that kind of knowledge, which consisteth in the vision of God, is more perfect than any other, & only maketh men happy, because it is in respect of the best and most noble object. Yet 
m Ibid. quaest: 3.  the other kind of knowledge, that maketh us take a view of things in themselves, is more perfect, in that it maketh known unto us the actual being of things, and particular facts, which that happy kind of knowledge of things seen in the glass of the divine Essence doth not.  
These things thus distinguished, it is easy to conceive how, and in what sort Christ grew and increased in grace and wisdom, and how he was full of the same from the moment of his incarnation, so that nothing could be afterwards added unto him. For, concerning his divine knowledge, the perfection of it was such, and so infinite from all eternity, that it is impious once to think that he grew and increased in the same.  

* Vide apud Scotum li. 3. d. 14. q●…. opinionem Henrici quol. 5. q. 14. etc.  Touching the humane knowledge he had of things seen in the eternal word, and in the clear glass of the divine Essence, it is most probably thought by some of excellent learning, that though the soul of Crist had at the first, and brought with it into the world a potential hability and aptness to see all things in God, so soon as it should convert itself to a distinct view of them: that yet it did not actually see all things in the Essence of God at once from the beginning, but afterwards in process of time: and for the 
n Ibid. quaest. 4.  other kind of knowledge and apprehension of things, which he had as beholding them in themselves, they think it was perfect in habit from the first moment of his incarnation, but not in actual apprehension, wherein he did truly increase and and grow: as also in experimental knowledge. For the humane knowledge that was in Christ, was by conversion to those Phantasmata & sensible representations of things, that from without are by the senses presented unto the Soul: & was discursive, though not proceeding from things known, to find out things altogether unknown, yet from things actually known, to such as he knew but habitually only, and not actually before. That the humane knowledge Christ had of things in themselues, was discursive, & by conversion to the sensible representations of them from without, it is evident, in that all perfections are received according to the condition & capacity of the receiver. Now the condition of the Soul of man in the state of this life is, to know nothing but by conversion to the sensible appearances of the same, & that not only in respect of things natural, but mystical also and supernatural; 
o Dionys. eitat. ab eodem, Dutand. 〈◊〉. q. 3.  Quia impossibile est (saith Dionysius Areopagita) nobis aliter superlucere radium divinum, nisi sacrorum velaminum varietate circumuelatum: that is, because it is impossible the beam of divine light should shine on us, unless it be vailed on every side with the variety of sacred veils.  
Thus than we see, how it may be truly said, that Christ grew in wisdom and knowledge, as he did in stature of body, non quoad habitus essentiam & extensionem, sed quoad actualem cognitionem & experimentum: that is, not in respect of the essence or extension of the habit, but of actual knowledge & experience. That which Thomas & others have, that Christ knew all things at first by an infused knowledge, & afterwards attained another kind of knowledge of the same things, which they named acquisite, is not so fit: for two forms or qualities of one kind cannot be in the same subject. Now as the sight which is in men naturally, & that which once lost is restored again by miracle, is of the same nature, & condition: so is that knowledge of things that is by infusion, & that which is acquisite: howsoever these men seem to make them of two kinds. Wherefore passing by this conceit as not probable, to conclude this point, 
p Alex. de Alice part. 2. quaest. 89 memb. 2.  even as touching the condition of children, which should have been borne in the state of innocency, there are divers opinions, some thinking they should have had the use of reason, & perfection of knowledge at the very first, so that they should have grown & increased afterwards only in experimental knowledge: others, that they should have had no use of reason at the first: & a third sort, that so soon as they had been borne, they should have had the use of reason, so far forth as to discern outward things good or evil (seeing even the little lambs by nature's instinct, do know the Wolf, & fly from him, & seek the dugs of their dams) but not to discern things concerning moral virtue, & the worship of God. So likewise, some think that the Babe JESUS, even in his humane soul, had the actual knowledge of all things even from the beginning, & that he grew only in experimental knowledge: but there are other of as good judgement, & as great learning, who think, that howsoever he had the habit of all knowledge from the beginning, & brought it with him out of the womb, yet not the act & use of it: & this is all that either Luther or Calvine say: & yet we know how clamorously some inveigh against them, as if they had broached some damnable heresy. But some man will say, if we grant that Christ in his Humane Soul knew not all things from the beginning, but in process of time learned that which before he actually knew not, we fasten on him the disgraceful note of ignorance, & consequently bring him within the confines & compass of sin. Hereunto Hugo de S. Vict. answereth, & showeth the folly of this silly objection, peremptorily resolving, that 
q Hugo de S. Victore de Sac. fid. l. 1. part. 6. c. 26.  non omnis qui aliquid nescit, aut minus perfectè scit, statim ignorantiam habere, seu in ignorantiâ esse dicendus est; quia ignorantia non dicitur, nisi tunc solùm, cum id quod ignorari non debuisset, nescitur: that is, we must not say, that every one that knoweth not a thing, or doth less perfectly know it, is ignorant, or in ignorance; because ignorance is only the not knowing of such things as should have been known Neither is there any distinction more trivial or ordinary in the Schools then that of nescience, & ignorance: and therefore howsoever some in the heat of their distempered passions, lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety upon Luther, Calvin, and others, for that they say, there were some things which Christ in his humane soul did not actually know from the beginning: yet Maldonatus, a man as ill conceited of them as any other, 
r Maldon. in 2. Luc. ver. 40.  confesseth, that though some say Christ profited in wisdom and knowledge, not in his own person, but in his mystical body, which is the Church: others, that his growing and increasing was only in the manifestation of that, which in all perfection was found in him from the beginning: or in experimental knowledge of those things which in general contemplation he knew before: yet many of the ancient Fathers, answering the objections of the Arrians, and other like heretics, and rejecting as impious their conceit, who thought Christ was absolutely ignorant of any thing, denied not but that there were some things which Christ in his humane nature did not actually always know. This (saith Maldonat.) I suppose Luther, Calvin, and the rest knew not; for had they known, that the Fathers taught, that Christ did truly grow in humane knowledge and wisdom, and that he knew not all things actually from the beginning, to be contrary to the Fathers, they would have been of another mind. How charitable this his surmise and conjecture is, let the Reader judge. Howsoever, we have his clear confession, that many of the Fathers were of opinion, that Christ in his humane nature did not always actually know all things. Yea, upon the 24 of Matthew he testifieth, that 
s Idem in 24. Matth. ver. 36.  many of them said plainly, that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the general judgement of the quick and dead, when he said, That day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels, nor the Son himself, but the Father only. It is true indeed, that he goeth about, notwithstanding this his clear confession of the truth, to construe the words of some of the Fathers in such sort, as if they had not meant simply, that Christ in his humane soul knew not that hour and time, but only that he knew it not by force of his humane nature; but this commentary (I fear) will not agree with their texts. For Origen in his third tract upon Matthew saith, that Christ knew not the time and day of judgement, when he said, Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Son; but that afterwards he knew it, when he was risen, and appointed of his Father, King and judge; which words of his admit no such gloss. Wherefore jansenius saith, there are 
t jansenius comm. in Evang. concord. cap. 123.  two principal interpretations of those words of Christ, when he saith, Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Son; the one, that he said he knew it not, because he knew it not to reveal it, and because his body the Church knew it not; the other, that he knew it not, as man; and this interpretation he showeth to be likewise twofold: For, saith he, if we follow the common opinion, that Christ had the perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soul at the first, than we must understand that Christ said, he knew not the day of judgement, because he knew it not by natural and acquisite knowledge, but by virtue of that knowledge, that was infused into him: but if we follow the other opinion, that Christ had not perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soul at the first, but grew in it, then, as Origen among other senses delivereth, the meaning of the words is, that he knew it not, till after his resurrection.  
And surely 
u Cyrill. lib. 9 thesauri cap. 4. cirat. à jansenio, ibid.  Cyrill a worthy Bishop, and one that had many conflicts with the Nestorian heretics, who divided the person of Christ, feareth not directly to say, that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the general judgement, when he used the words before mentioned. Neither is this the heresy of the Agnoêtae, as some ignorantly affirm: for their error was, that the Deity of Christ was ignorant of some thing, or that Christ in his humane nature was properly ignorant, that is, knew not such things, and at such time, as he should have known; and that he is still ignorant of sundry things in the state of his glorification, as it appeareth by that 
x Gregor. lib. 8. epist. 42. Nice. phor. lib. 18. c. 50. de Agnoetis  Epistle of Gregory, in which one of them allegeth, that as Christ took our nature, so he took our ignorance, to free us from the same: and therefore Maldonatus upon the 24. of Matthew saith; that the Themistians, called also Agnoetae, were accounted heretics, not for saying Christ knew not the day of judgement, as Damascene de haeresibus testifieth; but that, as may be gathered out of the same Damascene, they simply, without all distinction of the divine or humane nature, said, Christ was ignorant thereof, because they thought the Divinity was turned into the Humanity.   

CHAP. 15.  
Of the third kind of Communication of properties, and the second degree thereof.  
THus having spoken of those finite and created things, that were bestowed on the nature of man, when it was assumed into the unity of the divine person, let us come to those things that are infinite. Where first, we are certainly to resolve, that as the nature of man was truly given and communicated to the Person of the Son of God, so that he is indeed and really Man; so the Persont of the Son of God was as truly communicated to the nature of man, that it might subsist in it, and that that which was fashioned in the womb of the blessed virgin, & borne of her, might not only be holy, but the holiest of all, even the Son of God. Secondly, that in this sense, the fullness of all perfection, and all the properties of the divine Essence, are communicated to the nature of man in the Person of the Son. For as the Father communicated his Essence to the Son by eternal generation, who therefore is the second Person in Trinity, and God of God; so in the Person of the Son, he really communicated the same to the nature of man form in Mary's womb, in such sort, that that Man, that was borne of her, is truly God. And in this sense the german Divines affirm, that there is a real Communication of the divine properties to the nature of man, in the personal union of the natures of God and Man in Christ; not by physical communication, or effusion, as if the like & equal properties to those that are in God; were put inherently into the nature of man, in such sort, as the heat transfused from the fire into the water is inherent in it, (whence would follow a confusion, conversion, and equalling of the natures, and natural properties) but personal, in the Person of the Son of God. For as the Person of the Son of God, in whom the nature and Essence of God is found, is so communicated to the nature of Man, that the Man Christ is not only in phrase of speech named God, but is indeed, and really God: so he is as really omnipotent, having all power both in heaven & in earth. 
a Luther. de verb. noviss. Davidis, tom. 3. fol. 9●….  There is one Christ (saith Luther) who is both the Son of God, and of the Virgin. By the right of his first birth, not in time, but from all eternity he received all power, that is, the Deity itself, which the Father communicated to him eternally: but touching the other nature of Christ, which began in time, even so also the eternal power of God was given unto him; so that the Son of the Virgin is truly & really eternal God, having eternal power, according to that in the last of Matthew, 
b Matth. 28. 18.  All power is given unto me both in heaven, and in earth. And of this power, a little after he bringeth in Christ speaking in this sort; Although this power was mine eternally, before I assumed the nature of man, notwithstanding after I began to be man, even according to the nature of man, I received the same power in time, though I showed it not during the time of my infirmity, and cross. 
c Bonauent. in 3. Sentent. dist. 22. quaest. 2.  Bonaventura saith the very same in effect that Luther doth: when it is said, saith he, speaking of the Man Christ, This Man is every where, this may either note out the Person of Christ, or the singular and individual nature of a man: if the Person of Christ, there is no doubt but the proposition is true: if the individual nature of a Man, yet still it is true, not by propriety of nature, but by communication of properties; because that which agreeth to the Son of God by nature, agreeth unto this Man by grace. Cardinal 
d Camerac. lib. 3. quaest. 1 in Sententias.  Cameracensis agreeth with Bonaventura, affirming, that the divine attributes and properties are more really communicated to the Man Christ, than the humane are to the Son of God: and that therefore a man may most truly and properly say, speaking of the Man Christ, This Man is immortal, almighty, and of infinite power, and majesty; because he is properly the divine Person, & so consequently, truly & really immortal, and omnipotent. Yea 
e Bellarm. de Incarnatione, lib. 3. cap. 16.  Bellarmine, though he impugn the errors of the Lutherans, (as he calleth them) with all bitterness, yet confesseth all that hitherto hath been said to be most true. I say, saith he, as before, that the glory of God the Father was given to the humanity of Christ, non in ipsa, not to be formally or subiectively inherent in it, but in the divine Person; that is, that by grace of union the humane nature of Christ obtained to be in such sort the nature of the Son of God, that the Man Christ should be truly and really in the glory of God the Father, filling both heaven and earth. Again he saith, those places, 
f Matth: 11. 27.  All things are given me of my Father; and 
g Matth. 23. 18.  All power is given me both in heaven and earth, may be understood, first, of divine power which the Son of God received of the Father by eternal generation; and secondly, of divine power which the nature of Man received by personal union: and in another place speaking of sundry things proper to God, he saith, 
h Ibid. cap. 25.  All those things may be said to be communicated and given to the humane nature, not formally in itself, but in the Person of the Son of God by the grace of union.  
The Divines distinguish the properties of God, and make them to be of two sorts; communicable, and incommunicable: Communicable properties they define to be those perfections, that are called perfectiones simpliciter, which are found without mixture of imperfection in God, and in a more imperfect sort in the creatures. These they name perfectiones simplicitèr, that is, simply and absolutely perfections, because it is better for any thing to have them, than not to have them: and because those things are better that have them, than those that have them not: as likewise, for that they imply in them no imperfection, though they be mingled with imperfection & defect in the creatures. Of this sort is life, which it is betrer to have, than not to have; and it includeth in it no imperfection, though it be accompanied with defect & imperfection in many of the things wherein it is found: for that life that is in trees, is an imperfect life, & the life of men, who in truth then begin to die, when they begin to live, is imperfect; yea, the life of Angels is imperfect, because if they be not continually sustained, they return to that nothing out of which they were made. Of the same kind, are Truth, Goodness, justice, Mercy, Wisdom, Knowledge, & Understanding. And therefore all these separated from that imperfection that cleaveth unto them elsewhere, are found in God, & may truly be attributed unto him. Incommunicable properties are nothing else but the negation and removing of all that imperfection that is in the Creatures, of which sort are Immortality, Eternity, Immensity, infinity, & the like, all importing a negation of imperfection. The former of these two sorts of divine properties which are named Communicable, are communicated to mere creatures in some degree and sort, though in highest degree they are no where found but in God, & with the addition of words expressing such eminency, they may be attributed to none but to God: for he only is Almighty, most wise, most just, and most merciful. But both these with addition of highest degree, and the other, which are named Incommunicable, are by all Divines confessed, to be in such sort communicated in the Person of the Son of GOD to the nature of man assumed into the unity of the same, that the Man CHRIST, and the Son of Mary, is not in title only, but really, & indeed most wise, most just, omnipotent, incomprehensible, eternal, and infinite.  
And this is all, as I think, that the Divines of Germany, the followers of Luther mean, when they speak of the real communication of divine properties to the humane nature in Christ. If any man say, that they may justly be thought to proceed farther, & to understand some other communication of properties, then that by us expressed, in that they do not only say concretively, that the Man Christ is omni-present, but the Humanity also: It may be answered, that when we speak of the Humanity of Christ, sometimes we understand only that humane created essence of a man that was in him, sometimes all that, that is employed in the being of a Man, as well subsistence as essence. In the former sort, it is absurd and impious to think, that the Humanity of Christ, that is, the created Essence of a Man in him, is omnipotent, omni-present, or infinite; neither do they so think; but they affirm, that the subsistence of the Man Christ employed in his being a Man, is infinite, and omni-present, as being the subsistence of the Son of GOD communicated to the nature of Man, in stead of that finite subsistence, which, left to itself, it would have had of it own.  
Much contention there hath been between them & other, touching the ubiquitary presence of the humanity of Christ; but I verily think, it hath been in a great part upon mistaking, & because they understood not one another. For the followers of Luther confess, that the Body of Christ is only in one place locally, & do not think it to be everywhere in Extent of Essence diffused into all places, but say only, that it is everywhere in the infiniteness of the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to it. 
i Zanchius in iudic, de dissidio coenae Domin. in fine Miscellan.  If we ask them (saith Zanchius) whether Christ's Body be everywhere, they answer, that locally it is but in one place, but that personally it is everywhere: If they mean, saith he, that in respect of the being of Essence it is finite, and confined to one certain place, but that the being of subsistence which it hath is infinite, & contained within the straits of no one place, they say the truth, & contradict not them whom they seem to do. Now that this is their meaning, which this worthy learned Divine acknowledgeth to be true & Catholic, & not contradicted by them that seem to be their opposites, they constantly profess: and therefore I am persuaded, that howsoever some of them have used harsh, doubtful, dangerous, and unfitting forms of speech, yet they differ not in meaning and judgement from the Orthodox, and right believers. For they do not imagine, if we may believe their most constant protestations, any essential or natural communication of divine properties, but personal only, in that the Person of the son of God is really communicated to the nature of man, in which Person they are. Neither do they define the personal union by the communication of properties, but say only, that it is implied in it: & touching the co-operation of the two natures of God and Man in Christ, they teach no other, but that which we described, when we spoke of the Theandricall actions of Christ. The infinite objections that are made on either side, to the multiplying of needles, & fruitless contentions, may easily be cleared, and the seeming contradictions reconciled by the right understanding of the point, about which the difference hath grown.   

CHAP. 16.  
Of the work of Mediation performed by Christ in our nature.  
THus having spoken of the abasing of the Son of God to take our nature, and of the gifts and graces he bestowed on it, when he assumed it into the unity of his Person; it remaineth, that we speak of the things he did and suffered for us in the same. The thing in general which he did for us in our nature thus assumed, was, the mediating between God and us, that he might reconcile us unto God. For the better understanding whereof we must observe, what it is to mediate, and the divers kinds of mediation. Mediation is by all said then to be performed, when one interposeth himself between such as are at variance, to reconcile them, or at least, between such as have no friendly intercourse, to join them in a league of friendship and amity, The mediation that is between them at variance, (the end whereof is reconciliation) is performed four ways. First by discerning and judging the matters of quarrel and dislike, that divide and estrange them one from another. Secondly, by reporting from one of the parties to the other, the conditions upon which either of them may come to an agreement with the other; in which sense Moses saith unto the children of Israel, 
a Deut. 5. 5.  I was a mediator at that time between God and you; and the Apostle saith in the Epistle to the Galathians, 
b Gal. 3. 19  The Law was given by Angels in the hand of a mediator. Thirdly by entreating one party for another: and fourthly by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other. All these ways Christ may be said to have been a Mediator between God & us. For first, he interposed hi●…selfe as an Arbitrator between God and us, so ordering the matters of difference between us, that God should accept our repentance, faith, and purpose of amendment: and that we should not only repent us of the evils passed, and prostrate at the feet of his Majesty, entreat for mercy; but make a Covenant also with ourselves, and bind ourselves by a solemn vow, never to cast his laws behind our back any more. Secondly he put himself between God and us, by reporting God's pleasure unto us, and what he requireth of us, and by reporting unto God our submissive yielding of ourselves to do that he requireth. Thirdly, he performed the work of a Mediator, by entreating the one party to be reconciled to the other, in that 
c Rom. 8. 34.  He makath request for us, as it is in the Epistle to the Romans, and 
d 1. john 2. 1.  is our Advocate, as it is in the Epistle of S. john. Lastly, he mediated by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other: and this kind of mediation was proper to Christ alone, according to that of the Apostle, He was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 
2 Cor. 〈◊〉. 21.  These being the divers kinds wherein Christ mediateth between God and us, for the better understanding of the nature and force of his mediation, two things are to be observed: First, what the nature of Medium, that is, a mean between two extremes is; and secondly, how, and according to which nature Christ was a Mediator between God and us.  
A medium or mean between two extrreames, is of three sorts: The first, when two extremes or contraries concur and meet in a third nature, arising and growing out of the mixture of them both; as white & black, being contrary colours, do meet and concur in the middle colours, & in this sort there can be no mean between God & us. The second, when some qualities or properties of either of the extremes or opposites are found in a third thing; and so Christ, as Man, was a mean between God and Men: For in his humane nature was found righteousness, wherein he was like to God; & misery, wherein he was like to men. To which purpose that is, that S. Aug. hath when he saith, 
e August. in P. 39  Christus est Mediator inter Deum & homines. Quid est Deus? Pater, Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus. Quid sunt homines? Peccatores, impii, mortales. Inter illam Trinitatem, & hominum infirmitatem, & iniquitatem, Mediator factus est homo non iniquus, sed tamen infirmus: ut, ex eo quòd non iniquus, iungeret te Deo, in eo quòd infirmus, propinquaret tibi; that is, Christ is a Mediator between God & Men, What is God, but the Father, Son, and holy Ghost? What are Men, but sinners, wicked ones, & subject unto death? Between that Trinity therefore, and the infirmity, and iniquity of men, that Man became a Mediator, that was not sinful, but infirm; that, in that he was not sinful, he might join thee to God; and in that he was infirm, he might draw near unto thee. The third, when both extremes concur & meet in the same person; and in this sort Christ is most properly a mean, or of a middle condition between God and us, in that both the natures of God & man do concur, and are conjoined in his Person. And to this purpose excellent is that of Hugo de S. Victore. 
f Hugo erudit. Theol. de Sacramentis fidei, lib. 2 part. 1. cap: 12.  The Apostle (saith he) saith, A Mediator is not a Mediator of one. Duo enim erant Deus & Homo; Diversi, & Aduersi: Deus erat iustus, Homo iniustus; in hoc nota adversos: Homo erat miser, Deus beatus; in hoc nota diversos. Sic igitur Homo & adversus Deo erat, per iniquitatem; & diversus á Deo, per miseriam: That is, For God & man were two; divers and different; adverse & contrary one to the other. God was just, man unjust; in this observe their contrariety: Man was miserable, God blessed; in this note their diversity and difference: So therefore man was both adverse, and contrary unto God, in respect of iniquity; and divers and different from God, in respect of misery. And therefore in this behalf needed a Mediator unto God, that he might be reconciled, and brought back unto him; but the dispatch of this business of reconciling them that were so greatly at variance, no man could conveniently and fitly undertake, who was not nearly conjoined by the bands of friendly Society, & peaceable agreement with both the parties. For this cause therefore the Son of God became Man, that he might be a Mediator of reconciliation, and peace between man & God. Suscepit humanitatem, per quam hominibus appropinquaret; & retinuit Divinitatem, per quam á Deo non recederet: factus homo, sustinuit poenam, ut demonstraret affectum: seruavit iustitiam, ut conferret remedium: that is, he took unto him the nature of a Man, that therein he might draw near unto men, and retained the nature of God, that so he might not depart from God: Being made Man, he suffered punishment, to show his affection: but kept himself just, and unworthy of punishment, that he might help and relieve others. Again, the same Hugo proceedeth & goeth forward, excellently expressing the concurrence of the natures of God & man in the unity of Christ's person, in this sort: Verbum quod cum Patre Deo unum erat per ineffabilem unitatem, cum homine assumpto unum factum est per admirabilem unionem: Vnitas in naturâ, Vnio in personâ: Cum Patre Deo unum in naturâ, non in Personâ: Cum homine assumpto unum in personâ, non in naturâ. Assumpsit ex nobis nostram naturam, ut eam sibi sociaret per unionem in personâ, quae sociata non erat per unitatem in naturâ: ut per id quod de nostro unum secum fecerat, nos sibi uniret, ut cum ipso unum essemus, per id quod nostrum sibi unitum erat; & per ipsum unum essemu●… cum patre, qui cum ipsa unum erat. That is, The Word which was one with God the Father by ineffable unity, became one with man assumed by admirable union. The unity was in nature: the union in Person. With God the Father it was one in Nature, not in Person, with man assumed it was one in Person, not in nature. It took of us our nature to join it to itself by union in Person, which had no society with it by unity of nature, that by that, which taken from us, it made one with itself, it might unite us to itself, that we might be one with it, by that of ours which was united to it: & by it we might be one with the Father, who is one with it.  
Thus having showed in what sort Christ is a mean between the two extremes God & Man, it remaineth that we seek out, how, & according to which nature he is a Mediator. That he is a Mediator according to the concurrence of both Natures in the unity of his Person, it is confessed by all, for if he were not both God & Man, he could not mediate between God & Men. But whether he be a Mediator according to both Nature's concurring in the work of Mediation, there be some that make question. For the clearing whereof, the Divines distinguish the works of Mediation, making them to be of two sorts: Of Ministry, & of Authority. Of Ministry, as to pray, to pay the price of Redemption, & by dying to satisfy for sin. Of Authority, as to pass all good unto us from the Father in the Holy Ghost. Touching the works of Ministry, it is agreed on by all, that the Person of the Son of God performed them in the nature of Man: for we must distinguish Principium quod, & Principium quo; that is, the Person which doth and suffereth, and that wherein it doth and suffereth such things as are necessary to procure our reconciliation with God. It was the Son of God, & Lord of Life, that died for us on the Cross, but it was the nature of Man, not of God, wherein he died: & it was the nature of God, and infinite excellency of the same, whence the price, value, & worth of his passion grew. The works of Authority and Power, as to give life, to give the Spirit, to raise the dead, to make the blind see, & the dumb to speak, were all performed by the Divine Nature; yet not without an instrumental concurrence of the Nature of Man, in sort as hath been before expressed, when I showed how the Actions of Christ were divinely-humane. If it be alleged, that Opera Trinitatis ad extra are indivisa, that is, that there is nothing that one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity doth towards the Creatures, but they all do it, and consequently, that those things which Christ did in his Divine Nature, pertained not to the office of a Mediator, being common to all the Persons: we answer, that as the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, though they be one & the same God, yet differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in subsistence, & the manner of having & possessing the Deity, & Divine Nature; so though their action be the same, & the work done by them, yet they differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the manner of doing it: for the Father doth all things authoritatiuè, and the Son subauthoritatiuè, as the Schoolmen speak; that is, the Father, as he from whom, & of whom all things are; the Son, as he by whom all things are, not as if he were an instrument, but as Principium à Principio, that is, a cause & beginning of things, that hath received the Essence it hath, and power of working from another, though the very same that is in the other. And in this sort to quicken, give life, and to impart the spirit of sanctification to whom he pleaseth, especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature, meriting, desiring, and instrumentally assisting, is proper to the Son of God manifested in our flesh, & not common to the whole Trinity; and therefore, notwithstanding the objection taken from the unity of the Works of the Divine Persons, may be a work of mediation. Bellarmine the jesuit bringeth many reasons to prove, that Christ is not a Mediator according to both Natures: but that which above all other he most urgeth, is this, 
g Bellarm de Christo Mediatore l. 5. c. 5  If Christ, saith he, be a Mediator according to both Natures, then either according to both jointly, or severally; not severally, because not according to his Divine Nature severally considered, being the party offended. Not according to both jointly, because though in that sort he differ from the Father & the Holy Ghost, neither of which is both God & Man; and from the sons of men, who are merely men; yet he differeth not from the Son of God, (who was to be pacified by the Mediator, as well as the Father, & the Holy Ghost) neither in nature, nor in person. This surely is is a silly kind of reasoning: for it is not necessary that a thing should differ from both the extremes according to all that in respect whereof it is of a middle condition, but it is sufficient, if it differ in some thing from one, and in some thing from another. The middle colour differeth from the extremes, not in the whole nature of it, but from white, in that it hath of blackness, and from black, in that it hath of whiteness: but it is medium, in that it hath something of either of them. So the Son of God incarnate differeth not only from the Father and the holy Ghost, but from himself as God, in that he is Man: and from Men, and himself as man, in that he is GOD: and therefore may mediate not only between the Father and us men, but also between himself as God, and us miserable, and sinful men. Wherefore to conclude this point we say, that some of the works of Christ the mediator, were the works of his Humanity in respect of the thing done, and had their efficacy, dignity and value from his Divinity, in that they were the works of him that had the Divinity dwelling bodily in him: and some the works of his Divinity, the humane nature concurring only instrumentally, as the giving sight to the blind, raising the dead, remitting of sins, and the like. Neither do we imagine one action of both natures, nor say that Christ died, offered himself on the Altar of the Cross, or paid for us in his Divinity, as some slanderously report of us: and therefore all the objections that are mustered against us, proceeding from the voluntary mistaking of our sense and meaning (which some will not conceive, that they may have something to say against us) are all easily cleared and answered by this explication of the same.  
By that which hath been said touching Christ's being a Mediator according to both natures, we may easily understand, how, and according to what nature he is Head of the Church. In a natural Head 
h Bonavent: in 〈◊〉. Sentent. dist. 13. quaest: 1.  Bonaventura observeth three things: the first, that it is Conform caeteris membris: the second, that it is Principium membrorum: and the third, that it is Influxiwm sensus & motus: that is, first, that it hath conformity of nature with the rest of the members of the body. Secondly, that it is the first, chiefest, and in a sort the beginning of all the members: and thirdly, that from it influence of sense and motion doth proceed: and he showeth the same to be found in Christ, the mystical head of the Church. For first, he hath conformity of nature with them that are members of his body the Church, in that he is Man: Whereupon S. Augustine, saith, 
i Aug. tract. So. in cap. 15. joan:  Vnius naturae sunt vitis & palmites: the vine and the branches are of the same nature. And secondly, as the natural head is the chiefest and most principal of all the members, so is Christ more excellent than they that are Christ's. 
k Idem in Psal. 39  Omnia membra faciunt unum corpus, saith, S. Augustine, multum tamen interest inter caput & caetera membra: Etenim in caeteris membris non sentis nisi tactu, tangendo sentis in caeteris membris: in capite autem & vides, & audis, & olfacis, & gustas, & tangis. All the members make one body, yet is there great difference between the head, and the rest of the members: for in the rest a man hath no sense, but that of feeling, in the rest he discerneth by feeling: but in the Head heseeth, and heareth, and smelleth, and tasteth, and feeleth. So in the members of Christ's mystical body, which is the Church, there are found diversities of gifts, operations, & administrations: and to one is given the word of wisdo●…, to another the word of knowledge, to another faith, to another the gift of healing, to another the operation of great works, and to another prophecy: but to the man Christ, the spirit was given without stint or measure, and in him was found the fullness of all grace. The third property of a natural Head, which is the iufluence of Sen●…e and Motion, agreeth unto Christ in respect of his humanity and divinity both. For he giveth influence of divine sense and motion two ways: per modum praeparantis: and per modum impertientis, that is, by preparing and making men fit to receive grace, & by imparting it to them that are fitted & prepared. He prepareth and fitteth men to the receipt of Grace by the acts of his humanity, in which he suffered death, dying satisfied God's wrath, removed all matter of dislike, merited the favour and acceptation of God, and so made men fit to receive the grace of God, and to enjoy his favour: He imparteth and conferreth grace, by the operation and working of his divine nature, it being the proper work of God to enlighten the understandings of men, and to soften their hearts. So that, to conclude this point, we may resolve, that the grace, in respect whereof Christ is Head of the Church, is of two sorts: the one created, and habitual: the other increate, and of Union. In respect of the one he giveth grace effectiuè, by way of efficiency: in respect of the other, dispositiuè, by way of disposition, fitting us, that an impression of grace may be made in us.   

CHAP. 17.  
Of the things which Christ suffered for us, to procure our reconciliation with God.  
Having showed how Christ as a Mediator interposed himself between God and us when we were his enemies, and how he is the Head of that blessed company of them that believing in him look for salvation; let us see & consider, first, what he suffered for us, to reconcile us unto God: secondly, what he did for us; thirdly, what the benefits are that he bestoweth on us; and fourthly to whom he committed the dispensation of the rich treasures of his graces, the word of reconciliation, and the guiding and governing of the people which he purchased as a peculiar inheritance to himself.  
Touching the first, to wit the sufferings of Christ, he was by them to satisfy the justice of God his Father displeased with us for sin: that so we might be reconciled unto him. Wherefore, that we may the better conceive what was necessary to be done or suffered to satisfy the justice of God, we must consider sin in the nature of a wrong, and in the nature of sin. In the nature of a wrong; and so two things were required for the pacifying of God's wrath; for first, he that hath done wrong, must restore that he unjustly took away from him whom he wronged; and secondly, he must do something in recompense of the wrong he did: as, if he took away another man's good name, by false and lying reports, he must not only restore it to him again by acknowledging that the things were untrue, which in defamation of him he had spoken, but he must also take all occasions to raise continue, and increase a good opinion of him. If sin be considered in the nature of sin it implieth in it two things: debitum poenae, and debitum neglectae obedientiae, that is, a debt of punishment, and a debt of obedience then neglected, when it should have been performed: and therefore in the satisfaction that is to reconcile us to God displeased with us for sin as sin, two things must be employed: for first, the punishment must be sustained that sin deserved: and secondly, that obedience must be performed, that should have been yielded whilst sin was committed, but was neglected. For if only the punishment be sustained we may escape the condemnation of death, but we cannot inherit eternal life, unless the righteousness and obedience which Gods law requireth be found in us also: Now the law of God requireth obedience, not only in the present time, and time to come, but from the beginning of our life to the end of the same, if we desire to inherit the promised blessedness. And though the performance of that obedience that was neglected may seem to be in the nature of merit rather than satisfaction: yet in that it is not simply the meriting and procuring of favour and acceptation, but the recovering of lost friendship, and the regaining of renewed love, it is rightly esteemed to pertain unto satisfaction. Touching sin considered in the nature of an offence & wrong, and the things required to pacify God's wrath in that respect, there is no question, but that the sinner himself that wronged God in sinning, must, by sorrow of heart, disliking and detesting, and by confession of mouth, condemning former evils, restore that glory to God he took from him: and seek and take all occasions the weakness of his means will afford, to glorify God as much as he dishonoured him before: and God accepteth weak endeavours as sufficient in this kind, CHRIST having perfectly satisfied for us: as a public person may accept of a mean and weak satisfaction for the wrong done to him, but must inflict punishment answerable to the fault, to satisfy public justice offended by that wrong. Wherefore, passing from this kind of satisfaction, let us speak of that other that God requireth, standing in the suffering of punishments due to sin. Some define this kind of satisfaction to be the suffering of the punishments that God inflicteth, or wherewith a man voluntarily punisheth himself: but this is not a good definition. For as a thief or murderer may not lay violent hands on himself, & be his own executioner when he hath offended, to satisfy public justice, but must submit himself to that which authority will lay on him: so it is so far from being any satisfaction to God's justice, for a man, when he hath sinned, to become his own executioner, & to punish himself for his sin, to satisfy the justice of God, that it highly displeaseth God. It is true indeed, that we may lawfully afflict ourselves, not to satisfy God's justice, but to purge out the dross of that sinful impurity that cleaveth to us, and to cure the wounds of our souls, as we may afflict ourselves by fasting, watching, and abstaining from many things otherwise lawful, for the freeing of ourselves from the remains of our former excessive and immoderate delight in eating, drinking, surfeiting, and riot, & other abuses of the good creatures of God. So that we must not define satisfaction, to be the suffering of those punishments, that God inflicteth, or wherewith the sinner punisheth himself; for it is only the sustaining of those that God in justice doth inflict. And in this sort Christ satisfied his Father's wrath, not by punishing himself, but by being obedient to his Father even unto the death. Wherefore let us proceed more particularly, to consider the satisfactory sufferings of Christ, & see first, what punishments Christ suffered to pacify his Father's wrath: and secondly, what the manner of his passion was.  
Touching the punishments that Christ suffered, they were not ordinary, but beyond measure, grievous, bitter, & insupportable: yea, such as would have made any mere creature to sink down under the burden of them to the bottom of Hell: For he suffered grievous things from all the things in Heaven, Earth, & Hell; & in all that any way pertained to him. He suffered at the hands of God his Father, and of Men; of jews, of Gentiles, of enemies insulting, of friends forsaking, of the Prince of darkness, & all his cruel & merciless instruments; of the elements of the world, the Sun denying to give him light, the air breath, & the earth supportance. He suffered in all that pertained to him: In his name, being condemned as a blasphemer, as an enemy to Moses, the Law, the Temple, & worship of God; to his own Nation, to Caesar, & the Romans: a glutton, a companion with Publicans, & sinners, a Samaritan, one that had a Devil, & did all his miracles by the power of Beelzebub. In the things he possessed, when they stripped him out of his garments, & cast lots on his seamelesse coat. In his friends greatly distressed & discomforted with the sight of those things that fell out unto him, according to that which was prophesied before: 
a Mark. 14. 27.  The Shepherd shall be smitten, & the sheep shall be scattered. In his body, when his hands & feet were nailed, his sides gored, his head pierced with the crown of thorns, his cheeks swollen with buffering, his face defiled with spitting upon, his eyes offended with beholding the scornful behaviour of his proud insulting enemies, his ears with hearing the words of their execrable blasphemy, his taste with the myrrh & gall that they gave him in his drink, his smell with the stinch and horror of the place wherein he was crucified, being a place of dead men's skulls. Lastly, in his soul distressed with fears, & compassed about with sorrow's besetting him on every side, & that even unto death: In so woeful sort did he take on him our defects, and suffer our punishments.  
But, because we may as well enlarge and amplify Christ's passions and sufferings too much, as extenuate them too much, let us see, if it be possible, the uttermost extent of that he suffered. For the clearing hereof 
b Bonav. in 3. Sent. dist. 15. quaest. 2.  some say, that he suffered all those punishments that were beseeming him, or behooveful for us: that he suffered all those punishments, that neither prejudice the plenitude of sanctity, nor science. But, that we may the better inform ourselves touching this point, we must observe, that the punishments of sin are of three sorts: First, Culpa: Secondly, ex culpa, & ad culpam. Thirdly, ex culpa, sed nec culpa, nec ad culpam: that is, First, sin. Secondly, something proceeding from sin, and inducing to sin. Thirdly, things proceeding from sin, that neither are sins, nor incline and induce to sin. Examples of the first, are Envy, afflicting the mind of the proud man; grievous disorders, accompanying the drunkard, and a reprobate sense, following the contempt of God's worship and service. 
* The punishments of this second sort are sins, though the Schoolmen do not esteem them to be so.  Of the second, natural concupiscence, proneness to evil, difficulty to do good, contrariety in the faculties of the soul, and repugnance and resistance of the meaner against the better. Examples of the third, which are things proceeding from sin, but neither sins, nor inclinations to sin, are hunger, thirst, weakness, nakedness, and death itself. The punishments of this last sort only Christ suffered, and neither of the former two: for neither was there sin in him, nor any thing inclining him to evil, or discouraging him from good. The punishments of this kind are of two sorts: Natural, and Personal. Natural, are such as follow the whole nature of man, as hunger, thirst, labour, weariness, and death itself. Personal, are such as grow out of some imperfection and defect in the virtue and faculty forming the body, disorder in diet, or some violence offered; and these are found but in some particular men, and not in all men generally, as Leprosies, Agues, Gouts, & the like, All those punishments, that are punishments only, that are from without, and that are common to the whole nature of Men, Christ suffered, that came to be a Redeemer of all without respect of persons: but such as flow from sin dwelling within, or proceed from particular causes, or are proper to some, and not common to all, he suffered not.  
The punishments that are punishments only, and not sin, and are common to the whole nature of man, are likewise of two sorts: for either they are suffered for sin imputed, or sin inherent. For one may be punished either for his own fault, or the fault of another in some sort imputed to him. When a man is punished for his own fault, he hath remorse of conscience, blaming and condemning him as having brought such evils upon himself, by his own folly. But when a man is punished for another man's fault, whereof he hath been no cause, by example, persuasion, help, or consent, he can have no remorse of conscience. Now our Saviour Christ, suffered the punishments of the sins of other men, not his own, and therefore he was free from remorse of conscience, though it be generally found in all men, and be neither sin, nor inducement to sin.  
Lastly, the punishments that are punishments only, and not sin, that are common to the whole nature of Man, and suffered not for the faults of him that suffereth them, but for the sins of other, are of two sorts: for either they are the punishments of sin eternally remaining in stain and guilt; or broken off, ceasing, and repent of.  
The punishments of sin eternally remaining, must according to the rules of divine justice, be eternal, and consequently joined with desperation, which always is found, where there is an impossibility of any better estate for ever. But it 
c Picus Mirandula, in Apologiâ quaest. 2. & Scotus in 4. Sentent. dist. 46. q. 4. in resp. ad argumenta principalia.  is no way necessary, neither doth the justice of God require, that the punishments of sin repent of, ceasing, and forsaken, should be everlasting, or joined with despair. For, as the Divines do note, that there are three things to be considered in sin; The aversion from an infinite, and incommutable good: the inordinate conversion to a finite good; and the continuing in the same, or ceasing from it: so to these several things in sin, there are three several things answering in the punishment of it. For to the aversion, which is obiectively infinite, there answereth poena damni; the loss of God, which is an infinite loss. To the inordinate conversion of the sinner to things transitory, there answereth poena sensus, a sensible smart and grief intensively finite, as the pleasure the sinner taketh in the transitory things, he inordinately loveth, is finite. To the eternity of sin remaining everlastingly in stain & guilt or the continuance of it but for a time, answereth the eternity of punishment, or the suffering of the same but for a time.  
It is true, that every sinner sinneth in suo aeterno, as Saint 
d Gregor. exposit. moral. l. 34. c. 10. in 41. Caput job. in illa verba, Aestimabit Abyssum, etc.  Gregory speaketh, in that he would sin ever if he might live ever; and that every sinner casteth himself, by sinning, into an impossibility of ever ceasing to sin of himself: as a man that casteth himself into a deep pit, can never of himself rise out of it again: And therefore naturally eternity of punishment is due to sin: but, if by force of Divine operation, men be framed to cease from sin, and to turn from it unto God, the justice of God requireth not eternity of punishment, but only extr●…mitie answerable to the grievousness of sin. Wherefore seeing our Saviour Christ suffered only for those sins which he meant to break off by framing the sinners to repentance, it was no way necessary for the satisfying of divine justice, that he should endure eternal punishment.  
If it be said, that all do not repent, nor cease from doing ill, we easily grant it: but it is likewise to be known, that the satisfaction of Christ is not appliable to all sinners, not through any defect in itself, but through the incapacity of them to whom it should be applied. So that as Christ died, and satisfied God's wrath sufficiently for all, but effectually only for the elect and chosen: so likewise he giveth grace to cease from sin, if the fault were not in themselves, sufficiently to all. But to the elect and chosen, whom he foreknew before the world was made, he giveth grace effectually, that his passion may be applied unto them, and they really and indeed made partakers of it.  
They seem therefore to be deceived, who think, that the excellency of the person of Christ, dispensed with the eternity of punishment, which otherwise to satisfy divine justice, he was to have suffered; and thereupon infer, that it might also dispense with the grievousness and extremity of punishment, that otherwise he was to have endured. For the worth and excellency of his person, was neither to dispense with the time, nor grievousness of his punishments, but to make the passion of one available for many. Otherwise, if it might have dispensed with one degree of extremity of punishment due to sin, it might also have dispensed with two, and consequently with all, as Scotus aptly noteth, though to another purpose. 
Scotus in 4. senten. dist. 46. qu. 4. de art. 4.   
These things being thus distinguished, it is easy to answer that question that hath troubled many: Whether Christ suffered all the punishments of sin or not. For we may safely pronounce, as I think, that Christ suffered the whole general punishment of sin, that only excepted which is sin, or consequent upon the inherence, and eternity of sin that is punished, as remorse of conscience and desperation. If any man shall go further, and ask, whether to satisfy God's justice, Christ suffered the pains of hell or not: it will be answered, that he suffered not the pains of hell in specie or loco, that is, either in kind or place; but some think that he suffered pains and punishments conformable and answerable to them in extremity, that only excepted which is sin, or consequent upon the inherence, and eternity of the sin of such as are punished in hell.  
Concerning poena sensus, that is, sensible smart and grief, Cardinal 
f Cusanus Excitationum lib. 10. p. 659.  Cusanus (a famous learned man) is claerely of opinion, that Christ suffered extremity of such pain, answerable to that sensible smart and grief that is endured in hell: but the doubt is principally of the other kind of punishment, named Poena damni, which is the loss of God. For the clearing of which point, 
g Scotus in 4. sent: dist. 46. q. 4.  Scotus aptly observeth diverse things. For first, he showeth that punishment is the discernible want of some fitting good in an intellectual nature, and the presence of some evil in the same. Secondly, that the good that is in an intellectual nature is of two sorts; the one of virtue, the other of sweet, joyful and pleasing delight: and that, though both these concur sometimes, as in the fruition of God in heaven, wherein the perfection of virtue, & the fullness of joy and delight do meet together: yea, that though every thing that is virtuous, be delightful, yet it is not so much the height of virtue as of delight, that is to be judged happiness. Thirdly, he inferreth from hence, that there are two kinds of punishment consisting in the loss of God: whereof the one is, the want of that virtue whereby the soul is to be joined and knit unto God; the other, the want of that delight and pleasure that is to be found in God. That the former is an evil of unrighteousness & sin, & may be called an obstinacy in sin, and is nothing else but sin not remitted nor removed, Poena derelicta non inflicta, that is, no new evil brought in upon the sinner, but that left in him that he wrought in himself. The other is more properly named Poena damni, or Damnum, that is, the punishment of loss, or a loss & damage. It were impious to think, that Christ suffered the former kind; but that he suffered this latter kind of punishment of loss & damage, many great Divines are of opinion. For though as he was joined to God affectione iustitiae, that is, by the affection of virtue or justice, he could not be divided or separated from him, no not for a moment, because he could not but love him, fear him, trust in him, & give him the praise and glory that belongeth to him; yet, as he was to be joined to him, affectione commodi, that is, by that affection that seeketh pleasing content in enjoying those ineffable delights & pleasures that are found in him, he might be, and was for a time divided from him. For as very great & grave Divines do think, he was destitutus omni solatio, that is, destitute & void of all that solace he was wont to find in God, in that fearful hour of darkness, & of his doleful passion. 
h Canus Loc. Theol. l. 12. c. 13.  As saith Melchior Canus, Christ in the time of his life, miraculously restrained, & kept within the closet of his secret Spirit, the happiness that he enjoyed in seeing God, that it should not spread farther, & communicate itself to the inferior faculties of his Soul, or impart the brightness of it to the body: so in the hour of his passion, his very Spirit was withheld from any pleasure it might take in so pleasing an object, as is the Essence, Majesty, and glory of God, which even then he clearly beheld. So that Christ never wanted the vision of that object, which naturally maketh all them happy that behold it, and filleth them with such joy, as no heart of mortal man can conceive, or tongue express.  
But as it was strange, and yet most true, in the time of his life, that his Soul enjoyed Heaven-happines, and that yet neither the inferior faculties thereof were admitted into any fellowship of the same, nor his Body glorified, but subject to misery and passion; so it fell out by the special dispensation of Almighty God, in the time of his death, and in that fearful hour of darkness, that his Soul seeing God, the pleasure & delight that naturally cometh from so pleasing an object, stayed, withheld, & communicated not itself unto it: as a man in great distress taketh no pleasure in those things that otherwise exceedingly affect him. This his conceit, he saith, he communicated to very great and worthy Divines, while he was yet but a young man, and that they were so far from disliking it, that they approved it exceedingly. But some man will say, it is not possible in this life to feel extremity of pains, answerable to the pains of hell, more than on earth to enjoy the happiness of Heaven: and that therefore it is absurd to grant, that Christ in the days of his flesh suffered in this World extremity of pain answerable to the pains of hell. Hereunto it is answered, that in ordinary course, it is impossible for any man living in this World, either to enjoy the happiness of Heaven, or feel the pains of Hell: but that, as Christ was at the same time, both Viator and Comprehensor, that is, a manlike unto us that journey here in this World towards Heaven-happines, and yet happy with that happiness that ordinarily is found no where but in Heaven: so he might suffer that extremity of pain, & have that apprehension of afflictive evils, that ordinarily is no where to be found in this World, even while he lived here on earth. 
i Luther cons. pro laborant. c. 1. de spectro primo. tom. 2.  Luther saith truly, that if a man could perfectly see his own evils, the sight thereof would be a perfect hell unto him: now it is certain that Christ saw all the evils of punishment before expressed, to which he voluntarily subjected himself, to satisfy divine justice coming fierce and violently upon him, with as clear a sight, and as perfect an apprehension of them, as is to be had in the other World.   

CHAP. 18.  
Of the nature and quality of the passion and suffering of Christ.  
HItherto we have spoken of the punishments that Christ sustained and suffered to satisfy the justice, and pacify the wrath of his Father. Now it remaineth, that we come to take a view of the nature and quality of his passion and suffering, consisting partly in his fear and agony before, and pardy in his bitter sorrow and distress in the very act of that doleful tragedy. Touching the first, the Scripture testifieth, that he 
a Mark. 14. 33. Mat. 26. 37.  feared exceedingly, and desired 
b Mat. 26. 39  the cup might pass from him. Touching the second, that he 
c Matth. 26. 38.  was beset with sorrows even unto the death; and that in his extremity he cried aloud; 
d Matth. 27. 46.  My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But touching both these passions of fear, & sorrow, it is noted, 
e Bonauent. in 3. Sent. dist. 16. qu. 2.  that, whereas there are three kinds of faults found in the passions of men's minds, the first, that they arise before reason be consulted, or give direction; the second, that they proceed farther than they should, and stay not when they are required; and the third, that they transport reason & judgement itself: Christ had these passions, but in a sort free from all these evils: For neither did they arise in him before reason gave direction; whereupon he is said to have 
f joh. 11. 33.  troubled or moved himself in the case of Lazarus, for whom he greatly sorrowed; neither did they proceed any farther, if once reason & judgement commanded a stay, and retreat, whereupon they are called 
g Hieronym. in 26. Matthaei.  Propassions rather than Passions; not because, (as 
h Survey. Book 3. Chap. 10 pag: 177.  Kellison ignorantly supposeth) reason preventeth them, and causeth them to arise, though it be true it doth so; but because they are but forerunners to passions at liberty, and beginnings of passions to be stayed at pleasure, rather than full and perfect passions; and therefore much less had they any power to transport judgement & reason itself. From these general considerations of the passions of Christ, let us proceed to take a more particular view of the chief particulars of his passions, to wit, Fear, & Sorrow.  
Fear is described to be a retiring, or flying back from a thing, if it be good, because it is too high and excellent above the reach, and without the extent of our condition & power; if it be evil, because it is hard to be escaped. So that the proper and adequate object of fear, is not, as some suppose, future evil, but difficulty, greatness, & excellency: which found in things good, makes us know we cannot at all attain them, or at least that we cannot attain them but with too great difficulty & labour; in evil, that they will not easily be over mastered or escaped.  
The difficulty, greatness, and excellency, found in things that are good, causeth fear of reverence, which maketh us step back, and not to meddle at all with things that are too high & excellent for us, nor with things hard, without good advice: and causeth us to give place to those of better condition, and to acknowledge and profess by all significations of body and mind, the distance, and disproportion that we know to be between them and us, together with our dependence of them, or subjection to them. This kind of fear causeth and produceth all acts of Reverence & Adoration. It is found in the Angels, and spirits of just & perfect men, & is more excellent than any other virtue.  
The greatness that is found in things that are evil, causeth a fear declining them as evil, which is of divers sorts: For first, there is an Humane fear, which maketh men more decline the loss of their lives & good estates, than the loss of the favour of God. Secondly, there is a Mundane fear, that causeth them to decline the disfavour of the world, more than the displeasure of Almighty God: and these two kinds of fear drive men from God; but there are other kinds which drive them unto God. The first whereof is a Servile fear, that maketh men leave the act of sin, both inward & outward, to avoid punishment, though they retain the love & liking of it. The second is an Initial fear, that maketh them cast from them, the very desire of sinning, not out of the love of God, which they have not yet attained unto, but out of the consideration of the woeful consequence of it: and thirdly, there is a Filial fear, proceeding from the love of God, causing us to decline the offending of him whom we so dear love, and of whom we are so dear loved, more than any evil whatsoever.  
The former kinds of fear that drive men from God, could not be found in Christ, who was not only nearly joined unto God, but God himself blessed for evermore: for neither did he prise life, nor the favour of the world that knew him not, at any higher rate than was fit. Of the later sorts of fear, neither Servile nor Initial, were in him that was free from all sin; and touching Filial fear, being well assured of his own power, in respect whereof it was impossible for him to be drawn to the committing of any evil; though he had that part of it, which standeth in declining the offence of GOD more than any evil in the world, yet not that other, that proceedeth from the consideration of the danger of being drawn thereunto: so that he could not fear lest he should fall into sin. Besides all these kinds of fear, whereof some drive men from God, and some bring them to God, there is another which is the ground of them all, named Natural fear, which is the declining of any thing that is hurtful, or contrary to the desired good of him that feareth: This Natural fear, as also the fear of Reverence, & that part of Filial fear, that is the declining of sin, and the displeasing of God, was found in Christ, as all other sinless and harmless affections were. For in the nature of man, he reverenced and adored the Majesty of God his Father; and with a Natural fear, declined death, and the bitterness of that cup he was to drink of, and with a Filial fear declined the offending of God his Father, more than hell itself.  
But (passing by the fear of Reverence, and that part of Filial fear that was found in Christ, concerning which there is no question among the Divines) that we may the better discern, both what his Natural fear was, and in respect whereof; we must note, that 
i Caietan: in 3. part. Summae qu. 15. art. 7.  fear is, first, in respect of things which cannot be avoided, neither by resistance and encounter, nor by flying from them: which things though they may seem rather to make an impression of sorrow than fear, because in respect of their certainty they are rather apprehended as present, then future; yet for that we know not experimentally, how we shall be afflicted with them, and in what sort we shall sustain and bear them, we may rightly be said to fear them. Secondly, in respect of such things, as may be escaped or overcome with a kind of uncertainty of event, and danger of the issue. Thirdly, in respect of such as may be escaped or overcome without any uncertainty of the event or issue, though not without great conflict and labour.  
These kinds of Natural fear thus distinguished, it is easy to see what Christ feared, and in what sort. For first he feared death, and the stroke of the justice of God his Father, sitting on the Tribunal or judgement seat, to punish the sins of men, for whom he stood forth to answer that day: and secondly, he feared everlasting destruction. The former of these he feared, as things impossible to be escaped, in respect of the resolution and purpose of God his Father, that by his satisfactory death and suffering, and no other way, man should be delivered, The later he feared, that is, declined as a thing he knew he should escape without all doubt or uncertainty of event, though not without conflicting with the temptations of Satan, and the enduring of many bitter and grievous things: for it was no otherwise possible for him, having put himself into the communion of our nature, to escape the swallowing up of that gulf into which wicked sinners sink down, but by resisting the temptations of sin, that it might not enter into him, by breaking off the same in others, and by suffering whatsoever it had deserved. But some man will say, 
k Annotat. in 5. ad Hebraeos. ver. 7.  Beza teacheth that Christus veritus est succumbere, & absorberi à morte; that is, that Christ feared to sink down, and to be swallowed up of death; and consequently, that he feared everlasting destruction, with an uncertainty of his escape from the same.  
It is true that Beza saith, that Christ feared to sink down, and to be swallowed up of death; yet doth not that follow, wh●…ch is alleged as a consequent of his saying, nor any thing contrary to that hath been said of us. For whereas there is a double 
Bonav. in 3 sent. dist. 16. q. 2. Scotus in 3. dist. 15. q. unica  apprehension of reason in Christ, the one named Superior, that looketh into things with all circumstances: the other Inferior, that presenteth to the mind of man some circumstances, and not all; Beza teacheth, that Christ feared to sink down, and to be swallowed up of death, that is, that he so declined the swallowing gulf of death, out of which he saw no escape within the view of Inferior reason, presenting unto him this hideous & destroying evil, in it own nature endless, without showing the issue out of the same; that yet notwithstanding simply he feared it not, Superior reason clearly showing him the issue out of it. This will not seem strange unto us, if we consider, that in Christ every faculty, power, & part was suffered, notwithstanding the perfection found in some other, to do that which properly pertained to it; & from hence it is easy to discern, how it came to pass, that Christ should desire and pray for that which he knew should never be granted, as namely, that the 
m Math. 26. 39  cup of death might pass from him. For the sense of nature, & Inferior reason presented death, & the ignominy of the Cross unto him, as they are in themselves evil, without the consideration of any good to follow, & so caused a desire to decline them, expressed in the prayer he made: But Superior reason considering them with all circumstances, & knowing God's resolution to be such, that the World should thereby be saved, & by no other means, persuaded to a willing acceptance of them. Between these desires and resolutions, there was a diversity, but no contrariety; a subordination, but no repugnance or resistance. There was no contrariety, because they were not in respect of the same circumstances: for Death, as Death, is to be avoided; neither did Superior reason ever dislike this judgement of the Inferior Faculties, but showed farther and higher considerations, wherein it was to be accepted & embraced. There was no repugnance or resistance, because the one yielded to the other. For even as a man that is sick, considering the potion prescribed to him by the Physician, to be bitter & unpleasant, declineth it while he stayeth within the bounds & confines of that consideration, but when casting his eyes farther, he is showed by the Physician, the happy operation of good that is in it, he willingly accepteth it, in that it is beneficial and good: So Christ considering death as in itself evil, & contrary to nature, while he stayed within the bounds and confines of that consideration, shunned and declined it: and yet, as the means of man's salvation, joyfully embraced it, accepting that he refused, and refusing that he accepted. 
n Hugo de S. Victore de Sac. fid. l. 1. part. 4. c. 19  There is a thing (saith Hugo de Sancto Victore) that is Bonum in se, good in itself, & the good of every other thing. There is a thing good in itself, & yet good but to certain purposes only. And there is a thing evil in itself, & yet good to some purposes. The two former sorts of things may be desired simply and absolutely: the third cannot but only respectively to certain ends: & of this kind was the death of the Cross, with all the woeful torment concurring with the same, which simply Christ shunned and declined, but respectively to the ends above specified, willingly embraced. The Papists 
o Bellarm. l. 4. de anim. Christi c. 8.  impute I know not what impiety to Caluine, for that he saith, Christ corrected the desire & wish that suddenly came from him. But they might easily understand if they pleased, that he is far from thinking that any desire, or expressing of desire, was sudden in Christ, as rising in him without consent of reason, or that he was inconsiderate in any thing he did or spoke: but his meaning is, that some desires which he expressed, proceeded from Inferior reason, that considereth not all circumstances: & that he corrected, & revoked the same, not as evil, but as not proceeding from the full & perfect consideration of all things fit to be thought upon, before a full resolution be passed.  
Thus having spoken of Christ's fear & agony before his passion, it remaineth that we proceed to speak of the sorrows that afflicted & distressed him in his passion. These sorrows were such & so great, that being beset & compassed about with them on every side, he professed 
p Math. 26. 38.  his soul was heavy even unto the death: Yea. such was the bitterness of his Soul, that pressed with the weight & burden of grievous and insupportable evils, he was forced to cry out aloud, 
q Matth. 27. 46  My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? These words of sorrowful passion, the Papists say, Caluine thought to be words of despair, and that Christ despaired when he uttered them. Surely this shameless slander showeth, that they that thus speak they care not what, are desperately malicious, and maintain a desperate cause that cannot be upholden, but by falsehood, & lying. But Caluine is far from any such execrable & hellish blasphemy. For having by occasion of these words, amplified the sorrows & distresses of Christ in the time of his passion, 
r Comment: in 27. Matthaei.  he saith there were some that charged him that he said, these words were words of desperation, and that Christ despaired when he uttered them: but he accurseth such hellish blasphemy, and pronounceth that howsoever the flesh apprehended destroying evils, & inferior reason showed no issue out of the same: yet there was ever a most sure resolved persuasion resting in his heart, that he should undoubtedly prevail against them, and overcome them.  
wherefore passing over this wicked calumniation of our adversaries, let us see in what sense Christ the Son of God complained of dereliction, and cried aloud unto his Father, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? For the clearing hereof the Divines do note, that there are six kinds of dereliction or forsaking, whereof Christ may be thought to have complained. The first whereof, is by disunion of Person; the second, by loss of Grace; the third, by diminution or weakening of grace; the fourth, by want of assurance of future deliverance, and present support; the fifth, by denial of protection; the sixth by withdrawing of solace, and destituting the forsaken of all comfort. It is impious once to think, that Christ was forsaken any of the four first ways. For the unity of his person was never dissolved, his graces were never either taken away or diminished; neither was it possible he should want assurance of future deliverance and present support, that was eternal God, and Lord of life. But the two last ways he may rightly be said to have been forsaken; in that his Father denied to protect and keep him out of the hands of his cruel, bloody, and merciless enemies, no way restraining them, but suffering them to do the uttermost of that their wicked hearts could imagine, and left him to endure the extremity of their fury and malice: and, that nothing might be wanting to make his sorrows beyond measure sorrowful, withdrew from him that solace he was wont to find in God: and removed far from him all things, that might any way lessen and assuage the extremity of his pain. So that Christ might rightly complain that he was forsaken, though he were far from despair, and words of despair.   

CHAP. 19  
Of the descending of Christ into Hell.  
WITH the sufferings of Christ, his Descension into Hell is connexed, both in the order of things, and in the Articles of the creed, and therefore it remaineth, that in the next place, we speak of that. 
a De animâ Christi, l. 4. c. 6.  Bellarmine observeth, that the Article of Christ's descending into Hell, was not in the Creed with all Churches from the beginning: for that Irenoens, Origen, and Tertullian have it not: and Augustine in his book de Fide & Symbolo, and in his four books de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, mentioneth it not, expounding the Creed five times: though 
b Epst. 99  elsewhere he say, that none but an Infidel will deny the descension of Christ into Hell. Ruffinus expoundeth it amongst the articles of the Creed, but noteth, that it is not in the Symbol of the Roman Church, nor those of the East. The Nicene Creed hath it not, but that of Athanasius hath, and other of the Fathers read it also. And at this day it is received in all the Churches of the world without contradiction: though there be some question touching the meaning of it.  

c De animâ Christi, lib. 4. c. 7. 8. & 9  Bellarmine reckoneth three opinions of Protestants, differently understanding the same: whereof the first is, that to descend into hell, is to be utterly annihilated, & brought to nothing: the second, that it is to suffer the pains of hell: and the third that it is nothing else but his burial. Of these three opinions imputed by Bellarmine to the Protestants, the first is nothing but his own fancy, never dreamt of by any Protestant. For who ever, professing himself a Christian, thought, that to go down into hell, is to be utterly extinct, and to be no more? But (saith he) 
d Comment. in 2. Actorum.  Brentius bringeth in Christ speaking in this sort: I will descend into hell, I will feel the pains of hell, & seem utterly to perish: therefore he is of that opinion, whatsoever others are. A strange thing it is, that men of learning, & judgement, should so forget themselves, as this Cardinal often doth, saying he knoweth not what. For doth he utterly cease to be, that feeleth the pains of Hell? or do not the wicked perish, & is not their estate in holy Scripture described to be everlasting perdition? he knoweth right well it is: & yet, I think, dareth not from thence infer, that they are utterly extinct, and have no more being: if he do, we will not fear to brand him with the mark of impiety, and intolerable ignorance; for the wicked are said utterly to perish, not by losing all being, but all good, desirable, & happy being. If Brentius escape his hands, he hath good hope to convince Caluine of this error, and so still to lay upon us the heavy imputation of so damnable impiety. Caluine hath written a Book called Psychopanychia, the drift whereof is, to prove, that the souls & spirits of men, sleep not after death, but live, either in pain, or rest; out of this book the Cardinal presumeth, that he shall be able to prove, that the souls & spirits of wicked men are utterly extinct, and have no more being. An ill chosen book, in my opinion, for such a purpose, the whole drift thereof being to demonstrate the contrary of that he undertaketh to prove out of it. Yet let us see how he goeth about to convince the Author of this book of that error, which throughout the same he laboureth to confute. His first demonstration is this. Caluine proveth at large in that book, that the wicked do live for ever, though in pain & torment; therefore he thinketh that to go down into hell, is to be utterly extinct, and to have no more being. Astrange illation, & such as perhaps will not satisfy all: therefore let us hear another, for he hath store of proofs. Caluine in the same book, laboureth to prove, that the Spirits of just men are not extinguished, but that they live & remain for ever, because that Christ's soul was not extinguished in his death, but remained still, & lived after death. That Christ's soul was not extinguished in his death, he strongly demonstrateth, because it was so commended into the hands of his Father, that it could not perish so as the wicked do, who are swallowed up of hell & destruction, and yet still remain and live for ever. If this demonstration satisfy us not, what will? Christ's soul was so kept by GOD the Father, to whom it was commended, that it could not perish at all, no not so as the wicked do, who yet are not extinct, but live for ever in bitter sense of woe & misery, much less be extinct, & utterly cease to be: therefore Christ's descension into hell, was an utter extinction. These must be the Cardinal's proofs, if he will bring any out of that book to convince Caluine of that error, wherewith he chargeth him. But he knoweth right well, that neither these, nor any other that he doth or can produce out of the same, conclude any such thing as he intendeth; and therefore let the Reader know that the Cardinal never persuaded himself, that either Brentius, or Caluine, or any other Protestant was of that opinion, with which he chargeth them; but that he sought only to abuse his Reader: and therefore that which in vile hypocrisy he saith of Caluine & Brentius, that 
e De anim●… Christi l. 4. c. 7.  they bring in Atheism, by these their impious & damnable assertions, may be verified of himself, and other his consorts, who by their shameless lying, & hellish slandering, wrong both God and men, and bring all Religion into horrible contempt. Wherefore leaving these Hellish & Devilish slanderers to Gods most righteous and fearful judgements; touching the descending of Christ into hell, it is true that Saint 
f Epist. 99  Augustine saith, None but an Infidel will deny it: for it is one of the Articles of our Christian Faith. But how we are to understand this his descending, it is not so certain.  
Whereupon we shall find that there are presently three opinions in the Church concerning the same. For some understand by the name of Hell, the place of dead bodies, and the dominion of death holding soul & body asunder, & turning the body forsaken of the soul into rottenness, & corruption. These do so interpret this Article, as that they understand nothing else by Christ's descending into Hell, but his going down into the chambers of death, and his three days continuance in the places of darkness under the dominion thereof. Others understand by the name of Hell, the pains of Hell, and think, that Christ's descending into Hell, was nothing else but the suffering of hellish pains in his Soul, in the time of his Agony in the Garden, and in the hour of his death upon the Crosse. A third sort there are, that understand by the name of Hell, into which (in this Article) Christ is said to have descended, the receptacles and places appointed for the souls of men after this life sequestered from the presence of God, and not admitted into Heaven. These places the Romanists imagine to be four. Of which, the first is, the Hell of the damned, wherein wicked Castaways, & impenitent sinners are punished, not only with the loss of the sight of God, but with sense also of smart & misery, & that for ever. The second, is by them named Limbus puerorum, where Infants dying unbaptized, and in the state of original sin, are supposed to be holden for ever exiled from the presence of God, & his holy ones, yet without all sensible smart or pain. The third (they imagine) is Purgatory, where they think the souls of good, but yet imperfect men, are punished till they have satisfied the wrath of God for sins committed in the time of their life, but not sufficiently repent of, nor satisfied for while they lived. The fourth place imagined by them, is Limbus patrum, wherein the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and all the just, were holden till the coming of Christ, and kept from the sight and presence of God, yet without all sensible smart or grief. These being the different mansions of that place, wherein the souls of men are sequestered from the presence of God, comprehended all in a sort, under the name of Hell, as our Adversaries fancy: the ordinary opinion of the Schoolmen heretofore was, 
g Thom. Summae part. 3. q. 52. art. 2.  that Christ's Soul went locally only into Limbus Patrum, & not into any of the other man●…ons of Hell, neither Limbus puerorum, Purgatory, nor the lowest Hell: but that he descended into these places virtually only, in that he made it appear to all that were in them, that the work of Redemption was now wrought, by force whereof, they in Purgatory, after full satisfaction should be received into Heaven: the rest, as well in Limbus puerorum. as in the lowest Héll, being excluded from all hope of bettering their estate, and left in endless misery with the Devil and his Angels. But 
h De animâ Christi l. 4. c. 15  Bellarmine thinketh, he went personally, and locally into the place of the damned, even into the lowest Hell. These being the divers and different opinions of men, touching the meaning of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell, let us see what is to be resolved touching the same.  
It is true, according to the first and second opinion imputed by Bellarmine unto the Protestants, that Christ dying, after a sort suffered the pains of Hell, and being dead, was under the dominion of death three days: yet neither of these interpretations seemeth fitly to agree to the Article of our Faith: for that the hellish & bitter sufferings of Christ are sufficiently expressed, in that he is said to have suffered under Pontius Pilate, to have been crucified, and to have died; and his being under the dominion of death, in that he is said to have been buried. Wherefore the third opinion, which is, that he descended into the places of souls sequestered, & shut out from the presence of God, seemeth more truly to express the meaning of this Article, not understanding that he went into Purgatory, Limbus puerorum, or Limbus patrum, but that he descended into the lowest Hell. For the three former imagined places are no where, and so no part of Hell into which Christ descended.  
Of Purgatory, we find nothing in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the most ancient Fathers, as I have 
i Book 3. c. 17.  elsewhere showed. Of Limbus puerorum, we read in Augustine, but confuted and rejected by him, as an erroneous conceit of the Pelagians, who imagined a third place between Heaven and Hell, and a third or middle estate 
k August. in Hypognosticon resp. 5. l. 〈◊〉. de peccator. merit. & remis. c. 28. & serm. 14. de verb. Apost.  between heaven happiness, and the miseries of the lowest Hell, wherein men dying in the state of Nature only, shall continue for ever deprived of the happiness of seeing God, but no way subjected to sensible smart and grief. Of this it is, that S. Augustine saith, he hath heard of the right hand, and the left; of Come ye blessed, and Go ye cursed; of Sheep & Goats; of the Kingdom of Heaven, & Hell where the Devil and his Angels are everlastingly punished: But of a third estate, of a third sort of men, or of a third place, he hath never heard or read, and therefore is verily persuaded there is no such.  
Touching Limbus patrum, it is true, that some amongst the Ancient seem to speak of some such thing: but we cannot persuade ourselves that there is any such place, nor that Christ is to be understood to have descended thither, when in the Article of the Creed, he is said to have descended into hell. First, because, as 
l Epist. 99  S. Augustine fitly noteth, we do not find in the Scripture, that the word Hell is ever used to express any other place, but a place of woe and misery: and therefore so direful a word, used only to note unto us the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, cannot signify that place where the souls of the just did rest till the coming of Christ, named in the parable or history of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham's bosom. Neither did Augustine ever learn any other lesson afterwards, as 
m Andrad: defence. fidei Tried: li. 2. fol. 175.  some untruly report that he did. Secondly, because we cannot conceive what Christ did benefit the spirits of the just, Abiding in Abraham's bosom, when he went down into hell: A quibus (as Saint 
n Vbi supra.  Augustine rightly noteth) secundum beatificam Divinitatis praesentiam, nunqua●…ecessit, sed quemadmodum apud Tartara semper fuit judicante potentiâ, ita in paradiso, & sinu Abrahae beatificante sapientiâ; that is, from whom according to that presence of his Deity that maketh all them happy that enjoy it, he never departed, but as he was ever present in hell by his power, judging & fastening condemnation to the woeful inhabitants of that place of utter darkness; so he was always in paradise, & in the bosom of Abraham, as that wisdom of God that filleth all with blessedness, where it vouchsafeth to manifest itself. Christ therefore descended into Hell, according to the Article of the Creed; into the place of souls sequestered from the presence of God, into the place of dan ned souls even into the lowest hell: for there are no souls or spirits of men sequestered from the presence of God, after the separation from the body, but the souls of wicked Castaways: nor other place of souls so sequestered, but the prison of the lowest hell.  
The end of Christ's, going & descending into the hell of the damned, was not as 
o Stromat. li. 6.  Clemens Alexandrinus, and ●…ome other did think, to preach unto the damned spirits, and to deliver from thence such as should there believe in him, either all or any. For we must constantly resolve, that none were delivered out of hell by Christ's descending, nor none there converted by his preaching, but that his descending was only to fasten condemnation to the Devil and his Angels, to triumph over the principalities of darkness, to secure us from being surprised by them, and to prevent our coming thither, not to fetch back any that were there already. The places that are brought to prove that Christ preached in Hell, and sought the deliverance either of all, or at the least of some of them he found there, are specially two. The first is that of the Apostle S. Peter: where he saith: 
p 1. Pet. 4. 6:  The Gospel was preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit. Here we see the Apostle speaketh of preaching unto the dead; but he is to be understood to speak of preaching to the dead, 
q Andrad. defence. ●…d. Trident. l. 2. p. 173.  that is, to such as were dead when he wrote, but not when the Gospel was preached unto them: as we say Christ shall judge the quick and dead, not as if any should be judged being dead, but because many of them that shall be judged, are then dead when we speak of them, though they shall not be, when they shall come into judgement: Or otherwise, that he speaketh of such as were dead in sin, as some interpret his words. The second place is that of the same Apostle, where he saith, that 
s 1. Pet. 3. 19 20.  Christ in spirit went, and preached to the spirits in prison, sometimes 
r Lyra & Glossa ordinaria in hunc locum.  disobedient in the days of Noe. But as Saint 
t Epist. 99  Augustine fitly noteth, this preaching of Christ in spirit mentioned by the Apostle, was not after his death in his humane Soul, but in the days of No in his eternal Spirit, & Deity. And as 
u Defence. fid. Trident. li. 2. p. 172.  Andradius rightly observeth, they that he preached unto, are named spirits in prison, because they were spirits in prison, when Peter wrote of them, not when Christ preached to them: though, if they should be understood to be named Spirits in prison, as being such when Christ preached unto them, yet we might rightly conceive as Saint Augustine doth, that he preached to the Souls and Spirits of Men shut up in the prison house of their sinful bodies, and the dark dungeons of ignorance, and sin, and not in the prison of hell.  
Thus than our Divines deny the descending of Christ into Purgatory, Limbus puerorum, and Limbus patrum, persuading themselves that there are no such places. But his descending into the Hell of the damned they all acknowledge, though not to deliver men thence, yet to fasten condemnation to them that are there, to bind Satan the Prince of darkness, that he may not prevail against them that believe in Christ: and to keep them from sinking down into that devouring pi●… into which he went, and out of which he so triumphantly returned. Only this difference may seem to be amongst them, that some of them think he went personally and locally, others only virtually, in power and operation: Which diversity of opinions is likewise amongst the Papists; Bellarmine, and some other in our time teaching, that he went locally into the lowest Hell: and the Schoolmen, that he went not locally into the lowest Hell, but virtually only in the manifestation of his virtue, and power, and into Limbus Patrum locally and personally: so that all the controversy between them and us, standeth in two points: The descending of Christ into Limbus Patrum, and the suffering of Hellish pains. For whereas Cardinal 
x De animâ Christi l. 4. cap. 10.  Bellarmine laboureth to prove a local Hell he busieth himself in vain, no man denying it: But, saith he, Beza, and others do say, the words used in the Hebrew and Greek Sheol, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do always signify the Grave in holy Scripture, and not Hell, whence it may seem to follow, that there is no other Hell than the Grave: and so consequently, no local Hell for damned souls. Surely this is a most unjust, and untrue imputation. For Beza, and the other learned Divines he speaketh of, do not affirm, that Sheol and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do precisely and always in holy Scripture signify the grave, but as 
y De arcano sermone c. 21.  Arias Montanus, 
z Defence. fidei Trident. l. 〈◊〉. fol. 174.  Andradius, and sundry other excellently learned amongst our adversaries do, that Sheol, which the Septuagint translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not precisely, and immediately signify the place of damned souls, but in an indifferency, and generality of signification, noteth out unto us the receptacles of the dead: And that, seeing there are two parts that are sundered one from another in them that are dead, there are likewise two kinds of receptacles of death, or dwelling places for them on whom death hath her full force: the one provided for their bodies putrifying, and rotting, and the other for their souls tormented everlastingly. So that, when these words, thus indifferently signifying either of these receptacles of death, do note out unto us the one, or the other of these two places, either the grave for the body, or hell for the soul: cannot be gathered out of the words themselves, but the circumstances of those places of Scripture where they are used. In like sort they say, that the word Nephesh translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and anima, doth not always signify the spiritual substance of man that is immortal, but the whole person, the life, yea, and some times that which hath been alive, though now dead, even a dead carcase: according as we read in Leviticus, where God pronounceth, that whosoever toucheth 
a Levit. 21. 2. Numb. 19 11.  Nephesh, that is, a dead corpses, shall be unclean. And in this sense it is, that 
b Version. Interlinear. in Bibi●…lijs Regijs.  Arias Montanus translateth not that place in the 
c Psal. 16. 11.  Psalm, Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, that is, Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hell, but, Non derelinques animam meam in sepulchro, that is, Thou shalt not leave my Soul, Life, or Person, or that Body that sometimes was alive, in the Grave. For it it cannot be understood, that the reasonable soul, or immortal Spirit of Christ, was ever in the grave, either to be delivered thence, or left there. If it be said, that the Greek and Latin words used by the Translators, signify more precisely hell, and the reasonable Soul or Spirit, than those Hebrew words Sheol and Nephesh do: we answer, that whatsoever their use and signification be in profane Authors, yet they must be enlarged in the Scriptures, to signify all that which the Hebrew words do, that so the translation may be true and full. 
d De anima Christi, l. 4. cap. 10.  Bellarmine, to confute this explication; and construction of the Hebrew words made by Beza, and the rest, urgeth that the Septuagint never translateth Sheol by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies the grave, but by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that therefore Sheol doth not properly signify the Grave. Hereunto we answer, that the word of itself being indifferent to signify any receptacles of the dead, whether of their bodies or souls, must not be translated by a word precisely noting the grave, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth: and that therefore it is not to be marvailed at, that the Septuagint never translate the Hebrew word by this Greek word of a narrower compass, & straighter signification. Secondly we say, that seeing Sheol, when (by the circumstances of the places where it is used) it is restrained to signify only the place of dead bodies, yet doth not precisely note that fitting receptacle provided for them to be laid in, as in their beds of rest, by the living, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth, but any other receptacle what●…er, even of such as want that honourable kind of burial, whether they be devoured by wild beasts, swallowed up of the Sea, or received into any other place of stay and abode, till the time of the general resurrection, the Translators used not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of too narrow compass & strait signification, but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enlarged by them to express all that the Hebrew word importeth: & in this sense 
e Gen. 37. 35.  jacob said, he would go down mourning into Sheol, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his son, not into a place of souls sequestered from God, or into hell, sor he never thought his son to be gone thither, nor into the grave properly so named, for he thought his son had been devoured of a wild beast; but into the receptacles of the dead, and into the chambers of death, wherein there are many, & very different mansions. The words of this holy Patriarch, professing that he would go down mourning to his son into Sheol, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & not observing of this generality of signification of the word Sheol, but restraining it to note only the receptacles of the damned spirits, gave occasion to some for to think, that the souls of the Just were in some part of Hell, or at least in some invisible place far from Heaven, & within the confines of Hell, till the resurrection of Christ, if not till the general resurrection, & his teturne, to judge both the quick & dead, as 
f Cont. haeres. l. 5●…. in fine.  Irenaeus, 
g De anim. c. 32  Tertullian, & others imagined. But howsoever the Greek or Latin words may seem to be restrained, to note only the places of damned spirits, yet it is plain and evident, that the Hebrew word Sheol signifieth any devouring gulf or pit, swallowing up the dead, in that 
h Num. 16. 33  Kore, Dathan, & A●…iram, with their wives, children, cattle, tents, & all that ever they had, went down into Sheol, which cannot be understood to be precisely the place of the damned spirits, unless we will imagine, that sheep, oxen, & tents may find any place amongst the damned spirits.  
The reason why our Divines do so much urge the generality of the signification of this word, and will not suffer it to be restrained to signify only the place of damned spirits, is, because the propriety of the word admitteth no restraint, and there are many things in Scripture said to go down into Sheol, or to be in Sheol, that cannot be understood to have gone into Hell, or to be in Hell; & not for that they deny Christ's descending into the Hell of the damned: for there is no Protestant but confe●…seth that Christ did virtually descend into Hell, and many think he descended locally, and personally; which difference of opinions is also amongst the Papists. For 
i In 3 sent. dist. 22. q. 3.  Durandus thinketh that Christ descended into no part of hell personally, or locally, but virtually only. 
k Thom. Summae 3. part. 〈◊〉. 52. art. 2.  The rest of the Schoolmen for the most part suppose, that he descended locally into that part of Hell which they call Limbus Patrum, but into the Hell of the damned, and the other infernal Mansions virtually only. But 
l De anima Christi l. 4. c. 16  Bellarmine thinketh he went locally into the lowest Hell, or Hell of the damned, moved so to think, as he saith, by the authority of the Fathers, that seem to have been of that opinion. So that, as I said before, the only difference between the Romanistes, and our Divines about the descending of CHRIST into Hell, is, touching the suffering of Hellish pains, (whereof I have spoken at large before, clearing the opinions of our Divines in such sort, as I think our Adversaries will not much resist against the same so understood, as I have showed they must be) and touching Limbus Patrum. Wherefore let us proceed to take a view of the proofs they bring for confirmation of their Limbus.  
The first place that Bellarmine bringeth for confirmation thereof, is that in Genesis, where jacob saith, 
m Gen. 37. 35.  I will descend or go down mourning to my Son into Sheol. See, saith 
n De anima Christi l. 4. c. 11  Bellarmine, jacob was a godly man, and so was joseph, and yet neither of them went up into Heaven, but both descended into Hell. That they descended into Sheol, that is, into the chambers of death, and receptacles of dead bodies, we make no question; but that they went into the Hell of the damned, or into any region of darkness near unto it, cannot be proved; howsoever some amongst the Ancient, deceived by the Greek & Latin words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Infernus, used by the Translatours to express the force of the Hebrew word Sheol, have so thought. The second proof that he bringeth is this. Abraham in the Gospel telleth the rich man in Hell, that between them there is 
o Luk. 16. 26.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth such a saeparation as is by the renting of the earth, & dividing of one part thereof from another; therefore there is no solid thing between them, and consequently, they were all in the same devouring gulf or pit. But this surely is a strange kind of proof: for his own friends, and followers understand by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the immoveable decree of God, who will never suffer the one to pass to the other, and not literally such a void, empty, & gaping distance, as the word doth properly signify. Yea 
p In eum locum  Maldonatus is so far from being persuaded by the bare signification of this one word, that Abraham & Lazarus were in the same devouring gulf with the rich man, that he saith, the place Abraham speaketh of, between which & Hell there is so great a distance, is heaven. Whereunto Augustine seemeth in part to consent, who 
q Epist. 99  pronounceth that he could never find, that Abraham's bosom, wherein Lazarus rested, was any part of hell. Wherefore it is absurd to imagine upon the bare & only signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Abraham, & the rich man in Hell, were in the same pit, divided only by an empty gulf between them; seeing Tertullian a very ancient writer, that knew the force of this word, as well as Bellarmine, affirmeth, notwithstanding any thing that may be inferred from thence, 
r Aduersus Marcionem, l. 4  that Abraham's bosom is on high, far above those infernal dwellings of the damned. Whereunto that in the Proverbs agreeth, 
s Pro. 15. 24.  The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from Hell beneath.  
The next place that the jesuit bringeth to prove Limbus, is that of 
t 1 Sam. 28.  Samuel, whom the Pythonisse raised, when Saul consulted her, being destitute of other means of direction. But this place of all other maketh least to the purpose, it being very doubtful, whether it were true Samuel that appeared, or Satan taking unto him a body, and coming forth in the likeness of Samuel. But let us suppose it was true Samuel: could not his Soul return from some other place as well as out of Limbus? No doubt it might: & that which Bellarmine hath, that the Soul of Samuel appearing unto Saul, seemed to come out of the earth, and consequently out of Limbus, is a very silly conceit; for what eye could see & discern samuel's Soul? But, saith he, Samuel appearing told Saul a wicked & godless man, that he should be with him very shortly: therefore he was in some region of Hell, & not in Heaven, seeing this wicked King could not go to him into heaven. We need not seek far for answer to this objection; for the ordinary 
u In hunc locum.  Gloss doth excellently answer it. saying, that if these were not the words of a lying Spirit, they may be understood in respect of the common condition of death, not in respect of the same place, there being so great a distance between them, & so surely settled & established.  
Touching this appearing Samuel, I find great difference of opinions amongst Divines: some thinking it was true Samuel the Man of God; others, a lying Spirit in his likeness. Lyra in his annotations upon the 1. of Kings, Chapter 28, putteth down the reasons brought on both sides; and first, that it was the true Samuel, he showeth that these reasons are commonly brought. First, because the Scripture speaketh of him, as of his very person, not of any counterfeit likeness of him, calling him not once, but often, by the name of Samuel. Secondly, for that it had been a great dishonour & irreverence offered to Samuel, if so often the Devil should have been called by his name in holy Scripture. Lastly, for that it is said in Ecclesiasticus, in the praise of Samuel the Prophet of God, that 
x Ecclus. 46. 20.  he prophesied after his death, that he afterwards slept again, and that he made known to King Saul his end, & the overthrow of his armies, which prediction is not to be imputed to a lying Spirit, seeing he so certainly foretold what was to come to pass. On the other side, he produceth these proofs. First the Gloss upon the 29 of Esay saith, the Pythonisse did not raise Samuel, but evocated & called out the Devil in his likeness. Secondly, it is not likely, that God, who would not answer Saul by living Prophets, would send any from the dead to advise or direct him. Thirdly, he that appeared unto Saul said unto him, To morrow thou shalt be with me; but Saul as a wicked man was to be in Hell the place of torments: therefore he that appeared was so. Fourthly he that appeared suffered Saul to worship him, which true Samuel would not have done, seeing God only is to be worshipped. Fiftly, if it were true Samuel that appeared; either he was raised by divine power, or by the power of magical incantations: if by divine power, God should very much have favoured magical arts, if at the invocation of this Pythonisse he had wrought such a miracle: if by the power of Magic, then was he raised by the Devil: and that either with his consent, and then he had done evil, which he could not do: or without his consent, which could not be, seeing the Devil hath no power to force the Saints of God after their death, and departure hence. Lastly, he allegeth the authority of 
a Ad Simplicianum.  Augustine, who bringing the reasons on both sides, in the end inclineth rather to this later opinion: and that in the 
b Part. 2. causa, 26. quaest. 5. ca Nec mirum.  Decrees, Cap. Nec mirum etc. adding that if that decree taken out of Augustine be the decree of the Church, no man may think otherwise: but if it be not (as he thinketh it is not, because Augustine, out of whom it was taken, disputeth the matter doubtfully, and many of the Divines since the compiling of that decree, are of another opinion, which they ought not to be, if it were the decree of the Church) he rather thinketh it was true Samuel that appeared, than any counterfeit in his likeness. If any man desire to see the different opinions of the Father's touching this point, let him read Tertullian in his book de Animâ, the 33, Chapter, & the annotations upon the same place of Tertullian. But howsoever, whether it were true Samuel that appeared unto Saul, or a counterfeit in his likeness, I hope it is clear and evident out of that which hath been said, that this apparition no way proveth the imagined Limbus of the Papists.  
There remain yet two other places of Scripture to be examined, that are brought for confirmation of the same, but yielding as little proof as this. The one is in the prophecies of Zacharie, the other in the Epistle of S. Peter. The words in the former place according to the Vulgar translation are these: 
c Zach. 9 11.  Thou in the blood of thy testament, hast delivered thy prisoners out of the Lake wherein there is no water. But in the Original the words are otherwise, and 
d In version interlineari,  Arias Montanus translateth the place otherwise in this sort, And thou, to wit, jerusalem, in the blood of thy testament, that is, sprinkled with the blood ●…f thy testament, rejoice and be glad; I have dismissed thy prisoners, out of the lake wherein there is no water. So that these words, Thou in the blood of thy testament, are not appliable unto Christ, but to Jerusalem; and the other touching the dismissing of the prisoners out of the lake wherein is no water, unto God the Father, who speaketh in this place to Jerusalem, concerning Christ her King, & comforteth her, saying: Rejoice, o Daughter of Zion: be glad, o Daughter of Jerusalem; for behold, thy King cometh unto thee meek, & riding on an Ass used to the yoke, and the foal of an Ass. I will destroy the Chariot from Ephraim, and the Horse from Jerusalem: He shall destroy the bows of the fighters, and the multitude, and publish peace to the nations. He shall rule from Sea to Sea, and from the river to the end of the Land; And thou, to wit, Jerusalem, in the blood of thy testament, that is, sprinkled with the blood of thy testament, rejoice and be glad. I have dismissed thy Prisoners out of the lake wherein there is no water. Thus we see this place according to the Original verity and the translation of Arias Montanus, maketh nothing for the confirmation of that, for proof whereof it is brought. Yea, though we should follow the Vulgar Translation, and take the words to be spoken by Almighty God to Christ his Son, yet could not our adversaries prove Limbus out of this place. For the Author of the Gloss, and many other, following the Vulgar Translation, understand these words of the deliverance of the people of God, out of the captivity of Babylon, which was as a deep pit, having in it no water but mire, wherein their feet stuck fast. And 
e In eum locum.  Hierome himself, though he understand the words of Christ's descending into hell, yet mentioneth the other interpretation also in the same place, not much disliking it. Neither doth his interpretation of Christ's descending into Hell prove Limbus. For he speaketh of the prison of Hell, where is no mercy, & calleth it a cruel, or fearful Hell; & not of Limbus patrum, or Abraham's bosom. Bellarmine cunningly after his manner, to discredit our interpretation of deliverance out of babylonical captivity, maketh, as if Caluine only had expounded the words of the holy Prophet in that sort; whereas yet many excellent Divines, long before Caluine was borne, interpreted them in the very same sort, as we do. But if the challenge of novelty fail, he betaketh himself to another of absurdity, & improbability, pronouncing that our Interpretation hath no probability: first, because in the words immediately going before, there is a prophecy concerning Christ, uttered unto Jerusalem in these words: Rejoice O daughter of Zion, for behold thy King cometh, etc. Which the Evangelists expound of Christ's coming into Jerusalem: and then secondly, an Apostrophe to Christ in the words questioned. But first herein he is deceived: for the speech of Almighty God to his Church, begun in the former words, is still continued in these, showing what favours for Christ's fake he had, & still meant to bestow on her: whereas according to the Translation they follow, there is first a speech directed to the Church concerning Christ, than an Apostrophe to Christ, and then thirdly, a return unto the Church again. Secondly, if that were granted, which he urgeth touching the supposed Apostrophe, it would not prove that there is no probability in our Interpretation. For this consequence will never be made good in the Schools: Christ is prophesied of in the words immediately going before, & in these words God speaketh unto him by way of Apostrophe; therefore they cannot be understood of deliverance out of babylonical captivity; seeing it is certain, that Christ delivered the Israelites out of all the miseries, out of which they escaped. But, saith Bellarmine, if we admit this Interpretation, in what blood of the covenant may we understand the jews to have been delivered out of babylonical captivity? Surely, this question is soon answered. For their deliverance out of the hands of their enemies, and all other benefits, were bestowed on them by virtue of the covenant between God and them, which was to be established in the blood of Christ; in figure whereof, all holy things among the jews were sprinkled with blood, as the Book of the Covenant, the Altar, the Sanctuary, and People.  
Wherefore seeing this place maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish error, touching Limbus, let us come to the last place brought for proof thereof, which is that of S. Peter concerning 
f 1 Pet. 1. ●…9. 20.  Christ's going in spirit, and preaching to the spirits in prison: & see, whether from thence it may be proved any better. 
g Epist. 99  S. Augustine understandeth the words of the Apostle, as I noted before, of Christ's preaching in the days of No, in his eternal Spirit of Deity, & not of preaching in Hell, in his humane Soul after death: but this interpretation of S. Augustine, first Bellarmine rejecteth as contrary to the Fathers: & secondly, endeavoureth to improve it by weakening the reasons brought to confirm it, and by opposing certain reasons against it. The first of the Fathers that he allegeth, is 
h Stromat. l. 6.  Clemens Alexandrinus, who indeed understandeth the words of S. Peter, not as S. Augustine doth, but of Christ preaching in Hell after his death in his humane Soul; but, not conceiving to what purpose preaching should serve in Hell, if there were not intended a conversion & saving of some there, he runneth into a most gross & dangerous error, condemned & rejected as well by Bellarm. & his companions, as by us: so that his authority, as contrary to Augustine's interpretation, needed not to have been alleged, nor would not have been, if Bellarmine had meant sincerely. For Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth, as he well knoweth, that so many Infidels as believed in Christ, and listened to the words of his preaching when he came into Hell, were delivered thence, and made partakers of everlasting salvation: against which error, himself being judge, Saint Augustine not without good cause disputeth in his Epistle to Euodius. The second ancient Writer that he produceth for proof of Christ's preaching in Hell after his death, is 
i Ep. ad Epictetum.  Athanasius, who indeed doth expound the words of Peter, of Christ's going in Soul to preach in Hell after his death; but no way expresseth in what sort, to whom, to what purpose, or with what success he preached. 
k Haeresi. 77.  Epiphanius, whom he produceth in the third place, doth not so interpret the words of Peter himself; but only upon another occasion citeth the epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus, wherein he doth so interpret them. So that the authority of Epiphanius might have been spared. Ruffinus in his explication of the Creed, interpreteth the words of Peter, as Athanasius doth. 
l Lib de recta fide ad The●…dosium. & lib 12. in joannem cap. 36.  Cyrill in the place cited by Bellarmine, speaketh of Christ's preaching to the spirits in Hell, but saith nothing in particular of this place of Peter. 
m In cap. 10. ad Romanos.  S. Ambrose doth not speak of this place, but that other of preaching the Gospel to the dead. So that there are no moe Ancient writers cited by Bellarmine, that do precisely interpret this place of Peter of Christ's preaching in Hell in his humane soul after death, but only Clemens, Athanasius, Ruffinus, and Oecumenius. On the other side we have S. Augustine, Beda, the authors of the Ordinary and Interlincall Glosses, Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, and other, interpreting the words as we do: so that our Adversaries have no great advantage in respect of the number of Interpreters: and yet if they had, it would not help them for confirmation of their supposed Limbus, seeing some of the Fathers cited by him, as namely Clemens Alexandrinus, speak directly of preaching in the lowest Hell, for the conversion of Infidels; which they dislike as much as we. Wherefore let us proceed to examine the reasons that are brought either of the one side, or the other, to confirm their several interpretations of these words; and let us see how Bellarmine weakeneth the reasons brought by S. Augustine, and improveth his interpretation by reasons brought against it. The first reason whereby S. Augustine confirmeth his interpretation, is, for that mortification in the flesh, and vivification in the Spirit mentioned by the Apostle, cannot be understood of the body & Soul, of Christ, as they that follow the other interpretation do understand them, seeing Christ never dying in soul, could not be said to be quickened in it. Besides that, the very phrase of the Scripture opposing flesh and Spirit in Christ, doth ever import the infirmity of his humane nature, and the power of his Deity: and in other men, that part that is renewed by the sanctification of the Spirit, and that which is not yet so renewed. Against the former part of this reason of S. Augustine, Bellarmine opposeth himself, saying that it is not good: seeing a thing may be said to be quickened that was never dead, if it be preserved from dying, & kept alive. But he should know, that only those things may be said to be quickened, in that they were preserved from dying, which otherwise, if they had not been so preserved, might have been killed, or died of themselves. Which cannot be verified of the Soul of Christ, that could neither die of itself, nor be killed by any other; and therefore the Soul of Christ cannot be said to be quickened in this sense. The place in the seaventh of the Acts, brought by Bellarmine to prove, that those things may be said to be quickened that were never dead, besides that it is nothing to the purpose, is strangely wrested. For S. Stephen in that place speaketh nothing of vivification or quickening in that sense we now speak of it, but of multiplying, & increasing; saying, that 
n Act. 7. 18.  After the death of joseph, there rose up another King in Egypt, that knew not joseph, who evil entreated our Fathers, and made them cast out their infants, and new borne children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, that they should not increase, & multiply: and therefore Bellarmine should not in reason so have pressed the Latin word of vivification used by the Vulgar translator, seeing the Original importeth no such thing as he endeavoureth to prove. But to take away all doubt touch●…ng the words of Peter; there is a decree of the 
o Sess. 4. Decret. de editione & usu sacrorum Libr●…rum.  Tridentine Council, that the Romanists in all their disputations, readings, and sermons, shall use the Vulgar translation, and no way dare to refuse the authority of it under any pretence whatsoever. Now in the ordinary readings of the Vulgar Translation, the words of the Apostle do lie in this sort; Christ died for sinners, the just for the unjust, that he might offer us to God; mortified in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit, in which Spirit he went and preached, etc. So that according to this reading, the Apostle speaketh not of Christ's quickening but of our quickening in the Spirit, which cannot be understood of the humane Soul of Christ, but of the Spirit of sanctification: whence it followeth, that Christ going to preach in that Spirit, by the force whereof we are quickened, & made alive from the death of sin, went in his eternal spirit of Deity, & not in his humane Soul. But, saith Bellarmine, it cannot be said properly, but Metaphorically only, that Christ did go in his eternal Spirit of Deity to preach to the old world. Suppose it to be so: Is it so strange a thing, that such local motions should be Metaphorically attributed unto God, that we should thereupon deny the going of Christ to preach, to have been in his eternal Spirit of Deity? Do we not often read in Scripture of Gods coming down to see what things are done on earth? But it is hard to understand by Spirits in prison, the souls of men shut up in the prisons of their bodies, and in the dark dungeons of ignorance and impiety, as Augustine doth, and therefore we must not follow his interpretation. Surely, it is true that it is something hard to understand these words of the Apostle, as S. Augustine doth, and therefore we rather follow the interpretation of 
p Defence. fidei Trident. lib. 2. fol. 172.  Andradius before mentioned, who expoundeth the words of the Apostle so as Augustine doth, save that he thinketh that they to whom Christ preached in his eternal Spirit in the days of No, are named spirits in prison, not for that they were so when he preached to them, but when Peter wrote of them. Thus we see, the Cardinal hath not yet greatly weakened any of Augustine's reasons. One reason more S. Augustine hath, so forcible and strong, to confirm the interpretation he followeth, that I think the jesuit will hardly be able to say much against it: If the Apostle (saith S. Augustine) had meant to describe the descending of Christ in his humane soul to deliver the patriarchs, he would not have expressed his meaning by saying, He went and preached to the spirits in prison sometimes disobedient in the days of Noe. For, to say, a●… Bellarmine doth, that Christ went and preached only to the good spirits in Limbus, but that the Apostle describing the same, nameth the disobedient in the days of No, lest it might be thought that they all perished, is frivolous; seeing there was no reason, why the Apostle in describing the descending of Christ into Limbus, should be so careful to let all men know, that they did not all perish that contemned the preaching of No: and besides, if the Apostle had meant any such thing, he would have added, that howsoever these men were disobedient for a time, yet they did afterwards repent, obeying the voice of God speaking by the mouth of Noe. If any man shall ask, as Bellarmine doth, why Peter should mention Christ's preaching in his eternal Spirit to them in the days of No, more than to them in the days of Abraham, or Moses: the answer is easy: for therefore doth he mention them, rather than any other, because they that lived before the flood, were men of another world, & are named the old world, & it was the greatest mutation of the world that ever was before or since, that followed upon the refusal of Christ's preaching by the mouth of No, who was the same then, that he is now: the same yesterday, & to day, & for ever.  
That which the Cardinal hath in the conclusion, that the Fathers generally believed that Christ descended into Hell, we think to be most true: but that the souls of all the just were in Hell, till the resurrection of Christ, and then delivered thence, is not the opinion of the Fathers. For 
q Loco citato.  Augustine clearly denieth that the spirits of the just, dying before Christ, were in Hell, till the coming of Christ; & touching the rest of them, some thought, that the Spirits of the just are & shall be in a place of sequestration, separate from the presence of God, till the general resurrection: so that according to their opinion, Christ by descending into Hell did not deliver them from thence: of which opinion we find Irenaeus, Tertullian, & some others to have been. Some there were that thought, that Christ delivered out of the lowest Hell, such as believed in him when he came thither: and some, that he went not to Hell to deliver any from thence, but to preserve & keep such from going thither, as otherwise should have gone thither, if by virtue of his descending they had not been preserved from falling into that hideous & devouring gulf. So that, though it were ever most certainly resolved, that Christ descended into Hell, to triumph over the prince of darkness, to fasten condemnation to the Devil and his Angels, and to preserve all believers, and faithful ones, from falling into the pit of destruction; yet, as it appeareth by Augustine's Epistle to Euodius; there was no certain resolution amongst the Ancient, whether Christ delivered any, or all: or whom he delivered, if any, when he went into Hell.   

CHAP. 20.  
Of the Merit of Christ: of his not meriting for himself, and his meriting for us.  
Having spoken sufficiently of the sufferings of Christ, and his descending into Hell, it remaineth that in the next place we come to speak of his merit; where we must observe three things. First, whether he might or did merit. Secondly, whether he merited for himself. Thirdly, how, and in what sort he merited for us.  
The first of these questions is moved, because Christ being in termino, and comprehensor, that is, in possession of all desired blessedness, and seeing God face to face, even while he lived here, may seem to have been extra statum merendi, that is, in such a state and condition, wherein there is no place for merit, and so not to have merited: to merit being proper to them, that are viatores, that is, men journeying towards the possession of Heaven-happines not yet attained. Wherefore, for the clearing of this point the Divines do note, 
a Scotus in 〈◊〉 Sent. dist. 18. quaest. unica.  that Christ in his humane nature, in the days of his flesh, was both Viator, and Comprehensor; in termino, and extra terminum: that is, both a man journeying toward heaven-happinesse, & one that had already attained it, being already come to the uttermost bound of all his desires, and yet in a sort not being come unto it, because, howsoever he was perfectly joined with God affectione iustitiae, that is, with that affection that yieldeth unto God the praise, honour, and love that is due unto him, and saw him face to face with clear and perfect vision: yet he was not so fully joined to him, as he is to be enjoyed affectione commodi, that is, with that affection that seeketh after pleasing delight: but that he suffered many bitter, grievous, and unpleasant things, fasting, watching, weeping & wearying himself, in all which respects being extra terminum, that is, not yet come to the uttermost extent & bound of that is desired, he was in state of meriting. But, because the enduring of these bitter, grievous, & afflictive evils, may seem rather to pertain to the nature of satisfaction, than merit, therefore they add, that howsoever in respect of the perfection of his Divine & Heavenly virtues, he were in termino, that is, come to the uttermost bound & extent thereof, yet in the expressing of the actions of them, he fitted himself to the condition of men here below, as appeared in the actions of his love & obedience, in that he gave himself for the pacifying of his Father's wrath, the satisfying of his justice, & the promeriting of our good: & besides, he had the actions of many virtues that are proper to the conversation of this world: & whereof there is no use in Heaven, or in Heaven-happinesse, but in the way and journey towards Heaven: as Temperance, Sobriety, Fortitude, Patience, and the Observation of the ceremonial and judicial Law: in which respect he may very properly be said, to have been in a state of meriting, and to have merited.  
Wherefore presupposing that Christ might and did merit, let us see whether he merited any thing for himself. The 
b Bellarm. de Christo Mediatore l. 5. c. 9  Papists impute, I know not what impiety to Caluine, because he saith, Christ merited not for himself, but for us only, & urge against him that saying of the Apostle, when he saith, that 
c Philip. 2. 8.  Christ humbled himself, & was made obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross, and that therefore God exalted him, and gave him a name above every name. Wherefore let us take a view of that they teach touching this point, that so we may the better discern whether Caluine be justly blamed by them, or not. The Schoolmen generally agree, that Christ neither did, nor could merit the grace of personal union, the habitual perfections of his humane Soul, or the vision of God, because he possessed all these from the beginning, & it would have been a matter of more imperfection to have wanted any of them at the first, then of perfection to have gotten them by merit afterwards: Yet the 
d Lib. 3. dist. 18.  Master of Sentences, & others resolve, that he did procure unto himself by his merit, the impassibility and glorification of his Body. But 
e Scotus in 3 dist. 18.  Scotus very acutely and wittily objecteth against them that so think, that Christ cannot be said to have merited the impassibility & glorification of his body, because they would have been found in it, from the very first instant of the union, of the Natures of God and Man in him, by virtue of that union, before any act of his, had not the natural consequence and flowing of them from that union, been stayed and hindered by special dispensation, for the working of our salvation: and therefore he saith, that if we will defend the Ma: star of Sentences from error in this point, we must so construe his words, as that Christ did not directly merit glorification and impassibility, but only the removing of that miraculous stay of the natural redundance of glory from his Soul, filled with the happy vision of his Deity, into his body. But surely this favourable construction will not help the matter, for seeing the miraculous stay of the redundance of glory from the Soul of Christ into his body, was of itself to cease, when that should be performed, for the effecting whereof such stay was made, he could no more merit such remove of stay then the glory itself, that in respect of the grace of personal union, would as naturally have been communiated to his body, as it was in his Soul, had not God for special purpose stayed and hindered such redundance. So that we shall find, that how soever the Papists do press certain testimonies of Scripture, as if they would prove out of them, that Christ merited the name above all names, and the fullness of all power both in heaven and in earth, which he could no more merit then to be God; yet in the end they are forced to confess, (so great is the truth which will ever prevail) that he neither merited the personal union of his two natures, the perfection of his habitual graces, the vision of God, nor the glorification of his body, but only the removing of that stay and impediment that hindered the flowing of Glory from his soul into his body: & finding, that this stay or hindrance was to cease of itself, so soon as the work of our Redemption should be wrought, & consequently, that he could not merit it, they fly for help to a distinction of merits, which they make to be of 3 sorts. For 
f Bonauent. in Sent. lib. 3. dist. 18. q. 2.  there is, as they say, one kind of merit, that maketh a thing due which was not due before; another, that maketh a thing more due than it was before; & a 3d that maketh a thing more ways due than at first it was. The 2 first kinds of merit, they confess, did not agree to Christ, there being nothing that was not due unto him in as high degree in the beginning, as ever it was afterwards. But they say that he merited in the 3d sort or kind, in that he made those things that were due unto him as consequents of the personal union of his 2 natures, to be due unto him as a reward of his passion. This truly is a very silly evasion; seeing that cannot be a reward of a man's labours, that was due to him in as high degree before, as after his work is done. He that labouteth in the field or vineyard of another man, & she that nourisheth a child that is not her own, travail both in hope of reward, but that reward must of necessity be some thing that was not due to them before such travail; yea, he that dresseth his own vine, & she that nourisheth her own children, look to the recompense of reward; but that reward is no other thing, but the prosperity and increase of their fields and vineyards, and the growth of their children, like the Olive branches round about their their table; which, without such pains and travail, they could not look for. In like sort, a Man may say to his child; this land shall be the reward of thy dutiful behaviour; if he have power to put it from him, if his behaviour be not dutiefull: but if he have not, it is ridiculous to promise it as a reward, seeing a reward is ever some good to be gained by our well doing or patient suffering, countervailing the difficulty in doing, and bitterness in suffering. It is therefore most absurd, that any thing which is a man's own, in as ample sort before he begin his work as after he hath done it, should be the reward of his work. But some man perhaps will say, that a thing that was due in respect of the habit resting in the mind, may become due in respect of the Act done: and consequently, that that which was due one way, may become more ways due. Surely we make no question but it may, because it was due to the Habit as to the Root of such action, when occasion should be offered, & opportunity serve, & not otherwise. But seeing in Christ, the glorification & impassibility of his body was due unto him as a consequent of personal union, and not of any habitual quality, or habit inclining & fitting unto action, therefore that could not become due to any action of Christ, that was due unto him in respect of some former thing, as that may be due to the action of a Man, that was formerly due to the habit that is the root of such action.  
The places of Scripture that are brought to prove that Christ merited for himself, are specially two: for though there be a third, as pregnant as any of the other, in the first to the Hebrews, where it is said of Christ 
g Heb. 1. 9  Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy f●…llowes: yet do they not much stand upon it, because, if it prove any thing, it proveth that Christ merited the grace of unction, which they deny, who teach that Christ merited for himself. The first of the two places alleged to prove that Christ merited for himself, is in the second to the Hebrews: where the Apostle saith, We see jesus for the passion of death, crowned with glory and honour. But the 
h Heb. 2. 9  words, as some think, are not so to be read, but to be placed in this sort: We see jesus, who was for a little while made lower than the Angels, for the passion of death, that is, that he might suffer death, crowned with glory and honour; so expressing the final cause of his humiliation, and not the meritorious cause of his exaltation. This conjecture is made exceeding probable by those words added by the Apostle, that he might taste of death: which otherwise have no coherence with any part of his speech. The second place that they bring, is that of the second to the Philippians: The words are these: 
i Philip: 2. 8. 9  Christ humbled himself, and became obedient unto the death, even the death of the cross: Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, etc. This place, as 
k Hugo de S. Victore de Sacram. fidei, lib. 2. part. 1. c. 6.  Hugo de Sancto Victore hath fitly noted, importeth, that the humiliation of the Son of God becoming Man, was the cause of the exaltation of the nature of Man, for when he personally assumed the nature of Man, & became Man, Man became God almighty, having all power, & a name above all names: according to that of Leo, 
l Leo Serm. 12.  Divinae maiestat is exinanitio, seruilis formae in summa provectio est; that is, The abasing of the Divine Majesty, and Person of the Son of God, is the high advancing & exaltation of the form of a Servant: and therefore he addeth, that Ex quo Deus coepit esse homo, & homo coepit esse Deus; Deus coepit esse homo subiectus, & homo coepit esse Deus perfectus. Si Deus humiliatus est quantum potuit in homine, homo sublimatus non est quantum potuit in Deo? that is, When God began to be Man, and Man began to be God; God began to be a Man in subjection and humility, and Man to be God in the height of perfection: For if God were humbled, as much as he might be, in that he became man; was not Man exalted, as much as he might be, in that he became God? God was humbled, when first he became Man, In quantum homo, dignitate, in quantum bonus, voluntate: that is, in that a Man, in condition and state, in that a good man, in will & mind: but manifested the same more specially in his passion: Likewise the Man Christ was exalted, when he was borne the Son of God, but manifested the same more specially after his resurrection then before. For we must not think, that the Man Christ, did then first receive, the full, and perfect power of Deity, when he said, 
m Mat. 28. 18.  All power is given me in heaven and in earth: seeing before the uttering of those words, he commanded the Devils, had the Angels to do him service, and made the very elements of the world to bow and bend at his pleasure. Wherefore this place is unadvisedly brought by our Adversaries, to prove that Christ merited for himself, it being most clear and evident, that the name above all names mentioned in this place, which is the name of God Almighty, was given to the Son of God donatione naturali, that is, by natural communication, when he was begotten of his Father before all eternity, and to the Man Christ donatione gratuità, that is, by free gift, when God was made man, and Man became God, as the ordinary Gloss upon these words fitly observeth: and so could no more be merited by the passion of Christ, than it was possible for him to do any thing whereby to merit to be God. And hereupon 
n Calvin. instit l. 2. c. 17.  Caluine rightly asketh (which all the Papists in the world are not able to answer) Quibus meritis assequi potuit homo ut iudex esset mundi, caput Angelorum, atque ut potiretur summo Dei imperio? that is, by what merits could man attain to be judge of the world, Head of Angels, & to have the highest authority and power of God? But some man will say, that Christ pronounceth, it was 
o Luke 24. 26.  necessary that he should suffer, and so enter into his glory; and that therefore it seemeth, he could not have entered into it, unless he had suffered. Quomodò ergo suam (saith Hugo) si oportuit? & quomodò oportuit, si suam? Si gloria eius fuit, quomodò ut ad illam intraret, pati oportuit? Sed suam propter se; oportuit propter nos: that is, How then was it his glory, if he could not enter into it, unless he suffered? and how was it necessary that he should suffer to enter into it, if it were his? Surely it was his in respect of himself; and it was necessary he should enter into it by suffering, only in respect of us. For Christ truly if he had pleased, might have entered into his glory some other way, & have received it in what sort he would, even as he needed never to have wanted it, unless he had pleased: but he would for our sakes by punishment enter into his glory, that dying he might take away the fear of death, & rising again he might restore unto us the hope of glorification: he would not go any other way, because we could not go any other way: we would, but could not; he could, but would not. Quia sialiter ivisset, pervenisset, sed non subvenisset: that is, because if he had gone any other way, he might have entered in himself, but could not have brought us in with him.  
There is nothing therefore that Christ gained to himself by his passion, but that he was made an example of suffering to all that believe in him, & a cause of glorification to all them that suffer with him, that they may be glorified with him: but what did this profit him? He went before, & we all follow him: whose good is this? I find men out of the way, I go before them to show them the way, & all follow me; what doth it profit me? I knew the way, and could have gone it by myself alone: Sed non esset causa pergendi, nisi compassio esset subveniendi: that is, but there were no cause of my going, if the compassionate consideration of such as know not the way, did not move me by going before them to be a guide unto them. Thus than we say, that Christ merited nothing for himself, not because we would detract any thing from him, for he did things worthy of most ample rewards, if there had been any thing he had not already, that might have been given & added to him, or that he had not already a just claim unto: but because we admire his perfection, which was so great from the beginning, that nothing could be after added unto it: and praise his goodness that came into this world for our sakes only, and not for his own good. Wherefore let us proceed to see how, and in what sort he merited for us.  
In the merit of Christ, 2 things are to be considered. The worth of those actions & works of virtue which he performed: & the dignity of his Divine & Infinite Person performing them. Touching the former, though the actions of the best men that ever were, done in the state of grace, & proceeding from the working of God's Spirit, be not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed, yet we constantly affirm & teach, that the actions of Christ, done in his humane nature, were worthy of that glory: and therefore dare not deny, that Christ merited for us ex condigno, as some of the Schoolmen do. But for the better clearing of this point, touching the merit of Christ, we must observe, that to merit, simply, absolutely, & properly so named, four things concur. For first, he that will merit or deserve any thing at another's man's hand, must do something that the other had no former claim unto. Secondly, he must do something that may be beneficial & good unto him, of whom he desireth to deserve something. Thirdly, he must do something that may be beneficial in as high a degree unto him, as he looketh to be benefited by him again. And fourthly, he must not hurt & wrong him as much one way, as he benefiteth him another: for if he do so, he loseth all merit of reward.  
These being the things required to the nature of Merit, strictly so named, no creature can in this sort merit any thing at God's hand, seeing there is nothing that any creature can do which God may not justly claim & challenge as due, in respect of good already done to it; or whereby it may any way benefit or profit him according to that in job, that 
p job. 35. 7.  Our righteousness reacheth not unto God: Yet such is the goodness of Almighty God towards his poor creatures, that, as if he had no claim to their well doings, in respect of benefits already bestowed on them, and, as if they were as good and beneficial to him, as they are good in themselves seeking in all his works to communicate, and not to receive any good, in the day he made them, he covenanted with them to give them rewards answerable to the worth of their actions: which gracious condescending of Almighty God to the condition of his creatures presupposed, Adam in the state of his innocence, and before he fell, might have merited and deserved good at God's hands: but the best men in the world since his fall, are excluded from all possibility of meriting any thing, especially heaven-happinesse, properly of him: first, because they have lost all that power of well doing, which originally in the state of their creation they had, and can perform nothing that is good, unless it be given unto them by a new free gift, for which they shall rather be indebted to God, than any way bind him unto them. Secondly, because they offend him as much one way, as they please him another. And thirdly, because there is no equality between the good actions of virtue which they perform and do, and the rewards that are laid up in heaven, neither in total, perpetual, and constant doing of that they do, nor in the manner quality and measure thereof, the height of heaven-happinesse incomparably exceeding all other knowledge and desire, according to that of the Apostle: The eye hath not seen, the ear hath not heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of Man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. But none of 
q 1 Cor. 2. 9  these things exclude Christ from meriting in the nature of Man, which he assumed: for he brought the fullness of grace with himinto the world, & it was Natural unto him: He no way offended or displeased God his Father: and there was a perfect equality between his actions and the rewards of Heaven, in that he loved God with that kind, degree, and measure of love, wherewith men love him in heaven; ardently, without defect; entirely, and totally without distraction; perpetually without intermission; and constantly, without possibility of ever ceasing so to do.  
Wherefore let us pass from the worth and value of those works of virtue that Christ performed, to the consideration of the dignity of his divine, and infinite Person performing them. Which dignity and infinity of the Person of Christ, to which nothing could be added, made the things he did to promerite, and to procure good to others, and to infinite other. 
r Paludanus in 3 sent. dist. 18.  Christus (saith a learned Schoolman) meruit omnibus quantum fuit ex sufficientiâ sui, pro eo quod in ipso fuit gratia: non sicut in singulari homine, sed sicut in capite totius Ecclesiae; propter quod fructus passionis eius redundare potuit in omnia Ecclesiae membra: & quia, ut dicit Damascenus, ratione unitatis Divinitatis cum humanitate, Christus operatur ea quae sunt hominis, supra hominem, operatio eius extendebat se ad totam naturam, quod non potest operatio puri hominis. Huius diversitatis ratio reducenda est non in habitualem aliquam gratiam creatam sed increatam; quod pro multis sufficit finita gratia, haec sufficientia est ex gratiâ infinita & increata; That is, Christ merited for all sufficiently on his part, in that grace was found in him, not as in a particular man, but as in the Head of the whole Church: for which cause the fruit of his passion might redound to all the members of the same Church: and because, (as Damascene saith) by reason of the union of the natures of God and Man in his Person, he doth the works of a man in a more excellent sort, than any mere man can do, the benefit and force of his working and operation, extended to the whole nature of Man, which the action of a mere man cannot do. The reason of which difference is not to be attributed to any habitual, created grace, but to that which is increate: for that the finite grace that is in Christ, (that is, his virtue, and work of virtue) is available for the good of many, it is from his infinite, and increate Grace.   

CHAP. 21.  
Of the benefits which we receive from Christ.  
Having spoken of the Satisfaction, and Merit of Christ, it remaineth that we speak of the benefits which we receive from him: which are all most fully expressed by the name of redemption, which is the freeing of us from that miserable bondage and captivity, wherein we were formerly holden by reason of Adam's sin. This bondage was twofold; first in respect of sin: and secondly in respect of punishment. In respect of sin, we were bondmen to Satan, whose will we did, according to that of the Apostle, His servants ye are, to whom ye obey. In respect of punishment, we were become bondmen to Almighty God the righteous judge of 
a Rom. 6. 16.  the world, who useth Satan as an instrument of his wrath, and an Executioner of his dreadful judgements, against such as do offend him and provoke him to wrath. These being the kinds of captivity and bondage wherein we were holden, it will not be hard to see how we are freed and redeemed from the same. There is no redemption, as the Divines do note, but either by exchange of prisoners, by force and strong hand, or by paying of a price. Redemption by exchange of prisoners is then, when we set free those whom we hold as captives taken from our Enemies, that they may make free such as they hold of ours: and this kind of redemption hath no place in the deliverance of sinful men from sin and misery: but their deliverance is only wrought by strong hand, and paying of a price. For Christ redeemed us from the bondage of sin, in that by the force, and working of his grace, making us dislike it, hate it, repent of it, and leave it, he violently took us out of Satan's hands, who tyrannically, and unjustly, had taken possession of us: but from the bondage of punishment in respect whereof we were become Bondmen to Almighty God, he redeemed us not by force and strong hand, but by paying a price, satisfying his justice, and suffering what our sins had deserved, that so being pacified towards us, he might cease to punishus, and discharge Satan, who was but the Executioner of his wrath, from afflicting us any longer.  
In this sort do we conceive of the work of our redemption, wrought for us by Christ; and therefore it is absurdly and untruely said by 
b Survey. books 3. chap. 2.  Matthew Kellison, in his late published Survey of the supposed new religion, that we make Christ an absurd Redeemer, for we speak no otherwise of Christ the Redeemer, than we have learned in the Church and House of God. But for the satisfaction of the Reader, let us see how he goeth about to convince us of such absurdity as he chargeth us with. The Protestants, saith he, do teach (them which nothing can be more absurd) that Christ's passion was our justice, Merit, Satisfaction, that there is no justice but Christ's, no good works but his works, no merit but his merit, no satisfaction but his satisfaction; that there is no justice or sanctity inherent in man, nor none necessary; that no Laws can bind us, because Christ's death was the ransom that freed us from all Laws, Divine & Humane. that no sins nor evil works can hurt us, because Christ's justice being ours, no sins can make us sinners: that no Hell or judgement remaineth for us whatsoever we do, because Christ's justice being ours, sins can neither be imputed to us in this life, nor punished in the next, and that herein consisteth Christian liberty. A more shameless slanderer, and trifling smatterer, I think was never heard of. For some of these assertions are undoubted truths, against which no man may oppose himself, unless he will be branded with the mark of impiety and blasphemy: as that Christ's passion is our justice, merit, and satisfaction: that there is no merit properly so named, but Christ's merit; no propitiatory, and expiatory satisfaction but Christ's satisfaction: and the other are nothing else but shameless and hellish slanders, and mere devices, and fancies of his idle brain, without all ground of truth as that there is no justice nor sanctity inherent in Man, nor none necessary: that good works are not necessary: that no laws can bind us: that no sins nor evil works can hurt us: and that no hell nor judgement remaineth for us whatsoever we do. For we most constantly affirm and teach, that there is both justice and sanctity inherent in Man, though not so perfect, as that he may safely trust unto it, & desire to be judged according to the perfection of it in the day of Trial. Likewise we teach, that good works are in such sort necessary to salvation, that without Holiness, & a desire at the least to perform the works of sanctification, no man shall ever see God. Neither do we say, that no Laws can bind us, as he slanderously misreporteth us, but we constantly teach, that not to do the things contained & prescribed in the Law of God, is damnable & damning sin, if God upon our repentance forgive it not. And therefore 
c L. 4. de justif, c. 5.  Bellarmine, though he wrongeth us in like sort, as Kellison doth, yet in the end like an honest man, he confesseth ingenuously that he doth wrong us, and showeth at large, that Luther in his book de votis Monasticis, defineth the liberty of a Christian to consist, not in being freed from the duty of doing the things prescribed in the Law of God, as if at his pleasure he might do them, or leave them undone; but in that there are no works forbidden in the Law, that may stand with Faith, so evil, that they can condemn us, nor none there prescribed, performed by us, so good as to clear, defend, & justify us; So making us free non ab operibus faciendis, sed defendentibus & accusantibus: that is, not from the necessity of doing the things that are commanded as good, but from seeking justification in works, or fearing condemnation for such evil works as we consent not fully unto, but dislike, resist against, and seek remission of. Whereunto Calvin agreeth, teaching that Christian liberty freeth not from the duty of doing the things which the Law requireth, but from doing them so, as to have them examined & tried strictly according to the Law & rule of justice: God in mercy accepting our works though imperfect, if they proceed from a good conscience, & faith unfeigned. But, saith 
d Book 3. chap. 5.  Kellison, the Protestants teach, that Christ came to be a Redeemer only, not a Lawgiver: & therefore it seemeth they think men free from the duty of following the prescription of any Law. This surely is a very bad & weak inference. Christian men have nothing to do with Moses & his Law, and may at their pleasure either break it or keep it, because Christ came to be a Redeemer, & not a Lawgiver. For though it be true that Christ came not to give a new, or more perfect Law of moral duties, or to urge it more strictly than Moses did, as some imagine, in which sense our Divines rightly deny him to have come as a Lawgiver, yet he came to fulfil the Law formerly given by the Ministry of Moses: which thing he performed: first, by clearing the meaning of it, and making it to be rightly understood, where it was mistaken. Secondly, by meriting remission of the precedent breaches and transgressions of it. And thirdly, by giving grace that men may in some sort do the things it requireth. Wherefore if any man ask of us, whether it may be truly said, that Christ was a Lawgiver to his Church, we answer, that our Divines did never simply deny Christ to be a Lawgiver, but only in sort before expressed. For they confess, that he may truly be so named; first, because he writeth those Laws in our hearts, which Moses delivered written in Tables of stone; and secondly, because he gave certain positive Laws to Christian men, touching Sacraments, Ministry, and outward means of salvation, that were not of force before. Wherefore to conclude this point, we do not think (as Kellison slanderously against his own conscience reporteth of us) that no sins can hurt us, that no Hell nor judgement remaineth for us whatsoever we do: but we constantly teach, that they who commit sin with full consent, and persist therein, shall undoubtedly perish everlastingly. So that this is all that we say, that no sins, how grievous soever, resisted, disliked, repent of, & forsaken, can hurt us, & that no Hell, nor judgement remaineth for them, whom the working of divine grace freeth from the dominion of sin, and the satisfaction of Christ from the condemnation of it: Against which doctrine, or any part of it, neither Kellison, nor any Papist in the world, is able to take any just exception.   

CHAP. 22.  
Of the Ministry of them to whom Christ committed the publishing of the reconciliation between God and Men, procured by him.  
THus have we seen, first, the excellency of Christ our Saviour, whom God sent into the world, in the fullness of time, to be the great Shepherd of his Sheep, the guide of his people, the light of the Gentiles, the glory of Israel, and a King to fit upon the throne of David for ever, having all power both in Heaven and in Earth. Secondly, what great things he did and suffered for us, to reconcile us unto God. Thirdly, what the benefits are which he procured for us and bestowed on us. Now it remaineth that we see to whom he committed the publishing of the joyful reconciliation between God and Man, the conversion of the world unto himself, and the government of such as should by believing, become his people, when having finished the great work he came to perform, he was to return back to that God his Father that sent him. The Apostle Saint Paul telleth us, that 
a Coloss. 2. 15.  Christ having triumphed over principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly 
* Or in himself.  upon his Cross, led captivity captive, and gave gifts, unto men: 
* Ephes. 4. 8. etc.  that he gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the gathering together of the Saints, the work of the Ministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the unity of Faith, and knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect Man, even into the measure of the Age of the fullness of Christ. Amongstall those Messengers of glad tidings, and Ministers of Christ, appointed by him for the gathering together of the Saints, the Apostles were chief, and principal; Evangelists were assistants, which they used for the better settling & perfecting of things happily begun by them, and the writing of the evangelical histories, concerning Christ: The Prophets were such as foretold future things, that knew all secrets, and opened the hidden mysteries of God, speaking to the consciences of Men in a strange and admirable manner; so that, as the Apostle telleth us, 
b 1. Cor. 14. 25.  They that heard them prostrated themselves at their feet acknowledging that God was in them. These were temporary, and to continue but for a time. In the Apostles, two sorts of things are to be considered, and distinguished by us: first, such as were proper to them, as fitting to those first beginnings of Christianity; and secondly, such as are of perpetual use and necessity, and so to be passed over to other, and continued to the end of the world.  
The Divines do note, that there were four things proper & peculiar to the Apostles, & not communicable to any other of the Ministers of Christ, appointed by him for the gathering together of his Saints. The first was, Immediate vocation; the second, Infallibility of judgement: the 3d, generality of Commission, to do all things pertaining to the ministry of Salvation, in all places, & towards all Persons: the fourth, the speaking in all the tongues and languages of the world, the knowledge of all secrets, and power to confirm their Doctrine by signs and miracles, and by the imposition of their hands to give the like miraculous gifts of the Spirit to others. These jointly were not communicable to any other in those times, neither Evangelists, nor Prophets, as either not being called immediately, but appointed by the Apostles; or not infallibly led into all truth: General commission they had not, but were taken into the fellowship of the Apostles labours; to assist their presence, & supply their absence, to build upon their foundation, and to perfect that they began. Lastly, though the having of miraculous gifts, and the power of working miracles simply, were not proper to the Apostles, yet the having of them in such sort, as by the imposition of their hands to give the Spirit, enabling to work miracles, & to do miraculous things, was peculiar and proper to them; and therefore we read, that 
c Acts. 8. 1●….  Philip baptised, but that the 
d ver. 17.  Apostles went to confirm them by imposition of hands that were baptised by him, that so they might receive the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost. And as these things were reserved as proper and peculiar unto the Apostles, and not communicated to any other in their time, so are they not passed over to their aftercommers by succession: but in steed of immediate calling we have now succession; in steed of infallibility of judgement, the direction of their writings, guiding us to the finding out of the truth: in steed of General commission particular Assignation of several Churches to rule, and parts of Christ's flock to feed: in steed of miraculous gifts, and the Apostles power to confer them, a settled course of Schools and Universities fitting men for the work of the Ministry: instead of their Miracles wherewith they confirmed their doctrine, the Faith already received, and by so many generations recommended unto us, as confirmed by the Apostles Miracles at the first. Neither was it fit, as 
e Aug. de utilitate credendi, cap. 16.  Saint Augustine noteth, that these miraculous courses should still have continued. For even as a man that never had seen the seed cast into the earth, and there rotting; and the trees dead in Winter, after reviving, and flourishing again in their appointed time, would wonder no less at it, then if he should see a blind man receive sight, or a dead man life: but now that these things are ordinary, we little esteem them: so if those miraculous things appearing in the Apostles, and first Ministers of Christ which with their newness and strangeness moved much at the first, should have been continued still, they would have grown into contempt, and not have been regarded at all.  
All that which hath been said touching the dignity Apostolical, and the things properly pertaining to it, is so clear and evident, that wise and judicious men, make no question of any part thereof. Yet are there some that seem to doubt, whether the Apostles generally had immediate calling, or universality of commission, supposing that Peter only was immediately designed by Christ, and the rest by him: that he only had an illimited commission, without all restraint, and the rest an inferior commission to that of Peter, bounded and stinted.  
Touching the first of these doubts, 
f Bell. de Pont. lib 4 c. 22.  Bellarmine (whose manner it is not to conceal the divisions and differences that are or have been amongst the Friends and Lovers of the Church of Rome, but to write them in the forehead of every controversy) showeth, that there are three opinions amongst the Divines of the Romish Church touching this point. The first that as well the Apostles, as succeeding Bishops received their power, and and jurisdiction from Peter, and his supposed successor the Bishop of Rome. The second, that both Apostles and Bishops received their Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction immediately from Christ, and not from Peter nor his Successors. The third, that Bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope, but that the Apostles received all their power and jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST, and not from Peter. The Second of these opinions is wholly true, and I will in due place confirm the same. The third, in part true, and in part false, which Bellarmine followeth: and the first wholly false, which he largely and substantially confuteth; proving first, 
g Ibid. cap. 23.  that the Apostles received all their jurisdiction and power immediately from Christ, and not from Peter, as well out of the words of our Saviour, when he saith: As my Father sent me, so send I you: as out of the election of 
h john 20. 21.  
i Acts 1. 16.  Mathias, who was not chosen by Peter, or the other Apostles, but designed immediately by God himself, showing by direction of the Lot falling on Mathias, that it was he whom he would have to succeed into the void room of judas the Traitor: adding, that the Apostles gave him no authority; and that Paul professeth the same touching himself, 
k Gal. 1. & 2.  protesting that he received all his power and jurisdiction immediately from Christ, and thereby proving himself to be an Apostle. Secondly, he proveth that the fullness of all Ecclesiastical power, was committed to all the Apostles, in as large and ample sort as to Peter, by the testimonies of Chrysostome and Theophylact: and that Christ by those words, As my Father sent me, so send I you, made all the Apostles his Vicars or Vicegerents, yea, gave them his own office and authority; and out of Cyrill, that by these words he made them Apostles and Doctors of the whole world: and that to let them know, that in apostolic power he gave them all Ecclesiastical power, he said unto them, As my Father sent me, so send I you: it being certain that the Father sent the Son with all fullness of power. Farther he addeth out of 
l Cypr. de 〈◊〉. Eccl.  Cyprian, that the same fullness of power was given unto the rest of the Apostles by those words, As my Father sent me, so send I you, that was promised to Peter by those, I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, & performed by those other, Feed my Sheep, feed my Lambs. Now, saith he, it is certain that by those words; I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and by those other, Feed my sheep etc. is understood all fullness of jurisdiction both inward and outward: therefore the fullness of Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction was given to every one of the Apostles. Thus than the Cardinal confesseth, first that all the Apostles were immediately taught of God, without learning any thing of Peter, or needing in any thing to be confirmed by him. Secondly, that their commission was general; so that there was not any act of Ecclesiastical Ministry to which their commission did not extend, nor any places in which, nor persons towards whom, they might not perform the acts of their Ministry. Thirdly, that they received all this authority and power immediately from Christ, and not from Peter, and that therefore they could neither be limited, nor wholly restrained by him in the use and exercise of the same. Thus doth he overthrow the whole frame and fabric of their building, who ground the pretended supremacy of the Pope upon Christ's words spoken to Peter. For to what purpose do they urge, that to Peter only Christ said, Feed my Sheep, & c? that to him only he gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and upon him only promised to build his Church? seeing they are forced to confess, that the commission of feeding Christ's sheep, was given in as ample sort to the rest as to Peter, that they all received the whole power of the keys; that the Church was builded upon the rest as well as upon Peter, and equally founded upon them all.  
If the Cardinal shall shrink from this his confession, we can easily force him to it again, and make him acknowledge that whatsoever Christ promised, intended, or performed by any of his speeches directed unto Peter, he performed to all. Christ said specially to Peter, Feed my sheep: yet had the rest (our Adversaries being judges) the same commission. He promised to him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; so that what he should bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven: he named him Peter, and promised upon that Rock to build his Church: yet all received the same keys as well as he, the same power of binding and losing: & the Church was equally builded on them all. These things I will particularly confirm and prove; and first, that all the Apostles had the same commission of feeding the flock of Christ that Peter had, it is evident. For whereas there are but four kinds of feeding; 
m Ockam dial. l. 5. 1 part. c. 15. & l. 4. 1. tract. 3. partis. c. 10.  Vitâ exemplari, subsidio corporali, doctrinâ salutari, & disciplinâ regulari; that is, By exemplary conversation, by ministering things necessary for the entertainment of this present life, by wholesome doctrine, and by regular discipline and government; all these ways, the rest of the Apostles, stood bound to feed the flock of Christ, as well as Peter. For they were all the 
n Matth. 5. 14.  Lights of the world, and their 
o Verse 16.  Light was so to shine before men, that they seeing their good works, might glorify their Father in Heaven: they were all to take care of the poor and needy; they had all power to preach and minister Sacraments by Christ's own warrant, saying unto them all, 
p Matth. 18. 19  Go teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: and to govern and guide the Church and people of God, as well as Peter: Christ sending them as his Father sent him, and assuring them that whose sins they remit, they are remitted, and whose sins they retain, they are retained. Neither can this be doubted of, seeing Bellarmine himself confesseth in the place before alleged, that in the apostolic power, all power and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, as well inward as outward, was contained: so that, that which Bellarmine and other Papists insist upon, 
q Bellarm. de Pont. l. 1. c. 14.  that Christ commended all his Sheep unto Peter's care and charge, in that he said unto him, Feed my sheep, without any limitation or distinction, as if in this respect they would show us some singular thing in Peter's feeding of the flock of Christ, not found in others, is too silly, For who knoweth not, that every Apostle had general commission, and that howsoever for the better dispatch of the work they had in hand, they divided amongst them the several provinces of the world; yet this was, as Bellar●… himself confesseth, 
r Ibid. cap. 16.  Provinciarum, non iurisdictionis divisio; that is, a division of provinces, not of jurisdiction: for there was not any of them, but had power to preach, minister Sacraments, and exercise discipline wheresoever they would, one of them no way hindering the employment of another, but all with joint care seeking to set forward the work, they had in hand. Yea this is so clear, that the Cardinal ingenuously confesseth it to be so, saying in express words, that 
s Ibid. cap. 11.  the rest of the Apostles were heads, Rulers, and Pastors of the universal Church.  
Touching the power of the Keys promised to Peter, and the power of binding and losing, it will easily appear, that no singular thing was either promised or given unto him, but that which was common to him with the rest. 
t In addit. ad 3. part. Summae. quaest. 17. art. 1.  Thomas Aquinis fitly observeth, that in corporal things the Key is an instrument that openeth the door, and giveth entrance to him that formerly was excluded: Now the door of the kingdom of heaven is shut against us by sin, both in respect of the stain of it, and the guilt of punishment: whence it cometh, as he aptly noteth, that the power, by which this stop & impediment is taken away, is named the Key. This power is in the divine Trinity principally, and by way of authority, in that God only taketh away sin, dimittendo, quae facta sunt; adiuvando, ne fiant; & perducendo ad vitam, ubi omnino fieri non possunt; that is, By forgiving the sin that is past: by helping the sinner, that he doth not the like again; and by bringing him to that life, where he can sin no more. And therefore the blessed Trinity is said to have the Key of Authority. Christ had power to remove this stop and hindrance by the merit of his passion, by instituting Sacraments, and making them effectual instruments of the communication of his grace, for the taking away of sin, and therefore he is said to have the Key of Excellency. In men there is a ministerial Power to remove the impediment of sin, that hindereth from entering into Heaven, and therefore they are rightly said to have a key of Ministry, which is twofold; of Science, and of jurisdiction: Of Science, removendo ignorantiam, & inducendo ad conversionem; that is, by removing the blindness of heart that is found in men, and inducing them to convert and turn to God: Of jurisdiction, in receiving men into the society of holy ones, and in admitting those that they think meet & worthy to the participation of the holy Sacraments, in which the efficacy of Christ's passion communicateth itself; as also in reiect●…ng the unholy and unclean. The jurisdiction of the Church is rightly signified Metaphorically by the name of a Key, because the chief command in a house or City, is in him to whom the keys of that house or City are committed; & he that hath the keys, hath thereby power to admit and receive into the house or City whom he will, & to exclude and shut out whom he pleaseth. And therefore when Princes enter into their Cities & Towns, the Citizens are wont to offer unto them the keys thereof, thereby acknowledging that the chief power & command of those places doth rest in them. Whereupon when the Lord promised to Eliacim, son of Hilkiah, servant of King Hezekiah, chief authority in the King's Court, and in the City of jerusalem, he said by his Prophet; 
u Esay. 22. 22.  I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulders. He shall open and no man shall shut: he shall shut, and no man shall open. In which sense also it is said in the Revelation of Christ: that 
x Reuel. 3. 7.  He hath the key of David, that he openeth and no man shutteth, that he shutteth and no man openeth; that is, hath all fullness of power in his Father's house and kingdom. Thus than the key of Ministry being only the power of teaching, instructing, admonishing, comforting, governing, and yielding sacramental assurances of God's mercy & grace, by dispensing the Sacraments Christ hath instituted; and this power being the same in Peter, & the rest; it is clear that the keys of the kingdom of Heaven were equally committed unto them all.  
The force of these keys is not only expressed by the acts of opening & shutting, but of binding & losing also, thereby to show, that they are no material keys, but Metaphorically understood, and spiritual; and that heaven is then opened unto men that they may enter into it, when they are loosed from their sins that hindered them from entering in thither: and hereupon it is, that Christ having promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven to blessed Peter, telleth him likewise, that what he shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and what he shall lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. The bonds wherewith men are bound on earth, are of four sorts. First of Laws, obliging, and tying them to the performance of certain duties. Secondly, of sins. Thirdly of punishments to be inflicted by Almighty God; and Fourthly, of punishments to be inflicted by men. The bond of Laws is of two sorts. For there are divine laws, and there are humane Laws. God bindeth men to the doing of what he pleaseth; and Men that are in authority, either Civil or Ecclesiastical, to such things as they think fit. Touching these bonds, none have power to lose, but they that have power to bind: so that what God by precept bindeth us to do, none but God can free us from the necessity & duty of doing it: and what the Church or Magistrate bind us to, no inferior power can lose us or free us from. Losing in this sense opposed to binding by law and precept, is in two sorts; By Revocation, and by Dispensation. Revocation, is an absolute Abrogation of a Law in respect of all places, times, persons, and conditions, and that either by express and direct Repeal, or by general neglect, and long continued disuse. Dispensation is in respect of certain persons, times, places and conditions of Men & things: so that a dispensation permitting the Law to retain her wont authority, only freeth some particular person or persons, at some times, in some places, and in some condition of things, from the necessity of doing, or leaving undone that, which, unless it be in consideration of such particular circumstances, the Lawgiver meant should be observed, but in such cases not so.  
here the question is moved by occasion of that kind of losing, which is by reversing Laws formerly in force, whether God the giver of the moral Law, may revoke the same, and dispense with men for the not doing of things there prescribed, of the doing of things there forbidden. The answer is, 
y Paludanus in Sent. lib. 3. dist. 40. quaest. 2. & 3.  that these Laws are imposed upon men by the very condition of their nature and creation: as the very condition and nature of a man, created by GOD, requireth that he should honour, love, fear, and reverence him that made him: and therefore touching the precepts of the first Table (that concerning the Sabaoth excepted) it is clear and evident, that they cannot be altered, nor Man by God himself discharged from the duty of honouring, loving, and fearing God so long as he hath any being. Touching the precepts of the second Table, it is resolved, that GOD cannot dispense with man, or give him leave to do the things therein forbidden, as to steal, murder, or lie. For all these imply, and involve in them that which is simply evil, and to be disliked: but by some alteration in the doer, or matter of action, he may make that not to be evil, that otherwise would be evil: and consequently not forbidden; as namely, that to be no theft, or murder, which otherwise would be: as when he commanded the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians, they did not commit the act of robbery: for robbery is the taking away of a thing from the owner against his will: but these things which the Israelites took away, were the Egyptians no longer, after God the supreme Lord, had spoilt them of the title they had thereunto, and assigned the same to the Israelites. So likewise for one man to take away the life of another, having no authority so to do, is murder, and no man can be dispensed with lawfully to do any such act; but for a Magistrate to take away the life of an offender, is a lawful act, and no act of murder; and so, if Abraham had slain his son Isaac, it had not been murder, being authorized so to do by God, who hath supreme authority in the world, and may justly, as a judge, for sin found in men, take away the lives of whom he pleaseth, and as supreme and absolute Lord, bring all to nothing that for his wills sake he made of nothing, though there were no sin nor fault at all. But touching Ceremonial, judicial, and Positive Laws of God concerning Sacraments and observations of what kind soever, seeing they are imposed after & upon the being of nature, we think that God may alter them at his pleasure, so that at one time it may be lawful to do that was forbidden at another. The Governors that God hath set over his Church and people by commission from him, may interpret what is doubtful in these Laws of God, or in those of the other sort: but yet according to the Law: but they may not abrogate or dispense with any Law of God, either natural and moral, or positive established concerning the use of Sacraments, and things pertaining to God's worship and service. But concerning those Laws that were made by the Apostles and Primitive Fathers; touching matters of outward observation, the succeeding Guides of the Church may either dispense with them, or reverse them upon the due consideration of the difference of times, Men, and things. And so we see to whom it pertaineth to bind men with their laws, and to lose them from the bonds thereof.  
The bond of sin, which is the second kind of those bonds I mentioned, is twofold; for there is Vinculum captivitatis, and Vinculum servitutis: that is, a man that is a sinner, 
z Rich. de S. Vict. tract. de potest. ligandi & soluendi c. 2  is so bound, that he can neither return to do good, nor leave off to do evil: for sin holdeth him in a bond of captivity, that he shall not return to do good: and with a bond of servitude, that he shall not cease to do evil. And though God hath so ordered the nature of Man, that he who will do evil, shall thus be entangled: yet it is man that thus entangleth, wrappeth, and bindeth himself, and not God. But for the bond of eternal condemnation, and the punishments following evil doers, which is the third kind of those bonds wherewith I showed that men are tied and bound, it is of GOD. From these bonds of sin, and punishment inflicted by GOD, none but he alone can free men by his favour, and the work of his grace, as the supreme and highest cause, none but Christ by Merit & Satisfaction. The Ministers of the Church, by the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, may convert Men to God instrumentally, making them partakers of his graces, & bringing them into such an estate, wherein they shall be sure for Christ's sake to find mercy with GOD, for the remission & taking away of their sins. They may pray for them, and out of the knowledge of their estate, assure them of remission: But other power to unloose and untie these direful & horrible bonds of sin and punishment, they have none: only the punishments which they have power to inflict, they have authority to diminish, lessen, or take away: so that whom they bind with the bonds of Ecclesiastical censures, & punishments, those by the same authority they may unloose. For as the Guides of God's Church may prescribe, enjoin, and impose certain actions of Mortification, and penitential conversion unto GOD: so when they see cause, they may release from the same: as by excommunication they may restrain from use of Sacraments, society of Believers, and benefit of the Church's prayers: so by Absolution they may free from all these bonds again. Neither is this kind of binding and losing lightly to be esteemed of, or little regarded: for he that for his contempt and disobedience, is debarred from the ufe of the Sacraments, from enjoying the society of the believers, and partaking in the benefit of the Church's prayers, is undoubtedly excluded from all access to the Throne of grace in Heaven, & all acceptation there: & so consequently no less bound in Heaven, then in Earth: and he that is unloosed from these bonds on Earth, is unloosed and set free in Heaven, that without all restraint, he may 
Heb. 4. 16.  go boldly to the Throne of Grace, to seek help in the time of need.  
Thus we see the divers kinds of binding and losing, & that the Guides of God's Church have power and authority by Laws and precepts, censures, and punishments, to bind those that are committed to their care and trust, and when they see cause, by reversing such Laws and precepts, wholly or in part, and by diminishing, releasing, & taking away such censures, and punishments, to untie them, and set them free again. The bond of Divine Laws, they may no otherwise meddle with, then by letting them know who are so bound, how straightly they are tied. The bonds of sin, and punishments by Divine justice to be inflicted, they have no power and authority to unloose, but they concur as helpers to the unloosing of them by the Ministry of the Word, winning and persuading men to convert unto God, to cast their sins from them, and by the Sacraments instrumentally communicating unto them; the grace of repentant conversion, and the assurance of remission and pardon.  
In all these kinds of binding and losing, the Apostles were equal: seeing (our Adversaries themselves confessing) they had the same power of Order and jurisdiction in like extent, within the compass whereof all these kinds of binding and losing are confined. Wherefore let us proceed to speak of the power of remitting and retaining sins, given to the Apostles by Christ our Saviour. To remit sin, properly is nothing else but to resolve not to punish sin, and therefore he only may properly be said to remit sin, that hath power to punish it. Now as sin is committed against the prescript of God, our Conscience, and Men in authority: so GOD, the conscience of the Sinner, and the Magistrate, and Minister, have power to punish sin: GOD, with punishments temporal and eternal, of this life and that which is to come: the Conscience, with remorse: the Magistrate, with death, banishment, Confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and the like: and the guides of the Church, with suspension, excommunication, degradation, and such other censures. Hence it followeth, that GOD only is said properly to remit the punishments that his justice doth inflict: that the conscience only upon repentance, can take away that bitter and aflictive punishment of remorse, wherewith she is wont to torment and disquiet the mind of the offendor: and that the Magistrate and Minister only have power to take away those punishments that in their several courses, they may and do inflict. Notwithstanding, the Minister by the Word, persuading men to repentance, procuring remission, and out of his prudent observation of the party's conversion unto GOD, assuring him that it will go well with him, as also by the Sacrament instrumentally communicating to him as well the grace of repentant conversion, as of free remission (that so he may hear the very sound and voice of GOD in mercy, saying to the heart and spirit of the repentant Sinner, I am thy Salvation) may be said in a sort to remit sin, even in that it is an offence against GOD, not by way of authority and power, but by winning and persuading the sinner to that conversion which obtaineth remission from GOD, and by the Sacrament instrumentally making him partaker as well of the grace of remission of sin from GOD, as of conversion from sin to GOD. There are but four things in the hand of the Minister, the Word, Prayer, Sacraments, and Discipline. By the word of Doctrine he frameth, winneth, and persuadeth the sinner to repentant, conversion, seeking, and procuring remission from God. By Prayer, he seeketh and obtaineth it for the sinner. By Sacraments, he instrumentally maketh him partaker as well of the grace of remission as conversion: And by the power of Discipline, he doth by way of authority punish evil doings, and remit or diminish the punishments he inflicteth, according as the condition of the party may seem to require. By that which hath been said, it appeareth that to bind and lose, to remit & to retain sins, are equivalent & the same: save that to bind and lose, is of more ample & large extent, in that it implieth in it the binding by precepts & laws, & the losing which is by reversing or dispensing with the same. And therefore having showed that the Apostles were equal in the power ofbinding and losing, we need add no farther proof that they were equal in power of remitting & retaining sins.  
Wherefore let us proceed to the promise of Christ made to Peter, that upon the Rock mentioned by him, he would build his Church, and let us see, whether any peculiar thing were promised unto Peter in that behalf. The Church of God, we know, is compared in Scripture to a City, an House, and a Temple; and therefore the beginning, proceeding, and increasing of the same, is rightly compared to building. Now in building there must be a foundation upon which all may rest, and stay, that is put into the same building: and the foundation must be sure, firm, & immoveable; for otherwise it wall fail, and so all other parts of the building, wanting their stay, will fall to the ground. Now nothing is so firm, sure and immoveable, as a Rock, and consequently no building so strong as that which is raised upon a rocky foundation: whereupon our Saviour showeth 
b Matth. 7. 24. etc.  that a House builded on the sand is easily ruinated, & soon shaken to pieces, but that an House builded upon a rock standeth firm, notwithstanding the fury and violence of the floods, winds, and tempests: and compareth a Man rightly grounded, and established in his persuasion and resolution, to an house so built. By a Rock therefore in this place is meant a sure foundation, that will not fail, nor be moved or shaken, how great a weight soever be laid upon it. In a foundation there are three things required. The first is, that it be the first thing in the building: the second, that it bear up all the other parts of the building; & the third, that it be firm and immoveable. For as Christ saith; 
c Matth. 6. 33.  If the eye that is the light of the body, be darkness, how great is that Darkness? So, if that which is to support and bear up all, do fail & shrink, all must needs be shaken, and fall a sunder. These being the things required in a foundation; simply, and absolutely, in respect of all times, persons, and things, Christ only is that foundation, upon which the spiritual building of the Church is raised, because he only is that beginning whence all spiritual good originally floweth, and cometh, upon whom all the persuasion of the truth of things revealed stayeth itself, as being the Angel of the great Covenant, and that eternal Word, that was with God in the beginning, upon whom all our hope, confidence, and expectation of any good groundeth itself: all the promises of God being in him 
d 2 Cor. 1. 20.  yea and Amen. And in this sense the Apostle Saint Paul saith, 
e 1. Cor. 3. 11.  Other Foundation can no man lay then that which is laid, which is jesus Christ. And 
f Aug. tractat. ult. in joannem. Se●…m. 13. de verb. Dom. Retract. l. 1. ca 21.  S. Augustine, and other of the Fathers understand by that rock upon which our Saviour promised Peter to build his Church, the rock that Peter confessed, which rock was Christ, upon which foundation even Peter himself was builded, for that other Foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, which is jesus Christ. But in respect of some particular times, persons, and things, and in some particular and special considerations, there are other things that may rightly be named foundations also, in respect of the spiritual building of the Church. So in respect of the frame & fabric of virtue and welldoing raised in this building, the first virtue, namely Faith, upon which all other virtues do stay themselves, and from which they take the first direction that any virtue can give, is rightly named a foundation. In respect of the form of Christian doctrine, the first principles of heavenly knowledge are rightly named a foundation, 
g Hebr. 6. 1.  Not laying again, saith the Apostle, the foundation of faith, and of repentance from dead works, of the doctrine of Baptisms, & of the imposition of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and ofeternall judgement, let us be led forward unto perfection. These first principles of heavenly knowledge are named a foundation, because they are the first things that are known, before which nothing can be known; and because upon the knowledge of these things, all other parts of heavenly knowledge do depend. In respect of the confession of the true faith concerning Christ, the first clear, express, and perfect form of confession that ever was made concerning the same, may rightly be named a foundation, and in this sense Peter's faith and confession is by divers of the 
h Leo in annivers. assumpt. Serm. 2.  Fathers named the Church's foundation. But they understand not by the faith and confession of Peter, either the virtue and quality of faith abiding in his heart and mind, or the outward act of confessing, but the form of confession made by him when he said 
i Matth. 16. 16.  Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God: upon which form, as being the rule of all right believing, the Church of God is builded. In respect of the supernatural knowledge of God in Christ, the first & immediate revelation made to the Apostles from whom all other were to learn, and by whose Ministry, accompanied with all things that might win credit, they were to be gained unto God, may very rightly and justly be named a foundation, upon which the faith of all aftercommers is to stay itself, and from which in all doubts they must seek resolution. And in this sort 
k De Pon. Rom. l. 1. c. 11.  Bellarmine saith truly, that the Apostles may be named Foundations of the Church: according to that description, in the Revelation of Saint john, of the wall of the city of God, that had 
l Reuel. 21. 14.  12. foundation-stones upon which it was raised, and in them written the names of the Lambs twelve Apostles; and that of S. Paul, that 
m Ephes. 2. 20.  we are builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ jesus being the Head cornerstone: And this in three respects. First, because the Apostles were the first that founded Churches, and converted unbelievers to the faith. Secondly, because their doctrine, which they received immediately from God by most undoubted revelation, without mixture of error, or danger of being deceived is the rule of the faith of all aftercomers, and that sure, immoveable, and rocky foundation, upon which the persuasion of all succeeding generations, and posterities, may and doth, most securely stay and ground itself. Thirdly, because they were Heads, Guides, and Pastors of the whole universal Church, having not only supreme, but prime and original government of the same, out of whose most large and ample commission, all Ecclesiastical power and authority of aftercommers, was in an inferior degree and sort to be derived, and taken. In all these respects, all the Apostles were that strong rock, and those strong rocky foundation-stones on which the Church is builded, though in a peculiar sense Christ alone be the Rock: and in all these respects, as S. Hierome saith, 
n Hier. l. 〈◊〉. contra jovinian.  Super omnes ex aequo Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur: that is, the strength and firmness of the Church doth equally & indifferently stay itself upon them all: and consequently no more upon Peter then any of the rest. Hitherto we find nothing peculiar to Peter, and not common to all the Apostles: so that all the allegations of our Adversaries touching the feeding of the Sheep of Christ committed to Peter, the power of the keys, of binding and losing, of remitting and retaining sins, and the promise that on him as on a rocky foundation-stone elect and precious, Christ would build his Church, are to no purpose, seeing they are forced to confess, that all these things were likewise either by direct 
o Cusanus de Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 13  words, or by intendment bestowed on all the rest. Wherefore let us see how notwithstanding this their confession they can make good, that there was a primacy of power in Peter, and how they go about to confirm the same.   

CHAP. 23.  
Of the primacy of power imagined by our Adversaries to have been in Peter, and their defence of the same.  
FOr the avoiding of the clear evidence of the truth of all that which hath been said, touching the equality of the Apostles of Christ amongst themselues (which our Adversaries cannot but see, & acknowledge) they have two shifts; The first, 
a Stapleton relect. controv. 3. q. 1. art. 1.  that the Apostles were equal towards the people, but not amongst themselves. The second, 
b Caietan. opusc. tom. 1. tract. 1. c. 3.  that they were equal in the apostolic power, but that Peter had that amplitude of power (which the rest had as Apostles by special favour, and only in & for their own persons) as an ordinary Pastor, and in such sort that he might leave the same to his Successors. These their silly shifts & evasions we will examine, that so the truth of that which hath been said, be more fully cleared, & that all men may see & perceive; that nothing can be substantially objected against it, nor no evasion found to avoid it.  
Touching the first thing that they say, it is an Axiom, as I think, that may not be doubted of, that whatsoever things are equal in respect of a third thing, are in the same sort, & foe far for equal amongst themselves. So that if the Apostles were equal in the respect they had to the people, & as governors of the same, they were so far forth, & in that respect equal amongst themselues. But they will say perhaps, that the Apostles were indeed equal amongst themselves in the power & office of teaching, directing, guiding, & governing the Christian World, but that yet amongst themselves there was an inequality, & one was superior, & had power over the rest, not in respect of the acts of their office of teaching & governing the world, but in respect of their personal actions. This surely is one of the strangest paradoxes that ever was heard of. For who can imagine, that God would trust the Apostles, with the managing of the weightiest affairs of his Church, & the government of the whole world, without being any way accountant in respect thereof, unto any one amongst them as superior, & that he would appoint an head & chief, & subject them to his censure in their personal actions? Nay this is impossible, & cannot be. For if in their office of teaching, & governing the rest of the Church they were equal, & could not therein be limited or restrained one by another, than was there none amongst them that could put any of the rest from his office, dignity, and employment.  
Now it is most clear and certain, that he who hath not power to suspend another from the execution of his office in the Church, hath no power to suspend him from the Sacraments, or to excommunicate him whatsoever his personal misdemeanours be. For as to be a Minister of the Church, presupposeth to be a member of it: so to be put from being a member of the Church, implieth and presupposeth a putting from all office and dignity in the Church: so that there neither was, nor could be any amongst the Apostles, that had power to put any of the rest out of the Church, or to suspend them from the use of the Sacraments, seeing there was none found amongst them that had authority to limit, restrain, or debar any of the rest from the execution of his office: and therefore all that any one of them could do in respect of another, was but to admonish him, & upon his rejecting of such admonitions to refuse to communicate with him; which thing any one may do in an absolute equality, as well as when one is superior to another; as we see by the example of Paul 
c Galat. 2. 11.  reproving Peter, and resisting him to his face, and likewise by that of Paul and Barnabas 
d Act. 15. ●…9.  parting the one from the other upon such dislikes and differences as grew between them.  
Wherefore I suppose our Adversaries will not much insist upon this their first shift and evasion. Let us see therefore if their second be any better. It is true (say they) that all power Ecclesiastical, and all degrees of the same are included and employed in the apostolic office and dignity; that the Apostles, as Apostles were all equal; and consequently, that there was no one amongst the Apostles, but in his time had as much to do in governing of the Church as Peter, without receiving any thing from him, or being any way subject to his control, and to be restrained, limited, or directed by him: But this amplitude of power which all the Apostles had in common, the rest had only for themselves, and as a personal privilege that was to end with them, but Peter had the same in such sort, that he might leave it to to his Successors. So that that power which in the rest was apostolic and temporary, and to end with them, was ordinary, Pastoral, and perpetual in Peter, and to be derived from him to his Successors and aftercommers. Surely this second evasion will be found much worse than the first: for it is absurd to say, that Peter left all the dignity and Ecclesiastical power he had in common with the rest of the Apostles, to his successors: for then all Popes should be immediately chosen by God, not by the Cardinals; then should they all be consecrated and ordained immediately by Christ, not by Bishops: then should they all see Christ in the flesh: then should they all have power to write books of Canonical Scripture, and be free from danger of erring whensoever they either preach or write: for so the Apostles were: yea than should they confirm their doctrine by miracles, and give the Holy Ghost by imposition of their Hands. Whereas yet no Pope dareth challenge any one of these preeminences. If they say, that all the dignity and power that was in the Apostles was not ordinary, Pastoral, and perpetual in Peter, and so to be passed over to his Successors, but some part of it only, it is just nothing they say. For then this is all that they affirm, that some part of that dignity and power that was in Peter, is in Peter's Successors, and so there is in the silliest Priest in the world.  
But they will say, immediate vocation, the seeing of Christ in the flesh, infallibility of judgement, power to write Canonical books of Scripture, and the confirmation of doctrine by miracles, together with the giving of the holy Ghost by imposition of hands, were fitting to the first beginnings of Christianity, and not of perpetual necessity and use, and therefore to cease after things were established; but that universality of jurisdiction, and a kind of infallibility of judgement, are perpetually necessary, and therefore these were to pass from Peter to others, though the rest of the apostolic preeminences were not. Thus than first they amplify the excellent dignities of Peter, as if the rest had not had the like; but being convinced, that he had nothing the rest had not, they make show as if they would prove, that the Apostle S. Peter had all those things in such sort that he might leave them to his Successors, which the rest had as personal privilidges only; because he is described to be a Pastor of the Church, in that CHRIST saith unto him, 
e I●…h. 21. 16.  Feed my sheep, and the office of a Pastor is of perpetual necessity. But being urged, that there are many excellent dignities found in Peter and the rest, that are not communicable to any other, as immediate vocation, seeing of CHRIST in the flesh, absolute infallibility in word and writing, speaking in divers tongues, power to do miracles, and power to give the visible gifts of the holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, they confess, that precisely Peter being a Pastor of the Christian Church, will not prove, that any dignity of his mentioned in the Scripture is perpetual, pastoral, and to continue for ever, unless the necessity of the perpetuity of it be made to appear otherwise. Whence it will follow, that they cannot prove that any special preeminences in Peter which he had in common with the rest, as namely, infallibility of judgement, and universality of jurisdiction, were Pastoral and perpetual in him, and to be passed from him to his aftercommers, and thereby entitle the Pope unto them. For PETER'S being a Pastor, which is the only thing they can allege to prove, that what he had was pastoral and perpetual, proveth it not: and the proof of the necessity of the continuance of any preeminence found in Peter and the rest of the Apostles, showeth that such a preeminence must continue, but not in what person or persons it must continue.  
But let us see whether infallibility of judgement, and universality of jurisdiction be amongst the things that were proper to the beginnings of Christianity, or amongst those that are perpetually necessary. Surely; touching the first, 
f De Pont: Ro. lib. 2. cap. 12.  Bellarmine seemeth to confess, that the being taught immediately of GOD, and the being absolutely free from error, so that their writings and sayings were Canonical, were temporary in the Apostles, as necessary only in those first beginnings of Christianity; and whether he confess it or not, it is most undoubtedly true, that that absolute infallibility that was in Peter, for whose faith Christ prayed that it might not fail, was temporary, and not to be communicated to any aftercommers: for he was so lead into all truth, that he could not err in any of his writings and preachings; whereas all confess, that even Popes may err in both these, and that they are free from error only when they determine those things, wherein the whole Church seeketh their resolution. Touching the second which is universality of jurisdiction, the same Cardinal hath these words. 
g De Pont. Ro. lib. 1. c. 9  Fuit in illis Ecclesiae primordijs necessarium ad fidem in toto orbe terrarum disseminandam, ut primis praedicatoribus & Ecclesiarum fundatoribus summa potestas & libertas concederetur: That is, in those first beginnings of the Church it was necessary, for the quick dispersing of the Faith throughout the whole world, that the first Preachers, and founders of Churches, should have a most ample power, and free commission, without that straightening and limitation of the same that is in their aftercommers, that so every one of them might truly use those words of the Apostle, 
h 2. Cor. 11. 28.  Instantia mea quotidiana sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, that is, my daily instance is the carefulness of all Churches: or as some other translate it: I am cumbered daily, and have the care of all Churches. And therefore howsoever the Apostles divided amongst themselves the several parts of the world, to which each one of them should more specially preach the word of the Lord; yet did they not shut up and enclose their cares within the bounds and compass of any one province, but every one of them. did so take care of the whole Church, as if that care had pertained unto him alone. Thus far Bellarmine, clearly confessing, that the illimited commission of the Apostles was fitted to those first beginnings of Christianity, and the condition of those first times: so that the same reason that excludeth the other dignities and preeminencies of the Apostles, as namely their being fitted to the first beginnings, excludeth both these from being perpetual likewise.  
But let us let this advantage go, and take a view of those proofs which they bring of the power of Peter's Successors above other Bishops, whereas Peter himself had no power more than any of the rest. It is true (say they) that Peter had no power which the rest had not, but he had that amplitude of Ecclesiastical power as an ordinary Pastor, which they had only as Apostles and Delegates by special favour, and personal privilege. Against this distinction few of our Divines say any thing, many of them confessing they understand it not; so deep is the learning of our Adversaries, that every Man cannot be so happy as to understand what they write. Which is the less to be marvailed at, seeing many of them scarce understand themselves, and yet contemn us, as if we were silly idiots. But if without offence we may conjecture what the meaning of this their riddle is, surely under correction I think this it is. The rest of the Apostles had as great authority and power, and as large a commission as Peter had: but they had it only for term of life, and could leave none to succeed them in the same. He had it for himself, and such as he would leave it unto. Besides, he was first invested with all the plenitude of Ecclesiastical power & jurisdiction, so that none could have any thing to do in this business, but such as should receive commission from him, save only that Christ reserved power to himself, to give commission to such as by special favour he should be pleased to honour, as were the Apostles separated to the work of the Ministry by his own immediate designment, without receiving any thing from Peter: but afterwards all were either to receive of him, or of them to whom he should leave his office and charge. This their conceit they illustrate by a similitude. A Bishop, say they, hath authority to preach in his Diocese, as Pastor of the place, and whosoever succeedeth him in his bishoply office, succeedeth him in the same power likewise. A Friar by special favour from the Pope, may preach in the same Diocese wheresoever the Bishop may, and cannot be silenced or restrained by him, because he received nothing from him, but his superior the Pope; but another desiring to succeed the Friar, not so favoured and privileged by the Pope, must fetch his commission and allowance from the Bishop, and be subject to him in the performance and execution thereof. So here Peter was first constituted Pastor of all the World; the Apostles were by special favour authorized immediately by Christ to preach in Peter's charge, and to govern the Church whereof he was Bishop, as well as he; but yet so, that all they that were to follow after, were to derive their commission from Peter or his Successor, if they would meddle in the Church which was his charge. Many things are said by Caietan, Bellarmine, Stapleton, and others to this purpose; but this is the substance of all: Wherefore let us see how they prove that they say.  
Touching the first of these two points, thus they prove it. Peter was a Pastor, and had that amplitude of illimited commission before described, as a Pastor: but the office of a Pastor is of perpetual necessity and use: and therefore this his illimited power and commission was to be perpetually continued. That Peter was a Pastor they prove, because Christ said unto him expressly, Feed my Sheep, Feed my Lambs. This is the frame of their whole building, which may very easily be thrown to the ground, if any man will put his hand unto it. First, because it is certain the other Apostles were Pastors also: so that if Peter's being a Pastor prove the necessity of the continuance of those ample preeminences he had, and that he might leave them to whom he pleased, it would follow, that the rest of the Apostles also had their preeminences, which were equal with those of Peter, not as things temporary, but perpetual, and such as they might leave to whom they pleased. That the other Apostles were Pastors, 
i Ockam. Dial. l. 4. primi tract. 3. partis c. 3.  first the Hymn of the Church wherein they are expressly said to have been constituted Pastors by Christ, proveth. Secondly, the confession of 
k Bellarm. de Pont. l. 4 c. 23  Bellarmine, acknowledging that what was given to Peter by those words, Feed my sheep, was given unto all by those other words, As my Father sent me, so send I you, confirmeth the same. And thirdly, the enumeration of the several kinds of feeding, every of which the Divines do show to agree to the rest, as well as to Peter, demonstrateth that they were all Pastors. Secondly, whereas they say, that the office of a Pastor is a thing of perpetual use and necessity, and consequently perpetual, and that the amplitude of power which was in Peter agreed unto him in that he was a Pastor, and as a Pastor, they bewray notable ignorance and folly. For it is true indeed that the office of a Pastor is of perpetual use and necessity, and so to continue for ever: but the amplitude of power and jurisdiction, and the great preëminences, that were in Peter, did not agree unto him as to a Pastor, or in that he was a Pastor: For if they had, then must they agree to every Pastor, & so every Bishop must have the same, & not the Pope only. For as whatsoever agreeth to a man in that he is a man, agreeth to every man; so whatsoever agreeth to a Pastor in that he is a Pastor, agreeth to every one that is a Pastor. If they shall say, that the great and ample preëminences that were in Peter, did not agree unto him as a Pastor, but in some other respect; then his being a Pastor, which is an office of perpetual necessity, use, and continuance, will not prove the same perpetual, no more than other things which this Pastor had in that he was an Apostle. If they shall say, these things agreed unto him, not in that he was a Pastor, but in that he was such a Pastor as was to feed the flock of Christ and people of God, by delivering unto them the doctrine of truth without all mixture of any the least error, to confirm the same by miracles following, & to give the visible gifts of the holy Spirit by the only imposition of his hands; it is true that they say; but such a Pastor they confess is necessary only in the beginnings of the Christian Church, and not afterwards; and therefore from hence it cannot be concluded that the ample preëminences, that were in Peter, as his infallibility of judgement, and illimited Commission, were to be passed over from him to his Successors, and aftercommers. Their second conceit is more fond than the first: For if Peter were by Christ constituted sole supreme Pastor and Bishop of the whole universal world, and yet his meaning was, that others should likewise receive immediately from himself power to do as much in the governing of the Church as Peter; he meant to give him something, and presently to take it from him again. For as if the Pope shall make a man Bishop of such a city, or country, and thereby give unto him that supreme direction that nothing shall be done within that compass without his authority and consent; and shall presently send another with full authority to do any thing that the former may do, and no way to be subject to his control or restraint in the performance thereof, or accountant for it; he revoketh, and maketh void his first grant: so here, if Christ make Peter supreme Bishop, and Pastor of the whole Christian world, and presently constitute eleven other Apostles with power and commission to do any thing that Peter may do in all parts of the world, and towards all persons (which as they have not from him so he cannot take it from them, or limit them in the use of it) he absolutely voideth his first grant made to Peter.  
But they will say perhaps, that Christ meant little favour to Peter more than to one of the rest of the Apostles, but that all his care was for the good of the Pope, whom he meant to make a great man in the world: and that therefore he constituted the other Apostles immediately as well as Peter, put them into equal commission with him, and would not have them beholding to him for any honour or power they had, but appointed that all other Bishops should receive their mission, calling, commission, and authority from Peter during the short time of his life, and after his departure in all succeeding ages to the end of the world, from his Successors the Bishops of Rome. This truly is well said in favour of the Pope, if it were as truly said as it is kindly meant; but we shall find, that there is no truth in that they say: For it is clear and evident, that each Apostle by his commission he had from Christ without being any way beholding to Peter for it, had authority to preach the Gospel to such as never heard of it before, to plant Churches, and ordain & constitute in them Pastors and Bishops, and out of his more large and ample commission to make other, though somewhat more restrained and limited; whence it will follow that they whom any of the other Apostles ordained and constituted Pastors and Bishops which were innumerable in all parts of the world, received nothing from Peter nor his pretended Successor. Now they whom the Apostles thus constituted, and ordained, might constitute and ordain other by virtue of their office and calling they had from the Apostles, and those other, other again to succeed them, so that none of these to the end of the world, one succeeding another, should ever receive any thing from Peter or his pretended Successor, And therefore it is absurd that 
l De Pont. Ro: lib. 4. c. 23. 24. & 25.  Bellarmine saith, that the Apostles received all their jurisdiction immediately from Christ, & that yet notwithstanding all Bishops receive the same from the Pope. And those Papists are better advised that say, that the Bishops of other Churches receive not their jurisdiction from the Pope, but from Christ by those Apostles that constituted their Churches, and planted their predecessors in the same, setting them the bounds of their Bishop-like charge: whence it will follow (as Bellarmine wisely foresaw, and therefore declined this opinion) that the Pope cannot either take away or diminish their authority unless any man can show where Christ gave him power to limit, restrain, or take away that power from men, which they have from himself by the hands of the other Apostles, and their aftercommers, without being any way beholding to Peter for the same.  
Wherefore they have yet one more strange conceit behind to help the matter, than any of those we have hitherto heard; which is, that Peter being not only an Apostle, but supreme Pastor and Bishop of the whole world constituted by Christ, made the other Apostles Bishops and Pastors; and that they ordained Bishops not by virtue of their apostolic power (which they received immediately from Christ without being beholding to Peter for it, or inferior to him in it) but by virtue of their Bishoply authority and offince which they received from Peter. 
m De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 23.  Alioqui enim, saith Bellarmine, cum omnes Apostoli plurimos Episcopos in varijs locis constituerint, si Apostoli ipsi non sint facti Episcopi à Petro, certè maxima pars Episcoporum, nondeducit originem suam à Petro; that is, For otherwise, seeing all the Apostles constituted exceeding many Bishops in divers places, if the Apostles themselves were not made Bishops by Peter, certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not fetch their original from Peter. This his fancy of Peter's making the other Apostles Bishops, immediately after as his manner is, like an honest man he contradicteth, confessing, that the Apostles were all Bishops, and the first Bishops of the Church in that they were Apostles, without any such ordination. 
n Ibidem.  Omnes Apostoli, saith he, fuerunt Episcopi, imò etiam primi Episcopi Ecclesiae, tametsi non sunt ordinati: that is, All the Apostles were Bishops, nay, which more is, the first Bishops of the Church, without any other or new ordination besides their apostolic mission and calling. And 
o Lib. 4. cap. 23.  in another place he pronounceth peremptorily, that by virtue of these words. 
p john 2●…. 21.  As my Father sent me so sand I you, the Apostles were made Vicars of Christ, nay that they received the very offince, & authority of Christ, and that in the apostolic power all Ecclesiastical power is contained: and though in the former place he said expressly, Non eo ipso quòd aliquis est Apostolus, est Episcopus; that is, A man is not therefore a Bishop, because an Apostle: for the twelve were Apostles before they were either Bishops or Priests: yet in the later place he saith, it is not to be marvelled at, that they were Apostles before the passinon of Christ, and yet neither Priests nor Bishops: for that the Lord at divers times gave the Apostles divers kinds and degrees of power: but especially in the twentieth of john, perfected that he began before his passinon. So that an Apostle perfectly constituted and authorised, hath both Priestly and Episcopal dignitic and power, though in the beginning, when the Apostles were rather designed then fully constituted, not having received their full Commissinon, they were neither Priests nor Bishops. But to leave BELLARMINE lost in these mazes, it is most easy demonstratively to prove, that the Apostles in that they were Apostles perfectly and fully constituted, had both Priestly and Bishoply dignity and power in most eminent sort. For did not CHRIST give the Apostles power to do any Ecclesiastical act that a Bishop can do? Did he not give them power to preach and baptise, when he said unto them, 
q Math. 28. 19  Go teach all nations Baptising them, &c: to minister the holy Eucharist, when he said, 
r Luke 22. 19  Do this as est as ye shall do it in remembrance of me? Did he not give them the power of the Keys, of binding & losing, of remitting & retaining sins, & consequently all that cometh within the compass of Ecclesiastical office and Ministry? doubtless he did: Neither is there any that dareth to deny any part of that which hath been said. And therefore it is an idle fancy that Peter made the rest of his fellow's Bishops, the apostolic power implying in it eminently Episcopal, as the greater the lesser.  
But they will say, Peter made james the lesser Bishop of Jerusalem. Indeed 
s Baron. annal. an. Christi 34. 291. Chrysost. in joan. homil. 87.  Baronius falsifieth Chrysostome, and maketh him say, that the Doctor of the world made james Bishop of Jerusalem, whereas he saith no such thing; but ask the question why Peter, whom Christ so much favoured, was not preferred to be Bishop of Jerusalem, answereth, that Christ made him Doctor of the world, which was a greater honour then to have been fastened to the Church of Jerusalem, & to have been set in the Episcopal Throne there. But it is clear by the testimonies of Antiquity, that Peter, james the greater, & john, ordained james Bishop of Jerusalem. So saith Anacletus in his second Epistie, if any credit be to be given unto it, where he hath these words: A Bishop must be ordained of three Bishops, as Peter, james the greater, and john, ordained james the lesser Bishop of Jerusalem. 
t Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 1.  Clemens Alexandrinus also, as we read in Eusebius, saith the very same; and 
u Hier. de viris illustr. in jacob.  Hierome de viris illustribus, attributeth the ordaining of james not to Peter alone, but to the Apostles. His words are, jacobus, statim post passionem Domini ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatur: that is, james presently after the passion of the Lord, is ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles. If any man ask how the Apostles did ordain or make james being an Apostle, a Bishop, if the apostolic office imply in it the office and dignity of a Bishop, as the greater the lesser: we answer, that a Bishop differing from an Apostle, as in other things, so in this, that he is fixed to some certain place whereof specially he taketh the care, whereas the care & employment of an Apostle is more at large: When the Apostles after the conversion of Nations and people began to retire themselves to certain places there to rest, and specially to take care thereof, they were in that respect rather Bishops than Apostles; and in this sort james the lesser being appointed by the Apostles, to make his principal abode at Jerusalem a chief city of the world, whence the faith spread itself into all other parts, and more specially to take care thereof, is rightly said to have been constituted Bishop of that place by them, not as if they had given him any new power and authority, that he had not before, or not in so perfect sort, but that they limited, and restrained him more specially to one certain place where he should use the same.  
The place in the 
x Act. 13. 2. 3.  Acts maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish error: for Paul and Barnabas formerly designed by Christ to be Apostles, were again by the ministry of Prophets revealing the will and pleasure of Almighty GOD, separated more specially to be Apostles of the Gentiles, and put forth into that employment with fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands: not thereby receiving any new power, but a special limitation and assignation of those parts of the world, wherein principally they should be employed. Besides, these were not Apostles but Prophets, such as Agabus was, that are mentioned in this place, inferior in degree to Apostles, and such as might not make an Apostle to be a Bishop, but did only signify and reveal what the will of God was, and whither he meant to send these worthy Apostles, and so with prayer and fasting commended them to the grace of God; and therefore this place maketh nothing for proof of Peter's ordaining and appointing the rest of the Apostles to be Bishops.   

CHAP. 24.  
Of the preeminence that Peter had amongst the Apostles, and the reason why Christ directed his speeches specially to him.  
THAT there was no more power and authority in Peter then in any of the rest, I hope it appeareth by that which hath been said: and therefore it remaineth that now we examine, what was the reason why so many things were specially spoken to him, why so many ways he may seem to have been preferred before the rest, and what in truth and in deed his preeminence, and primacy was. Touching the speeches of Christ for the most part specially directed to Peter, it is most certain by that which hath been said, that they did give no singular and special power to Peter that was not given to every of the rest.  
And therefore 
a Ockam. Dialo. l. 4. primi tractat. 3. pa●…t. cap: 3.  the Divines do observe the difference of the speeches of Christ, and note that Christ sometimes directed his speech to particular men precisely in their own persons, as in the remission of sins, healing the sick, and raising the dead: sometimes in the person of all, or many others, as when he saith, 
b joh. 5. 14.  Go and sin no more, which he is intended to have done so often as there is the same reason of speaking a thing to one and to others; as when a man is induced to do or not to do a thing, to believe or not to believe a thing, which other in like sort are bound to do or not to do, to believe or not to believe as well as he. So it being as necessary for one to watch as another, Christ saith, 
c Mark. 13. 37.  That I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. And so here, seeing it is confessed and proved by our Adversaries themselves, that there was nothing promised or performed to Peter that was not in like sort intended unto, and bestowed on every of the rest, it must be granted, that what he spoke to him, he meant to all, and would have his words so understood and taken. 
d Ockam. ubi suprá.  The reason why more specially, notwithstanding this his general intendment, he directed his speech to Peter, then to any of the rest, was either because he was more ancient, and more ardent in charity then the rest, thereby to signify what manner of men they should be that should be chosen Pastors of the Church, namely men of ripe age and confirmed judgement, and full of charity: or lest he might seem to be despised for his denial of Christ, which the Gloss seemeth to import when it saith, Trinae negationi redditur trina confessio, ne minus amori lingua seruiat, quám timori; that is, Therefore he was induced by Christ thrice solemnly to protest and profess his love unto him, as he had thrice denied him, that his tongue might show itself no less serviceable unto love that rested in him, than it had done unto fear: or else because he first confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God consubstantial with his Father, because he was much conversant with Christ, and acquainted with his secrets & counsels; or lastly, because Christ meant there should be a certain order amongst the guides of his Church, and some to whom the rest in all places should resort in all matters of importance, as to such as are more honourable than other of the same rank & degree who are first to be consulted, from whom all actions must take their beginning, therefore he so specially spoke to Peter, whom he meant in this sort to set before the rest. Thus then, there is a primacy of power when one hath power to do that act of ministry another hath not, or not without his consent; and when one may by himself limit, restrain, or hinder another in the performance of the acts of ministry; and such primacy we have showed not to have been in Peter. But there is another of order & honour, which he had, whereby he had the first place, the first and best employment, the calling together of the rest in cases where a concurrence of many was required (as for the better sorting out of the work they had in hand, the joint decreeing of things to be every where alike believed, and practised) and in these assemblies thus called, the sitting & speaking first, the moderation and direction of each man's speaking, and the publishing and pronouncing of the conclusion agreed upon, if so he pleased. In this sense Cyprian saith, 
e Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae.  Erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit & Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, fed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur; that is, The other Apostles doubtless were that which Peter was, having the same fellowship both of power and honour, but the beginning proceedeth from unity, that the Church may be showed to be one. And in the same sense Hierome saith against jovinian, 
f Hieron. lib. 1. contra jovinian.  Thou wilt say, the Church is founded upon Peter: it is true it is so, and yet in another place the same frame of the Church is raised upon all the Apostles: and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the firmness of the Church stayeth itself equally upon them all: but therefore doth Christ more specially promise to build his Church upon Peter, that he being constituted and appointed head & chief amongst them, all occasion of Schism might be taken away. To the same purpose it is that Leo writeth to Anastasius, where he saith, 
g Leo epist. 84.  Inter beatissimos Apostolos in similitudine honour is fuit quaedam discretio potestatis, & cum omnium par esset electio, uni tamen datum est, ut caeteris preemineret; that is, Amongst the most blessed Apostles like in honour, there was a certain difference of power; and when all were equally elected, yet it was given to one to have a preeminence amongst the rest. In which saying of Leo, that it be not contrary to that of Cyprian, who saith, that the Apostles were companions, and consorts equal both in honour & power, we must not understand that one Apostle had more power than another, or that power another had not; but that in the same power one was so before the rest, that he was the party to whom they were to resort, and without consulting whom first and before all other, they might attempt nothing generally concerning the state of the whole Church, by virtue of this power. In which sense he saith in another place: 
h Leo ep. 89.  Petro praecaeteris soluendi & ligandi tradita est potestas; that is, The power of binding and losing was so given to Peter, that therein he was before the rest; and again, 
i Leo in annivers. assumpt. Serm. 3.  Siquid cum eo commune caeteris Christus voluit esse principibus, nunquam nisi per ipsum Petrum dedit quicquidaliis non negavit: that is, If Christ would have any thing to be common to the rest of the Princes, that is, Apostles, with Peter, he never gave that which he vouchsafed unto them any otherwise then as by Peter; which words must not so be understood, as if Peter had first received the fullness of power, and others from him; for all the Apostles received their power and commission immediately from Christ & not from Peter, as I have largely proved, and all confess; but that what he gave to others, it did so pass unto them, as that in the first place it was given to Peter, and he thereby set in order and honour before the rest put in the same commission with him; so that Peter received not a different or more large commission from Christ then the other Apostles, but only a kind of honourable precedence, preëminence, and priority, such as the Duke of Venice hath amongst the great Lords of that state, to whom all Embassies and messages are directed from foreign Princes, and in whose name all letters, warrants, and mandates are sent out, as representing the whole State: yet can he do nothing without the rest, nor cross the consenting resolution of those noble Senators.  
And in this sense it is that 
k Aug. tractat. ult. in joannem.  Augustine saith of Peter, that he was by nature one particular man, by grace a christian man, by more ample and abundant grace a chief Apostle; but that when he received the Keys, he represented the whole universal Church, not as a legate that representeth the person of his Prince, and receiveth honours, dignities and titles for him and not for himself, but as chief of the company of the Apostles receiving for himself in the first place, that which in him and together with him was intended to them all. 
l Leo epist. 84.  This primacy of honour and order found in blessed Peter; who is thereupon named by the Father's Prince and head of the Apostles, is the original of all that superiority that metropolitans have over the Bishops of their provinces; and Primates and patriarchs over metropolitans, and in a word of all that order that is in the Church, and amongst her guides, whereby unity is preserved.   

CHAP. 25.  
Of the distinction of them to whom the Apostles dying left the managing of Church affairs: and particularly of them that are to perform the meaner services in the Church.  
Having spoken of the Apostles power and office, and the largeness of that commission, it remaineth that we come to speak of them to whom they recommended the managing of Church affairs, and the ministry of holy things when they left the world. They to whom they recommended the care of these things, when having finished their course, they were called hence to receive the Crown laid up for them in Heaven, were of two sorts: first such as they trusted with the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and government of God's people; and secondly, such other as they appointed to be assistant to them, and to perform the meaner services, though necessary also.  
The former sort are all comprehended under one common name of Presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of God's Church and people; the latter are Deacons, and such other inferior Ministers, as attend the necessities of the Saints, and assist the principal Guides of the Church. In the ordination of a Presbyter, saith 
a In 4. sent. dist. 24 qu. 2.  Durandus, there is a certain power conferred on him, and assigning of him to an employment, whereby after his ordination he may do something which he could not have done before, etiam quoad genus facti, no not in the kind and nature of the thing itself; as he that is ordained a Presbyter, may consecrate the Lords Body, and absolve in the Court of Penitency; neither of which things without such ordination can be done: but to them that are in the inferior orders there is no power given, neither have they any assignment to do any thing which they could not do before, and without such ordination, but to do such things as they could not lawfully do; nay in many of them there is no designment of them that are so ordained to the performance of any thing, but that which according to the use of the universal Church, men without such ordination may lawfully do. So that the ordination of men to the performance of such things, and the execution of such offices, seemeth to have proceeded from the institution of the Church, for the greater solemnity of Divine worship and service: and therefore such inferior orders are neither simply order (order being a sacred sign or character, by virtue whereof a power is given to the ordained, not only to do that he could not otherwise lawfully do, but to do that which otherwise he could not do at all) neither are they Sacraments, but Sacramental solemnities only, seeing the Church can institute no Sacraments. Hitherto Durandus. These being the sorts of them to whom the Apostles recommended the managing of Church affairs, and this the difference of their orders, I will first speak of the diverse orders & degrees of them that perform the meaner services in the Church, and then come to speak of them that have the government of the Church.  

b Lib. 4. c 24  The Master of Sentences saith, that the order of Subdeacons, and other minor orders below the degree of Deacons, as Acoluthes, Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, were brought in by the Church, and that they were not in the Apostles times; and 
* Addit. ad 3. part. Summae. q. 37. art. 2.  Thomas Aquinas, and other, are of the same mind. Notwithstanding there is no question but these minor orders and degrees were very ancient. For 
c Cyp. l. 2. ep. 10  Cyprian maketh mention of one Mettius a Subdeacon, and Nicephorus an Acoluthe. In another place he writeth, that he had ordained 
d Idem l. 2. ep. 5. & l. 4. ep. 5.  Aurelius and Celerinus Lectors: and in a third place he mentioneth 
e Lib. 5. ep. ●…4  Exorcists and Lectors. Cornelius' Bishop of Rome in his Epistle recorded by 
f Eus. hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 42.  Eusebius, describing the Clergy of the Roman Church in his time, showeth that there were in the same 46 Presbyters, 7 Deacons▪ 7 Subdeacons', 42 Acoluthes, 52 Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, Widows with distressed people, more than 1500. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Antiochians, omitting Acoluthes, reckoneth the rest, as Subdeacons, Lectors, Ostiaries, and Exorcists, adding to them Cantores, and Laborantes, or Copiatae, whose employment was to bury the dead; of whom also 
g Epiphan. in epitome doctr. Catholicae.  Epiphanius speaketh. Whereupon Bishop 
h Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. c. 77.  Lindan saith, that howsoever in these times they make or account but seven orders, yet in the Primitive Church there were more now scarce known. But let us see what the office, employment and manner of the admission of these men was in former times. Touching Ostiaries, the Council of Carthage ordaineth thus: 
i Concil. Car. thag. 4.  Let the Ostiary after he hath been instructed by the archdeacon how to behave himself in the house of God, at the suggestion of the archdeacon be ordained, and let the Bishop take the Keys from the Altar, and give them to him saying: So demean thyself as being to give an account to God for the things that these Keys lock up.  
The Lectors were to read in the Church whatsoever was to be read out of the old or new Testament; whereupon Cyprian having ordained Aurelius the confessor, a Lector, giveth a reason why he had so done: 
k Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 5.  Quia nihil magis congruit voci, quae Dominum gloriosa praedicatione confessa est, quam celebrandis divinis Lectionibus personare: that is, Because nothing doth more fit or better beseem the voice that by a glorious public testimony hath confessed the Lord, then to give a sound in the Church, in reading the divine Scriptures of the Lord.  
The Exorcists were such as took care of the Energumenes, or men vexed with the Devil, who in ancient times came to the Churches in great companies, and were there provided for, and kept under rules and disciplinary government. These Exorcists received of the hands of the Bishop the book wherein the Exorcisms were written, which they were to commit to memory, that so by earnest invocation of the name of CHRIST, who is to return to judge the quick and the dead, and to judge the world in fire, they might obtain of him the repressing of Satan's furies, and the ease, and deliverance of such as were disquieted and vexed by him. These had power to impose hands on them that were disquieted with Devils, whether baptised or not; and in solemn manner to commend them unto God, who only hath power to rebuke Satan.  
Acoluthes were so named, for that they were to follow and attend the Bishop whithersoever he went, that so they might not only be witnesses of his blameless conversation, but do unto him such service as he should require & stand in need of; whereupon in later times, for that they were to go before the Bishop in the Churches, bearing wax lights in the night watches, and other meetings for divine service in the night time, they were named Ceroferarij, that is, Taper-bearers. Subdeacons were to assist the Deacons in all things pertaining to them. The order of Subdeacons in ancient time was not accounted a sacred order, 
l Concil. Laod. can. 21. Decret. part. 1. dist. 23. c. 26 & dist. 60. cap. 4.  so that they might not touch the sacred vessels, nor none might be chosen a Bishop out of their rank: but the later Bishops of Rome decreed, that the order of Subdeacons should be reputed a sacred order.  
These were the inferior orders of ministry in the Church in ancient times, to which were added 
* Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 12.  Widows, or holy women, which being aged and destitute of friends, were maintained by the Church; and being of good report, were chosen and appointed to minister to the women that were baptised, to teach and direct them how to answer the Baptizer, and how to live afterwards, as also to take care of them that were sick.  
All these, as well Ostiaries, Lectors, Exorcists, and Acoluthes, as Subdeacons, in ancient times served for a certain space in these degrees: and therefore the solemn designing of them thereunto was not to be disliked; but now, when they execute the office of Ostiaries, who are no Ostiaries: of Lectors, who are no Lectors: of Psalmists, who are worthy to be driven not only out of the Choir, but out of the Church also, as Bishop 
m Lindan. Panopliae. lib. 4. c. 78. & 79.  Lindan rightly noteth: when none of these perform the duties their names import, and every man almost is made a Presbyter the first day, as if none might be made the next, it is but for show and fashion only that men are ordained to the performance of these offices, and in truth and in deed, nothing else but a mere mockery, as the same Bishop Lindan ingenuously confesseth. With whom Duarenus agreeth: His words are: 
n Duaren. de sacr. Eccles. minist. & Benef. lib. 1. cap. 16.  Hodie nec Diaconis nec aliis inferioribus Clericis ullus locus est in Ecclesia, ullumue ministerium aut munus quòd exequantur; sed quia priscis canonibus statutum est ut nemo Presbyter ordinetur, ●…isi per omnes gradus inferiores ascenderit, ideo dicis causa, ut ita dicam, gradatim ordinari solent, idque certo quodam solenniqueritu, ut ad honorem Presbyterij aut quemuis ali●… sublimiorem capessendum idonei reddantur, potest que dici imaginaria haec ordinatio: that is, At this day neither is there any place for Deacons, nor other inferior Clergimen in the Church, nor any ministry or function for them to execute; but because it is ordained in the ancient Canons, that no man be ordained a Presbyter, unless he ascend and climb up by all inferior degrees: therefore for names sake they are wont to be ordained to every of these degrees in order, and that with a certain solemn rite, that they may be made capable of Priestly honour, or any other higher dignity. And this ordination may rightly be termed an Imaginary ordination, or in imagination only. And therefore our Adversaries cannot justly blame us, who omitting the other inferior ordinations, give no lower order than that of a Deacon.  
All these both Ostiaries, Lectors, Acoluthes and Subdeacons, in former times, were sanctified and set apart to serve God in these meaner employments, that they might be trained up thereby to perform the duties of higher orders. For in those times, men were not promoted to the highest rooms but by degrees, being found to have demeaned themselves well in the lower: and therefore they were under a stricter kind of government than they of the Laity: and both in their conversation, habit, and all things beseeming modesty and gravity, they were more precisely tied to the keeping of order then other men. 
* Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 44.  Hereupon they were not suffered to wear their hair long like wantoness, uncivil men, or men of war; but were commanded to pol their whole heads, leaving only a circular crown in the lower parts thereof.  
And here truly we cannot but condemn the absurd custom of the Roman Church, violating old Canons, degenerating from ancient use, and exposing her Priests and Levites to the scorn and contempt of the world by those triobolar shaved crowns, which daily she setteth before our eyes. For first, whereas the 
o Concil. Toletan. 4. can. 40.  Council of Toledo in Spain provideth, that all Clergy men, Lectors, Deacons, and Priests, polling the whole head above, shall leave only a circular crown below, and not as the Lectors hitherto had done in the parts of Galicia (who wearing their hair long as Laymen, were polled in a little round compass in the tops of their heads only) for that this had been the custom of certain Heretics in Spain, the Church of Rome abandoneth the form of polling prescribed by the Council, and alloweth the observation of those ancient Heretics the Council condemned. Here we see, saith Bishop 
p Panoplia, li: 4. cap. 77.  Lindan, whence these triobolar crowns in the tops of clergy men's heads did come, namely from certain ancient Heretics in Spain. But these lesser things might easily be reform, if the unspeakable scandals, shames, & dishonours of the Church, were first removed and taken away. This is the censure of that learned Bishop. Secondly, whereas rasure was not used in ancient times, but condemned by the Fathers, as most unseemly; they of the Church of Rome have left tonsure, and brought in rasure in steed thereof. That rasure was not used in ancient times, it appeareth by 
q Lib. 1. Paedagog. cap 11.  Clemens Alexandrinus, where he saith, that the hairs are to be cut off not with the rasor, but with the Barbours' shears; and by 
r Lib: 2. contra Parmenian.  Optatus Bishop of Milevis, where he reprehendeth the Donatists that took certain Catholic Priests, and by force did shave their heads. Show us (saith he) where you are commanded to shave the heads of Priests, when as on the contrary side, there are so many examples proposed that it ought not so to be done. With Clemens Alexandrinus, and Optatus, Hierome agreeth, who upon the 44. of Ezekiel saith in express words, that Priests must neither nourish their hair, nor be shaved, but so polled, that their skin may still remain hid and covered; and 
s Bell: lib. 2. de Monach. c. 40.  Bellarmine himself confesseth, that Dionysius, Epiphanius, Hierome, Athanafius, Palladius, Augustine, Isidore, Bede, and the Counsels of Carthage & Toledo, do speak of tonsure only, and never mention rasure, and that the Epistle of Anicetus the Pope alleged for rasure, is not indubitate. What then will the Cardinal bring for defence of the contrary custom now prevailing in the Church of Rome? and what will he answer to these authorities of the ancient? We reprehend not, saith he, the customs of those times, neither do they of those times condemn our observation. For howsoever tonsure, and not rasure, was anciently used, yet were not they of the Clergy forbidden to use rasure, or to shave their heads. A strange answer of so great a Rabbi, and contrary to that he knoweth to be undoubtedly true. For Optatus directly condemneth rasure, as we have heard; and Hierome writing upon the 44 of Ezekiel, hath these words: Quod autem sequitur, Caput autem suum non radent, neque comam nutrient, sed tondentes attondebunt capita sua, perspicuè demonstratur, nec rasis capitibus, sicut Sacerdotes cultoresque Isidis atque Serapis nos esse debere; nec rursum comam dimittere, quod propriè luxuriosorum est barbarorumque & militantium, etc. That is, that which followeth, They shall not shave their heads, nor let their hair grow long, but polling they shall pol their heads, doth clearly demonstrate, that we should neither shave our heads like the Priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis, nor on the other side let our hair grow long, as wantoness, barbarous men, and Soldiers are wont to do: that that which is fitting, honest, and seemly, may appear in the faces of the Priests. The Septnagint read the words of the Prophet somewhat otherwise in this sort: They shall not shave their heads, nor cut their hair too near, sed operientes operient capitasua: that is, but hiding they shall hide their heads: whereby we learn, that we must neither make ourselves bald by shaving, nor cut the hair of our heads so near as if we were shaved, but let our hair grow so that the skin may be hid & covered. These are the words of Hierome, whereby it appeareth, that the absurd and ridiculous ceremony of the Romanists, in shaving the heads of those of their Clergy, is condemned by the Fathers, and that Bellarmine speaketh against his own conscience, when he saith the contrary. Wherefore ceasing any longer to insist upon the refutation of the absurdity of so ridiculous a ceromonie, and leaving those inferior orders and degrees of Ministry in the Church of God, wherein men in ancient times were trained up under the rules of strict and severe government & discipline, and fitted for higher and greater employments, let us come to the office of the Deacons.  
The office of Bishops & Presbyters, was from Christ's own immediate institution: but the institution of Deacons was from the Apostles, as 
t Cyprian. l. 3. cp. 3.  Cyprian delivereth. These the Bishop alone may ordain, neither is it necessary that other impose their hands with him, as in the ordination of Presbyters, seeing they are consecrated only to be assistants to the Bishop & Presbyters, & not admitted into the fellowship of the same power and order with them.  
The Deacons according to the intendment of their first institution, were to take care of the poor, and the treasure of the Church, and thereupon Chrysostome, and after him the Fathers of the 
u Canone 16.  sixth general Council, do think they were not the same we now have; ours being busied in other affairs of the Church. But I am of opinion that they were the same: and that (the end of their first institution being principally to ease the Apostles of the care of providing for the poor, and to take the charge of the Church-treasure) when the treasure of the Church increasing was committed to certain Stewards, and the poor otherwise provided for, they were more specially used for the assisting of the Bishop and Presbyters in things pertaining to God's service and worship. Whereupon we shall find in some cases they might baptise, reconcile penitents, preach, and do sundry other things pertaining to the office of the Bishop and Presbyters. That in some cases they might baptise, ᵘ Tertullian witnesseth. That they might reconcile penitents, we have the authority of 
x Tertul. lib. de Baptimo.  Saint 
y Cyp. l. 3. cp. 17  Cyprian. That they might preach, we have the testimony of Saint ᶻ Gregory. And that they assisted the Bishops and Presbyters in ministering the Sacrament of the 
x Greg. ep. l. 4. c. 88  Lords body and blood, and ministered the cup, it appeareth by 
a Cypr. Serm. 6 de Lapsis.  Cyprian. And hereupon Hierome amplifieth the dignity of them exceedingly, showing that for avoiding presumption, the Presbyters may not take the cup of the Lord from the holy Table, unless it be delivered unto them by the Deacons. These are they, saith he, of whom we read in the Revelation, 
b Hier. tom. 4: de septem ordinib. Ecclesiae.  Septem Angeli Ecclesiarum, high sunt septem candelabra aurea, high sunt voces tonitruorum, virtutum operatione praeclari, humilitate praediti, quieti, Euangelizantes pacem, annunciantes bona, dissentiones, & rixas & scandala resecare docentes, soli Deo colloquentes in templo, nihil penitus de mundo cogitantes, dicentes Patri & Matri, non novi vos, filios suos non agnoscentes. Sine his Sacerdos nomen non habet, ortum non habet, officium non habet: that is, These are the seven Angels of the Churches; these are the seven golden Candlesticks; these are the voices of the thunders; these are renowned for the operation of virtues, humble, quiet, preaching peace, publishing good things, teaching how to cut away dissensions, brawls and scandals, communing with God alone in his holy temple, having no thought of the world, saying to Father and Mother, I know you not, and not acknowledging their own sons; without these the priest hath not the name, not the beginning, not the office of a Priest. And a little after he addeth, Sacerdotibus etiam propter praesumptionem non licet de mensa Domini calicem tollere, nisi eis traditus fuerit à Diaconis: Levitae componunt mensam Domini: Levitae Sacerdotibus cum Sacramenta benedicunt, assistunt: Levitae ante Sacerdotes orant, ut aures habeamus ad Dominum Diaconus acclamat: that is, Even the Priests themselves for the avoiding of presumption must not take the holy cup from off the Table of the Lord, unless it be delivered to them by the Deacons. The Deacons or Levites prepare the Table of the Lord, and make all things ready on the same. The Levites assist the Priests when they bless and sanctify the sacramental elements. The Levites pray before the Priests. The Deacon crieth out aloud unto us to open our ears, and to listen and hear what the Lord will speak unto us. Great and glorious are these dignities of the Deacons; yet the council of Carthage maketh them 
c Concil. Ca●…th 4. can. 37. & 39  Ministers not of the Bishop alone but of the Presbyters also: so that they might not sit in the presence of the Bishop or Presbyters. And when some went about to prefer them before Presbyters, Hierome with great violence opposed himself against the same, saying. 
d Hieron. ad Euagrium.  Quid patitur mensarum & viduarum minister, ut supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur? that is, What passion is this, that thus transporteth the Minister of the Tables and Widows, that swelling in pride he should lift up himself above them, at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is consecrated? And objecting to himself the custom of the Roman Church, where a Presbyter is ordained upon the testimony of a Deacon, he passionately breaketh into these words: Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? Diaconos paucitas honorabiles, Presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit. Caeterum etiam in Ecclesiâ Romae Presbyteri sedent, & stant Diaconi, licet paulatim increbresentibus vitijs, inter Presbyteros, absent Episcopo, sedere Diaconum viderim: that is, why dost thou urge me with the custom of one City? the fewness of Deacons maketh them honourable, and the number of Presbyters make them to be less esteemed. Yet even in the Church of Rome Presbyters do sit, and Deacons stand; although things (growing worse and worse by degrees, and many things growing out of order) I have seen a Deacon in the absence of the Bishop, sit amongst the Presbyters.  
Out of the society and company of the Deacons in each Church, there was one chosen who not only was to perform the things pertaining to the Deacons office, but also to prescribe unto others what they should do. The institution of these is not new but very ancient, as it appeareth by 
e Hier: add Rusticum monachum.  Hierome, who urging the necessity of order and government, showeth that the herds of cattle have their leaders which they follow; that Bees have their King; that the Cranes fly after one that leadeth them the way; that there is one Emperor, and one judge of each province; that Rome could not have two brethren to reign in her as Kings, but was dedicated in parricide: that ●…sau and jacob were at war in the womb of Rebeccah: that every Church hath her Bishop: every company of Presbyters and Deacons, their Arch-presbyter, and archdeacon.  

* This maketh nothing aga●…st them who wi●…h us are named Arch-deacons, and under that name excercise jurisdiction. For by the Canons of our Church they are Presbyters chosen to assist the Bishop in his government, and not mere Deac●…s as sometimes they were.  These chief Deacons, or Arch-deacons were in process of time (notwithstanding all Canons to the contrary, and the violent opposition of Hierome and other Worthies of those times) lifted up not only above the Presbyters, but the Archpresbyters also. The reason of which their advancement was, first because the number of Presbyters made them little esteemed, and the paucity and fewness of Deacons made them honourable, as I noted before out of Hierome. Secondly, because they were busied about money-matters, and had the charge of the treasure of the Church, which kind of employments are usually much set by. Thirdly, because being Ministers unto the Bishop, they were used by him for the viewing of such parts of his Diocese, as he could not conveniently come unto himself, the dispatch of things for him, and in the end for the reformation of the lesser and smaller faults which upon such view they should find. Whereupon at the last they obtained a kind of jurisdiction & power of correction by prescription & custom, whereof I shall have occasion to speak more hereafter. Thus have we spoken of the inferior degrees of Ministry, by which men were wont to ascend to the higher, being trained up for a certain space in the lower, that they might thereby be fitted for the higher, according to that of Hierome touching Nepotian, 
f Hieron. in Epitaph: Nepotiani ad Heliodorum.  Fit Clericus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur; that is, He is made a Clergyman, and passing through the ordinary degrees he is ordained a Presbyter.   

CHAP. 26.  
Of the orders, and degrees of them that are trusted with the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and the government of God's people: and particularly, of Lay-Elders, falsely by some supposed to be Governors of the Church.  
NOW it remaineth that we speak of them that are trusted with the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and the government of God's people, comprehended under one common name of Presbyters, that is, Fatherly Guides of God's Church and people. Touching these Presbyters, or fatherly Guides of God's Church, some in our time have a new and strange conceit, making them to be of two sorts: whereof some have charge of government only, and some together therewith the ministry of the Word and Sacraments; the one sort Laymen, and the other Clergymen; the one sort governing only, & the other sort preaching, teaching, ministering Sacraments, and governing also.  
Touching these newly supposed governing Elders, that are not Miinisters of the Word and Sacraments, I will first set down the reasons that move us to think there never were any such in the Church: and secondly I will show the weakness of their reasons that are induced to think there were.  
The first reason that moveth us to think, there never were any such, is, because Bishops, Presbyters, that preach and minister Sacraments, and Deacons that assist them, howsoever they much degenerated in later times, yet all still remained in all Christian Churches throughout the world (though in many things exceedingly different, as Greek, Latin, Aethiopian and Armenian) in their names and offices also in some sort: But of these Lay-elders, there are no footsteps to be found in any Christian Church in the world, nor were not for many hundred years, whereas there would have been some remains of these, as well as of the other, had they ever had any institution from Christ and his Apostles, as the other had.  
Our second reason is, for that S. Paul prescribing Timothy how he should establish 
a 1. Tim. 3.  the Church and appoint her Pastors, and showing who should be Bishops and Ministers, who Deacons, yea who Widows, passeth immediately from describing the quality of such as were to be Bishops and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, to the Deacons, omitting these Lay-elders that are supposed to lie in the midst between them, no way describing unto us of what quality they must be, which in reason he neither might nor would have omitted, if there had been any such.  
Our third reason is, for that neither Scripture, nor practice of the Church, bounding the government of such Governors, nor giving any direction how far they may go in the same, and where they must stay, lest they meddle with that they have nothing to do with, men should be left to a most dangerous uncertainty in an office and employment of so great consequence, either of not doing that their office and place requireth, or presuming beyond that they should: which is not to be conceived, seeing Christ our gracious Saviour by himself or his Apostles, left certain direction for far lesser things than these men's government is supposed to be. That the government of these supposed Lay-elders is not bounded in the Scripture, or Fathers, it is most evident, neither can any man living show us any such bounding of the same in either of them. The government of the Church is in respect of two sorts of men; the Clergy, and the Laiety: Touching the former, they are to be tried and approved for their life and learning, they are to be ordained with solemn imposition of hands, and if they deserve it, they are to be suspended from the execution of their office, or utterly deprived, and degraded. Shall Lay-elders have as much to do in all these actions, as they to whom the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments is committed? are they competent judges of men's learning and aptness to teach, that neither are Teachers nor learned? Can they give the sacred power of holy ministry to others, that have it not themselves? Or is it not a certain Axiom on the contrary side, that the lesser is blessed of the greater? Surely they that in England sought to bring in the government of the Church by Lay-elders, were of opinion, that they ought to have interest in all these things, as well as the Pastors of the Church. And indeed admit them to the government of the Church by force of certain doubtful words of Scripture, mentioning government without any distinction or limitation; and there is no reason to straighten them, but that they should have their sway in all parts of it. But they of Geneva, France, and other parts, exclude these Elders from intermeddling in ordination, and leave the power to try, examine, approve, and ordain, to the Pastors only. Likewise, as I think, they refer the deciding 
See beza's Epistles, and Caluins Institut. l. 4. c. 3. sect. 16.  of doubts in matters of Faith and Religion to the Pastors only, and not to the suffrages of Laymen by multitude of voices overruling them. Touching the other sort of them of whom the Church consisteth, which are Laymen, who are to be admonished, corrected, put from the Sacraments, yea from the communion of the Church for impiety, disobedience, and wickedness, and upon repentance and submission to be received again; doth not the ordering of these men in this sort come within the compass of the power of the Keys, and of binding and losing? Did Christ leave these to his Apostles as special favours, and are they now transferred from their Successors, the Bishops and Pastors of the Church to Laymen, that have neither part nor fellowship in the work of the Ministry? Hath GOD committed the dispensation of his Sacraments to the Pastors of the Church? Is it on the peril of their souls, that they duly give them, or withhold them as cause shall require? And shall there be in others that are not trusted with them, as great a power to direct the use of this Ministerial authority as in them? nay greater, the other being more in number, and their voices more to carry any thing that shall be brought into deliberation? Besides all this which hath been said, there are many more doubts touching the authority of these men, wherein I fear there will be none found amongst the friends and favourers of these Lay-elders that will be able to give us any satisfaction. For first, I would gladly know, whether these ruling Elders must be in every Congregation with power of ordination, and deprivation, suspension, excommunication, and absolution? or whether this power be only in the Ministers and Elders of divers Churches concurring? Surely in Geneva there are Elders in the Congregations that are abroad in agro, that is, in the Country, but these have no power of excommunication, much less of ordination or deprivation: They may only complain to the Consistory of the City. Nay they that are in the Congregations within the City, have no separate power with their own Ministers, but a joint proceeding with the rest of the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches and Congregations; all which concurring make but one Consistory. Secondly, let them tell us, whether these offices be perpetual, as the offices of Bishops and Pastors; or annual, and but for a certain time.  
But to leave them in these uncertainties, the fourth reason that moveth us to reject the conceit of these Lay-elders, is, because the founders of this new government, fetch the pattern of it from the Sanedrim of the jews, the platform whereof they suppose Christ meant to bring into his Church when he said, 
b Mat. 18. 17.  Tell the Church. Whereas it is most clear, that that Court was as a civil court, and had power to banish, to imprison, yea and to take away life, till by the Romans the jews were restrained: which made them say in the case of Christ, that 
c joh. 18. 31.  it was not lawful for them to put any man to death.  
Our fifth and last reason is, for that all Fathers and Counsels mentioning elders or Presbyters, place them between Bishops and Deacons, and make them to be Cleargymen: and that in the Acts, where the Apostles are said to have constituted Elders in every Church, Pastors and Ministers are meant, and not Laymen, is strongly confirmed by that in the twentieth of Acts, where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus convented before Paul are commanded to feed the flock of Christ, over which they were appointed overseers; whence it followeth inevitably, that they were pastors.  
The places of Scripture brought to prove this kind of government by Lay-elders are specially three. The first is that to Timothy, 
d 1. Tim. 5. 17.  Let the Elders that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. The second is that in the Epistle to the Romans: 
e Rom. ●…2. 8.  He that ruleth, let him do it with diligence. The third is that to the Corinthians, where 
f 1. Cor. 12. 28.  Governors, or Governments are mentioned. The two later allegations are too too weak to prove the thing in question. For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason, reason à genere ad speciem affirmatiuè, that is, from the general to the particular and special affirmatively? Or will ever any man of common sense be persuaded that this consequence is good; There were governors in the Primitive Church mentioned by the Apostles, and required by them to rule with diligence; therefore they were Lay-governours? Surely I think not. Wherefore let us see if the first place alleged by them yield any better proof. Touching this place, some interpret it in this sort. The Guides of the Church are worthy of double honour, both in respect of governing and teaching, but specially for their pains in teaching; so noting two parts or duties of Presbyterial offices, not two sorts of Presbyters. Some in this sort: Amongst the Elders and Guides of God's Church and people, some laboured principally in governing and ministering the Sacraments, some in preaching, and teaching: So Paul showeth, that he preached and 
g 1. Cor. 15. 10.  laboured more than all the Apostles, but 
h 1. Cor. 1. 14.  baptised few or none, leaving that to be performed by others; and when Paul and Barnabas were companions, and their travels were equal, yet 
i Acts 14. 12.  Paul is noted to have been the chief speaker: so that though both were worthy of double honour, yet Paul especially. Some interpret the words in this sort. There were some that remained in some certain places, for the guiding and governing of such as were already won by the preaching of the Gospel; other that travayled with great labour and pains from place to place, to spread the knowledge of God into all parts, and to preach Christ crucified to such as had never heard of him before. Both these were worthy of double honour, but the later that builded not upon another man's foundation, more especially than the former that did but keep that which others had gotten, and govern those that others had gained. Thus we see that these words may have a very good and true sense, without pressing of them to confirm the late conceit of some few men touching Lay-elders. Which construction we have no reason to admit, seeing the circumstances of the place do not enforce it, nor no Ecclesiastical writer did ever so interpret the words before our age. So that to conclude this point, the name of Presbyter, (one place only in the first of Timothy and the fifth excepted, where it is a name of age and not of office) in the writings of the Apostles doth ever note out unto us a Minister of the Word and Sacraments. The reason why the Apostles chose this word rather than the name of Sacerdos, which we commonly translate Priest (though the English word Priest come of Presbyter) was, lest there should be a confusion of the Ministers of the old Testament, who were to offer sacrifices unto God, figuring the coming of Christ, with those of the new: and to show that none should be appointed Ministers, but men of ripe age and confirmed judgement. But some man will say: the ancient Writers mention Seniors, without whose advice nothing was done; an Ecclesiastical Senate and a Presbytery, or company of Presbyters, which governed the Church together with the Bishop: therefore the matter is not so clear against Lay-elders, as some would make it.  
We deny not but that there were Presbyters in the primitive Church constituted and ordained by the Apostles and their Successors, not only to preach and minister Sacraments, but to govern, direct, and guide the people of God also; but that they were Laymen it cannot be proved. The Bishops in the greater Churches, and in the Cities had a great number of Clergymen serving in diverse sorts, as it appeareth by Cyprian, and the whole Ecclesiastical history; but out of the whole Clergy at large, the Presbytery or company of Presbyters was called forth to the weightiest deliberations, and to assist the Bishop for the preservation of discipline; 
l Cyprian. li. 4. epist. 10.  Admonitos nos & instructos sciatis dignatione divinâ, saith Cyprian, ut Numidicus Presbyter ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero, & nobiscum sedeat in Clero: that is, Know ye, that we have been admonished and directed by God himself, to choose Numidicus, and to make him one of the company of the Presbyters of Carthage, that he may sit together with us as a Clergyman: by which words it appeareth, that there was in Cyprians time a College of Presbyters or Elders in the Church of Carthage, which sat together with the Bishop for the hearing and determining of the causes of the Church; but that these Elders were Clergymen, and not such Lay-seniours as some would have. 
m Apud Cypr. l. b. 3. epist. 11.  Cornelius' Bishop of Rome, writing to Cyprian, se totum Presbyterium contraxisse, that is, that he drew together the whole Presbytery, or company of Presbyters, for the reconciling of certain Schismatics to the Church, and that he called together five Bishops also, and by common consent ended the whole matter. Of this Senate and company of Presbyters, Tertullian speaketh in his Apology, when he saith: 
n Tertul. in Apolog. cap. 39  with us the most approved Seniors do sit as precedents to censure offenders, and to exercise discipline. And of these likewise is it that Hierome saith, writing upon Esay: 
o Hieron. in 3. Esaiae.  We also in the Church have our Senate, the company of Presbyters: And upon Titus: 
p In 1. ad Ti tum.  The Churches were governed by the common advice and council of the Presbyters. For to put it out of doubt that he meaneth not Lay-elders, he saith in the same place. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: that is, Therefore a Presbyter and Bishop are all one.  
There is only one place in Ambrose that hath some show of proof for Lay-elders. His words are; 
q Ambros. come. in 1. ad Tim 5.  The jewish Synogogue, and after the Church, had Seniors or Elders, without whose council nothing was done in the Church; which, by what negligence it grew out I know not, unless it were by the sloth or pride of the Teachers, whilst they alone would seem to be something. Here is mention of Elders, without whose advice nothing was done; but it is not said, they were Laymen. But some man perhaps will reply, that the Elders which Ambrose speaketh of, ceased before his time, which cannot be understood of Clergymen, therefore they were Laymen. To this we say, that Ambrose doth not say, the elders without whose council nothing was to be done, ceased before his time, and were no more, but that the advising and consulting with them ceased, whilst some would do all themselves. If it be said, that they who thus assumed more than was fit, and excluded those Seniors without whose council anciently nothing was done, are not said to have been Bishops, but Doctors, and that therefore Ambrose speaketh, not of Bishops excluding other Ministers of the Word and Sacraments from their consultations, but of Clergymen refusing the advice of Lay Seniors; we answer, that Ambrose by the name of Teachers, whose sloth or pride he condemneth in this place, might fitly understand the Bishops, seeing none but bishops have power to preach in their own right, and other but only by permission from them. Hereupon it is, that Possidonius in 
r Cap. 5.  the life of Augustine saith, that Valerius Bishop of Hippo, gave S. Augustine his Presbyter leave to preach, because being a Grecian, he could not very well express himself in Latin. In the 
s Canone 4.  Council of Vase leave is given by the Council of Bishops to Presbyters for to preach. But because this question touching Lay-elders is excellently handled by sundry of our Divines, I will not trouble the Reader with any farther discourse of this matter.   

CHAP. 27.  
Of the distinction of the Power of Order and jurisdiction, and the pre-eminence of one amongst the Presbyters of each Church, who is named a Bishop.  
CEasing to speak of supposed Lay-elders, which the Church of God knoweth not, let us come to the other that were appointed to teach and govern the people of GOD. Where first we are to speak of the divers degrees of honour and pre-eminence found amongst them. Secondly, of their calling and appointing to the same. And thirdly, of their maintenance. For the clearing of the former of these three things, the Schoolmen note, that there is a twofold power found in the Ministers of the Church of GOD, the one of Order, the other of jurisdiction. The power of Order is that, whereby they are sanctified and enabled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can do, as is the preaching of the Word, and ministration of the holy Sacraments. This power is to be exercised orderly, and the acts of it to be performed in such sort that one disturb not another. Whereupon the Apostles, the first Ministers of CHRIST JESUS, though equal in the power of Order and jurisdiction, yet for the better and more orderly dispatch of the great work of converting the world, which they had in hand, and that they might not hinder one another, divided amongst themselves the parts and Provinces of the World; but when for the assisting of them while they lived, and succeeding them dying, they were to pass over part of their power to other, they so gave authority to such as they made choice of for this work, to preach, baptise, and do other acts of sacred Ministry (which are to be performed by virtue of the power of order) that before they invested them with this power, they divided the parts of the world converted to Christianity into several Churches, and when they ordained them, assigned each of them to that particular Church wherein he should preach and minister Sacraments. So that these successors of the Apostles had not an illimited commission, but were confined within certain bounds; that they were not to preach, nor minister Sacraments, but only within the limits and compass of those places which were assigned unto them, unless it were with the consent, desire, and liking of other, willing to draw them at sometimes for special causes, to perform such sacred acts, within the limits and bounds of their charge.  
This assigning of men having the power of order the persons to whom they were to minister holy things, and of whom they were to take the care, and the subjecting of such persons unto them, gave them the power of jurisdiction which they had not before. And thus was the use of the power of order which is not included within any certain bounds, limited in those the Apostles ordained, & their power of jurisdiction included within certain bounds: so that the one of these kinds of power they have not at all without the extent of their own limits, nor the lawful use of the other. Hence is that resolution of the Divines, that if a Bishop adventure to do any act of jurisdiction out of his own Diocese, as to excommunicate, absolve, or the like, all such acts are utterly void, & of no force; but if he shall do any act of the power of order in another man's charge, as preach, or minister Sacraments, though he cannot be excused as not offending, if he do these things without his consent, yet are the Sacraments thus ministered truly Sacraments and of force.  
When the Apostles first founded Churches, and assigned to such as they ordained to the work of the ministry the several parts of the flock of Christ, and people of GOD, of which they appointed them to take care and charge, they so sorted & divided out particular Churches, that a City, and the places near adjoining made but one Church: Whereupon we shall find in the holy Scriptures, that to ordain Presbyters 
a Acts, 14. 23.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 
b Titus. 1. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is in every Church, and in every City, are all one. Now because Churches of so large extent required many Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, and yet of one Church there must be but one Pastor; the Apostles in settling the state of these Churches, did so constitute in them many Presbyters with power to teach, instruct, and direct the people of God, that yet they appointed one only to be chief Pastor of the place, ordaining that the rest should be but his assistants, not presuming to do any thing without him; so that though they were all equal in the power of order, yet were the rest inferior unto him in the government of that Church whereof he was Pastor, and they but his assistants only. As another of my rank cannot have that jurisdiction within my Church as I have, but if he will have any thing to do there, he must be inferior in degree unto me. So we read in the Revelation of Saint john, of the 
c Reuel. 2. 1.  Angel of the Church of Ephesus, to whom the Spirit of God directeth letters from heaven, as to the Pastor of that Church. It is not to be doubted but that there were many Presbyters, that is, Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in so large a Church as that of Ephesus was; nay we read expressly in the Acts, that there were many in that Church, 
d Acts 20. 28.  that fed the flock of Christ, and consequently were admitted into some part of pastoral office & employment; yet was there one amongst the rest to whom only the Lord did write from heaven, to whom an eminent power was given, who was trusted with the government of that Church and people in more special sort then any of the rest, and therefore challenged by name by Almighty God for the things there found to be amiss, the rest being passed over in silence. The like we read of the rest of the seven 
e Reuel. 1. 20.  Churches of Asia, compared to seven golden candlesticks, in the midst whereof the Son of God did walk, having in his hand seven stars, interpreted to have been the seven Angels of those seven Churches. Neither was this orderly superiority of one amongst the Presbyters of the Church, found only in the seven Churches of Asia, but in other Churches also. For Saint 
f Hierony. ad Euagrium.  Hierome testifieth, that in the Church of Alexandria, from the time of Mark the Evangelist, there was ever one whom the Presbyters of that Church chose out of themselves to be over the rest. Neither was this proper to the Church of Alexandria, but we can show the successions of Bishops in all the famous Churches of the world, even from the Apostles times: and therefore all admit and allow a kind of preëminence of one above the rest in each Church. 
g Cyprian. li. 1. Epist. 3.  Heresies have sprung, saith Cyprian, and schisms risen from no other fountain than this, that God's Priest is not obeyed, nor one Priest in the Church acknowledged for the time to be judge in Christ's steed. 
h Hierony. adversus Luciferian.  If one, saith Hierome, in each Church be not above and before the rest of the Presbyters, there will be as many Schisms as Priests; and the 
i Beza. in resp. ad tract. de minist. Evang. gradib.  best learned in our age that affect presbyterial government, ingenuously confess it to be an essential, & perpetual part of God's ordinance, for each presbytery to have a chief amongst them, the necessity whereof, we may learn from all Societies, both of men endued with reason, and of other things also to which God hath denied the light of understanding. 
k Hier. ad Rusticum monachum.  The dumb beasts, saith Hierome, and wild Herds have their leaders which they follow; the Bees have their King; the Cranes fly after one in order like an Alphabet of letters: there is but one Emperor, one judge of a Province; Rome newly built could not endure two brethren to be Kings together; and therefore was dedicated in parricide; Esau & jacob were at war in the womb of Rebeccah: every Church hath her own Bishop, her own Arch-presbyter, her own chief Deacon, and all Ecclesiastical order consisteth herein, that some do rule and direct the rest. In a ship there is but one that directeth the helm. In a house or family there is but one master. And to conclude, in an army, if it be never so great, yet the direction of one General is expected.  
Thus than all confess, that there always hath been, and must be in each Church, a preëminence of one above the rest of the Presbyters of the same; but some think this preëminence should be only a priority of order, in sitting before, in propounding things to be thought of, and in moderating the whole action of deliberation, and that all things should be swayed by voices, the Precedent or Bishop having no voice negative or affirmative, but as the mayor part shall direct him. Likewise this presidency they think should be but annual, or to end with the action about which they meet, whether it be to determine a doubt, to ordain a Minister, or to do any other such like thing.  
This new conceit we cannot approve of, because we find no pattern of any such Bishop or Precedent in all antiquity. But the Fathers describe unto us such a Bishop, as hath eminent and peerless power, without whose consent the Presbyters can do nothing. 
l Cyprian. li: 1. epist. 3.  Hence have heresies sprung and schisms arisen, saith Cyprian, because one Priest in the Church is not acknowledged for the time to be judge in Christ's steed, to whom if all the brethren would be subject according to the divine directions, no man would, after the divine judgements, after the suffrages of the people, after the consent of other Bishops, make himself judge, not of the Bishop, but of God. 
m Ignat. ad Magnesian. Epist. 3.  Let the Presbyter, saith Ignatius, do nothing without the Bishop; 
n Hier. adversus Luciferianos.  The Bishop (saith Hierome) must have an eminent and peerless power, or else there will be as many schisms in the Church, as there are Priests. And 
o Tertul. de Baptismo.  Tertullian showeth, that without the Bishop's leave and consent, no Presbyter may baptise, minister any Sacrament, or do any ministerial act. So that it is most clear and evident, that the Bishop in each Church is above and before the rest of the Presbyters of the same, not in order only, but in degree also and power of jurisdiction.  
Yet on the other side, we make not the power of Bishops to be Princely, as Bellarmine doth, but Fatherly: so that as the Presbyters may do nothing without the Bishop, so he may do nothing in matters of greatest moment and consequence without their presence and advice. Whereupon the Council of Carthage 
p Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 23.  voideth all sentences of Bishops which the presence of their Clergy confirmeth not; and even unto this day they have no power to alienate lands, and to do some such like things without the concurrence and consent of the Presbyters of the Cathedral, and great Church.  
It is therefore most false that 
q Bellar: li: 1. de Clericis, ca 14.  Bellarmine hath, that Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction, and the proof he bringeth of this his assertion most weak, when he allegeth, that all Counsels both general and provincial wherein jurisdiction is most properly exercised, were celebrated and holden by Bishops, as if Presbyters had had nothing to do therein. For it is most clear and evident, that in all provincial Synods Presbyters did sit, give voice, and subscribe as well as Bishops. And howsoever in general counsels none did give voice but Bishops alone, yet those Bishops that were present, bringing the resolution and consent, of the provincial Synods of those Churches from whence they came, in which Synods Presbyters had their voices, they had a kind of consent to the decrees of general Counsels also: and nothing was passed in them without their concurrence. Thus were things moderated in the primitive ages of the Church; and though Bishops had power over Presbyters, yet was it so limited, that there was nothing bitter or grievous in it, nothing but that which was full of sweetness, and content. For if any difference grew between the Bishop and his Presbyters; the Presbyters might not judge their Bishop, whom they were to acknowledge to be a judge in Christ's stead, but an appeal lay unto a provincial Synod, to which not only the Bishops of the provinces were to come, but a certain number of Presbyters also out of each Church, to sit as judges of such differences. Neither might the Bishop of himself alone deprive, degrade, or put from their office and dignity the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church; but 
r Concil. Carthag. 3. can. 8.  if there were any matter concerning a Presbyter, he was to join unto him five other Bishops of the province; and if any matter concerning a Deacon, two other Bishops, before he might proceed to give sentence against Presbyter or Deacon. The causes of other inferior Cleargie-men the Bishop might hear and determine himself alone, without the concurrence, and presence of other Bishops, but not without the concurrence of his own Clergy, without whose presence no sentence of the Bishop was of force, but judged and pronounced void by the canon.  
Touching the pre-eminence of Bishops above Presbyters there is some difference among the Schoole-divines: For the best learned amongst them are of opinion, that Bishops are not greater than Presbyters in the power of consecration or order, but only in the exercise of it, and in the power of jurisdiction, seeing Presbyters may preach, and minister the greatest of all Sacraments, by virtue of their consecration and order, as well as Bishops. Touching the power of consecration or order, saith 
s Durandus in 4. Sent dist. 24. q. 5.  Durandus, it is much doubted of among Divines, whether any be greater therein than an ordinary Presbyter: For Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion, that the highest power of consecration or order is the power of a Priest or elder; so that every Priest in respect of his priestly power, may minister all Sacraments, confirm the baptised, give all orders, all blessings and consecrations; but that for the avoiding of the peril of schism, it was ordained that one should be chosen, who should be named a Bishop, to whom the rest should obey, and to whom it was reserved to give orders, and to do some such other things, as none but Bishops do. And afterwards he saith, that Hierome is clearly of this opinion; not making the distinction of Bishops from Presbyters, a mere humane invention, or a thing not necessary, as Aerius did; but thinking that amongst them who are equal in the power of order, and equally enabled to do any sacred act, the Apostles (for the avoiding of schism and confusion, and the preservation of unity, peace, and order) ordained that in each Church one should beebefore and above the rest, without whom the rest should do nothing, and to whom some things should be peculiarly reserved, as the dedicating of Churches, reconciling of penitents, confirming of the baptised, and the ordination of such as are to serve in the work of the Ministry: Of which the three former were reserved to the Bishop alone, potius ad honorem Sacerdotii, quam ad legis necessitatem; that is, rather to honour his priestly and Bishoply place, then for that these things at all may not be done by any other. And therefore we read, that at some times, and in some cases of necessity 
t Ambros. in 4. ad Ephes.  Presbyters did reconcile penitents, and by imposition of hands confirm the baptised. But the ordaining of men to serve in the work of the Ministry, is more properly reserved to them. For seeing none are to be ordained at random, but to serve in some Church, and none have Churches but Bishops, all other being but assistants to them in their Churches: none may ordain but they only, unless it be in cases of extreme necessity, as when all Bishops are extinguished by death, or fallen into heresy, obstinately refuse to ordain men to preach the Gospel of Christ sincerely. And then as the care and charge of the Church is devolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholic; so likewise the ordaining of men to assist them, and succeed them in the work of the Ministry. But hereof I have spoken at large elsewhere. Wherefore to conclude this point, we see that the best learned amongst the Schoolmen are of opinion, that Bishops are no greater than presbyters in the power of consecration or order, but only in the exercise of it, and in the power of jurisdiction, with whom 
u Relect. contio. 2. q. 3. art. 3.  Stapleton seemeth to agree, saying expressly, that Quoad ordinem Sacerdotalem, & ea quae sunt ordinis; that is, In respect of Sacerdotal order, and the things that pertain to order, they are equal, and that therefore in all administration of Sacraments which depend of order, they are all equal potestate, though not exercitio; that is, in power, though not in the execution of things to be done by virtue of that power: whence it will follow, that ordination being a kind of Sacrament, and so depending of the power of order, in the judgement of our Adversaries might be ministered by presbyters, but that for the avoiding of such horrible confusions, scandals, and schisms, as would follow upon such promiscuous ordinations, they are restrained by the decree of the Apostles; and none permitted to do any such thing, except it be in case of extreme necessity, but Bishops, who have the power of order in common together with presbyters, but yet so, as that they excel them in the execution of things to be done by virtue of that power, and in the power of jurisdiction also.  
But 
x Lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 14.  Bellarmine saith, the Catholic Church acknowledgeth, and teacheth, that the degree of Bishops is greater than that of Presbyters by God's Law, as well in the power of order as jurisdiction: & addeth, that the Schoolmen upon the fourth of the Sentences defend the same, and Thomas in his Sum; which yet 
y De Sacram. Ord. l. 1. c. 5.  elsewhere he confesseth to be untrue. This his opinion he endeavoureth to confirm, because none but Bishops do ordain; and if they do, their ordinations are judged void: which they could not be by the Church's prohibition, or decree of the Apostles, if they were equal in the power of order to Bishops. Hereunto I have answered 
z Book 3. Chap. 39  elsewhere showing that ordinations at large, or sine titulo, and ordinations in another man's charge by bishops, who by the character of their order may ordain, are likewise pronounced to be void by the ancient canons: and that therefore the prohibition of the Church and decree of the Apostles for the avoiding of confusion and schism, reserving the honour of ordaining to Bishops only (unless it were in the case of extreme necessity) might make the ordinations of all other to be void, though equal with them in the power of order.   

CHAP. 28.  
Of the division of the lesser Titles, and smaller Congregations or Churches, out of those Churches of so large extent, founded and constituted by the Apostles.  
HItherto we have seen how the Apostles dividing the Churches in such sort that a whole city and the places adjoining made but one Church, set over the same one Bishop, as Pastor of the place, & diverse Presbyters, as assistants unto him. But in process of time, we shall find certain portions of these greater flocks of Christ, and Churches of God, to have been divided out and distinctly assigned to several Presbyters, that were to take the care and charge thereof, yet with limitations and reservations of sundry preeminences to the Bishop, as remaining still Pastor of those smaller particular congregations, though in a sort divided and distinguished from that greater Church, wherein especially he made his abode. Two words we find in Antiquie used to express the flocks of Christ, and Churches of 
a See D. Bilson perpet. govern. Chap: 11. Euseb. lib. 4. c. 4. 5. 15. 19 & 23.  God thus divided for more convenience, and yet still depending on that care of one Pastor or Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, parish and Diocese: The former contained the citizens, and all such borderers, as dwelled near and repaired to any chief church or city, though now we use the word Parish to signify another thing: namely, some particular, smaller and less congregation, divided out from the Mother Church: the later which is Diocese, both then and now, importeth the villages and Churches dispersed in diverse places, under the regiment of one Bishop.  
The first that began thus to divide out smaller Churches and congregations out of those great ones first founded, and to assign Presbyters distinctly to take care of them, was 
b Platina de vitis Pont. in Euaristo.  Euaristus Bishop of Rome, whose example others did follow in all parts of the world. These parts of God's Church thus divided, & assigned to the care of several Presbyters, were called Tituli, that is, Titles, because God was entitled unto them, & did specially claim them as the lot of his inheritance. These Titles, or smaller Churches and congregations were of divers sorts: for some were more principal, wherein Baptism might be administered, and the like things performed, which were thereupon named Baptismal Churches: and in respect of meaner in time growing out of them and depending of them, Mother Churches also: Other there were not having so great liberties. 
c Onuphr. in libello de statio, urbis Romae.  To such of these Churches as he pleased, the Bishop himself went and preached one day in one of them, and another in another, carrying great companies with him, & drawing great multitudes to him, which solemn assemblies & meetings were named stations, from their standing at prayers used in those times: and were like the mighty armies of God keeping their watches, and standing ready to encounter their furious and dangerous enemies. In this sort Gregory the Great went and preached in such Churches in Rome, as he thought fit, whose Homilies and Sermons then preached are yet extant, with the names of the particular churches or places where they were preached, which were thereupon named churches of station; though now in another sense they call those churches of station, whither men out of devotion resorting to visit Relics and Monuments, are made partakers of ample Indulgences and pardons, for days, years, nay hundreds, and thousands of years. In those times when the ancient Bishops of Rome were wont to go to the churches of station, because all churches had not their Choir and Ministers fit to perform the service of God with that solemnity that was wished, there were some specially appointed for this purpose, that they might attend the Bishop, and go with him in the days of station, that so nothing might be wanting to all joyful solemnity & divine exultation.  

d Bel: de Clericis li: 1. cap. 16.  Those principal titles or parish churches, as now we use to speak, that enjoyed the greatest liberties and privileges, were called Cardinal Titles, or churches; and those Presbyters that attended the service of God in those principal or Cardinal churches, were called Cardinal Presbyters; and in process of time some amongst the Deacons also, Cardinal Deacons; and amongst the Bishops of Italy, certain Bishops were named Cardinal Bishops. Neither were these Cardinal Presbyters only in the church of Rome, but in other churches also, as 
e De Sacris. E●…cles. minist. lib. 1. cap. 13.  Duarenus showeth; whence it is that we read in the council of 
f Canone 54.  Melden, that the Bishop must canonically order the Cardinal Titles in the cities or suburbs; and that we read in 
g In vita Greg: lib: 3 cap: 1●….  joannes Diaconus, that Gregory called back the Cardinals violently ordained in the parishes abroad, into their ancient title again. 
h Onuphr. lib. de Episc. tit. & Diaconijs Cardinal.  Onuphrius a great Antiquary, giveth another reason of the name of Cardinal, supposing that they were called Cardinal priests and deacons in each church, which were over all the other priests and deacons of the same; for that they were chief priests and deacons, and of more principal esteem then the rest. But this conceit of his, 
i Bella. ubi supra.  Bellarmine refuteth, for that there were sometimes many Cardinals in the same title, as appeareth by Saint Gregory in his Epistles. So that it seemeth more probable, that Cardinals are so named from the titles and churches which are Cardinal & chief churches, enjoying greater liberties and privileges than others, then for that they are Cardinal or chief amongst the Priests of those their churches and titles.  
But whatsoever was the reason that they were named Cardinals, which perhaps cannot now certainly be known; it is strange to see from how mean beginnings they have grown so great in state & dignity, as therein to match & equal the greatest Princes of the world. That at first they were but parish priests of Rome (besides that it is confessed by all) it is most evident, for that yet still in this their greatness, they are styled but Cardinal priests of such a title or parish church in Rome; and that for a long time there was no more respect had to one Presbyter then another, but all equally interessed in the government of the church, were indifferently called to the election of the Bishop, and his consultations, it is most clear and evident. Whereupon 
k Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 5. & 2●….  Cyprian writing to the clergy of Rome, writeth not to the Cardinals only, but to all the priests and deacons of the church of Rome. In the time of Gregory the Great, it may seem that all the Presbyters were not called to the consultations of the Bishop, but Cardinal Presbyters only: For 
l Greg. lib. 4. Registri. cap. 88  only four and thirty were present at the Synod holden by him, and mentioned in his epistles; whereas no doubt in his time there were many more Presbyters of that great and large church, seeing there were six and forty in the days of Cornelius in the time of persecution, when the greatest part of the city remained yet still in infidelity, and heathenish superstition. But whether all the Presbyters of the church of Rome, or only some certain were called to the consultations of the Bishop in Gregory's time, it is certain that all the clergy had interest in the choice, and election of the Bishop. But afterwards in process of time, the Cardinals only had interest in the election of their Bishop, & they and no other were admitted to sit in council with the Bishop, all other Presbyters being excluded. By which means the dignity of these Cardinals was greatly increased. So that whereas before all Bishops were preferred before those Cardinals that were not Bishops, and to be a Cardinal was but a step to the degree of a Bishop, as Onuphrius in his book of Cardinals showeth, and as is collected out of the first book and seventh Chapter of the life of Gregory: afterwards, this order was changed, and the dignity of a Bishop was made but a step to the degree and honour of a Cardinal. Neither did they only exclude the rest of the Clergy of the Church of Rome from the election of their Bishop, and from sitting in Council with him: but whereas from the year three hundreth, to the year eight hundreth after Christ, for the determining of all weighty matters concerning the Church, the Bishops of Italy were convocated to national Synods, as it appeareth by the Tomes of the Counsels, they excluded them also: so that the managing of the weighty affairs of the Church, was wholly referred to these Cardinals, the other being no longer called according to the old manner, though yet still they take an oath yearly to visit the Apostolical thresholds, and to present themselves unto the Roman Bishop their Metropolitan, as they were wont to do, when being called by him to national Synods, they were bound to make their repair to Rome. Of this change 
m De concord. cathol. l. 2. c. 18. citat. d. 93. c. 4.  Cardinal Cusanus speaketh, showing that in his opinion the first step to the due reformation of the Church, were the choosing of these Cardinals out of those several Churches which were heretofore interessed in the deliberations of the Roman Bishop, and the making of them to be but agents and procurators for them, and in their names, till such time as the Bishops might be convocated again to national Synods, as in former times they were wont to be. From hence, saith 
n De sacris Eccles. ministeriis l. 1. c. 13.  Duarenus, we may easily gather the same that the Interpreter of the decrees somewhere writeth, that howsoever in time, and by spoiling other of their right, the Cardinals of the Church of Rome are grown exceeding great, yet in truth and indeed, every Bishop of what city soever, is of greater dignity than any Cardinal, Priest, or Deacon of the Romish Church: which thing, saith Duarenus, if any man should doubt of, might easily be confirmed by the authority of Saint Augustine, in a certain Epistle to Saint Hierome Priest of the Roman Church, where he saith expressly: Quanquam secundùm vocabula, quae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus sit Presbyterio maior; Augustinus tamen Hieronymo minor est: that is, Although according to the titles which now are in use, it is a more honourable thing to be a Bishop, than a Presbyter, yet Augustine is less than Hierome. His meaning is, in merit, and personal worth: for otherwise, that there is no other reason of Priests, and Deacons of the Church of Rome, then of any other city, in respect whereof Hierome as Priest of Rome, might be greater than Augustine being Bishop of little Hippo in Africa, Hierome himself demonstrateth at large in his Epistle to Euagrius. But this proof of Duarenus perhaps will be found too weak, because it is greatly doubted by some of excellent learning, whether Hierome were a Priest of the Church of Rome, or not. Surely in his 
* Epist. 61. ad Pammachium, de erroribus joannis Hierosolym it.  Epistle against john of Jerusalem, he termeth himself a Priest of the Church of Antioch, and not of Rome: So that it may be probably thought, that howsoever for a time he were in Rome, and did 
o Hier. ep. ad Gerontiam de Monogamiâ.  help Damasus the Bishop in certain writings, matters of learning, and resolution of doubts, yet he never had any title or charge in the Roman Church. 
p De Clericis l. 1. c. 16.  Bellarmine taketh great exception to Caluine, for saying that Hierome was Priest of the Romish Church, which if he had been well advised, he should not have done (howsoever perhaps Caluine were deceived in that point) not only because many of his own friends have erred with Caluine in this point, if it be an error, but because they have for a long time in their Churches, and all other places, painted him in his scarlet robes, & 
* Innocent. 4. in Concilio Lugduni habito plures Cardinales creavit. Primu●…que fuit qui Cardinalitiam dignitatem rubeo pileo adauxit, eâ intentione ut admonerentur, teste Martino Polono, se semper paratos esse debere sanguinem pro Christianâ religione profundere, praesertim eo tempore quo Romana Ecclesia à Frederico secundo quondam Imperatore vehementer oppugnabatur. Bin. Conc. tom. 3. part. 2. pag. 148●…. in vita Innocentii 4.  red hat, like a Cardinal. And howsoever Bellarmine perhaps will not be much moved with these paintings, yet Campian a great champion of the Roman Church, bringeth the painted glass windows of their Churches as pregnant witnesses against us, which we may not except against; & testes fenestrae are not the meanest of those witnesses, which in his Omne genus testium (wherein he maketh a search in heaven, and raketh hell, to see who will speak for him, and depose against us) he produceth and bringeth to the bar. But to leave this proof of the dignity of Bishops brought by Duarenus as uncertain, it is most certain, which the same Duarenus hath, that Cardinals of the Church of Rome in ancient time, were not matchable in honour & dignity with the meanest Bishop in the world; that they were but parish Priests & deacons of the Church of Rome, & bound by all canons to be resident in their parishes and titles, as all other Priests, and Deacons are; & that they can no way justify their possessing of Bishoprickes, being no Bishops, but Presbyters, and Deacons only. What havoc and spoil these parish Priests have made throughout the whole Christian world, since they came to that greatness they are at now, by seizing into their hands the richest Abbeys, Bishoprickes, and Archbishoprickes by virtue of the Pope's provisions, not contenting themselves with one or two, but getting to themselves so great a number of the greatest dignities and Church-livings, as is incredible, 
q Nicholas Clemangis de corrupto Ecclesiae statu.  all stories report, and the woeful experience of all Christendom, doth sufficiently testify. If any man desire to see how the Pope as a wild Boar hath laid waist the Vineyard of the Lord in former times, spoiling the Church and people of God for the enriching of these his Cardinals, that so they might be equal in state and magnificence to the Princes and Potentates of the world, let him read that which 
r Confer. with Hart, Chap: 7. division 6. pag. 384. 385. etc.  Doctor Reynolds in his most learned and worthy Conference, hath collected and gathered out of most authentical records, touching these Romish practices, to the everlasting shame and ignominy of the Court Rome; which long since for the intolerable and infatiable covetousness thereof, 
s Math. Parisien. in Henrico 3. p. 848.  Grostead the renowned Bishop of Lincoln fitly compared unto that Behemoth, that thinketh he can drink up the whole river of jordan & saith, that among other the praises of the Romish Court, these two are not the least, that Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis, Eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis: that is, That the Courtiers of the Court of Rome are so insatiable in covetousness, that a whole world of wealth is not sufficient to satisfy their greedy desires; and so impure in their filthy lusts that all the stews in the world are not able to give them content.   

CHAP. 29.  
Of Chorepiscopi, or Rural Bishops, forbidden by old Canons to encroach upon the Episcopal office, and of the institution and necessary use of Archpresbyters, or Deans.  
FOR the more easy governing of their Churches, in number many, and in place far distant one from another, some of the Bishops in ancient times communicated part of their authority to some principal men, which in places far remote from them supplied their absence, and performed some things pertaining to them. These were called Chorepiscopi, either for that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, rural Bishops; or else for that they were in steed of the Bishops, and in many things supplied their places, and did their duties. The first institution of these as it appeareth by the Council of 
a Canone. 13.  Neocaesarea, and 
b Damas. Epist. 5.  Damasus in his Epistle written concerning these Rural Bishops, was specially that they might be assistant to the Bishop in receiving such contributions, oblations, and set rents, as were for the maintenance of the Bishop, and his Clergy, the relief of the poor and needy, and the entertainment of strangers; as also in taking care of the poor, and providing for them out of the common treasury, the Bishop himself being far off. Afterwards in process of time there were some Bishops, that put over unto these the care, execution, and performance of such things as properly pertained to themselves, that they might take their ease, and attend their own private affairs; like harlots, that put out their children to be nursed by others, that themselves in the mean while may satisfy their lusts, as a great 
c Damasus ibid.  Bishop, not without some bitterness, speaketh: whence it came that these Chorepiscopi waxed proud, and insolent, and in the end being but Presbyters, presumed to ordain Priests and Deacons, and to do such things, as none but Bishops ought to do: whereupon they were controlled by the learned Bishops that lived in those times, and the counsels holden by them. Damasus so far disliketh their presumption in ordaining priests and Deacons, that he will not have them to ordain subdeacons or inferior clerks. The Counsels of 
d Canone 12.  Ancyra, and 
e Hispalens. 2. Canone. 7.  Hispalis, 
f Epist. 86. & 88  Leo the great, and 
g In epist. ad Episcop. Germaniae & Galliae.  john the third, forbid them the ordaining of Priests & Deacons, mentioning not the other inferior clerks. The Council of 
h Canone 10.  Antioch saith, the rural Bishops that have received imposition of hands of Bishops and have been ordained as Bishops, may ordain Subdeacons, and other inferior clerks; but Priests or Deacons without the Bishop of the city, or as some read it, without the privity of the Bishop of the city, they may not: thereby insinuating that with his consent they may. Out of which Council 
i De Clericis. li. 1. c. 14.  Bellarmine collecteth two things: The first that in the Primitive Church there were two sorts of Chorepiscopi or rural Bishops, whereof the former had Episcopal ordination, that is, were ordained of three Bishops like the Suffragan Bishops of our time: the later were but Presbyters: The second, that the Council appointing the rural Bishop to be ordained by the Bishop of the City, meant to forbid that there should be any more such rural Bishops as have Episcopal ordination, whereunto the concurrence of three Bishops at the least is required: & thereupon he thinketh, the Council of Antioch permitting rural Bishops to ordain Subdeacons, and the Decretal of Damasus forbidding them so to do, may be reconciled; for that the Council permitting the ordination of Subdeacons to rural Bishops speaketh of such as were ordained of three Bishops: and the Decretal of Damasus forbidding them to meddle in such ordination, of such as were but mere Presbyters. But whosoever shall take a view of the Decretal epistle of Damasus, shall find that he condemneth the intermeddling of any rural Bishops whatsoever in ordination, and shutteth them out of the 
k Epist. suprà citat.  Church, as men that neither have nor can have any place in the same. What is Chorepiscopus, saith Damasus, but a country Bishop? and if he be a country Bishop, what doth he in the city? the Canon altogether forbidding, that there should be two Bishops in one city. If he be not in the city, but in some country village, and in such place where there never was any Bishop before (the canon forbidding Bishops to be ordained in mean cities, villages or forts, or in any place whatsoever were bishops have not been placed in former times, lest the authority, & name of Bishops grow into contempt) what I pray you shall he be? For behold, neither doth the place agree with his ordination, nor his ordination with the place: because, if such rural Bishops have received the imposition of the hands of many Bishops, & have been ordained as Bs, they should not have been consecrated in a country village, such as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth, the canon forbidding Bishops to be placed in villages, small forts, or little cities. Give me therefore a reason, saith he, I pray you, of the constituting of these men: or if you cannot, as I know you cannot, lay your hand on your mouth, and assure yourselves, that they have no place nor authority in the Church of God, diverse things making void their ordination, and whatsoever thing they attempt to do by virtue of such ordination: Whereof the first is, for that they are wont to be ordained by one Bishop, wherein their ordination is against the canons concerning Bishops, which will have Bishops ordained by the imposition of the hands of 3 Bishops at the least. The 2●, for that if they be ordained by many bishops, yet they are placed in some village, little fort, or small city: or at least in some such place where lawfully Bishops may not be ordained, or formerly have not been, & where the authority, and name of a Bishop will grow into contempt: or if they be placed in a city, they are placed there with another Bishop, whereas the canons permit not 2 Bishops in one city. The third is, for that if they have been ordained at large, & neither placed in city, nor country village, as it hath been reported unto us of some, their ordination is void, because the canons do void all ordinaons at large: so that which way soever we turn us, we shall find that these men neither have, nor can have any Episcopal authority or place. This is the resolution of this great Roman Bishop, who wholly rejecteth this kind of rural Bishops, and will not have them at all to intermeddle in any thing peculiarly pertaining to the Episcopal office. But some man will say, May not a Bishop when he is grown aged, infirm, and unable to sustain and bear the weight of that great office, have a coadjutor or assistant? Surely there is no doubt but that he may have one joined unto him to bear part of his burden; but that that other should have Episcopal ordination, the Canons permit not: whereupon S. Augustine now aged, and distracted with multiplicity of manifold businesses concerning the state of the whole Church, desirous with the consent of his Clergy and people, to have Eradius a Presbyter of his Church joined unto him as a coadjutor while he lived, & designed to succeed him after his death, would by no means have him ordained a Bishop, but to continue a Presbyter still, though himself had been ordained a Bishop, while Valerius yet lived. His words are these, 
l Aug. ep. 110.  Adhuc in corpore posito beatae memoriae Patre & Episcopo meo Valerio, Episcopus ordinatus sum, & sedi cum illo: quod Concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, nec ipse sciebat. Quod ergo reprehensum est in me, nolo reprehendi in filio meo: erit Presbyter, ut est; quando Deus voluerit, futurus Episcopus. Obsecro vos, & obstringo per Christum, ut huic juveni, huic Presbytero Eradio, quem hodiè in Christi nomine designo Episcopum successorem mihi, patiamini refundere onera occupationum mearum, etc. that is, While my Father & Bishop Valerius yet lived, I was ordained a Bishop, and sat together with him, which I knew not to have been forbidden in the Nicene Council, neither did he know it. What therefore was disliked in me, I will not have to be blamed in my son, he shall continue a Presbyter as he is, & when God will he shall be a Bishop. I beseech you, and earnestly entreat you for Christ's sake, that you will give me leave, in some sort to ease myself, and to cast the burden of my employments upon the shoulders of this young man, this Presbyter Eradius, whom this day in the name of Christ, I appoint and design the Bishop that shall succeed me. My counsel shall nót be wanting to him, neither will I fail to supply what shall be any way defective or wanting in him. Thus we see, a coadjutor was allowed, but yet such a one as should be but a Presbyter: and therefore long after the time of Augustine, when 
m Naucler. vol. 2. gener. ●…6 p. 667. Decreti part. 2 causa 7. q. 1. c. Petiisti.  Zacharias Bishop of Rome associated another Bishop, as a coadjutor to Bonifacius the Bishop of Mentz, he confessed it to be a thing that was forbidden, and worthy reprehension: but that upon his importunity, of special favour, he had yielded so much unto him, that he might have such a coadjutor, whom with the advice of his brethren he might appoint to succeed him when he should die. But notwithstanding the Canons forbidding any such thing to be done, and the dislike of many the greatest Bishops of the world, yet in the later ages of the Church, the Bishops giving themselves to ease, or attending secular businesses, and greatly neglecting their Episcopal function, again reduced into the Church these rural Bishops, whom they named Suffragans. To these they committed the doing of such things as are most proper unto Bishops, as ordination & confirmation, but kept the power of jurisdiction to themselves, or gave it to some other, and not to these: contrary to the example of S. Augustine, that put over to Eradius the hearing of causes, and the performing of things pertaining to jurisdiction, himself only directing and overseeing him, but held still himself that which is most properly Episcopal. Such Bishops 
n Loc. Theol. l. 5. c. 2. The Bishops he speaketh of, he calleth annular Bishops, haply for that whereas full Bishops had both staff and ri●…g, expressing their jurisdiction as well as their espousing to the Church, these had the ring only.  Melchior Canus entreating of Counsels, and the persons whereof Counsels consist, saith, are so far from having any place or voice in the Counsels, that they neither have, nor aught to have any place in the Church at all.  
But whatsoever we think of these, the Bishops in former times for the better governing of their Churches, chose out certain of their Presbyters to assist them in the supervision and direction of the rest, whom they first named Archpresbyters, and afterwards Deans. The name of Decanus or Deane being first used, to note out such a Perfect or Governor of Monks, as had the rule of ten Monks living together in common: And in this sense the name of a Deane is found in 
o Aug. de morib. Eccl. cath. 〈◊〉  S. Augustine. The Archpresbyters, which Bishops anciently appointed to assist them, were of 2 sorts, 
p Duarenus de sacr. Eccl. minist. l. 1. c. 8.  Vrba●…i & Vicani, that is, such as lived in the great Church in the City, and such as lived abroad in the country, & were thereupon named Rural Archpresbyters, or Rural Deans. Touching the former, who lived in the great church in the city, because the Bishop alone either in respect of absence, or employments, could not execute all things that pertained to the service belonging to his place, nor give particular direction to every other what he should do, they were chosen out of the whole number of Presbyters, partly to execute and perform what the Bishop in his own person should have done, and partly to prescribe to others what they should do. The Rural Archpresbyters had the oversight and direction of the Presbyters, that were placed in the lesser Titles, or meaner churches, abroad in the country. Concerning these we find it thus decreed, 
q Decret. Greg. 9 ex Synod. habit. Ravennae. l. 1. Tit. 25.  Vt singulae plebes Archipresbyterum habeant, qui non solùm imperiti vulgi sollicitudinem gerat, sed etiam Presbyterorum qui per minores Titulos habitant, vitam iugi circumspectione custodiat, quâ quisque industriâ divinum opus exerceat, Episcopo enunciet; nec contendat Episcopus non egere plebem Archipresbytero, quasi ipse eam gubernare valeat; quia etsi valde idoneus sit, decet tamen ut sua onera partiatur, ut sicut ipse matrici Ecclesiae praeest, ita Archipresbyteri praesint plebibus, ut in nullo titubet Ecclesiastica sollicitudo; cunctatamen referant ad Episcopum, nec aliquid contra eius decretum ordinare praesumant; that is. That each division of the people of God in their several limits have their Arch-presbyter, who may not only take care of the rude and ignorant multitude, but may also with continual circumspection observe & look unto the life & conversation of the Presbyters, which dwell in the lesser Titles, and show unto the Bishop with what diligence each of them performeth the work of God. Neither let the Bishop contend and say, that the people committed to his charge need no Arch-presbyter, as if he himself were able sufficiently to govern the same, because, though he be exceeding worthy, yet it is fit he should divide his burdens, that as he is over the Mother church, so the Archpresbyters may be over the people abroad, that the Ecclesiastical care stagger not, or be not two weak in any thing. Yet notwithstanding let them refer all things to the Bishop, neit●…r let them presume to order any thing against his liking & decree. These rural Archpresbyters were to be chosen by the clergy, & confirmed by the Bishop, and being so placed, might not be removed without the consent of the clergy. 
r Concil. Turonens. 2. Canone 7.  Archipresbyterum, saith the second Council of Turone, sine omnium Presbyterorum consensu de loco deiicere Episcopus non praesumat: quem autem negligentia eijcit, cum omnium Presbyterorum consilio refutetur: that is, Let not the Bishop presume to remove or put an Arch-presbyter from his place, without the consent of all the Presbyters: but when the negligence of any one of these maketh him worthy to be ejected & put out, let him be rejected with the counsel and advice of all the Presbyters. Touching the power & authority of these Archpresbyters; first they were to admonish such as they saw to live scandalously, or any way to offend, as well Laymen as clergymen; and the Council of 
s Canone 44.  Antisiodorum decreeth, that if any lay or secular man shall contemn and despise the information & admonition of the Arch-presbyter, he shall be kept from entering or setting his feet within the thresholds of the holy church, till he shall submit himself to the wholesome information & admonition: Secondly, 
t Synod. Aug.  they were twice in the year to visit all the churches within the limits subject to them, to see what was there amiss, defective, or weak, that so they might either reform, supply, or strengthen & confirm the same: Thirdly, they were to receive warrants from the Bishop or his substitute, and by virtue thereof to cite all such to make their appearance before the chief 
u Linwood. lib. 2. de judicijs, fol. 45.  Pastor or Bishop, as were upon any occasion to be convented before him: and this their citation of such parties to be convented, under the seal of their office they were to certify the Bishop of. Fourthly, 
x Idem, li: 1. de Cóstitutionib.  they were to hold Chapiters' in a set course four times in the year, and at other times as often as urgent occasions should require; and all 
y Synod. Trebi●…ens. de Decanis Christianitatis.  parish Ministers within a year after their being possessed of their livings were to swear to the Dean, and so to be admitted as brethren to sit in Chapter with him, & to be bound to come to the yearly Chapiters', and otherwise also when as upon urgent cause the Dean should call a Chapter; and to bear part of the charge. This oath which the Ministers were to take before they were admitted to sit in Chapter, was not simple, but with this limitation, Saluis juribus Capituli; that is, No way to prejudice the rights of the Chapter. In these Chapiters' the Archpresbyters, were to publish the decrees of provincial, and Episcopal Synods, excluding Laymen at such times as they published things precisely concerning the Clergy, which otherwise might be present at the publication of things generally concerning all. Neither were they only to publish such decrees in their Chapter, but to urge the execution of the same, to take notice of all places of ministry void, upon what occasion, and by whose fault they continued void; of all intrusion into places of ministry, and of the investiture of all such as newly entered into the charge of ministry, and the authority by which substitutes supply the places of other men. And besides they were to admonish such as either by their visitation or other information they found to be faulty: And if by other good means they could not win them to 
z Statu Synoda. Episc. Hildemen.  suspend Laymen from the Sacraments, & Clergymen from the execution of their offices, but farther they might not go. But in case of obstinate continuance of disordered persons in their misdemeanours notwithstanding these proceedings, they were to complain to the Bishop if the matter required haste, or otherwise to the next Episcopal Synod. For the Bishop in each diocese having certain thus appointed to assist and help him in the superuision of the rest, as well of the Clergy as the people, was once in the year to hold a Synod with the chief of his Prelates, Deans rural, and other worthy men. 
a Decret. part. 1. dist. 18. cap. Annis. Conc. Tarrac.. can. 8.  Annis singulis (saith Gratian) Episcopus in suá Diocesi Synodum faciat de suis Clericis & Abbatibus, & 〈◊〉 alteros Clericos, & Monachos; that is, Let the Bishop every year hold a Synod in his Diocese of his Clerks and Abbots: and let him therein discuss and examine the learning, conversation, & behaviour of other Clerks & Monks. The Synod of Colei●…e under Adolphus confirmed by Charles the fifth, appointed this Diocesane Synod to be holden twice every year, according to the old manner & custom. And the Synod of Coleine under Hermannus ordaineth, that the Bishop or his Official general with the Prelate●… of the Metroropoliticall, Cathedral, & Collegiate Churches, especially the Arch-deacons, & Deans rural, who in some part are taken into the fellowship of the Bishop's cares, shall inquire into things out of order; & what he shall find by their judgement to need reformation, he shall with their advice amend & reform. The like doth 
b Reformat: Cle●… Germaniae per Laur: Legat. Clem: 7. apud joverium. Class 2. sect. 3.  Laurentius the Pope's Legate decree and ordain. Yea the Council of 
c Ses. 24. cap. 2.  T●… confirmeth the same also; and the Council of Coleine under Adolphus taketh order, that Deans of colleges coming to the Episcopal Synod in the name of their colleges, & rural Deans in the name of the parish ministers within their divisions, shall have their charges borne by such their colleges & ministers, according to the number of days the Synod endureth, seeing they go on warfare for God. The form of holding a Diocesane Synod joverius out of Burchardus describeth in this sort. 
d jover. Clas. 2. sect. 2.  At a convenient hour when it seemeth good to the B: or his vicegerent, all other doors being locked, let the Ostiaries stand at that, by which the Presbyters are to enter, & coming together let them go in & sit according to their ordination: after these the approved Deacons which order shall require to be present; let some lay-men also of good conversation be brought in, and then let the Bishop or his substitute enter: who entering into the Synod, is first to salute the clergy and people: and then turning towards the East to say a certain prayer: & the Deacons to read the Gospel, When it was late the first day of the 〈◊〉, and the doors were shut, &c: after which reading and prayers all are to go out save the Presbyters and clerks only: & after departure of the rest, another prayer being made the Bishop shall will the Presbyters to propose their doubts, and either to learn or teach, and to make known their complaints, that so they may receive satisfaction. This is all that is done the first day. The second day, if the clergy have no matter of complaint or doubt, let the laity be let in to propose their doubts, and make known their grievances, or otherwise let their coming in be deferred till some other day. Besides this Synod, which every Bishop was to hold once every year, he was to go from Church to Church, and see all the Churches in his Diocese. The second council of 
e Canone 1.  Bracar appointeth, that the Bishop shall go through all his Churches informing both Presbyters and people: and the third council of 
f Canone 17.  Arles prescri●…th, that he shall inquire & take notice of the wrongs offered to those of mean & poor estate, by them that are great and in authority, and first seek to reform such evils by Episcopal admonition and counsel; but if he cannot so prevail, he shall acquaint the King with it. The Bishop, saith the fourth Council of 
g Canone ●…5.  Toledo, must go every year through his Diocese, and see all his Churches and parishes, that he may inquire what reparations the churches do need, and what other things be amiss. But if he be either detained by sickness, or so entangled with business that he cannot go, let him send some approved presbyters or Deacons, which may not only consider of the ruins of each church, and the needful reparations thereof, but inquire also into the life and conversation of the clergy, and ministers. According to the decree and direction of this Council, we shall find that Bishops hindered by other employments, sickness, weakness, or age, so that they could not go in person to visit their churches, sent some of their chief Presbyters or Deacons, but especially the chief Deacons, to perform the work of visitation for them, because they being the chief among the Deacons, which are but church-seruants, were more attendant about them for dispatch of all public businesses, than presbyters. These chief Deacons, or Arch-Deacons at first, they sent only to visit, and to make report, but not to sententiate any man's cause, or to meddle with the correcting or reforming of any thing, but afterwards in process of time they were authorized to hear and determine the smallest matters, and to reform the lighter and lesser offences: and therefore in the Council of 
h Conc. Later. de Sent. & Interlocut. 4.  Lateran under Alexander the third, it is ordered, that the archdeacon shall not give sentence against any one; But in the 
i Conc. Rhotomag. apud joverium 2. Clas. sect. 2. ex Burchard. l. 1. c. 90.  Council of Rhone it is appointed, that the Archdeacon and Arch-presbyter shall be forerunners to the Bishop, and shall reform the lighter and smaller things they find to be amiss.  
Hence in time it came, that Arch-Deacons much used by Bishops, as most attendant on them in the visitation of their churches, and reforming some smaller disorders, at length by prescription claimed the correction of greater things, as having of long time put themselves into the exercise of such authority. And thus the Deacons, or at least the chief of them, the Arch-Deacons (which at first might not sit in the presence of a presbyter, but being willed by him so to do) in the end became, by reason of this their employment by the Bishop, to be greater, not only then the ordinary presbyters, but then the Archpresbyters themselves. And therefore it is confessed by all, that the archdeacon hath no authority or power of jurisdiction by virtue of his degree & order, but by prescription only: neither can he claim more than he can prescribe for; which his prescription is thought reasonable, because the Bishop is supposed to have consented to his intermeddling in such parts of government, as by prescription he may claim. Yet lest it might seem absurd for him that is only a Deacon, to exercise jurisdiction over presbyters, the canon of the Church provideth, that no man shall possess the place of an Archdeacon, unless he have the ordination of a presbyter.  
Besides the Deans or Archpresbyters, which the Bishops used for the governing and over-seeing of certain parts of their Diocese allotted to them, with such limitations as they pleased, & for counsel & advise in managing of their weightiest affairs; and the Arch-deacons, which they used as spies in all places, and trusted with the dispatch of what they thought fit; they had for their direction in cases of doubt, and for their ease in the multiplicity of their employments, 
k Annot. in 2. l. Linwoodi de sequestration.  certain of their clergy, skilful in the canons; and Laws of the Church, whom they used as Officials to hear all manner of causes, and matters of instance between party & party, but suffered them not to meddle in the censuring and punishing of criminal things, or in any matter of office: but in case of absence, or sickness, they had Vicars general, that might do any thing almost that pertaineth to the Bishop's jurisdiction. The former are not only named Officials, but Chancellors, though the name of Chancellor be not in this sense so ancient as the former. 
l Onuphrius in interp. vocum Eccles.  Cancellarius originally, and properly, signifieth a Notary or Secretary, because these for the preserving of their writings and notes of remembrance, were wont to sit and write Intra cancellos; that is, Within certain places enclosing them, made in the manner of Checquer-worke: But from hence in time it came to be used, for any one that is employed for the giving of answer unto suitors, for keeping of Records and notes of remembrance, and generally for the performance of some principal duties pertaining to him, whose Chancellor he is said to be.   

CHAP. 30.  
Of the form of the government of the Church, and the institution and authority of metropolitans and patriarchs.  
THis being the form of government of each Diocese, and particular Church, let us consider what dependence or subordination such particular Churches have. For it cannot, nor may not be imagined, that each Diocese, or particular church is absolutely supreme, and subject to no higher authority. The Papists are of opinion, that Christ constituted and appointed one chief Pastor, with universality of power, as his Vicegerent general upon earth, placed him in the chief City of the world, and set him over all the other both Bishops and Churches: But the ancient Fathers are of another opinion: For 
a Hieron. ad Euagrium.  Hierome pronounceth that all Bishops are equal in order, office, and ministry, whether of Rome, Eugubium, Tanais, or Constantinople, howsoever riches and magnificence of Churches and cities, may make one seem to be greater than another: and Cyprian speaketh to the same purpose, saying: 
b Cyprian. li: 2. epist. 1. & in Concilio Carthaginensi.  Let no Bishop make himself a judge of other, every one having received his authority from Christ, and therefore being accountant to him only. And this he speaketh upon occasion of a difference, between him and the Roman Bishops of that time, about rebaptisation.  
Wherefore let us examine these contrary opinions, and see which of them is most agreeable unto truth and reason. For the confirmation of the former of these two opinions, the Romanists allege many things, to prove, that the best form of Regiment and government is a Monarchy, and consequently that Christ who undoubtedly established the best form, appointed one supreme Monarch in his Church. To this allegation 
c Ockam. Dialog. l. 〈◊〉. tract. 1. part. 3. cap. 30.  Ockam most excellently and learnedly answereth in his Dialogues, showing and proving at large, that though the government of one, or a Monarchy, be the best form of Regiment in one city or country, as Aristotle rightly teacheth, yet it is not the best form of policy and government in respect of the whole world and all the parts of it, so far distant & remote one from another; because the whole world, and the infinite different countries and regions of it, regularly may be better governed by many, whereof no one is superior to other, then by one alone: neither is the same form of government always most expedient for the whole, and for each part; for greater circuits, and for straighter or narrower bounds: seeing one man may sustain the burden of hearing, determining, and dispatching the greater causes & more important matters in one kingdom or country; but no one can so manage the weightiest businesses of the whole world. And that in like sort, though it be expedient that there should be one Bishop over some part of the Church and people of God, yet there is not the same reason that there should be one over the whole, seeing no one can dispatch the greater businesses, and manage the weightier affairs of the whole Christian world. Besides, he saith, it would be most dangerous, that there should be any such one supreme ruler of the whole Church; for that, if he should fall into error or heresy, all the whole world would be in great danger to be seduced, the members, for the most part, conforming themselves to their head, and the inferiors to their rulers and superiors. That which Ockam saith, may be confirmed by the authority of Saint Augustine, who thinketh a Monarchy or the government of one supreme ruler, most fit for the several countries and parts of the world, but not for the whole. His words are: 
d Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 4. ca 15.  Feliciores essentres humanae, si omnia Regnaessent parua, & concordi vicinitate laetantia; that is, The state of worldly things would be much more happy, if the whole world were divided out into small kingdoms, joyfully conspiring together in a friendly neighbourhood, then if all should be swayed by one supreme commander.  
Thus than we deny not, but that amongst all the simple and single forms of government, a Monatchie is the best for each country and people; neither doth Caluine contradict us herein, as 
e De Pont. Rom. l 1. c. 1. Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 6.  Bellarmine seemeth to report; for he doth not simply say, that amongst all the simple forms of government aristocraty is best and to be preferred, but only in the respect of often declinings and swervings of absolute Kings, hardly moderating themselves so in so free and absolute a liberty of commanding all, as that their wills should never swerve from that which is right and good. 
f De Pont. Romano. l. 1. c. 3.  But Bellarmine himself thinketh, that the mixed forms of government are to be preferred before any of those simple forms of Monarchy, aristocraty, and Democraty, as having in them the best that is found in every of those single and simple forms. And such is the government of the Church of God (Christ undoubtedly establishing the best form of government in the same.) For the government of each Diocese, & particular Church, resteth principally in one, who hath an eminent & peerless power, without whom nothing may be attempted or done: yet are there others joined with him as assistants, 
g Concil. Carth. 4.  without whose counsel, advice, and consent, he may do nothing of moment and consequence; whom he cannot at his pleasure displace and remove from their standings, or deprive them of their honour, or any way hardly censure them of himself alone; but in 
h Conc. Carth. 3.  the case of a Deacon, he must have two other Bishops to concur with him, and in the case of a Presbyter, five, without which concurrence he may not proceed against either of them. The government of a province is principally Aristocratical, resting in the Bishops of the province & their assistants, but it hath a kind of chiefty of one having a primacy of order and honour amongst the rest, who being placed in the Metropolis or Mother city is named a Metropolitan; This government is so mixed, that the Bishops may do nothing concerning the state of the whole Province, or out of the limits of their own Churches without consulting the Bishop of the mother city, nor 
i Lucius 1. in Epist. ad Episc. Hisp. & Galliae. Concil. Antioch. 1. Canone. 9 Concil. Nicen. canone. 4.  he without them; and 
k Concil. Antioch. 1. canone. 19  if they differ in judgement and opinion, he is bound to follow the mayor part of voices for the ending and determining of all controversies that may or do arise concerning matters of faith, or of fact. Neither is this the form of government of one province only, but the government of larger circuits is altogether like unto it, and in proportion the same. For look what the Metropolitan is in respect of the Bishops of the province, that and no more is the primate or Patriarch in respect of the Metropolitans, & Bishops of divers provinces; so that as the Metropolitan can do nothing out of his own Diocese without the concurrence of the mayor part of the Bishops of the province, though he be in order and honour the first and greatest amongst them, who must be consulted before they can do any thing; so in like sort, the Primate or Patriarch may do nothing without the advice and consent of the metropolitans & Bishops subject unto him. So that we see the form of Church government is mixed in such sort, that in respect of a Diocese or particular Church, there is a special authority resting in one, though not excluding nor neglecting the assistance and concurrence of more; but the government of many particular Churches and provinces is principally Aristocratical, all things being swayed by the mayor part of the voices of the Bishops and metropolitans, yet admitting a primacy of order and honour of one amongst the rest, who must be first consulted, from whom all deliberations must take beginning, and who sitteth in all their meetings as a precedent and moderator.  
This 
l De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 8.  Bellarmine endeavoureth to improve, and therefore laboureth to show, that the supreme power of the Church is not in the company of Bishops. His first reason is, because Christ, as he supposeth, gave no authority to his Apostles and Disciples, but that which he gave to every one of them apart, as to preach, baptise, bind and lose, remit, and retain sin. But this silly argument is easily answered, and the absurdity of Bellarmine's confident affirmation is too too apparent. For to ordain Bishops, to depose Bishops or Presbyters, and to determine the differences, and controversies that arise amongst them, is, as I think, a great part of Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction: yet may no one Bishop do any of these things, but the company of Bishops only. 
m Conc. Carth. 2. can. 12.  To the ordination of a Bishop, the presence of the Metropolitan, and of three other Bishops at the least, with the consent of the rest that are absent, signified in writing, is by the old Canons required: neither did the Church ever admit less than three Bishops to ordain, unless in certain cases of necessity: And touching the depriving or degrading of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, the ancient Canon requireth the concurrence and consent of three Bishops, for the censuring and depriving of a Deacon; of six for the depriving of a Presbyter; & of twelve for the censuring, judging, and deposing of a Bishop. Wherefore let us see, if the Cardinal have any better reason behind.  
His second reason is, that it cannot be imagined that CHRIST committed the government of the Church to the company of Bishops; for that then the Church should oftentimes lack Governors, for that the Bishops are seldom assembled by joint consent to decree and determine things. Surely this reason hath far less strength than the former; for in the beginning all the Bishops of each Province met to the ordination of every Bishop newly elected; and twice in the year besides, there was a Synod holden, consisting of all the Bishops of the Province, the Metropolitan not only having power, but also being straightly bound to convocate his brethren: and they as surely tied and obliged to come when he called them.  
His third reason which he bringeth to prove, that the government of the church was not by Christ committed to the company of Bishops, but to some one chief and supreme amongst them, is, for that the whole multitude of right believing Christians is one church, and therefore must have one chief Ruler. For answer hereunto we say, that a church may be named one either in respect of the same faith, hope, profession, means of salvation, and communion or fellowship of Saints: and so the whole multitude of right believers throughout the world is but one church: or in respect of the same immediate communicating together in Sacraments, and in the actions and exercises of God's worship and service. The unity of the church of God in this later sort implieth and requireth a necessity of the unity of one chief Pastor; but the unity of the church in the former sort may stand without the unity of one Pastor. 
n Ockam. Dialo. l: 2 tract. 1. part. 3. c. 30.  Christian men, saith Ockam, in Scripture are compared to sheep, and the church of God to a fold. Now though it be expedient that these sheep so many as belong to the same particular fold, that go out to the same pastures to feed, to the same rivers of water to drink, and do remain and abide together, should be fed, directed, and guided by the same Pastor; yet the sheep of divers folds led out to divers pastures to feed in, and rivers of water to drink, may have their diversity of Pastors under the same chief Shepherd Christ jesus: neither is there any unity employed in the whole Church, or in the Churches of divers Provinces which may not be preserved, as well by the multitude and diversity of Pastors, bound & knit together in the bond of conspiring consent and agreement, as by the unity of one chief Pastor. And in this sort we shall find the Church of God to have stood in perfect unity in the first and best ages thereof, without finding any want of the help of one chief Pastor. For how could there be a more perfect unity in the whole Church, then when the Pastor of each particular Church chosen by the Clergy, and people of the same, was appointed by the Metropolitan, and all the rest of the Bishops of the province, for his sincerity in profession, and godliness of conversation, and ordained to the work of the Ministry by the joint imposition of all their hands? when the 
* Vide Decret. Damasi ex De●…r. Iuoni●… Carnotens. l. 1. in Tom. 〈◊〉. Concil. apud Binnium, p. 505.  metropolitans of several provinces were confirmed by the Primate or Patriarch, but ordained by the Bishops of their provinces? when the 
o Greg. l. 1. ep. 24. Vide exemplar literarum Thar●…sii ad summos Sacerdotes & Episcopos Antiochiae, Alexandria, & Sanctae Vrbis. in 3 Action. Synodi 7 apud Binnium.  patriarchs elected by the Clergy and people, and ordained by their metropolitans, sent their Synodall letters one to another, testifying and expressing their faith and profession, before they were received and allowed one of another, and before tehy were accounted and reputed for lawful patriarchs?  
Wherefore presupposing that the government of the Church is not Monarchical in respect of any one supreme Pastor on earth, but mixed; and having seen how, notwithstanding the diversity of many Pastors, the Church may be preserved in peace and unity, let us more exactly and distinctly consider what the ancient form of Church policy and government was.  
If we look into the monuments of Antiquity, we shall find, that there were anciently three Subordinations in the Church. For the actions of the Bishop of each particular Church of a city, and places adjoining, were subject to the censure and judgement of the rest of the Bishops of the same province; amongst whom for order sake there was one chief, to whom it pertained to call them together, to sit as moderator in the midst of them being assembled, and to execute what by joint consent they resolved on. The actions of the Bishops of a province, and a provincial Synod consisting of those Bishops, were subject to a Synod consisting of the metropolitans, and other Bishops of divers provinces. This Synod was of two sorts. For either it consisted of the metropolitans and Bishops of one kingdom and nation only, as did the Counsels of Africa: or of the Metropolitans, and Bishops of many kingdoms. If of the metropolitans and Bishops of one kingdom and state only, the chief Primate was mederator. If of many, one of the patriarchs, and chief Bishops of the whole world, every Church being subordinate to some one of the patriarchical Churches, and incorporate into the unity of it. Thirdly, the actions of the Bishops of a whole kingdom and Patriarchship, were subject to an Ecumenical Synod consisting of all the patriarchs, and the metropolitans and Bishops subject to them.  
Touching provincial Counsels, to the censures whereof the actions of particular Churches are subject, they were by the ancient Canons of the Church to be holden in every province twice every year. 
p Concil. Nice. canone 5.  It is very necessary, say the Fathers of the Council of Nice, that there should be a Synod twice every year in every province; that all the Bishops of the province meeting together, may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable. For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical businesses, and the determining of matters in controversy. 
q Conc. Antioc canone. 20.  We think it were fit, say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch, that in every province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year. The first council of 
r Canone. 2.  Constantinople decreeth the same: and the Fathers assembled in the Council of 
s Canone. 19  Chalcedon complain that in some provinces the Synods of Bishops are not holden, and that thereby many Ecclesiastical matters needing reformation are neglected: and therefore they appoint, that the Bishops of every province shall assemble every year twice at that place, which the Bishop of the mother City shall think fit, to amend all things that shall be found to be amiss in the province. Here we see the necessity of holding these Synods, and by whom they were to be called and moderated. Wherefore let us now proceed to see of whom they consisted, what causes they examined and determined, what the power of the Metropolitan originally was, and what in process of time, by positive constitution, upon due and just considerations it grew to be.  
Touching the persons that provincial Synods consisted of, it is clear and evident, that not only Bishops, but Presbyters also were present in these Assemblies, and had decisive voices: whereupon the Council of 
t Concil. Antisiod. canone 7.  Antisiodorum saith; Let all the Presbyters being called come to the Synod in the City. The Council of Tarracon. 
u Conc: Tarrac. canone. 13.  Let letters be sent by the Metropolitan to his brethren, that they bring with them to the Synod, not only some of the Presbyters of the Cathedral Church, but also of each Diocese. And the fourth Council of Toledo, describing the form of celebrating provincial Synods, hath these words: 
x Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 3.  Let the Bishops assembled go to the Church, and sit according to the time of their ordination; and after all the Bishops are entered and set, let the Presbyters be called, and the Bishops sitting in compass, let Presbyters sit behind them, and the Deacons stand before them. In the first Council of Toledo, we find these words. 
y Initio, Concilij Toletan. 1.  Considentibus Presbyteris, astantibus Diaconis, & caeteris qui intererant Concilio congregato, Patronus Episcopus dixit, etc. that is, The Presbyters sitting together with the Bishops, the Deacons standing before them, and the rest, which were present in the Council assembled, Patronus the Bishop said, etc. The like we read of a Synod holden by Gregory the Pope. The words are these: 
z Greg. lib. 4. Epistola●…um, ca: 88  Gregorius Papa coram sacratissimo corpore Beati Petri Apostoli, cum Episcopis omnibus Romanae Ecclesiae, & Presbyteris residens, assistentibus Diaconis, & cuncto Clero, dixit etc. that is, Gregory the Pope sitting before the most sacred body of blessed Peter, with all the Bishops of the Roman Church and the Presbyters also, the Deacons standing before them, and all the Clergy, said, etc. And that Presbyters were not only present in Provincial Synods, but had decisive voices as well as Bishops, it appeareth by their 
a Vide Subscript. Concil. Elibert●…. & Synod. sub. Gregorio.  subscribing to the Decrees of such Synods, in the very same form and manner that Bishops did. So that it will be found most false and untrue that 
b Bel. de Clericis li: c. 14.  Bellarmine hath, that Presbyters have no voices in Synods: and the ancient form of our Convocation here in England, wherein not only the Archbishops, and Bishops, but sundry Presbyters also, as well out of Cathedral Churches as Dioceses at large, are present, and have decisive voices, will clearly refute the same.  
The causes that were wont to be examined and determined, in the meeting of the Bishops of the province, were the 
c Conc. Antioch. canonc. 19  ordinations of Bishops, when any Churches were void, and the depriving and rejecting of all such, as were found unworthy of their honour and place: and in a word, any complaint of wrong done in any Church, was there to be heard. 
d Ibid. can. 20.  Let the provincial Synods be holden twice every year, saith the Council of Antioch, and let the Presbyters and Deacons be present, and as many as think they have been any way hurt or wronged, there expect the determination of the Synod. The power of the Metropolitan, was in calling the rest of the Bishops to the Synod, in appointing the place of their meeting, and in sitting as Precedent in the midst of them: and so were things moderated, that 
e Ibid. can. 9  neither the rest might proceed to do any thing without consulting him, nor he to do any thing without them, but was tied in all matters of difference to follow the mayor part; and if he neglected his duty in convocating his brethren, that so things might be determined by common consent, he was by the Canon's subject to censure and punishment. Thus at first all matters were to be heard, determined, and ended by Synods, and they holden twice every year: But in process of time when the governors of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synod twice a year, the Fathers of the sixth 
f Canone. 8.  general Council decreed, that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions. Likewise the 
g Canone. 6.  seventh general Council decreeth in this sort. Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every province, and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods, the Fathers of the sixth council decreed, it should be once in the year, anà than things amiss to be redressed, we renew this later Canon. So that, whereas at the first there was a Synod of Bishops in every province twice in the year, now it was sufficient if the Bishops met once. But afterwards, many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings, we shall find that they met not so often, and therefore the Council of 
h Canone. 8.  Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be holden once every year, and Provincial at the lest once in three years: And so in time, causes growing many, and the difficulties intolerable in coming together, and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased, it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and Appeals to metropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical judges, limited and directed by Canons and Imperial laws, then to trouble the Pastors of whole provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides.  
Thus having spoken of the authority of the Metropolitan and his Council in every province, it remaineth that we come to Synods of a larger extent. These, besides Ecumenical, whereof we will not yet speak, were of two sorts: patriarchical, wherein one of the patriarchs and chief Bishops of the world sat as precedent; or national, consisting of the Bishops of many Provinces, within one Country or Kingdom, wherein the Primate sat as Precedent: of which sort the Counsels of Africa were; concerning which Counsels it is ordered in the third Council of 
i Canone 2.  Carthage, that once every year there shall be a general assembly of the Bishops of Africa, to which all the provinces which have primas sedes, that is, first Seas, and so may hold provincial Counsels, shall out of their Counsels send two Bishops, or as many as they shall think fit; but that out of Tripoli, because of the poverty of the Bishops of it, one Bishop shall come. In these Counsels, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome were sometimes present, not as precedents, but assistants, as other metropolitans were. There were many provinces which had primas sedes, that is, first Seas, and so consequently many Primates; yet for distinction, some call him that was Bishop of that first See (which was in honour before all the rest of the same country and kingdom, and to whom in all common deliberations the other Metropolitans did resort) by an excellency, the Primate; & the rest by the common name of Metropolitans; in which sense the Bishop of Carthage was Primate of all Africa; and so is a Primate in order and honour before metropolitans, but inferior unto a Patriarch. Of this distinction of degrees of honour amongst metropolitans and chief Bishops, Hugo de Sancto Victore writeth in this sort: 
k De Sacram. 〈◊〉. 2. part. 3. cap. 〈◊〉.  Post Sacerdotes altiores sunt Principes Sacerdotum, id est, Episcopi: supra quos iterum sunt Archiepiscopi: & supra illos qui dicuntur Primates: supra quos quidam Patriarchas constituere volunt: alii eosdem Patriarchas & Primates dicunt: that is, after priests we are to reckon the chief priests, that is, Bishops, as in the first degree and honour above them: above whom again are Arch-Bishops, and above them they that are named Primates: above whom some will have patriarchs to be placed: but others will have patriarchs and Primates to be all one. Rabanus in his book 
l Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉.  the institutione Clertcorum, sorteth Bishops into three ranks: patriarchs, Archishops, who also are named metropolitans: and ordinary Bishops.   

CHAP. 31.  
Of patriarchs who they were, and the reason why they were preferred before other Bishops.  
TOuching the patriarchs, they were in the beginning but only three: to wit, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The reason, as some think, why the Bishops of these places were preferred before other, and made patriarchs, was in respect had to blessed Peter, who was in sort before expressed, in order and honour the first and chiefest of the Apostles. For Antioch was honoured, for that he sat there for a certain space, and afterwards governed it by Euodius: Alexandria for that he placed Mark his Scholar there: and Rome because it was the place of his death and martyrdom, where in his body he stayeth and expecteth the Resurrection of the dead, and the second coming of Christ. All the Churches founded by any Apostle, are rightly called apostolic, but these more specially in which the Apostle Peter sat. 
a Anacletus epist. 3.  Secunda feeds, saith Anacletus, apud Alexandriam beati Petri nomine à Marco eius discipulo consecrata est. Tertia autem sedes apud Antiochiam eiusdem beati Petri Apostoli habetur honorabilis; that is, The second See, and in degree and honour next unto that of Rome, was consecrated at Alexandria, by the authority of blessed Peter, by Mark his Scholar; and the third See honourable for Peter's presence in the same, is at Antioch. 
b Leo ad Anatol. ep. 53.  Nihil, saith Leo writing to Anatholius, Alexandria sedi, eius quam per sanctum Marcum Evangelistam beati Petri discipulum meruit, pereat dignitatis. Antiochena quoque Ecclesia in quâ primum praedicante Apostolo Petro, Christianum nomen exortumest, in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret; & in gradu tertio collocata, nunquam fiat inferior: that is, Let the See of Alexandria lose no part of that dignity which it obtained by Saint Mark the Evangelist, the disciple of blessed Peter. Let the Church of Antioch also, in which upon Peter's preaching, the name of Christians first began, continue in that degree and order, wherein the constitution of the Fathers set it, and being placed in the third degree, let it never be put lower. This did Leo write, when the Bishop of Constantinople sought to have the second place in the Church of God, and to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch. Gregory writeth to the same effect to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria. His words are. 
c Greg. Epist. li. 6. ep. 37.  Cum multisint Apostoli, pro ipso tamen principatusola Apostolorum Principis Sedes in authoritate convaluit, quae tribus in locis unius est. Ipse enim sublimavit sedem, in qua etiam quiescere & praesentem vitam finire dignatus est. Ipse decoravit sedemin qua Euangelistam discipulum misit. Ipse firmavit sedem, in qua septem annis, quamuis discessurus sedit, Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex authoritate dinina tres nunc Episcopi president, quicquid ego de vobis boni audio, mihi imputo; that is, Whereas there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the chiefty that Peter had, as being Prince of the Apostles, his Sea only grew to be in chief authority, which in three places is yet the See but of one and the same Apostle. For he exalted that Sea in which he pleased to rest, and end this present life. He beautified that Sea in which he placed Mark his Scholar: and he firmly and strongly settled that Sea in which he sat seven years, though with purpose in the end to leave it. When as therefore there is one See of one Apostle, in which by divine authority three sit as precedents, whatsoever good I hear of you, I impute it to myself. And again in the same place to Eulogius, having spoken to him of the dignity of Peter's chair in which he sat, he saith: He hath spoken to me of Peter's chair, who himself sitteth on Peter's chair. This is the opinion of these Roman Bishops, touching the reason of the exaltation of the Seas of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch above other Episcopal Seas; who, how partially soever they may be thought to be affected to the chair of Peter, yet herein do they mainly cross the conceit of the Romanists at this day, in that they teach that other Bishops succeed Peter in the chair, and that chiefty and primacy he had, as well as the Bishop of Rome.  
The dignity of these 3 Apostolical Churches was confirmed in the Nicene Council; and each of them confined within the ancient bounds and limits thereof. 
d Conc. Nicen. Canone 6.  Let the ancient custom, say the Nicene Fathers, continue in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these; seeing the Bishop of Rome hath the like custom. In like sort in Antioch, and other provinces, let every Church retain and keep her own degree and honour. 
e De Pontif. lib. 2. c. 3.  Bellarmine much troubleth himself about this limitation and bounding of these patriarchs, as prejudicial to the illimited jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop: and therefore though it be most clear that there was a particular assignation of Churches to every of these patriarchs, yet he seeketh to avoid the evidence of these words. For whereas 
f Ruff. Hist. eccls li. 1. c. 6.  Ruffinus saith, it was decreed by the Council of Nice, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have care and charge over Egypt, as the Bishop of Rome hath of the Churches near that city; and Theodorus Balsamon in the explication of the Nicene canons, with Nilus in his book against the primacy interpreteth the words of the Nicene decree in this sense, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the charge of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, and the confirming of the metropolitans in those parts, because the Bishop of Rome, who hath a care of the West, confirmeth the metropolitans of the West; he maketh this construction of the words of the council: Let the Bishop of Alexandria have the charge of Egypt, seeing the Bishop of Rome was wont to permit him so to have, before any Council had decreed it. And so, he saith, Nicolas the Pope in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor understandeth the words; which yet is most untrue: for Nicolas saith no such thing, but only that the Council maketh the custom of the Roman Church the pattern for others to follow. But the 
g Canone 17.  eight general Council, which no doubt understood the words of the Nicene Fathers far better than Bellarmine, showeth plainly, that the meaning of the Nicene Canon was, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over Egypt, and the provinces pertaining to it, to confirm the metropolitans in the same, seeing the like custom prevaileth in the Roman Church; And this Council confirmeth the same distinction of the bounds of jurisdiction, within which every Patriarch is to contain himself, both for old Rome and new, and for the other Churches of Alexandria and Antioch. The Canons of the Nicene Council translated out of the Arabian tongue, and published by Turrian, Pisanus, and Binnius, will fully clear this point, if our Adversaries give any credit unto them. 
* Apud Binnium Tom. Conciliorum primo, pag. 352.  For in the eighth of those Canons, the decree, about the meaning whereof we contend, is thus set down: Constitutum est, ut Episcopus Aegypti, id est, Patriarcha Alexandrinus, praesideat & habeat potestatem totius Aegypti: that is, It is ordained that the Bishop of Egypt, that is, the Patriarch of Alexandria, shall sit as Precedent, and have power over all Egypt, and over all places, Cities and Towns which are round about it: because so it is fit, and because likewise the Bishop of Rome, that is the Successor of Peter the Apostle, hath power over all the Cities and places which are about Rome. And in like sort let the Bishop of ANTIOCH have power over that whole province, etc. But because perhaps these Canons, though published by themselves, as rare secrets of Antiquity lately brought to light, will be of little credit with them, I will add one reason more, which to me seemeth very forcible to confirm our interpretation of the words of the Nicene Fathers. 
h Binnius in vita Hadriani 2. Tom. 3. Concil. part. 2.  There was anciently a great contention between the Church of Rome, and the Church of Constantinople, about the Churches of Bulgaria, either of these Churches making claim thereunto, and seeking to bring them within the compass of their own jurisdiction: which contention could not have been, if the one of these two Churches had had an illimited extent of jurisdiction. But that neither of them had any such illimited jurisdiction, it is evident, in that neither Constantinople, nor Rome, urge any such thing for justification of their claim, but stand upon their converting of the people of Bulgaria to the Christian faith, and the planting of religion amongst them. Which either of these pretending rather then other, sought thereby to justify a title of jurisdiction, and authority over them.  
Wherefore resolving that we have the true meaning of the Nicene canon, let us return thither whence we have a little digressed, namely to the discourse of Patriarchical Churches and Bishops set in order and honour before all other. These as I have already showed, were at first but three, to which afterwards two other were added: First Constantinople, and afterwards Jerusalem. Touching the Church and Bishop of Constantinople, after that city was by Constantine made the seat of the Empire, and thereby as much or more honoured then any city in the world, the Bishop thereof, before little esteemed, grew exceeding great: and in the second Council, which was the first of 
i Canone. 〈◊〉.  Constantinople, was made a Patriarch in degree of honour next the Bishop of Rome, and before the other two: And again in the Council of 
k Actione, 16.  Chalcedon, confirmed in the same. And though Leo resisted against this act of the Council of Chalcedon, and peremptorily protested, that he would not suffer the Church of Alexandria to lose the dignity of the second See, and the Church of Antioch of the third; and his successors many of them persisted in the same resistance; yet they were forced in the end to give way to the exaltation of the Constantinopolitan Church; so that after the time of justinian the Emperor, they never made any more words about this matter. Whereby we see, that to be true of Hierome, 
l Hieron. ad Euagrium.  Orbis maior est urbe; that is, The world is greater than any one city of the world, though Rome itself. The Church of Jerusalem, as being the place of Christ's passion, & whence the preaching of the Gospel took beginning, was ever much honoured; yet was it not so much as a Metropolitan Church at the first; but the B: & Clergy there of were subject to the Bishop of Caesarea, as their Metropolitan, & the Bishop of Antioch as their Patriarch; as Hierome writing to Pammachius against john of Jerusalem testifieth: And thereupon Leo 
m Leo epist. 62.  writing to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, blameth Iwenall Bishop of Jerusalem for seeking to subject Palaestina to himself, & chargeth him with insolent boldness for that attempt. But the 
n In Fragmento Concil. 5. apud Binnium. Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 606.  Fathers of the fifth general Council thought good to honour the Church of Jerusalem, where Christ suffered, and rose again from death: and therefore whereas the Bishop thereof had formerly but a bare title, and a preeminence in sitting before other, they made him a Patriarch in order the fifth; and that he might have metropolitans subject unto him, they took some parts of the Diocese of Alexandria, and Antioch from the Bishops of those Churches, and put them under him: So that now we have five patriarchs of the Christian Church. Touching these, the 
o Canone 2●…  eighth general Council taketh order, that no man shall offer any indignity to any of them. To these they were wont to wish all prosperity and long life in the conclusion of their Counsels. Without these, no Council was holden to be full and perfect. These might convocate the metropolitans of their several divisions, and hold a patriarchical Council, which was of greater authority then either those in the several provinces, or of a whole Nation, formerly mentioned, because it consisted of more, and more honourable Bishops: yet had the patriarchs no greater authority over the metropolitans within their larger circuits, than the metropolitans within their lesser compass. These were by the order of the 
p Canone ●…7  eighth general Council, to confirm the metropolitans subject unto them, either by imposition of hands, or giving the Pall: but inferior Bishops they might not meddle with, but were to leave them to the ordering of their metropolitans.   

CHAP. 32.  
How the Pope succeedeth Peter: what of right belongeth to him: and what it is that he unjustly claimeth.  
WE deny not but that blessed Peter had a kind of primacy of honour and order, that in respect thereof, as all metropolitans do succeed him, as being greater than other Bishops in honour and place; so the patriarchs yet more specially: and amongst them the Roman Bishops in the first place. We will not therefore put our Adversaries to so much pains, as some other have done, to prove, that Peter was at Rome; that he died there, and that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him. But this is it which we say, that he succeeded him in the Bishopric of that City, and in the honour of being one of the prime Bishops of the world, as the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch likewise did: but not in the condition of being universal Bishop, that is, such a one in whom all Episcopal power and authority is originally invested: from whom it is derived to others: and who may limit and restrain the use of it in other, as seemeth good unto himself. Por Peter was not such an Apostle, but had only a joint commission with the rest, who were put into it immediately by Christ as well as he, though he were in some sort the first man in it.  
We deny not therefore to the Roman Bishop his due place among the prime Bishops of the World, if therewith he will rest contented: but universal Bishop in sort before expressed, we dare by no means admit him to be, knowing right well, that every Bishop hath in his place, and keeping his own standing, power and authority immediately from Christ, which is not to be restrained or limited by any, but by the company of Bishops: wherein though one be chief for order sake, and to preserve unity, & in such sort, that all things must take their beginning from him, yet he can do nothing without them.  
The Bishop of Constantinople, as I have already noted, in the time of the second general Council, obtained to be one of the four patriarchs, by reason of the greatness of his Church and city: and in the fourth holden at Chalcedon, to have equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome: but not contenting himself long with this equality, soon after he sought to be above him, and would be called universal Bishop, seeking thereby to subject to himself all other Bishops and Churches: in which proud claim he was resisted by Gregory the 1, who professeth, 
a Greg. ep. l. 4. cp. 34. & 38.  that whosoever assumeth this title, overthroweth the dignity & honour of all other Bishops, in his pride is like Lucifer, & may rightly be thought to be a forerunner of Antichrist. Paul the Apostle, saith Greg. when he heard certain men say, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, & I of Cephas, trembling, & quaking exceedingly, to hear and see this tearing and renting asunder of the Lords body, through which his members joined themselves in companies factiously unto other heads, cried out aloud saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptised in the name of Paul? In such sort therefore did he decline the particular subiecting of the members of the Lords body to certain Heads, as it were, besides Christ, yea though they were the Apostles themselves. And what wilt thou be able to answer to Christ the Head of the universal Church in the trial of the last judgement, which goest about by assuming the title of universal Bishop, to put under thyself all the members of his mystical body? Who is it, I pray thee, whom thou proposest to thyself for imitation, in taking to thee so perverse a title, but he who despising the Legions of Angels, joined with him in society as companions, sought to climb up above them to the height of singularity, that neither he might seem to be under any, nor any might be found over whom he was not: who also said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the Stars of heaven, I will sit in the mountain of the testament, in the sides of the North; I will ascend above the height of the clouds, and will be like unto the most high. For what are thy brethren, all the Bishops of the universal Church, but the stars of Heaven; whose life, and tongue or speech, do shine in the midst of the sins and errors of men, as it were in the midst of the darkness of the night; whose name and honour while thou seemest to trample under thy feet, in that thou seekest by this title of pride to prefer thyself before them, what else dost thou say, but I will ascend into heaven, and exalt my seat above the Stars of heaven? Are not all the Bishops of the Church; clouds, who by the words of their preaching power down the graces of GOD like showers of rain, and shine through the light of good works, whom whiles your brotherhood despising seeketh to bring under itself, what other thing doth it say but this, which is said of the old enemy, I will ascend above the height of the clouds? And a little after, the same Gregory addeth: Surely Peter the Apostle was the first member of the holy and universal Church: Paul, Andrew, and john, what other thing are they but heads of particular parts of the people and Church of God? and yet notwithstanding they are all members of the Church under one head. Thus doth this holy man and worthy Bishop dislike, that any amongst the Bishops of the Christian Church, should be so proud and insolent, as to seek to be over all, and subject to none; to subject unto himself all the members of Christ, as to a head, and to challenge unto himself to be universal Bishop: 
b Greg. Epist. lib. 4. ep. 3 2.  for that if any such be, if he fall into error or heresy he draweth all other with him, and overthroweth the state of the whole church. Yet do the Roman Bishops at this day, take all these things unto themselves: for they subject all Christ's members to themselves, as to Heads of the universal church, upon peril of everlasting damnation: they will be subject to none, or have any to be over them, so that all depends of them, their standing is the stay of all, and their fall the ruin of all; and if they err, all err.  
But perhaps it will be said, that the name of universal Bishop is not simply evil, nor these claims simply to be disliked; but when they are made by them to whom it pertaineth not to make them, such as the Bishops of Constantinople were. Surely this evasion will not serve the turn. For Gregory saith in the same place, that no Bishop of Rome ever assumed this title, ne dum privatum aliquid darétur uni, honore debito Sacerdotes privarentur universi: that is, Lest while some singular thing were given to one, all Bishops should be deprived of their due honour: thereby showing, that this title, and the claims accompanying it, are simply to be disliked, as prejudicial to the state of the whole Church, & the honour & dignity of all other Bishops, by whomsoever they be made. Some man perhaps will be desirous to know, how our Adversaries seek to decline the evidence of this clear testimony of so great a Roman Bishop, witnessing against them in a matter of so great consequence. I will therefore set down briefly in this place, what I find any where said by any of them in answer to this authority. The credit of the Author is such, that they dare take no exception against him; and the generality of his speech is such, that what he disliketh in the Constantinopolitan Bishop, he confesseth to be evil in any other, and particularly in the Bishop of Rome. And therefore the only thing that they can devose, whereby to darken the clear light of truth, is this; that the Bishop of Constantinople did so, and in such sense challenge to be universal Bishop, that he only would have been a Bishop, and there should have been no more; than which nothing could be more absurdly said. For the thing that the Roman Bishops disliked in those of Constantinople, was not the putting of all other from being Bishops, but the preferring themselves before other, the subjecting of other to themselves, the encroaching upon the privileges and rights of other, and the challenging of the power of ordination, and confirmation of them, whom it pertained not to them to ordain or confirm; as appeareth by the Epistles of 
c Leo epist. 53.  Leo, blaming Anotolius for subjecting all unto himself, for depriving other metropolitans of their due honour, by encroaching upon their rights, and for taking upon him to ordain the Bishop of Antioch, who was one of the patriarchs. That the Bishops of Constantinople sought not so to be univer all Bishops, that there should be no other Bishops but they only, is most evident by the Epistles of Leo and 
d Vide epist: Gregor. supra citat.  Gregory, in that they ordained Bishops themselves, and are blamed by them for presuming to ordain such as they should not have ordained. Wherefore the most that they can be conceived to have desired, and sought in assuming the title of universality, is no more but the investing of the fullness of all power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical originally in themselves, and thereby the subjecting of all other to a necessity of deriving ministerial power and authority from them; of seeking ordination at their hands, and being in all things pertaining to Episcopal office subject to them: all which things are challenged by the Bishop of Rome, For the Romanists at this day teach, that the fullness of all power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical is originally in the Pope, & that he communicateth a part thereof unto others, with such limitations as seemeth best unto himself; that all other Bishops receive their jurisdiction from him; that all the Bishops of the world cannot judge him: that he may dispose of all the kingdoms of the world, that his standing is the stay of all: that his fall would be the ruin of all: and that therefore we must persuade ourselves he cannot err. And hence indeed it followeth, that he only is Bishop in truth, and that there are no other. For if the Pope may take from any Bishop, so often as he seeth cause, as many as he pleaseth of them that are subject to him: if he may reserve unto himself what cases he will, and inhibit Bishops to meddle with them: if he may give leave to preach, minister Sacraments, and to do all other Ecclesiastical duties, to whom he will, within any Diocese of the world: if in general counsels, where the power of jurisdiction is principally exercised, where the great affairs of the Church are treated of, where doubts are resolved, controversies determined, articles of faith defined, and laws made that bind the whole Church, he have so absolute power, that he is neither bound to follow the greater, nor the lesser part of Bishops there present, but may determine what he pleaseth, when they have all done, & said what they can. If the assurance of finding out the truth, and decreeing that which is good & behooveful, rest not partly in him, & partly in them, but only in him, as our Adversaries teach: then are Bishops indeed no Bishops: no judges of controversies, but counsellors only to advise the Pope: no Lawgivers' to the Church, but such as must receive laws from the Pope: no commanders in their own right in the Church in any degree, but mere Lievetenantes, or, to speak more truly and properly, vassals to the Pope.   

CHAP. 33.  
Of the proofs brought by the Romanists, for confirmation of the universality of the Pope's jurisdiction and power.  
IT is evident by that which hath been said, that that universality, whereof Gregory speaketh in his Epistles, and which he so peremptorily condemneth, is claimed by the Popes his successors, at this day; and consequently, that they are in his judgement the forerunners of Antichrist, and in pride like Lucifer. Yet because there is nothing so absurd, that some will not defend; nothing so false, which some will not endeavour to prove true: let us see what the Romanists can say for proof and confirmation of the universal jurisdiction of their Popes. Surely as men careful to uphold the state of the Papacy, under the shadow of the boughs of which tree they so sweetly rest, and repose themselves, they have turned over their books to see what may be said, and out of them allege against us the testimonies of Counsels, Popes, Father's Greek and Latin, and the practice of Popes, whence such a peerless power may be proved and inferred.  
The first testimony that they bring out of any Council, is out of the 
a Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 9 citat. a Bellarm. l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 13. & Bin. in annot. ad council. Constant. 1.  Epistle written by the Fathers of the second general Council to Damasus Bishop of Rome, & the other Bishops of the west; wherein the Fathers say, (if we believe these men) that they came together to Constantinople by the mandate of the Pope, whose letters the Emperor sent unto them: and confess, that the Roman Church is the head, and they the members. Truly this is a very ill beginning, and may make us justly fear, that we shall find little good dealing in that which followeth. For there is no part of this true, which, in the front of all their proofs, is by them so confidently alleged. For thus the matter standeth between the Fathers of that Council, and the Bishop of Rome. The Bishops assembled at Constantinople writ to the Bishop of Rome, and the rest of the Bishops of the West assembled in a Council at Rome, signifying, that they had been invited by them out of their brotherly love, as their own members, to come to their Council; and that they wished nothing more, then that they had the wings of doves, that they might fly away, and rest with them; but that the state of their Churches not permitting them to be so long absent, and that intending at the time they understood of their letters, to come no farther than Constantinople, they could not come, but had sent notwithstanding certain unto them. This is all that is contained in the letter of those Fathers written to the Bishop of Rome: in all which there is no word of any mandate of the Pope, but of a friendly and loving entreaty of the Western Bishops, desiring the presence of their brethren of the East; no word of head and members, but of fellow members, nor any thing that may prove a commanding power in the Pope. Nay, the contrary is most strongly from hence to be proved. 
* Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 7.  For it was the Emperor, and not the Pope, that called them to Constantinople: they refused to come to Rome, though they had received the letters of the Roman Bishop, and his colleagues, entreating and desiring them to come to Rome, they abode at Constantinople, and were esteemed to be the General Council, though the Pope held a Council in the West at the same time, which should have been accounted general, rather than this, if all assurance of finding out the truth, and making good Laws, did rest in the Pope only. And lastly, they ordained Bishops of the greatest and most famous Churches of the world, such, and in such sort, as the Pope did not greatly like, and yet was forced to give way to their doings, and to ratify that which they had done.  
The 2d allegation to prove the universality of the Pope's jurisdiction, is, 
b Bellarm. ubi suprá.  that the Fathers of the 3d general Council, holden at Ephesus, professed, that they deposed Nestorius by force of the mandatory letters of Caelestinus B. of Rome, & that in their epistle to Caelestinus they say, they reserved the judgement of the cause of john Patriarch of Antioch to him, as being more doubtful. The former of these two things they endeavour to prove out of 
c Euagrius hist. lib. 1. cap. 4.  Euagrius; the later out of the Epistle written by the Fathers of that Council, extant in the Council itself. For the clearing of this objection we must observe, that 
d See these things in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, the 7. books of Socrates hist and the first of Euagrius.  Nestorius' Patriarch of Constantinople, having uttered certain heretical, and impious speeches, touching the personal union of the natures of God and Man in Christ, whereby many were scandalised, the first amongst the patriarchs that took notice of it, was Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt; who after he found, that Nestorius would not be reclaimed by admonitions, called a Synod of his Bishops, and condemned the absurd and heretical positions of Nestorius, and required him to anathematise them, otherwise threatening, that he and his Bishops, would reject him from their communion, and hold them as brethren who under his jurisdiction resisted against him. This his proceeding he signified to the Bishop of Rome, who approved and commended the same; & with his whole Synod of western Bishops encouraged him to go forward, wishing him not to doubt of his concurrence with him, but as having all the authority and power he and his Bishops had, to provide for the church of Constantinople, and to let Nestorius know, that he was cut off from the unity of the body of their Churches, if he should not within a certain number of days anathematise his wicked doctrine, and profess the faith touching the generation of Christ the Son of God, which the Roman Church, the Church of Alexandria, and Christian religion every where preacheth. Hereupon Nestorius, fearing the course that Cyrill would take against him, desired the Emperor to summon a general Council. To this Council came Nestorius, and the Bishops that were under him: and Cyrill, with his Bishops, assisted with the concurrence of the resolution and direction of the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of the West, though absent; But john the Patriarch of Antioch and his Bishops were not come. Whereupon after a while, the Bishops that were present, being weary of staying there, began to proceed without him, requiring Nestorius to appear in the Synod, and to answer to such things as should be objected to him; Which when he refused to do, the Fathers assembled, finding by manifest proof, that he had taught impiously, condemned, and deposed him, compelled so to do by the Canons, and the letters of the Bishop of Rome, and his western Bishops, who had set a time, within which if he submitted not himself, they would reject him from their communion. Five days after the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius, came john the Patriarch of Antioch with his Bishops, excusing himself for his long tarrying in respect of the distance of the place from whence he came, as also for that his Bishops could not sooner be gathered together. He was much offended, that they who were come before him had passed their sentence before his coming; and thereupon without delay, before he had put off his cloak, or shaken off the dust from his feet, as the story saith, assembling the Bishop's subject to him in a Synod, deposed 
〈◊〉 Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. cap. 17.  Cyrill and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, who were chief agents in the proceedings against Nestorius. Which deposition of Cyrill and Memnon, was something hastily confirmed by the Emperor Theodosius. The Synod assembled under Cyrill, in like sort gave sentence against john, and signified to Caelestinus Bishop of Rome, what they had done, showing how unadvisedly a few had presumed to condemn a great many, and the Bishop of the third See, Bishops of greater Sees, to wit, Cyrill of Alexandria, and Caelestinus of Rome, who was present in the Council by his Vicegerent: yet referring the final proceeding to his consideration also, he and his Bishops being as much interessed in this business, as they that were assembled. In the end by mediation of many great and worthy ones, john and his Bishops, that formerly were misconceited of Cyrill, were satisfied, and he sent the confession of his faith unto him; which he approved, and so they were reconciled, and made friends without any farther intermeddling of the Bishop of Rome. Here is nothing to be found, that any way argueth or importeth an universality of power in the Bishop of Rome, but only his concurrence with the other patriarchs, as prime Patriarch, in the weighty and important businesses of the Church: and therefore the 
f Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. cap. 19  Fathers of that Council writing to the Vicars of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops, sent by them to the Emperor, to inform him concerning the differences that had arisen in the Council, and their proceedings, charge and require them to do nothing but according to their direction; assuring them, that if they do otherwise, they will neither ratify that they do, nor admit them to their communion: Thereby showing, that though the Roman Bishop be to concur with the Fathers assembled in Counsels, yet he is not absolutely there to command, but to follow the directions of the Mayor part. So that he hath a joint interest with others, but not an absolute Sovereignty over all others; God therefore having ordained the high tops of patriarchical dignities (as it is in the eighth general 
g Apud Binnium Conciliorum. Tom. 3. part 2. Act. 1. pag. 881.  Council) that they might jointly concur to uphold the state of the Church, and the truth of Religion; and that if one fell, the rest might restore, settle, and re-establish things again: Which course 
h Cyril. Ep. inter acta Ephe. Conc.  Cyrill in his Epistle to john of Antioch showeth to have been holden by him. For when he observed that Nestorius his fellow Patriarch erred from the faith, he first admonished him, and threatened to reject him from the communion of his Churches. Secondly, he acquainted the Bishop of Rome and the Western Bishops with the impieties and blasphemies of Nestorius; who thereupon rejected him, professing that they would admit none to their communion, but such as would condemn him. Thirdly, he wrote to juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, and to john Bishop of Antioch, showing his own dislike of Nestorius, and farther professing, that for his part he was fearful to be cast out of the communion of the Western Bishops, as he saw he must be, if he accursed not Nestorius.  
The next allegation is out of the Council of 
i Actione. 3.  Chalcedon, where Theodorus and Ischiron, Deacons, in their bills of complaint exhibited to the Bishop of Rome as precedent, and to the whole Council, call Leo the Bishop, Most holy and most blessed universal Archbishop, and Patriarch of great Rome. But they that press the testimony of these two distressed Deacons, flying to Leo for help, should remember, that in the Council of 
k Actione 5. pag. 455. 460. apud Binnium, tom. 2.  Constantinople under Mennas, not Deacons, but Bishops, & they many, are reported to have written to the Bishop of Constantinople in this sort: To our most holy Lord, and most blessed Father of Fathers, john, the Archbishop, and universal Patriarch; and 
l Eodem Tomo pag. 438.  Mennas himself also is called Ecumenical Patriarch, & Archbishop, oftentimes in that Council of Constantinople: and yet, I think, they will not acknowledge the Bishops of Constantinople to have had an universal, supreme commanding power over the whole world.  
Hereunto therefore they add another proof, out of the relation of the 
m Actione 16. pag. 139.  Council of Chalcedon made to Leo; wherein the Fathers complain of Dioscorus, that as a wild Boar he had violently entered into the vineyard of the Lord, and wasted the same, plucking up the true fruitful vines, and planting unfruitful in their places; and that he stayed not there, but reached out his hand against him to whom the keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Saviour, that is, against the Bishop of Rome, whom he thought to excommunicate. These words we willingly confess, to be words of just complaint, upon great cause made by the Fathers of the Council, against Dioscorus; but they prove not the thing in question. For we make no doubt, but the keeping of the vineyard of the Lord of hosts was committed to the Bishop of Rome, not only as well as to other, but in the first place, as being in order and honour the chief: But that he only received from Christ this power, authority & charge, and others from him, not we only, but many learned amongst themselves do deny, as 
n De Pontif. Rom. l. 4. c. 22.  Bellarmine testifieth.  
There are two other testimonies that may be alleged out of the Council of Chalcedon. For Paschasinus, one of the Vicegerents of the Bishop of Rome in that Council, calleth 
o Conc. Chalced. act. 1. p. 4.  Rome the head of the churches, and 
p In Exempl. epist. Paschasini, pag. 141.  Leo the Bishop of Rome, head of the universal Church. But they who press so much the saying of the Pope's Legate in favour of the Pope, must know, that by head he meant chief in order and honour, and not one having all power originally in himself, and absolutely commanding over all, as the Papists now teach. For if he had meant so, he had not been endured by the Fathers of that Council, who peremptorily pronounce, 
q Act. 15 chap. 28.  that it was the greatness of the city, and not any power given by Christ or derived to him from Peter, that made the Bishop of Rome to be great; & that therefore they would equal the Bishop of Constantinople unto him, seeing Constantinople was now become equal unto Rome.  
The next testimony that they allege, is out of the patriarchical Council of 
r Actione 4.  Constantinople under Mennas, wherein the Fathers profess by Mennas their precedent, that they follow and obey the apostolic See, that they communicate with them with whom that See communicateth, and condemn all those it condemneth. Surely, this reason, howsoever it may seem to have some force, yet indeed hath none at all. For there is no question, but that the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods, all which according to the phrase of Antiquity, are comprehended under the name of the apostolic See, was more to be esteemed then the particular Synod under Mennas; and that therefore they might profess to follow it, and obey the decrees of it; and yet neither think the Pope to be universal Bishop, nor that the Bishop of Rome with his Western Bishops, is more to be listened unto, and obeyed, than all the other Bishops of the Christian World. That 
s Ep. ad Tharas. in conc. 7. act. 2  Adrian the Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle to Tharasius inserted into the seventh general Council, saith, that the See of Rome hath the primacy throughout the whole world, and is the head of all Churches (which is the last allegation of Bellarmine out of Counsels) is no more than we granted before, if it be rightly understood of a primacy of order and honour, and not of an universal, supreme, commanding power over all.  
This is all that Bellarmine can allege out of any ancient Council: in which his allegations, it will not be amiss for the Reader to observe his guileful cunning: who undertaking to produce the testimonies of ancient Counsels for confirmation of the Papacy, bringeth nothing for the most part, but the words of particular men: and they either suitors to the Pope, agents for him, or Popes. To that which he hath out of latter Counsels, as that of Lateran under Innocentius, and that of Lions, and Florence, I will answer when I come to show the opinions of latter times touching the Pope's universality of jurisdiction and power, and therefore will pass them over in this place.   

CHAP. 34.  
Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's jurisdiction, taken out of the Decretal Epistles of Popes.  
THE next proofs that are brought for confirmation of the universality of Papal jurisdiction, are the sayings of Popes in their Decretal Epistles. These Epistles 
a De Pont. l. 2. c. 1●…4.  Bellarmine sorteth into three ranks, placing in the first the Epistles of those Popes that lived within the first 300 years: in the second, the Epistles of those that lived after the first 600 years: and in the third, the Epistles of such as came in the midst between these.  
Touching the first, he confesseth, that certain errors have crept into them, and that he dareth not pronounce them to be indubitate: but Cardinal Cusanus, a man of great learning, reading, and judgement, minseth not the matter, as Bellarmine doth, but plainly and in direct words professeth, that he thinketh these Epistles that go under the names of ancient Popes, are counterfeit. His words are these. 
b Cusan. de concord. cath. l. 〈◊〉. c. 2.  In my opinion, the things that are written of Constantine and his donation, are Apocryphal, as also perhaps some other long and large writings, attributed to the holy men Clemens and Anacletus the Pope, on which, they that desire to magnify the Roman See, which is worthy of all honour, and to exalt it more than either is expedient for the Church, or is any way fit, do either altogether, or in some sort ground themselves. For assuredly, if any man would diligently read over and peruse all the writings attributed to those holy men, and compare the times wherein they lived with those writings, and then would be conversant in the works of all the holy Fathers, which were till the time of Augustine, Hierome, and Ambrose, and in the books of Counsels, wherein authentical writings are alleged, committing them to memory, & making use of them, he would find this to be true, that neither any mention is made of those forenamed Epistles in any of those writings, nor that the epistles compared with the times wherein their supposed authors lived, can be made to agree with the times of their life; but by the very circumstance of time bewray themselves to be counterfeit. It is written in the Epistles of Clemens, how he was made Pope and succeeded Peter: and after the death of Peter, the author of these Epistles writeth unto james, who was brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem: and yet it is most manifest that the same james died eight years before Peter, which was one of the causes (as Beda writeth in his commentaries upon the Canonical Epistles) why the Epistle of james is set first among the Catholic Epistles. Neither is this the censure of Cusanus only, but 
c Contius annotat in dist. 26. cap. 70.  Contius a learned Canonist, in his annotations upon Gratian, feareth not to pronounce all the decretal Epistles, that go under the names of such Bishops, as lived before Sylvester, to be false and counterfeit. Besides these censures of learned men, there want not strong and effectual reasons to disprove these Epistles. For first, they will easily appear to be counterfeit, because they are barbarously, and rudely written, and are not like the writings of those men, that lived in the times wherein the supposed authors of those Epistles did live, but like the writings of such as lived in later and worse times, after Barbarism had prevailed and overflown all. Secondly, because the style is so different from those indubitate remainders of the Epistles of the same Popes, found in 
d Cypr. epist. 46. & 48. in edit. Pammelij.  Cyprian, 
e Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 42.  Eusebius, and 
f Athanas. apologia. 2.  Athanasius, that they cannot be but counterfeit: For whosoever shall compare them, shall find them to differ as much as gold and dross. Thirdly, for that all these supposed Epistles are so like one another in style, and oftentimes have the very same sentences, that it is very likely they came all from one and the same forge. Fourthly, because neither Eusebius, Hierome, nor any other ancient writer maketh any mention of them. Fiftly, because they follow not the old translation in their allegations of Scripture, but that of Hierome, which was not in being in those times, wherein the supposed Authors of these Epistles did live. Lastly, which is the reason before used by 
g Loco citato. vide etiam Binnium in annor. in epist. Clem.  Cusanus, because the Epistle to james written after the death of Peter, as appear in the front of it, and so consequently after the twelfth year of Nero, could not be written to james the brother of our Lord, who, as 
h Hieron: Catalogue. Script. Eccl. in jacobo.  Hierome testifieth, was slain at Jerusalem in the seaventh year of Nero. But whatsoever become of the censure of learned men branding these Epistles with the note of forgery, and the reasons brought to disprove them, which cannot easily be answered; yet Bellarmine will prove, that these Epistles are mentioned by the ancient, and consequently, that the 
i Cent. 2. cap. 7. ad finem.  Centurie-writers say untruly, that hardly any shall be found before the time of Charles the great, that speaketh any thing of them. To this purpose he produceth Isidore, in his preface before his collection of the Counsels, affirming, that he gathered Canons out of the Epistles of Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus, and the rest of the Roman Bishops, by the advice of eighty Bishops; but this is to justify one counterfeit by another; For this preface is thought to be counterfeit, because in it there is mention made of the sixth general Council under Agatho, whereas Isidore was dead forty years before the holding of that Council. Wherefore he allegeth the Council of Vase, as mentioning the same decretals. But the decrees of that Council are uncertain, as 
k Binnius annot. in Conc. Vasens. 2.  Binnius noteth, by reason of the great confusion that is found in them: and truly, I think, there is no man that can make any sense of that which is cited out of Clement's Epistles by that Council. Therefore in the third place he addeth Ruffinus, who in his preface before his translation of the recognitions of Clemens out of Greek, speaketh of an Epistle of Clement unto james the brother of our Lord, and saith, he turned it out of Greek into Latin: and this, saith Bellarmime which we have, is undoubtedly the same that he translated, as may be proved out of 
l Genna Catalogue. illustrium virorum.  Gennadius: therefore the Epistle that is now carried about under the the name of Clemens, is ancient, and not late or counterfeit. But that these Philistines may fall by their own sword, we will oppose against Bellarmine the Cardinal, Baronius the Cardinal, against the Roman reader of controversies, the Roman Annalist. For 
m Baron. Anno 102. num. 6.  Baronius proveth out of 
n De viris l. lustr. cap. 17. vide Annot. Binnij in 1. Ep. Clement. ad jacobum.  Gennadius, whom Bellarmine allegeth, that these Epistles we have, are not the same that Ruffinus translated, because those he translated had prefaces before them, but this of Clement hath none. Thus we see the Epistles of the Popes of the first 300 years, prove nothing, because they are counterfeit.  
Of them that were written by such as lived after the first 600 years, I shall have a fit opportunity to speak in another place. Wherefore let us come to those of the middle rank, where Bellarmine produceth twelve ancient Bishops of Rome, claiming that supreme, absolute, and commanding authority over the whole Church, which we deny.  
The first of the twelve, is julius the first, in his Epistle extant in the second Apology of Athanasius. The witness is good, and we will not except against him, but he deposeth directly against them that produce him; neither is there any better evidence to be desired, than this his Epistle. For the Bishops of the East having written to julius, and blamed him for communicating with such as they rejected, & going about to reverse the acts which they had agreed on; and having told him, that the greatness of cities maketh not the power of Bishops to be the greater: and that therefore he should not taken on him to be greater than other Bishops, and to undo that which they had done, because he was Bishop of a greater city than any of them was; he answereth modestly in this his Epistle, that he hopeth he offendeth not in desiring them to come to a Synod, that therein their proceedings might be examined; seeing the Nicene Council appointeth the acts of one Counecll to be reëxamined in another. Secondly he showeth, that they whom they sent to inform him & the Western Bishops, touching their proceedings against Athanasius, being convicted by the Presbyters of Athanasius, desired him to call a Council of his own Bishops, and to write to Athanasius, and those of Eusebius part to come unto the same; wherein they doubted not, but they should prove the things they had alleged. Thirdly, he showeth that if without the solicitation of their Agents he had desired them to meet in Council, it had been no fault, nor any way prejudicial unto them. Fourthly, that they who will not have their proceedings reëxamined contemn Counsels, by admitting such as were condemned by the Nicene Council; that Athanasius was not condemned at Tyrus; that he was not present when he was condemned at Mareotta; and that many wrote in his defence, to him & the other Bishops of the West; & that yet he foreiudged nothing, but would have had matters defined in a Council. Fiftly, he showeth that though he wrote alone, yet he reported not his own opinion only, but of all the Bishops of Italy, and the countries thereabout. Lastly, he telleth them, that the Bishops they proceeded against, being no vulgar persons, but Bishops of such churches as the Apostles themselves planted, before they had proceeded against them, they should first have written to him and his colleagues, that from thence might have been defined, what was right and good; than which course what could be more fitting? For Athanasius Bishop of the second See, with other his adherents, were not to be judged by Bishops of an inferior rank, especially in a matter concerning the faith, without first consulting the Bishop of the first See, & his colleagues, that from thence an action of such consequence might take beginning. And therefore julius rightly telleth the oriental Bishops, that in their rash proceeding against so great & worthy a Bishop, as was Athanasius, they had offended against the ordinations of Paul; that the Fathers had not taught them so to do; and that he had received otherwise from blessed Peter. Here is nothing found, for any thing I see, that any way proveth the Pope to have a supreme commanding power over the whole church; but rather the contrary: For he doth nothing, without the Synod of the Western Bishops: He challengeth not the right of judging the causes of the oriental Bishops, either by himself alone, or with his Synod of Western Bishops: much less deriveth the claim of any such right from Peter; as the jesuit untruly misreporteth the matter; but thinketh, that the final, and supreme judging of them, pertaineth to a general Council.  
The next allegation is out of an 
o Apud Theodor. l. 5. hist. Eccles. c. 9  Epistle of Damasus, wherein writing to the Bishops of the East, he commendeth them that they gave due reverence to the See apostolic, and calleth them sons. To what purpose this allegation serveth, I know not. For if any man do think it consequent, that the Pope hath an universal commanding power over all, because the Bishops of the East yielded a kind of due respect and reverence to the See apostolic, (that is, to the Bishop of Rome, and his colleagues) for that it was in order and honour the first See; he is greatly deceived, and may be confuted out of the 
p Apud Theodor. 10.  Epistle of the oriental Bishops, in answer whereof Damasus writeth. For they write unto him, not as to their Lord and Commander, but as to their brother and colleague; and direct not their letters to him only, but to him and the other Bishops of the West. Their Epistle beginneth in this sort. To their brethren and Colleagues, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerianus, Acholius, etc. and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome. Where by the way, we may observe, that howsoever Damasus call them sons, as being Bishops of meaner places, & inferior Sees, yet they call him brother and colleague, as being equal in office and power, though inferior in order and honour. Besides this, they refused to come to Rome, though earnestly entreated by Damasus so to do, but stayed at Constantinople, and there held a Council, wherein they condemned the heresies of the Eunomians, & Macedonians; ordained sundry Bishops, as the Bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, Nectarius, Flavianus, and Cyrill: they made the Bishop of Constantinople a Patriarch, and set him in degree of honour next unto the Bishop of Rome. These ordinations 
Vide notas Binnii in Council Constantin. Primum conc. tom. 1.  of Nectarius, and Flavianus especially, Damasus liked not, and yet was forced to give way unto them, and to yield to the Bishops assembled at Constantinople, (being but an hundred and fifty in number) the name of the general Council, though about the same time, he, and all the Bishops of the West were assembled at Rome. Wherefore this testimony might well have been spared. The next allegation out of the 
q Damas. ep. 4●…  Epistle of Damasus to the Bishops of Numidia, is less to be esteemed then the former; seeing that Epistle hath many things in it, which cannot agree with the state of things in those times. For if the Africans had been so willing to refer all greater matters by way of appeal to Rome, as the Epistle of Stephen, in answer whereunto this of Damasus is written, importeth; how could it have come to pass, that in Zozymus his time, appeals to Rome should seem so strange, as it appeareth they did?  
That which is alleged out of the Epistle of Syricius to Himericus, Bishop of Tarracon, and of Zozymus to Hesychius, Bishop of Salona, is to little purpose; for that Syricius saith, he is more zealous of true Religion, than all other Christians, and that he beareth the burden of all that are grieved, is no more than is attributed to 
r Basil. ep. 48  Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria. Neither is it to be marvailed at, that he saith, the Bishop of Tarracon referred certain matters to the Church of Rome, as to the head of his body, seeing he was one of the Bishops that were subject to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West. Which also is the reason why Zozymus giveth directions to the Bishop of Salona, touching the time they of the Clergy were to continue in every of the lower degrees, before they might be preferred to higher, wishing him to acquaint others near unto him with the same, and to assure them, that he should answer it with the loss of his place, whosoever should contemn the authority of the Fathers, and neglect his prescriptions.  
The next Pope that is produced as a witness, is 
s Innocent. cp. 22. ad Episcop. Maced.  Innocentius the first, in his Epistles to the Bishops of Macedonia, & the 
t Inter Epistolas August. ep. 91. & 93.  Fathers assembled in the counsels of Milevis & Carthage; out of which Epistles, four things are alleged for proof of the Pope's supremacy. The first is, that the Church of Rome is by him called head of Churches, yea the wellspring, and head of all Churches, The second, that doubtful cases were referred to the See of Rome by the Bishops of Macedonia. The third, that all the Bishops of the world, were wont to consult the Roman Bishop, in doubtful questions touching matters of faith. The fourth, that the Roman Bishops have the care of all Churches. To these several objections framed out of the Epistles of this Roman Bishop, we answer briefly: First, that the Church of Rome was head of all Churches; that is, first in order and honour amongst them, but not in absolute supreme commanding power. Secondly, that the Church of Rome was in more special sort head of such Churches, as were within the Patriarchship of Rome (as Macedonia was in Innocentius his time) and that this was the reason, why the Bishops of Macedonia referred their doubts to the determination of the See of Rome. Thirdly, that all the Bishops of the world consulted the apostolic See of Rome, and the Bishop thereof, in controversies of Faith and Religion, not as an absolute supreme judge, to whose determinations they were bound to stand, but as their most honourable Colleague, interessed as much as any of them in the maintenance of the truth of Religion, and the determination of things questioned concerning the Faith. Fourthly, that they did not consult the person of the Bishop of Rome alone, but all the Bishops of the West together with him, who were a great and principal part of the Christian world, though sometimes he only be named, as being the Precedent of all the Synods of Bishops throughout the West. Fiftly, that the Bishops of Rome had the care of all Churches, not as absolute supreme commanders, but as most honourable amongst the Bishops, and Pastors of Churches, who were first to be sought unto in matters requiring a common deliberation, and from whom, all things generally concerning the state of the whole Church, were either to take beginning, or at the least to seek confirmation before they were generally imposed, and prescribed; that so being rightly determined by the Bishops of the chief and principal Churches, other Churches might receive the same, like waters flowing from a fountain, and running in purity in all Churches, according to the purity of the head and beginning.  
The sixth Bishop of Rome that is produced to give testimony for the Pope's supremacy, is Leo the first, out of whom seven things are alleged: whereof the first is, that he 
u Leo epist. 84.  appointed Anastasius the Bishop of Thessalonica, to be his Vicegerent for the government of the Provinces far off from him: whence it may be inferred as our Adversaries think, that the Bishops of Rome had an universal commanding power over all the world. The second, that he 
x Idem epist. 46.  commandeth Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople. The third, that he 
y Idem epist. 62.  wisheth the Bishop of Antioch to write often to him, touching the affairs and state of the Churches. The fourth, that 
z Ibidem.  Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria besought him, not to permit Iwenall Bishop of Jerusalem, to prejudice the right of the Church of Antioch, and to subject Palestina to himself. The fifth, that he 
a Idem epist. 81  commanded Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria. The sixth, that he 
b Idem epist. 87.  intermeddled in Africa. And the last, that he 
c Idem Serm 1. in natal. Apost.  saith, that Rome had a larger extent of Presidence, in that by Peter's chair she was made the head of all Churches, then in that, in respect of earthly dominion, she was Lady and Mistress of a great part of the world. To all these objections thus mustered together out of the writings of Leo, we answer in this sort. First, that Thessalonica was within the Patriarchship of Rome, and that therefore the Bishop of Rome, might have a Vicegerent there, to dispatch some of those things that pertained to him as Patriarch, and yet have no universal commanding power over all the world. Secondly we say, that Leo did not acknowledge Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople to be a Patriach, and that therefore it followeth not, that he would have presumed to have commanded a Patriarch, if he had commanded him: but that indeed he did not command him. For thus the case stood. 
d Vide Epist. 46. Leonis.  After the Council of Ephesus wherein diverse Bishops compelled by Dioscorus, subscribed to impious decrees, Leo besought the Emperor, that a general Council might be called; but because by reason of wars in many parts of the world, such a Council could not conveniently be presently called, he sent certain commissioners to Constantinople, who taking to them the Bishop of Constantinople, and being assisted by him and the Bishops thereabout, might, upon repentance and due satisfaction, reconcile and again admit to the communion of their Churches, such as they should think fit. These commissioners Leo directed and commanded, as in right he might: But that he specially commanded the Bishop of Constantinople, it cannot be proved. Thirdly we say, that Leo in brotherly sort wished the Bishop of Antioch to resist heretics: and to let him understand of the state of the Churches, and to be a consort of the apostolic See in this care: to see that the privileges of the third See were not diminished by any man's ambition, assuring him, that whensoever he will do any thing for the advancing of the dignity of the See of Antioch, he also will be ready to concur with him. In all which passages between Leo and the Bishop of Antioch, there is nothing found that hath any show of proof of the Pope's supremacy. Fourthly, we say that Cyrill the Patriarch of Alexandria, besought Leo to give no consent to the attempts of Iwenall Bishop of Jerusalem, seeking to prejudice the Church of Antioch, & to subject Palaestina to himself: but that he besought Leo, not to permit, nor suffer Palaestina to be taken from Antioch, and subjected to the Church of Jerusalem (as if the whole power of permitting or hindering this thing, had rested in Leo) is but the false report of the Cardinal, according to his wont manner of misse-alleaging authors for the the advantage of his cause. So that the disposition of this matter rested not wholly in Leo, but his concurrence with the Bishops of Antioch, and Alexandria, was necessary for the withstanding of the attempts of Iwenall; which his concurrence and help, he promised the Bishop of Antioch, as we have already heard, and was ever ready to yield the same unto him. Fiftly we say that Leo did not command Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria: but whereas the manner was, when the patriarchs were first elected & ordained, that they should mutually consent one to another, and that he who was newly ordained, should send unto the rest his Synodall letters, and testimonies of his lawful election and ordination: Dioscorus being newly elected, & appointed Patriarch of Alexandria, sendeth his Synodall letters to Leo Bishop of Rome, that so he might give his consent, & receive & embrace him as his fellow Patriarch. Leo, that these beginnings of Dioscorus might be more sure and firm, & nothing wanting to perfection, fatherly, as more ancient, and brotherly, as of the same rank with him, putting him in mind of some differences between their two Churches, about the time of the ordination of Ministers; and for that it seemed not likely unto him, that Mark the scholar of Peter took any other order in this behalf than Peter did, saith unto him; We will have you to observe, that which our Fathers ever observed; making this a condition of the allowance & consent he was to yield unto him; and urging the practice of the Apostles, saith, he shall do well, if obeying these Apostolical institutions, he shall cause that form of ordination to be kept in the Churches over which God hath set him, which is observed in the Churches of the West; that Ministers of the Church may be ordained only on the Lord's day, on which day the creation of the world was begun, in which Christ rose, in which death was destroyed; and life, after which there is no death, took beginning; in which the Apostles received from the Lord the trumpet of preaching the Gospel, & the ministration of the Sacrament of regeneration. Sixtly we say, that Leo intermeddleth in the Churches of Africa, and requireth some ordained contrary to the Canons, to be put from their places: tolerateth others, and willeth the cause of Lupicinus, a Bishop who had appealed unto him, to be heard there, because he was Patriarch of the West: and these parts of Africa were within his Patriarchship: and that yet this his intermeddling in so particular sort with the affairs of the African Churches, was not very pleasing unto those of Africa, as shall appear by that which followeth. Lastly, we say that the Church of Rome was the head of all Churches in the sense before expressed, and had a presidence of order and honour amongst them: and had in that sort, as Leo truly saith, more subject to it, than ever were under the Roman Empire: but under any absolute, supreme commanding power of the Church of Rome they were not. But, saith Bellarmine, if the former testimonies of Leo be avoided, there is one more yet behind so clear and full for the supremacy of the Pope, that nothing can be said in answer unto it, in his Epistle to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. His words are these: 
e Leo Epist. 84.  Amongst the most blessed Apostles, like in honour, there was a certain difference and distinction of power; and whereas they were equally chosen, yet notwithstanding it was given to one of them to have a preeminence amongst the rest, from which form, the distinction and difference, that is amongst Bishops, hath taken beginning; and by a most wise disposition it hath been provided, that all without difference shall not challenge all unto themselues, but that there should be in several provinces several Bishops, whose sentence & judgement should be first and chief amongst the brethren; and again certain other constituted and placed in greater cities, who might take the care of more than the former, by whom the care of the whole Church might flow unto that one seat of Peter, and nothing any where might descent from the head. These words truly make a goodly show, and may seem most strongly to prove the supremacy that the Popes now challenge: but in very deed they most powerfully overthrow it. For the Bishops of Rome will never be persuaded in proportionable sort as is expressed in the words of Leo, to challenge no more in respect of the whole Church, than the Metropolitan Bishops do in respect of their Provinces, and the patriarchs in respect of their Churches of a larger extent: For than they must do nothing, but accordingly as they shall be swayed by the major part of the voices of the Bishops of the Christian Church. For the Metropolitan may do nothing in his province, nor the Patriarch in his larger extent, but as they shall be directed, & swayed by the major part of the voices of their Bishops: and yet surely the meaning of Leo was not to give so much to the Bishop of Rome, in respect of all Christian Bishops, as pertaineth to the metropolitans and patriarchs, in respect of their Bishops. For the Metropolitan is to ordain the Bishops of the Province, and the Patriarch to ordain and confirm the metropolitans by imposition of hands, or mission of the Pall: but the Pope never had any such power in respect of the patriarchs, who were only to send their Synodall Epistles to him, testifying their faith, as he likewise to them, without expecting any other confirmation than that mutual consent, whereby one of them assured of the right faith and lawful ordination of another, received and embraced each other as fellows and colleagues. So that that care of the universal Church, which Leo saith, floweth together, and cometh up to that one chair of Peter, is to be understood only in respect of things concerning the common faith, & general state of the Church, or of the principal, most eminent, & highest parts, & members of the same: none of which things might be proceeded in, without the Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues: but otherwise he was not to intermeddle with inferior persons and causes, within the jurisdiction of other patriarchs, neither immediately, nor upon appeal, and complaint.  
The 7 t● Roman Bishop brought to testify for the absolute supreme power of Popes, is Gelasius: out of whom two things are alleged: The first is, that he 
f Gelas. cp. ad cp. Dardan.  saith, the See of Peter hath power to lose that which the Bishops of other Churches have bound. The second, that 
g Idem cp. ad Anast. Imperat.  it hath power to judge of every Church, & that no Church may judge of the judgement of it. For answer to this testimony of Gelasius, first we say, that the Church of Rome may not meddle with reviewing, reexamining, or reversing the acts of other Churches, proceeding against Laymen or inferior Cleargymen. Secondly, that in the case of a Bishop complaining of wrong, by the authority of the Council of 
h Cap. 7  Sardica, she might interpose herself, not so as to bring the matter to Rome, there to be heard: but so far forth only, as to command and appoint a review to be taken, by the Bishops of the next bordering Province, or at the most to send some Commissioners to sit with such second judges. Thirdly, that in cases which concerned the principal patriarchs, whether they were differences between them & their Bishops, or between themselves, the chief See, as the principal part of the whole Church might interpose itself. Neither was this proper to the See of Rome: for other Patriarches likewise of the higher thrones, might interpose themselues in matters concerning the Patriarches of inferior thrones: whence it is, that Basil writing to Athanasius Bishop of the second See, 
i Basil. cp. 48  telleth him, that the ordering of the Church of Antioch, which was the 3d See, did pertain to him, & that he was to see to the settling of things there, though the quieting of the whole East required the help of the Occidental Bishops: & 
k Act. council. Ephes.  Cyril in the case of Nestorius not yet fully established, in the right of a Patriarch intermeddled, & proceeded so far as to reject him & his adherents from the communion of the churches of Egypt, Lybia, & Pentapolis. But the B. of the inferior thrones, might not judge the superior: & therefore 
l Ibid.  john of Antioch of the 3d See, is reprehended & reproved for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d See: & Dioscorus Bishop of the 2d See, is condemned in the council of 
m In epist. add Martian. & Valentinian. Imp. & in altera ad ipsum Leonem quae habetur act. 3. eius. conc.  Chalcedon, as for other things, so for this among other, that he presumed to judge the first See. So that this is it which Gelasius saith, that the See of Rome, that is, the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of the West, may judge and examine the differences between patriarchs, or between patriarchs and their Bishops; but neither so peremptorily, nor finally, but that such judgement may be reviewed and reexamined in a general Council: and that no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome, seeing every other See is inferior to it; no way denying, but that a general Council may review, remexamine, and reverse the acts & judgements of the Roman See; as being greater, and of more ample authority. Neither truly can there be any better proof against the pretended supremacy of the Popes, than this Epistle, the circumstances whereof are these. Acatius Bishop of Constantinople, for communicating with certain Eutichian Heretics, was by the See of Rome condemned; some disliked his proceeding against him, because a Synod was not specially summoned for the purpose, especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely city; Gelasius standeth not upon the claim of universal power, thereby to justify his proceeding, but answereth; First, that Eutiches being condemned in the Council of Chalcedon, all such were accursed likewise, as should either by defence of such error, or communicating with men so erring, fall into the fellowship of the same heresy, and that therefore there needed no Synod, but the See apostolic might execute that was there decreed. Secondly, that the Catholic Bishops in the East being deposed, and Heretics thrust into their places, there was no reason why he should have consulted with them. Thirdly, that he did nothing of himself, but with a Synod of the Western Bishops.  
The next four Bishops produced by the Cardinal, are john the second, Anastasius the second, Felix the fourth, and Pelagius the second; out of whom he allegeth nothing but this, that the See of Peter holdeth the chiefty assigned of the Lord in the universal Church, and that the church of Rome is the head of all churches. Whereunto we briefly answer, that the See of Peter ever held the chiefty, & that the church of Rome was ever the head of all churches, not in universality of absolute supreme power & commanding authority, but in order & honour in sort before expressed: & that by the See of Peter and church of Rome, is meant the whole West church, & not precisely the Diocese of Rome, as likewise we have noted before; and therefore these allegations to prove the Pope's supremacy over all Bishops, are nothing to the purpose.  
The last of the twelve Bishops brought by Bellarmine, is Gregory the first; out of whom four things are alleged; the first is, 
* Greg. Epist. lib. 1. cp. 72.  that he required the Africanes to permit appeals to Rome from the Council of Numidia, and blamed the Bishops of Africa, for that after letters written unto them, they had degraded Honoratus the archdeacon. 
n Idem. l. 2. cp. 37.  The second, that he sent a Pall to the Bishop of Corinth. The third, 
o Idem. li. 4. cp. 56.  that he saith, Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople, acknowledged the Church of Constantinople to be subject to the See apostolic. The fourth, 
p Idem. lib. 7. cp. 63.  that the Bishop of Constantinople professeth his subjection to the See apostolic. To these objections we answer; First, 
q Vide infra. chap. 39 of appeals to Rome.  that it is contrary to the resolution of the ancient Counsels of Carthage, & Milevis, that the Bishop of Rome should admit appeals of inferior Clergymen out of Africa; & that therefore by some positive constitution or later agreement, Gregory might be permitted to hear the complaints of an archdeacon appealing unto him out of Africa, yet from the beginning it was not so, though some parts of Africa were ever within the compass of the Patriarchship of Rome. Secondly, that he sent the Pall to the Bishop of Corinth, because he was within his Patriarchship; all patriarchs being to confirm their metropolitans by imposition of hands, or by sending the Pall. 3●. That there was no such Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregory's time, as is mentioned in the Epistle alleged; and that they that were, as john & Cyriacus, striven and contended with Gregory, to be above him, and to have the first place in the Church; & that not without the help & furtherance of the Emperor: so that it may be doubted whether Gregory wrote this or not, it being so contrary to that we know to have been attempted & sought by the Bishops of Constantinople, that lived in his time. But granting that Gregory did so write, & that Eusebius a B. of Constantinople did acknowledge his Church to be subject to the See of Rome, yet he meant nothing else thereby, but that it was an inferior See and so subject in such sort, as I have declared the inferior Sees to be subject to the superior; which subjection will no way prove the supremacy that the Popes now claim. Fourthly, that Gregory doth not say that the Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged himself subject to the Bishop of Rome. For it was not Primas Byzanzenus, the Primate of Byzantium, that Gregory reporteth to have confessed himself subject to the Bishop of Rome, and whose cause the Emperor commanded Gregory to hear, but 
r Vide annot. in Gratian. Decr. part. 1. dist. 22. c. 3.  Primas Byzanzenus, that is, the Primate of the Byzazene province of Africa. So that this confession of the Primate mentioned by Gregory, brought to prove that the Bishop of Rome had a commanding power over the Bishop of Constantinople, is merely mistaken by Bellarmine, as it was before him by Gratian. But some man will say, howsoever there be a mistaking of this allegation, yet it is strong and forcible to prove the thing intended. For Gregory saith expressly, that howsoever all Bishops in respect of humility, be equal, yet there is no Bishop but if he be found faulty, is subject to the See of Rome. That this saying of Gregory may be found true, certain limitations must be added unto it. For the Bishop of Rome might not immediately punish every Bishop that he found to offend, nor upon appeal take notice of the faults and misdemeanours of all Bishops; but the Council of 
s Canone 9  Chalcedon ordereth, that if any inferior Clergyman have aught against another inferior Clerk, the matter shall be heard and determined by the Bishop, or such as with the liking of the Bishop shall by the parties be chosen arbitratours; and if he go against their determination, he shall be punished. If a Clerk have aught against his own or another Bishop, it shall be inquired of in the audience of the Synod of the Province: If either Clerk or Bishop have aught against the Metropolitan of the province, he shall go to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the throne and See of the Regal city of Constantinople. This Canon of the great Council of Chalcedon, was confirmed by the decree of justinian the Emperor. 
t justinian. Novel. 123. c. 22.  If any man (saith the Emperor) accuse a Bishop, for whatsoever cause, let the cause be judged by the Metropolitan: and if any man gainsay the Metropolitan, let the matter be referred to the Archbishop, and Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him end it according to the canons and Laws. So that we see the Bishops of Rome might not intermeddle in judging inferior Bishops, subject to other patriarchs, neither immediately, nor upon complaint and appeal, whatsoever their faults be: but they have other supreme judges, who have power finally to determine such matters, and from whom there lieth no appeal. This canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Emperor's decree confirming the same, 
u Gregor. Epist. lib. 11. cp 54.  Gregory allegeth and alloweth, only adding, that if there be no Metropolitan or Patriarch, such things as otherwise should be finally determined, and ended by them, are to be brought to the Bishop of Rome: Wherefore it seemeth that Gregory speaketh of the Bishops within his own Patriarchship, whom sometimes he calleth his own Bishops, when he saith there is no Bishop, but if he be found faulty is subject to the See of Rome. Of these he speaketh when he saith, 
x Idem. lib. 4. Epist. 34. & in cp. 36 ●…ortatur Eulogium Episc. Alexandr, & Anastasium Antiochenun ut omnes Episcopos eorum curae Subjectos ab iniquitate elationis Episc. Constantinopolitaniss prohibeant.  I impute it to my sins, that my own Bishops should thus despise me. And again, if the causes of bishops committed to me be thus dealt with, alas what shall I do? And in this sense he 
y Lib. 11. epist. 42.  willeth john of Palermo, to whom he sendeth a Pall, not to suffer the reverence of the apostolic See to be troubled by any man's presumption: for that the state of the members is then entire and safe, when the canons are kept, and no injury hurteth the head of the faith: not naming the Church of Rome the head of the Faith, for that the Bishop of Rome hath an infallible judgement, and absolute command in matters of faith, upon which all the world must depend (as some ignorantly construe him) but because it was the head, that is, the beginning and wellspring, whence the doctrine of Faith, the knowledge of GOD, and all Christian institution flowed to sundry other Churches, which therefore are in a sort to depend on it, to have recourse to it, and to hold conformity with it. 
z Innocent in Epist. ad Decentium. Eugubin. Episcopum  No other, faith Innocentius, established and founded the Churches of Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Africa, and the Isles that lie between, but Peter and his Successors: and therefore the Bishops of these Churches, must keep such observations as the Roman Church (from which they took their beginning) received from the Apostles, ne caput institutionum omittere videantur, that is, Lest they seem to forsake the Head, & wellspring of all the institutions and ordinances they have. This is the reason, why the Churches of these parts have been so subject to the Church of Rome, namely for that from thence they received the light of Christian knowledge; but to all Churches it is not an head in this sort, seeing they received the faith not from Rome, but from some other Apostolical Church, as Antioch, or Alexandria.   

CHAP. 35.  
Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's supremacy, produced and brought out of the writings of the Greek Fathers.  
Having examined the proofs they bring for confirmation of the Pope's supremacy out of Counsels, and the writings, of ancient Bishops of Rome, let us come to the testimonies of the Father's Greek and Latin.  
The first that they produce amongst the Greek Fathers, is Ignatius, 
a Ignatius ep. ad Romanos.  who writeth to the Holy Church which hath the presidence in the Region of the Romans, or sitteth before other in the Region of the Romans; from which words nothing can be inferred that we ever doubted of. For we most willingly confess the Roman Church to have been in order and honour the first and chiefest of all Churches, and he saith nothing out of which any other thing may be concluded.  
The next is Irenaeus, 
b Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3.  who being to show against Heretics, that the Tradition of the Church is against them, and for him, and thinking it very tedious to run through the successions of all Churches, saith, he will content himself with that which is the greatest, ancientest, best known to all, & founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome; for that the whole Church, that is, the company of all faithful ones, that are everywhere, in which the Tradition hath been ever preserved, must of necessity agree in her tradition with this, propter potentiorem principalitatem, that is: For that it is the principal of all other. This testimony of Irenaeus no way proveth the thing in question. For here is nothing of the dependence of all other Churches on the Church of Rome, in their faith and profession, nor that all Churches have kept the faith in that Church, that is, in cleaving to it, as to their Head and Mother, as Bellarmine untruly fancieth: But all that is here said, is nothing else, but that undoubtedly the same faith was given and delivered to all other Churches, that was delivered by blessed Peter and Paul, to the Church of Rome the chiefest of all.  
The two next Greek Fathers that are produced to testify for the supremacy, are 
c Epiph. haeres. 68  Epiphanius, and 
d Athan. in Apol. 2.  Athanasius, who report, that Vrsacius and Valens, sworn enemies of Athanasius, repenting them of their former errors, came to julius' Bishop of Rome, to give an account, and to seek favour and reconciliation. Surely, the producing of such testimonies as these are, is nothing else but mere trifling; and they that bring them know right well, that they no way prove the thing questioned: the circumstances of this narration touching Vrsacius and Valens, are these. The cause of Athanasius, as himself 
e Apol. praedict.  testifieth, was first heard in his own Province, by an hundred Bishops, and he there acquitted: Secondly at Rome, by more than fifty Bishops, at the desire of Eusebius his Adversary: and lastly, at Sardica, by three hundred Bishops, where he was likewise acquitted. To the decrees of this Synod, Vrsacius and Valens, his enemies, making show of repentance, subscribed, confessing they had played the Sycophants: neither rested they there, but they wrote to julius' Bishop of Rome, to testify their repentance, and to desire reconciliation; and likewise to Athanasius himself. It were strange if any man could prove the absolute supreme power, & commanding authority of the Bishop of Rome over all the world by this testimony, wherein nothing is found of submission to julius, or of seeking his favour & communion more than the favour and communion of Athanasius, and all other Catholic Bishops adhering to him. The Epistle of Athanasius to Felix Bishop of Rome, is a mere counterfeit, as that worthy and renowned 
f Defence of the Challenge. Artic. of the Supremacy.  jewel hath proved at large by unanswerable demonstrations; and therefore it needeth no answer. The allegation of the accusation of Dionysius of Alexandria, to Dionysius of Rome, joined with it by Bellarmine, is of the very same stamp; and yet if it were not, proveth nothing against us. For there is no question, but that in matter of faith, men may accuse any erring Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome and his Western Bishops; and that they may judge and condemn such a one, though the Pope be not supreme head of the Church.  
The fifth Greek Father that they allege, is Basil, 
g Basil. Epist. 52. &. 48.  who, as they say, in an Epistle to Athanasius, attributeth to the Bishop of Rome authority to visit the Churches of the East, to make decrees, and to reverse the decrees of general Counsels, such as that of Ariminum was. Truly to say no more, the alleging of this testimony, showeth they have very little conscience that allege it. For these are the circumstances of Basils' Epistle, whereof let the Reader judge. Basil writing to Athanasius (whom he highly commendeth, for that, whereas other think it well if they take care of their own particular churches, his care was no less for the whole church, then for that which was specially committed to him) adviseth him, that the only way to settle things put out of order in the Eastern churches by the Arrians, were the procuring of the consent of the Western Bishops, if it were possible to entreat them to interpose themselves: for that undoubtedly the rulers would greatly regard, and much reverence the credit of their multitude: and people every where would follow them without gainsaying. But seeing this, which was rather to be desired, would not in likelihood easily be obtained, he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced, to send some of good discretion and moderation, who by gentle admonitions might pacify the minds of men, and might have all things in readiness that concerned the Arimine Council, necessary for the dissolving and showing the invalidity of the acts of that Council. I doubt not but the Reader, upon the bare view of these circumstances, will easily perceive, that this Epistle of Basill maketh very much against their opinion that allege it: For he preferreth, and rather wisheth a Council, than the Popes own interposing of himself, if there had been any hope of a Council. Besides, these whom the Pope was to send, were not to proceed judicially, and by way of authority, but by entreaty and gentle admonitions to pacify the minds of men; & therefore here is nothing of visiting the Churches of the East, or voiding the acts of the Council of Ariminum by way of sentence and formal proceeding, as Bellarmine untruly reporteth; but only a reaching forth of the hand of help to the distressed parts of the Church, by them that were in better state, and a manifesting or declaring of the invalidity of that Council, the unlawful proceedings of it, and the reasons why it neither was, nor ever aught to be admitted.  
The sixth Greek Father brought to be a witness of the Pope's supremacy, is Gregory Nazianzen, 
h Nazianz. in Carm. de vitâ suâ.  who saith, that the Roman Church did ever hold the right profession, as it becometh the city which is over all the world. This testimony is no less abused than the former, as it will easily appear to him that will take the pains to view the place alleged. Nature (saith Nazianzen) doth not afford two Suns, yet are there two Rome's, the lights of the whole world: the old and the new seat of the Empire, The one of these lights appeareth at the rising, and the other at the setting of the Sun, and both jointly send forth a most excellent glittering brightness. The faith of the one was a long time, and now is right, knitting, and joining the West to the saving word of Life, as it is fit the Mistress and Lady of the world should be. In which words it is evident, that he speaketh of the greatness of the city of Rome, in respect of her civil and temporal sovereignty; and not in respect of the spiritual power of the Church; and therefore it is strange that Bellarmine should deny the same. For though in the time of Nazianzen, the Emperor made his abode, for the most part, at Constantinople, and not at Rome, yet he calleth Rome the Mistress of the world, in respect of the civil state thereof, as appeareth in that he speaketh of two famous cities, two lights of the world; and nameth the one the old Seat, and the other the new Seat of the Empire.  
The seventh Greek Father is Chrysostome, who (if we may believe Bellarmine) being deposed by Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, and put from the Bishopric of Constantinople in a Council of Bishops, 
i Chrysost. Ep. l. ad Innocentium.  writeth to the Bishop of Rome, by his authority to void the sentence of Theophilus, and to punish him: whence it will follow, that Chrysostome acknowledged the Roman Bishop to be supreme judge of the Greek or Eastern Bishops, and consequently of all the world. For the better manifesting of the bad dealing of the Cardinal in alleging this testimony, I will briefly set down all the most material and principal circumstances, of the narration of the most unjust deposition of Chrysostome, that worthy and renowned Bishop of Constantinople. Thus therefore the case stood. 
k Sozomen. li: 8. ca 11. & seq. Socrates. lib. 6. Pallad. & Gregorius Alex. in vitâ Chrysostomi Nicephorus l. 13. Baron. an. 404. numero 2. & Binnius. Concil. Tom. 1. pag. 589.  There arose a question in the Churches of Egypt, whether God were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, had the shape of a man. Some of the simpler sort of Monks thought, that God hath a bodily form or shape: others thought otherwise, and condemned such as so thought, as blasphemous: Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was of opinion, that GOD is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, that God hath no bodily shape or form: which the Monks that thought otherwise greatly disliking, came to Alexandria with a full purpose to kill and destroy him, as a wicked and godless person. But he perceiving their affection, presented himself speedily unto them saying, I have seen you, and looked upon you, as upon the face of God: and thereby pacified them for the present, supposing he had been of their opinion, and had thought God to have a face and countenance like man. But afterwards, having upon some dislikes excommunicated Isidorus, a Presbyter of his Church, Isidorus goeth to the Monks, and thereupon Ammonius with certain other come to Theophilus, desiring him to receive such to the communion, as he had excommunicated, which he promised to do, but performed not. Hereupon farther quarrels grew, and Theophilus perceiving that these Monks were in opinion contrary to the Anthropomorphites, joined himself with the Anthropomorphites, and intended some ill to the other; whereupon Ammonius, Dioscorus, and Isidore, came to Constantinople, and desired that the Emperor and Chrysostome might hear the matter between them. Chrysostome used them kindly, and suffered them to be present at the common prayers, but admitted them not to the communion: he wrote to Theophilus, to restore them to the communion as being right believers, and desired him, if he thought fit to have their cause heard and examined at Constantinople, to send some to follow the business for him: Whereunto Theophilus returned no answer; which moved the complainants to sue to the Empress, that a Council might be called, which she promised to procure: but in the mean while there being a rumour raised, that Chrysostome had received Dioscorus and the rest to the communion, and that he sought to steed them what he could, Theophilus enraged against him, began to devise how he might put him from his Bishopric. To this purpose he writeth to sundry Bishops, reprehending the books of Origen, wherein the error of the Anthropomorphites was condemned. Amongst other, he drew into his faction by this means Epiphanius, a man erring in that point, but otherwise of great authority for his good life and learning. Epiphanius calleth a Synod of the Bishops of Cyprus, condemneth the books of Origen, forbiddeth the reading of them; and persuadeth other, and amongst them the Bishop of Constantinople to do the like. Theophilus likewise followed his example, and with his Bishops passed the like decree; but Chrysostome neglected the matter: which offended Epiphanius and Theophilus not a little. Hereupon many of the great ones in Constantinople, and of the Clergy also, hating Chrysostome, perceiving that Theophilus was bend against him, urged him to go forward, and procured a great Synod to be called at Constantinople; which opportunity he neglected not, commanding the Bishops of Egypt to go thither, and writing to Epiphanius and the rest of the Eastern Bishops to come thither. Epiphanius accordingly came thither, showed himself averse from Chrysostome, and would neither come into the same house, nor pray with him, though he sought him with great respect: Whereupon after a while, Epiphanius in great dislike departed from Constantinople; at the parting of these Bishops, the one of them saying, he hoped the other should never return home; the other, that he should never dye a Bishop; both which fell out accordingly: for Epiphanius died by the way, as he was returning home, and Chrysostome cast out of his Bishopric, died in banishment. After the departing of Epiphanius, Chrysostome made a Sermon in reproof and reprehension of women; which so moved and enraged the Empress, that she complained bitterly to her husband, and urged him to cause Theophilus to come quickly, and to hold a Council, which accordingly he did. Chrysostome was called to come into the Synod; but he answered, that he refused not judgement, but desired to know his accusers: and what crimes he was charged with, and protested against these judges as partial, appealing to a General Council, whereupon he was deposed. Three days after he withdrew himself; which put the people into an uproar, who stirring in very tumultuous manner, forced the Emperor to bring him back again, and caused him to take his chair again, thirty Bishops bringing him to it. here began a new quarrel, for that being deposed by a Synod, he resumed his place without a Synod: but the matter was reasonably well quieted, till reprehending those in authority, for permitting certain abuses, the Empress thinking herself touched, began again to think, how she might procure another greater Council to be called then before; which Chrysostome understanding, made that Sermon that beginneth, Herodias denuò insanire, denuò commoveri, denuò saltare pergit, denuò caput Ioannis in disco accipere quaerit: that is, Herodias proceedeth and goeth on to be mad again, to be moved and stirred again, and to dance again: she seeks once again to have the head of john in a platter. It was not long after the preaching of this Sermon, before the Bishops came together and met in Synod, by the procurement of the Empress: who omitting all other things, objected unto him, the resuming of his place without a Synod. He answered, that there were 50 Bishops that consented to him, and communicated with him. But they replied, that there were more that condemned him: and that therefore by the Canon he ought not to have resumed his place. To whom he answered, that that was a Canon of the Arrians, made by them when they proceeded against Athanasius, and therefore not to be regarded. But that answer would not serve the turn: wherefore they proceeded to sentence against him, and put him out of his Bishopric, and the Emperor immediately sent him into banishment. Being in this distress, and thus grievously wronged, he writeth to Innocentius, and the Western Bishops, desiring them to do what they can to repress these vile practices, & to write, that the things done against him be of no force, as indeed they are not: and that he might still hold communion with them, as before he had done. The Bishop of Rome upon this his suit, called a Synod of all the Bishops of the West, 
* Vide ep. Innocentii ad Chrysostom. & Theophilum, apud Binnium. Tom. 1. Conc.  held both Theophilus and Chrysostome in their communion: pronounced the judgement of Theophilus, & his proceedings against Chrysostome, to be void, as being against the Canons: and yet told Chrysostome, there was no help, nor no means to relieve him, but in a general Council, which by all possible means he will labour to procure: till which time he must be content, and refer all to God, who taketh care of these things. But with how ill success he sought to procure a general Council for the restoring of him to his place again, we may find in ᵏ Sozomene: who reporteth, that being desirous that 
l Lib. 8. c. 18  Chrysostome might return, he sent with those oriental Bishops that came to him to entreat his help and assistance, five Bishops, and two Presbyters to Honorius, & Arcadius, to obtain a Council, and to have the time appointed: who were so far from prevailing and obtaining that they sought, that they were sent away with disgrace, as foreign and outlandish disturbers of the state of the Empire. These are the principal, and most material circumstances of the narration and report of the unjust deposition of Chrysostome, his writing to the Bishop of Rome, and the answer he had from him, and the other Bishops of the West, which make most strongly against the pretended supremacy of Popes. For Innocentius telleth Chrysostom's friends, that it lieth not in him to help him; but in a general Council: And though he and the Bishops of the West pronounce the proceedings of Theophilus void, as against the Canons, and do make them void, as much as by their dissenting they can, yet they confess, that the absolute voiding of them, and the punishing of Theophilus was not in them, but in a general Council. But saith Bellarmine, 
m Inter Epistolas Innocentij supradictas.  Chrysostome in another Epistle giveth Innocentius thanks for his fatherly care and kindness, & intreateth, that his enemies may not be excluded from the communion, if by any means they may be reclaimed: therefore it seemeth Chrysostome thought, he had an absolute supreme commanding power. What it is in this Epistle that argueth that supreme power which Bellarmine dreameth of, I cannot tell. For I know no reason why Chrysostome, now a deposed and distressed Bishop, might not use so respective a form of speech to the Bishop of the first See, and esteem of him as a father, without acknowledging him to have any absolute supreme power over all. And all the other circumstances and parts of the Epistle most clearly make against the Papacy. For he saith, Innocentius had done what he could; but that his enemies notwithstanding went still forward in their ill courses; and for the avoiding of greater scandals, distractions, & confusions, desireth him not to reject them from his communion, considering the greatness of the work: for that this was the contention almost of all the world: So that the Churches were brought upon their knees, the people dispersed, the Clergy vexed, Bishops banished, and the constitutions of the holy Fathers violated and broken.  
The eighth Greek Father is Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, out of whom Bellarmine allegeth no new thing, but the very same which he brought out of the Council of Ephesus, whereof he was precedent; and therefore I will make no new answer here to this renewed allegation, but refer the Reader to the 
n See chap. 33.  answer already made,  
The ninth Greek Father is Theodoret, out of whom Bellarmine seeketh to confirm the Papacy, for that though he were a Bishop of Asia, and had under him eight hundred Churches, yet 
o Theodoret. in Epist. ad Leonem quae habetur in fine operum ejus.  he acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be his supreme judge: and in an Epistle written to Renatus, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, saith, that that holy See hath the government and direction of the Churches throughout the world. For answer unto this objection, we must observe, that Theodoret being deposed, banished, and grievously vexed for matters of faith, seeketh to have his cause reexamined, and heard again by the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of the West; which thing he obtained, and was by Leo, and the rest of the Bishops of the West, judged Catholic, received to their communion, and, as much as lay in them, restored to his Bishopric again; yet could he not repossess his place, till the Council of Chalcedon put him into it; 
p Cone. Chalc. Act. 1. & 8.  which, though it were informed by the deputies of Leo, that he had long before received him to his communion, yet admitted him not till he was reexamined, and at the first many of the Father's disliking his answers as imperfect, cried out aloud, that he was a Nestorian, and desired that the Heretic might be cast out, censuring him as Cyril, and other Catholic Bishops had done before. But when he fully and peremptorily accursed Nestorius with all his adherents, they all with one consenting voice, pronounced him worthy of his place, and admitted him to sit in Council with them. Whereby it appeareth, that howsoever the Western Bishops pronounced him Catholic, received him to their communion, and, as much as in them lay, restored him to his place, yet of themselves they neither could, nor did perfect that work but were forced to leave it to the general Council: all which Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodoret acknowledgeth: 
q Leon. Epist. in fine operum Theodoreti.  Adiutorium nostrum saith he, in nomine Domini, qui fecit coelum & terram, qui nullum nos in nostris fratribus detrimentum sustinere permisit: sed quae nostro prius ministerio definierat, universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu, ut verè àse prodijsse ostenderet, quod prius à prima omnium sede formatum, totius Christiani orbis iudicium recepisset, ut in hoc quoque Capiti membra concordent. Name, ne aliarum sedium, ad eam quam caeteris omnium Dominus statuit praesidere, consensus, assentatio videretur, inventi prius sunt, qui de iudicijs nostris ambigerent: that is, Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made both heaven and earth, who suffered us not to sustain any loss in our brethren, but confirmed & established by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood, what things he had before defined by our ministry; that he might clearly show that thing undoubtedly to have proceeded from himself, which being formerly framed by the first See, the judgement of the whole Christian world received: So that herein the head & members conspire together. For lest the consenting of other Sees to that which the Lord of all appointed to be the first of all, might seem to be but flattery, there were some found that at first doubted of our judgements, whether they were right or not. And he addeth, that multum Sacerdotalis officij meritum splendescit, ubi sic summorum servatur authoritas, ut in nullo inferiorum putetur imminuta libertas: that is, that the excellent worthiness of the Priestly office doth then most appear in shining brightness, when the authority of the highest is so retained, that the liberty of the inferior and lesser be thought in nothing to be diminished or impaired. Thereby insinuating, that he and his Western Bishops did so go before in their resolution touching the case of Theodoret, that they no way diminished, much less took away the liberty of other inferior Sees, but that they might resist and gainsay, till they were satisfied, and made to see the equity of the judgement of the first See: accordingly as we find they did in the Council of Chalcedon, rejecting him as an Heretic, whom the Bishop of Rome had received, till upon more full & particular examination, they found him to be catholic, and acquitted him in their own judgement. So that here we see there is nothing to prove the Pope to be an absolute supreme judge of all, as Bellarmine untruly allegeth. But happily he will say, that Theodoret intreateth Renatus to persuade Leo to use his authority, and to require the Bishops that had proceeded against him, to come to his Synod in the West, seeing the See of Rome hath a direction of all Churches, and that therefore he seemeth to acknowledge an absolute supreme power in the Pope. For answer hereunto we say, that the circumstances of this Epistle do clearly convince and prove he had no such conceit. For first, he speaketh not of Leo alone, as if of himself he could determine the matter of difference between him and his Adversaries, but of him and his Western Council, Secondly, he doth not say, that he, & his Council alone may determine the matter; but that his See being the first See, he and his Bishops may call all other Bishops to their Council: and this is that direction or government which he saith the first See, or Western Church hath of other Churches; namely, in going before them, and inviting and calling them to public deliberations, not in peremptory and absolute commanding without them and over them.  
The tenth witness produced out of the Greek church, is Sozomene, out of whom two things are alleged. The first is, that he saith 
r Sozom. l. 3. c. 7.  julius' Bishop of Rome, restored Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, to their churches, from which they were violently and unjustly expulsed by certain oriental Bishops. The second, 
s Ibidem.  that he did this because the care of all pertained to him in respect of the dignity of his See. How the words of Sozomene reporting that julius restored these Bishops to their churches, are to be understood, we may learn of julius himself, who in his Epistle mentioned by Athanasius in his second Apology, having blamed the oriental Bishops, for proceeding in a matter of so great consequence concerning the faith, and the Bishops of the principal Churches of the world, without him and his Bishops, and, as he understood, very irregularly; telleth them, that he durst not confirm that they had done, that he communicated still with Athanasius and Paulus, not forejudging any thing, but desir●…ng them to come to a Synod, where things might be fully debated, and determined; and that, though he alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the name, and with the consent of all the Bishops of the West. Upon which his letter, they 
t Sozom. ubi supra.  were so far from restoring them to their places, that they took it in ill part, that he did write unto them, telling him that when he proceeded against certain Novatians, they intermeddled not, and that therefore he should not meddle with their proceedings, seeing the greatness of cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater than the power of another. By which their peremptory rejecting of his motion, it appeareth that he neither did, nor could put the expulsed Bishops into their places again: which thing 
u Ibid. c. 9  Sozomene himself testifieth also, telling us, that they could never recover their places, till the Emperor by his mandatory letters prevailed. So that when he saith, julius restored them, his meaning is, that he restored them as much as lay in him: as likewise it may be said of Cyrill, and john of Antioch, that after many and bitter contentions, they were in the end reconciled, and 
x Socr. l. 7. c. 33 Euagr. l. 1. c. 5. Vide acta council. Ephes.  restored each to other their Churches, from which yet they were never driven indeed, but in the censures of the one of them passed against the other. But Sozomene saith, the care of all Churches pertained to the Bishop of Rome, therefore he acknowledgeth, that he had an universality of power over all. Surely this consequence will never be made good. For the Metropolitan, or he that is Bishop of the first See in each Province in respect of the dignity of his See, hath the care of the whole Province, yet can he do nothing, but as he is directed by the mayor part of the Bishops. So that the care of all is said to pertain to him, not because he hath power to dispose of all things by himself, but because all public proceedings concerning the whole Province, must take their beginning from him, & nothing of that nature may be taken in hand, without consulting him. In like sort, and in the same sense and meaning, Sozomene saith, that for the dignity of his See, the care of all pertained to the Bishop of Rome; not as if the absolute disposing of all things did rest in him, but for that he, as prime Bishop of the world, was first to be consulted, before any thing concerning the common faith, and the whole state of the Christian Church, were determined; and for that by the assistance and concurrence of other Bishops, he as first in order and honour amongst them, was to begin and set forward allthings of greatest consequence tending to the common good.  
Three more witnesses Bellarmine hath yet behind, Acatius the Bishop of Patara; and justinian the Emperor, out of whom three things are alleged. The first, that the Bishop of Rome beareth about with him the care of all Churches. The second, that the Pope is over the Church of the whole world. The third, that the Pope is the Head of all holy Churches. To the first of these allegations taken out of Acatius his Epistle to Simplicius Bishop of Rome, I have answered before; as likewise in what sense the Pope may be said to be over the Church of the whole world, to wit, in respect of a primacy of order and honour, but not of power; in which sense also, justinian the elder, writing to john the second, saith, his See is the Head of all Churches. And thus having examined the testimonies of the Greek Fathers, we are now to proceed to the authorities of the Latin Church.   

CHAP. 36.  
Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's supremacy, taken out of the writings of the Latin Fathers.  
THe first among the Latin Fathers, that 
a Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 16.  Bellarmine produceth, is Cyprian; who of all other most clearly overthroweth the error of the Romanists, touching the Papacy, & therefore is very unadvisedly produced by them in the first place, and appointed to marshal and conduct the rest of their witnesses; yet let us hear what he will say. Out of Cyprian four places are alleged. The first is, in his book de unitate Ecclesiae. The second, in the third Epistle of his first book written to Cornelius. The third, in the tenth Epistle of his second book to the same Cornelius. The fourth, in the eighth Epistle of the first book ad plebem universam. Out of the first of these places they will prove, that he maketh Peter Head of the whole Church. Out of the second, that there is one High Priest, & one supreme judge in the Church, whom all men are bound to obey. Out of the third, that Cornelius was Head of all Catholics. Out of the fourth, that there is one singular Chair in the Church, wherein he sitteth that must teach all.  
To every of these allegations, I will answer in order, and make it most clear and evident, that none of the things imagined by the Cardinal, can possibly be concluded out of any of the forenamed places. For to begin with the first: whosoever will but read over Cyprians book of the unity of the Church, shall most certainly and undoubtedly find, that he speaketh not in that book of Peter's headship of the universal Church, as the jesuit fancieth: but of the head, original, and first beginning of Pastoral commission. Which that it may the better appear, I will as briefly as possibly I can, lay down the most principal and material circumstances of the whole discourse of that book, written upon occasion of the Schism of the Novatians. The first thing that occurreth in the whole discourse of the book, is the author's observation of the endless malice of Satan, who when he found the Idols of the Gentiles, wherein he was wont to be worshipped, to be forsaken, & his Seats & Temples deserted, almost all professing to believe in Christ, Haereses invenit & Schismata, quibus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem: that is, Found out Heresies and Schisms; by which he might subvert the Faith, corrupt the verity, and cut in sunder the unity: so that Quos detinere non potest in viae veteris coecitate, circumscribit, & decipit novi itineris errore that is, Whom he cannot hold in the blindness and darkness of the old way, those he circumuenteth and beguileth, by making them err, go aside, and not hold on the right course of their journey in the new way that leadeth to life. In the second place he showeth, that this so falleth out, and that men are so beguiled, and misled into Schisms & Heresies, because they return not back to the first origine of truth, because they seek not the head, nor keep the doctrine of the heavenly Master: which if a man would consider and think of, he should not need to seek out many arguments, nor fetch any great compass about: but the truth would easily without any great search offer itself unto him. For therefore did Christ, when he was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church, say specially to Peter, 
b Matth. 16. 18. 19  Thou art Peter, & upon this Rock will I build my Church, & I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and again after his resurrection, 
c joh. 21. 15. 16.  Feed my sheep: because though rising again from the dead, he gave like power to all the Apostles, when he said 
d joh. 20. 21. & 23.  As my Father sent me, so send I you: whose sins ye remit, they are remitted: whose sins ye retain, they are retained: yet he would by speaking specially to one, & by appointing one chair, show what unity should be in the Church. The rest of the Apostles, saith Cyprian, were undoubtedly the same that Peter was, equal in honour & power: but therefore did Christ in the first place give or at least promise to give specially & particularly to one that apostolic commission, which he meant also to giveto the rest, that he might thereby show, that the Church must be one, and that there must be but one Episcopal chair in the world. All the Apostles, say the Cyprian, are Pastors, but the flock of Christ is but one, which they are to feed with unanimous consent. There is but one body of the Church, one spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God. This unity all men must endeavour to keep, especially Bishops, that they may make it appear that there is but one Bishoply commission in the Christian Church, Cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, that is, Whereof every one indifferently and in equal sort hath his part. Here is nothing that proveth the universality of the Papal power, or that Peter was by Christ made head of the whole Church. But this place most mainly overthroweth that supposed Headship. For Cyprian teacheth, that Christ meant to give equal power and authority to all his Apostles, and that the reason, why intending no more to one then to the rest, yet he more specially directed his speech to one then to the rest, was, only to show, that there must be an unity in the Church, which he settled in that beginning with one, from him he proceeded to the rest, not meaning that the rest should receive any thing from him, but that from himself immediately they should receive that in the second place, which he had first, and that they should receive the same commission together with him into which he was first put, that they might know him to be the first of their company. In this sense Innocentius saith, 
e Inter Epistolas Augustini, epist. 91.  A Petro ipse Episcopatus, & tota authoritas nominis huius emersit: that is, The Bishoply office, and the whole authority of this name and title took beginning from Peter: whom, he saith, all Bishops must respect, as Sui nominis & honoris authorem: that is, as the first and original of their name and honour. And Leo in like sort, Huius muner is sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium Apostolorum officium 
f Leo epist. 89.  voluit pertinere, ut in beatissimo Petro Apostolorun omnium summo principaliter collocaret, v●… ab ipso, quasi quodam capite, dona sua velut in corpus omne diffunderet; that is: The Lords will was, that the mystery of this heavenly gift, commission, and employment, should so pertain to the ministry & office of all the Apostles, that yet he would first and principally place it in most blessed Peter the greatest of all the Apostles, that so beginning with him as the head and first, he might proceed from him to pour forth his gifts into all the body. But, saith Bellarmine, Cyprian speaketh of another head of the Church besides Christ, and maketh the Church that so enlargeth itself, and hath so many parts, yet to be one in this root and head: as the beams are many, but the light is one, as the boughs are many, but the tree is one: the rivers are many, but the fountain is one. It is strange that a man of his learning and judgement should so mis-conceive things, as he seemeth to do. For it is most evident to any one that will but take the pains to peruse the place, that Cyprian speaketh not of a distinct head of the Church different from Christ, and appointed by him to govern the Church, but of the original, first beginning, and head of the commission the Pastors of the Church have: Which commission Christ so gave to all the Apostles, that yet first he gave it, or at least, first promised to give it to one, and directed his speech specially to him, to show that none can be Pastors of the Church, but such as without intrusion are consented on by them, that, having this power in unity amongst themselves, may communicate it to others. Neither doth he say, as the jesuit fancieth, that the many parts of the Church are one in subjection to one head distinct from Christ, as the beams of the sun are one in the same light; but in the unity of the same main body: For even as, saith Cyprian, the beams of the sun are one in the same light, and the boughs of the tree are one in the same tree; so all Churches must derive themselues from the first Church, & all Pastors their commission from the first commission, which Christ gave to all his Apostles; yet so, that he put one first into it, & directed his speeches specially unto one, thereby to settle them in an orderly unity amongst themselues. This is undoubtedly the meaning of Cyprian: For it can no way stand, either with truth, with the opinion of Cyprian, or with the opinion of our Adversaries themselves, that rest of the Apostles received their Ministerial power from Peter, and were subject to him as to an head, and absolute commander over them, seeing he saith expressly, that they were the same that Peter was, & equal to him, both in honour and power; and besides, both in this book, and in many other places, he is wont to derive the original of schisms and heresies, from the intrusion of men into places already full, are at least into void places, without due admittance and allowance of them, that in a kind of coherent concord, rule and govern the Church; & never from the resistance against one supreme commander set over all. So in his 
g Epist. 52.  Epistle to Antonianus, he proveth Cornelius Bishop of Rome to be a true and lawful Bishop, because having the testimony of the Clergy, and voices of the people, the place of Fabianus being void, he was ordained to succeed him by many Bishops then at Rome, who sent their letters abroad, making honourable report of his due and right coming to the place, and the whole number of Bishops throughout the world with great unanimity consented: and by the want of these things proveth his factious opposites to be schismatics.  
In the second allegation the Cardinal bewrayeth very gross ignorance: For it was not a difference between Cornelius, and the Novatians, refusing to acknowledge him to be Bishop, that gave occasion of writing that 
h Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  Epistle, as he untruely saith; but the calumniations of Faelicissimus and Fortunatus, against Cyprian himself: Which factious companions being put from the communion by Cyprian, and many of his colleagues, flying to Rome, were there rejected, and thereupon fell to threatening. These threatenings Cyprian despiseth, pronounceth them to be murderers, showeth that they shall not escape the judgement of God, and that nothing is to be remitted of the severity of Church-discipline, for fear of these wicked ones, that are enemies of Priests, and rebels against God's Church; whom God will undoubtedly much more severely punish, than they were, who in the time of the law of Moses despised the high Priest, and other Priests and rulers of the people: who yet answered such their contempts with their blood; and then addeth the words cited by Bellarmine, that hence all heresies and schisms do arise, for that the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor one Priest in the Church for the time, & one judge in Christ's stead for the time acknowledged: whom if men would obey according to the divine instructions, no man would attempt any thing against the College of Priests, no man after the judgement of God, the voices of the people, & the consent of fellow-Bishops, would make himself a judge, not so much of the Bishops, as of God himself; no man pleasing himself would bring in any new heresy or schism to the renting & dividing of the Church; as if, when a sparrow falleth not to the ground without the will of our Father, it were possible that he who is ordained a Bishop in the Church, should be ordained without the will of God. Surely, saith he, I speak it provoked, I speak it grieved & constrained, when a Bishop is placed in the room of one that is dead, chosen in peace by all the people, protected by divine help in the time of persecution, faithfully conjoined with all his colleagues, approved to his people four years in his Bishoply office, in the time of peace keeping the rules of discipline, proscribed in the times of trouble, so often even with addition of the title of Bishop, called for to be cast to the Lion, & even in these very days wherein I write unto thee, called for again to the Lion; if such a one be impugned by a few desperate & wicked ones, it will easily appear who they are that so impugn him. All these things are spoken by Cyprian of his own case, as most clearly appeareth by his 69 epistle; & therefore the words are strangely wrested by Bellarmine to prove the Papacy, when Cyprian speaketh of the respect that is due to the B. of every particular Church, &, by application thereof to himself, showeth Cornel. how little he had been respected, & how grievously he hath been wronged. But the Cardinal will prove that he speaketh of the Pope, when he speaketh of one Pastor, & of one judge in the Church for the time, & not of every Bishop or Pastor in his own particular Church: First, because in the book De unitate Ecclesiae, he maketh Peter Head & Commander of all the Church; and saith, heresies spring from the not seeking to this Head; than which nothing is more untrue. For Cyprian doth not make Peter Head & commander over the whole Church, as I have already showed in answer to the former allegation. Secondly, for that when he speaketh of one judge in the Church in stead of Christ, he must of necessity by the name of the Church understand the universal Church, and not each particular Church, because in his Epistle he speaketh of Cornelius. A strange kind of proof, & such as I think can never be made good: For first, the consequence doth not hold, seeing he might speak of Cornelius, & yet understand by the name of the Church, the diocese of Rome, and not the universal Church: and secondly, it is untrue that he saith, he speaketh of Cornelius. For it is as clear as the Sun at noon day, that throughout the whole Epistle, he complaineth of contempts, indignities, & wrongs offered to himself by Faelicissimus and Fortunatus, & not to Cornelius. But that Cyprian never acknowledged the supremacy of power which the Roman Bishops at this day claim, no better proof can be desired then this Epistle will yield: For these miscreants, Faelicissimus, Fortunatus, & their adherents, fled to Cornelius, complaining against Cyprian: whom he peremptorily condemneth for this their flying to Rome, as violators of the Canons, & disturbers of the order of the Church, which requireth all matters to be heard and determined in those places where the accusers and witnesses may be produced, Unless, saith he, a few desperate & wicked companions do think the authority of the African Bishops to be less than the authority of the other Bishops elsewhere, & therefore carry things out of Africa by way of appeal to other places. So that when he calleth the Church of Rome the principal Church, whence Sacerdotal unity sprang, his meaning is, that it is the principal Church in order & honour, & not in absolute, supreme, commanding power: & that Sacerdotal unity sprang from thence, not as if all Bishops did receive their power and jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome, but for that, though all receive their Bishoply commission immediately from Christ, by the hands of the Apostles ordaining them, yet he is to be acknowledged as first in the commission succeeding Peter, to whom Christ first promised that, which he meant afterwards in as ample sort to give to all the rest.  
For answer to the third allegation, we must observe that Cyprian in the 
i Lib. 2. ep. 10. ad Cornel.  Epistle cited by Bellarmine, laboureth to satisfy Cornelius' Bishop of Rome, who was something offended with him, for that presently so soon as he heard of his ordination, he did not write unto him as to his fellow Bishop. To this purpose he showeth, that he refrained and forbore so to do, till he was by others assured of his due and orderly election, and ordination, as well as by himself, because he perceived there was some opposition against him; but that as soon as his ordination was approved unto him, hearing of some factious and turbulent men stirring against him, he sent certain of his brethren and colleagues, to put to their helping hands for the bringing of the divided members of the body, to the unity of the Catholic church, if by any means it might be; but that the obstinacy of the one part was such, that they not only refused the bosom of the root, and common mother, seeking to receive and embrace them, but set up another head or Bishop; where it is plain and evident, that he speaketh not of the universal church, the common mother of all believers, but of that particular church of Rome, whereof Cornelius was Bishop, opposite to the divisions of such as departed from the unity of it, who being gone out of the bosom and lap of it, chose a Bishop of their own faction.  
The fourth and last allegation will easily be answered, if we do but take a view of that which Cyprian writeth in the 
k Li. 1. Ep. 8. ad plebem univer.  Epistle alleged. There is, saith he, one God, one Christ, one Church, one chair founded upon Peter by the Lords own voice. No other Altar may be raised, nor other new Priesthood appointed, besides that one Altar and one Priesthood already appointed. Whosoever gathereth any where else, scattereth. Surely, it is not possible, that the Cardinal should think as he pretendeth to do, that Cyprian speaketh of one singular chair ordained by Christ for one Bishop to sit in, appointed to teach all the world. For the question in this place is not touching obedience to be yielded to the Bishop of Rome, that Cyprian should need to urge that point, but touching certain Schismatics which opposed themselves against him; & therefore he urgeth the unity of the church and of the chair, to show, that against them that are lawfully placed, with consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity, others may not be admitted; and that they, who by any other means get into the places of Ministry, then by the consenting allowance of the Pastors at unity amongst themselves, are in truth and indeed no Bishops at all. So that Cyprian by that one chair he mentioneth, understandeth not one particular chair appointed for a general teacher of all the world to sit in, but the joint commission, unity, and consent of all Pastors, which is and must be such, as if they did all sit in one chair.  
Hitherto we have heard what can be alleged out of Cyprians writings, to prove the supreme commanding authority of the Pope. Now let us hear what may be alleged out of the same for the improving thereof. First, in his book of the unity of the church he saith, There is one Episcopal office whereof every one equally and indifferently hath his part; and secondly, in the Council of Carthage holden by him and other Bishops of Africa, he saith; 
l Concil. Carthag. inter opera Cypriani.  None of us maketh himself a Bishop of Bishops, or tyrannically enforceth his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, because every Bishop hath his own free judgement & disposition, & may neither judge other, nor be judged of other, but must all expect the judgement of God, who only hath power to set us over his Church, and to judge of our actions. To the first of these authorities 
m De Pont Rom. l. 2. c. 16.  Bellarmine answereth that each Bishop hath his part in the Episcopal office & communion, equally, & as well as any other, but not an equal part: For Peter & his successors have that part, that is as the root, head, & fountain; the rest, those parts that are as the branches, members, & rivers, and that therefore Peter's Successors are to rule & govern the rest. But this answer is refuted by the other place, where Cyprian with the whole Council of Carthage saith: None of us maketh himself a Bishop of Bishops, or goeth about tyrannically to enforce others to a necessity of obeying, seeing each Bishop hath his liberty, & no one may judge another, nor be judged of another, but must all expect the judgement of God. If he reply, that this which Cyprian speaketh of the equality of Bishops, is to be understood of the Bishops of Carthage, amongst whom none was found, that had power to command over others, & not generally so as to include the Bishop of Rome, he is refuted by Cyprian himself: who in his Epistle to ' Stephen 
n Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 1.  Bishop of Rome, having freely dissented from him, and showed the reasons of his so dissenting, pro communi honore, & simplici dilectione: that is, For the fellowship they have in the same honourable calling and employment, and the simplicity and singleness of his love, saith, he hopeth Stephen will approve that which is true and right, and which he hath so strongly confirmed and proved, though there be some (so taxing him in a sort as too stiffly cleaving to his own opinion) that will not easily alter their minds, but holding communion with their colleagues, stiffly maintain what they have once conceived. Wherein, saith he, Nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cum habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque praepofitus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus: that is, Neither do we force any man, or give a law unto any man, whereas every governor hath the free disposition of his own will in the administration of the Church being to give an account of his actions unto the Lord. Here we see Cyprian speaketh in the very same sort in the case between him and Stephen, as he did in the Council of Carthage, and that generally he maketh all Bishop's equal, and no one subject to the judgement of another, but to the judgement of God only, and the company of their fellow Bishops. And that he did not think the Bishop of Rome to have an infallibility of judgement, or a commanding authority over other Bishops, it appeareth, in that writing to 
o Epist. 74.  Pompeius of Stephen's answer to his letters, and sending him a copy of the same answer, he telleth him, that by reading it, he may more and more note his error in maintaining the cause of heretics against Christians and the Church of God: and feareth not to pronounce of him, that he writeth many things proudly, impertinently, unskilfully, improvidently, and contrary to himself: and, which more is, contemning his prescription, that heretics should not be rebaptised, but be received with the imposition of hands only, he chargeth him with hard, stiff, and inflexible obstinacy. 
p Firmilianus in epist. 75. inter epist. Cypriani.  Firmilianus with the Bishops of Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia, and other regions near adjoining, assembled in a Synod at Iconium, consented with Cyprian: and Firmilianus writing to him, telleth him of their resolution, and chargeth Stephen with folly, who bragging of the place of his Bishoprique, and pretending to succeed Peter, on whom the Church was founded, yet bringeth in many other rocks, and new buildings of many Churches, in that he supposed heretics to be truly baptised, who are out of the communion of the true Church: whereas the Church was specially promised to be builded on Peter, to show that it must be but one. And in great dislike and reprehension of Stephen, he saith, he was not ashamed in favour of heretics to divide the brotherhood, and to call Cyprian the worthy servant of God, a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceitful, and guileful workman: whereas all these things might much more truly be said of him: and therefore guilty to himself, Praevenit, ut alteri ea per mendacium objiceret, quae ipse ex merito audire deberet: that is, By way of prevention, he falsely, and lyingly objected those things to another, which himself truly and deservedly might have had objected to him by others. Such and so great were the oppositions of Cyprian and his consorts, against Stephen and his adherents, in the matter of rebaptisation: whereupon 
q De Pont. Ro. lib. 4. c. 7.  Bellarmine saith, it seemeth that Cyprian sinned mortally, in that he obeyed not the commandment of Stephen, nor submitted his judgement to the judgement of his superior. That he erred in the matter of rebaptisation, we willingly confess: but, that he knew not the power, authority, and commission of the Bishop of Rome, or that he would ever have dissented from him, or opposed himself against him in a question of faith if he had thought his power to be universal, and his judgement infallible, we utterly deny. For than he should not only have erred in the matter of rebaptisation, but have been a damnable heretic, and and have perished everlastingly: whereas yet the Church of God hath ever reputed him a holy Bishop, and a blessed Martyr. Thus having examined the testimonies of Cyprian, usually alleged, for and against the supremacy of the Pope, let us proceed to the rest of Bellarmine's witnesses.  
The next that followeth is Optatus, out of whom it is alleged, that 
r Optat. lib. 2. contra Parmenian.  there was one Episcopal Chair in the whole Church appointed by Christ. But because this is the same which was formerly alleged out of Cyprian, & already answered in the answers to the allegations brought out of him, therefore without farther troubling of the Reader, I refer him to that which went before.  
The next unto Optatus is Ambrose, out of whom three several places are produced; in the first, his words are these, as Bellarmine citeth them. 
s Ambr. in 3 cap. 1. ad Tim.  Though the whole world be Gods, yet the Church only is called his house, the Governor whereof at this day is Damasus. For answer hereunto we say, that this testimony rather witnesseth their forgery, then confirmeth their error. For the Commentaries attributed to Ambrose, wherein these words are, are not his: and besides, this addition, (the governor whereof at this day is Damasus) may be thought to have been put in, in favour of their fancy touching the Papal universality of jurisdiction; it is so sudden, causeless, and abrupt. In the second place, Ambrose 
t Ambr. in orat. in Satyrum.  reporteth of Satyrus, that before he would receive the Sacrament of the Lords body, he asked of the Bishop by whose hands he was to receive it, whether he held communion with the Catholic Bishops, and namely, with the Roman Church? To the inference of our Adversaries, and the conclusion they seek to derive & draw from these words in favour of the Papacy, I have answered elsewhere, 
u Book 3. chap. 41.  whither I refer the Reader. Wherefore let us come to the third and last place of Ambrose: His words are, We follow the type and form of the Roman Church 
x Ambr. de sac. l. 3. c. 1.  in all things; and again, I desire to follow the Roman Church in all things. Surely, this place of all other most clearly confuteth the error of the Romanists, touching the infallibility of the judgement of the Roman Church and Bishop, and the necessity of absolute conformity with the same. For in this place Saint Ambrose showeth, that in the Church of Milan, whereof he was Bishop, the manner in his time was, that the Bishop girding himself about with a towel in imitation of Christ, did wash the feet of such as were newly baptised; and after great commendation of the same custom, objecting to himself that the Roman Church had it not; first he saith, that perhaps the Church of Rome omitted this washing, because of the difficulty, and great labour in performing it, by reason of the multitude of those that were baptised. Secondly, whereas some said in defence and excuse of the omission of this washing in the Roman Church, that it is not to be used as a mystical right in the regeneration of them that are new borne in Christ, but in the civil entertainment of strangers (the offices of humility and civil courtesy, being very far different from the mysteries and sacred rights of sanctification) he reproveth them for so saying, and endeavoureth to show, that this kind of washing is a sacred and mystical right, tending to the sanctification of them that are newly baptised, and that out of the words of Christ to Peter; Unless I wash thee, thou shalt have no part in me: and then addeth the words alleged by Bellarmine, I desire in all things to follow the Roman Church, but notwithstanding we also are men, and have our sense and judgement: and therefore what we find to be rightly observed any where else, we also rightly observe & keep: we follow the Apostle Peter, we cleave fast unto his devotion, and hereunto, what can the Church of Rome answer? Whereby we may see with what conscience these men allege the testimonies of the Fathers. Ambrose saith, Other men have judgement to discern what is fit to be done, as well as the Romans: that if any where else they find better observations then in the Church of Rome, they may lawfully embrace them; that S. Peter Bishop of Rome was author of his assertion; and that the Church of Rome hath nothing to answer in her own defence, or whereby to justify her omitting of this sacred washing: and they produce his testimony to prove, that he thought it necessary to be like in all things to the Church of Rome. Neither doth Bellarmine's answer, that he thought it necessary to follow the Church of Rome in all things necessary to salvation, though he dissented in this observation, satisfy us; seeing he thought this observation necessary to the perfect regeneration of the baptised, & consequently to salvation, as appeareth in the place itself. Wherefore, when Ambrose saith of himself, and those of Milan, that they follow in all things the type & form of the Roman Church it is not to be understood without all limitation: but that as other daughter-Churches do follow the custom of their mother-churches; so the church of Milan conformeth herself to the church of Rome in all things, so far forth as she can persuade herself it is fit and right so to do: otherwise, out of her judgement and discretion receiving from other churches that which they have in better sort than she: evenas Gregory Bishop of Rome 
y Greg. Epist. l. 7. cp. 63.  professed, that he was not ashamed to learn of those churches that were meaner than his own.  
From Ambrose the Cardinal passeth to Hierome, out of whose writings he produceth two testimonies. The first, out of his Epistle to Ageruchia, de Monogamiâ; the other out of his Epistle to Damasus touching the use of the word Hypostasis. The first of these two testimonies might well have been spared. For what can any man infer from this that Hierome saith, he did help Damasus in writing answers to the Synodall consultations of the East and West? was there ever any man that doubted of the consulting of the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops by the Synods of the East and West, in matters concerning the faith, and state of the universal Church? Or may it be concluded from hence, that the Pope hath an absolute supreme power in the Church? Surely, I think not. Wherefore let us pass to the second testimony. Ego, saith Hierome to Damasus, nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tuae, idest, Cathedrae Petri, communione consocior: super illampetram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio, Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum commederit, profanus est: Si quis in arcâ Noae non fuerit, peribit regnante dilwio; that is, I following no first and chief but Christ, am joined in communion to your blessedness, that is, to Peter's chair. Upon that rock I know the Church to be builded: whosoever shall eat the Paschall Lamb out of this house, he is a profane person: If any man shall be out of Noah's ark, he shall undoubtedly perish, when the flood prevaileth and drowneth all. It is true, that 
z Cyp. Ep. 67.  Cyprian hath observed in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome, that therefore almighty God appointed a great number & company of Bishops, joined together by the glue and bond of unity, that if some fall into heresy, and seek to waste the flock of Christ, the rest may gather the dispersed sheep into the fold again; and therefore even as if one haven be dangerous, they that sail will seek to another more safe; and if one Inn upon the way be possessed by thieves and wicked persons, wayfaring men will turn into another; so in the Church, when the Pastors of one part of it are infected with error and heresy, men must fly to them that are right-beleevers in other parts. This was the case of Hierome, as it appeareth by this his Epistle: He lived at the time of the writing of it in the East parts, where arianism had strangely and dangerously prevailed, but the West churches were sound. He was urged to confess and acknowledge, that there are three Hypostases or subsistences in the Godhead. This form of speaking he suspected, as fearing some ill meaning, especially because he suspected them that tendered it to him; and therefore flieth for direction to Damasus and the Western Bishops. For it appeareth that he sought the resolution of them all, though the manner was to write only to the chief amongst them. Let us hear therefore what it is that he saith, and what the jesuit inferreth from his saying. He admitteth, saith Bellarmine, no original teacher but Christ: yet is joined in communion with Damasus, that is, with Peter's chair, and professeth, that upon that rock the Church was builded. Therefore he acknowledgeth the universality of Papal power and jurisdiction. This argument of the Cardinal is too weak to prove the intended conclusion. For though there be no question but that in a true sense the Church may be said to have been builded on Peter's chair, that is, upon his office and Ministry, yet it will not follow that they who succeed him in that chair have universality of power and jurisdiction: seeing 
a Hierome. li 1. contra jovinian.  Hierome himself teacheth, that the Church is builded as well upon the rest of the Apostles, as upon Peter, & consequently that their chairs are that rock, upon which the Church is builded, as well as Peter's. And yet besides all this, 
b Greg. Ep. lib. 6. Epist. cp. 37.  Gregory sheweth, that Peter's chair being but one, is in three several places, and three Bishops do sit in it. For Peter's chair is at Alexandria, where he taught and ruled by Mark his scholar; at Antioch, where he remained for a time; and at Rome, where in his body he yet still abideth, expecting the second coming of Christ. Upon this chair as on a rock the Church is builded. But this chair and throne implieth not only the office and ministry of them, who most specially succeed Peter, as the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, but of such other also, as in joint commission with them govern the Church. Whereupon, according to the phrase of 
c Vide apud Binnium Epist. Nichola. Ignatio Constantinopolitano. Tom. 3. concil. p 2. pag. 879 & alteram Epist. eiusdem, pag. 889. & orat. Basilij Imperatoris, p. 859.  Antiquity, the judgement of the Roman See, and the judgement of the Bishop of Rome with his fellow Bishops of the West, is all one. But some man will say, that Hierome pronounceth him to be a profane person that eateth the lamb out of this house, speaking of the Church of Rome: therefore he thinketh all men and Churches bound for ever to hold communion with the Roman Church. For answer to this objection, first we say, it may very probably be thought, that by the house he speaketh of, out of which the Lamb may not be eaten, he meaneth not particularly the Roman Church, but the true Catholic Church of Christ, which is equally builded upon all the Apostles, in respect of the same firmness found in them all; but more specially upon Peter, as in order and honour the chiefest of them; and then there is no question but all men are bound for ever to adhere to this church, and to eat the Lamb within the walls of this house. That this is the meaning of Hierome, the very form of his words do persuade us. I am joined (saith he) to Peter's chair, upon that rock the Church is builded, out of this house (of the Church, doubtless) the Lamb may not be eaten. Now by the name of the Church immediately going before, is meant the universal Church: therefore by this house we must understand that great house, within the walls whereof the whole household of faith is contained. Secondly we say, that if he speak of the Roman or West Church particularly, he may be thought to mean, not that he shall perpetually and always be judged a profane person that eateth the Lamb without the walls of that house: but things so standing as they did when he wrote, no other parts of the Church being sound, safe, and free from heresies, but the Western parts only. Which made him say, he knew not Paulinus, who was then Bishop of Antioch, within the compass of whose Patriarchship he lived, because there was question as well of his faith, as of the lawfulness of his ordination. For otherwise he ought to have known him, sought to him, and respected him. Thirdly, we say it is more than probable, that the whole West Church shall never lose or forsake the true profession, and that therefore he may rightly be judged a profane person that eateth the paschal Lamb out of the communion of the same; though sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an heretic, other of his colleagues continuing faithful. And that Hierome was of opinion, that the Bishop of Rome may become an heretic, it is most clear and evident, in that 
d Hieronym. in Catalogue. Script. in Fortunatiano & Acacio.  he saith, that both Liberius and Felix were Arrian Heretics.  
Thus have we answered whatsoever may be alleged out of Hierome for the Papacy, and showed the weakness of those allegations. Now let us see what authorities may be brought out of his writings against the absolute supreme power of Popes. First, he saith, if we seek authority, 
e Hierome ad Euagrium.  Orbis maior est urbe. The world is greater than the greatest city in the world, and the whole Church is of greater authority than the particular Church of Rome: And thereupon reprehendeth the negligence or error of the church of Rome, in permitting contrary to the manner of other churches, Deacons to grow so insolent, as to dare to sit in the presence of the Presbyters when the Bishop was away; as also in ordaining Presbyters upon the commendation of Deacons; So that he blamed not the Deacons only, as 
f Bel. de Pont. li: 2. cap. 16.  Bellarmine untruely saith, but the Roman Bishop, to whom the ordaining of Presbyters pertained. Neither will it follow, that the insolency of the Deacons presuming to sit in the presence of Presbyters, was unknown to the Bishop, or not allowed by the Church, as Bellarmine collecteth, because they are said so to have done, when the Bishop was away. For that circumstance rather insinuateth that though they had not cast off all respect to the Bishop, yet they had forgotten their duty towards the Presbyters, then that this their presuming was unknown to the Bishop. Secondly, he pronounceth that 
g Hierome ubi iupra.  wheresoever a Bishop be, whether at Rome or Eugubium, at Constantinople or Rhegium, at Alexandria or Tanais, he is of the same merit, and the same Priesthood; the power of riches, and the humility of poor estate not making a Bishop higher or lower. To this place Bellarmine answereth, that all Bishops are equal in the power of order, but not of jurisdiction. But it is certain, Hierome thought all Bishop's equal, not only in the power of order, but of jurisdiction also. For metropolitans in his time, though in order and honour greater than the rest, were bound to follow what the greater part of the Bishops of the Province consented on, and might do nothing but as the greater part should resolve, howsoever in process of time, by positive constitution, the metropolitans limited and directed by Canons, were trusted with the doing of many things by themselves alone, rather than the Bishops would be troubled with often meeting in Counsels. But saith Bellarmine, it cannot be that Hierome should think all Bishop's equal in the power of jurisdiction, seeing without all question the Bishop of Alexandria, having under him three great Provinces, was greater in jurisdiction then the Bishop of Tanais, who had under him only one poor little city. For answer hereunto we say, that patriarchs have no more power over the metropolitans subject to them, than the metropolitans have over the Bishops of the Province; and that therefore howsoever the extent of their power reach farther, yet proportionably it is no greater than the power of the metropolitans within their narrower precincts and compass, & that the Metropolitan originally is not greater in the power of jurisdiction, than any other Bishop of the Province, howsoever he have a pre-eminence of honour, and sit as a Precedent among the Bishop's meeting to perform the acts of jurisdiction, and by common consent to manage the affairs of the Province: so that, notwithstanding any thing the Cardinal can say to the contrary, the testimonies and authorities of Hierome stand good against the Pope's proud claim of universal power.  
Wherefore leaving Hierome, who witnesseth not for them, but against them, let us hear whether Augustine will say any thing for them. Out of Augustine sundry things are alleged: as first, that he saith, 
h Aug. ep. 562.  The principality and chiefty of the Apostolical chair did ever flourish in the Roman Church: and secondly, that to Bonifacius he saith, 
i Idem l. 1. ad Bonif. c. 1.  Thou disdainest not to be a friend of the humble, and those of the mean sort; and though thou sit in higher place, yet thou art not high minded: And again. 
k Ibid.  The watch tower is common to us all that are Bishops, although thou hast a higher room in the same. Surely it is strange to what purpose these places of Augustine are alleged. For we never denied a principality or chiefty of order and honour to have belonged anciently to the Bishops of Rome, whilst they rested contented therewith, and sought not to bring all under them by claim of universal power: and this is all that can be collected out of Augustine. But (saith Bellarmine) In his 
l Ep. 157.  Epistle to Optatus, speaking of a meeting of Bishops at Caesarea, he saith, an Ecclesiastical necessity laid upon them by the reverend Pope Zozimus, Bishop of the Apostolical See, drew them thither: therefore he thought the Bishop of Rome superior unto other Bishops, not in order & honour only, but in power of commanding also. For answer hereunto, first we say, that a great part of Africa was within the precincts of the Pat●…archship of Rome, and that therefore the Bishop of Rome might call the Bishops of those parts to a Synodall meeting, as every Patriarch may do the Bishops under him, though he had no commanding power over all the world. Secondly, that in a matter of faith concerning the whole state of the Church, Zozimus as in order and honour first amongst Bishops, might urge them by virtue of the Canons appointing such meetings, to meet together in a Synod for the suppressing of such heresies as he found to arise amongst them, and might justly threaten, if they should refuse so to do, to reject them from the communion of the Bishops and Churches adhering to him, and thereby lay an Ecclesiastical necessity upon them, without any claim of universal power. Neither doth the next place (wherein 
m Ep. 92. ad Innoc.  Augustine, and the Bishops assembled in the Council of Milevis, desire Innocentius to concur with them in suppressing the heresies of the Pelagians, which sought to spread themselves into all parts of the world, and to use his pastoral care and diligence for the preventing of the dangers of the weak members of Christ) yield any better proof, that they reputed him universal Bishop. For what do they here attribute to the Bishop of Rome, that. 
n Cyr. l 3. ep. ●…3  Cyprian writing to Stephen in the case of Martianus Bishop of Arle, doth not assume to himself & other his colleagues, saying of himself & them, that they are bound to use all diligence to gather together, and call back the erring sheep of Christ, to apply the medicine of fatherly piety for the curing of the wounds and hurts of such as are fallen, to recollect and cherish all the sheep that Christ purchased with his precious blood; & to know that though they be many Pastors yet they feed but one flock. But saith Bellarmine, why do they not rather write to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to the Metropolitan of Palaestina, or to the Primate of Africa, in which parts of the world Pelagianisme specially seemed to prevail, then to the Bishop of Rome, if they did not think him to have an universal power? Surely this question of the Cardinal showeth that either he knoweth not, or careth not what he writeth: for the cause of Pelagius had been often heard and examined by Synods of Bishops in Palaestina; and the 
o Vt patet ex epist. August. supradict.  Primate of Africa with his African Bishops did write to Innocentius as well as Augustine, and those assembled in the Council of Milevis; as well to inform him of the guileful fraudulent, and slippery dealings of Pelagius, that he might no way be induced to favour him, (as some feared not to give out that he did) as also that he might be persuaded to put to his helping hand for the suppressing of this heretic, who though condemned by many Synods, ceased not to fly from place to place, seeking to spread his heresies, & therefore there was no cause that they should write to either of these.  
Thus have our Adversaries found nothing in Augustine and the Africanes, that any way favoureth the Pope's proud claim of universal power. Neither do the rest of the witnesses who are next brought forth to give testimony for the Pope, depose any more to the purpose then the former have done. For that Prosper saith, 
p Prosper. lib. de ingratis.  Rome the See of Peter being made the head of Pastoral honour to the world, holdeth by religion whatsoever it possesseth, not by force of arms; and 
q Idem l. 2. de vocatione gentium. cap. 6.  that by reason of the principality of Priestly or Bishoply dignity, it became greater in respect of the high tower of religion, than the throne of princely power; that Victor Vticensis 
r Lib. 2. de persec. Wandalicâ.  calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches; & Hugo de Sancto Victore saith, 
s De sacrament. lib. 2. part. 3. cap. 15.  the apostolic See is preferred before all the Churches in the world; is no more than that we ever granted. For they all speak of a chiefty and principality of order and honour, and not of absolute commanding power. And the place which our Adversaries bring out of Vincentius Lirinensis 
t Vinc. Lirinens. in suo commonit.  to prove the Pope to be head of the world, is strangely missealleaged. For having spoken of the letters of Faelix the Martyr, and holy julius' Bishop of Rome, he addeth, that blessed Cyprian was produced out of the South, and holy Ambrose out of the North, that so not only Caput orbis, the head of the world, but the sides of it also might give testimony to that judgement, by the head and sides of the world understanding the parts of the world, whence these witnesses were produced, and not the witnesses themselves: So that there is no more reason to infer from hence, that the Bishop of Rome is head of all the world, than that Cyprian and Ambrose were the sides of the world. Neither do the testimonies of Cassiodore 
u Cassiod. l. 11. Epist. 2. ad joannem Papam.  who attributeth to the Bishop of Rome a general care of the whole Christian world, and Beda who saith, 
x Beda hist. gent. Anglor. l. 2. c. 1.  Leo exercised the Priestly office in the Christian world, make any more for proof of the Pope's universal jurisdiction than the rest that went before. For their sayings argue not an absolute universal commanding power over all, but such a care of the whole, as beseemeth him that is in order and honour the chief of Bishops, from whom all actions generally concerning the Christian Church, are either to take beginning, or at least to be referred before final ending, that so his advice may be had therein. And surely howsoever Anselmus 
y Ans. de incar. verbi. cap. 1.  saith, the custody of the faith of Christians, and the regiment of the Church is committed to the Bishop of Rome; and Bernard 
z Bern. lib. 2, de consideratione.  writeth of him that he is chief of Bishops, heir of the Apostles, in primacy Abel, in government Noah, in patriarchical honour Abraham, in order Melchizedek, in dignity Aaron, in authority Moses, in judgement Samuel, in power Peter, and in unction Christ: that others have particular flocks assigned to them, but that his charge hath no limits, with such like Hyperbolical amplifications of the Pope's greatness, savouring of the corruption of those late times wherein he lived; yet will it never be proved, that either he or diverse others speakings he did, were of the Papal faction, or believed that the Pope hath that universal power and jurisdiction, that is by the jesuits. and other Romanists at this day given unto him. For as john Bacon 
a john. Bacon. sup. Sen. prolog quaest. 10. art. 2.  a learned Schooleman, and countryman of ours, hath fitly noted, some attributed all those things whereof Bernard, and Anselmus speak, to the Pope, as thinking all fullness of Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction to be originally found in him, and that by himself alone he might do all things in the government of the Church, and all other were to receive of his fullness; which is the opinion of our adversaries at this day: Other attributed these things unto him, not as having all power in himself alone, but as head & chief of Bishops, together with their joint concurrence and assent: So that he had power to judge of the faith, to determine controversies in religion, as Patriarch of the West, with the joint consent of his Western Bishops, and as prime Bishop of the world with an Ecumenical Synod, wherein he was to sit as an honourable precedent & moderator, pronouncing according to the resolution of the Bishops, and not absolutely disposing things according to his own liking. Neither is it to be doubted but that very many followed this latter opinion, & consequently never gave that fullness of power to the Pope that is now claimed, howsoever they attributed that unto him as precedent of Ecclesiastical meetings, which rested not in him alone, but in the whole meetings and Assemblies; as it is an ordinary thing to attribute that to the precedent of any company that is done by the whole company: and as all the great actions of State are attributed to the Duke of Venice, whereas yet he can do nothing but as he is swayed & directed by the noble Senators of that State.   

CHAP. 37.  
Of the pretended proofs of the Pope's universal power, taken from his intermeddling in ancient times in confirming, deposing, or restoring Bishops deposed.  
Having examined the testimonies of Counsels, Popes, and Father's Greek and Latin, brought to prove the universality of Ecclesiastical power claimed by the Pope, and found their insufficiency and weakness; let us proceed to see, by what other proofs our Adversary's endeavour to demonstrate and confirm the same. The absolute, supreme power of Popes, they labour to prove, by the authority they exercised over other Bishops; by their laws, dispensations, and censures; by their Vicegerents which they appointed in places far remote from them; by Appeals brought unto them; by their exemption from being subject to any judgement; and by the names and titles that are given unto them. Of all these I will entreat in order, and first of the authority the Bishops of Rome are supposed to have exercised over other Bishops, in confirming, deposing, or restoring them.  
Of confirmation 
a Bell. de Pont. li: 2. c. 18.  Bellarmine bringeth some few examples, but such as will never confirm the thing he desireth to prove. For touching the confirmation of 
b Conc. Chalced. Actione 7.  Maximus in the Bishopric of Antioch, which is the first example that he bringeth, first, it was not any confirmation of himself in his Bishoply office, but only the determining of certain differences between him and juvenal, about their limits, and the confirmation of the same end and conclusion: Secondly, this end was not made by Leo alone, but by the whole Council of Chalcedon. Neither is the second proof, that the confirmation of the chief Bishops of the world pertained anciently to the Pope, any better than this. For these are the circumstances of that 
c Leo Ep: 54. ad Marcianum.  Leo writeth, whom Bellarmine citeth in the second place, as challenging the right of confirming the Bishop of Constantinople. Anatolius the Bishop of Constatinople, ambitiously asp●…red to be greater than was fit, as Leo thought: Leo writeth to the Emperor in reprehension of his presumption; and saith, that he might have forbornethus' ambitiously to aspire higher, seeing he obtained the Bishopric of Constantinople by the Emperor's help, and his favourable assent. The favour that Leo speaketh of, was in that Anatolius not having passed through the lower degrees of Ecclesiastical Ministry, was somewhat irregularly preferred to be Bishop of so great a city, which he was content to wink at, at the Emperor's entreaty. And as the manner was, that the four patriarchs, should (upon notice given of their due ordination, and Synodall letters containing a profession of their faith) mutually give assent one to another before they were accounted patriarchs, and fully possessed of their places: by his allowance, in the same sort as others were to allow of him, as much as in him lay he was content to confirm and make good his ordination, though somewhat irregular and defective; which no way proveth that the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained any otherwise to the Bishop of Rome, than the right of confirming him pertained unto them. Yet this is in effect all they can say: For that 
d Ep. 84. ad Anastas. Thessaly.  Leo willeth the Bishop of Thessalonica to take knowledge of the metropolitans chosen in the Provinces subject to him, as Vicegerent to the Patriarch of Rome, and by his assent to confirm their ordination; as likewise, that 
e Ep. 87. ad Episc. Afric.  writing to the Bishops of Africa, subject to him as Patriarch, he telleth them, he is content the Bishop of Salicen turned from Novatianisme, shall keep his place, if he send unto him the confession of his faith, and that 
f Greg. l. 1. ep. 34.  Gregory complaineth, that the Bishop of Salona within his Patriarchship was ordained without his privity and consent, doth no more prove the Pope to be universal Bishop, than the other patriarchs, without whose assent none of the metropolitans subject to them, might be ordained. And this was it that so much grieved Gregory, namely, that his Bishops (thereby putting a difference between such as were subject to him, in that he was Patriarch of the West, and others) should so despise and contemn him. But let our Adversaries prove, that either Gregory, or any of his predecessors ever challenged the confirmarion of metropolitans, subject to any of the other patriarchs, and we will confess they say something: Otherwise all that they bring is idle, and to no purpose, proving nothing that we ever doubted of. For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the metropolitans within the precincts of his own Patriarchship, as likewise every other Patriarch had: and that therefore he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece, France, and Spain, as Bellarmine allegeth, being all within the compass of his Patriarchship, and yet not be universal Bishop, as Bellarmine would willingly from hence infer.  
Wherefore seeing our adversaries have so little to say for the Pope's right of confirming Bishops, let us proceed to see what proofs they can produce of his power and authority in deposing them. Their first allegation is touching 
g Cyp. l. 3. ep. 13.  Stephen Bishop of Rome, deposing as they suppose Martianus Bishop of Arle in France, who had joined himself with Novatianus, denying reconciliation, and the Church's peace to such as having fallen and denied the faith, afterwards repent and turned again unto God. This allegation is too weak to prove their intended conclusion: For it is most certain by all circumstances of the Epistle of Cyprian cited by Bellarmine, that Stephen the Bishop of Rome did not depose Martianus by himself alone: and therefore Cyprian doth not say to Stephen, therefore hath God appointed thee to be over all Bishops, that if they fall into heresy, or fail in the performance of their duty, thou mightst set all right again: but, therefore hath God appointed a great number of Bishops, that if any one of that company and society fall into here sie, and begin to tear, rent, and waste the flock of Christ, the rest may help, and as good and pitiful Pastors, gather the scattered sheep of Christ into the fold again. Neither doth he say to Stephen, that he should suspend Martianus, but that he should write to the Bishops of France to do it, and not to suffer him any longer to insult upon the company of Catholic Bishops, for that he was not yet suspended, and rejected from their communion. But some man perhaps will ask why Cyprian desireth Stephen to write to the Bishops of France, and writeth not himself, as if the power of deposing Martianus were no more in Stephen then in himself. Surely there may be three reasons given of his so doing; the first, because he was nearer to them then Cyprian. The second, because he as Patriarch of the West, with his Bishops, was more likely to prevail then Cyprian with his Africanes alone. The third, for that (as Cyprian himself observeth in the end of this Epistle) it more concerned him then any other to maintain the reputation of LUCIUS and CORNELIUS his predecessors, and to oppose himself against Martianus, who joined himself with Novatianus, that had schismatically and heretically rend and divided himself from them, and made a schism in their Church. Neither doth that which followeth (where he desireth Stephen to write unto him, who is appointed in the room of Martianus, that so he may know whom to write unto, and with whom to communicate) import, that he should by himself alone constitute the Bishop of Arle; but that writing to the people to choose, and the Bishops of the province to direct them in choosing, and to consecrate him they should choose, he should require to be certified from them of their proceedings accordingly, that so he might impart the same unto him.  
The next proof that the Pope hath authority to depose any Bishop of the world, deserving to be deposed, is out of the Epistle of Nicholas the first to Michael the Emperor of Constantinople. But whosoever shall peruse the place, shall find, that no such thing can be concluded out of it. For the drift of Nicolas in that Epistle, is to show, that the inferiors may not judge their superiors, as the provincial Bishops their metropolitans, or the metropolitans their Patriarch; but that still the greater must judge the lesser. If a Clerk, saith the Council of 
h Canone 9  Chalcedon, have aught against his Bishop, let the matter be heard in the Synod of the province: but if a Bishop or Clerk, have a complaint against the Metropolitan, let him go to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of Constantinople: So that ever the greater must judge the lesser, and the lesser may never presume to judge the greater, so long as there is any greater to fly unto. And therefore john of Antioch in the Council of Ephesus was reproved, for that being but Bishop of the third See, he presumed to judge Cyril Bishop of the second See: & Dioscorus Bishop of the second See was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon, for that he judged Leo, Bishop of the first See. This he insisteth upon, to show, that the Bishop's subject to Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, had unjustly proceeded against him: & then to show, that this their proceeding was strange & new, he saith, there hath scarce been any of the Bishops of Constantinople deposed, whose deposition hath been holden just and good, without the concurrence of the See of Rome. Now how will this prove that the Pope hath power in himself alone to depose all Bishop's worthy to be deposed? is it consequent, that if the Bishops of patriarchical Sees may not be judged by their own Bishops alone, nor by those that are in degree of honour inferior to them, and that the patriarchs of higher Sees, with their Bishops, must concur with the Bishops of those patriarchs that are judged, and that never any Bishop of Constantinople, being next in honour to the Bishop of Rome, was deposed but by such a Synod, whereof the Bishop of Rome was precedent, that the Bishop of Rome hath in himself alone the fullness of all Ecclesiastical power? Surely, I think not, our Adversaries themselves being judges. But Gelasius in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, saith, the See apostolic by her authority condemned Dioscorus, Bishop of the Second See: therefore the Pope hath all Ecclesiastical power originally seated in himself alone. Truly this consequence is no better than the former. For by the See apostolic Gelasius understandeth the Roman Bishop, and the Bishops of the West subject to him, who Synodically condemned Dioscorus, and yet not without the concurrence of many other Bishops: nor so as that the judgement was thought perfect, till an 
i Vide acta Concilij Chalced.  Ecumenical Synod confirmed it, as it appeareth by the course of histories.  
The next example is the deposition of 
k Bell. ex Theodoret h●…st. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 23.  Flavianus, Bishop of Antioch, by Damasus Bishop of Rome. But this example might have been spared. For it is most certain that Damasus did not depose Flavianus. The circumstances of the history are these: Eustathius that worthy Bishop of Antioch, who 
l 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. l●…. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 7.  made that excellent Oration in the praise of Constantine in the Council of Nice, and was so earnest and zealous a defender of the true faith against the Arrians, being by certain Arrians 
m 〈◊〉. cap 2●…. 21.  cast out of his Bishoprique, and banished, upon the occasion of a lewd woman; charging him to have committed adultery with her, but afterward confessing she had wronged him, and that she had been suborned by those Arians, so to accuse him, Eulalius was chosen into his place, whom Euphronius succeeded, and after him, Placitus obtained the Bishoprique. All these did secretly favour arianism, and therefore many, both of the people and Priests, forsaking the public assemblies, had their private meetings, and were called Eustathians; for that, after the banishment of Eustathius, they began thus to assembe together. 
n Idem. l. 2. c. 24  Stephen succeeded Placitus, Leontius Stephen, and 
o Ibid. cap. 25.  Eudoxius Leontius; who 
p Cap. 31.  obtaining to be Bishop of Constantinople, left the Church of Antioch void: Whereupon the Bishops of the province assembled together, and chose Milesius to be Bishop, some of them hoping that he would favour arianism, and other knowing that he was an Orthodox; the error of the one side mispersuaded of the man, and the true knowledge the other had of him, made both willingly to consent to his election and ordination. But so soon as the Arrians perceived what he was, they deposed him and sent him into banishment, placing Euzoius in his place: which when the people and Priests that were Catholic perceived, who had long endured the insolences of the Arrians, they divided themselves, and refused to communicate with him. After a while 
q Lib. 3. c. 4.  Milesius, in the time of julian, returneth from banishment; to whom though such Catholics as divided themselves upon dislike of Euzoius, presently cleaved; yet would not they that first divided themselves in respect of Eustathius, neither at the first ordination of Milesius, though Eustathius were then dead, nor now upon his return by any means be induced to hold communion with him and his; which Lucifer, one of them that had been in banishment with Athanasius seeing, and pitying, laboured with them what he could to bring them to unity. But when he saw they would not be induced to join with Milesius and that Paulinus was their leader, he made him their Bishop: which act of his, made the Schism more dangerous than before, and of longer continuance, than otherwise happily it would have been: for it 
r Ibid. cap 5●…  continued 85. years. 
s Lib. 5, c. 3.  Milesius perceiving Paulinus to be ordained Bishop over them that were divided from his communion, seemed no whit therewith to be offended or displeased, but spoke peaceably to Paulinus, desiring him that they might join their flocks, and feed them together: and if, said he, the throne divide us, let me lay the Gospel in it, and then do thou sit in it sometimes, and I will sit in it at other times: and if I die before thee, thou shalt have the care and charge of all: if thou die before me, the care and charge of all shall be devolved to me. This counsel, Paulinus would not hearken unto, and therefore the Emperor's officer adjudged the Churches to Milesius, and the guiding of the divided sheep to Paulinus. Whereupon, when Milesius died, 
t Ibid. cap. 23.  though Paulinus would have had the place, yet he was refused, because he had refused to hearken to the Counsel of Milesius: and the Bishops chose Flavianus, a man very conspicuous for his great labours, and one that had exposed himself to many dangers for the good of the Church. Yet this ordination greatly displeased the Egyptians and Romans. 
u Sozomen li. 7. c. 2. & 11. Socrates li. 5. c. 15.  The reason of which their so great dislike, was for that when there was much contention between Milesius and Paulinus, it was so agreed, that all they that were fit for that Bishopric, or might in likelihood be in any hope or expectation of it, should swear neither to seek it nor accept it, while either of these lived: nor no way to hinder, but that after the death of the one, the other might have the full and entire government of the whole: of which number it was thought that Flavianus was one, & that therefore not without perjury, contrary to his vow and oath, he had hindered the reuniting of the divided parts of the Church.  
This dislike conceived against Flavianus, died not when Paulinus died: but though Euagrius most unlawfully, and against the Canons had gotten the Bishoprique, having 
x Theodoret. li. 5. c. 23.  no ordination but from his predecessor, (whereas the Canons allow no such nomination of a Successor, and besides require the presence of the Bishops of the province) yet would they that at first disliked the ordination of Flavianus take no knowledge of any of these things, but communicated with Euagrius, & incited the Emperor against Flavianus; who being urged continually by the Bishop of Rome, and others, no longer to suffer Flavianus to enjoy his place: and told, that suppressing Tyrants, he did ill to suffer the violatours of the Laws of the Church to escape unpunished; sent for Flavianus, thinking to send him to Rome, there to be judged in a Synod of Bishops: who when he came into the presence of the Emperor, told him confidently, that if any man would object against his doctrine or life, he would desire to be tried by no other judges but his greatest enemies; but if the matter were for his Episcopal chair, he would willingly relinquish it, that the Emperor might commit it to whom he would; upon which his confident answer, the Emperor dismissed him, and bade him to go home, and feed the flock committed to him. Yet long after, many complaints were again renewed against him to the Emperor by sundry Bishops being at Rome, fearing to tax the Emperor himself for that he suppressed not the tyranny of Flavianus: but the Emperor bade them say, what that tyranny was, as if he were Flavianus, for that he had undertaken the defence of him. Which when they refused to do, professing themselves unwilling to stand upon terms with the Emperor, he exhorted them to lay aside their foolish quarrelings, and to reunite the Churches that had long without cause been divided: for that Paulinus was now dead, and Euagrius came unjustly to the Bishopric; and the ordination of Flavianus was so far forth allowed of, that all the Churches of the East, with the Churches of Asia, Pontus, Thracia, and Illyricum, held Flavianus to be lawful Bishop of the East. Hereupon the Bishops promised to surcease, and that if Flavianus would send Legates unto them, they would kindly entreat them, and hold communion with him. Howsoever it appeareth by 
y Socr. l. 5. c. 15.  Socrates, that after the death of Euagrius, he procured there should be no Bishop chosen in opposition to him: and first pacified Theophilus, and afterwards by his means Damasus: 
z Zozo. l. 8. c. 3.  Sozomen reporteth, that Chrysostome after he was made Bishop of Constantinople, finding that the Egyptian & western Bishops dissented from those of the East, in respect of Flavianus, and that all the Churches throughout the whole Empire were divided about him, besought Theophilus to be pacified towards him, and to assist him for the reconciling of Damasus also. To this suit of Chrysostome, Theophilus yielded, & sent certain to Rome; who prevailing, sailed into Egypt, and from thence, as also from Rome, brought letters of reconciliation & peace, both from the Egyptian and Western Bishops. This History, I think, will never prove, that the Bishop of Rome deposed Flavianus, Bishop of Antioch, and that he could not hold his Bishopric till the Bishop of Rome consented to him. For the thing that was sought, was not his holding of his Bishopric, as Bellarmine untruly reporteth, but the peace and concord of the Churches, divided about him. Neither was the difference only between him and Damasus, but all the Bishops of Egypt, & the West dissented from him likewise: and therefore 
a Amb. cp. 78.  Ambrose showeth, that the examining of the matter between Euagrius and him, was committed to Theophilus, & the Bishops of Egypt, and desireth him to make relation of the end he should make, to the Bishop of Rome, that he also agreeing thereunto, an universal peace might be concluded. So that nothing can be concluded out of this history, for proof of the universal power of Popes: Seeing Damasus could neither of himself alone, nor with the concurrence of the Western Bishops depose Flavianus, nor by any means persuade the Emperor to thrust him out of his place, but was sharply reproved by the Emperor for quarrelling with him, and required to be at peace with him, that so the Churches formerly divided without cause, might be reunited.  
The next instance of the Pope's deposing Bishops, is that of 
b Acta Sixti 3. in 1 tom. conc.  Sixtus the third, who deposed Polychronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, if we may believe Bellarmine: but in truth there was never any such thing. The circumstances of the whole proceeding against Polychronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, (if there be any credit in the report of Pope Nicholas, and the acts of the Council under Sixtus the third) were these. Two 
c Nichol. 1. in ep. ad Michael. Imp.  things specially were objected to him: the one, that he went about to violate the ancient bounds of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bishops, set and limited by the Fathers, to prefer himself before the other principal Bishops, and to make his See the first, whereas in truth it was the last amongst the patriarchical Sees; the other that Simoniacally he conferred Ecclesiastical honours upon such as would purchase the same. Hereupon the Bishop's subject to him, not willing to proceed against him themselves alone, complained to the Bishop of Rome, and showed him how much he was wronged by the undue claims of this Bishop. The Bishop of Rome took not upon him to do any thing of himself, but called a Synod of the Bishops of the West, and by their advice, with the concurrence of the Emperor, directed certain out of the West, authorized by the whole Synod, to go, and sit in Council with the Bishops of those parts: who together with them examining the crimes objected to Polychronius, and finding that he was truly charged with them, deposed him from his Bishopric; so that the Bishop of Rome did not depose him of himself, but only called a Synod, (as in such a case it was fit he should) and the Synod deposed him; but in truth it is rather to be thought, that the acts of the Council under Sixtus the third, are counterfeit, and of no credit. For 
d Binnius annot. in illud Concil.  Binnius showeth, that there was no such Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem in those times, & bringeth many other reasons to disprove the acts of this supposed Council, besides that the absurdity in the proceedings bewrayeth them to be counterfeit. For what can be more absurd, then that the accuser of Polychronius, making good his accusation, should be condemned for accusing him, and he first condemned; and then presently upon slender or no reasons at all, restored again?  
Thus we see how little our Adversaries are able to say for proof of the Pope's universal power, exercised in deposing Bishops. Wherefore let us now proceed to see if they can produce any better proofs of his restoring such as were deposed by others. The first example they bring, is the restitution of 
e Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 4.  Basilides, a Bishop in Spain, but they know right well that the Bishop of Rome did not restore him to his Bishopric, and that therefore this allegation serveth to no purpose, but to abuse the Reader, & to make him believe they say something, when they say nothing. The circumstances of the matter concerning Basilides, are these, laid down in Cyprians Epistles. Basilides & Martialis, had defiled themselves with some kind of consenting to Idolatry, & therefore the Clergy & people subject to them, fearful to communicate with them, write to Cyprian, & the African Bishops, for counsel & help: they return answer, that they are to withdraw themselves from them, & to proceed to the election of new Bishops. Hereupon the Bishops of the province coming to the place where Basilides was Bishop, Sabinus was elected Bishop by the Clergy, & people, with the liking of all the Bishops of the province, and ordained by them Bishop in the place of Basilides. After this Basilides goeth to Rome, mis-informeth Stephen the Bishop, and seeketh by his means, & the help of his Bishops, to recover his place again: they communicate with him; & so as much as in them lieth, restore him to his former place & dignity again. Cyprian condemneth the false & ill dealing of Basilides, and reproveth also the negligence of Stephen, that suffered himself so easily to be misled, taxing him, & such as consented with him, for communicating with such wicked ones; and showing, that they are partakers of their sins, & that they violate the Canon of the Church, which the Bishops of Africa, and all the Bishops of the world, yea even Cornelius the predecessor of this Stephen, had consented on: to wit, that men so defiled with idolatry as Martialis & Basilides were, should be received to penitency, but be kept from all Ecclesiastical honour. Hereupon he exhorteth the brethren not to be moved, if in these last times the faith of some men be shaken, or the fear of God fail in them, or if they hold not peaceable concord with their brethren: for that both the Apostle, and the Lord himself foretold, that such things should come to pass in the last times, the world decaying, & antichrist's revelation drawing on; & comforteth & encourageth them to hold on in the good course they were in, for that the vigour of the Gospel, and the strength of Christian virtue, & faith, do not so wholly fall away in these last times, ut non super sit portio Sacerdotum, quae minimè ad has rerum ruinas & fidei naufragia succumbat: that is, that no remnant of Bishops should remain which should no way sink or fall in these overthrows of things, and shipwracks of faith, but full of the fear of God, courageously maintain the honour of the divine majesty and the dignity of the Priests. We know, saith he, that when the rest yielded, Mattathias valiantly maintained the law of God: and that Elias stood and strove zealously, when others forsook the law of his God. Wherefore let them that either violate the Canons, or treacherously behave themselves, look to it: there are many, who still retain a sincere and good mind. What if some have fallen away from the faith? doth their infidelity make the truth of God of none effect? God forbid. For God is true, and every man a liar; and if every man be a liar, and God only true, what should the servants and Priests of God do, but leave the errors and lies of men, and keep the precepts of the Lord, and remain in the truth of God? Wherefore, though some of our Brethren, and Colleagues think, they may neglect the discipline of God, and rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis; let it not trouble nor shake our faith, seeing the spirit of God threateneth in the Psalms, saying, Thou hast hated discipline, and cast my words behind thy back. If thou sawest a thief, thou runnest with him, and hadst thy portion with the adulterers. These are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle, wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis, and the inconsiderate course held by the Bishop of Rome, hastily communicating with them: whereby we may see how wisely and advisedly our Adversary's allege Cyprian to prove, that in ancient times, the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places again, as were deposed by other. For thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any use of it: Basilides & Martialis justly put from their office and dignity, and others rightly and in due sort chosen into their places, fly to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, hoping by his means to procure the reversing of that which was done against them. He, with such as adhered to him, though they could not restore them to their places, yet communicated with them. Cyprian offended herewith, chargeth Basilides & Martialis with execrable wickedness, for abusing Stephen, and misse-informing him: & Stephen with intolerable negligence & unexcusable violation of the Canons, for partaking with such wicked persons; & wisheth all his Brethren and colleagues constantly to hold on their course against them, notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adherents. Therefore the ancient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were judicially deposed by others: and were thought by the Fathers to have power & authority so to do. Which kind of reasoning I think the Reader will not much like of.  
Touching Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, Paul Bishop of Constantinople, and Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, deposed by the oriental Synod, their complaints to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of the West, of the wrongs done unto them; how the Bishop of Rome with the Western Bishops fought to relieve them, with how ill success, and how little this instance serveth to prove the thing in question, I have showed 
f Supra, cap. 35.  before: as likewise Theodoret's desiring Leo, with his Western Synods to take knowledge of his cause. So that it is a vain brag of Bellarmine, that to these, and the like testimonies of Antiquity, nothing is, nor can be answered.   

CHAP. 38.  
Of the weakness of such proofs of the supreme power of Popes, as are taken from their Laws, Censures, Dispensations, and the Vicegerents they had in places far remote from them.  
HAVING examined the pretended proofs of the illimited universality of the Pope's authority and jurisdiction, taken from the power they are supposed to have exercised in former times over other Bishops, by confirming, deposing, or restoring them; let us come to their Laws, Dispensations, & Censures, & see if from thence any thing may be concluded. If they could as strongly prove, as they confidently endertake, that Popes in ancient times made Laws to bind the whole Christian Church, dispensed with such as were made by general Counsels, & censured all men as subject to them; of necessity we must be forced to acknowledge the fullness of all power to rest in the Roman Bishops. But their proofs are too weak to make us believe any such thing. For first, touching the decrees of Popes, they did not bind the whole Christian Church, but the Western Provinces only that were subject to them, as patriarchs of the West. And secondly, they were not made by them without the consent and joint concurrence of the other Bishops of the West, assembled in Synods, and sitting with them as their fellow judges, with equal power of defining and determining things concerning the state of the Church; as appeareth by the Decrees of 
a Greg. l. 4. ep. c. 88  Gregory the first, who sitting in Council with all the Bishops of the Roman Church, (the Deacons and inferior Clergymen standing before them) made Decrees, and confirmed them by their subscriptions, the rest of the Bishops and the Presbyters also, who sat in Council with them subscribing in the very same sort that Gregory did. And of Decrees in such sort made, Leo speaketh, when he 
b Leo ep. 1.  requireth the Bishops of Campania, Picene, & Thuscia, to keep and observe the Decretal constitutions of Innocentius, and all other his predecessors, which they had ordained as well touching Ecclesiastical orders, as the Discipline of the Canons, or otherwise to look for no favour or pardon. And in the very same sort are the words of 
c Citat. á Bell. de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 19  Hilarius to be understood, when he saith: That no man may violate either the divine constitutions, or the Decrees of the apostolic See, without danger of losing his place. For this he spoke sitting as Precedent in a Council of Bishops assembled at Rome, of things decreed by Synods of Bishops, wherein his predecessors were Precedents and Moderatours, as he was now, but not absolute commanders. But Bellarmine saith, that 
d Ibid.  Pope Anastasius the younger, in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor, willeth him not to resist the Apostolical precepts, but obediently to perform what by the Church of Rome and Apostolical authority shall be prescribed unto him, if he desire to hold communion with the same holy Church of GOD, which is his Head. Therefore the Pope had power to command and give laws to the Emperor, and consequently had an absolute supreme authority in the Church. Surely this allegation of the Cardinal is like the rest. For Anastasius doth not speak in any such peremptory and threatening manner to the Emperor, but acknowledging his breast to be a Sanctuary of happiness, and that he is God's Vicar on earth, telleth him in modest and humble sort, that he hopeth he will not suffer the insolency of those of Constantinople, proudly to resist against the Evangelicall and Apostolical precepts in the cause of Acatius, but that he will force them to perform and do what is fit, and in like humble sort beseecheth him, when he shall understand the cause of them of Alexandria, to force them to return to the unity of the Church. The last instance of the Pope's Law-giving power, brought by Bellarmine, is the privilege granted to the Monastery of Saint Medardus, by 
e Ad finem ep. Greg.  Gregory the first; in the end whereof we find these words: Whatsoever Kings, Bishops, judges, or secular persons, shall violate the Decrees of this Apostolical authority, and our commandment, shall be deprived of their honour, driven from the society of Christians, put from the communion of the Lords body and blood, and subjected to Anathema, and all the woeful curses that Infidels & Heretics have been subject to from the beginning of the world, to this present time. A strong confirmation of the privileges granted is found in these words, but a weak confirmation of the thing in question: for the privileges were granted and confirmed in this sort, not by Gregory alone out of the fullness of his power, but by the consenting voice of all the Bishops of Italy and France, by the authority of the Senate of Rome, by Theodoricus the King, and Brunichildis the Queen. So that from hence no proof possibly can be drawn of the Pope's absolute power of making laws by himself alone, to bind any part of the Christian Church, much less the whole Christian world.  
Wherefore let us pass from the Pope's power of making laws, to see by what right they claim authority to dispense with the Laws of the Church, and the Canons of General Counsels. The first that is alleged to have dispensed with the Canons of Counsels, is 
f Gelas. ep. 1  Gelasius. But this allegation is idle, and to no purpose. For first, it cannot be proved, that by dispensing he sought to free any, from the necessity of doing that the strictness of the Canon required, but those only that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West. And secondly, he did not dispense but upon very urgent cause, and driven by necessity so to do; and yet not of himself alone, but with the concurrence of other Bishops of the West, assembled in Synod. The other instances that are brought of the dispensations of 
g Greg. li. 12. Epist. 31.  Gregory the first, are nothing else but the instances of the ill consciences of them that bring them. For Gregory did not dispense with the English, to marry within the degrees prohibited (as the Cardinal untruely reporteth) but only advised Austin, not to put them that were newly converted, from such wives as they had married within some of the degrees prohibited, in the time of their infidelity, lest he might seem to punish them for faults committed in the days of their ignorance, and to discourage other from becoming Christians. Neither did he dispense with them of Sicilia, for the not keeping of the canon of the Nicene council, requiring provincial Synods to be holden twice every year; but whereas they held not such Counsels so much as once in the year, he commanded that they should not fail to meet in Council once at the least every year; seeing the Canons require that these meetings should be twice. These truly are very weak and insufficient proofs of the Papal power in dispensing with the laws of the Church, and the canons of general Counsels: and yet these are the best, nay these are all that they can make show to bring out of all Antiquity.  
Let us therefore proceed to the censures that the ancient Bishops of Rome are reported to have exercised, and see if they prove the universality of power now claimed. The first allegation to this purpose, is the intent of 
h Euseb. histor. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23.  Victor, Bishop of Rome, resolving to have rejected from his communion all the Churches of Asia, for keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the jews did. For, saith 
i Bell. de Pont. li: 2. cap. 19  Bellarmine, howsoever Irenaeus and others dissuaded him from executing that he intended, yet it appeareth his observation was right, in that it was afterwards confirmed by the Nicene Council, and that he had authority over all, in that he went about to excommunicate those of Asia for dissenting from him in the observation of that Feast, and keeping it with the jews, though he were content, for the avoiding of some inconueniencies, at the entreaty of Irenaeus to forbear proceeding against them. For answer hereunto we must observe, that by reason of the custom of those of Asia, that kept the feast of Easter precisely at the same time the jews did, there was moved not a little contention throughout the whole world, and many Synods in every place called. For 
k Euseb. hist. Ecclesiast. l. 5. c. 21. 22. 23.  in Palestina a Synod was holden, whereof Theophilus of Caesarea, and Narcissus of Jerusalem, were Precedents; another at Rome, whereof Victor was Precedent; and another, of the Bishops of Pontus, whereof Palmas as most ancient, was Precedent: and in sundry other places, other Synods were called. But the Synod of the Bishops in Asia, whereof Polycrates was Precedent, stiffly maintained the ancient custom that had long prevailed in those parts, and wrote an Epistle to Victor, and those of the Roman Church, to justify themselves in this behalf. Victor and his Bishops much offended with this their pertinacy (as they construed it) would for this cause, have rejected them from their communion. But Irenaeus, with some other of a milder spirit, and better temper, stayed them from such rash and violent proceedings; and Irenaeus wrote his letters to this purpose to the Bishop of Rome, and other his colleagues: so that here is nothing to prove the power of the Pope. For what was resolved on, both touching the right of the observation, and the proceedings against them that disliked it, was resolved by the Synods of Bishops, and not by Victor alone: as likewise Irenaeus was not alone, but many other joined with him in the reprehension of Victor, whose number and multitude prevailed much with him, and stayed his proceedings as well as the persuasions of Irenaeus. And yet did not the Western Bishops take upon them to excommunicate those of Asia, as the Cardinal untruely affirmeth, but only to reject them from their communion and fellowship; there being a very great difference between excommunication properly so named, and the rejecting of men from our communion or fellowship. For excommunication properly so named, is a resolution to deny the Sacraments to such as are to receive them of us, the abandoning of all fellowship with them, and the requiring and commanding of others to refrain from all communicating with them in private or public; and argueth him that so excommunicateth, to be superior in authority, and greater in place than they are whom he excommunicateth. But rejecting from communion, or refusing to communicate with men, may be found among them that are equal. So 
l Act. Concil. Ephes. tom. 1. cap. 14.  Cyril wrote to Nestorius, that if he revoked not certain dangerous positions, he would communicate no longer with him. So the 
m Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7.  Bishops of the East told julius' Bishop of Rome, that if he communicated with Athanasius, they would no longer communicate with him. And such was the proceeding that Victor intended against those of Asia; and therefore proveth not that he was their superior, or had a commanding authority over them. And yet surely, howsoever it be true, that his manner of observation was better than theirs, whom he disliked, his intention upon such an occasion to have made a breach in the Christian Churches, was justly with some bitterness reprehended by Irenaeus, and his brethren. For howsoever Bellarmine would 
n Tert. de prescript in fine.  make the Reader believe by alleging that of Blastus, who urged the keeping of Easter with the jews, and sought to bring in judaism, that Victor had reason to be violent as he was, as perceiving some ill meaning in them that held the jewish observation; yet far be it from us to think that Polycarpus, and so many worthy and holy men, as anciently kept that observation, were any way inclinable to judaism. But this difference may be thought to have grown not from any diversity of judgement touching matters of faith, but for that in some places they thought it fit to keep this feast on the Lord's day, for very important reasons moving them so to do; and in other places, though they could have been content to have done so likewise upon the same reasons, yet kept they it after the old manner, for the avoiding of the scandal of the jews, for the easier winning of them that were not yet gained to Christianity, and the holding of them in the love & liking of Christian profession, that were already of jews become Christians. The next instance is of 
o Nicephorus. li: 13. cap. 34.  Innocentius the first, who after that he heard of the death of Chrysostome, whom Theophilus had deposed, & the Emperor Arcadius banished, excommunicated the Emperor & Empress, and anathematised Theophilus in such sort that he should utterly be excluded, & have no place among Christians. But this report may very justly be doubted of, the credit thereof resting only on the authority of Nicephorus. Seeing the ancient 
p Vide supra cap. 35.  Historians, that report the proceedings of Theophilus and Arcadius against Chrysostome, & his complaints to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of the West, of the wrongs that had been done unto him, report also the answer of the Roman Bishop to have been, that he greatly pitied his case, but saw no hope of remedy, nor means to relieve him, unless a general Council might be called, to which purpose he would do his best with the Emperor; and that Chrysostome himself wished him not to proceed so far, as to reject them from his communion that were his adversaries, for fear of further inconveniences; this being the contention almost of the whole world, and the Churches by occasion hereof every where brought upon their knees. Yea all ancient Historians are silent, and say nothing of this excommunication, but report the 
* Sozom. lib. 8. cap 18.  repulse, which the messengers, the Roman Bishop sent to the Emperor to procure a Council, received; and 
q Theodoret. spe●…king of the injury done to Chrysostome, hath these words. Alias virtutes authorum illius revere●…i cogor: qua de causa annitar, ut ipsorum nomina occultem. lib. 5. hist. Eccl. cap. 34.  Theophilus (for aught I know) was ever holden a catholic Bishop, both by Hierome and others to his dying day; notwithstanding these quarrels between him and Chrysostome. The excommunication of Leo the Emperor, by Gregory the third, whereof Zonaras writeth in the life of Leo Isaurus (which is a third instance of Papal censures, against the great men of the world) proveth not the matter in question: For Gregory did not anathematise Leo of himself alone, but with a Synod of Bishops; neither was he able by his own authority to stay the Tribute that was wont to be paid to the Emperor, but by his solicitation 
r Hierome wrote sundry Epistles to Theophilus, full of all due respects, and turned his three Paschall books into Latin. Vide Epistolas Hieron. tom. 2.  procured a confederacy of the French and Germans against the Emperors of Constantinople, and by their means stayed the Tribute that was wont to be paid; whereupon the Germans and French possessed Rome, and became Lords of it. The last example is that of 
s Rhegino lib. 2. Otho. frisingen's. l. 6. c. 3. Sigebert. in Chronico. an. 862.  Nicholas the first, excommunicating Lotharius King of France, and his concubine Valdrada, together with the Archbishops of Coleyn & Treuers, But the answer hereunto is easy. For first, this example proveth not the thing in q●…estion, to wit, that the Pope hath an universal power over all the world, seeing all these were within the Patriarchship of the Bishop of Rome. And secondly we say, these circumstances of this proceeding are untruely reported by Bellarmine. For this is the true report which we find in Rhegino and others. Lotharius King of Lorraine, falling in love with Valdrada, which had been his concubine while he was yet a young man in his father's house, began to dislike Thietberga his wife. Hereupon he laboureth with the Bishops of Treuers and Coleyn, to find some means to put her away. They call a Synod, wherein Thietberga is charged to have committed incest with her own brother, and thereupon pronounced an unfit wife for the King. The King thus freed from his wife, professeth he cannot live single; they pronounce it lawful for him to marry another wife, and he taketh Valdrada to wife, whom he had formerly kept as his concubine. Nicholas the first, Bishop of Rome, hearing of this, sendeth into France to learn the certainty. The Legates he sendeth, come to the King to expostulate the matter with him. The King answereth, that he did nothing but what the Bishops of his kingdom in a general Council had assured him was lawful to be done. Whereupon the Bishops of Coleyn and Trevers were sent for to Rome, and the Pope called a Council, in which the opinions and proceedings of these Bishops were condemned, and they degraded by all the Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons that were assembled in Council. In all which narration there is no circumstance found, that any way proveth the Pope to have the fullness of all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; but the contrary rather may from hence be concluded, because nothing is done against these two Bishops, but by a Synod of Bishops assembled by their own Patriarch. But, saith Bellarmine, Pope Nicholas excommunicated the King, and Valdrada his supposed wife; therefore he is universal Bishop. The former part of this saying is most untrue; for the Pope did not excommunicate the King, but Valdrada only. And I think the excommunicating of one silly harlot, that had so grievously scandalised the Church of God, and whose cause was judged before in a Synod, being brought thither, and there examined, by reason of the unjust proceedings of the Bishops of Coleyn and Treuers, against a lawful Queen, in favour of her, will never by any good consequence prove the Pope to be universal Bishop; & yet these are all the proofs the Cardinal can bring from the censures the ancient Bishops of Rome are reported to have used: and therefore he 
t De Pontif. l. 2. cap. 20.  proceedeth to show & demonstrate the Amplitude of the Pope's illimited power & jurisdiction by the Vicegerents he appointed in all parts of the Christian world, that were far remote from him, to do things in his name, & by his authority.  
But for answer hereunto, we say, that neither this Cardinal, nor any other can prove, that the Bishops of Rome had any such Vicars, Vicegerents, or Substitutes, but only within the compass of their own Patriarchships: and that therefore from the having of them, nothing can be inferred for confirmation of their illimited power & authority. So Leo (as we read in his 
u Leo. Ep. 84.  Epistles) constituted Anastasius▪ Bishop of Thessalonica, his Vicegerent for the parts thereabouts, as other his predecessors had done former Bishops of that Church. Wh●…ch causing great resort thither upon diverse occasions, may be thought to have been the reason why the Council of 
x Canon●… 20.  Sardica provideth, that the Clergymen of other churches shall not make too long 
a Greg. l. 4. cp. 52.  stay at Thessalonica. So the same 
y Epist. 87.  Leo made Potentius the Bishop his Vicegerent in the parts of Africa; 
z Hormisd. in cp. ad Sallust.  Hormisda, Salustius Bishop of Hispalis, in Boetica and Lusitania; and Gregory, Virgilius Bishop of Arle, in the regions of France: all these places being within the compass of the Patriarchship of Rome, as 
b Cusan. lib. 2. concord. cathol. cap. 7. ex Dist. 12. cap: Qui▪ nesciat. & dist. 43. cap. juxta.  Cusanus showeth. And the same may be said of the Bishop of justiniana the first, who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts, upon signification of the 
c justinian. Authent. Collat. 9 T●…t. 6. sive Novella Const. 131.  Emperor's will and desire that it should be so. Neither doth the Cardinal prove any other thing, whatsoever he maketh show of. For though Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, were the Vicegerent of Caelestinus, in the cause of Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, yet was he not his Vicegerent in such sort as they were that were within his own Patriarchship, as if he had had none authority of his own, but that only which Caelestinus gave unto him. But 
d Caelest. ep. ad Cyril. Act. Concil. Ephes. tom. 1. cap. 16. Cyril. epist. ad Nestorium Ibid. cap. 14.  Caelestinus having been informed by Cyril of the impieties of Nestorius, and having in his Synods of the West condemned the same, joined his authority with the authority of Cyril, that so he might proceed against him, not only as of himself, and out of the judgements of his own Bishops, but also out of the consenting resolutions of them of the West. And therefore 
e Euagr. lib. 1. cap. 4.  Euagrius showeth, that at or before the time appointed by the Emperor, Nestorius and Cyril came to Ephesus, where a Council was to be holden: and that john of Antioch with his Bishops, being not come, after fifteen days stay, Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, the greatest of all the Bishops that were present (who also supplied the place of Caelestinus) with the rest of the Bishops thought good to send for Nestorius, and to require him to appear in the Synod, to answer to the crimes objected to him. Whereby it is evident, that (Nestorius being to be judged in a general Council) Cyril being the greatest of the Bishops that were present, (the Bishop of Rome neither coming nor sending at the first) was in his own right, 
f Relat. sanctae Synodi ad pientiss. Imp. inter epist. Synodales vocat Cyrillum caput congrega●…orum Episcorum.  Precedent of that assembly. But the Bishop of Rome, who could not come, (but having assembled his Bishops in the West, had judged and condemned him) joined his authority with Cyril, the principal of the Bishops that were present, that so nothing might be wanting to the perfection of a general Council. So that it is most certain, that Cyril was precedent of the Council of Ephesus, not as a Vicegerent only to the Bishop of Rome, but in his own right, though he had the authority, direction, and consenting concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, and all the Western Bishops, joined with the power and authority, which he and the rest of the Bishops present had of themselves. And therefore 
g Leo Epist 47.  Leo saith in express words, that Cyril was Precedent of the Council of Ephesus, as likewise 
h Photius de 7. Synodis.  Photius and others affirm. The same answer may serve for Acacius. For 
i Epist. 13. Gelasijs add Episc. Dardan.  he was not Vicegerent of the Bishop of Rome, in hearing and determining the cause of Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who was an Eutychian Heretic) as having none authority of his own: but there was a joint concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Constantinople, the later having besides his own right and interest, the full power and authority of the other: and being likewise to use the help of the Emperor for the reducing of the Church of Alexandria, to the unity of the faith again: in which business he failed: for though at first he condemned Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, yet afterwards he was content to communicate with him. For which cause he was justly reprehended as not answering the trust that was reposed in him, and as being a favourer of heretics and so in a sort an heretic himself. To these allegations which we have already heard, 
k Apud juellum pag. 277.  Harding in his answer to Bishop jewels challenge addeth another, of a Bishop of Alexandria being Vicegerent to the Bishop of Rome, out of the Epistle of Bonifacius the second, to Eulalius or Eulabius. But 
l De Pontif. li. 2. cap. 25.  Bellarmine refuteth that Epistle, and showeth that it is counterfeit, and that there never was any such Eulabius, to whom Bonifacius might write: and therefore we will no longer insist upon the examination of the same, but proceed to the proofs, which our Adversaries bring from appeals made to Rome.   

CHAP. 39  
Of Appeals to Rome.  
FOR the clearing of the matter of Appeals we must observe, that they are of three sorts: Of Laymen, of inferior Clergymen, and of Bishops. Of the appeals of Laymen there is no mention in all Antiquity: and yet now the Bishops of Rome reserve all the greater causes even concerning the laity to themselues alone, forbidding the ordinary guides of the Church to intermeddle with them: and very ordinarily admit appeals of Laymen to the infinite vexation of men, and the great hindrance of the course of all justice. Whereas it is most wisely and rightly ordered, each Bishop having his portion of the flock of Christ committed to him, as Cyprian observeth, that they that are committed to their charge should not be permitted to run hither and thither, but be judged there, where the things, for 
a Cypr. lib: 1. epist. 3.  which they are called in question, were done, and where the accusers and witnesses may be present.  
Concerning inferior Clergymen the holy Bishops in the Council of Milevis speak in this sort: 
b Conc. Milevit. Canone. 22.  It hath seemed good unto us, that if Presbyters, Deacons, & other inferior Clergimen complain of the judgements of their own Bishops, the neighbour Bishops entreated by them with the consent of their Bishops shall hear them and make an end; and if they think good to appeal from their judgement, it shall not be lawful for them to appeal, but only to the Counsels of Africa, or to the Primates of their own Provinces. And if they shall make their appeal beyond the seas, no man in Africa shall receive them to the Communion. This whole Council Innocentius the first approved, as it appeareth by his 
c Epist. 93. inter Epistolas Aug.  Epistle, which we find in the book of the Epistles of S. Augustin. Hereunto, Bellarmine 
d de Pon. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 24.  saith, some answer with 
e Gratian. 2. quaest. 6. cap. placuit.  Gratian: who addeth to the Canon of this Council, forbidding appeals to be made beyond the seas, an exception, unless it be to the Sea apostolic. But this exception, saith Bellarmine, seemeth not fitting, seeing the Africanes made this decree, that men should not appeal beyond the seas, especially in respect of the Church of Rome, and to restrain the making of appeals thither; there never being any appeal from the Africans to any other church but to the church of Rome only. And yet 
f Controu. 3 de prim. subject. potest. eccles. quaest 7. explicat art.  Stapleton answereth the authority of this Council as Gratian doth, and that out of julius and Fabianus, Bishops of Rome, as he saith. The Council of 
g Canone 17.  Sardica (saith Bellarmine) decreed, that the causes of Presbyters and inferior clergymen appealing from the judgements of their own Bishops, should be determined and ended by the neighbour-Bishops: and Pope Zozimus, as appeareth by the sixth Council of Carthage, and the Epistle of the same Council 
h Bell ubi supra.  to Bonifacius the Pope, required the same canon to be revived. 
i August. Ep. 162.  Augustine likewise showeth, that it was not lawful for those of the clergy under the degree of Bishops, to appeal out of Africa. Neither was this the peculiar privilege of Africa alone. For the Council of 
k Canone 9  Chalcedon ordained; that if a clergyman have aught against another of the clergy, the matter shall be heard by the Bishop, or by arbitrators chosen by both parties, with the Bishop's allowance. But if he have aught against his Bishop, he shall prosecute the same complaint in the Synod of the province. This canon of the Council of Chalcedon the 
l justin Novel. Const. 123. c. 22.  Emperor confirmed, saying, if any of the clergy complain against his Bishop for any matter, let the cause be judged by the Metropolitan, according to the sacred rules, and the imperial laws. And if any man appeal from his sentence, let the cause be brought to the Archbishop or Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him according to the canons, make a final end. And yet, notwithstanding these canons above recited precisely forbidding inferior clergymen to appeal to Rome, we find that the 
m Vt patet ex Epist. Concil. j Africani ad Coelestinum.  Bishops of Rome admitted the appeal of one Apiarius, judged & condemned in Africa; which caused a great difference between the Africanes and him. Whereupon the Fathers in the Council of Africa, wish the Bishop of Rome (as it beseemeth him) to reject and repel the wicked and unlawful appeals, as well of Presbyters, as of other inferior clergymen; seeing the ending and determining of their causes, is by no decree of any Synod denied to the church of Africa, and the Nicene canons most clearly commit both inferior clergymen and Bishops to their own metropolitans. 
n Vbi suprá.  Bellarmine, to clear the Pope from intrusion, and to avoid the testimonies & authorities of the holy Bishops and Pastors of the church, which we have produced to show the unlawfulness of appeals to Rome; answereth first: that though they of the inferior clergy were prohibited to appeal to the Pope, yet he was not forbidden to admit their appeals; which is a most strange answer. For if they in appealing did ill, and violated the canons, he could not but offend, in admitting such their appeals. And therefore 
o Ep. praedict. Conc. Afric. c. 105.  they of Africa tell the Pope, that it befeemeth him to repel such appeals; and that to admit them, is to bring in the smoky puff of worldly pride into the Church, professing that the ending of such matters belongeth to the Church of Africa, and complaining of intolerable wrongs and injuries done unto them, when such appeals are admitted; whence it is consequent, that the Pope may not admit them. Secondly, he answereth, that the Bishop of Rome admitted not the appeal of Apiarius, but heard his complaints, and commanded them of Africa more diligently to examine his cause: whereas it is most plain and evident, that the Pope upon his appeal, unadvisedly received him to his communion, and restored him to his degree and place again. Besides that, to hear complaints, & to command a review, is in the judgement of all men of sense & understanding, a kind of an admitting of an appeal; seeing no such thing can be done but by him that hath power to judge of their judgement, whom he commandeth to review and reexamine that they have formerly judged.  
Concerning Bishops, the 
p Canone 9  Council of Chalcedon decreed, that if a Bishop have aught against the Metropolitan, he shall go to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of the Princely city of Constantinople, that there the matter may be examined and heard. And the 
q Novel. 123 c. 22.  Emperor confirming the same canon, decreed▪ that if the Bishops of one Synod have any matter of variance among themselves, either for Ecclesiastical right, or any other occasions; first the Metropolitan, and the other Bishops of the Synod shall examine and determine the cause; and if either part dislike the judgement, than the Patriarch of that Diocese shall give them audience according to the Ecclesiastical Canons, and Imperial laws, neither side having liberty to contradict his judgement. This decree of the Emperor 
r Greg. ep. l. 〈◊〉. ep. 54  Gregory the first reciteth, and alloweth: only adding, that if there be neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch, than the matter must be ended by the Apostolic See, which is the Head of all Churches. So that even in his judgement, when there is a Patriarch, no Bishop may appeal from him to Rome, but every one is bound to stand to the end that he shall make. The eight 
s Canone 26.  general Council in like sort appointeth Bishop's complaining of their Metropolitans, to go to the Patriarch, that he may make an end, & requireth either side to stand to the end that he shall make, seeing the more honourable Bishops out of sundry Provinces called together by him, sit in council with him. Yet 
t Epist. citat. 〈◊〉 Conc. Afric. sive Carthag. 6.  Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Caelestinus Bishops of Rome, by their agents in the Counsels of Africa urged & claimed a pretended right, to admit appeals of Bishops from any part of the world, as from the canons of the Nicene council. But the worthy Bishops there present, looking into the decrees of that council, & finding no such thing as was alleged, lest haply those copies of the council which they had, might be defective, imperfect, or corrupted, sent to the most reverend patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, for the authentical & indubitate copies: but could find no such thing in them when they came, as was alleged by the agents of the Bishop of Rome. And therefore they wrote unto him, & prayed him no more so easily to admit men coming to him with appeals and complaints, nor to receive to his communion such as they should excommunicate▪ because the Nicene council hath forbidden all such admission, committing not only Laymen and inferior Cleargymen, but 
* The Africanes though within the Patriarchship of Rome, disliked the appeals of Bishops to Rome, because they might have right against their metropolitans, if they wronged them: in a general Synod of afric, wherein the P●…imate sat as Precedent: for otherwise Bishop●… wronged by their metropolitans, might by the Canons appeal to▪ their own Patriarch.  Bishops also to their own Metropolitans: and requiring that Bishops put from the communion in their own Provinces, should not be by other, hastily, suddenly, or unduely restored to the communion. And farther, they besought the Roman Bishops to repel, as beseemeth them, the wicked appeals of Presbyters, & other inferior Clergymen, because no decree of any council hath prejudiced the Church of Africa in this behalf, but all the Father's most prudently & justly decreed & determined, that all matters should be ended in the place where they arise, seeing no Province can lack the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby the Bishops of Christ may be able both wisely to see, and constantly to maintain the right; and especially for that it is lawful for every one that shall mislike the judgement of them that have the hearing of his cause, to appeal to the counsels of his Province, or to a general Council, unless haply any man will think, that God will inspire the trial of justice into one man alone, & that he will deny the same to a great number of Bishops assembled in Council: and farther they add, that these beyond-sea judgements cannot be thought good, and of force, whereunto the persons of the witnesses necessary for the finding out of the truth, cannot be brought, either in respect of the infirmity of their sex or age, or by reason of some other impediment. And thus we see that the Bishops of Rome could not demonstrate their right to receive Appeals of Bishops, refusing to stand to the judgements of their own metropolitans and Synods, out of the Nicene Council, but failed in the issue. Yet may we not hereupon charge them with falsification or mistaking, say the worthy 
u Bell. de Rom. Pont. li. 2. c. 25.  Proctors of the Roman Church. But we must rather say with counterfeit Athanasius, in his Epistle to Faelix, that the copies of the Nicene Council were corrupted, or in his Epistle to Mark the Bishop of Rome, that they were burned; then that we should yield any such thing. And yet surely if they were corrupted, they were not burned: and if they were burnt, they were not corrupted: and that the Arrians should corrupt the copies of the Nicene Council in other things, and leave it inviolable in that part that toucheth them most, and condemneth their heresy, is strange and unlikely. 
x Ibidem.  Bellarmine saith, the Magdeburgians do laugh at the report of the burning of those copies of the Nicene Council that were kept at Alexandria, and seemeth to confess they have reason so to do. For (saith he) the supposed burning happened in the time of Constantius the Emperor, when as Athanasius being driven from thence, George the Arrian had gotten into his place as Athanasius testifieth in his Epistle ad omnes Orthodoxos; whereas it may be clearly proved out of the Chronicle of Hierome, that Mark the Pope was dead at that time. Besides, if Mark the Pope had sent the true copies to Alexandria upon this letter of Athanasius (as is pretended) why should not the copies that were found at Rome, & they that were brought from Alexandria into Africa, have agreed together? How came it to pass that the canon urged for the Pope's advantage in the Counsels of Africa, was not found in the copies sent from Alexandria? but that that copy altogether agreed with the other that came from Constantinople and Antioch. Bellarmine therefore passing by these Epistles, as being of no great credit, allegeth sundry things mentioned by the Ancient, as decreed by the Council of Nice, which yet are not found in those twenty Canons now extant; to prove that it followeth not that the Bishops of Rome falsified the Council of Nice, because they could not find the things they urged in the copies sent out of the East, seeing they might be in some other, as well as those things that are mentioned by the Ancient, which are not found in these twenty Canons. The things alleged by him out of the Ancient, as decreed by the Nicene Council, which yet are not found in the Canons now extant, are in number seven, whereof some were neither decreed in that Council, nor reported by the Ancient to have been decreed there. For 
y Hier. praefat. in judith.  Hierome doth not say that the Conncell of Nice, reckoned the book of judith among the books of the Canon, but only that some said it did; but that it did not, Bishop Lindan bringeth very good reasons, as I have ᶻ elsewhere 
Book 4. Chap. 23.  showed. The like may be said of the permitting of Clergymen having wives, to live with their wives. For the 
a Socrat. l. 1. c. 8.  histories do not say, the Council passed a decree to that purpose, but that whereas the Fathers of the Council were about to have made a decree for the restraining of Clergymen from Matrimonial society with their wives, they were by Paphnutius a worthy Bishop and holy Confessor, dissuaded from so doing and induced to leave it free as they found it. The observation of the feast of Easter upon the Lord's day, is the third instance given by the Cardinal. But if Zozimus, Bonifacius and Caelestinus could have brought as good proof, that the decree they urged was passed in the Council of Nice, as may be brought for the decree touching the keeping of Easter only on the Lord's day, they had never been resisted, though they could not have found it in the canons. For the order that the Council took for uniformity in the keeping of this feast, is mentioned in the Epistle of the Council to the Churches of Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis; and all histories and writers do agree on it. Touching the having of 2 Bishops in one city, which 
b August. epist. 110.  Augustine saith, Valerius his predecessor knew not to be forbidden by the Council of Nice, when he caused him to be ordained Bishop, and to sit together with him, while he yet lived; it is strange that Bellarmine should deny it to be found among the twenty Canons we speak of, when as in the eighth Canon it is expressly provided, that if a Novatian Bishop return to the unity of the Church in any city where there is a Catholic Bishop already, the Catholic Bishop shall look out for him some place, in his Diocese, that he may be a Chorepiscopus, or shall appoint him to be a Presbyter; that both he may remain in the Clergy, and that yet there may not seem to be two Bishops in one city. That Atticus in the end of the Council of Chalcedon saith, the manner of writing those letters, that were called Litterae formatae, was devised in the Council of Nice, no way proveth the thing in question. For we inquire not, what was there devised, but what was there decreed. Lastly, that which the 
c Canone 14.  Council of Africa hath, as out of the Council of Nice, that none should celebrate the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, but such as are fasting: & 
d Ambr. Epist. 82.  Ambrose, that none should be taken into the Clergy that have been twice married, might by them be taken upon uncertain report, as that touching the book of judith was by Hierome. But to what purpose doth Bellarmine insist upon these allegations? and why doth he so carefully labour to show that all the decrees of the Nicene Council, are not comprised within the twenty Canons now extant? Is it because he would thereby make us think, the Nicen Council did decree any such thing cencerning appeals, as was alleged in the Council of Africa by the Pope's agents? Surely no. For he professeth, he thinketh it very probable, that the pretended Canons were never made by the Nicene Council, but that they were the Canons of the Council of Sardica: and his reason is, because these Canons are in the Council of Sardica, in the very words alleged. And it is not likely the Fathers in that Council would make the same Canons, the Council of Nice did, and no way express it, that they did not make new, but renew such as were made before. Which if it be so, it must needs be confessed, that the Bishops of Rome were deceived and mistook, when they alleged Canons as made in the Council of Nice, that were not made there but in the Council of Sardica. Yet Bellarmine is unwilling to yield so much to the truth, though it be very mighty and ready to prevail with him: and therefore rather than he will confess any error or mistaking, he affirmeth, that both these are to be esteemed but as one Council: because many of the same Bishops were present in them both, and confirmed the same faith. A strange saying doubtless, and contradicted by himself. For in his book 
e De Concil. lib. 1. c. 4. 5. & 7.  De Concilijs, sorting Counsels into three ranks, accounting some wholly rejected, some wholly approved, and some in part rejected, and in part approved: he reckoneth the Council of Nice among those of the second sort, and the Council of Sardica among those of the third sort: because consisting of three hundred seventy and six Bishops, the three hundreth Occidental Bishops confirmed the Catholic faith: and they of the East dividing themselves from them, confirmed the heresy of the Arrians: whereas here he will have it to be the same with the Council of Nice, for that it was a general Council approved, and not reckoned in number the second. But let us pardon them this error and mistaking, and see what it was the Council of Sardica decreed. The words of the Fathers of the Council are these: 
f Concil. Sardic. Can. 3. & 7.  It hath seemed good unto us, that if a Bishop shall be accused, and the Bishops of the same region shall judge him and degrade him; if he that is so deposed or degraded, shall appeal and fly to the Bishop of Rome, and desire to be heard, if he think good to renew the judgement, let him be pleased to write to the Bishops that are in the next Province, that they may diligently inquire into things, and judge according to truth and equity. But if he that desireth to have his cause heard again, shall move the Bishop of Rome to send a Presbyter from his own side, let him do what he thinketh fit. And if he shall think fit to send some, who being present with the Bishops may judge together with them, having his authority from whom they are sent, let him do as he pleaseth. And if he think the Bishops to be sufficient to put an end to the matter, let him use his own discretion. For the clearing of this matter, and that we may the better discern the force of this decree: first, we must mark that it was made after the division and parting of the Bishops of the East from them of the West, and so by the Western Bishops alone, &, as it may seem, respectively to the Provinces of the West, over which the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch. Secondly, that the Africans took no notice of it; and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Council, so that in likelihood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent acceptation, execution, and practise. Thirdly, that the Council of Chalcedon, which was absolutely Ecumenical, and wholly approved, & so of greater authority than this, that was not an approved General Council, but in a sort only, 
g Canon●… 9  decreeth the contrary, and referreth the final determination of all causes of Bishops, to the Primate or Patriarch, which the Emperor also confirmeth, and will have no man to have power to contradict the end which the Primate or Patriarch shall make. Lastly, that this canon maketh rather against them that allege it, than any way for them. For by this Canon all matters must be ended at home, or in the next Province to that wherein they arise; and the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to be heard, but is only permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter having his authority, and to put him in commission with the Bishops of the Province, that so he and they jointly may reexamine things formerly judged. If this Canon were now observed, I think there would not be so great exception taken to the court of Rome, in respect of appeals, as now there is. 
h Bern. l. 3. de consider. ad Eugenium.  Quousque (saith Saint Bernard to Eugenius) non evigilat consideratio tua ad tantam appellationum confusionem? Ambitio in Ecclesia per te regnare molitur. Praeter ius & fas, praeter morem & ordinem fiunt: repertum ad remedium, reperitur ad mortem. Antidotum versum est in venenum: murmur loquor & querimoniam communem Ecclesiarum. Truncari se clamant & 〈◊〉. Vel nullae, vel paucae admodum sunt, quae plagam istam aut non doleant, aut non timeant; that is, How long will it be before thou awake to consider this so great confusion of appeals? Ambition striveth and seeketh busily to reign in the Church by thy means, They are entered, prosecuted, and admitted, beside right & law, besides custom and order. That which was first found out for a remedy, is now found to be unto death. I do but express the murmuring and common complaint of the Churches. They cry out that they are mangled and dismembered, and there are few or none found that do not either already grieve at this plague, or fear the smart of this evil. Yet would not the Africans admit the canon of the council of Sardica, but willed the Pope to send no more any of his clerks, to dispatch causes at any man's suit. For that this was to bring in the smoky puff of worldly pride into the Church, and in very earnest sort besought him not to be too easy in admitting any appeals brought from them. If within a little time after, the Bishops of Rome prevailed so far, as that Bishops were suffered to appeal out of Africa to Rome, which was the thing claimed by Zozimus, but denied unto him by the Africans; it is not to be marvailed at, seeing they still enlarged the extent of their power, till they had overthrown the jurisdiction of all the Bishops of the West, and alienated the affections of all other from them. So that there was a schism in the church, the other four patriarchs dividing themselves from the Bishop of Rome, and at their parting using these or the like words, as it is reported. 
i Gerson. part. 4. serm de pace & unit▪ 〈◊〉, c●…nsid 〈◊〉.  Thy greatness we know, thy covetousness we cannot satisfy, thy encroaching we can no longer endure, live by thyself. But here we shall find a great contrariety of judgement among the greatest Rabbis of the Romish church touching these Africans that thus withstood the claims of Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus. For Harding against Bishop jewels challenge in the Article of the supremacy, 
〈◊〉 Harding apud jewel. p. 29●…  saith, that the whole church of Africa withdrew itself from the church of Rome by reason of this difference, through the enticement of Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage, and continued in schism by the space of an hundred years; during which time by God's punishment they were brought into miserable captivity by the barbarous & cruel Vandals, who were Arrians; till at length when it pleased Almighty God of his goodness to have pity of his people of that Province, he sent them Belisarius that valiant Captain that vanquished and destroyed the Vandals; and Eulabius that godly Bishop of Carthage, that brought home the Africanes again, and joined those divided members to the whole Body of the Catholic church. A public instrument containing their submission, being made and offered to Bonifacius the second, by Eulabius in the name of the whole Province. Which was joyfully received; and whereof Bonifacius writeth to Eulabius Bishop of Thessalonica, desiring him to give thanks to God for the same. But 
l De Pont. l. 2. cap. 25.  Bellarmine proveth at large, that notwithstanding this resistance and opposition of the Africans against the claims of Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus, yet there never was any apparent breach between the Romans and them. And for the Epistle of Bonifacius the second to Eulabius, wherein he saith very harshly (as 
m De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 15 & li. cod. c. 17.  Cusanus well noteth) that Aurelius sometimes Bishop of the church of Carthage, with his colleagues, began to wax proud and insolent against the church of Rome, by the instigation of the devil in the days of his predecessors, (so condemning Augustine, Alipius, and two hundreth twenty five Bishops more, as set on by the devil to resist the claims of his predecessors, and the Epistle of Eulabius Bishop of Carthage, wherein he condemneth his predecessors, and submitteth himself to the Bishop of Rome,) he professeth he greatly suspecteth they are forged & counterfeit. First, because that which is contained in them cannot stand with that which is most certainly proved & known to be true touching the amity and friendship that was between the Roman Church and Augustine, Eugenius, Fulgentius, and other Africans, after the opposition about the matters of appeals. Secondly, for that there was no such Eulabius Bishop of Alexandria at that time, to whom Bonifacius might write, as it appeareth by the Chronologie of Nicephorus of Constantinople. Thirdly, for that Bonifacius in his Epistle doth signify that he wrote in the time of justinus the Emperor; whereas justinus was dead before Bonifacius was Bishop, as appear by all histories. So that we may see what gross forgeries there have been in former times devised only to abuse the simple, and make the world believe, that all Bishops and churches subjected themselves unto the church of Rome. And how shameless a defender of Antichristian tyranny Doctor Harding was, that could not escape this censure of Bellarmine the jesuit. But it is l●…sse to be marvelled at, that he should so harden his forehead, as not to blush when he brought into the light, and presented to the view of the world such rotten forgeries, that was not ashamed to become a proctor of the filthy stews.  
Wherefore, leaving him & his counterfeit and apocryphal stuff, which he sought to vent unto the world, let us proceed from the appeals of Laymen, inferior Clergymen & Bishops, to speak of the appeals of the chief Primates or patriarchs. For the clearing of which point, we must observe, that it is a rule in Church-government, that the lesser and inferior, may not judge the greater & superior. And therefore the Bishops of the Province, may not judge the Metropolitan, but may only declare in what cases he is judged, excommunicated, suspended, or deposed, ipso facto, by the sentence of the Canon itself, and by separating themselves from him, & withdrawing themselves from being subject to him, put him in a sort from his place, and depose him. But otherwise, if any Bishop have aught against his Metropolitan, he must go (as I showed before) to the Patriarche, and his Synod, to complain, as to fit and competent judges. For against the g●…eater person we complain, to the greater judge we must fly. If a Clerk have aught against a Bishop, the matter may be judged in the Synod of the Province; but if Clerk or Bishop have any complaint against the Metropolitan, the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon provideth (as I noted before) that they shall go to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of the Princely City of Constantinople. From whence in like proportion it is consequent, that thòugh the metropolitans and Bishops subject to a Patriarche, may declare in what cases he incurreth the sentence of suspension, excommunication, deposition, or degradation, pronounced by the very Law and canon itself, and so withdraw themselves from his obedience; yet may they not by way of authority proceed against him, but must fly to another Patriarche, who in a Synod consisting of his 
n See these things as large in the Epistle of Nicholas the first to Michael the Emperor, Epistle 8.  own Bishops, and the Bishops of that Patriarch that is complained of, may judge and censure him, so that he be a Patriarch, in order and honour greater than he against whom they complain; seeing the lesser may not judge the greater. And therefore we find that in the differences that fell out, between Cyrill of Alexandria, and john of Antioch, john was blamed, for that being but Bishop or Patriarche of the third See, he took upon him to judge Cyril, that was patriarch of the second; and having but a few Bishops joined with him, to judge Cyril with many. So likewise Dioscorus was condemned, not only for favouring the wicked heresy of Eutiches, and his violent proceedings in the second Council of Ephesus; but specially for that being but Bishop of the second See he took upon him to judge Leo, that was Bishop of the first See. And this was that which julius in his Epistle reported by Athanasius in his second Apology, blamed in the Bishops of the East; namely that they proceeded to the judging of Bishops of such Sees, as were Athanasius of Alexandria, and Paulus of Constantinople, without making him first acquainted with the same; that so their proceedings might have taken beginning from him, as being in order the first among the patriarchs. And hence it was, that 
o Vide supra, cap. 35.  Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria taking himself to be Bishop of the second See, came to Constantinople, and there with other Bishops judged Chrysostome; and that Chrysostome, as being by virtue of the Canon of the Council of Constantinople made Bishop of the second See, and set in order and honour before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, would have taken upon him to judge some matters concerning Theophilus: and in this sort did sundry Bishops of Rome in Synods consisting of their own Bishops, and the Bishop's subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, judge and depose certain Bishops of Constantinople. Whereupon Nicholas the first in his 
p Epist. 2.  Epistle to Michael the Emperor saith, that scarce any Bishop of Constantinople can be found, that was orderly deposed and driven from his Bishopric, and whose deposition held as good and lawful, without the consent of the Bishop of Rome: and therefore protesteth against the deposition of Ignatius as unlawful and unjust, for that he was condemned by his own Bishops: comparing the Synod that deposed him to the second of Ephesus, and affirming, that it was much worse than that. For that there Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria with his colleagues judged Flavianus, though most violently and disorderly. But here there was none of the patriarchs, nor any one Biof any the meanest city, that was not his own Suffragan. By that which hath been said it is evident, that the great patriarchs of the Christian Church, are not to be judged but by some other of their own rank in order before them, assisted by inferior Bishops; 
q Gelas. epist. 13. ad episc. Dardaniae.  that the Bishop of Rome, as first in order among the patriarchs, assisted with his own Bishops, and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty, may judge any of the other patriarchs: that such as have complaints against them, may fly to him and the Synods of Bishop's subject to him, and that the patriarchs themselves in their distresses may fly to him and such Synods for relief and help, though of himself alone he have no power to do any thing.  
Wherefore let us proceed from the distinction and explication of the divers and different kinds of appeals, lawful, and unlawful, permitted and forbidden, to examine the allegations of our Adversaries, and to see whether from any allowed practice and approved course of appeals made to Rome, in the Primitive Church, they can infer the Universality of Papal power and jurisdiction. The first example that 
r De Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 21.  Bellarmine bringeth, is very impertinent. For whereas he should prove, that the Bishop's subject to any of the four patriarchs might lawfully appeal to Rome, & that there lay appeals from any part of the world thither: he bringeth forth the testimony of 
s Leo epist. 89. ad Episc. Galliae.  Leo telling the Bishops of France, subject to him as patriarch of the West, that of ancient time appeals were wont to be made out of France to Rome: which no way proveth the Bishop of Rome to be universal Bishop, unless we will acknowledge every one of the patriarchs to have been so too: it being lawful to appeal unto them, out of any the remotest Provinces subject to them. From this ill-chosen example, he proceedeth to a worse of 
t Epiphan. haeres. 42.  Martion the heretic, who being excommunicated by his own Bishop in Pontus, fled to Rome that he might be absolved of the Roman Church as he telleth us out of Epiphanius. But surely it is most strange that he can be content thus to abuse himself and others. For he knoweth right well, that Martion did not appeal to Rome, and that if he had so done, the act of a vile and execrable heretic should not be drawn into example. The history of Martion (as we find in Epiphanius) is this: Martion was the son of a Bishop in Pontus, he embraced virginity in his first times, and seemed to live a retired, solitary, and Monastical kind of life; but in the end, casting the fear of God behind his back, he abused a certain virgin; and not only fell himself, but drew her also away from the course of virtue and well-doing, into the fellowship of sinful wickedness. Hereupon he was excommunicated and put out of the Church by his own Father. For his Father was a right good and virtuous man, and careful of the things that concerned his calling: and though after he was put out of his Church, he sought very earnestly to be admitted to penitency, that so he might be restored to the Church again: yet his Father exceedingly grieved, not only in respect of his fall, but also in respect of the dishonour and shame he had brought on him, would by no means be induced to yield unto it. Whereupon he left that City whereof his Father was Bishop, and went to Rome in the time of the vacancy of that See, after the death of Hyginus, and after he had stayed there a certain space, and conferred with the Presbyters of that Church, he desired to be admitted to their assemblies. But they told him, they could not so do without the consent of his honourable Father. For (say they) we have one faith, and one consent, and we may not contrary our good fellow-minister thy Father. Which their answer when he heard, he was filled with fury and madness, and professed in great rage, that he would rend their Church in pieces, and cast a schism into it that should never have an end. This is the narration we find in Epiphanius concerning Martion his going to Rome. Wherein there is nothing that any way proveth, that it was always lawful to appeal from all other Bishops to the Bishop of Rome. For first, it doth not appear that Martion went thither to complain of his Father, but being put from the communion by him, and not obtaining reconciliation by any entreaty, as a runagate he sought to other places, and among other went to Rome, hoping there to be received into the Church. But the guides of that church knowing the canon, which forbiddeth one church to admit them another hath rejected and cast out, utterly refused to permit and suffer him to communicate with them. And secondly, if he had gone to Rome by way of appeal, it would most strongly overthrow all such courses, and prove that the Roman Bishop may not reverse and make void the Acts and proceedings of other Bishops, seeing the governors of the Roman church at that time, freely professed unto Martion, and told him peremptorily, that it was not lawful for them to admit him to their communion without his Father's consent, by whom he was excommunicated. But the truth is, he did not seek by their authority as superiors, to reverse his Father's censure and judgement, or to be restored to the communion of that church, out of which he was ejected (which had been to appeal:) but being in Rome, desired only to be admitted to join in prayers and other exercises of Religion, with them of that Church: which yet (as Epiphanius reporteth) was denied unto him. The next example is of 
u Cypr. l. 1. cp. 3  Fortunatus and Faelix in Africa, deposed by Cyprian (as Bellarmine would make us believe) and appealing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome for relief. But there is no word of truth in that which this Cardinal writeth. For these men did not go to Rome to complain that they were unjustly deposed (as he untruely reporteth) but these are the circumstances of the matter, as we may read in the Epistles of Cyprian. A company of wicked ones having made Fortunatus (one of the Presbyters that were suspended by Cyprian, and a great number of other Bishops) a Bishop in opposition to Cyprian, hasten to Rome to Cornelius with false reports of the number of Bishops that concurred in the ordination of Fortunatus; that so he might be induced to admit of him, as a true Bishop, and hold communion with him. Which when Cornelius wisely refused to do, he feared not to threaten grievous things unto him. With the suddenness and strangeness whereof Cornelius much moved, marvelled greatly that Cyprian had not before certified him of this schismatical ordination, that so he might have been the better prepared. Whereunto Cyprian answered: That it was not necessary to be so careful about the vain proceedings of heretics, that he had before given him the names of such Bishops as were found, to whom, and from whom he might write and receive letters. And that howsoever false & ill dealing by haste and prevention thinketh to gain all, yet that is but for a little time, till truth overtake it, and discover it, even as the darkness of the night continueth till the Sun arise. And farther he showeth, that these schismatical companions had no reason to make such haste to Rome, to publish it and make it known, that they had set up a false Bishop against a true. For that either it pleased them that they had so done, and then they continued, and went forward in their wickedness: or they repented of that they had done, and then they knew whither to return, and needed not to have gone to Rome. For (saith he) whereas it is agreed among us, and it is both just and right, that every man shall be heard there where his fault was committed; and all Pastors have a part of the flock of Christ assigned to them, which every one is to rule & govern, as being to give an account unto the Lord of his actions; it is not fit, nor to be suffered, that they over whom we are set should run up and down, and by crafty and deceitful rashness shake in sunder the coherent concord of brethren, but that they should have their causes handled where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes. Unless, a few desperate and wicked companions do think, the Bishops of Africa that judged them, have lesser authority than others. A more clear testimony or pregnant proof against appeals to Rome then this, cannot be had. And yet this is one of the principal authorities, the Cardinal bringeth to prove the lawfulness of appeals to Rome. To the next place alleged out of 
x Lib. 1. ep. 4.  Cyprian, touching Basilides and Martialis Bishops of Spain, I have answered 
y Chap. 37.  already, and made it most clear, that nothing could be alleged more prejudicial to the Pope's claims, and more for the advantage of the truth of that cause, which we defend. So that it seemeth our Adversaries have turned their weapons against themselves, and whetted their swords, and made ready their arrows, to wound themselves to death. How the facts of Athanasius, Chrysostome, Flavianus, and Theodoret, appealing to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods, for relief and help, when they were oppressed and wronged by the Eastern Bishops, prove not the illimited and universal power of the Pope, I have at large showed before, to the satisfaction (I doubt not) of all indifferent Readers. 
z Supra. c. 35. & 37.  And therefore there remaineth but only one allegation of Bellarmine touching appeals to be examined. Gregory the first (saith he) put john the Bishop of justiniana 
a Epist. li: 2. cp. 6.  the first, from the communion, for that he presumed to judge the Bishop of Thebes having appealed to Rome. The case was this. The Bishop of Thebes wronged by his fellow-Bishops, made his appeal to Rome. Hereupon john Bishop of justiniana the first, who was the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent for certain Provinces near adjoining, was appointed by the Emperor to hear the cause; which he did accordingly. But without all indifferency, and (in sort) contrary to the Canons; and though upon the discerning of his unjust and partial proceeding an appeal were tendered to him, yet gave he sentence against the poor distressed Bishop. Gregory hearing hereof, putteth him from the communion for thirty days space, enjoining him to bewail his fault with sorrowful repentance and tears, Truly this allegation maketh a very fair show at the first sight. But if we remember that the Bishop of justiniana the first, and the distressed Bishop of Thebes, wronged by him, were within the Patriarchship of Rome (as 
b Cusan. lib. 2. Concord. Cathol. cap. 〈◊〉.  Cusanus showeth they were) you shall find it was no more that the B of Rome did, than any other Patriarch in like case might have done, within his own precincts and limits. Neither can the Cardinal ever prove that the Bishop of Rome had any such Vicegerent as the Bishop of justiniana the first was, but only within the compass of his own Patriarchship. But (saith he) it was a Greek Bishop, that Gregory thus proceeded against. It is true, it was so. But what will he infer from thence? Is it not known that many Greek Bishops were subject to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West? was not the Bishop of Thessalonica a Greek Bishop? and yet I think no man doubteth, but that he was within the compass of the Patriarchship of Rome, as many other also were, howsoever in time they fell from it, & adhered to the Church of Constantinople, after the division of the Greek and Latin Churches.   

CHAP. 40.  
Of the Pope's supposed exemption from all humane judgement, as being reserved to the judgement of Christ only.  
OUR Adversaries finding their proofs of the Pope's illimited power, taken from such appeals as were wont in ancient times to be made to Rome, to be too weak, fly to another, wherein they put more confidence; which is his exemption from all humane judgement: Christ (whose Vicar he is) having reserved him to his own judgement only. If this exemption could be as strongly proved, as it is confidently affirmed, it would be an unanswerable proof of the thing in question. But the proof hereof will be more hard, then of the principal thing in controversy between us. Touching this point, I find 
a Bell. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. cap. 30.  great contrariety of opinions among Papists, as men at their wits ends, not knowing what to affirm, nor what to deny. For first, there are some among them that think that the Pope, though he violate all laws divine and humane, though he become publicly scandalous, and therein show himself incorrigible, yea though he be a professed and damnable heretic; yet neither is deposed ipso facto, by the sentence of the canon, nor may be deposed by all the men in the world. Which opinion if we admit to be true, the condition of the church, the beloved spouse of Christ and mother of us all, is most woeful and miserable, in that hereby she is forced to acknowledge a denouring wolf, making havoc of the sheep of Christ redeemed with his precious blood, to be her Pastor and guide. Secondly, some are of opinion, that the Pope, if he become an open and professed heretic, is deposed ipso facto, by the sentence of the canon, and that the church may declare, that he is so deposed. Thirdly, there are that think that an heretical Pope is not deposed ipso facto, but that he may be deposed by the church. Fourthly, many worthy Divines in the Roman church heretofore have been of opinion, that the Church or general Council may depose the Pope, not only for heresy, but also for other enormous crimes. Of this opinion was Cardinal 
b De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c, 17.  Cusanus, Cardinal 
c Camerac. in Concilio Constant.  Cameracensis, 
d Gers. de auferibilit. Papae consider. 16.  Gerson Chancellor of Paris, Almain, and all the Parisians, with 
e Vid. act. Conc. Constantiens. & basilians.  all the worthy Bishops & Divines in the Counsels of Constance and Basill. Yet the Papists at this day for the most part dislike and condemn this opinion, and acknowledge no deposition of any Pope how ill soever, unless it be for heresy. And Bellarmine (to make all sure) telleth us farther, that the church doth not by any authority depose an heretical Pope, but whereas he is deposed ipso facto, in that he falleth into heresy, only declareth the same; and thereupon largely refuteth the opinion of Cardinal Cajetan, 
f Caiet. in tract. de authorit. Pap. & Conc. c. 20. & 21.  who thinketh that the Pope when he falleth into heresy, is not deposed ipso facto, but that deserving to be deposed, the Church doth truly, and out of her authority depose him. First, because, (as he saith) if the Church or Council may depose the Pope from his Papal dignity, against his will, for what cause soever, it will follow, that the Church is above the Pope, which yet Cajetan denieth. For as it will follow, that the Pope is above other Bishops, and of more authority than they, if he may depose them; so if the council of Bishops may depose the Pope, they are greater than he. Secondly, he saith, to be put from the Papacy unwillingly, is a punishment; so that if the Church may depose the Pope, though unwilling to leave his place, it may punish him, and consequently is above him. For he that hath power to punish, hath the place of a Superior and judge. Thirdly, he that may restrain and limit a man, in the use and exercise of his ministry and office, is in authority above him; therefore much more he that may put him from it. By these reasons it is clearly demonstrated and proved, that if the Church or general Council have authority in case of heresy to depose the Pope, at least in some sort, it is of greater authority than the Pope. And therefore to avoid this consequence (as 
g Gerson loco supra citato.  Gerson rightly noteth) they that too much magnify the greatness and amplitude of Papal power, say, that an heretical Pope, in that he is an Heretic, ceaseth to be Pope, and is deposed by Almighty God. So that the Church doth not by virtue of her authority and jurisdiction depose him, but only denounce and declare that he is so deposed by God, & to be taken for such a one by men, and not to be obeyed. This they endeavour to prove, because all 
h Titus 3. 11.  Heretics are condemned by their own judgement, as the Apostle saith, and stay not as other evil doers, till the Church cast them out, but voluntarily depart of themselves from the fellowship of God's people, and cut themselves off from the unity of the Body of the Church; thereby ceasing to be members of it, and consequently losing all authority & command they formerly had. For the clearing of this point, we are to observe, that there are some who run into errors so directly contrary to all Christianity, & the sense and judgement of all Christians, that by the very proposing thereof, they abandon and drive from them all such as descent: and are abandoned of all. Secondly, there are some that run not into errors so directly contrary to the sense and judgement of all Christians as the former, but with such fury, madness, & pertinacy, that they utterly reject, forsake, and depart from all such as do dissent, or are otherwise minded. Thirdly, there are some, who though they be not carried with such violent fury into error, as to condemn, reject, and depart from all that dissent, yet they run into old heresies formerly condemned, and so by force of the former condemnation, are rejected, & put out of the lap and bosom of the Church. Fourthly, there are some who fall into heretical and dangerous errors, but neither directly contrary to the common sense of all right believing Christians, nor formerly condemned by the consenting voice of the whole Church of God, nor with such pertinacy, as either to refuse to communicate with them that think otherwise, or to seek to deprive, depose, degrade, or otherwise violently vex and molest them that are under them, for not consenting to them in their error. The three former sorts of men falling into error and heresy, voluntarily cut themselves off from the unity of the Body of the Church, depart from the fellowship of God's people, and ipso facto cease to be members of the Church, and lose all authority and command they formerly had. So that they need not the Church's censure or sentence to cast them out, departing of themselves: but it sufficeth that their breaches and divisions from the main body of the Christian Church, be published and made known, that so they may be avoided. So 
i Act. Concil. Eph. tom. 1. c. 19  Caelestinus in his Epistle to john of Antioch, saith, that if any one have been excommunicated, or deprived by Nestorius, or any of his adherents, since the time they first began to publish their impieties, he still continueth in the communion of his Churches, neither doth he judge him to be removed from his place: and the like he hath in his 
k Ibid.  Epistle to the Clergy of Constantinople. But the fourth sort of men erring, do not cease to be members of the Church, nor lose their places by so erring, till both the point of doctrine wherein they are deceived be tried and examined, and by lawful & highest authority be found faulty: and their pertinacy such, as rather to suffer themselves to be rejected, and put from the communion of all that are otherwise minded, then to alter their judgements. 
l August. lib. de Baptism. c. 18.  Cyprian fell into an heretical opinion, that the Baptism of Heretics is void, and that all that have been baptised by Heretics, are to be rebaptised. Yet because this point was not examined and condemned in a general Council, nor his pertinacy therein upon such examination and condemnation, found such, as rather to suffer himself to be rejected from the communion of all them that thought otherwise, then to give way and alter his judgement, he was no heretic, neither did he lose his place of ministry in the Church of God. The question therefore is, whether if the Pope fell into such an error, as that of Cyprian, by which he doth not actually, and ipso facto divide and cut off himself, the Church may examine it, and judge him to be rejected, and put from the communion, if he alter not his judgement. If they say it may, then hath the Church power to judge a Pope that is not an Heretic. For he is not an Heretic till after such determination, he chooseth rather to be rejected from the communion of the faithful, then to alter his judgement. If it may not judge the Pope so erring, then might the Popes in former times have taught rebaptisation with Cyprian; the error of the Chiliastes, with sundry of the Fathers: that all right believers, how wickedly soever they live, shall in the end be saved, with some of the Ancient; that the just shall not see God till the resurrection, and the like: and yet the Church have had no power to force them to forsake and condemn such errors, or to cease from persuading and inducing men, both by doctrine & example to err in like sort. And then we may run into their error, who think, that though the Pope be an heretic, yet he is neither deposed ipso facto, nor may be deposed, but that the Church must acknowledge a devouring wolf making havoc of the flock of Christ, to be her Pastor; which Bellarmine himself thinketh to be very absurd. Thus than we see, that all who fall into heresies, do not cut off themselves from the unity of the body of the Church, nor lose the jurisdiction and authority they formerly had, ipso facto, as the Papists (to avoid the deposing of Popes by the authority of the Church) seem to imagine; but that many do so fall into heresies, that they go not out of themselves till they be rejected and cast out. But howsoever our Adversaries must not defend, that Pope's falling into heresies are deposed ipso facto, for if they do, they overthrow the whole building and fabric of Popery. The constant opinion of almost all later Papists is, 
m Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 3. Stapleton. Rel. Controu. 3. quaest. 4.  that howsoever the Pope may personally err and fall into heresy, or become an Heretic, yet the providence of God over him is such, (because he is Christ's Vicar, Peter's Successor, heir of the Apostles, and head of the universal Church) that he cannot define or decree any heresy, or prescribe unto all Christians to believe amiss. Which conceit cannot stand, but falleth to the ground, & is clearly overthrown, if the Pope by becoming an heretic, be deposed ipso facto. For doubtless if the Pope becoming an heretic ipso facto cease to be Pope, and to be so much as a member of the Church, then doth not the prayer of Christ for the not failing of Peter's faith extend to him any longer, neither is he any longer any way privileged, by virtue of his succeeding blessed Peter, but that he may run into all extremities in most damnable sort, seek to subvert the faith, to force all to believe as he doth, and define and determine that all shall profess the same doctrine of Devils, that himself doth; seeing when God forsaketh him, and putteth him out of his protection, the Devil entereth into him as he did into judas the traitor. And how violent and strange the move of the evil spirit are, we are not ignorant: for sometimes he casteth them that are possessed by him into the fire, and sometimes into the 
n Mark 2, 2●….  water: sometimes into one extremity, and sometimes into another. Wherefore either the Papists must confess, that the Pope may define for heresy, & then all their religion is overthrown: or else they must acknowledge, that he is not deposed ipso facto, by becoming an heretic, but that he is to be deposed by the authority of the Church, and so make the Church of greater authority than the Pope: and then they are in worse case than before. For then, as the Church by her authority censureth him for heresy, lest he subvert the faith, miss-lead the People of God, and overthrow religion: so she may likewise censure him in other cases for the avoiding of the like danger: Seeing such may be his prodigious and hellish conversation, and his execrable corruption & violence in doing wrong, in perverting justice, in turning judgement into wormwood, in violating all laws and Canons, in overthrowing the jurisdiction of all other Bishops, and in making a scorn of all religion, as may be as hurtful to the Church as heresy. Now that we speak not of an impossible or strange thing, or never heard of before, when we speak of monsters, prodigious and hellish monsters, intruding themselves by sinister means into the holy chair of blessed Peter, let the Reader peruse the 
o Platina. in joanne 10. Benedicto, 4. Sergio 3. & Christophor. 1. Sigon. de regno Italiae lib. 6. in vita Formosi.  Histories written of the Popes, by their own friends, and by the lovers of the Church of Rome, which are full of the villainies of this kind of men, in which nothing is more ordinary, or more often repeated then those honourable titles of most wicked Popes, Monstra, teterrimamonstra: monsters, most hideous and ugly monsters. Let him cast his eyes upon the 50 Popes mentioned by 
p Genebr. chronol. lib. 4. Saeculo: 10.  Genebrard (that vassal of the Pope, and sworn enemy of all honest and good men) which are by him acknowledged to have been monsters, and Apostatical, rather than Apostolical: and among them upon that monster of monsters, john the twelfth, than whom a viler hellhound never breathed upon the earth, and who seemed to be a very Devil incarnate.  
Wherefore let us pass from the case of heresy, to see whether the Pope may not be deposed for other enormous crimes publicly scandalous. The chief and principal reason brought by our Adversaries, to prove that he may not be judged of any, whatsoever he do, is because he hath sovereign authority over all, and is Prince of the whole Church. But this reason (as 
q de Rom. Pon. lib. 2. c. 26.  Bellarmine confesseth) is Petitio principii, that is, a gross begging of that which is in question; and besides, they who bring this proof, run round in a circle, and make themselves giddy by sophistical circulation. For thus they dispute. The Pope hath an absolute sovereignty over all, & is Prince of the whole Church, because no man may judge him; and if any man doubt, whether he may be judged or not, they prove full wisely that he may not; because he hath an absolute sovereignty. Wherefore the Cardinal leaveth the proving of this point by reason, and undertaketh to demonstrate the same by authorities. But they are such as are not much to be esteemed. For either they prove not the point in question, or else they may justly be suspected of forgery & corruption.  
The first testimony he allegeth, is out of the Council of Sinuessa, which was called (as it is supposed) by the Clergy of Rome, in the time of Dioclesian the Emperor, to examine the fact of Marcellinus, that had sacrificed unto Idols. Of the acts of this Council, Binnius in his Annotations upon the same, in the first Tome of the Counsels, saith: That very many of the best learned Divines, do think them to be mere counterfeits, and of no esteem or credit, and that they were but the device of the Donatists, seeking to blemish the blessed memory of Marcellinus, whom all antiquity much esteemed and honoured. Whereupon Saint 
r Aug. de unico Baptismo contra Petilian. l. 1. c. 16.  Augustine saith, that certain Donatists objected the fall of Marcellinus to the Catholics, but that they could never yet prove any such crime to have been committed by him, as they charged him with. Howsoever there are many most strong and forcible arguments to prove, that the acts of this Council are mere forgeries. For first, whereas this Council is said to have been holden at Sinuessa, in a certain vault or cave under the ground, that was named the vault or cave of Cleopatra, there is no History, nor no Writer that mentioneth any such cave, nor any man that can tell of any the least memorial of any such thing. Neither doth that answer satisfy men, that many famous cities have been made desolate by Earthquakes, and many mountains and plains have changed both their situation, place, and name. For howsoever they lost their old names, and are called by new, yet their old names remain still in those ancient Writers, wherein formerly they were; but the name of this cave or vault cannot be found in any ancient Writer whatsoever. Secondly, it is very strange, that in the time of Dioclesian, when the persecution was hottest, and the flame of that fire consumed and wasted all that came near it, three hundred Bishops should be assembled together, and meet in such a cave, whereinto they could not all enter; and so hide themselves, but only 50 at a time, leaving the rest abroad to be spied & apprehended: than which, what can be more unlikely? For they are reported to have made choice of a cave to meet in, that by hiding themselves they might decline the fury of their bloody enemies, and yet this cave is described to have been in a city, and of so small receipt and narrow compass, that only 50 could enter into it at a time. So that 250 were always in open view abroad in the city. Thirdly, in the accusation that is brought against Marcellinus, it is said, that Dioclesian brought him into the Temple of Vesta and Isis, and that he caused him to sacrifice to Saturn and jupiter; whereas it is certain that divers Gods and Goddesses among the heathen had their divers Temples, so that they never used to sacrifice to jupiter in the Temple of Vesta, or to Vesta in the Temple of jupiter or Mars. Fourthly, the Author of the Pontifical saith, Marcellinus did sacrifice, and a few days after repenting of that he had done, was martyred. Now how 300 Bishops in so few days could be brought together, I think neither the Authors nor the patrons of these forgeries can easily tell us. These and the like reasons, are brought by Cardinal 
s Baron. annal. Tom. 2. anno. 303.  Baronius and others, who (thinking that to acknowledge that Marcellinus did sacrifice to idols, doth more disadvantage their cause, than any thing decreed in it doth help it) incline to say, that the acts of this Council are counterfeit, and that all these things were devised by the enemies of the See Apostolic. But others thinking that the fact of this Pope may be excused, and supposing that the Decree of this council, that the first See is to be judged of none, may much help their helpless cause: and 
t Binn. annot. in conc. Sinuessanum.  for that otherwise they shall be driven to discredit it, their Martyrologies, and their Breviaries, and Pope Nicholas the first, who urgeth the saying of these supposed Bishops in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor, admit this Council as if it were of credit, and urge the authority of it to confirm things questioned between them and us; though they be not able to answer the reasons of the other side, to the satisfaction of any indifferent man: for this is the manner of these jesuited Papists, to reject or admit nothing otherwise, then as they think it may make for them or against them. But to leave them thus striving and contending one with another, and to come to the saying alleged by Bellarmine out of this supposed Council, it no way maketh for them, but against them, and cannot stand with the grounds of their own Divinity, unless they will be of their opinion, who think that the church must endure an heretical Pope, & that he must be still taken to be a shepherd of the sheep of Christ, though as a devouring wolf, he make havoc of the flock of Christ. For is not Infidelity as bad as Heresy? And did not Marcellinus as much endanger the Church of Rome, and the Religion of Christians, in making friendship with Dioclesian, by sacrificing to his Idols, as Liberius did by subscribing to the Arrians wicked proceedings against Athanasius, and communicating with Heretics? Was it lawful for the clergy of Rome, upon the knowledge of Liberius his fact to depose him; and might not the same clergy assisted with three hundred Bishops, judge and depose Marcellinus? But here we may see the partiality of these Papists, and that they write without all conscience. For Bellarmine being to justify Felix to be a true Pope, who possessed the place while Liberius 
u De Pont. l. 4. c. 9  lived, saith, that in his entrance he was a schismatic (Liberius yet living, and continuing a Catholic Bishop:) but that after the fall of Liberius, for which the Church did lawfully depose him, he was by the same church, admitted and taken for a true Bishop. Yea, though Liberius were not in heart an Heretic, but was presumed to be an Heretic, only because he made peace with the Arrians, and so was an Heretic in his outward courses and acts, of which men are to judge, and not of the heart. And yet touching 
x Ib. cap. 8.  Marcellinus, he saith, he thinketh he lost not his Popedom, nor might not be deposed from it for that most execrable extern act of idolatry & infidelity, because it might be thought he did it out of fear. Shall the uncertain conjecture of the motive that made him do so vile an act, excuse him from being proceeded against, as an Infidel that doth the works of an Infidel? and shall not the like conjectures stay the proceedings against men as Heretics, upon their outward concurring with Heretics in some things? Shall fear excuse Marcellinus? and shall not the impatience of Liberius (no longer able to endure such intolerable vexations as he was subject to) excuse him? was it not as strongly presumed, that impatience moved the one to do that he did, as fear the other? Yes surely much more. For if we may believe the acts of this feigned Council, Marcellinus was rather won with flattery and fair promises, then forced with terrors, the Emperor seeking to win him with kindness, and not to force him with severity and extremity, being persuaded by Alexander, and Romanus, so to do. For that if he could insinuate himself into the affection of the Bishop, and assure him unto himself, he might thereby easily gain the whole city. Thus having examined the first testimony produced by the Romanists to prove that the Bishops of the Roman See may not be judged, and found it to be of no credit, let us see if the next will be any better.  
The next is taken out of the Roman Council under Pope Sylvester, consisting of 284 Bishops, wherein we find these words: 
y Cap. 20.  Neque ab Augusto, neque à Regibus, neque ab omni Clero, neque â populo iudicabitur primasedes: that is, The first See shall not be judged neither by Augustus, neither by Kings, neither by the whole Clergy, neither by the people. Before we come to answer this authority, we must observe, that many things are most fond and fabulously devised and attributed to this Sylvester, under whom this imagined Roman Council is supposed to have been holden. For whereas 
z Euseb. de vita Constantini. li. 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.  Eusebius, 
a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 3.  Zozomen, and other Historians of credit report, that the conversion of Constantine the great was partly out of those good lessons he had learned of his father, and partly by a strange apparition of the sign of the Cross, with an inscription in it: in hoc vince, that is, in this overcome, appearing to him in the air when preparing himself to the war against Maxentius, he carefully bethought himself to what God he should betake him, and whose help among the Gods he should specially seek; and partly by a vision of Christ appearing to him: whereupon he sent for the Priests of that God that had so manifested himself unto him, and learned of them what God he was. Those fond men 
b Vide Acta Syluestri quae extant in epist. quadam decretali, Tomo 2. Epist. Pontif. item Action. 1. Concil. Niceni 2. & Baronium anno 324. num. 32. & Seq. & Binnium in not●…s in vita Syluestri.  that published the feigned acts of Sylvester, report, that Constantine after many horrible murders of his nearest Kinsmen, and the parricide of his own son Crispus, being stricken with leprosy, was wished by the Soothsayers to whom he sought for counsel and advice, to take the blood of Innocents, and to bathe himself in it for the curing of his leprosy; but that discouraged from the effusion thereof by the piteous cries of their tender mothers, he be thought himself better, and sought expiation of his grievous crimes, which all other denying to him, for so grievous offences, Hosius of Corduba told him that the Christians could purge him, and Peter and Paul appearing to him, told him, he must recall Sylvester out of his hiding place, whither he was gone for fear, and seek baptism of him; and that then he should be purged both from the impurity of his soul & body, which accordingly was done, and he recovered. In thankful requital whereof he cast down the Temples of the false Gods, builded many Christian Churches, and gave to Sylvester the city of Rome, with all Italy, and many other provinces besides, making him temporal Lord of all those places. Whereas it is most certain, that Constantine was not baptised till a little before his death, as it appeareth by 
c Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Constantini. cap. 61. 62.  Eusebius, by 
d Hieronym. in Chronico.  Hierome, & by the Synodal Epistle of the Council of Ariminum, written to Constantius, reported by 
e Theodor. hist. lib. 2. cap. 26.  Theodoret, 
f Socrates lib. 2. cap. 29.  Socrates, and 
g Sozom. lib 4. cap. 17.  Zozomen; and as certain, that Constantine was a Christian Emperor, before Sylvester was Bishop. For 
h Euseb. hist. lib. 10, cap. 〈◊〉.  in the days of Melchiades his predecessor, he took notice of the differences among Bishops, in respect of Caecilianus, and rested not till he had composed them; professing that he so honoured the Catholic Church, that he could not endure any schism to be in it. Notwithstanding the same authors of lies go forward, and tell us, after the Baptism of Constantine by Sylvester, of a Council holden at Rome by the same Sylvester, consisting of 284. Bishops, brought thither, and maintained there at the Emperor's charges. But there are many things that bewray it to be a mere counterfeit. For first it hath a senseless title; for it is named another Roman Council under Sylvester the first, whereas no man can tell of any besides this. Secondly, it is fronted with a brief Epilogue in steed of a Preface. Thirdly, there is scarce any sense to be made of any one sentence throughout the whole. Fourthly, it is said to consist of 139 Bishops out of the city of Rome, or not far from it, and the rest out of Greece; whereas all men know, the city of Rome had but one Bishop, so that it was senseless to say, there were in that Council 139 Bishops out of the city of Rome, or not far from it. And besides, all men see, how silly a thing it was to muster so many names of Bishops, without specifying the places whereof they were Bishops. Fiftly, whereas it is said to have consisted of 284 Bishops out of the city of Rome, and places near to it, and out of Greece, as if it had been a general Council; it is strange that the Histories reporting far meaner Counsels than this is supposed to have been, should never make any mention of this, nor the occasion of calling it. Sixtly, whereas the supposed Fathers of this Council, do condemn (though in very senseless manner) certain unknown heretics, it is strange they should make no mention of the Arrians, who were famous, and 
* This Council was holden after the ending of the Nicene Council, if we may believe the Epilogue befor●… i●….  at that time troubled all the East. Seventhly, the end why these supposed Fathers met, was ridiculous. For thus it is expressed, ⁱ Vt Ecclesiae regia non vatieinentur, sed sit fi●…ma, & claudat ostium propter persecutorem. Or as another Edition hath it: Vt Ecclesia regia non vacilletur, sed sit firma, & claudat ostium propter 
〈◊〉 Cap. 1.  persecutorem. For why should these good men forbid the kingly Churches to prophesy? or why should they fear the shaking or tottering of them? or shut the door for fear of the persecutor, after Constantine, was become a Christian, baptised by Sylvester, and in requital of his kindness, had given him all the Empire of the West? Lastly, whereas the manner of Counsels was that the Bishops sat round in a compass, the Presbyters sat behind them, and the Deacons stood before them: the 
k Conci. Carth. 4. canone 34.  Council of Carthage forbiddeth a Bishop to sit, & suffer a Presbyter to stand: 
l Hieron. Epist. 85. ad Euagrium.  & Hierome showeth, that even in Rome, the manner was, that Presbyters did sit, and Deacons stand: here it is noted, that none sat but Bishops. These things being observed touching the credit of this Council, let us come to the Decrees of it, by which the Pope would exempt himself from all judgement of men, whatsoever villainies he should chance to commit. Thus than the Decrees of this sacred Synod are passed in favour of the Pope. First it is decreed, that no Presbyter à die onus Presbyterij (latin fitter for Hog-heards 
m Cap. 19  than Bishops) shall marry, and that if he do, he shall lose his honour for 12. years. Secondly, it is ordered thus: That if any one shall do against this present hand-writing, he 
n Cap. 19 & 20.  shall be condemned for ever. For let no man judge the first See: for neither shall the judge be judged of Augustus, nor of all the Clergy, nor of Kings, nor People. These senseless Decrees of a feigned & ridiculous Synod, our adversaries (such is their poverty in this cause) bring forth, as good authorities for the Pope. But I think the reader will not much be moved with them, unless it be to pity those that lived before us, who were abused with such fooleries, and shameless forgeries: and to give thanks to God that hath given us means to descry the cozening devices of Satan's Agents. Neither doth it any thing assure us of the truth of this Council, that Pope Nicholas was content to make use of it in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor of Constantinople, seeing he citeth also in the same Epistle the Roman Synod under Sixtus the third, in the cause of Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem, whereas yet not withstanding 
o Annot. in acta de Synodali accusat. & expurg. Polychronij. Tom. 1. Concil.  Binnius saith confidently, that every learned man will pronounce the acts of it to be counterfeit, if he attend the names of the Consuls in whose times it is supposed to have been holden: the name of him that was accused, and other things described in those supposed & pretended acts.  
To these they add another authority (as it may seem) of the same stamp, out of the 
p Tomo 1. Conciliorum.  Council of Rome under Sixtus the third, which they endeavour to strengthen with certain sayings out of a book of one Euodius a Deacon, admitted, and allowed in the fifth Council under Symmachus. The Roman Council under Sixtus was called to examine a very foul fact, wherewith Sixtus was charged, which was the abusing of one Chrysogonet, a professed and consecrated virgin. In this Council Sixtus presented himself, and professed that it was in his power & choice either to submit himself to the judgement of the Council, or to refuse it; & yet voluntarily referred his cause to be there heard: whence our Auersaries suppose they may infer that all the world may not judge the Pope against his will. The Barbarismes, & manifold senseless absurdities that are found in this Council, may justly make us suspect it of forgery. But admitting it to have been a lawful Synod, no such thing can be concluded out of it, as our adversary's dream of. For it was but a Diocesan Synod, & there was never a Bishop in it, besides Sixtus, whom they went about to judge. And therefore it was not to be marvelled at, if Sixtus said, it was in his power and choice whether he would be judged by the Presbyters & Deacons of his own Church, or not: seeing no Bishop, be he never so mean, may be judged by the Clergy of his own Church, but by the Synod of the Bishops of the province: and therefore I greatly fear, they will hardly draw a good argument from hence, to prove, that the Pope may not at all be judged. For I think it will not follow: Maximus the exconsul said, it was not lawful for those Laymen, & inferior Clergymen then assembled, to give sentence against the B: of Rome; & the B: himself protested that he might choose, whether he would be judged by them or not: therefore the whole Christian world may not judge the Pope. Wherefore let us come to the sayings of Euodius, & see whether they confirm the Romish conceit any better. The occasion of the writing of this book of Euodius, was this: 
q Synod. Romana 3. sub Symmacho. in 2. Tom. Concil.  Symmachus the Bishop of Rome, being charged with certain grievous crimes, was to be judged in a Synod called by Theodoricus the King, not without his own consent. To this Council he was willing to come, and to submit himself to the judgement of it; only he desired restitution of such things as had been taken from him, till he were convicted: which he could not obtain, and yet presented himself in the Synod. But such was the fury and violence of his enemies pressing in upon him, that he was in very great danger of his life; and therefore after the first time, would come no more to the place where the Bishops sat. Whereupon they not knowing what to do (for it was not fit to judge him being absent, & there was no reason to proceed against him as contumacious in refusing to come unto them, seeing his refusal seemed to proceed from just fear of danger) utterly refused & disclaimed the trying of his cause, and the judging of it; moved not a little so to do, because great multitudes of the people communicated with him, and they had no precedent of such proceedings against former Bishops. The King somewhat offended herewith, told them, that if they did not discuss the cause, they would give an ill example to all Bishops to live wickedly, and at their pleasure, in hope of impunity; and yet left the matter wholly to them, who did nothing in it, but only persuaded to unity. Hereupon there grew some distraction among the Clergy and people of Rome, and some thought the Bishops had done ill in leaving the matter unexamined. Upon which occasion one Euodius a Deacon, writeth a book in defence of their proceedings, which they approve in their fifth Synod or meeting, wherein among other things he hath these words: Lex probitatis & mentis est, quae hominem viventem sine lege castigat: propriè moribus impendit qui necessitati non debet disciplinam. Aliorum fortè hominum causas Deus voluit homines terminare, sed sedis istius Praesulis suo sine quaestione reservavit arbitrio. Voluit beati Petri Apostoli successores coelo tantùm debere innocentiam, & sublimissimi discussoris indagini iuviolatam exhibere conscientiam. That is, The Law of virtue and of the mind keepeth them in awe, who live without any other law. He that is not otherwise enforced to live well, will live orderly for the love of order and good life. Haply God would have the causes of other men ended by men, but the causes of the Bishop of this See he reserved no doubt to his own judgement: and his pleasure was, that the successors of blessed Peter should be accountable for their good or ill living to Heaven only, and present and exhibit their consciences kept inviolable to the examination of the most exquisite examiner. For answer to this allegation we say, that neither the credit of Euodius is so great, that upon his bare word we should be bound to believe him, nor the authority of these Fathers such, that whatsoever they approve and allow, must be holden for good. Notwithstanding, admitting these sayings to be true, their own Canonists and Divines in their Glosses, do limit and restrain them with certain exceptions. For first they say, the case of heresy must be excepted, 
1 Vide Ockam. dial. l. 6. part. 1. c. 62  there being no question, but that the Pope may be judged and condemned by men, if he become an heretic. Secondly, the case of Penitential confession, wherein he yieldeth himself, as in duty bound so to do, to be judged, directed, and commanded for his souls good, by him to whom he is pleased to reveal the estate of the same. Thirdly, the case of voluntary submission. It is in my power (saith Pope Sixtus) to be judged or not, but let matters be examined, and the truth found out. And in like sort, Symmachus submitted himself to be judged by the Council of Bishops. Fourthly, the case of incorrigible wickedness, when the Church is grievously scandalised by the notorious ill life and wickedness of the Pope, and he is found incorrigible in the same. This case the Gloss excepteth, warranted so to do by the very light of natural reason, which teacheth us, that when any member of the Body, after the cutting off whereof the body may live and continue, infecteth and endangereth the rest, and is incurable, it may, and aught to be cut off. Now though the Pope should in a sort be acknowledged to have the proportion of the head in the body of the church, yet is he herein unlike unto a natural head, for that the body of the church dieth not when he is taken away from it; & therefore to stop the deadly infection of his impiety, and outrageous wickedness from spreading itself any further, he may be cut off. So that this is the only difference between the Pope and other Bishops, that other may be judged, though they be not incorrigible, but he is not to be judged of any other, without his own consent and concurrence, when he may be induced to reform and correct what is amiss, as being the chief of that company that is to judge of ill doers; but if he be incorrigible, he may be proceeded against, even against his will, as we see by the example of 
s Sigebert. Anno. 963. Otho. frisingen's. li. 6. cap. 23.  john the twelfth, who being prodigiously wicked, and after many and most earnest admonitions, entreaties and persuasions, of the Emperor and others, refusing any way to reform himself, the Emperor called a Council, and deposed him, and chose another to succeed him; & that this deposition was lawful and good, it is evident, in that the succeeding Pope was holden to be a true and lawful Pope while he yet lived. But concerning Gregory 
t Otho Frising. lib. cap. 32.  the Pope, Henry the third, did rather persuade him to yield, and to relinquish his place, then depose him, because he found him tractable.  
Two other authorities our Adversaries have yet behind, to prove that the Pope may not be judged. The first, is out of the Council of 
u Action. 3. Epi. ad Ma●…. & Valentinianum.  Chalcedon, where the Fathers among many other reasons alleged why they condemned Dioscorus, urge this also as one, that he was so far from repenting of his manifold evil doings, that he railed against the Apostolic See, sought to excommunicate blessed Leo, and persisting in his wickedness, was wilful against the whole Council, & refused to answer to such things as he was charged with. How it will be inferred from hence that the Pope may not be judged by a general Council, I see not. For though it be true that the inferiors may not judge the greater and superior; and that therefore john of Antioch was condemned for judging Cyril of Alexandria, and Dioscorus for judging Leo, yet it is no way consequent that either Cyril or Leo, were free from all judgement, or that they might not be judged by a general Council, whatsoever they should do. The other authority is out of the Roman Council under Adrian the second, whose words recited in the vl general Council are these: We read that the Roman Bishops have 
x Actione 7.  judged the Bishops of all Churches, but that any one hath judged them, we do not read. For the better understanding and clearing whereof, we must observe, first that the person of the Bishop of Rome alone is not meant, when he is said to have judged the Bishops of all Churches; but he must be understood to have judged them with his Synod, and the Bishop's subject to him, as Patriarch of the West. For otherwise he might not, nor did not judge any B. of himself alone. 2, That being B. of the first See, he, with his associates, might judge any other B. or Patriarch, but no particular Patriarch with his Bishops might judge him & his, because 
y Vide Ockam. Dialog. lib 6. part. 1. cap. 1.  there is no particular person, or company of men, greater than he and his, being chief Patriarch of the world: but that both he and his may be judged by a general Council, it appeareth by the eight general Council, wherein the words now urged, are recited. For that 
z Canone 21.  Council taketh order that all the patriarchs shall be honoured and respected, and especially the Bishop of Rome, and forbiddeth any man to compose any bills or writings against him, under pretence of some crimes, wherewith they will charge him, as Dioscorus did: but that if there be a general Council, and any question be moved touching the Roman Church, they may in reverend and due sort determine the same, though they may not proceed contemptuously against the Roman Bishop. And so first, the Council of 
a Canone 6.  Nice gave laws, as to the other two patriarchs, so likewise to the Bishop of Rome, and included him within his own bounds and limits. Secondly, the Council of 
b Actione 16.  Chalcedon made the Bishop of Constantinople a Patriarch, and the Bishop of Rome's Peer, notwithstanding the resistance of those that were there present on the behalf of Leo, than Bishop of Rome, and the other Bishops of the West. And this decree in the end prevailed, so that after much contradiction, and long continued opposition, the Bishops of Rome were forced to yield unto it. Thirdly, 
c Cusan. Concord. cathol. lib. 2. cap. 1●….  general Counsels reexamined and judged again things judged by the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops, as the Council of Chalcedon reexamined the judgement of Leo against Dioscorus, and for Theodoret. And the sixth general Council, the judgement of Pope Martin, with his Synods against Pyrrhus, and Sergius: and the eighth, the judgements of Nicholas and Adrian against Photius. 
d August. Epist. 152.  Augustine speaking of the sentence of the 70. Bishops against Caecilianus, retracted and reversed by Melchiades Bishop of Rome and his colleagues (whom upon the suits of the Donatists, Constantine appointed to hear the matter) saith, they therefore appealed to the judgements of the Bishops beyond the Seas, that if by any falsehood and slanders they could prevail, they might gain the cause: if not, they might say (as all men that have ill causes are wont to do) that they met with bad judges. But (saith he) let us grant that those Bishops that judged the matter at Rome, were not good judges; yet there remained a general Council of the whole Church for them to fly unto, where the matter might anew have been handled with the former judges; that their sentences might be reversed, if they should have been convinced to have judged ill. Which thing if they did; let them make it appear unto us. We prove they did not, because all the world communicated with Caecilianus, and not with Donatus and his adherents. So that either they never brought the matter to be scanned in a general Council, or else they were therein condemned also. Here we See he clearly acknowledgeth the general Council to have power to reexamine and reverse the judgement of the Bishop of Rome and his colleagues. Saint 
e Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 38.  Gregory likewise acknowledgeth the universal Church to be greater than he and his. For, professing to follow the direction of Christ (in the matter between him and the Bishop of Constantinople) who willeth us, if our brother offend against us, to go and admonish him between him and us; & if then he hear us not, to take two or three with us, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand: and if he hear not them, then to tell the Church, he saith, that he had first sent to the Bishop of Constantinople, and by his messengers admonished him in all gentle and loving sort; and that now he writeth unto him, omitting nothing that in all humility he ought to do: but that seeing he is thus despised, there remaineth nothing, but that he use the help of the Church, for the repressing of the insolency of this man, so prejudicial to the state of the whole Church. Fourthly, general Counsels have by their decrees ordained many things concerning the See of Rome, either enlarging or limiting the power of it, and the exercise of the same, as it seemed good unto them: as we see in the Council of 
f Canone 3. & 17.  Sardica. Hosius with the Bishops there assembled, resolved in the honour of the memory of Peter, to make a Decree, that Bishops condemned by the Bishops of their own Provinces, might appeal to the Bishop of Rome: and that it might be lawful for him upon such appeal to write to the Bishops of the next Province to reexamine the matter again: And if he pleased, to send some from himself to sit with them in joint commission. Neither did the Bishops of Rome, 
g Vt patet in Concilio Carthag. 6.  Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus, urge the law of Christ, or the right of Saint Peter, to justify their claim of receiving appeals out of Africa, but the Decrees of 
h Actione 16.  the Nicene Council. And this is farther confirmed in that the Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon say, the Fathers gave the pre-eminence to the Bishop of Rome in ancient times, because it was the seat of the Empire: and that therefore now, they would give the like to Constantinople, now become the seat of the Empire, and named new Rome. And as general Counsels gave preeminences to the Roman Bishops, so also they restrained and limited them in the use of their jurisdiction, when they saw them to encroach too much: as the Council of 
i Ca 16. & 17.  Sardica took order, that they should not meddle with the causes of Presbyters and inferior Clergymen upon any appeal, but leave them to to their own Bishops, and the Synods of the Provinces, and in the case of Bishop's appealing, not to reverse the acts of the Synod of any province without another Synod of the Bishops of the next Province. And the Counsels of 
k Actione 16.  Chalcedon, and Constantinople the 
l Canone 17.  eighth decreed, that the Bishop 
* This Council of Chalcedon speaketh only of the Patriarche of Constantinople in that restraint, but making him equal with the Bishop of Rome by the same Canon, restraineth the one as much as the other.  Rome, and the other patriarchs shall confirm the metropolitans subject unto them, by sending the Pall, or by imposition of hands, but shall not intermeddle in the ordination of Bishops. Fifthly, it appeareth that the Roman Bishops; are inferior to the whole Church. First, in that their Legates 
m Synod. general. 6. actione 1.  rise up when they speak in general Counsels. And secondly, in that in the council of 
n Act council. Eph. tom. 4. c. 19  Ephesus, when they with others were sent by the council to the Emperor, they were willed precisely to follow the directions and instructions given them. For that if they did not, all their proceedings should be voided, and they rejected from the communion of the rest. Sixthly, in that the sixth general council particularly giveth laws to the Church of Rome. For in the thirteenth canon it reprehendeth the Roman Church, because it forbiddeth Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, to live in matrimonial society with their wives, and commandeth it to leave them to their own liberty in this behalf. And in the 55 canon it reprehendeth the same Roman Church for fasting on saturdays in Lent, and forbiddeth the continuing of that observation any longer. Seventhly, the 
o Cusan. conc. cath. l. 2. c. 13  Pope is but a Bishop, as appear in that he is ordained by Bishops, and in that Dionysius acknowledgeth no higher dignity in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, then that of a Bishop. Now all Bishops, as Bishops, are equal. For howsoever metropolitans in Provinces, and Primates, or patriarchs in their larger circuits, are in all common businesses to be first sought unto, that actions of that nature may take beginning from them; yet have they no voice neither affirmative nor negative, in determining or concluding things otherwise then as the mayor part of those Bishops among which they are in order first, shall sway them; and therefore they have not a more ample jurisdiction than other Bishops, but in the administration and exercise of the power of jurisdiction common to them and other, they have the first place, and are in honour before others. Wherefore seeing the Pope hath not any dignity or ordination Ecclesiastical, greater than that of a Bishop, and all Bishops by God's Law are equal in the power of jurisdiction, howsoever in the execution and exercise thereof, some be before other, there is no question to be made, but that the Pope is subject to some censure and judgement. Eightly, the Pope being a Bishop, & the Counsels making laws generally to bind Bishops, it is not to be doubted but that the same Laws and Canons do bind him. Now many of those laws and canons do deprive them that shall offend against them, ipso facto, and other make them depriveable. Therefore he is subject to censure and judgement. To this our Adversaries answer, 
p Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2, c. 27  That the laws and canons of general counsels do not extend to the Pope, but only to such as are subject to them, as inferior Bishops, and such as are below the condition of Bishops. But this answer is easily refuted, because the 
q Ex diurno libro dist. 16 c. 4  Popes anciently at the time of their admission, did by a solemn profession bind themselves to the observation of the Decrees of general counsels, in as precise and strict sort as any other Bishops. The form of their profession was this: Sancta octo universalia Concilia usque ad unum apicem immutilata servare, & pari honore, & veneratione digna habere, & quae praedicaverunt & statuerunt, modis omnibus sequi & praedicare, quaeque condemnaverunt, ore & cord condemnare profiteor; that is, I profess to keep inviolable the sacred eight general Counsels, even to the uttermost title and iota, and to esteem them worthy of equal honour and reverence, and by all means to follow and publish those things which they published and decreed, and to condemn with mouth and heart whatsoever things they condemned. But 
r Bell. ubi suprá. Quoad directionem, non quoad coactionem.  they will say perhaps, the Pope is in such sort bound to keep the laws of the church, and the canons of general counsels, that he offendeth God, and shall be punished by him if he keep them not. But that no man hath power to punish him for the not keeping of them, or to force him to keep them. And that therefore though he neglect his own salvation, 
s Dictum Bonifacii dist. 4. Si Papa.  and the salvation of his brethren, yea, though he draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell, there to perish everlastingly with the devil and his angels, yet no council, nor company of mortal men upon earth may presume to censure him, unless he err from the faith, because he being to judge all, must be judged of none. This answer will be found very insufficient and weak; for seeing (as it is before proved) all Bishops are equal in the power of jurisdiction, one hath no more power to make laws then another, neither can any one actively bind other to the observation of any thing more than any other may bind him. And therefore if other Bishops cannot bind the Pope by their laws, he cannot bind them by his, and so by this means all shall be left free to do what they will. For it is true of all Bishops that 
t Cyp. in Conc. Cartha: & lib. 2. ep. 1.  Cyprian speaketh of himself, and the Roman Bishop, that none of them severally hath power to judge other, but they are accountant only to God; yet is every Bishop subject to the companies of Bishops, whereof he is but a part; & if any one having none other dignity or ordination but that of a Bishop, may exempt himself from being subject to the Synods of Bishops, every one may, and so all shall be set loose and at liberty to do what they list. But here perhaps some man will say, the metropolitans cannot be judged by the Bishops of the provinces, as being in a sort heads of those companies of Bishops, but by greater Synods: therefore the Roman Bishop, being Primate of the chief part of the Christian world, as Patriarch of the West; and precedent of a general Council, as being the first among the patriarchs, is not to be judged at all, there being no greater company of Bishops to judge him, than those of which he is in a sort head and precedent. For answer whereunto, first we say, that the Bishops of the Provinces may judge the metropolitans in all those cases, wherein their places are made void, and they put from all Ecclesiastical honour, ipso facto, by force of the canon itself, that is, they may declare, that they are by the sentence of them that made the canon voided out of their places, and consequently, the Bishops of the West subject to the Pope, as their Primate or Patriarch may judge him, that is, declare and pronounce, that he is deposed by the sentence of the canon, in all such cases, wherein Bishops are deposed, ipso facto. Secondly, we say, that though ordinary Bishops may not be deposed without consulting the Metropolitan, nor the Metropolitan without consulting the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch of a meaner See, without consulting them of greater and superior Sees, because still there is an higher to whom to go: yet he that is the first and in order before all other, if by no other means he may be induced to reform himself, or voluntarily to relinquish his place (if his offence so require) may, in case of grievous and scandalous wickedness, wherein he is found incorrigible, be deposed by them that are in a sort inferior to him. Neither need this to seem strange in the deposition of Bishops, seeing the same falleth out in their ordinations. For ordinary Bishops may not be ordained without the metropolitans, who are in order and honour greater than they, nor metropolitans without the patriarchs, from whom they are to receive imposition of hands, or confirmation by a Pall sent unto them. But the patriarchs are ordained by their own Bishops, and have no imposition of hands of any that are greater than themselves, nor other confirmation then that which the meanest is to give to the greatest, as well as the greatest to the meanest. But some man will say, is there then no difference between him that is the first among Bishops, and them that are of an inferior condition? Is he no more exempted from judgement than they? surely no: yet, as some think, there is some difference between him and them, because they may be judged, though not incorrigible; but he as being in order and honour the first, is not to be judged, if by any other means he may be induced to reform himself, or voluntarily to relinquish his place, if his fault so require. And that in this case, as well as for heresy, the Pope may be deposed, we have many of the best learned Papists consenting with us: as 
u Ockam. Dial. l: 6. part. 1. c. 62.  Ockam, 
x Cusan. concord. Cathol. l. 2. cap. 17.  Cusanus, Cameracensis, 
z Gers. de auferibilitate Papae, consid. 16.  Gerson, 
a Almain.  Almain, the Bishops and Divines in the Counsels of Constance and Basill, 
b Dried. de dog. matib. extra can. script. sac. constit, l. 4. c. 4.  Driedo; and in a word, all those that think the Council to be of greater authority than the Pope.   

CHAP. 41.  
Of the titles given to the Pope, and the insufficiency of the proofs of his illimited power and jurisdiction taken from them.  
SEEING the universality of the Pope's power and jurisdiction cannot be proved from any exemption he hath from being judged; let us proceed to consider the next proof taken from the names & titles given to him, which is more weak than any other. For we shall find that other Bishops in ancient times, writing to the Roman Bishop, sometimes call him brother, sometimes fellow-bishop and colleague, sometimes Bishop, sometimes Archbishop, sometimes Patriarch; but that they never gave him any title whence he may be proved to have an universality of illimited jurisdiction over all.  
The first title that our Adversaries 
a Bell. de Rom. Pont. li. 2. c. 3●….  urge is that of Pope, which (as I think) will hardly prove the Roman Bishop to have power over all. For whereas Papa or Papas, among the greeks signifieth a father, and is the appellation that little children beginning to speak are wont to give to their parents; and in like sort among the Latins noteth a father or grandfather; hence the Christians in ancient times, did use to call their spiritual Fathers and Bishops Papes or Popes. So that the name of Pape or Pope was a common name to all Bishops. Whereupon 
b Hier. in omnib Epist. ad Augustinum.  Hierome writing to Augustine, calleth him Pope, and writeth, To the most honourable Pope; whereas yet he was not universal Bishop, but Bishop of little Hippo only: and therefore the name of Pope doth no way prove every one that is so called, to be universal Bishop. But they say, the Bishop of Rome is named absolutely Pope, and none other Bishop, & that whensoever the name of Pope was used absolutely without addition, all men understood thereby the Roman Bishop to be meant. Whence it may be inferred, that he was greater than all the rest, as being esteemed a common father of all. But for answer hereunto we say, that the Roman Bishop was never in ancient times named absolutely the Pape or Pope, without specification of his name, or the place whereof he was Pope, but when by some other circumstance it might be known, what Pape or Pope it was men speak of, accordingly as men are wont to say no more, but, the Bishop did this or that, when by things going before, it may be known what Bishop they mean; and so the Vicars of Leo in the Council of 
c Actione 16.  Chalcedon said: The most blessed and apostolic man the Pope gave them such directions, as they there specify, without adding of Rome, or the name of Leo, because all men knew, from what Pope they came, and whose Vicegerents they were in that Council. For otherwise without some circumstances specifying the party, men would never have understood whom they had meant, if they had only named the Pope indefinitely. But the same vicar's of Leo, in the Council of Chalcedon, call him Pope of the universal Church; Therefore, 
d Vbi supr●….  saith Bellarmine, we may conclude him to be supreme and absolute commander over all, out of the titles given unto him. If the Cardinal would but remember that every Bishop is interessed in the care and government of the whole Church (as I have elsewhere showed out of 
e Cypr. lib 3. epist. 13.  Cyprian) he would easily find the weakness of this consequence.  
Wherefore let us pass from the title of Pope to the next, which is Pater Patrum, that is, Father of Fathers, which Bellarmine saith is given to the Roman Bishop, and to none else; whereas yet he knoweth the contrary to be most true. For the relation made to john the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the whole Synod assembled, beginneth in this sort: 
f Relat. Concil. sub Menna. act. 5.  Domino nostro sanctissimo, & beatissimo Patri Patrum, & Oecumenico Patriarchae, Synodus, etc. Where we see that the Patriarch of Constantinople is called by a whole Synod, most holy Lord, most blessed Father of Fathers, & Ecumenical Patriarch. And the 
g Ibidem. Idem habetur in supplicat. Cleric. & Monachor. Antioch. ad joan. Patriarch. & Synod. Congregatam. Ibid.  Epistle of the Bishops of the second Syria, to the same john the Patriarch, beginneth thus: To our most holy Lord, and to the most blessed Father of Fathers, Ecumenical Archbishop and Patriarch. So that the Title of Father of Father's is not proper to the Roman Bishop, as Bellarmine untruly affirmeth. The title of summus Sacerdos, or high Priest, given to him by Saint Hierome, is common to all Bishops, in respect of Presbyters, and all metropolitans, in respect of Bishops, (although the third Council of 
i Canone ●…6.  Carthage, to show that metropolitans 
h Hier. in praef. Evang. ad Damas●…m.  have not an absolute command, will not have them called high Priests, or chief priests, but only Bishops of the first See) and therefore though the Pope should be named, most holy Father, chiefest Pope, chief of Priests, or high Priest, yet nothing could be concluded from hence, that either we deny, or they affirm.  
The title of Vicar of Christ is new, and not found in all Antiquity, the first in whom we read it being 
k Bern. lib. 2. de Consid.  Bernard; and therefore not much to be stood on seeing the Ancient make all Bishops the Vicars of Christ, and do never appropriate it unto the Bishop of Rome. Yet will not Bernard's appropriating of it prove the thing in question, seeing he may be thought to have had an eye in so doing, to the chiefty of order and honour, (in respect whereof, he is in more special sort a Vicar of Christ, than some other) rather then to any universality of commission and authority. Head of the Church the Pope is never called among the Ancient, though the Cardinal be pleased untruely so to report. But the Bishops assembled in the Council of 
l Actione 1.  Chalcedon writing to Leo, who by Vicars was Precedent of that assembly, say, he was over them, as the head over the members, not in respect of absolute commanding authority, but of honourable presidency only, as it appeareth in that (notwithstanding the resistance of his Vicegerents) they passed a decree for the advancement of the Bishop of Constantinople. For otherwise Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome alloweth no man to be called Head of the Church. 
m Greg. l. 4. ep. 38.  Petrus (saith he) primum membrum sanctae & universalis Ecclesiae est: Paulus, Andreas, jacobus, quid aliud quam singularum plebium sunt capita? omnes tamen sub uno capite membra Ecclesiae sunt: that is, Peter is the first, and in honour the chiefest member of the holy and universal Church; Paul, Andrew, james, what other thing are they then heads of several parts of God's people? Yet so, that all notwithstanding are members of the Church under one Head. So that a Head of the Church, besides Christ, must not be acknowledged, because no one hath an universal commanding power over all, but he only: Yet in a certain sense the Roman Church is named the Head of all Churches; that is, the first and chiefest of all Churches, as the city of London may be named the Head of all cities in this state & kingdom, though it hath not a commanding authority over them, neither is the chief Magistrate thereof head over all other Magistrates in the kingdom. The authority of the 
n Conc. Flor. Sess. ult.  Florentine Council, naming the Bishop of Rome, Father and teacher of all Christians, and the Council of 
o Conc, Lugd. cap. Vbi periculum de electione in 6.  Lions naming him the bridegroom of the Church, is not so great, that we should need much to insist upon any thing that is alleged out of them. And touching the latter title, we know 
p Ep. 237  Saint Bernard in his Epistles, wisheth the Pope not to take it on him, as being proper to Christ, but to think it honour enough to be a friend of the bridegroom. And yet if we should yield it unto him, we know what 
q Gerson de auferibilitate Papae.  Gerson hath written, to show how this bridegroom may be taken away from the Church the spouse of Christ, and yet the Church remain entire and perfect.  
The next glorious title of the Roman Bishop, is Bishop of an apostolic See. But this is common to him with many others, as some of the rest also are: For, as not only the Roman Church, but the Churches of Ephesus, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, which the Apostles founded, and in which they sat as Bishops, are named Apostolical Churches, so the Bishops of all these are named Bishops of apostolic Sees. Neither do men know which of the Apostolic Churches is expressed by the name of the apostolic See, or which of the Bishops by the name of the Bishop of the apostolic See, unless by some circumstance the same be specified. As when Augustine said, 
r Aug. ep. 106  there were relations made from the Council of Carthage and Milevis to the apostolic See: all men understood what apostolic See he meant, because it was known to what apostolic Church they used to make such relations. Neither doth the principality of the apostolic chair, which Augustine 
s Ep. 162  affirmeth to have ever flourished in Rome, argue the supremacy of the Pope, seeing the principality or chiefty of the apostolic chair, mentioned by Saint Augustine, may seem to import the chiefty that the apostolic chair hath above those that are not apostolic, or in which blessed Peter the chief of the Apostles did not sit. For though the chairs of the Apostles were in divers places, yet Peter's chair was esteemed the principal of all the rest, which being the See and chair of one, yet was in three places, and three Bishops did sit in it: Namely the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, as I have showed 
t Chap. 3●…  before out of Gregory; yet was the principality, or chiefty of this chair of Peter more specially in Rome then in the other places, and the Bishop of Rome in order and honour the first and greatest of the three.  
The last title brought to prove the supremacy of the Pope, is that of Universal Bisho●…, which though it be not given to Leo Bishop of Rome, by the whole Council of C●…alcedon: yet is it given to him in the 
u Concil. Cham 〈◊〉 actione 3.  Epistles of three several Grecians, writing to h●…, as we may read in the third action of that Council: and Saint 
x Greg lib 4. ep. 32.  Gregory saith, it ●…s offered to his predecessors in that Council, and that they refused it. This title ●…ill prove the supremacy of the Pope no better than the rest, being common unto o●…er with him, and therefore no way arguing any thing peculiarly found in him alone. ●…or we shall find that the 
y Adrian. ad Tarasium, 7. Syn. actione 2. epist. Prae●…ul. Orient. ad eundem, actio. 3.  Bishops of Constantinople are named universal Bishops, ●…nd Ecumenical patriarchs, as well as the Bishop of Rome, and that not by one or two particular men, but by whole Counsels, by Emperors, and Popes: and though Saint Gregory justly disliked this name or title, as profane and prejudicial to the dignity of all other Bishops and patriarchs, when it importeth an universality of jurisdiction, and general commanding authority over all, yet might any one of the patriarchs be named an universal Bishop, as being one of those five principal Bishops, to whom all the Bishops and metropolitans in the world were subject.   

CHAP. 42.  
Of the second supposed privilege of the Roman Bishops, which is infallibility of judgement.  
SEEING our Adversaries cannot prove the universal and illimitted power and jurisdiction of their Popes, but the contrary is most clearly deposed by those witnesses which they produce to speak for them, affirmed by those Divines, whom they cannot but acknowledge to be Catholic, and inferred out of their own principles; let us proceed to see whether they have any better proofs of the infallibility of their judgement, which is the next supposed privilege of the Roman Bishops. Touching this point I find four opinions in the Church of Rome. The first is: that the Pope is so led into all truth, that he cannot err in such sort as to become an heretic. And of this opinion was 
a Hierarch. Eccles. l●…. 〈◊〉. c. 8.  Albertus Pighius. The second leaveth it doubtful, whether he may be an heretic or not, but pronounceth confidently that whether he may or not, yet he cannot define and decree any thing that is heretical. And this is the opinion of almost all 
b Bellar. l. 4. de pont. cap. 2. Caietan in opusc. de potest. Papae & Conc.  Papists at this day. The third, that the Pope not only as a particular Doctor, but even as Pope, may be an heretic, and teach heresy, if he define without a general Council. This was the opinion of 
c Citat. à Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. & à Stapletono. cont●…. 3. qu. 4.  Gerson, Almaigne, and other Parisians; of Alfonsus à Castro, Pope Adrian the sixth, Cardinal Cameracensis, Cusanus; Occam, Durandus, the Fathers of the Counsels of Constance and Basill, and many more. The fourth that he may err and define for heresy, though he be assisted with a general Council. Of this opinion was 
d Doctrinal. fidei. l. 2. art. 2. cap. 19  Waldensis, and sundry other, as appear by 
e Theorem. 4.  Picus Mirandula in his Theorems. So that it is not true, that 
f ubi supr●….  Bellarmine saith, that all Catholics consent, that the Pope with a general Council cannot err. For these teach that only the resolutions of the universal Church (which is the multitude of believers that are and have been) are to be received without any farther question or examination, as undoubtedly true. These are the differences of opinions found among them that brag so much of unity and make the ground thereof to be the submitting of their judgements to the Pope. But because in so great uncertainty and contrariety of judgements, almost all Papists at this day endine to that opinion, that the Pope, whether he may err personally or not, yet cannot define for falsehood and err; let us first see, how they endeavour to confirm the same: and secondly how they can clear those Popes from heresy, and decreeing for heresy, that are charged therewith.  
To prove that the Pope cannot decree for heresy, 
g Bellarm. de Pontif. l. 2. c. 3.  they allege in the first place the saying of Christ, who professeth that he 
h Luke 2●….  prayed for Peter, that his faith should not ●…ile; and lest we should mis-understand the words of Christ, they bring, us the interpretations of Augustine, Chrysostome, and Theophylact: whereof the first saith, 
i August. lib. de 〈◊〉 & gratia cap. 8.  〈◊〉 when Christ prayed, that Peter's faith might not fail, he prayed that he might have 〈◊〉 free, courageous, invincible and resolute will, to continue in the true faith. The seco●…, 
k Chrysost. homil 83. in Matthaeum.  that Christ did not say to Peter, Thou shalt not deny me; but I have prayed, that 〈◊〉 faith shall not fail. For by his care and favour it was brought to pass, that Peter's fai●… should not fail, though for fear he denied his master. The third bringeth in Chri●… speaking to Peter in this sort: 
l The●…phyl. in cap. 22. Lucae.  Although for a little time thou shalt be shaken, thou ha●… notwithstanding the seeds of faith hid in thee; although the wind and violent blast of hi●… that setteth on thee, shall shake off the leaves, yet the root shall live, and thy faith shall not fail. So that all these so understand the prayer of Christ for Peter, as that he should not only rise again after his fall, and be found faithful in the end, but that he should never fall in respect of the persuasion of faith that was to rest immoveably in him, even in that most dangerous time of the temptation and trial of the Apostles, when Christ was delivered into the hands of wicked men to be crucified. For howsoever he denied Christ with bitter imprecations, yet he did it out of fear, and not out of infidelity, the persuasion of his heart remaining the same that it was before. Wherefore having the words of Christ, and the meaning of them, let us see whether the opinion which our adversaries have of the Pope his infallible discerning and constant defending of the truth, may be confirmed out of them. If they could prove the contrary to that which was found in Peter to be found in the Pope by virtue of Christ's prayer for Peter, they might easily make good their opinion. But otherwise never out of these words. For thus they must reason, if they will confirm the conceit they have of the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, by Christ's prayer for Pete●…▪ Peter faith by virtue of Christ's prayer for him, remained firm, immoveable, and most constantly settled in inward persuasion and affection, though it failed for a little time in outward profession: Therefore howsoever the faith of the Pope may fail in respect of the persuasion of his heart, yet it shall never fail in respect of outward profession. For though he become an heretic in heart, yet he shall ever profess rightly concerning Christ, to all men that shall come unto him, to inquire of him, & to be resolved by him. This kind of reasoning, I think, is not very forcible, and therefore it is much to be doubted, that the Romanists will never be able to persuade men that the Pope cannot err, by virtue of Christ's prayer for Peter: Nay that no such thing can be proved out of Christ's words unto Peter, it is most plain and evident, because the words that Christ spoke unto Peter, when he said unto him, 
m Luk. 22. 32.  I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren, are no way appliable to Peter's successors. For that if they were, first they must ever be right believers in heart, notwithstanding whatsoever failings in outward confession. Secondly, they must deny Christ as he did, and afterwards repent of such denial; and convert and turn unto God, that so they may confirm their brethren. For so it was in Peter. And. 
n In bunc locum.  Theophylact doth not attribute the confirmation of the brethren by Peter, which he is commanded to perform, to his constancy in the true faith, and in the profession of it; but to the experience that he had of the tender mercy and goodness of God towards him. Out of which he was able t●… strengthen them that were weak, to comfort them that were sorrowful, to put then in assured hope of finding mercy, that otherwise might despair, and to confirm●… them that were doubtful. For who will not (as the same Theophylact fitly observeth be confirmed by Peter in the right persuasion of the mercies and goodness of Go●… towards repentant sinners, when he seeth him whom Christ had so much honoure●…, after so shameful a fault, and so execrable a fact of the abnegation of his Lord and Master, the Lord of life, not only received to mercy, but restored to the dignity of the prime and chief Apostle? To this objection (as we think) unanswerable, 
o De Pontif. l●…b. 4. cap. 3.  B●…llarmine answereth, first, that it is not absurd, to refer the conversion of Peter me●…tioned by Christ, after which he is to confirm his brethren, not to his turning fro●… sin, but to his brethren, to advise, admonish, and direct them; not making the sense to be, thou being turned from sin by repentance, confirm thy brethren, b●… thou whose faith shall never fail, when thou seest any of thy brethren wavering, turn thyself unto them, and confirm them. Secondly, that it followeth not, that the successors of Peter must first fall, and after repent of their fall, if the words of Christ be applied unto them, of confirming the brethren; seeing Peter's fall was personal, but his confirming of his brethren is of office, wherein they are to succeed him, and not in the things that are personal. This answer of the Cardinal is insufficient. First, because the current of almost all Interpreters vnderstandeth the conversion of Peter mentioned by our Saviour, of his turning from sin, and not of his turning of himself to them, whom he was to advise, comfort, and confirm. And secondly, because in this his answer he contrarieth himself. For 
p Eodem cap.  elsewhere (which it seemeth in making this answer he had forgotten) he denieth that the words of Christ directed to Peter, of confirming his brethren, may be understood of the universal Church, or the Bishops of it, and faith; Hoc certè non potest Ecclesiae toti convenire, nisi dicamus totam Ecclesiam aliquando esse pervertendam, ut posteà iterum convertatur: that is, This saying of Christ cannot agree to the whole Church, unless we say, the whole Church shall at sometime be perverted, that afterwards it may be converted. Whereby it is clear he thinketh, that the latter part of Christ's speech, of confirming the brethren, can agree to none, to whom the former doth not. So that we see, the words of Christ spoken to Peter, are no sufficient warrant unto us that the Pope cannot err, and therefore the better to persuade us of the same, our Adversaries bring the sayings of some great Divines, who conceived that some such thing may be inferred out of the words as they dream of; as 
q Lucius r. in ep. ad Epis●…. Hisp. & Galliae.  Lucius, 
r Felix 1. ep. ad Benign.  Felix, and 
s Marc. ep. ad Athanas. de missione can. Niceni conc.  Mark, ancient Bishops of Rome, and great Lights of the world in their times. If they could indeed bring us the judgement and resolution of these ancient Bishops, they would doubtless greatly prevail with us. But seeing under these names they bring forth unto us the Authors of shameless forgeries, we are thereby induced more to dislike their conceits then before. Now that they (who masked under the names and titles of ancient Roman Bishops, magnify the greatness of the Roman Church, and plead for the not erring of the Bishops thereof) are nothing else but ignorant authors of absurd and shameless forgeries, it will easily appear out of that which I have 
t Chap. 3 4.  elsewhere largely discoursed, to show that the Epistles attributed to the ancient Popes, are forged and counterfeit; not only by the judgements and opinions of the best learned on both sides, so censuring them, but by many reasons inducing us so to think: among which one is, the likeness of the stile found in these Epistles, arguing that they came all out of the same mint, and were not written by those different Popes, living at divers times, to whom they are attributed. Which similitude of stile will be found in these Epistles that our Adversaries allege to prove, that the Pope cannot err, as much or more than in any other. For in these we shall find the very same words. The agreeing of witnesses in the same substance of matter with some difference of words, argueth, that they speak truly; but their precise agreement in words and forms of speaking, argueth rather a compact and agreement to speak the same things, than a desire to utter the truth. So here, the precise using of the very same words by all these Pope's living at diverse times, argueth that it was one man that taught them all to speak. But they will say, Pope Leo in his third Sermon of his Assumption to the Popedom, saith as much as they do: and that therefore we may not discredit their testimony. Surely if they can prove that Leo saith any such thing as the former Popes are taught to say, we will most willingly listen unto them. For we acknowledge Leo to have been a most worthy Bishop, and the things that go under his name, to be his indubitate works. Let us hear therefore what he saith. His words in the place cited by the Cardinal are these: Christ took special care of Peter, and prayed specially for him, because the state of the rest is more secure, when the mind of him that is chief is not overcome. In Peter therefore the strength of all is surely established, and God doth so dispense the help of his divine grace, that the same firmness that he giveth to Peter, is by Peter conferred and bestowed on all. Here is nothing to prove that the pope cannot err, which is that our Adversaries undertake to demonstrate, nor that the Roman church cannot err, which is that the former Popes affirm in their sergeant Epistles: but that the state of the rest is more secure, when he that is chief is not overcome, which no man ever doubted of: and that Christ gave, or at least promised to give that assistance of his grace to Peter, which he meant to the rest, and to pass it by him unto them, so as they should receive it after him, but not from him. For thus the words of Leo must be understood, seeing it is most certain (which thing also 
u Li. 1. de Pont. cap. 11.  Bellarmine himself confesseth) that the Apostles received their infallibility of judgement, and their commission or authority immediately from Christ, and not from Peter. From Leo they pass to Agatho, who in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperor, read and approved in the sixth general 
x Actione 4.  Council, saith, that by the grace of God such hath been the felicity and happiness of the Roman, Church, that it can never be proved to have erred from the path of the Apostolical tradition, nor to have fallen being depraved with heretical novelties, but the same faith it received at first, it holdeth still, according to Christ's promise which he made to Peter, willing him to confirm his brethren. Which thing (saith Agatho) my predecessors have ever done as is well known to all. These words of Agatho are not so far to be urged, as if simply never any of his predecessors had failed to defend the truth, and confirm his brethren, but that the Roman Church was ever so preserved from heresy, that howsoever some few in it for a time might neglect to do their duty, yet neither so long, nor in such sort, but that that Church and the Bishops of it, were always a stay to the rest in all the dangerous trials that fell out in ancient times, even as in the question concerning the two wills of Christ, about which the Council was called, it was; wherein though Honorius failed, yet the rest that governed the Apostolical throne with him, did not; and Agatho, who soon after succeeded, showed himself an orthodox and right believer. For, that all the predecessors of Agatho did not always confirm their brethren in the true faith of Christ, it is most evident, in that Marcellinus sacrificed unto Idols (if we may believe the 
y Platina in Marcellino. & acta Concil. Sinuessani.  Romish stories) and was forced being convicted thereof to profess himself unworthy of the Papal office and dignity, in a Synod of Bishops; in that 
z Athanas. ep. ad Solit. vitam agentes. Hier. in Chronico. & in Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. in Fortunatiano & Acacio. Da masus in vita Liberij.  Liberius and Felix communicated with heretics, and subscribed to the unjust condemnation of worthy Athanasius; which was not to confirm the brethren, but to discourage, dishearten and weaken them: and in that 
a Epist. Agathonis ad Constantinum quae habetur Synod. 6. actio. 4.  Agatho himself doth anathematise his predecessor Honorius as a Monothelite, with whom Leo the second concurreth in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperor: who anathematising Theodorus, Syrus, Sergius Pyrrhus, Paulus, and other Monothelites, addeth to them Honorius Bishop of Rome his predecessor; saying we accurse also Honorius, who did not lighten this Apostolical Church with the doctrine delivered by the Apostles, but sought to subvert the undefiled faith by profane perfidiousness. With whom also Pope Adrian agreeth, who in the Synod of Rome, called about the business of Photius of Constantinople, saith, that 
c Habentur haec verba in Syno. 8. actione 7.  the Roman Bishop hath judged of the Bishops of all Churches, but that we read not of any one that hath judged him. For though Honorius were accursed after his death by those of the East, yet it was because he was accused of heresy, in which only case the lesser may judge the greater; yet even there it had not been lawful for any of them to give sentence against him, had not the consent of the first See 
b In fine ejusd. Con●…ilij.  gone before. So that we see the Epistle of Agatho doth not sufficiently prove that the Popes cannot err. Let us therefore consider whether they have any better proofs. Nicholas the first (saith Bellarmine) in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor pronounceth, that the privileges of the See of Rome are perpetual, rooted and planted by Almighty God, in such sort, that men may stumble at them, but cannot remove them; may pull at them, but cannot pull them up; therefore he thinketh the Pope cannot err, which is a very bad consequence. For the infallibility of judgement in the Pope, is not mentioned among the inviolable privileges of the Church of Rome, and therefore the privileges of that Church may be inviolable, and yet the Pope subject to error: 
e Epist. ad Epis. Arelat. & habetur cap. maiores extra. de Baptis more & eius effectu.  neither hath Nicolas one word of the Popes not erring. The testimonies of 
d Epist. ad Petrum Antioch.  Leo the ninth, and Innocentius the third, as being late and partial in their own cause, may justly be excepted against, yet do they not prove the thing in question. For they speak of the See and throne of Peter, in which the faith may continue without failing (though the Popes err and seek to subvert the same) so long as any other, that are to govern the throne with them, persevere in the true faith.  
Wherefore from the prayer of Christ made for Peter, that his faith should not fail, they descend to other proofs taken from the promise made to Peter by Christ, 
f Matth. 16. 18.  that upon him he would build his Church; and his mandate requiring him to 
g job. 21. v. 15. 16. 17.  feed his sheep, and to feed his Lambs: which are too weak to persuade us that the Pope cannot err, or is more privileged than other Bishops in this respect. First, because it is most clear and evident, and confessed by our adversaries themselves, that the Church was builded upon all the Apostles, as well as upon Peter, and there is no kind of feeding of Christ's sheep and flock that cometh not within the compass of that office and commission, which the other Apostles had in common with him: as I have 
h Chap. 22.  elsewhere showed at large. Secondly, because Peter and his colleagues were foundation stones upon which the Church was builded, in that their doctrine was received by immediate and undoubted revelation, without mixture of error, upon which the faith of all aftercommers was to stay itself: none of which things agree to the Roman Bishop. So that it is no way necessary, that there should be the same infallibility of judgement in him that was in Peter, and in his colleagues. Thirdly, because we know, and all that are in their right wits do acknowledge, that a man may be a Pastor in the Church of God, and yet subject to error: and that therefore Christ's requiring Peter to do the duty of a Pastor, will not prove that the Pope cannot err.  
Wherefore from the Scriptures they pass to the Fathers: and among them first they produce Theodoret, who in his Epistle to Renatus a Presbyter, saith, that among other things, the reason why the Roman Church hath a kind of chiefety among other Churches, is because it hath ever remained free from heresy. From whence I think hardly any good proof can be drawn, of the Popes not erring. For how will this consequence ever be made good? There are many things that make the See of Rome great, as the greatness of the city, the Empire, the sepulchres of those common Fathers and Doctors of truth, Peter and Paul, those two great lights, that rose in the East, & cast forth their beams into all parts of the world, but set in the West; and sundry other things, and among them the felicity and happiness of it, that till the time of Theodoret no heresy ever prevailed in it: therefore the Bishop of Rome can never err: Seeing Theodoret doth not dispute what may be, but showeth only, what by the happy providence of God had been: and besides speaketh not precisely of the Bishop of Rome, but of the Roman See, 
i Cusan. de concord. cathol. l. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 1. cap. 14.  including the whole company of the Bishops of the West adhering to him: which was a great part of the whole Christian Church, and more glorious than the rest, for that it was more free from heretical novelties in those times than they. To Theodoret they add Saint 
k August. in Psal. contra. partem Donati.  Augustine, who saith, the succession of Bishops from Peter's chair, to his time, is that rock against the which the proud gates of hell cannot prevail. His meaning is, that what all those Bishops have constantly and successively taught as true, must needs be true: and what they have impugned as false, must needs be false: seeing it is impossible that any error, or the impugning of any truth, should have been found successively in all the Bishops of that, or any other Apostolical Church whatsoever. But what is this to the Popes not erring? Surely as little as that of Gelasius in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor, that the glorious confession of the Apostle Peter, thou art the 
l Inter Epistol. Gelasijs.  Christ, the Son of the living God, is the root of all the faith and piety of the whole world. & that therefore the apostolic See carefully looketh unto it, that no chink be made in it, & that it be not spotted with any contagion; for that if it should, there were no means of resisting any error. But because this maketh not for them, the Cardinal helpeth the matter with an untruth, saying: that Gelasius proveth that the See of Rome cannot err, because the confession of it is the root of all the faith & piety that is in the world: whereas he neither goeth about to prove the one nor speaketh any word of the other: but of the excellency of the confession that Peter made, the necessity of preserving it inviolable, and the care of the See of Rome, in and before his time, for the safe keeping of the same. Wherefore let us come to the places that are cited to this purpose out of Gregory's Epistles, which show plainly, they are past shame that manage the Pope's affairs, & defend his cause. For whereas 
m Greg. lib. 4. ep. 32.  Gregory saith, that if he that claimeth to be universal B: do fall, all the whole Church is overthrown, and that therefore there must be no such universal Bishop; and particularly showeth by the grievous heresies that prevailed in the Church of Constantinople, how ill it would have been for the Churches of God, if the Bishops thereof had been universal Bishops, as they sought to be: they bring this place to prove, that the Pope cannot err: whereas they should have brought it to show, how dangerous it is, that there should be any one universal Bishop, such as their Pope desireth to be; and that therefore (as 
n Epist. 67.  Cyprian observeth) Almighty God wisely foreseeing what evils might follow such universality of power and jurisdiction in one man, ordained that there should be a great number of Bishops joined in equal commission, that so if some fell, the rest might stand and keep the people from a general downfall. The next allegation is out of the Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, whereby the Reader may see with what conscience these jesuited Papists do cite the writings of the Fathers. The words of Gregory are these. 
o Greg. l. 6. cp. 37.  Your most sweet Holiness hath uttered many things in your leters concerning Peter's chair, saying, that he yet sitteth in it in his successors: I truly do acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only to be in the number of those that sit as rulers, but of them that stand to be ruled. But I therefore willingly accept whatsoever you say, because he hath spoken to me of Peter's chair, that sitteth in Peter's chair; and although it no way pleaseth or delighteth me to be specially honoured, yet I greatly rejoiced, because what you attributed to me, you gave to yourselves. For who knoweth not, that the holy Church is firmly established in the soundness of the Prince of the Apostles? whose firmness his name doth show: for he is named Peter of Petra a Rock, to whom the voice of Verity saith, I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren: and again, Simon joanna, Lovest thou me? feed my sheep. Wherefore though there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the chiefty he had, the chair of Peter chief of the Apostles grew to be in greater authority than the rest, which is the chair of one Apostle in three places. For he exalted the See, in which he was pleased to rest, and to end this present life; he beautified that See, wherein he left the Evangelist his Disciple: and he firmly established that See, in which he sat seven years, though with purpose in the end to leave it, and to depart from it. Whereas therefore there is the See of one, and that but one, wherein three Bishops by God's appointment do sit to rule, whatsoever good I hear of you, I account it mine own; and what you persuade yourselves of me, think that you also are worthy of the same. If this Epistle prove that the Pope cannot err, it proveth likewise that the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch are free from error. For all these succeed that great Apostle Saint Peter (to whom Christ said, To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and thou being turned, confirm thy brethren: And again, Lovest thou me? feed my sheep) as well as the Pope. All these sit in Peter's chair: Peter's chair is in Alexandria, and at Antioch, as well as at Rome: and whatsoever they that are Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, attribute to the Bishop of Rome, they may lawfully assume to themselves: seeing they are worthy of the same, as Gregory in this place telleth us.  
Wherefore, seeing not only Fathers and Counsels, but even Popes also (in whose defence he writeth) fail him, the Cardinal flieth for help to the Priests of Aaron's order, and goeth about to prove, that the Pope cannot err, because the high Priest had in his breastplate 
p Exod. 28. 30  Vrim and Thummim, light and perfection, or doctrine and truth, as he will have the Hebrew word translated, importing (as he supposeth) that he could not err in the understanding of the Law of God. Whereupon (as he thinketh) God commanded all those that any way doubted of the meaning of his Law, to go up to the high Priest, and to seek to be satisfied by him, saying, 
q Deut. 17. 9  They shall judge true judgement unto thee. Lyra in his Annotations upon this place, reporteth, that there was a certain Gloss of the Hebrews, that if the High Priest should tell them, that their right hand were their left, or their left their right, they were to hold it good and right. The like opinion it seemeth the Romanists have of the Pope. But Lyra in that place condemneth the folly of those jews that so thought, because the sentence of no man of what authority soever he be, is to be admitted, if it contain a manifest untruth and error; which he saith is evident out of the very text itself, in that it is said, They shall judge unto thee true judgement, 
r Vers. 10.  and thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say unto thee, that are over the place that the Lord hath chosen, and whatsoever they shall teach thee according to his laws. Whereby it appeareth, that if they speak that which is untrue, or manifestly depart from the law, they are not to be heard. The Author of the ordinary Gloss agreeth with Lyra, saying; Note that the Lord requireth thee to do, whatsoever the Priests do teach thee according to the Law, because otherwise thou art not to obey them, unless they teach thee according to the Law. Whereupon Christ saith, 
s Matth. 23. 2.  the Scribes and Pharisees sit upon Moses chair, who yet (as the Author of the 
t In eundem locum.  Interlineall Gloss noteth) are not generally without exception to be harkened unto, but then only, when they utter and deliver pertinentia ad Cathedram; that is, such things as beseem him to utter, that sitteth in Moses chair. So that to conclude this point, neither the Vrim and Thummim in Aaron's breastplate, nor the Mandate of Almighty God to go up to the sons of Aaron to seek judgement & justice, prove, that they could not err, and therefore the Pope is still in as bad case as ever he was.  
Wherefore finding no help in the Tribe of Levi, nor in the house of Aaron, they betake themselves to experience, and are in good hope to prove out of the experience of former times, that the Pope cannot err. First, because (as they say) whatsoever the Pope condemned at any time as heretical, was ever holden to be so by the whole Church; and many heresies were never condemned any otherwise, but by his judgement only. Secondly, because never any Pope was an Heretic, whereas all other principal Sees and Churches, have had Bishops, not only erring, but teaching and professing heresy. The instances, that Bellarmine, giveth of heresies and heretics condemned by the Pope, and rejected for such by the Church, only because he condemned them, are the Pelagians, Priscillianists, jovinian, and Vigilantius, and their heresies. It is hard (I see) for a Blackamoor to change his skin, for a Leopard to put away his spots, or for a man, that hath long acquainted himself with false and unfaithful dealing, to learn to deal sincerely and truly. For touching the heretics mentioned by the Cardinal, all the world knoweth they were condemned in Synods by many Bishops, and not by the private censure of the Bishop of Rome alone. Nay, it is most certain, that others showed more care & diligence in suppressing some of these heretics and their errors, than ever the Roman Bishop did, which I will make to appear in the particulars, beginning with the Pelagians. 
u August. de haeresib Beda de ratione temporum. Alfons. à Castro contra haeres. lib. 2. pag. 1●…9.  Pelagius the founder of these heretics, was borne in great Britain, and becoming a Monk in the East parts of the world, after he had sparsed his errors in other places abroad, returned home into his own country, and infected it almost wholly with his heresy. Hereupon the Britain's sought help and direction of the French Bishops, because learning at that time flourished more among them, than it did among the Britain's; who willing to reach forth their helping hands to their neighbours and brethren in this time of their need, sent unto them Germanus and Lupus, Bishops and brethren, defenders of the Catholic faith, who cleared the I'll from the Pelagian heresy, and confirmed it in the faith both by the word of truth, & signs and miracles. Besides this condemnation of Palagius by the French & Britain's, there were sundry Counsels holden to condemn both him & his wicked heresies, in Palestina, at Carthage, at Milevise, and at Arausicum: and it is most certain, that the Church of GOD, and all posterities are more bound to Saint Augustine for clearing the points of doctrine questioned by the Pelagians, then to any Bishop of Rome whatsoever. So that it is most untrue, that the Pelagians were condemned only by the Bishop of Rome: for other were as forward in that business as he; yea the 
x See Epist. 9 5. inter Epist. Augustini.  Africans were more forward than the Romans, and drew them into the fellowship of the same work with themselves. The like may be said of the priscillianists; for it is more than evident out of the Council of Bracar, that they were not condemned by the Bishop of Rome alone, but by many Synods: for it is there reported, that 
y Initio actorum Concil. Bracar. 1●…  Leo did write by Turibius notary of the See apostolic, to the Synod of Galitia, at what time the heresy of the priscillianists began to spread in those parts; and that by his prescription and appointment, they of Tarracon, of Carthage, of Portugal, and Boetica, met in Council, and composing a rule of faith against the heresy of the priscillianists, containing certain chief heads of Christian doctrine, directed the same pattern of right belief to the Bishop of Bracar, that then was: which heads of Christian doctrine were recited in the first Council of Bracar, & the heresy of the priscillianists thereupon more distinctly and particularly condemned, then ever before. In all which proceedings, we may see that the Pope doth nothing of himself alone, but being Patriarch of the West, and hearing of a dangerous heresy spreading in some Church's subject to him, he causeth the Bishops under him to meet in Counsels, and to condemn the same. Which (as I think) will not prove, that the Pope alone condemned heresies, or that some heresies were rejected only, because the Pope condemned them; or that the Pope cannot err, which is the thing in question. Touching jovinian and Vigilantius, their errors are so uncertainly reported, some attributing to them one thing, and some another, and some condemning them for things, for which they were not to be condemned, that it is hard to say, by what lawful authority, or by whom they were condemned: but that in their errors justly disliked, they were condemned only by the Bishops of Rome, and therefore taken to be heretics by the whole universal Church, our adversaries will never be able to prove. That the errors attributed unto them are uncertainly reported, it appeareth, in that 
z Aug. de haeres. cap. 82.  Austin chargeth jovinian with two dangerous and wicked assertions, touching the denial of the perpetual virginity of the blessed Virgin the mother of our Lord: and the parity of sins: whereof Hierome (who yet was not like to have spared him) maketh no mention. And that they were in somethings unjustly condemned, it is evident; first, in that 
a Hier. contra jovinian. lib. 1.  Hierome blameth jovinian for saying, that married persons, virgins, & widows, if they differ not in other works of virtue, and therein excel one another, are of equal merit; which the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoolmen do approve, as I have 
b Book 3. chap. 30.  elsewhere showed at large. Secondly, in in that 
c Hieron. cont. Vigilantium.  he so bitterly inveigheth against Vigilantius for disliking the pernoctations in the Cemiteries and places of Saints burial, used in ancient times; which a 
d Concil. Elibertin. Canon. 34. 35.  Council for the same reasons that moved Vigilantius to dislike them, took wholly away, and forbade them to be used any more, & the Roman Churches have long since disused. But that the Pope's peremptory condemning of an error in matter of faith, was not taken in ancient times to be a sufficient demonstration, that they were heretics that defended such errors after his condemning of the same, it is evident, in that 
e Aug. lib. 1. de Baptismo c. 18.  Austin saith, that the Churches might doubt still touching the matter of rebaptisation, because in the times of Stephen who condemned it, and Cyprian who urged it, there was no general Council to end the controversy between them: and in that, after the peremptory forbidding and condemning of rebaptisation by Stephen Bishop of Rome, Cyprian and his colleagues still persisted in the practice of it, and in urging the necessity of it: and yet were never branded with the mark and note of heresy, but ever were and still are reputed Catholics. 
f De Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 7.  Bellarmine, to avoid the force of this argument, feareth not to say contrary to his own knowledge, that Stephen and his adherents never determined the question of rebaptisation. But that he did (and that in most peremptory sort and manner) it is more clear and evident, then that the Sun shineth at noon. For 
e Firmilian. ad Cyprian. inter Epistolas Cyprian ep. 75.  Firmilianus a famous learned Bishop chargeth him, that he caused great dissensions throughout all the Churches of the world, that he grievously sinned: in that he divided himself from so many flocks of Christ's sheep: that he was a schismatic: that he had forsaken the communion of Ecclesiastical unity: willing him not to deceive himself, but to be well assured, that in thinking he could put all other from the communion, he had put himself out of the communion of all: that he broke the bands of unity with many Bishops in all parts of the World, as well in the East, as in the South with the Africanes, not admitting such as came from them unto him into his presence, or to any speech with him: and farther commanding the brethren, that none of them should receive them to house. So that he not only denied the peace of the Church, and the communion of Christians unto them, but the entering under the roof of any man's house, that would be ruled by him; and that thus he held the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, rejecting them as damnable miscreants that dissented from him, and calling blessed Cyprian, a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceitful labourer or workman. And 
f Euseb. Hist. l. 7. c. 4.  Dionysius, a famous and worthy Bishop reporteth, that he wrote concerning Hellenus and Firmilianus, and all the Bishops in Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia, and all the bordering countries, that he would not communicate with them for the same cause of rebaptisation: which yet (as he saith) was agreed on in many very great Synods of Bishops. If this be not sufficient to prove, that Stephen determined the question of rebaptisation, I know not what can be. For first, he commanded, that none should be rebaptised when they returned from the societies and profane conventicles of heretics, but that they should be admitted with the only imposition of hands. Secondly, he delivered his own opinion, that rebaptisation was unlawful, confidently, as having so learned of his elders, & not in doubting manner. And thirdly, he rejected all them from his communion, that thought and practised otherwise then he did, as it appeareth by the testimonies of Firmilianus and Dionysius; so that it is strange, that Bellarmine should be able so to harden his forehead, as not to blush when he saith, that Stephen did not define any thing touching the question of rebaptisation; that he did not make it a matter of faith, & necessary to be believed of all: and that he did not excommunicate those that were to her wise minded, but only threatened them that he would so do. It is true in deed, that Cyprian, howsoever he definitively delivered in a Council of Bishops, what he was persuaded men were to believe and practise touching rebaptisation: and protested against Stephen, as a proud, ignorant, and unadvised man: yet did not urge this his decree so, as to reject from his communion all that should dislike it: but left every Bishop to his own judgement, as being to give an account to God only. But how the Jesuits can defend against all the former proofs, that Stephen's proceedings were like to those of Cyprian, and that he also left every man to his own judgement, and rejected no man from his communion, for dissenting from him, I cannot see. By that which hath been said, it appeareth, that the Ancients did not think every thing to be heresy that the Roman Bishops defined to be so: and that therefore they did not think him free from danger of erring. Neither need we to marvel (saith Bellarmine) if in former times men had not learned this lesson, seeing to this day they are not judged to be heretics that think the Pope may err. Yet so kind is he to Cyprian, that (whereas Austin excuseth him in his error, and thinketh his sin was venial) he 
g Vbi supra.  pronounceth he sinned mortally, and so without particular repentance (whereof there is little likelihood) perished everlastingly, notwithstanding his martyrdom. The reason of this difference of the censures of Austin and Bellarmine is, because Austin looked only or principally to his error, but Bellarmine to his contempt of the Bishop of Rome's Decrees and determinations.   

CHAP. 43.  
Of such Popes as are charged with heresy, and how the Romanists seek to clear them from that imputation.  
Having examined our Adversaries proofs of the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, taken from the acceptation of his judgement as right and good by all the world, whensoever he defined anything: let us come to the other proof of the same, taken from the felicity of the Roman See in former times. 
a In exposit. symboli.  Ruffinus saith, that before his time no heresy had ever taken beginning in the Roman Church, but our Adversaries proceed farther, and fear not to 
b Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8  pronounce after sixteen hundred years, that no heretic did ever sit in the See of Rome: which their proud brag will be found much more vain than true, and many unanswerable instances will be brought of wicked heretics possessing that chair. Tertullian in his book against Praxeas speaketh of a Bishop of Rome, but nameth him not, that admitted and allowed the prophecies of Montanus and his two Prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, and held communion with the Montanists till he was dissuaded by Praxeas. Who (as he saith) caused the prophecies of Montanus and his Prophetesses to be banished, and brought in heresy, who banished their Paraclete, and crucified the Father. But because Tertullian was a Montanist, and wrote partially in things that concerned them (though 
c Annotat. in Tert. contra Praxeam.  Rhenanus say, the Bishop of Rome did Montanize) yet for my part (no other history reporting any such thing of any Roman Bishop) I will not upon tertullian's bare word, charge any of them with any such heresy.  
But (howsoever we think of tertullian's report) we find in the Council of Sinuessa, in the 
d In vita Marcellini.  Pontifical, in the Epistle of Nicholas the first, to Michael the Emperor, in 
e In Marcellino  Platina and others, that Marcellinus did sacrifice unto idols, and so at least in outward action showed himself an infidel; which is a higher degree of impiety than heresy. If it be said, he committed that execrable act of idolatry, not out of any mis-perswasion of his mind, but fear of death, it will be replied, that if the passion of fear be able to work so ill effects in Popes, as the utter abnegation of Christianity, and the professing of themselves to be Pagan infidels, by public outward acts of idolatry, there is little reason to be given, but that some other sinister and vile affection may carry them as far to make profession of heresy, a thing not so ill as Paganism. Wherefore 
f Annal. Ann. 303. num. 99  Baronius, to prevent the worst, and to make all sure, inclineth to deny, that ever Marcellinus committed any such act of idolatry, and discrediteth the report of the Council of Sinuessa, in which he is said to have been condemned. Wherein he doth as much disadvantage the Roman cause another way, in depriving his friends of so good an authority as the resolution of that sacred Synod, that Prima sedes á nemine iudicatur, that is, that the first See is judged of none; as he advantageth it in the clearing of Marcellinus; and therefore he is rightly blamed by Binnius for his inconsiderate rashness in this behalf. 
g Annot. in acta conc. Sinuessani.   
But that we may be assured, that Popes may be heretics as well as infidels, we have the confession of as good a man as Baronius, acknowledging the same. For 
h De Pontif. li. 4. cap. 9  Bellarmine saith, that Liberius (howsoever for a long time he continued constant in the profession of the true faith, so that for the same his constancy he was banished, and another by the Arrian faction put into his place) yet in the end weary of banishment, he was brought to subscribe to heresy, and was in his outward courses an heretic whatsoever his heart was, whereof God only is the searcher; so that justly as an heretic he was condemned, & pronounced to be no Pope any longer by his own Clergy. This he proveth out of the testimonies of 
i Athanas. in epist. ad solitar●…. vitam agentes.  Athanasius and 
k Hieron. in Chronico. & in Catalogue. Script. Eccles. in Fortunatiano.  Hierome, who say expressly, that being weary of his continuance in banishment, he was at last brought to subscribe to heresy: And 
l Hil. in lib: adversely. Constanti●…  Hilary (who speaking to Constantius the wicked Arrian Emperor) hath these words: Afterwards thou didst turn the course of thy war against Rome, whence thou tookest the Bishop, o wretched Emperor! I can hardly say, whether thy impiety were greater in sending him into banishment, or in sending him home again. Thereby insinuating that he restored him upon very ill conditions. And that he was not restored, but by some kind of consenting with the Arrians, it is most clear, in that 
m Zozom. lib. 4. cap. 14.  Zozomen reporteth, that the Arrian Bishops assembled at Sirmium, sent their letter to Felix, than Bishop of Rome, & the Clergy there, kindly to receive Liberius, and that both Felix and he might sit as Bishops, and govern the Roman Church together: which they would never have done, if they had not found him tractable & yielding; yet could not these two Bishops endure one the other long, notwithstanding these letters. And therefore 
n In Ch●…onico.  Hierome saith, that Liberius impatient of any longer continuance in banishment, subscribed to heretical pravity, and so returned to Rome as a conqueror, and cast out Felix who had possessed himself of the Episcopal chair, and put divers other of the Clergy also out of the Church; and 
o Vbi suprà.  Bellarmine himself confesseth, he hath seen in the Vatican Library, manuscript Epistles of Liberius, some written to the Emperor, and some to the Eastern Bishops, wherein he signifieth plainly enough, that in the end he was content to yield to the will of the Emperor. And besides, if the Romanists do not acknowledge that Liberius was a convicted heretic, (there being no other cause but heresy for which (as they think) a Pope may lawfully be judged and deposed) they must put Felix, who was Pope while Liberius yet lived, out of the number of Popes, whom yet their church doth worship as a Pope Saint, and a Martyr. So that we see, Liberius was justly judged and condemned as an heretic; and that, seeing a Pope, in that he becometh an heretic, ceaseth to be Pope, he lost all the privileges that belong to Peter's successors, and so might decree for heresy: yea, I think there is no reasonable man but will confess, that his subscribing to heresy that is the head of the church, is a decreeing for heresy. Now that he subscribed to heresy, we have the express testimony of Saint Hierome. 
p Hieron. in Catalogue. Script. Ecclesiast. in Acacio.  After the banishment of Liberius by the means of Acatius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestina, who was a great man with Constantius the Emperor, Felix, a Deacon of the church of Rome, was chosen Bishop, and appointed to succeed him. This Felix, (as 
q Theodoret. hist. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 17.  Theodoret testifieth) was a Catholic, and held the profession of faith agreed on at Nice, but communicated freely with the Arrians. Whereupon he was so much disliked by those that were Catholics, that none of them would once enter into the house of prayer while he was within. For that, though he were not in persuasion and vocal profession a full Arrian, yet by communicating with them, and being ordained by them, he consented to their wicked and heretical courses. Neither doth it appear by any history of credit, that ever he refused to communicate with the Arrian heretics, during the time he quietly possessed and enjoyed the Bishopric of Rome. But the contrary is more than probable, because when Liberius subscribed, and was thereupon sent home with letters of commendation from the Arrian Bishops assembled at Sirmium, 
r Sozom. l. 4. 14.  they carefully provided for Felix his continuance in the Episcopal office still, and desired that the violences and outrages committed in the time of his ordination (when the people for the love they bore to Liberius were in an uproar, and some of them were slain) might be forgotten, and that both of them might sit and govern the church together, as Bishops of the place; which favour the Arrian Bishops would never have showed to Felix, if he had disclaimed their communion. So that it is more than probable, that he never forsook the communion of the Arrian heretics. For Liberius returning as a conqueror, so soon as he came to Rome, cast him out of the Church, and shortly after he died; and therefore I cannot see what reason the Romanists have to put this good man into the Calendar of their Pope Saints, whose entrance into the Episcopal chair was not only schismatical (there being a catholic Bishop yet alive, & suffering banishment for the catholic faith) but violent & bloody also (for he got the place by the means of bloody heretics, making himself guilty of all the sins of those heretics with whom he communicated) and of whose relinquishing and abandoning the communion and fellowship of the Arrians, there is no mention found in any Author of credit, but in the Author of the 
s In Felice.  Pontifical only, who hath as many lies as words in his narration concerning Felix. For first, he saith, he sat but one year, three months, and three days, whereas it is reported by 
t Theodoret. ubi suprà.  Theodoret, that Liberius had been more than two years in banishment before suit was made to the Emperor for his return; all which time Felix was Pope. Secondly, he saith, Felix declared and published Constantius the son of Constantine to be an heretic, and that Constantius was rebaptised, or the second time baptised by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, near unto Nicomedia; which thing is most false, as 
u Binnius annot. in vitam. Felicis.  Binnius in his Annotations telleth us, because both 
x Athanas. lib. de Synodis.  Athanasius and 
y Socrates: lib. 2. cap. ult.  Socrates do affirm, he was baptised by Euzoius an Arrian, when he was ready to die. And Hilarius after the time of this supposed baptism inveigheth against him, for that not being baptised, he presumed to prescribe to the Church a form of faith. Thirdly, he saith, Felix built a certain Church, while he was a Presbyter, whereas it is certain, that of a Deacon he was made a Bishop, and never lived in the degree of a Presbyter. And fourthly, touching the death of Felix he is very uncertain and doubtful, 
z Hilar. lib. de Synodo.  and others speak nothing of his martyrdom at all. Hereupon (as both 
a De Pont. l. 4 c 9  Bellarmine, and 
b Annot. in vit. Felicis.  Binnius report) in the time of Gregory the thirteenth, in the year of our Lord 1582. where certain learned men in Rome were deputed to correct the martyrologue, they were doubtful whether they should put his name into the new martyrologue or not, seeing both his entrance into his Bishopric was violent, bloody, and schismatical, and his end uncertain, and they inclined to leave it out; which they had done, if a certain marble chest had not been found in the Church of Cosmas and Damianus, the 28 of july, the day before his wont and accustomed feast, with this inscription in old characters: here lieth the body of Felix the Pope and Martyr, who condemned Constantius the heretic. Whereby we see how little reason the Roman Church hath to worship this Saint, and to admire the providence of God, in preserving this See Apostolic from heresy; in that, as they would bear us in hand, Felix after he heard of the subscription of Liberius, who thereby ceased to be Pope, condemned the Arrians, was admitted by the Catholics, and became a true Bishop, suffering death upon the return of Liberius; as if the very See did change the minds of all that sit in it, and make them good, how bad soever they were before; whereas Felix 
c Ruffin. Eccl. hist. l. 1. c. 22.  being in his entrance a schismatic, in communion, if not in profession, an heretic, and in his ordination which was void, no Bishop, and no history of credit reporting either his condemning arianism, or his admission to be a Bishop after the deposition of Liberius by the Catholics, or what his end was; it appeareth that heretics and schismatics may possess the chair of Peter, and be worshipped for Pope Saints after their death. But whatsoever became of Felix, they say, Liberius after the death of Felix became a Catholic, and got the love of the Catholics; and so by their acceptation of him, became a true Bishop again, and in that state died. Thus do our Adversaries seem to carry this matter very fairly, as if all were safe & well, whereas indeed they are in a very great strait, for either Liberius was an heretic before his return home, and justly deposed for heresy, or else Felix was never true Bishop, and then their Church hath worshipped a schismatic as a Pope-Saint for the space of a thousand yrares: if he were an heretic, and justly deposed (as to justify Felix, they must be forced to confess) he could never be restored to the Episcopal office and dignity again. For the 
d Hier. contra Luciferianos. Cypr. l. 2. cp. 1  Canon of the Church is, that no Catholic becoming an heretic, and being condemned by the Church for such a one, shall ever be received to Ecclesiastical honour again: so that he could not dye true Pope, as our Adversaries dream he did. Let them show us how they can clear themselves from sundry absurd contradictions in this point, and we will rest satisfied. For we do not deny, but that he might repent of his subscribing to heresy, and dye a Catholic, though some of the testimonies that Bellarmine bringeth, will scarce prove it.  
The next Pope that we find to have been touched with any suspicion of heresy, is Anastasius the second, whom the Author of the 
e In vita Anastasii 2.  Pontifical taxeth. First, for that he communicated with Photius, a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica, that had communicated with Achacius, Bishop of Constantinople, without the counsel of the Bishops and Presbyters of the Catholic Church; which his inconsiderate action, made many of the Presbyters and Clergy refuse to communicate with him. Secondly, for that he sought to restore Achacius, whom Felix and Gelasius his predecessors had condemned: for which fact he was suddenly stricken of God, in such sort that he died. To these 
f Dist. 19 ca Anast.  Gratian addeth another taxation, reprehending him for that he allowed the baptism and ordination of such as were baptised and ordained by Achacius after he was become an heretic. But because the baptism and ordination of heretics is holden good, and it appeareth by the Epistle of Anastasius to Anastasius the Emperor, that Achacius was dead before he was Bishop, and that he desired to have the name of Achacius razed out of the Diptickes of the Church, after his death: I will pass by this censure of the Author of the Pontifical, and Gratian as doubtful, and leaving Anastasius, come to Vigilius; who (as 
g In Breviario c. 22.  Liberatus reporteth) to get the Popedom like a notable dissembling hypocrite, pretended at Rome to be a Catholic, but in his letters to Theodora the Empress, who was an heretic, condemned the Catholic faith: and promised that if Syluerius might be thrust out, and he put into his place, he would restore Anthemius Bishop of Constantinople, rejected by Agapetus for heresy. Which being brought to pass by Theodora the Empress, and Syluerius unjustly banished, he sat for a while as an Antipope and an heretic. But when as Syluerius was dead, he professed himself a Catholic, and refused to perform that he had promised to Theodora. Whether this man being an heretic in his outward profession at his entrance, and by such profession getting the Popedom unjustly, schismatically, and as an Antipope, could ever after be true Pope, let our Adversaries give us answer, when they have advisedly thought of it.  
The next Pope that is charged with heresy, is Honorius the first, whom the Christian world, and not a few particular men only condemned as a Monothelite. For in the 
h Actione 13.  sixth general Council, his Epistles to Sergius the heretic are publicly read and condemned, and he accursed as an heretic. The 
i Actione 7.  seaventh general Council likewise doth anathematise Honorius, Sergius, Syrus, and the other Monothelites. In the 
k Actione 7.  vl general Council, called about the matter of difference between Ignatius and Photius, the acts of the Council of the West under Adrian the second, are read and allowed; wherein Adrian professeth, that none of the inferior Sees may judge the greater, and specially Rome, unless it be in case of heresy; in which case they of the East did anathematise and accurse Honorius: which yet (he saith) they would not have adventured to do, if the Roman Church had not gone before them in such condemnation of her own Bishop. Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperor, which we find in the end of the sixth general Council, accurseth the same Honorius as an heretic and a wicked one, that defiled and polluted the apostolic chair with heresy. With Leo consenteth 
l In Synod. 7. actione 3.  Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, 
m In Epistolâ Synodicâ quae habetur in eâdem. 7. Synod. actione 3.  Theodorus Bishop of Jerusalem; 
n Synod. 7. actione 6.  Epiphanius in his disputation with Gregory, in the sixth Action of the seventh general Council: 
o In Carm. de 7. Synodis.  Psellus, 
p De 6. aetatib. in vita Constantini. 4.  Beda, and the 
q In vita Leonis.  Author of the Pontifical. These authorities may seem very sufficient to prove, that Honorius was an heretic: yet so well are our adversaries affected to him, that they will rather discredit them all then suffer him to be spotted and disgraced: and therefore some of them say, that the sixth general Council is corrupted; & likewise the Epistle of Leo the second, in the end of it: & that the Fathers in the 7th Council were deceived by the 6th, as likewise Pope Adrian with the whole Roman Synod, and the other Authors, that concur with them in the condemnation of Honorius. Others think that indeed the 6th Council condemned Honorius, but upon false information, and so erred in a matter of fact. Which conceit is no way probable. For that the Fathers of the Council proceeded not rashly, 
r Actione 12.  but caused the Epistles of Honorius written to the heads of the faction of the Monothelites (for which he was suspected,) to be openly read and examined. But (say they) first, these Epistles haply were counterfeit, 2ly If they were not counterfeit, there is nothing in them contrary to the truth. Neither of these answers is sufficient. For first, that the Epistles were not sergeant, it appeareth by Maximus, 
s Disp. Maxim i come Pyrrho in 2 Tom. Concil. apud Binnium.  who answereth a place brought out of one of them, & showeth the meaning of it, as from the Secretary that wrote it, then living. 2ly, If these Epistles had been sergeant, the Legates of Agatho present there, would have taken exception to them, & not have consented to the condemnation of one of his predecessors upon sergeant evidence. Neither is the 2● answer better than the 1st: for that the Fathers assembled in a general Council, should not be able to understand the Epistles of Honorius, & judge whether they were heretical or not, as well as the Jesuits now living, is very strange. But let us suppose the Jesuits to have more wit than all those worthy Bs & Fathers that were assembled in the sixth Council, & let us see by taking a view of the Epistles themselves, whether they may be cleared from the error they have been charged with, or not. It is not to be denied, but that Honorius in these his Epistles 
t Actione 12. Synod: 6. & act. 13.  confesseth, that the nature of God in Christ, worketh the things that are divine: & the nature of man, the things that are humane, without division, confusion, or conversion of one of them into another: & that the differences of these natures remain inviolable. But in that he denyeth, that there are two actions in Christ, the one of Deity, and the other of Humanity; in that he saith, it is absurd to think, that where there are more natures than one, there must be more actions than one: and alloweth of Cyrus' Bishop of Alexandria, and Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who were Monothelites, rather than of Sophronius Bishop of Jerusalem, a right worthy and learned Bishop (who defended the truth against them both, and whose learned Epistle to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, we find in the 
u Actione 11.  sixth general Council:) it cannot be avoided but that he erred in matter of faith, in such sort, as by consequence it overthroweth that distinction of the two natures of God & man in Christ, which he seemed to acknowledge. Neither can it be cleared from suspicion of heretical & bad meaning, that he maketh it but a curiosity of philosophers to acknowledge a twofold action in Christ, & denieth that the fathers ever defined any such thing; whereas Pope Martin the first in the 
x Concilior. Tomo 2.  Synod of Rome saith, it is clear by the determination of the Fathers, that the two natures of Christ remain unconfounded in the union, & undivided, as also his two wills, and the two distinct actions, & natural properties of them. Maximus in his disputation with Pyrrhus, found in the second Tome of the Counsels, cleareth one sentence of Honorius, wherein he seemeth to acknowledge but one will in Christ; affirming out of the testimony of him that wrote that Epistle for Honorius, that he meant it of one will of the humane nature of Christ; thereby showing, that there was no such contrariety of desires found in him as in us. But what is that to the other things that are objected to him? Two objections our Adversaries have against them who think that Honorius was condemned for heresy. The first is, that the sixth general Council could not condemn him, without being contrary to itself, in 
y Actione 4.  allowing the Epistle of Agatho, wherein he saith; that the faith never failed in Peter's chair, and that his predecessors did always confirm their brethren. The second, that some Writers speaking of the Monothelites, and naming diverse of them, omit him; that 
z 2. Tomo. council. apud Binnium.  Maximus in his Dialogue against Pyrrhus, Theophanes Isaurus in his History, cited by 
a In vitâ Honorij apud Platinam.  Onuphrius, and Emmanuel Chalica in his book in the defence of the Latins against the greeks, affirm, he was ever a catholic; & some other, as Beda, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Blondus, Nauclerus, Sabellicus, & Platina, do speak of him as of a Catholic Bishop. The first of these objections I have answered elsewhere, showing that some of Agathoes predecessors, might 
b Chap. 42.  for some short space fail to do their duty, in confirming their brethren, & swerve from the truth; and yet that be true he saith in that Epistle, that in the See itself the faith never failed: and that his predecessors fell not either so many, or in such sort, but that the Bishops of that Church did ever reach forth their helping hands to other, either in the beginning of each heresy, or before it was utterly extinct and suppressed; as it fell out in this, both in respect of Pope Martin and others before, and of himself now. To the second we say, that it doth not seem to be strongly proved, that Honorius was no heretic, by the silence of some few. That Maximus doth not clear Honorius generally, but one sentence of Honorius only. That Theophanes Isaurus doth not go about to clear Honorius from heresy, but saith only, that the Canons of the sixth Council were not made by the same Fathers that were at first assembled, but by others. So speaking nothing of Honorius, who was condemned in the Council, and not in the canons; and that the rest, to wit, Chalica, and some few other living long after the time of Honorius, are no sufficient proof against that cloud of witnesses, which we produced in the beginning. And therefore there is yet nothing brought to reprove the testimony of our witnesses, or to make good that he was always a catholic, which is the thing to be proved.  
With Honorius we may join Gregory the third, who in his 
c Decret. part. 2. causa 32. qu. 7. Cano. proposuisti.  Epistle to Bonifacius, giveth leave to a man, whose wife falleth into some such infirmity, as maketh her unfit to company with him, to marry another; so that he give her maintenance. And that he speaketh not of any impediment before marriage not known, which maketh the contract void from the beginning, but of such infirmities as fall out afterwards, it is evident. First, in that he saith: If any man's wife shall be taken with such infirmity, etc. Secondly, in that he provideth: That the husband shall provide for her maintenance; which in case of a void contract from the beginning, is no way reasonable. Thirdly, in that he saith: He shall thus provide for her, seeing infirmity, and not wickedness driveth him from her. Fourthly, in that he saith: It were better he should contain; seeing in case of abuse by unknown defect and impediment, making the contract void from the beginning, there is no more cause why a man so abused, should contain and refrain from marriage, than any other. Now to permit marriage by reason of any defect or infirmity ensuing after the first marriage, I think our Adversaries will not deny to be erroneous, seeing the contrary is defined in the 
d Sess 24. c. 2.  Council of Trent. Neither doth it excuse this error of Gregory, that Bellarmine allegeth out of 
e Lib. 1. de sermone Dom. in monte c. 29.  Austin, who maketh some doubt whether the wife with her husband's consent, yielding to the wicked desires of him in whose hands he is, to save his life, be excusable from sin; seeing he doth but upon a particular accident propose a disputable question; and the other resolveth and giveth warrant for the practice of an unlawful thing, and that as a Pope in his directions to Bonifacius, having newly converted certain barbarous people to the faith of Christ.  
Wherefore let us proceed to see whether therebe any more Popes that may justly be charged with error or heresy. We read in the 
f Sigebert. in Chronico anni 900. & Seq. Platina. in Stephan. & Sergio.  stories of the Church, that one Formosus, Bishop of Portua, being hardly thought of, and suspected by john the Pope, left his Bishopric, and fled for fear of him; that being called back by john, & refusing to return, he was anathematised by him; & that at last coming into France to satisfy the Pope, he was degraded, and put into a Lay habit, and made to swear never to enter into Rome any more, nor ever to communicate but as a Lay man: yet afterwards by Martinus, john's successor, he was restored to his Bishopric, absolved from his oath, came to Rome, and in the end obtained to be Pope, contrary to the minds of many of the Romans, who desired rather to have had one Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, but prevailed not. Whereupon there grew great question with much scandal, some affirming that his consecration, and the consecration of such as he ordained, was void: others, that whatsoever were thought of Formosus, yet for the dignity of his Bishoply office, and the faith of those he ordained, their ordinations were to be holden for good, especially seeing he was absolved from his perjury by Martinus the Pope. The next Pope (save one) that succeeded Formosus, was Stephen, who sat but four months, yet was not idle, but though he had been ordained Bishop of Anagnia by him, persecuted him with deadly hate, and pronounced the ordinations of all such as he had ordained to be void. After him succeeded Romanus, and after Romanus, Theodorus, who being contrarily minded to Stephen, reconciled those whom Stephen had degraded, but presumed not to consecrate or ordain them again. After Theodorus, followed john, who, to confirm the ordinations of Formosus, pronounced void by Stephen, called a Council of 72 Bishops, the Archbishops of France, and the King being present: and in the sight of them all, caused the Acts of the Synod which Stephen held for condemnation of Formosus, to be burned. After john succeeded Benedictus, and aftet him Sergius the Deacon, that miss the Popedom when Formosus got it. This Sergius in revenge of his former repulse, forced the Romans with threats and terrors, to account the ordinations of Formosus void, and (which is not to be spoken) drew him out of his grave after he had rested in it a good space: put upon him the Papal vestures, set him in Peter's chair: commanded him to be beheaded, and then cutting off three of his fingers, caused him to be cast into Tiber, degrading all that he had ordained. here we see Popes clearly convinced of heresy, and defining and decreeing for heresy. For seeing Formosus was sometime undoubtedly a true Bishop, it was an error in faith to say, that his ordinations were void. This is so clear, that 
g De Pont. lib. 4. c. 12.  Bellarmine denyeth it not, but saith only, that neither Stephen, nor Sergius published any decree, that their ordinations were void, whom Formosus had ordained, and that they were to be re-ordained: but did only so re-ordaine, de facto, in their fury, & distempered passions: wherein he is clearly refuted by 
h Anno 902  Sigebert, who saith expressly, that they decreed omnes ordinationes eius irritas esse debere: that is, That all his ordinations were to be taken and reputed for void.  
To Stephen and Sergius we may add Caelestinus the third, who (as 
i De haeres. lib. 1. c. 4.  Alfonsus á Castro truly affirmeth) cannot by any means be excused from heresy, in that he taught, that the bond of marriage is so dissolved by heresy, that he whose wife falleth into heresy, may lawfully leave her and take another. This decree of Caelestinus is not now to be found in the Decretals, but it was in the ancient; & Alfonsus, professeth he read it 
k In Decretal. cap laudabilem de conuersione Infidelium.  there himself. Now that it is heretical in the judgement of our adversaries, it is evident, in that 
l Cap. Quanto de divortijs.  Innocentius the third teacheth the contrary, and the 
m Sess. 24. can. 5.  Council of Trent defineth otherwise. Neither doth Bellarmine's answer, that he did not pass any Decree, but only deliver his own private opinion, help the matter. For 
n Alfonsus' à Castro. contra haeres. lib. 1. c. 2.  Gratian maketh the Decretals equal in authority with the Canons of Counsels, and our adversaries are wont to prove the Pope's power by his Decretals, as if all they were subject to him, and bound to obey him to whom he writeth them.  
The next Pope that is charged with heresy, is Nicholas the fourth, who 
o Cap. exijt de verb. signif. in Sexto.  defineth, that Christ taught both by word and example most perfect poverty, consisting in the abandoning of all propriety in things, and right or claim to them, either in particular, or in respect of the whole College & company of men living together, and that such poverty is pleasing to God, and meritorious. For the better understanding of this matter we must distinguish the use of things, and the propriety in them, or right & claim to them. 
p Ockam oper is 90. dierum. c. 2.  The propriety in things, and the right and claim to them, is twofold; either absolute, when men may judicially challenge a thing as their own, and use it how, & in what sort they will, so that it be not prohibited by the law of God and nature; or restrained and limited: as Clergymen may challenge the possessions & lands belonging to them, & judicially recover them if they be withheld from them; yet may they not so freely dispose of them, as Laymen may of theirs. The use of things is twofold. For there is usus juris, & usus facti. Vsus facti is when one hath the use of a thing, but so, that he hath no right to use it, warrantable by any positive or humane law; & if any one will deprive him of it, he cannot by law hinder him. Vsus juris, is the right one hath to use a thing, leaving the claim of the possession of the substance of it to the owner thereof. This kind of use is likewise twofold: nudus, and usus-fructus. The former is when one hath right to use a thing; but so limited and restrained, that he may neither sell, let, nor give the same right. The later when he may. The Franciscan Friars imagining the height of Christian perfection to consist in extreme poverty, by their vow of poverty abandon, not only in particular, as do other Religious, but in general, even in respect of their whole company and society, all interest, right and claim to lands, livings and possessions, or to the use of any such things leaving nothing to themselves, but the bare use of such things as by free gift, begging, or labour, come to their hands; without all right to use them pleadable and justifiable by any course of humane law. So that if any one will take the bread out of their hands, before it come to their mouths, or the clothes from them, wherewith they hide their nakedness, they may not complain of him for so doing, nor prosecute any suit against him for it. This kind of poverty Pope Nicholas affirmeth Christ taught, both by word and example, and willeth the franciscans according to their rule, strictly to observe the same. And for their safety and security taketh order, that all movables given to them for use, shall in respect of right belong to the Church of Rome, as likewise their Oratories, and Cemiteries But their dwellings not so, unless the giver express an absolute gift (which yet must not be to the Friars, but to the Church) and the Church expressly accept the same. For otherwise the owner may at his pleasure take them away again. Farther he ordereth, that such such things as are given to them, and they have the use of, they may either of themselves change them for such other things as they need or desire, or cause the governor and disposer of them appointed by the Pope, to sell them, and with the money to buy such things as they need, and let them have the use of them, as books and the like. For with money they themselves may not meddle. Pope john the two and twentieth, following Nicholas, and finding by experience, that these Friars did but abuse the world with their fair shows of perfection, 
q In extravagant. ad Conditorem Canonum.  condemned their hypocrisy, and would be no patron of it, as his predecessor was. First, therefore he showed, that perfection consisteth essentially in charity, which Paul nameth the bond of perfection, & that the abandoning of propriety in things maketh nothing to perfection, farther than it excludeth the care that is wont to be found in men, in getting, keeping, & disposing of them, weakening the act of divine love, So that if there be as much carefulness in men after the disclaiming of propriety in things, as before, their seeming poverty maketh nothing to Christian perfection. Now he saith, that after the ordination of his predecessor, these Friars were no less careful in getting and keeping things both by begging, judicial suing, and the like means, than any other mendicants that have some things as their own in common. And that therefore howsoever they pleased themselves, their observation was of no more perfection than theirs that had something of their own in common. Secondly, he showed, that these mendicants having the use of such things as are given to them, and the Church of Rome the propriety (in name and title, but not in deed, being only to secure them in the use thereof, and to make no benefit) that it is but a single right the Church hath, and that they are in truth and indeed no poorer than they that have things of their own; seeing they may change the use of one thing for another, or at least cause the procurator, designed by the Church of Rome, to change things into money, and buy for them such as they rather desire to have, making use of all things that come to their hands at their pleasure, as much as they that have them of their own. Thirdly, he pronounced, that to think that Christ and his Apostles had nothing of their own in special or common, and that they had no right to use such things, as they had, to sell them, give them, or with them to buy other, is contrary to the Gospel, condemneth Christ and his Apostles of injustice, and overthroweth the whole Scripture. Yet Pope Nicholas defined, that Christ & his Apostles had nothing of their own, either in special or common, and that the having of a common bag no way contrarieth this conceit, seeing that was but by a kind of dispensation in the person of the weak and imperfect; and to show, that he disliketh not them that come short of his perfection. Thus we see Pope Nicolas erred in a matter of faith, patronised hypocrites in their feigns shows of counterfeit perfection, & was disliked and contraried by his own successor john the two and twentieth for the same; by reason whereof there grew a main difference between Pope john and the Franciscan Friars, he charging them with heresy and persecuting them from place to place: and they likewise disclaiming him as a damnable heretic, and no Pope. The principal men on the Friar's part were 
r Vid. litera●… Michael. Caesen. in fine Diolog. Occami.  Michael Caesenas, and 
s Occam. in opere 90. dierum & alibi.  Occam the great Schoolman, who hath written much against Pope john, touching this argument.  
Neither is Pope john (though in this point of Christian perfection he were of a sounder & better judgement than his predecessor) & any happier than he. For he is likewise charged with error in matter of faith (& that not unjustly) by the same Friars, that he so much hated & persecuted. For (as Occam testifieth in his 
t 2. partis tract. 1. in initio.  Dialogues) he taught, that the souls of the just shall not see God till the general resurrection: and that not faintly, or doubtingly, but in such passionate and violent manner, as not to endure those that thought otherwise. 
u Part. 4. operum ejus. With Gerson agreeth Adrian. 6. in q. de Confirmat. circa finem.  Gerson likewise in his sermon upon Easter day, before the French King and his Nobles, saith, That the thief on the cross in that very hour that Christ spoke unto him, was made happy, and saw God face to face, according to the promise of Christ made unto him, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise; and that thereby the doctrine of john the two and twentieth is proved false, that was coudemned by the Divines of Paris with the sound of trumpets, before King Philip, uncle to the King before whom then he spoke; the King rather believing the Divines of Paris, than the Court of Rome. 
x De Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 14.  Bellarmine, to derive the hate of this matter from the Pope to others, would willingly fasten this error on Caluine, and to that purpose allegeth 
y Instit. lib. 3. c. 20. & 24.  two places out of him. But neither of them proveth any such thing. For in the first, he speaketh not of any stay of the Saints departed without, in outward courts, out of heaven till the resurrection (as the Cardinal strangely misunderstandeth him) but showeth by a most apt comparison, that as in the time of MOSES Law, the high Priest only entered into the Holiest of all to make an atonement, and all the people stayed without: So none but Christ goeth into the presence of God, to make peace, and to work the great work of reconciliation, and that all the sons of men are to expect without, till he bring them assurance of favour and acceptation. And in the second place where saith, that the dead are joined with us that live in the unity of the same faith, his meaning is not, that faith opposite to sight is found in the Saints after death, as it is in us, but that they have a clear view, and present enjoying of those things which we believe. Neither is there any thing found in Caluine that may any way excuse the error of Pope john. Thus then (I hope) it doth appear by that which hath been said, that Popes are subject to error, that they may become Heretics, and define for heresy, and that therefore the second supposed privilege of the Roman Bishop, which is infallibility of judgement, is found to have no proof at all. Wherefore let us proceed to the third, which is his power to dispose of the kingdoms of the World, and to overrule the Princes and Potentates thereof.   

CHAP. 44.  
Of the Pope's unjust claim of temporal dominion over the whole world.  
TOuching the right and interest of Popes in intermeddling with secular affairs, and disposing of the Kingdoms of the world, there are three opinions among the Romanists. The 
a August. Triumphus. Alvarus Pelagius, & alii cit. à Bellarm.  first is, that the Pope is sovereign Lord of all the world, or at least of all the Christian world; and that the Princes of the Earth are but his Vicegerents and Lieutenants. The 
b Bellar. & alii  second, that the Pope is not sovereign Lord of the world, nor of any part thereof: and that therefore he may not at his pleasure intermeddle with the affairs of Princes, but only in case of some defect found in them, as when they fail to do their duty, or seek to hinder the common good, especially of the Church. The 
c Waldensis, Gerson, Hart, & many other cited in the examination of Blackwell.  third, that he may not at all intermeddle with the disposition of earthly kingdoms, or restrain, or depose Princes, how much soever they abuse their authority.  
The first of these three opinions, had anciently, and hath presently, great patrons and followers. Yet 
d De Pont. l. 5. c. 2. 3. & 4●….  Bellarmine very confidently and learnedly refuteth the same. First, showing that the Pope is not sovereign Lord of the whole world. Secondly, that he is not Lord of the Christian world. And thirdly, that he is Lord of no part of the world. That he is not Lord of the whole world, he proveth, because not of those Provinces that are possessed by Infidels, which he demonstrateth. First, because Christ committed none but only his sheep to Peter; and therefore gave him no authority over Infidels which are not his sheep; whereunto Saint Paul agreeth, professing that he hath nothing to do to judge them that are without. Secondly, because dominion and the right of Princes is not founded in grace or faith, but in free will and 
e 1 Cor. 5, 12.  reason, and hath not sprung from the written Law of Moses, or Christ, but from the law of Nations and Nature. Which is most clear, in that God both in the Old and New Testament approveth the Kingdoms of the Gentiles and Infidels, as appeareth by that of Daniel to Nabuchadnezzar: 
f Dan. 2 37.  O King, thou art King of Kings, For the God of Heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory, and in all places where the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee a ruler over them all. And that of Christ, 
g Matth. 22. 21,  Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. With whom the Apostle agreeth, requiring the Christians of his time, not only to pay tribute to Heathen kings; but also 
h Rom. 13. 5  to obey them for conscience sake; which men were not bound to, if they had no authority and right to command. Neither can it be said, that heathen princes are the Pope's Lieutenants, and theresore to be obeyed for his sake, though not for their own, seeing the Pope would have no such Lieutenants, if it lay in him to place them, or displace them. Lastly he proveth, that the Pope hath no such sovereign right of commanding over all, as is pretended, seeing it had been vain for Christ to give him a right to that, whereof he should never get the possession. And having thus proved, that Infidels were truly and rightly Lords of the country's subject to them before the coming of Christ, that he found no nullity in their titles, nor ever seized their kingdoms and dominions into his own hands, as some fond imagine that he did, he proceedeth to prove, that Princes when they become Christians, lose not the right that they formerly had to their kingdoms, but get a new right to the kingdom of heaven. For that otherwise Christ's grace should destroy nature, and his benefits be prejudicial to such as are made partakers of them. Whereas Christ came not to destroy and overthrow things well settled before, but to perfect them: nor to hurt any, but to do good to all. For confirmation whereof he allegeth part of the Hymn of Sedulius, which the whole Church doth sing. Hostis Herodes impie, Christum venire quid times? Non eripit mortalia, Qui regna dat coelestia; that is, O impious enemy Herod, why dost thou fear Christ's coming? He will not deprive thee of thy transitory kingdom upon earth, that gives an eternal kingdom in heaven. Whence it followeth, that Christ imposed no such hard condition on those kings that were to become Christians, as to leave their crowns & dignities.  
And so he cometh to his second proposition, that the Pope is not temporal Lord of the Christian world, which he confirmeth. First, because if the Pope were sovereign Lord of all the Christian world, Bishops should be temporal Lords of their cities, & the places adjoining subject to them. Which neither they will grant, that contend for the sovereignty of the Pope, nor can stand with that of Saint 
i Ambros. in Oratione de tradend. Basilicis.  Ambrose, who saith, If the Emperor ask tribute, we deny it him not. The Church lands do pay tribute. And again, Tribute is Caesar's, it is not denied him, but the Church is Gods, and may not be yielded to Caesar. And that of Hosius Bishop of Corduba, who (as we read in 
k In epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes.  Athanasius) telleth the Emperor, that God hath given him the Empire, but that he hath committed to Bishops, those things that pertain to the Church. Secondly, out of the confession of Popes, 
l Leo epist. add Martian. 38. & 43.  Pope Leo confessing, that Martianus the Emperor, was appointed to the Empire by God, and that God was the author of his Empire: And 
m Epi. ad Anastas. quae habetur. Dist. 96. ca duo sunt.  Gelasius writing to Anastasius the Emperor, and acknowledging that there are two things by which principally the world is guided, to wit, the sacred authority of Bishops, and the regal power of Princes; with whom Gregory agreeth when he saith, 
n Greg. lib. 2. epist. 61. ad Mauritium.  Power over all is given from heaven to the piety of my Lord.  
And from hence he inferreth his third proposition, that the Pope is temporal Lord of no part of the world, in the right of Peter's successor, and Christ's Vicar. For, if there were no nullity in the titles of infidel kings and princes, nor no necessity implied in their conversion, of relinquishing their right when they became Christians, but that both infidels & christians, notwithstanding any act of Christ, continued in the full possession of princely power & right, it could not be, that Christ should invest Peter, or his successors, with any kingly authority, seeing he could give them none, but such as he should take from others.  
Nay, he proceedeth farther, and showeth, that Christ himself, while he was on the earth, was no temporal Lord or King, and therefore much less gave any temporal dominion or kingdom to his Apostles. That he was no temporal king, he proveth, because the right to be a King or Lord in such sort as men are Kings or Lords, is either by inheritance, election, conquest, or special donation and gift of Almighty God. Now that Christ according to the flesh, was a King by right of inheritance, he saith, it cannot be proved, because though he came of the kingly family, yet it is uncertain whether he were the next in blood to David or not. And besides, the kingdom was taken away from David's house, before Christ was borne; & God had foretold, that of the house of jeconiah, of which Christ came (as we may read in the 
o Vers. 12.  first of Saint Matthew) there should never be any temporal King such as David, and the rest that succeeded him were, saying; 
p jerem. 22. 30.  Write this man barren, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for there shall be no man of his seed to sit upon the throne of David, & to have power any more in judah. And whereas it might be objected, that the Angel prophesied, that 
q Luke 1. 32.  the, Lord God should give unto Christ, the seat of David his father, the Cardinal answereth out of Hierome, upon the place of Hieremie: and Ambrose upon Luke, that the words of Almighty God which we read in Hieremie, are to be understood of a temporal kingdom, and the words of the Angel of a spiritual and eternal kingdom. That Christ was not a temporal King by right of election, he proveth by that of Christ himself, when he saith, 
r Luke 12. 14.  O man, who hath made me a judge, or a divider among you. And by that of S. john where he saith, that 
s joh. 6. 15.  When Christ knew they meant to come & take him, & make him a King, he fled again himself alone into a mountain. So that he neither was chosen, nor would have accepted of any such choice. That by right of conquest and victory he was not a temporal King, it appeareth, in that his war was not with mortal Kings, to deprive them of their kingdoms, but with the prince of darkness; according to that of the Apostle: 
t 1. joh. 3. 8.  To this purpose did the Son of God appear, that he might dissolve the works of the Devil. And that again, 
u joh. 12. 31.  Now is the Prince of this world cast out. And that of Saint Paul, who speaking of Christ, saith, 
x Colos. 2. 15.  That spoiling principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in himself. So that his warfare was not, by carnal weapons to get himself an earthly kingdom, but by spiritual weapons, mighty through God, to get a spiritual kingdom, that he might reign in the hearts of men, by faith and grace, where Satan reigned before by infidelity, disobedience and sin. Lastly, that he was no temporal king by any special gift of God his Father, it is evident out of his own words, when he saith, 
y joh. 18. 36.  My kingdom is not hence: For as the 
z Chrysostom. Theophylact. Cyril. & Aug. in hunc locum. Ambros. li. 3. in Lucam, prope finem.  Father's note upon these words, Christ meant by so saying, to put Pilate out of doubt, that he affected no temporal kingdom. And therefore the sense of his words, must needs be this, I am a King, but not in such sort, as Caesar and Herod: My kingdom is not of this world, that is, The supports of it, are not things of this world, it doth not consist in honour, riches, and power of this world. This thing the Cardinal farther proveth to be true, because he came to minister, and not to be ministered unto: to be judged, and not to judge: and by his whole course of conversation, showed the same, never taking upon him to do any kingly act. For whereas he cast out the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, it rather pertained to the Priest's office, than the kings, according to that, which we read in the old Testament, that the 
a 2. Chron. 26. 20.  Priest drove the king himself out of the Temple, when disorderly he presumed to do things not pertaining to him: and yet he did it not by any Priestly or kingly authority, but after the manner of Prophets, by a kind of divine zeal, like that wherewith 
b Num. 25. 7.  Phinchees was moved to kill the adulterer and adulteress, and 
c 1. King. 18. 40.  Elias to slay the Prophets of Baal. This most true opinion of the Cardinal, that Christ was no temporal king, is farther confirmed, in that such a kind of kingdom had not been necessary. Nay, it had been an hindrance to the work he had in hand, which was to persuade to the contempt of glory, honour, riches, pleasures, and all such other earthly things, wherewith the Kings of the earth abound: and by suffering death, to overcome him that had the power of death; and to reconcile the world unto God. And besides, in that all the places, where any mention is made of the kingdom of Christ, are necessarily understood of a spiritual and eternal kingdom. So in the Psalm, 
d Psal. 2.  I am appointed of him a King, to preach his commandment. And again, in the book of Daniel: 
e Dan. 2. 44.  In their days shall God raise up a kingdom, which shall not be destroyed for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. Whereas the kingdoms of men, continue but for a time: and therefore if Christ had been a King in such sort while he was upon the earth, as men are, he had ceased to be so, when he left the earth. And then it could not have been true, that of his kingdom there should be none end. Nay seeing the kingdom of the jews was possessed by the Romans, at, or immediately after the time of the departure of Christ out of the world and afterwards by the Saracens, and Turks: how could that of Daniel have been fulfilled, that his kingdom shall not be given to another people, if his kingdom had been like the kingdoms of men? So it is true, that Christ came into the world to be a king, and that GOD gave him the seat of David his father. But this kingdom was divine, spiritual, eternal, and proper unto him, in that he was the Son of God, and in that he was God and Man. But a temporal kingdom, such as the sons of men have, he had not. And hereupon Saint Augustine bringeth in Christ speaking in this sort, 
f Aug. in 15 joannis.  Audite judaej & Gentes, audi circumcisio, audi praeputium, audite omnia regnae terrena, non impedio dominationem vestram in hoc mundo, etc. that is, Hear O Jews and Gentiles, hear circumcision, and uncircumcision, hear all ye kingdoms of the earth, I hinder not your dominion and rule in this world, because my kingdom is not of this world. Fear not therefore with that most vain and causeless fear, wherewith Herod feared, and slew so many innocent babes, being cruel, rather out of fear then anger, and so forward: showing that the Kingdom of Christ is merely spiritual, and such as no way prejudiceth the kingdoms of men. Which the 
g Gloss. super illud Matth. 21. Benedictus qui venit.  Gloss confirmeth, noting that Christ, while he was yet to live longer in this world, when the multitudes came to make him a King, refused it: but that when he was ready to suffer, he no way reproved, but willingly accepted the hymns of them, that received him in triumphant manner, and welcomed him to Jerusalem, honouring him as a King; because he was a King, not having a temporal and earthly kingdom, but an heavenly. Whereunto Leo agreeth, showing that Herod, when he heard a Prince was borne to the jews, feared a successor; but that his fear was vain and causeless, saying, 
h Leo serm. de Epiphania.  O caeca stultae aemulationis impietas, quae perturbandum putas divinum tuo furore consilium! Dominus mundi temporale non quaerit regnumqui praestat aeternum. that is, Oblinde impiety of foolish emulation, which thinkest to trouble and hinder the Counsels of God by thy fury. The Lord of the World, who giveth an eternal Kingdom, came not into the World to seek a temporal kingdom. And 
i Fulg. serm. de Epiph.  Fulgentius acordeth with him, saying, The gold which the Sages offered to Christ, showed him to be a King, but not such a King as will have his Image and superscription in the coin, but such an one as seeketh his image in the sons of men. Whence it followeth, he was no temporal or mundane King: seeing they have their images and superscriptions in their coin, that are kings after the manner of the World. This assertion may be proved by many unanswerable reasons. The first is this, Christ standing before Pilate, and being asked by him if he were a King, answered, 
k joh. 18. 36.  That his Kingdom was not of this world. Therefore he was not temporal or mundane King. This consequence foam deny, affirming that Christ intended not in his answer to Pilate, to deny his kingdom to be a temporal, earthly, & mundane kingdom, but that he meant only to let him know that he had received his kingdom of God, & that the World neither gave it him, nor chose him to it. And therefore he said, Regnum meum non est hinc, and not Regnum meum non est hic, that is, My Kingdom is not hence, and not, My Kingdom is not here. This was the evasion of Pope john the two and twentieth (as 
l Ockam oper●…s 90. dier. c. 53  Ockam testifieth) but he refuteth the same by most clear circumstances of Scripture, and evidence of reason, showing that Christ being accused unto Pilate as an enemy to Caesar, in that he made himself a King, so cleared himself, that Pilate pronounced that he found nothing against him; which he could not, nor he would not have done if he had confessed his Kingdom to be a mundane Kingdom, though he had derived the right and title of it from Heaven. For Caesar would not have endured any claim of such a Kingdom, though fetched from Heaven. Neither durst Pilate have pronounced him guiltless that had made such a claim, and therefore Christ, when he said, his Kingdom was not of this World, meant not only to deny the receiving of it from the World, but also the dependence of it upon any thing in the World: the supports of it not being things earthly, but heavenly and divine, it no way consisting in riches, honour, power, & worldly greatness, as do the kingdoms of men, but in the power of God. Which thing is aptly expressed by Christ himself, when he saith, 
m joh. 18. 36  If my Kingdom were of this world, my Soldiers would fight for me. The second reason is this. He that is no judge of secular quarrels, nor divider of inheritance, is no King. For these things belong to the office of a King. But Christ was no judge of such quarrels, and differences; therefore he was no King. That he was no judge of secular quarrels, nor divider of inheritances, it is evident by his own 
n Luk. 12. 14.  denial thereof. Which Saint Ambrose excellently expresseth, saying; 
o Ambros. in eum locum.  Be●… terrena declinat, qui propter divina descenderat; nec iudex dignatur esse litium, & arbiter facultatum, vivorum habens mortuorumque iudicium, & arbitrium meritorum: that is, He doth well decline things earthly, who descended and came down for things divine. Neither doth he vouchsafe to be a judge of quarrels, and an arbitrator to determine the differences of men about their possessions, who is appointed to be judge of the quick and dead, and to whom it pertaineth to discern between the well and ill doings of men. And again; Meritò refutatur ille frater, qui dispensatorem coelestium gestiebat terrenis occupare: that is; That brother is worthily rejected, and hath the repulse, who sought to busy him whom God hath appointed the disposer of things heavenly, with things that are earthly. The third is, because Christ refused to be a King when it was offered him, and told his disciples, that 
p Math. 20. 25.  The kings of the nations have dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority. But that it should not be so with them, but that whosoever would be great among them, must be their minister. The fourth; he that is a King and will never meddle with the things that belong to a King, is justly to be charged either with wickedness, or negligence. But Christ never meddled with any thing pertaining to the office of a temporal king in this world; therefore either he was no such king, or he may be charged with malice or negligence. But neither of these two latter may be admitted; therefore he was no such king. The fifth; there cannot be two kings of one kingdom, unless either they hold the same jointly, or the one acknowledge to hold the same, as of and from the other. But Caesar and Christ, neither held the kingdom of judaea jointly, neither did Caesar hold it as from Christ, nor Christ as from Caesar. Therefore either Caesar was no true king, or Christ was no secular king of that kingdom. But that Caesar was a true king, it appeareth by the testimony of Christ himself, saying; 
q Math. 22. 21.  Give, or rather render, to. Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Now Caesar claimed tribute as Lord of the country, and therefore he was truly Lord and King of it. That Caesar held not of or from Christ as man, it is evident; and much more, that Christ, who wholly refused to be a king, did never acknowledge to hold any kingdom from mortal man. The sixth; that was the kingdom of Christ whereof the Prophets prophesied: But they prophesied not of any earthly kingdom; therefore Christ's kingdom was not earthly. That they prophesied not of any earthly kingdom, it is evident, in that the kingdom they prophesied of, was to be confirmed and restored by him: but the earthly kingdom of judaea was not confirmed by the coming of Christ, but upon the refusal of him utterly overthrown; therefore it was not that the Prophets prophesied of. That the kingdom they prophesied of, was to be confirmed, restored and bettered, the words of the Prophets are proof sufficient. 
r 〈◊〉. 2●… 5. etc.  Behold the day cometh (saith the Lord) and I will raise up unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and he shall be wise, and shall do judgement and justice in the earth. In those days judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell boldly. And this is the name that they shall call him by: The Lord our righteousness. And again, 
s Esay 9 6.  A little child is borne unto us, and the principality or rule is on his shoulders. His name shall be called wonderful, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace, the increase of his government and peace shall have no end. He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order, and to establish it with judgement, and with justice from henceforth even for ever. Now that the kingdom of judaea was not established, but utterly overthrown immediately after Christ's departure hence, upon and for the refusal of him, the words of Christ foretelling it, and the event of things answering unto his prediction, are proof sufficient. 
t Luk. 19 43.  The day shall come upon thee (saith Christ to Jerusalem, the chief city of that kingdom) that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and hold thee in strait on every side, they shall cast thee to the earth, and thy children that are in thee, and shall not leave a stone upon a stone, because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.  
Thus we see it strongly proved, that 
u To which pur pose see Wal. dens. Doctr. lib: 2. art. 3. cap. 76. & 77.  Christ himself was no temporal or earthly king, and therefore much less Peter or the Pope, that pretendeth to be Christ's Vicar, and Peter's successor. Notwithstanding, they that are otherwise minded, endeavour to prove, that Christ was a temporal king, and that he left a kingly power to Peter and his successors. First, out of Scripture strangely wrested. Secondly, out of the testimonies of Popes. (For better authorities they have none.) The principal text of Scripture which they allege, is in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, where our Saviour saith, 
x Math. 28. 18.  All power is given me in heaven and in earth. But 
y De Pontif. l. 5. cap. 5.  Bellarmine telleth them, and the best Divines agree with him, that that place is not to be understood of a temporal power, such as earthly kings have, but either of a spiritual, whereby Christ so reigneth in earth, in the hearts of men by faith, as he doth in heaven in the presence of his glory among the Angels; or a divine power over all creatures, not communicable to mortal men. The former of these interpretations the Author of the Interlineall Gloss followeth, the later Lyra upon this place: his words are; Licèt Christus, quantum ad divinitatem ab aeterno haberet hanc potestatem, & in quantum homo, ab instanti conceptionis, haberet potestatem in coelo, & in terra, authoritatiuè, tamen executiuè non habuit ante resurrectionem suam, sed voluit esse passibilitati subiectus propter nostram redemptionem; that is, Although Christ, in that he was God, had this power from all eternity, and in that he was man, had power both in heaven and in earth, from the first moment of his conception in respect of authority, yet in respect of the execution and performance of the acts of it, he had it not before his resurrection, but was pleased to be subject to passibility for our redemption. Let us come therefore from the Scripture to the testimonies of later Popes; for Fathers, ancient Counsels, or ancient Bishops of Rome, they have none to speak for them. The first Pope that they allege, is Pope Nicholas, in a certain 
z Epist. Nichola●… citat. 〈◊〉 Gratian. Dist. 22. cap. omnes.  Epistle of his, where he saith (as they tell us) that Christ committed and gave unto blessed Peter, the Key-bearer of eternal life, the rights both of the earthly and heavenly Empire. To this authority first we answer, that Pope Nicholas hath no such words in any Epistle; howsoever Gratian, who citeth them as the words of Nicholas, mistook the matter. Secondly, that supposing the words to be the words of Nicholas, his meaning may be, that the spiritual power of binding and losing, which Christ left to Peter, is not only of force in earth, but in heaven also, that being bound in heaven that is bound on earth, and they being repulsed from the throne of grace in heaven, and excluded from God's favours, that are rejected from the holy Altars, and put from the Sacraments of the Church. Whereupon 
a Homil. 〈◊〉. de verb. Esaiae. Vidi Dominum.  Chrysostome saith, that the power of the church directeth and commandeth the very Tribunal of heaven, and addeth, that heaven taketh authority of judging from the earth: For that the judge sitteth on earth, and the Lord followeth the sentence of his servants, according to that of Christ, 
b Math. 16. 19  Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. Others expound the supposed words of Pope Nicholas of the spiritual power of Peter over the good and bad in the visible church, the good being named the kingdom of heaven, and the bad an earthly kingdom or company. But howsoever, it is most certain, that Pope Nicholas in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor, hath the clean contrary to that which some would charge him with. For there he showeth that howsoever before Christ, some were both kings and priests, as was Melchisedeck, and as likewise some other among the Pagans were, yet after Christ none were so. Neither did the Emperor take unto him the rights of the chief Priesthood, nor the chief Priest the name of the Emperor. Sed mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus, sic actibus propriis & dignitatibus distinctis, officia potestatis utriusque discrevit, ut & Christiani Imperatores pro aeterna vita pontificibus indigerent, & Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodò rerum Imperialibus legibus uterentur; that is: But the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ, did so distinguish and sever the duties and offices of either of these kinds of power by their proper actions, & distinct dignities, that both Christian Emperors should stand in need of Bishops, for the attaining of eternal life; and that Bishops should use the laws of Emperors, for the course of temporal things only: that so both the spiritual action and employment might be free from carnal turmoils, and that he who goeth on warfare unto God, might not at all be entangled with secular businesses: and that on the other side, he might not seem to be set over the things that are Divine, whom the businesses of this world should possess: that both the modesty of each of these orders and degrees might be preserved, and that also, no one having both these kinds of power should be lifted up too high. The next authority is that of Bonifacius the eighth, who hath these words (speaking of the Church, which is one, and whereof he supposeth the Bishop of Rome to be the head▪) 
c Bonifac. 8. in extravagant. unam Sanctam de Maioritate & obedientiâ.  We are instructed by the Evangelicall sayings, that in this Church, and in the power of it there are two swords, to wit, a spiritual, and a temporal. For when the Apostles said, Behold here are two swords, to wit, in the Church (because they were the Apostles that spoke) the Lord did not answer that it was too much, but that it was enough; and therefore surely, whosoever denyeth the temporal sword to be in the power of Peter, seemeth not well to consider the word of the Lord commanding him to sheathe his sword. The answer unto this authority is easy. For Bonifacius (as 
d Duaren. de Sac. Eccl. Minist. & Benef. l. 7. c. ●…0.  Duarenus noteth) was a vain, busy, turbulent, arrogant, and proud man, presuming above that which was fit, and challenging that which no way pertained unto him; and therefore we may justly reject both him and his sayings. But for the words of our Saviour it is evident, that they prove no such thing, as this Pope would enforce out of them. Some (saith 
e In 22 Lucae.  Maldonatus) from these words would prove, that the Church hath two swords, the one spiritual, the other temporal; which, whether it have or have not, cannot be proved out of this place, where other swords are meant then either of Civil or Ecclesiastical authority. Our Saviour telleth his Disciples, the times approaching will be such, as that a man had need for his own defence to sell his coat to buy a sword. Whereupon the Disciples supposing they should use material swords in their own defence, answer, that they have two swords. To whom Christ replieth, that it is enough, not confirming their erring opinion, but answering them Ironically, as Theophylact and Euthymius think. Or otherwise letting them understand, that though the times would be such, as that many swords would not suffice to defend them, yet that these two were enough, because he meant to use none at all, but to suffer all that the malice of his enemies could do unto him. This, Maldonatus delivereth to be the literal sense of Christ's words, & showeth a mystical sense of them also out of Beda, much more apt than that of Bonifacius. Duo gladii (saith Beda) sufficiunt ad testimonium sponte passi Salvatoris. Vnus, qui & Apostolis audaciam pro Domino certandi; & evulsàictu eius auriculâ, Domino etiam morituro pietatem, virtutemque doceret inesse medicandi. Alter, quinequaquam vaginâ exemptus, ostenderet eos nec totum quod potuere, pro eius defensione facere permissos: that is, Two swords are sufficient to give testimony unto our Saviour, that he suffered willingly. The one of which might show, that the Apostles wanted no courage to fight for their Master: and by the ear that was cut off by the stroke thereof, and healed again by the Lord; that he wanted neither piety to compassionate the miserable, nor virtue and power to make him whole that was hurt, though now he were ready to dye. And the other, which never was drawn out of the sheath, might show, that they were not permitted to do all that they could have done in his defence. It is not to be denied, but that S. 
f 〈◊〉. 4. de consid. ad Eugen.  Bernard mystically expounding the words of Christ, saith; the Church hath two swords of authority. But he thinketh it hath them in very different sort. For it hath the use of the one, and the benefit of the other, The one is to be drawn by it, the other for it. So that this is all that he saith, that the sword of civil authority is to be used by the Soldier's hand, at the command of the Emperor, by the direction, and at the suit of the Church. From Bonifacius they pass to 
g Cap. Licet de foro compe●…enti.  Innocentius the third, who in the vacancy of the Empire, willed those that were wronged in their rightful causes, to have recourse either to some Bishop, or to himself: And Clemens the fifth, who 
h Clem●…n lib. 2 Tit. 11. de Sententia & re judicat●….  professeth to intermeddle with certain secular businesses & affairs, and to determine certain civil causes upon three several grounds. Whereof the first is, his greatness, making him superior to the Emperor. The second, his being in steed of the Emperor, in the vacancy of the Empire. And the third, the fullness of power, which Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords gave unto Peter, and in him to his successors. Whatsoever we think of the former of these two Popes, who seemeth to ground his intermeddling in civil affairs upon some law of the Empire, and concession of civil Princes, accordingly as we read of 
i Decreti part. 2. causa 11. quaest. 1. ca Quicunque.  Theodosius, that he permitted any Laymen having civil differences among themselves, to refer the same to Ecclesiastical judges if they listed. (Which concession proceeding ex pietate, not ex debito, that is, out of piety, and not out of any right or necessity that it must be so, is long since grown out of use; the state of Churchmen being much changed from that it was, when he granted them that privilege as 
k De Sacr. Eccl. Minist. & benef. lib. 1. c. 2.  Duarenus showeth.) Yet Pope Clemens can by no means be excused from heretical impiety, affirming that which is most untrue, as may appear by the many fold reasons brought before to prove the contrary; nor from Antichristian pride, in seeking to tread underneath his feet, the crowns and dignities of Kings and Princes, and to lift himself up above all that is called God.   

CHAP. 45.  
Of the Pope's unjust claim to intermeddle with the affairs of Princes and their states, if not as sovereign Lord over all, yet at least in Ordine ad spiritualia, and in case of Princes failing to do their duties.  
THAT Christ was no earthly King, that he left no Kingly power to Peter, and that the Pope hath no mere temporal power, in that he is Christ's Vicar, or Peter's successor, it is most evident out of the former discourse, and the Cardinal jesuit confesseth so much; and yet 
a Bellar. de Pon. Rom. lib. 5. c. 6.  he thinketh the Pope hath a supreme power to dispose of all temporal states and things, in ordine ad bonum spirituale, that is, in a kind of reference to the procuring and setting forward of the spiritual good. But this fancy is most easily refuted by unanswerable reasons presupposing his former concession.  
For first, no man can take away, limit, or restrain any power, or the excercise of it, but he in whom it is in eminent sort, and from whom it was received. But the civil power that is in Princes, is not in the Pope, neither did it proceed and come originally from him; therefore it cannot be restrained, limited, or taken away by him. The mayor proposition is evident: the assumption is proved, because civil power is in heathen infidels, who no way hold of the Pope. Secondly because it is agreed by all Divines of worth and learning, that the civil power in the first original of it, is immediately from God: or if not immediately by his own delivery thereof, yet by no other mediation then that of the law of nature and nations. 
b Tert in Apol. adversus Gentes. cap. 30.  The Emperors know (saith Tertullian) who gave them the Empire, they know that it was even the same God, who gave unto them to be men, and to have humane souls. They well perceive, that he only is God, in whose only power they are: à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes & super omnes Deos: that is, After whom, they are in order the second, but among all other the first, before and above all Gods. And again, Ind est Imperator, unde & homo antequam Imperator; inde potest as illi, unde & spiritus: that is, From thence is the chief ruler and Emperor, whence he was a man before he was an Emperor: from thence hath he his power, from whence he received the spirit of life. The Author of the answer to the reports of a great and worthy judge among us, who hath lately written in the defence of the Pope's overspreading greatness, seemeth in part to agree with Tertullian, and telleth us, 
c Ans. to the reports of Sir Ed. Cook. chap. 2. pag. 26.  that civil power is received from God, not immediately by his own delivery thereof, but mediately rather by the mediation of the law of nature and nations. For by the law of nature God hath ordained that there should be politic government, which the law of nations assuming, hath transferred that government to one, or more, according to the diverse forms thereof. And 
d Diolog lib. 2. tractat. 2. part. 3. cap. 22.  Occam proveth at large, that Imperial power is not from the Pope, and that it is heretical to say, that all lawful civil power is from the Pope.  
Our second reason is this: Absolute & sovereign civil Princes while they were infidels, had true dominion, rule and authority, holding it as immediately from God, not depending on any ruler of the church, as hath been showed before. But when they become Christians, they still remain in the same fullness of authority, in as ample & independent sort as before, because the benefit of Christ tendeth to no man's hurt, & grace overthroweth not nature: therefore still they remain independent and subject to none in the same power, and in the exercise of it. If they shall say, they are subject to none while they use their authority well, but that if they abuse it, they lose the independent absoluteness thereof; their saying will be found to be heteticall. For if upon abuse of independent authority, they that have it, lose and forfeit it ipso facto, then authority and abuse of authority, or at least extreme abuse of it, cannot stand together; which is contrary to that of Saint Augustine, where he saith: 
e Aug. de Bono Coniugali. c. 14  Nec tyrannicaefactionis perversitas laudabilis erit, si regia clementia tyrannus subditos tractet, nec vituperabilis ordo regiae potestatis, si Rex crudelitate tyrannicâ saeviat: aliud est namque iniustâ potestate iustè velle uti; & aliud est iustâ potestate iniustè velle uti: that is, Neither shall the perverseness of tyrannical usurpation ever be praise worthy, though the tyrant use his subjects with all Kingly clemency, nor the order of Kingly power ever be subject to just reprehension, though a king grow fierce and cruel like a tyrant. For it is one thing to use an unlawful power lawfully, and another thing to use a lawful power unrighteously & unjustly.  
The third reason may be this. If God did give to the Pope authority to depose Princes, erring and abusing their authority, he would give them the means to execute that their authority reacheth unto, to wit, civil greatness, armies of Soldiers, walled cities, towers, and strong holds, both for defence and offence, and all other things necessary for the putting down of wicked Kings. But the Pope as Christ's Vicar hath none of these, neither was he at any time as a temporal Prince, the greatest monarch of the world, and so able to repress the insolences of all heretical, pagan, and wicked Kings, hindering the peaceable proceeding of the Gospel of Christ: therefore he hath no such authority. For to say, that God giveth authority, & not the means whereby it may execute and perform that which pertaineth to it, is impious. The only means the Pope hath to depose Princes, are two; but neither of them within the compass of his power to dispose of. The first, is the raising of subjects against their Prince. The second, is the raising of neighbour Princes. The former of these means is very defective, seeing (as 
f De Pont. lib. 5. cap. 7.  Bellarmine rightly observeth out of Ecclesiasticus) 
g Ecclus. 10 7.  Such as the Ruler of a city is, such are they that dwell in it: And therefore if the King be an heretic, the most part of his people will be so too, and rather assist him for the maintenance of his heresy, then resist against him for the suppressing of it. Which thing (as he saith) experience teacheth: For when 
h 1. King. 12. 30  jeroboam became an Idolater, the greatest part of the kingdom worshipped Idols. When Constantine reigned, Christian Religion flourished: When Constantius reigned, arianism prevailed, and overflowed all: When julian swayed the Sceptre, the greatest part returned to Paganism. So that 
i Socrates. lib. 3. cap. 19  jovian being chosen after his death, refused to be Emperor, protesting that being a Christian, he neither could, nor would be Emperor over infidels. Whereupon they all professed, that howsoever they had dissembled before, yet they were still in heart Christians, and now would show it again. So that we see, the first means for the suppressing of erring Princes, is no means, or a very uncertain one. And a second is worse than the first: For I never read in any Divine, of what religion soever, that one King is bound to make war upon another, upon the Pope's command, for the suppressing of heresy. And therefore the Pope may breathe out excommunications till he be breathless, but can go no farther by any means that God hath given him.  
Fourthly, thus we reason. Either the power of the Pope is merely Ecclesiastical and spiritual, or it is not. If it be not, then hath he civil authority from Christ, which they deny. If it be, then can it inflict no punishments, but merely spiritual, and Ecclesiastical. For of what nature each power is, of the same are the punishments it inflicteth. The temporal power inflicteth only temporal, outward, and corporal punishments, as loss of goods, imprisonment, banishment, or death. The spiritual only spiritual, as suspension, excommunication, and the like. Now I suppose the loss of a kingdom, with all the riches and honour of it; & captivity, banishment, or death, upon resistance against the sentence of deposition, is a temporal and external punishment of the worst nature and highest degree that may be.  
Lastly, if sovereign Kings may be put from their Kingdoms upon abuse of their authority, either they forfeit and lose the right of them ipso facto, and are deprived by Almighty God: and then the Pope can but declare what God hath already done, as any man else may upon perfect understanding of the case: or else other neighbour Kings, or their own subjects are to depose them, and the Pope is only to put them in mind of their duty, and as a spiritual pastor to urge them to the performance of it: and then he deposeth them not, but they. Or lastly, the power of assuming their authority to himself, upon their abuse thereof, pertaineth unto him: and then in civil authority he is the greatest and over all; which yet these men deny. For he that is to judge of Prince's actions: and upon dislike, to limit, restrain, or wholly take their power from them, is supreme in that kind of authority. And if he may take civil authority from other, and give it to whom he pleaseth, there is no question but he may give it unto himself, and so hath power upon all defects of Princes, to take into his own hand that which formerly pertained to them, and to do the acts that were to be performed by them.  
Now as these reasons strongly prove, that the Pope cannot depose Princes in ordine ad spiritualia, so the weakness of the reasons brought to prove it, will much more confirm the same. Their first reason is taken from the perfection and excellency of the Ecclesiastical or spiritual power, which they say is greater and far more excellent than that which is civil. Whereunto we answer with 
k Doctrine. fid. l. 2. art. 3. c. 78.  Waldensis, that though the spiritual power be simply more perfect & excellent than the civil, yet either of these in the performance of things pertaining to them, is greater than the other, and each of them independent of the other. Ambrose was greater than Theodosius in respect of the administration of divine things, & might either admit him to, or reject him from the Sacraments. But Theodosius in respect of all temporal things was greater than he, and might command him, send him into banishment, or take away all that he had. The Sun is more excellent than the Moon, & the influence thereof more powerful; yet is there a kind of influence upon the waters, wherein the Moon is more excellent than the Sun. In like sort, the power which is spiritual may do greater things then that which is temporal, & yet the temporal may do those things the spiritual cannot do. And therefore it will not follow, that the Ecclesiastical state, & the principal Ministers of the Church may take unto themselves the authority of Kings, or take upon them to do the things that pertain to Kingly offices, because they are greater in dignity, and have a greater power; unless they had a greater dignity & power in the same kind. Nowthey who most amplify the greatness of Ecclesiastical power, preferring it before the other which is civil, never make the greatness of it to consist, in that in civil affairs it may do more than that; but in that it hath a more noble object, & more wonderful effects. 
l Nazianz. orat. ad Cives trepidantes.  We also (saith Nazianzen) have power and authority, & that far more ample and excellent then that of civil Princes, insomuch as it is fit the flesh should yield to the spirit, & things earthly to things heavenly. 
m Chrys. hom. 5. de verb. Esaiae VidiDominum.  Priesthood (saith Chrysostome) is a Princedom, more honourable & great then a Kingdom; tell not me of the purple, diadem, sceptre, or golden apparel of Kings, for these are but shadows, and more vain than flowers at the spring time. If you will see the difference between them, & how much the King is inferior to the Priest, consider the manner of the power delivered to them both, & you shall see the Priest's tribunal much higher than that of the King, who hath received only the administration of earthly things. But the Priest's tribunal is placed in heaven, & he hath authority to pronounce sentence in heavenly affairs. And again, 
n Hom. 4.  Earthly Princes have power to bind but our bodies only, but the bands which Priests can lay upon us, do touch the soul itself, & reach even unto the heavens, so far forth, as that whatsoever Priests shall determine here beneath, that God doth ratify above in heaven, and confirm the sentence of his servants upon earth. 
o Petrus Blesen. Epist. 146.  When king Richard the first returning from the holy land, was taken and hold as a prisoner by Duke Leopold of Austria, and the Emperor Henry the sixth; Queen Elinor his mother seeking all means to procure his deliverance, among other things, wrote a letter to the Bishop of Rome, entreating him to interpose his authority. The words of her letter are these, expressing the passion and earnest desire of her heart. This only remaineth (o Father) that you draw forth the sword of Peter against malefactors; which sword, God hath appointed to be over nations and kingdoms. The Cross of Christ doth excel the Eagles that are in Caesar's Banners, the spiritual sword of Peter is of more power than was the temporal sword of Constantine the Emperor, and the See Apostolic is more potent than any Imperial power or authority: and I would ask whether your power be of God, or of men? did not the God of Gods speak to you in Peter the Apostle, saying: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven? and why then do you so negligently, or rather cruelly delay, for a long time, to lose my son? or why dare you not do it? perhaps you will say, that the power given you by God of binding and losing, is for souls and not for bodies. Let it be so, truly it is sufficiont for us if you will bind the souls of those that hold my son's body bound in prison. By all these sayings of them that most admired the excellency of Priesthood, it appeareth, that the excellency thereof above princely power is in respect of the object thereof, which is more noble; & the effects thereof, which are more wonderful: & not in respect of greater power, authority & right to dispose of temporal affairs & businesses, either simply, or upon any abuse or negligence of civil Princes. So that from hence it cannot be inferred, that the chief ministers of the Church may depose the Princes of the world. 
p Lib. 2. de. Sacrament. part. 2. c. 4.  Hugo de sancto Victore saith: There are two kinds of power, the one terrene, the head whereof is the King: the other spiritual, the head whereof is the pope. To the King's power those things pertain that are terrene: to the Popes, those that are spiritual: and look how much the spiritual life is better than the earthly, so much doth the spiritual power excel the earthly in honour and dignity: For the spiritual power doth constitute the terrene power, that it may be; and judgeth it whether it proceed aright, or not. But itself was first instituted of God, and when it goeth aside, can be judged of none but of God only. From hence (as 
q Doct. Fid. li. a. art. 3. ca 78.  Waldensis showeth) some men took an occasion of error, affirming, that the root of terrene power, doth so far forth depend upon the Pope, that by commission from him, the execution of things pertaining thereunto, is derived unto the Prince: and that when the Prince goeth aside or faileth to do his duty, the chief Bishop may manage the civil affairs; because, he saith, the spiritual power doth institute the civil power, that it may be. But these men presume too far, and in so doing offend, because the terrene power of Kings is not reduced into any other originally, as having authority over Kings, but unto Christ only: and yet notwithstanding, as the Priest joineth the man and his wife in marriage, and blesseth them that they may be man and wife, and joyful parents of happy children; and judgeth afterwards, whether they perform the duties of marriage or not. So the chief Priest setteth the crown upon the head of the Empreor, anointeth him with holy oil, taketh an oath of him for the defence of the Christian faith and religion, putteth upon him the royal robes, and thereby investeth him with royal power, & putteth him in possession of his Imperial state and dignity. But it is not to be imagined (saith Waldensis) that the imperial power is from the power of the Church, or dependeth of it, though certain solemnities be used by Bishops in the inauguration of Kings and Emperors; neither may the chief Ministers of the Church any more challenge the disposing or managing of civil affairs, upon any defect or failing of civil Princes, than they may, the administration and dispensation of holy things, upon the defect or failing of the Ecclesiastical Ministers. Yet in case of necessity, either of these two states may and aught to help and succour the other; not (as he saith) ut utens potestate, sed fraternitatis accessu: that is, Not as having authority, or by virtue thereof presuming to do any thing; but as one brother maketh haste to help another in danger, reaching forth the hand to stay him that is standing, and to raise him that is fallen. Both the brethren, (saith Waldensis) both Simeon and Levi, Priesthood and knighthood, Bishoply power, and that which is Princely, must rise up together for the rescuing of Dinah their sister, out of the hands of him that seeketh to dishonour her: Vi charitatis etsi non authoritatis: that is, By force of charity, though not of authority. So that according to his opinion, the chief Ministers of the Church invest the Princes of the world with their royal authority, according to the saying of 
r Vbi supra.  Hugo; but give them not their authority: they may judge of the actions of Princes, but they may not praeiudicare, they may not prejudice Princes. They may in the time of need come to the succour, and in the time of danger reach forth the helping hand to the civil state, shaken by the negligence or malice of civil princes: but it must be by way of charity, not of authority; as likewise the civil state may, and aught to be assistant to the Ecclesiastical in like danger, defect, or failing of the Ecclesiastical ministers.  
The next argument that our Adversaries bring, is taken from a comparison between the soul and body, expressing the difference between the civil and Ecclesiastical state, found (as they say) in 
s In Orat. ad populum timore perculsum & Imp. ●…ascentem.  Gregory Nazianzen. But that we may the better understand the force of this argument, we must observe, that in the comparison which they bring, they make the Ecclesiastical state and spiritual power, like the spirit, and divine faculties thereof: and the civil state like the flesh, with the senses, and sensitive appetite thereof. And as in Angels there is spirit without flesh, in bruit beasts flesh and sense without spirit; and in man both these conjoined: so they will have us grant, that there is sometimes Ecclesiastical power without civil, as in the Apostles times, and long after; sometimes civil without Ecclesiastical, as among the heathen, and sometimes these two conjoined together. And as when the spirit and flesh meet in one, the spirit hath the command; and though it suffer the flesh to do all those things which it desireth unless they be contrary to the intendments, designs, & ends of it: yet when it findeth them to be contrary, it may, and doth command the fleshly part to surcease from her own actions, yea it maketh it to fast, watch, and do and suffer many grievous and afflictive things, even to the weakening of itself. So in like manner they would infer, that the Ecclesiastical state being like to the spirit and soul, and the civil to the body of flesh, the Church hath power to restrain, and bridle civil Princes, if they hinder the spiritual good thereof, not only by censures Ecclesiastical, but outward enforcement also. This is the great and grand argument our Adversaries bring to prove, that Popes may depose Princes: wherein first we may observe their folly, in that they bring similitudes, which serve only for illustration, and not for probation, for the main confirmation of one of the principal points of their faith: 
t Bellar. in Epist. ad Blackwellum.  which whosoever denyeth, sinneth in as high a degree as, Marcellinus that sacrificed unto Idols: and Peter, that denied his master. Secondly, we see how much Princes are beholding unto them that compare them to bruit beasts, and at the best, to the brutish part that is in men, common to them with bruit beasts. If they say, Nazianzen so compareth them, they are like themselves, and speak untruly: for he compareth not Princes & Priests to spirit and flesh, but going about to show the difference of the objectes of their power maketh the spirit to be the object of the one of them, & the flesh of the other. Not as if Princes were to take no care of the welfare of the souls of their subjects, as well as of their bodies, but because the immediate procuring of the souls good, is by preaching, & ministration of the Sacraments, & Discipline, which the Prince is to procure, and to see well performed, but not to administer these things himself: as also because the coactive power the Prince hath, extendeth only to the body, and not to the soul, as the Ecclesiastical power of binding and losing doth. Thirdly, we may observe, that if this similitude should prove any thing, it would prove, that the civil state among Christians hath no power to do any act whatsoever, but by the command or permission of the Ecclesiastical. For so it is between the spirit & the body, & sensitive faculties that show themselves in it. The Philosopher's note, that there is a double regiment in man: the one political or civil, the other despotical; the one like the authority of Princes over their subjects that are freemen, the other like the authority of Lords over their bondmen and slaves. The former is of reason in respect of sensitive appetite, which by persuasion it may induce to surcease to desire that which it discerneth to be hurtful, but cannot force it so to do: the other of reason and the will, in respect of the loco-motive faculty; and this absolute, so that if reason cannot win a desisting from desire in the inferior powers that show themselves in the body, yet the will may command the loco-motive faculty, & either cause all outward action to cease, how earnestly soever sensitive desire carry unto it, or to be performed how much soever it resist against it: as it may command and force the drinking of a bitter potion, which the appetite cannot be won unto, and the rejecting & putting from us those things that are most desired. Neither can the appetite and sensitive faculties perform any of their actions without the consent of the will & reason: For if the will command, the eyes are closed up and see nothing, the ears are stopped and hear nothing, how much soever the appetite desire to see and hear. Neither only have the souls higher powers this command over the inferior faculties, in respect of things that may further and hinder their own good and perfection, as they may command to watch or fast, for the prevention and mortification of sin; but they may also at their pleasure, hinder the whole course of the actions of the outward man, withdraw all needful things from the body, and deprive it even of life itself, though there be no cause at all so to do. So that if the comparison of the civil and Ecclesiastical state to the soul and body do hold, from thence may it be inferred that the Church hath power to command in all things pertaining to the commonwealth, and that the civil magistrates have none at all. For the lower faculties neither have, nor aught to have any command further than they are permitted by the superior; neither can they do any thing contrary to the liking of the superior, though never so just & reasonable. And so we see how silly a thing it is to reason from these similitudes, and that they that so do, build upon the sands, so that all the frame of their building cometh to the ground.  
The third reason brought by our Adversaries, is this: Every commonwealth must be perfect in itself, & able to defend itself from all injuries that any other may offer unto it, & if it can no other way free itself, it must have power to depose the Prince, and change the government. Therefore the Church must be able to defend itself against all injuries of wicked Kings, whether Infidels, Heretics, or Apostates: & if otherwise it cannot defend itself from their violences and wrongs, it must have power to depose them. This consequence I think will never be found good in the judgement of any indifferent Reader. For the kingdoms and commonwealths of the world, the good, prosperity, & happiness whereof is outward, must have outward means to repress the insolences of all such as seek to impeach or hinder the same; But the Church being a society, the happiness & good whereof is not outward, but inward, consisting in the graces of God, & the hope of a better life in the world to come, may be perfect in itself, though it want means to repress outward violences & insolences. The Apostle himself, who was a chief commander in it, professing that the 
u 2 Cor 10. v. 4  weapons of his warfare were not carnal, but mighty through God, for the casting down of proud thoughts; but not for the overthrow of cities & towns, or the subduing of the Princes of the world. So that the perfection of this society or commonwealth standing in the inward graces of the spirit, & the expectation of future happiness, she may attain her own end, enjoy her own good, & flourish in the midst of all pressures, more than in any state of outward prosperity; & so undoubtedly she doth. For as the gold is more pure the more it is tried in the fire; as the camomile smelleth the sweeter the more it is trodden on; as the palm tree spreadeth the further the more it is pressed down; as the ark of No rose the higher the more the floods did swell: so God's Church did then most grow, increase & prosper, when the persecutions were hottest. And therefore S. Austin saith (speaking of the primitive Christians) Includebantur, ligabantur, torquebantur, trucidabantur, & multiplicabantur; 
x Aug. de Ciu. Dei. lib. cap.  that is, they were shut up in prisons and dungeons, they were bound in fetters and chains, they were tortured & racked, yea, they were slain with the sword, and yet they increased and multiplied. And 
y Serm. 33. in Cantica.  S. Bernard distinguishing three several times of the Church, in all which she complained of bitterness, the first under persecuting heathen Emperors; the second, in the conflicts with heretics, & the third, when she had rest from both these; saith, the state of the church was worst in her peace, & bringeth her in complaining and saying: Amarissima amaritudo mea in pace mea; that is, My bitterness is most bitter in the days of my peace. For now omnes amici, omnes inimici, omnes domestici, nulli pacifici; serui Christi seruiunt Antichristo: that is, All are friends, & all are enemies, all are of my household, but none are at peace with me; the servants of Christ serve Antichrist. So that it followeth not, that if the church must have means to attain her own end, and enjoy her own wished good, that she must have power sufficient to procure her outward peace, and repress the insolences of outward enemies. And yet besides, this reason chargeth Christ with want of care of his Church, who left it without means to defend itself against outward violence for the space of 300 years together, during the time of the heathen Emperors; & afterwards also under the reign of Apostates and heretics. For 
z De Pont. lib: 5 cap. 7.  Bellarmine saith, that the primitive Christians did not depose Nero, Dioclesian, julian the Apostata, Valens the Arrian, and other like, because they wanted temporal forces.  
The next reason is more strange than this. For first, forgetting what they are to prove, in steed of proving that the Pope may depose Princes, they endeavour to prove, that the people may depose Princes when they fall into heresy, and that the Pope is to judge of heresy. Secondly, they conclude, that Christian people may not endure their King if he fall into heresy, because they may not choose a king that is an infidel or heretic. That they might not choose an heretic (which no man denieth) they prove, because the 
a Deut. 17. 15. 16.  jews might choose none to be their king that was not of their brethren, lest he should draw them to idolatry. But the consequence they go not about to prove, which we deny, and they will never be able to confirm. For there is no question but people are bound to be subject to such a king, as in conscience they might not choose, if they were free & to make choice. 
b Exod. 18. 21.  When Moses was counselled by jethro, to choose Elders & rulers to assist him, he told him what manner of men they should be, to wit, men fearing God, dealing truly, hating covetousness: and none but such ought electors, having freedom of choice, to choose: and yet I think, though a king be covetous, he is not presently to be deposed. And therefore 
c Vbi supr●….  Bellarmine (like an honest man) confuteth his own argument, and saith, that infidels that had dominion over people before they became Christians, are to be tolerated by Christians, if they seek not to draw them to idolatry, whom yet I think Christians might not choose to reign over them if they were free. Besides this, if Bellarmine say true, that subjects sin as much in tollerating kings that are infidels, Apostates, or heretics, as in choosing such to rule over them when they were free, all the primitive Christians that tolerated Nero, Dioclesian, julian the Apostata, Constantius, Valens, & other heretics sinned damnably in so doing. Neither will Bellarmine's answer that they are to be excused, though they did not depose them, because they wanted strength, avoid the same. For it is evident by Tertullian, that they wanted not strength if they had thought it lawful. 
d In Apologet. adversus Gentes, cap. 37.  If we should go about to avenge ourselves (saith Tertullian) we should not want means. For behold, we are more in number, and greater in strength, than any one nation & people of the world. We are strangers unto you, and yet behold, we have filled all places pertaining unto you, your Cities, your Isles, your Villages, your Towns, your Councel-houses, your Castles, & strong Forts, your Palaces, your Senates, & your market places: only your Idol Temples we have left free unto you. What war should not we be able to take in hand? or what attempt should seem hard unto us? though we were too weak who so willingly are slain, if it were not more lawful to be killed then to kill in our profession. Nay, though we should never arm ourselves, nor lift up our hands against you, but only depart away, and withdraw ourselves into some remote parts of the world, how should we confound and amaze you? How could you endure so great a loss? How would your cities be left desolate, & none found to dwell in them? So that it was not want of strength that held the Primitive Christiansin subjection to their heathen & persecuting Emperors, but the persuasion they had, that it was their duty so to be subject, persuading themselves they had their power from heaven: and therefore 
e Ibid. cap. 30.  Illuc suspicientes (saith Tertullian) manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite nudo quia non erubescimus; denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus precantes sumus omnes semper pro omnibus Imperatoribus, vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum & quaecunque hominis & Caesaris sunt vota: that is, Looking up thither, with hands lifted up and spread out, because innocent, with bare heads, because we are not ashamed, and without a remembrancer, because our prayers proceed from the desires that lodge within in our breast, we all pray always for all Emperors and rulers, desiring God to grant unto them a long life, a secure reign, a safe house, valiant armies, a faithful Senate, good people, a quiet world; and all the good things that the heart either of a private man, or of Caesar can desire. O silly erring Christians, durst you pray for the prosperity of them, whom you should have persecuted with fire and sword, and utterly have destroyed? But it is not to be marvelled at, if you thus erred: for you were Christians, and had no Jesuits among you, from whom these mysteries of deposing Princes might have been learned: so that we may hope that ignorance did excuse you, and that ye are not gone to hell for this neglecting of your duty. But some man perhaps will say, Tertullian might be deceived in this point. Let us hear therefore whether others were of his mind or not. julianus Imperator (saith 
f Citat. â Gratiano Decret. 2. part. causa 11. qu. 3. cap. 94.  Ambrose) quamuis esset Apostata, habuit tamen sub se Christianos milites, quibus cum dicebat, producite aciem, pro defensione Reipublicae obediebant ei. Cumauten dicer●… eye, producite arma in Christianos, tunc cognoscebant Imperatorem Caeli; that is, Iuli●… the emperor, though he were an Apostata, yet had under him Christian soldiers, who when he said unto them, bring forth your armies for the defence of the commonwealth, willingly obeyed him. But when he said unto them, bring forth your forces, and fight against the Christians, took knowledge of the Emperor in heaven, and not of him. And S. 
g Citat. ibidem cap. 98.  Augustine saith to the same purpose, that julian the Emperor was an Infidel, an Apostata, a wicked man, & an idolater; & yet there were Christian soldiers that served this unbelieved Emperor, when they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged none other Emperor, but him only, whose throne is in heaven. When he required them to worship Idols, or to burn incense, they preferred God before him. When he said, bring forth your armies, & go against such a nation, they presently obeyed him: so did they wisely distinguish between the eternal and temporal Lord, & yet they were subject to the temporal Lord for the eternal Lords sake. Neither was this the private conceit of these men alone, but all other the worthy Fathers, and Bishops of the Church were of the same mind, and persuaded themselves, that they owedall duty to kings and Emperors, though they were heretics or infidels. And therefore Athanasius (whensome charged him, that he had spoken evil of Constantius the Arrian heretic to Constance his brother, & sought to make variance between them) in his Apology to Constantius, calleth God to witness against his own soul, that he had never done any such thing; and telleth the Emperor, he was not mad, nor had not forgotten the saying of the wise man. 
h Eccles. 10. 20.  Curse not the King in thy secret thought, and speak not evil of the rich and mighty in the retired places of thy chamber. For the fowls of heaven will carry forth thy voice, and that that hath wings will make report of thy words.  
The fifth reason that they bring, to prove that Christians may depose misbelieving Emperors and Kings, if they have means so to do, is, because the Apostle 
i 1. Cor. 6.  willeth the Corinthians that were become Christians, to appoint new judges of their controversies about temporal affairs & businesses, that they might not be forced to bring their pleas before heathen magistrates that were their enemies, to the scorn of their profession: which is so silly a reason, that I cannot persuade myself they propose it in earnest, but only for fashion's sake to help to make up a number. For they know right well, these judges the Apostle speaketh of, were but only arbitrators chosen by the agreement of the parties, & not absolute rulers over them with abrogation of the magistracy of those heathen rulers, to whom they were subject, and therefore notwithstanding any thing the Apostle writeth, there were 
k Ockam. 8. quaest. super potest. & dignit. Papali. quaest. 1. c. 11.  three cases, wherein the faithful and believing Corinthians might lawfully come before the Heathen judges. The first, if the Infidels in the controversies they had with them about secular things, drew them thither. The second, if a believer being contenitous, drew them to those tribunals, refusing to have things determined otherwise. The third, if the believer had none other means to recover his right, which he was bound in conscience to recover and preserve, for in such a case he might become a plaintiff before Heathen Magistrates.  
But (saith 
l De Pont. l. 5. c. 7.  Bellarmine) the believing husband, whose wife being an Infidel, will not dwell with him without continual blaspheming of God the Creator, and soliciting him to Infidelity and Apostasy, is freed from his wife: and likewise the believing wife from her unbelieving husband, so continuing to blaspheme Christ, and to solicit her to Idolatry, therefore by like reason the believing people are freed from the yoke of an unbelieving King, seeking to draw them to Infidelity. This argument drawn from comparison, faileth many ways. For first, according to 
m De Matrim. Sacram. lib. 1. controv. 4. c. 12  Bellarmine's opinion, the believing party is free from the other remaining in Infidelity, though the Infidel do neither depart, nor solicit, or persuade to Idolatry, if there be not a present conversion: so that the believer may dismiss his wife which he married in infidelity, if she continue an infidel, though she neither depart from him, nor seek to win him to infidelity. But touching a King who is an unbeliever, he thinketh (though 
n 2 a 2 dae q. 10. art. 10.  Thomas be of another opinion) that the people converting to Christianity, cannot shake off his yoke, unless he seek to draw them back to infidelity; and therefore all that, is not lawful to the people, in respect of an unbelieving King, that is lawful to the husband, in respect of his unbelieving wife, or to the wife, in respect of her unbelieving husband. Secondly this comparison if it prove any thing, mainly overthroweth the opinion of Bellarmine. For if the husband and the wife were Christians when they were married, and afterwards one of them fall into heresy, apostasy, atheism, or whatsoever else, and seek never so violently to draw the right believer to the same evils; yet the bond of marriage remaineth inviolable, and is not, nor may not be dissolved: and therefore if this comparison hold, a Christian King falling into heresy, apostasy, or atheism, and seeking to draw his people to the same, doth not lose the right of dominion he hath over them. Thirdly, in Bellarmine's opinion it is not refusal to dwell together, nor solicitation to idolatry that could make a separation, if the band of matrimony contracted between Infidels were simply firm and indissoluble, as that of Christians is. But heathen Princes have as good interest in their Kingdoms (which are not founded upon grace or faith, but upon the light of reason, the freedom of will, and the Law of Nature and Nations) as believers: therefore their soliciting to infidelity and idolatry, cannot make their titles to their kingdom void. Lastly, malicious desertion or refusal to dwell with the believer, unless he some way at lest by silence consent to the blasphemies of the Infidel, is directly contrary to the nature, essence, end, and intendment of marriage, and therefore dissolveth marriage: but the abuse of sacred authority to the promoting of impiety, and suppressing of true Religion, is not contrary to the nature and essence of authority, but to the right use of it; and therefore it doth not make voide the title of magistrates, seeing it is certain that lawful authority may stand with most horrible abuse of the same.  
Wherefore let us proceed to their seventh proof. When Princes (say they) come to the Church, and are admitted to the Communion of the faithful people of God, they are not admitted but upon promise and agreement, that if they forsake the faith, or hinder the good of GOD'S people, they will be content, and it shall be lawful for the Governors of the Church to take their authority from them; therefore when Princes become heretics or Apostates, it is lawful by their own agreement and consent for the Governors of the Church, to depose them. The antecedent of this Argument, I think, will never be made good. For what Prince in his admission to be a Christian, did ever thus condition with the Church, either expressly, or by necessary implication? examples of any such stipulation, I am persuaded they can bring us none. It is true indeed, that the very vow of a Christian made in Baptism, implieth in it a resolution and promise, rather to depart with any thing, and lose all, then to forfeit the inheritance he is entitled unto, to dishonour God, or any way to hinder the good of his church: but this vow and promise is made to God, and not to the church; and therefore God may take from Christian kings their kingdoms, when they become heretics, and seek to mislead the people, as forfeited upon their own agreements; but the Church hath nothing to do with them, more than the great Turk, upon any such forfeiture made unto Almighty God. It is true, that all infidels, and wicked ones, have forfeited their kingdoms to God; but yet in the title of mundane justice, they have right to them still, and may not be dispossessed of them by mortal men, unless they be specially authorised by almighty God, as the Israelites were to cast out the Canaanites. And this was the meaning of Wickliff, when he affirmed, that a Prince being in state of mortal sin, ceaseth to be a Prince any longer, namely in respect of any title he can plead to God, if he be pleased to take the advantage of the forfeiture; but in respect of men, he hath a good title still, in the course of mundane justice. So that whosoever shall lift up his hand against him, offereth him wrong. The Church therefore may proceed no further then to admonish Princes, when they offend, and for grievous and scandalous faults, to deny unto them the benefit of her Communion.  
The last proof they bring for deposing Princes, when they become heretics, is taken from the office of a Pastor, to whom it pertaineth to drive away wolves, to restrain and keep the Rams, and great leaders of the flocks, from hurting those sheep that are more weak. This reason as it is the last, so it is the worst of all. For each Pastor must do these things according to the nature and quality of his Pastoral office, and therefore a spiritual Pastor must perform them by spiritual and ecclesiastical censures, driving away the wolves from his flocks, by suspension, excommunication, and anathema, and restraining the Rams from hurting the rest, by the same means, so binding them with bands that exceed all the bands of restraint, used by the secular powers.   

CHAP. 46.  
Of examples of Churchmen deposing Princes, brought by the Romanistes.  
Having examined the reasons brought to prove that the chief governors of the Church may depose Princes erring from the faith, and hindering the course of religion; let us see what examples our Adversaries produce of the practice of deposing them. The first is the example of Samuel 
a 1. Sam 9  appointing Saul to be a king, and afterwards 
b 1. Sam. 15. 23  deposing him for his disobedience. But in this example they are grossly deceived. For first, Samuel was neither high Priest nor Priest at all, not being of the posterity of Aaron. Secondly, Samuel did not appoint Saul to be king, as being of higher authority, but as obeying and executing the mandate of God, as the meanest man in Israel might have done: as we read in the second of the Kings, of 
c 2. Kings. 9 1.  one of the sons of the Prophets, who at the commandment of Elizeus anointed jehu king over Israel, yet was neither Elizeus, nor he, greater in dignity than Kings. Thirdly, we do not read in the sacred History, that Samuel deposed Saul, but that God deposed him, and that Samuel was the messenger sent from God to let him know it. Because (saith Samuel) thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, the Lord hath cast thee away that thou shalt not reign. And again, the Lord hath cut away the kingdom of Israel from thee this day. Yea so far was Samuel from deposing Saul, that he mourned for him, till God blamed him, saying. 
d 1. Sam. 16. 1.  How long dost thou mourn for Saul? whereas I have cast him away that he should not reign over Israel.  
The next example is that of Hieremy the Prophet, to whom the Lord said, 
e jerem. 1. 10.  I have set thee over nations and people, to pluck up, and to root out, and to destroy, and throw down, to build and to plant. Whence they infer, that the chief Priest is over the kingdoms of the world, and may give them to whom he will. But first, we must observe, that Hieremy was not the high Priest, but one of an inferior rank; & that therefore if we will conclude any thing from hence, touching the power of disposing kingdoms by Priests, every Priest must have this power. Secondly, we must know that Hieremie was set over the kingdom of judah and other kingdoms, not to rule them, but prophetically to denounce unto them and foreshow the things, that afterwards should fall out. Whereupon Lyra interpreteth the words of Almighty God in this sort. 
f Lyra in hunc locum.  Constitui te super Gentes, & super regna, ut evellas, id est, evellendo denuncies, transferendos inde habitatores; & destruas, quantum ad occidendos; & disperdas, quantum ad fugientes per diversas vias; & dissipes, quantum ad morientes in fuga vel captivitate; & aedifices & plants, id est, denuncies judaeos reaedificandos, & plantandos in terrasua, etc. that is; I have set thee over nations, and kingdoms, that thou mightest pluck up, that is, that thou mightest denounce and foreshow, that the inhabitants being plucked up out of their places, shall be carried into another place; that thou mayst destroy, that is, denounce the destruction of such as shall be slain. That thou mayst scatter, that is, denounce and foreshow the dispersion of such as shall fly diverse ways. That thou mayst overthrow, that is, declare and foreshow the overthrow of them that shall die in flight or in captivity. That thou mayst build and plant, that is, foreshow, that the jews shall be builded and planted again in their own land; which was fulfilled in the time of Cyrus, who gave liberty to the people to return into their own country, and to reëdifie the temple; and in the time of Artaxerxes, who gave leave to Nehemiah to reëdifie the city of Jerusalem, as we may read in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The author of the interlineall Gloss interpreteth the words in this sense: that the Prophet was appointed by almighty God, over kingdoms and people, to pluck up vices and sins, to destroy the kingdom of the Devil, and to build the Church of God. Saint Hierome likewise interpreteth the words in the same sort: 
g Hieronym. in eundem locum.  Considerandum est (saith he) quòd quatuor tristibus, duo laeta succedunt. Neque enim aedificari poterant bona, nisi destructa essent mala; nec plantari optima, nisi eradicarentur pessima, etc. that is; We must consider, that two joyful & happy things succeed four grievous and sorrowful things. For neither could good things be builded, if evil things were not first destroyed; nor the best things be planted, if the worst things were not first plucked up by the roots. For every plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be plucked up by the roots. And every building which hath not a foundation upon the Rock, but is builded upon the sand, is digged down and destroyed by the word of God; and jesus shall consume it by the spirit of his mouth, and destroy it by the coming of his presence▪ that is; he shall destroy for ever all sacrilegious and perverse doctrine, and that also which is lifted up against the knowledge of God, and the confidence that men have in their own wisdom he shall-scatter, destroy, and cast down; that in steed of these things, the things that savour of humility may be builded; and the things which agree with Ecclesiastical verity may be builded and planted in the place of the former things, which were destroyed, and plucked up. Here is pulling up of all false doctrine, and throwing down whatsoever is lifted up against the knowledge of God, that those things that savour of humility, and are agreeable to Ecclesiastical verity, may be builded and planted. And thus to pluck up and to plant, to cast down, and to build up, pertaineth to Hieremies' office and calling; but for deposing of Kings, and transferring kingdoms, no ancient write●… could ever find any thing in this place.  
The third example that they produce, is that of 
h 2. Chon. 26.  Vzziah, who after much prosperity in all that he took in hand, and many glorious victories obtained, not contenting himself with the honour of a King, but presuming to come into the Temple to offer incense, and intruding upon the Priest's office also, was by them resisted, & told it would be displeasing to almighty God, that he did. But he waxing angry, would not desist, till being stricken with leprosy, and the very earth trembling and quaking for horror of so vile a fact, he was by the Priests; and the remorse of his own conscience forced to go hastily out of the Temple. This leprosy departed not from him till his dying day, and therefore he was by virtue of God's law constrained to depart from the society of men, and to dwell apart; and jotham his son ruled over the king's house, and judged the people of the land. How this place will prove, that the deposing of Kings belongeth to Priests, I know not, for surely Vzziah was not deposed, but being forced to live in an house apart by himself, and in that respect unfit for the government, his son supplied his place in judging the people of the land: but he continued king still; and if he had been cleansed from his leprosy before his death, no doubt, might, and would have resumed his kingly dignity, and the public administration of justice. Whereupon we shall find that jotham is said to have reigned no more but 
i 2. King. 15. 33.  16 years, because after his father's death in his own right he reigned no more. Though otherwise we find mention of things that fell out in the 
k 2. Kings 15. 30  20 year of his reign. So including the time of his ruling for his father in his right. So that here was nothing done by the Priests, but that which pertained to their priestly office, which was to keep the holy places, & attend the Altars, & to judge of the plague of leprosy. But for deposing the King, they meddled not.  
The fourth example is of jehoiada the high Priest deposing Athaliah, and setting up joash, as they tell us. The story is this. 
l 2. Chron. 21. 22. & 23.  jehosaphat dieth, and jehoram his son succeedeth him. This jehoram marrieth Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, the son of Omri; and he walked not in the ways of jehosaphat and Asa kings of judah, but of wicked Ahab, whose daughter he married. Whereupon God stirred up the spirit of the Philistines, and Arabians, and they came, and took away all the substance that was found in his house, and his wives and sons, so that none was left him, but jehoahaz or Ahaziah his youngest son. After this jehoram dieth, and Ahaziah reigneth in his stead, who followed the counsel of Athaliah, and did wickedly in the sight of the Lord. This Ahaziah going to jehoram the son of Ahab, and being found with him when jehu came to execute judgement against the house of Ahab, was there slain by jehu. After his death Athaliah his mother, destroyed all the King's seed of the house of judah, and usurped the kingdom: But jehoshebeath the wife of jehoiada the Priest, sister to Ahaziah, stale away joash the King's son, from among the King's sons, that he should not be slain; and he was hid in the house of God six years, all which time Athaliah reigned. But in the seaventh year johoiada waxed bold, took the Captains of hundreds in covenant with him, and went about in judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of judah, and the chiefe-fathers' of Israel; & they came to jerusalem: and all the congregation made a covenant with the King, & said, The King's son must reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of David. Hereupon the King is proclaimed, Athaliah is slain, the house of Baal destroyed, & the Altars and idols that were in it broken down. In all this narration there is nothing that maketh for the chief Priests power of deposing lawful kings, if they become heretics: For first, Athaliah was an usurper & no lawful Queen. Secondly, here was nothing done by jehoiada alone, but by him, and the Captains of hundreths, and the chief Fathers of Israel, that entered into covenant with him. Thirdly, there is great difference between the high Priest in the time of the Law, and in the time of Christ. For before the coming of Christ, the high Priest even in the managing of the weightiest civil affairs, and in judgement of life and death, sat in the Council of State, as the second person next unto the King by Gods own appointment. Whereas our Adversaries dare not claim any such thing for the Pope. And therefore it is not to be marvelled at, if the high Priest, being the second person in the kingdom of judah, by Gods own appointment, and the Uncle and Protector of the young king, whom his wife had saved from destruction, be the first mover for the bringing of him to his right; and when things are resolved on by common consent, take on him not only to command and direct the Priests and Levites, but the Captains & soldiers also, for the establishing of their King, & the suppressing of a bloody tyrant and usurper. For all this might be done by jehoiada, as a chief man in that state: and yet the Pope be so far from obtaining that he claimeth (which is to depose lawful kings for abusing their authority) that he may not presume to do all that the high Priests lawfully did, and might do: as not having so great preeminence from Christ, in respect of matters of civil state in any kingdom of the world as the high Priest had by Gods own appointment in the kingdom of judah & Israel. In the old Law (saith 
m De potest. & dignitate Papali, qu. 1. c. 10.  Ocean) the high Priest meddled in matters of war, in the judgement of life and death, & the loss of members, & vengeance of blood &; it beseemed him well so to do: But the Priests of the new Law may not meddle with things of this nature. Wherefore from the power & dominion, which the high Priest of the old Law had, it cannot be concluded, that the Pope hath any power in temporal matters.  
The fifth example is of Ambrose, repelling Theodosius the Emperor from the communion of the Church, after the bloody and horrible murder, that was committed at Thessalonica by his commandment. The story is this 
n Sozomen. li. 7. c. 24. Theodoret. li●…. 5. ca 16. & 17.  The coachman of Borherica, the Captain of the soldiers in that town, for some fault was committed to prison. Now when the solemn horse-race and sporting fight of horsemen approached, the people of Thessalonica desired to have him set at liberty, as one of whom there would be great use in those ensuing solemn sports. which being denied, the city was in an uproar, and Botherica, and certain other of the magistrates were stoned to death, and most despitefully used. Theodosius the Emperor hearing of this outrage, was exceedingly moved, and commanded a certain number to be put to the sword, without all judicial form of proceeding, or putting difference between offenders and such as were innocent: So that seven thousand perished by the sword, and among them many strangers (that were come into the city upon divers occasions, that had no part in the outrage, for which Theodosius was so sore displeased) were most cruelly and unjustly slain. Saint Ambrose understanding of this violent and unjust proceeding of the Emperor, the next time he came to Milan, and was coming to the Church, after his wont manner, met him at the door, and stayed him from entering with this speech: Thou seemest not to know, O Emperor, what horrible and bloody murders have been committed by thee; neither dost thou bethink thyself now thy rage is past, to what extremities thy fury carried thee: perhaps the glory of thine Imperial power, will not let thee take notice of any fault, & thy greatness repelleth all check of reason controlling thee: but thou shouldest know the frailty of man's nature, and that the dust was that beginning whence we are taken, and and to which we must return. Let not therefore the glory of thy purple robes make thee forget the weakness of that body of flesh that is covered with them: Thy subjects O Emperor are in nature like thee, and in service thy fellows, for there is one Lord and commander over all: the maker of all things. Wherefore with what eyes wilt thou behold his temple, or with what feet wilt thou tread on the sacred pavement thereof? wilt thou lift up to him those hands, from which the blood yet droppeth? wilt thou receive with them the sacred body of our Lord? or wilt thou presume to put to thy mouth the cup replenished with the precious blood of Christ, which hast shed so much innocent blood by the word of thy mouth, uttering the passion of thy furious mind? Depart therefore, add not this iniquity to the rest, and decline not those bands, which God above approveth. With these speeches the Emperor was much moved: and, knowing the distinct duties, both of Emperors and Bishops (for that he had been trained up in the knowledge of heavenly doctrine) returned to the Court, with tears & sighs. A long time after (for eight months were first passed) the solemn feast of the Nativity of Christ approached, and all prepared themselves to solemnize the same with triumphant joy. But the Emperor sat in the Court, lamenting & pouring out rivers of tears: which when Ruffinus, master of the palace perceived, he came unto him, and asked the cause of his weeping: to whom (weeping more bitterly than before) he said, O Ruffinus, thou makest but a sport of these things, for thou art touched with no sense of those evils, wherewith I am afflicted, but the consideration of my calamity maketh me sigh and lament: for that whereas the doors of God's Temple are open to slaves and beggars, and they go freely into the same to make prayers unto their Lord, they are shut against me; and, which is yet worse, the gates of heaven are shut against me also; for I cannot forget the words of our Lord; who saith, Whomsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. To whom Ruffinus replied, I will run, if it please thee, O Emperor, to the Bishop, and entreat him to unloose these bands, wherewith he hath bound thee. No (saith the Emperor) it is to no purpose so to do, for he will not be entreated. I know his sentence is right and just, and that he will not transgress the law of God, for any respect of imperial power. Yet when Ruffinus was earnest, and promised confidently to pacify Ambrose, he bade him go with speed, and himself followed after in hope of reconciliation, trusting upon the promises of Ruffinus. But when Ambrose saw Ruffinus, he said unto him: O Ruffinus, thou dost imitate the impudency of shameless dogs; for having been the adviser and counsellor to so vile murders, thou hast hardened thy forehead, and having cast away all shame, blushest not, after the committing of so great and horrible outrages, against men made after the image of God. And when he was importunate with him, and told him the Emperor was coming, full of fiery zeal, he broke forth into these words: I tell thee Ruffinus, I will not suffer him to pass the thresholds of God's house; and if of an Emperor he become a tyrant, I will joyfully suffer death, Whereupon Ruffinus caused one to run to the Emperor, & to desire him to stay within the Court. But the Emperor being on the way when the messenger met him, resolved to come forward, and to endure the reproof of the Bishop. So he came to the sacred rails, but entered not into the Temple; and coming to the Bishop, besought him to unloose him from the bands wherewith he was bound. The Bishop somewhat offended with his coming, told him, the manner of his coming was tyrantlike; and that being mad against God, he trampled under his feet the laws of God. Not so (said the Emperor) I press not hither in despite of order, neither do I unjustly strive to enter into the house of God. But, I beseech thee, to unloose me, to remember the merciful disposition of our common Lord, and not to shut the door against me, that he would have opened to all that repent. What repentance therefore (saith the Bishop) hast thou showed, after so grievous an offence? what medicines hast thou applied to cure thy wounds? It pertaineth to thee (saith the Emperor) to prepare the medicines, that should heal me, and to cure my wounds; and to me to use, that thou prescribest. Then (said Ambrose) seeing thou makest thy displeasure judge, and it is not reason, that giveth sentence, when thou sittest upon the throne to do right, but thy furious proceedings; make a law, that when sentence of death and confiscation of goods shall be passed, there may pass thirty days before the execution of the same, that so, if within that space it be found unjust, it may be reversed; or otherwise, it may proceed. This law the Emperor most willingly consented to make, and thereupon Ambrose unloosed him from his bands; and he entered into the Temple, and prayed unto God, not standing, nor kneeling, but prostrate upon the earth, and passionately uttering these words of David. 
o Psal 119. ●…5.  My soul cleaveth to the pavement, Lord quicken me according to thy word. Here we see an excellent pattern of a good Bishop, and a good Emperor; and it is hard to say, whether Ambrose were more to be commended for his zeal, magnanimous resolution and constancy, or the Emperor for his willing and submissive obedience. But of deposing Princes here is nothing, Ambrose being so far from any thought of lifting up his hand against the Emperor, that he resolved to subject himself unto him, even to the suffering of martyrdom, if need should require. But (saith Bellarmine) Ambrose exercised civil authority, in that he took notice of this murder of the Emperor, being a criminal cause, and forced him to make a civil law, for the preventing of furious and bloody proceedings in judgement. This surely is a weak collection: for the Church hath power, by virtue of her Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to take notice of such horrible crimes as murder, & to punish them with spiritual punishments. Neither was the inducing of Theodosius to make a civil law for the preventing of such like evils, as he was now censured for, before he would reconcile him to the Church, an act of civil authority: But such testimonies as this is, they that have no better must be forced to use.  
That which followeth of 
p In fine epist. Greg.  Gregory's confirming the privileges granted to the Abbey of Saint Medardus, in such sort, that whatsoever Kings, judges, or secular persons should go about to violate them, should be deprived of their honour, proveth not the thing in question. For it is evident, that the confirmation of these privileges was passed, not by S. Gregory alone, but by a whole Council, and more specially by Theodoricus the King, and Brunichildis the Queen, who might bind their successors, and other inferior secular Rulers under pain of deprivation, though neither Gregory of himself, nor yet a council of Bishops, could do any such thing by their authority alone.  
Wherefore let us proceed to the next example. 
q Zenaras' in vita Leonis Isauri.  Gregory the second (saith Bellarmine) excommunicated the Emperor Leo the third, who was an enemy to Images: he forbade any tribute to be paid him out of Italy, and consequently deprived him of part of his Empire. Surely if Greg. the second of himself alone had had such power, as to forbid all Italy upon his dislike to pay any more tribute to the Emperor, there were some good show of proof in this allegation. But if we examine the stories, we shall find the case to have been far otherwise than Bellarmine would bear us in hand it was. For first, Gregory did not excommunicate Leo of himself, but called a Synod to do it. Secondly, he did not forbid the paying of tribute out of Italy, to the Emperor: but the circumstances of the History are these. Leo seeking to win the Bishop of Rome, and the people of Italy to the casting down of Images in the West, as he had done in the East, Gregory the Bishop did not only refuse to obey him, but admonished all other to take heed they did no such thing for fear of any Edict of the Emperor. By which exhortation the people of Italy already mis-conceited of the Emperor's government, were so animated, that they were likely to have proceeded to the election of a new Emperor: and 
r Naucler. in Chron. vol. 2. Gener. 25. pag. 654.  Nauclerus showeth, that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome, dissuading the people of the West from obeying the Emperor, in casting down of Images, were of so great authority, that the people and soldiers of Ravenna first, and then of Venice, began to make show of rebellion against the Emperor, and his Exarche or Lieutenant, and to enforce the Bishop of Rome, and the other people of Italy, to disclaim the Emperor of Constantinople, and to choose another in Italy. And that this rebellion proceeded so far, that every city putting down the Magistrates of the Exarch, set up Magistrates of their own, whom they named Dukes; but that the Bishop of Rome at that time pacified them, and by his persuasions stayed them from choosing any new Emperor, in hope that he would amend. So that we see, the Bishop of Rome with his Bishops, by their authority did nothing but stay the people from obeying the Emperor's unlawful Decrees, as they judged them; but no way went about to depose the Emperor, or to deprive him of any thing that of right pertained to him. But the people of Italy moved against the Emperor, proceeded further than the Bishop of Rome would have had them to have done. For they put down the Magistrates appointed by the Emperor, and set up other of their own; and would have forced the Bishop of Rome, and the other people of Italy, who yet consented not unto them, to disclaim the Emperor of Constantinople, and to choose another in Italy. And therefore, if at that time they forbore to pay any more tribute, (as 
s Vbi suprà.  Zonaras saith they did) it was not because the Pope forbade them so to do (as having supreme power in civil things) but being averse from the Emperor, as for other dislikes, so by the Pope's persuasions, they stayed the tribute of themselves, as of themselves they put down the Magistrates of the Emperor, without the liking of the Bishop of Rome. That which 
t Lib. 5. cap. 18. Chronici.  Otho Frisingensis hath, that the Pope having often admonished the Emperor, and found him incorrigible, persuaded the people of Italy to depart from the Empire, seemeth to be contrary to the reports of 
u Lib. Chron. ab initio mundi cum figuris & imaginibus in 6. aetate mundi.  the Author of the great Chronicle, 
x Vbi suprà.  Nauclerus, 
y Chron. lib. 1.  Rhegino, and others; but yet maketh the Pope only a persuader, and the people of Italy the doers of that was done. And in like sort it must be understood that Zonaras saith, the Bishop of Rome stayed the paying of tribute to the Emperor, namely, that his dislike of the Emperor's courses, together with their own distaste of his actions, did so avert the minds of the Italians from the Emperor, that they refused to pay him tribute; that being attributed to him, as done by him, which his persuasions (though tending to another purpose) did work without his liking, and against his will. And in the same sense it is, that 
z Chronic. anni. 731.  Sigebert saith, Gregory charged the Emperor with error, blamed him for it, and turned away the people of Rome, and the tribute of the West from him.  
The third instance of Pope's intermeddling in the disposition of the kingdoms of the world, is that of Zacharias the Pope, of whom Gregory the seventh, in his Epistles writeth thus: 
a Gregor. 7, lib. 8. epist. 21.  Another Roman Bishop also, to wit, Zacharias, deposed the French King from his kingdom, not so much for any fault done by him, as for that he was unfit to sway so great power; and put Pipine, the father of Charles the great, afterwards Emperor, into his place, freeing and absolving all the Frenchmen from their oath of fealty. Which words of Gregory are found likewise in the decrees. To this allegation 
c Dialog. lib. 1. tract. 2. 3. part. cap. 18.  Occam 
b Part. 2. Causa 15. c. 6.  answereth, that Zacharias did not depose Childericke the French King (as Gregory the seventh untruly reporteth) but only gave allowance of the Peers doposing of him. And to that purpose allegeth the Gloss upon the decrees, which saith, 
d Gloss. super. cap. allegat.  Dicitur deposuisse quia deponentibus consensit: that is, The Pope is said to have deposed the King, because he gave consent to those that did depose him, and allowed their act. But he noteth also, that there are others, that do not so excuse the Pope, but do think he put his sickle into another man's harvest, and took upon him to do that he had no authority to do; which other Popes likewise have not feared to do, in prejudice of the right of the laity, as they show out of another 
e Gloss. extra. de foro competenti. Ca Siquis Clericus.  Gloss. So that the 
f Cent. 8. c. 10.  Century writers are not alone in the reprehension of this fact of Zacharias, (as 
g De Pontif. l. 5. c. 8.  Bellarmine untruly anoucheth) notwithstanding I rather follow the judgement of the author of the Gloss, and think, that he did but give his opinion, what might be done, and approve the act when it was done. For confirmation whereof, I will lay down the circumstances of the narration touching the proceedings in this matter, as I find them reported by ancient writers. First, all 
h Lib. Chron: Aetate. 6. in Pipino.  Historians agree, that the Kings of France in those times, giving themselves to idleness and pleasures, wholly neglected the government: that they were seen but only once in the year of their subjects; and that the governor of the King's house ruled all. Neither did things stand thus for a short space, but 
i Chron. anno. 750.  Sigebert saith, they continued so 88 years. In this office of a perfect or governor, Pipine incceeded his ancestors, but exceeded them in the greatness of worthy exploits; neither did any thing hinder the course of his great and honourable actions, but that he was forced to suffer & endure a king almost witless & mad with diverse senseless fooleries. Wherefore they who write the histories of France report, that the Nobles and people of that nation duly weighing the virtue of Pipine, and the witless follies of Childericke the King, consulted Zachary then Bishop of Rome, & desired him to tell them, whether he thought so foolish and unworthy a King were any longer to be endured; or Pipine to be defrauded of royal dignity which he deserved, & was right worthy of. Who when they had received answer from the Pope that he was to be esteemed the King, who knew best how to perform kingly duties: the French by the public and common advice and counsel of the whole nation, proclaimed Pipine King, and shore the head of Childericke, and made him a Clerk. 
k Naucler. Chronol. vol. 2. Gener. 20.  Nauclerus saith, the French men anciently had their kings descended of an ancient stock, who of Meroveus the son of King Clodius the second, were called Merovingians: the race of which kings continued till Childericke, and in him ended. For long before, they were of no esteem or authority, neither had they any thing, but the vain and empty title of Kings, for the riches and power of the kingdom were in the hands of the prefects of the palace, who were called the chief of the King's house, and swayed the whole kingdom, who at that time were the successors of Charles Martell, and were named Dukes. Neither was there any other thing permitted to the King, but that contenting himself with the bare name of a King, having long hair and a long beard, he should sit upon the throne, and have some show of a ruler and hear Ambassadors coming from all parts, and give such answers unto them (as out of his own power) which he was taught and commanded to give. He had nothing to live on, but such a stipend and allowance, as the Perfect was pleased to allow unto him. He possessed nothing but one little village: once only in the year, he was seen of his subjects in a public and solemn assembly, & having saluted them all, returned again into his private course of life, leaving the government of all to the Perfect. Pipine therefore, who then supplied that place, as succeeding his ancestors in the same, considering the sloth and idleness of these Kings, who neglecting the commonwealth did hide themselves in their own private houses: and that both the Nobles & people took notice as well of his virtues, as of the senseless follies of Childericke, consulted the Pope (as we heard before:) upon whose answer (that he was to be reputed King, that could best do the duty of a King) the French by a public decree of the whole nation, chose Pipine to be King, which thing Zachary approved. 
l Chroni. lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 21. & 22.  Otho Frisingensis saith, that the French sent messengers to Rome sciscitandi gratia, to ask the Pope's advice, and to be resolved by him: upon whose answer, and by whose authority (warranting them it was lawful so to do) Bonifacius Archbishop of Mentz, & the other Princes of the kingdom, met together, and chose Pipine King. And Rhegino saith, Pipine was chosen King according 
m Lib. 2.  to the manner and custom of the French, and being anointed by the hands of Bonifacius Archbishop of Mentz, was by the French lifted up into the royal throne, and Childericke who was but in title only a King, was shorn, and thrust into a Monastery. With these agreeth 
n Loco citato.  Sigebertus, and the rest. Wherefore to conclude this point, touching the deposition of Childericke, we must observe. First, that he was not deposed for heresy, or any way going about to hinder the course of religion; and that therefore the Pope could not depose him, unless Princes be subject to such censures for defects of nature, and negligence in doing their duties. Secondly, that he and his predecessors for almost an hundred years, were put from all government, and were but in name only Kings, others having the authority, and that with the allowance of the whole state. So that it is the less to be marvelled, if the Pope being consulted as a Divine, answered, it was fit rather that he should have the name, title, and inauguration of a King, that was to do the duty, than he that was to be but a shadow only. Yet do I not say, that he spoke like a good Divine. Thirdly, that in those times the University of Paris was not yet founded: and the kingdom had few learned men, and that therefore they sought to foreigners. For otherwise we know that afterwards the Kings and Princes of France rather 
o Gerson in Serm. de paschate part. 4. operum eius:  believed the Divines of Paris then the Court of Rome, in greater matters than this. Fourthly, that the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, was the chief Bishop in these parts of the world, and therefore not unfitly consulted in a matter of such consequence as this was.  
Wherefore let us now proceed to the fourth instance, which is that of the translation of the West Empire, from the Emperors of Constantinople to Charles the Great, which our Adversaries say, was done by Pope Leo the third. But surely whosoever shall look into the course of Histories shall find, that this instance maketh rather against them, then for them. For it is most certain, that the Pope by his papal power did not translate the Empire. 
p Sigebert anno 801.  The Romans, saith Sigebert, (who long before in their hearts were fallen away from the Emperor of Constantinople, now taking the opportunity of the occasion offered, while a woman having put out the eyes of Constantine the Emperor her son, took upon her to rule over them) with one consent proclaimed Charles the King their Emperor, and by the hands of Leo the pope set the Crown upon his head, and gave him the title of Caesar and Augustus. With Sigebertus the author of 
q Aetate. 6. in Leone.  the great Chronicle agreeth; His words are these. In the time of the solemnities of the Mass celebrated upon Christmas day in S. Peter's Church, Leo the pope by the decree of the people of Rome, & at their entreaty crowned Charles proclaimed Emperor of the Romans, & set such a Diadem upon his head, as the ancient Emperors were wont to wear; & then the people, which was present in great number with joyful acclamation cried out thrice: Carolo Augusto, á Deo coronato, magno et pacifico Imperatori, vita & victoria. So that we see, it was the decree of the Romans that made Charles Emperor, and that they used Leo for the performance of the solemn rites of his Coronation & unction. With Sigebert & the Author of the great Chronicle, we may join 
r Anno. 800.  Lambertus Schaffnaburgesis. His words are, Carolus á Romans Augustus est appellatus. That is: the Romans proclaimed Charles Augustus, And 
s Chronog. vol. 2. gener. 27.  Nauclerus saith, Pontifex populi Romani consensu, Carolum Romanorum Imperatorem declarat, etc. that is: The high Bishop, with the consent of the people of Rome, proclaimeth Charles Emperor of Romans, & crowneth him with a Diadem. The people with a joyful shout, crying out thrice, Carolo Augusto, á Deo coronato, magno & pacifico Imperatori, vita & victoria. But to clear this point: & to make it evident to all the world, that howsoever the Pope & Clergy might concur in this act, with the people & nobles of Italy, as having part & interest in matters of state as well as other, yet the Pope by his Papal power did not translate the Empire; three things are to be observed. The first, that in the time of Gregory the 2d, there was a great rebellion in Italy against the Emperor of Constantinople, and a desire to choose a new Emperor, & that they of Ravenna & Venice proceeded so far in it, that they would have forced the Bishop of Rome, and others to concur with them: whereby it appeareth, that the act of translation was not proper to the Bishop of Rome, but proceeded from the concurring desires of the Italians, and was their act, rather than his. The second, that Charles 
t Great. chron. in Carolo.  was a mighty, potent, & great prince, having under him all France, Spain, & a great part of Germany, with many other countries; & by his sword had subjected to him, the Lombard's, & was Lord of the greatest part of Italy, before either the people proclaimed him, or the Pope crowned him Emperor. So that howsoever the Italians by Leo the B. proclaimed, crowned, & accounted him Emperor; yet it was his right of inheritance, & his sword that had possessed him of the thing, before ever they gave him the title of the West Empire. The third, that whether the Italians had right to choose an Emperor or not, it mattereth nothing, seeing they rebelled against their Emperor, & thought, that in case of such necessity they might so do; and that therefore the objection of Bellarmine against our position, is too weak, when he saith the people had no power to choose the Emperor. For howsoever anciently the Emperors were chosen by the souliers, or came to it by inheritance, yet the people at this time de facto took upon them to choose, without curious disputing the question of right.  
The fifth instance of the Pope's intermeddling in the disposition of the kingdoms of the world, is that of Gregory the 5, who (as Bellarmine saith) appointed the form of choosing the Emperor by the seven Princes of Germany, and ordained that the Emperor should ever after be chosen by them. For the clearing of which point, we must observe 
u Great. chron. in Gregory 〈◊〉. Naucl. vol. 2. Generate. 28. & sequentibus.  that the Empire of the West, being translated from Constantinople into France in the person of Charles the great, he died, and Ludovicus his son succeeded him. Lotharius succeeded Ludovicus, and Ludovicus his son succeeded him. Carolus Caluus his uncle succeeded Ludovicus; Carolus Crassus his brother Ludovicus son, succeeded him. This Carolus Crassus for his unfitness, was put from the Empire, and Arnulphus his nephew, son of Carlomaine was chosen in his place; who was the last of the race of Charles the great, that was crowned Emperor, whom Ludovicus his son succeeded, but was never crowned. In whom dying without children, the race of Charles did wholly cease. After him Otho the Duke of Saxony was greatly desired; but refusing to be Emperor in respect of his old age, the French by his advice chose Conradus; and Conradus when he died named Henry the son of Otho Duke of Saxony, who reigned in East-France: But upon the death of Ludovicus the third, the Lombard's possessed themselves of the Empire in Italy, eight of them successively holding it for the space of 50 years, till Otho the son of Matilda (daughter of Theodoricus king of the Saxons) & Henry the king; who succeeding his father, & being very famous for the things he had done in France & Germany, was desired by Agapetus the Pope, & many nobles of Italy now weary of the tyranny of the Lombard's, to come and relieve them; which he did, and entering Italy with 50000. armed men, put Berengarius the Lombard from the Empire, and Albertus from the kingdom of all Italy; & was crowned Emperor in Rome by john the twelfth, who died Emperor, and Otho the second his son succeeded him, and Otho the third his son succeeded him. This third Otho (as 
u Vol. 2. Generate. ●…4.  Nauclerus saith) having no heirs male, by the advice, & with the consent of the Princes of Germany, made a Decree, that after the death of the Emperor, an election of the new Emperor to succeed should for ever be made in the city of Frankford; and appointed electors three Archbishops, of Mentz for Germany, of Coleyn for Italy, and of Treuers for France: and with these four other secular Princes, to wit, the Palatine of Rhine, who by office should be the Emperor's Pantler; the Duke of Saxony, who should be his Marshal; the marquis of Branderburge, who was to be his Chamberlain; & the King of Boheme, who was to be chief Butler. This ordinance greatly displeased the Romans, yet notwithstanding Gregory the fifth than Pope, who was a German borne, & of the Emperor's house, seeing how hardly Otho the Emperor came to the Empire, though it were his inheritance, called a Synod; and with the consent of the Princes of Germany, confirmed the ordinance of the Emperor, & decreed, that these 7 electors, should for ever have power to choose the Emperor in the name of all; who being chosen, should be called Caesar & king of Romanos, & after his coronation by the Pope, be named Augustus & Emperor. 
x Concord. Cathol. l. 3. c. 4.  Cardinal Cusanus saith, the Emperor Otho, with the consent of the nobles, Primates, and both the states of the Clergy & people, ordained electors in the time of Gregory the 5. who was a German, & decreed, that they should have power for ever to choose the Emperor in steed of all. It is not therefore to be granted (saith he) that the Prince's electors have their power of choosing the Emperor from the Pope, so that without his consent they should not have it, or that he might take it from them if he would. Who therefore gave the people of Rome power to choose the Emperor, but the law of God, & nature? whence the Electors, appointed by the common consent of all the Germans, and other subject to the Empire in the time of Henry the second, have their power originally from the common consent of them all, who by natures right had power to constitute them an Emperor; and not from the Bishop of Rome, who hath no power to give to any province of the world, a King or Emperor, without the consent thereof. But the consent of Gregory the 5. who as Bishop of Rome in his degree and place, had interest to give voice in the choosing of the Emperor, concurred with the resolution of the Princes & people.  
The sixth instance is of Gregory the 7. deposing Henry the 4. who (indeed) was the first Pope that ever took upon him to depose Emperor or King. Wherefore for the better understanding of the whole course of the proceedings of this Pope, we must observe, 
y Otho frisingen's. Chronic. lib. 6. c. 32. 33.  that in the time of Henry the 3. about the year of our Lord 1040. there was an horrible confusion of God's Church and people in the city of Rome, three several pretenders invading the chair of Peter, and challenging the name of his successors, and (which more increased the misery) the revenues of the Church were divided among these three, and several patriarchical places assigned to them; one of them sitting at S. Peter's, another at S. Marry the greater, and the third named Benedict, in the palace of Lateran; and all of them lived very lewdly & wickedly (as Otho saith the Romans reported unto him being in Rome.) A certain religious Presbyter named Gratian, considering this miserable state of the Church, & taking pity on his distressed mother, moved with the zeal of piety went to the three pretenders, and persuaded them for money to leave the holy seat of Peter; assigning to Benedict, as being of greater esteem among them, the revenues of England for his maintenance, and as a recompense of his voluntary relinquishing the claim to the Popedom. The citizens of Rome admiring the happy achievement of this Presbyter, chose him to be Pope, as being the deliverer of the Church from so great a schism; and changing his name, called him Gregory the 7. But when Henry the King heard of it, he passed into Italy. Gratian understanding of his coming, met him at Sutrium, and to pacify his wrath, offered him a precious Diadem. The King at the first honourably received him; but afterwards calling a Council of Bishops, induced him to give over the Popedom, as having by Simony obtained it at the first; and with the consent of the Roman church placed Suidegerus Bishop of Babenberge in the Papal chair, who was named Clemens. This Clemens died, & Popio Patriarch of Aquileia succeeded him, and was named Damasus. Damasus died, and Bruno Bishop of the Tullians' succeeded him, and was named Leo. This man being of a noble race in France, was appointed Pope by the authority of the Emperor: and having put on the Papal purple robe, journeyed through France, till he came to Cluniack where one Hildebrand was Prior. This Hildebrand moved with zeal came to Leo, and told him he did ill to assume the Papal office by virtue of the Emperor's nomination being a Layman, but that if he would be advised by him, he would direct him into a course, whereby he might without offending the Emperor, preserve the liberty of the Church in choosing her chief Bishop. This advice Leo harkened unto, and putting off his purple robe, put on the weed of a pilgrim, and so going to Rome with this Hildebrand in his company, by his advice & counsel, found the means to get himself chosen Pope by the Clergy and people of Rome. Leo died, and Gebehardus afterwards named Victor, succeeded him, and Stephen him: about whose time Henry the third died, & Henry the fourth his son succeeded him; and after Stephen, Benedict, and Nicholas, Alexander gate the papal See, 
z Naucler. Vol. 2. Gener. 36.  against whom great exception was taken, for that contrary to the custom, he was chosen without the Emperor's consent, and with the liking of the young Emperor and his mother (as some report.) Another was set up by the Bishops of Lombardy, affirming that no man might be chosen or designed to the Popedom without the Emperor's allowance. And besides, Anno Archbishop of Coleyn went to Rome to expostulate the matter with Alexander and the Cardinals adhering to him, and to know of him, how he durst contrary to custom, and the law prescribed and imposed anciently upon the Popes, assume the Popedom without the consent of the Emperor; alleging many things to show the unlawfulness of this fact, and beginning at Charles the great, he named many Emperors who had either chosen or confirmed Popes, and made good their election. But being ready to go forward: and to add more proofs unto that which he had said, Hildebrand the archdeacon (the whole company of Cardinals beckening unto him so to do) stood up, and answered in this sort. Archbishop Anno, the Kings and Emperors of Rome never had any authority, right, or commanding power in the choice of the Pope: and if at any time, any thing were done violently or disorderly, it was afterwards corrected and set right again by the censure of the Fathers. After the death of Alexander, this Hildebrand, who thus ever opposed himself against the Emperor's claims, was by the Romans chosen Pope without the Emperor's consent. Which the Bishops of France understanding, knowing well of how violent, severe, and untractable a disposition he was, unwilling to have him possess so high a place in the Church, told the Emperor, that if he did not in time prevent the matter, and void his election, greater evils and perils would beset him, than he could at first think of. Whereupon he sent Ambassadors to Rome to know the cause why the Romans contrary to the ancient custom, had chosen a Pope without his consent. And if they gave not satisfaction, to put Hildebrand from the Papal dignity which he had unjustly gotten. The Ambassadors coming to Rome, were kindly and courteously entertained, and when they had delivered their message, Hildebrand (like a vile dissembling hypocrite) contrary to his own practice, and that which he had persuaded other unto, answered, that he never sought this honour, but that it was put upon him: and that yet he would not accept of it, till by a certain Ambassador, he was assured, that not only the Emperor, but the Princes of Germany consented to his election. Which answer when the Emperor received, he was fully satisfied, and with all readiness, by his royal consent confirmed his election and commanded that he should be ordained. Thus we see, how to serve his own turn, he could now acknowledge the Emperor's interest, and refuse to be ordained before he had obtained his confirmation, which yet before in the case of Alexander he disclaimed: though ᵃ some say, he never yielded so much to the Emperor, but ever 
〈◊〉 Otho. 〈◊〉 lib. 6. cap. ●…4. & 35.  held out against him, disclaiming his intermeddling, and that a most horrible schism ensued thereupon. Howsoever, he was no sooner Pope, but he began to molest the Emperor, challenging him for Simony in conferring Ecclesiastical dignities, and requiring him to come to some Synodall answer; which when he refused to do, he excommunicated him, deprived him of his Empire, and absolved his subjects from their Oath of obedience, This was the first Pope that ever presumed to depose any Emperor. Lego & relego (saith 
b Otho Fris. l. 6 Chron. c. 35  Otho Frisingensis) Romanorum Regum & Imperatorum gesta, & nusquam invenio quenquam eo●…um ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum, vel regno privatum, nisi fortè quis pro anathemate habendum ducat, quod Philippus ad breve tempus à Romano Pontifice inter poenitentes collocatus, & Theodosius à beato Ambrosio propter cruentam caedem à liminibus Ecclesiae sequestratus sit: that is, I read, and I read over again and again, the Acts of the Roman Kings and Emperors, and I no where find any of them before this, excommunicated by the Roman Bishop, or deprived of his kingdom, unless haply any man do think that is to be taken for an excommunication, that Philip was for a short time put among the Penitents by the Bishop of Rome, and Theodosius for his bloody murder stopped by blessed Ambrose from entering into the Church. And therefore whatsoever Gregory pretendeth 
c Decr. part. 2. caus. 15. q. 6. & l. 8. ep. 21.  to the contrary, professing that he treadeth in the steps of the Saints, and his holy predecessors; yet it is true that 
d In Chron. anno 1088.  Sigebert saith, (which he hopeth he may say with the leave of all good men) that this novelty (that he say not heresy) had not showed itself in the world in their time, that the Priests of that God which maketh hypocrites to reign for the sins of his people, should teach his people that they owe no subjection to wicked Kings, and that they owe no feaulty unto them, though they have taken the oath of feaulty: that they are free from perjury that lift up their hands against the king to whom they have sworn, & that they are to be taken for excommunicate persons that do obey him. What horrible confusions followed upon this censure of Gregory, Otho Frisingensis reporteth in most tragical manner. His words are these. How 
e Chro. l, 6. c. 36  great evils, how many wars and dangers of wars followed thence? How often was miserable Rome besieged, taken, and sacked? How one Pope was intruded upon another: as likewise one King set up against another, it is irksome to me to remember. To conclude, the whirlwind of this tempest enwrapped in it so many evils, so many schisms, so many perils of the souls and bodies of men, that it alone may suffice in respect of the cruelty of the persecution, and the long continuance of the time thereof, to set before our eyes the infelicity of man's miserable condition. For 
i Naucler. Vol. 2. Gener. 37.  first the Emperor offended with the Pope for molesting him about the Investitures of Bishops, which his Predecessors anciently had and enjoyed, and the Clergy discontented with him for his forbidding marriage; he was in an assembly of the States and Bishops of Germany, holden at Worms, deposed, & a letter written to him, requiring him no longer to meddle with the Episcopal Office, But such was the resolution and stoutness of this turbulent & unquiet spirit, that being encouraged by certain Bishops of Germany, & promised their aid & help, he deprived the Bishops that had given sentence against him, and deposed Henry the Emperor, absolving his subjects from their Oath of obedience. Whereupon many of the Princes of Germany, and first of all the Saxons formerly averse from him, withdrew their subjection, pretending, that they might justly cast off the yoke, and refuse to obey him any longer, seeing having been called to give satisfaction to two Popes, concerning certain crimes objected to him, he had refused to appear, and was thereupon excommunicated. These rebellions and defections so affrighted the Nobles and Princes of the Empire that still remained well affected to the Emperor, that for the staying of present confusions, & preventing of other, they thought good that the Pope should be entreated to come into Germany, and that then the Emperor should submit himself unto him, & ask forgiveness; which thing accordingly was effected: for the Pope was persuaded, & consented to come into Germany, & was coming towards Augusta, as far as Versella. But when he came thither, pretending fear that the Emperor meant not well towards him, he broke off his journey, & went to Canossun, & there stayed. Which the Emperor hearing of, & doubting what might be the cause of his stay, hastened thither, & putting off all Royal robes, on his bare feet came to the gates of the town, humbly beseeching that he might be let in: but was stayed without 3 days, though it were extreme cold winter weather: which he endured patiently, continually entreating, till in the end he was let in, and absolved; but yet conditionally, that being called, he should appear in an assembly of Princes & Bishops, to answer such crimes as were objected to him; and either to purge himself and so retain his kingdom; or otherwise failing so to do, to lose it. This his submission afterwards he made known to the Italians, who understanding what he had done, were exceedingly enraged against him, derided the Legates of the Pope, & contemned his curses, as being deposed by all the Bishops of Italy for just causes, as namely, for simony, murder, adultery, and other most horrible and capital crimes; and told him, that he had done a most intolerable thing, in submitting himself & his kingly Majesty to an heretic and most infamous person. Yea they proceeded so far, that they told him, because he had so done, they were resolved to make his son Emperor in his steed; and to go to Rome and choose a new Pope, by whom he might be consecrated, and all the proceedings of this false Pope voided. But the Emperor excusing himself for that which he had done, as driven by necessity so to do, and promising to revenge these wrongs, when opportunity should be offered, pacified them in such sort, that they began to incline to him again. Yet were not his evils at an end hereby. For his enemies among the Germans presently took the opportunity of this his relapse, and calling an assembly with the Legates of the Pope, chose a new Emperor, Rodolphe Duke of Suevia; to whom the Pope sent an imperial crown, having this inscription: Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho. Which when he heard of, he called a Council of the Bishops of Italy and Germany, and charging Hildebrand the Pope with most horrible crimes of heresy, necromancy, perjury, murder, and the like, deposed him; chose Guibertus, Bishop of Ravenna in his place, and gathering together a great and mighty army, went against Rodolphe abiding in Saxony; where a most terrible and bloody battle was fought between them: in which battle Rodolphe was wounded; and going aside from his companions, with many other likewise wounded, was carried to Mersberge, where he died; who a little before his death beholding his right hand cut off in that battle, fetching a deep sigh, said to the Bishops which by chance were present: Behold, this is the hand with which by solemn vow and oath I obliged my faith and feaulty to Henry my Lord. Behold now I leave his kingdom and this present life, see you that made me climb up into his throne, what you have done: would to God you had led me the right way, whom you found so willing to follow your advice and counsel, and to be directed by you Yet did neither the ill success of the former attempt, nor the speeches of Rodolphe at his death, blaming those that had set him a work, and condemning himself for that which he had done, discourage the ill affected from proceeding on in their rebellious practices. For they set up Hermannus, Prince of Lorraine, in steed of Rodolphe, and proclaimed him Emperor, whom the Emperor Henry slew likewise, as he had done the other; & rested not till he made Pope Hildebrand leave Rome, and fly to Salernum; and brought the new Pope named Clement, to be enthronized, and himself crowned by him in Rome. The acts of Hildebrand (saith Nauclerus) were such, that the writers be very doubtful whether the things that were done by him, were done out of any love of virtue, or any zeal he bore to the faith, or not. They that loved him best, disliked his stiffness, as 
k Annal.  Auentinus witnesseth. 
l Li. 6. cap. 32.  Otho Frisingensis noteth, that his disposition was such, that for the most part, he ever liked that which others disliked. So, that of Lucan might be verified of him: Victrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni: that is, The prevailing part and cause best pleased God, but that which fell, and had the overthrow, had Cato's wishes. And though he commend his zeal, yet in his prologue of his 7. book he taxeth him, and others like unto him, in very bitter sort. His words are these: Videntur tamen culpandi Sacerdotes per omnia, qui regnum suo gladio, quem ipsi ex regum habent gratia, ferire conantur. Nisi fortè Dauid imitari cogitant, qui Philistaeum primò virtute Dei stravit, postmodùm proprio gladio iugulavit: that is, Notwithstanding whatsoever may be said, the Priests seem altogether unblamable, and worthy of reproof & reprehension, which go about to strike Kings and princes with that their sword which they have by the grace and favour of Princes; unless haply they do think it lawful for them to imitate David, who first overthrew and cast to the ground the proud Philistine by the power of God, and afterwards slew him with his ownesword. Of this Hildebrand 
l Anno 1085.  Sigebert saith, he found it thus written: We will have you know, you that manage the Ecclesiastical affairs, and to whom the care of the Church is committed, that the Lord, Pope Hildebrand, who also was called Gregory, being in extremis, & drawing near his end, called unto him one of the 12 Cardinals, whom he loved dear, and more than any of the rest; and in his hearing confessed to God, to holy Peter, and to the whole Church, that he had sinned exceedingly, and grievously offended in the Pastoral charge committed to him, and in governing the people of whom he had undertaken the care; and that by the persuasion and instigation of the Devil, he had stirred up hatred and wrath against mankind: & then commanded the forenamed Confessor to make haste to go to the Emperor, & to the whole Church of God, to ask forgiveness for him, because he saw the end of his life was near at hand. And besides all this, in great haste put on him an Angelical vesture or robe, and released & broke in sunder the bands of all those bitter curses whereunto he had subjected the Emperor. These were the turbulent proceedings of this cursed Hildebrand, indeed a brand taken out of the very fire of hell, to set on fire the course of nature, and to put the whole world into a combustion; whereof (if this report mentioned by Sigebertus be true) it repented him not a little before his death. But howsoever, it is most certain, that his best friends in the end began wholly to dislike him, when they saw whither his violent and furious passions carried him, and what woeful effects followed the same. Gerochus (saith 
m Annal. lib. 〈◊〉 pag. 563.  Auentinus) than whom no man was found more earnestly to defend Hildebrand by books written to justify his proceedings, and who published to the world diverse crimes objected to the Emperor, mentioned by no other writer, at the last, constrained by the force of truth, taxed the pertinacy, if not the tyranny, of the Pope & his adherents, in this sort. Romani (inquit) sibi divinum usurpant honorem, rationem actorum reddere nolunt, nec sibi dici aequo animo ferunt, cur ita agis? Illud Satyricum inculcant, Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas; that is, The Romans take unto themselves the honour that is proper unto God: they will give no account for any thing they do; they will be subject to no control, neither can they endure with any patience, that any man should say to any of them, sir, why do you so? That Satirical saying they have often in their mouths: so I will have it, so I command it to be. Let my will stand for a reason, for so it shall. Thus we see how ill a beginning the Popes made of deposing Emperors, and how bad success they had. Which is not to be marvelled at, seeing in these attempts and practices they were contrary to Christ and his Apostles. For these (as Auentinus noteth) acknowledged the Emperors, as also all the holy Fathers did, to be in the second place and rank after God, and before all mortal men, given, appointed, and chosen by the immortal God; and honoured them, as having the crown set upon their heads by God himself; they prayed daily for their prosperity, they paid tribute unto them, and proclaimed them rebels against God, that refused to be subject to them. After this bad beginning, some two or three other Popes succeeding, attempted in like sort as Hildebrand had done, to depose such Emperors as they were offended with. Concerning whose attempts and practices, let the Reader consider the censure of Cardinal Cusanus. His words are these: 
n Cusanus de concord. Cathol. l. 3. c. 41  Let it suffice the Pope, that he excelleth the Emperor, as much as the Sun doth the Moon, and the soul the body; and let him not challenge that which pertaineth not to him: neither let him affirm, that the Empire is not but by him, and in dependence on him: and if haply the deposing of some kings & Emperors, the translation of the Empire move him so presumptuously for to think, let him know, that if the respect of religion, and due consideration of humility hindered not, it were easy to answer all those things truly & most clearly; and so, that haply these things should no way argue so great a power in the Pope, as Pope, without the consent or willing acceptation of the parties contending, as is imagined. For there wanted not in ancient times men to defend Henry the fourth crowned at Basil by the Legates of Rome, from the excommunication of Gregory or Hildebrand. Yea such there were that were Cardinals at that time, and a certain Council holden at Rome, nay which more is, the General Council at Basil, holden at that time, did the same things concerning the choosing of Honorius Pope, for which Henry the Emperor was pronounced excommunicate. And in like sort there are found things excellently and strongly written in defence of Frederick the second, a most valiant man, and a most constant defender of the Faith, as also in defence of other Emperors. How much the Pope's proceedings against Frederick the second, hindered the course of the sacred war undertaken at that time against the Infidels, how many things the Pope charged him with, which he utterly disclaimed, & how much all Christian Princes in the end began to dislike the pride of the Roman Court, the 
o See Math. Paris. Henric. 3. p. 682.  Histories of those times do sufficiently make known unto us. Wherefore to conclude this point, touching the Pope's pretended power of deposing Princes; seeing the first that ever attempted to exercise the same, was that brand of hell Gregory the 7. seeing he had so ill success in this his proud attempt, and caused such confusions in the Christian world, as the like had seldom or never been before; & seeing the best learned about those times, & since, condemned the opinion of them that think the Pope may depose Princes, as new & strange, if not heretical: we may safely resolve, that the Pope taking upon him to give and take away kingdoms, which is proper to God, is that Antichrist that sitteth in the temple of God, as if he were God.   

CHAP. 47.  
Of the Civil dominion which the Popes have by the gift of Princes.  
Having proved that the Popes neither directly, nor indirectly have power over Princes & the Kingdoms of the world, or any thing to do in the managing and disposing of civil affairs, by virtue of any grant from Christ, let us proceed to see what temporal dominion and civil power they have by the grant of Princes. It is the resolved opinion almost of all men (saith 
a De Concord. Cath. l. 3. c. 2.  Cusanus) that Constantine the Emperor gave the whole Empire of the West to Sylvester Bishop of Rome, and to his successors for ever, so that there can be no Emperor of the West, but such a one as must wholly depend of the Pope, and acknowledge that he holdeth the Imperial Crown of him. Neither were there many found in ancient times, that durst make question of this donation of Constantine, yet doth this great Cardinal & worthy Divine profess, that having sought diligently to find out the original of this supposed grant, & the certainty of it (presupposing that Constantine might make such a grant, which yet will never be proved) he greatly wondereth if ever there were any such thing. For that there is no such thing to be found in authentical books, & approved Histories. I have read over (saith he) again and again, all the Acts of Popes and Emperors that by any means I could meet with, the Histories of Saint Hierome, who was most diligent in collecting all things, the works of Augustine, Ambrose; and other learned Fathers, and the Acts of General Counsels which have been since the Council of Nice; and can find no such thing as this supposed donation, nor any thing that may import, that ever there was any such donation, neither can it stand with the course of things reported unto us by the ancient Historians and writers: Damasus at the request of Hierome, wrote the lives & actions of his Predecessors: & yet in the life of Sylvester reporteth no such thing. He addeth further, that having diligently perused the Charter of this grant, he found in it most evident arguments of forgery and falsehood, and therefore saith, he thinketh these things concerning Constantine's donation to be Apocryphal, as some other large writings attributed to Clemens & Anacletus the Popes. For first, the Epistle of Melchiades touching the Primitive Church, & the bounty of Constantine is proved sergeant, in that he speaketh of the Council of Nice, holden after his death, and of Constantine's donation, supposed to have been granted in the time of Sylvester, who succeeded him. Besides this, in the Charter of donation, Constantine professeth, that he was a Leper, that he was freed from the same by Sylvesters means, by whom he was baptised, and that he was first instructed in Christianity by him. Whereas it is a mere fable that is reported of Constantine's leprosy, and it is most certain that he was a Christian before Sylvester was Bishop of Rome. I no where ever read (saith 
b Locorum Theologic: lib. 12. c. 5.  Melchior Canus) in any good and approved authors, that Constantine was a Leper; But another of that name surnamed Copronymus, whence haply, through ambiguity of the name, this error might spring, unless this rumour concerning the Leprosy of Constantine may seem to have sprung from that we find reported of him: that he went out of the City of Byzantium to certain hot baths for his health's sake. Thomas Aquinas in his 
c 3. part. quaest. 69. in 4. argumento.  sum mentioneth this vulgar history of Constantine's Leprosy, and (as it seemeth) approveth the same; but Cajetan doth not so, writing upon Thomas; neither wanteth he good authors to induce him to reject this fabulous report: for he hath Platina in the life of Mark, 
d Lib. 2.  Ludovicus Viues in his book de corruptis disciplinis, and 
e Lib. Parerg. 7. c. 19  Alciat, all flatly denying and rejecting this report: and he hath all ancient writers of that age, passing it over in silence: who would never have omitted it, if they had known of any such thing, and would undoubtedly have known it, if there had been any such thing. Touching his Baptism, all the ancient Historians 
f In Chronic.  Hierome, 
g Lib. 4. de vita Constantin.  Eusebius, 
h Lib. 2. cap. 39  Socrates, 
i Lib. 1. hist. Eccles. c. 31.  Theodoritus, 
k Lib. 3. cap. 34.  Zozomen, 
l Tripart. hist.  Cassiodorus: Pomponius Laetus, and other of that rank affirm, that he was baptised by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, a little before his death, and not by Sylvester. The author of the Pontifical, who is full of fables, the feigned Charter of Constantine's donation, and some late writers, deceived by these late forgeries, affirm, that he was first converted to Christianity by Sylvester Bishop of Rome, and by him baptised, which by no means can be true: it being most certain he was a Christian in the time of Melchiades, Syluesters predecessor. It is most certainly true (saith 
m Concord. Cathol. l3. c. 2.  Cusanus) that Constantine the Emperor was a Christian in the time of Melchiades the Pope, as it appeareth by Austin in diverse places, especially in his Epistle to Glorius and Eleusius. These are proofs more than sufficient, that the Edict of donation attributed to Constantine is counterfeit and forged: and therefore 
n Vbi supra. Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus.  Melchior Canus writeth thus of it. The Lawyers do sufficiently show, that that form of donation, which is attributed to Constantine, and commonly carried about, is feigned and counterfeit, in that they brand it with the disgraceful inscription of chaff. Eusebius, Ruffinus, Theodoret, Socrates, Zozomen, Eutropius, Victor, and the other approved authors, who most diligently wrote all the acts of Constantine, do not only pass by this supposed donation, without making any mention of it, but also deliver, that Constantine by his last will and testament, so divided the Provinces, subject to the Roman Empire, among his three sons, that all Italy fell to the lot of one of them: which being so religious a Prince, he would not have done, if he had formerly given Italy, and all the Western part of the Empire to the Pope. 
o Lib. 15.  Ammianus Marcellinus reporteth, that Constantine held the Sovereignty of Rome, and appointed Leontius to be his Lieutenant there, & all Historians do report that sundry Emperors long after the time of Constantine's supposed donation, ruled & reigned as sovereign Lords in Italy: and even in Rome itself, 
p Epist. Agathonis. lecta in 6: actione. 4.  Pope Agatho writing to Constantine, that called the sixth General Council, acknowledgeth that Rome is Imperatoris seruilis urbs, that is, the Emperor's city in all humble and submissive subjection: and it is most evident that 
q Io. Diaconus. in vita Gregorij. lib. 1. c. 40.  in the time of Gregory the first, the Emperor held the city of Rome, and governed it by a Lord Deputy. But some man perhaps will say, that the acts of Sylvester in which this donation is found, are approved by Gelasius, and a Synod of Bishops, and that therefore we may not doubt of it. This allegation is easily answered. For (as 
r Concord. Cathol. li. 3. cap. 2.  Cusanus rightly noteth) it is a very weak and slender confirmation of the acts of Pope Sylvester, that is found in Gelasius, and the Synod of Bishops holden by him. For Gelasius saith only, the author of these acts is not known, and that yet they are read by some Catholics in the Church of Rome, and many Churches by ancient use imitate the same. The writings also (saith he) concerning the invention of the holy cross of our Lord, and some other writings concerning the invention of the head of Saint john Baptist, are truly but novel and late revelations, and yet some Catholics read them. But when writings of this kind shall come into the hands of Catholics, let that sentence of blessed Paul the Apostle be before them 
t 1. Thess. 5: 21.  Prove all things, and hold that which is good. Touching Gratian in whom this Charter of Donation is now found: 
u Hist. part. 1. tit. 8. cap. 2.  Antoninus' Archbishop of Florence noteth, that in the old books it was not found. And therefore it is rightly noted and distinguished from other things of more credit by the inscription of Pale●…, that is chaff, because there is no good corn in it as Platina observeth in the life of john the seaventh, with whom 
x Cap. cum Enixa Dist. 5. in annot.  Contius, the author of a Preface before the Decrees, agreeth; affirming that those things that are so noted, were at the first put into the margin only, and so after crept into the text, and that many of them are not found in the most ancient books of Decrees. And in his Annotations upon that 
y Part. 1. decr. Dist. 46. cap. Constantinus.  part of the Decrees, where this feigned charter of Constantine is found, insinuateth, that this Chaff is not in all books of Decrees. Touching Isidore, the 
z Centur. 4. c. 7.  Magdeburgians testify, that in old copies there is nothing found concerning this supposed donation, and the like may be thought of Iuo; so that there is no Author of any credit, that giveth testimony to this donation: and they that do speak of it, speak so differently and uncertainly, that from thence 
a Chronogr. ●…ol. 2. c ne'er. 11.  Nauclere gathereth that the whole is but a forged matter, and mere device. For in the 
b Vbi supra.  Decrees there is mention of a donation of the city of Rome, of all Italy, and other Provinces of the West, but in the feigned 
c Decret. 2. parte causa. 12. qu. 1. cap. 15.  Epistle of Melchiades, and in the 
d 6. Decretal. Bonifac: 8. lib. 1: tit: 6: electione & elect. potest: cap: 17:  Decretal of Bonifacius the vl there is no mention but only of the city of Rome: so that though it be not to be doubted, but that Constantine gave Princely gifts unto the Church, and other Emperors and Princes augmented the same in such sort, that the Church long since had ample possessions, great revenues, and a goodly patrimony in sundry parts of the West: yet I think we may most safely affirm with Platina, Otho Frisingensis, Cusanus, Valla, Nauclerus, Canus, and sundry other, that there never was any such donation as is imagined, but that both Rome and all Italy, with the Western Provinces remained still subject to the Empeperour, till the time of Pipine the father of Charles the great, being governed either by the Emperors themselves, or by such as they appointed when they lived away and made their abode in other places, as in process of time they resided in a manner altogether at Constantinople, made great by Constantine, and better liked of by his successors then Rome itself. Whereupon we read of one 
e Naucler: vol 2. Gen: 19: & 20.  Narses the Emperor's Lieutenant, a good man, and a good governor, who having vanquished the Goths, ruled the Romans in great peace and quietness for a long time; till moved with envy they made complaints of him to the Emperor justinus, and Sophia his wife, professing that it were better for them to be under the Goths again, then to endure the proud and insolent command of this Lieutenant. Upon which complaints the Emperor displaced him, and sent one Longinus to succeed him. Which thing so offended Narses, that he called the Lumbards' into Italy, whose coming made the Greek Emperors in time to lose Rome, and all Italy. Longinus the successor of Narses, after he was established in his place, (whereas before there were no Garrisons in the towns of Italy, but every city was governed by her own Magistrates) put garrisons into diverse towns, and brought in a new form of government into Rome, and into all Italy, which more afflicted it, than all the calamities that it had been subject unto for the space of 160. years before, though such and so grievous, that Rome was sometime left desolate, to be inhabited by wild beasts. This man brought in a new name of dignity, to express the honourable place and office, of the chief commander in Italy under the Emperor, calling it the Exarchate, and him that so ruled the Exarch. This Exarch remained at Ravenna, and went not at all to Rome: he appointed no one Precedent over a whole Province or country, but left every City to be governed by her own Magistrates, whom he called Dukes, and made none other difference between Rome and other cities, but that whereas the Governors of other places were called Dukes, the Governor of Rome first placed, was called a Precedent, and they that followed him Dukes, whence we read of the Roman Dukedom. Neither had the Romans after the times of Narses and Basilius, either Consuls or Senate lawfully called together, but all their affairs were managed by some Grecian Duke, whom the Exarch sent unto them. This form of government continued till the time of Leo the third, who breaking down Images in the East parts of the world, and seeking to bring the Pope and Christians of the West to do the like, procured himself so great dislike and ill will among them, (the Pope persuading them to contemn his commandments in this behalf as unlawful) that they of Ravenna and Venice began to rebel against him and his Exarch, and would have chosen a new Emperor, but that the Pope (in hope that he would amend) stayed them by his persuasions from so doing. 
f Idem. gener. 25. Rhegino. lib. 1.  Yet this rebellion proceeded so far, that the Cities deposed the Magistrates set over them by the Exarch, and appointed new of their own. The city of Rome slew Marius Spatharius, that was her Duke, and his son Adrian, and chose another. They of Ravenna were divided among themselves: whereupon the Exarch was slain, and in the mean while the Lombard's brought into Italy by Narses, and now grown to be strong, possessed themselves of Bononia, and other places. The Emperor hearing of these innovations in Italy, 
g Naucler. gener. 25. 〈◊〉  sent another Exarch, who sought to appease the Lombard's with gifts, and to incite certain Romans against the Pope to take away his life. So that the Pope was greatly distressed on every side, fearing both the Emperor and the Lombard's. But being encouraged by the people so to do, he excommunicated the Exarch, whom the Emperor had sent, and pacified the Lombard's, and afterwards wrought a reconciliation between the Exarch and himself: and persuaded him to go to Ravenna, and there to make his abode as other his predecessors had done. After this the Lombard besiegeth Rome again, and putteth the Pope and the inhabitants in great fear, yet did they not send to the Emperor for help, by reason of the great dislikes that were between them, as also for that there was little hope of any help to come from him, being scarce able to defend the City of Constantinople from the Saracens, but to Charles Martell, Father of Pipine, who by entreaty persuaded the Lombard to remove his siege and go away. After this again Aistulphus King of the Lombard's besieged Ravenna, & took it, and put the Romans into as great a fear, as ever they had been in before. Whereupon the Pope writeth to the Emperor, signifying in what state Rome and all Italy was, & that if he did not presently send aid, they must fall into the hands of Aistulphus. Upon these letters of the Pope, the Emperor sendeth to Aistulphus to persuade him to desist from invading his countries and territories, but effecteth nothing. And therefore the Pope consulteth with the Romans what was fit to be done. Who resolve to send to the Emperor, and to let him know, that if he would not presently come in person with the forces of the Empire to relieve Italy, they must be forced to seek defence and relief elsewhere. According to this resolution, messengers were presently sent to Constantinople, but not returning in time, the Romans were forced to seek to Pipine for help: who came in person, and restored the Bishop of Rome to his place from whence he was fled, forced Aistulphus to swear and give pledges to restore all things to him that he had taken away: but he was no sooner gone out of the country, but he did more mischief than ever, whereof Pipine understanding, gathered a new army and returned into Italy, with a full resolution to subdue this Tyrant, & to settle the peace of the Church of Rome. The Emperor hearing that the Romans had sought help of Pipine, sendeth to him great gifts and presents, and beseecheth him to restore Ravenna and the Exarchate to the Empire, whereunto of right it pertained, and not to give them to the Romans or Pope. Whereunto Pipine answered; That he was now the second time come into Italy, not for gain, but for his soul's health, and to repress the insolences of the Lombard's, that they might not hurt the Church, and that therefore he meant to take Ravenna and the Exarchate, and other parts of Italy out of the Lombard's hand, and to give them to the Pope and Roman Church▪ and so he did. Now the Exarchate was divided into two regions, the one named Pentapolis, containing five cities, to wit, Ravenna, Caesena, Classis, Forum Livii, and Forum Popilii: the other Aemilia wherein were Bononia, Rhegium, Parma, Placentia, and whatsoever land there is from the bounds of those of Placentia and Ticine to Adria, and from Adria to, Ariminium. But the state of things was not so settled by Pipine, but that Desiderius, who succeeded Aistulphus in the kingdom of the Lombard's, began a fresh to wrong the Church of Rome again, & therefore in the time of Adrian the Pope, Charles the Great, was entreated to come into Italy; which thing he willingly yielded to perform, and came to relieve them whom his father before had set free, and rested not till he had subdued the Lombard's, and restored to the Church of Rome all that which Pipine had given, confirming his gift with more ample privileges then before, and therefore to show their thankfulness to him, the Romans did him all the honour that possibly they could devil, and a 
g Dist. 63. cap. Adrianus.  Synod was holden in Rome called by Adrian, consisting of an hundred fifty and three Bishops, religious men and Abbots, and Adrian the Pope and the Bishops assembled in Council, with unanimous consent, yielded to Charles right and power to choose the Pope, and to order the apostolic See, they granted unto him also the dignity of being a Patrician, that is, a noble man of Rome, and besides all this decreed, that Archbishops and bishops in all provinces, should receive investiture from him: and that no man should be consecrated a Bishop, unless he were first approved and commended by the King, and invested by him: subjecting all such as should dare to go against this decree, to excommunication and confiscation of goods, if they should not speedily repent, and show themselves sorry for so doing. This privilege the French Kings enjoy in a sort unto this day, especially in certain Provinces of France. After this the second time, Charles the Great was occasioned to come to Rome, by reason of some violences offered to Leo Bishop thereof, at what time the Bishop of Rome considering, that the Emperors of Constantinople did hardly hold the title of Emperors, that they were able to yield little relief in time of need, and that they did in a sort forsake the Western part of the Empire, and besides all this, differed in some matters of religion: and on the other side, considering that Charles was a most mighty Prince, and one that deserved well of the Church, as Pipine and Martell had done before him, with the consent of the people of Rome, taking from him the title of a Patrician proclaimeth him Emperor.  
Thus we see Pipine gave certain countries to the Pope and Church, and Charles confirmed the same gift. But they did not so give them, but that they retained (as 
h De regno Italiae. lib. 4.  Sigonius noteth,) Ius, principatum, & ditionem, that is, the right sovereignty and royalty to themselves, and their successors, so that the Romans were to do the Emperor service, and pay him tributes, they were by an oath of fealty to oblige themselves unto him, and 
i As Lotharius did. Naucler. vol 2. generat. 28.  he by his princely power might appoint Magistrates to judge and rule the people, yet such was the encroaching of the Roman Bishops, that they could not endure long to be in this subjection, but sought wholly to cast off the yoke of the Emperors. Whereupon Frederick Barbarossa (as 
k Gener. 39  Nauclerus reporteth out of 
l De gestis Frederici. lib. 2. c. 5.  Frisingensis) some differences growing between him and the Pope, and Cities of Italy, inquired of the Princes and Lawyers, in what sort and how far forth the Cities of Italy were subject to the Empire: & they with one consent did all adjudge unto him all royalties, as coins, tolles, shippings, confirmation of dignities, of judges and Consuls, tributes and judgements anciently established, besides such other things as he might require when the Empire should stand in need. But the Pope alleged at the same time, that the Emperor might send to Ambassadors to Rome, without his connivance, and that they of his Exchequer might make no collection of money, in the Castles, Villages or towns, subject to the Pope, but only at that time when first he putteth on the Imperial Crown in Rome. And Otho Frisingensis addeth, 
m Radevici Frising. appen. ad Othon 'em de r●…b. gestis Frederici lib. 2. cap. 30.  that these articles were proposed to the Emperor by the Pope's Legates, to wit, that no messengers or Ambassadors should be sent to the city without the Pope's privity, seeing all the Magistrates of that town are the officers of Saint Peter, with all royalties: that no money should be collected out of the Pope's Lordships, but only at the time of the Emperor's Coronation; that the Bishops of Italy should only take the oath of fealty, and do no homage to the Emperor: and lastly that the Emperor's Ambassadors should not challenge any entertainment in Bishop's Palaces. To these Articles 
n Ibid.  the Emperor answered in this sort. I truly desire not the homage of the Bishops of Italy, if they please to renounce those royalties that do belong unto us: who, if they willingly hear from the Pope, What hast thou to do with the King? they must be content to hear from the Emperor also, What hast thou to do with mundane possessions? That our Ambassadors are not to able received and entertained, I will easily grant, if any Bishop may be found, whose Palace stands upon his own ground, and not upon ours. But whereas the Pope pretendeth that the Emperor may send no Ambassadors to Rome without his privity, that all Magistrates there are the officers of Saint Peter, this matter, I confess, is of moment and consequence, and will require a more grave and mature deliberation. For seeing by the providence and ordinance of God, I am the Emperor of Rome, and so called. I shall but only carry a show of a Sovereign Lord, and have the empty title without the thing, if the Sovereignty and command of the City of Rome be taken from me. Thus did the good Emperor seek to maintain the right of the Empire, yet out of a good and Christian disposition, was willing to refer all differences between the Pope and him, to the trial of law, or of arbitrement. But the Pope would not consent to any such thing. Wherein he showed more policy then good disposition, as knowing that he must needs fall in this suit, if the matter came to trial. For it is most evident, that 
o Supra.  Lotharius appointed Magistrates even in Rome itself, to judge the people; that the Nobles of Rome took the oath of fealty to the Emperor Ludovicus father to Lotharius. This oath was taken in the time of Frederick the first, in Verona; The form of the oath was this: 
p Radevici append. ad Othonem. lib. 1. c. 19  I do swear that from this time forward, I will be faithful and true to my Lord Frederick Emperor of Romans against all men, etc. And that I will never go about to take from him his royalties etc. These were the differences between Frederick Barbarossa and the Pope, and the opposition grew so great and strong, that divers of the Cardinals conspired against the Emperor, and gave large sums of money to Adrian the Pope to excommunicate him. And this conspiracy was confirmed with oaths, that none should draw back or seek the Emperor's favour without the rest. And that if the Pope should dye, they should choose none, but one of the conspiring Cardinals to succeed him, But as David said, 
q Psal. 109. 28.  They shall curse, but thou shalt bless: so GOD that spoke by the mouth of David, turned all that these conspirators did to a contrary effect. For it came to pass that some few days after the Pope had denounced 
r Naucler. vol. 2. gener. 39  excommunication against the Emperor at Anagnia, going forth to refresh himself with some few accompanying him; he drank of the water of a certain well, and presently a Fly entered into his mouth and stuck so fast in his throat, that by no skill of Physicians it could be drawn out, till he had breathed out his last breath. Yet were not the conspirators discouraged by this accident, but after his death, the greater part of Cardinals chose Rowland the Chancellor a professed enemy to the Empire, and one of the conspirators in contempt of Frederick and the german Nation, (though there were some other that chose Cardinal Octavian and named him Victor.) This Rowland naming himself Alexander the third, after he came to the Popedowe, had many dangerous conflicts with the Emperor, and was oftentimes put to the worse by him, in so much that in the end he was forced to disguise himself, and in the habit of a Cook, to fly to Venice, where he lived for a certain space in base condition: till in the end being known, he was honourably entertained, and kindly entreated by the Venetians: which when Frederick understood of, he was greatly displeased with them for entertaining his enemy, and sent his Son with a great Navy and strong army, by force and violence to fetch him thence. But such was the ill hap of the young Prince, that being encountered by the Venetians, he was by them taken prisoner: neither could his deliverance by any means be procured, unless Frederick would come in Person to Venice, and seek to be reconciled to the Pope: This hard condition the Emperor yielded to for his Son's sake; went to Venice in person, and was reconciled to the Pope upon this condition: that he should restore to the Pope the city of Rome, and whatsoever belonged to the royalty of it, and that he should do such penance as he should enjoin him: which being yielded unto, he came to the door of Saint Marks Church, and all the people looking on, the Pope commanded him to prostrate himself on the ground, and to ask forgiveness, and then treading on his neck said: It is written: 
s Psal. 91. 13  thou shalt go upon the Asp and Basilisk, and thou shalt tread upon the Lion and the Dragon: and when Frederick said unto him, Non tibi sed Petro cuius successor es, pareo: that is, I do not thus submit myself to thee but to Peter: the Pope answered, & mihi & Petro: that is, thou shalt do it both unto me and unto Peter. This story so lively describing the insolency and pride of the Pope, which hitherto hath gone for current, is now by certain Romanists called in question, (so little do they regard their own Historians, and so freely may they cast aside whatsoever standeth in their way.) Howsoever, we see how mainly the Popes did strive after they had gotten a kind of civil dominion under the Emperors, to cast off their yoke wholly, and not content therewith, sought to be Lords also over the Emperors, and to make them acknowledge that they hold their Empire from them. How and upon what occasion Leo the third, with the consent of the people of Rome, proclaimed & anointed Charles the Great, King of France by inheritance, and of Italy by conquest, and Emperor of Rome, I have showed before. Yet (as 
t Sabel. Ennead. 8. l. 8  Sabellicus noteth) the opinions of men in the world were greatly altered and changed after this new inauguration, for whereas before the Empire was thought to be from Heaven, and the gift of God: Now many began to 
u Which Ockam dial. l. 〈◊〉 tract. 2. part. 3. proveth to be false and heretical ●…y many reasons.  think it to be the gift of the Pope. Whereupon we read that Adrian the fourth upon the report of some villainies offered to the Bishop of Landa in the parts of Germany, as he returned from Rome, and not so pursued, sought out and revenged, as was expected, by Frederick Barbarossa then Emperor, writeth unto him, and marvelling at his negligence in revenging wrongs offered to men of the Church, putteth him in mind what benefits 
x Radevicus Frising in Append. ad Othon. l. 1. c. 9  he had received from him and the Church of Rome, as namely the fullness of Imperial dignity and honour, & the crown appertaining thereunto, and professeth that he would have been willing to have conferred greater benefits than these upon him, knowing right well how much good he might do unto the Church. 
y Ibid. c. 10.  This Letter being brought to the Emperor by two Cardinals, Bernard & Rowland, offended the Emperor & Prince's exceedingly, especially in that it was said in the Letter, that the fullness of dignity and honour was conferred upon the Emperor by the Pope, & that he had received the Imperial crown of his hand; and that it would not grieve him if he had received greater benefits of his hand. They which heard this Letter read, were induced to make a strict construction of the words, and to think the Pope uttered them in the sense which they conceived, because they knew well that certain Romanists had not feared to affirm, that the Emperors had hitherto possessed the Empire of Rome, and the Kingdom of Italy by the Pope's gift, and that they had not only uttered such words, but that by writing they had affirmed the same, and by painting lively represented it, that so it might be transmitted & sent over to posterities. For in the Palace of Lateran they had painted the manner of Lotharius the Emperor his receiving the Crown of the Pope, and written over it these words. Rex venit antè fores, iurans prius urbis honores, post homo fit papae sumit quo dante coronam. That is, the King doth come before the gate, first swearing to the city's state: the Pope's man then doth he become, and of his gift doth take the Crown. This painting and superscription being reported to the Emperor the year before, when he was near the city, by certain faithful and trusty subjects of his, greatly displeased him. But the Pope perceiving his dislike, promised that both the writing and the painting should be taken away, that it might give no occasion of contention & discord. These Romish practices making the Emperor and his Nobles to understand the words of the Pope's Letter in the worst sense, caused the message of these Cardinals to be very offensive, and a general murmuring against them was heard among the Princes: which growing more loud, and being heard and discerned by the Legates, one of them adventured in the quarrel of his Master to demand of whom the Emperor hath his Empire, if he have it not of the Lord Pope? Which speech of the Cardinal so enraged the Princes, that one of them, (to wit, Otto the County Palatine of Boiaria) had with his sword run him through, had not Frederick the Emperor interposed his authority, & pacified the present rage. The Emperor seeing in what terms things stood, took the best course he could for the security of the Legates, and commanded that they should presently be had to their lodgings, & that the next morning they should be gone, & return directly to him, that sent them, and not to wander up & down in the Territories of Bishops & Abbots; & as he thus happily dispatched them away in safety, so after they were gone (providently by letters) he caused it to be made known throughout the whole Empire, what had passed between him & the Pope. The Tenor of his letters was this. Whereas the divine power, from which all power proceedeth both in heaven and earth, hath committed to us, his anointed, the rule of the Kingdom and Empire; and ordained that by Imperial arms we should preserve the peace of the Churches, we are forced not without great grief of heart to complain unto you, that from the head of the holy Church (in which Christ imprinted the Character of his peace & love) the causes of dissension, the seminary of evils, and the poison of a most pestiferous disease do seem to flow: by means whereof if God turn not away this evil, there is danger, lest the unity betwixt the Priesthood & kingdom be broken, and a schism follow. For of late, as we were in the Court of Bisuntium, consulting about things concerning the honour of the Empire & good of the Churches, there came unto us certain Legates from the Pope who professed to bring such a message as tended greatly to the increase of the honour of the Empire. But when we had the first day honourably entertained them (as the manner is) and the second day sat with our Princes to hear their message; They (as it were) puffed up by reason of the Mammon of iniquity, out of the height of their pride, out of the haughtiness of their arrogant minds, and out of the execrable elation of their swelling hearts, presented unto us an Embassage contained in letters written by the Pope, the tenor whereof was: That we should always have before the eyes of our mind in what sort the Lord Pope had conferred upon us, the Ensign of the Imperial crown, and that yet notwithstanding it would no way repent him, if he had done us greater favours, and we had received more benefits of him. These things not only much affected, but so moved the Princes, and enraged them in such sort, that if we had not stayed them by our Princely authority, the two wicked Priests, (the Legates) had never returned alive. Wherefore seeing they had many schedules sealed to be written in at their pleasure, by which (as formerly they were wont to do) they might scatter the poison of their iniquity throughout all the Churches of the german kingdom; make bare & naked the holy Altars, & carry away with them the vessels of the house of God as a prey; that they might proceed no farther in mischief, we commanded them without wand'ring or going aside to return the same way they came. For whereas we have our kingdom by the election of the Princes from God only, who in the passion of his son subjected the world to 2 sword●… and the Apostle Peter informed the world with the same doctrine, saying, Fear God 
x 1. Pet. 2. 17.  & honour the King. We are well assured, that whosoever shall say, that we receive our Imperial crown as a benefit from the Pope, he is contrary to the institution of God, the doctrine of blessed Peter, & is a liar: and therefore our hope is, that you will not suffer the honour of the Empire (which hath continued from the Constitution of the City, and the Institution of Christian Religion, inviolable till our times) to be diminished by such unheard-of novelties & presumptuous pride. But howsoever know ye, that we will rather run into peril of death itself, then suffer such a shameful confusion to fall out in our times. 
a Radevic. ubi▪ suprà. cap. 15.  After the return of the Cardinals, & their complaints made, the Pope wrote letters to the Archbishops and Bishops of Germany, telling them with what indignity the Emperor dismissed his Legates, and how he forbade any to come to Rome out of his kingdom: and prayed them to advise him better, and to let him know, that the Church (which is builded upon a most firm & sure rock) shall continue for ever, howsoever it may be shaken with winds and tempests. 
b Cap. 16.  The Bishops of Germany having received these letters from the Pope, writ back unto him, that howsoever the Church cannot be moved, yet they were greatly shaken by reason of these differences between him and the Emperor: and tell him that the words of his letter were such as that neither the Emperor and Princes could endure them, nor they knew how to defend them, as being strange and unheard-of before these times. Notwithstanding they let him know, that after the receipt of his letters, they communed with the Emperor about these affairs, and received from him such an answer as beseemed a Catholic Prince, to wit, that there are two things whereby his Empire must be swayed; the Laws of Emperors, and the use and custom of his ancestors. These limits he is resolved not to pass, and whatsoever will not stand with these, he will utterly refuse and reject: he is willing to give all due reverence unto his ghostly father, but that he ascribeth the crown of his Empire to the divine favour only, the first voice in the election to the Archbishop of Mentz, and the rest to the other Princes in order: that he acknowledgeth to have received the unction of a King from the Archbishop of Coleyn, and the supreme unction, which is that of an Emperor, from the Pope: and that whatsoever is besides these, is more then enough, and proceedeth from that which is evil: that he had not sent away the Cardinals in contempt, but forbade them to proceed any further with such writings as they had, tending to the dishonour and scandal of the Empire: and that he had not restrained the going of men into Italy upon necessary occasions, to be allowed by their Bishops, nor simply inhibited the coming of men from thence, but that his meaning was to meet certain abuses, whereby the Churches of his Kingdom had been grieved, impoverished, and oppressed: all discipline of men living retired and in cloisters utterly overthrown. Lastly, that God having exalted his Church, by means of the Empire, in the head city of the world, it should not be by any means, that the Church in the head city of the world should overthrow the state of the Empire, that the matter began with painting, that it proceeded from painting to writing, that the writing now begins to be urged as good authority, but that he will not suffer it, nor endure it so to be, being resolved first to lose his crown before he give any consent to the abasing of the crown of the Empire in such sort: and therefore requireth the paintings to be razed out, and the writings to be recalled, that such monuments of enmity between the Kingdom & the Priesthood may not remain: & hereupon they beseech the Pope by new letters to mollify that which was too hard, and to sweeten that which was too sour in the former. 
c Cap. 17.  This so wise, just, and reasonable an answer of the german Bishops, prevailed so far with the Pope, that he sent other Legates of a milder spirit & better temper to the Emperor, with new letters wherein he sought to qualify whatsoever was offensive in the former: 
d Cap. 22.  for touching that he wrote of the benefit the Emperor had received of him (which so highly displeased the Emperor, supposing that he meant that he had received the Imperial crown, as a mere favour or good turn from him) he answered that howsoever the word Benefit be taken in another sense sometimes, yet he used it in that signification which it hath by Original institution and first imposition. So that the word Benefit being compounded of two simple words, been and factum, signifieth a good fact, or a thing well done, and in this sense his setting of the crown upon the Emperor's head might be called a benefit, not as being a mere favour or good turn, but for that it was well and honourably done of him to set the Ensign of Imperial majesty and power upon the head of him, to whom such power pertained, and so were things at that time pacified by the good endeavour of the Cardinals, and by this mild letter of the Pope. But afterwards they broke out again: Whereupon the Pope wrote in this sort to the Emperor. 
e Appendix vetusti scriptoris ad Radewinum in fine hist. O▪ thonis Frisingensis. Naucler. vol. 2. gener. 39  Adrian the Bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Frederick the Roman Emperor, greeting and Apostolical blessing. The divine law, as it promiseth long life to them that honour their parents, so doth it pronounce the sentence of death against them that curse father or mother. For we are taught by the voice of truth, that whosoever exalteth himself shall be brought low. Wherefore son beloved in the Lord, we do not a little marvel, that you seem not to give so much reverence to blessed Peter, and to the holy Church of Rome as you ought to do. For in your letters written to us, you put your name before ours; Wherein you incur the note of insolency, that I say not arrogancy; What shall I say of the fealty you promised and swore to blessed Peter? how do you observe it, when you require of them who are Gods, and the sons of the most High, to wit Bishops, the doing of homage unto you, and exact fealty of them, enclosing their sacred hands in your hands, and manifestly opposing yourself against us, shut not only the doors of the Churches, but the gates of the Cities of your kingdom also, against our Cardinals sent as Legates unto you from our own side? Repent, repent therefore we advise thee, of us thou receivedst thy consecration, and therefore take heed, lest affecting things denied unto thee, thou lose that which is yielded to thee. To this letter of the Pope, the worthy Emperor answered in this sort. 
f Ibidem.  Frederick by the grace of God, Emperor of Romans, to Adrian Bishop of the Catholic Church, wishing unto him a firm adhering and cleaving to all those things which jesus began to do & speak. The law of justice giveth to every one that which is his own. Neither do we offend in this behalf; for we derogate nothing from our parents, but give unto them in this our Imperial state all due honour, to wit, to those our Noble progenitors, from whom we received the dignity of our kingdom, and our Crown, and not from the Pope. Had Sylvester Bishop of Rome any thing pertaining to Royal state and dignity in the time of Constantine? was not liberty restored to the Church, and peace by his means? And hath not your Popedom received all such royal dignities as it now enjoyeth from Princes? And why then is it so much disliked, that when we write unto the Bishop of Rome, by ancient right, and after the old manner, we put our name before his, and according unto the rule of justice, permit him writing unto us to do the like? Turn over the Histories and Monuments of Antiquity, and if you have not yet observed it, you shall there find that which we avouch: and why should we not require homage and the performance of other duties due from subjects to Princes, of them who are Gods by adoption, and yet think it no disparagement to hold things pertaining to our Royal state? especially, seeing he who was author and beginner both of your dignity and ours, who never received any thing of any mortal King, but gave all good things unto all, paid tribute unto Caesar for himself and Peter, and gave you an example to do the like; either therefore let them put from them the things they hold of us, or if they think it behooveful to retain and keep them still, let them yield unto GOD the things that are GOD'S, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The doors of our Churches, and the gates of our Cities are shut against your Cardinals, because we find them not to be Preachers, but men desirous of a prey, not Confirmers of peace, but polling companions to get money, not such as come to repair the breaches of the world, but greedily and insatiably to gather gold. But whensoever we shall see them such as the Church requireth them to be, men bringing peace, enlightening their Country, assisting the cause of those of mean degree in equity and right; they shall want nothing that is necessary for them. To conclude; When you thus contend about things little pertaining to Religion, and strive with secular persons about titles of honour, you seem to have forgotten that humility which is the keeper of all virtues, and that meekness that should be in you. Let your Fatherhood therefore take heed, lest while you move questions about things unworthy to be stood upon, you scandalise them who with attentive ear listen to the words of your mouth, & wait for your speeches as for the latter rain. We are forced thus to write unto you, because we see the detestable Beast of pride hath crept up even to the seat of Peter. Provide always well for the peace of the Church, and fare you always well. Thus we see how the pope's not contenting themselves with the fullness of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, though they had no just title unto it, proceeded yet further; & partly by the favour of Christian princes, and partly by fraud and violence, got to be great princes in the world, & stayed not till they made challenge to be over the mightiest Emperors, & to dispose of their crowns & dignities. So showing themselues to have the perfect mark and character of him of whom the Apostle speaketh; 
q 2 Thess. 2▪ 4▪  Who sitteth in the temple of God as God, and is lifted up above all that is called God. Yet could they not so prevail in these their hellish practices, nor so carry away the truth of GOD, and the liberty of his Church into captivity, but that there were ever found both Christian Emperors, and learned Divines to resist them in their unjust claims.   

CHAP. 48.  
Of general Counsels, and of the end, use, and necessity of them.  
Having examined what may be said for proof of the Universality of the Bishop of Rome's power and jurisdiction, first we find that the Son of GOD gave him no power in the commonwealth, but a Fatherhood only in the Church. Secondly, that in the Church, he neither gave him an illimited power of commanding, nor infallible judgement in discerning, but that the greatest thing that either he can challenge or we yield unto him, is to be the prime Bishop in order and honour; the first and not of himself alone, or out of the fullness of his own power, but with the joint concurrence of others equal in commission with him, to manage the great affairs of Almighty God, and to govern the Christian Church: so that the fullness of Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction is in the companies, assemblies, and Synods of Bishops and Pastors, and not in any one man alone. I showed 
a Chap. 27.  before, that in the churches founded and established by the Apostles, containing whole Cities and places adjoining, though there were many ministers of the word and sacraments, yet one was so the Pastor of each of these Churches, that the rest were but his assistants, and might do nothing without him: and that therefore there was an inequality established even from the beginning, not of order only, but of degree also, between such as are Pastors of Churches, & are named Bishops, and such as are but their assistants named by the common name of Presbyters, yet is the power of him that excelleth the rest in degree in each Church 
b See D. Bilson of the perpetual government of the Church cap. 14. pag. 307.  fatherly not Princely: for things were so ordered in the beginning, that as the Presbyters could do nothing without the Bishop, so the Bishop in matters of moment might do nothing without his Presbyters: and thereupon the Council of Carthage decreeth, 
c Concil. Carthag. 4. Canone. 23.  that the Bishop shall not presume to hear and sententiate any man's cause without the presence of his Clergy. And though it be said that the Bishop alone may hear and determine the causes of such Clergy men as are below the degree of Presbyters & Deacons; yet that alone excludeth not his Clergy; but the concurrence of other Bishops, which in the causes of Presbyters & Deacons is necessarily required. For without the presence and concurrence of his Clergy, the Bishop may proceed to no sentence at all. If any difference grew between the Bishop and his Clergy, or if [consenting] any one found himself grieved with their proceedings, there was a provincial Synod holdentwise every year, in which the acts of Episcopal Synods might be reëxamined. These provincial Synods were subordinate to national & patriarchical Synods, wherein the Primate of a Nation or Kingdom, or one of the patriarchs sat, as Precedent. And in these national or patriarchical Synods the acts of provincial Synods might be reëxamined and reversed. Of all which I have spoken before, in due place and upon fit occasion, & have 
d Chap. 30.  showed at large of whom these Synods do consist. So that it is evident, that the power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction resteth not in Bishops alone, but in Presbyters also, being admitted to Provincial and national Synods, and having decisive voices in them as well as Bishops, nor in any one Metropolitan, Primate or Patriarch, within their several precincts and divisions, but in these and their fellow Bishops jointly, and that much less there is any one in whom the fullness of all Ecclesiastical power, and the right to command the whole Church doth rest. So that this fullness of power, is found only in the general assembly of Pastors, called a general Council. Wherefore now it remaineth that we speak of General Counsels. Wherein, first we are to consider the utility and necessity of such Synodall assemblies and meetings. Secondly, of whom they must consist. Thirdly, what assurance they have of divine assistance & direction: and, Fourthly, who must call them.  
Toucing the first, the causes why general Counsels are called, are three. The first is, the suppressing of new heresies, formerly not condemned. The second, a general & uniform reformation of abuses crept into the Church. The third, the taking away of Schisms growing in patriarchical Churches, about the election of their Pastors, & the rejecting of intruders, violently and disorderly possessing themselves of those patriarchical Thrones. And so we find, that the Council of Nice was called by Constantine, for the suppressing of the damnable heresy of the Arrians: the eight general Council, by Basilius, for the ending of the difference that was grown in the Church of Constantinople about Ignatius and Photius, contending for the Episcopal chair: and that all General Counsels, intended and sought the reformation of abuses, there being scarce any one wherein Canons were not made, for the reformation of disorders; in so much that the Fathers of the sixth General Council, having only condemned the Heresy of the Monothelites, and made no Canons, met afterwards again many of them, and made those Canons that are now extant, and are the chief direction of the Greek Church unto this day. These being the causes for which Counsels are called, it is evident that the holding of them is not absolutely and simply necessary, but in a sort only. For Heresies may be suppressed by the concurrence of Provincial Synods, holden in the several parts of the world; as they were in the first 300. years, when there were no General Counsels: But one part of the Christian Church seeking the help of another, in common dangers, and one part readily concurring with another (as for the extinguishing of a dangerous fire threatening all, or the repressing & repelling of a common enemy) by mutual intelligence passing from one to another; they abandoned Heresies newly springing up, and preserved the unity of the common faith. Neither was this course holden only in the time of persecution, during the first 300. years, but afterwards also, in the time of the Church's peace, we find the same course to have been followed, in the suppressing of the Pelagians; and therefore 
e Aug. lib. 4. contra duos Epist. Pelagian. cap. 12.  Austin affirmeth, that there were but some few heresies of that nature, that a General Council of all the Bishops of the East and West, was necessarily to be called for the suppressing of them. And indeed we find, that, if some five or six heresies have been condemned by the censure of General Counsels, an 100 have been suppressed and extinguished by other means. And of those, for the condemning whereof General Counsels were holden, some were not extinguished a long time after. For that of the Arrians grew stronger after, then ever it was before, and those of Nestorius and Eutyches, continued some hundreds of years after the ending of those Counsels, in which they received the sentence of condemnation. How is it then that 
f In praefat. Conciliorum.  Isidore saith, the Church before Constantine's time was divided & rend into diverse Factions and Sects, because there was no General Council? as if there were no other means to preserve Unity, but General Counsels, and that wheresoever they may be had, Peace were presently established. For the clearing hereof we say, that such new opinions, as growing up in those times, found a concurring dislike in the several Churches, seeking one to another, were then suppressed, when yet there could be no General Counsels, as the heresies of the Marcionites, Valentinians and the like. But they, wherein there grew difference among the chief Pastors and Bishops of the Churches, could not be determined in those times, as the errors of the Millenaries, of those that kept Easter after the jewish observation, and of those that held the necessity of rebaptising of such as were baptised by heretics: in which point many worthy pastors & Bishops of the Church did err, in the first ages of the Church, neither could their error be extinguished, as Austin noteth: nor the truth so cleared, as that all dissenters should incur the note of heresy, till the decree of a Council passed about it. 
g Aug. lib. 7. de Baptismo. contra Donatist. cap. 7.  Quaestionis huius obscuritas; (saith Austin) Prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati, magnos viros & magna charitate praeditos, Patres & Episcopos, ita inter se compulit, salua pace, disceptare & fluctuare, ut diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint, donec Plenario totius orbis Concilio, quod saluberrime sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus formaretur▪ that is, The obscurity of this question, in former ages of the Church before the schism of Donatus, did cause great men, and Fathers, and Bishops, endued with great charity, so to strive among themselves, and to waver as doubtful & uncertain, without breaking the bond of Peace, that for a long time the Decrees of Counsels in several Regions, were divers and different, without any settled certainty, till that which was most wholesomely conceived, was fully form, settled, and established by a plenary Council of the Bishops of the whole world, and no place left for doubting and uncertainty any longer. Thus we see that some heresies may easily be suppressed without troubling all the Bishops of the world to meet in a General Council, and that some others cannot easily be suppressed without General Counsels: & as heresies may be suppressed by the mutual concurrence of several churches; so by the like correspondence, the severity of discipline may be upholden uniformly, & schisms prevented. When Cornelius was elected and ordained Bishop of Rome, at the first, 
〈◊〉 Cypr. cp. 45. & 55.  because there was some opposition, Cyprian & others were fearful to write unto him as to the Bishop of Rome, but afterwardbeing fully informed, touching the lawfulness of his election and ordination, they rejected his Competitors, and communicated with him only: & the like we shall find to have been practised generally by all Bishops, carefully seeking to be certified out of other Provinces and parts of the Church, by such Bishops as were known to be Catholics, who came lawfully into places of Ministry, & being so come, held the unity of Faith and Charity, that so they might hold Communion with them, and reject those that entered otherwise. Whereupon 
i Vbi supra.  Cyprian telleth Cornelius Bishop of Rome, to whom in Africa he might write as to Catholic Bishops, & from whom he might receive letters, as from Catholics. Notwithstanding General Counsels are the best means for preserving of unity of doctrine, severity of discipline, & preventing of schisms when they may be had: & though they be not absolutely necessary to the being of the Church, yet are they most behooveful for the best, readiest, & most gracious governing of the same: & how-soever there may be a kind of exercise of the supreme jurisdiction that is in the Church by the concurrence of particular Synods, & the correspondence of several Pastors, upon mutual intelligence of the sense, judgement, & resolution of every of them; yet the highest & most excellent exercise of the supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is in General Counsels. here the Papists are wont to argue, that the Protestants having no General Counsels, have not the exercise of the supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: & consequently that they are not that Church, out of which no salvation is found: but this is a very silly trifling and playing with their own shadows; neither is it any thing else buta mere abusing of themselves & others, thus idly & fond to jangle. For first the Protestants being but a part of the Christian Church, never challenged to themselves the authority that belongeth to the whole, as the Papists do, who excluding all the Christians of Graecia, Armenia, Russia, & Aethiopia, out of the fellowship & communion of Saints, and (as much as in them lieth) casting them into hell; suppose a General meeting of those of their own faction, to be a General Council. And secondly, if the Protestants did think themselves to be the whole Church; yet their argument were of no force, seeing the whole Church may be without the benefit of General Counsels, much longer than the Protestants have been, since the division between them & the Papists: for the Christians of the primitive church had no general council for the space of 300 years after Christ. But to return to the point from which we are a little digressed (occasioned so to do by this frivolous objection of the Papists) touching the good and profitable use of General counsels, there is no difference between us & our Adversaries, but it is agreed on both sides, that though they be not absolutely necessary, yet they are very behooveful, & much to be desired in divers cases: neither ever was there any man of judgement that thought otherwise. For, that which 
k Ep. ad Procopium 102.  Nazianzen hath, that he never saw good end of any council, is not to be understood as spoken generally and absolutely, but respectively to the turbulent times wherein he lived, and the Arrian faction so prevailed, that many Synods were holden for the overthrow of the Nicene faith, without all respect to the good of the Church.   

CHAP. 49.  
Of the persons that may be present in General Counsels: and who they are of whom general Counsels do consist.  
Having spoken of the necessity, profit and use of General Counsels, it remaineth that we proceed to see, who they are, that may be present in such Counsels, and of whom they do consist. The persons that may be present, are of divers sorts. For, some are there with authority to teach, define, prescribe and to direct: others are there to hear, set forward and consent unto, that which is there to be done. In the former sort, none but only Ministers of the word, and sacraments are present in Counsels, and they only have deciding and defining voices; but in the latter sort, * Laymen also may be present: whereupon we shall find, that Bishops and Presbyters subscribe in this sort: Ego N. definiens, subscrips●…, that is, I, as having power to define and decree, have subscribed. But the Emperor or any other 
In the Council of Eliberis: in the first Council of Carthage about rebaptisation, and in the third Council of Rome under Faelix the third many of the people were present.  Lay-person, Ego N. consentiens, subscripsi: that is, I, as one giving consent to that which is agreed on by the spiritual Pastors, have subscribed. That the Emperor and other Laymen of place and sort may be present in General Counsels, no man maketh doubt. For though Pope 
a Dist. 96. cap. Vbinam.  Nicholas seem to deny, that the Emperors may be present in other Counsels, where matters of faith are not handled; yet he confesseth, they may be present in general Conncels where the faith, which is common to all, & pertaineth not to Clergymen alone, but to Laymen and all Christians generally, is treated of, it being a rule in nature & reason, 
b Occam. Dialog. 2. part. lib. 6. part. 1. c. 85.  Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debere: that is, that that which concerneth all, may be handled and meddled with by all, so far forth as conveniently it may, and as there is no manifest reason, in respect of the disturbance and hindrance of the deliberation, to repel them from such intermeddling: for, in such cases there may be a repelling of men having interest in such businesses and affairs: and therefore 
c In Epist. ad Strateg. Bithiniae ante Concil. Chalcedon.  Pulcheria the Empress, Commanded the Captain of Bythinia, with violence to drive out of the Council of Chalcedon, such Monks, Clerks, and Laymen, as being of no use, did but pester the Council, and to leave none there but such as the Bishops brought with them.  
But our 
d Bellar. l. 1. de concilijs c. 15.  adversaries say, the Protestants affirm that Laymen ought not only to be present in general Counsels, but also to have decisive yoyces, as well as they of the Clergy, and thereupon charge us with great absurdity. Wherefore, for the answering of this objection, we must observe, that there is a threefold decision of things doubtful and questionable. The one such as every one upon the knowledge of it must yield unto upon peril of damnation, upon the bare word of him that decideth. The second, to which every one must yield upon like peril, not upon the bare word of him that decideth, but upon the evidence of proof he bringeth. The third, such as every one must yield unto, not upon peril of damnation, but of excommunication, and the like censure Ecclesiastical. In the first sort the Protestants say, that only Christ the son of God hath a decisive voice: In the second sort, that any Laymen as well as Clergymen: for whosoever it is that bringeth convincing proofs, decideth a doubt in such sort, as that no man ought to resist against it. Whereupon 
e In Cap. Significasti de Electione.  Panormitan saith, that the judgement of one private man is to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope, if he have better authorities of the Old and New Testament, to confirm his judgement. And 
f Part. 1. de examine. Doctrinarum.  Gerson saith, that any learned man may and aught to resist against a whole Council, if he discern it to err of malice or ignorance; and whatsoever Bishops determine, their determinations bind not the conscience further than they approve that they propose, some other way then by their authority only. So that in this sense, the Protestants truly say, that Bishops must not proceed Praetor-like, but that all that they do, must be but in the nature of an inquiry, and their Decrees no farther of force, than reason doth warrant them. For, howsoever the Son of God hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, which shall be fulfilled in respect of his elect and chosen who cannot err damnably and finally, yet hath he not tied himself to any one sort or company of men, neither is it certainly known, but that all they that meet in a Council, may err notwithstanding Christ's promise. To which purpose it is, that Brentius, and other say, We cannot be certain of the determination of Counsels, because every company of men professing CHRIST, is not the true Church, seeing all that so profess, are not Elect; neither do they deny all authority and jurisdiction to such as are not known to be Elect, nor give it all to such as no man can know who they be (as 
g Li●…. de concilijs cap. 19  Bellarmine untruly saith they do,) for in the third sort they willingly acknowledge, that Bishops have deciding voices, & power so to judge of things, as to subject all those that shall think and teach otherwise then they do, to excommunication and censures of like nature. And that therefore they are properly judges; that their course of proceeding is not a bare Inquiry and search, but a binding determination, and that they have a Pretorlike power, to bind men to stand to that they propose & decree: and in this sort, we all teach, that Laymen have no voice decisive, but Bishops & Pastors only, which may be confirmed by many reasons. First, because, when the question is, in what pastures it is fit the sheep of CHRIST should feed, & in what pastures they may feed without danger, the duty of consulting is principally, and the power of prescribing, wholly, in the Pastors, though the sheep of CHRIST being reasonable, have and must have a kind of discerning, whether they be directed into wholesome & pleasant pastures or not. Secondly, none but they, whom Paul saith, 
h Ephes. 4. 11.  CHRIST going up into heaven; gave for the gathering together of the Saints for the work of the Ministry, have authority to teach, and to prescribe unto others, what they shall profess & believe: of whom the LORD said by jeremy the Prophet: 
i jerem. 3. 15.  I will give you Pastors that shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine. Thirdly, because in all Counsels, Bishops & Pastors only, are found to have subscribed to the decrees made in them, as defining & decreeing; howsoever other men testified their consent by subscription, and Princes and Emperors, by their royal authority, confirmed the same, and subjected the contemners and violaters thereof to imprisonment, banishment, confiscation of goods, and the like civil punishments, as the Bishops did to excommunication, and censures Spiritual.  
So that it is agreed on, that Bishops and Ministers only, have decisive voices in Counsels, in sort before expressed, but, the question is only whether all Ministers of the Word and Sacraments have such decisive voices, or none but Bishops. The Papists think, that this is the peculiar right of Bishops; but they are clearly refuted by the Universal practice of the whole Church, from the beginning. For, in all Provincial and national Synods, Presbyters did ever give voice and subscribe in the very same sort that Bishops did, whether they were assembled, to make Canons of discipline, to hear causes, or to define doubtful points of doctrine, as I have 
k Chap. 30.  before showed at large: and that they did not anciently sit, and give decisive voices in General Counsels, the reason was; not, because they have no interest in such deliberations and resolutions, but, because seeing all cannot meet in Counsels, that have interest in such businesses, but some must be deputed for, and authorized by the rest, therefore it was thought fit that Bishops, who are the chiefest among such as have interest in deliberation of this nature, should in giving decisive voices, supply the places of the rest, especially seeing the manner was ever in all the first Counsels, that the chief patriarchs, being acquainted with the matter, that should be debated, sent to all the metropolitans subject to them, who calling Provincial Synods, consisting of their Bishops and Presbyters, discussed such doubts, and then by common consent, choosing out certain principal Bishops, to go to the General Council in their name, sent by them their resolutions. So, that in effect, Presbyters did subscribe as well as Bishops: seeing they that went and subscribed, were not to vary from the instructions they carried with them. That this was the course, it is evident by that of 
l Euagrius, lib. 1. cap. 3.  john Bishop of Antioch in the third General Council, excusing his long tarrying, by reason that his metropolitans could not sooner assemble their Clergy to consult: and by the Acts of the sixth General Council 
m Epist. Agathon. & Rom. Synod. in actione 4. Synodi sextae.  where we find the suggestion of Agatho Bishop of Rome, sent to the Council, subscribed by himself and the whole Synod of the West, subject to the See Apostolic: in which Synod sundry Bishops do subscribe as Legates sent from national Synods. But if we shall come to latter Counsels, holden in the West, and esteemed (by the Papists) to be General, we shall find that Presbyters did give voices decisive in them, as well as Bishops. For 
n Platina in Innocent. 3  in the great Council of Lateran (as they call it) under Innocentius the third, there were but four hundred eighty two Bishops, but of Abbots and Priours conventual eight hundred: who yet have much less to do in the government of the Church, than Presbyters having care of souls. And 
o Lib. 1. de council. c. 1●….  Bellarmine himself confesseth, that by privilege and custom, Presbyters, as namely Cardinals, Abbots; and the Generals of the Orders of Friars, may give decisive voices in General Counsels; which they could not do, if by God's Law it pertained to Bishop's only. For there is no prescribing against the Law of GOD; and therefore I cannot see why the Romanists should so bitterly 
p Bellarm. ibid.  censure the council of Basil, because Presbyters were admitted to give voices in it. Having cleared who they are that are to be admitted to be present, and to give voices in General counsels, let us proceed to see what number of Bishops is required to make a General council, and what order must be kept in the holding of it. Touching the first, the Divines require three conditions to make a General council, whereof the first is, that the summons be General, and such as may be known to all the principal parts and provinces of the Christian World. The second, that no Bishop whence-soever he come, be excluded, if he be known to be a Bishop, and not excommunicate. The third, that the principal patriarchs be present with the concurrence of the particular Synods under them, either in person, or by their substitutes and Vicars, or at least by their provincial Letters, as the Patriarch of Rome was present in the second General council, (though he were not there in person nor by substitutes.) And hereupon the 
q Actione 6.  second council of Nice taketh exception to a certain Synod holden in Constantinople as not General, because neither all that were present did consent, neither was there a concurrence in it of the Bishop of Rome and his Bishops; either by his Vicars, or provincial letters; nor of the patriarchs of the East, to wit of Alexandria, Antioch, and jerusalem, and the Bishop's subject to them; and therefore pronounceth, that the words of those foolish men, assuming to them the name of a General council, were not a candle set on a candlestick, to give light to all in the house, but a mere smoke full of darkness, blinding the eyes of men, and were uttered as it were under the bed, and not upon the mountain of right belief, and that their sound did not go forth into all the earth, nor their words to the uttermost ends of the World, as the sound, voice, and words of the former six General counsels did. But that we may the better discern how far forth the presence of the chief patriarchs is necessary in General counsels, and that we be not deceived in this point, we must observe, that when we speak of patriarchs, either we understand them, and their Synods, or themselves singly and apart: If we speak of them in the former sense, no Synod can be accounted fully and perfectly General, to which the presence of any one of the chief patriarchs is wanting: and therefore the first council of Ephesus was an imperfect General council, when before the coming of john of Antioch, and his Bishops, it proceeded to the condemnation of Nestorius. And we see how great turmoil and confusion that hath caused, which could never be quieted and taken away, till Cyrill precedent of that council, and john were reconciled, and the Acts of the council confirmed by the joint consent of them both: and hence 
r Concor. cath. l. 2. c. 3.  Cusanus saith it is, that the eighth General council, when the Vicar of the Apostolical Throne of Alexandria came, rejoiced greatly, and said, we glorify the GOD of all, who hath supplied unto this universal Synod what was wanting, and hath now made it most full and perfect. But if we speak of them in the second sense, that is, singly and by themselves alone, in case of heresy or wilful refusal, the council may proceed without them, and yet want nothing that pertaineth to the perfection of a general Council, as did the Council of Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon, proceeding to the condemnation of Nestorius and Dioscorus, upon such evidence as they had against them, though they refused to present themselves in those Synods: so that the concurrence of the Bishop's subject to them be not wanting, as in the case of Nestorius and Dioscorus it was not. For the Bishop's subject to Nestorius subscribed to his condemnation, and the Bishops of Alexandria gave their consent to the condemnation of Dioscorus their Patriarch, and approved the proceedings of the synod against him, though they 
s Concil. Chalced. actione 5.  refused to subscribe to the acts and decrees of it, till they had a new Patriarch chosen in his place. Which refusal though it were ill taken at the first, yet were the fathers in the end persuaded, by the mediation of the judges, to forbear their subscription, till they might have time to choose a new Patriarch; so that it is not the personal presence, or concurrence precisely of those chief Bishops or patriarchs, to whom all other Bishops are subject, that is required to the fullness and perfection of a General Council, but the coming of some from the several Synods subject to the patriarchs, or from the patriarchical synod, where some out of all these do meet, or at the least the sending of Synodall letters, that so the consent of all may be had: The Provinces that are near the place where the Synod is holden, sending the greater number, and they that are most remote, sending some few, with instructions from the rest, or at the least their Synodall letters, expressing their opinion, judgement, & resolution. 
t Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. c. 17.  So in the Council of Nice, there were many Bs out of the East, but out of the West only two Presbyters out of Italy, one Bishop out of Spain, one Bishop out of France, & one out of Africa. But 
u Theodoret. hist. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 9  in the second and third Counsels, there were many out of the East, and none out of the West. But the Bishops of Rome, 
x Bellarm. ubi supra.  Damasus and Caelestinus, as patriarchs of the West, confirmed those Counsels, and gave consent unto them in their own names, and in the names of all the Bishops of the West, whom they had gathered together in Synods. In the Council of Chalcedon, there were none present out of the West, but the Legates of Leo, but he sent by them the consent of the Bishops of Spain, France, Italy, and other parts of the West: who having holden Synods in their several Provinces, wrote unto him, that they approved his judgement, touching the point in controversy, which was to be debated in the general Council; and that they would most willingly concur with him in the form of instruction, which he meant to send to the Council.  
Touching the order that must be kept in general Counsels. 
y Cusan. de Concord. Cathol. lib. 2. c. 3.  First the Book of God must be laid in the midst of them that are present. Secondly, the meeting must be openly and not in secret. Thirdly, it must be free, and every man must be permitted boldly to speak what he thinketh. Whereupon Pope Nicholas, when some objected to him the number of Bishops that met in the Council of Photius, answered, that the great concourse of Bishops in the Counsels of Nice and Chalcedon, was not so much respected as their free and religious uttering of their judgements and resolutions; and Agatho writing to Constantine the Emperor touching the Bishops that were to meet in the sixth general Council, hath these words: Grant free power of speaking, to every one that desireth to speak for the faith which he believes and holds, that all men may most clearly see and know, that no man, desirous and willing to speak for the truth, was fobidden, hindered, or rejected, by any terrors, force, threatening, or any other thing that might avert and turn him away from so doing. And as there must be a liberty and freedom of speech, in General Counsels, so there must be a desire of finding out the truth, and an intending and seeking of the common good, that private respects, purposes and designs be not set forward under pretence of religion; and therefore Leo the first, writing to the Emperor, of the error of the second Ephesine Counsel, hath these words. While private intendments, and designs were set 
z Leo. epist. 25.  forward, under pretence of religion, that was effected by the impiety of a few, that wounded the whole universal Church; we find by certain report, that a great number of Bishops, came together unto the Synod: who being come together in such great multitudes, might very profitably have been employed in deliberating and discerning what was fit to be resolved, if he who challenged unto himself the chief place, would have observed such Priestly moderation, as that (according to the manner and custom of such meetings, all men having freely uttered their opinions) that might peaceably and rightly have been decreed, that might both agree with faith, and bring them into the right way that were in error. But here we find, that when the Decree was to be passed, all they who were come together, were not permitted to be present: for we have been informed, that some were rejected and others brought in, who, at the pleasure of the foresaid Bishop, were brought to yield captive hands to those impious subscriptions: for that they knew that it would be prejudicial to their state, unless they did such things as were enjoined them. Which kind of proceedings, our substitutes sent from the Apostolical See, discerned to be so impious, and contrary to the Catholic faith, that by no violent means they could be enforced to consent thereunto, but constantly protested, and professed, (as beseemed them) that that which was there agreed on and decreed, should never be admitted or received by the Apostolical See. And a little after he hath these words. All the Bishops of those parts of the Church, that are subject unto us, as suppliants in most humble manner, with sighs and tears, beseech your most gracious Majesty, that, seeing both those Substitutes which we sent, did most constantly resist against such impious and bad proceedings, and Flavianus the Bishop offered a bill of appeal unto them, you would be pleased to command a general Council to be holden in Italy. 
a Vide haec omnia apud Cusanum loco cita●…o.  Thus we see what things are essentially required to the being of a Council, and what order is to be observed in it. The next thing that followeth in order to be entreated of, is the Presidentship of such and so sacred an assembly.   

CHAP. 50.  
Of the Precedent of General Counsels.  
TOuching the Presidentship of General Counsels, it pertained in a sort, to all the patriarchs, and therefore Photius in his discourse of the seven Synods, in diverse of them, nameth all the patriarchs, and their Vice-gerents, Precedents: as having an honourable pre-eminence, above and before other Bishops in such assemblies; yet we deny not, but that as these were over all other Bishops, so, even amongst these also there was an order; so that one of them had a pre-eminence above and before another. For the Bishop of Alexandria, was before the Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome before him, anciently, even before the time of the Nicene Council; and afterwards the Bishop of Constantinople, made a Patriarch, was set before the other two, next unto the Bishop of Rome. And as these were thus one before another in order and honour, so they had pre-eminence of honour in Synodall assemblies, accordingly, in sitting, speaking, and subscribing, though this were not always precisely observed. For 
a Euseb de vita Constantini li. 3. cap. 10. & 11.  in the Council of Nice, there being two ranks of seats; the one in the one side of the hall, & the other in the other, where the Council met, the Emperor sitting in the midst, in the upper part of the hall, Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, sat in the highest seat in that rank that was on the right hand, and made the Oration to the Emperor; but in subscribing, many were before him. And Hosius the Bishop of Corduba in Spain, a man of great fame was chief precedent, composed the form of faith there agreed on, and subscribed it first, and then in the second place the Presbyters, that were the Vicegerents of the Bishop of Rome, who in respect of his old age could not be present, subscribed to the same form of faith, and after them Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria. That Hosius was Precedent of the Council of Nice: and of many other Counsels besides, we have the testimony of 
b Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes.  Athanasius. The reason why he being a Bishop of so mean a place, should be so honoured and set before all other, was the good opinion that all men held of him being a man famous and renowned throughout the world, 
c Theodoret. hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 7.  which moved Constantine after he heard of the differences in the Church of Alexandria, between Alexander and Arrius, to send him thither before ever he thought of calling this Council, hoping that by his wisdom and authority he might quiet all. But our Adversaries, lest any prejudice might grow to the Church of Rome by this ill precedent of the council of Nice, in admitting so mean a Bishop to be her precedent, & neglecting the Bishop of Rome, adventure to say, that Hosius was not precedent in his own right, but as the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent, and supplying his place, though they be no way able to prove the same, and the clear evidence of the thing itself reprove them. For the 
d Euseb. l. 3. de vit. Constant. c. 7.  Histories speak of Presbyters the Bishop of Rome sent to supply his place, but mention not Hosius as employed in that sort: which they would not have omitted, if he had been employed so also; and besides in the subscriptions, both as they are found in the ordinary Edition of the council of Nice, and that which is out of the Greek book found in the Vatican, put forth by Pisanus the jesuit, Hosius subscribeth first without any signification of his supplying the place of the Bishop of Rome, as Legates are ever wont to do, and as Vitus and Vincentius his Legates do in this Council: for the form of their subscription is this, We have subscribed for, and in the name of the most reverend man, etc. So that that which 
e Lib. 1. de council. c. 19  Bellarmine allegeth out of a certain preface before the council of Sardica, the Author whereof is not known, is little to be esteemed, as no way able to weaken the authorities and reasons which we bring. Touching the second General Council, the Council of 
f Actione 6. p. 136. apud Bin.  Chalcedon expressly affir meth, that Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was precedent of it, and, if we look to the subscriptions, we shall find that he subscribed first, and before all other. So that it is evident, that Damasus then Bishop of Rome, was not precedent of that assembly. And 
g Vbi supra.  Bellarmine confesseth as much: but he faith, if he had been present, he had doubtless been precedent: which haply may be true, yet his reason to prove it, is not good, which he taketh from the Epistle of the council to Damasus. For in that Epistle the Fathers and Bishops acknowledge themselves members of that body, whereof 
h Apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9  Damasus and his company are a part: but do not call him their head, as he untruely reporteth. Neither doth the Epistle of Damasus to the Fathers of the council, yield any better proof. For though he call them sons, yet it will hardly follow, that they would have taken him for a precedent of their meeting, especially seeing it is probably supposed, that they therefore stayed of purpose at Constantinople, that more freely, and with greater authority they might compass such things as they intended, then if they should have gone to Rome, where Damasus with his Western Bishops might have crossed, or at least in some sort hindered their intendments and designs. In the third General council, which was the first at Ephesus, Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria was Precedent, as it appeareth evidently by the acts of the council, and the Histories of those times: and had also the authority of Caelestinus Bishop of Rome joined unto him, as may be seen by the 
i Act. conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 16.  Epistle of Calestinus written unto him, which is found among the Acts of the Ephesine Council. Whereunto agreeth that of Valentinian and Martian, in their 
k Conc. Chalced. actione 3.  Epistle to Palladius, expressly saying, that both Caelestinus Bishop of Rome, and Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, were precedents of the Council of Ephesus: and also that of the whole Council of 
l Actione 4.  Chalcedon, professing expressly, that both Caelestinus and Cyrill were precedents of that assembly: which thing the very Acts of the council itself, sufficiently prove: in which he is described to have moderated all, as chief and principal among the Bishop's present, yet not by his own authority alone, but supplying also the place of Caelestinus Bishop of Rome. And in like sort 
m Lib. 1. c. 4.  Euagrius doth not say, that he supplied the place of Caelestinus, as if he had not been precedent in his own right: but that he also supplied the place of Caelestinus: for so it is in the Greek: & 
n De 7. Synod.  Photius saith, Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, (who also supplied the place of Caelestinus B. of Rome) & Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, and juvenal Bishop of jerusalem, were Precedents of the first council of Ephesus. Thus it is evident, that Cyrill sat as Precedent in the council of Ephesus, though not without the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, who joined his authority with him, and sent his own resolution, and the resolutions of his Bishops unto him, and the Council, though he 
o Act. Concil. Ephes. tom. 2. cap. 17.  sent none out of the West to that meeting, till long after the Council was begun, and many things therein done. In the fourth General Council, holden at Chalcedon, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, had the first and chiefest place: but in the fifth, Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople sat as Precedent, and had the first place. And 
p Binnius in Annotat. in Concil. 5.  though Vigilius then Bishop of Rome, being at that time at Constantinople, could neither be induced to be present, nor to agree unto it, while it was holden, nor to confirm and allow it when it ended, yet it was judged a lawful General Council, and he and so many more as resisted against it, for their wilful dissenting, were sent into banishment. This Council was called by justinian the Emperor, to examine and condemn an Epistle of Ibas; certain works of Theodoret, and the person of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, who all were thought favourers of Nestorius, and yet received to grace in the Council of Chalcedon, in hope that they would thereupon embrace and receive that Council, which were averse from it; as thinking (though untruly) that it favoured the Nestorians; as also to condemn the errors of Origen & his followers. That this Council, notwithstanding the contradiction of Vigilius, was admitted & received as a true and lawful General Council, it appeareth by Gregory Bishop of Rome, who having allowed of the first four General Counsels, addeth these words; 
q Greg. lib. 1. Epist. 24. ad joannem Constantinopol.  I do also in like sort reverence and honour the fifth Council, in which the Epistle of Ibas, full of error, is rejected, in which Theodorus, separating and dividing the person of the Mediator of God and Men, & imagining two subsistences in Christ, is convinced to have fallen into perfidious impiety: and in which also the writings of Theodoret (wherein the faith of blessed Cyril is reprehended,) are found & pronounced to have been published by a boldfoolishnesse: but I truly reject all those persons, which the forenamed reverend & sacred Counsels do reject, and embrace & honour those which they reverence and honour, because being established and agreed unto, and things settled in them by general consent, he destroyeth and overthroweth himself & not them, whosoever presumeth either to lose those whom they bind, or to bind those whom they lose. Whosoever therefore shall be otherwise minded, let him be anathema. So that the Presidence and presence of the Bishop of Rome, is not so necessary in General Counsels, but that in case of his wilful refusal a Council may proceed & be holden for lawful, without his consenting to it. It is true indeed, 
r Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13.  that the Canon of the Church prescribeth, that no General Council shall be holden without the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop's subject to him; but the meaning of the Canon is not, that 
s Cusanus Concord, Cathol. lib. 2. ca: 2. lib. 3. cap. 15.  all proceedings are void and unlawful, wherein his presence is not had, but wherein it is not sought & expected: for, if he wilfully refuse to join with the rest, or his negligence be intolerable, the state of the Church requiring, that order be presently taken, they may proceed without him, as appear by the Eight General Council, wherein some things were resolved on, before the coming of the Vicars of the Bishop of Rome: and by this fifth, wherein neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any of his Bishops would be present, nor give any consent unto it, and yet it is reputed a lawful General Council. And, as a Council may be holden in such a case, without the presence or concurrence of the Roman Bishop, and those that are subject to him, so being present, if he refuse to concur in judgement with the rest, they may proceed without him, and their sentence may be of force, though he consent not to it; as we see in the Council of Chalcedon. And though General Counsels, wherein the Bishop of Rome, with his Bishops, refuse to be present, or being present, to give consent to that which is decreed, be not so full and perfect, as they are that have his concurrence together with the Bishop's subject to him, and therefore the like effect doth not presently follow; yet we shall find, that all such determinations, consented and agreed unto uniformly, by all the other patriarchs, do in the end generally take place. So that even the Romans themselves are forced to yield unto them; as we see it came to pass, that the Decrees of the fifth General Council, wherein the Romans refused to be present, and to which they would yield no consent, were soon after generally received; the Romans themselves yielding unto them; and 
t Vide Acta ●…orum Conciliorum.  likewise the acts of the Fourth general Council, wherein the Decree of equalling the Bishop of Constantinople, to the Bishop of Rome, and preferring him before the other patriarchs, passing without the consent of the Bishop of Rome's Legates, and resisted by the Bishops of the West, yet prevailed in the end, and forced the Ro●…e Bishop to yield unto it. For after the time of justinian the Emperor, none of the Bishops of Rome was ever found to contradict it any more. So that to conclude and resolve this point, even as no Chapter-act is good, wherein the meanest (having voice in Chapter) is refused, neglected, or contemned: and much less, wherein he that is chiefest and Precedent is contemned: and as the Acts of Provincial Synods are void, wherein the meanest Suffragan is not called & expected: so there is no question, but that all the acts of general Counsels, are void, wherein the Bishop of Rome, so long as he continueth Catholic, & keepeth his own standing, is not specially above all other expected and desired. But, as things may pass in these assemblies, without their consent, whose presence is so necessarily to be sought (as we see in provincial Synods the mayor part swayeth all, and the Metropolitan hath no negative,) see in a general Council, things may pass by the consent of the greater part, not only without the consent, but even against the liking of the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops. In the sixth and seaventh General Counsels, the Bishop of Rome's Legates, and Vice-gerents (in a sort) had the Presidentship: yet so, as that Tharassius Bishop of Constantinople: rather performed the duty of a Moderator & Precedent in the seaventh, than they, as it will easily appear to any one that will but take a view of the Acts of that Synod.  
So that we find that neither the Bishop of Rome had the Presidentship in all Counsels, nor that there was any certain and uniform course holden in giving preeminences to the chief Bishops, in the first seven General Counsels. For 
u See the acts of these counsels.  in the Council of Nice, Hosius doth first suscribe: after him, the presbyters, that supplied the place of the Bishop of Rome: then Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of jerusalem after all the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, and Lybia; and the Bishop of Antioch after all these, and the Bishops of Palaestina, and Phoenicia also, and yet he sat in the highest place on the right side. In the second, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any Western Bishops were present: the first that subscribed was Nectarius, the next Timothy of Alexandria and after him Dorotheus, than Cyril of jerusalem, and Meletius of Antioch after him, and after all the Bishops of Palaestina and Phoenicia. In the third, Cyril subscribed first, and after him Iwenall Bishop of jerusalem, for john of Antioch came not before the condemnation of Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople (to which they subscribed) was passed. In the fourth, to the condemnation of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria: First the Legates of Leo Bishop of Rome subscribed: then Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople: after him the Bishop of Antioch, and Iwenall Bishop of jerusalem, almost after all the Bishops in the Synod, though in the order of sitting he was placed in the fifth place: but where they subscribe to the decree touching matter of faith, he subscribeth in the fourth place, after Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch. To the act for advancing the see of Constantinople, and setting it before the rest of the patriarchical thrones next to Rome, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome subscribe not, but Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople in the first place; after him, Maximus of Antioch; and in the third place, Iwenall of jerusalem. In the fifth, they sat and subscribed in this sort. First, Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople, than Apollinarius of Alexandria, after him Domninus of Antioch, and last of all the Legates of Eustochius of jerusalem: for the Bishop of Rome was not there in person, nor by his Legates. In the sixth, the Emperor sat in the highest place, in the midst: His great men, and the Consuls sat by him: on the left side the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, the Vicars of the Bishop of jerusalem, & the Bishops that were present out of the Roman Synod: On the right side, sat first, the Bishop of Constantinople, next him the Bishop of Antioch, than he that supplied the place of the Bishop of Alexandria, and so in order the Bishop's subject to them: yet in subscribing, the Bishop of Rome was first, Constantinople second, Alexandria third, Antioch fourth, and jerusalem last. In the seaventh, the Legates of Adrian Bishop of Rome had the first place, and subscribed first: after them the Bishop of Constantinople Tharassius; and then they that supplied the rooms of the other three patriarchical Thrones. But Tharassius rather performed the duty of a Precedent & Moderator, than the Legates of Rome, as I showed before. These are all the General Counsels that the Greek and Latin Churches jointly acknowledge; & by this view which we have taken of them, we may see how diversely things have been carried, both concerning the Presidentship in General Counsels, and the preeminences of the chiefest Bishops in the same.  
Yet, as the Grecians were content in the 
x Sess. ult.  Council of Florence, that the Bishop of Rome should have all such preeminences again, as he had before the division of the Churches, if other matters might be agreed on: So if the Bishop of Rome would disclaim his claim of universal jurisdiction, of infallible judgement, and power to dispose at his pleasure the Kingdoms of the World, and would content himself with that all Antiquity gave him, which is to be in order and honour the first among Bishops, we would easily grant him to be in such sort Precedent of General Counsels, as to sit and speak first in such meetings: but to be an absolute commander, we cannot yield unto him. Cardinal 
y Summa de Eccles. l. 3. c. 23▪  Turrecremata rightly noteth, that the Presidentship of Counsels whereof men do speak, is of two sorts, the one of honour, the other of power. Presidentship of honouris, to have pre-eminence in place, to propose things to be debated, to direct the actions, and to give definitive sentence according to the voices and judgement of the Council. Presidentshippe of power is, to have the right, not only of directing, but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Council, and to conclude of matters after his own judgement, though the greater part of the Council like it not, yea though no part like it. A Presidentshippe of the former sort, Antiquity yielded to the Bishop of Rome, when he was not wanting to himself. And if there were no other differences between us and him, we also would yield it him; But the latter kind of presidentshippe we cannot yield, unless we overthrow the whole course of Counsels, and go against the stream of all Antiquity. This seemeth (saith 
z Desacris Eccles. minist. & benef. l. 3. c. 2  Duarenus) to be consonant unto the Law of GOD, that the Church which the Synod doth represent, should have the fullness of all power, and that the Pope should acknowledge himself subject unto it. For Christ did not give the power of binding and losing to Peter alone, whose successor the pope is said to be, but to the whole church. Although I do not deny, but that he was set before the rest of the Apostles; yet so often as any one was to be ordained, either Bishop, or Deacon, or any thing to be decreed, that concerned the church; Peter never took it to himself, but referred it to the whole church. But herein did his pre-eminence stand and consist, that as prince of the Apostles it pertained to him to call the rest together, and to propose unto them the things that were to be handled; as with us at this day the precedent of the court of parliament calleth together the whole Senate, and when occasion requireth, beginneth first to speak, and doth many other things, which easily show the greatness of the person which he sustaineth: and yet notwithstanding he is not greater or superior to the whole court; neither hath he power over all the Senators; neither may he decree any thing contrary to their judgements. But the judgement of all controversies pertaineth to the court itself, whose Head the precedent is said to be; nay, which is more, the court commandeth, judgeth, and punisheth the precedent as well as any other, if there be cause so to do. And these things truly were likewise in the Ecclesiastical state heretofore, but I know not by what means it is now brought about, that supreme power over all Christians is given to one, and that he is set free from all Laws and canons, after the example of the Emperors.  
This is the judgement of the learned and worthy Duarenus; yet the Jesuits, and jesuited papists at this day, will needs have the pope to be precedent of General counsels, in such sort, that he may conclude of matters after his own judgement and liking, though the greater part of the council like it not, yea, though no part like it. But this their conceit is easily refuted: first by reason, & then by the practice of the church from the beginning. For first, either Bishops are assembled in General Counsels, only as the Pope's Counsellors to give him advise; or they are in joint Commission with him, and sit as his fellow judges of all matters of faith and discipline. If only as Counsellors to advise him, Counsels should not consist only or principally of Bishops. For, as they say commonly, that many a doting old woman may be more devout, and many a poor begging Friar more learned than the Pope himself: so there is no question, but that many other may be as learned and judicious as Bishops; 
a Augustin. Ep. 19 ad Hieron.  Though (saith Austin) according to the titles of honour, which the custom of the Church giveth men, Austin a Bishop be greater than Hierome a Presbyter, yet Hierome in worth and merit is greater than Austin. In the late Council of Trent, there is no question, but that Andradius, Vega, and other Doctors that were there, were every way comparable with the greatest Bishop or Cardinal; yet Bishops only as of ordinary right, and some few other, by special privilege, gave decisive voices in that Council: other, how learned soever, being admitted only to discuss and debate matters, and thereby to prepare and ripen them, that the Bishops might more easily judge of them: and therefore the current of most Papists is against that conceit of making Bishops to be but the Pope's Counsellors only, as appeareth by 
b De Gener. Concil. authoritate. lib. 1. pag. 46. & 47.  Andradius, 
c Loc. Theolog. lib. 5. cap. 5.  Canus, 
d De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 18.  Bellarmine, and many more. That Bishops (saith 
e Loco citato.  Melchior Canus) are not Counsellors only to advise, but judges to determine all matters doubtful touching Faith and manners; may easily be proved by the proceedings of all ancient Counsels. For the Fathers of the Nicene Council, desire Sylvester to confirm what they have decreed; and Leo professeth, that he approveth all those things which the Council of Chalcedon decreed touching the Faith: and the Council itself speaking to Leo saith, Honour our judgement with the concurrence of thy Decrees. And the sixth 
f Actio. 18.  General Council saith: We anathematise Theodorus, Sergius, Syrus, etc. And a little after: All these things being determined by this holy Council, and confirmed by our constant subscription, we decree, that no man make any farther ado about matters of faith, etc. Are these the words of him that only giveth advice and counsel? or of him that judgeth and determineth what shall be believed and done? and in all the rest, the Fathers speak not as Counsellors that are to advise, but as judges that have power to determine: For the third chapter of the Nicene Synod hath thus: The great Synod hath altogether forbidden, etc. Thus far Melchior Canus, learnedly and strongly proving, that Bishops are not present in General Counsels, as the Pope's Counsellors to advise him; but as judges together with him to define and determine: which if it be granted, we may easily in the second place prove, that the Pope may not determine things of himself contrary to the judgement of all the rest. For, though the chief Precedent of a Company, may have a negative voice, against the affirmative of all the rest, yet never was there any company of judges, having power to judge and determine, wherein one might not only dash what the rest agreed on, but determine also what he pleased, though none concurred with him. When in any commission, some certain number of men may determine and resolve, and none hath power to contradict, they are absolutely judges, & the power of judging resteth wholly in them; when in their resolutions they may be so gainsaid by others, that yet others can do nothing without them, they are judges in part, & the power of judging resteth in part in them; But when another may dash what they consent on, and do what he pleaseth, whatsoever they say to the contrary, they may be in the nature of Counsellors to advise, but not of judges to determine. For wheresoever there are many judges, either the power of determining, both affirmatively and negatively resteth in the Mayor part; or else any one hath an absolute negative, and only the concurrence of all an affirmative, as in juries here in England; or thirdly, either one man, or some certain men have their negative, and the affirmative is only in the Mayor part. And therefore it is most fond and frivolous, that Canus hath in answer to this our argument; for whereas we say, if Bishops be judges, the Pope may not resolve against the Mayor part of them, he hath these words; 
g Canus loco 〈◊〉. pag. 164.  I deny that it is necessary to follow the judgement of the Mayor part, when we treat of matters of Faith, neither do we here measure the sentence by the number of voices, as in humane elections or judgements; Knowing that oftentimes it comes to pass, that the greater part doth overcome the better; that those things are not always best, which please most; and that in things which pertain to doctrine, the judgement of the wise is to be preferred, and the wise are exceeding few, whereas there is an infinite number of fools. Four hundred Prophets did lie unto Achàb, but the truth came out of the mouth of one Michaeas alone, and he very contemptible, and therefore the judgements of Divine things are not to be moderated by humane reasons: The Lord saveth and delivereth, sometimes, sooner with a few then many. This saying of Canus is contrary to all course of judgement in the world, and contradicted by his own fellow and friend Cardinal 
h Lib. 1. de Concilijs. cap. 18.  Bellarmine, who saith, that in Counsels, things are to be carried by number of voices, and not by disputation; that in the Council mentioned in the Acts, the question was defined by the voices of the Apostles: and that in the Council of 
i Actione. 4.  Chalcedon the ten Bishops of Egypt were condemned as Heretics, because they yielded not to the Mayor part of that Council. Thus doth he cross his fellow Canus. But let not Canus be offended with him for so doing; for he will presently cross himself also: for I hope he thinketh the Bishops of Egypt were rightly judged Heretics for refusing to subscribe to the judgement of the Mayor part of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon (seeing he bringeth this censure to prove that the determinations of Counsels do bind the conscience) and then it will follow, that the greater part of Bishops in a General Council cannot err; which yet he presently denieth, 
k Eodem Capite.  and saith the greater part of this Council did err, and resolved that which was reversed by the Pope. If he say that those ten Bishops of Egypt, refused to subscribe to that which was agreed on by the Mayor part with the Legates of Rome, and that therefore they might justly be judged Heretics, as contradicting the judgement of them that cannot err, it standeth no better with his resolution 
l Lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 11.  elsewhere, that the Mayor part of Bishops in a General Council, with the Legates, may err. But passing by these Contradictions and absurdities of the Cardinal, let us see if he can clear this doubt any better, which hath so much troubled Canus. For the avoiding of this one poor argument, he is forced to divide the Pope, as otherwise finding no means to escape the force thereof. 
m Lib. 1. de Concilijs. cap. 18.  The Pope therefore (he saith) may be considered two ways; either as he is Precedent of a Council, and so he is tied to follow the Mayor part; or as he is chief Prince in the Church, and so he may go against the Mayor part, and resolve what he pleaseth of himself: and yet this divided consideration no way deuideth or breaketh the force of our argument, but leaveth it entire and whole as it found it. For we seek not the difference between a Precedent and a chief and absolute Prince, but whether the Bishop's sitting in Council with the Pope, be his fellow judges, or not: which they cannot be, if he may not only dash what they would do, but also do what he pleaseth without them. And besides this, if the Pope do sit in General Counsels as Precedent, and so as bound to pronounce according to the Mayor part of voices in all Decrees, than he sitteth not there as absolute Prince, having power not only to dash what others would do, but also to do what he pleaseth of himself without them, and contrary to their judgements; and so cannot define and determine contrary to the judgement and resolution of the Mayor part. The only answer that may be imagined to this objection, is, that as inferior judges may determine a thing, which yet by a superior authority may be reversed, and the contrary decreed, so the Bishops in a General Council, as judges, may decree and determine, and yet the power of reexamining and reversing all, if need be, may rest in the Pope as superior judge unto them, which yet no way cleareth the doubt. For howsoever it be true in judges and judgements, distinct, separate, and subordinate one to another, that one may dash that the other doth, and do the contrary without the consent of the other, yet of judges joined in one Commission, and of the same judgement it cannot be so conceived. Now the judgement of the General Council includeth in it the judgement of the Pope; the Pope and Council make one judge, and are not separate, distinct, and subordinate judges, and therefore no such thing can be said of them. If it be said that he who is joined in commission with others, in some inferior Court, and hath a Negative voice in it only, and no absolute affirmative, may in a superior Court have both, and that therefore the Pope, who hath no absolute voice affirmative and negative in a General Council, may have such a voice in some higher Court, it will be found to be too shameless a saying. For there neither is, nor can be any higher Court than that of a General Council consisting of the Bishop of Rome, and all the other Bishops of the World. So that all answers failing, we may safely conclude, that if Bishops be judges Ecclesiastical, truly and properly, (as we have proved them to be by unanswerable reasons, and our Adversaries confess) the Pope hath no absolute voice affirmative and negative in General Counsels; that is, to dash what the Mayor part would do, and to do that they by no means like of. This 
n Lib. 1. de Gener. council. authoritate.  Andradius saw, and therefore he disclaimeth the position of Bellarmine, 
o De Pont. l. 4. c. 3.  that all the assurance the Council hath of finding out the truth, is Originally in the Pope, and from him communicated to the Council: and holdeth that the Council hath as good assurance of finding out the truth, and better than the Pope himself: And therefore he saith, that though he thinketh it impossible the Pope should descent from the council, so as to define contrary to it, yet; if it should so fall out (as he thinketh it not impossible) that the Bishop of Rome, should altogether dislike in his opinion that which the Council resolveth on, and which he should consent unto, and (though he define not the contrary) yet despise the Decrees of the Council, and in his private opinion gainsay them; he thinketh in such a case, men were to conceive none otherwise of him then if he should depart from the faith and profession of the ancient Counsels, which the consent of all ages hath confirmed, and 
p Lib. 1. Epist. c. 4. & 24.  Gregory professeth to honour and esteem as the four Gospels, seeing the power and authority is as great in all Counsels, as in those which the same Gregory saith, that whosoever holdeth not their certain resolutions, though he seem to be a stone elect and precious, yet he lieth besides the foundation. And, because the authority of Cardinal Turrecremata is great with all those that defend the dignity of the Pope against the Bishops that were assembled in the Council of Basil, & such as are of their judgement, therefore he produceth his opinion in these words: If such a case should fall out (saith Cardinal 
q De Pont. Max. Generaliumque conc. authoritate ad Basilien●…. oratorem. Respon. num. 67. & 68  Turrecremata) that all the Fathers assembled in a General Council with unanimous consent should make a decree concerning the faith, which the person of the Pope alone should contradict, I would say according to my judgement, that men were bound to stand to the judgement of the Synod, and not to listen to the gainsaying of the person of the Pope: for the judgement of so many and so great Fathers in a General Council, seemeth worthily to be preferred before the judgement of one man. In which case that Gloss upon the Decrees is most excellent, that when the faith is treated of, the Pope is bound to require the Counsel of Bishops, which is to be understood to be necessary to be done, as often as the case is very doubtful, and a Synod may be called, and then the Synod is greater than the Pope; not truly in the power of jurisdiction, but in the authority of discerning, judgement, and the amplitude of knowledge. This is the opinion of this great champion, who so mainly in defence of the Pope's universal jurisdiction, impugned the Fathers that were assembled in the Council of Basil. Whereby it is evident, that the pope may not go against the consent of a General Council, & that he may not descent from it, being greater in the authority of discerning and judgement than he is; and consequently that he hath no negative voice in Counsels. Which may further be proved; for that if he had a negative voice, as the Council hath, than were there two absolute negatives: but where there are two absolute negatives, it is uncertain whether any thing shall be resolved on or not, (whereas yet the state of the Church requireth resolution and certain concluding of matters, that men may know what they are to believe.) Therefore the Pope hath none, but, the only negative is that of the Council, a part whereof the Pope is, giving a voice as others do. And this the manner of other Synods confirmeth. For in Provincial, national, and patriarchical Counsels, the metropolitans, Primates, and patriarchs have no absolute negative, but give only a single voice: and the absolute negative, as also the affirmative, is only in the Mayor part; and as Cardinal Turrecremata, learnedly and rightly maketh the authority of the General Council, in discerning and defining what is to be believed, greater than the authority of the Pope: and that the Council is ratherto be listened unto, than the Pope, dissenting from the Council; so there is no doubt, but that (the authority of Counsels being as great in making necessary laws for the good of the Church, as in resolving doubts and clearing controversies) the Council is greater than the Pope in the power of making laws, and consequently in the power of jurisdiction, which he denieth, and they of Basil affirm.  
The greatest allegation on the contrary side is the confirmation that ancient Counsels sought of the Bishop of Rome: for that may seem to import, that their decrees are of no force, unless they be strengthened by his authority: whereunto 
r Vbi supra.  Andradius answereth out of 
s De iusta Haeret. punitione lib. 1. c. 6.  Alfonsus' á Castro and others, that General Counsels carefully sought to be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, not as if in themselves without his confirmation they were weak and might err, nor for that they thought him to have as much or more assurance of not erring then they; but that it might appear, that he that hath the first place in the Church of God, and the rest, did consent and conspire together in the delivery, and the defence of the truth. But because happily this answer may seem too weak, therefore for the clearing of this doubt, we must observe, that all the ancient Counsels, were holden in the East, & that in some of them, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any of his Western Bishos were present, and in others very few: For, there were only three out of the West, in the name of all the rest, in the great Council of Chalcedon, wherein 630 Bishops met. Now seeing the authority of general Counsels is from the consent of all other Bishops of the Christian Church, as well as those that meet in them, it was necessary that the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West, and the Bishop's subject to him, though they were no more infallible in judgement then the other, yet should by consenting with the rest, confirm that was done; seeing they were not present to give consent when it was done. If it besaid, that in divers of them, there were some for the Bishop of Rome, and some in the name of the Synods subject to him, who having instructions from them, gave consent in their names, and that therefore there needed no further confirmation, it will be easily answered. First, that it was possible for those Legates, being but few, to forsake their instructions, and to do contrary to them, as 
t Vt patet in Epist. Nicolai. ad Patriarchas.  Rodoaldus and Zachary the Legates of Pope Nicholas did in the Council under Michael the Emperor, wherein Photius was set up, and Ignatius put down. Secondly, that 
u Bellarm. de Concilijs. lib. 2. cap. 11.  it was necessary, that the Fathers should wholly follow those instructions that they brought, and absolutely agree unto them: and therefore when things were concluded, it was fit there should be a signifying of that which was done, and a desire of the confirmation of the same. Thirdly, some things might be concluded, to which the instructions reached not, and in respect of them, a confirmation was necessary: as the Council of 
x Actione 3.  Chalcedon decreed certain things wihout the compass of Leos instructions, and therefore sought his confirmation. Besides all this, we must note that the confirmation which the ancient Counsels sought, was not from the person of the Bishop of Rome alone, but from him and his Synods, as I have proved before: And 
y De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 17.  Bellarmine himself confesseth; saying, that in the second and third Synods, there were no Bishops of the West present, but that the Bishop of Rome in his own name, and in the name of the Bishops, and Synods subject to him, did confirm them. So that this confirming of Counsels by the Pope, proveth no more that he is infallible in judgement, or that all the assurance of finding out the truth is originally in him, and from him communicated to general Counsels: then that all the Bishops and Synods subject to him, are free from possibility of erring: and that national or Provincial Synods in the West, are more infallible in their judgements, than those that are General in the East. The next allegation to prove that the Council is nothing without the Pope, is, that a promise was made to Peter, that 
z Luke. 22. ●…2.  his faith should not fail, but that no promise was made to the Council: that promise of Christ, 
a Matth. 18. 20.  that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the midst of them, being no way proper to Counsels and Bishops, 
b Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concilijs cap. 16.  having no authority when they are assembled, which they have not when they are single and divided. This allegation is contradictory to the resolution, and contrary to the practice of all times. For first, that promise of Christ, that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the midst of them, was ever thought to assure his presence in a lawful General Council, in very special sort, and otherwise then any where else; and that upon very good ground of reason. For if God be present with private men, meeting together in his fear about the things that concern them, and with a few particular Pastors of Churches, for the direction of them in things that concern them, there is no question but in General meetings, wherein all the variety of the gifts of God, bestowed on men, is gathered together, and things concerning the state of the whole Christian Church treated of, he is present in most peculiar sort & manner. Secondly, though Christ the son of God, gave no authority to the whole universality of Christian men, and therein the Church and Commonwealth may seem to differ, yet he gave Commission to the Generality of pastors, more than to each one apart, and being assembled, they have that power which severally they have not, as to ordain, judge, suspend, and depose pastors and Bishops. And howsoever, in each Province the rest are to know him that is the first among them, and to do nothing pertaining to the whole Province, without consulting him first, yet may he do nothing without them. And as this is the Canon and Law of the Church in particular Provinces, so in Churches of larger extent, comprehending whole countries, subject to one Patriarch, and much more in the whole Church, wherein there is no one having so much power in respect of the rest, as the Metropolitan hath, in respect of the Bishops of the Province; and the Patriarch, in respect of the metropolitans: For the Bishops are to be ordained by the Metropolitan, and the metropolitans are to be ordained, or at least confirmed by the Patriarch; whereas among the patriarchs, there is no one, to whom it pertaineth to ordain the rest, or to confirm them in any special sort, or otherwise then they are to confirm him.  
Thus than it being proved by convincing reasons, and the confession, not only of such Papists as make the Pope among Bishops to be but as the Duke of Venice among the great Senators of that State (greater than each one, but inferior to the whole company of them) but of such also as attribute much more unto him; that he hath no such Presidentship in General Counsels, as that he may determine what he will against the liking of all, or the greater part of Bishops, but that he is bound to follow the greater part; and that General Counsels are of force, not from the absolute authority of the Pope, only advising with other Bishops▪ but from their consents as well as his: Let us proceed to see if the practice of former times prove not the same. I find (saith 
c Concord. Cathol. lib. 2. c. 8.  Cusanus) that in all the first Eight General Counsels, the Popes, or the Legates of the Popes, (for themselves were never present in person) did ever subscribe in the very same sort that the other Bishops did, without note of any singularity. For every Bishop was wont to subscribe in this form, An●…ens, vel consentiens, vel statuens, vel definiens, subscripsi: and this was the form the Legates of the Bishop of Rome observed. But (saith Cusanus) that no man may doubt, but that all things were determined by the joint consent of such as met in General Counsels, and not by the sole authority of the Bishop of Rome alone, we find in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, that Dioscorus being the third time warned to appear, and refusing so to do, Paschasinus the Legate of Leo the Pope, said unto the Synod, We desire to learn of your Holiness, what punishment he is worthy of. To whom the Synod answering, let that be done, that is agreeable to the Canons: Paschasinus said, Doth your righteousness or reverend worthiness command us to use Canonical vengeance against him? Do you consent? or do you resolve otherwise? The holy Synod said, we consent, none dissenteth. This is the agreeing and consenting will of the whole Synod. julian the Bishop of Hypepa said to the Legates of Leo, We desire your Holiness, in that you are more eminent than the rest, having the place of the most holy Pope Leo, to pronounce the sentence of just vengeance against this contumacious person, the Canons requiring the same. For, we all, and the whole Synod agree to the sentence of your Holiness. Paschasinus said, Let what pleaseth your blessedness be pronounced with unanimous consent. Maximus of Antioch said, what your holiness thinketh fit to be done, we consent unto. After this the Apostolical Legates pronounced the sentence, whereby Leo the Pope had deposed and condemned Dioscorus, and thenadded. Let not this holy Synod be slack to determine what is agreeable to the canons touching Dioscorus. Whereupon Anatolius of Constantinople, and every Bishop in the council gave sentence against him, saying, I judge him to be rejected from all Sacerdot 〈◊〉 and Episcopal Ministry. here (saith Cusanus) the Reader may see, that the Apostolical Legates (because they have the first place in the council) pronounce the sentence, & yet no otherwise, but if the council command them so to do; that all in order pronounce sentence likewise; and that the force of the sentence dependeth on the unity and consent of will in them that are present. Neither is this course observed only in General counsels; but that, in those also that were patriarchical the other Bishops subscribed in the very same form that the Bishop of Rome did, it is evident. For, in the council under Pope Martin, before the sixth General council, Martin subscribed in this sort: I Martin, Bishop of the city of Rome, decreeing and determining, have subscribed to this definition of confi●…ation of the true faith and condemnation of Sergius of Constantinople, Pyrrhus and Paulus: And in the very same sort subscribed Maximus of Aquileia, defining and confirming the true Faith, and condemning the Heretics: And so did a hundred and three Bishops more. And in the council under Symmachus we read that the Synod said: whatsoever Clerk, Monk, or Layman, either of the superior or inferior order, shall presume to go against these decrees, let him by the sentence of the canon be rejected as a Schismatic. And the Bishops subscribed thus. I Symmachus, of the holy catholic church of the city of Rome, have subscribed to this constitution made by us, by the inspiration of the Lord. I Laurence, Bishop of the church of Milan, have subscribed to this constitution made by us, etc. And so the rest in order. In the Council of Africa, Gennadius said, We must by our several subscriptions give force and strength to the things we have spoken: And all the Bishops said, Fiat, fiat, that is, Let us so do. So the Vicars of old Rome said in the eight General council: Seeing by the happy providence of God all things are come to a good end, we must by subscription give strength to that which is done. And the like we find in the end and conclusion of all counsels: 
d Hactenus ex Cusano. Loco citato.  whereby it appeareth, that the strength, vigour, and force of all canons made in counsels, is from the uniform consent of them that have voices in counsels, and not from the Pope, or head of such assemblies. In the 
e Actione 5  council of Chalcedon we find, that a form of a decree touching the faith was agreed on by all, besides the Romans, and certain of the East, who would have some things added out of the Epistles of Leo. The Bishops urged, that all had liked and approved that form the day before, and that it did confirm the Epistle of Leo, which they all had received, and desired the judges, that all might be cast out of the Synod that would not subscribe. The Vicars of Rome on the contrary side told them, that if they would not consent to the Epistle of Leo, they would return, that a Synod might be holden in the West: and the judges commanded them to come to some conference, a certain selected number of them: or else to declare their Faith by their several metropolitans, that so there might remain no further doubt or discord: and told them, that if they would follow none of these courses, nor agree to make a certain Decree touching the true Faith, a Synod should be holden in the West. So that we see, that without the concurrence of the other Bishops, nothing could be done by the Romans, and those of the East: that there was no other remedy, in case they would not have agreed in determining the doubts then a foot, but to call another Synod, wherein a greater number of the Western Bishops might be present. So that the Pope was not at that time reputed an abso lute commander in General counsels.   

CHAP. 51.  
Of the assurance of finding out the Truth, which the Bishops assembled in General Counsels have.  
Having showed who have decisive voices in General Counsels, what presence of Bishops is necessary to the being of them, what order is to be observed in their proceedings, who is Precedent in them, and what his authority is, it remaineth that we proceed to see what assurance they have of finding out the Truth, and who is to call them. Touching the first of these two, some have been of opinion, that the Bishops and Fathers in Counsels are so guided by the spirit of Truth, that their Decrees and determinations may be joined to the Canonical Scripture, and reckoned parts of it. This position Melchior 
a Locor. Theologic. li. 5. ca 5.  Canus saith, a man excellently learned, and that had so profited in Divinity, that he might be thought matchable with great and eminent Divines, feared not to hold in his hearing: and addeth, that 
b Dist. 19 ca In Canonicis.  Gratian seemeth to have been of the same opinion, where he affirmeth, that the Decretal Epistles of Popes are Canonical Scripture, and allegeth Austin for proof thereof. But the fame Canus refuteth that opinion as absurd, and showeth that Gratian mistook Saint Austin. For whereas Saint Austin hath these words, 
c Aug. de Doctrine Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8.  In Canonicis scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequatur: inter quas sane illae sunt, qu●… Apostolicas sedes habere, & epistolas accipere meruerunt. That is: In reckoning the books of Canonical Scripture, let the diligent searcher of the Scriptures follow the authority of the greater number of Catholic Churches. Among which they truly which were so happy, as to have apostolic seats, and to receive Epistles from Apostles, are specially and principally to be regarded. Gratian citeth the place thus; In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plurimum scripturarum solertissimus indagator authoritatem sequatur: inter quas fanè illae sunt quas Apostolica sedes habere & ab eâ alij meruerunt accipere epistolas. So that whereas Saint Augustine saith, that in reckoning the Canonical books of Scripture, a man must follow the authority of the greater number of Catholic Churches, and among them especially such as either had Apostolical seats, as Jerusalem and the like; or received Epistles from some of the Apostles, as did the Churches of Corinth and Galatia; Gratian maketh him say, that the Epistles which the Apostolical See received, or other received of it, are to be reckoned among Canonical Scriptures. This oversight of Gratian, 
d De fide & ordine credendi. Theorem. 15.  Picus Mirandula long since observed, and after him 
e Aduersus haeres. lib. 1. cap. 2.  Alfonsus' a Castro: whereby we may see how easy it was for men in former times to run into most gross errors; before the reviving of learning in these latter times, while the blind did lead the blind. For Gratian was the man out of whom 
f Turrecremata. lib. 4. summae de ecclesia parte 2. cap. 9 & Caietan. in lib. de primatu Rom. Ecclesiae cap. 14. were misled in this point. by Gratian as Alphonsus noteth.  the greatest Divines of former times took all their authorities of Fathers and Councles, as appeareth by their marginal quotations. And how ignorantly and negligently he mistook them, & misalleaged them, this one example is proof sufficient.  
But whatsoever we think of Gratian we shall find that not only our Divines, but the best learned among our adversaries also, put a greatdifference between the sacred scriptures of the holy Canon, and the Decrees of Counsels. For, first they say, the Scripture is the word of God revealed immediately, and written in a sort from his own mouth; according to that of S. Peter; 
g 2. Pet. 1. 21.  the holy men of God, spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost: And that of S. Paul: 
h 2. Tim. 3. 16.  All Scripture is by divine inspiration: which is not so to be understood, as if always the holy Writers had had new revelations, and had always written that, which before they were ignorant of: for it is certain that the Evangelists Matthew and john, wrote those things which they saw, and Mark and Luke those things they heard from others, as Luke himself confesseth in the beginning of his Gospel. But the holy writers are therefore said to have had immediate revelation, and to have written the words of God himself: because either some new things and not known before, were revealed to them by God: or because God immediately inspired and moved the Writers to write those things which they had seen and heard and directed them that they should not any way err in writing: whereas Counsels neither have, nor write immediate revelations or words of God, but only declare which is that word of God uttered formerly to the Prophets and Apostles, how it is to be understood, and what conclusions may be deduced from it by discourse of reason. Secondly, the holy Writers performed that which they did, without any further labour or travel, then that, in writing and calling to mind what they had seen and heard: but in Counsels, the Bishops and Fathers, with great pain and travel, seek out the truth by discourse, conference, reading and deep meditation: and therefore the holy Writers are wont to attribute all to God only, and the Prophets were wont often to repeat, The Lord saith. Thirdly, in the Scriptures, not onethe whole sentences, but every word pertaineth to Faith: for no word is therein vain or ill placed. But in Counsels there are many disputations going before resolution, many reasons brought for confirmation of things resolved on, many things added for explication and illustration, many things uttered obiter, and in passage, that men are not bound to admit as true and right: nay many things are defined in Counsels that men are not bound to stand unto. For it is the manner of Counsels, sometimes to define a thing as certainly and undoubtedly true, pronouncing them Heretics that think otherwise, and subiecting them to curse & Anathema: and sometimes as probable only, and not certain, as the 
i Clementina unicâ De summâ Trinitate & fide Catholicâ.  Council of Vienna decreed, that it is more probable, that both grace, and virtues accompanying grace, are infused into Infants when they are baptised, then that they are not: and yet is this no matter faith in the Church of Rome. Fourthly, in the scripture all things, (as well concerning particular persons, as in generality) are undoubtedly true. For, it is as certain that Peter and Paul had the spirit of God, as that no man can be saved without the illumination and sanctification of the spirit: but in the determinations and decrees of Bishops assembled in a general council it is not so: for they may err in judging of the persons of men, and therefore there is no absolute certainty in the canonisation of Saints, as both 
k Quodlibet. 9 art. ult.  Thomas and 
l Locorum. Theol. li. 5. c. 5. Citat etiam Antoninum. part. 3. tit. 12. cap. 8. Idem & Caietan. Opusc. de indulgent ad julium. ca 8.  Canus do confess. Fiftly, in Scriptures there are no precepts touching manners, either concerning the whole church or any part of it, that are not right equal, and just. But counsels may err, if not in prescribing things evil, in stead of good, yet in prescribing things not fitting nor expedient, if not to the whole church, yet to some particular part of it, as not knowing the condition of things therein. Yea 
m Vide Canum Loco citato.  some there are that think it not heretical to believe, that general counsels may prescribe some laws to the whole church, that are not right, profitable, and just: as to honour such a one for a Saint, who indeed is no Saint: to admit such orders of Religious men as are not profitable: to receive the communion only in one kind, and the like. And there are 
n Andrad. de authoritate 〈◊〉 Concilior. lib. 1. sol. 66.  many that confidently pronounce, that general counsels may decree such things as may breed inconvenience, and may savour of too great severity and austerity, which the guides of the church in the execution of the same must be forced to qualify and temper. So that the only question is, whether a general council may certainly, define any thing to be true in matter of faith, that is false: or command the doing of any act as good and an act of virtue, that indeed and in truth is an act of sin. Touching this point, there are that say, that all interpretations of holy Scriptures agreed on in general counsels, and all resolutions of doubts concerning things therein contained, proceed from the same Spirit from which the holy Scriptures were inspired: and that therefore general counsels cannot err either in the interpretation of Scriptures, or resolving of things doubtful concerning the faith. But these men should know, that 
o Occam. Dialog. li. 3. primi tract. 3. part. cap. 8.  though the interpretations and resolutions of Bishops in general counsels, proceed from the same Spirit, from which the Scriptures were inspired, yet not in the same sort, nor with like assurance of being free from mixture of error. For the Fathers assembled in general counsels, do not rely upon immediate revelation, in all their particular resolutions and determinations, as the Writers of the Books of holy Scripture did, but on their own meditation, search and study, the general assistance of Divine grace concurring with them. That the Fathers assembled in General counsels, rely not upon any special and immediate revelations, may easily be proved by sundry good and effectual reasons. For first, whensoever we hope to come to know any thing by special and immediate revelation from God, we use not to betake ourselves to study and meditation, but to prayer only, and other good works, or at least principally to these: Whence it is that Daniel when he hoped to obtain of GOD the interpretation of Nebuchadnezars' dream by special and immediate revelation, did not exhort his companions and consorts by study to search out the secret he desired to know, but by prayer and supplication to seek it of GOD. And after he had found out the secret he sought for, he said, 
p Dan. 2. 23.  O God of my Fathers, I confess unto thee, and praise thee, because thou hast given me wisdom and strength, and hast showed unto me those things which we desired of thee, and hast opened unto us the word of the King: Whence also it is, that Christ promising-his Apostles, that he would reveal unto them what they should speak, when they should be brought before Kings and Rulers, willeth them, To 
q Math. 10. 19 & 20.  take no care how, or what to speak, for that it should be revealed unto them in that hour what they should speak; It is not you that speak (saith our Saviour) but the spirit of my Father that speaketh in you. When as therefore we hope to learn any thing of GOD by immediate revelation, we must not apply ourselves to study, and meditation, but to prayer. But when men meet in General counsels, to determine any doubt or question, they principally give themselves to meditation, study and search; therefore they hope not to be taught of GOD by immediate revelation. Secondly, when we desire to have things made known unto us by immediate revelation from GOD, we go not to them that are most learned, but to them that are most devout and religious, whether they be learned or unlearned, whether of the clergy or the Laity, whether men or women, because for the most part GOD revealeth his secrets, not to them that are wiser & more learned, but to them that are better, & more religious and devout; according to that of our Saviour, ʳ I give thee thanks 
Math. 11. 25  O Father, LORD of Heaven and Earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise, and men of understanding, and hast opened them unto Babes. And therefore the 
s 2 Kings 22.  good King josias, when he desired by revelation to know the will of GOD touching the words of the volume that was found in the Temple, he sent Helkiah the High Priest to Huldah the Prophetess, and sought not concerning the words of the Law among the Priests, whose lips are to preserve knowledge, and at whose mouth men ought to seek the Law: because though the Law be to be sought at the mouth of the Priest, in all those things which may be learned by study, meditation, & search, yet in those things that are to be learned by revelation, recourse must be had to them that have the spirit of prophecy, if any such be; or else to them that are most holy, and whose prayers are most acceptable unto God. Neither are men for satisfaction in these things, rather to go to the Priests, then to any Layman, that is utterly unlearned; But in counsels men go to them that are more learned, and of better place in the church, though they be not the best and holiest men: Therefore questions touching matters of faith, are not determined in counsels by immediate revelation. If it be said, that the Apostles and Elders, in that first council which is mentioned in the 
t Acts 15  Acts, relied on the knowledge they had of the Scriptures and Truth of GOD, and did not wait for a new immediate revelation; and that therefore this kind of reasoning will bring them within compass of the same danger of erring, that we subject their Successors unto, because they rely not upon immediate revelation, but search and study: It will be easily answered, that though the Apostles and others assembled in that council, depended not upon immediate revelation, but the knowledge they had of the Scriptures and Truth of GOD, and thence inferred what was to be thought of the matter then in question, yet were they not in danger of erring, as their successors are, because they relied not on such imperfect knowledge, as study & meditation begets, but such as divine revelation causeth: to wit, perfect & absolute; whence they knew how to derive the resolution of any doubt or question, being specially assisted by the Spirit of Truth. Neither let any man think that the Apostles assembled in this Council were any way doubtful what to resolve, when they heard the matter proposed, because there is mention made of great disputation in that meeting: For, (as it may be thought) that questioning and disputing was among the Elders and Brethren, and not among the Apostles; the meanest of them being able to resolve a far greater matter without any the least doubt or stay. So that it is absurd that 
u Loc. Theolog. lib 5. cap. 5.  Melchior Canus from hence inferreth, that the Decrees of this Council, wherein there was so great a dispute, are not Canonical Scripture, any other ways then the words of Pilate are, because they are recorded by the Evangelists in the holy Scripture. But to return to the matter, whence this objection made us digress, it is no way necessary to think, that the Fathers are any otherwise directed by the Spirit of Truth in General Counsels, then in patriarchical, national, or Provincial; Seeing General Counsels consist of such as come with instructions from Provincial, national, and patriarchical Synods, & must follow the same in making Decrees, as hath been showed before: and consequently, that they are not led to the finding out of the truth in any special sort or manner, beyond that general influence that is required to the performance of every good work. So that as God assisting Christian men in the Church, only in a general sort to the performance of the works of virtue, there are ever some weldoers, and yet no particular man doth always well; and there is no degree or kind of Moral virtue commanded in the Law, but is attained by some one or other, at one time or other, one excelling in one thing, and another in another, yet no particular man, or company of men, hath all degrees and perfections of virtue, as 
x Hieronym▪ lib: 1: contra Pelagianos.  Hierome fitly noteth against the Pelagians: so in like sort, God assisting Christian men in the Church, in seeking out the truth, only in general sort, as in the performance of the actions of virtue, & not by immediate revelation and inspiration, as in the Apostles times; there are ever some that hold and profess all necessary truth, though no one man, or company of men do find the truth ever, and in all things, nor any assurance can be had of any particular men, that they should always hold all necessary truths.  
And therefore we may safely conclude, that no man can certainly pronounce, that whatsoever the greater part of Bishops assembled in a General Council agree on, is undoubtedly true. Neither are we alone in this conclusion, but sundry excellently Learned among our Adversaries in former times, even in the midst of the Papacy, concurred in the same. For 
y Doctrinal fidei. li: 2. c. 19  Waldensis expressly affirmeth, that, General Counsels have erred, and may err; and confidently delivereth, that it is no particular Church, that hath assurance of holding the truth, and not erring from the Faith, neither that of Africa, which Donatus so much admired, nor the particular Church of Rome, but the Universal Church: nor that Universal Church which is gathered together in a General Council, which we have found to have erred sometimes, (as that at Ariminum under Taurus the Governor, and that at Constantinople under justinian the younger, in the time of Sergius the Pope, according to Beda & certain other) but that Catholic Church of Christ which hath been dispersed throughout the whole world by the Ministry of the Apostles, and others their successors, ever since the Baptism of Christ, and continued unto these times, which undoubtedly keepeth the true faith, and the faithful testimony of Christ, teaching Babes Heavenly wisdom, and retaining the truth constantly in the midst of all extremities of errors. And again in another place, speaking of Counsels, he saith; 
z Ibid. cap. 27.  that which the multitude of Catholic Doctors, with unanimous consent, resolveth and delivereth to be true, Catholic, and Orthodox, is not lightly to be esteemed; though haply all that are there present are not led by the spirit: for this very unanimous consenting is a great and excellent thing, and much to be respected: though sometimes by the faults of men carried with sinister respects, it tend to scandal and ruin: and thereupon, having showed the different degrees of authority found in the Church, (which I have 
a Book. 4. ca 5.  elsewhere set down at large) he pronounceth 
b Cap. 19 ; that only the consent of the Fathers successively from the beginning (as absolutely free from danger of erring, and next in degree of authority to the Canonical Scripture) is to be listened and harkened unto: And that no man should think it strange that the Fathers successively in all ages, should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certain and infallible judges in matters of faith, than a General Council of 〈◊〉 ●…ting at one time and in one place, seeing so many wise, just and holy Fathers can neither be contained within the straits of one place, nor are in the world at one time, but were given successively by Almighty God, to give testimony unto the faith in their several times, in a constant and a perpetual course: all which Fathers we may gather together, and have present all at once, so often as we desire to consult them and to be resolved by them in matters of difficulty and doubt, though they could never be all assembled into one place, or meet together, while they lived in the flesh. Neither is this the private conceit of Waldensis only, but 
c De fide & ord. credendi Theorem. 4.  Picus Mirandula affirmeth, that howsoever many Di●…es are of opinion, that general Counsels, wherein the Pope is present, cannot define any thing amiss concerning faith and good living, yet there are other that dissent from them, affirming that Counsels have erred, and may err, as that at Ariminium, and the Second at Ephesus. Whereas the former sort answer, that these Counsels might err, because the Pope was not present in them, they reply, that the second Council of Ephesus was lawfully called, the Pope's Legates being present, and yet tended to the overthrow of the true faith, so that Leo was forced to procure the Council of Chalcedon for the reversing of the Acts of it. And this their opinion of the possibility of the erring of general Counsels, they prove and confirm by the possibility of their dissenting one from another; and the possibility of their dissenting one from another, by the directions which the 
* See▪ Clemangis his disputation, with a certain Schoolman of Paris, wherein he proveth by excellent reasons that General Counsels may err. This disputation is found in the book in●…uled Speculum Ecclesiae Pontificiae, lately printed at London.  Divines do give, to show to which we are to stand, when they are found contradictory one to another. Besides these, there are other who 
d Sylvester: ut est apud Canum. lib. 5. c. 5.  say, that General Counsels may err for some short time, but that they cannot long persist in error: and a third sort, 
e Vt idem Canus refert.  who think that General Counsels may err when they proceed disorderedly, or use not that diligence they should.  
Neither is this opinion of the possibility of the erring of general Counsels, the private conceit of late Writers, but the Ancient accord with them in the same. For 
f Lib. 2. de Baprismo. cap. 3.  Austin pronounceth that the writings of the Bishops that have been published since the Canon of the Scripture was perfited, may be censured and reproved by such as see more; by the graver authority of other Bishops, by the prudence of the learned, and by Counsels, if in any thing they be found to have erred from the Truth; that Counsels holden in several Regions and Provinces, must without all resistance give way to those that are general; and that among general Counsels, the former must be content to be amended by the latter, when by experiment that which was shut up is opened, and that which lay hid is found out, and known. Neither doth 
g De Concil. li. 2. cap. 7.  Bellarmine's evasion, that Austin speaketh of matters of fact, wherein Counsels may err, or of conversation and manners, which may vary, serve the turn: seeing the drift of Austin is to show, that no writings of men are free from errors, but only the Canonical Scriptures: and that therefore they must be content to be examined judged, and controlled even in matters of Faith. And 
h Apud Gratian. dist. 50. Ca Domino Sancto.  Isidore speaking of differences in doctrine and matters of Faith, and not of Fact only, as Bellarmine in the same place confesseth, acknowledgeth that Counsels may descent one from another, and consequently err: and giveth direction which is to be followed; in case such difference do fall out. I have thought good (saith he) to add in the end of this Epistle, that so often as in the Acts of Counsels, there is found disagreement of judgement, the sentence and judgement of that Council is rather to be holden, which in Antiquity or greatness of authority excelleth the other. 
〈◊〉 Socates. lib. 2. cap. 29.   
But what need we insist upon Authorities to prove that Counsels may err? In the time of Constantius the Emperor, we know there was a general Council holden, consisting of exceeding many Bishops, gathered together out of all parts of the world, one part of them meeting at Ariminium in the West, & the other at Seleucia in the East. In both these divided assemblies, there were exceeding many right believing Bishops, & between these, there was a continual intercourse: & yet things were so carried, that both parts consented to the betraying of the sincerity of the Christian profession, and the wronging of worthy Athanasius: some purposely out of an heretical disposition: some, out of a mistaking of things, being abused by cunning companions; some for that they could no longer endure to stay in a strange country, consenting to that which they should not have consented unto. If it be said that Liberius Bishop of Rome, did not consent to this Council, it will easily be answered, that though at the very first he did not consent to the Heretical practices of the Arrians; yet in the end he did, after he had been in banishment for a time. As likewise Vigilius refused to subscribe to the Fifth General Council, till he was banished for his refusal. The only thing that can be said, is, that they proceeded not orderly in this Council, but violently, and fraudulently. But this absolutely overthroweth the infallibility of Counsels, and their Decrees. For if Counsels may err when they proceed disorderly, and use not that diligence for the finding out of the Truth, which they should, what certainty can there be in their Decrees? Seeing it may be doubted, whether they proceeded orderly, and consequently, whether they erred or not. 
k Leo ep. 25.  Leo confesseth, that in the Second Council of Ephesus, there were a great number of worthy Bishops, who might have been sufficient to have found out and cleared the Truth, if he that obtained the chief place had used accustomed moderation, and suffered every one to speak his mind freely, and not forced all to serve his vile designs. If it be said, that howsoever this was a General Council, and lawfully called, yet the resolution was not the resolution of a General Council, because it was not consented unto, but mainly resisted by the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, we shall find that in the 
l Vt patet ex Epistola Nicolai ad Patriarchas & caeteros Episc. Orientis, & ex Zonarâ in vita Mic●…. Imp.  counsels under Michael the Emperor, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome consented also to an ill and unlawful conclusion there made. If it be further alleged, that howsoever the Legates of the Bishop of Rome may err as well as other Bishops in the council, when they presume to define without instructions, or to go against their instructions, yet the Pope himself cannot give consent to any thing that is not true and right; it will be proved that Popes also may be so misled by sinister affections, as not only to consent to that they should not, but also to miscarry all in Council as well as others. For 
m In chron: an. 90  Sigebert reporteth, that Stephen Bishop of Rome, and after him Sergius, called Counsels, and proceeded in them in furious manner against Formosus their Predecessor, not only pulling his dead body out of the grave, and despitefully re-ordaining such as he ordained, but judicially pronouncing and defining, that his ordinations were void, which was an error in Faith, seeing he was known once to have been a true and lawful Bishop, though in respect of perjury or violent intrusion, he had been judged never to have been lawful Bishop of Rome.  
But here I cannot pass by the contradiction of Cardinal Bellarmine, strangely forgetting himself, and saying he knoweth not what. For first he saith, 
n Ce conc. in Lib: 2. c. 2.  it is certain, and a matter of Faith, that a General council confirmed by the Pope, cannot err. Secondly, he saith, 
o De Pont. l. 4. c. 3.  the infallibility of Counsels is wholly in the Pope, and not partly in the Pope, partly in the Bishops. And thirdly he saith, 
p De conc. l. 2. c. 5.  he dareth not to affirm it to be a matter of Faith, that the Pope is free from danger of erring, though he have a particular Council concurring with him. So strangely doth the good man cross himself, and overthrow that in one place which he built in another. For how can it be certain and a matter of Faith, that the General Council approved by the Pope, cannot err, if it have no certainty of not erring but from the Pope, and it be not certain that the Pope cannot err. That Counsels, though lawful, to which nothing wanted but the Pope's consent, have erred, he saith, it is most certain and undoubted. So that General Counsels are not in themselves free from error, but their infallibility resteth in the Pope. Now that it is not certain, that the Pope is free from danger of erring, he proveth, first, because they are still tolerated by the Church, & not condemned as Heretics, that think the pope subject to error, even in judicial sentence and decree. Secondly, out of 
q Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 2. 3. & 4.  Eusebius, who saith, that Cornelius the pope with a National council of all the Bishops of Italy decreed, that Heretics ought not to be rebaptised, and Stephen afterwards approved the same sentence, and commanded that Heretics should not be rebaptised; and yet 
r Ep 74. add p●…mp.  Cyprian thought the contrary, and earnestly maintained it, charging Stephen with error and obstinacy, which he would not have done, if he had thought the pope free from danger of erring. Neither would the Church have honoured him as a Catholic Bishop and blessed Martyr, that thus confidently contradicted the Pope, and resisted his decrees and mandates, if it were certain, and a matter of Faith, and all men under pain of Heresy bound to believe, that the Pope cannot err. Wherefore to conclude this point, how can we be sure with the certainty of Faith, that General Counsels cannot err, if their infallibility depend on the Popes, who may be most prodigiously impious, and worse than infidels; not only erring in some particular points concerning the Faith, but overthrowing all, as he did, that Picus 
s Theorem. 4.  Mirandula speaketh of, who peremptorily denied that there is any God; and confirmed the same his execrable impiety by the manner of his entering into the Popedom, and living in it: And that other 
t Ibidem.  he speaketh of, who denied the immortality of the soul, though after his death, appearing to one of them to whom in his life time he had uttered that his impious conceit, he told him he now found, to his endless woe and misery, that soul he thought mortal to be immortal, & never to dye.  
Yet 
u Ockam. Dialog. lib. 3. primi tract. 3. part. cap. 〈◊〉.  when there is a lawful General Council according to the former description, to wit, wherein all the patriarchs are present, either in person, or by their deputies, and the Synod of Bishops under them signify their opinion, either by such as they send, or by their Provincial letters, if there appear nothing to us in it, that may argue an unlawful proceeding, nor there be no gainsaying of men of worth, place, and esteem, we are so strongly to presume that it is true and right, that with unanimous consent is agreed on in such a Council, that we must not so much as profess publicly that we think otherwise, unless we do most certainly know the contrary, yet may we in the secret of our hearts remain in some doubt, carefully seeking by the Scripture and Monuments of antiquity to find out the Truth. Neither is it necessary for us expressly to believe whatsoever the Council hath concluded, though it be true; unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true, and we be convinced of it, in some other sort then by the bare determination of the Council only. But it sufficeth that we believe it, implicitè, and, in praeparatione animi, that out of the due respect we bear to the Counsels Decree, we dare not resolve otherwise, and be ready expressly to believe it, if it shall be made to appear unto us. But, concerning the General Counsels of this sort, that hitherto have been holden, we confess that in respect of the matter about which they were called, so nearly, and essentially concerning the life and soul of the Christian Faith, and in respect of the manner and form of their proceeding, and the evidence of proof brought in them, they are, and ever were expressly to be believed by all such as perfectly understand the meaning of their determination. And that therefore it is not to be marvelled at, if 
x Greg. lib. 〈◊〉. Epist. 24.  Gregory profess, that he honoureth the first four Counsels as the four Gospels; and that whosoever admitteth them not, though he seem to be a Stone elect & precious, yet he lieth beside the foundation and out of the building. Of this sort there are only six; the first, defining the Son of GOD to be coessential, coeternal, & coequal with the Father. The second, defining that the holy Ghost is truly God, coessential, coeternal, and coequal with the Father and the Son. The third, the unity of Christ's person. The fourth, the distinction and diversity of his natures, in, and after the personal union. The fifth, condemning some remains of Nestorianisme; more fully explaining things stumbled at in the Council of Chalcedon, and accursing the Heresy of Origen and his followers, touching the temporal punishments of Devils and wicked Castaways: and the Sixth, defining and clearing the distinction of operations, actions, powers, and wills in Christ, according to the diversity of his natures. These were all the lawful General Counsels (lawful I say both in their beginning, and proceeding, and continuance) that ever were holden in the Christian Church, touching matters of Faith. For the Seaventh, which is the second of Nice, was not called about any question of Faith, but of manners: In which our Adversaries confess there may be something inconueniently prescribed, and so as to be the occasion of great & grievous evils: and surely that is our conceit of the Seaventh General Council, the second of Nice: for howsoever it condemn the religious adoration and worshipping of Pictures and seem to allow no other use of them, but that which is Historical: yet in permitting men by outward signs of reverence & respect towards the Pictures of Saints, to express their love towards them, and the desire they have of enjoying their happy society, and in condemning so bitterly such as upon dislike of abuses, wished there might be no Pictures in the Church at all: it may seem to have given some occasion, and to have opened the way unto that gross Idolatry which afterwards entered into the Church. The vl General Council was not called about any question of Faith or Manners, but to determine the question of right between Photius & Ignatius, contending about the Bishopric of Constantinople. So that there are but seven General Counsels, that the whole Church acknowledgeth, called to determine matters of Faith and Manners. For the rest that were holden afterwards, which our Adversaries would have to be accounted General, they are not only rejected by us, but by the Grecians also, as not General, but patriarchical only: because either they consisted only of the Western Bishops, without any concurrence of those of the East; or, if any were present (as in the Council of Florence there were) they consented to those things which they agreed unto, rather out of other respects, than any matter of their own satisfaction. And therefore howsoever we dare not pronounce that lawful General Counsels are free from danger of erring (as some among our Adversaries do) yet do we more honour & esteem, & more fully admit all the General Counsels that ever hitherto have been holden, than they do; who fear not to charge some of the chiefest of them with error, as both the 
y Cap. 5.  Second, and the 
z Actione. 15. Canon. 28.  Fourth, for equalling the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome; which I think they suppose to have been an error in Faith.   

CHAP. 52.  
Of the calling of Counsels; and to whom that right pertaineth.  
FROM the assurance of Truth which lawful General Counsels have, let us proceed to see by whom they are to be called. The state of the Christian Church, the good things it enjoyeth, and the felicity it promiseth, being spiritual, is such, that it may stand, though not only forsaken, but grievously oppressed by the great men of the world: and doth not absolutely depend on the care of such as manage the great affairs of the World, and direct the outward course of things here below: and therefore it is by all resolved on, that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword, and that there is in the Church a power of convocating these her Spiritual Pastors, to consult of things concerning her welfare, though none of the Princes of the World do favour her, nor reach forth unto her their helping hands: neither need we to seek far, to find in whom this power resteth: for there is no question, but that this power is in them that are first, and before other, in each company of spiritual Pastors and Ministers; seeing none other can be imagined, from whom each action of consequence, & each common deliberation, should take beginning, but they, who are in order, honour, and place before other, and to whom, the rest that govern the Church in common, have an eye, as to them, that are first in place among them. Hereupon, we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synods, pertaineth to the Bishop; of Provincial to the Metropolitan; of national, to the Primate; and of patriarchical, to the Patriarch; in that they are in order, honour, and place before the rest; though some of these (as 
a De Concilijs li, 2. cap. 12.  Bellarmine truly noteth) have no commanding authority over the rest. Touching Diocesan Synods, I showed 
b Chap. 29.  before, that the Bishop is bound once every year at least to call unto him the Presbyters of his Church, and to hold a Synod with them: and the 
c Canon. 19 & 20.  Council of Antioch ordaineth, that the Metropolitan shall call together the Bishops of the Province by his letters, to make a Synod. And the 
d Canon. 6.  Council of Tarracon in Spain decreeth, that if any Bishop warned by the Metropolitan, neglect to come to the Synod (except he be hindered by some corporal necessity) he shall be deprived of the communion of all the Bishops until the next Council. The 
e Canone 1  Epaunine Council in like sort ordereth, that when the Metropolitan shall think good to call his Brethren the Bishops of the same Province to a Synod, none shall excuse his absence without an evident cause. Touching national Counsels, and such as consist of the Bishops of many Provinces, such as were the Counsels of Africa, the calling of them pertained unto the Primate, as it appeareth by the second council of 
f Canone 1  Carthage, in that the Bishop of Carthage being the Primate of Africa by virtue of particular canons concerning that matter, by his Letters called together the rest of the metropolitans and their Bishops. And concerning patriarchical counsels, the 
g Canone 17  eighth General council taketh order, that the Patriarch shall have power to convocate the metropolitans that are under him, and that they shall not refuse to come when he calleth them, unless they be hindered by urgent causes. And to this purpose it was, that the Bishops within the Patriarchship of Rome were once in the year to visit the Apostolical thresholds; which to do, they take an oath still even to this day (as 
h De concord cath. l. 2. c. 18. cit. dist. 93. c. 4  Cusanus noteth) so that it is evident, that there is a power in Bishops, metropolitans, Primates, and Patriarches, to call Episcopal, Provincial, national, and patriarchical Synods; and that neither so depending of, nor subject to the power of Princes, but that when they are enemies to the Faith, they may exercise the same without their consent and privity, and subject them that refuse to obey their summons; to such punishments as the canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence. But that we may see to whom the calling of General Counsels doth pertain in the times of persecution, and when there are no Christian Princes, we must observe, that among the patriarchs, though one be in order before another, (As the Patriarch of Alexandria is before the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Rome before the Patriarch of Alexandria) yet is not one of them superior to another in degree, as Bishops are to Presbyters; nor so in order, honour, and place, as metropolitans are to Bishops, or patriarchs to metropolitans, whom they are to ordain, or at the least to confirm: And therefore no one of them singly and by himself alone, hath power to call unto him any Patriarch, or any Bishop subject to such Patriarch; But as in case when there groweth a difference between the patriarchs of one See and another, or between any of the patriarchs and the metropolitans and Bishops subject to them; the superior patriarch not of himself alone, but with his metropolitans, and such particular Bishops as are interessed, may judge and determine the differences between them, if without danger of a further rend it may be done (as in the case of Chrysostome and Theophilus it could not;) So if there be any matter of Faith, or any thing concerning the whole state of the Christian church, wherein a common deliberation of all the pastors of the church is necessary, he that is in order the first among the patriarchs, with the Synods of Bishop's subject to him; may call the rest together, as being the principal part of the church, whence all actions of this nature do take beginning: And this is that which julius Bishop of Rome hath, when 
i Apud Athanas. Apol. 2.  writing to the Bishops of the East, he telleth them, that the manner and custom is, that they should write to him and the Western Bishops first; that from thence might be decreed the thing that is just: and again, that they ought to have written to them all, that so that which is just might be decreed by all. And hence it is that 
k Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9  Damasus, Ambrose, Brito, Valerianus, and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, out of their brotherly love sent for the Bishops of the East, as their own members, praying and desiring them to come unto them, that they might not reign alone. So that the power of calling General Counsels, when the church hath no princes to assist her, is not in the Pope, but in the Western Synod: and yet hath not this Synod any power over all the other Churches, as a supreme Commander, but is only (as a principal part among the rest) to begin, procure, & set forward, as much as in her lieth, such things as pertain to the common good: neither may it by virtue of any canon, custom, or practise of the church, excommunicate the rest for refusing to hearken when it calleth: as it appeareth by the former example: in that they of the East came not when they were called, and entreated to come to Rome by Damasus, Ambrose and the rest; but stayed at Constantinople, did some things which they disliked, and yet were forced to give way unto them, and as being greater in authority than they, bore the name of the general Council: though they were assembled at Rome, at the same time in a very great number. But if the greater part concur with them, they may excommunicate those few, that shall wilfully and causelessly refuse to obey them. If it be said, that hence it will follow, that there is no certain means of having a general Council at all times, as there is of Provincial or patriarchical, (which may seem absurd) it will be answered, that 
l Bellar, ait Aliqua Concilia Simpliciteresse necessaria, generalia non simpliciter sed suo quodam modo. lib. 1. de Conciliorum authorit. cap. 11. & 10.  there is not the like necessity of having General Counsels, as there is of having those more particular Synods: and that therefore it is not absurd to grant, that the Church hath not at all times certain and infallible means to have a General Council, as it hath to have the other. Nay, that it hath not, it most plainly appeareth, in that 
m Sozomen. lib. 8. cap. 18.  in the case of Chrysostome greatly distressed & greivously wronged, Innocentius professed unto him, he knew no means to help him, but a General Council; which to obtain, he became an humble futer to the Emperor, but was so far from prevailing, that the messengers he sent were returned back again unto him with disgrace.  
Thus we see to whom the calling of Counsels pertaineth, when there is no Christian Magistrate to assist the Church, but when there is a Christian Magistrate, it pertaineth to him to see, that these assemblies be duly holden accordingly as the necessity of the Church requireth, and the Canons prescribe. And therefore we shall find, that though Christian Emperors, Kings and Princes within their several dominions, oftentimes permitted Bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs, to hold Episcopal, Provincial, national, or patriarchical Counsels, without particular intermeddling therein, when they saw neither negligence in those of the Clergy, in omitting to hold such Counsels when it was fit, nor intrusion into their office; yet, so often as they saw cause, they took into their own hands the power of calling these more particular Synods: And touching general, there was never any that was not called by the Emperor.  
That Emperors, Kings and Princes in their several dominions respectively called particular Counsels, is proved by innumerable examples. For Constantine the great, called the first Council of Arle as it appeareth by his 
n Tom. 1. Conciliorum. pag. 267. apud Binnium.  Epistle to Crestus: and Binnius confesseth it. The Council of Aquileia was called by the Emperors, as it appeareth by the Epistle of the Council to Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius the Emperors, in the first 
o Pag. 523.  Tome of the Counsels. The 
p Tom. 1. Concil. pag. 535. Binnius ex S●…uero. lib. 2. & Prospero in Chronico Maximum Imp. indixisse oftendit  Council of Burdegalis was called by the Emperor against Priscillian. The Council of Agatha by the permission of the King, as as appear in the 
q Pag. 304.  second Tome of the Counsels. The 
r Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 309.  first of Orleans was called by Clodoveus. The 
s Tom. 2. pag. 314.  Epaunine Council by Sigismond the son of Gundebald. The second of 
t Tomo. 2. pag. 477.  Orleans, by the command of Childebert the French King. The Council of 
u Tomo. 2. pag. 508.  Aruerne, by the permission of the King Theodobertus. The Fifth of 
x Tomo. 2. pag. 514.  Orleans, by Childebert. The first of 
y Tomo. 2. pag. 640.  Bracar, by Ariamirus, or (as some will have it) Theodomirus. The second of 
z Tomo. 2. pag. 656.  Turon, with the connivance of the King. The second of 
a Tomo. 2. pag. 663.  Bracar by Ariamirus. The 
b Tomo. 2. 697.  first Cabilon Council, by the mandate of Gunthram; as likewise that of 
c Tomo. 2. 698.  Matiscon, and 
d Tomo. 2. 705.  Valentia. The third of 
e Tomo. 2. 706.  Toledo by Richaredus. The Counsels of 
f Tomo. 2. 722.  Narbone, and 
g Tomo. 2. 956.  Caesar-Augusta; by Richaredus, King of Sueveland. Many other examples might be produced, but these suffice, to show what the ancient practice was, and what Christian Princes in former times took upon them in this behalf. And that they did lawfully, so to intermeddle, it appeareth, in that 
h Lib. 7. Epist. 114. citat. à Cusan. lib. 3. Concord. Cathol. cap. 10.  S. Gregory writing to Theodoricus, exhorteth him by the crown of life, to call Counsels, and reform abuses.  
Wherefore let us proceed to see who called the General Counsels, that have been holden in the Christian Church. Having perused (saith 
i Concor. Cath. lib. 3. cap. 13.  Cusanus) the Acts of all the General Counsels, to the Eighth inclusively: which Eighth was holden in the time of Basilius the Emperor, I find, that they were all called by the Emperors. Whereupon (saith he) Elias the most holy Presbyter, that supplied the place of the Bishop of Jerusalem said openly in the Eighth General Council, in the hearing of all, that Emperors did ever call Counsels, and that Basilius was not inferior to those that went before him, in the care of providing for the Church by Synodall meetings. And Anastasius the Pope's Library-keeper, in his Gloss upon the same place, saith, that the Emperors were wont to call Counsels out of the whole world. Which thing is so clear, that 
k Apolog. 2. contra Ruffinum.  Hierome writing against Ruffinus, and taking exception againsta certain Council, biddeth him say, what Emperor it was that commanded that Council to be called? and therefore 
l De Concilijs. lib. 1. cap. 13.  Bellarmine confesseth it, and giveth four reasons, why it was so: whereof the first is, for that there was an Imperial Law, that there should not be any great Assemblies without the Emperor's privity, consent, and authority, for fear of sedition. The second, for that all those Cities in which such Counsels might be holden, being the Emperors, they might not be holden without his consent. The third, for that the Counsels were holden at the Emperor's charges, both in respect of carriages, and the diet, and entertainment of the Bishops, during the time of their being in Council, as 
m Euseb. de vita Constantini. lib. 3. cap. 6.  Eusebius in the life of Constantine doth testify; and 
n Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 7.  Theodoret in his History. The fourth, for that it was fit the Popes in those times, acknowledging the Emperors to be their Sovereign Lords, should (as we read they did) as suppliants beseech them to command Counsels to be called. And surely, if we had neither his confession, nor reasons, we need not doubt hereof, having the testimony of all stories to confirm the same. For 
o Lib. 10. cap. 1.  Ruffinus saith, Constantine called the Council of Bishops at Nice: and with him 
p Lib. 1. cap. 7.  Theodoret agreeth, saying expressly, that Constantine called the noble Synod of Nice: and 
q Lib. 3. cap. 6.  Eusebius in his book of the life of Constantine, affirming, that by his letters most honourably written, he drew together the Bishops out of all parts, marshalling them as a mighty army ofGod, to encounter the enemies of the true faith. The occasion of calling this Council, was the Heresy of Arrius, denying the Son ofGod to be consubstantial with the Father. The next General Council after this, was the first at Constantinople, called for the suppressing of the Heresy of Macedonius and Eunomius, who denied the holy Ghost to be God coessential and coeternal with the Father, and this Council was called by Theodosius the elder, as 
r Lib. 5. cap. 9  Theodoret testifieth. 
s Euagrius. lib. 1. cap. 3.  The third was holden at Ephesus, and called by Theodosius the Younger, at the suit of Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, fearing the proceedings of Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, and Caelestinus Bishop of Rome against him. The Fourth Council was holden at Cahlcedon, and called by Martian the Emperor. The occasion was this: 
t Idem. lib. 1. cap. 9 & 1●….  In the time of Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, the Heresy of Eutyches began, about which a Provincial Council was called at Constantinople; whereunto unfortunate Eutyches being called, was found to have uttered horrible blasphemies: for he affirmed, that howsoever before the personal union, there were two distinct natures in Christ, yet after the union, there was but one; and besides affirmed, that his body was not of the same substance with ours: Whereupon he was put from the Ministry of the Church and degree of Priesthood. But not enduring thus to be deprived of his place and honour, he complaineth to Theodosius the Emperor, pretending that Flavianus had feigned and devised matters against him, and rested not, till he procured a Synod at Constantinople of the neighbour Bishops to re-examine the matters, who confirming that which was formerly done, another by his procurement was called at Ephesus by Theodosius, and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria made Precedent of it. In which Council all things were carried in a very disordered & violent sort: for Dioscorus permitted not the Bishops to speak freely, neither would he suffer the letters of the Bishop of Rome (who was absent) to be read; such Bishops as he disliked, he violently cast out of the Council, & retained none but such as were fit to serve his turn. He deposed Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorileum, Domnus Bishop of Antioch, and Theodoret, with sundry other. The Legates of the Bishop of Rome offended with these violent proceedings, protested against them as unlawful; and Flavianus (who was not only deprived, but so beaten, that not long after he died) appealed to the Bishop of Rome, & other Bishops of the West for help and remedy: upon the hearing of which complaints, 
u Vt patet in Epist. Leonis 42. & 43.  Leo then Bishop of Rome, with many other Bishops of the West, went to the Emperor, and in most humble and earnest manner upon their knees besought him to call a Council in Italy, which he would not yield unto, but called one at Chalcedon, commanding him and all other Bishops to come unto it. The fifth Council was holden at Constantinople, and called by justinian the Elder, as 
x Lib. 4. c. 13  Euagrius testifieth. I have showed 
y Cap. 49.  before what the occasion of calling this council was, and that though Vigilius Bishop of Rome, and the Western Bishops refused to be present in it, together with the rest, or to confirm it when it ended, yet it was holden a lawful council. The sixth General council was holden at Constantinople, and was called by Constantine the fourth, as appear by his letters to the bishops of Rome, Constantinople and the rest prefixed before it: The occasion whereof was the Heresy of the Monothelites, who denied the diversity of wills, actions, and operations in Christ, & consequently of natures. The seventh was holden at Nice, about the use of Pictures in the church, and called by Constantine the Emperor, as appeareth by his Epistle to Adrian Bishop of Rome, prefixed before it. The eight was holdenat Constantinople, about the difference between Ignatius and Photius, and called by Basilius the Emperor, as appeareth by the Appendix to the Acts of that council; collected out of divers Authors by Surius, and extant in the second part of the third Tome of Counsels, set out by Binnius. So that we see all the Eight General Counsels were called by the Emperors, and not by the Popes, which thing is so clear and evident, that our Adversaries dare not deny it, but seek to avoid the evidence of the truth (against which they dare not directly oppose themselves) by all the shifts they can devise; for first they say, 
z Bell. de conc. l. 1. c. 12.  that though it be not so proper to the Pope to call Counsels, but that others may do it, ifhee assent unto it or approve it, yet that without his Mandate, Assent or Approbation of such indiction and calling, no council is lawful. Secondly, they say, 
a Ibid.  that the Emperors called counsels by the authority of the Pope: and thirdly, 
b Andrad. de author. Gener. conc. l 3. p. 59  that happily they presumed above that was fit forthem to do. Wherefore let us see how they prove that they say.  
That the right of calling Counsels belongeth to the Pope, and not to the Emperor, and consequently, that the Emperor may call none without his assent, 
c Vbi supra.  Bellarmine endeavoureth to prove in this sort. They that meet in counsels, must be gathered together in the name of Christ: to be gathered in the name of Christ, is, to be gathered by him that hath authority from Christ; and none hath authority from Christ to call together the Pastors of the church, but the Pope only: therefore none but the Pope may call counsels. To this argument we answer, that indeed they must meet in the name of Christ, who assemble in counsels: but that to meet in Christ's name, importeth not in the promise made by Christ, a gathering together of them that meet by his authority. And that the Cardinal can never prove, that the Pope, and he only, is authorized to call together the Pastors of the churches. That to be gathered together in Christ's Name, importeth not to be called together by public authority, as Bellarmine untruely affirmeth, it is evident by his own confession, in that he acknowledgeth, that the gathering together in Christ's Name, to which 
d De conc. l. 2 c. 2.  he hath promised to join his own presence, may be verified of many or few, Bishops or Laymen, private or public persons, about private or public affairs: whereas private men meeting about private businesses, are not gathered together by any one having authority to command them, but by voluntary agreement among themselves: and therefore 
e De conc. author. l. 1. p. 13 & 14  Andradius telleth us, that both by the circumstance of Christ's speech, and the commentaries of the holy Fathers it is evident, that his words agree to every meeting of such men, as being joined together in Faith and charity, ask any thing of GOD: and particularly produceth 
f Hom. 6●…. in Matthaeum.  Chrysostome expounding Christ's words as Calvine doth, whom Bellarmine taxeth; to wit, that they are said to be gathered together in Christ's Name, whom neither respect of private gain induceth. nor the ambitious desire of honour inviteth, nor the pricks ofhatred and envy incite & drive forward, whom the inflamed love of peace, & the fervent affections of Christian charity impel, and not the spirit of contention: & in one word, they who meet to seek out (by force of divine grace, with common and heartiest longing desires sought and obtained) what especially pleaseth Christ, and what is true. For they that come together to set forward, and advance their own private designs and to serve their own contentious dispositions, and to deceive miserable men with the glorious name of a Council, are by no means to be thought to come together in Christ's name, nor to hold Ecclesiastical assemblies, but such as are most pestilent and hurtful: of which sort they were, which were holden heretofore in the time of Constantine and Constantius, at Tyrus, jerusalem, Antioch, Sirmium, and Seleucia, and infinite other conventicles of Heretics, to which that most aptly agreeth, which 
g Epist. 25.  Leo the Pope pronounceth of the second Council of Ephesus, to wit, that while private causes were promoted and set forward under pretence of religion, that was brought to pass by the impiety of a few, that wounded the whole Church. But (saith Bellarmine) this note of meeting in the fear of God, with desire of finding out the truth and doing good, discerneth not lawful Counsels from other, seeing all that meet in Counsels, pretend that they come together out of a desire of the common good, and not for private respects: and that therefore this is not to meet in Christ's name: which is strangely said of him; as if lawful Counsels rightly proceeding in their deliberations, might not be discerned from other by any thing that other may pretend: or as if this his silly argument might sway against the circumstances of Christ's words, and the Commentaries of the holy Fathers. Wherefore passing from this first exception against his Argument, we secondly answer unto it, that Christ did not give the power of calling General Counsels to the Pope alone, as he allegeth: and in what sort Christ committed his Church to Peter, to be governed by him: as likewise in what sense it is that 
h Serm. 3 in die Assumptionis.  Leo saith, Though there be many Pastors, yet Peter ruleth them all, we have largely 
i Cap. 24.  declared already. So that from hence nothing can be concluded to prove, that Christ gave the power and right of calling General Counsels to the Pope alone; And thirdly we say, that though it be true, that Christ did not leave his Church to be governed by Tiberius Caesar an Infidel, so continuing, or to his successors like unto him in Infidelity; yet he that promised to give 
* Esay 49. 23.  Kings to be nursing Fathers, and Queens to be nursing mothers unto his Church, left it to be governed by those nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers, which he meant in succeeding times to raise up for the good, comfort, and peace of his faithful people, after that their faith, patience; and long suffering (more precious than gold) should be sufficiently tried in the fire of tribulation. Wherefore let us pass to the Cardinal's second argument, which is no better than the first. For neither hath the Pope power either Civil or Ecclesiastical, to enforce all Bishops to be present at such assemblies as he shall appoint, neither did the Emperor's informer time want means to enforce all to come when they called for them. And touching the present state of things, we are not so foolish, as to think the right of calling general Counsels to rest in the Emperor, having so little command as now he hath, but we place it in the concurrence of Christian Princes, without which no lawful General Council can ever be had. His third reason, taken from the proportion of metropolitans and patriarchs, calling Provincial and patriarchical Synods, holdeth not, as I have showed before. Neither that which seemeth of all other to be strongest, taken from the ancient Canon of the Church, that without the liking judgement, and will of the Bishop of Rome, no Council may be holden, mentioned by 
k Lib. 2. cap. 13.  Socrates and 
l Lib. 3. cap. 9  Zozomen. For first the Canon is not to be understood of the person of the Bishop of Rome, but of him and his Western Bishops. Secondly, it is not so to be understood, as if simply without him and his Bishops, no General Council could be holden, but, that without consulting him, and first seeking to him and his, no such Council may be holden; as I have largely 
m Chap. 49.  showed before. For otherwise we know that Vigilius Bishop of Rome, refused to have any part in the deliberations of the Fifth General Council, or to confirm the Acts of it when it ended. Yet was is ever holden to be a lawful General Cowcell, he and his being sufficiently sought unto, and their presence desired. As likewiso Leo consented to the calling of the Council of Chalcedon, only for the determination of that question of faith, that was then debated, & 
* Leo Epist. 53. 54. 55.  gave no consent to the Decree therein passed touching the see of Constantinople, yet did this Council prevail, and the succeeding Bishops of Rome were forced to give way to that Canon their predecessors so much disliked. And therefore, whereas the Bishop of Rome's Legates, in the Council of Chalcedon do except against Dioscorus for presuming to hold 
n Actione. 〈◊〉.  a Synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, which they say never was lawful, nor never was done: their meaning is not that in no case a Council may be holden without the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishops of the West, but that there never was any such Synod holden without requiring & admitting the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishops of the West. And that therefore Dioscorus was justly to be condemned, who not only taken upon him by the favour of one near about the Emperor to be Precedent of the Second Council of Ephesus, whereof they speak, and sit before the Bishop of Rome's Legates, being but Bishop of the Second See, but also 
o Actione. 3. pag. 73. apud Binnium.  rejected the Synodall letters of Leo, and the Bishops of the West, not suffering them to be read; and, as if all the power had been in him alone, deprived the Bishops of Constantinople and Antioch, notwithstanding the Protestation of the Roman Legates against such proceedings, and their appeal from the same; and still carried on with his furious passions, rested not till he had pronounced sentence of excommunication against blessed Leo, and all the Bishops of the West. The next testimony which Bellarmine bringeth, no way proveth that, for proof whereof it is brought: for it is not said in the 
p Concil. 2. Actione 6.  place cited by him, that the Council holden at Constantinople, against the painting of those things that are reported in the story of the Bible, and for the defacing of such pictures made for Historical use, was therefore void, because it was called without the consent of the Roman Bishop (as he untruely reporteth:) but that it was no General Council, seeing many that were present consented not, but disliked the proceedings of it▪ and besides, it neither had the Bishop of Rome to concur, nor his Bishops, neither by their Vicegerents, nor by Provincial letters; neither yet the patriarchs of the East; to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, nor their Bishops. It is true indeed, that the 
q Concil. Rom. 4. sub Symmacho.  Bishops assembled at Rome by the command of Theodoricus, to examine the matters objected to Symmachus the Pope▪ told him, the Council should have been called by the Pope, and not by him; but they spoke of particular Counsels, which oftentimes, by the permission of Princes were wont to be called by Metropolitans Primates, or patriarchs, and not of general whereof our question is: and yet I have showed before, by many testimonies, that Princes when they saw cause, did call Counsels of this sort also. So that the speech of these Bishops (affected to their Patriarche, and unwilling to come to any scanning of his actions) is not much to be esteemed. The next testimony out of the Epistles of 
r Epist. 93. cap. 17.  Leo testifieth the Cardinal careth not what he saith, so he say something: for it is true indeed, that Leo saith: He directed his Letters to his Brethren and fellow-bishops, and summoned them to a General Council, but meaneth not a Council absolutely General, consisting of all the Bishops of the world, of which our question is, but of all the Bishops of those parts to which he writeth, being subject to him as Patriarch of the West, as appeareth by the circumstances of the Epistle cited. But 
s Epist. 1. ad Orientales.  Pelagius the Second in his Epistle to those that john of Constantinople called to his Synod as General, saith, The authority of calling general Counsels, was by singular privilege of blessed Peter, given to the Apostolic See; that no Synod was ever reputed lawful, that was not strengthened by the authority of the See Apostolic: and again, that Counsels may not be holden without the judgement and liking of the Bishop of Rome: therefore all is true that the Cardinal hath hitherto alleged. Hereunto (though Pelagius may seem somewhat partial in his own cause) we answer, first with 
t De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 12.  Bellarmine himself, that the calling of General Counsels is not so proper to the Bishop of Rome, but that another may do it, if he consent, or if he ratify the indiction. Secondly, that though he refuse to ratify it, if his resence & concurrence be sufficiently sought and desired, it may be lawful, and of orce, as it appeareth by the fifth General Council, which Vigilius refused to have any part in. The last testimony that Bell. produceth to prove, that the power of calling Counsels doth not properly belong to the Emperors, is a saying of Valentinius reported by 
u Zozom. l. 6. c. 7.  Zozomen: but it maketh clearly against himself The circumstances of Zozomens report are these. The Bishops of Hellespont, Bythinia, and some other, professing to believe that CHRIST the Son of GOD is con-substantial with his Father, sent a Legate to Valentinian the Emperor, and desired him to give them leave to meet about matters concerning the Faith. To whom the Emperor answered, that it was not lawful for him, being one of the Laity, to intermeddle in these Businesses, but willed, that the Priests and Bishops, to whom the care of these things pertaineth, should meet in one place where-soever it should please them: for here we see, that the Bishops durst not presume to assemble themselves without the Emperor's leave: which mainly crosseth the conceit of the cardinal: neither doth the Emperor say, the call of counsels pertaineth nothing to him, but the intermeddling with the matters that are brought in question in them; and therefore biddeth them meet by themselves, not intending to be present among them; not meaning that it was not lawful for him to be present, (for then he should condemn Constantine, and other that were present, either in person, or by Deputies) nor that it was simply unlawful for him to intermeddle, (for they intermeddled as I will show in that which followeth) but that he might not so intermeddle as Bishops & Priests, to whom properly it pertaineth to determine these things; yet, if Princes perceive, that they who meet in counsels, be swayed by sinister & vile affections, not seeking the clearing of the truth, but the suppressing of it, they may, & in duty are bound to hinder their proceedings by all lawful means, that come within the compass of their Princely power.  
Wherefore seeing our Adversaries cannot prove, that the right that Princes have to call counsels dependeth on the consent of the Pope, & that without his consent or ratification, their indiction of counsels is unlawful, let us see how they can prove, that the Emperors called General Counsels by the Pope's authority, and as commanded or required by him so to do, and not otherwise. We know that 
x Theod. hist. Eccl. l. 2.  Liberius entreated Constantius to call a council: and that 
y Leo ep. 24 & 43.  Leo with other Bishops of the West, on their knees besought the Emperor Martian to call a council in Italy, and could not obtain it; but were commanded to come to the council the Emperor appointed at Chalcedon, and were straight charged and required to come or send unto it at the time appointed, not finding so much favour as to have it deferred for a little time. And therefore it is greatly to be feared that Bellarmine's allegations will be too weak to prove, that the Emperors called counsels by the Pope's authority, and as commanded by him. For first, touching the council of Nice, 
z Lib. 1. c. 2.  Ruffinus showeth, that Arrius having broached his devilish Heresy, and being often admonished by his Bishop, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, no way reforming himself, Alexander wrote to other Bishops, signifying what was fallen out in his Church, so that in the end, the matter came to the Emperor's ears: who there-upon (by the counsel of the Bishop's advising him so to do) called the council of Nice; and 
a De authorit. Gener. Concil. l. 1. p. 59  Andradius saith, he was induced so to do by the persuasion of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, but that the Bishop of Rome commanded him so to do, it no way appeareth. Indeed the author of the 
b In vita Sylu.  Pontifical saith, Constantine called it with the consent of Sylvester. And the Fathers in the sixth 
c Actione 18. p. 88 apud Bin.  General council (out of him or some such Author) say, that Constantine and Sylvester called it. But the author of the Pontifical is of no credit in this behalf, reporting in the same place the curing of Constantine's Leprosy, which is acknowledged by all learned men to be a mere fable: and besides, 
d Lib. 1. c. 16.  Zozomen is of opinion, that the council of Nice was not holden in the time of Sylvester, but of julius that succeeded him▪ wherefore let us proceed to the next proof. Damasus the Bishop of Rome (saith Bellarmine) called the first council of Constantinople, and Theodosius the elder did but send his Letters to the Bishops to that purpose. Therefore the calling of General Counsels pertaineth to the Pope. How little the Jesuits care what they write, it appeareth by the dealing of the cardinal in this matter. For whereas both 
e Lib. 5. c 8.  Socrates, 
f Lib 7. c. 7  Zozomen, & 
g Lib. 5. c. 7.  Theodoret do testify, that the Emperor called the Bishops to Constantinople, without making any mention of the letters of the Bishop of Rome, & that they came upon his summons; he saith, it was not the Emperor that called them to Constantinople, but the Pope; & that the Emperor did nothing but transport and convey his letters unto them; wholly mistaking the story. For the letters he speaketh of, were not to call them to Constantinople, whither they came upon the Emperor's summons, but to Rome, where the Bishops of the West were assembled in Council, whither they refused to come. Neither doth he show any more faithfulness and sincerity in that he hath touching the Council of Ephesus. For whereas the 
h Constat ex Euagrio lib. 1. cap. 4. Epistol. Caelestini ad Cyril. Photio in lib. de 7. Synodis.  stories report, that things were managed in that Council by the industry of Cyrill, with the concurrence of the authority of Caelestinus, and that Cyrill, was there present and Precedent, not only in his own name, but also as supplying the place of Caelestinus, he inferreth from hence, that it was the Pope that called the Council. That the Council of Chalcedon was called by the Emperor, it is most evident; The Pope (as I have showed) being not able to prevail so much, as to get it deferred for a time: yet will Bellarmine prove, that Leo called that Council, though not without the help of the Emperor. First, out of the Epistle of the Emperor to Leo, prefixed before the Council: And secondly, out of the 
i Inter Epist. ad Concilium Chalced. pertinentes.  Epistle of the Bishops of the lesser Maesia, written to the Emperor. But these proofs are too weak: For the Emperor having resolved to have a Council, telleth Leo in his Epistle, that it remaineth that he come unto it: or if it seem troublesome unto him, that he signify so much to him by his letters, that he may write to Illyricum, Thracia, and the East, that all the holy Bishops may come together into the place he shall appoint; and may declare, publish, and set forth by their Decree such things as may be behooveful to the religion of Christians and the Catholic Faith, accordingly as his Holiness also shall define, according to the Ecclesiastical Canons; but saith nothing whence it may be inferred that Leo called the Council. For I think it will not follow, that because the Bishop of Rome was to come to the Council, or otherwise to send Synodall and Provincial Letters from himself and his Bishops, that so with one uniform consent things might be agreed on, therefore the Pope called the Council. The Epistle of the Bishops of the lesser Maesia is less to the purpose, than the former of the Emperor: for they say. The Council of Chalcedon was holden by the command of Leo Bishop of Rome, the chief of all Bishops, and the most honourable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius; joining the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople together, in commanding this Council to be holden. So that if the Cardinal will prove from hence, that the Pope called the Council, he may prove likewise, that the Patriarch of Constantinople called it. But the truth is, they might command the Bishops under them to assemble, after they received the Emperor's letters, but the Council was called by neither of them. And therefore whereas 
k Epist. ad Episc. Dardaniae.  Gelasius saith, the See Apostolic only decreed, that the Council of Chalcedon should be holden, his meaning is not, to exclude the Emperor and his Authority, but the other patriarchical Sees, and and to let the world know, that the See of Rome alone, by the authority it had with the Emperor, prevailed so far, as to obtain his royal Edict, for the gathering together of the Bishops in this Council; or else he speaketh untruely. For we know the Emperor took upon him in such peremptory sort to call this Council, that he would not be entreated by the Roman Bishop, and other Bishops of the West, neither for the time, nor place, but out of his absolute authority appointed both, as it seemed good unto himself. Three other proofs the jesuit hath yet behind. The first is out of Socrates, out of whom he saith it may be proved, that julius the Pope called the Council of Sardica: but how, I cannot tell. For 
l Lib. 2. cap. 16.  Socrates saith expressly, that the Council of Sardica was called by the two Emperors, Constance and Constantius: whereof the one reigned in the East, the other in the West; the one by his Letters desiring it, the other most willingly performing that he desired. But of julius calling it, he maketh no mention. If the jesuit think it may be proved, that julius called it; because among them that sought to excuse themselves from coming upon feigned pretences, some complained of the shortness of the time appointed for this meeting, and cast the blame thereof upon julius, he is greatly deceived; seeing julius might be blamed, for procuring the Emperor Constance, by his Letters directed to Constantius his brother, to set so short a time as he did; though he did not call the Council himself. And that it was not the Authority of the Pope that brought the Bishops together in this Council, it is most evident, in that, 
m Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7.  when he wrote to them to restore Athanasius to his place, they rejected his Letters with contempt, marvelling, that he meddled more with their matters then they did with his. Neither is it likely, that Constantius would be commanded by julius to call this Council. Seeing when the Council had commanded Athanasius to be restored to his place, yet he 
n Socrates lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 18.  refused to give way, till his brother threatened to make war upon him for it. But it this proof fail, Bellarmine hath a better. For he saith, Sixtus the third, in an Epistle to those of the East, writeth, That Valentinian the Emperor called a Synod by his authority, whence it followeth, that the calling of General Counsels pertaineth in such sort to the Popes, that the Emperors may not call them, but by warrant and authority from them. If the Reader will be pleased to consider of this proof, he shall easily discern how little credit is to be given to jesuited Papists in their allegations. For first, Sixtus doth not say, the Emperor Valentinian called a Synod by his authority, but that he commanded a Synod should be called by his authority; that is, commanded him to call it. And the author of the 
o In vita Sixti. 3.  Pontifical, speaking of the calling of the same Synod, saith, the Emperor commanded that the Council and holy Synod should be congregated. Secondly, it was but a Diocesan Synod, consisting of the Presbyters and Clergy of Rome called together, about certain crimes objected to Sixtus, whereof he purged himself before them. Now I think it will not follow, that, if the Bishop of Rome might call together the Clergy of his own Diocese, the calling of General Counsels pertained to him only: or that, if the Emperor thought fit, rather to command the Roman Bishop to call together his Cleagie, then to do it immediately by his own authority; therefore he would have done the like in summoning General Counsels, consisting of all the Bishops of the World. Wherefore let us pass to the last of his proofs, taken out of the Epistle of Adrian the second, to Basileius the Emperor, prefixed before the eighth General Council, which undoubtedly upon proof, will be found to be no better than the rest. For first; it is grounded on the saying of a Pope, that lived many hundred years after Christ, and long after the division of the Empire, and the withdrawing of the Church of Rome from the obedience of the Emperors of the East, and so not much to be regarded in a question concerning the right of the Emperor. Secondly he speaketh not in his own name, but in the name of all the West Church. And thirdly, that he saith, 
* Adrian wrote this Epistle after he had received the Emperor's letters, calling him to the Council, and therefore 〈◊〉 may be thought, that when he saith, we will etc. he expresseth his consenting to the Emperor's mandate, and not any commanding of him.  We will that by your industry, a great assembly be gathered; proveth not that the Pope took upon him peremptorily to command the Emperor. For seeing in the whole Epistle he useth words of exhorting praying & entreating; these words may seem to import no more, but, Our desire is, that there should be such an assembly by your industry, in which our Legates sitting as Precedents, matters may be examined, and all things righted. Or, we, though no way subject to your Empire, yet at your request, are content that such a Council be called, and that our Legates do sit in it, with the Bishop's subject to your Imperial command. For that Basileius called the Council, appeareth by his words to the Bishops in the beginning of it.  
But if none of these exceptions against the Emperor's ancient practice of calling Counsels will hold, our Adversaries, rather than they will suffer the Pope to be a loser, will not stick to charge the Emperors with usurpation, and taking more on them then pertained to them. Whosoever (saith 
p Lib: 1. de authorit. general. Concil. pag. 59  Andradius) shall think, that the power and authority of Emperors, is to be esteemed and judged of, by the things done by them in the Church, rather than by Christ's institution, the Decrees of the Elders, and the force and nature of the Papal dignity itself, he shall make unbridled pride, and headlong fury to be chief commander, and to sway most in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Thus doth Andradius censure the ancient Christian Emperors, and exemplifieth not only in Constantius the Arrian, but justinian also (as himself confesseth) a good Emperor. For refutation of which most unjust exception, we say, that howsoever it be not to be doubted, but that ill affected, or ill directed Emperors did sometimes that which was not fit; yet, that in calling Counsels by their Princely authority, and commanding all Bishops to come or send unto them, they exceeded not the bounds and limits of their commission, it is evident, in that never any Bishop durst blame them for it; But all sought unto them, even the Bishops of Rome themselves, praying them so to do, as I showed before by the examples of Liberius, Innocentius, and Leo: which thing also 
q De conc. l. 〈◊〉 c. 13.  Bellarmine himself confesseth: Wherefore seeing it is evident by the allowed practice of former times; that the calling of General Counsels belonged to the Emperors, after they became Christians, let us see what they took on them in these Counsels, after they had called them; and consequently, what right, power, and authority Christian Princes have to manage the affairs, and command the holy Bishops and Ministers of the church.   

CHAP. 53.  
Of the power and authority exercised by the ancient Emperors in General Counsels: and of the supremacy of Christian Princes in causes and over persons Ecclesiastical.  
THe first thing that Christian Emperors in ancient times assumed to themselves in General Counsels, was, to be present in them when they pleased: as we read of 
a Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 3. c. 10.  Constantine the Great, that he not only called the Council of Nice, but was present in it; of 
b Conc. Chalced. act. 1. p. 4. apud Bin.  Martian, that he was present in the Council of Chalcedon, with Pulcheria the Empress; of 
c Conc. 6. act. 1 to. 3. apud Bin. p. 8.  Constantine the fourth, that he was present in the sixth General Council; and 
d Vt patet in act. conc. 8.  Basileius in the eighth: and when they pleased to be absent, to send some in their stead; as 
e Act. Ephel. conc. tom. 1. c. 32.  Theodosius the younger sent ᵉ Candidianus to be present for him in the council of Ephesus, and Martianus, 
f Vide act Synod. Chalced.  though present in the first Session, yet being for the most part of the time absent, appointed certain secular judges to sit in the Council of Chalcedon.  
The second thing that they assumed to them, was, to sit in the highest place: and so we read, that 
g Euseb. de vitâ Constant. l. 3. c. 10.  in the council of Nice, all the Bishop's being placed in order, the Emperor (some few going before him) entered into the Council; at whose coming all the Bishops rose up, and did reverence unto him, and he passed through the midst of them, as an heavenly Angel of God, having on a purple robe, and shining vesture be-decked with gold, pearls, and precious stones; and stayed not till he came to the highest place, where a little seat of Gold was prepared: wherein yet he sat not down, but stood upright till the Bishops had bowed and beckoned unto him to sit down. In like sort we read of 
h Vbi suprà.  Martian, that he sat in the highest place in the Council of Chalcedon, with the Senators and judges by his side: And of 
i Vbi suprà.  Constantine the fourth, that he sat in the highest place in the sixth General Council. And when they were not present in person, the Senators and secular judges deputed by them, sat in the midst in the highest room: as we shall find they did in the counsels of Chalcedon, at such times as the Emperor was away.  
The third thing which the Emperors took on them either in their own persons, or by such as they deputed▪ besides the defence of the Bishops from outward violence, was a kind of direction of things that were to be done in the council. This direction consisted in seven things: First, in providing that nothing should be done passionately, violently, and by clamour of multitudes, but that the ground of each thing should be sought out. Secondly, in providing that nothing should be extorted by fear and terror, from them that meet to decree for truth & justice, without all private and sinister respects. Thirdly, in seeing that nothing should be omitted, that the holy Canons require to be done for the finding out of that which is true and right; that so both error and wrong might be avoided. Fourthly, in not suffering them to pass from one thing to another, before that they had in hand were fully ended; nor to digress to things impertinent, which might breed confusion, and hinder the effecting of that which was intended▪ And in putting an end to each action, when they saw as much done as was fit, or otherwise deferring the farther deliberation to some other time. Fifthly, when they found an indisposition in them, to agree to such and so clear determination of matters in question, as might satisfy all, to dissolve the Council, and to call another. Sixthly, in judging & pronouncing according to that they saw alleged with the approbation and assent of the Council. Lastly, in subscribing and confirming by their royal assent, the things resolved and agreed on. All these things (as 
k Concord. Cathol. lib. 3. cap. 28.  Cusanus rightly noteth) the Emperors took on them in General Counsels; and the performance of every of these we may find in the Council of Chalcedon, but specially the First and the Fifth. For 
l Concil. Chalced. Actione. 4.  whereas the ten Bishops of Egypt, that were there in the name of the rest, refused to subscribe to the Acts of the Council, till they should have a new Patriarch chosen and ordained (not out of any dislike of that was done, or as being of another judgement, but because the custom of their country permitted them not to subscribe, unless their Patriarch went before them in so doing) there was a general clamour against them, of all the Bishops, crying out aloud, that they were to be excommunicated & Anathematised. And though they fell prostrate on their faces before the whole Council, professing their refusal to proceed from no private conceit, & desiring to be pitied, and not urged to any formal subscription, for that if they should do any such thing, they were sure never to be endured by the Bishops of their Country; yet could they find no favour or relenting, till the secular judges, out of their discretion, finding the true ground of this their stay to subscribe, to be such as they alleged, delivered their opinion, that it was a thing reasonable, and in pity to be granted unto them, that they should be foreborne and stay in the City, till their Archbishop were chosen: Which when Paschasinus the Legate of Rome heard, he said, if your glorious excellency command that it be so, let them put in sureties not to depart the City, till their Archbishop be chosen; and the rest of the Bishops agreed to him. So that the matter which was ready to be swayed by the whole Council, with clamour and outcry in a very violent sort, was stayed by the wisdom of the secular judges, the poor distressed suppliants pitied, and the hard proceeding of the Bishops against them hindered. And in the same 
m Actio. ead.  Council we read, that the Bishops having agreed on a form of Confession of Faith, were desired by the Emperor's Deputies the secular judges, for the satisfaction of all men, to add certain words out of the Epistle of Leo, to that form of Confession: which when they all (some few of the East, and the Legates of Rome excepted) with great clamour refused to do; the judges told them, the Emperor should know of their clamorous courses: And that if they would not agree together to make some good end, a Council should be called in the West; and they forced to walk thither.  
Neither did Christian Emperors only thus intermeddle in General Counsels, as chief Lords of the whole world, but particular Kings and Princes likewise within their several dominions and Kingdoms did as much. For we read that 
n Naucler. vol. 2. generat. 25.  Charlemaigne, with the advice & counsel of the servants of GOD, and his Nobles, gathered together into a Synod all the Bishops in his kingdom, with their Presbyters, that they might advise him how the law of God and religion (well established in the times of former Princes, but now much fallen and decayed) might be restored, and Christian people attain salvation, and not be misled by false Priests: and by the advice of his Bishops and Nobles, according to this his good intent and purpose, he ordained Bishops in his cities, and set over them Bonifacius as their Archbishop: he decreed that a Synod should be holden once every year, that in his presence the Decrees of the Canons and Laws of the church might be restored, and what should be found amiss in Christian religion, amended: he degraded false Priests & Deacons, & clerks that were whoremongers and adulterers; he prescribed penance to certain offenders, and subjected them to imprisonment & other corporal punishments and corrections. This Act of Charlemagne is alleged by 
o Cusanus Concord. Cathol. li: 3. cap. 8.  Cusanus, and greatly approved: yea the same 
p Ibid. cap. 40:  Cusanus complaining of the abuses of the Court of Rome (in that things are carried thither, that should be determined in the Provinces where they begin, in that the Pope intermeddleth in giving Benefices before they be void, to the prejudice of the original Patrons, by reason whereof young men run to Rome and spend their best time there, carrying gold with them and bringing back nothing but paper, and many like confusions, which the Canons forbid and need reformation) addeth, that the common saying, that the secular power may not restrain or alter these courses brought in by Papal authority, should not move any man: for that, though the power of temporal Princes ought not to change any thing established canonically for the honour of GOD and good of such as attend his service, yet it may and aught to provide for the common good, and see, that the ancient canons be observed. Neither ought any one to say, that the ancient christian Emperors did err, that made so many sacred constitutions, or that they ought not so to have done. For (saith he) I read, that Popes have desired them for the common good, to make laws for the punishment of offences committed by those of the clergy. And if any one shall say, that the force of all these constitutions depended upon Papal or Synodall approbation, I will not insist upon it, though I have read and collected four score and six chief heads of Ecclesiastical rules and laws made by old Emperors, and many other made by Charles the Great and his successors: in which order is taken, not only concerning others, but even concerning the Bishop of Rome himself, and other patriarchs, what they shall take of the Bishops they ordain, and many like things: and yet did I never find, that the Pope was desired to approve them, or that they have no binding force, but by virtue of his approbation. But I know right well, that some Popes have professed their due regard of those Imperial and Princely constitutions. But though it were granted, that those constitutions had no further force than they received from the canons, wherein the same things were formerly ordered, or from Synodall approbation, yet might the Emperor now reform things amiss by virtue of old canons, and Princes constitutions grounded on them. Yea, if he should with good advice (considering the decay of piety and divine worship, the overflowing of all wickedness, and the causes and occasions thereof) recall the old canons, and the ancient and most holy observation of the Elders, and reject whatsoever privileges, exemptions, or new devices contrary thereunto, (by virtue whereof, suits, complaints and controversies, the gifts and donations of benefices, & the like things are unjustly brought to Rome, to the great prejudice of the whole Christian Church) I think no man could justly blame him for so doing. Yea he saith, the Emperor Sigismond had an intention so to do, and exhorteth him, by no feigned allegations of men favouring present disorders, to be discouraged: for that there is no way to preserve the peace of the Church (whatsoever some pretend to the contrary) unless such lewd and wicked courses, proceeding from ambition, pride, and covetousness, be stopped, and the old canons revived.  
From that which hath been observed touching the proceeding of Christian Kings and Emperors in former times, in calling Counsels, in being present at them, and in making laws for persons and causes Ecclesiastical, it is easy to gather, what the power of Princes is in this kind, and that they are indeed supreme Governors over all persons, and in all causes, as well Ecclesiastical as Civil: which is that we attribute to our Kings & Queens, and the Papists so much stumble at, as if some new and strange opinion were broached by us. Wherefore, for the satisfaction of all such, as are not maliciously obstinate, refusing to hear what may be said, I will endeavour in this place upon so fit an occasion to clear whatsoever may be questionable in this point; & will first entreat of the power and right that Princes have in causes Ecclesiastical, & then of that they have over persons Ecclesiastical: & in treating of causes Ecclesiastical, I will first distinguish the diversities of them, & the power of meddling with them. Causes Ecclesiastical therefore are of two sorts: for some are originally and naturally such; and some, only, in that (by favour of Princes out of due consideration) they are referred to the Cognisance of Ecclesiastical persons, as fittest judges, as the probations of the Testaments of them that are dead, the disposition of the goods of them that die intestat, and if there be any other like. Causes Ecclesiastical of the first sort, are either merely and only Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, or mixed. Merely Ecclesiastical, are of three sorts. First, matters of Faith and Doctrine. Secondly, matters of Sacraments, and the due administration of them, Thirdly, the orders, degrees, & ordination of such as attend the Ministry of the word & Sacraments. mixedly Ecclesiastical, are of two sorts: either such, as in one respect belong to one kind of cognisance, and in another to another, as marriages, which are subject to civil disposition, in that they are political contracts: and to spiritual, in that they are ordered by the divine law: or such as are equally censurable by Civil & Ecclesiastical authority, as murders, adulteries, blasphemies, & the like. All which in the time when there is no Christian Magistrate, or when there is overgreat negligence in the civil Magistrate▪ are to be punished by the spiritual guides of the Church. Whereupon we shall find that the ancient Counsels prescribed penance to offenders in all these kinds. But when there is a Christian Magistrate doing his duty, they are to be referred, specially either to the one or the other of these; and accordingly to be censured by the one or the other: as we see the punishment of adultery, usury, and things of that nature is referred to Ecclesiastical persons, & the punishment of murder, theft, & the like to the civil Magistrate. This distinction of causes Ecclesiastical premised, it is easy to see what authority Princes have in causes Ecclesiastical. For first, touching those causes that are Ecclesiastical, only in that they are put over to the cognisance of spiritual persons, there is no question but that the Prince hath a supreme power, and that no man may meddle with them any otherwise then as he is pleased to allow. And likewise touching those things which in one respect pertain to civil jurisdiction, & in another to spiritual, or which are equally censurable, by both, there is no question but that the Prince hath supreme power, in that they pertain to civil jurisdiction. So that the only question is, touching things naturally and merely spiritual: The power in these is of two sorts: of Order, & of jurisdiction. The power of Order, is the authority to preach the Word, minister the Sacraments, & to ordain Ministers to do all these things: & this power the Princes of the World have not at all, much less the supreme authority to do these things, but it is proper to the Ministers of the church. And if Princes meddle in this kind, they are like to 
p 2 Chro. 26. 16  Vzziah that offered to burn incense, for which he was stricken with Leprosy. The power of jurisdiction standeth first in prescribing & making Laws. Secondly, in hearing, examining, and judging of opinions touching matters of Faith. And thirdly, in judging of things pertaining to Ecclesiastical order & ministry, and the due performance of God's divine worship & service. Touching the first, the making of a Law is the prescribing of a thing under some pain or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath power to inflict. Whence it is consequent, that the Prince (having no power to excommunicate, put from the Sacraments, and deliver to Satan) can of himself make no canons, such as Counsels of Bishops do; who command or forbid things under pain of excommunication, and like spiritual censures; but (having power of life and death, of imprisonment, banishment, confiscation of goods, and the like) he may with the advice and direction of his Clergy, command things pertaining to God's worship and service under these pains, both for profession of Faith, ministration of Sacraments, and conversation fitting to Christians in general, or men of Ecclesiastical order in particular: & by his Princely power establish things formerly defined and decreed against whatsoever error, and contrary ill-custome, and observation. And herein he is so far forth supreme, that no Prince, Prelate, or Potentate, hath a commanding authority over him: yet do we not whatsoever our clamorous Adversaries untruly report, to make us odious,) make our Princes with their Civil States, supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God, and his Faith and religion, without seeking the direction of their Clergy, (for the 
q Anno. 〈◊〉. Elizab.  Statute that restored the title of Supremacy to the late Queen Elizabeth, of famous and blessed memory, provideth, that none shall have authority newly to judge any thing to be Heresy, not formerly so judged, but the high Court of Parliament with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation,) nor with them, so, as to command what they think fit, without advising with others, partakers of like precious Faith with them, when a more general meeting for farther deliberation may be had, or the thing requireth it. Though when no such general concurrence may be had, they may by themselves provide for those parts of the Church that are under them. From the power and authority we give our Princes in making laws, and prescribing how men shall profess and practise touching matters of Faith and Religion, let us proceed to treat of the other part of power ascribed unto them, which is in judging of errors in Faith & disorders, or faults in things pertaining to Ecclesiastical order and ministry according to former determinations and decrees. And first, touching errors in faith, or aberrations in the performance of God's worship and service, there is no question, but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church (to whom it pertaineth to teach the truth) are the ordinary and fittest judges: and that ordinarily and regularly, Princes are to leave the judgement thereof unto them. But because they may fail, either through negligence, ignorance or malice, Princes having charge over God's people, and being to see that they serve and worship him aright, are to judge and condemn them that fall into gross errors, contrary to the common sense of Christians; or into any other heresies formerly condemned. And though there be no general failing, yet if they see violent and partial courses taken, they may interpose themselves to stay them, and cause a due proceeding, or remove the matter from one company and sort of judges to another. And hereunto the best learned in former times agreed, clearly confessing, that when some thing is necessary to be done, and the ordinary guides of the Church do fail, or are not able to yield that help that is needful, we may lawfully fly to other for relief and help; 
r Waldens'. doctrine. fidei. lib. 2. c. ●…0.  when these two things do meet in the state of the Church, (saith Waldensis) to wit, extreme necessity, admitting no delay, and the want of ability to yield relief in the ordinary Pastor or Guide, we must seek an extraordinary Father and Patron, rather than suffer the frame, fabric and building of the Lord Christ to be dissolved. If any man happily say that 
s Epistolar. lib. 5. ep. 32.  Ambrose, a most worthy Bishop, refused to come to the Court to be judged in a matter of faith by Valentinian the Emperor, and asked; when ever he heard that Emperors judged Bishops in matters of faith? seeing if that were granted, it would follow, that Laymen should dispute and debate matters, and Bishops hear; yea that Bishops should learn of Laymen, (whereas contrariwise, if we look over the Scriptures, and consider the course of times past, we shall find that Bishops have judged of Emperors in matters of faith, and not Emperors of Bishops) and that therefore it cannot be without usurpation of that which no way pertaineth to them, that Princes should at all meddle with the judging of matters of faith. This objection what show soever it may seem to carry, is easily answered, for first, the thing that Valentinian took on him, was not to judge according to former definitions, but he would have judged of a thing already resolved on in a general Council, called by Constantine the Emperor, as if it had been free and not yet judged of at all: whereas we do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates, power newly to adjudge any thing to be heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy, but only to judge in those matters of faith, that are resolved on, according to former resolutions. And besides this, Valentinian was known to be partial; he was but a novice, and the other judges he meant to associate tohimselfes suspected; & therefore Ambrose had reason to do as he did. Wherefore let us proceed to the other part of the power of jurisdiction, that consists in judging of things pertaining to Ecclesiastical Order & Ministry. Concerning which point, first it is resolved, that none may ordain any to serve in the work of the Ministry, but the spiritual Pastors and Guides of the church. Secondly, that none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted from his degree and order, but they alone. Neither do our Kings or Queens challenge any such thing to themselves: but their power standeth, first, in calling together the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, for the hearing & determining of such things, and in taking all due care, that all things be done orderly in such proceedings, without partiality, violence, or precipitation, according to the Canons and Imperial laws made to confirm the same. Secondly, when they see cause, in taking things from those whom they justly suspect, or others except against, and appointing others in their places. Thirdly, in appointing some selected men for the visitation of the rest. Fourthly, in joining temporal menincommission with the spiritual guides of the church, to take view of, and to censure the actions of men of Ecclesiastical order: because they are directed not only by Canons, but laws Imperial. Fifthly, when matters of fact are objected, for which the canons and laws Imperial judge men depriveable; the Prince, when he seeth cause, and when the state of things require it, either in person, if he please, or by such other as he thinketh fit to appoint, may hear and examine the proofs of the same, and either ratify that others did, or void it: as we see in the case of 
u August. Epist. 162.  Caecilianus, to whom it was objected that he was a Traditor, and Faelix Antumnitanus that ordained him, was so likewise, and that therefore his ordination was void. For first, the enemies of Caecilianus disliking his ordination, made complaints against him to Constantine; and he appointed Melchiades and some other Bishops, to sit and hear the matter. From their judgement, there was a new appeal made to Constantine. Whereupon he sent to the Proconsul to examine the proofs that might be produced. But from his judgement the complainants appealed the third time to Constantine, who appointed a Synod at 
x Euseb. li. 10. cap. 5.  Arle. All this he did, to give satisfaction (if it were possible) to these men; and so to procure the peace of the Church. And though he excused himself for meddling in these businesses, and asked pardon for the same: (for that regularly, he was to have left these judge ments to Ecclesiastical persons) yet it no way appeareth, that he did ill in interposing himself in such sort as he did, the state of things being such as it was: nor that the Bishops did ill, that yielded to him in these courses, and therefore in cases of like nature, Princes may do whatsoever he did, and Bishops may appear before them, and submit themselves to their judgement; though in another case Ambrose refused to present himself before Valentinian the Emperor, for trial of an Ecclesiastical cause. Neither is it strange in our state that Kings should intermeddle in causes Ecclesiastical. For 
y In Henrico. 2. pag. 96.  Matthew Paris showeth, that the ancient laws of England provided, that in appeals men should proceed from the archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and that, if the Archbishop should fail in doing justice, the matter should be made known to the King; that by virtue of his commandment it might receive an end in the Archbishops Court; that there might be no further proceeding in appeals without the King's consent.  
From the power which Princes have in causes Ecclesiastical, let us proceed to the power they have over persons Ecclesiastical; and see, whether they be supreme over all persons; or whether men of the Church be exempt from their jurisdiction, That they are not exempted by GOD'S law, we have the clear confession of Cardinal 
z De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 28.  Bellarmine, and others: who not only yield so far unto the truth, forced so to do by the clear evidence thereof, but prove the same by Scripture and Fathers. The Cardinal's words are these: Exceptio Clericorum in rebus politicis, tam quoad personas, quam quoad bona, iure humano introducta est, non divino; that is, The exemption of Cleargymen in things civil, as well in respect of their persons, as their goods, was introduced & brought in by man's law, and not by the law of God. Which thing is proved, first, out of the precept of the Apostle to the Romans, 
a Rom. 13. 1.  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: and addeth: 
b Ver. 16.  Therefore pay ye tribute: For when the Apostle saith, Let every soul be subject: he includeth Cleargymen, as Chrysostome witnesseth: and therefore when he addeth, for this cause pay ye tribute, he speaketh of Cleargymen also. Whence it will follow, that Cleargymen are bound to pay tribute; unless they be exempted by the favour and privilege of Princes, freeing them from so doing▪ which thing Thomas Aquinas also affirmeth, writing upon the same place. Secondly, the same is proved out of the Ancient. 
c Decr. 2. part. causa 23. qu. 8. ca Tributum.  For Vrbanus saith: The tribute money was therefore found in the mouth of the fish, taken by Saint Peter, because the Church payeth tribute out of her outward and earthly possessions. 
d Ino●…at detradend. Basilicis.  And Saint Ambrose saith, if tribute be demanded, it is not denied, the Churchland payeth tribute. Now if Vrbanus, Bishop of Rome, and worthy Ambrose Bishop of Milan (than whom there was never any Bishop found more resolute in the defence of the right of the Church) say, that tribute is not to be denied, but paid unto Princes by men of the Church: and in respect of Churchland, I think it is evident, there is no exemption by any Law of GOD, that freeth the goods of Churchmen from yielding tribute to Princes. For touching that text, (where our Saviour saith unto Peter, 
e Math. 17. 25.  What thinkest thou Simon, of whom do the Kings of the Gentiles receive tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? And Peter answereth, of strangers: Whence CHRIST inferreth, that the children are free) brought by some to prove the supposed immunity of Cleargymen to be from GOD'S own grant, Bellarmine sufficiently cleareth the matter. For first he showeth, that CHRIST speaketh of himself only, making this argument; Kings sons are free from tribute, as being neither to pay to their own fathers, seeing their goods are common: nor to strangers to whom they are not subject: therefore himself being the Son of the great King of Kings, oweth no Tribute to any mortal man. So that when he said, the children are free, he meant not to signify, that any other are free: but only that himself was free. Secondly, he rightly observeth that this place would prove that all Christians are free from Tribute, if it proved any other then CHRIST to be so: for all Christians are the sons of GOD by adoption and grace. And Hierome writing upon this place hath these words: Our Lord was the King's son both according to the flesh, and according to the spirit, descending of the stock of David, and being the Word of the Almighty Father: and therefore as being the Son of the Kingdom owed no tribute, but because he assumed the humility of flesh, it behoved him to fulfil all righteousness: but unhappy men that we are! we are called after the name of Christ, & do nothing worthy so great an honour. He for the great love he bore towards us, sustained the cross for us, and paid tribute: but we for his honour pay no tribute, and as King's sons are free from tribute. These words are brought by some to prove the imagined freedom we speak of but first, they are so far from proving any such thing, that 
f Erasm. citat. 3 Sixto Senense. Bibl. sanct. l. 6. annot. 75.  Erasmus thinketh Hierome reprehended it, and disliked it as a thing savouring of arrogancy, that cleargymen should refuse to pay tribute, which, he saith, is contrary to the conceit of men in our time, who think it the height of all piety to maintain this immunity. And 
g Ibid.  Sixtus Senensis saith: that Hierome speaketh not of that tribute which subjects pay to their Princes here in this world, but of that which we all owe to CHRIST, so that this is that he saith, why do not we wretched men, professing ourselves to be the servants of Christ, yield unto his Majesty the due tribute of our service, seeing Christ, so great and excellent, paid tribute for our sakes? S. Austin in his 
h Quaest 2●….  first book of Questions upon the Gospels, saith: that King's sons in this world are free, & that therefore much more the sons of that Kingdom, under which all kingdoms of the World are, should be free in each earthly Kingdom: which words, 
i Secunda secundae q. 104. art. 6.  Thomas, and 
k Lib. supradict. annot. 76.  Sixtus Senensis understand of a freedom from the bondage of sin, but 
l Com. in concord. Evang. c. 69.  jansenius rejecteth that interpretation, because Austin saith: the children of Kings are free from tribute, and thinketh that Austin's meaning is; that if God the King of Heaven & Earth had many natural sons, as he hath but one only begotten, they should all be free in all the Kingdoms of the world: and other apply these words to cleargymen, though there be nothing in the place leading to any such interpretation. But whatsoever we think of the meaning of Austin, Bellarmine saith it cannot be inferred from these his words, that cleargymen by God's Law are free from the duty of paying tribute: because (as Chrysostome noteth,) Christ speaketh only of natural children: and besides prescribeth nothing, but only showeth that usually among men, Kings sons are free from tribute: and therefore, whereas the authority of Bonifacius the Eighth 
m In 6. cap. Quanquam de de Sensibu●….  who affirmeth, that the goods & persons of Cleargymen are free from exactions, both by the law of God and man, is brought to prove the contrary: He answereth, first, that haply the Pope meant not, that they are absolutely freed by any special grant from God, but only that there is an example of 
n Gen. 47.  Pharaoh an Heathen Prince, freeing the Priests of his Gods mentioned in Scripture, which may induce Christian Kings to free the Pastors of Christ's Church. Secondly, that it was but the private opinion of the Pope, inclining to the judgement of the Canonistes: and that he did not define any such thing. So that men may lawfully descent from him in this point. So that we see by the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers, and the confession of the best learned among our adversaries themselves, that Almighty God did not by any special exemption free either the goods or persons of Cleargymen from the command of Princes, and that in the beginning they were subject to all services, judgements, payments & burdens, that any other are subject to, and required by Christ the Son of God, and his blessed Apostles, to be so.  
But some man happily will say, that though Christ did not specially free, either the goods or persons of Cleargymen from the subjection to Princes, yet there are inducements in reason, and in the very light of nature, such and so great, to move Princes to set them free, that they should not do well if they did not so. Whereunto we answer, that there is no question to be made, but that the Pastors of the Church that watch over the souls of men, are to be respected and tendered more than men of any other calling, and so they are, and ever were, where any sense of religion is, or was. The Apostle Saint Paul testifieth of the Galathians 
o Galath. 4. ver. 14. 15.  that they received him as an Angel of God, yea as Christ jesus himself, & that they would have even plucked out their eyes to have done him good. 
p Ruffin. l. 〈◊〉. c. 2. Theodoret. lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 11.  The Emperor Constantine honoured the Christian Bishops with the name and title of Gods, acknowledged himself subject to their judgement, though he swayed the sceptre of the World: and refused to see what the complaints were that they preferred one against another, or to read their bills, but professed that to cover their faults he would even cast from him his purple Robe. Whence it came that many privileges were anciently granted unto them, both in respect of their persons, & goods. For first, Constantine the Great, not only gave ample gifts to the Pastors of the Churches, but exempted them also from those services ministeries and employments, that other men are subject to. His Epistle to Anelinus the Proconsul of Africa, wherein this grant was made to them of Africa, is found in 
q Lib. 10. Hist. Eccl. cap. 7.  Eusebius. Neither is it to be doubted, but that he extended his favours to the Bishops of other Churches also, aswell as to them. The words of the Grant are these. Considering that the due observation of things pertaining to true religion and the worship of God, bringeth great happiness to the whole state of the Commonwealth and Empire of Rome: For the encouragement of such as attend the holy Ministry, and are named Cleargymen, my pleasure is, that all such in the Church wherein Caecilianus is Bishop, be at once and altogether absolutely freed, and exempted from all public Ministeries and Services. Neither did the Emperors only exempt them from these services, but 
r Novel. Constit. 79. 83. & 123.  they freed them also from secular judgements, unless it were in certain kinds of criminal causes. Wherein yet a Bishop was not to be convented against his will before any secular Magistrate, without the Emperor's command. Neither might the temporal Magistrates condemn any Cleargy-man, till he were degraded by his Bishop, howsoever they might imprison and restrain such upon complaints made. And answerably hereunto the Council of Matiscon provideth, 
s Concil. Matisconen●…. 1. Canon 7.  that no Cleargy-man for any cause, without the discussion of his Bishop, shall be wronged & imprisoned by any Secular Magistrate, & that if any judge shall presume to do so to the Cleargymen of any Bishop, unless it be in a criminal cause, he shall be excommunicated as long as the Bishop shall think fit. This was all the immunity that Cleargymen anciently had by any grant of Princes, and as much as ever the Church desired to enjoy: but that which in latter times was challenged by some, and in defence of the claim whereof, Thomas Becket resisted the King: till his blood was shed, was of another kind. For whereas it was not thought fit by the King and State of the Realm at that time, that Churchmen found in enormous crimes, by the king's justices, should be delivered over to their Bishops, and so escape civil punishment, but that confessing such crimes, or being clearly convinced of them before the Bishop, the Bishop should in presence of the King's justices degrade them, and put them from all Ecclesiastical honour, and deliver them to the King's Court to be punished: Becket was of a contrary mind, and thought, that such as Bishops degraded or put out of their Ministry of the Church, should not be punished by the civil Magistrates; because as he said, one offence was not to be punished twice. 
t Matth. Pari●… in Henrico. 2. pag. 98.  The occasion of this controversy between the King and the Archbishop, was given by one Philip Brock, a Canon of Bedford: Who being brought before the King's justices for murder, used vile and contemptuous speeches against them; which though it were proved against him before the Archbishop, yet he was only deprived of the benefit of his Prebend, and driven out of the Realm for the space of two years, for so horrible and bloody a crime. This was one of those sixteen Articles concerning the ancient customs of the Realm, whereunto Becket and the rest of the Bishops did swear, and whereof he so soon repent again: namely that Cleargymen accused of any crime, should at the summons of the King's justices appear in the King's Court, to answer to such things as to that Court should be thought to appertain; and in the Ecclesiastical, what pertained thereunto: and that the King's justices should send to see, what was there done: and that if they should be convicted of any enormous crime, or confess the same; the Bishop should not protect them: than which course nothing could be devised more reasonable. Neither is it absurd for sheep to judge their Pastors in these cases, as Bellarmine 
u De Clericis. lib. 1 cap. 28.  fond affirmeth. That the Council of 
x Canone. 9  Chalcedon, and Toledo, forbid Cleargymen to leave the Ecclesiastical judges, and to prosecute their quarrels one against another before Temporal Magistrates; and the Counsels of 
y Toletanum. 3. Can. 13.  Carthage, and 
z Catthag. canone. 9  Agatha, condemn 
a Canone. 23.  them that choose rather to be tried in Civil Courts then Ecclesiastical, when they have power to choose; or that begin suits there without the permission of their Bishop, no way contrarieth any thing that I have said: for howsoever some things are to be handled in the Ecclesiastical Courts, as properly pertaining to them, either naturally and originally, or by grant of Princes: and other things concerning Churchmen, not to be brought into Civil Courts but in due sort, and with respect had to their places and ranks, yet never had they any such absolute exemption and immunity, but that in criminal causes, such as theft murder, and the like, and in trial of the title oflands and inheritances, and the right of advocation of Churches, they were to be tried in civil Courts, and no other, whether the differences grew between Laymen and Cleargymen, or Cleargymen among themselves. As likewise they were to do homage, and swear fealty, for such lands, honours, and Baronryes', as they held of Princes. Thus we see, how favourable Princes have been in granting privileges concerning the persons of such as attend the service of God. Neither were they less careful to free such lands and possessions as they endowed the Church with, from such burdens taxes and impositions, as other temporal possessions are subject to. So that howsoever in the Apostles times, and long after, even till the time of Ambrose (as it appeareth 
b Ambros. in Orat. de tradeud. Basilie●….  by his writings) the Church-lands paid tribute, yet afterward by 
c Codice justinian l. sancimus. Tit. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesijs.  justinian and other Christian Emperors, they were freed from those impositions. Neither is it to be marvelled at, that Christian Princes, out of their devout and religious dispositions were thus favourable to the Church, seeing even the Heathen Princes did as much for the Idolatrous Priests of their false-Gods: for we read in the book of 
d Cap. 47.  Genesis, that in the time of that great famine that was in the days of joseph, when the people of Egypt were constrained, after all their money and cattle were spent, to sell their land to joseph the Steward of Pharaoh, in whose hands all the provision of Corn was, to buy them bread, so that all the land of Egypt became Pharaohs; yet the Priests were not forced to sell their lands; for they had an ordinary from Pharaoh, and they did eat their ordinary which Pharaoh gave them. And when as afterwards joseph let the people enjoy their land again, which he had bought for Pharaoh, yet so, that only four parts of the increase thereof should be to themselves, for the seed of their fields, for their meat, and for them of their households and their children to eat; and the fifth part should be Pharaohs, whose now the land was: the land of the Priests was free from this rent and charge, as not being Pharaohs. Yet were not the privileges and immunities which Christian Princes gran●…ed to Ecclesiastical persons, to prejudice other men, nor to lay too heavy a burden on them; and therefore it was lawful for Princes, when they saw any inconveniences, in that too much of their land, by passing into the right and possession of Churchmen, was freed from services and charges, to 
e Dried o de libert. Christian. l. 2. c. 3.  stop the passing of any more into such dead hands as would yield them no help; and cleargymen were bound in conscience voluntarily to, 
f Canone 19  contribute to all public necessities when need required; though the Temporal Magistrates might not impose any thing upon them as we find it ordered in the third council of Lateran, and in the 
g Canone 46.  fourth under Innocentius the third: yea if they should contemptuously and presumptuously refuse to bear part of the common burdens, notwithstanding any pretended privileges, the supreme Prince might force them to put too their helping hand, rather than the whole state of the commonwealth should be shaken and endangered, or other parts and members of it too heavily burdened, as 
h De ●…cr. Eccl. Mini●…t. & Benef. l. 7. c. 10.  Duarenus learnedly and excellently showeth. This may suffice touching the exemption of Cleargymen, either in respect of their persons or goods, & the right by which they enjoy the same. And thus have we run through all the different Degrees & Orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers, and showed what their power, office, and authority is, both severally, and assembled in counsels: and what power Princes have to command over them, or to intermeddle with the businesses and affairs more specially belonging to them:   

CHAP. 54.  
Of the calling of Ministers: & the persons to whom it pertaineth to elect & ordain them.  
NOw it remaineth that we first treat of the calling of Ministers; for 
a Heb. 5. 4  No man taketh this honour upon him but he that is called, as was Aaron●…: Secondly, of the things required in them: and thirdly of their maintenance,  
Touching the first, which is the calling of Ecclesiastical Ministers, Saint 
b Lib. 1. come. in ep. ad Galat. c. 1  Hierome noteth, that there are 4 sorts of such men as are employed in the businesses & affairs of Almighty God. The first are such as are sent neither of men, nor by men, but by jesus Christ, as the Prophets in old time, and since the coming of Christ, those Twelve designed immediately to the Work of the Ministry by Christ's own voice, specially called Apostles, The second, such as are sent of God, but by man, as Bishops and Ministers, which succeed the Apostles, and derive their commission from them. The third are such as are sent of men, and not of GOD, who are they that are ordained by favour of men, not judging rightly of the quality of them that are to serve in this calling; who yet are not simply denied to be sent of God, as if they had no commission from him, but therefore only, because if the Ordainers had done their duties; they should have made a better choice, and sent other, and not these: for being sent by men that have authority, though abusing the same, they have a true and lawful Ministry till they be put from it by superior authority, else were all Ministration of Sacraments, and other sacred things void, performed by such as simoniacally or by sinister means get into these holy places. The fourth are such as neither are sent of GOD, nor of men, nor by men, but of themselves, of whom our Saviour Christ saith, 
c john. ●…0. 8.  all that came before me were thieves & robbers: and of whom almighty GOD pronounceth, and saith by the Prophet jeremy, 
d jer. 23. 21.  I sent them not, & they 〈◊〉: I spoke not to them, & they prophesied. This evil is carefully to be declined, and therefore CHRIST would not suffer the devils to speak that which was true, least under the pretence of truth, error might creep in; seeing he that speaketh of himself cannot but speak lies. These are the four sorts of them that serve in the work of the Ministry; whereof the last have no calling at all and all they do is void: the Third have a lawful commission, though they obtained it by sinister means, and be unworthy of it, so that they could not be put into it, without the fault of the maintainers. The First had a lawful but extraordinary calling, needful only in those first beginnings of Christianity, and not longer to continue. The second have that calling which is Ordinary and to continue, whereof we are now to speak. In this calling there are three things implied: Election, Ordination, and Assignation to some particular Church, whereof men elected and ordained are appointed to take charge.  
In ancient times there was no ordination at large, without particular Assignation, and sine titulo, allowed, as it appeareth by the Council of Chalcedon, forbidding any 
〈◊〉 Canone 9:  such thing to be done, and voiding any such Act if it should be done, and therefore in those times the very electing and ordaining, was an assigning of the elected & ordained to the place of Charge they were to take, and a giving of them the power of jurisdiction as well as of order. But this Canon in latter times grew out of use: whence ensued great confusions in the state of the Church, as 
f De sacris Eccles: minist: & Benefi: lib: 1: cap: 16:  Duarenus rightly noteth: yet are we not of opinion, that all such ordinations are void in the nature of the thing; whatsoever the Ancients pronounced of them according to the strictness of the Canons. For seeing Ordination, which is the sanctifying of men to the work of the holy Ministry, is a diffeernt thing in nature from the placing of them, where they shall do that holy work; and a man once ordained needeth not any new Ordination, when he is removed from one Church to another, it is evident that in the nature of the thing, Ordination doth not so depend on the title and place of Charge the Ordained entereth into, as that Ordinations at large should be void; yet are they not to be permitted, neither are they in our Church. For the Ordinations of Ministers in Colleges in our Universities, are not within the compass of those prohibited Ordinations at large, and sine titulo: and none other, by the order of our Church, may be Ordained, unless he be certainly provided of some definite place of charge & employment. And as the Ancient were thus precise in admitting none into the holy Ministry, but with assignation of the particular place of his employment; so they took as strict order, that men once placed should not suddenly be removed and translated to any other church or charge. In the Council of 
g Canon●… 1:  Sardica, Hosius the Precedent of that Council said; That same ill custom and pernicious corruption is wholly to be plucked up by the roots, that it may not be lawful for a Bishop to pass from his city to any other city. For the cause why they do so, is known to all, seeing none is found to pass from a greater city to a lesser: whence it appeareth, that they are inflamed with ardent desires of covetousness, and that they serve their own ambitious designs, that they may exercise dominion, and grow great. If therefore it seem good to you all, that such an evil as this is, may be more severely punished, let him that is such a one, be rejected from all communion, even such as Laymen enjoy. To whom all the Bishops answered; it pleaseth us well. To whom Hosius replied; Though any shall be found so ill advised, as haply in excuse of himself to affirm; that he received letters from the people, to draw him from his own city to another; yet I think, seeing it is manifest, that some few not sincere in the Faith, might be corrupted by reward, and procured to desire his translation, all such frauds should altogether be condemned: So that such a one should not be admitted, so much as to the communion which Laymen enjoy, no not in the end: which thing if it seem good unto you all, confirm and settle it by your Decree. And the Synod answered, it pleaseth us well. Leo, to the same purpose writeth thus; 
h Leo ep: 8●…: cap: 8:  If any Bishop, despising the meanness of his own city, shall seek to get the administration & government, of some more noted, and better respected place, and shall by any means translate & remove himself to a greater People, and more large and ample charge, let him be driven from that other chair which he sought, and let him be deprived also of his own. So that he be neither suffered to rule over them, whom, out of a covetous desire, he would have subjected to himself, nor over them, whom g in pride he contemned and scorned. And the like is found in other: but as 
i Lib. 5. cap. 8.  Theodoret showeth, it was ambition, and such other like evils, that these Holy Fathers sought to stop and prevent, rather than generally to condemn all Translation of Bishops from one Church and city to another. For these changes may sometimes bring so great and evident utility, that they are not to be disliked. And therefore the same 
k Ibidem.  Theodoret showeth that notwithstanding this Canon, Gregory Nazianzen, was removed from his Church, and constituted Bishop of Constantinople. And 
l Lib. 7. cap. 39  Socrates reporteth, that Proclus was removed thither from Cyzicum. Wherefore passing by these matters as clear and resolved of, Let us proceed to see, first, to whom it pertaineth to Elect: Secondly, to whom it belongeth to ordain such as are duly elected and chosen to the work of the Ministry.  
Touching Election, 
m D. Bilson. perpet. government. cap. 15. pag. 339.  we think, that each Church and People, that have not by law, custom, or consent, restrained themselves stand free by God's law to admit, maintain and obey no man, as their Pastor, without their liking: and that the people's election by themselves or their rulers, dependeth on the first principles of humane fellowships and assemblies: for which cause, though Bishops by God's law have power to examine and ordain, before any may be placed to take charge of souls: yet have they no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their wills, nor to force them to yield obedience and maintenance to any without their liking. And therefore anciently (as 
n Epist 89.  LEO showeth) the custom was that he should be chosen of all, that was to be over all, that the wishes and desires of the Citizens should be expected, the Testimonies of the people should be sought, the will and liking of the noble and honourable should be known, and the Clergy should choose. All which things are wont to be observed and kept in ordinations, by them that know the rules of the Fathers, that the rule of the Apostle may be followed in all things, who prescribeth, that he who is to be over the Church, should not only have the allowance of the faithful, giving witness unto him, but the testimony also of them that are without, and that no occasion of any scandal may be left, while he, who is to be the Doctor ofpeace, is ordained in peace and concord, pleasing unto God, with the agreeing and consenting desires of all. And in the same Epistle he addeth Teneatur subscriptio Clericorum, honoratorum testimonium, ordinis consensus & Plebis: That is, Let the subscription of the Clergy be had, the testimony of the honourable, and the consent of the order and people. 
o Lib. 1. Epist. 4.  Cyprian to the same purpose writeth thus: The people being obedient to the precepts of the Lord, and fearing God, aught to separate themselves from a sinful and wicked Ruler, and not intermingle themselves, or to have any thing to do with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest: especially seeing they have power either to choose such Priests as are worthy, or to refuse such as are unworthy. And a little after in the same Epistle, he hath these words: For which cause it is diligently to be observed and kept, as from the tradition of God, and the Apostles, (which thing also is observed and kept with us, and almost throughout all Provinces) that for the due performance of the work of Ordination, when any Ruler and Governor is to be ordained, the Bishops of the same Province, which are nearest, should come together unto that people, over whom he is to be set, and that the Bishop should, be chosen in the presence of the people, which most fully and perfectly knoweth the life of every one, and hath perceived by their conversation what kind of works they are wont to do. Which thing also we see to have been done in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague, to wit, that upon the voices of the whole brotherhood, and the judgement of the Bishops, which came together & which sent their letters, expressing their opinion of him, the Episcopal dignity was conferred upon him, & with the imposition of hands he was ordained into the void room of Basilides. That in the time of Chrysostome, the people had interest in choosing their Pastors, it is evident out of his book of 
p Lib. 3.  Priesthood. The Fathes of the Nicene Council (as we find in 
q Lib. 1. cap. 9  Theodoret) write to the Church of Alexandria, and to the beloved brethren of Egypt, Lybia, and Pent●…polis in this sort: If haply any Bishop of the Church de fall asleep, let it be lawful for such of the sect of Meletius, as have been not long since restored to the Communion of the Church, to succeed into the place of him that is dead, if so be that they shall seem to be worthy, and the people shall choose them: yet so notwithstanding, that the voice and consent of the Bishop of the Church of Alexandria be added to seal and confirm the same. And touching the election of Nectarius, the Bishops of the first council of Constantinople write thus: 
r Theod. l. 5. c. 9  We have ordained the most reverend and beloved of God Nectarius, Bishop, before the whole Council, with all consent and agreement, in the presence of Theodosius the Emperor, beloved of God, and of the whole clergy, the whole city likewise with unanimous consentagreeing thereunto. And Leo provideth and taketh order what shall be done, when they that should elect, agree not. His words are these: 
s Leo ep. 84. c. 5.  When ye go about the election of the chief Priest or Bishop, let him be advanced before all, upon whom the consenting desires of the Clergy and People concur with one accord: and if their voices be divided betwixt twain, let him be preferred before the other, in the judgement of the Metropolitan, which hath more voices and merits: but let none be ordained against their wills and petitions, lest the people despise or hate the Bishop which they never affected, and less care for religion when their desires are not satisfied. And Grego●…y the Bishop of Rome long after, allowing the election by the people, hath these words: 
t Gre. l. 2. ep. 2●…  If it be true that the Bishop of Salona be dead, hasten to admonish the clergy and people of that city, to choose a Bishop with one consent that may be ordained for them. And to Magnus about the election of the Bishop of Milan, he saith: 
u Lib. 2. ep. 2●…  Warn the Clergy and people that they descent not in choosing their Priest, but that with one accord they elect some one, that may be consecrated their Bishop. By all which testimonies we see what interest anciently the people had in the choice of their Bishops, and how careful good Bishops were that they should have none thrust upon them against their wills, that they should proceed to election with one accord if it might be; or otherwise, that such should be ordained as were desired by the greater part, and that all things might be done peaceably and without tumult.  
But how much in time they abused this their power, it is too evident. For 
x In Epi●…. 〈◊〉  Nazianzen reporting the choice of Eusebius to be Bishop of Caesarea, saith, the City of Caesarea was in a tumult, and the people divided about the choice of their Bishop; and the sedition was sharp, and hardly to be appeased; and that, as men distracted in many minds, some proposing one, and some another, as is often seen in such cases, at length the whole people agreeing on one of good calling among them, commended for his life, but not yet baptised, took him against his will, and with the help of a band of soldiers that was then come to the City, placed him in the Bishop's chair, and offered him to the Bishop's present, & mixing threats with persuasions, required to have him ordained and pronounced their Bishop. Likewise at Antioch (as 
y Lib. 1. c. 24.  Eusebius reporteth) there was raised a grievous sedition about the deposing of Eustathius: and after, when another was to be chosen, the flame thereof so increased, that it was like to have consumed the whole city. For the people being divided into two parts, the Magistrates of the city supported the sides, and bands of soldiers were mustered as against an enemy: and the matter had undoubtedly been tried by the sword, if God, and the fear of the Emperor writing to them, had not assuaged the rage of the multitude. But howsoever, such was the dissension, that eight whole years the place was without a Bishop. 
z Euag. 〈◊〉 2. c. 〈◊〉. & 8.  When Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed by the Council of Chalcedon, & Proterius set in his place, a mighty & intolerable sedition grew among the people for it: some affecting Dioscorus, & some cleaving to Proterius. The people opposed themselves against the Magistrates, and when they thought with strong hand to suppress the uproar, the multitude with stones, beat the soldiers into the church, besieged them in it, & destroyed a number of them with fire: and, upon the death of Martian the Emperor, they chose a new B. and brought him into the church on Easter day. They slew Proterius, and six other with him in the Temple, and drew his body wounded and mangled along through the quarters of the city. 
a Ruffin. l. 2. 〈◊〉 c. ●…1.  The like dissension grew in the Church of Milan after the death of Auxentius the Arrian Bishop; but the issue was very happy: for Ambrose, at that time a secular Magistrate, seeing the division to be very dangerous, and threatening the overthrow of the state of the city, entered into the Church, and made an excellent Oration, persuading them to peace; wherewith all sides were so well pleased, that with one consent, they desired to have Ambrose for their Bishop, who was not yet baptised: and the Emperor was careful to satisfy their desire, and commanded that it should be as they had desired 
b Ibid. cap. 10.  In the Church of Rome, after Liberius, Damasus succeeded in the Episcopal office: whom Vrsinus, a certain Deacon of that Church, not enduring to be preferred before him, waxed so mad, that having persuaded and drawn unto him a certain ignorant & rude Bishop, and gathered together a company of turbulent and seditious persons in the church of Sicinius, he procured himself to be made Bishop against all order, law, and ancient custom. From which fact proceeded so great sedition, nay so great war (some of the people defending Damasus as lawful Bishop, and some Vrsinus) that the places of prayer were filled with the blood of men. The people in this sort abusing their authority & power, were restrained by the decrees of Councils, and by the laws of Princes, and their right and power to choose their Pastors, many ways limited and straitened, till in the end it was wholly taken from them. For first, the Council of 
c Canone 13.  Laodicaea forbade, that elections of such as were to serve in the holy Ministry of the Church, and execute the Priest's office, should be left to the multitudes. But that Council was but particular, and could prescribe no laws to the whole world: and therefore after this, the people swayed things very much still, and 
d Vbi suprà.  Leo Bishop of Rome, after this time, charged the Bishops to thrust none upon the people without their consent. And even in the Roman church the election of the people continued a long time after this decree of the Council of 〈◊〉. For Pope Nicholas the second, in the Council of Lateran, in the year of our Lord 1059. with the consent of the whole Synod, decreeth on this sort: 
e Decreti part. 1. dist. 23. ca 1.  Instructed & guided by the authority of our predecessors, and other holy Fathers, we decree and determine, that when the Bishop of this Universal Church of Rome dyeth; first of all the Cardinal Bishops shall most diligently consult together about the election of a new, and soon after they shall take unto them the Cardinal Cleargymen, and so the rest of the Clergy and people shall come to give consent to the new election. And because the See Apostolic is preferred before all the Churches in the world, and therefore can have no Metropolitan over or above it, the Cardinal Bishops doubtless supply the place of the Metropolitan, and are to promote and lift up the new elected Bishop to the top of Apostolic height. Yea the presence and testimony of Laymen was not excluded in such elections a longtime after: For 
f Platina in vita Greg. 7.  Gregory the seventh was elected by the Cardinals of the church of Rome, Clerks, Acoluthes, Subdeacons and Presbyters, many Bishops, Abbots & others, both of the Clergy & Laity being present.  
But Christian Princes, Kings and Emperors, being chief among those of the Laity, and so having a sovereign consent among and over the rest, in such elections as pertained unto them by the right of humane fellowship and government, interposed themselves in these businesses, and sundry ways abridged that liberty, that the people in some places took unto them. 
g Lib. 8. cap. 2.  Zozomen noteth, that after the death of Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, the Clergy and people resolved to have Chrysostome a Presbyter of Antioch, a man famously renowned throughout all the Empire, to be their Bishop. Which their resolution the Emperor confirmed by his assent, & sent and fet him, and called a Council to make his election more authentical. Likewise 
h Socrates. lib. 7. cap. 29.  after the death of Sicinius, though some would have had Philip, others P●…clus Presbyters of that church to succeed, yet the Emperor by the persuasion of certain vain men, called a stranger thither, to wit, Nestorius, who afterward proved an Archhereticke, 
i Idem. l. 7. c. 39  After the death of Maximianus, successor to Nestorius, the Emperor took order without delay that Proclus might be placed in the Bishop's chair by the Bishop's present, before the body of Maximianus was buried, lest any variance and quarrelling might ensue.  
Neither did the Emperor's medlelesse with the election of the Bishop of Rome, then of Constantinople. For (as 
k Annot in Platinam, in Pelag●…o. 2.  Onuphrius rightly observeth) after the Goths were driven out of Italy by Narses, the Lieutenant of the Emperor, and the country subjected again to the Empire of the East, in the days of justinian the Emperor there began a new custom in the election of the Roman Bishops; which was, that so soon as the Bishop of that See should be dead, the Clergy and people (as formerly they had done) should presently choose another to succeed into his place: but that he might not be confecrated & ordained by the Bishops, till his election were confirmed by the Emperor, and till he gave leave to ordain him by his Letters Patents. For which confirmation a certain sum of money was paid, which it is likely justinian did, or by his authority caused Vigilius the Bishop of Rome to do it, that the Emperor might be assured of the conditions of the newly elected Bishop, lest a factious and busy man being chosen, he might conspire with the barbarous people that then sought to encroach upon the Empire, and so cause a revolt of the city of Rome and the country of Italy from the Eastern Empire, the Bishop growing great, and the Emperor being far off. Upon which constitution it came to pass that the Romans chose for the most part such a one, as they thought would be acceptable to the Emperor, and of whom he might be persuaded, that he would attempt nothing prejudicial to the state of the Empire, the Lombard's about that time or presently after troubling Italy. This custom was continued till the time of Benedict the Second, 
l Platin●… in Benedicto 〈◊〉.  in whose time Constantine the Emperor, for the good opinion he had of him, and love he bore to him, gave commandment that the election of the Bishop of Rome being resolved on, the Bishops should presently proceed to the ordination of him, without expecting any confirmation from the Emperor. But the power of confirming the newly elected Bishop of Rome before he might be ordained, or execute the Bishoppely office, was again restored to Charles the great & his successor's Kings of France and Emperors of the West, in more ample sort than it had been before, by 
m Decreti. part. 1. Dist. 63. c. 22.  Adrian the First; which being again taken from his successors by 
n Platina in Adriano. 3.  Adrian the Third, was restored to Otho the First, King of the Germans, & Emperor of the West, by 
o Decreti. part. 1. dist. 63. c. 23.  Leo the vl. From which time it continued till Gregory the Seaventh, 
p See before cap. 46.  who though he was glad to seek the Emperor's confirmation himself, when he first entered into the Popedom, yet afterwards he disclaimed it as unlawful: so condemning many of his Predecessors, that had allowed and confirmed this part of Imperial power, under great pains and curses to fall upon such as should ever go about to violate the same. After whose times other Popes reserved the whole power of electing the Roman Bishop to the Cardinals alone, as we see the manner is unto this day. Thus writeth Onuphrius, professing that he carefully looked over all the ancient monuments of the Roman Church, to find out the certainty of these things. Neither need we to doubt of the truth of that he writeth, yet for farther proof, lest any man should doubt, I will produce the reports of Historians, & the Acts of Counsels to confirm that he saith. Platina in the life of Pelagius the 2d saith, nothing was done in the election of the Roman B. in those days, without the Emperor's consent and confirmation: and showeth that the reason why Pelagius was created Bishop without the command of the Emperor, was, for that they could send no messenger to him, the City being besieged. And touching Gregory the First, 
q In vita Gregorij, 1.  he reporteth, that when he was chosen Bishop of Rome, knowing the Emperor's consent necessarily to be required in the election and constitution of the Bishop, unwilling to possess that place and room, he sent unto him, earnestly entreating him to make void the election of the Clergy, and people: which his suit the Emperor was so far from granting, that he sent to confirm the Election, and to enforce him to take the Pastoral charge upon him, in that most dangerous and troublesome time. Whereby we see how far the Emperors intermeddled in the election and constitution of the Roman Bishops in those days. It is true indeed, that the same Platina reporteth, that 
r In vita. Benedicti. 2.  Constantine admiring the sanctity & virtue of Benedict the second, sent unto him a sanction, that ever after all men should presently take him for Bishop (without expecting the concurrence of the authority of the Emperor of Constantinople, or the Exarch of Italy) whomsoever the Cle●…rgy, people; and armies of the Romans should choose. Notwithstanding this freed●…me and liberty continued not long: for (as we may read in the 
s Part. 1. dist. 63. c. 22.  Decree●…) Charle●… the Great, and Adrian the first held a Synod in the Church of Saint Saviour in Rome, wherein met 153 Bishops, religious men and abbot, in which Synod Adrian with the consent of the Bishops there assembled, gave unto Charles power to choose the Bishop of Rome, and to order the Apostolical See, together with the dignity of being a Patrician or Nobleman of Rome, and besides decreed, that all Archishops and Bishops in the Provinces abroad, should seek investiture of him, and that no man should be esteemed a Bishop, or be consecrated, till he were allowed and commended by the King. This Decree the council published, anathematising all that should violate it, and confiscating their goods; yet did 
t Plat. in Ad●…. 3.  Adrian the third (as Platina reporteth) take so good heart unto him, that whereas Nicholas the first did but attempt such a thing rather than perform it, he in the very beginning of his Papal dignity made a Decree, that without expecting the Emperor's consent or ratification, the election of the Clergy, Senate and People should be good. But Leo the Eight in a Synod gathered together in the Church of Saint Saviour in Rome, following the example of Adrian the first, with the consent of the whole Synod restored unto the Emperor that power and authority which Adrian the first had yielded unto him, and Adrian the third had sought to deprive him of. The words of that council are these. 
u Dist. ●…3. 〈◊〉. 26.  I Leo Bishop, and servant of the servants of God, with the whole Clergy and people of Rome, do constitute confirm, and strengthen, and by our Apostolical authority grant and give to our Lord Otho the first King of Germans, and to his successors in this Kingdom of Italy for ever, power to choose a successor, and to order the Bishop of this highest See Apostolic, as also Archishops, and Bishops, that they may receive investiture from him, and consecration whence they ought to have it, those only excepted which the Emperor himself hath granted to the Popes and Archbishops; and that no man hereafter of what dignity or religious profession soever, shall have power to choose a Patrician or a chief Bishop of the highest See Apostolic, or to ordain any Bishop whatsoever, without the consent of the Emperor first had, which consent and confirmation notwithstanding shall be had without money. So that if any Bishop shall be chosen by the clergy & people, he shall not be consecrated unless he be commended and invested by the forenamed King. And if any man shall attempt to do any thing against this rule & Apostolical authority, We decree, that he shall be subject to excommunication, and that if he repent not, he shall be perpetually banished, or be subject to the last, most grievous, deadly and capital punishments. Hence it came that when any Bishop was dead, they sent his staff and ring to the Emperor: and he to whom the Emperor was pleased to deliver the same, after a solemn fashion and manner, was thereby designed and constituted Bishop of the void place. Thus we see how authentically, under great pains and curses, the Pope and council yield that right to the Emperor, subjecting all that ever should go about to disannul their Decree, to the great curse, perpetual banishment, and grievous punishments. Yet Pope Hildebrand, who, as if he had been a firebrand of hell, set all the world in a Combustion, 
k Naucler. vol. 2. G●…ner. 36.  disannulled this Law as impious and wicked: and Victor, Vrbanus, and Paschalis succeeding him were of the same mind. By reason whereof there grew a great dissension between the Popes and Emperors: Henry the fourth, and after him Henry the fifth, challenging not only the right of confirming the election of the Popes, but power also to confer Bishoprickes and Abbeys by Investiture of staff and ring, as the Pope's Adrian and Leo had yielded and granted to Charles and his successors; which thing also had been enjoyed by the Emperor for the space of three hundred years: and the Popes on the other side thinking it unlawful for the Emperors in this sort to bestow either Bishopric or Abbey, & forbidding them so to do, under pain of the great curse. But Henry the fifth forced ●…ope Paschall to confirm unto him the ancient right again, and to accurse all such as should dislike, resist, or seek to disannul it: which yet not long after be reversed again in another Council: and in the 
y Ibidem Gener. 38.  days of Calixtus, the Emperor resigned his right, and the Pope allowed, that within his kingdom of Germany, elections should be made in his presence, and that with the advice of the Metropolitan and Bishops of the Province he might assist and strengthen the better part, and that the elected should receive from him all things belonging to the King by the reaching forth of his Sceptre. 
z In Henrico. 1: pag. 62.  Matthew Paris saith; the contention between Pope Paschall and Henry the Emperor about the investiture of Bishops and Abbots, which the Emperors had enjoyed three hundred years in the times of threescore Popes was so ended, that both Bishops and Abbots should first swear Canonical obedience to their Ecclesiastical superiors, and be consecrated, and then receive Institution from the Emperor by rod and ring. Thus we see what right and interest ancient Emperors challenged to themselves in the election of the Bishop of Rome, and in conferring other dignities of the Church, and that the latter Popes condemned that as evil and wicked which their Predecessors not only allowed, but prescribed under great and grievous pains and curses. Whereupon 
a Annal. lib. 4. pag. 3 22.  Auentinus noteth, that among the Popes, Eadem facta modò superstitionis, modò pietatis, modò Christi, modò Antichristi, modò iusticiae, modò tyrannidis nomina accipiunt: that is, That the same facts, deeds and things, are at one time branded with the mark of superstition, and at another time set out with the glorious title of Piety: at one time attributed to Christ, at another time to Antichrist; at one time judged just and righteous, and at another time tyrannical and unjust. 
b Chronograph. lib. 4. saeculo. 10.  Genebrard (acknowledging that there have been many vile monsters that have gotten into Peter's chair, and that there were fifty Popes rather Apotacticall and Apostatical, then Apostolical) layeth the blame upon the Roman Emperors, as if they had placed those monsters in Peter's chair. It is well he confesseth that such beasts have entered into the Church of Rome, but if he did not, we would easily prove the same. For (to omit Hildebrand, whom some called a monster, and an enemy to mankind, who caused more Christian blood to be shed, and more grievous confusions to rent and shake in sunder the Christian world, than any heretics or persecutors had ever done before, so that he was forced to confess at his death to God, to holy Church, and blessed Peter, that he had grievously offended in his Pastoral office; and joan the Whore, because (as 
c Annot: in Platinam in joanne 8.  Onuphrius thinketh) she was not Pope but the harlot of john the twelfth: the Stories mention such vile monsters sitting in that Chair, that 
d Lib. Chron: in Benedicto. 4.  Benedict the fourth is highly commended, for that though he did nothing memorable, yet he lived an honest and a good life. But that the Emperors were the cause of the placing of these Monsters (as Genebrard would make us believe) it may not be yeldeed. For between the time of Adrian the third (who took the power of confirming pope's from the Emperors) and the reign of Otho the first, to whom it was restored by pope Leo: there entered Formosus, Bonifacius, Stephen, Romanus, Theodorus, john the ninth, Christopher, and Sergius, all, men of ill note: and john the twelfth, than whom the earth did never bear a more prodigious and vile monster. 
e Otho frisingen's. chron. li. 6. cap. 23.  This wretch, Otho, at the earnest suit of the Romans, caused to be deposed by a Council of Bishops, and Leo to be chosen. Whereupon the power of choosing the pope, and ordering the See apostolic, was again by consent of Leo the pope, and the people and Clergy of Rome, given and confirmed to him and his successors for ever, in sort before expressed. For (as 
f De regno Ital. lib: 7.  Sigonius saith) Leo rightly considered, that after the time of Adrian the third, the ambition of the Romans filled the Church with beasts, disordered these elections, and set all in a tumult: & therefore thought no means so fit to reform these disorders, to repress these insolences, and prevent these mischiefs, as to put the bridle into the Emperor's hands again. Yet not long after, the Romans casting off the yoke, and breaking the bands in sunder, put in Boniface the seaventh, Benedict the ninth, and Sylvester, who sold the Popedom to Gregory the sixth, all which pope's were so intolerably wicked, that 
g Platina in Gregorio. 6.  Platina calleth them teterrima monstra, that is, most vile, hideous and ugly monsters. And 
h Otho frisingen's: Chron: lib: 6. cap. 31.  Henry the second called a Council, and deposed Gregory the last of them, and placed Twideger a German in his place, who was afterwards named Clemens, who again restored the right of choosing the Pope to him & his successors: for that (as Sigonius 
i De regno Ital. lib. 8.  noteth) after the law prescribing & requiring the Emperor's consent to be had in such elections was taken away, the state of the church was newly put in great danger. So that Henry the second was forced to come into Italy, to set things in order. And therefore it is more than ordinary impudence in 
k Vbi suprà.  Genebrard, to impute all the confusions in the elections of the Roman Bishops to the Emperors, who were not the causes of them, but oftentimes stayed them by their Princely power. Neither is it less strange that he & other dare condemn that authority in the Emperors as unlawful, which had continued from the time of justinian to Benedict, and was again confirmed by Adrian, Leo, & other Popes, with their Counsels of Bishops; and by virtue where of Saint Gregory & other possessed the Episcopal chair, who are unjustly censured by Genebrard, as entering by the Postern gate, in this respect. Neither have the Popes been better, or the election freer from faction, since the Emperors were wholly and finally excluded, than they were before. For what shall we say of Bonifacius the vl, of whom it is said, 
l Platina in Bonifacio. 8. & Wal●…ngham in Edwardo. 3.  that he entered like a Fox, and died like a Dog, that he coosened poor Caelestinus his predecessor, and by false practices won him to resign the Popedom to him, and resting not contented herewith, took upon him to dispose of all the Kingdoms of the world at his pleasure? of 
m Vide acta Concilij Constantiensis Sess. 11. act. 6. & Sess. 12.  john the three and twentieth, a vile man, and a Devil incarnate? and Alexander the sixth, of whom so many horrible things are reported by 
n In Alexandro 6.  Onuphrius, 
o Anthropologiae lib. 22.  Volaterran & others? And touching factions & schisms, whereas there have been thirty of them in the church of Rome, never any endured so long as the last which was since the Emperors were wholly excluded from intermeddling with Papal elections. For it continued forty years, and could never be ended but by the help of Sigismond the Emperor in the Council of Constance. Wherefore seeing so many Counsels & Popes yielded the power of electing, or at least of allowing and confirming the Popes to the Emperors, and seeing so good effects followed of it, and so ill of the contrary, there is no reason why our Adversaries should dislike it. For seeing the people anciently had their consent in these affairs, 
p O●…ho 〈◊〉. de gestis Frederic. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 11. ca 〈◊〉.  Frederick the Emperor had reason when he said, that himself as King and ruler of the people, aught to be chief in choosing his own Bishop.  
Neither had the Emperors only this right in disposing of the Bishopric of Rome and other dignities Ecclesiastical, but other Christian Kings likewise had a principal stroke in the appointing of Bishops. For (as 
q Vol. 2. gen. 38.  Nauclere noteth) the French Kings have had the right of investitures ever since the time of Adrian the first: and 
r Defence pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicanae. cap: 43.  Duarenus showeth, that howsoever Ludovicus renounced the right of choosing the Bishop of Rome, yet he held still the right of Inuestiture of other Bishops, into the place whereof came afterwards, that right which the King useth, when in the vacancy of a Bishopric he giveth power to choose, and some other royalties which the Kings of France still retain. It appeareth by the 
s Canone 6.  twelfth Council of Toledo, that the Kings had a principal stroke in elections in the Churches of Spain: and touching England, Matthew Paris testifieth, that Henry the first by William of Warnaste his 
〈◊〉 In Henrico. 1. pag: 56.  agent, protested to the Pope, he would rather lose his kingdom then the right of investitures; and added threatening words to the same protestation. Neither did he only make verbal protestations, but he really practised that he spoke, and gave the Arch bishopric of Canterbury to Rodolphe Bishop of London, investing him by Pastoral staff & ring. Articuli cleri prescribe, that elections shall be free from force, fear, or entreaty of Secular powers: yet so as that the Kings licence be first asked, & after the election done, his royal assent and confirmation be added to make it good. Whereupon the Statute of provisors of Benefices, made at Westminster the five and twentieth of Edward the third, hath these words: Our Sovereign Lord the King and his heirs shall have and enjoy for the time, the collations to the Archbishoprickes and other dignities elective, which be of his advowry, such as his progenitors had, before free election was granted: sith that the first elections were granted by the King's progenitors, upon a certain form and condition, as namely to demand licence of the King to choose, & after choice made, to have his royal assent. Which condition being not kept, the thing ought by reason to return to his first nature.  
So that we see, that at first the Clergy & people were to choose their Bishops & Ministers; yet so, that Princes by their right were to moderate things, and nothing was to be done without them. But when they endowed Churches with ample revenues & possessions, & disburdened the people of the charge of maintaining their Pastors, they had now a farther reason to sway things then before. And thence it is, that the Statute abovementioned saith: the Kings gave power of free elections, yet upon condition of seeking their licence & confirmation, as having the right of nomination in themselves, in that they were Founders. Likewise touching Presbyters, the ancient 
u Conc. Carth. 4. Canone 22.  Canon of the Council of Carthage (which was, that Bishops should not ordain clerks without the consent of their Clergy, & that also they should have the assent and testimony of the Citizens) held while the Clergy lived together upon the common contributions and dividend, but when not only titles were divided & distinguished, and men placed in rural Churches abroad: but several allowance made for the maintenance of such as should attend the service of God by the Lords of those Country towns, out of their own lands, and the lands of their tenants, they that thus carefully provided for the Church, were much respected. And it was thought fit they should have great interest in the choosing and nominating of Clerks in such places. 
x Novel. Constit. 123. c. 1. 8  justinian the Emperor, to reward such as had been beneficial in this sort to the Church, and to encourage others to do the like, decreed: That if any man build a Church or house of Prayer, and would have Clerks to be placed there, if he allow maintenance for them, and name such as are worthy, they shall be ordained upon his nomination. But if he shall choose such as be prohibited by the Canons as unworthy, the Bishop shall take care to promote some whom he thinketh more worthy. And the Council of 
y Conc. Toletan. 9 Canon.  Toledo about the year of Christ 655, made a Canon to the same effect. The words of the council are these: We decree, that as long as the Founders of Churches do live, they shall be suffered to have the chief and continual care of the said Churches, & shall offer fit Rectors to the Bishop to be ordained. And of the Bishop neglecting the Founders shall presume to place any others, let him know that his admission shall be void, and to his shame; but if such as they choose be prohibited by the Canons as unworthy, then let the Bishop take care to promote some whom he thinketh more worthy. Whereby we see what respect was anciently had to such as founded Churches, & gave lands and possessions to the same: yet were they not called Lords of such places, after such dedication to God, but Patrons only: because they were to defend the rights thereof, and to protect such as there attended the service of God: & though they had right to nominate men to serve in these places, yet might they not judge or punish them if they neglected their duties, but only complain of them to the Bishop or Magistrate: Neither 
z Duaren. de sacris Eccl. Minist. l. 5. c. 4  might they dispose of the possessions thus given to the Church, and dedicated to God, but if they fell into poverty, they were to be maintained out of the revenues thereof. This power and right of nomination and presentation resting in Princes and other Founders, can no way prejudice or hurt the state of the Church, if Bishops (to whom examination and ordination pertaineth) do their duties in refusing to consecrate & ordain such as the Canons prohibit; but very great confusions did follow the Pope's intermeddling in bestowing Church-livings and dignities, as we shall soon find if we look into the practice of them in former times.   

CHAP. 55.  
Of the Popes disordered intermeddling with the elections of Bishops and other Ministers of the Church: their usurpation, intrusion and preiudicing the right and liberty of others.  
THe Pope's informer times greatly prejudiced the right and liberty of other men and hurt the estate of the Church of God three ways: first by giving privileges to Friars, (a people unknown to all antiquity) to enter into the Churches and charges of other men, to do Ministerial acts, and to get unto themselves those things which of right should have been yielded to other. Secondly, by Commendams, and Thirdly, by reservations and provisions.  
Touching the first, 
a In Henrico. 3. pag. 672.  Matthew Paris noteth that about the year of our Lord 1246, the Preaching Friars obtained great privileges from the Pope, to preach, to hear confessions, and to do other ministerial acts, every where disgracing the ordinary Pastors, as ignorant and insufficient to govern the people of God. This new found order of Friars, he saith, seemed to many discreet and wise men to tend to the overthrow of the order of Pastors and Bishops settled by the blessed Apostles and holy Doctors: and that, not having been above thirty years in England they were grown more out of order, than the Monks of S. Austin and Benedictes order were in many ages. For such was their impudent and shameless boldness, that they came to the Synods of Bishops, Prelates, & Arch-deacons, sitting as Precedents in the midst of their Deans, Rectors, and other worthy men, requiring their letters of commission and privilege to be read, and themselves to be admitted and commended to preach in their Synods and Parish Churches as Ambassadors and Angels of God with all honour. In this insolent sort went they up and down from place to place, and asked of every man, (though of a religious profession) to whom he confessed himself; and if any one answered, that he made his confession to his own Priest, they asked again, what Idiot that was? they told him he was never hearer of Divinity, that he never studied the Decrees, and that he was not able to discuss any one controversy; adding that such Priests wereblind, & guides of the blind; & willed all men to come unto them as to men knowing to discern between Leprosy and Leprosy: to whom the hard and obscure things were known, and the secrets of God revealed: whereupon many (especially Noblemen and Noblewomen, betook themselves to these, contemning their own Pastors: so that the ordinary Ministers grew into great contempt, which grieved them not a little, nor without cause. But of these Fryerly people no man hath written better than Armachanus: 
b Armacanus Serm. 4. fact. in vulgari apud crucem S. Pauli London. Anno. 1356.  who excellently deciphereth their intolerable hypocrisy, injustice, and covetousness, joined with all cunning and cozening practices and devices. Their hypocrisy he discovereth, in that though they pretended poverty, yet they had houses like the stately palaces of Princes, Churches more costly than any Cathedral Churches, more and richer Ornaments than all the Prelates of the world, more and better books than all the Doctors and great learned men of the world: cloisters, and walking places so sumptuous, stately and large, that men of arms might fight on horseback and encounter one another with their spears in them, and their apparel richer than the greatest and most reverend prelate's. Their injustice he showeth in their injurious intruding into other men's Churches & charges, depriving than of their authority, honour; & maintenance: & their covetousness, in that they sought only to do those things that might bring gain: and insinuated themselves into the favour and liking of the great ones of the world, little regarding those of mean condition. Whereupon he warneth all men to take heed of them as wicked seducers, that enter into houses and lead captive simple women laden with sins, bringing in sects of perdition; and in covetousness making merchandise of men by crafty and feigned words of flattery. 
* See to this purpose Clemangis de corrupto Ecclesiae statu. Gerson contra Bullam. Mendicantium.  This is that unprofitable, and most dangerous and damnable generation of disguised and masked hypocrites, which like Locusts are come out of the bottomless pit, in these last ages of the world, eating up and devouring whatsoever is green and flourishing upon the earth.  
The Monks in their beginning were a people of a far other sort: For they took not on them to preach or minister Sacraments, but were a kind of voluntary penitents, according to that of Saint Hierome; 
c Hier. contra. Vigilantium non procul à fine.  Monachus Plangentis, non Docentis officium habet; that is, a Monk is a mourner, he is no teacher. And again: 
d Ad Heliodorum.  Alia Monachorum est causa, alia Clericorum. Clerici pascunt ones, Ego pascor. Illi de Altari viwnt, mihi quasi infructuosae arbor●… securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad Altare non defer: that is, The condition of Monks and of Clerks is very different. Clerks feed the sheep, but I am fed; they live by the Altar, but if I bring not my gift to the Altar, the Axe is lifted up against me, and laid as to the root of an unfruitful tree. And therefore (as 
e De Sacris Eccles. minist. & Benef. li. 1. c. 20.  Duarenus noteth) in ancient times Monks were mere Laymen, neither were there any Priests or Clerks found in Monasteries; but they came all, as other of the people did, to the common Temples and Churches, to be taught, to pray, and to receive the Sacraments. Which thing he saith, justinian the Emperor plainly enough expresseth: and with him agreeth Bishop 
f Panopliae lib. 4. cap. 75.  Lindan, who saith, that in ancient time all Monks were Laymen, and that they were all excluded and shut out of the Choir: when they came into the Temple and house of God, sometimes they did send for a Priest to do Ministerial acts among them, and in the end some of them were ordained Priests, that so they might have the Ministration of Sacraments among them, and make as it were a certain Church among themselves, and so neither be forced to go to other Churches, nor to borrow Priests from other. And to the same purpose 
g Erudition. Theol. de sacra. fidei lib. 2. part. 3. cap. 4.  Hugo de Sancto Victore saith, that by special favour and indulgence, the divine orders of Ministry are granted to Monks, that they might live more quietly within themselves; not that they should exercise Prelacy in the people of God; but that they might celebrate the communion of God within their own private retiring places, which yet they say in the beginning was not so. For Monks and men dwelling in the wilderness, are said to have had Priests assigned unto them. But (as 
h Vbi supra.  Duarenus noteth) hereby the passage was opened, and all Monks began to be ordained Priests, (though they had no government of the Church) that they might procure the more dignity to themselves: the order and degree of Cleargymen being more high and honourable then that of Monks. Neither did they long contain themselves within these bounds after they had attained to be Priests: but got authority and jurisdiction over Churches abroad, either because they were founded within their lands, or for that it pleased the Pope to take them from Bishops, and subject them to these Monks. At the first (as the same 
i Ibidem ca 21:  Duarenus noteth) they lived apart, in certain abiding places, which they had in the mountains and deserts, whence they were called not only Monks, but Heremites and Anchorites, though at certain hours and set times they met. Afterwards they began to live together, and the places where they lived were called Caenobia of the communion of life. And when certain Ecclesiastical persons remaining in cities and places of resort, and teaching the people, tied themselves to like observations, though haply not altogether so strict, as these had done, they were called 
k Vide Cassandri cosultat. de Canonicis.  Canonici, that is Regulars, rather than Monachi, Monks, of which order S. Austin is supposed to have been the author. Afterwards in process of time, some other Cleargymen living together, & tied to the observation of rules and Canons, but not so strict as these, nor so near to Monkish profession, were called secular canons, & the other for distinctions sake Canons Regular. In these societies young men were trained up, as likewise they were in all Cathedral Churches, till the founding of the Universities, passing through all the minor orders and performing for a space the duties belonging to them, that so they might be fitted for greater employments. 
l Duarenus ubi suprà. cap. 22.  The Monks had one among them, that commanded over all the rest, named Coenobiarcha, Archimandrita or Abbas; and for the better perforformance of his duty, took unto him another, whose help he might use in the governing of those that were subject to him, who was named a Prior. This Prior either assisted the Abbot in the government of those Monks, which lived within the bounds of the Monastery, and was called a Prior Cloister; or those lesser Covents that were abroad and yet subject to the Abbot, and was named a Prior conventual. By that hath been said, we see, that the profession of Monks in the beginning was voluntary penitency, and a retired life, not meddling with public affairs, either Civil or Ecclesiastical, (as appeareth by the Decree of the council of 
m Canone 4.  Chalcedon) that they were mere Laymen, that they gloried not in the perfection of their estate, as they that call themselves Religious in our time do, but confessed, that men of action and employment, who conflicted with the manifold oppositions of the World, and declined not the battle, were more valiant Soldiers of Christ in his spiritual warfare, than themselves, who fearing their own weakness did run away. They acknowledged themselves inferior to the whole Ecclesiastical order, came to the common Prayers and Sacraments with the rest of the people, and paid their Tithes, and yielded all other duties, as well as the rest: howsoever in the end they degenerated, and grew out of kind, putting themselves into the Ministry, intruding themselves into the government of the Church, spoiling the Bishops of their jurisdiction, and inferior Pastors of their maintenance, by appropriating to themselves the livings that formerly belonged to them,  
But the Friars profess an intermeddling with the public direction and guidance of the people of God, causing great confusions in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and are most unlike the ancient Monks, and their beginning was but of latter time. These were principally of four sorts: but among them all the Minorites or Franciscans seemed to be the strictest. For whereas the Monks possessed lands in common, though none of them had any personal propriety in any thing, and the rest of the Friars had the right of movable goods in common, though they possessed no lands, these professed to have nothing but the bare and single use of things, without all right or claim, as I have showed 
n Cap. 43.  before. About which profession of theirs, there was great contention in the time of john the two and twentieth, the folly and hypocrisy of which men (thinking perfection to consist in poverty) is sufficiently refuted by 
o De Cosinliis Euangelicis & statu perfect.  Gerson, 
p In extravagant. tit. de verb▪ signif. & in extravag. ad Conditorem Canonum.  john the two and twentieth, 
* Com. in concord. Evangel. c. 100  jansenius, and other, who show, that perfection consisteth in the virtues of the mind, that poverty or riches neither make a man better nor worse, and consequently pertain nothing to perfection, otherwise then as the care and love of them hindereth, or the neglect of them furthereth the fervency of love.  
From this first way whereby the Pope disturbed the Ecclesiastical order, which was by giving privileges to exorbitant Friars, let us proceed to the second, which is by Commendams. In ancient times (saith 
q De sacr. Eccl Minist. & Be nef. l. 5. c. 8. All commendams are not to be condemned, notwithstanding any abuse of the same: for sometimes by reason either of the scarcity of sufficient Pastors, or th●… insufficiency of the Pastor's maintenance arisi●…g out of one C●…urch. more Churches than one are committed to one.  Duarenus) when a worthy Pastor was not presently found to be set over a church so soon as it was void, to avoid those evils and inconveniences, which for the most part Anarchy bringeth forth, the custom was, that in the mean while the void church should be commended and committed to some honest man, who being but as a Tutor and Procurator only, should be bound faithfully to give an account of that he should do. For he was not Pastor of the church, but appointed only for a time to take care of it. But in time, this thing (which was at first most profitable and behooveful, and devised to provide for churches in vacancy,) was strangely turned to the hurt and plague of them. For they who by the canons may not have the government of churches or Monasteries committed to them, have both churches and Monasteries commended unto them perpetually, and as long as they live. And such is the form of this committing or commending in the Pope's grants, that they to whom churches are so commended, have free power not only to dispose of such things as belong unto them, but to consume, waste and spend them, without being subject to any account. And truly it is strange, that men of wit and understanding, who devised this fraudulent kind of practice, found not out some fairer colour of so great and gross a corruption, that so they might not have seemed so plainly and openly to have despised the canons, and to make a mock of them. Thus far Duarenus. In this sort the Pope gave the greatest Bishopperickes in the World in Commendam, or perpetual administration to his Cardinals, and sometimes in title also; but so, that they were called Bishops elect of such a place, and never consecrated.  
The third way whereby the Pope preiudiceth the Church, is by taking on him to give Church-livings in all parts of the world to whom he pleaseth; a thing never thought of in the first ages of the church. For the Bishop of Rome had no power to ordain Clerks out of his own Diocese, or Bishops out of his own Province, the Canons providing that a Bishop should be chosen by the Clergy and people, and ordained by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of the Province, It is true indeed, that as Patriarch of the West he was to confirm the several metropolitans subject to him, either by imposition of hands, or by sending the Pall as all other patriarchs likewise were to do; but in the Patriarchshippe of any of the rest he might not meddle, as appeareth by the 
r Binnius in vita Adrian●… secundi. tom. 3. Concil. part. 2.  contention between Rome and Constantinople about the Bulgarians; nor within his own Precinctes further than the confirming of the metropolitans, as it is evident by the Council of 
s Action. 16.  Chalcedon, forbidding the Patriarche of Constantinople to meddle in the ordinations of Bishops, and requiring him to content himself with the confirmation of metropolitans, to whom yet in the same Council equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome are given. So that it is not likely that in those times the Roman Bishops challenged to themselves any such power and right, as now they do. Nay 
t De Sacris. Ec. minist. & Benef. l. 3. cap. 1.  Duarenus pronounceth, that there is no doubt, but that the more ancient and holy Bishops of Rome, contenting themselves with their own Church, left the administration of other Churches free to their own Bishops, as rather thinking themselves Bishops of that one city then of the whole world, which thing haply moved a certain Bishop (of whom Paulus 
u Li. 9 de rebus gestis Francor.  Aemylius maketh mention) to answer somewhat peremptorily to Gregory the Eleventh, ask him why he went not to his Church? for whereas Gregory sat at Auinion, and not at Rome, he said unto him, If one should ask thee why thou goest not to Rome, that hath been so long forsaken of her Bishops, thou wouldst have much less to answer than I have. But the latter Bishops of Rome contented not themselves herewith; neither did they think it enough to be Bishops of Rome, and prime Bishops amongst & before the rest, but they would needs be universal Bishops, and therefore thought it no robbery to concur with all other Bishops, and to prevent them if they could in giving void Benefices before them: And because it was not easy to prevent the Bishops in this sort, in Provinces and Kingdoms far remote, therefore they found out a more certain and ready way, whereby to take from them their right and power: for a custom grew in and prevailed, unknown to former times, of certain Papal grants wherein Benefices not void were commanded to be bestowed and conferred when they should be void, upon such as the Pope should think fit, and specially upon strangers. These were called Gratiae expectativae, and Mandata de providendo: and 
x Matth. Parisiens'. in Henrico: 3. p. 639.  hereof the whole state of England complained to Innocentius the Fourth, affirning, that by virtue of these Provisions, there were so many Italians beneficed in England, that the revenues which they had from hence was 60000 marks; which was more than the bare revenue of the Kings, and yet as if this had not been enough, there came one Martin with Commission from the Pope to wrong the poor Church of England a little more. This man conferred certain Benefices actually void of the value of thirty marks by the year upon strangers, and when they died he put in others without the privity of the Patrons, and went about to assure to such as he pleased the like Benefices not yet void, whensoever they should be void; besides many other most unjust exactions, wherewith he vexed the poor English, putting all such as resisted against him under the sentence of excommunication and interdiction, taking more on him then ever any Legate did (though he came not as a Legate) to the great prejudice of the Crown of England; seeing no Legate was to come hither, unless he were desired by the King. The Messengers that the State of England sent to the Pope, to make known their greivances and complaints were greatly disliked by the Pope, and their message no way acceptable to him: and therefore though dissembling the matter he gave them some good words, as if there should be no more such Provisions made, but only for some particular persons, and they not above twelve in number, yet such was the good nature of the man (as Matthew 
y Pag. 669.  Paris noteth) that he would not suffer the poor English, though sore beaten with many stripes, once to cry or complain. But because they published these their complaints in the Council of Lions, which was holden at the time of their coming, he was exceeding angry, and 
z Ibidem.  dealt with the French King to make war against the King of England, and either to deprive him of his Kingdom, or to make him wholly to stoop to the pleasure of the pope, and the Court of Rome: which the French King utterly refused to do. After these things thus past between the Pope and the English, he did worse than ever before. 
a Pag. 674.  Whereupon there was a new meeting of the States of England, wherein these grievances were made manifest, and complained of: First, that the Pope was not content with his ordinary revenue of Peter-pences, but exacted other contributions without the King's knowledge. Secondly, that the Patrons of Churches were not permitted to present Clerks, but Romans were put into them, who neither understood the Language, nor ever meant to live here; but carried away the money out of the Realm. So that neither was the people instructed, hospitality kept, the Churches repaired, nor any good done: and beside, 
b Pag. 667.  the Original Patrons were deprived of their right, one Italian succeeding another in the Churches founded by them, without their knowledge, and that unwelcome Messenger, Non obstante, too often sent unto them. These their complaints, the King, the Bishops, Abbots, Lords and Commons made known by their letters 
c Pag. 687.  and messengers to the Pope, with earnest desire of reformation and redress: but could receive none other answer from him, but that the King of England had his Counsel, and so had he; that the king began to kick against him, and to play the Frederick. And such was his displeasure, that all English were repelled and driven away as schismatics. After this, new letters were again written to the Pope, and in the end a privilege was granted, that no Provisions 
c P. 689.  should be made for Italians, Cardinals, or the Pope's Nephews, before the King were first earnestly entreated to be content with them, only to abuse such as would be abused. For the Pope went forward still in his provisions, as formerly he had done, as appeareth by his letters to the Abbot of Saint Albon, and by the 
d Pag. 791.  worthy letters of the Bishop of Lincoln written to the pope about these matters, and his 
e Pag. 843.  speeches against the Pope a little before his death. And here by the way, it is worth the noting, that 
f Pag. 848.  Matthew Paris hath, that in the time of Gregory the Ninth upon complaint of onde Robert Tewing Patron of the Church of Lathune, the pope's Grant made in prejudice of his right was reversed, because it was not known that the Patron of that Benefice was a Layman when it was given by the pope. So that if it had been in the gift of a Cleargy-mam, it must have stood: so ready was the head of the Church to oppress Churchmen, and their possessions of all other were most fit for spoil. So little respect was there had to religion in those days, and so were all things returned to their old Chaos again: Whence it came that 
g Pag. 496. Pag. 791.  the hearts of all men went away from the pope and the Church of Rome, whereof the one sought to be esteemed a Father, and the other a Mother to all Churches: but the one of them proved a stepfather, and the other a stepmother. Neither did the pope like a wild Boar make havoc only in the Vine-yard of the Lord of Hosts, planted in this Island, which lay open to be spoilt by all passengers, but he played his part also in all other Kingdoms of the West: though some resisted more against his intrusions than others. Touching France, we read in the book entitled, Pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicae, adversus Romanam aulam, defensio Parisiensis Curiae, Ludovico undecimo Gallorum Regi quondam oblata, turned out of French into Latin by Duarenus, and added to his book De sacris Ecclesiae Ministeriis, that there being a great number of goodly Churches founded by the Kings of France, when the Bishops of Rome began to prejudice the liberties of them, the King, the Nobles, the Princes of the blood, the Clergy and commons, assembled to resist the vexations, oppressions, & wrongs of the Court of Rome, & made many good Constitutions for the repressing of such insolences. So Lewis, when first the Pope began to meddle, in the year one thousand two hundred sixty seven, decreed that Preslacies & Dignities elective should be given by election: and such as are not elective, by collation, and presentation of Patrons: and that the Court of Rome should extort no money for any such thing out of the Kingdom of France. And when, notwithstanding this Decree, in process of time the Court of Rome attempted divers things contrary to the liberty of the church of France, Charles the Sixth, with the advice of his Nobles, Prelates, abbot, Colleges, Universities, and other parts of his Kingdom, in the year one thousand four hundred and six, made a Constitution, whereby he restored the church to her ancient liberty: and this Decree was published in the year one thousand four hundred and seven; in which year Benedict the Pope, and his Ministers having imposed and exacted great sums of money, a new complaint was made to the King: and thereupon a Decree made, that nothing should be paid out of France in the nature of Annates or tenths, and that such as had been excommunicated for refusal of them, should be absolved again. In the year one thousand four hundred and eighteen, a Constitution was made, whereby all Reservations and Apostolical graces, as they call them, together with all exactions of the court of Rome were forbidden. And when as the Romans contemning all Constitutions, ceased not to trouble and confound the Hierarchy of the Church, and scattered abroad every where throughout the World their Reservations and expectative graces, (whence followed great and horrible deformities in the church) at last a General Council was assembled for the Reformation of the church, in the Head and members: which prohibited these Reservations and expectative Graces, restored the canons touching Elections and Collations, and subjected all that should contumaciously resist (yea though the Pope himself) to due punishment. The Decrees of this council, Charles the Seaventh confirmed, with the consent of all Estates of his Kingdom, and this his Decree of Confirmation was called the Pragmatical Sanction. But the Popes never rested till they had, if not wholly overthrown it, yet greatly weakened it. The attempts of Pius the Second (who being a private man in the Council of Basil, set it forward what he could) are not unknown, as also of Sixtus the Fourth, Innocentius the Eighth, Alexander the Sixth, julius the Second, and Leo the Tenth, who published a Constitution, whereby the Pragmatical Sanction was much weakened, though not wholly taken away; and those his new Decrees were called Conventa, that is, agreements between the King and him. From these Decrees the University of Paris appealed to a General council. And thus we see how well the Popes fulfil the commandment of Christ in feeding his Sheep, that labour so mainly the overthrow of those canons, which being taken away, the whole Ecclesiastical Order is confounded, whole countries are made desolate and forsaken, Kingdoms are robbed of their money and treasure, & churches are ruinated and subverted. For so did all good men out of woeful experience complain in former times.  
Wherefore passing by these intrusions, usurpations, and tyrannical inter-meddling of Popes with things not pertaining to them, it is evident by that which hath been said, that the Election of fit Ministers to teach the people of God, pertaineth to the clergy and people, by the reasons and grounds of humane societies, unless by their own consent, forfeiture, restraint of superior authority commanding over them, or special reasons prevailing more than those general grounds of humane fellowship, it be taken from them. As in case of founding churches and endowing them with lands, the Patrons have the right of presenting: & in cases of intolerable abuses, negligences or insolences, the Prince (as Head of the people) assumeth to himself the nomination of such as are to serve in the holy Ministry of the church.  
Some there are that think the right of the people in choosing their Pastors and Ministers to be such, as that it may not be limited, restrained, or taken away upon any consideration whatsoever, and that therefore there is no lawful Election of Ecclesiastical Ministers, unless the people choose: But the error of these men is easily refuted. For seeing the Scripture & Word of GOD giveth no such power to the people, and all the interest they have, or can claim, is but from the ground of humane fellowship, subject to many limitations, alterations and restraintes, there is no reason to think that necessarily the people must ever elect their Pastors. In the reformed Churches of France & Geneva, the people give no voices in the election of Ministers, but are only permitted, if they have any causes of dislike or exception, to make them known to the Pastors and guides of the Church; and the power of judging of such exceptions resteth wholly in them. In so much that when one Morellius a fantastical companion sought to bring the elections of Bishops and Ministers to be Popular, and swayed by the most voices of the people, he was condemned by all the Synods in France, as 
h Epist. 83.  Beza showeth in his Epistles. That there is no precept in the whole new Testament forcing popular elections it is evident: And the only example that is brought of any such thing, is that of the 
i Acts. 6.  seven Deacons; but first there was some special reason, why the people's consent was sought in the election of these Deacons, being to be trusted with the treasure of the Church, and the disposing of the contributions of the faithful: and secondly, from one example, a general rule may not be gathered, Seeing the circumstances of things, times & persons, admit infinite varieties; some allege that place in the Acts for proof of popular elections, where the Apostles are said to have appointed Elders or Presbyters by 
k Acts. 14. 23.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth that kind of election, that is made by the more part of the voices of the Electors expressing their consent by lifting up of their hands, as sometimes men show their consent by going to one side of the place or room where they are, whence they are said, Pedibus ire insententiam. But surely these places are unadvisedly alleged for proof of popular elections. For first, the Apostles only are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently the election pertained to them only, and they only elected; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to elect, and not to gather voices. Secondly, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do originally signify that kind of election, which is made by many, expressing their consent, and giving their voices or suffrages by lifting up of their hands; yet may it be extended more generally to signify any election of many expressing their consent by writing, by lively voice, or by going to one side of the place where they are; yea any choice whatsoever, though made by one alone, as it appeareth in that the 
l Acts. 10. 41.  Apostles are said to have been witnesses formerly designed and appointed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas Christ only chose them, and they were not elected by the voices of many, or any but himself alone. And in Ecclesiastical writers the 
m Can. Apost. cap. 1. Chrysostom. hom. 14. in Acta. in illa verba. cum orassent impo●…uerunt illis manus. Concil. Nicen. in epist. ad Alexandrinos'. apud Theodoret. hist. Ec. li: 1. cap. 9  same word signifieth Ordination that is by Imposition of hands, as it were easy to prove by many testimonies of Antiquity.   

CHAP. 56.  
Of the Ordination of Bishops and Ministers.  
FROM the Election of Ministers, whereof we have sufficiently spoken, let us proceed to their Ordination, with which none but the Guides of the Church are trusted; And therefore, howsoever the people may sometimes elect; yet they are charged, 
a 1. Tim. 5. 22.  not to lay hands hastily on any man, nor to communicate with other men's sins. So that the moderation of all things in this kind resteth in them, & this is all that the Scripture prescribeth touching the designing and appointing of Ministers: namely, whom, and how, they that have power of ordaining, must ordain. Ordination is the setting of men a part to the work of the Ministry, the commending of them with fasting and prayer to the grace of God, and the authorising of them to perform things pertaining to God; which others, without such sanctification neither may nor can do. Wherein the Ceremony of Imposition of hands is used. First, to express the setting of them apart for sacred employment. Secondly, to let them know that the hand of God is with them, in all that they do in his name, and by his authority to guide, direct, strengthen & protect them. Thirdly, to note out the person upon whom the Church by her prayers desireth the blessings of Almighty God to be poured in more plentiful sort then upon others, as being to take charge of others. This Ordination is either of Bishops, to whom the care and government of the Church is principally committed; or of other inferior Cleargymen.  
Touching the Ordination of Bishops, the Council of 
b Canone. 4.  Nice decreeth, that a Bishop must be ordained by all the Bishops in the Province: and that if it seem hard, either in respect of some urgent necessity, or the length of the ways, that they should all meet, yet there must be three at the least to concur in all such ordinations, the rest by their letters testifying their consent, and the Metropolitan confirming that they do. The Council of 
c Canone 19  Antioch in like sort decreeth, That a Bishop shall not be ordained without a Synod, and the presence of the Metropolitan; That the Metropolitan by his letters shall call unto him all the Bishops in the Province, if conveniently they may come together; if not, that at the least the greater part be present, or give their consent by writing. And that if at any time there grow any difference among the Bishops of the Province about the person that is to be ordained, the greater part of voices shall sway all. In the Second Council of 
d Canone. 1●….  Carthage, all the Bishops with one consent said: It seemeth good to us all, that without consulting the Primate of each Province, no man easily presume, though with many Bishops, to ordain a Bishop in what place soever without his command: but if necessity shall require, that three Bishops in what place soever they be with the command of the Primate shall have power to ordain a Bishop. And because the concurrence of the Metropolitan, was to be sought, and his presence or direction had in every ordination; therefore lest by his fault there might be too long and dangerous delays, it was ordered that unless it were in case of necessity, all ordinations should be within three months after the voidance of any place: and that if by the fault of the Metropolitan there were any longer delay, he should be subject to Ecclesiastical Censure and punishment. In latter times under the Papacy, they 
e Bellar. de notis Ecclesiae. li: 4. cap. 8.  permitted by special dispensation one Bishop assisted with two mitred Abbots, to ordain a Bishop, contrary to all the old Canons requiring three Bishops at the least. The form and manner of ordination we find in the Fourth Council of 
f Canone. 2.  Carthage, which prescribeth that when a Bishop is to be ordained, two Bishops must hold the book of the Gospels over his head, and that one pouring forth the blessing upon him, all the other Bishops that are present must touch his head with their hands: This is the form of Episcopal ordination.  
But touching Presbyters & Deacons, the 
g Hispalens. Canone. 6.  Council of Hispalis saith: That the Bishop alone may confer Ecclesiastical honour upon them, but that alone he cannot take it from them, which yet is not so to be understood, as if the Bishop alone without his Presbyters might ordain Presbyters, but that he may without the concurrence of other Bishops, give that honour of Presbyterial order, which without them he cannot take away again. For otherwise the Council of 
h Carthagi. 4. Canone. 3.  Carthage provideth that in the ordination of a Presbyter, the Bishop holding his hand on his head, and blessing him, all the Presbyters that are present shall hold their hands by the hands of the Bishop. Whereas 
i Ibid. Canone 4.  in the ordination of a Deacon, it sufficeth that the Bishop alone, put his hands upon the head of him that is ordained; because he is not sanctified to Priestly dignity, but to the service of the Church. So that other Ministers are to concur in the ordination of the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, as well as the Bishop; being equal to him in the power of Order and Ministry, and his assistants in the work of it; yet hath the Bishop a great pre-eminence above them in the Imposition of hands: For regularly no number of Presbyters imposing hands can make a Minister without the Bishop. The reason whereof is, because no Ordinations are to be made sine titulo, that is, without title or place of employment: and none but Bishops have Churches, wherein to employ men; seeing they only are Pastors of Churches, & all other are but their assistants and coadjutors: not because the power of order which is given in Ordination is less in them then in Bishops. So that Bishops alone have the power of Ordination, and no man may regularly do it without them. Whereupon ordinarily, and according to the strictness of the old canons, all Ordinations made otherwise, are pronounced void: as we read of one 
l Athan. Apol. 2.  Coluthus, whose ordinations were therefore voided, because he took on him to ordain, being no Bishop, but a Presbyter only.  
But seeing Bishops and Presbyters are in the power of order the same; as when the Bishops of a whole Church or country fall from the Faith, or consent to them that so do, the care of the church is devolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholic; and as in the case of necessity they may do all other things regularly reserved to Bishops only▪ (as 
m In 4 Cap. ep. ad Ephes.  Ambrose showeth, that the Presbyters of Egypt were permitted in some cases to confirm the baptised, which thing also 
n Lib. 3. Ep. 26.  Gregory after him durst not condemn.) So in case of General defect of the Bishops of a whole country, refusing to ordain any but such as shall consent to their Heresies, when there appeareth no hope of remedy or help from other parts of the Church, the Presbyters may choose out one among themselves to be chief, and so add other to their numbers by the imposition of his and their hands. This I have proved in my 
o Chap. 39  third book out of the authorities of Armachanus, and sundry other, of whom Alexander of Hales speaketh. To which we may add that which 
p In Sent. l. 4. dist. 24. q. 5.  Durandus hath, where he saith: That Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion, that the highest power of consecration or order, is the power of a Priest or Elder. So that every Priest in respect of his Priestly power may minister all Sacraments, confirm the baptised, and give all Orders, howsoever for the avoydiug of the peril of Schism, it was ordained that one should be chosen to have a pre-eminence above the rest; who was named a Bishop, and to whom it was peculiarly reserved to give Orders, and to do some such other things. And afterwards he saith: that Hierome is clearly of this opinion. Neither can the Romanists deny this, & justify their own practice. For their Chorepiscopi, or Titular Bishops, are no Bishops (as I have 
q Chap. 29.  proved at large out of Damasus, not disputing or giving his private opinion, but resolving the point, and prescribing to other what they must believe & practise, & yet do they of the Church of Rome permit these to ordain, not only Subdeacons, and other inferior Cleargymen, but Priests and Deacons also; and hold their Ordinations to be good and of force. If any man haply say, that 〈◊〉 Bishop when he is old, and weak, or otherwise employed, may have a coadjutor, and consequently, that it is no such absurdity to admit these Suffragan and Titular Bishops; and that therefore they may have power to ordain, as being truly Bishops, and yet Presbyters in no case be permitted so to do: for answer hereunto let him read what I have written in the 29. chapter of this book concerning this matter.   

CHAP. 57  
Of the things required in such as are to be ordained Ministers: and of the lawfulness of their Marriage.  
FRom the election and ordination of Ministers, we are to proceed to the things required in them that are to be chosen and ordained. 
a 1 Tim. 3.  If any man (saith the Apostle) desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy work. A Bishop therefore must be unreprovable, the husband of one wife, watching, sober, modest, harberous, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre: but gentle, no fighter, not covetous, no young scholar, but well reported of, even of those that are without. The canons of the church require the same things, and add some other; as that no man may be chosen and ordained a Minister of the Word and Sacraments till he be thirty years of age: nor none that was baptised in his bed, and the like. The Papists proceed further, and not contenting themselves with the moderation of the Apostle, and the Primitive Fathers, admit none into the holy Ministry, but those that are unmarried, or being married, promise to live from their wives: & yet not so neither, if either they have been twice married, or if they married with a widow. Wherefore letting pass the things the Apostle prescribeth, and those other which the Canons add, of which there is no question, let us come to the marriage of them that are to be admitted into the holy Ministry of the Church.  
It is clearly confessed by the best learned in the Roman Church, that Bishops, Presbyters and other Cleargymen, are not forbidden to marry, or being married, before they enter into the Ministry, to continue in matrimonial society with their wives, by any law of God: and therefore there is little fear of offending against God, either by admitting such into the Ministry as will not live single, or by entering into it, with purpose of marriage. 
b Secunda. secundae. quaest. 88 art. 11.  Non est essentialiter annexum debitum continentiae ordini sacro (saith Aquinas) sed ex statuto Ecclesiae: unde videtur, quod per Ecclesiam possit dispensari in voto continentiae, solemnizato per susceptionem sacri ordinis: that is, It is not essentially annexed unto holy order, that men should contain and live single that enter into the Ministry, but by the Decree of the Church only. So that it seemeth, that the Church may dispense in the vow of continency, though made solemn by taking holy orders. And in another place he saith: 
c Part. 3. quaest. 53. art. 3.  that it is from the Church's constitution, that they who are entered into the holy orders of the Church, may not marry: which yet is not the same among the Grecians, that it is among the Latins. For the Grecians make no vow, and do live with their wives that they married before they entered into orders: of the same opinion is 
d In Sent. lib. 4. dist. 39 quaest. 2. & 3.  Bonaventura, who acknowledgeth, that in the Primitive Church, it was otherwise touching this matter, than now it is in the Church of Rome; and endeavoureth to give reasons of the difference. 
e In 4. sent. dist. 37.  Scotus, and 
f Dialog.  Occam, are of the same judgement: and all the rest of the School men of note agree with them. And 
g In respons. ad articulos Parisienses. Opusc. tom. 1. tract. 27.  Cajetan, a great learned Divine, and a Cardinal in our time, pronounceth confidently, that it cannot be proved, either by reason or authority, (setting aside the Laws that are positive, and vows which men make to the contrary) that a Priest doth sin in contracting marriage. And that therefore the Pope with good conscience may dispense with such a one, and give him leave to marry; though there be no inducement of public profit, or benefit leading him so to do. And addeth that reason seemeth to be strong on the contrary side for the lawfulness of such dispensation: because (as it appeareth by Peter Lombard in the fourth of the Sentences) neither Order, in that it is Order, nor holy Order, in that it is holy, crosseth or hindereth marriage. And (as it is in the Decrees) Deacons in ancient times might marry, even in the West Church: and (as it is in the same Decrees) they of the East Church are joined in marriage, even after they are entered into holy Orders. Neither is that gloss to be admitted, which expoundeth their coupling or joining in marriage, of the living in marriage formerly contracted: Seeing the whole course & coherence of the Text speaketh of the Contract of Marriage, as by the opposition of the practice of the West Church (the Priests whereof are said not to marry) it may be confirmed. These are the words of Cardinal Caietan. With him agreeth Cardinal 
h De Clericis lib. 1. c. 8.  Bellarmine, and confirmeth that he saith by three reasons, whereof the first is this: Priests are not forbidden by God's Law to company with their wives, which they married before they entered into holy Orders: Therefore they are not forbidden to marry after they are entered. The consequence he proveth; because if any thing be found in marriage that cannot stand well with the sacred function and employment of Ministers, it is the act of Matrimony and not the contract, which is a thing most honest, and is soon past. Whereupon, they that dislike the marriage of Churchmen, were wont to allege the cares of household, and of children, causing distraction of mind, and other like things, and not the contract or Sacrament of marriage: & therefore he rightly reproveth Clicthoveus, for that he 
i Lib. de Contitinentia Sace●…dotum. cap. 4.  thinketh the matrimonial society of such as were married before they became Ministers of the Church, is not forbidden by God's law; and yet feareth not to say, that the contract of marriage ensuing after the entrance into the holy Ministry is forbidden. Wherefore leaving the consequence as good and sufficiently proved, he confirmeth the antecedent in this sort. That presbyters are not forbidden by God's law to live with their wives, which they married before they entered into the holy Ministry, it appeareth in that the Roman Church hath for many ages passed permitted the Presbyters of the Greek Church to live with their wives which they married before their Ordination; which it could not do, if so to live were forbidden by God's law: That so the Roman Church hath allowed those of the Greek Church to live with their wives, he proveth by good authority. For in the 
k Cap. cum Olim. De coniugatis.  Decretals it is reported, that a certain Grecian, while he was yet in the minor Orders, according to the custom of the Greek Church married a wife, and afterwards when he was a Priest begat a son of his lawful wife. This Priest's son was thought fit to be a Bishop, and chosen so to be: the Archbishop made question, whether he might confirm his Consecration or not, as doubting of his Legitimation. To whom Innocentius the Third writeth thus: We considering that the East Church never admitted the vow of continency, but that they of the East while they are yet in the Minor Orders contract marriage, and when they are in the higher Orders, use that marriage which they then contracted, do command, that unless any custom be against it (in that these Grecians live among the Latins) if there be no other Canonical impediment, you proceed without doubting to the Confirmation and Consecration of him. Whereby it is evident that the Bishop of Rome allowed the marriage of the Grecians: for Innocentius saith, this Presbyter, after he was a Presbyter, begat a son of his lawful wife: and approveth, nay commandeth his son as lawfully begotten to be ordained, if it were not offensive, because he conversed among the Latins. The next reason that Bellarmine bringeth is, for that there is no prohibition of Almighty GOD found either in the old, or new Testament: and the third, for that it is said in the Council of 
l Cap. 10. & Diego: 20. ca de Libellis.  Ancyra, that Deacons, with the licence of the Bishop, may marry after they are ordained. Whence it followeth, that they are not forbidden to marry by GOD'S Law; seeing Bishops may not dispense with GOD'S Law. And This Council (as Bellarmine truly noteth) is most ancient, and approved by Leo the Pope.  
The uttermost therefore that our Adversaries can say, is that the Church by her authority hath forbidden the marriage of Presbyters and Bishops: wherefore let us take a view of the laws of the Church concerning this matter: and for our more orderly proceeding in the examination of the same, let us first observe what the Church decreed, touching them that being married enter into the Ministry. Secondly, touching them that entered being single. Concerning the first, it is evident, that till the time of Siricius, married men were permitted throughout the whole Church to enter into the Ministry, and to live with their wives. In the Epistles of 
m Epist. 49.  Cyprian among other things, Novatus, ordained a Presbyter of Carthage by Cyprian, is charged, first, that he suffered his own father to die of hunger, and took no care for his burial when he was dead. Secondly, that by violence offered to his own wife, he caused her to be delivered of her child before her time; so that the child died, and he was guilty of the murder thereof: for which crimes he feared to be put from his Priestly function, and the Communion of the Church; and therefore prevented his punishment by a voluntary Schismatical departure. Where we see a Presbyter permitted by Cyprian to live with his wife, and no way blamed, for that he had companied with her: but for that when she was with child by him, he had stricken her in such violent sort, that she was untimely delivered, not without the death of the child. Whereupon Pamelius hath this annotation upon the Epistle of Cyprian: Many married men at that time were taken into the Clergy, because there were few other to be had: and therefore it is not to be marvelled at, that Cyprian maketh mention of the wife of Novatus who was a Priest. That Tertullian was married, it appeareth by the book which he hath written to his wife: and that neither he nor she voluntarily separating themselves had vowed continency, it appeareth by the persuasions he useth to induce her to live single, and not to marry again after his death, in those evil & dangerous times, if haply he should die before her; or at the least, if she could not nor would not contain, to marry with none but a believer. Had she bound herself by vow to contain, he would not thus have left her to her own liberty, and if she could not, nor would not contain, he was bound by the Apostles rule, not to defraud her, but to yield unto her due benevolence. Neither have we these examples only, but many more: for we read in Gratian, of the sons of Presbyters and Bishops, that were promoted to the Papal dignity. 
n Dist. ●…6  So was Bonifacius the Pope, the son of jucundus the Presbyter: Faelix the Pope, the son of Faelix the Presbyter: Agapetus the Pope, son of Gordianus the Presbyter: Theodorus the Pope, son of Theodorus the Bishop, and many more he saith there were, who being the sons of Bishops or Presbyters, were advanced to sit in the Apostolical Throne. And addeth, 
o Ibid.  that when the sons of Presbyters and Bishops are said to have been advanced and promoted to be Popes, we are not to understand them to have been such as were borne of fornication, out of lawful marriages, which were lawful unto Priests before the prohibition: and in the oriental Church are proved to be lawful unto them even unto this day. 
p Lib. 5. c. 2●…  Socrates saith, that in Thessalia there was a particular custom grown in, that if a Cleargy-man, after he became a Cleargy-man, companied with his wife, which he married while he was yet a Layman, he should be put out of the Ministry of the Church. Whereas all the most famous Presbyters and Bishops also in the East, might if they pleased, but were no way by any Law constrained to refrain from the company of their wives. So that many of them even when they were Bishops, did beget children of their lawful wives. A particular and most approved example whereof we have in the Father of Gregory Nazianzen: who being a Bishop, not only lived with his wife till death divided them, but became the Father also of Gregory Nazianzen, (as worthy and renowned a man as any the Greek Church ever had) after he was entered into the priestly Office, as appeareth by his own words reported by 
q In Carm. de vitâ suâ.  Gregory Nazianzen. For after many motives used by him to Gregory Nazianzen his son, to persuade him to assist him in the work of his Bishoply Ministry, the last that he most insisteth on, is taken from the consideration of his old age, dis-inabling him to bear that burden, and perform that work any longer that hitherto he had done. And therefore entreating him to put to his helping hand, he breaketh out into thesewords: Thou hast not lived so long a time as I have spent in the priestly office, therefore yield thus much unto me, and help me in that little time of my life that is yet behind: or else thou shalt not have the honour to bury me, but I will give charge to another to do it. here we see Gregory Nazianzens father was employed in the priestly function before he was borne: and that therefore he became the father of so worthy a son after he was a Bishop, or at least after he was a Presbyter. Neither was the father of Gregory Nazianzen singular in this behalf. For 
r Ep. ad Drac.  Athanasius writing to Dracontius, (who being greatly in love with a retired and monastical kind of life, refused the Bishoply Office when he was chosen unto it; for that he feared he might not in that state live so strictly as formerly he had done) controlleth this his conceit; and telleth him that he may in the Bishop's office hunger and thirst as Paul did, drink no wine as Timothy, and fast often as did the Apostle. So that the Bishop's Office is no cause of doing ill, or doing less good than may be done in other states of life: and there-upon assureth him, that he hath known Bishops to fast, and Monks to eat: Bishops to drink no wine, and Monks to drink it: Bishops to work miracles, and Monks to do none: lastly, many Bishops never to have married, and Monks to have become fathers of children: and on the contrary side Bishops to have become fathers of children, and Monks to have lived altogether as Monks without desire of posterity. Neither can this authority of Athanasius be avoided, as Bellarmine seeketh to avoid it; namely, that those Bishops did ill, which he saith, became fathers of children. For 
s Stromat. l. 3 p. 196  Clemens Alexandrinus an ancient Greek Father saith expressly, The Apostle admitteth the husband of one wife to be a Bispoppe, and that though he be a Presbyter, Deacon, or Layman, if he use marriage aright, and so as not to incur just reprehension, he shall be saved by the procreation of children. 
t In 1 ad Tim. 3  Chrysostome acordeth with Athanasius and Clemens Alexandrinus, and saith, that marriage is in so high a degree honourable, that men with it may ascend into the Episcopal chairs: even such as yet live with their wives. For though it be an hard thing, yet it is possible, so to perform the duties of marriage; as not to be wanting in the performance of the duties of a Bishop: whereunto 
u Lib. 1. cap. 11.  Zozomen agreeth saying of Spiridion that though he had wife and children, yet he was not therefore any whit the more negligent in performing the duties of his calling, and of Gregory Nyssene it is reported that though he were married, yet he was no way inferior to his worthy brother that lived single. But some haply will object, that Epiphanius is of another mind, and that he saith, 
y Epipanius Heres. 59  where the strictness of the canon is observed, none but such as are unmarried, or resolved to refrain from matrimonial society with their wives, are admitted into the ministry of the Church. We deny not, but that he saith so: But he confesseth in the same place, that many in the Church did live with their wives in his time, and beget Children even after their admission into the ministry. So that the strictness of the Canon he speaketh of, was not general, but in some certain places only, as I noted before out of 
z Lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 21.  Socrates. Nay, it is evident by Socrates, that howsoever in Thessalia, Thessalonica, Macedonia and helas this strictness prevailed; yet all the Bishops of the East besides, were left to their own liberty: and howsoever some in divers places went about to take away this liberty, yet the worthiest men the Church had, stood in defence of it, protesting they would not suffer themselves to be enthralled in this behalf. to which purpose, that of the famous and renowned Synesius is most excellent: who, when they of Ptolemais would needs have him to be their Bishop; (which thing he little desired) he made them acquainted with his present condition, and resolved purpose for the time to come. 
a Synesius ad fratrem pag. 68 lib. Epist.  God (saith he) the Law, and the sacred hand of Theophilus hath given unto me a wife, I therefore tell all men aforehand, and testify unto all, that I will neither suffer myself to be altogether estranged and separated from her, neither will I live with her secretly as an adulterer. For the one of these is no way pious and godly, and the other no way lawful: but I will desire and pray unto God that exceeding many and most good and happy children may be borne unto me. Neither will I have him, that is to be chief in ordaining of me to be ignorant hereof.  
This liberty the council in 
b Canone 12.  Trullo impeached in respect of Bishops, but in respect of Presbyters it continueth in all the East Churches of the world, even till this day, Greek, Armenian, and Ethiopian: warranted unto them by the Canons of the Apostles; judgement of Bishops, Decrees of Counsels, and the consent of all other parts of the World. For first, the Apostle Saint Paul telleth the Corinthians 
c 1. Cor. 9 5.  he had power to lead about a wife a sister, as well as the brethrens of the Lord and Cephas. Which words 
d Stromat. lib. 3. pag. 192.  Clemens Alexandrinus interpreteth in this sort. Paul feareth not in a certain Epistle to speak to his yoke-fellow: which he did not lead about with him, because he had no need of any great service. Therefore he saith in a certain Epistle: Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife; as the rest of the Apostles? but they truly, as it was meet, because they could not spare their Ministry: attending without distraction to preaching, lead their wives about, not as wives but as sisters; which should minister together with them, among the women which kept the houses, by whom the doctrine of the Lord might enter into the closet of women, without reprehension or suspicion. Neither doth Clemens Alexandrinus only so understand the words, but a 
e Decreti part. 1. dist. 31. ca 11.  Roman Bishop also. So that our Adversaries have no reason to charge us with heretical perverseness, for expounding the Apostles words, of the Apostles wives. Neither can their interpretation of faithful women following the Apostles, and ministering unto them things necessary, any way stand with the Apostles drift and meaning: for first, it is no way to be conceived, that those Apostles which had wives, would not lead them about rather than strange women. Secondly, the word of leading about, implieth a kind of authority, right and interest, in those women which the Apostles lead about: which might be verified of them in respect of their wives, but not in respect of such women as out of their devotion followed them, if any so did. Thirdly, the Apostle doth not say, We have power to lead about a woman a sister, as they read it, but a sister, a woman, or wife. Now the addition of woman to sister is idle and needless: seeing every sister is undoubtedly a woman; Therefore we must understand the Apostle to say; a sister, a wife. 
f Hier. contra jovinian. lib. 1.  Hierome indeed understandeth the Apostles words of strange women, and not of their wives: yet denieth he not, but that other interpret them otherwise, and translateth, and allegeth the words doubtfully, of the Apostles leading about women or wives. Besides this claim that the Apostle maketh of power and authority in this behalf, elsewhere prescribing what manner of men must be chosen unto the Bishop's office, he saith, 
g 1 Tim. 3. 3.  A Bishop must be the husband of one wife, one that can rule his own house, having children under obedience, with all honesty. Now to say, they were to forsake their wives as soon as they should enter into this calling, is most absurd, and contrary to the very Law of God and nature. For it is not in the power of the man to withdraw himself from his wife, with whom he is one flesh, seeing 
h 1. Cor. 7. 4.  the man hath not power of his body, but the wife. Whereupon 
i Part. 3. qu. 53. art. 4. ad Primum.  Thomas Aquinas resolveth, that a man entering into holy Orders, cannot without the consent of his wife withdraw himself from her; but is bound to live with her still, and to yield unto her due benevolence. Neither may man and wife part by consent perpetually, but for a time only, according to that of the Apostle; Defraud not one another except 
k 1. Cor. 7. 5.  it be by consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and again come together, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Answerable hereunto, the Canons attributed to the Apostles forbid Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons 
l Canone. 6.  to put away their wives upon any pretence of religion. The words of the Canon are these: Let no Bishop Presbyter or Deacon, put away his wife upon any pretence of religion; if he do let him be put from the Communion, and if he persist, let him be removed from his Order. This Canon (saith 
m In explicatione canounm.  Zonara's) condemneth those sacred Ministers of the Church that put away their wives. For that such putting of them away seemeth to be done in disgrace of marriage: as if the companying together of man and wife were an impure and unclean thing. Whereas the Apostle pronounceth, that 
n Hebr. 13. 4.  Marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled. The Romanists to avoid and decline the force of this testimony, say, that this Canon forbiddeth Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons the casting away of all care of providing for their wives, but not the forsaking of their company: but this their evasion is easily refuted. First, because there is no show of evil in Cleargy-mens' providing for the necessity of their wives, which they married while they were Laymen: nay it would seem unto all men most unnatural for them to cast off all care of them, and all men would condemn them for so doing; but in the companying with them (in the sinister judgement of some men) there is: in respect whereof some forsake their wives, under a pretence of religion: Secondly, because the Fathers in the 
o Canone●… 12.  Sixth General Council (who no doubt understood the meaning of these Canons far better than the Romanists do) understand them, as forbidding Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, the refraining from companying with their wives, and not the neglecting to provide for their necessities. In the Council of Nice some went about to make a Law, that Bishops and Ministers of the Church should not, after their entering into the holy Ministry, company with their wives, which they had formerly married. But 
p Socrates. lib. 1. cap. 8.  Paphnutius Bishop of a city in the upper Thebais, who was a most holy man, by whom miracles had been wrought, and who for confessing the faith of Christ, had had one of his eyes pulled out though himself were never married, cried out aloud, and besought them, to lay no such heavy yoke on the necks of them that were entered into the holy Ministry: affirming, that Marriage is honourable among all, and the bed undefiled: calling the company of a man with his wife by the name of chastity: and advising them to take heed, lest they did greatly hurt the state of the Church by making so strict a law, for that all cannot endure so severe a rule of Discipline: and for that also this rule haply cannot be so easily observed by their wives. To these speeches of Paphnutius the whole assembly of Bishops assented. So that this controversy was ended, and each man left to his own liberty. This of Paphnutius is reported by 
q Vbi supra.  Socrates, 
r Lib. 1. c. 22  Zozomen, 
s In vita Paphnutii.  Suidas, 
t Hist. Eccles.  Nicephorus, and alleged by 
u Dist. 31. c. 12.  Gratian as true: yet 
x De Clericis l. 1. c. 20.  Bellarmine & the jesuits fear not to reject it as false, as if they knew better what was done one thousand three hundred years ago, than all that ever have been since: & the better to discredit this poor report, they charge both Socrates and Zozomen with Heresy, and contemn their stories. So must all go to the ground, that standeth in their way, be it never so ancient; and yet they are the men that plead Antiquity. But if this be a feigned and counterfeit story, what are the signs of the forgery, whereby they discern it to be so? Surely there appear none; but it cannot be true (the jesuit saith) because it is contrary to the report of Epiphanius and Hierome. Touching Epiphanius I have showed already, that he hath nothing contrary to this narration of Socrates and Zozomen: for he confesseth that Bishops and Presbyters in his time 
〈◊〉 Heres. 59:  lived with their wives, and begat children of them, in such places where the strictness of the Canon was not admitted. So that the Canon he speaketh of, which was admitted in Thessalia, Thessalonica, Macedonia, and helas, and was proposed and rejected in the Council of Nice, was but particular and local; which may stand well enough with the narration of Socrates and Zozomen, that the Council of Nice decreed nothing touching this point, but left it as they found it. The like may be said of Hierome. For Hierome writing against Vigilantius, speaketh of certain Bishops, which would ordain no Deacons unless they married wives, thinking that no single men live chastely: who surely (if any such were found in those times) are not to be excused. But if they only demanded first of them that were to be ordained, before they ordained them, whether they would live continently, or not, and if they answered that they would not, willed them to marry before they ordained them (as Zonara's writing on the Canons of the Apostles showeth that they do in the Greek Church) they were not to be blamed: Seeing the council of 
z Canone 10.  Ancyra permitted Deacons, protesting when they were ordained, that they would not live single, to marry after they were entered into Orders. But 
a Contra Vigilantium.  Hierome in opposition to the practice of these men, asketh what the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and of the Apostolic See shall do, which admit into the Clergy, virgins, or such as contain, or such as if they had wives, yet cease to be husbands? whereby it may seem, that this Canon of Bishops living from their wives, was admitted generally, which is contrary to the narration of Socrates. But they that urge these words of Hierome, should consider; first, that he doth not say, that these Churches mentioned by him, admitted none to the Ministry, but such as were single, or having wives, resolved to live no longer with them in matrimonial society; but that they admitted such as had never been married, or having had wives, ceased to be husbands, contrary to their practice, that would admit none, as he saith, unless they saw their wives to have great bellies, or heard the children crying in their mother's arms. Secondly, supposing that these Churches mentioned by Hierome, admitted none but such as had never been married, or having been married, ceased to be husbands, he plainly showeth by the particular mention of these Churches; 
b As in the council of Constantinople, Can. 2. Egypt, and the East a●…e opposed to A●…a, Thracia, etc.  that there was no such thing generally prevailing: and so no way contrarieth the report of Socrates and the rest. Wherefore seeing neither Epiphanius nor Hierome, will by their contradiction elevate the authority of Socrates, Zozomen, and the rest, the Cardinal will improve their narration by another means. The council of 
c Canone 3.  Nice, he saith, forbiddeth Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, to have any woman in their houses, besides their Mother, Sister, or Aunt: whence he thinketh it may be inferred, that it did forbid every of these to have any Wife dwelling with them in the same house; seeing if they might have wives, they might undoubtedly have handmaids to attend them. This proof is no better than the former: for in the canons of the Nicene council, translated out of the Arabian tongue, and put into the sirst Tome of counsels by Binnius out of Alphonsus Pisanus; (in which, as Francis Turrian professeth, in his Proem before the same canons, there is nothing but that which is approved, and worthy that great Synod of Nice) the Decree of the council is conceived and expressed in such words, that it is evident it was never meant to be extended to such Bishops, Presbyters, or Deacons, as have wives; but to such only, as never were married, or are widowers. The words are these. 
* Canone 4.  We decree, that Bishops dwell not with women, neither any Presbyter that is a widower: the same is decreed touching every Presbyter that is unmarried, and the Deacons which have no wives: and that Priests might live with their wives in those times, the 78. of those Canons maketh it most clear, for it layeth a more heavy punishment upon him, that hath a wife living, and living with him, if he commit adultery, then upon him, that never was married, or is a widower. Wherefore let us pass from the Council of Nice, to the Council of Gangra. 
d Lib. 2. cap. 33. & Sozome. lib. 3. cap. 13.  Socrates showeth that Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, so far disliked marriage, that he persuaded many women to forsake their husbands, that he contemned married Presbyters, & condemned the prayers and blessings of Presbyters having wives, which they married while they were Laymen. Now it is not to be imagined, that he would have despised them if they had put away their wives, (for he persuaded to that; and many women harkening unto him, departed from their husbands) but because they retained them still; yet did the 
e Canone 4.  Council of Gangra condemn him; adding, that if any one contrary to the Apostolical Canons, shall presume to put any one of them, that have taken holy orders, as Presbyters, or Deacons, from companying with their wives, he shall be deposed. To this we may add the Sixth General Council holden in Trullo, wherein a Decree was passed, that such as do enter into the Ministry being married, shall be permitted to live with their wives. The words of the Council are these: 
f Canone 13.  Because we have understood, that it hath been delivered to the Church of Rome for a Canon, that Deacons or Presbyters, who shall be thought worthy to be ordained, shall profess and promise to company no more with their wives; we keeping the ancient Canon of Apostolical perfection and order, will and decree, that the marriages of such men, as are in holy orders, henceforth, and from this moment of time shall be firm and stable, no way dissolving their conjunction with their wives, nor debarring them from companying with them, at convenient times. Wherefore if any man be found worthy to be ordained a Subdeacon, Deacon, or Presbyter; Let him by no means be debarred from entering into such a degree; because he liveth with his lawful wife, neither let it be required of him, at the time of his ordination, to promise to refrain from the lawful companying with his wife; lest by so doing, we be forced to do wrong to marriage, ordained of God, and blessed by his presence: The Evangelicall voice crying out aloud, the things which GOD hath joined, let no man sunder: And the Apostle teaching, that Marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled: And again saying; Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed, etc. Thus do the Fathers and Bishops assembled in this Council, forbid and condemn the putting of Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons from the society with their wives, alleging the ancient Canon, use, and custom, and many excellent authorities, and reasons out of the Scriptures and word of God; showing that no such thing can be done without great injury to the state of Marriage, and without separating those whom God hath joined together: and yet suddenly forgetting themselves, they 
g Canone 12.  forbid Bishops to live with their wives; so overthrowing the ancient custom and Canon, and separating those that God hath joined together. Whereby that which had been free from the Apostles times (as 
h In explicatio. Canonum Apostol:  Zonaras noteth) was forbidden, & the Canon of the Apostles repealed. Yet did these Fathers (as we see) most carefully provide, that Presbyters and Deacons should not be restrained. And indeed, this liberty hath continued according to their Decree in this behalf passed; ever since, in all the East Churches of the world. For first, touching the Greek Church, which is principally directed by the Canons of this Council, it is evident by 
i Cap. 21.  the censure of the oriental Church, upon the Confession of Auspurge, translated out of Greek into Latin, and published by Stanislaus Socolovius. Secondly, the Sixth 
k Canone ●…3.  General Council testifieth, that the Armenians were so far from disliking the marriage of their Cleargymen, that they ran into the other extreme. For they confined the Election of Churchmen within the stock of Churchmen; as the Priesthood was confined in the time of Moses law, and contained within the tribe of Levi. And thirdly, 
l Damian. a Goes de morib. Aethiop.  Damianus a Goes witnesseth, that among the Aethiopian Christians, Cleargymen are married: and that by dispensation of the Patriarche, after the death of the first wife, their priests and Ministers may marry the second, though without such dispensation they may marry but once. The Armenians & Aethiopians (I suppose) have not restrained their Bishops from living in matrimonial society with their wives, more than their Presbyters and Deacons: seeing they take no notice of the prescriptions of the Sixth General Council, wherein this restraint began: The Armenians receiving but only the three first, and the Aethiopians only the first four General Counsels.  
Thus having taken a view of the course of things in the Church, from the beginning, and made it evident, that generally there never prevailed any restraint of Cleargymen from companying with their wives, which they married while they were but yet Laymen, or in the inferior orders and degrees of Ministry: and that the greatest part of the Christian world hath ever from the beginning, even unto this day enjoyed the liberty which some unjustly sought to impeach; let us see where it was restrained or taken away, and by whom. Of the restraint in Thessalia, whereof Heliodorus was Author, as likewise in Thessalonica, Macedonia and helas, and of the endeavours of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, resisted by the Bishops in the Council of Gangra, I have spoken sufficiently already and have showed, that this restraint could not prevail, nor continue in those parts: all these Churches holding their liberty in this matter even unto this day. Therefore I will proceed to speak of the restraint, that some sought to bring into the West Church. The first restraint of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons from companying with their wives, that I do find in the West Church, was in the Provincial Council of 
m Canone. 33.  Elliberis in Spain, holden in the year three hundred and five, twenty years before the Council of Nice, consisting of nineteen Bishops. But I hope our Adversaries will not much press us with the authority of this Council: seeing themselves make so little account of it as they do. There are some most excellently learned (saith 
n Tom. 1. Conciliorum:  Binnius, in his notes upon this Council, that think it erroneous, and of no authority, and that it is to be contemned as rejected by the Church, for favouring the heresy of Novatus, the conceit of Vigilantius, and their opinion, that would have no pictures in Churches. 
o Locor. Theolog. lib. 5. cap. 4.  Melchior Canus saith, the thirty sixth Canon of it is erroneous: and 
p De Imaginib. lib. 2. cap. 9  Bellarmine saith, it was but Provincial, not confirmed, and that it erred in many things: namely, in not admitting to the Communion of the Church upon their repentance, such as in the time of persecution denied the faith, or otherwise ran into grievous and enormous crimes and sins. And Cardinal Baronius, howsoever 
q Tom. 1. anno. Domini 57 num. 119. & trib. sequent.  varying in his opinion touching this Council, yet 
r Tom. 2. anno 305. num. 42.  confesseth, there is no mention of it among the Ancient, as of others; and that it was utterly suppressed, as if it had never been because it was ill thought of, as favouring Novatianisme. And therefore contrary to this Council, the Council of 
s Canone. 4 & 5.  Ancyra, nine years after decreed, that they that fell in the time of persecution, and denied the faith, after condign penance should be received to the Sacraments of the Church again: and that 
t Canone 9  Deacons protesting at the time of their ordination, that they cannot; nor are not resolved to contain, but that they purpose and desire to marry, shall remain in the Ministry, though they marry after their ordination. This council was confirmed by 
u Dist. 20. cap. de Libellis.  Leo the fourth, and by the Council of Nice, as it is in the 
x Actione 4.  Council of Florence. So that hitherto, no restraint of Cleargymen from companying with their wives prevailed. But almost four hundred years after Christ, 
y Inter Epistolas Dec●…etales  Syricius Bishop of Rome, writing to the Bishop of Tarracon, (by whom he understood that very many Priests and Deacons in those parts, after their ordination, lived with their wives which they had formerly married, and begat children of them as before; and justified their so doing by the example of the Priests of the Law) excusing that which was done, as proceeding from ignorance, if they would acknowledge themselves in fault, and refrain for the time to come, commanded that no such thing should be any longer permitted. Whereupon the 
z Can. 2. & 3.  second Provincial Council of Arle, holden in the time of this Syricius, decreed, that no married man should be admitted to the degree of Priesthood, unless he would promise to refrain from the company of his wife, and yet permitted him to have her living in house with him. 
a Epist. 3.  Innocentius the first, who began his Popedom about the year of our Lord four hundred and two, insisted in the steps of Syricius his Predecessor, and drew some particular Bishops to concur with him. So that in some particular counsels, the lawful society and companying of Cleargie-men with their wives, began to be restrained. In the 
b Canone 3.  second council of Carthage, as it is usually reckoned, but indeed the last, the Legate of the Bishop of Rome being present, procured the Bishops to pass a Decree, that Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, should refrain from the company of their wives; falsely affirming, that the Apostles did teach so, and Antiquity practise so; contrary to that which I have before alleged out of the canons of the Apostles, the council of Gangra, the speeches of Paphnutius in the council of Nice, the report of Socrates the Historian, and the Decree of the sixth General council, affirming the leaving of Cleargymen to their liberty in this behalf to be Apostolical and Ancient. The 
c Canone 1.  first council of Toledo holden in the year of our Lord four hundred, decreed, that Deacons which had lived with their wives, should not be preferred to be Presbyters, nor Presbyters to be Bishops, though they had so done before the restraint made by the Bishops that were before them, but laid no other punishment on them. The Council of 
d Canone 9  Agatha holden in the year five hundred and six, showeth plainly, that at that time many Provinces took no knowledge of the Decree of Syricius and Innocentius; but that their Presbyters and Deacons lived with their wives still; and excuseth them in respect of their not knowing of any restraint; and continueth them in their places, only debarring them from further promotion, and prescribing that the Decree of Syricius shall take place in time to come; and that such as know of it and disobey it, shall be removed from their places. The 
e Canone 2.  first Council of Turon, holden in the year four hundred four score and two, sought to remit something of the severity of some particular Counsels, wherein the Bishops directed by the prohibition of Syricius and Innocentius, had gone too far. The words of the Council are these: Though our Fathers, out of the authority committed to them, decreed that what Priest or Deacon soever, should be found to beget children of their wives, should be put from the communion of the Lord; yet we moderating this extreme severity, and by a more equal constitution mollifying and mitigating that which was too hard, have decreed: That a Priest or Deacon continuing in Matrimonial society with his wife, and not ceasing from the procreation of children, shall not be lifted up to any higher degree, nor offer sacrifice unto God, nor minister to the people: but let this be enough for them, that they are not put from the Communion. Thus we see, that within a short time after the publishing of these Decrees, the Bishops were forced out of due consideration to remit something of that severity, that some other set on by Syricius and Innocentius had used, till at length the execution of these Decrees was in a manner wholly neglected as unprofitable, and too heavy a burden for the Ministers of the Church to bear. Whereupon we shall find, that in all the Provinces of the West, the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church were married, at that time that Hildebrand climbed up into the Papal Chair, and had been long before. Priests in those times (saith 
f Lib. 5. Annal. Boiorum. pag. 564.  Auentinus) had wives publicly, as all other Christians, and begat sons and daughters of them, as it appeareth by the instruments of donations made to Churches, and Abbays, wherein these Priests wives together with their husbands, are brought as witnesses, and are styled by the name of Presbyterissae. Yea so general and so well settled was the marriage of Cleargymen in those times, that when Hildebrand began to restrain and forbid it, the whole Nation of Cleargie-men rose up against him, called him Monster, and enemy of mankind, and pronounced him to be Antichrist. And such was the resistance against this rash and inconsiderate attempt of the Pope, that he could by no means prevail, though he caused so great confusions, tumults and disorders in the Christian world, as the like had never been seen in any of the bloody persecutions, that were in the time of the Primitive Church: and was forced to confess a little before his death, that he had caused grievous scandals in the Christian world. The circumstances of the whole narration found in the Historians are these. 
g Naucler. vol. 〈◊〉. generat. 36.  So soon as the Decree of Hildebrand was published, presently the whole faction of Cleargymen was enraged against him: crying out that he was an heretic, and a man damnably erring in his judgement, who forgetting the speech of our Lord, that saith, All men receive not this word; Let him that can receive it, receive it: and of the Apostle who saith, Let him that cannot contain, marry; for it is better to marry then to burn, would by violent enforcement constrain men to live after the manner of Angels; and while he denied, and sought to restrain the ordinary & accustomed course of nature, loosed the reins, and gave free liberty to whoredom, and uncleanness: protesting, that if he should go forward to urge the execution of this his Decree, they were resolved rather to forsake the Ministry, than their marriage. And that then he, before whom men did stink, should see, whence Angels are to be had, to undertake the government of the Church and people of God. Notwithstanding all this resistance, and these earnest protestations, Hildebrand went forward, urged the matter, and reproved the Bishops as careless and negligent. The Archbishop of Mentz fearing the Pope's displeasure, and yet considering, that it would be no easy matter to alter a custom so strongly and by so long tract of time confirmed, proceeded moderately in those parts, where he had to do: giving those of the Clergy half a years respite, to advise themselves, praying and beseeching them to resolve to do that willingly, which of necessity they must do. But after the time expired, which he had given unto them, he called a Synod, and was earnest with them, that without all further delay or excuse, they would presently, either abjure their marriage, or put themselves from serving any longer at the Altar. They on the contrary side alleged many reasons to persuade him, not to urge them to any such extremities: and when they found, that neither entreaty, and humble petition, nor weight of reason would prevail, but that though professing himself unwilling thus to urge them, yet he was forced so to do by the Pope's mandate; and that therefore he must have no denial, but that they must yield; they went out of the Council-house, as if it had been to deliberate, and resolved among themselves either never to return, or otherwise so to return, as to pull him out of his chair, before he should pronounce so cursed a sentence against them, and to take away his life from him; that so his unhappy end might be a warning to all posterities, that no succeeding Bishop might ever dare to attempt, so to wrong and dishonour the Priestly degree and order. The Archbishop by the means of some, that wished well unto him, understanding of this conspiracy, to prevent the tumult, which he saw to be unavoidable, if he did not speedily give them some satisfaction and contentment, sent unto them, besought them to be quiet, and to return into the Synod; and promised, that as soon as any opportunity should be offered, he would do his best endeavour to persuade the Pope to desist from these courses: These things were done in the year 1074. The year following, the Archbishop again urged by the Pope called another Council at Mentz, to which the Pope's Legate came, bringing his letters and mandates, and requiring him to urge them presently, to yield, and if they should refuse so to do, to punish them with the loss of their degree and order, which thing when he was about to do, presently all the Cleargymen which sat round about, rose up, and so refuted, and rejected that he said, with words, and by the violent moving & shaking of their hands, and gesture of their whole bodies, showed themselves to be so moved against him, as that he feared ever to go out of the Synod alive; and so at last, overcome with the difficulty of this atttempt, he resolved to desist from meddling with this matter any more, which he had so often to no purpose taken in hand, and to leave it wholly to the Pope to do what he would. These were the vain attempts of the Romanistes for the restraining of lawful Marriage, which though they prevailed not at the first, according to the wishes of the wicked Pope, yet caused the most horrible confusions in the Western Church, that ever had been: for Laymen taking occasion hereupon, despised their Priests, meddled with the Ministration of Holy things, ministered the Sacrament of Baptism, anointed men with the filth which they took out of their ears, in stead of oil; did many things most disorderly, and committed sundry intolerable outrages. And therefore it is most strange that 
h De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 19  Bellarmine should so forget himself as he doth, For whereas all stories impute these confusions, profanations and contempts of sacred things to the restraint of marriage, and the disgrace of it, so hard is his forehead, that he blusheth not to write, that the marriage of Ministers would hinder the due and reverend administration of Sacraments; and that experience showed it, in that in Germany, in the time of Gregory the Seaventh when Priests began to marry wives, there grew so great contempt of the Sacraments, that Laymen began to administer them, as Nauclerus, and others report. In which speech of his, there is no word true: for neither did Priests begin to marry in Gregory's time, but had been ordinarily married long before, as 
i Vbi suprà.  Nauclerus testifieth, saying, it was an old & confirmed custom, that was not easily to be altered, which Gregory sought to take away, when he went about to forbid the marriage of Priests: So that they did rather cease to marry in his time then begin. Neither doth any story impute the confusions, profanations, & contempts of Sacraments and sacred things in those times to the marriage of Priests, which was publicly allowed long before, without any such evil ensuing, as 
k Vbi suprà.  Aventinus, and others do testify, but to the restraint of it. And therefore it was not the beginning (as Bellarmine untruely saith) but the ending of Priests marriages in Gregory's time, that brought in so many and hideous evils into the Christian world. Thus having seen with how bad success Gregory the Seaventh began this restraint in other parts of the Christian world, let us take a view of our own country, and see what footing it had here. 
l Lib. 7.  Henry Huntingdon an ancient Historian and of good credit, reporteth that before the time of Anselm Bishop of Canterbury, the marriage of Presbyters and other Ministers of the Church, was not forbidden in England; & that when he forbade it, howsoever he pleased some, for that there seemed to be greater purity in single life, then in the state of Marriage; yet this his prohibition seemed to other to be very dangerous: fearing that whiles he sought to bring men to that, which is above the reach, and without the compass of humane frailty, he would occasion many grievous and scandalous evils. But howsoever, this his endeavour took not place by and by, for the same author reporteth, that after that time one john Cremensis, a Cardinal came into England, and went about to restrain the Marriages of Churchmen: So that it appeareth, that Anselm had effected nothing. This worthy Cardinal (as he reporteth) held a Synod at London, and in the same made a vehement and bitter speech against the marriage of Presbyters; ask if it were not an impure and unfitting thing for a Minister of the Church to rise up from the side of an harlot, (for so it pleased him to term the lawful wives of Churchmen) and to go to the Altar to consecrate the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood. But see the judgement of God, saith Huntingdon. The Impure Cardinal that had thus inveighed against Marriage, the night following was taken in bed with an Harlot though he had said Mass and consecrated the blessed Sacrament in the morning; which thing 
Math. Paris. in Henrico. 1. pag. 67.  was so evident that it could not, and so foul, that it was not fit to be concealed, and he addeth, that if any Roman Prelate or other dislike this his most true report, he were best to take heed he follow not the example of Cremensis, lest the like dishonour come unto him as did unto Cremensis, who being at first received in very glorious manner, was in the end cast out with disgrace; and who despising lawful marriage, feared not to commit most filthy whoredom. Hereupon it seemeth, the matter of restraint of Presbyters marriage had no good success at that time; which appeareth also in that 
m Math. Paris. in Henrico. 1. pag. 68  after this time in a Council it was referred to the King, & he was authorised & appointed to punish such Presbyters and ministers of the Church, as he should find married, but he notably deceived the Pope's Agents, that thus authorised him; for he took money of such as were found to be married and suffered them so to redeem their liberties, which grieved them not a little: yet did they in the end so far forth obtain their desires, and the tyranny of Antichrist so far prevailed, that Presbyters durst no longer be known publicly to be married, but were forced to take another course: for as it appeareth by the 
n Constit. Othonis de uxoratis à Benefici●… amovendis.  Decrees of Otho, in the time of Henry the Third, many contracted matrimony secretly, and when in process of time children were borne unto them, for their good when they saw it fit, they would take order it might be proved they were married, and their children borne in marriage, either by witnesses, or public instruments, either while they lived, or after their death. Whereby it is evident, that howsoever the impure Romanists sought to keep Cleargymen from marrying, and to force them by the censures of the Church, and other extremities to put away their wives, yet at that time they durst not pronounce their marriages void, nor their children illegitimate; for if they had, these men would not so carefully have provided to be able to make proof of their marriages for the good of their children. So that though there wanted not instruments, set a work by the Pope some hundreds of years past, that sought to restrain the marriage of Cleargymen, yet was not their restraint like unto that of the Romanists at this day, for they did not so restrain Cleargymen from marrying, or living with their wives, as to pronounce their marriages to be void, neither did they separate those that God had joined together, but if they would marry, or continue with their wives, which they had formerly married, they permitted them so to do, and only put them from the minstery. Presbyters in former times (saith ᵒ Duarenus) if they took wives in those 
n De Sacr. Ecclminist, & Benef. l. 4. c. 8.  places where marriage was forbidden, were put from the ministry, or perhaps where more severity was used, were excommunicated; but their marriage was not voided; yet is it not to be denied, but that Syricius and Innocentius spoke very unreverently of the state of marriage, endeavouring to prove that Presbyters are not to be suffered to marry, because to live in marriage is to live in the flesh, & they that live in the flesh cannot please God. How absurd and inconsiderate this kind of reasoning is, every man (I think) will easily discern: for whereas the 
p Heb. 13. 4  Apostle, and after him 
q Socrat. l. 1. c. 8  Paphnutius in the Council of Nice, pronounce that marriage is honourable among all, and the bed undefiled: and Chrysostome affirmeth▪ that it is so honourable, that men may be lifted up into the Bishop's chairs with it; with what face can these men say, that to live in marriage 
〈◊〉 In 1 ad Tim. 3  is to live in the flesh, in such sort as not to please God. 
s De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10  Bellarmine's evasion, that they speak not of marriage simply, but of forbidden marriage, such as that of Priests is, when they say, to live in marriage is to live in the flesh, & that therefore they say only, they who live in unlawful & forbidden marriage, live in the flesh; & cannot please God, will not serve the turn. For they speak not of unlawful & forbidden marriage, but go about to prove, that marriage is to be forbidden & denied to Presbyters, by a reason taken from the nature of it, & something in it, or consequent of it, in respect whereof it cannot stand with the holiness of the degree and calling of Presbyters and Ministers: So that they say simply, to live in marriage; is to live in the flesh: and that therefore the holy Ministers of the Church, who may not live in the flesh, must be forbidden to marry; their words being a reason moving them to prohibit marriage, and not taken from the prohibition, as it will easily appear to any one that will take the pains to view the Epistles of the Roman Bishops (if yet they have not been corrupted, as many other 
t Syricli ad Himericum c. 7. Innocen▪ ad Victricium c. 9 & in cp ad Exuperium c. 1  things of like nature have.) But how-so-ever we censure these sayings of the Popes, it is most certain, that those particular Bishops of the West, who upon misconce it, sought to restrain Presbyters from living with their wives, yet never proceeded so far as either to pronounce their marriages unlawful, or to dissolve them, till of late. And therefore they were most contrary in their judgements to the lewd assertions of Papists; who think and teach, that the marriages of Churchmen are adulteries, and fear not to say, that it is worse for a man to take a wife to live with continually, then to join himself unto harlots: which prodigious assertion, all men in former times, even they who were most averse from the marriage of Cleargymen would have detested. If a Presbyter (saith the council of 
u Can. 1.  Neocaesarea) will marry a wife, let him be put from his order, but if he commit fornication or adultery, let him be driven further, and put to penance. Whereunto the council of 
x Can. 33. & 18  Helliberis beforementioned, agreeth, prescribing that such as commit adultery shall be put from the communion of the Church for ever: and likewise the council of 
y Can. 12.  Arverne. Some other indeed there were that proceeded a little further, and put them from the communion of the Church, that would live in Matrimonial society; but the Bishops in the Council of 
z Turonens. 〈◊〉. Canone. 2.  Turon thought good to moderate that extremity, and only to keep them from further promotion and sacred employment: and with them the Bishops in the fifth Council of 
a Canone. 4.  Orleans agree So that these Bishops though inconsiderately restraining marriage, yet durst not pronounce the marriages of Churchmen void, as our Adversaries now do; neither did they (for aught I can read) force men to make any vow of continence. For though some of them required a promise of living single, yet was it no vow; seeing a promise made to men is far different from a vow, which is a promise made to God. And many of them (as it may seem) urged such as they admitted into the Ministry to no such promise at all: but received them in such sort, that they should so long be employed, as they would refrain, & that if they pleased to marry, they should still enjoy the Communion of the Church, but should not be employed in sacred function any longer. Touching the promise which some required, the second Council of Toledo prescribeth, that at eighteen years of age they of the Clergy shall 
b Canone. 〈◊〉.  resolve to marry, or promise to contain; & that at twenty they shall be made Subdeacons. The Council of 
c Canone. 10.  Ancyra provideth, that if Deacons shallprotest when they are ordained that they will not live single, but will have wives, they shall be permitted to marry, and yet keep their places. But if professing that they will contain, they betake themselves to former or new marriages, they shall enjoy the Lay-communion, but shall be put out of the Ministry and Clergy. Whereby it appeareth, that there was no uniform observation in the promise of continency, that was required: seeing the one of these two Counsels requireth it at eighteen years of age, of such as were not yet Subdeacons, and the other leaveth such as were to be Deacons to their own choice at the time of their ordination: nor that this promise was thought to make void the ensuing marriage; seeing such as contrary to promise, returned to the state of marriage, were permitted to enjoy the communion of the Church as Laymen, though in some places they were put out of the Ministry and Clergy. I say in some places, because it appeareth by the 
d Concil. Tolet. 1. Canone. 4.  Council of Toledo, appointing that such shall have but the places of Lectors only, that they were not wholly deprived of the honour of Cleargymen in all places. Afterwards indeed in the 
e Canone. 10.  Ninth Council of Toledo, the Bishops finding that all their former endeavours prevailed not, though they voided not the marriages of Cleargymen, nor judged them to be adulteries as our Adversaries do, yet they adjudged such as should be borne of such marriages to a kind of bondage, and deprived them of that possibility of inheritance, which formerly they might have had. But this was but the particular Decree of that provincial Council, and so could bind none but those few Churches in those parts. Neither did it. For long after here in England, (as I have showed) the Ministers of the church were publicly married without any such wrong done either to them or their children. And long after the restraint of Gregory the seaventh, when this Decree of single life had in some sort prevailed, they did still secretly marry, and when they saw cause for the good of their children, made proof of their marriages. Neither is it to be marvelled at, that some particular Synods in the west, set on by the Bishops of Rome, went about in some sort to restrain the lawful Marriages of churchmen: (lawful I say, both by the law of God, and the resolution, allowance, & practice of the greater part of the Christian Churches) seeing they forbade those, which even in the judgement of our adversaversaries themselves, I think cannot be denied to have been lawful. If the widow or relicte of a Presbyter or Deacon, shall join herself to any man in marriage (saith the first Council of Orleans) let them after chastisement be separated, or if they persist in the intention of such a crime, let them be excommunicated. Wherewith 
f Canone. 15.  the 
g Canone. 32.  Epaunine Council agreeth, and the second Council of 
h Canone. 29.  Bracar, saying: If any widow of a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon take an husband, let no Cleargy-man, nor no religious woman banquet with them; neither let her ever communicate, only at the time of her death, let the Sacraments of the Church be administered unto her. Likewise, the Council of 
i Canone. 22.  Antisiodorum, decreeth to the same effect. Neither can it be answered, that these Counsels forbid the widows of Presbyters, Deacons, & Subdeacons to marry, because during the life of their husbands, upon some voluntary parting, they bound themselves by promise to live continently. For the Council of 
k Matisconens. 2. Canone 16.  Matiscon decreeth, that if the wives of Subdeacons, Exorcists, or Acoluthes, shall after their death, join themselves in marriage the second time, they shall be separated, and thrust into the houses of Nuns. And yet these might lawfully live with their husbands, even in the judgement of them that made this decree. Neither were they any way induced necessarily to promise to contain.  
Thus having seen, where, when, and by whom, the forbidding of the lawful marriage of Presbyters entered into the Church, in what sort it was urged at the first, how afterwards, what contradiction it found, & how far forth in the end it prevailed; it remaineth that we proceed to see what good followed upon it. Where first 
l Annal. Boiorum. lib. 5. pag. 565. & 571.  Aventinus telleth us, that after the restraint of Hildebrand, under the honest name of Chastity, the greatest part every where, without check of punishment, committed whoredoms, incests, and adulteries, and that the Law of single life, which offended the good, was exceeding pleasing to impure companions, who now for one wife might have six hundred Harlots. Neither is this the private conceit of Auentinus, alone, but all good & wise men bear witness with him, that he speaketh the truth; & say as much as he. Bern: speaking of the state of the Clergy in his time, saith, 
m Bernard. de Conuersione, ad Clericos. c. 29.  Many, not all truly, but yet many undoubtedly, who neither can be hid they are so many, nor care to be hid they are so shameless; many surely seem to have made the liberty in which they are called, to serve as a fit occasion to satisfy the flesh; abstaining from the remedy of Marriage, and pouring forth themselves into all manner of sinful wickednesses. And in the same Chapter he saith, That if we dig down the wall, according to the words of the Prophet Ezechiell, we shall see horrible things in the house of God. For after whoredoms, adulteries, and incests, there are found the passions of ignominy, and the works of impurity and filthiness. Would to GOD (saith he) those things that are most unnatural, were not committed: that neither the Apostles needed to write of them, nor we to speak; and that no man would believe that so abominable lust did ever possess the mind of man. Were not those Cities, which were the Mothers of this impure filthiness, long since condemned by the judgement of God himself, and consumed with fire? Did not the fire of hell, impatient of delay, prevent the time, and in a sort before the time, consume that cursed Nation? Did not fire, brimstone, and the sto●…mie tempest, consume the very earth and ground itself, as privy to such confusions, as should never so much as once be thought of? Was not all the whole land and ground itself turned into an horrible Lake? Surely, five heads of the Monster Hydra are cut off: but woe is unto us, innumerable moe are risen up. Who hath re-edified those Cities of villainy? who hath enlarged the walls of impurity? and who hath spread out those venomous branches? Woe, woe! the enemy of mankind hath scattered every where round about, the unhappy relics of that sulphureous burning, and hath sprinkled the body of the Church with those execrable ashes, & hath filled some of the Ministers of the Church, with that filthy, stinking, and impure running sore. Saluianus in like sort, in his book of divine Providence, hath these words. 
n Saluianus de Divina provideutia lib 5. citat. ab E●…encaeo. lib. 1. de Continentia. cap. 12.  It is surely altogether a new and strange kind of conversion, that some men talk of, lawful things they do not, and unlawful things they commit. They refrain from marriage, but refrain not from Rape. What dost thou O foolish persuasion? God forbade sin, not marriage: your deeds agree not with your profession. You should not be the friends of enormous crimes, who profess to do the works of virtue. It is a preposterous thing that you do, it is not conversion but aversion. You that have long since (as the same is) forsaken the work of honest marriage, cease at the last; from sinful wickedness. With these agree the Historians generally, 
o Sigebertus in C●…onico. Anni 1074.  reporting that innumerable evils followed the prohibition of the marriage of Cleargie-men, published by Pope Hildebrand; that few lived continently, though some counterfeited so to do for filthy lucre's sake, and for ostentation; and that many joined both perjury and adultery together: and not contenting themselves with an ordinary degree of wickedness, multiplied their whoredoms and adulteries exceedingly.  
Whereupon we shall find, that many of the best learned, most judicious, & worthiest men, the Church had in latter times, wished the Law of single life to be taken away, even as many resisted it when it was first made. Durandus in his book 
* Rubric. 4●… fol. 35  De modo celebrandi Concilii, proveth by many reasons, that it were fit that the liberty of marriage were again restored to Priests in a General council. 
p AEn. Sylu. de gest. council. Bas.  In the council of Basill, when exception was taken against the choice of Amedeus Duke of Savoy, (whom many thought fit to be Pope) for that he had been a married man, and had children, it was answered by some of good esteem, that that was no exception, and that haply it were much better that Priests were permitted to live in marriage, then restrained. For that many of them might be saved in chaste marriage, which now perish in their filthy and impure single life. Aeneas Silvius a great man in that council, who was afterwards Pope, and named Pius the second, in an 
q Ep. 307. ad joan. Fiundt.  Epistle to a friend of his, who was in the holy orders of the ministry of the church, & yet desirous for the avoiding of fornication, to marry a wife, writeth thus: We suppose that you are not ill advised, if when you cannot contain, you seek a wife, though that should have been thought on before you had entered into holy Orders. But we are not Gods, neither can we foresee things to come. Wherefore seeing things are come to this pass, that you cannot resist the law of the flesh, it is better to marry then to burn. Yet cannot the Pope be persuaded to dispense with you; but he standeth resolved to hold his severe course still, and thinketh it not fit to grant that to one, which may be hurtful unto many. If therefore you desire safely to marry, you must expect some other Pope, who may be more inclineable and yielding. And of this Aeneas Silvius, afterwards named Pius the second, 
r In Pio 2.  Platina, and 
s Ennead. 10 l. 6. pag. 731.  Sabellicus report, that he was wont to say, That they had, no doubt, reason to lead them so to do, that forbade the Marriage of Cleargymen, but that there were much greater reason now to leave it free again. 
t Fastorum l. 1.  Baptista Mantuanus saith, that many thought the Laws against marriage to be evil; that they which made those Laws, had not sufficiently considered what the nature of man can bear, that CHRIST never put so unpleasant a Yoke upon the necks of men; that this burden, too heavy for the shoulders of men to bear, hath brought forth many monstrous effects: that it was a show of Piety, but indeed too great boldness, that laid this burden upon the shoulders of men; that it had been more safe to have gone that way wherein the divine Law directeth us, and to have trodden in the steps of the Ancient Fathers, whose life was better in marriage, then ours that is single. 
u Tit. Qui Clerici vel ●…oventes matrimonia contrahere possunt. Citat. ab Andr. Frisio l. 4. de Ecclesia.  joannes Antonius saith, in the time of the Primitive Church, it was lawful for Presbyters, and such as were entered into holy Orders, to have wives, so that they refrained from companying with them, upon the days wherein they celebrated: that afterwards in the Western Church, they that were entered into holy Orders were commanded to contain: which commandment (he saith) yielded matter to ensnare the souls of many men, and therefore he verily believeth, that as the Church brought in this precept of continency, so the time will come, when the same Church will reverse and revoke it again: which revocation shall be agreeable to that of the Apostle, who saith, 
x 1 Cor. 7. 25.  Concerning Virgins, I have no commandment, but I give advice. With Antonius agreeth Panormitanus: who proposing the question, whether the Church may give leave to Presbyters to contract marriage, or to live 
y De Clericis conjugatis. cap. cum olim.  in marriage, as the Grecians do, answereth, that he believeth it may: & that he is assured it may in respect of them, who are not tied by vow employed or expressed. Which he proveth, because continency in secular Cleargymen is not of the substance of order, nor prescribed by the Law of GOD. For that otherwise the Grecians should sin, and no custom could excuse them: seeing no custom is of force against the Law of GOD. Neither doth he only think, that the Church hath power thus to do, but professeth, he thinketh it were behooveful, and for the good and salvation of the souls of men, that such as are willing to contain, and to lead a life of higher perfection, should be left to their own will, and that such as are not willing to contain, should by the Decree of the Church be set free to contract marriage. 
z Citat. ab Andre●…. Frisio. de Ecclesia, lib. 4.  Alfonsus' Veruecius, as Andrea's Frisius telleth us, discoursing of the words of Paul, (For the avoiding of fornication, let every one have his own wife) saith, they contain no precept, but a concession or grant: and affirmeth, that by virtue of this grant, every one that cannot otherwise avoid fornication, may marry a wife. And after certain remedies prescribed to be observed & used by Presbyters, that they may avoid fornication, at last, confidently giveth counsel to him, who having tried all those means cannot contain, rather to marry a wife, and so to provide for his own salvation, then to commit fornication, and so cast himself headlong into eternal death: but yet persuadeth such a one to do nothing without seeking the Pope's consent hoping that he will dispense in such a case; seeing the power he hath, was given him for edification, & not for destruction. I dare confidently say, (saith 
a De Invent. Rerum. lib. 5. cap. 4.  Polydere Virgil) that it hath been so far from being true, that this enforced Chastity hath excelled that which is in marriage: that no sinful crime hath brought greater disgrace to the order of the Ministry, more evil to religion, or made a greater and deeper impression of sorrow in all good men, than the stain of the impure lust of Priests. And therefore haply, it were behooveful for the Christian commonwealth, and for the good of them that are of that sacred order and rank, that at the last a public Law might be made to give leave to Priests to contract marriage. Wherein rather they might live honestly and holily without infamy, then in most filthy manner defile themselves with this sin of Nature. And Bishop 
b Citat. a chemnitio●…n exami ne Trident. Concil.  Lindan saith: Surely even at this day, it is lawful to take chaste and honest married men into the order of Priesthood: which (in my judgement) might much better be done in some provinces of Germany, then to set over them certain most impure companions, or any longer to endure and tolerate Knaves, Apostates, and sacralegious Pastors. With these agreeth 
c In Declamat. de la●…dib. Matrimonij.  Erasmus, affirming, that in his conceit, he should not ill deserve, nor take the worst course for the furthering of humane affairs, & the right informing of the manners of men, which should procure liberty of marriage (if it might be) both for Priests and Monks. And therefore Sigismond the Emperor, a lttle before the Council of Basill began, published a reformation of the Clergy, in which among other things this was one, that forasmuch as more evil cometh by the forbidding of marriage then good, it were better and more safe to permit Cleargymen to live in the state of marriage according to the custom of the oriental Churches, then to forbid them so to do. In the Council of Trent, the Orator of Bavaria moved to the same purpose. And 
d Vbi spurâ.  Chemnitius reporteth from George the Prince of Anhault, that Adolphus Bishop of Mersbergh his uncle, would often say, before ever Luther began to stir, that if there were a Council, he would be a persuader, that Cleargymen might be permitted to marry: and professed that he knew, that many for the quiet of their consciences secretly contracted marriage with those women which they kept under the name of Concubines. And surely even the Popes themselves were content to wink at things in this kind. Georgius Cassander, a man of infinite reading, excellent judgement, and singular piety and sincerity, and therefore so much respected and honoured by Ferdinand and Maximilian the second, that they held him the fittest man in the world to compose the controversies in religion, & sent for him to come unto them for the same purpose, is clearly of opinion 
e In Consultatione de Sacerd. Caelibatu.  that howsoever some in ancient times forbade the marriage of Cleargymen, yet now it were fit and necessary that that law were abrogated: first, because it is found by woeful experience, to be the cause of many grievous evils: secondly, for that the severity of Discipline, and strictness in all courses of life, that was in use when this Law began first to be urged, is clean gone, or much decayed, even in the opinion of all. So that that which was fit in those times, may now be most unfit. Thirdly, for that many godly and learned men are thereby 
* Aeneas Silvius writing to Petrus Noxetus hath these words. Adhuc cavi ne me ●…acer ordo involueret. Timeo enim continentiam etc. Epist. 50.  discouraged from entering into the Ministry, refusing to bind themselves to the observation of this law of single life whereby the Church looseth the benefit of their labours; few young men, indeed religious and pious, applying themselves to the study of Divinity: but such only for the most part, as seek nothing but rich and good livings, that intent a dissolute course of life, and resolve aforehand, to wallow in all impurity of lust, (besides some few, who inconsiderately before they know themselves, fall into the snare.) Neither doth he only think it fit, that married men be admitted into the Ministry; and suffered to company with their wives, according to the custom of the oriental Churches, but is of opinion also, that they may be permitted to marry, after they are entered into holy Orders, yea though there were no allowed example of any such thing heretofore; seeing the prohibition is but positive, and many positive constitutions have been abrogated. But indeed there are not only examples of men marrying after entering into Orders: but also of the Churches allowing the same. For touching Subdeacons and Deacons, there can be no question; seeing the Council of 
f Canone. 10.  Ancyra, which was most ancient and confirmed by Leo the Pope, as 
g De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 18.  Bellarmine himself confesseth, decreed, that Deacons, with the Bishop's leave, might marry wives after their entrance into holy Orders. 
h Vide suprâ.  In the time of Gregory the Seaventh, and before, as it appeareth by the stories of those times; Priests did marry after Orders: and when he went about to forbid them so to do, he was condemned by the whole Nation of Cleargie-men, and deposed in a Council of Bishops: being justly disliked as for other things, so for this his Antichristian and vile attempt. Neither did those men, which desired a Decree to be passed, to give the liberty of marriage unto Churchmen, of whom I have spoken, desire only the permitting of married men so to continue, but of such as are not married for to marry, as it easily appeareth by their discourses. And surely howsoever there might be some reason of expedience, rather to permit married men to enter into the Ministry, and to continue in the same state, then to suffer such as come into it unmarried, to marry afterwards: yet if the one be lawful (as 
i Vbi suprà.  Bellarmine rightly noteth) the other cannot be unlawful. For if any thing be found in marriage, that cannot stand with the sanctity of the Ministry, or the due execution of it, it is not the contract, which is a thing most seemly and honest and soon past, but the act of it, and the cares accompanying that state of life. The manner, custom and observation of the Greek Churches, is described by Zonaras in his explication of the Canons of the Apostles: where he saith, that Presbyters, Deacons, & Subdeacons before they be ordained, are asked whether they will live single or not: and if they answer that they will; they are presently ordained. But if they answer, that they will not: they are permitted to take them wives first: and then are ordained after marriage. So that they give them leave to marry after they have chosen them, though before they ordain them: but if refusing to marry before ordination (when they are willed to resolve what they will do) they marry afterwards, they are put from the Ministry, but not from their wives.  

* For farther proof hereof see the first book of Claudius Espencaeus de Continentiâ.  By that which hath been said, it is most clear and evident, that the marriage of Ministers is justifiable by God's Law, by the Canons and practice of the greatest part of the Church, and by the judgement of sundry of the greatest and worthiest of the World, in those places, where it seemed to be most disliked, in all ages, even till our time: yet there remaineth still one doubt, touching the lawfulness of their Marriages that by vow had promised the contrary. Concerning which point, two things are to be observed: first, whether their marriage be void, that vowed not to marry. Secondly, whether they do sin that upon any occasion, or change of the state of things, do contrary to such their vow. Touching the first of these two points, to wit, that the marriages of such as had vowed the contrary, are not void, we have the judgement of sundry the best learned among the Fathers. For first, Cyprian speaking of Virgins hath these words: 
k Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 11.  Quod si ex fide Christo se dicaverunt, pudice & castè sine ulla fabula perseverent. Ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent, si autem perseverare nolunt, aut non possunt, melius est nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant: That is: if by faith they have dedicated themselves to CHRIST, let them chastely, and with all honest shamefastness, without lying, or falsehood so continue, and resolute and constant, let them expect the reward of Virginity: but if they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better that they should marry, then that by their sins they should fall into the fire. Which words are clear enough for proof of that which we defend. Yet 
l De Monach, l. 2. c. 34  Bellarmine and some others seek to avoid them; making as if Cyprian did only say, that if Virgins that are to resolve, and are yet free, think they cannot contain, it were better for them to marry then to burn. But this evasion serveth not the turn: for Cyprian speaketh of such as have already dedicated themselves to God, willing them to persevere; and yet saith, if they will not, or cannot contain, they were better to marry then to burn: and therefore he thinketh marriage after a vow made to the contrary to be good, though he that voweth without constant purpose of performing, is not without fault. Pamelius writing on this place of Cyprian hath these words: If Cyprian by a certain indulgence permitted such Virgins upon whom the veil was not yet put, to marry rather than to burn, let no man marvel at it: seeing their marriages, if they do marry, are not dissolved by any Canons, but they are only enjoined penance. Saint Austin agreeth with Cyprian: for, speaking of the marriages of such as had vowed the contrary, he hath these words: 
m Aug. de bono Viduitatis.  They who say, that the marriages of such men are not marriages, but rather adulteries, as it seemeth to me, do not acutely and diligently enough consider what they say: but a certain likeness and show of truth deceiveth them. For, because they are said to choose CHRIST to be their Husband, which out of a certain love of Christian sanctity, refuse to marry, there are some that argue and say, that if she be an adulteress which marryeth to another man while her husband liveth, as the LORD himself defined in the Gospel, than so long as CHRIST liveth, over whom Death hath no more dominion, she must needs be an adulteress, which having chosen him to be her husband, marryeth unto any mortal man: They truly which thus say, seem to be moved, by some reason, that is not to be contemned: but they little consider, how great absurdity followeth upon that which they say: for seeing a woman may laudably (even while her husband liveth) with his consent vow continency unto CHRIST; according to the argument of these men, no woman may so do; lest (which once to think is impious) she make CHRIST himself an adulterer, to whom she marryeth, her husband yet living. After this refutation of their reasons, he goeth forward to show the absurd consequences of their opinion. By this inconsiderate opinion (saith he) of them that think the marriages of women, fall'n from an holy purpose, if they do marry, to be void, not a little evil is brought forth: for from hence it cometh, that women are separated from their husbands, as adulteresses, and not wives. And while they thus separate them, and force them to contain, they make their husbands truly and indeed adulterers: when as (these their wives yet living) they marry. Thus doth Austin resolve, that marriages after vows made to the contrary, are lawful and good; though the not performing of vowed continency, is a sin (as he thinketh) more grievous than adultery, not for that the marriage of such is to be condemned, but because the inconstancy in not performing that was purposed, and the violating of the vow are condemned. Non susceptio à bono inferiori, sed ruina ex bono superiori: not for that they do a lesser good, but because they fall from a greater. Lastly, not for that they afterwards married, but for that they violated their first faith of continency. Which thing that the Apostle might briefly insinuate, he would not say, that they have damnation which marry after the purpose of a more high degree of sanctity: not for that they are not to be disliked that so do, but lest their marriage itself might seem to be condemned; but when he had said, they will marry, he by and by addeth, Having condemnation, and expresseth why; Because they have broken their first faith. That it may appear that the Will which fell from a former purpose, is condemned and reproved, whether marriage follow or not. If any man doubt whether Saint Austin were the Author of this book, De bono viduitatis, wherein these things are found, as some do; and consequently, whether he were of the opinion we have recited, or not: he may easily know, that this is Saint Augustine's judgement, whether this be his book or not; by his 
n Epist 70  Epistle to one Bonifacius, who had vowed a monastical retired, and single life, and yet afterwards did marry; whom he telleth, he cannot now, as otherwise he would, exhort to that kind of life, which he had formerly vowed, because of his wife, so that he thought not his marriage void, or that he was to be separated from his wife. His words are these: Thy wife hindereth me that I cannot exhort thee to this kind of life; without whose consent it is not lawful for thee to contain. etc. And 
o De sancta Virginitate. cap. 34.  elsewhere speaking of certain women, who abode not in that which they had first vowed, which had a desire of marriage, but married not for fear of disgrace, he saith; It were better for them to marry then to burn: that is, then to be wasted with the secret flame of the conscience in lust. And Hierome also is of the same opinion. For speaking to a certain virgin that had privately vowed virginity, and that could not endure the strait keeping of her mother's house, he hath these words: 
p Hieron. Epist. 47. de suspecto Con●…bernio vitando.  If thou be a virgin, why dost thou fear careful and diligent keeping? If thou be corrupted, why dost thou not openly marry? This is as a board to swim out on after shipwreck. So shouldst thou temper that which thou begannest ill, by using this remedy. Neither truly do I say this, for that I take away repentance after sin, (that so that which is ill begun, may still continue) but for that I despair of drawing of you from that ill company into which you are entered. And in his Epistle to Demetriades he hath these words: The ill name and report of some that behave not themselves well, disgraceth and dishonoureth the holy purpose of virgins, and obscureth and blemisheth the glory of the Heavenly and Angellike family: who must be plainly and peremptorily urged and required either to marry, if they cannot contain, or to contain if they will not marry. To these we may add 
q Heresi. 61.  Epiphanius, who indeed maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a thing evil, and such as God will judge and punish, to forget, neglect, and not to perform a vow made to God; but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a thing that casteth men into the condemnation of hell fire, and plungeth them into everlasting destruction as to live in adultery: Who defendeth, that it is better to descend to that state of life, which is lawful and honourable, with one fault of breaking the vow passed to the contrary, and with tears of repentance to wash away the impurity of that one, fault of inconstancy, and so to be saved, then to live in sin continually and so to perish. So that, though he think it a fault for a man to promise a course of continency to GOD by vow, and not to perform it; yet he thinketh it better for a man after this one fault committed, which may be repent of and forgiven, to marry, then by living in continual adultery, to add one sin unto another, and to plunge himself into endless destruction. 
r Erudit. Theolog. de Sacram. fidei. lib. 2. part. 11. c. 12.  Hugo de sancto victore maketh two constructions of the words of Saint Austin before alleged. Whereof the one is, that he speaketh of secret vows, whereof the Church can take no knowledge, because there is no witness of them; and that Saint Austin's meaning is, that marriages after such vows, are to be reputed good by the Church. The other is, that the Church in the time of Austin, allowed marriages, after a vow made to the contrary, but that now the same Church (for considerations her moving) hath determined otherwise, and by her authority made them void. The former of these constructions is too weak and cannot be allowed. For, that Austin thinketh marriage is lawful and good, after known vows made to the contrary, it is evident by his Epistle to Bonifacius, whom he blameth for breaking his vow, whereof himself and Alipius were witnesses, and yet alloweth his marriage; as also for that in the place interpreted by Hugo, he showeth that some who were of another judgement, (as indeed we find 
s Epist. 2. ad Victricium. cap. 12.  Innocentius Bishop of Rome to have been) dissolved marriages after vows made to the contrary, which they would not, nor could not have done, if those vows had been altogether secret & unknown. Neither doth that he saith in the 2d place, any better avoid the clear evidence of Saint Austin's judgement, than the first. For no difference of times, and conditions of men and things, can so change the nature of vows and marriages, as that a vow at one time should make void an ensuing marriage, and not at another. Others therefore there be, who go about to avoid the evidence of the authorities of Austin and the Fathers brought to prove the validity of marriage, after vows made to the contrary, by making a distinction of vows. These men therefore make 2. sorts of vows: naming some simple, and other solemn; and affirm that the latter do debar men from marriage, and void their marriages if they do marry; but that the former do so debar them from marrying, that they cannot marry without some offence, and yet if they do, their marriage is good and not to be voided. The Divines of the Church of Rome (as 
t In secundam secundae. quaest. 38. art. 11.  Cajetan rightly noteth) differ much in opinion, about the difference of these vows. For some of them think, that they differ in such sort, as that one of them is a promise only, and the other a real and actual exhibition; & that the solemnity of a man's vow consisteth in a real and actual exhibition of himself, and putting himself into such an estate, as cannot stand with marriage. But this opinion (as he rightly noteth) cannot be true; seeing there is no such repugnance simply, and in the nature of the things, between the Order of the holy Ministry and Marriage: as appeareth in that the Ministers of the Greek Church (as tied by no vow) are judged by all to live in lawful Marriage, notwithstanding their Ministry; and also in that the entering into no religious Order, voideth marriage, unless it be approved by the Church. There is therefore (as he showeth) another opinion, that it is not from different nature of the vows, that the one voideth marriage contracted, and the other doth not; but from the authority of the Church, that will have marriage after a vow made in one sort to be void, and not in another The latter of these two opinions 
u De Monachis. lib. 2. c. 34.  Bellarmine saith, Scotus, Paludanus and Cajetan follow: and (as Panormitan reporteth) the whole school of Canonistes. And these do answer to the authorities of the Fathers, denying marriages to be void after a solemn vow, that they are to be understood to deny them to be void by God's Law, and that there was no Law of man then passed to make them void, when they lived, that they knew of, and that therefore they might rightly be of opinion in those times, that no vows made ensuing marriages to be void; seeing no vows do void marriages by GOD'S Law, and there was no law of man in their time making marriage void in respect of a vow made to the contrary. So that even in the judgement of many of the best learned of our Adversaries themselves, Marriage after a vow is not void by God's law, but only by the positive Constitution of the Church, which will have it so to be. But against this positive Constitution two things may be alleged: first, that it began from that erroneous conceit, which Anstine refuteth in his book do bono viduitatis: as it appeareth by the Epistle of Innocentius, grounding his resolution for voiding of marriages in this kind, upon that very reason of their being espoused to Christ, which have vowed unto GOD that they will live continently. Secondly, that the Church hath no power simply to forbid any man to marry, whom God's Law leaveth free: seeing single life is one of the things that men may be counselled and advised unto, but cannot be prescribed and imposed by commandment: that the Church may keep men from marriage, if they will enjoy some favours, as we see in Colleges and Societies, or that She may by her Censures punish such as unadvisedly, and without just cause, shall break their vow and promise, we make no question: but that She may simply forbid any one to marry, how faulty and punishable soever otherwise, we utterly deny. Neither is the reason that is brought to prove this power to be in the Church of any force. For though it were granted, that the Church by her authority for respects best known to herself, may forbid a man to marry with some of those with whom God permitteth him to marry; yet will it not follow, that she may absolutely forbid any one to contract marriage; seeing parents to whom it pertaineth to direct the choice of their children, may forbid them to marry with such as they justly dislike, and yet they may not simply restrain them from marrying. So that though it were yielded, that the Church for causes best known to herself, may forbid marriage with more than the Law of God doth: and that in such sort, as to void it, having greater power in this behalf then natural parents: yet would it not follow that she may simply forbid any one to marry, and void his marriage if he do: whereas the Law of God voideth it not. And so we see, that as marriage after a solemn vow is not void by the Law of God, so the Church hath no power to make any law to make it void.  
But because though it be so, yet it may seem, that no man that had vowed the contrary can marry without sin, it remaineth, that we proceed to consider and see whether there be any cases, wherein a man, that vowed the contrary, may marry without offence to God. First, touching this point, the Schoolmen generally resolve, that the Pope may dispense with a Priest, Deacon, or Sub-deacon to marry though he have solemnly vowed the contrary by entering into holy Orders; because the duty and bond of containing is not essentially annexed unto holy Orders, but by the Canon of the Church only. 
x Secunda secundae, quaest 88 art. 〈◊〉  Aquinas, and they of that time thought he might not dispense with a Monk to marry. For that single life is essentially employed in the profession of a Monk, and cannot be separated from the same, as it may from the office and calling of a Priest. But since that time the general opinion is that he may; because though single life cannot be separated from the profession of a Monk, yet he that is a Monk may be freed from that profession that he hath made, and cease to be a Monk. Neither is this only the opinion of the Schools, but the practice of Popes hath concurred with the same. For (as 
y In 4. sent. dist. 58.  Petrus Paludanus reporteth) a Pope revived a Monk, who was next in blood, and to succeed in the Kingdom of Arragon, and dispensed with him to marry a wife for the good of that Kingdom. 
z In secunda secundae loc. cit.  Caietan saith, the like is reported in the stories of Constantia, daughter and heir of Roger King of Sicily; who was a religious woman, and of fifty years of age, and yet by the dispensation of Caelestinus, was called out of the Cloister, and permitted to marry with the Emperor Henry the Sixth, who begat of her Frederick the Second. And 
a Lib. 4. de eccl.  Andreas Frisius reporteth out of the Histories of Polonia, that Casimirus, son of Mersistaus King of Polonia, was a Monk, and ordained a Deacon, and yet when after the death of Mersistaus his father, there was none to sway the Sceptre of that Kingdom, (whence many mischiefs followed) Benedict the Ninth gave him leave to marry a wife, making him to leave his Cloister, his Vows, and Deaconship, that so there might be a succession in that Kingdom. So that there is no question, but that for a common good, men may be dispensed with to marry, that have solemnly vowed the contrary. Yea 
b Opus. tom. 1. tract. 27.  Cardinal Caietan proceedeth further, and saith, that the Pope may dispense with such to marry as have vowed the contrary, not only for the public benefit & good of the whole, or Commonwealth, but for the greater good of the parties that have so vowed. 
c Erudit. theol. de sacr. fid. l. 2. part. ●…2. c. 4  Hugo de Sancto Victore disputing what vows they are that must be kept, pronounceth peremptorily, that the vows of fools are to be broken, and not kept; & defineth all those to be the vows of fools, that either are made de malo, or de bono male: That is, for the doing of some ill, or for the doing of some good, but not well. For example, if one vow to kill a man, as they did in the Acts, that 
d Acts 23. 〈◊〉.  bound themselves by a vow neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul; such a vow is de malo & malum; That is, it is for the doing of an evil thing, and itself is evil. In quo prima culpa fuit vovere, secunda foret, si impleretur, perficere: that is, in which kind it was ill to vow, and it would be worse to perform: and therefore such vows are not to be kept. Neither are they only the vows of fools, that are made for the doing of some evil, but they also that are made for the doing of good, if they be not well and rightly made, are to be reckoned among the vows of fools that are to be broken. Now that vow is not well made, which though it be touching something that is good, yet it is touching that which either one may not lawfully do, or it is not expedient for him to do: One may not do, as if a woman vow continency without the consent of her husband: Which it is not expedient to do, as if a man in fasting or any other work purpose the doing of that which is above his strength and ability. All these vows of fools, as well of the second, as of the first kind, may be broken without seeking any dispensation. For a dispensation is then needful when the vow is good and advisedly made, and yet (in some particular case that may fall out) not to be kept. In which case either the whole is remitted, or some other thing equivalent is by way of commutation enjoined. Wherefore let us consider what is to be thought of the vows of single life, made by men of the Clergy in latter times. Touching which 
e Vbi supra.  Andreas Frisius rightly noteth, that if the vows of children in respect of their want of judgement, and the vows of them that are constrained, be little to be regarded, because they are not voluntary, there is little respect to be had to those vows of single life, that men made in latter times; seeing for the most part they desired not that they vowed, but some other things; in respect whereof they doubted not to vow that, they had neither purpose nor desire to perform. It was the hope of honour, wealth, ease, and a voluptuous life, that drew the most part of them to make promise of that which they never had any love unto, and some other of a better mind, finding that they could not otherwise enter into the Ministry of the Church, ran into it, before they considered of the great weight of the burden which they put upon their shoulders. It cannot be denied (saith 
f In Consult de Caelibatu Sacerdotum.  Cassander) but that they did ill, and ensnared the consciences of men, who admitted young men not yet known to themselves, into the Ministry, and when they found the burden of single life too heavy, which yet together with the honour of their calling they were forced to take up, rather dissembled, and in a sort approved any impurity in them, than they would remit any thing of their own law, or suffer them to marry, without consideration of the difference of times, manners, and course of life; which have made things not only hard but impossible to be performed, that were in the time of greater severity of discipline (as 
g De vita spirituali.  Gerson rightly observeth) not so hard. So that from this hard Law, and the violent urging of it, many grievous and most abominable scandals in the Church have proceeded. Wherefore seeing in the judgement of the best Learned of the Fathers, marriages are good notwithstanding vows made to the contrary, I think we may boldly resolve, that howsoever they did ill, that made inconsiderate vows of single life, which they never meant to perform; yet they did not ill, that out of consideration of their own infirmity chose rather to marry, then continually to displease God by wallowing in all impurity. Hugo de sancto 
〈◊〉 E●…ud. Theolog. de Sacrament. fidei lib. 2. part. 11. ca ●…2.  victore bringeth in the secret thoughts of men bound with such vows, soliciting and urging them in this sort: Thou canst not resist so violent a passion, nor endure the heat of such burning desires, which have proclaimed war against thee, not for this day, or the next, or the third, or fourth alone, nor for the space of a month, or a year; they will never leave thee, they will not spare thee, they will give thee no peace nor rest, so long as thou shalt live upon the earth, and carry about with thee this mortal flesh, they will always oppress thine intention, and avert thy cogitation, that thou shalt never be able to lift up thy mind with liberty, or thy will with purity unto God. See therefore what thou dost: Thou losest this world, and gainest not the other. It were better for thee at least to avoid these present torments, then wholly to perish, and no where to see or enjoy any good. God doth see that thou sufferest these things unwillingly, that thou art drawn to that thou wouldst not, and givest consent but by constraint. It may be he will have respect to the violence of thy passion, that he will take pity on thee, and pardon thy excess; especially seeing the Apostle saith, it is better to marry then to burn; and again, for the avoiding of fornication, Let every one have his own wife; it is better to use the lawful remedy for this infirmity, then sinfully still to burn in lust. Where unto he bringeth in the inconsiderate votary, answering thus. The Lord knoweth that I cannot contain. When I thought I could, I willingly resolved so to do, and would willingly still continue in the same will and resolution, if I could endure it. But I can no longer abide the heat of these burning desires. Wherefore I resolve to do that which only remaineth, which is to marry a wife, and so to suppott my weakness and infirmity: Sorry truly, that I am forced to come down from the height of that good I aspired unto; but yet despair not, because I descend to those things that are lawful. I had rather, in inferiori bono saluari, quam in summo periclitari, that is, I had rather be saved, containing myself within the limits of the lower degrees of good, then to endanger myself in the highest: and if it be a fault that I descend, and perform not that I purposed, I will repent of this my fault, and by all due satisfaction pacify and appease my God; nothing shall seem hard unto me, so that I may avoid this passion, and decline this death, in quâ vivens teneor, that is, in which I am holden though I live. These reasons he saith must needs prevail, and cannot be resisted; if marriage after a vow made to the contrary be lawful; if the Church may not dissolve it, and if salvation may be attained by men living in it, as I have sufficiently proved they may: and therefore our Adversaries rashly condemn such as in our time have married, notwithstanding their vows. If a man (saith 
i Vbi supr●….  Frisius) shall undertake to carry a burden to a certain place, and after finding his inability to perform it, shall desire to be excused, and that some lighter burden may be laid upon him, he is much better to be allowed of, than he that goeth on in that he undertook, and fainting by the way hurteth himself, and disappointeth him that set him on work: and in like manner he is rather to be approved, that prayeth to be eased of the over-heavy burden of single life, and resolveth to live honestly in marriage, than he that will still live single, though never so wickedly, whatsoever Pighius and Eckius prate to the contrary: who fear not to prefer a Priest that liveth in adultery, before him that marrieth a wife. Besides all this which hath been said, seeing single life is not simply good, and to be desired, but respectively to certain ends, therefore they that chose to live single, & intended not the glory of GOD, the good of his Church, and the more opportunities of doing good without distraction, did not make any lawful vow; seeing a vow must be of that which is good, and properly of the better good; and consequently were not tied to the keeping of it; it being resolved, that the vows of fools, that is, such as are made without respect to the right end, without due consideration of their own strength, and a free and voluntary purpose of performing that they promise, are not to be kept. Whence it will follow, that the most part of the vows men made in latter times, not intending the right end, are not to be kept.   

CHAP. 58.  
Of digamy, and what kind of it, it is that debarreth men from entering into the Ministry.  
HITHERTO we have proved the lawfulness of Minister's marriage, and sufficiently showed that no Law of GOD or the Church forbiddeth it, and that no rash and inconsiderate vow hindereth it, if men cannot contain: Now let us proceed to see, whether they be any more restrained and limited in their marriage then other men. Some there be who think they are, and teach, that they must marry but once only; whereas other may lawfully marry as often as they please. And further, they suppose, that if any man have been twice married, or have married a Widow, he may not beé admitted into the Ministry. The ground of which conceit is that of the Apostle, where he saith: 
a 1. Tim. 3. 2.  A Bishop must be the husband of one wife: But the meaning of the Apostle is, that he, who is to be chosen a Bishop, must not have more wives than one at one time. So that the digamy the Apostle condemneth is not the having of two or more wives successively, but the having of more than one at the same time. Of which it is that 
b Apologia. 2.  justine Martyr speaketh, when expounding that saying of our Saviour: He that marrieth her that is forsaken, committeth adultery, he concludeth that they, who according to man's law run into Digamies, by our Master's judgement are found to be sinners. And therefore 
c In locum Timothei predict & in Titu.  Chrysostome expoundeth the text of the Apostle as meant of Polygamy, which is the having of many wives at once. His words are these: The Apostle saith not this as making a Law, that none without a wife may be made a Bishop, but appointing a measure of that matter. For it was lawful for the jews to be joined in the second marriage, and to have two wives at once. Thus doth he interpret the Apostles words, though he were not ignorant that some followed another interpretation. And therefore 
d De Cleric●…. lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 23.  Bellarmine untruely denyeth, that any of the Ancient followed this interpretation, but Theodoret. And the 
e Annotations upon that place  Rhemistes confess that Chrysostome so interpreteth them, but they say, that writing upon Titus he followeth the other interpretation; but surely it were strange if he should so soon forget himself. Let us hear therefore what he saith, that so we may the better discern whether he descent from himself, and interpret the words of the Apostle to Titus as they would have him, or not. His words are these: The Apostle purposeth utterly to stop the mouths of heretics which condemn marriage; showing that marriage is without fault, and so precious, that with it a man may be preferred even to the holy seat and chair; of a Bishop. Also with this saying he chastizeth unchaste persons, while he suffereth them not after their second marriage to be taken to the government of the Church. For he which is found not to have kept his benevolence towards his wife, which is gone from him, how should he be a good teacher of the Church? Nay rather to what crimes shall he not daily be subject? for you all know, that although by the Laws, such second Marriages are permitted, yet that thing is open to many accusations. Therefore he will have the Bishop to give no occasion to them that are under him. These are the words of Chrysostome. Neither can any man doubt, that will advisedly consider them, but that he speaketh of a second marriage while the first wife liveth, but is gone away (for so are the words, and not defunct or dead, as our Adversaries translate for their advantage,) and not of a second marriage after the death of the first wife. For if he did, he would not condemn them that marry the second time as unchaste and wanton, or make them subject to any crimes. With Chrysostome agreeth Theodoret: his words are these; 
f Theod. in loc. Tim. praedict.  The preaching then began, and neither did the Gentiles exercise Virginity, nor the jews admit it, for they esteemed the procreation of children to be a blessing. And therefore for as much as at that time they were not easily to be found which exercised continency, of such as had married Wives he commandeth them to be ordained which had honoured Temperancie. And concerning that saying, the husband of one Wife, I think certain men have said well. For of old time both greeks and jews were wont to be married to two, three, or more wives at once. And even now when the Imperial Laws forbid men to marry two Wives at one time, they have to do with Concubines and Harlots. They have said therefore that the holy Apostle saith, that he that dwelleth honestly with one only Wife is worthy to be ordained a Bishop. For, say they, he doth not reject the second marriage, who hath often commanded that it should be used. For a woman (saith he) is bound by the Law, so long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is free, that she may marry with whom she will, only in the Lord, etc. For if he have thrust away his Wife, and be joined to another, he is worthy to be reprehended, and is justly subject to accusation: but if force of death have disjoined his first Wife, and Nature urging, have compelled him to be joined to a second Wife, his second marriage is proceeded not of his will, but of casualty. These things considered (saith Theodoret) I admit the interpretation of those which have so understood the place. Neither do Chrysostome and 
g In ●…und. loc.  Theodoret only thus interpret the words of the Apostle, but Theophylact also. The Apostle (saith he) prescribeth, that he who is to be chosen a Bishop, must be the husband of one Wife, because of the jews to whom Polygamy was permitted, that is, to join marriage with many together. And Hierome maketh mention of this Interpretation. The Apostle 
Hier. ad Oce●…m.  (saith he) was of the jews, and the first Church of Christ was gathered out of the remains of Israel. He knew it was permitted by the Law, and ordinary among the people, by the example of the patriarchs and Moses, to beget children of many Wives: which thing also was permitted unto the Priests, and therefore he commanded that the Priests of the Church should not take unto themselves the like liberty, nor have two or three wives at once: but that they should have one only wife at one time. And though he rather incline to another interpretation; yet in his Commentary upon Titus, he mentioneth this again, without any signification of dislike, and saith, We must not think that every one that hath been but once married, is better than he that hath been twice married, but that (indeed) he may better exhort to one only marriage, and continency, that can bring forth his own example in teaching. For other wise if a young man marry a wife, & she die within a little while after, & after her he marry a second, which within a short time he looseth also, and then continue continent, he is to be preferred before him that liveth with one wife till his old age. So that oftentimes, if he that hath been but once married, be preferred before him that hath been twice married, his happiness is chosen rather than his will. And as sundry great and worthy Divines did so interpret the Apostles words as to condemn Polygamy, and not to exclude from the Ministry mentwice married; so the practice was according thereunto. For how-soever many urged the other Construction of the Apostles words, and excluded men twice married from the holy Ministry; yet others did not so. And therefore Tertullian, who was a Montanist, and condemned second marriage, in his book of monogamy, interpreting the Apostles words, of such as had married the second wife, & speaking bitterly against the Catholics of those times, saith: the Holy Ghost foresaw there should come some that should affirm all things to be lawful for Bishops. For (saith he) how many are there among you that govern the Church, which have married the second time: insulting against the Apostles, and not blushing when these words are read under them. 
l Vbi supra.  Hierome was of opinion, that men twice married might be chosen to be Bishops or Presbyters, if they married both, or one of their wives before they were baptised. Which was the case of very many in those times: seeing, (besides those who were converted from Paganism) many that were borne of Christian parents put off their baptism along time. So that some were elected Bishops before they were baptised, as we read of 
m Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 11.  Ambrose. Hereupon he saith, the number of such as had been twice married, & yet were admitted into the holy Ministry, was exceeding great. His words are these: All the world is full of these Ordinations: I speak not of Presbyters, nor those of inferior degrees: I come to Bishops, whom if I shall go about particularly to name, I shall muster together so great a number as will exceed the multitudes of them that were at the Council of Ariminum. And it appeareth by the Epistle of 
n Epist. 22. cap. 1. & 2.  Innocentius to the Bishops of Macedonia, that they thought as Hierome did: that such as were not twice married after Baptism might be admitted into the Ministry, how often soever they had been married before. It is true that Innocentius was of another mind, and 
o De bono coniugali.  Austin likewise: But Hierome who is want to spare no man that crosseth his conceit, calleth them Hypocrites, and telleth them that they are like the Scribes and Pharizees, that did strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel that tithed Mint and Aniseed, but let pass the weightier things of the Law: because they admitted such into the Ministry, as had kept Harlots before their Baptism, and yet rejected such as had been married, for that sin is washed away in Baptism, and nothing else. Rem novam audio (saith he) quia peccatum non non fuit, in peccatum reputabitur. That is, it is a new and strange thing that I hear, because it was no sin to have a wife, therefore it shall be reputed for a fault and sin. Whoredom, Impiety against God, parricide, incest, and the sin against Nature, are purged and washed away in the Baptism of Christ: but this, that a man hath had a wife, sticketh fast unto him still. So are the filthy stews preferred before the honourable and undefiled marriage-bed. Let the Pagans hear what the harvests of the Church are, out of which our Barns are filled. Let the Cathecumen (who are not yet baptised) hear likewise, and let them take heed they marry no wives before baptism, neither enter into the state of honest marriage, but let them give themselves to all impurities: only let them take heed of the name of marriage, lest after they shall believe in Christ, this may prejudice them, that sometimes they had not concubines, nor Harlots, but lawful wives. Zonara's in his exposition of the Canons of the Apostles, followeth the Opinion of Hierome, and so doth Sedulius, Scotus, and Anselm, as 
p Bibliothecae Sanctae. lib. 6. annot. 318. & 325.  Sixtus, Senensis reporteth. And this opinion was very general, as it appeareth by 
q Lib. 10. Epist 82.  Ambrose, who though he disliketh it, yet saith exceeding many did approve it.  
So that to resolve this point: we see some understood the words of the Apostle as meant against Polygamy only, or the having of many wives at once, and not successively: and that accordingly many were permitted to govern the Church that hadbin twice married: & that of them that understood the words of the Apostle, as meant of the not having of more wives than one successively: some excluded only such as had more than one wife after baptism: others, all that had been twice married, either before or after. But we shall find that they who generally excluded all them, that had been twice married fr●… entering into the Ministry, had no good reason leading them so to do. For neither is he always better, that hath been but once married, than he that hath been twice married, as I have showed out of Hierome; neither can he always better exhort to continence; for how can he exhort others to live continently, and not to marry the second time, or after the death of their wives, that himself in his widowhood committed Adultery, or lived as a whoremonger? seeing the Apostle willeth both men and women, rather to marry the second, third, or fourth time, then to burn in lust, and to commit adultery or fornication. There is therefore a third reason yielded of this pretended prohibition of marrying a second wife, after the death of the first: which is mystical and taken from a kind of Sacramental signification, which must be found in them, that are to be admitted into the holy Ministry of the Church. And surely either this reason must prevail, or none: for if it were some moral defect and imperfection, that debarreth men twice married from entering into the Ministry; or for that it is a sign of incontinency to have been twice married; it might be washed away in Baptism, as well as Whoredom, and other Crimes, which yet these men deny. Let us see therefore what force there is in this Reason of mystical signification. 
r August. de bono Coniugali.  The marriage of the Fathers in the time of the old Law (saith Saint Augustine) by their many wives, expressed and figured those Churches, out of the many Nations, People and Kindred's, of the world, that were to join themselves unto Christ in Spiritual marriage at his coming: but the marriage of Christians, figureth specially that perfect unity that shall be in Heaven, of all faithful and holy ones, both with Christ, and amongst themselves. This is Augustine's reason, and this the 
s Bonaventura in 4. sent. dist. 25. quaest. 3.  Schoolmen urge. But it is strange that men of Learning should stand so confidently upon so weak a ground. For if the expressing of the unity between Christ and the Church his Spou●…e, by the undivided unity that is between one man and one woman, be necessarily required in him that is to be chosen a Bishop or Presbyter; then of necessity, every one that desireth to be a Bishop or Presbyter, must marry a wife, that so his marriage may express the Spiritual marriage between Christ, and the Church. Nay, seeing Christ never withdraweth himself from his Church, but daily begetteth sons and daughters of her unto God; each Bishop must have a wife, and company with her continually; that so by the matrimonial unity that is between him and his wife, he may express the unity, that is between Christ and the Church. Their answer hereunto is, that as Christ is a Husband, so he is a Virgin; and that therefore a man may bear an express resemblance and representation of Christ, by Virginity, as well as by Marriage, So that it sufficeth if either he be a Virgin, or have been but once married, that is to be thought capable of Ecclesiastical honour. But this answer will not serve the turn: For though a man be no Virgin, (as 
t In duab. Epist. Citat. ab Erasmo in vita Hieronymi.  Hierome professed of himself, that he was not; and as it is evident Augustine was not, in that 
u Aug. confess. lib. 4. cap. 2. & lib. 6. cap. 15.  he had children borne unto him:) yet it is not necessary, in the judgement of our Adversaries, that such a one should marry a wife, to make himself capable of Ecclesiastical honour. Whence it followeth, that there is no necessity of Representing either the Virginity of Christ, or his matrimonial Conjunction with the Church, by the Virginity or marriage of such, as are to be admitted into the holy Ministry. Besides this, it is not enough to express the Unity between Christ and the Church, that a man marry but one wife; but it is required also, that he defile not himself, by being joined unto harlots; but that he keep himself entirely to his own wife. For so it is, between Christ and his Church; who not only hath no other wife or spouse, but the Church of the faithful; but also so entirely loveth her, that he giveth no part of his love to any stranger. So that he, that marrying but once, hath either before or after such marriage, committed adultery or fornication, doth not express the unity that is between Christ and the Church. And yet our Adversaries, that are so peremptory against such as have been more than once married, set open the doors to let in both Whoremongers and Adulterers into the Church, and house of God. And therefore the words of 
* Hieron. ad ●…num.  Hierome may rightly be applied unto them. That they tithe Mint and Annisseed, and omit the weightier things of the Law; & that they strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel, rejecting them as unworthy that have not offended, and admitting such as have; justifying the sinner, and condemning the Innocent. But that we may perceive the weakness of this mystical Reason, we must observe that our adversaries admit none into the Ministry that have been married, unless either their wives be dead, or by consent of their wives they resolve to contain, renouncing that power and interest the man hath over the body of his wife; and so (indeed) ceasing to be husbands. So that if their Presbyters, and other Cleargymen have resemblance of CHRIST'S marriage with the Church in respect of their marriage, it is while they are no Cleargymen, but mere Laymen. Now how-soever it may be required of them that are to be admitted into the Ministry, that they have not been scandalous before their entrance: yet I think it is not required, that they have been clear representations or figures of CHRIST; but this is to be looked for afterwards, when they supply his place. Wherefore we may assure ourselves that this was not the reason that moved those to debar men twice married, from entering into the Ministry that so did: but partly a misunderstanding of the Apostles words; partly for that as 
x De sacr. eccls minist. & Ben. l. 4. c. 8.  Duarenus noteth, though often marrying be permitted, both by God's Law and man's Law: yet the old Fathers did not greatly like it, as arguing immoderate incontinency in them that so do.  
Whereupon we shall find that in ancient times they were all put to penance that married the 2d time, though Laymen, and never intending to enter into the Ministry. The words of the 
y Can. 3. & 7.  Council of Neocaesarea are these: Concerning such as often take them wives, and such as are often married, it is ordered that they shall observe and fulfil the time of the penance which is prescribed unto them: yet so as that their conversation and faith may shorten the time. And the same Council forbiddeth a Presbyter to be present at the mariage-feast of them that are the second time married; seeing it is prescribed, that they must be put to Penance that marry the second time. And asketh what Presbyter that is, that will for a mariage-feast consent to such marriages. And 
z Referente Ambrosio in 7. c. 1. ad Cor. & in 3. 1. ad Tim. Aug. serm. 243. de temp. Isid. l. 2. de Divin▪ officiis c. 19  another Canon forbiddeth such marriages to be blessed in the Church. 
a Can 1.  The council of Laodicea provideth in this sort, touching them that marry the second time: Concerning them that (according to the Ecclesiastical Rule) are freely and lawfully joined in the second marriage, and have not secretly so joined themselves: It is fit that for some short time they give themselves to prayer and fasting: which being passed, by a kind of Indulgence, they may be restored to the Communion. The 
b Apud Gratian. part. 2. caus. 31. q. 1  Author of the unperfect work, that goeth under the name of Chrysostome, proceedeth a little farther in this sort: The Apostles (saith he) commanded to enter into the second marriage for the avoiding of fornication. For according to the precept of the Apostle, it is lawful to take a second wife: but according to the rule and prescription of Truth it is (indeed) Fornication. This conceit grew so far, that the Council of 
c Can. 8.  Nice was forced to make a Canon that the Catharists should not be received into the fellowship of the Church, unless they would communicate with such as fell in the time of persecution, & with such as had been twice married: whereby it appeareth that some rejected them, as though they might not have been received into the Church; no not after Penance.  
So that to conclude this point touching digamy, it is not the having of more wives than one successively, that the Apostle condemneth: but the having of more wives at once. Three reasons are brought by our Adversaries to prove the contrary: but they will be found too weak if we examine them. The first is, that Polygamy, or the having of many wives at once, was not in use in the Apostles time, & that therefore the Apostle had no reason to forbid it: but this may easily be refuted by good authorities, Your Masters (saith 
d In Triphone.  justine Martyr speaking to the jews) even to this day, suffer every one of you to have four or five wives: & in his 
e In Apol. post.  Apology he understandeth by digamy, the having of more wives than one at one time, & not successively: for he saith, they which according to man's Law do enter into digamy or second marriages, are sinners, according to the Doctrine of our Teacher and Master. And Theodoret saith: 
f In loc. Tim.  In former times both jews and Gentiles took unto them in marriage many wives. Their second reason is this. The Apostle requireth that a widow must have been the wife of one husband: and his meaning must needs be, that she must not have had more husbands than one successively. Therefore when he prescribeth, that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, his meaning is, that he must not have had more than one wife successively, the form of speech being the same. That when he speaketh of widows he meaneth that they must not have had more husbands than one successively, they prove, because howsoever Men have sometimes had more wives than one, at the same time; yet Women never had more husbands: and 
g Rhemenses in locum Titi.  hereupon they charge us, with intolerable impudency, violent wresting of the Scriptures; and bringing such an interpretation of the Apostles words, as never came into any wiseman's cogitation before, when we say, he repelleth such from entering into the order of widows, as have had two husbands at once, and not such as have been twice married. But if it please them to give us leave, we will show them, that they are too violent, and say they know not what. For we think, nay we know it hath been heard of, that a woman should have two husbands at one time: yea that both amongst jews and Gentiles in former times women forsaking their husbands, or forsaken of them without just cause, have married again: which the Apostle might justly condemn, and debar such as had so done, from entering into the order, and rank of sacred Widows. Neither is it hard to show, that our interpretation hath been thought of, and approved, more than a thousand years ago, by men of as great wisdom, as our great masters that thus insult over us. For Theodoret upon these very words of the Apostle, writeth thus. Hereof also, it is manifest that he rejecteth not second marriages, but decreeth that they live chastely in matrimony: for he which before hath established the second marriage by law, hath not here forbidden her which hath been twice married to obtain bodily relief. And 
h In hunc locum.  Theophilact likewise saith: The Apostle requireth monogamy of her, that is to be admitted into the company of widows: that is, that she have been coupled but to one husband at once, as a sign of honesty, chastity and good manners. Concerning these Widows, two things are to be considered. First, how and in what sort they were employed by the Church. Secondly, how far fortth they were tied not to leave the church-service and to marryagaine. Touching their service, it was first and principally, about women that were to be baptised, for their instruction and the addressing of themselves to that Sacrament and the sacred Rites of the Church accompanying the same: as appeareth by the 
i Lib. 3. cap. 15.  Constitutions of Clemens, it being more fit for them, to have private and often access unto them, then for men. Which thing also 
k Haeresi. 79.  Epiphanius showeth, calling them by the name of Diaconesses. Secondly, the attending, and taking care of the sick and impotent. Touching the second point, we suppose that these widows, (being of great Age, destitute of all outward supports, seeking relief of the Church, and dedicating themselves to the service thereof) did by this very act, profess and make known their purpose of continuing in that estate of Widowhood, and performing such service, as to them any way appertained. And therefore the Apostle condemneth them, that after such profession made, waxed wanton against Christ, sought to put themselves out of the holy Ministry & service they had dedicated themselves unto, & to return to Secular courses of life again. These according to the judgement of 
l Haeresi. 61.  Epiphanius were subject to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, just dislike and blame, and were to be condemned for their levity, and inconstancy; but not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to the condemnation of eternal death and destruction, if declining adultery and other like uncleanness, they choose rather to marry, then to defile themselves with such impurities. And 
m De Bono viduitatis.  Augustine resolveth that their marriage, (notwithhanding any profession they seem to have made to the contrary) is not to be condemned as evil, or to be dissolved: but that only their breach of promise made to God and his Church and their falling from their purpose, is to be disliked and condemned. Thus do these learned and holy Father's resolve, touching such widows as the Apostle speaketh of. And Peter Lombard upon these words of the Apostle in like sort, adding: that they break their first faith even that they professed in baptism, in that violating so solemn a promise, and turning away so scandalously from the calling they had voluntarily put themselves into, they seem to forget and cast from them the very faith and profession of Christians. So that it is clear, and not denied by us, that these widows made a kind of promise and profession of continuing in widowhood, when they were admitted to the Alms and service of the Church: and that it was a fault not to be excused, to show themselves inconstant in this respect: yet such was the tenderness of the Church in ancient times, knowing the weakness of the sex, as not to cast any snares upon them or to tie them by the bond of any solemn benediction or consecration to a necessity of continuing in such an estate. but she thought good to leave them to their own diliberations and resolutions: so that, though they were wont to put a kind of sacred veil on such virgins, as voluntarily devoted themselves to God; yet 
n Epist. 9 ad Episc. Lucaniae.  Gelasius forbiddeth any Bishop to attempt any such thing, as the vailing of a widow: If widows (saith he) out of the mutability of their minds, having made a kind of profession of not marrying again, shall return to marriage, it shall be at their peril in what sort they will seek to pacify God: seeing (according to the saying of the Apostle) they have broken their first faith. For as (if haply they could not contain, according to the Apostle) they were no way forbidden to marry; so having deliberated with themselves so to do, they ought to keep their promise of continent living made to God, but we ought not to cast any snare upon such, but only to exhort them to do that which is fit, by the consideration of the eternal rewards and punishments, that God hath prepared for men, according to their works, that so we may clear ourselves and make known what we think, and they may be left to give an account of that they do, knowing best their own intention. This was the Decree of this Pope, and some other were of the same judgement who admitted widows to no benediction, but that of Penitency: nor suffered no other veil but the veil of penitents to be put upon them. But it 
o Vide Binnium tomo 2. Concil. pag. 115. annot. in Toletan. 4.  seemeth this course was not holden afterwards: succeeding Bishops degenerating from the wise and discreet moderation of their Godly predecessors, and laying heavier burdens on men's shoulders than was fit.   

CHAP. 59  
Of the maintenance of Ministers.  
Having briefly run through all those things that concern the different degrees, orders and callings of them Almighty God employeth in the Ministry of holy things: it remaineth, that in the last place I come to speak of the maintenance of them. That an honourable entertainment is due to the Ministers of God, and disposers of his heavenly Treasures, there neithes is, nor can be any doubt: The light of Nature, the sense of Piety and the Precedents of the jews and Gentiles before Christ, and all Christian Kingdoms, Nations, and People since, most clearly convincing it. 
a 1. Cor. 9 〈◊〉.  Who goeth a warre-fare at any time (saith the Apostle) at his own charge? who dresseth a Vineyard and tasteth not of the fruit of it? Who attendeth and feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of it? It is an Axiom most clear and evident in the light of Nature, that The labourer is worthy of his hire, and the detaining of his wages is one of the sins that cry so loud, that he that sitteth in heaven heareth them. If this be true in them that are employed in any service, business or work in the world, for the good of men; how much more in respect of them, that labour to procure their Spiritual and eternal good? 
b Ibid. vers. 11.  It is a small thing (saith the Apostle) that we should reap your carnal things that have sown unto you spiritual things: 
c Galat. 6. 6.  therefore let him that is instructed in the word, make him that instructed him partaker of all his goods The Galathians thought themselves so much bound to the blessed Apostle Saint PAUL (by whose ministry they were converted from Idolatry to serve the true and living GOD) that 
d Galat. 4. 15.  they would have plucked out their eyes, to have done him good: persuading themselves, they were no way able to make recompense unto him, for all the good he had done unto them. And the Apostle is bold to tell Philemon, ● that he oweth himself unto him. This thing is so clear and 
〈◊〉 Philem. 29  evident, that I suppose no man will contradict any Part of that which hath been said: yet notwithstanding it is not to be dissembled, that Wickliff and some others, let fall some inconsiderate speeches, out of an immoderate dislike of the abuse of things in the Roman Church: wherein all piety, care of Religion, and performance of pastoral duties being neglected by the most part of men: nothing was sought after, but riches, honour, and greatness, accompanied with excessive and riotous expenses, to the great scandal of the World. For the opinion of 
f In Trialogo.  Wickliff was, that the Ministers of the Church ought to make no such claim to tithes, possessions, or lands, or any other reward of their labours, as may be pleadable in any temporal court of justice, as each man doth to the things that are come to him by inheritance from his Fathers, or by his own purchase, but that they should content themselves with the title of original justice; by virtue whereof, that is due to every good man that is fitting to him, & answerableto his condition, merit, and worthiness. This opinion of Wickliff proceeded from a dislike of something he conceived to be amiss, but knew not how to reform. And the censure of Gerson upon this and the like Articles was right and good, that they who proposed them, had cause of offence at many abuses, by them reprehended: but that to go about to reform things out of order by such a course as those Articles imported, was to east out one Devil by another: whereupon he showeth, that a golden means is to be followed, between that immoderate flattery, that gave too much to the Pope and his Clergy, and caused them to forget that they were men, and to encroach upon the right and possession of all other men; and that vile detraction, that diminisheth the honour and reputation; and taketh away the reward of worth and learning, to the ruin of the Church, and bringing in of all Barbarism and confusion. We say therefore, that this position is to be rejected, as contrary to the clear evidence of Heavenly Truth, the light of Nature, and the practice and judgement of all the world; whether we respect jews, Pagans, or Christians. For is it so, (the Apostle himself disputing and determining the case) that the Ministers of God, by the rules of the Law of Nature, & that given by Moses, have more right to a maintenance, fitting to their worth and callings, than the labourer hath to his hire? And are not all Christian Princes and Magistrates bound, to force by their Laws such as withhold that which is thus due? Nay, may not the Church by her censures make them that are instructed to minister out of their temporal goods to such as instruct them? Surely there is no doubt but they may. Which duty being done, the Minister hath as good right by Positive Law, to that maintenance that is fitting for him; and may as lawfully sue for it in any court of Mundane justice, as any other may for that which by any right of this World pertaineth to him. This (I ihinke) will not be much gainsaid: For all men will grant, that a competency of maintenance is due by the prescript of God's Law, and the Law of Nature: and that Princes must take order that it be yielded. But the only thing that is questionable▪ is, whether God have determined of this competency, or left the judgement & determining thereof unto men.  
In the Old Law, himself from Heaven declared what he thought to be a fit allowance for his servants the Priests and Levites; which we shall find not to have been sparing, but very liberal. For, besides the Tenths of all the things that the rest of the Tribes possessed and enjoyed, he gave them Cities to dwell in, and fields adjoining to the same. Touching Tithes in the book of Leviticus it is thus written; 
h Levit. 27. 30.  All the Tithe of the Land, both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruit of the Trees, is the Lords, it is holy to the Lord: and of every Tithe of Bullocke, and of Sheep, and of all that goeth under the rod, the Tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. And as God prescribed and commanded this Rent of the Tenth to be paid unto him out of all that men possessed by any right derived from him; so by his Prophets he did exact it when it was unpaid. 
i Malach. 3. 10.  Bring (saith the Lord of Hosts by his Prophet Malachi) all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house, and prove me now herewith, if I will not open the windows of Heaven unto you, and pour you out a blessing without measure: I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruit of the ground, neither shall your vine be barren in the field, saith the Lord of Hosts; and all Nations shall call you blessed, for you shall be a pleasant Land. And touching Cities for the Priests and Levites to dwell in; God spoke unto Moses his servant in this sort: 
k Numb. 35. 2. etc.  Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the Inheritance of their possession, Cities to dwell in: Ye shall give also to the Levites, the Suburbs of the Cities round about them; so they shall have Cities to dwell in, and their Suburbs shall be for their cattle, anà for their substance, and for all their Beasts: and the Suburbs of the Cities which ye shall give unto the Levites, from the wall of the City outward, shall be a thousand Cubits round about: These Cities, by Gods own appointment, were forty and eight. Besides this standing Rent of Tithes, which God commanded his people to pay unto the Priests and Levites, and these Cities, which they were to give them to dwell in; he made them yet a more plentiful and ample allowance out of his own immediate Revenue, and the presents that were daily brought unto him. For whereas the people (after they were entered into the land of Promise) stood bound to make some acknowledgement, that they had received all of God's hands, & therefore were to give unto him, the best, first, and principal of all that they were blessed with, even the first of the fruits they gathered; The Levites by God's appointment had their parts in these first-fruits: Nay, as we may read in the book of Numbers, God gave these first-fruits which the people offered to him, to the Priests, saying unto Aaron, & his sons, 
l Numb. 18. 12.  All the fat of the oil, and all the fat of the wine, and of the wheat, which they shall offer unto the Lord for their first fruits, I have given them unto thee: and the first ripe of all that is in their Land, which they shall bring unto the Lord, shall be thine. This Allowance did God make them, out of his set Revenue of first fruits; and yet was not unmindful of them, when any other presents were brought unto him. So that they, 
m 1. Cor. 9 13  Who attended at the Altar, were (indeed) partakers of the Altar. Thus we see in what sort God did provide for his servants the Priests & Levites, in the time of the Law.  
Wherefore now it remaineth, that, passing by that Addition, that was out of those Offerings, which were proper to those times, we come to see, whether the same kind of provision by Tithes (which GOD then prescribed) remain still in force, by Virtue of any Law of GOD, or not. Here we shall find a great and main Controversy between the Schoolmen and the Canonists. For the Schoolmen (for the most part, nay all, if we may believe 
n De Clerici ˢ lib. 1. cap. 25.  Bellarmine) do think, that Tithes are not due since the coming of CHRIST, by any Law of GOD or Nature. The Canonists resolve the contrary, and are so peremptory in their opinion, that they do (almost) condemn such of Heresy, as think otherwise. 
o Secunda secundae. quaest: 87. art. 1.  Aquinas one of the greatest Rabbins amongst the Schoolmen, determineth the Question in this sort. The Precept concerning the paying of Tithes in the time of the old Law, was partly Moral, Natural, and Perpetual; & partly judicial, applied to the condition of that people, & so to continue no longer by force of God's prescription, than that state should continue. In that it prescribed a sufficient, large, and honourable maintenance, to be yielded to them that attended the holy things of God, it was Natural and Moral, and is to continue for ever; but in that it prescribed such a proportion, as a fit and competent maintenance, namely the Tenth part out of every man's increase, it was not Natural, but judicial, applied & fitted to the condition of that people. For the whole Nation of the jews being divided into thirteen Tribes, and the Tribe of Levi, that served at the Altar and in the Temple, having no Inheritance or Possession amongst the rest, but God himself being the inheritance of them of that Tribe, that they might have in some proportionable sort, as good an estate of maintenance as any of the rest, he gave unto them the Tenth of all that the rest had. If it be said, they were not the Tenth part of the people, but the Thirteenth; and that therefore to make them equal with the rest, GOD should have given them the Thirteenth part only, and not the Tenth: he answereth, that therefore GOD gave them something more than each of the rest of the Tribes had; First, for that he knew all that he allowed them would not be duly and exactly paid unto them, but that they should lose some part of that which he meant unto them: which by this overplus of Allowance, he would make up unto them again. Secondly, for that he would have their allowance to be something better than that which others had, they being more near unto him then the rest. Thus doth he make the particular determination of the tenth, to be judicial, fitted to the condition of that people; and neither Moral nor Ceremonial: & yet saith, that as all things that were done in that state, and by that people, figured some thing that was afterward to come to pass: so this paying of the tenth of that each man possessed, though it were a judicial constitution, and not ceremonial, yet figured the perfecting of all things by Christ the Son of God. For in that the number of ten, is the uttermost extent and perfection of numbers, beyond which no man goeth in numbering; by giving the tenth part (that signifieth perfection) to God, and keeping nine (expressing imperfection) to themselves, they professed their own wants, defects, and imperfections, and the desire, hope and expectation they had, that God, (in whom only perfection is found) would in his good time perfect all things by Christ his Son. How aptly these things are delivered by THOMAS let the Reader judge. There are other that likewise insist on the number of ten, as being the uttermost extent of number, but to another purpose. For they say, in that the people of God gave unto him the tenth of all that they possessed, which is the uttermost bound, and extent of all the things they had, they did thereby express the desire they had, that this tenth part, as being the bound and limit of all the rest, (in a sort included within it,) should sanctify the rest; and that in respect of the blessing, which God hath promised unto that, which is given unto him, it should be as a wall of defence, for the safe-keeping of the rest. And yet neither Thomas, nor these, make the paying of the tenth to be Ceremonial, in respect of these significations, for then no such custom might be used amongst Christians, as some ignorant men have taught in our age, out of this false conceit. But Thomas supposeth the paying of the tenth, in the particular determination to be judicial, and the other think it Natural and perpetual. For (say they) seeing something is to be yielded to GOD out of that which we have, and the number of ten is the bound of all the things we have, or can have, at least one of ten is to be paid unto God, for an acknowledgement of our obligation unto him, and for the maintenance of his service, and those that attend the same. For if we may pass the number of ten, which is the bound of our possessions, and yield no one part thereof as an acknowledgement to God, we need not to pay any thing to him at all.  
This opinion is strongly confirmed, in that 
p Gen. 14. 20,  Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedech, (who was a Priest of the high God, and blessed him in the name of the Lord) of all that he possessed, before any law written, or any particular prescriptionthat we read of touching the same. Whereby he showed (as it may more than probably be concluded) that tithes are due by the Law of nature. Neither did Abraham only by his fact, show the natural duty of paying tithe, but jacob also confirmed the same by the vow he made; That if God would prosper his journey, and bring him back in safety, the Lord should be his God, and 
q Gen. 18. 22.  he would offer unto him the tenth of all that he should give him. But some man perhaps will say, that this vow of jacob, proveth rather the contrary: namely, that he was not bound to pay tithes: for men do vow such things as they are not bound unto, by any general law of God or Nature. And therefore Cardinal 
r De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25.  Bellarmine saith, It had been an impious thing, for jacob in this conditional sort; to have vowed the paying of tithe, if by the general law of GOD, and Nature, he had been bound thereunto. But surely this saying of the Cardinal is impious, and injurious to the holy Patriarch, who never was charged with any Impiety, in respect of this his vow; neither can be (as I suppose) and yet necessarily must be, if this inference of the Cardinal be good. For it is the first commandment in the law Natural and Moral; Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and the holy Patriarch was bound by a general Obligation of the law of Nature, to take the Lord for his God, and yet he voweth conditionally, That if the Lod will be with him, keep him in his journey, and bring him safe back again, 
s Ver. 21.  he shall be his God, and he will serve him: which if the Cardinal say true, he could not do without Impiety.  
But less us pass by this oversight, and see what is to be resolved touching this point. It seemeth by the fact of Abraham, and vow of jacob, before the Law, by the prescription of the same in the time of the Law, and by the judgement and practice of Christians since the time of the Gospel: that the duty of paying Tithes is natural and perpetual. 
t Orig. Hom. 1●… in Numeros.  How doth our Righteousness (saith Origen) exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, if whereas they do not taste of the fruits of the earth, before they offer the firstfruits to God, and set out the Tithe for the Levites, we do no such thing, but so use, or rather abuse the things which God hath given us, Vt Sacerdos nesciat, Levita ignoret, Altar non sentiat; That is, in such sort, that the Priest shall not know of it, the Levite shall never hear of it, and the Altar of God never feel it, or have any sense of it. Saint 
u In Malach. 3.  Hierome saith, Quod de Decimis, Primitiisque diximus, quae olim dabantur à populo Sacerdotibus & Levitis, in Ecclesiae quoque populis, intelligite quibus praeceptum est, non solùm Decimas & Primitias dare, sed & vendere omnia quae habent, & dare pauperibus: quod si facere nolumus, saltem Iudaeorum imitemur exordia, & pauperibus partem demus ex toto, & Sacerdotibus & Levitis honorem debitum deferamus: quod qui non fecerit, Deum fraudare, & supplantare convincitur. That is, Understand that which I said of Tithes and firstfruits, which of old were given by the people to the Priests and Levites, concerning the people of the church also, who are commanded not only to give Tithes and firstfruits, but to sell away all that they have, and to give to the poor: which if we will not do, at the least let us imitate those beginnings of the jews, that we may give a part of all to the poor, and yield due honour to the Priests and Levites: which who so doth not, is convinced to defraud and deceive God. here we see Hierome is of opinion, that Christians stand bound at least to perform as much touching the matter of tithes and first fruits as the jews: & that he maketh the not paying of tithes to be a sinful defrauding of God: but that which he addeth of selling all and giving to the poor, is not to be understood as meant generally, but only in some cases that may fall out. With Hierome, Augustine, or the Author of the Sermons De tempore, whosoever he was, agreeth, saying, 
x De tempore▪ serm. 219.  Audi indevota mortalitas, nosti quia Dei sunt cuncta quae percipis, et de suo non accommodas omnium Conditori? That is: Hear O mortal man, void of devotion, thou knowest that all the things that thou enjoyest are Gods, and wilt thou present him with nothing that made all, etc. He vouchsafeth to require only the Tenth, and the Firstfruits, and thou deniest him: what wouldst thou do if he should challenge nine parts, and leave thee but the Tenth? For why might not God say, the men that serve thee are mine, I made them: the Earth that thou tillest is mine, the seed thou sowest is mine, the Oxen are mine that thou weariest in thy work: yea, the showers of rain, the blasts of wind, and the heat of the Sun is mine: all the things which cause thy increase are mine: and thou only puttest to thy hand: therefore the Tenth only is due unto thee, and the rest is mine? but God (who is rich in goodness) hath not given thee so sparing a reward of thy labour; for behold he is content thou shall have nine parts, and exacteth only the Tenth: and thou most unthakefully, perfidiously, and falsely withholdest it from him, and therefore in his wrath he often depriveth thee of those nine parts that thou mightest have had, destroying and bringing to nothing all that which thou hopedst to reap, by immoderate drought or rain, by hail, frost, or some other means, as seemeth best unto him. But whatsoever we think of the Author of these Sermons, it is certain Saint Augustine did urge a necessity of paying the Tenth at least of all that men possess. 
y Aug. in Psal. 146.  Set out (saith he) some certain thing out of thy revenues, increase, or gain, if thou wilt the Tenth, though this be too little: for the Pharisees paid tithes of all that they possessed: and yet, If our Righteousness exceed not theirs, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And if we urge you to the paying hereof, saith he, think not that we seek your wealth, but your welldoing. With Augustine agreeth 
z In Math. 23  Chrysostome. The first Council of Hispalis (as we read in 
a Iuo: part. 2. c. ●…74. in 2. tom. council. p. 954. apud Bin.  Iuo) urgeth the paying of tithes as commanded by God, & pronounceth that he maketh a prey of things holy unto God, and is as a thief and a robber, that payeth not tithe of all that he possesseth; and that all the curses which God poured out on Cain, that made no good division, but gave the worst to God, and kept the best to himself, shall be poured upon him. The first 
b Ca 17.  Council of Orleans showeth that tithes were paid at that time: and the second 
c Can. 5.  Council of Matiscon saith, The law of God providing for the Priests and Ministers of the Churches, commanded the people to bring into the holy places, the Tenth of their increase, for an hereditary portion; that so being hindered by no labour, they might in due sort attend the work of the holy Ministry: which law the whole multitude and heap of Christians, hath kept inviolablely for a long time. The Fathers assembled in the 
d Can. 14.  Council of Forum julii, after they have alleged the mandate of Almighty God in the third of Malachi, add, that God himself pronounceth, that his wrath and indignation abideth upon the Nation or People, which fulfilleth not this his commandment with an entire heart, and a good will: and after recital of the blessings and curses that follow them that keep or break this commandment; If ye believe not us, or despise us (say they) because we are men, believe God himself in his threats and promises; and whosoever thou art, that professest thyself a Christian, De suis, non d●…is, da Domino; quia omne quod sumus, vivimus, & habemus, eius est, & de ipsius benignitatis suscepimus manu: that is, give unto God of his own, not of thine; seeing all that we are, live & have, is his, and we have received it at the hand of his goodness. The Fourth 
e Canone. 9  Council of Arle decreeth thus; let every one offer to God the Tenth & First fruits of all the increase of his labour, as it is written, Thou shalt not be slow to offer thy Tithes and first fruits unto God. The Council of Mentz under Charles the Great, prescribeth in this sort: 
f Cap. 38.  We admonish and command that no man neglect to pay Tithes unto God, which God himself appointed to be given, because it is to be feared, least as each man shall withhold from God that which is due unto him; so God for his sin should take from him those things that are necessary, and which he would otherwise suffer him to enjoy. Which agreeth with that of Augustine in his book of his 50. Homilies, where he saith: 
g Homil. 48.  Our Ancestors did therefore abound in wealth, and had plenty of all things, because they gave Tithe to God, & Tribute to Caesar: Modò autem, quia discessit devotio Dei, accessit indictio fisci, nolumus partiri cum Deo Decimas, modò autemtotum tollitur, hoc tollit Fiscus, quod non accipit Christus. That is, But now because devotion giveth nothing to God, the Officers of Princes call for our Treasure, to fill their coffers; we will not so part & divide with God, as to give him the Tenth, and therefore all is taken from us by men, the Exchequer seizeth on that, which Christ could have no part of. The Council of Tribur allegeth and alloweth the saying of the Author of the sermons de tempore before cited, and addeth these words. 
h Canone. 13.  If any man ask why Tithes are paid, let him know that they are therefore paid, that God being pleased with this devotion, may give more largely the things we have need of. The persuasion of the necessity of paying Tithes, was so deeply imprinted in the minds of our Forefathers, that when they were ready to die, there was no account concerning things in this world, they more carefully sought to perfect, than this; and therefore, after they had taken order for satisfying all that they could any way find to be behind, in this kind; they were wont, (lest happily something there might be that came not to their mind) to appoint that the second best of those movable things they had, should be brought after them to the Church when they went to be buried, as a Recompense, if in any thing they had done wrong in paying their Tithes; and this thing thus brought after them, was named a 
i Linwood Provincial. lib. 1. de consuetudine.  mortuary.  
Thus we see, the fact of Abraham, and Vow of jacob before the giving of the Law; the prescription of Almighty God in the time of the Law; the Resolution of learned and worthy men, and the practice of the Church since the coming of Christ, prove strongly, That Tithes are perpetually and for ever due; yet the Schoolmen, and such as follow them, are of another opinion. 
k De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25.  Bellarmine goeth about to prove that Tithes are not due by God's law, in this sort. They are neither prescribed in the old Law, nor in the new (saith he) therefore they are not due by Gods Law. That they are not prescribed in the new (he saith) it is clear, but proveth it not. But that tithes are to be paid, may be proved by necessary consequence out of that which is prescribed in the new Testament. That they are not prescribed in the old, he cannot say; all the books of the old Testament being full of Mandates, Threats, Promises, and Encouragements to move men to pay Tithes. But he saith, the precepts that are found in the old Testament, requiring and urging men to pay Tithes, were judicial, not Moral and Perpetual. That they were not moral, he endeavoureth to prove, because there was no Law concerning the paying Tithes before the time of Moses. If he speak of a written Law, it is true there was no such before Moses, neither touching Tithes, nor any thing else: but if he speak of a Law simply, we say there was a Law before Moses, which moved Abraham to pay Tithe; and that as (presupposing the knowledge of the Creation of the world in six days, and God's rest in the seventh) Reason convinceth us, that one day in seven must be a day of Rest from our own works, affairs, and businesses, that we may spend it in divine thoughts, meditations, prayers, and praises of God: So in like sort, the number of Ten, being the uttermost extent, limit, and bound of all numbers, it being presupposed, that something is to be given to God, out of that we possess, the very light of Reason will make us know, that we ought not to pass the number of Ten, but that one of ten (at the least) is to be yielded unto God out of all that we possess; and that not the worst, (for we do not so deal with mortal Princes) but the best, the first and principal. Which is confirmed unto us, in that the Gentiles and people that knew not God, but by the light of Nature, and such Traditions as they had received from the patriarchs, did pay tithes as well as the jews did, and the Christians do. The proof hereof, the Reader may find at large out of diverse Authors in a 
l M. Carleton of Tithes.  Treatise of Tithes, written not long since, and in 
m Comment. in Concord. Euang. cap. 84.  jansenius. But some man (perhaps) will say, that this confirmation is too weak; for that many among the Gentiles were Circumcised as well as the jews, and that yet it followeth not from thence, that Circumcision was prescribed & imposed by the Law of Nature; so that the custom; practise, and observation of the Gentiles paying Tithes, will not prove that it is a natural duty to pay Tithes. But they who bring this Objection, should know, that there is a great difference between these two Observations of the Gentiles; For the one was but in some certain parts of the world only, and among such people as were descended of Abraham, or by Leagues, Compacts, and Persuasions, were induced by them to be Circumcised. But the paying, vowing, and offering of Tithes to their supposed gods, was general amongst all the Gentiles, Romans, Grecians, and Barbarians. Wherefore we may resolve, that the prescription of Tithe, was not merely judicial, and fitted to the State of the people of the jews (as Bellarmine out of Aquinas would have it) but that it was Natural, and from the beginning. And surely it is worth the noting, how strangely he forgetteth himself, and so runneth into gross contradictions in this point. For first, to make it seem probable, that this prescription was but merely judicial, he saith: 
n De Clericis, li: 1. cap. 25.  The intendment of God, in prescribing Tithe was, that there should be a certain equality amongst the parts and Tribes of his people; and that therefore he allotted the Tenth to the Levites, who were almost the tenth part of his people; and yet after he saith, 
o Eod. capite, Dubio. 4.  The Levites were not the sixtieth part of the people: and proveth the same out of the first and third of Numbers. So that it cannot be imagined that the reason of allowing this proportion to the Levites, was for that they were little less than the tenth part of the people, that so they might have at least as much as the rest, if not a little more: especially seeing it may easily be proved, that the Cities and Suburbs that were allowed unto them, by God himself, besides the First-fruits, & that part of the Sacrifices which they had, was as much as the possessions of any Tribe, though they had had no Tithes at all. So that the possessions of the Levites and Priests being more than the thirteenth part of the whole land, (whereas they were not the sixtieth part) and all the Tithes, First-fruits, and a part of the Sacrifices, being assigned unto them besides, it is most clear & evident, the Intendment of God in allowing Tithes unto the Levites, was not the equalling of them and the rest. But to conclude this point, if we had neither the fact of Abraham, the vow of jacob, the custom of the Gentiles before CHRIST, nor any other reason to persuade us, that Tithes are due by God's Law; yet this very prescription in the time of Moses Law, would prove sufficiently, that Christians must yield the Tenth (at the least) of all their increase towards the maintenance of the Ministers. For seeing the Ministry of the Gospel is much more glorious than that of the Law, and the Obligation of the people unto them stronger, there can be no doubt made, but that Christians are bound to give the tenth of their increase (at the least) towards the maintenance of them that attend the service of God: and consequently, that God hath not left it to men to determine what is a competent allowance for his servants (as some think:) which thing may easily be proved, if any man shall make any question of it. For seeing they of Levies Tribe had so large an allowance, whereas yet the most part of them were but ordinary Levites, and employed in mean services, the Priests being (in comparison) but a few, and attending but by courses once in 24 weeks: there is far greater reason, that the Ministers of the Church that attend more holy things, and that continually, (whose Education out of their own Patrimony hath been chargeable unto them, and whose profession of Learning and Knowledge is such, that the very furnishing of them with Books, is a matter of great expense) should have a more plentiful allowance made unto them than the Levites. Neither is there any kind of Provision for Ministers fitter than this by Tithes. For if they have their allowance in money, the prices of things often rising, it may be too short; neither will they have so sensible a fellow-feeling of the blessings of God, or his punishments the people taste of, if they have their allowance certain, & no way subject to those different courses of Times that others have. And therefore we shall find, that howsoever in the very first Times, Christians were forced to supply the necessities of their Ministers by other means, before things were settled; yet so soon as there was any quiet establishment of things, they embraced this course of providing for Ministers by Tithes, as of all other the best.  
These Tithes (before there was that perfect distinction and division of Parochial Churches that now is) they paid to the Bishop and Clergy jointly. Whereupon we shall find, that at first, as all Lands, so all Money, Tithe, First-fruits, and other Contributions made to the Church, were in the hands of the Bishop and Clergy jointly, but of the Bishop principally, as more eminent than the rest; and that he was bound to 
p Gelas. cp. 9 ad Episc. Lucaniae. Vide Gratian. part. 2. decreti cause 12. q. 2  divide all into four parts, whereof one served for his own maintenance, another for the Clergy, the third for the Reparations of the buildings and houses belonging to the Church, and a fourth for the Relief of the Poor, and the entertainment of Strangers. And therefore at the first the Clergy was maintained out of a common dividend, and the portion allowed to each man was named 
* This word imported no base but an honourable allowance.  Sportula, and they that lived by these allowances, Sportulantes. In which sense Cyprian writing of some that he had designed to be Presbyters, hath these words: 
q Cypr cp. 66. & 34.  Presbyterii honorem designâsse nos illis iam sciatis, & ut sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur, & divisiones mensurnas aequatis quantitatibus partiantur sessuri nobiscum provectis & corroboratis annis suis.  
But this course continued but a while: for afterwards as there was a division of Parochial Churches, with particular assignation of several Presbyters to take care of them; so likewise of the tithes of the increase of the lands & possessions of such as were within those Limits, the Bishop & Clergy of the city, or of the chief church, living in common of such lands, revenues and possessions as had been given to the church, and the tithes and offerings of them that received Sacraments, and resorted ordinarily to be taught in the Cathedral church; till in the end, as the Inhabitants of the country abroad, so they of the Cities likewise were put to Parochial divisions, and none but the Bishop, Clergy, and such as pertained to them, resorted ordinarily to the Cathedral or great Church, but to other divided from it; and then was there no more tithe paid to the Bishop and Clergy of the Cathedral or chief church, but to the inferior Churches only, the Bishop and his Clergy, of the Mother Church, living of such lands as were given unto them: which also in process of time they divided. So that the Bishop had his distinct possessions, lands, and revenues, proper to himself; and likewise they of the Cathedral Church.  
So that to conclude this matter, as tithes are payable by the laws of God, & men, for the maintenance of God's service, and them that attend the same: so before there was any particular division of Parochial Churches, and while each city and the places adjoining made but one Church, they were due, and of right to be paid, by men living within those limits, to the Bishop and Clergy jointly, who by a joint care, were to govern and teach the people of such places. But after Parochial Churches were divided, each man was, and is to pay the tithes of the things he possesseth, within each parish, to that particular Presbyter that ruleth the same. And therefore it is an error to think as some do, that before the council of Lateran, men might pay their tithes to what places and persons they pleased; and that by the decrees of that Council, they were first limited to the place of their habitation. For the thing that was ordered in the Council of Lateran, was not the limiting of the duty of paying tith to one certain and definite place, as if men had been free before to pay them to whom and where they listed, but whereas men dwelling in one place, and having lands, livings, and possessions in another, thought they might pay the tenth of the increase of such things as they had in other places, to the Minister of the place where they dwelled, and of whom they received the Sacraments: The 
r In indice in appendicem Concil. Lateranens. 3. de Pactionib. 39 & 40.  Council decreed that the Tithes of such lands, as men had lying elsewhere, should not be paid by them, in the places of their habitation, but where the land lieth; and personal tithes in the place of their abode, where they are partakers of the holy things of God, and not elsewhere: Then which nothing could be more just and reasonable. Neither did the Council of Lateran alone, take order for this matter, but the Council of Mentz cited by 
s Part. 2. causa. 16. qu. 42. 1. c.  Gratian provideth likewise, that if any man give away such places, as he had propriety in, or other things, the tithe shall not be alienated from the Church, it did formerly belong unto.  
But that men were always bound to pay their Tithes of such things as they possess, within the place of their habitation, to the Ministers of the same, it may easily be proved, in that, very Ancient Counsels do provide, that no man shall pay the tithes of such things as he hath within the limits of any place, but to that Church, to which all they that inhabit there resort for Baptism, and spiritual instruction. We decree (saith) 
t Citatus. part. 2 causa. 16. qu. 1. cap. 55.  Anastasius, Bishop of Rome, that if any man seek to withhold the Oblations, and Tithes, which the people ought to yield unto the Church, or give them away from that Church, where they of the places, where such Tithes arise, do usually receive the Sacrament of Baptism, to any other without the Bishop's consent, let him be accursed. It hath seemed good, not only to us, but to aur Ancestors, (saith 
u Ibid. cap. 45.  Leo the Fourth) that the people shall pay their Tithes, where they and their children are baptised, and no where else. The 
x Canone. 47.  Council of Worms provideth, that if any man with the Bishop's consent build a new Church within his own land, the Ancient Church shall not be prejudiced, but all accustomed Tithes shall be still paid unto it. The 
y Habetur. Tomo. 3. Concil. apud Binnium. pag. 65●….  Council of Ticin saith, there are certain Laymen, who having Churches or Oratories within the compass of their own lands and possessions, pay not the tithes to those Churches, where they are partakers of the benefit of Baptism, Preaching, Imposition of hands, and other Sacraments of Christ: but give them to their own Churches, or their own Clerks, as they list: which is contrary to the Law of God, and the sacred Canons. And therefore the Council of 
z Cap. 13.  Mentz in the time of Arnulphus, decreed, That ● Ancient Churches shall not be deprived of their tithes, or other possessions, and that the things that formerly did belong unto them, shall not be given to new Chapels, or Oratories.  
The first wrong that was offered unto Churches, in depriving them of their tithes, that prevailed, was in favour of Monks, who having their Mansion houses within the precincts of parishes, and lands belonging to the same, which for their provision they held in their own hands, and used for their own benefit, rested not till they obtained of the Pope and other Bishops to have them Tithe-free. The Council of Lateran under Alexander the Third ordaineth, 
a Indice in appendicem.  That religious men shall pay no Tithes out of such their lands as they tille themselves. But if they shall rend any, they shall pay Tithe as other do: and likewise if they let any lands out unto Countrymen to be tilled, they shall pay Tithes out of them; yea if they shall get new lands, after their foundation and confirmation of their Privileges, they shall pay Tithes, though they keep them in their own hands. But this exemption of Religious men, (though very prejudicial to the Church) stayed not here, but prevailed yet further, to the great hurt of the Church: and therefore we read, that some sought to exempt their Farmers also from paying Tithes: which the Bishops assembled in the Council of 
b Cabilonens. 2. Canone 19  Cabilon disliked, and commanded that both Bishops and Abbots should permit their Tenants to pay Tithes in the places where they received the Sacraments: and that they should keep the Tithes of such fields and Vineyards, as they held in their own occupation, to themselves. Thus we shall find that this Monkish generation first rob the parochial Churches, within the bounds whereof their houses and possessions were, of a great portion of Tithes due unto them, by their privileges and exemptions: and that after they had tasted the sweetness of this robbery, they went forward, till they had subjected those Ministers and their Churches to themselves, to whose jurisdiction they were formerly subject; And got the Tithes that others paid to parochial Churches, to be appropriated to themselves, that at first by privilege exempted themselves from paying Tithes; forgetting that of Saint 
c Hier. ad Heliodorum de laude vitae solitariae.  Hierome; Alia Monachorum est causa, alia Clericorum, Clerici pascunt oves, ego pascor, illi de Altari vivunt, mihi quasi infructuosae arbori securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad Altare non defero; nec possum obtendere paupertatem cum in Evangelio anum viduam, duo quae sola sibi supererant aera, mittentem laudaverit Dominus, mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet; illi si peccavero, licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis, ut Spiritus salvus sit. That is, the condition of Monks and the condition of Cleargymen differ very much. Cleargymen feed the Sheep of CHRIST, but I am fed; they live by the Altar, but if I bring not my gift to the Altar, the Axe is laid unto me, as to an unfruitful Tree; neither ●…nne I pretend Poverty, seeing the Lord in the Gospel, praised the Widow, that cast in two Mites, which was all that she had; I may not sit in the presence of a Presbyter, but if I offend, he may deliver me to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved.  
But as these idle bellies, and evil beasts, by the favour of Popes and Prelates, got into their hands the portion which God appointed for his servants the Ministers of his Churches; so in the end growing odious to the world, for that professing mortification, and a voluntary penitential course of life, they abounded in wealth & surfeited upon pleasures, more than any secular men in the world, they were devoured of others, who seized upon their houses, took from them their revenues, and together with their other livings, led captive that portion of tithes, they found in their possessions; and hold it (in sort) as the former usurpers did, even to this day. So that we may truly pronounce, that the Cloisters of Monks are guilty of all that horrible Sacrilege, that hath laid waist so many Churches, spoilt so many Christians of the comfort of Godly Pastors, that otherwise they might have enjoyed; & brought the Clergy into that mean estate, that now it is come unto. For it is not to be imagined, that ever any Layman would once have entertained a thought of receiving tithes, that (as consecrated things to God, and holy unto him) were to be put into the Storehouse of his Temple, if they had not found them, (who by the original of their order, and institution, were to pay, and not to receive tithes) possessed of them and spending them in most vile and shameful manner. Neither shall we ever find (as I think) that Laymen inherited this portion of the Lord, in sort as now they do, till the suppressing of the houses of these irreligious Monks; which were become cages of unclean Birds, and dens of thieves and robbers. It is true indeed that 
d De Sacris 〈◊〉. minist. & benef. l. 7. c. 1.  Duarenus hath, that the right of receiving sacred tithe, Clientela titulo, was by certain Princes, with the consent of the whole Clergy, made over to Knights and Martial men for defending the Church and people of CHRIST against the enemies of Religion. But this was for the good and benefit of the Clergy, and in their right; and not as now it is, by absolute Title of Inheritance, and Fee-simple, or Freehold. The beginner of this kind of assignation of tithes to Laymen for defence of the Church, was Charles Martell: as Duarenus saith, and the third Council of Lateran reversed and voydedit more than four hundred years since.  
From tithes, (which the Lord God, possessor of Heaven and earth, appropriated to himself, as his own particular portion from the beginning, though all were his) let us proceed to see what the devotion of men gave unto him since the appearing of CHRIST his Son in the world. Touching which point, first we shall find in the sacred story of the Evangelists, that many ministered unto CHRIST out of their substance, and that he had a Bag wherein he kept the things which the faithful ministered unto him; and out of the same supplied his own necessities, and the wants of others, as Saint 
e In johan. 13.  Augustine observeth. So that he did not live so as to have nothing, or to beg, (as some here-tofore have thought) whose error Pope john the two and twentieth long since condemned. here was the first pattern of church-good, and treasure, as Augustine noteth. After the death, resurrection, and return of CHRIST into Heaven, such was the devotion of the believers in the beginning, that many of them 
f Acts 4. 34. 35.  sold their possessions, and brought the price thereof, and laid it down at the Apostles feet. Which communication of the goods of the first Christians, though it extended to the benefit of all, yet was there a special respect therein had to the Apostles; to whom they would have nothing to be wanting, and to whose disposition all was committed. The reason why they rather sold their possessions, and turned their lands into money, than gave them to the Apostles for the relief and maintenance of themselves, & others, was, (as 
g Decr. part. 2. cause. ●…2. q. 1. c. 15  some think) for that the Church was soon after to be removed from those parts, and to be dispersed amongst the Gentiles, which made them little regard to have lands and possessions in judaea.  
But after these times when the Christians were dispersed throughout the world, & Churches established amongst the Gentiles, they thought it better to give lands unto the Churches, for the maintenance of the Ministry, relief of the Poor, & entertainment of Strangers, than money; as being a more sure, certain, & settled Endowment, & consequently fitter forchurches established. Of which change we may read in the epistle attributed to 
* Ibid. c. 16  Vrbanus Bishop of Rome about the year two hundred twenty six. And though the first course of giving all that men possessed to the common benefit, soon ceased, & was never practised (for aught we read) amongst the Gentiles: yet great was the devotion of Christians, turning from Gentilism, in those first Ages of the Church, while the blood of CHRIST lately shed, was yet warm in men's hearts: so that they gave many goodly & ample Endowments & Possessions to the Church. Where-upon we shall find, that the church had very anciently goods & lands, as well as treasure. For the council of 
h Canon. 15.  Ancyra holden in the year 314, voideth the sale of such things, as the church made by Presbyters when there was no Bishop; & leaveth it in the choice of the Bishop when he is chosen, if he please, to resume the things themselves again. The 
i Canon. 25.  council of Antioch in the year 340, maketh mention of the Fields, lands, and possessions of the church, and taketh order how they shall be disposed. Agri Ecclesiae (saith Ambrose) solvunt tributa: that is, the fields and lands of the church pay tribute. 
k Duaren. de sacr. eccls min. & benef. l 2. c. r  Constantine the Emperor made a Law, that it might be lawful for such as pleased, to leave their goods unto the church. And 
l Ibid.  Licinia a rich and wealthy Matron, gave her goods by will unto the church of Rome, when Marcellus was Bishop. Hilary Bishop of Arle (as 
m Devit a contemplativa. l. 2. c. 9  Prosper reporteth) not only possessed such things as the church had formerly but greatly increased the possessions of it, receiving the inheritances of many, who gave that they had to the church. Thus did the devout Christians of the Primitive church religiously give, & the godly Bishops take such temporalties as were given unto them. And therefore the conceit of Wickliff (if that be true that is imputed to him) and some other, cannot well be excused, who thought that Constantine, and other Christian Emperors sinned in giving, and Sylvester and other Bishops in receiving temporal goods and possessions.  
It is true, that great was the superfluity of Churchmen in latter times, and their state such as made them forget the things that most concerned them: whence grew that saying Religiopeperit divitias, & filia devoravit Matrem: That is; religion brought forth riches, and the daughter hath devoured the mother. 
n Vol, 2. generat. 11. pa. 505.  Nauclere reporteth, that there was a common conceit amongst many, that when Constantine first began to endow the Churches, with lands & possessions, a voice was heard from Heaven saying, Hodie venenum Ecclesiae estimmissum, that is, This day is poison poured into the Church: and in process of time, temporal Princes (finding that the indiscreet devotion of men, giving more than was fit to the Church, prejudiced the state of their Kingdoms, & commonwealth) made statutes of Mortmain, to stay men from putting any more of their lands and possessions into such dead hands, as would do them no service. But such is the infelicity of the sons of men, that commonly they run out of one extremity into another: and while they seek to avoid one evil they fall into another as bad or worse. The abuse of the riches and wealth the Church had in the time wherein Wickliff lived, made him so far dislike the present state of things: that he thought the contrary would right all again: as the manner of men is, when they goabout to straighten a thing that is crooked, to bow it as much the other way. But 
o De potest Eccle●…ast. considerate. ●…2.  Gerson, a right good religious & wise man bringeth in an even & just moderation, to interpose itself between these extremities, that neither men give so much to the Church, as to make her set her feet on the necks of Emperors, nor yet bring her to want and contempt which hath been the course of some men in our times, the unhappy sequels of whose proceedings, we see already in part; and it is to be feared, that posterity shall feel the smart of it in more grievous sort than we do.  
But to return to the matter whence we are a little digressed. These Lands, which devout and good people gave unto the Church, were at first possessed jointly by the Bishop and Clergy: but in process of time, a division was made and either knew distinctly their own, and had power to dispose of it; so that they did nothing prejudicial to the inheritance of their Churches, or tending to the hurt of them that were to succeed them. For (to restrain them from doing any such thing) the Bishop was forbidden by the laws of the Church, to let any thing belonging to his See, without the confirmation of his Clergy, and the Ministers abroad, to alienate, exchange, or demise any thing without the consent of the Bishop, and Patrons, or founders of the Churches. Otherwise, both the Bishop might dispose of himself alone, of that portion that belonged unto him, and the Ministers of their Tithes, Oblations, Obuentions, and Glebelandes, without the Bishops intermeddling with them. Only three things were due to the Bishop out of the livings of inferior Ministers. For first, as 
p De sacris Eccles. minist. & Benef. lib. 7. cap. 5.  Duarenus noteth, the Ministers of inferior Churches, were to give yearly a certain tribute or pension unto the Bishop; which Tribute or Pension was called Cathedraticum, quod Cathedrae, id est honori Episcopali, debeatur. Secondly, when the Bishop goeth to visit his Diocese, and the parishes abroad, the inferior Ministers are to give him entertainment, and provide for him: which is called Procuratio; Quia Ecclesiae Episcopum procurant, 〈◊〉. curant, alunt & tuentur, sicut pueri dicuntur procurari a nutricibus: That is, Procurations, because the Churches abroad, must take care, provide and procure, all things necessary for the Bishop's lodging, diet and entertainment. But because in these visitations some Bishops grew too chargeable, therefore the Council of 
q Sub. Alexand. 3. cap. 4.  Lateran limiteth what company a Bishop shall have with him, when he goeth to visit. Thirdly, in former times, the fourth part of the Tithes due to inferior Churches, and the fourth part of such things, as by Will men gave to them, was by the Ministers of these Churches, to be paid unto the Bishop, which thing is now grown out of use. Neither is there any other thing payable, and due to the Bishop, from inferior Ministers, but Procurations only.  
Thus were Church-lands, and tithes, (which at first were enjoyed by the Bishop and Clergy jointly) in time divided, and either of them had an entire power to dispose of the same, as seemed good unto them, without the intermeddling of the other: yet was there a difference made between such things as they had by right of inheritance or by the gift of their friends, and those things which they gained and gathered upon their Ecclesiastical livings. For sundry Canons provided, that Bishops and other Cleargymen, might make their last Will and Testament, and give to whom they pleased, that which came to them by inheritance, the gift of their friends, or which they gained upon the same. But that which they gained upon their Church-livings, they should leave to their Churches. But the Church of England, had a different custom: neither were these Canons ever of force in our Church: And therefore, her Bishops and Ministers might ever at their pleasure bequeath to whom they would, whatsoever they had gained, either upon their Church livings, or otherwise. And surely there was great reason it should be so, for seeing, The labourer is worthy of his hire, why should not they have power to give that which was yielded unto them as due recompense and reward of their labours, to whom they please. And how can it be excused from injustice and wrong, that men (spending a great part of their own Patrimony, in fitting themselves for the Ministry of the Church, which converted to the best advantage and benefit, might greatly have enriched them) should not have right and power to dispose of such things, as they have lawfully gained, out of those livings which are assigned to them, as the due reward of their worthy pains? Yet are there some▪ that are much more injurious to the holy Ministry. For 
r Doctr. fideili. 4. art. 3. cap. 42.  Waldensis out of a Monkish humour, thinketh that Cleargymen are bound to give away, whatsoever cometh to them, by inheritan ce, or by any other means; & that they ought not to possess any thing in private, and as their own. And allegeth to this purpose the saying of Origen, Hierome, and Bernard: that the Cleargy-man that hath any part or portion on earth, cannot have the Lord for his portion, nor any part in heaven. But Cardinal 
s De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 7.  Bellarmine answereth to these authorities, That these Fathers speak of such as content not themselves with that which is sufficient, but immoderately seek the things of this world; and proveth, that Cleargymen may have, and keep lands and possessions as their own. First because the Apostle prescribeth that such a one should be chosena Bishop 
t 1. Tim. 3. 4.  As governeth his own house well, and hath children in Obedience; which presupposeth that he hath something in private, and that is his own. Secondly, he cofirmeth the same, by the 
u Can. 40.  Canons of the Apostles, the Council of 
x Can. 48.  Agatha, Martinus Bracharensis in his 
y Canon. 15.  Decrees, and the first Council of 
z Canon. 1.  Hispalis; and further addeth, that a man having Lands, Possessions and Inheritance of his own, may spare his own living, and receive maintenance from the Church: for proof whereof he allegeth the Gloss, and john de 
a In cap. Clericos. 1. qu. 2.  Turrecremata, a Cardinal in his time of great esteem; and confirmeth the same by that saying of Christ, 
b Math. 10. 10.  The Labourer is worthy of his hire: and that of the Apostle Saint Paul, 
c 1. Cor. 9 7.  Who goeth to warfare at any time, at his own charge?   
FINIS.   

AN APPENDIX CONTAINING A DEFENSE OF SUCH PARTS AND PASSAGES OF THE FORMER four books, as have been either excepted against, or wrested to the maintenance of Romish errors.  
Divided into three parts.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.  
SINCE the time I presumed (good Christian Reader) to offer to thy view, what I had long before for my private satisfaction observed touching certain points, concerning the nature, definition, notes, visibility, and authority of the Church much questioned in our times: first there came forth a Pamphlet; entitled; The first part of Protestant proofs for Catholic Religion and recusancy: After that a larger discourse bearing the name of, A Treatise of the grounds of the old and new religion: & thirdly, the first motive of one Theophilus higgon's, lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his Religion. The Author of the first of these worthy works, undertaketh to prove out of the writings of Protestant Divines, published since the beginning of his Majesty's reign over this Kingdom, that his Romish faith and profession is Catholic. The second endeavoureth to make the world believe, that Protestants have no sure grounds of Religion. And the third, having made shipwreck of the faith, and forsaken his calling, laboureth to justify and make good that he hath done. Every of these hath been pleased for the advantage of the Romish cause, amongst the Works of many worthy men, to make use of that which I have written; the first seeking to draw me into the defence of that he knoweth I impugn: and the other two taking exceptions to certain parts and passages scattered here and there. Such is the insufficiency and weakness of the idle and empty discourses of these men, that I almost resolved to take no notice of them: But finding that the last of these good Authors fronteth his book with an odious title of Detection of falsehood in Doctor Humphrey, Doctor Field, and other learned Protestants, and addeth an Appendix, wherein he undertaketh to discover some notable untruethes of Doctor Field, and D. Morton, pretending that the consideration thereof moved him to be come a Papist; I thought it not amiss to take a little pains in showing the folly of these vain men, who care not what they write so they write something; and are in hope, that no man will trouble himself, so much as once to examine what they say: yet not intending to answer all that every of these hath said (for who would misspend his time, and weary himself in so fruitless a labour?) but that which concerneth myself, against whom they bend themselves in more special sort, than any other; as it seemeth because I have treatised as Master higgon's speaketh, of that subject, which is the centre and circumference in all religious disputes. And b●…cause Mr higgon's is pleased to let us know his name, whereas the other conceal theirs (it being no small comfort for a man to know his Adversary) I will do him all the kindness I can, & first begin with him, though he showed himself last, and from him proceed to the rest. What it is that maketh him so much offended with me, I cannot tell; but sure it is, he hath a good will to offend me: for he chargeth me with trifling, egregious falsehood, collusion, unfaithful dealing, abusing the holy Fathers, and I know not what else. But such is the shameless, and apparent untruth of these horrible imputations, that it is altogether needless to spend time, & bestow labour in the refutation of them. Yet because in the suspicion of heresy, falsehood and ufaithfull dealing in matters of faith, & religion, no man ought to be patient; I will briefly take a view of his whole book. And though his beginning be abrupt, and absurd, his whole discourse confused, and perplexed, and all that he doth, without order, or method; yet to give satisfaction to all, I will follow him the same way he goeth. I was unwilling (good Christian Reader) to trouble thee with such discourses; but the restless importunity of our adversaries, setting every one a work to say something against us, forceth me thereunto. Read without partiality, and judge between us, as God shall direct thee.   

THE FIRST PART, Containing a discovery of the vanity of such silly exceptions as have been taken against the former four Books, by one Theophilus higgon's.  

§. 1.  
THE first exception Master higgon's is pleased to take against me, is, that in all my four Books I have not graced any Father with the glorious title of Saint: his words are these. 
a Pag. 4▪  I am bold to entreat D Feildes leave to honour Augustine with the name of Saint, howsoever he hath not once vouchsafed in his four Books to grace him or any Father with this glorious title. It is strange that such a novice as he is, should dare to begin in so scornful a manner, with so shameless an untruth, as if he had been anold practitioner in the faculty of lying; but his desire (it seemeth) was to give as good proof at first as possibly he might, of the good service he is like to do, if his new Masters will be pleased to make use of him, & employ him as they do others. For otherwise he could not but know he might easily be convinced of a lie; for I have given the title of Saint to Augustine, that worthy and renowned Father, more than once, twice, or thrice; & I call Leo, blessed Leo, & so give him a title equivalent to that of Saint, & more often found in the writings of the Ancient. If happily it offend him, that every time I name any Father, I give him not the title of Saint, let him take the pains to peruse the writings of Alexander of Hales, Tho. Aquinas, Scotus, Durandus, Waldensis, Sixtus Senensis, and other of that sort, & I doubt not but he will soon perceive his folly, & cease to be angry with me any longer, unless he be resolved to condemn them also. This surely is a childish and a bad beginning, and may make us justly fear he will perform little in that which followeth.   

§. 2.  
THat which he hath in the next place, that 
a Pag. 12. &. 13  D Humphrey, and I, admit try all by the Fathers, is true, but to no purpose; for he and his consorts know right well, that the Fathers make nothing for them, and therefore they are soon weary of this course of trial, as often as they are brought to it, as it appeared by hardings writing against Bishop jewel. For whereas the challenge was made by that worthy Bishop, to try the matter of difference between the Romanists and us, not only by discourse of reason, or testimonies of Scripture, wherein all the world kn●…w our Adversaries to be too weak; but by authorities of the Ancient, wherein they were thought to have more strength. And whereas to that purpose he brought out against them all the renowned Fathers, and Bishops that lined in ancient times, the decrees of Counsels then holden, and the report of Historians: Harding could find none to speak for him, but Martialis, Abdias, Amphilochius, & such branded counterfeits, nor no other proofs of his cause, but the feigned Epistles of the ancient Popes, and shameless forgeries under the honourable names of holy Fathers, with other-like base stuff. The thing that offendeth Master higgon's in Doctor Humphrey, is, that he saith the Romanistes are like Thrasilaus, who, in a mad humour, took all the ships in the Attic haven to be his own, though he possessed not one vessel: or rather maketh the degree of their frenzy greater, because they see, and yet seeing dissemble, that they are destitute of all defence from the Fathers. Which saying of the worthy and renowned Doctor, is most true, and shall be defended against a far better man, than Theophilus higgon's, though childishly he charge him with Notable, and vast untruth in this behalf. Neither shall he, nor any of his great Masters ever prove, that I have untruely alleged the cause why Luther, Zuinglius, and other, at the first seemed to decline the trial by the Fathers: for the true cause was indeed, as I have alleged, the fear of the corruptions of the Father's works, and writings; and not any imagination, that the Fathers generally from the beginning were in error: which is so barbarous a conceit, that it cannot enter into the heart of any reasonable man. Neither was it any folly in them (as this wise man is pleased to censure the matter) to decline the trial by the Fathers in those times after barbarism, superstition, and tyranny had so long prevailed, and almost laid waste all learning, religion, and liberty of the Church, seeing Vincentius Lyrinensis prescribeth, that after Heresies have long prevailed, & grown inveterate, we 
Contra profanas hae●…corum nouitat●…s.  should fly to the Scriptures alone.   

SECT. 3.  
IN the third place (he saith) 
a Pag. 14. & 15.  He was desirous to understand, why, amongst other particulars, I should esteem it a folly, and inconstancy in the Romanistes to say that Purgatory is holden by Tradition and yet proved by Scripture. Which argueth, that the man is either very weak in understanding, or else maketh himself more simple, then indeed he is. For having showed, that the name of Tradition, sometime signifieth every part of Christian Doctrine, delivered from one to another, either by lively voice only, or by writing: sometimes such parts there of only, as were not written by them, to whom they were first delivered; and that our Adversaries, so understand the word in the controversies between them, and us. I note it as a contradiction amongst Papists, that some of them say, Purgatory is holden by Tradition, in that latter sense, & other, that it is proved by Scripture: as likewise that some of them allege for proof of unwritten Traditions the article of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost from them both; and others constantly affirm that those Articles may be proved out of Scripture. Now if to be written, and not to be written, to be holden by unwritten Tradition, or Tradition opposite to writing, and to be proved out of Scripture, be not contradictory in Master higgon's his apprehension; it is no great matter of what side he be.   

§ 4.  
IN the Fourth place he saith: 
a Pag. 17. & 18.  I accept the rule of Saint Augustine, that whatsoever is frequented by the universal Church, and was not instituted by Counsels; but was always holden, that is believed most rightly to be an Apostolical tradition. And that liberally I add, that whatsoever all, or the most famous and renowned in all ages, (or at the least is diverse ages) have constantly delivered, as received from them that went before them, no man doubting, or contradicting it, may be thought to be an Apostolical tradition. Whence he thinketh he may conclude inevitably by my allowance, that prayer for the dead may be thought to be an Apostolical tradition, many famous and renowned Fathers in diverse ages mentioning prayer for the dead, and none disliking or reproving it. For answer whereunto I say; that prayer for the resurrection, public acquittal in the day of judgement, and perfect consummation, and bliss of them that are fall'n asleep, in the sleep of death, is an Apostolical tradition, and so proved by the rule of Saint Augustine, and that other added by me; as likewise prayer made respectively to the passage hence, and entrance into the other World: and hereof there is no controversy between us, and our Adversaries. But prayer to ease, mitigate, suspend, or wholly take away the pains of any of them that are in hell, or to deliver men out of the supposed Purgatory of Papists, hath no proof from either of these rules, as shall appear by that which followeth: and therefore, this poor novice hath not yet learned his lesson aright, nor knoweth what it is he is to prove. But if he will be content to be informed by me, the thing he must prove (if he desire to gratify his new masters, & to maintain the Romish cause) is, that all the Fathers, or the most famous amongst them, from the beginning of Christianity, did in the several Ages wherein they lived, teach men to pray for the deliverance of their friends and brethren out of the pains of purgatory; which if he will undertake to do, he must bring some better proofs, than such as are taken from the mutual dependence and conjunction of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, which yet principally he seemeth to urge. For many Catholic Christians (whom this Gentleman must not condemn) made prayers for such, as they never deemed to be in Purgatory. Neither did the ancient Catholic Church (as he fond imagineth) in her prayers, and oblations for the dead, intent to relieve souls temporally afflicted in a penal estate; but in her general intention (whatsoever private conceits particular men had) desired only the resurrection, public acquittal, and perfect consummation, and blessedness of the departed, and respectively to the passage hence, and entrance into the other world, the utter deletion, and full remission of their sins, the perfect purging out of sin, being in, or immediately upon the dissolution in the last instant of this life, and the first of the next, and not while the soul and body remain conjoined. This is strongly proved, because the most ancient amongst the Fathers, make but two sorts of men dying, and departing out of this world, the one sinners, the other righteous; the one profane, the other holy: so Dionysius in his Hierarchy; so Epiphanius against Aerius; so Ambrose in his book De bono mortis: and Cyrill of Jerusalem in his Catechism; & all of them teach, that the souls of the Just are in a joyful, happy, and good estate, and present with God in an excellent sort, immediately upon their dissolution ●…nimam departure hence. 
b Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 7. patt 1.  Obdormitio sanctorum (saith Dionysius) est in laetitia, & spe immobili, quia pervenerunt ad finem certaminum, & norunt se totos percepturos Christi-formem requiem: that is, The falling a sleep of the holy ones, is in joy & gladness, and immoveable hope, because they are come to the end of their combats; and again, they know they shall altogether be partakers of the rest of Christ, being come to the end and bound of this life: so that they are filled with holy joy and gladness, and with great delight and pleasure, enter the way of the most happy regeneration. Whereupon the friends, and kinsmen of any faithful man departed, when they carry him to his bed of rest, pronounce him blessed, as indeed he is, having obtained the wished end of victory; and send forth Hymns of gratulation to GOD, that hath made him a conqueror, and praying that they also may be admitted into the like rest, carry him to the Bishop to be crowned with garlands, who 
c Eodem cap. part. 3.  praiseth the departed as being in a most happy condition; and amongst other, the party presently dead as being a companion of Saints, and partaker of like happiness with them. After this his body is laid up with other already fallen a sleep in the Lord; comfortable places of Scripture are read, touching the resurrection, and blessed hope of the just; and the Bishop prayeth GGD to forgive unto him all his sins committed through humane infirmity, and to place him in the land of the living in the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac and jacob. Thus doth Dionysius teach, that the souls of all faithful ones are at rest with GOD immediately upon their departure hence; and yet showeth, that the Bishop was wont to pray for the departed at the time he was brought to his bed of rest; which things seeming not well to agree together; he demandeth what good the prayer of the Bishop doth the dead; seeing every one shall receive the rewards of the things he did in this life, whether good, or bad; and prayers have no force to put any man after death, into any other estate then that he is worthy of, when he dieth. Whereunto he answereth, that by desiring & wishing that good to the departed which GOD hath promised, and of his mercy undoubtedly will do unto them, he accompanieth them to the presence of GOD, and the place of rest which he hath appointed for them; solemnly conveying them thither with his desires, and as having the power of binding and losing, and discerning between the holy and profane, separateth in a sort (by the solemn good wishes he sendeth after them) such as GOD hath adjudged to eternal happiness, from other not partakers of like precious hope with them: admitting the one (as dear unto GOD) by way of declaration, and convoy, into their resting place, and rejecting the other. So that the prayers Dionysius speaketh of; were made respectively to the departure hence, and first entrance into the other world, & were nothing else, but an accompanying of the faithful departed to the Throne of God, with desire of that utter deletion of sin, and full remission of the same, which is not to be found but in the dissolution of soul and body, and in the first entrance into the other world; but of any relieving men temporally afflicted in a penal estate after this life, he never dreamt. 
d In fide lib. 5.  Irenaeus is of opinion, that the souls of the faithful go into a certain invisible place, and are there stayed till the Resurrection: but of Purgatory (as 
e In argumento lib. 〈◊〉.  Erasmus noteth) he maketh no mention. 
f In respons. ad quaest. Orthod. quaest. 7.  justine Martyr teacheth, that after the departure out of the body, there is presently a separation made between the souls of the just, and the unjust, and that they are carried into places worthy of them, and fit for them: that is to say, the souls of the just into Paradise, where they enjoy the company of Angels and Archangels, as also the sight of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST: but those of the unjust and wicked, into infernal places. 
g De Trinit. in initio.  Tertullian saith, There is a place whether the souls of good and evil men are carried, and where they have a kind of fore-judging and discerning of that which shall be adjudged to them in the last judgement. And 
h Lib. de 〈◊〉 cap. 33. & 34.  again he saith, That every soul immediately upon the departure hence, is in this appointed invisible place, having there either pain, or ease, and refreshing: that there the rich man is in pain, and the poor in a comfortable estate: for, saith he, why should we not think, that the souls are tormented, or refreshed in this invisible place apppointed for them in expectation of the future judgement? In quadam usurpatione & candida eius. The judgement doubtless is begun there: So that neither is good altogether wanting to the innocent, nor the sense and freling of evil to the nocent. here we see Tertullian maketh but two sorts of men departing hence: and that he thinketh, that presently after their departure hence, the good are in a kind of imperfect possession or enjoying of that good they look for hereafter: and the evil and wicked in a kind of state wherein they already begin to taste of those everlasting miseries that shall swallow them up, in the day of judgement. So that according to his opinion, there is no Purgatory nor state of temporal pain and affliction after this life, out of which there is hope of escape or deliverance. Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration made in the praise of Caesarius after many comforts against the sorrows conceived for the loss of so worthy a man: addeth this as the chiefest of all other. Verbis sapientum adducor ut credam generosam omnem, Deoque charam animam; posteaquam corporis vinculis soluta hinc excesserit, protinus, bonum quod eam manet, persentientem, & contemplantem, (utpote eo quod mentem caligine obducebat, vel purgato, vel abiecto, vel quo verbo eares appellanda sit nescio) mirabili quadam voluptate affici, & exultare, atque hac vita veluti gra●…issimo quodam ergastulo relicta, excussisque compedibus, quibus animi penna deprimi solebat, hilarem ad Dominum suum convolare, beatitudinem recondita Imaginatione quadam iam percipere. That is, I am induced and inoved by the sayings of the wise to believe, that every generous soul, and such as is beloved of GOD, presently after the losing from the bonds of the body, and departure hence, (that which darkened the mind, being either purged out, or cast from it, or done away in what sort I cannot well express) beginneth sensibly to discern and behold that good, which remaineth for it, to be filled with wonderful delights, and to leap for joy: and that leaving this life as a most grievous prison, and having cast off those fetters, that depressed and held her down, desiring to mount upon high with her silver wings, she flieth joy fully to her Lord and presently in a certain apprehension, beginneth to taste of that hidden happiness, that shall be revealed. 
i Haeres. 75.  Epiphanius speaking of the Godly departed, remembered in the prayers of the Church, saith, they are and live with God. 
k De bono mortis cap. 10. 11.  Ambrose is more full to this purpose then any of the former, for in his book de bono mortis, first he saith, all souls remain in certain habitations till the day of judgement, whence they shall be called forth in that great day of resurrection. Secondly, that till the fullness of time appointed, they all are holden in an expectation of the reward due unto them, & are not in full possession of it. Thirdly, that in the mean time neither the souls of the wicked are without some present sense of evil, nor the other without some enjoying of good. The joy of the good and righteous he showeth to be in respect of the victory which they have obtained over the flesh, the divine testimony which they have in their consciences of their former walking in the ways of God, making them not to fear the future judgement: their escape out of the prison of the body of death, the liberty they are come to, and the possessing of the promised inheritance etc. Hear we see plainly, that Ambrose maketh but two sorts of men, two sorts of souls separated from the body, and two estates, assuring us that all good faithfull-ones ordained to eternal life are presently after their separation in a state of happiness, boldly hastening to the view and and sight of that God whom they have so carefully served, to which purpose he allegeth that of the Prophet to the Angel: shall there be given a time to souls after they are separated that they may see the thing thou hast spoken of? and the Angel's answer. Seven days shall their liberty 
Esdr. 4.  endure, that in those seven days they may see the things, that have been spoken, and after they shall be gathered into their dwelling places: out of which (as I noted before) he thinketh they shall not be called till the resurrection, so that according to the opinion of Saint Ambrose there is no place of temporal pain and punishment after this life appointed for the souls of men dying in state of Grace.  
Neither was this the opinion of Dionysius, Irenaeus, justin Martyr, Tertullian, Nazianzen, Epiphanius and Ambrose only, but all the ancient were of the same judgement, touching the state of the faithful departed: and therefore never any of them made any prayers for the delivering of them out of temporal pain and punishment; but as it hath been before observed, they made prayers for them respectively to their passage out of this world, and the entrance into the other; as also for their resurrection, public acquittal in the day of judgement, and perfect consummation. This the Mass-book and all the prayers that are found in any ancient books of Ecclesiastical prayers, do clearly show. George Cassander hath published a book of Ecclesiastical prayers, gathered out of the old Liturgies and Books of divine service that he could meet with: amongst which there are many, pro commendatione animae: some few of them I will produce for example. The first. We beseech thy clemency, O God, mercifully to receive the soul of thy servant, returning unto thee; Let Michael the Angel of thy covenant be present with it, and vouchsafe to place it amongst thy Saints and holy ones in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, that being freed and delivered from the Princes of darkness, and the places of punishment, he may be confounded with no errors of his first birth, of ignorance, or of his own iniquity, & frailty, but that rather he may be acknowledged of thine, and enjoy the rest of holy blessedness, and that when the day of the great judgement shall come, being raised up amongst thy Saints and chosen ones, he may be satisfied with the glory of the clear beholding of thee. The 2d▪ Vouchsafe O Lord to give to thy servant a lightsome place. a place of refreshing, and quiet; Let him pass by the gates of hell, & the punishments of darkness; let him remain in the mansions of the Saints, and in holy light, which of old thou promisedst to Abraham, & to his seed: let his spirit sustain no hurt; but when the great day of resurrection & reward shall come, vouchsafe to raise him, together with thy Saints & chosen ones: blot out & do away his sins even to the uttermost farthing, & let him attain the life of immortality with thee. The 3●; Receive the soul of thy servant which thou leadest out of the dirty & miry gulf of this world, to the heavenly country: receive it into the bosom of Abraham. bedew it with the dew of refreshing: & let it be kept apart from the cruel burning of the fiery & flaming hell. The 4●: Grant that thy servant may escape the place of punishment, the fire of hell, & the flames of the lowest gulf. The like may be showed in the rest, for they are all framed to the same purpose, forth escaping of hell, the power of the Prince of darkness, & the devouring gulf of eternal condemnation: all which things, in the judgement of our Adversaries themselues, are granted unto men dying in the faith of Christ, & state of grace, in the very entrance into the other world, and the first instant of the next life: so that all the prayers that we find in the ancient, were made respectively to the passing hence & entrance into the other world, with desire of the Resurrection, and perfect consummation which we expect in the last day: and because this passage is often past, & they that are departed, already entered into their rest, before their friends whom they leave behind them, can send so many good wishes after them as they desire; it was an ordinary thing with the Ancient, in their prayers to acknowledge and profess they were persuaded the thing was already granted and performed, which they desired: and to beseech GOD notwithstanding, to accept their voluntary devotions, & good affections. In this sort 
l Confess. lib. 9 cap. 13.  Augustine prayeth for Monica, his Mother, That God will keep her from the powers and Princes of darkness, and remit her sins: And yet saith, He believeth it is already done that he asketh. So 
m Vbi suprà.  Nazianzen professeth his assured persuasion, that Caesarius is with God, and yet commendeth him to God. And the like we find in 
n Tomo. 3. in orat. de obitu Valentiniani.  Ambrose touching Valentinian. By all which it is evident, that the Ancient prayed not to deliver the departed out of Purgatory, or any estate of temporal affliction; but on their obite days, acknowledged the goodness of God towards them, preventing all desires of men, declared their readiness to entreat for them, if they were in need or danger, and not past before they could send their good wishes after them, and expressed their desires of the perfecting and accomplishing of all that which is yet wanting to them. And as the Ancient were wont to pray for their brethren and friends on the days of their obites, and the deposition of their bodies, respectively to their passage hence, and the escaping of the dangers of hell, and eternal death in the same: so in like sort 
o Bellarm. de Purgato●…io. lib 2. cap. 5.  in process of time, in those days wherein their obites were remembered and by return of times represented to them, they used the same form of prayer again, as if they had been but even then in the passage hence, and in danger of hell, and the powers of darkness. But as on the days of the birth, circumcision, apparition, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, (for so we call the days answering to these, & representing them to us, signs and remembrances, carrying the names of the things themselves,) men so speak, asif God did then send his Son into the world to be borne of a woman, to be made under the Law, to suffer, overcome, and triumph over death, & by ascending into Heaven, to take possession thereof for us: and yet mean not (as the words may seem to import) that Christ doth newly take flesh, and is borne of the Virgin, etc. But that he is borne unto us, and we made partakers of the benefits of his birth circumcision, passion, etc. So in the days wherein they remembered the obites of their brethren and friends as then present, and prayed for them as then in passage hence, and in danger to be swallowed up of hell & destruction; they desired not that which the words may seem to import, (for that was granted to them on their dying days, or else they are uncapable of it for ever:) but that which is yet wanting to them. In which sense the words of that prayer in the Mass-book must be understood: 
p Offic. pro defunctis in Anniuersarijs.  Lord jesus, King of glory, deliver the souls of all faithful ones departed, from the hand of hell, and from the deep lake: deliver them from the mouth of the Lion, that the lowest hell swallow them not up, and that they fall not into the dungeons of utter darkness: but let thy Standard-bearer, holy Michael, present them into the place of holy Light, which of old thou didst promise to Abraham and to his seed. For these dangers of falling into the deep lake, the mouth of the Lion, the dungeons of utter darkness, and being swallowed up of the lowest Hell, the dead in Christ escaped in the day and time of their dissolution: neither is there any thing to be wished farther unto them in this behalf, but that public acquittal, and full and perfect escape in the day of judgement, according to that other prayer found in the Missal: 
q Vbi suprá.  O gracious God, which called'st back the first man to eternal glory; O good shepherd, which broughtest back the lost sheep upon thy shoulder to the fold; Righteous judge, when thou shalt come to judge, deliver from death the souls of them whom thou hast redeemed: Deliver not the souls of them which confess unto thee, unto the beasts, forsake them not for ever. In all these prayers there is no word of petition for the deliverance of the dead out of any pains or punishments, but for their escaping, avoiding, declining, and not falling into hell, eternal condemnation, the power of Satan, and the mouth of the Lyon.  
It is true, that some long since began to pray to deliver men out of pains and punishments; or to suspend, mitigate, and ease their pains: but in such sort, as the Romanists dare not pray. It was an opinion of many, whootherwisewere right believers, that all Christians professing the truth in Christ, how ill soever they live, shall be saved in the end. Frustrà nonnulli (saith S. Augustine) immò quamplurimi, aeternam damnatorum poenam, 
r Aug. in Ench. ad Laur. c. 111.  & cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos, humano miserantur affectu: atque ita futurumesse non credunt: that is; there are some, nay, there are exceeding many, who out of an humane affection commiserate the eternal punishments of the damned, and their torments that are without ceasing: these men thought the sayings of CHRIST and his Apostles concerning the eternal punishments of the wicked, were uttered rather minacitèr, then veracitèr: and that they rather show what men according to their deserving should suffer, than what indeed they shall suffer. Hence it came, that many did pray for the deliverance of men out of hell, that died in mortal sin. This opinion 
s De dormientibus.  Damascene followed, and whereas the Prophet asketh, Who shall confess unto thee O Lord in hell? he answereth, that the threats of the judge are terrible, but his unspeakable mercy exceedeth all: and is of opinion, that Christ when he went down to hell, delivered such as had lived honestly; though without the knowledge of God, preaching unto them, and persuading them to believe in him: which he saith, is not to contradict the Prophet, but to show that God is overcome of his mercy, as he was in the case of the inhabitants of Ninive, Ezechias, and Achab, to whom that was threatened, which yet mercy stayed that it should not be executed. This mercy he thinketh shall prevail and overcome, till the time of retribution come, and the time of negotiation be past; so that till the day of judgement, we may help them that are in hell, but that afterwards there shall be no place left for the relieving of any there; or the delivering of any thence. The same 
t Vbi supra.  Damascene teacheth, that all men when they depart hence, are weighed in the balance, and that if their welldoing and virtues in the right scale▪ weigh down the other, they shall be brought into a place of refreshing: that if the scales be equal, mercy carrieth it; if the evil doings in the left scale be too heavy, mercy supplieth that which is wanting to the weight of the right scale: yea, that though their evil doings do much exceed their virtues; when they are weighed, yet the exceeding goodness and mercy of GOD shall sway the matter for their good: and pronounceth, that in whomsoever any conscience of good at any time appeared, GOD will stir up the hearts of men to pray for them, that they may be delivered, and that none shall perish everlastingly, but such as lived so vilely, that no man sendeth a good wish after them when they are gone. Hereupon he bringeth forth sundry examples of men delivered out of the hell of the damned by the prayers of the living: for first, he saith, that all the East and West know, that Gregory the Great, prayed for Traian an Infidel, and a persecutor of Christians in the time wherein he lived, almost five hundred years after his death, moved so to do, by the consideration of some virtues that were in him: and received this comfortable answer from God, I have heard thy prayers, and do pardon Traian, but see hereafter thou offer no more sacrifice unto me for any godless, unbelieving, and profane person. Secondly, he reporteth that Tecla the Protomartyr, by the prayers which she poured forth to God while she lived, delivered Falconilla out of hell, who was a worshipper of Idols, and averse from Christian religion as long as she lived. Another Tale he telleth of a dissolute man, continuing in a wicked course of life even till his end: who appeared to a good Father after his death, in flaming fire, first up to the neck, afterwards upon the prayers that were made for him, up to the girdle only: so finding ease and deliverance out of his torments. This opinion was very prevailing in Augustine's time, and therefore with all modesty he opposeth himself against it, & showeth himself willing to yield as much to them that were so minded, as possibly he might; and saith, 
u Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 67.  if they would only have the pains of the damned to be mitigated, or wholly suspended till the day of judgement, and acknowledge them to be eternal, he would not greatly strive with them. Upon this conceit of the mitigation or suspension of the pains of such as are in hell, many in former times made prayers for the damned in hell. 
x Vbi supra.  Damascene reporteth, out of the sacred history of Palladius to Lausus, that Macharius the Great, praying oftentimes for the dead, and carefully seeking to know, whether his prayers did help or profit them any thing or not, a certain dry skull of a dead man, who had been an Idolater, which by chance lay in the way, by the commandment of God, broke forth into the lively voice of a man, saying: O Macharius, when thou offerest up thy prayers for the dead, we for the time find some ease. 
y Sixtus Sen●…sis Bilioth. Sanctae. lib. 6. annotat. 47.  Praepositi●…us Presbyter of the Church of Leoden, was of opinion, that prayers for the damned may be multiplied in such sort, that in process of time they may be freed from all pain and punishment, though not perpetually, as Origen thought: yet till the time of the general resurrection, at what time (their bodies resumed) they shall be cast into everlasting punishments, without all hope of any refreshing or comfort. 
z Ibid.  Gilbertus Pictaviensis supposed, that there is something continually taken away from the pains of the damned, by the prayers and oblations of the faithful, without any consumption of them, or utter taking of them away: as infinite proportionable parts may be taken from a Line, without consuming of it, though itself be finite. 
a Ibld.  Gulielmus Antisiodorensis thinketh, that prayers be available and helpful to the damned, not to diminish or interrupt rheir torments, but to strengthen the sufferers, that so the burden, that lieth on them, may be borne by them with the less pain: as, if a man give meat to him that is ready to faint under his burden, or wine that cheereth his heart, he maketh him the better able to bear it, though he no whit diminish the weight of it.  
Thus we see, there is no such 
b Book 1. part, 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  mutual dependence and connexion of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, as Theophilus higgon's childishly imagineth: and that many prayed for the dead, that never dreamt of Purgatory, some praying only for the resurrection, public acquittal, and perfect consummation of the dead, and respectively to their passage hence, and entrance into the other world, for the remission of their sins, and their escaping of hell, and everlasting destruction: other, out of an erroneous conceit, for the deliverance of men dead in mortal sin, out of the hell of the damned, or for mitigation of their pains, or at least, the suspension of them for a time, as Damascene and sundry others before mentioned: and therefore the poor novice is to be put in mind, that he grossly abuseth himself, and others, when so sadly he citeth Saint john 
c Pag. 59  Damascen, for proof of the deliverance of men out of purgatory, that speaketh no word of any such thing, but of the deliverance out of hell, or the mitigation of the pains of them that be there; which he should not do that talketh of nothing but falsehood, notable untruethes and collusion in our writers, especially seeing 
d De Purgato. rio. lib. 2. c. 8.  Bellarmine's grace telleth him, that the author of the book under the name of Damascen, writeth so absurdly, that we may assure ourselves Damascen was not the author of i●… Having thus out of the writings of the Fathers delivered the sense and purpose of the ancient Church in praying for the dead, it is strange that this shameless companion should charge me 
e Pag. 31.  with collusion, there being no part of that I have said, that he or any other can except against, nor any thing concealed by me that is found in the Ancient, touching this point. I would desire him therefore to tell me if he can, wherein I informed him amiss, as he saith I did? for first I showed that there was an Ancient custom of commemorating the departed, of rehearsing their names and offering the sacrifice of praise for them, to express the assurance Christian men have of the immortality of the soul, and their hope of the resurrection. Secondly, that this sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is of praise and thanksgiving, was offered for the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and the blessed Mother of Christ, and every soul at rest in the faith of Christ: for proof whereof I produce the Liturgy that goeth under the name of Chrysostome. Thirdly, that the Ancient prayed for the souls of men in their passage hence, and entrance into the other world. Fourthly, that they prayed for the resurrection; public acquittal in the day of judgement, and perfect consummation of the departed: all which customs and observations I allow and approve. Fiftly, that some prayed for the remission, or mitigation of the pains of men in hell. Sixtly, that some other out of a conceit that there is no judgement yet passed, and that none of the just enter into heaven till the resurrection, prayed for their admittance into those Heavenly Palaces, and into the presence of God: but that none of the Ancient ever prayed to deliver men out of purgatory. What collusion or what unfaithful dealing doth Master higgon's find in any of these passages? yet the faithless and perfidious Apostata having 
f Pag. 32.  as he saith, experience of my unfaithful dealing, directed himself to four considerations; whereof the first is, that it is vanity in us Protestants to accept and refuse the Liturgy of Chrysostome at our pleasure; the second, that Chrysostome did pray for the dead; the third, that it was by way of thanksgiving, and not of petition, that the Church offered sacrifice to God for the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, etc. the fourth, that in the Liturgy of Chrysostome there is prayer for the dead: To the first of these wise considerations I answer, that we do not accept and refuse the Liturgy of Chrysostome at our pleasures, but that we admit it so far forth only, as we find the things it hath in it confirmed out of the indubitate writings of the Ancient, and in other things rely not much upon the credit of it. Now that which I allege it for, hath proof out of Epiphanius, and others; and therefore I might rightly allege it as I did, and doubt of the credit and authority of it in some other things. To the second we say, Chrysostome did pray for the dead, not to deliver them out of Purgatory, whereof he never dreamt, nor any Greek Father that ever lived, but in such a sort as Master higgon's dareth not pray; namely, for the ease of men in hell. Chrysostome, saith 
g Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 6. annot. 47.  Sixtus Senensis, in his three and thirtieth Homily upon Matthew, interpreting these words, The damsel is not dead but sleepeth, treating of the care that is to be taken for the dead, fell in a sort, into the opinion of them, who think that the suffrages and prayers that are made here in the Church, do profit as well those that are damned in hell, as those that enjoy eternal glory. For there he hath these words: If many barbarous nations do use to consume in fire, together with the dead, the things that pertain to them; how much more oughtest thou to deliver to thy son departed, such things as he possessed, not to be burnt to ashes, but that they may make him more glorious! Supposest thou that he went hence defiled with spots and stains? give unto him the things he had when he lived, that he may wash away those spots. Supposest thou, that he departed in righteousness? give them to him for the increase of his reward. And again, that prayers and oblations do bring some refreshing to them that departed hence without repentance; the same Chrysostome seemeth to show in his third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians; where he speaketh to them that bewail the dead, more than is seemly, in this sort: Bewail them that died in the midst of great riches, and procured with their riches, no consolation to their souls, who when they had power to wash away their sins, would not so do: let us weep for those, but with seemly modesty: let us help them what we can, let us procure unto them some help, though small: yet let us help them: but how, or in what sort? let us pray, and exhort others to pray for them: let us without ceasing give alms to the poor for them: this thing hath some comfort doubtless, etc. To the third consideration, I say, that the Ancient offered for the patriarchs, Prophets; Apostles, etc. by way of thanksgiving principally, but in a sort also by way of petition: which this good man also 
h Par. 33.  confesseth, and bringeth Gersons authority to prove they might do so: who 
i Part. 1. lect. 2. super Marcum.  saith, that as it is not absurdly delivered by the learned Divines, that there is an addition or increase of accidental felicity in the Saints: so it is not inconvenient, if in this respect also we recommend them to God in our Devotions. To which purpose it seemeth to be, that 
k In lib. Sacrament. citat. 〈◊〉 Sixto Senens.  Gregory ordaineth, that men shall pray in this sort, in the sacred mysteries 
l 6. Biblioth. Sanctae annotat. 47.  of the Eucharist: We have received, O Lord, the divine mysteries, which as they profit thy Saints for their glory, so we beseech thee that they may profit us for our health. And Chrysostome willeth the living parents to give something out of their substance to their children departed, though they suppose they are departed in the state of righteousness, for the increase of their reward. Touching the fourth and last consideration of this considerate and advised young man, we confess that Chrysostome, or the Author of the Liturgy, that goeth under his name, whosoever he was, teacheth men to pray unto God, to remember all them that are fall'n asleep in the hope of the resurrection of eternal life, and to make them to be at rest, where the light of his countenance is seen: But that this form of prayer must be understood in the same sense that the other in the Missal is, wherein men are taught to pray to God, to deliver the souls of all faithful ones departed from the hand of hell, from the deep lake, and from the mouth of the Lion, that the lowest hell swallow them not up, and that they fall not into the dungeons of utter darkness: or else as proceeding from that opinion that 
f Bibliothec. sanctae. lib. 6. annot. 345.  Sixtus Senensis speaketh of, that the souls of the Just are not in heaven-happinesse, till the resurrection: and not of any deliverance out of Purgatory. For there is not any the least signification of the desire of easing men temporally afflicted in another world, expressed in any prayer found in Chrysostom's Liturgy. Neither doth it any way contrary any thing that we profess that he teacheth men to pray to God, to grant; what is yet wanting to the faithful departed, or to such as are alive, at the suit & supplication of the holy patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, etc. For seeing it is confessed by us, that the Saints in heaven do pray for us in a generality, we may desire of God the granting of such things as we or others need, not only upon our own suit, but much more for that there are so many supplyants' to him for us, not in earth alone, but in heaven also, though without sense or knowledge of our particular wants. So that there is nothing found in Chrysostome, either touching prayer for the dead, or invocation of Saints, that maketh any thing for the confirmation of popish errors. For neither doth Chrysostome in that Liturgy, pray for the ease of men in Purgatory; neither doth he invocate any Saint, but calleth upon God only, though not without hope of being heard the rather, for that not only the faithful on earth, but the Saints in heaven also make petition for him. But Master higgon's asketh 
g Pag. 33.  why I concealed these things? To whom I answer that I did not conceal any of them: For, howsoever citing some other parts of Chrysostom's Liturgy, to another purpose, I had no reason to bring in these passages, being altogether impertinent to my purpose, and the matter in hand; yet in other places, I have showed at large the ancient practice in all these things: and therefore this seduced runagate, whom Satan the tempter hath beguiled, had no reason to compare me to the Tempter, leaving out certain words in the text he alleged unto Christ.   

§. 5.  
IN the next place he 
a Pag. 34.  objecteth to us the heresy of Aerius, condemned by Augustine, amongst many other impious heresies; and Augustine's conclusion, that whosoever maintaineth any of the heretical opinions condemned by him, is no Catholic Christian: and telleth us, that this censure toucheth us very near: but that I demean myself plausibly, and artificially, to avoid the pressure of that difficulty which is too heavy for me to bear. Whereunto I briefly answer, that I demean not myself artificially, to avoid the force of any truth, which I esteem & value above all treasures in the world, but in all sincerity unfold those things which Papists seek to wrap up in perplexed and intricate disputes, to the entangling of the Readers: For I show that the naming of the names of the departed, the offering of the sacrifice of praise for them, the praying for their resurrection, public acquittal, & perfect consummation and bliss in the day of Christ; yea the praying for their deliverance from the hand of hell, & the mouth of the Lion, & the utter deletion & remission of their sins, respectively to their passage hence, & first entrance into the other world, are not disliked by us: and that thus far the general intention of the Church extended: but that, to pray for the deliverance of men out of hell, or for the mitigation or suspension of the punishments, that are in hell, was but the private devotion of some particular men, doubtfully & eroneously extending the public prayers of the Church; farther than they were meant and intended by her; and that in this particular they fell from the truth: which, if M. Theophilus higgon's shall deny, & justify such kind of prayers for the dead, we will be bold to call him by his new name Theomisus. But he is desirous 
b Pag. 3.  to know of me, or any other, without lies, obscurities, and circuitions, whether Cyrill of Jerusalem, concurring absolutely with the Papists in this point of prayer for the dead, and Augustine agreeing with him, fell away from the truth or not? That he professeth himself an enemy to lies, obscurities, and circuitions, the best sanctuaries of their evil cause, I greatly marvel, & fear, that if he give over the advantage, which he and his companions are wont to make thereof, this his first book will be his last. But in that he saith, Cyrill of Jerusalem concurreth absolutely with the Papists, in the matter of prayer for the dead, and Augustine with him, he doth as beseemeth him: for he uttereth lies, and untruths, which before unadvisedly he condemned. For first, it is most certain, that 
c Cateches●….  Cyrill maketh but two sorts of men departing out of this life: sinners, & righteous: and that he thinketh, as Chrysostome also doth, and after them Damascene, & many other; that wicked and sinful men in hell, may find some ease, & be relieved, by the prayers of the living; but of Purgatory he speaketh not. Touching Augustine, he dissenteth altogether from this opinion of Chrysostome, Cyrill, and Damascene, & 
d August. Enchir. ad Laur. cap. 110.  thinketh, that the prayers of the Church, for such as excelled in goodness, are thanksgivings to God: for such as died impenitently in grievous sins, comforts of the living, but no helps of the dead: for those that were neith●… exceeding good, nor exceeding evil, propitiations and means to obtain favour and remission. But whether they of this middle sort be in any penal estate after death, or whether by the mercy of God, and working of his grace, the prayers of the living accompanying them, they be freed from sin, and the punishment of it, in the first entrance into the other world, he resolveth nothing: and therefore there was no cause, why this good man, 
e Pag. 113.  reflecting, as he saith, upon my assertion, should be amazed to behold such a repugnancy between these things, to wit, Augustine ran doubtingly into the opinion of Purgatory: and yet he affirmeth, there is no doubt but that some sins are remitted in the other world, and t●…at some souls may be relieved by prayer. For in the judgement of wiser men than Mast●…r higgon's, these things imply no contradiction; and therefore the Grecians admit the latter of them, and yet deny Purgatory. Yea, in their Apology touching Purgatory, they say, if there be remission of sins after this life, there is no enduring of the punishments due to sin, it being one thing to have remission of a sin, or fault, and another to suffer the extremity of punishment it deserveth. That there is therefore remission of sins of a middle sort of men, after this life, in the entrance into the other world, Augustine made no doubt; and to that purpose he alleged the saying of Christ, concerning the sin that is neither remitted in this world, nor the other: from thence to infer, that some sins are remitted after this life. But whether there be any Purgatory-punishments after this life, or not, he was ever doubtful: as appeareth by sundry places in his works, where he saith, 
f Enchrid. ad Laurent. c. 69.  Perhaps there is some such thing: it is not incredible that there is some such thing: and whether there be or not, it may be found out, or it may be hid: neither will it follow, that because he maketh three estates of men dying, whereof some are so good, that we have rather cause to give God thanks for them, then to pray: others so ill, that they cannot be relieved: and a third sort, that need our prayers, and may be relieved by them; that therefore there is a third place, wherein they are to be temporally afflicted. For all this may be in the passage hence, and entrance into the other world; the prayers of the living accompanying them, and God purging out that which is impure, and remitting that which offendeth him, in this middle sort of men, even in that first entrance into the state of the other world. And surely Augustine himself, in his own 
g Confess. li●… 9 cap, 13.  prayer for Monicha, his mother, never speaketh one word of releasing her out of pain or punishment; but prayeth God not to enter into judgement with her, to suffer none to divide her from him, and take her out of his protection, to keep her, that neither the lion, nor dragon, by force, or subtlety, interpose himself, for that she will not plead that she hath not trespassed, lest she should be convinced and the accuser should prevail against her, and get her to himself: but that her trespasses are remitted to her by Christ: so showing that he made his prayer for her respectively to the state she was in, in her passage and while she stood to be judged: and because this might seem to be already past, and the things he asked performed, when he prayed, he saith, he thinketh God hath already done that he prayeth for, but beseecheth him to accept his voluntary devotions. Two places there are found in Augustine's works, where he seemeth peremptorily to affirm, that there is a penal state, and purging fire after this life: the first is in his one and twentieth book De 
h Cap. 24.  civitate Dei: where he saith, When the dead shall rise again, there shall some be found to whom after they have suffered punishments, mercy shall be showed, that they be not cast into eternal fire. But the words (as Viues noteth upon the same place) are not found in some ancient manuscripts, nor in that printed at Friburge. The other place is in his 
i Cap. 20.  second book De Genesi, against the Manichees. The words are these. He who happily shall not till his field, but shall suffer it to be overgrown with thorns and briers, hath in this life the curse of his life in all his works: and, after this life, he shall have either the fire of Purgation or eternal punishment: which words being spoken of them that till not their field, that suffer it to be overgrown with thorns and briers, whose whole life is accursed in all they do, and not of such good men to whom some imperfection cleaveth, are uttered according to that opinion then prevailing of deliverance out of hell; which Augustine in that place would not stand to discuss, but elsewhere refuteth at large. So that the things t●… are found in Augustine clearly resolved on, are only these, First, that some sins are remitted after this life: which we grant, understanding that remission to be in the first entrance into the other world. Secondly, that they are only the lesser sins that are thus remitted after this life, and not those more grievous wherein men die without repentance, for these exclude from the Kingdom of Heaven. Thirdly, that prayers do help men dying in those lesser sins. Which likewise we acknowledge to be true, if such prayers be conceived, and understood as made respectively to the entrance into the other world. Fourthly, that there is no deliverance of men dying in the state of mortal sin out of hell, and that no prayers can benefit them in this behalf. In all these points his resolution is full and clear, but whether the pains of men damned in hell may be eased, mitigated or suspended for a time by the prayers of the living, he 
k Ench●…id ad Lau●…entium. cap. 112.  professeth he will not strive, so that the wrath of God be acknowledged to remain eternally upon them. Neither is this contradictory to that which he hath 
l Ibid. cap. 110.  elsewhere, that the prayers of the living are no helps of such as are damned, but only comforts of the living: For he meaneth that they are no helps able to free and deliver them out of that state of punishment, wherein they are: but whether they may some way ease them, or not, he will not much contend: and therefore he saith, that whom prayers profit, either they profit them for full remission, as they do men dying in the lesser sins: or that their damnation may be the more tolerable, and easy. The Papists 
m higgon's. pag. 29.  applying these latter words of more tolerable damnation, to the state of souls in their supposed Purgatory, is absurd: for they cannot in any proper sense be said to be damned. These things being thus distinguished, we see there is nothing found in Augustine for confirmation of the Popish error, touching Purgatory: that no testimonies of Augustine could seal up M. higgon's his heart in this idle conceit of Purgatory, as untruly he 
n Pag. 30.  saith they did: that we no way oppose ourselves against the universal resolution and practice of the whole Church, which to do, Augustine pronounceth insolent madness: that we no way contradict this worthy Father, reporting to us the doctrine and tradition of the Church: and consequently that higgon's ridiculously, and idly; 
o Pag. 36.  asketh whether Augustine, or I, know better the sense and judgement of Anti●…uity? thereupon childishly 
p Pag. 37.  making a comparison between him and me: for I make no question, but he knew the sense of Antiquity right well; neither do I descent from him in any thing that he constantly delivereth; and for the comparison, confess myself unworthy to be named the same day: but whereas he 
q Ibid.  saith, he found sincetity in him, & unfaithfulness in me, I defy the faithless Apostata, & challenge him, or any of the proudest of his consorts, to tell me truly wherein I have showed the least unfaithfulness? It seemeth he measureth other men by himself, and his companions; but we are not like them, making merchandise of the word of GOD. After these idle discourses, he 
r Pag. 38  passeth from me to that reverend, renowned, and worthy Divine, Doctor Humphrey, in his time, the light and ornament of the University that bred him, whom such a silly novice as M. Theophilus, durst not have looked in the face while he lived. But it is easier to insult upon a dead lion; then a living dog; & that maketh him bark against him; but such was his great reading, variety of learning in all kinds, profound science, and mature judgement, as made him so highly esteemed at home and abroad by all that knew how to judge of things aright; that the scornful speeches of this Renegado, concerning his Rhetorical flourishes, will never be able to diminish or lessen the good opinion, that most deservedly all wise and good men hold of him. Yet let us see what it is that this grave censurer reprehendeth in D. Humphrey: surely he knoweth not what himself. D. Humphrey speaking of the ancient commemoration or commendation of the dead, saith, We retain it in our Colleges; which is most true: but he hath spied, as he supposeth three differences: for first, as he saith, the commendation and commemoration then used, was at the Altar: but we have no al●…: 2. in the holy sacrifice, but we admit no sacrifice: 3. with intention to relieve the dead, but we have no such intention. For answer whereunto, I say briefly, (for he deserveth no large answer) that we have altars in the same sort the Fathers had, though we have thrown down Popish Altars: that we admit the Eucharist to be rightly named a sacrifice; though we detest the blasphemous construction the Papists make of it. And lastly, that the Fathers did not intend to relieve all them they remembered at the Altar; no more do we: that they accompanied their friends souls going out of their bodies, to stand before God with their prayers and good wishes; that they prayed for their resurrection, public acquittal in the day of CHRIST, & perfect consummation, and so do we: that they never knew any thing of Purgatory, nor never prayed to deliver any one from thence, no more do we: & that therefore D. Humphrey might well impute frenzy to the Romanists, as challenging the Fathers in this & other points, whereas they are destitute of all defence from them. That which he 
s Pag. 39  interlaceth of frothy volumes, in which we silly men, for lack of his direction, spend our time, is less to be esteemed then any bubble or froth upon the water: for all men know that this Church never wanted worthy men, matchable with the proudest of the adverse Faction in the study of the Fathers, Counsels, Histories, and Schoolmen: neither is there any decay of these kinds of study now, thanks be given to God, as both our friends & enemies (I think) will bear us witness. Thus doth this Champion end the first part of his first book, having played his prizes very handsomely as you see.   

§. 1.  
IN the second part, first he indeavoureth to prove the perpetual visibility of the Church, which he saith, 
a Pag. 44.  I teach sincerely and effectually: though with some mixture of corruption in my Discourse concerning the same: but telleth us not what those corruptions be: and therefore I know not what to say to him till I hear farther from him. Secondly, he laboureth to show that the visible Church is free from damnable error, which we willingly yield unto; but that which he addeth 
b Pag. 45.  touching the not erring of General Counsels, is not so clear: as it appeareth by that which I have 
c In the fifth book of the Church. Chap. 51:  elsewhere noted out of Picus Mirandula, and Waldensis. There is extant an excellent conference between Nicholas Clemangis & a certain Parisian Schooleman, touching this point, wherein he willeth him considerately to think upon it, lest as he thinketh it to be a matter of rashness to affirm that General counsels may e●…re, so likewise it be not altogether free from temerity & rashness, pertinaciously to defend, that general counsels cannot err, unless it were proved by most strong authorities, or certain reasons: & farther addeth, that though it were most certainly proved, that counsels cannot err: yet it were not fit for them that meet in counsels to rely upon this persuasion, lest under the shadow, & upon the occasion of this confidence, they might proceed with less consideration, and more lightly than they should: but to make us doubt that Counsels may err sometimes in their determinations he bringeth sundry reasons; whereof one is, that the most part of men that are in the Church (He speaketh of the Church in his time) are merely carnal, seeking the things of the world, and no way savouring the things of God, or regarding the good of the Church: that these men are reputed the wisest, and most sufficient to manage the affairs of the Church: that when Counsels are to be holden, either they are chosen, or put themselves into such employments. And consequently, that things being carried in Counsels by voices, there is little reason to expect any great good, either for the due settling of the persuasion of men in matters of faith, or the reformation of such things as are amiss in matters of Discipline and manners. Whereupon he telleth of the ill success of the Council of Pisa, and of another called at Rome by Balthasar then Pope: Into the midst whereof an owl came flying, making an horrible noise, and sat upon a beam in the midst of the room where the Synod was holden as she had been Precedent of the assembly; and could not be made to give place, till she was beaten down dead: yea concerning the Council of Constance, wherein the long-continued Schism, by reason of the Anti-p●…pes was ended, and the peace of the Church restored: he saith that many things fell out in it, which were not fruits of the spirit, but works of the flesh, as contentions, emulations, dissensions, sects, clamours, out-cries, mockings, and the like. But of the erring of Counsels, I have elsewhere treated at large, & therefore will not insist upon the repetition of the same things in this place. Only, let us hear what master higgon's can say for their not erring. He thinketh to strike the matter dead with the resolution of Gerson, a man, as he saith, highly advanced by me. It is true that I esteem of Gerson as of a most learned, judicious & godly man, that mourned for the confusions he saw in the Church in his time, that reproved many abuses, gave testimony to many parts of heavenly truth, then contradicted by those carnal men of whom Clemangis speaketh, who counted gain to be godliness, and scorned all that lived as beseemeth Christians, traducing them as hypocrites, and I know not what else. Yet I think no man will infer, upon any commendation that I have given him, that I must of necessity embrace as true whatsoever he saith. Waldensis is a man highly esteemed by our Romanistes, yet will they not allow his opinion, that Counsels may err. Alphonsus á castro, Adrian the Pope, and other, who teach that the Pope may papally err, are highly prized by them: yet will they not grant that the Pope may err as they teach: but what is it that Gerson saith? surely, that 
d Part. 4. de Vnitate Graeeorum Consid. 6.  Whatsoever the Pope and a General Council of the whole Church determine, must be received as true. It is true indeed that he saith so, but it appeareth by the words immediately following, that he speaketh not of a General Council consisting of the Bishops of the West only, such as was the Council of Trent in our time; But of a General Council consisting both of greeks and Latins; and therefore he saith, if the Grecians dissenting from the Latins in the article of the proceeding of the holy Ghost, and not admitting the determination of the West Church, shall say, that the Council that defined, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the son, was not truly General; that they were not duly called to the same, and consequently, that notwithstanding their dissenting they are not to be judged pertinacious, obstinate and subject to the curse; it were diligently to be considered what they would say; or some fitting means were to be found out, that all things might be brought to an agreement, without persisting in a peremptory proof of the same article against them: for that, men disposed to resist, would hardly ever be convinced in this point. And further he wisheth men to think upon it, whether, as some determinations of doubts and questions passed and agreed on in Paris are said to bind none but those that are within the Diocese of Paris, so it may not be said in like sort that the determinations of the Latin Church bind the Latins only: and secondly, whether that which is defined and holden as an article of faith, ●…ay not be made to be no article, by bringing things to the same state they were in before any determination passed. Which thing he exemplifieth in a Decree of Bonifacius, voided by one of his successors. To what purpose Master higgon's allegeth the opinion of Gerson touching the not erring of General Counsels, I cannot tell: for I am well assured never any such Council as yet approved Purgatory and Prayer to deliver men out of it, nor I think ever will. But whatsoever we think of Counsels, there is no question to be made but that the Church is free from damnable error, as master higgon's in the title of his chapter undertaketh to prove. But whether it be free from all ignorance and error as he seemeth in the discourse following to enforce, it is not so clear: neither doth that text of Saint Paul touching the House of God, 
e 1. Tim 3. 15.  which is the Church of the living GOD, the pillar and ground of truth, nor any other authority or reason brought to that purpose, prove the same; and particularly, touching that place of Saint Paul to Timothy, it is evident the Apostles words are to be originally understood of the Church of Ephesus; and that he maketh the glorious title, of pillar and ground of truth, common to that particular Church, with that which is universal; and consequently, that this title proveth not every Church or society of Christians to which it agreeth, to be free from error: unless we will privilege all particular Churches from danger of erring. If any man doubt whether the Apostle give the title of pillar & ground of truth to the Church of Ephesus, it is easily proved by unanswerable reasons. For (as Lyra writing upon the words of the Apostle rightly noteth): The Apostle writeth to Timothy, and giveth him directions, that he may know how to behave himself in the Church of God: that is, how to order and govern it. Now the Church which Timothy was to order and govern, was not the universal Church, but the Church of Ephesus: therefore the Church, wherein he was wisely to behave himself; was but a particular Church; and the same Church in which the Apostle directeth him how to behave himself, he calleth the Church of the living God, the pillar, & ground of truth, therefore he giveth this title to a particular Church: though he restrain it not to it, as master higgon's untruly 
f Pag. 46.  saith I do: so that I have not eluded the gravity of this testimony, as he is pleased unjustly to charge me, but I give the right sense of it: whence it followeth, that seeing particular Churches may be said to be pillars of truth, this title doth not prove that society of Christian men to which it agreeth, to be free from all error.  
From the reprehension of our opinion, in that we think the Church subject to some kind of error, he falleth into a discourse touching 
g Pag. 47.  the confusions of Protestants, admitting innumerable sectaries into one vast and incongruous Church; which he saith is a mere Chimaera, thrust together and fashioned in specifical disproportions; and hence, he saith, it is 
h Pag. 46  that I laying the foundation of my Babel, fear not to say, that the Churches of Russia, Armenia, Syria, Aethiopia and Greece, are and continue parts of the true Catholic Church: For answer whereunto I say, that we do not admit any Sectaries into the Communion of the true Catholic Church, much less innumerable Sectaries: for we admit none into the Communion of our Churches, but such as receive all the lawful General Counsels, that ever were holden touching any question of faith, the three Creeds, of the Apostles, of Nice, and Athanasius; and whatsoever is found to have been believed and practised by all not noted for singularity and novelty at all times and in all places. So rejecting Arrians, Zuenchfeldians, anabaptists, Familistes and all other like monsters. Touching the differences between the Churches of England, Denmark, Zueden, Germany, France, etc. They are not specifical, as this bad Logician fancieth; but imaginary, or merely accidental. And for the Churches of Greece, Russia, Armenia, Syria & Aethiopia, agreeing in all the things before mentioned; it is most strange that this Schismatical fugitive should dare utterly to reject them from the unity of the Catholic Church, and to cast into hell so many millions of souls of poor distressed Christians, for so many hundred years, enduring so many bitter things for Christ's sake in the midst of the proudest enemies that ever the name of Christ had. That all these admit the Doctrine of faith agreed on in all the lawful general counsels; that ever were holden, the three Creeds, and the whole form of Christian doctrine catholickely consented on, and that they reject and condemn all the heresies condemned by Augustine and Epiphanius, it shall be proved if higgon's or any other smatterer of that side, shall go about to improve it. It is true indeed, that the Armenians refused to admit the Council of Chalcedon; but it was upon a false suggestion, as I have elsewhere showed: 
13. Book of the Church cap. 1.  And it is most certain that they condemn the heresy of Eutiches, as likewise those other, that were condemned in the fifth and sixth counsels, and though the Grecians seek to avoid the evidence of that part of Athanasius Creed, touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, yet do they not deny the Creed itself; and my 
k Part. 4. de vnit●…te Graeco rum.  Gerson (as Master higgon's is pleased to call him) thinketh it were better to desist from the strict urging of the allowance of tha●… determination of the Latins, touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, that both the Churches might be reduced to unity, then peremptorily to insist upon the proof of it, seeing men disposed to resist, will very hardly ever be convinced; so that he doth not think as Master higgon's doth, that the not admitting of this Article as defined and determined by Athanasius, casteth men into hell; for then Saint john Damascene should be damned, 
l De fide Orthodox. lib. 1. cap. 11.  who denieth the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son after the publishing of Athanasius Creed. Thus do we moderate our censures not daring to cast all into hell that descent from us in some particular points, not fundamental, as the Romanists do: yet do we not think that every one may be saved in his own sect and error, whatsoever it be: for we exclude all such out of the communion of the true Catholic Church as admit not all the things before specified: so that I lay no foundation of Babel, as this Babylonian is pleased to say I do, but pitying the breaches of Zion, endeavour as much as in me lieth, to make them up, that Jerusalem may be as a city at unity within itself. But the Romanistes indeed build Babel and their tongues are confounded, every one almost, dissenting from other, and that in most material and essential points. 
m De peccato originis Controuers. 1.  Pighius and 
n In lib. de Originali peccato.  Catharinu●… have a strange fancy touching original sin, contrary to the Doctrine of other Papists: 
o De fide & iustificatione. Controu. 2.  Pighius is of Calvin's opinion touching justification. 
p Apolog. contra Dominicum à Soto.  Catharinus defendeth against the common tenant that men in ordinary course (without special revelation) may be certain by the certainty of Faith that they are in the state of grace: yea M▪ higgon's himself saith, 
q Pag. 48.  Our faith in Christ must be trustful, lively, and active by a special application of his merits unto ourselves, as he was wont to preach in Saint Dunstan's Church. So urging a necessity of special Faith: which the Romanists condemn as heretical in the Doctrine of our Church: and innumerable like differences they have: yet all these are of one Church, Faith, & Communion: nothing, it seemeth, being necessary to the unity of their Church, but the acknowledging of the Supremacy of the Pope. And yet, which is most strange, they that think he may err, & they that think he cannot err; they that make him to be but Prime Bishop, & they that make him universal Bishop▪ they that attribute to him power to depose Princes, & dispose of their states, & they that deny that he bathe any such power, are of one & the same Church: But it is a babylonical Church.   

§. 2.  
FRom the perpetual visibility & undoubted assurance the Church hath of holding the true Faith, he proceedeth 
r Pag. 50.  to show our zeal in impugning & condemning the opinion of Purgatory: & that yet notwithstanding the whole universal Church received it. And thervpon saith ●…he was misinformed by me & others, that the Greeks never 
s Pag. 53.  entertained this doctrine. & that now he findeth that we err, not knowing or 〈◊〉 
t Pag. 54  the truth: assuring himself that howsoever some Greeks did not, or do not admit the doctrine of Purgatory precisely under this name, & with some other circumstances,, yet the church of Greece generally doth retain the th●…ig itself. But whatsoever this goodfellow say to the contrary, we know the Greek 〈◊〉 never 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 thing. There is extant a most excellent: & learned Apology of the 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 ●…o the council of Florence, or Basil, as it is thought. In this apology, first 〈◊〉 clearly 〈◊〉 that there is no purging after this life by ●…e, especially material &c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Papists imagine. Secondly, they ins●…te that some a longest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that such as are of a middle condition, and so depart hence, are after death in a certain obscurity, without enjoying the light of God's countenance, or holden as it were in a prison or in a state of sorrow, till by the goodness of God and the prayers of the Church they be delivered: and thus much some professed in the Council of Florence; for there was a division amongst them. Thirdly, they incline to an opinion that the lesser sins of men dying in the state of grace, are remitted after death without any punishment at all, either by fire or in any other kind, by the mere mercy & goodness of God. And whereas some bring proofs of remission of sins after this life, thereby to confirm their conceit of Purgatory, they say there is no agreement between remission, and purging by fire and punishment: for that either punishment or remission is needful, and not both: and again they confidently pronounce that neither Scripture, nor the fifth General Council delivered unto us a double punishment or a double fire after this life. This judgement & resolution they confirm, & prove by very excellent reasons & authorities: for first, thus they argue. It more beseemeth the goodness of God, to suffer no good though never so little to pass away unrespected & unrewarded, them to punish small sins & offences: but some little good in them that have great sins hath no reward, because of the prevailing of the evil that is found in them, therefore small evils in them that have great works of virtue, are not to be punished, the better things overcoming. Secondly, as is a little good in those that are mainly evil, so is a little evil in those that are otherwise mainly good. But a little good in those that are otherwise evil, can procure no reward, but only causeth a difference in the degree of punishment, making it the less: therefore a little evil causeth no punishment but a difference in the degree of glory and happiness, which it maketh to be less than otherwise it would be; whence it followeth that there is no Purgatory. Thirdly, either the wills of men departed hence are mutable, or immutable: if they be mutable, than they that are good may become evil; and they that are evil, may become good: whence it will follow (according to origen's opinion) that neither the good are unchangeably happy, nor the the evil unchangeably miserable: but that men may fall from happiness to misery, and rise from misery to the height of all happiness. And so we shall make the punishments of all castawaies, even of the devils themselves, to be temporary: as indeed, supposing the mutability of the Will to continue after death justly they may: for the reason why in justice the punishment of sin in the damned is to be eternal, is, because they are immutably, unchangeably, and et●…nally evil; if they be immutable, then are they not capable of any correction; for he who is corrected, is set right, by being brought to just dislike, and forsaking of that he formerly affected ill; which change from love to hate, from liking to disliking, from pursuing and following, to forsaking and flying from, cannot be found in a Will that is immutable. 
u In 4. Sentent. dist. 21. qu. 〈◊〉.  Bonaventura disputeth the matter, how afflicting fire purgeth the soul; and answereth that some think, that this fire, besides the punishing virtue, and power it hath, hath also a spirttuall purging virtue, such as sacraments have, which he thinketh to be absurd: especially seeing Gregory out of visions and apparitions of the dead, sheweth, that souls are purged in divers places and by divers other means, as well as by fire: and therefore there are other, who think, that what this purging fire worketh, it worketh by punishing and afflicting, which helpeth and strengtheneth grace, that it may be able to purge out sin. Now punishment and affliction can no way help grace or strengthen it, to the expulsion of sin, but in that by the bitterness of it, it maketh us know how much it offendeth GOD and hurteth us: and thereby causeth a dislike of it, or at least an increase of the dislike of it: which dislike the Will cannot newly grow unto, if it be immutable. For, to dislike that which before we did not dislike, or to dislike a thing more than formerly we did, upon farther & better consideration, argueth a mutability in the Will: so that if the Will be immutable in those that are departed hence, immediately upon their dissolution, as our Adversaries think it is, the fire of purgatory can no way help to the purging out of sin. To these reasons they add another, taken from the story or parable of the rich man & Lazarus in the Gospel: where Christ showeth that the poor man Lazarus, as soon as he was dead, was carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosom, & that the rich man's soul as soon as he was dead, was found in the torments of hell. By the bosom of Abraham expressing a most excellent estate in the blessed rest of such as are beloved of God: and by hell, and the torments thereof, the utter most condemnation, and the everlasting punishment of sinners: and no way leaving any other place between these, having temporal affliction and pain; but making between them a great and unpasseable gulf, separating the one from the other, and establishing an extreme and immediate opposition between them; than which, what could be more clearly spoken against Purgatory & for our opinion? For if there be no middle place of temporal torment, as the Authors of this Apology say there is not; if there be but two sorts of men, the one expressed by the condition of the rich man, the other of Lazarus: and if the one of these go immediately, upon death, into a place of torment everlasting, the other into a place of rest, and into the bosom of Abraham: where is the Purgatory of Papists either in the name, or in the thing, in substance, or in circumstance? To these reasons for farther confirmation, they add two most excellent testimonies out of 
x In orat. de Paschate.  Gregory Nazianzen, who upon these words touching the Passeover, We shall carry out nothing nor leave nothing till the morning: saith expressly and clearly, that beyond or after this Night, there is no purging; calling the life of each man here, the Night: and yielding no purging to be after it: and elsewhere hath these words. 
y Serm. de plaga grandin.  I omit to speak of the torments, to which impunity doth deliver men in the other world: for they are such, that it were better for a man to be chastised, and purged here, then to be reserved and delivered over to that punishment that is after this life, when as there is a time of punishment but not of purgation: so expressly defining, that there is no purging after the departure out of this life, and that there remaineth nothing but eternal punishment, for such as must there be punished. Elias Cretensis, a learned Grecian, writing upon that place of Nazianzen, where he saith, 
z Orat. 7. de composit●… disserendi ratione pag. 210.  He is a poor and a mean Pastor, and not liked of other Pastors, whether because he defendeth the truth, or for what other cause he knoweth not, but God knoweth, and (as the Apostle saith) that day of revelation and last fire shall clearly manifest it, whereby all our works are either judged or purged, hath these words: The word judged, Gregory Nazianzen put for tried; and purged, for revealed or manifested: for that fire doth make the works of just men to shine, and burneth up the works of sinners, and, that I may speak plainly and simply, manifesteth of what sort each man's works are, those things being taken away, that in this world did hide them, and suffered them not to appear to be such as indeed they are. For here oftentimes as well the works of a virtuous man, as of an evil man are hid: but there they are revealed, and made manifest: therefore there judgement is passed upon all; that is, all are tried: and again, all things are purged, that is, manifested: and not by any means, according to the fooleries of those men, who think that there shall be an end of punishment, after a thousand years, and that, after they are purged, men shall cease to be punished. Thus doth this worthy Bishop of Candie contradict the Papists in their fancy of Purgatory, and agree with the Authors of the Apology.  
In the writings of 
a Quaest Armenio●…um lib. 13. cap. 1.  Armacanus I find, that one Athanasius, a Grecian, proposed sundry excellent reasons against the imagined Purgatory of the Latins, which Armachanus goeth about to answer, but indeed cannot answer: the first is this: It is no way just that the Soul alone should be punished for the sins of the whole man; or that the body should have part and fellowship in Sin, and glory after remission of Sin, and not in the punishment, that purgeth out sin. The second is this; It is more proper to God to reward good things then to punish evil: So that, if it were necessary, that the souls of such as are truly penitent, should after death go into Purgatory punishments, it were much more necessary, that the souls of such as have kept the commandments of GOD all their life long, and at last falling into sin, die in such an estate, without repentance, should go first into a place of refreshing, to receive the rewards of their well doings, before they should be cast out into eternal punishments: but this is not to be granted by any means; therefore much less the other. Thirdly, whereas some go about to prove Purgatory by the custom of praying for the dead, he showeth by an unanswerable reason, that if we admit Purgatory, we may not pray for the dead; his reason is this. Whosoever causeth another to be afflicted, doth it in one of these three sorts; either only out of unreasonable passion and desire of tormenting and afflicting; or for the upholding of the course of justice, and the example and good of others, as when murderers are put to death: or thirdly in mercy, for the good and benefit of him that is punished, as the Physician afflict●…h the sick patient. And in this third sort it is, that God is supposed to afflict souls in Purgatory. As therefore the Physician and Surgeon delight not in afflicting their sick patients, but deal as tenderly with them as possibly they may, due respect had to the recovering of their health and former estate: so God will afflict no more than is precisely necessary for the purging out of sin: so that as it were vain, if not hurtful, to entreat the good and skilful Physician, tendering his patient, and no way afflicting him more than is precisely necessary for the recovering of his health, either wholly to withdraw his hand, or to remit any thing of that he intends to do; for that, if so he should do, the patient could not recover; so in like sort, it were not only vain, but hurtful, for the souls of men departed, to entreat GOD any way to lessen their afflictions, which otherwise he would lay upon them: seeing he intendeth to afflict them no more, then is precisely necessary for the purging out of the impurity that is found in them: and if he remit any thing of it, he must leave it in them still. In this life God may work men to a judging of themselves, so that they shall not need to be so chastised and judged of him, as otherwise they should be, and so we may pray God to ease their afflictions: but after this life, when there is no more time, nor place left for repentance, or conversion to God, it is not so. If it be said that the punishments of them that are in Purgatory; in that they are medicinal, & for the purging out of sin, are not to be diminished, but that something may be remitted of the extremity of them, in that they are satisfactory, he answereth as we also do; that after the remission of sin repent of, there is no satisfaction needful for the pacifying of God's wrath, and that all punishments that are inflicted, are but to make us know throughly what it is to offend God, to pluck up the root, take away the remainders, prevent the occasions, and to stop the re-enterance of it again.  
By this which hath been said, we may see how advisedly and truly Master higgon's saith, that 
* Pag. 5●….  the Greek Church generally doth believe Purgatory: but he will prove it doth by the censure of the oriental Church, upon the Augustane confession. Concerning this censure, the Author of it was, Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople, who hath written many things very prejudicial to the state of the Romish Religion: for he denyeth the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and 
b Cap. 13.  maketh the Church of Constantinople the chief of all Churches: he 
c Cap. 21. in Epilogo de abusibus.  defendeth the lawfulness of Minister's marriage: he 
d Ibid.  condemneth the communicating in one kind alone, and the 
e Ibid.  consecration of unleavened bread; He 
f Cap. 21.  denyeth that the Saints hear our prayers; besides some other things of like nature: But touching Purgatory, he hath no word. It is true indeed that he alloweth prayer for the dead, but to another purpose, and not to deliver men out of Purgatory, as this seduced Novice hath been misinformed. For he seemeth in part to be of the same mind that 
g In ●…2. Lucae.  Theophylacte is of; who thinketh that they who die sinners, are not always cast into hell, but that they are in the power of God, that he may cast them into hell or keep them from it, and deliver them if he please. Whereupon he noteth that Christ doth not say, fear him who after he hath killed the body doth cast into hell: but, can cast into hell: and this he saith, as he professeth, because of the oblations and alms given for the dead; which greatly profit even them also that die in grievous sins: For though this Hieremias 
h Cap. 21.  deny that the Saints in heaven pray for men dying in mortal sin, God having excluded them from his mercy, and in a sort pronounced that though Noah, job, or Daniel should entreat for them, they should not deliver them, yet he saith, such as 
i Ibid.  dye in the middle course of penitency, and not having fully purged out their sins may be relieved by prayer and mediation: if such prayers, and entreaty be made for them, while the judgement yet continueth, and before the sentence be pronounced: for so soon as the solemn sitting shall be dissolved, and every one carried into the place of punishment, designed and appointed for him, there neither is nor never shall be any mediation for him. Whereby it appeareth, he extendeth the benefit of these prayers, only to the keeping of men out of hell, that might be cast into it, and no way to the relieving of souls afflicted with temporal pains, as Master higgon's untruly reporteth. So that he agreeth with Theophylacte, in that he thinketh me●… who otherwise might justly be cast into hell, may be stayed from coming thither, if request be made for them in time, and seemeth to descent from him, in that he will not extend this mercy of God to any dying without some beginnings of repentance, whereof the other maketh no mention: in which restraint, yet he dissenteth from himself, who 
k Cap. 12.  produceth and alloweth the testimony of Damascene, reporting Gregory's delivering Traian, who died in infidelity, our of hell: Teclaes' delivering of Falconilla, who died an Idolatress: and sundry other things of the same kind.  
Thus we see, the Grecians, being a great and principal part of the Church of God, deny Purgatory, not in respect of the name, or some circumstance alone; but even in respect of the thing itself, notwithstanding any thing Master higgon's can say to the contrary: and therefore it was more than ordinary impudency in him to say that 
l Pag. 5●….  none but Aerians Henricians, and Waldensians, did ever simply and absolutely deny Purgatory: and all his discourse grounded upon this false surmise is vain and idle. For let the Aerians, Henricians and Waldensians, be what they will, it little concerneth us, for we derive not our denial of Purgatory from them, but from the Fathers, and the principal parts of God's Church in all ages. That which he hath 
m Pag. 62.  against Luther's marrying a professed Nun, and Saint Augustine's dislike of such marriages, doth but argue the distemper of his idle brain. For first, it is besides the purpose, and maketh nothing to the matter in hand. Secondly, it clearly confuteth the error of the Romanistes who think marriages after vows made to the contrary to be void, which false conceit 
n De bono viduitatis. cap. 11.  Augustine largely refuteth. Thirdly, he belieth Augustine, for he doth not say, the marriage of such as have vowed the contrary is evil, much less that it is worse than Adultery; but that the falling from the good purpose and resolution they were entered into, is worse than adultery: which falling is found amongst the Romish Votaries, more than any where else in the world, their houses of Nuns (as 
o De corrupto Eccles. ●…atu.  Clemangis, who knew the state of those Cages well enough, testifieth) being for the most part nothing else but stews of filthy harlots. Now, though it be worse than simple adultery to break a vow, and burning in lust to wallow in all impurity, yet is it no way ill for men or women thus surprised to betake themselves to the remedy of lawful mmariage. And therefore I 
p Pag. 62.  mince not the matter, as this mincing Fugitive is pleased to say I do, but truly report the judgement of Augustine, who indeed misliketh and reproveth rash vowing, without full purpose and due care of performing the same afterwards, as a grievous evil: and yet alloweth ensuing marriage, as lawful honourable, and good, contrary to the impious conceit of the Romanists, condemning the same. What is to be thought of Luther and such other as married after vows of single life, I have 
q fifth book of the Church. chap. 57  elsewhere showed; whether I refer the Reader. I have 
r Book 3. chap. 39  likewise proved at large the lawfulness of Luther's ministry, notwithstanding all the corruption that was in the Church, wherein he received it, and the tyranny of Antichrist endeavouring to lay all waste: and therefore the idle glances of this silly fellow are to be contemned as words of vanity, especially seeing such as are ordained by Heretics, are truly ordained in the judgement of our 
s Bonauent. in 4 Sentent. dist. 25. quaest. 2.  Adversaries themselves: but if all fail, he will go back to prayer for the dead, which hath made him dead, while he is alive, and will prove that 
t Pag. 70.  Bernard confuted Henricus impugning prayer for the dead, with a miracle, and that therefore the impugning of prayer for the dead is pronounced impious by Gods own voice from heaven: surely if it could be proved, that God gave testimony by a miracle against Henricus his impugning of prayer for the dead, to deliver them out of Purgatory, it were something: but neither he, nor all the rabble of Romanistes shall ever prove that. Henricus is reported to have holden many damnable opinions, in confutation whereof Bernard might work a miracle without any respect to his denying prayers for the dead: for he contemned the Sacraments, denied reconciliation to penitents, & the comfort of the holy Eucharist to such as in their greatest distresses desired the same. And feared not to exclude infants from the benefit of the Sacrament of regeneration. 
u Epist. 24●…  Bernard himself describing him, and the good effects that followed his preaching, showeth, that having been a Monk, he became an Apostata, that he gave himself to all impurity, and that what he got by his preaching, he played away at dice, or spent it amongst harlots: that his preaching wrought so good effects, that Churches were forsaken, and left without People, People without Priests, priests without due reverence, and Christians without Christ: Churches were reputed Synagogues, the Sanctuaries of God denied to be holy, Sacraments accounted unholy, Festival days deprived of Festival solemnities, men died in their sins, and their souls were every where caught up, and brought to the terrible judgement-seat, neither reconciled by penitential reconciliation, nor guarded with the Sacrament and holy Communion; that the way of the life of Christ was shut up against infants, whiles the grace of Baptism was denied unto them: and that they were hindered from drawing near to salvation, though the Saviour himself cried out aloud for them, saying Suffer little children to come unto me. This is all that Bernard imputeth to him, neither doth Willielmus Abbas (as Master 
x Pag. 72.  higgon's untruly reporteth) charge him with denying of prayer for the dead, but one 
y Vitae Bernardi lib. 1. cap. 5.  Gotefrey a Monk of Claravallis, whose report is not greatly to be regarded, because what he addeth above that before alleged by us, touching prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, excommunications of Priests, Pilgrimages, building of Churches, and the like, he addeth as out of Bernard's Epistle before mentioned, wherein there is no such thing. So that it is very probable that he mistook the matter and imputed such things to Henricus as were taught by the Apostolici, or some other such like. Hitherto we find no great proof of the confirmation of prayer for the dead, or any other point of popish error, by miracles: so that my Peremptory denial, that ever any miracle was done by any man in times past, or in our times, to comfirme any of the things controversed between the Papists and us, standeth as yet uncontrolled. Wherefore Master higgon's riseth from Henricus to Gregory the first, and Augustine, whom he sent into England for the conversion of our Nation, who, he 
z Pag. 82.  saith, were Papists, and yet wrought many miracles for the confirmation of the doctrine they preached. A more trifling fellow I think never adventured to put pen to paper; for we confidently deny that either Gregory or Augustine were Papists, & say with Bishop jewel in his worthy challenge, that all the learned Papists in the world cannot prove they either of them held any of those twenty seven Articles of popish religion mentioned by him. If some superstition began in their times to grow in, it is not to be marvelled at: neither will it follow, that if Augustine and his Colleagues, sent hither to sing the Lords song in a strange land, did miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith taught by them, that the same miracles confirmed every superstitious opinion, which any of them held. For than Cyprian and the African Bishops teaching rebaptisation, the oriental Bishops thitking it necessary to keep the feast of Easter with the jews; Papias, and all the worthy Fathers that taught, that Christ raising up the Saints from the dead, shall reign with them on earth a thousand years in all earthly felicity, that there are two resurrections, the one of the just, the other of the wicked, and that there are a thousand years between: Lactantius, Irenaeus, and others, excluding the souls of the faithful departed out of heaven, till the resurrection; such as held that men may be delivered out of hell: such as held it necessary to minister the Communion to infants: and other like Catholic Christians erring in some point of Doctrine, could do no miracles, for the confirmation of the Christian faith amongst infidels or misbelievers; but that the same must be confirmations of their errors: & God must concur with them by confusion, as this confused companion 
a Pag. 83.  speaketh: but if this instance serve not the turn, he hath another evidence more potent and persuasive, which served as a Key to unlock his understanding, and that is this. 
b Pag. 85.  Transubstantiation is affirmed by me to be one of the greatest mysteries of Popish Religion. Gerson is highly approved by me, and yet he affirmeth 
c Part. 4. serm. in festo corp. Christi.  that Transubstantiation is confirmed by a thousand and a thousand miracles. For answer whereunto we say with Cassander, 
d Cassand. in consult art. 10. de transubst.  that the names of conversion, transmutation, trans-formation, and trans-elementation, are found among the Ancient, and that the word Transubstantiation was used some hundreds of years since: but touching the manner of this conversion there is great variety of opinions, yet so that all agree in this, that they understand such a mutation or change to be made, that that which before was earthly and common bread, by the words of Institution, the invocation of GOD'S Name, and Divine virtue is made a Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of CHRIST, visibly sitting at the right hand of GOD in Heaven, and yet after an invisible and incomprehensible manner present in the Church. And that the Body and Blood of CHRIST are in the Sacrament, and exhibited and given as spiritual meat and drink for the salvation and everlasting life of them that are worthy partakers of the same. Thus much we doubt not but a thousand and a thousand miracles may confirm, and more, Gerson doth not say is confirmed by miracle. For whereas there is almost infinite variety of opinions touching the manner of this conversion amongst such as admit it in generality, it would be very hard for Master higgon's, or a wiser man than he is, to say, which of them any miracle ever confirmed. All admit, saith 
e In 3 part. sum. quaest. 75. a●…. 1.  Caietan, the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body & Blood of Christ, but in truth many deny that which the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth; & therefore are diversely divided; some understanding that the bread is therefore said to be made the body of Christ, because where the Bread is, the Body of Christ becometh present: others understanding nothing but the order of succession, whereby the body succeedeth, & is under the veils of those accidents, under which the Bread (which they suppose to be annihilated) was before: which opinion in substance Scotus followeth, though in the manner of his speech he seem to decline it, some admitting both the word and thing not wholly, but in part, as Durandus, who thinketh the matter of the bread & wine remaineth, the form only changed: & some thinking the form to remain, and the matter to cease. 
f Centil. conclu●…. 39  Ockam saith there are 3 opinions touching Transubstantiation, of which the first supposeth a conversion of the Sacramental Elements: the second an annihilation: the third maketh the Bread to be so turned into the Body of Christ, that it is no way changed in substance, or substantially converted into Christ's body; but that only the body of Christ becometh present in every part of the bread. 
g In 4. sent. q. 6.  Cameracensis, Gersons' master, professeth, that for aught he can see, the substantial conversion of the Sacramental elements into the body & blood of Christ, cannot be proved either out of Scripture, or any determination of the Universal Church, and maketh it but a matter of opinion, inclining rather to the other opinion of Con-substantiation. And therefore in his judgement it was not witnessed by a thousand & a thousand persons of most holy life and profound knowledge, testifying the truth thereof unto death, by a thousand & a thousand miracles. So that the thing which Gerson saith hath been proved by miracles, is the true presence of Christ's body & blood in the Sacrament, the exhibition of them to be the food of oursoules, & such a change of the elements in virtue, grace & power of containing in them, & communicating to us Christ's body & blood, as the nature of so excellent a Sacrament requireth. This is the 
h Pag. 83.  key which M. higgon's found to unlock his understanding that it might run riot into all idle & childish discourses. But see the infelicity of the man! He was no sooner at liberty, but presently again he was encompassed & brought into such a straight, that either he must disclaim my book, or his Protestanticall belief. Yet 
i Pag. 86  did he not suffer himself long to be so enclosed, but full wisely choose rather to forsake the Religion he was bred in, and which as a public Preacher he had taught others, then to disclaim my book. Because as he saith, that Religion cannot be good, that is so falsely and absurdly defended by me, and all the chief Authors that ever applied their pains unto that service. Surely the poor fugitive is greatly to be pitied, as weak in understanding, and meddling with things not fit for him, if he do that he doth in simplicity: or exceedingly to be detested as a graceless person, if he do it, as it is to be feared, out of malice. For what is it in my Book that is so false and absurd, as that the consideration thereof should make a man forsake his religion? is not Transubstantiation one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion, as I have said? is that falsely delivered by me? No: but I say no miracle was ever done to confirm any thing defended by the Romanistes against us, and yet Gerson, highly commended by me, saith, many Miracles have been wrought for proof and confirmation of that Transubstantiation which the Papists at this day believe, and this is the falsity and absurdity he speaketh of. That no miracle was ever wrought to prove the monstrous conceit of Popish Transubstantiation, or any other Popish error, shall stand good when heaven and earth shall be no more. And if ten thousand Gersons, nay, if so many Angels from heaven should affirm the contrary, I would not believe them; much less Gerson, a single witness in such a case. This is then the absurdity that made him become a Papist, that I commend Gerson, and yet believe not everything he saith. Truly this absurdity would never move any but an absurd smatterer to alter his Religion. For doth not higgon's himself admire Pighius, Catharinus; Contarenus, and sundry other from whom he dissenteth in the matter of justification, original sin, and the certainty of grace? Doth he not highly commend many that thought the Pope may err, that he is subject to General Counsels, and may be deposed by them, not for Heresy alone, but for other enormous crimes also? and yet I think he will not be of their opinion. So that though Gerson should think that the Transubstantiation which we deny, was proved by miracles, it were no such intolerable absurdity to commend him for much piety, devotion, learning, and virtue, and yet to descent from him in this point. In the matter controversed in former times in the Roman Church touching the conception of the blessed virgin, were there not whorthy men on both sides? did not the Patrons of her spotless conception pretend and allege sundry miracles and visions for confirmation thereof? yet was it no absurdity for 
k Opusc. tomo. 2. tract. 1. De conceptione virgins. cap. 1.  Cardinal Caietan following the current of Antiquity, to descent from them, how many & worthy soever they were, & to call all their pretended miracles in question. But indeed here is no such matter; for Gerson is not so ill advised, as to descent from his worthy Master, & confidently to affirm that a thousand, and a thousand, renowned for piety and learning, by a thousand, & a thousand miracles, gave testimony to the opinion of the substantial conversion of the Sacramental elements into the body & blood of Christ (which the 
l Lib. 4. dist. 11.  Master of the Sentences, & the Author of the 
m In 1. ad Corint. 11.  Ordinary gloss, profess to be doubtful, and Caietan saith so many admitted not even in his time.) But the only thing he affirmeth to have been confirmed by Miracles is, that Christ's body & blood are truly present in the Sacrament, that they are given to be the food of our souls, and that the outward elements are changed to become the body and blood of Christ; which we deny not, though we descent from the Papists touching the manner of the conversion, which they imagine to be substantial; to which opinion haply Gerson might consent, as Cameracensis also did, though he professed he could not see the deduction of it from Scripture, or any determination of the Church, and inclined rather to think that the substance of bread and wine remain, and that the body and blood of Christ become present together with them, according to that of Cusanus, 
n Excitationum. lib. 6. pag. ●…25.  who saith, certain ancient Divines are found to have been of opinion, that the Bread is not substantially changed, but that it is clothed upon with a more noble substance, as we hope to be clothed upon with the light of glory, our substance remaining the same it was: and seemeth not much to dislike their opinion. Thus we see, poor runagate higgon's hath made a great outcry, when there was no cause; for here is neither falsehood nor absurdity, but in himself, who to wreck his anger hath sold himself to be an absurd Patron of error and untruth. The rest of his frivolous discourse following, being but a reflection, as he calleth it, upon these premises, I will not trouble myself nor the reader with.    

The Second Book.  

§. 1.  
I Come to his Second Book, in the first part whereof he challengeth me for traducing the four Doctors of the Church, beginning with Gregory, and from him proceeding to the rest. To make it appear that I have wronged Gregory, First 
a Pag. 101.  he noteth, that the principal drift of my discourse touching the Church, is to prove that the opinions wherein the Papists descent from the Protestants at this day, were not the doctrines of the Church wherein our Fathers lived and died, but of a faction only, predominating in the same. Secondly, 
b pag. 102.  that to this purpose I frame an appendix, wherein I produce the testimonies of sundry Fathers and Schoole-authors, to justify the foresaid position. Thirdly, that 
c Ibid.  descending into the controversy, whether any sins be remitted after this life, or not, I use this pretence; to wit, that whereas Lombard and other do say, that some venial sins are remitted after this life, we must so understand their sayings, that therefore they are said to be remitted after this life, because they are taken away in the very moment of dissolution, the last instant of life being the first after life. That this is the sum of that Exposition I make of Lombard's, & other men's opinion, concerning the remission of sins after this life wherein, how sincerely, & exactly I deal, he will not dispute. 4ly, 
d Ibid.  That to corroborate this my Exposition, I bring a testimony of S. Gregory, not without great wrong done unto him.  
To these his observations I briefly answer: First, that it is true that the doctrines wherein the Papists and We descent at this day, were not the doctrines of that Church, wherein our Fathers lived and died; but that I have in any part untruly set down the differences between them and us, this false runagate shall never be able to prove: though, if his credit would reach unto it, he would gladly make men believe so. 2ly, That I have indeed framed and added such an Appendix as he speaketh of, to my Third book, wherein I have produced sundry learned men, and Schoole-authors, for proof of that my former position; calling them, as they well deserve, worthy & learned men: but, that they are mine enemies, or that I speak honourably of them for mine own advantage; is but the saying of a silly fellow, that careth not much what he saith, so he may be thought to say something. Thirdly, that this good fellow, that complaineth so much of falsehood and bad dealing, hath in his third observation wholly mistaken the matter, & shamefully belied me; for I make not that costruction of the sayings of Lombard and others, which he speaketh of, but it is the construction of Alexander of Alice, the irrefragable Doctor, and first of all the Schoolmen. But that the Reader may the better perceive how he perverteth all that cometh in his way, I will lay down the matter at large. In the twentieth Chapter of that Appendix he speaketh of I produce the judgement and resolution of Scotus, Durandus, and Alexander of Alice, that all sinfulness is utterly abolished in the very moment of dissolution, and that there is no remission of any sin, in respect of the fault and stain after death. The words of these Authors I set down at large. The words of Alexander of Alice are these. 
e Summ. lib. 4. qu. 25. memb. 〈◊〉 art 3.  Final grace taketh away all sinfulness out of the soul, because when the soul parteth from the body, all proneness to ill, and all perturbations which were found in it, by reason of the conjunction with the flesh, do cease, the powers thereof are quieted, & perfectly subjected to grace, & by that means, all venial sins removed: so that no venial sin is remitted after this life; but in that instant wherein grace may be said to be final grace, it hath full dominion & absolute command, and expelleth all sin. Whereunto he addeth, that whereas the Mr of Sentences, & some other do say, that some venial sins are remitted after this life; some answer that they speak of a full remission, both in respect of the fault and stain, and the punishment also: but that others more narrowly and piercingly looking into the thing, do say, that they are to be understood to say, sins are remitted after this life, because (it being the same moment or instant that doth continuate the time of life, & that after life, so that the last instant of life, is the first after life) they are remitted in the very moment of dissolution, grace more fully infusing, and pouring itself into the soul at that time, then before, to the utter abolishing of all sin, all impediment formerly hindering her working, now ceasing. So that these are the words of Alexander of Alice, delivering the opinionof many worthy men in the church, and not mine: and therefore whether he and they do aptly expound the sayings of the Master of Sentences, and others, or not, it is nothing to me; for I do not so interpret the sayings of these men, nor cite him to prove they are to be so interpreted: but cite him only to show, that many learned men, in former times, did think all sinfulness to be purged out of the souls of men, departing hence in the state of grace, even in the very moment of dissolution: which he clearly showeth, and besides telleth us how they sought to construe the sayings of them that seemed to be of another judgement, that they might not be thought to be contrary hereunto. The same may be confirmed out of 
f In 4. sent. d. 24 q. 1.  Bonaventura, who saith, it was the opinion of certain Doctors, who were of good understanding, that no sin is remitted after death, because the force of freewill, in respect of merit, or demerit, doth altogether cease. These, as he saith, thought, that venial sins are wholly remitted and taken away, either by repentance, or by final grace, if there be no time and place for repentance: as when a just & good man is suddenly seized upon by death. The Author of the book called 
g Part, 3. de effectu peccati venialis.  Regimen Animarum, a manuscript copy whereof I have, who lived about the year 1343, hath these words. Delet gratia finalis veniale peccatum, in ipsà dissolutione corporis, & animae, ex virtute completionis sui status, quamvis motus contritionis non sit ad illud directus, & hoc ab antiquis dictum est; sed modò communiter tenetur, quod peccatum veniale hinc deferatur à multis, etiam quoad culpam. That is, final grace doth abolish and utterly take away venial sin in the very dissolution and parting of the soul and body, in that she groweth to be in a full and perfect estate, though no motion of contrition be directed to the putting of it away: and this was said by the Ancient, but now it is commonly holden, that many carry venial sins with them out of this world. even in respect of the stain and fault. Caietan agreeth with those Ancient Divines, that this Author speaketh of: his words are these: 
h Caiet. opus. tom. l. tract. 23. q. 1.  Patet quòd nec pro fomite purgando, qui etiam in baptizatis remanet, nec pro reliquis quibuscunque, nisi satisfactione debit â pro commissis velomissis, poenae sunt purgatoriae; sicut nihil acquirit grave ex remotione prohibentis, sed iuxta pristinam gravitatem tendit ad proprium locum: it a anima ex remotlone prohibentis, iuxta sortitam prius charitatem, in coelestis patriae mansionem sibi paratam intrat. That is; It is evident, that Purgatory pains serve neither for the purging out of the remains of concupiscence, which still abideth even in the Baptised; nor for the taking away of any other thing whatsoever: but only for the satisfying for the sins of omission and commission that are past: and therefore if that be once performed, as a heavy thing, when that is taken away which hindered, getteth no new quality or virtue, but by force of that weight and heaviness it formerly had, goeth to the proper place where nature hath appointed it to rest: so the soul so soon as that is taken away which hindered, by force and virtue of that charity it formerly had, entereth into the mansion of the Heavenly Country provided for it. Further he addeth, that, as after death, charity is, extra statum merendi, that is, in a state wherein there is no farther meriting: so likewise it is in a state, wherein it is capable of no increase, the increase of charity being the bound of the merit of it: whence it followeth, that there is no purging out of any sin after death; for if after death there be no new increasing of that grace and charity which during life stood together with venial sin, there is no purging out of any such sin after death; seeing it is charity stirred up, and enkindled, that consumeth sin, as the burning Furnace doth a drop of water, and nothing else. This is the resolution, not of a few or mean men, but of many, and those the greatest and best esteemed of in the Churches, wherein our Fathers lived and died. To these I say, Gregory seemeth to agree, saying, That the very fear that is found in men dying, purgeth out the lesser sins. But here Master higgon's hath noted 
i Pag. 103.  three points of fraudulency, as he saith, committed by me in a few words: First by an omission: in that, whereas Saint Gregory saith, plerunque, for the most part it is so, I omit and leave out this particle: Secondly, by a reddition in that whereas Gregory saith the Smallest, I say the Lesser. Thirdly, by an extension, in that whereas Gregory saith the Souls of the just are purged, I say in a more general sort, the souls of men dying are purged. For answer hereunto I say, I have no way misalledged Gregory, nor derived any conclusion out of any words of his, contrary to his purpose and Doctrine in other places; for 
k Dialog. li: 4. cap: 46.  Gregory seemeth to be of opinion, that the fear, that is found in the souls of good men dying, doth always purge out the lesser sins, so often as it is found in them: but, that it is not always found in them, but for the most part; whereas I have only said, it doth purge out such sins, without adding always, or for the most part. And that he addeth the particle for the most part, to show that this fear is not always found in good men, when they are to die, and not to deny the effect of purging out the smaller sins unto it, wheresoever it is found, appeareth, in that immediately after; by way of opposition he saith, that, nonnunquam, that is sometimes, God strengtheneth and confirmeth the minds of men ready to die, that otherwise would fear, so that they do not fear at all: but if we take the words as higgon's would have us, yet am I no whit disaduantaged: for if the fear of God's judgements alone, do for the most part purge out the lesser sins, it is likely that other good motions, and the strengthening of grace, and putting of it into a state of perfection, by the subtraction of impediments, should take away the rest: which is all that I have said. For I do not say, that he doth agree with those that think all sinfulness is purged out in the very moment of dissolution; but that he seemeth to agree with them, or that in consequence of reason he should agree with them. Neither is his next exception of least, and lesser, any better than this: For Gregory himself in the thirty ninth chapter of the same book speaking of those sins, that are compared to timber, hay, and stubble, and are to be purged out by the fire, the Apostle speaketh of to the Corinthians; calleth them indifferently peccata parua, & minimums, le●…ia, & levissima, minuta, atque levissima, that is small and smallest, light and lightest sins: so that small or light sins in the positive degree, are the same with him that least or lightest: and therefore it was no fraudulency in me, not translating any sentence of Gregory, but reporting his opinion touching venial sins, indifferently and freely to name them, small, lesser, or smallest, and lightest sins; seeing in his meaning and phrase of speech, and truth of the thing itself they are all one. The last exception is more frivolous than the two former, for speaking only of the souls of the just, and the purging out of such sins as are found in them till death, in my whole discourse, what need was there, that I should add just, seeing no man could possibly understand me to speak of any other? but it seemeth the pooreman knoweth not well what he saith, for he will have Gregory to mean by just men, men of singular s●…ctity, and not generally all that are in the state of grace: and yet denieth that all the sins of these, are purged out in death, so casting into purgatory, not only those of the middle sort, but the best and perfitest also, contrary to the opinions of his own Divines. So that we see here is much a do about nothing: and as the poor man said, when he shore his Sow: here is a great cry and a little wool. For I do not absolutely say, that Gregory fully agreeth with these worthy Divines before mentioned, who think all sinfulness to be utterly abolished and removed out of the soul, in the very moment of dissolution; but that he seemeth to agree unto them; or that in consequence of reason he should agree unto them, in that he maketh the very fear, that is found in men dying, to purge out their lesser sins, when it is found in them, though always it be not found in them: which is not my private conceit, but the Grecians in their Apology touching Purgatory, long before delivered the very same more peremptorily; namely, that Gregory by this saying, and some other found in him, doth utterly overthrow that Purgatory which he is thought to teach: And if he will be pleased to peruse the Schoolmen, he shall find in 
l Summae. lib. 4. q. 1●…. memb. 3. ●…t. 3.  Alexander of Alice, that the best of them thought Gregory to be of opinion, as they also were, that all sin in respect of the stain, or fault, is purged out in death: some interpreting his words, where he speaketh of remission of sins after this life, of that remission which is in the last instant of this life, and the first of the next: and ●…her ●…herwise. And therefore Master higgon's might well have spared his taxation of me, and omitted his marginal note, 
m Pag. 103.  that many such tricks were found by the Bishop of Eureux in the writings of the Lord Plessis Mornay. For in all that which I have written touching this point, there is not so much as the least shadow of any ill dealing: and for that worthy Gentleman, against whom that Bishop so●…ght advantage, by cavilling against some parts of his allegations; it will be found, that he hath more sincerely handled the controversies of religion, than ever any Romanist did. That if any mistaking be found in him; there are many more, and more material in far less compass, in the writings of Cardinal Bellarmine himself: and that in his anatomy of the Mass, the book excepted against by the Bishop of Eureux, he hath in such sort cut in sunder the sinews, not only of the Mass, but of the whole mass of Romish religion; that all the rabble of Romanists will never be able orderly to answer that whole book, howsoever it is easy to cavil against some parts of any thing never so well written.  
But to return to the matter in hand: whatsoever we think of Gregory, of whom I say only, that he seemeth to agree unto the opinion of those Divines, who think all sinfulness to be purged out of the souls of men dying in the state of grace, in the moment of dissolution: it is certain, that exceeding many of best esteem in the Roman Church informer times, were of that opinion: and the same is proved by unanswerable reasons. Whence it will follow inevitably, that there remaineth no punishment to be suffered after death, by men dying in the state of grace. For they are propositions of Saint Bernard, that all the world cannot except against; 
n Bern: in Psal. qui habitat. Serm. 10.  that when all sin shall be wholly taken out of the way, no effect of it shall remain: that the cause being altogether removed, the effect shall be no more: and, that all punishment shall he as far from the outward man, as all fault shall be from the inward. Now that all sinfulness is purged out in the very dissolution of soul and body, is confirmed, as I said, by unanswerable reasons; for seeing the remains of natural concupiscence, the proneness to evil, difficulty to do good, and contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the soul, are wholly taken out of the souls of all them that die in the state of grace, in the moment of dissolution, even in the judgement of our adversaries themselves, (there being nothing in the fault or stain of sin, but the act, desire, & purpose; which cannot remain, where concupiscence, the fountain thereof, is dried up: or the habitual liking, and affecting of such things as were formerly desired, purposed, or done ill; which cannot be found in a soul, out of which, all natural concupiscence, inclining to the desiring of things inordinately, is wholly taken away, and itself turned to the entire desiring of God alone, and nothing, but in, and for him; as is every soul, out of which, concupiscence, inclining to affect finite things inordinately, is wholly taken away.) It is more than evident, that all sinfulness is wholly taken out of the soul of each good man, in the very moment of his death, dissolution, and departure hence. See then the absurdity of Romish Religion! the soul of a good man, in the moment of death, is wholly freed from all sinfulness▪ there is nothing found in it, that displeaseth God: charity, and grace, making those in whom it is, acceptable to GOD, is perfect in it: and yet it must be punished, to satisfy the justice of GOD, because it was sometimes sinful. Truly jever thought, whereas there are two things in sin, the fault, deformity, or stain; and the punishment; that Christ, who is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, by the working of his sanctifying grace, purgeth out the one; and by virtue of his satisfactory sufferings, freeth such as he purgeth from the impurity of sin, from the punishment due unto it; and that in proportionable sort he purgeth out the one; and, by virtue of his satisfactory sufferings, freeth us from the other. So that when sin is only so purged out, that it is no more predominant, there remaineth no condemnation, but yet some punishment, as in the case of David; and when it is wholly taken away, there remaineth no punishment at all: which whosoever contradicteth, is injurious to the sufferings of Christ, & the justice of God, who will not require one debt to be twice paid. For it is most certain, that Christ suffered the punishments, not only of those sins, that men commit in the time of ignorance, 〈◊〉, and the state of Nature, before Baptism and Regeneration, but of all sins: and that the reason, why notwithstanding godless men are subject to all kinds of punishments, as before; is, because they do not become one with CHRIST; nor are made partakers of his sanctifying Spirit, purging out the sinfulness that is in them; that they might enjoy the benefit of his satisfaction: as likewise the reason, why good men, such as Da●…id, turning to God by repentance, are still subject to some punishments in this life, notwithstanding their union with CHRIST, is, because they are not so fully conjoined to CHRIST, and made partakers of his Spirit, as to be purged from all sin. For if they were, they should be freed from all punishment by his sufferings: he having suffered for all them, that become one with him, all that the justice of God requireth. This is that heresy of the Papists, which I speak of, namely that, to satisfy God's justice, the souls of men dying in the state of grace, must suffer punishments answerable to the sins they sometimes committed, though now pure from all sin. This conceit never any of the Ancient had: howsoever some of them supposed, that sinful men in hell, may be eased or delivered thence; and some other (as Augustine, & such as followed him in the Latin Church) were doubtful whether some impurity might not remain to be purged out of the souls of men dying in the state of grace, by afflictions and chastisements after this life. And therefore it is untrue that M higgon's saith, 
o Pag. 108.  This imputation of heresy cleaveth as fast to the Fathers, whom we pretend to honour and reverence, as to any Papist at this day. If Gerson, or any other whom I honour, held this heresy, they held it not heretically, as the Romanists now do: even as Cyprian held the heresy of rebaptisation, and sundry of the Ancient the heresy of the Millenaries, but not heretically: so that Vincentius Lyrinensis saith, 
p Contra prof. Hae ●…t. novit c. 9  The Fathers were saved, and the children condemned: the authors of errors acquitted, & the followers of them in the same, cast into the pit of hell. But Mr higgon's saith, Bernard (whose sayings touching the not punishing of such as are freed from the impurity of sin I allege; thereby to overthrow the erroneous conceit of Papists touching Purgatory) admitteth Purgatory: & therefore 
q Pag. 105.  I traduce the Testaments of the dead, to establish such doctrines as they impugn. For answer whereunto I say, that whether Bernard admit Purgatory or not: yet may he have a sentence, which supposing all sinfulness to be purged out in the moment of dissolution, proveth that there is no Purgatory, to which purpose I allege him, & therefore traduce not the testaments of the dead to establish any Doctrines they impugned; as M ● higgon's untruely & unjustly chargeth me. For my 
r Pag. 107  distilling our Church out of the writings of learned men living under the Papacy, I shall have a sitter place to answer him, when I come to his Appendix: where I will make it appear, that the Israel of God hath not binforced (as he untruely saith it hath) to seek to the Philistines as the distressed Israelites did for the sharpening of their tools, when there was no Smith in Israel: but that the Israel in Canaan deriveth itself from that Israel that sometimes was in Egypt in misarable bondage, enjoyeth the jewels and treasures, & fighteth against the enemies of God, with the weapons brought from thence. And thus much touching Gregory.   

§. 2.  
IN the next place he cometh to Augustine, whom he saith; I have likewise abused. The words wherein the supposed abuse is offered unto him, are these. The Romish manner of praying for the dead hath no certain testimony of antiquity, for no man ever thought of Purgatory till Augustine, to avoid a worse error, did doubtingly run 〈◊〉: after whom many in the Latin Church embraced the same opinion; but the Greek Church never received it to this day. 〈◊〉 inwhich words he saith: I note the temerity; irresolution, and folly of Augustine: the Reader, I doubt not, will note his temerity and folly, in 
s Pag. 108.  censuring me thus without a cause: for I note not Saint Augustine for temerity, nor make him the Author of a new fancy, as he falsely chargeth me▪ but show, that, whereas there were very dangerous opinions in the Church in his time; touching the state of the departed, (many of great esteem thinking that men dying in mortal sin, and adjudged to hell, shall in the end come out thence and be saved▪ he sought to qualify the matter in the best sort he could, with least offence unto them, and to bring them from that error, and therefore saith, 
b Enchirid. ad Laurentium. cap. 67.  If they would acknowledge the punishments of such to be eternal, and think only that they may be mitigated or suspended for a time, or that men dying in the state of grace, yet in some lesser sins are afflicted for a time in the other world, (though he know not whether these things be so or not) yet he would not strive with them. This is not to be the author of a new fancy; but, in hope to reclaim men from a great extremity, to leave something less dangerous in the same kind, doubtful: and this is all that I say of Saint Augustine; neither is this my private fancy: but the Grecians, in that learned Apology before mentioned, have the same observation, to wit, that he wrote not those things which he hath touching Purgatory, out of a certain persuasion, and as undoubtedly holding them to be true: but as it were in a sort enforced, and for the avoiding of a greater evil, which was this, that there is a purging of all sins after death, as some then thought. So that as it seemeth, thinking it something a violent course, directly to go against the opinion of many; and fearing, his words would not seem probable, if whereas others thought all sins may be purged out after death, he on the contrary side should say none may be purged, he chose rather to go in a middle way not contradicting that which is less absurd, and inconvenient: (that so he might more easily bring them he had to deal with from that which was far more inconvenient,) then too much to exasperate them. This was the apprehension the Grecians had of Augustine's writings touching this point: which whosoever shall without any sinister affection peruse, will find to be right and true. Touching irresolution, it was far from Augustine in matters pertaining to the rule of faith: but in other things, wherein men may be ignorant and doubtful, and descent one from another; without danger of eternal damnation: no man was more slow to resolve; no man more inclined to leave things doubtful. But howsoever, that he was doubtful and unresolued in the points concerning the state of the dead, it is evident in that he saith: 
c Vbi supr.  If they, whose merciful error he refuteth, would only think, the pains of them that are in hell to be mitigated, or suspended: he would not greatly strive about it: though, I am well assured, he would not willingly have resolved, that these things are so. The like may be said touching the temporal affliction of good men dying in the state of grace, but yet with some lesser sins: for he was ever doubtful concerning the same: and never resolved that they are undoubtedly in a state of temporal afflictions, as Master higgon's untruly 
d Pag. 113.  reporteth, and thence inferreth many things childishly against me: but that they are in a state wherein prayers may avail them: which two things are very different. For the Grecians in their Apology, before cited, admit remission of sins after this life, and yet deny that there is any estate of temporal affliction. And I have showed before, how sins may be said to be remitted after this life in the entrance into the other world, without admitting Purgatory-punishments. But it cannot be excused that I say, Augustine fearfully opposed himself against the error of them, who thought all right-beleeving Christians, how wickedly soever they lived, shall in the end be saved. Surely the Grecians said as much before, and are in good hope to be excused: and therefore I am in some hope that I may be also: for I do not say that he so feared any thing, as to conceal any truth he was thoroughly resolved of, and which he held necessary to be known of all: but that he feared to offend them he dealt with, farther than of necessity he must: and therefore resolved to yield to them as far as possibly he might, without impugning known and resolved truths, they being many and of great esteem, that were otherwise minded, than he was. Thus have I no way wronged St Augustine, but done him the the greatest right I could: for I have showed, that he impugned not only the error of Origen, touching the salvation of all, even the Devil and his Angels, and of such as thought that all men, or at least all Christian men though Heretics and schismatics, shall in the end be saved: but of them also that thought only that all right-beleeving Christians shall be saved how wickedly soever they live: affirming, that no such thing may be yielded, and yet professing himself doubtful touching the mitigation and suspension of their pains for a time, as also whether men dying in the state of grace, and yet with some lesser sins, be afflicted for a time, and after delivered. So that he brought the conceit concerning the salvation by fire and punishment, of men departing hence in the state of sin, from that exceeding large extent, to this strait: assuring himself more might not be yielded, and professing he knew not whether so much might or not. And therefore he was the author of this limitation, that the error should not be so dangerous; but not of the error itself, touching the salvation of men dying in the state of sin: which no way tendeth to his disgrace; but to his commendation.  
But Master higgon's will prove 
e Pag. 110.  that he was not the first that fell into the opinion of this Purgatory, of men dying in the state of grace; first out of the Magdeburgians, and secondly out of the testimonies of sundry Fathers, teaching the same Purgatory before Augustine, as he pretendeth: To the Magdeburgians it may be answered in a word, that they speak of the Purgatory of such as depart hence in mortal sin, when they attribute the error of Purgatory, to Origen and others before Augustine's time. For Origen made all punishments, even those of the Devil and Damned ones, to be but Purgatory-punishments: and therefore that they say is nothing to our purpose. Wherefore let us see what testimonies of Fathers, before Augustine, Master higgon's can produce, for confirmation of his supposed Purgatory. The first he bringeth is Saint 
f Basil. in Esaiae. 9  Basil, who writing upon those words of Esay, Iniquity shall ●…ee burned as fire, and devoured of the fire as any grass, and burned up in the thickness of the wood, and again, all the earth shall be set on fire in the furious and fierce wrath of the Lord; and all the people shall be as it were burned by fire: First showeth, that iniquity may fitly be compared unto grass, the generation whereof is infinite, in that sin begetteth and succeedeth itself, fornication, fornication, lying, lying: and so in the rest. Secondly, that if we reveal and make bare our sin by confessing and acknowledging it, we make it like dry grass, fit to be devoured and consumed by the purging fire: but that, if it become not like dry grass, it shall not be devoured by the fire. Thirdly he interpreteth the thickness of the wood to be men darkened in their cogitations, and keeping many evils in the secret of their hearts. Fourthly, whereas it is said, the earth is set on fire by the fierce wrath of the Lord, he saith the Prophet meaneth, that earthly things are delivered to the punishing fire, for the good of the soul: according to that of the Lord, I come to send fire into the earth, and my desire is, that it be kindled as soon as may be. Fifthly, he showeth, that whereas the Prophet saith, The people shall be burned as with fire, he threateneth not destruction, but promiseth purgation: according to that of the Apostle, If any man's work burn, etc. here indeed mention is made of purging-fire; but it is the fire of tribulation in this world, and of divine affections which it kindleth, for the consuming and burning up of the sins of them, that acknowledge them, and make them bare by feeling & confessing how displeasing they are to God: whereas otherwise it worketh no such effect. But here is no word, nor circumstance, whence it may be collected, that Basil speaketh of any Purgatory after this life; nay it is plain, he speaketh of that fire, which Christ came to bring into the world, and to cast out upon the earth, and which he desired to be kindled, as soon as might be: which things, I think are not appliable to Popish Purgatory. 
g Nazianz. Orat. 40. in sanctum Baptisma.  The Scripture, saith Gregory Nazianzen, mentioneth a purging-fire, which CHRIST came to send into the earth, and himself anagogically is called fire: the nature of this fire, is to waste and consume away the grosser matter, and vicious disposition of the mind: and therefore CHRIST desireth to have it kindled as soon as may be, that we may have the benefit of it: which I think can hardly be understood of Purgatory, unless we suppose CHRIST wisheth us all to be in those torments with speed. Nicetas writing upon Nazianzen, expoundeth the purging-fire he speaketh of, to be love, and faith towards God, which purge our souls from sin, and ignorance, & divide the godly, from the ungodly and unbelievers. Another fire Nazianzen saith there is, which is not a purging, but a revenging fire; whether it be that Sodomitical fire, which, mixed with brimstone & tempest, God poureth on the heads of sinners: or that which goeth before the face of the Lord, and burneth up his enemies on every side: or lastly, that which is more horrible than all these, which is joined with the restless worm, and which never goeth out. So that we see neither Gregory, nor Nicetas, knew any thing of the Papists Purgatory-fire after this life, mentioning all the kinds of fire that are spoken of in Scripture, and omitting it clean. To Basill Mr higgon's addeth, 
h Hom. 3. de Epiph.  Eusebius Emissenus, who was more ancient than he. But his own 
i Sixtus Senensi●… Bibl. sanct. l. 4. Baron. tom. 3. 341. 11.  friends will tell him, these Homilies which he citeth, that go under his name, are none of his: but that they were collected out of the Latin Fathers by Beda or some other: the sentence doubtless which he citeth, is found word for word in Augustine's Homily upon the Epiphanie. But howsoever the Author of these Homilies seemeth to speak of a trying fire, through which all must pass, & not of the Papists imagined Purgatory. The next testimony he bringeth, is out of Gregory Nyssen; but as the Grecians in their Apology note, they are not well advised that allege Gregory Nyssen to 
〈◊〉 Serm. de defunctis.  this purpose; seeing he speaketh not of a particular purging of some, but of a general restoring of all: of which opinion also Didymus and Euagrius were. This his gross error they excuse: first, for that happily these things might be rois●…ed into his works by Heretics: And secondly, for that he wrote before the time of the Fifth General Council, wherein the error of Origen was condemned. From these Greek Fathers, Master higgon's 
l Pag. 11●…  proceedeth to the Latin: And first produceth Ruffinus upon the Psalms: and then Ambrose. That Ruffinus wrote upon the Psalms was never heard of, before that of late one Antonius de Albone Archbishop of Lions, found out an unknown work, in a certain ruinated Abbey, and put it out under the name of Ruffinus, though as himself confesseth, it seemed strange to many that such a work had lain hid so long; and more strange, that so often the same sentences and periods should be found in Augustine that are in this supposed Ruffinus; seeing he could not take them from Augustine; & Augustine in all likelihood would not borrow them from him, never using to be beholding to any man in this kind: so that it may be thought this work had a latter Author then either of these: & surely, the words Mr higgon's citeth are the words of Augustine, and therefore ill alleged to show that others before him thought as he did touching the purging of men dying in an imperfect state of grace. Wherefore let us come to Ambrose, out of whom he citeth two places: the first is upon the hundred and eighteen Psalm, the second upon the thirty six Psalm. Touching the first of these places Cardinal 
m De Purga●…. l. 1. c. 4.  Bellarmine will tell him, that it is not to be understood of the fire of Purgatory, but of the fire of God's judgement: which is not a purging or an afflicting fire, but a trying and examining fire. I will set down the words at large, that the Reader may judge of them. All must be proved by fire that desire to return to Paradise, for it is not idly written, that when Adam & Eve were cast out of Paradise, God set in the entrance into it, a fiery two-edged, or turning-sword: for all must pass by slaming fire, whether it be john the Evangelist whom the LORD so loved that he said of him to Peter: if I will have him to abide, what is that to thee? follow thou me, (Of his death some have doubted, of his passage through the fire we may not doubt, because he is in Paradise, & is not separated from CHRIST,) or Peter that received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, & walked upon the Sea, he must be forced to say, we have passed by fire & water, and thou hast brought us into a place of refreshing: but when john cometh, the fiery sword shall soon be turned away, because iniquity is not found in him, whom equity loved. If there were any fault found in him, as a man, the love of God wasted it away. For the wings thereof are as the wings of fire: he that here hath the fire of charity, shall not there fear the fire of the sword, Christ shall say unto Peter, that so often offered to die for him, pass & be at rest: but he shall say, he hath tried us in the fire, as silver is tried. &c, He shall be tried as silver, but I shall be tried as lead. I shall burn till the lead melt away: if no silver be found in me, woe is me, I shall be cast into the lowest hell, or wholly burnt up as stubble: if any gold or silver be found in me, not by mine own works, but by the mercy and grace of CHRIST, and by the ministry of my Priesthood, happily I say, They that trust in thee, shall not be confounded. Therefore iniquity shall be burned out by the fiery sword, that fitteth upon the talon of Lead. He alone could not feel that fire, who is the justice of God even Christ, who did no fin: for the fire found nothing in him, that it could burn; but concerning others, even he that thinketh himself Gold, hath lead: and he that thinketh himself to be a grain of corn, hath chaff, that may be burned. Many here seem to themselves to be gold, I do not envy them, but even the gold shall be tried: it shall burn in fire, that it may be proved: for so it is written, I will prove them as gold in the fire: therefore seeing we are to be tried, let us so behave ourselves, that we may deserve to be approved by the judgement of God; let us, while we are here, hold humility, that when every of us shall come to the judgement of God, he may say, See my humility, and deliver me. And upon the thirty sixth Psalm, he hath these words: We shall all be tried by fire: and Ezechiel saith, Behold, the Lord Almighty cometh, and who shall abide the day of his coming? or who shall endure it, when he shall appear unto us? for he shall come as purging fire, & as Fuller's soap, & he shall sit down to try and fine the gold and the silver, he shall fine the sons of Levy, and pour them out like gold and silver, and they shall offer sacrifice to the Lord in righteousness. Therefore the sons of Levy shall be fined by fire: Ezechiel shall be fined by the fire: and Daniel shall be fined by the fire: but these, though they shall be tried by the sire, yet they shall say: we have passed by fire and water: others shall abide in the fire; to them the fire shall be as a moist dew, as it was to the Hebrew children, that were cast into the hot burning furnace; but the revenging fire shall burn up the Ministers of iniquity. Woe is me, if my work shall burn, and I suffer loss of my labour! and if the Lord do save his servants, we shall be saved by faith, yet as by fire; & though we be not burned up, yet we shall be burned: but how some remain in the fire, and other pass through it, let the Scripture in another place teach us. The people of Egypt were drowned in the Red sea: the people of the Hebrews passed through it: Moses passed, Pharaoh was overwhelmed because his grievous sins did drown him: in like sort sacrilegious persons shall be cast headlong into the lake of burning fire: etc. Here we see Ambrose speaketh of the trial of God's severe and righteous judgement expressing the same by the name of fire: because even our God is a consuming fire. And a fire shall go before him, when he cometh to judge the world: but of the Papists Purgatory-fire he hath no word. The fire he speaketh of, is the fiery trial of God's judgement, through which he thinketh all must pass, though never so holy, and be burned in it, though not burned up, as the wicked shall. Of the same fire, not of Purgatory, but of the judgement of God, doth Hillary speak upon the same words of the 118. Psal. and upon the second of Matthew, where expounding these words, He shall Baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire, he saith, it remaineth, that they that have been Baptised with the Holy Ghost should be comsummate and made perfect in the fire of judgement. And before these Lactantius, 
n Lib. 4. cap. 21. inst. Chr.  his words are these: therefore the Divine fire by one and the same virtue and power shall burn the wicked etc. And also when the Lord shall judge the righteous, he shall try them by fire: Then they whose sins shall prevail either in weight or number, shall be burned up in the fire: but they whom full and perfect righteousness and the maturity of virtue shall have throughly seasoned, shall not feel that fire, because they have something of God in them, to repel and reject the force of the flame, and so great is the force of innocence, that that harmless fire doth fly from it, having received power from God to burn the ungodly, & to do service to the righteous. Many things are found in Basill upon Esay, which (as 
o Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 5. annot. 17 1.  Sixtus Senensis saith) may seem to tend to the same purpose, as 
p In 4. Esaiae.  when upon those words he shall purge Jerusalem in the spirit of judgement & in the spirit of burning:: he saith, this is to be referred to the trial and examination which shall be in fire in the world to come. Thus do none of those Fathers, that Master higgon's allegeth, say any thing for the imagined Purgatory of Papists: but the same is clearly refuted by that which they say: and therefore the Reader may be well assured, that it is most true, that I have said: that Augustine was the first that ever spoke any thing of that Purgatory, wherein men dying in an imperfect state of grace, are supposed to be purged after this life by fire. These things being so, I doubt not but all men of any indifferency will easily see that this idle Prater, which ran away upon discontentment, had little reason to say 
q pag. 109,  that he grew to a detestation of his religion, because he found my dealing to be corrupt, and uncapable of defence. His vain and childish 
r Ibid.  retorting of that I say of Bellarmine's impudency in another case and upon another occasion, I little regard: seeing he gave me just cause to say that I said, and I had good advantage against him; whereas this prating Fugitive hath none against me.   

§. 3.  
THe next Father, which he saith I have abused, is S. Hierome: the supposed abuse offered to him, is, that I say, he was of opinion, that howsoever devils and impious ones shall never be saved; yet all right-beleeving Christians, how wickedly soever they live, shall, after punishments suffered and endured, be saved in the end. It was my hard hap to fall into the hands of this severe censurer, that brandeth all that come in his way, with the note of ill dealing, and abuse of Fathers: and therefore I think I must be forced to appeal from him. And because Bellarmine is by him pronounced worthy of immortal honour, let us hear what he will pronounce: 
a De purgatorio, lib. 2. cap. 1.  There are, saith he, who think, that blessed Hierom was in this error: yet it seemeth he was not. Here is a more advised, and temperate censure, then that of hotspur higgon's. Some think he was in this error, but it seemeth he was not. So that it is not certain that he erred not in this point, but doubtful: and my dealing is not so bad, as Master higgon's would make it to be. But let us appeal yet farther, and make Hierome himself, even good Saint Hierome, as this smatterer is pleased to style him, judge between us: If I make it not as clear as the sun at noon day, that he was in this error, out of his own indubitate writing, let higgon's insult upon me at his pleasure: but if I do, I would entreat his superiors to teach him better manners.  
In his first book against the Pelagians, he distinguisheth unrighteous men, & sinners, from ungodly, or impious: defining them to be ungodly, or impious, that either never knew God, or after they had the knowledge of God, corrupted and changed it; and then pronounceth, that the unrighteous and sinners, that have the right knowledge of God, shall not perish everlastingly. His words are these. Who can endure that you have in the Chapter following? that the unrighteous and sinners shall not be spared in the day of judgement, but be burned up in those eternal fires? that you go about to stop the course of God's mercy, and to judge of the sentence of the judge, before the day of judgement? so that although he would, he may not spare the unrighteous and sinners, because you prescribe the contrary; for you say, it is written in the Psalm, Let the sinners fail from the earth, and the unrighteous, that they be no more. And again in Esay, The unrighteous and sinners shall be burned together, & they that forsake God shall be destroyed, & do you not understand that the threats of God have sometimes a sound of mercy? for he doth not say, they shall be burned up in everlasting fire; but that they shall fail from the earth, and that the unrighteous shall cease: for it is one thing for them to cease from sin, and iniquity: and another thing for them to perish for ever, and to be burnt up in everlasting fire. To conclude, Esaias, whose testimony you bring, saith, the sinners and unrighteous shall be burned together: and addeth not, for ever: And they that forsake God shall be utterly destroyed. This he speaketh properly of heretics, who unless they convert from their errors, shall perish: but what rashness is it to match and join together unrighteous men & sinners, with such as are impious & ungodly? who are thus defined by us. Every impious & ungodly man is an unrighteous man and a sinner, but there is no reciprocation: neither may we say every sinner & unrighteous man is also an impious & ungodly man: for impiety properly pertaineth to them, that have not the knowledge of God, or having had the knowledge of God, have corrupted and changed the same, etc. The Apostle to the Romans saith, who-soever have sinned without the Law shall perish without the Law; and whosoever have sinned in the Law, shall be judged by the Law. He that is without the Law, is the godless or impious man, who shall perish everlastingly: but he that is in the Law, is the sinner that believeth in God, who shall be judged by the Law, and not perish. And afterwards he addeth these words: If Origen do say, that no reasonable Creature shall perish, and attribute repentance to the devil; what is that to us, who say that the Devil and his Angels, & all impious men and prevaricators shall perish for ever, and that Christians if they shall be prevented & taken in sin, shall be saved after punishment? Here we see the difference made not between one degree of sinners, & another, but between sinners that profess rightly, & impious & ungodly men, that have not the knowledge of God, or by heresy have perverted the same: between men sinning without the Law, & so perishing, & men sinning in the Law, that is, having the true knowledge of the Law, and so judged by it, & yet not perishing everlastingly. Whence it followeth necessarily, that he thinketh all right believers shall be saved. Which is farther confirmed, in that, having excluded impious men, he speaketh generally of Christians, as in a state of salvation notwithstanding sin, though after grievous punishments to be endured.  
In his Commentaries upon Esay, having spoken of their conceit, who think, that all that have sinned & offended God, shall in the end find mercy, and that no torments 
b In ultima verba Esaiae.  shall be eternal, he concludeth in this sort: ● As we believe that the torments of the devil, of such as deny God, and of impious men, which have said in their hearts, there is no God, are eternal: so we think, that the sentence of the judge, that shall be pronounced upon sinners & ungodly men, who yet are Christians, whose works are to be tried and purged in the fire, shall be moderate and mixed with clemency. Where we see again, he maketh not the difference between the degrees of sin, as the Romanists do, but between impious men, that say in their hearts there is no God, that deny God and his truth; and Christians that are unrighteous and sinners. Neither are those words, whose works are to be tried and purged in the fire, to be taken distinctively, to note forth unto us one certain degree of Christians, who shall suffer a temporal punishment in fire, as M. higgon's would have them: but explicatively, to signify the condition of all Christians. Which appeareth, because otherwise he would not have said of sinners, & yet Christians; but of sinners, & yet such Christians, whose works are to be tried in the fire. This explication is added to put a difference between Christians, & such as are no Christians; because the works of Christians only, & of all Christians, shall come to be tried in the fire of God's judgement, others being judged already, as Hierome speaketh, & adjudged to eternal perdition. These circumstances of the words of Hierome considered, I think there is no indifferent reader, but will conceive his opinion to have been, as I have delivered it: & that I have no way wronged him, but that higgon's hath causelessly wronged Me.  
Some places there are in Hierome that are brought to prove, that he was of another opinion, but they prove nothing. The first is out of his Commentaries upon Hosea, where he saith, 
c In cap. 4. Hos.  When heretics see men offend against God, they say, God seeketh nothing of them but the verity of faith: for this cause the people are not humbled, but they rejoice in their sins; and go forward with a stiff neck: wherefore the People and Priest, Master and Scholars, are bound up in the same judgement. This place is alleged to no purpose: For here Hierome showeth only, that Heretics teaching falsely that God requireth not good works; and such as believing them, shall rejoice in evil doing, shall perish: which is no way contrary to the other conceit, that right believing Christians, living ill, shall in the end be saved. The next place they bring, is out of his Commentaries upon Matthew: the words are these: 
d In cap. 25 Math.  Mark prudent Reader, that both punishments are eternal, and that everlasting life hath no more fear of any fall away: which no way contraryeth the opinion of Hierome beforementioned. For he is resolved, that the punishments of the Devil, his Angels and all impious ones, are eternal: but thinketh right believers, though living wickedly, shall be punished but for a time. That out of his Commentaries upon the Galathians, 
e In 5 ad Gal.  That enmity, contention, wrath, brawling, dissension, drunkenness, and other-like, which we esteem to be but small evils, exclude us from the Kingdom of GOD; If it be understood of right believers, accorcording to Hieromes opinion, showeth only what these deserve, namely exclusion from the Kingdom of God, but prejudice not the riches of his mercy towards them that do such things. here by the way I would have the reader to observe a gross oversight in M. higgon's; who saith, 
f Pag. 123.  it may as well be inferred out of the writings of Hierome, that he thought all Christians shall in the end be saved, how damnably soever erring in matters of faith, as right believers: Whereas, distinguishing the godless or impious man that never knew God, or corrupteth the knowledge he had of God, as heretics, from a sinner or unrighteous man, he expressly pronounceth the one to perish everlastingly and not the other. Having thus cleared myself from the suspicion of wrong offered to Hierome, which M. higgon's would willingly fasten on me, I will persuade myself to contemn the wrongs he doth me: As namely, 
g Pag. 121 122. & 12●….  that I use the testimonies of this Saint at my pleasure, that I vainly elude the truth, and unconscionably entreat the Fathers; that I craftily convey words into Saint Augustin: that I sort my terms wisely for my advantage, and that I seek to dazzle the understanding of my readers: If Master higgon's were a man of any worth, and should entreat me thus ill without all cause as he doth, I would let him know more of my mind: but I have resolved not to turn back to every Cur that barketh at me.   

SECT. 4.  
WHerefore from Hierome I will pass to Ambrose, whom this profane Esau (who hath sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, for more I think he will not have for it) bringeth in as he saith, 
a Pag. 125.  to make up the mess. In this idle discourse touching Ambrose, the poor fellow is to be pitied, or laughed at, accordingly as men are disposed: so ridiculously doth he behave himself. The circumstances of the matter are these. In the place cited by him, first, 
b Third book of the Church. cap. 17.  I show in what sort men prayed lawfully for the dead, without any conceit of Purgatory, namely respectively to their passage hence, and entrance into the other world, and for their resurrection, public acquittal in the day of judgement, and perfect consummation & bliss. Secondly, I show first, what erroneous conceits some particular men in former times had, touching the possibility of helping men dying in mortal sin, whereupon they prayed for the dead, in such sort as the Romanistes dare not do: as for the deliverance of men out of hell, or at least the suspension or mitigation of their pains, & secondly, that they thought that there is no judgement to pass upon men, till the last day; that in the mean while, all men are holden either in some place under the earth, or else in some other place appointed for that purpose; so that they come not into heaven, nor receive the reward of their labours till the general judgement; and that out of this conceit that prayer in james his Liturgy grew, that God would remember all the faithful that are fallen asleep in the sleep of death, since Abel the just till this present day: and that he would place them in the land of the living, as also many other like. Of this opinion I report justine Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, Pope john the two and twentieth, and Ambrose to have been, besides sundry other.  
All that which I have said touching the lawful and unlawful forms of praying for the dead, used amongst the Ancient, no way importing any conceit in them of Purgatory, he passeth over in silence, as no way able to refute any part of it; & likewise by his silence yieldeth that justine Martyr, Tertullian, Clement Bishop of Rome, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, and Pope john the two and twentieth were of the opinion I speak of; to whom I might have added Irenaeus, Bernard, Theophylact, and many more. That all these should be charged with this opinion, or with this folly, as he will have it, it never troubleth him: only he is much moved that Ambrose should be charged with any such thing: It seemeth he is not of the Gregorian, but of the Ambrosian Church, in that he is careless what becometh of his Popes, Clement, and john, so all be well with Ambrose. 
c Pag 1●….  He was tormented (he saith) with a necessary suspicion rather of my unfaithfulness in this report, then of Saint Ambrose his folly in this matter. Surely, if he were as wise as he is wilful, he would not pass his censures, as he doth; for it is no such folly, but that as wise a man, as S. Ambrose, might fall into it, to think as so many learned, worthy and renowned Divines did; and therefore 
d Lib. 3. adversus Haereses.  Alfonsus á Castro, having charged the Grecians and Armenians with this error, saith, that after these, john the two and twentieth rose up, and embraced the same opinion: and lest any man might give less credit to his words, he saith he will report the words of Pope Adrian, who writeth thus: Last of all it is reported of john the 22, that he publicly taught, declared and commanded all to hold that souls though purged from sin, have not that stole, which is the clear vision of God face to face, before the last judgement, and it is said, that he brought the university of Paris to that point, that no man could take any degree in Divinity there, unless first he did swear to defend this error, and to adhere to it for ever: thus far Pope Adrian. Besides these there are other Patrons of this error, men of renown and famous both for sanctity and science; to wit, the most blessed Martyr of Christ, Irenaeus, Theophylact Bishop of Bulgaria and blessed Bernard. Neither should any man marvel that so great men fell into so pestilent an error; seeing as blessed james the Apostle saith, He that offendeth not in words, is a perfect man. Notwithstanding the Reader is here to be admonished, that he think not, that this error detracteth any thing from the holiness or learning of so great men (so that it is no such imputation of folly to attribute this opinion to Ambrose as wise M higgon's maketh it:) for whereas at that time the Church had defined nothing touching that matter, neither had it ever been called in question, & the testimonies of Scripture for that which is now defined, were not so express, but that they might be wrested into another sense: they might teach the one, or the other, without note of heresy: especially seeing there wanted not testimonies of Scripture, that seemed in some sort to favour them. Thus far Alfonsus a Castro. But let us see how Master higgon's will convince me, that I have wronged Ambrose, which in so clamorous manner he undertaketh to do: Surely this is the ground of his quarrel against me: that having imputed this opinion to justine Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Victorinus, and Ambrose; in the margin I refer the reader to Sixtus Senensis, who yet excused Ambrose from this error. But the silly Novice should know, that I do not say Sixtus Senensis attributeth that opinion to Ambrose, and that I put not his name in the margin, as if I grounded my imputation upon his authority: For if I would have done so, I could have mustered together a far greater number than I have done. But because it had been tedious to have set down the words of all those I mention, wherein they express their opinion, in the margin I refer the reader to Sixtus Senensis, who reporteth their words at large; according to the course of times wherein they flourished, that the reader within the compass of one page may see what they say, without turning over their large volumes: and among other, the words of Ambrose, which I think, will strongly persuade him, he was of that opinion, which I impute unto him, howsoever Sixtus Senensis by a favourable construction labour to excuse him. Let us see therefore if Ambrose will not witness for me, that I have done him no wrong, but truly reported his opinion.  
The first thing I imputed unto him is, that he thinketh, as many other did before and after him, that there is no judgement to pass upon men till the last day; If this be not clearly proved out of Ambrose his own words, let the Reader think I have wronged him. In his second book of Cain and Abel, he hath these words. The Master of a Ship, when he hath brought his Ship into the haven, scarce thinketh he hath ended his labour, before he begin to seek the beginning of a new: 
* Soluitur corpore anima & post finem vitae huius, adhuc tamen futu●… judicijambiguo sulpenditur.  the soul is loosed from the body, and after the end of this life it is still holden in suspense, upon the uncertainty and doubtfulness of the future judgement; so is there no end where there is thought to be an end.  
The second thing I attribute to Ambrose, is, that he thinketh the souls of men are kept in some place appointed for that purpose, so that they come not into heaven till the general judgement. Let us hear him speak himself, and then let the Reader judge, whether he say not all that I impute unto him. In his book 
e Cap. 10.  the bo●… mortis, he hath these words. In the books of Esdras we read, that when the day of judgement shall come, the earth shall restore the bodies of the dead, and the dust shall restore those relics and remains of the dead which rest in the graves, and the secret habitations shall restore the souls which have been committed to them, and the most High shall be revealed upon the Seat of judgement. From hence he saith, the Gentiles took those things which they admire in the books of Philosophers: and (blaming them that they mingled superfluous and unprofitable things with those that are true, as the demigration of souls into bees, birds, and the like fancies) saith, it had been sufficient for them to have said, that souls delivered out of mortal bodies, petunt Haden, that is, go into an invisible place: which place in Latin is called Infernus; and farther addeth, that the Scripture calleth these secret habitations of souls, Storehouses. here we see Ambrose saith, there are certain secret habitations of souls, which though they be higher than the receptacles of dead bodies, yet are rightly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, & Infernus in Latin: & that these are Storehouses, keeping those souls that are committed to them till the Resurrection, and then restoring them. If M. higgon's do think that Infernus is Heaven, than I have no more to say to him: otherwise I think the evidence of this place cannot be avoided.  
The third thing I impute to Ambrose, is, that the souls of the Just receive not the reward of their labours till the General judgement. Touching which point he hath these words, 
f Vbi sup●…,  The Scripture meeting with the complaints of men which they doc or may make, for that the Just which went before, seem to be defrauded of the reward due unto them for a long time, even till the day of judgement, wonderfully saith, that the day of judgement is like unto a ring or crown, wherein as there is no slackness of the last, so is there no swiftness of the first: for the day of crowning is expected by all; that within it they that are overcome may be ashamed, and they that are conquerors may attain the palm of victory: and, after some other things inserted, he addeth, that so long as the fullness of time is expected, the souls expect their due reward: though neither the one sort be without all sense of evil, nor the other of good. Thus if it had pleased M. higgon's to look into Ambrose himself, & not to the opinion of Senensis (to which I refer not the Reader, as he untruly saith I do: but to the words of Ambrose cited by him) he might have found that I dealt faithfully and sincerely in this matter, and so have spared a great number of reproachful terms he now bestoweth very liberally on me.  
Some man happily will say, that elsewhere Ambrose seemeth to place the souls of Just men in Heaven before the Resurrection, and that this place de bono mortis, is to be interpreted by them. Whereunto I answer, that places where things are but spoken of in passage, and not purposely, are rather to be interpreted by those, wherein they are purposely handled, then otherwise: and therefore this place de bono mortis; wherein he goeth about to describe at large the state of the dead, must be a rule to interpret other places by. The most pregnant proof that is brought to the contrary out of his indubitate works, is out of his 
g Ep. l. 7. ep. 55.  Fpistle to the Thessalonians. where, speaking of Acholius, of whose death he had lately heard, he faith, He is now an inhabitant of the higher world, a possessor of the eternal city of Jerusalem, that is in Heaven, that he seeth there the unmeasurable measure of that City the pure gold, the precious stone, perpetual light without any sun; and these things truly were well known to him before, but now seeing face to face he saith as we have heard, so have we seen in the City of the Lord of hosts, in the City of our God: and out of the last of his Epistles, where, speaking of certain Martyrs, he saith, 
h Lib. 10. ep. vl.  their souls are in Heautn, their bodies on Earth: but the answer hereunto for the reconciling of the seeming contradictions of Ambrose, is easy; for in the former place 
i Cap. 11.  De bono mortis he showeth, that he thinketh that the souls of the Just, by seven several degrees, as it were by the space of seven days, are led along to take a view of the things they shall enjoy after the judgement: and that afterwards they are gathered into their habitations, there to enjoy the benefit of their quiet congregating, or gathering together: seven days liberty they have to see the former things, and then they are gathered into their habitations. The seven degrees by which they are led those seven days; are 1 the consideration of their victory, which they have obtained over the flesh and other like enemies. 2 The quiet they find in themselves, from these perturbations, and torment of conscience, which the wicked are subject unto. Thirdly, the Divine testimony which they have in themselves, that they have kept the Law, making them not to fear the uncertain event of the future judgement. Fourthly, their beginning to discern their rest and future glory. Fifthly, triumphant joy, in that they are come out of the prison of a corruptible body, into light and liberty, and to possess the inheritance promised to them. 6. The brightness of their countenances, beginning to shine as the sun. 7. Their confident hastening to see the face and countenance of God. Having been thus led along, they are brought into their habitations, where they comfort themselves, in the foresight of that which shall be, and rest peaceably, guarded by the Angels, in a place, as he describeth it, above the earth and places of dead bodies, and yet below the highest heaven, the place of perfect happiness. And so Acholius might be said by Ambrose to be an inhabitant of the higher places, and to see the glory of the Jerusalem that is above, and yet not be in the highest heaven. But, he saith, Acholius is a possessor of that eternal City, and that the Martyr's bodies are on earth, and their souls in heaven; therefore he thought the spirits of the just, to be in the highest heaven, before the resurrection. This consequence, I fear, will hardly be made good: for 
k In festo omnium Sanctorum Serm 3.  Bernard (who is confessed to have holden the opinion which I impute to Ambrose) maketh three estates of souls: the first, in Tabernaculis, the second, in Atriis: and the third, in Domo interiori: That is, the first in Tents or Tabernacles, while they remain in the corruptible bodies of men that are in the warfare of Christ in the world: the second, in the outward Courts of the Lords house: and the third, in the inner rooms of the house of God: so sorting these things, that both the latter states of souls of men may be said and thought to be in a sort in heaven, and to have possession of the eternal jerusalem, that is in Heaven, and yet but one of them be in the highest heaven, where the perfection of the happy vision of God is: to which purpose it is, that Saint Augustine saith: 
l In Psal. 36.  after this life thou shalt not be there where the Saints shall be, to whom it shall be said, come ye blessed of my father, receive the Kingdom which was prepared for you from the beginning of the world; but thou mayst be where the proud rich man in the midst of torments saw a far off the poor man, sometimes full of ulcers, resting: in that rest thou shalt securely expect the day of judgement. here he denyeth directly the souls of the just to be in heaven, where they shall be after the resurrection, & general judgement. In his 
m Lib. 9 cap. 3.  Confessions he saith, Now Nebridius liveth in the bosom of Abraham, whatsoever that it is that is signified by that bosom; there liveth my Nebridius, my sweet friend. here we see he is doubtful what the bosom of Abraham is. Upon Genesis he doubteth, whether the souls of the just be in the third heaven, or 
n Li: 12, ca: 34.  not: which peremptorily in the place before cited he denied. Neither doth he speak thus doubtfully touching the place only, but touching the state of happiness also: for in his Retractations thus he writeth: 
o Retract. l. 1. c. 14.  That maketh us most happy, whereof the Apostle speaketh, saying, then shall I see him face to face; and then shall I know as I am known: they that have found this, are to be said to be in the possession of blessedness; but who these most blessed ones are who are in that possession, it is a great question: that the holy Angels are, there is no question, but concerning holy men departed, whether they may be said to be now already in that possession, it is doubtful, etc. Surely it is marvel if Saint Augustine escape the censure of Master higgon's, who pronounceth it folly to doubt of these things. 
p Lib. 6. Annotat. 345.  Sixtus Senensis saith, we must civilly interpret Saint Augustine in these his sayings; but 
q De Sanctorun beatitud. lib. 1. cap. 5.  Bellarmine saith directly, he sometimes doubted of the place where the souls of the just are after death: and that upon the 36. Psalm he denyeth them to be there, where after the judgement they shall be: This is that Augustine, that Master higgon's, in his scurrile and ruffianlike phrase, saith, 
r Pag. 121.  was not so easily to be jaded by me, as Ambrose; Thinking them all jades as it seemeth, and unfit for such a horseman as he is to ride on, that have been doubtful or found to err in this point; if he do, I would desire to know of him what he thinketh of Irenaus, 
s Aduersu. he●…. 5. in fine.  who saith, that the souls of men dying shall go into an invisible place appointed for them by God, and shall abide there till the resurrection, attending and waiting for it; and that after, receiving their bodies and perfectly rising again, that is, corporally, as Christ rose, they shall come into the sight of God. Of justine Martyr, who saith, 
t Lib. quaest. 〈◊〉 Gentib. propositarum. quaest. 76.  no man receiveth the reward of the things he did in this life, till the resurrection: that the soul of the good thief, that was crucified with Christ, entered into Paradise, and is kept there till the day of resurrection, & reward; that there the souls of good men do see the humanity of Christ, themselves, the things that are under them, and besides, the Angels and Devils. Of Tertullian who saith: Nulli patet coelum, terrâ adhuc saluâ, ne dixer in clausa: that is, heaven is open to none; while the earth remaineth safe and whole, that I say not shut up: and 
u Aduersus Marcionem. l. 4  again, 
x Ibid.  thou hast our book of Paradise, wherein we determine that every soul is sequestered, apud inferos, with them that are in the lower dwellings, till the day of the Lord. Of Lactantius, 
y Divinar. Instit. li. 7. ca 21.  who will have no man think that souls are judged presently after death, but that they are all detained and kept in one common custody, till the time come when the greatest judge shall examine their works. Of Victorinus Martyr, who upon those words of john in the Revelation, I saw the souls of the slain under the Altar of God, observeth, that in the time of the Law, there were two Altars, one of Gold, within; another of brass, without; that as heaven is understood by that golden Altar, that was within, to which the Priests entered only once in the year; so by the brazen Altar, the earth is understood, under which is Infernus, a region removed from pains and fire, and the resting place of the Saints; in which the just are seen and heard of the ungodly, & yet they cannot pass one to another. Of Bernard, whose opinion 
z Li. 3. Aduersu Hereses.  Alphonsus á Castro confesseth to be, as I have said; & 
a Vbi suprà.  Sixtus Senensis likewise; but thinketh that he is to be excused with a benign affection, because of the exceeding great number of renowned Fathers of the Church, which seemed to give authority to this opinion by their testimony, amongst whom he reckoneth Ambrose for one. Lastly, of Pope john the 22. who was violent in the maintenance of this opinion? These premises considered, let the Reader judge, whether Master higgon's had any cause to complain of want of faithfulness and exactness in me, in that I say, that many of the Fathers thought there is no judgement to pass upon men till the last day, that all men are held either in some place under the earth, or else in some other place appointed for that purpose, so that they come not into heaven, nor receive the reward of their labours till the general judgement: and that many made prayers for the dead out of this conceit, such as that is in james his Liturgy: that God would remember all the faithful that are fall'n a sleep in the sleep of death since Abel the Just till this present time. For I do not make this the ground of the general practice, and intention of the Church, in her prayers, as this shameless companion would make men believe.   

SECT. 5.  
FRom the four Doctors of the Church, and the supposed wrongs offered to them; he proceedeth to show that I 
a Pag. 134.  calumniate a worthy person, to defend the inexcusable folly of our Genevian Apostle; his meaning is that I wrong Bellarmine, to justify Calvine: but what is the wrong done to the Cardinal? 
b Pag. 130.  Doctor Field, saith he, accuseth Bellarmine unjustly of trifling and senseless foolery in the question of prayer for the dead: Let the reader take the pains to peruse the 
c Third book of the Church chap. 17.  place cited by Master higgon's out of my book, and he shall find him to be a very false, unhonest, & trifling fellow in so saying. For first, I do not accuse Bellarmine of senseless foolery in the matter of prayer for the dead, (as he untruly reporteth against his own knowledge,) but in that he seeketh to calumniate Master Caluine, worthy of eternal honour, in very childish sort, about the name of Merit. Caluine saith, the Fathers were far from the Popish error touching merit, and that yet they used the word, whence men have since taken occasion of error; therefore saith Bellarm: he dissenteth from all antiquity, and acknowledgeth the Roman faith to be the ancient faith & religion. This is Bellarmine's form of reasoning against Calvin, if he say any thing: which whether it be full of senseless foolery, or not, I will refer it to the judgement of any one that hath his senses. Yet notwithstanding M. higgon's goeth on, & maketh a consolatory conclusion, 
d Pag. 130.  that Bell: needeth not to be discontented, that I have thus wronged him; seeing I have likewise unjustly accused the Fathers. But if he may be as justly charged with foolery in his manner of reasoning against Calvin, as the Fathers are truly reported to have holden the opinion imputed to them by me, as there is no question but he may, I think this comfortable conclusion will not be very cordial unto him. Secondly, I do not say that Bellarmine doth trifle in the question of prayer for the dead; as he likewise, adding one lie to another, saith I do; but in proving the doctrine of the Roman Church that now is, to be the same with that which was of old. And therefore silly Master higgon's knoweth not what he writeth. But that Bellarmine doth indeed (whatsoever this trifler saith to the contrary) egregiously trifle, I will demonstrate to the Reader in such sort, that neither higgon's, nor any of his new masters shall be able to avoid it. Thus therefore the case standeth. Bellarmine in his 
e Lib. 4. de notis eccles. c. 9  discourse of the notes of the Church, (not in the particular question of prayer for the dead) undertaketh to prove the conspiring of the present Roman Church with the true Catholic Church that was of old: this he saith, may be proved by producing the sayings and sentences of the Father's touching every particular controversy, now on foot: but because this would be a tedious course, he saith there is another shorter and certainer way, by demonstrating out of the confession of Protestant Writers, first, that the points now defended by Papists, are the doctrines of all the Ancient: secondly, that the doctrine of the Protestants was condemned by the Ancient Church. Touching the first, he goeth about to prove, that Protestants confess the points of Popish doctrine to be the doctrine of the Ancient, because Caluine in his Institutions, when he oppugneth the assertions of Papists, confesseth, that in so doing he opposeth himself against all Antiquity. Amongst other particulars he giveth instance of prayer for the dead. So that the thing which the Cardinal is to prove, is this: that Caluine impugning the Popish manner of prayer for the dead, to deliver men out of Purgatory, confesseth himself in so doing, to be opposite to all Antiquity; and consequently, that all Antiquity believed Purgatory, and admitted a necessity of praying for the deliverance of men out of it. This he doth not but is forced to confess, that Caluine affirmeth, that the doctrine of Purgatory, and prayer to deliver men thence, was unknown to all Antiquity: whence it followeth avoidable, that the Cardinal doth nothing but trifle; for if to talk idly, and not to conclude the thing intended be to trifle, he is found to do so most grossly. Neither doth it help the matter, that Caluine confesseth, that many of the Fathers were led into error in the matter of prayer for the dead, as namely such as thought they might suspend, mitigate, or wholly take away the pains or punishments of men in hell; for these errors the Romanists condemn, & dislike as much as we: but saith Master higgon's, 
f Pag. 133:  Master Caluine confesseth the action of praying for the dead was performed by the Ancient, howsoever he litigate about the intention. It is true, he doth so, but his confession maketh neither hot nor cold to any thing now in controversy and question between Us and the Papists. Whereforeto silence this prattler, that multiplieth vain words without all sense or reason: first we say, that neither Calvine, or any of us, did ever simply condemn all prayer for the dead: for we all pray for the resurrection, public acquittal in the day of CHRIST, and perfect consummation of them that are dead in the LORD; and therefore the general practice and intention of the Ancient in praying for the dead, is not condemned by us. Secondly, we say, that some of the Ancient prayed for the dead in such sort, as neither we nor the Romanists dare allow, as for the suspension, mitigation, or releasing of the pains of such as are in hell, and so were carried into error as Calvine rightly noteth. Thirdly, we say, that never any man amongst the Ancients, knew any thing of Purgatory, or the Popish manner of praying to deliver men thence. So that I trifle not in accusing Bellarmine, and defending Calvine, as he is pleased to tell me I do, in the front and title of his next ensuing Chapter, but he talketh idly as his manner is.   

§. 6.  
HIs next challenge is, that 
a pag. 134.  I make an untrue construction of the Heresy of Aerius, condemning the commendations of the dead, used in the Church at that time. For the clearing whereof, we must make a difference between the general practice and intention of the Church, and the private opinion and conceit of some particular men in the Church. The general practice of the Church was, first, to name the names of the dead, and to keep a commemoration of them, to signify & express the assurance that resteth in the living, that they are not extinct, but that they are and live with God, that their spirits and souls are immortal, and that their bodies shall rise again. Secondly to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist, that is, of praise and thanksgiving for them, to desire of God the destroying of the last enemy, which is death, the raising of them up again in the last day, the public remission of their sins in the judgement of that great day, and their perfect consummation and bliss: which Aerius could not condemn without just note of heretical temerity and rashness: and all these things are excellently delivered by 
b Haeres. 75.  Epiphanius, and rightly justified by him as right and good. Some there were that extended these prayers farther, supposing that men dying in the state of sin, may be relieved by the piety and devotion of the living; whose erroneous conceit Aerius having an eye unto, rather than to the general practice and intention of the Church, inferred, that if it be so, men may do what evils they will, and be freed from the punishments of them, by the means of such friends as they think good to procure & assure to them in the end, to make prayers for them after they are gone. To which objection Epiphanius answereth, that though the prayers of the living cut not off the whole punishment of sin, yet some mercy is obtained for sinners by them, at the least for some mitigation or suspension of their punishments: of which opinion, as I have showed before, many other were as well as Epiphanius: and 
c Enchirid. ad Laurentium. cap. 67.  Saint Augustine seemeth not much to dislike it, saying; if the merciful men of his time would have contented themselves with an opinion of the only mitigation or suspension of the punishment of the damned, he would not have strove much with them about the matter: so that if Aerius his reprehension had reached only to this erroneous conceit, he had never been condemned for his censure: but, in that upon the consideration of the error of some particular men, he presumed to condemn a general custom, that was lawful and good, he was justly condemned himself, as rash and inconsiderate: which things considered, the 
d Pag. 138. & 140.  contradiction which this simple fellow would fain force upon us, is easily avoided: for his reprehension of the particular erroneous conceit, and sinister intention of some men, misunderstanding the Church's prayers, is rightly justified by Doctor Humphrey and the rest named by him: and his reprehension of the general practice and intention of the Church is rightly condemned by me and others: and the Church of that time defended against his rash and inconsiderate censure. Neither let this foolish Fugitive think that he can blow up all with the breath of his mouth, and put away this distinction by the sound of his bare word, and by only saying, I vainly excuse the folly of Protestants, which showeth itself in the diversity of their censures touching the heresy of Aerius: nor by sporting himself with the sovereign plaster applied by me: for it will be found to have virtue to heal a greater wound than he can cause.   

cause 7.  
But it is time for me to look about me, for I hear a horrible outcry as if Hannibal were at the gates of the city. Theophilus higgon's causeth it to be proclaimed with sound of Trumpet, that 
a Pag. 153.  I have showed myself a notable trifler in the question of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, to the utter confusion of my book and the Protestanticall Church. When Moses came down from the Mount, and heard the noise in the Camp, he said, 
b Exod. 32. ●…8.  It was not the noise of them that overcome in battle, nor of them that are overcome but of singing. So is this hideous clamour, but the venting of the boyish vanity of a foolish youth, in sporting sort, calling company to come and play with him; for all that he saith, will be found to be less than nothing. The occasion of this strange outcry is this.  
In the Appendix to the third book, I show, that there was nothing constantly resolved on in the Roman Church in the days of our Fathers, before Luther began, touching that Purgatory that is denied by us, and defended by the Papists: which I have demonstrated in such sort, that this fellow hath nothing to oppose against it, but flourishes of his youthful Rhetoric. For the more clear and perfect understanding whereof, the Reader must observe, that we all acknowledge a purging out of sin, in the dissolution of soul and body, and in the first entrance of the soul into the state of the other world: But all the question is of the nature, kind, & quality of it. Luther (saith 
c De purgatorio. li: 2: cap: 9  Bellarmine) admitteth, a kind of Purgatory, but of most short continuance: For he supposeth that all sins are purged out by the dolours of death, or by the very separation of soul and body, wrought by death. Which opinion of Luther we all follow; and the same was embraced by many in the Roman Church in the days of our Fathers, before Luther was borne, who taught then, as we do now, that all venial sins are done away and purged out in the moment of dissolution, and in the first entrance into the other world, as I have showed 
d In Appendice. cap. 20.  before. So that concerning Purgatory, properly, as it serveth to purge out the impurity of sin, there was nothing resolved on in the days of our Fathers, but that which we willingly admit. But the Papists at this day deny, that all venial sins are purged out in the dissolution of soul and body, and the first entrance into the state of the other world. They imagine that they are long in purging out, that they are purged in material fire, and that the place of their purging out is below in the earth, nearly bordering upon the Hell of the damned. This is the true difference between Protestants and Papists, and rightly delivered by me, howsoever it please Master higgon's to say, 
e Pag. 155.  I yield not the true difference in this matter, nor propose the question as in learning and honesty it became me. It is true, that he saith, that we must distinguish matter of substance from matter of circumstance, and that it is sufficient to have fundamental unity in the first, howsoever there may be accidental diversity in the second. But it is a matter of substance whether all sinfulness be purged out in the moment of dissolution; they deny it; we affirm it; and are well assured they can never prove that all our fathers agreed with them in this matter of substance; and therefore Master higgon's may soon be answered, when he asketh, 
f Pag. 158.  where that man is, who in the time of our fathers denied Purgatory, or showed any doubtfulness therein against the essential Doctrine in which the true difference betwixt Papists and Protestants doth stand most eminently at this day; seeing there were found very many, as I have showed before, who not only doubted of the circumstances of material fire, place, and instruments of punishment, but taught as we do against the Papists, in the most substantial point of all other, that all sinfulness is purged out of the souls of men departing hence in the state of grace, not by material fire, in a place of Purgation, under the earth, or near Hell: nor by being afflicted by the ministry of Devils, or otherwise; but by the completion of the state of grace, getting full dominion in the soul, upon her dividing from the body, in the moment of dissolution. Now if all impurity and stain of sin be purged out in the moment of dissolution by the taking away of impediments, and leaving grace to herself, that she may fill all with her divine effects, as many of our forefathers believed, and taught; there is no such Purgatory, as the Papists at this day imagine. If it be said, that though all sin be purged out by death, in respect of the stain or sinful impurity, yet the punishment remaineth, and so there is a kind of Purgatory, wherein men are to suffer the punishments due to sins past, though now perfectly blotted out: It will easily be answered, that whatsoever is of force to do away all impurity of sin offending God, is likewise able to reconcile God unto us, so perfectly, as that no guilt of punishments shall remain. For, seeing it is the nature of grace to expel sin, offending God, and to make men acceptable to God, that stood in terms of disfavour before: where grace is so perfect, as that it expelleth all sinfulness, there it must needs work and procure a perfect reconciliation; with which, guilt of punishment cannot stand. Besides, charity implieth a dislike of all that which is displeasing to God, whom we love, and a sorrow that we have offended him: therefore charity in such perfection as is able to purge out all impurity of sin, implieth dislike of that which in sinning was ill affected and desired before, and sorrow for the same, equivalent to the pleasure and delight taken in sinning; and consequently doth satisfy God in such sort, as that no punishment shall come upon him that so sorroweth. Thirdly, the punishments of men, pure and clean from sin, for such sins as they formerly committed: if any such be imagined, cannot be named Purgatory punishments, but satisfactory only. So that if all sinfulness be purged our, there remaineth afterwards no Purgatory properly so named. Lastly, if it were doubtful in the days of our Fathers, as Master higgon's 
g Pag. 154  confesseth it was, whether the fire be material, or not, in which men are to satisfy GOD'S displeasure: what kind of suffering it is that is to satisfy, whether of sorrow only, or some thing inflicted from without, and likewise how long it doth continue: it is evident, that notwithstanding any thing resolved on in former times, God may be so satisfied by the first conversion of the soul upon her separation, turning unto him in mislike of her former misdeeds, as that all guilt of punishments may be utterly taken away in the very moment of dissolution. Whence it will follow, that nothing was constantly, certainly, and genelally resolved on in the days of our Fathers, touching the condition of such as died in an imperfect state of grace, contrary to any thing holden by us at this day. These premises considered, and every of these things being confessed by Master higgon's or proved abundantly by Me, it seemeth the poor man is beside himself, and that his discontentments have made him mad. For otherwise what should move him, like a mad man, to cry out in such sort, as he doth, 
h Pag. 15●…  That I have disabled my book, and overthrown the Protestanticall Church: that Papists may triumph in the victory, which their chiefest enemies have wrought in their behalf, and joyfully applaud the excellency of their cause, which enforceth her greatest adversaries to prostitute themselves to such base and dishonest courses.  
Let the base Runagate look to himself, and his conscience will tell him that his courses have been base, dishonest, perfidious, & unnatural, (that I say not monstrous) but our cause is such as shall ever be able to uphold itself against all opposers, without any such shifting devices as they of the adverse faction are forced to use, for the staying of that from falling for a little while, that must fall and come to nothing, in despite of all that Devils or devilish men by lying, slandering, murdering, and all hellish practices can do to sustain it.   

§. 8.  
THus have I briefly run through his two books: & answered whatsoever concerneth myself in the same, and so might pass presently to his Appendix: but that towards the end of the 2d part ofhi second book, he once again wrongeth that renowned Divine Dr Humphrey, in such sort as is not to be endured▪ For he chargeth him with unfaithfulness in his relations, digressions from the matter, a general imbecility 
a Pag. 167. 168 169. 170. 171. 172.  of his whole discourse, obscurity, uncertainty, notorious depraving of Saint Augustine, and other unfaithful practices against the same Father: and saith, the detection of his falsehood ministered the first occasion of his change. If Master higgon's were not better known then trusted, some man happily would be moved to think that some very gross and unexcusable oversights are found in Doctor Humphrey, against whom he so clamorously inveigheth: but seeing all the world taketh notice what manner of man he is, by that description of him which is found in a letter of a worthy Knight lately written to him, & another of his own father written to the same Knight, I think there is no man of any sense, that will regard his words any more than the braying of an Ass, or the bellowing of an Ox when he lacketh fodder: yet to make it appear, that he hath calumniated and wronged a worthy person without all cause or show of cause, I will briefly set down the sum of D. Humphrey his discourse. Whereas 
b Rat. 3.  Campian objecteth to us that we have begged certain fragments of opinions from Aerius, and others condemned as heretics, first he answereth, that we have not received our faith from Heretics, but from the Apostles and their successors. Secondly he saith, that we condemn all the heretical positions of Aerius, & yet admit whatsoever he held rightly, and agreably to the holy Scripture: in which saying, Master higgon's telleth us the Papists will concur with him. Thirdly, he alloweth a commemoration of the Saints and holy ones departed, and consequently disliketh Aerius for condemning the same. Fourthly he condemneth that abuse in praying for the dead which Aerius condemned, Fifthly, he saith, the commemoration of the departed is not commanded in Scripture, but holden by custom of the Church. Sixtly, that if we die not in a true and lively faith, all the prayers in the world cannot help us, contrary to the error of those men, who thought that not only a suspension or mitigation, but a total release of the punishments of men dying in mortal sins, may be procured: which error 
* De cura promortuis.  Augustine refuteth by the evidence of the words of the Apostle, that unless we here sow unto the spirit, we cannot reap immortality. And again, that we must all stand before the Tribunal seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to the things he did in this body, whether good or ill. Whence he saith is inferred, that unless men depart hence in state of grace, all the world cannot relieve them afterwards. These being the principal and most material parts and circumstances of D. Humphrey his discourse touching Aerius, let us see what are the exceptions that Master higgon's take against him. The first is, that he saith there is no Scripture for that prayer for the dead that was ancienily used in the Church, and that Augustine seemeth to confess as much, which he 
c Pag. 169.  goeth about to improve, because Augustine allegeth the book of Maccabees for the practice of praying for the dead. But for answer here-unto, 1. we say that D. Humphrey denyeth, that there is any precept requiring us to pray for the dead, found in Scripture, & speaketh nothing of examples: And therefore the allegation of the book of Maccabees is impertinent. 2. that the prayer of judas Machabaeus mentioned in that book, was not for the relief of the dead, but for the remission or not imputing of their sins to the living, lest God should have smitten them for the trespass committed by those wicked ones that displeased God and perished in their sin, though the author of that book make another construction of it. 3. that the book of Maccabees is not Canonical; and though Augustine seem to incline to an opinion that it is, yet 
d Contra Gaudentij. Epist. li. 2 cap. 23.  he is not resolved that it is so: yea 
e Caietan.  some are of opinion that he thought it Canonical only in respect of the Canon of manners and not of faith: but Mr higgon's will prove, that in the judgement of Augustine, prayer for the dead is plainly expressed, or sufficiently deduced from the Scriptures of the new Testament; in that S. Augustine having alleged the books of Maccabees, to prove that prayer was made for the dead, saith, if this were no where read in the old Scriptures, the authority of the Church were greatly to be regarded, which shineth in this custom: which is a very silly inference. For neither doth it follow, that if it be not in the old, it must be in the new: neither would Augustine have presently urged the authority of the Church, upon the supposition of not finding it in the old Scriptures, but the books of the new Testament, if he had thought it to be found in the new: seeing he seeketh first and principally to prove it by Scripture. His second exception is, that Augustine urgeth the custom of the Universal Church, for the commendation of the dead, and pronounceth, that without intolerable insolency and madness, this authority cannot be rejected: whence he inferreth that both these must inevitably fall upon D. Humphrey and his Church: but the poor fellow that chargeth other men with madness, if he were in his right wits, might easily have found, that Doctor Humphrey doth not condemn the commemoration, and commendation of the dead: for he saith expressly: We retain it in our Colleges. I observed before that we must carefully distinguish the general practice and intention of the whole Church from private conceits: the whole Church commemorated the dead, offered the sacrifice of praise for them, prayed for them in the passage, & for their resurrection and consummation: all which things we allow: so that neither Doctor Humphrey, nor we, condemn the Universal Church, but think it were madness so to do: but the private fancies of such as extended their prayers farther, thinking they might ease, mitigate, suspend; or wholly take away the pains of men damned in hell (for of Purgatory no man thought in the Primitive Church) we reject. This erroneous conceit and practice Aerius rightly condemned, and Doctor Humphrey and we all agree with him in the same dislike: but he did ill to impute this error to the whole Church, and to condemn that which was good and laudable upon so weak a ground. Of the difference which Master higgon's would fain make between our commendation of the dead used in colleges, and that used anciently, whereof Saint Augustine speaketh, I have spoken before: wherefore let us come to his last exception against Doctor Humphrey, which is that he handleth the matter artificially, to make a credulous reader believe that Saint Augustine himself doth convell the use of prayer for the dead by those sentences of the Apostle, that 
f Gal. 6. 8.  we cannot reap if we sow not here, and that 
g 2. Cor. 5. 10.  we must all stand before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to the things he hath done in his body, whether good or evil. This imputation is nothing else but a malicious and impudent charging of him with that he never thought of. For the only thing he saith Augustine held, proved by these sentences, is, that unless we depart hence in a true faith, we cannot be relieved by any devotion of other men after we are gone. Which is so undoubtedly true, that I think higgon's himself dareth not deny it. But that Augustine thought that men dying in the state of grace and faith of Christ may be holpen by the prayers of the living, he neither made question himself, nor ever sought to make his reader believe otherwise. Neither do we descent from Augustine in this point, if the prayers he speaketh of be made respectively to the passage hence and entrance into the other world, as I have showed before. The only thing that is questionable between Us and our Adversaries being, whether prayers may relieve men in a state of temporal affliction after this life, whereof Augustine never resolved any thing, whatsoever this prattling Apostata say to the contrary. These things being so, let the reader judge whether the detection of falsehood and ill dealing in Doctor Humphrey could possibly occasion Master higgon's his change, as he would make the world believe: there being nothing found in his whole discourse, that is not most true and justifiable, by all course of learning. But because he is sufficiently chastised by others, and knoweth too well the true cause of his running away to be things of a far other nature than those he pretendeth, I will prosecute this matter no farther against him.    

The Appendix.  

§. 1.  
NOw it remaineth that I come to the Appendix, which he addeth to his book, which he deuideth into two parts, whereof the first concerneth Me, the second, D. Morton, which he hath answered already. In that part which concerneth Me, he undertaketh to prove, that I notoriously abuse the name and authority of Gerson, Grosthead, etc. to defend the reformation made by Princes & Prelates in our Churches. Wherefore that the reader may perceive I have not abused these reverend & worthy men, but that he wrongeth both Them & Me, I will take the pains to examine his whole discourse, though it will be very tedious so to do, by reason of the confused & perplexed manner of handling of things in the same, without all order & method. In the 1. chapter he doth but lay the foundation of his intended building: & therefore gathereth together a great number of positions & sayings out of my book, miserably mangled, & torn one from another, all which shall be defended when he cometh to say any thing against them, in such sort, as that it shall evidently appear, that there is no falsehood or collusion in any part of my Discourse, as this false and treacherous Fugitive is pleased to say there is. Only one thing there is here that may not be passed over, because it hath no farther prosecution in that which followeth. His words are these. 
a Pag. 2  Whereas Bellarmine doth object the intestine divisions, and conflicts of the pretenced Gospelers, this Doctor turneth him off with this answer, we say that these diversities are to be imputed wholly to our Adversaries; for when there was a reformation to be made of abuses and disorders in matters of practice, and manifold corruption in many points of Christian Doctrine, and in a Council by a General consent it could not be hoped for, as Gerson long before out of his experience saw and professed, by reason of the prevailing faction of Pope's flatterers, it was not possible but that some diversity should grow, while one knew not, nor expected to know what another did. This he saith, is a very admirable devise.  
For answer hereunto we must observe, that the divisions of this part of Christendom are of two sorts: the first is, from the faction of the Pope; the second among them that have abandoned the usurped Authority of the Pope. That the Pope and his adherents were the cause of the former of these divisions, and the consequents of it, is affirmed by better men than Master higgon's. I will not deny, (saith 
b In consult. artic. 7.  Cassander, a man highly esteemed for piety & learning by the Emperor's Ferdinand and Maximilian) that many in the beginning were moved out of a Godly affection, more sharply to reprehend certain manifest abuses, and that the chief cause of this calamity and distraction, or rend of the Church, is to be attributed to them, who, puffed up with the swelling conceits of their Ecclesiastical power, proudly & disdainfully contemned and repelled them that admonished them rightly of things amiss. And therefore I do not think that any firm peace is ever to be hoped for, unless the beginning thereof be from them that gave the cause of this division; that is, unless they that have the government of the Church, remit, something of that their too great rigour, & listening to the desires of many godly ones, correct manifest abuses, according to the rule of sacred Scripture & the ancient Church, from which they are departed etc. Touching that, saith ᶜ Contarenus, which the Lutherans say in the first, 
d In consult. artic. Lutheri.  & last place, of manifold and great abuses brought into the Church of Christ, against which they so exclaim, & concerning which they have made so many complaints, to express their greivances, I have nothing to say; but first of all, to pray unto almighty God, the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, & his only begotten Son, who continually maketh intercession for us, & the holy Spirit, wherewith we have been anointed to be Christians by the grace of God, & the Sacrament of Baptism, that he will respect his Church now tottering, & in great danger, and that he will move the hearts of the Prelates of the Church, that at last for a little while putting away this most pernitions self love, they may be persuaded to correct things manifestly amiss & to reform themselves. There needeth no Council, there need no sillogismes, there needeth no alleging of places of Scripture, for the quieting of these stirs of the Lutherans: but there is need of good minds of charity towards God & our neighbour, and of humility, etc. Touching the divisions of them that have abandoned the tyrannical government of the Bishop of Rome, and embraced the sincere profession of the heavenly truth, whom this Lucian calleth pretenced Gospelers, they are neither such, nor so many as our Adversaries would make the world believe, as I have showed at large in the 
d Third book of the Church. c. 42.  place cited by Master higgon's. But be they what they may be, I have truly said that the Romanists are the causes of them, in that their obstinate resistance against all peaceable public proceeding in the work of reformation in a General Council, forced men to take another course, and to take this work in hand severally, in the several Kingdoms of the world. That there was no hope of reformation by a General Council, and that several Kingdoms were to take care for the redressing of things amiss, within their own compass, I have showed out of Gerson: his words are these. 
e Gers. 3. part. apologet. de Conc. Const.  I see that the reformation of the Church will never be brought to pass by a Council, without the presidency of a well affected guide, wise, and constant: let the members therefore provide for themselves through all Kingdoms and Provinces, when they shall be able, and know how to compass this work. Now that 
f Idem de Concilio unius obedientiae.  this kind of proceeding must needs be accompanied with differences, though not of moment, nor real, yet in show greater than were to be wished, every man I think will confess that hath the sense of a man. Against all this M. Hig. hath nothing to say; but, as if he had gone out of his country, & passed the Seas of purpose to become a jester amongst our melancholy countrymen that are abroad, to make them merry, maketh a jest of it, as he doth of all other things, and so passeth from it.    

The second part.  

§ 1  
BUT let us give him leave to sport himself a little: we shall have him in earnest by and by. For in the next part of this chapter he undertaketh to prove, that Gerson, (whom I bring in as a worthy guide of God's Church in the time wherein he lived, and one that wished the reformation of things amiss) utterly detested the reformation that hath been transacted by Luther, Zuinglius & the rest. But his proofs will be found too weak; for though it were granted that he erred in the matter of transubstantiation, invocation of Saints, and some such like things, yet will it never be proved, that he erred heretically, or that he was not willing to yield to the truth in these or any other things wherein he was deceived, when it should be made to appear unto him. Cyprian erred in the matter of rebaptisation, Lactantius, and sundry other were carried into the error of the Millenaries: many Catholics in Augustine's time thought that all Oxthodoxe and right-beleeving Christians shall be saved in the end, how wickedly soever they live here: yet were they of one communion with them that thought otherwise.  
If Master higgon's think, that I produce Gerson as a man fully professing in every point of Doctrine as we do, he wholly mistaketh me; for I was not so simple, either to think so, or to go about to persuade others so, but this is that which I said, and still constantly affirm, that God preserved his true Church in the midst of all the errors and confusions of the Papacy; that the errors condemned by us, never found general & constant allowance in the days of our Fathers; and that there were many, who held the foundation, & according to the light of knowledge which God vouchsafed them, wished the reformation of such things as were amiss, some of them discerning more of the errors & abuses that were then found in the Church, & other fewer: of which number I reckon Gerson to be one of eminent sort & rank. For this worthy Divine believed as we do, 
a De consolat: Theologiae. l. 4. prosa. 1.  that all our inherent righteousness is imperfect, yea, that it is like the polluted rags of a menstruous woman, that it cannot endure the trial of God's severe judgement: that 
b Ibid. lib. 1. prosa. 3.  we must trust in the only mercy and goodness of God, if we desire to be surely established against all assaults: 
c Part. 3. tract. de vita. spiritual. anim. lect. 1.  that all sins are by nature mortal: that 
d Tract. de indulgentijs.  indulgences reach not to the dead: that they are but remissions of enjoined penance: that 
e De potest. Ecclesiast. considerate. 12.  the Pope hath no power to dispose of the Kingdoms of the world; that he is like the Duke of Venice amongst the great Senators of that State, greater than each one, but inferior to the whole company of Bishops, that 
f De auferibilitate Pap.  he is subject to error, and that in case of error or other scandalous misdemeanour, he may be judicially deposed: that 
g De consilijs & Statu perfectionis.  Christian perfection consisteth neither in poverty nor riches, but in a mind resolved to regard these things, no farther than they stand with the love of God, and serve for the advancement of his glory and the good of men. So that sometimes it is a matter of more perfection to have and possess riches, then to cast them from us; contrary to the false conceit of the Mendicantes, who made extreme poverty to be the height of all perfection, and thought that Christ himself did live by begging, which he rejecteth as an absurd error: he teacheth that the precept of Almighty GOD requireth all the actions of virtue in the best sort they can be performed, and that therefore they do not rightly discern between the matter of precepts and counsels, who imagine that the precept requireth the inferior degrees of virtue, and the counsel the more high and excellent: whereas counsels urge us not to a higher degree of virtue, or moral goodness, but only show us the means whereby most easily, if all things be answerable in the parties, we may attain to the height of virtue the procept prescribeth: so over-throwing the opinion of works of supererogation: he 
h Ibid.  teacheth that there is no more merit of single life then of marriage unless the parties living in these different estates, otherwise excel one another in the works of virtue: that virginity, in that which it addeth above conjugal chastity, is no virtue, nor higher degree of virtue, but a splendour of virtue only: that the 
i De vita Spiritual, anim Lect. 4.  laws of men bind not the conscience: that they that whip themselves, as some sectaries amongst the Papists do, are to be condemned: and that the patient enduring of those crosses 
Part. 1. tract. contra sectam flagellantium se.  which God layeth upon us, is more acceptable to God, than these voluntary chastisements. 
l See the places cited in the third book of the Church. Chap. 10. 11.  He condemneth Monks intermeddling with Secular or Ecclesiastical businesses: the superfluous pomp and Princely state of Cardinals, and Bishops, making them forget that they are men; that one man holdeth two or three hundred Ecclesiastical livings; that the sword of excommunication is so e●…ily drawne-out for trifles, and the Lords of the Clergy use it for the maintenance of their own state: he disliketh the Pope's appointing of strangers to take cure of souls, the variety of Pictures, and Images in Churches, occasioning idolatry in the simple: the number and variety of religious orders; the canonising of new Saints, there being too many Canonised already: the Apocryphal Scriptures, Hymns, and Prayers in process of time brought into the Church, of purpose or ignorance, to the great hurt of the Christian faith: the diversity of opinions in the Church, as about the conception of the blessed Virgin, and the like: the intolerable superstition in the worshipping of Saints; innumerable observations, without all ground of reason; vain credulity in believing things concerning the Saints reported in the uncertain legends of their lives: superstitious opinions of obtaining pardon, and remission of sins, by saying a number of Pater-nosters in such a Church, before such an image; the urging of humane devices more than the laws of God, and punishing more severely the breach of their own laws, than the laws of God: the contempt of the holy Scripture, which is sufficient for the government of the Church, and the following of humane inventions, which made the state of the Church to be merely brutish; the ambition, pride, and covetousness of Pope's subiecting all unto themselves, and suffering no man to say unto them, Why do you so? though they overturn the course of Nature; their getting all into their own hands by many crafty and ill means, to the overthrow of that order that should be in the Church: and thereupon showeth that it was the opinion of men right wise and godly in his time, that there being a Schism in the Church, and three several pretenders challenging the Papal chair, it were good to take the advantage of that difference, and never to restore again to any pope the universal administration of the temporalities of the Church, and the swaying of the jurisdiction of the same; but that it were best that all things were brought back to that state they were in, in the times of the Apostles, or at least in the times of Sylvester and Gregory, when each Prelate within his own jurisdiction was permitted to govern such as were committed to him, without so many reservations, and exactions, as have been since brought in.  
These things considered, I suppose it will not seem so strange as Master higgon's would make it, that I bring in john Gerson as a worthy guide of the Church in his ●…me, and a man wishing the reformation of the same, as far as it pleased God to enlighten him, though he saw not all, which other did in the same times, or before, or since. Neither will it ever be proved that he would have disliked any part of the pre●… reformation, though he condemned the inconsiderate positions of Wickliff, and though he held some opinions contrary to that which we now teach. For as 
m Lib. 1. de Baptis. cap. 18.  Augustine said of Cyprian, & his colleagues, erring in the matter of rebaptisation, that if they ●…d been in his time, when upon full & exact discussing of things, it was resolved otherwise, they would have been of another mind: so surely, if Gerson had lived in latter times, when Learning revived, & all sorts of ancient authors were brought out of the coverts of darkness, into the light and view of the world, he would have condemned many things which he did not, as many other did both before Luther began to preach, and since, whom yet our Adversaries dare not traduce as Heretics. Which we are induced to think, because himself professeth, that the rent of the Church by reason of the 
n De potest. eccls consid. 10.  three pretenders, challenging the Papal chair, & the calamity that followed the same, brought many things to light that were not known before, and was the occasion of much good, and the finding out of many truths fit and necessary to be known; and in his book 
o Consid. 15 & 19  De auferibilitate Papae, in which he showeth many cases wherein the Pope may be deposed, limited, restrained, o-have obedience denied unto him; he professeth he hath laid down sundry considerations touching this matter, to open the way to others to enter farther, & to find out more than he did, as indeed we see 
p Conc. cath. l. 〈◊〉. c. 13  Cusanus a Cardinal did; who resolveth wholly with us, that the Pope is but only prime Bishop amongst the Bishops of the world, and that he is but only in order and honour above others.  
Yet let us hear what Master higgon's can say to the contrary. Gerson, q saith he, believed 
p Pag 4.  Transubstantiation, approved the Mass, admitted Purgatory, invocation of Saints, indulgences, & communion under one kind, therefore he could not wish the reformation that is now wrought by Luther, and the rest. Of Transubstantiation I have spoken already, & showed that many admitted the word that yet never believed the thing, which our adversaries now profess; as also what is to be thought of Gersons opinion touching this point, being the Scholar of Cameracensis; who professeth, that for any thing he can see, Transubstantiation, properly so named, can neither be proved out of Scripture, nor any determination of the Universal Church. Touching the Mass, we must know that the holy Eucharist, and blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is named missa, miss, or mass, 
r Cassand. in praef, ord Rom.  à missis, id est, dimissis publica diaconi voce Catechumenis, iisque qui Sacramentorum participationiidonei non erant: that is, for that after the prayers and readings of the Scripture, before the consecration, the Catechumen, and all such as were not to communicate, were dismissed, and sent away, the Deacon crying aloud, Ite missa est: that is, Depart, you are dismissed. And even in Gregory's time the custom was, that the Deacon after the reading of the Gospel, pronounced those solemn words, Si quis non communicate, exeat: that is, If there be any that communicateth not, let him go out. So that the Papists have no miss, or mass, if we speak properly, for with them none are dismissed, but all permitted to be present, and yet none communicate but the Priest: whereas the name of mass was given to this Holy Sacrament, for that none were permitted to be present, but such as would communicate. But to let go this advantage, there is no question, but that Gerson allowed of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and blood: but I think it will hardly be proved, that he approved the alteration of the ancient custom of the people's communicating with the Priest in the Sacrament into a private mass; which indeed, if we will speak properly, is no mass: or that he held it to be a new real sacrificing of CHRIST, as the jesuited Papists do at this day. A sacrifice we confess it to be, of praise and thanksgiving, and a commemoration of the bloody sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Altar of the Cross: & say, that therefore it may be named a sacrifice, because signs have the names of the things whereof they are signs: as also for that there is in this Sacrament, an offering or presenting of CHRIST and his passion to GOD, by the faith of the Church, that by it we may obtain grace and remission of sins: but a new real sacrificing of CHRIST we deny, and think with Luther, that it is a hellish abomination so to do. That Gerson thought that there is a Purgatory, doth no more prejudice his being a worthy guide of God's Church, than the error of Cyprian and other beforementioned. Touching invocation of Saints, though he did not absolutely condemn it, yet 
s Gers. de direc. cordis consid. 16: & sequ.  he reprehended the abuses and superstitious observations then prevailing in the worshipping of Saints, very bitterly, as I showed before, & sought to bring men to a truer sense of piety in that point, than was ordinarily found amongst men in those times. The like he did for 
t In tract de indulgentiis.  indulgences, restraining them more than was pleasing to the Pope's faction; and for the communion under one kind, howsoever he thought the Church might lawfully prescribe the communicating in one kind alone, which we cannot excuse; yet he 
u Tract de communione sub utraque specie.  acknowledgeth that the communion in both kinds was anciently used; and that when it may be had, with the peace of the Church, it is to be allowed. But to what purpose doth Master higgon's allege these things? shall it be lawful for him and his to repute john Gerson, a worthy and godly man, notwithstanding that he held that the Pope may err, that he is subject to General Counsels, that he meddleth with things no way pertaining to him, when he taketh upon him to dispose the Kingdoms of the world, that all our inherent righteousness is imperfect, and as the polluted rags of a menstruous woman, that all sins are by nature mortal, and the like: and may not we take him to have been a member of the true Church, a good man, and one that desired the reformation of things amiss, notwithstanding his error in some things, and his not discerning all that was amiss?  
The insufficiency of this allegation, it seemeth, Master higgon's himself perceived, and therefore saith, 
x Pag. 4.  he will come to the supreme difference, to which all other points (as he conceiveth) are subordinate, and inferior: that is to say, the sovereign primacy of the Roman Bishop; and bringeth two very effectual testimonies, as he thinketh, of Gerson, to prove the Pope's sovereign primacy. The First is out of his book, 
y Consid. 8.  De auferibilitate papae: his words are these. The forms of civil government are subject to mutability and alteration; but it is otherwise in the Church, for her government is Monarchical, and is so appointed by the institution of our Lord: if any man will violate this sacred ordinance, and persist obstinately in his contempt, he is to be judged an Heretic, as Marsilius of Milan, and some other consorting with his fancy. The second is out of his tract, 
z Consid. 3.  De unitate Graecorum, where prescribing many directions for the composing of the differences between the Greek and Latin Churches, he layeth it down as a foundation, that there must be one head on earth, unto which all men must be united. 
a Pag. 5.  In these sayings, Master higgon's saith, Gerson showed himself a worthy guide of God's Church, and a singular enemy of the Protestanticall reformation, which violently impugneth the supremacy of the Pope, in so much that Luther affirmeth, that a man cannot be saved, unless from his heart he hate the Pope, and Papacy. These things truly, carry a very fair show, and may deceive such as cannot or will not throughly look into them. But whosoever knoweth what Gersons opinion of the Pope is, and what Luther hath written against the Papacy, will soon perceive there is no contradiction between them, or at least not in any essential and material point. For Gerson was of opinion, that the Pope is subject to a General Council, and that he is not free from danger of erring; and this he thought to be a matter of faith defined in the Council of Constance; and therefore would have detested all claims of infallible judgement, and uncontrollable power of Popes, as much as Luther did: and would have accursed his words of blasphemy, if once he should have heard him say, as we do, and as before the holding of the Council of Constance he did: All the world cannot judge me: though I overturn the whole course of nature, no man may say unto me, why do you so? I only have power to make laws, and to void them again: I have authority to dispense with the Canons of all Counsels, as seemeth good unto me, and, which is more, to dispose of all the kingdoms of the world: the assurance of finding out the truth and not erring, is not partly in me, and partly in the Council, but wholly in me: whatsoever all the world shall consent on, is of no force, if I allow it not. He would have said doubtless, as I have done, if he had heard him thus speak, that we are not bound to take the foam of his impure mouth, and froth of his words of blasphemy, as infallible Oracles. This is that Pope, and this is that Papacy, which Luther saith, every one that will be saved, must hate from his heart: for otherwise if he would only claim to be a Bishop in his precinct, a Metropolitan in a province, a Patriarch of the West, and of patriarchs the first and most honourable, to whom the rest are to resort in cases of greatest moment, as to the head and chief of their company, to whom it specially pertaineth to have an eye to the preservation of the Church in the unity of faith and religion, and the acts and exercises of the same, and with the assistance and concurrence of the other by all due courses to effect that which pertaineth thereunto without claiming absolute and uncontrollable power, infallibility of judgement, and right to dispose the Kingdoms of the world, and to intermeddle in the administration of the temporalties of particular Churches, and the immediate swaying of the jurisdiction thereof, 
b In libro contra Papatum.  Luther himself professeth he would never open his mouth against him. This kind of Primacy the 
c Concil. Florenum Sess. ult.  Grecians likewise professed they would be content to yield unto him, if other differences between them might be composed. 
d Consult. de Pont. Romano.  Cassander saith, He is persuaded there had never been any controversies about the Pope's power, if the Popes had not abused their authority in a Lordly and overruling manner, and through covetousness and ambition stretched it beyond the bounds and limits set and prescribed by Christ and the Church: and professeth that the abuse of the Papal power, which the flatterers of the Pope amplified, enlarged, and magnified beyond all measure, gave men occasion to think ill of the Pope, and in the end to depart from him: With whom Gerson agreeth, saying, that the Pope's intermeddling 
e De unitate Graecor, consid. 6.  in some kinds and assuming more than was fit, gave occasion to the Grecians to depart from the Church of Rome, writing to the Pope at their parting in this sort, we know thy power, thy covetousness we cannot satisfy, live by thyself. So that I have truly said (whatsoever Master higgon's blattereth out to the contrary) that it was the pride of Antichrist, that made all the breaches in the Christian world.  
But, saith Master higgon's, Gerson maketh the form of the Church's government to be Monarchical, which thing is mainly opposite to the opinion of Protestants, who will not admit the Pope to be a Monarch in the Church. It is true that Gerson maketh the government of the Church to be Monarchical, but no otherwise, but as the government of the state of Venice is Monarchical; wherein the Duke is greater than any one Senator, but subject to the Senate, and hath neither absolute negative, nor affirmative; & therefore it is in truth and indeed, according to his opinion, rather Aristocratical, than Monarchical: though he make it to be so, in that amongst all the Bs of the world, one is first, and in order and honour before all other. A head he maketh the Pope to be, as a precedent of a company, not as an absolute commander. Whereas saith 
f In Sent. prolog●…. qu: 10. art. 2.  john Bachon, the denying the Pope to have an illimited power was condemned as heretical in Marsilius of Milan, & Io. de janduno, some say they were condemned because they denied him to have an illimited power, as head or chief of all Bishops, and with the college of them: and that it is not there defined that absolutely, in, and of himself, he hath illimited power of making laws; and governing according to the same, without the concurrence of his brethren. But Gerson saith, it is schismatical not to acknowledge with aldue respect the true Pope undoubtedly known 
g De unitate Graec. consid. 3.  to be so: therefore he must needs be an enemy to the Protestanticall reformation. We say no, for, let the Pope as Gerson teacheth him to do, disclaim the claim of absolute & uncontrollable power, infallibility of judgement, right to dispose the Kingdoms of the world, let him without particular intermeddling suffer other Bishops to govern their own dioceses, as they did in the Primitive Church, without so many reservations, preventions, and appeals received from all parts of the world, and we will think, as Gerson doth, that, as it is Schismatical to impugn the government of Bishops within their own dioceses, the superiorities of Metropolitans in their Provinces, and of patriarchs in their larger circuits; so it is Schismatical to deny the Bishop of Rome, contenting himself therewith, a primacy of order & honour, and a special interest in swaying the government of the whole Church, and managing the affairs thereof, as first amongst the Bishops of the world. Wherefore let us hearken to Master higgon's his suit: he beseecheth us, 
h Pag. 3.  to consider the resemblance and similitude of these things: he that rejecteth the Pope shall not be saved; and he that doth not hate him and the Popedom from his heart, shall not be saved; the one of these sayings is Gersons, & the other Luther's: & thus, saith higgon's, they damn themselves mutually in a capital point, and exclude each other from possibility of salvation. We have according to Master higgon's his request, diligently considered these things, and do find that between these sayings in show so opposite, there is in truth and indeed no contradictions; and that Luther and Gerson are far from damning one another in this point, as he falsely saith they do: for it is true, as Luther saith, that men are bound to hate the Papacy, that is, the claim of uncontrollable and absolute power of infallible judgement, and interest to dispose of the Kingdoms of the world, even in the judgement of Gerson himself; and they both agree, that for the preservation of order and peace, men are bound to acknowledge the Papacy, that is, to yield to the Bishop of Rome a Primacy of order and honour; if there be no other matter of difference, nor no father claim made by him. Neither is it communion with the Pope as prime Bishop, that maketh a man a formal Papist, as this formalist speaketh; but with the unjust claims of the Pope. So that Gersons communion with the Pope, proveth him not a formal Papist: and therefore though Master powel's judgement be of value, M●… higgon's may not undoubtedly pronounce, that Gerson is damned to the nethermost hell, as he fond saith he may: neither can he show any good reason. why we may not truly say, that Luther hath accomplished that reformation which Gerson desired; 
c Pag. 〈◊〉  & therefore he might well have spared his Risum teneatis amici? & instead thereof entreated men to weep for his pitiful oversight, and folly, which he bewrayeth in the words immediately following, 
d Ibid.  I will knit up, saith he, this matter with the counsel of Gerson, which he giveth to the spouse of Christ, saying, the Church must entreat the Pope, the Vicegerent of Christ, with all honour, and call him Father, for he is her Lord & head: that she must not expose him to detractions: etc.  
Mr higgon's is wont to compare them to the Devil, who allege any sayings of Fathers, or Scriptures, in show making for them, and leave out that which followeth, 
e Pag. 33.  making against them: if this course be right & good, as no doubt it is, I will soon make the Reader know to whom Master higgon's is like, in citing Gersons testimony against us. For Gerson speaking of the respect that is due to CHRIST the Husband of the Church, and his Vicegerent, from her, as his Spouse & Wife, hath these words. 
f De 〈◊〉 Christi & Eccl.  I deliver this first unto thee, that for the honour of CHRIST her husband, the Church Synodally assembled, or not so assembled, aught to carry herself towards the chief Bishop with reverence and due respect in all loving sort, if he behave himself towards her laudably, nay, if his entreating of her be tolerable; because in many things we offend all: and the judicial sentence of Divorce is to be expected before he be cast off, as hitherto the discretion of our Forefathers hath observed towards inferior Bishops. In the next place I deliver unto thee, that the Church, for the reverence of CHRIST her husband, aught to name his Vicegerent, and him whom he hath appointed her keeper, Father; and both in herself and her children, to be most ready to give all honour, and to yield all obedience to him, as to her Lord and head: and likewise to show all due respect to the Roman Church, as joined to her in a special degree of fellowship. Neither is it fit to expose such a Father to detractions, and wrongs, but to hide his turpitude as much as may be. Notwithstanding in the third place I deliver unto thee, that if this Vicegerent, through frigidity, or other impediment, become unfit for the spiritual generation of children, he may not be esteemed a fit husband for the Church, nor Vicegerent for her husband. Now the seed of this generation, is the holy word of God, and not the variable traditions of the sons of this world. Again, I deliver, that the Church, if this Vicegerent of her husband become a Fornicator, or Adulterer, marrying a widow, a woman put away from her husband, a woman of vile and base condition, and a Harlotte, contrary to the commandment of Almighty God in Leviticus: If he hardly entreat the Church, if he spoil and rob her of her Robes by Dilapidation, or go about to abuse her by Simony, if he smother her children either in the womb, or after they are come out of the womb by ill example, if he slay them with the sword of scandalous Doctrine, and such as killeth the soul, or pestiferous wicked courses of life, or hurtful dissembling and winking at faults, and heresies, that should be suppressed: that the Church, I say, in these cases, may give him a bill of Divorce, especially if he add incorrigibility to his fault, lest the keeping of him still, turn to the disgrace and dishonour of her husband, and the hurt of her children.  
If it had pleased Master higgon's to suffer john Gerson thus fully to utter his mind, his Superiors I think would never have permitted him to produce a witness, to depose so directly against them in Print; for what could Luther say more than Gerson doth? if the Pope, who is the chief Bishop of the world, will do his duty, he is to be honoured, as chief of all Bishops: but if he become scandalous, if he be unable to perform the duty of teaching the people of God, if he teach false doctrine, or wilfully neglect to reform things amiss, and show himself incorrigible: he may, nay he must be rejected by the Church, and a bill of Divorce must be given unto him. This I think will be censured as heretical by our Romanistes. But howsoever, Master higgon's had no cause to exclaim as he doth, 
g Pag. 〈◊〉.  that Luther, whom he calleth the Cham of Saxony, did not demean himself towards the Pope as he ought to have done, and thereupon to compare him to furious Aerius, and to say, that I likewise approximate to them both, when I say, we have not received the mark of the Antichrist, & child of perdition in our foreheads, nor sworn to take the foam of his impure mouth, and the froth of his words of blasphemy, for infallible Oracles of heavenly truth. For Luther did hide the the turpitude and shame of this holy Father, as long as it was lawful so to do: but when the turpitude of this Noah, neither could nor would be hid any longer, when he became unfit to beget sons unto God, when he became a fornicator, and an adulterer, when he married a woman refused by her husband, a base woman, nay a harlot: when he choked and smothered the children of the Church before, and after they came out of her womb: when he slew them with the sword of scandalous doctrine, and such as killeth the soul, when he spoilt the Church, and stripped her out of all her Robes, when he abused and wronged her in most shameful and vile manner, to the dishonour of Christ her husband, what remained for Luther and such other sons of the Church, as had any care of their Mother's welfare, to do, but to cast him off with disgrace, that in so shameful manner dishonoured the son of God their Father, and wronged the Church their Mother?  
But if this testimony of Gerson serve not the turn, Master higgon's produceth another, that will better satisfy us touching the opinion he held of the Pope: his words are these: Nolo de sanctissimo Domino nostro, & Christo Domini, velut os in coelum ponendo, loqui: that is, I will not speak of our most holy Lord, and the Lords anointed, as it were setting my face against heaven. These words follow not in the same place where the other are found. And Master higgon's directeth us to no other pla●…, as if they were found there; who yet is wont to complain against me, for that I cite in them same page, things found in divers parts of Gersons works, and not all together: the Reader may find them in the third part of his works, in his Apologetical Dialogue. The occasion of these his words is this: he complaineth in that Apology, of the partialities and sinister courses he saw to be holden in the Council of Constance, by reason whereofthe French King, and other Christian Princes, with their Bishops and Divines, could not obtain, nor procure the condemning of certain wicked and scandalous assertions of johannes Paruus, and some other prejudicial to the state of Princes, and more pestilent and dangerous, as he saith, whether we respect the prosperity of the Kingdoms of the world, or the good manners and honest conversation of men, than those of Wickliff and the Bohemians, that were condemned in that Council. After this complaint, one of the speakers in that Apologetical Dialogue asketh, if things went not better in that Council, after a Pope was chosen, and the Schism ended, then before? whereunto the other speaker answereth in this sort: ay I will not speak of our most holy Lord, and the Lords anointed, as it were setting my face against Heaven; notwithstanding he had some sitting by his side, who; some say, proceeded not with that due care and diligence which they should have used, in the matter concerning the state of Princes, and the things concerning the Lordsof Polonia: & these men fear not to say, that they were so backward, that they could not be stirred up sufficiently to the zeal & favouring of Catholic verity, nor be moved either by words of exhortation or writing, to determine such things as were proposed unto them. Thus doth he in mannerly sort decline the direct taxing of the Pope, which might have been something offensive to some at that time; and yet spareth him not, but condemneth his negligence, and want of zeal, in suppressing heresy, and defending and maintaining Catholic verity, and addeth, that he would have them that are zealous of Christian Religion, the honour of the Pope, and the holy Council, to consider, whether if care be not had for the extirpation of heresies, especially in matters solemnly denounced, prosecuted, and handled, some will not impute it to negligence, other to ignorance, other to a direct refusal to do right, other to the covetousness of Prelates seeking their own things, & not those of Christ, other to the contempt of the Princes and Universities, that sought the condemnation of such errors, others to the weakness of the Ecclesiastical power, in rooting out heresies, and the notorious negligence of the Court of Rome, in omitting to do that which is fit, other to base corruption? and thereupon showeth, that an appeal was put in on the behalf of the Lords of Polonia, to the next General Council, against which exception was taken, that it was not lawful to appeal from the Pope in any case, or to decline his judgement in matters of faith, contrary to the laws of God, and the decrees of the same Conncell, and to the utter overthrowing of all those things that were done in the Council of Pisa, and Constance, in rejecting the pretenders, and electing a new Pope, professing that he is well assured there will never be any reformation of the Church by a Council, without the presidency of a guide well affected, and prudent, stout, and constant, of which sort he insinuateth the Pope then being was not. Thus we see Gerson thought it no impiety in modest sort to tax the Pope's negligence, and in most resolute manner to condemn as impious & against the Laws of God and man, his pride in denying appeals from himself, as if no man might decline his judgement in matters of faith: Which things being so, let the reader judge, whether that one poor sentence of Gerson, mangled, and rend from that which went before, and followeth after, do bring more advantage to Master higgon's his cause, than it doth prejudice the same, when it is joined with the other parts of his discourse in the same place. But thus do these 
g judg. 7. 22.  Madianites slay themselves with their own swords, and turn their weapons upon themselves to the utter overthrow of their bad cause.  
From this particular of the Pope's supremacy, wherein Master higgon's hath foiled himself, and hurt his cause, he 
h Pag. 9  proceedeth to some general evidences, whence, as he saith, it may be proved that Gerson never favoured the Protestanticall reformation. The first is, for that speaking of the Romish Church, he saith: 
i Part. 1. Serm. coram. Alex. Papa. 5.  We must r●…ue the certainty of our faith from it: The second, for that he 
k Part. 3. Dialog. Apologet, de Concilio Constantiensi.  preached zealously at Constance, against the articles of Wicklife and the Bohemians.  
For answer to the first of these allegations, the reader must remember that Gerson doth clearly resolve, that the Pope may err, not only personally, but Episcopally and judicially also; and consequently, that we must not ground our faith upon his resolutions, as certain and undoubted. The like may be said of the Roman Church, that is the Roman Diocese, Province, or Patriarchship: for if it have any more infallibility of judgement than other particular Churches, it hath it from the Bishop, which it cannot have, seeing he is not free from error himself; the meaning therefore of Gerson is not, that we may or must take whatsoever the Roman Diocese, Province, or Patriarchship delivereth unto us, to be undoubtedly true; but speaking of the Indians, who are Christians, and yet doubting whether they hold the faith of Christians sincerely or not, he saith, it may be feared lest they do not, seeing ●…ey are divided from the Roman Church, from which the certainty of faith is to ●…e sought: to show that the truth & certainty of faith is to be sought in the unity of the universal or Catholic Church, the beginning being taken from that which of all others is the first and chiefest, and hathhitherto been most free from damnable heresies. For otherwise, that he is no way resolved that the determinations of the particular Roman Church Diocesan, Provincial, or patriarchical, do absolutely bind all to receive them, it is most clear and evident; in that in his discourse of the means of procuring unity between the greeks and Latins, (one special cause of the breach between them, being the determination passed by the Latins touching the proceeding of the Holy Ghost, without the consent of the greeks) 
l De vnitat●… Graecorum consid 6  he wisheth men to consider, whether, as we are wont to say of the Articles of Paris, that they bind none but such as are within the Diocese of Paris, so it may not be said that the determinations of the Latin Church bind none but those that are within the compass of the same? which he could not, nor would not do, if he thought the infallible direction of all the rest, to be in the Roman Church alone; and that all everywhere were bound to receive as undoubtedly true, whatsoever it delivereth, as the Romanists at this day do think. Besides this, it is to be observed, that by the name of the Roman Church, the person of the Pope, whom the Romanists name the Virtual Church, is not meant, nor the Diocese, or Province of Rome alone, but the whole Latin or West Church, subject to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West, which we are persuaded never yet erred from the Faith, but had always in it many worthy men professing and maintaining the truth of Religion, howsoever some erred damnably in the midst of it, and a separation be now grown between the true members of that Church, and such as were but a faction in the same. So that that which Gerson hath of fetching the certainty of our faith from the Church of Rome, proveth not that he would have been an enemy to the Protestanticall reformation: for he speaketh not of our fetching the certainty of our Faith from the Pope, or Court, or Diocese of Rome, but of the Indians fetching the certainty of their Faith from the Roman, that is the Western Church. But that he never thought that all Christians, and Churches of the West, are to fetch the certainty of their Faith from the Pope, or Court of Rome, it is evident, In that 
m Serm. in Paschate part. 4.  he commendeth the French King, that condemned the heresy of john the two and twentieth, touching the souls not seeing God till the Resurrection, with sound of trumpets (the Nobles and Prelates of France being present,) and believed rather the University of Paris then the Court of Rome.  
Neither is the next proof of Gersons preaching against the Articles of Wickliff, and the Bohemians, any better than this: for he preached against such Articles as were brought to the Council of Constance, by the English and Bohemians: now those Articles were many of them impious and heretical, nay hellish and blasphemous, in such sort as they were proposed by them, that brought them; as 
n Concil. Constant. Sess. 8.  that God must obey the Devil, that Kings or Bishops, if they be reprobates, or if they fall into mortal sin, cease to be Kings or Bishops any longer, and that all they do is merely void: whereas Wickliff, never delivered any such thing, nor had any such impious conceit, as they sought to fasten on him: neither is it to be marvelled at, that impious things were falsely & slanderously imputed to him; seeing we are wronged in like sort at this day. For there are who shame not to write, 
o 〈◊〉 letter of a Catholic to his Protestant friend: or certain Articles or sorcible reasors printed at Antwerp.  that we affirm God to be the author of fin, that we teach, that God doth sin, that man sinneth not that God only sinneth, and that God is worse than the devil, with many other like hellish blasphemies, which we accurse to the pit of hell: many things no doubt were written by Wickliff in a good & godly sense, which as they were wrested by his Adversaries, were heretical & damnable. For example, it is a damnable heresy to think that Kings & Bishops cease to be that they were, if they fall into mortal sin: or that reprobats cannot be truly Kings or Bishops: neither did Wickliff ever hold any such opinion; but as john Hus showed, he thought that godless persons, howsoever officio, in office & place, they be Kings & Bishops; yet merito; that is in merit, they are neither; because they are unworthy to be either: and are of such quality, as that if GOD would take the forfeiture, they might justly be deprived, not of dignity alone, but of life and being also. Now than this is the goodly Argument which Master higgon's frameth: Gerson condemned such heretical and impious Articles, as were presented to him and other assembled in the Council of Constance, as taken out of the writings of Wickliff, and disliked some other that were indeed his, and might have a good sense, because they were delivered in a dangerous form of speech, as likewise such as rather bewrayed his too passionate dislike of things amiss, carrying him too far into contrary extremities, than an advised and wise consideration of the means, whereby they might be amended: therefore he would never have allowed that reformation of religion, that now is. This Argument I think will not hold: because we also condemn many of the Articles attributed to Wickliff, no less than Gerson: and yet are no enemies to the Protestanticall reformation, as Master higgon's calleth it. But Master higgon's saith, 
p Pag. 19  I must needs be found contrary to myself, in that I acknowledge Wickliff, Husse, Hierome of Prage, and the like, to have been the worthy servants of Christ, and holy Martyrs, and confessors: and yet praise Gerson, as a worthy guide of God's Church, and one that desired the present reformation, who consented to the condemnation of Wickliff's Articles. We are wont to say: Distinguish times, and the Scriptures will soon be accorded: so let Master higgon's distinguish aright things that differ one from another; and this seeming contrariety will be found to be none at all. For Wickliff & Husse might be worthy servants of God, in that they reproved the intolerable abuses of those times which Gerson never approved: and yet Gerson, though as zealous and religious as either of them, might condemn, as impious, some positions falsely imputed to Wickliff, not knowing but that they were his, and dislike other that indeed were his, as not delivered in such sort, and such forms of words as was fit, or savouring of too much passion and violence, and therefore like a right wise and moderate man, he 
q De potestate Ecclesiast. Consider. 12.  interposed himself between Wickliff, and such as he was opposite to, disliking the one sort, as attributing too much to the Clergy, and the other as detracting too much from it. Touching john hus, and Hierome of Prage, I could never yet find, in what point of faith they dissented from the Doctrine of the Church, then constantly resolved on, but they bitterly inveighed against the ambition, pride, covetousness, and negligence of the Clergy; they urged the necessity of oftener preaching then was usual in those times, and desired to have the Communion in both kinds, according to the ancient custom of the Primitive Church, and could not be induced simply and absolutely to condemn the articles of Wickliff, but thought many of them might carry a good sense: and that the author of them was a man, that carried a good mind, how-soever he might fail in some things: Neither was there any matter worthy of death proved against them, but they were unjustly charged with things they never thought of: so that 
r In an Epistle to the Earl of Passun, prefixed before his book against Henry the Eighth.  Luther, said truly that they were Murderers and seven times Heretics, that condemned the innocent men, john Husse and Hierome of Prague: For it is most evident to any one, that will consider the acts of that Council, that things were carried in it, in a most violent and tumultuous manner, with clamours and out-cries, against those poor men standing in their just defence, & clearing themselves from any thing their Adversaries themselves accounted to be heretical. And particularly concerning Hierome of Prage, it appeareth the Cardinals that were chief Precedents of that Council, sought all possible means to let him go free, as Pilate did to acquit Christ; but the cry of the multitude prevailed: And therefore I think it will not be easily proved by Master higgon's, that Gerson had any hand in the turbulent and furious proceeding against the persons of these men, howsoever he might mislike some things which they were charged with. So that he is neither pronounced to be an Heretic, nor a murderer by Luther, as Master higgon's untruly saith he is. What manner of proceeding there was in the Council 
s In Dialog. Apologet. de Concilio Constantiensi.  Gerson himself reporteth, showing his dislike of the courses holden in it, and confessing that many intolerable things were done there, which neither could nor would have been endured, if men had not been content to endure any thing in hope of unity, and peace, after so many calamities of the Church, most pitifully torn and rend in sunder by the former Schisms.  
There is only one thing more remaining in this chapter that toucheth Me: & that is, that speaking of the tyranny of the See of Rome, & such as withheld the truth of God in unrighteousness, & being named Christians served Antichrist, I add, as Bernard complained of some in his time, in which addition Master higgon's 
t Pag. 11.  chargeth Me with fraudulency; saying, that I go about to make the world believe, that they, against whom john hus, Hierome of Prage, and the rest opposed themselves, served Antichrist even by the verdict of Saint Bernard himself. If Bernard say not expressly, that many, even exceeding many, so that they were without number, of the pretended friends and lovers of the Church of Rome, and such as possessed high places of rule and government in the same, served Antichrist, let him charge Me with ill dealing at his pleasure; but if he do, let Master higgon's know he hath wronged Me in a very high degree. Let us hear therefore what Bernard will say, Woe 
u Serm. 33. in Cantica.  saith he, to this generation because of the leaven of the Pharizees, which is hypocrisy: if yet it may be named hypocrisy, which in respect of the greatness of it, cannot; and in respect of the impudency it is grown unto, seeketh not to be hid. A filthy, rotten, running soar, secretly passeth along through all parts of the body of the Church; the more largely, the more desperately it spreadeth itself: and the more inwardly, the more dangerously: for if an open ene●… by professed heresy opposing himself, should rise up, he would be cast out: an●…●…iolent enemy should seek to oppress the Church, Men would hide themselves from him; but now whom should the Church cast out? or from whom should she fly? all are friends, and all are enemies: all are tied unto her in a bond of amity, and yet all are her adversaries: all are of her household, and yet none are at peace with her: all are neighbours, and yet all seek their own: they are the Ministers of Christ, and they serve Antichrist: so that nothing remaineth, but that the devil, that feareth not to walk at noon day, should be revealed to seduce such as remain in Christ, still abiding in their simplicity; for he hath already swallowed up the rivers of the wise, and the floods of the mighty, and hath hope to draw in jordan into his mouth, that is the simple and lowly in heart, that are in the Church. What is therefore the frandulency Master higgon's so much complaineth of? Surely he saith, it was only wickedness of life Bernard complaineth of, and I seem to extend his complaint farther. For answer whereunto, first I say, that I no way extend the words of Bernard to any particular kind of evil of life, doctrine, or violation of discipline: but cite them in such general sort, as they are found in him. Secondly, I say it is untrue, that higgon's saith, that Bernard complained only of the evil lives of men in his time: for in his books of Consideration to Eugenius the Pope, he blameth him for meddling with things more properly pertaining to men of another rank and sort, ask of him 
x Lib. de consideratione ad Eugenium.  Quid fines alienos invaditis? quid falcem vestram ad alienam messem extenditis? that is why do you encroach upon the bounds of other men? and why do you reach forth your sickle, and thrust it into the harvest of other men? adding, that, if the days were not evil, he would speak many other things. Likewise he complaineth of the confusion, and abuse of appeals to Rome in this sort: 
y Lib. 3. de consideratione.  Praeter fas & ius, praeter morem & ordinem fiunt: non locus, non modus, non tempus, non causa discernitur, aut persona. That is, appeals are made and admitted, besides law, and right, besides custom, and order: no difference is made of place, manner, time, or cause: so that the Bishops in all parts of the world are hindered that they cannot do their duties: as also of the spoiling of the guides and governors of the Church of their authority, by exemptions and privileges, freeing such as are under them from their subjection, 
z Ibid.  Murmur loquor, saith he & querimoniam ecclesiarum truncari se clamitant, & demembrari: vel nullae, vel paucae admodum sunt quae plagam istam aut non doleant, aut non timeant. Quaeris quam? Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis, Episcopi Archiepiscopis, Archiepiscopi Patriarchis sive Primatibus. That is: I utter the murmuring & complaint of the Churches: they cry out, that they are mangled, and dismembered; there are either none, or very few, which either feel not, or fear not this plague: if you ask what plague? Abbot's are exempted from the jurisdiction of their Bishops, Bishops of their Archishops, they of their Primates. But he dissented not from the Papists in matter of doctrine. Surely this is no truer than the rest: for it will be found that Bernard hath written that which will not please our Adversaries very well, touching special faith, imperfection & impurity of inherent righteousness, merits, power of freewill, the conception of the blessed Virgin, and the keeping of the Feast of her Conception. For I would willingly learn of them whether they will grant, that 
a Bern. serm. 5. de verb. Esaiae.  all our righteousness is as the polluted rags of a menstruous woman? that 
b Serm 1. de annunc. Dom.  we must believe particularly that our sins are remitted to us? that 
c Trac. de gratiâ & lib. arb. in fine.  our works are via regni, not causa regnandi; that is, the way that leadeth to the Kingdom, but not the cause why we reign? that 
d Ep. 175. ad Canon. Lugd.  the blessed Virgin was conceived in sin, and that the feast of her conception ought not to be kept? In all these things doubtless Bernard dissented from the Papists at this day: neither did he know or understand any thing of their transubstantiation, local presence, private masses, half Communions, indulgences, & the like, which are matters of difference between us & our Adversaries at this day: so that there might be good conformity in substance between Bernard and Wickliff, & his followers, though many Articles falsely attributed to him are damned & heretical, & some things were uttered unadvisedly by him: & therefore that which followeth, of 
e Pag. 12  Falsehood, Inflexions, Pretences, and subtleties, is but the bewraying the distemper of higgon's h●…e brain; who having confounded himself in his own intricate conceits, woul●…●…ke men believe, other are like unto him; how orderly, plainly, and sincerely soever they handle things.    

The Third Part.  

§. 1.  
IN the third part of this Chapter, he reflecteth (to use his own words) upon four passages of mine; and professeth, 
a Pag. 12.  that he will detect sundry untruths, and vanities, wilfully committed in the same. Wherein the Reader shall find him as false, and as vain a man as ever he met with. The four passages he speaketh of are these: the first, that Gerson reporteth, that sundry lewd assertions, prejudicial to the states of Kings and Princes, were brought into the Council of Constance, and that the Council could not be induced to condemn them. Secondly, that they made no stay to condemn the positions of Wickliff and Hus. Thirdly, that they condemned the positions of Wickliff & Hus, seeming to derogate from the state of the Clergy. Fourthly, that they condemned the said positions, though many of them might carry a good and Catholic sense, if they might have found a favourable construction. In which of these passages is my falsehood and untruth? Doth not 
b Dial. Apolog.  Gerson report, that sundry lewd positions, prejudicial to the state of Princes were brought to the Council of Constance to be condemned: and that by no exhortations, or entreaties, by word or writing, the Fathers assembled in it could be brought to condemn them? Doth he not say, that they condemned the positions of Wickliff and Hus, that they imprisoned some for those errors in the beginning of the Council, and burned them afterwards? Doth he not say, the positions prejudicial to the states of Princes, which he speaketh of, were more pestiferous in the life and conversation of men, and in the state of Commonweals, than those they condemned? Doth he not complain of partiality & respect of persons, and the Clergies seeking their own, rather than that which is Christ jesus? Doth he not say, 
c Part. 1. serm. pro viagio Regis Roman. 2. part. principali. direct. 3.  many of the positions of Wickliff might have had a good sense, if they might have been favourably construed? Doth he not protest that he hath no hope of reformation by a General Council, things standing as he found them to do? if there be any untruth in any of these passages, let the Reader censure me as he pleaseth. But if all these things be most undoubtedly true, let him account of higgon's, as of an impudent young man, that hath strangely hardened his forehead, as if he had been a scholar in the school of impudence, a far longer time than yet he hath been. But happily he may find vanity in these passages of mine, though no untruth.  
Let us see therefore, what he saith: 
d Pag. 14.  what advantage, saith he, can Doctor Field gain from Gersons improbation of the aforesaid lewd assertions, prejudicial to the states of Kings and Princes? why doth he press the authority of Gerson, whose medicine he knoweth to be very sharp, against the disease of all such Princes, as by the infection of Heretics are seduced from the integrity of the Catholic faith: to wit, persecution by fire and sword. Surely here Theomisus higgon's bewrayeth more than vanity: for, as if he meant presently to become a traitor against his Sovereign, whom he & his consortes suppose to be seduced from the Catholic verity, he beginneth at the very first to talk of sharp medicines against such Princes; and those prescribed by Gerson, as he telleth us, but he will be found a lying and cogging mate: for Gerson, in the 
e Part. 4. decem considerate. contra adulatores Principum.  place cited by him, hath nothing for the Pope's deposing Princes for heresy, or any thing else, which yet is that medicine he meaneth: nay we are assured he never held any such traitorous position; but; writing against the flatterers of Princes, he wisheth Princes to take heed they listen not to such men, as will instill into them many false opinions, touching their power and absoluteness, contrary to the faith and truth of God; whereby, in the end, they may make themselves so odious as to be pursued by fire and sword by their subjects, So that, whereas Gerson speaketh of errors in faith, concerning the state of Princes, bringing them to do things so odious, as to be persecuted with fire & sword; this good fellow turneth his words to another sense; as if he had meant, that for error in faith, the Pope were to depose Princes; and whereas, to meet with certain false and foolish suggestions, made to some Princes, contrary to the doctrine of faith, he setteth down certain propositions, whereof the first is, that Princes must not justify themselves, and think they offend not, whatsoever they do; and, that the Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil will avail for the furtherance of this consideration; he turneth the words into this sense, that these Laws, are available for the deposing of Kings: so treacherous and traitorous is this Fugitive become already.  
From this first observation he proceedeth to a second, saying, that 
f Pag. 14.  if the reformation wished for by Gerson, consisted only, or principally, or at all, in the redress of lewd assertions, prejudicial to the states of Kings, the Protestants have not effected that, which he desired, their positions being dangerous likewise; and thereupon breaketh out into a long and large discourse concerning the positions of Protestants, touching the state and power of Princes. But surely he is like a Spaniel not acquainted with his game, that runneth after every bird that riseth before him; and is to be taught better before there will be any great use of him. For I bring not the report of Gerson touching hese assertions, so much to show what he would have reform, as to make it appear how strangely things were carried in former times, & how little hope he & other good men had of any reformation by a Council, seeing these positions so dangerous & apparently false could not be condemned in the Council of Constance, by reason of a mighty faction prevailing in the same; & so all that he saith upon this false ground, is nothing to the purpose: notwithstanding if the man were worth the meddling with, or the matter required it, it were easy to show, that Protestants are far from holding any such traitorous opinions as Papists defend. But I have resolved to confine myself to the defence of myself against his childish exceptions, and no way to follow him into any other of his idle discourses.  
Touching Gersons condemning certaine-positions attributed to Wickliff and Hus; and Husses suffering in the cause of CHRIST, against Antichrist, and the idleness of higgon's, in charging Me with contradiction, in that I grant the one, and affirm the other, I have spoken already. But so plentiful he is in objections, that nine things more remain in this chapter, not objected before, which he objecteth to me. The first is, the extenuation of the turbulent and impious positions of Wickliff, in that I say they seemed to derogate from the Clergy. Secondly, that I conceal the impiety of Wickliff in other things. Thirdly, that I cite in one place, things found in diverse places. Fourthly, that I exaggerate the severity of the Council of Constance against Wickliff, etc. and make as if Gerson had disliked it, whereas he did not. Fiftly, that I say Gerson desired a reformation, and thought that it was to be assayed severally in the particular Kingdoms of the world, there being little or no hope of doing any good by a General Council. Sixtly, that the proceeding in this work of reformation severally in divers parts of the world, without a common deliberation, was the cause of those differences, that now appear in the reformed Churches, according as Gerson feared it would fall out. 7ly That I say Gerson, Grosthead, & others, were of the true Church, who yet were members of the Church of Rome. Eigthly, that I misalleage a saying of Gerson. And the nineth, that whereas Gerson saith the Popes sought to be adored as God, I say they sought to be adored and worshipped as God. To every one of these I will answer in a word.  
To the first, that I extenuate not the impious positions falsely and maliciously gathered out of Wickliff's works, as that, God must obey the Devil, and if there be any other like, but accurse them to the pit of hell: but, speaking of those which, in Gersons judgement, were not so hurtful, neither to the conversation of men, nor the state of commonweals, as those against Princes, which the Council of Constance could not be induced to condemn: I say of them, they seemed to derogate from the Clergy; because I know not certainly, upon what ground, or in what sense, many of them, were uttered by him. To the second I answer that I concealed not the impiety of any articles wherewith Wickliff was charged, but having no occasion to speak of any other but such only as were not so bad in Gersons judgement, as some they in the council could not be induced to condemn; I had no reason to censure them any otherwise then I did: for had they been so bad, as Master higgon's would make them to be, the Pope and Council were not very good, that could by no means be induced to condemn such as were far worse, as Gerson telleth us. To the third I say, that it is lawful for a man to cite in one place out of one author, things found in him in divers places: or else Master higgon's is too blame 
g Pag. 8 He allegeth two sayings of Gerson found in two several places, as if they were in one: without specifying whence the latter of them is taken.  who doth so. To the fourth I say, that I exaggerate not the severity of the Council against Wickliff simply, but in comparison: and so doth Gerson, and disliketh it as much as I do, condemning it of partiality. To the fifth, and sixth, I say, that Gerson affirmed the one, to wit, that no good was to be expected by a general Council; that the several parts of the Christian world were to reform themselves: and feared the other, namely that too great diversity would follow upon such divided reformations; as it will easily appear, to any one that will take the pains to peruse the places cited by Me. Neither was it haste and precipitation, as Master higgon's is pleased to censure it, but necessity, that made our men to do as they did, having no means to meet for common deliberation. To the seaventh I answer, that Gerson, Grosthead, and the rest, were members of the Church that was under the Papacy: but that they were not of the papal faction, nor vassals of the man of sin; but men of a better spirit. To the eighth I answer briefly, that I have most sincerely and truly alleged the testimony of Gerson, and no way varied from his intention; which that the reader may the better be able to discern, I will first set down what my allegation is, and then what exceptions higgon's taketh to it. My words are these. 
h Third book of the Church. chap. 11.  Touching the second cause of the Church's ruin, which is the ambition, pride, and covetousness of the Bishop, and Court of Rome, Gerson boldly affirmeth: that whereas the Bishops of Rome, challenging the greatest place in the Church should have sought the good of God's people, they contrarily sought only to advance themselves: his words are these: In imitation of Lucifer, they will be adored and worshipped as Gods: neither do they think themselves subject to any, but are as the sons of Belial, that have cast off the yoke, not enduring, whatsoever they do, that a man should ask them why they do so: they neither fear God nor reverence men. This is my allegation: now let us see what it is that Master higgon's excepteth against in it: Are not these the words of Gerson? He cannot deny but that they are: but he 
i Pag. 28. & 29.  saith, Gerson uttered them, when there was a Schism in the Church: It is true he did so; but what then? Did not the true Pope, whosoever he was, amongst those pretenders, take as much on him as the rest: and is not this note of disgrace fastened upon all? but that Master higgon's may know, that Gerson spoke as much of the Pope simply, as I have cited out of him, without any reference to pretenders, (as he would fain avoid the evidence of his heavy sentence) let him consider what Gerson hath written in his Tract de potestate Ecclesiae: where he goeth about to stop the mouth of flattery, giving too much to the Clergy: and vile Detraction, taking too much from it: and bringeth in flattery, speaking in this sort to them of the Clergy, especially the Pope. 
k De potest. Eccl. consid. 1●….  O how great, how great is the height of thy Ecclesiastical power? O sacred Clergy! how is secular power nothing, if it be compared unto thine! Seeing as all power both in Heaven & Earth was given to CHRIST, so CHRIST left it all to Peter, and his successors: so that Constantine gave nothing to Pope Sylvester, that was not his before, but restored to him that which had been unjustly withheld: and there is no power temporal, or Ecclesiastical, imperial or regal; but from the Pope: in whose thigh CHRIST did write: King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: of whose power to dispute, it is sacrilegious: to whom no man may say, why do you so? though he overturn, tear in sunder, and overthrow all states, possessions and dominions, temporal and Ecclesiastical: let Me be reputed a liar, saith he, if these things be not found written by them that are wise in their own eyes: and if they be not found to have been believed by some Popes: He addeth, notum est illud satyrici: 
— Nihil est, quod credere de se;  
Non possit, cum laudatur diis aequa potestas:  That is, according to that known saying of the Satirical Poet: what should not he persuade himself of himself, that is magnified, as equal to God in power. For that of the Comical Poet, is true of the flatterer: that he maketh fools to be stark mad. These are the sayings of Gerson, which I have laid down at large, that the Reader may judge whether I have depraved the intention of Gerson, or not: and whether higgon's had any cause to traduce Me in such sort as he doth. It seemeth the poor fellow was hired to say something against Me, or else he would never have adventured to vent such fooleries: yet the last accusation against Me is not to be passed over. Gerson saith, the Popes will be adored as God, and I fear not to add, that the English Reader may understand Me, that they will be adored and worshipped as God out of these premises he maketh an excellent conclusion, 
l Pag. 30.  comparing Gerson to David, that commanded joab to save the life of Absalon: and Luther to joab, that had no pity on traitorous Absalon, in that the one would have the Pope well dealt withal, though he disliked his faults: and the other sought to tread him under his feet. But let the Reader know, that as Gerson, so Luther was willing to give all due honour to the Pope, contenting himself with that which of right pertaineth to him: but if he dishonour God, wrong the Church, suffocate and kill her children, and heretically refuse to be subject to the Church, and Council: if he challenge infallibility of judgement, from which no man may appeal; Gerson will tread him under feet, and reject him as an Heretic as well as Luther.    

The Fourth Part.  

§. 1.  
IN the fourth part of this Chapter Master higgon's undertaketh to prove that I have abused the name and authority of Grosthead, to justify the Lutheran reformation: which he performeth full wisely in this sort: 
a Pag. 32  Grosthead was judged a Catholic, and a good man by some Cardinals in Rome: therefore he could not desire that reformation of things amiss, that now is wrought. If the consequence of this Argument be denied, he knoweth not how to prove it: but 
b Pag. 33.  willeth his reader to demand of Me, whether these Cardinals, which judged Grosthead to be a Catholic, and of the same Religion with themselves, were not real members of the Antichristian Synagogue? proud Romanists? factious Papists? etc. which question is soon answered. For I have distinguished, as he knoweth right well, the Church in which the Pope tyrannised, and the faction of Papists, that flattered him, and applied themselves to set forward his proud and unjust claims, till they lifted him up into the throne and seat of Antichrist; the members of the Church, and of the faction: and though both these lived for a time in the same outward Communion, as did the right believers and they that denied the resurrection of the dead, amongst the Corinthians: yet did they differ as much in judgement, as we do from the Papists at this day: so that these Cardinals that opposed themselves against the furious purposes of the Pope, intending to proceed against Grosthead for resisting his tyrannical usurpations, and justified Grosthead as a good man, and the things he stood upon, as right and just, and told the Pope of a departure from him, which he must look for, and by these ill courses, intended by him, he might hasten, may be thought not to have been members of the Antichristian faction, but of the poor Church oppressed and wronged by the same: as Grosthead also was. Neither is it so strange, that Cardinals, who are so near the Pope, should be averse from his Antichristian courses: For Cameracensis, than whom that age had not a worthier man, either for life or learning, and Cusanus no way inferior to him, howsoever they were not free from all errors of Papisme, yet wholly condemned the Papacy, as we do at this day; denying the Pope's universality of jurisdiction, uncontrollable power, infallible judgement, and right to meddle with Prince's states; making him nothing but the first Bishop in order, and honour, amongst the Bishops of the Christian Church. And 
c De Praedestinatione.  Contarenus, as all men know, condemned sundry errors of the Papism, and seemed no less to dislike the Papists wilful and obstinate maintaining of gross errors, abuses, and confusions, than the temerity of those that disorderedly, as he thought, sought to have an alteration. Thus is Master higgon's his great demand easily answered: Only one great and unexcusable fault I have committed; in that I say these Cardinals opposed themselves against the Pope, when he intended to proceed violently against Bishop Grosthead: whereas I should have said, 
d Pag. 34.  they interposed themselves. The poor man it seemeth is very weak in his conceit, and therefore saith he knoweth not what: for did not the interposing of themselves, in such sort, as they did, imply a contrariety of judgement in them, opposite to that of the Pope? and was not their hindering, crossing, and stopping of him by all the means it was fit for them to use, an opposing against his rash purpose and resolution? Surely Master higgon's in this passage showeth himself as very a babe as ever sucked a bottle. For all men know, that one may oppose himself unto another, as well by way of persuasion and entreaty, as of authority or violence.  
But to leave these trifleling fooleries, and to come to matter of substance, because he saith, 
e Pag. 3●….  I express not the matters of quarrel, and differences between the Pope & Bishop Grosthead particularly enough; and that I conceal the correspondence he held with the Roman Church in matters of faith; I will relate the whole story at large, of such things as fallen out between the Pope and this worthy Bishop, whereby I doubt not but it will appear, that if Grosthead were now alive, he would detest such smattering companions as higgon's is, that labour so carefully to reconcile him to that Antichrist, with whom he had war both while he lived and after he was dead.  
The Popes in the time wherein Grosthead lived, not contenting themselves with the pre-eminence of being patriarchs of the West, which stood in confirming metropolitans, by imposition of hands, or by mission of the Pall, and in calling patriarchical Synods, in certain cases, to hear and determine matters of greater consequence, then could be ended in Provincial Synods: but taking upon them, as if the fullness of all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction had rested in them alone, admitted appeals out of all parts of the West, not of Bishops only, but of Presbyters, inferior Cleargymen, and Laymen also; reserved a great number of cases to their own cognisance, debarring the Bishops and metropolitans from meddling with them: exempted whom they pleased from the ordinary jurisdiction of their Bishops, and challenged the right to confer all kind of dignities Ecclesiastical, whether presentative, or elective, not only when they were void, but before: whence came their expectative graces, and provisions; and, which much offended and grieved all good men, bestowed the dignities of the Churches abroad in England and other places upon strangers, that never came to those Churches they were entitled to; so that at one time, a survey being taken, it was found that strangers carried yearly more than threescore thousand Marks out of England, which was more than the bare revenue of the Crown at that time. 
f Math. Paris. in Henrico. 3.  Amongst others, Bishop Grosthead received the Pope's letters for the placing of certain strangers in his Church of Lincoln; which he refused to do, and wrote back to the Pope, to let him know he was opposite to Christ, a murderer of souls, and an Heretic in these his courses: Upon the receipt of which letters; the Pope was half mad with anger, and calling his Cardinals together, swore by Peter and Paul, that if it were not that he were overcome by the goodness of his nature, he would cast down this Bishop into the pit of all confusion, which thing he said he could easily do, for that the King of England was his Vassal and Slave; and he could command him, under pain of his high displeasure, to cast him into prison, or otherwise to proceed against him: but that howsoever he would make him an example to all such as should dare in like sort to disobey his Mandates. Some of the Cardinals, more advised than the Pope, sought to pacify him what they could, and to stop these his intended violent courses: telling him; Bishop Grosthead was in faith a Catholic, in life a most holy man, of great learning, and every where much respected: that the things he stood upon, were just and right; and that therefore it was not safe for him to proceed against him, lest some tumult should follow: which they besought him the rather to think of, for that there must be a departure from the Church of Rome, which they would not have him to hasten by this means. These persuasions prevailed so far, that Grosthead was not accursed, nor deposed, but died Bishop of Lincoln; yet after his death, (it being easier to insult upon a dead Lion then a living dog) the Pope took heart, and was resolved to accurse him, and to command his dead body to be taken up, and to be buried in a dunghill. But the night before this vile act should have been done, Bishop Grosthead did appear unto him with his crosier staff in his hand; and so rebuked the wicked Pope, for favouring the wicked, and persecuting the righteous; and besides struck him in such sort with his crosier staff, that he never enjoyed his Papal dignity after it. This apparition happily was nothing else but the apprehension of his guilty conscience, representing to him the person of him whom he intended to wrong, and terrifying him even unto the death. Howsoever it appeareth by Matthew Paris, that this worthy Bishop: (for so will I call him, notwithstanding any thing prating higgon's can say to the contrary) finding that the Pope sought to overthrow the order of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, to encroach upon all Bishops and guides of the Church, and to usurp such an illimited, universal, and absolute authority, as no way pertained to him, feared not to call him Antichrist: to compare him and his Courtiers to that Behemoth that putteth his mouth to the River of jordan, thinking he can drink it up; to pronounce that it is most true, that before his time, was said of him, and his execrable Court. 
Eius avaritiae totus non sufficit orbis:  
Eius luxuria meretrix non sufficit omnis.  That the Church was holden in babylonical captivity by this Antichrist, and that her deliverance would never be wrought but by the edge of the sword, that must be bathed in blood.  
This is the true report concerning Grosthead: in all which there are neither fictions, nor exaggerations, as higgon's pretendeth, by which it is evident that there was as little Communion between the Pope, challenging as he did then, and doth now, infallibility of judgement, universality of illimited and uncontrollable power, & right to dispose the Kingdoms of the World, as there is between light, and darkness, the Temple of God, and Idols, CHRIST and Antichrist. So that he was no Papist, seeing he overthrew the Papacy; and if in any thing he erred, as living in corrupttimes, it is not to be marvayled at; neither did his error in some particular thing, so much prejudice his piety and sanctity, as that he may not be called a worthy and renowned Bishop seeing he held the foundation, and strove for the truth, as far as he knew it, even to death. And therefore the exceptions of the Author of the book of the Three Conversions against Master Fox, touching this Bishop, and some other mentioned by him, and recorded in the number of Martyrs and Confessors, are little to be regarded: for that men might be members of that true Church whereof we are, holding the foundation, and carefully seeking out and maintaining the truth, as far as they knew it, though they were otherwise persuaded in some things, than either Master Fox, or we are; which need not to seem strange to Master higgon's, nor any other of that side: seeing they think many to have been members of their Church, and Catholics that dissented from them in all the questions concerning the Pope, to which 
g Pag. 4  all other, as Master higgon's telleth us, are subordinate: and besides in the questions of original sin, freewill, justification, merit, satisfaction, the number of the Sacraments, and sundry other like things.  
Thus we see how zealously Grosthead, the worthy & renowned Bishop of Lincoln, opposed himself against the tyrannical usurpations and encroachments of the Pope, and feared not to call him Antichrist for the same. Neither was he alone in this opposition, but we shall find that the whole state of England after many complaints against the Pope's encroachments, usurpations, and tyrannical intermeddling in things no way pertaining to him to the overthrow of the Hierarchy of the Church; told him in the end, that if these courses were continued, they should be forced to do that which would make his heart to ache. Thus, faith Matthew Paris, at last the poor Church of England, that had been long used as an Ass to carry the Pope's burdens, in the end grew weary, & opened her mouth as balaam's Ass did, to reprove the folly of the Prophet: & that not without just cause, in the judgement of all the world: for howsoever the church of Rome challenged to be the Mother of all churches, and the Popeto be the Father of all Christians, yet the one proved a cruel stepmother, & the other an unkind & unnatural Father: so that they both lost the hearts of all men. But what did the Pope upon the complaints of so great a church & nation as this of England? did he ease her burdens, or any way listen to her most reasonable suits? no verily; but was so unmerciful; as the same Paris testifieth, that having so sore beaten us, he beat us again in more cruel sort then ever before, only because we cried & therefore let him not be angry with us, because we have kept our word with him, that never kept any with us; & have indeed done that which maketh his heart to ache, as our forefathers threatened him long before: these groans of our wronged Mother, & her often renewed bitter complaints, before any was found to work her deliverance, do justify that which we have done to be no more than in duty we stood bound to do: neither is there any better proof of the goodness of our cause, then that, that which we have done in the reformation of the church, was long before wished for, expected, & foretold by the best men that lived in former times in the corrupt state of the church.  
But because Mr higgon's is pleased to tell us, 
h Lib. 1. pag. 84  that if there be no better proof, the cause is bad, & the patrons worse: because these best men we speak of, will not speak for us: I will take a little pains to show the goodness of this proof, which I doubt not but the Reader will find to be better, than that Mr higgon's or any other of his Romanists shall ever be able to weaken it. All that which we have done in the reformation of the church, consists in 3 things; the first is, the condemning of certain erroneous opinions in matters of doctrine: the 2d, the shaking off of the yoke of Papal tyranny: & the 3, the removing of abuses & superstitious observations. Now than if it be proved that the best & best learned in former times, thought as we do in matters doctrinal: that they complained of the heavy yoke which the Pope laid on them, and desired the removing of such abuses as we have removed, I think this proof will be found very strong and good: I will therefore first beg●… with matters of doctrine; and so proceed to the other points, not intending to run through all the controversed points of doctrine, but some only for example: and because the question is only of the judgement of men living in latter times in the corrupt state of the Church under the Papacy, I will pass by the Fathers, and speak of such as lived since their time. Touching the Canon of Scripture, which is the rule of our faith: we deny the books of Tobit, judith, Ecelesiasticus, Wisdom, Maccabees, the song of the three Children, and the story of Bell and the Dragon, to be Canonical Scriptures: So did 
i See the pla●…es cited in the 4. book of the Church: chap. 23.  Hugo de Sancto Victore, Richardus de Sancto Victore, Petrus Cluniacensis, Lyranus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas Aquinas, Waldensis, Richardus Armachanus, Picus Mirandula, Ockam, Caietan, and Driedo: to say nothing of Melito Bishop of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Hilarius, Nazianzen, Cyrill of jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, Hierome, Gregory and Damascen. Here we see a cloud of witnesses, deposing for us. And what better proof of the goodness of our cause can there be, then that so many worthies of the world, in so divers places, and at so divers times give testimony to our opinion? Touching the creation, fall, and state of original sin, there were some, and they excellently learned, who thought as we do, that man must either be lifted above himself by grace, or fall below himself by sin, that there is no middle estate of pure nature, that original righteousness was required to the integrity of nature, and consequently, that being lost; nature is corrupted, and deprived of all natural and moral rectitude, so that a man, after the fall of Adam, till grace restore him, can do nothing morally good, or that is not sin. These men defined original sin to be, a privation of original righteousness, that is, of that grace, without which a man can neither fear, love, nor serve God aright. And consequently, do teach, that after Adam's fall, without grace renewing us, we cannot keep the commandments of God, do the works of moral virtue, or any way dispose ourselves to a true conversion and turning unto God. This opinion is l●…rnedly defended by 
k De causa Dei contra Pelagianos.  Thomas Bradwardin, in his discourses against the Pelagians of his time, and confirmed by him out of the Scriptures, and Fathers: and likewise by 
l 〈◊〉 2. Sentent. Dict. 26. quest. 1. art. 1. & dist. 30. quest. 3.  Gregorius Ariminensis; as it was before them, by Augustine and Prosper. Many there were who thought otherwise; whom Cardinal 
m In lib. de praedestinatione.  Contaren blameth, as inclining too much to the Pelagian heresy; but the best men concurred in judgement with these. For proof whereof Cassander citeth an excellent saying of Bonaventura: Hoc, inquit, piarum mentium est, ut nil sibi tribuant, sed totum gratiae Dei; unde quantumcunque aliquis det gratiae dei, a pietate non recedit: etiamsi multa tribuendo gratiae Dei, aliquid subtrahit potestati naturae, vel liberi arbitrij: cum vero aliquid gratiae dei subtrahitur, & naturae tribuitur, quod gratiae est: ibi 
n Consultat, art. 18.  potest periculum interuenire. That is, it is the property of pious and good minds, to attribute nothing to themselves, but to ascribe all unto the grace of God: for how much soever a man giveth to the grace of God, he offendeth against no rule of piety, Noah though by giving much to the grace of God, he subtract something from the power of nature, or freewill: but when any thing that pertaineth to grace is denied unto it, and given to nature, there may be some danger.  
Concerning justification, there is a very main difference between the Papists, and us: for though we deny not, but that there is a donation and giving of the spirit to all them that are justified: changing and altering them in such sort as that they begin to do the works of righteousness: yet we teach, that justification consisteth in such sort in the remission of sins, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, that the faithful soul must trust to no other righteousness but that which is imputed: the other being imperfect, and not enduring the trial of GOD'S severe judgement: Now that this was the faith of the best and worthiest men in the Church, in former times, it will easily appear unto us. 
o Epistola 190.  The righteousness of another (saith Bernard) is assigned to man, because he had none of his own: and upon the Canticles he saith; 
p serm. 61. in Cantica.  I also will sing the mercies of the Lord for ever. Shall I sing of mine own righteousness? noe Lord, I will remember thy righteousness only: for that is mine seeing thou art made unto me of God righteousness. Is there any cause for me to fear, lest it should not suffice us both? it is no short cloak, which according to the Prophet, cannot cover two. With Bernard all other good men agreed, who in respect of the imperfection of our inherent righteousness, pronounced it to be as the polluted rags of a menstruous woman. 
q Lib. 4. de consolation Theologiae prosa 1.  Who is there, saith Gerson, that shall dare to boast that he hath a clean heart? and who shall say I am innocent? and I am clean? who is he that will not quake for fear, when he shall stand before God to be judged? who is fearful in his counsels. Hence job in his affliction saith unto God, I feared all my works, knowing that thou sparest not the sinner: and again, if he will contend with me, I cannot answer him one of a thousand. Whereunto the prayer of the Prophet agreeth; enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for no living man shall be justified in thy sight: And again, if thou shalt observe iniquities, O Lord, Lord who shall endure it? Furthermore we read, that Esay wrapping up himself with other, and waxing vile in his own eyes, in all humility professed, that all our righteousness is as the polluted rags of a menstruous woman. Who therefore in boasting sort shall dare to show his righteousness to God, more than a woman dareth show the rags of her confusion and shame to her husband? There are two kinds of justice, to which faith leadeth us, saith 
r De iustific.  Cardinal Contarenus; the one inherent, the other imputed: it remaineth that we inquire upon which of them we are to stay ourselves, and by which we are to think that we are justified before God, that is, accounted just and holy, as having that justice that pleaseth God, and answereth to that his law requireth, I truly, saith he, think that a man very piously & Christianly may say, that we ought to stay, to stay I say, as upon a firm and stable thing able undoubtedly to sustain us, upon the justice of Christ given and imputed to us, and not upon the holiness and grace that is inherent in us. For this our righteousness is but imperfect, and such as cannot defend us, seeing in many things we offend all, etc. But the justice of Christ, which is given unto us is true and perfect justice, which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offendeth God: Upon this therefore as most certain and stable we must stay ourselves, and believe that we are justified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians which whosoever findeth, selleth all that he hath to buy it. With Contarenus agree the Authors of the Enchiridion of Christian religion, published in the provincial Synod of Collen, in the year of our Lord 1536. Which, as 
s Consult. art. 4.  Cassander saith, the more learned divines, in Italy and France approved: the authors of the book called 
t De iustific.  Antididagma Coloniense, 
u Contro. 2. de fide & iustif catione.  Albertus Pighius, and sundry other; who if they were now a live, and should thus teach, our jesuited Papists would soon condemn them as Heretics.  
Touching merits; I have showed 
x In appendice. cap. 12.  elsewhere that Scotus, Cameracensis, Ariminensis, and Waldensis; do think there is no merit properly so named. With whom agreeth. Adrian the Pope, upon the fourth of the sentences, writing thus, like a 
y Citatus a Cassandro in Consult. art. 6.  Protestant as I think. Our merits are as a staff of reed, upon which if a man stay himself, it will break and pierce the hand of him that stayeth on it: and our righteousness is as the rags of a menstruous woman, &c, 
z Citat. à Cassandro. Ibid.  Clicthovaeus upon the Canon of the Mass, upon these words, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, asketh, what merit we can plead with God; to whom we owe all things? according to that, When ye have done all, say that ye are unprofitable servants: and how we can applaud ourselves in our good works, whereas all our righteousness is as the polluted rags of a menstruous woman before the Lord? Whereunto Bernard agreeth. 
a Serm. 1. in festo omnium Sanctorum.  There is extant an excellent Epistle of Cardinal 
b Epist. ad Cardinalem Farne sium, de acts Ratisbon.  Contarenus, wherein he showeth what reasons moved him, and the other of his side, to yield so far to the Protestants, as to leave out the name of merit, and to acknowledge that there is no merit of works properly so named. And as these Catholic Divines thought thus of justification, by imputation of Christ's righteousness, the imperfection of our inherent righteousness, and our not meriting any thing with the merit of condignity; so they taught likewise that Christ's righteousness is to be apprehended by a lively faith, and defined a lively faith to be that motion of the spirit, whereby men truly repenting of their former life, are raised and lifted up to God, and do truly apprehend the mercy of God promised in Christ, so that they do indeed feel in themselves that they have received remission of sins and reconciliation by God's goodness, and by the merit of CHRIST, and do cry Abba, Father. Thus much was expressly delivered in the 
c Cit à Cassan consult. art. 4  book exhibited by the Emperor Charles to the Divines of both sides, whom he appointed to confer together for the composing of the controversies of Religion: and the Divines agreed unto it. Likewise in the Enchiridion 
d Ibid.  of Christian Religion, so much approved by all the more learned Divines of Italy & France, thus we read. We confess that it is true, that it is altogether required to the justification of a man, that he certainly believe not only in a generality, that for CHRIST'S sake sins are remitted to such as truly repent, but that particularly they are remitted to himself by faith for Christ's sake. With whom Contarenus agreeth in his Tract of justification, the most reverend Canons of the Metropolitical Church of Colein, Authors of the book called 
e De duplicls fiducia.  Antididagma, & sundry other. And before them all, Bernard delivered the very same: his words are these. 
f Serm. 1. de annunc. Dom.  If thou believest that thy sins cannot be done away, but by him against whom only thou hast sinned, & who cannot sin, thou dost well: but add this moreover, to believe that thy sins are remitted thee: this is the testimony which the holy Spirit giveth in our hearts, saying: Thy sins are remitted thee. For so the Apostle supposeth, that a man is justified freely by faith. That the Pope may err not personally only, but judicially also, we have the opinion of 
g Hi omnes citantur à Stapletono. Relect. contro. 〈◊〉. q 4 & Bel. l. 4 de Pont. c. 2.  Ockam, Michael Caesenas, Cameracensis, Cusanus, Almain, Gerson, Waldensis, Picus Mirandula, Pope Adria●…the 6. almost all the Parisians, all them that think the Council to be above the Pope, the Fathers in the Counsels of Constance & Basil, Alphonsus à Castro: and as some think, Durandus; 
h Bell. ibid. c. 7.  Cyprian, and his colleagues, who resisted against the determination of the Bishop of Rome, and all the Christians of the East at this day. This might seem to be a good proof: yet 
i Vbi suprà.  Stapleton is so far from yielding to it, that he condemneth them all that thus thought, as ignorant and rash, especially the latter of them. That the Pope is only first amongst Bishops, equal with him in power, not of order only, but of jurisdiction also, 
k De concord. cath l. 2. c. 13  Cusanus proveth at large, as 
l Dial. l. 4. primi tract. tertiae part. c. 2.  Ockam, 
m Ib. c. 3  Michael Caesenas, and their consorts did before: and with these in effect (though they express not the same so well,) Cameracensis, Gerson, Almain, & all the rest agree, who think the Council to be greater in authority, and in the power of jurisdiction, than the Pope: and make him to be amongst Bishops, as the Duke of Venice is amongst the great Senators of that state, greater than each one, but inferior to the whole company of Bishops. 
n Sup. sent. prolog. q. 10 art. 2.  john Bacon our Countryman noteth, that many in his time were of the same opinion, who thought the Pope, as Head or Precedent of the College and company of Bishops, and with them; to have an illimited authority, reaching to all persons and causes Ecclesiastical; but not as in, of, and by himself. This opinion, 
o De sac. eccls minist. & benef. l. 3 c. 2.  Duarenus followeth, and showeth, that anciently the Pope took no more on him. The same opinion do all the Christians of the East hold: & the practice & resolution of antiquity confirmeth the same. Touching the unlawfulness of the Pope's meddling with Princes & their affairs, we have the testimonies of 
p In Chron. an. 1088.  Sigebertus, 
q De concord. cath. l. 3. c. 41.  Cusanus, & many more, whom I would produce, but that M Blackwell the Archpriest in his examination, hath already produced a world of witnesses, deposing against the Pope in this behalf, to whom I refer the Reader.  
The like might be showed in other points; but because I will not be tedious, I will leave these points of doctrine, and come to show what complaints were everywhere heard in the Christian world, before we were borne, against the pope and court of Rome. Of Bishop Grosthead, and our English, I have spoken already: and have sufficiently showed how they multiplied complaints against the pope: let us therefore come to other: The pope's, saith Nicholaus 
r De corrupto Eccles. statu.  Clemangis, as they saw themselves to be greater than other prelate's, so they lifted up themselves above other in desire of ruling, and overruling all: and finding that Peter's patrimony, though exceeding any one Kingdom of the world, would not suffice to maintain their state, which they would have to be greater than that of Emperors, Kings and Princes: they entered into those sheepfolds of other men, which they found to abound with milk & wool: for they took to them the power to confer benefices & church-living, which ●…ould fall void in any part of the christian world, overthrowing all those elections which the ancient by so many Canons carefully sought to uphold: and hereby drew to them an infinite mass of money: neither did they so stay, but took away from Bishops and patrons all right of collation & presentation; forbidding them to place any till such should be provided for, as they had given the expectative hope of benefices not void. Of these men there was an infinite number, not coming from the Universities and schools of learning, but from the plough or base trades, not knowing Alpha from Beta: who lived most wickedly, and dissolutely, and brought the holy Ministry into so great contempt, that whereas anciently nothing was more honourable, now nothing is more abject, and contemptible. Besides these grievances, upon every vacancy, they exacted the benefit of a whole year out of every living, according to a taxation set by them, which sometimes three years' profit would not answer: and yet not content herewith, they oftentimes imposed tenths, and such like extraordinary taxes upon the poor Clergy: And as if nothing would suffice, overthrew all the jurisdiction of other Bishops: brought all matters of suit to the Court of Rome: and thereby also filled their coffers: and, that nothing might be wanting to make the Church most miserable, the proud spirits of Cardinals, the Pope's Assessors, their swelling words, and their insolent gestures were such, that if a man would draw a perfect picture of pride, the best way to express the same were to paint a Cardinal. For though these men at the first were but of the inferior Clergy, yet in time they so enlarged their Phylacteries, that they do not only despise Bishops, whom in contempt they call Episcopelloes; but also patriarchs, Primates, and Archbishops as their inferiors: and almost suffer themselves to be adored of them. Yea they think themselves to be King's fellows: neither did they content themselves thus proudly and insolently to advance themselves above these, under whom they should have been, but to maintain their state, the unmeasurable and inextricable gulf of their covetousness was such, that no words can express it. For they got divers kinds of livings, that do not well stand together: they became Monks and Canons, Regulars and Seculars: and under one habit, possessed the livings of all religious orders, and professions: not 2. or 3. 10. or 20. but a hundred, 2. hundred, yea sometimes 4. hundred or more: and those not small and poor, but the best and fattest that could be gotten. Gerson speaking of the encroaching of the Court of Rome, writeth in this sort: 
s De Concilio unius Obedientiae.  In process of time the Pope drew many things to himself: so that in the end, upon occasion given and taken (which it is not needful here to rehearse) almost the whole collation of livings and jurisdiction of the Church, rested in the Pope and his Court, in such sort, that scarce was there any Prelate found, that had power to give any the least benefice. Together with these things concurred many fold exactions, to maintain the state of the Pope and Cardinals: and whether there were not many frauds, abuses, and simonies committed, I refer to the judgement of such as are of experience. These things I have therefore insisted upon; because happily it may seem to some more expedient for the Universal Church, that all things should be brought back to their ancient estate, wherein they were in that Church that was in the Apostles times, as much as conveniently might be, the greater part of these jurisdictions being rejected, which have made the Church merely brutish, and carnal, savouring almost nothing of the things that concern the salvation of souls, (not of themselves but through the fault of such as abuse them) or at the least that things should be brought to the state they were in, in the time of Sylvester or Gregory, when every Prelate was left to himself in his own jurisdiction, and that part of the Church that was committed to his charge, and the Pope held that which was his own, without so many reservations and so many great exactions, for the maintenance of that Court and Head, growing happily too great for the other states and parts of the body to bear. So that, as there were worthy men that, conspiring with us in matter of faith, opposed themselves against errors, and false opinions, so there wanted not, that disliked and reproved the Pope's encroaching, tending to the dissolving of the whole frame of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and the overthrow of the form of government, settled by Christ, which is no less hurtful, than the bringing in of heresy and false Doctrine. And this is that babylonical captivity, of which Grosthead complained: and in respect of these confusions, and not only in respect of ill life, as Master higgon's untruly telleth us, Bernard and other complained, that the servants of Christ served Antichrist.  
From the tyranny and usurpations of the Pope, so much complained of in the days of our Fathers, let us come to abuses and superstitious observations removed by us, and see whether they that went before us, will not give testimony to that which we have done. And first to begin with the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood: the first abuse in the celebration of that Sacrament, disliked by us, is the mangling of it, and giving it to the Lay people only in one kind. Touching the ministration of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is evident, saith 
t Consultat. art. 22.  Cassander, that all other Churches of the World even unto this day, and that the Roman or West Church for more than a thousand years, in the solemn, public, and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament, gave both kinds to all the members of the Church. The same doth 
u Annot. in lib. de Corona militis.  Rhenanus prove at large, writing upon Tertullian; and showeth, that, for fear of shedding, the Chalices, wherein the consecrated wine was, and out of which the people were to drink the blood of CHRIST, had certain pipes of silver. Afterwards in process of time, the consecrated bread was dipped into the wine and so given to the people that they might receive the whole Sacrament. But this kind of dipping 
x De officio missae. cap. 19  Micrologus saith, Ordo Romanus condemneth: and therefore prescribeth, that on Good friday, when there is no consecrating, but a receiving of the mystical bread, that was consecrated the day before, they should by saying the Lords Prayer, and dipping the body of our Lord into Wine, not consecrated, consecreate the same: that so the people might be partakers of the whole Communion: which thing were superfluous, if the body of our Lord, kept from the day before, and so dipped, might suffice for a full and entire Communion: and he showeth, that julius the Pope, writing to the Bishops of Egypt, condemned this kind of dipping, and commanded them to give the bread and wine apart, as Christ did institute: yet in time they proceeded farther, and gave the Sacrament only in one kind to the people: which custom when some condemned; the Counsels of Constance and Basill, thought good to confirm and allow; yet so, that the Bohemians, upon certain agreements, were permitted to have the communion in both kinds: and 
y Lyndan. Panopliae Euangelicae lib. 4. cap. 56.  it is reported of Pope Martin, chosen in the Council of Constance, that he went home from the Council, and ministered the communion in both kinds, to divers, not of the Clergy only, but of the laity also. 
z Doctrinal. Fidei tom. 2. de Sacramento Eucharistiae. cap. 94.  Waldensis also testifieth, that here in England, some devout men of the laity were permitted to communicate in both kinds in his time: and 
a Consultat. art. 22.  Cassander assureth us, that all the best men that professed themselves to be Catholics, especially such as were conversant in reading the ancient writers, and monuments of antiquity, upon great reason desired to have the Communion in both kinds.  
The next abuse was that of private Masses. I have showed already that the name of Mass was given to the holy Sacrament, for that all non-communicants were dismissed, and all that stayed were to communicate. And, as 
b In prefat. O●…d. Romani.  Cassander fitly noteth, the whole composition and form of the sacred prayer, called the Canon, agreeth only to a public ministration: there being often mention made in it of the people standing round about, offering and communicating; so that some ancient expositors of the Roman order, think the Canon ought not to be used, but in a public ministration. To which purpose 
c De officio Missae. cap. 19  Micrologus observeth that the prayers used after the communion are appliable only to such as have communicated; and therefore willeth them not to neglect to communicate, that desire to enjoy the blessing of these prayers. 
d Citat. à Cas. in praefat. ord. Romani.  Clichthoveus upon the Canon of the Mass saith, that which some note, that the Priest, so often as he celebrateth, should give the Sacrament to all that stand by, is Ancient and agreeable to the custom of the Primitive Church, when the faithful did every day receive the Sacrament according to that Sanction of Calixtus the Pope; After the consecration let all communicate: and that of Anacletus, who willeth them to be excommunicated, that being present at the consecration, communicate not: which 
e Defence. fid. Trid. l. 2. fol. 239.  Andradius will not have to be restrained to the Ministers assisting, but extended to all the people, and that by the authority of Dionysius, and justine Martyr. 
f Cit á Cassandro ubi supra.  Cochlaeus against Musculus de sacrificio missae hath these words: In old time both Priest and people, as many as were present at the sacrifice of the Mass, after the oblation was ended, communicated with the Priest, as it is evident by the Canons of the Apostles, and the Epistles of the most ancient Doctors, etc. Afterwards the devotion of the people decayed, yet the Clergy and Ministers communicated still; & when all they did not communicate, yet at least the Deacons, and Subdeacons communicated, as the Author of the Roman Breviary testifieth. Whereupon, saith Cassander, some godly and learned men do wish, that this ancient custom were restored, that at least the Ministers might communicate with him that celebrateth, as agreeable to the practice of the Primitive Church, and making much for the dignity and gravity of this Mystery. 
g Damian. â Coes de morib. AEthiopum.  In the Churches of Aethiopia all communicate in both kinds, twice every week to this day. 
h Cit à Cassandro cons. art. 24. De solitariis Missis.  john Hofmeister, expounding certain prayers of the Mass, hath these words: the thing itself proclaimeth it, that as well in the Greek, as Latin Church, not the Priest that celebrateth only, but the rest of the Presbyters and Deacons, & the whole people, or at least some part of the people, was wont to communicate: which custom how it ceased, and grew out of use, may seem strange; but it were greatly to be wished that it were restored again: which thing might easily be effected, if the Pastors of the Churches would do their duty: for the Priests themselves are in fault, that few or none of the people are found to communicate, in that they do not invite & stir them up to communicate more often: as appeareth by the writing of a certain Divine, not unlearned, in the former age, in which he reprehendeth certain Pastors of that age wherein he lived, who took it ill, that some of their Parishioners, though living very laudably, desired to communicate every Sunday. That the Sacrament was ministered in former times in loaf bread, as we minister it at this day, it is evident by the book called Ordo Romanus, by 
h In rational. Divinorum. l. 4 rub●…ic a d●… pacis osculo. p. 70  Durandus, & sundry other authorities. In ancient times the manner was to give the holy Sacrament into the hands of the communicants, as we do, and not to put it into their mouths, as the Papists do. What shall I speak, saith 
i Defence fid. Trid. l. 2. fol. 239  Andradius, of the use of the holy Eucharist, which now no man may lawfully touch but the Priests, whereas it was wont to be carried by the Deacons, to such as were absent, and to be given to Laymen into their hands: whence proceeded that exhortation of Cyrill of Jerusalem, full of piety and religion, that each communicant should fasten his eyes upon those hands that received the holy Eucharist, and kiss them with the kisses of his mouth, that so he might communicate to the rest of the members the holiness of the Eucharist. The custom of circumgestation, saith 
k Consul. art. 22  Cassander, is contrary to the manner of the Ancient, and would never have been liked of them, who held this mystery in so great respect, that they admitted none to the sight of it, but such as they thought worthy to be partakers of it: whereupon all such as might not communicate, were ejected before the consecration: and therefore it seemeth that this circumgestation might be omitted. Crantzius praiseth Cusanus, who being the Pope's Legate in Germany, took it away, unless it were within the Octaves of the feast of Corpus Christi, the Sacrament being instituted for use, and not for ostentation. Touching the honour of Saints, 
l De directione cordis consid. 16. & seqq.  Gerson, 
m In consut. art. Lutheri.  Contarenus, and others reprehend sundry superstitious observations, & wish they were wisely abolished. Whether the Saints particularly know our estate, and hear our cries & groans, not only 
n De Cura pro mortuis.  Augustine, & the 
o In Esaiae 63.  Author of the Interlineall Gloss, but 
p Erud. Theol. de sacr. fid. l. 2. part. 16. c. 11  Hugo de sancto Victore also will tell us, it is altogether uncertain, & cannot be known: whence it followeth, that howsoever being assured they pray for us in a generality, we may safely desire to be respected of God the rather for their sakes, yet it is not safe to pray to them. Neither is this a new conceit of ours, but 
q In 4. sent. l. 3. ●…ract. 8. c. 5. q. 6.  Guilielmus Altisiodorensis saith, it was a common opinion in his time, that neither we do properly pray to Saints, nor they in particular prey for us, but that improperly we are said to pray to them, in that we pray unto God that the rather for their sakes, & at their suit we may find favour and acceptation with him. Touching the abuse of Images, and how much it was disliked in former time, let the Reader see 
r In Consult. artic. 21. de Imaginibus.  Cassander. How great complaints were made long since against the forced single life of the Clergy, and how many and great men desired the abrogation of the law, that forced men so to live, I have showed at large 
s 5. Book of the Church Chap. 57  elsewhere. That in the Primitive Church they had their prayers in the vulgar tongue, 
t In 1. ad Corinth. 14.  Lyra confesseth; and 
u In Respons ad articulos Parisienses.  Cajetan professeth, that he thinketh it would be more for edification, if they were so now; and confirmeth his opinion out of the Apostle Saint Paul. Thus have I given the Reader a taste of the judgement of those that lived in former times, both concerning matters of doctrine now controversed, the Pope's encroachments now by us restrained, and also such abuses as we have removed, by which I think it will appear to be most true, that amongst many good proofs of the equity of our cause, there can no better be desired, then that, what we have done in the reformation of things amiss, the worthiest men in the Church wished to be done, before we were borne. And therefore Master higgon's hath little cause to say, 
x Pag. 84.  Our cause is bad, and the Patrons worse. That which he addeth: (that 
y Pag. 507.  it is to be marvelled at, that I distil the religion and profession of Protestants, out of Catholics,) is to be laughed at as most ridiculous: for out of whom else should I distil it? but if he think they were all Papists, whom I cite for proof of our cause, because they lived under the Papacy, he is deceived: for a great difference is to be put between the Church, and faction in the Church, we deriving ourselves from the one, and they from the other.    

The second Chapter.  

§. 1.  
WHerefore now let us return to see, what Master higgon's hath further to say; 
z Pag. 36.  he will convince Me, he saith, of singular vanity, in that I say there is no material difference between those, whom he and his consorts call Lutherans, and zwinglians. That the reader may the better be able to discern, how ignorantly higgon's excepteth against Me, I will set down at large what I have written touching this matter. Answering the calumniation of Papists, traducing us for our divisions, my words are these: 
a Book. 3. cap. 4●…  I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the Ubiquitary presence, or the like, between the Churches reform by Luther's Ministry in Germany, and other places, and those whom some men's malice called Sacramentaries. And in my third book, answering the objection of Bellarmine, charging the german Divines with the heresy of Eutiches, in that they say the humanity of Christ is every where, ubiquity being an incommunicable property of the Deity, that cannot be communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the Divine and Humane natures, I have these words: 
b Ibid. c. 35.  he should remember, that they, whom he thus odiously traduceth, are not so ignorant as to think, that the body of Christ, which is a finite & limited nature, is every where by actual position, or local extension; but personally only, in respect of the conjunction and union it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no where severed from God, who is every where. This is it then, which they teach, that the body of Christ doth remain in nature and essence finite, limited and bounded; and is locally but in one place: but that there is no place, where it is not united personally to that God, that is every where: In which sense they think it may truly be said to be every where. This construction of their sayings, who defend the Ubiquitary presence, is no private or singular device of mine, as Master higgon's would make men believe; but 
c Ecclesiastical. policy, book, 5.  Master Hooker, a man so far excelling Theophilus higgon's in learning & judgement, that he is not worthy to be named the same day, hath the same precisely in the very same words, and alloweth it as Catholic and good; and indeed, who but an ignorant Novice that hath not learned the principles of the Catechism would impugn it? Yet Master higgon's saith, 
d Pag. 37.  I have failed exceedingly in two points: the first in saying, there is no place, where the body of Christ is not united personally unto that God that is every where, and that it doth subsist every where: the second, in saying the humane nature of Christ may rightly be said to be every where, in as much as it is united personally to that which is every where. This second saying is none of mine; for I have no such words; as the reader will soon perceive if he peruse the place; but my words are these: The body of Christ is not every where by local extension, but personally only in respect of the union it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no way severed from God, who is every where: and again, there is no place where it is not united personally to that God, that is every where: in which sense the german Divines think it may be said to be every where.  
Wherefore let us see what Master higgon's can say against any thing delivered by Me, touching this point: he saith I have failed, for that, though the Divine person wherein the humane nature subsisteth, be every where; yet the humane nature subsisteth therein finitely and in one determinate place, the Union itself being a created thing. For the better clearing of this point, and the understanding of the Doctrine of the Church, resolved on by the best learned in the Schools, we must observe, that there is a being of essence, and a being of existence, or subsistence: the being of essence, which the humane nature of Christ hath, is finite and limited, as is the essence of all other men: but being of existence it hath none of it own, but that of the Son of God communicated to it, which is infinite and Divine. 
e In Apologia quast. 9 de accidentib. in Sacramento.  Deus in incarnatione verbi (saith Picus Mirandula) fecit essentiam humanitatis sine suo esse, ut dicitur á multis Doctoribus: That is, Almighty God in the incarnation of the eternal word, produced the essence of the humanity, without that finite and created actual existence, which, left to itself, it would have had, as many Doctors do affirm; and 
f Apologia quest. 5.  the person of the Son of God, having in it the fullness of all being, drew the nature of man to the unity of that infinite being it had in itself, and communicated the same unto it: so that the humanity of Christ never had any other being of actual existence or subsistence, but that of the Son of God communicated to it. And farther the same 
g Apolog. quaest. 9  Picus saith, Esse corporis Christi substantiale est increatum, Divinum, quod est suppositi Divini, cum in Christo non sit nisi unum esse actualis existentiae substantialis. That is, the substantial, actual being of the body of CHRIST, is the increated being of the Son of GOD: seeing in CHRIST there is but one being of actual existence. This which Picus Mirandula hath delivered, is the resolution of Thomas Aquinas, Caietan, and all the best learned in the Roman Schools: whence it followeth inevitably, that the humanity of Christ, in the being of actual existence, and subsistence, which it hath, is not limited or contained within any bounds of place, but is every where; howsoever in respect of the being of essence, which is created & finite, it be shut up within the straits of one place, at one time: and therefore it is no better than Heresy, that higgon's hath, 
h Pag. 37.  that the humanity of Christ subsisteth finitely in the person of the Son of God: for if it subsist finitely, the subsistence it hath is finite: and if it have a finite subsistence, then are there two subsistences in Christ, the one finite, the other infinite; and consequently, two persons: which is flat Nestorianisme. But, saith higgon's, the union itself in Christ, is a created thing: therefore the being of actual existence, or subsistence, which the humanity hath, is finite. Truly it had been fit the poor Novice had been set to School for a time, before he had been permitted to write: for he bewrayeth gross ignorance in those things, which every one that hath saluted the Schools doth know. The union of the natures of God and man in Christ, saith Cardinal 
i In 3. part. summae. quaest. 2. art. 6.  Caietan, is to be considered, vel quantum ad relationem quam significat, vel quantum ad coniunctionem in personâ, ad quam consequitur: quoniam plus differunt haec duo quam caelum & terra; Vnio enim pro relatione, est ens reale creatum: Vnio antem pro coniunctione naturae humanae in personâ divina, cum consistat in unitate, que est inter naturam humanam & personam filij Dei, est in genere seu ordine Substantia; & non est aliquid Creatum, sed Creator; quod ex eo constat, quòd Vnum non addit supra Ens naturam aliquam, & unumquodque per illudmet, per quod est Ens, est & Vnum, etc. Bc per hoc, natura humana in Christo, quia per esse substantiale subsistentia filii Dei est iuncta naturae divinae, oportet quod illud unum esse, in quo indivisae sunt natura divina & humana in Christo, sit esse unum substantiale divinum; & verè sic est, quia esse subsistentiae filii Dei, in quo non distinguuntur ambae naturae, Substantia est; Deus est, quia verbum Dei est. Vnà & eâdem quippe Subsistentiâ subsistit filius Dei in natura Divina & in natura humana, & consequenter natura divina et humana in Christo sunt indivisae in illa subsistentiautrique communi, quamvis inter se valdè distinguantur. The sum of that he saith, is this: (for I will not stand exactly to English his words:) that the union between the nature of God and Man in CHRIST, in respect of that being, of actual existence, and subsistence, wherein they are conjoined, (which is the same and common to them both, to wit, the subsistence of the Son of God, communicated to the nature of man, prevented that it should not have any created or finite subsistence of it own) is no finite or created thing, but infinite and divine; but in respect of the attaining of the same, in time, and the relation of dependence the humane nature hath upon the Eternal Word, it is finite: and therefore, whereas there are two kinds of grace in Christ, the one of union, the other habitual; the latter is absolutely a finite and created thing, but the former, in respect of the thing given, which is the personal subsistence of the Son of God, bestowed upon the nature of man, is infinite, though the passive mutation of the nature of man, lifted up to the personal being of the Son of God, & the relation of dependence it hath on it, be finite, & in the number of created things. From that which hath been said, it may be concluded avoidable, that the humanity of Christ in respect of personal union, and in that being of actual existence or subsistence which it hath, which is infinite and divine, is everywhere, as God himself is everywhere. But saith higgon's, there is an union Hypostatical between the soul & body, & all the parts of it: yet is not the foot or hand every where, where the soul is, which is whole & entire in every part, because it is not in the head. The poor fellow, I see, hath yet learned but a little Divinity, and that maketh him thus to talk at random. For howsoever the comparison of the soul and body be brought to express the personal union in Christ, yet it is very defective, as 
i De incarn. l. 3. c. 8  Bellarmine himself confesseth. First because the body and soul are imperfect natures. Secondly, because they concur to make one nature. Thirdly, because neither of them draweth the other into the subsistence it hath, but both depend on a third subsistence, which is that of the whole: but in the mystery of the Incarnation, the Eternal Word subsisting perfectly in itself, draweth unto it the nature of man; so that the humanity of Christ, having the same actual existence that the Eternal Word hath, must needs be, in respect of the same being, whore-soever the Word is: But there is no necessity that each part of the body should be where-soever the soul is, which is entirely in the whole body, and entirely in every part, because the body, and the parts of it, have neither the same being of essence nor existence that the soul hath. But, saith higgon's, 
k Pag. 38.  the properties of the divine nature are by virtue of the personal union, attributed to the person in concreto, & not to the humane nature, in abstracto: so that though the Man Christ may be said to be everywhere, yet the humanity cannot. For answer to this objection we must note, that the communication of properties is of two sorts: the first is, the attributing of the properties of either nature to the person, from which nature soever it be denominated. The second, is the real communication of the properties of the Deity to the nature of man, not formally and in itself, but in supposito, in the person of the Son of GOD, bestowed on it: in which sense 
l De incarn. l. 3. c. 56.  Bellarmine confesseth, that the glory of GOD, and all power both in Heaven and in earth, are given to the humane nature of CHRIST: Non in ipsa, sed in supposito, id est, per gratiam unionis, And so the Divines of Germany do say, the humanity of CHRIST is everywhere, in the being of subsistence communicated to it, & the Man CHRIST properly and formally. By this which hath been said, the intelligent reader, I doubt not, will easily perceive the folly of silly higgon's, who being ignorant of the very principles and rudiments of Christian Doctrine, traduceth that as a pseudo-theologicall determination and heresy, which is the resolved determination of all the principal Schoolmen and best Divines, that ever treated distinctly of the personal union of the two natures in Christ.  
Yet as if all were clear for him, and against Me, encouraged by his good success in this particular, he proceedeth to the matter of the Sacrament, persuading himself, he shall be able to find such and so many essential differences therein, as neither I, nor any man else shall ever be able to reconcile: whereas notwithstanding, if he had been so much conversant in the works of Zanchius, as he pretendeth, he might have found in him 
m ' judicium de dissidio Caenae Dominicae in fine Miscellan.  a most godly and learned discourse touching this point, wherein all that he or any of his companions can say, is answered already, and the Divines of Germany and those other, in show opposite, in such sort reconciled, that our Adversaries, if any thing would satisfy them, might lay their hands on their mouths and be silent. In this discourse, first, he showeth that there is no question touching the preparation of them, that desire to be worthy partakers of this heavenly banquet, neither concerning the use of this blessed Sacrament. Secondly that it is agreed, that the very body and blood of Christ are to be received by such as desire to be made partakers of the life of grace, or being already partakers of it, to be strengthened, confirmed, and continued in the same. Thirdly, that the elements of bread and wine, presenting to our consideration the spiritual nourishing force, that is in the body & blood of Christ, are not a bolished in their substances, as the Patrons of Transubstantiation imagine, but only changed in use, in that they do not only signify, but exhibit and communicate unto us the very body and blood of Christ, with all the gracious working of the same. Fourthly, that the meaning of Christ's words, when he said, this is my body, this is my blood, is, This, which outwardly and visibly I give unto you, is in substance, bread and wine, and in mystery and exhibitive signification my body and blood; but this which invisibly, together with the visible element, I give unto you, is, my very body that was crucified, and my blood that was shed for the remission of your sins. Fifthly, that the body and blood of Christ, which the Sacraments do not signify only, but exhibit also, and whereof the faithful are to be partakers, are truly present in the blessed Sacrament; but the one part denieth that they are present, secundum suum esse naturale, that is, in the natural being, or being of essence, because the body of Christ being finite, and having finite dimensions, cannot be in many places at one time; the other part on the contrary side answereth, that the body of Christ is finite indeed; but that, because it is personally joined to the Deity, it is wheresoever the Deity is; yet do not they of this part say it is every where, localitèr, but repletiuè & personalitèr; that is, not locally, but repletively and personally: which distinction Zanchius professeth he doth not well understand; but saith, if their meaning be, that the body of Christ is present, secundum esse personale, that is, in that being of divine subsistence communicated to it, whereof I have spoken before, they say true, and contradict not the other, who speak of the natural being of Christ's body, or being of essence, and not of existence or subsistence, which is infinite and Divine. And though Christ's body be every where in that personal being, as well as in the Sacrament, yet is it not any where else presented unto us in the nature of spiritual food. So that there is no difference between these men, touching the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament; neither will there be any found touching the eating of it: for whereas in eating there is implied a chewing or mastication of that which is eaten, a traiection from the mouth into the stomach, and a turning of the substance of the meat into the substance of the eater; a bodily eating of Christ's body there cannot be, seeing it is impassable, and admitteth no such division, as is made in chewing: and besides, if it should be swallowed whole, it cannot be turned into the substance of our bodies, but rather turneth us into the substance of itself: so that there is only a spiritual eating of Christ, consisting in that chewing, that is, by meditation upon the several and distinct things, that are found in his natures, powers, actions and sufferings; a traiection from the understanding part to the heart, and an incorporation of the believer into him. Yet it is not to be denied, but that Luther and some other did teach, that even the wicked do in a sort eat the flesh of Christ, not as if they did corporally touch his sacred body, much less tear, rent, or divide it with their teeth, or turn it into their substance; but for that they may be said, in a sort, to eat the flesh of Christ, though unprofitably, and to their condemnation, in that they truly receive the body of Christ; eating that outward substance of bread, with which it is truly present, though not locally: and to this purpose the same Zanchius reporteth, that a man of no vulgar note amongst the followers of Luther, did not fear to tell him, that he, and his, do not say that we eat the body of Christ corporally, in such sort, as that our mouth and body should touch his sacred body, which is not locally present, but that the body of Christ is eaten bodily, only in respect of the Sacramental union, attributing that to the body of Christ, that properly agreeth to the bread, with which the body is present. These things are found in a discourse of Zanchius entitled: judicium Hieronymi Zanchii de dissidio caenae dominicae: written by him for the satisfaction of a Bishop of Italy, at the request and entreaty of Paulus Vergerius, and Sturmius.  
By that which hath been said, we see there is no difference in judgement between them, who out of humane frailty are too much divided in affection: Luther uttered many things very passionately against Zuinglius, and others, conceiving that they made the Sacraments to be nothing, but only notes distinctive, serving to put difference between Christians, and such as are no Christians, as a Monks Cowle distinguisheth a Monk from him that is no Monk, or empty signs, without all presence of grace, and exhibition of the things they signify. But if he had fully understood the meaning of them, he was so violently opposite unto, he would not have censured them so hardly as he did. If Master higgon's had ever read this Tract of Zanchius, he would not have willed Me to excogitate, or scan out any reconciliation betwixt Lutherans, and Sacramentaries in the matter of the Sacrament.    

The second part of the Chapter.  

§. 1.  
WHerefore let us come to the next part of this Chapter; wherein 
a Pag. 43.  he undertaketh to demonstrate, that the things alleged by Me, to take away the offence and scandal of the seeming differences amongst Protestants, are but false and empty pretences. The first thing that 
b Book 3. chap. 52.  I allege is, that it is not to be marvailed at, that the Tigurins, Gesnerus, and others disliked the distempered passions of Luther, or that some difference were amongst them, seeing the like were in former times between Epiphanius and Chrysostome, Hierome, Ruffinus, Augustine, and others. The second, that the Papists have their differences also, and those far more material and unreconcilable, than any are amongst us. The third, that our differences, grow not out of the nature and quality of our doctrine, and that we want not a certain rule, by the direction whereof all controversies may be ended.  
Against the first of these my allegations, first he opposeth a devilish untruth, affirming, that Gesnerus, and the Tigurins, did not only dislike the distempered passions of Luther, but hate him with mortal hatred, and accurse and execrate him, as possessed of a legion of Devils; which neither higgon's, into whom a lying spirit is entered, nor any of those devils he is grown so familiar with, shall ever prove. So that there is no cause of trembling, but at the fearful judgement of God, against such as Master higgon's is, that forsake the love of the Truth, whom he giveth up into a reprobate sense. Secondly, in opposition to that which I allege, he undertaketh to prove there were no such differences between the Ancient, as those between the followers of Luther and Zuinglius: but demeaneth himself like a false gamester; for whereas I place the differences and conflicts between Epiphanius and Chrysostome in the front as hottest and most violent; the one of them refusing to pray with the other; the one challenging the other for manifold breaches of Canons, and the one professing, he hoped the other should never die a Bishop; the other, that he should never return to his country alive (both which things fell out according to their uncharitable wishes & desires, Epiphanius dying by the way, as he was returning home, and Chrysostome being cast out of his Bishopric, and dying in banishment) he scarce taketh any notice hereof, but saith only, the differences between Luther and Zuinglius, exceeded the conflicts between Chrysostome, and Epiphanius: which yet I think he will hardly prove. Touching Ruffinus and Hierome, it is certain, the one of them charged the other with heresy, and used most bitter speeches one against another, to the great scandal of the world. The differences between Augustine and Hierome were carried more temperately: neither do I say, they exceeded in passion, as Luther and Zuinglius did; yet did Augustine charge Hierome with taking on him the Patronage of lying, and affirming that the Authors of Canonical Scriptures lied in some passages of the same, the consequence whereof he thinketh to be most dangerous and damnable. Besides this, they differed about the ceasing of the legal observations, so that their differences were greater than those of Luther and Zuinglius if they had rightly understood one another. Yet will Master higgon's show 
c Pag. 34. 35.  a great difference between the differences of the Ancient, and those of Luther, and Zuinglius: First, because Chrysostome and Epiphanius, Hierome and Ruffinus, had an ordinary vocation, whereas Luther and Zuinglius are supposed to have been raised up extraordinarily. Secondly, for that they quarrelled only about the books of Origen, and the improbation thereof; but the differences between Luther and Zuinglius, were founded originally in matters of faith, pertaining to the necssity of salvation. Thirdly in respect of extent; in that their differences were not the differences of whole Churches, as these are; and of duration, in that their divisions were soon extinguished, but these are propagated in succession, and increased with continual addition. To every of these pretended differences I will briefly answer; & first to the first; that we never thought that Luther and Zuinglius had an extraordinary calling as the Apostles, & other sent immediately of God had, but that God stirred and moved them extraordinarily with Heroical resolution, to use that ordinary ministerial power, which they had received in the corrupt state of the Church, for the reprehending and reforming abuses in the same; and therefore they might be subject to errors, and infirmity, as Chrysostome and Epiphanius were, notwithstanding any thing we say or conceive of them. To the second we say, Master higgon's showeth himself in it, either faithless, or ignorant. For we know 
d See these things at large in the 5. book of the Church. chap. 35.  Epiphanius was an Anthropomorphite, & that he was willing for that cause to condemn the books of Origen, wherein this gross error is condemned, & besides took part with Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, who though he were of another mind, yet feigned himself to be an Anthropomorphite, & to condemn the books of Origen, as contrary to that conceit, & deposed Chrysostome; for which his temerity he was anathematised by the Church of Rome, if we may believe Nicephorus. Neither were these the private differences of particular men, but of the greatest Churches of the world, as Chrysostome confesseth in his Epistle to the Bishop of Rome, saying, that all the Churches everywhere by reason hereof were brought upon their knees. Touching Ruffinus it is evident, that he was challenged for favouring the heresies of Origen, whose works he translated: so that it was no matter of circumstance, but of substance, in highest degree, about which Hierome & he calumniated one the other: & for proof hereof, Anastasius Bishop of Rome, writing to the Bishop of Jerusalem touching Ruffinus, saith he had so translated the books of Origen out of Greek into Latin, as that he approved the errors contained in them, & was like a man that consenteth to the vices & faults of other men. Yea 
e Vide Apolog. Higher contra Ruffin.  Hierome feared not directly to pronounce him to be an Heretic, and more blind than a Mole.  
We read, 
f Vide Acta Conc. Ephes.  that in the time of the first Council of Ephesus, called for the suppressing of the heresy of Nestorius, there grew most bitter contentions between Cyrill of Alexandria, and john of Antioch, so that the Church's subject to them were divided one from another, in such sort, that they Anathematised one the other, imputing heresy each to other: yet were they in truth and indeed of the same judgement, and in the end it was found, that these contentions grew out of dislikes, mistake, and misconstructions of things well meant, but not so taken. The like may be said of Theodoret, who notwithstanding all the conflicts between him and Cyrill, and the condemnation passed upon him, as if he had been an Heretic, was in the end found to be an Orthodox by Leo, and the Bishops of the West; and upon a full and clear declaration and profession of his faith, received as a Catholic Bishop into the Council of 
g Actione 1. & 8.  Chalcedon. Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration made in the praise of Athanasius, showeth, that there was a main division of the Christians of the East, and the Romans, or those of the West: the one part suspecting the other of heresy, upon a mere not understanding one another: the Romans professed to believe, that there are three persons in the blessed Trinity, but could not be induced to acknowledge three Hypostases; whence the oriental Christians thought them to be Sabellians, who thought that there is but one person in the Godhead, called by three names: on the otherside, the oriental Christians professed that they believed three Hypostases in the Godhead, but would not admit three persons; whence they of Rome thought them to be Arrians, who believed, that there are three distinct substances in the Godheade: the word Hypostasis in the Schools of secular learning, importing substance, as Hierome noteth: but Athanasius perceiving that they differed not in judgement, and that the greeks meant the same by their Hypostases, that the Latins did by their name of Persons, left them free for the manner and form of speech, and made a peace between them, by letting them know, they all meant one thing, though they expressed the same differently; whereas otherwise it was to be feared, they would have been divided with endless divisions, about these few Syllables. About this matter Hierome living in the East parts, wrote to Damasus, Bishop of Rome: his words are these. 
h Tomo 2. operum Hieronymi.  They urge us to acknowledge three Hypostases: we ask them what they mean by the Hypostases they speak of, and they tell us three persons subsisting: we answer, that we believe so, but the sense satisfieth them not; they urge us to use the word itself, some poison lying hid in the very syllables, etc. Let it be sufficient for us to say, there is one substance in God, and three subsisting Persons, perfect, equal, and coeternal: if it seem good unto you, let us speak no more of three Hypostases, but let us acknowledge one only: there is some ill to be suspected, when in one sense diversity of words is found; let it suffice us, to believe as I have said: or, if you think it right, that we admit three Hypostases, with their interpretation we will not refuse so to do: but believe me, there lieth some poison hid under their words: the Angel of Satan hath transfigured himself into an Angel of light.  
By this which hath been said, it is evident, that there have been as great and hot contentions in former times, amongst right believers as are now between the professors of the reformed religion, and that those divisions were not about matters of circumstance, or personal only, as higgon's falsely pretendeth, but of whole Churches, disliking, condemning, and refusing to communicate one with another, upon supposed differences in mattersof faith and religion. Wherefore to draw to a conclusion, we deny not, but that Luther, and some other adhering to him, upon some misconstruction of the opinion of Zuinglius, and the rest, were carried too far with the violence of their ill-guided zeal: but we say also, that there were as fiery conflicts in former times between Cyrill and Theodoret: between Cyrill and john of Antioch: between Chrysostome and Epiphanius: who yet were Catholic Christians all of them, as I take it, notwithstanding the unkindnesses that passed between them; and as john of Antioch, and Theodoret were reconciled to Cyrill, and those of that side, upon a more full explication of their positions formerly disliked; so it is 
* See touching this report of Melanchthon, the Admonition of the Divines of the County Palatine concerning the book, entitled Liber Concordiae.  reported by Melanchthon, that Luther a little before his death, confessed unto him, that he had exceeded & gone too far in the controversies between him & his opposites about the Sacrament: & that thereupon being wished to publish some qualification of his former writings that were too violent and bitter, he said he had thought upon that matter, and would so do, but that he feared the scandal that might grow upon such his retractation, and that therefore he was resolved to refer all to God, and to leave the matter to Melanchthon, who might do something in it, after his death. This conference between Luther and him, Melanchthon made known to many, and ever constantly showed himself a most godly, peaceable, and religious man, careful to hold the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace; howsoever it pleaseth prattling higgon's to wrong him, and to compare him to the 
i Pag. 45.  Moon in mutability.  
Wherefore leaving my first allegation, let us come to the second; which is, that there are more, and more material differences amongst Papists, then amongst us, which higgon's saith is a poor recrimination. For that 
k Pag. 46.  the eye being judge, there is a comfortable Harmony in the Roman Church; the same Doctrine preached, the same Sacraments ministered, and the same Government established: whereas Protestants are divided in judgement, touching matters of faith, and have a distinct government in England, Scotland, Helvetia, and Saxony. This exception consisteth of two parts: the first, clearing the Papists from the differences and divisions, they are charged with: The second, charging Protestants with divisions and differences both in matters of faith and government. For answer to the former part of this exception, first I say, if there be no contradiction between these assertions, the Pope is above General Counsels; the Pope is not above General Counsels: the Pope hath the universality of all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in himself, the Pope is but only prime Bishop in order and honour before other, equal in commission with him, and at the most, but as the Duke of Venice amongst the senators of that state: the Pope may err judicially; the Pope cannot err judicially: the Pope is temporal Lord of all the world; the Pope is not temporal Lord of all the world: the Pope, if not as temporal Lord of the world, yet, in ordine ad spiritualia may dispose the Kingdoms of the world: the Pope may not meddle with Prince's states in any case; men are justified by imputed righteousness; men are not justified by imputed righteousness: men are justified by special faith; men are not justified by special faith: men may be certain, by the certainty of faith, that they are in state of grace: men cannot be so certain; there is merit of condignity, properly so named; there is no merit of condignity: the blessed Virgin was conceived in sin; the blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin: then doubtless all the Pastors and Bishops of the Roman Church, preach the same Doctrine; otherwise let the reader assure himself, Master higgon's hath stretched his stile, to use his own words, till he forced it to break into a vast and notable untruth. Secondly, I say the form of ministering the Sacraments, hath not been always the same in the Roman Church. For, (as Cassander noteth in his preface before the book called Ordo Romanus, published by him) the ancient forms of divine service were abolished & new imposed, and prescribed violently, so that all that resisted, were sent into banishment: and since that first alteration, as 
l In vitâ Gregorij primi.  Platina noteth, a number of Tautologies, and Barbarismes are crept in, making ingenuous men abhor from the celebration of the holy mysteries. Thirdly, I think it will easily appear, there was no such sweet harmony in the Roman Church touching matters of government, as Master higgon's speaketh of, when the Pope was not only resisted, but called Antichrist, in respect of his infinite reservations, admittances of appeals, his provisions, and granting of expectative graces, and the like usurpations, prejudicial to the right of all other Bishops, and the liberty of the Church. For answer to the second part of his exception, first, I confidently affirm, and the proudest Papist under heaven shall never prove the contrary, that Protestants have no real and essential differences in matters of faith and doctrine. Secondly, I say, that their differences in the form of government, are not such as our Adversaries pretend. For 
m D. Bilson. of the perpetual government of the Church. Pag. 307  they that admit government by Bishops, make their authority to be fatherly, not princely, directing the rest, not excluding their advice and assistance: subordinate to Provincial Synods, wherein no one hath a negative voice, but the mayor part of the voices of the Bishops and Presbyters determineth all doubts, questions, and controversies: and 
n Bezade Ministrorum Evangelij gradibus.  they that retain not the name of Bishops, yet have a precedent in each company of Presbyters, and think it a part of God's ordinance, that there should be such a one to go before the rest, and to be in a sort over them; who, though they give not the name of Bishops, nor so much authority to these Precedents, as Antiquity did, yet is not their error in this point matchable with the errors that are amongst Papists, contradicting one another, touching the Pope and his government, in things most essentially concerning the power and authority of that supposed Ministerial head of the Church.  
Wherefore, let us come to my last allegation, excepted against by Master higgon's; which is, that we want not a most certain rule to end all controversies by, which is the written word of God, interpreted according to the rule of faith, the practice of the Saints from the beginning, the conference of places, and all light of direction, that either knowledge of tongues, or any parts of good learning can yield. In excepting against this rule, Master higgon's showeth the weakness of his brain: for what if Luther, Zuinglius, and other, complained against such as they thought to be opposite to them in opinion, touching some particular points, that they had not due regard to this rule, or that they used it not aright? What if all be not presently of one mind and judgement in all things? will that improve the rule of judging, which we propose? and not rather argue the imperfection of such as should judge according to it? But he 
o Pag. 47.  craveth leave to except against the rule proposed by Me, for three respects: first, because the principles of our religion exclude the means of reconciliation, to wit, the gravity of Counsels, the dignity of Fathers, and the authority of the Church. For answer whereunto we say, that we exclude not the gravity of Counsels: for we absolutely, without all restriction, receive all the lawful General Counsels, that ever were holden touching matters of faith; and though we make God, speaking in his word, to be the only judge authentically defining, and prescribing, what men shall believe, under pain of condemnation; yet we think Counsels have a judgement of jurisdiction, and that they may subject all gainsayers to excommunication, and like censures. Neither doth it any way derogate from the authority of Bishops assembled in Counsels, that we make them judges to determine according to the word of God, & the resolutions of the Church from the beginning, & not the rule itself: for what man in his right wits, will attribute any more unto them, and make them judges at liberty, tied to the following of no rule of direction? or like God, that is a rule to himself in all his actions, and hath no Law prescribed to him by any other? Yet because Master higgon's willeth the reader to compare Campians fourth reason with my assertion, I will likewise entreat him to see a worthy 
p Disputatio Nichol. Clemangis habita per scriptum super materia concilii generalis, cum quodam Scholastico Parisierisi.  discourse of Clemangis, wherein he proveth at large that Bishops assembled in General Counsels must prove and confirm their determinations by other arguments, then by their own authority; and giveth many reasons, by which a man may reasonably persuade himself, that such Counsels are not absolutely & generally free from danger of erring: whence it followeth, that they neither are the rule, that is to be followed in determining controversies, nor after they are determined. Touching the dignity of Fathers, & authority of the Church, we esteem them both as beseemeth us: for whatsoever the Fathers generally, & with one consent deliver in matters of faith, we admit & receive as true without father examination: as likewise, whatsoever the Church consisting of all Christians, not noted for heresy or singularity, that are and have been since the Apostles times: but of particular Fathers, & parts of the Church, we judge according to the rule of God's word, and the general resolution of the Fathers, and the whole Church that hath been since the Apostles times.  
His next exception against our rule, is, 
q Pag. 48.  because we admit not the Pope to be judge of all controversies in CHRIST'S steed, which he must frame in this sort: The Pope is supreme judge of controversies in religion: therefore the Word of GOD interpreted in sort before expressed, is not the rule that is to be followed in determining things doubtful: and then the consequence will be naught and the antecedent false: for, though we should grant the Pope to be appointed judge of controversies in Christ's stead, yet I hope his Holiness is bound to follow some rule of direction in judging: and if any, what other then that mentioned by Me, I cannot conceive. But whatsoever become of the consequence, the antecedent is false: for he shall never prove, while his name is higgon's, that the Pope is supreme judge of controversies. And the ignorance, or impudency of the man deserveth just reproof, in that he feareth not to abuse the authority of Cyprian to that purpose; who was so far from taking the Pope for his judge, that he 
r Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 1.  freely disséted from him, and professed that 
s Concil. Car thag. inter opera Cypriani.  one Bishop is not to judge another, but that they are to be judged of God only, and the whole company of Bishops: neither doth the place produced by him out of Cyprians Epistles, prove any such thing, as he would enforce: for it is most evident, that Cyprian speaketh of one Bishop in each Diocese, & not of one Bishop in the whole Christian Church, when he saith, 
t Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  Heresies arise from no other cause, then that the Priest of God is not obeyed, and that men think not of one Priest & judge in Christ's steed: as it will easily appear, to any one, that will take the pains to see the place. But saith higgon's, 
u Pag. 48.  the Lutherans seek to predominate, and the Caluinistes will not obey: therefore, there must be an umpire between them, and consequently, the Pope must end the quarrel. Whereunto I answer in a word, that howsoever the violent humours of some men make a rent in the Church, yet there is no difference in judgement amongst those whom he calleth Lutherans and Caluinists, in any matter of faith: and therefore the mediation of moderate men, interposing themselves, or the authority of Princes, professing the reformed Religion, may in that good time that God shall think fit, easily make an end of these contentions, without seeking to the Romish babilonical Monarch.  
His third exception is a mere begging of that which is in controversy, which shall never be granted him. For, I say confidently as before, that the matters wherein the followers of Luther, and the rest, professing the reformed religion, seem to differ, are neither many in number, real in evidence, nor substantial in weight: as he vainly 
x Pag. 49.  braggeth he can prove out of Luther, Hunnius, and Conradus on the one part, and Zuinglius, Sturmius, Clebitius, etc. on the other part. And therefore here is no reproof of that I have said of the reconciling of these differences, but a proof of his vanity in bragging of that, which he will never be able to perform. That which I have written touching the reconciling of these men, in show so opposite, in the matter of the Ubiquitary presence, and the Sacrament, which I am well assured this Fugitive cannot improve, nor any of his great Masters, who have the schooling of him, will satisfy the Reader, I doubt not, touching the possibility of a general reconciliation. The lies, scoffs, and fooleries of higgon's, in these passages, touching my pretending, that the Sacramentaries subscribe to the Augustan confession, my art of reconciling, and the like, I pass by, as not worth the thinking of, and conclude this point, with this confident asseveration, that the differences between those whom the Papists malice, and other men's passion, calleth Lutherans, and Sacramentaries; are either not real, or not so material but that they may be of one Church, Faith and Religion.    

The Third Chapter.  

§. I.  
IN the next chapter he chargeth Me with falsehood and incivility, in traducing Bellarmine, and saith I have devised three criminations against him. The first supposed crimination, joined with falsehood; as he saith is this; Bellarmine saith: 
a Bellat. de Notis Ecclesiae. lib. 4 cap. 10.  Videmus omnes illas Ecclesias, quae ab isto Capite se diviserunt, tanquam ramos praecisos à radice, continuò aruisse: and 
b Book 3. chap. 41.  I say he affirmeth: that all Churches of the world, that ever divided themselves from the fellowship of the Roman Church, like boughs broken from a tree, and deprived of the nourishment they formerly received from the root, presently withered away and decayed. Surely it is a grievous crime that I have committed: yet I hope if I meet with merciful men, it will be forgiven Me: for I think that boughs broken from a tree will wither away. But, saith M. higgon's, Cardinal Bellarmine meant nothing, but than the divided Churches lost their glory, and splendour, and so withered, but withered not away. This I think the poor fellow will not stand unto; for these Churches, by the very act of their separation, in his judgement, became, heretical and schismatical; and so lost, not only their glory and splendour, but their being also, and the life they formerly had, and consequently, like boughs broken from a tree, withered away; which yet, neither he, nor the Cardinal can ever prove. For there appeared still all signs of life in them, after their separation as before; and some of them hold a more sincere profession of Christian verity to this day, than the Romanists do: and we would rather join ourselves to the Grecians then to them, as neither erring so dangerously, nor so pertinaciously, as they do. For that which he 
c Pag. 52.  bringeth out of justus Caluinus, concerning Hieremy the Patriarch of Constantinople his renouncing our society, and alleging the Counsel of S. Paul for his warrant, where he saith, reject an Heretic after the first or second admonition, is a lie; as many other sayings of the same Author are likewise.  
The second crimination he speaketh of, he saith, is contrived in this manner. 
d 3. Book chap. 41.  Bellarmine saith, that none of the Churches divided from Rome, had ever any learned men after their separation: but here he showeth plainly that his impudence is greater than his learning, for what will he say of Oecumenius, Theophylactus, Damascen, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Elias Cretensis, Nilus, Cabasilas and innumerable more living in the Greek Churches, after their separation from the Church of Rome? Surely these were more than match-able with the greatest Rabbins of the Romish Synogogue. M. higgon's should put a difference between a crimination, and a just defence of men wronged by the unjust criminations of Bellarmine, from which I endeavour to clear them. But let it be as he will have it, what hath he to say unto it? much surely, if he could prove what he saith: for he saith, 
e Pag. 53.  there are 3. untruths found in it; the 1. is, that, whereas I charge Bellarmine to affirm, that none of the Churches divided from Rome had any learned men after their separation, he saith only, that none of the Churches of Asia or Africa had any. How great a vexation it is for a man to be matched with such Triflers as this is, the reader may easily judge by this particular. For if never any of the Churches of Asia, and Africa had any learned men, after their separation from Rome, neither the Aethiopian, Armenian, Nestorian, nor Greek Churches had any: The Aethiopian, and Nestorian Churches being wholly in those parts, and the greater part of the Greek Church also: now if none of these had any, I think none had. But that these had, I show by naming sundry particular men of great worth, in the Greek Churches. This M. higgon's found to touch his Cardinal too near, and therefore he saith, he purposely declined the naming of the Greek Church, by restraining himself to the Churches of Asia, and Africa, whereas he should have said he purposely enlarged himself to all the Churches of Asia and Africa, that he might draw into the generality of his speech, not the Grecians only, whose greatest number of Churches are in Asia, but the Armenians, Nestorians, and Aethiopians also. Now then, see what Mr higgon's hath done? he hath confessed that the Greek Churches, which all men know to be principally in Asia, & reckoned among the Churches of Asia, though some parts of them be in Europe, to have had learned men since their separation; whence it followeth, that the Cardinal without shame denied that any of the Churches of Asia had any, so that in reason he should not be angry with Me, in that knowing his Cardinal's learning to be very great, yet to magnify his impudency in this point, I prefer it before his learning. The 2. untruth that M. higgon's would fasten upon Me, is, that I say, Damascen lived after the separation of the Greeks from the Latins: which thing I still affirm to be most true, & higgon's himself in a sort confesseth as much: for 
f Pag. 54.  he saith out of Bellarmine that Damascen lived about the year of our Lord 740. & that the violent separation of the Greeks from the Latins was occasioned principally about the year 766. 26. years after. Now, as I think, in that he saith the violent separation was then, he insinuateth that there was a separation before: which thing if he deny I will easily prove against him. For it appeareth that the separation between the Greeks and the Latins began not in the year 766, but before: in that in the year 766. a great Council was called at Gentiliacum, to compose the differences between them, as we read in 
g Rhegino. Chron. l. 2.  Rhegino, 
h Sigebert. in chro. anni 766.  Sigebertus, and others; and the matter came to a public disputation between them, before Pippin the father of Charles the Great; but that Damascen lived after the separation between the Greeks & Latins, it is evident, in that the separation between them, being occasioned specially by the different opinion which they held, concerning the proceeding of the Holy Ghost, as higgon's telleth us, Damascen was opposite to the Latins in that point: in so much that he saith expressly, that 
i Damas. l. 1. de fide orthod. c. 11.  the spirit is by the son, but not from the son. The third imagined untruth is, that I say Damascen, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and the rest, were more than matchable with the greatest Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue, whereas Bernard & some other were matchable with them. For answer whereunto, let the reader observe, that I never call the whole Latin Church by the name of the Romish Synagogue, out the faction that prevailed in it; & therefore I mean not all the Doctors of the Latin Church, by the name of the Rabbins of the Romish Synagogue, but such only as served as vile instruments to advance Papal tyranny, superstition, & error. So that though Bernard, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura, Scotus, Lyranus, Gerson & some other should be granted to have been matchable with Damascen, Theophylact, & Oecumenius, yet will it not follow that I have uttered any untruth: for I deny that any of these were of the Papal faction.  
The next supposed crimination, is a most just reproof of the gross oversight of Bellarmine, where he saith, none of the Churches separated from Rome, or none of the Churches of Asia and Africa, as higgon's restraineth his words, could ever hold any council after their separation; which cannot be avoided by higgon's, though it seemeth he would willingly do the Cardinal some good service, that he might become fellow Chaplain with Matthew Tortus. For, if the Cardinal mean General Counsels, it is not to be marvailed at, seeing they are but a part: if national, or Provincial, it is too childish, and may be refuted by sundry instances. Whereunto higgon's hath nothing to say, but that if Bellarmine's words be extended to the Greek Church, his fault is unexcusable: seeing that Church hath holden Provincial Counsels, since her separation, whereof, as Master higgon's thinketh, he speaketh, and not of General: but that his words are restrained to the Churches of Asia, and Africa, which could never hold any such after their separation. In this Apology of Master higgon's there are more absurdities, than words. For first, he can give no reason why the supposed Schismatical Churches of Asia and Africa should be less able to hold national, or Provincial Synods than those of Europe. Secondly the Greek Church is principally in Asia: so that if the Greek Church had the power of convocating Provincial Synods, some of the Churches of Asia were not excluded from partaking in it. Thirdly, if this were not the common misery of all divided Churches, this infelicity grew not from their separation, but from some other cause, and then it maketh nothing for proof of the necessity of adhering to the Church of Rome, as to an head, to which purpose Bellarmine bringeth it. Fourthly, that other Churches may hold Provincial Synods, & namely those of Asia & Africa, it is most evident. For first touching the Aethiopian Christians, ʰ Damianus à Goes, out of the report of a learned Bishop of those parts, sheweth, that they have Counsels, and that they make Laws in them. Of 
〈◊〉 D●… moribus A Ethiopum.  a Synod holden by the Nestorians, we read in 
l In addit. ad Platinam.  Onuphrius in the life of julius the Third. In the Council of Florence we read of certain Orators sent thither from the Armenians, in the name of the Patriarch of Armenia & his Clergy; which could not be done without some Synodall meeting. Lastly, seeing many Counsels were holden in ancient times, in show General, by such as were Heretics: what reason can higgon's give, why these Churches having a subordination of inferior Cleargymen, Bishops, & Metropolitans, cannot so much as call a poor Provincial Synod? If this be not childish trisling to say no more, let the reader judge, how partial soever he be. And therefore, I say now again, as at first, that if Bell. mean general counsels when he saith, the divided churches could hold none after their separation, it is not to be marvailed at, seeing they are but a part; if National or Provincial, it is childish; seeing it is most evident they might hold such Counsels: neither can his years, dignity, or other ornaments, Master higgon's speaketh of, privilege him so far, but that we may and will tax his wilful oversights, as they deserve, notwithstanding the boyish prattling of Theophilus higgon's. The conclusion of this chapter, touching our want of good manners towards Bellarmine's grace, and other such lights of the world, as shine in the darkness of Popish blindness, and superstition, sorteth so well with the next part of this chapter, which is concerning my incivility towards the Cardinal, that one answer may suffice for both. That I have not wronged him by imputation of false crimes, I hope the Reader will bear Me witness, upon view of that I have answered in my own defence.    

The 2. part of the third Chapter.  

§. 1.  
WHerefore let us see wherein my incivility consisteth. It is forsooth in aggeration of base, odious, and unworthy names, as Cardinal Heretic, Heretical Romanist, Impious Idolater, Shameless jesuit, Shameless Companion, with his idle brain, and senseless fooleries. This is Master higgon's proof of my incivility. If I make it not appear to all men that have their senses, that I have reason to phrase the jesuit, as higgon's speaks, so as I have done, let Me be condemned of incivility; But if I had just cause to use him as I did, let this foolish flatterer hold his peace. Wherefore to begin with the first. Shall he 
l Lib 4. de notis Ecclesiae. c, 9  charge us with twenty execrable & damnable Heresies, all which he knows we accurse to the bottomless pit of Hell, & may not I call him a Cardinal Heretic, or Heretical Romanist, without note of incivility? Shall he at his pleasure, because he weareth a red Hat, 
m Ibid.  charge us with Heresy & Impiety, for impugning the adoration of Images, forbidden by Almighty God; and may not I call him an impious Idolater? Shall it be lawful for him to say, 
n Ibid.  that Elizabeth, our late Queen of blessed memory, took upon her, and was reputed to be chief Priest in these her dominions; and shall it not be lawful for me, in reproof of so impudent a slander, and defence of my late dread Sovereign, the Lords anointed, and the wonder of the world, to tell the jesuitical Friar, that he is a shameless jesuit that durst so say? Shall he without conscience or fear of God, against his own knowledge, 
o Ibid.  charge us with the hellish Heresies of the Manichees touching two original causes of things, the one good, of things good, the other evil, of things evil; and shall it not be lawful for me to ask the question, whether he be not a shameless companion in so charging us? Shall a jesuitical Friar be freely permitted in so vile sort to wrong so many mighty monarchs, States, & people of the world, as profess the reformed religion, & may a man say nothing to him without incurring the note of incivility, and want of good manners? Shall he 
p De notis Ecclesiae. li: 4. c. 11.  charge us with palpable, gross & senseless absurdities; & may not we tell him, the gross absurdities which he untruly imputeth unto us, are but the fancies of his own idle brain? Shall he be suffered to utter senseless fooleries in 
q Ibid. ca: 9  wronging Caluine, & other men as good as himself; & may we not tell him, he doth so? Shall it be lawful for Theoph higgon's to use all words of disgrace that he can devose against Luther & Calvin, men of as good worth as the Cardinal; & may no man say any thing to the Cardinal, because he is a Cardinal? How much soever he forget himself, truly I am not ignorant, that these ministers of Antichrist take very much upon them. For as 
r De corrupto Eccles. statu.  Clemangis long since feared not to write, their spirits are so high & lofty, their words so swelling, & their behaviour so insolent, that if a Painter would paint pride, he could not do it better than by representing to the beholders the form & figure of a Cardinal: which kind of men, though they were originally of the inferior clergy, yet together with the increase of the pomp of the See of Rome, grew so great, & enlarged & spread out their Phylacteries in such sort, that they despise, as far inferior to them and much below them, not Bishops alone, whom in contempt they use to call petit Bishops, but patriarchs, Primates, & Archbishops also; almost suffering themselves to be adored and worshipped of them: and yet not content therewith, 
* See that which Bellarmine hath lately written to this purpose.  seek to be kings fellows: for the maintenance of which their imagined and feigned greatness, like wild Boars, they made havoc of the Vineyards of the Lord of hosts. Thus wrote he almost 200. years since: but God's name be blessed for it, these wild Boars have been well hunted out of many parts of Christendom since that time. But Master higgon's, as if he meant to make an oration in the praise of his Cardinal (to reprove as he saith, the temerity of such, as steep these pens in gall and wormwood, to vent malicious untruths against this happy man) commendeth him for his intellectual and moral parts, setting them out at large in the particulars, and (as his manner is to cast in things suddenly without all cause or reason that are no way pertinennt) he telleth of a crime which I lay unto him, and though I pardon him, yet so uncourteous he is, that he saith I do it in malice. The crime, as he will have it called, is this. I charge Bellarmine that he forgetteth himself very strangely in his discourse touching the notes of the Church, in that in the former part of it, he 
s Cap. 2.  denieth truth of profession or Doctrine to be a note of the Church, and in the latter 
t Cap. 11.  maketh Sanctity of doctrine or profession, (which he defineth to be the not containing of any untruth in matter of faith, or unjust thing in matter of manners and conversation) to be a note of the Church. Between which two assertions, as I think, there is a manifest contradiction. For if truth of doctrine and profession, and Sanctity of doctrine or profession be all one, as I think they will be found to be; then to say, truth of doctrine and profession is no note of the Church, and to say, Sanctity of doctrine or profession is a note of the Church, as Bellarmine doth, is to utter manifest contradictions. This is the want of memory I find in Bellarmine: for which Master higgon's (who amongst other good natural parts 
u Pag. 57  commendeth him highly for tenaciousness of memory) is offended with Me. But because he is become so jealous of his Cardinal's Honour, I will show him another Escape or two in this kind. In the former part of his discourse touching the notes of the Church, he 
x Cap: 2.  denieth Sanctity or purity of doctrine, free from error, to be a note of the Church, because it may be found in a false Church, for that schismatics, who are only schismatics, pertain not to the true Church, whose profession notwithstanding is free from all error, as was the profession of the Donatists and Luciferians in the beginning: and yet in his latter part he maketh this 
y Cap. 11.  purity from error, a note of the Church. In the former part he denyeth it to be a note, because it agreeth not inseparably to the true Church, as notes should do, seeing the Churches of the Corinthians had it not: and yet in the latter part he maketh this purity of doctrine to be a note of the Church. In the former part he will have nothing to be a note of the Church, that may be claimed or pretended by any but the true Church, and thereby excludeth purity of profession, which is claimed by all misbelievers: and yet in the later admitteth it, notwithstanding any challenge, Heretics, or Misbelievers make unto it. By this which hath been said, I hope it doth appear that Master higgon's had little reason to charge Me with want of conscience in accusing Bellarmine: But for want of civilility of manners, and respective demeanour towards his person, whereof he complaineth; let him know, that if he involve himself in infinite contradictions, as he doth: if he wrong us and the Princes, People, and States of our profession by hellish and diabolical slanders, as he doth: if he basely abuse Luther, Caluine, Bucer, Melachthon, and others, his equals in merit and esteem: if he set his face against heaven, and open his mouth to the dishonour of our late Sovereign of famous memory and his most excellent Majesty now regnant, as he doth; we will be bold to cast this dirt into his face again, if he were a better man than all Master higgon's his base and slavering commendation of him can make to be.   

§. 2.  
HEre Master higgon's leaveth me, and passeth to D. Morton: yet so good a will he hath to say something against Me, though never so idly, that within two or three pages he returneth to Me again, and 
a Pag. 6●…. & 64.  chargeth Me full wisely, with perplexing and involving myself in manifest contradictions. The first contradiction he would force upon Me, is this. The Elect notwithstanding any degree of sin which they run into, retain that grace which can and will procure pardon for all their offences: and yet: sometime●… there is nothing found in the Elect, that can or doth cry to God for pardon. It is strange truly, that such as higgon's is, should be permitted to play the fools in print as they do. But our Adversaries know it is good to keep men busied in any sort; and that the greatest part of their Adherents will applaud any thing, though never so senselessly written against us: For otherwise I know they cannot but laugh at the serious folly of this their Novice in this passage. For Inever say, the Elect have always in them that grace that can and will procure them pardon for all their sins and offences, as he chargeth Me, but that the Elect called according to purpose, have that Grace that excludeth sin from reigning, and that this Grace once had by them, is never totally nor finally lost. Now what contradiction is there between these propositions? The Elect at sometimes (to wit before they be called) have nothing in them that cryeth for pardon and remission of their sins: and the Elect after they are once called according to the purpose of God's will, do ever retain that grace that can and will procure pardon and remission of all their sins. Surely even as much as there is between these: Paul sometimes was an enemy to Christ and Christians, and a Persecutor; And Paul after his calling, was never an enemy to Christ nor Christians, nor never persecuted any of them, but suffered persecution himself together with them. The second supposed contradiction is this. All sins done with full consent exclude grace. David, who was an elect and chosen servant of God, sinned with full consent after his calling, and yet David never fell totally from grace. here truly there is a real and true contradiction, but one of these assertions is none of mine: for I deny that David ever sinned with full consent after his calling, though his sins were very grievous and highly displeasing to Almighty God. For the better clearing whereof we must observe, that there are three degrees of sin. The first is of those motions to evil that arise in men, and solicit them to the doing of that which is displeasing unto God: yet so, that no consent is yielded to them. The second is, when the violence & impo●…nity of those ill motions is such, that men choose rather to give way unto them, then to be any longer disquieted and tormented by them, and yet wish they were free from such solicitations and provocations. In those that thus sin, there is a deliberate consent, but it is not absolute and full, but mixed; Such was the sin of Peter denying his Master, which proceeded from fear, & whereunto he so consented, that he still retained the good opinion he formerly had of him, and love towards him, and wished, no doubt from the depth of his Soul, there might never any such thing have fallen out, that might draw him to do that he did. And such was the sin of David, who chose rather to commit that vile act with the wife of Vriah, then to be tormented any longer with the importunity of those burning & inflamed desires that violently seized on him, though he wished in his heart that never any such motions might in such violent sort have arisen in him. The third degree of sin is in them that absolutely and fully consent to the motions of evil, as making them their chief delights & contentments. In them who sin only in the first degree, grace not only remaineth, but keepeth her standing, resisting against evil, & entreating for pardon of that which it cannot avoid. In them that sin in the 2d degree, it remaineth, but carried into captivity. In the 3d it hath no place at all. To the same purpose it is, that some worthy Divines of our profession, make three kinds of the being of sin in us: for first it is inhabiting only: 2dly, it is regnant, yet not as a king who ruleth & reigneth with the love & liking of his subjects; but as a Tyrant, that they hate & would depose if they knew how: 3dly, it is regnant as a king, welcomed & joyfully received into all the powers & faculties of the soul. In the first sort it is in them that give no consent to the motions of evil that arise in them. In the second, in them that give consent, but not free and absolute, but mixed. In the third, in them that give it the whole heart. In the first, it neither excludeth grace, nor driveth it from the standing and command it should have in the soul of a good man. In the second, though it exclude it not, yet i●…●…eth and hurteth it sore, scattering the forces of it, leaving it but dissevered desires, & no entire good affections: so that they are never able to recover themselves again without foreign help: But when such succour cometh, these remains of good begin to recollect themselves again, to take heart, and to join with the same; as we see in David, reproved by Nathan.  
The third contradiction, that Master higgon's would fasten on me, is, between that saying of mine; The elect and chosen Servants of God do carefully endeavour, that no sins may have dominion over them; and therefore notwithstanding any degree of sin they run into, they retain that grace, that can and will procure pardon: and that in the Articles of religion, agreed on in the beginning of her late Majesty's reign, that 
b Art. 16.  after we have received the holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and by the grace of God rise again. Which is no contradiction in truth and in deed, but in the misconstruction Master higgon's maketh of things well meant. For when the Article faith, we may depart from grace, the meaning of it is, that the elect of God, called according to purpose, may swerve from the directions of grace, in some particular things, and fall into grievous sins, out of which they are to be raised by repentance, and not that they may totally fall from it. Neither do I deny, but that the elect may commit sin, yea grievous sins, and such as are in their own nature mortal, though not mortal in that (not obtaining full consent) they cannot bring death upon the doers of them. Wherefore to conclude this point, into which Master higgon's digresseth, after his idle manner, and to send him back to the matter he hath in hand; I say, that there is no contradiction between any assertion of mine, and the Articles of Religion, agreed on in the convocation: and farther add, that there is no Papist of judgement, and consideration, that can possibly descent from us in this point, touching the constant perseverance of the elect and chosen servants of God called according to purpose, and their never wholly falling from grace. For first, they all agree together with us, that they cannot finally depart away. Secondly, 
c Hugo de Sa. Victore de Sacrament. sidei l: 2. part. 13. c. 12.  that some good motions and affections will ever remain in them, after they have been once seasoned with the liquor ofrenuing and sanctifying grace. Thirdly, that they lose not their right to the rewards which God in the covenant of mercy promised to their former virtuous and good endeavours, nor the benefit of their repenting from dead works formerly repent of, when they fall into sin, though they can make no use thereof, while they continue in such an estate of sin. For, saith 
d In quartum Sen. dist. 22. cue, 1. art. 2.  Scotus, as a man that hath much owing unto him upon good assurances, and is possessed of things of good value, being excommunicated or outlawed, still retaineth the interest and right to all things that formerly he had, though he can make no use thereof, nor by course of law force them to do him right, that go about to do him wrong, nor recover that which is due unto him, if it be detained from him; but all prosecution of his right is suspended, till he procure himself to be freed from the sentence of excommunication or out-lawry: So the remission of original sin, the right to eternal life obtained in Baptism, the force and virtue of former repentance & conversion from sins past, & the right to the rewards of actions of virtue formerly done, remain still in the elect and chosen, called according to purpose, when they fall into grievous sins tyrannising over them, though during the time of their being in such grievous sins, the actual claim to the benefit of these things, and the enjoying of them be suspended; which upon their repentance for those particular sins that caused such suspension, is revived and set afoot again, in such sort, that the repentance past sufficeth for remission of former sins, and the good actions past shall have their rewards. So that a man elect and chosen of God, and called according to purpose, that hath done good & virtuous actions, though they be deadened in him, for the present, by some grievous Sin, yet still they remain in divine acceptation, and he still retaineth the right & title he had to the reward of eternal life, promised to those works of virtue done by him, though he can make no actual claim to the same, while he remaineth in such an estate of sin: but after that such sin shall cease and be repent of, he recovereth not a n●…w right or title, but a new claim by virtue of the old title. Wherefore if it be demanded whether David and 〈◊〉 ●…hen they fell into those grievous sins of uncleanness, and abnegation of Christ, continued in a state of justification? We answer, that they did in respect of the remission of their sins, and the title they go●… to eternal life in their first conversion, which they lost not by those their sins committed afterwards: For the remission of all their former sins, whereof before they had repent, remained still, and God's acceptation of them to eternal life, notwithstanding these sins, upon the condition of leaving them, together with his purpose of rewarding their welldoing: but in respect of the actual claim to eternal good things they were not, as men once justified are, notwithstanding lesser sins, w●…h though they cause a dislike, yet neither extinguish the right, nor suspend the claim to eternal life. Thus, having run through all those passages of Master higgon's his book, that any way concern Me, I leave him to bethink hims●…fe. whether he had any reason to traduc●… Me in such sort as he hath done; and remit the wrongs he hath done Me without cause, to the righteous judgement of God, to whom he must stand or fall.   
The end of the first part.   

THE SECOND PART, Concerning the Author of the Treatise of the grounds of the Old and New Religion, and such exceptions as have been taken by him against the former Books.  
Having answered the frivolous objections of Master higgon's, I will leave him; and pass from him to his friend and colleague, the Author of the Treatise of the grounds of the Old and New Religion; who also is pleased in his idle discourses, to take some exceptions against that which I have written. But because he is a very obscure Author, & such a one as the world taketh little notice of, I will not much trouble myself about him, nor take so much pains in discovering his weakness, as I have done in dismasking the new convert, a man, as it seemeth, of more esteem. Yet that the world may see what goodly stuff it is, that these nameless and Apocryphal Booke-makers daily vent amongst our seduced countrymen, I will briefly and cursorily take a view of all such passages ofhi Treatise as any way concern me. Among●… which, the first that offereth itself to our view, is in his Preface to the Reader, 
a Pag. 〈◊〉  where he citeth with great allowance and approbation, that which I have in my Epistle Dedicatory: That all men must carefully seek out which is the true Church, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement: but 
b Pag. 5.  presently chargeth Me, that in my fourth Book following, I bereave her of almost all such prerogatives as I formerly yielded unto her; so that men may not safely follow her directions, nor rest in her judgement, in that I say, that General Counsels may err in matters of greatest consequence, and free the Church herself from error, only in certain principal points and Articles of Christian Religion, and not generally in all. This is a bad beginning, being a most shameless untruth. For in the places cited by him, I lay down these propositions: First, that the Church including in it all faithful ones since CHRIST appeared in the flesh, is absolutely free from all error and ignorance of divine things. Secondly, that the Church including all those believers that are, & havebeene since the Apostles times, is simply free from all error, though happily not from all ignorance. Thirdly, that the Church including only the believers living at one time in the world, is free not only from error in such things as men are precisely bound expressly to know & believe, but from pertinaciously erring in any thing that any way pertaineth to Christian faith and religion. Fourthly, that we must simply and absolutely, without all doubt or question follow the directions, and rest in the judgement of the Church, in either of the two former senses. Fifthly, that we must listen to the determinations of the present Church, as to the instructions of our Elders, and fatherly admonitions and directions: but not so as to the things contained in Scripture, or believed by the whole Universal Church that hath been ever since the Apostles times. Because, as Waldensis noteth, the Church, whose faith never faileth, is not any particular Church, as that of Africa, or Rome, but the Universal Church: neither that Universal Church, which may be gathered together in a general Council, which is found sometimes to have erred, but that which dispersed through the world from the Baptism of john continueth to our times. Sixtly, that in the judgement of 
a Doctrinal. fid. lib. 2. art. 2. cap. 19  Waldensis, the fathers successively are more certain judges in matters of faith, than a general Council of Bishops, though it be in a sort the highest Court of the Church, as the Treatiser saith. All these propositions are found in Waldensis, who wrote with good allowance of Pope Martin the fifth, and the whole consistory of Cardinals; so that the Treatiser cannot charge Me with any wrong offered to the Church, in bereaving her of her due prerogatives, but he must condemn him also, and blame the Pope and his Cardinals for commending the writings of such a man to the world as good, profitable, and containing nothing contrary to the Catholic verity, that forgot himself so far as to bereave the Church of almost all her prerogatives: which he cannot do, but he must condemn Vincentius Lyrinensts likewise, a man beyond all exception, who absolutely concurreth in judgement with Waldensis touching these points: 
b Contra H●…, novat. cap. 6.  assuring us, that the state of the present Church, at sometimes may be such, as that we must be forced to fly to the judgement of Antiquity, if we desire to find any certaives direction. A judgement of right discerning, saith 
c Dialog. lib. 5. part. 1. cap. 28.  Ockan, there is ever found in the Church, seeing there are always some right-beleevers; but a right judgement of men, by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth, & suppressing error, may be wanting. Nay, that sometimes there was no such judgement in the Church, it is most evident. For Vincentius Lyrinensis saith, the Arian heresy infected not some part only, but almost the whole Christian world, so that almost all the Bishops of the Latin Church were misled by force or fraud. Yea 
d Athanas. in Epist. ad solitar. vit. agent. Hier. in Catal. script. Ecclesiast. in Fortunatiano.  Athanasius and Hierome report, that Liberius Bishop of ROME was carried away in that tempestuous whirlwind, and subscribed to heresy: so that there was no set Tribunal on earth in those days, to the determinations whereof it was safe to stand.  

§. 2.  
IN the next place, the Treatiler chargeth Me, that whereas Luther defendeth that infants in Baptism actually believe, I endeavour to wrest his words to habitual faith; which sense, he saith Luther's discourses will not admit; and for proof hereof referreth the reader to certain places in Luther, and to the positions of his followers: but as Festus said unto Paul, 
e Act. 25. 1●….  thou hast appealed to Caesar, to Caesar shalt thou go; so seeing this Treatiser referreth the Reader to Luther's discourses, and the doctrine of his Disciples, to these I will send him, which will turn greatly to the Treatisers disadvantage. For the reader cannot but find by Luther's discourses, and the doctrine of his Scholars, that I have rightly delivered his opinion to be, that infants are filled with habitual faith when they are regenerate, and not that they have any such acts of faith, or knowledge of God, as men of years have. Let us therefore hear what Luther himself will say: some men, saith 
f De captivit. Bab. cap. de baptismo.  he, will object against that which I have said touching the necessity of faith in such as are to receive the Sacramenrs with profit, that infants have no faith, nor apprehension of God's mercies, & that therefore either faith is not so necessarily required to the due receiving of the sacrament, or that infants are Baptised in vain. Here I say, that which all say, that other men's faith, even the faith of such as present them to Baptism, steedeth little children. For as the word of God is mighty when the sound thereof is heard, even to the changing of the heart of a wicked man, which is no less unapt to hear the voice of God, & to listen unto it, then any little babe; so by the prayer of the Church, which out of faith (to which all things are possible) presenteth it to baptism, the child is changed, cleansed and renewed by the infusion of faith, or by faith, which is infused and poured into it. Thus doth Luther express his own meaning touching this point. Now let us hear what his followers will say. It was agreed upon, saith 
g Them: in exam: Conc: Trident: de Baptis. can: 13:  Chemnitius, amongst the 
h Form: concord: inter Theolog. Sax: & superior. German.  followers of Luther, that when we say infants believe or have faith, we must not imagine that they do understand or feel the motions of faith. But their error is rejected, who suppose that infants baptised please God, and are saved without any operation or working of the holy spirit in them; whereas Christ pronounceth, that unless a man be borne a new of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. So that this is all that Luther and the rest meant, that children cannot be made partakers of those benefits that God offereth to men in Baptism, nor inherit eternal life, by virtue of the faith of the Church, without some change wrought in them by the spirit, fitting them to be joined to God, which change or alteration in them they call faith: not meaning to attribute unto them an actual apprehension of God's mercies; for they constantly deny, that they feel any such motions of faith; but a kind of habitual faith only, there being nothing in faith, but such an act of believing, as they deny; or the seed, root, and habit, whence actual motions in due time do flow. With whom 
i Instit: li: 4: cap: 16: sect: 17: & 19:  Calvine agreeth; for whereas the Anabaptists object against him, defending that infants are capable of regeneration, that the Scripture mentioneth no regeneration but by the incorruptible seed of the word of God, which infants cannot hear: he answereth, that God by his divine power may renew and change them by some other means. Secondly he addeth, that it is not absurd to think, that God doth shine into the hearts of those infants, which in infancy he calleth out of this world to himself, and that he doth make himself known unto them in some sort; seeing they are presently after to be received and admitted to the clear and open view, and sight of his glorious face and countenance, and yet saith, he will not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith, which we find in ourselves, or that they have knowledge like unto that of faith. And in the next section, speaking more generally, and not restraining himself to such as die in infancy, he saith, that they are Baptised into future repentance, and faith: which virtues though they be not presently form in them, yet a seed of either of them lieth hid in them. The Papists are distracted into contrary opinions touching this point: For some think that grace the root of faith, and other virtues, is infused into children in Baptism, but not faith; other, that not only grace, but the habit of faith, hope, and charity is poured into them likewise; which opinion as more probable was admitted in the Council of Vienna, and is embraced by us as true. Wherefore let the Reader judge whether I have wrested the words of Luther, or the Treatiser wronged Me.   

SECT. 3.  
IN the third place, he laboureth to demonstrate and prove, that there is a contradiction 
Pag: 22: 23:  between the reverend Bishop of Lincoln, and Doctor Morton, & myself, touching the power of ordination, which that learned Bishop appropriateth unto Bishops, and we communicate in some cases to Presbyters. But this silly objection is easily answered, for his meaning is, that none but Bishops regularly may ordain, which we confess to be true; as likewise none but they only may confirm the baptised by imposition of hands; and yet think, that in case of necessity, Presbyters may perform both these things, though of ordinary right belonging to Bishops only.    

Part. 1.  

Sect. 1.  
LEt us pass therefore from the preface to the book itself, the first thing that he objecteth in the book itself, is, that I give Apostolic power to the present 
Pag: 50: 51:  Church; whence he thinketh it may be inferred, that the Church cannot err in matters of faith or ceremonies. That I give apostolic power to the present church, he endeavoureth to prove, because I say, She hath authority to dispense with some constitutions of the Apostles, touching order and comeliness; which he thinketh She might not do if she had not the same Authority, by force whereof they were made: but he could not but know that this proof is too weak, if he were not very weak in understanding. For the Apostles made these constitutions not precisely in that they were Apostles, as they reported the precepts of CHRIST, & delivered the Doctrine of faith; but by virtue of their pastoral power in general, common to them with other Pastors of the Church: though in that they were no ordinary Pastors but Apostles, they had absolute infallibility, & could make no laws or constitutions but good & profitable, in which respect no other are equal to them. So that the Pastors of the Church now have that power by which the Apostles made their Ecclesiastical constitutions touching order & comeliness, but not with like assurance of not erring, in making or reversing such laws: & therefore the Treatiser cannot from hence infer, that the present Church, & the guides of it, have infallible judgement touching matters of faith or ceremonies.   

§. 2,  
IN the next place, first he produceth my distinction of the Church, considered as it comprehendeth all the faithful that are & have been since Christ appeared in the 
Pag 52.  flesh, or only such as are & have been since the Apostles times, or such alone as are at one time in the world. Secondly an assertion, that the present Church may be said at all times to be the pillar of truth, & not to err, because it ever retaineth a saving profession of heavenly truth, that is true doctrine, concerning all such principal points as are of the substance of Faith, and needful to be known and believed expressly by every man. Thirdly, he addeth, that we deny so much as the virtual belief of other things to be necessary; which he pronounceth to be an absurd opinion. For the confutation of my distinction of the Church considered in those three different sorts, he asketh if there be now presently any Church in the world including in it all the faithful that are and have been since CHRIST appeared in the flesh, or at least since the Apostles times; which is a most childish & senseless demand. For it will easily be answered, that the Church that includeth in it all these faithful ones, is now extant in the world, as he is pleased to speak, in that some of her parts, between which and the rest there is a connexion, are now in the world, though all be not; as time, whereof the parts are present, past, & to come, is now, though all parts of it be not now. But his inference upon supposal of our answer is more strange than the question. For if it be granted, that the Church including in it all these holy ones, hath not all her parts in the world at one time, he inferreth from thence, that the promises of Christ cannot be verified of it. As if Christ's promises were verified of the church, only in respect of those parts that it hath in the world at one time: whereas 
a Bell. Tom. 〈◊〉. contro. 4. l. 4 c. 7.  Bellarmine himself teacheth, that the promise of the churches being in all parts of the world, is not verified of it at one time, but successively: in that though it be not in all parts & Provinces of the world at one time, yet at one time or other it spreadeth itself into every part of it. And 
b Relect. contro. 1. de Eccl. in se q. 4. art. 5.  Stapleton defineth the church according to the state of the New Testament, to be a collective multitude of men, professing the name of Christ, beginning at Jerusalem, & from thence dispersed throughout the world, increasing & spreading itself through all nations, always visible & manifest, mixed of good & bad, elect & reprobate, in respect of faith & Sacraments holy, in respect of origin & succession apostolic, in extent catholic, in connexion & order of parts one, in duration & continuance perpetual, expressing unto us that church that includeth all faithful ones since Christ till now, nay till the end of the world. Which is no doubt a real body, & hath many excellent promises made unto it, though all the parts of it be not in the world at one time. But let us go forward, and we shall see how this silly Treatiser forgetteth himself. For first he confesseth, that the divers considerations of the church proposed by me, 
Pag. 53. 54.  may be in our understanding, and yet presently addeth, that we cannot distinguish them really one from another: which he goeth about to prove, because the Church in the first consideration includeth in it the same Church as it is taken in the second and third: but the proof is to weak; for every child will tell him, that these considerations may be really distinguished one from another, because though the former includeth the latter, yet the latter includeth not the former. For as every man is a living thing, but every living thing is not a man; so the Church consisting of all faithful ones, that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh, includeth in it all those that now presently are in the world: but the Church consisting of those only that are at one time, includeth not the other, but is included in it as a part in the whole, and consequently cannot challenge all the privileges belonging to it, more than the part of a thing may challenge all that pertaineth to the whole: so that the Church in the former consideration may be free from error, though not in the latter. But the Treatiser will prove it cannot: seeing if the Church including in it all faithful ones, that are or have been since Christ, be free from error; every part of it must 
Pag. 54. 55.  be free, and consequently the present Church; as a man cannot be said to be free from sickness, unless every part of him be free. For answer whereunto we say that the Church being a collective body, may be said to be free from error in another sort then a man is said to be free from sickness, for a man cannot be said to be free from sickness unless every part be free; but the Church may rightly be said to be free from error, if all her parts err not, though some do: for otherwise I would ask of this Treatiser, whether the Church were free from error in the days of Athanasius, when, as 
c Aduersus Prophanas here seon nouation●…. cap. 6.  Vincentius Lyrinensis saith, almost all the Bishops of the Latin Church were misled by force or fraud, and when Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed to heresy, as 
d Epist: ad solitariam vitam agentes.  Athanasius and 
e Catal. script. Eccles. in Fortunatiano.  Hierome testify, If the Church were not free from error at that time, where is the privilege of never erring? If it were, it was but in respect of some few parts: whence it will follow, that the Church may be said to be free from error, though many parts be not, if any continue sound; for here the greater and more principal parts did err. But that the Church may be said to be free from error, though all parts be not, it is evident, in that they who most stiffly maintain the not erring of the present Church, yet confess, that some parts of it do err. For 
f Relect. con. 3. quaest. 4.  Stapleton and Bellarmine, who both think the present Roman Church to be free from error, yet deny that she is free in all her parts, and tell us, there are some who are parts of this Church and Catholics, that think the Pope may judicially err, unless a general Council concur with him, which in their opinion is an error and near to heresy. Yea the same 
g De Roman. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 4.  Bellarmine saith, that the particular Roman Church, that is, the clergy and people of Rome, subject to the Pope, cannot err, because though some of them may, yet all cannot. It is true therefore which I have delivered, not withstanding any thing the Treatiser can say to the contrary, that the Church including all the faithful that are and have been since the Apostles, may be said to be free from error, because in respect of her total universality she is so: it being impossible, that any error should be found in all her parts, at all times, though in respect of her several parts she be not. For sometimes and in some parts she hath erred, and in this sense can no more be said to be free from error, than a man may be said to be free from sickness, that in some parts is ill affected. But as a man that hath not been always, nor in all parts ill, may be said to be free from perpetual and universal sickness; so the Church is free from perpetual and universal error. This the Treatiser saith is a weak privilege, and not answerable to the great and ample promises made by Christ: whereas the Fathers knew no other, whatsoever, this good man imagineth. For 
h Contr. haeres. cap. 6.  Vincentius Lyrinensis confesseth, that error may infect some parts of the Church, yea that it may sometimes infect almost the whole Church: so that he freeth it only from universal & perpetual error. But, saith the Treatiser, what are poor Christians the nearer for this privilege? how shall such a Church be the director of their faith? and how shall they know what faith was preached by the Apostles, what parts taught true doctrine, and when and which erred in subsequent ages? Surely this question is easily answered. For they may know what the Apostles taught by their writings: and they may know what parts of the Church teach true doctrine, by comparing the doctrine each part teacheth, with the written word of God, and by observing who they are that bring in private and strange opinions, contrary to the resolution of the rest. But if happily some new contagion, endeavour to commaculate the whole Church together, they must look up into Antiquity; and if in Antiquity they find that some followed private and strange opinions, they must carefully observe what all, not noted for singularity or heresy in divers places and times, constantly delivered, as undoubtedly true, and received from such as went before them. This course Vincentius Lyrinensis prescribeth. But the Treatiser disclaimeth it, not liking that all should be brought 
Part 1. 56.  to the letter of holy Scripture, and the works of Antiquity; which setting aside the authority of the present Church, he thinketh, yield no certain and divine argument. So that, according to his conceit, we must rest on the bare censure and judgement of the Pope: for he is the present Church, & Antiquity is to be contemued as little or nothing worth. Having justified the distinction of the divers considerations of the Church impugned by the Treatiser, that which he hath touching the two assertions annexed to it, will easily be answered For the one of them is most true, his addition of not erring, being taken away: and the other is but his idle imagination, for we never delivered any such thing.   

§. 3.  
IN the third place he excepteth against Me, because I say the words of the Apostle in the Epistle to Timothy, touching the house and Church of God, are originally understood 
Pag. ●…6.  of the Church of Ephesus, wherein Paul directeth Tymothy how to demean and behave himself: but because I have cleared this exception in my answer to higgon's, I will say nothing to him in this place, but refer him thither.   

§. 4.  
FRom the Apostle, the Treatiser passeth to Saint Augustine, and chargeth Me th' I wrest his words, when he saith, he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him, to a sense never meant by him. These words of S. Augustin 
Pag. 6●….  are usually alleged by the Papists, to prove that the authority of the Church is the ground of our faith, & reason of believing: in answer whereunto I show that the Divines give two explications of them. For Ockam and some other, understand them not of the multitude of believers, that now are in the world, but of the whole number of them that are and have been since Christ appeared in the flesh, so including the Apostles; and in this sense they confess that the Church, because it includeth the writers of the books of the new Testament, is of greater authority than the books themselves. Other understand by the name of the Church, only the multitude of believers living in the world at one time: and think the meaning of Augustine is, that the authority of this Church was an introduction unto him, but not the ground of his faith, and principal or sole reason of believing. The former of these explications, this grave censurer pronounceth to be frivolous. First, because if we may believe him, Saint Augustine never used these words, Catholic Church, after this sort in 
Pag. 66.  that sense. Secondly, because he speaketh of that Church, which commanded him not to believe Manicheus, which undoubtedly was the present Church. Thirdly, because, as he supposeth, I can allege no Divine, that so interpreted the words of Augustine; that which I cite out of Ockam being impertinent. To every of these reasons I will briefly answer. And first that Augustine doth use the words, Catholic Church, in the sense specified by Me, it is evident. For writing against Manicheus, he hath these words. Palám est quantum in re dubia ad fidem & certitudinem valent Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorun, usque ad hodiernum diem succedentibus 
a Contra Faustum Ma●…chaeum. lib. 11. ca 2.  sibimet Episcopis, & tot populorum consensione firmatur; that is, it is apparent, what great force the authority of that Church hath, to settle the persuasion of faith, & cause certainty in things doubtful, that from the most surely established seats of the Apostles, by succession of Bishops even till this present, & consent of people is most firmly settled. To the second reason we answer, that the Church including the Apostles, and all faithful ones that have been since, comprehendeth in it the present Church, and so might command Augustine not to listen to Manicheus. So that this commanding proveth not that he speaketh precisely of the present Church. To the third I say, that the Treatiser is either strangely ignorant, or strangely impudent, when he affirmeth, that I can allege no Divine that understandeth the words of Augustine of the Church, including in it the Apostles, & such as lived in their times. For first Durandus understandeth them of the Primitive Church, including the Apostles. Secondly 
b Part. 3. lect. 〈◊〉. de vita spirituali animae. corol. 7.  Gerson will tell him, that when Augustine saith, he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him, he understandeth by the name of the Church, the Primitive congregation of those Faithful ones which saw & heard Christ, and were his witnesses. Thirdly 
c De dogmatibus extra canonem Scripturae constit l. 4. c. 4.  Driedo writeth thus: when Augustine saith, he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him, he understandeth that Church which hath been ever since the beginning of the Christian Faith, having her Bishops in orderly sort succeeding one another, and growing and increasing till our times, which Church truly comprehendeth in it the blessed company of the Holy Apostles, who having seen Christ & his miracles, and learned from his mouth the Doctrine of Faith, delivered unto us the Evangelicall Scriptures. And again the same ● Driedo saith, that the authority of the Scripture is greater than the 
d De via investigandae verae intelligentiae sacrae scripturae l. 2. c. 7.  authority of the Church that now is in the world, in itself considered. But if we speak of the universal Church, including all Faithful ones that are and have been, the authority of the Church is in a sort greater than the Scripture, and in a sort equal. For explication whereof he addeth, that as touching things that cannot be seené, nor known by us, we believe the sayings & writings of men, not, as if they had in them, in themselves considered a sufficient force to move us to believe; but because by some reasons we are persuaded of them who deliver such things unto us, & think them worthy to be believed. So S. Augustine might rightly say, he would not believe the books of the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him, understanding the universal Church; of which he speaketh against Manicheus, which, including the Apostles, hath had in it an orderly course of succession of Bishops till our time. For the faithfulness, truth, & credit of this Church was more evident, than the Truth of the books of the New Testament, which are therefore received as sacred & true, because written by those Apostles to whom Christ so many ways gave testimony both by word and work: and the Scriptures are to be proved by the authority of that Church which included the Apostles; but in the Church that now is, or that includeth only such as are now living, God doth not so manifest himself as he formerly did: so that this Church must demonstrate herself to be Orthodox, by proving her faith out of the Scripture. With Driedo 
e Dial. l. 1. part. 2. c. 4.  Ockam concurreth, his words are these: sometimes the name of the Church comprehendeth not only the whole congregation of Catholics living, but the Faithful departed also; & in this sense blessed Augustine useth the name of the Church in his book against the Manichees, cited in the Decrees, 2. dist. c. palàm: where the Catholic Church importeth the Bishops that have succeeded one another from the Apostles times, & the people subject to them. And in the same sense Augustine useth the name of the Church, when he saith, he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him: for this Church comprehendeth in it the Writers of the books of the Gospel, and all the Apostles: so that from the authority of Augustine, rightly understood, it cannot be inferred, that the Pope the maker of the Canons, is rather & more to be believed then the Gospel: yet it may be granted, that we must more & rather believe the Church which hath been from the times of the Prophets & Apostles till now, than the Gospel: not for that men may any way doubt of the Gospel, but because the whole is greater than the part. So that the Church which is of greater authority than the Gospel, is, that whereof the Writer of the Gospel is a part. Neither is it strange, that the whole should be of more authority than the parts. These are the words of Ockam in the place cited by me. Wherefore let the Reader judge whether that I cite out of Ockam be impertinent, as the Treatiser saith, or not. To Durandus, Gerson, Driedo, & Ockam, we may add 
f Doctrine fid. l. 2. art. 2. c. 21  Waldensis, who fully agrees with them, showing at large, that it pertained to the Church only in her first, best, and primitive state & age, to deliver a perfect direction touching the Canon of the Scripture; so that she hath no power or authority now, to add any more books to the Canon already received, as out of her own immediate knowledge. But it sufficeth to the magnifying of her authority in her present estate, that even now, no other books may be received, but such only as in her first and best estate she proposed. Farther adding, that the saying of Augustine, that he would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not move him, is to be understood of the Church, including the primitive Fathers and Pastors, the Apostles Scholars. By this which hath been said, it is evident, as I think, that the former of those two constructions which I make of Augustine's words, hath been approved by far better men than this Treatiser. And that therefore he showeth himself more bold than wise; when he pronounceth it to be frivolous. And surely, if we consider well the discourse of 
g Contra epist. Manichei ca: 4.  S. Augustine, I think it may be proved unanswerably, out of the circumstances of the fame, that he speaketh not precisely of the present Church. For it is that authority of the catholic church he urgeth, that was begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, & confirmed & strengthened by long continuance. And of that Church he speaketh, wherein there had been a succession of Bishops from Peter till that present time. So that he must needs mean the Church, including not only such faithful ones as were then living when he wrote, but all that either than were, or had been from the Apostles times. Wherefore let us pass to the other construction of Augustine's words, which is, that the authority of the present church, was the ground & reason of an acquisite faith, & an introduction leading him to a more sure stay, but not the reason or ground of that faith, whereby principally he did believe. This construction the Treatiser saith, cannot stand, because Aug: saith, if the authority he speaketh of be weakened, he will believe no longer. Whence it seemeth to be consequent, that it was the cause of all them persuasion of faith that he had, then when he wrote, & not only of an acquisite faith, preparing & fitting him to a stronger, more excellent, & farther degree or kind of faith. For the clearing of this point, we must note, that there are 3. 
h Hugo de sancto victore in sententiis.  sorts of such men as believe: for there are some that believe out of piety only, not discerning by reason, whether the things they believe, be to be believed as true or not: the 2d. have a light of divine reason shining in them, & causing an approbation of that they believe: the 3d. sort, having a pure heart & conscience, begin already inwardly to taste, that which hereafter more fully shall be enjoyed. Resting in the first degree, as the authority of the Church moveth us to believe, so if it be weakened, that kind & degree of faith, that stayeth on it, falleth to the ground, having no other sufficient stay: But if we speak of faith in respect of her two other degrees, she hath a more sure and firm ground & stay to rest upon. And therefore 
i Vbi supra.  August: affirmeth, that the truth, clearly manifesting itself unto us, is to be preferred before all those things that commend unto us the authority of the church; & that there are certain spiritually minded men, who in this life attain to the knowledge of heavenly truth, & sincere wisdom, without all doubt discerning it, though but in part & weakly, in that they are men. Of which number there is no question, but that Aug: was one; so that the authority of the Church, could not be the sole or principal motive or reason, at that time, when he wrote of his present persuasion of the truth of heavenly mysteries, contained in the Gospel of Christ, as the Treatiser would make us believe: but having to do with the Manichees, who promised the evident and clear knowledge of truth; but failing to perform that they promised, urged him to believe that, which they could not make him know to be true; he professeth, that if he must believe without discerning the truth of that he believeth, he must rest on the authority of the catholic church: For the Manichees had no authority sufficient to move a man to believe in this sort. Now the Catholic Church commanded him not to listen to Manicheus, in which behalf, if they would & could weaken the authority thereof, he professeth he neither can, nor will believe any more, with such a kind of faith as they urged him to; which is, without all discerning of the truth of the things that are to be believed. Thus we see the discourse of S. Augustine no way proveth, that the authority of the Church was the foal or principal ground of the highest degree, or kind of faith, he had; but it is most evident out of the same, that it served only as an introduction to lead to a more sure persuasion than itself could cause.   

cause 5. & 6.  
THe next thing the Treatiser hath, that concerneth Me, is, that I acknowledge in 
Pag. 78.  the Church a rule of faith, descending by tradition from the Apostles, according to which the Scriptures are to be expounded. Whereunto I briefly answer; that indeed I admit such a rule so descending unto us; but that the rule I speak of, is nothing else but a summary comprehension of the chief heads of Christian doctrine, every part whereof is found in Scripture, and from them easily to be collected and proved, delivered unto us by the guides of the Church, from hand to hand as from the Apostles. So that my words make nothing for proof of the papists supposed unwritten traditions: wherefore let us pass to that which followeth, which is the Sophistical circulation, which I say Papists run into, in that they believe that the Church is infallibly lead into all truth, because it is so contained in the Scripture; and that the Scripture is the word of God, because the Church infallibly led into all truth, telleth them it is. In this passage he saith I wrong Stapleton, in that I charge him, that in his triplication against Whitaker, he affirmeth other matters to be believed, because they are contained in Scripture, and the Scripture, because it is the word of God: and 
Pag. 81.  that it is the word of God, because the Church delivereth it to be so: and the Church, because it is lead by the spirit: and that it is lead by the spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed. For that, as he saith, Stapleton in the last place maketh no mention of the Scripture, but of the Creed only. Wherefore let us hear Stapleton himself speak. Whereas D. Whitaker objecteth, that Papists according to Stapletons' opinion, believe whatsoever they believe, not only by, but for the Church: & that ingenuously he had confessed so much: he 
a Triplication. pag. 188.  answereth, that indeed he had so professed, & that he ever would so profess: and in 
b Pag. 179.  another place, whereas D. Whitaker saith: Papists believe the Church, because God commandeth them to do so: and that God doth so command them, because the Church, whose authority is sacred, telleth them so: he answereth, that they do not believe that God commandeth them to believe the Church, either properly, or only, because the Church telleth them so: but partly, because of the most manifest authorities of Scriptures, sending men to the Church to be taught by it: partly moved so to do by the Creed of the Apostles, wherein we profess, that we believe the Catholic Church: that is, not only that there is such a Church, but that we are members of it; and that God doth teach us by it. Is here no mention of the Scripture, but of the Creed only? Doubtless the Treatiser hath a very hard forehead, for otherwise he could not but blush, and acknowledge that he wrongeth Me, and not I Stapleton. But to make good that which I have written: that Papists either fall into a Sophistical circulation, or resolve the persuasion of their faith finally into humane motives, and inducements; first, it is to be observed, that no man persuadeth himself of the truth of any thing, but because it is evident unto him in itself, to be as he persuadeth himself, either in abstractive knowledge, or intuitive, intellectual or experimental, or of affection; or else because it is so delivered to be, by some such as he is well persuaded of, both in respect of their understanding discerning aright, and will to deliver nothing, but that they apprehend to be true. In the former kind, the inducement, motive, or formal cause of men's assent to such propositions as they assent unto, is the evidence of them in themselves, which either they have originally as the first principles, or by necessary deduction from things so evident, as conclusions thence inferred; In the latter, the authority and credit of the reporter. The former kind of assent, is named assensus evidens, the latter inevidens, of which latter sort faith is, which is named a firm assent without evidence, because many of the things which we are to believe, are not, nor cannot be evident unto us originally in themselves, as the first principles of humane knowledge, nor by deduction, from, and out of things so evident, in such sort as conclusions in sciences are. Yet is not this assent without all evidence. For though the things believed be not evident in themselves, yet the medium, by virtue whereof we believe them, must be evident: & the proof of them by virtue of that medium. Now the medium, by virtue whereof we believe things no way evident unto us in themselves, can be nothing else but the report of another: neither is every report of another a sufficient medium or inducement to make us believe things we know not, but it must be the report of such an one as we know cannot be deceived, nor will not deceive. It must therefore be evident to every one, that firmly and without doubting believeth things not known unto him upon the report of another, that he that reporteth them unto him, neither is deceived, nor can deceive. Whence it followeth necessarily, that things are as he reporteth. These things presupposed, I demand of this Treatiser, whether he and his consorts assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith, induced so to do by the evidence of the things in themselues, or by the report of another. That they assent not unto than, induced so to do by the evidence of the things in themselues they all profess, but by the report of another. I demand therefore, who that other is? whether God, or man? if man, then have they nothing but anhumane persuasion, very weakly grounded, & wherein they may be deceived, for every man is a liar. If God, let them tell me whether it be evident in itself, that God delivereth these things unto them, & pronounceth them to be as they believe, or not: If not, but believed only, then, as before, by reason of authority: & that either of God, or man. Not of God, for it is not evident in itself, that God delivereth any thing unto them, not of men, for their report is not of such credit asthat we may certainly & undoubtedly stay upon it: seeing they may be deceived, & deceive other. They answer therefore, that it is no way evident unto them in itself, that God delivereth the things they believe: but that they persuade themselves, he delivered such things uponthe report of men; but such men as are infallibly led into all truth. See then if they do not run round in a circle, finding no stay. They believe the resurrection of the dead, and the like things, because God revealed it; they believe that God revealed it, because it is so contained in the Scripture: and the Scripture, because it is the Word of God: and that it is the Word of God, because the Church so delivereth: and the Church because it is a multitude of men, infallibly led into all truth: and that there is a Church infallibly led into all truth, because it is so contained in Scripture: and the Scripture because it is the word of God: and so round without ever finding any end. Out of this circle they cannot get, unless they either ground their Faith upon the mere report of men, as men, & humane probabilities: or confess that it is evident unto them, in itself, that God speaketh in the Scripture, and revealeth those things which they believe: which if they do, it must be in respect either of the manner, matter there uttered, or consequent effects. In respect of the manner, there being a certain divine virtue, force, and majesty, in the very form of the words of him that speaketh, in the Scripture: in respect of the matter, which being suggested and proposed to us, findeth approbation of reason, enlightened by the light of grace: in respect of the consequent effects, in that we find a strange and wonderful change wrought in us, assuring us the doctrine is of God that hath such effects, which is that we say, & which they condemn in us. The Treatiser would make us believe that there are two opinions amongst them touching this point: whereof the one is, as he telleth us, that we believe the Church, because the Scripture teacheth us, that she is to be believed: & the Scripture, because the Church delivereth it to us to be the word of God. And the other, that by the assistance of God together with the concurrence of our natural understanding, we produce an act of supernatural Faith; by which we firmly believe the Articles of Christian Faith, not for any humane inducements, but for that they are revealed by Almighty God, without seeking any further: which if it be so, it must be evident in itself to them that follow this opinion: that God hath revealed & delivered the things they believe, & that by one of the 3 ways before mentioned, & then they fall into our opinion: for if it be not evident to them in itself, that God speaks in the scriptures, & reveals the things they are to believe, they must go further, to be assured that he doth so speak and reveal the things that are to be believed, either to proof of reason, or authority. For no man persuadeth himself of any thing, but upon some inducements. Proof of reason demonstrative, I think they will not seek; and probable inducements they may not rest in; therefore they must proceed to some proofeby authority, which can be no other but that of the Church, and then they join with them that follow the other opinion, and believe the articles of Christian faith, contained in Scripture, because God hath revealed them; and that God hath revealed them, because the Church telleth them so; and the Church, because the Scripture testifieth of it that it is led into all truth, which is a very gross sophistical circulation. This the Treatiser did well perceive, and therefore to help the matter, he distinguisheth the cause of believing, and the condition necessarily requisite, that the cause may have her working, in show, making the Divine Revelation, the reason or cause that we believe, and the Churches proposing to us the things to be believed, a condition only, and not a cause: in sort, as the fire alone is the cause of the burning of the wood, but the putting of one of them to another, is a necessary condition, without which that cause can produce no such effect: but this shift will not serve the turn. For it is the fire only that burneth the wood, though it cannot burn unless it be put unto it: so that in like sort, if the comparison hold, the Divine Revelation must, of and by itself alone, move, induce, and incline us to believe the things proposed by the Church, as being evident unto us, to be a Divine Revelation, though without the Churches proposing, we could take no notice of it. Even as in natural knowledge, it is the evidence of truth, appearing unto us, originally found in the first principles, and secondarily in the conclusions from thence deduced, that is the sole and only cause or reason of our assent to such principles and conclusions, though without the help of some men of knowledge, proposing them to us, and leading us from the apprehension of one of them to another, happily we should not at all attain such knowledge. But this evidence of the Divine Revelation in itself, the Treatiser will not admit. For it is no way evident in itself, to him, that God hath revealed any of the things he believeth; but the only proof, besides humane motives or reasons, (which are too weak to be the ground of Faith) that he hath, is the authority of the Church. So that the Ministry of the Church, is not only a condition, but a cause of that persuasion of faith which they have: yea the authority of the Church is the formal cause of all that faith, seduced Papists have. And therefore the distinction of a cause and condition helpeth them not: It is true indeed that the Ministry of the Church, proposing to men things to be believed, is only a condition requisite to the producing of a supernatural act of faith, in respect of them that have some other thing to persuade them, that that is true which the Church proposeth, besides the authority of the Church; but in respect of such as have no other proof of the truth thereof it is a formal cause. Now this is the condition of all Papists: For let them tell Me whether they believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, without any motive at all or not? and if they do not, as it is most certain they do not, whether besides such as are humane they have any other than the authority of the Church? if they have not, as doubtless they have not, they make the authority of the Church the formal cause of their faith, and fall into that sophistical circulation they are charged with. For they believe the articles of religion, because revealed; and that they were revealed, because it is so contained in the Scripture; and the Scripture, because it is the Word of God; & that it is the Word of God, because the Church telleth them it is; and the Church, because it is guided by the spirit; and that it is so guided, because it is so contained in the Scripture: this is such a maze as no wise man will willingly enter into: and yet the Treatiser commendeth the treading of these intricate paths, and telleth us that two causes may be causes one of another. That the cause may be proved by the effect, and the effect by the cause; and that such a kind of argumentation, is not a circulation, but a demonstrative regress: that two causes may be causes either of other, in divers respects we make no question. For the end of each thing, as it is desired, setteth the efficient cause a work, and the efficient causeth the same to be actually enjoyed. Likewise, we doubt not, but that the cause may be proved by the effect, and the effect by the cause in a demonstrative regress. For the effect, as better known unto us then the cause, may make us know the cause; and the cause being found out by us, may make us more perfectly, and in a better sort to know the effect, than before; not only that, and what it is, but why it is also. So the death of little infants proveth them sinners, and their being sinners proveth them mortal. The bigness of the footstep in the dust or sand, showeth the bigness of his foot that made that impression: And the bigness of his foot will show how big the impression is that he maketh: but this maketh nothing for the justifying of the Romish circulations. For here the effect being known in a sort in itself, maketh us know the cause; and the cause being found out and known, maketh us more perfectly to know the effect then at first we did; but the case is otherwise with the Papists; for with them the Scripture, which in itself hath no credit with them, but such only as it is to receive from the Church, giveth the Church credit; and the Church, which hath no credit but such as it is to receive from the Scripture, giveth the Scripture credit by her testimony. And they endeavour to prove the infallibility of the Church's judgement out of the Scripture, and the truth of the Scripture out of the determination and judgement of the Church. Much like, as if when question is made touching the quality & condition of two men, utterly unknown, a man to commend them to such as doubt of them, should bring no other testimony of their good and honest disposition, but the testimony of each of them of the other. It is true than which I have said, that to a man admitting the Old Testament, and doubting of the New, a man may urge the authority of the Old; and to a man doubting of the Old, and admitting the New, the authority of the New; but to him that doubteth of both, a man must allege neither of them, but must bring some other authority or proof: so likewise, to him that admitteth the Scripture, and doubteth of the Church, a man may urge the authority of the Scripture; but to him that doubteth of both, as all do when they begin to believe, a man must allege some other proof; or else he shall cause him to run round in a Circle for ever, and never to find any way out. Wherefore to conclude this point, let our Adversaries know, that we admit and require humane motives and inducements, and amongst them a good opinion of them that teach us, as preparing & fitting us to faith. Secondly, that we require a supernatural aid, light, and habit, for the producing of an act of faith. Thirdly, that we require some divine motive & inducement. Fourthly, that this cannot be the authority of the Church, seeing the authority of the Church is one of the things we are to be induced to believe. Fiftly, that we require the ministry of the Church, as a propounder of all heavenly truth; though her authority can be no proof in general, of all such truth. Sixtly, that the Church, though not as it includeth only the believers that are in the world, at one time, yet as it comprehendeth all that are, or have been, is an infallible propounder of heavenly truth, and so acknowledged to be, by such as are assured of the truth of the doctrine of Christianity in general. Seaventhly, that the authority of this Church is a sufficient proof of the truth of particular things, proposed by her to such as already are by other divine motives assured of her infallibility.   

§. 7.  
FRom the authority of the Scripture, which he would fain make to be wholly dependant 
Pag. 88 & 89.  on the Church, the Treatiser passeth to the fullness and sufficiency of it; seeking amongst other his discourses, to weaken those proofs which are brought by Me, for confirmation thereof. Affirming, that though I make show, as if it were a plain matter, that the Evangelists in their Gospels, Saint Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, and Saint john in the Apocalyps, meant to deliver a perfect sum of Christian doctrine, and direction of faith, yet I bring no reason of any moment to prove it. Whereas yet in the place cited by him, I have these words, containing in them, as I suppose, a strong proof of the thing questioned. Who seeth not that the Evangelists, writing the history of CHRIST'S life and death, St Luke in the book of the Acts of the Apostles; describing the coming of the Holy Ghost, the admirable gifts and graces poured upon the Apostles and the churches founded and ordered by them, and Saint john writing the Revelations which he had concerning the future state of things to the end of the world, meant to deliver a perfect sum of Christian doctrine? if the proof contained in these words be not sufficient, for my part I know not what may be, for what can be necessary to be known of Christians, over and above that which is found in the old Testament, besides the Incarnation of Christ, his words, actions, & sufferings; the manner of the establishment of churches in the faith of Christ: and the ordaining and appointing of fit guides to take care of the government of the same, and the future state of things to the end of the world? But he saith, no one of the Evangelists intended to set down all that Christ did and suffered, as it appeareth in that no one of them hath so done; & that it cannot be said that all jointly have so done, seeing that could not proceed but from some common deliberation, or the disposition and inspiration of the holy Ghost, moving them to write: neither of which can be said. For that there was no such deliberation, he saith it is evident, in that no man mentioneth any such thing, & in that it is known they wrote in diverse countries at diverse times, upon diverse occasions; & that the inspiration of the holy spirit did not direct them to the writing of all things necessary, he saith it is likewise most clear, in that I confess there are some things wanting in their books, which the church believeth: which could not be if the spirit had moved them to write all. This objection will soon be answered. For first it is certain that some one of the Evangelists intended to write all things which Christ did and spoke: 
a Act. 1. Luke 2.  S. Luke professing that he had so done, Which yet is not to be understood of all things simply, but such only as he did & spoke in that time, within the compass whereof he confined his narration. Neither doth this prejudice the fullness of the Evangelicall history. For as Baronius 
b Annal. tom. 1. 34. 223.  noteth, the later Evangelists taking a view of that the former had written, for the most part added what things they found omitted by them: So Mark & Luke write of the ascension of Christ, not mentioned by S. Matthew, because he ended his story before he came to it. And john finding as 
c Catal. scriptor. in johanne Baron. Annal. tom. 〈◊〉. 99 5.  Hierome saith, that the other three had written only the history of one year, after john the Baptist was cast into prison, wherein Christ suffered; approved that which they had written as true, & omitting that year, because the things that fell out in it were reported by them, recorded such things as fallen out before the imprisonment of the Baptist, which they had not written, as not fetching the beginning of their narration so far off. If it be said by this Treatiser, that many things that Christ did are so omitted, that they are found in none of the Evangelists: for that 
d Cap. 20. 30. 31.  john who wrote last of all, & knew well what the rest had written, hath these words: Many other signs also jesus wrought in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this book, but these things are written that you may believe that jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you may have everlasting life through his Name. 
e Cap. 24. 25  And again, there are also many other things which jesus did, which if they should be written every one, I suppose the world would not be able to contain the Books which should be written. 
f Annal. tom. 1. 34. 223.  Baronius will tell him that the Evangelists when they took in hand the writing of the sacred stories, intended not to write all the things generally that Christ did: but such & so many only, as might serve to confirm the Faith, and to demonstrate that JESUS is the Son of GOD: & that the things which they have written are sufficient to salvation, that men believing may have eternal life. So that though there were no common deliberation or consultation amongst the Evangelists, & though they wrote at diverse times & in diverse places, yet by the sweet disposition of the holy Spirit that moved them to write, it might, and did so fall out, in that one saw what another had written, that the later added such things as they found omitted by the former, & so left unto us a perfect & full narration concerning Christ his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, & ascension, as also the things he did and spoke during the time of his conversing amongst men. So that the Treatiser is not able to prove that the Evangelicall history is imperfect: but there is one thing wherein he glorieth, as if he had gotten some great advantage, which is, that I confess, that there are somethings found in the Epistles of the Apostles, occasionally written & believed by the Church, that are not found in the history of the Evangelists, the book of all the Acts of the Apostles, nor the Revelation of Saint john: whence he thinketh he may infer, that either the Authors of th●…se books, meant not to deliver a perfect sum & direction of Christian faith as I affirm; or that they miss of their purpose: which may not be granted. But let him know, that there is no consequence of any such absurdity as he imagineth, from any thing I have written. For the things believed by the Church, and not found in the former books, but in the Epistles of the Apostles, are nothing else but distinct and clear determinations of doubts arising touching matters of faith or manners, out of, and according to the sum of Christian Doctrine, found in the former books or historical narrations of such things as passed between the Apostles themselves or between them and the Churches founded by them, or some particular persons in them, not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles: or lastly, Apostolical prescriptions of things pertaining to decency, order and comeliness in the performance of the acts of God's worship and service. Now I think it will not follow, that if there be found in the Apostolical Epistles some more distinct & clear resolutions & determinations of doubts out of the form and direction of Christian Doctrine, found in the former books, then are there found, or a prescription of some outward observations, that the former books contain not a perfect sum and direction of Christian faith: much less will it be consequent that these books contain not a perfect direction of Christian faith, because some historical narrations, not found in them, are believed in the Church: as that Paul left his cloak at Troas, that he mediated for Onesimus, and sought to reconcile him to his Master, and the like. The Treatiser therefore passeth from this exception, and asketh how I will prove, that all things believed by the Church, & not contained in the former books are found in the Epistles of the Apostles; to whom I answer, that when he shall give any instance of things believed by the Church, & not found in the former books, either it shall be proved that they are not believed by the Church, or they shall be showed him in those Epistles. Wherefore, let us see what he hath more to say. One of the Apostolical Epistles he saith is lost, namely that which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans, in which there might be something necessarily to 
Pag. 89.  be believed that is not found in any other book of the New Testament. Therefore it may be thought that there is some want & imperfection in the books of the New Testament. This truly is a very idle and and silly objection: for though there was a certain Epistle to the Laodiceans carried about and read by some in ancient times, yet, as Hierome testifieth it was exploded by all: and 
h In Epist. ad Colos. Homil. 12.  Chrysostome, and 
i In Epist. ad. Colos. in princ. citat. à Baro●…: Annal. Tom. 1. 60. 13.  Theodoret are of opinion, that Paul never wrote any Epistle to the Laodiceans: but that the Epistle he 
g Catal. script. Ecclesiast. in Paulo.  speaketh of, was written from Laodicea, or by the Laodiceans, to inform him of the state of things amongst themselves, or amongst the Colossians, by whom he would have it read. And 
k Ibid. Pag. 94.  Cardinal Baronius himself approveth their opinion, rather than the other. That which he hath, of my admitting traditions, I will answer when I come to examine his next section.   

§. 8.  
IN his next section he hath these words. Barlow and Field, two famous English Protestants, admit certain Apostolical traditions. And farther he addeth, that I allow of certain rules for the discerning of Apostolic traditions, from such as are not such. Whereunto we answer, that we admit sundry kinds of tradition, and yet deny, that any thing concerning faith, or the necessary direction and information of men's manners is to be believed and received, that is not written. For we say, nothing was delivered by tradition, but the books of Scripture, things in some sort therein contained, and thence deduced; and certain dispensable observations, not at all, or hardly to be discerned from Ecclesiastical constitutions. Neither is it new, or strange, that we should admit some kinds of traditions, For 
a In examine▪ Concili●… Tridentini decrer. pri●…: se●… 4.  Kemnitiu●… acknowledgeth all those kinds that I mention; which will no way help the Papists, For the question between them & us, is not whether there be any traditions or not. For it is most certain that the books of Scripture are delivered by tradition. But it being ●…upposed, that the holy men of God, taught immediately by Christ his Son, ●…ded certain books to posterities, and agreed on, which those books are; wh●…her they contain all things necessary to be known, and practised by Christian ●…en for the attaining of everlasting life and salvation, We say they do, they deny it Yet will the Treatiser prove from hence, contrary to my assertions, that according to my own grounds, tradition is the very foundation of my faith. For if Protestants receive the number, names of the Authors, and integrity of the parts of books, divine, and canonical, as delivered by tradition, as I say they do: and if without tradition we cannot know such divine books, he thinketh it consequent that tradition is the ground of our faith. But indeed there is no such consequence as he imagineth. For it is one thing to require the tradition of the church, as a necessary mea●…s, whereby the books of Scripture may be delivered unto us, and made known; & another to make the same tradition the ground of our faith; seeing in the judgement of the Treatiser himself, every thing is not the ground of our saith, builded upon Scripture, without which we cannot know the Canonical books of Scripture from such as are not of that rank. As it is evident, in that he distinguisheth the gro●…d of our faith, & 
Part. 1. pag. 83. & seqq.  reason of our believing, from the condition required to the producing of such an act of faith; denying the churches proposing of things to be believed to be the ground of our faith, and yet requiring it, as a necessary condition, without which ordinarily men cannot believe. So that though we know the names of the writers of the books of holy Scripture by tradition, and that there were no more books, nor no more parts of books, of this kind left to posterities, by the Apostles, but such as the church delivereth to us; yet it is not consequent, that we have no other ground of our persuasion, that the books delivered to us, and the parts thereof are canonical, but tradition: for the evidence of divine power, and majesty, showing itself in them more than in all humane componsitions whatsoever, proveth them to have proceeded from the immediate inspiration of the holy Ghost, breathing in them nothing but heavenly grace. The words of holy Scripture, saith 
b Epist ad Nepotem.  Picus Mirandula, are rude and plain, but full of life and soul; they have their sting; they pierce and enter in, even to the most secret spirit, and strangely transform him that with due respect readeth them and meditateth on them. And besides, there are sundry divine and convincing reasons; that the sum of Christian doctrine contained in these books, is nothing else but heavenly truth; and being without the compass of that we naturally understand, revealed truth. So that the Treatiser doth greatly forget himself, when he pronounceth it to be false, that I say, that the Scriptures win credit of 
Pag. 96.  themselves, and yield sufficient satisfaction to all men of their divine truth. This is the sum of all that he hath of traditions. For where he saith, I affirm that without the Creed of the Apostles, we cannot know the Scriptures to be of God; he showeth himself to care little whether that he writeth be true or false. For I no where have any such thing; but where he saith, I affirm that Papists make traditions Ecclesiastical, equal with the written word of God, and that this is one of my ordinary untruths, he deserveth a sharper censure: For if the Reader be pleased to peruse the place cited by him, he shall find that I say no such thing, nor any thing that the Pope himself can possibly dislike. For, delivering the opinion of Papists 
Book 4 cap. 20.  touching traditions, their divers kinds, and the credit that is to be given unto them, I show; that they make divine traditions equal with the words, precepts and doctrines of Christ, left unto us in writing, apostolical, with the written precepts of the Apostles; and ecclesiastical, with the written precepts of the Pastors of the Church; confessing, that there is no reason why they should not so do, if they could prove any such unwritten traditions. Is this to say that Papists make Ecclesiastical traditions equal with the written Word of God? Is this one of my ordinary untruths? or rather is not this a bewraying of an extraordinary impudence in him that so saith? Surely I fear the Reader will have a very ill conceit of him, upon the 
Pag. 96.  discerning of this his bad dealing. Yet he goeth forward, charging Me, that I make the baptism of Infants to be an unwritten tradition; whereas yet he knoweth right well, that howsoever I grant it may be named a tradition, in that there is no express precept or example of it in Scripture; yet I affirm that it is no unwritten tradition, in that the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of it, are there contained, & the benefits that follow it. Neither doth the place alleged by him out of Augustine 
c De Genesi ad literam. l. 10. c. 23.  prove the contrary: the words of Augustine as commonly we read them, are these: the custom of the Church in baptising infants; which is not to be despised or lightly regarded, were not to be believed, were it not an apostolic tradition. But, whosoever shall consider the place, will soon perceive that Augustine's meaning is, that the custom of the Church in baptising Infants, which he saith, is not to be despised, or lightly regarded, is to be believed to be no other but an Apostolical tradition; & not that it were not to be believed if it were not an Apostolical tradition; howsoever, as it seemeth esset in stead of esse is crept into the text. For it is something harsh to say, the custom of the Church in baptising infants is not to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition. Seeing such a custom might be believed, though it were not an Apostolical Tradition. And besides, the drift of Augustine in that place, is to urge the necessity of this custom, and to have it believed to be Apostolical; and not to weaken it, as if it had no support, but bare tradition: which can neither stand with the opinion of Augustine, the truth of the thing itself, nor the judgement and resolution of our Adversaries themselves, who 
d Bell. de sacr; bapt. l. 1. c. 8.  think that the Baptism of Infants may be proved unanswerably out of Scripture, in that CHRIST saith, the Kingdom of Heaven belongeth to little children, and yet pronounceth, that except a man be borne a new of water, & of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Wherein yet they contradict themselves, as they do likewise in some other things, which they produce as instances of unwritten traditions, and yet go about to prove them by Scripture. Neither will the Treatisers evasion serve the turn, that they go not about to prove any thing necessarily out of Scripture, that they pretend to be holden by unwritten tradition, but probably only; for we know they bring Paedobaptisme as an instance of unwritten traditions: and yet say, it may be avoidable proved out of Scripture, as they propose the testimonies of it. The like may be said of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father, and the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from them both, brought by them as instances of unwritten verities, and yet proved as strongly by them out of Scripture, as any other point of Faith. For if they shall say, an Heretic will not yield himself convinced by such proofs: it will be answered, that no more he will by any other in any other point; nor by the tradition of the Church neither; which yet I suppose they will not make to be a weak proof in that respect.   

§. 9  
THe next exception taken against Me is, that I have not well said, that a man may still doubt and refuse to believe a thing defined in a General Council, without 
Pag. 9●….  Heretical pertinacy, and that General Counsels may err in matters of greatest consequence. What I have written, I will make good against the Treatiser. For it is not so strange a thing, as he would make us believe, to think, that General Counsels may err, & that a man may doubt of things defined in them, without heretical pertinacy, seeing not only our Divines generally so think, but sundry of the best learned in the Roman Church informer times, were of the same opinion, as I have elsewhere showed at large. Neither were it hard to answer the authorities he bringeth to prove, that General Counsels cannot err; if a man would insist upon the particular examination of them. But this may suffice in a generality, that the Fathers produced by him, blame and condemn in particular, the calling of things in question, that had been determined in the Council of Nice, and some other of that sort: and not generally the doubting of any thing determined in any Council, how disorderly soever it proceeded, 
a Leo ep. 2●….  In the second Council of Ephesus, there wanted not a sufficient number of worthy Bishops, yet because he that took on him the Presidentship, used not accustomed moderation, neither permitted each man, freely to deliver his opinion, it was not accepted, nor the Decrees of it received. From the not erring of Counsels, the Treatiser passeth to the question concerning 
pag. 106.  the Church's authority, in making new Articles of faith: and seeketh to clear the Roman Church from the imputation of challenging any such authority by my confession: my words alleged by him to this purpose are these. Our adversaries confess, that the approbation and determination of the Church, cannot make that a truth which was not: nor that a Divine or Catholic truth, that was not so before. But the good man hath used this poor sentence of mine, 
b 2. Sam. 10. 4.  as Hanun used the messengers of David, whose garments he cut off in the middle: a wrong afterwards severely, and yet most justly, revenged by David. For it followeth in the same sentence, that Papists do think, that the Church, by her sole and bare determination may make that verity to be in such sort Catholic, that every one must expressly believe it, that was not so, and in such degree Catholic before. Whereby it appeareth, that they attribute a power to the Church, in a sort, to make new Articles of faith, in that she may make things formerly believed, only implicit, to be necessary to be expressly believed; not by evidence of proof, or apparent deduction, from things expressly believed, but by her bare and sole authority; which not only we, but sundry right learned, godly, and wise, in the midst of the Church of Rome ever denied. Wherefore, let us pass from this imagined advantage, to consider the rest of his exceptions.   

§. 10.  
IN my third book, and first Chapter, speaking of the Patriarche of Constantinople, I have these words: In the second general Council holden at Constantinople, he was preferred before the other patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next unto the Bishop of Rome; in the great Council of Chalcedon, he was made equal with him, and to have all equal rights, privileges, and prerogatives: because he was Bishop of new Rome, as the other was of old. Hereupon the Treatiser breaketh out into these words: I cannot do otherwise, but marvel, that a man of his place and learning, doth not blush to commit such a notorious 
Pag. 73●….  untruth, to the Print and view of the world. For not to speak of the falsehood of the first part of his affirmation, because it is in some sort impertinent, that which he saith of the Council of Chalcedon, is most untrue, repugnant to all antiquity, and not only contrary to all proceedings, and the history of the said Council, but also to the words of the Canon by him alleged. Who would not think that there were some gross oversights committed by Me, in these passages, upon such an outcry? Wherefore, let us consider the several parts of this his exception against Me.  
First, he saith, the Bishop of Constantinople was not preferred before the other two patriarchs, of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next unto the Bishop of Rome, in the first Council of Constantinople, as I have said; and that I say untruly, when I say he was. Let us therefore, hear the words of the Canon itself, and then let the Reader judge between us. The words of the third Canon of that Council are these; Constantinopolitanus Episcopus obtineat praecipuum honorem ac dignitatem, secundum ac post Episcopum Romanum, ideo quòd Constantinopolis nova Roma est, that is: Let the Bishop of Constantinople, have the chiefest honour and dignity after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome. If the words of the Canon suffice not to justify my assertion, let us hear the Treatiser himself; in the same page he citeth these words of the Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon, in their Synodall Epistle to Leo Bishop of Rome: We have confirmed the rule of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers, which were gathered together at Constantinople, under Theodosius of happy memory, which commanded, that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second, and to have second honour after your most holy and apostolic See, etc. Is not here as much said as I have written? Did not the holy Fathers, assembled at Constantinople, decree, that the Bishop of Constantinople, shall be preferred before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next unto the Bishop of Rome? and do not the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon say they decreed so? Have all these holy Fathers committed notorious untruths to the Print and view of the world? It is well the Treatiser concealed his name, for otherwise he must have heard further from Me.  
But happily I mis-reported the Council of Chalcedon when I said that in that Council, the Bishop of Constantinople, was made equal with the Bishop of Rome, and to have equal rights, privileges, and prerogatives, because he was Bishop of new Rome, as the other of old. Let us therefore hear the words of the Bishops assembled in that Council. The 
a Synodus Chalcedon. actio. 16.  Fathers, say the Bishops of that Council, did rightly give preeminences, and privileges, to the Throne of old Rome, because that ●…ittie was Lady and mistress of the world, and the hundred and fifty Bishops, most dee●…ely beloved of God, moved with the same respect, gave equal preeminences, and privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, thinking it reasonable that that City honoured with the inperiall seat, and Senate, and enjoying equal preeminences, and privileges, with the elder Princely city, should be made great as the other, in ecclesiastical affairs, being second after it. Out of this decree, 
b De primatu Papae. lib. 2.  Nilus, in his book of the Primacy of the Pope, observeth first, that in the judgement of these holy Bishops, the Pope hath the primacy from the Fathers, and not from the Apostles. Secondly, that he hath it in respect of the greatness of his City, being the seat of the Empire, and not by reason of his succeeding Peter, which utterly overthroweth the Papacy. And therefore this good man, after all this outery raised against Me, as if I had 
Pag. 123.  mis-reported the Council, is forced to deny the authority of the Canon, as not being confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. See then how he demeaneth himself. First, he urgeth, that the Bishop of new Rome, or Constantinople, could not have equal privileges with the Bishop of old Rome; because he was to be second, and next after him; where-unto Nilus answereth, that if that reason did hold, the Bishop of Alexandria, could not be equal to the Bishop of Constantinople in power and authority: nor the Bishop of Antioch unto him: one of these being after another in order and honour: and thence concludeth, that if the Bishop of Antioch, might be equal to the Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Alexandria to the Bishop of Constantinople, notwithstanding the placing of one of them, in order and honour, before another, the Bishop of Constantinople might be equal to the Bishop of Rome, though he were the second and next after him. So that, that which this Treatiser allegeth, that by the confession of these Fathers, the Bishop of Rome had always the Primacy, is to no purpose; seeing the Primacy he had was but of order and honour, which may be yielded to one amongst them that are equal in power; in which sense the Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon, in their relation to Pope Leo, call him their head. Secondly, he confesseth, it may be gathered out of some Greek copies of this Council (he might have said, out of all copies, Greek and Latin) that by this Canon, the Bishop of new Rome, or Constantinople, was so made second, after the Bishop of old Rome, that equal privileges were given unto him. But addeth, that they were only concerning jurisdiction, to ordain certain Metropolitans of the East Church, as the Bishop of Rome had the like in the West: which evasion serveth not the turn. For the Bishops in this Council, supposing that the reason why the Fathers gave the preeminence to the Bishop of Rome, was the greatness of the City, do the ●…pon give him the like preeminences. So that they meant to make him equal generally, and not in some particular things only. Besides, if they did equal him in jurisdiction, and in the ordination and confirmation of Metropolitans, it will follow, that they equalled him simply, and absolutely. For in the power of Order, there can be no inequality between him and any other Bishop. Thirdly, he saith, That the Canon of this Councellis of no authority: and the like he must say of the Canons of the first Council of Constantinople, and that in Trulto, and so bear down all that standeth in his way, as 
c In notis in conc. Chalced.  Binnius, and other of his fellows do, who fear not to charge these holy Fathers and Bishops, with lying & falsehood. But how doth he prove that this Canon is of no authority? Surely, the only reason he bringeth, is, because the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, resisted against it, and the Bishop himself never confirmed it, which is of little force. For we know, that notwithstanding the long continued resistance of the Roman Bishops, yet in the end they were forced to give way to this constitution. So that after the time of 
d Novella 100  justinian the Emperor, who confirmed the same, they never made any word about it any more. The words of justinian's confirmation are these. We ordain, according to the decrees of the holy Counsels, that the most holy Bishop of old Rome, shall be the first of all Bishops: And the most blessed Bishop of Constantinople, which is new Rome, shall have the second place after the See of old Rome, and shall be before all the rest in order and honour. Neither did Martian the Emperor, as the Treatiser most untruely avoucheth, void the Canons of these Counsels, which in this sort were confirmed afterwards by justinian. Wherefore seeing it is evident, that almost the whole Christian world, in divers General Counsels, feared not to make another Bishop, the Bishop of Rome's Peer: I hope the Reader will easily discern, that I have not passed the bounds of modesty, nor fallen into any unseemly scoffing and railing vain, as the Treatiser chargeth M●…, when I tax the Antichristian and Lucifer-like pride of the Romish Antichrist, who, notwithstanding the contradiction of the greatest part of the Christian world, sought to subject all the members of Christ to himself; and pronounced them all to be in the state of damnation, that bow not down before him as Vice-God, and supreme commander on earth. But, it seemeth, he had a great desire, at the least to seem to say something against Me. For otherwise he would not so shamelessly belie Me, as he doth, when he saith: I would derive the beginning of the 
Pag. 1●…9  Pope's superiority from Phocas, whereas in the place cited by him, I have no such thing, but the contrary. For I affirm, that in the first Council of Constantinople, the Bishop of that city was set in degree of honour next unto the Bishop of Rome, and before the other two patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, thereby confessing. that the Bishop of Rome had the first place at that time: Which when the Constantinopolitan Bishop sought to have, Phocas so concluded matters between these two Bishops, that the Bishop of Rome should have the first and chief place in the church of GOD, and Constantinople the second; so that the praeeminence & chiefty which the Pope claimeth lawfully, was ancient, and not derived from Phocas, howsoever he might, and happily did enlarge and extend it farther than was fit, giving him a kind of universality of jurisdiction.   

§. 11.  
FRom the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Treatiser passeth to the infallibility of his judgement, and affirmeth that his Decrees, though he define without a General 
Pag 1●…9  Council, are that firm Rock, and sure ground, upon which our Faith is to be builded; and that a man may well admit his definitions, as a ground of supernatural Faith; and prudently build an act of such supernatural Faith upon it. And yet in the same place confesseth, it is not yet authentically defined, that the Pope, in this sort, cannot err. Which thing also 
a De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2.  Bellarmine, and 
b Relect. contr. 〈◊〉. q. 4.  Stapleton acknowledge, professing expressly, that it is no matter of faith, to believe that the Pope cannot err, if he define without a General Council: In which passages there is, as I suppose, a most gross contradiction. For how can the infallibility of the Pope's judgement be to them a Rock to build an act of supernatural Faith upon, who neither know nor believe, that his judgement is infallible, but think so only. Can a man certainly and undoubtedly build his persuasion of any thing upon his sayings, whom he neither knoweth, nor believeth to be free from error. Wherefore, for the clearing of this point: First the Treatiser saith; Though the Church have not authentically defined, that the Pope cannot err, yet the Scriptures, and other arguments, brought to prove it, are so plain, and there are so many that think so, that a man may very well admit his definitions to be a ground of faith. Whence it will follow, that a man may build his faith upon the Scriptures, and other arguments and reasons, without expecting the resolution of the Church, for the understanding of the one, and discerning of the force and validity of the other. ● Whereas elsewhere he professeth, that without the resolution of the present Church, the letter of holy Scripture, and the works of Antiquity, yield no certain 
Part. 1. 56.  and divine argument. Secondly, he contradicteth himself, and denieth the supposed infallibility of the Pope's judgement, to be the Rock, on which the Church is builded, and maketh that rock to be only the consenting judgement of the Pope, & other Bishops in a General Council; contrary to the opinion of almost all learned & pious men, as he telleth us himself, who think that that infallibility of judgement, and assurance of truth, upon which our faith is to be builded, is not partly in the Pope, and partly in other Bishops, but altogether in the Pope. Thus seeking to avoid one contradiction, he runneth into many.    

The second Part.  

§. 1.  
Having surveyed the first part of the Treatise, and examined such objections as the Author of it maketh against Me, I will pass to the second; wherein first he goeth about to prove out of that which I have, that Bishops assembled in General 
Pag. 35.  Counsels may interpret the Scriptures, and by their authority, suppress them that gainsay such interpretations, as they consent upon, subjecting them to excommunication, & censures of like nature; that according to the providence and wisdom of Almighty God, General Counsels should not be subject to error, in such matters; for that otherwise men might be forced according to God's ordinance, to obey General Counsels, erring & propounding false Doctrine. Which is a very silly kind of reasoning; for in the very same sort, a man may prove that particular Bishops are free from erring in their proceedings, & that they can impose & prescribe nothing unjustly, under pain of excommunication, for that otherwise men might be forced, and that according to God's ordinance, to obey such Bishops, erring in their proceedings, and commanding unjust things, whereas there is no question to be made, but that they have power to excommunicate, who may abuse the same; and that sometimes it is a thing most pleasing unto God, by refusing to obey them that have power to excommunicate, but abuse the same, to run into the uttermost extremities of their censures; yea 
a De vera religione, cap: 6.  S. Augustine pronounceth, that the patient enduring of wrongs, in this kind, shall be highly rewarded by almighty God.  
Secondly, in the same chapter labouring to prove, that Protestants contemn & reject the Fathers, & to that purpose wresting some sayings of Doctor Humphrey and others, 
Pag. 40.  he objecteth, that I haply may seem to some one, that doth not throughly look into my words, to approve the authority of the ancient Fathers, as far forth as any Catholic; but saith, that in truth I do not. For proof whereof he setteth down, what I have written touching this point: Namely, first, that we must receive as true, whatsoever hath been delivered by all the Saints with one consent, which have left their opinion and judgement in writing; it not being possible, that they should all have written of any thing, but that which was generally received in their times, and toucheth the very life of Christian faith. Secondly, whatsoever the most famous have constantly and uniformly delivered, as a matter of faith, no man contradicting them, though many be found to have said nothing of it. Thirdly, whatsoever the most famous in every age have constantly delivered, as matter of faith, & received from them that went before them, in such sort that the gainsayers were in their beginnings noted for singularity, novelty, and division, and in process of time if they persisted in such contradiction, charged with heresy: which is as much as any Papist doth say. And then instead of showing, that I attribute not so much to the Fathers as I should do, or as Papists do; he turneth himself to show, that such consent of Fathers, as I speak of, is no sure direction for the finding out of the truth. So over-throwing all that which his own Divines have delivered touching this point. But yet that he may seem to say something to the purpose, he goeth about to prove, that I bereave the Fathers almost of all authority. First, in that I reject their testimonies touching all other matters, but only certain principal and substantial points. Secondly, in that I require such a general consent, as can hardly be found, touching such principal points. Thirdly, in that I make the whole Church subject to error. For answer unto these Allegations, I say; The first is a shameless untruth. For I do not limit, or restrain, the consent of the Fathers, to certain principal or substantial points, as he misreporteth Me: but make the same to be a direction in all things that may be clearly deduced from the rule of faith, and word of divine and heavenly truth, answerably to that of 
b Contra prophanas haereseon. novationes cap. 39  Vincentius Lyrinensis, that the consent of holy Fathers is with great study and care to be sought out, and followed by us, not in all petite questions, that may be moved, concerning the Divine law, but only, or at the least specially, in things pertaining to the rule of Faith; with whom 
c In Genes. lib. 7. quaest. 7.  Pererius agreeth. To the second I say, that I require no other consent of Fathers than Vincentius Lyrinensis doth: who will have us only to follow that doctrine of the Fathers, as certain, which all with one consent have holden, written, and taught, that have written of such things. Neither doth this worthy Treatiser, admit any other consent than I require, for in this same chapter, he hath these words. They will object that every one of the Fathers was subject to error. I confess it: but yet God according to his promise, as I have above declared, was so to direct and govern them, that they should not all err. This consent of the Fathers we make to be a Rule of direction: but yet not so generally and absolutely, as if truth could not at any time be found out without it, but so that we must not neglect the knowledge of it, nor go against it when we know it. Neither is it necessary for the knowledge hereof, as the Treatiser objecteth, to read over all the Fathers: for the constant concurrence of the principal in all ages, without noted contradiction, doth suffice to assure us of such consent. The third allegation is partly untrue, and partly inconsequent: it is untrue, in that he saith, I think all the Pastors of the present Church may err in matters of greatest moment. It is inconsequent, because though the whole present Church may err in some things, not pertaining to the rule of faith, and General Counsels, in matters of greatest consequence; yet it followeth not, that the Fathers of all times and places may be thought to have erred, seeing this succession of Fathers is of greater authority than the company of Pastors that now are. Neither is it consequent, that if error may possess the greatest part, or almost all the present Church, that it may be Catholic also, and so found every where, and ever. The former, 
d Cap. 6.  Vincentius Lyrinensis yieldeth to be possible, but disclaimeth the latter: and therefore prescribeth, that if error creep into one part of the Church, we should look unto other; that if it endeavour to stain and defile all, we should look up higher unto antiquity; and that if some have erred amongst the Ancient, we should look what all not no●…d for singularity, did teach.   

§. 2.  
WHerefore let us proceed to that which followeth in the next place: first he reporteth what I have written touching the ground of that persuasion, which we have of the truth of things contained in Scripture, and then taketh exceptions to it. In the report, first he saith, that I make the principal cause of our belief of things contained in the books of holy Scripture, to be the habit or light of faith. Secondly, that besides the habit or light of faith, I require reasons or motives, by force whereof the spirit of God may settle the mind of a man in the persuasion of the truth of things contained in Scripture, that might otherwise be doubted of. Thirdly, that I make this motive or reason in some things to be the evidence of the things themselves in the light of grace: in other not so evident unto us, the authority of God himself, whom we do most certainly discern to speak in the word of Faith preached unto us. These things I confess are delivered by Me, and rightly collected by him out of that which I have written. Yet doth he wrong some other of the same judgement with Me, touching this point, in that he saith untruly, they reject all supernatural habits, & so goeth about to make a difference between them and Me, in this respect, whereas in truth and in deed there is none. But what is that the good man doth or can dislike in this my discourse? First, he undertaketh to prove, that neither the evidence of the things contained in Scriptures in themselves, presupposing the 
Pag. 54.  light of grace, nor the authority of God himself, discerned to speak, can be sufficient motives whereby the spirit of God may settle us in the persuasion of the truth of such things as are therein contained. Whereas yet I think, if he were asked what the motives are, by force whereof the spirit doth effect this work, if these be not, he would not easily give any answer: but how doth he demonstrate the insufficiency of these motives? Surely very weakly, & insufficiently. For first, thus he reasoneth against them: if these motives were of sufficiency, every one enlightened by the light of grace, should by virtue of them be persuaded of the Heavenly Truth of all such things as are contained in the books of God: which is a very bad inference. For by the like kind of reasoning it may be proved, that the evidence of things in the light of nature, is not the motive or inducement that causeth our persuasion touching such things as are known in natural knowledge, because all that have the light of natural reason, are not rightly persuaded concerning all such things: which no wise man will allow. So that as it is not to be imputed to the defect of evidence in the things that are to be known in natural knowledge, which should settle the persuasion, that all men are not rightly persuaded of them; but to the defect of the light of natural reason found in them, or the want of due consideration & right proceeding in the searching out of such things as are so to be known: so likewise it is not to be imputed to the want of evidence of the truth of the things, or at least of Gods speaking in the word of Heavenly Truth, that all men believe not all the books that are divine & canonical, & the things contained in them, but to thedefect of spiritual light in them that should discern such things, or the want of due consideration & right proceeding in the searching out of such things. Secondly, he laboureth to prove, that none of the articles 
Pag. 5  of faith, or things believed by us, are evident unto us in the light offaith, whereas yet notwithstanding 
a In sententii●….  Hugo de sancto Victore saith expressly, that in some the light of divine reason causeth approbation of that they believe: & that in other the purity of the heart & conscience causeth a foretasting of those things which hereafter more fully shall be enjoyed. And 
b Summae theol. memb. 4. art. 2.  Alexander of Alice pronounceth, that the things apprehended by us in divine knowledge, are more certainly discerned by such as are spiritual in the certainty of experience, in the certainty, which is in respect of affection, & by way of spiritual taste & feeling, than any thing is discerned in the light of natural understanding, according to that of the Prophet, 
c Psalm. 11●….  How sweet are thy words O Lord unto my mouth, they are sweeter than the honey and the honey comb. Wherefore, that we may the more distinctly conceive these things, we must observe, that there are some things which though without revelation we could not know, yet, after they are revealed are evident unto us in the light of grace. As first, that the defects & evils that are found in the nature of man, the blindness of his understanding, the way wardness of his affections, and perverse inclination of his will, were not from the beginning; that having been in all the sons of men, the first parents of mankind fell from their original & primitive estate; and that seeing these evils are found in all, even in little infants new borne, the propagation of them is natural, and not by imitation. Secondly, that the very inclinations of our hearts, being naturally evil, in this corrupt state of nature, nothing can change them to good, but GOD by a special work, above, and beyond the course of Nature, which therefore may rightly be named grace. Other things there are, which are discerned by spiritual taste and feeling, as the remission of sins, the joy and exultation of heart that is there found where God is present in grace. And a third sort of things there are, which being not discerned to be true, either of these two ways, are believed notwithstanding because delivered unto us by God, whom we discern to speak in the word of heavenly truth. So that the two former sorts of things are evident in themselves to them that are spiritual, the latter in respect of that Medium, by force whereof they are believed, which is Divine authority delivering them unto us; which thing 
d Erudit. theolog. de sacramentis. fidei. li: 1. part. 3. ca 1. 2.  Hugo de Sancto Victore, excellently expresseth. Credit fides (saith he) quod non vidit, & non vidit quod credit; vidit tamen aliquid per quod admonita est, & excitata credere quod non vidit. Deus sic ab initio notitiam sui ab homine temperavit, ut sicut nunquam quid esset totum poterat comprehendi, sic quod esset, nunquam prorsus posset ignorari. Oportuit ut proderet se occultum Deus ne totus celaretur, & propsus nesciretur, & rursum ad aliquid proditum se & agnitum occultaret ne totus manifestaretur, ut aliquid esset quod cor hominis enutriret cognitum, & rursus aliquid quod absconditum provocaret: That is, Faith believeth that it never saw, and it never saw that which it doth believe, yet it saw something, by which it was admonished and stirred up to believe that which it saw not. God from the beginning did so temper the revealing of himself to be known of men, that as it could never be wholly comprehended what he was, so it might never be altogether unknown that he was. It was fit therefore that God should manifest himself formerly hid, that he might not be wholly hidden, and no knowledge had of him: and again, that having in some sort revealed and made himself known, he should so hide himself, as not wholly to be manifested; that there might be something which being known, might nourish the heart of man; and again something, which being hid, might provoke and stir men up to a desire of attaining some farther thing.  
These things, it seemeth the Treatiser thought not of, and therefore denyeth that there is any motive, sufficient to make a man believe the articles of the faith, setting 
Pag. 55.  aside the mean supernatural, by which they are propounded: and thereupon asketh 
Pag. 56.  Me, what maketh Me believe the articles of the Trinity, the two distinct natures in Christ in the Unity of the same person, and the resurrection of the dead? Whereunto I answer that the thing that moveth me so to believe, is the authority of the Scripture, which is the Word of God, and that I believe it to be the Word of God, because I do most certainly discern him to speak in the same; and a certain divine force and Majesty to present itself unto Me, though the profane Treatiser professeth 
Pag. 56.  he knoweth not what that authority and Majesty of God is, which is discerned in the sacred Scriptures, nor how we discern it, which is not to be marvayled at, seeing blind men cannot discern the difference of colours; but that there is something more than humane discernible in the Scripture, all devout and religious men will acknowledge with us. Believe Me, saith Picus Mirandula, there lieth hid in the Scripture a secret virtue, strangely altering and changing them, that in due sort are conversant in the same. So that the reason that all do not discern the Majesty of God, in all books that are divine, and that some doubt of such as other admit, is not because such a divine power is not discernible in them, but because there is some defect in the parties not discerning the same.  
To the former most weak reasons, brought to prove the insufficiency of those inducements, or reasons, by which we think the Spirit of GOD settleth us in a persuasion of the truth of things contained in the Scripture. First, he addeth an untruth, to wit, that I deny those parts of Scripture, which rehearse matters of fact to be known to be divine by the authority of God himself, discerned to speak in the Word of faith. And secondly, an objection that men cannot know the Scripture to be divine, by discerning the Majesty of God, speaking in them, unless they read, or hear every part of them read over, which is very hard to be done by every one. Whereunto we answer according to their own grounds, that those parts of divine and canonical Scripture which particularly we have not read, or considered, are only implicitè and virtually believed of us, as likewise, the things that are contained in them: neither should this seem strange to the Romanists; for they think it pertaineth to the faith of each Christian man to believe all the books of holy Scripture to be undoubtedly true, and indicted by the Spirit of God. Yet are there many amongst them, that neither know how many, nor which these books are; but believe them virtually only; as it appertaineth to the faith, to believe that jesus, Mary, & joseph fled into Egypt, and that Paul mediated for the reconciling of Onesimus to Philemon; but it is sufficient, for men that never read or considered these particulars, to believe them virtually. Thirdly, he chargeth us with contrariety in our sayings, in that we make the Scripture to be the ground, and rule of our faith, and yet make the light of faith a mean whereby we come to the knowledge of Scripture: because, as he thinketh, the Scripture cannot be a rule of our faith, unless it be certainly known to be divine, before we believe. But the good man should know that the Scripture may be the rule of our faith, directing us touching such particular things as we are to believe, though it be not known to be divine before we believe. For first, God giveth us the eyes of faith, and openeth our understandings, that we may see and discern in general, heavenly truth to be contained in Scripture; & than it becometh a rule of direction in all particular points of faith. Fourthly, he imputeth to us, that we rely upon illuminations and inspirations in the things 
Pag. 61.  we believe, as if we believed them without any other proof or demonstration, upon bare imagined inspirations; whereas we believe nothing without such proofs, and motives as all men may take notice of; and yet know right well, that none do make right use thereof, but such as have their understandings enlightened. So that his reasoning against the certainty of this illumination is idle, seeing we do not make illumination or inspiration the ground of our persuasion touching things to be believed; but a disposition of the mind making us capable of the apprehension of things that are divine and heavenly. This illumination is in some more, and in some less; but in all the chosen servants of God, such as sufficeth for the discerning of all saving truth, necessary to be known of each man according to his estate and condition. Fiftly, besides idle repetition of things going before, to which he referreth himself; and some untruths mingled with the same. First, he chargeth Me, that I am contrary to myself, in delivering the opinions of Papists. The first supposed contradiction is, in that I affirm, that it is the ordinary opinion of Papists, that the articles of faith are believed, because God revealeth them, and yet say in another place, that they make the authority of the Church the rule of our faith, and reason why we believe. The second, in that I charge the Papists in one place that they give authority to the Church to make new articles of faith, and in another place free them from the same. This latter supposed contrariety I showed before to be none at all but in the Treatisers imagination only, and touching the first, if he were a man of any common understanding, or knew what contrariety is, he would not charge Me with any such thing. For it is true, that all Papists think the articles of faith are to be believed, because revealed; but they think also that we know not that they are revealed, but believe so only, and that not by reason of any divine revelation, testimony, or authority, but because the Church so telleth us, and we have many humane inducements moving us so to persuade ourselves. So that they make the authority of the Church and humane inducements the last and final reason of believing whatsoever they believe. This the Treatiser knew well enough, and therefore he requireth Me to 
Pag. 65.  show how I know that God revealeth the things believed by Christians; If I will not fall into the same fault for which I blame them. Whereunto I answer, that I know the Scriptures to be inspired of God by the divine force and majesty that showeth itself in them; in which sense I say the books of Scripture win credit of themselves; and yield sufficient satisfaction to all men of their divine truth. For as the colour in each thing maketh it visible and to be seen; so the divine power & virtue that showeth itself in the Scripture maketh us to believe that it is of God. But the Treatiser will not thus leave Me, but still goeth on, adding one unjust imputation to another. For whereas we say only, the Scriptures are not discerned to be divine and inspired of 
Pag. 66  God, unless we be enlightened by grace, and not that they are proved to be divine by the certainty of that illumination: he maketh us whether we will, or not, to prove the Scriptures by our inspirations, and that we are inspired by the Scriptures: whereas we prove neither the one nor the other of these things in any such sort. For touching the Scripture, I have sufficiently showed before, how we know it to be divine; and for the other, the Treatiser should know, that we do not prove by Scripture, that we are divinely enlightened and inspired, but that as natural reason hath a direct act whereby she apprehendeth things without, & a reflexed act, whereby taking a view of the former direct acts she findeth out herself: so the light of Faith first discovereth Heavenly verities in the Scripture, such as natural reason could never find out, & then by reflection findeth itself to be of another nature & kind than that rational understanding that was before. Wherefore let us go forward. Did not mine eyes see, and my hands handle the palpable absurdities of this Treatiser, I would not believe any man's report, that one so void of all sense & reason as he every way showeth himself to be, should be permitted to write. For whereas I bring a most clear sentence out of Augustine to prove, that howsoever the authority of the Church serve as an introduction to bring us to the spiritual discerning of divine things, yet men rest not in it: he answereth, that Augustine in the chapter cited by Me, affirmeth only, that because all men are not capable at first to understand the sincere wisdom & truth taught in the church, God hath ordained in it a motive which may first move them to seek it; to wit the 
Pag. 66.  authority of the Church, which partly through miracles, partly through multitudes is of force to move: which no way taketh any thing from, but rather addeth strength to my proofs: for if these motives be necessary only at the first before men be purged & made pure in heart, that they may discern & see the light of heavenly truth, it is evident that in Augustine's judgement the authority of the Church serveth but as an introduction, & that the thing which right believers rest upon, is of a higher nature, to wit the discerning of heavenly truth. Wherefore finding himself too weak to give any substantial answer, he betaketh himself to a most silly exception, pretending that I have not truly translated these words of Augustin: praesto est authoritas, quam partim miraculis, partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit; authority is ready at handwhich standeth upon 2 things, the one the greatness of miracles done, the other multitude. Is this a false translation, hath the authority of the church that force which it hath, to move men to believe, partly by reason of miracles, & partly by reason of multitude, & may it not be truly said, that it standeth partly upon the greatness of miracles wrought, & partly upon multitudes? but valere doth not signify to stand upon: it is true, it doth not: yet what boy in the Grammar School will not laugh at him for thus childishly demeaning himself: for what man of understanding would call men to construe every word precisely, as it importeth, by itself, without consideration of the coherence it hath with other in the same sentence. Besides this place of Aug. there is another cited by Me out of Hugo, where he maketh 3 sorts of believers, whereof the first are such as are moved out of piety to believe, which yet discern not by reason whether the things they believe are to be believed or not. The second, such, who by reason approve that which by faith they believe. The third sort are such as by reason of the purity of their heart & conscience, begin inwardly to taste what by faith they believe. This place maketh strongly for the confirmation of that I say, that the evidence of sundry things in the light of faith and grace, is that formal reason which assureth us of the truth of them. For here Hugo affirmeth, that the best sort of believers do approve by reason, or by taste inwardly discern the things they believe to be true. So that such approbation, or spiritual taste, is the reason of their persuasion of the truth of these things. To this authority the Treatiser hath nothing to say, but that it maketh nothing to the purpose, and that if I 
Pag. 67  meant to translate the words of Hugo, I have not exactly translated them. Whether the saying of Hugo be to the purpose or not, I will leave it to the judgement of the Reader: but as for his other exception, I would have him know, and any sensible Reader will very easily discern, that I meant not exactly to translate his words, but at large to set down the intent & drifts of them, which I have most truly performed: and therefore he doth Me wrong when he saith, I deal corruptly & untruly. In the third place he endeavoureth to make his Reader believe there is a contrariety between Me and Luther & Brentius; in that Luther, with whom Brentius seemeth to agree, maketh the Scripture to be of itself a most certain, most easy, and most manifest interpreter of itself, proving, judging, and enlightening all things; & I acknowledge many difficulties in it. But if the Treatiser had been pleased to have taken things aright, he could not but have seen that Luther also acknowledgeth manifold difficulties in the Scripture (yea he doth see it and acknowledge it, and yet will not see it) and therefore that he be not contrary to himself, when he affirmeth that the Scriptures are easy, interpret themselves, and judge, and enlighten all things, he must be understood to mean, that notwithstanding some difficulties, they are not so obscure and hard as that Heretics may wrest and abuse them at their pleasure, and no man be able to convince them, out of the evidence of those sacred writings, as the Romanistes imagine, but that we may be so assured out of the Scripture itself, and the nature of the things therein contained, that we have the true meaning of it, that we need not altogether to rest in the authority of Church: which explication of Luther's words, the Treatiser might have found in the place cited by him, if he had 
Luth. praefat. in dissert. art. a Leone. 10. damnatorum.  been pleased, and so have omitted the urging of this imagined contradiction.   

§. 3.  
The 4. thing that he proposeth which concerneth me, is that I mention a rule of faith according 
Pag. 82.  to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted, which if we neglect, all other considerations are insufficient, & the like he allegeth out of the Harmony of confessions, whence he inferreth that we admit another guide in interpreting the Scripture, besides the letter of the Scripture. But he should know, that the rule of faith mentioned by me, delivered to us from hand to hand by the guides of God's Church, containeth nothing in it but that which is found in Scripture, either expressly or by necessary implication, so that though we admit another guide in the interpretation of of Scripture, besides the bare letter, yet we admit no other but that form of Christian doctrine, which all right believing Christians taught by the Apostles, and apostolic men, have ever received as contained in the Scripture, and thence collected. To this he addeth an excellent observation, which is, that I seem to confess, 
pag. 109.  that Saint Paul sometimes by the works of the Law understandeth the works of the Law of Moses, in that I say, that that Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched, and that if they still persisted to join circumcision and the works of the Law with Christ, they were fallen from grace, and Christ could profit them nothing. But he needed not thus to mince the matter, for I willingly confess, that Paul not sometimes only, but ever understandeth by the works of the Law, the works of Moses Law. Neither can there any thing be inferred thence for the Papists, or against us. For whereas by the works of the Law some understand those works which the ceremonial Law prescribed: other such as the moral Law requireth: and and a third sort, such as by terror it worketh in men, or causeth them to work, without any change of the heart (which cannot be wrought but only by grace:) & the Papists think that when the Apostle saith we are justified by faith without works, he excludeth not such works as the Moral Law requireth, but such as the ceremonial Law prescribeth, and the moral Law worketh in men: we teach, that he excludeth all these. So that a man repenting and believing, may be saved, though having never done any good work, he be taken out of this world before he can do any. It is true indeed, that good works do necessarily follow justification, if time do serve, and opportunity be offered: yet are they no meritorious causes of salvation.  
But the Treatiser will prove out of that which I have written, that they are meritorious, & that faith only doth not justify: that good works are meritorious, he endeavoureth 
Pag. 110.  to prove, because I confess, that men justified freely by grace, are crowned in the world to come, for that new obedience that is found in them after justification. But this consequence I suppose will not be thought good, seeing, as 
a Consult●…i. art. 6.  Cassander rightly notethout of Bucer, God in respect of good works, or having an eye to them, or for good works, giveth not only temporal but eternal rewards; not for the worthiness of the works in themselves, but out of his own grace for the merit of Christ, first working such good works in them that are his, and then crowning his own works in them, as Augustine long since aptly observed. Let us see therefore if he can prove any better, that faith only doth not justify; this he undertaketh to do out of that which I have written, that justification implieth in it faith, hope, and charity. But for the clearing of this point, let him be pleased to observe, that by the name of justification sometimes nothing is meant, but an adjudging of eternal life unto us: sometimes the whole translation of a man out of the state of sin and wrath, into a state of righteousness and acceptation with God, which implieth in it sundry things concurring in 
Vide Antididag. Col●…n. de iustificatione & causis per quas iustificamur.  very different sort, without any prejudice to the singular prerogative of faith. For first, it implieth in it a work of almighty God, as the supreme and highest cause. Secondly, the merits of Christ, as the means whereby God is reconciled, and induced to take us into his favour. Thirdly, in him that is to be justified, a certain persuasion of the truth of such things as are contained in the holy word of God. Fourthly, motions of fear, contrition, hope of mercy, and the like works of preparing grace, as causes disposing and fitting him that is to be justified, that he may be capable of God's favour. Fifthly, as the susceptive cause, an act of faith, by which a man truly repenting of former evils, and seeking deliverance, without all doubting firmly believeth, that all his sins are remitted him for Christ's sake. Lastly, an infusion of the habit of divine and heavenly virtues, as a beginning of that life of God, to which he doth adjudge them whom he receiveth to favour. So that my saying, that justification thus taken, implieth in it, Faith, Hope, and Charity, contrarieth not our position, 
Pag. 113.  that faith only justifieth, in sort before expressed: which the Treatiser knowing right well, insisteth no longer upon this cavil, but passeth to an untruth, charging Me that I say of S. Augustine (whom yet I pronounce to have been the greatest of all the Fathers, and the worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times) that his manner of delivering the Article of justification, is not full, perfect, & exact; as if I imputed some fault to him in not delivering the point of justification as it became him: whereas I have no such thing, but say only, that his manner of delivering that Article was not so full, perfect, and exact, as we are forced to require in these times against the errors of the Romanists; in which saying, I no way blame that worthy Father, but show that new errors require a more exact manner of handling of things than was necessary before such errors sprung up; which I think, no wise man will deny, and am well assured this Treatiser cannot deny, unless he will be contrary to himself. For he saith expressly, that Saint Augustine, before some articles of Christian Religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church, 
Pag. 8●….  as afterwards upon the rising of new heresies, spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times, and therefore retracted some things which he had formerly uttered. So that the Reader will easily find, that in this passage he hath said less than nothing; neither will his next discourse be found any better, wherein he laboureth to show a contrariety between Me, & Luther, Caluine, & others, in that I make 
Pag. 114.  that act of faith, which obtaineth and procureth our justification, to be an act by way of petition, humbly entreating for acceptation and favour; and not of comfortable assurance, consisting in a full persuasion, that through Christ's merits we are the children of God; Whereas Luther, Caluine, and the rest, make justifying faith to be an assured persuasion, that through Christ's merits we are the sons of God. But the Treatiser might easily know if he were disposed, that according to our opinion justifying faith hath some acts, as a cause disposing, preparing, and fitting us to the receipt of that gracious favour, whereby God doth justify us; and other, as a susceptive cause, receiving, embracing and enjoying the same; in the former respect neither they nor I make faith to consist in a persuasion that we are the sons of God; in the latter we both do, and so agree well enough, though the Treatiser, it seemeth, could wish it were otherwise.   

§. 4.  
WHerefore let us go forward, and take a view of that which followeth. The next thing which he hath that concerneth Me, is, that it may be gathered out of my assertions in my Third Book of the Church, that I think (as he saith, some other also do) that it is no fundamental point of doctrine, but a thing indifferent to believe, or not to believe the real, that is, the local presence of CHRIST'S Body in the Sacrament. But I am well assured there can no such thing be gathered out of any of the places cited by him, unless it be lawful for him to reason à baculo ad angulum, as often as he doth. For in the pages 120, and 121, of his second part, because I confess, that in the Primitive Church the manner of some was to receive the Sacrament in the public assembly, and not be partakers of it presently, but to carry it home, that the Sacrament was carried by the Deacons to the sick, that in places where they communicated every day, there was a reservation of some parts of the sanctified Elements, and that the sanctified Elements thus reserved in reference to an ensuing receiving of them, were the body of Christ, to wit, in mystery and exhibitive signification: he goeth about to conclude, that I must needs confess the real, that is, the local presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament: which consequence is no better than if a man should go about to conclude, that this Treatiser hath written a good and profitable book, because he hath troubled the world with one, such as it is, full of vain, idle, and empty discourses: whereof if any man make doubt, let him consider but the very next words. For, whereas I confessed Calvines' dislike of the reservation anciently used, and yet said, it cannot be proved that he denied the Sacramental elements, consecrated and reserved for a time in reference to an ensuing receiving of them, to be Sacramentally the body of Christ; he saith, I labour in vain; because Caluine doth expressly condemn these reservations, which I confessed before; but no way goeth about to make good the consequence which I denied, to wit, that therefore he thought the sanctified elements so reserved, not to be Sacramentally the Body of Christ. For that which he hath, that Caluine, Bucer, Melanchthon, and almost all Protestants hold the Eucharist to be no permanent thing, but to be the Sacrament only when it is received, hath no more force of proof than the rest of his frivolous discourses; seeing it is most evident that the Protestants named by him have no such meaning, that the sanctified elements in the Holy Eucharist, are no Sacrament, but precisely in the very receiving of them, for than they should be no Sacrament in the hand of the Minister, and on the Holy Table, but only in the hand or mouth of the communicant, but that they are no Sacrament but in reference to the use to which they were appointed by Almighty God, as I have showed at large in the place against which this Treatiser quarrelleth.   

§. 5.  
LEt us therefore proceed to see what he hath more to say. In my Fourth book, writing of the things required for the attaining of the right understanding of the 
Chap. 19  Scripture, I say, some things are required, as making us capable of such understanding; and other as means whereby we attain unto it. Amongst the things required, as making us capable of the right understanding of Scripture, I reckon the illumination of the understanding, and a mind free from the thought of other things, depending on God as the Fountain of illumination, & desirous to find out the Truth, with resolution to embrace it, although contrary to the conceits of natural men. The means whereby we attain to the right understanding of Holy Scripture, I make to be of two sorts, some disposing and preparing only, as often reading, meditating, and praying, some guiding us in the search itself, and these I make to be fi●…e. Whereof the first is the knowledge of the rule of faith, and the practice of the Saints according to the same. The second, a due consideration what will follow upon our interpretation agreeing with, or contrary to the things received amongst Christians. In which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture is necessary. The third, the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted, the occasion of the words, the things going before, and following after. The fourth, the knowledge of all those histories, arts, and sciences, which may help us. The fifth, the knowledge of the original tongues, and the phrases, and idiotismes of the same. In all these passages, as I think, there is nothing that the Devil himself dareth gainsay; yet as if I had uttered some strange paradoxes, and things never heard of before, the Treatiser saith, my doctrine is commonly singular, in so much that he professeth he 
Pag. 149.  thinketh, he may very well in some sort liken the platform, or order and Faith of a Church set down in my books of that argument, to Sir Thomas Moores Utopia, and that there neither is, nor ever was any such Church in the world, as I describe, and thereupon maketh show as if he would confute every word that I have in the place cited by him. Verily I think it will not be safe for me to write or say that there is a GOD, that GOD made heaven and earth, or that he sent his son into the world; for he impugneth things as clear as any of these, as that an illumination of the mind is necessary to the understanding of the Scripture inspired of God, & the things contained in it; seeing the natural man perceiveth not the things of GOD which are spiritually discerned; whereas yet we shall find that he can say nothing against the necessity of such divine illumination for the understanding of the Scripture, but he might say as much against the necessity of the light of natural reason for the understanding of things naturally discernible. For he might ask, as now he doth, touching this illumination, how a man knoweth he hath reason, or the use of reason, and is not mad or drunk, seeing such men as are so distempered, think they have the use of reason as well as any other: and one kind of answer will serve for both these doubts. For as men know they have reason by the discerning of such things as are not discernible by the senses or sensitive faculties, which are organical: so faithful and believing men that have their minds enlightened, know they have received such a new illumination, in that they discern things which before by the dim sight of nature they could not, and as men that are sober and in their right wits, do certainly know they are so, though such as are mad or drunk, think they are when they are not, and so deceive themselves. So men that have true illumination of grace may certainly know they have it, though some frantic and brainsick men think they have it, when they have it not. The weakness of this assault, it seemeth the Treatiser did perceive, and therefore he assaileth us another way, and undertaketh to prove that it is not necessary a man should be spiritual before he understandeth the Scriptures, because than it would be consequent that our faith could not be builded upon Scriptures as we think it is. But I doubt he will have as bad success as before. For as there must be a natural light of reason shining in men, before any thing naturally discernible can evidently appear unto them to be that it is; and yet the persuasion men have touching the being of such things, buildeth itself upon such evidence: so likewise there must be a light of grace shining in the understanding of men, before they can understand the Scripture, and yet the persuasion they have of the truth of divine things, may, and doth build itself upon the Scriptures, understood through such light.  
Wherefore let us see what he hath yet more to say. Whereas besides an illumination, I require in him that will understand the Scriptures, a mind free from the thought of other things, depending upon God as the fountain of illumination, and desirous of truth, with resolution to embrace it, though contrary to the conceit of natural men; besides his former exception already answered, he addeth these words. I dislike these words, desirous of truth with resolution to embrace it. The like whereunto, I protest, I never read, nor heard to come from any man. For is it possible there should any such man be found, that should dislike it in us, that we require in him that will understand the Scripture, a mind desirous of truth, with resolution to embrace it? Surely, it is; for we have met with such an one, but he hath taken order by concealing his name, that no man shall make him blush by looking on him. This doubtless is one of the sons of Belial, that have cast off the yoke, that neither fear God, nor reverence men. But what reason doth he give of his dislike? these words, he saith, seem to pretend a kind of doubting, or staggering, which must not be allowed, especially in such men as are spiritual. As if a spiritual man might doubt of nothing, nor be ignorant of nothing, whereas yet all men know S. Augustine S. Hierome, and other holy Fathers, who as we think were spiritual, doubted of the meaning of sundry passages of holy scriptures, and left many questions unresolued. If happily he say, men may not doubt of matters of faith, and that therefore they must not be said to have minds desirous of truth, with resolution to embrace it: it will be answered, that no man professing himself to be a Christian ought to doubt of such things as all Christians are bound expressly to believe: yet are there many matters of faith, that is, such as must be believed at least implicit, that faithful men may doubt of and inquire after. Yea at first when a man beginneth to believe, he doubteth of all points of faith, and must be settled in the same by the Scriptures interpreted unto him, the divine illumination of grace making him understand them.  
Thirdly, whereas I reckon the knowledge of the rule of faith; and the practice of the Saints according to the same, amongst the means which are necessary for the understanding of the Scripture, and define that rule; First, to be the summary comprehension of such principal articles of divine knowledge, as are contained in the Creed of the Apostles, and are the principles whence all other things are derived. Secondly, all such things as all Christians are bound to believe expressly, & which have been ever constantly believed by all such as have not been noted for singularity, and novelty. He saith, most men will dislike my doctrine, and pronounceth this rule to be very 
Pag. 151. Ibidem.  uncertain: and yet presently forgetting himself, addeth, that he hath proved in the first part of this Treatise, that in very deed the Scriptures ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith, that is, the sum of Christian Religion, preserved as a depositum in the Church. But some man happily will say, that howsoever he forgetteth 
Pag. 152.  himself, yet he hath good advantage against us. For first he argueth, that if the Scripture, be to be interpreted according to the rule of faith; the rule of faith itself is not known and believed through the authority of the Scripture. Secondly, he saith, the practice of the Saints from the beginning, to which I require men to have an eye in interpreting Scripture, can very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of Antiquity, according to my grounds. For answer to which objections; First, I say, that the particular and several parts of Scripture must be interpreted according to the rule of faith, that is, the sum of Christian Doctrine received in the Church: and that yet the same sum of Christian doctrine is no otherwise to be received by us, but because it hath been delivered by the Church, as gathered out of the due comparing of one part of Scripture with another, and from thence confirmed and proved. Neither must we firmly rest in the direction of it, till the Church make us see and discern how it is gathered out of several places of Scripture laid together. Secondly, that the practice of the saints may be known out of the monuments of antiquity, so far forth, as is necessary for the helping of us to understand the Scriptures, without any such difficulty as the Treatiser imagineth. For example, when Saint Augustine was to interpret certain places of Scripture, touching the derivation of sin from Adam, and to clear the point, whether it were by natural propagation, or by imitation only, as the Pelagians thought; it was not hard for him to know, that the Church did ever most carefully present her new borne infants to Baptism, before they could be misled and drawn away to evil by following the example of Adam's disobedience; & thence to infer, that she ever believed, that infants are conceived and borne in sin, and consequently, that the propagation of sin from Adam is natural, and not by imitation only,  
The fourth thing that I require in him that will take upon him to interpret the Scripture, is a due consideration what will follow upon his interpretation, agreeing with, or contrary to the things generally received & believed amongst Christians; against which he hath nothing to say, yet that he might be thought to say something, first he challengeth Luther for not observing this rule. And secondly, affirmeth, 
Pag. 152.  that it is insufficient if at any time almost all Christians may err, as I teach. But first concerning Luther, the good man should know, that he cannot justly be charged with the breach of this rule, seeing he broached no new doctrine in the Church, as the Treatiser untruly affirmeth, but such as had the testimony of Antiquity, and the allowance of innumerable Christians in his time, as well in the West, as in the East. And secondly, that the possibility of the erring of the greatest part of the Church, prejudiceth not this rule, he might if he pleased, learn out of Vincentius Lirinensis, who 
Contra proph. haeres. novationes. c. 6.  acknowledgeth, that sometimes error may overspread almost all the present church, & prescribeth that in such a case men should look up higher into antiquity.  
The two other ensuing rules, to wit, consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted, the occasion of the words, the things going before, & following after, & the knowledge of all such histories, arts, & sciences, as may help us in interpreting the Scripture, he passeth over as necessary, though not sufficient of themselves alone. The knowledge of the original tongues, he acknowledgeth to be profitable, but 
Pag. 152.  will not admit it to be necessary, especially according to the conceit of the Romanists. First, because they are sure they have the Scriptures rightly translated. Secondly, because they make not the Scripture the propounder of their belief, but expound it according to the rule of Faith delivered & received. In which passages he bewrayeth gross ignorance. For first, the Romanists are not sure that they have the Scripture truly translated, as it appeareth by that which Andradius hath written: who proveth at large, that though the vulgar translation were allowed of by the Council of Trent, 
Lib. 4. desens. rid.  as containing nothing in it whence any heresy or error in faith may be inferred, yet is it not without many & great mistake. And secondly, if they were sure, yet as Melchior 
1 〈◊〉 theol. l 2  Canus showeth, the knowledge of tongues is needful for the finding out of the meaning of sundry particular places of Scripture, by reason of some ambiguity or obscurity in the translation. Thirdly, for that though the rule of Faith serve for direction in generality, so that following the same, we may be sure not to decline from the truth of doctrine: yet will not that rule secure us from all erring and swerving from the meaning of each place in particular, so that in this respect, the knowledge of the tongues may be, and is most necessary.  
After all these exceptions taken against the helps and rules proposed by me, for the finding out of the true meaning of Scripture, the Treatiser setteth on me a fresh in fiercer manner than before, and requireth me to bring some divine testimony, proof, 
Pag. 153  or argument, or some particular reason of the necessity and sufficiency of these helps, and rules. Whereunto I briefly answer, that if any Papist under Heaven, can take any exception against any of these helps and rules proposed by me, or devose any other, I will justify the necessity and sufficiency of them: but otherwise, I think it altogether needless, to prove that the Sun shineth at noon, 〈◊〉 to show by reason or authority, that spiritual things cannot be discerned but by spiritual men. The Treatiser therefore returneth and taketh new exceptions against the helps and rules proposed by me: first affirming, but most untruely, that the greater part of my brethren will not allow them: and secondly, labouring to improve them by reason.  
For first, that an illumination of the mind is not necessary for the understanding of the Scripture, he goeth about to show, because if such illumination be necessary, no man can be assured of the truth of another man's interpretation, seeing no man can tell whether he have an illumination of the understanding, and a mind disposed in such sort as is required or not. Whereunto I answer, that it is true, that no man can assure himself that another man's interpretation is true & good, out of any knowledge of such personal things in the interpreter: yet may he know it to be true out of the nature of the thing itself, and thence infer, that either he that so interpreteth, or they from whom he received such interpretation, had a divine illumination. For even as to discourse of the nature of colours, presupposeth that the man that so discourseth, hath, or had sight; if he speak thereof with any apprehension of that he speaketh, (though a blind man having heard the discourses of other, may use like words without all sense and apprehension of that he speaketh) So no man can interpret the Scriptures, and discourse of the things therein contained, with sense and feeling, but such a one whose mind is enlightened, though profane persons, and such as be void of all divine illumination, may as from others, interpret the Scripture, and discourse of such divine things as are therein. And as a man may assure himself that another man's discourse of colours is good, out of the nature of the thing itself, though he know not whether he have, or ever had, such sense of seeing, as is requisite in him that will speak of colours with any apprehension; so a man may know that another man's interpretation is true, though he know not whether he have such an illumination of mind, as is necessary for the understanding of the things contained in the Scripture.  
Secondly, he undertaketh to show, that no man can either assure himself that he hath the true meaning of Scripture, or convince the gainsayers by following the direction 
Pag. 153. 154.  of the former rules, because, as he supposeth, a man cannot certainly know, that he hath an illumination of mind; that he hath observed those rules; that he is disposed as he should be, and furnished with learning in such sort as is requisite. Whereunto first I answer briefly, that it is as possible for a man to know whether he have an illumination of the mind or not, as it is whether he have the light of natural reason. Secondly, that the observation of the rules formerly mentioned, and the disposition of a man's mind resolved to embrace the truth, may as easily be known, as any other motions, purposes, and resolutions. Neither is it more hard for a man that is spiritual to know whether he be sufficiently furnished with learning requisite for the understanding of the Scripture, then for a natural man to know whether he have learning enough to understand Aristotle, or any other profane author.  
Thirdly, in confutation of the former rules, he allegeth that they may not be admitted as necessary, because if they be, all such as have no illumination of mind, nor willing disposition to embrace the truth when it shall be manifested to them, must be excluded out of the number of faithful ones. Which if he think to be an absurdity, it is no great matter what he saith; but he addeth, that they that are unlearned have not the knowledge of all those arts and sciences, that are necessary for the understanding of sundry parts of Scripture, nor of those original tongues wherein they were written, without the knowledge whereof they cannot be understood; whereas yet they are to build their faith upon the Scripture rightly understood; whence it will follow, that all such must be excluded out of the number of the faithful. This indeed is such a consequence as must not be admitted, neither is there any such thing consequent upon that which we say. For though all men have not that knowledge of arts, sciences, and tongues, that is necessary for the exact understanding of all parts & passages of Scripture, yet may they understand so much of the same as is necessary to salvation, without the knowledge of arts & sciences: the things that are so precisely necessary, being delivered in very plain, easy, and familiar terms. Neither is it necessary that if a man will build his faith upon the Scripture, that he must understand every part of it. Only one scruple remaineth, which is, that an ignorant man can have no certain ground of his faith, if he build the same upon the Scripture, because lacking the knowledge of tongues he cannot know whether it be truly translated or not; but this scruple may easily be removed, seeing an ignorant man, out of the Scripture itself duly proposed, explained, and interpreted unto him, may know it to be divine, heavenly, & inspired of God; and consequently, that in what tongue soever it was written, it is truly translated touching the substance, howsoever happily, there may be some accidental aberrations whereof he cannot judge.  
After these exceptions taken against the helps & rules proposed by me, as necessary for the finding out of the sense and meaning of the Scripture, the Treatiser observing no order in his writings, addresseth himself to prove that we have no certain means whereby to know that the Scriptures are of God, or which they be; and then returneth again to prove, that we have no certain rule whereby to be assured we have the sense of them. But all that he saith to this purpose, may easily be answered. For first, the truth of Christian doctrine is divinely proved unto us by the satisfaction we find in the same, touching things wherein natural reason left us unresolued, and the effects we find to follow upon the receiving of it. Secondly, that Christian doctrine is revealed, it is evident, because staying within the confines of the light of natural reason, we can discern no such things as in this heavenly doctrine are manifested to us. Thirdly, the revelation that is now, being mediate, and depending on a former, it must of necessity be granted, that there was a first, and immediate revelation of the things that are believed. Fourthly, that that immediate revelation was without mixture of error, there being no imperfection found in any of God's immediate workings. Fifthly, that whatsoever books they wrote, to whom that immediate revelation of heavenly truth was granted, are divine, without mixture of error, and Canonical. Sixtly, that all such books as are recommended to us by the consenting testimony of all Christians, not noted for singularity, novelty, or heresy, as written by those who first learned the doctrine of heavenly truth from God himself, must be acknowledged to have been written by them. Which persuasion is confirmed, in that when we read and meditate upon the books so commended to us, we find a majesty, virtue, and power appearing in them more than in all humane compositions, captivating us to the the obedience of faith, and making us to receive them as undoubtedly divine.  
These are the grounds which we build upon. Wherefore let the Reader judge whether the Treatiser had any cause to write as he doth, that he cannot sufficiently 
Pag. 155.  marvel, that I, or any man of judgement or learning, should run these courses, and impugn their doctrine concerning these points, as absurd, which indeed is most prudent and divine, and yet fall into most gross absurdities and inconveniences. How prudent and divine their doctrine is touching the ground of their faith, I have showed before, making it most clear, that if they did show no more prudence in any thing else, their part would soon be overthrown. But touching the absurdities into which he supposeth we run, they will be found to be none at all. For as I have showed at large, we ground our faith in general upon the evidence of heavenly truth, and the authority of Almighty God, whom we discern to speak in the holy Scriptures, and yet in such sort listen to the Church, as a Mistress of heavenly truth in all particular points, that we do not broach any new and strange doctrine unheard of in the Church, nor impugn any thing that was always constantly delivered and received in the same. So that it is untrue that the Treatiser saith, that I reject all 
Pag. 156.  general authority, and leave every man to follow his own private conceit: he returneth therefore to prove, that supposing we know the letter of Scripture, yet have we no certain rule to find out the sense of it: and mustereth some objections to this purpose, which I have sufficiently answered already in the defence of the rules proposed by me, and impugned by him. Neither is it so strange as he would make it, that we confess every one though never so much enlightened, to be subject to error, and yet each of us assureth himself he doth not err from the Christian verity, one having no more assurance of not erring then another. For is it not so that in respect of things that may be known by the light of natural reason, each one confesseth himself to be subject to error, and yet every one assureth himself he doth not err in sundry particular things. Wherefore he leaveth this point, and proceedeth to 
Pag. 166.  another, where he bewrayeth the weakness of his brain, labouring seriously to prove, that he, who buildeth his faith upon the English Parliament, cannot firmly and undoubtedly believe, nor have any true faith: because I say, we can never be so well persuaded of any man or multitude of men, but that we may justly fear, they are deceived, or will deceive. Truly it had been well that he had applied himself to some other thing, rather than booke-making unless he had any greater facility and felicity in it then he hath; for who was ever so senseless as to build his Faith upon the English Parliament? or why doth the Treatiser thus fight with his own shadow? But haply he will be better towards the end.   

§. 6.  
IN the last place speaking of the supposed divisions and dissensions amongst Protestants, he saith, some amongst us are so bold as to deny, that there is any great or 
Pag. 181  material dissension in our Churches, & that I amongst others write, that it so fell out by the happy providence of God, when there was a reformation made, that there was no material or essential difference amongst them that were actors in it, but such as upon equal scanning will be found rather to consist in the diverse manner of expressing one thing, & to be but verbal upon mistaking, through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men, than any thing else. And that further I add, that I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the ubiquitary presence, or the like, between the Churches reform by Luther's ministry in Germany, and other places, and those whom some men's malice called Sacramentaries: that none of the differences between Melancthon and Illyricus, except about certain ceremonies, were real: that Hosiander held no private opinion touching justification, howsoever his strange manner of speaking, gave occasion to many so to think and conceive: and that this shall be justified against the proudest Papist of them all: this my assertion he saith, all the world knoweth to be untrue, and endeavoureth to prove it to be so, First, by mine own sayings elsewhere, and then by some other proofs. 
Pag. 182  By mine own sayings, in that I complain of unhappy divisions in the Christian world, and of infinite distractions of men's minds, not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to think, or to whom to join themselves: & that the controversies of Religion in our time are grown in number so many, & in nature so intricate, that few have time & leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them. But this proof will be found too weak. For there are many & very material divisions in the Christian world, infinitely distracting the minds of men, as those of the greeks & Latins; those of the Romish Faction, & such as embrace the reformed Religion: and the controversies that are between these, are in number many, and in nature intricate: in respect whereof my complaint might be most just, though never any one Protestant had opened his mouth against an other. And besides, supposing my complaint of divisions in the Christian World, to reach to the breaches that are & have been amongst the Professors of the Reformed Religion, nothing can be inferred from thence contrary to any thing that I have written touching the agreeing of these men in judgement & opinion. For there may be great breaches between such men as are of one judgement & opinion▪ upon mistaking one another: & therefore Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration made in the praise of Athanasius, showeth, that the whole world in a sort was divided upon a mere mistaking, and that Athanasius by making either part rightly to understand the other, procured a reconciliation. Neither need this to seem strange; for oftentimes controversies are multiplied, and by ill handling made intricate, that in truth & indeed are no controversies, and might easily be cleared, if there were a due proceeding in the discussing of the same. So that the Treatiser had no reason to say, that an indifferent reader will hardly excuse me from error in this behalf.  
Wherefore let us go forward, and see what other proofs he bringeth to prove that my assertion cannot be true. First, whereas I say there is no difference touching the Sacrament, the ubiquitary presence, & the like, between the Lutherans & Sacramentaries, as he maketh me to speak, he saith, I may easily be convinced of untruth; because 
a Instir. l. 4. c. 17 16. & 17  Calvin avoucheth, that by the ubiquitary presence, Martion an ancient heretic is raised up out of hell, & a thousand books are written about the same point, showing how great dissensions there have been in the world touching the same. But this proof is easily disproved: for though it be true that Caluine hath, that to imagine that the body of Christ hath no finite dimensions, but such as are extended as far as heaven & earth, and that it is every where by actual position, or local extension, is to make it a fantastical body, and to raise up the old heretic Martion out of hell; yet to think that Christ's body is personally every where, in respect of the conjunction and union it hath with God, by reason whereof it is no where severed from God, who is every where, neither Calvine nor any other Oxthodoxall Divine ever condemned. So that the Divines of Germany condemning that kind of ubiquitary presence that Caluine doth, and Caluine allowing that other whereof they speak, they must of necessity agree together, notwithstanding any thing the Treatiser can say to the contrary: but because I have largely handled this matter touching the ubiquitary presence and the Sacrament in my fifth Book of the Church, and in my answer to higgon's, I will no longer infist upon it, but refer the Reader to the former places.  
Secondly, whereas I affirm, that none of the differences between Melancthon and Illyricus, except about certain ceremonies, were real, he saith, whosoever readeth the acts of the Synod holden by the Lutherans at Altenberge, and the writings of the Flaccians against the Synergists, and Adiaphorists, shall find dissensions touching greater matters. For the clearing of this objection it must be observed, that the supposed differences between those whom the Treatiser calleth Flaccians, and the other whom he nameth Synergists, were touching the co-operation of the will of man with the grace of God, in her first conversion unto GOD, and the necessity of good works to salvation.  

b Vide disput. Vinaraehabitam inter Illyricum & Victorinum.  Concerning the former of these two points, it was ever agreed on between both these sorts of men, that after the first conversion there is a co-operation of the will of man altered & renewed by the work of God's Spirit, with grace, in all ensuing actions of piety and virtue: and in this sense both of them as defending a Synergy, or co-operation of man's will with God's grace, might rightly be named Synergists. 2ly, It was likewise agreed on by both sorts, that man by the fall of Adam, and in the state of sin, is not only wounded in the powers of his soul, in respect of things natural, external, and political, so that he cannot perform any action so well in any of these kinds of things as before he could; but that he is utterly spoilt of all power, strength, and ability to do any spiritual and supernatural actions of true virtue and piety, and is not only half dead, but wholly dead, having no more power of himself to do any thing that is good, than a dead man hath to perform the works of life. Thirdly, it was agreed on, that there is not left in men corrupted by Adam's fall, the least spark of moral or spiritual good desire, or inclination, which being blowed upon, and stirred, may concur with God's grace for the bringing forth of any good work. So that neither of them were Synergists in this sense, though Illyricus, Museus, and other, supposed that Victorinus, and some other, did think so. Fourthly, it was with like unanimous consent agreed on, that there remaineth still in man after the fall, a desire of good, and of that good, wherein there is no defect of good, no mixture of evil, no mutability, nor fear of being lost, though such be the infelicity of sinful man, that having his understanding darkened, and his will perversely inclined, he seeketh and supposeth he may find this good where it is not to be found. So that when God cometh to convert and turn a sinful man to himself, he needeth not newly to put a desire of good into him, for that is naturally found in him, but by enlightening the understanding that it may discern, and see what true good is, and where it is to be found, and by turning the will from desiring that as good which is not, or not in such degree as is supposed, he maketh him a good and happy man, that was evil and miserable before. Neither doth he create a will in man, but changeth the will he findeth in him, that it may affect that which it did not, and so createth a new will and heart in him, that is, frameth him to the desire of that from which he was most averse before. There is then no spiritual nor moral good in man, when he is to be converted unto God; no knowledge of true and spiritual good, nor no desire of the same, which being stirred up may concur with the grace of God, and therefore no synergy or co-operation of any such good, knowledge, or desire of good with the grace of God in our first conversion; but that confused knowledge of good, and natural inclination to desire it, that is found in man before his conversion, when good desires are to be raised in him, concurreth with the grace of God, directing the understanding to seek that good where it is to be found, and turning, bending, and bowing the heart to the love and liking of it. For, that man desireth that which seemeth good unto him, he hath of nature; that he desireth that which seemeth and is not, he hath from the corruption of nature, and it argueth sinful defect: and that he desireth the true good and rightly, it is of grace, directing the understanding, and turning the will from affecting that which before perversely it did desire, to seek that which it should, and in such sort as it should. And so; in that he doth desire, and pursue that which he thinketh to be good, out of the natural inclination of his will; but that which indeed is, and he should think to be good, out of the motions of the spirit; there is a kind of Synergy, or co-operation of the natural powers of man, and God's grace even in his first conversion.  
Wherefore let us pass from the question touching the co-operation of man's will with God's grace, to the other concerning the necessity of good works to salvation. Where first it is 
c Illyricus de voce & re fidei part. 3. pag. 61. & 62.  agreed on, that there is necessarily required in all that will be saved, a dislike of former evils wherewith God was offended. Secondly, a ceasing to do evil. Thirdly, a desire of grace that may preserve and keep us from the like. Fourthly, a desire to do things pleasing unto God in that time that remaineth. 
d Decr. synod. Isnatensis anno 1556. celebrat. Epist. Menii ad Melancthonem de absurditate Maiorismi.  Fiftly, it is acknowledged by all, that in them that are justified, and have title to eternal salvation, good works are so far forth necessary to salvation, if they have time, that the not doing of them is sin, which, without repentance and remission, excludeth from salvation. Sixthly, that good works are necessary as fruits of faith, which all they that are justified and look for salvation are bound in duty to bring forth. Seaventhly, that they are not so absolutely necessary, that no man can be saved without them; for a man may be saved that in the last moment disliketh sin, and desireth pardon for it, and grace that he may not fall into it again, without the actual doing of any good works. So that I protest I cannot see wherein there could be any real difference between these men; neither will the Treatiser, I think, be able to show me any such difference, either out of the acts of the Synod of Altenberge, or by any other means. For that men are bound in duty to do good works, that they necessarily follow faith, & that no man can be saved without dislike of sin, desire of avoiding it, and purpose of doing that which is pleasing unto God, Illyricus made no question; and so disliked not the saying of his opposites, that good works are necessary to salvation, as thinking them in no sort necessary; but because he thought their words did import, that no man in any case can be saved without the actual doing of good works, no, though he have them in desire: and that no man may assure himself farther of the favour and mercy of God towards him, than he findeth the presence of the works of virtue in him; which things undoubtedly they never meant.  

e Treatis. part. 2. cap. 1. pag. 10.  Another opinion there is that is attributed to Illyricus touching the nature of original sin, which is greatly condemned by many. For first, he is charged to have taught, that the substance of man's soul was changed and corrupted by Adam's fall whence it will follow, that it is mortal. Secondly, that sin is a substance, & sundry other like things, whence the impious positions of the Manichees may be inferred. For the clearing of Illyricus from these impieties, first we must observe, that he 
f Quarundam impiarum sententiarum resutatio. pag. 133. De essentia imaginis Dei & diaboli, pag. 313. & 318.  distinguisheth two sorts of corruption, naming the one natural, and the other spiritual; the one consisting in the abolition of the thing corrupted, the other in a transformation of it. Secondly, that this transformation of the soul is not in respect of her essence and being simply, but of her essential and substantial powers & faculties. Thirdly, that this transformation of the soul in her faculties, is not in respect of all her faculties, but the best and principal only, to wit, reason and the will Fourthly, that there is not any transformation or transversion of these faculties simply in respect of all objects: for the soul by the light of natural reason judgeth rightly of many things still, though with some imperfections; but in respect of her principal object, to wit, God, his worship, and Law. So that this is all that Illyricus saith, that the soul of man since Adam's fall is so transformed and changed in the best and principal of her essential and substantial faculties, that they are not only turned away from their principal object, and from tending to the right end whither they should look, but converted also to the desiring of such things as they should not, or in such sort as they should not; but of the extinguishing or abolishing of any of the essential and natural faculties of the soul, much less of the essence and being of it simply, he hath no word. Wherefore let us come to the other part of the accusation framed against him, which is, that he maketh sin to be a substance, and let us hear what he will say unto it himself. There are, saith 
g Quorundam thematum originalem iustitiam & iniustitiam, simul & beneficia Christi extenuantium, refutatio p. 99  Illyricus, certain absurd sayings maliciously attributed unto me; as that sin is a substance, that it is in the predicament of substance; that it is the reasonable soul of man, and that on the contrary side, the soul is sin: but I never used any such speeches, neither did I ever say any more, but that some part of original sin is the souls essential faculty of reason & the will corrupted, in that they are averted & turned away from their right object & end. But for the more full clearing of him from that impious opinion which is imputed to him, we must take notice of certain good observations found in him. As first, that we may speak of sin concretively or abstractively. Secondly, that if we speak of sin abstractively, that is, sinfulness it is nothing but an inconformity with the Law of GOD. Thirdly, that that to which such inconformity immediately cleaveth, and wherein want of conformity with God's Law is found, may rightly be named sin concretively. So that if such inconformity be found in any action, we may safely pronounce it to be sin; if in any habit, we may pronounce, that that habit is sin: if in any inclination or desire, that that is sin also: if in any the essential & substantial faculties of the soul, as being turned from the right object & end, and converted to such object and end as they should not, we may safely pronounce that these faculties disordered & put out of course, are sin, even that original & birth sin, which is the fountain whence all other do flow. So that to conclude this point, according to the opinion of Illyricus, if we speak formally, & abstractively, original sin is the disordering of the essential & substantial Faculties of the soul, consisting in an aversion from the principal object, and a conversion to other in stead of it. But if we speak concretively, & materially, original sin is the substantial faculty of the soul, which we call freewill, turned from seeking God, to oppose itself against him: in which passages, there is no impiety, nothing unsound, or that doth not stand with the truth which we profess; but his manner of speaking was such as might give occasion of dislike, & therefore himself confesseth, that he qualified some forms of words which he had formerly used, upon the advice of Simon Museus, that his meaning might be the better known, & no misconstruction made of that he meant well. So that it will be found, that there was no real difference between Melancthon & Illyricus about original sin, or any other matter of faith: & therefore I may be as good as my word, & justify it against the proudest Papist living, that none of the differences between Melancthon & Illyricus, except about certain ceremonies were real.  
Wherefore the Treatiser leaveth Illyricus, & cometh to Hosiander, whom he will prove to have holden a private opinion touching justification, because Calvine in his Institutions spendeth almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of his conceit touching the same Article, which in the very entrance he calleth he wores not what monster of essential righteousness: & Conradus Schlusselburge placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of heretics. But this objection will easily be answered, For it is not to be doubted, but Caluine & the rest justly disliked that which they apprehended to be his opinion, and condemned it as a monster. For they conceived that he●… made justification to be nothing else, but a transfusion of the essential righteousness of Christ into us, and a mixture and confusion of it with us. But Smidelinus showeth at large, that he never had any such conceit, but that, distinguishing three kinds of righteousness in Christ, whereof we are made partakers, to wit, active, passive, and essential, in that he was the Son of God; he taught that justification is not only an acceptation and receiving of us to favour upon the imputation of the active and passive righteousness of Christ; but an admission of us also to the right of the participation of the divine nature, as Peter speaketh, and of that essential righteousness that was in him, in that he was the son of God; that so receiving of his fullness, we may be filled with all divine qualities and graces. The reason why he thus urged the implying of the communication of the essential righteousness of Christ in our justification, was not as the same Smidelinus telleth us, for that he thought justification to consist wholly therein, or for that he meant to exclude the imputation of the merit and satisfaction of Christ from being causes of our justification, or receiving favour with God: but because he saw many mistook and abused the doctrine of free justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, to the careless neglecting of all righteousness in themselves; therefore he taught, there is no remission of sin, no receiving of any man to favour, by virtue of the imputation of the active and passive righteousness of Christ, unless out of dislike of sin, & desire of grace to avoid it, he be admitted to the right of the participation of that essential righteousness that dwelled in him in all fullness, that so it may dwell in him that is to be justified also, in some degree & sort. Neither is this construction of Hosianders' words made by Smidelinus only, but by sundry other. For Stapleton saith, the followers of Brentius defended the opinion of Hosiander: whereas yet neither Brentius, nor any of his followers ever dreamt of any transfusion of the essential righteousness of Christ into us, any mixture or confusion of it with us, or any other communication of it to us, or in any other sort, then is before expressed. So that the Treatiser had no reason to write as he doth, that my proceedings are rare and singular, and that I fear not to affirm things apparently false, and confessed untrue by all my brethren: much less to say, that every man may easily perceive by these my proceedings, that I had a good opinion of mine own wit and learning. For what have I done that savoureth of pride? or, wherein have I bewrayed such vanity as he speaketh of? Is it a matter of pride not to condemn hastily other opinions, to make the fairest and best construction of other men's words, especially such as are of the same profession with us? Wherefore if the Treatiser be able to say any thing against this my defence of Illyricus and Hosiander, I will hear him; otherwise let him not tell me of my school distinctions, for I am not ashamed of them. Neither do I use them as the Roman sophisters do, to avoid the evidence of that truth that is too mighty for them to encounter: but to clear that which the Romanistes desire to have wrapped up in perplexed and intricate disputes.  
But, it seemeth, the Treatiser will not accept of this condition, and therefore he passeth from the supposed divisions of our Churches, and differences of our Divines, & proceedeth to show their inconstancy instancing particularly in Luther. And whereas in my former books I have answered the objections of Papists touching this supposed inconstancy, he goeth about to refute that my answer, which consisteth of two parts. Whereof the first is, that in sundry points of greatest moment, as of the power of nature, of freewill, justification, the difference of the Law and the Gospel, faith and works, Christian liberty and the like, Luther was ever constant. The second, that it is not so strange as our Adversaries would make it, that Luther proceeded by degrees in discerning sundry Popish errors; seeing Augustine and their Angelical Doctor altered their judgement in divers things, and, upon better consideration, disliked what they had formerly approved. The former part of this my answer he pronounceth to contain a manifest untruth; for, that amongst other things mentioned by me, Luther was not ever constant, & of one judgement touching freewill, he endeavoureth to prove, because in the defence of his Articles condemned by the Pope, he saith; Freewill is a forged or feigned thing, & a title without a substance, it being 
Article 36. Luther in visit▪ Saxon.  in no man's power to think any thing good or evil, but all things falling out of absolute necessity: and elsewhere he saith, men of their own proper strength have freewill to do, or not to do external works, so that they may attain to secular and civil honesty. But M. Treatiser should know, that between these sayings of Luther, there is no contradiction in truth and in deed, but in his fancy only; for in the former place two things are delivered by Luther. The first, that no man by nature hath power to turn himself to God without grace, or so much as to prepare himself to the receipt of grace, which in the latter place, speaking only of external works and civil or secular honesty, he doth not contradict. The second, that though men in outward things, and things that are below, have a kind of freedom of will, and choice, and power to do, or not to do them; yet not so free, but that they are subject to the providence, & disposition of Almighty God, bowing, bending, & turning them whither he pleaseth, and having them in such sort in his hand, as that they can will nothing, unless he permit them, which no way preiudiceth that liberty which elsewhere he attributeth to the will. For the will of man is said to be free, because it doth nothing but on liking and choice, and because God permitting, it hath power to do what pleaseth it best; and not because it is free and not subject to divine disposition and ordering, or as if it could do any thing without God's permission & concurrence. And this is all that Luther hath in the former or latter of the two places, alleged by the Treatiser: for he hath no word of absolute necessity, but of Gods most wise & provident direction of our wills, in all their choices, desires and actions. And though elsewhere he approve the saying of Wickliff, that all things fall out by a kind of absolute necessity, yet he interpreteth himself to mean neither natural necessity, nor coaction, but infallibility of event, in that all things fall out most certainly, as God thinketh good to dispose and order them. Wherefore seeing the Treatiser can fasten no contradiction upon Luther, touching freewill, let us proceed to see what exceptions he taketh to that defence I make of his altering of his judgement in some other things. My defence is, that it was not strange for him, to alter his judgement in some points of good moment, seeing Saint Augustine, the greatest of all the Fathers, and the Angelical Doctor did so before him. His exception against this my defence 
Pag. 186. 187.  consisteth of two parts; whereof the first is, that Luther's changing of his opinion, argueth, he was not extraordinarily and immediately taught of God, (which we easily grant) and that he built his faith upon his own unconstant reason, which the Treatiser will never prove to be consequent upon the alteration of his judgement in some points of religion; for that otherwise Augustine might be convinced to have so builded his faith likewise, who altered his judgement touching as great matters as ever Luther did. For whereas formerly he attributed the election of such as were chosen to eternal life, to the foresight of their future faith; after he entered into the conflict with the Pelagians, he disclaimed it as a mere Pelagian conceit. The second, that Saint Augustine writing, when he was yet a novice in Christian religion, and not fully instructed, erred in some points, which errors, having received better instruction, he disclaimed; and that before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed & defined in the Church, as afterwards upon the rising of new heresies, he spoke not so aptly & properly as was needful in succeeding times, and therefore retracted what he had uttered; but that it was not therefore lawful for Luther to leap up and down, hither & thither, and to change his faith accordingly as his fancy led him. For answer whereunto, I say, that Luther changed not his faith according to fancy, nor altered his judgement in any point of Christian doctrine generally & constantly agreed on in that Church wherein he lived. For, as I have elsewhere proved at large, none of the things wherein we at this day descent from the present Church of Rome, were generally & constantly believed and received as articles of faith in the days of our Fathers, in that Church wherein they lived & died; so that in this respect there will be no difference between the case of Luther & Augustine, or Aquinas, who, as the Treatiser confesseth, altered & corrected their former opinions touching sundry points of doctrine not determined by the Church, without any note of inconstancy, or building their faith upon their own unconstant reason. And thus have I run through both parts of the Treatise of the grounds of the old & new Religion, so that I might here end; but that the Author thereof addeth in the end an Appendix in confutation of a book written by M. Crashaw, concerning Romish 
Pag. 22●…  forgeries & falsifications; wherein among other things be endeavoureth to prove, there could be no such corruption of the Father's Writings in former times, as M. Crashaw conceiveth, because I say, the Papists were only a faction in the Church, and that there were ever divers in the midst of all the confusions of the Papacy, agreeing with us, who always opposed themselves against such as sought to advance Papal tyranny & Popish superstition, who, he thinketh, if there were any such, were careful to preserve the Father's Works from corruption. For answer whereunto, we must note, that the corruptions of the Father's Writings are of three sorts; either by putting out base & counterfeit stuff under their honourable names; or by putting in some things into their true & indubitate Works, not well sorting with the same; or by taking something out of them. That many absurd things have been published under the names of holy Fathers, no man can make any doubt that looketh into the Works of Augustine, Hicrome, & others, with which, many things censured & judged to be Apocryphal by our Adversaries themselves, are mingled. Now if in their judgement this first kind of corruption of the Father's Works might be in former times, notwithstanding such good men, as they think, were ever in the Church; who willingly and wittingly would give no consent to any such corruption; why may not we say, that some things might be added or detracted from the indubitate writings of the Fathers, notwithstanding any thing they could do to the contrary, whom we suppose in the midst of Papal confusions to have opposed themselves against error, idolatry, and superstition then by some brought into the Church, and to have given testimony to that truth which we now maintain? so that this objection is easily answered. What he hath against others, I doubt not but they will take notice of, and that he shall hear from them in due time, to whom I leave him.   
The end of the second part.   

THE THIRD PART, CONTAINING A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF SUCH PRETENDED PROOFS for Romish Religion and recusancy, as are produced and violently wrested by a late Pamphleter out of the former books.  
IN the Epistle to the Lords of the Council, he first complaineth of the 
* In that Watson, Clerke, and the hellish contrivers of the powder treason, with some few of their adherents have suffered death, and others have not been permitted to warm themselves at the fires in Smithfield, as they were wont to do.  long, and manifold supposed miseries of English Pseudo-Catholiques. Secondly, he imputeth the same to the Puritans, as if they had been procured principally by them, and for their cause. Thirdly, he proveth, that not only those Puritans, that refuse external conformity, but such also as for a fashion follow it, are guilty of the proceedings against the Romanists; because the greatest number of Protestant Writers do teach that there is no such essential and substantial difference between Protestants and Puritans, but that they are of one Church, Faith and Religion. A strange kind of proof; yet these are his words: The pens and pulpits of Puritans, and their Printers will sufficiently write, preach, and publish to the world, by whom, and to what purpose, no small part of these afflictions have been urged and incited against us, not only by those few which refuse your external conformity, but such as for a fashion follow it, to retain themselves in authority. For proof whereof, the greatest number of the present Protestant Writers, D. Sutcliffe, D. Dove, D. Field, M. Willet, Wootton, Middleton, etc. do teach, there is no substantial, essential, or material point of difference in religion between Protestants and Puritans, but they are of one Church, Faith and Religion. His meaning, it seemeth, is, that all Protestants acknowledging Puritans to be of one Church with them, are Puritans: and therefore he would have all to know, that howsoever he make show of blaming Puritans only, or principally; yet in truth he equally condemneth all; and that therefore he doth but dissemble, or say he knoweth not what. But do all these Protestant writers named by him, teach, that there is no material difference between protestants and Puritans? Surely no. For touching myself, I never wrote any such thing, neither in the place cited by him, nor any where else; so that he beginneth with a manifest and shameless untruth. But I do the more willingly pardon him this fault, for that it seemeth he doth not consider what he writeth. For in the title of his book he professeth that he will take the proofs of his Catholic religion and Recusancy, only from the writings of such Protestant Divines, as have been published since the reign of his Majesty over this kingdom: for that, as he saith, they often change their opinions, at the least, at the coming of every new Prince. And yet page 30. he citeth the Bishop of Winchester's 
* The difference, etc. edit. anno 1●…86.  book written many years ago, and Doctor Covell his book in defence of Master Hooker, as often as any other; which yet was written in her late Majesty's time. But what if I had written, that howsoever there are some material differences between Protestants and Puritans, as it pleaseth him to style them, yet not so essential or substantial, but that they may be of one Church, faith, and religion? What absurdity would have followed? Would it be consequent from hence, as he inferreth, that it is not material with us, whether men be of a true or false religion, of any or none at all? Have there not been, nay are there not greater differences betwixt Papists, who yet will be angry, if they be not esteemed to be all of one Church, faith, and religion? Did not 
a Gerson Serm. in festo Paschae.  Pope john the two and twentieth think, that the souls of the just shall not see God till the general resurrection? and did not the French King that then was, with the whole university of Paris condemn the same opinion as heretical, with sound of trumpet? Did not 
b Soto contra Ambros.  Ambrose Catharinus teach, that a man may be certain with the certainty of faith, that he is in state of grace; and Soto the contrary? Did not 
c Pighius de iustificat.  Pighius, 
d Contaren. de iustificatione.  Contarenus, and the Authors of the book called Antididagma Coloniense, defend imputative justice; and other Papists reject it? Did not some amongst them teach the merit of condignity? do not 
e Answer to Bell his downfall. etc. Vega. quaest. 5. de meritis gloriae ex condigno.  others moved with a sober moderation, think there is no such merit? Do not some think the Pope is universal Bishop? 
f Cusan. concord. Cathol. li. 2. c. 13.  others that he is not, but prime Bishop only? 
g Bellar. lib. 4. de Roman. Pontif. ca 22.  Do not some teach, that all Bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope, others the contrary? 
h Stapleton. relect. controu. 3. de prim. subject. pot. Eccles. q. 4.  Do not some think the Pope may papally err, and others that he cannot? 
i Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 1.  Do not some of them think he is temporal Lord of all the world, and others the contrary? Do not so 〈◊〉 them think he may depose Princes, and 
k Walden. doct. fid. li: 2. art. 3. quaest. 78. Gerson. de Pot. Eccles. consid. 12. Sigebert. in Chronic. anno 1088.  others, that he may not? is there not a very material point of difference amongst Papists touching predestination? Let them show us, if they can, so many and material differences between Protestants and Puritans. And yet these were all of one Church in their judgement; yea 
l Idem. in Chron.  Pope Stephen, who reversed all the acts of Formosus his predecessor, pronounced the ordinations of all those to be void whom he had ordained, brought his dead body out of the grave into the Council, stripped it out of the Papal vesture, put upon it a lay habit, and cutting off two fingers of his right hand, cast it into Tiber: Pope john his successor, who called a Council of 74. Bishop's to confirm the ordinations of Formosus, the Archishops of France, and the King being present at Ravenna, & burned the acts of the Synod which Stephen had called to condemn Formosus: and Sergius, who again condemned Formosus, and pronounced all his ordinations to be void, reversing the acts of Pope john and his Synod, were all of one Church, of one communion, faith and religion. Nay which is more strange, when there were three Anti-popes' sitting in divers places, accursing one another with all their Adherents, and that for many years, yet still they were of one Church, of one communion, faith, and religion. Yet may not we infer from hence against them, as they do against us, that it is not material with them, whether men be of a true or false religion, of any or none at all. Surely they are more privileged than other men; for 
m Example of Blackwell.  some of them may take the Oath of Allegiance, & disclaim the Pope's power and right to intermeddle with Prince's states; and other refuse it, and yet still be Catholic brethren in the communion of the same Church: Yea a 
n D●…y.  Priest may like of this Oath, and persuade others to take it, and afterwards go over the Sea, and alter his judgement, and returning, choose rather to suffer death, then to take it again, yet no man must take notice of it. But if a Minister subscribe, and afterwards upon ill advice refuse to do the same again, than all the courses of our Religion are such, that by no outward signs, communion, profession, protestation, or subscription, a man can tell who is of what religion amongst us. But let us pass from the Epistle to the book itself.  

CHAP. I.  
IN the first chapter, which is of the supreme, and most preeminent authority of the true church, and how necessary it is to find it, follow the directions, and rest in the judgement of it, he hath these words. Doctor Field a late Protestant writer, beginneth his Dedicatory Epistle to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, before his Books of the church in this manner: There is no part of heavenly doctrine more necessary in these days of so many intricate controversies of Religion, then diligently to search out, which, amongst all the societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that household of Faith, that spouse of Christ, and church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so we may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement. And after some other things cited out of others, he addeth, the joining with the true church is so needful a thing, that D. Field concludeth: There is no salvation, remission of sins, or hope of eternal life out of the church. To what purpose this allegation serveth, I cannot conceive: for there is nothing in any of these speeches of mine that ever any protestant doubted of, or from which any thing may be concluded against us, or for the papists. 
o Calv. instit. l. 4. c. 1. sect. 4  The church of God (saith Master Caluine) is named the Mother of the Faithful: neither is there any entrance into eternal life, unless she conceive us in her womb, unless she bring us forth, unless her paps do give us suck, and unless she keep us under her custody and government, till having put off this mor●… flesh, we become like the Angels in Heaven. Add hereunto (saith he) that ou●…●…r lap and bosom there is no remission of sins, nor salvation to be looked for, as both Esaias and joel testify▪ to whom Ezekiel subscribeth, when he denounceth, they shall not be reckoned amongst the people of God, whom he excludeth from eternal life. The only thing that is any way doubtful, is, how far we are bound to rest in the judgement of the church. For the clearing whereof, the Author of these proofs having taken so much pains to read over my books of the church, to take some advantage by them against the truth of Religion professed amongst us, might have been pleased to remember those different degrees of obedience, which we are to yield to them that command & teach us in the church of God: Which I have noted in the Fourth Book, and fifth chapter, out of Waldensis, excellently described and set down by him in this sort, 
p Wald. doct. fid. l. 2. art. 2. c. 27.  We must (saith he) reverence and respect the authority of all Catholic Doctors, whose doctrine and writings the church alloweth. We must more regard the authority of Catholic Bishops; more than these, the authority of apostolic churches; amongst them, more specially the church of Rome; of a general council, more than all these: yet must we not so listen to the determinations of any of these, nor so certainly assent unto them, as to the things contained in Scripture, or believed and taught by the whole universal church, that hath been ever since the Apostles times; but as, to the instructions of our elders, and fatherly admonitions, and directions, we must obey without scrupulous questioning, with all modesty of mind, with all good allowance, acceptation, and repose in the words of them that teach us, unless they teach any thing which the higher and superior controlleth. And yet if they do, the humble and obedient children of the church, must not insolently insult upon them, from whom they are forced to descent; but they must descent with a reverend childlike, and respectful shamefastness. And elsewhere he saith: The church whose Faith never faileth, according to the promise made to Peter (who bore the figure of the church, when CHRIST said unto him, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not) is not any particular church, as the church of Africa, within the bounds whereof Donatus did include the whole, nor the particular Roman church, but the universal church, not gathered together in a general council, which hath sometimes erred, as that at Ariminum under Taurus the governor, and that at Constantinople under justinian the younger: but it is the catholic church dispersed through the whole world, from the baptism of CHRIST unto our times; which doth undoubtedly hold the true faith, and faithful testimony of jesus. Yea the same author is of opinion, that though it argue great contumacy for a man to descent from a general Council without convincing reason, yet not perfidious impiety, unless he know or might know, if the fault were not in himself, that in so dissenting, he dissenteth from the Scripture, or the determination of the universal Church, that hath been since the Apostles times, which only is absolutely privileged from erring. Thus than I hope the indifferent Reader will easily discern, that hitherto the author of Protestant proofs hath found no proof for Romish religion in any thing that I have written; let us come therefore to the second chapter.   

CHAP. 2.  
IN the second chapter, wherein he endeavoureth to prove by the testimonies of Protestants, that the Roman Church ever was, and still is the true Church of Christ, he citeth four things as written by me. The first is touching the supreme binding & commanding authority that is in the Church. His words are these. Doctor Field writeth, that the supreme, binding & commanding authority is only in Bishops in a general Council. The second, is touching the definition of the church set down in the Articles of religion, Art. 19 that it is the congregation of faithful ones, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered, according to Christ's institution in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same, whereunto he saith I agree. The third is, that the true Church of God is subject unto errors of doctrine, which are not fundamental. The fourth, that the Roman Church is the true Church of God. His words are these. I think no man will deny the Church of Rome to be the same it was at the coming of Luther, and long before; and Doctor Field writeth, that the Roman and Latin Church continued the true Church of God even till our time. And again, We doubt not but the Church, in which the Bishop of Rome exalted himself with more than Lucifer- like pride, was notwithstanding the true Church of God, that it held a saving profession of the truth in Christ, and by force thereof converted many countries from error to the way of truth: and he farther acknowledgeth with Doctor Covel & others, that Luther and the rest of his religion were baptised, received their Christianity, ordination and power of ministry, in that Church, as the true visible and apparent Church of Christ. He telleth farther, that divers of the Roman Church, not only of the ignorant, but of the best learned, were saved, and are Saints in heaven.  
These are his allegations. Now let us see what is to be said unto them. Touching the first, it is most undoubtedly true, that the supreme, and highest external binding & commanding authority is only in Bishops and others assembled in a general Council; but what will he infer from hence? All men, saith he, do know, & Doctor Sutcliffe with others acknowledge, that the Protestants have had no such council: and what then? therefore they are not the Churches of God. O impious and wicked conclusion! For hereby all the churches of the world 300. years after Christ; are proved not to have been the true churches of Christ; seeing, as it is evident, there was no general Council all that while; so that Christianity was rend into factions for want of this remedy, as 
q Ibid. praefat▪ Concil.  Isidorus testifieth. But, saith he, the Protestant Relatour of religion teacheth, that this pre-eminence, means, and remedy, is only in the Church of Rome. This is most false; for howsoever he thinketh it not impossible for the Romanists to have a general Council of those of their own faction; yet he knoweth it lieth not in them to procure a Council absolutely general or Ecumenical: Nay we see that for many hundred years there hath not been any general Council of all Christians, wherein a perfect consent and agreement might be settled; but the greatest parts of the Christian world have remained divided from the Roman Church for the space of 6. or 7. hundred years. If the Author of these proofs shall say, they have all been heretics, and schismatics, and that they have lived and died in state of damnation, that have lived & died in those churches ever since their separation; & that therefore a general Council of the Christians of the West, adhering to the Pope, is absolutely general and Ecumenical, representing the whole universal Church; we detest so unchristian and devilish a censure: and therefore we willingly confess, that the Protestants being but a part of the Christian church, cannot have any Council absolutely general, but in a sort only in respect of those of their own profession. Such a general Council of Protestants to settle and compose their differences, the Protestant Relator of religion wisheth for: neither doth he ever deny the possibility thereof, as this Pamphleter misreporteth him, but saith only that as things now stand, there being no better correspondence among Christian Princes, nor greater desire of making up the breaches of the Christian Church, there is little hope of any such general meeting of those of the reformed religion.  
Out of the two next allegations nothing can be concluded; for the errors of the present Roman Church are fundamental; neither doth it preach the pure word of God, & duly administer the Sacraments, according to Christ's institution, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. But he saith, he hopeth no man will deny the Church of Rome to be the same now, it was when Luther began, & long before; and that I confess, the Latin Church continued the true Church of God even till our times. Because some man perhaps will think, that we yield more unto our Adversaries now, then formerly we did, in that we acknowledge the Latin or Western Churches subject to Romish tyranny before God raised up Luther, to have been the true Churches of God, in which a saving profession of the truth in Christ was found, & wherein Luther himself received his christianity, ordination, & power of ministry; I will first show, that all our best & most renowned Divines did ever acknowledge as much as I have written. 2ly, That the Roman church is not the same now, it was when Luther began. And 3 l, that we have not departed from the church wherein our Fathers lived & died, but only from the faction that was in it. Touching the first, 
r Lib. contra Anabaptist.  M. Luther confesseth, that much good, nay that all good, and the very marrow & kernel of faith, piety, and christian belief, was by the happy providence of God, preserved even in the midst of all the confusions of the Papacy. 
s Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 2. sect. 11.  M. Caluine in like sort, showeth, that the true Church remained under the Papacy, Cum Dominus foedus suum (saith he) in Gallia, Italiâ, Germaniâ, Hispania, & Angliâ deposuerit, ubi illae provinciae Antichristi tyrannide oppressae sunt; quò tamen foedus suum inviolabile maneret, Baptismum primò illic conseruavit, qui eius ore consecratus invita humana impietate, vim suamretinet. deinde suâ providentiâ effecit, ut aliae quoque reliquiae extarent, ne Ecclesia prorsus interiret: ac quemadmod●… ita saepe diruuntur aedificia, ut fundamenta & ruinae maneant; ita non passus est Ecclesiam suam ab Antichristo vel á fundamento subverti, vel solo aequari, utcunque ad puniendam hominum ingratitudinem, horribilem quassationem ac disjectionem fieri permiserit; sed ab ipsa quoque vastatione semirutum aedificium superesse voluit: That is, the Lord having made his covenant with the people of France, Italy, Germany, Spain, & England, when these provinces were oppressed by the tyranny of Antichrist, that yet still his covenant might remain muiolable, first he preserved the Sacrament of Baptism amongst them, which being consecrated by his own mouth, retaineth his force in despite of man's impiety; & besides carefully provided, that there should be found some other remainders also, that the Church might not altogether perish. And even as oftentimes buildings are so thrown down that the foundations & some ruins do remain; so God suffered not his church to be subverted & overthrown by Antichrist from the very foundation, or be laid even with the ground, but howsoever to punish the ingratitude of men, he suffered it to be horribly shaken, torn and rend, yet his pleasure was, that the building should remain after all this waste and decay, though half thrown down. Of the same opinion is Bucer, Melancthon, and Beza, who saith: 
t Bez. quaest.  The Church was under the Papacy, but the Papacy was not the Church. 
u Morn. of the Church. c. 9  We say, (saith Philip Mornay) that among that poor people, that was so long time deceived under the darkness of Antichrist, there was a part of the body of the visible Church; but that the Pope, and his maintainers were the bane of it, who stifled and choked this poor people, as much as lay in them. We say, that this was the Church of Christ, but that Antichrist held it by the throat, to the end that the salvation and life that floweth from Christ might not pass unto it. To be short (saith he) we say, that the people were of the Christian commonwealth, but the Pope with his faction, was a proud seditious Catiline, seeking to destroy it, & set all on fire; & so ever he most aptly putteth a difference between them that were under the Papacy, and the upholders of the Papacy, the Christian Church, and the faction that was in it. M. Deering in his Lectures, speaking of the orders of the Popish Church, hath these words. 
x Lect. 23. in 5. ad Heb.  If any man will here object, that notwithstanding all the abuses, yet the Priest had that which was principal, liberty to preach and minister Sacraments, and that therefore their ministry ought not to be neglected. I answer; In this was the great goodness of God, that in time to come his children might assuredly know, he reserved to himself a Church even in the midst of all desolation, and that he called them by his word, and confirmed them by his Sacraments even as at this day. For seeing there can be no sin so great, but faith in jesus Christ scattereth it all away, it was impossible that the man of sin should so much adulterate, either the Word of God, but that it should be to the faithful a Gospel of salvation; or the Sacraments of God, but that they should be pledges of eternal life to those that did believe: and he addeth, that notwithstanding all the profanations in those times, in respect whereof we have justly separated ourselves from the pertinacious maintainers of such confusions, yet God of his infinite goodness, who calleth things that are not, as though they were, even in that ministry gave grace unto his Saints. Thus do these Worthies write, touching the state of the Christian Church in former times, tyrannically oppressed by Antichrist, neither is there any of our Divines of worth and learning, for aught I know, that dissenteth from them.  
Wherefore I will now proceed to show, that the Roman Church is not the same now that it was when Luther began. Here first that we be not deceived, we must observe, that by the name of the Roman Church, sometimes we understand the Pope, 
y Cameracens. quaest. vesperiarum.  his Clergy, and other Christians of the Roman Diocese: sometimes all Church's subject to the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome. In this latter sense we speak of the Roman Church at this time, & will make it most clear and evident, that it is not the same now that it was when Luther began. For first the Roman Church that then was, was the whole number of Christians subject to Papal tyranny, whereof 
z Illyr. in Catal. testium veritatis. Carolus Miltitius being sent from Pope Leo to Frederick, processed, that all the way as he came, having sounded men's affections, he found three to favour Luther for one that favoured the Pope, and Luther professeth, that the applause of the world did support him much, all men being weary of the frauds, extorti●…ns, and wicked practices of the Romanists. Praefat. oper. Lutheri.  a great part desired nothing more than to shake off that yoke, which as soon as he began to oppose himself, they presently did, accounting those that attributed that to the Pope, which is now attributed unto him, to be but flatterers: but the Roman Church that now is, is the multitude of such only as thus magnify, admire, and adore the plenitude of Papal power, or at least are contented to be under the yoke of it still. Secondly, the Church of Rome that then was consisted of men not having means of instruction and information, like unto those which have been since; and therefore not erring pertivaciously in things wherein they were deceived: But the Church that now is, consisteth of such only as pertinaciously resist against the clear manifestation of the truth, and with all fury and madness pursue unto death those that defend and maintain the same, or at least of such as consent in outward communion with them that so do. So that they that lived heretofore might in their simplicity be saved, and yet these that now are, perish in their contradiction & wilful resistance against the truth. Neither need this to seem strange, seeing Vincentius Lirinensis saith (speaking of the error of rebaptisation) that the authors, devisers, and beginners of it, are crowned in Heaven, that is, Cyprian and the African Bishops of his time: for that notwithstanding this error they held the unity of the Church, and condemned not, but communicated with them that were otherwise minded; and the followers of the same error, that is, the Donatists for their schism & pertinacy were condemned into hell. Thirdly, the Roman Church that then was, had in it all the abuses and superstitious 
a Contra prof. haeres. novitat.  observations it now hath, and such as erred in all the points of doctrine, wherein 
b See the Appendix to the third Book of the Church, and the 12 Chapter of the same book.  they of the Roman church now err, in which respect it may seem to have been the same, as the Author of these pretended proofs urgeth; but it had also others that disliked and desired the removing of all those abuses, & superstitious observations which we have removed & thought right in all those points of doctrine wherein the rest erred; in which respect it was not the same, but very different from that faction of Romanists that resisteth that reformation of religion which so many famous states of Christendom have willingly embraced. So that the Roman Church that then was, consisted of two sorts of men: of the one as true living members: of the other, as pertaining to her unity in respect of Baptism, power of Ministry, and profession of some parts of heavenly truth; though not partaking in that degree of unity which the principal parts thereof had amongst themselves, but divided from them, being a dangerous faction in the midst of her, seeking her destruction, which she could neither fly from, nor drive from her; as Bernard somewhere speaketh: 
c Serm. 33. in Cantica.  Omnes amici, omnes inimici, omnes domestici, nulli pacifici, serui Christi, seruiunt Antichristo: All these were in some general sort the Church, in respect of Baptism, the profession of some parts of heavenly truth, and the power of ministry; but principally, and in special sort, they only that believed rightly touching the most material points of Christian religion, and wished for the reformation of superstitious abuses. In respect of the former of these, the Roman Church was verè Ecclesia, truly a Church, that is, a multitude of men professing Christ, and baptised; but not vera Ecclesia, a true Church, that is, a multitude of men holding a saving profession of the truth in Christ, as 
d Morn of the Church, cap. 2.  Mornay fitly noteth, for which Stapleton unjustly reprehendeth him: but in respect of the latter, it was vera Ecclesia, a true Church, that is, a multitude of men holding a saving profession of the truth in Christ. The Church of the jews at the coming of Christ, had in it the Scribes, Pharisees, and Saducees, as well as Zachary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna; in respect of the former it was verè Ecclesia, but not vera Ecclesia; in respect of the later, it was vera Ecclesia. Neither should this seem strange to any man, that the same society of Christian men should in respect of some parts, whereof it consisteth, be the true Church of Christ, and in respect of some other, not so; seeing all men confess, that the same visible church and society of Christians may be named a garden enclosed, an orchard of pome granates, a well sealed up, a fountain of living waters, a paradise with all precious and desirable fruit, a holy nation, a peculiar people, a roy all Priesthood, the spouse of Christ, and wife of the Lamb, the love of Christ, all fair, undefiled, and without spot, in respect of herbest and principal parts, though not in respect of other. The former ofthese two sorts of men that were found in the Roman Church, we name a faction. First, because they had no part in that degree of unity, which the best parts thereof had amongst themselves, but wandered into by-paths of error, to their own destruction, and sought the ruin of that mother, which by baptism had sacramentally regenerated them to be the sons of God. Secondly, for that they brought in new and strange errors, and a new kind of tyrannical government, prejudicial to the purity of the faith once delivered, and the ancient liberty of the people of God. For hereby we are to judge who are of the faction in the Church, and who not; and not by multitude or paucity, as some fond imagine. The disguised Arrians, and others misled by them to the condemning of Athanasius, were but a faction in the Church at that time, yet were they many, so that Hierome saith, the whole world was become an Arrian; and they that adhered to Athanasius were few in number, and contemptible in respect of the rest. And all they that hold and defend errors in matters of doctrine, and observations in matters of practice and laws, prejudicial to the ancient liberties in the society of the Christian Church, are rightly said to be a faction in the same, whether they be many, or few; & they that retain the faith once delivered, are most properly the Church. Lastly, the errors that we condemn, were taught in the Roman Church that was when Luther began, but they were not the doctrines of that Church; but these errors are of the doctrines of the present Roman Church. For the clearing of the former part, to wit, that the errors condemned by us, were not the doctrines of that ancient Roman church, wherein our Fathers lived & died, we must observe, that the doctrines taught in that Church, were of three sorts. The first, such as were delivered with so full consent of all that lived in the same, that whosoever offered to teach otherwise, was rejected as a damnable heretic; such was the doctrine of the Trivity, the creation, fall, original sin, incarnation of the Son of God, the unity of his person, & diversity of the natures subsisting in the same. The second, such errors as were taught by many, in the midst of the same Church, as, that the Pope cannot err, and the like. The third, such contrary true assertions as were by other opposed against those errors. The first, were absolutely the doctrines of that Church. The third, may be said to have been the doctrines of the Church, though all received them not; because they were the doctrines of such as were so in the church that they were the Church, according to that of Augustine: 
e Aug. de Baptism. li: 7. c. 51.  Some are in such sort in the house of God, that they also are the house of GOD; and some are so in the house, that they pertain not to the frame and fabric of it, nor to the society and fellowship of fruitful and peaceable righteousness. The second kind of doctrines, were not at all the doctrines of that church, because they neither were taught with full consent of all that lived in it, nor by them that were so in the church and house of God, that they were the church and house of God; but by such as though they pertained to the church in respect of the profession of some parts of heavenly truth, yet in respect of many other wherein they were departed from the same, seeking to subvert the faith once delivered, were but a faction in it.  
Hence it followeth (which is the third thing I promised to show) that howsoever we have forsaken the communion of the Roman Diocese, yet we have not departed from the Roman Church in the later sense before expressed, wherein our Fathers lived & died, but only from the faction that was in it. First, because 
f See the Appendix to the third book of the Church.  we have brought in no doctrine, then generally and constantly condemned, nor rejected any thing, then generally and constantly consented on. Secondly, because we have done nothing in that alteration of things that now appeareth, but removed abuses then disliked, and shaken off the yoke of tyranny, which that Church in her best parts did ever desire to be freed from, howsoever she had brought forth and nourished other children that conspired against her, that taught otherwise then we now do, & would willingly for their advantage have retained many things which we have removed. Thus then (I hope) it doth appear, that howsoever I confess, that the Latin or West Churches oppressed with Romish tyranny, continued the true Churches of God, held a saving profession of heavenly truth, turned many to God, and had many Saints that died in their communion even till the time that Luther began; yet I neither dissent from Luther, Caluine, Beza, or any other Protestant of judgement, nor any way acknowledge the present Romish Church to be that true Church of God, whose communion we must embrace, whose directions we must follow, and in whose judgement we must rest. But will some man say, is the Roman Church at this day no part of the Church of God? Surely, as 
g Aug. de Baptism. contra Donatist. li: 1. ca: 8: & 10.  Augustine noteth, that the societies of heretics, in that they retain the profession of many parts of heavenly truth, and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptism, are so far forth still conjoined with the Catholic Church of God, and the Catholic Church in and by them, bringeth forth children unto God: so the present Roman church, is still in some sort a part of the visible Church of God, but no otherwise then other societies of heretics are, in that it retaineth the profession of some parts of heavenly truth, and ministereth the true Sacrament of Baptism to the salvation of the souls of many thousand infants that die after they are baptised, before she have poisoned them with her errors. Thus having spoken sufficiently for the clearing of myself touching this point, I will pass from this chapter to the next.   

CHAP. 3.  
IN the third chapter he endeavoureth to show, that the Protestants do now teach the necessity of one supreme Spiritual head, and commander in the Church of Christ. His words are these. Whereas heretofore some unchristian Sermons and Books have termed the Bishop of Rome to be the great Antichrist, we shall now receive a better doctrine and more religious answer. That there ever was and must be, one chief and supreme spiritual Head and Commander of the Church of Christ on earth, etc. D Field citeth and approveth this as a general and infallible rule: Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, etc. The health of the Church dependeth on the dignity of the high Priest, whose eminent authority if it be denied, there will be as many schisms in the Church as there be Priests. Then of necessity one chief supreme and high Priest must be assigned in his judgement. These are his words. The place he meaneth is not page one hundred thirty eight, as he quoteth it, but page 80. Let the Reader how partial soever peruse it, and if he find that I have written any thing whence it may be concluded, that I acknowledge there ever was and must be one chief and supreme spiritual Head and Commander of the whole Church of Christ in earth, I will fall prostrate at the Pope's feet, and be of the Romish religion for ever. But if it appear unto him that the author of these pretended proofs hath cited this place to prove that which in his conscience he knew it did not, let him beware of such false & cozening companions. My words are: The unity of each particular Church, depends on the unity of the Pastor, who is one, to whom an eminent and particular power is given, and whom all must obey. here is no word of one chief Pastor of the whole universal church of Christ upon earth, but of one chief Pastor in each particular Church. Who would not detest the impudency & false dealing of these Romish writers. But he saith, I approve the saying of Hierome before mentioned, therefore I must assign one chief Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on earth. How will he make good this consequence? Doth Hierome speak in that place cited & approved by me, of one supreme Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on earth? Surely this Pamphletter knoweth he doth not, but of the Bishop of each particular Church or Diocese. 
h Hier. contra Luciferianos.  If (saith Hierome) thou shalt ask why he that is baptised in the church doth not receive the Holy Ghost, but by the hands of the Bishop, which we say, is given in baptism: know that this observation cometh from that authority, that the Spirit descended upon the Apostles: and in many places we find the same to have been done rather for the honour of Priesthood, than the necessity of any Law▪ otherwise if the Spirit descend not, but only at the prayer of the Bishop, they are to be lamented, who in villages, castles, and remote places, baptised by Priests or Deacons, die before they are visited by the Bishop: and then follow these words: The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief Priest, to whom if an eminent power be not given, there will be as many schisms in the Church as there are Priests. So that this is that which he saith, that it is rather for the honour of the Bishop or chief Priest of each Church, that the imposition of hands upon the baptised is reserved unto him alone, than the necessity of any law; because if he had no such preeminences & things peculiarly reserved unto him, in respect whereof he might be greater than the rest of the Priests & Ministers in the Church, there would be as many schisms as Priests: and hence he saith, it cometh, that without the command of the Bishop or chief Priest, neither Priest nor Deacon have right to baptise. So that it is manifest, the chief Priest he speaketh of, whose power is eminent & peerless, is so named in respect of other Priests in the same church, that may not so much as baptise without his mandate, & not in respect of the pastors of the whole universal church. Wherefore if this pamphleter would have dealt truly & honestly, he should have said: Whereas heretofore some unchristian Sermons & books termed the Bishop of Rome the great Antichrist, we shall now receive a better doctrine, & more religious answer, that there must be one chief Priest or Bishop in every Diocese, having a more eminent authority than the rest; & then whereas men now detest his falsehood, they would but only have laughed at his folly: But let us come to his second allegation, and see if there be any more truth in that, then in this. His words are these. Doctor Field telleth us from Scripture, that Christ promised to build his Church upon Saint Peter, than no Christian will doubt, unless he will doubt of Christ's, truth and promises, but it was so performed. Let the reader peruse the 
i Page 344  place, and he shall find that I do not tell them from Scripture., that CHRIST promised to build his Church upon Peter, as this man adding one falsehood to another, most untruely saith I do, but only cite a place of Tertullian, to prove that nothing was hid from the Apostles, that was to be revealed to aftercommers, where he hath these words: What was hidden and concealed from Peter, upon whom Christ promised to build his Church? from john the Disciple he so dear loved? that leaned on his breast at the mystical supper? and the rest of that blessed company, that should be after manifested to succeeding generations? But he will say that I approve the saying of Tertullian, and therefore think the Church was built upon Peter. Truly so I do; but I think also as Hierome doth, that it was built no more upon him, then upon all the rest, and therefore the supremacy of Peter's pretended successor, will not be concluded from thence. Dicis (saith Hierome) super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia, licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat: Super omnes ex aequo Ecclesiae fortitudo solidatur: that is, Thou wilt say, the Church was built upon Peter; It is true, it was so, but we shall find 
k Hier. li. 1. contra jovinian.  in another place, that it was builded upon all the Apostles. Surely the firmness of the Church doth equally stay and settle itself upon them all. This is so clear and evident, that 
l Lib. 1. de Pont Rom. c. 11.  Bellarmine himself confesseth, that all the Apostles may be said to have been foundations of the Church, and that the Church may be truly said to have been built upon them all. First, because they preached Christ to such as had not heard of him before, and were the first that founded Christian Churches. Secondly, in respect of their doctrine which they learned by immediate revelation from the Son of God, in which the Church is to rest as in the ground and rule of her faith. Thirdly, in respect of government, in that they were all heads & rulers of the universal Church. Thus we see, if I had told them out of Scripture, that Christ promised to build his Church on Peter, our Adversaries could not from thence have inferred the supremacy of the Pope, his pretended Successor..  
Wherefore let us come to his next allegation. His words are: Doctor Field, and the rest, do ordinarily yield, that the Roman Church continued the true Church of God till the year of Christ six hundreth and seven, when Bonifacius the Pope there claimed, as they say, supremacy first in the Church. This is a mere imagination of his own; for I no where speak of the Churchcontinuing till the time of Bonifacius the Pope, or till the year six hundred and seven, as if it had then ceased, and therefore he doth not here cite any page of my book, as in other places, but citeth it at large. But (saith he) Doctor Field plainly acknowledgeth, that the supremacy belonged to the Popes of Rome before the first Nicene Council, and then by the rules which he giveth to know true traditions (custom of the Church, consent of Fathers, or an Apostolical Church's testimony) this must needs be of that first kind, and then of equal authority with Scripture, as he acknowledgeth of such traditions. Such is the intolerable impudence of this man, that I protest I can scarce believe mine own eyes, or persuade myself that he writeth that which I see he doth. For, do I any where acknowledge, the supremacy belonged to the Popes of Rome before the Nicene Council? Nay, do I not in the 
m Lib. 3. cap. 1  place cited by him, say, that before the Nicene Council, there were three principal Bishops or patriarchs of the Christian Church, to wit, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, as appeareth by the acts of the Council limiting their bounds? Had these their bounds limited and set unto them, and was there one of them an universal commander? If he say I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome was in order and honour the first amongst the patriarchs, before the Nicene Council, and thereupon infer, that I acknowledge his supremacy and commanding power over the rest, he may as well infer, that I give to the Bishop of Alexandria a commanding authority over the Bishop of Antioch, because before the Nicene Council he was before him in order and honour. That which he addeth as a Corollary, that by the rules I give to know true traditions, this must be of that kind, and consequently of equal authority with Scripture, argueth in him a greater desire of saying something, then care what he saith. For first, it no way appeareth out of any thing that I have said touching the primacy of the Pope, before the time of the Nicene Council, that either custom of the Church, consent of Fathers, or the testimony of an Apostolical Church, give the supremacy to the Popes. 2ly, It is false that he saith, that I make custom of the Church, or the testimony of an Apostolical Church, rules whereby to find out which are true traditions, and which are not. For first, I do not say, that custom of the church observing a thing, is a proof that that thing which is so observed, was delivered from the Apostles, but such a custom, whereby a thing hath been observed from the beginning. So that though the Popes had been supreme in power and command before the Nicene Council, which all the Papists and devils in hell shall never prove, yet would it not follow, that this their supremacy were by tradition from the Apostles. Secondly, I do not make the testimony of an Apostolical church to be a rule whereby to know true traditions from false, as he is pleased to belly me, but I disclaim it in the very place cited by him. My words are these. The third rule whereby true traditions may be known from false, is the constant testimony of the Pastors of an Apostolical church successively delivered; to which some add the present testimony of any Apostolical Church; but this none of the Fathers admit, neither do I: The Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, are Apostolical Churches, & whatsoever their Pastors have successively delivered, as received from the Apostles, is undoubtedly Apostolical; but not every thing, that the Pastors of those Churches that now presently are shall so deliver, seeing they are contrary the one to the other in things of great importance. Thirdly, whereas he saith, I acknowledge unwritten traditions to be of equal authority with the Scriptures, he is like himself: For I never acknowledge, that there is any matter of faith, of which nature the Pope's supremacy is supposed to be, delivered by bare tradition, and not written; but say only, if any thing may be proved to have been delivered by lively voice by them that wrote the Scriptures, there is no reason but it should be of as great authority, as if it had been written.  
Two more allegations there are yet behind in this chapter that concern me. The first, that I say, and Protestants generally agree with me, that the Regiment of the West Churches (among which this nation is,) belonged to the Pope of Rome. It seemeth this man hath a great desire I should say so, and some hope I will say so. But I protest as yet I never wrote any such thing, and therefore here again, he referreth his Reader to no page of my Book, as in other places, but citeth it at large, wherein he showeth more wit than honesty; for it is good to put a man to seek far for that, which can no where be found. But what if I had said the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the West? would that prove an universal power over the whole Church, or such a kind of absolute authority over the Churches of the West, as in latter times by usurpation he exercised over them? Surely I think not. But (saith he) Doctor Downame saith, before the grant of Phocas, the Church of Rome had the superiority, and preeminence over all other Churches excepting that of Constantinople; and Doctor Field telleth him absolutely that the title of Constantinople was but intruded and usurped, and when the first Nicene Council gave such honour to the Roman Church, there was not so much as the name of Constantinople. This is the last allegation that concerneth me in this chapter. The place that he citeth is neither to be found in the first book of the Church quoted by him, nor any where else. For I no where ever say that the council of Nice gave supreme commanding authority over all the Churches to the Bishop of Rome, but only that it confirmed the distinct jurisdictions of the three patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. And touching the title of Constantinople, where of he speaketh; if he mean the title of being universal Bishop, it is most true that it was intruded and usurped, as also the like is at this day, by the Bishops of Rome, which 
n Greg. l. 4. Epi. 38.  Gregory their predecessor disclaimed, thinking it intolerable that one man should subject to himself all the members of the body of Christ, which is his Church. But if he mean the title of being a Patriarch in order the second, having equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome, far be it from me to think it was intruded or usurped, or to condemn the acts of the Counsels of Constantinople and Chalcedon (two of those four which Saint 
o Greg. li. 1. epist. 24.  Gregory received as the four Gospels) as the Romanists do, because they 
p Concil. Chalced. act. 16.  gave privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople, equal to those of the Bishop of Rome. Nay, hereby it appeareth to be true that S. Hierome was wont to say, 
q Hieromy. ad Enagrium.  Orbis maior est urbe. For after that Constantinople, before named Byzantium; was enlarged by Constantine, named after his name, and made the seat of the Emperors, though the very name of it was not at all heard of in the time of the Nicene Council, yet in the second general Council holden at Constantinople, the Bishop thereof was made a Patriarch, and set in order and degree of honour before the other two of Alexandria and Antioch; and in the great Council of Chalcedon, where there were more than 600 Bishops assembled, he was again confirmed in the dignity of a Patriarch, and to have equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome. Against this decree they that supplied the place of Leo in the council, resisted; and 
r Leo ep. 53. & 54.  Leo himself would by no means admit, that the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch claiming from Peter, the one because Mark was there placed by him, the other for that in person he abode there for a time, should be put lower, and the Bishop of Constantinople who had not like pretence, to sit above them. Yet the Fathers of the council, not so much respecting the claim from Peter, as the greatness of the city, and thinking it was the greatness of the city of Rome during the Emperor's presence there that caused the Fathers formerly to give honour to the Bishop of that city, supposed they might now for the same cause give like honour to the Bishop of Constantinople, being become equal in state and magnificence to old Rome, and named new Rome, as every way matching it: and howsoever the succeeding Bishops of Rome strove a long while about this matter; 
s Onuph. annot. in vit. Bonif. 3. apud Platinam.  yet in the end they were forced to yield, and to take the Bishops of Constantinople for patriarchs in degree of honour set before the other two.   

CHAP. 4.  
IN this chapter he endeavoureth to prove by testimonies of Protestants, that all books received for Scripture by the Roman church, are canonical: and herein are two things that concern me: The first, that the Roman church being the spouse of Christ, his true church and pillar of truth, whose communion we must embrace, follow her directions, rest in her judgement, living and dying therein to have eternal life, men might here by my censure and advice confine themselves, and wade no further in so many intricate controversies of religion: the second, that I am or must be of opinion, that all those books which the church of Rome received for canonical, are indeed canonical. For answer to the former of these allegations. First, I profess before God, men, and Angels, that I neither do, nor ever did think the present Roman church to be the true church, whose communion we are bound to embrace: but an heretical church, with which we may not communicate. Secondly, I profess in like sort, that though I did and do acknowledge the church wherein our Fathers lived before Luther's time, to have been the true church of God in respect of the best, and indeed the principal parts thereof, which held a saving profession of the truth in Christ (howsoever many, and they greatly prevailing, erred damnably:) yet I never thought it to be that church, in whose judgement we are to rest without any farther doubt or question: nor that it was safe to follow the greater part of the guides and rulers of it: but the church in whose judgement we must absolutely and finally rest, is that whole and entire society of Holy ones, which beginning at Jerusalem, and filling the world, continueth unto this day. To refuse the judgement of this church, or to resist against any thing delivered ab omnibus, ubique, semper, in all places, at all times, by all Christian pastors and people not noted for heresy or singularity, were extreme folly and madness: so that, as I noted in answer to the first chapter out of Waldensis, it is not any particular church, as the church of Africa, nor the particular Roman church, but the universal church, not gathered together in a general council, which hath sometimes erred: but the whole catholic church dispersed through the world from the baptism of Christ unto our times, which doth undoubtedly hold the true faith, and faithful testimony of JESUS, and in whose judgement we must absolutely rest without any farther question o●… doubting; and hereunto agreeth ᵗ Vincentius Lirinensis, prescribing this course to be followed in 
u 〈◊〉 Contra prof. haeret. novitat  matters questioned, touching faith and religion. If error creep into one part of the Church, we must look unto other that still are sound and pure; if into almost the whole present church, we must look up higher into former times, and the resolutions of them that have been since the Apostles times. Thus I hope the Reader will easily perceive that this first allegation is frivolous: For I do not think the present Church of Rome to be the true church of God, whose communion we must embrace, nor that the particular Roman church, when it was at the best, was that church in the judgement whereof we are absolutely to rest: and therefore let no man confine himself here without farther wading into particular controversies, but let every man as he tendereth the salvation of his own soul, look to the judgement of other churches also, and to the resolutions of former times.  
Now let us proceed to his second allegation concerning canonical and apocryphal books of Scripture. His words are; The Protestant surveyor of the Communion-booke affirmeth plainly, that the Protestants of England must approve for Canonical all those books which the Roman Church doth: and Doctor Field is of the same opinion, or must be; for thus he writeth: The ancient and true-beleeving jews before the coming of Christ (especially such as lived in Greece and nations out of jury, commonly called Hellenists) received those books for canonical Scripture. It is well he saith not absolutely that I am of that opinion, but that I am, or must be; for he is well assured I am not; but he knoweth how to force me to be, whether I will or not, by falsely reporting my words, and making me say that I never thought nor said. For do I any where say, the ancient, and true ●…euing jews before the coming of Christ received those books for canonical, especially such as were dispersed among the Gentiles? No surely; but the contrary: namely, that the ancient church of the jews did receive those only as divine and canonical which we do, and not those other in question. I am verily persuaded these men think lying to be no sin; for otherwise, it were not likely that bragging so much of their good works, and trusting to the merit thereof, they would wittingly run so often into such a sin, as we silly men think it to be, and as the spirit of God assureth us it is, being of the number of those that shut men out of the kingdom of God and Christ, according to that in the Revelation, 
u Reuel. 22. 15.  Without shall be dogs and enchanters, and whore-mongers, and murderers, & idolaters, and whosoever loveth or maketh lies. But let us see if he deal not better in that which followeth: Surely no, he is constant and ever like himself; for he saith, Doctor Field writeth thus. The ancient and true-beleeving jews before the coming of Christ (especially such as lived in Greece and nations out of jury, commonly called Hellenists) received those books for canonical Scripture; and to use his own words, Hence it came that the jews delivered a double canon of Scripture to the Christian Churches. Surely this is not to use, but to abuse my words: For I was not so senseless, as to say, the ancient and true-beleeving jews received the books in question for Canonical, and that thence it came that they delivered a double Canon of Scripture to the Christian Churches. For if the jews generally had received all these books for canonical, but especially the Hellenists; then they could not have delivered a double canon of Scripture, but one only. Wherefore my words are not as he reporteth them, but having spoken of the 22 books of the old Testament, I add, 
x Page. 380.  These only did the ancient Church of the jews receive as divine & Canonical; and that other books were added unto these, whose authority not being certain and known, are named Apocryphal, fèll out in this sort. The jews in their latter times, before, and at the coming of Christ, were of two sorts; some properly named Hebrews commorant at Jerusalem & in the holy land; other named Hellenists, jews of the dispersion, mingled with the Grecians: these had written sundry books in Greek, which they made use of together with other parts of the old Testament, which they had of the translation of the Septuagint; but the Hebrews received only the 22 books before mentioned: Hence it came that the jews delivered a double Canon of the Scripture to the Christian Church; the one pure, indubitate & divine, which is the Hebrew Canon; the other in Greek enriched with, or rather adulterated by the addition of certain other books written in those days, when God raised up no more Prophets among his people. So that the jews being of two sorts, Hebrews and Hellenistes: The Hebrews delivered to the Christian church only the 22 books of the old Testament, whereof there is no question, to be the absolute rule and Canon of our faith, and took no notice of the books now in question: But the Hellenists delivered with them these also that are questioned, if not to be the canon of our faith, yet to be a canon and rule of direction for matters of conversation and manners, and to be read at lest ad aedificationem plebis, for the edification of the people, though not for confirmation of matters of doctrine. And truly I am persuaded, it cannot be proved that the Hellenists ever received these books in question, as any part of the canon of faith, or absolutely canonical, but in a sort only, in that they contain a good direction of men's manners: But, saith he, D. Field speaking of this volume of the Hellenists, addeth. These books which are doubted of, joined in one volume with those 22, whereof there is no question, were translated out of Greek into Latin, and read by the Latin Church in that translation; and entreating of Saint Augustine and the Latin Fathers, especially in Africa, and the third Carthaginian Council, writeth thus. They reckon the books of Scripture according as they found them in use in the Latin Church: then Doctor Field hath absolutely granted that in the Latin Church (under which England is) these Scriptures were ever esteemed as Canonical. They seem greatly to desire to end the controversies between them and us by public disputation, and challenge us in such sort, as if we durst not show ourselves where they should appear: but surely if they perform no more when they come to disputing then they do when they write, nor bring no better arguments when they oppose in our schools, than they publish in their books, the very boys in our Universities will hiss them out. For how will this consequence ever be made good. Augustine and the Africanes in the third Council of Carthage reckon the books of Scripture as they found them joined in one volume translated out of Greek into Latin, not exactly noting the difference that is between them, and so seem to admit into the canon those books which we reject: therefore the books which we reject were ever esteemed to be canonical in the Latin church? seeing Hierome at the same time translating the Scriptures out of Hebrew, & exactly learning which books pertained to the Hebrew canon, rejected all besides the 22 Hebrew books, as the Grecians did before him, and as after him almost all men of note in the Latin church did. But he will say, Augustine and the Africanes found the books rejected by us in use in the Latin church, as well as the other which we admit to be canonical; therefore they were ever esteemed to be canonical in the Latin Church, under which England is. This proof is too weak; for as I have noted in the place cited by him, the prayer of Manasses confessed by our Adversaries to be Apocryphal, the third and fourth of Esdras, and the book called Pastor, were likewise in use in the Latin Church, that is, read by them of the Latin church, cited by them in their writings, and many things translated out of them into the public prayers & liturgy of the church; yet will it not follow that these books were ever esteemed as canonical in the Latin church, under which England was. It is true indeed that Augustine when he was blamed for citing some testimonies out of the books rejected by. us, defended his so doing by the practice of the church which had anciently read the same in her public assemblies, but not much pressing the authority of them, saith, he can prove the things, for proof whereof he alleged those books, out of other that are not doubted of. So that caietan's opinion is not improbable, that Augustine did not think these books to be absolutely canonical, but in a sort only, in that they contain many godly instructions, and a good direction for men's manners. That which he addeth in the last place, that these controversed books being translated out of Greek into Latin, with the other originally written in Hebrew, were in likelihood first delivered by the Hellenists, or jews of the dispersion, to the Greek Churches, as being in Greek amongst them, is to no purpose: For though we should grant they were so delivered all together, yet they of the Greek Church having an eye to the Canon of the Hebrews, put a difference between the one and the other; and never accounted these to be canonical, as 
y Pag. 3●….  I have largely proved out of the testimonies of Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Cyrill, Epiphanius, and Damascene. Thus have we examined the allegations of this chapter, and found them very weak and frivolous.   

CHAP. 5.  
IN the fifth chapter, he undertaketh to prove, that Protestants confess the vulgar translation to be the best, and their own the worst. But because he allegeth nothing to this purpose out of any thing that I have written, I will pass from this to the next, not doubting but they who are wronged by him, will make him know that he undertaketh much, and proveth little.   

CHAP. 6.  
IN the sixth chapter, wherein he undertaketh to prove by the confession of Protestants, that the true, lawful, and iuridicall exposition of Scriptures is in the Roman Church, & not with the Protestants, he endeavoureth to show that I confess so much: His words are these. D. Field confesseth, that 
z Pag. 372.  neither conference of places, nor consideration of the Antecedentia & Consequentia, nor looking into the originals, are of any force, unless we find the things which we conceive to be understood & meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of faith: therefore he confesseth, that the warranted exposition of Scripture belongeth to the Roman church. This consequence I deny as strange & absurd: wherefore let us see if he make any show of proving it. He addeth, that I teach, the rule of faith must be tried either by the general practice of the Church, the renowned of all ages, or the Pastors of an Apostolical Church, which, as the world can witness, no Protestant can make claim unto: as if from hence it would follow (which is the thing he goeth about to prove, or else he doth nothing) that all warranted exposition of Scripture belongeth to the Roman Church. Whatsoever become of the consequence of this argument, there are many exceptions to be taken to the antecedent of it. For first, I do not give these three rules whereof he speaketh, whereby to know the rule of faith, but to know true traditions from false. Secondly, I do not say, the general practice of the Church, the renowned of all ages, & the Pastors of an Apostolical church, are the rules whereby true traditions may be known from false; but the general practice of the church from the beginning, the report, & testimony of the most renowned & famous in all ages, & the testimony of the Pastors of an apostolic church, successively delivered from the beginning, not the present testimony of an Apostolical church. Thirdly, we will never admit any pretended traditions, unless they may be confirmed unto us by one of these rules: & if our Adversaries can prove any of their supposed traditions by these rules, we will willingly acknowledge them, and therefore I know no reason why we may not make claim unto them.  
He addeth, that I condemn private interpretations; as if ever any Protestant had allowed any private interpretation in that sense that I dislike it, or as if our Religion were grounded upon private interpretations. But the good man might have been pleased to remember, that in the 
a Pag. 566  place cited by him, I distinguish three kinds of private interpretations: whereof one is named private, for that they that so interpret, neglect the common rules of direction, rely upon secret revelations known to none but themselves, and despise the judgement of other men. Another, because the person so interpreting is private, and yet presumptuously taketh upon him to force all others to embrace the same, having no authority so to do. The 3d is, when, as the person is of private condition, so he seeketh only to satisfy himself in it, & no way presumeth to prescribe to others to follow that he resolveth on, farther than by reason & higher authority he can enforce the same. The first kind of private interpretations we detest & accurse. The 2. we condemn as presumptuous. The 3d we approve, & so do our Adversaries, for aught I know: and therefore I know not to what purpose he citeth this saying of mine, that private men may not so propose their interpretations, as if they would bind all other men to embrace and receive them.  
That which followeth, that I make three kinds of interpretation, and affirm, that none have authority so to interpret Scripture, as that they may subject all that descent from the same to excommunication and censures of like nature, but Bishops assembled in a general Council, is so true, that neither he, nor any other in his right wits will ever deny it. For who hath authority so to interpret Scripture, as to subject them to excommunication that dissent, but the governors of the church? and who so, as to subject all that dissent, but they that are the governors of the whole, as are the Bishops of the whole Christian church, assembled in a general Council? But, saith he, Protestants have never had any general Council; therefore they have no warranted interpretations of Scripture. If this consequence be good, the Christians for the space of 300 years after Christ had no warranted interpretations of Scripture, for till the reign of Constantine there was no general council. But the Protestants can have no general council, therefore they have not amongst them the highest & supreme binding authority & judgement. Surely we confess, that being but a part of the Christian church, they cannot have a Council absolutely general out of themselves alone; and therefore not having the highest binding authority amongst them, it being found only in the whole universal church, they do not take upon them so to interpret Scriptures, as to subject all to excommunication that refuse their interpretations, but such particular churches & persons only as are under their jurisdiction. The Papists indeed in the height of their pride being but a part, contemning all other interessed in the supreme binding judgement as well as themselves, assume and appropriate it to themselves alone, in which claim we may rather see the height of their pride, them the clearness of their right: and therefore the 
b Orat. de cause. dissens. Eccles. apud Nilum.  Grecians impute all the divisions and breaches of the Christian world unto them, in that they presumed of themselves without them to interpret the Scriptures, and to define certain questions touching the faith, in such sort that they subjected them to Anathema & excommunication, so casting them all into hell as much as lay in them. These inconsiderate proceedings, and rash censures did such harm, that the 
c Gerson. part. 4 serm. de pace & unitate Graecorum.  wisest, most religious, & moderate in the Latin Church, wished they had never been passed, or that they were reversed & called back again. But, saith he, let any man enter into a serious consideration of Protestant doctrine in this point; that under pain of damnation we are bound to find and follow the truth; that general Counsels as before, may subject every man disobeying their determinations to excommunication and censures of like nature, the most terrible and fearful punishment of this world; and all judgements Ecclesiastical, even general Counsels may err & have erred even in things pertaining to God, as is defined in their Articles, and is commonly taught & believed with them: this consideration is able to put men not regardless of salvation, into more than a quaking palsy. What the meaning of the good man is in this passage, I do not well conceive: For I see not but all these considerations may well stand together; that the truth is to be found out & followed upon pain of damnation, that Counsels may err, and yet have power to subject such as disobey their determinations to excommunication, the most terrible and fearful punishment of this world, without any danger of causing men to fall into a quaking palsy. For are they all in state of damnation that are excommunicated, whether justly or uniusty? or may no man subject men to excommunication but he that cannot err? Surely all men know 
d Turecrem. lib. 2. de eccles. c. 93. Bellar. de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 11.  that not only Popes and particular Bishops, but even general Counsels may err in matters of fact, and excommunicate a man unjustly for resisting their determinations. And doth not Saint Augustine show that by the means of prevailing factions, men may be unjustly excommunicated, and never restored to the outward communion of the 
e August. de vera Relig. c. 6  church again, and yet die in state of salvation? nay, be rewarded for the patient enduring of the wrongs offered them, by them by whom they were excommunicate? It is no such absurd thing then, that they may err, who have authority to excommunicate. But perhaps his meaning is, that if Counsels may err, there is no certain way to find out the truth, which yet every man is bound upon peril of damnation to find and follow: and that it is the consideration hereof, that is able to put a man into a quaking palsy. Surely this man seemeth to fear where there is no fear: for are there no other means to find out the truth, when questions and doubts trouble the church, and distract the minds of men, but general Counsels? How did the Fathers in the Primitive Church, during the time of the first three hundred years, satisfy themselves, and such as depended of them, in the midst of so many, so horrible and damnable heresies as then rose up? Doth not 
f Lib. 1. de council. c. 10.  Bellarmine from hence infer, that though general Counsels be a very fit and good means to end controversies, and settle the differences that may arise in the church, and so much to be desired, yet if they cannot be had, the truth may be found out by other means? yea have not the Fathers in factious times complained, that they never saw good end of any council? and yet were resolved in matters of the faith, and able to settle others also.   

CHAP. 7.  
IN this chapter, wherein he indeauoureth to show that traditions are of equal authority with Scripture, and yet prove the Roman Religion, he hath these words. The dignity and authority of unwritten and Apostolical traditions being lawfully proved, was ever esteemed such, that M. Wootton affirmeth, out of all question we are bound to keep them, and telleth, that M. Perkins was of the same mind. This is an ill beginning, for whereas he should prove, that the Apostles delivered some matters of faith by bare tradition without writing, he bringeth forth some that say, if it could be proved that any thing was so delivered, it were to be received with no less regard than if it had been written; which is, as if a man should undertake to prove out of Paul's Epistles, that the Angels in Heaven, and the Apostles of CHRIST are to be anathematised and accursed, because he saith, 
g Gal. 1.  If we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other doctrine then that ye have received, hold him accursed. Wherefore to help the matter, and to make some show at the least: whereas we say, If any thing could be proved to have been delivered by the Apostles, by tradition, it were no less to be esteemed then things of the same nature written by them; he citeth our words as if we confessed there were certain unwritten Apostolical traditions, which were ever esteemed equal with the Scripture, but not before they were proved to be such. D. Field, saith he, speaketh of such traditions in these words; There is no reason but these should be equal with Scripture: for it is not the writing that giveth these things their authority; but the worth and credit of him that delivereth them, though but by word, and lively voice only. In this allegation he wrongeth me no less, then in other before; for these are not my words, as he untruely affirmeth against his own knowledge, but speaking of the divers kinds of unwritten traditions imagined by the Papists, I say. 
h Pag 3. 75.  All these in their several kinds they make equal with the words, precepts & doctrines of Christ, the Apostles, and Pastors of the Church, left unto us in writing; neither is there any reason why they should not do so, if they could prove any such unwritten verities: for it is not the writing that giveth things their authority, but the worth and credit of him that delivereth them. The only doubt is, whether there be any such traditions or not? Is this to acknowledge that there are unwritten traditions of equal authority with the Scriptures? If one of his fellows should tell him, if he were Pope he could not err, would he infer, his fellow were so mad to think he could not err, that doth nothing else but err, and mistake all that he citeth? But he saith, I add, that the perpetual virginity of our Lady was a tradition, & only received by such authority; & so do other Protestants: & that both they & I acknowledge Heluidius was condemned of heresy, & justly for denial thereof: which could not be, except to deny the doctrine of true traditions were to deny the word of God in their judgements. This is an other notable and shameless falsification. For, I neither say, the perpetual virginity of our Lady was a tradition, nor that Heluidius was condemned, and that justly for the denial thereof, but my words are. 
i Pag. 376.  The Canon of Scripture being admitted as delivered by tradition, though the Divine truth of it be in itself clear, not depending of the Church's authority, there is no matter of Faith delivered by bare and only tradition, as the Romanists imagine. The only clear instance they seem to give, is touching the perpetual virginity of Mary, which they say cannot be proved by Scripture, and yet is necessary to be believed. But they should know that this is no point of Christian faith. That she was a virgin before, in, and after the birth of Christ, we are bound to believe as an article of our faith, and so much is delivered in Scripture, and in the Apostles Creed; but that she continued so ever after is a seemly truth, fitting the sanctity of the blessed virgin, and is de pietate, but not de necessitate fidei. Neither was Heluidius condemned of heresy for the denial hereof; but by such as thought it might be proved out of Scripture, or by such as detested and condemned his madness and desperate singularity, in pertinaciously urging the denial of it upon misconstruction of Scripture, as if the denial of it had been a matter of faith. And surely, whatsoever this man think to the contrary, 
k Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. fol. 445.  Melchior Canus is of opinion that the perpetual virginity of Marie the mother of our Lord, is not believed only or principally as delivered by tradition, but that the very consideration of the respect that was due to so sanctified a vessel of the incarnation of the Son of God, as was her body, would make us persuade ourselves she never knew man after she was so much honoured as to be the mother of God. This consideration, no doubt, moved the Fathers to be of this opinion, rather than any tradition.  
In the next place he setteth down my discourse and division of traditions approved by Protestants in the twentieth chapter of my fourth book of the Church, leaving out divers things in setting down the same for his most advantage, as the Reader will easily perceive, if he peruse the place. But to what purpose he produceth this discourse & division of mine, I know not. For first, if he think that I now yield more unto than in the matter of traditions, them our Divines heretofore have done, as he seemeth to do, in that he saith, though untruly, that I prevent and confute the usual objections of Protestants about the doctrine of traditions, he is greatly deceived. 
l De tradit. ex 1. decreto 4. sessionis.  For Chemnitius in his Examen of the Tridentine Council admitteth all those kinds of traditions which I have delivered. I will set down his discourse in his own words, that the reader may see he saith fully as much as I have done. Primum genus traditionum est, quòd Apostoli tradiderunt doctrinam viuâ voce, sed illa postea in scriptura literis consignata est. Secundum genus traditionum est, quòd Libri Scripturae sacrae non interrupt â serie temporum, sicut Augustinus loquitur, & certa connexionis successione ab Ecclesia custoditi, & fideliter ad posteros transmissi, nobisque quasi per manus traditi sunt. Tertium genus traditionum constituimus illud, de quo loquuntur Irenaeus lib. 3. & Tertullianus the Prescript: Recitant autem quid sit illud quod ex traditione probant, & sunt illi ipsi articuli fidei, quos symbolum Apostolicum complectitur. Illos autem in scriptura multis manifestis testimonijs tradi nullum est dubium. Quartum genus traditionum est, de expositione, vero sensu, seu natiuâ sententiâ scripturae. Quintum genus traditionum constituimus illud, quod Patres aliquando ita vocant illa dogmata quae non totidem literis & syllabis in scripturâ ponuntur, sed bonâ, certâ, firmâ & manifestâ Ratiocinatione ex perspicuis scripturae testimoniis colliguntur. Sextum genus traditionum constituimus illud, quod de Catholico Patrum consensu dicitur. Septimum genus traditionum est, quod ubi Veteres mentionem faciunt traditionum non scriptarum, propriè non intelligunt dogmata fidei, extra & praeter Scripturam recipienda, etiamsi nullo Scripturae testimonio probare possunt, sed de ritibus & consuetudinibus quibusdam vetustis loquuntur, quos propter antiquitatem ad Apostolos retulerunt. Verisimile est quosdam etiam alios externos ritus, qui in scripturâ annotati non sunt, ab Apostolis traditos esse, & nullis quidem certis & firmis documentis probari potest qui sunt ritus certò ab Apostolis traditi, qui ex Scriptura ostendi non possunt. These are the words of Chemnitius, whereby it appeareth, that he admitteth all those kinds of tradition which I do, and yet rejecteth the imagined traditions of Papists. D. 
m Whit●…. disp. de sacra script. quaest. 6. controu. 2. cap. 6.  whitaker's likewise acknowledgeth, that the Apostles of Christ ordained & appointed in the Churches certain rites, and observations for order & comeliness, which they did not commit to writing, because they were not of necessity to be perpetually observed in one and the same sort, but dispenseable according to the circumstance of times and places. This he proveth out of the first to the Corinthians, the 11 and 14 chapters. Secondly, if he think their erroneous opinion touching traditions, may be inferred from any thing that I acknowledge, he seemeth to be too weak in understanding, and not to know what the state of the question is between them and us; for the question is not, whether there be any traditions or not, but whether (it being first supposed, that the Prophets, Apostles, and other holy men of God left unto posterities divine and sacred books, and it being agreed upon, which they ate) they contain all things necessary to be known and practised by Christian men, for the attaining of ever lasting life and salvation. We say, they do. Neither can he prove the contrary out of any thing written by me. For I acknowledge nothing to have been delivered by tradition, but the books of Scripture, things therein in some sort contained, and certain dispenseable observations not at all, or hardly to be discerned from Ecclesiastical constitutions.  
Let us see therefore what he can conclude out of any thing that I have written for the confirmation of the Romish error. To make, saith he, a short reflection upon his doctrine; by his first rule of traditions; he must grant unto us which I have proved before at large, that all those books which the Roman church approveth for Scripture, together with the special doctrines of prayer for the dead, to Angels, etc. are traditions. For Doctor Field and his rules do so assure us. It seemeth my case is harder than I was ware of, & my danger greater than I supposed it had been. But what are those rules assigned by me which assure us that all the books approved by the Roman church are canonical? Have they been ever holden to be so? Have the most famous in all ages, or at the least in divers ages constantly delivered them unto us, as received by them from those that went before them, no man doubting of them? Did the Pastors of any Apostolical church in the world successively deliver them as canonical to their aftercommers? He knoweth they did not. For as I have 
n Page 381. & 382. of the 4. book of the Church.  elsewhere proved, Melito Bishop of Sardis, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Nazianzen, Cyrill, Epiphanius, the Council of Laodicea, Ruffinus, Hierome, Gregory, Damascene, Hugo de sancto Victore, Richardus de Sancto Victore, Petrus Cluniacensis, Lyranus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas Aquinas, Occam, Picus Mirandula, Waldensis, Armachanus, Driedo, Cajetan, and all the most famous Divines in all ages reject them, save only Augustine, the third Council of Carthage, & some few other; who yet as Cajetan thinketh, received them not as absolutely canonical, but in a sort only, in that they contain a convenient good direction of manners. The Reader, I doubt not, will easily see his folly in this point. But it may be, the special doctrines of prayer for the dead, and to Angels, whereof he speaketh, will be found Apostolical traditions, by those rules that I allow of. Surely no, for howsoever it was a most ancient and laudable custom of the church to remember the names of the dead at the holy Altar, and Table of the Lord, with desire of their and our final consummation and public acquittal in the day of CHRIST, and some particular men doubtfuly extended the same practice and custom farther to the mitigating, suspending, or total removing and taking away of the punishments of Christian men dying in the state of mortal sin: yet the Popish opinion of Purgatory, and prayer to deliver men from thence, were not once heard of in the Primitive Church, nor are yet received by the greatest part of the Christian world. Touching prayer to Angels, it was condemned by the Apostle Saint Paul, the council of Laodicea, 
o Aug. de vera relig c. 55.  Augustine, & 
p Theod. in ep. ad Col. cit. Synod. Laod.  Theodoret, but that the church did invocate Angels from the beginning, that the most famous in all ages did teach men so to do, or the Pastors of any Apostolical church successively one after another, which are my rules he speaketh of, neither he, nor any Papist living can ever prove.  
The second thing he would infer out of my words is, that we must of necessity resort to the Romish church to know and learn the form of Christian doctrine, the explication of the several parts thereof, and the obscurities of Scripture, for that I say the Apostles delivered the form of Christian doctrine as a tradition to posterities, & no posterity of Protestants can be of this posterity, because both their priorities & posterities deny traditions. Thus than the good Author reasoneth. The Protestants are none of those posterities to which the form of Christian doctrine hath been derived from the Apostles by the line of succession: therefore we must resort to the Roman church to know it. The antecedent of this argument he proveth, because as he saith, both priorities & posterities of Protestants deny all traditions. Surely the man committeth so many faults in this one silly argument, that I know not well what first to except against: For neither is it consequent, that if Protestants be not of that posterity to which the form of Christian doctrine was commended and delivered from the Apostles, that we must of necessity seek to the Roman church to learn it. Neither do Protestants deny all traditions, as he untruly affirmeth, but only the false imagined and vain traditions of Papists and other heretics. We therefore to silence this trifler, do profess, that the form of Christian doctrine is not to be sought in the Roman church alone, or the other Christian churches that now presently are in the world, but in the consenting voice of Pastors and people succeeding one another; they that went before ever reporting & delivering to them that came after them, the things they had learned of their elders, that so what doctrine the Apostles first delivered, might by their aftercommers be delivered to all posterities. Of these posterities we profess ourselves to be, receiving without any doubt or questioning, whatsoever we find to have been delivered in all places, at all times, by all Christian men, not noted for heresy or singularity, and rejecting those things that have no testimony of antiquity: as the Popes not erring, his universality of jurisdiction, his power and right to dispose the kingdoms of the world, private Masses, half communions, Papal indulgences, and all such things as any way carry the mark of novelty and singularity. But, saith he, D. Field in the fourth and fifth kinds of traditions speaketh of them in the plural number, and yet giveth no example of the fourth, but the baptism of infants, nor of the fifth and last, but the observation of Lent, and Sunday, or the Lord's day: therefore he must seek for more than he remembreth, and consequently, in all equal judgement, as many articles of Catholic religion, as we claim by tradition. The answer hereunto is easy; for touching the fourth kind of tradition I define it to be the continued practice of such things, as are neither contained in Scripture expressly, nor the example of such practice there clearly and expressly delivered, though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained, and the benefit or good that followeth of it. The only example I give of this kind of tradition, is the baptism of infants: yet may I speak in the plural number, as I do, because not only the baptism of infants is of this sort, but many very material things belonging thereunto; as that in time of danger of death, they are to be baptised with all possible speed, lest we seem to contemn or neglect the Sacrament: that this may be done in private houses, either by dipping, or sprinkling, as well before as after the eighth day. If this Author can tell us of any more examples of things of this kind, the necessity whereof may be proved out of Scripture, though the practice of them be not there expressed, we will admit them, but they will make nothing for the confirmation of Popish unwritten traditions, seeing such things are written in respect of the causes and grounds of the necessity of observing them, though not by way of express precept, or report of practice: and therefore it will not follow from any thing that I have said in the judgement of any man, though not indifferent, nor equal, that I must admit so many Articles of Religion, as Papists shall be pleased to claim by tradition. Of the fifth and last kind of traditions, which he divideth into two, though I make but one, I give but only one example: which is the observation of the Lords day, which yet appeareth by 
q Revel. 1. 10  Scripture to have been in use even in the Apostles times. For touching the Lent Fast, I do not give it for an example, as he untruly reporteth, but only having described the fifth kind of traditions, say, that some think the Lent Fast, & the Fast of the fourth and sixth days of the week, to be of this kind.  
The next thing which he urgeth in his reflection upon my doctrine, as he termeth it, is, that if the traditions of the last kind be confounded with Ecclesiastical constitutions, as I say they are, that we might the more reverence the constitutions of the Church, we must at last recant our contempt and dislike against them. For answer hereunto, I will first show that the traditions of the last sort, are so confounded with Ecclesiastical constitutions, that it can hardly be certainly known which they are. Secondly, that we never disliked the ancient constitutions of the primitive and first Church, and therefore need not recant any such dislike. That Apostolical traditions of the last kind are confounded with Ecclesiastical constitutions, it is most clear & evident, in that some reckon one thing, and some another; and our Adversaries dare not peremptorily say, which amongst those traditions diversely and differently mentioned by the Fathers, are Apostolical, and which not. 
r Tertul. de corona militis.  Tertullian accounteth all these following to be Apostolical traditions; thrice dipping of them that are baptised; the interrogatories, respondes, and words of sacred stipulation used in Baptism; the renouncing of the Devil, his Angels, and the pomp of the world when we come to the water of Baptism; and before in the presence of the Bishop; the foretasting of milk and honey, and the abstaining from bathing and washing a whole week after; the taking, or receiving of the holy Sacrament in the time of ordinary repast, oblations for the dead, and for their birthdays every year the same day they died, standing at prayers on the Lord's day, and from Easter to Whitsuntide, and the signing of men's foreheads with the sign of the cross, Harum, saith he, & aliarum ciusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam invenies: traditio tibi praetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, fides obseruatrix: that is, Of these and the like observations if thou seek for any written law or precept, thou shalt find none. Tradition will be alleged unto thee, as author of them, custom as the confirmer, and faith as the observer. Hereunto some 
s Basil. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 27.  add, praying towards the East, 
t Leo epist. 4. vniuers. Episc. per Siciliam.  baptising at Easter and Whitsuntide only; Hierome accounteth the Lent-fast amongst traditions of this sort. His words are. 
u Hieronym. ad Marcell. advers. Montan.  Nos unam quadragesimam secundum traditionem Apostolorum toto anno, tempore nobis congruo, ieiunamus: We fast one Lent according to the tradition of the Apostles in the whole year, at a fit and seasonable time; to whom 
x In concord Evang. ca: 15.  jansenius agreeth, saying, that the observation of the Lent-fast seemeth to have proceeded from the tradition of the Apostles, which though perhaps it did not bind all by any express precept from the beginning; yet being kept in all ages, and in all parts of the world, had the strength and force of a law. I think there is no Papist will say certainly that all these were Apostolical traditions, but whether they do or not, it is most certain they think themselves no more bound to keep them then mere Ecclesiastical constitutions, which are established by the authority of the church, and may be the same be abrogated and reversed again, in that the most part of all these are out of use in the Roman Church. For they think not thrice dipping necessary, following therein the authority of Saint Gregory; they fore-taste not milk and honey, 
Greg. l. 1. epist. 41.  nor milk and wine when they are baptised; they abstain not from bathing a whole week after baptism; they stand not at their prayers from Easter to Whitsuntide, nor on the Lords days; they keep not the Lent fast, as the Primitive Church did, and as all other Churches of Greece, Armenia and Aethiopia do to this day by eating nothing till night, and by abstaining from wine, strong drink, and whatsoever is pleasing; but they make a mere mock of God and men in their observation of Lent, and other fasts, in saying a part of their Evensong in the morning, that so after the ending thereof, at dinner time men may be thought to go to supper, and to do as the Fathers did, that did eat nothing on their fasting days, till the evening; they fast not the Wednesday, which in the primitive Church was fasted as precisely as Friday, but in steed hereof they fast on Saturday, which anciently was not fasted in many churches, nor yet is in the Churches of the East; they baptise at any time in the year; If they have disused and left off these observations, as no doubt they will profess they have, let them not think that we contemn or condemn all those ancient customs which we use not, but have a due respect to circumstances of times, and the different states of things. Tertullian and the ancient, thought it Nefass, an unlawful thing to kneel at prayers on the Lord's day: we think it very lawful, fit, and seemly; yet are we not contrary to the Fathers. They suffered none to be baptised, but only at Easter and Whitsuntide, we admit men to baptise at all times; they dipped those whom they baptised, thrice; we but once: they signed themselves with the sign of the cross, when they went out, and when they came in, when they put on, and when they put off their apparel; we by reason of the abuse of this harmless ceremony, in that it was used by the Romanists, not as an outward profession of their faith in him that was crucified, or a silent invocation of his name, but to drive away devils, still tempests, cure diseases, and remit venial sins ex opere operato, use this ceremony more sparingly, yet do we not wholly neglect it, but sign our new baptised infants with this glorious mark and character of the crucified Saviour of the world: they mingled water with that wine which they consecrated in the blessed Sacrament, because even in ordinary use their wines being hot, were wont so to be allayed: we not having the like reason of mixture, mingle not water with wine in the Sacrament, as likewise the Armenians do not, yet are we not contrary to the ancient Christians, nor contemners of old observations. So that to conclude this point, we approve the saying of Hierome, answering the question whether it were lawful to fast on the Saturday, or not. His words are: 
z Hier. ad Lucinium.  Ego illud te breviter admonendum puto, traditiones Ecclesiasticas, praesertim quae fidei non officiant, it a observandas ut à maioribus traditae sunt, nec aliorum consuetudinem, aliorum contrario more subverti: atque utinam omni tempore ieiunare possem us, quod in Actibus Apostolorum diebus Pentecostes & die Dominico Apostolum Paulum, & cum eo credentes fecisse legimus: nec tamen Manichaeae haereseos accusandi sunt, cum carnalis cibus praeferrinon debeat spirituali, nec hoc dico quod Dominicis diebus ieiunandum putem, & contextas sexaginta Diebus ferias auferam, sed unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo, & praecepta maiorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur. Wherefore let us proceed to see if he have any thing else to say in this hisreflection, as he calleth it, upon my doctrine.  
His fourth allegation is, that the rules I assign, cannot tell of any traditions to advantage Protestants which deny traditions: but that both traditions and rules to know them, must of necessity belong to the church apostolic of Rome, being in this question a rule of itself, as I have declared, Surely it seemeth the good man knoweth not what he saith: for in the beginning of this chapter he affirmeth, though falsely, that I acknowledge the perpetual virginity of our Lady to be a tradition, and only received by such authority, and other Protestants do so likewise. And in the end of the chapter, he bringeth in his Majesty, the Bishop of Winchester, and Doctor Covell, admitting divers traditions: and yet here he saith, Protestants admit no traditions. If he say, that they now admit them, but formerly did not, he is refuted by Brentius & Chemnitius before cited: who though they deny, as we do, that there is any article of Faith, or material and substantial point of Christian doctrine delivered by bare tradition, and not written, yet acknowledge all those kinds of traditions that we now do. In that which he hath, that the rules assigned by me, can tell of no traditions that advantage Protestants, and that therefore both traditions and rules to know them, must of necessity belong to the church apostolic of Rome, there are not a few, but very many & gross faults committed: For first, the consequence is naught the rules to know true traditions from false, can tell of none to advantage Protestants therefore they belong to the Romish church: and is no less absurd, then if a man should conclude in this sort. Parsons the jesuit is not a Cardinal, though he had once scarlet brought to his lodging in Rome to make his robes, as Watson testifieth: therefore the Author of these pretended proofs hath right to put on those robes. For as there are others fit to be Cardinals, though neither Parsons nor this good Author be: so there are other societies of Christians in the world besides the Romanists and Protestants, to which traditions and rules to know them may pertain, if Protestants have no claim to them. But the Roman Church is an Apostolical Church, planted by the Apostles of Christ, and receiving an Epistle from blessed Paul, wherein she is commended: therefore in my judgement she hath not only claim to traditions, is a rule to know them by. This consequence is as bad as the former: for I do not make the present profession, testimony, or judgement of every Apostolical church to be a rule to know true traditions by, seeing there would be no certainty in such a rule: the present profession of the Apostolical churches of Rome, Ephesus, Sardis, and Philadelphia, being contrary the one to the other; but the constant testimony that the Pastors of such a church have given from the beginning. But his Majesty in open Parliament acknowledged, the Roman Church to be our mother Church; therefore we must believe in all things as she doth, & by no means forsake her, or depart from her. For the clearing of the meaning of this speech of his Majesty, and the silencing of these cavillers, we must note, that the churches of Christ in the world are of two sorts: for some were planted by the Apostles themselves, or their coadjutors the Evangelists by their directions, which are named Apostolical churches; and some other there are, that received not the faith immediately from the Apostles or their coadjutors, but from the Churches which the Apostles had planted. The former of these were ever esteemed to be mother churches, in respect of the latter. So the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, and the like, were mother churches to many famous churches in those parts of the world; and so the Roman church is a mother church to many churches of the West, that received their Christianity and faith from her: neither may the daughter churches, as his Majesty excellently observed, depart farther from those mother churches, from which they received the faith, than they are departed from themselves in their best estate, & first establishment: but as the Romanists think it lawful for the daughter churches of the East to depart from those their mother churches, from which they received their faith, because, as they suppose, they are gone from their first faith: so we think with his Majesty, that we may justly depart from our mother church of Rome, because she hath forsaken her first faith commended by the Apostle, and is so far changed, that a man may seek Rome in Rome, and not find it. That which he addeth, that no rules can lead us to the finding out of any traditions that advantage us, is most untrue: For the certain and indubitate tradition, whereby the Scriptures are delivered unto us from the Apostles of Christ, doth advantage us so much, that thereby the Papacy is almost shaken to pieces; and besides, the form of Christian doctrine, and catholic interpretation of Scripture, brought down unto us from the Apostles, discovereth unto us the novelties and singularities of the Romanists, to our great advantage, and confirmation in the truth of our profession.  
Having thus in his fancy engrossed all traditions, & appropriated them to the present Roman church, he goeth forward and inferreth out of my admitting some kind of traditions, and assigning rules to know them, that diverse particular things which he specifieth, are traditions. The two first instances that he giveth, are the sign of the cross, and the mingling of water with wine in the holy Sacrament, whereof I have spoken before. The third, is the reverence of Images, which he saith, is by my rules, proved to be an Apostolical tradition. It is well he dareth not say, the worshipping of Images is proved to be Apostolical, for that by 
a Greg. l. 〈◊〉. cp. 9  Saint Gregory and the Fathers, it will be proved to be rather a Diabolical than an Apostolical tradition. Wherefore let us see what those rules are that prove the reverence of Images to be Apostolical, seeing it is evident 
b August. in Ps. 11●….  the church had them not at all for a long time, and 
c Euseb. l. 7. histor. cap. 17.  Eusebius assureth us, the making and having of them, was by imitation of Heathenish custom. The rules, saith he, that prove this, are the Pastors of the Apostolical Churches in the second Nicene Council, and old custom; but these are no rules assigned by me: For I never admit the judgement of the present Pastors of Apostolical churches, or custom to be rules to know true traditions by, and therefore much less make the Bishops in the second Council of Nice to be rules of this sort; but the consenting profession of the Pastors of an Apostolical Church, successively from the beginning, and the general and perpetual observation of a thing from the time that Christianity was first known in the world, by neither of which he shall ever prove, either the worshipping or reverencing of Images, to be Apostolical. The fourth thing that he saith by my rules is found to be an Apostolical tradition, is sacrifice, and prayer for the dead; but herein he is deceived, or goeth about to deceive others, as in the rest. For it is true indeed, that the offering of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the naming of the dead, and prayer for their and our joint consummation and public acquittal in the day of CHRIST, is such an Apostolical tradition as hath ground in Scripture; but, he can never prove, that the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice for the dead, or prayer to deliver them out of Purgatory pains, was delivered as a tradition from the Apostles, by any of my rules, to wit, consent of Fathers from the beginning, or continued practice from the Apostles times. The like I say of his fifth instance, for he cannot prove the vow of single life in Priests to have been from the beginning; but I have largely proved the contrary in my fifth book of the Church. So that the vow of single life is not proved out of any of the rules set down by me to be an Apostolical tradition. Wherefore let us proceed to the rest of his instances. He telleth us in the next place, that we may resolve with the ancient Fathers, that Relics are to be reverenced is a tradition, because M. Willet telleth us, Vigilantius was condemned of heresy for denying it. Surely it is greatly to be doubted, that he is not a sound and perfect Romish Catholic, for that he dareth not to say the worshipping of Images and Relics, is a tradition, but minseth the matter, and saith only, the reverencing of them is a tradition. For touching the reverence of Relics, if he mean nothing else thereby, but the reverend and honourable laying up of such parts of the bodies of God's Saints, as come to our hands, it is a Christian duty that we stand bound unto, so that not only M. Willet, but we all think Vigilantius was justly condemned, if he either despised, or contemptuously used the dead bodies of the Saints. Neither need we fly to unwritten tradition to seek proofs for the necessity of this duty, for they are plenteously found in Scripture; but if he mean by the reverencing of Relics, the showing of them to be touched and adored, we think it impiety, and know it was forbidden by 
p Greg. l. 30. ep. 30.  S, Gregory, who condemneth the bringing forth of any parts of the bodies of God's Saints departed, into the sight of men, to be seen or handled of them. That particular and personal absolution from sin after confession, is an Apostolical and godly ordinance, which is his next instance, we make no doubt; but deny that it is an unwritten ordinance: neither can this good man prove it so to be. For doth Christ in Scripture give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to the Apostles and their successors, with power to bind, and power to lose, with power to remit, and power to retain sins? and is it not a written verity, that particular absolution is necessary? His Majesty, on whom he fathereth this tradition, did most learnedly and excellently distinguish in the conference he mentioneth, three kinds of absolution from sin, making the first to be the freeing of men from such punishments of Almighty God, as sin subiecteth them unto, in that they offend him: and this is proper to God, in that he only hath power not to punish, that hath power to punish; and the Ministers of the Church concur hereunto no otherwise, but only by bringing men by force of the Word and Sacraments into such an estate, wherein God finding them, will not punish them. The second kind of absolution, is the freeing of men from the censures of suspension, excommunication, penitential corrections, and such punishments as the Church may inflict: and in this kind the Church may properly be said to absolve. The third kind of absolution, is the comfortable assuring of men upon the understanding of their estate, that they shall escape Gods fearful punishments. In these two later sorts the Ministers of the Church have power to absolve, and personal absolution in either of these senses is rightly said to be an Apostolical and godly ordinance: but it is a written ordinance, and not an unwritten tradition, which is the thing that this man should prove. There is another kind of absolution imagined by the Papists: which is a Sacramental act, giving grace ex opere operato, to the remission of sins, which is not an Apostolical ordinance, but an invention of their own, whereof I have spoken 
q Appendix to ●…e 3. book of the Church. cap. 24  elsewhere. Touching the ministration of baptism by private persons in the time of necessity, it is not said to be an unwritten tradition by the Bishop of Winchester, and therefore it is not to this purpose: no more than that Bishops are said to be Divinae ordinationis: seeing the distinct degrees of Bishops and Presbyters are proved out of the Scripture. That confirmation is an Apostolical tradition, we confess; but it is a written tradition, both in respect of the first practice of it by the Apostles, who laid their hands on such as were baptised by others; from which authority, the custom of imposing hands doth come, as 
r Hieron. contra Luciferian.  Hierome testifieth; as also in respect of the necessity of the continuance of it, in that the Apostle to the 
s Chap. 6.  Hebrews, reckoneth the imposition of hands together with the doctrine of baptisms, amongst the foundations of Christian religion. We doubt not therefore, but it is a fitting thing that the Bishop should confirm by imposition of hands, those that are baptised by others, but it is rather for the honour of Priesthood, than the necessity of any law, as Hierome testifieth; for that otherwise they were in a woeful case, who in places far remote, die before the Bishop can come to them, if none could receive the 
t Hier. ubi suprà.  spirit of God but by the imposition of his hands. It is therefore a sacramental compliment not to be neglected, but not a Sacrament: But this good man will prove it to be a Sacrament. First, because, as he saith, it is so joined by us with baptism. And secondly, because it hath both a visible sign and grace by the communion-booke revived. It seemeth he was never any good disputer, he bringeth so many weak & silly arguments, and yet urgeth them as if they were unanswerable. Surely these reasons will be found too weak to prove confirmation a Sacrament, if they fall into the hands of any one that will take the pains to examine them. For first, if he mean, that it is joined by us with baptism as a Sacrament, he is greatly deceived, seeing we join it only as a Sacramental compliment. And secondly, though it have an outward sign, and invisible grace; yet the sign is not so much a sign of that grace which the Bishop imposing hands by his prayer obtaineth for the confirmation of the parties he layeth his hands upon, as a sign of limitation, or restraint, specifying and setting out the party on whom he desireth God to pour his confirming grace: and therefore it hath not the nature of a Sacrament, wherein there must be a visible sign of that grace that is conferred. Secondly, because, though the Bishop overshadowing the party by the imposition of his hands, do in a sort express & resemble the hand of God stretched forth for the protecting, assisting, and safe keeping of the party, which is an invisible grace, yet it followeth not that it is a Sacrament: for the 
u Acts. 2.  fiery and cloven tongues, were a visible sign of that gracious gift of the spirit which the Apostles received in the day of Pentecost, enabling them with all fiery zeal to publish the mysteries of God's kingdom in all the several languages of the world; yet were they no Sacraments, as 
x Bellar. de Sacram, in genere.  Bellarmine noteth, because the grace whereof these fiery tongues were a sign, was not given by force of this sign, as a set mean appointed by almighty God: So in like sort, the imposition of hands is a sign of protecting, assisting, and safe keeping grace, not given or obtained by the due use of this sign, as in Sacraments, but to be obtained by the prayers of the Bishop and Church of God. That which he hath out of Basil, is to little purpose; for I hope, he thinketh not the doctrine of the Trinity to be holden by bare and only tradition, without the warrant of the written word or God. And if Saint Basil reckon the form of words, wherein we profess our faith in the blessed Trinity, to be a tradition, it proveth nothing against us, seeing the thing so professed is contained in Scripture. That the ordaining of Bishops in Dioceses to rule their churches, and metropolitans in provinces to call and moderate Synods, was an Apostolical tradition, we make no question; but we deny it to be an unwritten tradition. For whereas in the Acts 
y Acts. 20.  Paul sendeth for the Presbyters of Ephesus to Miletum, in the 
z Reuel. 2.  Revelation it appeareth by the Epistles of the Spirit of God, directed to the seven churches of Asia, that amongst many Presbyters feeding the flock of Christ in Ephesus, there was one chief, who had a kind of eminent power, who is named the Angel of the Church, and who is commended or reproved for all things done well or ill within the limits and bounds of the same. That the Bishop of Winchester saith, the Article of Christ's descending into hell, and the Creed wherein it is contained, is an Apostolical tradition, delivered to the Church by the direction and agreement of the Apostles, is nothing but that we all say. Neither is the Popish conceit touching unwritten Articles of religion, thereby confirmed: for howsoever the Creed of the Apostles may be said to be a tradition in respect of the orderly collection of the principal heads of Christian faith into a brief sum and Epitome, which are scattered here and there in Scripture; yet no Article of this Creed is believed or received by bare and only tradition, but they are all proved out of Scripture, as that worthy and learned Bishop doth most excellently confirm and prove the Article of Christ's descending into hell out of the same.  
After these particular instances, this author groweth to a general conclusion, and asketh why we may not say with the Council of Florence, cited by M. Willet for general, and the patriarchs of the Apostolic Sees there present, with the Council of Constance not of unequal authority, and the Council of Trent, that Protestancy in all points is false, and Catholic religion true? It seemeth the good man is near driven, and hath spent all his strength in this tedious discourse of Traditions, and therefore in the conclusion he taketh a strange course: for instead of proving by the testimonies of protestants, as he undertook, that Romish religion is true, and Protestancy false, he asketh, why he may not say, with the Counsels of Florence, Constance, & Trent, that Protestants religion is false, and the Romish profession true? Touching the Council of Trent, it is of so great authority with us, that if he had been pleased to let us know his name, & urge his own authority, we would as soon have listened unto him, as to that Council in any thing it hath defined touching the controversies that are between us and the Papists: for we know, that howsoever there wanted not many learned and worthy men in that meeting, that opposed themselves mainly against many things there questioned, and in conclusion agreed upon, they were forced to give way to the prevailing faction. I will give one example in steed of many, 
a Vega. defence. trident. dear. de justif. l. 9 c. 7.  touching the certain knowledge each man hath of his own estate, whether he be in grace or not. There was great opposition in that meeting, many protesting, 
b Ibid. cap. 46.  that the authors of uncertainty would bring in a worse error, than any was imputed to Luther; yet the conclusion passed against them, though in some ambiguity of words and terms, to give them some contentment: the like might be said touching 
c Ibid. ca 8.  the authority of the vulgar translation, and sundry other things, as it appeareth by the confession of their own Divines there present. Wherefore to pass by that Council, and to come to the Counsels of Florence and Constance, I marvel that this man dareth say, they are of equal authority, whereas Cardinal 
d Bellar. de Concil. c. 7.  Bellarmine reckoneth the Florentine Council amongst those that are absolutely approved, and that of Constance amongst those that are partly approved, and partly rejected, in which number he doth likewise account the Council of Basil. But it may be he is of the faction of the French, who deny the Council of Florence to be general, who neither would 
e Andrad. de Script. & trad. authorit. lib. 2.  come to it when it was holden, nor receive the decrees of it when it was concluded. It is true indeed that many Bishops of the oriental and Greek Churches were there, and many of them consented with the Latins, in hope of help from them against their barbarous and cruel enemies, so that it may carry some show of a general Council; but the Patriarch of Constantinople was dead before the conclusion. Some protested against the union there agreed on; the churches of the East would not admit it, as being concluded by their Bishops that were there without commission from them, & therefore do not account it a lawful, free, general council. But (saith he) the patriarchs of the Apostolic Sees of Alexandria and Antioch, were present with the Bishop of Rome, and subscribed to the decrees and conclusions of that Council, therefore it must be accounted general. The antecedent of this argument is most false & untrue. for the patriarchs of the Apostolic Sees, were not there in person, but others supplied their places; neither can he say it was all one, as if they had been personally present: seeing what their Vicegerents did in their names, in all likelihood they would have done, if they had been present; when themselves confess, that the acts of the Pope's Legate, are not of binding force, unless he ratify them, for that sometimes, as in the deposition of Ignatius, & setting up of Photius, they may go against his instructions. This I do the rather insist upon, for that the union agreed on in this Council, and consented unto by these Vicegerents, was disliked by the Bishops that remained at home, and so could be of no force; they that were sent, having no commission to discuss or determine any other points of difference, but that touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost; and yet adventuring of themselves to define and determine some other very important controversies. But to let this pass, these two Counsels of Florence and Constance are ill matched by this Author. For they agree no better together then fire and water; the one of them defining, that the Pope is head of the whole universal Church, and the other making him only head over particular churches, but subject to the whole universal church, and a general council representing the same. Whereupon 
f Cit ab Andrad. ibid.  Cajetan denyeth it to be a general Council, and others say, it was a general Council, but partly approved, and partly rejected. And doubtless, howsoever this Author make show to the contrary, yet he knoweth right well, that this Council did more advantage our cause, and shake the Papacy, in making the Popes as men, subject to error and vile disorders, inferior to general Counsels, than it helpeth them, or hurteth us, by disliking and condemning some positions of Wickliff, partially and corruptly gathered out of his writings by his adversaries, and taken in the worst sense; which were so uttered by him, as being rightly understood, might have a good and Catholic meaning, as Gerson testifieth. And therefore, if it were granted, that it was a lawful general Council, yet it followeth not, that I must acknowledge Romish religion to be true in all points: seeing it is pronounced false by this Council in the chiefest and most principal of all other, which is touching the supreme commanding power of the Pope over the whole universal church, & his infallible judgement from which no man may appeal.  
But such is my infelicity, that I must be forced to acknowledge, that Romish Religion is true in all points, though this council define the contrary. His words are. This of necessity Doctor Field with his protestants must acknowledge, or freely by their recited doctrine confess, that there neither is, nor can be hereafter, by his rules, any true and certain Scripture, tradition, or religion in the world. A hard case, and ill choice, if we must needesrunne into one of these extremities, either to acknowledge that our whole religion is false, or that there is no certain Scripture, tradition, or religion in the world. But though the Sea be before us, and Pharaoh and the Egyptians behind us, yet I hope we shall neither fall into the hands of the one, nor be swallowed up of the gulfs of the other. Let us see therefore whether our danger be so great as he would make us believe. If saith he, we neither have Scripture, exposition of the difficulties of it, nor tradition, but by tradition, as Doctor Field hath granted, and those only three rules to know them: if those rules may propose unto us false Scripture, false expositions of their obscurities, and false traditions in matters of faith, faith cannot be certain, & the religion grounded upon it is overthrown. If this be all, I hope the worst is past; for if I should grant as he maketh me absurdly to do, that we have neither Scripture nor tradition, but by tradition: yet cannot those rules I assign to know true traditions by, propose unto us false Scriptures or traditions. For what are they, but the constant practice of the whole Christian church from the beginning, the consent of the most famous learned in all ages, or at least in divers ages, no man contradicting or doubting, and the constant testimony of the pastors of Apostolical churches, from their first establishment successively witnessing the same things? Indeed if these rules could propose unto us false traditions, false Scriptures, or expositions of the difficulties thereof, our faith could not be certain, & all religion were overthrown: but neither he, nor all the Devils in hell shall ever force us to acknowledge any such thing, neither is there any point of Romish superstition proved by any such traditions, as are found to be true traditions by these rules. But will some man say, doth he make no show of proof, that we acknowledge these rules may propose unto us false traditions, false Scriptures, & expositions of the difficulties in them? Doubtless he doth. For thus he concludeth very terribly against us. The testimony and judgement of the patriarchs or Bishops of Apostolical Sees, is one of the rules assigned to know true traditions by; but we acknowledge, that the patriarchs of Apostolic Sees did err in the Council of Florence, & propose unto us false expositions of Scripture: therefore we must confess whether we will or not, that the rules we assign, may propose unto us false Scriptures, & false expositions of Scripture. Unto this concluding argument, wherein the force of the whole chapter lieth, we answer briefly and peremptorily. First, that the mayor proposition is most false, as he well knoweth; for I never make the judgement and opinion of the present Bishops of Apostolical churches, to be the rule to know true traditions by: but deny it, and profess the contrary against the Papists, and make only the testimony of the Pastors of Apostolical churches, successively from the beginning witnessing the same things, to be a rule in this kind. Secondly, that the patriarchs of the Apostolic Sees, he speaketh of, were not at the council of Florence in their own persons, but had others to supply their places, whose proceedings they disclaimed, and voided whatsoever they did in their names, because they presumed to discuss and determine diverse matters of controversy without directions and instructions from them. But howsoever we think of the proceedings in this Council, yet he saith, no Protestant church can show any such authority for their cause, as that of the Counsels of Florence, Constance, and Trent. It had been well if he had been better advised before he had so much disenabled us: for he shall find that we can and will show far greater authority for our cause then the late Counsels of Florence, Constance, and Trent, and that in the weightiest points of all other. For did not the Bishops in the great Council of Chalcedon, profess openly, that the reason why the Fathers gave the preëminence to the Bishop of Rome, was the greatness of his city, being the seat of the Emperors, and that they thought it fit to give equal privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople for the same cause, seeing it was become the seat of the Emperors, and named new Rome? Did not the 6. general Council in Trullo confirm the same parity of the B. of Constantinople with the B. of Rome? and do not the decrees of these two Counsels shake in pieces the whole frame & fabric of the Papacy? Did not the second, fourth, and sixth Counsels, etc. make the B. of Constantinople a patriarch, and set him in degree of honour before the other two of Alexandria and Antioch, notwithstanding the resistance of the Roman Bishops, & their claim from Peter? Did not the sixth general Council blame the Church of Rome for sundry things, and particularly among other, for forcing married men entering into the orders of ministry, to forsake the matrimonial society of their wives? Did not the Council of Nice refer both Bishops and other inferior clergymen to be ordered by their own metropolitans, and the 
h Conci. Carthag. 6. &. 7. cap. 105. epist. Concil. ad. Celestinum.  Counsels of Africa thereupon condemn appeals to Rome? Did not the Council of Eliberis forbid the lighting of tapers in the Coemiteries, or places of burial, to the disquieting of the spirits of the Saints departed? and did it not abolish those pernoctations in the places of burial which Hierome urged so violently against Vigilantius, and forbid the having of any pictures in churches: Ne quod colitur, aut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur? Doth not the Canon of the Apostles prescribe, that all the faithful that come together in the Church, and communicate not in the Sacrament shall be excommunicate, which also the Council of Antioch reviveth, and confirmeth? Doth not Gelasius command all them to be excommunicated, that receiving the Sacrament of the Lords body, abstain from the participation of the cup? Did not the church of Rome think it so far necessary that the people should communicate in both kinds, that Ordo Romanus prescribeth on good Friday, when they consecreate not, but receive that which was reserved being consecrated the day before, they should take wine & consecreate it by putting or dipping the body of the Lord into it, with pronouncing the Lords prayer, that so the people might receive the whole Sacrament? and yet now the half communion is sufficient. Did not the Milevitane and Arausicane Counsels condemn those errors touching the strength of nature, and power of freewill to perform the works of virtue, without assistance of special grace? which since have been received in the Roman Schools, as if they had been catholic verities. The like might be showed in many other particulars, but these may suffice. Wherefore let us proceed to his vl chapter.   

CHAP. 8.  
IN this chapter, first he showeth that general Counsels are of highest authority in the Church of God: and secondly, laboureth to prove, that they testify for Romish Religion. To prove that Counsels are of highest authority in the Church of God, which no man denyeth, he produceth the testimonies of the Bishop of Winchester, Doctor Morton, the Protestant Relator of Religion, and Doctor Sutcliffe. And lastly addeth, that I am clearly of the same opinion, assuring all men, that the interpretations of Scripture proposed by private men, are not so proposed and urged by them, as if they would bind all others to receive them, and that none but Bishops assembled in a General Council may interpret Scriptures in such sort, as by their authority to suppress all them that gainsay such interpretations. For so are my words, which he hath altered, to make men think I allow none in any sort to interpret Scriptures, but general Counsels: wherein he wrongeth me, as he well knoweth, seeing I profess the contrary, even in the place cited by him. This allegation of my words might have been spared, seeing there was never any man doubted of the truth of that for proof whereof he allegeth them.  
Wherefore let us come to his second part, wherein he endeavoureth to show, that general Counsels make for the Romish Religion: this he proveth, because when Protestants deny the authority of general Counsels, they have no excuse, but because they were called by the Pope's authority. So, saith he, Doctor Field, Doctor Sutcliffe, M. Willet, and the rest. Surely it is a most shameless kind of dealing to charge men with that they never thought, spoke, nor wrote: yet so doth the honest man use me in this place: and therefore citeth neither book nor page, as he is wont to do, but sendeth his Reader to seek that which he shall never find. For I never denied the authority of any council, only because it was called by the Pope, as he untruely reporteth: so that it is vain and foolish that he urgeth, that in so doing I contradict myself, in that the rules assigned by me to know true traditions, as the testimony of the Pastors of Apostolical Churches from the beginning, the practice and consent of holy Fathers do warrant us, that that privilege ever belonged to the See of Rome, that without the consent thereof no council could be called, none confirmed. For the clearing of this point, touching the calling and confirming of counsels, we must note, that they are of divers sorts: some Diocesan, holden by each Bishop in his Diocese: some Provincial, consisting of the Bishops of a Province called together, or at least moderated by the Metropolitan: some patriarchical, consisting of the Metropolitans and Bishops of divers Provinces under one Patriarch: and some Ecumenical, consisting of all the Bishops in the world. The canon he speaketh of, must be understood of Ecumenical counsels only, wherein things concerning the faith and state of the whole Catholic church are handled; for otherwise each Bishop might hold a Diocesan Synod, each Metropolitan a Provincial, and each Patriarch a patriarchical, without requiring the consent of the Bishop of Rome: wherefore let us see how, and in what sort the consent of the Bishop of Rome was required to the holding of general counsels, and to what purpose his confirmation of their decrees was sought. Cardinal 
i Concord. cathol. l. 2. c. 15  Cusanus handleth this matter excellently well, showing at large, that the meaning of the Canon of the primitive church, was not to give any such absoluteness to the Bishop of Rome, that his negative should dash all, or his affirmative establish what he pleaseth, without the consent and approbation of the rest: but that being one of the prime patriarchs and chief Bishops of the Christian church, nothing should be concluded without seeking, requiring, and expecting his presence, joint deliberation, and consent: which is not to be marvailed at, seeing no general council can be of force, wherein the meanest Bishop in the world is purposely neglected, or refused, offering himself to such deliberation. As no chapter act can be good, wherein any one having voice in chapter, is neglected, or excluded: though when he is present, or at least called, & not excluded nor neglected, things may pass, though he say no; even so in like sort in a general council, though no such assembly be lawful and of force, wherein the Bishop of Rome is neglected, or his joint deliberation and consent not sought: yet a man is rather to adhere to the Fathers in such a meeting consenting together, then to the person of the Pope contradicting or refusing to assent to that they resolve on: as not only those Papists do think, that teach the Pope may err, & is inferior to general counsels in the power of jurisdiction, but they also that are opposite to them in judgement, as 
k Defence. fidei Trid. l. 2.  Andradius showeth out of Cardinal Turrecremata, who professeth, that a man should rather assent to the consenting voice of the Fathers assembled in a general council, then to the person of the pope dissenting from them, or refusing to confirm and ratify that they agree upon: & that in the power of discretive judgement the council is greater than the pope. Besides this we are to observe, that when the canon provided no Council should be holden, and be of force without the Bishop of Rome, the meaning of it was not precisely in respect of his person, but of him, and the metropolitans and Bishops of the West provinces subject to him as Patriarch of the West, who were a great and principal part of the Christian Church. For the manner was when a general council was to be holden in the East, as all the general Counsels that have been were, that the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, should impart the occasions of such a general meeting in Council to the several metropolitans subject unto him; and they calling their Bishops together in their several provinces, should send whom they thought fit to the same general meeting, with such directions and resolutions, as it pleased them; and as 
l De Concil. & Ecclesia l. 1. c. 17. In council. 2. & 3. nulli suerunt ex occidente sed Damasus & Caelestinus, concilia illa confirmârunt nomine suo & aliorum Episcoporum, quos ipsi Romae collegerant. Constantinus pro 6. Concil. scribit ad Agathonem ut mittat tres personas de sua Ecclesia, & 12 Metropolitanos de suo concilio, Agatho rescribit, cum universis Synodis ●…biacentibus Concilio Apostolicae Sedis.  Cardinal Bellarmine hath rightly observed, it was enough if many Bishops of the East meeting and coming together, some few came out of the West; yea sometimes, though none at all came, as appear by the second general Council holden at Constantinople, if the resolutions which the Bishop of Rome sent as agreed on in the several Synods subject to him, as Patriarch, and the determinations of the Bishops and Fathers assembled, concurred and consented. And this doubtless was the reason why the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods, was required for the ratifying of General Counsels: because never being present in person, and very few or none of his Bishops being at those Counsels, it was necessary they should confirm & ratify what the rest in council debated, discussed, and resolved on by testifying their assent. For what could pass currently as an act of a general council, whereunto a great and principal part of the Christian World consented not? So that it was not the Pope's personal confirmation that was desired in ancient times, as if all the Bishops in the World might err, & the certainty of truth rested in him only, as some men now teach: but the consent of those Bishops that were subject to him as Patriarch of the West, as well as his own: who being absent, were to ratify, strengthen and confirm the determinations of them that were present, not as being more infallible in judgement than they, but by a joint concurrence and agreement. This is all that can be proved out of the consent of Fathers, Historians, and practise of former times; and therefore this man doth but trifle in this as in the rest. Wherefore to conclude this matter touching Counsels, I dare undertake to prove that Papists deny and reject more counsels then any of our Divines do. Touching the right of calling Counsels, and in what cases they may be called without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, without any breach of the Canon alleged, I have showed my opinion in the fifth Book of the Church. And therefore seeing the Author of these proofs proceedeth no farther in alleging any thing out of that which I have written, I will here leave him, not doubting but others whom he hath wronged will make him know he hath dealt no better with them than he hath with me, and that therefore the plausible conclusion he maketh in the end, of itself falleth to the ground, the premises upon which it should stay itself, being taken away. For we neither acknowledge thrt Papists holding the infallibility of the pope's judgement, the universality of his jurisdiction, and power to dispose the kingdoms of the world: believing freewill, to perform & do the actions of virtue, without assistance of special grace; perfection of inherent righteousness, satisfactions, merit of condignity, propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, and the like, can ever be saved so living & dying; nor that the present Roman Church is the true church of Christ, nor that the preeminence they now give to the Pope, was either claimed or practised over the whole church, from S. Peter to these our days, as this nameless and shameless Author saith we do: nor that all the books which the Roman church now receiveth for canonical Scriptures were delivered for such by the Apostles, or received for such by the church; nor that the true and best translations of holy Scripture, with the lawful supreme binding exposition of them, together with Apostolical traditions, general Counsels, or primitive Fathers give any testimony that the present Roman church is that company of holy ones, that household of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and church of the living God, which is so diligently to be sought after; whose communion we must embrace, whose directions we must follow, and in whose judgement we must rest; but chose we are well assured all these do witness against her, that she is an erring heretical, and apostatical church; that she hath forsaken her first faith, departed from her primitive sincerity, plunged those that adhere unto her into many gross and damnable errors, and defiled herself with intolerable superstition and idolatry, so that as well in respect of her errors in faith, superstition and idolatry in divine worship; as of her slanderous, treacherous, bloody, and most horrible & hellish practices, to overthrow and destrow all that do but open their mouths against her abominations, we may justly account her to be the Synagogue of Satan, the faction of Antichrist, and that Babylon out of which we must fly, unless we will be partakers of her plagues.   
FINIS.