AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE ENGLISH SEMINARIES, AND JESVITES: Showing their loose kind of writing, and negligent handling the cause of Religion, in the whole course of their works.  
By JOHN DOVE Doctor in Divinity.  JEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently. 
TAM ROBUR. TAM ROBOR. NI = COLIS ARBOR JOVIS. 1610.  
LONDON, Printed for SIMON WATERSON dwelling in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Crown. 1610.   

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, MY VERY GOOD Lord, TOBY, by the providence of God, Lord Archbishop of York, Primate, and Metropolitan of England.  
MOST Reverend Father in God, my especial good Lord. Albeit there is no end in 
Ecclesi. 12. 12.  writing many books, and much reading is a weariness to the flesh (as the wise man speaketh:) yet doth the condition of this present age require a multitude of books: neither ought we to be weary, so long as the labour only is ours, the cause Gods, and not our own. Our Adversaries are never weary of withstanding the truth, they never cease to provoke us by books, our names are daily traduced in their papers, that unless the Spirit of God wax cold, and the zeal of his house be quenched in us, we cannot be silent. And as your Grace hath laboured these forty years without intermission, like a silfull Maister-builder of God's house, a painful husbandman in the Vineyard, a vigilant Pastor over the flock, and were never yet weary of well-doing: so my trust is this small volume shall not seem tedious, which here I offer unto your reading, and humbly present unto your Grace. Since your Grace hath been called to the office of a Bishop, (as with S, Paul, it is a worthy 
1. Tim. 3. 1.  work) so it hath been with you, all your time hitherto, a work rather than a promotion, neither have you fainted under so great a burden. My prayer is for you, that God which hath begun this good work in you, will also perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. That as you have deserved that good report which the godly Emperor Theodosius 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. sanctae lib. 4.  in the Church of Constantinople gave of S. Ambrose then Bishop of Milanie: so you may contiwe still another Saint Ambrose in our Church, to the glory and honour of God, to whose goodness and mercy I commend your Grace, and your godly labours.  
Your Grace's most humble in the Lord. JOHN DOVE.   

THE INTRODUCTION DECLARING WHAT IS THE drift and intent of the Author.  
I Acknowledge myself with Saint Paul to be a debtor unto all men, to 
Rom. 1. 14.  the Greek and the Barbarian, to the wise and the unwise, so far as lieth in me to win some of all sorts to jesus Christ. Having already by the will of God, published a short treatise of persuasion to the ignorant Recusants, to reconcile themselves to our Church: I hold it my duty to speak somewhat to them also which fit in the chair of Moses; which would be accounted the great Masters in Israel, guides of the blind, lights to them which sit in darkness, instructors of them which lack discretion, and teachers of them which are unlearned. My purpose is not to speak of all points concerning which there is controversy and difference between them and us, (for so should I make a tedious volume) but only by instance in some few places for example sake, in lieu of all the rest, to advertise them of such errors as daily they commit in the whole course of their writings, when they handle the cause of religion, to the prejudice of the cause itself which they take in hand, and to the slander of learning. That I may use the words of the Apostle: This is not to cast away the cloaks of shame, 
2. Cor. 4. 2.  but still to walk in craftiness, to handle the word of God deceitfully, and not in the declaration of the truth; neither so doing can they approve themselves to their own consciences in the sight of God. They would bear the world in hand, that they are more exact in their judgement, more painful in their studies, more acute in their arguments, more advised in their answers, more diligent in all things they undertake, than any other of the contrary religion; whereas, due examination being had, it doth appear they slubber up many things negligently, and perform them loosely. They despise all our Schools of learning, in respect of their own Universities; as if solid learning, and true Schoole-divinity were nowhere taught but among themselves, they hold all others to be superficial: and yet contrary to all School-learning they suppress the truth by fallacies throughout their books, they transgress the rules and laws of disputation, and in no place will they stand to the orders received in Schools. Their young fry of Seminaries and seed-men, which are trained up under them, see not with their own eyes, but receive their sophisms for true syllogisms, upon the credit & trust which they repose in their teachers; as if it were impiety to call any thing into question which their Readers have taught them; or heresy to examine their grounds by the rules of Art, which are the true touchstone and only try all of arguments. In their discourses which they publish, they use such prolixity, that the matter which is plain and obvious to any man of reasonable capacity, seemeth perplex, and very difficult: they deliver the state of the question so uncertainly, that the reader looseth himself as in a labyrinth, not conceiving what is the scope and drift of the Author, whether he hold the affirmative part or the negative. In the end, having seemed to stand long in opposition against us, they concur with us. They allege no other arguments in defence of the religion which they do maintain, but such as have been oftentimes answered by Calvin, Beza, Kemnitius, and other Protestant Writers: which arguments being already answered, are of no validity, and therefore we expect they should reply against the answers, and not produce the same things again. Neither will their disciples take notice of any answer, but allege these trivial things for novelties, and rare inventions, as never heard of before.  
These things are but Satan transformed into an Angel of light, deceptio visus to deceive the world, as the Babylonian 
The History of Bell and the Dragon.  Priests did the King Astyages, making him believe that Bell did eat and drink, and was a living God; when he was but a dead Idol. The King at the first, because he found the door of the temple sealed up with his own signet, the meat devoured, and the wine drunk up which he set before the idol, but saw not the privy entrance which was under the table, cried out with a loud voice: Great art thou o Bell, and in thee is no deceit. But when Daniel showed him the footing of the Priests, and their wives and children, in the ashes which he strewed on the pavements, and the privy door which they came in at; he confessed there was deceit in the Priests of Bell, and he saw plainly, that Bell was no God but an idol. So my purpose is to find their falsehood by their footing, to show how they enter in at the false door, and go not the right way; to detect their sleights and juggling casts, whereby they advance error and falsehood, but stand in opposition against the truth. Forasmuch therefore as if the Gospel be yet hidden, it is hidden to them which are lost; the Lord of his mercy take away from their disciples and followers, that veil or covering, which until this time hath continued untaken away, and remove from them the spirit of slumber, that hereafter seeing they may see. The Lord of his goodness endue the teachers themselves with his grace, that henceforth as sincere Pastors, and faithful Stewards of his word, they may walk in simplicity, and handle his word plainly in the declaration of the truth, that they may approve themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God: that when the chief Shepherd and Archbishop of our souls shall appear, they may receive an incorruptible crown of glory, through jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.   

CHAP. 1.  
Of the Head of the Church.  
ANd that I may first with Saint john the Baptist, lay the axe to the root of the tree; because the Cardinal deriveth the Pope's supremacy from S. Peter, let us therefore 
Mat. 3. 10.  examine by what right he entitleth S. Peter to that supremacy. 
Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10.  For his supremacy being shaken, the Pope's authority which is grounded upon it, cannot stand. Our Saviour upon Saint Peter his confession, where he saith: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God: answered: Thou 
Mat. 16. 18.  art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. It is as impossible to reduce these words into a true syllogism, or form of argumentation, as it was for the Oracles to speak 
Caesar. Bar. in apparat. 13. Exod. 8. 19  when the Son of God had enjoined them silence, or for the Egyptians to make louse when the finger of God was against them. Every lawful syllogism must consist only of three parts, or terms, as they call them; but here are four, Petrus Petra, persona Petri, & structura Ecclesiae: the person of him that made the confession, his name, his confession itself which is called the rock, or foundation stone; and the building of the Church. His person, and his name, where it is said: Tues Petrus, thou art Peter: the confession or foundation stone, upon this rock: the edifice or building itself, will I build my Church. The medius terminus, or argument, whereby every conclusion ought to be proved, must be one and the self same as well in the Minor proposition as in the Mayor: but here it cannot be so, for it is Petra in Maiori, & Petrus in Minors, the rock in the Mayor, and Peter in the Minor, as if they should conclude in this manner: The rock is the foundation of the Church; but the Apostle which made this confession, is Peter: therefore the Apostle which made this confession is the foundation of the Church. But this is not in Mood and Figure, the medius terminus being not the same in both propositions. Therefore if they will correct it, and reduce it into a true form, they must conclude in this manner: Whosoever is the rock, he is the foundation of the Church. But the Apostle which made this confession (meaning Peter) is the rock: therefore the Apostle which made this confession, is the foundation of the Church. And then, besides that they do confound the confession and the confessor, S. Peter's person and his doctrine, which are two several and distinct things, the Minor is untrue, and contrary to the assertion of our Saviour Christ. For he doth not say: Tues Petra, thou art the rock; but tues Petrus, thou art Peter: nor super hunc Petrum, sed super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam; upon this Peter, but upon this rock will I build my Church. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So then, where he saith THOU, he speaketh of his person; and mentioning PETER, he telleth what is his name; speaking of the ROCK, he justifieth his religion, being three several points besides the edifice and building of the Church, whereof that religion is the foundation stone.  
Now before we proceed any further in this argument, let us avoid such exceptions as the adversary bringeth against the analysing of this text. First, Bellarmine objecteth, 
De Rom. Pontifice. l. 1. c. 10.  that our Saviour spoke in the Syrian tongue, and in that language this one word CEPHAS is nomen proprium viri, & commune saxi, the proper name of a man, and a name common to all stones, as also in the Greek tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both Peter and a stone; and it is plain in the Syriac text he said: Thou art Cephas, and upon this Cephas will I build my Church. And thereupon he concludeth, that Cephas in the first place should not signify his name, and in the second the rock, as I delivered in my Analysis, but in both places the rock; so that there may be tres tantùm termini, only three terms or parts to make a true syllogism, and consequently that Peter is the rock. To which I reply: there can be no good argument drawn from the authority of the Syriac text, not only because of the ambiguity of the word, which maketh the matter doubtful, according to the grammatical construction, and very uncertain; but also because that text is disallowed by the Church of Rome: whereas the Latin text, out of which I made this Analysis maketh for me, and is upon pain of anathema to be received as authentical; and so I touch him to the quick, and slay him with his own sword. As Cephas according to Grammar signifieth both the name of a man, & a stone, yet in this place it cannot signify both of them; because it is otherwise in the Greek, which is the original, & without exception, and in the vulgar Latinetranslation, which do make that very plain, where the first Cephas is Peter, and the second a stone: and so that which is, or might seem to be ambiguous, and yield matter of controversy in the Syriac, is cleared in these editions, and all ambiguity is taken away, there is no starting-hole left for the Sophister to cavil upon. Concerning the Syriac text Bellarmine maketh doubt, where he writeth thus: De testamento 
De verbo Dei. l. 2. c. 4.  novo maior est dubitatio, Of the whole edition of the Syriac new testament, there is a greater doubt, whether it were written in that tongue by the Authors themselves or no? Again, he delivereth his own judgement in these words: Quod si editio Syriaca aetate horum patrum posterior est, ut ego quidem mihi certè persuadeo, non potest eius authoritas tanta esse ut cum editione Graecâ aut Latinâ meritò comparari possit, ut interim illud non omittam, quod non desunt etiam quaedam in eâ editione quae viris doctis & pijs non admodum placeant. If the Syriac edition be of less antiquity than these Fathers (meaning Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, & others of whom there he spoke) as I certainly persuade myself it is, it cannot be any way of equal authority, with the Greek and Latin; besides, that many things are found in that edition distasting to men, both godly and learned. Again, Valde probabile est evangelium Matthaei, & epistolam Sancti Pauli ad Hebraeos Syriacà linguà scripta esse: There is great probability only that S. Matthew his Gospel, and S. Paul his Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Syrian tongue. There he doth not take it as a clear case that S. Matthew his Gospel was written in Syriac by himself, but only he leaveth it as a probable conjecture. But the Greek he will have to be without exception: Constat nowm testamentum Graecè scriptum ab ipsis 
De verbo Dei, lib. 2. cap. 7.  Apostolis vel Euangelistis, quorum nomina in titulis singulorum librorum vel epistolarum praefiguntur, exceptis duntaxat evangelio Matthaei & Marci, et Epistola ad Hebraeos. It is manifest that the new testament was written in Greek by those Apostles or Evangelists whose names are prefixed to every book or Epistle, excepting the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark, & the Epistle to the Hebrews. But Athanasius existimat ab Apostolo jacobo Matthaei evangelium in Graecam linguam esse translatum; alij verò johanni Apostolo; at alij ipsi Matthaeo eam translationem attribuunt: sed cuiuscunque sit, it a recepta est ab Ecclesiâ illa translatio, acsi eâ linguâ scriptum fuisset evangelium Mathaei. Athanasius thinketh S. Matthews Gospel was translated into Greek by S. james the Apostle, others by S. john the Apostle, others by S. Matthew himself; but by whomsoever it was translated, the Greek translation is so approved by the Church, as if it had been originally written in that tongue. Again: Itaque Graeca editio novi testamenti universa Apostolos & Euangelistas authores habet: Therefore all the Greek edition was set forth by the Apostles and Evangelists, And as for the vulgar Latin edition it is by the Council of Trent imposed upon all Romish Catholics 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 3.  upon pain of excommunication, to be received as authentical, and without exception. Therefore according to the rules of their Catholic religion, I argue against the Catholics more safely and firmly out of the Greek and Latin which are plain, and of whose authority they make no question, than Bellarmine doth against us out of the Syriac, which is both ambiguous, and of no authority in the Church to build upon. So then, for as much as by the decree of that Council, nothing can be held for truth in the Syriac which is repugnant to the Latin, but the Latin maketh for us; I conclude that my Analysis of the text, is without exception, let him refute it if he can.  
Now this being the question, whether the Church be founded upon the person, or upon the doctrine of Saint Peter? If they say, upon his person: I reply: the Church was from the beginning of the world, and it stood as firm as now it doth, before the conversion of S. Peter. When S. Peter was not, the Church was one and the same which now it is, and it could not stand without a foundation. But the faith which he professed, was more ancient than himself, even from the beginning common to the whole Church; so that the Church might well be builded upon that faith, though not upon Saint Peter, nor upon the person of any sinful man. And therefore our Saviour saith: he will build his Church, that is the members of the Church under the Gospel, which make but unam Ecclesiam aggregatam, one Church jointly with that which was under the time of nature, and the time of the law, upon the same foundation, being all stones of the same building. But Bellarmine allegeth out of Saint chrysostom Hom. 55. in Matth. Where he 
De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10.  saith: Tues Petrus, & super te aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church. And Hom. 4. in Esaiae cap. 6. Quid autem Petrus ille basis Ecclesiae? What shall we say of Peter the foundation of the Church? As if Saint chrysostom did not acknowledge the doctrine, but the person, not the confession, but the confessor himself, to be the foundation of the Church. To the first place I answer: I have examined, but find no such place in that Homily, but that which is contrary to it. But supposing that to be true, which he hath so faisified, I answer to it, as likewise to the second place which is rightly by him produced, that it is but the fallacy of equivocation. For he allegeth that out of chrysostom, as a speech proper, which is but metonymically understood. It is a figure called Metonomia causae. So Abram speaketh to the rich man: They have Moses and the 
Luk. 16. 29.  Prophets; meaning not the men themselves which were dead, but their books which were extant. So Saint Paul 
Eph. 2. 20.  teacheth that we are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, that is: upon the faith which is taught in the Prophetical and Apostolical writings; so that there is but one faith, one ground or foundation, upon which the old Church from the beginning, and the new Church under the Gospel are builded upon: these two being but one, as before I have delivered. And that the meaning of Saint chrysostom is metonimical, and not proper, 
Chryss. hons. 55. in Mat.  it appeareth by his own exposition of himself, where he saith in the same Homily, contrary to that which Bellarmine hath alleged: super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, id est, fidem & confessionem, I will build my Church upon this rock, that is, upon this faith and confession which thou hast made. And it is justified to be a true exposition by the consent of other Fathers, as of Saint Hilary, which saith: super hanc confessionis 
Lib. 6. de Trinit. Lib. 4. de Trini●…  Petram aedificatio Ecclesiae est, upon this rock of confession, is the Church founded. And of Cyrillus, which saith: Petram opinor nihil aliud quam inconoussam & firmissimam discipulifidē vocavit, He called the faith of S. Peter arocke, because it was steadfast as a rock that cannot be moved.  
And by the way to prevent that which may in subtlety, but not in sincerity be objected against us; that the foundation must be answerable to the building, but we which are builded upon that foundation, are all living stones, and 
1 Pet. 2. 5.  we come to him which is also a living stone, disallowed of men, which is jesus Christ; as the building is personal, so there must be a personal foundation, the persons of men are these living stones: I answer, the only true and proper foundation of the Church is Christ, as the Apostle teacheth: No other foundation can any man lay, then that which 
1. Cor. 3. 11.  is already laid, which is jesus Christ. I will therefore explain the meaning of Saint chrysostom, Saint Hillary, and Saint Cyril, in what sort faith may be verified to be the foundation of the Church; and yet with a due reservation of that prerogative which belongeth to our Saviour Christ, and which Saint Paul ascribeth to him; and so I will reconcile 
Luther l. de potestate Pope. Calvin Instit. li. 4. c. 6. sect. 6.  Luther which saith, faith is the rock, unto Calvin which affirmeth, that this rock is jesus Christ. As a gold ring of very small weight, having a precious stone in it of great value, may be justly estimated at an high price; not for the due value of the gold itself, but for the worth of the precious stone which is set in it, it may be said to be worth an hundred pounds; so faith is said to save, though salvation belong to jesus Christ; and to be the foundation of the Church, though Christ be properly that foundation, because he is the object of our faith: and our Saviour Christ and faith are so inseparably joined together, that they cannot be divided one from the other, or conceived one without the other. Thus have I briefly declared how the Church is not founded upon S. Peter: But suppose it could be proved, how can it be derived from him to the Pope? The office of Apostleship was personal, and died with S. Peter's person. The Apostles were equal in authority. It was said to them all: Go and preach, as well as to Peter. 
Math. 28. Mat. 16.  That which was said severally to Peter: To thee will I give the keys, was said jointly to all the Apostles; Whose sins 
joh. 20. 23.  ye remit, they shall be remitted. And this confession of Peter was made in the name of them all: so saith Theophilact, and 
Theoph. in Mat. 16. Ambrose in Psal. 38.  Saint Ambrose. But if it were granted that Saint Peter was above all the rest of the Apostles, this giveth no pre-eminence to the Pope being no Apostle. For Apostleship consisteth in these things; They were immediately called of God; they saw our Saviour in the flesh; they could give the holy Ghost by imposition of hands; the Spirit of God did so direct them, that in their writings they could not err: which things belonged personally unto them, but are not left hereditary to the succeeding ages. The foundation being thus shaken, the building falleth of itself.  
That I may come nearer to the man of Rome, to discuss this question, whether there ought to be one head ministerial of the Church universal militant upon the earth or no? Bellarmine to prove the affirmative part, argueth 
De Rom. Pontifice. l. 1. c. 9  out of Aristotle in this manner: A Monarchy is the best, & most absolute state of government: therefore the government of the universal Church ought to be monarchical. I answer: It is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi, in so much as Aristotle his Antecedent, and Bellarmine his Consequent, are not understood, Ad idem, secundum idem, etc. A Monarchy is the best state of civil government, and for one country, but not of Ecclesiastical government, nor for the whole world. No one secular Prince is sufficient to govern a world, neither if any one man could be supposed sufficient, could it stand with justice that one should govern a world; because no man can attain to be such a Monarch, but by oppression, and violent inchroching upon the dominions of other Princes. Again, a Monarchy is the best state of civil government of one country; but the Ecclesiastical government cannot simply be so, but only when the Church so governed is in such a country as is subject to one secular Prince, and not in an Aristocratical, or democratical state: because the Ministers of the Church must be subordinate to the supreme secular magistrates, and the Ecclesiastical government of the Church must be subordinate and answerable to the civil government of the country where that Church is. Again, as one man cannot govern the civil state of the world: so much less can one man be head of the whole Church; all authority both civil and Ecclesiastical being derived from our Saviour Christ, which is both the head of the Church, and the Prince of the Kings 
Eph. 1. 22. Apoc. 1. 5. Ma. 28. 18.  of the earth, and all power is given to him from God his Father both in heaven and earth. Our Saviour Christ is considered two manner of ways: as he is God, so is he the King of the whole world by the right of his creation: as he is the Redeemer, so is he the Head of the universal Church by right of his redemption: as he is God, he hath his Vicegerents over the world, and they be his secular Magistrates. Ego dixi, vos dij estis, I have said ye are Gods. But 
Psal. 81. 6.  as he is the head of the Church he hath no copartner nor Vicegerent: no copartner, for so he were an unperfect mediator: no vicegerent among men, for no man is able to supply his place in that behalf, which I prove by this argument: The office and work of his mediation proceedeth from his two natures, God and Man, which concur in one action of the same person; so that he which supplieth his office, must be of an infinite power, which is not to be found in any man besides himself. Now lest it should be objected that he hath said of Ministers also: Ego dixi, vos dij estis, I have said ye are Gods, as well as of Princes, 
joh. 10. 34.  and therefore it should be concluded that they are his vicegerents for the Church, as Princes for the common wealth: I answer, the argument doth not hold. For as both Princes & Ministers have their authority derived from him, so after a different manner; Princes as vicegerents: Ministers only as active instruments. For the keys of the Church being in number but two: the one of the Word & Sacraments, the other of Government: In the opening and shutting with these keys which is the execution itself, are to be considered two things, the active instrument, and the principal agent. The Ministers are only the active instruments, to preach to the outward ears of men, when God alone giveth the gift of Faith, & converteth the heart inwardly as the principal agent: they confer the outward elements only in the ministration of the Sacraments: he alone sealeth remission of sins, and giveth inward graces: they lay hands upon men to ordain them Ministers, which is the outward calling: he doth call them inwardly, and make them able by giving them his holy Spirit: they testify and pronounce before the congregation in iure fori, that wicked men are excommunicated out of the Church; but God only ratifieth it in iure poli, and cutteth them off from being members of Christ, and shutteth the kingdom of heaven against them. From the Head to all the members must be such an influence as possible cannot be from any sinful man, as I have delivered in my former Treatise. Thus you see how idly and weakly the Pope's supremacy is by them defended. And therefore unless stronger arguments be alleged, and more substantially proved, they cannot justly blame us for withdrawing our necks out of the obedience to the sea of Rome.   

CHAP. 2.  
Of Image Worship.  
BEcause they write, that worshipping images they commit no idolatry, in that they distinguish between an 
Bellar. de imaginib. lib. 2. c. 5. 1. Reg. 7.  image & an idol: that an image is the representation of something that is in the nature of things, as in Salomon's temple were the images of Lions, and Oxen: but an idol is made only to represent somewhat that never was, as the idols of Mercury and jupiter, which are but false Gods of the Gentiles, Gods by imagination, and not indeed. And therefore they hold it for a slander to their religion, that their images are called Idols. Let the first question therefore be concerning the truth of that distinction, that ye may examine their five reasons whereby that distinction is by them avouched. First, saith Bellarmine, Images which are a true representation of somewhat, are never called Idols in the holy Scriptures; as in Salomon's temple: The images, but not the idols of Lions, and Oxen. To which I answer: first, it is but a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or contention about words, which, be they understood howsoever, be they confounded or distinguished, the worshipping of them is the breach of God's commandment, where we are forbidden to worship any graven image, or 
Exod. 20.  the likeness of any thing. Secondly, this negative proof drawn from Scriptures, is no sufficient argument, but contrary to the laws of disputations, as is plainly set down in the Topic called Pronunciatum, Authoritas non valet 
Rodolphus Agricola.  in negativis. Thirdly, I bring instance against him, out of the holy Scriptures, where the image of a Calf is called an Idol. For so saith Saint Stephen: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they made a calf in those days, 
Acts 7. 41.  and offered sacrifice to an idol. There in plain terms the image, or true representation of a calf, is called an idol. By this you see what small credit is to be given to this distinction, and what false grounds Catholic doctrine is builded upon. Again, Idols by Bellarmine himself are called statuae, and are so translated in the Latin, 1. Kings 10. 16. 17. and what is statue but an image? Secondly, saith he: An idol is in the Hebrew tongue. Leuit. 19 26. Num. 23. Ose. 6. a vain thing, a false thing, a lie, always signifying some false representation, a false image, and not a true image; as Abacuc. 2. 18. Which reason because it is but colewoorts twice sodden, a mere tautology, and all one with the former, I answer to it as before. Thirdly, he argueth out of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 8. 4. We know an idol is nothing. It is something (saith he) in respect of the matter whereof it is made, as wood, stone, metal; but nothing in respect of the form, because it representeth that which is not. To which I answer as before, by denial, in as much as the golden calf, being for the matter gold, represented that which in form was somewhat, a bodily substance, animal mugibile, a lowing beast. And that I may make a better exposition of Saint Paul's words, out of S. Paul himself, of that proposition: Idolum nihil est, an idol is nothing: as in matter it is something, so in respect of any divine virtue in it, which the idolater ascribeth to it, it is nothing. And again, by the analogy of that place, it is nothing either in respect of sanctification or pollution of those meats which are offered to it. And if there be any that cannot, or will not be satisfied with this answer, let them reply against it. Fourthly, saith he: S. Hierom upon Abac. 2. & Zach. 13. compareth heresies and idol together, because as an idol is a false image, so an heresy is a false imagination. To which I answer: S. Hierom might as justly have compared heresies with images, which are many times as unlike the man for whose pictures they are made, as heresy is different from the truth. But he faileth in the main point of his comparison, because this proposition is not generally true, that an idol is a false image, because the calf in Horeb, of which I first spoke, was both an idol and a true image. Fiftly, out of Eustachius lib. 11. Odyss: (saith he) an idol is properly such a representation as the shadows of men, flying fantasies, and imaginations of the brain, which we think we see, when nothing is before our eyes, ghosts, apparitions of such as be dead. To which I answer out of the vulgar Latin Bible, which is of better authority with the Church of Rome then ever Eustachius was: that the word image, is also used in the same manner, as: In imagine transit homo, Man passeth away as an 
Psal 39 ●…. job. 4. 16.  image or a shadow. And job saith: In the thoughts of the visions of the night, when sleep falleth on men, fear came upon me, and dread which made all my bones to tremble, and the wind passed before me, and made the hairs of my flesh to stand up: then stood one, I knew not not his face, & imago, animage was before mine eyes, and in silence heard I a voice, etc. Thus under a colour and show of learning, hath he made an idle and fruitless discourse, to entangle the simple reader, with no small prejudice to the Romish religion, which is defended by such sleight shifts, rather than by manifest truth.  
This scruple being removed, it remaineth in the second place, that we discuss this question: whether images are to be worshipped or not? And herein the practice of the Romish Church is contrary to the doctrine they do teach, because in their Churches they worship images, & set them up to be worshipped; and enjoin the people to adore them; and yet not able to stand in the defence thereof, by their Writers they forsake their old defence, and by their Canons deny that any divine worship is due unto them. For the Council of Trent hath these words: Imagines 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 25.  Christi & sanctorum honorandae sunt, modo tamen in imaginibus non collocetur fiducia, nec ab iis aliquid petatur, nec in iis esse credatur aliqua divinit as, sed solum honorentur propter eos quos nobis repraesentant: Images are to be honoured (not to be adored:) and they are to be honoured only with such limitations, that we put no trust or confidence in them; that we pray not unto them; that we ascribe not any divine virtue to them, but only they are to be honoured for their sakes whose images they are, and whose likeness they represent to us. There you see plainly what their doctrine is, how they deny them adoration. And yet by their practice, they do not only prostrate themselves before them, as the Gentiles did before their idols, but plainly show in action, that they suppose some divine power to be in them, in that they pray to them, and by their long peregrinations weary themselves in visiting some images rather than others; yea they travel very far to prostrate themselves before the images of our Saviour Christ, and the virgin Mary, and other Saints in far countries, when they have in their own Churches at home the images of the same Saints; yea far more beautiful than are abroad. Bellarmine saith: Omnes cruces ador amus, we adore all images of the cross: And yet by his own exposition, this word ador 
De imag. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 12.  amus, we adore them, is no more than if he had said; We honour them, and think reverently of them, or use them reverently; because they be for exercise of devotion, and make difference between them and other things which are appointed only for civil uses. And to make good this his exposition, he referreth us to that decree of the Council of Trent, which before I have alleged. Moreover he showeth, that as there is one adoration which is religious belonging to God; so there is an other only officious, belonging to all Ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies; and such things as are used in the Church. And to that purpose he allegeth the authority of the 2. Council of Nice, which speaketh more in favour of images than all other Counsels, and decreeth in this sort: Imagines sunt venerandae, non quidem cultu latriae, sed honore illo quo prosequimur 
Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 7.  sacras literas, vasa sacra: Images are to be worshipped; but how? not with such worship as belongeth to God; but only to be honoured, as the Church books, and the Church vessels. (But I think no Catholic, holdeth that the Bible, the Basin, the Font, and the Chalice, are to be worshipped by adoration.) And so they call them sacras imagines, sacred images; as they call other things which belong to the Church, res sacras, holy things; as the Communion cups, vasa sacra, holy Chalices; the Font, lavacrum sacrum; their Priests, personas sacras; their Churches, Aedes sacras; their Bibles, Biblia sacra: and yet adore them not. And thus, as men ashamed of themselves, they qualify the matter by such subtleties among the learned, to avoid suspicion of idolatry, & continue the people in ignorance and gross idolatry. Again, whereas Aquinas, and other Catholic Doctors, have before delivered in gross terms, that images are to be worshipped, cultu latriae, with divine worship, or such worship as is due unto God. Bellarmine to qualify the matter, and to reduce them to the meaning of the Council 
De imag. li. 2. cap. 25.  of Trent, would seem to make a more mild exposition of these words, coigning this distinction: Inter sanctos & eorum imagines, & reliquias, between the Saints themselves, and their images and relics. So inter Christum & eius imagines & reliquias, between our Saviour Christ, & his images & relics. And so he hath written that the images & relics are to be worshipped with the same worship, as they whose images & relics they are; and so the images & relics of Saints with the worship of doulia, and of Christ with latria; But yet at the length, as a Cow that giveth a pail full of milk, and then kicketh it down with her heel, he doth by a distinction so qualify the matter, and set down such a state of the question, whereby all is overthrown. For, saith he, that worship which is called latria, and that which is doulia, are of two sorts, one is cultus verus, a true worship, which is due to the persons themselves: the other but analogicus, an analogical, or equivocal worship only, which is due to the images and relics. But what difference is between analogum, and analogatum, alive Saint, and the picture of a Saint, I refer the consideration thereof to the judgement of all Scholars which have learned but Aristotle his Antipredicaments. As a painted man, or analogical man is no man, so analogical worship is no worship; a painted man is but the resemblance of a man, so analogical worship is but a resemblance of worship, and not worship itself. But it is hard to devise how they should make such a resemblance of worship before the image, and not worship the image. And howsoever, if it were possible, yet the Apostle teacheth how they ought to avoid all show of evil. And thus hath he avoided that which was alleged against him by equivocation, which is contrary to the law of Schools.  
To leave their doctrine, & come to their scandalous practice, we charge them with breach of the second commandment, because they fall down before their images, Bellarmine in defence thereof, saith: They do not cultum tribuere 
De imag. l. 3. cap. 11.  simulacris tamquam Dijs, worship their images as Gods, but only they worship God in the images of God, & Saints in the images of those Saints before whom they fall down, and that such worship is not prohibited in holy writ. Now therefore upon this point let us join our issue. If to prostrate themselves before the image, and say they worship not the image, but God in the image, might be lawful; then might both jews & Gentiles which did the like, have excused their idolatry, forasmuch as neither of them hold their idols to be Gods when they fall down before them. For knowing by the light of nature there was a God, but knowing him not as he ought to be known, nor in what sort he should be worshipped, they framed idols, & worshipped him in those idols; & yet for so doing, they were condemned in the holy Scriptures, because he being a Spirit, would be worshipped in Spirit, but not in an idol; and so he will not be worshipped in an image. Concerning the jews, which were idolaters, they knew their golden calf was no God, but worshipped God in the calf. Bellarmine therefore asketh why they said: Faciamus 
De imag. l. 2. cap. 13. Exod. 23.  Deas qui praecedant nos: let us make Gods to go before us? & Hi sunt Dij qui eduxerunt te de terra Aegypti: these be the Gods which brought thee out of Egypt? I answer, their manner was to call idols Gods; but Deos repraesetativos, gods by represetation, because they made them to represent God, using the figure called enallage numeri, Gods for God, the plural number for the singular. I answer him also by his own distinction, they did mean Deos analogicos non veros, Gods analogically but not truly & univocally understood. So in the story of the judges, speaking of Micha the idolater, the text saith: This man Micha had an house of Gods, the holy Ghost would 
judg. 18. 5.  not call his idols Gods but in this sense, because they were idols. There it is plain that in the Scriptures that which is known & understood to be no God but an idol, yet is called a God. And that I may somewhat enlarge this point for the better satisfaction of the reader. The jews knew that God in particular which brought them out of Egypt before 
Exod. 19 9 11.  the golden calf was made; for a little before he came down in their sight upon mount Sina, they heard him speak with 
Exod. 20. 19  their own ears, he appeared in thundering & lightning; his presence was so terrible they were afraid, they said to Moses: Talk thou with us and we will hear thee, but let not him talk with us lest we die; & therefore could not think this calf which they made afterward, to be the same God; which could not speak, nor terrify them at all, and consequently they held it to be but an analogical or representative God. But saith Bellarmine, though first they knew him, yet when they made the calf they had forgotten him. How proveth he that? Fecerunt 
Psal. 105.  vitulum in Horeb, they made a calf in Horeb, they worshipped the molten image, & forgot God which saved them, and did wonderful things in Egypt. To which I answer by distinction, that forgetfulness is of two sorts; one which is ignorance, when a man letteth slip out of his memory that which once he knew, or heard, or saw, as when Peter heard the cock crow, he remembered the words of jesus: the other of ingratude, as where it is written: The Butler did 
Mat. 26. 75.  not remember joseph, but forgot him, that is, he was ingrateful 
Gen. 40. 23  to him. And in that sense the Israelites forgot God. Again, any impiety, negligence, presumption, disobedience, is called forgetfulness; as David speaketh: The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all they which forget God. 
Psal. 9 17.  And that the forgetfulness of the jews, could not be the oblivion of ignorance, I prove by the text itself: cras erit solemnitas jehovae, tomorrow shall a solemn feast be kept to the God jehova. (Which jehova is the proper name of the God of heaven, known then only among the jews) so that they worshipped jehova in the calf. But, saith Bellarmine, Respondeo fortè judaeos illos qui plures Deos veros esse tradebant, non putasse hoc nomen esse proprium sed appellatiwm: Peradventure those jews which held a multitude of true Gods, thought that jehova was not a name proper to one, but common to many. To which I reply: That besides religion must not be grounded upon Bellarmine his PERADVENTURES, and idle conjectures, how can he avoid this text parallel unto that, to show what was the opinion of the jewish Idolaters, where Mica his mother saith: Sanctificavi, & vovi jehovae, etc. I have sanctified the silver, and dedicated it to jehova, to 
judg. 17. 3.  make a molten Image? Forasmuch as there by his own words, jebova & sculptile, God and the molten Image, are two several things, votum quod est sculptile, & numen cui sculptile vovetur, the vow which is the molten image, and the God jehova, to whom the image is devoted, she could not think that image to be jehova. To come to the worship of the Gentiles, what answer doth he make to these arguments? First they did, uni Deo plura simulacra erigere, erect many idols to one God. For example, they acknowledge but one jupiter, yet in every country were idols of jupiter: therefore they made a difference between the God himself and his idol: consequently they did not think the idol to be a God. His answer is, Habuerunt alios Deos in coelo, alios interrâ; 
De imag. li. 2. cap. 13.  nec putaverunt absurdum si unus Deus coelestis, ut jupiter vel Apollo haberet interrâ multos collegas minores, id est, multa idola eiusdem nominis: The heathens had some Gods in heaven, some on earth; neither did they think it an absurdity that one God in heaven, as jupiter or Apollo, should have many fellow God's inferior upon earth, that is, many idols to bear their names. And I pray you what is this answer, but a confession, or grant of that which I have alleged, that the heathens accounted their Gods which they thought to be in heaven, to be Gods indeed, & these upon earth, before whom they prostrated themselves, to be but idols, and representations of them which were in heaven? therefore they did not think they were Gods. Secondly, they framed daily new idols, and yet said not that they made new Gods. His answer is: Putarunt Gentes senovos Deos facere, saltem terrestres: The Gentiles so doing, thought at the least, they made such Gods as were upon earth, although not such as were in heaven: which is no more than he spoke before to the first objection, a grant of that which I have objected. Thirdly, Mutarunt simulacra pro arbitrio, nec tamen Deos mutarunt: They changed their idols at their pleasure, whereas their Gods continued the same. To it he saith: Respondeo Ethnicos eâdem stultitiâ quâ putabunt Deos posse fieri manibus hominum, potuisse etiam credere Deos aliquos potuisse destrui manibus hominum: As the heathens in their foolishness thought they could make Gods with their hands: so in as great folly they thought they could destroy the Gods which they had made. And this is no more than was in the answer to the first objection, where he confessed that in the opinion of the heathen, their idols were but idols, and no true Gods. Fourthly, S. Augustine relateth, that when the Gentiles were accused of idolatry, they answered that: Non colebant idolum, sed numen quod per idolum significabatur: 
August. in Psal. 113.  they did not worship the idol, but the God which was represented by it. This objection Bellarmine repeateth in his 2. book and 11. chapter. But in the 13. chapter, where he taketh upon him to answer the arguments going before, as I have showed, he passeth this over with silence.  
But to to come the reasons which Bellarmine produceth against us for proof of this defence. If (saith he) they did not believe these idols to be very gods, but representations only of God, and so worshipped not them, but God in them; why do the Prophet's labour so much to persuade them that they were no gods? I answer: whatsoever we prostrate ourselves before 
Esay 46. Psa. 13. Act. 19  in our prayers, consequently we make it our god, not by our opinion, but by that adoration, which is the prostrating of ourselves before it; not directly, but by a consequent. And because the people did so, the Prophets, and S. Paul in those places by him cited, do not so much labour to prove them no Gods, as if the people had thought them to be so, but because they prostrated themselves before them, and so by a consequent made them gods. But (saith Bellarmine) if they did not think them to be gods, why did they invocate, and call upon them? why did they pray unto them unless they thought that they did hear them? I answer out of the Roman Catechism which holdeth this doctrine: that they must pray to the images of saints in the Romish Churches, not 
Catechis. Rom. pars. 4. cap. 6 sect. 3.  thinking that the images can hear them, but that the saints, which by those images are represented, should hear them when they pray before their images. The words are these. Quum ad imaginem sancti alicuius quis dominicam orationem pronunciet, ita tum sentiat se ab illo petere ut secum oret, sibique postulet ea quae Dominicae orationis formulâ continentur, & sui denique sit interpres & deprecator apud Deum. When any man saith the Lord's prayer before the image of any saint, let his meaning be thus, that he craveth of the saint himself whose image it is, that the saint would pray with him, and obtain for him those petitions which in that form of prayer are comprehended, and so that he would be for him instead of an interpreter, and a spokes man for him with God. So then, as the Catholic prayeth to the image of the saint, that the saint his self may hear him, and not the image: likewise, the Gentile prayeth to the idol, not that the idol, but God should hear him. Other arguments he produceth, weaker than these, as namely: That the Gentiles thought their idols to be gods, because they were so taught by their Priests; and the world did so believe, because the idols did seem to speak, when indeed, not they, but the devils spoke out of them, as also because they had the shape of men, they thought they had in them life & motion. To which I answer: their Priests did not so teach them, neither did the world believe that they were gods, but analogically as before: For the Gentiles held that God was a spirit and not a body; the devils speaking out of them could not make the Gentiles believe they spoke, no more than the friars speaking out of the rood-loft maketh the Catholic think that the image in the rood-loft speaketh. Again, the devils speaking out of them did imitate God, which spoke out of the fiery 
Exod. 2.  bush, when it could not seem probable that the bush spoke, but God out of it. Lastly, that their idols had the shape of men, it maketh against him, for that should be an inducement rather to make them think they were no gods, but rather men.  
And to conclude, that I may not be tedious, concerning the erecting of images in the Church, whether it be lawful or no? They allege for proof of the lawfulness thereof the example of God himself, which commanded images to be erected in the temple of Solomon, and thereupon conclude, we may by that warrant erect images in 
Catechis. Rom. pars 3. cap. 2. Bell. de imaginib. li. b2. cap. 5.  our Churches; which is but to deceive the simple with a fallacy called, A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. Solomon lawfully erected images in his temple having received a commandment from God; therefore we may erect them in our churches, when God hath not given any such commandment. The Israelites lawfully robbed the Egyptians, 
Exod. 11. 2.  when God appointed them so to do; but we may not do the like, having no such dispensation from God. He is liberrimum agens, a free agent, and above his law; but we are under it, and may not break it without warrant from him. God saith: Non facies tibi sculptile, thou shalt make to 
Exod. 20.  thyself no graven image; and yet we may Deo sculptilia facere, make graven images to God, that is, when he doth so appoint it, and so Solomon did.   

CHAP. 3  
Of Predestination.  
FOr the better understanding what predestination is, it behoveth us to know first; that God hath written three books, the one of nature, to hold us without excuse, in which we may read there is a God; and that is the fabric of the world. The other of Grace, to save our souls, which is the holy Bible, where he hath manifested himself in his 
Rom. 1. 20. Psal. 19 1. 2. Tim. 3. ●5.  Son. The third of life, for our farther assurance, which is his secret counsel, and it he reserveth to himself in his own bosom. In it we cannot read particularly whose names are written, because it is not published as the two 
Apoc. 20. 15. Apoc. 5. 1.  other are, but it is sealed up with seven seals, and none can open it, but the Lamb Christ jesus. Yet out of the book of Grace we are taught that some few are written in the book of life, and the lamb Christ jesus hath revealed to S. Paul his chosen vessel seven leaves of that book, containing seven heads, or principal chapters, to give us some small light and taste thereof, that we may not be merely ignorant of so much as in his wisdom he thought fit to impart unto us.  
The Apostle hath these words: We know that all things work together to the best to them that love God, even to them 
Rom. 8. 28. 89. 30.  that are called of his purpose, for those whom he knew before he hath predestinated to be made like the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he hath predestinated, them he called, whom he called, them he justified, whom he justified, them also he glorified. And in another place: He hath chosen us in him (meaning Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and 
Eph. 1. 4. 5.  blameless before him in love, who hath predestinated us to be adopted through jesus Christ, unto his self, according to the good pleasure of his will. In which words are delivered these seven principal heads, to wit, Purpose, Foreknowledge, Predestination, Election, Vocation, justification, Glorification, which all of them I define after this manner.  
His purpose is his eternal and immutable decree in general, that he will be glorified by his creatures.  
Foreknowledge is his eternal and immutable decree, proceeding merely from his will and pleasure, that he will be glorified by the salvation of men. Which foreknowledge called in Latin praescientia, is not derived of the verb scio, which signifieth barely to know, but of scisco, which is 
So Beza in annot. main in Rom. 8. So Bell. de great. & lib. arbit. l. 2●…. 13. 2. Tim. 2. 19 Mat. 7. 23.  antè decernere, to know with a certain decree, or determination that he will have it to be so, as where it is written: This foundation remaineth sure; God knoweth who are his. And again where our Saviour saith in the gospel to the false apostles: I know you not. For otherwise, though the foreknowledge of God be immutable, it cannot be the cause that any thing should come to pass; for nothing cometh to pass because he knew it would be so, but because he ordained that it should be so.  
Predestination is his eternal and immutable decree, proceeding only from his will and pleasure, that he will be glorified by the salvation of some particular men above the rest, as where it is written: I have loved jacob, and hated 
Mal. 1. 2. Rom. 9 13.  Esau.  
Election is his eternal and immutable decree, proceeding from his will and pleasure, that the whole lump being a lump or mass of iniquity, they which are predestinated to be vessels of honour should be separated from the other clay, which serveth to make vessels of wrath and destruction. And all these four go before the conception of 
Rom. 9 13.  man, the other three follow after, not in God's secret determination, but only in his execution, two of them in this life, and the other in the life to come.  
Vocation is an action of especial grace in this life, in which by the holy Ghost inwardly working, the Minister of the word outwardly preaching, and the will of man unfeignedly consenting, man is effectually converted to the faith, and piety of life.  
justification is a sentence of grace in this life, out of which they which are effectually called, are by him through Christ absolved from sin, and consequently from the sentence and decree of death.  
Glorification is an action of glory in the life to come, by which corruption being cast off, he doth clothe them with immortality after the similitude of the resurrection of jesus Christ.  
These are subordinate one to the other, the first four being before one another in order but not in time; because they are eternal: the other three, though in God's book they be also eternal in respect of his determination, yet in respect of the men that are called, justified, and glorified, as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed, not only in order but also in time, they follow after, as they are not in eternity but in time. These things being duly considered, let us come to the state of the question.  
Our doctrine is, that God by eternal decree hath ordained some to salvation, others to damnation; the cause which moved him so to do, being not in them, but only in himself, and that is only his will and pleasure. The subjects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men, Paucitas saluendorum, the paucity, or small remnant of them which are saved. And concerning them, Bellarmine his defence is all one with ours; that they are saved, no cause being in themselves, but only in God, without any foresight of any thing in them. He saith it is a doctrine consonant to 
Degrat & lib. arbit. l. 1. cap. 10.  Scriptures, to the tradition of the Church, & to reason grounded upon Scriptures and Fathers. The difference between him and us is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second rank, which is numerositas damnatorum: the great multitude of them which are damned. Of them he saith: Caluiniani contendunt homines ante praevisionem paccati ad mortem 
Degratiâ & lib. arb. l. 2 cap. 16.  destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiâ pugnat: It cannot stand with the justice of God to ordain men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselves. Our answer is: God ordained them to destruction of his own will, not for their sins, and yet not being without sin, but bringing with them into the world from their nativity and conception, sufficient matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution: as the Hebrues when they were in Egypt did both build for Pharaoh, and also find straw their selves to make mortar for the building. We distinguish 
Exod. 5. 7.  inter vasa ipsa, & universam massam, between the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation, and the whole lump out of which they are fashioned and framed. Though they were ordained to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselves; yet that there might be no injustice with God, he had a general respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made. He hated Esau in his own person, not for any thing that was in Esau, but there was matter enough in the whole lump out of which he was created, wherefore he should hate him. Saint Augustine saith: Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset in Adam universa massa damnata: It might 
Eucherid. ad Laur. c. 98.  seem injustice that any should be vessels ordained to destruction, had it not been so, that the whole lump out of which those vessels were form, had been damned before in Adam. So he maketh the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam; and yet so, that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselves; and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree, but a consequent or sequel of that decree. But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lump, the Apostle saith: God hated Esau that his purpose might remain according to election, not by works, but by him that calleth, 
Rom. 9 11.  where he plainly delivereth this doctrine: That God in this reprobation of Esau, respected nothing in his person, but the cause which moved him to this hatred, was only in himself. If the adversay allege (as usually he doth) that albeit God did no hate him ex operibus, for his evil works which were in in him, because than he was unborn: yet he did hate him ex praevisis operibus, because he foresaw those evil works which afterward when he should be borne he would commit: I answer: That objection is prevented, and fully satisfied by the words themselves in that which followeth after. Concerning the words themselves Saint Augustine saith: Si futura opera quae Deus utique praesciebat vellet intelligi, nequaqum diceret non ex operibus, sed ex futuris operibus, eoque modo istam solueret 
Euchirid. ad Laur. cap. 98.  quaestionem, immò nullam omnino quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem: If the Apostle had understood foresight of works to be any cause, he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKS, but he would rather have said: God hated him because of the works which he foresaw in him, and so he would not only have resolved this question, but also have made it so plain, that it should have been without question. But in the words which follow, Saint Paul expresseth his own meaning to be as I have delivered, first by making answer to this objection: Is there iniquity with God? God forbid. For flesh would object that it were injustice condemnare hominem non natum, to condemn the child unborn: To which objection he answereth: It is no iniquity, which answer in defence of God's justice, had been needless, and the objection as fruitless, if it were so that God did in his decree condemn him out of a foresight of sin, which he knew he would commit, forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be deceived, and his decree was not to be executed until the sin were committed, and that were in man's judgement no iniquity or injustice. Secondly he cleareth the matter by enlarging that point to make it more apparent to man's capacity, where he saith: He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy, and where he will, he hardeneth. And again, it is not in him that willeth (meaning man's endeavours) nor in him that runneth (meaning the works of man) but in God that showeth mercy. There he, reacheth that the only law of justice, and rule whereby God in his predestination and reprobation is directed, and the highest cause which moveth him thereunto, is only his will. Non potest injust agere cuius volunt as est justiciae regula: He cannot do injustice which is tied to no other rule of justice, but his will. Whatsoever is the will of God, the same with him is justice. Having thus laid open the state of the question, and showed briefly what is our defence, let us examine what may be said against us.  
Our adversaries which we are to conclude withal, are Bellarmine and Becanus, two famous Jesuits. Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to descent from us by wilful mistaking both of us and of Saint Augustine, from whom he would derive the grounds of his disputation, as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth. He goeth about the bush by sleights and subtleties, that he might at the least, bear the world in hand he standeth in opposition against us, but when he cometh to the point, he discenteth not from us. As for Becanus which hath written after him, he would be thought to see more than others did before; and therefore feedeth his own fantasy with new tricks, and busieth the reader with strange conceits far fetched, and nothing pettinent to the matter. In his whole tract he beateth the air, and fighteth with his own shadow, but cometh nothing near unto that which is cardo questionis, & prora quasi, & puppis totius controversiae, the main matter now in controversy between him and us. But that we may first come to Bellarmine.  
Of reprobation he speaketh thus: Causâ reprobationis 
De gratiâ & lib. arb. lib. 2. c. 16.  partim ad solam Dei voluntatem, partim ad peccata pravisareferenda est, The cause of reprobation is partly the mere will of God, and partly the foresight of sin. In these terms he seemeth to impugn us. But afterward he explaineth his meaning by a distinction, saying: Reprobatio duos actus comprehendit, unum negatiwm, alterum affirmatiwm, Negatiws est: Non habet Deus voluntatem eos saluandi, & quantum ad illum actum, nulla datur eius causa ex part hominum. Affirmatiws est: Habet Deus voluntatem eos damnandi, & huius causa est praevisio peccati; There are two acts of God in his reprobation, the first negative, the other affirmative. His negative act is this: He hath no will to save them, and of that act there is no cause at all in men, but only in himself. The affirmative act is this: He hath a will to damn them, and the cause of this is the foresight of sin. For proof of the negative saith, Bellarmine: God hated Esau, antequam aliquid mali agisset, non solum coram hominibus, sed etiam in praescientià Dei, before he had done any evil, not only in the sight of men, but also in the foreknowledge of God. He hated him (saith he) not for original sin, for than should he as well have hated jacob, because original sin was common to them both; nor because he was worthy of hatred, for so they were both, and so he should have hated all men, and elected none, because all were worthy of hatred. By the way (saith he) it is to be noted, that these words: to hate, to harden, which in terms are affirmative, in sense are negative, as odisse est nolle diligere, indurare nolle misereri, to hate, is not to love, to harden, is not to be willing to show mercy. Again (saith he) that a man is hardened, though it be a punishment for sins past, yet it is an effect of this reprobation, so that God doth harden him because from eternity he appointed him to be a reprobate. Last of all (saith he) facere vasain contumeliam, to make men vessels of dishonour; though being understood in this sense: deputare ad contumeliam, to depute them to dishonour and shame is affirmative; yet, being thus understood: Facere vasa qualia requirit totius massae conditio, & sic relinquere, & nihil aliud addere, to make them such vessels as the nature and condition of the whole lump requireth, and so to leave them, and do no further act, is negative, and of all these there is no cause in men, but only in God. But for proof of the affirmative, which is: Habere voluntatem damnandi, to have a will to damn them (saith he) that is by reason of the foresight of sin, we have instance. Ite maledicti in ignem aternum, Go ye cursed into everlasting fire, the cause of this damnation is showed to be in themselves: 
Math. 29.  I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat, etc. Bonus Deus est, justus Deus est, God is good, and God is just, he can 
August. lib. 3. adversus julianum cap. 18.  save, though men have not deserved salvation, because he is good, but he cannot condemn them unless they have deserved condemnation, because he is just. Condemnare aliquem sine culpà est punire sine causà, quod iniustum est, To condemn a man without fault is to punish without cause, and that cannot stand with justice. So far goeth Bellarmine.  
Now, that I may speak to every point, I will first repeat his words: Reprobation (saith he) hath two parts, one negative, that God will not save, the cause of that is in God, the other affirmative, that God will condemn, the cause thereof is in man. First, I say this is no lawful distinction, to make a diversity of that which is an identity; for there is aequipollentia in re, they be different only in terms, but are equipollent one to the other in substance. He showeth out of Saint Augustine that to hate, and to harden, which in terms are affirmative, are in matterall one with nolle diligere, nolle misereri, not to love, not to have mercy, which are negative. But after the same manner I come upon him, Deus vult damnare, God will condemn, is a proposition in voice affirmative, and equivolent to this: Deus non vult saluare, God will not save, which is negative. And as there is no mean between love and hatred, mercy and induration, but he that is not loved of God is hated, he that findeth no mercy is hardened: So, in God's predestination there is no mean or third thing between salvation and damnation, but necessarily by this decree, he that is not saved must be damned, he that is not separated from the lump of iniquity must be left to continue in the lump of iniquity, no mean between separation from it, and continuance in it.  
But secondly, to leave his idle terms to himself, which savour of subtlety, and not of substance, and which make that to seem dark and obscure, which is as clear as the day light; I will show plainly out of himself that in doctrine he consenteth with us: For, concerning this affirmative act God will condemn Esau, which he saith is an act of God's reprobation, let him acquit himself if he can. I would know whether he will have it to be a part of reprobation, as it is in ipso decreto, in the decree itself, or in decreti executione, in the execution of the decree? in intention or in action? one of them it must be.  
The decree itself which is God's intention is eternal, the action which is the execution of his decree, is temporal. If he mean it is to be referred to the decree itself, I prove by his own argument, that then the cause why he would condemn Esau, was not in Esau, but only in God. For, he framed his argument to prove the negative part in this manner: That God would not save Esau, it was not because he foresaw sin in him, for than he should not have saved jacob; for he foresaw sin in jacob as well as in Esau. So I come upon him with his own argument: That God would condemn Esau, it was not because he foresaw sin in him; for than he would have condemned jacob, because he did foresee sin in jacob as well as in Esau; Therefore, as Bellarmine inferreth: the cause was only in God that he would not save Esau. So I infer, the cause was only in God that he would condemn Esau. But if he mean that the affirmative part is to be referred to the condemnation which is the execution of reprobation, which is temporal, and not to the decree itself, which is eternal (as needs he must) and it appeareth plainly by his words following that so he meaneth, we hold with him, and his defence is all one with ours. For, how doth he prove the affirmative part: That God will condemn them, it is in themselves? but by this sentence of Scripture, Math. 25. Go ye cursed into eternal fire, the cause being showed to be in themselves: I was hungry, and ye fed me not. These words are a final sentence to be pronounced at the end of the world, and not the decree itself, which was before the beginning of the world, these words put the decree in execution, and are a sentence published to the world by the mouth of our Saviour Christ, whereas reprobation is a secret which God reserveth to himself in his own bosom. And, whereas he calleth this final sentence of the judge reprobation, it cannot properly be so called, but only by the figure called metonimia effectus pro causa, where the effect is used for the cause; for this is condemnation, and not reprobation, an effect of reprobation, but not reprobation itself.  
And, where for proof of the affirmative part he saith out of Saint Augustine, Condemnare sine culpâ ost punire sine 
August. l. 3: adverse. julian. cap. 18.  causâ quod iniustum est, To condemn without fault, is to punish without cause, and that is against justice; I hold with him, God cannot in his justice punish or condemn any man which hath not deserved condemnation or punishment: but what is this to reprobation? Peter Martyr acknowledged so much long before Bellarmine his works came forth, where he said: Peccata sunt causa cur condemnantur, non tamen cur 
Petrus Martyr locorum comclassis. 3. cap. 1.  à Deo reprobantur, Sins are the cause why men are damned, and yet no cause why men are reprobates. So where he saith that God doth make vessels of dishonour, the cause is in himself; but that he doth deputare ad contumeliam, appoint them to wrath and dishonour: It is in the men themselves, we consent with him, in as much as this deputation is an action which is temporal, but that making of vessels of wrath is a decree which is eternal. Peter Martyr saith: Peccata sunt causa damnationis quae fit in tempore, sed non reprobationis quae fuit ab aeterno, Sin is the cause of damnation which is in time; but not of reprobation, which was before time, sin is an effect of reprobation, and therefore it cannot be a cause of reprobation. As the Apostle Saint Paul, and Bellarmine his self do show, 
Eph. 1. 4. De gratiâ & lib. arb. l. 2. cap. 10.  that good works are no cause, but an effect of election: so the argument followeth: sin is not a cause, but an effect of reprobation. The sin of Pharaoh was hardness of heart, he would not let the people go; this could not be the cause why God eternally did reject him, but God rejected him eternally; and therefore in time he hardened his heart, that he should not let the people go.  
Last of all, there are two sorts of causes, one the highest, an other subordinate, which go between the decree, & the execution thereof. So that albeit Gods will was the first and highest cause that he ordained some to damnation: which cause was only in himself; yet there are found other causes inferior and subordinate, sufficient to stand with the rule of justice, that his decree should be put in execution, as hardness of heart, infidelity, and other sins, which causes are inherent in the men themselves.  
Becanus writeth in this manner: The doctrine of predestination 
Euchirid. cap. 1.  (saith he) is understood two manner of ways: either according to the Catholic defence, that God did, post praevisionem originalis peccati, quum universae esset massa perdita, aliquos aligere ex suâ misericordia ad gloriam, alios in massâ perditionis relinquere ut essent vasa in contumeliam, After he foresaw original sin in the whole lump being corrupted, of his mercy choose some to be vessels of honour, and leave others in the lump of perdition to be vessels of dishonour: Or according to Calvin, that God before he foresaw original sin, Ex massâ integrâ, Out of the lump being sound, ordained some to life, others to death without any offence of theirs or their parents. And as it is taken in that second sense he argueth against Calvin, and out of this division so made by himself, he frameth his disputation.  
By the way, before we come to his arguments. First, it is superfluous and idle, to suppose that God did predestinate antè aut post praevisionem peccati, before or after the foresight of original sin, because he did both praevidere & praedestinare ab aeterno, foresee and predestinate from everlasting, with him there is nihil prius aut posterius, nothing before or after, because he is before all time. Again, this were to impute ignorance unto God, as if some thing had been to come to pass which once he did not foresee. Thirdly, our question is not of the time when? but of the cause why God did predestinate? I confess with Bellarmine these terms: Post praevisionem operum & expraevisis operibus, After 
Degrat & lib. arbit. l. 2, cap. 10.  the foresight of works, and out of a foresight of works (making this foresight to be the cause) are all one, so that he disputeth not of the time when? but of the cause why God did predestinate? But, with this jesuit it is otherwise, as it appeareth by the sequel of his disputation; and therefore he cometh not near the question which he proposeth. As also, massaintegra & corrupta, the state of innocency and of sin, though in time they succeeded one another; yet in God's foresight they were both at once. But let us come to his argument.  
That God did not predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ, out of the lump being sound, before he foresaw original sin in him, he taketh upon him to confirm by two reasons, the first is this: If God did so, than the decree of predestination was before the decree of Christ his incarnation, but that decree of predestination was not before the decree of Christ's incarnation; Therefore God did not predestinate man to life out of the lump being sound, before he foresaw original sin in him. He proveth the sequel of the Mayor; because the foresight of sin is more ancient than the decree of incarnation: for had not Adam sinned, Christ had never been incarnate. He proveth the Minor, because else our election had not been grounded upon the merits of our Saviour Christ. For Saint Paul saith: Elegit nos in Christo, he hath chosen us in Christ, etc. To which 
Eph. 1. 4.  I answer: This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a skirmish with his own shadow, but no combat with Calvin, because he obtrudeth that to Calvin which is not his doctrine. Calvin doth not hold that God did predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ, out of the lump being sound: for the lump being sound, men were in state of life iure creationis, by the right of their first creation, and if the lump had continued sound, there had been no use of predestination; for that is grounded upon Christ his merits, which were to take place massâ perditâ, & corruptâ, the lump being corrupted. And much less did Calvin hold that God did predestinate or ordain to death, ex massâ integrâ, out of the lump being sound. For, beside that it was impossible that man should die, the whole lump 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ve in the first integrity, it could not stand with God's justice. But Calvin's doctrine is, that God did ab aeterno ante 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 creatam, multò magis antè massam integram aut corruptam, eternally before the lump was created, and therefore before the integrity or corruption of it, predestinate out of it by his decree, some to life, some to death, foreseeing that it should be corrupted. For in his predestination, he had a general respect to the whole lump, which he foresaw should be corrupted, though not to the corruption of every particular vessel which was to be framed out of that lump: so his predestination which was decreed from eternity was executed in time, after the lump had received corruption; for so long as it continued sound, there could be no use of predestination, nor possibility of death. And so, even as they which are saved, are the children of God before they are borne, by eternal predestination, but not by actual adoption until they be sanctified; likewise they which are damned, be eternally by reprobation before they are born, but not actually before they be infected with sin, the children of Belial, and vessels of destruction.  
Secondly, how could there be praevisio peccati in massâ integrâ, aforesight of sin in the lump being sound? when integritas massae & originale peccatum, the soundness of the lump and original sin cannot stand together? God did foresoe that the sound lump should be infected, but not so long as it continued in integrity. The lump so long as it was found, consisted but of two persons, Adam and Eve, both which are saved, by all men's confession: how then did God predestinate any to damnation out of the lump being in integrity? I confess that in respect of the corruption of the whole lump which God did foresee, there was first aforesight of sin, than a decree that Christ should be incarnate, and then the decree of predestination founded upon the merits of jesus Christ, which were in order, & as we do apprehend them, one before the other; yet in eternity, with God they were altogether, but in respect of massa integra, the lump being sound, there were none of these; so that this syllogism confuteth not Calvin.  
His second argument is this: Infants (saith he) dying without baptism, according to Calvin's doctrine, are saved by the faith of their parents; therefore God having a respect to their faith predestinated them, non sine intuitu operum, not without a foresight and relation to somewhat which was in the persons of those men. To which I answer: That in the state of innocency Baptism was not instituted, neither was Faith preached, and therefore he disputeteth idly. Again if he had brought this argument to prove predestination after the lump was corrupted, to proceed from any thing that God respected in man: It were but a Fallacy, non causa pro causà. For faith which God foresaw in any man, is not the cause why he did predestinate him to salvation, but contrarily his predestination is the cause why man is comprehended under the covenant of Grace, and why he giveth him faith that he may be saved. For whomsoever he vouchsafeth the end, them also he vouchsafeth the means whereby they may attain to that end. God's predestination consisteth with good works as it doth with faith, though he predestinateth freely without the merit of good works, the works being an effect and end of God's election, and not the cause that moved 
Eph. 1.  him to elect us: for the Apostle saith: He chose us that we might be holy, and not because we were holy, or because he did foresee that we should be holy. And his election is made sure to us by good works, which are the effects and fruits thereof. 
2. Pet. r. 10.   
Against reprobation, or predestination to death, ante praevisionem originalis peccati ex massà integrâ, before the foresight of original sin, out of the lump being sound, he argueth in this manner: First, God decreed to create man to perpetual happiness, where it is said: Faciamus hominem, let us make 
Gen. 2.  man according to our own image. Secondly, he decreed not that man should die unless he were disobedient: Quacunque die, 
Gen. 2.  what day soever thou shalt eat of the middle tree, thou shalt die. Thirdly, he decreed to show mercy to all mankind rather than cruelty, universae vie eius misericordia, all his ways are mercy. 
Psal. 24.  Yea God was merciful even to the reprobates, because he gave his Son to be the Redeemer of mankind. And there digressing from his argument, he exclaimeth against Calvin, as if Calvin should say, that God did execute cruelty upon mankind, elect but a few, and damn a great multitude, condemn man before his cause is heard, stir man up to commit sin, that thereupon he might take occasion to punish him. My answer is as before. First, that he did not foresee any original sin that could be in man so long as man was to continue in the state of innocency; and therefore he doth but beat the air as before, to prove that against Calvin, which Calvin never meant, that God should predestinate any man to death the lump being pure: for reprobation and the state of innocency could not stand together. As he created man to everlasting happiness, so he decreed not that man should continue in that happiness. As his decree of death was but conditional, if man were disobedient: so he gave not man constancy to persever in obedience. As all the ways of the Lord are mercy, so his mercy belongeth only to the faithful, but he gave not to all the gift of faith. As he was merciful even to the reprobates, in that he gave his Son to be a redeemer of the whole world; so this benefit did not extend any way to the reprobates, but only to the elect. He gave him to be a sufficient Redeemer of the whole world, if the whole world would have received him, but he was an effectual redeemer only to the believers. He offered his grace through Christ to all men, even to the reprobates, but he sealed and confirmed it only to the elect. So these arguments refute not Calvin. And that I may answer his exclamations. This cannot be cruelty in God, but as the Apostle saith: It is justice. Nunquid deo non licebit quod figulo licet? May not God do as much as the Potter may do? Neither 
Rom. 9 21.  is this to condemn men the cause being not heard: for the whole lump being corrupted, the particulars could not be clear, neither was any particular to expostulate with God, the whole lump being justly damned, more than Moses was to be admitted to plead for himself why he should not be cast into the water, when it was decreed generally that all male children of the Hebrues should be cast into the water. 
Exod. 1.  It was sufficient without further arguing the case, that Moses was a male child of the Hebrues: so it was sufficient that Esau was the son of Adam. That God elected but a small remnant, and damneth many millions, it is no new doctrine, our Saviour saith: Many are called, but few are chosen. Saint Augustine saith: God is glorified as well by destroying, as by saving of mankind, else he would not create so 
Ad optatum epist. 157.  many millions whom he knew before should be damned. If all (saith Augustine) which are borne of Adam should be saved: lateret beneficium quod donatur indignis, God's mercy to them which are saved (which are indeed unworthy of salvation) would not appear. Plures Deus facit damnandos quam saluandos incomparabili multitudine, ut reiectorum multitudine ostenderetur quam nulli momenti est apud Deum justum quantalibet numerositas iustissimè damnatorum, atque ut hinc quoque intelligant qui ex ipsâ damnatione redimuntur, hoc fuisse massae illi universae debitum, quod tam magnae eius parti redditum cernerent: God ordained more to condemnation then to salvation without all comparison: first, that it might appear by the maier part of them which are damned, how little God, which is so just regardeth the destruction of whole multitudes of sinners, which are most justly punished. Secondly, they which are redeemed from that damnation, may by their own redemption confess when they see the mayor part damned, that that damnation was due to the whole lump, which was adjudged to the greater part. And last of all, if he think it an hard speech in Calvin to say that God inciteth men to sin, that so he might take occasion to punish them, let Saint Paul answer it out of whom Calvin did allege it, 
Rom. 9 17. 18.  where he saith: God hardened, and God stirred up Pharaoh, for this purpose, that he might show his power in him, and that his name might be declared through all the earth. To conclude, whereas he objecteth, 1. Tim. 2. It is the will of God that all men should be saved. And Ose. 13. Perditio tua ex te, salus ex me Israel, that thou art damned it proceedeth from thyself, that thou art saved it is to be ascribed to me, o Israel: And therefore inferreth that the cause of predestination is in ourselves, & not in God: I answer first to Saint Paul, It is his will that all should be saved, that is his revealed, but not his secret will, and to Hose, our destruction is of ourselves, and yet it is of God that men are predestinated to destruction, for as much as there are two causes of damnation, one principal, which is his will, and that is outward, and not in men: the other subordinate which cometh between the decree and the execution of the decree, which is damnation, and that is sin, matter worthy enough of damnation; and that is inherent in man. And thus you see the saying of the Apostle verified of this jesuit, Volentes esse Doctores legis non intelligunt quid loquuntur, neque 
1. Tim. 7.  de quibus affirmant. They would be Doctors of the law, and yet understand not what they speak, neither whereof they affirm.   

CHAP. 4.  
Of invocation of Saints.  
THe Church of Rome hath been, for many years past, charged with the crime of idolatry, for yielding that worship to dead men's souls which is due only to God. Being not able to stand any longer upon the justification of themselves, the matter appearing so fowl, they fly from their first holds, and devise new defences to avoid that grievous imputation; and yet still to retain their ancient superstition. Therefore concerning invocation of Saints, 
Bellarm de sactorum bea●. lib. 1. cap. 17.  they deliver this doctrine: Non licet à sanctis aliquid petere, ut nobis tanquam auctores aliquid concedant, sed ut corum precibus à Deo nobis beneficia concedantur: It is not lawful to pray unto Saints as authors and givers of any good thing which they should bestow upon us, but only as helpers and mediators unto God in our behalf, that by their prayers for us, we may more easily obtain at the hands of God such things as we shall ask. Being charged that their practice is contrary to this doctrine, that in the practice of their religion throughout their Churches they pray still in as gross manner, as before they did, howsoever in their Schoole-divinity they dare not maintain it, to clear themselves they say: Si quis dicat sancte Petre miserere 
Bellar. Ibidem.  mei, quantum ad verba sic licet dicere, sed sensus intelligendus est: Miserere mei orando pro me, da mihi aditum coeli, id est precibus impetra: It is lawful to pray in these terms: S. Peter have mercy upon me, open to me the gate of heaven: but that prayer is not to be understood as it is conceived in those express words, but in another sense, which is this: Pray for me that I may obtain mercy, by thy prayers obtain for me that the gate of heaven may be opened unto me, To which I reply, that the common people among them are no Schoolmen, and therefore this evasion doth not make their prayer to be less idolatrous than it was before. This is but to hold the people still in darkness, and to rob God of his honour by the fallacy of equivocation. But let us examine the grounds of this defence: They allege the words of the Apostle: I magnify my office to try if by any means I might 
Bell ibidem. Rom. 11. 14.  provoke them of my flesh to follow them, and might save some of them. And in another place: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. To these words I answer: 
1. Cor. 9 22.  they are sufficient to prove that while Saint Peter lived, God stirred him up as an instrument of his glory to bring men to the kingdom of heaven, and to save their souls, but not after he was departed out of this life. So 
1. Tim. 4. 16.  Timothy taking heed to learning, and continuing therein, might both save himself, and them which heard him, when he lived, but not after his death. For who knoweth not, that verbum Dei est officio seruatrix humani generis? the word of God hath a saving power, and that the ministry of the Gospel is the ordinary mean to save men's souls? But what is this to Saints departed, whose ministry ceaseth, or to prove the lawfulness of prayer to the dead which do not hear us? S. Paul spoke of saving men in his life time, not after his death, by his preaching to them, not by their praying to him that he should pray for them. This is no true kind of argumentation, but a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi.  
The defence of the Romish Church being this: that Saints are to be invocated after they be dead, not as authors, but as mediators; let this be the question between us: whether any such invocation is commended unto us in the holy Scriptures, or no? Eckius, one of their greatest 
Euchirid. come. locorum cap. 15.  Schoole-divines that ever was in the University of Ingolstad, maketh this free confession, that innocation of Saints is not expressly commanded in holy Writ: Explicitè sanctorum invocatio non est praecepta in sacris literis: Not in the old testament (saith he) because the people of themselves were prone to idolatry, and the Saints departed were then in Limbus, and not in heaven. In the new testament the Apostles wrote no such thing, left such doctrine should be a means to bring the Gentiles back again to idolatry as also because the Apostles their selves would not be thought so ambitious as to seek their own glory after their death. I desire them therefore with Christian sobriety to speak to these four points.  
First, the wisdom of the holy Ghost being such, that in the whole body of the Bible, such invocation was not so much as once named for fear of idolatry, how can it be denied but this invocation hath at the least some affinity with idolatry? or why should the Church of Rome either withstand, or go beyond the wisdom of God, to maintain & publish that in their human policy, which God in his divine wisdom thought fit to be suppressed and concealed? or why should not the peril of idolatry be as carefully shunned now as then it was?  
Secondly, forasmuch as the confession of Bellarmine is: Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria, 
De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10.  & quae ipsipalam omnibus vulgo praedicarunt, that all things which are necessary for the Church to know, or which the Apostles in their Sermons by word of mouth did publish & teach are written by the Apostles, but this invocation is not mentioned in their writings; and therefore was neither taught by them nor held necessary to salvation. Why doth the Church of Rome so vehemently maintain it? S. Paul saith: No man must 
Rom. 12. 3.  presume to understand above that which is meet to be understood, but that every man must, sapere adsobrietatem, understand with sobriety. And what it is plus sapere quam oportet, to understand above that which is meet, and not according to sobriety, he showeth in another place: supra id quod scriptum est sapere, when 
1. Cor. 4. 6.  any man shall presume beyond that which is written.  
Thirdly, if invocation of Saints were necessary for the easier obtaining of mercy at the hands of God, and the readier way to save men's souls; and yet the Apostles forbear to publish this doctrine, because they would not be thought ambitious, they were not faithful Stewards of the word, nor so careful of the Church of Christ as behoved men of that holy vocation for human respects neglecting their office. Furthermore, they did contrary to the rule of Saint Paul, in concealing the truth of religion, which was to do evil, that good might follow, which imputation 
Rom. 3. 8.  cannot without great impiety be laid upon such sanctified vessels. Nay which is more, how can it stand with that which Saint Paul testifieth of himself, where he saith: I have kept nothing back, but have showed you all the council of 
Act. 20. 27. & 35.  God. And again, I have showed you all things.  
Fourthly, in the same chapter Eckius having delivered that such invocation is nowhere expressed in the holy Scriptures; yet taketh upon him to produce many express places to prove the same; I would therefore be satisfied with what conscience he could allege those places to resist a known truth?  
But to come to Bellarmine, when Mathias was to be elected in the place of judas, the Apostles prayed after this manner: Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, 
Act. 2. 24.  show whether of these two thou hast chosen. In which words it is expressed that he which only is infinitely wise, hath reserved the knowledge of men's hearts to himself. But this is a ground or principle agreed upon between us both, that we may pray unto none, but only to him which knoweth the heart: He answereth: that not only God, but also the Saints departed are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, searchers and understanders of the secrets of men's hearts. I reply: That belongeth only to the Creator, which made the heart. For, saith Solomon, Hear thou in heaven 
1. Reg. 8. 39  in thy dwelling place, and be merciful, and do, and give every man according to all his ways, as thou knowest his heart, for thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men: He distinguisheth in this manner: Non tribuunt Catholici 
De sactorun beat lib. 1. cap. 16.  sanctis mortuis divinitatem, id est, vim cognoscendi mentium cogitationes. Cognoscunt quidem preces nostras, non ut sunt in mentibus nostris, sed ut sunt in Deo quem vident, & qui eas ipsis ostendit. The Catholics ascribe not to Saints departed any Deity, as if they had power in themselves to be discerners of men's thoughts. And yet they conceive our prayers, though not by any insight into us, or inspection into the inward and hidden man, but by vision in the Majesty of God, whom they do see, and who revealeth our prayers unto them. Against this answer I dispute in this manner out of his own book in another place: If Saints conceive our prayers in such sort, as is aforesaid, than it is by a general illumination 
De sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 20.  or vision, by which at their first entrance into the state of happiness, in the Majesty of God, they see all at once, or else successively by a special revelation from God, at such times and seasons only as prayers in particular are made unto them, he standeth in doubt what he should answer, whether it be by such a general illumination, or such especial revelation? by which of them it is, or whether it be by any of them, or not, he cannot tell. For he saith: Ex his duabus prior videtur simpliciter probabilior tamen posterior sententia est magis idonea ad convincendos hereticos: It is more probable it should be by vision, and yet it is a more safe defence against the heretics, to hold that it is by revelation: In which words you see what weak grounds he buildeth upon, which are only, probabilitas, & studium contradicendi, the first probility, or human conjecture: the second, a vain desire of contradiction, to withstand his adversaries in disputation; whether it be by truth or falsehood, right or wrong, by certainty or uncertainty, by hap or good cunning, he careth not. I reply therefore: If Saints hear us not, it is very idle to pray unto them, if it were possible that they could hear us: but if we cannot resolve ourselves that they do hear us, our prayers can neither be effectual, nor yet made with a good conscience. That they cannot be effectual, it is the doctrine of Saint james: Every thing which 
jam. 1. 6.  we ask must be asked in faith, and not with doubting, etc. That such prayers are made with an ill conscience, and are sin, it is the doctrine of Saint Paul: He that doubteth 
Rom. 14. 23.  is condemned, because he doth it not of faith: and whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. Let every man be fully persuaded in his mind. But we cannot be assured that they hear us, seeing there is no ground nor proof thereof in the holy Scriptures: neither can the classical Authors and and maintainers of that doctrine, yield any plain or firm reason to satisfy either us, or their own selves, how it may be so, that we should believe it, and subscribe unto it.  
He allegeth many arguments in defence of invocation of Saints, as mediators to pray for us, which arguments have been alleged long before his time by Eckius, and other Catholic Doctors. And they have been long since ansered by Peter Martyr, Calvin, Kemnitius, & other Protestant writers, before his book came forth. Now it was to be expected for the Catholic credit of Bellarmine, so great a Doctor, that he should not have produced these old arguments again whose answers were published in print so long since: for that is no cunning, but he should have been furnished with new stuff, or at the least, have replied upon the answers, (hic labour, hoc opus est) which he hath not done. The answers therefore being so sufficient, that he doth not reply upon them, as his proofs are but the same which were before, so it shall be sufficient to answer them as they were answered before, and so to satisfy old arguments with old answers.  
Saints (saith Bellarmine) do pray for the good estate of the whole Church in general, and for such men in particular as do pray unto them, and we ought to pray unto them, that they would particularly pray for us. And that I may speak to these three propositions, although I deny not the first, that Saints do pray for us in general: yet I will examine the validity of his arguments which he allegeth for proof thereof, to show how weak the grounds are which they build upon, and so I will in order descend to the rest, only to set down his arguments, and Kemnitius his answers to those arguments published in print long before, for the satisfaction of others by whom they were before objected, as followeth?  

That Saints departed do pray generally for the whole Church.  BEll. 
Hieremy 15. The Lord said to me, though Moses 
De sanct. be at. lib. 1. cap. 18.  and Samuel should stand before me, yet my affection could not be towards this people. Therefore Moses and Samuel being dead, both then could, and usually at other times did, pray for the people, alioqui inepta esset Dei locutio; otherwise God had spoken these words impertinently, as if a man had said: If my Ox pray for thee, he shall not prevail, meaning that Oxen cannot pray.  Kemnitius. 
We deny not but Saints departed do pray 
Exam. decret. Trid. pars 3.  for the whole Church, but it cannot be proved by this text. First, a conditional proposition proveth nothing unless the condition were performed, but Moses and Samuel did not then stand before God; therefore they made no intercession for the people. Secondly, by the confession of the Church of Rome they were then in Limbus, as all other Saints departed, until the death of our Saviour Christ; therefore they could make no intercession. Thirdly, the idolatry of the people was so odious in the sight of God, that if Moses and Samuel had been alive to make intercession for the people, as in their life time they did, yet God would not hear them. Fourthly, this supposition was made of Moses and Samuel being alive, and not after their death. To which I add my own answer, this argument is a fallacy called the ignorance of the Elenche.  Bellarm. 
2. Maccab. 15. judas in a vision saw Onias the Priest, and jeremy the Prophet, pray for the people, but that book of Maccabes is held for Canonical. Concil. 3. Carthag. cap. 47.  Kemnitius. 
First, that is but a dream, and not a story, & is related to animate the Soldiers to fight valiantly. Secondly, notwithstanding the relation of this dream, neither judas Maccabeus, nor yet his army, did invocate Onias, or jeremy, but only God. Thirdly, that book is understood to be Canonical for examples of life, but not for 'points of doctrine; and therefore maketh not for this purpose.  Bellarm. 
Apoc. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell down before the throne, having their phials full of odours, which were the prayers of Saints.  Kemnitius. 
These prayers as they were their own, and not of other men which were made unto them; so they were only a thanksgiving to God for their own redemption, & for the redemption of the whole Church, but no intercession.  Bellarm. 
2. Pet. 1. 15. I will endeavour therefore always, that ye may be able to have remembrance of these things after my departure.  Kemnitius. 
Saint Peter did this endeavour, by his epistle while he lived, not by his prayers after he was dead.  Bellarm. 
Luk. 16. The glutton in hell prayed for his kindred, much more do the just in heaven pray for the whole Church.  Kemnit. 
First, we must not forsake the Scriptures to receive instruction from them which are damned in hell, which being forsaken of God, seek for comfort any where rather than at the hands of God. Secondly, this is but a parable, and not a story. Thirdly, if it were a story, yet this prayer is not heard. Fourthly, he saw Abram whom he prayed unto, and received answer from him: what is this to Saints departed, whom we see not, neither hear them make any answer? Fifthly, the glutton remembered in what state he left his kindsfolks when he departed; but they might have repent after his departure, for any thing that he knew. This proveth not that the dead know the state of them which are alive, neither yet that they pray for the Church in general.   

That Saints departed do pray for particular men which pray to them.  BEllarm. 
The Saints do not only pray forus, but also take 
De sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 18.  charge over men, and whole Countries and Provinces, as the Angels do. Concerning the Angels we have proof Toby. 12. Zach. 1. Apoc. 8. Dan. 10. Psal. 19 Matth. 18. And much more the Saints departed, which are as the Angels, Luk. 20. and have a prerogative above Angels, because they are members of the body of Christ, and are nearer unto us, and better able to have a feeling of men's infirmities, being men themselves.  Kemnit. 
The book of Toby is not Canonical to prove 
Exam. decret. Trid. pars 3.  any point of faith, but only for examples of good life. That Angel in Zachary is our Saviour Christ, which maketh intercession for his Church, and his prayer is his own, which is there mentioned, and not the prayer of the Church. The Angel in the apocalypse, which offereth the prayers of the Saints, is expressed Heb. 9 to be our Saviour Christ, the mediator of the new Testament: which maketh his appearance in our behalf, Heb. 13. through him we offer our sacrifices of prayers to God. Again, to the Angels God revealeth so much concerning the affairs of men on earth, as appertaineth to the ministry of those Angels, and they have the charge of men committed unto them. But it cannot be proved that the like charge is committed to Saints departed; neither can the argument follow which is drawn from Angels to men. That Saints departed are like the Angels in heaven, is meant there only concerning single life, that they marry not, as it appeareth by the text. And this is not only the exposition of Kemnitius; but also of the English Seminaries themselves, in their notes upon the same place, printed at Rheims. And whereas Bellarmine allegeth for proof, that Saints departed have the regiment of whole Provinces, because it is written, Apoc. 2. He that over cometh, shall have power over nations: It is to be understood of the discipline and doctrine of the Church in this life; whereby nations shall be converted, but not of any government of theirs after they be deceased.  Bellarm. 
The Fathers make for us.  Kemnit. 
The Fathers were falsified by the Papists. See Kemnitius at large, how he satisfieth the objections out of the Fathers.  Bellarm. 
It is also proved by many apparitions of Saints, which appearing to men in dreams, have testified that particularly they did pray for us.  Kemnit. 
This can be no proof without testimony out of the word of God. For Moses saith: Deut. 13. 5. Thou shalt not hearken to the words of the Prophet, or unto the dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, etc. Heb. 1. In times past God spoke many ways to our Fathers by the Prophets, but in these last days he hath spoken to us by his Son. And post illam postremam patefactionem non est expectanda revelatio alterius novi dogmatis: After God hath delivered his will unto us this last time by his Son, we must not look for any latter revelation by which any new doctrine should be revealed unto us.   

That Saints are to be invocated.  BEllarm. 
job. 5. 1. Call now if any will answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? 
De sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 19   Kemnit. 
The meaning is not that job in his calamity should fly to the Saints for succour, but that instance could not be given in any Saint whom ever God punished, without just cause.  Bellarm. 
job. 33. 23. If there be an Angel with him, one of a thousand, to declare unto man his righteousness, then will he have mercy upon him, and say: Deliver him that he go not down into the pit, for I have received a reconciliation.  Kemnit. 
If there be present a minister of God's word, (for ministers are called Angels) and out of the word of God he shall show unto man what is right and just, and so the ministry of the word shall be applied for comfort to the terrified and distressed conscience, God will work by this ministry repentance unto salvation.  Bellarm. 
Exod. 32. 13. Moses prayeth for the people in these words: Lord remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, etc. In which is to be noted: that when Moses thought not himself sufficient to pacify the wrath of God, he was glad to fly to the help of the patriarchs, which patriarchs, because then being in Limbus, did not ordinarily understand or conceive the prayers of the living: therefore it was not the custom in the old Testament, to say: O holy Abram pray for me; but only in those days men prayed unto God: but in their prayers, they alleged the merits of Saints departed, that by the merits of those Saints their prayers might more easily be heard. So David. Psalm. 131. Lord remember David with all his troubles. And many other places are parallel unto these.  Kemnit. 
In the prayers which are recited in the old Testament, oftentimes the good works of the patriarchs and Saints are mentioned, to show, that they which so prayed, relied upon the promises and covenants, which God made with the patriarchs and Saints departed, while they lived. That they fly not unto them for help it is plain by their doctrine which they profess. Esay. 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of us, Israel knoweth us not; yet thou, o Lord, art our Father. Neither do they mention the works of the patriarchs in this sense, as if they should say: Hear us, o Lord, for their sakes, because they have deserved it at thy hands; but hear us Lord for thy promise which thou didst make, for thy oaths sake, which thou didst swear unto them, when they believed thee, obeyed thee, and did those works.  Bellarm. 
In the Scriptures, as 1. King. chap. 7. Rom. 15. etc. They do pray to the lining Saints, that they would pray for them. Much more than is it lawful to invocate the dead Saints, whose souls do reign with jesus Christ. If it be not lawful, then, either because they will not, or because they cannot hear us, or because they understand us not, or else because it is derogatory to God, or to our Saviour Christ. But it cannot be said that they will not, because being in heaven their charity is greater than when they were on earth: neither that they cannot, because, if they could being strangers and pilgrims upon earth, much more can they in heaven, which is their native country; neither that they understand not, forasmuch as the Angels, Luk. 15. understand when a sinner is converted, but the Saints are like to the Angels, as before it was proved; neither that it is a dishonour unto God, or to our Saviour Christ, for than had it been a dishonour to them to invocate the Saints living.  Kemnit. 
An argument cannot be drawn from those things which are done upon earth, to prove what is done in heaven, without some testimony of the Scriptures. For the eye hath not seen, nor the care hath not heard, neither can the heart of man conceive the things which are in heaven, further than by the Scriptures they are revealed. Secondly, if any man should desire them which are living to pray for him in that manner as the Papists pray to dead Saints; that by their intercession & merits they may be heard, the prayers unto the living, were also derogatory to the Priesthood of jesus Christ. To the other parts contained in that division, is answered before.    

An Answer to the Book entitled, PROTESTANT PROOFS OF CATHOLIC RELIGION.  
IT pleased God I published a short Treatise of persuasion to the ignorant Recusants, to reconcile themselves to our Church. I might happily have persuaded them, at the least, to be half Converts, as Saint Paul did King Agrippa 
Act. 26. 28. Mat. 13. Mat. 10. 13.  to be half a Christian, had they not been as a plot of ground unapt to receive good seed; and like those houses, with whom for their unworthiness the peace of the Apostles could not abide. The points which especially I urged, were proved out of Bellarmine, their own Doctor, and in the places by me produced, I falfified nothing; but dealt sincerely, let the learned disprove me, if they can. If they examine my arguments according to the laws of Schools, they shall find nothing false that may justly be denied; nothing equivocal, that needeth distinction: so that they must either answer me with silence, or else, if they deal ingeniously, say with the enchanters: Digitus 
Exod. 8 19 Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 7. & 10.  Dei est, It is the finger of God, and make as open a confession of eviction, as julian the Apostata did, when he cried out: Vicisti Galilaee, Thou hast gotten the victory thou Galilean: yet have I been contradicted, but how justly, let the learned reader judge. An author without a name, printed a book at Paris, Anno 1607. with this Title: The first part of Protestant proofs for Catholic Religion and Recusancy, taken only from the writings of such Protestant Doctors as have been published since the reign of his Majesty. Which book is nothing else but an undigested Chaos, or Miscellanea of half sentences rudely consarcinated together, a confused heap of places, some merely devised by himself, and not to be found in these Protestant Doctors; some wrested and falsely applied; some truly alleged; but impertinent to the argument he taketh in hand: all of them being praemisses without conclusions, to make an idle show of proof where nothing is proved; and of a confutation where nothing is confuted. These proofs he saith, he collected out of the books of the reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, Doctor Suckliffe, Doctor Field, Doctor Downam, Doctor Morton,, Mr. Egerton, and myself, among many others, in defence of his Recusancy, and Romish religion. But he hath not undertaken to answer any of our books; neither can any judicious man hold such recital of our words, to be a confutation of our works. Of these learned Writers, and reverend men, I say with the parents of the blind man: Aetatem habent, they are sufficient 
joh. 9 21.  to answer for themselves; and therefore I undertake nothing in their behalf, only for Apology of mine own self, I may truly say: Because it is as impossible for him to make a just reply against me, as it was for the Centurion to deny the power of God in our Saviour Christ, when being 
Mat. 27. 54.  convicted by evident demonstration, he said: Verè filius Deiest, In truth he was the son of God: Therefore he hath with Elimas' perverted the strait ways of the Lord, and 
Acts 13. 10.  withstood the truth by indirect and sinister means, as jamnes and jambres resisted Moses; For I pressed them by way 
Exod. 7. 11. 13.  of sound reason, and strong argument, he hath dealt by Elenches and Sophisms, as the Apostle speaketh: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deceiving them by paralogisms. 
jam 1. 22.   
First, he hath these words. The greatest number of Protestant writers, Doctor Succliffe, Doctor Dove, etc. do teach there is no matter of faith, no material or substantial point or difference in religion between Protestants & Puritants, but they are of one Church, faith, and religion. But we doubt whether they will stand to their positions they writ, in Queen Elizabeth days, seeing they defend they may often change (at the least at the change of every Prince. Dove persuasion Pag. 31. Wherein let the reader judge whether he hath dealt with me ingenuously or no? For I spoke only of the manner of compiling our Service book, he chargeth me as if I had spoken of faith, material and substantial points of religion. I spoke of fact, what we did concerning our Service book, and they concerning their Breaviry, which have changed 
See the preface of Pope Pius 5. in Breviarum Rom. ex decreto Synodus Trid. restitutum.  as often as we, he speaketh of right, as if I had said, we not only then might, upon such good considerations, as then justly moved us, but also may ever hereafter, when there is no such just cause to induce us thereunto, change and alter our faith and grounds of religion. My words were antagonistical, and by way of objection from them, with answer to their objection, he doth make relation of them, as if they were dogmatical, and as a grounded conclusion maintained among us. Therefore I charge him with two fallacies. The first is, Fallacia accentus. For when words spoken interogatively are repeated indicatively, or words spoken ironically, as if they were spoken plainly, or by way of objection, as if they were dogmatical, and all such like are referred to that fallacy. Secondly, he citeth part of my words, which are the objection: and leaveth out the other part, which are the answer, which is comprehended under the Elenche, called Fallacia divisionis, of which one species is: Quando citatur imperfecta sententia, non integra, when part of the words are recited which the Sophister thinketh may serve his turn, the other part is omitted, lest the whole sentence should make against him.  
Secondly, he writeth thus: The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, the Sacraments duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all things that are of necessity required to the same, Covel, Field, Dove, be of the same mind, Perswas. page. 23. I confess, I am of the same mind, not only in thesi, but also in hypothesi: that our Church is such a congregation, that God's word is truly preached, and the Sacraments duly administered among us, according to Christ his institution. But this is not with Samson, to fetch meat out of the eater. 
judg. 14. 14.  Our words make for ourselves, but yield no advantage to our adversaries, among whom neither God's word is truly preached, nor the Sacraments duly administered. Therefore they are idly produced by him, to delude the reader in making a show of proof for their religion, and of confutation for ours, when there is no MEDIUS TERMINUS, whereby any thing should be proved or confuted. And if he apply it by hypothesis to the Church of Rome, that it is such a visible congregation, etc. and that therefore Recusants may safely continue in it, and refuse to communicate with us, we were never of that mind, neither can that be any Protestant proof. But it is a Petitio principij, begging of the question, which he taketh as granted when it is denied.  
Thirdly, thus: M. Williats' words. To errors of doctrine which are not fundamental, even the true Church of Christ is subject. So Field ordinarily in his books of the Church: so Sutcliffe, Dove Perswa. pag. 31. 32. But what doth he conclude out of these words? That therefore Recusants may wilfully maintain the errors of the Church of Rome, rather than be reconciled to our Church, which is purged from such errors? These words are no Protestant proof of Catholic religion: Hoc est ludere, non argumentari, this is to play the wanton, not the Logician.  
Fourthly, he chargeth me in this manner: Concerning doctrine. Doctor Dove writeth in these terms: In fundamental points of doctrine, the greatest Papists in the world agree with us. Perswas. page. 11. These are my words; I deny them not. Moreover, I did instance in these fundamental points, wherein they consent with us, and thereupon I inferred, that they did rashly condemn us for heretics, what then followeth? will he therefore infer, that either holding the fundamental points therefore their superstitions and errors may safely be maintained? or that therefore they may be justly excused for not communicating with us, as if their consenting with us in fundamental points, should be a cause why they should the rather abhor our Church & religion? It is a sufficient prejudice to the cause of their religion, that they dispute in such loose manner. Again, he saith: So Doctor Dove in his whole Treatise never chargeth the Church of Rome, either with schism or heresy, but laboureth to excuse themselves, offering that we shall communicate with them, without any change of opinion; and yet he setteth downs this for an infallible position: THIS PROPOSITION IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE: NO HERETIC, OR SCHISMATIC IS TO BE COMMUNICATED WITHAL. Perswas. pag. 5. In that I have not charged them with schism or heresy, I have showed that we are more charitable to them, than they are to us, which do charge us with both. In that he saith: I only laboured to excuse ourselves, as if I had proved nothing to clear us from that injust aspersion, I refer him to the place itself, where I have made due proof that we are free from both heresy and schism, by such sound reasons as this Author cannot answer. But whereas he saith it is offered on my part, that they shall at their pleasure communicate with us without change of opinion, he burdeneth me with an untruth by himself devised, and not to be quoted out of any of my books. In so writing, he may fill up a volume, but he shall never strengthen his own cause, of weaken ours. Moreover (saith he) he giveth us security that by no possibility (according to the former reason of general Counsels) the Roman Church can be judged heretical. His words be these, pag. 14. No Church can be condemned and judged heretical by any private censure, but it must be public, by a general Council, as he there expoundeth himself, and is granted before. But what doth he conclude out of this? That because the Church of Rome is not condemned by a general Council to be heretical; it must needs be therefore orthodoxal? This is such a consequent as neither Protestants, nor any other of sound judgement will grant.  
Fifthly, he chargeth me thus: Touching Sacraments, he allegeth pag. 27. 28. that according to our definition of a Sacrament, there are as many as we teach; and this shall not breed any jar between us; that therefore we should refuse to communicate together. And transubstantiation itself shall be no bar: but if we will receive at their hands, they will not examine how we expound these words: Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. pag. 29. And of discipline he writeth: In that Council of Trent they set forth such wholesome Canons concerning discipline, as were fit for a reformed Church. I deny not these words, but I deny that they make any thing for the defence of Recusancy. Concerning the word Sacrament, as it is a name devised by man, but not found in the Scriptures: so it is not any matter of salvation to vary about the number of Sacraments; especially among them with whom it is not agreed what a Sacrament is: For, where words are not understood, ad idem, secundem idem, etc. nothing hindereth, but contrary, or contradictory propositions may be both true, as to say: There are seven, and there are not seven Sacraments: For so concerning the number of Sacraments they and we differ in words when we may easily agree in substance. The word Sacrament is strictly taken with us, and so according to M. Calvin his definition; it is an outward sign ordained of God to be continued in his Church, as a part of his divine Service, offering to all men, but sealing only to the faithful his inward grace, for the strengthening of their saith, & the applying of Christ his death unto them. And so there can be but two, according to the confession of Saint Augustine: A resurrectione Domini quaedam pauca 
De doct. Christi lib. 3 cap. 9  signapro multis, eademque factu facillima, intellectu augustissinta observatione castissima ipse Dominus & Apostolica tradidit disciplina, baptismum & coenam Domini: Since the Lord his resurrection, our Saviour his self, and from him his Apostles, have commended to us for outward signs, or seals, a very few in steed of many, and those for performance most easy, for signification most ample, for observation most pure and holy, and they are Baptism, and the Lords Supper. But this word Sacrament is more largely taken in the Church of Rome for a sign in general, although it do not apply unto us, and represent before our eyes the death of jesus Christ. And it is defined to be Signum rei sacra an outward sign of any holy thing. And according to that definition, there may be not 
Cathechis. Romannus pars 2. de. sacram. sect. 3.  only 7. but also 70. Sacraments. Of transubstantion, having first proved that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist cannot be transubstantiated; and yet not denying them to be the body and blood of our Saviour, because he hath said they are so, I said: in that we both agree, only the difference between us, is, how the words: This is my body, are to be understood? whether really or sacramentally, properly or mystically? And that it should be no bar or scruple to their consciences in what sense we understand it, so as we deliver it to them according to the institution of our Saviour Christ: and that if they will in all other things submit themselves to the laws of our Church, we will not press them so far in examining them how they expound the words, but rather yield so much to their weakness in this one point, until God shall reveal a further measure of the knowledge of his truth unto them. So these words of mine import nothing in favour of transubstantiation. Thirdly, the Council of Trent hath set down wholesome Canons concerning discipline, as in part the 3. Lataran Council did long before; as namely, for preaching, and 
Concil. La. tar. 3. Can. 13. & Con. cil. 4. Later. Can. 29.  learned ministers, etc. And the reformed Churches of England, Scotland, Germany, netherlands, Geneva, have received many of those Canons, although they come from the Pope, as deeming them fit for a reformed Church. But these my words make nothing for the allowance of that Council itself, or of the points of doctrine there concluded; neither yet of their Recusancy, among whom for the most part, these Canons of discipline are not received.  
Sixthly, Concerning the Pope's supremacy, of Europe there can be no question. For, generally Protestant's agree with Field, Dove, Ormerod, that the regiment of the West Churches (among which this nation is one) belonged to the Pope of Rome. Page. 29. 30. I spoke of the Pope's supremacy, and my words are these: What authority soever the Pope had over the Latin Church, or West part of the world, it hath been given him by human constitutions only, and general consent of Princes and States, which they suffered him to enjoy during their good liking, and no longer. And having thus showed that the Pope's authority over other Churches, was not by divine institution, but only by human permission; not certain, but during the pleasure of Princes and States: my words favour not his supremacy over us in England, out of which by consent of Prince and Parliament, he hath been abandoned long since. And therefore, I say, the Bishop of Rome is little beholding to me for his title of supremacy: This is a very loose and negligent kind of disputation.  
Seventhly, saith he, Dove Persw. pag. 15. referreth the question what books be Canonical Scriptures to the two Doctors, S. Augustine and S. Hierom. His words be these: Catholics prove them to be Canonical out of S. Augustine: we, that they be apocrypha, out of S. Hierome; both which Doctors: are of no small authority in the Church of Rome: therefore in this we differ no more from them, than S. Hierome did from S. Augustine. Therefore I hope for many causes Protestants will give place to us in this question. I deny not, but the question being propounded concerning the books of Toby, judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, the Maccabes, and the fragment of Esther, whether they were Canonical, (as the Church of Rome doth hold) or apocrypha, as our Church maintaineth? I answered: that forasmuch as there is Canon fidei, & morum, One Canon or rule of good life, another of faith: and that may be Canon morum, quodnon est fidei, Arule and pattern of good life for us to follow, which is not a sufficient ground of doctrine to build our faith upon: they were both Canonical, and apocrypha: Canonical, according to Saint Augustins, for rules of good life: apocrypha, according to S. Hierome; because they were no true grounds of doctrine. And so the Church of Rome and ourselves, rightly understanding one another, as Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine understood themselves, there needed not be any difference concerning this point between us. But how can he infer upon this: that therefore we must give place to him in this question? As Saint Hierome gave no place to Saint Augustine, so will we give no place to any; only I wish they would better understand both us and themselves, and give place to the truth. And, forasmuch as they allow both of Saint Hierome, and Saint Augustine, to be Orthodoxal Doctors, they cannot receive S. Augustine his opinion, but they must also embrace S. Hieroms exposition, where it is explained what is the meaning of S. Augustine, where he alloweth those books to be Canonical.  
Eighthly, saith he, Concerning the vulgar Latin translation allowed among Catholics, D. Dove writeth thus, pag. 16. We grant it fit, that for uniformity, in quotation of places in Schools, and Pulpits, one Latin text should be used, and we can be contented for the antiquity thereof, to prefer the old vulgar translation, before all other Latin books; and so much we yield to the Council of Trent. The praemisses are mine, but what is his conclusion? Because we ascribe to the vulgar edition, more than to all other Latin translations; and therein agree with the Church of Rome: and because we yield to the Council of Trent so far as reason doth require, and no further; but disagree both from the Church of Rome, and that Council in things which are erroneous: Concedendo vera, negando falsa, will he therefore take this for a Protestant proof of his Catholic religion? Non taliauxilio, nec defensoribus istis Roma caret: If the Church of Rome had no better champions, it would not stand.  
Ninthly, Doctor Covel writeth: No translation whatsoever is authentical Scripture. And Doctor Dove addeth: All translations have many faults. page. 16. In so writing, I write the truth. For only God is free from error; and therefore only the original text is authentical Scripture. All men are subject to errors, Omnis homo mendax, but all translations are the works of men. But how idly is this brought in as a Protestant proof of Recusancy? well may it serve against Recusants, which ascribe more to the translation than to the original. If no translation be authentical, than it followeth as a firm consequent, that the vulgar Latin edition cannot be authentical, howsoever the Council of Trent hath imposed it upon us as authentical.  
Tenthly, For this time and place (saith he) I will only make amplification of Doctor Dove, his grant & confession, which followeth in these words: When the Mass was first put down, King Henry had his English litourgie, and that was then judged absolute without all exception. But when King Edward came to the Crown, that was condemned, and another was in the place; which Peter Martyr, and Bucet did approve as very consonant to God's word. When Q. Elizabeth began her reign, the former was judged to be full of imperfections, and a new was devised, & allowed by consent of the Clergy. But about the middle of her reign, we grew weary of that book, & great means have been wrought to abandon it, & establish another, which although it was not obtained; yet we do at the least, at every change of Prince, change our book of Common prayer, we be so want on we know not what we would have. Pag. 31. Hitherto his words, and he freely confessed errors in all these states and changes. For defence whereof, beside that these words are written by way of objection from them, rather than any confession made by ourselves: I did not so much as intimate that there were errors in all these states and changes, as he unjustly chargeth me; but only that in the Service books of King Henry, and King Edward, some things were judged to savour of the superstitions of the Church of Rome. But as for the Service book which was allowed by Queen Elizabeth, it stood not only during her time without alteration, but also it is ratified by his Majesty, and allowed of by the State; albeit by some particularmen it hath been impugned, as nothing else can be by the wit of man so well devised, but man's wit can dispute against it. And as for those errors which were reform in the books of K. Henry, and King Edward, they were the superstitions only of the Church of Rome, the land being not then sufficiently reform, nor purity of religion so perfectly established, as now it is, because the Bishops & Clergy men by whom those books were written, their selves were too much so wred with the Romish leaven. And our daily renouncing those superstitions, and receiving greater light of the Gospel, could be no Protestant proof that we should any way favour their superstitions.  
eleventhly, he writeth thus: Why may we not say with the Council of Florence, cited by M. Williat for General, and the patriarchs of the Apostolic seas there present, and the Council of Constance, not of unequal authority, & the Council of Trent (to pass others) with 6. Cardinals, 4. Legates, 3. patriarchs, 32. Archbishops, 228. Bishops, and 5. Abbot's there assembled, (as Doctor Dove telleth us) that Protestancy in all places is false, and Catholic religion true; where no Protestant Church can show any one such like authority for their cause? The third part of such an assembly would have been a great countenance to Protestant religion, far greater than ever it had, or is likely to procure. To which I answer: First, concerning the Council of Florence, in all those 25. Sessions which in it were: held, 15. of them being at Ferraria, where the Council began, and the other at Florence, where the Council was concluded, there is scarce any one point of religion touched, of which there is any controversy between Protestants and Recusants; only while it was at Ferraria, before the acts of the first Session, the question of Purgatory was superficially disputed. Therefore that Council was far from condemning Protestancy, or approving Catholic religion. Secondly, of the Council of Constance, which he will have to be of no less authority: Bellarmine his self denieth it to have any authority at all, or credit of a general 
De Concil. l. 1. cap. 7.  Council, alleging that it is in the Catalogue of those 15. Synods which the Catholic Church hath not received. It seemeth therefoe that this Author was not well acquainted with the general Counsels. Thirdly, as I confessed such a number of Prelates to be present at the Council of Trent, so I alleged reasons why it could not be a lawful council; which he is so far from answering, that he passeth them over with silence. As also he spareth to repeat the residue of my words, which make against him, according to his accustomed fallacy, wherein I derogated from the credit of this assembly, showing that they were there only at the end of the Council, being then newly created by the Pope to countenace the Synod, and so to subscribe to all conclusions for form sake. But at the beginning, when matters were argued, there were but forty Bishops, and four Legates, too small an assembly to deserve the name of a general Council. Albeit, it is not a bare multitude of suffrages, and presence of Bishops, that can give countenance to a general Council. For the whole multitude of Priests and others cried against our Saviour Christ: Crucify him. The Kings stood up, and the Princes took council together against the Lord, and his anointed. 
Mat. 26. 50 Psal. 2. 2.   
So then, if he argue from the Council of Florence, to condemn our religion, I deny his antecedent. If from the Council of Constance, I deny his argument: If from the Council of Trent, it is but a Fallacy, Petitio principij; because he taketh that for a proof, which is the matter in dispute.   

THE ANSWER TO A TREATISE ENTITLED: A SEARCH MADE INto matters of Religion: By FRANCIS WALSINGHAM, Deacon of the Protestants Church, before his change to the Catholic. Dedicated to the King's Majesty.  
Against Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Beza, jewel, Williat, Dove, Rogers, and other Protestants.  JEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the works of the Lord negligently. 
LONDON, Printed for SIMON WATERSON, dwelling in Paul's Churchyard, at the sign of the Crown. 1610.   

THE ANSWER TO A TREATISE ENTITLED: A Search made into matters of Religion, by FRANCIS WALSINGHAM, Deacon of the Protestants Church, before his change to the Catholic, dedicated to the King's Majesty: Against Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Beza, jewel, Williat, Dove, Rogers, and other Protestants.  
IN my persuasion to the Recusants to reconcile themselves to our Church, I used these words: The ignorant Recusant pretendeth his conscience, saying: It is against my conscience to come to Church; and, whatsoever I do against my conscience, is sin. I confess, whatsoever is done without testimony or warrant of conscience, is sin to them that do it, be that which is done in itself never so lawful; because the Apostle saith: He that doubteth, is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is 
Rom. 14.  not of faith, is sin. In which words, by faith, is understood conscience. But by the way, they must see that their conscience be rightly informed, else it will be their damnation. Out of which words, M. Walsingham maketh this collection: That I seemed to him, substantially to justify out of these words of S. Paul, the Recusancy of Catholics, if they can prove they have a good ground, or motive of conscience. It is true, one absurdity being granted, many others will follow. Therefore to this hypothetical proposition, I answer, by granting the Mayor, and denying the Minor. For they cannot prove they have any such good ground or motive of conscience; therefore their Reculancy is not justified out of these words. It is but Petitio principij, a begging of the question. Again, he saith: If their conscience were erroneous, and grounded upon false grounds, and principles: yet, so long as that persuasion endureth, it seemeth they may not be forced. The insufficiency of which argument I will lay open by the like. He that hath not examined himself, may not come to the Lords table, lest he eat and drink unworthily; and so 
1. Cor. 11. 28. 29.  eat and drink his own damnation, not discerning the Lords body. Shall this want of examination of a man's self, be therefore a warrant to any man to live like an infidel? never to examine himself? and so never to come to the Lords table? and so to be exempted from the authority, and coactive power of the Church? He must be forced to examine himself, and communicate: So the Recusant, whose conscience is erroneous, and founded upon false principles, must be forced to renounce his errors, to build his religion, upon sounder principles, to receive instruction, and inform his conscience better, and so to come to the Church.  
He taketh upon him to disprove my definition of conscience, which is, that it is an application of a general knowledge, grounded upon God's word to particular actions and intents. He saith: This definition is defective, being not so large as the thing that is defined; because the heathens which know not God's word, yet have a conscience grounded only upon the law of nature. I answer, that if conscience be by him 
Rom. 2. 14.  univocally understood, (as all things ought to be which are defined) my definition cannot be disproved. But when he instanceth in the consciences of heathen men, he flieth to equivocation, whereas an equivocal thing cannot be defined. In like manner, if I should define religion to be a rule of faith and life, grounded upon God's word, he might take the same exception against it, and say, that the religion of the Turks is grounded upon the Koran; the religion of the jews is grounded partly upon the Talmod: the religion of the Catholics partly upon the Traditions of men. If I define a man to be animal rationale, a body endued with a reasonable soul, he may likewise say that definition agreeth not with a painted man, or the picture of a man. As speaking of religion, I define not false religion; but the true Christian religion: and speaking of a man, I define not an equivocal, or analogical, but an univocal man: So I define not a dark and erroneous, but a sound, and true understanding conscience. As for the heathens, they have yet left some relics of the image of God, which are reason & understanding. Therefore the Apostle saith: The Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, having not the law, they are a law to themselves, which show the effects of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing one another, or excusing: that is, the Gentiles have not the law absolutely, and in such perfect manner as the jews, to whom God delivered every precept of the law expressly by writing; yet they have, will they, nill they, written in their hearts some feeling of religion, and are able to put a difference between virtue and vice; which sufficeth only to their damnation. They do by nature, ea quae legis sunt, the things contained in the law: that is, they command things which are honest, forbid the things which are unjust, set down punishments for theft, adultery, and such like offences. But by the way: Aliud est facere quod lex jubet, aliud facere quod lex facit, aut ea quae legis sunt facere. It is one thing to do what the law commandeth, (for that they do not, that were to keep the law) another thing to do the things contained in the law, or to do as the law doth: that is, only to command the things which the law commandeth, and to forbid what the law forbiddeth; which only the Gentiles do. Neither do they that fully, but only in some part, concerning outward things; but are far from the knowledge of true piety to save their souls. So then, the conscience of the Gentiles being sufficiently instructed without God's word, by the light of nature, only to their condemnation, what doth that concern my purpose which define a conscience rightly informed, and sufficiently grounded to salvation?  
He goeth about to disprove my definition of heresy, which I defined to be: an error stiffly and obstinately maintained and defended; not by a consequent, but directly impugning some article of faith. Which definition he saith is also defective, because it is not so large as the thing which is defined. His words are these: For if we look into all the heresies recorded by Ireneus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Saint Augustine, etc. we shall not find the lest part directly, and expressly, against any article of the Apostles Creed, which M. D. Dove a little after doth say he meaneth, as of the Pelagians, which holdeth that a man may do good works by the power of his own free will without grace, the Aetians, that faith was sufficient without good works to life everlasting, and that Christ had revealed more to them, then to the Apostles, the Aerians that denied prayer, and sacrifices for the dead, and set fasts of the Church. Neither can D. Dove prove that his own example of the Arian heresy by him alleged, did directly impugn any article of the Creed, but by a consequent. For Arius denied the equality of the Son with the Father, and by a consequent his Godhead, and so by a consequent the second article of the Creed: jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.  
First, I answer, he hath not dealt ingenuously with me. For I did not in my definition of heresy restrain Faith only to the Creed of the Apostles, as the place itself will plainly show; for I did mention not only that Creed, but also the Creed of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, 
Perswas. pag. 13.  which I said we hold, and also the text of the Bible, to free us from heresy.  
Secondly, the Pelagian holding that a man could do good works by the power of his own free will without grace: directly impugneth faith, even the text of the Bible, where it is written: We are not sufficient of ourselves to think 
2. Cor. 3. 5  any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. O Lord I 
jer. 10. 23.  know that the way of man is not in himself; neither is it in man to walk and direct his steps. All the imaginations of the 
Gen. 5. 1. Cor. 2. 14. Col. 2. 13. 1. Cor. 12. 3. jam. 2. 14.  thoughts of man's heart are only evil continually. The natural man perceiveth not the things that are of God. We are dead in sins. No man can say that jesus is the Lord, but by the Spirit of God. The Aëtian saying: Faith without good works is sufficient to eternal life, directly, denieth the doctrine of the Bible: What availeth it my brethren, though a man say he hath faith when he hath no works? can the faith save him? If faith have no works it is dead. Whereas the Aetian holdeth that Christ hath revealed more to him then to the Apostles, it is expressly, and directly against the Scriptures, where S. Paul saith: I have kept nothing back, but have showed you 
Act. 20. 27.  all the counsel of God. That the Arians denied the Godhead of Christ, not by a consequent only, but directly, witness S. Augustine, and Epiphanius. For S. Augustine saith that 
Ad quod vult. cap. 49. Contra ha● rese l. 2, 1. 2.  they held: Filium esse creaturam, That the Son of God was a creature. And Epiphanius: Non veritus est ipse ac discipuli eius creaturam vocare eum qui omnia creavit, verbum ex patre sine tempore, & sine principio genitum, Both he and his disciples feared not to call him a creature which created all things, even the word which was begotten of his Father, without time, and without beginning. As for Aerius he could not be an heretic for denying prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and set fasts of the Church; For as much as prayer and sacrifice for the dead are contrary to sound doctrine, and fasts are a matter of indifferency, and not of faith. That he was condemned for an heretic, it was not so much for these opinions, as for that first being a Schismatic, because he could not obtain a Bishopric he became an Arian, as it appeareth by S. Augustine, his words are these: Doluisse fertur quod Episcopus non potuit ordinari, & in Arianorum haeresim lapsus propria quoque dogmata addidisse dicens: orare pro 
Aug. de haeres. cap. 35.  mortuis, vel oblationem offer, non oportere, etc. He was discontented because he could not obtain a Bishopric; and thereupon he fell into the heresy of the Arians, to which he added some opinions of his own, saying: it was not lawful to pray, or offer sacrifice for the dead, etc. These positions of his, S. Augustine doth not call heresies, but only opinions. Likewise Epiphanius. Therefore adhuc saluares est, my definition of 
Epiph. contra haeres. l. 3. tom. 1. haeresi 75.  heresy remaineth sound, and not to be by him gainsaid. But by the way, that I may give good satisfaction to the reader concerning this point. We find in the catalogue of heresies many reckoned up, which are so far from directly impugning faith, that indeed they do not at all impugn the faith, as that of Aerius, which denied prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and the set fasts of the Church. To which I answer out of S. Augustine. First, these Fathers which make such long catalogues of heresies, do not write as if they in their own judgements did hold all these to be heresies; but only they deliver what opinions in several ages have been condemned as heretical, leaving it to the private judgement of the reader, whether they were justly condemned as heretical, or not: but their selves deliver not what is their own judgement. For saith he: Quid faciat haereticum, regulari quâdam definitione comprehendi, sicut 
Prafat. ad Quod vult.  ego existimo, aut omninò non potest, aut difficillimè potest: To deliver by a lawful definition what thing maketh an heretic, in my opinion it is impossible, or at least, of great difficulty. Again, 
Epist. ad Quod vult.  that in the catalogue of heresies the Fathers do not agree concerning the number of them, but some reckon up more, some fewer, he saith: Quod utique non evenisset, nisi aliud uni eorum videretur esse haeresis, & aliud alteri, The cause was for that such an opinion as seemed heresy in the judgement of one Father, in the judgement of another was not heretical. And concerning Epiphanius the Bishop of Cypris, & Philestrius Bishop of Brix; which both writ of heresies: the one making a longer Catalogue than the other, he saith: Procul dubio in eâ quaestione ubi disceptatur quid sit haeresis, non idem videbatur ambobus, & river à hoc omnino definire difficile est: & ideo cavendum, quum omnes in numerum redigere conamur, ne pretermittamus aliquas quum hareses sint, aut enumeremus aliquas quum haereses non sint: That which seemed an heresy to one of them, did not seem so to the other; and to define truly what is heresy, is very hard: and they which will write the Catalogue of heresies, must be very circumspect, lest they leave out of the Catalogue, some opinions which are indeed heretical, & put in others which are no heresies. Secondly, the Fathers in those Catalogues did not understand this word Heresy, so strictly as in our age it is understood; but generally for every sect in religion, differing from the received opinion of the Church, as 
Epist. ad Quod vult.  it appeareth by S. Augustine in the words going before, where he maketh an heresy and a sect all one, showing: Quantum inter se differunt de numero sectarum. How much Epiphanius and Philastrius descent concerning the number of sects? where he calleth them sects, which before he called heresies. And it is no marvel though with those Fathers, all heresies do not directly impugn the Faith, when by them only sects are understood. But to make every opinion an heresy which not only, directly, but also by a consequent impugneth faith, as M. Walsingham will have it, is to make no difference between error and heresy; but 
De corrup. artib.  to call every error in religion an heresy, as Ludovicus Vives speaketh: Haeresis nomen rebus levissimis impingitur, The name of heresy is laid upon every light matter. And 
De haeres. l. 1. cap. 7.  of him it may one time or other be verified which Alphonsus de Castro speaketh: Idcirco fit, ut hiqui tam leviter de haeresi pronuntiant, non expendentes de quâre loquantur, saepè suà ipsorum sagittâ feriantur, incidantque in eam foveam quam aliis parabant. It happeneth that they which so rashly call every thing heresy, not considering whereof they speak, be oftentimes beaten with their own weapon, and fall into the pit which they digged for others.  
I showed, pag. 10. how Pusillanimity maketh men sometimes do contrary to their own conscience, as Cardinal Pole, who dying said: The Protestants are the honester men, I would be a Protestant, were it not for the Church of Rome. This I brought for example to illustrate, not for argument to prove. For exempla non probant, examples prove not. He turneth it another way, saying: I broughtit for a reason to prove that Protestants are no heretics.  
In defence of our Church, that it could not be accounted heretical, I called into question the authority of the Council of Trent by which it was condemned, alleging divers exceptions against that Council, that it could not be a lawful general Council, the paucity of the Bishops which were there present, their partiality, the definition of a general Council cited by Bellarmine, which could no 
Tomo. 1. contro. 4. cap. 4.  way be verified of that assembly. Having produced these arguments to disenable that Council, he doth not so much as repeat any of them; much less doth he answer them: only he saith, that it seemed to him a slight argument, and to give more advantage to my adversary, than defence to myself and my cause. I reply, that it is no marvel though a man of slight judgement, which passeth over all other things of moment so slightly, do esteem those arguments to be so slight, which his self cannot answer.  
To persuade Catholics to come to our Church, I showed how the learned among them, do come every day nearer to our religion, and more and more favour our opinions. He saith it is a dream. I wish this dreamer to awake out of sleep, and with greater vigilancy to consider of the particulars as they are produced by me, I said:  
First, the learned Catholics agree with us concerning the books of Scripture which be Canonical, which apocrypha, I writ in this manner: The books of Toby, judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Maccabes, the fragment of Esther, they hold to be Canonical, according to S. Augustine: We, to be apocrypha, according to S. Hierome; and in this point we differ no more from them, than Hierome did from Augustine, which did both agree, and were easily reconciled. S. Hierome interpreting S. Augustine's meaning: that they were Canonical enough to prove rules of life, not grounds of doctrine and faith. Thus have we delivered long since. But Bellarmine 
De verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.  handling this question at large, replieth not against us: nay, he doth not so much as mention this distinction of Canons of faith, and Canons of good life. Therefore we take it as a thing granted by the laws of disputation, that he holdeth as we hold, resteth satisfied with our answer, & the case to be clear between us both. M. Walsingham blusheth not to deliver a notorious untruth, saying: that Bellarmine handleth this distinction at large, and refuteth the same in his first book, De verbo Dei, cap. 10. In which book and chapter, no such thing can be found.  
Secondly, they agree with us concerning the Bible, which is the best and truest edition. For whereas we holding the original text only to be authentical, the Council of Trent 
Decret. 3. Sessionis.  obtrudeth to us the vulgar Latin translation. Bellarmine preferreth the original before the Latin, as we do. M. Walsingham is not ashamed to charge me that I have abused both the Council of Trent and Bellarmine. That I have not abused the Council, witness the Council itself: that I have not abused Bellarmine, witness Bellarmine De verbo Dei, lib. 2. cap. 11.  
Thirdly, they agree with us concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures, that in them are delivered all things necessary to salvation, contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome. So Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say: In reading the place he hath discovered a notable fraud. Whether I have dealt fraudulently or sincerely, let the reader judge. But wherein lieth the fraud? He saith that Bellarmine speaketh these words only by way of answer to an objection. I conclude therefore it is no fraud. If I had taken that for positive doctrine which was spoken by way of objection, it had been fraud in me; but seeing it is an answer to an objection, it is no fraud, but sincere dealing.  
Fourthly, they hold with us that Purgatory is a tradition, and not to be found in the holy Scriptures, witness Bellarmine de verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to avoid us by saying that Bellarmine speaketh only antagonistically, by way of objection out of Luther, and not dogmatically out of his own judgement; which is but Petitio principij, a begging of the question. For it was questioned by me, whether Bellarmine spoke out of his own judgement, or not? and the affirmative was by me proved & concluded. He bringeth no proof for the negative part, but only maketh that for his allegation, which is the question itself.  
Fifthly, they descent not from us about the authority of the Scriptures, that it is above the authority of the Church; witness Bellarmine de verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words, but maketh no answer to them.  
He chargeth me with Papistry, because I confessed that our Church was condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent; which is but Petitio principij: for I denied our Church to be ever the more heretical for the censure of that Council, whose authoriry I disenabled by sufficient reasons, to which he maketh no answer: and therefore in that place I have not played the Papist.  
Whereas I exhorted the Recusants, diligently to read, as well our writers, as their own; our answers as well as their objections; and then to examine their own judgements before they pass their sentence against us to condemn us of heresy: He maketh two answers: first, that they have already done so, to which I reply: they have done it partially. Secondly, that unlearned men and women are not able to do so; and therefore they must rely upon the judgement of the Catholic Church. To which I reply, that if they be not able, the fault is in the the Catholic Church of Rome, which holdeth the people still in ignorance, whereas S. john teacheth, that they ought to be of such knowledge, as to try and examine the Spirits: and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy 
1. joh. 4. 1. Act. 17. 11. 2. Cor. 4. 3.  Ghost, because they were able to examine Saint Paul's doctrine. And I say with the Apostle: That if the Gospel be hidden, it is hidden to them which are lost.  
I alleged that few things are in our book of Common prayers, which are not taken out of the Bible, or out of that which was good in the Mass book: so that if they allow of the Bible & their Mass book, they cannot disallow of our Service book. He answereth in these words: If all the Service book were taken out of the Bible itself, (as most of all heretical Service hath been in every age pretended to be) yet might the collection and combination be such as might make it unlawful and pestiferous: as when the Arrians did sing: Gloria patri cum filio, & per filium, and the Catholics, & filio. The difference in sound of words, was small; but in substance and malice execrable. To which I reply, that forasmuch as he maketh such a supposition, but showeth no such collection or combination in our Service book; neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians, he speaketh idly, and to no purpose; neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Service book.  
To the Recusants which object that there are dissensions among us: I answered, that so there were among them: I named Eckius, Pighius, Thomas, Scotus: nay, there were dissensions among the Apostles themselves: so that dissension is no argument to disenable us from being the true Church, for in religion we agree. M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities: the first of ignorance or folly; for that Eckius, Pighius, Thomas, Scotus dissented only in matters disputable, and not determined by the Church for points of faith. In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of religion, as if they held the doctrine of justification, wherein Eckius and Pighius disagreed, and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertain unto faith, and to be matters so indifferent, as if they afforded only cause of disputation, but needed not to be decided.  
The second absurdity he saith is impiety, for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine. I say no more are ours. The third he saith is ridiculous audacity, to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among us, whereof the whole world can be witness out of our own books, and invectives one against another. To which I answer, that albeit some particular factious spirits among us write seditious pamphlets one against another, this imputation cannot justly be laid upon our Church, which by all manner of good means suppresseth dissension, but maintaineth peace and unity. Thus much I thought fit to deliver, not for answer to his disgraceful speeches uttered against me, which I pass over with silence, as not touching the cause of religion, but in defence only of the truth which I took in hand, that our adversariens may understand how we have not suffered those things so loosely to pass our hands, which they so loosely have published against us, to the view of the world, And so leaving them to the mercy of the Lord, my prayer is: Vincat Christus, cadat haeresis, that falsehood may still be detected, and truth may get the upper hand.  
Amen.  
FINIS.