A Gag for the new GOSPEL? NO: A NEW GAG FOR An OLD GOOSE.  
Who would needs undertake to stop all PROTESTANTS mouths for ever, with 276. places out of their own English BIBLES.  
OR AN ANSWER to a late Abridger of Controversies, and Belyar of the PROTESTANTS Doctrine.  
By Richard Mountagu.  
Published by AUTHORITY.  
LONDON.  
Printed by Thomas Snodham for Matthew Lown●● and William Barret. 1624.   

To the READER.  
PROTESTANT or Papist, English or Romish Catholic, Christian if thou be, though to all or any, I intent what I write, yet I will not press thee ●o peruse the Treatise ensuing, for I am indifferent whether thou do or no. Nor would I have so much as troubled thy Patience with a Preface, it being not tanti, which the Gagger hath grated upon, but that being put upon such a copesmate, I was of conveniency to acquaint thee first with three things: My undertaking: then my performing: and the motive of the Second, his deserving. What moved me to meddle with this Gagger: In what sort I thought fit to arrest him: wherefore I have dealt with him in such sort. And first for the first, be pleased to know  
That I coped not with him voluntarily: nor thrust myself forward of my own accord, out of a desire to be doing. I have other employments, of much more behoof, to better purpose, & my greater benefit every way; or, if I had none, pater Turrian has h●r as non sic per dear, I profess, I would never be so idle, but could more pleasingly and profitably spend my time, then in catching or killing of Flies. But be pleased to hear a story, Reader, which put me on this posture, and performing. And thus it was.  
About some two years since, as I remember, some of our Catholic Limitors, had been roaming and rambling in the Country, and broke into my pale secretly, at my Parish of Standford-rivers in Essex: and according as commonly their custom is, (that you may know of what companions Saint Paul intended, his Leading silly women captives) fell in with some, one at least, of the subordinate and weaker sex: endeavouring to make Proselytes of my neighbour's wives. Now you know their ordinary onsets, with great Out-cries of Damned Heretics, out of the Church. No Service: no Sacraments: no Ministry: no Faith: no Christ: no Salvation. Terrible Shawe-fowles to scar poor Souls, that have not the faculty of discerning Cheese from Chalk. Horrible affrights and mormolyceves, to put young children out of their wits, that cannot distinguish a physiognomy indeed from a visor.  
So it fell out, that a neighbour of mine, with whom in this sort they had been tampering, became not a little dismayed, and perplexed with these bugbears of great names and thunderings in her ears; till it came at length unto my knowledge what was done. I let her know, they were but scarrcrowes: mere words and wind, brags and boastings, and so settled her disquieted thoughts again. But yet it seemeth, they left not so. The Devil hath a name, Belzebub, the God of flies, expressing his nature, like a fly, insolent, importune, pressing on; though he fall off to day, he will re-enforcce to morrow, though he fail to day, he will assay to morrow, and still hope to prevail at last. So These, as He, came on again, though ever by owl-light. For they came to steal, and therefore feared blanchers. I could not come to God-speed, nor to confront them.  
But this I did: When next you meet with these Romish Rangers, commend me to them, said I unto my neighbour. Tell them, I much desire to be acquainted with them. I was borne, & bred, and brought up, & professed in the Religion of the Church of England: which I hitherto have thought to be the truth: held and taught as the truth: if I have been deceived, and have deceived others, I am sorry for it: my desire is to know and profess the Truth, to wave heresy, to quit error, to go out of schism, to find out the true Church of Christ, and become a member of it; and so consequently, by all possible means to save my Soul. If then their intention be such sincerely, as they pretend it is, To save Souls; they may do a meritorious deed to come and save mine, the rather, because they may go compendiously to work, in gaining me to the side, who am like enough to draw you, my Parishioners, with me, at least to make you more seasable, then otherwise you would be for them.  
But it seemed canebam sur dis, & I believe, if the relation was made, as I think it was, they gave no great credit to my words, or had less hope of their performance. For the truth is, the most of these Limitors are but poor Ignaroes': take them out of their beaten paths, they cannot hold pace.) Wherefore, seeing I could not tell where to find them, and they would not find me, where they might have me: I thought to send after them to know their minds, to understand their opinions, and see what they would say, to win me unto their Catholiqne faith. So I took pen and paper, and wrote, as I thought fit, three Propositions, promising conformity upon resolution, to this effect, and I suppose, in these terms.  
1 If any Papist lining, or all the Papists living, can prove unto me, that the present Roman Church, is either the Catholic Church, or a sound member of the Catholic Church, I will subscribe.  
2 If any Papist living, or all the Papists living, can prove unto me, that the present Church of England is not a true member of the Catholic Church, I will subscribe.  
3 If any Papist, etc. can prove unto me, that all those points, or any one of those points which the Church of Rome maintaineth against the Church of England, were or was, the perpetual Doctrine of the Catholic Church: the concluded Doctrine of the representatine Church in any general Council, or national approved by a General: or the dogmatic resolution of any one Father, for 500 years after Christ, I will subscribe.  
And to these severally I set my name, which I did to try their sufficiencies: or abate their insolences: and to settle the wavering upon those goodly pretences of Antiquity, Universality, and Conformity. I am sure I come home to them, and touch them in their freehold, as they claim it: I give them scope enough to insist upon. If they can perform this, I will not eat my words. I make it now public, which I then said in private, let them perform it, I will subscribe.  
These three Propositions, thus conceived, & signed, I then delivered unto my neighbour, the party that should have been proselyted: entreating her, to deliver them unto those her persuaders, if they came again, as she thought they would. This she promised, and at their next meeting, accordingly performed, within few days. I expected, I confess, some great undertaker, and some mighty opposition, to purpose, in points of that Nature, which touched them so near, and came up to the head of their Catholic cause; and so began to compose myself against expected adversaries of some performance at least. But many weeks, many months passed, eighteen at least, and I heard no noise of those Hereticke-quellers, my great Masters, who cease not yet to call for disputation. At length, after much expectation, upon the fifth of October last, the same party premised, presenteth me at once with two several presents. The one, two sheets of Paper, written in haste, not fully out, with two several hands. The Scribe was some puny-novice in every point of Scrib-ship. For neither could he tell how to use or dispose his points: nor yet how to spell his words. I have the Original by me, to show. Any man that readeth it, will many times be to seek, to make sense, or English of it. The Dictator, (if yet the Author and writer were divided) subscribed himself yours in Christ jesus, A. P. a silly man God knoweth as ever talked idly of the Catholic Church: the head of the Church: the Mass, Confession, and Purgatory. For his discourse (beside some scurrility without wit or tartness, of my Worship, Doctorship, etc.) smattered a little, but very poorly, and at random, upon these points: but concerning, or unto, my Propositions; 〈◊〉 my quidem Lucilianum? the Innocent meant me no hurt, therefore, he bit not.  
Marry he had a cleanly putoff for that, thus. He desireth me at my going to London, to repair unto Master May his house (these are my friend A. P. s own words) in Holborn, in Partridge-alley. A man, that I never knew, nor saw, nor heard of, albus an after, I could not tell, nor happily should have known in haste, but by his relation. From him I have it: that, He was not long since a Minister, but is now become a Catholic. In good time: through discontent perhaps, or ambition; or some such ordinary motive of such Turne-coates. My employment thither, was for Satisfaction: if yet I had been sure thereof. For I had some cause of doubt, in that which followeth. If he will not satisfy you, at least he will procure some body else. If he will not: but what if he cannot? Then from Partridge-ally, I might happily be posted to Woodcocke-walke: and thence flushed to Fooles-wharfe: and so return home, as wise as I went out.  
But secondly, to prevent or supply the worst, beside, and with his two sheets of Paper, my good friend A. Pe. out of courtesy, addressed unto me, for my better Edification, a pretty little whiplack, of less than ordinary assize, in a blue jacket; marked in the forehead, with A Gag, for the new Gospel: whose worship, until then, was as little known to me de nomine, as was Master M●●. He was sent with this Elogium and Invitation at least: If you please to answer this little book, and so explicate all the places of Scriptures and Fathers; which are cited in it, it will be a good work fit for a Doctor of Divinity (here my friend shot at rovers, I am not the man; for Doctor of Divinity I am none.) And I doubt not but by searching out of these points, you will be of another mind, as many of your coat have been, when they went sincerely, and for the love of God, and their own souls (add, and somewhat else) unto their studies. So he, in his missives of October, unto me.  
Thus briefly, as I could, I have related the occasion of my engagement, in this gagling, with the Gagger. Those Papers I answered presently as I thought fit, and left the answer to be returned unto A. P. who promised to call for it within three days; but came not within threescore, as I am informed, & if yet he have come for it, I cannot tell. The Gag I took to task, upon my return unto my books, at Windsor: as mere a gaggler as ever graed upon a green. Many idle Pamphlets in this very kind, have I seen in my days; but a verrier idiota saw I never any. With a strange opinion of their own worth, are these Catholics possessed. This poor silly Creature thought Himself somebody, and his Performing no ordinary Adventure: else sure he would not so have proscribed his pamphlet, the Gag of the new Gospel: which necessarily implieth thus much, He hath stopped the months of all Protestants for ever: the proudest of them dare not hiscere hereafter against Himself, or any one of his Lagg: but, as geese, when they go in at a barn door, or are driven on by night, a long staff or pole being held over them, go without noise or reluctancy, holding down their heads: so the appalled Protestants, being crestfallen, and cast down for ever, must go as this Gagger will dispose of them. My friend A. P. sic mulus mulum scabit, was well persuaded of this man's performance, and irresistible ability, when he sent him to me to convert me, being assured I could say little to him, no not so much as bough to a Goose, as for, Answer him, it went beyond my possibility. For this, set the jury consider: but for Conversion, no such matter I assure him: his assurance hath failed here. I am more confirmed, then ever I was in my Protestant profession, through his insufficiency. Nay, had I not been a Protestant, he would have made me one through his poor performing of what he had undertook, upon view.  
Whatsoever he intended, whatsoever he hath said, was by Him, and His, addressed, not against john a Noke, and john a Style, this man and that man of the Protestant party: not against private tenants, and peculiar opinions. For what hath the world to do to take public notice of them? as they are singular, so let them stand or fall: Salus Ecclestae, non vertitur in istis, the Church will stand and subsist without them: but he drived directly at the Church of England, that moat in the eyes of Romish Priests and Jesuits. For though he set his book to sail, with general commendations, A brief abridgement of the errors of the Protestants of our times: and so may seem to enclose our neighbours abroad: yet his drift was directly against us at home: against the Doctrine and Discipline of o●● Church. Therefore he wrote in the English tongue alone. Therefore his address is to The Protestants that are in England only. Therefore he talketh of our English translations, and in precise words instituteth his Refutation, by Express words of our own English Bibles: which confine his Gag to us alone, that are of that Church for, English Bibles, belong to English men: Strangers have their own, in their own Mother's tongue: they understand not ours, which concern them not at all.  
Now in point of carriage against the Church of England: in his Refutation of our Church's errors: in gagging up our mouths for defence thereof for ever; see the small honesty, little sincerity, and petty performing of this Gagler. In all Churches that are, or have been under heaven: even in the Chutch of Rome itself at this day, notwithstanding the conclusions of the Council of Trent: the Decisions and Edicts of Popes: the inquisitors of Heresy, and such like inhibitions to the contrary. There are public Resolutions held of all, and private opinions maintained by some, by men particular in their own Conceits: and Societies in a more general agreement in things indifferent, not the fide, or if yet of a loser and lower tye, and alloy. As those are proposed, resolved, maintained, tendered and commanded: So the other are free, and disputed and questioned, not enjoined as de fide, or Subscribed, because problematical, and no more. If a man should collect the private opinions of private men, which are differences in Schools among Scholars: nay, of the Master of Controversies, or of sentences, and impute them unto the Church of Rome, the Faith of Rome, this Gagger (if he know what to do) and his gagle, would refuse them, disclaim them, think themselves wronged, proclaim themselves belied, as Bellarmine doth often in the like case. Ex aequo & bono, and more maiorum, we may do the like. Yet see the honesty of this Imposter against us in this his poor pamphlet.  
He hath collected together, out of C. W. B. and such companions: and disposed as it happened, without order or method xlvii. several propositions. All pretended errors of the Church of England: because all contrary to express words of our own Bible's: and repugnant to Antiquity, in the Writings of the Fathers: so to fasten Novelty, and Heresy, and Impiety upon our Church. Of these xlvii. only viii. or ix. are the Doctrines of our Church. 6. 13. 15. 18. 30. 36. 42. 44. and yet not all these, as they are by him abused, embeasted, confounded, and circumscribed. The rest are partly left at liberty by the Church: not determined for doctrines either way. Many imposed by him on the Church, are directly disclaimed, abandoned, oppugned by the Church, and the flat contrary to them commended and commanded. And accordingly believed, practised, and maintained against oppugners. A mayor part are the mere opinions, private fancies, peculiar propositions of private men: many of them disclaimed by the very Authors: some falsely imputed to their Authors: some raked together out of the laystals of deepest Puritanisme, as much opposing the Church of England, as the Church of Rome. So that whatsoever is in this Gagger, is, or childishly fancied, or ridiculously mistaken, or wilfully perverted, or slanderously imputed, or maliciously proposed, or ambiguously conceived, or not justified any way: as may evidently appear in the particulars in my answer ensuing: In which,  
Whatsoever is to be owned by the Church; as resolved, and tendered, and subscribed in the authorised Doctrine or Practice thereof, is by me justified fully against him, and shall be maintained against his betters, as not contrary to Antiquity, in the Tradition of the Church, much less unto Scriptures in our own Bibles. What is involved by him maliciously, to procure envy to the side, is explicated and asserted to the proper tenants, and terms, it is showed how far the Church of England resolveth, where, and what things are left free and undetermined, for men to hold with them or against them. Private opinions, are left unto their Authors, and Abettors, old enough, and able enough to speak for themselves: In a public cause (as is, the Faith of God's Church) peculiar interests, that I know, have no such share, at least over-awing, as to command undertaking against opponents.  
In answering of whom, to come unto my course observed with him, which I thought fit in conveniency to let the Reader understand, for my own excuse, and justification, I have gone along with him, cap apee, and point per point: first, for his Scriptures, both express and to be seen; then, for his Fathers, that affirm the same, that is nothing to purpose, as little as his Scriptures did, as I could find them quoted, or could guess at them, by imagining where they might be probably spoken withal, or where I could remember to have some time left them. For our Catholics Romish, secure no question of the goodness of their cause, or rather relying upon the tractableness of their patient Proselytes, so they can make a dumb show with scoring up Fathers, do not much trouble themselves with caring, where or what they say. So this Gagger stood affected it is more than apparent. For I was often left to go blow the seek, for his Fathers. For, poor man, he took them up as he could find them by tale, without weight or trial. Some few peradventure, in the country abroad: but the mayor part by far, out of C. W. B. What he is, I cannot tell: and as he hath them, truly or falsely quoted, rightly registered, or mistaken, so in every point are they in the Gag, unless worse. Such supine negligence, secure discoursing, childish disputing in such a Master in Israel. Such infantlike performance in such a Goliath, upon whose head the Philistines have set up their rest (I speak no more in effect, than I have heard of him since I undertook him) who can bear? Beside the scurrilous fellow, according to his breeding, and education it seemeth, sure I am fitting enough his disposition cometh in with Cobblers, and Bakers, and Tinkers, and Tapsters: and Hosts and Hostesses, and bottles, and bottle-ale. Insulteth upon poor Protestants, Out of their wits, sick in their wits. Prateth of Horses and Asses praying, and such like stuff, out of his Coblersshop, or Hostess' alebench no doubt. And who is able to possess his Soul, or contain his pen in patience: that hath to do with such Impostors, Mountebanks, and Buffoons? such rake-shames, and rakehell's, as these ramblers are? I confess, that subjects of this nature, should, above all, be moderately, calmly, and quietly handled: but so, if we meet with moderate men, with quiet men, with temperate, honest, and discreet men: with men not projected, prostituted, and given over, unto lying, calumniating, traducing of all that concur not with them; as this companion, and his comerades are: who have no intent to make up any ruins or decayed places in the Church: to heal the sores, cure the wounds, mollify the swellings, cleanse out the empostumations in the mystical body of Christ: that aim not at peace, nor would procure unity, nor any way endeavour that those who profess Gods holy name, may agree in the truth of his holy word, and live in unity and godly love, but make their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their whole endeavour their special study day and night, by all kind of iniquity, to keep a faction on foot, and maintain opposition, even where it needeth not. Such are to be curried in their kind: and to be rubbed as they deserve: in no case to be smoothed or sleeked over, lest they please themselves too well in their impiety.  
It was ever held lawful to call a spade a spade. Saint Paul gave not Elimas any gentle terms: nor did Saint Peter speak butter and honey unto Simon Magus. Our Saviour himself, that man of meekness, called Herod a Fox, and judas a Devil, when they deserved it. I confess, I have dealt with this man, as I would not have dealt with every one, nor so as happily, my person and calling would in some men's opinion require: but sure, as he, and such as he deserve to be dealt withal. For shall I suffer him, to rail upon to blaspheme, to calumniate, to belie so impudently the Church of England, as he doth, beside his Tapster-like phrases of Ale, and Hostesses, and not make him hear of it on both his ears, but gild him over with good language? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let himself, or his companions, or any Papist in the pack, go honestly, sincerely, soberly, scholarlike to work: Let him set affection, faction, partiality, sinister ends apart: Let him come home to the points controverted, without rolling, rambling, raving: join issue instantly with the Question where it lieth. I am for him, no man more ready, more willing, more submiss, more desirous to go calmly and sedate to work, for God's glory, the Church's tranquillity, the good and benefit of myself and others. To learn, to hear, to be advised, to yield to evidence, and convicting proof, out of Scriptures, out of Fathers, the total Tradition of the Church: No otherwise willing to deal with moderate men, than I have and do, with that worthy Baronius, in his kind. But for this man, those that think otherwise must pardon me; As a wise man is to be heard with attention, so a fool must be answered according to his folly. And so have I answered this goodly Gagger.  
Thus Courteous Reader, having given thee an account of my coming upon this employment, and secondly of my carriage of it, with the reason of my demeanour in it, I come to the Gagger, to cope with him, leaving thee to the Protection of the Almighty.  
Windsor, December 28. Thine in Christ's service RI: MOUNTAGV.   

THE PREFACE, answering that of the Gagger's to his Catholic Reader.  
IAm not, nor would you have 
Courteous Reader, before I press thee to peruse this treatise, have, I pray thee, so much patience, as to permit me, to give thee my advice concerning some certain points very necessary for th●e, the ●ett●● to s●me thyself thereof with fruit and profit.  me, it seemeth by your inscription Sir Gagger, much interessed in this your Preface. For you will not, I suppose, admit me● for one of your Courteous Readers: and I profess, I am none of your Catholic Readers: that is, as you intent it, according to the Romancutt. Your inscription, is only to the Catholic Reader: your address alone unto the Cu●●eous Reader. And sure I am, you need both the one and other: Catholic and Courteous, or none at all, to overview your pure Naturals. Indeed, because Catholic, believing any thing: therefore so courteous, admitting, admiring any thing. You are sure of a Courteous one, without more ado, if he be a Catholic one that readeth it. Such Readers you lead in a string by the nose: you need not pray them their patience: spare that pains and engagement, you are sure enough of so much patience, as heart can wish, though, otherwise affected, or but indifferent Readers, would count it a pressure, to peruse such idle treatises, as you permit yourselves leave to send amongst them. But Sir, what incongruity is this, which your Gagger-ship presenteth us with, at the first Gaping? It was intended by you, and accordingly fitted, to choke up the new Gospel, and Gospelers for ever. The very title doth challenge that opinion, and threaten that performance, and yet see your unadvisedness, you would not have it put into their mouths at all. Catholics alone, are addressed and invited to it: that is, Biddengape to begagged. They only are to read it, and to receive advice in what sort to use it: that is, to serve themselves thereof with fruit and profit. Whereas in all Eristicall discourses, those ad oppositum are to be Readers, if not only, yet principally: as men to be converted or confounded, of that which is written against them. For my part, I desire not, nor would I willingly mask under a Catholic cloak at all, yet as some Protestants sometime, out of a desire, to be Eye-witnesses of your Antique tricks there, do covertly repair unto your Masses: so for once I care not if I take upon me the style of a Courteous and Catholic Reader, to hear your advice concerning those same points which are so very necessary for your Catholics in perusing this treatise, the better to serve themselves thereof with fruit and profit; in all, and in 
The first point is, that in the inscription thereof, it doth not tell thee out of which English Bible, the alleged p●stages are extracted. For as much, as this were mecrely in vain: sith that England hath brought forth within these few years past, to the number of 20. seueral●●orts of Bibles, far different one from another, so that the Protestants have not all one sort of Bible Notwithstanding know this for certainty, that they are faithfully taken forth of the B●●le in quarto Printed at London by Robert Barker, Anno, 1615.  the several points, no doubt, of great and much behooveful observance.  
The first point is, an excuse of some negligence, or at least oversight in the very title of the Pamphlet. For whereas the refutation of the errors of the Protestants, so vaunted of, was undertaken to be out of express texts of their own Bible's: this indetermined generality may amuse and puzzle the Reader, who will be to seek without all question, out of which English Bible, the alleged passages are extracted. Well thought upon, and to purpose. Bonum factum, had he been so punctual and precise in his Texts of Fathers, to be seen for affirming, God knoweth what oftentimes: in none of which, the editions are specified; being many, diverse, and different. In many of which, no place designed: or but at rovers and random, or else falsely, and not to purpose. Some advice would have been thought upon here: Bibles are of more special care, I grant. Therefore as this was necessarily done: so in discretion that should not have been left undone.  
And yet, what such necessity; to tell the Reader, out of which English Bible they were alleged? Great doubtless: For Qui bené distinguit bene docet. England hath brought forth within these few years past, to the number of twenty several Bibles. I grant that, perchance to the number of twenty, and twenty thousand, in many several impressions, and editions, in folio: in quarto: in octavo: as many hath Rome, and Lions, and Antwerp, and Paris, and other places, nay far more, brought forth several sorts of the vulgar Latin, and sent them abroad into the world. It was very unadvisedly therefore done of Bellarmine, Valentia, Vasquez, and the rest of our Controversors, not to give us a special direction unto that precise Edition which they followed, as you have done for yours, of 1615. in quarto, by Robert Barker: that we might address ourselves, in perusing Controversies, unto the Edition by them followed, the time, place, and quantity thereof. Surely a material and most remarkable advice, Catholics could never have perused this treatise with profit; without this.  
Oh but the Protestants sorts of Bibles, are far different one from another. Mean you in form? So are yours: but than you enlarge beyond art and skill. There are but five several forms of Bibles at the most. You mean in matter: For the translations differing one from an other. Then in plain English, you lie. Name me ten of this twenty if you can. Some different Translations there have been of late, but authorised I know but two: The Bishops as they call it, and this last which hath perchance been printed in several forms, twenty and twenty times, but without diversity in the Translation. So that you might as well have directed your Catholic Reader to 1614 1616, or any other year, as well as 1619. by Robert Barker.  
But admit there had been amongst ut twenty several Translations, (as you belie us:) so long as authority gave not countenance unto them, what can we be taxed for more than the Church of Rome may? not so much as the ancient Catholic Church might. For beside eight or nine several translations into the Greek tongue; Saint Augustine is punctual, Lib. 2. cap. 11. de doct. Christ. that the several Latin Translations in his time, could not be numbered: and Hierome in his preface upon josua saith, there were Tota exemplaria quod codices: as many Translations as Copies. Which variety he misliked, but S. Augustine doth well like. And in the Church of Rome at this day, are more several Translations extant of the Scriptures into Latin, then are in England into English: beside the corrections of the Lovanists, of Sixtus 5. and Clemens Octavus, contrary, repugnant to one the other. Besides the infinite variety of the vulgar Edition, not one copy almost like unto another. It cannot be objected with such good reason unto us, what edition do you follow? as it may be unto you with reproof enough. Do you follow Sixtus or Clemens in your quotations? For we affix● no infallibility unto any Translator, as you do to their Holiness, that have thwarted and crossed shins with one the other. And if you tie your men in public passages unto your authorized Edition: so do we our men in public Liturgies, in like sort. jam sumus, ergo pares. And you may turn your finger home upon yourself, before you point it out to us; so that we Papists have not all one sort of Bible.  
One, or many: if it had been so material, or so necessary for the Courteous Catholic Reader to know, which Edition it was you followed, but that you are merely a vain man, the inscription might have told us which you followed: without any great ado, or encumbering of the Page, thus; After, English Bibles, you might have added, in quarto, by Robert Barker, 1615. and not made so much ado about plain nothing: but than you could not have had this fling at so necessary a Point, the great variety of our translations: and such an opportunity was not to be slipped, for giving the Protestants a wipe with a mere lie, of the multiplicity of Bibles differing one from another.  
Seconded with another of like nature: For know for certain; Reader, whatsoever thou art, there is no such 
If any one shall show unto thee some other Bible, wherein they are not so written, word for word, as here they are, yet rest assured, and out of doubt, that thou shalt find them written as they are here alleged, at the least in this of Robert Barkers.  faithfulness in these citations as this man pretendeth. For neither are all citations word for word expressed in the Gagger, according to our Bibles of any Translation, but sometime the sense only: sometime not that: and sometime express consequence and no more. Contrary to promise and undertaking: even so, when the sense is not differing from the supposal: For by promise he was bound unto express and direct words. And yet pardon him this false asseveration, that they are not so written, as he pretended, not in that Edition of Robert Barker. As for instance, Luc. 24. 27. & 8. 13. Math. 9 3. 3. 8. and 3. 5. 6. and 19 12. Act. 15. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 14. 32. 2 Cor. 11. 2. and 2 Cor. 5. 10. Philip. 2. 30. Esay 49. 21. And haply other places beside these. This is the first point, Reader, to serve thee for thy profit and together fruit thereout.  
A second is, touching the splendour of Truth: which 
The second point is, that thou admire the splendour of Truth, and accordingly to stand as stoutly and as immooveably in the maintenance and defence thereof.  indeed is admirable and attractive. Falshood, and fraud are corner-creepers, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Truth is ever with a cheerful countenance: and as the vertical sun at noon: which having dispelled both the darkness of the night, and fogs of the day, shineth forth in brightest glory. But there are shadows as well as substances: et notâ maior imago, most an end in course of kind, the shadow is of greater aspect than the substance. Truth is, appearing, as well as Being. The devil will seem an Angel of light. Not the veriest These that ever took purse, but will say of his fellow, and swear for himself, we are honest men, Change but the terms, the case is yours Sir Gagger. The truth is your own, is it not? Oh take it as granted: though nothing more questioned or so questionable, yet the Truth is onyour side; there is no ●ay. You may speak it boldly, and stand to it stoutly, to your Catholic Readers. For if you want Knights of the post, themselves will supply the place, and swear it. That notwithstanding the Protestant Ministers have endeavoured to observe (you would say obscure) the same by so many varieties of translations, and by such an infinite number of corruptions and falsifications, yet nevertheless their condemnation is so expressly set down, in their own Bible, and is so clear to all the world, that nothing more needs hereto, but only that thou know to read, and to have thine eyes in thy head, at the opening of this their book. Even as you put the words into their mouths, as a witness at large, in case of Tithes once did swear in my own hearing, he knew the place, Tithable, for 300. years, and yet was aged but 99 years. This man spoke with a good will to the cause; So will your Catholics if you ask them; touching Protestant Ministers, their Translations, Corruptions, and Falsifications believe you, forestall you, protest and swear for you, accordingly. Can you desire greater Courtesy than so? Some variety of Translation betwixt ours and yours yourself have taken the pains to observe: in these Propositions: 7. 14. 15. twice. 25. 29. 38. 46. and happily some others. Are these Corruptions or Falsifications of the text? you charge them not so: you cannot: you dare not do. Variety of Translations, for all your enlarging, there are not many. As many or more in the Church of Rome. If so: not authorised, you will say. Why no more are ours. The Council of Trent hath authorised yours: and the Church of England representative, ours. Neither one nor other, this or that, for Authentical variety of Translation, there may be some, if this make Corruptions, or Falsifications, your Authentical Latin is in a poor case: or rather a shop of Corruptions, to deprave and obscure the splendour of Truth, which is such and so passing bright notwithstanding that it shineth forth above, and against them all. For if a man can but read and have his eyes in his head: at the very opening of the book, he shall find your Bible's infinitely full of such varieties: which no man will deny, per adventure not yourself, who yet may claim to wear 
Yet nevertheless their condemnation is so expressly set down, in their own Bibles, and is so clear to all the world, that nothing more needs hereto, but only that thou know to read and have thy eyes in thy head at the opening of this their book.  a Livery, as one of Belzebubs attendants in this kind. And for Corruptions and Falsifications, if they be so infinite and so clear, it had been honesty to have named half a score, half a dozen, one at least, to have acquitted your tongue of Lying and slandering: as it is, Calumnia est, non accusatio. There are quoted by you in your Abridgement, 276 several places of Scripture, or thereabout. It seemeth strange unto me that not one of these should fall foul upon that infinite number of corruptions and falsifications which you talk so freely and loudly of unto your Catholic Reader. Had there been any such thing to be discovered, your charity we know is no way so Transcendent, as to conceal it: we should have heard thereof on both ears to a purpose. He can do little that can not belie his adversary in gross, though put him to proof, and he proveth recreant. Do this, I challenge your Gagship if you can or dare; or prove yourself a Gagler and a Goose for ever. For variety of reading, depravation, corruption, falsification, here I offer to charge and prove, your most Sacrosanct Authentical edition of Trent, in the best and most corrected copy you can choose, is as guilty of at and every one of these particulars, as you or your betters can prove our Bibles to be. When you will, or when you dare, undertaken it shall be.  
And 
* This in my mind cannot choose but be an exceeding comfort unto a Catholic. Yea, rather a great sign of security and assurance concerning the truth and uprightness of his cause in showing himself content to be tried by their own Bibles. The translations whereof doth in a number of places, and particularly in those that are now in controversy, swerve and differ notoriously from the Authentical Latin and that to the incredible disparagement, darkening and obscuring of the Catholic verity.  this in my mind is but a cold comfort unto a Catholic, who opineth, poor deceived soul, that he may be secure, and build his salvation upon the facing impudence of every light-skirt mountebank, and shaved emposter. You do well to seal up the truth and uprightness of this forlorn cause of yours, with security, and assurance, that is, to captivate their understanding with implicit faith. For you know, and I can make it good, that let the Truth you talk of, come to scanning, Lucian's true History will be as warrantable. It is true, I deny not, our translations all, and singular, and so your own, done by your own men, differ both amongst themselves, as also from the Authentical Latin, as you call it, notoriously: your Authentical Latin, differeth from itself: Is this to the disparagement, darkening, and obscuring of the Catholic verity? Look you to that. I can rid my hands of it well enough, and clear both our Church a●d Bibles, of all such imputation, or impeachment of Catholic verity any way. If it bring such disparagement, the reason is, in my conceit, you swerved even from the Council of Trent, which never intended such a royal prerogative unto your Latin edition, as the jesuits and jesuited faction give unto it. I speak not this to disparage it. I profess, I respect it, as much as any Translation extant, and to quite your kindness, in being content to be tried by our Bibles, I will be tried in any point the Church of England maintaineth this day against the Church of Rome, by no other but your own Authentical Latin. Eat your words Goodman Gagger: 
Never did, nor never dare our adversaries offer themselves to give the like advantage to us, as to be tried by our own translations.  I am your adversary I profess myself: I will and dare offer myself to give what advantage you can make thereof, to be tried by your own Translation: and to deserve your love the more, may happily ere long Gag your mouth in this very kind of putting you to it with your own translation. In the interim, put me to it when you please, I will not wave your so Authentical Latin, in maintaining the assertions of our Church. And so much for your second point of advice unto your Reader.  
Thirdly, you advice him somewhat farther off, for general affronting the Protestant in any point whatsoever, 
The third is, that when thou shalt urge, or allege, any passage in favour of thine own faith, if any one return the change, be it either in recrimination● and blaming of the Roman Church; or be it in alleging some obscure text, and ill understood to counterpoint thine. Show, etc.  as I can conceive it in brief thus. The manner of the Protestant is in conference of controverted points, when he is urged with text of Scripture, plain and evidens, to beat back the argument, or as you phrase the thing, to Counterpoint it, with some other text of Scripture. For instance, when you bring those evident few words, This is my body, they use to rebutt it with john 6. 63. The flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life: and by this allegation, suppose they have put by the point of your weapon, or given you a great overthrow; as you speak. In such a case, your advice is, to show the party amiably; that this is not to proceed by order, and that he dealeth not with thee as he ought, nor sincerely, in opposing a passage dark and obscure, to confound a passage that is most clear. A man may take good counsel of his enemy, though against his will: and so have no cause to thank him for it. Sir Gagger, of yourself and your own gagle, this advice we mean to make use of, and put it home to yourselves, as we have occasion, frequent enough. I know no men guilty of this unblamable carriage, at least, so guilty, as yourselves be: I have rubbed your memory with it sometime, as it fell out. But here, having so just cause, you can not blame me if I gag you with your own gag. Mystical passages are not argumentative. What so mystical as the Revelation? In which are, tot Sacramenta, as many dark passages as there by words. And yet we want not proofs of plainer particulars, from mystical signing in the forehead. The number of the beast. Power given to the Saints over nations. What more absurd then to prove ordinary oeconomy in God's disposition, by extraordinary dispensation? This you have done, out of Math. 17. 3. Math. 27. 52. or points of faith, as you would have them, out of a dream. 2 Mac. 15. 12. Prayer unto Saints, is defined in your Creed. Your proofs for that against evident scripture, Psal. 51. 15. are Luk. 16. 24. job 5. 1. Without Purgatory, Popery cannot stand. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, two pillars of Purgatory, are those two places of S. Paul. 1 Cor. 3. 13. 1 Cor. 5. 29. then which there are not two more obscure places in all the scripture. Add to them a third, though of a base alloy, that intricate and depraved place of 2. Mach. 12. 44. I could go further, and gag you Doper, out of your own practice: Who if you had not so much honesty, as to forbear belying of your opposites, should have had so much discretion, as not to object that unto another, which, had you that good sign of a bad cause in you, Blushing, might ashame you, being by recrimination retorted upon yourself.  
I say belie: for it is not better, nor worse, but even so. For Transubstantiation, that monster of monsters, you have never done with, This is my body. Which we deny not, either in words or sense. The very body of Christ really received in the Sacrament of the Altar, is warranted by those formal words of Institution, This is my body: but not per modum Con, or Trans, or any other like. It is not said, This is my body corporally; eaten orally; there carnally; conceived of grossly. This cannot be, say the Protestants: and for proof thereof, that the thing being granted, the manner cannot be so conceived, proceedeth thus: That which one Scripture proposeth cannot be contraried by another: But this carnal sense of those words, This is my body, is contraried by another: an instance. In john 6. 63. The flesh profiteth nothing: as plain a text against carnal eating of Christ's flesh as can be. Our Saviour had formerly discoursed of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood. His very Disciples, supposing as you do, that he meant they should eat his Flesh, as they did the Fishes, or used to eat the Paschall Lamb, were here it offended. Our Saviour understanding this their scandal, replieth in these words, according to your Latin Authentical edition, Ho vos scandalisat? spiritus est, qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam: verba, quae ego locotus sum vobis, spiritus, & vitasunt. You remember an allegation you brought out of S. Paul? If these things be hidden, they are hidden unto those that perish. I put it to you, if this be obscure, it is obscure to him that will not see, or to him who justly God hath abandoned and given over. Nothing can be more direct and plain, then that our Saviour telleth them, his speech of eating his flesh, was Sacramental: not carnally but spiritually to be understood. This is it, saith Chrysostome, which he meaneth: You must conceive of me spiritually: For he that taketh this carnally, is not benefitted thereby, nor getteth any good therewith. It was a carnal thought to make a doubt, in what sort he came down from heaven: And to suppose him the son of joseph: And to dispute, how can he give us his flesh to eat? All these were carnal thoughts: which must be mystically and spiritually understood. The words that I speak unto you, are spirit and life; that is, are divine and spiritual, having nothing carnal, not any inference or consequence natural: But are freed from all such necessity as this, surpassing legal ties and conditions below; containing another sense, and meaning, then is literally set down. If this be not an important passage, go gag Saint Chrysostome, and other ancient Fathers that put this saying into the Protestants mouths: as plain a text of Scripture as, in the beginning God made heaven and earth. Plain or obscure, yet to no purpose. For, it affirmeth nothing less than that which they pretend to prove thereby. And what is that? are you aware of it? That the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing. It is plain the flesh profiteth nothing. It is plain, the passage is of Christ's flesh: Therefore the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing. This you say is absurd. And so say I: nay I add, this is impious. For, his Flesh is life; and giveth life, and therefore nothing profiteth so much as that. If the passage be not of Christ's flesh, of what is it, can you tell? I believe you cannot. But your instructors can tell you, they would have it taken, that Carnalis intelligentia non prodest. Good: And so say I. But Intelligentia cuius? of a certain individuum vagum, abstrahendo from all subject, or object whatsoever? Idle, and absurd. But Carnalis intelligentia of that which must be taken spiritually. And so of this place: and principally, and primarily of this place, as giving occasion unto this Axiom of our Saviour: The flesh profiteth not. This is not urged by Peter Martyr, or any Protestant, against Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body: but against This is my body by this means; This way, that is, by Transubstantiation. Which is carnally to take that, which was spoken and intended spiritually only.  
It is easily granted you by the Protestant, and you might have made your friends of this advice that way. That it is doubtless better to explicate an obscure passage by one that is clear, than one that is clear by a passage obscure. For reason itself, and commonsense will dictate this, that the proof must be more evident than the thing proved. The epexegesis, more manifest than that which is explained. The Protestants observe this course they say. You in this so small a Pamphlet, as I have let you see, are culpable that way more than once. It is much more clear and evident what our Saviour meaneth by Flesh and Spirit: Then how; This can be my body. Sic etiamsi carnem ait nihil prodesse ex materia, dicti dirigendus est sensus. Nam quia durum & intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem eius, quasi verè carnem suam, illis edendam determinasset, ut in spiritu disponeret statum salutis, praemisit, spiritus est, qui vivificat. Atque ita subiunxit, caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scilicet. Tertul. de Resur. cap. 37. Entanglements and obscurities in this place, if there be any, proceed from your glosses, not the places, nor yet the Resolutions of antiquity. Were your rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That one text should give place to many, rather than many unto one or fewer, yet apply that rule you may, where it will or need be fitted, here no need of any such advice at all, where, Alterius sic alter poscit opem locus, & conspirat amicé.  
The fourth will hardly come under the title of advice, 
The fourthiss, that they reject some one of the passages, which thou producest, pretending it to be Apocrypha, though it be not true.  it is rather a vaunt, at most and best an Information, what is observed in the Gag, concerning texts out of Scriptures Apocryphal, to make good the assertions against the Protestants. The man supposed exception would sometime be put in against some of his witnesses (though for my part, I have passed them all, without putting back any, as homines legales, to say what they could) for he knew well enough they were exceptive, and not passeable in strict terms and just exception. Therefore to prevent what he feared, their credit is salved as 
That to prevent this objection, no such scriptures as they call Apocryphal are there produced, but still there go accompanied with them others also that are Canonical.  much as may be, that is, they are brought in as o in cipher, to enhance the number only, so as they with others may make up a tally. Others beside them pass currant and with weight. They without others carry no credit. Know, saith he, that to prevent this objection (viz. that the testimonies are authentical) no such scriptures as they call (and have proved, and will maintain to be Apocrypha) are here produced, but still they go accompanied with others that are Canonical, by their own confession. Which I grant is observed, for the most part at least. Nor will we refuse a testimony of Aristotle, or Demosthenes, that agreeth with, and cometh in with subordinate dependence upon Scripture. Where Scripture is apparent, and consent incident, and manifest. But non feremus, as in the point of Purgatory is obtruded, a plainer and more obvious place of Toby to interlope betwixt two Canonical Texts, the hardest two in Saint Paul, and all agree in one as well as harp and harrow: nor any correspondency in the vinculo communi, as is pretended, to make utraque unum: and all speak for that which is far enough from all, or any state of Purgatory after death.  
The second branch of your fourth point I mislike not at all for the matter of it. Scripture is not in the words, but in the sense and meaning of the words, that is, in the notions 
But if they shall contend with thee not about the words themselves, as being both clear and Canonical, but about the sense, or meaning of them know this that for such places as may be subject to such cavil thou hast here the warrant and authority of the holy fathers which have understood these places, in the selfsame sense that Catholics do. A thing which they can never do in their defence.  and intents of the Spirit of the highest, intimated under the covert of words. There are more things than words to express those things by. Hence doubts and ambiguities do arise about the meaning of things expressed by those words. There is none at all, or little contention about the words of Scripture. All is about the sense & meaning of the Scripture: & how we may grow unto resolution, where doubts and ambiguities do intervene. I will not go with you about the bush. I come home, up to your own desire; The warrant & authority of the holy Fathers, that is, the practice and tradition of the Church, shall regulate, I promise you, my resolution, and settle my judgement in things that are huius controversi. I will not put in exceptionem fori. For I am assured I need not, I appeal unto antiquity and will follow you where you dare adventure to call me. I know your performance that way: I laugh at your vanity in bragging of Fathers that have understood these places, in the self same sense that Catholics do. What Fathers have said for you in Gagging our mouths I have examine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every one. Their answers to the questions proposed to them: their resolution for the points remembered, he that will know may find, and as he findeth, so pronounce. What we can do in our defence may appear when we come to be defendants. This I will promise, out of my ownepoore reading I will drop Fathers with a better read man then you are in them point per point, 
And what reason were it then to prefer the private interpretation of a Cobbler before S. Chrysostome, of a Baker before S. Basil? of a Tinker before Tertullian? and so of others.  and if I say not more for my cause, that is for justifying the Church of England, than you have done for calumniating of it: or can say for justifying your Popish faith, I will be reconciled to Pope Urbans faction: For unto the Church I need none. We use not Sir scurility to consult with Cobblers, or Bakers, or Tinkers, they and their Trulls may meet at their stawling kenns with such clapperdogeons as yourself. Little better are those Patrons of your forlorn cause, Abdias, Amphilochius, Martialis, and others: and those Tararagmales, the Decretal Epistles of the Pope's scullen-boyes making: or the outcasts of some grooms of his stable. Tertullian, Basill, Chrysostome, and the rest of the worthies of their times, we neither geld, nor delumbate for speaking too plain nor use them like you; as merchants do their counters, sometimes for a que, sometime for a thousand pound. Ever in their place we hear them speak, rise up with reverence, at their asseverations yield unto their dogmatic conclusions. Take not this as an enlargement, or braggadochianisme. I that say it will perform it: Put me to it as you can or dare, if I fly from antiquity, hisse at me for ever. I could have played the fool in alliteration, and hunted the letter as you have done. But I speak plain English, without a Cobbler for Chrysost. a Tinker for Tertullian, a Baker for Basill. Then Tertullian, Basill, Chrysostome, and the rest of their compeers I desire no better dayman, or Diribitores betwixt you and me. Therefore set your heart at rest, set out when you will, I will walk along with you to the Father's houses; and stand to their award whatsoever.  
But the fifth and last is any thing rather than advice: indeed, vox, and praeterea nihil, pure Popish Catholicisme, that is, insolent triumphing before victory, nay before stroke stricken in the field, dividing of the spoils of poor Protestants, men of no action or performance at all; men that will look before they leap, and go warily and wisely to work, never sell the skin before the bear is slain. It may be some one, nay any one Protestant, that hath but been at Rama, and saluted the school of the Prophets, can discern Saul amongst them, a fellow that as idly taketh God to witness, as Saul bound Israel foolishly with an oath, which in conclusion might have cost him dear. The man was afraid he should hardly find 
I here protest in the presence of God, whom I call upon in this behalf.  credit upon his word (being happily known for one amongst his people, that will speak when he cannot do, or meaneth not to make performance) therefore he putteth forward with an oath, and protesteth in the presence of God more than he is able (believe me Reader) to make good; That it is not in the power of all the Protestants in England to find in their own Bibles, one only express text; what to do? by which they can possibly prove one only point of the false doctrine. I might say he doth aequiuocate in false doctrine, and intendeth a refuge, when he is shamed, viz. That false doctrine is not proved by our Bibles. But I cavil not at words, I take his meaning. He suppeseth all our doctrine is false, and not to be justified out of Scripture. Which if it be not, I will grant it false, and am ready to disclaim and to abjure it.  
It is our doctrine, he saith, No man can forgive sins but God. If it be, there is express text for it, and that also exclusive, Luc. 5. 21. Who can forgive sins but God only? An interrogation, in your own learning, is equivalent to a Negative. None but God can forgive sins. Here is, neither adding, nor diminishing, nor changing aught. Your own Authentic Latin hath it so, Quis potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus? It is our doctrine, he saith. No man hath seen God at any time. If it be so, it is express words of our, and your Bibles. No man hath seen God at any time. Deum nemo vidit unquam. johan. 1. 18. Here are two texts, that is more than one only; in their Bibles also, not only in our own, express as may be, without adding, diminishing, or changing, to prove two points of our doctrine imputed unto us by himself, collected out of his observations: and yet the brazen face, and leaden heart, is not ashamed to brag it so catholicly, and call God to record of an apparent lie. It is our doctrine that some things are hard in divine Scripture. Saint Peter 2. 3. 16. saith as much. It is our doctrine, some things are easy. Heb. 2. 2. Write the vision and make it plain upon tables, that he who runneth may read it. Deut. 30. 11. This commandment which I command thee this day is not hid from thee: neither is it far off. It were easy to pass through all points of controverted opinions and show the vanity of this vaunt: the confident impudence of this Ignaro. But extra oleus: this is no place for that purpose. I may happily find him more work this way than he can handsomely clear his hands of in haste: without adding art, diminishing, changing, or such like practices of litting Law, the architectonical science of our Popish Catholics. Ex animi tui sententia Gagger. Who are more likely to play such tricks of legerdemain, those that never used to pair, prune, shave, gold, or correct Authors, but plainly send them forth in puris naturalibus, as they find them: or those that make a trade and profession of it, and blush not to publish unto the world, that all Writers, old or new, sacred and profane, must speak as our Masters will have them speak, or hold their peace for ever. This you nor can, nor do deny. To this day you put it in practice. For according to such directions from higher powers. The Bibliotheca Saint Patrum, was last year printed at Cullen. Shameless Mountebancks that object that to others, whereof themselves are notoriously guilty. But it seemeth this man did, as the tale is; a wench once gave her mother counsel to do. A brace of neighbours, women by sex, scolds by profession, falling out, after they had passed some ordinary language, saith a daughter of one of them to her mother; Oh Mother, call her where first, lest she call you so, and prove it. Have you heard of this good counsel? I am sure ye follow it to an heir. It is your profession, to add, diminish, alter, change, to aequiuocate yourselves, and teach your Authors so to do notoriously. For fear we should justly lay it to your charge, you prevent us, and cast it in our teeth. But play the honest man once in your days: name where, when, how, by whom this hath been done.  
I name yourself guilty of this cozening trick; and name for false and ridiculous interpretation, the 1. of Saint Luk. 8. 9 and Levit. 16. 17. in the sixth Proposition. For adding to Math. 9 8 in the eleventh Proposition. For diminishing Phil. 2. 30. in the fourteen Proposition. Tria are not omnia: but enough to shame you if you be not past grace and shame. In brief your whole book is compacted by this art. For 39 of these Propositions, are no doctrines of the Church of England; those that are, are unfaithfully handled. By ambiguity, by adding to, taking from, perverting of sense and meaning, this little Pamphlet is merely made. Detract these particulars, not so much will remain, as with a whole impression to stop one mustard pot. I shall not need actum agere here, I have discovered your false play in particulars hereafter.  
This is to employ I ●rowe, man's wiliness if not wisdom to serve the devil: both are bad, but yet better it were 
Which yet should be to alter the text, and to employ man's wisdom in stead of the word.  to employ man's wisdom in stead of the word. For true wisdom is of God wheresoever or howsoever, Lying is, you have heard from whom: the father of lies, that grand Pedagogue in the jesuit schools brought you up a good Proficient in this faculty: you may sing a song of degrees there in medio chori: according to your progress from our twenty several Bibles, and their manifold varieties, to their more Corruptions and Falsifications, to darken and obscure the truth: and yet those also handled sophistically, and contrary to the mind of all antiquity: nor only so, but never produced without some trick of adding, diminishing, or 
A thing by their own confession forbidden them they protesting, etc.  changing by interpretation: that the old saying may take hold upon the Gagger, Qui semel verecundiae fines est transgressus, eum graviter oportet esse impudentem. Sir know this. Our profession is not such as yours is: our practice answerable to our profession. We protest you say, and we do so indeed, that, The word of God containeth all that is necessary to salvation. Your sarcastical irony shall not beat us from it. And therein we say no more than Saint Paul in that well known place of 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17. The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect unto all good works. For to know God in Christ is life eternal. joh. 17. 3. That is the way unto, and means whereby to attain eternal life. The absolute direction for that way is joh. 20. 31. These things are written that you might believe that jesus is Christ, the Son of God, and that in believing ye might have life through his name. These are more texts than one, and without adding, diminishing or changing aught by interpretation, as express as words can make them: that all things necessary unto salvation, are contained in the Scripture. Yet farther to be enforced by this reason. Salvation is the end of reueiled knowledge from God: If that knowledge be not sufficient, God is defective in proportioning the means unto the end intended: which avouch, if you can, without blasphemy. If man add any thing to it as defective: or detract from it in the materials, or alter and change it against mind and meaning, we may well inquire, quo warranto he doth it, and condemn his presumption as enormous. An Ambassador hath commission and instructions from his pen, according to them he must proceed. Differ he must not upon life: nor change the state and terms of his direction so far, as to come short of, to exceed upon, to be thwart unto, and against the main of the business negotiated. Explain he may, add, detract in words: alter phrases, or occurrences according as occasions are, so he hold the main, and keep close to the meaning, and direct unto the end of his negotiating still; Circumstances sometime may alter much, this point discretion must regulate as it may: but substances altered, make a main change, indeed aliud, and aliud, not aliter If we say it is not lawful for men nor Angels, to add, diminish, or alter aught thereof, we mean for the main and substance of the Gospel, we intent not such a precise observance, as not to say, Rites, for ceremonies: statutes for ordinances: Church for congregation, and such like, or vice versâ. And therein we say no more than Saint Paul himself hath said in so many words (an other express text, for another point of our false doctrine) Gal. 1. 8. Though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach unto you otherwise, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Otherwise, so as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thereby to corrupt and abolish the Gospel. Now this is not only when they preach contrary, and amolish the whole. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if they alter and change some small obvious thing, saith Chrysostome: and his reason is, The Scriptures were commended to us by God, the Lord of all: Men and Angels are but servants, whose commendation is, to do his will.  
This precise obedience hath that warrant yet further: It is better to obey God then man. If men stand ad oppositum to God. But we are not thus persuaded of Antiquity: We nor use them so: nor speak so of them. We command not our followers utterly to renounce all antiquity, customs, multitude, humane wisdom, judgements, decrees, edicts, or counsels. The Counsels of Trent, of Florence, of Lateran, are not all Counsels. We refuse them as factious, as bastards, as partiaries, as having nothing but the names of Counsels. You refuse more Counsels than we do: in the four first so highly commended by your own Gregory, you presume to prescribe, you reject, and retain what you please. We accept them absolutely sans exception. We may as well press you with the Sinods of Gap and Dort, as you us with Trent, and diverse others. Edicts, and Decrees, and Imginents, what mean you by them? of whom? where? when? upon what grounds? why? a rambling logodiarrhe without wit or reason. Edicta Principum. Decreta Synodorum. And iudicia pro tribunali, are of large extent, of different alotment: For, against God, Equity, Truth and Honesty: what an idle discourse is it thus to shoot your bolts as boys do stones, to make Ducks and Drakes upon the surface of the water, to glide smoothly for two or three grasing, and then sink to the bottom without any more ado. Add quantity to judgements, Decrees, Edicts, we shall know what you would say, and so answer. As for humane wisdom, that help on our right hand; have you such cause to boast, we have no sense nor reason? I think you do not find us such arrant fools, as utterly destitute of humane endowments: If you do, the better for you: You may carry the cause against us without more ado. Customs we have many, of the better sort: not all your antic fits, and gesticulations. You have not all antiquity had, you have many they never saw. Silly man, know you not most customs do and may vary? keep your own if you please: we are not so wedded to them, nor to all ours, but upon reason, we have, will, and may change by better warrant than you can avoid. As for multitude, we dare drip Siders with you, old and late: but these are mere flashes of your Catholic vanity, I have said it often, I repeat it in the close, that you may remember it the better, at least, you shall find, that is myself, that will join issue with you when you dare, to maintain the doctrine of the Church of England, and oppose the doctrine of the Romish Church by all of these or any of these, Antiquity, Custom, Multitude, humane wisdom, judgements, Decrees, Edicts, and Counsels. If I have not for me in all or every one as good and better share and interest, for my confession, them you for yours, I will yield. As for Miracles, Visions, and such hobgoblin-stuffe, I am contented you appropriate to your own. So did the Gentiles brag of the like as Chrysostome observeth, Orat. 1. in judai santes pag. 34. Edit. Heshe●. So did the Donatists as S. Augustine reporteth, de notis Ecclesiae, ca 19 Their miracles were then, as yours now, Figmenta mendacium hominum, aut portenta fallacium spirituum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: is a proverbial speech in Athenaeus. Fool's may be frighted with Hags, and Fairies, men of understanding know it is but knavery: At Lauretto, Sichem, Annuntiada, or wheresoever we have the like puppet plays amongst our Catholic neighbours: Cachinnantibus daemonijs, at such juggling tricks for their advantage. And yet take me not so, as if I cast off all miracles: I admit, I admire them, that were true, for a true end, the ratificatiou of Truth, unto the soul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That such as would not yield unto the word preached, might yet be convicted by that miraculous power, saith Clemens in his Constituions. This was that the world might believe, but yet since and ever Chrysostome said true. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? One faith and belief is to be regulated, not by miracles, but by the Scripture, which on good foundation, we defend contains all that is Necessary 
Farewell my dear Reader, seeing I have now said all that unto thee which I desired.  for our salvation. You have done with your Reader, and I with you, till we meet again at the next turn: till then farewell.   

A list of the several errors imputed to the PROTESTANTS by this Gagger, being so many Lies.  

I. THey maintain in the first place, that the Scriptures are easy to be understood.  
II. That in matters of Faith, we must not rely upon the judgement of the Church, and of her Pastors, but only upon the written Word.  
III. That Apostolical Traditions and ancient Customs of the holy Church, are not to be received, nor do oblige us.  
FOUR That the Church can err.  
V. That the Church hath been hidden and invisible.  
VI That it is forbidden in holy Scripture, the public service of the Church, to be in a Tongue not understood by all the Assistants.  
VII. That Saint Peter was not the first, or chief among the Apostles: and that none was greater or less among the twelve.  
VIII. That Saint Peter's faith hath failed.  
IX. That a Woman may be supreme Governess of the Church, in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal, as Queen Elizabeth was.  
X. That Antichrist shall not be a particular man, and that the Pope is Antichrist.  
XI. That none but God can forgive, or retain sins.  
XII. That we must not confess our sins but only to God.  
XIII. That Pardons and Indulgences were not in use in the Apostles times.  
XIIII. That the Actions and Passions of the Saints do serve for nothing unto the Church.  
XV. That no man can do works of Supererogation.  
XVI. That by the fall of Adam, we have all lost our freewill, and that it is not in our own power either to choose good or e●ill.  
XVII. That it is impossible to keep the Commandments of GOD, though assisted with his Grace, and the holy Ghost.  
XVIII. That only Faith justifieth: and that good works are not absolutely necessary to Salvation.  
XIX. That no good works are meritorious.  
XX. That Faith once had, cannot be lost.  
XXI. That God by his will and inevitable decree, hath ordained from all eternity, who shall be damned, and who saved.  
XXII. That every man ought infallibly to assure himself of his salvation; and to hold that he is of the 〈◊〉 her of the praedestinate.  
XXIII. That every one hath not his Angel keeper.  
XXIIII. That the holy Angels pray not for us.  
XXV. That we may not pray unto them.  
XXVI. That the Angels cannot help us.  
XXVII. That no Saint departed, hath afterward appeared to any upon Earth.  
XXVIII. That Saints deceased, know not what passeth in the Earth.  
XXIX. That they pray not for us.  
XXX. That we may not pray to them.  
XXXI. That the bones or relics of Saints are not to be kept, no virtue proceedeth from them after they be dead.  
XXXII. That Creatures cannot be sanctified, or made more holy than they are already by their own Nature.  
XXXIII. That Children may be saved by their Parent's faith, without Baptism.  
XXXIV. That imposition of hands upon the people, (called by Catholics Confirmation) is not necessary, nor to be used.  
XXXV. That the bread of the Supper, is but a figure of the body of Christ, not his body.  
XXXVI. That we ought to receive under both kinds, and that one alone sufficeth not.  
XXXVII. That sacramental unction is not to be used to the Sick.  
XXXVIII. That no interior grace is given by the imposition of hands, in the Sacrament of holy Orders.  
XXXIX. That Priests and other religious persons, or any others, who have vowed their chastity unto God, may freely marry, notwithstanding their vows.  
XL. That fasting and abstinence from meats, is not grounded on holy Scripture, nor causeth any spiritual good.  
XLI. That jesus Christ descended not into hell, nor delivered thence the Souls of the Fathers.  
XLII. That there is no Purgatory fire, or other prison wherein sins may be satisfied for after this life.  
XLIII. That it is not lawful to make, or to have Images.  
XLIIII. That no man hath at any time seen GOD, and that therefore his picture or Image cannot be made.  
XLV. That it is not lawful to worship Images, nor to give any honour to any dead, or insensible thing.  
XLVI. That blessing, or signing upon the forehead, is not founded on the Scripture.  
XLVII. That it is both superfluous, and superstitious, to repeat one and the same Prayer sundry times.   
These XLVII. several positions, are said to be Contrary to the express words of our own Bibles, whereof some are cited literally; others we are sent to see, with this Item, See more; and supposed farther to be contrary to the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers, unto whom we are addressed often, not ever, with See Fathers that affirm the same.  
Whatsoever Text, or quotation is in the Gag, the Reader shall find it in the Margin of this Answer, or sometimes in a different Character, in the Corpse of the Answer. So that no need shall be of the Gag, unto the Reader, nothing being omitted, in this Answer that is in the Gag.   

The Erratues that by reason of the Author's absence have happened, the Reader must be entreated to amend thus.  

In the Preface.  
Pag. 10. lin. 27. urged. p. ●1. l. 〈◊〉. deeper. p. 12. l. 12. whom. p. 1●. l. 9 iuris. p. 18. l. 17. ●●●as. p. 19 l. ●5. gn●uiter. p. 20. l 14. Prince. p. 21. l. 27. judgements. p. 2●. l. 20. drop writers. l. 24. find one, that is. p. 22 l. 22. Our.   

In the Answer.  
Pag. 15. lin. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: p. 43. l. 3. to be converted. p. 57 l. 7. 〈◊〉 out. l. ●8. went the. p. 59 l. 19 upon him. p. 66. l. 1. not so much. p. 67. l. 〈◊〉. that w● 〈◊〉. 83 l. ●0. ●●●is pos 〈…〉 i p. 90. l. 10. what then. p. 120. l. 20. is possible. p. 14●. l. ●2. urged.    

AN ANSWER TO THE LATE GAGGER of PROTESTANTS.  

I.  
They maintain in the first place, that 
Gag.  The Scriptures are easy to be understood.  
WHat hope can we have of honest and square dealing with this Catholick-copes●mate, who beginneth so captiously and deceitfully, as, to play at fast and loose in ambiguities? For no Protestant living, affirmeth that all Scripture is easy. No Papist living, will, or dareth say, that no Scripture is easy. If some Scripture be easy: and some be hard, this General Proposition, The Scriptures are easy, is true, and this General Proposition, The Scriptures are not easy, is also true, viz. Some Scripture is: and some is not so. This is easy: that is hard.  
That which the Protestants maintain, is it expressly 
Contrary to the express words of their own Bible.  against Scripture? Yes saith this gagger, Contrary to the express words of their own bible, 2 Pet. 3. 16. Where Saint Peter speaking of Saint Paul's Epistles, saith. In which are some things hard to be understood. Saint Peter saith, but some things; by this fellows own confession: he doth not say, All things in Saint Paul's Epistles are hard: or, All Saint Paul's Epistles are hard, nor indiffinitely, Saint Paul's Epistles are hard, but only, some things, in his Epistles, are hard. That some things are, it was ever granted, that all Scripture, all things in Scripture, are easy, it was never so much as dreamt. So what contrariety of the Protestants doctrine, is there unto their own bible? No honesty in this fellow, nor his director C. W. B. thus to pervert the state of the Question, and fasten a lie upon the Protestants, I am sure.  
That place of Esay not understood by the Eunuch, Acts 8. 30. 31. is not to purpose against the Protestants; 
Against Acts 8. 30. etc.  And Philip said unto the Eunuch, understandest thou what thou readest? and he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? therefore, etc. This is but one particular place, and proveth no more, but one obscurity in one place of Scripture. It is also a Prophecy: and Prophecies are assised at obscurity. The events of Prophecies are obscure, before they fall: and being accomplished, not straightway discerned. The Eunuch did know what was said, but he could not tell of whom it was spoken. The difficulty was but in one point: and the hardness not general neither, but in part. That partial hardness, but in one particular. That particular, but for a time. judge, Reader, how many insufficiencies are in this allegation to prove that, all Scripture is hard, because one place, a particular case, in one point, at that time, was hard. What honesty in that Proposer, this Gaggers good Gossip C. W. B. who hath it thus, The Eunuch could not understand the Scriptures; who could not understand but one thing in the Scripture, that we know.  
Christ called two of his own disciples fools, and beginning 
Against Luk. 24. 15.  at Moses, and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them all the scriptures, the things concerning himself, before that they could understand them: First, the answer is the same which served for the former, that the things which they understood not, were but some Scriptures. Now it followeth not, that all are hard, because some were. Secondly, they were Prophecies, and so obscure till their accomplishments. Thirdly, Prophecies of one subject, all; the Messias. Fourthly, the Case is altered with them now: they are now easy that were then hard, and our Question is of Scripture at this day to men now adays, not of scripture then, to men then living. I add farther, they are fooled for their slowness of heart: that is, not so much for a dis-ability to understand those things there spoken of, as for dis-proportion in their affection; or dis-attention rather unto those things, not so obscure or difficult of themselves, especially considering the times then: The Shepherd being smitten: the sheep scattered; and meeting with those occurrences which they looked not for, in the fulfilling of their Hopes: we hoped it was he, that should have restored the kingdom of Israel, so that a cloud of humane darkness and disheartenings were at that time cast upon their affections and understandings. And if at some time I be ill-disposed to any business, it is no argument I am so always; or should totally be excluded from meddling therewith. And lastly this their slowness, was but partial: to understand something, of one particular person. Which obscurity, if in the Subject itself, is nothing to obscurity universal.  
But yet further to this point: This fellow came forth to quarrel, not to plead for naked and bare truth: else would he have dealt sincerely and ingenuously, not only in propounding what the Protestants hold, which he doth not: but also in not belying the text, as he doth. For is it found in our Bibles, or in any Bible, He expounded unto them all the Scriptures? or, He expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things that concerned himself? Thus I find it, and not otherwise. For in this there is a sense: in that other there is none. So that the Holy ghost is made to speak plain nonsense, to fit a turn for a Catholic cause. This may stand, and yet the Protestants assersion be not enfeebled, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures, the things concerning himself. For they do not deny, but that some things are hard. That other cannot stand. For it implieth, that all things are hard. So we have observable, a pretty niggling trick of a false knave: a small word, (In) left out, to mar all. For with In the text is for this, and no more, Some things in Scripture needed exposition, and therefore were hard. But without In, though there be no Sense (but what simple Proselyte attendeth to that?) the implication is, All Scriptures need Interpretation, and so are all hard; which the good Catholic believeth not himself; dareth not avouch; yet fain would have his novice take it so, to traduce the tenant of the Protestants, that some Scriptures are open and easy. Thus in the very insteppe of his stolen pamphlet, he belieth the Protestant for his opinion: abuseth the Scripture to bolster his Forgery: and yet for all that, fighteth only with his own fancy, as dogs by moonlight bark at their own shadows.  
To your question then inferred upon the premises, I 
How then are Scriptures so easy to be understood of the unlearned, when the Disciples themselves understood them not, till first they were expounded unto them?  answer, first, As easy to be understood of the unlearned now, as of them then, who were none of the Learned ones at that time: and had incident impediments at that time. Secondly, scriptures, hard then, unto them, may be, and are easy now, without any such Interpretation. For one Day teacheth another: and especially in Predictions, as these all were; that is, after easy, which at first was hard. If now they be not easy, there is no explicit faith: implicit faith must save all. Sir Gagger, whosoever you are, know that Scripture is not all of one height, depth, or alloy. Some was hard, that now is easy. Some easy now, and ever. Some yet hard, but not for ever. To be understood, but not in the way: only in visione faciei, when we shall see face to face, and know God as we are known, and some points, at least explicitly, not now to be understood, nor yet then. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it was a secret, a mystery, saith Basil of Seleucia; at the beginning, & shall never cease to be a mystery; In some point or other, the work of our Redemption in Christ, he meaneth.  
See more who list, they shall see nothing to purpose. 
See more, 2 Pet. 1. 20.  No Scripture, saith Saint Peter, is of private motion, or Interpretation, as you will. Ergo what? All Scripture is hard? Teach me this Consequence, and I will thank you for my New-Logicke. This I do see: where the Scripture is hard, and needeth interpretation, there that Spirit which dictated it at first, must direct in the understanding it at last. For man is permitted to expound himself, and best can give his own meaning. So this Text is not to prove, that Scripture is hard; but to prove that in Case there be a Doubt, we are not to address unto private Fancies, or peculiar opinions, but to the Direction of God's Spirit, and that in the Church. I subscribe, Math. 13. 11. 36. it is remembered, that Christ, taught the People in Parables. Well: what if he did? Why a Parable is a dark kind of speech, so that there is obscurity in the Scriptures. I answer: No man denyeth but there is obscurity. No man denieth but Parables are obscure. Some, not all. In some things, not in all. Those Parables were obscure; admit it, that are remembered there: but they are not all the Parables that are in Scripture. Nor are Parables the hundreth part of Scripture, and many of them are of easy understanding, and many are expounded where proposed: and when understood, best remembered, most beneficial to the Hearer.  
Luke 24. 45. Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand the Scripture: which act of our Saviour unto, and upon his Disciples, at that time slow of heart; may rather excite unto, than detar from the Reading of the Scriptures. For that which he did to them personally, he will do unto all mediately; and doth it unto the simplest actually, of those that are interessed in him, though but by a general tye. For the poorest member of the Church, doth now understand that which he taught them; that he was the Messiah; the Promised seed; according unto Prophecies, and Predictions of old; then hard, now easy. 1 Cor. 12. 8. Saint Paul speaking of diversity of gifts, saith; To one is given by the spirit, the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, by the same spirit: which words are as much against understanding Scriptures, hard, by interpretation: as Scriptures easy with interpretation. For those that have it, have it by gift: immediate by God, without help or instruction. Those that have it not, by warrant of this place, and go no further, cannot have it at all, because these things remembered were all of Infusion: of extraordinary endowment: and so, singular and peculiar. Again, admit it in common course; yet it is rather a warrant for facility of Scripture, because there are designed Expositors, or if for difficulty, because expositors are needful; yet this difficulty is but in some, to some, not universal, of which we must be understood, and of no other, if we be rightly taken.  
Luke 18. 34. The Disciples understood none of those things. Doth it follow they understood not any thing in the Law or Prophets, which were the Scriptures of those times? If you cannot read a letter in Cipher, can you not read a plain letter in Italique hand? Those things, beside that they were not then written, and so no part of Scripture; and so not to purpose; were particular, and personal, and not performed. Now they are performed; now they are in Scripture, now easy to be understood of all, without Expositors, the Sufferings of our Saviour at jerusalem. To them then, they were hidden: are they now to you Catholics? Do you not know Christ suffered at jerusalem? If you do not, I grant Scripture is hard, and hidden; but hidden unto those, that perish only, because they will hoodwink themselves, and not see. Not a Lixa, Calo, or Agaso, not a shepherd or muleteer but doth, or else may know this now, which then was a secret not known unto many: many particulars, not unto the blessed Virgin herself: such difference there is in things wrought by time; so little wisdom to take things at all times alike; and to conclude alike.  
Indeed, the same: that is, the thing in question, as little 
Gag. See Fathers which affirm the same, Iren. lib. 2. cap. 47.  as those Texts do, and to as little purpose as those texts do. Irenaeus Lib. 2. 47. Having insisted upon, and instanced in obscurity in God's word in Nature, he proceedeth unto God's word in Scripture thus. Si ergo & in rebus creaturae, quaedam quidem eorum adiacent Deo, quaedam autem & in nostram venerunt scientiam, quid mali est, si et eorum, quae in scriptures requiruntur, universis scripturis spiritualibus, existentibus, quaedam quidem absoluamus secundum gratiam Dei, quaedam ante commendemus Deo? If so be in the works of Creation, some keep close unto God in secret, some are apprehended and understood by us: what hurt or inconvenience is it, if in Scripture, all Scripture being spiritual, there be something contained, which through assistance of God's grace, we can go through with, and again, some thing that we must leave unto God? Just the doctrine of the Protestants; that some things may be understood, some things past our understanding. Non solum in hoc saeculo, so it followeth there, sed et in futuro. Not only in this world; but that to come, that God may ever teach, man ever learn of God. The waters of Silo, some where run pleasantly, and may be passed: in other some places not foordable. 
Origen lib. 7. cont. Celsum.   
Origen singeth the same Protestant song, and that in more places than one of his books against Celsus, as lib. 5. twice, hom. 14. upon Exodus, and other where. The place you mean, lib. 7. contra Celsum, I think is this: (For you could not tell whereabout, or what it was, because your good founder C. W. B. failed you,) Celsus being a Pagan, and an Epicure, as happily you are, made the same objection, I am sure, which you do now, pag. 345. edit. Graec-Lat. that the Scripture was obscure and uncertain: the sense and meaning not to be found out by wise men: so that the ignorant and indiscreet, abused it at pleasure. More than which no living jesuit could have said: No Protestant would answer a jesuit otherwise then Origen doth, unto that Pagan Celsus. Certe ipsi Prophetae, quicquid erat opus mox ab Auditoribus intelligi; et quicquid ad corrigendos mores faciebat, absque ullis involucris proposuerunt iis, ita ut Deus voluit. The Prophets themselves expounded to their Auditors anon, whatsoever was for them to be understood, and whatsoever served to make them good men, that they proposed unto them, as Gods will was they should, plainly without obscurity at al. Had the Protestants feed him, he could not have spoken more fully, and to purpose, in their cause; and yet he proceedeth to declare, why Figures, Parables, and Allegories are used therein, a long discourse to purpose, pag. 345. See him that will.  
It is not denied, Saint Ambrose Ep. 44. to Constantius, 
Ambr. Ep. 44 ad Constant calleth it a Sea, a depth of Prophetical riddles.  compareth the holy scriptures unto a Sea: and calleth them a depth of Prophetical riddles, Mare est scriptura divina habens in se sensus profundos, altitudinem Propheticorum aenigmatum: in quod mare plurima introierunt flumina. But not all scripture in his opinion is that Sea: only Prophetical riddles, are that Sea; beside which, diversa sunt scripturarum fluenta: as he addeth, diverse streams, brooks, shallowes, and currents be in the scripture. Habes quod primum bibas, habes quod secundum: habes quod postremum. Scripture fitted to every capacity: I know no Protestant that will ask more.  
Saint Hierome is next, who out of Bellarmine's observations could have afforded us three places more, and 
Saint Higher in praefat. comen. in Eph.  more material, from whence this man's director took his store, and rather should he have taken any testimony than this, if he understood the credit of his witness. For the commentaries upon the Epistles, extant under Saint Hicromes' name, be none of his, but are the Collections of Pelagius the Heretic; as not Protestants say, but Papists of name and note: Catharme, Senensis, Pererius, Bellarmine and Victorius Marianus: Such an advocate we need not envy our adversary; Much good may Pelagius the Heretics testimony do him. But let him pass for Saint Hierome, there is not any thing to purpose spoken by him. That which he saith is this: He had studied the Scriptures much and long, had conference with diverse learned men all his time, about the sense thereof, and had purposely undertaken a journey unto Didymus at Alexandria, ut ab eo in scriptures omnibus quae habebam dubia sciscitarer: Therefore, what? First this: Didymus, at least, understood all scripture; or how could he resolve all the doubts of scripture? what needed Hierome to have gone so long a journey unto him? therefore, scripture, all of it, is to be understood. Secondly, unto Hierome, all scripture was not hard: he proposed unto him the doubts he had: which implieth, they were not infinite, not all scripture obscure or doubted of: therefore thirdly, this proveth the Protestant opinion true, that the Scriptures are some of them easy enough to be understood  
Saint August. Ep. 119. cap. 21. saith somewhat 
Saint Aug. Ep. 119. cap. 21. saith, The things, etc.  more: For he descendeth unto Comparison, and saith, The things of holy scripture which I know not, are many more than those which I know. Such was his humility, to say so; like unto Saint Paul in the same case: who knew nothing, and yet yourself Sir, a man of less skill than Saint Augustine, not to be named the same day with him, if you should go and make a list of the particular verses in the scripture, which you understand, and of those you understand not, I do not doubt but those would be more than these: and yet further, these being so, he might justly and truly say so of all almost. For of one and the same place there may be more senses than one: yea, even literal senses, and intended by the holy Ghost: so that knowing one sense, perhaps primary and natural, he may be ignorant of the other: and thus all Scripture may be hard.  
Saint August. opinion was indeed no other than our opinion is, as appear in Ep. 100 to Volusianus, Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarum etc. Such and so great is the depth of Christian scriptures, that I might still every day learn and profit by them, inform myself of that I know not before, if so be that at most leisure, with my utmost pains and travel, endowed with as good a wit as any man can have, I should set myself to learn them, and them alone, from my very infancy to decrepit age. Hitherto Saint August. in appearance for the Papist: now ensueth for the Protestant. Not s●, but that the things absolutely necessary to Salvation, are compassed with much loss, difficulty, and understood. But when a man hath once resolved his Faith in them, without which no man can live well and godlily, those men that will go forward with greater proficiency, shall meet with so many things in such wise shadowed with mystical meanings: so great proof and depth of wisdom therein couched, not only in the words which set forth the things unto us; and to our understanding: but also in the things understood. Insomuch as that ancient students, of pregnant wit, of unwearied pains, do find it verrified in themselves here, which the same scripture hath in a certain place, Sirac. 18. 7. When a man hath done, then is he to begin. So truly doth Saint August. resolve, for either opposite part, who have shared the Truth betwixt them.  
This was the doctrine once even of the Roman Church: For Saint Gregory upon the 6. of Ezechiel, 
Saint Gregory hom. 6. in Ezech, and many others confess the same.  said, If the understanding of holy scripture were plain to all men, it would come in time to be of no reckoning. Where he giveth a reason of that obscurity that is in it. Who yet upon the 6. of job, more atfull interpreteth his own meaning thus. Sacra scriptura, cibus est in locis obscurioribus, quia quasi exponendo frangitur et mandendo glutitur. Potus vero est in locis apertioribus, quià ita sorbetur sicut invenitur. The holy Scripture is Meat in the more obscure places, because in the expounding thereof it is broken as it were, and in chewing swallowed. Drink it is in the more perspicuous places, because it is as easily swallowed down, as it is found. Thus the doctrine and belief of the Roman Church was sometime, Scripture in some places, is hard, in some places easy. Hath that Church now forsaken her former faith? if not, we differ not: for we maintain the easiness of holy Scripture, no otherwise then Saint Gregory the Pope did. This Goose may fit the Gag for his Gander's mouth, the Gospel will soon enough be rid of it.   

II.  
That in matters of faith, we must not rely upon the judgement of the Church, and of her Pastors, but only upon the written Word.  
I Know no such tenant exclusively. I know no such Assertion negatively, the Church of England hath no such faith as this. You set up a Shawfoule for a mark, and shoot your bolt at it yourself alone. In our 11. Article, (put on your spectacles and see if you can read it) we profess, The Church hath authority in controversies of Faith.  
The written word of God is the Rule of Faith with us. And hath been so with all our Fathers of old. Unto the Law, and unto the Prophets, was a direction of a perpetual Morality, and is continued in that of our Saviour, joh. 5. Search the Scriptures: for in them you hope to have eternal life. A rule absolute in itself, a rule most sufficient unto us, for that end intended, To make the man of God perfect in every good work. Sufficiunt sanctae et divinitus inspiratae scripturae, saith Athanasius, ad omnem institutionem veritatis.  
Truth is of two sorts amongst men, manifest, and confessed truth, or more obscure, and involved truth. In his quae aperte posita sunt in scriptures, inveni●ntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi spem scilicet & charitatem. Plainly delivered in Scripture are all those points which belong unto Faith and manners, Hope, and Charity to wit. And accordingly I do know no obscurity upon these; I know none of these controverted inter parts: the Articles of our Creed are confessed on both sides, and held plain enough.  
The controverted points are of a larger and an inferior alloy: of them a man may be ignorant, without any danger of his soul at all. A man may resolve or oppose this way, or that way, without peril of perishing for ever. Now if a question be moved iuris controversi, in controverted matters, who shall decide and settle the doubt? you say, The Church, and so say I: nay so say we. You say we say the Scriptures; but without the Church: that is, each private man's opinion and interpretation of the Scriptures, even against the Church. No such thing Sir: you mistake us. We say the Church must do it, explaining, declaring, resolving the Scriptures, as the direction is from God himself, to purpose, Deut. 17. 8. and as your Texts and Fathers do pretend it, and no otherwise.  
And yet the Scripture may well be called judge. As the Law determineth Controversies betwixt man and man: In plain cases iuris positivi, no deciding judge or legal proceeding shall need. But such as are iuris ambigui & controversi, must be determined by the Court, by the judge, according unto Law. So is it in Scripture, according to the Protestants opinion. In points of Faith, they disclaim not the judgement of the Church, nor yet appeal to Scripture alone, understood by themselves without a judge, but refer it unto the Church. And they have reason for it enough, seeing God's Word and the ancient practice of the Catholic Church, that is both Law and judge, are both for them: In the name of the Church of England, I will be tried thereby, and maintain it against all Papists living. Take one for all, Cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechism saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In any point concerning the divine and holy mysteries of our Faith, not any, the least thing, must be tendered without warrant of divine Scripture. And he addeth, Believe me not that speak and deliver these things unto you, unless for proof of them I do bring plain and evident demonstration out of divine Writ. Was this man a Protestant or a Papist? Those Bibles he had then which we have now: and it seemeth that addressing his own belief and doctrine accordingly, varied not in judgement any whit from us, who make Scripture the rule of our belief. And in doubtful points that require determination, appeal unto the Catholic Church for judgement in that Rule.  
This is not contrary to any deduction from, much 
Contrary to the express words of their own Bible. Math. 23. 2.  less to the express words of our own Bible, Matt. 23. 2. The Scribes & pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. Therefore, etc. Do you find, either Faith or judgement, Pastors or Church, expressly named in this text? Look once more, and look back upon your undertaking. Their refutation by express words of their own bible. For words express you fail, undertaking more than you can perform: an ordinary trick of Catholic Braggadochioes. Let us see if Consequents will hold the tewghing any better.  
Those that answer the Church and her Pastors in your Thesis, are the Scribes & pharisees, in your proof: who whole and some, head and tail, be Doctors and Pastors of the Church with you. But of the Church of Rome it must be supposed, for we disclaim any Conformation at all with them. And do you suppose that our Saviour approved them so well, as that he would have had the jews in matters of Faith to rely upon them and their decisions, as Pastors of the Church in points of Faith? If this were his meaning, what meant he then to give warning elsewhere, Take heed of the leaven of the pharisees? that is, as the holy Ghost expoundeth it, Of their doctrine. If the question had been put, Art thou the Christ? would he have sent them unto the Scribes or pharisees for resolution? or advised the people to believe on them? we find it not practised: the contrary we do. What then is this text, in consequence unto the point? Surely he meant no more but this: and in that he will declare himself a Protestant; Whatsoever they bid you observe out of Moses, observe; that is, so long as they teach but Scripture, they must he heard: if there they fail, then hear them not. Verba legis proferendo, in the opinion of Saint Augustine, so long as they speak Law. This is not our Heresy but Catholic Doctrine. De legis ac Mosis doctrinâ loquitur perindè enim est acsi dicat, Omnia quae Lex & Moses vobis dixerint, Scribis & Pharisaeis recitantibus seruate; saith Maldonate, no friend nor favourer of Protestants. And after him Barradas another jesuit, in this resolution a very Protestant, Hoc est, saith he, omnia quae legi Dei & mandatis non repugnant. Ergo, bound in the text with this restriction, as you must, and it is a plain Gag to the Gospel.  
Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me: and he 
2.  that despiseth you, despiseth me: and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me: Therefore, etc. You know not what you say. All this we constantly believe. But first I answer, this is a text indeed to purpose, to vindicate authority to the Church and her Pastors: but not expressly, which is your undertaking; by necessary consequence, and indenied it is, but you have tied yourself, fool as you were, unto express words: and express words are not here extant. Secondly, perhaps it is not so pat as you imagine, because the men intended there and then were of another making, fashion and account than ever were any since or before: and therefore their privileges more peculiar, of greater extent: insomuch as that all were not to be heard so respectively as they were: they without Scripture or allegation of Scripture, having mission immediate from the Son himself, which none ever had but they. But thirdly I answer, take it with Saint Cyprian, Epist. 96. and others, in a larger extent, ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis vicariâ ordinatione succedunt, unto the Governors in the Church, who succeed the Apostles in the Church's government, by imposition of hands and ordination, and go and answer yourself out of Saint Bernard, thus, Be the commandment tendered by God or man, as God's agent, it is to be received with like reverence; Vbi tamen Deo contraria non praecipit homo; As far as man doth not gainsay the will and commandment of the most high. A flat Protestant in his assertion; and upon reason: For a Nuntio must go to his Commission.  
Matth. 16. 19 I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
3.  bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: whatsoever thou shalt lose in earth shall be loosed in heaven. Which text hath no such mention of relying upon Church or Pastors in matters of faith, expressed. Nor hitherto perhaps any such meaning. Your Compeers were wont to cry us down with this text, For Saint Peter's jurisdiction over all, and the Pope's universal power in clave potestatis. You now wave that power, it seemeth, and cast aside that key, and lay hold upon that other key of knowledge. Shall we believe your Puniship or them? This cannot be good Catholic unity, in so fundamental a point of your Faith, except for near alliance betwixt Saint Peter and his Spouse the Church, whatsoever is remembered of the one, must be likewise true of the other.  
But out with your Table-books, you that have them amongst you, and 
* Note here, that he doth not say whosoever, but whatsoever: giving us thereby to understand that not only the bonds of sin, but as well all other knots and difficulties in matters of saith and manners, are to be loosed by Saint Peter, and by the Pastors that succeed him in the Church.  Note: the man will give you something worth the noting: that is, our Saviour doth not say whomsoever, but whatsoever. We take it, and note it, and mean to make good use of it: inferring thereupon through your own confession, that therefore St. Peter by Christ's commission, must in case of binding and losing, and executing the power of the Keys (which whether it be all one with binding and losing, you are not agreed amongst yourselves) let whomsoever alone for ever; and betake himself unto whatsoever: that is, not meddle any more with Kings and Princes: with cantoning of their Kingdoms and estates: but content himself with whatsoever matters of fact inferior: matters of Faith, and the like decisions, at least with Causes and Persons within his own Verge, indeed Causes, that is, knots and difficulties, for Persons are none of that combination.  
So, to shake hands with your memorable observation; Therefore in matters of faith even by their own Bible, we must not rely upon the written word only; but upon whatsoever Saint Peter shall tie or untie: which we in this case are contented to do, and to say with that Council of which he was a part (you say Precedent) visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, the decision of the Catholic Church, we receive as the dictate of the holy Spirit: but be you sure it is the judgement of the Church, for you are good Proficients in equivocation, and present us the Church upon no better terms, then if you should tender us a man of straw for a perfect man: or a shadow for a substance.  
Indeed to this effect, that is to as little purpose as 
See more to this effect, Deut. 17. 8.  that which went before. In cases of controversies and of doubts, in matters of fact or civil cognisance, which could not be determined by ordinary course of Law, in the several Counties as it were, or Places of judicature, the Parties plaintiff and defendants were to refer it, to the Leuits, Priests, and judge, in these days: that is, to the Church and to the Pope, you dream: and let your dream go once for truth: and they must hear it, determine it, definitively, It was capital to refuse, or to appeal. Good: but yet this cometh not home: for they must determine it according unto Law, to which supremest decision, both concur: the Rule of right, and determiner of right according to that rule. In our construction to our present question, the judgement of the Church according unto Scripture, the selfsame that the Protestant maintaineth.  
In this text I grant more is to be seen then in all the rest, viz. when the word of the Lord came unto 
See Aggee the 2. and 11.  Agge the Prophet. Which thing how it sorteth with the present position, I cannot tell: speak those that can. But the word that then came unto him was this, in the 12. verse, Ask the Priests concerning the Law. And the Priests answered according unto Law, thus and thus. And this is resolving of a doubt by the Priests: but the doubt resolved according unto Law: so the written word is relied upon. Not I myself, the word only, Quis enim respondet? Did ever any man deny that the Church and her Pastors, are not to be heard speaking out of, or else according unto Scriptures? Show this, and take it, else Nihil ad rhombum.  
That of 2 Chron. 19 8. is all one with Deuter. 17. 8. an exemplification of that rule: a practice according 
2 Chron. 19 8.  unto that direction there: somewhat more. For hereby it appeareth that the Precept was not for Tell the Church: and hear her Pastors: but go take the ordinary course appointed, the judgement of a standing court, mixed of Clergy, and of the Laity: as it were our court of high Commission; or indeed the Star-chamber, consisting of both robes; Ecclesiastical and civil: not any thing to purpose for Church or for her Pastors propounded.  
The last out of 2 Thessal. 2. 15. was wont to pass currant for unwritten verities: now it cometh in limping for Church and Pastors: resolve where it shall stand, and then we will rank it in degree and desert.  
So I would, could I tell where to find them: they 
See Fathers which affirm the same.  walk in tenebris: I cannot speak with them by clear daylight. In brief, what they affirm, I profess I cannot tell. I know many things which they affirm in those remembered books and passages: but what the man here meaneth, I can but guess at, so dissolute and at random are his quotations, as if to name and muster up some Fathers were enough: as I can conjecture, so come I to them: if I miss, I must have better information hereafter.  
Gregory Nazianz. in Oratione excusat. saith somewhat 
S. Gregor. Nazian. in Oratione excusat.  I resolve of, and to some purpose, but what I certainly do not know: nor yet which Oration is by him intended. For I find not any under that title in Billius whom these men follow, unless it be one of his Apologies. In the former of which two, I find somewhat that may look that way: this, In Ecclesijs constituit ut alij pascantur & pareant, quibus videlicet, id conducit, ac cum sermone tum opere ad officium diriguntur: alij autem ad Ecclesiae perfectionem pastors, ac magistri sunt, qui virtute, coniunctioneque ac apud Deum familiaritate vulgo sublimiores sunt, rationem animae ad corpus, aut mentis, ad animam obtinentes. A thing reasonable, profitable, and of absolute necessity for the being of a Church, to have a distinction of Pastors and People: some to teach, some to be taught: to lead, to be led: to rule, to obey: a thing established, practised, and defended in England, no otherwise then was in the Primitive Church, and is in the Church of Rome at this day. Unless we can see more showed us in Gregory Nazianzen, we have seen but little unto any purpose yet: and other thing then this I know not.  
Tertullian next to be seen, against Heretics prescribeth 
Tertul. lib. de praescrip, Haeret.  the rule of Faith, so do we: appealeth to the first institution of the Catholic Church of Christ in his Apostles, and to their Doctrine then taught and delivered: and so do we above all, primerily thereto he descendeth unto Succession: so will we. Not any prescription insisted upon by Tertullian, but I embrace it, and dare appeal unto it, and stand to the award thereof: Ex fide personas approbantes, non ex personis fidem. Is this that which he would have with Tertul. out of Chapter 21. What Christ revealed unto his Apostles to be preached, I will prescribe, that it ought to be proved no otherwise, then by testimony of those Churches which were first founded by the Apostles in their preaching; partly by word of mouth, and partly afterward by writing? If this be the place of Tertullian, meant by the Gagger; than Currat a Gods name, we accept the Condition, and join issue, and come on with Tertullian, as it ensueth, Si haec ita sunt; If this be so; it must needs be, that all Doctrine which concordeth with those Apostolical, mother, and original Churches, is true, as being that selfsame which the Churches received from the Apostles: they from Christ, Christ from God. Whatsoever other Doctrine is beside this, is false, against the truth of the Apostles, Christ, and God. Thus he, thus we. I desire no other judge, or better trial, join issue when you will, or when you dare. I accept the Condition, for any point controverted betwixt the Church of England and Rome at this day, for 500 years after Christ at least.  
Discipulus magistrum. Cyprian cometh next to 
S. Cyprian Lib. 1. Epi. 3.  be seen, in his 55. Epistle, or as your Authors suggest it, Lib. 1. Epist. 3. In which Epistle, I could pitch upon places, more than one, that happily you may intend, for they look this way: but that which is purposed I suppose is this, in the second sect. Actum est de Episcopatus vigore, & de Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac divinâ potestate: The rather because the Texts of Scripture here cited, are by Pamelius the Roman Scholiast, there applied, though to no purpose. For it is the received Doctrine of the Church of England, that in the office of a Bishop, there should be that vigour as he calleth it, and that the Calling itself is Divine, and an high calling. Nor doth any Papist living more respect and approve that saying of Saint Cyprian in the same Epistle, Sect. 19 then our Church of England doth. Non est ad hoc deponenda Catholicae Ecclesiae dignitas, etc. The honour and the dignity of the Catholic Church, is not to be abased so far: nor the unspotted majesty of the Flock of Christ: or Priestlike power and authority to be so dejected, that men consisting out of the Church should dare profess they will pass censure upon a Bishop of the Church. That Heretics should presume to censure Christians: wounded men, judge the sound: lapsed men, those that never fell, guilty persons judge the judge: Impious Sacrilegists, the Priests. This you approve: so do we. To what end do you will us see Saint Cyprian?  
Or Saint Augustine against Cresconius the Donatist, 
S. Aug. lib. 1. cont. Cres. cap. 33. & lib. cont. epist. Fund. ca 5.  if yet we could tell where in special and what to see, is this that which you mean, Cap. 33. We uphold the truth of Scripture, when we do that which the universal Church commandeth, recommended by authority of the Scriptures, so far as that because the Scripture cannot deceive a man, that would not willingly err in this question obscure, should go and inquire what the Church saith of it? If this be the place, as in all likelihood it is, we subscribe unto it with all our hearts. For in Divinity Questions, Controversi juris, there must be a judge to determine: that we say is the Church, whether part contending hath Law & right: that is, consent of Scripture upon his side, and we profess with the same Saint August. in his 118. Disputare contra id, quod universa Ecclesià sentit, insolentissimae est insaniae. A most in solent frantic fool were he, that would dispute against the tenant of the universal Church. Sir, bring us to the trial, and gag us if you can, with this resolution of Saint Augustine; belie us not for our opinions, against your knowledge.  
But all this while we have seen in the Fathers what we could find or imagine, yet we never saw clearly till the close. Drink was your errand, but draff would you have: your plea hath been for the Church, and Pastors; your intent was merely for the Pope: for so Saint Anselm, Lib. de Incarnate: cap. 1. written unto Pope Vrban, saith unto him; Unto no other is more rightly referred to be corrected whatsoever ariseth in the Church against the Catholic Faith. What is this saying of S. Anselm unto us? in matters of faith we must rely upon the judgement of the Church, and her Pastors. There be more Pastors in the Church than the Pope; though he be granted first, he is not all. There be more Churches than his Church; what hath Pope Vrban, one man, to do with Pastors? with the Church, but that, which we know well enough, by Pastors, and Church, in conclusion you mean the Pope. I could interpret Saint Anselm well enough; as that, if a Controversy were referred by the Church, or an Heresy to be corrected in the Church, which touched the case of the Catholic Church, it could not be put over more fitly to any one man by the Church representative in a Council, then unto the Pope, first Bishop of Christendom: of greatest, not absolute power amongst Bishops. But I know your Saint Anselm well enough. This was not his meaning: he was partial: post natus: not fit to speak in this cause, nor amongst the Fathers. A great Bishop I grant him: He was Archbishop of Canterbury, no great Doctor, but respectively considering the barbarous times in which he lived: far from being one of the ancient Fathers, or their grandchild. He lived in the days of 
Whether now wilt thou believe so great a Bishop as S. Anselm, or some other Host, or Hostess, that sell bottle-ale?  King Henry the first, and was a factionist for Pope Vrban, his good Lord and Master. So ask my fellow if I be a thief: your bottle-ale Hostess, where you use, it seemeth, to meet, in Partridge alley with your gossips, is well enough acquainted with these passages, and can tell you as much as Saint Anselm could; if an Heretic ask her who is Supreme ale-canner on Earth, she will answer, no doubt, why who but his holiness? In this case I believe them both alike; as good reason for one as for other. Sure yours are no better than those Corks with which your Hostess useth to stop her bottles: but agree as you can, you and your Hostess; we proceed to the next Proposition.   

III.  
That Apostolical traditions and ancient customs of the holy Catholic Church, are not to be received, nor do oblige us:  
THis is also contrary to the express words of 
Contrary to express words of their own Bible.  our own Bibles? How? wherefore? we shall see when we can: In the interim, thus we draw on. Traditions are of two Sorts in the writings of Antiquity, as the word is ambiguous, of two significations. There are Traditions written, improperly so called, and there are Traditions unwritten, delivered from hand to hand. The name is sometime applied to the one, and sometime attributed to the other: you mean not here Traditions written, I know it; no more do we: we agree to take it of unwritten Traditions, in opposition unto Scripture: as where Tertullian speaketh in his Book de coronâ militis thus, Scripturam nullam invenies, Traditio tibi praetenditur evictrix: Scripture for this you can find none, the original came from Tradition.  
Traditions are considered Originally in their Authors: Christ; the Apostles: the Church privatemen: which have their authority more or less, answerable to the worth of their Originals. Again, they are considered materially, in regard of what they treat of, what they contain, whereof they are; of Orders, Rights, practices, opinions, in common use and custom amongst men.  
Traditions instituted by our Saviour, even in points of belief & Faith, have Divine authority as his written word hath. Traditions derived from the Apostles, have equal authority with their Preachings and their writings. I approve that process of the Controversor, The authority of God's Word, is not because it is written, but because it cometh from God. Traditions of the Church have such authority as the Church hath: all bind and oblige, as they were intended; and as their extent is. For they must be considered not only from the Author, but from the End: Some were intended to be Permanent; others only to be transient: for a Time only, or else for ever. Some universal, some only Partial: for the Catholic, or else a private Church. Such variety and difference is in Traditions, which this Hudler confoundeth, to deceive his Novice with indistinctions.  
Now the question is not whether there be Traditions, or have been heretofore, we do grant it in every kind, that either there are, or have been Traditions of Christ, his Apostles, the Church, private men. The question is not of what authority they are: we grant their authority is from, and as the Authors: but the question is of their Credit and Extent. First, whether the pretended Traditions of Christ and his Apostles, were indeed so ordained or derived, as they are pretended; or rather counterfeits and suppositions. Prove them true, undoubted, and we rise up unto them. Secondly, to what ends they were instituted, whether to last and endure ever, or for a time: whether to supply the defects of Scripture, not else sufficient for the end. This we deny: for it is our Position, that the written Word of God, without unwritten Traditions, is perfect, and absolute, and sufficient for the end whereto it was intended; To make the man of God absolute in every good work.  
Abuse not yourselves, nor your Proselytes here: slander not, nor belie us: give us any Tradition of Christ, or his Apostles: give us good evidence for what you say: go prove it convincingly to have come from them, by Scripture, Fathers, consent of Antiquity; can you ask any more? and we receive it with both our arms, as Gods holy Word and Institution. Quae universa tenet Ecclesia, ab Apostolis praecepta benè traduntur; quanquam scripta non reperiantur: Though I find it not upon record in Scripture, yet I receive it as proceeding from the Apostles, if the universal Church embrace it; said Saint Augustine, and I subscribe unto it: bring us any such Tradition so accepted, so received, so commended, and you shall see we will reverence it as much as you, or more: but if you give me copper in stead of gold, pardon me if I believe you not, nor receive it for pay. Ecclesiastical constitutions are more, more certain; of the same authority with the Churches written Laws: which bind generally, if made for general obligation: or else particularly, if they have but local and confined limitation, omni modo, bind they do unto obedience, so long, in such sort, so far forth, as the authors did intend: till the same authority disavow them, which gave unto them being at the first. In the 34. Article to this purpose we read of and concerning Ecclesiastical Traditions.  
It is not necessary that Traditions and ceremonies be 
1.  in all places one, or utterly like, for that at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to diversities of Countries, times, and men's manners. So that nothing be ordained against God's word. Your Catholic cares be they round or long, cannot be offended with this position, I think.  
Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly 
2.  and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant unto the word of God, and be ordained, and approved by common authority, aught to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak. Lo Traditions not only avowed, but maintained: the infringers censured. So that, but read over your Position again, That Apostolical traditions, and ancient customs of the holy Church, are not to be received, nor do oblige us: compare that with this decision, and then give your Catholic honesty the lie.  
Every particular or national Church, hath authority to ordain, to change, and abolish ceremonies or Rites 
3.  of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done unto edification. Nor is this against your Catholic Doctrine or practice, and yet this is all that our Church delivereth touching traditions, in their public authorised, received, constitutions. Private opinions, if there be any, tie us no more than they do you. Nay we deal more sincerely, and positively than you do, distinguishing Traditions for plainness sake, whereas your Fathers of Trent give this only in command, That Traditions be received as the Scripture: playing fast and loose in ambigivous terms, not differencing humane, divine, Apostolical, Apotacticall, Christian, Paganish, general, particular; free, of necessity, temporary or permanent Traditions. Can you or any Papist defend this?  
The Popish Doctrine thus delivered, is not only contrary to express words of your own Bibles, but to piety and religion, to sense and reason: that any idle, fantastic, foolish, impious, profane, humane invention, for your words run generally, and extend to all, should be received as Holy Scripture: but the protestant doctrine declared, as before, is not contrary to express words of our Bibles.  
2 Thessal. 2. 15. Therefore Brethren stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have received, whether by word or by our Epistle. Therefore, etc. We deny not obedience unto this exhortation, but endeavour to stand fast in the word of truth: and hold fast all those Traditions which Saint Paul delivered either by word or writing. All Protestants give due respect to such divine authority. Show any that doth not, and you say somewhat. But, good Sir Gagger, He that refuseth those manifold botcheries, and brokerages of your Romish Church, and casteth them off as impious and ridiculous, doth not straight transgress this Apostolical direction: no more than he, that rejecteth a counterfeit Pass, made by some jarkman under an hedge for a Rogue, doth resist lawful authority. Prove your Tradition such as you pretend, then see what we will say unto you.  
2 Thessal. 3. 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord jesus Christ, that you withdraw you selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the Tradition he received of us. Which we receive and obey: But Tradition may run for Example here: in effect, not according to our example. And so Saint Chrysostome upon the place: or it may be something extant also in writing: or order prescribed them by the Apostle temporary and occasional; or of moral dispensation. If you can name it, we will not refuse, for our conclusion differerh not from yours, Traditions are to be received, and do oblige us: but you must let us know them, and their credit first.  
1 Cor. 11. 2. I praise you brethren, saith the Apostle, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Traditions as I have delivered them unto you. So he would us, were he now living: so would he not you, that have broken them: for that which he delivered unto them, that, he received of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 23. and that which he received was touching the whole entire communion, the Cups, as well as the Bread, you have broken this Tradition through your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and presumptions. But can you resolve me what Tradition he meaneth here? perhaps they were Temporal, and not intended for us. If such, your own rule is, They oblige not. It may be no unwritten Traditions, but the written word, at least such things as be written now. Howsoever, the allegation is not to purpose; for it doth not prove what the Protestants deny: and that which it proveth, they deny not; That Traditions are to be kept.  
2 Timoth. 2. 2. Where there is no express mention 
T'has Traditions are to be received, see more.  of Traditions, but only of things received from Saint Paul: by which Traditions, peradventure, not written, are meant: and peradventure things written; who can tell whether these or those? show them, and we refuse them not.  
john 20. 30. and 21 25. are both to one purpose: Tradition is in neither text expressed: nor to be collected from either: for neither text is for Tradition: both one & other, intimate no more, but that all which Christ did or said, is not recorded in the Gospels. Doth any idiot believe the contrary? This fellow might beg us, if we said or taught, that Christ did nor said any thing but that is written. Till then, himself may be begged for a fool, that would put upon us this unhandsome belief, All that Christ did or said is not written: therefore any thing must be received that is pretended to be Tradition Apostolical or Divine.  
1 Cor. 11. 34. Paul saith, The rest I will set in order 
Shall then the saying of some unlearned Baker, over bear great Saint Basil?  when I come. Therefore you may go learn to bake a batch of Bread; or go drink an health to the Vicar of St. Fools with your Host of Holborn. The inference is, Saint Paul had not ordered all, till he came: when he came, he made good his promise, and set all things in order at Corinth: therefore any thing, though never so absurd, which Papists pretend, as Tradition, must be received as God's word.  
1 Timoth. 6. 2. Saint Paul saith nothing of Tradition; except these words will bear out Tradition, These things teach and exhort: which things are written, not unwritten. For, These things, do design things there remembered.  
Saint john 2. Epist. 12. saith, He had many things to write unto them, which he would not commit to paper, but come himself, and teach them by word of mouth: which he repeateth, Ep. 3. vers. 13. Therefore he wrote not all things unto them: And who saith he did? therefore, what? our Gagger is a goose; no other sequel: and so he must stand until he show, that some of his Romish Traditions, were part of that which Saint john would not write unto them, but teach them by word of mouth.  
Act. 16. 4. and 15. 28. We read of no Traditions: we do of Decrees, ordained in the Council at jerusalem; but the mischief is, they are written: and yet so, our Gagger, and his Comerades keep them not. For tell me, did you never eat a Goose, or her pudding, Capon, Hen, or Chickens, at your Bottle-Ale house in Partridge-Ally? if not there nor otherwhere, I have nothing to say to you. But if so I return it to your teeth, you belie us in that which you do yourselves. The Traditions Apostolical, and ancient customs of the holy Church oblige you not: For among these Decrees, or, as you will, Traditions, Act. 16. 4. this is one, Act. 15. 29. To abstain from blood and strangled. Exempt such dishes specified, from such dressing, & have with you to Mass to Mr. Mayes, as I am invited by Sir A. P●. peradventure yourself.  
2 Tim. 1. 13. We find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the form of wholesome words, in our Bibles: And if this be Traditions unwritten, judge you good Catholics: and set not so high a price upon this arrant blunderer; than whom, a verier Goose never handled Goose-quill. And so go see, if your leisure will serve, Fathers 
See Fathers that affirm the same.  that affirm, somewhat, not what they should.  
The first you must see if you please, is Irenaeus, Lib. 3. cap. 4. for he will not trouble your seeing with Clemens, Ignatius, Dionysius, Areopagita, Polycarpus, Egesippus, justinus Martyr; all elder than Irenaeus, and vaunted of by his good masters: and no doubt, as much to point as Irenaeus, who yet is held to be resolute and irrefrageable in that place. Propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos, quae autem sunt Ecclesiae, cum summâ diligentia deligere, & apprehendere veritatis Traditionem: For which cause we must shun and eschew them, but with all possible diligence make choice of the things belonging to the Church, and lay hold upon the Tradition of truth. Which Tradition is no other thing, but the rule of our faith, The holy Scripture: nothing unwritten, uncertain, beside much less against Scripture. This is somewhat, in your opinion, but that which is the thing intended indeed, is this which followeth in Irenaeus: Et si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione disceptatio esset, nun oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, & ab iis de praesenti quaestione sumere quod certum & re liquidum est? Thus he questioneth: I answer affirmatively, yes. No doubt we ought for resolution in points of doubtful controversy, rely upon that decision of the eldest Churches. Do we refuse this trial good Sir Gagger? Where you will, in what point you will, I undertake thus to justify the Church of England, name you the Controversy, one or more; and maintain the contrary if you can or dare. The question is not with Irenaeus, what must be Law, but how the Law is to be expounded and interpreted. Scripture the Law, and Tradition the Interpretation: that is, the perpetual praxis of the Church, to expound the doubtful texts of Scripture.  
But Irenaeus proceedeth farther than so, it will be said: For, What if the Apostles had left us no writing at all? Nun oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant Ecclesias? Farther indeed, but to no purpose; this is upon supposition: If it had been so; which is not so, nor could be so. Secondly, it followeth not, that because if God had not given Israei a Law, it is probable he would have continued his former course with Abraham, Isaac, and the Patriarches: therefore, when he had given them his Law, they were still to look for immediate, or Angelical Revelations, as before. No more is it consequent to reason, piety, or Irenaeus intent, that albeit, if no Scripture had been written, only Tradition must have been followed: therefore, Scripture being written, we should, as otherwise address ourselves unto Tradition. But thirdly, we come home to point: Show us any thing tendered by those Ecclesiae antiquissimae, to be believed, and observed, and see if we respect it not as well, and as much as you. Till you show us such Traditions, leave your prating idly at random, touching worth and weight, and use, and authority of Traditions. Your Traditions tendered in these days, are only in name, as Simon Magus was, and Simon Peter, the same: no more of credit, than he of piety: both alike.  
Origen is next to be seen in cap. 6. add Roman. He calleth Baptism of Infants, a Tradition; and let it be so. It is the universal judgement, and most ancient practice of the Catholic Church, deduced, at least from Scripture, if not proved in Scripture, as the controversor himself confesseth. Be it a Tradition, it is more for our advantage than otherwise: For we admit, receive, defend, and practise it, which must needs give the lie unto your proposition, That, according to the Doctrine of the Protestants, Apostolical traditions, & ancient customs of the holy Church, are not to be received, nor do oblige: For the World knoweth, your brazen face will blush to deny it, we receive it, practise it, are obliged by it.  
S. Damascen may stand by, unless you mean to make your friends with him: a child in years, of yesterday birth, in respect of those old Heroes of the Primitive times. Not that he saith any thing, Lib. 4. cap. 17. more than an other: or more effectual and to purpose, but because he is not of that desert or esteem to be ranked with the Fathers of the Primitive times: being long post natus, and a Partian many ways: for which cause I answer him not.  
S. Chrysostome is peremptory and through for Traditions: In 2. ad Thessal. 2. vers. 16. he saith, Hence it is plain and apparent, that the Apostles delivered not all in writing, but very many things without book. Thus he; but to what end? For no Protestant living in his right wits will deny this, That the Apostles spoke much more than is written: And whatsoever they spoke, as Apostles, in execution of their Ministry, is of equal authority with that which they wrote: For ink and paper confer no authority or validity, beyond the subject and author of the writing. Therefore the Tradition of the Apostles, and of the Church, is, without all question of good credit and esteem; and so much we profess, Art. 34. I grant it hath displeased some which is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is Tradition which avoweth it, seek no further. I see no reason why any should be so displeased therewith: For if it be a Tradition of the Catholic Church, (and such Traditions only he meaneth) Chrysostome saith there no more than he may. No more than Augustine and Tertullian have said, It is Tradition, I go no further. No more will● in any thing, for my part, I promise you, that is controverted betwixt you and us, at this day. Make that appear, which you propose, to have been a Tradition of the Catholic Church, and you and I shall soon agree; shake hands, and no more ado.  
Saint Basil you have kept for the close, it seemeth, 
S. Basil. lib. de spirit. Sanct. ca 27. saith, that some things we have from Tradition of the Apostles, both which have force alike, unto godliness.  and for the upshot of all; and he indeed is, in the place remembered, very much for all Traditions unwritten; derived to the Church from the Apostles. I know some Protestants, especially of preciser cut, do discredit the Author, as a Counterfeit; only upon Erasmus bare word, who savoured some discongruity, which I could never find, of style: I am not of that, or their mind. Others being at a stand, because of their own private fancies, oppose Saint Basil, unto Saint Basil. For my part, I believe no such allegation, nor will I oppose him unto himself. Thirdly, some go to it with downright reprehension, that he gave too much unto Traditions, and therein erred; which censure and taxation is too surly. I like not that the ancient Fathers should so be philipped off, and sent away like schoolboys with snips; that most learned, religious, and most judicious Writer, saith no more than is justifiable touching Traditions. For thus he: The Doctrine of the Church, is two ways delivered unto us: First, by writing; then by Tradition from hand to hand: both 
Some things we have from Scripture: other things from the Apostles Traditions: both which have like force unto godliness.  are of like value unto piety. And this is true, if certainly both come from the same Author, to the same intent and purpose: for writing and speaking do not under, or overvalue a thing. In Edicts, and Precepts, and Proclamations from a Prince, some have his mind, his words, his hand-writing; other his mind, and words; all his hand: others his mind only, and no more, being conceived, and penned by a Secretary of State, according to directions: yet are all the Acts of his Majesty, not of a Servant, or a Subject.  
To this Basil addeth, which some mistake, and therefore mislike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. If we venture or presume to tax and reprove unwritten Customs, as not much to be respected, we may unwittingly and unwillingly prejudice, and that in points of moment and consequence, the very Gospel of Christ, and bring Preaching to be but a bare name: which censure, I see no such cause to censure. For Saint Basil saith not, Take away Tradition, and the Gospel is nothing: as if the credit, and weight, and authority of the Gospel, were merely from Tradition: but, that the Gospel will receive prejudice thereby. Meaning, that through Tradition, that is, the universal consent of the Catholic Church, we are assured, that the Gospels of Saint Mark, and Saint Luke, are divine, and true; and that the Gospels of Saint Thomas, Saint Bartholomew, and others, are forged: though these were Apostles, those but Disciples. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to what purpose is this, for Popish Traditions? Is there any of them so commended unto us, as the Gospel of Saint Luke, or Saint Mark, is by Tradition? Saint Basil saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that is, not some things, as you perfidiously relate it; but, of the Doctrine, and Discipline, heretofore, and yet observed in the Church; part we have from written instruction, and part from the Tradition of the Apostles we have received: which hath been transmitted unto us covertly. Both which have the same force, unto piety. We admit this saying, and profess as much; let it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a perpetual practice of the Catholic Church of Christ, and see what we will say unto it. Saint Basils' first instance in the point is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sign us with the sign of the Cross: you know we commend it, we practise it, we command it, we propugne it. Every Baker could have told you so much, that ever had 
Shall then the saying of some unlearned Baker, ouer-beare great Saint Basil?  Child Christened in our Church: Ask your acquaintance; I make no doubt but you are interessed in some Baker's basket for a toast, or a new loaf: Bakers and Bottle-ale are so much in your mouth. But leave we you to your Bottle-ale, and Baker: great Saint Basil, that patronizeth you suppose, so much your Traditions, in his Morals, Reg. 12. cap. 2. giveth you this Item; remember it well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We ought not to follow the Procepts of men, so far, as to set by the Commandment of God. Hold you here, and have along with you; in your Traditions as you will: fail here, Basil and we leave to gang alone.   

FOUR  
That the Church can err.  
FAst and loose, Sir juggler: For why express you not plainly, what Church you mean, when you say, that the Church cannot err? or in what things, and how far the Church cannot err? Particular, and Topical Churches have erred, (such may then, and can, even in Fundamentals) and so ceased to be any more Churches; as those of Galathia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica. Those unto whom Saint john sent his Revelation; glorious and goodly in their time: but now, Cages for unclean Birds. But as touching the Catholic Church, take it thus from me: The Catholic title includeth two things; universality of Time and Place both, or universality of Place only. In the former acception take the Church, and that Caetus evocatus, which hath been heretofore, and which is now, make it up. The Apostles, their Disciples, all their Successors, are included: And so the Catholic Church, hath not, did not, cannot err; either in Factor Faith: Fundamental, or less Fundamental. In the second acception, according unto universality of Place: The Catholic Church of Christ is twofold, Diffusive, or Representative; in every part and member, in every place: In some special parts, in one place, a general Council for the whole, or all particulars that make up the whole. The Catholic Church at this day cannot err, in all her parts, nor in faciendis, matter of fact: nor credendis, points of belief, dangerously. The Church Representative, true, and lawful, never yet erred in Fundamentals; and therefore I see no cause but to vouch, she cannot err in Fundamentals. Firmitas enim Fundamenti, cui totius Ecclesiae superstruitur altitudo, nullâ incumbentis sibi templi mole lassessit: Soliditas enim illius fidei, quae in Principe Apostolorum est laudata perpetua est. Et sicut permanet quod in Christo Petrus credidit, ita permanet, quod in Petro Christus instituit: as well saith Leo, Ser. 2. the Assump. sua. If this be your opinion, look you: Let us see, if our Bible's be express against this.  
Esay 40. 21. My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth, and for ever. In which words, if we did defend the Thesis, as it is proposed, that the Church could err; we might answer, this Text doth not perplex us. For where do we find, Church, or not err, in the Prophet? it is but by illation at the most: The man bragged of express words; and can perform no more but 
And consequently cannot err.  consequence: And that not necessary. For may not it be said; This is but a Precept, not a Promise; as where it was said unto josua, and in him, unto the Princes and Rulers of the People: The volume of the Law shall not depart from them; they shall meditate therein day and night. This was an injunction what they ought to do, not a promise what they should perform; or at least but Temporary and Conditional: for they departed from the Law, and the Law from them. I● so, what assurance of not erring? Thirdly, God's promises have a Condition, annexed or employed ever, to be performed by man; which if he perform, God is bound: if he break, God is free. My words shall not depart, is God's promise: Man's promise reciprocal is, I will not depart from them. If I depart, that is, if man fail; They may and shall depart, God is then free: Now this supposed, what assurance is there for, my words shall not depart, & c? So your first Text is mistaken peradventure in the meaning, but without peradventure in the allegation: It is Esay 5●. 21. not as you tender it from your advisers, 49. 21. And lastly, it is to be understood of the Church of the jews in particular converted unto Christ, as it seemeth by Saint Paul, Rom. 11. 26. and not of the Church of the Christians already converted; and so you misapply, as well as mistake. But more ridiculously in your second Text, john 14. 16. For have you read or heard, that ever any Protestant maintained, That the holy Ghost can err? I suppose not. I believe you are not so much past shame, to say so, and yet your conclusion is so: The spirit of truth cannot err. For, having recited the Text of the Gospel, your illation is; Therefore the spirit of truth hath abode for ever, and shall abide for ever with the Church: and consequently, cannot err. What Sir, cannot err? To my understanding, The Spirit of Truth cannot err; can you understand it otherwise? But let your barbarismes go by: to the point I answer first, you fail, and that confessedly, in your undertake. It is but consequently, the Church cannot err; therefore confessed, not expressly. Secondly, I answer out of the Text itself. This promise is for comfort, not instruction; The Comforter shall abide for ever: for Christ there spoke of affliction, which should ensue. Thirdly, were it punctually for direction, we might rejoin: It was a temporary promise, a personal privilege to the Apostles; you thought we would say so, belike supposing we had no other shift; silly men like yourself: therefore you come in with, by way of prevention, But the Apostles themselves could not abide for ever: poor fool, that knowest not, there is duplex aeternum, frequent in Scripture; Gods ever, and man's ever. That, for everlasting, as God is. This for the term of his being: so for ever is thus; no more, then while you are: all the days of your life. But we seek no advantage; we will not take it: we grant God's Spirit eternally assistant to the Catholic Church, then represented in the Apostles: and therefore we admit that you belie us in your Proposition; The Church, can err; to be understood of the Catholic Church, as is expressed.  
The third Text in order, Esay 35. 8. is so far from expressing the not erring of the Church, that it is a question, though such a Novice as you, know it not, whether it be to be taken of the Church at all. Hierome in his Comments expoundeth it of Christ, who saith of himself, john 14. I am the way, the truth, the life: An high way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it, but it shall be for those. The way faring men, though fools shall not err therein. Who told you that this way was the Church? why not the Scripture? which is also a way: and called a way, as to my remembrance, the Church is not. Ibi erit semita, & via mundissima, quae sancta vocabitur, etc. There shall be a path, saith Hierome, and a most clean way, which shall be called Holy; and which saith of himself; I am the way: by which way, the polluted cannot pass: where also we read it spoken in the Psalm; Blessed are the undefiled in the way: And this way, that is, our God, shall be unto us, so direct, so plain, so open, and champion, that no wand'ring shall be there. Fools, and silly men may walk therein, unto whom in the Proverbs wisdom speaketh thus: If there be any little ones, let them come unto me, and she hath spoken unto the Fools, Come you, and eat of my bread. Thus Hierome upon the place. Tertullian in 4. against Martion, is indifferent, for Christ the head of the Church: or Faith in Christ the life of the Church. Your Worship, Sir Gagger, out of your authority, cast it merely upon the Church. Satis pro Imperio, if you can outbear it. Howsoever, it is not express, as it should be. Not to purpose, if it were express: our question is not, whether fools can err, but whether the Church can err. The Church hath often been compared to a Ship: and now at last by you made a Ship of Fools. Content, so you be Pilot in that Ship, Sir Foole.  
Once at length you rightly bid us go see more. 
See more john 16. 13.  For the Text of john 16. 13. is more express than all the former, He shall lead you into all truth. But what if this text concern not truth upon Earth but Truth in Heaven? What becometh then of your Not erring? Augustine, and Bede, incline that way. What if it be personal, unto the Apostles alone, not to the Church, or their successors? He will show you the things to come: and I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now: these & such like passages, do more than seem to conclude it unto them. What if he meant but All things that were necessary and convenient for them to know? so Theophylact, Euthymius, and others▪ In this sort the Church is eternally directed: so the Church directed cannot err.  
Matth. 18. 17. It is commanded by authority: Tell the Church: and hear the Church. No good proof, the Church cannot err. For the Scribes and pharisees were to be heard, and obeyed: yet had no assurance of infallibility. Kings and Princes are to be obeyed: yet have they fallen into great enormities, Ephes. 5. 27. the Church is said to be glorious without spot or wrinkle, or blame: which is to be understood, de to●o integrato, of the parts in Heaven and earth: Of the time to come, rather than present. Without blame, yet not without wrinkle, even here: for error may be where blame is none, Esay 9 7. the Kingdom of Christ is to be established with judgement and with justice for ever: and yet, I know no such privilege annexed to judgement or justice, of infallibility. No more than Ezech. 37. 26. to a Covenant of peace; an Everlasting covenant: to multiplying of them: or placing God's Sanctuary amongst them for ever.  
Luk. 22. 32. and Matth. 23. 3. What correspondency have they one with another; not to speak of reference unto the point? In the former, Peter's faith was prayed for that it might not fail: and yet Peter denied Christ jesus. If Peter were not the Church: what maketh this Text amongst the rabble? If Peter were, the Church may err; as Peter failed: though not eternally, one or other. In the latter, the pharisees must be heard: And therefore will you say, they erred not? If they erred, as doubtless they did, then, to what purpose are they pretended for not erring of the Church? Much good may the pharisees do your Church, 1 Pet. 2. 9 The Church is styled, a chosen generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: glorious titles: but nothing to this, They cannot err. john 17. 17. God's word is truth. I grant. But is God's Word ever in the mouth of man? The Apostles were sanctified, and that in God's truth, according unto Christ's Prayer. Yet after this Prayer, Peter went not right when Saint Paul reproved him: he fell, and that foully in denying Christ. That which is sanctified is accepted, not ever so sanctified as without spot. As for 1 Cor. 11. 25. if the Institution, or rather Commemoration of the institution of the holy Communion, be a proof sufficient that the Church cannot err, we yield the cause: if nothing to purpose; what meant this idle pate to range it here? What the man would say in Psalm. 101. 23. 20. or whether he would send us, after mistaking there, I cannot tell: and till then, I cannot answer. For not so much as near thereabout, is aught to purpose of not erring.  
Ephes. 2. 20. We read that they were built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. And what then? Could they not err? Dare you say so? They could: for they have; and are shaken off from that foundation: but so long as they stood on, fast, they erred not; holding one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism, Eph. 4. 5. which if you and we do, at this day, by your own argument, (avoid it if you can) we err not. As for one heart, and one soul, of the believers, Act. 4. 32. it is in reference of love one to another: not in unity of Doctrine all with one another. And yet there were differences in that union: for example sake, inter Paul, and Barnabas; and might be disproportion in their Doctrine: as dissimilitude in the habitude and condition of those sheep in one sheepfold, under one Shepherd: and yet all hear the Shepherd's voice, john 10. 16. and he that will not hear some of those Sheep, Luc. 10. 16. be taxed for not regarding the Shepherd: when as yet for all that, some of those Sheep be gone astray.  
To conclude. The Church cannot err, neither collective, nor representative. Thus your Masters distinguish the terms of this question, that go workmanlike, and not like you, clutteringly to work. So they: so we. In the largest extent, not err at all. Secondly, not err in points of Faith. For in matters of fact, they confess error. Faith is fundamental or accessary. There none is: here error may accrue. Father's to be seen, you afford us none. Not because there are none: but because your reading could supply none. Who take up all upon retail and credit, having so small store at home. The Church cannot err, is most true: and the Church may err, is as true: each part considered as it ought.   

V.  
That the Church hath been hidden and invisible.  
IT may be some private opinions have run upon invifibility of the Church, which are no doctrinal decisions: nor to be imputed unto the resolved Doctrine of the Protestants, that are of another mind. Nunquam est quod nusquam videtur. That which cannot be seen, if it be seeable, is no where at all, nor in being. For as Saint Augustine well said, Quo modo confidimus, ex divinis litter is accepisse nos Christum manifestum, si non accepimus & Ecclesiam manifestam? How is it possible we should hope to have Christ manifest in Scripture, except we have likewise the Church manifest? Therefore on all hands it is resolved, the Church hath ever been visible, since there was a Church. In England especially how can this fellow impute invisibility to us, who claim and prove a succession, and therefore needs a visibility from the time of the Apostles? If any do think otherwise, or cannot do this, we undertake no patronage at all of them.  
The Church is a City, seated on a Hill, which is naturally visible: though in a fog, or mist, not discerned. There ever was and will be a Church unto whom complaints may be made; though the Church doth not ever hear complaints. Those that have fell upon an invisibility, may perhaps be tolerated, if well interpreted and understood. For even the visible Church in her more noble parts, may be said to be invisible: First, the Saints triumphant, and now regnant with Christ, are parts of the Church in largest extent. Who being in Heaven, are unknown; their persons, proprieties, and endowments. The Saints militant, her more excellent parts on Earth, according to her more royal endowments, the Elect according unto purpose of Grace, are known only unto God alone, the searcher of secrets, and decipherer of thoughts. Such as be secret, & occultò intus: are there not visible unto man.  
In this sense, in regard of these parts, the Church is, and is esteemed invisible: and so held even of the Papists themselves. Otherwise then so, we do not speak of invisibility: So that the man must fall foul with his own part; or be at war with his own wits. Moderate men on both sides confess, this controversy may cease. Et quamuis praesens haec Ecclesia Romana, non parum in morum & disciplinae integritate, add etiam in doctrinae sinceritate, ab antiquâ illâ, unde orta & derivata est, discesserit, tamen eodem fundamento doctrinae, & sacramentorum à Deo institutorum firma semper constitit: & communionem cum antiquâ illâ & indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit, & colit. Quare alia, & diversa ab illâ esse non potest, tametsi multis in rebus dissimulis sit. Manet enim Christi Ecclesia & sponsa, quamuis multis erroribus, & vitijs sponsum suum irritaverit, quamdiu à Christo suo sponso non repudietur, tametsi multis f●agellis ab ipso castigetur. As for our Gagger, he is interessed happily otherwise. In standeth him in hand to uphold and foment a faction: lest for insufficiency otherwise, he turn Host, and sell Bottle-Ale. That musty objection, as he calleth it, of Elias, may do him some pleasure at that time. I add no more touching this proposition, because it is but lost labour.   

VI  
That it is forbidden in holy Scripture, the public service of the Church to be in a tongue not understood of all the Assistants.  
NO doubt Contrary to our own Bible's: in such sort, that if the Protestants be not gagged now, their mouths are wider than Gargantuaes': and their lips somewhat like to Germans, that were nine mile asunder. Certes never so foiled by texts of Scripture, since Luther went out, to this day. Therefore expedite tabulas Chrysippei sophy: For here you have a singular piece of work indeed.  
The Church of England, directed, not only by the light of Israel, the Word of God, but also persuaded by common sense and reason, hath, and hath had her Service, the public prayers and Liturgy of the Church, in a known tongue, understood of all that are present there ordinarily. This is contrary to their own Bible's: nay to the express words thereof, nedum consequents and deductions, saith this fantastic pamphleter, if we will believe him.  
For why: mark express words, Luke 1. 〈◊〉. 9 10. Thus we read in our English Bibles. It came to pass, that while he (Zachary) executed the Priest's office before God, in the order of his course, according to the custom of the Priest's office, his lot was to burn Incense in the Temple of the Lord: and the whole multitude of people, were praying without, at the time of Incense: This is a Text of the Protestants Bible: true: and expressly contrary to their own doctrine. In what? Do the Protestants teach that Zachary did no such thing? or that there was no such custom of executing the Priest's office? or that the multitude were not then without? or not at Prayer at the time of Incense? If they teach or preach, or believe, or think all these, or any one of these, than they are contrary to their own Bibles. Thus they do not: thus they are not charged to do. What then? why they are charged to teach, that Divine Service ought to be in a tongue understood of the assistants at the Service: and this Text is contrary to that their opinion: For by this Text, it is express that public Service ought to be in an unknown tongue peradventure, because there is no mention of any tongue at all: of nothing there spoken or said by the Priest at all: of the use of his tongue taken away from him: or because Zachary offered Incense in his course, and incense was prayers in an unknown tongue: or because the people were praying without when he was offering Incense within: which they never did but in an unknown tongue.  
Laugh Protestants, and lie down, if you be not gagged. Qui risistis & nunc ridete, & qui nunquam risistis nunc ridete: This fellow meaneth to make you merry; was never heard such a giddy goose gagler. In other Texts of Scripture, for other points, there is some face, or resemblance of a proof. Here, nec vola nec vestigium: And if there were any, it would put for Hebrew, or Syriac, their mother tongue. For, the People were praying: not the Priest, and the People; at least, most of them spoke but their mother's Language: unless the fellow can prove, that the jews had their service in a strange tongue. So that our devout Catholics by this Doctrine, must either pray in English their Mother's Tongue, or in Hebrew, wherein the People prayed then, and there: The Latin is irregular, because than not used by the People, or Zachary. For Zachary used no Language at all: They prayed for aught we know, in the Tongue they spoke, as we do in English in our Service. This they could pray in, and did without doubt: nor is it gainsaid; He could not pray in any Tongue anon, his speech being taken from him.  
How shall we come at last to see how contrary this is to our Bibles? why, out with your Table-books, and Note; he biddeth you: If you do ask what you shall Note. First, Note that this was the custom. This What? Of good fellowship tell us, that we may note it. Was it the custom for the People to pray? we doubt not of it: but to pray in what Tongue? in Hebrew? out upon it; take heed of that: this Custom will cut the throat of Latin Service. For it was in a known Tongue: But to execute the Priest's Office, was, The Custom. What is that to Service in an unknown Tongue? It is now a part of the Priest's Office to say Service; it was not then, but to offer Incense, or Sacrifice. They had a custom. Speak man; what to do? what was their Custom? We have many, so have you. Because the jews had a Custom, to do, I cannot tell what: must you needs have a Custom to have Latin Service? and to impose that Custom upon us? Must their Custom to do, God knoweth what, put a Custom on us to have our Service in Latin? What Baker would not bake that Codshead in his Oven? or what Hostess not beat the pot about his ears, that in discoursing with her of scoring, should reason, He would not pay his score, because the jews Had a Custom?  
ay, but note secondly, and that salveth all: The People were without, and the Priest within; what of that? why, How then did they understand him? Saying what? Praying what? He spoke nothing; he was not to speak, to use his hands; not his lips: had he spoken, must it needs be they understood him not, because there was a wall between? or because a wall between, and they could not hear him speak; did he therefore speak the Ethiopian Tongue? I will put a Case. Suppose A. Pe. or this fellow, were at Supper in Partridge Alley, at a Bottle-Alewifes, or a Baker's House, with a brace of woodcocks beside himself; his Hostess is in the Sollar, or in some outward removed room: he calleth unto her, for what you will: Sauce for the fools, say it be; He may call his heart out, till his tongue ache, and not the near: for why, his Hostess understandeth him not. Mark his own reason: He is within, she is without; how then can she understand him? No more than if a Gipsy should cant unto her in Pedlars French; because there is a wall or two, or some other partition that divideth her and him asunder: must it not be so? For Note. Mutatis mutandis, Change but the terms, and the reason is all one. The People were without, the Priest within, how then did they understand him? The man were best to take heed of such reasons as this, lest a worse thing betid him; than not being understood: lest the Woman suppose he call her Whore: For why not in an unknown tongue? and so crack his coxcomb for his labour. It were worth the noting to have him so served. The Animal had but his just reward for such a frothy reason as this; fitter for an Alewife than a Priest.  
Praemonitus praemunitus; forewarned, halfe-armed: Peradventure by advertisement he will prevent it: and so we leave him noted for that which he is: The meaning of that place, nothing to purpose, either expressly, or by any consequence, is this. In the Temple at jerusalem, where this accident was, that is thus remembered by Saint Luke; The Priests, both of the City and of the Country, served by courses in their several months; not singular: for they were many thousands, and had manifold employments in that service; but as they were descended from the XXIIII Founders of so many several Courses, all of one Lineage and Family in a Course. These several XXIIII Courses were first of all instituted, as appeareth in the Scripture, by King David; and so continued till the Captivity of Babylon: and after the Captivity, being restored, to the desolation of the jewish State. Zachary was of the course of Abia; in rank the VIII. The Priest's service in the Temple was diverse, and different every day; who should perform what service in his course, was determined and assigned by Lot. It fell to Zachary to burn Incense; as to others to offer Sacrifice: Now the Temple of jerusalem had diverse divisions; as we have in our Churches; Isles, Chancels, Revestries: These were severed by Vayles, Traverses, or Walls. The first was the Sanctuary, or most holy Place: No People or Priest went in thither at all, but only one, once a year; and no oftener than once that one day, the high Priest, and no other man. The second was called the holy Place; the Altar of Incense stood there, whereat the Priests offered Incense unto God in their Courses, as Zachary here did, and nothing else; neither reading the Law, nor expounding of it, nor teaching the People, nor praying with them, nor saying any devotions for them: it was no Custom, or part of Service there.  
A third division was, atrium sacerdotum, the body of the Church, into which none came, but only Priests; and they to offer Sacrifice only: The People came not so high, but into a fourth Court, atrium populi, or mundorum, in which they were praying at that present. So betwixt the place in which Zachary offered Incense, which was severed by a veil, and that place in which the People prayed, there was some distance: what marvel if the People could not hear him? But as is touched, they needed not: for he was not to read, expound, or say any part of Service within, but only to burn Incense, and no more. There were that taught them beside, they did it in the place for the purpose; in the People's Court, and in that tongue which the People understood. So our Saviour taught in the Synagogues, and in the Temple, being understood; and Moses was read in the same form and Language, that every one understood. If it had been added, that the People were praying in Latin, Greek, or in some other exotic Language, this Tale-teller had noted somewhat to purpose. This which he saith, and noteth; i● as much to purpose, as mother Bumly hitting a Hen in the forehead.  
Levit. 16. 17. And there shall be no man in the Tabernacle 
Therefore it is not forbidden in holy Scripture, the public service of the Church to be in a tongue not understood by the Assistants.  of the Congregation, when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he convent, and have made an atonement for himself, for his Household, and for all the Congregation of Israel. Therefore: Conclude. Aron must go in alone: For of Aron and his Successors is this spoken. When he goeth, he must go alone: Now what is this to purpose? Therefore it is not forbidden in holy Scripture, that the public service of the Church should be in an unknown tongue? A poke full a plums: no foot nor footsteps of such an inference; at least let us have it with this exception, unless at one time only of the year: for only once, what, the high Priest hither.  
But to purpose. This Text is to no purpose. For there must be Assistants where the Service is in an unknown tongue: and here Assistants are shut out of doors. It is precise; There shall be no man in the Tabernacle, when he goeth in. If no man there; no seer, no hearer present: then what need we talk of tongues either understood, or not understood? Secondly, the Textis too no purpose: For it speaketh but of a piece of jewish service, and of such a piece, as was performed by hands only, without lips or tongue: and then it was private betwixt God and the Priest. Priests nor People were Agents or Assistants at it. Let your morrow Massmungers when they mass it alone, use japonian, or Mexico Language, if they list: and when they make private intercession unto God, speak in any of the Dialects that were at Babel, but in the public Service of the Church, Piety and Practice, reason and Religion require a tongue that is understood of the Assistants, that they may say Amen, to what is spoken.  
It is a trick of vanity, an idle flourish; What shall I need to produce authorities of Fathers, when the practice of the Christian World for many hundred years together is contrary unto Protestants. A very strange practice, of which there is no Constat: let but one Father say so, and I yield the bucklers. Inopem te copia fecit: Such plenty you have as hath made you poor. If you name me one Father that thought so, or wrote so, I will go with you to Mass to morrow, and acknowledge Pope Vrban for absolute Monarch directly over all the Earth: I can but laugh at your insolent and impudent folly, that blush not to write; What need I produce authority of Fathers? I say again, do name me but one that squinteth that way, nedum that saith it positively; That the service of the Church hath been, or may be in a tongue unknown; and have with you to Mass next morrow.   

VII.  
That Saint Peter was not first or chief amongst the Apostles, and that none was greater or lesser amongst the twelve.  
First or chief: how ignorantly spoken? as if two words of one signification: First and Chief are not ever of equal extent. Reuben was the first; but juda, chief. First and Chief, in some things, are not ever so in all. Peter was first; but john, chief, in respect of Christ's special and peculiar affection to him above the rest of the Apostles. It is granted, Peter was first called to be 
Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these: the first Simon, which is called Peter. Therefore, etc.  an Apostle, though not first to be a Disciple. In rank and reckoning we grant him first: As in your first Text of Matth. 10. 2. No Protestant living will deny this, nor fall so foul with their own Bible: persuade not yourself they will do so.  
But this precedency will neither serve your turn, nor content you. Another chiefedome must be cast upon, which you collect by sequel; for you have it not express, out of Luke 22. 32. and 26. and yet at last you fleet back to his first-ship in place, Peter is ever named first. Thus you are not resolved what to have, and how can your Proselytes tell in what to trust you, but that you lead them hoodwinked, by the nose?  
Luke 22. 26. The words, is greatest, is chief, do evidently show, that among the twelve, one was indeed ter than another, and so accounted by Christ himself. Prove that, by Christ himself. Those words insisted on, do not prove it: for they may be an Irony, or a Concession: Admit there be greater or lesser amongst you; yet he that is greatest, let him be thus or thus: He that thinketh so highly of himself, yet let him do thus. But let it be evident, and granted, that one was greater than another amongst them, this greatness yet is far short of that transcendent greatness given to Saint Peter. Let Saint Peter be the man, invested with that greatness, yet, quousque? What bounds and limitation had it; since the greatest greatness under Sun, is not without some circumscription? It is not questioned whether Saint Peter were great: whether the greatest among those great ones: We grant it: but the controversy is about the extent and nature of his greatness. Hic Rhodus, hic saltus. This is that you should have expressed out of our Bibles, or the Fathers: In setting out his greatness otherwise, you do but trifle.  
Have it he must first, and then practise it. Happily the execution will bond it out. Let us see how far Luke 22. 32. And when thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren. You read, you say, confirm: In good time; read so still. Strengthen and confirm, no great odds in either, if it be showed what his greatness was: and yet strengthen is more than to confirm: the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to stay and hold up from falling: to the purpose, and present case of Peter, who 
And what other thing is it for Peter to confirm and strengthen his brethren than to practice and exercise his greatness over them?  was to fall, and foully, in denying Christ. Strengthen, or confirm, must needs imply execution of greatness: for, to confirm and strengthen, what is it, but to practise and execute his greatness over them? A poor practice; and sorry greatness: not of sovereignty to which you drive, but of superintendency at most, in his Pastoral charge: to plant, and to water, to do no more. It is true, He that doth strengthen and confirm, is greater than he that is confirmed: but in that act only of confirming, not in universal jurisdiction 
For he that doth strengthen and confirm is greater: and they who are strengthened, etc. are made thereby inferiors to him who doth strengthen and confirm them.  I hope. Your ghostly Father, if you were a Potentate, and at point to dye, as his duty is and office, confirmeth you in your Faith: Because he confirmeth you, and in that he confirmeth you, he is your better; will you take him for your Lord and Sovereign therefore? Paul strengthened Peter, when he went not aright to the Gospel. What was then become of Peter's headship, can your sheepshead tell? To confirm in faith, requireth nor implieth no supremacy in power. No other confirmation is intended there: Go cast your Cap then at Peter's Primacy from, confirming his Brethren.  
See more proof of your folly, Mark. 3. 16. Where 
See more for proof hereof, etc.  Saint Peter, in the list of the Apostles, is only named first: which doth not necessarily infer he was the chief: but we grant him a chief, a prime, a first place. We acknowledge him the greatest amongst the Apostles, in many respects. And what of this? No more but this: First, you belie us in your position: Secondly, you cannot claim your Pope's Monarchy from any greatness that Saint Peter had, Act. 1. 1●. not the 13. He speaketh first; proposeth a case: Will Pope Vrban be contented to do no more? will he calling no other royalty? take it: use it? let him go as far as ever Saint Peter went, as a Bishop, and not as an Apostle, and we will go along with him. Therefore, in conclusion, your texts of Scripture are not to any purpose at all to prove Peter's Primacy, but you a poppet.  
Much less your Fathers, see them who list, for I 
See Fathers that affirm the same. Theoph. in 22. Luk calleth Peter, Prince of the Disciples. Eusebius in Chron: First Bishop of Christians.  have seen them more times than I have fingers and toes, and could never see any such regality in them. Theophilact calleth him, Prince of the Disciples; and so do I: as Aristotle, Prince of the Philosophers: and Virgil, Prince of Poets: who had no command for all that either over Poets or Philosophers. Eusebius in his Chronicle, calleth Saint Peter, the first Bishop of Christians: Admit he do: What then: First, is in respect of time, of place, order, and authority. Eusebius expresseth not how he meaneth first: nay, doth he call him first at all, in any sense? In my Eusebius, I find no such matter. What is in yours, I cannot tell. I read but this: Petrus Apostolus cum primus Antiochenam Ecclesiam fundasset, Romam mittitur ubi Euangelium praedicans, xxv. annis eiusdem urbis Episcopus perseverat: Where Romam mittitur, is not much for his greatness, or that principality you give unto him: and preaching the Gospel is less than that.  
Cyril of Jerusalem calleth him, Prince, and most 
S. Cyril of Hier. Cat. 2. Prince, and most excellent of all the Apostles.  excellent of the Apostles. I add, the Greek Text is more for your advantage: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that standeth before, and is head over the Apostles. And again, in his xi. Catech: which belike you never read, no more, I guess, did you the other, but took it up on credit by reta 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Peter Prince, as you call him, of the Apostles, a principal Preacher of the Church. Titles of honour: Quis negat? of great honour. I add such as never was any like unto it: but honour and advancement, as it is confined, so is it designed, how far, whereto, in what sense. He stood first, in rank: he was chief among: so was joab over 30. but not King upon them: or Lord over them: There is an headship which will not reach that illimited power given to the Pope, Our Lord, Vice-God upon earth.  
Saint Chrysostome, hom. 55. in Math. neither calleth 
S. Chrys. hom. 55. in Mat. Pastor, and Head of the Church.  him Pastor, nor head of the Church. Some well-willer of the cause, added the words. In Greek we have but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a man that was a Fisher. But, admit both Pastor and Caput too; what is it to purpose? We deny no titles given unto him: we deny your inferences upon those titles. If you will thank me for it, I will help you to ten times as many more titles as you have collected; as transcendent as any of these: and when I have done, to as large and ample, given to Saint Paul. Do you show me but one place of any one Father, that giveth him that power you challenge to the Pope, I except not Leo, nor yet Gregory, and I will subscribe: viz. for, universality of jurisdiction, infallibility of judgement, and power direct or indirect, over Kings, and Kingdoms. This is your Helena: First, chief, great, or greatest will not content you, nor satisfy ambition now in the ruff. Undertake this: trifle not out the time, in pleading so idly and vainly for Saint Peter's prerogatives, which we the Church of England deny not.   

VIII.  
That Saint Peter's faith hath failed.  
ANd yet Saint Peter denied Christ. Dare you deny that? Belike, in your opinion, and new divinity, a man may deny Christ, and his faith not fail: Turn Turk, and his faith not fail: only, turn Protestant and his faith faileth. But we must hold it howsoever: for it is contrary to our own Bible, Luke 22. 3. I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.  
Your Proselytes may know you are an Empostor: That propose it in these words, so opposite to Scripture and event. That leave it so suspense, without distinction. Saint Peter's faith failed, after this very prayer and assurance: and yet Christ obtained what he did pray for. God heard him ever, how can you reconcile this?  
Your Masters consider Saint Peter two ways, even in this prayer made by our Saviour for him, as a private man, as a public person: or as they love to speak, Head of the Church. As a private person, Christ did pray for him, that though his faith fell totally for a time, it yet might not fail eternally, and for ever; as judas failed, and fell: and he was heard in that he prayed for. Peter denied, but repent: he recovered after his fall, and persevered unto the end. Our Saviour said not to him, thou shalt not deny me; but, That thy faith fail not: and that his faith did not eternally fail, it was out of his special favour unto him, and care of him, saith Chrysostome hom. 83. in Math.  
This is the prime, true, and literal meaning of the Text, even in the opinion of your own Partiaries: that Christ's prayer was personal for Saint Peter: restrained unto Saint Peter alone: which being so first settled and acknowledged, Peter may be said in a secondary sense, to sustain the person of the whole Catholic Church: in which sense many, and they no Protestants, do understand it. And so his Faith, that is the Faith of the Church, failed not either totally or finally, no not in the greatest eclipse that ever was: because Christ was ever heard in that which he prayed for: and he prayed for the Church.  
The refiners of Popery, the quintessence of villainy, the Jesuits, have invented a third sense to fit the purpose more than the former. This promise was made, say they, to Peter, not personally, but as Pope. And therein was inferred, thereby assurance made that the Pope never did, never should, never could maintain, decide, hold, believe any thing against Faith. A thing not heard of but out of such mouths, a late days. False in event, for their faith hath failed; totally, finally, utterly for ever. False according to themselves, and their other resolutions. For Peter was not Bishop, much less Pope, when our Saviour Christ prayed for him: insomuch as by inchoation: when he denied Christ, saith Bellarmine. And good reason for his saying so: lest his successors might fall into the same predicament. His principality in and over the Church, was not invested in him, until after our Saviour's Resurrection. Thus he, de Rom. Pontif. 4. 8. therefore he did not pray for him as Pope. Therefore Bellarmine contradicteth himself: and is contrary to his companions. Therefore this prater gagleth he knoweth not what, against his own rules, and against his Masters.  
As also out of Matth. 16. 18. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. It? What? Saint Peter Faith. Was the Church therefore built upon Saint Peter's Faith? Take heed of that. It, is the Church; not his Faith, nor his Person: nor his Papacy. But let it, for once, be his Faith. I answer, there is a twofold prevailing against. First, to overcome: So josua in fight, prevailed against Amalec, by the sign of the Cross, rather than the sword. Secondly, a prevailing against, to destroy. So did Saul prevail against the same Amalec. The Gates of Hell did not prevail against Peter's Faith, to undo it. For being lapsed, he recovered: and mightily prevailed against them. They did prevail against it, to overcome him: For he forswore and denied his Master. The Faith of Marcellinus and Liberius failed: but they recovered as Saint Peter did. The Faith of Honorius, and john 12 failed: happily he recanted before his death: and so his Faith did not fail finally: But john 12. lived and died in his Faith; that is, in his Sin: and so Body and Soul went to the Devil. Saint Peter's Faith failed only for a time: Of this speak the Protestants, His Faith failed. Saint Peter's faith did not finally or irrecoverably fall. Thus intended our Saviour in that saying; I have prayed that thy Faith fail not. But, Sir, it mattereth not much what became of his Faith: His Person is the thing to be stood upon: his Power, Principality, Papal Prerogatives, seated therein; this, I trow, is so clear in holy Scriptures, no great need to fortify it by or from the Fathers: and yet I marvel why, if so clear, there, we have so few Texts of holy Scriptures for it: only two Texts; nay scarcely that: For one of these is clear for another thing. And again, whatsoever you vaunt of Fathers, needless to be brought, it is more than presumption, you had not one Father to fling at this Faith, not failing: For when you have them, you spare them not.   

IX.  
That a Woman may be supreme Governess of the Church in all Causes, as well Ecclesiastical, as Temporal, as Queen Elizabeth was.  
Queen Elizabeth was? With lie and all. No Protestant ever said so of Queen Elizabeth: No Protestant ever thought so of any Woman. You shameless pens, and brazen faces: You have often vouched Calvin against such Government: whom you make the Patriarch, fond, of our Profession, and yet you impute it to our Doctrine. Liars in this, or in that, needs. Can you of your knowledge say, this title was given unto Queen Elizabeth? Did she ever practise it actually? or challenge it habitual; to her Person, or her State? And if it had been challenged, or given in Her time, seeing that it is not at present, but disclaimed by him that best may: and seeing it died, if yet it ever lived, together with her, what meaneth this quarrel to stir up a new allayed strife, and trouble things settled, and well disposed of. The truth is, Queen Elizabeth's style, was no other then, than King james is now, mutatis mutandis, Over all persons, in all Causes, (not and all causes) as well Ecclesiastical as Civil, in these her Majesty's Realms and Dominions, next under God, supreme Governor. Can your small understanding put no difference, betwixt, Over all; and In all? betwixt Persons and Causes? over all Persons, in all Causes, is one thing; Over all Persons and all Causes, is far another thing: Over Each: or over Causes, without Persons, looketh your way. But Causes with Persons, over the Parties in their proceedings, is no such exorbitances: no Scripture express, none inferred against it to any purpose.  
We do not profess, much less propose or propugne, that Princes are Heads, or Governors, to any such intent; as to coin, or set abroad new Forms of Faith: to determine what is defied, what not; as your side belieth us, and beareth your Proselytes in hand we do. We give no such authority to any humane Power. They were of you that did it at Trent, that cast it upon your Lord God the Pope: He was one of you, none of our side; Stephen Gardner by name, who to flatter the Prince in state, and keep himself in those hurrying times in his favour, openly avouched, as Cardinal Poole relateth; That the King might take away the Cup from the Laity: Potestas enim summe est penes regem: For the King hath supremest Power. Such aphorisms never came out of our mouths. We say, Princes have supreme Power in Earth under God, over all Persons, in all Causes whatsoever, within their Dominions; even in Causes merely Ecclesiastical: to compel them to do their duties, by the Civil Sword. Not over all Causes, to do as they will, to command, or change belief or Faith. Will it relish better with you in Saint Augustine's words? Then this is our profession in his words: Kings serve God as Kings, if in their own Realms they command good things; not alone, which concern the civil state of men: but which do also touch Religion and Piety. Thus he, so we in our 
Cont. Crescon. 3. 15.  Profession, over all persons, in all causes. Not, In all Causes alone and singular, as you traduce us.  
Hoc posito: Now see we your Texts of Scripture contrary to this in our own Bibles. 1 Tim. 2. 11. Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection: Therefore a woman, heir, or otherwise, cannot be Governor in her Realms. Do you think that the Lady Infanta, no Protestant Princess, will be so confined; because she may not say Mass, nor speak in the Congregation: therefore as Duchess of Burgundy, or Countess of Flaunders, may she not meddle with the State? Mark your own words: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man. Therefore she cannot be supreme Governess. Let Catholic Ladies look to this. Such Fellows if they had their due, would have their mouths gauged with an halter; I, their tongues cut out, and cast to Dogs If this were intended by Saint Paul, I marvel why the Eunuch returning home into Ethiopla, did not put down Candace from being Queen.  
If you take it not as you speak it, (for Equivocators say one thing, and mean another) generally of all authority, nor yet of any subjection; but as Saint Paul restraineth it, only to Teaching and speaking in the Church; we subscribe unto you: we are of the same mind with you; we say the same thing that you do: but then we call your honesty into question, and affirm, you deal perfidiously with us, in belying us, and falsely with your Proselytes in seducing them. Did ever any Allen, or Saunders, or Parsons, or Kellison, hear Queen Elizabeth Preach? Did ever any see her administer the Sacraments, take upon her to expound Scripture; appoint Faith, or denounce Excommunication? She claimed, and might, and had authority commanding, coercive, coactive, over Churchmen. Did she ever challenge, or use it, or was it given her in church-service; as Saint Tecla did, and Saint Katherine of Sienna in your Legends: as Pope joan did, if there sat such a strumpet in Saint Peter's Chair; as Prioresses, and Abbesses have, and exercise by your Canon Law, or with Dispensations. An Abbatesse may command the Priests that are subject to her, to excommunicate her rebelling Nuns; and the Priests are bound to obey her: So Tabiena, Armilla, Panormitane, Astensis. The Canonists are of this mind, saith Stephanus de Aluin, that the dignity of Prelacy, and excellency of Office, may give to Ecclesiastical women, (therefore howsoever to women) spiritual and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which they may enjoy, not only by right delegated and committed unto them, but by ordinary also. Now good Sir Gagger, how digest you this good Catholic Doctrine? gave we ever so much to Queen Elizabeth? Is this according to your Bibles? or are your Bibles and ours not the same?  
That of 1 Cor. 14. 34. is not cited according to our Bibles of the last Transation, which you yet pretend to follow: and howsoever cited, it is not to purpose; only it discloseth your lewd demeanour. Saint Paul forbiddeth women to speak or teach in Churches: so do we. And in conventicles also, you may see it inquirable, presentable, punishable in our visitations, if any such presume to expound or interpret Scripture in private Houses. You may sooner hear Pope Vrban preach, than any Woman with us to execute any function Ecclesiastical, who with you do ordinarily baptise.  
For satisfaction to poor misled Catholics in this point, if yet they will be satisfied, take the resolution of our Church, Art. 37. The Queen's Majesty (it was made you know in Queen Elizabeth's time) hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes, doth appertain; and is not, nor aught to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.  
2. Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty, the chief government; by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folk to be offended, we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments: The which injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, do most plainly testify. But that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always, to all godly Princes, in holy Scriptures, by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed unto their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers. This is all that Queen Elizabeth had or challenged. Public Records, public notice, public testimony of the State, and all that then lived, are of greater credit, I hope, with all moderate and honest Romish Catholics, than the lewd lying aspersions of a partial Factionist, such as this Fellow is; and many of his companions are, who have taken up this course, as of inheritance and kind, to dare say any thing in despite of honesty and truth, in ordine ad Deum; for the Catholic cause.   

X.  
That Antichrist shall not be a particular man, and that the Pope is Antichrist.  
THat Antichrist was to come, and so prophesied of, that he is called, That man of sin; is in my Creed, and an Article of my Belief, as being plainly and directly expressed such in Scripture: And this I know no Protestant but believeth. But whether he was to be One particular man; or a State, a succession opposite to Christ; I know no Article, Canon, or Injunction, that tieth me to believe. The Church of England leaveth me to my opinion: Every man may abound in his own sense, and believe it, or not believe it, as he will. For who dareth peremptorily define what God himself hath not, but left at liberty? The Fathers, I grant, run most upon one man: So do your Masters of the Roman Church. The Protestant Writers, do most of them incline rather to a Succession, and a state of men; but not all.  
Not all so peremptorily, as not to incline notwithstanding, unto one man, who more than any of his rank shall oppose himself to Christ in that state and Succession Antichristian; unto whom all those marks and descriptions set down in holy Scripture, shall perfectly agree: as Zanchius, and many others do hold. For in point of Prophecy, and that so obscure as this, until plain event do make it manifest, judgements do and may well, saving the peace of the Church, vary: nor should we condemn or censure Dissenters any way from our private opinions.  
Whether the Pope be that Antichrist or not, the Church resolveth not, tendereth it not to be believed any way. Some I grant are very peremptory; too peremptory indeed, that he is: He for instance, that wrote and printed it, I am as sure that the Pope is Antichrist, that Antichrist spoken of in Scripture; as that jesus Christ is God: But they that are so resolute, peremptory, and certain; let them answer for themselves, they are old enough: the Church is not tied, nor any man that I know, to make good their private imaginations. Nor can or ought the several fancies of men, to be imputed unto the authorized and approved Doctrine of the Church: A fault more than ordinary with you Papists, to charge the Church of England with every private opinion, that any man holdeth in our Church, though he be singular and alone.  
For myself; I profess ingenuously, I am not of opinion, that the Bishop of Rome personally, is that Antichrist, that Vrban the VIII: or Gregory the XV; or Paul the V. were Antichrist: though Paul's name Borghesie, before he was Pope, written in Greek, St john's Language, doth make 666. the number of the Beast. Nor yet that the Bishops of Rome Successively, are that Antichrist so spoken of: An Antichrist I hold him, or them, carrying themselves as they do in the Church; either as the word hath hitherto been taken for, one that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against Christ: or according to the new trick and device of some; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in stead or place of Christ. Rather in this point I should incline unto that opinion of many Protestant Divines, that for the State Antichristian, the Turk and Pope together may seem to make it: and for the Person, some one notorious varlet above the rest. Thus Zanchius, and others: so Melanthon, Draconites upon Daniel, Oecolampadius upon the same; Hiperius upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: Zanchius in Miscellan: Lambert in Apocal. Zegedynus in Locis: Grynaeus in praefat. Eiusdem Libri: and a Disputation at Geneva, 1589. under Faius. I say, rather this way, than the other; though for full resolution I cannot resolve for either: but profess my ignorance in such mysteries, and therefore as is fitting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and crave pardon.  
But had I no greater cause to refrain from concluding then your wise worshipful reasons, Sir Gagger, 
Contrary to their own Bible, 2 Thes 2. 3.  I should conclude as peremptorily as any; Papa est ipsissimus Antichristus: Your Texts are not express, they are not evictive, nor convincing: 2 Thes. 2. 3. He is called, That man of sin, the son of perdition: Your inference is hereupon thus. The words, Man of sin; and son of Perdition, being singular, do plainly prove, that a succession of men, as the Popes are, cannot be this man of sin. For so Saint Peter also should be Antichrist; for he was Pope, and the very first of all the Popes. So your good Gossips long since reasoned in this point, but idly all, and you more: Though the words be singular and personal; Man of sin: and Son of Perdition: yet followeth not, that the subject is one Person; they may denote a body: For any Corporation, though collected out of Pluralities, is a totum, and so but one, and so singular in itself. The Prophecies of jacob for judah, and his other Sons, runneth precisely in singular and personal terms; yet yourself, I think, are not so senseless, as to fasten them all unto the Persons of the Patriarches. The Man of sin, is personal in terms, I grant, but the designation may be a collective unity; a Corporation, a Succession. A sinful man, a wicked generation; an impious body, and an Antichristian State. You have read in the Psalms, That the man of the Earth be no more exalted against them: And again; For man goeth about to devour me. Some private man the Prophet meant by your reason; no Company, combination, or society of men: For, The words Man, and Man of the Earth, being singular, do plainly prove, that he could not intend any private man: this is your reason for the Pope.  
As for Saint Peter's being then a limb of Antichrist, because he was Pope, and the first of Popes; I answer, 
For so Saint Peter should then be Antichrist: for he was Pope, and the very first of Popes.  that he was none of Antichrists members, because he was first: For the Spring is good and wholesome, where the stream is muddy, bitter, or unwholesome; the foundation good, where the building is ruinous: the first most regular, where Succession is not. Those that hold the Pope Antichrist, never imagined all Popes to be so: but the defection of Popes; since the falling away either from the Faith; or from the Roman Empire; or rather indeed, from both. So that Saint Peter, though Bishop of Rome, and a Pope, and many other succeeding him in that See, cannot be included within the pale of Antichrist, although it be pleaded that the Pope is Antichrist, and resolved so.  
Reuel. 13. 18. The holy Spirit giveth both you and others good advice, Qui operta sacri supparo silentij irrumpere audent; Let him that hath understanding, count the number of the Beast: for it is the number of a man. I cannot tell certainly what is meant by that number of a man. You can, it should seem: but this I can tell, as I have told you already, that a man doth not ever and necessarily imply a particular and singular man. For the name of Christ, is as particular, rather more singular than the name of man: and yet your own directors acknowledge, it is attributed unto any, and all that have any similitude or resemblance unto him, as Prophets, Kings, Priests. And your last 
Therefore the great Antichrist shall be a particular man.  Text to be seen, is, 1 john 2. 22. where he is a liar, that denieth jesus; that denieth the Father and the Son, is Antichrist; and yet I hope no singular man necessarily. Therefore the great Antichrist may not be a particular man.   

XI.  
That none but God can forgive or retain Sins.  
Sins are forgiven two ways: by power original, and authority: by derived power, and delegation. God alone, and none but God, doth or can forgive sins the first way; against whom only sins are committed, Psalm. 51. Against thee only have I sinned: and therefore Esay 43. 25. I am he that blotteth out iniquities for myself. In this sense the pharisees did not err, Luke 5. Who can forgive sins but God alone? In this sense it is true, and truly maintained, None but GOD can forgive, or retain sins. Verum dicunt Scribae: The Scribes say true, faith venerable Bede, No man can forgive sins but God alone. And he doth forgive them by the ministry of those men to whom he hath given power to forgive them; by active delegation.  
He hath given power unto men to do that: we profess and maintain; The Priest hath power and authority from God, to forgive sins, in as ample manner, as he can receive it. So your Fathers and Scriptures may well be spared, and have been kept by you in store against a dearer time. Your own director, Controu. 9 hath these words, to our advantage and acquittal, and your confusion. Hereunto is also pertinent the doctrine of those Protestants, who hold; That Priests have power not only to pronounce, but to give remission of sins. That hold most of the forenamed authors, and others very many. Yes, it seemeth to be the doctrine of the Communion Book, in the visitation of the sick; where the Priest saith: And by his authority committed unto me, I absolu● thee from all thy sins.  
If this be acknowledged the Doctrine of our Communion Book, and practice of our Church accordingly, as it is, injurious are those opposites unto truth, and liars against their own knowledge, that impute it to us, which we are confessed to deny, That none but God can forgive sins. This must proceed out of faction, 
Contrary to express words of their own Bible.  or that which is worse: But this fellow proceedeth upon a further extremity, to strengthen a truth in itself, with a lie made by himself, that our Doctrine is contrary to our Bibles.  
Matth. 9 3. 8. To prove against us that which we deny not, viz. this power delegated unto Priesthood, thus you allege: But when the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men, as to forgive sins. Which words, As to forgive sins, are not in our Bibles, out of which you undertake to prove your Assertion: Nor in your own Bibles, follow which you will. You have added them out of your store, to serve your own turn, contrary to Scripture; and further, contrary to sense. Because that thing which amazed them then, for which they glorified God, was a thing sensible, visible, apprehended of all: When they saw it. Now, see sins forgiven they could not: hear it pronounced; believe it, they might. Secondly, the power there given, is not ordinary, as that of absolution is: but extraordinary, and miraculous, to heal the sick. Peter, and his Successor had that: but very few or none had this. You know, it was answered a Pope once, when he showed a mass of Gold and Silver to one, and added, The Church could not say now, Silver and Gold have I none; No, quoth the other, Nor can it say; Arise and walk. This is that power there mentioned, could you see it, not that of Absolution ordinary.  
That of joh. 20. 21. Matth. 16. 19 Give that power unto the Apostles to forgive sins: But may it not 
See more, Mat. 16. 19  be excepted, it was a personal privilege? I answer, not so: for I believe it not. The collation was original, to them, as to those from whom it was to be conveyed unto others. But some are happily of that opinion: and it may seem probable unto others: you should have cleared the Texts of that objection, and then your performance had been to purpose.  
Matth. 16. 19 May be understood you mean of sins forgiven, but yet only secondarily: for thesi secunda: Because we read in the Evangelist, whatsoever, and not whomsoever; this place is to be understood of any knot whatsoever: indeed rather of the power of the sword, than of the keys. And it seemeth that if this place be not personal to Peter, and his successors, as by this allegation for forgiving, it neither is, nor can be, than our most holy Father hath lost a main pillar of his Papacy, peculiar to Saint Peter, and his successors: So these Madianites sheath their swords one in another's sides; and cross themselves in their own positions.  
In Matth. 18. 18. The Text is so express to the purpose, that Origen, Chrysostome, Theophilact, and Anastasius, understand it of all Christians whomsoever: that sundry Roman Catholics, if Maldonate deceive us not, understand it of no more than civil policy. Go take it, Whatsoever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you lose in Earth, it shall be loosed in Heaven: as yourselves will for the power and execution of the keys. We deny not in any sort, that power is given unto mortal men to forgive sins on earth, nor to bind by excommunication, which is frequently practised, and peradventure too frequently amongst us. Unto that, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Artic. 33. thus we subscribe, That person, who by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, aught to be avoided, and to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen, and a Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that hath authority thereunto. And in this sort Saint Paul delivered Hymenaeus, and Alexander, 1 Timoth. 1. 20. and forgave the incestuous Corinthian, 2 Cor. 2. 10. Which places by your direction we have seen, and find the Article agreeing with them. As for 2 Cor. 5. 19 It is not to purpose of forgiving sins by delegated authority unto a Priest, but of Reconciling by the whole office and function of the ministry. God was in Christ, saith the Apostle, and reconciled the world unto himself, not imputing their sins unto them, and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation. So we have seen either, nothing at all to purpose: or else that of which we made no question, nor yet do any at all.  
As little in Fathers that affirm the same. Irenaeus 
See Fathers that affirm the same.  Lib. 5. cap. 14. saith, the raising of Lazarus from death to life, was a Symbol or figure of our Resurrection from Sin to God. He saith no more that I can see or find. Ambrose Lib. 1. it should be the penitent. cap. 7. Nor August. Tract. 49. in john: Nor Gregor. hom. 26. in Euangel. if we may believe Bellarmine, Lib. 3. de penitent. cap. 3. from whom you transcribed these testimonies, without considering of these Fathers, in their own works: but so carelessly, that if you were a Schoolboy, lures in corpore: for you refer us to Gregor. hom. 26. in Euangel. Whereas Bellarmine hath it 6. and to Ambrose, Lib. de paenitentia: as if Saint Ambrose had written but one Book of that Argument, not divided into Chapters, whereas Bellarmine directed you aright to the seaventh Chapter of his 1. Book. Was this security, stupidity, or insolency in you? or what was it?   

XII.  
That we must not confess our Sins but only unto God.  
THat we must not, implieth a flat negative, or injunction rather, unto the contrary: Show me any such inhibition, and I will say, which I believe you never will deserve at any Protestants hands, you are a true dealing, and an honest man. Otherwise, you are that you are, and so will be still.  
The most that hath been said, is, that private confession is free, not tied: and therefore suus positivi, not divini: Therefore, happily of conveniency, not of absolute necessity. That in a private Confession unto a Priest, a peculiar enumeration of all Sins, both of commission and omission, with all circumstances, and accidents, is never necessary necessarily: most an end not expedient, nor yet, all things considered, required. It is confessed that all Priests, and none but Priests, have power to forgive sins: It is confessed, that private Confession unto a Priest's is of very ancient practice in the Church: of excellent use and practise, being discreetly handled. We refuse it to none, if men require it, if need be to have it. We urge it and persuade it in extremes: We require it in case of perplexity, for the quieting of men disturbed, and their consciences. It hath been so acknowledged by your fellows, that in the visitation of the sick, it is required by the Communion Book: That the sick person make a special Confession, if he feel his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter: And likewise before the receiving of the Lords Supper, according to which doctrine and injunction, our Bishops do, or should inquire in their Visitations, touching the use and neglect of this so good an order: as did that right learned and reverend Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Oueral, of late: A man for admirable learning, and yet as strange humility, in communicating his knowledge unto any poor Scholar, hardly equalled, sure outgone by none since the world had him. The 21. Article enquired of in his Visitation 1619. concerning Ministers, is: Whether doth your Minister before the several times of the administration of the Lords Supper, admonish and exhort his Parishioners, if they have their Consciences troubled and disquieted, to resort unto him, or some other learned Minister, and open his grief, that he may receive such ghostly counsel and comfort, as his Conscience may be relieved, and by the Minister he may receive the benefit of Absolution, to the quiet of his conscience, and avoiding of scruple. And if any man confess his secret and hidden sins, being sick, or whole, to the Minister, for the vnburthening of his Conscience, and receiving such spiritual consolation, doth or hath the said Minister at any time, revealed and made known to any person whomsoever, any crime or offence so committed to his trust, contrary to the 113. Canon? that he might be punished accordingly. Which is not like the injunction of those that hold, We must confess our Sins but only unto God. Our people happily are negligent in performing this most behooveful use and practice of the Church, but the judgement and resolution of the Church, is not averse from it, as you belie us: much less is it our decision. We must not confess our Sins, but only unto God.  
The words of our Bible, Matth. 3. 5. 6. are express 
Contrary to the express words of your own Bible.  for confessing. I grant: and for confessing of Sins too: But not express for public or private confessing: not for confessing unto whom, to man or unto God: not, whether in general, they confessed themselves sinners; or, descended to some particulars there more ordinary, direct, and enormous sins. These are not instanced, discerned, nor determined; Writers are divided in opinion. You know it not: only because there was confessing of Sins, it must needs be such confession of such Sins, as you imagined. Have you read what Maldonate that learned jesuit hath said of such bold Bayards, as yourself, Quis unquam Catholicus tam indoctus fuit, ut ex hoc loco Confessionis probaret Sacramentum? Was there ever any Catholic such a block, as would go about to prove out of this place the Sacrament of Confession? Not in his time, or before peradventure. Maldonate could not prophesy, nor foresee therefore, that such an unlettered Dolt would rise up after him. I do speak but in his Language: Indoctus, is as much in effect. If you meant not of sacramental Confession: bucus, blennus es. What other Confession could you speak of? If of Confession sacramental; in Maldonates' judgement, bardus es: howsoever, fungus, fatuus es: For, if all those that went out unto john Baptist, came to him for shrift; he had shriving work enough for seven years. I add. It is happily intended, They confessed unto God: For it is not said, they confessed unto john. And then, what is become of your, Therefore 
Therefore sins may be confessed unto man.  sins may be confessed unto man? Secondly, your tenet is of must be, not may be. They did it voluntarily, once: therefore, often, and again. We must necessarily do. Thirdly, they did it once in all their life: and that on occasion, and time extraordinary; at their Baptism: not again, for any thing that we know. Your Confession is penitential, flat opposite unto this in Baptism You may as well infer out of this Text, reiteration of Baptism: as reiteration of Confession: Baptism in jordan, necessarily, as Confession of Sins necessarily: So many encumbrances are in the words: so many Non sequiturs unto the main.  
That of Act. 19 18. I grant is more proper: and as Bellarmine observeth, in some sort it is true, that the words are of special Confession: but yet they come not home unto Auricular; Confession in private into the Priest's ear. Again, it was not of enforcement or necessity, but of voluntary motion. Nor is it expressed, which is most material: whether it were made only unto God, or also unto man. If you be put to prove it, what proof or evidence can you make for it? The Text hath, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Confessing and declaring openly what they had done: Before men, not unto Paul, or any Priestin private, but unto God, before men; that all the Assembly might take notice of it, and understand it.  
That of Numb. 5. 6. is for Confession unto, at least before the Priest: but is your judgement so crazed, to award us the injunction and practice of this jewish Ceremony, for a ground of Confession Sacramental? If so, your brains are rather to be purged, than your error refuted. If you take it but for typical, as you must and will, if you understand yourself: then such Propositions are not argumentative. Nor was there here enjoined any particular enumeration of their sins in kind, but only of that one sin for which the Sin-offering was brought: for which an atonement was sought, & to be procured by the Priest. Peccatum illud quod feceram, is Bellarmine's observation: and so, no way for the point in Controversy; Confession Auricular unto the Priest, unless only by way of equality and conveniency, as left unto us free, and not upon obligation as to them, which help you not.  
Thus we have no great satisfaction out of Scripture, Go and see Fathers that affirm as little: Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 9 speaking of some silly women, one or two, seduced by Marcus, a Sorcerer and Gnostique Heretic, relateth thus much, that being reconciled and regained to the Catholic Church, they confessed, Marcus had abused them carnally; which nothing promoteth their Catholic Cause, unless their ghostly Fathers should shrive them in secret as Marcus did: They might confess that before a temporal Iudge, unto some Neighbour or friends of their own. To a Priest: some Priests; and yet not in aurem: or if so, yet not by special enumeration of all the circumstances, or relation of their other sins. It might be in the face of the Church in general. Irenaeus words are not confined: Hae saepissimè conversae ad Ecclesiam Dei, confessae sunt, & secundum corpus exterminatas se ab eo velut Cupidine, & inflammatas valdè se illum dilexisse. They confessed it often, unto many, what Magical enchantments he used to besot them: Therefore not likely in Sacramental Confession, where having received absolution of the Priest, it were but idle to confess it again; unless the man imagined the Protestants denied and took away all Confession, upon any terms, what need we go see in Irenaeus?  
Or in Tertullian; who in his Book de poenitentia, (I must supply the Chapter, you had forgot it, or else could not tell it) Cap. 4. blameth some that through bashfulness would not confess: but where, or to whom he telleth not. Happily he meant it of Confession unto God. For almost instantly before he hath these words; Quâ delictum nostrum Domino confitemur: To God, notto man; and Delictum, the sin that lieth close, that presseth down, that disquieteth us in Conscience: not Delicta, our sins by enumeration. But pass it for private Confession to a Priest. Tertullian urgeth it no farther, then for conveniency; and draweth it up no higher than Delictum. Every way conspiring with the Protestants, who mislike not Confession, nay, approve it unto men: who condemn not Absolution, but approve it, enjoin it, though not with that rigour as Romanists do; and approve Saint Ambrose counsel well: Confess freely unto the Priest, the hidden secrets of thy soul. If yet it be the counsel of Saint Ambrose. For Plagiary as you be, did you not here mistake your Author: and Father that ignorantly upon Saint Ambrose, which Bellarmine telleth you was the advice of Gregory Nyssen, Orat: in mulierem peccatricem? Such gross Bayardismes in so insolent a Bard, are intolerable: Saint Ambrose hath no such Book, de muliere peccatrice. 2: de penitent. 6. He exhorteth to repentance, but not a word of Confession unto a Priest: many confessing unto God.   

XIII.  
That Pardons and Indulgences were not in use in the Apostles times.  
IN the Apostles times? no, nor yet many hundreds of years since their times. Such Pardons as commence in the Apostolical Chancery; such as Tecelius dispersed in Germany: others in other Countries: are impious, irreligious, profane, and sacrilegious cozenage; an imposture of Merchants that trade for the Devil; that chaffer Heaven and happiness, for the reward of iniquity. The first moving cause of Luther's rising up, and taking Arms against the Church of Rome. Bellarmine and Baronius, those grand Dictator's, and undertakers for the Papacy, fail in proofs of this novelty; and what can such a puny as this fellow perform? Yet let us see his best endeavours, and fairest shows; because with Catholics every Pismire is a Potentate: as every Goose a Swan. Contrary no doubt to our own Bibles, we deny them. For 2 Cor. 2. 10. S. Paul remembreth them thus; To whom you forgive any thing, I forgive also, etc. You must know, that are to learn: The Corinthian that had married his Father's wife, was for his incest Excommunicated, and put to penance by the Apostle; as appeareth, 1 Cor. 5. 3. Well, what when? why here he giveth order for his Pardon. This is not denied upon any hand. The Protestants believe the Scriptures more than Papists will do. Why, but these two places compared, are a plain proof of the Apostles power of punishing and of pardoning. They are, it is granted: Therefore Pardons were in use in the Apostles time. Is any Ass so ignorant as to say nay? Long before the Apostles time they were in use. Long before Moses, or Abraham's days. Can a man with patience here this Animal thus bray? I suppose there is no Roman Catholic beside himself so senseless; as to imagine, Protestants believe or teach, That no offender was pardoned in the Apostles times: That the Apostles had no power, or wanted will to accept any Contrite, and Penitent into the Church. Ingenuous Roman Catholics, can you brook the wittol thus to babble? Pardons were in use, then, after, before: but Pardons no more like the Pardons he meaneth, or should maintain, than Simon the Sorcerer was to Simon the Tanner, or Stephen the Deacon, to Stephen Gardiner; or this goose gagger unto an honest man.  
2 Cor. 2. 6. In the same case, upon the same person, the Apostle saith; Sufficient to such a ma 〈…〉 his punishment: And therefore he forgave what remained of his punishment, not yet fulfilled. So that there passed an Indulgence for his farther durance. There did no doubt. We willingly yield it; and take it for a warrant against Novatian Puritanisme: for a ground unto the Discipline of the Church; whose practice in Discipline is established. Art. 33. It is in the hands of the spiritual Magistrates to measure the time of such punishment or penance imposed. Let your Pardons be no otherwise, and we quarrel them not: Let them stay upon the living in foro fori, and not meddle with pardoning the dead for money: nor yet cousin the living, by false Coins, out of the supposed Treasures of the Church; and no opposition will be unto Pardons granted, no, though sold in external Courts abroad. For the faults of men shall not be imputed unto the Discipline by us, if that were rectified as it ought to be. But the man is conscious to the foulness of his Cause, and profane Roman marting; and therefore attireth a prostituted Strumpet, in the habit of a grave Matron. Popish pardons and Indulgences, so profane and enormous, are passed under the names of those things, with which they have no more affinity then in name: which the Prince of the Apostles of the Lamb, had with the first begotten of the Devil. Pardons, and Pardons: Simon and Simon, homonym 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s. For, the Doctrine and Practice of the Church for Repentance, in Excommunication, Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction, Restitution, Absolution, is according unto Piety, and the rule of Faith, in those that have sinned, and are restored: but in the Church of Rome, thus it goeth. They imagine a treasure in the Church, compounded together, out of the satisfactions of Christ, and his Saints: which Treasure so composed, is in the hands, say they, of the Pope, and other Prelates, under lock and key, safe enough from purloining, to be disposed and dispensed as they shall think good, to whom they will open and communicate it, more or less, which is ever Danti, (for Giff-gaff is a good fellow) to none else; and answerable to his purchase much or little, Plus, or minus danti, as his means are.  
For in every good work, there is Merit and Satisfaction. Merit is Personal, not Transitive, nor yet Communicable: but Satisfaction is and may be imparted. Because Satisfaction is only for a Temporary pain; which is often more, and greater than justice, or right for the offence exacteth. So that God in justice requiring but Proportion, the ouer-plus in remainder is laid up in store against time of need, and drawn forth for use, when men's purses are flush; then, & not till then, to be sovereignly applied unto the purchaser, not payer.  
This premised, to your Scriptures and ancient Fathers: Find you any such Pardon in Saint Paul foreprised? or Indulgence imparted upon those terms? The Corinthian was restored, without a Bull: a Bishop's Seal; a Commissaries direction unto the Parson. He paid no rate, nor fees for Restitution, or standing rectus in Curiâ: No Treasure of the Church was applied unto him. Upon his hearty repentance, and hearty satisfaction, he was restored. Satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church; whom he had scandalised by his fall. Go along with Saint Paul, and the Primitive times; no man will ever say, Black is your Eye.  
We have seen, Matthew 18. 18. and 16. 19 once and again, to as little purpose then, as now; and now, as then. The name, Pardons; and the thing, your Pardons, are two things much differing every way: and yet in neither place avonched is the Name, as by your undertaking for Express, it should be. The thing as much differing as white and black. Power to bind and lose we deny not: we maintain and practise it in our Church. We may differ in the Execution; but Circumstances alter not Nature: your proofs may vouch the Thing, the right, the use, the being; but manner, fashion, execution, only doubted of, and to be proved, that you touch not.  
See Fathers that list, and like to lose their labour. 
See the Fathers, who affirm the same: Tertul. lib. ad Mart. ca 1.  In Tertullian I am sure nothing, either in the first Chapter of his Book, ad Martyrs, remembered by some other of your Gossips, nor in his fifth, which is supplied out of your store: His Book ad Martyrs, is very ●●ort. Find me Pardons and Indulgences there mentioned, and I will purchase a Bull from Rome myself, whatsoever it cost me: dear enough, without doubt. That which you have a mind unto by direction of others, is this, as I guess, Quam pa●em, quidam in Ecclesia non habentes, à Martyribus in carcere exorare consueuêre: Which Peace some not enjoying within the Church, have been accustomed to entreat the Martyrs in Prison for it. Peace there is Pardon, after the African phrase of Tertullian, and Saint Cyprian, whom you make your second Father to be seen; and whose testimony is almost idem numero with Tertullians'. The meaning of both, as Pamelius, no Protestant, may inform you, was this. Those that had fallen in time of persecution: to avoid or elevate the censure of the Church, through their great suit and importunity, often procured letters deprecatory to the Bishop and Clergy, whereto they were liable, from Consessors, such as were imprisoned for the truth, whom those Fathers call Martyrs, that so at their entreaty, and for their confessions famous in the Church, the rigour of discipline might be suspended, mitigated, or determined, and they without more ado, be restored unto the Church. Against this custom in breach of discipline, Tertullian, and especially Cyprian, inveigh most bitterly. So then, take your choice, either these Fathers cannot be seen to affirm for your purpose: or if so, avoid it if you can your pardons at the first arising up in the Church were but abuses, and as such, resisted, exclaimed on, condemned as irregular, and as impious, by the Fathers of those times, Tertullian, and especially Cyprian: and so you have spun a fair thread either way.  
As for Pope Vrban the second, make you merry 
Pope Vrban the second, granted a plenary Indulgence to such as would go to the Holy-Wars, An. Christi. 160.  with him: much good may his plenary indulgence for the Holy-Land war and voyage do you. Ask my fellow if I be a thief, Vrban granted such Indulgence I confess: So did Gregory the seaventh his next Predecessor but one, first take upon him to depose Princes, and dispose of their Kingdoms, by Apostatical authority. No man heard of the one before Gregory: nor of the other before Vrban. The eldest above 1000 years after Christ. Vrban the eight, that now Popeth it, may proclaim a Croisado if he will, and justify his fact as well as any other: but the true reason holdeth not now: The World is grown wiser, and men love money too well to be so cheated of it, as their fore fathers were: to empty their own, and fill the Pope's Coffers by Croisado cousonages.  
But what a Bayard is this, to show such blockish Ignorance, being an undertaker, and that with some contumely against the whole Nation of Protestants? We are told it was Anno Christi 160. as if there were any Holy wars in those times, when as Vrban the first, (if he were then borne,) yet certainly was not Pope many years after, till 224. above 60. years between. As for Vrban the second, he sat in Anno 1088. A foul over sight in such an undertaker, for the gagging of all Protestants mouths for ever. But somewhat there was in it, that the Cat winked, when both her eyes were out. Some wiser, more learned, and skilful than himself, had observed, it seemeth, that Vrban the second, Founder of these pardons, was the 160. Pope in order from Saint Peter: and this poor Ignaro, meaning well to the Cause, to advance the credit thereof by antique use, thought it had been a thing so ancient as the year 160. at least, best to use a Catholic trick of piae fraudis, to let it go so. For, honest good Catholics must believe what their Instructors say, though they teach that the Snow is black: so are they hood-wincked in implicit Faith. And as for Heretics, no matter if they spy it: or what they say: poor misled Proselytes, either read not their answers, good cause why; or if they read them, will not believe them, though never so plain and evident: Therefore Quicquid in buccam, these men may say and write any thing; no matter what.   

XIIII.  
That the Actions and Passions of Saints do serve for nothing unto the Church.  
MEntiris furcifer: a lewd lie: in imputation of flat impiety. They serve for nothing? those worthies of David? those mighty men of War? Holy Saint Stephen and his Arriereban of valiant Adventurers in the cause of Christ jesus, that in life and death have so glorified God: and set up that bloody banner of our Redemption, displayed on the battlements of Death and Hell! 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Indeed this was the power of that omnipotent God, not to be uttered by the tongue of men, which did so enable them unto such performings, saith justine himself, one of that Society. They are our Crown, and our exceeding great rejoicing. We boast of them, and of their noble acts: we commemorate their worths in our common service. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said Nazianzen, I take it, or Basil, one of the two, and we take up that saying, whose soever it was. In doing them honour we delight exceedingly. We triumph in the blood they have shed for our Saviour. Their acts were recorded for imitation; that considering their Precedents, and worthy performings, we might be encouraged to follow their example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As springing Wells they supply us continually, saith Clemens Alexandrinus; What do they supply us with all? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with commonifaction to show ourselves religious lovers of God, though with shedding of our blood. To show forth our Faith, with loss of our lives. Witnesses they are: so is their name. Martyrs, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to witness. Credendorum: agendorum: sustinendorum, recipiendorum: Of things to be believed, performed, endured, received, saith Bonaventure. And are these for nothing unto the Church? Did ever any Protestant say or think so of these Holy Saints of God? For shame speak truth, and shame the Devil, the Father of lies, and such lying Libelers as our Gagger.  
But belike it is for nothing, which is not for your purpose. And therefore, whatsoever Protestants do think, and teach, and esteem of the life and actions; the death and Passions of those holy Saints of Christ, it is nothing, because that they build not up thence a Magazine, nor store-house for the Church, nor supply other men's defects, by their superfluities: that the Holy Father may thereby mugle men, and fill his 〈◊〉 coffers by lifting law. A thing so improbable for that feigned treasury, that as Bellarmine confesseth, some of the Schoolmen, as Maironis and Durand have not approved it: Which they durst not have done, had Saint Paul been of that mind, and tendered that, Doctrine, Colos. 1. 24. I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind: you read wanting, (and read so, if you list) of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the Church: 
Hence hath the ground of Indulgences been always taken: but more principally from the supper abundant merit of jesus Christ.  Whence, if you say true, the ground of Indulgences hath ever been.  
And you mean since there were Indulgences heard off: For the time was, in the Protestants opinion at least, that no such thing was in being: which yet I marvel much it so should be: and that many writing of that argument, have not so much as dreamt thereof: and many, no Protestants, expound it otherwise. Osorius a jesuit, in his Sermons, saith, Quid deest passioni Christi, nisi ut nos similia patiamur: What can be wanting to the suffering of Christ, but only this, that we in like sort suffer with him? Paul suffered much; endured much; yet was he not perfect, if himself say true: and for the Church of Christ, to give them example, to strengthen and confirm them in what they had received from him, filled up the measure appointed for him in conformity to the sufferings of Christ jesus. Barradas, another of that same Society, Tom. 3. upon the Gospels. Quod ad sufficientiam attinet nihil deerat passioni, & Cruci Christi: The Cross and sufferings of Christ were all sufficiency: and that way naught wanted unto his passion. Vt tamen efficax es●et Crux app〈…〉 tio, & praedicatio laboribus plena deerat. Ideo Paulus ●it, se adimplere, quae desunt passionum Christi, quia per multos labores Euangelium gentibus praedicabat. And yet to make the Cross and sufferings of Christ effectual, there wanted application of it, by Preaching: A thing laborious, and exceeding painful: For which cause Paul saith, that he filleth up, or supplieth, if you will, that which was wanting unto the sufferings of Christ, for as much as, with great pains he preached the Gospel unto the Gentiles.  
Differences there may be amongst Interpreters: but none, not partialists take it so, as to make up a Storehouse for the Church, out of Christ's sufferings supplied by Saint Paul: For so it must be: admit this Magazine, and we must admit a supply: a supply is not but upon insufficiency. Can a man without blasphemy babble thus? Christ's imperfect, a d insufficient sufferings, were made up and supplied by Saint Paul? In the merits of Christ, there are no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, coming short, remains, or as you will call them, wants: For if so: I say no more, but how can yourself call them superabundant as you do, and as they are? The Text should speak expressly, if you kept your woe 〈…〉 for making up a store for the Church in time of need: which is so far from expressly doing that, as that not obscurely it insinuateth what you pretend: no not in the interpretations of no Babes, upon your own party, Jesuits of note and learning.  
Philip. 2. 30. Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his own life to supply your lack. Epaphroditus is the man there spoken of: a faithful servant of Christ in the work of the ministry: who with the hazard of his own life puts himself to do service unto the Church of God. This is the commendation Saint Paul giveth of him. Your inference is: He did more than he needed to have done: for who required any such service at his hand as this? He might have kept himself close, and warm at home: and have slept if he would, in an whole skin. This is your good wholesome Catholic Doctrine: For the benefit accrueing out of the actions and Passions of Saints, is to make up the treasure of the Church, out of works supererogated by them, when they do more than God requireth. As for instance, when the Virgin Mary, without not only actual sins, mortal, venial, in your opinion, but also original, as not conceived in them, suffered yet much, which was not due to her: because all sufferings are the wages of Sin: as when martyrs suffer more, or greater torments, than can in justice be exacted of them, though God should enter into judgement with them, and deal with them in the rigour of his justice. So, Epaphroditus, sick unto death, indu 〈◊〉 that which in no case was his deserving, or due unto him: he endured it therefore for the Philippians sake, that through his sufferings they might be saved, and have supply of that which was wanting in the reckoning to the sufferings of Christ: as good blasphemy as ever was uttered by any enemy of the Grace of Christ, I will abide by it.  
Secondly, admit it, good Catholic truth; yet is it not to purpose true: for Epaphroditus was then alive; and upon recovery, alives-like. They are, and must be dead, that bring in their shot, to make up that mass of treasure for the Church; and good cause why: For though then at present he had enough at home, and also spare to serve others turns, yet wisdom would he should not be too lavish or profuse; for happily he might have need thereof himself: For your Doctrine also is, He that standeth may fall. No man is sure of his Salvation: therefore, well is it provided, though you regard it not, or know it not, that your store is not to be augmented till men are dead. Thirdly, in your own construction and learning, this Text of Saint Paul will do you no good: For in point of supply, for Pardons and Indulgences from the Actions and Passions of Saints, you admit not of merits, but only satisfactions Now this text serveth, if at all, for any thing to any purpose, for merit, and not for satisfaction.  
Lastly, you play the Catholic knave in plain terms: a man may call a spade a spade, and him a knave that so deserveth it. For you will convict us by our own Bibles. Now in our Bibles we read thus, Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service towards me. You cut off these words of service towards me; and set up your rest upon, to supply your lack: as if the defects of the Philippians toward God, had been supplied by the store of Epaphroditus: whereas the defect was temporary, towards St. Paul, to supply which, Epaphroditus did venture his life. Such legerdemain befitteth well your cause, not to be upholden but by collusion. Now go and infer your conclusion thus; Therefore the passions of the servants of God, may be imparted; and serve to good purpose to the Church: which no man but like you, will deny: but is not the thing in question, or to be proved. And how cometh halting in the close, Roman. 9 3. where Saint Paul remonstrateth his fervent love indeed unto his Brethren the Jews, in wishing to be separated from Christ for them? Go you and do so, (and you shall have a better treasure in Heaven) for us Protestants your Brethren in the same alloy, I wonder we hear of no Fathers here: nor any brag of their abundance, at least such a Catholic verity as this is, can afford whole thraves of Fathers I need not doubt. But Roscius noster, noluit agere, aut crudior fuit. We must be fain to be without them, whom he cannot name: neither here, nor for works of Supererogation. No marvel; for Causa est conclamata.   

XV.  
That no man can do any works of Supererrogation.  
WHat is meant by works of Supererrogation we may collect out of the Texts of Scripture cited, viz. that man in the state of Grace, and assisted by God's grace, may do some things counselled, and not commanded or exacted in rigour. Many particulars are produced: it is commonly instanced, in virginity, and wilful poverty. For my part I know no Doctrine of our English Church against evangelical Counsels. Private resolutions this way or that way, are but opinions, and may as well be rejected as admitted: I willingly subscribe unto antiquity for the point of Counsels evangelical: For, Quod ex voluntate est, laudis est amplioris, saith Philastrius. God putteth the yoke of Virginity upon no man, but leaveth it to those that can and will undergo it: Therefore Nazianzen well resolved; We have Laws amongst us, that bind of necessity: others, which be left unto our freechoyce, to keep them or not: so as if we keep them, we shall be rewarded: if we keep them not, no fear of punishment or danger to be undergone therefore.  
But I deny thereupon works of Supererrogation, to be laid up in store for employments: such indeed you call works of Supererrogation: not the things only done by assistance of God's grace, as counselled only, and not commanded. Which were it so, and no otherwise, 
Whence it appeareth, that man by assistance of God's grace, may do some things counselled. And these we call works of supererogation.  I would not contend with you: but then your Magazine would be empty enough of Church-treasure. The truth is, as faitors use, you play fast and loose: For although a man in some one point may do more than is exacted, in many other things he doth much less than he should do. A man professeth continency and single life, he must precisely keep it. He chastiseth and bringeth under his body, with fasting, praying, lying on the ground, etc. the better to keep it: as those ancient Ascetae and Anachorites did, in their marvellous and admirable Scleragogie; This was more than they needed to have done, out of strict command: But were they not defective? Came they home, think we, in many other things commanded, required under that fearful dictate, Do this, and live? Now, set the Hare's head against the Goose giblets; let one score pay another, and then much will not be left to satisfy for others: well for him that can answer for one. If a man could in all things keep the whole Law, and have no need at all to say, Forgive me my trespasses, than he might happily Supererogate: as in opinion of the Adversary, the blessed Virgin may: till then, that we meet with such perfect livers, we may conclude rather for subtererogation, than supererogation any way. So this is your Doctrine of Supererogation unto the Law: that of Counsels evangelical, is but of pretence to extenuate and palliate the enormity of the other.  
Matthew 19 21. In our own Bibles our Doctrine is crossed thus. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: then come and follow me. A Council I grant: no Imperious form of Precept. If thou wilt; not, Do this: Left to choice and liberty, to do, or not. Christ tieth no man, but leaveth him to do, or not do. But doth Christ say; When thou hast so done, thou shalt have enough remaining in store, to make satisfaction for another? No. He goeth no farther than merit, in their own Language, thus: Thou shalt have treasure laid up for thee in Heaven. For thee: Not, by thee, for thine own use and employment, against thy need: Not for others, borrowing out of thy store: viz. Thou shalt have it; in effect for thyself; appropriated to thee: not to confer or bestow it upon other that need. far short of your supererogation.  
1 Cor. 7. 25. 28. Now concerning Virgins, 1 have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgement; you read Council, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful: He that giveth her in marriage, doth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage, doth better. This ho advised, and gave his counsel as you will have it, and so let it be: Man to keep himself single and alone, especially as those times than went, and as the times succeeding were to be: But so to do, was a work of supererogation: More I grant, than they were tied unto by any Law of God, which leaveth them at liberty, and to themselves: but let me see, if Saint Paul hath any such inference, as, out of this same work they could satisfy for their own offences otherwise committed; or other men's offences beside their own, or out of their supernumerary perfections, add any thing else unto the Church's Stock. He that is able to receive this counsel, let him receive and follow it all he can; and when as he hath so done, he shall benefit his own Soul: no profit will thence out, more than exemplary accrue unto another. These are indeed the works of Supererogation, which you mean: The other are only titular, and do but half it. So you wholly abuse and circumvent your Proselytes, in pleading for one, and p●inting out another.  
Matthew 19 12. is of the former stamp; He that is able to receive it, let him receive it: leaveth it at liberty without tye or precept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He ordained this course for them that could receive it; as saith Eusebius. This may suffice: for Luke 10. 25. thou shalt find nothing unto purpose.  
Fathers for the point we may look after, but not 
See one Father for the same, in stead of many I could produce.  see. It is a vain and false brag; you could produce many: All that you had heard of by relation of your Informers (for poor man yourself are not guilty of them) we shall find in the case of keeping the Law. Saint Chrysostome should have gone amongst them there: For so C. W. B. quoted them unto your hand: all that you could do, was to part him from the Fellowship, and bring him in alone in this particular. And yet he hath nothing for supererogation: His plea is for possibility to keep the Law, (of which in due place.) Now keeping of the Law reflecteth upon Precept. Precepts and Counsels, in your own Learning, by your own Confession, are two distinct severals: Your prooses out of Scripture, were all for Counsels, not Precepts: and now Saint Chrysostome is summoned to speak for Precepts: the possibility of keeping them. So, What would this man have? what would he say? who floateth betwixt Counsels and Precepts thus uncertain, up and down he knoweth not whether.   

XVI.  
That by the fall of Adam, we have lost all our free will: and that it is not in our own power either to choose good or evil.  
AQuestion of obscurity, which better might have been over-passed in silence; fitting rather Schools, then popular ears: especially the differences hanging on such niceties; and the controverted particulars of no great moment in fine, upon due examination. For it is confessed that free will is a Power of the reasonable Soul; and peculiar under Heaven to man, which is endued with freedom to do, or not to do: whereby they make choice of one end rather than of another, and of some means rather than of other, upon advice and deliberation of the understanding, chief Councillor to the will.  
This Power was conferred upon man at first, in the day of his Create on, when he was made a living Soul. In state of Nature entire, a natural faculty, not any supernatural endowment at all: whereby most freely and absolutely he was Lord of his own actions, and could do or not do what he pleased and would. That liberty was much impaired by sin, not extinct, or amolished in corrupted Nature, such as now it is. The Council of Trent rightly so defineth it, Sess. 6. Cant. 5. And we profess, Non amissimus Naturam sed gratiam. As rightly is it by that Counsel determined, Liberum arbitrium non quidem extinctum esse, sed viribus attenuatum. The question is all of these vires remaining, and quatenus attenuatum liberum arbitrium: The Church of England, Artic. 10. concludeth thus. The condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn nor prepare himself by his own natural strength, and good works, to faith and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable unto God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will and working with us, when we have that good will. Man is here considered in a twofold state, of Nature depraved, and restored. In that, freewill is denied unto man, for works of righteousness before conversion; not for works of Nature, or of Morality. In the second, freewill is granted unto man, When we have that good will, what is it else? and By our freewill, assisted by Grace, work out our salvation unto the end. This is not that opinion condemned in the Council of Trent: Sess 6. Can. 5. which taketh away freewill from man after preventing Grace, in cooperation unto increase of Grace; for it is said, that Grace, infused first, and had, worketh together with our good will.  
So it is not denied, but freewill is, In us, subsisting, not in title only. It is not said, that by the ●all of Adam we have utterly lost all of us our freewill, as if the Soul were clean defeated and disfurnished of that Power: So that this blunderer stumbleth at a straw, and impudently belieth our Profession. What some have thought or taught, is nothing to us. No Church is to be charged with private opinions. Man in state of Corruption, hath freedom of will in Actions Natural and Civil: Secondly, Man in state of Corruption, hath freewill in matters Moral. Thirdly, Man hath freewill in Actions of Piety, and such as belong unto his salvation: But quatenus, and quale, is the Question, as much amongst yourselves, as with us. For the concurrence of Grace assisting, with freewill: The correspondency of Free well, with Prescience, Providence, and Predestination, is much debated in your own Schools. Intricate Disputes are hereupon inferred: Questions almost inextricable; such, as Armachanus studied twenty years to resolve one of them, and was fain to give it over without an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have found it. We resolve thus far. First, with Saint Augustine, Lib. 1. cont. 2. Epistolas Pelagianorum cap. 2. Quis nostrum dicit, quod primi hominis peccato perierit arbitrium de humano genere? Libertas quidem perijt per peccatum: sed illa quae in Paradiso fuit habendi plenam cum immortalitate iustitiam: Doth any of us affirm, that freewill is perished utterly from man by the fall of Adam? Freedom is perished, I grant by sin: but that freedom which was in Paradise, of having righteousness with immortality. Again, we confess with the same Saint Augustine, Man is not merely passive in all works of Grace, to glory: For, Qui creavit te sine te, non saluabit te si●e te. He that made thee alone without thy help, will not save thee alone without thy concurrence. Man is to work, that will have reward.  
In Conclusion, the Condition of Man since the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn, nor prepare himself to God, by, or through his own natural or humane power and strength. This is the Doctrine of the Church of England. Prevented by Grace, and assisted therewith, he than putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of that Grace, and continuance unto the end. No man cometh to God, but he is drawn. Drawn, he runneth or walketh, as his assistance is, and his own agility and disposition to the end. This is enough: And the wisdom of the Church hath not ventured far, to put a tye of Obedience upon men's belief, in points of inextricable obscurity almost, of the concordance in working of Grace, and Predestination with freewill. Moderate spirits would well and wisely sit them down by temperate courses, and not clamour without rage, where is no cause; nor delight to set the Peace of the Church on hurres, only for faction, and some private sinister indirect ends of their own.  
Contrary to our own Bibles, it is not which we read, 1 Cor. 7. 37. He that standeth stead fast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed, that he will keep his Virgin, doth well. So it is confessed he doth, and that he may have power so to do: For, it is not absolute, as if every one had such Power, but Conditional: If any have such Power. The Apostic saith; That man hath Power, if he be not tied: which Text may as well demolish, as build up freewill. For here is supposed, at least some time, an over-awing, and over-commanding; Necessity, or Coaction. Again, this Freedom specified here, is but in bono morali, and no more. It may tend to Piety, I grant: but it is not intention primâ; and directly it is only occasionally, as elsewhere, 1 Cor. 9 Am I not free? or Acts 5. Was it not in thy Power? That of Deuter. 30. 19 is more to purpose. I call Heaven and Earth this day to record against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live. For this is directly in point of Piety, and performance of duty immediate unto God. Neither was it spoken to men according to general notion of them, and their general state, in case of alienation from God; in state of Nature only, and Natural endowments: of which it is consented, I think, They cannot choose life; but to men prevented by Grace, called to Life, assisted with much and many concurrences of Grace: This is not contrary to our Tenent, as is plain in the Article before alleged.  
That of joshua 24. 15. is to the same purpose, almost in the very same words: one answer will serve to both. The Article denieth freewill quoad points of Piety, to mere natural men only, in the state of depravation: but avoucheth it in state of Grace, with 
See more: Eccles. 15. 14.  concurrence of Assistance Ecclesiasticus 15. 14. is not to purpose. The wise man speaketh of what was; not what is: in the state of innocency before the fall; not of depravation being fall'n. God from the beginning made man, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. In 2 Sam. 12. I find not for freewill, but only this Verse 17. that David would not eat meat, but refused it: which place, if ignorantly alleged, proveth this fellow, as he hath been discovered often, a plain blunderer: if with advice; a shameless slanderer, that would impute unto Protestants such a senseless assertion, that man had not freewill to eat if he would, for such is the inference upon that allegation.  
In Matth. 23. 37. There is an opposition of man's wilfulness unto Gods will. God would have called judah: judah would not: therefore freely men renounce the calling of Grace: and freely run themselves, without any absolute irreversible decree, upon Perdition: which I grant; being the purpose and intent of those succeeding Texts of Scripture, with many more to purpose in God's Book. How this is done; how far it extendeth, I list not to dispute. It is for Schools, not for Pulpits; searching wits are at stand therein: common capacities must not be surcharged with it. It is wilfulness, or more, to deny freewill: and it is wisdom and truth to deny freewill: To deny 
Is it not then plain wilfulness to deny Freewill?  the being, is so. And I wish with Scotus in 1. dist. 39 that a man so wilful were well cudgeled, until he confessed, it stood in man's power to desist from beating him: But to give such an absolute sway to freewill, as many do, is little less than flat impiety against God; against Saint Paul I am sure; It is not of him that willeth, or him that runneth. Truth is in the middle betwixt two extremes, evermore, and here also.  
What the Fathers teach we know: and where 
See Fathers that affirm the same. S. Iren. Lib. 4. cap. 7.  they exceed, interpret them gently as you also do. For take them at large, and they lavish so far sometime, that your greatest Patrons of freewill dare not join issue with them: not as if those worthy lights did any way fail, or darkness possessed their clear understandings: but being to deal against fatal necessity of the Pagans: against impieties of the Manichees, to clear that imputation of believing, without further enquiry of resolution; they extended the power of freewill to the utmost; especially, having then no cause to fear, ante mota certamina Pelagiana; there being no Pelagius yet risen up in the world, an enemy of Grace, and advancer of Nature beyond degrees of power or possibility. Thus yourselves acknowledge as well as we, and therefore to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Epiphanius, and (who hath much more to purpose than all the rest together) Chrysostome, though you name him not, because you knew it not: and to Augustine also in his former writings, it might so be answered, that they spoke of freewill, not in respect of Grace, but of Nature; yet I will particularly fall in with you, to each several Father in his order.  
Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 7. hath these words, as your Informer C. W. B. setteth them down. Almighty God hath put in man a power of Election, as well as he hath done in the Angels. And again, cap. 72. If it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what cause had the Apostle, and long before that, our Lord himself, to give us counsel what to do, and from what to abstain. This latter testimony is not in the Gagger: His Master hath it: and I allege it, to let all Catholics see, what an Idiot this poor animal is. C. W. B. having produced these two Texts of Irenaeus, cited in his Margin lib. 4. cap. 7. and ibid. cap. 72. This goose, because he would not gag us too much, made choice of one, and wisely too; for, by error of the Printer, it was put cap. 7. in which Chapter is nothing to purpose; not a word of Angels, or of freewill: whereas it should have been cap. 71. Which he not knowing, because he hath all by retail: a poor fellow, that (I think) knoweth not who Irenaeus was, followed the error of the Printer, and so sent us to see nothing there. But let him pass: To the place I answer. Irenaeus attributeth unto man, as he may, freewill, before and after his fall: but so, after, as with Grace, to men in state of Grace. The discourse is long, and to purpose; but misalleged here, and misapplyed by the Gagger.  
Epiphanius, how cometh he in betwixt Irenaeus and Tertullian? being so much younger than either of them: especially, rightly disposed in the Instructor. Howsoever, I answer, that he there disputeth against the pharisees: one of whose opinions was, that all things came to pass through fatal necessity. Which being so, there can be no choice, nor freewill. But experience showeth, and Scripture cleareth it, there is freewill: therefore fatal necessity is not at all. As true as Gospel: Nothing touching us, who grant it as much as themselves do, that object thus unto us.  
Tertullian in his second Book against Martion: the Chapter you knew not, because you were not told; for your Instructor had it not. It is Chapter V. discourseth thus. He proveth against Martion, that God created all things out of goodness, because he was good. Nor was the fall of man any work of his at all, but to be imputed unto freewill. A power and faculty originally in man, according to God's goodness, and man's nature and condition. Who could not have deserved well or ill: nor have been punished or rewarded, except he had been left unto his own choice, and not necessitated unto either. Thus he, at large; and thus also we. Contenting himself with the general being, working, and concurring of freewill, which we deny not, with God's grace.  
Not to trouble the Reader with any more. This is enough that which is questioned, is as well questioned at home with the Church of Rome themselves, as with and betwixt us: that which here is proved, is not questioned: Homini dedit Deus eligendi arbitrium quod sequatur. Ante hominem vita & mors: si deliqueris, non Natura in culpa est, sed defectus eligentis. We believe it, (as well as the Author of the Hypognosticon, under Saint Austin's name) with the certainty of our faith, and preach it as an undoubted verity, that in man there is freewill. And with Saint Augustine himself, Lib. 1. de Civit. We are no way enforced, either by admitting God's prescience, to take away the freedom of man's will: or by admitting the freedom of man's will to deny, which were an heinous matter, God's foreknowledge of the things to come: but both we embrace, both me freely and faithfully confess. Thus that judicious Father in C. W. B. though we can hardly explicate the concurrence of both: and think it not fit to discourse unto vulgar capacities of such mystical points. Will it content you? Our conclusion and yours is all one. We cannot deny freedom of will: which whoso doth, is no Catholic: no nor Protestant.   

XVII.  
That it is impossible to keep the Commandments of God, though assisted with his Grace, and the holy Ghost.  
THe Commandments of God are perfect, even as himself is perfect: and therefore the rule of our life and actions, in ordine ad Deum, for the attaining of eternal happiness in Heaven: all of them tendered unto us under that condition, and high commanding form, Do this and live for ever, the style, in ordinary, unto the Law of the highest: a condition so requisite in every part, that the Delinquent but in one, is guilty of all, and liable unto punishment for breach of all.  
Humane Laws are commonly but upon misdemeanours precedent, to be corrected and prevented: For, ex malis moribus bonae Leges: good Laws come from evil lines: as Physic is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Restorative, to repair empayring in the outward man. But God's Law, as all his ways are said to be, was of another fashion; elder than transgression; was Do this and live: as Physic is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preservative, to prevent the disease before it break out: to keep off transgression not yet in being, God gave the Law.  
When it was first said to man, Do this and live, there was no question of possibility to do it. God at the first made man right, saith the son of Syrach, and left him in the hands of his own counsel. He might not have eaten, God did not compel or necessitate him ot it: which if he had done, he had lived for ever. Such was his case, his state, and his ability in his original being. The Law was then verbum abbreviatum; Thou shalt not eat. One word, not ten words, as anon afterwards. The annexum than the same which afterwards: If thou eat, thou shalt dye the death. The commandment enlarged unto more particulars, as Sin increased: but the condition still the same, live, or dic: so that the Law was elder than transgression, and had respect, not to weakness as it is now, but to power and possibility; which man then had, when as first the commandment Do this, went forth to be observed.  
Then it was possible to keep the Law. God commanded that which man might have done. The question is of possibility since, whether or no it be now possible which was then. Touching which possibility, and impossibility, I answer out of your own school learning with Durand. Lib. 1. dist. 42. qu. 2. There is a twofold possibilitiy and impossibility. First, a thing is possible in respect of active or passive power and capability incident naturally. As thus. It is possible that the fire should heat and warm me actively: and I be warmed of the fire passively: because there is that natural active power in the fire to do it: and that natural passive capability in me to receive it. So that is said to be impossible, as many ways, where there is no such power nor capability in the creature, as, viz. for a man to fly, or a worm to walk.  
Secondly, a thing is possible, when there is a certain habitude, reference, proportion, and correspondency betwixt the terms: as betwixt a man and a living creature: the one hath an habitude unto the other. Impossible is, where no such habitude is: as even and odd; two and three: It is not possible, that what is even should be odd: or what is odd should be even: that two should be three: or three become two. Here is employed a contradiction: as in this, Truth to be false: God deny himself. Thus contradictorily, it is possible, not impossible to keep God's commandment: For there is no contradiction implied here. There is an habitude betwixt the terms. For there was in man created, as he came forth of the hands of his Maker, an active power to observe them: and in them, when they were tendered, a passive possibility to be observed; which one day shall come again into act, namely, in that state of perfection in Heaven. But at present, as the state now standeth, this capability is not answered: this possibility is not brought into act, in regard of fore-staling hindrances and impeachments. And so our answer is unto that question, Whether it be possible for a man to keep the Law and Commandments of God, Negative: It is not possible for a man in ordinary course of Nature, stantibus ut nunc, to attain to that perfection in this life, to keep the Commandments precisely.  
I say in ordinary course it is not possible, because of impeachments. But simply it is not impossible for God, because there is an habitude betwixt the terms, to advance man in nature, by a special and peculiar assistance of Grace, to that height of perfection, to keep all the Commandments of God. It is not impossible: for the power: yet for act, set Christ jesus aside, it was never done since the fall of Adam. Nor standing the ordinary course of Nature, and dispensation of Grace, shall ever be done in this world. For to keep the Commandments, is to be without sin, to keep them all, and singular, in all points, at all times: not in some things only at all times. Nor in all things at sometimes only.  
Thus then, that is possible which man can do: that falleth within the verge of his Power to do. Either merely of himself, or else by assistance of some concurrent. It is confessed, I suppose, that no man of himself, in himself considered, can possibly now keep all God's Commandemenrs. For there being two originals of Actions in Agents, Power and Will; a man may have power to do, but no will. As Dives had to relieve Lazarus. A man may have will, and no power; as Agar had to relieve her son Ishmael almost affamished. To an Act consummate, both Power and Will must concur. Et Non caret effectu quod voluere duo: Either man's will is wanting to do what he can; or his power not sufficient to do what he would. Now for Assistance, where man faileth of himself, he must have recourse unto some abetting hability. As the man in prison, that cannot help himself, must be relieved by some other. God must here do it, or none else: for, of him is all our sufficiency and might. God can by his Power, which is illimited, advance any thing so far unto perfection, as he will not do it, in regard of his own purpose and decree: in regard of order, and course in Nature. He can make Nature now altogether pure, as he did at first by supernatural endowments; and as he will do at last in confirmed state of Glory: But things standing as they do, and must, he will not do it; and so it is impossible for man to attain it, but only by some dispensation, and peculiar elevation: but in such cases of singularity, it must Constare what God will do. If it be a word gone out of his mouth, it is not impossible: if he have said it, it is impossible. Take here heed then lest we justle his will and power together; which doing, we shall fasten many incongruities, absurdities, and inconveniences upon his Courses, and Dispensations in the World.  
Again, Man as he is patient, in respect of God assisting, though Agent in himself, and his performing, must be considered three ways; in a threefold state, for a threefold time, as hath already been touched: Of Nature, Grace, and Glory. And that of Nature, two ways: Made by God, with all sufficiency; depraved by the Devil, to all disability: As once it was, as now it is. The Question is not meant of Natural state, at all; what then man could do: Any thing then, what now he can do: Nothing at all now. Nor is it intended of the State of Glory, what he shall be able then to do. It is a state of perfection confessed upon all hands; of Perfection, without any Imperfections: And therefore performable every way of all God's Commandments, in all points, and at all times: but the question is, of ordinary Grace in Regeneration, how far it doth or may enable him now in this World.  
Thirdly, that to keep God's Commandments, is to observe and do what God commandeth to be done. Not only in part, as to keep precisely and to an hair, some of the Statutes; or some branches, or clauses of those Statutes: or at sometimes only, but for ever; in all parts: of any one, and every Commandment, all points must be kept and observed.  
Fourthly, we consider what they command, and how: which is comprehended in two heads. Spiritual Obedience, from and with the Heart: Perfect Obedience, with all the Heart. For, as God is a Spirit, so those that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth: not only externally, with cap and knee. God is perfect, and accordingly the rule is; Be you perfect, as I am perfect. Such as he is, such be his Laws; and such obedience unto his Laws is required of him that serveth God: But still seruatis subiecti proprietatibus, as the subject is capable of perfection. For nothing can be perfect, as God is perfect: that is, in the selfsame degree of Perfection; for so it should be God; but respectively perfect, in conformation like unto him, as humane perfections can be enabled, not in just proportion.  
God requireth not perfection as himself hath it, nor yet perfection exceeding the proportion of the Subject. Not the same here, which is required in Heaven; nor here of all men alike: but as he scattereth, so he requireth; as he hath conferred two Talents, or five, so he exacteth. So that, at last to add limits to this roving Proposition, I resolve it thus: No man in the state of Grace regenerate, by any ordinary course or assistance of Grace, ever did or can observe all the Commandments of God, in every part; no, not in that degree which God hath fitted him unto, and requireth of him, at all times: At some time he may, in some particulars; or peradventure in all particulars in some time, or some particulars in all time. Now let us see how the Texts contrary this: or how the Fathers are of another opinion.  
Philip. 4. 13. I can do all things in Christ that enableth 
Contrary to express words of their own Bible.  me. Therefore keep the Commandments of God. Therefore any man may do it: Therefore every man may keep them. As if whatsoever Saint Paul could do, might have been performed by any ordinary Christian: As if Saint Paul were not a man alone, of transcendent endowments, beyond ordinary alloy; who saith of himself, He was in sufferings beyond them all: who faith of himself, He was rapt up into the third Heaven, and heard things that never man heard. Secondly, what All things could he do? He that saith, All, ex●mpteth none; and so you take it at a large extent. Could he make Contradictions true? could he Prophecy, or speak with Tongues, where, and when he would? Could he walk on the Waters, or in the Air at pleasure? And yet he saith; I can do all things. All things extended, includeth these things. Otherwise, Quo warranto doth it follow, that amongst those All things, which Saint Paul could do, the keeping of God's Commandments should be ranked? If it be rejoined, That must be included. I reply, it is the Question: and so ought to be proved, not begged.  
Again, I answer; Paul's performing, goeth no farther than Christ's enabling: I can do all things. But how? In Christ enabling me. That is, so far as Christ should or did enable him: but how appeareth that this is one of those things, in which, or whereto Christ would enable him? So again, this is the question, and must be proved, not begged; beside, Christ might enable him now, and not anon: many times, but not ever; in some things enable him, not in all.  
And yet farther, that All, hath a limitation. All those things he could do, of the which he spoke, viz. want, and abound; suffer and endure prosperity and adversity alike, through the Grace of Christ jesus which did assist him. So Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Lombard, Thomas, Lyra, Caietan: So the Text itself to any man that shall but view it, Saint Paul meant nothing less, then that in the whole course of his life, he was able to keep the entire Law of GOD, in every point, which is the state to be made good, and yet was Saint Paul able to do and perform as much, as any other man could perform.  
1 john 5. 3. This is the love of God, that we keep his Commandments. It is so: and what of that? Herein we show our love to God, that we keep his Commandments: That is, in effect, as we love him, so we keep his Commandments; and as we keep his Commandments, so we love him. Perfect or imperfect: in all or in part it is not said. Indeed, we love in part, not as we should; we keep his Commandments in part, not as we should, or would in all.  
But his Commandments are not grievous. What of that? Therefore possible to be kept in every point, at all times, by any man? I deny that. For, I see no such sequel to be inferred. Grievous, is simply or respectively. In regard of those many encumbrances of Moses Law, the Law of Christ jesus was not grievous. Again, a thing may be weighty, and yet not in reputation or esteem, unto some men; who will run with that weight easily, or undergo that burden willingly. For to a willing mind, what is grievous, though it be impregnable, inexpugnable, impossible? The Heathen man could tell us, that the Roman Legions went often with alacrity upon that piece of Service, from whence they knew and were assured, they should never come off with life. Weighty and insupportable are two things. Weighty and grievous, are two things. To those that love God, nothing is heavy for God: not for the thing itself, but because of Love; which maketh that seem light, which indeed is heavy, and giveth men, if not activity beyond power, yet will beyond possibility of Power to do.  
See more. But first hear a reason, that interlopeth betwixt these testimonies of holy Writ. A reason or two: for so it is. The first, A man is not bound to impossibilities: but a man is bound to keep the Commandments, 
Briefly, if the Commandments were impossible, they could bind no man: For it is not to be conceived, how one should sin, in a thing which he could not possibly avoid.  and is liable to punishment for breach of them. I answer: It is true, no man is tied to simple Impossibilities, where there is no habitude betwixt the terms. As to be immortal in this life; to fly, or walk in the Air, or on the Waters. Such impossibility is not betwixt the Law of God, and man's performance. Secondly, when the Commandments were given, there was not only a possibility, but ability and sufficiency in man to keep God's Law: For in effect and substance it was all one, Eat and dye, with Do this and live. The particulars were explained in time, the Nature of Obligation altered not: If since there hath accrued an impossibility of Consequence, what is this to that sufficiency which was before, when the Law was first given; and man tied to Obedience, as Adam was?  
Again, it is confessed with Saint Augustine, that 
It is not to be conceived how one should sin in a thing which he could not possibly avoid.  sin is not sin, except it be voluntary He that cannot possibly avoid necessity of sinning, is injuriously dealt withal, if he be punished for sinning: But no man is so necessitated, either actively in regard of the over-awing and determining decree of God, unavoidable, unresistable. No man is so necessitated passively. For, as hath been said, betwixt man's Active possibility, and the Passive possibility of God's Law, there was at first, naturally is, and finally shall be, a Correspondency. If interim, stantibus ut nunc, impediments, encumbrances make it impossible, man may thank himself that hath lost his power of performing.  
Now see more, and see as little. Ecclus. 15. 15. a place twice or thrice alleged by this Trifler against the Protestants, whom he knoweth not to receive the Book as Canonical: and therefore not bound to stand unto the authority of the same, or subscribe unto the assertion. But I quarrel it not: I accept the authority, and answer it out of the Text. They observe his Commandments so far, as to do their best, and testify their good will. Which proveth, in his opinion, rather a defect, than any possibility of perfection. If thou wilt, thou shalt observe the Commandments, and testify thy good will.  
Ezech. 36. 27. I will put my spirit in the midst of you, and will make you to walk in my statutes. It is the effect and operation of God's Spirit to do this. But the Prophet doth not say; They shall not stumble, nor fall, as many walkers do, who yet attain their journey's end in peace, and go on in their course with commendation. The Prophet addeth: And you shall keep my judgements, and do them. I will take no advantage upon the word judgements; Let it go for the moral Law of God. He keepeth the Law, that doth what he can: and hath defects and infirmities pardoned him. As David is said to have done, who yet fell foul more times than one.  
Matthew 11. 30. speaketh of a yoke, the same in effect with 1 john 5. 3. That which is not heavy to be borne, is not impossible to be kept: but God's Commandments are not heavy: for they are the yoke, which Christ saith, is easy. I answer, Christ speaketh not primarily of God's Commandments there, but of the Polity of Grace in the Gospel of Peace, in regard of the Polity of the Law, to which he preferreth it as easier, and less cumbersome, for causes well collected and observed by Maldonate out of the Fathers. You may see other expositions in jansenius: but nothing for your dream of perfection.  
Again, in this argumentation, that which is not heavy to be borne, is not impossible to be kept; the Proposition is absolutely false. For it is iugum, though dulce: as feathers are onus, though allevians: as wheels, though cause of motion, unto a Coach.  
Matthew 19 17. Is not to purpose. The question is not, whether To keep God's Commandments be the ready way and means to enter into life: that Scripture saith so, and Protestants approve it, for them that can do it. But whether no man otherwise entereth into life: whether every one that entereth into life, hath personally kept Gods Commandments: whether it be possible for them to do it, This Protestants deny. This that Scripture saith not. Again, it is not here proposed as a condition unto him, but as a Conviction; who came in the vanity of his mind, trusting in his own worth. And is proposed as a necessary implication of the Law unto him, who was a Lawyer by Profession, and proposed his question only De faciendis, the Tenor of the Law: not the credendis, the Tenet of the Gospel. And doubtless if Salvation be sought by only doing, the works of the Law must needs be done. But how doth this follow, if those that seek Salvation by their own work, must be put over to perform the works of the Law, therefore all men must precisely keep the law? the foolish presumption of some fool hardy undertaker, is no prejudice unto wiser men. Nor tie for them to venture on the same follies.  
john 14. 15. If you love me keep my Commandments. And add if you will in the same Chapter, If any man love me he will keep my word. And Chapter 15. If you keep my Commandments, you abide in my love. All which, and others of that Nature, prove this, God's Commandments must be kept: they conclude not the manner and measure of the thing, How, wherein, how far they may be kept. Secondly, I answer out of jansenius, Christ doth not understand the whole Law of God; but some part of the Law of the New Testament: ea scilicet quae modo tradidi, of Faith in me: and Love amongst yourselves. Nor doth our Saviour here promise any ability to do it: or specify any performance of it: but exhorteth them rather to show their love unto him, by striving to do what he gave them in charge, rather than to weep and take-on for his departure. Thus jansenius one of your own side.  
Rom. 13. 8. He that hath charity hath fulfilled the Law. True, he that hath it in gradu summo: but every Regenerate man hath charity. True, at least in remiss degrees. Saint Paul speaketh of the Perfection of Charity; and of perfect fulfilling of the Law; or else of Charity with imperfections: and so of answerable fulfilling of the Law. Every true regenerate man hath Charity. True: and so fulfilleth the Law in having it. But sometime more, sometime less: and so accordingly fulfilleth the Law. Again, the Apostle saith by way of supposition, He that hath charity: he doth not avouch that any man hath it, so as is sufficient totally to fulfil the Law. So that at least, the text cited is not to purpose. Beside, Saint Paul inferreth it by way of exhortation, Because it is the fulfilling of the Law. And the nearer a man cometh unto perfect love, the nearer he is to fulfil the Law. Now in Exhortations to performance, we use to aim at the highest, and set up the best, for marks and objects. Which the Apostle did: not as persuaded all men would attain, or could attain unto it, but to incite them to endeavour utterly.  
josua 11. 15. 22. 5. Psalm. 17. 3. Luke 1. 6. are examples of men that are remembered to have walked in God's Commandments, and kept his Laws. A thing done; therefore not impossible to be done. To which I answer, first, as this Rover shooteth his bolt at them, there is no consequence: Some men have done it, therefore every man, or any man, may do it: For they happily might do it by extraordinary assistance; and by miraculous grace: but the Proposition is of ordinary course. Secondly, it is no where said that these holy men, all of them, at all times, did keep all the Commandments of God. They did their best, and it was accepted by God.  
That of joshua is to be taken and understood, only of one particular kind; Namely the execution of God's justice upon the Canaanites, and the Inhabitants of the Land of Canaan: And yet he failed even in that, and kept not all, as is clear in the case of the Gibeonites. The man as well might have brought out Moses and Aron, whose commendation is, That, as the Lord commanded, so did they. And yet we know there were some things, in which they failed both: for which cause they entered not into the Land of Canaan over jordan.  
David saith, Psalm. 17. 3. That there was no iniquity in him. Which if you take at full extent, you must answer your Proselytes unto this Question, What was the Case of Vriah and his Wife, if he kept all the Commandments of God: and no iniquity was found in him? Sure we must take it of the time before his fall. And suppose the Psalm to have been made before that. For in that action he cannot be excused. He notoriously broke the Law in two enormous sins, of Murder & Adultery at one time: Then, there was iniquity in his hands; at least.  
That of Zacharie and Elizabeth, is of more importance, Luke 1. For it is said, They walked in all the Commandments of God without blame. But first one singular example is not concluding for all, or for a common course. It never was denied, but God might, extraordinarily, advance some one or other unto such an height of Perfection, as fully and perfectly to keep all his commandments point per point. God might have done it: but he never did it. Never man attained such a pitch. Secondly, it is not said, that They kept the commandments of God, which was this man's undertaking. But they walked in them: in which course they might have rubs, diversions, pulbackes, slidings, falls. Then, they walked in them, untaxable, unblameable, not complained of. Not that God could find no fault with them, but that men could not blame them; nor say, black is their eye. God's eyes are ten thousand times brighter than the Sun, and can descry blemishes where men cannot. The keeping his Commandments must not be according to the view and censure of men, but after the estimate of God. But they were just before him too. So they might be, and yet not keep all his Commandments. For even the just man falleth seven times a day. Perfection is threefold, in different degrees: Actual ever, and in being: incident only to the Saints in glory. Actual not in-being, but desire: referring all evermore unto God, by consecrating all unto his Glory. And Habitual, when in purpose a man loveth God above all, and is ready to leave all other things for God's sake. This man is unblameable even before God: not because he cannot be reprehended: but because he is not reprehended; God in mercy accepting his will and desire, for his deed. Thus Bellarmine himself hath answered the place, being to oppose the Pelagians. Many more places might be alleged, to as little purpose, which either prove that which is not denied: or prove it in part, and so are defective. Now Fathers we may see, to as little purpose, some few here remembered. His good Master C. W. B. could have afforded him more. The first is, Origen hom. 9 in josua. But what he saith, the good simple man knoweth not, because his instructor did not let him understand, as being not fully informed from Bellarmine, himself. But thus it standeth. Origen, figuratively, as his manner is, maketh these sorts of men in the Church: Viros, mulieres, infants, proselytos. Those whom he compareth unto Women, he exhorteth, to strive what they may, to attain to perfection of Men in christianity. Now he calleth them Mulieres, comparing them to Women, who say, I cannot do as it is written; Go sell all, and give it to the poor: nor yet turn to him my other cheek that striketh me upon one: nor bless him that curseth me. Caetera similia quae mandantur, qui dicit implere non possum, quid tibi videtur aliud, quam inter mulieres, quae nihil virile possunt, esse numerandus? He that faith, I cannot do these, and such other things as these, which be commanded, seemeth he not worthily to be accounted amongst women? Origen here speaketh of Perfection, and degrees of Proficiency. Who questioneth it? and insinuateth that a man might keep those Precepts of the Gospel. Who Doubteth of it? but doth Origen say it is possible, for a man to keep all the Commandments of God? Show me that, and I have done.  
Cyril Lib. 4. contra julian: So your director told you; perhaps through error of the Printer. And you good Innocent, believed him. But go consult with Cyril, and you shall find it in his third Book, about the middle, as Bellarmine directed your Director. In the Law it was written, as saith Cyril there, Thou shalt not covet. It is possible, to keep this Commandment, saith Bellarmine, through assistance of Grace, and so, not to covet at all. Which thing, if St. Cyryl said, he said not only more than he can make good, but more also than is required. More than Bellarmine would have him say, or doth desire at his hands. Nay more than he would approve in him, or make good, if he should say it. For Non concupiscec, thou shalt not covet, goeth on so far, as to exclude, even venial sins. Which needeth not. For our Masters yield unto them, and exclude no more but mortal sins. It is possible to fulfil the Law. Why? Because the Law forbiddeth and condemneth only mortal sins. But a man cannot possibly avoid venial sins. Those therefore the Law forbiddeth not. They may be Praeter, beside the intent of the Law: They are not contra against the Law. Again, Non concupisces, pricketh up to that foams peccati, the source, nurse, and fomentation of sin, which our Masters confess, is not extinct, cannot cease in the Regenerate. If Saint Cyril said, that Non concupisces, may be performed: that is, that the sustentation of Sin may cease, he said that which Bellarmine will not defend. And you, Sir Puny, what are you? For in this life, that foams peccati ceaseth not; which your men maintain against Prosper Dys●deus, or Faustus Socinus, and such imps of Satan.  
But indeed, nor so, nor so, Cyril restraineth Non concupisces, thou shalt not covet or desire, unto one particular Act, obiectively, the not-lusting after or desiring of a Woman. This Christ forb●d beyond the Law: which at least was taken by them to inhibit no more but the outward act. And this may be done: many have done it, I make no question. As for Concupiscence in general, it is apparent he held it not, as is imagined: and held it altogether unmasterable; for he saith, Res est, ut opinor, ad quam pertingi nequeat: It is in my opinion of that condition, as no man can attain unto, utpote incomprehensibilis & quodam modo supra naturam, as being out of man's reach, and compass altogether, and in a sort above the assize of Nature. Thus Cyril, albeit he nameth Concupiscence, yet taketh it not so, as the adversary pretendeth, for any Concupiscence, in large extent, but only in specie for that kind of Concupiscence, and no more, which is in carnal affection to a Woman. Many have attained unto this perfection: never any unto that, but jesus Christ, in one flesh, without sin. Saint Hilary upon Psalm. 118. saith somewhat, it seemeth, but not that which you would have him say. It is not hard, are his words, if our will be but present to fulfil the Commandment of God. Thus your Master C W. B. out of Bellarmine, juggler as he was: and thus you, as false a Traitor as he As if it had been Saint Hilaries mind, A man that will may easily keep the Commandments; and whole Law of God, who nor said it, nor yet thought it: For he upon these words, of the 119. Psalm. Thy Commandment is exceeding large, expoundeth large in a two fold sense. First, because the knowledge of God's Law doth infinitely extend and advance the understanding of man's Ignorance: that is, Make ignorant men to understand and know very much: Or else, because there are many parts of it: many duties required in it: so that he which cannot keep one, may keep another: and please God in one, as he may displease him in another. It neither being required of any man to perform all: nor possible for any man, to perform all. How like you this Doctrine Sir? This is Hilaries resolution? thus and no other way he concludeth, that it i● possible to keep the Law. You shall have his words at large: not, as they are curtailed by false knaves, to deceive men. Latum plauè est, sive quod in infinitum cognitionem humanae ignorantiae extendit: Sive quod multa sunt in quib us Dei precept is obtemperatur atque placetur, secundum divisiones & munera gratiarum. Non enim abomnibus omnia expectantur: neque universi universa ad summam placendi implere possunt. Alius 〈…〉 nio placet: Simplicitate fidei promeretur alius: alius vitia eleemosynis redimit, etc. Latum igitur mandatum Dei est, & in omnia spei nostrae genera diffunditur, ut non difficile sit praecepto Domini obtemperare, cum latum & diffusum sit ad placendum officiosae religionis varietate. It is then particular obedience which he speaketh of, to any one point or precept of the Law. Hilary to that purpose sets it down praecepto, not praeceptis, not unto the whole Law, as is pretended. So that much collusion hath been in this Testimony. First by Bellarmine, who taketh it by halves for his advantage. Then by our English Succedor, who geldeth it more, to make it serve as an Eunuch, the Babylonian turns.  
Next Saint Basil pronounceth it an impiety to say, 
Lastly, Saint Basill who saith it is an impious thing to say, that the commandments of God are impossible.  Impossibilia esse spiritus sancti praecepta. Our English juggler representeth it. That the Commandments of God are impossible. Of God. For of the Spirit. Why? what material difference? The Spirit is God: and God is a Spirit. Yet a difference betwixt the Commandments of God, and, Commandments of the Spirit. For mark. Saint Basil explaining those words, Attend tibi, saith, they may be conceived of two ways. Corporally: look to thy Body, and the things thereof. Spiritually; and that which appertaineth unto the state of thy Soul. And he addeth, they must be taken for the things of the soul: because, that which God commandeth, as you will have it, or as he speaketh, The Commandments of the Spirit, are not impossible. But to attend a man's body corporally, is impossible: For it cannot be, that every part of a man's body should be so perpetually in his Eye, as that attendance be still upon it. The Eye cannot discern itself, nor yet any part of the head, the back, or inward parts. This is impossible: therefore this is not the meaning. For the Spirit would not command things impossible: that is, impossible in themselves, where there is an impossibility betwixt the terms. So that in Saint Basil, impossibility, is that impossibility which is not actionis susceptiva. For as Halensis observeth; the Irrefragable Doctor. Possibility is of two kinds. Activa, and Actionis susceptiva. Par. 3. memb. 5. art. 1. Now no man saith it is impossible to keep any, or all God's Commandments; because in, and of themselves, they are not keepeable. The Eye is not susceptiva actionis, to behold or see the things behind. But that which the Spirit there commandeth, is in itself possible to be done. So Basil saith as little to the purpose, as any other Writer doth whatsoever; being arightly understood, and not perverted in his meaning. See Basil, and if this be not his meaning, let me be held as honest as this Gagger, that perverteth his sense a contrary way, that is, a false knave.  
Hierome lastly, in his third Book against the Pelagians, who pleaded then, as our Roman Catholics do now, hath these words: God hath commanded, things possible. No man doubteth. Possible in themselves, absolutely: though not to us, as the Case now standeth respectively. Possible unto us, when they were first commanded: though not so possible, since the commandment. For God made man right, and gave him a Law: Since that he hath entangled himself many ways. Possible now in part, though not in all: to some men, albeit not generally unto all. It plainly appeareth what Hierome meant: for he addeth, Sed quia homines possibilia non faciunt, idcircò omnis mundus subditus est Deo, & indiget misericordiâ eius. But because men do not that which of itself is possible, therefore all the World is subjected unto God, and standeth in need of his mercy. So that he explaineth his own meaning: They were possible in themselves, though not possible unto man. Secondly, some things possible at some time, to some men, though not to all men at all times. And so is that to be understood which Bellarmine hath out of the same Hierome in Mat. 5. omitted by this Collector; because not found in his good Founder C. W. B. Multi praecepta Dei, imbecillitate suâ, non Sanctorum viribus aestimantes, putant esse impossibilia, quae praecepta sunt; to wit, those Precepts explained upon the Law, Love your enemies, Do good to those that hate you: Et dicunt sufficere virtutibus, non edisse inimicos. Caeterum Diligere plus praecipi, quam humana Natura patiatur: Sciendum est ergo Christum non impossibilia praecipere, sed perfecta. Quae fecit David in Saul & Absalon. Stephanus quoque Martyr, pro inimicis lapidantibus deprecatus est. Many men, measuring the Commandments of God, not by the performings of Saints, but their own weakness, account things impossible, by God commanded, and account it enough for a virtuous man, not to hate his enemies: As for that, To love them, it is a Precept beyond humane possibility. But we must know, Christ commanded not impossible, but perfect things. Such as David did in Saul, and towards Absalon. And that blessed Martyr Stephen, prayed for them that stoned him. So it is not obscure what the Fathers meant by that, It is possible to keep the L●w. In itself not impossible. At some times not impossible. In part not impossible, they never came to this presumption. Any man: at any time: All the Law.  
Therefore justine Martyr against Tryphon saith, upon that Text, Cursed is every one that doth not observe all the Precepts of the Law to do them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yourselves dare not say it, (and what the jews durst not say, you dare swear;) that any man hath perfectly kept them all. But there are that have observed some more, some less, in those things that were commanded. I grant with Hierome, Lib. 2. c. Pelagian: That many men have lived just and righteous. But I do not grant that ever any man was without sin: Sine omni autem peccato fuisse, omnino non assentior. If any man imagine he hath obtained that perfection, Aut superbus aut stultus est, He is no letter then a proud fool. All that I can challenge in the height of my perfection, is, but only that of Saint Augustine, Meritum meum, misericordia Domini; The mercies of the most high, are my merits. Therefore we profess with earnest deprecation, Enter not into judgement with thy servants O Lord: For in thy sight shall no flesh be justified. And, If thou shalt be severe to mark what is done amiss, who, O Lord, shall endure it?  
job never advanced his perfection, to the fulfilling of all that God commanded, though 27. 6. he useth those words in your Translation, Non reprehendit me Cor meum. My heart hath not reproved me, all my days. For his meaning is, As long as I live I will maintain my Innocency, that I have not dissembled in my heart. This I will stand to everlastingly, and not betray my own Cause. Otherwise as Saint Gregory hath observed here, See pe●cesse superius accusat. He hath formerly accused himself of sin. Nor doth God excuse him from all breach of the Commandment, who giveth him that Testimony, 1. 22. joh did not sin. For it is limited, In all this: and yet not sin in that sort, as to Charge God with injustice. Sciendum est: We are to know, saith Gregory, that there are some kind of sins which the righteous men canavoid: and there are sins which the most righteous cannot avoid. If sins: then needs against some Commandment. For no Sin, but is a Transgression of the Law. If against the Law: then the Law is not kept in doing them: and if the most Righteous cannot but do them, surely the most Righteous cannot keep the Law. This was once the Doctrine of the Roman Church: For Gregory hath it, that was Bishop of Rome; in his Morals, Lib. 27. and 7 Chapter upon job. Hath that Church then left her ancient Faith?   

XVII.  
That only Faith justifieth: and that good works are not absolutely necessary to Salvation.  
Controversies are sometime multiplied unnecessarily, by these Romance Catholics; to jangle the more: and sometime huddled up by confounding many, to deceive the more: as in this present Question of Faith justifying: a great Controversy: And works concurring: as main a diversity, unto Salvation. Though distinction of parts be fit to teach, and giveth life and lustre unto discourse; yet seeing it hath pleased this fellow to confound these two, we must go on with him in his wild-goose race up and down.  
To justify is a word of Christian learning only: yet taken and derived from external Courts, and judiciary proceedings in Cases of Accusation and Defence. In which regard it hath a threefold extent, upon a threefold several act: First to make just and righteous. Secondly, to make more just and righteous. Thirdly, to declare and pronounce just and righteous. Not exactly observed in humane Courts I grant: For no judge can make a man what he is not: he can find him what he is, and make him appear so more and more by evidence; and at last declare him, and pronounce him so by public sentence of absolution. But for those three several acts, in the justification of a Sinner, the Scripture plainly (it cannot be denied) doth distinguish them thus.  
Rom. 4. 5. He that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly. Augustine upon the 30. Psalm expoundeth it thus. Who is it that justifieth the Wicked? He that of a wicked man maketh a righteous. So, Rom. 3. 20. 24. and 1 Cor. 6. 11. For there is a twofold state of man in this world: The one Original; as he is conceived and borne in sin, and accordingly produceth in life and actions, the cursed works of a bitter root: The other Acquisite, renewed according to the Spirit, unto the state of perfection with God. Of Nature, wherein: Of Grace, whereto. In Nature, there is nothing clean, or pure, that can please God, or be accepted of him: He is not just that is in this state. In that of Grace, a man is just when he is changed: which must have concurrence of two things. Privation of being to that which was; the Body of sin. A new constitution unto God, in another state. In which, he that is altered in state: changed in condition: transformed in mind: renewed in soul: regenerate and borne a new to God by Grace, is just: in the state of justification: ceasing to be what he was: becoming what he was not before.  
Thus to be changed, is to be a new Creature. The act is said by David, Psalm. 51. To create: Which being a work of Omnipotent power, exceedeth the endowment of any Creature. It is not therefore of ourselves, from, or by ourselves. But this change is, the work of the right hand of the most high, operating powerfully, as he can: and actively, as he will. Wrought it is by God: by God alone: Man, or Man's freewill is not author hereof. Therefore no merit interveneth: therefore not to be ascribed to ourselves. None here but Christ preventing us: the Author of our integrity: crown of our felicity: and consummator of our glory.  
Secondly, to justify, is to give increase, and augmentation unto that first Article, as to be more just in process and profectu: by increase of Grace, and the fruit of that Spirit, by which they are renewed in the inner man. In natural action and passion it plainly appeareth. Cold water is made warm upon the fire: here is an alteration of the property. Warm water is made hotter by continuing on the fire, with an augmentation and access of that heat. So I understand it, Apoc. 22. Qui iustus est, iustificetur adhuc. He that is just, let him become more just, by access of God's Grace ever, day by day.  
Thirdly, to justify is to declare and pronounce one just. as, Prou. 8. He that justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the righteous, is alike abominable before the Lord. So again in the 50. Psalm, That thou mayest be justified in thy sayings, and clear when thou art judged. God is not otherwise justified, but by being known, acknowledged, and confessed just in all his ways. As he is said to be magnified, when his noble acts are made known, and men do praise him for his mercy, goodness, and salvation.  
justification properly is in the first acceptance. A Sinner is then justified when he is made just: that is, translated from state of Nature, to state of Grace, as Colos. 1. 13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son. Which is motion, as they say, betwixt two terms, and consisteth in forgiveness of sins primarily; and Grace infused secondarily: Both the act of God's Spirit in man, but applied, or rather obtained through Faith: which representeth first God willing, and ready to forgive and renew. Draweth near unto him: closeth in fast with him. Adhereth unto him inseparably, with, I will not let thee go, except thou bless. And God doth return, I will bless thee: pardon thy sins for my name's sake, and accept thee as mineowne in Christ my son, whose Blood hath made atonement for Man. So that properly to speak, God only justifieth, who alone imputeth not, but pardoneth sin: Who only can and doth translate us from death unto life, reneweth a right Spirit: and createth a new heart within us. Causally, and actively God doth it. But because God was drawn thereto by our Faith, which laying hands upon his mercy, in Christ, obtaineth this Freedom, and newness, and renewing from him, Faith is said to justify instrumentally. And Faith alone to do it without copartners in the act: which is in instanti, as Gods immediate works are all done; and not long adoing, as we know. The Soul of man is the subject of this act: In which, unto which, are necessarily required certain preparations, and previous dispositions to the purpose. As knowledge of God, our selves, his Law, his justice, jealousy, judgement, etc. Fear, Hope, Contrition, Love, desire of, purpose for, a new life, and such like. But these are all with, and from Faith: which in the very act of justification, are not active, though habitually there, then, before, and after: at least, some of them, perhaps not all. justification is not but in the Church: Faith is the life and original of the Church: as appeareth by the Scriptures, by the Subject, and performance of Faith. So that worthily may the principal endowment of Grace, be ascribed unto the root and original of Christian Piety, Faith. Fides prima datur, saith Saint Augustine: ex qua caetera impetrantur. In the first signification then of justification, the which properly is justification, we acknowledge instrumentally Faith alone, and Causally God alone. In the second and third, beside God and Faith, we yield to Hope, and Holiness, and Sanctification, and the fruits of the Spirit in good works. But both these are not justification: rather Fruits, and Consequents, and effects, & appendants of justification; then justification, which is a solitary act.  
So that well, and truly, and according to the tenet of Antiquity, is it resolved by our Church, Artic. 11. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deserving. Our justification, in the act thereof, is only the work of God, for Christ's sake: whose death and Passion apprehended by Faith, which is the sole peculiar work of Faith to do, as it hath made an atonement betwixt God and us, so hath it procured remission of our Sins at his hands, and thereupon a new state of Grace: not for any merit, or deserving of our own, which is utterly excluded in this Act. Thus Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. ar. 7. Nullo modo aliquis potest sibi mereri reparationem post lapsum. Restauration after fall, that is justification of a sinner, no man can procure, or deserve unto himself. To whom agreeth the Council of Trent Sess. vi. can. viii. and your own men confess it is gratuita. And therefore, as our Article saith, not for our own works or deservings. Further our Church proceedeth not, to the augmentation, or declaration, of justification there. But inferreth: Wherefore, that we are justified by faith alone, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort: as it is indeed: and your long disputes may entangle the simple, but not infringe the truth, nor indeed descent from it. Fides non absoluit iustificationem, (saith Casalius, and we admit it) but sola iustificat; and he admitteth that: For so have antiquity avouched generally, as himself and Cassander do confess, Origen, Hilary, and many others, to have resolved so.  
But this is contrary unto our Bible, 1 Corinth. 13. 2. Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have no charity, I am nothing. Therefore only faith doth not justify. Why? because Faith without Charity doth not justify: for the greatest Faith that can be, without it, is nothing. As if it were not in every Protestants mouth: and confessed by these opposers, that howbeit Faith alone doth justify, yet, not that Faith which is alone doth justify: Fides sola, but not solitaria. Faith that is without Charity doth not justify: but Faith may yet justify without Charity. They have their several distinct acts; and the act of Faith is to justify: though both are virtues incident to a just man. As if the Protestants that affirm only Faith doth justify, did withal maintain that all Faith did justify: or as, if he that proposeth a thing conditionally, must needs imply the condition to be real and true. It is a supposition, if I had all Faith, etc. but a supposition of impossibility: For it is impossible that all Faith, should be without Charity; though some may be, and is without it. Beside, I can answer, that the Faith which justified, when it did justify, (to admit the Supposition of possibility) was not then without Charity, though afterwards it was. For, in your opinion, justifying Faith may diminish, and abolish, and be lost. Now justification being in an instant; may eftsoons be lost again: Why not? and so a separation of Faith, and Love.. Secondly, it is contrary to jam. 2. 24. You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by Faith only. In this point of justification, as mine and thine, are the common barretters of the World, so Faith and good Works have broken the peace. It is the error of the Protestants, say the Papists, that Faith only justifieth. It is the error of the Papists, say the Protestants, that Works do justify. Flat ad oppositum, at least in tormes. And whether should a man believe? Nay more, this difference seemeth very ancient, and in being when those names of opposition, Protestants and Papists, were not heard of in the world. For Saint Paul saith: By Faith, without the works of the Law. And Saint james saith, as positively, by Works, and not alone by Faith. Scripture against Scripture; Apostle against Apostle; Paul against james; james against Paul. Is Christ divided? or the Spirit irresolued? or at odds? God forbid. At odds they were then, as we are now. I would that we were at no more odds now, than they then were: Controversies soon might be at an end, and Christ's Coat divided, soon made up again, which is dismantled with new rentts daily.  
Saint Paul had great contentions, all days of his life, in the whole course of his ministry; with halfe-Christians, false-Christians, those of Concision, as he termeth them. That neged as necessary unto Salvation, works, and observing of the Law. As if Christ without them did not profit any thing: against these he advanceth the excellency and worth of Faith: and depresseth the condition of any or all those works of the Law, whereupon they insisted; on which they relied: whereof they gloried Saint james on the other side, opposeth as much Simon Magus, Menander, their adherents, and that damnable Sect of the Gnostics, that living in all brothelry, and horrid impieties; cast off all care and opinion, and account of good works: as being for imperfect ones, for simple ones, and beginners in Christianity, not to be regarded, or ensued of, by themselves, who would be counted perfect men in their Generations; and through Faith alone, as they pretended, of neete acquaintance and alliance with God. Against these Saint james opposeth the necessity of works. But neither doth Saint Paul deny works, to the Regenerate: nor Saint james deny the act of Faith. Secondly, I answer here, that Saint Paul speaketh of justification in attaining it: which in respect of man, is confessed to be the act of Faith. Saint james, of justification now obtained: which necessarily is not separate from works. justus factus, through the Grace of Christ: is justus declaratus, by his holy life and conversation. And so Saint james is expounded by yourselves: or else hath access of justification: as it is also taught by your own men.  
james 2. 14. What doth it profit though a man saith he hath faith, and hath no works? Can faith save him? Nothing at all. Not at all. For a better saith then that which Saint james meant, the Faith of the Gnostics, the Devils had. Beside, it is a faith only supposed, presumed, and in opinion. If a man (say he) hath faith. A manifest insinuation it was not real. A Faith boasted of, but not had. So that this Faith, and that other of the Protestants, Caelo & solo disparantur. Nor can they be compared as they are. For the Faith of the Protestants (general or special, I dispute not now) is a Faith wrought and infused by God, through the Grace of Christ: Living: lively: active: fruitful: declaring the root by the good fruit: they never separate them in their Doctrine. And your men do blame them, because they never separate, the Spring and watercourse, Faith and good works, but they profess it must and doth work by Love.. And therefore it is a lying imputation, that good works, are not necessary to Salvation. All Writers, old and new, as Cassander saith in general, do with joint consent teach, that Faith must bring forth the fruit of good works. Otherwise, It is a dead faith without works. And he produceth the Confession of the Protestants thus: Fatendum est, haec opera quae à iustificatis fiunt, ad salutem; id est regnum Dei & vitam aeternam consequendam, esse necessaria, iuxta illud, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serua mandata: It must be confessed, that the works which are done of justified men, are necessary to obtain Salvation: that is, to purchase the Kingdom of God, a●deternall life: according unto that, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. And the Church of England expressly teacheth, Artic. 12. Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away sins, and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do necessarily spring out from a true and lively Faith. Insomuch, as that by them a true and lively faith, may as evidently be known, as a Tree is discerned by the fruit. I add, as this man's Spirit is discerned by his lying. That of Matth. 7. 22. is so far from being express in the point, that it is far from being to purpose. It is not for justifying of a sinner by works, but rather for relapsing of one justified by Grace.  
See Fathers that affirm the same. Namely, that which we do teach: that Faith alone justifieth: For so all these three named do: Origen, Hilary, and Ambrose. Origen, saith Cassander, clearly declareth, in his Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans, Solâ fide, absque operibus, aliquos fuisse iustificatos: That some have been justified by Faith alone, without any works at all. The Thief upon the Cross was not saved by works, which he had not. Faith alone saved him, in the mercies of Christ: but this being special, and therefore extraordinary, may admit an exception for common use. Therefore in Rom. 3. he speaketh plain, in general, not with that limitation of some. justification of Faith alone sufficeth: albeit a man hath not done any works. As direct a Protestant as ever wrote, Calvin, or Chemnitius could say no more. But in Rom. 5. he is otherwise minded. If so: what, why urge you the witness of him, that saith and unsaith the same thing? But it is not so. Origen is wronged by you. His words are: Faith cannot be reputed unto justice to such, as believe Christ, and yet put not off the old man, with his Acts. Do Protestants say it can be? We distinguish Historical, and justifying Faith. You do difference Faith in Degree, if in nothing else. Belief, may be before, without justification; a general assent, without application, or adhesion. Origen is in this also, a perfect Protestant. It is their Doctrine, That there is a Faith which justifieth not. It is Origens' Doctrine absolutely. Origen saith; Which believeth Christ: He doth not say, Which believeth in Christ. Thus per omnia, in all points he sideth with the Protestants in their Faith, concerning Faith as you propose it. Secondly, see Hilary upon Math. 7. And do: See him Protestant, to thy confirmation. See him Papist to thy confusion. The salvation of Nations, are his words, is through faith: and in the Precepts of the Lord, the life of all men. Doth this man speak against the justification of a man by Faith, that ascribeth salvation unto Faith? And Can. 8. in Math. unto only Faith. And elsewhere as he is cited by Cassander. A Christo per fidem remissio est, quod lex laxare non poterat. Fides enim sola justificat. Remission of sins is from Christ: which could not be released by the Law. For only Faith justifieth. Saint Ambrose runneth the same way with Origen and Hilary in Comment. upon the Epistle to the Romans. Hoc etiam constitutum est à Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, saluus sit, sine opere, solâ fide, gratis accipiens remissionem peccatorum. It is so ordained by God, that whosoever believeth in Christ, is made partaker of salvation, by faith alone, without works, receiving forgiveness of sins. In conclusion, it is confessed upon all hands, by the most learned in the Church of Rome, that many of the ancient Fathers, ascribe justification unto Faith alone. Casalius in his second Book, and 16. Chapter, allayeth their saying, and we approve it, but impliedly he giveth to understand, that Doctores Sancti, do affirm, that sola fides iustificat; Faith alone is that which justifieth. No new Gospel therefore, as this Goose gagleth.   

XIX.  
That no good works are meritorious.  
IN the former Proposition the Protestants were belied in the Case of good works, as excluding their necessity unto Salvation. For, though Faith alone acted in the act of justification, yet there necessarily followed in ordinary course, an harvest of good works. Now the value of those works is next to be questioned, in the point concerning merit, and desert, wherein this Gagger, as elsewhere, lieth out aloof in ambiguities: for he distinguisheth not of works, nor merit; nor the terms how far they are meritorious: nor how they deserve what they have.  
Works are considered before or after justification: In the state of Nature or of Grace, works are not all of one kind. There are some good, and so far good, as that they cannot be done to any evil end. Such as are directed unto God immediately, to honour him, to love him, and to fear him. Others so evil, that no intent or purpose can make them good: to commit Adultery, do murder, blaspheme God. Others good in themselves, and in a generality, which may yet be done to an ill intent and purpose; to give Alms to be seen of men; evil in a general notion, as to go to the Stews: yet good in the designment, to convert a sinner. Others indifferent every way. Now in the Proposition, not any of these are meritorious, according to the Doctrine of the Protestants, saith the Gagger generally: Not meritorious: what is that? Your Schools assign us a twofold merit of Congruity, of Condignity: that, where Retribution, or reward is not due, yet conveniency requireth recompensation: this, where reward is rightly due, and the denying thereof is injustice and wrong unto the party. Here is no distinction of merit at all. We are not given to understand, whether is intended Merit of Condignity or Congruity. We know that in the Doctrine of the Roman Schools (and unless we did know it otherwise, this fellow would not tell us.) Merit of Congruity is not commonly meant, as scarce vouchsafed the name of Merit. Good works therefore said to be meritorious, are so understood to be, ex condigno; which that a work may so be, these Conditions are required. That it be morally good: Freely wrought: by man in this life: In the state of Grace, and friendship with God; which hath annexed Gods Promise of Reward. All which Conditions, I cannot conceive that any Protestant doth deny unto good works, the fruits of Faith, lively and living. For first, evil works are rewardable, but with due desert: that is, God's wrath, and second death. Work, s secondly, of compulsion, are not worth Gramercy. 1 Cor. 9 17. and thirdly, after death, working doth cease. In the state of Grace to be wrought, is the Protestants Tenent, that precisely hold; first, Faith is necessary, before good works can be acceptable to God: For God had first respect to Abel, say they, and afterward unto his Sacrifice. Deus non habet gratum offerentem propter munera, sed munera propter offerentem, saith Gregor. hom. 9 in Ezech. and then they maintain, that as God doth Crown his own works in us, so he doth it, having promised so to do. This is your own Doctrine in the Roman Schools: And so far the Protestants, for these Conditions, go along with you.  
Now if your Texts do contrary this, expressly, or obliquely, look you to it: it concerneth you as much as us. First, Math. 5. 12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heaven. Reward, you say, is due debt; and debt is upon desert. But this desert, whence came it? and what is it? Ex gratia ipsius, saith Tertullian, non proprietate nostrâ. In the state of Grace men only merit, yourselves teach: then all their merit is of Grace; As of Grace, so ex compacto, God hath promised, therefore due, to be required. This is your fifth and last Condition unto merit. Reward in Heaven, no man denyeth: Reward appointed for our good works, all confess: If this be your merit, we contradict 
See more, 1 Cor. 9 etc.  it not. And this is your merit that you plead for. All your Texts of Scripture, Math. 10. 42. 2 Cor. 5. 10. 1 Cor. 9 17. 18. 25. Heb. 11. 26. Psal. 18. 20. and many more in the same course and kind, speak directly this way, and no other; so that the man fighteth with his shadow, and taketh a fern bush for a Fox to hunt.  
As idle in allegation of his Fathers, as impertinent 
See Fathers that affirm the same, S. Ambrose, de Apolog. David, ca 6. S. Hier. lib. 3. cont. Pelag. S. Aug. de spirit, & lit. cap. ult.  in his Texts of Scripture. For these places of August. Hierome, and Ambrose, produced by this juggler, to be seen, are merely for another matter: and so to that end recited by his instructor C. W. B. a man of more learning, and better judgement to prove that all the best works of the righteous are not sins, but truly good works, as proceeding out of a good root. That man, had this fellow been but a gagler, would have afforded him Fathers enough from Ignatius along for many ages, to purpose as is specified, in this point. And yet Ignatius wrote in Greek, and could not understand merit: and those that wrote in Latin, did use the word, but with no such intent as is supposed, nor as is put upon them by these later Tormentors of other men's meaning. The Fathers who use it, took up the word, as they found it, in ordinary use and custom with men in those times, not for to deserve, which in our Language, implieth merit ex condigno: but to incur, to procure, to purchase: as Tacitus hath it in the life of Agricola; jijs virtutibus iram Caij Caesaris meritus est: By these virtues he incurred the anger of Caius Caesar. Which use of the Tongue, the inferior Ages mistaking, have built up I know not what great Towers of Babel unto themselves, in contestation with, and presumption against GOD, which the ancient Fathers never dreamt of, whose joint unaminous and orthodoxal Doctrine is, that which we will remember in Leoes words, Non de qualitate nostrorum operum pendet coelestium mensura donorum.  
In conclusion, touching good works, the Church of England considereth them two ways, Artic. 12. 13. First as they are, or may be done before justification had and obtained; done by men merely natural, and in the state of alienation from God: and then as they are done after Regeneration, by the inspiration and assistance of God's Spirit. Concerning the first, Works done before the grace of Christ, saith Artic. 13. and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasing unto God: for as much as they spring not of Faith in jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive Grace: or as the School Authors say, deserve Grace of congruity. Yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done; we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. And so our Conclusion is, Good works thus, and in this sort, merit not at all, unless you mean Hell, and God's wrath.  
For good works done after justification, which only and alone are indeed good works: The Church of England in the 12 Artic. concludeth thus, 1. They spring from a true and lively Faith. 2. They declare a true and lively Faith. 3. They are pleasing and acceptable to God. 4. They cannot put away our sins, nor endure the severity of God's judgement, to wit, not of themselves: considered in themselves: no, not as issuing from their Fountain, Faith: because Rem 〈…〉 ssion is in Christ, gratuitum: and pardon must precede before that they can succeed. Touching their merit and desert, here is concluded nothing: but the meaning of the Church in the Doctrine of her Schools, is directly this: That the works of God's Saints, in Faith and Charity, are rewardable here, and in the World to come; both in general, as good works: and in particular, as such good works, some more, some less, according to measure, and proportion: it being a rule in Nature and Grace both, that whatsoever is received, is received, as the Donce can receive it, not as the Donor can confer it. Which procuring of reward at God's hand, both for things Temporal and Eternal, the phrase of Antiquity hath called merit, upon the use of the Tongue in those days, and no otherwise, though much mistaken afterward.   

XX.  
That faith once had cannot be lost.  
THere is no such Conclusion or Article tendered unto the Church of England: or resolved of, unto us as of Faith. Opinions have varied, and may keep at large: each one contenting himself with his own private: sobeit he disturb not the peace of the Church: nor impose his private judgement, to be held of all. It is held by some I grant, that justifying Faith, that excellent gift of God, is not conferred unto any but to the Elect and predestinated unto life. The wicked that perish eternally from God, as they never were in the state of Grace, so never were they endued with true Faith. Secondly, as consequent hereunto, that Faith once had cannot be lost, or shaken out or off wholly from man, but continueth inextinguible, indefeisable. And therefore thirdly, those that once have been endowed with that Transcendent gift, are sure to be saved eternally; nor cease to be, and stand justified before God. These are opinions, and defended, but not of all Protestants, not of the Church of England, but opposed and refelled at home, abroad, as this fellow cannot but know, if he know any thing in these points: which for the mayor part are fitter for Schools then popular discourses: and may be held or not held, without heresy either way.  
That Faith once had (the propounded Conclusion) cannot be lost, may be interpreted, and is, more ways than one. Whether not lost at all: whether totally or finally lost. Men are divided in this Tenent. Some suppose neither totally nor finally: Some totally, but not finally: Some both totally and finally. Which is indeed the assertion of Antiquity, and your School. Some perceiving the current of judgements for the loss thereof totally and finally; and considering also at least probability, of Scripture consenting, put in a new distinction, of God, and Man: of the first and second causes of Faith and justification. In regard of Man, his weakness, insufficiency, and opposition against him: in respect of second causes concurring in this action, Faith once had, may be lost they say. But in regard of God, considering his counsel and purpose unchangeable, reflecting on his absolute decree irreversable, faith once had cannot totally or finally be lost, nor they perish eternally that were endowed therewith. Now, which of all these ways will you understand the position, Faith had may be lost? For my part, I know your meaning well enough: but you should have explained it, and not have covertly rested in ambiguities. You mean, it may be lost totally, and finally: in regard of God, who made no such absolute irreversable decree: as also in respect of second causes in man, both without him, and about him, and against him. I determine nothing in this Question positively, which the Church of England leaveth at liberty unto us, though the learnedst in the Church of England assent unto Antiquity in their Tenent: which the Protestants of Germany maintain at this day: having assented therein unto the Church of Rome, in the Diet at Ralisbone, by Bucer and others, upon these grounds. First Ezech. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turn away from his righteousness, and commit iniquity: and do according unto all the abominations that the wicked man doth, shall he live? all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be remembered: but in his transgression that he hath committed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. And again, repeated with like asseveration, and reduplication: vers. 26. again, Ezech. 33. 12. The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him, in the day of his transgression. And again, The wickedness of the wicked shall not cause him to fall, in the day that he returneth from his wickedness: neither shall the righteous live for his righteousness, in the day that he sinneth. And verse 13. If he commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall be no more remembered, but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for the same. Which again is repeated verse 18. Therefore the righteous may lose his righteousness, abandon his faith, die in his sins; and receive the reward of his Transgressions in his aversion from God, hell fire.  
Again, Matth. 12. 44. The unclean spirit ejected, returneth unto his former residence, entereth, possedeth his former state, and the case of that man is worse than the beginning. Satan is not ejected, but where the party is in the state of Grace with God: being regenerate by faith. Reposseding is not but by relapse into sin: nor a worse state, but where a man dyeth in sin, Luke 8. 13. They on the rock, are they who when they hear, receive the word with joy, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. john 15. 2. Every branch that beareth not fruit in me, he taketh away. Matthew 24. 12. Because iniquity shall be increased, the charity of many shall grow cold. Surely it was hot, that groweth cold: and charity enlarged, is not but the fruit of a living faith, which if it continued in statu quo, the charity of many could not wax cold. Therefore once had, may be lost, say they.  
Again, Rom. 11. 20. 21. Thou standest by Faith, be not highminded, but fear: and fear is not but where change may be. Here change may be: or why doth it follow? Take heed lest he also spare not thee. The reason is, Any man may have that which another had. Now 1 Timoth. 6. 20. Some have erred concerning faith. And 1 Timoth. 1. 18. 19 holding faith and a good conscience, which some having put away concerning faith, have made shipwreck: Nor was it only for those times, but foretell of succeeding ages, 1 Timoth. 4. In the latter days some shall depart from the faith, Gal. 5. 4. Saint Paul spoke not upon supposition of impossibility, Ye are abolished from Christ, whosoever are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. For many were so, that having believed, and being baptised, did evacuate Christ by their own righteousness in the Law. Of whom Saint Paul complaineth in all that Epistle to the Galathians, and elsewhere. Nor in point of only Heresy was Faith by them lost, but also of good living, and conversation, 2 Pet. 2. 20. Where those that had escaped the filthiness of the World; therefore washed and made clean, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ: Therefore justified truly by Faith: are yet entangled again therein, and overcome. Therefore lapsed from Faith: as is expressed vers. 21. and 22. ensuing.  
Infinite are the testimonies of Scriptures to this purpose, insisted upon by the avouchers. I add but one of them. Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible, that they which were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and of the power of the world to come, (if these were not justified, they know not who were: if these had not faith, where was it to be found) if they fall away, should be renewed again by repentance: seeing they crucify again the Son of God unto themselves, and make a mock of him.  
Thus Scripture speaketh plain. Their Reasons from 
1.  Scripture are evident. Man is not likely in state of Grace to be of an higher alloy than Angels were in state of Glory: than Adam was in state of Innocency: For Grace is but a conformity thereto, and no conformity exceedeth the Architype: At most it is but an equality thereto: and equals are of the same proportion. Now if Adam in Paradise, and Lucifer in Heaven, did fall and lose their original state, the one totally, the other eternally, what greater assurance hath any man in state of Proficiency, not of Consummation?  
Again, Faith must needs be lost, where it cannot 
2.  consist. It cannot consist where God will not abide. God will not abide, where he is disobeyed: he is disobeyed, where mortal sin is committed: the most righteous man living upon the face of the earth, continually doth or may in this sort transgress: Who can tell how oft he offendeth? Cleanse thy servant from presumptuous sins. Thou wilt have no fellowship at all with the deceitful; Nor shall any evil dwell with thee.  
Saul was at first the Child of God: called according to the election of Grace: not only temporal, 
3.  for the Kingdom of Israel, but also eternal for the heavenly Kingdom. In opinion of Antiquity thus he was: and yet afterward he fell, it is confessed; totally all say: Eternally these say, that maintain justifying Faith cannot be lost. But if Saul were not of God's Children in grace, induced with Faith, and the holy Spirit: yet Solomon was, there is no question with them, because he was a Writer of holy writ, and wrote as he was inspired by God. If they did not grant it, the Scripture would evict it. For 2 Samuel 7. God speaketh of him literally: though of Christ jesus, intentionally, I will be his father, and he shall be my son: And in the 12. Chapter of the same Book, He called his name Solomon, and the Lord loved him: and sent by the hand of Nathan the Prophet, and called his name beloved of the Lord, because the Lord loved him indeed: Yet Sal●mon fell, as Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostome are clear for it, at least temporally, and totally too, when he went and served other gods. If Solomon were never the Child of God, yet David was without contradiction: and Saint Peter without nay: Yet David fell foul in that act of murder and adultery, and lost his Faith and present state of Grace: if David had perished in that his Sin, what had become of his Soul for ever? It was not possible he should, in regard of the purpose of Grace; but had it been so, where had he been? Surely he that desired a new heart to be created, had not that heart which he had before his fall: For Creation is production from not being, unto being. Saint Peter was a chosen vessel of Christ jesus, and if ever was any, the Child of God. Yet he denied jesus Christ with an oath, which was peccatum lethale, as Saint Augustine proveth in his 66. Tractat. upon Saint john. christ prayed for him, that his faith might not fail: But his Prayer was, for the end, not the act. That he might not fall finally, and he did not: but not that not totally, for so he did. His infirmity appeared in his fall: God's mercy was seen in his restauration.  
Simon Magus was an Heretic, an Arch-heretic, the father of Heretics, and first begotten of the Devil: yet Simon Magus was a Christian once, and baptised, and believed, and brought forth fruits of new life, and followed Philip a certain time. He believed, it is said, but not truly. It is not said, he believed not truly. Saint Luke saith he believed, in the same terms, with the same words, to the same intent and purpose, that he speaketh of others, that believed truly, & constantly: Where the Holy Ghost putteth no difference, what man hath any warrant to distinguish? The Scripture doth not so much as insinuate the hypocrisy of Simon Magus then: and what is he, that would have his nay believed, before Saint Luke's yea? judas was a Reprobate, and cast away for ever. Our Saviour calleth him the Son of perdition, and saith it had been good he had never been borne: Yet judas was numbered with the twelve Apostles: had all the Prerogatives which they enjoyed. God gave him to Christ as well as Peter or john. And if he perished only in the number of them that were given unto Christ, doubtless he was first ranked in that number: and perishing, ceased to be of that number, as ceasing to be of that number he perished.  
Beside, if Faith had cannot be lost, the Dog cannot be said, to return unto his vomit: nor the Swine to wallowing in the mire. If righteousness had cannot be lost, why do we pray continually against that, Lead us not into temptation? Why did the Apostle chastise and bring under his body, lest he should become a castaway? Why should he admonish as he doth, He that standeth, let him take heed lest he fall? And Work out your Salvation with fear and trembling. Again, say they, totally it may be lost; for Faith is an adhesion unto God. Sin separateth man from God: and maketh a division in that first Conjunction: but by repentance it is again restored, and recovery gained after fall. Totally lost, is not then ever finally, eternally, nor inevitably lost; For yet wilt thou return and refresh me, and bring up my life from the gates of death again. And as the Tree that is cut down at the stem, so long as the stock remaineth in the ground, yet by the sent of waters it will recover, (saith job,) and again, show forth the branches: So, so long as men in the Church have means in Christ, it is possible to be renewed by Repentance. Possible they say. Necessary say some, because of that necessitating purpose of God, whereby he is saved, and could not perish, that was appointed unto life unchangeably. So then they teach, that are thus persuaded, Faith totally may be lost. Faith totally lost, may eternally be lost: and also not be lost eternally, though totally for a time. Because God again will restore them to Grace: and except he would do so, they could not rise to Grace: but because his will is not put into practice by his power, he necessitateth no man so irreversably unto life nor death, those that have lapsed totally, may also perish finally. It will be urged by them, which is here said by you, What needs there any further proof, where holy Scripture is so plain? and they grant in a case so fully cleared and resolved in Scripture, no further proof needeth as necessarily required: yet for illustration, and assurance, a concurring assent of many is requisite of congruity. Wherefore they bring Fathers for their purpose. Ignatius, the ancientest this day extant: of whose writings there is little or no question, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, pag. 26. divideth mankind into two sorts of Coins, as he speaketh there: and explicating his meaning, saith, he doth not so intent it, as if he meant two distinct Natures in man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. That one and the same man, is, sometime the Child of God, and again the Child of the Devil. If he live godly, he is a man of God: if wickedly, the Child of the Devil: not so by Nature, but from his own depraved will. And speaking elsewhere of constancy in persecution, saith; Albeit I am exceedingly strengthened in God, yet ought I to fear so much the rather. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I do not know whether I am worthy or not.  
Clement in his Constitutions, 5. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Holy Spirit is continually assistant with those that possess him, so long as they are worthy so to have him. From whomsoever this holy Spirit is divided, He leaveth them destitute and forsaken, and delivered up unto the wicked Spirit. I know the Author is questioned upon his honesty; at least he is ancient: but I hold him honest, and persuade myself I can prove him so to be, as he seemeth, for my part: Tertullian, in de prescript. Cap. iij. Et hoc mirum opinor, ut probatus aliquis retro postea excidat? Saul bonus prae ceteris livore posteà evertitue. David vir bonus secundum cor Domini: postea caedis & stupri reus. Solomon omni gratiâ & sapientia donatus à Domino, ad Idololatriam à mulieribus inducitur. Soli enim dei filio seruabatur sine delicto permanere. As if it were a thing so strange that any Man approved by God, should afterward relapse from Grace. Saul, a man better than the rest, was overtaken and undone at length through Enuy. David was a good man, and according unto the Lord's heart: yet afterward guilty of murder and adultery. Solomon induced with all grace and wisdom from the Lord, was by women brought over unto Idolatry. For why, it was reserved to the Son of God alone to be without sin. What then, if a B●shop, a Deacon, a Virgin, a Widow, a Teacher, a Martyr, have swerved from his rule, shall Heresy therefore have the better of Truth? Do we estimate and approve Faith by men's Persons, or not rather Persons by Faith? Only the faithful man is a wiseman: Only a Christian man is of account: No man is a Christian, but he that continueth unto the end. Thus far he.  
Cyprian is through for the point, Epist. 7. Parum est adipisci potuisse aliquid. Plus est quod adeptus es posse seruare, sicut & fides ipsa, & Nativitas salutaris, non accepta sed custodita vivisicat. Nec statim consecutio, sed consummatio, hominem Deo seruat. Dominus hoc magisterio suo docuit dicens, Ecce sanus factus es, sani noli peccare, nequid tibi deteriu●: fiat. Puta hoc illum & Confessori suo dicere, Ecce Confessor factus es, sani noli peccare, nequid 〈…〉 deterius fiat. Solomon denique & Saul, & caeteri multi, quam diu in vijs Domini ambulaverunt, datam sibi gratiam tenere potuerunt, recedente ab iis disciplinâ Dominica recessit & gratia. Goulartius here talketh to no purpose, in the Clouds, totally or finally it skilleth not, the Grace of God departed away from them; therefore they lost their Faith in Saint Cyprians judgement, by which they stood at first in God's favour.  
And in Nazianzens too, who writeth thus of Saul, in his Apology unto his Father, Pag. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anointed he was, and made partaker of the holy Spirit: and then at that time was Spiritual. I dare not speak otherwise of him. Nay, more than so, he prophesied. And yet for all that, because he suffered not himself to be wholly and entirely directed by the Spirit, nor became perfectly and sincerely another man, what need I relate the Tragical end, which he underwent? Saint Hierome forsaketh not his Master's direction, Lib. 2. adversus Pelagianos. Ne beatum dixeris, quempiam ante mortem. Quamdiù enim vivimus in certamine sumus: quamdiù in certamine, nulla est certa victoria. Call no man happy until he be dead. So long as we live, we are to strive and contend: so long as there is opposition against us, so long we are not assured of the victory. And elsewhere against jovinian, he teacheth, that until a man repent, Faith is cast off by sin, and the party in disfavour with God.  
Saint Augustine proposeth it as an Article of his Creed, the Corrept. & gratiâ. 13. Credendum est quosdam de filijs perditionis non accepto dono perseuer andi usque in finem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipere vivere: & aliquandiù fideliter & iustè vivere, & posteà cadere neque de hac vitâ priusquam eis id contingat auferri. And again, Ad quam vocationem pertinere nullus est homo, ab hominibus certâ asseueratione dicendus, nisi cum de hoc saecule exierit. In hac autem vitâ humanâ quae tentatio est super terram, qui videtur stare videat ne cadat.  
And lastly, Gregory Lib. 6. in primum Regum. Quia judicium omnipotentis Dei imperscrutabile est, unde veniat, & quo vadat homo, nescit: quia sciri non potest, an quis in gratia quam recepit perseverare in perpetuum debeat. Because the judgements of GOD Almighty are unsearchable, man doth not know either whence he cometh, or whether he goeth; because it cannot be known, whether a man shall ever stand without falling in that Grace, which he hath received.  
It was a Stoical paradox grounded upon their fatal necessity and concatenation of Causes, that virtues once had, cannot be lost at all. Seneca thus in his 50 Epistle. Semel tradidi boni possessio perpetua est. Non dediscitur virtus. Fideliter sedent quae in locum suum veniunt. Good once had, is held for ever in possession. Virtue is not again to be learned. For what thing soever hath obtained the proper place, resteth therein without alteration. If any such necessity be inferred by any, it is but opinion, not decision; private opinion, not public resolution, which a man may follow or abandon at pleasure, not to be blamed for resolution. So, or so.  
In course of Christianity, and service of God. Finis coronat actus: It is the end that crowneth the Act. In man's profession of Love, Fear, and Obedience of God. Nil●praesumitur esse actum dum restat aliquid ad agendum. The Law presumeth nothing at all is done, so long as resteth any thing to be done. Non quid egeris, sed quid supersit curandum: si dixisti Sufficit, Defecisti. It is not respected what is already performed by them, but what remaineth yet unfinished. If thou say it is enough, thou art fallen off, and faintest. For Levit 22. Ever the tail of the whole burnt Offering was offered. Many begin to build, but do not all set up the roof. Many thousands came out of Egypt, but few of them passed over jordan. Asa was good till the go●te vexed him. jonathan followed the Chase till he met with Honey. Many are good till they have cause to be bad, and then vertunt omnia ad extremum: They end in the flesh, that begun in the Spirit. The Conclusion of all is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A man is not happy so long as he liveth, because it is uncertain what shall become of him, saith Saint Basil upon the first Psalm. These are the resolutions of many, if not most Protestant Divines: as private men of Protestant Churches, in their Decisions; and Resolutions. I am sure, the Church of England, doth not tender it to be taught or believed, that Faith had, cannot be lost again. Private opinions of men. are no Gospels of the Church. I am of this opinion, another is of that. I maintain Faith cannot be lost totally or finally: another verily persuadeth himself it may be lost, both totally and finally. He that once was, in regard of justifying Faith, and Grace, the Child of God, may become the Child of Sin, Wrath, Death, Hell, and Destruction. to neither of these, do I subscribe, as de fide, being undecided, undetermined, in the Church: Lei every man abound in his own sense and understanding, what is it to me, so be it he keep Faith, Peace. Charity, and a good Conscience? The very Church of Geneva itself, as I was told by one of the chief Ministers thereof, doth not maintain these private opinions of the principal Pastors of that Church. So that, what honesty can there be in this rambling Companion, who ranketh it with the Errors of the Protestants, That Faith had cannot be lost. Which, if it were an error, as I dispute not that, is as much or more opposed by Protestants, as propugned. As much refelled by Protestants, as Papists. Sir Gagger, to let the World see your ignorance, or impudence, or both, I have laid these parts together out of Protestant Divines. I justify no private opinions. Those that hold the one or other, are old enough; let them answer for themselves. And so I proceed.   

XXI.  
That God, by his will & inevitable decree, hath ordained from all eternity, who shall be damned, and who saved.  
DAmned and Saved divide Mankind. Not any hath come forth of the loins of Adam, but, as this Gaggler will himself confess, is necessarily ranged in one of these Ranks; either with the Damned or the Saved, Sheep or Goats, upon the left hand or the right.  
But he, whosoever, that is é censa damnandorum vel saluandorum, finally and eternally damned or saved, as one day actively all shall be, is so damned or saved, not without God's will, according to the purpose of his decree, at least consequent, though not antecedent; who doth whatsoever he will in heaven and earth; who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will, the highest Rule, supremest Law; nothing beyond it, against it, without it. So Damned or Saved, are so ordained by God.  
Whatsoever God willeth, cometh to pass: and whatsoever cometh to pass, cometh so to pass, because God hath said, So, and not otherwise, it shall come to pass; either positively, by disposing it; or else permissively, by giving way, and suffering it so to come to pass, as it doth come to pass. This his will, as nor himself, began not in time: it is and was eternal, as he is: ever, I am; not, I will be or have been. Whatsoever is done in process of time, was so seen, so disposed of, and ordered before all Time: for, he is not measured but by Eternity, which is Tota simul, & perfecta possessio sui; The total and perfect possession of itself.  
If then there be Damned and Saved, as there are, God's eternal will did so determine of them & their final estate, from all Eternity: and, after that determination of God, they are damned or saved inevitably; not only according unto Prescience, but also according to Predestination, say the Roman schools; in which, this Fellow would seem to have sent some idle hours after their fleeing Predecessors.  
What then? Why, surely the poor man meant well to the Catholic Cause, and would say somewhat, though no matter what, which he did not understand, nor could utter. He thought well, though he could not handsomely tell his Tale; which should have been marshalled thus: 
That God, by his sole will and absolute decree, hath irrespectively resolved, and inevitably decreed, some to be saved, some to be damned, from all Eternity.   
Man, in curiosity, hath presumed far upon, and waded deep into the hidden Secrets of the Almighty; nowhere more, or with greater Presumption, than where that grand Apostle stood at gaze, with O the depth! and in consideration cried out, How unsearchable are his ways! who yet was admitted into Council of State, and rapt up into the third heaven.  
In the point of Election for Life, and Reprobation unto Death, Protestants and Papists are many ways at odds in opposition, and each divided at home amongst themselves; not for the Thing, which all resolve, but for the Manner, in which they differ; agreeing in the Main, that It is so; disagreeing on the By, How it cometh so? as if God meant to reserve no Secrets unto himself, but impart them all to men; as if it were not enough to save some, and cast others off, but he must give account of doing so.  
Some Protestants, and no more but some, have considered God, for this effect of his will, in reference to Peter and judas, thus; that Peter was saved, because that God would have him saved absolutely; and resolved to save him necessarily, because he wo●ld so, and no further; that judas was damned as necessarily, because that God, as absolute to decree, as am 〈…〉 ipotent to effect, did primarily so resolve concerning him, and so determine touching him, without respect of any thing but his own will: insomuch that Peter could not perish, though he would; nor judas be saved, do what he could.  
This is not the doctrine of the Protestants: the Lutherans in Germany detest and abhor it. It is the private fancy of some men, I grant: but what are Opinions, unto Decisions? private Opinions, unto received and decided doctrines? The Church of England hath not taught it, doth not believe it, hath opposed it; wisely contenting herself with this Quoúsque and Limitation, Art. 17. We must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy scripture; and not presuming to determine of When, How, Wherefore, or Whom; Secrets reserved to God alone. So this Goose the Gagger may put his Gag into the Bills of many of his own Gaggle, as well as into others Lagges; who presume as far, and wander as wide, sometime as they do, though more covertly in their terms.  
Our Bible, in express words, saith what we believe: it teacheth not contrary to that which is resolved in 
Contrary to the express words of their own Bible.  the Church of England: the positive doctrine whereof is no other, but what this Wittol confirmeth out of Scripture; that God at the beginning made not death, as Wisd. 1. 13. because she hath learned out of S. Paul, that Through sin, death came into the world: whereof God was neither Aurthor nor Abettor; but He, the Father of lies, a Liar, a Murderer from the beginning, in procuring the Fall of man.  
Sin being entered, and by sin death, and so all mankind in the Mass of perdition, God fitted and prepared a Restorer, a Mediator, the Man Christ jesus; that so, Whosoever believed in him, should not perish, but have ever lasting life, out of his mercy both free and mere, because he was not willing, that any should perish, but all should come unto Repentance, as 2. Pet. 3. 9 and be saved.  
So large was his Mercy, so enlarged his Love, that out of his good pleasure it was his will, All men to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the Truth. Show a contrary resolution of the Church of England, and gag up my mouth, Sir Goose, for ever: else go gaggle on the Green.  
For particular opinions, So or so, aetatem habent; let them speak for themselves: and so be it they rend not the peace of the Church, let them abound in their private senses. I nor teach nor believe any such Paradox; nor the Church whereof I am, and you should be, a Member, positively.  
We need see no more, except to more purpose: 
See more Ose 13. 9, etc.  the places are adrem, but touch not us. They speak home, and to purpose, which they should declare: but we are not interest in opposition. Urge them against those who do undertake to maintain, that men are damned necessarily.  
See Fathers we may, but we shall not need: we 
See Fathers, that affirm the same.  believe what they should say, and go hand in hand with what they do say dogmatically: but see them all we cannot if we would, unless we would go seek when we need not; and if we would, might blow the seek for some of them, and after long search be never the near in finding them.  
For Saint Augustine; what or where will you tell 
S. Aug. lib. 1. civet.  us, or are you able to inform us, that he affirmeth? You mean, he affirmeth somewhat in his first Book of the City of God: and I know he doth, more by much than you can report me. You have had some acquaintance with some Particulars there, as you met them by chance in your perambulation of some trans-scripts of other men's Notes, and have now forgotten where, and what. Else, what man, but such a Scribbler, would so loosely, in a point of opposition, and therefore like enough of examination, have referred us to Saint Austen, in his first Book de Dei Civitate? Something you would say, I know not what: and therefore till you let me know, I say nothing to what you have said, I cannot tell how.  
I have seen and read Tertullian, in that place remembered, 
Tert. de Orat. cap. 8.  expounding that Petition in our Lord's Prayer, Led us not into temptation; who proposeth it resolved and de fide: and I know no man that doubteth of it, that God tempteth no man, Quasi aut ignoret fidem cuiusque, aut deijcere sit consentiens, as out of Ignorance what he can perform, or as consenting to undo him. But this passage, there is nothing in Tertullian that I can guess at, that we should see. And Sir, doth this passage come home to purpose, of decree unto life or death? Or know you any Protestant not so persuaded? No, thou forehead of brass, and tongue of Say, we are fully resolved with Tertullian, that Diaboli est infirmitas et malitia; being taught by the Prophet to profess, Our destruction is of ourselves, our salvation of the Lord.  
S. Cyprian they may see, that think it worth their 
S. Cyprian Lib. 4. Epist. 2.  labour, Lib. 4. Epist. 2. or as other Editions have it, Epist. 52. and there is nothing to purpose, but by consequence; having cited that saying, even now remembered, Wisd. 1. 13. God made not death, thus he inferreth against the Novatians, rigorous men, that denied repentance to lapsed Christians after Baptism: Vtique qui neminem vult perire, cupit peccatores poenitentiam agere, et per poenitentiam denuo ad vitam redire: Because he would not that any should perish, his desire is that Sinners should repent, and by Repentance revert to life again. Do Protestants deny Return of the Lapsed unto God? or Grace to Repentants after Fall? If we do, this testimony may gag our mouths; if not, as we do not, then gaggeth it your own mouth, Sir Goose.  
Saint Ambrose will not, nor Saint Augustine, nor 
S. Ambrose Lib. 2. de Cain et Abel will n●t that we refer unto God the prevarication of Adam, or treason of judas, though he knew the sin before it was committed.  any else, whose brains are his own, as yours are not. God foresaw it in Adam, and in judas: but Prescience inferreth not Predestination. For, not because foreseen, therefore effected; but because effected, therefore foreseen. The Treason of judas, the Fall of Adam, God foresaw, and suffered; this is certain: God was Author of neither Positively. That Good which they had, they had from God: this Woe and Unhappiness came from themselves. Private opinions we undertake not: you should not in discretion, much less in honesty, impute it unto us. Your aim is against the Church of England. Quarrel that if you can: undertake against it, if you dare. For what my word is past, I will make it good against all your Bandogs of Belzebub whatsoever; That Church maintaineth nothing against the Faith of the ancient Church of Christ, resolved on for 500 years.   

XXII.  
That every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his salvation; and to hold, that he is of the number of the Predestinate.  
NOw you ramble indeed: your pen runs too fast: your malice sent your wit, I suppose, on wooll-gathering. Where find you this conclusion in the Church of England? where in any man's mouth or writings in the Church of England; that Every one ought so to assure himself. He that saith Every one, excepteth none, not genera singulorum, any kind of men; not singulos generum, no particular man. Be you well in your wits to belly yourself in belying of us, and so soon to forget what you said but now?  
For those that maintain, as you say the Protestants do, that some are damned, and some are saved by an inevitable decree, cannot be of opinion, except their brains were made like yours, of the pap of an apple, that Every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his salvation; which implieth a contradiction unto that other Tenet. So that in one of these two, avoid it if you can, you have belied yourself, to belly us.  
And belly us you do. For, where do you find it thus concluded by the Church of England? Answer on your Honesty, if you can: nay, belly them you do, that come somewhat to your purpose; whose private opinions you make public decisions of Faith. Bellarmine, your grand Dictator of controversies, from whose tables you or your Informers have swept together all these scraps and fragments, in your bare abbridgement, proposeth the assertion, honestly and truly in restrained terms, of Verè fidelis and justificatus; That, not Every one, but Every true believer, ought so to be assured; that no man is or can be so assured, but the man that is justified before God. And that is not every one, as you belly them: They teach not; that every man is justified.  
This opinion is an inference upon that former, of Necessity of Election unto life; and therefore those Protestants, who make not the former an Article of their Creed, build upon no such infallibility unto themselves, nor prescribe it to be believed of others: And those that so do, are not peradventure so forlorn, as such a simple man as you may imagine, having Papists of reckoning to bear them company, and Fathers, Reasons, and Scriptures therefore.  
Ambrose Catharine was no Baby, as great a Stickler as any in the Council of Trent; in his own opinion, superior to most; in all men's judgement, inferior to none: who, for aught I know, went as far as any, in particular and ordinary assurance of salvation, Before, In, After the Council of Trent, against Dominicus a Soto, that maintained the contrary.  
Silly man as you are, you can play in ambiguities, and talk at random freely, when no man is near to oppose or contradict you. Your Masters can teach you, that Assurance is twofold in this discourse: In respect of the Object, known, believed; in regard of the Subject, believing, knowing: As man relieth upon his Evidence; or as is his Evidence to rely upon. Evidence is divine or humane, from God or Man. Evidence divine, if apprehended, is ever certain, and infallible, both for the necessity of our object, God, in whom is nor change nor shadow of change; as also for the manner of determining the Evidence, whereby that is certain and necessary for effect, which is but contingent otherwise in itself.  
Evidence most clear, assurance most certain in itself, is contingent, uncertain, as we may both use it or dispose it, that are here and there, of and on: because man is irresolute in his ways, and unconstant in his works. God is to us, as we are to him; known, as far as we can reach to apprehend him.  
Thus then for those men that assert infallibility of assurance: Their meaning may be, for ought you know, I am sure, for ought you have said to the contrary, that in regard of God, faithful and true; in respect of his promises, Yea and Amen, every Child of God, renewed by Grace, may and ought infallibly assure himself of his own Salvation procured in Christ: who yet, in regard of his own Infirmity and Inconstancy, cannot choose but waver in his assurance, and fear the worst, though he hope the best.  
This was Austin's resolution, if Bellarmine say right: Ex promissione Christi potest unusquisque, ut S. Augustinus rectè docet, colligere se transusse à morte ad vitam, et in iudicium non ventre: Every man may collect thus out of the promise of Christ; but with what assurance, the question is: thereto Saint Augustine doth not proceed. Weresolue, saith he there, that a man may collect it by infallible assurance, and divine, if we look into the faithfulness of him that promiseth: but if we consider our own disposition, we assign no more but probable and coniectural assurance. This Bellarmine assigneth. This is enough. Faction may transport a man to wrangle for more; but when once they join issue, the difference will not be much.  
Much or little, great or small, thus or so, the Church of England is not touched, that designeth neither. Ungrateful Colt you are, that spurn with your heels at the breasts that gave you life; if not to God, yet to nature; and impute more unto her, than she meant or intended to determine or maintain.  
Indeed, contrary, as you belly them; consonant, 
Contrary to their own Bible.  agreeing, as they believe and maintain: They never went against these words of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 9 27. Lest, by any means, when I preached to others, I myself should be a Castaway: But they say you mistake, and misapply those words, and therein go against your own Directors. For, their Tenet is, that Saint Paul was assured of his salvation: whether by ordinary divine Faith, or extraordinary divine Revelation, I inquire not at present, nor much care. I take, which you ignorantly do contradict, or unlearnedly do oppose. Secondly, you oppose plain Scripture, in your Bibles: for, Saint Paul, a jew by birth, as Bellarmine resolveth, semper se in numero Electorum point, cum de Praedestinatione loquitur, Rom. 8. 9, 11. & Eph. 1. accounteth himself ever in the Roll of Elect, wheresoever he mentioneth Predestination, as in the 8. 9, 11. chapters to the Romans, and 1. to the Ephesians. And yet say 
Therefore S. Paul himself was not assured infallibly.  you, He was not assured infallibly. He dissembled therefore; thought one thing, said another. So much is That Apostle beholding to you.  
They never went against him that you intent, in those other two Texts of Rom. 11. 20. Philip. 2. 12. For to him that continueth faithful unto the end, is appointed the reward of eternal life. And yet it is possible, and I could do it, to puzzle such a Lozzell as yourself, with expositions of those Texts that might well put off your application: but I undertake no private opinions or peculiar interest. I justify no man but the Church of England. That I can do against your Betters: that I will perform against yourself.  
A cleanly Putoff, but too common, and therefore 
A point of doctrine so improbable, that we will not labour to overthrow it by any further proof of Fathers.  to be smiled-at for your poverty. You will not labour to overthrow it by proof of Fathers. For why? Your good Patrons were themselves to-seek: and you have but reversions from other me●● trenchers. If it were so improbable, as you would have us suppose it, Catharine could not have maintained it as he hath done; nor put Dominicus à Soto, no Baby, so to it, as I know he hath; nor backed it with authorities of Austen and others. If so improbable, I marvel, the Council of Trent did so hardly pass it: and two Legates of three, or four at most, profess, it went too soon out of their fingers, and came to resolution, before it had throughly been decided. What Spirit directed that Council in this, where the Principal, in a sort, complains of surreption? This I have from no Heretic: Catharine related it from their mouths. He, you have heard, was an Archbishop of great name, and as learned as many were in Trent. But I proceed.   

XXIII.  
That every one hath not his angel-keeper.  
THis fellow, it seemeth, had but little employment, when he undertaken to abridge our Controversies; he is so apt and disposed to enlarge them, and set them at odds, who would willingly have been quiet. Such Boutifeus as he is, hinc ad malam crucem: quibus quieta mo●ere magna merces, that love to see the waters troubled; and take the very questioning of things that might rest; a sufficient hire to set them on work, that the Father of Division may applaud them, and cry; Oh, well done. For, concerning Angell-keepers, what needed this Thesis? A thing not defined in any Council; no not in that last Conventicle of Trent, because free, and in Opinion every way. The most that can be said against Opposers, is that of Vasques, disputing this Divinity problem, Sine gravi temeritatis notâ negare non licet: We cannot deny without very great rashness, that every man hath his angel-keeper.  
To this I subscribe with all my heart: so doth the Church of England, for aught I know. Indeed I do not find Decision or Resolution one way or other in the Confession public of our Church. No more do I in any Council general or particular to my remembrance, in any age. The reason is; no man did question it, all held it a truth: and what needed decision where no scruple was? The opinion of the ancient School, (the Fathers of the Church), is positive and affirmative for Angel-Keepers: the saying of Saint Augustine is well known, Parum est fecisse Angelos tuos, fecisti et custodes par●ulorum. It sufficed not; my God, that thou madest them thine Angels; thou createdst them keepers of the little ones. The later School runs mightily the same way, though both with some differences, How, and To Whom, and when deputed.  
Before Origens' time, (and he lived long within 300 years after Christ) as himself relateth, Tract. 5. upon Saint Matthew, there were two different opinions in the Church: The former maintained, that only those had Angell-keepers deputed unto them, who were of the number of Gods elect, from the first instant of their Nativity: The other, that none but such holy men indeed had Angel-guardians, but from the day of their Baptism and new Birth in Christ, assigned them, not before, or from their Nativity.  
This was the opinion of Antiquity, and no more; not as the Church of Rome hath enlarged it, that Every man living, good and bad, from the very first instant of life, to the last gasp, hath an Angel-guardian deputed unto him, as I could make manifest, if need were: and Basil is punctual and express upon the 33. Psal. page 221. and the 48. Psal. page 247. Nor doth the Master of Sentences otherwise conceive it then, Vt quisque Electorum habeat Angelum ad sui protectum atque custodiam specialiter deputatum. In 2. d. 11. So that, hic Magister non tenetur: our Roman Undertakers have forsaken not alone the Fathers, but their own Doctor Peter Lombard, to enlarge the point.  
And yet this giddy Goose-gaggler must prate, he knoweth not what, against the Church of England, concerning Angell-keepers in this point: who with as good reason, and to as great purpose, might have stirred touching Guardians of Kingdoms, Cities, Corporations, Elements, and ordering of the world; touching the time when, the manner how, the extent how far, and many other like speculations, all disputed of among Divines in the Church, none resolved of as de fide by Divines for the Church. So that had we denied it, no such great matter: for, salus Ecclesiae non vertitur in istis: the Church may subsist and prosper without any such determined resolution. But, seeing we believe and profess it too, his lips would be gagged, and his idle brains garbled at the least, for charging us with such an untruth.  
What is so contrary, can you tell, to the express words of our own Bible? Not well, 〈◊〉 wis. Yes, th●● 
Contrary to express words of their own Bible, Mat. 18. 10  they had not their angel-keeper. For, Mat. 18. 10. we read the contrary; not to that which we deny: for, we deny it not. If we should deny it, yet this Text, thus cited, would not convince us: for, do you find Angelus cus●●s, Keeper or Guardian there? Put on your considering Cap some what closer to your Coxcomb. Angel I find, and their Angels I find; In Heaven their Angels always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven: but Angels and angel-keeper are two several words, importing several offices in those heavenly Subsistences, as I conceive it. And therefore That cannot enforce This, except there were no Angels, but Angels-Guardians in Heaven. Again, I find Their Angels, by appropriation: but appropriation is in more respects than one. Their friends and well-willers they might well be, though not Guardians to attend them; their Guardians sometime, upon special employments; their Patroness assigned extraordinarily in Acts of God's providence, so many, so divers, especially on parties of their allotment.  
But I take not advantage as I might: for, I admit the Tenet concerning Keeping-Angels, though untowardly maintained by this poor Catholic Companion. This I question; the Object of Protection, 
Therefore they had their angel-keeper.  at random specified in the Gag. Their and They, who were those They? Every one, say you, if you say what you should. So teach your new Masters, that never so learned it of their Forefathers. In the now Doctrine of the Roman Schools, Every man living hath his angel-keeper, jew, Gentile, Turk, Christian, Pagan, Epicure, Atheist, Antichrist himself, and peradventure devil and all. For Every one, in your opinion, hath his angel-keeper, without restraint, or limitation. Are the words of our Bible express for this? I cannot find it in any of mine; the contrary rather. They are Littleones who have this Guard assigned. Their Angels putteth us back to them, formerly mentioned and infisted upon. If Little ones; than not Great-ones, than not all; and certainly not all, though Great ones: for these Little ones are Great indeed. Great with God, high in his books, though Little in the world, two ways; through contempt of others, and their own account, out of Humility and Opinion. Therefore now what? Every man hath his angel-keeper? No, some have, and not all. Therefore you are a blunderer in this Text, of as little understanding or less in that which followeth.  
Psal. 91. 11, 12. The Prophet assureth thus from God: He shall give his Angels charge concerning thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. But this Text will not reach unto every man, Simon Magus, Mahomet, or such like, but either restrainedly unto Christ jesus incarnate in our flesh, in all things, sin only excepted; tempted as we are, and subject to infirmities: and so Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, and others do expound it; as did also the devil in his combat with Christ; and then, it is not to purpose: for though it be granted, which your Schools dispute, that Christ incarnate had his angel-keeper, a thing absurd, injurious, idle, if not impious, yet it goeth no farther but to one particular, and him only, as Head of the Church; and will confine this Keeperage to the Church. Or it may be understood more enlargedly, of all those that it belongeth unto; that is, Those that dwell under the shadow of the most High, that have made the Lord their refuge, even the most High God their habitation; that is, of them in the Church, at least, if not only of The righteous in the Church: as, after Ignatius, the major part of Authors have expounded it. Take it how you will, this way or that, it proveth not, that Every one, in general terms, hath his angel-keeper: but the Protestants Tenent, Some have, only, and no more.  
Saint Cyril of Alexandria is not ad oppositum: he 
This very passage Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Lib. 4. con. julian. applieth to our Angel-keeper.  doth apply it to our angel-keeper. And let him in good time, a God's name so apply it. I know no reasonable man but will embrace his application, and be glad to be assured of such a Guardian. But that Our Angel, Sir Gagger, in your language, unto whom, I pray, is it applied? To john a- N●ke and john a- Style with you. To every man in your Ashdod language, Antichrist and All, you cannot avoid it: for Antichrist with you, is a singular man: therefore, if Every man have his angel-keeper, Antichrist, a man, must have his; avoid this if you can. Now see if S. Cyril applieth this very passage as you would have him.  
See then how handsomely your Texts and Proposition hang together. That is conceived in these general terms, Every man hath his angel-keeper, in opinion of your Masters (for I think you cannot tell what they teach, nor yourself what to hold), the explication is for singuligenerum, Every man living upon Earth. The proofs out of Scripture are restrained, and speak only for some men, a Peculiar People; the Righteous only, the sons of God, at least, that live within the pale of the Church, and have interest in the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, though They had their Angel's Guardians, yet it followeth not, All and Every one hath so.  
Go and see, good Reader, those places, more; not Proofs for Every man's angel-keeper, but as plain 
See more, Acts 12. 14. 1. Cor. 11. 10.  Evidences of this fellows witless allegations. For first, those Angels mentioned, 1. Cor. 11. 10. may, for aught he knoweth out of the Text, be other Angels extraordinarily sent. It is not said, They were His or Theirs, but indeterminately, The Angels. Therefore ought a woman to have power upon her head, because of the Angels. Secondly, They may be Angels of the Church in general, and not peculiarly of that man or this. Thirdly, Whosoever, or whose-soever those Angels were, we find them not in the Wilderness, among the Tents of Cedar, or at Babylon; but in Zion, in the Church, the Chapel, in the Chancel; not only spiritually, in the Church of the Redeemed, but materially, in the place of Divine Service, upon an Holiday; In locosancto, actione sacra. So that these are no Rangers amongst the beasts of the Forest: they have their several walks in the Church-pale.  
That Angel, Acts 12. 14. is One, a special one, an angel-keeper indeed, Leaguer with Saint Peter in his life; but yet such an Angel, as for whom Every man is never theneere. He enlargeth not the Guardianship unto All, but confineth it unto Some; A man in the Church, a member of the Church. Nay, say you, The Church in him, provided for him, built upon him, committed to him. Saint Peter's Angel, that great Apostle, of him speaketh Rhode, it is his Angel.  
Thus we have seen all we are likely to see. The poor man can afford us no Fathers here; his reading, it seemeth, would not reach unto that, and his good Masters were not at hand to help him. I could furnish him, if he would thank me, to better purpose, than his Scriptures have: but want, I suppose, he will rather, then be beholding to a Protestant. To conclude, we will not deny him, that Every man hath his angel-keeper; but within the Church at least, not rambling abroad. Are they not all of them ministering spirits, sent forth to minister? To whom? where? Not to every man under heaven, but with restriction, Who shall be heirs of salvation; In offensive sort against their foes; in defensive manner for their good. Thus the Scriptures speak, and no otherwise: thus the Fathers taught, and no otherwise. Not Every man, but Every Christian man, at his Birth, or at his Baptism, hath his Guardian Angel deputed to him.   

XXIIII.  
That the holy Angels pray not for us.  
WIth Ly and all, Sir Gagger. Not pray for us? Now, I pray you, who saith so? No man will say or think so, that believeth in his Creed, The communion of Saints, and can tell what connexion of the two parts of the Church of the Redeemed there is, the one militant here in Earth; the other Regnant and Triumphant in Heaven. Now a principal part of that Communion and Society which they have with us, is, to recommend our state and necessities unto God our Father. To which end God Almighty hath, as we profess in our Collect upon Michaelmas Day, appointed the Service of men and Angels in a wonderful sort.  
But somewhat there was, or the man mistook. Their Praying for us may be considered two ways; either in General, or in Particular. For the peace of Zion: the prosperity of jerusalem: the state and condition of the Church militant in earth; thus in general. For Manasses in Captivity, Hezechiah beleaguered by Senacherib. For this man or that man in particular, upon special motives and occasions: and that likewise two ways; either ordinarily, and of common course; or specially, by Delegation in extraordinary service.  
Now this Proposition, Holy Angels pray for us, doth not limit nor explain the terms, but is ambiguous; as this peddler most an end frameth all in his Pack, to calumniate, and to deceive. Whether All Angels pray for All men; or All for some men; or some for all; or some for some; who can tell, that was not of counsel to his pen and purpose? As it lieth lurking in fraudulent terms, I can answer both ways, and contradictory ways. First, Holy Angels pray not for us; and truly too. Nor shall this Goose hiscere against my answer, viz. Not every holy Angel in special, for every man in particular; Not at all times, upon any or all occasions. I can also answer, and truly too; Holy Angels pray for us. And so this Gagger may go shoe the Goose. That is, It is a principal part of their performance in Heaven, as they magnify their Maker eternally, so to recommend unto Him, uncessantly, the Estate and good being of the Church of the Redeemed, as yet in great Tribulations. I add yet further, At all times, some of them pray for the particular estate of some private Men, Cities, States, Societies or Countries: And the Holy Angell-keepers, for their special charges commended unto their trust by God, at sometime, some of them for all, for some, upon special occasion, employment, or designation, as extraordinarily they may and do undertake.  
Now to come home to your loose & lax affirmation: 
Contrary to express words in your own Bibles, Zach. 1. 9, 10, 11.  Your express words in our Bible are not so express, as to speak to your purpose: that of Zachar. 1. 9 10. runneth thus: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou net have mercy upon jerusalem, and on the Cities of juda, against which thou hast had indignation these 70 years? For, it followeth not, because this one Angel prayed for jerusalem in Captivity, any Angel doth pray for any or every man. This was extraordinary: your supposal must be ordinary. This was occasional, for his employment: your Angels must not be so allotted. Happily this was their Angel-guardian; Michael, Prince of the Synagogue. Plead thus for Angell-keepers, none will gainsay you. They pray for us, no question at all. This was in a peculiar case, for restoring jerusalem and juda, according to promise, in appointed time, 70 years designed by the Prophets. So the question was idle like yourself, Whether 
Now what, I pray you, is a prayer, if this be not?  this were not a Prayer? The question well ordered, should have been, Whether All Angels, at all times, do not in particular prey for every particular man, as this Angel here did for Zion? To the former we answer positively, Yea; to the second, negatively, No. Nor can this instance evict that.  
Toby 12. 12. Raphael telleth Tobias thus: When thou didst pray, and Sara thy daughter-in-law, I did bring the remembrance of your prayers before the Holy One. First, what an Addle-head are you, that trump in the Protestants way with this Testimony, which your Masters can tell you (for, happily your ignorance knoweth not so much) they esteem of no otherwise than a talmudical Tale? Secondly, how can you accord this Tale with your own Tenants? Raphael both speaketh here as their angel-keeper, and carrieth himself so in that whole negotiation. Raphael was of the highest Hierarchy; next to Michael and Gabriel, in your account. Yourselves teach, that Angels of that Hierarchy are not Custodes, nor employed unto men: but all employed ordinarily, are of the inferior and lowest rank. Riddle me, riddle me: what is this? You told us of one that could untie knots: let him untie this, or cut it in pieces; for, it troubleth us not a little.  
That Angel, Reuel. 8. 4. from whose hands the smoke of incense ascended, which is expressed to have been the prayers of Saints, who was he? can you tell me? whether the Angel of the Covenant, Christ jesus himself; or Michael, the Protector of the Church, do you know? or some other Angel, are you assured? Was his employment ordinary or extraordinary, can any tell? Mystical, you may be sure, this Passage is: and can you draw Arguments from such Testimonies? Your great understanding doth happily think, Yea: the common resolution is for, Nay. But howsoever the prayers of all Saints, that is, of the Church, were offered to God in the hands of an Angel, their Mediator, therefore All Angels pray for all men; or some Angels for some men ordinarily? I deny the necessity of this doctrine. When you say more, you shall hear further; but much more, I believe, you cannot: for, you fail of your wont Cue, See more, and See Fathers that affirm it: neither Scripture nor Fathers here.  
In Conclusion, from whence drew you forth this imputation, that The holy Angels pray not for us? For, Bellarmine, your Polstar and Cynosura in point of Controversy, doth confess, It is not denied, that Sancti, and so Angel orant pro nobis, saltem in genere secundum Scriptur as. And those that assent, as most do, a● the Church of England doth, unto Angell-keepers, will not stand with you for it, that orant pro nobis, not only in genere, but in particulari. Your desire is only for private advantage, to keep a Faction on foot: and therefore you flutter in dubious terms; Holy Angels pray not for us: which is, or true, or false, as it may be taken.   

XXV.  
That we may not pray unto them.  
PRay to them, if you like it; or to Saint Loiola, if you please: we cannot hinder you from playing the fools, and exposing yourselves to be laughed-at for your labours. I say, as josua sometime said, in a case not very much unlike, Call upon what Saints or Angels you will: go serve Baal or Astaroth, if you fancy it. We in the Church of England will call unto the Lord of Heaven and Earth, by immediate address, without intercession of Mediators; having warrant most sufficient, by direction and invitation, Psalm 50. 15. Call upon me in the time of trouble; so I will bear thee, and deliver thee. Do you know any man so unadvised, that will go about, when he may well go straight? or will sue for assistance, and that also uncertain, when he needeth none? Perhaps there is no such great impiety in saying, Sancte Laurenti, ora pro me: but in my opinion, till I am better informed, it is grand foolery, to say, Sancta Catharina, ora pro me; where I may say, cum effectu, unto God himself, Miserere mei, Deus: Lord, have mercy upon me. If you might have access unto his Holiness at pleasure, would you use the mediation of Cardinal Barberino, if there be any such, though the Pope's Nephew? I suppose not: if you did, I say no more, but The Vicar of Saint Fools be your ghostly father.  
But our Bible is against our Doctrine. In good 
Contrary to their own Bible.  time: how so? For, jacob saith, Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me (you read, delivereth me) from all evil, bless these Lads: where, first, you belly your own reading. You read, Angelus qui er vit me. Is that delivereth, in the present Tense, in your Grammar? It is to all, but you, in the Time past, that hath delivered. Now, what such difference, that it should be noted, betwixt delivered and redeemed? indeed, that hath taken me out. Secondly, read it how you will, it is not to purpose. You propose it thus; That we may not: you prove the lawfulness, quia factum: so you may prove theft, murder, and what not? It is a private fact of jacob, there related by Moses: and the Acts, no not of the best men, are no rules of actions unto others. We should live by Precept, not by Practice. Our Saviour said not, What seest thou? but, What readest thou? But thirdly, I will take no such exception: I admit it ruleable every way. jacob did well: we may do so as jacob did, and yet not pray to Angels.  
Therefore, fourthly, I answer contradictorily to 
That this was spoken to a true Angel, and not to Christ.  your inference. This is not spoken to, but of an Angel; secondly, not of a created Angel, but of Christ. Thirdly, Christ is a true Angel. This Fellow must go learn to speak, before he write; what to put in Print, before he publish it; to understand Divinity, before he babble in it. Is Christ an Angel, and not a true one? Is he a false or a counterfeit Angel? in appearance, in collusion, not in substance? Who ever heard such Stuff from a Priest's lips? Christ is an Angel, not created, a true Angel, of an higher alloy, Prince of Angels, as of men; a mighty Angel, The Angel of the Covenant.  
And this was spoken of him by the Patriarch jacob: The God of Bethel, as he is called, that spoke with jacob in Bethel, and met him there, who wrestled with him, who blessed him, who told not his name, being secret; spoken of him, by commemoration; not unto him, by invocation: That Angel which delivered me, bless these.  
The man had, I know not how, some intimation from some other, that we would reply, that this Angel 
Basil. l. 3. c. Eunomium. & S. Chrys. ho. 7. in laud. S. Pauli, and upon 1. of Col. and S. Hier. upon 66 of Esay.  here specified, as indeed we believe it, was Christ himself, and no created Angel: and therefore, to gag our mouths, he prevents our answer; that in the opinion of Saint Basil, Chrysostome, and Hierome, it was not Christ, but a created Angel: and therefore who for shame can say he prayed not to him?  
Wisely, I warrant you; as if it could not be avoided, but he was then prayed unto, because in the opinion of these men, he was a created Angel: which is no consequence, except it were granted, that none but created Angels were to be prayed unto, on any hand, at any time, upon any occasion. Now, who for shame will thus reason, to shame himself, but he, that either is past shame, or through ignorance not capable of it? It is good to uncase such a Mountebank, that he may be known what he is. But I go from him, to this, the point in question.  
These Fathers opined, That Angel was not Christ, but a created Angel: and what then? As if as many were not of a contrary opinion. But were it not so, no more can be collected then this, that in some men's opinion jacob spoke of a created angel; & thence, in some men's opinion, not by any express words of our Bibles, which we were promised to have, this was not Christ. Which if it were so, as this Gagger can never prove it so, I will undertake against him if he dare: yet we answer first, Than it was Jacob's Guardian at least, as Tostatus, and Jesuits that I have seen, imagine. Now the case of Angels-keepers, in point of Advocation & Invocation, is much different from other Angels not Guardians; as being continually attendant, always at hand, though invisibly: & therefore though we might say, Sancte Angele Custos, ora pro me; it followeth not, we may say, Sancte Gabriel, ora pro me.  
But lastly, here is no Invocation nor Intercession, nor praying unto any Angel Custos or not Custos, ordinary or extraordinarily attendant. It is a desire directed by jacob unto God, to send his Angel for that service and employment, to bless & keep those Lads. It is no address unto that Holy Angel, whosoever he was. Which being so, & so far from express words pretended, were not this fellow past all shame, he 
Which being so, who for shame can say, He prayed not unto him?  would shame to say, jacob prayed unto an Angel. But of this, and this Question elsewhere more at large. Thither gang this Gaggler, and I shall gag him, I am sure, in this point of praying unto Angels and Saints.   

XXVI.  
That the Angels cannot help us.  
Seal up thy Lips for ever, thou lying tongue. Said ever any Protestant, Angels cannot help us? Name me the man that may thus be blotted, or hot burning coals be thy portion, thou Liar, and misborne El●e of the Father of lies. It is contrary indeed to express words of our own Bibles, not alone in the places rightly produced, but many more; and more to purpose then some of these are; contrary to sense, reason, belief, and experience; contrary to our teaching, our meaning our dreaming. We believe & confess of Holy Angels, They can, will, have, do help us, ordinarily, extraordinarily: toties quoties, they are employed, as the mighty Executioners of the Almighty's will, for his servants, against his foes.  
And yet see the poverty of this fellows undertake! He is to prove, that Angels can help us. His first proof is, Daniel 10. 13. Michael, one of the chief Princes, came to help me. I question not the meaning of that Text. I yield it. But I marvel, this fellow can set it down, Angels help us; and come in with this proof, which should be express; and therefore name Angels; where Princes, not Angels are remembered; and so remembered, as sensu primo, they may be taken for some temporal Potentate, some of the Satrapa's of the King of Persia. But the Prince of the Kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty days: but lo, Michael, one of the chief Princes, came to help me: and I remained there by the Kings of Persia: are these words express, for Angels helping? They are, I grant, for their help; but far from express, which are so mystical.  
That of Acts 12. in Saint Peter's case, is indeed express: and nothing can be more plain, for proof, than that place, which representeth a performance of that delegation, He hath given his Angels charge concerning thee: a thing never questioned, denied, doubted, dreamt of by any Protestant, that I know. To prove himself an honest man, it were good this accuser would name the man. But somewhat there is in it, though he cannot tell what. We deny to address ourselves in time of need, unto Angels for mediation, or intercession; and we do deny it, because we hold it needless, unnecessary, as no part of our duty, as unbehoovefull, & to no purpose; because we are persuaded, that ordinarily, in every exigent, at all times, no Angel, not attendant without remove, can take notice of us, understand our state instantly, pity us in misery, and so relieve us. This is not for any invalidity of power, nor for averseness of will. If they know it, they are willing; if willing, they are sufficient. The want proceedeth not from them: it is from disability in ourselves, to acquaint them ordinarily with our states: which needs we must do, if we will look that they should help us. This is that which this fellow should pitch upon; but then he were gone, and not able to say bough to a Goose: now he hath somewhat to say at least, and make a show amongst the Gaggle, though it be with a loud lie, that They cannot help us, as we say.  
And yet we have a show of Fathers, and are sent to see, first, justin Martyr, Apol. 2. and no more, C. W. 
See Fathers that affirm what hath been said touching Angels.  B. This man's founder hath these words, The host of the good Angels we worship and adore. Which if it were so, is not concerning any thing that hath been said touching Angels, by this Gaggler hitherto. But C. W. B. had it from Bellarmine: and he followed, I know not what translation. The Text of justin Martyr, page 137 of Robert Stevens edit. in Greek is this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We confess, saith that Father, that we are Atheists in regard of any worship that we give unto those esteemed Gods; but not so in respect of the true God: him, and his Son that came from him, and hath taught both us these things, and also the Host of good Angels, that are different from the other bad that followed him, and were likened unto him, as also the Spirit of prophetical predictions, we worship and adore, honouring them in verity and in truth. This is the Text of justin, meant by this man, word for word related in his own language, as he did write, and expressed thereout punctually. And now Sir, what advantage from justin Martyr? What have your Proselytes seen in him? Your Translator, Perionius, mistook his Author, and Bellarmine was glad to make advantage of it: and your Instructor took it as he found it. As for yourself, I think you are innocent of all. Otherwise then so, it cannot be taken. For, though we should yield it, Angels are to be worshipped; yet not with divine worship yourselves confess; with such as is due unto God alone. But if any worship be given them here, it is, point par point, that which is due to God. See what it is to blunder so.  
This was for worshipping of Angels. S. Ambrose succeedeth in his Book, de Viduis, for praying unto Angels. So the man flits to and fro: Angels are to be beseeched, who are deputed our Guardians; therefore not all Angels, but only Guardians. And is this to purpose; Angels pray for us; or We may pray to them indefinitely? But I let the rest alone. I have answered elsewhere these and other places, and whatsoever other, beside these, have hitherto come to my knowledge from our opposites in the point of invocation.   

XXVII.  
That no Saint, deceased, hath afterward appeared to any upon earth.  
I Do not believe you, that you can name 
For, some such myself have met with.  any Protestant that will defend this, That no Saint, deceased, hath appeared after death. Your word is no Gospel. It is a Catholic Trick nowadays, to cog and lie, to cast any aspersion upon Protestants. If you have met with some such, it had been well you had named us the men. Your luck and experience hath been better than mine: I never yet met with any such Deniers. Perhaps, in your ranging up and down, you have met with some ignorant & simple people, that, hearing your talk of Apparitions, thought you conjured; and, not knowing the meaning of the word, would not believe you upon any hand: and, as your custom is, you publish it for the doctrine of the Protestants, that No man ever appeared, no not extraordinarily, after death.  
But to purpose. We may conceive your meaning two ways; either as in common course of kind, or else upon extraordinary course. Apparitions have been, and may be; but, as works of wonder, dispensations of the right hand of the most High. Apparitions are not ordinary, nor of common dispensation. And infinite impostures, juggling tricks, and collusions, have been obtruded at all times upon the world, especially within the last 500 years, by cozening & cheating knaves, under veil and covert of Apparitions; principally, to delude poor superstitious people, with that opinion of Purgatory, to make merchandise of the pardons. But why not as probable, that some Saints have appeared from Heaven, as some Popes have come from Hell? Both at God's good pleasure extraordinarily, who doth all things as he will in Heaven and Earth. What, if The souls of the Righteous be in the hands of God; are his hands so shortened, that no where but in Heaven they can be in his hands? God may send them, no doubt, extraordinarily. No cessation of pain is to the one; no impairing of happiness, unto the other: they carry their heaven and hell about with them wheresoever they be. So that, in no diversity of opinion, we might well passe-by your Texts to no purpose.  
And indeed to no purpose: for, Mat. 17. 3. we read, There appeared unto them, Moses and Elias talking with them: which apply to your Thesis, No Saint, deceased, hath appeared unto any; and advice how handsomely it agreeth thereto. For, do you not know, or have you heard of it, that Moses by some Authors is reputed not dead? as by Hillary, Can. 20. upon Matthew; by Saint Ambrose, in his second Book of Cain & Abel; but translated by God into Paradise, as Helias was afterward: asserted of late by no Babies of your own; joh. Arboreus, lib. 11. Theosophias', and Ambrose Catharine upon Gen. 3? If that be so, you may go seek a new Text, to prove apparitions of dead men by. It will be answered, These were not dead. For, if Moses be living, Elias is sure: you hold him yet alive; and why not both alive, seeing both must come, and oppose against Antichrist, and be slain by him before Doomsday? Mend your conclusion, and make it thus: Therefore Saints have appeared to some on earth; and 
Therefore Saints deceased have appearea to some on earth  I will warrant, no man will quarrel your assertion.  
But your second Text of Mat. 27. 52. cometh home to your mind. They were Saints indeed, deceased, but restored to life; and peradventure unto eternal life, in bodies as well as souls. They appeared unto many; the Text is plain: and I believe, you never met with any such, that, when you showed this Text, would deny their appearing; which is express. And yet it is not well applied by you: for, your apparitions, as I conceive it (inform me, if I do mistake you), are not in bodies restored to life, or raised up out of the dust, but in bodies assumed, or some other way. These men appeared in their own bodies, which were laid into, and rose up out of the graves; and so, not very fitting your purpose.  
As for Onias the high Priest, who being dead, appeared unto judas Macchabeus, let him justify it that hath written it. If he report the story as it was; very good; it may be done. I see nothing to the contrary; if not true, no great hurt at all: your puling-whining souls in Purgatory, get nothing by the bargain, That some Saints deceased, have appeared. For these were in Heaven, of which there is constat for their appearing: at least prove you they were in Purgatory, to which your apparitions tend. But the truth is, there are many Schoens & Parasangs betwixt those wondrous works of God, and those juggling tricks in the Roman Church; devised only to make the Priest's pot to seethe, and fill the Pope's purse by collusion.   

XXVIII.  
That the Saints deceased know not what passeth in the Earth.  
Speak out, and speak plain. What mean you by what passeth? All things that are done on earth? in all places? at all times? by all persons? ordinarily? of themselves? or some saints? some things in some places, at some times? by some persons? extraordinarily? by revelation, or some such like means? No Protestant will deny the one: no Papist hath hitherto dared affirm the other. Dare you abide by it? if you do, take up the bucklers, and see what will follow. Your general position will bear either interpretation. We affirm, that all Saints departed know something on Earth; as namely, The being of a Church: That some Saints departed know something here done extraordinarily, by revelation, intimation or otherwise.  
As your position is captiously put down: so is your first proof from the Text of Luke 16. 29. Sophistically affixed. There Abraham knew, that there were Moses and the Prophet's books in earth, which he himself had never seen. Indeed Abraham was dead long before Moses wrote. And after Moses wrote, till the time that Abraham answered thus (if it were an History, and not a Parable), were many more hundred years. In all which time, no Protestant will deny, but Abraham might know when he was in Paradise, that God had left such books unto Israel. Now this is not ad idem, nor proveth the question: For, your position is, what passeth, not what hath passed: your proof is for, what hath passed; and not, for what passeth. A main difference betwixt these two. I cannot tell what you intent to write next: but I can tell, you have played the Goose in your Gag: and hereafter when your worthy work putteth forth head to view, I shall be able to say what Animal it is. Abraham knew some 2000 years after his death. Put the case so, that Moses & the Prophets were in the hands of the jews, and directors of them in their course unto God: therefore Abraham knew what Rabbi Gamaliel taught Saint Paul such a day, in his Auditory. Is this a good consequence now in your Logic? A coozener, a cobbler might reason so. Yet this is your reason, cap, apee. I answer directly: First, Abraham's case is not every man's. Secondly, Abraham's knowledge might be extraordinary: our Quaere is of ordinary knowledge. Thirdly, Abraham might know in long tract of time, which he could not so at an instant; and we make question of present knowledge: for, that is required unto your purpose only. That which S. Augustine witnesseth, we deny not: that which we deny, he witnesseth not. He witnesseth there, that Abraham 
At Saint August. witnesseth, Lib. de cura mortis. cap. 14.  knew of Moses. He telleth not how he came to know of Moses; nor what Abraham or Moses can know touching us.  
In the next, as much ridiculous. john 5. 45, our Saviour there telleth the jews thus: Do not think, that I will accuse you to my Father. There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom you trust. Upon citing this Text, it may seem, the man was some what conscious, that it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it should be, express; that the Thesis was, of knowing what is done upon earth; the proof, of accusing unto God in heaven. Therefore, to help it, we have an argument, a consequence inferred upon that Antecedent thus: How could Moses, dead 2000 years before, accuse those that were living, if the Saints deceased, know not what passeth in the earth? If so; then take heed that Moses accuse not you for a fool, as very an one, as ever went without the privilege of a babble; who so childishly imagine, that God set in judgement, the jews were arraigned, every mother's son. And Moses did, as the devil with job, came and accused them, every one in particular, of every crime committed: for so it must be. Doubtless Moses had work enough to do; especially in those last, worst, tumultuous times. You should have let us known, who was of their Council, who their Advocate against Moses; and whether it came to a demurrer or not.  
But good man Wiseacres, learn of your Masters, to take things aright. By Moses, is not understood his person, then in Paradise, dead or alive; but Moses writings, the Law of Moses, that in which the jews did so much trust. So it is not personal: it is instrumental: his writings accuse you, and will condemn you. So Caietan, Maldonate, and who not? or if personal, Moses himself, why then thus they take it: It is his office, it will be performed by him at the Resurrection, and day of Doom: Moses then will stand up and accuse you. Any way take it, it cannot conclude, that Saints in Heaven do know, by any ordinary course, what passeth continually upon earth. What Saints are said to know, and what not; how many ways, to what purposes and ends, I could let the Reader see, and gag up this gabbler for ever: but I have done it already elsewhere, in that point to which this tendeth of Invocation: of which notwithstanding I must say some what here: for it followeth next in order.   

XXIX.  
That they pray not for us.  
WE say not so. You either mistake us, or belly us. The Saints pray for us all in general; all Saints for us; or every Saint for us: that is, for the Church militant on earth. You shall find, if you inquire, that the Caluinists themselves, as you call them, or Puritans, hold this.  
I add, The Saints pray for us in particular; some particular Saint, for some particular man, in some special cause, some time. And to come more particularly to it: The Question is not, whether Saints departed do pray unto God: that is confessed on both sides; all Saints do, by prayer, intercession, supplication, as well as thanksgiving. It is confessed they pray for others, and for themselves 
Nor can any be so senseless as to say they pray for themselves.  too, by all but this addle-pate, who prates he knoweth not what, and measureth other men's senses by his own senselessness. It is evident they do, Apocal. 6. 10. How long O Lord holy and true! dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth? The fellow never heard, that the souls of the Righteous pray for their consummation in glory: such an infant is he in these speculations which are so common.  
Again, it is not denied they pray for us, in regard of that Communion of Saints, whereof this holy performance is a principal and main part; for us in general, out of fellow-feeling and commiseration of our miseries which themselves have tasted in this valley of tears; for their friends in particular, whom they remember, whose state they recommend unto God in prayer; they having lost no endowment in their Soul in Glory, which did accrue unto them upon Earth. And as for Love and Charity unto their brethren, which makes them so forward to do them good, that is exceedingly enlarged there. Monica, Saint Augustine's Mother, for instance, departing this life before her Son, I make no doubt, being seate● in those Heavenly Palaces, might and did remember her son on earth, recommend his estate unto our blessed Saviour, pray for him in general; his good Constancy, Perseverance, and Confirmation in the course of his Christian Profession and Priestly Function; and not only so, but might remember him in some particular occasions, occurrences and actions, with which in her life-time she was acquainted. And yet Saint Augustine had nor could have any warran● at all to pray unto her for her remembrance of him, or assistance in things that fell out afterwards, after her death; because there was not, nor yet could be, any ordinary course certain, whereby he might acquaint her with his particulars after her death: which is all in all for invocation.  
To come home to the point. It should not be put, as here it is, that they pray for us: for, without question, they do; and it is confessed by all Protestants, that they do pray for us in general, all, without limitation; in particular, in some cases. But it should have been specified, when, for what, by what means, and how, they do, and do not, pray for us: but of these, and such like necessary Inferences as these, this Dreamer thought not, or else would take no notice. So hard a thing is it, to know or set down the state of a Controversy right: so unwilling, at least, men are to come to terms of commerce, and some agreement, who mind nothing but faction and disturbance.  
This being premised, we proceed to see how contrary the Doctrine of the Protestants is unto their 
Contrary to their own Bible.  own Bible. Apoc. 5. 8. our Bible's read thus: The 24 Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps, and golden Vials full of Odours, which are the Prayers of Saints. Heer 24 Elders are represented; but, in a vision. Then who told this Smatterer in divinity, who they were? It is expressed, that these Odours were the Prayers of Saints: but is it expressed, who they were that presented them? or what Prayers? or what Saints? The Prayers of Saints on Earth. But then, except a man be a Saint on Earth, Intercession unto, Mediation of Saints in Heaven will do him no good at all. Presented by Saints in Heaven: but, Quo warranto? For, not because this vision was in Heaven represented, therefore the Action and Actors intended, were also heavenly; and the thing represented, no where done but there. Such obscure Prophecies, not yet understood, that you can say, by any, are never assumed for Proofs in point of Controversy, but of men that uphold a desperate forlorn cause, for want of clearer Proofs.  
For the Text, Irenaeus inclineth to take it of those Prayers which the Church of GOD offereth upon Earth, lib. 4. cap. 33: Quoniam ergo Nomen Filij proprium Patris est, & in Deo omnipotenti, per jesum Christum offert Ecclesia, bene ait secundum utraque: in omni loco incensum offertur Nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem johannes in Apocalypsi, Orationes ait esse Sanctorum: which is again repeated by that musticall Divine, Apocal. 8. And the smoke of the incense, which are the Prayers of Saints, went up from the hand of the Angel before God. No more is collected, or can be, from these Texts, but this, that Prayer is compared to Incense; according unto that in the Psalm, Let their Prayer be set forth in thy sight like incense; and let the lifting-up of their hands be as the evening sacrifice. But, concluded it cannot be from these mystical Visions, that these Saints prayed unto that Angel; that the 24 Elders represented the Angels; that those Prayers were addressed from men upon Earth; that the Vision expressed a thing ordinary, and done; that any man of discretion or understanding in Divinity or common reason, would have gone in hand to have proved a thing controverted and obscure, by that which is much more obscure, as this Fellow doth.  
In Macchab. 2. 15. 14. thus we read: This is a lover of the Brethren, who prayeth much for the people, and for the holy City; to wit, jeremias the Prophet: and from thence the conclusion is, Therefore they pray for us. To weet, you should have added, the Prophets or the jews. Indeed in a Dream, worthy (no doubt) to be believed, verse 11. For, so judas dreamt, and you believe it; and draw us a Conclusion from your Dream thus: Therefore they, jeremy and Onias, if you will, pray for us: In a Dream too. So the Doctrine is a Dream; the proof, a Dream: a Dreamer related it: a Dreamer recorded it; and a Dreamer doth tell & believe it. So, Qui amant, ipsi sibi somnia fingunt: men are apt to believe Dreams, when the Dream is for their purpose. Admit it no Dream: let it be a story, and res gesta. jeremy might well pray for them in general, as having not forgot them in Heaven, whom he did know upon earth. In some particular he might, either by extraordinary relation, or Divine Revelation, or howsoever; and yet you be far enough from building your imagined device from thence; that therefore we may pray unto them: if yet you were able to make it good, how jeremy then in Limbo (for this was before Christ harrowed hell, and therefore far enough from God), could pray for the jews, as he is said, who might as soon and as well pray for themselves, as he might, and were in possibility to be heard as soon as he.  
For the Text of jer. 15. 1. Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be towards this people, I have acquainted you with what I think thereof elsewhere. You add out of Bellarmine, touching Hierom in his Comment. upon that place: and Saint Gregory 9 of his Morals, 12. that they gather, how Moses and Samuel, after their death, both could and did sometimes pray for the same people. Bellarmine addeth Chrysostome. How is he omitted? Did you forget him? for you looked upon all alike, secure what any of them, or all of them said, more than was tendered to your hands.  
First, Hierome in his Comment. saith thus, nor more, nor less: Hos enim legimus, irae Domini pro populo restitisse, et iam impendeniem avertisse sententiam. Etsi, inquit, illi steterint, vel in conspectu meo, vel contra me, quorum uni dixit Deus, Dimitte me, et percutiam populum istum: tamen non exaudiam, quoniam consummata sunt scelera populi delinquentis: For we read, that these men, in the people's case, and their defence, opposed against the wrath of God, and put by the sentence ready to be put into execution. Although, saith he, that these men shall stand, either in my presence, or against me, unto one of which God sometime said, Let me alone, and I will smite this people: yet I will not hear, because the sins of this wicked people are consummate. Now, from which of these words doth your wisdom collect, that Hierome made his conclusion, that Moses and Samuel, being both dead, could yet, and also did, pray for that people? It is to be gathered, they did it sometime. Sometime in their life they did it, it may be gathered, because it is clear. But this, being dead, is a gloss of your own, an addition to Hierom, that corrupteth Hierome: It dropped from your pen: he hath it not. That which is to be collected from thence, is; If Moses and Samuel, who living, appeased God's wrath to the people, were now again alive, and should pray for this people, as sometime they did, yet I would not be entreated now of them, as I was then; nor give way to their petitions, as than I did: because now, The iniquity of the Ammonite is fully ripe: the 
If an Horse or an Ass should pray, etc.  sins of this people are now consummate, which then were but growing in the blade. Your Horse or your Ass, though like yourself in understanding, would not so conclude, if, as Balaam's Ass once did, the poor beast could speak: as worthily you do, and like yourself. If an Horse or an Ass should pray, etc. You would have said, bray: that is fitter for such an Animal as you.  
Saint Gregory saith less, Moral. 9 12. For, he but only repeateth the Text of jeremy, and enquireth why the Prophet did rather insist upon Moses and Samuel, than any other? And his answer thereto is, Because they especially prayed for their persecutors. This is all that I can find (no provender for your Ass or Ox): if you can meet with any more, let me know it, and you shall understand my mind thereof; only this (almost forgotten in him, though I put it home to you before), not much to your purpose, no● thankworthy; that Saint Gregory did not dream, as judas Macchabeus did, of any Intercession by dead men, but conceived it thus, that if they were then living, they should not prevail with God, as they had done sometimes. Quid est ergo in difficultate deprecandi, Mosen et Samuel deducere, nisi apertius indicare, quia eius ira neque illi obsisterent, si astarent? What meaneth the Prophet to mention such difficulty, in obtaining for Moses and Samuel; but only this, to make is clear, that even they should not abide or resist his wrath, if they than stood before him, as once they did?  
Thirdly, Chrysostome yet striketh it further dead against you: which maketh me imagine some more advised, who had peradventure looked on the place, left out this testimony, though Bellarmine had appealed to him. For he cometh home against you indeed, To. 4. pa. 165. of our E●on Edition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Short, but sweet, and to purpose. Therefore if this man were now alive, and should speak thus, he should not for all that prevail. Do you mark? you have wished us to note, more than once. Were he now living; Nothing to purpose, of hearing in Heaven, or understanding so wheresoever he were. This Text is for living, not dead men; for their Prayers, not Intercession of these, in opinion of Chrysostome.  
Baruch 3. 4. thus we read: O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the Prayers of the dead Israelites (we read, say you, of the dead of Israel): Therefore the dead Israelities prayed for the living; that you, had you been efemore jacob, might not absolutely turn fool. These dead Israelites must needs then be in Limbo, when they prayed for their brethren. Some information there they must needs then have had, by some Currire: but who was He, Qui fas per limen utrumque solus habet, that was so employed unto Limbus Patrum. For, the resolution of your Schools is, if Bellarmine do not misinform us, That because the Saints and holy men, who died before Christ came in the flesh, did not enter into Heaven, did not see God, nor could by any ordinary means understand the prayers of such as sued unto them; therefore it was not used in the old Testament to say, Holy Abraham, pray for us: but men prayed themselves by themselves unto God, and alleged the merits of Saints that were already dead, that by their merits, their prayers might find access. Thus that great Undertaker of all Protestant Adversaries, thereby cutting the throat of Invocation, Advocation and Intercession in the old Testament; putting you off from all your recited Texts at once, of Baruch, jeremy, judas Dream and all. And what are you Pumillo, to that great men-at-arme? What is your word, that we should believe you, The dead Israelites prayed for the living? You told us of Harps but even now, out of Apoc. 5. 8. You and your Masters agree as well as Harp and Harrow, and no better, Yourself are fitter for an Harrow, than a Harp, Asinus ad lyram, in these controverted points of piety.  
But touching your dead Israelites, Sir of little wit, and less understanding, they were not dead, though peradventure sleeping. They slept not then in the dust of the earth, being gathered unto their Fathers; but dead, because like unto the Dead; out of mind, cast off, cast out, of no reputation; in the opinion of the world, dead. Ver. 10. 11. in the same chapt. Men waxen old in a strange Country, accounted with them that go down into the pit, as the Prophet expoundeth his own meaning. These were not Ezechias, josias, David, Esaias, or the rest; but Ezechiel, Baruch, Daniel, Sidrach, his companions then alive. These dead were living, and in case to pray, and did pray for themselves, their wives and children, their Countrymen at Babylon in captivity.  
We imagine so: and Baruch himself biddeth us think so. Yet note what Theodoret saith to the contrary. 
Where note, that Theodoret, paraphrasing upon Baruch, interpreteth this very place as Catholics do.  And so we will: for, it is worth the noting, if he knew Baruch's mind better than himself. Note it we will, and subscribe it too, if Theodoret interpret this place as you do: for, as for Catholics, I have not enquired how they interpret it; I need not, it is so palpable. I verily suppose, you have pigs in your belly, and cry, We Catholics (when it is but a Cacolick, and a poor one, God knoweth, your silly self) interpret the place so. But have you looked upon Theodoret? Are you certain, he interpreteth it so? I cannot find it, to note it in him. This is all that I can note, in no very great Paraphrase neither; Verba clarè ostendunt immortalitatem onimas: and to this, Protestant's firmly and constantly assent, as well as any Papists or Popes either: for, some of them have scarce assented thereto; though not for this Proof of Theodoret: which how clarè it showeth that, I see not.  
Theodoret could not hence note unto us the immortality of the soul, otherwise than because the dead do live: which to admit, yet is it far enough from the exposition of Catholics, that imagine, Invocation may be inferred hence. For, dead men may pray, and yet not for others. It is an idle exception; If for themselves, their glory should not be complete. For, doth this Ignaro imagine, their glory is yet complete? no augmentation to accrue unto it, at least accidental, at the Resurrection? If he know not this, the Catholic Cause was very far forlorn, when such Smatterers set pen to paper to propugn it. Secondly, there are causes, more than one, of such prayer. They may well pray for others, and yet not be prayed unto themselves, in regard of general union and knowledge particularly, and remembrance, extraordinary knowledge and information. So this Andabatarian Catholic fighteth with his own 
Now, is the Sun more clear, than that Saints pray for us?  shadow. We deny it not in these terms, The Saints departed do pray for us. The Sun is not so clear, as there is no clear understanding in him.   

XXX.  
That we may not pray unto them.  
Whatsoever they do for us, we do not much for them: for we say, we may not pray unto them; contrary to our own Bibles. Believe it who list. Pray to them, if you will: we and our people will pray unto the Lord, who is ready, willing, able to hear us every way, without such Advocates or Mediators. And where are our Bibles so contrary to us? Nay, understand you the resolutions of your own men? Sancti non sunt invocandi, Saints are not to be prayed unto, is a Proposition of Father Roberts: I grant with limitation, thus; Not as Authors of divine blessings or goodness. But, what a Buzzard are you in the mean time, that leave such an advantage to your Adversary? For, against this loose Proposition of yours, Saints are to be prayed unto, without his restraint, these Scriptures are plain, Psalm 83. God giveth grace and glory. Psalm 120. I lift up my eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help: my help cometh only from the Lord that hath made heaven and earth. And that, james 1. Every good gift, and every perfect giving, is from above, descending down from the Father of lights; and such like, that send us only and directly to God, in the opinion and upon the allegation of Bellarmine.  
You cannot answer these Texts of your Bible, contrary to your Tenet, as you set it down. We can answer whatsoever you bring against; as, Luk. 16. 24. Father Abraham, have mercy on me. here is one Saint prayed unto. First, by whom? By Dives, a firebrand in hell. So the Damned are directors of your doctrine; no doubt good doctrine, so well grounded. Secondly, this was no prayer unto Abraham, if Bellarmine have taught us aright: for, the Saints of the old Testament, saith he, being then in Limbo, were not prayed unto, as not seeing God: but Abraham was a Saint of the old Testament, not of the new. Thirdly, it is a Parable; and so, not concluding farther than the scope and end: which is not this. Fourthly, Abraham is supposed, at least here, to have been within hearing. Bring the Virgin Mary within my kenning, I will say unto her, Sancta Maria, or a pro me. Next, Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue. Heer, say you, or else you err, is another Saint prayed unto. No such matter, Sir Gagger: gape wider, and stare the Text in the face: you shall see at last, if you have not lost your wits and eyes and all, that, if any be prayed unto, it is not another, but the same Saint Abraham, to send Lazarus. Dives saith not, Saint Lazarus, come; but, Father Abraham, send. When you call to your Bottle-ale-Hostesse, to send her Maid for something you want, the Maid must so take it; you withal entreat her to go. Sure, your wits are drowned in Bottle-ale, or mured in a Bakers Basket. That of job 5. 1. for so it is, 
job 1. 5. 〈◊〉  doth not answer our expectation, nor your undertaking. You vaunted to confound us by our own Bible's: and you are fain to go to your Bibles. In our Bibles we read, Call now, if there be any that will answer thee: and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? In your Bibles it is, And turn to some of the Saints. Your fleeing from ours unto your own, argueth, that in your opinion there is difference betwixt the interpretations; and so there is: for, by our interpretation you are gone. Eliphas telleth job, It is in vain to go unto any of the Saints: for, there is in them no help at all; an Interrogation, being equivalent to a Negation. Is there any can do this? in effect, There is none that can do it. So that you discredit your own cause, that are fain to be recreant in your undertaking, and flee off from our Bibles unto your own Bible.  
Thither I need not follow you: but I will. So little are you to be feared at your own weapons, even upon your most advantage. Let it be, Turn unto some of the Saints; yet have you no more but opinion: and the opinion you most follow of new birth, hatched first by Aquinas, as may be collected. For, as for Saint Augustine's expounding it as Catholics do, I will let the 
S. August. himself expounds this very place as Catholics do, in his Annot. upon job. If it had not been the common custom in the time of job, to invocate the Saints deceased, it had been friu●lous for Eliphas to have asked job, to which of the Saints he would t 〈…〉?  Reader see, and then judge. One of your own saith, Pineda on the place, Some take it spoken ironically: and so it is for your purpose; is it not? By which is meant nothing less. Alij seriò: others take it spoken in good earnest; but not therefore as advising Invocation. Call, saith Caietan, unto some of the dead: let him be a man that hath lived most unblamably: put him to defend thy cause. Assuredly, not any will make answer, because they are not; their souls having di●d together with the bodies. Cardinal Caietan, Luther's great Antagonist, was so far from imagining any custom of Invocation in the time of job, which Bellarmine likewise denieth, that he supposeth Eliphas to have been an Atheist, and to deny the soul's immortality: and what be cometh of your custom of Invocation, in his opinion, in the time of job? Eugubinus, by Saints, vnderstandeth holy men alive; and by Call, not Invocation, but Allocution or naming of them. And with him accord Philippus Presbyter and Polychronius, as it may be collected by your own Pineda. Others, by Saints, mean holy Angels; but present, employed, to be spoken to: as apparitions were then frequent among those holy men; either Leaguer, or extraordinarily employed Angels. Lyra runs another course; not to the Persons, but Precedents of Saints. Revolve the remembrance of Ages past, as if Eliphas has said so: and go consider the lives & actions of holy men: thou shalt find them discussed exceedingly all; but not impatient in affliction, any of them.  
In such diversity of opinions, and greater than this, to conclude for Invocation assertively, none can, none will, but men like yourself, qui●us anima prosale. S. Thomas alone must oversway all, because, as Pineda confesseth, he was the first that applied it to Invocation. Tandem sapienter D. Thomas sententiam hanc ad invocationem pertinere voluit: After all other Expositors, saith Pineda, he would have it belong to invocation of Saints. Therefore put up your Pipes for Saint Augustine, singing that Catholic Song. S. Augustine's words are these: Indignatio, quâ quisque angitur, tanquam iniquè sibi aliquid acciderit, dum non cogitat usque adeò se immundum esse coram D●●, ut innocanti Angeli non respondeant, aut se demonstrare dignati sint: qui enim hoc 〈◊〉 cogi●at, stultus est, & irâ irrationabili interimitur. Aut idcirco Angelos non audire, non videre potest stultus, quia ir â interemptus, & à zelo occisus. Indignation, saith he, expounding the second verse, which vexeth a man as if he were hardly dealt withal, whilst he doth not remember, that in God's fight he is so unclean, that the Angels vouchsafe not to appear unto him, or give him any answer when he calleth for them. He that thinketh not so, is a fool, and killed of wrath. Or thus: A fool cannot hear or see the Angels, because anger and wrath have even slain him.  
Thus Saint Augustine, in those Annotations, bringeth a double exposition of those words: in both (according to the Septuagints reading, whom he followeth), by Saints, he vnderstandeth not men departed, and with God, as the Catholics, since Thomas, do interpret it; but Angels of Paradise. Secondly, he is not for calling upon them (for, how could he, if he held Bellarmine's Rule, for Sancte Abraham?), but unto them. How? As familiarly conversing with them in those days; as often appearing and talking with them (his very words) either Guardians or otherwise. Let it be so now; Saint Peter, Saint Paul appear, converse with, demonstrate themselves to us: for my part, I will speak to them, to remember my necessities or cause to God; as I would to yourself, or any other Christian, for your Prayers, or the Churches. Thus what get you by Saint Augustine, or your own Bible?  
I list see no more: I have seen enough already: the 
See more.  utmost, I am sure, that you can say, and what I have seen, I have satisfied already, both in Scriptures and Fathers, elsewhere. These very places you have named, and many others, I will not, as you use is, actum agere: only this, for your better direction or information in this point of jovocation, or rather Intercession through Allocution, we do not, we dare not pray to Saints, that is speak to them, or entreat them to pray for us; not for unlawfulness of the act so much, as for unaptness of the Agent: for, we are not persuaded, nor can it be proved unto us by any Romish Catholic living, that the Saints departed, and now with God, do or can ordinarily, by any power or ability in themselves, hear, see, know, take notice of the wants, state, cases, or prayers of men on earth, to be mindful of them unto God in heaven. Nor can it be proved, that otherwise God doth ordinarily reveal unto them by any means those former specified, that so they may take notice of them. This must be proved, or it is in vain to pray to them; unless a man will hazard his state and all, upon uncertainties. It sufficeth not, that they know some things, at some times, in some places, of some men extraordinarily; for, so we are uncertain, what Saints know what, how much, when, by what means; and so may well be blamed of folly for going about, when we may go direct; unto them, when we may go to God. Save all other labour in this point, prove but only this, Their knowledge of any thing ordinarily; I promise you strait, I will say, Holy Saint Mary, pray for me: till than you must pardon us Protestants, for not playing the fools with you.   

XXXI.  
That the bones or Relics of Saints are not to be kept. No virtue proceedeth from them, after they be dead.  
YOu may keep, if you will, and lock up, if you please, in your Cabinet, or Calket, or where you will, Saint Campions' thumb, Saint Garnets' straw, Saint Loiolaes' hair; which cured, if I remember, Michael Vasques, of I know not what: or that goodly Relic, which at Denham once, in Sir George Peckhams' house, coursed the devil up and down from Anne smith's foot, over all her body, the Priest following Him with his hand, up and down, wheresoever the Spirit went. And further, take Saint Lipsius' old breeches to shrine them in, and the virtue that did or might drop from them: our Lady of Sichem will perhaps lend them to so holy and devout a purpose: I know no Protestant will steal them from you. But ad Textum, as Marcellinus useth to say; your Texts of Scripture I mean.  
As all the rest, so this also is contrary to express 
Contrary to express words of their own Bibles.  words of our own Bibles. This say I? but what? Why, two things are proved, or should be: First, that Relics may be kept; Secondly, that virtue proceedeth from them. Both these must be expressly proved, or the man saith nothing, and may hold his peace and pen both.  
In the second of Kings, or the fourth, it skilleth 
In second of Kings, but is the 4 by the account of Catholics, 13. 21.  not; for, our Bibles also intimate as much, 13. 21. it is written, that the bo●es of Eliseus being touched by one that was dead, they did revive him. Thus we grant it is written, and we believe it: what then? Why This could not be, had not some virtue proceeded from them. Good: and what of that? Therefore we that hold, No virtue proceedeth from them after they be dead, are contraried by our own Bibles. If we did hold so: but we hold not so. Indeed we hold, and assuredly believe, that Saint Campions' thumb, Saint Garnets' straw, Saint Stories halter, never did, nor shall ever raise up any dead man. We deny not, Eliseus' bones, or Saint Peter's shadow, or Saint Paul's napkins, did work wonders. Sir Addle-head, or idle p●te, touching virtue from dead men, thus we hold: this is our opinion:  
Virtue hath often proceeded from the bodies, bones, garments, relics of many holy men and blessed Saints, dead and alive; not ordinarily, or of and from them naturally; but extraordinarily, by dispensation, as works of wonder wrought by God. But these are not ever to be had, or seen. Such works are of voluntary dispensation; and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for all, from all, at all times. The red sea was divided for Israel to pass. jordan was driven back more than twice, by josua, Elias, Eliseus: are you so wise to imagine, so ridiculous to proclaim, that all Seas and Rivers may so be served. Go try the Thames at Trigge Stairs, or Broken Wharfe, that the world may take notice of you for a Frantic or an Impostor: or the jews send and hire you to divide Euphrates, at their return shortly unto the holy Land: For by your reason, or else you ramble wide, the water should give you way. For, mark: Eliseus bones did once raise a dead man to life; therefore they had virtue issuing from them, and residing in them: therefore all Saints bones or relics have virtue that proceedeth from them perpetually, naturally, when they be dead: and you, if you have none, may easily borrow such Relics at the Brokers, to serve a turn for the Catholic Cause. This is your Logic, if you remember what you have learned: Any particular may infer a General. Once it was done, it may be ever; at one time, therefore always. Eliseus' bones revived a dead man: therefore all Saints bones and Relics can do that or the like.  
Acts 15. 14, 15. And believers were the more added unto the Lord; multitudes both of men and women: insomuch, that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least, the shadow of Peter passing by, might overshadow some of them. This is not, Acts 15 but Acts 5. But that may be the Printers fault, not yours. Secondly, here is no express mention of virtue proceeding; but of shadow overspreading. But you answer; In our Bibles, it followeth, And they all might be delivered from their infirmities. But what is that to purpose? We are to be tried by our Bibles, at your own choice; not by yours: therefore you fail in your undertaking. And as for our Bibles, they have not that clause indeed; no more have the Editions of Catholics, nor the Copies used by Robert Steven. The old Translator, I doubt not, found it in his Copy, and did express it: so would we have done, had we found it in ours: for we left it not ou●, nor do you say so, of set purpose. But fourthly, let it be added; for we grant it true: it is not ad idem: for you propound it of the Dead, and prove it of the Living. Saint Peter was then alive: betwixt Living and Dead, there is a main difference: the one may do what the other cannot, in my learning.  
Lastly, admit Saint Peter then dead, because his shadow was no substance: virtue is immanent, and emanant; and both, two ways considered. Naturally and ordinary: or by dispensation and extraordinary. It was no natural quality in his shadow: and as for endowments of dispensation, they are particular, and restrained; now in being, anon, not. From no Saint departed or alive, from no shadow or substance, doth any such virtue issue naturally? From many alive and dead, great virtue hath extraordinarily at times, upon occasions, for special ends, by dispensation. And what then? Therefore your Relics can do the like? If this be the consequence, I deny it. Else, because the Apostles could speak with tongues, our Priests and Jesuits can do the same. Do it, and I yield. But experience proveth true, you cannot now say, Arise and walk.  
What you cannot do for Saint Peter's shadow, Saint Augustine shall help at a dead Lift to bring the Text home. Ser. 39 de Sanctis, he saith, If the shadow of his body could help, how much more the fullness of his power? I will not quarrel the Authority, nor the Author, though I may: how the allegation should serve for relics, I cannot see; except the Fullness of power be his Relic, opposed to the shadow of his Body: and that indeed is made a Relic of Saint Peter; and it is the best that ever he left, worth all his other Relics whatsoever; and therefore deserveth to be kept charily in the Pope's Wardrobe. But that is a Relic of another kind: we speak of no such Relics now.  
Relic or not: what express mention? None, nor regarded. For the man hath recourse unto consequence, in stead of express mention, and supposeth thus: Saint Augustine supposeth two things: The one, that the shadow of his body, being here on Earth, did both help and heal infirmities: which Protestant's Bible leaveth out. And so did Saint Augustine's Bible, without doubt. For he supposeth it, you say: which he needed not have done, had he found it express. For supposition is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where words are plain: and no marvel if Saint Augustine's Bible did so: for the Originals did and do so; old and new, Papists Bible's as well as Protestants: neither is it found in the Syriack Edition, nor regarded by your own learned Commentors; only cast in by such quarrelers, as if the Protestants had depraved the Text sacrilegiously.  
The other thing supposed by Saint Augustine, is, That being in Heaven, he can still help us by his Power. And what Power? how help us? Saint Augustine doth not; and you, I think, cannot resolve us. Whatsoever it be, what reference to Relics? Not here mentioned, not to be inferred: or say how. The Relic your men dream of here, is plenitudo virtutis, and gratiae permanent is: which they were wont to presume to be that Omnipotency of his Sea. Were you well served, you should be turned into the Inquisition, for abating or trans-planting such his Power, and depriving his Supremacy of such a testimony in S. Augustine, of your own. And do you mark it, that I say, your own: for, this Saint Augustine is none of mine. It is ser. 29. in which this passage is; not 39, as you misreport it: which is a Counterfeit under S. Austen's name, as the Lovanists, and other your own men, observe.  
There is a Commemoration of Saint Peter' s chain: you keep an Holiday in memory thereof, Augusti 1: and yet Saint Peter' s Chain (as Baronius observeth) was not found until Saint Augustine was dead. Had the man been as he would seem, Saint Augustine, yet might he have been deceived in his collection, as well as in somewhat else noted by Lorinus, that hither tendeth. For, de Catechis. rudib. 23. he delivereth, that The shadow of Saint Peter, passing along in the streets, restored a dead man to life. Do you find this written in your Bibles? I suppose not. S. Augustine did (without doubt) in his: or how is it, that he saith it? Therefore the Papists Bible hath left something out, aswell as the Protestants. Look unto it, and answer it as you can.  
Acts 19 11, 12. And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs, and aprons; and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. Therefore what? Virtue proceeded from Saint Paul when he was dead? I deny that: for, Saint Paul was then alive, and alives like. Therefore this is for the living, not the dead. And yet take me not so, that I deny the thing. Virtue may proceed from the true Saints of God, dead and alive. I deny your proof, and wonder at your wit, that can go ab equis ad asin●s so easily, as if both were fit Inmates for such an Animal as yourself; Ass, Horse, & you, for such provender.  
S. Chrysostome might very well infer, upon the passages of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, that Christ, 
S. Chrysost. To. 5. cont. Gentil. quòd Christus sit Deus, in an whole Book, proves hereby, and by the like virtue of other Saints, that Christ their Lord and Master, is God: whose servants napkins and shadows could do such wonders.  their Lord and Master, was truly God: whose servants, in his Name, and by his Power, nay, their shadows and napkins, did such wonders: for, Could any man do so, except God were with him? But, all this wind shakes no corn. First, this virtue was not inherent; only incident. Secondly, it was miraculous; so, peculiar. Thirdly, it was Then: those Times are done; those napkins gone into Materia prima. Show such napkins or shadows, and we yield. For, no man doubteth what hath been done, or may be done: we go no further than to what is.  
See more, you so direct us: and we had need, or else we shall see your proofs by halves: for, hitherto we have only heard of virtue proceeding from the Dead; nothing touching keeping of Bones and Relics. Now have at them, or else never; and indeed never: for, Exod. 13. 19. Ioseph's bones were carried by Moses out of Egypt. What then? Therefore bones of holy men may, by warrant of that, be digged up, shrined, and preserved. Happily they may in some cases, but not therefore: for, this was a singular Fact; which are no precedents for general rules. One Swallow maketh not Summer; nor one Woodcock, Winter, but among Birds of that Bill and Feather. Secondly, as it was singular in Fact; so, special in Reason. There was a Tie upon Israel, to do that which they did. joseph, dying, had bound them with an oath to do so. Had our Lady so bound you for her smock or her milk, you were excused. Thirdly, they carried them thence, not to keep them, which is your Tenet; much less to shrine them or adore them, which is your practice; but to bury them in the Land of Canaan: which they did, Ios. 24. 32. Do you in like sort, and we applaud you with your Relics.  
So we see in this first place no more than we looked for; nothing to purpose: nor in the second, 2. Reg. 4. 8. Eliseus taketh up Elias cloak that fell from him; and, wrapping it together, smote the waters of jordane; which parted asunder. A Text seeming to say somewhat: for, Elias cloak is Relictum, a Relic to Eliseus; and he took it. But this is verse 14. not 8. but not yet a Relic for our purpose. For, what he did with it, is not remembered: it is like enough, Eliseus wore it out. We read not what he did with it; whether he laid it up, and left it to posterity to be adored: unless you can prove this, you say nothing; otherwise, in your sense it is no Relic. For, keeping and adoring is all in all for them.  
But let it be kept. Eliseus did no more than I▪ or any Protestant else, should have done. For, you mistake us. The Relics of Saints are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with us: we dishonour not their garments, much less their bodies, having been the Temples of the holy Ghost; being again to be raised from the dust, and be made like Christ's glorious body. By and in them, at sundry times, God hath miraculously magnified himself in his Power; as, when the body of Babylas made the Oracle mute, in despite of julian that Renegado: Then especially, when there was great cause; when Paganism, Persecution, Opposition swayed, for the manifestation of that Truth, which in them & by them had been propagated. Show any such Relic, and see what we say unto it. It is natural for any man to affect the remembrance or memorial of a friend; to admire and make much of rare things, not every day seen. Bring me then a piece of the Cross of our Saviour, one of the Nails, or some such memorial of his Passion: show me Moses R●d, Saint Peter's Sword, I will prise them above all the jewels I can have. Will this content you? I know no Protestant will do less than so.  
Worship them I dare not. Show them as you do, I would not: as men do monsters in Fleetstreet or Sturbridge Fair: in this you abuse them too profanely, making merchandise of the Word of God. In that you profane them to Idolatry, misleading the People to adore them. This did not Antiquity, nor do we. In the Primitive Church, Memoriae Martyrum were in great esteem; The place where they suffered, or else where they were buried: here commonly their Churchmeetings were for divine Service; for receiving the Sacraments, with commemoration of their Passion; and a collation to follow their noble Acts: which was seconded with this opinion, that those blessed Souls themselves, by special grace and dispensation of God, took notice of that general Act of the whole Church, and accompanied their devotions, with their own best assistance unto the Majesty of Heaven. But times are changed, men's manners altered: Those Saints, Relics, Memories, and Oratories of the true Saints of God, gone, no where to be found; cozening, colluding, fraud, impiety, come in place. The miracles, memories, relics of Saints in your Roman Church, are all of them known to be juggling tricks of deceiving knaves: and if Saint Martin were alive again, he might find out only one man's Relics, but many thousands to be the bones of theirs that died at the gallows for their sins; nor of Martyrs, that shed their blood for jesus. Talk not then of Relics, and keeping of them: but show us the Relics, true ones indeed, and then blame us, if we respect them not, as Augustine, or Ambrose, or any ancient Fathers did.  
See your Fathers I need not. I have seen them often, before ever I saw C. W. B. your good Benefactor, whose scrolls you have filched every where: yet lest it be thought, there is some stuff to be seen which we dare not set out to view, the Reader shall see them, if he will be so idle, and have so much leisure. Eusebius in the seaventh book, and fifteenth Chapter relateth, that the chair of Saint james, brother to our Lord, and first Bishop of jerusalem, was kept & preserved by his successors. And what if Eusebius write thus? it is no such great wonder for a chair to last 300 years; in keeping of it, I know no hurt, or impiety, as I do in your Lipsanolatria. For Eusebius doth not say, that they worshipped it, or that any virtue went out of it. Though, if you have read the place, as I think you never did, you may remember, that Eusebius there saith, It was a custom taken up from the Pagans, as it was indeed; and can demonstrate, if need be. But I take no exception at that original, as you would do with us for much less advantage. Only this I add: It was no bone or Relic of Saint, nor had any virtue issuing from it; and therefore not to be remembered here.  
Athanasius, in the life of Saint Antony, hath many passages; the work is of some reasonable length. Now what shall we see therein? or whereabout? you know not: for C. W. B. did not inform you: and you, poor man, are not so well provided at home. But well fare Bellarmine, who would have told you, had you consulted him. He doth inform us: who otherwise might have sought a needle in a bottle of hay, and have given the hay to this beast for provender. Saint Antony dying, bequeathed his cloak unto a friend: the Legate accepteth it very kindly: an example of kindness given and taken; no more. If Saint Antony could have given more, he would have done it: had he given less, the Party would have taken it. It is not said, He received it so, as he laid it up, kept it amongst his jewels, and plate. Which if he did, what is that to Protestants not adoring relics? did the man make an Idol of his cloak? did there any virtue come from that cloak? If I knew you, were acquainted with you, I would bequeath a Coxcomb to you, and you would lay it up haply for a Relic for such fools to adore.  
Saint Basil in Psal. 115. what doth he say? You know not: for you were not told. Let me help you. Upon those words, Right dear in the sight of the Lord, is the death of his Saints, he dilateth touching the Persons and Passions of blessed Martyrs; preferreth them before Garlands, jewels, and precious stones; opposeth the state of the time of Grace, unto that of the Law. Then it was not lawful to touch a dead body; but he that touched it, was unclean. But now, saith he, He that toucheth the bones of a Martyr, somewhat partaketh of sanctifying power, by that Grace which assisteth the body. This was true in those times: but those Martyrs are not: those bodies are gone: that grace is neither diffused nor effused at this day. It was of that grace which then wrought wonders; now, no where to be found: your pretended Martyrs are scarce Christians some; few good Christians; your relics, impostures; your miracles, juggling tricks, lewd lies, and forgeries, Prove them otherwise; we will do as they did, and give them the respect Saint Basil did.  
So we answer you for Chrysostome and for Ambrose: let the case be the same which then it was, our affections every way shall be the same with theirs. But those days are done; those Worthies gone: impostors are every where, in every corner. In regard of these jugglers, and not with reference to the Heroic times, I say with Tatian, If God had made them (he speaketh of charms and amulets) to the purpose that men employ them, he should have been the Author of some evil. But all things that God made, were very good: the devil, in his insolency rioting upon them, hath converted them unto all purposes. From him came first this evil custom (with you, in adoring you cannot tell what): it never was the work of the Perfect God. For how is it, or can it be, that while I live, I do no hurt; but being dead, some piece, some relic of myself, without sense or feeling, which can do nothing, which serveth not at all, no more than I do, should operate, or effect any thing? How can he that hath been hanged himself, possibly save another from the gallows? or how can a bone of him that died of a fearful disease, deliver another from the same? Sir, I believe, Tatianus did prophecy so long ago, so graphicially doth he describe the impostures of your Romish Mountebanks, in applying the Relics and lousy fragments of Knaves, Rakehells, and Traitors, unto, I know not what, wonder-working tricks of Legerdemain.   

XXXII.  
That the Creatures cannot be sanctified, or made more holy than they are already by their own nature.  
Until I had read over the whole passage, and came at last to holy bread, holy water, holy ashes, and the like, trash and Mountebank wares, I marvelled, I confess, what this man meant by his position, The Creature cannot be sanctified, etc. For, I know no Protestant, but willingly acknowledgeth the Separation and Sanctification of the creature unto divine, religious and holy uses. I was sure, our Church maintained, and many ways practised the contrary: there I 
Are they not therefore fools and blind, that keep such a ●ooting at Holybread?  found my error, and so perceived what the fool meant; and whither the blind Buzzard did direct his groping, that made boys to laugh and hoo● at him.  
That the Creatures of God are good, we believe: as proceeding from a total cause, absolutely good: that nothing ought to be refused, as 1. Tim. 4. 4. if it be received with Thanksgiving, you rather deny than we. That the Word of God and Prayer doth sanctify the creature to the several uses, we profess willingly, and practise it accordingly in all our courses, Mat. 23. 17. we read & subscribe, that the Temple, the seat of God's Presence, the House for his Service, sanctified the gold employed in the Temple, as being put unto a religious use; That the Altar did sanctify the Sacrifices offered upon the Altar. But if the Calves of Bethel had been placed in the Temple, had they been sanctified unto God by being in the Temple? The Altar doth sanctify the gift, but so, that it be a gift for the Altar. If a Dog or a Cat were offered there, it would be no more holy or sanctified, than the abomination was of desolation, which was set up in the Holy Place. It is not the place that sanctifieth, but the true employment of the thing. We never read it warranted, that creatures may be abused, or ms-imployed. Are they not therefore fools, to return your own words upon yourself, that produce these passages, for such stuff as holy bread, & c? which as they are used in your Antiques, may with reason be hooted at by Boys.  
Holy bread with you, is an apish Imitation of that ancient practice in the Primitive Church, whereby a part of the consecrated Host, in and for the Sacrament called Eulogia, was sent unto the adjoining parishes, or dioceses, and imparted unto strangers that came unto them, as a sign, pledge, and assurance of mutual love and confederation in the same faith; a thing prohibited afterward in the council of Laodicea, but re-assumed, and long time frequented in the Church: which growing at last into disuse, in the Latin Church especially, Bread began to be blessed indeed, but not consecrated, for or in the Communion: which in Paulinus, Augustine, and others, is named Eulogia, or Panis Catechumenorum. The Catecumeni being not baptised, could not be imparted with the body of Christ, but received Bread blessed by the Priest, for their use and eating, as an assurance of that Communion, whereof in due time they were to be made partakers.  
The later Church abused this practice of the Ancients, employing it as spells or amulets to cast out devil's, to heal diseases, to keep men from danger; whereto nor God nor man had designed it anciently. The form of consecrating it is this, in Burchard. Cap. 28. Lord God Almighty, vouchsafe to bless this Bread with thy holy and spiritual benediction, that it may become health of soul and body unto all, a defence and safeguard against all diseases, and all the assaults and deceits of the enemy, through our Lord jesus Christ, thy Son, the Bread of Life, who came down from Heaven, brought life and salvation into the world: who liveth and reigneth with thee for ever. Was any thing thus consecrated, 1. Tim. 4. 4. Mat. 23. 17. 19? Or any water any where to the like purpose, to be sprinkled in houses, to drive away Fairies and Hobgoblins? to remove the lets and impediments which might hinder the receiving of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar? to put out the guilt and tainture of original sin? I find no such thing in Scripture or the Primitive times. I do in the Rituals and Pontificals of the Pagans. Nam et sacris quibusdaminitiantur Isidis alicuius aut Mithrae. Ipsos etiam Deos suos lavationibus efferunt: villas, domos, templa, totasque urbes aspergin● circumlatae aquae expiant passim. Tertullian speaketh of Pagan superstitions, and it agreeth unto your fopperies, point by point. Such hallowing and sacring of the Creature, as of ashes, bells, and other babbles, are far enough removed from that sanctification of the Creature in Saint Paul, unto holy and religious, or common uses. Saint Paul never baptised or blessed a bell, to clear the air, assuage storms and tempests, help against lightning and thunder, drive away devils, and wicked spirits, that would hinder good Christians from going to Church, or righteous souls from passing through the air into Heaven. Such old wife's tales I find not in Saint Paul, nor in Saint Basil, whom we are directed to see, Lib. 2. de baptismo: but for what, or where-about, I profess my ignorance, I cannot tell, and yet I have Basil, and have read him. Transeat therefore: till I know what, and where I should see Basil, I must suspend my answer unto his authority.   

XXXIII.  
That children may be saved by their parent's faith without Baptism.  
THe man, when he undertaken this gagging task, opposed himself intentionally against our Church: in which regard, with what face, with what forehead, can he thus impudently belly us, knowing in his conscience, our Doctrine, our practice to the contrary; and that we have been put to maintain and justify it against schismatical humours, not Papists but Puritan at home? In the very first Instep to the form of Administration of Baptism, we profess, All men be conceived and borne in sin: we add, alleging our Saviour's words, None can enter into the Kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and borne anew of water and the holy Ghost; Being assured, that as Truth hath spoken it, so it is impossible, ordinarily, for a man to be saved, that is not baptised. Upon which persuasion of that necessity of water and the holy Ghost, we, following the use and warrant of Antiquity, have tolerated, practised, and defended private Baptism at home, by Lay-people: and yet this shameless Detractor chargeth us to hold, That children may be saved by the Parent's faith, without Baptism, as if it were unnecessary. One man peradventure thought so, that the children of the Faithful that were in Christ, might ordinarily be saved without Baptism. I say peradventure: for, it appeareth not, that he held it of ordinary course, nor referred it to the Parents faith, but unto that Covenant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed; as even Bellarmine his Adversary confesseth touching him; who yet is nothing unto us.  
Touching the necessity of Baptism, there hath been variation ever in the Church; and yet ever a necessity held upon all hands, more or less. For, Antiquity supplied the want of water, by blood. Martyrs, not baptised, went to heaven. The inevitable want of water, by the Spirit; in desire and assured faith, if it might be had, in Christ the Author and End of it. For, as in little Infants, the faith of the Church, and those that present them to be baptised, is by God reputed their own: so the willingness and desire of the same Church, of their Godfathers and Parents, is reputed theirs. So that no absolute necessity in opinion of Antiquity, and indispensable, was held of our Saviour's Asseveration, Except a man be born anew of water and the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Which necessity, thus qualified by Antiquity, some late Writers have qualified further upon other grounds; as namely, that supposed Decree of God, touching absolute necessity of salvation: which admitted, yet includeth a subordination of means. As Paul and his company were determinately saved from perishing by sea; yet he told them, it could not be, except the Sailors stayed: so nor Gods Decree be accomplished without means, which is water and the holy Ghost ordinarily.  
Others, it may be, have qualified it from the state, faith, and interest of their parents: which, if it be so, is but a private opinion of some men; not the doctrine of this, or any Protestant Church that I know. You would be loath to maintain all private opinions in the Church of Rome. The most that we have said thereof, is, Of the will of God to impart his grace unto 
Hooker.  infants without Baptism: in that case, the very circumstance of their natural birth may serve as a just argument. Whereupon, it is not to be mis-liked, that men, in charitable presumption, do gather a great likelihood of their salvation: to whom the benefit of Christian parentage being given, the rest that should follow, is prevented by some such casualty as man hath no power himself to avoid. So that the most this Fellow can impute unto us, is, that In some case of inevitable and inunicable necessity, little infants may be charitably supposed saved by their parent's faith. And so that of john 3. 5. for necessity of water, will iustifiably be answered, If it be possible to attain it. That of Tit. 3. 5. urgeth no more, but that the washing of Regeneration is the ordinary entrance into life.  
As for Gen. 17. 14. (to admit all paralleled in Circumcision and Baptism) all were not damned that died uncircumcised; nor all cast away, that die unbaptized, as this Fellow himself will or must grant; but those that neglect, contemn, or omit the means which may be had. As for Mark 16. 16. the very words do support this mitigation: for, though Christ saith, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; yet he doth not say, He that is not baptised, shall be damned: but, He that believeth not, shall be damned; that being every way of indispensable necessity; this sometime tolerable, the rather, because we are plainly taught of God, that The seed of faithful parentage is holy from the birth; which the children of Pagans are not: these having an habitual interest and consecration to God in their parents, which the other want. But whatsoever, in charitable constructions, may be thought of extraordinary courses, they are not for us: we must leave them to God; in whose most rigorous courses of constitutions, and most sharp denunciations, deep mercies are ever hidden: who though he be the God of justice, yet is he the Father of mercies. And yet ordinary ways are for us and our children. Ordinary way unto life eternal there is none, but by Baptism of water, and the holy Ghost. Gag them, Sir Goose, that teach otherwise. The Church of England is not guilty thereof.   

XXXIIII.  
That imposition of hands upon the people (called by Catholics, Confirmation) is not necessary, nor to be used.  
NOT by Papists alone, but by Protestants also, is it called Bishopping or Confirmation; not used only by them, but by Protestants likewise, commended, commanded to be used. Look in the Communion-book, good Reader, and wonder at the impudent face of this lewd Impostor, that dares give the Lie unto public Records, that dares tell the world, It is midnight at midday: for, if there be then any Sun in heaven, this imposition of hands by the Bishop alone, called Confirmation, is both maintained as necessary; used and commanded, as every man knoweth, in the Church of England. Would any man but he, or some of his Comrades, take up the private fancy of every Peddler, and expose it to view for Protestants doctrine, contrary to knowledge, to conscience? But so it is. If it were not for such courses, the poor needy Fellow would have nothing to prate on unto his Proselyte-gossips in Partridge-Alley. The Lie is so loud, the case so apparent for Bishopping or Confirmation, I shall not need to say any thing, but, Blush for shame.   

XXXV.  
That the Bread of the Supper is but a figure of the body of Christ.  
IS but a sign or figure, and no more? Strange: and yet our formal words are, This is my body: this is my blood. This is, is more than this figureth or designeth. A bare figure is but a phantasm. He gave substance, and really subsisting essence, who said, This is my body: this is my blood. And yet our Catechism in the Communion-book, authorized, saith expressly, The body and blood of Christ taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper; not the figure or sign of his body and blood, which can neither be taken, nor yet eaten. Poor 
Poor Protestant, whither now is thy figure fled?  Woodcock or Catholic Coxcomb, that sendest a Protestant to seek a figure, who is as real and substantial as any Papist.  
Were the peace of the Church, and unity of faith (which is more mystically insinuated in this Sacrament, than elsewhere; in the Materials thereof, both Bread and Wine) so dear and precious as it ought to be, unto such common Barretters of Christendom, as Priests and Jesuits are for private ends; this, and many other Controversies on foot, might cease. For, it is confessed on either side, that Sacraments, which have their Being from institution, are signs of God's love and promise, seals of his covenant and grace, and instruments and conveyances of his mercy. What they intimate, signify, and represent, they convey unto the soul. In the ordinary Catechism alone allowed (and I would, no other were tolerated) the question being asked, What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? the answer is, I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. This is more, even in your little understanding, than a bare figure; a means and a pledge whereby &c.  
Sir, we acknowledge right willingly, and profess, that in the blessed Sacrament (as you call it, of the Altar) the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ is really participated & communicated; and by means of that real participation, life from him and in him conveied into our souls. This we believe and profess;  
knowing, that he is able to effect it, who hath spoken it, by that mighty working, whereby he is able to do whatsoever he hath said. We are not solicitous for the manner how he worketh it; not daring to pry into the secret Counsels of the most High. We have learned, that Revealed things are for us; secret things are for God. Therefore we wonder, why the world should be so much ammused at, and distracted with, those unexplicable Labyrinths of Con-substantiation and Transubstantiation, which only serve to set the world in division; nothing to piety, nor yet information. As we therefore condemn that presumptuous definition of Transubstantiation, in the Lateran Council: so we do not like nor yield assent unto that jejune and macilent conceit of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius: whereby men account of this Sacrament, but only as of a bare shadow, empty & void, and destitute of Christ; but ingenuously profess, that by this Sacrament Christ giveth us his very body and blood, and really and truly performs in us his promise, in feeding our souls unto eternal life. As for the manner how, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: This inexplicable, that unutterable: it is faith only that can give the resolution. Trans or con, we skill not of.  
john 6. 51. The bread that I will give is my flesh; which I will give for the life of the world. Therefore his flesh is bread, the Bread of life. Most true; but not therefore his flesh by Transubstantiation. You find not that in the Gospel, or any where else. Life, begun in Baptism by the Laver of Regeneration, is confirmed and sustained in the holy supper by his body and blood. How? I cannot explicate. How should I, that cannot tell how (who can do it?) my body is nourished by the ordinary meat and drink I take? yet is that familiar, and in use every day. When Christ gave it, he said, This is my body. Saint Paul, repeating the Institution, saith, This is my body. It was never denied to be his body: it is affitmed still, to be his body. Mad Papist, that imputest to poor Protestants, an Idol, a Chimaera of thy own brain; that The bread is but a figure, and no more, of Christ's body. Protestants say it not: they never said it. As commonly it happeneth, that all Reformations or Innovations are upon and into extremes: so some happily have, that departed long since from the Church of Rome. But what is that to our Church, that publicly, privately, all and some, directly maintains the clean contrary? Your great Adviser, C. W. B. hath said enough, could he see what himself hath said, or you understand what he allegeth, to stop the mouth of such Gabblers as you and he for ever, in the contrary assertions of the Protestants. But, the devil bred you in a Faction, and brought you up in a Faction, and sent you abroad to do him service in maintaining a Faction: otherwise acknowledge, there is, there need be, no difference in the point of real presence.  
See your Fathers if I do, I shall do more than 
See Fathers that affirm the same. S. Ignat. in his Epist. ad Smyr.  you have done: for, I avow it, you never read Ignatius for this. Read that Epistle over, unto the Smyrneans, and see if you find any such thing there: if you do, then trust not me again: if you do not, what descrueth that impudent imposture, S. Ignat. in his Epist. ad Smyr. But I can show you better evidence for Bread and Wine out of Ignatius, pag. 125. edit. Paus. Maestrei. The flesh of our Lord jesus Christ is one: His Blood, one, which was shed for us: also one Bread was broken for all: one Cup distributed unto all, Bread and Wine after consecration: Both distributed to all, against your half Communion. And again, pag. 261. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Breaking one Bread, which is the medicine procuring Immortality. Thus I find nothing in Ignatius for you: this I have, and haply more could against you, were I desirous with you to maintain a faction.  
justin Martyrs testimony I acknowledge in the end 
justin Mar. Apol. 2. ad Antoninum.  of his Apology, and willingly make his words our own: For we do not receive these things as common Bread, or common Drink: but, even as our Lord & Saviour jesus Christ, by the Word of God becoming flesh, had flesh & blood for our sakes; so are we taught, that the food which was blessed by him, in the Word and Prayer, through which food, being altered and changed, our flesh and blood is sustained becometh the flesh and blood of him, that jesus, who took our flesh in his Incarnation. Thus that ancient Father, not fully represented by your director: who saith not any thing that Protestants deny: For they confess, They eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink his blood: they are one with him, and he with them; but cometh not home to the Papists Resolution, that we eat it and drink it by Transubstantiation; but the contrary: for, but four lines before, he calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration. Those, saith he, whom we call Deacons, do give to every one that is there present, part of the Bread, Wine and Water consecrated.  
Saint Cyprian, Serm. 5. de lapsis. Now good Sir Gagger, can you tell how many Sermons de lapsis Saint Cyprian wrote? ignorant Ass, and yet bold Bayard! Saint Cyprian wrote no Sermons de lapsis: he wrote a book de lapsis, divided into sections by some or other. But Reader, see the audacious Dunsery of this Ignaro. C. W. B. had, in his Catalogue of the Fathers of the third Age, for transubstantiation, cited Cyprian thus; Ser. 5 de lapsis, for Sect. 5. de lapsis (unless he also took his Authors by tale upon trust) and Ser. de coena Domini. This blunderer stumbled upon the first, false or true; to purpose or not, all was one to him; and set it down: the second quotation he left out: yet that is it which he should have taken: for in the first, Sect. 5. de lapsis, there is nothing; in the second, Ser. decoena Domini, as he will have it, though it be no Sermon, Sect. 6. there is, thus: The Bread which our Lord reached unto his Disciples, being changed, not in appearance, but in Nature, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made flesh. Saint Cyprian said as much as this once or twice before. No man denyeth a change, an alteration, a transmutation, a transelementation, as they speak: no man otherwise believeth, but that the natural condition of the Bread consecrated, is otherwise then it was; being disposed and used to that holy use, of imparting Christ unto the Communicants. Stay here: be contented with That it is, and do not seek nor define How it is so: and we shall not contest or contend with you. Hoc Sacramentum aliquando corpus suum, aliquando carnem & sanguinem, aliquando panem Christus appellat, portionem vitae aeternae, cuius, secundum haec visibi●ia, corporali communicavit Nature. Panis iste communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam et incrementum corporibus: ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu, fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est, visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum, et non tam corporali, quam spirituali transitione Christo nos uniri. Thus the same Saint Cyprian: so we: we confess it: we believe it: we cannot comprehend it.  
Saint Ambrose saith no more than we will subscribe, Lib. 4. de sacramentis. Before consecration it was Bread; common, ordinary, mere Bread: but after consecration, it becometh the flesh of Christ, because then the Sacrament is consummate. But doth Saint Ambrose tell you how it is so made? That I find not, that I expect, that I must find, or I find nothing to your purpose.  
One Father yet you add. Saint Remigius saith, but you cannot tell where: your Director told you, it was in his comments upon the 10. Chap. 1. ad Corinth. The flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgin's womb, and the Bread consecrated in the Church, are the same body. And yet, being consecrated, he calleth it Bread. How can your Saint Remigius make that good? He should have said, for doubtless he meant so, The Bread which was being consecrated in the Church, is transubstantiated into that flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgin's womb, and become the same body. This Remigius saith not; a great sign he meant not. And indeed he did not mean it: he goeth no further than Reality: he determineth not modum praesentiae at all. And yet this Remigius is not, peradventure, the man you would have him; namely, Saint Remigius, Archbishop of Rheims, who converted King Clovis of France to the Christian Faith, who lived within 500 years after Christ, though he died about 544. This man wrote nothing, that I can hear of, either in Sidonius, who lived at that time, or Hinckmarus, or Flodoard, or Sixtus Senensis, or Bellarmine, or Chesneu, or any other. He that wrote the notes upon Saint Paul's Epistles, taught indeed at Rheims, as appeareth by Flodoard (and thence grew the error, I suppose, of those who took him for Saint Remigius Bishop of Rheims): but he is called Remigius Antisiadorensis, because he was borne at Auxerre. Of him we read in Sixtus Senensis, that he wrote on Saint Paul's Epistles. He is of a much later date; living under Charles the bald, about 880. Howsoever, we are not touched by him, or any of the rest: for we neither believe, nor say, that the Bread of the Supper is but a bare figure of the body of Christ, not his Body: we profess, we receive the Lords Body, and drink his blood, in commemoration of his Death and Passion, as he hath appointed. If you say otherwise, we have done with you.   

XXXVI.  
That we ought to receive in both kinds; and that one alone sufficeth not.  
WE ought so indeed: nor is it sufficient to administer the Communion, as the Romanists now do, under one kind. This is the authorized and received, and justifiable Doctrine, and Orthodox practice of the Church of England. Artic. 30. thus we read: The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied unto the Lay-people. For, both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, aught to be ministered to all Christian men alike. And in the Communion book it is expressly said, That the chief minister, if there be more present, as it often happeneth, in Colleges especially and Cathedral Churches, shall receive it first himself, and then deliver it to other Ministers, and so to the People in both kinds. This is our practice and our profession: for which I join issue with all Papists living; that it is the prime, original institution of our Saviour; which giveth Birth and Being to a Sacrament; that it is Sacrilege to alter it therefrom; that it never was otherwise used in the Church of God, for above 1000 years after Christ. Let all the Papists living prove the contrary, and I will subscribe to all Popery. As for this poor fellow, he can say no more than he findeth ready to hand, or is put into his mouth: his Comrades were conscious to themselves of novelty and innovation: for in a point so notorious, so scandalous, of such consequence, we are not sent, as accustomed, to see any Fathers.  
It is manifest, saith Cessander, a man professing himself a Roman Catholic, though of wonderful modesty, moderation, and learning, that in administration of the sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Universal Church of Christ until this day, and the Western or Roman Church, for more than 1000 years after Christ, especially in their solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament, did exhibit and give unto all faithful Christians, not one only, but both the kinds of Bread and Wine: as is most clear and evident out of innumerable testimonies of the old Writers, both Greek and Latin; which I can make good, and of some will give a taste.  
Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: One Bread is broken unto all; and one Wine given to the whole multitude. This man was Saint John's Disciple. Martialis, as you say, one of the 70 Disciples: Epist. 1. Sect. 3. Nunc autem multò magis sacerdotes Dei honoratis, qui vitam vobis tribuunt in chalice et vivo pane: and he speaketh, you see, to the people. Dionysius Areopag. S. Paul's Disciple, pag. 157. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for having discovered the covered & undivided bread, and divided it into many parts, and distributed to all, the Unity of the Cup, he consummateth in those Symbols and signs, the Unity of the Church: and so in many other places. S. Clement, Saint Peter's Disciple and Successor, in his Mass having set down the order and form of consecration, cometh to participation thus: Let the Deacon give the cup; and when all have received, men and women, let the Deacons carry the remainder into the Revestry. So Saint Mark in his Liturgy, another Disciple of Saint Peter. So Saint Peter himself in his Liturgy, or Mass as you call it. So the rest.  
justin Martyr, in the end of his Apology, describing the service of those ancient Christians, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: They whom we call Deacons, give to every one present, part of the consecrated Bread and Wine. Irenaeus in lib. 4. cap. 33. proveth the Resurrection, because we participate of the body and blood of Christ. And lib. 5. cap. 11. speaking of a Christian man, he saith, that the chalice, qui sanguis eius est, nutritur; & de pane, qui est corpus eius, augetur. That railing Fevardentius, in his Notes upon Irenaeus, was not able to produce one Testimony for half Communions, though he vaunt, it was a practice in the Apostles time. Tertul. in the Resurrect. speaking of all Christians in general; Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut & anima saginetur. And because these Patrons of a desperate cause, contrary to all art and reason, conclude negatively, The cup was not communicated, because the bread is alone sometime remembered; we may infer alike, The bread was not given, but the cup, because Tertul. in depudicitia, remembreth only the cup thus: Aqua & aliis initians, cui ille si fortè patrocinabitur pastor, quem in chalice depingis, prostitutorem & ipsum, Christiani Sacramenti, mento et ebrietatis idolum, & moechiae asylum post calicem subsecuturae, de quo nihil libentius bibas, quam ovem poenitentiae secundae. The man was then, I yield, a Montanist: but that hinders not his credit from relation of truth and universal practice on foot, though he oppugn it.  
Clemens. Alexandrinus, Stro. 1. p●. 117. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For which cause, some men, when as they distribute the holy Eucharist, as the custom is, permit every man of the common people to take a portion. And what he meaneth by Eucharist, himself explaineth, 2. Paedag. 2. cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The mixture of both in one, that is, of Wine and the Word, is that which we call the Eucharist: whereof the Faithful when they participate, are sanctified in soul and body both. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, in Euseb. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 8, writing unto Xystus Bishop of Rome, relateth of an ancient Christian, no Priest, but a Layman, that upon occasion supposed he had not been well baptised. Of him he writeth there, that long before, and often, he had been partaker of the body and blood of Christ; not of his body alone, but of his blood also, in express words.  
Saint Cyprian, in more places than one, Epist. 63. Tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter, in Calais Dominico sanctificando, & plebi ministrando, non hoc faciunt quod secus Christus, etc. The Cup of the Lord communicated to the Laity. And again: Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere, qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere? By which reason of Saint Cyprian, no Roman Lay-Catholique can shed his blood for Christ, that never drank the blood of Christ. Which argument he useth in another place, Epist. 54. Sect. 2. With what ground can we teach or exhort them to shed their own bloudin confessing the Name of Christ, if, putting them forth upon that service, we deny them the blood of Christ? or how can we dispose and fit them to drink the cup of Martyrdom, unless we first admit them to their right of communication, in drinking the Lords cup in the Church? Let our good Catholics answer this, who so punctually, forsooth, and precisely follow the steps of Antiquity without any swerving. These are all within 300 years after Christ, and all express for the Cup.  
Athanasius, in his second Apology, being accused for breaking a Chalice, writeth thus: What manner of cup? or when? or where was it broken? In every house, in every shop, there are many pots: any which if a man break, he committeth not sacrilege. But if any man willingly break the sacred chalice, he committeth sacrilege: but that chalice is no where but where there is a lawful Bishop. This is the use destined to that chalice; none other: wherein you, according to institution, do drink unto and before the Laity. This was the custom in Athanasius time; this, in all the Father's times, as I could deduct almost out of every one. This is every where the custom in all the world unto this day, but in the Roman exorbitant Church, as Cassander saith; and was not quite abolished in that Church, till about 1300 years after Christ; and by much art, colluding, and fine forgery, was retained from being cast out of that Church, in the late Conventicle of Trent, only kept-in for a faction, but mightily opposed by learned, honest and conscionable Catholics.  
For why: who can alter Christ's Institution? who dare change that which he hath ordained? Sacrificium verum & plenum tune offered in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offer, secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse, saith Saint Cyprian. But saith he again, and we know it is true, Constat Dominum obtulisse calicem in commemorationem Passionis. Et quia Passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facim●●, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit, facere debemus. Why? Because otherwise we offer not the Sacrifice as we should. Nec sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebramus, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit Passioni: and that cannot be without pouring out of wine, that representeth the shedding of his blood. But your Church hath altered it; presumptuously done. Who gave your Church such authority? Hear Saint Cyprian again. Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Nam si Iesus Christus, Dominus & Deus noster, ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris, & sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit: utique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur: & sacrificium verum ac plenum tunc offered in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offer, secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse. You do not this: therefore, in Saint Cyprian's judgement, your sacrifice is neither full nor true. Much more in that Epistle, Saint Cyprian hath, and also elsewhere, unto the purpose.  
But you have Scriptures for the nonce; expressly in our Bibles, contrary to that we teach and practice; to justify what you practise and teach touching this sacrilege and perfidiousness in altering Christ's institution. Marvel you should have Scripture against Scripture, Christ's institution being so direct, for Drink you all. Produce your Scriptures, joh. 6. 51. If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever. And the Bread which I will give, is my flesh. here is eating of Bread; and that same Bread, Christ's flesh: but here is no such matter, as we ought to receive Bread only; or, that Bread alone sufficeth. Yes: for, Lo everlasting life attributed by our Lord himself, to eating only under one kind. I grant: for do they in your country use to eat under two kinds? Is Wine eaten with spoons there? I have heard of communicating and receiving under one kind; but never till now, heard talk of eating under one kind. Go learn to speak, and then write. In the Interim I take your meaning. Christ, that mentioneth only eating, doth not exclude drinking; doth not say nor mean, eating only sufficeth. Bread is not exclusive here, no more than where our Saviour went to eat Bread with a Pharise: at which time, in your Learning and Logic, he did not drink all dinnertime, or suppertime, because he went only to eat Bread. But Sir, your wisdom must know, that he which eateth Bread, according to the Scripture phrase, drinketh also; Bread importing necessaries for man's life: and to eat Bread, is both to eat and drink; as to eat his Body, is as well to drink his blood. So anon the same Evangelist: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Lo here everlasting life, not had without drinking. Look you to this, if you look to have everlasting life.  
john 4. 14. Christ promiseth Water to drink; of which water whoso tasteth, shall thirst no more: therefore, say you, He promised no Wine: therefore, say I, By your reason he gave not Bread. Therefore, if needs you will have one kind, and no more, have it in Wine, not Bread. Again, he telleth his Disciples elsewhere, that he would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until he drink it new in the Kingdom of God: he maketh no mention of any Bread. Therefore in Heaven, belike, Wine is drink, and only Wine drunk: but they eat no Bread there. And yet we read of Angel's food: which I can tell you, who take it literally. I might say, our Saviour speaketh here of Bread, and not of Wine, in regard of that foregoing occasion, which was the first motive unto this his Discourse, namely, his miraculous feeding 5000 men with five loaves: so that he kept him to the Subject and occasion. But this wise man's observation is clean cashiered by our Saviour's Epexegesis afterward, ver. 53, 54. he plainly and expressly maketh it plain, that he meant not to exclude blood, speaking of flesh; nor shut out Wine, where he mentioned Bread. Everlasting life, to return your own words upon yourself, is attributed by our Lord, not to eating only under one, but both kinds; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Lo, without drinking, no life everlasting: then, poor deceived Papists, what will become of you? you shall perish in your sins, though your blood shall be required at the hands of your ignorant or rather deceitufll guides, that thus mislead you from Christ's Institution.  
Luk. 24. 30, 35. Christ at Emmaus communicated his disciples under one kind. Two things are insisted on out of these words, as it appeareth by the laying down. First, that this was actio sacra, a Communion of the Body of our Saviour; then that it was done under one kind: this is taken as granted, because there is no mention of drinking of Wine, there is made mention of breaking the Bread. Ignorants and wilful take things amiss: an ordinary Hebrew phrase it is in the Scriptures, to eat bread, to break bread, for to eat and drink, to take a refection, or repast. This man imagineth, that all their meals were sicca convivia; altogether without any liquor, nor Wine nor Water used, though in hot countries. Such a fool would have no other answer made unto him, but as Arisotle would have made to him that should deny motion; or that he should never drink at his meals: the best answer could possibly be made unto him.  
That it was actio sacra and not communis, our Saviour did celebrate the Communion of his Body and Blood: though I know it is controverted, for my part I will not contend at present. I know it is held so by Augustine, Theophylact, and I add too Beda, and Hierome with others: but take heed of the Precedent: for if he communicated only Bread, than I know not what use of Wine at all there will be in the blessed Sacrament. For these were, peradventure, of his Apostles; but without all question, of his Disciples, and so had interest in the Cup, if any had at all.  
See more we cannot, Acts 2. 42. then we have seen already; mention made of breaking of Bread, which is not exclusive from drinking of Wine: no more then, 1. Cor. 11. 13. drinking doth exclude eating at all. Poor shifts for Sacrilege and impiety, of late made an Article of faith in the Church of Rome. He that instituted the one, ordained the other, jointly both, and at the same time, with all circumstances alike: if any advantage is, it is for Drink not for Eat. For, Drink you all of this, saith the Author of the Sacrament: he saith not expressly, Eat you all of this; as foreseeing that impiety, which in time, humane presumption should bring-in upon and against his own institution, fulfilled in the Church of Rome at this day.   

XXXVII.  
That Sacramental unction is not to be used to the sick.  
Use it, if you will: we hinder you not, nor much care or inquire what effects ensue upon it: but obtrude it not on us, or unto the Church, as in Censu of the Sacraments of the time of Grace, as Baptism is held, and the Lords Supper, Visible signs of invisible Grace; Powerful instruments ordained by God, to work in our Souls eternal Life, by conveying the means thereof unto them.  
Sacramental unction call it, if you please, so far as in the writings of the ancient Fathers, all Articles peculiar unto our Christian faith, and belief, are sometime called Sacraments: all duties of religious piety unto God; all divine and Ecclesiastical ceremonies, are named Sacraments: in which sense you might reckon not seven, but sevenscore, if you were disposed to make a search for Sacraments.  
In the Apostolical and Primitive Church, it was a custom to anoint the sick with oil, to pray over them, and so commit them unto God. This Saint james remembreth, 5. 4. Is any sick among you? Let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. The Apostle doth not call it a Sacrament; Sacramental unction, as the Thesis proposeth, and which is that should be expressly proved. Our Bible's say, the sick were anointed: but not our Bibles nor theirs do say, that this anointing was a Sacrament. And Fathers we are not sent to see, that prove it: so the place is not to purpose, as it is proposed.  
Mar. 6. 13. is a Text defacto. They anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them: but de iure there is not a word in that Text, whether yea or no this Anointing should be a Sacrament. The Master of controversies confesseth himself, that it is not accorded whether in this Text or not, Sacramental unction was instituted: and himself is of opinion, that it is not; grounding on the resolution of the Council of Trent: to which, all Papists are tied to subscribe and yield; and how dare you bring this as a proof?  
Now, say the truth, Sir Goose, and shame the devil. 
Now, say the truth, and shame the Devil: are not they sick in their wits, which will oppose such plain Scriptures?  How plain are these Texts, that set your great Directors together by the ears! Where were your sick wits, that did not advise you? Take heed of falling foul with the Council of Trent, the cynosura of your faith. Sure, they were made of the pap of an apple; so easily they squeeze themselves out to nothing▪ your great Dictator's have found hitherto but one direct Text, james 5. 4. can we think your sharp sight should spy out three more? a Fox or a Fearne-bush: somewhat or nothing? for, Mat. 16. 18. Acts 28. 8. nor oil, nor unction is remembered; bare imposition of hands upon the sick, and diseased: so that we stand in some possibility hereafter, to have added an eightth Sacrament to the former seven.   

XXXVIII.  
That no interior grace is given by the imposition of hands in the Sacrament of holy orders.  
THis indeed is contrary unto the express words of our Bible; and therefore directly contrary to our Opinion, Doctrine, and Practice. Can this fellow be so ignorant, as not to know; or rather so impudent, as to deny, that in giving of holy orders, we use those memorable, formal words of our Saviour, Receive the holy Ghost? Was ever man made Minister in the Church of England, but in that sort, with that form? Can he deny, that we not only practise it, but propugne it, command it to beused, inquire of, and punish the neglect, opposition and contempt thereof? What shall we say to such a base detracting Varlet, as shameth not, in view of heaven and earth, to deny the Sun shineth at noonday? Roman Catholics, I admire your patience, that suffer such Hog-rubbers to lead you by the nose, and make you believe the snow is black. Poor deceived Souls, trust no such Merchants, that would sell you to the devil for a morsel of bread, and make you stand out upon terms of Separation, for their own advantages, against the Church, as Schismatics, in which you live and have been baptised.   

XXXIX.  
That Priests and other religious Persons, or any others who have vowed their chastity unto God, may freely marry notwithstanding their vows.  
TOuching marriage of Ministers, this is our Doctrine, resolved, maintained, and justifiable, Article 32. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better unto godliness. I find no vow mentioned in this Article, nor leave given to marry, notwithstanding vow: it is your addition, to scandalise the Doctrine which otherwise you durst not touch.  
Marriage is honourable amongst all men. This you do not deny: that single life is essential unto the Clergy, and indispensable, none of your side affirmeth, that I know, but nonus Dogmatistes in Italiâ, as Cassander calleth him, Francisco Tunia● the jesuit. It is but an Ecclesiastical sanction, this both you and we set down. It is not deined, but notwithstanding that general licence to all, the Church may restrain marriage unto some, at some time, upon some occasions, as we use in our Colleges at this day: which is no restraint, but a condition tendered; Leave your fellowship if you marry.  
The Primitive Church used, I deny not, this conditional restraint in some cases, to some men, upon some occasion: they might so do, without tax or blame: and so may you or we, for aught I know, with moderation or discretion. So the question is not, Whether Priests may marry? but, Whether it be convenient for them so to do? You say no, never, at no time. We deny this rigour, and leave it indifferent to their own discretion; resolving, that at some time, for some causes, it is convenient, and to be permitted: to some men, at some time, for some considerations, it may be denied to marry.  
Your Church, for reasons best known to herself, though apparent enough to all, hath a long time doted upon single life of Priests, for I cannot say chaste; and the better to secure herself of that state, hath laid a tye of conscience, a band by oath upon them; admitting none to holy orders, but such as first solemnly take that vow: which hath many times & often filled your Churches with knaves and dunces abundantly; honester men, and discreet Scholars, refusing such a tye.  
We advice you not to break your vow, persuade not yourselves so: we counsel and advise you by all means to keep it, & live honest: marry freely, if you be free; if not, we say not to you, Do as Alexander did with Gordius knot; Cut it in pieces, when you cannot undo it. It was ill to vow so unadvisedly; worse, to force you to it on no necessity, yet worse to break it securely with presumption: butworst of all, adhinnire after fresh maidenheads, or neighbours beds continually.  
We say, you did ill to vow absolutely, that which was not in your power to perform: a mischief past, that cannot be remedied, must be relieved what it may. If you have vowed, keep it on God's name: it is sin to break it, I make no question of it, which was deliberately, discreetly, possibly promised, in things not against nature, common right or reason; for even in a bond, a condition evil, impious, or impossible, is void and bindeth not, they say.  
I deny not vows in the new Testament, they may be means unto, and parts of God's worship, as well in the new Testament as the old. So Gregory Nazianzen imposed a vow upon himself, not to take the name of God in vain, and kept it: So have many other lawfully and profitably done: do you so, and we commend you for it.  
The Texts you produce, do not one of them 
Deuter. 23. 22. Psal. 66. 13. Psal. 19 11. 1. Tim. Math. 5. 12.  speak of the marriage of Priests or religious persons, or any other that vowed chastity unto God: of vows they speak, and of vows to be kept: but Quid haec ad Bacchum? Your promise was, your undertaking is, to prove by express words of our own Bibles, that the vows of Priests and religious persons touching single life, should be kept: and yet neither do we deny the one; nor you prove the other. See your honesty in this also, and insufficiency to perform.   

XL.  
That fasting, and abstinence from meats, is not grounded upon holy Scripture, nor causeth any spiritual good.  
FAsting, is abstaining from all meats; or from some certain meats: the first istruly Fasting, which must be limited and confined to a time, for so totally to fast is impossible. The second is dieting rather then fasting; and yet is that which this man principally meaneth by Fasting, as speaking according to the tongue of Ashdod, in the Church of Rome, that is more for appearances then true substances.  
Fasting is manifold obiectively, as it hath been practised by jews, by Pagans, by Christians. This man should speak of the Christian Fast only; but huddleth all altogether, without distinction. Fasting is distinct, subiectively. Among Christians there is or may be understood a natural, a moral, an ecclesiastical Fast; for necessity, for remedy, conveniency, policy, piety. This addleheaded Fellow cares not to put a difference between the kinds, nor to add quantity to his position, that men might know where to have him, and find what he should say.  
He cannot be ignorant, that we commend Fasting, as a profitable help unto devotion and piety. He cannot choose but know, that we command it, not only for civil, but religious ends, and use it in times of special note, for fitting dispatches of principal alloy; In our Ember-weeks, for giving of Orders; in our Lent, to humble ourselves against Easter; upon the Vigils of Saints, and other set days: which we ground upon Scripture, and use to this purpose, To cause spiritual good.  
So Scriptures and Fathers serve to no purpose, being brought to prove that which is not denied. We ground it on Scripture, but not that alleged of the Rechabites. We have warrant sufficient from Christian 
jer. 35. 5. Therefore it is grounded, etc.  practice and direction. We need no address to jewish, either Nazarits or else Rechabites, for example: and if we should, yet what have we to do with this pretended? They drank no wine at all; none of them for ever: as the Icthyophagi of Aethiopia eat no flesh; a general custom, no Fast. They did it out of a politic respect, because they were strangers in the Land. We must have a religious example to serve our turn. And lastly, they were yet under the Law: the Vow of the Nazarite might as well be pleaded; and all jewish Ceremonies, for observation unto Christians. So ignorant is this Idle-pate.  
Otherwise we ground Fasting upon holy Scripture, and could add many more places of Fathers to be seen: the true end and intent whereof is double; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be anointed with the holy Ghost, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be washed and rinsed from our sins: but it needs not. It sufficeth only, we confess most willingly the ground of Fasting to be divine, the use of Fasting to be singular. So these goodly proofs touch not us at all. Use them against those that use not Fasts: for, lastly, it is our practice.   

XLI.  
That jesus Christ descended not into hell, nor delivered thence the souls of the Fathers.  
AProposition of two feet, neither relying upon either: The souls of the Fathers might not be thence delivered, though Christ descended into hell; and Christ might very well go down into hell, and yet not deliver any Fathers thence; as finding some other work there to do; and, having other causes of his descent, finding no Fathers to deliver.  
For the former part of this Position, that He went not into hell; with what face, what forehead, can this Fellow show we teach it, when in our Creed we profess, that He went down into hell, and have publicly defended it against opposition! Nay, we more believe it, than the Church of Rome doth; and are more punctual in it, than are they.  
They quarter out hell into four Regions; Hell of the Damned, Purgatory, Limbus Infantium, and Limbus Patrum. This division, without warrant of holy Writ, be it granted them; into which of these Quarters, into all, or into some, did the soul of our Saviour, separate from his body, descend? Say they, Into the hell of the Father's only, really; into the other parts, virtually, or by effects. Thus Thomas: and who dare deny him? Thus the Current of their Schools. This is their Tenent, and no otherwise.  
We profess and believe, that Christ went into hell, that is, that the humane soul of our Saviour, in the Interim of separation from the body, did essentially and really go down into hell, the place of the Damned, and of the Devils; not alone into Limbus of the Fathers, which was not there; not to suffer any thing there at all: for, all sufferings ended upon the Cross. In the Land of darkness, and shadow of death, began the first step of his exaltation; that, free among the Dead, he walked where he would, not being consigned to any place; that he took real possession of a part of his Kingdom, and presented his person unto those his vassals; having beaten his enemy in his chiefest hold, chased him out of the castle of his strength, triumphed over him in himself, and preached confusion unto his foes, that would not entertain his mercy in time of life, nor partake of grace offered them unto repentance. This is our belief concerning his descent into hell; if not orthodox, ancient, and received, let this wrangler show where, how, and we will yield unto better discretion from Antiquity.  
It is idly supposed, that, the descent granted, we must needs infer withal a Limbus Patrum, or deliverance of the Fathers out of hell; there being alleged (not contrary to Scriptures, nor Analogy of faith; not inferring impiety, impossibility, improbability, absurdity, or contradiction) so many true, good, and catholic reasons of our Saviour's descent thither, beside this.  
The Fathers he meaneth, are the Patriarches and Prophets, and righteous men, that lived and died before Christ came in the flesh; that expected the Promises, and believed in hope, but enjoyed not the fullness which we do since. Being dead, they are considered two ways; in regard of state, in respect of place. For place, the Scripture runneth in general terms: In the hands of God; In Abraham's Bosom; With their people; and such like; thus affirmatively determining no certain place: negatively resolving, they were not there whereas now they are, in the highest heavens, and glorious, where the Body of Christ resideth, exalted above all Powers and Principalities.  
For, He first entered into the most holy place by his own blood. They without us were not to be perfect; standing the first Tabernacle, the holiest of all was not yet opened. The way was new, which he prepared for us. The gates to be opened were eternal gates, never opened since they were gates; but gates, and eternal shut gates together. Therefore we profess with holy Saint Ambrose, every day in our Liturgy, When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all Believers. This, we acknowledge, is the received opinion of the fathers, and (for aught I know) of Protestant Divines not a few.  
Though they were not in heaven, in regard of place; yet were they in happiness, in respect of state. The souls of the Righteous, said he, before Christ came, are in the hands of God: and no kind of torments shall once touch them. This is also the consented doctrine of Antiquity. If no kind of torment, than not loss, nor pain; than not in hell: for, I never heard of hell without all manner pain. So it followeth not, in opinion of the Ancients, the souls of the Faithful were not in heaven above properly; therefore they were in hell properly. God's hands, in which they were, are not so shortened; his Kingdom is not so narrowed, but that he might well have more places than one; Receptacles, Repositories, Resting-places, for the righteous, where he would dispose them, enough, could we be content.  
Curiosity will not stay here, but proceed to inquire, Where were they then? In what place of the world was their abiding? I answer, I cannot resolve that: for, the Scripture hath not determined it. Nescire velle, quae Magister maximus docere non vult, erudita est inscitia: It is learned nescience, Not to know what our grand instructor will not teach. It is enough to know, they are in better case now, than they were then. With Christ they entered into his Rest. Ever they were in the hands of God, though not ever in like distance or proportion with God. So what need we wrangle about the place, if the matter be agreed touching state? See how contrary to our own Bibles.  
Ephes. 4. 8. out of Psal. 68 18. When he ascended up 
Contrary to their own Bibles.  on high, he led Captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Christ, in his Ascent, led Captives along. The Question is, Who these Captines were? No, Sir: the question should first of all be, What this Ascent was? You take it of his Resurrection. It plainly is referred unto his Triumph into the heavens, in his Ascension, both in the Prophet, and Apostle, and by all Interpreters, but yourself.  
But to follow you in your follies; Be it as you 
These freed Captives cannot be the souls of the Saved, which no man in his right wits, can call Captives: nor of the damned; for, so the devils should be brought again into heaven. Therefore they were the souls of the Fathers which Christ delivered out of hell.  would have it, of his Resurrection: must these freed Captives needs be the souls of the Fathers which Christ delivered out of hell? Yes, no nay; no other possibility. For, they were not the souls of the Saved, nor the Devils; therefore the souls of the Fathers. Sir, can you find no more but these, Devils or Saved? justin Martyr could: and he is ancient, pag. 57 edit. Rob. Steph. with him in his opinion: and I think he was in his right wits. We are those Captives, that since the Ascension of our Saviour, by the preaching of the Gospel of peace, are captived unto truth, being freed and delivered from error. Irenaeus, in his wits too, I suppose, goes not far from this meaning: for, having remembered the Text which he referreth to the Passion, he inferreth thus; Dominus per passionem mortem destruxit, & soluit errorem, corruptionemque exterminavit, & ignorantiam destruxit. Tertullian was also in his right ●its; who, in 5. against Martion, writeth thus: Ascendit in sublimitatem, id est Coelum. Captivam duxit captivitatem, id est, mortem, vel humanam seruitutem.  
See then Fathers expounding it of nor Devils, nor Saved: and yet this confident Ignorant, that scarce ever read Father, it is probable (but, who so bold as blind Bayard?) pronounceth, that These freed Captives here, could be no other than the souls of the Fathers whom Christ delivered forth of hell, because they were nor Devils nor Saved, in his opinion.  
They were not Devils; very magisterially spoken, and pro Imperio; because this learned Theologue saith, They were not. Athanasius saith, It was the Devil that he captived; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having made captive the Tyrant of captivity, To. 1. de salutari adventu jesu Christi: and yet Athanasius never feared to be challenged for bringing back the Devils into heaven; unto whom God Almighty had sworn in his wrath, They should never more return into his Rest. Might he not lead them along the air, and shut them our, cast them off at heaven-gates? Captivity is actively or passively taken; Those that held in captivity, or such as were held. Christ led them both, death and damnation; the Devil, the grave, the Chief and Principal in the dwellings of Ham, the Commanders of the Prince of darkness: of whom he made a show openly, and triumphed over them in his flesh. They might be the Righteous, the Saved, though you deny it, that were formerly in captivity unto their enemies, and now freed & delivered to serve Christ jesus; which the Fathers call, if you ever read it, a better captivity: whether you hold them in their right wits, or no, I know not. I am sure, your wits and wisdom are far asunder, though no great substance in either.  
Very far; or could it have dropped from your pen, They cannot be the souls of the Saved; and yet, Therefore they were the souls of the Fathers whom Christ delivered out of hell? who peradventure were not saved, but cast into another hell, being taken thence. Go learn to speak and write, Sir giddy Goose-gagger, and then undertake to stop the Protestants mouths. You must not look to prate and talk idly to them, as you do to your Proselytes, poor fools, that are hood-winked willingly by each Buzzard, to blind obedience. You may let these freed Captives be these or those, delivered, saved, so or so: you cannot infer, they were delivered by Christ, therefore they were freed out of hell. Let them not have been in heaven before our Saviour: I deny it necessary, they were therefore in hell. Hell is one thing, saith Tertull. lib. 4. against Martion, Abraham ' s bosom is another thing. For, Abraham saith, A great depth is betwixt these two Regions; which permitteth not any to pass to and fro. Neither could the rich man have lift up his eyes, but to places above him, and far above him, by reason of that infinite distance betwixt that height and that depth. That Region, then, I call Abraham ' s bosom, which, though it be not heaven, is yet higher than hell.  
Thus he, upon warrant of our Saviour's words, who placeth Abraham far above that place of torment; and so the one no part of the other. And so likewise resolveth that profound Divine, Saint Augustine, in his 99, the memorable Epistle to Euodius, instantly rehearsed by the Discourser: Non utique sinus ille Abrahae, id est, secretae cuiusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum esse credenda est: Then, without doubt, the Bosom of Abraham, which is an habitation of secret rest, cannot be thought to have been any part of hell. You dare oppose Saint Augustine: dare you not?  
It is true which that illuminate Doctor averreth in the same Epistle: None but an Infidel, will deny Christ's 
Acts 2. 27. Which very words Saint August. applieth to the paint of Purgatory, and addeth, Who but an Infidel will deny Christ to have descended into hell? Ep. 99 ad Euodium.  descent into hell; and as true, that none but an Ass or an Idiot will say, that therefore necessarily he went thither to fetch up the fathers that were there in hell. Saint Augustine denieth them to have been there: it is plain, and not denied by your Masters. Indeed it is answered, that Saint Augustine did not know what the bosom of Abraham was; but that he applieth that Text, Acts 2. 27. to the pains of Purgatory, is but a conjecture at the best. S. Augustine saith, that Christ delivered some from the pains of hell; and interpreteth himself, not to mean That of those holy souls that were in the Bosom of Abraham; nor of the souls of the Damned that were in hell-torments, out of which is no redemption. Heerupon you think wisely, he must needs mean the pains of Purgatory, and no other. It is the doctrine of your own Schools, that such as were raised at any time from death to life, were not certainly doomed, nor confined into their stations: but, in regard GOD foresaw they should live again, extraordinarily he suspended their determination, this way or that way irrevocably. Why might not Saint Augustine mean some such thing? Without doubt he did not mean it of Purgatory. For, Saint Thomas, 3. p. q. 52. ar. 8. resolveth, that the souls of Purgatory were not freed nor delivered by Christ's descent thither; his merit extending unto eternal deliverance, and unto no partial or temporal freedom. But, somewhat you would say, though poor man you be to seek, in the manifold labyrinths of Purgatory, Limbus, and Hell: out of which, wiser than you cannot wind.  
The word Hell is ambiguous in the Writings of the Fathers. Sometime it is put for the state and condition; sometime, for the place and receptacle of souls; and that in a different manner, in opposition to a twofold heaven. For, earth is respectively called Superi, and the state of men living, by the selfsame name: and so in opposition, any Dead are Inferi; and their place and receptacle, Infernus. Secondly, Superi is the highest heaven: and they that do live there, are so styled. In opposition heerto, the name of Inferi hath a two fold interpretation. First, for a place or state contrary to the state and place of the highest heaven: this is hell properly, or of the Damned. Secondly, for a state or place negatively opposed, and not contrary to heaven: and so every place and state which is not that highest in the highest heaven, is called Inferi; and may so be, as Pamelius hath observed upon Tertullian, lest you take it for a Protestant device.  
This Fellow perchance knew not this before: and therefore wheresoever the Fathers speak of Christ's descent into hell, and carrying thence the Fathers into the highest heavens, he feigneth Limbo unto himself, even as the Bell tinketh whatsoever the fool thinketh; when the Fathers meant nothing less than so, but alteration of state, and place. See then as many places as the book will hold. They may prove the descent of Christ into hell; which, as an Article of our Creed, we willingly embrace. The descent to Popish Limbus they do not prove: the which no Father ever dreamt of, in that sort as our Masters tender it unto us to be believed at this day.   

XLII.  
That there is no Purgatory fire, or other prison wherein sins may be satisfied for after this life.  
NOt resolved of by Antiquity, out of Scripture; nor determined by Scripture, old or new, as certain, and necessarily to be believed. You say, Yes: therefore we contrary the express words of our own Bibles.  
1. Cor. 3. 13. The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. Is this so express in your opinion, Sir Gagger? It seemeth not; for neither have we your Therefore, etc. for the conclusion, nor your ordinary express words; but barely thus: Contrary to their own Bible. Your conscience checked you: or did Bellarmine stumble you? or what is the cause you faint in your Evidence? Bellarmine confesseth, it is one of the hardest places in Scripture. And such are not express Directors, or Concluders; therefore no good proofs in points of faith, without evident conspiring of some more perspicuous place. For, points of faith must have manifest assurance: to prove obscurity, by more obscurity, your Logic can tell you, if you have not forgot it, is a fault. We doubt, and make a question unto you of Purgatory. Your Evidence for it, is from that of which we more doubt, at leastwise as much as we do of Purgatory.  
For, beside the confession of the Master of controversies, and the diverse senses, and expositions by him confessed and produced, the latest, I think, I am sure one of the learnedst of your own expositors, Estius, both confesseth as much, and resolveth against your intent for Purgatory out of this place. The Fire, saith he, which the Apostle in this discourse hath named three several distinct times, is variously expounded by diverse men. Augustine and Gregory understand it of the afflictions of this life: as in the 65. Psal. We have passed through fire and water. Others take it for Hell fire. Some, for Purgatory. Some, for the fire of Conflagration, which shall either proceed or accompany Christ the judge at the day of Doom. Others imagine a threefold fire answerable unto fire thrice named by the Apostle. The first, that fire of Conflagration. The second, the fire of God's severe judgement. The third, of Purgatory: an absurd interpretation, saith your own Estius: the fire is the same in all places, saith he. That fire is either that of Conflagration, or Gods severe judgement, or both, according to the opinion of Cai●tan (no Protestant), in his own opinion, rather that of Conflagration, which shall set the world on fire at the last, which hath a threefold effect upon three different sorts of men: for probation upon the throughly clean: for Purgation upon the yet defiled: for revenge upon the castaways & ungodly. For which exposition, he citeth Basil in three several places; Hilary in second Canon upon Matthew, Ambrose, Lactantius, Eucherius and others: but in no case your Purgatory fire, because Purgatory receiveth men after judgement particular, and is utterly amolished before the general judgement finished. Secondly, because Purgatory trieth no man's work, but punisheth the evil works of such as shall be saved. If such men, your own, be not resolved for it, nay, resolved against it, would you have us instantly profess a Purgatory, because you say Saint Paul meant so, and cannot prove it?  
Prove it you can, out of Saint Ambrose, Ser. 20. in Psal. 118. & Bellarm. saith, that Idem habet, on the place 
Saint Ambrose, Ser. 20 in Psal. 118. Saint Hierome upon 4 of Amos. Saint August. upon the 37 Psal. Saint Gregory lib. 4. Dial. explicate this very place of Purgatory.  of S. Paul, in his Commentaries: and Estius, Ser. 3. upon the same 118. Psal. Which testimony he allegeth, for, against the Conceit of Purgatory extracted hence: so that, if these testimonies are all one, Ignis Conflagrationis is intended, at the end of the world to begin; not the fire of Purgatory, which is to be consummated at the world's end. Post consummationem saeculi, are Saint Ambrose words, missis Angelis qui segregent bonos et malos, hoc futurum est Baptisma; quando per caminum ignis Iniquitas exuretur: ut in regno Dei fulgeant iusti sicut Sol, in regno Patris sui; et si aliquis ut Petrus sit, ut johannes, baptizatur hoc igni. This is a purging fire as well as a proving and consuming fire, as your Estius hath well observed. In which sense Saint Ambrose speaketh, ut per ignem purgatus fiat saluus. So you belly Saint Ambrose, for explicating this very place of Purgatory in your sense.  
Secondly, you prove it out of Hierome, upon the fourth of Amos, 11. You were as a firebrand plucked forth of the burning: where what Hierome hath for Purgatory, I would willingly understand of your Gagger-ship; for I profess my disability to conceive. Hierome compareth that place of the Prophet, with the other of Saint Paul; and only compareth it, no more: Hierome doth not determine Fire in either place, to be your Purgatory fire: all that can be collected is, That by fire, Saint Hierome meant, the severe justice of God. cum subver si fuerint ob similitudinem criminum Sodomae et Gomorrhae, pessimaque in iis aedificia divinus ignis exusserit, ipsi liberentur, quasi torris raptus de incendio. Et quomodo Lot, Sodomâ pereunte, seruatus est, amittens substantiam, et partem corporis sui, quam intelligimus uxorem: sic omnes isti Sodomorum divitias amittentes, evadunt nudi, iuxta illud quod in Apostolo legimus, Si cuius opus arserit, etc. Si ergo saluatur per ignem, quasitorris de incendio rapitur. If there be no fire but that in Purgatory, I confess, this fire must be that of Purgatory: but if there be many fires beside this of your Imagination, it is rather any fire than that of Purgatory. For I never yet heard, that an Heretic dying an Heretic, may have his Heresy purged in Purgatory; and so leaving that there, as a snake her slough, himself may sty up to Heaven: but without all controversy, out of that fire in Saint Hierome, Heretics be saved into Heaven. Postquam in eo opera arserint, in antiquum restituatur locum. See the place, Reader, and tell me thy opinion of this Gagger.  
Saint Augustine cannot possibly understand this place of your fire of Purgatory, except he will and do contradict him: For by your own confessions, Saint Augustine conceived it of the Tribulations of this life; therefore not of Purgatory after this life. The words you mean in Saint Augustine upon 37. Psal. are, It is said, He shall be saved, yet as it were by fire. And because it is said, He shall be saved, therefore that fire is not regarded. No marvel: and yet that fire is more unsufferable than any torment which a man can possibly undergo in this life. here (no doubt) the game is up for Saint Augustine. Fire after this life, and yet not eternal: therefore of Purgatory, no question. Yes, Sir, a question. Indeed no question what Saint Augustine meant. For first, he calleth it plainly Emendatorium ignem, fire that correcteth men, and maketh them better. Purgatory is not so: it is penal only. There is no merit in Purgatory: souls cannot sin nor deserve there, in the resolution of your own men. Secondly, the fire which Saint Augustine meaneth, doth then, in his opinion, perform that office, when the sheep are separated from the goats; that is, when your Purgatory, in your own opinions, is no more for ever. Thus the ordinary Gloss understood Saint Augustine. We read, saith the Gloss, of two fires that shall come. The one eternal, which eternally shall torment the reprobate: This fire is to ensue the judgement. The other fire shall go before, which shall burn up the surface of this world, and shall amend them that have builded wood, hay, and stubble. But such as have builded gold & silver, end precious stones, shall be secure & safe from either fire. And in like sort doth Salmeron conceive of Saint Augustine: and Augustine could not mean your Purgatory in Saint Paul. For such as build gold, etc. come not within your Verge at all; but into Saint Paul's Fires, as saith Saint Augustine, cometh both one and other: Ignis de quo locutus est eo loco Apostolus Paulus, 〈◊〉 debet intelligi, ut ambo per cum transeant: id est, et qui aedificat supra hoc fundamentum aurum, etc. et qui aedificat lignum, etc.  
Lastly, Saint Gregory doth explicate this very place of Purgatory, Dial. 4. and to help you out, for you could not tell, Cap. 39 sed tamen are his words, de quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante iudicium, purgatorius ignis credendus est. And to this sense he saith, that Text of the Apostle may be applied. But, Sir Gagger, this Gregory, the Author of the Dialogues, is no authentical writer with me. I do not hold him for the man whose name he beareth. But at this time I will not question him for your sake, though I owe you little. He telleth us of a purging fire. Good: but every purging fire, is not that you dream of, which hath made the Pope's Kitchen smoke so much heretofore. Saint Augustine acknowledgeth another: so do many of your own men. And this of Saint Gregory is no other than that of Fire, which goeth before the judge: Ante iudicium, saith your Author: which we deny not, and helpeth you nothing. Saint Augustine led Saint Gregory the way: Videtur evidentius apparere, saith he, in illo iudicio, quasdam quorundam purgatorias poenas futuras. No such matter then in their opinion, for the present. Many trying Fires there may be: there are both literal and metaphorical, which will claim interest in Saint Paul's meaning, 1. Cor. 3. 13. before your Purgatory can find admittance there.  
Toby 4. 17. Pour out thy bread upon the burial of the just: that is, Offer for those which are in Purgatory; no doubt: For Saint Chrysostome, Hom. 32. in Math. understandeth this very place of Purgatory. understandeth? And what of that? Understanding will not serve our turn: we must have express words in our own Bibles for it: else, Olle, quid ad te? Purgatory and Burial are all one with you: or Purgatory will not appear hence. As for your warrant from Saint Chrysostome, you belly Saint Chrysostome, and your Author both. I say it, because the man you would remember, is not Saint Chrysostome: but the Author of the Imperfect work upon Saint Matthew: who indeed was wont to go under Saint Chrysostom's name, but is acknowledged by every Smatterer amongst you, not to be Saint Chrysostome. Did you not know this? I pity then your case, which hath such poor companions for Patrons. Did you know it? the more to blame you, that would not distinguish him from Saint Chrysostome: who in his 32. Homil. hath not any thing looking that way. You might have been challenged for forgery every way, had I not found you out; as you may for folly or ignorance, or dissolute security, being found out.  
But neither doth your Saint Chrysostome that is the Author specified, so understand or talk of the place of Toby. For, Homil. 26. not 32. upon 41. verse of the tenth of Mat. having expounded these words of Toby not ill, telleth us a tale out of Clemens, concerning Saint Peter, and this Doctrine delivered by him out of Tradition. Sed audi mysterium, etc. But hear a secret, and mystical meaning, given by Saint Peter, remembered by Clemens. If any believer shall do a good work, it is profitable unto him in this world, by delivering him from evil, and also in the world to come, to attain the Kingdom of heaven; rather there in that world, than in this. But if an unbeliever do a good work, it will profit him here, by delivering him from evil, and God will return unto him good for his work: But in that world to come, his work will profit him nothing. For neither is he ranked, for that his work, with other believers, and that deservedly, because he did that good, out of natural good motions, and not for God's sake. Wherefore he receiveth his reward, both in and for the body, not in or for his soul. Also if a Christian shall give unto no Christian, he shall therefore receive no great reward, because he gave it not unto a Christian, nor as unto a Christian; Toby saying, Pour out thy wine upon the sepulchres of the just, and give nothing unto the sinner. Whoso giveth a little to an unbeliever, hath his reward: but he that giveth any thing to a believer, hath a double reward: first, in as much as he is God's Creature; secondly, because he is just before God. But whosoever giveth unto an unbeliever, hath only a single reward; in as much as the unbeliever is God's Creature, though in will opposite unto God. If a Christian do receive no Christian, but an Infidel in the name of a Christian, have his reward notwithstanding appointed for him he shall; because, as much as lieth in him, he receiveth indeed no Christian, but as a Christian. It was necessary I should, as I have done, set down the whole place at large, both that the Pamphleter may direct me to that passage, or those words; in which, or by which, Saint Chrysostome understandeth this place of Purgatory: which I profess, such is my dulness, I cannot see nor imagine: As also that I might deal uprightly in the cause, and sincerely with him that dealeth honestly in nothing; and lastly, that the Reader may pick out, if he can, where or how he may ground Purgatory; or if he cannot, may see and know, and take notice of a forlorn cause, so upholden by false shows and collusion. Find Purgatory fire, or not fire; prison, or not prison; state, or not state of the deceased in expiatory torments or pains here, and I will instantly profess and believe Purgatory without more ado.  
1. Cor. 15. 29. Else what shall they do, which are baptised for the Dead? Upon this Text the Gaggers' Gloss is, An evident place concerning the succour which the souls departed receive by the assistance of the Church. To admit it evident, and concerning succour which souls departed receive, and that by the assistance of the Church; yet first, I say, you go from your word: no such contrariety here, as you pretend. Secondly, you are a poor Ignaro, that think souls must needs be in Purgatory, that receive assistance from the Church. It may be, your poor understanding will wonder at it: but know, Sir, I can admit Prayer for the Dead, and deny your Purgatory. I can give you reasons to pray for the Dead, and yet keep far enough from your Purgatory. But for that some other time. At present I answer, You are a silly man, that call this an evident place; one of the hardest in all Scripture. Quid sit baptizari pro mortuis, obscurum est, & ab Authoribus variè exponitur, say your own men; which is true: For till this day, it is not agreed what is the meaning: no man can say, This is the sense; and yet our Blunderer saith, It is evident.  
Do you know, that some take pro mortuis, for the Dead, that is, for sins, because men die through sins; and the works of sin are called Dead works? And so men are baptised to be delivered from sin. These men dreamt not of Purgatory. That others use pro mortuis, that is, do represent the Dead, because we die to sin in Baptism, and are buried unto corruption? And not much differing hence, that others take it, Into the death of Christ? which of these thought upon Purgatory? Again, some take Baptism for affliction: men afflicted unto death, what shall they do, if the dead rise not again? Some refer it unto a jewish custom; by which, if a man had died polluted, another was cleansed and washed for him; that so being dead, he might get advantage by it. This jewish Fable may happily look upon your Purgatory: and much good may it do you. Yet farther, Chrysostome relateth upon this place, that when any of the Catechised among the Marcionite Heretics died, a living body was laid under the Beer; and the question proposed unto the Party, If he would be baptised? for you know, the Catechumeni were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbaptized. The Party answered for the dead man, Yes, I will: and so was he baptised for him. And thus they expounded Saint Paul's meaning. Tertullian, by dead, understandeth the body of man. If there be no Resurrection, to what end is the body baptised? Epiphanius lastly, and most men, commonly take it for the baptising of the Clinici, as they called them. Men in those times usually deferred Baptism until their death, and in extremis would be baptised. So to be baptised for the Dead, is to be baptised, when men are ready to die: which they not do, but upon hope of the Resurrection. In such variety, and greater than so; yet saith this fellow, An evident place. To come home to the assertion, It is plain and evident, the Apostle speaketh not of any succour that souls departed received from the Suffrages of the Church (which were it granted, no necessity of Purgatory would ensue), but of comfort that men received from that main point of our most holy faith, the Resurrection of the Dead; the main Subject of that Chapter, as every child with us can tell.  
See more: for we have seen but little hitherto, 2. Tim. 1. 18. where That day is transmued into Purgatory. For Saint Paul's words are, The Lord grant unto him, that he may find mercy with the Lord at that day, that is, may be delivered out of Purgatory at the day of judgement. So wheresoever God showeth mercy, there is Purgatory; or, All that find mercy at the day of judgement, come out of Purgatory. Unless this be his meaning, let him tell me what he would have with Saint Paul here. If this be his meaning, I wish him well: for sure, he is in no right wits; because so, no man living can escape Purgatory by this inference. For no man but findeth mercy with God before that time, and then. No man but needeth God's mercy then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; In that fearful and terrible day, when we stand in need of great mercy indeed, saith Chrysost. who never dreamt of any Purgatory; nor would have sent Onesiphorus thither, had he fancied any such thing: for even according to your own Doctrine, his good deeds had not only abundantly merited for himself, sufficiently satisfied for his Peccadilloes: but his Indurances, over and above, laid somewhat unto the Church-treasure. And what hath Purgatory to do with such a man?  
Esay 4. 4. the Prophet speaketh of the Spirit of burning, and of Purging, thus: When the Lord shall wash the filthiness of the daughter of Zion, & purge the blood of jerusalem out of the midst thereof by the Spirit of judgement, and by the Spirit of burning: then, without all doubt, Purgatory burneth apace; the rather because Saint Augustine expoundeth it of Purgatory, Lib. 20. de Civit. Dei, Cap. 25, saith Bellar. You left us to seek. Cap. 21, say others, so yourselves are to seek, I mean, for any such thing in Saint Augustine. For he is belied in both places: which touch not upon Purgatory at all, but manifestly design the last judgement. In the 21. he professes himself, that his discourse was wholly thereof, à primo Saluatoris adventu, usque ad ultimum judicium, de quo nunc agimus. And more evidently, Cap. 25. Videtur evidentius apparere in illo judicio quodam quorundam futuras Poenas purgatorias. Purgatory pains are by S. Augustine put off and adjourned unto the last judgement; then to begin when yours end: and this but in opinion, not resolution. Now Sir, what advantage have you by Saint Augustine, who speaketh opiningly of Purgatory, but excludeth your Purgatory.  
And to as much purpose is Saint Basil, expounding the place of Esay, 9 18. of Purgatory, you say. The text is, For wickedness burneth as a fire, it devoureth the briers and thorns, and will kindle in the thick places of the Forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. Basil in his exposition nameth purging fire. I grant it: but this purging fire is in life, not after death: in this world, not in the world to come: and God himself is this purging fire; who abolisheth and consumeth iniquity by Repentance, being detected by confession, as any man may see, that will but look upon the place; and the same Father upon the 10. of Esay, more plainly explicateth his own meaning: Pandit hic naturam ignis, quia lustratiws est et purgatorius. Sanctificabit enim ipsum quasi in igne ardenti. Quomodo autem sanctificat ignis? Quia comesturus est syluam tanquam foenum. Sanè ex quo Deus noster ignis consumens est, consumet syluam et vitia, quae à syluam, sive materiâ promanant animae quae non degit in spiritu sed in carne. Strange conceits; that if any Father name purging fire, he must needs be a favourer of Popish Purgatory.  
Your second of Macchab. 12. 44, 45. you may make your friends with: your Catholic Readers may pass it for currant: but your protestant adversaries admit it not. And if they did, you gained nothing thereby: I told you before, that Praying for the dead doth not infer Purgatory. There are other causes for that practice, beside the opinion of Purgatory: And were there none, this text doth infer but a mere opinion, no decision or point of faith. Believe Purgatory, if you will: for my part I hinder you not, so you leave it to me to believe it, or not, & not force me to consent against my knowledge & resolution. But lastly, I answer, The author of that story did intend no more, but to set out judas unto us as a Pharise, not a Sadduce: he thought of the Resurrection, which the pharisees believed; but was denied by the Sadduces: for these factions were then on foot: and Hyrcanus, in whose time the book was written, was a Sadduce, denied the Resurrection: which his Uncle judas did not: so much this writer would insinuate, & so tax the impiety of his own times. For good Sir, how could judas dream of any Purgatory ex animi tui sententiâ, when as all the fathers & godly that died before Christ, went into Limbus Patrun? But were their testimony evident, as it is not, yet the book was never used for dogmatic conclusions of faith, farther than confirmed by the Canon.  
Math. 5. 25. 27. no, it is 26. which you would have: He shall not come out thence, until he have paid the utmost farthing. Therefore at last he shall, payment being made; but not out of hell, therefore out of Purgatory, Nay, as much and as soon out of hell, as out of Purgatory. This place will as soon conclude, the Devils & Damned shall be saved, as any delivered out Purgatory. Our Saviour meaneth, That he shall never come out, because he never can pay the uttermost farthing. He speaketh of a Reprobate and castaway for ever: Such have nothing to do in Purgatory. For All in Purgatory are at length saved, by your own Rules. This is no Protestant fiction: your own Maldonate put it into my mouth. Quod autem dicit, nos inde non exituros donec vitimum quadrantemper soluamus, non significat exituros postea, ut ait Augustinus, and you with him, sed nunquam exituros: Quia qui in Inferno sunt, cum semper debitas poenas soluunt, quia pro quolibet mortali peccato, infinitas poenas debent, nunquam persoluunt. Until then is never: as where the Evangelist saith, He knew her not, until she brought forth her first Son: that is, He never knew her: although Maldonate there mistook Saint Augustine, unless his words were mistaken by the Printer, and transposed. What you mean by john 22. I can not tell: when I know, I shall tell what to say.  
To conclude: there is not any Resolution public or private for Purgatory for 600. years, in the Church; where it is, yourselves are not resolved; what it is, you cannot tell, whether fire or none; and if fire, whether corporal or not; nor can you resolve how it tormenteth souls. You can not tell, who are executioners of God's wrath there; who and what manner men are sent thither; how long they are to continue there. Dominicus à Soto played the fool in broaching such a dangerous conceit as this, No soul abideth there above ten years. There being such uncertainty on all hands in every point, what Reason have you to tender it as de fide, and propose it, as an Article of my Creed? Believe it if you will: I must see better evidence, before I believe it.   

XLIII.  
That it is not lawful to make or to have Images.  
THose that held it so unlawful, mean, It is not lawful for men, of themselves, out of their own voluntary motion to make them: they never intended, that God could not dispense with his own mandate, or a man might not make them at his command. That Text, Exod. 25. 18. therefore doth not contrary the opinion of those such Proposers: for God there commandeth it to be done, by special warrant, and in a retired and reserved place. So, this place, though express, is not to purpose. Nor that of 1. Kings 6. 35. which was done by warrant of the former direction, and according to pattern in that direction. Solomon did, as Moses was commanded, make Cherubins in the Holiest Place.  
But the truth is, this Andabatarian Fencer fighteth with his own shadow. No Protestant ever said, that it was unlawful to make or to have Images. No Protestant but hath, or hath had in his house, closet, study or the like, Pictures and Images, many or few. That which Protestants mislike and condemn in Papists, is not the having, but adoring and worshipping of Images; the giving them honour due unto God; as the ignorant do, that go to it bluntly and downright: the giving them the honour due unto the Prototype, as the learned amongst them persuade unto: as much honour to a wooden Crucifix, as to Christ jesus himself in Heaven, at the right hand of his Father: this they mislike. 
Heb. 9 1. 5. Lo, Saint Paul calleth the pictures of the Cherubins which Solomon made, an Ordinance of divine Service, which Protestants call the making of Idols: who now shall we believe, whether S. Paul, or a Protestant? When painting and graving of 〈◊〉 tures is so far from being Idolatry, that it is proved to be a Science divinely infused by God himself.   
This is no divine ordinance, but a prohibition to do it: a curse upon the maker and adorer of it. S. Paul called, Heb. 9 5, 1. amongst other things in the first Tabernacle, those Cherubins we spoke of but now, divine Ordinances, and so do we. It is an impudent slander, that Protestants call those Cherubins, Idols: those Images which the Protestants call Idols, are Images made, abused to adoration in the Church of Rome. Doth he that calleth the Image of our Lady of Lauretto, an Idol, call the Picture of Baronius, or Bellarmine, Idols? then he that calleth Will Summer a fool, calleth A. Pe. the Priest (what he is I know not) a fool too, because he hath the figure of a man as Will Summer had, though he be indeed as very a Look-like-agoose as he was, peradventure.  
See more, you say, 1. Kings 7. 36, 42, 44. Numb. 21. 8, etc. and do so, Reader, and thou shalt see so many testimonies of Malice, of Ignorance, of Collusion. Never man thought, much less ever said, that painting and carving of Pictures was Idolatry: but lawful trades, excellent skill, sciences, not infused, but given by God to the use of man, the glory of God's name, the commendation of the parties therewithal endowed. Images have three uses assigned by your Schools. Stay there, go no further, and we charge you not with Idolatry. Institutionem rudium: Commonefactionem historiae: et Excitationem devotionis, you and we also give unto them.  
See Fathers that affirm the same. What do they affirm? This man cannot tell, for he knoweth not what, nor where they affirm. He sendeth us to Tertullian in his second book de Pudicitia. The poor Ignorant that talketh thus of Fathers, knoweth not that there is but one book of Tertullian of that argument and title: and lo, he sendeth us to see the second book. It is well he told us not in what Chap. we might find it. Such Roters as these, are the men that talk of Fathers amongst their Gossips, and Proselytes; and yet are so stupid, as not to know what works a common Father hath written. Besides, had Tertul. wrote such a second book, or said any such matter in that second book, a Protestant of but mean reading, could tell him, Tertullian wrote that book, being lapsed into Montanisme; and so of no authority in the Church for resolution, though for relation. But the truth is, the man did but use Tertullian's name for a cipher, to fill up a number, & make a fair dumb show of a Shepherd with a sheep on his shoulders, on a Chalice, which is the picture he looked at in Tertul.  
But I can send him to Tertullian, to learn how like a Woodcock he remembered those Texts of Scripture, for the Cherubins. Sic et Cherubin et Seraphin, aureâ in arce, figuratum exemplum, certè simplex ornamentum accommodata suggestut, long diversos habendo causas, ab Idololatriae conditione, ob quam similitudo prohibetur, non videntur similitudinum prohibitarum Legi refragari: non in eo similitudinis statu deprehensa, ob quem similitudo prohibetur, Lib 2. con. Mar. 22. This cometh home to the reason why God ordained them, and answereth your Cavil to the full. As for your Images, take his description in the like, the Prescript. cap XII. Igitur si statuas et imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus, quas milui, et mures, et aran●ae intelligunt, nun laudem magis quam poenam merebatur repudium agniti erroris? He thought not then very honourably of Imagines, whom we are bidden go see, for I know not what, engraving on the Chalices.  
For Gregory Nazianzen: I did much marvel what it was we might see in him, concerning Images, who writeth only a deprecatory Epistle in behalf of the Inhabitants of Diocaesarea, unto Olympius the Emperor's Lieutenant. For I could find nothing tending unto Images, but only this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It is not much if the Statuae be demolished and cast down, though it be indeed a pity to have such a thing done. And what is here to be seen any way to purpose? This man, I believe, had read, or rather heard of Billius note upon the place, this, Hic obserua Gregorij quoque tempore, aedes sacras statuis & imaginibus ornatas fuisse; and having heard of it, made much ado about it: whereas Nazianzen doth not so much as mention Churches, nor Chapels: the statues he speaketh of, were public Ornaments of the City: and as for worshipping of them, it came not within the compass of his thoughts. Billius meant well to the Catholic cause; and out of his affection, set down that which he would have had Nazianzen speak, but not what he did say: for Nazianzen not so much as squinteth that way. More may any man marvel at his trifling with Saint Basil, on Barlaam the Martyr: What shall I call thee, O valiant Soldier of Christ jesus? Shall I call thee a Statue or Image of brass? why, it is not so solid or substantial as thou art, for Fire doth melt it: but fire could not cause thee pluck forth thy hand. This is not that passage peradventure intended, but that which ensueth, Exurgite nunc athleticorum gestorum pictores, mutilam ducis imaginem, vestro illustrate artificio, et obscurius à me depictum, coronatum athletam, vestrae industriae coloribus conspicuum reddite; not with a pencil (conceive not Basil to have been a Painter) but with a pen. So that Homer's describing Achilles, Ulysses, in this man's construction, is painting in a table with colours and portraiture to the life. None but a Statue would thus discourse, or one more senseless than a block.  
What Basil and Nazianzen could not do, Augustine shall supply; who witnesseth, that in his time Christ was to be seen painted in many places, betwixt Saint Peter and Saint Paul. So is he in many Churches with us, betwixt the blessed Virgin and Saint john Evangelist. So was the holy Virgin by Saint Luke, you say. So let them be every where, if you please. Not the making of Images is misliked: not the having of Images is condemned; but the profaning of them to unlawful uses, in worshipping and adoring them.   

XLIIII.  
That no man hath at any time seen God; and that therefore his picture or Image cannot be made.  
IGnorant Blunderer, whither wilt thou? Sure, the man is not well in his wits, that challengeth the Protestant upon these terms, No man at any time hath seen God. Is it not plain, express Scripture, that, joh. 1. 18. No man hath seen God at any time? Exo. 33. 20. Thou canst not see my face. For there shall no man see me, and live. No man hath, no man can in this life: no nor in that which is to come. So Saint Paul, 1. Tim. 6. 16. Whom never man saw, nor yet can see. The reason is rendered by a Pagan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Mortal men have mortal eyes, and God inhabits Immortality: and yet this Gagger thinks to gag the Spirit of truth, by opposing Texts of Scripture to the contrary; that a man may see God.  
Gen. 3. 8. Where God appeared unto Adam, walking in the Garden of Paradise, in a corporal form. Accursed Glosser, to corrupt the Text! There we read: They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day. So, Hearing and Seeing is all one with this man, that hath lost both Hearing and Seeing, & understanding too. A voice, in his Philosophy, is a corporal form: and so to hear one speak, is to see one go: and Moses said he knew not what, Deuter. 4. 12. You heard the voice of words; but saw no similitude, save a voice. A whip for a fool, rather than an answer to his folly.  
Gen. 28. 12, 13. God appeared unto jacob, standing above the Ladder, whereon the Angels ascended and descended. In what shape did he appear? can you tell? The Lord stood above it, so are the words, and spoke. He might there stand and speak, as he did in Sinah; and yet, as saith the Scripture, they see no shape. So that yet we have nothing but belying of Scripture, and depraving the Text, to countenance Idolatry in consequence.  
Exod. 33. 11. To Moses He spoke, face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. Your great Prophet S. Thomas shall stop your mouth, 1. 2. q. 98, ar. 3. Secundum opinionem populi loquitur Scriptura: The Scripture speaks according unto popular opinion; who thought, that Moses talked face unto face with God, cum per subiectam creaturam, id est, per Angelum & Nubem, ei loqueretur & appareret; where as indeed God appeared unto and talked with him by the means of creatures, an Angel in a cloud: Or if not so, and this answer will not serve, by face to face, the Scripture meaneth a certain eminent and more familiar kind of apparition, go answer Saint Thomas.  
And your Masters can tell you, that whereas it is related in the old Testament often, that God appeared unto men, the Doctors of the Church are not resolved, whether God appeared at any time personally, or wholly by the Ministry of Angels. Your men, the Jesuits, Victorellus, Vasquez, and the rest, nay, all later Divines, saith Vasquez, but Clictho●●us, affirm, that God never appeared but by the Ministry of Angels. So that your express testimonies are in a wise case; and yourself an Ignorant or a Confident, that knew not this, or dare oppose your Yea unto their Nay.  
Therefore, Esay 6. 1. he that sat upon the Throne, and he that, Dan. 7. 9 is described, was not God, but some Angel; or if God, yet the second Person: the Father never appearing unto any. Therefore, as Vasquez himself confesseth, that great Vpbearer of Roman Idolatry, Henricus quodlibeto 1. Abutensis in 4. Deuter. Durand. in 3. d. 9 q. 2. ad 4. Martin Aiala de Tradit. 3. part. do teach it as well as Calvin, that it is utterly unlawful to picture or represent the Trinity, or God, otherwise than as in Christ he took our flesh, and was found among us as a man. These were nor Heretics, nor Protestants, that did teach so: and yet we see it ordinary amongst our good Catholics, to represent the picture of the Trinity more ways than one, which never appeared in humane shape, as yet to any. Impious Artificers, not only vain, that make the most blessed and most glorious Trinity a certain Geryon; or, as Tertullian phraseth it, Sororem vasculorum: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: A thing not only contrary unto reason, but to the despite and contumely of God: whose glory being such as cannot be uttered, and shape such as cannot be expressed, is denominated from, and represented in base and corruptible things, that have no permanency without supply. So feelingly complained justine Martyr of your Comrades, the Idolaters of those times. Such Images Hesselius a Papist, Professor at Louvain, whereby God the Father is represented in an humane shape, utterly himself disliketh, and justifieth his dislike out of the Fathers; that not only Protestants may be the mislikers of such impiety, but Papists of better spirits, and more solid learning.   

XLV.  
That it is not lawful to worship Images, nor to give any honour to any dead or insensible thing.  
TWo several questions, as often confusedly propounded in one Proposition, which are of different natures, of unequal extents, of diverse and disparated approbation. The latter, that It is not lawful to give any honour to any dead or insensible thing, is a false imputation cast upon us, an horrible lie, against common sense, refelled in the ordinary practice of Protestants; who give honour and respect, though not adoration, to many dead and insensible things, as this Fellow, living in a Protestant State, cannot choose but know, unless with Bartimaeus●ee ●ee were borne blind, and withal hath continued deaf from his mother's womb.  
This he cannot prove by express words, that we deny, nor yet any consequence thereupon. It is contrary, he telleth us for fashion sake, unto the express words of our own Bible. What is contrary? that It is not lawful to worship images? or to give any honour to dead things? Two distinct Assertions, not of necessary consequence or dependence; and so, not necessarily inferred, one upon the other. Besides, where is that express place of our Bible, which is contrary to that Assertion? This place was forgotten through 
Contrary to express words of their own Bible: and he said, Draw not nigh hither, etc.  too much haste. I will supply the defect, and design the place which the man intended when he over passed it.  
Exod. 3. 5. josua 5. 15. Put off thy sho●es from thy feet: for, the place whereon thou standest, is holy ground. This may prove, that at some time, by special precept, upon some occasion, some insensible thing may be honoured; which no Protestant ever went about to deny: but the inference they do, and most justly 
Lo how clear a place is produced here against Protestants: where an insensible ●reature, without reason, was commanded by God himself to be honoured  may, as having no reason of illation; Therefore an image, representing unto us an holy thing, may be worshipped, say, and not honoured: for, of honour we contend not: our difference is about worship only.  
But take it of honour, and see the handsome consequence. God said, Some ground was holy: therefore all Images may be worshipped. What an Image of Rie-dough is this Codshead! To as good sense it might be spoken, jerusalem was called The holy City: therefore the jews might worship Images: Or, The Temple was an holy place: none but Israelites, and those also clean, might enter there: the Priests and Levites did wash their feet, being to do service there: all common people wiped off the dust from their feet, when they entered therein: therefore Ahaz might erect his Altars there; Manasses profane it with Idolatry; Antiochus set up the abomination of desolation there. Had not the Beast cause to low thus; Lo how clear a place is here produced against the Protestants; wherein an insensible creature, without reason, was commanded by God himself to be honoured: for, the refraining to tread upon it, was the doing of honour to it? Therefore an Image, etc.  
Of Honour be it, but not Worship. Honour and worship differ more than latria and dulia do. Without sense. I grant, and life too. The earth hath neither life nor sense. The earth was made to tread upon. It was not great honour, To inhibit this course of kind. Honour was done, not Worship; not to the place, but to the Holy place. The place was holy, not in itself; not made so by man, but from the personal presence of the most High. Make an Image so holy, and then so honour it. This honour was not (you were asleep, man) in refraining to tread upon the earth: for, where stood Moses and josua, when they talked with God? in the air, or nowhere? or in the fifth imaginary body? But the honour was, In refraining to tread on it with their shoes on: as when men come into the Church, but uncover the head at their entrance into the Church.  
And for the honour in kind or correspondency; what similitude betwixt that & yours, to an Image? You fall down unto an Image, at least, before it. You honour the Image with the same honour that the Representee is honoured withal; at least accidentally, in your relative worship. Did Moses or josuab so honour the ground? Fell they down unto it? Put they their shoes off to it? for the grounds sake, and not rather for the presence of God there; whom, without any relative worship at all, they honoured immediately in himself? Any thing, I see, will serve a Priests turn. No matter what you prate, so that you prattle. Happy men that have so pliant Proselytes, that so easily believe whatsoe'er is told them, though it be a tale of a Tub.  
There is a respect due to all the works of God; as good, as his, as arguing the art and excellency of the Maker: so all of them are honourable in their kinds. Do you therefore adore them? make them Images, as well you may, and far rather than a carved piece of wood? by them give relative honour unto God? This you cannot digest by any means: for, than your Idolomanie in Images, with stocks and stones, were clean dashed. And yet, if dead and insensible things be to be honoured, you cannot avoid the sequel, do you what you can, Live things may be much more honoured.  
Upon the same ground, we are sent to adore the footstool of his feet, Psal. 99 5. as common in your mouths for Adoration, as Ergo with boys in the schools: as if an Image were God's Footstool, and so must be worshipped. Indeed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Image may be for him to trample and tread under foot; as he will do, in just anger, the Image, and adorer of the Image, that giveth his glory to a stock, a stone. So we well may take you at advantage, if we will: but we take you at best, as yourself will. Footstool you expound in the literal sense, to be the Ark of God's Testament, as 1. Chron. 28. 2. not as Saint Augustine; by Scripture too, for the Earth; or by anaiogic, Christ's body, after Saint Ambrose, as I remember.  
Be it the Ark: worship and adore it, if you can find it; worship any thing like it, any Image for it, if you can bring so good warrant for your so doing, your adoring thereof, as is this, Adore the footstool of his feet. Tu Prophetam imitare, nee adores imagines, nisi tibi Deus iusserit. Do as the Prophet willeth; Adore no Images, unless God command. If God had commanded Israel, notwithstanding that Precept of Eternal Morality, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, to make Cherubins, and to adore them, Israel might have done it; yet could not you have followed Israel's example, without sacrilege. For, peculiar privileges and dispensations take away no general right, nor reverse an eternal law. Adore you Images, and spare not, if you show me such a Text, as, Adore the footstool of his feet, if it were an Image.  
I add, If that footstool be the Ark; what is Mountain, ver. last? for as ver. 5. we read, Adore we the footstool of his feet, so ver. 9 we also read, Adore we his holy Mountain. What Images were in that holy Mountain, can you tell, for which we are willed to adore it? Some there were, some there must be, your reason is no reason else: thus, Now the principal reason why the Ark was worshipped, was in regard of the Images that were upon it. So that, no question, there were Images upon that holy Mountain, otherwise the Prophet would not have sent us to adore it. We read, Adore his holy Mountain: we do not read of Images upon it; therefore a Reason, no reason, much less principal, is alleged, and fathered upon S. Jerome.  
But indeed that is a reason, a principal one too: 
Now the principal reason why the Ark was worshipped, was in regard of the Images that were upon it, which as S. jerom saith, the Jews did worship, in his Ep. ad Marcellan.  the same in both places: could you squint upon it. v. 5. For he is holy, verse 9 For the Lord our God is holy. Which reason held before in putting off Moses shoes; The place is holy ground; Holiness of the Lord. The presence of God communicated this Holiness unto that place. Adore his footstool, for he is holy: Adore his Mountain, for he is holy: Toward the Mountain, where he dwelleth: Before his Footstool, where he treadeth; or in his Ark, as in his holy Mountain, as your own Bibles, if I mistake not, read the place. So take it as you will, or as you can, out of Ark will proceed no Image-worship; nor yet from upon the Ark, any Images.  
The jews did worship Images upon the Ark. That is no warrant for you to do so; nor yet precedent to take it so. They worshipped Baalim, and the Hosts of Heaven, Milcom and Moloch. Will you do the like? They burned their children in the valley of Hinnon. Would you be contented to be served so? I would I had the power to dress you so, to make you low a little louder, out of that bull. Such a wise collection as this, Because there were Images upon the Ark: and because the jews did worship those Images, therefore the Prophet took up that admonition, Adore the footstool, etc.  
You belly the jews, they did not worship them. For they could not come to worship them. The Ark was revestried in the most holy place: No Israelite came thither to adore it: only the Highpriest had access thither: He only once, but one day in the year, and but one time in that day. And for any thing I yet know, Saint Hierom saith it not: in his Epistle to Marcelia do you mean, or some other? S. Hierom wrote many Epistles unto Marcelia: in which of them all doth Saint Hierom say so? Did you suppose that he wrote but one? It is more than probable you thought so. Or if more than one, may we entreat you to tell us in which of his Epistles he saith so? But I may mistake, for I cannot tell what to make of in his Epistle to Marcellan. When you speak more plain, I shall be able to give you a fuller answer: till then, I proceed.  
From Images, to, I cannot tell what to give unto it, but it is, the name of jesus, somewhat strangely carried unto Adoration, Philip. 2. 10. That at the name of jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, things in Earth, andof things under the earth. Upon which premises the conclusion is. Therefore Images are to be worshipped. So the name of jesus is become an Image; a strange kind of Image to my understanding, that a man's name should be his image. Imago is quasi Imitago, you say: which is not, saith Sanders, with Vasques approbation, any similitude whatsoever, but only that which is expressed to represent the thing, as the Picture of a long-eared beast doth an Ass. jesus printed, or painted on a wall, is no Image of our Saviour: much lessethe word pronounced, conveyed to the ear: which at least is, if not the entire, yet principal meaning of S. Paul. Names are notes of things. But names pronounced, are but transeunt: and names painted, no Image. Your Bottle-ale-wife ca●●el you so much, that a Bottle, is not the Image of a bottle; and your Baker, that his basket, no representation of himself.  
But to point. Your undertaking is for express words in our Bibles. What expresnes, in bowing the knee at the name unto an Image, made of what you will have it? Beside, the name of jesus is so far from being express to prove it, that it is not resolved what is meant by the name of jesus here.  
By that name is meant the Glory and Power of jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Chrysostom: because all things are subjected unto him; as, There is no other name given under heaven, by which we may be saved; no Power, no means beside; or the name of jesus, is jesus himself, that is, that at his name, in effect, unto him every knee should bow, as He that calleth upon the name of the Lord: that is, he that calleth upon the Lord shall besaved; but we grant the name of jesus, to be jesus named; and when we hear that sweet name of our Saviour named, accordingly do, and are enjoined by Canon to do reverence with our body. here it doth not ensue, we may worship Images: there is text for the one; none for the other. Show it, that unto the Image os jesus every knee should bow; Difference in the one, from the other. Images are resemblances, which in use and application, may in natural proportion have such a relation unto the Prototype, that they supply the room thereof, insinuating the form and fashion thereof; which the name thereof cannot do, insinuating only that being thereof. So there is reason for the one, none for the other: less reason of alleging this text of Saint Paul for ratification of Image-worship.  
In the Brazen Serpent there is more resemblance. It may be a warrant for making an Image, no warrant 
Num. 21. 8.  for worshipping an Image made, nor for making ordinarily: because that was made by special direction to a special end, against a general practice upon precept, Thou shalt not make any graven Image. God may so dispense with his own Law, where, when, in what sort, and to whom he will; but not we.  
The first observation then, out of this Text against 
Hence are evidently proved diverse things against Protestants, etc.  the Protestant, that God commanded the making of this Image, is idle: never Protestant made question of it: nor of the second, that it was set up for a sign: nor the third, that the lookers upon it should receive health: nor the fourth, of exempting the practice commanded, from the breach of the first Commandment. These they confess, they plead, and bid you show the like for your Images, for making, erecting, beholding, reverencing any Image of God, or Saints in this sort, and they yield.  
This Serpent was beheld, not adored by those that looked on it, though it had a reference unto a great mystery, and was a Rememorative of salvation extended by the Son of God. Unless it were adored, it is to no purpose alleged. For making is one thing: this may be done. Adoring another thing: that is unlawful. Therefore Saunders, and Catharine, and Saunders, and Bellarmine do maintain, adoration was given unto it. Vasques denieth it, and that justly: for when they began to adore it, the good Ezechiah broke it in pieces. But yet Vasques must yield it was adored, or else, that it is alleged to no purpose to prove Adoration.  
To conclude, no Text of Scripture doth expressly say, nor by consequence infer, that ever Images were worshipped with countenance or commendation of God, or any holy man in Scripture. Saint Ambrose saith no such thing as is pretended, that Images lawfully may be worshipped. He saith, Whosoever 
See Fathers that affirm the same. Saint Ambrose, Ser. 1. in Psal. 118.  crowneth the Emperor's Statue, crowneth the Emperor, that is, honoureth him: and whosoever dishonoureth the Emperor's Statue, dishonoureth him. What then? Whosoever dishonoureth God's Image, dishonoureth him. I grant. And what of that? Therefore, honour is to be given some Images. No man denieth it. Therefore all Images are to be worshipped. Away with that; no such consequence. Honour is one thing, Dulia, if you will, Latria is another: worship, I am sure. First, What is God's Image? Then, How far God's Image? Then, What honour is due unto God's Image? And lastly, Whether the honour given be not more, or other honour than is due unto an Image?  
Saint Augustine in his third book de Trinit (You might have added cap. 10. as well as the book, out of Bellarmine's) nameth the brazen Serpent expressly in the rank of such things, as, tanquam religiosa honorem haberepossunt. And so do we: and many things of that nature; as the Sacraments of the Church: of the which very things he speaketh: and it had been better he had said nothing of them. For he demolisheth that Idol of Transubstantiation, in adding, Stuporem tanquam mira habere non possunt. Which could not have passed from his pen, had he believed Transubstantiation. This place of Saint Augustine is to no purpose: for there is not a word of Images there.  
Saint Gregory is of later date than Saint Augustine, and of less credit by much in controverted questions. Images in his time were much improved: and yet not unto Adoration. Honour, Reverence, and respect was given then, to be books for the simple and ignorant people: to be remembrances of things by representation. Hold you here, and we blame you not. As for Damascene, he was a child, in respect of those Heroes of the Church; Postnatus, and a party in that Image quarrel in the Eastern Church: exception against him may lie as partial & interessed: and yet he saith no more, (though what he saith, cannot be proved) then that the honouring of Images, was a Tradition Apostolical. You or Damascene prove this, and I yield. I marvel none ever said so before Damascene, who yet had good occasion to avow it, if it had been so.  
They had, you say, and did avow it: for Saint Basil against julian, hath the same, that it was delivered from the Apostles. Some body told Pope Adrian so, and he believed them: for, facile credimus quae fieri volumus. Adrian related it in the second Synod of Nice: and you take it for Gospel. It Saint Basil said it, I'll subscribe it: show it in Saint Basil, and no more ado. I marvel, Saint Basil should every where forget this Tradition, remembering so many as he doth: especially in his book de spiritu sancto. Basil is not the only man belied in that ridiculous Synod: nor the only man forged in that Epistle of Pope Adrian, whence the Rhemists, and Harding, and Bellarmine had it, from whom you took, whatsoever you have, impudent Plagiary as you are!  
Saint Chrysostom's Mass is not entirely his: many things have been added in tract of time: no man will deny it, that knoweth any thing: this bowing to the Image is one of those additions: and yet in some editions there is no mention of any Image: if there be, it doth not come home, to justify that in the Church of Rome, whereby worship is given to stocks and stones, and such worship as indeed is God's peculiar.  
Images and Idols may be two things: these profane and impious, never tolerable: those not unlawful, and sometime profitable, especially resemblances of Stories: Images were unlawful unto the jews at all, the very ordinary and civil use and making of them, except by special warrant, in some place: as in the Temple, upon the Ark, which though perhaps not observed, yet is true, and apparent to any man that advisedly shall read Philo and josephus. Unto Christians they are not unlawful, for civil uses: nor utterly in all manner of religious employment. The pictures of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and Saints may be made, had in houses, set up in Churches: the Protestants use them: they despite them not. Respect and honour may be given unto them: the Protestants do it: and use them for helps of piety, in rememoration, and more effectual representing of the Prototype. But quatenus? In terms there is not much difference: you say they must not have Latria: so we. You give them Dulia. I quarrel not the term, though I could: there is a respect due unto, and honour given relatively unto the picture, sign, resemblance, monument of great men, friends, good men, Saints, Christ. If this you call Dulia, we give it too. But whatsoever you say, howsoever you qualify the thing with gentle words, we say, In your practice you far exceed, and give them that honour which is Latria: a part of divine respect and worship. So not we. Let practice and doctrine go together, we agree. So that the question is not, What may be given them? but, What is given them? You must then change the state, and prove, that what you do, is not any way, any jot or part of divine honour, but merely civil respect, Dulia. This you cannot do, so long as your people go to it with downright adoration, and your new Schools defend, that the same respect is due unto the Representee, as must be given to the represented. So that the Crucifix is to be reverenced with the selfsame honour that Christ jesus is. A blasphemy not heard of, till Thomas Aquinas set it on foot. Clear these enormities, and others like these, then come, and we may talk and soon agree concerning honour and respect unto Relics or Images of Saints, or Christ: till then, we cannot answer it unto our Maker, to give his honour unto a Creature.   

XLVI.  
That blessing or signing upon the forehead, is not founded upon the Scripture.  
BLessing or signing, what is that? Doubtless the man meant signing with the Cross, upon the forehead: otherwise, the fellow is more than impudent, that fathers this upon any Protestant, that blessing is not founded upon Scripture. And yet this he would have his Proselytes believe: to this his two first Texts are addressed, to prove that Protestants use no blessing at all, in any action divine, moral, or civil.  
For Mark. 10. 16. we read, He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them: without any signing in the forehead: therefore he must needs mean this: That Protestants never bless any thing, or man whomsoever: and yet they do their children every Morning and Evening; and yet they do their meats every meal: yet in many other actions, nothing so frequent as this. The like is that, Luk. 24. 50. For there is no signing added unto that blessing: only, Reuel. 7. 3. there is mention of sealing, or signing, take whether you will, in the fore head: and that haply was with the sign of the Cross.  
But Sir Malevolo, know, we use Blessing as much as you; in as many lawful things as you, and more piously than you. We use signing with the sign of the Cross, both in the Forehead, and elsewhere: Witness that solemn form in our Baptism: for which we are so quarrelled by our Factious. Caro signatur, ut anima muniatur, saith Tertullian: and so do we. They used it in Baptism, all the world knoweth it. They signed their Foreheads, Cyprian, Epist. 56. and many other places of his Works: upon their hands. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Their whole body and bed, Tertul. 2. ad uxorem, 5. ad omnem motum & habitum, the same Tertul, de corona milit. 3. Whereupon, the old Christians were named, Religiosi Crucis: and yet they never adored the Cross. In the Greek Liturgy, the sign of the Cross is frequent. The worship of the Cross is not found. Not any of the Fathers aver that: the use of the Sign they do all. And if you will thank me, I will add as many more. Ignat. Epist. 5. pa. 48. Clement in constit. VIII. XII. Martial in Epist. ad Burdigal. justin. Mart. pa. 285. & 58. & 92. Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. 47. and conclude with that of Athanasius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: By the sign of the Cross of Christ, all Magic Spells are disappointed, witchcraft and sorcery cometh to nothing, all idols are abandoned and forsaken. For the reverend use of signing with the sign of the Cross, I know no such cause of distraction or disaffection. Our Church alloweth it, useth it, and commandeth it: and I could tell you some experimented effects of it.   

XLVII.  
That it is both superfluous and superstitious, to repeat one and the same prayer sundry times.  
A Strange imputation; so false and slanderous, as every child that can read, knoweth it is a Lie: for, in our Liturgy and public Service, the Lords Prayer is repeated many times. In our Litany, how many repetitions of the same thing! insomuch as that we cannot escape reprehension for it. But this Fellow, that set himself to quarrel, and whole opus is, to maintain a faction on foot, raketh up the retrimenta of each private, singular, contentious spirit, and tendereth them as public received doctrines of the Protestants; who hold it neither superstitious, nor yet superfluous, to repeat one and the same Prayer oftentimes: for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good things may be remembered once and again: and if to man decies repetita placebunt, some things cannot be repeated too often to God. It cannot any way discontent God, who loveth affection above all: and we can have no surer sign of affection, than repetition; when a man desireth to dwell upon a thing, and not willingly to leave it, as Psal. 18. 1.  
But take we the Fellow according to his fancy: 
Where first, our Lord having taught his own Disciples that excellent Prayer of all prayers, which he would have them to offer to him, the Pater noster or our Lord's Prayer; he afterwards, in many other places, willeth them to pray always, as Luke 18. 1.  he was not well provided to prove a truth by Math. 7. 9 compared with Luke 18. 1. Luke 21. 36. There our Saviour taught his Disciples a set form of Prayer, as john Baptist had taught his. There he wils them to pray continually; to pray, and cease not. This idle fellow infers heerupon, How is it possible to persevere in so short a form of prayer, except we often repeat the same? I grant, not possible to continue in praying that Prayer, without often repetition. And who findeth fault with repeating it often? Repeat it, on God's Name, again and again, so often as you have fingers & toes; but your repetition will have no warrant here: for, Christ doth not bid them, either Luke 18. 1. or 21. 36. repeat the Lords Prayer often, pray that Prayer only, and no other often. As the matter & occasions, so the form and manner, he leaves to themselves; and nor there, nor elsewhere, ●ieth them to any. If he did, how can the Catholics answer it to God, who have so many and divers set form of prayers, beside the Pater noster?  
The Angels Trisagium is more to purpose; where 
The Angels in the Prophet Esay, Esay 6. and the beasts in the Apoc. Apo. 4. which rest neither d●y nor night, do thrice repeat, etc.  Holy is repeated thrice by them: and yet short ejaculatory Prayers do differ from long-contrived Orisons, and are much fitter for repetition than these. Tertullian saith well: Dominus prospector humanarum necessitatum, seorsimpost traditam orandi disciplinam, Petite, inquit, & accipietis, & sunt quae petantur, pro circumstantia cuius 〈◊〉 praemissà legitimâ et ordinariâ oratione quasi fundamento, accidentium ius est desideriorum, ius est superstruendi extrinsecus petitiones. It was never heard of till now, that the Lords Prayer should be the only Prayer a man ought to use upon occasion. It is a contrary Extreme, It was not given to be used at all. The Angels in heaven, the souls of the Righteous, Christ jesus in the garden, the three children in the fiery furnace, use repetitions of their prayers. A sanctis pete perfectis exemplum. Use them, a-Gods-name. Do as they have done. A good thing cannot be repeated too often. I do not know any Puritan will dislike it. I have known as great Puritans as any were, use the Lords Prayer twice at every Sermon, in the beginning, at the end: and yet I know, it was the Puritan opinion at first, that The Lords Prayer was not so often to be repeated, as it is in our ordinary Service. T. C. wrote this, lib. 1. pa. 136. What reason is this, we must repeat the Lords Prayer oftentimes, therefore oftentimes in half an hour, and one in the neck of another? Doth your Proposition drive at this? Drive, a-Gods Name, till you drive it down: we go with you. For, it is a singular, upstart, novel, Puritan quarrel; as, infinite other are against the Church in all Ages, against the doctrine and discipline of the Church. But what is this to Protestants? Against Protestants your Gag is directed, not Puritan: and yet all your addresses, well-neer, are against Puritan Positions, maliciously imputed to Protestants: and yet yourselves among yourselves make a difference betwixt Protestants and Puritans; professing, If it were not for the Protestant, you would not esteem what the Puritan could say: and truly. For, the Protestant cometh up to you on your own grounds, and undertaketh you at your own weapons; so that you have no help against him, but to belly him with your Proselytes. So you began, so you continued, and so you end this petty Pamphlet. For, otherwise you may know, that this very point of often repeating the Lord's Prayer, hath by us been maintained against Puritan detraction, more than by Papists; especially by those two Worthies of their time, the most reverend Lord Archbishop, Whitgift, of blessed memory; and that incomparable Hooker: concerning whom I may much rather say, than of his Works, of whom it was said and made by Paulus Thorius: 
Praeter Apostolicas, post Christi tempora, chartas,  
Huic peperere libro, sacula nulla parem.   
In whose words I conclude to this babbler. Twice we rehearse it ordinarily, and oftener, as occasion requireth more solemnity or length, in divine service; not mistrusting, till these new curiosities sprung up, that ever any man would think our labour heerin misspent the time wastefully consumed, and the office itself made worse, by so repeating that which otherwise would more hardly be made familiar to the simpler sort; for the good of whose Souls, there is not in Christian Religion any thing of like continual use and force, throughout every hour and moment of their whole lives. I mean, not only because Prayer, but because this very Prayer is of such efficacy and necessity. Know this, Sir Gagger, that this is our opinion o● repeating Prayers; this our doctrine touching the Lord's Prayer, repeated, or to be repeated. That giddy conceit, taken up by the Puritan faction sometime, is none of ours, as the faction itself is none of ours: no more than Donatists, Meletians, or Novatians, were anciently the Catholic Church, or their fooleries to be imputed to the Church. The Factionists would, were the innovating humour predominant in them, peradventure prescribe a form of Religion to Christ jesus himself, were he on earth again, though but to last for a day: unless haply they disagreed, which fancy should have precedency. For every Crow thinketh her own bird fairer than the neighbours.  
But to conclude with your Fathers, that affirm God knoweth what: you are to prove, which yet we desire you not to do, for there is no such need against us; that It is not superstitious, nor yet superfluous to repeat one and the same Prayer oftentimes. For this Lactantius is, cited lib. 4. de divinâ institut. cap. 28. but might have been spared. In that Chap. he disputeth against that derivation which Cicero gave, of superstitiosus; That they were called superstitiosi, qui totos dies immolabant et precabantur, ut sui liberi sibi superstites essent. For saith he, Quid mihi afferet causae, cur precari pro salute Filiorum, semel religiosi, et idem decies facere, superstitiosi esse hominis arbitretur? What reason can Cicero give me, why it should be counted religious piety to pray once; and superstition, to pray often? Si enim semel facere, optimum est; quanto magis saepius? Which testimony is direct as may be, for praying often, but not for saying the said prayer often: yet this should be proved, not that. This is after the Puritan Cut, not that. Howsoever, it may touch our Factionists, who regard n o Fathers: it concerns not us, who respect the one, & use the other: who profess, with the same Lactantius, Multiplicata obsequia demerentur potius, quam offendunt.  
The next is S. Amb. lib. de Sp. sanct. cap. 20. Howsoever you have played the Idle-pack, Addle-head, Ignaro, or Negligent in the course of your book: yet, as good Orators in a bad cause, lay the strength they have or can make, in the beginning, and latter end, so should you: but who can have more of a cat, than her skin; of a Blunderer, then that which is next hand? Saint Ambrose wrote three books to Gratian the Emperor, de spiritu sancto. This poor Innocent knew no such matter; supposing, he had wrote but one; nor caring, unto whom he wrote it. Saint Ambrose lib. de spiritu sancto, cap. 20. saith, Who can tell what? I say, Who can tell? For, the first book hath 20. Chapters just: in the 20. nothing is that tendeth this way. In the second book there are but 12. There can be nothing in any 20. Chapter there. The third hath chapters 23. but nothing touching repetition of Prayers, or Prayers at all. The truth is, beside these books, there is in some editions another tract without Chapters at all; a very very short one, de spiritu sancto; by some supposed, a fourth book to be added unto the other three; by others, a several, headless discourse, none of Saint Ambrose doing: howsoever it be, whose-soever, it should seem the book which the man would design. For, not far from the end, having recited that text of Esay 6. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabbath, he inferreth the custom of the Church for the Trisagium in their ordinary Litany; Vnde etiam tractum est, per omnes fere Orientales Ecclesias, et nonnullas Occidentales, ut in oblationibus sacrificiorum quae Deo patri offeruntur, una cum sacerdote, voce populus utatur, id est, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Which very words we use in our solemnising of the holy Communion thus: Therefore with Angels, and Archangels, and the company of Heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious name, evermore praising thee, and saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, Heaven and earth are full of thy glory. Glory be to thee, O Lord, most high. Can this Goose gaggle against this?  
Augustine is next, lib. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte, cap. 5. in whom I find no such division, nor any thing to purpose. And lib. de doct. Christ. cap. 7. again; As if there were but one book, there being four, and no such matter in any 7. Chapter. Who can brook such an ignorant or negligent companion, in a point of controversy and imputation? Which is also observed by him in Saint Gregory. Saint Gregory is to be seen, lib. 1. Moral. cap. 28. in which book there are not so many Chapters; nor in the Chapters which are, any such thing. The truth is, that which was meant, is lib. 29. Moral. upon the 38. of job, the same in effect with Saint Ambrose before. Esais quoque, cum Laudem Trinitatis aperiret, Seraphini voces exprimens, ait, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus: ac ne tertiò Sanctum nominans uni ●atē divinae substantiae scindere videretur, adtunxit Dominus Deus Sabaoth: which, almost word for word, is repeated, Homil. 16. and not 19 as we find it cited upon Ezechiel. To which he might have added Psal. 67. Benedicat nobis Deus, Deus noster: Benedicat nobis Deus; and that in Rom. XI. For, of him, and by him, and in him are all things: to him be praise for ever, Amen. These are his Fathers that should affirm the same, videlicet, that it is nor superfluous, nor superstitious, to repeat one & the same prayer oftentimes. They repeat nothing: they affirm nothing: they only speak what was done. That which they speak, we do. That which they are supposed to affirm against us, if they did affirm any thing, needed not: For we affirm, use, propose, and maintain the same, privately, publicly, in our Liturgy, and Service of the Church. To conclude, Sir Gagger: bring me any one Place of Scripture, any practice resolved of the Catholics, any decision of the Church representative, any determination of the Church collective, in a particular approved Synod; any Saying of any one Father of Credit, dogmatically resolved for 500 years and better after Christ, to the end of the Council of Chalcedon, against any thing established in the Church of England; that is, in the Communion-booke, the book of Articles, the book of Consecrating Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons; and I will subscribe. Here is scope enough to ramble in. Gag me, if you can. As for private opinions, I am bound to none, no not unto my own. Quisque abundet in sensu suo, so be it he trouble not the Church therewith.   
FINIS.