Certamen Religiosum: OR, A CONFERENCE BETWEEN The late King of ENGLAND, and the late Lord marquis of Worcester, concerning RELIGION.  
TOGETHER WITH A VINDICATION OF THE PROTESTANT CAUSE, From the Pretences of the marquis his Last Papers; which the necessity of the KING's Affairs denied him Opportunity to Answer.  
LONDON, Printed for W. Lee, at the Turks Head in Fleetstreet, and R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1651.   

TO THE READER.  
COURTEOUS READER,  
I Do not desire by way of Preface to trouble Thee with many words, but something I must crave leave to say, that thou mayest the better understand the reason and nature of this ensuing work. It may be thou art not unacquainted with a Book, which now hath been extant some 
* It was published Anno 1649.  years. The title of it is Certamen Religiosum, and it containeth in it a Conference, which was held partly by word of mouth, but chiefly by Writing, betwixt the late King and the marquis of Worcester, a stiff defender of the Romish Religion. To the Marquis' first Plea (I speak of that, which passed betwixt them in writing) the King returned Answer; but the marquis replying, the King's occasions (it seems) would not permit him to rejoin, especially the Reply being so large, and so thick lined with quotations, that the perusal and examination of it would require no little time. I know there are 
* See the Advertisement to the Reader perfixed to the late Kings works set forth together in one volume.  some, who account this Conference no better then supposititious; which reflecting upon the Publisher of it, Doctor Baily, he hath lately in a Preface to a 
† It is entitled (as I remember) Herba Parietis, or The Wall-flower.  Book, which he hath set forth of his own, vindicated himself, and asserted the Conference. For my part, I know no cause to question the truth of the Relation, neither, as to my purpose, is it much material, whether there were any such Conference; or if there were, whether it were so managed, as is related. This I see, that in the Book before mentioned (to wit, Certamen Religiosum) the Romish cause is set out in great pomp, both Scriptures and Fathers being produced as asserting most of those opinions, which they of the Church of Rome maintain, and we impugn, and the Reader is left naked, and unfurnished with any Arms and Weapons, wherewith either to defend himself, or to offend his adversary save only as he shall be able to provide for himself, and bring with him. The first time that I heard the Book mentioned, (which was about the last Spring it was spoken of as a Book of no little danger, and so (I understand since) divers judge of it. Yea, I have heard that some have said, that the marquis in this Reply hath done more for the Church of Rome, than any have done before him. When I got the Book, and looked a while into it, though I saw no reason to conceive so highly of it, as (it seems) some have done, yet I found in it I confess) much more than I expected, so much as that I thought it operae pretium no misspent time to answer it. This I have endeavoured; how I have performed it, is left to Thee (Reader) to judge. The great difficulty in the undertaking did arise from the multitude of Authors that are alleged (whether the Marquis himself did peruse these authors, or took them upon trust from others, I will not inquire, much less determine) especially considering how lax and lose the quotations are, the words of the Authors being scarce once in a hundred times cited, and sometimes only the Author named, many times only the Book, but no Chapter or Section mentioned. In this respect it could not be expected, that every allegation should receive a punctual answer, besides that (as in the rejoinder itself upon occasion I acknowledge) sometimes for want of the Author I had not liberty to examine what is alleged; but this (I presume) will not be found so frequent, nor yet at all prejudicial to the main, so much still being said as may suffice to take off the force of that which is objected. There is an answer already come forth to the Marquis' last Paper, with which I have to deal. The 
* Hamon L'Estrange Esquire.  author of it is a gentleman of much reading, well versed in Greek and Latin writers, both Ecclesiastical and others, as appears by this work, which is all that I have seen of his, though I hear of something else that he hath published not without great commendation. I had undertaken this task before I had any intimation that another was about it: and I think this of mine was at the Press before the foresaid Answer came from it. I could not confine myself to such narrow bounds as that Gentleman hath done in answer to the marquis, (for he hath others also besides him to deal with) the reason of his concisenes is best known unto himself. I have launched further into the deep, and have exspatiated more in the discussion of those points, which are handled by the marquis; yet so, as that the Reader (I hope) will have no cause to complain of proxility, or to think me tedious. I have divided the work into two parts; in the former part I have endeavoured to show the ungroundednes of the Romish doctrine in those points, which the marquis propoundeth, and the repugnancy of it both to Scriptures and Fathers, notwithstanding any thing he hath alleged in defence of it. In the latter part I have laboured to wipe off those aspersions, which the marquis doth cast upon divers of our most eminent Divines, and chief instruments in the work of Reformation, as Luther, Calvin, Zuing lives, Melancthon and Beza, partly in respect of their Doctrine, and partly in respect of their conversation. This the learned answerer before mentioned hath not attempted; but I did not think it meet to wave it, calumnies and reproaches being more apt to prevail with some then any other argument whatsoever. Some points of controversy also, which the marquis taketh occasion to bring in, having not mentioned them before, are insisted on in this second Part. Some perhaps may say, Quorsum perditio haec? What needed all this? these controversies having been sufficiently handled by our writers, both at home and abroad, long ago. I answer, 'Tis true, they have been so: yet if the marquis thought it not enough that Bellarmine and many others of the Romish party have written largely in that behalf, but judged it meet to produce his own Plea; I think there is as much reason why we should consider what he saith, and that some answer should be given him, that so none may boast, as some are apt to do in such a case, that because he is unanswered, therefore he is unanswerable. And besides, though (Nil dictum, quod non dictum prius) the matter be not new, yet there may be (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a handling of the same things in another manner: yea, and divers treating of the same subject, something may be found in one, which is not in another. But (may some say) there are many other great and gross errors of late sprung up among us, and these do rather call for our care and diligence to suppress them. For answer unto this, I grant that the prevailing errors of the times are mainly to be opposed; yet (as our Saviour said in another case) this aught to be done, and the other not to be left undone. Yea, Popery is the grand evil that doth infest the Church; and by how much it is the more inveterate, & the more diffused, by so much the danger of it is the greater, and it requires the more opposition. There is also a special warning to come out of Babylon, Revel. 18. 4. and certainly it will avail us little to come out, except we also keep out of it. And if we would keep ourselves out of Babylon, we must keep the Babylonish Doctrine from finding entertainment with us. This will ask no little care, no humane policy in the world (I think) being greater than that which is used either for the supporting of that doctrine where it is, or the introducing of it where it is not embraced. Shall we think that the Romanists are idle in these busy times? Though few do show themselves, as the marquis did, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with open face; yet we may well suspect that many are working so, as that by how much they are the less conspicuous, by so much they are the more dangerous. And as David in a certain case said to the woman of Tekoah, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this? So in respect of that heap of heterodox opinions that is among us, may it not be said, Is not the hand of a jesuit in all this? Divers Pamphlets in these times have admonished us to beware, and among the rest one entitled Mutatus Polemo (what ever the Author's design were) doth speak not a little to this purpose. Before these trouble some times began, some have either expressed (as Mr. Archer) or intimated (as Mr. Mede) that (in their 
Arch. of Christ's personal reign on Earth, Page 50. and 55. Mede on Revel. 11. 7.  opinion) Popery shall yet again for a while universally prevail in those Countries and Nations, out of which it hath been expelled. If this be so (as for any thing I see, I may hope the contrary) may it not be feared, that, as those many Antichrists (as they are called 1 Joh. 2. 18.) that is, those many heretics, that were in the primitive times, did make way for the rise of that great Antichrist; so these in our times may make way for the restauration of him? And whereas we have heard long since of Rome's Masterpiece, I see not how any Romish design can better deserve this title, then so to debase the Ministry, and to decry learning, as the practice of many is in these times. Hoc Ithacus velit, hoc magno mercentur Atreidae, The Chieftains of the Church of Rome can desire nothing more, then that among their adversaries the Ministry should be cast down, and learning overthrown. For then why should they doubt but that they may soon reduce all unto them, none being now of any competent ability to oppose them? It is observed by those that are acquainted with Ecclesiastical History, 
Qui in historiarum Ecclesiasticarum lectione versati sunt, Christiani populi ignorantiam, & Romanae sedis authoritatem simul auctam facilè animadvertere potuerunt.— Vicissimque ut bonarum literarum instauratione facessere caepit ignorantia, ita & Pontificis autoritas paulatim im ninui & labascere visa est. Gentillet, Exam. Concil. Trident. lib. 1. Sect. 7 & 8. vide plura.  that when Learning was the lowest, than Popery got to be highest; as the one decayed, so the other was advanced: and on the otherside, that the restauration of good literature did make way for the Reformation of Religion. Surely, if Popery overspread again, barbarism and illiterateness is a most likely means to effect it. Neither are the Papists (I suppose) less politic, and wise in their generation then Julian the Apostate was, who could see no fairer way, whereby to re establish Gentilism, then by endeavouring to divest Christians of Learning, a thing so vile and odious, that Ammianus Marcellinus himself, though a Pagan, and a great admirer of 
Illud autem inclemens obruendum perenni silentio, quòd arcebat docere Magistros Rhetoricos & Grammaticos ritûs Christiani cultores. Am. Marcell. de Julia. lib. 22.  Julian, was ashamed of it, and showed great dislike of Julian for it, call it a cruel part, and a thing to be buried in perpetual silence. But I have held Thee (Reader) longer than I did intend; I will preface no further, but praying unto the Lord to preserve his Church from errors without, and to purge it from errors within, I rest  
Thy Friend and lover in the truth. C C.   


The CONTENTS of the FIRST PART OF THE REJOINDER.  
1 OF the marks of the true Church, which they of the Church of Rome assign, as Universality, Antiquity, Visibility, Succession of Pastors, unity in Doctrine, and the Coversion of Nations, Page 107, to 114  
2 Of having recourse unto the Scriptures in matters that concern Religion, 114, 115, 116  
3 Of relying either on Fathers singly and severally considered, or on a general Council, 116, 117, 118, 119  
4 That the Apostles, as Penmen of the Holy Ghost, could not err, 120  
5 Of the easiness and plainness of the Scriptures, 120, 121  
6 Of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 122, to 140  
7 Whether the Church hath any infallible rule besides the Scripture for the understanding of Scripture, 140, to 147  
8 Again of the Scriptures being easy to be understood, 147, 148  
9 Whether the Church can err, or not, 148, to 152  
10 Again of the Visibility of the Church, 152, 153  
11 Of the Universality of the Church, 153, to 158  
12 Of the unity of the Church in matters of faith, 158, 159  
13 Of Kings and Queens being Heads or Governors and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions, 159, 160  
14 Of the Minister's power to forgive sins, 159 (as 'tis misprinted) to 162  
15 Of confessing sins to a ghostly Father, 162, to 172  
16 Of works of Supererogation, 172, to 176  
17 Of freewill, 176, to 195  
18 Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments, 196, to 201  
19 Of Justification by faith alone, 201, to 211  
20 Of Merits, 211 to 216  
21 Whether justifying faith may be lost, 216 to 221  
22 Of Reprobation, 221 to 239  
23 Of assurance of Salvation, 239 to 251  
24 Whether every Believer hath a peculiar Angel to be his guardian, 251 to 254  
25 Of the Angels praying for us, and knowing our thoughts, 254, 255, 256  
26 Of praying to the Angels, 256 to 261  
27 Whether the Saints deceased know our affairs here below, 261, to 266  
28 Of the Saints deceased praying for us, 266, to 269  
29 Of praying to the Saints deceased, 269, to 276  
30 Of Confirmation, whether it be a Sacrament properly so called, 276, to 281  
31 Of communicating in one kind, 281, to 287  
32 Of the sacrifice of the Mass, as they call it: or whether Christ be truly and properly offered up and sacrificed in the Eucharist, or Lords Supper, 287, to 296  
33 Whether Orders (or rather Ordination) be a Sacrament of like nature with Baptism and the Lord Supper, 296, to 301  
34 Of Vows of chastity, and of the Marriage of Ecclesiastical persons, 301, to 318  
35 Of Christ's descending into Hell, 319, to 340  
36 Of Purgatory, 340, to 355  
37 Of extreme Unction, 355, to 363  
38 Of the saying of Austin, Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae Authoritas commoveret, I should not believe (or should not have believed, crederem for credidissem) the Gospel, except the authority of the Church did move (or had moved, comoveret for commovisset) me to it. 364, 365, etc.   

The Contents of the Second Part of the rejoinder.  
1 OF the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, Page 1, 2  
2 Of Luther's Doctrine, 3, to 20  
3 Zuinglius vindicated from that which by the way is charged upon him, 19  
4 Of calvin's Doctrine, 20, to 35  
5 Of Zuinglius his Doctrine, 35, to 40  
6 Of Melancthons' Doctrine, 40, 41, 42.  
7 Of Andrea's Musculus his Doctrine, 42. and in the addition.  
8 Of the divisons that are among Protestants, 42  
9 Of that Unity which is among them of the Church of Rome, 42, to 46  
10 Of Crimes charged upon Protestants, and the testimonies alleged for proof of them, 46  
11 Of Luther's conference with the Devil, 46, 47, 48  
12 Whether Zuinglius were an Author of war, and a disturber of peace, etc. 48, 49  
13 Beza cleared of a foul aspersion cast upon him, 49, 50  
14 Of Luther's writing against King Henry 8. 50, 51  
15 Of the people of the reformed Churches, whether they be so vicious and corrupt, as they are censured, 51, 52  
16 A vindication of Calvin in respect of vild aspersions cast upon him, 53, 54  
17 Mantuans testimony concerning Rome, and the corrupt estate of it, 54, 55  
18 Whether the Doctrine of the Church of Rome be the the same still that it was at first, 55  
19 Of Prayers for the Dead, 55, 56, 57  
20 Of Lent-Fast, 57, 58  
21 Of mingling Water with Wine in the Lord's Supper, 58, 59, 60  
22 Of divers ceremonies, which the Church of Rome useth in Baptism, 60, 61  
23 Of the necessity of Infant's Baptism, and whether they may be saved without it, 61, 62, 63  
24 Of the several Ecclesiastical Orders which they have in the Church of Rome, 63, 64, 65  
25 Of the Pope and his supremacy, 65, 66, 67  
26 Of service in an unknown tongue, 67, 68, 69  
27 Of Festivals, 69, 70  
28 Of Relics, 70, 71  
29 Of Pictures and Images, 71, to 77  
30 Of the sign of the Cross, 77  
31 Of Luther, Husse, and Wickliff holding some errors, and so others that oppose the Church of Rome, 78  
32 That some before Berengarius, as namely Bertram, did professedly impugn that real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which they of the Church of Rome maintain, 79, 80    

CERTAMEN RELI GIOSUM: OR, A CONFERENCE BETWEEN The late King of England, and the late Lord marquis of Worcester, concerning Religion, at His Majesty's being at Ragland-Castle, 1646.  marquis. 
SIr, I hope if they catch us in the act, it will not be deemed in me an act of so high conspiracy, in regard that I enter the lists, leaning upon a Doctor of your own Church.  
To whom the King replied as merrily, My Lord, I know not whether I should have a better opinion of your Lordship for the Doctor's sake, or a worse opinion of the Doctor for your Lordship's sake; for though you lean much upon his arm, yet he may lean more upon your judgement.  Marq. 
Sir, it conduceth a little to the purpose we have in hand, to be a little serious in the thing you speak of: your Majesty knows the grounds of my acquaintance with the Doctor, and my obligation to him, which difference in opinion shall never mitigate in point of affection; but I protest unto you, I could never gain the least ground of him yet, in persuading him from his principles.  King. 
It may be your Lordship hopes to meet with a weaker Disputant of me.  Marq. 
Not so, and if it please your Majesty, but I think thus: That if it should please God to make me so happy an instrument of his Churches good, as to be a means to incline your royal heart to embrace the truth, I believe that he, and thousands such as he, would be soon brought to follow your Majesty in the right way, who are so constant followers of your steps whilst you are in a wrong path: the Oaths which they have taken, the relation which their Hierarchy have to the Crown, which must be no longer so, but whilst the government of the Church and souls, stand as a reserve to the regiment of lives and fortunes, the preferment which they expect from your Majesty, and the enjoyment of those preferments which they have already, which they must no longer enjoy, then whilst they are, or seem to be of your opinion, causeth them to smother their own knowledge, whilst their mouths are stopped with interest; whereas if the strong Tide of your Majesty's opinion were but once turned, all the ships in the river would soon turn head. Hereupon the marquis fell abruptly from his subject, and asked the King, Sir, I pray tell me what is it that you want? The King smiled a little at his sudden breaking off, and making such preposterous haste to ask that question, answered,  King. 
My Lord, I want an Army, can you help me to one?  Marq. 
Yes, that I can; and to such a one, as should your Majesty commit yourself to their fidelity, you should be a Conqueror, fight as often as you please.  King. 
My Lord, such an Army would do the business: I pray let me have it.  Marq. 
What if your Majesty would not confide in it, when it should be presented unto you?  King. 
My Lord, I would fain see it, and as fain confide in that, of which I had reason to be confident.  Marq. 
Take gedeon's three hundred men, and let the rest be gone.  King. 
Your Lordship speaks mystically, will it please you to be plain a little?  Marq. 
Come, I see I must come nearer to you: Sir, it is thus: God expected a work to be done by your hands, but you have not answered his expectation, nor his mercy towards you: when your enemies had more Cities and Garrisons, than you had private families to take your part; when they had more Cannons than you had Muskets; when the people crowded to heap treasures against you, whilst your Majesty's friends were fain here and there to make a gathering for you; when they had Navies at Sea, whilst your Majesty had not so much as a Boat upon the River; whilst the odds in number against you was like a full crop against a gleaning; then God wrought his miracle, in making your gleaning bigger than their vintage; he put the power into your hand, and made you able to declare yourself a true man to God, and grateful to your friends: but like the man whom the Prophet makes mention of, who bestowed great cost and pains upon his vincyard, and at last it brought forth nothing but wild grapes; so when God had done all these things for You, and expected that You should have given his Church some respite to their oppressions, I heard say, You made vows that if God blessed You but 
* Naseby Fight.  that day with Victory, You would not leave a Catholic in Your Army; for which I fear the Lord is so angry with You, that (I am afraid) he will not give you another day wherein you may so much as try your fortune: Your Majesty had forgot the moneys which came unto you from unknown hands, and were brought unto you by unknown faces, when you promised you would never forsake your unknown friends; you have forgotten the miraculous blessings of the Almighty upon those beginnings, and how have you discountenanced, distrusted, disregarded, I, and disgraced the Catholics all along, and at last vowed an extirpation of them: Doth not your Majesty see clearly, how that in the two great Battles, the North and Naseby, God showed signs of his displeasure, when in the first your Enemies were even at your mercy, confusion fell upon you, and you lost the day, like a man that should so wound his Enemies, that he could scarce stand, and afterwards his own sword should fly out of the hilt, and leave the strong and skilful to the mercy of his falling Enemies; and in the second (and I fear me the last Battle that e'er you'll fight) whilst your men were crying victory, as I hear they had reason so to do, your sword broke in the air, which made you a fugitive to your flying Enemies: Sir, I pray pardon my boldness, for it is God's cause that makes me so bold, and no inclination of my own to be so, and give me leave to tell you, that God is angry with you, and will never be pleased, until you have taken new resolutions concerning your Religion: which I pray God direct you, or else you'll fall from nought to worse, from thence to nothing.  King. 
My Lord, I cannot so much blame as pity your zeal; the soundness of Religion is not to be tried by dint of sword, nor must we judge of her truths by the prosperity of events, for then of all men Christians would be most miserable; we are not to be thought no followers of Christ, by observations drawn from what is cross or otherwise, but by taking up our cross and following Christ. Neither do I remember my Lord, that I made any such vow before the Battle of Naseby concerning Catholics, but some satisfaction I did give my Protestant Subjects, who on the other side were persuaded that God blest us the worse for having so many Papists in our Army.  Marq. 
The difference is not great, I pray God forgive you, who have most reason to ask it.  King. 
I think not so my Lord.  Marq. 
Who shall be judge?  King. 
I pray my Lord, let us sit down, and let reason take her seat.  Marq. 
Reason is no judge.  King. 
But she may take her place.  Marq. 
Not above our Faith.  King. 
But in our arguments.  Marq. 
I beseech your Majesty to give me a reason why you are so much offended with our Church?  King. 
Truly my Lord, I am much offended with your Church, if you mean the Church of Rome, if it were for no other reason, but this, for that she hath foisted into her legend, so many ridiculous stories, as are able to make (as much as in them lies) Christianity itself a fable, whereas if they had not done this wrong unto the tradition of the primitive Church, we then had left unto us such rare and unquestionable verities, as would have adorned, and not daubed the Gospel, whereas now we know not, what is true, or false.  Marq. 
Sir, if it be allowed to question, what the Catholic Church holds out for truth, because that which they hold forth unto us seems ridiculous, and to pick and choose verities according to our own fancy, and reject as novelties and forgeries what we please, as impossibilities and fabulous; the Scriptures themselves may as well suffer by this kind of toleration: for what more ridiculous than the Dialogue between Balaam and his Ass, or that Sampsons' strength should be in his hair, or that he should slay a thousand men with the Jawbone of an Ass, the Disputation between Saint Michael and the Devil about the body of Moses; Philip's being taken up in the air, and found at Azotus, with a thousand the like strange, and to our apprehension (if we look upon them with carnal eyes) vain and ridiculous: but being they are recorded in Scripture, which Scripture we hold for truth, we admire, but never question them: so the fault may not be in the tradition of the Church, but in the liberty which men assume to themselves to question the tradition. And I beseech Your Majesty, to consider the streaks that are drawn over the Divine writ, as so many delendas, by such bold hands as those: the Testaments were not like the two Tables, delivered into the hands of any Moses, by the immediate hand of God, neither by the Ministration of Angels, but men inspired with the holy Ghost writ, whose writings by the Church were approved to be by inspiration, which inspirations were called Scripture, which Scriptures, most of them, as they are now received into our hands, were not received into the Canon of the Church, all, within three hundred years after Christ; why may not some bold spirits call all those Scriptures (which were afterwards acknowledged to be Scripture, and were not before) forgeries. Nay have not some such (as blind as bold) done it already? Saint Hierom was the first that ever picked a hole in the Scriptures, and cut out so many books out of the word of God, with the penknife of Apocrypha; Ruffinus challengeth him for so doing, and tells him of the gap, that he hath opened for wild beasts to enter into this field of the Church, and tread down all ill corn. Jerom gives his reasons, because they were not found in the Original Copy, (as if the same spirit which gave to those, whom it did inspire, the diversities of tongues, should itself be tied to one language) but withal he acknowledgeth thus much of those books, which he had thus marked in the forehead, Canonici sunt ad informandos mores, sed non ad confirmandam fidem: how poor a Distinction this is, and how pernicious a precedent this was, I leave it to Your Majesty to judge: for after him Luther takes the like boldness, and at once takes away the three Gospels, of Mark, Luke, and John; Others take away the epistle to the Hebrews, others the epistle of Saint Judas, others the second and third epistles of Saint Peter, others the epistle of Saint James, others the whole book of the Revelation. Wherefore to permit what the Church proposes to be questionable by particular men, is to bring down the Church, the Scriptures, and the Heavens upon our heads. There was a Church, before there was a Scripture, which Scripture (as to us) had not been the Word of God, if the Church had not made it so, by teaching us to believe it. The preaching of the Gospel was before the writing of the Gospel, the Divine Truth that dispersed itself over the face of the whole earth, before its Divinity was comprised within the Canon of the Scripture, was like that Primaeva Lux, which the world received before the light was gathered into the body of the Sun: this body so glorious and comfortable is but the same light, which was before, we cannot make it another, though it be otherwise: And therefore though the Church and the Scripture, like the light that is concomitant and precedent to the Sun, be distinct in terms, yet they are but one and the same; no man can see the Sun, but by its own light; shut your eyes from this light, and you cannot behold the body of the Sun: Shut your eyes against one, and you are blind in both: he never had God to be his Father, who had not the Church to be his Mother. If you admit Sillogismes à priori, you will meet with many paralogismes à posteriori cry down the Churches, Authority, and pull out the Scriptures efficacy, give but the Church the lie now and then, and you shall have enough will tell you the Scripture is false here and there; they who have set so little by the tradition of the Church, have set by half the Scriptures, and will at last throw all away: wherefore in a word, as to deny any part of the Scripture, were to open a vein, so to question any thing which the Church proposes, is to tear the seamelesse Coat of Christ, and to pierce his body.  King. 
My Lord, I see you are better provided with Arguments than I am with memory, to run through the series of your Discourse; satisfy me but in one thing, and I shall soon yield to all that you have said, and that is concerning this Catholic Church you talk of, I know the creed tells us, that we must believe it, and Christ tells us, that we must hear it, but neither tell us, that that is the Church of Rome.  Marq. 
Gracious Sir, the creed tells us, that it is the Catholic Church, and Saint Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans, that their faith was spread abroad through the whole world.  King. 
That was the Faith, which the Romans then believed, which is nothing to the Roman Faith which is now believed.  Marq. 
The Roman Faith then and now are the same.  King. 
I deny that my Lord.  Marq. 
When did they alter their Faith?  King. 
That requires a library: Neither is it requisite, that I tell you the time when, if the envious man sows his tares, whilst the husbandman was asleep, and afterwards he awakes and sees the tares, are they not tares, because the husbandman knows not when they were sown?  Marq. 
And if it please Your Majesty; in a thing that is so apparent, your similitude holds good, but the differences between us and the Protestants are not so without dispute, as that it is yet granted by the major part of Christians, that they are errors which we believe contrary to your Tenants; and therefore the similitude holds not, but I shall humbly entreat Your Majesty, to consider the proofs, which the learned Cardinal Peroone hath made concerning this particular, in his answer to your Royal Father his Apology to all Christian Princes, where he proves, how that all the Tenants which are in controversy now between you and us, were practised in the Church of Christ, within the first three hundred years; wherefore I think, it would be no injury to reason to require belief, that that which hath been so long continued in the Church, and so universally received, and no time can be set down, when those Tenants or Ceremonies did arise, must needs be Catholic for time and place, and Apostolical for institution, though we have no warrant from the Scriptures, to believe them to be such. For the Apostle Saint Paul commanded Timothy to keep fast the things which he had delivered unto him, as well by word as by writ. Wherefore if we will believe no tradition, we may come at last to believe no writings.  King. 
That was your own fault, wherefore I blame your Church, for the way to make the Scriptures not believed, were to add unto them new inventions, and say they were Scriptures.  Marq. 
If the Church of Christ had so mean esteem then, as amongst some she hath now, certainly the former books received into her Canon, would have been much prejudiced by the admittance of the latter; wherefore if the Church be questionable, than all is brought in question.  King. 
My Lord, you have not satisfied me, where this Church is: and as concerning the Cardinal's book, I have seen it, and have read a part of it, but do not remember, neither do I believe, that he hath proved that which you say.  Marq. 
It may be the proofs were in that part of the book, which Your Majesty did not read: and as for my proving the Roman Church to be this Church, by which we should be all guided, I thus shall do my endeavour: That Church whose Doctrine is most Catholic and universal, must be the Catholic Church: but the Roman Church is such. Ergo.  King. 
My Lord, I deny your Minor, the Roman Church is not most universal; the Grecian Church is far more spreading; and if it were not, it were no Argument, for the Church of the mahumetans, is larger than both.  Marq. 
First, This is no Argument, either for an English Man, or a Protestant, but for a Grecian, or Mahumetane: not for an English Man, because he received his Conversion from Rome, and therefore he in Reason should not look beyond Rome, or the Doctrine that Rome practised then, when they converted England: nor for a Protestant, because he is as far distant from the Grecian Church in matter of opinion, as from the Roman; and therefore he need not look for that which he hath no desire to find: besides, the Greek Church hath long ago submitted to the Church of Rome, and there is no reason, that others should make Arguments for her, who are not of her, when she stands in no competition herself; besides, there is not in any place wherever the Greek Church is, or hath been planted, where there are not Roman Catholics; but there are divers Countries in Christendom, where there is not one Professor of the Greek Church; neither is there a place in all the Turks Dominions, where there are not Roman Catholics, nor in any part of the world, where there are not multitudes of Romans; neither is there a Protestant Country in Christendom, where there are not Roman Catholics numberless, but not a Protestant amongst the Natives, neither of Spain or Italy. Show me but one Protestant Country in the world, who ever deserted the Roman Faith, but they did it by Rebellion, except England, and there the King and the Bishops were the principal reformers: (I pray God, they do not both suffer for it.) Show me but one reformed Church, that is of the opinion of another: ask an English Protestant, where was your Religion before Luther? and he will tell you of Hus and Jerom of Prague: search for their Tenants, and you shall find them as far different from the English Protestant, as they are from one another; run to the Waldenses for your Religion's antiquity, and you shall find as much difference in their Articles, and ours, as can be between Churches that are most opposite. Come home to your own Country, and derive your descent from Wickliff, and search for his Tenants in the book of Martyrs, and you shall find them quite contrary to ours, neither amongst any of your modern Protestants shall you find any other agreement, but in this one thing, that they all protest against the Pope. Show me but any Protestant Country in the world, where Reformation, as you call it, ever set her foot, where she was not as well attended with sacrilege, as ushered by Rebellion, and I shall lay my hand upon my mouth for ever.  King. 
My Lord, my Lord, you are gone beyond the scope of your Argument, which required you to prove the Roman Church more Catholic than the Greek, which you have not done; you put me off with my being English, and not a Grecian, whereas when we speak of the universality of a Church, I think that any man who is belonging to the universe, is objectum rationis. And if that be the manner of your Election, than I am sure most voices must carry it: for your alleged submission of the Greek Church unto the Roman, I believe it cannot be proved, but it may be the Patriarch of Constantinople, may submit unto the Pope of Rome, and yet the Greek Church may not submit unto the Roman.  Marq. 
Sir, it is no dishonour for the Sun to make its progress from East to West, it is still the same Sun, and the difference is only in the shadows, which are made to differ according to the varieties of shapes, that the several substances are of; East and West are two divisions, but the same day: neither can they be said or imagined to be greater, or more extending one or other, and the one may have the benefit of the Sun's light, though the other may have its glory; and I believe, no man of sober judgement can say, that any Church in the world is more generally spread over the face of the whole world, or that her glory shines in any place more conspicuously, then at this day in Rome.  King. 
My Lord, if external glory be the Sunshine of the Gospel, than the Church is there indeed; but if internal sanctity, and inward holiness be the Essences of a Church, than we may be as much to seek for such a Church within the Walls of Rome, as any where else.  Marq. 
Who shall be Judge of that? I pray observe the Injustice and Errors that will arise, if every man may be admitted to be his own judge; you of the Church of England left your Mother the Church of Rome, and Mother to all the Churches round about; You forsook her, and set up a new Church of your own, Independent to her: there comes a new generation, and doth the like to you; and a third generation, that is likely to do the like to that; and the Church falls and falls, until it falls to all the pieces of Independency. It is a hard case for a part to fall away from the whole, and to be their own judges. Why should not Kent fall away from England, and be their own judges, as well as England fall away from Christendom, and be their own judges? why should not a Parish in Kent fall away from the whole County, and be their own judges? why should not one Family fall away from the whole Parish, and be their own judges? why should not one man fall away in his opinion from that Family, and be his own judge? If you grant one, you must grant all; and I fear me in doing one, you have done all. So that every man despiseth the Church, whilst he is a Church in himself; rails against Popery, and is the greatest Pope himself, despiseth the Fathers, and will enthrone his own judgement above the wisdom of the ancient; refuseth Expositors, that he may have his own sense; and if he can start up but some new opinions, he thinks himself as worthy a member of Christianity, as if he were an Apostle to some new found land. Now Sir, though some do take the Church to be the Scriptures, yet the Scriptures cannot be the Church, because the Scriptures send us to the Church, audi Ecclesiam, dic Ecclesiae: others take the Elect to be the Church, yet this cannot be, for we know not who are elect, and who are not, that which must be the Church, must be a visible, an eminent society of men, to whose Authority in cases of appeal and matter of judgement, we are to acquiesce and subscribe. And I appeal to Your Royal heart, whether there be a Church in the world, whom in these respects we ought to reverence and esteem more than the Church of Rome; and that the Church of Rome is externally glorious, it doth not follow, that therefore she is not internally holy; for the King's daughters clothing was of wrought gold, as well as she was all glorious within; and though she had never so many Divine graces within her, yet she had honourable women without her, as her attendants: and for the question, whether this inward glory is to be so much sought for within the gates of Rome, is the question, and not yet decided.  King. 
My Lord, I'll deal as ingenuously with you as I can. When the Roman Monarch stretched forth his arms from East to West, he might make the Bishops of Rome's oecumenacy as large as was his Empire, and all the Churches in the world were bound to follow her Laws and decretals, because God hath made such Emperor's nursing Fathers of his Church, as it was prophesied by the Divine Esay; always provided, that the child be not pourtractured greater than the Nurse, (as hath been observed by the pride of your Bishops of Rome,) but when the several Kingdoms of Christendom shook off the Roman Yoke; I see no reason why the Bishop of Rome should expect obedience from the Clergy of other Countries, any more than the Archbishop of Canterbury should expect obedience from the Clergy of other Kingdoms. And for your deriving your Authority from Saint Peter; I know no reason, why we may not as well derive our Authority from Simon Zelotes, or Joseph of Arimathea, or from Philip, of whose planting the Gospel we have as good warrant, as you have for Saint Peter his planting the Gospel in Rome. But, my Lord, I must tell you, that there are other Objections to be made against your Church, which more condemns her, if these were answered.  Marq. 
May it please Your Majesty, to give me leave to speak a word or two, to what I have said, and then I shall humbly beg Your further Objections. As to that of the Christian Kingdoms shaking off the Roman Yoke, and falling to pieces, which was so prophesied it should, yet the Church should not do so, because it is said it shall remain in unity: and for Your Majesty's objection concerning Simon Zelotes, Joseph of Arimathea, etc. It is answered, that there were two conversions, the first of the Britain's, the second of the Saxons; we only require this justice from you, as you are English, not Welshmen, for the Church of England, involves all the Britain's within her Communion: for the Britain's have not now any distinct Church from the Church of England. Now if Your Majesty please, I expect your further Objections.  King. 
My Lord, I have not done with you yet: though particular Churches may fall away in their several respects of obedience to one supreme Authority, yet it follows not, that the Church should be thereby divided, for as long as they agree in the unity of the same spirit, and the bond of peace, the Church is still at unity, as so many sheaves of corn are not unbound, because they are severed. Many sheaves may belong to one field, to one man, and may be carried to one barn, and be servient to the same table. Unity may consist in this, as well as in being huddled up together in a rick with one cock-sheave above the rest. I have an hundred pieces in my pocket, I find them something heavy, I divide the sum, half in one pocket, and half in another: and subdivide them afterwards in two several lesser pockets; The moneys, is divided, but the sum is not broke, the hundred pounds is as whole as when it was together, because it belongs to the same man, and is in the same possession; so though we divide ourselves from Rome, if neither of us divide ourselves from Christ, we agree in him, who is the Centre of all unity, though we differ in matter of depending upon one another. But my Lord of Worcester, we are got into such a large field of discourse, that the greatest Scholars of them all can sooner show us the way in, then out of it; therefore, before we go too far, let us retire, lest we lose ourselves; and therefore, I pray my Lord, satisfy me in these particulars: Why do you leave out the second Commandment, and cut another in two? why do you withhold the Cup from the Laiety? why have you seven Sacraments, when Christ instituted but two? why do you abuse the World with such a fable as Purgatory, and make ignorant fools believe, you can fish souls from thence with silver hooks? why do you pray to Saints, and worship Images? Those are the offences which are given by your Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ; of these things I would be satisfied.  Marq. 
Sir, although the Church be undefiled, yet she may not be spotless, to several apprehensions: For the Church is compared to the Moon, that is full of spots; but they are but spots of our fancying; though the Church be never so comely, yet she is described unto us to have black eyebrows, which may to some be as great an occasion of dislike, as they are to others foils, which set her off more lovely. We must not make our fancies, judgements of condemnation to her, with whom Christ so much was ravished. For Your Majesty's Objections, and first, as to that of leaving out the second Commandment, and cutting another in two; I beseech Your Majesty, who called them Commandments? who told you they were ten? who told you which were first, and second? etc. The Scripture only called them words: those words, but these: and these words were never divided in the Scriptures into ten Commandments, but two Tables; the Church did all this, and might as well have named them twenty as ten Commandments; that which Your Majesty calls the second Commandment, is but the explanation of the first, and is not razed out of the Bible, but for brevity sake in the manuals it is left out, as the rest of the Commandment is left out concerning the Sabbath, and others: wherefore the same Church which gave them their Name, their Number, and their Distinction, may in their breviates, leave out what she deems to be but exposition; and deliver what she thinks for substance, without any such heavy charge as being blottable out of the book of life, for diminishing the word of God.  
For withholding the Cup from the Laiety, where did Christ either give, or command to be given, either the Bread or the Wine to any such? Drink ye all of this: but they were all Apostles to whom he said so, there were neither Laymen or women there: If the Church allowed them afterwards to receive it, either in one, or both kinds, they ought to be satisfied therewith accordingly, but not question the Church's Actions. She that could alter the Sabbath into the Lord's day, and change the dipping of the Baptised over head and ears in water, to a little sprinkling upon the face, (by reason of some emergencies, and inconveniencies, occasioned by the difference of Seasons, and Countries) may, upon the like occasion, accordingly dispose of the manner of her Administration of her Sacraments. Neither was this done without great reason, the world had not wine in all her Countries, but it had bread. Wherefore it was thought for uniformity sake (that they might not be unlike to one another, but all receive alike) that they should only receive the Bread, which was to be had in every place, and not the Cup, in regard that Wine was not every where to be had. I wonder that any body should be so much offended at any such thing, for Bread and Wine do signify Christ crucified; I appeal to common reason, if a dead body doth not represent a passion as much as if we saw the blood lie by it. If you grant the Church's Power in other matters, and rest satisfied therein, why do you boggle at this, especially when any Priest, (where Wine is to be had) if you desire it, he will give it you? But if upon every man's call the Church should fall to reforming upon every seeming fault, which may be but supposed to be found, the people would never stop until they had made such a through Reformation in all parts, as they have done in the greatest part of Germany, where there is not a man to Preach, or hear the Gospel, to eat the Bread, or drink the Wine: you never picked so many holes in our Coats, as this licentiousness hath done in yours.  
For our seven Sacraments, she that called the Articles of our Faith 12, the Beatitudes 8, the Grace's 3, the Virtues 4, called these 7, and might have called them 17 if she had thought it meet. A Sacrament is nothing else but what is done with a holy mind, and why Sacrament, either in Name, or Number, should be confined to Christ's only Institution, I see no cause for it; If I can prove that God did institute such a thing in Paradise, (as he did Marriage) shall not I call that a Sacrament as well as what was instituted by Christ, when he was upon the Earth? If Christ institutes the Order of giving, and receiving the holy Ghost, shall not I call this the Sacrament of Orders? If Christ enjoins us all repentance, shall we not say repentance is a Sacrament? If Christ blesseth little children, and saith, Suffer them to come unto me, and forbid them not; shall we not say that such confirmation is a Sacrament? Truly I do not understand their meaning; They have taken away five, which five, either by God, or Christ, or the holy Ghost, (who are all one) were instituted; and yet they say they are not Sacraments, because they were not instituted by Christ: And the two that are left, viz. Baptism, and the Lords Supper; for the first, you hold it necessary to Salvation; and for the second, you do not admit the real presence: so that of the two remaining, you have taken away the necessity of the one, and the reality of the other, so farewell all.  
Now for Purgatory, I do believe, we have as good ground for it out of this place of Scripture, viz. He shall be purged, yet so as if it were by fire: as you can prove a Hell out of this place of Scripture, He shall be cast into utter darkness, and into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Neither can you make more exceptions to our inference out of this place of Scripture, to prove Purgatory, than the Atheist (if wits may be permitted to roam in such things, as these once settled, and believed generally) will find ground enough to quarrel at your burning lake; and the vain Philosopher, Contradictions enough, in the description of the effects of those hellish Torments, viz. weeping and gnashing of teeth: the one having its procedure from heat, the other from cold, which are mere Contradictions, and therefore fabulous; take heed we do not take away Hell, in removing of Purgatory. You see not, how your laughing at Purgatory hath caused such laughing at Hell, and Devils; until at last, you shall see them bid the Heavens come down, and pluck the Almighty out of his Throne: If a Text of Scripture with the Church's Exposition be not sufficient for a man to rest, both his Science and Conscience upon: I know not where it will find a resting place, it may shoot at Random, but never take so right an aim; and for the silver hook you talked of, I do not justify the abuse of any, I know there is a great difference between the Court of Rome, and the Church of Rome; and if these Errors were in the Church itself, yet the tares must not be hastily plucked out of the field of the Church, lest the wheat be plucked up with it.  
Now for our praying to Saints, there is no body that prays to any Saints, otherwise then as we on earth desire the benefit of one another's prayers. We do not believe that they can help us (of themselves) or that they have power to forgive sin, but we believe that they are nearer to God his favour, and more dear unto him: and therefore we believe, that he will hear them with, or for us, sooner than he will hear us when we pray upon our own account: as we desire the prayers of some good and holy man, (whom we believe to be so) hoping it will be a benefit unto us. All that can be said against it, is, that they do not hear us. I will not trouble Your Majesty with the Schoolmens Speculum Creatoris, but I shall desire to be plain: When there is joy in heaven over every sinner that repenteth; do you think that the Saints which are there, are ignorant of the occasion of that joy? or do they rejoice at they know not what? If the Saints in heaven do cry, How long Lord, how long, holy and just, dost thou not avenge our blood upon them, which dwell upon the earth: if they know that their blood is not yet avenged, do they not know when a sinner is converted? and if they know the time of conversion, do they not know, the time of prayer? If Abraham knew that there were such men as Moses and the Prophets, who was dead so many hundreds of years before their time, can we say, that they are ignorant? think ye, that those ministering Angels who are called Intelligencers, give them no intelligence? or that they gather nothing of intelligence by looking him in the face, who is the fullness of knowledge, and to all these the practice and opinion of so Catholic a Church; God can only forgive sins, Christ can only mediate, but Saints, whether in heaven, or on the earth, may intercede for one another.  
Lastly, for our worshipping of Images: confounded be all they that worshipped them, for me, God is only worthy to be worshipped; but if I kneel before the Picture of my Saviour, I worship him kneeling before his Picture; the worship is in the heart, and not in the knee, and where the true God is in the intention, there can be no Idolatry.  
O Sir, Christian Religion is not a Protestation, but a Gospel: it would better consist with unity, than opposition: we hold it a piece of popery to knock our own breasts with the fists of constitution, whilst we hold it most Evangelicall, to knock at our neighbours with a Constables staff: a pious care in a Mother Church, labours to educate her own daughter, and having fed her at her own breasts, all the gratitude she returns her mother, is to call her whore, Antichrist, Babylon, and all the spiteful and vile names that can be imagined; they forget that saying of the Apostle St. James: If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, that man's Religion is in vain; Pure Religion, and undefiled before God, and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows, in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. What should I say more, the Scriptures are made a nose of wax, for every bold hand to wring it which way he pleaseth, they are rejected by private men, by whole books, The Articles of our Creed are said not to be of the Apostles framing, the Commandments not belonging to Christians, impossible to be kept, the Sacraments denied; Charity not only grown cold, but quite starved, and they will be saved by means quite contrary to what the Gospel (which they seem to profess) sets down, viz. by Faith without good works, only believe and that's enough, whereas the holy Apostle St. James tells us, that faith profiteth nothing without good works— Here the marquis was going on, and His Majesty interrupted him.  King. 
My Lord, you let a floodgate of Arguments out, against my naked breast, yet it doth not bear me any thing backwards; you have spoken a great many things, that no way concerns Us, but such as we find fault with as much as you; and other things, to which I could easily give answer, If I could take but some of that time and leisure that you have taken to compose your Arguments. It is not only the Picture of our Saviour, but the Pictures of Saints which you both worship and adore, and maintain it to be lawful; and not only so, but the Picture of God the Father, like an old man, and many other things which I forbear, because I fear, you have done yourself more hurt than me good, in depriving yourself of the rest, to which you are accustomed; for whilst our Arguments do multiply our time lessens: to that of Saint James, where it is said, that faith profiteth nothing without good works; I hope the Doctor here can tell you, that Saint Paul saith, that we are justified by Faith, and not by the works of the Law.  Marq. 
Sir, I believe the Doctor will neither tell Your Majesty, nor me, that Faith can justify without works.  King. 
That question the Doctor can soon decide, what say you to it Doctor? you must speak now.  Doctor. 
If it may please Your Majesty, it would be as great a disobedience to hold my peace, now I am commanded to speak, as it would have been a presumption in me to speak before I was commanded; I am so far from thinking that either Faith, without good works, or that good works without Faith, can justify: that I cannot believe that there is such a thing as either. No more than I can imagine, that there may be a tree bearing fruit, without a root: or that the Sun can be up, before it be day: or that a fire can have no heat; for although it be possible, that a man may do some good without Faith, yet he cannot do good works without it; for though we may naturally incline to some goodness, as flowers and plants naturally grow to perfection; Yet this good cannot be said to be wrought by us, but by the hand of Faith; and Faith herself (where she is truly so) can no more stand still, then can the Sun in the Firmament, or refuse to let her light so shine before men, that they may see her good works, than the same Sun can appear in the same Firmament, and dart no beams. And whilst Faith and good works strive for the propriety of Justification; I do believe, they both exclude a third, which hath more right to our Justification then either. For that which we call Justification by Faith, is not properly Justification; but only an apprehension of it: as that which we call Justification, by good works, is not properly Justification, but only a Declaration of it, to be so: exempli gratia: I receive a pardon, my hand that receives it, doth not justify; 'tis put in execution, and read in open Court, all this did not procure it me. Doubtless there is a reward for the righteous, doubtless there is a God that judgeth the Earth, wherefore upon this ground of belief, I work out my Salvation as well as I can: and do all the good that lies in my power. I do good works. Doubtless this man hath some reason for what he doth: it is because he hath store of Faith, which believes, there is a God, and that that God will accept of his endeavours, wherefore to him alone who hath given us Faith, and hath wrought all our good works in us can we properly attribute the term of Justification: justificatio apprehensiva, we may conceive and bear in our hearts: justificatio declarativa, we may show with our hands: but justificatio Effectiva, proper and effectual Justification none can lay claim unto, but Christ alone, that as our sins were imputed unto Christ, so his righteousness might be ours by imputation.  King. 
Doctor, I thank you, in this point I believe you have reconciled us both.  Doctor. 
May it please Your Majesty, if the venom were taken out, there is no wound in the Church's body, but might soon be healed.  Marq. 
Hereat the marquis somewhat earnestly cried, Hold Sir, You have said well in one respect, but there are two ways of justification in us: and two without us: Christ is a cause of justification by his grace and merits without us; and so we are justified by Baptism, and we are justified by the gifts of God in us, viz. Faith, Hope, and Charity. Whereupon the King spoke as quickly.  King. 
But my Lord, both Justifications come from Christ, according to your own saying: That without us, by his grace and merit: that within us, by his gifts and favour; therefore Christ is all in all, in the matter of Justification; and therefore though there were a thousand ways, and means to our Justification, yet there is but one effectual cause, and that is Christ.  Marq. 
How is it then, that we are called by the Apostle, Cooperarii Christo, Fellow-workers together with Christ?  King. 
The Doctor hath told you how already: If you lie wallowing in sin, and Christ helps you out, your reaching of him your hand is a working together with Christ; Yet for all that, it cannot be said, that you helped yourself out of the ditch: for then there had been no need of Christ. Your apprehending the succour that came unto you, no way attributes the God have mercy to yourself: no more than the declaring yourself to be alive by action; is the cause of setting you upon your legs, so that we may divide this threefold Justification, as Peter divided his three Tabernacles, here is one for Moses, and one for Elias: I pray let us have one for Christ, and let that be the chief.  Marq. 
And Reason good.  King. 
I wish that all Controversies betwixt you and Us, were as well decided: I am fully satisfied in this point.  Doctor. 
May it please Your Majesty: A great many Controversies between us and the Papists might be soon decided, if the Church's revenues (which were every where taken away, more or less, where differences in Religion in several parts of the world, did arise in the Church) were not an obstacle of the reunion; like the stone, which the Crab cast into the Oyster, which hindered it from ever shutting itself again; like the division, which happened between the Greek and Latin Church. Photinus intrudes himself into the Patriarch-ship of Constantinople over the head of Ignatius, the lawful Patriarch thereof; whom the Pope preserved in his Communion, and then the difference of the Procession of the holy Ghost, between those two Churches, was fomented by the said Photinus, lest the wound should heal too soon, and the patient should not be held long enough in cure, for the benefit of the Chirurgeon. Sacrilege hath brought more divisions than the nature of their causes have required: and the Universities play with edged tools, whilst hungry stomaches run away with their meat; wherefore since Your Majesty was pleased to discharge the watch, that I had set before the door of my lips: I shall make bold to put Your Majesty in mind of holding my Lord to the demand which Your Majesty once made unto his Lordship, concerning the true Church; for if once that Question were throughly determined, all Controversies not only between Your Majesty and his Lordship, but also all the Controversies that ever were started, would soon be decided at a short race end; and without this, we take away the means of reconciliation. For I must confess ingenuously (yet under the highest correction) that there is not a thing that I ever understood less, than that assertion, of the Scriptures being judge of Controversies, though in some sense I must, and will acknowledge it: but not as it is a book consisting of papers, words, and letters; for as we commonly say in matters of civil differences, the Law shall be the judge between us, we do not mean, that every man shall run unto the Law books, or that any Lawyer himself shall search his Lawcases, and thereupon possess himself of any thing that is in question between him and another, without a legal trial and determination by lawful Judges, constituted to that same purpose: In like manner, saving knowledge and Divine Truths are the portion, that all God's children lay fast claim unto: yet they must not be their own carvers, though it is their own meat that is before them, whilst they have a mother at the table; They must not slight all Orders, Constitutions, Appeals, and Rules of Faith; saving knowledge, and Divine Truths, are not to be wrested from the Scripture by private hands, for then the Scripture were of private interpretation: which is against the Apostles Rule. Neither are those undefiled, incorruptible and immaculate inheritances, which are reserved for us in heaven, to be conveyed unto us by any Privy-seales. For there is nothing more absurd, to my understanding, then to say, that the thing contested (which is the true meaning of the Scriptures) shall be Judge of the Contestation: no way inferior to that absurdity, which would follow, which would be this, if we should leave the deciding of the sense of the words of the Law, to the preoccupated understanding of one of the Advocates; neither is this all the absurdity that doth arise upon this supposition: for if you grant this to one, you must grant it to any one, and to every one: if there were but two, how will you reconcile them both? If you grant that this judicature must be in many, there are many manyes, which of the manyes will you have? decide but that, and you satisfy all. For if you make the Scripture the Judge of Controversy, you make the reader Judge of the Scripture: as a man consists of a soul and body, so the Scripture consists of the letter and the sense; if I make the dead letter my Judge, I am the greatest, and simplest idolater in the world: it will tell me no more, than it told the Indian Emperor Powhaton, who ask the Jesuit, how he knew all that to be true which he had told him, and the Jesuit answering him, that God's word did tell him so. The Emperor asked him, where it was? he showed him his Bible. The Emperor, after that he had held it in his hands a pretty while, answered, It tells me nothing. But you will say, you can read, and so you will find the meaning out of the significant Character; and when you have done, as you apprehend it, so it must be; and so the Scripture is nothing else but your meaning: wherefore necessity requires an external Judge, for determination of differences, besides the Scriptures. And we can have no better recourses to any, then to such as the Scripture itself calls upon us to hear, which is the Church, which Church would be found out.  King. 
Doctor, Saint John in his first Epistle tells us, that the holy Scripture is that, to whose truth the Spirit beareth witness. And John the Evangelist tells us, that the Scripture is that which gives a greater Testimony of Christ, than John the Baptist. Saint Luke tells us, that if we believe not the Scripture, we would not believe though one were risen from the dead: and Christ himself, who raised men from death to life, tells us; they cannot believe his words, if they believe not in Moses writings: Saint Peter tells us, that the holy Scripture is surer than a voice from heaven: Saint Paul tells us; that it is lively in operation, and whereby the Spirits demonstrates his power; and that, it is able to make a man wise to salvation; able to save our souls; and that it is sufficient too) to make us believe in Christ, to life everlasting, John 20. As in every seed, there is a Spirit, which meeting with earth, heat, and moisture, grows to perfection: so the seed of the word, wherein Gods holy Spirit being sown in the heart, inlivened by the heart of faith, and watered with the tears of repentance) soon fructifies without any further Circumstance.  Doctor. 
It doth so, but Your Majesty presupposes all this while, husbandmen, and husbandry, barns and threshing floors, winnowing and uniting these several grains into one loaf, before it can become children's bread. All that Your Majesty hath said concerning the Scriptures sufficiency, is true, provided, that those Scriptures be duly handled; for as the Law is sufficient to determine right, and keep all in peace and quietness, yet the execution of that sufficiency, cannot he performed without Courts and Judges: so when we have granted the Scriptures to be all that the most reverend estimation can attribute unto them, yet Religion cannot be exercised, nor differences in Religion reconciled, without a Judge; For as Saint jerom tells us, who was no great friend to Popes or Bishops: Si non una, exhorts quaedam, & imminens detur potestas, tot efficerentur in Ecclesia schismata quot Sacerdotes. Wherefore I would fain find out that which the Scripture bids me hear, Audi Ecclesiam: I would fain refer myself to that to which the Scripture commands me to appeal, and tells me, that if I do not, I shall be a Heathen and a Publican, Dic Ecclesiae: which Church Saint Paul in his first Epistle calls the pillar and foundation of Truth, of which the Prophet Ezekiel saith: I will place my Sanctification in the midst of her for ever: and the Prophet Esay, that the Lord would never forsake her, in whose light the people should walk, and Kings in the brightness of her Orient; Against which our Saviour saith: The gates of Hell shall not prevail: with whom our Saviour saith, He would be always unto the end of the world. And from whom the Spirit of Truth should never depart. For although the Psalmist tells us, that the word of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes, yet the same Prophet said to God: Enlighten mine eyes, that I may see the marvels of thy Law: And Saint john tells us, that the book of God hath seven Seals, and it was not every one that was thought worthy to open it, only the lamb. The Disciples had been ignorant, if jesus had not opened the Scriptures unto them. The Eunuch could not understand them without an Interpreter; and Saint Peter tells us, that the Scripture is not of private Interpretation: and that in his brother Paul's Epistles there are many things hard to be understood, which ignorant and light-headed-men wrest to their own perdition. Wherefore though as Saint Chrysostom saith: Omnia clara sunt & plana ex scripture is divinis: quaecunque necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt: yet no man ever hath yet defined what are necessary, and what not. What points are fundamental, and what are not fundamental. Necessary to Salvation is one thing, and necessary for knowledge, as an improvement of our faith, is another thing: for the first, if a man keeps the Commandments, and believes all the Articles of the Creed, he may be saved, though he never read a word of Scripture; but much more assuredly if he meditates upon God's word with the Psalmist day and night. But if he means to walk by the rule of God's word, and to search the Scriptures, he must lay hold upon the means that God hath ordained, whereby he may attain unto the true understanding of them; for as Saint Paul saith: God hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Doctors, to the end we should be no more little children, blown about with every wind of Doctrine; therefore it is not for babes in understanding to take upon them to understand those things, wherein so great a Prophet as the Prophet David confessed the darkness of his own ignorance. And though it be true, the Scripture is a river through which a lamb may wade, and an Elephant may swim, yet it is to be supposed and understood, that the lamb must wade but only through, where the river is foordable; It doth not suppose the river to be all alike in depth, for such a river was never heard of; but there may be places in the river, where the lamb may swim as well as the Elephant, otherwise it is impossible that an Elephant should swim in the same depth, where a lamb may wade, though in the same river he may; neither is it the meaning of that place, that the child of God may wade through the Scripture without directions, help, or Judges, but that the meannest capacity, qualified with a harmless innocence, and desirous to wade through that river of living waters to eternal life, may find so much of Comfort, and heavenly knowledge there, easily to be obtained, that he may easily wade through to his eternal Salvation; and that there are also places in the same river, wherein the highest speculations may plunge themselves, in the deep mysteries of God. Wherefore with pardon craved for my presumption, in holding Your Majesty in so tedious a discourse, as also, for my boldness in obtruding my opinion, which is except (as incomparable Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy hath well observed) the Church's Authority be required herein, as necessary hereunto we shall be so far from agreeing upon the true meaning of the Scripture, that the outward letter sealed with the inward witness of the Spirit (being all heretics have quoted Scripture and pretended Spirit) will not be a warrant sufficient enough, for any private man to judge so much as the Scripture to be Scripture: or the Gospel itself, to be the Gospel of Christ: This Church being found out, and her Authority allowed of, all controversies would be soon decided, and although we allow the Scripture to be the lock upon the door, which is Christ, yet we must allow the Church to be the Key, that must open it; as Saint Ambrose in his 38. Sermons calls the agreement of the Apostles in the Articles of our belief, Clavis Scripturae, one of whose Articles is, I believe the holy Catholic Church. As the Lion wants neither strength, nor courage, nor power, nor weapons, to seize upon his prey, yet he wants a nose to find it out: wherefore by natural instinct, he takes to his assistance, the little Jack-call, a quick scented beast, who runs before the Lion, and having found out the prey, in his language gives the Lion notice of it, who soberly (until such time as he fixes his eyes upon the booty) makes his advance, but once coming within view of it, with a more speed than the swiftest running can make, he jumps upon it, and seizes it. Now to apply this to our purpose.  
Christ crucified is the main substance of the Gospel, according to the Apostles saying, I desire to know nothing, but jesus, and him crucified; This crucified Christ is the nourishment of our souls, according to our Saviour's own words: Ubi Cadaver, ibi aquilae; Thereby drawing his Disciples from the curious speculation of his body glorified, to the profitable meditation of his body crucified: It is the prey of the Elect: the dead Carcase feedeth the Eagles, Christ crucified nourisheth his Saints: according to Saint john's saying, except we eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, we have no life in us; him we must mastigate, and chew by faith: traject, and convey him into our hearts as nutriment, by meditation: and digest him by Coalition, whereby we grow one with Christ, and Christ becomes one with us, according to that saying of Tertullian, Auditu devorandus est, intellectu ruminandus, fide digerendus.  
Now for the true understanding of the Scriptures, which is no other thing, than the finding out of jesus, and him crucified, who is the very life of the Scriptures; which body of Divinity, is nourished with no other food, and all its veins filled with no other blood: though this heavenly food (the Scripture) have neither force nor power to seize upon its prey, but is endued with a lively spirit, able to overcome the greatest ignorance, yet there is a quick scented assistant called Ecclesia, or Church, which is derived from a verb, which signifies to call, which must be the Jack-call, to which this powerful seeker after this prey must join itself, or else it will never be able to find it out; and when we are called, we must go soberly to work, until by this means we have attained unto the true understanding and sight thereof, and then, let the Lion, like the Eagle, Maher-shalal hashbaz (as the Prophet Esay cap. 8. v. 3. tells us,) make haste to the prey, make speed to the spoil. Saint Paul confirms the use of this Etymology writing to the Corinthians, viz. To the Saints called: and the Ephesians cap. 4. he tells us, if ye would be in one body, and in one spirit, and of one mind, you must be as you are called in our hope of your vocation: and in his Epistle of the Colossians cap. 3. he tells us, that if we will have the peace of Christ to rule in our hearts, that is it by which we are called in oneself body, where we must allow a constitution or Society of men called to that purpose, and whose calling it is to procure unto us this peace and unity in the Church, or we shall never find it. Thus when dissension arose between Paul and Barnabas concerning Circumcision, their disputations could effect nothing but heat, until the Apostles and Elders met together, and determined the matter: there must be a society of men that can say, Bene visum fuit nobis & Spiritui sancto, or else matters of that nature will never be determined: which society is there called the Church, which Church we are to find.  King. 
I pray, my Lord, what do you mean by the holy Catholic Church, do you mean the Church of Rome?  Marq. 
I do so.  King. 
My thinks it should be inconsistent with it, to be both universal, and particular.  Marq. 
No more than it is inconsistent, for the General of Your Army to be General of all Your Officers and Soldiers, and yet a particular man. By the word Roman, we intent not the particular Church of Rome, but all the Churches which adhere and are joined in Communion with the Roman Church, as by the Jewish Church, was not only meant the Church of Judah only, but of all the other Tribes which had Communion with her; the word Catholic is taken in three several senses, formally, casually, and participatively: In the first sense, the Society of all the true particular Churches, united in one selfe-same Communion, is called Catholic; Casually, the Roman Church is called Catholic, for as much as she infuseth universality into all the whole body of the Catholic Church; wherefore being a Centre and beginning of Ecclesiastical Communion, infusing unity, which is the form of universality, into the Catholic Church, she may be called Catholic: Participatively, because particular Churches agree, and participate in Doctrine and Communion with the Catholic.  King. 
You have satisfied me why the Church of Rome (in your sense) may be called Catholic, but you have not yet satisfied me, why other Churches may not be called (casually) as much Catholic as she: being the Greek Church hath infused as much universality into the whole body of the Catholic Church as she did, and was both centre and circumference, as much as ever she was.  Marq. 
Sir, as to this point, I shall refer your Majesty to the learned reply, that the profound Card. Peroon, so respectfully and learnedly made to Your royal Father his Apology, wherein this point is largely and (to my apprehension) fully answered. But will Your Majesty either give or take, either let me show you this Church, or else do Your Majesty show it me.  King. 
My Lord, if you can show it me, I shall not shut mine eyes against it; But at this time, truly my Lord, I can hardly hold them open. My Lord, I pray will you set down your mind in writing, and I will promise you it shall want no animadversion, and that I will give you my clear opinion concerning it.  Marq. 
O Sir! Literae scriptae manent; I do not like, that what I speak hère to your Majesty, I can promise myself, so much from your goodness, that no bad Construction shall be made of what I speak. But if my writing should come into other folk's hands, I may justly fear their comments: wherefore I desire to be excused.  King. 
My Lord, I hold it more convenient so to do: I will promise you, that I will let no eyes but mine own view your Paper: and I will return it to you again by the Doctor.  Marq. 
Upon that Condition I am contented: I have one request more unto your Majesty: that You would make one Prayer to God, to direct You in the right way: and that You would lay aside all prejudice, and self-interest, and that You will not so much fear the Subject, as the Superior, who is over all, and then You cannot do amiss.  King. 
My Lord, all this shall be done, by the Grace of God.  
Whereupon the marquis called upon me to help him, so that he might kneel: and being upon his knees, he desired to kiss His Majesty's hand, which he did, saying:  
Sir, I have not a thought in my heart, that tends not to the service of my God, and you: and if I could have resisted this motion of his Spirit, I had desisted long ago, but I could not: wherefore on both my knees, I pray to his Divine Majesty, that he will not be wanting to his own Ordinance, but will direct Your understanding to those things, which shall make You a happy King upon Earth, and a Saint in Heaven; And thereupon he fell a weeping, bidding me to light His Majesty to His Chamber. As the King was going, he said unto the marquis: My Lord, it is great pity, that you should be in the wrong: Whereat the marquis soon replied: It is greater pity, that You should not be in the right. The King said: God direct us both: The marquis said: Amen, Amen, I pray God. Thus they both parted: and (as I was lighting His Majesty to His Chamber,) His Majesty told me, that he did not think to have found the old man so ready at it, and that he believed, he was a long time putting on his armour: yet it was hardly proof. To which I made answer, that I believe, his Lordship had more reason to wonder, how His Majesty (so unprepared) could withstand the onset. The King (being brought to His door,) commanded me, that before I brought him his Lordspips' Paper, I should peruse it, and give him my opinion of it. Which I promised to obey, and so returned to the marquis, whom I found in the dark upon his knees, whom I did not disturb; but when he rose, he said unto me: Doctor, I will tell you what I was doing, I was giving God thanks, that he had preserved the use of my memory for so good a work, and imploring a blessing upon my endeavours. To which I made answer: My Lord, no question but you think it a good work, or else you would not implore God's blessing upon it. Whereupon my Lord said: Ah! Doctor, I would to God you thought so too: And waiting upon him into his Chamber, he further said unto me: Doctor Bayly, you know I am obliged not to speak unto you in this nature, yet I hope I may say thus much unto you, without any breach of promise, you may be an Instrument of the greatest good that ever befell this Nation. I say no more: Good night to you.  
The third day after, he gave me this Paper to deliver unto His Majesty, which I did.  

The marquis his Paper to the King.  
IT must be granted by all, that there must be (always) in the world, one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church: one, that it may be uniform: holy, that it may be certain: Catholic, that it may be known: and Apostolic, that it may succeed: this Church must be either the Roman, or the Protestant, or else some other that is opposite to both. It cannot be any Church which is opposite to both: because the Church of England did not (when she separated from the Roman) join herself to any: not to the Grecian: for that holds as many Doctrines contrary to the Church of England, as doth the Roman; nor to any else, because she agrees with none, no reformed Church under the Sun, that is, or ever was, hath the same articles of belief, as hath the Church of England. And from any other Church, besides the Roman, she never had a being: and with any other Church besides the Roman, she never had Communion; She cannot be that one, because she is but one: nor Catholic, because she agrees not with any: nor Apostolic, because she hath acknowledged such a fine and recovery, that has quite cut off the entail which would have (otherwise) descended unto her from the Apostles; neither can she be holy, because she is none of all the other three. Now if these Attributes cannot belong unto the Protestant Religion, and do (clearly) belong unto the Roman, then is the Church of Rome, the Catholic Church. And that it doth, I shall prove it by the marks, which God Almighty hath given us, whereby we should know her.  
And the first is Universality: All Nations shall flow unto her, Esa. 2. 2. And the Psalmist: The heathen shall be thine inheritance, and the uttermost part of the Earth for thy possession, Psal. 2. 2. And our Saviour Matth. 20. 14. This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, as a witness to all Nations, etc. Now I confess, that this glory is belonging to all Professors of the Christian Religion: yet amongst all those, who do profess the name of Christ, I believe, Your Majesty will consent with me herein, that the Roman Church hath this form of universality, not only above all different and distinct Professors of Religion, but also beyond all Religions of the world, Turks or Heathens: and that there is no place in the world, where there are not Romance Catholics; which is manifestly wanting to all other Religions, whatsoever: Now I hope Your Majesty cannot say so of any Protestant Religion: neither that Your Majesty will call all those who protest against the Church of Rome, otherwise than Protestants: but not Protestant Catholics, or Catholics of the Protestant Religion, being they are not religated within the same Communion, and fellowships: for then Religion would consist in protestation rather than unity; in Nations falling off from one another, rather than all Nations flowing to one another: neither is it a Consideration altogether invalid, that the Church of Rome hath kept possession of the name; all along other reformed Churches, leaving her in possession of the name, and taking unto themselves new names according to their several founders: except the Church of England, (who is now herself become like a Chapter that is full of nothing else) whose founder was such a one, whose name it may be they were unwilling to own.  
For antiquity, if we should inquire after the old paths, which is the good way, and walk therein; as the Prophet Jeremiah adviseth us: if we should take our Saviour's rule, Ab initio autem, non fuit sic: if we should observe his saying, how the good seed was first sowed, and then the tares: If we should consider the pit from whence we were dug, and the rock from whence we were hewn, we shall find antiquity more applicatory to the Church of Rome, than any Protestant Church. But you will say, your Religion is as ancient as ours; having its procedure from Christ, and his Apostles: so say the Lutheran Protestant's, with their Doctrine of Consubstantiation: and many other sorts of Protestants, having other Tenants, altogether contrary to what you hold: how shall we reconcile you? so say all heretics that ever were, how shall we confute them? a part to set up themselmes against the whole, and by the power of the sword, to make themselves Judges in their own causes, is dealing, that were it your case, I am sure you would think it very hard, I wish you may never find it so.  
For Visibility: Our Saviour compares his Church to a City placed on a hill, according unto the Prophet David's Prophecy, a Tabernacle in the Sun: It is likewise compared unto a candle in a candlestick: not under a bushel: and saith our Saviour, If they shall say unto you, behold, he is in the desert, go ye not forth; Behold, he is in secret places, believe it not; forewarning us against obscure and invisible Congregations: Now I beseech Your Majesty, whether should I betake myself, to a Church that was always visible, and gloriously eminent; or to a Protestant Church that was never eminent, and for the most part invisible; shrouding their defection, under an Apostolical Expression, of a woman in the Revelation, who fled into the wilderness for a thousand years? as if an allegory, could wipe out so many clear texts of Scripture, as are set down by our Saviour, and the Prophets, concerning the Church's invisibility? And I could not find any Church in the world to whom that Prophecy of Esay might more fitly appertain, then to the Church of Rome: I have set watchmen upon the walls, which shall never hold their peace day nor night, which I am sure no Protestant Church can apply to herself.  
It is not enough to say, I maintain the same Faith and Religion which the Apostles taught, and therefore, I am of the true Church, ancient, and visible enough; because (as I have said before) every heretic will say as much: but if you cannot by these marks of the Church, (set down in Scripture) clear yourselves to be the true Church, you vainly appeal to the Scriptures siding with you in any particular point: for what can be more absurd, then to appeal from Scripture, (setting things down clearly) unto Scripture setting down things more obscurely? There is no particular point of Doctrine in the holy Scripture so manifestly set down, as that concerning the Church, and the Marks thereof: nothing set down more copious and perspicuous than the visibility, perpetuity, and amplitude of the Church.  
So that Saint Augustin did not stick to say, that the Scriptures were more clear about the Church, than they were about Christ. Let him answer for it. He said so in his book, de unitate Ecclesiae, and this (he said) was the reason: because, God (in his wisdom) would have the Church to be described without any ambiguity, that all Controversies about the Church may be clearly decided: whereby questions about particular Doctrines, may find determinations in her judgement: and that Visibility might show the way unto the most rude and ignorant: and I know not any Church, to whom it may more justly be attributed, then to the Church of Rome: whose Faith (as in the beginning was spread through the whole world) so (all along) and at this day, it is generally known among all nations. Next to this, I prove the Catholic Church to be the Roman; because, a lawful succession of Pastors is required in every true Church, according to the Prophet Esay his Prophecy concerning her, viz. My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth, for ever; This succession I can find only in the Church of Rome: This succession they only can prove; none else offering to go about it. This succession Saint Augustin says, kept him in that Church, viz. a succession of Priests, from the very seat of Peter the Apostle, to the present Bishop of his time. And Optatus Milevitanus reckons all the Roman Bishops from Saint Peter to Syricius, who then was Pope: and by this, he showed and made it his Argument, that the true Church was not with the Donatists: bidding them, to show the original of their Chair; this no Protestant did, or ever can do: The Roman Church gave the English Bishops Commission to preach the Doctrine of Christ, as they have delivered it unto them; but they never gave them any Commission to preach against her Religion: which Bishops being turned out, for observing the depositum (wherewith they were instructed) and new Bishops chosen in their room (by her, who not contenting herself with being a nursing mother thereof, must needs be head of the child: and moderatrix in the same Church, wherein by the Apostles precept she is forbidden to speak) the succession was broke off: the branch cut off from the body, becoming no part of the tree, fit for nothing but to be chopped into smaller pieces, and so fitted for the fire; this proof of succession the Bishops of England, thought so necessary, for proving their Church to be the true Church, that they affirmed themselves to be consecrated by Catholic Bishops, their Predecessors, which (never proved) argues the interruption, and affirming it, shows how that (in their own opinion the succession could not hold in the inferior Ministers (as indeed it cannot) for as there is a continued supply of Ambassadors in all places, yet the succession is in the royal race: so though all vacancies are replenished by Ministers of the Gospel, yet the succession of the Authority was in the Bishops, as descended (to them) from the Apostles, according to our Saviour's rule: I will be with you always unto the end of the world; Which Affirmation of theirs, argues that their calling is sufficient without it: and in that they would fain derive it from the Church of Rome, it argues, that that is the true Church: and yet they would forsake her, supposing her to have errors, when that Reformation itself was but a supposition; for seeing they hold that their Church may err, they can be certain of nothing: and whilst (for errors sake) they forsake the Church of Rome, the Church of England (in forsaking her) may be in the greatest error of all: where there is neither Succession, nor assurance, I must leave her to herself, and your Majesty to judge.  
Next: I prove the Roman Church, to be the true Church, by her unity in Doctrine: for so the Apostle Paul requires all the Church's children to be of one mind. viz. I beseech you, that all speak one thing; Be ye knit together in one mind, and one Judgement, 1 Cor. 1. Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Ephes. 4. 3. The multitude of them that believed, were of one heart, and of one soul, Act. 4. 32. Continue in one Spirit and one mind, of one accord and one judgement, Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2. So our Saviour prayeth that they may be one; So Joseph forewarned his brethren, that they should not fall out by the way, knowing that whilst they were with him, he could order them: when they came to their father, he could order them: but having no head, they should be apt to be dissentious. This Unity I find no where but in the Church of Rome: agreeing in all things, which the Church of Rome hath determined for Doctrine, whereas the Protestant Doctrine, like the heresy of Simon Magus, divided itself into several Sects, and to that of the Donatists which were cut into small threads, in so much, that among the many Religions which are lately sprung up, and the sub, sub, subdivisions under them: each one (pretending to be the true Protestant) excluding the other: and all of them together, no more likely to be bound up in the bond of peace, than a bundle of thorns, can expect binding with a rope of sand; In vain is their excuse, if non-disagreement in fundameatalls: for they dis-agree amongst themselves about the Sacrament: for the Lutherans hold Consubstantiation: but the Church of England no such matter.  
Some, that Christ descended into hell: others not. The Church of England maintain their King to be the head of the Church: The Helvetians will acknowledge no such matter: the Presbyterians will acknowledge no such matter; the Independent will acknowledge no such matter: Concerning the Government of the Church by Bishops, some Protestants maintain it to be Jure Divino: others, to be Jure Ecclesiastico, others no such matter. Some think that the English translations of the Bible in some places takes away, in other places adds, and other some places changes the meaning of the holy Ghost, and some think it no such matter, or else the Bishops would not have recommended 
Lincol. min. to K. James, pag. 11. 13.  it unto the people. Lastly, they are so far from agreeing about the true meaning of the word of God, that they cannot agree upon what is the word of God: For Lutherans, 
Chem. Ex. Contr. Trid. part. 1. pag. 55. Also; Eucher. p. 63.  deny the second Epistle of Saint Peter, the second and third Epistle of Saint John: the Epistle to the Hebr. the Epistle of Saint James, and Saint Judas, and the Revelation; The Calvinists and the Church of England, no such matter, they allow them. And I believe that these are fundamentals; If they cannot agree upon their Principals, how shall they agree upon the deductions thence? If these be not fundamental points, how come Protestants, to fight against Protestants, for the Protestants Religion?  
The disagreement is not so amongst the Roman Catholics: for all points of the Roman Religion, that have been defined by the Church, in a general Council, are agreed upon exactly, by all nations, tongues and people, vibicunque terrarum: but in those points which are not determined by the Church, the Church leaves every man to abound in his own sense; and therefore all the heat that is either between the Thomists and the Scolists: the Dominicans, and the Jesuits: either concerning the Conception of our blessed Lady, or the concurrence of Grace, and freewill, etc. being points, wherein the Church hath not interposed her decrees, is no more prejudical or objectionall against the Church of Rome's Unity, than the disputations in the Schools of our Universities are prejudicial to the 39 Articles of the Church of England. But in each several Protestant Dominion there are certain several Articles of belief, belonging to several Protestant Dominions, in which several agreements, not any one, agrees with any of all the rest; neither is there any possibility they should: being there is no means acknowledged, nor power ordained, whereby they should be gathered together in one council, whereby they might be of one heart, and of one soul: neither is there this Unity in any one particular Dominion: as is in the Dominion of the Roman Church; for they are all in pieces amongst themselves, even in their own several Dominions, practising disobedience to their Superiors, they teach it to their Inferiors.  
The greatest Unity the Protestants have, is not in believing, but in not believing: in knowing, rather what they are against, than what they are for; not so much in knowing what they would have, as in knowing what they would not have. But let these negative Religions take heed they meet not with a negative Salvation.  
Neither can the Conversion of Nations be attributed to any other Church then to the Roman, which is another mark of the true Church, according to the Prophecies of Esay cap. 49. 23. King's shall be thy nursing fathers, and Queens thy nursing mothers. And Esay 60. 16. Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles, and the breasts of Kings shall minister unto thee: And Esay 60. 10. And thy Gates shall be continually open, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles, and that their Kings may be brought. And the Isles shall do thee service. And the Prophet David, I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession, etc. Now no Protestant Church ever converted any one Nation, Kingdom or People. Many Protestant people have fallen away from the Church of Rome, but this cannot be called conversion, but rather perversion: for the Roman Church may justly say of such, these have not converted Nations from paganism to Christianity, which is the mark of the true Church: These are they, which went forth from us, 1 Joh. 2. 19 Certain that went forth from us, Act. 15. 14. These are certain men who rise out of ourselves, speaking perverse things, Act. 20. 30. These were they who separated themselves, jude 19 which are marks of false and heretical Churches. But the Roman Church I find stretching forth her arms, from East to West, receiving and embracing all within her Communion; For the first three hundred years, the Church grew downward, like a strong building, whose foundations are first laid in the earth, whose stones are knit together in Unity by the mortar that was tempered with the blood of her ten Persecutions. Afterwards this building, hasting upwards, Constantine the great Emperor, submitting his neek unto the yoke of Christ, subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Sylvester, than Pope of Rome, from which time to these our days the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward and visible Church as is confessed by Napier, a learned Protestant in his treatise upon the Revelation pag. 145. and all along hath added Kingdoms upon Kingdoms to her Communion: until she had incorporated into herself, not only Europe, but Asia, Africa and America: as Simon Lythus, a Protestant writer, affirmeth, viz. The Jesuits have filled Asia, Africa and America with their Idols (as he calls them) for the late Conversions of the East and West-Indies by the Romans, if you read Joan. Petrus Maffeus' Hist. Indicarum, Jos. Acosta de nature. novi orbis: You shall find that no Church in the world hath ever spread so far and wide, as the Church of Rome. Wherefore I hope in this respect (also) I may safely conclude that the Church of Rome most justly deserves to be called the Catholic Church.  
Neither is it a vainer thing, to say, that the Pope of Rome cannot be head of the Church, because Christ himself is head thereof; than it is for a man to say, that the King of England cannot be King of England, because God is King of all the earth, Psal. 46. 8. As if the King could not be God's Vicegerent, and the people's visible God: so the Pope Christ's Vicar or Deputy, and the Churches visible head. And let Kings beware how they give way to such Arguments as these, lest at the last such inferences be made upon themselves.  
As strange an inference is that, how that the Church was not built upon Peter, because it was built upon his Confession; as if it might not be built casually upon the one, and formally upon the other: as if both these could not stand together. As if the Confession of Peter's Faith might not be the cause why Christ built his Church upon his Person; as if Christ did not as well (personally) tell him, Tu es Petrus: as (significantly) super hanc Petram (id est, super istam Confessionem) aedificabo Ecclesiam.  
No less invalid is that Objection of Protestants against the oeconomacy of the Bishop of Rome, viz. that saying of Greg. sometimes Bishop of that sea, viz. He that entitled himself universal Bishop, exalted himself like Lucifer, above his brethren, and was a forerunner of Antichrist: As if there were no more meanings in the word Universality than one: as if there were not a Metaphorical as well as a Literal and Grammatical sense: as if Saint Gregory might not censure this title of Universality in the Grammatical, and exclusive meaning, (which being so taken, would have excluded all other Bishops from their Offices, Essences, and Proprieties which they held under Christ) thereby depriving them of the Key of orders, and yet still keep the Superiority, (viz. of one Bishop over another, and himself over all in a Metaphorical and transferent sense) thereby still keeping the Key of Jurisdiction in his own hands; and this not only is, but must be the meaning of Saint Gregory; for he thus explicates the matter himself, lib. 4. ind. 13. cp. 32. viz. The care of the Church hath been committed to the Prince of all the Apostles, Saint Peter: and yet had Saint Peter called himself the Universal Apostle; in the first sense (seeing that Christ Jesus made other Apostles as well as him) he had been no Apostle himself, but Antichrist; and yet this hindered not, but that the care and principality was committed unto Peter: Whereby you may plainly see, how he ascribes a head-ship over the Church, whilst he denies the Universality of Episcopacy. Wherefore, having showed Your Majesty my Church, I humble beg, that You will be pleased either to give me a few lines in answer hereunto, or else to show me Yours.   

The KING'S Paper in Answer to the marquis.  
MY Lord: I have perused your Paper, whereby I find, that it is no strange thing to see Error triumph in Antiquity, and flourish all those Ensigns of Universality, Succession, Unity, Conversion of Nations, etc. in the face of Truth: and nothing was so familiar either with the jews, or Gentiles, as to besmear the face of Truth with spots of novelty: For this was jeremiahs' case, jer. 44. 16. viz. As for the word which thou hast spoken unto us in the Name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee, but we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouths: to burn incense unto the Queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto her as we have done, we, and our fathers, our Kings and our Princes in the Cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem as we have done: there is Antiquity, we and our Fathers: there is Succession, In the Cities of Judah and Jerusalem: There is Universality: so Demetrius, urged Antiquity and Universality for his god 〈…〉: viz. That her Temple should not be despised, 〈…〉 Magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshipped. So Symachus that wise Senator, though a bitter enemy to the Christians: Servanda est inquit tot seculis fides, & sequendi sunt nobis parentes qui feliciter secuti sunt suos: we must defend that Religion which hath worn out so many ages, and follow our Father's steps, who have so happily followed theirs. So Prudentius would have put back Christianity itself, viz. Nunc dogma nobis Christianum nascitur post evolutos mille demum consuls: Now the Christian Doctrine begins to spring up after the revolution of a thousand Consulships: But Ezekiel reads us another lecture. Ne obdurate cervices vestras ut patres vestri, cedite manum jehovae, ingredimini sanctuarium ejus, quod sanctificavit in seculum, & colite jehovam Deum vestrum: Be not stiffnecked as your fore fathers were, resist not the mighty God, enter into his Sactuary which he hath consecrated for ever, and worship ye the Lord your God.  
Radbodus, King of Phrygia, (being about to be baptised) asked the Bishop, what was become of all his ancestors, who were dead without being baptised? The Bishop answered: that they were all in hell; whereupon the King suddenly withdrew himself from the font, (saying) Ibi profecto me illis Comitem adjungam: Thither will I go unto them: no less wise are they, who had rather err with fathers and Counsels, then rectify their understanding by the word of God, and square their faith according to its rules.  
Our Saviour Christ saith, we must not so much hearken to what has been said by them of old time, Mat. 21. 12. as to that which he shall tell you, where Auditis dictum esse antiquis is exploded: and Ego dico vobis is come in its place, which of them all can attribute that credit to be given unto him, as is to be given to Saint Paul. Yet he would not have us to be followers of him more, than he is a follower of Christ, 1 Cor. 11. 1. Wherefore if you cry never so loud, Sancta mater Ecclesia, sancta mater Ecclesia, the holy mother Church, holy mother Church as of old, they had nothing to say for themselves, but Templum Domini, Templum Domini, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, we will cry as loud again with the Prophet: Quomodo facta est meretrix Urbs fidelis? how is the faith full City become a harlot? if you vaunt never so much of your Roman Catholic Church: we can tell you out of Saint John, that she is become the Synagogue of Satan: neither is it impossible, but that the house of prayers may be made a Den of thiefs: you call us heretics; we answer you with Saint Paul, Act. 24. 14. After the way which you call heresy, so worship we the God of our fathers, believing all things which were written in the Law and the Prophets.  
I will grant you, that all those marks which you have set down, are marks of the true Church; and I will grant you more, that they were belonging to the Church of Rome: but than you must grant me thus much, that they are as well belonging to any other Chucch, who hold and maintain that Doctrine which the Church of Rome then maintained, when she wrought those conversions: and not at all to her, if she have changed her first love, and fallen from her old principles; for it will do her no good to keep possession of the keys, when the lock is changed: now to try whether she hath done so or no, there can be no better way, then by searching the Scriptures; for though I grant you that the Catholic Church is the White in that Butt of earth at which we all must aim; yet the Scripture is the heart centre, or peg in the midst of that white that holds it up, from whence we must measure, especially when we are all in the white. We are all of us in gremio Ecclesiae; so that controversies cannot be decided by the Catholic Church, but by the Scriptures, which is the thing by which the nearness unto truth must be decided; for that which must determine truth must not be fallible: but whether you mean the consent of Fathers, or the decrees of general Counsels, they both have erred; I discover no Father's nakedness; but deplore their infirmities, that we should not trust in arms of flesh: Tertullian was a montanist; Cyprian a rebaptist; Origen, an Anthropomorphist; Heirom, a Monoganist; Nazianzen, an Angelist; Eusebius, an Arrian; Saint Augustine had written so many errors, as occasioned the writing of a whole book of retractations: they have often times contradicted one another, and sometimes themselves.  
Now for general Counsels: Did not that Concilium Ariminense, conclude for the Arrian heresy? Did not that Concilium Ephesinum, conclude for the Eutichian heresy? Did not that Concilium Carthaginense, conclude it not lawful for Priests to marry? Was not Athanasius condemned In concilio Tyrioi? Was not Eiconolatria established In concilio Nicaeno secundo?  
What should I say more? when the Apostles themselves, less obnoxious to error, either in life or doctrine, more to be preferred then any, or all the world besides; one of them betrays his Saviour, another denies him; all forsake him. They thought Christ's Kingdom to have been of this world; and a promise only unto the Jews, and not unto the Gentiles; and this after the resurrection.  
They wondered that the holy Ghost should fall upon the Gentiles. Saint John twice worshipped the Angel, and was rebuked for it, Apoc. 22. 8. Saint Paul saw how Peter walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 14. Not only Peter, but other of the Apostles, were ignorant, how the word of God was to be preached unto the Gentiles.  
But who then shall roll away the stone from the mouth of the monument? Who shall expound the Scriptures to us? one pulls one way, and another another: by whom shall we be directed?  Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus. 
You that cry up the Fathers, the Fathers so much; shall hear how the Fathers do tell us that the Scriptures are their own interpreters.  
Irenaeus, who was scholar to Policarpus, that was scholar to Saint john, lib. 3. cap. 12. thus saith, Ostentiones quae sunt in Scripture is non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis Scripture is, the evidences which are in Scripture cannot be manifested but out of the same Scripture.  
Clemens Alexandrinus, Nos ex ipsis de ipsis Scripture is, perfectè demonstrantes ex fide persuademus demonstrative: Strom. li. 7. Out of the Scriptures themselves, from the same Scriptures perfectly demonstrating, do we draw demonstrative persuasions from faith.  
Crysost. Sacra Scriptura seipsam exponit, & auditorem errare non sinit. Basilius Magnus, Quae ambiguè & quae obscurè, videntur dici in quibusdam locis sacrae Scripturae, ab i is quae in aliis locis aperta & perspicua sunt explicantur, Hom: 13. in Gen. Those things which may seem to be ambiguous and obscure in certain places of the holy Scripture, must be explicated from those places which elsewhere are plain and manifest.  
Augustinus, Ille qui cor habet quod precisum est iungat 
Questionum asceticarum secundum eptt regula trecentissima sexagessima.  Scripturae, & legate superiora vel inferiora & inveniet sensum. Let him who hath a precise heart join it unto the Scriptures: and let him observe what goes before, and that which follows after, and he shall find out the sense.  
Gregorius saith (Ser. 49. De verbis Domini.) Per Scripturam loquitur Deus omne quod vult: & voluntas dei sicut in testamento, sic in evangelio inquiratur. By Scripture God speaks his whole mind; and the will of God, as in the old Testament so in the new, is to be found out.  
Optatus contra Parmenonem, lib. 5. Num quis aequior arbiter veritatis divinae quam Deus, aut ubi deus manifestius loquitur quam in verbo suo: Is there a better judge of the divine verity than God himself? or where doth God more manifestly declare himself then in his own word?  
What breath shall we believe then, but that which is the breath of God; the holy Scriptures? for it seems all one to Saint Paul to say, dicit Scriptura, the Scripture saith: Rom. 4. 3. and dicit Deus the Lord saith: Rom. 9 17. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal. 3. 22. for that which Rom. 11. 32. he saith, God hath concluded all, etc. how shall we otherwise conclude then but with the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God.  
They who know not this spirit, do deride it: but this spirit is hidden Manna, Apo. 2. 17. which God giveth them to eat who shall overcome; it is the white stone wherein the new name is written, which no man knoweth but he that received it. Wherefore we see the Scripture is the rule by which all differences may be composed: it is the light wherein we must walk: the food of our souls: an antidote that expels any infection: the only sword that kills the enemy: the only plaster that can cure our wounds: and the only documents that can be given towards the attainment of everlasting salvation.   

The Marquis' reply to the King's Paper.  
May it please your most excellent Majesty.  
YOur Majesty is pleased to wave all the marks of the true Church; and to make recourse unto the Scriptures.  
I humbly take leave to ask your Majesty what heretic that ever was did not do so? How shall the greatest heretic in the world, be confuted or censured; if any man may be permitted to appeal to Scriptures: margind with his own notes, fenced with his own meaning, and enlivened with his own private spirit? to what end were those marks so fully, both by the Prophets, the Apostles, and our Saviour himself set down, if we make no use of them? To what use are landmarks set up, if Mariners will not believe them to be such?  
Yet notwithstanding after that I have said, what I have to say in removal of certain obstacles that lie in the way, I shall lead your Majesty to my Church, through the full body of the Scriptures, or not at all, and then I shall leave it to your royal heart to judge (when you shall see that we have Scripture on our side) whether or no the interpretation thereof be likelier to be true, that hath been adjudged so by Counsels, renowned Fathers, famous for sanctity and holiness of life; continued for the space of a thousand or twelve hundred years, by your own confession, universally acknowledged; or that such a one as Luther (his word shall be taken, either without Scripture, or against it, with sic volo, and sic jubeo; a man who confessed himself, that he received his doctrine from the Devil; or such a one as Calvin and their associates, notoriously infamous in their lives and conversations, plain Rebels to their Moses and Aaron, united to the same person) should counter balance all the worthies determinations of Counsels, and the continued practice, which so many ages produced.  
If your Majesty means by the Church all the professors of the Gospel; all that are Christians, are so the true Church; then we are so in your own sense, and you in ours: then none who believe in the blessed Trinity, the Articles of the Creed; none, who deny the Scriptures to be the word of God, let them construe them as they please, can be heretical, or of a wrong Religion; therefore we must contradistinguish them thus: and by the Protestant Church and Religion, we must understand those opinions which the Protestants hold contrary to the Church of Rome; and by the Roman, the opinions which they hold dissenting from the Protestant; and then we will see whether we have Scripture for our Religion or not; and whether you have Scripture for what you maintain; and whose opinions are most approved of by the Primitive times, and Fathers; and what ground your late Divines have built their new opinions upon; and then I shall give you Majesty an answer to the objection which you make against our Church: viz. That she hath forsaken her first love, and fallen from the principles which she held, when she converted us to Christianity.  
But first to the removal of those rubs in our way; and then I shall show as much reverence to the Scripture as any Protestant in the world; and shall endeavour to show your Majesty that the Scriptures are the Basis or foundation upon which our Church is built.  
Your Majesty was pleased to urge the errors of certain Fathers, to the prejudice of their authority; which I conceive would have been so, had they been all Montanists, Rebaptists, all Anthropomorphists, and all of them generally guilty of the faults, wherewith they were severally charged in the particulars: seeing that when we produce a Father, we do not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile: the infallibility being never attributed by us, otherwise then unto the Church, not unto particular Churchmen: as Your Majesty hath most excellently observed, in the failings of the holy Apostles, who erred after they had received the holy Ghost, in so ample manner: but when they were all gathered together in Council, and could send about their edicts, with these capital letters in the front, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, Acts 15. 28. then I hope your Majesty cannot say, that it was possible for them to err.  
So, though the Fathers might err in particulars, yet those particular errors would be swallowed up in a general Council, and be no more considerable in respect of the whole, then so many heat-drops of error, can stand in competition with a cloud of witnesses, to the divine truth; and be no more prejudicicall to their general determinations, than so many exceptions, are prejudicial to a general rule. Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony, except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient; for otherwise we should be of the nature of the flies, who only prey upon corruption, leaving all the rest of the body that is whole unregarded.  
Secondly, Your Majesty taxes general Counsels for committing errors. If Your Majesty would be pleased to search into the times wherein those Counsels were called, Your Majesty shall find, that the Church was then under persecution, and how that Arrian Emperors, rather made Assemblies of Divines, than called any General Counsels; and if we should suppose them to be general and free Counsels, yet they could not be erroneous in any particular man's judgement, until a like general Council should have concluded the former to be erroneous; (except you will allow particulars to condemn generals, and private men the whole Church) all general Counsels, from the first unto the last that ever were, or shall be, makes but one Church: and though in their intervals, there be no session of persons, yet there is perpetual virtue in their decretals, to which every man ought to appeal for judgement, in point of controversy. Now as it is a maxim in our law, Nullum tempus occurrit regi: so it is a maxim in divinity, Nullum tempus occurrit deo: Ubi deus est, as he promised, I will be with you always unto the end of the world; that is with his Church, in directing her chief Officers, in all their consultations, relating either to the truth of her doctrine, or the manner of her discipline: wherefore if it should be granted, that the Church had at any time determined amiss; the Church cannot be said to have erred, because you must not take the particular time for the Catholic Church; because the Church is as well Catholic for time as territory; except that you will make rectification an error.  
For as in civil affairs, if that we should take advantage of the Parliaments nulling former acts; and thereupon conclude, that we will be no more regulated by its laws, we should breed confusion in the Commonwealth; for as they alter their laws, upon experience of present inconveniences; so the Counsels change their decrees according to that further knowledge which the holy writ assures us, shall increase in the latter days; provided that this knowledge be improved by means approved of, and not by every enthusiastic, that shall oppose himself against the whole Church.  
If I recall my own words, it is no error, but an avoidance of error: so where the same power rectifies itself, though some things formerly have been decreed amiss, yet that cannot render the decrees of general Counsels not binding, or incident to error, quoad ad nos; though in themselves, and pro tempore, they may be so.  
As to Your Majesty's objecting the errors of the holy Apostles, and penmen of the holy Ghost; and Your inference thereupon, viz. That truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture; under Your Majesty's correction, I take this to be the greatest argument against the private spirit (urged by your Majesty) its leading us into all truth, that could possibly be found out. For if such men (as they) endued with the holy Ghost, enabled with the power of working miracles; so sanctified in their callings, and enlightened in their understandings could err: how can any man (less qualified) assume to himself a freedom from not erring, by the assistance of a private spirit?  
Lastly, as to Your Majesty's quotations of so many Fathers, for the Scriptures easiness and plainness to be understood. If the Scriptures themselves do tell us, that they are hard to be understood, so that the unlearned and unstable wrest them to their own destruction: 2 Peter 3. 16. and if the Scripture tells us, that the Eunuch could not understand them except some man should guide him: as Acts 8. 13. and if the Scripture tells us, that Christ's own Disciples could not understand them, until Christ himself expounds them unto them, as Luke 24, 25. and if the Scriptures tell us, how the Angel wept much, because no man was able either in heaven or earth to open the Book sealed with seven seals, nor to look upon it: as Apoc. 5. 1. then certainly all these sayings of theirs are either to be set to the erratas that are behind their books, or else we must look out some other meaning of their words, than what Your Majesty hath inferred from thence; as thus, they were easy, id est, in aliquibus, but not in omnibus locis; or thus, they were easy as to the attainment of particular salvation, but not as to the general cognisance of all the divine mystery therein contained, requisite for the Church's understanding, and by her alone, and her consultations and discusments (guided by an extraordinary and promised assistance) only to be found out; of which as to every ordinary man, this knowledge is not necessary, so hereof he is not capable.  
First, we hold the real presence; you deny it: we say his body is there: you say there is nothing but bare bread: we have Scripture for it, Mat. 20. 26. Take, eat, this is my body, so Luke 22. 19 This is my body which is given for you.  
You say that the bread which we must eat in the Sacrament, is but dead bread; Christ saith that that bread is living bread: you say how can this man give us his flesh to eat? we say that that was the objection of Jews, and Infidels, (1 John 6. 25.) not of Christians and believers: you say it was spoken figuratively; we say it was spoken really, re vera, or as we translate it indeed, John 6. 55. But as the Jews did, so do ye, First, murmur that Christ should be bread, John. 6. 41. Secondly, that that bread should be flesh, john 6. 52. And thirdly, that that flesh should be meat indeed, John 6. 55. until at last you cry out with the unbelievers, this is a hard saying, who can hear it? john 6. 60. had this been but a figure, certainly Christ would have removed the doubt, when he saw them so offended at the reality, John. 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying, in terminis, with promise of a greater wonder, John 6. 62. you may as well deny his incarnation, his ascension, and ask, how could the man come down from heaven and go up again? (if incomprehensibility should be sufficient to occasion such scruples in your breasts) and that which is worse than naught, you have made our Saviour's conclusion an argument against the premises; for where our Saviour tells them thus to argue according unto flesh and blood, in these words, the flesh profiteth nothing; and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding, they must have faith to believe it in these words, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviour's meaning into a contrary sense, of their own imagination: viz. the flesh profiteth nothing, that is to say, Christ's body is not in the Sacrament: but in the Spirit that quickeneth, that is to say, we must only believe that Christ died for us, but not that his body is there: as if there were any need of so many inculcations, pressures, offences, mis-believings, of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memorial of a thing; being a thing nothing more usual with the Israelites: as the twelve stones which were erected as a sign of the children of Israel's passing over Jordan: That when your children shall ask their Fathers what is meant thereby, than ye shall answer them, etc. Josh. 4. there would not have been so much difficulty in the belief, if there had not been more in the mystery; there would not have been so much offence taken at a memorandum, nor so much stumbling at a figure.  
The Fathers are of this opinion, Saint Ignat. in Ep. ad Smir. Saint Justin. Apol: 2. ad Antonium: Saint Cyprian Ser. 4. de lapsis. Saint Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. Saint Remigius, etc. affirm the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament, and the same flesh which the word of God took in the Virgin's womb.  
Secondly, We hold that there is in the Church an infallible rule for understanding of Scripture, besides the Scripture itself, this you deny: this we have Scripture for, as Rom. 12. 16. we must prophesy according to the rule of faith: we are bid to walk according to this rule: Gal. 6. 16. we must increase our faith, and preach the Gospel, according to this rule: 1 Cor. 10. 15. this rule of faith, the holy Scriptures call a form of doctrine: Romans 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands: 2. Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure ourselves by ourselves: 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vain babble and oppositions of sciences, and by this rule of faith, is not meant the holy Scriptures; for that cannot do it, as the Apostle tells us, whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way, to their own destruction; but it is the tradition of the Church and her exposition, as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly appears, 2. Tim. 2. 2. viz. The things which thou hast heard of us (not received in writing from me or others) among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach it to others also.  
Of this opinion are the Fathers; Saint Irenaeus 4. chap. 45. Tertul: de praescr. and Vincent. lir. in suo commentario saith, It is very needful in regard of so many errors proceeding from misinterpretations of Scripture, that the line of prophetical and Apostolical exposition, should be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense; and saith Tertullian prae. script. advers. haeres. chap. 11. We do not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can show who their Ancestors were, and from whom they received the Scriptures: for the ordinary course of Doctrine, requires that the first question should be, from whom, and by whom, and to whom, the form of Christian Religion was delivered; otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger: for otherwise if a heathen should come by the Bible, as the Eunuch came by the Prophecy of Esay, and have no Philip to interpret it unto him, he would find out a Religion rather according to his own fancy, then divine verity.  
In matters of faith, Christ bids us to observe and do whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses seat, Mat. 22. 2. therefore surely there is something more to be observed then only Scripture; will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say, as what ye hear his Ministers write? you hear Christ when you hear them, as well as you read Christ when you read his word: He that heareth you heareth me: Luke 10. 16.  
We say the Scriptures are not easy to be understood; you say they are: we have Scripture for it, as is before manifested at large: the Fathers say as much: Saint Irenaeus lib. 2. chap. 47. Origen: contr. Cells: and Saint Ambr. Epist. 44. ad Constant. calleth the Scripture a Sea and depth of prophetical riddles: and Saint Hier. in praefat: comment. in Ephes: and Saint Aug: Epist: 119. chap. 21. saith: The things of holy Scripture which I know not, are more than those that I know: and Saint Denis, Bishop of Corinth, cited by Eusebius, lib. 7. hist. Eccless. 20. saith of the Scriptures, that the matter thereof was far more profound than his wit could reach.  
We say that this Church cannot err: you say it can: we have Scripture for what we say; such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot err therein: Esaiah 35. 8. such Scripture as will tell you, if you neglect to hear it, you shall be a heathen and a publican: Mat. 18. 17. such Scripture as will tell you, that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church, a Church that shall be without spot or wrinkle: Ephesians 5. 27. such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit: Isaiah 59 21. The Fathers affirm the samme, Saint Aug: contra Crescon: lib. 1. cap. 3. Saint Cypr: Epist. 55. ad Cornel. num: 3. Saint Irenaeus lib. 3. chap. 4. Cum multis aliis.  
We say the Church hath been always visible; you deny it: we have the Scripture for it, Mat. 5. 14, 15. The light of the world; a City upon a hill cannot be hid: 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isaiah 22.  
The Fathers unanimously affirm the same; Origen: Hom: 30. in Math: That the Church is full of light even from the East to the West: Saint Chrisost: Hom: 4. in 6. of Isaiah, That it is easier for the Sun to be extinguished, than the Church to be darkened: Saint Aug: tract: in Joan: calls them blind, who do not see so great a mountain: and Saint Cypr: de Unitate Ecclesiae.  
We held the perpetual universality of the Church, and that the Church of Rome is such a Church: you deny it: we have Scripture for it, Psal. 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. the Fathers affirm as much, Saint Cypr: ep. 57 writing to Cornelius Pope of Rome, saith, whilst with you there is one mind and one voice, the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church. Saint Aug: de unitate Eccles. chap. 4. saith, who so communicates not with the whole corpse of Christendom, certain it is that they are not in the holy Catholic Church. Saint Hier. in Apol. ad Ruffin. saith, that it is all one to say the Roman faith, and the Catholic.  
We hold the unity of the Church to be necessary in all points of faith: you deny it: the several articles of your Protestant Churches deny it: we have Scripture for it, Eph. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Acts 4. 35. 1 Cor. 1. 10. The Fathers are of that opinion, Saint Aug: cont. ep. Par. l. 3. chap. 5. Saint Cyp. lib. de unitate ecclesiae nu. 3. Saint Hyl. lib. ad Constantium Augustum.  
We hold that every Minister of the Church, especially the supreme Ministers or head thereof, should be in a capacity of fungifying his office in preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, baptising, marrying, and not otherwise, this we have Scripture for, Heb. No man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God, as Aaron was: this you deny: and not only so, but you so deny it, as that your Church hath maintained and practised it a long time, for a woman to be head or supreme moderatrix in the Church; when you know that according to the word of God (in this respect) a woman is not only forbid to be the head of the man, but to have a tongue in her head. 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. yet so hath this been denied by you, that many have been hanged, drawn, and quartered, for not acknowledging it: the Fathers are of our opinion herein, Saint Damascen. ser. 1. Theod. hist. Eccles. lib. 4. chap. 28. Saint Ignat. Epist. ad Philodolph. Saint Chrysost. Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae.  
We say that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive sins, you deny it; and say, that God only can forgive sins: we have Scripture for it, John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained: and John 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you: and how was that? viz. with so great power, as to forgive sins: Mat. 9 3. 8. where note, that Saint Matthew doth not set down, how that the people glorified God the Father, who had given so great power unto God the Son; but that he had given so great power unto men, loco citato. The Fathers are of our opinion, S. Aug. tract. 49. in Joan. Saint Chrys. de Sacerdotio. l. 3. Saint Ambros. l. 3. de penitentia. St. Cyril. l. 12. c. 50. saith, it is not absurd to say, That they should remit sins, who have in them the Holy Ghost: and Saint Basil. l. 5. cont. Eunom. proved the Holy Ghost to be God, (and so confuted his heresy) because the Holy Ghost forgave sins by the Apostles: and S. Irenaeus, l. 5. c. 13. so S. Greg. Hom. 6. Evang.  
We hold, that we ought to confess our sins unto our Ghostly Father: this ye deny, saying, that ye ought not to confess your sins but unto God alone, this we prove out of Scripture: Mat. 3. 5, 6. Then went out Jerusalem, and all Judah, and were baptised of him in jordan, confessing their sins: this confession was no general confession, but in particular; as appears, Acts 19 18, 19 And many that believed, came and confessed, and showed their deeds.  
The Fathers affirm the same; S. Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 9 Tert. lib. de Poenitentia: where he reprehendeth some, who for humane shamefacedness, neglected to go to confession. Saint Ambr. sat to hear confession: Amb. ex Paulsino: S. Clem. Ep. the fratr. Dom. Origen l. 3. Chrys. l. 3. de sacerd. S. Ambr. orat. in muliere peccatrice, saith, confess freely to the Priest the hidden sins of thy soul.  
We hold, that men may do works of supererogation, this you deny: This we prove by Scripture, Mat. 19 12. viz. There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: he that is able to receive it, let him receive it. This is more than a Commandment, as Saint Aug: observes upon the place, ser. lib. de temp: for of precepts it is not said, keep them, who is able, but keep them absolutely.  
The Fathers are of this opinion: Saint Amb: lib. de viduis. Orig: in c. 15. ad Rom. Euseb. 1. demonstrat. c. 8. Saint Chry: hom. 8. de act. paenit. Saint Greg. nicen. 15. Moral: c. 5.  
We say, we have freewill, you deny it, we prove we have out of Scripture, viz. 1 Cor. 17. He that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doth well.  
Deut. 30. 11. I have have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, choose life, that thou and thy seed may live: And Christ himself said, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how oft would I have gathered thy children together, as a Hen gathers her Chickens, and ye would not? where Christ would, and they would not: there might have been a willingness as well as a willing, or else Christ had wept in vain; and to think that he did so, were to make him an impostor.  
The ancient Fathers are of our opinion: Euseb: Caesar: de praep. l. 1. c. 7. Saint Hilde: Trin: Saint Aug: l. 1. ad Simp: q. 4. Saint Ambr: in Luc: c. 12. Saint Chrys: hom: 19 in Gen: Irenaeus l. 4. c. 72. S. Cyril: l. 4. in Joan: in c. 7. etc.  
We hold it possible to keep the Commandments; you say it is impossible: we have Scripture for it, Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God: walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord, blameless: and 1 John 5. 3. His Commandments are not grievous.  
The Fathers are for us: Orig: Hom: 9 in Josue: Saint Cyril: lib. 4. cont: Julian: Saint Hill: in Psal. 118. Saint Hier: lib. 3. cont: Pelag: Saint Basil:  
We say, faith cannot justify without works: ye say good works are not absolutely necessary to salvation: we have Scripture for what we say, 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all faith, and have no charity, I am nothing: and James 2. 24. By works a man is justified and not by faith only.  
This opinion of yours Saint Aug: lib. de fide & oper: cap. 14. saith, was an old heresy, in the Apostles time; and in the preface of his Comment: upon the 32. Psal. he calls it the right way to hell and damnation: See Orig: in 5. to the Rome S. Hillar. chap. 7. in Mat: S. Amb: 4. ad Heb: etc.  
We hold, good works to be meritorious; you deny it: we have Scripture for it, Mat. 6. 27. He shall reward every man according to his works. Mat. 5. 12. Great is your reward in heaven. Reward at the end, presupposes merit in the work: the distinction of secundum, and propter opera; is too nice to make such a division in the Church.  
The Fathers were of our opinion. S. Ambiguity: de Apolog: David. cap. 6. S. Hier: lib. 3. Cont: Pelag: S. Aug: de Spiritu & lit. cap. ult. and divers others.  
We hold, that faith once had, may be lost, if we have not care to preserve it: You say it cannot; we have Scripture for it, viz. Luke 8. 13. They on the rock, are they, which when they hear, receive the word with joy: which, for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. So 1 Tim. 1. 18, 19 Which some having put away, have made shipwreck of their faith.  
This is frequently affirmed amongst the Fathers, see S. Aug: de gratia, & lib. arbit. de correp. & gratia, & ad articulos.  
We hold, that God did never inevitably damn any man before he was born: or as you say, from all eternity; you say, he did: we have Scripture for what we say, Wis: 1. 13. God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 1 Tim. 2. 34. God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3. 9 The Lord is not willing that any should die, but that all should come to repentance: and if you will not believe, when he says so, believe him when he swears it: As I live, saith the Lord, I do not delight in the death of a sinner.  
The Fathers are of our opinion, S. Aug. lib. 1. Civit. Dei. Tertul. Orat. cap. 8. Saint Cypr. lib. 4. Epist. 2. and Saint Amb. lib. 2. de Cani & Abel.  
We hold, that no man aught, infallibly, to assure himself of his salvation: you say he ought, the Scripture saith we ought not, 1 Cor. 9 27. S. Paul was not assured, but that whilst he preached unto others, he himself might become a castaway.  
Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the faith: be not highminded, but fear, etc. lest thou also mayst be cut off. Phil. 2. 12. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.  
The Fathers are of our opinion: Amb: Ser. 5. in Psal. 118. S. Basil. in Constil. Monast. chap. 2. S. Hier: lib. 2. Advers. Pelagian: S. Crysost. Hom. 87. in Joan. S. Aug: in Psal. 40. S. Bernard Ser. 3. de Advent. and Ser. 1. de Sept. saith, Who can say I am of the Elect?  
We say that every man hath an Angel guardian; you say he hath not; we have Scripture for it, viz. Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you, that in heaven, their Angels do always behold the face of my Father. Acts 12. 13. S. Peter knocking at the door, they say, it is his Angel; they believed this in the Apostles time: the Fathers believed it along. S. Greg. Dial. lib. 4. cap. 58. S. Athanas. de Communi Essentia. S. Chrys. Hom. 2. in ep. ad Colos. lib. 6. de Sacer. Greg. Turonens. lib. de gloria Martyr. S. Aug. ep. ad Probam cap. 19 and S. Jer. upon these words, Their Angels, Mat 17. 10. calls it a great dignity, which every one hath from his Nativity.  
We say, the Angels pray for us, knowing our thoughts, and deeds; you deny it: we have Scripture for it, Zach. 1. 9, 10, 11, 12. Then the Angel of the Lord, answered, and said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of Judah, against whom thou hast had indignation, these threescore and ten years? Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the Saints, ascended from the hand of the Angel before the Lord.  
This place was so understood by Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hillary in Psal. 129. tells us, This intercession of Angels, God's nature needeth not, but our infirmities do: So S. Amb. lib. de viduis, Victor. utic. lib. 3. de persecutione Vandalorum.  
We hold it lawful to pray unto them; you not: we have Scripture for it, Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless these lads, etc. Hosea 12. 4. He had power over the Angel, and prevailed: he wept and made supplications unto them.  
Saint Augustine expounding these words of Job 19 21. Have pity upon me, O ye my friends, for the hand of the Lord is upon me, saith, that holy Job addressed himself to the Angels.  
We hold, that the Saints deceased, know what passeth here on earth; you say they know not: we have Scripture for it, Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophet's Books here on earth, which he himself had never seen when he was alive.  
The Fathers say as much, Euseb. Ser. de Ann. S. Hier. in Epit. Paulae. S. Maxim. Ser. de S. Agnete.  
We say, they pray for us; you not: we have Scripture for it, Apoc. 5. 8. The twenty four Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps, and golden Viols, full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints. Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites.  
The Fathers were of this opinion, S. Aug. Ser. 15. de verbis Apost. S. Hilar. in Psal. 129. S. Damas'. lib. 4. de fide cap. 16.  
We hold that we may pray to them; you not: we have Scripture for it, Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, etc. You bid us show one proof, for the lawfulness hereof, when here are two Saints prayed unto in one verse: and though Dives were in Hell, yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much, without a non nobis Domine, if it had been in itself, a thing not lawful: You will say it is a parable; yet a jury of ten Fathers, of the grand inquest, as Theophil. Tertul. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys. S. Jer. S. Amb. S. Aug. S. Greg. Euthem. and Ven. Beda, give their verdict, that it was a true History: but suppose it were a parable; yet every parable is either true in the persons named, or else may be true in some others: The Holy Ghost tells no lies, nor fables, nor speaks not to us in parables, consisting either of impossibilities, or things improbable, Job 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz, to have asked Job the question; if invocation of Saints had not been the practice of that time.  
The Fathers affirm the same, S. Diony. c. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Anunt. S. Basil. Orat. 44. in Mat. S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Popul. S. Hier. prayed to S. Paula in Epitaph. S. Paulae. S. Maximus to S. Agnes, Ser. de S. Agnete. S. Bern. to our blessed Lady.  
We hold, Confirmation necessary; you not: we have Scripture for it, Acts 8. 14. Peter and John prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Ghost (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus) Then laid they their hands on them; and they received the holy Ghost: Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confirmation, which was not given in Baptism: also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith, towards God, of Baptism, and of Laying on of hands.  
The Fathers affirm the same. Tert. lib. de Resurrect. Carn. S. Pacian. lib. de Bapt. S. Amb. lib. de Sac. S. Hier. Cont. Lucif. S. Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of Baptism, and Confirmation, saith, Then they may be sanctified and be the sons of God, if they be borne in both Sacraments.  
We hold it sufficient to communicate in one kind; you not: we have Scripture for it, John 6. 15. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. If everlasting life be sufficient, then is it also sufficient to communicate under one kind: So Acts 2. 42. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship (or communion) and in breaking of bread and prayer: where is no mention of the cup, and yet they remained steadfast in the Apostles doctrine, Luke 24. 30. 8. 35. where Christ communicated his two Disciples under one kind.  
Saint Augustine and Theophylact, lib. de Consens. Evang. cap. 25. expound this place of the blessed Sacrament, S. Chrys. Hom. 17. oper. imperfecti.  
We hold, that Christ offered up unto his Father, in the Sacrifice of the Mass (as an expiation for the sins of the people) is a true and proper Sacrifice; this you deny: this we prove by Scripture, viz. Malach. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sun, unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles: and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Jews, because it was spoken of the Gentiles; neither can it be understood, of the real Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross; because that was done but in one place, and at one time, and then, and there, not among the Gentiles neither: which could be no other, but the daily Sacrifice of the Mass; which is, and ever was, from East to West, a pure and daily Sacrifice, Luke 22. 19 This is my body, which is given for you: not to you; therefore a Sacrifice.  
The Fathers are of this opinion: S. Clem. Apost. Const. lib. 6. cap. 23. who calleth it a reasonable, unbloudy, and Mystical Sacrament, S. Aug. lib. 1. Cont. advers. leg. & proph. cap. 18. 19 calleth it a singular, and most excellent Sacrifice. S. Chrys. Hom. in Psal. 95. calleth it a pure and unbloudy host, a heavenly, and most reverend Sacrifice. S. Greg. Nicen. Orat. 4. de Resurrect.  
We say that the Sacrament of Orders, confers grace upon those, on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed; you both deny it to be a Sacrament, notwithstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby; and also you deny, that it confers any inferior grace at all upon them: we have Scripture for what we hold, viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery, So 1 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on my hands.  
S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest. super Num. S. Cyp. Ep. ad Magnum. Optatus Milevit. the place beginneth, ne quis miretur. Tertul. in prescript. The place beginneth Edant Origines.  
We hold, that the Priest, and other Religious persons who have vowed chastity to God, may not Marry afterwards; you deny, first, that it is lawful to make any such vows: and secondly, That those who have made any such vows, are not bound to keep them; we have Scripture for what we hold, Deuteronomie 23. 22. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will require it of thee. So 1 Tim. 5. 11, 12. But the younger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton, against the Lord, they will marry, having damnation; because they have cast off their first faith. What can be meant hereby, but the vow of Chastity? or by their first faith, but some promise made to Christ, in that behalf? otherwise, Marriage could not be damnable: so all the ancient Fathers have expounded it. Saint Aug. lib. de bona viduit. cap. 9 Saint Athanas. lib. de Virginitat. Saint Epiph: Heres. 48. Saint Hier. cont. Jovin. lib. cap. 7.  
We say, Christ descended into Hell, and delivered thence the Souls of the Fathers; ye deny it: we have Scripture for it, viz. Ephes. 4. 8. When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, etc. Descending first, into the lower part of the Earth. This lower part of the Earth, could not be a Grave; for that was the upper part: nor could it have been the place of the damned; for the Devils would have been brought again into heaven: more clearly, Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption: there is hell for his soul for a time; and the grave for his body, for a while: plainer yet, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19 Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison: this prison cannot be heaven, nor hell, as it is the place of the damned; nor the grave, as it is the place of rest; therefore it must be (as Saint Aug. Epist. 99 ad Evod. saith) some third place; which third place, the Fathers have called Limbus patrum: also Zachary 9 11. As for thee also, by the blood of thy Covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is water: by this pit, could not be meant the place of the damned; for they have no share in the Covenant; neither are they Christ's prisoners, but the devils; neither could this pit be the grave; because Christ's grave was a new pit, where never any was laid before.  
The Fathers affirm as much; Saint Hier. in 4. ad Ephes. Saint Greg. lib. 13. Moral. cap. 20. Saint Aug: in Psal. 3. 7. ver. 1.  
We hold purgatory fire, where satisfaction shall be made for sins after death; you deny it: we have Scripture for it, 1 Cor. 3. 13. 15. The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is, if any man's work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 
* Saint Aug. so interprets this place upon the 37. Psal. also S. Amb. upon 1 Cor. 3. and Ser. 20. in Psal. 118. S. Hier. l. 2. cap. 13. ad verse. Joan. S. Greg. lib. 4. dialog. c. 39 Orig. hom. 9 in c. 15. Exod.   
Lastly, We hold extreme Unction to be a Sacrament; you neither hold it to be a Sacrament, neither do you practise it, as a duty: we have Scripture for it, James 5. 13. Is any sick among you? let him call the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick: and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him: Neither any, nor all the Sacraments, were or could be more effectual, men's good, nor more substantial in matter, nor more exquisite in form; nor more punctual in designation of its ministry: other Sacraments being bounded within the limits of the souls only good; this extends itself to the good both of soul and body: he shall recover from his sickness, and his sins shall be forgiven him: and yet it is both left out in your practice, and acknowledgement.  
The Fathers are on our side, Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit. S. Chrys. lib. 3. de Sacerd. S. Aug. in speculo & Ser. 215. de temp. Vener. Bed. in 6. Mark, and S. James, and many others.  
Thus most Sacred SIR, we have no reason to wave the Scriptures umpirage; so that you will hear it speak in the mother language, and not produce it, as a witness on your side, when the producers tell us nothing, but their own meaning, in a language unknown to all the former ages, and then tell us, that she saith so, and they will have it so; because, he that hath a Bible and a sword, shall carry away the meaning from him that hath a Bible, and ne'er a sword: nor is it more blasphemy, to say, that the Scripture is the Churches off spring, because it is the word of God, than it is for me to say, I am the son of such a man, because God made me instrumentally; I am so, and so was she; for as saith Saint Aug: Evangelio non crederum, nisi me Ecclesiae anthoritas commoveret. I should not believe the Gospel itself, unless I were moved by the authority of the Church. There was a Church, before there was a Scripture, take which Testament you please.  
We grant you, that the Scripture is the Original of all light: yet we see light, before we see the Sun; and we know there was a light, when there was no Sun: the one is but the body of the other. We grant you the Scriptures to be the Celestial globe, but we must not grant you that every one knows how to use it; or that it is necessary or possible they should. We grant that the Scripture is a light to our feet, and a lantern to our paths: than you must grant me that it is requisite that we have a guide, or else we may lose our way in the light, as well as in the dark. We grant you that it is the food of our souls, yet there must be some body that must divide, or break the bread. We grant you that it is the only antidote against the infection of the Devil, yet it is not every one's profession to be a compounder of the ingredients. We grant your Majesty the Scripture to be the only sword and buckler to defend a Church from her Ghostly enemies: yet I hope you will not have the glorious company of the Apostles, and the goodly fellow ship of the Prophets to exclude the noble Army of Martyrs, and the holy Church, which through all the world doth acknowledge Christ; wherefore having shown Your Majesty how much the Scriptures are ours: I shall now consider your opinions apart from us, and see how they are yours; and who sides with You, in Your opinion, besides Yourselves: and first, I shall crave the boldness to begin with the Protestants of the Church of England.   

The Church of England.  
WHose Religion, as it is in opposition to ours, consists altogether in denying (for what she affirms, we affirm the same) as the Real presence; the infallibility, visibility, universality, and unity of the Church; confession and remission of sins; freewill, and possibility of keeping the Commandments, etc. All these things you deny, and you may as well deny the blessed Trinity (for we have no such word in Scripture, only inference) then that which ye have already denied; and for which we have plain Scripture, Fathers, Counsels, practise of the Church: that which ye hold positive in your Discipline, is more erroneous, then that which is negative in your Doctrine: as your maintaining a woman to be head, Supreme, or Moderatrix in the Church, who by the Apostles rule is not to speak in the Church (or that a Layman may be so) what Scripture, or Fathers, or custom have ye for this? or that a Layman (as your Lay-Chancellour) should excommunicate and deliver up souls to Satan? Whereas matters of so weighty concernment, as delivering of men's souls into the Devil's hands should not be executed, and upon mature deliberation, and immergent occasions, and not by any, but those who have the undoubted Authority; lest otherwise, you make the Authority itself to be doubted of. A strange Religion, whose Ministers are denied the power of remitting sins; whilst Laymen are admitted to the power of retaining them: and that upon every ordinary occasion, as nonpayment of fees, and the like: Whereas such practices as these have rendered the rod of Aaron, no more formidable than a reed shaken with the wind; so that you have brought it to this, that whilst such men as these were permitted to excommunicate for a threepeny matter, the people made not a threepeny matter of their Excommunication.   

The Church of Saxony.  
NOw for the Church of Saxony, you shall find Luther, 
Ad Argent. An. 1525.  a man not only obtruding new Doctrine upon his Disciples, without Scripture, or contrary to Scripture; but also Doctrine denying Scripture, to be Scripture, and vilipending those books of Scripture, which were received into the Canon, and acknowledged to be the word of God, in all ages. As,  
The book of Eccles. saying, That it hath never a perfect sentence in it, and that the Author thereof had neither boots nor spurs, but rid upon a long stick, or begging shoes, as he did when he was a Friar. 
c Luther anvival. tit. de lib. novi & ver. testam. Rebenstock, lib. 2. Colloq. laet. Luth. c. de vet. test.   
And the book of Job, that the argument thereof, is a mere fiction; invented only, for the setting down of a true and lively example of patience. 
d Luth. Ser. convinal tit. ut supra. & tit. de Patrick. & Prophet.   
That it is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are four Gospels; and that the Gospel of S. John is only true. 
e Luth. praefat. in nov. test. & lib. de descript. & Eccles. auth. c. 3.   
That the Epistle of S. James is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolical spirit. 
f Luth. praef. in Epist. Tac. edit. Jenensi.   
And that Moses in his writings, shows unpleasant, stopped and angry lips; in which the word of grace is not, but of wrath, death and sin. 
g Luth. Tom. 3. Wit. fol. 422.   
He calls him a Gaoler, Executioner, and a cruel Sergeant. 
h Fol. 421. 422.   
For his doctrine: He holds, a threefold Divinity: or three kinds; as there are three persons whereupon Zwinglius taxes him for maning three Gods, or three Natures in the Divinity. 
i Zwingl. part. 2. fol. 474.   
He himself is angry with the word Trinity, calling it a humane invention, and a thing that soundeth very coldly. 
k Luth. postil. majore Basil apud Harv g. enarr Evang. dom. Trinit.   
He justifies the Arrians, and saith, they did very well in expelling the word (Homoousion) being a word that his soul hated. 
l Luth. l. cont. latom. tom. wit. imp. an. 1551.   
He affirmed that Christ was from all eternity, even according to his humane nature: taxed for it by Zwing. in these words, how can Christ then be said to be borne of a woman? 
m Zwingl. Part. 2. fol. 402.   
He affirms that, as Christ died with great pain, so he seems to have sustained pains in Hell after death. 
n Luth. tom. 3. fol. 219.   
That the divinity of Christ suffered, or else he were none of his Christ. 
o Luth. lib. de Council. part. 2. & Hosp. Hist. Sac. part. 2 fol. 76.   
That if the humane nature should only suffer for him, that Christ were but a Saviour of a vile account, and had need himself of another Saviour. 
p Luth. Confess. ma. de caena. tom. 3. ten. fol. 454.   
Luther held not only consubstantiation, but also (saith Hospinian) that the body and blood of Christ both is, and may be found, according to the substance, not only in the bread and wine of the Eucharist: or in the hearts of the faithful, but also in all Creatures, in fire, water, or in the rope and halter wherewith desperate persons hang themselves. 
q Hospin. v. 61. supra. fol. 44. Luth. ser. de Mose.   
He averreth, that the Ten Commandments belong not unto us, for God did not lead us, but the Jews forth of Egypt. 
r See epist. ad Galat. c. 4. etc. 20. Exod.   
That faith, except it be without (even the least) good works, doth not justify, and is no faith: Whereof you may see him condemned and cited by 
s Covel. def. of M. Hooker. pag. 42.   
That we are equal in dignity and honour with Saint Paul, Saint Peter, or the blessed Virgin Mary, or all the Saints. 
t Luth. tom. 5. fol. 442.   
That all the holiness which they have used in fasting, and prayer, enduring labours, chastising their bodies, austerity and hardness of life, may be daily performed by a hog or a dog. 
u Luth. praef. in Alex. lib. de Eccles.   
That in absence of a Priest, a woman or a boy, or any Christian may absolve. 
w Luth. tom. 2. fol. 103.   
That they only communicate worthily, who have confused and erroneous consciences. 
x Ibid. fol. 73.   
That a Priest, especially in the new Testament, is not made, but borne; not consecrated, but created. 
y Ibid fol. 367.   
That the Sacrament were true, though it were administered by the Devil: See him baited for it by two of his fellow Protestants. 
z Hosp. Hist. Sac. part 2. fol. 14. Covel. def. of Hooker, pag. 101.   
That among Christians no man can, or aught to be a Magistrate; but each one is to other equally subject: and that among Christian men, none is superior save one, and only Christ: 
a Luth. tom. 6. Ger. de saecul. potest.  That the husband, in case the wife refuse his bed; may say unto her, if thou wilt not, another will; if the Mistress will not, let the maid come. 
b Luth. tom. 5. fol. 123.  That the Magistrates duty is to put such a wife to death: and that if that the Magistrate omit to do so, the husband may imagine that his wife is stolen away by thiefs, and slain, and consider how to marry another. 
c Ibid. fol. 123. See also 111.   
That the adulterer may fly into another Country; and if he cannot contain, marry again. 
d Luth. Ibid. fol. 123.   
That Polygamy is no more abrogated then the rest of Moses Law; and that it is free, as being neither commanded, nor forbidden. 
e Luth. propos. de Bigam. Epist. An. 1528. propos. 62. 65, 66. See in c. 16. Gen. edit. An. 525.   
That it is no more in his power to be without a woman, than it is in his power to be no man: and that it is more necessary then to eat, drink, purge, or blow his nose. 
f Luth. tom. 5. fol. 119.   
I will give you the latin of another opinion of his, because they are his own words; but not any of my english shall be accessary to the transportation of such a blast into my native language: Perinde faciunt qui continenter vivere instituunt, acsi qui excrementa vel lotium contra naturae impetum retinere velit: 
g Luth. in suo glossem. in decret. Noreberg.  Luther saith, How can man prepare himself to good? seeing it is not in his power to make his ways evil; for God worketh the wicked work in the wicked. 
h Luth. tom. 2. Wit. An. 1551. assert. art. 36. also de servo. arbit. edit. 1603. fol. 195.   
But I pray you where have you this, or any of all this in Scripture, nay what Scripture have you for it? that Scripture should be no Scripture, as hitherto he hath made a great part of it; and Zwingl. almost all the rest, denying all Paul's Epist: to be sacred: Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 10. What Council, what Fathers, what primitive, or sequent Church (Usque ad) ever taught or approved such doctrine as this? and how are we cried out upon for errors, notwithstanding we have all for our Justification? and yet this is the man that boasted, that Christ was first published by him; 
i Luth. Ep. ad Argent. An. 1525.  and by all of you that he was the first reformer: this is he who calls himself a more excellent Doctor than all those who are in the papacy. 
k Epist. ad Anonymum. tom. 5.   
This is he who thus brags of himself, viz. Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, a Papist and an Ass are directly the same; so is my will, such is my command; my will is my reason. 
l Luth. tom. 5. Germ. fol. from 141, to 144.   
This is he that tells you, I will have you to know, that I will not (hereafter) vouchsafe you the honour, as that I will suffer either you, or the very Angels of heaven, to judge of my doctrine, etc. Nor will I have my doctrine judged by any, no not by the Angels themselves: for I being certain thereof, will (by it) be judge both of you and the Angels. 
m Luth. advers. falso nomin. Eccles. stat. prope init.   
And lastly, this is he that gave the alarm to all Christendom, of the errors, idolatries, superstitions and profaneness of the Church of Rome: but what Scriptures have you for it, that you should not belive the Scriptures? what Fathers have you, that you should not believe the Church? what custom have you, that you should not believe the Fathers, rather than any private interpretation? the promised holy Ghost, always ruling in the Church, rather than the presumed private Spirit in any particular man.   

The Church of Geneva.  
NOw for the Church of Geneva: Calvin coming after him, is not contented to stop himself at Luther's bounds; but he goes further, and detracts not only from the Scripture, but from Christ and God himself. For first,  
He maintains, that three essences do arise out of the holy Trinity. 
a Tract. theol. p. 793.   
That the Son hath his substance distinct from the Father; and that he is a distinct God, from the Father. 
b Act. Seru. p. 249, 250. 871, 872.   
He teacheth that the Father can neither wholly, nor by parts, communicate his nature to Christ; but must withal be deprived thereof himself. 
c Tract. theol. p. 771, 772.   
He denies that the Son is begotten of the Father's substance and essence; affirming that he is God of himself, not God of God: 
d 1 Instit. c. 13. Sect. 23. 29.  He says, that that dream of the absolute power of God, which the Schoolmen have brought in, is execrable blasphemy. 
e Calv. ad c. 23. Ezech. gall. script. also Instit. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 2.   
He saith, that where it is said, that the Father is greater than I, it hath been restrained to the humane nature of Christ; but I do not doubt to extend it to him as God and man. 
f Tract. theol. p. 794. see p. 792. & 2. Instit. cap. 14. Sect. 3. and cap. 17. Jo. v. 12. and c. 22. Math.   
He severeth the person of the Mediator from Christ's divine person; maintaining with Nestorius two persons in Christ, the one humane, and the other divine. 
g Lib. 1. Instit. cap. 13. Sect 9 23, 24.   
That Christ's soul was subject to ignorance; and that this was the only difference betwixt us, and him: that our infirmities are of necessity, and this was voluntary. 
h In cap. 2. Luke v. 40.   
That it is evident that ignorance was common to Christ, with the Angels. 
i In cap. 24. Mat. v. 36.   
And particulariseth wherein, viz. that he knew not the day of Judgement; 
k In cap. 24. Mat. v. 36.  Nor that the Figtree was barren which he cursed, till he came near it. 
l In c. 21. Mat. ver. 19 also ib. c. 9 v. 2.   
He is not afraid to censure, certain words of Christ to be but a weak confutation, of what he sought to refute. 
m In c. 12. Mat. v. 25.   
And says, Christ seems here not to reason solidly. 
n Id. in c. 9 Mat. v. 5.   
He tells us that this similitude of Christ seems to be harsh, and far fetched, and (a little after) the similitude of sitting doth not hang together. 
o Calv. in c. 16. & 22. Luke.   
Where Christ inferred All things, therefore whatsoever you will, etc. Calvin giveth it this gloss: It is a superfluous or vain illation. 
p In c. 7. Mat. v. 12.   
This Metaphor of Christ is somewhat harsh: 
q In. c. 9 Mat. v. 49.  He saith, insomuch as Christ should promise from God a reward to fasting, it was an improper speech. 
r In Mat. c. 9 v. 16, 17, 18.   
He writeth of a saying of Christ, that it seems to be spoken improperly, and absurdly, in French sans raison. 
s In. c. 3. Joan. v. 21.   
He saith, that Christ refused, and denied, as much as lay in him, to perform the office of a Mediator. 
t In c. 26. Mat. v. 39   
That he manifested his own effeminateness, by his shunning of death. 
u Cap. 12. Jo. v. 27.   
He saith, that Thiefs, and malefactors, hasten to death with obstinate resolution; despising it with haughty courage, others mildly suffer it: but what constancy, stoutness, or courage was there in the Son of God, who was astonished, and in a manner, stricken dead with fear of death? how shameful a tenderness was it, to be so far tormented with fear of common death, as to melt in bloody sweat, and not to be able to be comforted but by the sight of Angels? 
w Lib. 2. Instit. c. 16. Ser. 22.   
And that the same vehemency took him from the present memory of the heavenly decree; so that he forgot at that instant, that he was sent hither to be our redeemer. 
a In c. 26. Mat. v. 39   
This prayer of Christ was not premeditate: but the force, and extremity of grief, wringed from him this hasty speech; to which a correction was presently added, and a little before, he chastiseth, and recalleth that vow of his, which he had let suddenly slip. 
b Id. 16.   
Thus do we see Christ to be on all sides so vexed, as being overwhelmed with desperation, he ceased to call upon God: which was as much as to renounce his salvation, and this (saith he) a little before, was not feigned, or as a thing only acted upon a stage. 
c In c. 27. Mat. v 46, 47.   
That Christ in his soul suffered the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man. 
d Lib. 2 Instit. c. 16. Sect. 10.   
In the death of Christ occurs a spectacle full of desperation. 
e In c. 27. Mat v. 57   
In this spectacle there was nothing but matter of extreme despair. 
f In c. 14. Joan. v. 6.   
It is no marvel if it be said that Christ went down into Hell, since he suffered that death wherewith God in wrath striketh wicked doers. 
g Lib. 2. Instit. c. 6. Sect. 10.   
That Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, holds but a second degree with him in honour, and rule, and is but his Vicar. 
h In c. 26. Mat. v. 64.   
Lastly, Calvin holds it to be absurd, that Christ should challenge to himself, the glory of his own resurrection; when the Scripture, saith he, every where teacheth it to be the work of God the Father. 
i In. c. 2. Joan. also in c. 8. ad Rom.   
That God is the Author of all those things, which these Popish Judges would have to happen only by his idle sufferance, Instit. lib. cap. 18. Sect. 3.  
That our sins are not only by his commission, but decree, and will: 16. Sect. 1, 2. & lib. 2. cap. 4. Sect. 3, 4. Which blasphemy is condemned by his famous brethren: Fleming. lib. de univers. great. p. 109. Osiander Euchir. Controvers. p. 104. Schaffm. de peccat. causis. p. 155. 27. Sitzlinus disput. Theol. de providentia Dei, Sect. 141. Insomuch that the Magistrates of Berne, made it penal by their Laws, for any man to preach, or read any of his books or doctrine: Vide literas Senat. Bern. ad ministros, An. 1555.  
This man strikes neither at the right hand, nor on the left, but at the King of Israel himself; who can think this man's mouth any slander, or his invections, a depravement, when he belches forth such blasphemies against the Son of God, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelled bodily? or who could think this man fit to reform a Church, when nothing more required reformation then his own errors? But what Scriptures or Fathers is there for all this?   

The Doctrine of the Zwinglians.  
ZWinglius confesseth himself to have been instructed against the Mass, by a certain admonisher, which he knew not, whether it was black or white. 
k Zwingl. tom. 2. fol. 249.   
The same derided, as illusion by the learned Protestants. 
l Andr. confut. Grinae. p. 128. 254. 304. Schlus. Theol. Calv. 6. 1. in Proaem.   
The same as Luther's Devil, largely set down by himself. 
m In tom. 7. wit. fol. 228. and tom. 6. Germ. tenen. fol. 28. Calv. theol. l. 2. Act. 1. Zwingl. tom. 2. fol. 210.   
He is taxed by Calvin for depraving the Scripture, for changing the word est, and putting in significat in his Translation of the New Testament: He says, that these sayings, and the like, viz. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments, etc. are but superfluous and hyperbolical. 
o Zwingl. tom. 1. 137.   
He denies, that Original sin can damn us; calling it but a disease or contagion. 
p Zwingl. tom. 2. fol. 90. See fol. 89. 115, 116. and in Epist. Oecol. & Zwingl. l. 1. p. 252. 258.   
He maketh Baptising of Infants, a thing indifferent; which may be used or left off. 
q Tom 2. fol. 96.   
That Princes may be deposed by the godly, if they be wicked, or go contrary to the rule of Christ. 
r Tom. 1 fol. 84, 85. & lib. 4. Epist. Swingl: & Oecol. p. 868, 869.   
He saith, that when we commit adultery, or murder, it is the work of God: being the mover, the Author, or inciter, etc. God moveth the thief to kill, etc. he is forced to sin, etc. God hardened Pharaoh, not speaking hyperbolically, but he truly, hardened him, though he had resisted. 
s Zwing. to. 10. de provide. Dei, fo: 365, 366, 367.   
For which he is particularly reprehended by the learned Protestant, Grawerus. 
t Absurda: Absurd: c. 5. de praedest. fo. 3, 4  But where is there any Scripture, or Fathers or Doctors of the Church, that ever taught this Doctrine before?   

Melancthons' Doctrine.  
FOr Melancthon he taught that there are three Divinities, as there are three Persons. 
u Melanct. loc. come. An. 1545. c. de Christo.   
For which he is reprehended by Stancarus. 
w l. 4. de Trin.   
He affirms polygamy, not to be against Jus Divinum: and adviseth Hen. 8. unto it. 
x Melanc. Concil. Theol. pag. 134.   
He teacheth peremptory resistance against Magistrates. 
y Ep. ad Rom. cap. 13.   
He enableth the inferior Magistrate, to alter Religion against the contrary Edicts of the Superior. 
z Con. Theol. part 1. p. 314.   
So Calvin, so Beza, so Goodman, so Danaeus, so Knox, so Buch: so Bancroft, so Fenners, so Scutcliff, so Hottomanus, so Ficlerus, so Renekerus, all hold it lawful, to depose, murder, or to arraign their Prince. Call in foreign aid to assist them. Bestow the Crown at their pleasure. Destroy them, either by peaceable practices, or open War. Propose rewards to such: but where have they Scriptures, or Fathers, or times, that showed the practice of such doings, before these latter times, and latter practices?   

The Doctrine of Andrea's Musculus.  
AS for Andrea's Musculus, he was not afraid openly to teach, that the Divine Nature of Christ, (which is God) died upon the cross with his humane Nature. Neither did he desist (publicly) to profess and spread abroad this Doctrine of the death of Christ's Divinity. And that by the help of Johannes Islebius. Thus far. 
c Sylvest. Ezecanorius. Dial. de corrupt. mor. art. 3. fol. 5. See Andr. Muscul. and Isleb. in refut. Simleri.   
It is manifest, (saith Simlerus) forth of the writings of Brentius, Myricus, and Andrea's Musculus, that they make nothing of the ascension of Christ, but a vanishing, or disappearing. What is this but making way for Mahomet? but what Scriptures, or Fathers, or times hath he wherein this Doctrine was ever taught before? 
d In vita Bulling. fol. 55.    

The Divisions of Protestants.  
IF Ye would but consider, how the Lutherans are divided into Antinomians, Osiandrians, Majorists, Synergists, Stancarians, Amsdorfians, Flaccians, Substantiarians, Accidentarians, Adjaphorists, Musculans of Effingereans, Vibiquilists, etc. So dissenting from, and persecuting one another, that they will not permit one another to live in the same Town, in so much, that Oecolampadius reckons up seventy seven changes, not only in their explanations of Scripture, but also in certain imaginary phantsies. 
e Lin. germ. aequa. resp. ad Luth. Prefat.  Or if we should consider the Divisions that are between the old and new Sacramentaries, the old, called Zwinglians: the new, Calvinists; with us, Puritan: in France, Hugonots: in other places Formalists, elsewhere Familists: somewhere Brownists: every where Arminians, Seekers, Dippers, Shakers', Adamists.  
Luther complaining of seven Sects risen in two years; 
f Tom. 16. fol. 335.  And we of new Sects rising every day; If we should consider the several species of Independency, how it hath brought Religion to nothing, but Confusion, we would conclude with Saint Angustine, That it is necessary, that (rend and divided into small pieces) we perish, who have preferred the swelling pride of our haughty Stomaches, before the most holy band of Catholic peace and Unity. 
g Aug. cont. Parm. l. 1. c. 4.   
Whilst the Catholics have no jars undecided, no differences uncomposed; having one common Father, one Conductor and Adviser; as Sir Edward Sands confesseth. 
h In his Relat. of Religion Sect. 47. fol. 5. 2, 8.  None contend about the Scripture, all Consent and Credit the Fathers, adhere to the Counsels, submit to the holy Sea of Rome. And the Divisions that are, are but humane dissensions, as is confessed by Luther, 
i Tom. fol. 380.  Beza, 
k Beza Epist. 1  Whitaker, 
l Whit. de Eccles. cont. Bell. cont. 2. q. 5. p. 327.  Fulk 
m Fulk ag. Hesk. Sand. etc. p. 293.  etc.  
Thus Religion, being at Unity with itself, is the true Speculum Creatoris, or looking glass of the Creator: wherein the full proportion of a Deity may be seen: but once broken into pieces, it may represent divers faces, but no true proportion: and loseth at once both its value, and its virtue.  
I have thus presented Your Majesty, with a view of the Cotholick Religion, asserted by the Fathers; and the Protestant Religion asserted by their founders. I shall humbly desire Your Majesties further patience, that Your Majesty will be pleased to consider the lives and Conversations of the one, and of the other: First the rare Sanctity, and admired holiness, which all ages and writers have ascribed unto these holy Fathers. And the strange and unheard of blasphemies, vileness and wickedness that are cast upon the other, not by any of their Adversaries, but by themselves upon one another: If these testimonies had been by any of our side, I could not have expected credit, but being by Protestants themselves, I cannot see how it should be denied.  
Luther confesseth, saith the learned Protestant Hospinian, that he was taught by the devil, that the Mass was naught, and overcome with the devils reasons, he abolished it: 
a Hist. Sacr. part. ult. f. 131.   
The same confessed by himself: 
b Tom. 7. Wit. fol. 228.  I ingeniously confess (saith Luther) that I cannot (henceforth) place Zwinglius in the number of Christians, 
c Tom. 2. Germ. fol. 190.  and further he affirms that he had lost whole Christ. 
d In fol. 182.  Zwinglius (saith Schlusselburg) after the manner of all Heretics was stricken with the spirit of giddiness, and blindness; deriving it from the etymology of his name, in dutch, von dem Schwindel. 
e Lin. 2 act. 1.   
Gualterus calls Zwinglius, the Author of War, the disturber of peace, proud and cruel; and instances in his strange attempt against the Tygurines, his fellows, whom he forced by want, and famine, to follow his doctrine; and that he died in armour, and in the War. 
f In apolog. pro Zwing. 1 tom. fol. 30, 31. and Osiander Epist. Cent. 16. p. 203.   
And Luther saith, he died like a thief, because he would compel others to his error. 
g Luther collog. lat. tom. 2. c. de Advers.   
And he saith further, that he denied Christ and is damned. 
h Luth. col. lat. tom. 1. c. de dam. & inferno.   
He tells us also, that the devil or the devil's dam, used to appear to Carolose, and taught him the exposition of, this is my body. 
i Tom. 3. Jen. Germ. f. 68 so Chemnitius de caena p. 214.  As also that he possessed him corporally; and that he was possessed with more devils then one. 
k Luther loc. come. class. 5. c. 15. p. 47.  Neither would he have any man wonder that he calls him devil: for he saith he hath nothing to do with him: but has only relation to him, by whom he is obsessed, who speaks by him. 
l Luth. tom. 3. Jen. fol. 61.  The last apparition of the devil to him, which was three days before his death, is recorded by Albert. 
m Cont. Carlost. fol. 6. See Jo. Schutzl. 50 cause. c. 50.   
If you look into Bezas' Epigrams, printed at Paris, An. 1548. you will find pretty passages concerning his boy Andebers', and his wench Candida; and the business debated at large, concerning which sin is to be preferred; and his choosing the boy at last.  
Sclusselberg said, that Peter Martyr was a heretic, and died so. 
n Theol. Calv. l. 2. act. 1.   
Nicolaus Selneverus said, that Oecolampadius, in his doctrine built upon the sand. 
o Self. part. c. Enarrat. her. in Psal. f. 215.  And  
(Saith Luther) Emser: and Oecolampadius, and such like, were hiddenly slain by those horrible blows and shake of the devil. 
p Luth. tom. 7. fol. 30.   
Simlerus saith, that Brentius Miricus, and Andrew Musculus, in their writings, did nothing else but make way for the devil. 
q Siml. in vita Bulling. fol. 55.   
Luther (saith Calvin) was infected with many vices; I would he had been more careful in correcting his vices. 
r Calv. alleged by Schlusselb. theol. call. lib. 2. fol. 126.   
God, for the sin of pride, (wherewith Luther exalted himself) took away his true spirit. 
s Cont. Rheg. l. Germ. cont. Jo. Hess. de coena domini.   
We have found (saith Oecalompadius) in the faith and confession of Luther's 12. Articles, whereof some are more vain than is fitting; some less faithful, and over-guilefully expounded; others again are false, and reprobate; but some there are which plainly descent from the Word of God, and the Articles of Christian faith. 
t Oecol. resp. ad. Luth. confess. See Zuenckfeld. praef. super precept. fidei. artic. & Hospin. hist. Sacra part 2. fol. 5.   
Thou O Luther, saith Zwinglius, corruptest and adulterest the Scriptures, imitating therein the Marcionists, and the Arians. 
u Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 412.   
In translating and expounding of Scripture, Luther's errors are many, and manifest. 
w Bucer dial. Cont. Melanct.   
Zwinglius tells us, that Luther affirms sometimes this, and sometimes that, of one and the same thing, that he is never at one with himself; taxing him with inconstancy, and lightness in the word of God. 
a Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 458.   
That he cares not what he saith, though he be found contradicting the Oracles of God. 
b Zwing. tom. 2. resp. ad confess. Luth.   
As sure as God is God, so sure, and devilish a liar is Luther. 
c Jo. Camp. colloq. lat. Luth. Tom. 2. c. de adv. f. 354.   
Luther's writings contain nothing, but railing and reproaches: insomuch that it maketh the Protestant Religion suspected, and hated. 
d Tigur. confess. Orthod. fol. 122, 123.   
He calls an anointed King, Hen. 8. of England, a furious dolt, endued with an impudent and whorish face, without a vein of princely blood in his whole body; a lying Sophist; a damnable rotten worm, a basilisk, the progeny of an Adder; scurrilous liar, covered with a title of a King; a clown, a blockhead; foolish, wicked, and impudent Henry: and says, that he lies like a scurrilous knave: and thou liest in thy throat, foolish and sacrilegious King. 
e Luth. Tom. 2. fol. 333, 334, 335. 338. 340.   
Nor did he less rail at other Princes; as at the Duke of Brunswick, in his Book called Wider hans worst, written purposely against him, as also against the Bishop of Mentz, one of the Prince's Electors. 
f Tom. 3. Germ. fol. 533. 339. 360.  And against the Princes of Germany. 
g Tom. 2. Germ. fol. 190. 200.   
No marvel that he saith, that he had eaten a peck or two of Salt with the Devil; and that he knew the Devil very well, and that the Devil knew him again. 
h Luth. conc. de turb. sedant.   
No marvel that he confessed of himself, that the Devil sometimes passed through his brains. 
i Tom. 3. Jen. Germ. fol. 485.   
No marvel that he said, the Devil did more frequently sleep with him, and cling to him closer, than his Catharine. 
k Luth. Colloq. mens Germ. fol. 281.   
No marvel that he said that the Devil walked with him in his bed chamber; and that he had one or two wonderful Devils, by whom he was diligently and carefully served: and they no small Devils, but great ones; yea, Doctors of divinity, amongst the Devils. 
l Luth. 16. fol. 275.   
No marvel that his fellow Prot. could wonder how marvellously he bewrayed himself with his Devils; and that he could use such filthy words, so replenished with all the Devils in Hell. 
m Tigur. tract. 3. cont. supra. Luth. confessio.   
No marvel that they said that, never any man writ more filthily, more uncivilly, more lewdly, and beyond all bounds of Christian modesty, than did Luther. 
n Tigur. theol. Orthod. confess. fol. 10.   
No marvel that he is so taxed for his obscenity in his Henzius Anglicus, against King Hen. the eight, for his beastliness in his Hans worst against the Jews: for his filthy mentioning of Hogs; for his stinking repetition of turds and dunghills, in his Schemhamphorise: But if you will hear of his Masterpiece, you must read the Book which he writ against the Pope; where he asks him, out of what mouth (O Pope) dost thou speak, is it out of that from whence thy farts do burst? If it come thence, keep it to thyself: if it comes from that wherein thou pourest thy Corisca wine, let the Dog fill that with his excrements; good Ass do not kick; kick not my little Pope: O my dear Ass, do not so: fie how this little Pope hath bewrayed himself. 
o Luth. cont. pontiff. Rom. adiab. fund. in tom. 8. Jen. p. 207, 208.   
Is this the way to win to his side? or to gain souls to Christ? or to reform Churches? or to confute heresies? It is observed, that Saint Paul in his Epistles repeated the sacred name of Jesus 500 times, and it is the observation of the learned Tygurin Divines, that so many times Luther hath used the name of Devil in his Books: and it is no marvel that they burst out into this admiration; How wonderful is Luther here, with his Devils! what impure words he useth, with how many Devils doth he burst? 
p Theol. Tigur. confess. Germ. fol. 3. & part 3. fol. 114.   
Nor marvel that Zwinglius saith to him, we fill not our Books with so many Devils, nor do we bring so many armies of Devils against thee. 
q Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 381.   
If you can expect to gather figs from thorns, or grapes from thistles, than ye may expect words from a sanctified spirit, to proceed from such a mouth, else not.  
What should I say more? Melancthon tells us, that Carolostadius was a barbarous fellow; without wit, without learning, without common sense; in whom was no sign of the holy Ghost: but manifest tokens of impiety. 
r Melanct. Epist. ad Freder. micon. Hosp. hist. Sac.   
Lastly, Hutterus Beza's own fellow Protestant, thus says of him, and casts this dirt in his face, which is so shameless a testimony, that you must give me leave to throw a latin vail over it, viz. Beza in fine libri, de absentia corporis Christi in coena scribit; Candidae, sive Amascae suae, culum, imo partem diversam, magis adhuc pudendam, mundiora esse, quam illorum ora, qui simpliciter verbis Christi inherentes, credant se praesens Christi Corpus in coena sacra, ore suo accipere. 
s Hut. explic. lib. concord. art. 7. p. 703.   
And another: Beza, by his most filthy manners, was a disgrace to honest Discipline; who in sacrilegious verse published to the world, his detestable loves, his unlawful carnal acts, whoredoms, and fowl adulteries: not content that himself only should like a hog wallow in the dirt of wicked lusts, but he must also pollute the ears of studious youth with his filth. 
t Tilm. Heshus. Ver. & Sanc. Conf.   
I could enlarge my Paper to a volume of like instances in others, but these are the prime reformers of the Protestant Churches: and how the people edified under their Doctrine; these Narratives from their own mouths shall tell you.  
When we were seduced by the Pope (saith Luther) every man did willingly follow good works: and now every man neither saith, nor knoweth any thing, but how to get all to himself, by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury. 
u Luth. Dom. 26. post Trin. See Mr. Stubs motive to good works. p. 44, 45.   
Certainly, to speak the truth, there is many times found Conscionable, and plainer dealing amongst most Papists, then among many Protestants. And if we look narrowly to the ages past, we shall find more godliness, devotion and zeal, (though blind) more love, one toward another, more fidelity and faithfulness, every way in them, than is now to be found in us. 
a Master Stubs motive, pag. 43.   
If any man be desirous to see a great rabble of knaves, of persons turbulent, deceitful, Cozeners, Usureis, let him go to any City, where the Gospel is purely preached, and he shall find them there by multitudes. For it is more manifest than the day light, that there were never among the Ethnics, Turks, or infidels more unbridled, and unruly persons, with whom all virtue and honesty is quite extinct, then are amongst the Professonrs of the Gospel. 
b Andr. Muscul. Domin. 1. Adu. See him also lib. de Prophet. & Sim. Paulus in Serm. Dom. 13. post Trinit.   
The children of them of the reformed Gospel grow every day worse, more untractable, and dare commit such crimes, as men of former times were never subject to. 
c Jo. Wygand. l. de bon. & mal. Germ.   
If you cast your eyes upon Protestant Doctors, you shall find that some of them moved through vain glory, envious zeal, and a prejudicated opinion, disorder the true Doctrine, disperse, and earnestly defend the false; some of them without cause stir up contentions, and with inconsiderate spite defend them: many wrest their Doctrines every way, of purpose to please their Princes, and the people: by whose grace and favour they are maintained: they overthrow with their wicked life, all that they had formerly built with their true doctrine. 
d Paul Eber. praefat. comm. Philippi. in Epist. ad Cor.   
How could the people be better, when their Ministers were so bad? like lips, like lettuce. I will conclude all with the learned Protestant, Zanchius, and then you will neither wonder at one or other; I have read (saith he) the Latin copy of the Apology, and diligently read it over, not without choler, when I perceived what manner of writing, very many (let me not say for the most part, but all) do use, in the Churches of the reformed Gospel, who would seem (notwithstanding) to be Pastors, Doctors, and Pillars of the Church.  
The state of the question, that it may not be understood, we often, (of set purpose) over-cloud with darkness: things which are manifest, we impudently deny: things false, we (without shame) avouch: things plainly impious, we propose as the first principles of faith: things orthodoxal, we condemn of heresy: Scripture at our pleasure, we detort to our own dreams: we boast of Fathers, when we will follow nothing less than their doctrine: to deceive, to calumniate, to rail, is familiar with us: so as we may defend our cause, good or bad, by right or by wrong; all other things we turn upside down: Oh times, Oh manners! 
e Zanch. epist. ad Jo. Sturm. this in fine, l. 7. & 8. Misccllan.   
It is no marvel that M. Sutcliff, says, that the Protestant writers offered great violence to the Scriptures, expounding them contrary both to ancient Fathers, History, and common reason. 
f Sutclif. answ. Cal. pet. p. 141.   
It is no marvel that Cambden tells us, that Holland is a fruitful province of heretics: 
g Elizab. p. 300   
It is no marvel that Your royal Father tells us, that both Hungary, and Bohemia, abound with infinite varieties of sects. 
h K. James his Works, p. 371   
It is no marvel, that he said he could never see a Bible well translated into English; and that the worst of all was the Geneva, whereunto were added notes, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous, and traitorous conceits. 
i Page 45, 46.   
It is no marvel that He protested before the great God, that you should never find among the Highland, or Border-theeves, greater ingratitude, more lies, and vile perjuries, then with those fanatic spirits. 
k K. James his Works, p. 161.   
It is no marvel that M. Bancroft said that the Puritans of Scotland, were published in a Declaration by his Majesty, to be unnatural Subjects, seditious, troublesome, and unquiet spirits, members of Satan, enemies to the King, and the Commonwealth of their own native Country. 
l Dang. posit. 22.   
And lastly, because your Church of England most followed calvin's doctrine of any of the rest, I shall show you what end he made, answerable to his beginning, and course of life, written by two known and approved Protestant Authors, viz. God in the rod of his fury, visiting Calvin, did horribly punish him, before the fearful hour of his unhappy death; for he so struck this heretic with his mighty hand, that being in despair, and calling, upon the Devil, he gave up his wicked soul, swearing cursing, and blaspheming, dying upon the disease of lice and worms, increasing in a most loathsome ulcer about his privy parts, so as none present could endure the stentch; these things are objected unto Calvin in public writing, in which also horrible things are declared concerning his lasciviousness, his sundry abominable vices, and Sodomitical lusts, for which last he was by the Magistrate (at Nayon) under whom he lived branded on the shoulder with a hot borning iron; And this is said of him by Schlusberg. 
m Theolog Calvinist. lib. 2. fol. 72.  She which is likewise confirmed by Jo. Herennius. 
n li. de vita Calvini.   
It may be your Majesty may taxed me of bitterness, or for the discovery of nakedness. But I hope you will give me leave to look what staff I lean upon when I am to look down upon so great and terrible a precipice as Hell, and to consider the rottenness of the several rounds of that ladder, which is proposed to me for my ascent unto heaven, and to forewarn others of the dangers I espy; their own words can be none of my railing: nor their own accusations, my error: except it be a fault, to take notice, of what is published, and make use of what I see: Ex ore tuo was our Saviour's rule, and shall be mine. There hath not been used one Catholic Author throughout the accusation, and I take it to be the providenee of God, that they should be thus infatuated, as to accuse one another, that good men may take heed how they rely upon such men's Judgements, in order to their eternal Salvation.  
As to Your Majesty's Objection, that we of the Church of Rome fell away from ourselves, and that you did not fall away from us, as also to the common saying of all Protestants, bidding us to return to ourselves, and they will return to us, we accept of their offer, we will do so; that is to say, we will hold ourselves to the same Doctrine, which the Church of Rome held, before she converted this Nation to Christianity, and then they cannot say, we fell away from them, or from ourselves, whilst we maintain the same Doctrine we held before you were of us: that is to say, whilst we maintained the same Doctrine that we maintained during the four first Counsels, acknowledged by most Protestants, and during Saint August, time concerning whom Luther himself acknowledged, That after the sacred Scriptures, there is no Doctor of the Church to be compared, 
a Luth. loc. come. Class. 4. p. 45.  thereby excluding himself and all his associates from being preferred before him, concerning whom Master Field of the Church writes, that Saint Aug. was the greatest Father since the Apostles. 
b lib. 3. fol. 170.  Concerning whom Covel writes, that he did shine in learning above all that ever did, or will appear. 
c Covel. in his answ. to Jo. Burges.  Concerning whom Jewel appeals, as to a true and Orthodox Doctor. 
d In his challenge at Paul's Cross.  Concerning whom Mr. Forester. Non. Tessagraph. calls him the Father's Monarch. 
e In proem. p. 3.  And  
Concerning whom Gomer acknowledges his opinion to be most pure. 
f Gom. spec. verae Eccles.   
Concerning whom Master Whitaker doubts not, but that he was a Protestant. 
g Whit. answ. to f. Camp. in the cont. fol. a. 2. parag. 28.  And lastly, concerning whom your royal Father seemed to appeal, when he objected unto Card. Peron, That the face and exterior form of the Church was changed since his time, and far different to what it was in his days, wherefore we will take a view of what it was then, and see whether we lose or keep our ground, and whether it be the same which you acknowledged then to be so firm.  
Our Church believed then a true and real presence, and the oral manducation of the body of Christ, in the Sacrament, as the prince of the Sacramentarians acknowledged 
a Zwingl. lib. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de Eucharist.  in these words from the time of S. Augustin, which was for the space of twelve hundred years, the opinion of corporal flesh, had already got the mastery. And in this quality she adored the Eucarist, 
b Chrys. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24.  with outward gestures and adoration, as the true and proper body of Christ. Then the Church believed the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament 
c Cyrill. Alex. Ep. and Caesar. pat. ; even besides the time that it was in use: And for this cause kept it after Consecration, for Domestical Communions 
d Cypr. de lapsu. , to give to the sick 
e Euseb. hist. lib. 7. , to carry upon the Sea 
f Ambr. de obiit Sayer. , to send into far Provinces 
g Euseb. hist. lib. 1. .  
Then she believed that Communion under both kinds was not necessary for the sufficiency of participation, but that all the body, and all the blood was taken in either kind: And for this cause, in Domestical Communions, in Communions for children, for sick persons by Sea, and at the hour of death it was distributed under one kind, only. 
h Paulin. in vita Ambr. Tertul. ad ux. c. 55. Basil. Epist. ad Caesar. pat.   
Then the Church believed 
i Cypr. ad Caecil. ep. 63. , that the Eucharist was a true, full, and entire sacrifice; not only Eucharistical, but 
k Euseb. de vita Const. l. 4.  propitiatory; and offered it as well for the living 
l Chryss. in 1 Cor. hom 41.  as the dead. The faithful and devout people of the Church then made pilgrimages to 
m Basil. in 40. Martyrs.  the bodies of the Martyrs 
n Ambr. de vid. ; prayed to the Martyrs to pray to God for them 
o Aug. in Psal. 63. and 88 : Celebrated their Feasts 
p Hier. and Marcell. ep. 17. , reverenced their Relics in all honourable forms. And when they had received help from God, by the intercession of the said Martyrs 
q Theod. de Gr. aff. l. 8. , they hung up in the Temples, and upon the Altars, erected to their memory, images of those parts of their bodies that had been healed.  
The Church then held 
r Basil. de Sanct. Spirit.  the Apostolical traditions, to be equal to the Apostolical writings; and held for Apostolical traditions, all that the Church of Rome now embraceth under that Title: She than offered prayers for the dead 
s Tertul. de mon. Aug. de verb. Ap. , both public and private, to the end to procure for them, ease and rest: And held this custom as a thing 
t Aug. de cura pro mort.  necessary for the refreshment of their souls. The Church then held the fast 
u Hier. ad Marcell. ep. 54.  of the forty days of Lent for a custom, not free, but necessary, and of Apostolical tradition. And out of the time of Pentecost fasted all the fridays in the year in memory of the death of Christ, except Christmay-Day fell on a Friday 
w Epiph. in Compen. , which she then excepted as an Apostolical tradition: The Church then held 
x Epiph. Cont. Apost. Haeres. 51.  marriage after the vow of Virginity to be a sin: and reputed 
y Chrys. ad Theod. Hier. Cont. Jou. l. 1.  those, who married together after their vows, not only for adulterers, but also for incestuous persons.  
The Church held then 
z Cypr. Caecil. epist. 63.  mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, for a thing necessary, and of Divine, and Apostolical tradition. She held then 
a Aug. de pec. orig. cap. 40.  exorcisms, exsufflations, and renunciations, which are made in Batisme, for sacred Ceremonies, and of Apostolical tradition: She held then 
b Aug. Cont. Pet. l. 3. c. 4. , besides Batisme and the Eucharist, Confirmation 
c Aug. de nupt. & Conc. c. 17. , Marriage 
d Ambr. de paenit. c. 7. , Orders, and extreme Unction, 
e Leo 1. epist.  for true and proper Sacraments which the Church 
f Aug Cont. Parm. l. 2. c. 13.  of Rome now acknowledgeth: The Church, in the Ceremonies of Baptism, used then 
g Cyp. epist. 70.  oil, 
h Conc. Carth. 3. cap. 5.  salt, 
i Greg. Naz. de bapt.  wax-lights, 
k Aug. ep. 10.  exorcisms, 
l Aug. Cont. Jul. l. 6. c. 8.  the sign of the Cross, 
m Ambr. de sacr. l. 1.  the word Ephata, and other that accompany it, none of them without reason, and excellent signification. The Church held then 
n Aug. de an. & evis orig. l. 3. c. 15.  Baptism for infants of absolute necessity: and for this cause then permitted, 
o Tert. de bapt.  lay men to baptise in danger of death, the Church used then holy water, consecrated by certain words and Ceremonies: and made use of it both for Baptism, 
p Basil. de S. Spirit. c. 17.  and 
q Epiph. haer. 30.  against enchantments, and to make 
r Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 3.  exorcisms, and conjurations against evil spirits.  
The Church held then divers degrees in the Ecclesiastical Regiment, to wit, 
s Concil. Laod. c. 24. Concil. Carth. 4. 6. 2.  Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons', the Acolite, Exorcist, Reader and Porter consesecrated and blessed them with divers Forms and Ceremonies: And in the Episcopal Order acknowledged, divers seats of Jurisdiction of positive right; to wit, Archbishops, Primates, Patriarches, and 
h Hier. ad Damasc. Ep. 57 Concil. Chal. ep. ad Leon.  one Supereminent (by Divine law) which was the Pope, without whom nothing could be decided, appertaining to the universal 
i Hier. praef. in paralip.  Church; and the want of whose presence, either by himself, or his Legates, or his Confirmation, made all Counsels (pretended to be universal) unlawful.  
In the Church than the service was said throughout the East, in Greek, and throughout the West 
k Aug. Epist. 57 de Doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 13. , as well in Africa, as in Europe, in Latin: although that in none of the provinces (except in Italy, and the Cities, where the Roman Colonies resided) the Latin tongue, was understood by the common people. She observed then the distinction of feasts 
* Aug. Epist. 118. & Psal. 63. & 38.  and ordinary days, the Distinction of 
l Herald ad Herald Ep. 3. Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 27.  Ecclesiastical and lay habits: the 
m Op. l. I. p. 19  reverence of sacred vessels, the custom of 
n Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 8. l sid. de Div off. l. I. c. 4.  shaming and 
o Greg. Naz. de pac. or. I.  unction for the collation of orders; the Ceremony of the 
p Cyril. Hier. Cat. Mat. 5.  Priest, washing his hands at the Altar, before the consecration of the Mysteries. She than 
q Co. Laod. c. 9  pronounced a part of the service, at the Altar with a low voice, made 
r Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 2. c. 8.  processions with the relics of Martyrs 
s Higher co. Vigil.  kissed them 
t Hier. co. Vigil. , carried them in clothes of silk, and vessels of gold 
u Hier. c. Vigil. , took and esteemed the dust from under their reliquaries: accompanied the dead to their sepulchers, with 
w Greg. Naz. in Jul. orat. 2.  wax tapers in sign of joy, for the certainty of their future resurrection. The Church then had the picture of Christ, and of his Saints, both 
x Euseb. de Vita Const.  out of Churches, 
y Paulin Epist. 12. Basil. in Martyr. Bar.  and in them: and upon the very 
z Prudent. in. S. Cassian.  Altars, (not to adore them with God like worship) but by them, to reverence the Soldiers and Champions of Christ.  
The faithful then used the 
a Tert. de coron. milit.  sign of the Cross, in all their Conversations 
b Cyril. Cont. Jul. l. 6. , painted it on the portal of all the houses of the faithful 
c Hier. in Vit. Hil. ; gave their blessing to the people with their hand, by the sign of the Cross 
d Athan. cont. Idol. , employed it to drive away evil spirits, 
e Paul Ep. II.  proposed in Jerusalem the very Cross to be adored on good Friday: Finally, the Church held then 
f Tert. de prescript. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 4. c. 32.  that to the Catholic Church only belongs the keeping of the Apostolical tradition, the Authority of interpretation of Scripture; and the decision of Controversies of faith; and that out of the succession 
g Cypr. de unit. Eccles. Conc. Car. 4. c. I.  of her communion, of 
h Hier. Cont. Lucif. Aug. de util. cred. c. 8.  her Doctrine 
i Cypr. ad pub. Ep. 63. ad mag. Ep. 67. Hier. ad Tit. c. 3.  and her ministry, there was neither Church, nor Salvation.  
Neither will I insist with you only upon the word, then, but before, and before, and before that, even to the first age of all, will I show you our doctrine of the real presence, and holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of Relics and Images, Confession, and Priestly absolution; Purgatory and prayer for the dead; Traditions, etc.  
In the fifth Age, or hundred of years, Saint Augustine was for the real and corporal presence. 
a Aug. Conc. I. in Psal. 33.   
In the fourth Age, Saint Ambrose. 
b Lib. 4. de Sacra. c. 5. and l. de iis, qui misteriis initiantur, c. 9   
In the third Age Saint Cyprian. 
c Serm. de Coena Dom. prope init.   
In the second Age, or hundred of years, S. Irenaeus. 
d l. 4. c. 32. infin.   
And in the first Age 
e Ep. ad smirnum. ut cit. a Theod. Dial. 3.  Saint Ignatius, Martyr, and Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist.  
Concerning the honour and invocation of Saints, In the fifth Age we find Saint Augustine, 
f Serm. de Verb. Apost. prope init. & medit. c. 40. & l. de locutionibus in gen. prope finem.  praying to the Virgin Mary, and other Saints.  
In the fourth Age, we find Greg. Naz. praying to S. Basil the great. 
g In Orat. 20. quae est in laudem. in Basil. mag. and Saint Hier. Cont Vigil. 13. initio.   
In the third Age, we find S. Origen, praying to Father Abraham. 
h Initio sui lamenti.   
In the second Age, Justin Martyr. 
i Apol. 2. ad Anton. pium. Imper. non long ab initio.   
And in the first age, in the Liturgy of S. James the less. 
k Ante Med.   
For the use and veneration of holy Relics and Images, and chiefly of the Holy Cross; in the fifth age, Saint Augustine. 
l Tract. 118. in Joan fine.   
In the fourth Age Athanasius. 
m Ad Antiochum princip.   
In the third Age Origen. 
n Hom. 8. in diversos Evangelii locos.   
In the second Age St. Justin Martyr. 
o Ad quaest. 28. Gentilium.   
And in the first Age S. Ignatius. 
p Epist. ad Phil. ante Med.   
Concerning Confession and Absolutions: In the fifth Age S. August. 
q Hom. 49. ante Med.   
In the fourth Age S. Basil. the Great. 
r Sui regulis brevior. inter. 288.   
In the third Age S. Cypr. 
s Ser. de lapsis.   
In the second Age Tertull. 
t l. de poen. c. 10   
And in the first Age S. Clement. 
u Clement Rom. Epist. 1.   
Now concerning Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead in the fifth Age S. Augustin. 
a De Civ. Dei, l. 26. c. 24. and also Ser. 41. de sanct. prope init. also Ser. 22. de Verb. Apost.   
In the fourth Age S. Ambrose. 
b Ambr. in 1 Cor. 3. S. Hier. in Com. in c. 11. proverb.   
In the third Age S. Cypr. 
c Ep. 5. ad Ant. post. med.   
In the second Age Tertull. 
d l. de animae c. 58. de Corona milit. c. 3. 4. l Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. de S. Petr. prope fin.   
And in the first Age S. Clement. e.  
Concerning Traditions in the fifth Age S. Aug. 
f l 4. de bapt. Con. Donat. c. 24.   
In the fourth Age S. Basil. 
g lib. de Sp. Sancto. c. 27.   
In the third Age S. Epiphanins. 
h Heres. 61.   
In the second Age S. Irenaeus. 
i lib. 3. cap. 4.   
And in the first Age S. Dennis. 
k Areopag. c. 1. Eccles. Hierar.   
Now suppose that all these quotations be right. The saving of a soul, of your own soul, of the soul of a King, of the souls of so many Kingdoms: and the gaining of that Kingdom for a reward, (which in comparison of these Earthly ones (for which you so often fight, so much strive, and labour so much for to obtain) your tetrarchate would be a gain for you to lose it, so that you might but obtain that) would be worth the search; and when you have found them to be truly cited, I dare trust your judgement, that it will tell you, that we have not changed our Countenance, nor fled our Colours, nor fallen away, nor altered our Religion, nor forsaken our first Love, nor denied our Principles, nor brought Novelties into the Church, (but that we do antiquum obtinere) whereby we should be forsaken of you, for forsaking ourselves: but rather that we should win you unto us, by being still the same, we were when we won you first unto us, and were at the beginning. And is it for the honour of the English Nation, famous for the first Christian King, and the first Christian Emperor, to forsake her Mother Church, so renowned for antiquity, and to annex their Religion as a codicell to an appeal of a company of Protesters, against a decree at Spira? and to forsake so glorious a name as Catholic, and to take a name upon them, wherein they had neither right nor interest; and then to take measure of the Scottish Discipline for the new fashion of their souls, and to make to themselves posies of the weeding of that Garden, into which Christ himself came down 
a Cant. 6. 1. , upon which both the north and south-winds do blow 
b Cant. 4. 16. , in which is a well of living waters and streams from Lebanon 
c Cant. 4. 15. : about which is an enclosure of brotherly affection 
d Cant. 4. 12. Cant. 2. 1. . Will you forsake the Rose of Sharon, and the Lily of the Valleys for such a Nosegay? For I shall make it apparent unto your Majesty, that the Doctrines which Protestant's now hold, as in opposition unto us, were but so many condemned heresies, by the Ancient and Orthodoxal Fathers of the Church, and never opposed by any of them: As for example, Protestants hold that the Church may Err; this they had from the Donatists, for which they were frequently reproved by St. Augustin. 
e Passim. cont. Donat.   
Protestants deny unwritten traditions, and urge Scripture only. This they had from the Arrians, who were condemned for it by St. Epiphanius, and S. Augustin, both 
f Epiph. Her. 75. Aug. cont. maxim. l. 1. c. 2. & ult. .  
Protestants teach, that Priests may Marry; this they had from Vigilantius, who is condemned for it by St. Hieronimus 
g Con. Vigilan. c. 1. .  
Protestants deny prayer for the dead: this they had from Arrius, for which he is condemned by Saint August: and Epiphanius both. 
d Aug. haer. 53. Epiph. haer. 75.   
Protestants deny Invocation of Saints: this they had from Vigilantius, for which he was condemned by Saint Hieron. 
e Hier. Cont. Vigil. c. 3.   
Protestants deny Reverence to Images: this they had from Xenias, for which he is reproved by Nicephorus. 
f Hist. l. 16. c. 27 and 55.   
Protestants deny the real Presence: this they had from the Carpenaites, who were, saith Saint Augustin, the first Heretics, that denied the real Presence: and that Judas was the first Suborner and Maintainer of this heresy. 
g Aug. in Psal.   
Protestants deny Confession of sins to a Priest: so did the Novatian Heretics, and the Montanists, for which they are reproved by Saint Ambrose and Saint Hieron. 
h Ambr. li. de poenit. c. 7. Hier. Epist. ad Marcel. 54.   
Protestants say that they are justified by Faith only: this they had from the pseudo-Apostles, for which they are condemned by St. Augustin. 
i Aug. de fide & oper. c. 14.   
Lastly, as I have showed Your Majesty, that Your Church, as it stands in opposition to ours, is but a congeries of so many heresies, to which I could easily make an enlargement: but that I fear, I have been too tedious already; So I shall make it appear, that our Church as she stands in opposition unto yours, is true and right, even yourselves being witnesses, and you shall find our Doctrine among your own Doctors. First the Greek Church, whom you court to your side, as indeed they are Protestants according to your vulgar reception, being you call all those Protestants, who are or were in any Opposition to the Church of Rome, though in their Tenants otherwise, they never so much do disagree. For the Greek Church with which you so often hit us in the teeth and take to be of your faction, she holds Invocation of Saints, Adoration of Images, Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind for the sick, and many others.  
Master Parker confesseth, that Luther crossed himself morning and evening, and is never seen to be painted praying, but before a Crucifix. 
a Against Simb. part. 1. c. 2. sect. 30. p. 105. See Jo. Crevel. refut. Cerem. miss. p. 188. Jo. Manl. Loc. Com. p. 636.   
As touching the Invocation of Saints (saith Luther) I think with the whole Christian Church, and hold, that Saints are to be honoured by us, and invocated 
b Purgat. quorund. art. & in Ep. ad Georg. Spal. . I never denied Purgatory (saith Luther) and yet I believe it, as I have often written and confessed 
c Tom. 7. fol. 132. adversus bullam. See him also in disp. Lips. c. de purgat. & resolute. de indulg. Conclus. 16. See likewise Zwingl. Tom. 2. fol. 378. . If it is lawful, (saith Luther,) for the Jews to have the picture of Caesar upon their Coins; much more is it lawful for Christians to have in their Church's Crosses and Images of Mary 
d Luth. in Consolat. prolab. l. 6 See this cited forth of Luth. by Hasp. Hist. Sac. p. 2. f. 33. ; and lastly he maintained the real Presence. 
e See Zwingl. Tom. 2. f. 375.   
But let us go a little further, and consider what they held, whom ye call your Predecessors, under whom ye shroud your Visibility, and on whom you look beyond Luther, for your Doctrines Patronage, viz. First upon the Hussites, who broke forth about the year 1400. they held seven Sacraments 
f p. 2. 16. . Transubstantiation 
g Pag. 209. , the Pope's primacy 
h Pag. 217. art. 7, 8. , and the Mass 
i Luth, in Colloq. Germ. e. de missa. , as Fox in his acts and monuments acknowledgeth.  
Let us go further, and consider Wickliff, (our own Countryman,) who appeared about the year 1370. he maintained holy water 
k Wick. de blaspheme. cap. 17. , worship of Relics, and Images 
l Idem de Eucharist. c. 9 , Intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary 
m Idem in Serm. de Assump. Mariae. , the rites and Ceremonies of the Mass 
n Idem de apostasia c. 18. , all the seven Sacraments 
o Idem in postil. sup. c. 15. Marci. . Moreover, he held Opinions contrary, and condemned both by Catholic and Protestants, as that if a Bishop or Priest be in any mortal sin, his Ordaining, Consecrating, or Baptising is of no effect 
p Acts & mon. p. 96. art. 4. . He condemned lawful Oaths with the Anabaptists 
q Osi and. Epist. Hist. Eccles. p. 459. art. 43. . Lastly he maintained that any Ecclesiastical Ministers were not to have any temporal possessions 
r Act. & mon. p. 96. . This last Opinion was such savoury Doctrine, that rather than some of those times would not hearken to that, they would listen to all; as the greedy appetites to Bishop's Lands, make some now adays to hearken unto any thing, that Criers down of Bishops shall foment.  
To go further yet to the Waldenses, descended from the race of one Waldo, a Merchant of Lions, who broke out about the year 1220. These men held the real Presence 
s In Epist. 244. p. 450. , for which they were reproved by Calvin. These men extolled the merit of voluntary poverty; they held Transubstantiation 
t Illyricus Catalogue. Test. p. 1498. , and many other opinions which most Protestant's no way allow. 
u Idem Catalogue. Test. pag. 1502.   
And lastly, I shall run your pedigree to the radix, and utmost Derivation, that the best read Herald in the Protestant Genealogy, can run its linc, and that is to the Waldenses, and to Berengarius, who broached his heresy in the year 1048. and he held all the points of Doctrine that we held, only he differed from us in the point of Transubstantiation. And for this cause they took him into the name and number of Protestants and Reformers, notwithstanding he presently afterwards recanted and died a Catholic. So it ends, where it never had beginning.  
Finally: if neither prescription of 1600 years' possession, and continuance of our Church's Doctrine, nor our evidence out of the word of God, nor the Father's witnessings to that evidence: nor the Decrees of Counsels: nor your own acknowledgements, be sufficient to mollify and turn your royal heart, there is no more means left for truth, or me, but I must leave it to God, in whose hand are the hearts of Kings.    

AN ANSWER TO THE marquis of WORCESTER His Reply to the KING'S Paper.  
YOur MAJESTY is pleased to wave all the Marks of the true Church, and to make recourse unto the Scriptures.  
Ans. 1. His MAJESTY did not wave all 
marquis page 52.  the Marks of the true Church, assigned by the marquis, but showed them to be such as may (without distinction and further explication) belong to a false Church. From jer. 44. 16. His MAJESTY showed that Antiquity, Succession and Universality was alleged in defence of Idolatry. That Demetrius (Acts 19) alleged Antiquity and Universality for the worship of Diana; and that 
* What is there also in His Majesty's Paper cited out of Prudentius, is through some mistake ascribed to Prudentius, whereas it was only the objection of Symmachus, and answered by Prudentius, who wrote against Symmachus, as also did Amb.  Symmachus alleged Antiquity as a plea for all heathenish Idolatry and Superstition, page 47. That Ezechiel bids, Be not stiffnecked as your forefathers were, page Ibid. These words (the place being not cited) I confess, I cannot find, but there are those which are equivalent, Ez. 20. 30. Are ye polluted after the manner of your Fathers? and commit you whoredom after their abominations? So the Prophet Zachary cries, Be ye not as your Fathers, Zach. 1. 4. The like may be seen in other places. His Majesty likewise allegeth our Saviour telling us, that we must not so much hearken to what was said by them of old time, as to that which he shall tell us, Mat. 5. 21. etc. (not as it is cited, 21. 12.) pag. 48. It is strange therefore that the marquis should say, that all the marks of the true Church were waved by His Majesty. As for the marks set down by the marquis, our learned writers have over and over showed the insufficiency of them, so that there is 
Hâc defensio communis furoris est furentium multitudo, Minutius Felix.  no need now to say much. First for Universality, it is certain that error may spread for a while more universally than truth. So did Gentilism for many ages, it overspread in a manner the whole World. Only in judah was God known, Psal. 76. 1. Only the people of the jews had Gods saving truth among them, all the World besides did lie in gross ignorance, and damnable error, Psal. 147. 19, 20. joh. 4. 22. Rom. 3. 1, 2. 1 Thess. 4. 5. Eph. 2. 11, 12. Acts 14. 16. & 17. 30. So for a while arianism did bear all the sway, in so much that as Hierome observed, The World groaned, and wondered to see it 
Ingemuit orbis, & Arrianum se esse miratus est. Hierom. advers. Luciferian.  self become an Arrian. So also did Pelagianisme, as Bradwardine sometimes Archbishop of Canterbury complained. As in times past (saith he) against one true Prophet there were 850 Prophets of Baal, and the like, to whom an innumerable company of people did adhere: So also now in this cause, how many, O Lord, do with Pelagius fight for Free will against Thy Freegrace? The whole World almost is gone into error after Pelagius. And again, The whole World 

Sicut olim contra unicum Dei Prophetam 850. Prophetae Baal, & similes sunt reperti, quibus & innumerabilis populus adhaerebat: ita & hodiè in hâc causâ quot, Domine, cum Pelagio pro libero arbitrio contra gratuitam gratiam tuam pugnant? Bradward: de causâ Dei in Praefat.  
Totus penè mundus post hunc abit, & erroribus ejus favet, dum ferè omnes communiter aestimant solius liberi arbitrii viribus se posse declinare à malo, facere bonum, etc. Bradw. de cause. Dei lib. 2. cap. 31.   almost goeth after him, and favoureth his errors, whiles all almost think that by the strength of freewill alone, they can eschew evil, and do good. The Scripture also hath foretold us that all the World should wonder after the beast. Revel. 13. 3. And that the whore of Babylon (whereby that Rome is meant, the Scripture is so clear, that even the Romanists themselves are forced to confess it) should sit upon many waters, Revel. 17. 1. and that by those waters 
Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 2. Ril. in Apoc. 14. & 17.  are meant Peoples, and Multitudes, and Nations, and Tongues, v. 15. This note therefore, viz. Universality, is far from proving the Church of Rome to be the true Church. As for the Scriptures which the marquis citeth, viz. Esay 2. 2. Psal. 2. 8. (not as it is misprinted 2.) and Mat. 24. (not 20) 14. these and the like places only show that in the time of the Gospel the Church should not (as before it was) be confined to one Nation, but should be extended unto all so that Gentiles as well as Jews, as well one Nation as another should have admittance into it, the middle wall of partition being now broken down, Ephes. 2. 14. So that there is neither Greek nor jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all. Col. 3. 11.  
2. For Antiquity, it is true, the Prophet jeremy bids, Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein. jer. 6. 16. And so we grant that primary antiquity is a sure note of 
Id verum quodcunque primum; id adulterum quodcunque posterius. Tert. advers. Prax. c. 4  truth, for error being a deviation and swerving from truth, it must needs be that truth is more ancient than error. But there is a secondary antiquity which is no argument of truth. For there is vetustas erroris, as Cyprian observed long ago, an antiquity of error. The woman of Samaria could say, Our Fathers worshipped in this Mountain; yet our Saviour answered her, Ye worship ye know not what. joh. 4. 20. 22. And Symmachus 
Cypr. Epist. 74. Edit. Pamel.  (whom His Majesty cited) could bring in heathenish Rome thus pleading antiquity, Let me use those ceremonies, which mine 
Utar ceremoniis avitis, sera & contumeliosa est emendatio senectutis. Sym.  ancestors have used. It's too late, and too great an injury to reform me now I am old. This plea, I dare say our adversaries themselves will not allow as used by Symmachus; and why then should we allow it, as they use it?  
Thirdly, for Visibility, it is granted that ordinarily the Church is visible, i. e. that there is a visible company of such as profess the truth, though the places cited by the marquis do not evince so much. He saith, David compares the Church to a Tabernacle in the Sun. He means Psal. 19 4. where indeed according to the vulgar Latin translation it is, He hath set his Tabernacle in the Sun: but 
* In sole posuit Tabernaculum suum. solemn posuit in Tabernaculo suo, i. e. in coelis: unde Hebr. Soli posuit tentorium in eyes. Genebr.  Genebrard is forced to expound it by an Hypallage thus, He hath set the Sun in his Tabernacle, that is, in the heavens. For (as he confesseth) the Hebrew runs thus, He hath set a Tabernacle for the Sun in them. Now what is this to the Visibility of the Church? or how doth it concern the Church at all? Neither do I see, that (as the marquis allegeth) our Saviour compares the Church to a candle in a candlestick, not under a bushel, Mat. 5. 15. But either (as jansenius a Romish Writer doth expound it) our Saviour there spoke of his Apostles, who as a candle in a candlestick were to give light unto the dark world by the preaching of the Gospel. Or else in general he showed the duty of all, viz. That in their places and callings they ought to be a means to in-lighten others, especially by their good example. This sense is agreeable to that which follows immediately ver. 16. Let your light so shine forth before men, etc. So when our Saviour saith Mat. 24. 26. If they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth: Behold, he is in the secret chambers, believe it not. It is nothing to the Church's visibility, but only he foreshews that many should come in his name, pretending themselves to be Christ, and forewarns to beware of them. These places alleged by the marquis, are but little to the purpose, though (as I said) it is granted, that ordinarily the Church (i. e. the company of such as profess the truth) is visible. Yet nevertheless we hold that sometimes through persecution, and prevalency of error, the Church may be so obscured, as to be scarcely visible. Thus it was in Elias his time, when he complained unto God, saying, The children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant, thrown down thine Altars, and slain thy Prophets with the sword, and I, even I am 
* I am left alone, Rom. 11. 3.  left, and they seek my life to take it away. 1 King. 19 10. And what great visibility was there of the Church, when both Priests, and People, were conspired together against Christ, to put him to death, and his Disciples also generally forsaken him, and fled from him. So when the heresy of Arrius overspread all, so that such as were orthodox and sound in the faith, could scarce appear; 
† Hilar. contra Auxent: Montes mihi, & silvae, & lacus, & carceres, & voragines, sunt tutiores, etc.  Hilarius, who lived in those times, saith, that mountains, and woods, and lakes, and Prisons, and deep pits, were more safe than Churches, and public places of God's worship, these being all possessed by the Arrians, and the true believing Christians having only the other to lurk and lie hid in. How visible also was the Church like to be, when that should be fulfilled which is written Revel. 13. 15, 16, 17. that as many as would not worship the Beast, should be killed. And that all both great and small should be forced to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. And that none should buy, or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name. Bellarmine himself saith, It is certain that the persecution by Antichrist shall be most grievous, 
Certum est Antichristi persecutionem fore gravissimam, & notissimam, ita ut cessent omnes publicae religionis ceremoniae, & sacrificia. Bell. de Pont. Rom. l. 3. c. 7.  and most notorious, so that all public ceremonies of Religion and Sacrifices shall cease. 
* Denique quòd Antichristi tempore propter atrocitatem persecutionis cessare debeat publicum, & quotidianum Ecclesiae officium, etc. Antichristum interdicturum omnem divinum cultum. Ibid.  And again, that in the time of Antichrist the public service of the Church shall cease through the grievousness of persecution, and that Antichrist shall interdict all divine worship, etc.  
4. For Succession of Pastors, which the marquis saith is required in a true Church, and is only to be found in the Church of Rome. We must distinguish of Succession: There is a succession of Persons, and a succession of Doctrine; the former succession without the latter is to no purpose. The Priests that condemned Christ had a personal succession, but that was worth nothing, they wanting doctrinal succession. They did personally succeed those that were before them, and they others, and so on till they came to Aaron: but they could not show the like succession of their doctrine. So neither can they of the Church of Rome show that they hold the same faith which was delivered by the Apostles; and therefore though they can show that their Popes do personally succeed one another from the very times of the Apostles, it avails nothing. 
* Bell. de Eccles. l. 4. c. 8. Non colligitur necessariò, ibi esse Ecclesiam, ubi est successio. Omnes Ecclesiae illae Patriarchales habuerunt per longa tempora Episcopos manifestos haereticos, & proinde interrupta est veterum Pastorum successio.  Bellarmine, though he struggle a little about it, yet cannot deny but that a succession of persons is to be found is the Greek Church, and therefore grants that it doth not necessarily follow, that where such succession is, there is also a true Church. Yea, he saith, that all those patriarchal Churches had for a long time Bishops, that were manifest Heretics, and that therefore the succession of ancient Pastors was interrupted. What is this else but to confess that a succession of Pastors without a succession of the true doctrine is no mark of a true Church. The ancient Doctors of the Church, 'tis true, have sometimes used this argument drawn from succession, to convince Heretics, but so as to show that a succession of doctrine did concur with a succession of persons. Yea they plainly show, that it was succession of doctrine, which they did stand upon, and that without this they made no account of the other. 
a Oportet adhaetere his, qui Apostolorum doctrinam custodiunt. Iren. l. 4. c. 44. And c. 43. he calls this Principalem successionem.  We must adhere unto those (saith Ireneus) who keep the doctrine of the Apostles. This succession of doctrine he calls the principal succession. So 
b Non habent Petri haereditatem, qui fidem Petri non habent. Amb. de poeu. l. 1. c. 6.  Ambrose, They do not succeed Peter, who have not the faith of Peter. And 
c Ipsa doctrina eorum cum Apostolica comparata, ex diversitate & contrarietate sua pronuntiabit, neque Apostoli alicujus authoris esse, neque Apostoli. Tertul de praescrip. c. 32.  Tertullian speaking of Heretics, saith, Their doctrine being compared with the Apostles doctrine, shows that it was not received from the Apostles, nor from any Apostolical teachers. And speaking of Churches planted since the Apostles times, he saith, That 
d In eadem fide conspirantes, non minùs Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Ibid.  they agreeing in the same faith, are nevertheless accounted Apostolical for the consanguinity of doctrine.  
5. For Unity in doctrine; by which the marquis proves the Roman Church to be the true Church: I answer, that Unity without Verity will not prove it, and the one is not always necessarily accompanied with the other. The words of the Prophets declare good unto the King with one mouth, said the messenger to Micaiah, 1 King. 22. 13. They were about four hundred Prophets, ver. 6. and all of them did agree in one; yet they prophesied falsely for all that, there was a lying spirit in the mouth of all those Prophets, how unanimous soever they were, ver. 22. Neither is there such unity in the Church of Rome as is pretended. The difference betwixt the Dominicans and the Jesuits about God's decrees, the concurrence of his grace, and the determination of man's will; this difference (I say) betwixt them is as great, and as important as any (I think) that is amongst Protestants. Neither doth it suffice to say (as the marquis doth) that the Church hath not determined any thing in these points, and therefore such difference about them is not against the Church's unity. For if the Pope's authority be so great, and his judgement so infallible, as they pretend, why hath he not decided the controversy, and so put an end to the difference long ere this? Besides (which the marquis took no notice of) they of the Roman Church differ much about the very head of it, the Pope himself. For some will have him to be above a general council & others hold the council to be above the Pope: and this also was the determination both of the council of Constance, and of the council of Basill. Finally, I grant, that unity in the truth is much to be desired, and so much the places cited by the marquis do prove, viz. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Eph. 4. 3. Acts 2. 42. Phil. 1. 27. & 2. 2. yet we see that the Apostle doth acknowledge the Church of Corinth a true Church notwithstanding the differences and divisions that were in it, so that all dis-union of people is not enough to dischurch them. Neither if the confessions of the reformed Churches be considered, as they ought to be, will the differences that are among them (however particular persons be exorbitant) be found so many, and so great (though too many, and too great; I grant) as our adversaries of Rome would make them.  
6. And lastly, for the conversion of Nations, which the marquis also will have to be a mark of the true Church, and thereby prove that the Church of Rome is it, and not the Church of Protestants; I answer, that the Scriptures which he allegeth, viz. Esay 49. 23. and 60. 16. and Psal. 2. 8. do show indeed, that in the time of the Gospel the Gentiles should be converted, and joined to the Church, which the Scripture of the New Testament, and experience also shows to have been accomplished. But they do not show either that every true Church must necessarily evidence itself to be a true Church by working a conversion in infidels, or that every Church that doth work any conversion in that kind, must therefore be acknowledged to be a true Church. The Scribes and Pharisees did make Proselytes, and were very zealous in it, yet nevertheless were guilty of gross errors, which all were to beware of as most pernicious, Mat. 23. 15. Besides, there is a conversion as from unbelief to faith, so from misbelief to a right and found faith. And though Protestants have done little or nothing it may be in the former kind of conversion, so as to convert mere Infidels, yet in the other kind, viz. in converting misbelievers, they have done much. This the marquis (pag. 44.) is pleased to call perversion rather than conversion; but that must be judged by the consideration of the Doctrines held by Protestants. As for those conversions wrought in the Indies by the Romanists, we may well conceive that it was not so much the word preached by the Jesuits, as the sword brandished by the Spaniards, that did work them. 
† Non satis liquet mihi an fides Christiana fuerit barbaris hactenus ita proposita, & annuntiata, ut teneantur credere sub novo peccato.— Miracula & signa nulla audio, nec exempla vitae adeò religiosa: contrà multa scandala, seu facinora, & multas impietates; unde non videtur, quod religio Christiana satis commodè & piè sit illis praedicata, ut illi teneantur acquiescere; quanquam videntur multi religiosi, & alii Ecclesiastici viri, & vitâ, & exemplo, & diligenti praedicatione sufficienter operam & industriam adhibuisse in hoc negotio, nisi ab aliis, quibus alia cura est, impediti essent. Francise de Victor. Relect. 4. Sect. 38.  Franciscus de Victoria (a learned Writer among the Papists) writing of the Indians, saith he did not see, that the Christian faith was so propounded and declared to them, as that under the guilt of a new sin they were bound to embrace it. He heard (he says) of no Miracles, and Signs that were wrought, nor of very good examples of life that were given, but on the contrary of many scandalous acts, and many impieties. Whereupon he conceiveth, that Christian religion was not so conveniently and properly preached to that barbarous people, as that they were bound to acquiesce in it, though he grants, that there were many religious, and other Ecclesiastical men, who both by life and example, and also by diligent preaching did sufficiently do their endeavour, but that they were hindered by others, who minded other matters. Thus I have as briefly as I could gone over the marks, which the marquis assigneth of the true Church, and that because he saith that his Majesty did wave them all, whereas indeed his Majesty did not wholly wave them, though as his occasions would not suffer him to return any answer at all to the Marquis' reply, so neither would they (its likely) permit him to answer the former Paper so fully as otherwise he would have done. Whereas the marquis saith, that His Majesty is pleased to make recourse unto the Scriptures, This is surely the course that all aught to follow, that will discuss matters of Religion, they ought to have recourse to the Scriptures, by which all such matters are to be tried and determined. To the Law, and to the testimony (saith the Prophet Esay) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. 
Esay 8. 20.  
* Utrùm ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non ni si divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere, quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanits Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosious, vel alii innumerabilis nostrae communions Episcopi. Aug. de unit. Eccles. cap. 16. Non audiamus, Haec dico, haec dicis, sed audiamus, Haec dicit Dominus.— Auferantur illa de medio, quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris, sed aliundè recit amus.— Nolo humanis documentis, sed divinie oracula sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. Aug. ibid. cap. 3.  Augustine speaking of the Donatists, bade let them show their Church only by the Canonical books of the Scriptures, professing that he would not have any to believe that he was in the true Church, because of the commendation that Optatus, Ambrose, and many others did give of it. And again, Let us not hear (saith he) Thus say I, thus sayest thou, but let us hear, Thus saith the lord— Let those things be removed out of the way, which we allege one against another, otherwise then from the Books of Canonical Scripture.— I will not have the holy Church demonstrated by humane tokens, but by divine Oracles. But saith the marquis.  
What Heretic that ever was, did not do so? How shall the greatest 
Page 52.  Heretic in the World be confuted or censured, if any man may be permitted to appeal to Scriptures, margined with his own notes, sensed with his own meaning, and enlivened with his own private spirit? to what end were those marks so fully, both by the Prophets, the Apostles, and our Saviour himself set down, if we make no use of them?  
Answ. 1. Though Heretics make recourse unto Scripture, it follows not that therefore this is not the course which ought to be followed, or that therefore they are Heretics that do it. The marquis himself did make recourse unto Scripture in setting down the marks of the true Church, and so also doth he in handling sundry points in controversy betwixt Papists, and Protestants. This course therefore, himself being Judge, is not to be condemned: neither certainly is it, however Heretics may abuse it. Though Heretics will allege Scripture in defence of their Heresics, yet are they nevertheless to be confuted by Scripture. The Sadduces thought by Scripture to overthrow the resurrection, yet by Scripture did our Saviour convince them. Mat. 22. 23. 32. Yea when the Devil himself did cite Scripture, our Saviour did not therefore dislike it, but made use of it for the resisting of Satan, and the repelling of his temptation, Mat. 4. 6, 7.  
2. It's true, none may appeal to Scriptures margined with their own Notes, sensed with their own meaning, and enlivened with their own private spirit. It's to no purpose to allege Scripture, except that sense, in which it is alleged, may be made good by Scripture. The Jewish Rabbin (as Master Selden citys him) saith 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  well, All interpretation (of Scripture) which is not grounded upon the Scripture, is vain. But what this makes against his Majesty's making recourse unto the Scriptures, or against any man's taking that course in disputes of this nature, I do not see. For that his Majesty did so make recourse unto Scripture, the marquis doth 
Eliah Ben Mosis apud Selden: de Anno Civili Hebraeorum, cap. 2.  not say, neither aught any man to be charged in this kind, except it can be proved that he is indeed guilty.  
3. It doth not yet appear that the particulars before mentioned, viz. Universality, Antiquity, Visibility, Succession of Pastors, Unity in Doctrine, and Conversion of Nations; that these (I say) were set down either by our Saviour, or his Apostles, or the Prophets, as marks of the True Church, at least so as to make any thing for the Marquis' purpose, viz. to prove the Church of Rome to be the True Church.  
Your Majesty was pleased to urge the Errors of certain Fathers, 
Marq: pag. 54.  to the prejudice of their Authority. Which I conceive would have been so, had they been all Montanists, Rebaptists, all Anthropomorphists, and all of them generally guilty of the faults, wherewith they were soverally charged in the particulars: seeing that when we produce a Father, we do not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile; the infallibility being never attributed by us otherwise then unto the Church, not unto particular Church men. As your Majesty hath most excellently observed in the failings of the holy Apostles, who erred after they had received the Holy Ghost in so ample manner. But when they were all gathered together in Council, and could send about their Edicts with these Capital Letters in the Front, Visum est Sipritui Sancto, & nobis, Act. 15. 28. then I hope your Majesty cannot say, that it was possible for them to Err. So though the Fathers might err in particulars; yet those particular Errors would be swallowed up in a General Council, etc.  
Here the marquis grants, that the Fathers singly and severally 
Answ.  considered, may err, but not if gathered together in a general Council. But first, doth not this invalidate the authority of the Fathers, when they are severally cited, as they are in this Reply frequently by the marquis? Indeed, here presently after he adds, Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony, except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient. But certainly if a man be liable to error in one thing, he is so in another thing; and therefore his bare testimony, except it have something to support it, is not sufficient to rely upon. The testimony of the Lord is sure, saith David, Psal. 19 7. because he can neither deceive, nor be deceived. But man may, and therefore his testimony, as his, is not sure. No, Let God be true, and every man a liar, saith the Apostle, Rom. 3. 4.  
2. For a general Council, why it should necessarily be exempt from Error, I see nothing here alleged by the marquis, except it be, that Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us. But the inference made from that Council, wherein the Apostles themselves did sit, and give sentence, to prove that no general Council can Err, is no better than if one should argue, that a particular Father or Doctor is infallible, because a particular Apostle was so in that which he either wrote or preached. For we must take heed of entertaining such a thought (although the Marquis' words do seem to imply so much) as that each particular Apostle might fall into Error, though all of them together could not. For how then should we be able to build our faith upon those Scriptures, which were composed by particular Apostles, and not by a whole Council of them? It's true, (as his Majesty observed, pag. 50.) the Apostles were ignorant, and erroneous in some things, but not in any thing that they delivered unto People to believe, and obey, either by word, or writing; for then (as I said) we could have no certainty of the Scriptures, we could not be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, as Believers are, Ephes. 2. 20. But that general Counsels may err, Austin made no question; 
* Quis nesciat ipsa concilia, quae per singulas regiones, vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum authoritati, quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria saepè priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat. Aug. de baptis. contra Donatist. lib. 5: cap. 3.  Who knows not (saith he) that Provincial and national Counsels do yield to the authority of General Counsels; and that General Counsels are often amended, the former by the latter, that being after found out, which before lay hid? It is well known that the Romanists reject the authority of the Counsels of Constance, and Basil, (two General Counsels) when they determine the Pope to be inferior, and subject to a General Council. Indeed, generally the Pontificians make little account of a Council, though otherwise never so general, except it be confirmed by the Pope. Bellarmine makes it a clear case, and without all difficulty, that 
Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11.  General Counsels may Err, if the Fathers of the Council define any thing, when as the Legates of the Pope descent from them: or if the Legates themselves do consent, but so as to go against the instructions which the Pope gave them. And he further holds, that in case the Legates had no certain instructions from the Pope, the Council may Err, and that before the Pope's Confirmation of it, the judgement of a General 
Ego existimo tale concilium posse errare, neque esse infallibile ejus judicium ante confirmationem Pontificis. Bellarm. ibid.  Council is not infallible. The marquis himself (pag. 55. etc.) doth seem to assent unto His Majesty, taxing General Counsels for committing Errors, but some passages he hath, which to me seem very strange. If (saith he) we should suppose them to be General, and free Counsels, yet they could not be Erroneous in any particular man's judgement, until a like General Council should have concluded the former to be Erroneous. By this Assertion arianism being confirmed by the Council of Ariminum, Athanasius, and every particular man should have assented to it, until another General Council had determined against it; but this is such a position, as (I dare say) our Romish adversaries themselves will not allow. Again, If it should be granted (saith the marquis) that 
Pag. 56.  the Church had at any time determined amiss, the Church cannot be said to have erred, because you must not take the particular time for the Catholic Church, because the Church is as well Catholic for time, as territory; except you will make rectification an error. But when our adversaries of Rome speak of the Church's freedom from error, they understand it of the Church representative, a general Council. 
* Idem est ecclesiam non posse errare in definiendis rebus fidei, & Episcopos non posse errare; atqui singuli seorsim errare possunt: igitur congregati in unum errare non poterunt. Bellarm. de council. l. 2. c. 2.  It is one and the same thing, (saith Bellarmine) that the Church cannot err in determining matters of faith, and that Bishops cannot err. But severally they may err, therefore being gathered together they shall be free from error. So then, if a General Council may err at any one time, it is sufficient to overthrow their Tenet, that the Church cannot err. That the Church (represented in a General Council) may after rectify what before was amiss, and that also by the determination of a General Council, is so far from proving, that the Church (as they take it) cannot Err, that on the contrary it proves, that it may Err. For though rectification be not error, yet it doth presuppose Error. Again, If I recall mine own words (saith the 
Pag. 56.  marquis) it is no Error, but an avoidance of Error. So where the same power Rectifies itself, though some things formerly have been Decreed amiss, yet that cannot render the Decrees of General Counsels not binding, or incident to Error, quoad nos, though in themselves, & pro tempore, they may be so. I answer, it is without all doubt, that for one to recall his words, being Erroneous, is no Error, but a correcting of Error, yet this doth clearly show a man to be subject to Error. And so if the Church at one time in a General Council may Rectify what at another time in a General Council it had Decreed amiss, it evidently appears, that the Church in a General Council may Err. For otherwise, what need of Rectification were there, if there had been no Error? And certainly, if the Decrees of General Counsels be Erroneous (as the marquis denies not but they may be) they are not binding Quoad nos, we are not bound to assent unto them, but rather to descent from them: For we are not bound to embrace Error, but to embrace Truth. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, saith the Apostle, 1 Thes. 5. 21. By the Marquis' reason the Decree of the Council of Ariminum, confirming the Heresy of Arrius, should for the time have been binding; so that neither Athanasius, nor any other, should have presumed to oppose it, or to descent from it, until another General Council had declared against it.  
As to your Majesty's objecting the Errors of the Holy Apostles, 
Marq: pag. 56.  and Penmen of the Holy Ghost, and your inference thereupon, viz. that Truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture: under your Majesty's correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the private Spirit (urged by your Majesty) its leading us into all Truth, that could possibly be found out. For if such men (as they) endued with the Holy Ghost, ennobled with the power of working Miracles, so sanctified in their callings, and enlightened in their understandings, could Err: how can any man (less qualified) assume to himself a freedom from Erring, by the assistance of a private Spirit?  
1. His Majesty was far from thinking, that the Apostles, as 
Answ.  Penmen of the Holy Ghost, could Err. For then there were no room for that inference, That Truth is no where to be found but in Holy Scripture. 2. His Majesty spoke not of any private Spirit, but of the Spirit of God leading us into all Truth, alleging that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God. It's true, if any under pretence of the Spirit go contrary to the Word, (as too many do) whether they be particular Persons, or general Counsels that do so, it is a private Spirit, viz. their own Spirit that they are guided by. Therefore Saint john bids, Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God, because many false Prophets, (many that falsely pretend the Spirit) are gone out into the world, 1 john 4. 1. But whoever they be that go according to the Word, though they be particular and private persons, yet it is not their own particular and private Spirit, but the Spirit of God that doth guide them. The Scripture was given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore it is God's Spirit, and not Man's, that doth speak in, and by the Scriptures.  
Lastly, as to your Majesty's quotation of so many Fathers, for the 
Marq. pag. 57  Scriptures easiness, and plainness to be understand, If the Scriptures themselves do tell us, that they are hard to be understood, etc.  
1. His Majesty did not quote many Fathers, nor any at all to 
Answ.  prove that the Scriptures are every where plain, and easy to be understood, but to show that the Scriptures are their own interpreters, which are His Majesty's words, pag. 50. To prove this, (which is a most certain truth) His Majesty quoted indeed many Fathers, as Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Crysostome, Basil, Austin, Gregory and Optatus. The Scriptures quoted by the marquis make nothing against this, viz. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Act. 8. 31. (not, as it is misprinted, 13.) Luke 24. 25. (rather 45.) Apoc. 5. 4. where, not the Angel, (as the marquis saith) but john wept, because none was found worthy to open, and to read the Book. Neither doth it appear, that by the Book there mentioned, is meant the Scripture, as the marquis seemeth to suppose. And so indeed many have thought, as the Jesuit Ribera telleth us, who yet nevertheless professeth that he 
At ego non video, quo modo historicè liber, de quo loquitur Joannes, sit S. Scriptura. Ribera in Apoc. 5. 1.  did not see how historically this could be. For this Book was shut and sealed (as he observes) until that time that john had this Revelation, when as all the other Apostles were deceived: so that the Scripture (if it were the Book there spoken of) was always shut to Peter and Paul, and the other Apostles. The other places (I grant) do show that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and difficult, at least to some; but this is nothing against the Scriptures being their own interpreters. What is obscure in one place, must be cleared by some other place, or else without extraordinary revelation I see not how we should attain to the understanding of it. No need therefore to put those sayings of the Fathers, cited by His Majesty, among the Erratas that are behind their Books, as the marquis speaketh, pag. 57 where he adds, Or else we must look out some other meaning of their words than what your Maj: hath inferred from thence; as thus, they were easy in aliquibus locis, but not in omnibus locis: or thus, they were easy as to the attainment of particular salvation, but not as to the general cognizance of all the Divine Mystery therein contained, etc. But this is nothing contrary to his Majesty's inference, which was only this, That the Scriptures are their own Interpreters, i. e. that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, not that the Scriptures are clear in all points, and in all places; it sufficeth that (which the marquis himself doth seem to yield) they are clear in those things which concern Salvation: And this was Austin's determination, In those things (saith he) which are plainly set down in the 
In iis, que apertè posita sunt in Scripturâ, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 9  Scriptures, are found all those things, which concern faith, and good life. Yea, so much the Scripture doth testimony of itself, The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. Psal. 19 7. The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple, Psal. 119. 130. From a child thou hast known the Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, etc. 2 Tim. 3. 15.  
First, we hold the real presence, you deny it; we say his Body is there, you say there is nothing but bare Bread: we have Scripture 
Marq: p. 57, 58.  for it, Mat. 20. (for 26.) 26. Take eat, this is my Body. So Luke 22. 19 This is my Body which is given for you.  
Here the marquis comes to perform that which before he promised (pag. 53, & 54.) viz. to show that in those points 
Answ.  wherein they and we differ, the Scriptures are on their side, and not on ours: And he begins with the controversy about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, alleging those words, This is my Body, as a clear proof of their opinion, viz. that after Consecration there is no longer the substance of Bread, but that the Bread is transubstantiated, and turned into the substance of Christ's Body. But doth it appear that those words, This is my Body, are to be understood properly any more than those, Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every manchild among you shall be circumcised? There Circumcision is called God's Covenant, whereas properly it was not the Covenant itself, but the token of the Covenant, as it is called immediately after, ver. 11. So Exod. 12. 13. and in other places the Lamb is called the Lords. Passeover, whereas properly it was not the Passeover, but a Token of the Passeover, being slain, and eaten in remembrance of the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he saw the Firstborn of the Egyptians, Exod. 12. 13. And thus also it's said, 1 Cor. 10. 4. that the Rock was Christ. How could that be? Not in respect of Substance, but in respect of Signification; the Rock signified Christ, was a Type and a Figure of Christ. Bellarmine (I know) doth endeavour to elude all these instances, as if the speeches were not Figurative, but Proper. To that place concerning Circumcision he answereth, that both Speeches are proper, viz. Circumcision is the Covenant, and Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant. Circumcision (he saith) was the Token 
Bell. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. Secundò vocatum est.  of the Covenant, as the Covenant is taken for Gods Promise: and it was also the Covenant itself, as the Covenant is taken for the Instrument whereby the Promise is applied. But here Bellarmine is contrary both to himself, and to Reason. He is contrary to himself, for a little before he saith, that these words, 
Ibid. Sect. Quartò peccat.  Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 11. are an Explication of that which went before, ver. 10. viz. that Circumcision is the Covenant. Now if the one be an Explication of the other, then needs must the word Covenant be taken alike in both. He is also contrary unto Reason, for it is absurd to say, that a Covenant doth properly signify both a Promise, and also an Instrument, whereby the Promise is applied. As well may one say, that Christ's Body doth properly signify both his Body, and also the Sacrament of his Body. A Covenant, in the very nature of it, being properly taken, doth signify a Promise: and therefore the instrument, whereby it is applied, cannot properly be the Covenant, but only the Token, Pledge, and Assurance of it. It may as well be said, that a Covenant may have two divers and distinct natures, as that a Covenant can be taken two divers and distinct ways, and yet be taken properly both the one way, and the other.  
To those words, It (viz. the Lamb) is the Lords passover, Exod. 12. 11. Bellarmine answers, that the Speech is not Figurative, 
Bellarm. Ibid. Quaedam citantur.  but Proper. The Lamb he saith was properly the Lords Passeover: and mark his Reason, Quia agnus immolabatur in memoriam illius transitus; that is, Because the Lamb was slain (or sacrificed) in memory of that passover, or passing over. Now what greater absurdity can there be, than this, which here Bellarmine doth fall into? He allegeth that as a Reason of his assertion, which indeed doth quite overthrow it. For if the Lamb were slain, and sacrificed in memory of the Lords Passeover, or passing over, than was it not properly the Passeover itself, but only a Sign and Memorial of it.  
As for those words, 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ; Bellarmine 
Bellarm. ubi supra, Sect. Illud etiam.  saith, that not a Material, but a Spiritual work is there meant; and that therefore, though the word Rock be taken Figuratively, yet the proposition itself, The Spiritual Rock was Christ, is not figuratively, but properly taken. But it is evident, that the Rock spoken of by the Apostle, was a material Rock, a Rock of Stone: For the Apostle speaketh of a Rock which the Israelites drank of; They drank of that Rock, saith he. Now that Rock which the Israelites drank of, was a material Rock, a Rock of Stone, as Moses doth show, Exod. 17. and Numb. 20. Austin never questioned this to be the meaning of the Apostles words, After a sort (saith he) 
Quodammodo omnia significantia videntur earum rerum, quas significant, sustinere personas: sicut dictum est ab Apostolo, petra erat Christus, quoniam Petra illa, de quâ hoc dictum est, significabat utique Christum. Aug. de civet. Dei lib. 18. cap. 48.  all things signifying, seem to be instead of those things, which they signify: as it is said by the Apostle, The Rock was Christ, because that Rock, of which that is spoken, did indeed signify Christ.  
These words of that learned Father are very remarkable, that only for the understanding of that particular place of Scripture, but also for the determining of the main Controversy betwixt us, and our Roman Adversaries. For he not only saith, that the Rock is said to have been Christ, because it did signify Christ, supposing and taking it as granted, that the Apostle spoke of a material Rock; but also he saith, that after a sort all things signifying are instead of the things signified by them, and therefore are called by the same names. If our adversaries would mind this rule, they would soon see, that they have no cause to insist upon those words, This is my Body, and to urge the proper sense of them. But for these words, The Rock was Christ, Bellarmine argueth that a material Rock is not there meant, because the Apostle calleth it a spiritual Rock. I answer, so the Apostle there calleth Manna spiritual meat, yet was Manna a material thing, only it had a spiritual signification. And so also was the Rock a material Rock, only it's called spiritual for the same reason. Bellarmine objects, that a material Rock did not follow the Israelites, as the Apostle saith that the Rock did, which he speaks of; for they drank (saith he) of that spiritual Rock that followed them. I answer 1. The material Rock may be said to have followed them, that is, to have satisfied their desire of water. Thus (as Beza observes) 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Photius apud Oecumen: though I confess, he understands it of Christ as meant by the spiritual Rock there mentioned.  Photius a Greek Author doth expound it, and so also (as Pareus testifies) Lyra and Dionysius, two Romish expositors. Bellarmine notes Peter Martyr, as thus expounding it, neither hath he any thing against this exposition, but only that the Greek Fathers, and Erasmus interpret the word used by the Apostle comitante, i. e. accompanying. But this is nothing, for they might mean accompanying in a metaphorical sense, viz. in respect of satisfying the desire. Again, the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites, in that the water flowing forth of the Rock, did follow them. Genebrard, a great man of the Romish party, commenting upon those words, Psal. 78. 15. He clavae the Rocks in the Wilderness, etc. saith that the Septuagint, and the vulgar Latin interpreter have it in the singular number, Rock, because by the Hebrew traditions there was but one Rock, which was smitten, and so sent forth water, at several times, and in several places: and that this Rock did remove with the Israelites, and follow them in their travels through the Wilderness. And this, he saith, is agreeable to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 4. But this is over rabbinical, and therefore he adds, that the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites, that is, that 

Nisi malis consecutam petram, id est, petrae fluxum, per derivationem, viz. & deductionem aquae à populo ad loca castrorum procuratam, sive per ipsius Dei transmissionem & directionem. Genebr loc. citat.  
Paulò post indiguerunt rursus aqua. Bell. ubi supra, Sect. Calvinus.   the water which flowed out of the Rock did follow them, either in that they themselves by their own art, and industry did derive and bring it to the place, where they camped; or that it was effected by God's transmission and direction. Bellarmine objects, that a little after the Israelites did want water again, as as we read Num. 20. and therefore the water did not follow them. But that want of water spoken of Num. 20. was not a little after, but a long time after the other mentioned Exod. 17. For that in Exodus was the Israelites camped in Rephidim, not long after they came out of Egypt; and the other was when they camped in Kadesh, in the fourtieth year after they left Egypt, as is noted in the Hebrew Chronicle called Seder Olam cap. 9 Compare Numbers. 33. 14. with 36. 
* Nec obstat, quòd in deserto excitatum sit alterum murmur ob aquae penuriam, ut secundò educeretur aqua ex alterâ rupe post annos 38. Nam de hâc ipsâ rupe, nempe de priore hâc Rabbini veteres, & recentiores intelligunt, cujus aquam tradunt defecisse propter Mariae mortem, donec secundò educeretur ex eâdem ad secundum de aquâ murmur. Genebr. ubi suprà.  Genebrard in the place before cited, meets with this Objection, that Bellarmine makes, and answers, that according to the Rabbins both ancient, and modern, that which is recorded Num. 20. is meant of the same Rock that is spoken of Exod. 17. the water whereof (they say) did fail because of Miriams' death (which happened there in Kadesh) until upon the people's murmuring again it was drawn out of the same Rock the second time.  
This conceit of the Rabbins is far from pleasing me, only I note how little force Bellarmine's objection was of with his own copartner Genebrard. Indeed this is enough to show the vanity of the objection, that (as Genebrard notes) the want of water in Kadesh was 38. years after that in Rephidim, and therefore was not (as Bellarmine says) a little after. But though it had not been one half quarter of that time before the Israelites wanted water again, yet that is no argument why the Apostle speaking of the Rock that followed them, should not mean a material and visible Rock; for the material and visible Rock, that is, the water that flowed from it, might follow the Israelites, though but for while, even so long as they encamped in Rephidim: neither doth the Apostle say, that it followed them either perpetually, or for any long time, but only that it followed them. But howsoever it be understood, that the Rock followed them (which I confess is somewhat obscure) how by the Rock there should be meant Christ, as the efficient cause giving them water to drink? For to drink of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Rock, is there expressed in the same phrase, as to drink of the Cup, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Neither (I think) can one in any congruity be said to drink of a man, that giveth him either water, or any thing else to drink; but only to drink either of the liquor, or (metonymically) of that wherein the liquor is contained. Finally Bellarmine himself doth acknowledge, that the material Rock, which afforded the Israelites water to 
Bell. ubi suprà, Sect. est tamen.  drink, was a figure of Christ, and that the water proceeding from that Rock, was a figure of Christ's Blood; only he denies, that so much is meant by the Apostle in those words, they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But, I demand then, from what place of Scripture, if not from those words of the Apostle, can so much be gathered? 
* Est hic ponitur pro significare, quemadmodum & ibi, Petra autem erat Christus, jansen. concord. cap. 51.  jansenius a learned Romanist, is more candid and free then Bellarmine; for expounding the Parable of the sour he saith that the word is (as when it is said, The seed is the word of God, etc. Luke 8. 11.) is put for signifieth, as also there where it is said, And the Rock was Christ.  
And so also (say we) when 'tis said, This is my Body, the meaning is, This doth signify my Body, or, This is a Sign, a Token, a Seal, a Pledge of my Body.  
The Lord (saith 
a Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meus, cum signum daret corporis sui. Aug. coutra Adimant. cap. 12.  Austin) doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave the Sign of his Body. And again, speaking of those words, 
b Facinus vel Flagitium videtur jubere. Figura ergo est, praecipiens passionibus Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum esse in memorià, quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucisixa, & vulnerata est. Aug. de doct. Christ. lib 3. cap. 16.  Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you, joh. 6. 53. he saith, That Christ seemeth to command some heinous act, or some gross wickedness: And that therefore it is a figurative speech, requiring us to communicate with the Lords sufferings, and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory that his flesh was Crucified, and wounded for us. And yet again, 
c Qui discordat à Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec sangninem bibit, etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat. Prosper in Sentent. ex Augustino, sent. 341.  He that is at enmity with Christ (saith he) doth neither eat his Flesh, nor drink his Blood, although to the condemnation of his presumption, he daily receive: the Sacrament of so great a thing as well as others.  
These saying of Austin do sufficiently show how he understood those words, This is my Body, and how far he was from being of the now-Romane Faith concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Indeed, these very words, This is my Body, which our Adversaries pretend to make so much for them, are most strong against them, and enough to throw down Transubstantiation. For Christ saying, This is my Body, what is meant by the word This? They of the Church of Rome cannot agree about it, but some say one thing, some another, only by no means they will have Bread to be meant by it. For they very well know that so their Transubstantiation were quite overthrown. But look into the Scripture, and mind it well, and see if any thing else but Bread can be meant by the word This. It's said, Mat. 26. 26. jesus took Bread and blessed it, & broke it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, This is my Body. What is here meant by the word This? What is it that Christ calls his Body? That which he bade the Disciples take and eat. And what was that? That which he gave unto them. And what was that? That which he broke. And what was that? That which he blessed. And what was that? That which he took. And what was that? Bread. For so expressly the Evangelist tells us, that jesus took Bread. So then it was Bread that Christ took, and Bread that he blessed, and Bread that he broke, and Bread that he gave to the Disciples, and Bread that he bade them take and eat, and Bread of which he spoke, saying, This is my Body. As if he should say, This Bread which I have taken, and blessed, and broken, and given unto you to eat, even this Bread is my Body. Now the word This relating unto Bread, the speech must needs be Figurative, and cannot be Proper. For properly Bread cannot be Christ's Body, Bread and Christ's Body, being things of divers and different natures, and so it being impossible that properly one should be the other. As 
Disparatum de disparato non potest univocè praedicari.  when Christ called Herod a Fox, and the Pharisees Serpents and Vipers, the speeches are not Proper, but Figurative; so is it when he called Bread his Body, it being no more possible that Bread should be the Body of Christ in propriety of speech, then that a man should properly be a Fox, a Serpent, a Viper. Besides, doth not the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, continually call it Bread, even after Consecration? Indeed, to distinguish it from ordinary and common Bread, he calls it This Bread; but yet still Bread, the same in substance, though not the same in use, as before. And (which is worthy to be observed) thus the Apostle calls it, viz. Bread, when he sharply reproves the Corinthians for their unworthy receiving of the Sacrament, setting before them the grievousness of the sin, and the greatness of the danger that they did incur by it. Now what had been more forcible and effectual to this end, than for the Apostle, if he had been of the Romish Faith, to have told them, that now it was not Bread, though it seemed unto them to be so, but that the substance of the Bread was gone, and instead thereof was come the very substance of Christ's Body? He saith indeed, That whoso eat that Bread, and drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord: But that is, because that Bread, and that Cup, (i. e. the Wine in the Cup) are by the Lords own institution Signs and Seals of the Lords Body and Blood; so that the unworthy receiving of them is an indignity done to the things signified by them. But to return to the marquis, he citeth sundry passages in john 6. where our Saviour speaks of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, calling himself Bread, living Bread, and affirming that his Flesh is meat indeed, and his Blood drink indeed. But all this is far from proving that real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which the marquis doth contend for. For, 1. as jansenius (not to name other of the Marquesses own party) hath unanswerably 
jansen. Concord. cap. 59  proved, Christ in john 6. did not treat of the Sacrament, but only of the spiritual eating of his Flesh, and the spiritual drinking of his Blood by faith. 2. The words of our Saviour john 6. if they must prove any transubstantiation at all, will sooner prove the transubstantiation of Christ's body into Bread, than the transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's body. I am the Bread of life, saith he, john 6. 35. & 48. I am the living Bread, etc. ver. 51. My flesh is meat indeed, etc. ver. 55. If these sayings be taken properly, and without a figure, they will prove a conversion, not of Bread into the body of Christ, but of the Body of Christ into Bread. And the argument that 
* Forsitan respondetur quòd idolum mateiale post consecrationem ritè factam totum transubstantiatur convertiturque in Deum.— Haec conversio refellitur, quia videtur cuilibet sensui, omni experimento testante, quòd ibi sit idem idolum materiale quod prius. Quarè si aliqua conversio ibi fiat, magis videtur Deum converti in idolum, quam è contrà. Bradward: de causâ Dei l. 1. c. 1.  Bradwardine useth against the Idols of the Pagans, is by full proportion of as much force against our adversaries transubstantiation. Perhaps (saith he) it is answered, that a material Idol after consecration rightly performed, is transubstantiated and turned into God.— This conversion (viz. of the Idol into God) is refelled, because it appears to every sense, all experience bearing witness, that there is the same material Idol that was before. Therefore if there be any conversion made, it seems rather that God is converted into the Idol, then that the Idol is converted into God. This argument, I say, doth as strongly militate against the opinion of the Romanists concerning the real presence. For it no less appears, to every sense, all experience bearing witness, that there's the same material Bread that was before. Therefore if there be any conversion made, it seems rather that Christ's Body is converted into the Bread, then that the Bread is converted into Christ's Body.  
The marquis saith that we with the jews and Infidels say, 
Page 58.  How can this man give us his flesh to eat? joh. 6. 52. But we say no such thing. How should we, if we believe Christ saying, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you? verse. 53. We know and acknowledge, that we must eat the flesh of Christ, but yet spiritually, not (as those unbelieving jews imagined, being therein more like unto our Adversaries) carnally. For so our Adversaries hold, that the wicked may eat the flesh of Christ, and yet be never the better, but receive it to their condemnation: whereas the eating of Christ's Flesh spoken of joh. 6. is a thing that doth accompany salvation. 
† See jansen. upon those words, Concord. cap. 59  Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal life, etc. v. 54.  
But saith the marquis, Had this been but a figure, certainly Christ would have removed the doubt, when he saw them so offended 
Page 58.  at the reality. Joh. 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis, with promise of a greater wonder, Joh. 6. 62. You may as well deny his Incarnation, his Ascension, and ask, How could the man come down from Heaven, and go up again?  
I answer, 1. A figure, viz. in speech, is not properly opposed to reality, but to propriety. The spiritual eating of Christ's Flesh, is a real, yet not a proper, but a figurative, a metaphorical eating of it: when Christ saith, I am the true Vine, Joh. 15. 1. there is a reality implied, as well as when he saith, My flesh is meat indeed, Joh. 6. 55. yet no Romanist (I presume) but will grant, that Christ is a Vine, not properly, but figuratively so called. True Vine, that is, excellent, incorruptible and spiritual Vine, as 
* Vitis vera, id est, eximia, incorruptibilis, & spiritualis. jansen. ex Eutbymio Concord. cap. 135.  jansenius out of Euthymius doth expound it. So meat indeed, that is, excellent, incomparable and spiritual meat.  
2. For those words of our Saviour, john 6. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? they make nothing for our Adversaries, but rather against them. For our Saviour in those words most probably intended to let the Jews see, that he did not speak of a Carnal eating of his Flesh, as they supposed, but of a Spiritual eating of it. So Austin understood those words, as jansenius notes, and judgeth that exposition 
Jansen. Concord. cap. 59  most probable. And so the Jesuit Maldonate, who citys Beda and Rupertus as following 
Non nego me hujus interpretationis authorem habere neminem (scil. Quid facietis cum videritis me ascendentem in coelum? quanto magis scandalizabimini? quanto minus credetis?) sed hanc eò magis probo, quam illam alteram Augustini, caeterarum alioqui probabilissimam, quòd haec cum Calvinistarum sensu magis pugnet, quod mihi magnum est probabilitatis argumentum. Maldon. ad Joh. 6. 62.  the same exposition, confesseth that exposition more probable than any other that he met with. Yea, that he had no Author of that Interpretation which he embraced, viz. What will ye do when ye shall see me ascend into Heaven? How much more than will ye be offended? How much less will ye then believe? Yet he saith that he did approve this rather than that of Austin, though of all the rest most probable, because this did more oppose the sense of the Calvinists, which to him (he saith) was a great argument of the probability of it. Here see, and observe the disposition of a Jesuit, what little reckoning he made of Fathers, so he might but oppose Calvinists. Bellarmine also thinks this a very literal exposition, that Christ's meaning was to show that they should have greater cause to 
Bell. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 6.  doubt after his Ascension then they had before. And this exposition he saith seems to be Chrysostom's; yet jansenius attributeth another exposition unto chrysostom, and Maldonate confesseth that he found none to expound it in that manner. Neither is this exposition agreeable to the letter. For it is equally inconceiveable, that Christ being on Earth, should give his Flesh to many thousands to eat, if it be meant of Carnal eating, as that he should do it being in Heaven. But Bellarmine first hath another 
Bell. Ibid.  exposition of those words of our Saviour, which here the marquis seemeth to follow, viz. that our Saviour would confirm one wonderful thing by another no less wonderful, if not more, he means the wonderful eating of his Flesh (in their sense) by his wonderful Ascension into Heaven. And this exposition, he saith, doth confirm their opinion; for that, if Christ had not promised to give his true Flesh in the Sacrament, he needed not to prove his power by his Ascension. I answer, it doth argue an extraordinary power in Christ to give his Flesh to eat, though there be no turning of the substance of the Bread in the Sacrament into the substance of his Flesh. Bellarmine indeed saith, it 
Bell. Ibid.  is no miracle (such as the Jews required of Christ, Ioh: 6. 30, 31.) that common Bread should signify Christ's Body, or that Christ's Body should be eaten by Faith. But is this so ordinary and easy a matter, that common Bread (common for substance, though not for use) should so signify the Body of Christ, that by the due receiving of it, the very Body of Christ should be received, and so Christ and the Receiver be united together Spiritually, even as Bread, and he that eateth it, are united together Corporally? Is all this nothing, except the Bread be substantially changed and turned into Christ's Body? Why then doth Bellarmine 
Bell. de effect. Sacram. l. 2. c. 7. Sect. Calvinus.  elsewhere tell us, that the Fathers refer the wonderful effects of Baptism (for of that Sacrament particularly do almost all the Fathers speak, which are cited by him) to God's Almighty power? I am sure Bellarmine would not have us believe for all this, that the substance of the water in Baptism is changed into any other substance.  
Where our Saviour tells them (saith the marquis) thus to argue 
Pag. 58, 59  according to flesh and blood, in these words, The flesh profiteth nothing, and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding, they must have Faith to believe it in these words, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviour's meaning into a contrary sense of their own imagination, viz. The flesh profiteth nothing, that is to say, Christ's Body is not in the Sacrament: but it is the Spirit that quickeneth, that is to say, we must only believe that Christ died for us, but not that his Body is there. As if there were any need of so many inculcations, pressures, offences, mis-believings of, and in a thing that were no more but a bare memorial of a thing, being a thing nothing more usual with the Israelites, as the 12. stones which were erected as a sign of the children of Israel's passing over jordan, etc. Josh. 4.  
Those words of our Saviour, The Flesh profiteth nothing, It is 
Answ.  the Spirit that quickeneth, make also rather against our Adversaries opinion, than for it. For as jansenius comments upon them, our Saviour in those words 
Significat modum, quo caro ejus esset edenda, spiritualem esse, & spiritu edendam esse, non carnaliter. Jansen. Concord. cap. 59  signifies, That his flesh is to be eaten in spiritual manner, and not carnally: which is that which we hold and maintain against them of the Church of Rome.  
This exposition (as the same jansenius observes) doth both answer the murmuring 
Et scut haec explicatio optimè respondet murmurantium verbis, ita & sequenti sententiae congruit, Verba quae locutus sum vobis-spiritus & vita sunt, hoc est, sunt spiritualia, & spiritualiter intelligenda, ac sic auditori conferunt vitam. Sic enim hanc sententiam etiam Augustinus enarrat. Jausen. Ibid.  of the Jews, and also agree with the sentence following, The words which I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life, that is, they are spiritual, and to be understood spiritually, and so they give life to those that hear them. Thus (he saith) Austin doth interpret this sentence; and a little before he citys chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, as understanding Christ's words in this sense. 2. To remove those offences, and mis-beleevings which the Jews had about the eating of Christ's Flesh, which he spoke of (they understanding his words in a carnal sense) there was need enough of so many inculcations and pressures, for we see, that after all those inculcations and pressures yet our Adversaries will not be taken off from the like Carnal conceit, as the offended and misbelieving Jews had. Our Adversaries would seem indeed to be far from compliance with those Jews, because they do not hold that Christ's Flesh is to be eaten by bits, so as to be divided one piece from another (as those Jews seem to have imagined) but that it is to be eaten, though corporally, yet in an invisible, and indivisible manner. But Pope Nicolas caused Berengarius to recant his opinion, and to confess, That not 
o'er & cord confiteor, etc. panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus & sanquinem D. N. Jesus Christi esse, & sensualiter non solùm sacramentum, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, fidelium dentibus atteri. De Consecr. didst 2. cap. Ego Berengar.  only the Sacrament of Christ's Body, but the very body itself is sensually held in the Priest's hands, and torn by the Teeth of the Faithful. Which expressions are as harsh as our Adversaries can use, when they would set forth the grossness of that conceit which the Jews had about eating Christ's Flesh.  
And indeed so harsh are those expressions in Berengarius his recantation prescribed by the Pope, that the Gloss upon it is forced to say, Except you rightly understand the words of Berengarius, (he might 
Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii, in majorem incides haeresin, quam ipse habuit: & ideò omnia referas ad species ipsas: nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus, Gloss.  have said of Pope Nicolas, who did prescribe them) you will fall into a greater Heresy, than he was in. And therefore you must refer all to the species (or shows) themselves; for we do not make any parts of Christ's Body. So then to free themselves from a Capernaitical manner of eating Christ's Flesh, our adversaries hold, that neither Christ's body, nor bread, but only the species, or shows of bread, as quantity, colour, savour, and the like, mere accidents without a substance, are torn with the teeth, divided and broken. And is this properly to eat Christ's Body? or is not this eating of Christ's Flesh as immaginable as that of the jews? whereas the marquis speaketh of a bare memorial; 1. Christ himself hath plainly taught us, that the Sacrament is a memorial of him, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. 2. We do not say, that Christ is barely remembered in the Sacrament, but so remembered; as also to be received, viz. by such as have faith whereby to receive him. For to receive Christ, is to believe in him, as is clear joh. 1. 12. So that this receiving of Christ, though it be a real, yet it is not a corporal, but a spiritual receiving of him.  
After the Scriptures, the marquis citys some Fathers, as Ignatius Epist. ad Smyr. justine Apol. 2. Cyprian Ser. 4. the Laps. Ambros. 
Page 67.  l. 4. de Sacram. and Remigius (the place where not noted) who (he saith) affirm the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament, and the same flesh, which the Word of God took in the Virgin's Womb.  
Answ. The question is not whether Christ's Flesh be in the Sacrament, but how it is in it, concerning which these Fathers, so far as the marquis doth show, speak nothing: To say, that they speak of the same flesh, which the Word of God took in the Womb of the Virgin, is only to show that they speak of Christ's flesh properly so called, but it doth not show that they speak of that flesh being properly in the Sacrament. I know no flesh of Christ properly so called, but that, which the Word made Flesh (joh. 1. 14) took of the Virgin Mary: but though it be granted (as it is) that this flesh of Christ is in the Sacrament, yet still the question remains whether this flesh of Christ be properly, substantially, and corporally in the Sacrament, viz. under the species, or shows of bread, as our Adversaries hold; and to this question the marquis doth not say that the Fathers alleged by him, do speak any thing: and therefore I might well let them pass without any further answer.  
But to consider them, and their testimonies more particularly. First, Ignatius his words (as they are cited by Bellarmine) are to this effect, They (meaning certain Heretics) do not admit Eucharists, and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist 
Bell. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2.  to be the flesh of our Saviour, which did suffer for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness did raise up. This testimony is nothing against us, who do not deny the Eucharist, that is, the bread in the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ, only we say that it is not his flesh in a proper, but in a figurative sense, viz. (as Austin in the words before cited observes) the thing signifying being called by the name of the thing signified. And this must be the meaning of Ignatius; for he speaks, not of Christ's flesh being in the Eucharist, but of the Eucharist being Christ's Flesh. Whereby the Eucharist can be meant nothing but the Sacramental bread, and that (as I have before demonstrated) by the confession of all cannot properly, but only figuratively be Christ's Flesh. Bellarmine objects, that the Heretics 
Bell. Ibid.  spoken of by Ignatius, denied Christ to have true flesh, holding that he was but seemingly borne, crucified, and raised again. And therefore (he saith) they did not deny the Eucharist to signify the flesh of Christ, but only to be the Flesh of Christ, lest they should be forced to admit that Christ had true flesh. But (say I) how could those Heretics yield that Eucharist doth signify the flesh of Christ, and yet deny that Christ hath flesh? For a thing must needs first be, before there can be truly any signification of it. Men (saith Bellarmine) may paint bodies, which indeed are not. But who will say that these Pictures are representations of bodies, and not mere Pictures? And this is all that Bellarmine could make out of Ignatius. The next Father is 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. Apol. 2.  justine Martyr, who saith that the Bread in the Sacrament, is not common Bread, nor the Cup a common Cup. We say the same, they are not common, being sanctified, and set apart for a holy use. But doth this prove any transubstantiation? our adversaries hold no substantial change of the water in Baptism, and yet they will not say, that it is common water; I am sure it is far more justly to be accounted Holy, than that which they use to call Holy Water.  
justine also saith, That we are taught, that the food in the Eucharist, by which being changed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. Ibid.  our flesh and blood is nourished, is the flesh and blood of that jesus that was incarnate. But this was so far from proving Transubstantiation, that indeed it overthrows it: For in saying that we are nourished by the food, the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament, he saith in effect that the substance of that food, that Bread and Wine, doth still remain; for otherwise how should we be nourished by it? Christ's Body and Blood are not for our corporal nourishment, of which justine speaketh; neither can the bare Species, or shows of Bread and Wine afford any such nourishment.  
But (saith Bellarmine) justine writing an Apology for Christians, and their Religion, was a prevaricatour, and made the Christian Faith most odious, by expressing himself so as he did, 
Bell. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 4.  whereas he might have avoided all superstition, if he had believed that Christ is not so in the Sacrament, as that the Bread is substantially changed, and turned into his Body. I answer, that justines' expressions are agreeable to our Saviour's: 1. This is my Body, and therefore no more apt to render the Faith of Christians odious than the other. Neither was it much to be feared, that the Heathens, to whom he wrote his Apology, should not be able to understand the Figure, whereby the sign is called that which it signifieth; there was no need (as Bellarmine scoffingly speaks) that for 
Opinatur fortasse Petrus Martyr Imperatorem illum versatum fuisse in Scholâ Calvinistarum, ut statim ad tropos omnia revocaret. Bellar. Ibid.  the understanding of this Figure they should be conversant in the School of the Calvinists.  
The next Father cited by the marquis is Cyprian, who speaking of some, that in time of Persecution denied the Faith, and yet presumed to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; to let them see the heinousness of their presumption, he first alleged some places of Scripture, as Levit. 7. 19, 20. and 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 11. 27. And then he adds, All these things 
Spretis his omnibus, atque contemptis vis infertur corpori ejus, & sanguini; & plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quam cum Dominum negaverunt. Cypr. de Laps.  being despised and contemned, violence is offered to Christ's Body and Blood; and they now sin against the Lord more by their hands and mouth, than they did before when that they denied him. But what is there in all this to show Cyprian held any such presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as they of the Romish Church maintain? Yes (saith Bellarmine, 
Bell. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 9  for the marquis only points at places, but citys no words, much less draws any argument from them) Cyprian did certainly believe Christ to be so in the Sacrament, or else he would never have so aggravated the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament, as to make it a greater sin than to deny Christ before a persecutor. But this reason is over-weak. For first, Cyprian being very Rhetorical, might a little hyperbolise in his expression. And 2. without any Hyperbole at all the words may be made good, and yet no Transubstantiation, nor any corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament be supposed. For the sin of denying Christ under Persecution might be (and most probably was) of infirmity; and the sin of receiving the Sacrament unworthily might be of presumption, and so more heinous in that respect than the other. In the same place Cyprian also relates some miraculous punishments which were inflicted on some that unworthily received the Sacrament: and hence also Bellarmine infers 
Bell. Ibid.  that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, for that we do not read (he says) of any such miracles showed upon those who have unworthily meddled with other Signs. I answer, yes, we do; we read of Nadab and Abihu slain with fire from Heaven, for offering Incense with strange Fire, Levit. 10. and yet that Incense, and the Altar on which it was offered, were but Types and Figures. So the Ark was but a Sign of God's Presence, and yet many thousands of the Bethshemites were destroyed for looking into it, 1 Sam. 6. 4. so also was Uzza for presuming to touch it, 2 Sam. 6.  
Next to Cyprian, the marquis citys, Ambrose Lib. 4. de Sacram. but no Chapter is cited by him. Bellarmine citys 
Accipe que dico, anteriora esse mysteria Christianorum quam Judeorum, & diviniora esse Sacramenta. Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 3.  Chap. 3, 4, and 5. Now all that Ambrose saith, chap. 3. as looking that way, is but this, That the Sacraments of Christians are more Divine than those of the jews. Which we grant, not in respect of the thing signified, For jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever, Heb. 13. the same Christ was signified by the Jewish Sacraments as by ours: but in respect of the manner of signifying, Christ being more clearly signified by our Sacraments, than he was by those which the Jews had. See 2 Cor. 3. 12. etc.  
But chap. 4. Ambrose hath something that may seem to make more against us, viz. That 
Sed panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacramentorun; ubiaccesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4.  before Consecration it is Bread, but when Consecration cometh, then of Bread it is made the Flesh of Christ.  
To this I answer, that these words do not infer any Transubstantiation. By Consecration, of Bread is made Christ's Flesh, but Sacramentally, not Substantially; Figuratively, not Properly. And that Ambrose in those words did intend no substantial change of the Bread, appears by his own words in the same Chapter. If (saith he) 
Si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesus, ut inciperent esse, quae non erant; quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? Ambros. Ibid.  there was such force in the speech of the Lord jesus, that things should begin to be that were not: how much more operative is it, that those things should be, which were, and should withal be changed into another thing? Therefore in the judgement of Ambrose, the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, are what they were, viz. in respect of substance, yet by virtue of Christ's institution are changed, viz. in respect of signification.  
Bellarmine, to evade this testimony, first says, that Lanfrancus 
Bell. ubi supra.  in his book against Berengarius speaks of some Copies of Ambrose his Works, wherein those words were not, Ut sint quae erant, that is, That those things should be which were. But no such Copies either Printed, or Manuscript, it seems did Bellarmine meet with; for otherwise (I doubt not) he would have given us notice of them. Again, with the same Lanfrancus he answers, that those words are thus to be understood, that in respect of outward show, the things which were, still are, but are changed in respect of inward substance. But how can a thing be said to be what it was, when as there is no substance of the thing remaining, but only a show and appearance of it? In the last place Bellarmine. adds of his own, that Ambrose meant, If Christ could make a thing of nothing, why can he not make a thing of something, not by annihilating the thing, but by changing it into that which is better? But if a thing be changed substantially into another thing, how doth it remain what it was before? But so the things do, that Ambrose speaks of. For Bellarmine's criticism is poor in distinguishing betwixt, Ut sint id, quod erant, That they should be that which they were, and Ut sint quae erant, That the things should be that were, as if these words did not import that the same substances still remain, as well as the other when Christ turned Water into Wine, can we say, that his Word was operative, and powerful, Ut esset quod erat, & in aliud mutaretur, That that should be which was, and that withal, it should be changed into another thing? I confess I cannot see how the thing may be said truly and properly to be, which was, if it be substantially changed into some other thing. Ambrose there a little after saith, Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura: posteaquam consecratus es, nova creatura esse coepisti. Thou thyself waste, but thou wast an old creature: after thou art consecrated, thou beginnest to be a new creature: which cannot be meant of any substantial change in us. Chap. 5. the same Ambrose, (if it were Ambrose, for Bellarmine is not very confident that Ambrose was the Author of those Books, De Sacramentis) saith indeed, That before it is Consecrated, it is Bread, but when the words of 
Antequam consecretur, panis est: ubi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. Ambr. de Sacr l. 4. c. 5.  Christ are come, it is the Body of Christ. But that it is so the Body of Christ, as to be no longer Bread he doth not affirm. That he was of another mind, appears by the words before alleged. And so much also may be gathered from that which he saith in this same Chapter, viz. He that did eat Manna, 
Manna qui manducavit, mortuus est; qui mauducaverit hoc corpus, fiet ei remissio peccatorum, & non morietur in aeternum. Ambros. Ibid.  died: but whose eateth this Body, shall have remission of sins, and shall live for ever. Which cannot be understood of a Corporal eating of Christ's Body, but of a Spiritual eating of it. Bellarmine citys some other sayings of Ambrose out of another Work of his, viz. De iis, qui mysteriis initiantur, but they prove no more than these already cited, neither doth the marquis refer us to them. Yea, in that same work Ambrose doth sufficiently declare himself against Transubstantiation. For there he saith, It is truly the Sacrament of Christ's 
Verè ergò carnis illius Sacramentum est.— post consccrationem corpus significatur. Ambros. de iis qui myster. init. cap. 6.  Flesh. And, after Consecration, the Body (of Christ) is signified. And again, It is not therefore Corporali food, but Spiritual. Whence also the Apostle saith of the Type of it, that our Fathers 
Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est. Unde & Apostolus de typo ejus ait, Quia patres nostri escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & potum spiritualem biberunt. Ibid.  did eat Spiritual meat, and did drink Spiritual drink, 1 Cor. 10. The last Author Remigius, is only cited by the marquis at large, neither do I find him cited by Bellarmine at all, and therefore until we have some particular place cited out of him, it is in vain to trouble ourselves about him; besides, that his Antiquity is not such, as that his Authority should much be stood upon, being 890 years after Christ, as Bellarmine showeth in his book of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Secondly, (saith the marquis) We hold that there is in the 
Pag. 59, & 60.  Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture, besides the Scripture itself. This you deny, this we have Scripture for, as Rom. 12. 6. We must prophesy according to the Rule of Faith. We are bid to walk according to this Rule, Gal. 6. 16. We must increase our Faith, and preach the Gospel according to this Rule, 2 Cor. 10. 15. This rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures call a form of Doctrine, Rom. 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands, 2 Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure ourselves by ourselves, 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vain babble, and oppositions of sciences, And by this rule of faith is not meant the Holy Scriptures; for that cannot do it, as the Apostle tells us, whilst there are unstable men, who wrest this way and that way to their own destruction; but it is the tradition of the Church, as it is delivered from hand to hand, as most plainly appears, 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things which thou hast heard of us (not received in writing from me or others) among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach it to others also.  
That there is any infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture, 
Answ.  or any other rule of Faith, besides the Scripture, we do deny, and that by authority of the Scripture itself. To the law, and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because they have no light in them. Isai. 8. 20. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me. Joh. 5. 39 These were more noble than they of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures, whether those things were so. Acts 17. 11. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Neither do those places alleged by the marquis make for the contrary.  
We must prophesy according to the rule of Faith, saith the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. as the marquis hath it, following therein the Rhemists' translation, as also their comment upon the place. But the word in the original signifies rather proportion, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  than rule. And I see not but that by the proportion of saith may be understood the measure of saith, which is spoken of vers. 3.  
But be it granted, that proportion of faith is as much as rule of faith, where doth the Apostle say, that this rule of faith is any other than the Scripture itself? The places before cited show, that we are referred to the Scripture, as the rule, whereby all doctrines are to be tried; but no where do I find, that we are referred to any unwritten tradition. Sure I am our Adversaries can evince no such thing from the words of the Apostle, Rom. 12. 6. Except we must (to use the Marquis' expressions) 
Page 53.  take them margined with their own notes, sensed with their own meaning, and enlivened with their own private spirit. As for the rule mentioned, Gal. 6. 16. it is no general rule of faith, or of interpreting Scripture, but a special rule, that in Christ jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature; as is clear by the context, ver. 15. As many as walk according to this rule, that is, (as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecum. ad loc.  Oecumenius expounds it) as many as are content with this rule, and this doctrine, that all things are made a new creature, and do not subject themselves to the Law. Neither is the place, 2 Cor. 10. 15. to the purpose. For the Apostle there speaks of a ruleby way of similitude (as Cardinal 
* Loquitur Paulus ad similitudinem filotum, quibus artifices utuntut proregulis operum efficiendorum. Archimagister siquidem praesidens universo operi fabricae, vel colendae terrae, vel efficiendorum aggerum, filis (quae regulae vocantur) distinguit partes operis, & juxta regulam cuique datam mensura est operis cujusque. Hâc metaphorâ utitur Paulus, ad significandum quòd materia gloriationis suae est mensurarum terrarum spatium, in quo hactenus praedicaverat secundum regulam, non à seipso, non ab apostolis, sed à Deo; quod terrarum spatium pertingebat usque ad Corinthios. Cajetan. in 2. Cor. 10.  Cajetan doth well expound it) viz. that as an Architect, or the like chief workman, doth by rule divide the work that is to be done, and appoint under-workemen where they shall employ themselves, and how far they shall reach: so God did as it were by rule appoint Paul, where he should preach the Gospel, and how far his employment should extend in that kind. This plainly appears to be the Apostles meaning by the two verses immediately preceding, But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule, which God hath distributed unto us, a measure to reach even unto you. For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you; for we are come as far as you also in preaching the Gospel of Christ. Then he adds, Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours, but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you, according to our rule abundantly, To preach the Gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line, of things made ready to our hand. All may plainly see, that here is nothing spoken of a rule of faith, or a rule for the understanding of the Scripture. And therefore most impertinently is 2 Cor. 10. 16. cited, as if the Apostle there did speak of a rule of faith made ready to their hands. And so also is that of not measuring ourselves by ourselves. 2 Cor. 10. 12.  
Neither can our Adversaries ever be able to prove that by the form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. 6. 17. the Apostle did mean any other Doctrine, than what is contained in the Scripture: or that any Doctrine, but the Doctrine of the Scripture is meant by that which was committed to Timotheus trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. which the Apostle there bids him keep, avoiding profane, and vain babble, etc. Though such as are unlearned, and unstable wrest the Scriptures, etc. 2 Pet. 3. 16. yet the same Apostle in the same Epistle doth teach us to take heed to the Scripture, as to a light shining in a dark place. 2 Pet. 1. 19  
That the Apostle spoke of any unwritten tradition, as a rule whereby to interpret Scriptures, 2 Tim. 2. 2. can never be made good: by the things, which Timothy heard him, and was to commit to faithful men, etc. he meant nothing but the Doctrine of the Gospel, as the forementioned 
* Evangelicos siquidem sermones intelligit dicendo, & quae audisti à me. Cajet. in 2 Tim. 2.  Cajetan doth truly interpret: and that Doctrine, I presume, is no where to be found, but in the Scripture. Surely the Apostle in the next Chapter after tells Timothy, that from a child he had known the holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation, through faith, which is in Christ jesus. 2 Tim. 3. 15.  
After the Scriptures, the marquis citys the Fathers as being 
Page 60 and 61.  of this opinion, viz. Ireneus l. 4. c. 45. Tertull. de Prescript. and Vincent. Lirin. in suo Commentario (perhaps it should be Commonitorio) But it will not appear, that the Fathers held any rule of faith, and of interpreting the Scripture, besides the Scripture itself. His Majesty (as I noted before) cited above twice as many Fathers, as the marquis here allegeth, plainly 
Page 50.  testifying that the Scriptures are their own interpreters, and that matters of faith are to be decided by them. I will add a few more testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose. 
a Ut haec, quae scripta sunt, non negamus, it a ea, quae non sunt scripta, renuimus, Hieron. advers. Helvid.  As we do not deny (saith Hierome) those things which are written, so we refuse those things, which are not written. 
b Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem. Tertull. contra Hermog. cap. 22.  I adore (saith Tertullian) the fullness of the Scripture. And again, 
c Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. Si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicientibus, aut detrahentibus destinatum. Tertull. Ibid.  Let Hermogenes (saith he) show that it is written. If it be not written, let him fear that woe appointed for those that either add to the Scripture, or detract from it. 
d Nos nullam Cypriano facimus injuriam, cum ejus quaslibet literas à canonicâ divin trum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus. Neque enim sine causà tam saluber vigilantiae canon Ecclesiasticus constitutus est, adquem certi Prophetarum & Apostolorum libri pertineant, quos omninòjudicare non audeamus, & secundum quos de caeteris literis vel fidelium, vel in fidelium liberè judicemus. Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31.  We do Cyprian no wrong (saith Austin) when we distinguish any of his writings from the canonical authority of the Divine Scriptures. For not without cause is such a wholesome Ecclesiastical rule of vigilancy constituted, to which certain Books of the Prophets and the Apostles belong, which we may not at all dare to judge, and according to which we may freely judge of other writings, whether they be of Believers, or of unbelievers. And again, I am not 
Ego Epistolae hujus authoritate non teneor, quia literas Cypriani non ut Canonicas habeo, sed eas ex Canonicis considero, & quoth in eyes divinarum Scripturarum authoritati congruit, cum laude ejus accipio, quod autem non congruit, cum pace ejus respuo. Aug. ibid.  bound (saith he) by the authority of this Epistle (viz. of Cyprian) because I do not account Cyprians writings as Canonical, but I examine them by those that are Canonical, and that which is in them agreeable to the authority of the Divine Scriptures, I receive with his praise, and what is not agreeable, I refuse with his leave. For the Fathers here cited by the marquis, 
* Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Ecclesiae successio, & id, quod est sanum, irreprobabile sermonis constat. Hi enim & eam, quae est in unum Deum, qui omnia fecit, fidem nostram custodiunt, & eam, quae est in filium Dei, dilectionem adaugent, qui tantas dispositiones propter nos fecit, & Scripturas sine periculo nobis exponunt, neque Deum blasphemantes, neque Patriarchas exhonorantes, neque prophetas contemnentes. Ircn. lib. 4. cap. 45.  Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 45. hath nothing that may seem to make that way except this, Where (saith he) the gifts of the Lord are placed, there we ought to learn truth, of those with whom is that succession of the Church, which is from the Apostles, and that sound speech not to be reproved. For they keep that faith of ours, which is in one God, that made all things, and increase that love, which is towards the Son of God, who did such great things for us, and they without danger expound unto us the Scriptures, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the Patriarcks, nor contemning the Prophets. Here Irenaeus speaks of some, of whom truth was to be learned, who kept the faith, and did expound the Scriptures without danger: but he doth not say, that they had any unwritten rule of faith, or any such rule, whereby to expound the Scriptures. No; for so Irenaeus should not agree with himself, who saith (as His Majesty observed) that the evidences, 
Ostensiones, quae sunt in Scriptures, non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis Scriptures. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 12.  which are in the Scriptures, cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves. Add hereunto another saying of the Father very pertinent to the purpose. We have not known (saith he) the dspensation of our salvation but by 
Non per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae, quam per eos, per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem praeconiaverunt, posteà verò per Dei voluntatem in Scriptures nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. jen. lib. 3. cap. 1.  those, by whom the Gospel came unto us: which Gospel they preached, and afterward by the Will of God delivered unto us in the Scriptures, as that which should be for the foundation and pillar of our Faith. So much for Irenaeus; The marquis citys the words of Tertullian, and so of Vincentius: Tertullias words (as he citys them) are these, we do not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture, till they can show, who their ancestors were, and from whom they received the Scriptures. For the ordinary course of Doctrine requires, that the first question should be, from whom, and by whom, and to whom the form of Christian Religion was delivered, otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger. These words I cannot find, nor any like unto them in the place cited, viz. de Praescrip. cap. 11. elsewhere indeed in that book I find words like unto these, though not the same. However if we should be tried by these words, I see not how they will conclude against us. For though the Heretics, with whom Tertullian had to do, might be convinced otherwise then by Scripture, it follows not, that therefore this is not the ordinary way whereby to convince Heretics. Thus Christ convinced the Sadduces that denied the Resurrection, Mat. 22. 29. etc. thus Apollo's convinced the Jews, who denied Jesus to be the Christ: Acts 18. 28. And thus the Apostles convinced those that urged Circumcision, and the observing of the Jewish Law, Acts 15. 15. etc. And thus both other Fathers, and even Tertullian himself doth usually dispute against Heretics, and confute them by the Scriptures.  
But (saith the marquis) If a Heathen should come by the Bible, as the Eunuch came by the prophecy of Esay, and have no Philip to interpret it unto him, he would find out a Religion rather according to his own fancy, then Divine verity. Be it so, yet here is nothing to prove, that this Philip, that is to interpret the Bible, is not to fetch his interpretation from the Bible itself, but from some unwritten tradition. I come to Vincentius Lirinensis, whose words produced by the marquis, run thus, It is very needful in regard of so many errors proceeding from misinterpretations of Scriptures, that the line of prophetical and Apostolical exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense. But I see not, that in the opinion of Vincentius, the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense is any other than the Scripture. He insists much (I am sure) upon those words of the Apostle, If we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. Now, as was noted before out of Irenaeus, the Gospel, which the Apostles preached, they delivered unto us in the Scriptures, and that is the foundation and pillar of our Faith.  
Indeed, all that Vincentius in his Commonitory against Heresies, aims at, is this, That the Faith once delivered to the Saints (as Saint jude speaks) might be preserved. To which end he descants 
Judas, ver. 3.  well upon those words of the Apostle: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. That which is committed to thee, not that which is 
Id quod tibi creditum est, non quod à te inventum; quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti; rem non ingenii, sed doctrinae; non usurpationis privatae, sed publicae traditionis: rem ad te perductam, non à te prolatam; in quâ non autor debes esse, sed custos; non institutor, sed sectator; non ducens, sed sequens. Vincent. loc. citat.  invented by thee; that which thou hast received, not that which thou hast devised; a matter nont of wit, but of doctrine; not of private usurpation, but of public tradition; a thing brought unto thee, not brought forth by thee, in which thou art not to be an author, but a keeper; not an ordainer, but an observer; not a leader, but a follower. That this Depositum, or thing committed to Timothy, was any unwritten Tradition, and not the doctrine of the Gospel contained in the Scripture; neither doth Vincentius say, neither can it be proved. Bellarmine himself is forced to confess, That all things necessary 
Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis, quae sunt omnibus necessaria, etc. Bellarm. de Verbo non scripto lib. 4. c. 11.  for all, are written by the Apostles: Yea, and that those things which have the testimony of Tradition (he means unwritten tradition) received 
Loquitur Origenes de obscurissim is quaestionibus, quales ut plurimùm non sunt illae, quae testimonium habent traditionis in totâ Ecclesiâ receptae. Bellar. Ibid.  in the whole Church, are not usually such as concern most obscure questions. And how then should such Tradition be the Rule of Faith, and of Expounding the Scriptures? The marquis saith, that in matters of Faith Christ bids us to observe, and do whatsoever they bid us, who sit in Moses Seat, 
Pag. 60, & 61,  Mat. 23. 2, 3. whence he infers, Therefore surely there is something more to be observed then only Scripture: Will you not as well believe what you hear Christ say, as what you hear his Ministers write? You hear Christ when you hear them, as well as you read Christ when you read his Word. He that heareth you heareth me, Luk. 10. 16.  
Thus the marquis, but it was from our Saviour's meaning, that the people should do simply, and absolutely, whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses Seat, should enjoin. Our Saviour meant nothing less, for expressly he bade beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Mat. 16. 6. that is, of the Doctrine of the Pharisees, v. 12. Our Saviour's meaning therefore was only this, that whiles the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Seat, did deliver the Law and Doctrine of Moses, people should hear and obey, though otherwise they were most corrupt both in life & Doctrine.  
The Jesuit Maldonate doth thus expound the place, as indeed it cannot with any probability be otherwise expounded. When Christ (saith he) bids observe, and do 
Cum jubet servare, & facere, quae Scribae & Pharisaei, dumb in Cathedrâ Mosis sedent, dicunt, non de ipsorum, sed de Legis, ac Mosis doctrinâ loquitur. Perinde enim est, acsi dicat, Omnia, quae Lex, & Mosesvobis dixerint, Scribis & Pharisaeis recitantibus, servate & facite; secundum autem opera, etc. Mald. ad Mat. 23. 23.  what the Scribes and Pharisees say, whiles they sit in Moses seat, he speaks not of their Doctrine, but of the Doctrine of the Law, and of Moses. For it is as if he should say, All things, that the Law, and Moses shall say unto you, the Scribes and Pharisees rehearsing it, observe, and do; but after their works do not. It's true, Christ doth tells us, that they that hear his Ministers, hear him, but that is, when they speak as his Ministers, when they speak his Word, not their own. As God said to the Prophet Ezekiel, Thou shalt speak my Words unto them, Ezek. 2. 7. And to the Prophet jeremy, Speak unto them all that I command thee, jer. 1. 17. And so Christ to his Apostles, Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, Mat. 28. 20. So then, we hear Christ indeed, when we hear his Word spoken by his Ministers, as well as we read Christ, when we read his Word written in the Scriptures. But that which we hear, must be tried by that which we read; that which is spoken by Ministers, by that which is written in the Scriptures, as hath been showed before by Isai. 8. 20. joh. 5. 39 Act. 17. 11.  
We say (saith the marquis) the Scriptures are not easy to be 
Pag. 61.  understood, you say they are: we have Scripture for it, as is before manifested at large. The Fathers say as much, etc.  
We do not say that the Scriptures throughout in every part 
Answ.  of them are easy to be understood, but that they are so in things necessary unto Salvation. This hath been showed before by the testimony both of the Scripture itself, and of Austin, as likewise that the places of Scripture objected by the marquis, do make nothing against the easiness of the Scripture, either at all, or at least in this sense. Neither are the Fathers, here alleged by the marquis, against it.  
Irenaeus (whose words the marquis produceth not, but Bellarmine 
Bell. de Verbi Dei Interpret. l. 3. c. 1.  doth) saith only that of those things which are contained in the Scriptures, quaedam, some are such that we must commend unto God, meaning that we cannot perfectly know them. 
Iren. l. 2. c. 47.  This is nothing repugnant to what we say. Nor that which is said by Origen (whom the marquis only citeth at large, contra 
Origen. l. 7. contra Cells. apud Bell. ubi supra.  Cells. but I find both the book and the words in Bellarmine) viz. that the Scripture is Multis locis obscura, in many places obscure; of which, what Protestant (ay marvel) doth make any question? So when Ambrose, Epist. 44. calleth the Scripture a Sea, and a depth of prophetical Riddles: And Hierom, Praefat. comment. in Ephes. saith, that he took great pains to understand the Scripture: And Austin, Epist. 119. cap. 21. saith, that the things of Holy Scripture, which he knew not, were more than those he knew: And Dionysius, B. of Corinth, (cited by Eusebius, Hist. l. 7. c. 20) saith, that the matter of the Scriptures was far more profound than his Wit could reach; what is all this against Protestants, who only hold that the Scriptures, in things that concern Faith, and Manners, are not so obscure, but that they ought to be read, or heard by all, and that all may profit by the reading or hearing of them? And in this sense Bellarmine yieldeth that chrysostom in 
Chrysostomus ad excutiendum torporem multorum, qui possent, si vellent, magno cum fructu Scripturas legere, illis amplificationibus uti solet. Bell. de verbi Dei Interpret. l 3. c. 2.  divers places doth affirm the Scriptures to be plain and easy, viz. to shake off the laziness of many, who might, if they would, read the Scriptures with much benefit. And besides, we hold, that where the Scripture is obscure, the interpretation of it is to be fetched from the Scripture itself, against which these Fathers say nothing, but both divers of these, and also divers others (as hath been showed) do plainly avouch it. The marquis proceeds, saying, We say that this Church cannot 
Pag. 61.  Err, you say it can: we have Scripture for what we say, such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot err therein, Esay 35. 8. Such Scripture that will tell you, If you neglect to hear it, you shall be a heathen, and a publican, Mat. 18. 17. Such Scripture as will tell you, that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church, that shall be without spot or wrinkle, Ephes. 5. 27. Such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit, Esay 59 21. The Fathers affirm the same, etc.  
Concerning the Churches erring, or not erring, we must distinguish 
Answ.  of the Church, and of Error. The Church is either visible, which consisteth both of good and bad, which therefore is compared to a Net, etc. Mat. 13. 47. etc. or invisible, which consisteth only of the Elect, and true Believers, The Lord knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2. 19 Men may know who profess themselves to be his, but who are indeed, only God knoweth. All the Elect, they are the Church, 
Electi omnes, ipsi Ecclesia sunt. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 78.  saith Bernard. And to the same effect Austin, The Church consisteth of those that are 
In bonis est ecclesia, in his, qui aedificant super petram, non in his, qui aedificant super arenam. Aug. de Unit. Eccles.  good, who build upon the Rock, not of those that build upon the Sand. As for Error, it is either damnable, or not damnable. Now it is granted, that the invisible Church cannot err damnably. For this is that Church which Christ speaketh of, and saith, That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, Mat. 16. 18. But for the Church Visible, whether our Adversaries mean the Church Virtual, whereby they understand the Pope, or the Church Representative, that is, a General Council, we hold that it may Err, and that damnably. The Scriptures alleged are not against this assertion. That Esai. 35. 8. speaks not of the Church, but of a Way, called there, The Way of Holiness; so sure and safe, that Wayfaring men, though fools, shall not Err therein. That Mat. 18. 17. only shows that a member of the Church, being justly admonished by the Church, aught to submit to the Admonition of it, or else is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. But this is far from proving the Church's infallibility. That Ephes. 5. 27. shows, not what the Church is here in this world, but what it shall be hereafter in the world to come; 
* Non est ita intelligendum quasi Ecclesia ita jam sit, sed quia praeparatur ut sit. Aug. in Retractat.  It is not so to be understood (saith Austin) as if the Church were now so, but that it is prepared that it may be so. And accordingly 
† In regno coelorum Ecclesia plenè & perfectè erit non habens maculam, aut rugam, etc. Cum enim non tantùm dixit, ut exhiberet tibi ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam, sed addidit, gloriosam, satis significavit, quando erit sine maculâ & rugâ. Beda ad loc.  Bede, In the Kingdom of Heaven the Church shall be fully and perfectly without spot or wrinkle, etc. For when as the Apostle did not only say that he might present it to himself, a Church not having spot or wrinkle, but also added Glorious; he sufficiently signified when it shall be without Spot or Wrinkle. That Esai. 59 21. showeth that God will give both his Word and his Spirit for ever unto his Church, but it speaks of the invisible Church, the Elect and Godly, Such as turn from Transgression, ver. 20. not of any outward visible Church, which hath no such privilege, but that it may Err, and so Err as to cease to be a Church, as the example of the Churches of Asia, mentioned Revel. 2. & 3. doth make manifest.  
For the Fathers, the first, whom the marquis citeth is Austin, whom (as before is showed) holdeth General Counsels liable to Error, and such, as that the former may be corrected by the latter. That therefore which he saith, 
* That place is objected by Bellarmine to prove that the Church cannot Err.  Contra Crescon. l. 1. c. 33. (so, I presume it should be, not cap. 3. as it is in the marquis his Paper) viz. That we hold the truth of the Scriptures, when we do that, which hath pleased the whole Church, which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend: That (I say) must be understood, so far forth as the Scriptures do commend the Church, we do well, and conformably to the Scriptures, in conforming to it. But I see not how Austin himself could hold the Church to be so commended in the Scriptures, as that we must simply and absolutely do what the Church pleaseth. For then, what need of having one General Council to be corrected and amended by another? Our Adversaries themselves, when they please, make no scruple of waving and altering that which was generally held and practised in the Church. I let pass (saith Maldonate) the opinion of 
Missam facio Augustini & Innocentii sententiam, quae 600. circiter annos viguit in Ecclesiâ, Eucharistiam etiam infantibus esse necessariam. Res jam ab Ecclasiâ, & multorum seculorum usu, & decreto concilii Tridentini explicata est, non solùm non necessariam illis esse, sed ne decere quidem dari. Maldou. ad Joh. 6. 53.  Austin, and of Innocentius, which about 600. years did prevail in the Church that the Eucharist is necessary even for Infants. The thing is now declared by the Church, both by the Custom of many Ages, and also by the decree of the Council of Trent, that it is not only not necessary for them, but also that it is not meet to be given unto them. Cyprian, Epist. 55. (who is the next that the marquis citeth) speaketh indeed of the Authority of the Church, but how? so as to censure and excommunicate those that deserve it, about that he writes unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome. But this is much short of proving the Church to be infallible, and that it cannot err.  
Cyprian was far from ascribing so much to the Church, when (as 'tis well known) contrary to what the Bishop of Rome, and the Church generally did hold, he held the rebaptising of such as had been baptised by Heretics. Though Cyprian in this did err, yet his very erring in this, shows that he thought the Church, the generality of the visible Church, not only subject to error, but indeed to have erred.  
The last Father, whom the marquis here mentioneth (for though he say cum multis aliis, yet he nameth no more) is 
* Non oportet adhuc quaerere aqud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere, cum Apostoli quasi in depositorium dives, plenissimè in eâ contulerint omnia, quae sint veritatis, uti omnis quicunque velit, sumat ex eâ potum vitae. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4.  Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. where he saith, It is not meet to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to take of the Church, seeing the Apostles did lay in it, as in a rich depository, all things that concern truth, that every one that will, may out of it receive the drink of life.  
This indeed is gloriously spoken of the Church, and not Hyperbolically neither; yet doth it not amount to this, that the Church cannot err. The holy Scriptures, wherein all saving truth is contained, are committed to the Church, and the Doctrine of salvation is ordinarily held forth in, and by the Church; but hence it doth not follow, that the Church, that is, such as bear sway in it, is not subject to error. All that Irenaeus saith of the Church is no more, if so much as that of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth; which place it may seem strange that the marquis pretermitteth. Bellarmine disputing this point, brings in those words in the very first place, to prove that the Church cannot 
Bell. de Eccles. mili. 4. li. 3. cap. 4.  err. And whereas Calvin answers, that the Church is so styled by the Apostle, because in it the Scriptures are preserved and preached, he replies, that thus the Church should rather be compared to a Chest, then to a Pillar. But this is a frivolous objection; for the Church doth not keep the truth close and secret, as a thing is kept in a chest; but so as to profess and publish it, and therefore is compared to a Pillar, to which a thing is fastened, and so hangeth, that all may see it. But that those words of the Apostle do not infer an infallibility of the Church, and an exemption from error, is clear by this, that he speaks of a particular visible Church, namely the Church of Ephesus: now that a particular visible Church may err, our Adversaries will not deny, and that very Church of Ephesus there spoken of doth sufficiently demonstrate. The Apostle therefore in those words doth rather show the duty of the Church than the dignity of it; rather what it should be, than what it always is. As when it is said Mal. 2. 7. Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, The Priest's lips shall keep knowledge, that is (as our translations rightly render it) should keep. So the Jesuit Ribera doth expound 
Custodient, id est, custodire debent. Rib. ad Mal. 2.  it, shall keep, that is (saith he) ought to keep.  
The marquis here comes again to the visibility of the Church, and some other particulars before handled. That the Church is always visible, he proves by Mat. 5. 14, 15. The light of the World; a City upon a Hill cannot be hid. But I have showed before these words, Ye are the light of the world, to be meant of the Apostles, who (as their own jansenius expounds it) were a light unto the World by their preaching. So also 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. ad. loc.  Theophylact, They did not enlighten (saith he) one Nation, but the whole world. And the words following, A City set upon a Hill cannot be hid, he shows to have been spoken by way of instruction. Christ (saith 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. ibid.  he) doth instruct them to be careful and accurate in the ordering of their life, as being to be seen of all. As if he should say, Do not think, that you shall lie hid in a corner; no, you shall be conspicuous. And therefore see that ye live unblamably, that so you may not give offence to others. This exposition suits well with the admonition given vers. 16. Let your light so shine forth before men, that they seeing your good works may glorify your Father which is in Heaven.  
The marquis here further adds, 2 Cor. 4. 3. & Isai. 22. I suppose it should be, Isai. 2. 2. Now the former of these two places is not to the purpose, viz. to prove a perpetual visibility of the Church. For how can that be inferred from those words of the Apostle, If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost? The Apostle having said vers. 2. by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, because (as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecumen. ad. 2. Cor. 4. 3.  Oecumenius notes) it might be objected, that the truth was not made manifest unto all, for that all did not believe, to prevent this Objection the Apostle adds, If our Gospel be hid, etc. As if he should say, It is not our fault, as if the Gospel were not plainly enough preached by us, but it is their own fault, who perish through their own blindness. That Isai. 2. 2. is more to the purpose, though not enough neither. It is said that in the last days the Mountain of the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountains, and shall be exalted above the Hills, and all Nations shall flow unto it. The Prophet there showeth, (by metaphorical expressions taken from Mount Zion, where the Temple stood) that by the preaching of the Gospel, the Church should be increased and exalted far above what it was before. This prophecy was fulfilled by the bringing in of the Gentiles: but the Prophet doth not say, that in the times of the Gospel the Church should always be so conspicuous and visible. Neither do the Fathers here alleged by the marquis, viz. Origen, chrysostom, Austin and Cyprian, speak of the perpetual condition of the Church, but only as it was in their time. I have proved before by Scriptures, and Fathers, and even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries, that the Church is not perpetually visible.  
After the Visibility of the Church, the marquis speaketh of 
Page 62.  the Universality of it, saying that the universality of the Church is perpetual, and that the Church of Rome is such a Church. For proof hereof he citeth, Psal. 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. Now the former place shows that Christ should have the heathen for his inheritance, and the ends of the Earth for his possession; and consequently that the Church should not be confined (as it was in the time of the Law) to one Country, but should be extended far and wide throughout the World. This also hath been fulfilled, and yet shall be: but hence it doth not follow, that the Church is always so universally extended throughout the World, but that sometimes errors and heresies do so prevail and overspread all, that the truth in comparison can find no room. See before page 2. The other place, viz. Rom. 1. 8. testifies indeed that the Church of Rome was a true Church, and famous throughout the World: but neither doth the Apostle there say, neither (so far as I see) can it in any congruity be said, that the Church of Rome either is, or was a Church universally spread through the World. A part, and an eminent part of the Church so universal it might be, but the whole universal Church it could not be. The Apostle there saith no more of the Romans, than he doth of the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 1. 8. yet (I presume) our Adversaries will not therefore admit either the Church of Thessalonica to be universal, or ever since the Apostles time to have continued sound and Orthodox. And why then will they think to enforce so much from the Apostles words for the Church of Rome? To these two places of Scripture the marquis addeth the testimonies of three Fathers, viz. Cyprian, Austin, and Hierome. But for the first of these, his words are pitifully mistaken. They are these, Dum apud vos 
Cyprian. ad Cornel. Epist. 57  una animus, & unae vox est, Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est; the marquis renders it thus, whilst with you there is one mind, and one voice, the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church: whereas any that can understand Latin, and will mind the words, may see that they are to be rendered thus, whilst with you there is one mind, and one voice, the whole Roman Church hath confessed. Cyprian here wrote to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, who together with others had before heathen persecutors confessed the faith. For this Cyprian commends them, and saith that they so confessing as they did, and all being of one mind, and one voice, the whole Roman Church did confess. This makes indeed for the soundness of the Roman Church, as it was in Cyprians time, but for the universality of it, as if it were the universal Church, or a Church universally diffused, it makes nothing. For Austin's words de unit. Eccles. cap. 4. Who so doth not communicate with the whole corpse of Christendom, certain it is, that they are not in the holy Catholic Church, I see not what they are to the purpose. They cannot be so understood, as that all must necessarily communicate with all that are of the corpse of Christendom, that is, that profess themselves Christians. For so all should be tied to communion with gross and notorious Heretics. They must then be understood of communicating with all Christians so far forth as they are indeed Christians: but what is this to prove either the perpetual universality of the Church, or that the Church of Rome is such a Church? Austin wrote against the Donatists, who confined the Church to Africa, excluding all the World besides from being of the Church. This is nothing against us, who do not confine the Church to any place whatsoever.  
The last Father here cited is Hierom, who (as the marquis telleth us) saith, That it is all one to say the Roman Faith, and the Catholic Faith. But the Marquis' quotation of the place where this is to be found in Hierome, is too lax, viz. in Apol. ad Ruffin. it should be adversus Ruffin. But there are two Apologies which Hierome wrote against Ruffian, and one of them divided into several Books; it was meet therefore that the place should have been cited more particularly than it is. Yet I think I have met with the place which the marquis meaneth, which yet doth not speak so much as the marquis supposeth. 
* Nihil, inquit, in illis, quod à fide nostrâ discrepet, Latinus Lector inveniet. Fidem suam quam vocat? eàmne, quâ Romana pollet Ecclesia? an illam, quae in Origenis voluminibus continetur? Si Romanam responderit, ergò Catholici sumus, qui nihil de Origenis errore transtulimus: sin autem Origenis blasphemia fides illius est, dum mihi inconstantiae crimen impingit, se haereticum probat. Hieron. apol. 1. advers. Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 1.  Ruffinus translating origen's works (which had many gross errors in them) into Latin, to justify himself said, the Latin Reader shall find nothing, that differs from our faith.  
Hereupon Hierome asked, what faith he meant by our faith? whether that faith, which did flourish in the Church of Rome, or that, which was contained in the works of Origen? If (saith he) he shall answer, The Roman faith then are we Catholics, who have translated nothing of origen's error: but if origen's blasphemy be his faith, whilst he chargeth me with inconstancy he proves himself an Heretic. Here indeed Hierome implieth the Roman faith, and the Catholic faith, to have been then when he wrote one and the same, yet not simply, but so far forth as did concern the errors of Origen. But how can any justly hence conclude, that in Hieromes Dialect it's all one to say the Roman faith, and the Catholic faith? as if in Hieromes opinion the Roman faith, and the Catholic faith, in all points, and at all times must needs be the same.  
That Hierome did not overvalue the Church of Rome is evident. For when the custom of that Church was objected against something that he 
Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe.— Quidmihi profers unius consuetudinem? Hieron. ad Euagr.  held, he rejected the authority of it with some disdain, saying, If we seek authority, the World is greater than the City. And again, what do you bringing the custom of one City?  
From Universality, the marquis passeth to Unity, saying that 
Page 62.  the unity of the Church is necessary in all points of faith, and proving it first by Scriptures, as Ephes. 4. 5. Acts 4. 35. and 1 Cor. 1. 10. then by fathers, as Austin contra Par. l. 3. c. 5. Cypr. de unit. Eccles. and Hilar. ad Constant. Now this unity of the Church hath been spoken of before, and it hath been showed how far it is requisite, as also how little cause they of the Church of Rome have either to applaud themselves for it, or to upbraid the Reformed Churches for want of it. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, faith the Apostle, Eph. 4. 5. well, suppose they of the Roman-church have one faith, yet except they have the one faith, this, of which the Apostle speaketh, what are they the better? But indeed neither is their faith so one, as they pretend, there being many great and weighty points, wherein they differ one from another. See Gerard loc. come. de Eccles. Sect. 240 etc.  
On the other side (as I have said before) if the confessions of the reformed churches be looked upon rather than particular men's opinions, or perhaps expressions, there will no great difference in points of faith be found amongst them. Acts 4. 35. here cited by the marquis, is not to the purpose, as not speakking of unity of faith, but rather of affection, 1 Cor. 1. 10. the Apostle exhorts them to unity, and that there might be no divisions among them; but because there was not such unity, as was meet, but there were divisions among them, he doth not therefore say, that they were no true Church: In a word, both the Scriptures and the Fathers are for the unity of the Church in points of Faith, and so are we; that the several Articles of Protestant Churches deny this Unity, the marquis affirmeth, but doth not prove it.  
We hold (faith the marquis) that every Minister of the Church, 
Pag. 62, & 63.  especially the supreme Minister, or Head thereof, should be in a capacity of fungifying his Office in Preaching the Gospel, Administering the Sacrament, Baptising, Marrying, and not otherwise. This we have Scripture for, Heb. No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was. This you deny; and not only so, but you so deny it, as that your Church hath maintained and practised it a long time, for a woman to be head, or supreme Moderatrix in the Church; when you know that according to the Word of God (in this respect) a woman is not only forbidden to be the head of the man, but to have a tongue in her head, 1 Tim. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 14. 34. Yet so hath this been denied by you, that many have been hanged, drawn and quartered for not acknowledging it. The Fathers are of our opinion, etc.  
All this is but to strike at the Title which hath been given to 
Answ.  our Kings and Queens, viz. Supreme Heads, or Governors, and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions. We know our Adversaries have much stomached, and opposed this Title, but we know no just cause that they have had for it. We never made Kings or Queen's Ministers of the Church, so as to dispense the Word, and Sacraments, only we have attributed unto them this Power, to look to, and have a care of the Church, that the Word be Preached, and the Sacraments Administered by fit persons, and in a right manner. This is no more than belongs unto Kings and Queens, as both Scriptures and Fathers do inform us. We see in the Scriptures, that the good Kings of judah, as Asia, jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and josiah, (not to speak of David and Solomon, who were Prophets as well as Kings, and so may be excepted against as extraordinary persons) did put forth their power in ordering the Affairs of the Church, as well as of the Civil State. Asa put down Idolatry, and caused the People to enter into Covenant to serve the Lord, 2 Chron. 15. jehoshaphat took away the High Places, and the Groves, and made the Priests and Levites to go and teach the People, 2 Chron. 17. Hezekiah reform what had been amiss in matter of God's Worship, caused the Priests and Levites to do their Duty, and the Passeover to be solemnly kept, 2 Chron. 29. & 30, & 31. So josiah also destroyed Idolatry, repaired the Temple, and kept a most solemn Passeover, causing both Priests and People to perform their Duty.  
Austin acknowledgeth this power to belong unto Kings. In this (saith he) Kings, 
In hoc reges, sicut eis divinitus praecipitur, Deo serviunt, in quantum reges sunt, si in suo regno, bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non solùm quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verumetiam quae ad divinam religionem. Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 3. cap. 51.  as they are commanded of God, do serve God as Kings, if in their Kingdom they command good things, and forbid evil things, not only which belong unto humane Society, but also which concern Divine Religion. And the same Father speaking of Christian Princes, makes their happiness to lie in this, That they 
Si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maximè dilatandum, majestati ejus famulam faciunt. Aug. de Civil. Deil. 5. c. 24.  make their power serviceable to God's majesty, in enlarging his worship, as much as they are able.  
This power also Christian Princes have exercised, and have not been taxed for it, as Constantine, Theodosius, etc. See Mason de Minist. Anglic. lib. 3. cap. 4. The exercising therefore of this power which we ascribe to Kings and Queens, is no taking that Honour to themselves, which is spoken of Heb. 5. 4. Neither is it any teaching, or speaking in the Church, which the Apostle will not allow unto a woman, 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. and 1 Cor. 14. 34. Neither is this cross to what the Fathers, whom the marquis citeth, say, which amounts to this, that Ministers are to do those things which belong unto Ministers, and that in those things which concern their Ministry, all, even Kings and Queens, are subject unto them. All this is nothing against Kings and Queens having a power over Ministers, so as to see them perform the Offices which belong unto them. And it may seem strange that the marquis should now so lately with so much eagerness inveigh against that Title, and Power, given to that Queen of happy memory, Q. Elizabeth, as most unmeet for her, when as 
* See Doctor Rainolds his Conference with Hart in the end.  Hart, a Papist, stiff enough, living in the Queen's time, by his Conference with Doctor Rainolds, and Doctor Nowel's Book against Dorman, was so convinced, that he confessed himself satisfied in this point, and acknowledged that we ascribe no more unto Princes, than Austin doth in the words before cited.  
We say, that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive 
Pag. 63.  Sins; you deny it, and say, that God only can forgive sins, we have Scripture for it, Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted: and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. And Joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And how was that? viz. with so great power as to forgive sins, Mat. 9 3. 8. where note, that S. Matthew doth not set down, how that the people glorified God the Father, who had given so great power unto God the Son; but that he had given so great power unto men, loc. cit. The Fathers are of this opinion, etc.  
It is strange that the marquis should say, that we deny that 
Answ.  Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to forgive Sins: We confess that the Scripture is clear for it, that he did give them such a Commission; only the question is, how the Commission is to be understood, and what power it is that the Disciples had, and so other Ministers have to forgive Sins? It's true, we hold that God only can forgive sins, and yet withal, that men may forgive sins. These are not contradictory, the one to the other, because (as all Logicians know) except the propositions be understood of one and the same thing, in one and the same respect; there is no contradiction. Now when we say, that only God can forgive sins, it is meant in one respect; and when we say, that men may forgive sins, it is meant in another respect. As the sin is against God, so properly and authoritatively God alone can forgive it. And this God doth challenge unto himself as his prerogative, I, even I am he, that blotteth out thy transgressions, etc. Isai. 43. 25. And therefore the Scribes were right in this, Who can forgive sins, but God only? Mar. 2. 7. They were right in the Doctrine, though wrong in the Application: their position was good, that God only can forgive Sins; but their supposition was naught, that Christ was but a mere Man, and had not power to forgive Sins, as he did. This (saith 
* Movet Scribas remissū ab homine peccatum: hominem enim tantum in Jesus Christo contuebantur.— Verum enim, nemo potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus: Ergo qui remittit Deus est, quia nemo remittit nisi Deus. Hilar. in Mat. Can. 8.  Hilary) troubles the Scribes, that a man doth forgive sin; for they took Christ for a mere Man.— It is true none can forgive sin but God only: and therefore he that forgiveth, is God, because none forgiveth but God. The same also is clearly and fully acknowledged by Gregory. whom amongst other Fathers the marquis allegeth against us. He writing upon the second Penitential 
Tu qui solus parcis, qui solus peccata dimittis. Quis enim potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? Greg. in 2 penitent. Psal.  Psalm, that is, the 32. Psalm, upon those words, Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin, he saith thus, Thou, who alone sparest, who alone dost forgive sins. For who can forgive sins, but God only? And with these agreeth Irenaeus, whom also the marquis bringeth in as a witness on his side. He speaking of Christ's forgiving of sins, saith, That thereby he did declare who he was: For if none 
Peccata igitur remittens, hominem quidem curavit, semetipsum autem manifestè ostendit quis esset. Si enim nemo potest remittere peccata nisi solus Deus, remittebat autem haec Dominus, & curabat homines, manifestum est, quòd ipse erat Verbum Dei, filius hominis factus, etc. tanquam Deus misereatur nostri, & remittat nobis debita nostra, quae factori nostro debemus Deo. Iren. lib. 5. pag. 583. edict. in 80.  can forgive sins but only God, and the Lord (Christ) did forgive them, than it is manifest, that he was the Word of God, made the Son of Man, etc. and that as God he hath mercy on us, and doth forgive us our debts, which we owe unto God our Maker. Accordingly also Ambrose, (another of those Fathers, whom the marquis maketh to be of their opinion) Whereas (saith he) jews say that only God can forgive sins, they do indeed confess 
Quae cum Judaei asserunt à solo Deo posse concedi, Deum utique confitentur, suóque judicio perfidiam suam produnt, etc. Itaque testimonium non deest divinitati, fides deest saluti.— Magna itaque infidae plebis amentia, ut cum confessa fuerit solius Dei esse donare peccata, non credat peccata donanti. Ambros. in Luc. 5.  Christ to be God, and by their judgement bewray their perfidiousness, etc. They have a testimony for Christ's Divinity, they have no Faith for their own Salvation: Therefore great is the madness of the unbelieving people, that when as they confess that it belongs only unto God to forgive sins, yet they do not believe God, when he forgiveth sins. So by this 
Deus enim ex eo cognoscitur, etc. quia peccata condonat.— Peccata nemo condonat, nisi unus Deus; quia scriptum est, Quis potest peccata donare, nisi solus Dens? Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto lib. 3. cap. 19  Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God, because he forgiveth Sins. For that none can forgive sins but only God, as it is written, Who can forgive sins, but only God? Thus Ambrose citys that saying of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth. 
To this purpose likewise is Austin, (another of the Marquis' Fathers) cited by Lombard, lib. 4. dist. 18. lit. c.  How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins? In that the word of reconciliation is committed unto them, 2 Cor. 5. 19 in that they are to preach remission of sins in Christ's name, Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you, that through this man (viz. Christ) is preached unto you forgiveness of sins, said Paul, Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes, that Christ first said to his Apostles, Receive ye the holy Ghost, and then, Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted. 
Nunc videamus utrum peccata donet Spiritus. Sed hinc dubitari non potest, cum ipse Dominus dixerit, Accipite Spiritum S. quorum remiseritis peccata, remissa erunt. Ecce quia per Spiritum S. peccata donantur. Homines autem in remissionem peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non jus alicujas potestatis exercent. Neque enim in suo, sed in Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus S. nomine peccata dimittuntur. Ambr. de Spir. S. lib. 3. cap. 19  Whence he gathers, that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins. Men (saith he) do only afford their Ministry for the forgiveness of sins, they do not exercise the authority of any power. Neither do they forgive sins in their Name, but in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Lombard, called the Master of the Sentences, and of School-divinity, disputing 
Ecce quam varia à doctoribus traduntur super his, & in hâc tantâ varietate quid erit tenendum? Hoc sanè dicere ac sentire possumus, quòd solus Deus dimittit peccata, & retinet; & tamen ecclesiae contulit potestatem ligandi, & solvendi. Sed aliter ipse solvit, & ligat, aliter ecclesia. Ipse enim per se tantùm ita dimittit peccatum, quòd & animam mundat ab interiori maculâ, & à debito aeternae mortis solvit. Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem solvendi, & ligandi, i. ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos. Unde Dominus leprosum sanitati prius per se restituit; deinde ad sacerdotes misit, quorum judicio ostenderetur mundatus. Lombard. lib. 4. dist. 18. lit. d. & e.  this Question, and showing divers Opinions about it, determines thus, That God only doth remit, and retain sins, and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and lose. But that God himself doth bind and lose one way, and the Church another way. That God by himself alone doth forgive sin, so as to cleanse the soul from stain, and to free it from the guilt of eternal death. That he hath not given this power to Priests, to whom yet he hath given power to lose and bind, that is, to declare men to be loosed, or bound. Whence our Lord first by himself made the Leper sound, and then sent him to the Priests, that they might declare him to be clean. And hence he infers, that a Minister of the Gospel hath such 
In solvendis ergò culpis, vel retinendis ita operatur sacerdos Evangelicus, sicut olim legalis in illis, qui contaminati erant Leprâ, quae peccatum signat.— Et in remittendis, vel in retinendis culpis id juris atque officii habent Ecclesiastici sacerdotes, quod olim habebant sub lege legales in curan dis leprosis. Hi ergò peccata dimittunt, vel retinent, dum dimissa à Deo, vel retenta judicant & ostendunt. Lomb. Ibid.  power in remitting or retaining sins, as the Priest in the Law had in cleansing a Leper. The Priest was said to make the Leper clean, or unclean, (so the words are in the Original, Levit. 13.) when he did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean. So Ministers remit, or retain sins, when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted, or retained of God. And in this Lombard followed Hierome, who (as his words cited by Lombard do show) by this very similitude of the levitical Priest, dealing with a Leper, illustrates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now remit, or retain sins. Thus than I hope it may sufficiently appear, that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us, and not against us, as the marquis would have it.  
We hold, that we ought to confess our sins unto our ghostly Father; 
Marq: pag. 63. & 64.  this ye deny, saying, that ye ought not to confess your sins but unto God alone. This we prove by Scripture, Mat. 3. 5, 6. Then went out Jerusalem, and all Judea, and were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. This confession was no general confession, but in particular, as appears, Acts 19 18, 19 And many that believed, came and confessed, and showed their deeds. The Fathers affirm the same, etc.  
For Confession of Sins, Protestants do not say, that they 
Answ.  ought not to confess to any but God only, though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confess only unto God, and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other; whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confess unto a Priest all his deadly sins, (and such indeed are all sins whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ, Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10.) which by diligent examination he can find out, together with all the several circumstances, whereby they are aggravated. 
Concil. Trident. Sess. 14 cap. 5. Et can. 6, 7, 8. Bell. de Poenit. l. 3. c. 20.  Thus hath the Council of Trent decreed it. And nothing will suffice to procure one, that is Baptised, remission of Sins, without this Confession either in Re, actually performed, or in Voto, in desire, as Bellarmine doth expound it. Who also sticks not to say, that in all 
Promissio de remittendis peccatis, iis qui confitentur Deo peccata sua, non videtur ulla extare in divinis literis. Bell. de poenit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. At Selutio.  the Scripture there seems not to be any promise of for givenesse of sins, made to those that confess their sins unto God. Which is a most impudent Assertion. For David having said, I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid: I said I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin: he adds immediately, for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee, etc. Psal. 32. 5, 6. Besides 
* Aquin. in suppl. quaest. 6. art. 2 ad. 3. Bonav. lib. 4. dist. 17. art. 1. qu. 2. . Aquinas and Bonaventure, two prime Schoolmen, hold that under the Law it was not (ordinarily) required of people to confess in particular unto a Priest. Bonaventure also citys Austin, saying, Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit confessio peccatorum, The offering of sacrifices, was the confession 
Ergò videtur quòd non fuerit ibi alia confessio, quam oblatio. Bonav. ibid.  of sins; whence he inferreth, that therefore it seems there was no other confessing of sins, but the offering of Sacrifices.  
For those two places of Scripture cited by the marquis, neither they, nor any other do speak of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome do contend for. Bellarmine holds that their Sacramental confession (as they call it, viz. that 
Bell. de Poevitent. lib. 3. cap. 20.  confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of penance) was not instituted till after Christ's Resurrection; and therefore he says, it is no marvel, if (as Ambrose observes) we read of Peter's tears, but not of his confession. That the Jews therefore, when they were baptised of john, confessed their sins, Mat. 3. 5, 6. is not enough to prove that confession, which we now dispute of, although it did appear that the confession there spoken of, was a particular confession, which yet appears not. Cardinal Cajetane saith it was but a general confession. Neither indeed in probability could it be any 
Cajet. in Act. 19 18.  more; for how should john have been able to hear such multitudes, as came unto him to be baptised (jerusalem, and all judea, and all the region round about jordan, Mat. 3. 5.) confess all their sins in particular? That it was no general confession, but in particular, the marquis saith appears by Acts 19 18, 19 But if this confession spoken of Acts 19 were in particular, doth it follow, that therefore the other mentioned, Mat. 3. was so also? I see no force at all in this consequence, the confessions being made by several persons, at several times, and upon several occasions. 
* Quemadmodum ad Baptismum Joannis concurrebant confitentes peccata sua, ita modò describuntur confitentes factasua, procul dubio in genere, aut publica; neutra enim fuit confessio Sacramentalis, sed professio poenitentiae vitae praeteritae. Cajet. in Act. 19  Cajetan indeed doth parallel these two places together, but so as that he maketh them both to speak of a general confession, or a confession only of such sins as were public and notorious. Neither of them (he saith) was a sacramental confession, but only a profession that they did repent of their life past. However, these places of Scripture can make nothing for Popish confession, which is enjoined, and forced, as without which (they say) salvation is not to be expected; but this which the Scriptures here speak of, was voluntary and free, the persons that confessed, did it of their own accord. The Popish confession is auricular (as it is called) secret, in the ear of a Priest; this appears to have been open and public. The Popish confession is a particular enumeration of all known sins; this if it were of any particular sins at all (as that mentioned Acts 19 may seem to have been) yet only of such as more especially did trouble their conscience, as may be collected from Acts 19 20. and in such a case to confess not only unto God, but also unto men, and especially unto Ministers, Protestants do not condemn, but hold requisite; only they condemn that manner of confession, which in the Church of Rome is maintained and practised. And no marvel, seeing some of the Roman Church themselves have showed a great dislike of it. Beatus Rhenanus, a man 
Caeterùm Thomas ab Aquino, & Scotus, homines nimium arguti, confessionem hodie talem reddiderunt, ut Joannes ille Grilerius gravis ac sanctus theologus, qui tot annis Argentorati concionatus est, apud amicos suos saepè testatus sit, juxta illorum deuteroses impossibile esse confiteri.— Proinde motus fuit ut libellum ederet in linguâ Germanicâ, cui titulum fecit, De morbo confessionis, quo negabant esse tristiorem, qui eo tenebantur: B. Rhen. in Tertull. de Penitent.  of great learning, and never (that I know) withdrawing from the communion of the Church of Rome, speaks of the Romish confession as a thing but of late devised, and by himself little observed. He citys also one Grilerius, whom he calls a grave and holy Divine, that was a long time Preacher at Strasburg, who (he saith) did often testify among his friends, that according to the late Roman dictates, it is impossible to confess, and thereupon did write a Book in the Germane tongue, which he entitled, Of the disease of confession, than which disease (saith Rhenanus) they that are troubled with it, deny that any is more grievous.  
For the Fathers cited by the marquis, the supposed Clemens, whatsoever he say, need not much trouble us; the Epistles going under his name, are suspected, and scrupled at by Bellarmine himself in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers: and therefore (it seems) he thought it not meet to allege his authority in this point, as the marquis doth. Origen also is cited li. 3. a strange citation; I suppose it should be in Levit. Hom. 3. for 
Bell. de Poen. lib. 3. cap. 7.  thence Bellarmine doth fetch a testimony to prove their confession. But when as Chemnitius alleged something out of those Homilies upon Leviticus against Popish Traditions, ascribing them unto Cyrill (as also the Rhemists do, adding that some say they are origen's) Bellarmine answers with disdain, 
Rhem. in job. 20. 23.  that those Homilies are not Cyrils, but origen's, or some others he could not 
Respondeo, Homilias illas in Leviticum non esse B. Cyrilli, sed Origenis, vel nesciocujus alterius, qui passim literam destruit, ut mysticos sensus è capite suo statuat. Proinde Homilias istas non esse magnae authoritatis. Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11.  tell whose, who did destroy the Letter of the Scripture, that he might establish mystical senses out of his own head: and that therefore those Homilies are of no great authority. But were the authority of those Homilies never so great, and unquestionable, I see not how they make any thing for that confession, which our adversaries maintain, and we impugn. Hom. 3. 
* Si ergo in vitâ praeveniamus eyes, & ipsi nostri accusatores simus, nequitiam diaboli inimici nostri, & accusatoris effugiemus. Sic enim & alibi Propheta dicit, Dic tu iniquitates tuas prior, ut justificeris. Orig. in Levit. Hom. 3.  Origen (or who ever was the author) saith that if we prevent Satan, and accuse ourselves, we shall escape the malice of Satan, who is our adversary, and our accuser. But to whom we should accuse ourselves, by confessing our sins, this Author shows not. Bellarmin indeed saith, that he speaks of confessing unto a Priest; but in the words (as Bellarmine himself doth cite them) there is neither Priest, nor any other, to whom confession of sin should be made, expressed. And far more congruous it is to understand it so, that as Satan doth accuse us unto God (as he accused job, though falsely, job 1. and 2. And see Revel. 12. 10.) So we should prevent him by accusing ourselves, and confessing our sins unto God also. Indeed Hom. 2. that author doth speak of confessing sin unto a Priest, but that is only in some special case, when sin doth lie so sore upon the conscience, That 
* Cum lavat peccator in lachrymis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrymae suae panes die ac nocte, etc. Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit.  a sinner doth wash his bed with his tears, and his tears are his meat day & night. In which case, no Protestants (that I know) but hold it good and requisite to lay open the malady to such as are most likely to apply a remedy. Thus also seems that to be understood, which the marquis bringeth out of Paulinus writing the life of Ambrose, (for that is meant by the quotation, which 
Erat enim gaudens cum gaudentibus, & flens cum flentibus. Siquidem quotiescunque illi aliquis ob percipiendam poenitentiam lapsus suos confessus esset, ita flebat, ut & illum flere compelleret., Paul in. in vitâ Ambros.  is misprinted, Amb. Ex Paulsino) viz. that Ambrose sat to hear confession. Paulinus saith of Ambrose, that he would rejoice with those that did rejoice, and weep with those that wept. And that whensoever any came to confess their sins unto him, he would so weep, as to constrain the party confessing to weep also. The marquis further citeth Ambr. Orat. in muliere peccatrice; it should be, I presume, in mulierem peccdtricem; but I find no such piece among Ambrose his works. However, if Ambrose any where doth say (as he is cited) confess freely to the Priest the hidden sins of thy soul, yet it doth not appear that he doth require this otherwise then in the case before mentioned. Irenaeus also is cited lib. 1. cap. 9 and Tertull. lib. de Penitent. Now these speak of public confession, and so speak not to our Adversaries purpose: the very word which they use for confession, viz. Exomologesis, is commonly so used for that confession, 
Agit de poenitentiâ publicâ, quam exomologesin vocat. Pamel. in Tertull. de Poen.  which is public. Irenaeus speaks of some Women, who had followed Marcus an Heretic, but when they were converted to the Church, they confessed their wickedness; their sin being open and scandalous, they made open and public confession of it. It's true, Irenaeus saith that those women confessed how they had been defiled by Marcus, and how much they had loved him, which was more than any could have known but by their own confession. Yet this hinders not, but that the confession was public; they first confessing publicly that which was publicly known, to show the sincerity of their Repentance the more, might proceed to confess also that which was secret, yet was a concomitant of that which was public, viz. their adhering unto the Heretic. Tertullian also clearly 
Tertull. de Poen. cap. 10.  speaks of public confession, that which was made inter Patres atque conservos, amongst Brethren and fellow-servants, so that the whole body would grieve for the pain of one member. 
* Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere. Condoleat universum, & ad remedium conlaboret necesse est. Tertull Ibid.  The body (saith he) cannot rejoice at the pain of one member. It must needs, all sorrow with it, and labour together for a remedy. Tertullian makes no mention of secret confession of sins, as 
† Non aliam ob causam complurium hic testimoniis usi sumus, quam ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clanculariâ istâ admissorum confessione nihil locutum; quae quantum conjicimus, nata est existâ exomologesi per ultroneam hominum pietatem, ut occultorum criminum esset & exomologesis occulta. Rhen. in Tert. de Poenit. Ubi addit, Nec enim usquam praeceptam esse legimus.  Rhenanus observes, who conceiveth that secret confession did arise from public confession, people of their own accord confessing secret sins secretly, as they used to confess open sins openly. For (saith he) We no where read that this (secret confession) was enjoined; he means by the Ancients.  
One Father more there is, whom the marquis here citeth, namely chrysostom, lib. 3. de Sacerdot. So Bellarmine having alleged 
Bell. de Poenit. l. 3. c. 9 Vide etiam lib. 3. de Sacerdotio.  something out of the former book of chrysostom, bids see also the third book. But (no doubt) if there had been any thing more for Bellarmine's purpose in the third book then in the second, he would have been so good, as to have set it before us. Now the very words of chrysostom, as Bellarm: citys out of lib. 2. the sacerd. do show that he speaks not of a necessity lying upon all to confess all their sins to a Minister, but only that Christiani qui laborant, Christians that are in a perplexed estate have need of this remedy. Having thus showed that the Fathers testify nothing for Popish confession, I shall show how they testify against it.  
And to begin with him that was last mentioned, chrysostom is most copious in this kind. Why art thou ashamed (saith he) and 
Chrysost. con. 4. de Lazar.  dost blush to confess thy sins? Dost thou speak to a man, that he may upbraid thee? Dost thou confess to thy fellow servant, that he may 
* Or traduce thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in Psal 50.  insult over thee? To thy Lord, to him that hath a care of thee: to him that is kind, to the Physician thou dost show thy wound. Here he takes it for granted, that there is (ordinarily) no necessity of confessing to any but to God only. So again, Art thou ashamed (saith he) to say that thou hast sinned? Confess then daily in thy 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: some read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in thy soul.  prayer. For do I say, confess to thy fellow servant, who may reproach thee? No, confess unto God, who doth cure thee. Divers such sayings hath this Father, most plain and pregnant for our purpose; Bellarmine with all his art and all his industry 
Bell de Poen. l. 3. c. 15.  was not able to give a satisfactory answer to them. He saith that chrysostom spoke only of public Confession, not of private; only of that which is made in the open Congregation, not of that which is made to a Priest in secret. But it is evident that chrysostom speaks against the necessity of confessing to any but only unto God. He bids Confess 
Dicito quotidiè in animâ tuâ. Chrysost. in Psal. 50. uti legit Bellarminus.  in thy soul. Make confession in thy thought. Let God only see thee confessing. Such confession 
Cogitation fiat delictorum exquisitio— Solus te Deus confitentem videat. Chrysost. hom. de Poen. & Confess.  as this, man hath nothing to do with either in public or in private. Bellarmine answers, that in these places chrysostom doth speak of confession, not as it hath reference to the Priest's absolution, but as it hath reference to shame and confusion: and in this latter respect he saith chrysostom doth well admonish, that it is not necessary to confess unto man either in public or in private, but that it sufficeth to confess with sorrow and tears unto God only. But here Bellarmine (a thing not unusual with him) doth contradict himself. For here he granteth that to confess only unto God is enough to work shame; yet in another place he saith, That 
Confusio timeri non solet in confession, quae soli Deo fit. Bell. de Poen. lib. 3. cap. 3.  shame useth not to be feared in that confession, which is made only unto God. And again, shamefacedness hath no place in that confession which is made only unto God. These assertitions, 
Verecundia non habet locum in confession, quae soli Deo fit. Bell. de Poen. lib. 3. cap. 6.  as they agree not with the truth, see Ezr. 9 6. so neither do they agree with the answer that here Bellarmine giveth unto Chrysost: Where as Bellarm: saith, that Chrysost: speaketh not of confession, as having reference to the Priest's absolution, it is easily granted, there being (ordinarily) no necessity of any such absolution. Chrysostme willeth a man to confess, though but in his heart, unto God, assuring him that thereby he shall obtain God's absolution: and what need then of any others absolution? Except in some special case, viz. for the quieting of a troubled conscience, and that one may the better enjoy the comfort of God's absolution. Thus for Chrysostme: Austin also doth show the no-necessity of confessing unto men, which still must be understood excepting some particular case, wherein it may be requisite. What have I to do (saith he) with 
Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus, ut audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi sanaturi sint omnes languores meos? Aug. Confess. lib. 10. cap. 3.  men, that they should hear my confessions, as if they could heal all my diseases? Bellarmine takes it in disdain, that these words of Austin should be alleged against their confession. This (he saith) is nothing else but to 
Hoc nihil est aliud nisi simplicibus imponere. Nemo enim libros illos legit, qui nesciat, Confessionem, de quâ loquitur Augustinus, non esse Sacramentalem, sed confessionum peccatorum praeteritorum, & per baptismum dimissorum, etc. Bellarm. de Poenit. lib. 3. cap. 20.  delude the simple: For that whosoever reads Austin's Confessions cannot but know, that he speaks not of Sacramental Confession, but of the Confession of sins past, and forgiven by Baptism; which Confession was made to that end, that thereby the mercy of God might be seen, and praised. But Austin's words are of more force than thus to be evaded. We willingly grant that Austin speaks not of Sacramental Confession, there being indeed no such Confession to be spoken of, as they call Sacramental; no such, I say, truly so called; and so much these very words of Austin do sufficiently testify. For Sacramental Confession (as they call it) is a Confession necessarily to be made unto a Priest, or else no remission of sin (they say) committed after Baptism can be obtained, but Austin shows that ordinarily Confessing unto men is not necessary. Neither is it so, that Austin in his book of Confessions doth only speak of his sins which he had committed before he was Baptised. For in that tenth Book, where he hath the words before cited, he speaketh of sins, which he was guilty of long after his Baptism, yea even then when he was writing his Confessions. As namely, 
* Adhuc vivunt in memoriâ meâ talium rerum imagines, & occursant mihi vigilanti quidem carentes viribus, in somnis autem non solùm usque ad delectationem, sed etiam usque ad consensionem, factumque simillimum. Et tantum valet imaginis illusio in animâ meâ, & in carne meâ, ut dormienti falsa visa persuadeant, quod vigilanti vera non possunt.— Quid adhuc sim in hoc genere mali mei, dixi bono Domino meo, etc. Aug. Confess lib. 10. cap. 30. Crapula non nunquam surrepit servo tuo, etc. Ibid. c. 31. Et talibus vita mea plena est, & una spes mea in magnâ valdè misericordiâ tuâ. Ibid. c 35.  impure Dreams, and nocturnal pollutions; as also excess in Eating. Divers other particulars doth he also confess, saying that his life was full of such failings, and that all his hope was only in Gods exceeding great mercy. To this purpose also, 
† Non invenio quid dixerit, invenio quòd fleverit.— Lavant lachrymae delictum, quod voce pudor est confiteri. Ambr. in Luc. 22.  Ambrose, who speaking of Peter, saith, I find not what he spoke, I find that he wept. And hence he infers, that tears may procure pardon of sin, though no verbal Confession be made of it.  
To this testimony of Ambrose, Bellarmine answers, that as 
Bell. de Poenit. l. 3. c. 20.  then Sacramental Confession was not instituted, and therefore 'tis no marvel, if we do not read of Peter's confession. And 'tis very true that Sacramental Confession neither than had, nor at all hath any divine institution. Again Bellarmine says, that Tears (of which Ambrose speaketh) contain a kind of Confession in them. This indeed is true in respect of God, who knows the heart and affection from whence Tears proceed: and therefore David saith that the Lord had heard the voice of his weeping, Psal. 6. 8. which shows, that as the Tongue by speaking, so the Eyes by weeping have a voice, which God doth hear. But what is this unto men, who by tears alone, without words, can understand little? Bellarmine grants that Tears are sufficient in that 
Bell. Ibid.  Confession, which is made unto God, who knoweth all things. Well, and Ambrose saith that Tears may suffice to procure pardon; and therefore no necessity of any other Confession then what is made unto God only.  
Thus also Hilary is clear for the sufficiency 
Confessionis autem causam addidit, dicens quia fecisti: autorem sc: hujus universitatis Dominum esse confessus, nulli alii docens confitendum, quam qui fecit olivam fructiferam, etc. Hilar. in Psal. 51. v. ult.  of Confession made only unto God, saying that David teacheth us to confess only unto him, who hath made the Olive fruitful. It's true, the Confession that David there (viz. Psal. 52. 9) speaks of, is the Confession of Praise and of Thanksgiving; but Hilary 
In seculum, & in seculum seculi misericordiaespes est, sed confessio tantùm in seculum, non etiam in seculum seculi. Non enim confessio peccatorum nisi in hujus seculi tempore est. Hilar. Ibid.  understands it of the confession of sins, saying, that David does not say, I will confess unto thee for ever and ever, as immediately before he said, I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever; but I will confess unto thee for ever, or whiles he lived, in seculum, because only in the time of this life here are sins to be confessed. So that however Hilary did mistake David's meaning, through the Ambiguity of the word Confitebor, i. e. I will confess, or I will give thanks, yet he clearly expresseth his own opinion, that it is sufficient to confess unto God only.  
And this opinion was maintained by some in the Roman Church above a thousand years after Christ. For Peter Lombard (who was above 1100 years after Christ) disputing this point touching Confession, confesseth, That 
Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio. Lomb. lib. 4. dist. 17. lit. d.  some thought it sufficient to confess only unto God. This Opinion was not accounted a Heresy by the Church of Rome itself until the time of Pope Innocent the third, about 1200 years after Christ, when in the Council of Lateran it was decreed necessary to confess unto a Priest, and not unto God only. And therefore Bonaventure, who lived a little after 
Si quis esset modò hujus opinionis, esset haereticus judicandus, quoniam in concilio generasi hoc determinatum est sub Innocentio tertio; sed ante hanc determinationem hoc non erat haeresis. Bonav. in Sent. lib. 4. dist. 17. num. 50.  that Council, speaking of those who held it sufficient to confess only unto God, saith, that if any now were of that opinion, he were an Heretic, because the contrary was determined in a General Council, but before that determination that Opinion was no Heresy. Thus than we see by the acknowledgement of the Romish Doctors themselves, that the necessity of Sacramental Confession (as they call it) is not fetched either from Scriptures, or Fathers, but from Pope Innocent the Third, and the Council that was in his time.  
To conclude this point touching Confession, I will only add one Argument for Confutation of the Romish Doctrine in this particular. Such Confession as they of the Church of Rome require, viz. a particular enumeration of all mortal sins, with all their several aggravating circumstances, is not possible. And therefore neither is it of divine institution. Bellarmine answers, that by this 
Bell. de Poenit. lib. 3. cap. 16.  reason it is impossible to confess unto God; for that we hold, that Confession made unto God must be entire, not of some sins only, but of all. And if we say, that it is sufficient to confess unto God all, so far forth as we can come to the knowledge of them, adding that of David, Psal. 19 13. Who can understand his errors? Lord cleanse me from my secret faults: Bellarmine saith, that to confess thus to a Priest doth suffice also. But, I say, this answer will not satisfy; for there is not the same reason of confessing unto God, and of confessing to a Priest, as they require it. God knoweth all our sins before we confess, far better than we ourselves do; only we are to confess unto him, to show ourselves humble and penitent. But our Adversaries say, that particular Confession must be made unto a Priest, because otherwise 
Bell. de Poenit. lib. 3. cap. 2.  he cannot tell how to judge, so as either to remit sins, or to retain them. Now to this end it is not enough to confess unto a Priest all that one can find out, but it is necessary to confess absolutely all that one is guilty of. For otherwise how shall the Priest be able to judge of those sins which he knoweth not? If he cannot judge of those sins which are confessed, except they be confessed; then neither can he judge of those sins which are not confessed, because they are not confessed: there is the same reason for the one as for the other. If the Priest can judge of those sins, that are not confessed, by those that are confessed, then may he also, by hearing the confession of one or two sins, judge of all the rest, though no Confession be made of them. Thus the Confession which our Adversaries contend for, is either not possible, or at least not necessary.  
After Confession the marquis comes to works of Supererogation, 
Pag. 64.  which they say a man may do, viz. good works, more excellent than those, which the Law of God doth require. And that a man may do such works, the marquis proves, by Mat. 19 12. There be eunuchs, that have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: he that is able to receive it, let him receive it.  
This (the marquis saith) is more than a Commandment, as S. Aug. observes upon the place, Ser. lib. de temp. (it should be Serm. 61. the temp.) for of precepts it is not said, Keep them who is able, but keep them absolutely. I answer, it is true of general precepts, such as concern all, they are to be kept absolutely by all; but for special precepts, which concern only some, they are only to be kept by those whom they do concern. And so those words, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, are a precept, but limited and restrained, viz. unto some certain persons, who otherwise can, without inconvenience, live a single life; they are required to do it, not as a thing simply necessary, but as necessary for them; not as a thing wherein perfection doth consist, but as a means whereby the better to draw towards perfection, viz. To serve the Lord without distraction, 1 Cor. 7. 35. Neither do the Fathers (whom the marquis citeth) hold any such works of Supererogation, as the Romanists plead for, viz. works more excellent and perfect then those which the Law of God prescribeth. 
* Qui praeceptum impleverint, dicere possunt, Servi inutiles sumus, quod debuimus facere, fecimus. Hoc virgo non dicit; non dicit ille, qui bona sua vendidit. Ambr. de viduis.  Ambrose seems to speak more than the rest, and therefore it may be he is put in the first place, though some that are cited, are more ancient than he. They that have fulfilled the precept (he saith) may say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done what our duty was to do. This the Virgin saith not, nor he that sold his Goods, viz. to give to the poor.  
Thus Ambrose; but have not these words need of a favourable interpretation? For will our adversaries themselves say, that there are any absolutely so perfect, as that they need not confess unto God, that they are unprofitable servants? what they will say I cannot tell, but sure I am that Christ's Disciples, who were as perfect as any others, were not so perfect. For even to them did Christ speak those words, When ye shall have done all these things, which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done but what was our duty to do. Luke 17. 10. It may be our Adversaries will say, true, when they had done all things commanded them, they were to say, we are unprofitable servants, etc. but not when they had done more than was commanded them. But did they so? They left all indeed, and followed Christ; but did not Christ call them to it, and command them to do it? In this therefore they did no more than their duty was to do. We must distinguish therefore betwixt general duties, and special duties. All were not bound to forsake all actually, as the Apostles did, and to follow Christ, because there was no general precept for it; but the Apostles were bound to do it, because they had a special call and command from Christ, that did oblige them to it. Thus then Ambroses words must be understood, that in respect of a general precept obliging all to the thing done, some may be said to do more than their duty was to do, though simply and absolutely they did not more. For if it were more for God's glory to do what they did, than not to do it, they were bound to do it. For else how did they love God with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all their might? as all are commanded to do, Deut. 5. 6. 
* Virginitas non ex debito solviour: neque enim per praeceptum expetitur, sed supra debitum offertur. Origen. in cap. 15. ad Rom.  Origon is next cited, who saith that such as live in virginity, do not that which is commanded, but above what is due. But the meaning is, that virginity is not a thing generally commanded, not a duty required of all; yet to some, who have the gift, and are called of God to improve it to the greater advancement of his glory, it is a duty; every one is bound to do that, which doth make most for God's glory, that being the end for which we ought do whatsoever we do. 1 Cor. 10. 31.  
After Origen follows Eusebius, who saith, that in the 
Euseb. demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 8.  Church of God two kinds of life are instituted; one exceeding our nature, and the common course of life, not seeking marriage, nor offspring, nor substance, but addicted wholly to God's worship. And this is the manner of a perfect life in Christianity. The other kind of life is more remiss, and humane, which is entangled in modest wedlock, and procreation of children, etc. To such belongeth the second degree of piety. Thus Eusebius, who yet is far from asserting such works of supererogation as are now disputed of. We grant, that to live unmarried so as thereby the better and the more freely to serve God, is a life of more perfection then to live married, and so to be entangled with the affairs of the world. But we deny, that they who so live unmarried, do supererogate, i. e. that they not only do all that is commanded, but also over and above what is commanded. This neither doth Eusebius say, neither can it be proved.  
Next comes chrysostom, who may seem to speak much, but indeed it is not much to the purpose. He saith that many 
Multi & ipsa superant mandata. Chrys. hom. 8. de poenit.  do exceed the Commandments. But how is that? Not in respect of the whole latitude of the Commandments; for (as David testifies) they are exceeding broad. Psal. 119. 96. It is therefore only in respect of some outward act, which is not directly and precisely commanded. And thus, chrysostom says that the Heathens, many of them, did exceed the Commandments; and yet (I presume) our Adversaries will not ascribe 
Nonue praecepta Dei adeò levia sunt, ut multi philosophicâ tantùm ratione illa excesserint? Chrys. Hom. 3 dn 1. ad Corinth.  any extraordinary perfection to the Heathens. The testimony then of chrysostom makes but little for their works of superetogation, except they will acknowledge such works to have been done by Heathens, many of which might forbear marriage; so the vestal Virgins did; and this was according to Chrysostom's manner of speech, to exceed the Commandments, namely to go beyond that, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But consider this (and so any other) Commandment in the full extent of it, as forbidding all wanton looks, and all unchaste thoughts, Mat. 5. 28. job. 31. 1. and so neither the Vestal nor the Popall Virgins will find any great cause of boasting.  
The last Father here cited, is Gregory (Nicen. in the Marquis' paper is to be blotted out, as superfluous, this here cited being not Gregory Nissen. but Gregory surnamed the great, Bishop of Rome) who saith, The elect sometimes do more than God hath vouchsafed to command. For bodily virginity is not commanded, but only commended; 
Greg Moral. lib. 15. cap. 9 Electi nonnunquam plus student agere quam eis dignatus est Dominus jubere. Carnis enim Virginitas nequaquam jussa est, sed laudata; nam si illa juberetur, conjugium jam culpa crederetur, & tamen multi virtute virginitatis pollent, ut plus impendant obsequio, quam acceperunt praecepto.  for if it were commanded, than marriage would be a fault. And yet many live in virginity, and so perform more than the Commandment doth require of them. It is true, there is no precept directly commanding virginity, and in that respect they that live in virginity may be said to do more than the Commandment doth require of them. Yet if any have the special gift given of God, and see it a means whereby the more to glorify God, then by consequence the precept of loving God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our might, Deut. 6. 5. and of doing all to the glory of God, 1 Cor. 10. 31. these precepts (I say) in such a case do require virginity. But (alas!) what is all this that hath been alleged both from Scriptures and Fathers, to prove works of supererogation? to prove that men may not only do all that is commanded, but also more than is commanded? How will this consist with the Scriptures, which tell us, There is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not. Eccles. 7. 20. In many things we offend all. Jam. 3. 2. If God shall contend with us, we cannot answer him one of a thousand, Job 9 3. And do not the Fathers concur with the Scriptures in this? Then are we righteous (saith 
a Tunc justi sumus, quando nos peccatores fatemur. Hierou dial. advers. Pelag. lib. 1.  Hierome) when we confess ourselves to be sinners. And again, 
b Haec hominibus sola perfectio, si imperfectos esse se noverint. Hieron. advers. Pelag. ad Ctesiphont.  So 
c Haec est perfectorum vera justitia, ut nunquam praesumant se esse perfectos. Leo ser. 2. the Quadrag.  Leo, This is the true righteousness of those that are perfect, that they never presume themselves to be perfect. Thus also 
d Si de his divinitùs districtè discutimur, quis inter haec remanet salutis locus? quando & mala nostra pura mala sunt, & bona, quae nos habere credimus, pura bona esse nequaquam possunt. Greg Moral. lib. 35. cap. 16.  Gregory the great, If God shall strictly examine us, what hope of salvation is there for us? when as our evil deeds, are simply evil, but the good deeds, which we suppose we have, cannot be simply good. And again, 
e Sciunt quip (Sancti) quia omnis humana justitia injustitia esse deprehenditur, si divinitùs districtè judicetur. Greg. Moral. l. 21. c. 15.  The Saints know that all man's righteousness is found to be unrighteousness, if God do strictly judge it.  
After works of Supererogation, the marquis passeth to 
Page 64.  freewill, saying that they hold that we have freewill, and that we deny it. But a question should be stated, before it be disputed; we do not deny, that we have freewill, though we deny that our will is so free, now in the estate of corrupt nature, as that we have of ourselves, any ability to that which is truly good. 
* Ego verò quantum ad vocempertinet, adhuc profiteor, quòd in meâ institut one testatus sum, non adeò me superstitiosum esse in verbis, ut ejus causâ velim contetionem aliquam movere, modò rei intelligentia sana maneat. Si coactioni opponitur libertas, liberum esse arbitrium, & fateor, & constanter assevero; ac pro haeretico habeo, quisquis secùs sentiat.— Sed cum aliud prorsus vulgò concipiant, dum hoc epithetō hominis voluntati attributum vel legunt, vel audiunt, haec causa est, cur mihi displiceat. Siquidem ad facultatem viresque referunt, nec impedire possis, quin simulac libera suerit voluntas dicta, haec pluribus imaginatio protinus in mentem veniat, habere igitur sub potestate suâ bonum & malum, ut alterutrum eligere suapte virtute queat. Calv. contra Pigh. de lib. arbit. pag. 215. Semper autem testatus sum, me de nomine pugnare nolle, si hoc semel constitueretur, libertatem non ad potentiam, vel facultatem boni aequè ac mali eligendi, sed ad spontaneum motum & consensum referri debere. Ibid. p. 229. Causam mihi justam habere videor, cur voculam op en sublatam è medio, ad quam major propè mundi pars tanto periculo impingit. Ibid. p. 215.  Calvin allows both the name of freewill, and also the thing itself, so it be rightly understood, viz. that the will of man is free, as freedom is opposed to coaction, the will is so free, as that it cannot be compelled or constrained. But that the will is free as to be able of itself to choose either good or evil, this is it that he contends against; and because many when they hear or read of freewill, understand it in this sense, this made him wish that the very word were abandoned, many being so apt to stumble at it.  

* 
Quia vix aliâ notione nominabatur lib. arbitrium, hinc nostrorum plurimae contrariae disputationes, visae negare funditùs lib. arbitrium. Cum tamen certum sit omninò non negari nisi hoc sensu. Quod satis apparet ex earum disputationum serie, quibus hic scopus propositus est, ut hanc unam in bonum malumque aequam propensionem sive indifferentiam perpetuò impugnent. Cham. tom. 3. lib. 3. ca 1. Sect. 7. Nostra nulla quaestio est, utrùm sua sit arbitrio libertas, quod saepè testatum saepiùs repetendum est propter adversariorum importunitatem. Quid ergò è Nempe quid quantumque ea valeat ad bonum voluntas, anquirimus. Ibib. c. 14. Sect. 6.  
Nos protestati sumus tenere liberum arbitrium, & si non quale statuerunt Pelagiavi; non etiam quale statuunt Papistae. Ibid. cap. 17. Sect. 5.   Chamier a famous Protestant Writer, shows that our Divines disputing against freewill, do not simply deny it, but in this sense, that the will is equally propense and indifferent to good and evil.  
This is that, which they deny, and against which they bend their disputations. We do not make a question (saith he also) whether the will be free; this we have often testified, and must still repeat it, because of the importunity of our adversaries. This then is that which we question, what and how much that liberty of the will can avail in respect of that which is good. And again, We have protested (saith he) that we hold freewill, though not such as the Pelagians held, nor as the Papists hold.  
Thus than we hold, that since the fall of Adam, man's will is free to that which is evil, but to that which is good, it is not free, until by the grace of Christ it be made free. If the Son shall make you free (saith our Saviour) than ye shall be free indeed. Joh. 8. 36. But not till then. How should they be free to that which is good, who are dead in trespasses and sins? as by nature all are. Eph. 2. 1. who are sold unto sin; as the Apostle confesseth he was so far forth as he was unregenerate, Rom. 7. 14. and that in him, that is, in his flesh (his corrupt nature) no good dwelled. vers. 18. who are the servants of sin, as all are before their conversion, Romans 6. 17. In this respect Luther might well entitle his book (as he did) of servile will, rather than 

De servo arbitrio.  
Indicans disputari in eo, illud Liberum arbitrium verè esse peccati servum. Cham. tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 8. Sect. 9   of freewill, to show that this freewill is by nature the servant of sin.  
S. Augustine in many places is as clear, 
Quid enim boni operari potest perditus, nisi quantum fuerit à perditione liberatus? Nunquid libero voluntatis arbitrio? Et hoc absit. Nam libero arbitrio malè utens homo & se perdidit, & ipsum. Sicut enim qui se occidit, utique vivendo se occidit, sed se occidendo non vivit, nec seipsum resuscitare potest cum occiderit: ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio, victore peccato amissum est liberum arbitrium. A quo enim quis devictus est, huic & servus addictus est.— Qualis, quaeque potest servi addicti esse libertas, nisi quando peccare eum delectat? Ac per hoc ad-peceandum liber est, qui peccati servus est. Unde ad justè faciendum liber non erit, nisi à peccato liberatus esse justitiae coeperit servus. Aug. Enchir. cap. 30.  and express for this which we hold, as can be imagined. For what good (saith he) can lost man work, but so far forth as he is freed from that lost condition? can he by freewill? No such matter. For man using freewill amiss, lost both himself and it. For as he that kills himself, doth by living kill himself, but by killing himself he ceaseth to live: So when by freewill man did sin, sin getting the victory, freewill was lost. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same he is brought in bondage. (2 Pet. 2. 19) What, I pray, can be the freedom of one that is brought into bondage, except when it doth delight him to sin? And by this he is free to sin, who is the servant of sin. Wherefore he shall not be free to do righteously, unless being made free from sin he shall become the servant of righteousness. And presently after, But that freedom, which is to do well, how shall man being in bondage, 
Sed ista libertas ad benefaciendum unde erit homini addicto, & vendito, nisi redimat ille, cujus illa vox est; Si vos Filius liberaverit, tunc verè liberi eritis? Quod antequam fieri in homine incipiat, quomodo quisquam de libero arbitrio in bono gloriatur opere, qui nondum liber est ad operandum benè? Ibid.  and sold under sin have, except he redeem him, who hath said, If the Son shall make you free, than you shall be free indeed? Before this begin to be done in man, how can any glory of freewill in a good work, seeing he is not yet free to do well?  
Bellarmine brings in the first piece of this 
Amittitur liberum arbitrium, non cum perit, quod fieri non potest, sed cum à diabolo captivatur; quomodo dicuntur amissa, quae tempore belli in potestatem hostium venerunt. Bell. de great. & lib. arb. l. 5. c. 30.  saying of Austin, and answers, that freewill is lost, not in that it is quite abolished, but in that it is held captive by the Devil; as things are said to be lost, which in time of war are in the power of the enemy. But what is this but even to yield us that which we contend for? For if freewill be so lost, as to be held captive by Satan, then surely the will, until it be set free by Christ, is not free in respect of that which is truly good, and accompanying salvation.  
This will (saith Austin) which is free in 
Sed haec voluntas, quae libera est in malis, quia delectatur malis, ideò libera in bonis non est, quia liberata non est. Aug. ad Bonifac. contra duas epist. Pelagian. cap. 3.  things that are evil, because it is delighted in things that are evil, is therefore not free in things that are good, because it is not made free.  
And again, Without the Grace of God the will cannot be free, seeing it is subject to lusts 
Sine gratia Dei non potest esse libera voluntas, cum cupiditatibus vincentibus & vincientibus subdita sit. Aug. epist. 144.  that do overcome it, and bring it into bondage.  
And again, How dare miserable men be proud of freewill, before they are made free? 
Ut quid miseri homines audent superbire de libero arbitrio, antequam liberentur? Aug. de Spir. & lit. c. 30. Hinc illa, quam uni Augustino, prae aliis tribuo, verae sanaeque doctrinae perspicua, certa, exactaque explicatio: hinc & ille consensus, quem illi nobiscum esse glorior. Calv. contra Pigh. pag. 225.  These, and many other Sentences of this Father, are so full for our purpose, that our Divines might well profess (as they do) that in this point they fully accord with Austin. But I will add the testimonies of some other Fathers besides him. 
Augustinum asservi prorsus esse nostrum. Ibid. pag. 227. Totam de libero arbitrio doctrinam Augustini Calvinus probavit, nos etiam probamus, dummodo aestimetur ex ejus disputationibus contra Pelagianos. Cham. Tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 18. sect. 5.   
While sin reigns (saith Fulgentius) a man 
Regnante peccato habet liberum arbitrium, sed liberum sine Deo, non liberum sub Deo, i e. liberum justitiae, non liberum sub gratiâ, & ab hoc pessimè atque serviliter liberum, quia non gratuito miserentis Dei munere liberatum. (Probat ex Rom. 6. 22. atque addit) Servire igitur justitiae non potest, quia justitiae liber est; quia quamdiu est peccati servus, non nisi ad serviendum peccato reperitur idoneus. Fulgent. ad Pet. Diacon. cap. 19  hath freewill, but free without God, not free under God, that is, free from Righteousness, not free under Grace, and so most ill, and slavishly free, because not made free by the free gift of God showing mercy. This he proves by Rom. 6. 22. and adds, Therefore he cannot serve Righteousness, who is free from Righteousness; because so long as he is the servant of sin, he is only able to serve him. To the same effect also speaks Bernard, By I know 
Nescio quo pravo & mito modo ipsa sibi voluntas peccato quidem in deterius mutata, necessitatem facit, ut nec necessitas, cum sit voluntaria, excusare valeat voluntatem, nec voluntas, cum sit illecta, excludere necessitatem. Est n● necessitas haec quodammodo voluntaria.— Voluntas enim est, quae se cum esset libera, servam fecit peccati, peccato assentiendo: voluntas nihilominus est, quae se sub peccato tenet voluntariè serviendo. Bernard. Serm. 81. in Cant.  not what evil and wonderful means (saith he) the will being changed by sin, and made worse, doth bring a necessity upon itself, so that neither necessity, being voluntary, can excuse the will, nor the will, being enticed, can exclude necessity. For it is after a sort a voluntary necessity.— For it is the will, which when it was free, made itself the servant of sin, by consenting unto sin; nevertheless it is the will, which keeps itself under sin, by serving it willingly. He shows how the will is free, being captivated by sin, so free as that it sinneth willingly, yet not so free, as that it can refrain from sin, seeing it hath made itself the servant of sin, and hath brought upon itself a necessity of sinning. Thus (saith he) the 
Ita anima miro quodam & malo modo sub hâc voluntariâ quâdam ac malè liberâ necessitate & ancilla tenetur, & libera; ancilla propter necessitatem, libera propter voluntatem: & quod magis mirum magisque miserum est, eo rea quo libera, eoque ancilla quo rea, ac per hoc eo ancilla quo libera. Bern. Ibid.  soul, after a wonderful, and evil manner, under this voluntary and ill free necessity is both held in bondage, and also is free: in bondage, because of necessity, free, because of will. And which is more wonderful, and more miserable, it is therefore guilty, because it is free, and therefore in bondage, because guilty, and so consequently therefore in bondage because free. He adds a little after, Now there is no escape 
Nunc verò nusquam exitus misero patet, quem & voluntas (ut dixi) inexcusabilem, & incorrigibilem necessitas facit Bern. Ibid.  for miserable man, (by his own freewill, or any power in himself) whom (as I have said) both the will doth make inexcusable, and also necessity doth make incorrigible. Elsewhere indeed Bernard seems to make the will perpetually, 
Est verò quam magis ei congruere arbitror libertatem, quam dicere possumus à necessitate, eò quòd necessarium voluntario contrarium esse videatur. Bern. de great. & lib. arb.  and of its own nature free from necessity, for that necessary and voluntary seem to be contrary one to the other. But by necessity he means co-action and compulsion: For speaking of consent, he saith, It is not 
Siquidem non cogitur, non extorquetur. Est quip voluntatis, non necessitatis. Nec negat se, nec praebet cuiquam nisi ex voluntate. Alioqui si compelli valet invitus, violentus est, non voluntarius. Ubi autem voluntas non est, nec consensus. Non est enim consensus nisi voluntarius. Ubi ergo consensus, ibi voluntas. Porrò ubi voluntas, ibi libertas. Et hoc est quod dici puto liberum arbitrium. Bern. Ibid.  compelled, it is not extorted; for it is of will, not of necessity. It neither denies itself, nor affords itself to any, but willingly. For if it could be compelled against its will, it were violent, and not voluntary. But where there is no will, there is no consent. For there is no consent, but voluntary. Therefore where there is consent, there is will: and where there is will, there is freedom: and this is that which I think is called freewill.  
And again, Freedom from necessity 
Verùm libertas à necessitate aequè & indifferenter Deo universaeque tàm malae quam bonae rationali convenit creaturae. Nec peccato nec miseriâ amittitur, vel minuitur, nec major in justo est quam in peccatore, nec plenior in angelo quam in homin. Quomodò namque ad bonum conversus per gratiam humanae voluntatis consensus, eò liberè bonum, & in bono liberum hominem facit, quò voluntarius efficitur, non invitus pertrahitur: sic sponte devolutus in malum, in malo nihilominus tam liberum quam spontaneum constituit suâ utique voluntate ductum, non aliundè coactum ut malus sit. Bern. Ibid.  (saith he) doth equally belong unto God, and to every reasonable creature, as well bad as good. It is not lost, nor diminished, either by sin, or misery, it is not greater in the Righteous, then in the Sinner; not more full in an Angel, then in Man. For as the consent of man's will, being by Grace turned unto good, therefore makes a man freely good, and free in that which is good, because he is made voluntary, and not drawn against his will: So being freely devolved into evil, it makes a man nevertheless free, and spontaneous in evil, being led by his own will, and not compelled and enforced by any other to be evil.  
Thus we see how Bernard doth agree with Calvin in making the freedom of man's will to consist in a spontaneity, and a freedom from coaction; and in holding that otherwise the will of man (until it be made free by Grace) is not free to that which is good, but necessitated unto sin, and enslaved by it. The freedom of the will then doth not consist in this, that it is free and indifferent to choose either good or evil. For so God and the good Angels should not be free, seeing they cannot will any thing but that which is good: neither should the devils, and damned souls be free, seeing they cannot will any thing but that which is evil.  
It is not therefore called freewill (saith Bradwardine) because it can freely will, and 
Non ideò dicitur liberum arbitrium quia liberè potest velle & nolle quodcunque; sed quia liberè potest velle quodcunque objectum suum volubile, & nolle quodcunque objectum suum nolubile. Bradw. de Caus. Dei l. 2. c. 2.  nill any thing whatsoever; but because it can freely will any thing that is its object to be willed, and nill any thing that is its object to be nilled. In vain therefore doth Bellarmine pretend that our Divines make man altogether 
Affirmant praesente auxilio gratiae non posse hominem malè facere, eo verò absente non posse benè facere, ac per hoc nunquam habere liberum voluntatis arbitrium. Bell. de great. & lib. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 28.  void of freewill, for that they hold, that if he have the help of Grace he cannot do ill; and if he want it, he cannot do well. But it doth not follow, that therefore they wholly deny freewill, it being rightly understood. For though man having the help of Grace cannot do ill, and wanting it cannot do well; yet both, in doing well, by the help of Grace, and in doing ill, for want of it, his will is free, so as that he is not constrained, and forced either the one way or the other: even as both the good Angels and the bad are free in that which they do, though the one cannot do ill, nor the other well. Our Adversaries make the will of man so free, as being incited by Grace, to be able to act, or not to act, as he pleaseth. But how doth 
Bell. de great. & lib. art. l. 6. c. 9  this agree with Scripture? Who maketh thee to differ, and what hast thou, that thou hast not received? 1 Cor. 4. 7. If a man could of himself, by the power of his freewill, embrace a good motion, and consent unto it, as well as refuse and reject it, than he may make himself to differ from another, and may have something that he hath not received. No man cometh unto me, except my Father draw him, saith our Saviour, joh. 6. 44. 
* Magna gratiae commendatio, nemo venit nisi tractus; quem trahat, & quem non trahat, quarè illum trahat, & illum non trahat, noli velle judicare, si non vis errare. Aug. homil. 26. citat. à Bradw. de Caus. Dei l. 1. c. 35.  Here is a great commendation of Grace, (saith Austin) none comes except he be drawn; whom he draws, and whom he draws not, why he draws this man, and draws not that, do not judge if thou wouldst not err.  
The Apostle tells us, That we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but all our sufficiency is of God, 2 Cor. 3. 5. By which words of the Apostle Bernard proves that it is not in the power 
Non equidem quòd vel ipse consensus, in quo omne meritum consistit, ab ipso sit, cum nec cogitare (quod minus est quam consentire) aliquid à nobis quasi ex nobis sufficientes simus. Bern. de great. & lib. arbit.  of man's free will without the Grace of God to consent unto a good motion, seeing he cannot of himself so much as think a good thought, which yet is less than to consent unto it. So by the same words Bradwardine confutes those who hold, that if God prevent a 
Sunt qui dicunt Deum semper praevenire pulsando, & excitando, etc. & hominem subsequi aperiendo, & consentiendo, idque ex propriis viribus, etc.  man by knocking and inciting, than man of himself doth follow, by opening and consenting. But (saith he, having cited the words of the Apostle) it is less to think, then 
— Minus est cogitare, quam credere. Bradward. de Caus. lib. 1. cap. 38.  to believe. And he doth well observe, That this doctrine ascribes that which is the better, 
Haec positio tribuit nobis quod melius est, & majus; Deo verò quod deterius, & minus. Quis enim dubitaverit aperire melius, & utilius nobis esse quam pulsare? cum pulsare sine apertione non profit, sed obsit. Bradward: Ibid.  and the greater unto man, and that which is the worse and the less unto God. For that without doubt it is better and more for our profit to open, then to knock, seeing that knocking without opening avails nothing, but is rather hurtful. And citing a saying of 
* Aug. de bono perseverantiae cap. 9 Tutiores vivimus, si totum Deo damus, non nos illi ex parte, & nobis ex parte committimus. Ipsi ergo me totum totâ devotione committo, ac ejus gratissimae gratiae totaliter me submitto. Bradw. Ibid.  S. Austin. viz. We live more safe if we give all to God, and do not commit ourselves in part to him, and in part to ourselves; he adds, Therefore to him do I wholly commit myself with my whole devotion, and to his most acceptable grace do I wholly submit myself. Surely David, when he prayed, Unite my heart to fear thy Name, Psal. 85. 11. was far 
So when the Church prayeth Lam. 5. 21. Turn thou us unto thee O Lord, and we shall be turned, were it not ridiculous to expound it, we shall be turned, if we will?  from meaning thus, that God should so move him to obedience as that he might either obey, or not obey, as he pleased. So when he prayed, Let me not wander from thy Commandments. Psal. 119. 10. And, make me to go in the path of thy Commandments. v. 35. were it not most absurd to understand it thus, Let me not wander, except I will; and make me to go, if I will? So when God promiseth, I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, etc. Ezek. 36. 27. And, I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. jer. 32. 40. it were most ridiculous to interpret it thus, I will cause you to walk in my statutes, if you will, and that you shall not depart from me, except you will.  
God promiseth Ezek. 36. 26. to take away the stony heart, that is, the contumacy, stubborness and disobedience of the heart; and to give a heart of flesh, that is, to make the heart soft, pliable and obedient. By this and other places of Scripture Bradwardine confutes those, who say, that God by his Grace will convert a man, if he do not put a bar in the way. 
* Quicquid obex dicitur; nullus potest hunc obicem tollere nisi Deus: & si ipse eum voluerit tollere, irresistibiliter tollitur. Unde & ipsemet Dominus, Miserebor cui voluero, etc. Exod. 33. Et iterum, Auferam cor lapideum, etc. Exod. 36. Et Apostolus, Cujus vult, miseretur, etc. Rom. 9 Bradw. de cause Dei lib. 2. cap. 32.  Whatsoever (saith he) this bar is said to be, none can take it away, but God; and if he will take it away, it is irresistibly taken away. Whence the Lord himself saith, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Exodus 33. And again, I will take away the stony Heart. Ezek. 36. So the Apostle, He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, etc. Rom. 9 After these Scriptures he brings in that of Austin, worthy to be written in Letters of 
Et Aug. de Praedest. SS c. 9 Haec gratia, quae occultè humanis cordibus divinâ largitate tribuitur, à nullo duro corde respuitur: ideò quippe tribuitur, ut cordis duritia primitùs auferatur. Bradw. Ibid.  gold, This grace (saith he) which by the bounty of God is secretly infused into the hearts of men, is refused by no hard heart. For therefore it is infused, that in the first place the hardness of the heart may be taken away. I'll only add one Scripture more, with Austin's gloss upon it, to show that man being stirred up by preventing grace, hath not by his own Free will power to consent unto, and to do that which is good, but it is God, who by his grace doth work this in him. So the Apostle plainly tells us. It is God, (saith he) that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Phil. 2. 13. Therefore (saith 
† Nos ergo volumus, sed Deus in nobis operatur & velle: nos ergo operamur, sed Deus in nobis operatur & operari pro bonâ voluntate. Hoc nobis expedit & credere, & dicere: hoc est pium, hoc verum, ut sit humilis & submissa confessio, & totum Deo detur. Aug. de bono persever. cap. 13.  Austin) we will, but God doth work this will in us: therefore we work, but God doth work this work in us of his good pleasure. This is expedient for us both to believe, and to speak: this is pious, this is true; that so confession may be humble, and submiss, and that all may be ascribed unto God. And thus I hope it may sufficiently appear, that we have no cause to decline either the authority of the Scriptures, or the testimonies of Fathers, in this point concerning freewill.  
I come now to those Scriptures, and Fathers, which the marquis doth allege against us. Three places of Scripture are cited for proof of freewill, such as our Adversaries maintain, and we impugn. First, that 1 Cor. 7. 37. (it is misprinted, 1 Cor. 17.) He that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart, that he will keep his virgin, doth well. But what is there here to prove freewill? Perhaps those words, hath power over his own will. But the Apostle there speaks of a man, that hath a daughter marriageable, yet determines to keep her unmarried: which the Apostle approves, so that the man have no necessity, that is, no necessary cause of giving his daughter in marriage, but hath power over his own will, that is, hath power to effect and accomplish that which he willeth, so as no inconvenience to ensue upon it. After this manner doth 
* Potestatem habens voluntatis suae perficiendae, h. c. quòd virgo consentiat abstinentiae à conjugio. Si enim virgo dissentiret, non haberet pater potestatem voluntatis propriae perficiendae. Cajetan: ad loc.  Cajetan himself in his Commentaries upon the place expound these words but hath power over his own will, viz. to accomplish it, in that the Virgin doth consent to abstain from marriage. For if she should descent, than the Father should not have power of accomplishing his own will. Thus Cajetan; now what is this to the controversy about free will? though (I know) Bellarmine 
Bell de great. & lib. arb. l. 5. c. 23.  also brings it in, as also another place as little to the purpose, namely that, 2 Cor. 9 7. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver. Men must give alms willingly and cheerfully, therefore men have free will. It doth not follow; no more than that because men must serve God with a perfect heart, and with a willing mind, 1 Chron. 28. 9 therefore of themselves by the power of freewill they are able to do it. The Rhemists tacitly confess these places to be impertinent to the point in hand, passing them over in their Annotations, and making no use of them, as they are ready enough to do, when they meet with any thing, which they think doth make for them. The next place is Deut. 30. 19 (not as it is printed 11.) I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. This place Bellarmine presumes much upon, saying that 
Non video quid ad hunc locum responderi possit. Bell. de great. et lib. arb. lib. 5. ca 23.  he sees not what can be answered to it. And so the English Papists, who translated the old Testament at Douai, in their notes upon the place say, what Doctor can more plainly teach freewill in man, than this Text of holy Scripture? But what is the reason of all this confidence? because man is bidden to choose life, doth it therefore follow, that of himself he is free and able to do it? why? So man is bidden to work out his own salvation, Phil. 2. 12. yet (as the Apostle adds immediately v. 13.) it is God that doth work in him both the Will and the Deed. Man is bidden to come unto Christ, Isai. 53. 3. yet can he not come, except the Father draw him. joh. 6. 44. Man is bidden to arise from the dead, Ephes. 5. 14. Can he therefore being dead quicken himself? Surely the same Apostle tells us in the same Epistle, that it is God that doth quicken those that are dead in trespasses and sins. Ephes. 2. 5. There is no more force in that place of Deuteronomie, for proof of freewill, then in any other place of Scripture, which containeth in it precept, or exhortation. And indeed our adversaries do pretend, that all such places are for them. And 
Bell. de great. & lib. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 18. & lib. 6. cap. 10.  so did the Pelagians of old object such places: but Austin answers them, that though it's true, God doth not command man to do that which cannot be done by him, yet he commandeth us to do what we are not able to 
Magnum aliquid Pelagiani se scire putant, quando dicunt, non juberet Deus, quod sciret non posse ab homine fieri. Quis hoc nesciat? Sed ideò jubet aliqua, quae non possumus, ut noverimus quid ab illo petere debeamus. Aug. de great. & lib. arb. cap. 16.  do (viz. of ourselves,) that we may seek unto him to make us able. Thus the people of God do; Turn unto me, saith God, joel 2. 12. Turn thou us unto thee, say the people of God, Lam. 5. 21. And by comparing places of Scripture together we may find, that what God doth require of his people, the same he doth promise unto them. Wash ye, make ye clean, saith he, Isai. 1. 16. But Ezek. 36. 25. I will sprinkle clean water upon you (saith he) and you shall be clean. So Ezek. 18. 31. God commands saying, Make you a new heart, and a new spirit: But Ezek. 36. 26. he promiseth this very thing, A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put with in you. And accordingly David prayed unto God to work this in him, Create in me a clean heart O Lord, and renew a right spirit within me. Psal. 51. 10. And that of Austin is well known, Give 
Da Domine quod jubes, & jube quod vis.  O Lord what thou dost command, and then command what thou willest. Besides, as Bradwardine observed long ago, impotency and inability to perform 
Quis nesciat secundum omnia jura, Divina pariter & humana, impotentiam descendentem ex culpâ nullatenus excusare, sed forsan potius aggravare, etc. Bradw. de Causâ Dei lib. 1. cap. 43.  a duty, proceeding from a man's own fault, doth nothing excuse him either by the Law of God, or man. A bankrupt may justly be required to pay his debt, though he be not able to pay it. Again, God's Precepts and Exhortations are not in vain, though man by the power of his own freewill be not able to do what is required; because God doth make those very Precepts and Exhortations means whereby to work that in his elect, which he doth require of them. When Christ spoke to Lazarus being dead and buried, saying, Lazarus come forth, Joh. 11. this was not in vain, though its certain, a man that's dead, and laid in the grave, hath no power of himself to come forth; yet (I say) it was not in vain, that Christ spoke so unto Lazarus; for together with his word he sent forth his Divine power, and so enabled Lazarus to come forth, as he required. So neither is it in vain, that God doth command men to do things, which of themselves they cannot do, because he accompanying his word with his spirit, enables them to do what he commands. Verily, verily, I say unto you (saith Christ) the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear, shall live. Joh. 5. 25. Our Saviour there speaks of such as are spiritually dead, as appears those words and now is, and he shows, that his word is a powerful and effectual means (viz. by the concurrence of his spirit) to work the life of grace in them.  
The third and last place of Scripture, which the marquis citeth for freewill, is that Mat. 23. 37. O jerusalem, jerusalem; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings, and ye would not. But what doth this place prove? That men have freewill so far forth, as of themselves to resist and reject the offers of grace; which we nothing doubt of. But the question is, whether men have such a freewill, as that of themselves they can receive grace when it is offered. This is that which we deny, neither doth the place alleged, make any thing for proof of it.  
The marquis saith, There might have been a willingness, as well as an unwillingness, (so it should be, though it be printed, as well as a willing) or else Christ had wept in vain: and to think that he did so, were to make him an impostor. I grant that there might have been a willingness, but not by the power of freewill, except made free by grace, it being God that doth work both the will and the deed. Phil. 2. 13. So the Jews, of whom Christ complained, that they would not come unto him, joh. 5. 40. might have come; but yet of themselves they could not come, not except it were given unto them of God, joh. 6. 65. not except he did draw them. joh. 6. 44. Whereas the marquis speaks of Christ's weeping, his mind was (it seems) upon another place, viz. that Luk. 19 41, 42. where it is said, that Christ drawing nigh to jerusalem, beheld it, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace: but now they are hid from thine eyes. But that Christ wept, when he said, O jerusalem, jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children, etc. this we do not find, though the words be recorded both Mat. 27. 37. and also Luke 13. 34.  
But suppose that Christ had wept, when he said, O jerusalem, jerusalem, etc. yet had not his weeping been in vain, though jerusalem had no power of herself to do that which there Christ speaks of. For yet nevertheless Christ showed his affection towards jerusalem, even as he did towards Lazarus, when he wept over him as he lay over the grave. Behold how he loved him, said the Jews, john 11. 36. yet it is without all question, that Lazarus of himself could not have come out of the grave, except Christ by his Almighty power had raised him up. Some perhaps may say, But why did Christ complain of jerusalem for her unwillingness, if it were not in her power to be willing? I answer, because both her unwillingness, and also her want of power to be willing was from herself; it was her own fault, and therefore she was justly complained of, and reproved for it.  
But again, some may say, jerusalem had sufficient grace whereby she might have been willing, or else Christ would not have complained that she was unwilling. I answer, jerusalem had a sufficiency of the means of Grace, which she ought to have made use of, and to have been wrought upon by, but would not, and therefore did Christ complain of her. But jerusalem had not a sufficiency of the Spirit of Grace, without which she could not improve the means, as she should have done; and yet nevertheless, the complaint made of her was just: For God having given unto man, at first, Grace sufficient to do whatsoever he should require, and this Grace being lost by man's own fault, Eccles. 7. 29. God is not bound to restore it but when, and where he pleaseth; and yet may justly require the obedience that is due unto him, and complain for want of it, as a man may justly demand his debt of a bankrupt, and complain of him for not paying it, though he be not able to pay it. 
* Homo non potest solvere, nec reddere Deo, quod debet Deo: quia non potest Deo reddere totum amorem suum, nec timorem, nec honorem, nec obedientiam, nec voluntatem Dei facere, quia corruptus est, & mutatus in contrarium suae naturae; & ipsemet fecit se talem, ut non possit Deo facere quod debet: & tamen semper debet: & si debitum semper manet, nec excusatur, quia tenetur: & si non potest, ipsemet est in causa, & in culpâ quare non potest, Raimund, de Sabund. Theolog. Natur. tit. 250.  Raimundus de Sabunde, a Popish Author, is large in his expressions to this purpose, That man being now corrupt, and made quite contrary to what he was at first, cannot pay that which he oweth unto God; cannot love, fear, honour, and obey God as he ought: and that yet nevertheless the debt still remains, this is still due unto God, and man is not excused, because though he be not able, yet he himself is the cause of his inability, and it is his own fault that he is not able.  
After the allegation of these places of Scriptures, the marquis adds, that the Ancient Fathers are of their Opinion, viz. in point of freewill, and he citys Euseb. Caesar. de praep. l. 1. c. 7. Hil. de Trinit. Aug. l. 1. ad Simpl. q. 4. Ambr. in Luk. 12. Chrys. hom. 19 in Gen. Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 72. Cyrill. in joh. l. 4. c. 7.  
Now for divers of the Ancient Fathers, and namely for Austin, (whom the marquis allegeth against us, and who indeed is chiefly to be looked at in this Controversy, as having most occasion to declare himself in it, by reason of the Pelagian Heresy which arose in his time) I have sufficiently showed before how far they are from compliance with our Adversaries.  
But to come to a particular examination of the Authors and places that are cited. First Eusebius, in the place mentioned, hath nothing at all (that I can find) about freewill, the whole Chapter being de Phoenicum Theologiâ, about the Divinity of the Phoenicians.  
Hilary is so cited, that there is no looking after him; for he wrote twelve books of the Trinity, and here he is only cited, de Trin. 1. of the Trinity, but in which of the twelve Books he saith any thing to this purpose, is not mentioned.  
As for Austin, that which the marquis (I presume) intended, is, lib. 1. ad Simplic. quaest. 2. not q. 4. for there are but two Questions answered in the first Book; in the second Book indeed there are more than four Questions, but nothing about freewill. In the first Book, and second Question, there is something that may seem to make for the Opinion of the marquis, but much more is there, which doth indeed make against it; indeed, so much, that though Bellarmine cite divers passages out of Austin for proof of freewill, yet he was more cautious (it seems) then to cite any thing out of that which Austin wrote about it to Simplicianus.  
Let us hear what Austin himself, in his Retractations (wherein he did review all his Works) saith concerning his books written to Simplicianus, and concerning that very Question; in answer whereunto he hath much about freewill: In the solution of which question (saith 
In cujus quaestionis solutione laboratum est quidem pro libero arbitrio voluntatis humanae, sed vicit Dei gratia. Aug. Retract. lib. 2. cap. 1.  he) man's freewill was much laboured for, but the Grace of God did overcome. And this will clearly appear by perusing the Book itself, and the question handled in it. The question is about the meaning of those words, jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, and the rest that follow, Rom. 9  
Now among other things that Austin saith, there is this, which (as I conceive) the marquis 
Noluit ergo Esau, & non cucurrrit, sed & si voluisset, & cucurrisset, Dei adjutorio perveniflet, qui ei etiam velle, & currere praestaret, nisi vocatione contemptâ reprobus fieret. Aliter enim Deus praestat ut velimus, aliter quod voluerimus. Ut velimus enim, & suum esse voluit, & nostrum; suum vocando, nostrum sequendo. Quod autem voluerimus, solus praestat, id est, posse benè agere, & semper beatè vivere. Aug. ad Simplic. lib. 1. quaest. 2.  aimed at, Esau was not willing, and did not run; but if he had been willing, and had run, by the help of God he had obtained; God would have given him both to will, and to run, except by contemning Gods Call he would be a Reprobate. For God doth otherwise give us, that we may will, than he doth give us that which we have willed. For that we may will, God would have both to be his work, and ours: his by Calling, ours by Following when we are called. But that which we have willed, God alone doth give, that is, to be able to do well, and for ever to live happily.  
Here, I confess, Austin doth seem to show himself a patron of freewill, and we could not easily judge otherwise of him, if we should look merely upon these words, and take them as his positive sentence. But if we consider what Austin saith both before, and after, we shall see that he spoke thus rather by way of objection, then by way of determination. Before these words he saith thus, A wheel doth not therefore run 
Non ideò benè currit rota ut rotunda sit, sed quia rotunda est: sic nemo proptereà benè operatur, ut accipiat gratiam, sed quia accepit. Ang. Ibid.  well, that it may be round, but because it is round. So no man doth therefore work well, that he may receive grace, but because he hath received it. Austin therefore was not of that mind, that Esau of himself, by his freewill, could have been willing, and have run; or that any, when he is called, and incited by Grace, can by the power of freewill follow, and obey, but it is grace that must work this in him.  
To this purpose again before the words objected, If (saith Austin) jacob did therefore 
Si ergò Jacob ideò crededit, quia voluit, non ei Deus donavit fidem, sed eam sibi ipse volendo praestitit, & habuit aliquid, quod non accepit. Aug. Ibid.  believe, because he would, than God did not bestow faith on him, but he by willing did afford it unto himself, and so he had something which he received not. Which is contrary to the words of the Apostle, What hast thou, that thou hast not received? 1 Cor. 4. 7. But a little after those words that seem to make for freewill, Austin expresseth himself more fully: For having cited that of the Apostle, Phil. 2. 12, 13. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you, both to will, and to do of his good pleasure, he adds, The Apostle there sufficiently shows, that a 
Ubi satis ostendit etiam ipsam bonam voluntatem in nobis operante Deo fieri. Nam si proptereà solùm dictum est, Non volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei, quia voluntas hominis sola non sufficit, ut justè rectéque vivatur, nisi adjuvetur misericordiâ Dei; potest & hoc modo dici, Igitur non miserentis est Dei, sed volentis est hominis, quia misericordia Dei sola non sufficit, nisi consensus nostrae voluntatis addatur. At illud manifestum est, frustrà nos velle, nisi Deus misereatur. Illud nescio quomodo dicatur, frustrà Deum misereri, nisi nos velimus. Si enim Deus misereatur, etiam volumus: ad eandem quippe misericordiam pertinet, ut velimus. Deus enim est, qui operatur in nobis & velle, & operari pro bonâ voluntate. Aug. Ibid.  good will itself is wrought in us by God. For if therefore only it be said, (Rom. 9) It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, because the will of man alone is not sufficient, that he may justly, and rightly, except it be helped by the mercy of God; then by this reason it may be said. It is not of God that showeth mercy, but of man that willeth, because the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, unless the consent of our will be ad ded. But that is manifest, that we will in vain, except God show mercy. This I know not how it can be said, that God doth show mercy in vain, except we be willing. For if God show mercy, than we are willing; seeing it belongs to that same mercy to make us willing. For it is God that worketh in us both to will, and to do of his good pleasure.  
Again a little after, having said by way of objection, freewill availeth much; he 
Liberum voluntatis arbitrium plurimum valet: imò verò, est quidem, sed in venundatis sub peccato quid valet? Aug Ibid.  answers, Nay, it is indeed, but in those, that are sold under sin (as all are till they be fred by Grace) what doth it avail?  
And again, when those things delight us, 
Cum ergo nos ea delectant, quibus proficiamus ad Deum, inspiratur hoc, & praebetur gratiâ Dei, non nutu nostro, & industriâ, aut operum meritis comparatur; quia ut sit nutus voluntatis, ut sit industria studii, ut sint opera charitate ferventia, ille tribuit, ille largitur. Aug. Ibid.  whereby we profit towards God, this is inspired, and given unto us by the grace of God, it is not gotten by our consent, industry, or the merits of our works: because the consent of the will, the industry of endeavour, and works fervent with charity, are all the gift of God. Thus than it is most manifest, that in the place pointed at by the marquis, Austin was most far from maintaining such a freewill, as we oppose. There is also a passage in Austin's 
* Quamvis sit in cujusque potestate quid velit, non est tamen in cujusquam potestate quid possit. Aug. lib. 2 ad Simpli, quaest. 1.  second book to Simplicianus, quaest. 1. which may seem to make against us, viz. That to will any thing, is in the power of every one, but to be able to do any thing, is not in the power of any. But let Austin explain himself, and show his own meaning; and that he doth 
Quod ideò dictum est, quia non dicimus esse in potestate nostrâ, nisi quod cum volumus, fit, ubi prius, & maximè est ipsum velle. Sine ullo quippe intervallo temporis praesto est voluntas ipsa cum volumus: sed hanc quoque ad benè vivendum desuper accipimus potestatem, cum praeparatur voluntas à Domino. Aug. Retract. lib. 2. cap. 1.  in his Retractations; That (saith he) was spoken, because we do not say, that any thing is in our power, but that which is done when we will. Where first, and chiefly is to will itself. For immediately without any distance of time the will itself is present, when we will. But this power also to live well, we receive from above, when the will is prepared of the Lord. Thus careful was that good Father to prevent the mistaking of his words, lest any should think that he did ascribe any thing to the power of freewill, in that which is good.  
So much for Austin; the next Father alleged is Ambrose, who in the place cited, viz. in Luk. 12. hath nothing above freewill, that I can find. After him follows chrysostom, who indeed in the place, that is alleged, goes far in his expressions concerning freewill, as 
Quia ergo liberi arbitrii esse nostram naturam fecit omnium Dominus, ipse quidem, quae sua sunt, omnia pro suâ misericordiâ semper exhibet.— Et necessitatem utique non imponit, sed congruis remediis appositis totum jacere in aegrotantis sententiâ dimittit. Chrysost. Hom. 19 in Gen.  if God only did afford means, and so leave it in the power of man to use them, or not, as he pleaseth.  
If therefore I except against his testimony in this point, I have no mean men of the Church of Rome to bear me out. I know 
* Hunc patrem nobis Calvinus libenter concedit, quòd ei iminus visus sit in liberi arbitrii viribus praedicandis. At imperitiam suam opertè prodit, etc. Bell. de great. et lib. arb. l. 5. c. 25.  Bellarmine seems to take it as a matter of great advantage, that Calvin stands not here so much upon chrysostom, as one that did too much extol the power of freewill. But was this only calvin's judgement of chrysostom? Did not some of the Romanists themselves also think thus of him? 
† S. Chrysostomus nonnunquam vires nostri liberi arbitrii mirum in modum extollit, loquendo quasi iper hyperbolen ex contentione impugnandi Manicheorum, & gentilium errores etc. Alvar. de auxil. disp. 22. Sect. 33.  S. Chrysostom (saith Alvarez a Romish Archbishop, and a great Schoolman) sometimes doth wonderfully extol the power of our freewill, speaking as it were hyperbolically, whiles he strives to impugn the errors of the Manichees, and of the Gentiles, who held that Man is still by nature (as he was first created of God) or that by the violence of fate he is compelled to sin. So also jansenius (a Romish Bishop, to whom also Alvarez doth refer us) having mentioned something of Euthymius, and 
Quae dicta à Chrysostomi locutione in variis locis ferè desumpta, nisi cautè legantur, & intelligantur, praebere possunt occasionem erroris Pelagii, qui asseruit initium fidei, & justificationis esse ex nobis, consummationem verò ex Deo, etc. Chrysostomus sanè optim è sentiens de Dei gratiâ, etc. tamen multa scripsit contra Manichaeum in commendationem liberi arbitrii, pleraque illi tribuens sine commemoratione gratiae Divinae, quae non sic scripsisset, si praevidere potuisset exorituram Pelagii haeresin, quae tum adhuc non erat exorta, vel illi cognita. jansen. Concord. cap. 59  Theophylact, he saith, that those passages were taken from chrysostom, and that except they be warily read, and understood, they may give occasion of falling into the error of Pelagius, who held that the beginning of faith, and justification is from ourselves, and the consummation from God, etc. chrysostom (he saith) meant well concerning the grace of God, yet he wrote many things against the Manichees in commendation of freewill, attributing most things unto it without making any mention of God's Grace; which things he would not have written in that manner, if he could have foreseen that Pelagius his heresy would arise, which as then was not risen, or not known unto men. Thus were see how these Authors, though they excuse Chrysostom's meaning, yet dislike his expression. But some amongst those of the Roman Church have gone further in their censure of chrysostom, as 
* Quid am respondent, etc. Chrysostomum, cum intelligere non valeret, quanam ratione libertas arbitrii nostri salva posset consistere, si Deus suâ gratiâ nostram praeveniret electionem, credidisse, electionem, quâ primò acceptamus bona, eáque facere decernimus, esse priorem ipsâ Dei gratiâ, posteà verò subsequi gratiam, quâ adjuvamur, & nobis coaperatur Deus. Alvar. loc. citat.  Alvarez relates, viz. that he held, that election, whereby we first accept those things, that are good, and resolve to do them, is before the grace of God, and that then grace doth follow after, whereby we are helped, and God doth cooperate with us. To this pur-pose I find Tolet, a Jesuit first, and afterwards 
Toletus in Joh. 6. agnoscit Chrysostomi hanc esse sententiam, hominem per liberum arbitrium seipsum facere dignum gratiâ; eandem esse Cyrilli, aliorum etiam doctorum, maximè Graecorum. Cbam. tom. 3. l. 3. c. 16. Sect. 11.  a Cardinal, cited by Chamier, though I have not his Book now at hand to peruse. And this may suffice for answer to chrysostom, yea and to those other two Fathers also, that follow, viz. Irenaeus and Cyrill, the latter of these being by name, and both of them implicitly excepted against by some of the Romanists themselves, as appears by what is cited in the margin, as also by the reasons alleged by Alvarez, and jansenius, why chrysostom did exceed at least in his expressions, viz. because he was so earnest against the Manichees and others, and knew nothing of the contrary error of the Pelagians, which reasons might transport the other Fathers also. It is true (saith Alvarez) that S. chrysostom, and other Fathers, that wrote before the Heresy of Pelagius was risen up, did speak 
Verum est, quòd S. Chrysostomus, & alii Patres qui ante exortam haeresin Pelagii scripserunt, pauca de gratiâ Christi, & plurima pro confirmandâ arbitrii libertate contra haeresin Manichaeorum docuerunt, quod & S. Augustinus advertit, etc. Alvar. disp. 22. Sect. 22.  little of the grace of Christ, and much for the confirming of the liberty of the will against the heresy of the Manichees. He adds that Austin also in his writings against the Pelagians did observe this, and he citys his words to this purpose. Yea, he shows that Austin in his Retractations was fain to answer in like manner for himself, when as the Pelagians did make use of his former writings against the Manichees, thereby to maintain their opinion concerning the power of freewill in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of God's Grace. Thus likewise jansenius saith, that after the Pelagian heresy was risen, 
Itaque Augustinus exortâ jam haeresi Pelagianâ, exactiùs & expressiùs locutus est de Dei gratiâ, etc. Jansen. concord. cap. 59  than Austin spoke more exactly, and more expressly of the Grace of God. The Jesuit 
* Ammonius, Cyrillus, Theophylactus, & Euthymius, respondent non omnes trahi, quia non omnes digni sunt. Quod nimis affine est Pelagianorum errori. Quasi verò homo antequam per gratiam ad gratiam trahatur, mereri possit gratiam, quod est dignum fieri, qui trahatur. Maldon. in job. 6. 44.  Maldonate doth tell us, that Ammonius, and Cyrill, Theophylact, and Euthymius so expound that, No man cometh unto me except the Father draw him, that they come too nigh the error of Pelagius, viz. that all are not drawn, because all are not worthy, as if (saith he) before a man be drawn by grace unto grace, he could deserve grace, which is to be worthy to be drawn.  
But though Irenaeus, and Cyrill be liable to these exceptions, yet I see nothing in the 
Si igitur non in nobis esset facere haec, aut non facere, quam causam habebat Apostolus, & multo prius ipse Dominus consilium dare, quaedam quidem facere, à quibusdam verò abstinere? Iren. lib. 4. cap. 72.  places cited by the marquis, wherein they make against us. Irenaeus saith thus, If it were not in us to do these things, or not to do them, why did the Apostle, and before him the Lord himself counsel us to do some things, and to abstain from other things? Here Irenaeus indeed showeth that it is in us to do, or not to do, but he doth not say that it is in nobis ex nobis, in us of ourselves, by the power of our freewill to do things truly good. He adds immediately, that man from the beginning is free, as God, after whose likeness he was made, is free. Now this 
Sed quoniam liberae sententiae ab initio est homo, & liberae sententiae est Deus, ad cujus similitudinem factus est, semper consilium datur ei continere bonum, etc. Ibid.  doth rather make against our adversaries then for them; for it shows, that the freedom of man's will doth not consist in this, that he is free either to do good, or to do evil, seeing that God is not free in that manner, he being only free to do good, but altogether uncapable of doing evil. So man being determined by grace to that, which is good, yet is free, because not constrained nor forced against his will, in the doing of it: and so on the other side he is free in doing evil, though of himself without grace he can do nothing but evil. As for the other Fathers, viz. Cyrill, that which he saith in the place alleged, is this, we cannot according to the doctrine of the Church, 
Non possumus secundum Ecclesiae veritatisque dogmata, liberam potestatem hominis, quod liberum arbitrium appellatur, ullo modo negare. Cyr. in job. l. 4. c. 7.  and of the truth, by any means deny the free power of man, which is called freewill. This is nothing against us, who do not (as hath been showed before) simply deny freewill, but only so as our adversaries of the Church of Rome do maintain it. To that which is in controversy betwixt us, and our adversaries, cyril here saith nothing, and therefore his testimony is not to the purpose. And so much for freewill.  
In the next place, we hold it possible (saith the marquis) to 
Page 65.  keep the Commandments; you say it is impossible. We have Scripture for it. Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the Commandments, and Ordinances of the Lord, blameless. And 1 Joh. 5. 3. His Commandments are not grievous.  
For keeping the Commandments we hold, not that it is simply impossible, but that according to that measure of grace, which God doth ordinarily bestow upon men here in this life, it is not possible to keep them, viz. so as not to be guilty of the breach of them. If a man could fully and perfectly keep the Commandments, than he should be without sin; for sin is nothing else but a transgression of the Law, as Saint john defines it, 1 john 3. 4. But the Scripture shows that no man in this life is so perfect as to be without sin. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not, saith Solomon, Eccles. 7. 20. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, saith Saint john, 1 John 1. 8. In many things we offend all, saith Saint james, jam. 3. 2. And Christ hath taught all to pray for forgiveness of sins, Mat. 6. 12. which supposeth that all, even the best that live upon earth, have need of it, that they are guilty of sins, and so consequently come short of the full, and perfect keeping of God's Commandments. Bellarmine thinks to elude these 
Solida responsio est, peccata venialia, sine quibus non vivimus, non esle peccata simpliciter, sed imperfectè, & secundum quid, neque esse contra legem, sed praeter legem, etc. Bell. de justif. lib. 4 cap. 14.  places, by saying, That we cannot indeed live without Venial sins, but that Venial sins are not sins simply, but only imperfectly, and in some respect; and that they are not against the Law, but only besides it.  
But first, Venial sins are against the Law, as being transgressions of it; for else they are no sins at all, that being the very nature of sin, to be a transgression of the Law, 1 john 3. 4.  
2. There are no sins so venial, but that without the mercy of God in Christ they are damnable. It being written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, that are written in the book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10.  
And thirdly, no man living upon earth is free from such sins, as that he is able to stand, if God shall enter into judgement with him. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord who shall stand? Psal. 130. 3. Enter not into judgement with thy servant; for in thy fight shall no man living be justified, Psal. 143. 2.  
The Fathers here are on our side; Hierome having cited that of our Saviour, Out of the hearts of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, etc. adds, Let him come forth, that 
Procedat, quî in cord suo haec non esse testetur, & plenam in corpore isto mortali justitiam confitebor. Hier. dial. advers. Pelag. l. 2.  can testify that these things are not in his heart, and I will confess that full and perfect righteousness may be in this mortal body. Who is there (saith Leo) so free from fault, that there 
Quis invenitur ita immunis à culpâ, ut in co non habeat vel justitia quod arguat, vel misericordia quod remittat? Leo Ser. 7. the solen. Epiphan. Nihil peccare, solius est Dei.— Qui carnem gerit, culpae obnoxius est. Ambros. lib. 1. Epist. 3.  is not in him that, which either justice may condemn, or mercy may pardon? In no thing to sin, is proper unto God, saith Ambrose. He means that no man in this life can attain unto that perfection; for so he adds presently after, He that bears about him flesh (a mortal body) is subject unto sin.  
Thus also Austin, Who is there (saith he) 
Quis est in hâc vitâ sic mundus, ut non sit magis magisque mundandus? Aug. tract. 80. in joh.  in this life so clean, but that he hath need to be made yet more and more clean? And again, The Church (saith he) in this life is so cleansed, not that they that are justified have no mainders of sin in them, but that they 
Sic mundatur Ecclesia in hâc vitâ, non ut justificati nullas in se habeant peccati reliquias, sed ut maculam criminis, & rugam non habeant falsitatis. Aug. contra jul. l. 4. c. 3.  have not any spot of criminal offence, nor any wrinkle of falsehood. Accordingly speaks Gregory, In this life (saith he) many are without criminal offences, but none 
In hâc vitâ multi sine crimine, nullus verò esse sine peccato valet.— Nonnulla peccata animam polluunt, quam crimina extinguunt. Greg in job. lib. 21. cap. 10.  can be without sin. And presently after he says, that these sins, which none can be without, do pollute the soul, though they do not destroy it. Bernard interprets that of Saint john, He that is born of God 
Non peccat, id est, non permanet in peccato.— Sive non peccat, id est, tantundem est, ac si non peccet, pro eo scilicet quod non imputatur ei peccatum. Bern. in Septuag●s. Ser. 1.  sinneth not, 1 john 3. 9 thus, He sinneth not, that is, he doth not continue in sin. Or thus, He sinneth not, that is, it is as much as if he did not sin, because sin is not imputed unto him. And elsewhere he expressly yieldeth 
Nec latuit praeceptorem, praecepti pondus hominum excedere vires, sed judicavit utile ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficientiae admoneri, & ut scirent sanè ad quem justitiae finem niti pro viribus oporteret. Ergo mandando impossibilia non praevaricatores homines fecit, sed humiles, ut omne os obstruatur, & subditus fiat omnis mundus Deo, quia ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram illo. Accipientes quippe mandatum, & sentientes defectum clamabimus in coelum, & miserebitur nostri Deus; & sciemus in illo die, quia non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. Bern. in Cant. Ser. 50.  that God's Commandments are more than any can fully and perfectly observe. The Commander (saith he) was not ignorant, that the command did exceed men's strength, but he judged it profitable, that they should be admonished of their insufficiency, and that they should know, to what perfection of righteousness they ought to endeavour as they are able; Therefore by commanding things impossible, he did not make men prevaricatours, but humble, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be subject unto God: because by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified before him. For receiving the Commanment, and feeling a defect, we shall cry towards Heaven, and God will have mercy on us; and we shall know in that day, that not by the works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us.  
Thus also some of the Church of Rome, that have written since Luther's time, have acknowledged, that none in this life are free from sin, nor able to abide the judgement of God by their own righteousness, which is in effect to acknowledge that none do perfectly keep God's Commandments. Thus 
* Multum quidem peccatorum habent adhuc, sed nihil damnationis, quia apud Deum mundi reputantur propter fidem in Christum. Ferus in joh. 13 10.  Ferus speaking of such as are justified, saith that they have indeed yet many sins, but no condemnation, because they are reputed clean for their faith in Christ. 
† Nemo enim quantumvis sanctus, immunis est à peccato, quamdiù vivit in hoc seculo.— Opus igitur habent quotidianâ purgatione. Ferus in joh. 5. 2.  And again, No man (saith he) how holy soever, is free from sin, so long as he lives in this World. Therefore all have need to be purged daily. So also 
* Quare cum nemo sit perfectè justus apud Deum, justi & puri judicii metus omnes terrere debet. Genebr. in Psa. 142. (vel. 143) 2.  Genebrard, Seeing (saith he) that none is perfectly righteous before God, the fear of his just and pure judgement ought to affright all. That is his comment upon the words of David, Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord, etc. Psal. 143. 2. Now for those two places of Scripture, which the marquis allegeth, they come far short of proving that possibility of keeping Gods Commandments, which we deny. As for that Luk. 1. 6. it shows indeed that Zacharias and Elizabeth had respect unto all God's Commandments as all aught to have, Psal. 119. 6. but it doth not show, that they did perfectly keep all God's Commandments. Hierome long ago answered the Pelagians objecting 
Justi appellantur, non quòd omni vitio careant, sed quòd majori patte virtutum commendentur. Hieron. adv. Pelagiau. ad Ctesiphont.  these very persons, and others spoken of in Scripture as righteous, that they are called righteous, not that they were without fault, but because they were for most part virtuous. And I marvel how any can allege the example of Zacharias, as one that did perfectly keep the Commandments, (though I know Bellarmine 
Bell. de justific. lib. 4. cap. 11.  to this purpose doth allege it) when as in that very Chapter, viz. Luk. 1. is related how he sinned in not believing the message, which by an Angel God sent unto him, and how he was punished, and became dumb a long time for it. The other place, viz. 1 joh. 5. 3. only shows that the Children of God do willingly and cheerfully obey the will of God, not that they do fully and perfectly obey it. I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, saith David, Psal. 119. 14. I will delight myself in thy statutes. v. 1. 6. The Law of thy mouth is better unto me then thousands of gold and silver. v. 72. How sweet are thy words unto my taste? yea sweeter than honey to my mouth. v. 103. More to be desired are they then gold, yea then much fine gold; sweeter also than Hony, and the Honey comb, Psal. 19 10. yet presently he adds, who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. vers. 12. And elsewhere he complains, saying, Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up: they are more than the hairs of my head. Psal. 40. 12. And again, Iniquities prevail against me. Psal. 65. 3. And (as before noted) he cries out, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, etc. Psal. 143. 2. The History of his life recorded in Scriptures evidently shows, that though God's Commandments were as little grievous unto him, as to any, yet he came short of a full and perfect observance of them.  
The marquis adds, The Fathers are for us. Orig. Hom. 9 in Ios. S. Cyrill lib. 4. contra julian. S. Hil. in Psal. 1 18. S. Hieron. lib. 3. contra Pelag. S. Basil. But I have showed already what little cause our adversaries have in this point to boast of the Fathers, and that both Hierome, whom the marquis here citeth, and also divers others assert the same that we do. To those before mentioned I may add another of these here alleged against us, viz. 
† Propheta in corpore positus loquitur, & neminem viventium scit sine peccato esse posse. Unum meminisle, qui peccatum non fecit, neque dolus inventus est in ore ejus. Hil. in Ps. 118. vel 119. v. 39  Hilary, who in Psal. 118. saith that none living is without sin, only one (viz. Christ) did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.  
Therefore when as 
* Latum igitur mandatum Dei est, etc. ut non difficile sit, si voluntas adsit, praecepto Dei obtemperare, Hil. in Psal. 118. (vel. 119.) 96.  Hilary saith upon those words Psalm 119. 96. thy Commandment is exceeding broad, that it is no hard matter, if will be present, to obey God's Commandment: he speaks of such an obedience, not which is every way complete and perfect, (for then it should be easy to live without sin) but which God will accept, as he will that which is sincere, though it be imperfect. Otherwise even upon those very words 
* Latum planè est (mandatum) quòd in infinitum cognitionem humanae ignorantiae excedit. Hil. Ibid.  Hilary showeth that man cannot perfectly obey God's Commanments, saying, that they are so broad, that they infinitely exceed the shallowness of man's knowledge. If man's knowledge cannot reach to the full extent of God's Commandments, much less can his practice do it. So that which Hierome saith, though it may seem to be against us, yet indeed it is not. God (saith he) hath commanded things possible. (So the Pelagian 
Deus possibilia mandavit; hoc nulli dubium est. Hier. advers. Pelag. l. 3.  objected, he answers) this none doubts of. He grants it; but how? No otherwise, for any thing I can see, then as we do grant it, viz. that God, if he please can give such a measure of grace unto men, as to enable them perfectly to do all that is commanded.  
But 
* Sed quia homines possibilia non faciunt, iccircò omnis mundus subditus est Deo, & indiget misericordiâ ejus; aut certè si ostendere potueris, qui universa compleverit, tunc poteris demonstrare esse hominem, qui non indiget misericordiâ Dei.— Monstra factum esse de praeterito, aut certè nunc fieri. Hier. Ibid.  Hierome immediately after shows, that none either doth, or ever did so, and that therefore all are guilty before God, and stand in need of his mercy. If (saith he) thou canst show any, that hath fulfilled all things required than thou canst show one that doth not needs Gods merey, show that this hath been, or that it now is. So when Cyrill saith that even that precept, Thou shalt not covet, may be fulfilled by grace, he doth not oppose us, nor we him. For we doubt not but God is able to give grace whereby to fulfil it; but we deny that any (only Christ excepted) ever had such grace as whereby to fulfil it. Basil is cited at large, no place being noted where he saith any thing about this point; only in Bellarmine I find that upon those words 
Bell. de Justifi. lib. 4. cap. 12.  Take heed to thyself he saith, that it is a wicked thing to say that the precepts of the Spirit are impossible. Which we yield; so far forth as any have the Spirit, they may perform them: but none have the Spirit in such full measure as to be able fully to perform whatsoever is commanded. Origen in the place cited, compares them to Women, who say that they cannot keep Gods Commandments. Which must be understood of keeping them so as to have respect unto them, and to study and endeavour to keep them. For otherwise if we speak of an exact and perfect keeping of the Commandments, both men and women, even the best upon Earth, are far from it. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, (saith the Apostle) and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would. Gal. 5. 17.  
We hold (saith the marquis) faith cannot justify without 
Page 65.  works. Ye say, good works are not absolutely necessary unto salvation. We have Scripture for what we say. 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith, and have no Charity, I am nothing. And James 2. 24. By Works a Man is justified, and not by Faith only.  
Answ. Protestants in opposition to them of the Church of Rome hold that Faith alone doth justify, and that Works do not concur with Faith unto justification. Yet withal they hold that Faith which doth justify, is not alone without works. 
* Jo. Calvinus in Antidoto Concilii ad can. 11. Sess 6. Sola, inquit, sides est quae justificat, sed sides tamen quae justificat, non est sola. Sicut calor solis solus est, qui terram calefacit, ipse tamen calor non est solus in sole, sed cum splendore. Idem docent Philippus tum in locis, tum in Apologiâ confess. Brentius in Catechismo, Chemnitius in Exam. Concilii, & alii. Bell de justif. lib. 1. cap. 14.  Bellarmine confesseth that Calvin hath these very words, It is Faith alone that doth justify, but yet Faith which doth justify, is not alone. As the heat of the Sun alone is that which doth heat the Earth, yet heat is not alone in the Sun, but there is light also joined with it. And he adds that Melancthon, Brentius, Chemnitius, and other Protestants teach the same thing.  
Therefore by Bellarmine's own confession Protestant's are no enemies unto good works. Neither are they any whit injurious unto them in excluding them from having a share in justification, as the Romanists are injurious unto Faith in making works copartners with it in that respect. We conclude (saith S. Paul) That a Man is justified by Faith, without the deeds of the Law. Rom. 3. 28. And in the next Chapter the Apostle proves by the example of Abraham that justification is by Faith without Works. For what saith the Scripture, Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Rom. 4. 3. He confirms it also by the words of David; Even as David also describes the blessedness of the man, to whom God imputeth righteousness without Works, saying, blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, etc. Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. men's works are imperfect, and so is all that righteousness of man, that is inherent in him, as hath been showed before: and therefore by his own works, and his own righteousness can none be justified. By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified. Rom. 3. 20. Bellarmine would have the 
Bell. de justif. lib. 1. cap. 19  Apostle, when he excludes Works from justification, only to understand such works as are done by the mere knowledge of the Law without grace. But this cannot be his meaning.  
For, 1. when David cried out, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified, Psal. 143. 2. he shows that works, whatsoever they be, are unable to justify a man in the sight of God. For it were most absurd and irrational to imagine that David then doth only deprecate Gods entering into judgement with him in respect of the Works, which he did without the assistance of God's grace.  
2. The Apostle proves that justification is by Faith without Works, by that of David, Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. Now the best man that is upon Earth, hath need of this; that his iniquities may be forgiven, his sins covered, and his transgressions not imputed unto him, seeing there is no man (as I have showed before) but iniquities, sins and transgressions are found in him. Therefore though a man be regenerate and sanctified, yet his works are not such, as that he can be justified by them.  
3. The Apostle Gal. 3. 10. proves that none can be justified by the deeds of the Law, because it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. Now no man though endued with grace, and that in great measure, doth continue in all things that the Law requireth, as hath also been showed before. Therefore Works as well with grace, as without grace are unable to justify. But when our adversaries speak of justification, they equivocate, making it indeed the same with sanctification. 
* Nova haec, Whitakere, theologia est, nos per gratiam infusam, vitae novitatem, ac sanctitatem adipisci, minimè tamen justificari. At quae te, obsecro, Scriptura docuit justificationem à sanctificatione distinguere▪ Dur. coutra Whitak.  Dureus the Jesuit calls this new Divinity, to say, that by grace infused into us, we get newness of life, and sanctification, but yet are not thereby justified. And he asks what Scripture doth teach us to distinguish justification from sanctification. Truly, I think that these two, viz, justification and sanctification, are sufficiently distinguished, 1 Cor. 6. 11. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified, in the Name of the Lord jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. There the Apostle shows that they were washed, viz. both from the stain of sin by sanctification, which was wrought in them by the Spirit of God infusing grace into them, and also from the guilt of sin by justification, which they obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus.  
Besides, the Scripture opposeth justification to condemnation, and showeth that to justify is as much as to absolve and acquit from guilt, to account and pronounce righteous. Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just; even they both are an abomination to the Lord. There to justify and to condemn are opposed-one to the other; and to justify is to repute just, not to make just; for so it should be no abomination to justify the wicked, but a very good work. For he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, etc. james 5. 20. So Isai. 5. 23. They are taxed, who justify the wicked for a reward. Thus also God is said to justify, Isai. 50. 8. He is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me? And Rom. 8. 33, 34. who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? it is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, etc. But (saith 
* Quando Deus justificat impium, declarando justum, facit etiam justum, quoniam judicium Dei secundum veritatem est. Bell. de justif. l. 2. c. 3.  Bellarmine) when God doth justify the wicked, by declaring him just, he doth also make him just: because the judgement of God is according to truth. I answer, true it is, whom God doth justify them also he doth sanctify, yet it doth not follow that these two, viz. to justify, and to sanctify are one and the same. David was a man truly sanctified, yet he knew and acknowledged that his righteousness, whereby he was sanctified, was not such, as that he could be justified by it, and therefore cried, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, etc. Psal. 143. 2. And, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, etc. Psal. 32. 1, 2. yet is God's judgement nevertheless according to truth, when he accounteth those righteous, and imputeth no sin unto them, who still have sin in them, and so cannot be justified by their own righteousness, because they whom God justifieth, by faith are united unto Christ, as members of his Body, and so Christ's righteousness is their righteousness, and though not in themselves, yet in Christ they are completely righteous. He is called The Lord our righteousness. jer. 23. 6. And says the Apostle, In him ye are complete. Col. 2. 10. wherefore he desired to be found in him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness, which is of God by faith. Phil. 3. 9 And thus we hold that faith doth justify, not formally, but instrumentally, not because of itself, but because of its object, viz. Christ and his righteousness, which faith apprehendeth and applieth. For by faith we receive Christ. joh. 1. 12. And Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith. Ephes. 3. 17. Divers of the Church of Rome since the beginning of Reformation, in this great point touching justification have inclined to us. Ferus I cited before, saying 
Page 136.  that Believers have yet much sin, but no condemnation, because through faith in Christ they are reputed clean. Cardinal Contarenus his works I have not, neither can I allege him of mine own knowledge, but his words as I find them cited by 
* Amesius against Bellarmine lib. 6. the justif. cap. 1. Thess. 1.  another, are very full for our purpose. Because (saith he) we come unto a twofold righteousness by faith, a righteousness inherent in us, etc. and the righteousness of Christ given, and imputed to us, in that we are ingraffed into Christ, and put on Christ, it remains to inquire, whether of these we must rely upon, that we may be justified before God, that is accounted holy and just. I do altogether hold, that it is piously and Christianly said, that we ought to reply, as on a thing that is stable, and doth surely support us, on the righteousness of Christ given unto us, and not on that holiness and grace, which is inherent in us. For this righteousness of ours is but inchoated and imperfect; which cannot preserve us so, but that in many things we offend, and sin continually. Therefore for this righteousness of ours we cannot be accounted righteous and good in the sight of God, so as it should become the sons of God to be good and holy. But the righteousness of Christ given unto us is true and perfect righteousness, which doth altogether please the eyes of God, in which there is nothing that may offend God, nothing which cannot fully please him. On this therefore alone, as sure and stable, must we rely, and for it alone must we believe that we are justified before God, that is, accounted and called just. I see not why we should desire more in point of justification than this amounts to. Pighius also a stout Champion of the Church of Rome, is as full and express for that, which we make the formal cause of justification, as any can 
Constat planè quae de nobis omnibus foret sententia, si Deus voluisset districto nobiscum judicio agere: si non misericordissimè nobis succurrisset in filio, & nostrâ justitiâ vacuos ejus involvisset justitiâ. Pigh. de fide & justifis. controv. 2.  be. It is clear (saith he) what sentence we should all have, if God would have dealt with us in strict judgement: if he had not most mercifully succoured us in his Son, and had not involved and wrapped us in his righteousness, we having none of our own that will serve our turn. And again, In him therefore are we justified, not in ourselves; not 
In illo ergo justificamur coram Deo, non in nobis; non nostrâ, sed illius justitiâ, quae nobis cum illo communicantibus imputatur. Propriae justitiae inopes, extra nos in illo docemur justitiam quaerere. Pigh. Ibid.  with our own, but with his righteousness, which by reason of our communion with Him is imputed unto us. Being empty of our own righteousness we are taught to seek righteousness out of ourselves in him. 
† In Christi autem obedientiâ, quòd nostra collocatur justitia, inde est, quòd nobis illi incorporatis, ac si nostra esset, accepta ea fertur, ita ut câ ipsâ etiam nos justi habeamur. Et velut ille quondam jacob, quum nativitate primogenitus non esset, sub habitu fratris occultatus, atque ejus veste indutus, quae odorem optimum spirabat, seipsum insinuavit patri, ut sub alienâ personâ benedictionem primò geniturae acciperet: Ita & nos sub Christi primo geniti fratris nostri pretiosâ puritate delitescere, bono ejus odore fragrare, ejus perfectione vitia nostra sepeliri, & obtegi, atque ita nos piissimo patri ingerere, ut justitiae benedictionem ab eodem assequamur necesse est. Pigh. ibid.  And again, That our righteousness is placed in Christ's obedience, it is from hence, that we being incorporated into Him, it is reckoned as if it were ours, so that because of it we are accounted righteous. And immediately he adds, that as jacob being clothed with the robes of his elder brother, obtained the blessing of his Father: so we must be clothed with the righteousness of Christ our elder brother, that God may bestow the blessing of justification upon us.  

* Justificat ergo nos Deus pater bonitate suâ gratuitâ, quâ nos in Christo complectitur, dum eidem insertos innocentiâ & justitiâ Christi nos induit: quae una ut vera, & perfecta est, quae Dei sustinere conspectum potest, ita unam pro nobis sisti oportet tribunali Divini judicii, etc. Pigh. Ibid.  And again, God doth justify us (saith he) of his free-goodnes, whereby he doth embrace us in Christ, whiles that he clothes us being ingraffed into him with Christ's innocency and righteousness; which as it is alone true and perfect, able to endure the sight of God, so it alone must be presented for us at the tribunal of God's judgement.  
This, and much more to this purpose hath 
Quoniam dissimulare non possumus, hanc primam Doctrinae Christianae partem, obscuratam, quam illustratam magis, à scholasticis, spinosis plerisque quaestionibus, & definitionibus, secundum quas nonnulli primam in omnibus authoritatem sibi arrogantes, & de omnibus facilè pronuntiantes, fortassis etiam nostram hanc damnarent sententiam, quâ propriam, & quae ex suis operibus esset, coram Deo justitiam, derogamus omnibus Adae filiis, & docuimus unâ Dei in Christo niti nos posse justitiâ, unâ illâ justos esse coram Deo, destitutos propriâ, nisi hoc ipsum astruxissemus aliquantò diligentiùs, Pigh. Ibid.  Pighius, and he saith that he could not dissemble that this prime part of Christian Doctrine was rather obscured, then illustrated by the Schoolmen, with thorny questions and definitions, and therefore he was the more diligent in the handling of this point, showing that none of the sons of Adam can be justified before God by their own righteousness, and their own works, but that all must rely only on the righteousness of God in Christ, and that by it alone they being destitute of a righteousness of their own, are righteous before God. Pighius is so plain, and home in this point, that Bellarmine 
Bell. de justif. l. 2. c. 1.  doth censure him as erroneous in it. And yet so powerful and prevalent it truth, that it extorted even from Bellarmine himself this confession, That because of the uncertainty of a man's own righteousness, and 
Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, & periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in solâ Dei misericordiâ & benignitate reponere. Bell. de justif, lib. 5. cap. 7.  the danger of vain glory it is most safe to repose all confidence only in God's Mercy and Goodness. By his own confession than it is most safe in matter of justification to renounce Works, and to fly only to Faith in the Lord Jesus. The ancient Fathers also give testimony to this truth. Hilary hath these 
Hil. in Mat. can. 8.  very words, Fides sola iustificat, i. e. Faith alone doth justify. 
† 
Tanta est justitia nostra in hâc vitâ, ut potius remissione peccatorum constet, quam perfectione virtutum. Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 19 cap. 22.  
Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remotâ misericordiâ discutias eam. Aug. Confess. lib. 9 cap. 13.  
Quantumlibet rectus mihi videar, producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam, & coaptas me ad eam, & pravus invenior. Aug in Psal. 142. (vel 143.) 2.   Austin in effect says the same, when he saith, Our righteousness in this life is so great, that it consists rather in forgiveness of sins, then in perfection of virtues. And so when he saith, Woe even to the landable life of men, if thou (O Lord) laying aside mercy shall enter into the examination of it. To this purpose also is that which he saith upon those words of David, Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord, etc. How right soever (saith he) I think myself, thou bringest forth a rule out of thy treasure, and triest me by it, and I am found crooked. Thus also 
* Domine memorabor justitiae tuae solius; ipsa enim est & mea. Nempe factus es mihi tu justitia à Deo. Numquid mihi verendum, ne non una ambobus sufficiat? Non est pallium breve, quod non possit operire duos. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 61.  Bernard, Lord (saith he) I will make mention of thy righteousness only; for it also is mine, seeing that thou of God art made unto me righteousness. Must I fear lest this one righteousness will not suffice us both? No, it is not a short cloak, that cannot cover two. And again, It is sufficient for me unto all righteousness, to have him only propitious, 
Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium, cui soli peccavi, Non peccare Dei justitia est, hominis justitia, indulgentia Dei. Ber. in Cant. Ser. 23.  against whom only I have sinned. Not to sin is God's righteousness, man's righteousness is God's indulgence. Thus then in the point of justification we have both Scriptures and Fathers: yea and divers Papists also concurring with us. As for the two places of Scripture alleged by the marquis; the former, viz. that 1 Corin. 13. 2. speaketh not of justifying Faith, but of a Faith of working miracles, as is clear by the words themselves being fully cited. which run thus, Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Oecumen. 1 Cor. 13.  Oecumenius upon the place notes that by Faith there is not meant that Faith, which is common to all Believers, but a Faith peculiar to such as had the gift of working miracles. And though 
† Rectè Graeci eam intelligunt fidem, de quâ cap. 13. Si habuere omnem fidem, etc. Graeci fidem signorum, & miraculorum appellant. Et haec fides secundum se, tantùm est gratia gratis data, hoc est, ad aliorum utilitatem propriè concessa, etc. Estius ad 1 Cor. 12. 9  Estius (a learned Romanist) in his Commentary upon the place seek to draw it another way, yet commenting upon 1 Cor. 12. 9 he saith that the Greek Expositors do rightly understand it of that Faith, which is spoken of Chap. 13. If I have all Faith, etc. that is, of the Faith of signs, and miracles, as they call it, which Faith (he saith) is not properly a sanctifying grace, but only such a grace as is given for the benefit of others.  
The other place, viz. Jam. 2. 24. doth seem to make against us, but indeed it doth not. For S. james saying that a man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only, means only thus, as 
* Non fide sterili, sed faecundâ operibus justificamur. Cajetan: in jac. 2.  Cajetan himself doth expound it, that we are not justified by a barren Faith, but by a Faith, which is fruitful in good Works.  
This appears to be his meaning by his whole discourse from vers. 14. to the end of the Chapter, wherein he bends himself against those, who presume of such a faith as is without works: and more specially, it may appear by the verses immediately preceding, wherein he saith, that Abraham was justified by works, when he offered up Isaac; and that Faith wrought with his works, and by works was Faith made perfect: and the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Now this clearly shows that Abraham was justified by Faith, and not by works, only his works did show, that his Faith was a true justifying Faith indeed, and not, as it is in many that pretend and profess Faith, a vain show of Faith, and a mere shadow of it. For that, which S. james citeth, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, was, as appears by the story in the book of Genesis, long before that Abraham offered up Isaac; and by those very words Saint Paul proveth, Rom. 4. that we are justified by Faith, and not by Works. Therefore when S. james saith that by Abraham's offering up of Isaac that Scripture was fulfilled, the meaning is, that thereby it did appear that it was truly said of Abraham, that he believed God, and it was counted unto him For righteousness, his readiness in that work to obey God, did demonstrate that he believed God indeed, and that his faith was of a right stamp. Thus also is it said, that by works faith was made perfect, viz. even as the Lord said unto Paul, My strength is made perfect in weakness, 2 Cor. 12. 9 that is, God's strength doth exercise itself, and show how great it is, in man's weakness. So Abraham's works did show how great his faith was; in this sense his works did make his faith perfect, not that they did add any thing unto it, no more than man's weakness doth add unto God's strength.  
This opinion of yours (saith the marquis) S. Aug. de fide & oper. cap. 14. saith was an old heresy, in the Apostles time: and in the Preface of his comment upon the 32. Psal. he calls it the right way to hell, and damnation. See Origan 5. to the Rom. S. Hilar. chap. 7. in Mat. S. Ambr. 4. add Heb.  
Answ. 
* Quarè jam illud videamus, quod excutiendum est à cordibus religiosis, ne malâ securitate salutem suam perdant, si ad eam obtinendam sufficere solam fidem putaverint, benè autem vivere, & bonis operibus viam Dei tenere neglexerint. Aug. de fid. & oper. c. 14.  Austin de fid. & oper. c. 14. speaks nothing against our Opinion, but something for it. That which he speaketh by way of reproof is against those, who so think that Faith alone will suffice, as that they heed not to do good works, nor to order their life and conversation aright. But this is nothing to us, who are far from holding such a Faith as that sufficient. But in the same place Austin hath this for our purpose, that when the Apostle saith that a Man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law, he did not intend that the Works of Righteousness should be contemned, but 
Cum ergò dicit Apostolus, arbitrari se justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis, non hoc agit, ut praeceptâ & professâ fide opera justitiae contemnantur, sed ut sciat se quisque per fidem posse justificari, etiamsi legis opera non praecesserint. Sequuntur enim justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum, Aug. Ibid.  that every one should know, that he may be justified by faith, though the works of the Law did not go before. For (saith he) they follow a man being justified, they do not go before a man being to be justified. If (as this Father affirmeth) a man must first be justified, before he can do good works; then good works are no cause of justification, but an effect of it. For the other place of Austin, which the marquis allegeth, there is none such, that I can find, viz. no preface of his comment upon Psal. 32. but in the comment itself I find this, which makes for us. Dost thou not hear the Apostle, The just shall live 
Non audisti Apostolum, Justus ex fide vivet? Fides tua, justitia tua. Aug. in Psal. 32.  by Faith? Thy faith is thy righteousness. What Origen saith on Rom. 5. having not his works now at hand, I cannot tell; but I see what Bellarmine citys out of him on Rom. 4. and perhaps so it should have been in the marquis his writing. However there is no doubt but Bellarmine would have made use of it, if there had been any thing more for his purpose on Rom. 5. Now on Rom. 4. Origen saith, that whose believe Christ, but do not put off the old man with his deeds, their faith 
Credentibus quidem Christo, nec tamen deponentibus veterem hominem cum actibus suis, fides reputari non potest ad justitiam. Ori. in Rom. 4. citat. à Bell. de justif. lib. 1. cap. 25.  cannot be imputed unto them for righteousness. This we do easily assent unto, it being our professed opinion (as hath been showed before by Bellarmine's own confession) that though faith alone do justify, yet if it be such a faith as is alone, and is not accompanied with good works, it is not that faith, which doth justify. As little is that of Hilary against us, The safety of the Nations is all in faith; and the life of all is in God's Precepts. 
Salus gentium omnis in fide est, & in praeceptis Domini vita est universorum. Hil. cap. 7. in Mat.  That faith, which alone doth justify, is not so alone, but that there is joined with it a care and endeavour to observe all God's Precepts. Of the same nature is that of 
† Sola fides non sufficit, operari per dilectionem fidem necessarium est, & conversari dignè Deo.— Non sufficit fides, sed debet addi & vita condigna, & multum studium debet adhiberi, ne fides sit otiosa. Ambros. in. Heb. 4.  Ambrose (if Ambrose were the Author of those commentaries) Faith alone is not sufficient; it is necessary that faith work by love, and that men walk worthy of God. Faith is not sufficient, but there must also be added a life answerable, and much care must be had, that faith be not idle. All this we hold, that faith must not be idle, but operative, and working through love; and such is the nature of true justifying faith, as the Apostle teacheth, Gal. 5. 6. But all this is nothing against justification by faith alone without works, viz. as concurring unto justification.  
In the next place the marquis pleads for the merit of good 
Page 65.  works; and that from Mat. 6. 27. (so it is printed, but it should be Mat. 16. 27.) He shall reward every man according to his works. And Mat. 5. 12. Great is your reward in Heaven. Reward at the end (saith he) presupposes merit in the work: the distinction of secun dum, and propter opera, is too nice to make such a division in the Church.  
Answ. But that men's good works do not merit any reward at the hands of God, our Saviour hath sufficiently showed, saying, When ye have done all things, that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done but what our duty was to do, Luke 17. 10. If (as 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Theophyl. ad Luc. 17. 10.  Theophylact notes upon the place) when we have done all things that are commanded us, we must take heed of thinking highly of ourselves: how much more ought we to be far from such presumption, when as we are so far from obeying all God's Commandments! Besides, if we do any thing that is good, we do it not of ourselves, by our own strength, but it is God that doth enable us, and make us to do it: and therefore properly we cannot merit by it; for we are beholding unto God, and not God beholding unto us for it. I have laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God, that was with me, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. 10. Again, the reward which the godly receive in Heaven, doth infinitely exceed their works, and therefore cannot be merited by them. The most that we can do, is to suffer for the Name of Christ; yet the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us. Rom. 8. 18. Both these reasons doth Bernard allege against merits. The merits of men (saith he) are not such as that because of them life eternal should be due unto them of right, or that God should do them wrong if he should 
Neque enim talia sunt hominum merita, ut propter ea vita aeterna debeatur ex jure, aut Deus injuriam aliquam faceret, nisi eam donaret. Nam ut taceam quòd merita omnia sunt dona Dei, & ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est, quam Deus homini; quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam? Bern. in Annunt. B. Mariae Serm. 1.  not give it. For to say nothing of this, that all merits are Gods gifts, and so man is rather indebted unto God for them, than God unto man; what are all merits unto so great glory? Here Bernard useth indeed the word merits, but so as that he plainly denieth the thing, which our adversaries understand by it, and by a double argument confuteth their opinion. Both these arguments also to this purpose, before Bernard did Fulgentius 
Gratia autem etiam ipsa (sc vita aeterna) non injustè dicitur, quia non solum donis suis Deus dona sua reddit, sed quia tantum etiam ibi gratia Divinae retributionis exuberat, ut incomparabiliter, atque ineffabiliter omne meritum quamvis bonae, & ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis, atque operationis excedat. Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1.  use, who speaking of eternal life, saith, It is not unjustly called grace, because not only God doth recompense his gifts with his gifts, but because the grace of God's retribution doth so abound, that it incomparably and ineffably exceeds all the merit of man's will and works, though it be good; and such as God hath given. To this purpose he citys Rom. 8. 18. and 2 Cor. 4. 17. And Gregorius Magnus' not only useth these 
Quòd si illa sanctorum faelicitas misericordia est; & non meritis acquiritur, ubi erit quod scriptum est, Et tu reddes, unicuique secundumopera sua? Si secundum opera redditur, quomodo misericordia aestimabitur? Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, & aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. In eo. n. quod secundum opera dicitur, ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur, ut cujus apparuerint bona opera, ejus sit & retributio gloriosa. Illi namque, beatae vitae, in quâ cum Deo, & de Deo vivitur, nullus potest aequari labour, nulla opera comparari, praesertim cum Apostolus dicat, Non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae revelabitur in nobis. Quanquam & ex hoc quoque misericordia jure possit nominari, quia pro illis operibus datur, quae sine praeventu misericordiae Dei nemo assequitur. Greg. in 7. poenitem. Psal sive in Ps. 143. 8.  same Arguments against the Merits of good works, but also hath that very distinction of secundum opera, and propter opera, which the Marqnesse so much disdaineth. If (saith Gregory) the happiness of the Saints be mercy, and be not acquired by Merits, where is that which is written, Thou will render to every one according to his works? If it be rendered according to works, how shall it be accounted mercy? But it is one thing to render according to works, and another thing to render, because of the works themselves. In that there is a rendering according to works, the quality of works is considered, so as that whose works are found to be good, his reward also shall be glorious. For unto that blessed life, in which we live with God, and of God, no labour can be equal, no works comparable, especially when as the Apostle saith, The sufferings of this present time are not worthy of that glory, which shall be revealed in us. Besides also in this respect it may be justly called mercy, because it is given for those works, which none can attain unto without the prevention of God's mercy. Thus Gregory, who above a thousand years ago was Bishop of Rome, both argues for us, and also by a distinction answers that which is objected against us, viz. that God doth render to all according to their works. And for the word reward, which the Scripture often useth, it doth not presuppose merit; for a reward may proceed from the bounty of the giver, not from the merit of the receiver. They that wrought but one hour in the Vineyard, though they received a penny, as much as they that laboured all the day, though (I say) they received this as the reward of their labour, yet did they not merit it by their labour. This very parable doth Prosper (or who ever was the Author of the Book de vocatione gentium,) apply in this manner; without doubt (saith he) they that were sent into the Vineyard at the eleventh hour, and were 
Sine dubio horâ undecimâ intromissi in vineam, & totius diei operariis exaequati, istorum praeferunt sortem, quos ad commendandam gratiae excellentiam in defectu diei, & conclusione vitae divina indulgentia muneratur, non labori pretium solvens, sed divitias bonitatis suae in eos, quos sine laboribus elegit, effundens; ut etiam high, qui in multo labore sudarunt, nec ampliùs quam novissimi, acceperunt, intelligant donum se gratiae, non operum accepisse mercedem. De vocat. gent. lib. 1. 17.  made equal with those that wrought the whole day, represent the condition of those whom to commend the excellency of grace God's goodness doth reward in the end of the day, and in the conclusion of life, not paying the price of labour, but pouring out the riches of his bounty upon them, whom he hath chosen without labour; that so they also, who have endured much labour, and yet have received no more than they that were last, may understand, that they have received the gift of grace, not the reward (viz. the deserved reward) of their works. Thus both Scriptures and Fathers are against the opinion of the Church of Rome as touching Merits. I will add to what hath been already alleged, that of 
* Meritum proinde meum miseratio Domini. Non planè sum meriti inops, quamdiu miserationum ille non fuerit. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 61.  Bernard, Thy merit is God's mercy. I am not altogether without merit, so long as he is not without mercy. See what merit it is that he builds upon, no merit of his own, but merely God's mercy. And this was it that Nehemiah did fly unto, even when he recorded the good that he had done, Remember me O Lord (said he) concerning this, and (what? reward me according to the greatness of my merit? no, but) spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy. Neh. 13. 22. 
* Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiant merita. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 68  Bernard to this purpose again, It is enough unto merit, to know that merits are not sufficient. The Romish Doctrine of merits die not please Ferus, a late member of that Church, If thou wouldst keep (saith 
Si Dei gratiam & favorem conservare cupis, nullam tuorum meritorum fac mentionem: ex misericordiâ enim cuncta donare vult. Ferus in Mat. 20. 1.  he) the grace and favour of God, make no mention of thy Merits: for God will give all things out of mercy.  

* Bellarmine also saith that Bernard, prudenter non confidebat in meritis suis, sed in solâ misericordiâ Domini, did wisely not trust in his merits, but only in God's mercy. Bell. de Justif. lib. 5. cap. 6.  Bellarmine himself, though he disputed eagerly for Merits, yet (it seems) durst not rely on them, confessing (as was showed before) that it is the safest course to put our whole trust merely in God's Mercy. But the marquis saith that the Fathers were of their opinion, citing Ambr. de apol. David. cap. 6. Hieron. lib. 3. contra Pelag. Aug. de Spir. & lit. cap. ult.  
And first for Ambrose in the place cited, it's true, he speaks merits; but here we must remember what one of their own writers doth tell us, namely 
† Quam vis ip sa justitia, & peccatorum remissio non possint propriè merces vocari respectu fidei, poenitentiae, etc. attamen veteres theologi meriti nomen memoratis operibus respectu justificationis, ac peccatorum remissionis passim ascribunt, extenso viz. meriti nomen ad illud quod recentiores congruum vocant, id est, ad impetrationem Estius ad Hob. 11. 6.  Estius, that the ancient Divines did often use the word Merit very largely, and not properly. And thus did Ambrose use the word, saying, Habet quis bona Merita, one hath good Merits, that is, good works, which he calls Merits, because they do impetrate or obtain a reward, though not properly merit it, the ancients (as Estius observes) using merit for impetration. But that Ambrose there did not make good works to be truly and properly meritorious, appears by the words immediately following, habet & vitia, atque peccata; he hath also vices and sins. Now surely those good works, which have vices and sins mixed with them, cannot be properly meritorious: in that case there is great need to crave mercy, but no cause to plead merit. For Hierome. lib. 3. contra Pelag. I find nothing at all, that doth so much as seem to assert merits, except perhaps those words, here (in this life) is labour, and striving; there (in the life to come) is the reward of labour, 
Ut hic labor sit, atque contentio, ibi laboris virtutisque praemium. Hieron. contra Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5.  and virtue. But reward doth not always presuppose merit, as I have showed before. Mercy, I am sure, and merit are inconsistent, and 
* Quia homines possibilia non faciunt, idcircò omins mundus subditus est Deo, & indiget misericordiâ ejus. Aut certè si ostendere potueris, qui univers● compleverit, tunc poteris demonstrare esse hominem, qui non indiget misericordiâ Dei. Hieron. Ibid. cap. 1.  Hierome in that very Book, which the marquis citeth, plainly testifieth that there is no man, whose works are so good, and his obedience so perfect, but that still he hath need of God's mercy. And he taxeth his adversary (Pelagius I think) as proud and Pharisaical for saying, that he doth worthily lift up his hands to God, and 
Ille, inquis, meritò ad Deum extollit manus, ille preces bonâ conscientiâ fundit, qui potest dicere, Tu enim nosti, Domine, quam sanctae, quam innocentes, quam purae sint ab omni fraud, & injuriâ, & rapinâ, quas ad te expando, manus; quam justa, quam immaculata labia, & ab omni mendacio libera, quibus tibi, ut mihi miserearis, preces fundo. Christiani est haec, an Pharisaei superbientis oratio? Hieron. ibid. cap. 5. David loquitur, etc. Ibid.  doth pray with a good conscience, who can say, Thou, O Lord, knowest, how holy, how innocent, how pure from all fraud, injury and rapine the hands are, that I spread forth unto thee; how just, immaculate, and free from all lying the lips are, with which I pour forth prayers unto thee, that thou mayest have mercy on me. He tells him that David sung another Song, saying, My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness, Psal. 38. 5. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psal. 143. 2. 
Esaias plangit. etc. Ibid.   
And that Esay lamented saying, Woe is me, for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, etc. Isal. 6. 5. 
* Et post tantum tumorem, orantisque jactantiam, & confidentiam sanctitatis, quasi stultus stultis persuadere conaris, ut in extremo dicas, quibus tibi, ut mihi miserearis, preces fundo. Si sanctus es, si innocens, si ab omni sorde purgatus, si nec sermone, nec opere peccasti, discente jacobo, Qui in verbo non peccat, iste perfectus est vir; & nemo potest refraenare linguam suam; quomodo misericordiam deprecaris, etc. Ibid.  And he asks him, how after all this swelling and boasting of himself, after all this confidence of his holiness, he could pretend to desire God's mercy? For if he were so holy, and innocent, so pure and perfect, than he had no need to pray in that manner, viz. that God should have mercy on him. This and more to this purpose hath Hierome in the place alleged, but whether this be for Merits, or against them, is easy to judge.  
Neither hath 
* Consequens esse video, ut omni homini fit necessarium dare, ut detur illi, dimittere, ut dimittatur illi; & si quid habet justitiae, non de suo sibi esse praesumere, sed de gratiâ justificantis Dei; & adhuc tamen ab illo esurire & sitire justitiam, qui est panis v vus, & apud quem fons vitae, qui sic operatur justificationem in sanctis suis, in hujus vitae tentatione laborantibus, ut tamen sit, & quod petentibus largiter adjiciat, & quod confitentibus clementer ignoscat. Sed inveniant isti, si possunt, aliquem sub onere corruptionis hujus viventem, cui jam non habeat Deus quod ignoscat. Aug. de Spir. & lit. cap. ult.  Austin in the place, which the marquis citeth, any thing (that I can see) to prove good works meritorious, but something to prove the contrary. For having cited many places of Scripture, which show that none is so righteous as to be without sin, he saith, Hence it followeth, that it is necessary for every one to forgive, that he may be forgiven: and if he have any righteousness, not to presume that he hath it of his own, but to ascribe it to God's grace; and still to hunger and thirst for righteousness from God, who doth so work in his Saints, whiles they are in this life, as that he hath still something to add to them that ask, and to pardon them that confess. For that none living in this mortal body can be found so holy, but that still he hath need of pardon. And elsewhere he 
Dona sua coronat Deus, non merita tua. Aug. de great. & lib. arb. c. 6.  saith, God doth crown his own gifts, not thy merits.  
The marquis goes on, saying, we hold that Faith once had may 
Page 66.  be lost, if we have not care to preserve it, you say it cannot, we have Scripture for it, viz. Luke 8. 13. They on the Rock are they, which when they hear, receive the Word with joy, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. So 1 Tim. 1. 18, 19 which some having put away have made shipwrecks of their Faith.  
Answ. We do not hold that Faith cannot be lost, though a man have no care to preserve it; but that God will work such a care in those, in whom he hath wrought true justifying Faith, that they shall never lose it. I will put my fear (saith he) in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Jer. 32. 40. Christ prayed for Peter, that his faith might not fail, Luke 22. 32. And so he prayed both for him and others, even for all that belong unto him. I pray for them (saith he) I pray not for the World, but for them, which thou hast given me: for they are thine. Joh. 17. 9 And vers. 11. Holy Father, keep through thine own name, those whom thou hast given me. So the Apostle telleth us, that whom God did predestinate, them he also called (viz. according to his purpose, vers. 28.) and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Rom. 8. 30. This clearly shows, that all that are once justified, shall certainly be glorified, and consequently that justifying faith once had cannot be quite lost. Again, They that truly believe, are the sons of God. Gal. 3. 26. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth ever. Joh. 8. 35. Therefore true Faith cannot be lost; the children of God cannot fall away. And to this do the Father's accord. Cyprian is much to this purpose; The strength of such as are 
Manet verè fidelium robur immobile, & apud timentes ac diligentes toto cordet Deum stabilis, & fortis perseverar integritas. Cypr. Epist. 52.  truly faithful, doth remain unmoveable, and the integrity of those that fear God, and love him with the whole heart, doth continue stable and strong. And again, The Lord, who is the protector 
Non patitur Dominus populi sui protector & tutor, triticum de areâ suâ diripi, sed solae possunt paleae de ecclesiâ separari. Cypr. Epist. 69.  and defender of his people, doth not suffer wheat to be taken away out of his floor: only chaff can be separated from the Church.  
And again, Let none think that the good 
Nemo existimet bonos de ecclesia posse discedere. Triticum non rapit ventus; nec arborem solidâ radice fundatam procella subvertit. Inanes paleae tempestate jactantur; invalidae arbores turbinis incursione evertuntur. Hoc execratur & percutit Joannes Apostolus dicens, Ex nobis exierunt, etc. Cypr. de unit. Eccles.  can depart out of the Church. The wind doth not carry away the wheat; neither doth the storm overthrow the Tree, that hath taken solid root. The empty chaff is tossed with the tempest: the weak Trees are thrown down with the whirlwind. This the Apostle John doth curse, and smite, saying, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest, that they were not all of us, 1 Joh. 2. 19 And to add one testimony of his more, Peter (saith he) speaking for all, and answering in the name of the Church, saith, Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast 
Petrus cum pro omnibus loquens, & Ecclesiae voce respondens, ait, Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae, etc. signifians scil. qui à Christo recesserint, culpâ suâ perire: Ecclesiam tamen, quae in Christum credit, & quae semel id, quod cognoverit, teneat, nunquam omninò ab eo discedere: & eos esse Ecclesiam, qui in domo Dei permanent, plantationem verò à Deo Patre non esse, quos videmus non frumenti stabilitate solidari, sed tanquam paleas dissipandas inimici spiritu ventilari. De quibus ait Joannes in Epistolâ, Ex nobis exierunt, etc. Cypr. Epist. 55.  the words of eternal life, (Joh. 6. 68) signifying that they who depart from Christ, perish through their own fault: but that the Church, which believeth in Christ, and once holdeth that, which it hath known, doth never altogether depart from him; and that they are the Church, who do abide in the house of God: but that they are not the planting of God the Father, whom we see not to be strengthened with the stability of wheat, but to be blown away with the breath of the enemy like chaff, that is to be dissipated. Of whom John saith They went out from us, but they were not of us, etc. 
* Non ait quòd excundo alieni facti sunt, sed quòd alieni erant, propter hoc eos exiisse declaravit. Aug. de baptiss. contra Donatist. lib. 3. cap. 19  Austin also citing those words of S. john, saith, He doth not say, that by going out they were made Aliens, but that therefore they went out because they were Aliens. Again, In that (saith he) thou departest, 
Eo ipso quòd discedis, & volas, paleam te esse indicas: qui triticum sunt, ferunt trituram. Aug. in Ps. 140.  and fliest away, thou showest thyself to be chaff: they that are wheat, endure threshing. And upon those words of our Saviour, If ye continue in my word, than you are my Disciples indeed; Joh. 8. 31. he saith thus, Then they are indeed that which they 
Tunc verè sunt quod appellantur, si manserint in eo, propter quod lic appellantur. Aug.  are called, if they continue in that, for which they are so called.  
So again, That is not indeed the Body of 
Non est revera Domini corpus, quod cum illo non erit in aeternum. Aug. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 32.  Christ (saith he) which shall not be with him for ever.  
So 
* Neque fideles, quos haereses potuerint demutare.— Nemo Christianus, nisi qui ad finem usque perseveraverit. Tu ut homo extrinsecus unumquenque nosti; putas quod vides; vides autem quousque oculos habes. Sed oculi Domini alti. Homo in faciem, Deus in praecordia contemplatur. Et ideò cognoscit Dominus qui sunt ejus: & plantam, quam non plantavit Pater eradicat.— Avolent quantum volent paleae levis fidei quo cunque afflatu tentationum, eo purior massa frumenti in horrea Domini reponetur. Nun ab ipso Domino quidam discentium scandalizati diverterunt? Not tamen proptereà caeteri quoque discedendum à vestigiis ejus putaverunt: sed qui scierunt illum vitae esse verbum, & à Deo venisse, perseveraverunt in comitatu ejus usque ad finem.— Minus est si Apostolum ejus aliqui, Phygellus, & Hermogenes, & Philetus, & Hymenaeus reliquer unt.— Ex nobis, inquit, prodierunt, sed non fuerunt ex nobis, etc. Tertull. de Prescript. cap. 3.  Tertullian saith that such as fall away were never true Believers, and true Christians. He saith, man sees the outside of every one, and thinks what he sees; but God sees into the heart, and therefore knows who are his; and roots out every Plant, that he hath not planted. And let the chaff of light faith (saith he) fly away as much as it will with every blast of temptations, by so much will the heap of Corn be the more clean to be laid up in the Lords Garners. Did not some of Christ's Disciples, being offended, turn away? yet the rest would not therefore leave him: but they that knew him to be the word of life, and sent of God, did continue with him to the end.— It is a less matter, if some did forsake his Apostle, as Phygellus, and Hermogenes, and Philetus, and Hymenaeus. Then he citys that of S. john, They went out from us, but they were not of us, etc.  
Thus also 
* In sanctorum quippe cordibus juxta quasdam virtutes semper permanent, juxta quasdam verò recess●rus venit. & venturus recedit. In fide etenim, spe, atque charitate, & in bonis alils, sine quibus ad caelestem patriam non potest veniri, sicut est humilitas, castitas, justitia atque misericordia, perfectorum corda non deserit. In prophetiae verò virtute, doctrinae facundiâ, miraculorum exhibitione, electis suis aliquando adest, aliquando se subtrahit. Greg. hom. 5 in Ezech.  Gregory speaking of the holy Ghost saith, that in respect of some virtues he always abides in the hearts of the Saints, but in respect of some he comes so as to go away, and goes away so as to come again. For in respect of Faith, Hope and Charity, and other good things, without which there is no coming to Heaven, as Humility, Chastity, justice and Mercy, in respect of these he never forsaketh the hearts of the upright. But in respect of Prophecy, Eloquence, and working of miracles sometimes he is with the Elect, sometimes he withdraws himself from them. This testimony of Gregory is also cited by Gratian, 
Ex praemissis itaque apparet quòd Charitas semel habita ulteriùs non amittitur. Grat. de poenit. didst 2.  who from thence, and other testimonies of the Fathers infers thus much, that Charity once had (and it is as true of Faith; for Charity cannot be without it, but doth proceed from it, 1 Tim. 1. 5.) cannot be lost. Thus we have not only the Scriptures, and Fathers, but also the Canon-law itself for us. Those places, which the marquis allegeth to prove that faith may be lost, do not speak of justifying Faith, whereby one is ingraffed into Christ, and made a member of his Body, but either of an outward profession of the Faith, that is, of the Doctrine of Faith, as that 1 Tim. 1. 19 where the Apostle bids Timothy hold faith (i. e. the Doctrine of Faith) and a good conscience; and adds that some having put away a good conscience, concerning Faith did make shipwreck that is, did forsake the Doctrine of Faith, and fall into Heresy. Such were Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he mentioneth vers. 20. and saith that he delivered them unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. And that which he there calleth Faith, he calleth Truth, 2 Tim. 2. 18. where speaking of Hymenaeus and Philetus, he saith, who concerning the truth have erred, saying, that the Resurrection is passed already. He adds that hereby they did overthrow the Faith of some, that is, they did draw them from the Faith, making them to embrace Heresy. But that these seducers or seduced ones, were ever such believers, as that they were endued with justifying Faith, the Apostle doth not say, neither can it be proved; Tertullian was of another mind, as appears by his words before cited. Yea, so was S. john, whose words to this purpose both Tertullian and other Fathers (as I have showed) have made use of, when he saith, speaking of such as those, They went out from us, but they were not of us, etc. 1 Joh. 2. 19 Or they speak of an Historical Faith, whereby one doth assent unto the truth of the Gospel, and is somewhat affected with it, but it doth not take root in the heart, as it is said Mat. 13. 21. yet hath he not root in himself: and therefore this is not such a Faith, as we speak of, when we say, that Faith cannot be lost, viz. a Faith, whereby Christ is received, and doth dwell in the heart. joh. 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. For all that Faith, which is spoken of Luke 8. 13. a man is but chaff still, and not true wheat whatsoever he seem either to himself or others. They compared to the thorny ground, who for a while believe, are distinguished from such as have a good and honest heart, Luke 8. 13. 15. Therefore those temporary believers are no sound and sincere Believers: their heart is not right with God, and therefore they are not steadfast in his Covenant. Psal. 78. 37.  
The marquis adds, This is frequently affirmed by the Fathers, viz. that Faith may be lost; but he citys only Austin de great. & lib. arb. de corrept. & great. & ad articulos. Now I have produced many testimonies of Austin to the contrary, as also of divers other Fathers, who speak very home to our purpose. As for these places of Austin alleged against us, the two first are justly to be waved. For only the books are cited, but no Chapters, whereas in the one book there are 24. and 16. in the other. For the third place, it's true that Austin doth oftentimes in answer to the Articles imposed upon him, deny that God's predestination is the cause of man's non-perseverance, as some did charge him to hold; why any fall away he, shows the cause to be in themselves, not in God; that it is not from God's work, but from their own will: that they are not thrust, that they may fall; nor cast out, that they may depart. But that true 
Quòd si per generalitatem vocationis, & per abundantiam bonitatis Dei, eiam non perseveraturi perseveraturis admixti sunt, high cum à pietate deficiunt, non ex Dei opere, sed ex suâ voluntate deficiunt, nec impelluntur ut cadant, nec eijciuntur ut deserant. Aug. ad art. 16. Similiter etiam ad alios articulos.  justifying Faith once had may be lost, he says not any thing that way, but much against it in other places, as before is showed.  
In the next place, We hold (saith the marquis) that God 
Page 66.  did never inevitably damn any man before he was borne, or as you say from all eternity. You say he did: we have Scripture for what we say, Wisd. 1. 13. God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 1 Tim. 2. 3, 4. God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, 2 Pet. 3. 9 The Lord is not willing that any should die, but that all should come to repentance. And if you will not believe when he saith so, believe him when he swears it, As I live, saith the Lord, I do not delight in the death of a sinner.  
Ans. I do not know any Protestant, who saith that God did damn any man before he was borne, or from all eternity. For how should that be? damning being taken (as usually it is) for inflicting eternal punishment. For how can a man before he hath any being, have eternal punishment inflicted upon him? yet 
* Secundum exteriorem hominem de parentibus illisvenio, qui me artè fecerunt damnatum, quam natum. Bern. meditat. cap. 2.  Bernard speaketh of his being damnatus antequam natus, damned before he was borne. I suppose he meant that before he came out of the womb he was in the estate of damnation by reason of the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to him, and the corruption of nature inherent in him. How ever this is certain, that (as 
* Praedestinatio non duo ab exortu Ecclesiae sed ne à mundi principio quidem principium habuit, non denique à tempore illo, vel illo; ante tempora est. Ber. in Cant. ser. 78.  Bernard also saith) predestination is before all times, even from all eternity.  
And Bellarmine observes, that though the use of the Schools 
Bell de great. & lib. arbit. lib. 2. cap. 16.  hath so prevailed, that they only are said to be predestinate; who are elected unto glory, and so in the Scriptures predestination is not used but in that sense, yet Austin doth call reprobation predestination to destruction. Neither is there any question 
So say the Translators of the old Testament at Douai after Exodus in, The continuance of the Church.  betwixt us, and them of the Church of Rome, but that reprobation as well as election is from all eternity. And therefore as we do not say any more than they, that God doth damn any man from eternity; so they as well as we do say, that God doth reprobate many from eternity, even as many as he doth not elect; now the elect are but few in comparison, as our Saviour tells us, saying, Many are called, but few are chosen. Mat. 22. 14. But some may, and indeed do say, God's reprobation is not the cause of any man's damnation, but man's own sin is the proper cause both of reprobation and damnation. But though this be asserted by some of our adversaries, yet others of that party will not approve of it. For Reprobation (saith Bellarmine) doth comprehend 
Dicimus deinde Reprobationem duos actus comprehendere, etc. Primum enim non habet Deus voluntatem illos salvandi. Deinde habet voluntatem eos damnandi: & quidem quod attinet ad priorem actum, nulla datur ejus causa ex parte hominum, etc. Bell. de great. & lib arb. lib. 2. cap. 16.  two acts, & c. For first God hath not a will of saving them (viz. the Reprobate) And then he hath a will of damning them. And in respect of the former act there is no cause (of Reprobation) on man's part. Therefore man's sin in Bellarmine's judgementi is not the cause of Reprobation in respect of that act. Now if God have not a will to save a man, it is not possible that he should be saved: and if he be not saved, he must be being 
* Viz. if ever he have any being.  damned. And therefore from that act of God's Reprobation, which Bellarmine confesseth to have no cause on man's part, there inevitable follows man's damnation, though damnation be neither inflicted on man, nor intended to be inflicted on him but for sin. Yet Bellarmine in that which he saith, is not so accurate as he might be; For non habere voluntatem salvandi, not to have a will to save a man, or not to will a man's salvation, is properly no act, but rather a negation of an act, and therefore indeed Bellarmine calls it actum negativum a 
Bellar. Ibid.  negative act; but that (as I said) is indeed no act at all, but a mere negation of it. And therefore Alvarez maketh the first act of Reprobation 
Reprobatio Dei aeterna includit actum positivum, quo voluit quosdam non admittere ad vitam aeternam— Deus n. verè non reprobavit homines vel angelos possibiles, qui nunquam erunt; & tamen circa illos se habuit negatiuè, non ordinando eos ad vitam aeternam. Ergo Reprobatio includit actum positivum. Alvar, de Auxil. lib. 11. disput. 109. num. 5.  to be a positive act, whereby Gods Will is not to admit some unto life eternal. It's one thing not to have a will to save; and another thing to have a will not to save; the former is merely negative, but the latter is positive. And he proves that Reprobation doth include a positive act, because the mere negative of not ordaining unto life eternal is even in respect of men and angels that only may be, but never shall be. Those God doth not will to save, and to glorify, yet properly they are not the objects of God's Reprobation.  
The same 
* Actus positivus, quo Deus ab aeterno voluit non admittere quosdam in suum regnum, non suit conditionatus, sed absolutus, antecedens in signo rationis praescientiam mali usus liberi arbitrii, etc.— Probatur conclusio; nam Apostolus ad Rom. 9 postquam intulit ex his, quae dixerat in eodem cap. de praedestinatione & Reprobatione, Ergo cujus vult miseretur, & quem vult indurat; statim proponit eorum querimoniam, quibus dura videtur Praedestinatio, & Reprobatio, antecedens praescentiam meritorum, & ait, Quid adhuc queritur? voluntari enim ejus quis resistit? Et huic objectioni occurit subdens, O homo tu quis es, etc. Anon habet potestatem figulus, etc. Haec autem responsio & objurgatio non haberet locum, si Deus antecedenter ad praescientiam mali usus liberi arbitrii neminem reprobasset absolutâ & efficaci voluntate. Posset enim facilè respondere Apost. quod ex bono, vel malo usu liberi arbitrii creati, praecognito a Deo tanquam ex conditione sine quâ non, dependet quòd providentia supernaturalis Dei circa unum habet formaliter rationem Reprobationis, & non circa alium. Alvar. disput. 109. num. 6.  Alvarez saith that this positive act of Reprobation, whereby Gods Will and Pleasure from eternity was, not to admit some into his Kingdom, was not conditional, but absolute, and in order of nature before the foreknowledge of the ill use of freewill. And this he proves from hence, that the Apostle Rom. 9 having inferred from what he had said of Predestination and Reprobation, Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth, presently brings in the complaint of those, who think it hard, that God should predestinate, and reprobate without having respect to merits, Why then doth he yet complain? for who hath resisted his Will? And he answers, O man who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing form say to him that form it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Now this answer and reproof (saith he) should have no place, if God did not before the foreknowledge of the ill use of freewill reprobate some by an absolute and efficacious will. For the Apostle might easily answer, that it depends upon the good or ill use of man's freewill, which God did foreknow, that some are reprobated, and not others. And he citys 
* Multi salvi non fiunt, non quia ipsi nolunt, sed quia Deus non vult; quod absque ullâ caligiue monstratur in parvulis. Aug. Epist. 107. citat. ab Alvar Ibid.  Austin saying, Many are not saved, not because they will not, but because God will not, which most clearly appears in young infants.  
This same Author also again lays down this conclusion, 
† Reprobatio, quâ Deus statuit non dare aliquibus vitam aeternam, & permittere peccatú eorum, non est conditionata, sed absoluta, nec praesupponit in Deo praescientiam, vel praevisionem demeritorum ipsius reprobi, aut perseverantiae in peccato usque ad ultimum vitae Alvar. disp. 110. num. 8.  Reprobation, whereby God determines, not to give eternal life to some, and to suffer them to sin, is not conditional, but absolute; neither doth it presuppose in God the foreknowledge, or foresight of the ill deserts of the Reprobate, or of his perseverance in sin unto the end of his life.  

* Neque peccatum actuale, neque originale, neque utrumque simul praevisum à Deo, fuit de facto causa meritoria, vel motiva Reprobationis alicujus, quantum ad omnes illus effectus. Alu. ib. n. 11.  And again, Neither actual sin, nor original, nor both together, foreseen of God, were the meritorious cause, or motive of any one's Reprobation, in respect of all the effects of it.  

† Existimo S. Thomam resolutoriè eandem docuisse sententiam; etenim art. 3. citat. in corp. ait, Sicut praedestinatlo includit voluntatem conferendi gratiam & gloriam; ita Reprobatio includit voluntatem permittendi aliquem cadere in culpam, & ferendi damnationis poenam pro culpâ. Alvar. Ibid.  And he takes Aquinas to be resolute in this point, and he citys him, saying, As predestination doth include a will to confer grace, and glory, so Reprobation doth include a will to suffer one to fall into sin, and to inflict the punishment of damnation for sin.  
Hence Alvarez infers, that according to 
Ergo secundum S. Thomam permissio primi peccati, propter quod reprobus damnatur, est effectus Reprobationis: sed illius permissionis nulla datur causa ex parte reprobi: nam ante permissionem primi peccati, & ante primum peccatum non datur aliud peccatum praecedens: alias illud non esset simpliciter primum, vel in homine praecederet aliud peccatum commissum, Deo non permittente, etc. Alvar. Ibib.  Aquinas the permission of the first sin for which a Reprobate is damned, is the effect of Reprobation. And he adds that of this permission there is no cause in the Reprobate. Because before the permission of the first sin, and before the first sin, there is no other sin; for if there were, than it were not simply the first sin; or man should commit some other sin before, which God did not permit, whereas no sin can be committed but by God's permission. He citys also Aquinas again speaking thus, 

Quare hos eligat ad gloriam, & illos reprobet, non habet rationem nisi divinam voluntatem. Aquin. apud Alvar. Ibid.  
In quo testimonio, ut disp. 37. num. 9 ex doctrinâ S. Augustini, & S. Thomae ostendimus, apertè significatur in electione absolutâ, & reprobatione hominum Deum non respexisse ad merita, vel demerita praevisa, sed pro suo beneplacito istum elegisse, & praedestinasse ad gloriam, illum non praedestinasse, sed voluntate absolutâ statuisse permittere peccatum illius, & obdurationem, sive perseverantiam in eodem peccato usque ad ultimumvitae, & poenam aeternam infligere propter idem peccatum. etc. Ibid. num. 12.   why God doth choose some to glory, and reprobate others, there is no reason but only Gods Will. And having cited that of the Apostle Rom. 9 The children being not yet borne, neither having done any good, or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder should serve the younger, As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated; having cited this (I say) he adds that the Apostle here (both Austin and Aquinas avouching as much) plainly signifies, that in the absolute Election and Reprobation of Men, God did not look at men's merits, or demerits, but of his own pleasure did choose, and predestinate one to glory, and not predestinate another, but by an absolute will did determine to suffer him to sin, and to be hardened, or to persevere in sin to the end of his life, and to inflict eternal punishment upon him for sin.  
He brings in also Austin confuting 
Ideo, inquiunt, nondum natorum alium oderat, alium diligebat, quia eorum futura opera previdebat. Quis istum acutissimum sensum defuisse Apostolo non miretur? Hoc quippe ille non vidit. etc. Aug. Epist. 105. apud. Alvar. Ibid. num. 13.  those, who say, that Esau and jacob being not yet borne, God did therefore hate the one, and love the other, because he did foresee the works that they would do. Who (said Austin) can but wonder, that the Apostle should not find out this acute reason; for he did not see it, etc. No, but flies to this, he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, etc. So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.  
And that none of our Romish adversaries may sleight Austin in this point, Alvarez about the beginning of his Work hath 
Alvar. de Auxil. l. 1. disp. 5.  a Disputation to show what authority this Father's judgement is of in the point of Grace, and Predestination. He shows that not only Prosper, but also many Bishops of Rome did approve of Austin's 
Nec solus Prosper, sed plures etiam summi Pontifices Doctrinam ejusdem Augustini approbaverunt, & Catholicam esse decreverunt. Alvar. Ibid. num. 3.  Doctrine concerning these points, and did determine it to be sound and good.  
And therefore in the testimony of Austin, we have many testimonies, and such as are irrefragable with those, with whom now we have to do. But let us hear what some other late Writers of the Church of Rome do say as to this point concerning Reprobation. God from eternity (saith Cardinal 
* Deus ab aeterno verè quosdam eligit, & quosdam reprobat, quosdam diligit & quosdam odio habet, pro quáto quibusdam ab aeterno vult conferre opem gratiae suae, & adjuvare illos usque ad gloriam aeternam; quosdam autem ab aeterno quoque vult permittere sibi ipsis, nec adjuvare eos gratuito auxilio, quod electis decrevit confer, Et hoc est Deum illos odio habere, hoc est Deum illos reprobare non ex operibus. Cum quo tamen stat quòd nullus damnatur nisi ex propriis ope ibus, nec sententia siquidem, nec executio damnationis fit antequam hujusmodi reprobi peccent. Cajet. in Rom. 9 13.  Cajetan) doth truly choose some, and reprobate others, doth love some, and hate others, in that from eternity his will is to vouchsafe some the help of his grace, whereby to bring them to eternal glory; and from eternity also his will is to leave some to themselves, and not to afford them that gracious help, which he hath decreed to afford the Elect. And this is for God to hate, and to reprobate them; with which yet it doth well stand, that none is damned but by his own works, because neither the Sentence, nor Execution of damnation is before that such Reprobates do sin.  
So also † Estius saith that the Apostle Rom. 9 doth teach, that 
* Jam hinc colligendum relinquit Apostolus argumento à figurâ ad rem significatam, neque electionem hominú, neque Reprobationem esse ex ullis operum meritis, sed Deum ex solo voluntatis arbitrio alios eligere, alios autem reprobare. Est. ad Rom. 9 13.  neither men's Election nor their Reprobation is from the Merits of works, but that God by the mere pleasure of his will doth choose some, and Reprobate others.  
And again upon those words, O man, who are thou that repliest 
Studium fuit Apostoli non tam ad directionem respondere, quam ad causam objiciendi. Concluserat enim, Ergo cujus vult, miseretur, etc. unde nata erat illa objectio, Quid adhuc queritur, etc. Respondet itaque de voluntate Dei eligente, & re Probante, negans ejus rationem ab homine, qui creatura, & figmentum Dei est, scrutandam esse, imò ab exemplo figuli ostendens Deum hoc facere pro libertate suae voluntatis absque aliâ ratione, ut rect è locum hunc Thomas exposuit. Est. ad. Rom. 9 20.  against God, etc. he saith that the Apostles intent was to answer not so much the objection, as the cause of objecting. And that therefore he answers concerning the Will of God Electing, and Reprobating, and denies that the reason of it is to be inquired by man, who is God's creature, and made by him: yea that by the example of a potter the Apostle shows, that God doth this out of the liberty of his Will without any other reason. And he adds that Thomas Aquinas did also thus rightly expound the words of the Apostle.  

* Verum est, quòd Deus aeternaliter nullum punit sine culpâ suâ temporaliter praecedente, & aeternaliter permanente; non tamen proprer culpam, tanquam propter causam antecedenter moventem voluntatem divinam, Deus quenquam aeternaliter reprobavit. Bradward. de Caus. Dei lib. 1. cap. ult.  Bradwardine, who entitled the book which he wrote, of the cause of God, is not to be omitted; He saith, It's true, God doth not eternally punish any without his fault going before temporally, and abiding eternally: yet God did not eternally reprobate any, because of sin, as a cause antecedently moving Gods will. What do our Divines say, even such as are of the more rigid sort, as concerning this high and abstruse point of Reprobation, what (I say) do they lay more than is said by these great and eminent Doctors of the Church of Rome, and before them by Austin, and before both him and them (as both he and they conceived) by the Apostle Paul himself? The Decree of Reprobation (saith Bishop Davenant) is not thus to be conceived, I will damn Judas, whether he believe, or not believe, repent 
B. Daven. Animadvers. p. 352.  or not repent; for this were contrary to the truth of the Evangelicall promises: but thus, I am absolutely determined not to give unto Judas that special grace, which would cause him to believe, and repent: and I am absolutely purposed to permit him to incur his own demnation by his voluntary obstinacy, and final impenitency. And again, It must here first of all be considered, that Reprobatio aeterna nihil ponit in reprobato (that is, That eternal reprobation 
Ibid. pag. 356.  doth put nothing in the person that is reprobated) It putteth only in God a firm Decree of permitting such persons to fall into final sin, and for it a firm decree of condemning them unto eternal punishment. So both he and divers other of our Eng. lish Divines that were at the Synod of Dort, being sent thither by King james, as they hold that 
* Reprobatio, quae est electionis negatio, ponit immutabilem Dei voluntatem de non miseratione talis personaepraeteritae, quoad ipsam donationem vitae aeternae. Suffr. Britan. in 1. artic. 
Praevisam infidelitatem esse causam non electionis fal-sum est. Ibid. Deus neminem damnat, aut damnationi destinat, nisi ex consideratione peccati. Ibid. Thesi. 5.   Reprobation, which is the denying of election, doth put in God an immutable will not to have mercy on such a person as is passed by, in respect of giving eternal life. And that foreseen unbelief is not the cause of non election. So withal they lay down this position, God doth damn none, nor appoint unto Damnation, but in respect of sin. So Doctor 
† Cur simplex appellent hoc decretum, non intelligimus, nisi velint Deum (ex nostrâ sententiâ) immediate decrevisse damnationem hominum, sive peccatores fuerint, sive non; quod est nimis simpliciter calumniari. Ames. Animad. de Pradest. cap. 11. Sect. 6. Nostra sententia est, Deum quosdam homines non elegisse (sicut alios elegit) sed decrevisse permittere, ut in peccatis suis manerent, & propter illa peccata justae damnationis poenam subirent hujusmodi decreti nullam causam in non electis reperiri, quae non similiter in electis reperitur. Ames. Ibid.  Ames saith that it is too great a slander to say that according to our opinion God did immediately decree men's damnation, whether they be sinners, or no. Our opinion (saith he) is this, that God did not choose some (as he did choose others) but did determine to let them abide in their sins, and for those sins to suffer the punishment of just damnation; and that of this decree there is no cause to be found in those that are not elected, which is not as much to be found in those that are elected.  
Thus also Doctor Twisse, We say, and say 
Dicimus, & verè, destinatos esse damnationi non paucos antequam nascantur.— Veruntamen non dicimus quenquam ad mortem subeundam destinatum esse nisi propter peccatum, nec ullo momento dicimus destinationem ipsam quoad actum destinantis praecedere praevisionem peccati. D. Twiss. de Scient. med. lib. 1. digress. 5.  truly (saith he) that many are appointed unto damnation before they are borne.— Yet we do not say, that any is appointed to suffer death but for sin, nor that the decree itself in respect of the act of him that decreeth, doth any one moment go before the foresight of sin. I see nothing in these Assertions of our Divines, that hath any thing more horrid in it, then that is, which they of the Church of Rome before cited, do assert, and yet some of these go as high in the point of Predestination (I think) as any others. 
a Ergo si non possumus rationem assignare cur suos miseri-cordiâ dignetur, nisi quoniam ita illi placet: neque etiam in aliis reprobandis aliud habebimus quam ejus voluntatem. Calv. Insti. lib. 3. c. 22. Sect. 11.  Calvin himself, as he saith, If we cannot give a reason why God hath mercy on his own, but because so it pleaseth him: neither have we any cause why others are Reprobated, but his Will. 
b Quod si judicio mortis obnoxii sunt omnes naturali conditione, quos ad mortem Dominus praedestinat, dequâ, obsecro, ejus iniquitate erga se conquerantur? Veniant omnes filii Adam, cum suo creatore contendant, ac disceptent, quòd aeternâ illius providentiâ, ante suam generationem, perpetuae calamitati addicti fuerint; quid obstrepere adversus defensionem poterunt, ubi Deus illos ad sui recognitionem contra vocabit●? Ex corruptâ massâ si desumpti sunt omnes, non mirum si damnationi subjacent. Ne ergo Deum iniquitatis insimulent, si aeterno ejus judicio morti destinati sint, ad quam à suâ ipsorum naturâ sponte se perduci, velint nolint, ipsi sentient. Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 3.  So he saith withal, If all by their condition be subject to condemnation, how can they, whom God doth predestinate unto destruction, complain that he doth deal unjustly with them? Let all the sons of Adam come, let them contend and dispute with their Creator, because by his eternal providence, before they were borne, they were appointed to eternal misery. What will they be able to object against this plea, when God shall on the other side call them to areview of themselves? If all be taken out of the corrupt Mass, it is no wonder if they be subject to damnation. Let them not therefore accuse God of iniquity, if by his Eternal judgement they be appointed unto death, to which, whether they will or no, themselves do see that they are led by their own nature of its own accord. 
c Tametsi aeternâ Dei providentiâ ni eam, cui subjacet, calamitatem conditus est homo; à seipso tamen ejus materiam, non à Deo sumpsit, quando nullâ aliâ ratione sic perditus est, nisi quia à purâ Dei creatione in vitiosam & impuram perversitatem degeneravit. Calv. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 9 & Sect. 12.  And again, Although by God's eternal Providence man is cast into that calamity, which doth befall him, yet he takes the matter of it from himself, and not from God, seeing for no other reason is he so undone, but because he did degenerate from that purity wherein God created him, and made himself vicious, impure and perverse. 
d Asserimus nullos perire immerentes. Et de eter. Dei proedest. pag. 976. Damnationis nostrae culpa in nobis residet.  And again, we affirm that none do perish but by their own desert. e And again, The cause of our damnation is in ourselves. Thus Calvin being heard speak for himself, it plainly appears that he by the decree of Reprobation makes God the author of man's damnation no otherwise then divers Romanists themselves do.  
And thus also Beza, 
* Caeterùm haec summa est responsionis Pauli, Quamvis Deus absque ullo qualitatum respectu, amori destinet, & odio destinet, quoscunque ipsi libuit, tamen procul eum abesse ab omni injustitiâ, quoniam inter aeternum Dei decretum, & ejus decreti executionem sunt causae subordinatae, quibus electos ad salutem adducit, & reprobos justè damnat. Electos n. servat per misericordiam, reprobos damnat per indurationem, ut prorsus ineptè faciant, qui Reprobationis decretum cum damnatione confundunt; quum hujus causa manifesta sit, nempe peccatum, illius verò sola Dei voluntas. Neutris igitur facit injuriam, quoniam ut●ique digni sunt exitio. Misericordia enim miseros electos fuisse ostendit, ac proinde dignos, qui propter peccatum perderentu: induratio verò perversitatem praesupponit, in quâ justè indurantur reprobi. Beza ad Rom. 9 15. Similia etiam habet ad v. 17.  This (saith he) is the sum of Paul's answer, although God appoint either to love, or to hatred whom he will, without any respect of their qualifications, yet he is free from all injustice, because betwixt God's eternal decree, and the execution of it, there are subordinate causes, whereby God doth bring the elect unto salvation, and doth justly damn the Reprobate. For he saves the elect by mercy, and damns the Reprobate by induration; so that they do most foolishly, who confouned the decree of Reprobation with damnation, seeing that the cause of damnation is manifest, to wit, sin, but the Will of God is the only cause of Reprobation. Therefore God doth wrong to neither, because both deserve destruction. For mercy shows that the Elect were miserable, and therefore worthy because of sin to be destroyed; and induration presupposeth perverseness, in which the Reprobate are justly hardened. The like he hath also again a little after.  
And whereas 
* Qui massae nomine humanum genus corruptum intelligunt, mihi non satisfaciunt in hujus loci explicatione. Primùm enim mihi videtur nomen illud informis materiae, ne condito quidem humano generi, nedum jam corrupto, satis convenire. Deinde si genus humanum ut corruptum consider asset Apostolus, non dixidet quaedam vasa ad decus, quaedam ad dedecus facta; sed potius quum omnia vasa ad dedecus esset comparata, aliâ in illo dedecore relicta, alia verò ab hoc dedecore ad decus translata. Postremò nisi Paulus ad ultimum usque gradum conscendat, non satisfecerit objectae quaestioni. Semper enim quaeritur, ista corruptio temeréne evenerit, an verò secundum Dei propositum, ac proinde difficultas eadem recurret. Dico igitur Paulum elegantissimâ istâ similitudine adhibitâ ad ipsius Adami creationem alludere, & aeternum usque propositum Dei conscendere, qui antequam humanum genus conderet, jam tum & in quibusdam, quos novit, per misericordiam servandis, & in quibusdam, quos etiam novit, justo judicio perdendis, gloriam suam illustrare, prosuo jure, & merâ voluntate decreverit. Beza. ad Rom. 3. 21.  Beza saith that they do not satisfy him, who by the lump which the Apostle speaks of Rom. 9 12. do understand mankind being corrupt; because. 1. That term he thinks doth not well agree to man being created, much less to him being already corrupted. And again, if the Apostle had some Vessels were made unto honour, and some unto dishonour; but seeing all Vessels were fitted for dishonour (all mankind being corrupted) the Apostle would rather have said that some were left in that dishonour, and some translated from it unto honour. Finally, except Paul go up to the highest step, the objection (he thinks) is not satisfied. For that still it will be demanded, whether that corruption came as it happened, or according to God's purpose; and so the same difficulty will remain still. Therefore Paul (he saith) by that most elegant similitude did allude unto Adam's Creation, and did ascend up even to God's eternal purpose, who before he did create mankind, did of his mere will and pleasure determine to show forth his glory in saving some through his mercy, and in destroying some by his just judgement.  
This is no more than 
* Non igitur in hâc disputatione supponit Apostolus massam corruptam, licet etiam de ea secundum Augustini sententiam, habet veritatem Apostoli sententia. Nam Scriptura passim adhibens comparationem luti, quod pro suo libitu format figulus, de luto loquitur absolutè, nullum ejus vitium supponens, sed solam ejus naturam considerans, quâ formabile est ad omne opus figulinum. Unde nec ait Apostolus figulum ex eâdem massâ aliud vas facere in honorem, aliud in ignominiâ relinquere, sed ex eâdem massâ facere in ignominiam. Neque dixit, figmentum ei qui se finxit non dicere, Cur me reliquisti in massâ corruptâ? Sed, Cur me fecisti sic? id est, vas ignominiosum, & reprobum. Estius ad Rom. 9 21.  Estius on Rom. 9 doth subscribe unto. In this disputation (saith he) the Apostle doth not suppose the lump corrupt, although that which the Apostle saith is true also of it according to Austin's opinion. For the Scriptures often using the comparison of a lump, which the Potter doth fasten as he pleaseth, speaks of the lump absolutely, not supposing any fault in it, but only considering the nature of it, whereby it is fit to be fastened into any work of the Potter. And therefore the Apostle doth not say, that the Potter of the same lump doth make one Vessel unto honour, and leave another in dishonour: but that of the same lump he doth make unto dishonour. Neither doth he say, that the thing form doth not say to him that form it, Why hast thou left me in the corrupt lump? but, Why hast thou made me so? that is, a dishonourable, and reprobate vessel.  
Here we see Estius both approves of Bezaes' interpretation, and also makes use of his reason for the confirming of it. And he adds that the Apostle in that similitude of a lump, and a Potter doth not allude to jer. 18. 6, 
Ne verum est, Paulum ad locum Jeremiae (Jer. 18. 6.) alludere, quin potius manifesta est allusio ad Isai. 45. Vae qui contradicit fictori suo, etc. Numquid dicit lutum, etc. Quae sanè verba significant ita Deum pro mero suo beneplacito statuere de rebus humanis in utramlibet partem, quomodo figulus ex luto facit opus quodcunque voluerit. Quo etiam pertinet quod sequitur, Vae qui dicit, etc. Quod enim meritum hominis, ut parentes eum talem, vel tamen gignant? Estius. Ibid.  but that rather there is a manifest allusion to Isai. 45. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker: Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the Earth: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, he hath no hands? Which words (he saith) do verily signify thus much, that God of his mere pleasure doth so determine of men's estate either the one way, or the other, as a Potter doth make of clay what work he pleaseth. And hitherto (he saith) doth that belong, which followeth (Isai. 45. 10.) Woe unto him that saith unto his Father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? For (saith he) what hath man deserved, why his parents should engender him such, or such? And a little before by divers arguments he confutes those, who think that the Apostle speaking of 
† De Reprobatione non perinde omnes consentiunt. Quidam enim dicunt Apostolum supponere massam humani generis infectam peccato original, etc. Verum si diligenter expendantur ea, quae hoc cap. habet Apost. prorsus apparebit, tam Reprobationem, quam electionem absolutè non ex ullis esse praevisis meritis. Name, 1. cum dicit, Cum nihil egissent aut boni, aut mali, tam excludit actionem malam Esau, quam actionem bonam Jacob, & consequenter tam malum meritum Reprobationis, quam bonum meritum electionis. 2. Quaestioni isti, Numquid iniquitas, etc. non respondet, ideò non esse, quia tota massa peccato vitiata est, etc. sed ita respondet, ut tam horum Reprobationem, quam illorum electionem referat in solam Dei voluntatem, eo tandem dicto curiosum interrogatorem compescens, O homo tu quis, etc. 3. Comparatio illa de figulo ex eâdem massâ, etc. massae corruptae hypothesim excludit. Hic enim profectò nihil in massâ supponitur, nisi quòd sit indifferens, & formabilis ad utrumque— In hanc sententiam, etc. Lamb. Hugo. Vid. S. Thom. Cajetan. Lyran. Tileman. Perer. etc. Estius ad Rom. 9 13.  Reprobation doth suppose the lump of mankind infected with original sin. If (saith he) those things, which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter, be diligently considered, it will fully appear, that as well Reprobation as Election is absolutely not of foreseen merits. For 1. When he saith, neither having done any good, or evil, he excludes as well the evil action of Esau, as the good action of Jacob, and consequently as well the ill merit of Reprobation, as the good merit of Election. 2. To that question, Is there unrighteousness with God? he doth not answer, that therefore there is not, because the whole lump is depraved by sin, etc. but he answers so, as that he refers as well the Reprobation of these, as the election of those, unto the sole Will of God, and so represses the curious inquirer, O man, who art thou, etc. 3. That comparison of a Potter of the same lump making one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour, doth exclude the supposition of a corrupt lump. For here verily is nothing supposed in the lump, but that it is indifferent, and may be fashioned both the one way, and the other.  
Thus this learned Papist goes as far in the point both of Election and of Reprobation as any Protestant (that I know) whatsoever. Neither would he have us think that he goes alone; for he citys many, as Lombard, Hugo de S. Victore, Aquinas, Cajetan, Lyra, Titleman, and Pererius, as being of the same opinion with him, and interpreting the words of the Apostle in the same manner. And this (I suppose) may suffice to vindicate the Doctrine of Protestants (even such as go highest in this point) as touching Reprobation.  
Now for the Scriptures objected against us, the first, viz. Wis. 1. 13. is not Canonical. Hierome brands that book called the the Wisdom of Solomon, as falsely entitled; and saith, that it is no where to be 
Fertur, etc. Et alius Pseudepigraphus, qui Sapientia Solomonis inscribitur.— Apud Hebraeos nusquam est: quin & ipse stylus Graecam eloquentiam redolet, & nonnulli Scriptorum veterum hunc esse Judaei Philonis affirmant. Sicut ergo Judith, & Tobiae, & Maccabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit: sit & haec duo volumina (Ecclesiasticum, & Librum Sapientiae) legit ad ae dificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. Hier. praefat. in Proverb.  found among the Hebrews (to whom the Oracles of God were committed, Rom. 3. 2.) and that the style doth smell of Greek eloquence, and that some ancient writers affirm it to be the work of Philo a Jew. Therefore (saith he) as the Church doth read indeed the Books of Judith, Toby and the Maccabees, but doth not receive them amongst the Canonical Scriptures: so also doth it read these two volumes (viz. Ecclesiasticus, and the wisdom of Solomon) for the edifying of the people, but not for the confirming of Ecclesiastical Doctrines. But suppose it were Canonical, the place alleged is answered to our hand by one of the Roman Church, 
Sensus hujus loci est, quod Deus non intendit perse primò mortem alicujus, sed ratione alterius majoris boni conjuncti. Secundò explicatur locus iste de morte, quantum ad ejus causam, scil. peccatum. etc.  viz. Alvarez: when it is said, God made not death, the meaning (he saith) is, that God doth not primarily of itself intent the death of any but in respect of some other great good that is joined with it. And again, that place (he saith) is expounded of death in respect of the cause, to wit, sin. These expositions of the place do free the Doctrine of Protestants from suffering any prejudice by it, were the authority of it greater than indeed it is. The next place is that, 1 Tim. 2. 4. Who will have all men to be saved, etc. Austin gives divers interpretations of those words. First, thus, that the meaning is, that God will have all to be saved that 
Debemus ita intelligere, etc. tanquam diceretur, Nullum hominem fieri salvum, nisi quem salvum fieri ipse voluerit, etc. Aut certè sic dictum est etc. ut omnes homines omne genus hominum intelligamus per quascunque differentias distributum, reges, privatos, nobiles, ignobiles, etc. Enchir. cap. 103.  are saved, and that none but such as he will save, can be saved. Secondly, this that by all men are meant men of all sorts, how ever distinguished, Kings and private persons, noble and ignoble, etc. This he shows to be agreeable both to the Context, and also to the phrase of Scripture, Luke 11. 42. You tithe Mint, and Rue, and every Herb, i. e. every kind of Herb. This latter exposition of the Apostles 
Alvar. de Auxil. disput. 33.  words Alvarez saith is also followed by Fulgentius, Beda, and Anselm. The same Alvarez relates two other interpretations, which Austin gives of these words, viz. first this, God will have all men to be saved, that is, he makes men to will, or desire that all may be saved, as the Spirit is said to make intercession for us, Rom. 8. 
Deus vult, i. e. facit ut homines velint, omnes salvos fieri, etc. Sic explicat S. Aug. de corrept. & great. cap. 15.  26. that is, makes us to make intercession or supplication, etc.  

* Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri] h. e. vult & facit pios homines velle seu desiderare omnium salutem.— Quamvis Deus non velit omnes salvos facere, sed solos electos: vult tamen omnes salvos fieri, scil. per nos, & quantum in nobis est, dum praecipit ut omnium salutem quaeramus, & hoc ipsum studium in nobis operatur.— Hanc expositionem prae caeteris amplectimur. Est. a● 1 Tim. 2. 4.  Estius upon the place doth embrace this Exposition before any other. Who will have all men to be saved] that is (saith he) He willeth, and maketh godly men to desire the salvation of all.— Though God will not save all, but only the Elect; yet he will have all to be saved, to wit, by us, as much as in us lies, in that he commands us to seek the salvation of all, and this desire and endeavour he works in us.— This Exposition we embrace rather than any of the rest.  
The other Exposition which 
* 
Quarta explicatio docet loqui Apostolum de voluntate Dei antecedente, quae est voluntas signi, & voluntas secundum quid, ut dicitur disput: sequenti. Hanc explicationem etiam tradit S. Aug. lib. ad art. sibi falso impositos, art. 2. & cap. 15. de corrept. & great. etc. Alvar. ubi supra.  
Voluntas Dei antecedens est, quae fertur in objectum aliquod absolutè consideratum, & secundum se; dicitur autem haec voluntas antecedens, non quia antecedit bonum, vel malum usum nostri arbitrii, ut arbitrantur auctores primae sententiae, sed quia antecedit voluntatem quâ Deus fertur in objectum consideratum cum aliquo adjuncto, quae est consequens, & posterior consideratio ejus.— Si consideretur salus reproborum secundum se, & absolutè, sic est à Deo volita: si autem consideretur, secundum quod habet adjunctam privationem, aut carentiam majoris boni, viz. boni universi manifestationis justitiae divinae in reprobis, & majoris splendoris misericordiae ejus in electis, sic non est volita à Deo. Et secundum hoc asserimus, quòd voluntate consequente Deus non velit omnes falvos fieri, sed solùm praedestinatos. Alvar. de Auxil. Disput. 34. num. 3.   Alvarez relates, is, that the Apostle speaks of God's antecedent will. Thus (he saith) Austin doth expound it in divers places, and for this Exposition he also citys Damascene, Prosper, Theophylaot, Oecumenius, Aquinas, as also chrysostom and Ambrose, and saith that it is common among the Doctors. Now in the next Disputation he tells us that God's antecedent Will is that, which respects the object simply considered, and by itself: and that this will is called antecedent, not because it goes before the good, or ill use of our will, as some think, but because it goes before that will, whereby God respects the object considered with some adjunct, which is the consequent, and latter consideration of it. If (saith he) the salvation of the Reprobate be considered simply by itself, so God doth will it: but if it be considered, as it hath adjoined the privation, or want of a greater good, to wit, the universal good of manifesting God's justice in the Reprobate, and of causing his Mercy the more to shine forth in the Elect, so God doth not will it. And in this respect were affirmed, that God by a consequent will doth not will that all shall be saved, but only such as are predestinate.  
Now take any of all these four Explications of the Apostles words, wherein he saith, that God will have all men to be saved (as for my part I like best either the second, or the last) take any of them, I say, and the Apostles words are nothing against that which Protestants hold concerning Reprobation. As for that of Peter, that God is not willing that any should perish, 2 Pet. 3. 9 Bellarmine himself expounds both it, and the former place, viz. 1 Tim. 2. 4. of that 
Verum est, Deum velle omnes salvos fieri voluntate illâ, quam rectè Theologi antecedentem vocant. Bell. de great. & lib. arb. lib. 2. cap. 3.  Will of God, which Divines call God's Antecedent will. Now what that Antecedent will of God is we have seen even now out of Alvarez: if Bellarmine did understand it otherwise (as Alvarez notes that some did) he is confuted by Alvarez in the place above cited. Where he also citys Austin saying, Many are not saved, not because they will not, but because God will not: which without all controversy 
Multi salvi non fiunt, non quia ipsi nolint, sed quia Deus non vult; quod absque ullâ controversiâ manifestatur in parvulis. Aug. apud Alvar. disput. 34. num. 5. Ergo conditio, quae includitur in voluntate antecedente, quâ Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, non est ista, si ipsi voluerint, aut per eos non steter it. Alvar. Ibid.  is manifested in young children: whence he infers that the condition, which is included in God's Antecedent will, whereby he will have all men to be saved, is not this, if they will, and if they do not hinder it.  
And Bellarmine himself also, though he 
Verissimum est, non fieri omnes salvos quia ipsi nolunt: nam si vellent, Deus eis utique non deesset. Caeterùm nemo vult salvus fieri, nisi Deus praeveniendo, & preparando voluntatem faciat eum velle: cur autem Deus non faciat omnes velle, quis novit sensum Domini? & quis consiliarius ejus fuit? Bell. loco proximè citato.  say, It is most true, that all are not saved, because they will not: for if they would, God would not be wanting unto them. Yet immediately he adds, But none can have a will to be saved, except God by preventing and preparing the will, make him to will it. And why God doth not make all to will this, who hath known the mind of the Lord? and who hath been his Counsellor? (Rom. 11. 34.) The last place of Scripture, which the marquis objecteth, is Ezech. 33. 11. As I live, saith the Lord, I delight not in the death of a sinner.  
Now to this also we have Alvarez to answer for us, viz. first that it is meant of spiritual death, which is by sin. Which 
Intelligitur de morte spirituali, quae est per peccatum. Hanc enim non vult Deus sed solùm permittit. Colligitur haec explicatio ex contextu: ait enim, sed magis ut convertatur, & vivat. Si autem explicetur de morte secundâ, scil. de damnatione aeternâ, dicendum est, quòd Deus non vult hanc mortem alicui infer, nisi supposito peccato, ut disp. 109. & 110. patebit. Alvar. de Auxil. disp. 33. num. 5.  God doth only permit, but doth not delight in it. And this Explication he saith, is confirmed by the words following, but rather that he be converted, and live. And if it be expounded of the second death, which is eternal damnation, the meaning, he saith, is, that God will not inflict this upon any but for sin.  
But though God will not inflict damnation upon the Reprobate, but for sin; yet this same Alvarez (as I have showed abundantly before) and so other Writers of the Church of Rome do tell us, that God by his eternal Decree of Reprobation of his mere Will, and Pleasure, doth determine to suffer the Reprobate to sin, and so to damn them for it. And thus now I have made it appear (I hope) sufficiently, that by the consent of the Romanists themselves the Scriptures alleged are not repugnant to the Doctrine of Protestants concerning Reprobation: neither (I think) will the Fathers, whom the marquis citeth, be against it. The first of them is Austin, who (as hath before been showed) is as much for us as we need desire. He is here produced against us, but so as that I know not easily how to find what he saith. For only li. 1. de Civit. Dei. is cited, but no Chapter, whereas there are no less than 36. in that book: this is a strange kind of citing Authors, but the fault may be in the Printer, or in some other, and not in the marquis. As for Cyprian, who is next cited, I see not any thing in the place pointed at, which is to this purpose, except this, Seeing it is written, 
Nam cum Scriptum sit, Deus mortem non fecit, nec laetatur in perditione vivorum, utique qui neminem vult perire, cupit peccatores poenitentiam agere, & per poenitentiam denuò ad vitam redire. Cypr. lib. 4. Epist. 2. vel edit. Pamel. Epist. 52.  God made not death, nor doth he rejoice in the destruction of the living, surely he that would not have any to perish, desires that sinners may come to Repentance, and that by Repentance they may return unto life again. Now that which Cyprian here allegeth, viz. God made not death, etc. I have showed before by the testimony of Hierome to be no Canonical Scripture, nor of sufficient force to decide any point of controversy: as also that if it were, yet by the acknowledgement of Alvarez it makes not against God's Decree of Reprobation, which we maintain. It hath also been showed before in what sense God would have none to perish, viz. by his Antecedent Will, with which yet will stand the Decree of Reprobation, as we hold it; which likewise hath been showed, and that from both Bellarmine, and from Alvarez also. And that God desires sinners may come to Repentance, and so to life, Protestants, (that I know) do not deny, though they hold that God doth give (and so from all eternity did purpose to give) Repentance unto some, and not to others, as he pleaseth; which I have also showed to be acknowledged by Bellarmine, Alvarez, Estius, and others of the Church of Rome. And it is most clear by that of the Apostle, If God peradventure will give them Repentance, 2 Tim. 2. 25. and that, He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth. Rom. 9 18.  
The third and last Father, who is here alleged, is Ambrose de Cain & Abel lib. 2. but what Chapter, (whereas there are ten in that Book) is not mentioned. Now I find that Chap. 3. hath something, which 
Ideo omnibus opem sanitatis detulit, ut quicunque perierit, mortis suae causas sibi ascribat, qui curari noluit, cum remedium haberet, quo posset evadere: Christi autem manifesta in omnes praedicetur misericordia, eò quòd two qui pereunt, suâ pereant negligentiâ, qui autem salvantur, secundum Christi sententiam liberentur, qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri, & in agnitionem veritatis venire. Amb. de Cain & Abel. l. 2. c. 3.  probably was aimed at by the marquis, viz. this, Christ therefore offered the help of healing unto all, that whosoever perisheth, may ascribe the cause of his death to himself, who when he had a remedy, whereby he might escape, would not be cured. And that Christ's mercy towards all might be made manifest, in that they that perish, do perish by their own negligence, but they that are saved, are freed according to Christ's sentence, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth. Now I know no Protestant but he will assent unto this, that whosoever perish, must ascribe the cause to themselves, and that they perish through their own default. I have before cited Calvin asserting thus much, That none do perish without their desert. But this assertion of his is very well consistent with his 
Asserimus nullos perire immerentes. Calv. Instit. li. 3. c. 23. Sect 12.  Doctrine about Reprobation, as I have showed by the testimonies of divers famous Writers of the Church of Rome. And whereas Ambrose saith, that such as perish, had a remedy, whereby they might escape, and that they therefore perish, because they would not be cured. No Protestants, (I suppose) will deny, but that such as perish through unbelief, if they did believe, should be saved: but yet nevertheless not Protestants only, but Papists also (as I have showed) do hold, that God from all eternity did decree and purpose to give faith unto some, and not unto others, and that merely of his own will and pleasure. And that therefore according to Austin (whose words are cited before) the prime and supreme cause why some are not saved, is not because they will not, but because God will not. For that which Ambrose hath in the last place, who will have all men to be saved, etc. enough hath been said before to show, that in the judgement of Austin, and divers Romanists, it is nothing against the absolute decree of Reprobation; and so I have done with this point.  
In the next place the marquis speaks of a man's assurance 
Page 66. & 67.  of his salvation, saying, that Protestants hold that a man ought to assure himself of it; and to prove the contrary, which they of the Roman Church do hold, he allegeth 1 Cor. 9 27. saying, S. Paul was not assured, but that whilst he Preached to others, he himself might become a castaway. And Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the Faith: be not high minded, but fear, etc. lest thou also mayest be cut off. And Phil. 2. 12. Work out your own salvation with fear and termbling.  
Answ. Concerning this point, Protestants hold, 1. That a Christian may be assured of his salvation. 2. That a Christian ought to labour for this assurance. For the former of these positions we have divers places of Scriptures. As first that Famous place Rom. 8. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall Tribulation, or Distress, or Persecution, etc. Nay in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither Death, nor Life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other Creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. So also that 2 Cor. 5. 1. We know then if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens, And v. 6, 7, 8. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whiles we are here in the body, we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, and not by sight. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. And that Phil. 1. 21. To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. And that 2 Tim. 4. 18. The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me to his Heavenly Kingdom. And in the same Chapter v. 6, 7, 8. I am now ready to be offered, and my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, etc. So also S. Peter, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, through the Resurrection of jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven for us. 1 Pet. 1. 3, 4. This hope, which believers have, or may have of salvation, is a lively hope; it is a hope, that maketh not ashamed. Rom. 5. 5. because they are sure to obtain that which they hope for, and shall not be disappointed of it. Hence it is also that believers rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory; 1 Pet. 1. 8. because they know they shall receive the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls. v. 9  
We have also Fathers to testify this truth; There flourisheth with us (saith Cyprian) the strength of hope, and the firmness of faith; and amongst the very 
Viget apud nos spei robur, & firmitas fidei, & inter ipsas seculi labentis ruinas erecta mens est, & immobilis virtus, & nunquam non laeta patientia, & de Deo suo semper anima secura: sicut per prophetam Spiritus S. loquitur, etc. Ego autem in Domino exultabo, & gaudebo in Deo salvatore meo. Cypian. ad Demetrian.  ruins of the decaying world the mind is raised up, and virtue is unmoveable, and patience is ever joyful, and the soul is always secure and confident of her God. And immediately he confirms this by that of the Prophet Habakkuk, Although the fig-three shall not blossom, etc. yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. Hab. 3. 17, 18.  
So again the same Father, 
* Quis hîc anxietatis & sollicitudinis locus est? quis inter haec trepidus & moestus est, nisi cui spes & fid. s deest? Ejus est enim mortem timere, qui ad Christum nolit ire: ejus est ad Christum nolle ire, qui se non credat cum Christo incipere regnare. Scriptum est enim, justum fide vivere. Si justus es, & fide vivis, si verè in Deum credis, cur non cum Christo futurus, & de Domini pollicitatione securus, quòd ad Christum voceris amplecteris, & quòd diabolo careas, gratularis?— Deus de hoc mundo recedentibus immortalitatem atque aeternitatem pollicetur, & tu dubitas: hoc est; Deum omnino non nosse; hoc est Christum credentium Dominum & magistrum peccato incredulitatis oftendere; hoc est in Ecclesiâ constitutum fidem in domo fidei non habere. Cypr. de mortalit.  what place is there here for anxiety and carefulness? who in the midst of these things can be fearful and sad, except he want hope and faith? It is for him to fear death, that would not go unto Christ: it is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ, that doth not believe that he doth begin to reign with Christ. For it is written, The just shall live by faith. If thou be'st just, and dost live by faith, if thou dost truly believe in God, seeing thou shalt be with Christ, and art sure of God's promise, why dost thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ, and art glad that thou art freed from the Devil?— God doth promise immortality and eternity to those that depart out of this life, and thou doubtest: this is not at all to know God: this is to offend Christ, the Lord and Master of Believers, with the sin of unbelief: this is to be in the Church, the house of faith, and yet to have no faith. Here we see how earnest Cyprian is to prove that Christians may, yea ought to be confident against the fear of death, and that because they may and aught to be assured of the life to come.  
Thus also 
* Credo promittenti, Salvator loquitur, veritas pollicetur, ipse dixit mihi, Qui au dit verba mea, & credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, & transitum facit de morte in vitam, & in judicium non veniet; Ego audivi verba Dmmini mei, credidi. Jam infidelis cum essem, factus sum fidelis, sicut ipse monuit, transii à morte ad vitam, ad judicium non venio, non praesumptione meâ, sed ipsius promissione. Aug. tract. 22. in Joh.  Austin, I believe (saith he) him that promiseth; The Saviour speaketh, the truth promiseth, he hath said unto me, He that heareth my words, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and is passed from death to life, and shall not come into condemnation. I have heard the words of my Lord, I have believed. Now whereas I was an unbeliever, I am made a Believer, as he hath said, I am passed from death to life, I come not into condemnation, not by my presumption, but by his promise.  
To this purposes also 
† Sic ad ortum solis justitiae, Sacramentum absconditum à seculis de praedestinatis, & beatificandis, emergere quodammodo incipit ex abysso aeternitatis, dum quisque vocatus per timorem, justificatus per amorem, praesumit se quoque esse de numero beatorum; sciens nimirum quia quos justificavit, illos & magnificavit. Quid enim? Audit se vocari, cum timore concutitur, sentit & justificari, dum amore perfunditur, & de magnificatione disfidet? Ber. Epist. 107.  Bernard, The Sun of Righteousness arising (saith he) the mystery concerning the predestinate, and those that shall be made blessed, which was so long hid, begins after a sort to come up out of the depth of eternity, whiles every one being called by fear, and justified by love (that is, by Faith working through love, as he said a little before) doth assure himself that he is of the number of the blessed, Knowing that whom he hath justified them he hath also glorified. For why? He hears that he is called, when he is moved with fear; he perceives that he is justified, when he is filled with love: and shall he doubt of his being glorified?  
And again, Thou hast O man (saith he) the justifying spirit a revealer of this secret, and so testifying unto thy spirit, that thou 
Habes homo hujus arcani indicem spiritum justificantem, eoque ipso testificantem spiritui tuo quod filius Dei & ipse sis. Agnosce consilium Dei in justificatione tui— Praesens namque justificatio tui, & Divini est consilii revelatio, & quaedam ad futuram gloriam praeparatio. Aut certè praedestinatio ipsa potius praeparatio est, justificatio autem magis jam appropinquatio. Bern. Ibid;  also art the Son of God. Acknowledge the counsel of God in thy justification.— For thy present justification is both a revelation of God's Counsel, and also a certain preparation unto future glory. Or truly predestination itself is rather a preparation, and justification is rather an appropinquation unto it.  
And again, Who is righteous, but he that doth requite God's 
Justus autem quis est, nisi qui amanti se Deo vicem rependit amoris? Quod non fit nisi revelante Spiritu per fidem homini aeternum Dei propositum super suâ salute futurâ. Quae sanè revelatio non est aliud quam infusio gratiae spiritualis, per quam dum facta carnis mortficantur, homo ad regnum praeparatur, quod caro & sanguis non possident, simul accipiens in uno spiritu & unde se presumat amatum, & unde redamet, ne gratis amatus si●. Bernard. Ibid.  love with love again? which is not done but when the spirit by Faith doth reveal unto a man God's eternal purpose concerning his future salvation. Which revelation surely is no other thing but the infusion of spiritual grace, by which the deeds of the flesh are mortified, and so a man is prepared for that Kingdom, which flesh and blood do not possess, receiving together by one spirit both this, that he is assured that he is loved, and also this, that he doth love again, that so he may not be ungrateful to him, of whom he is loved.  
Thus both Scriptures and Fathers testify that Christians may be assured of their salvation. And that this assurance may be had, may be proved also by all that hath been said before concerning the stability of Faith once had, and the certainty of persevering in the estate of grace, if a man be once in it. For hence it followeth, that if a man can be assured that he is in the estate of Grace, he may also be assured of his salvation. Now that he may be assured of his being in the state of grace some of the Romish Church, and that since Luther's time, have maintained, as namely Catharinus, and the Author of the Book called Enchiridium Coloniense, both which are mentioned in this respect by Bellarmine. And because the Council of Trent Sess. 6. c. 9 
Bellar. de Justif l. 3. c. 3.  doth seem to determine the contrary, therefore Eisingrenius hath written a whole book to show that the determination of the Council is not indeed against this, that a man may be assured that he hath true grace in him. The book I have seen and read many years ago, though now I have it not; And I remember he holds that a man may be as sure that he hath true grace, and that his sins are forgiven, as he is sure that twice two make four, and that the whole is greater than a part, and as he is sure of those things which he sees with his eyes, and feels with his hands. That a man may have this assurance of his present estate the Scripture plainly shows, 1 joh. 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life, because we love the Brethren.  
Whereupon says 
* Nemo interroget hominem, redeat unusquisque ad cor suum, si ibi invenerit charitatem fraternam, securus sit quia transit à morte ad vitam. Aug. tract. 5. in 1 Joh.  Austin, Let none ask man, let every one return unto his own heart, if there he can find brotherly love let him be secure that he is passed from death to life. So Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit himself doth bear witness with our spirits, that we are the sons of God. Upon which words 
† Ex hoc testimonio clarè videmus, credendum nobis esse quòd sumus filii Dei. Caje. in Rom. 8. 16.  Cajetan saith thus, By this testimony we see clearly, that we must believe that we are the sons of God. So also 1 joh. 3. 24. Hereby we know that he (viz. Christ) abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. And 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received the spirit of God, that we may know the things that are freely given unto us of God. Bellarmine says this place is not meant of the knowledge of 
Non loquitur Apostolus de notitâ beneficiorum Dei, quae in particulari ad hunc, autillum pertinent, sed de notitiâ beneficiorum, quae Deus praeparavit electis suis, qualia sunt inprimis haereditas, & gloria regni caelorum. Bell. de justif. lib. 3. cap 9  God's benefits, which belong unto this or that man in particular, but of the knowledge of those benefits, which God hath prepared for his Elect, as the inheritance and glory of the Kingdom of Heaven. But if the Apostle speaks only of our knowing what good things God hath prepared in general for the Elect, what is this more than appertains to the very Devils? for they know that God hath prepared Heaven, and happiness for the Elect; Cajetan therefore is more ingenuous, expounding it of the holy Ghost infused into 
Spiritus S. infusus Apostolis causavit in illis notitiam certam donorum Dei in eisdem— Apostoli certam habebant notitiam, quòd fides, spes, charitas, & alia dona gratis data eis erant à Deo. Cajet. ad 1 Cor. 2. 12.  the Apostles, and causing them certainly to know the gifts of God, that were in them. The Apostles (saith he) had a certain knowledge, that Faith, Hope, Charity, and other gifts, were freely given unto them of God. To add but one place more, viz. that 1 joh. 5. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that you may know that ye have eternal life. True (says Bellarmine) the Apostle saith indeed, These things I write 
Ait quidem, Haec scribo vobis qui creditis, ut sciatis, quia vitam habetis aeternam: sed non ait, Haec scribo vobis, ut sciatis vos habere fidem, qualis requiritur. Bell. de justif. lib. 1. cap. 11.  unto you that believe, that you may know that you have eternal life: but he doth not say, These things I write unto you, that you may know that you believe, as you ought to believe. But (say I) the Apostle here did suppose that they that truly believe, may know that they do so; for otherwise how should they that believe, know that therefore they have life eternal, except they first know that they do believe?  
Now for the Scriptures objected against us, that 1 Cor. 9 27. Lest having preached to others, I myself should be a castaway, cannot be so understood, as that Paul was uncertain either of his present justification, or of his future glorification; for that will not consist with many other sayings of his before cited. The meaning therefore is only this, that Paul's care was that his Preaching and his conversation might be suitable, and that the one might not confound the other. The word here rendered castaway, and 2 Cor. 13. 5. reprobate, is neither here nor there taken in opposition to elect, but is as much as reproved, so the word 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  properly doth import; as without the privative Particle it signifies approved, 1 Cor. 11. 19 That Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest by 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  faith, be not high minded, but fear, is nothing against assurance of salvation, which doth well consist with fear, viz. such a fear as is opposite to highmindedness; this fear making us keep close unto God, and not to depart from him, jer. 32. 40. And whereas it is said Rom. 11. 22. Lest thou also mayst (or as we read it, otherwise thou also shalt) be cut off, it is spoken by the Apostle to the Church of Rome, and serves well to show that any particular visible Church, even that of Rome, may fail; but from hence cannot be inferred, that a true Believer may fall away, and perish. Neither is the assurance of salvation infringed by that Phil. 2. 12. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For as for our working out of our salvation, it hinders not but 
Hope maketh not ashamed. Rom. 5 5. And every one that hath this hope, purifieth himself, etc. 1 joh. 3. 3.  that we may be assured of our salvation. We may be assured of that, which yet we must use means to obtain. Ezekiah was assured that fifteen years should be added unto his life, because God by his Prophet had told him so, Isai. 38. 5. Yet he used means for his recovery, v. 21. and so no question but he did for the preservation of his life, by eating and drinking, and the like. Paul also was assured, that both he, and all in the Ship with him should escape, because God by his Angel had revealed it unto him, Act. 27. 23, 24, 25. yet nevertheless he saw it needful 

Ut in timore Deo serviant, id est, non altum sapiant, sed timeant, quod significat, non superbiant, sed humiles sint.  
Aug. de corrept. et great 6. 9   to use means, whereby they might escape, Acts 27. 31. And for those words, with fear and trembling, they do not imply diffidence and doubting, but humility and lowliness of mind; fear and trembling being here the same as Romans 11. 20. viz. that which is opposite to pride and highmindedness. The Apostle 2 Cor. 7. 15. saith that the Corinthians received Titus with fear and trembling, that is, with all humility and reverence. So we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, that is with reverence and with godly fear, as is expressed Heb. 12. 28. But this is no argument at all why we may not be assured of our salvation; no more than it follows that therefore the Corinthians could not be assured of Titus his love and good will towards them, and that be came unto them for their good, because they received him in that manner.  
David Psal. 2. 11. bids serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Therefore there may be fear and trembling, and yet rejoicing too, and consequently assurance of God's love and favour; for without assurance of it there can be no sound rejoicing in it. Joy (as Ramundus de Sabunde observes) doth arise from this, that 
Gaudium oritur ex hoc, quòd aliqua res scit se habere id quod habet, non ex hoc, quòd habet. Ramund. de Sabund. Theolog. natural. tit. 95.  one knows that he hath that which he hath, and not merely from this that he hath it.  
Now for the fathers here alleged by the Marquis, viz. Am. Ser. 5. in Psal. 118. Basil. in Constit. Monast. cap. 2. Hiero. li. 2. advers. Pelag. Chrys. hom. 87. in joh. Aug. in Psal. 40. Bern. Ser. 3. de Advent. & Ser. 1. de Sept. I answer, it's true, Ambrose saith, David desired that his reproach, which 
Volebat auferri opprobrium, quod suspicatus est, vel quia cogitaverat in cord, & non fecerat, & paenitentiâ licet abolitum, suspectus tamen erat ne fortè adhuc maneret ejus opprobrium, & ideò Deum precatur ut illud auferat, qui solus novit quod nescire potest etiam ipse qui fecit. Ambros. Ser. 5. in Ps. 118. (vel. 119) 39  he suspected, might be taken away, either because he had thought in his heart, but had not done it; and though it were abolished by repentance, yet he was fearful lest perhaps the reproach of it did yet remain; and therefore he prays God to take it away, who alone knows that which even he may be ignorant of that hath done it. But this doth not argue that a man cannot in Ambroses judgement be assured of his salvation; it only shows (contrary to what the Papists hold) that a man cannot be justified and saved by his own inherent righteousness, because though he be otherwise never so righteous, yet still there is some sin in him, which he knoweth not of; according to that of the Apostle (which Ambrose there citeth) I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4. 4. The Apostle denieth that he was justified by that righteousness that was in him, though he had the testimony of a good conscience to rejoice in, 2 Cor. 1. 12. yet was he nevertheless assured that he was justified, and should be saved through faith in Christ Jesus, as hath been proved before from Rom. 8. 33. etc. and from other places. This was all that 
* Subobscurè dictum videtur, sed explanavit Apostolus quod hic videbatur obscurum, ubi ait, Nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc justificatus sum. Sciebat n. se esse hominem, & sibi cavebat ut poterat, ne post suscepta baptismi Sacramenta peccaret; ideoque delicti sibi conscius non erat: sed quia homo erat, peccatorem se fatebatur, sciens unum esse Jesum lumen verum, qui peccatum non fecit, nec est inventus in ore ejus dolus, ipsum solum justificari, qui verè alienus esset à lapsu. Ambr. Ibid.  Ambrose meant, as appears by his words immediately going before those objected; The Apostle (he saith) Explains David's meaning, saying, I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified. He knew that he was a man, and did take heed to himself as he could, that he might not sin after his Baptism; therefore he knew nothing by himself; but because he was a man, he confessed himself a sinner, knowing that jesus alone is the true light, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, that he alone is justified (i. e. perfectly just in himself) who was truly without all sin.  
That which Basil (whose words I find in Bellarmine, though otherwise I have him not to peruse) saith, is directly to the same 
Bell de justif di. 3. cap. 7.  purpose, and imports no more than that of Ambrose. We do not understand (saith he) many things wherein we sin. Therefore the Apostle saith, I know 
Multa peccantes, plurima neque intelligimus. Quapropter dicit Apost. Nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc justificatus sum, h. e. multa pecco, & non intelligo. Bas. de Constit. Monast. cap. 2.  nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified, that is, I sin in many things, and am not aware of it. For Hierome, he is too loosely cited both by the marquis, and before him by Bellarmine, there being eleven long Chapters in that book which is mentioned, but in which of them he saith any thing against us, they do not tell us. However the words objected are these. 
Sunt justi, ad quos pervenit quasi opus impiorum, & sunt impii, ad quos perverni quasi opus justorum. Hoc idcircò dicitur, quia certum judicium solius Dei est. Hier. adv. Pelag l. 2. c. 2.  There are righteous men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked: and there are wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous. This is said (viz. Eccles. 8. 14.) because certain judgement belongs only unto God. These words by search I find in Hierome; but it plainly appears, that his scope only is to prove against the Pelagians, that no man in this life is so righteous, as to be without sin, which is not against us in this controversy, but for us in another, as hath been showed before. A little after those words Hierome saith thus, What mortal man is not taken with some 
Quis mortalium aliquo errore non capitur?— Vix salvatur (justus) in eo, quòd in quibusdam Dei indiget misericordiâ. Hieron. Ibid.  error? And that the righteous shall scarcely be saved (1 Pet. 4. 18.) because in some things (or rather indeed in all things) he stands in needs of God's mercy. In the former 
Nihil mihi conscius sum, etc. Qui hoc dicebat, nullius utique peccati sibi conscius erat, sed quia legerat, Delicta quis intelligit? etc. idcircò temperabat sententiam, etc. Hieron. advers. Pelag. l. 2. c. 1.  Chapter Hierome brings in that of S. Paul; I know nothing by myself, etc. and saith, that though the Apostle were not conscious to himself of sin, yet he did not justify himself, because he had read (Psal. 19 13.) who can understand his his faults? Thus than his testimony makes indeed against the perfection of a man's own righteousness; but not against his assurance of salvation, which may well stand without the other. chrysostom in the place cited, comments upon that joh. 21. 17. Peter was grieved, 
Proptereà contristatus sum, ne fortè me amare arbitratus, non amem: ut anteà cum me fortem & constantem putarem, postmodum imbecillis deprehensus sum. Chrys. Hom. 87. in Joh.  because he said unto him the third time, lovest thou me? and he saith, that Peter feared lest now he thought himself to love Christ, when he did not; as before he was deceived in thinking himself stout and constant, when it proved otherwise.  
But 1. Though chrysostom so take the words of Peter, as if he might then be mistaken in that opinion which he had of himself: yet it does not follow that therefore he should hold that a man cannot be assured that he hath saving grace in him.  
2. Austin gives another, and a better reason, why Peter was grieved that Christ did ask him that question the third time, viz. because thereby Christ (as he thought) seemed not to believe him; not that he 
Cum jam tertiò ille taedio afficeretur, quasi non sibi crediderit. Aug. in 1 Joh. Tract. 5.  suspected his own heart, but he feared that Christ did suspect him, because he did ask him the same question thrice over.  
Maldonate the Jesuit citys Theodorus Heracleotes, 
Magis probo quod scribit Theodorus Heracleotes, contristatum fuisse, quòd cum Christus eum tam sepè, & tam diligenter interrogaverat, indicare videretur se illum suspectum habere etc. proptereà respondisse, Domine tu nosti, etc. q. d. Tu, qui omnia nosti, ignorare non potes verum esse, quod dico: quid ergò, quasi mihi non credens, me tam saepè rogas? Maldon. in Joh. 21. 16, 17, 18.  as also thus expounding it, and saying, that therefore Peter answered, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love Thee; as if he should have said, Thou that knowest all things, canst not but know that it is true that I say: and therefore why dost thou ask me so often, as if thou didst not believe me? This Exposition Maldonate doth prefer before the other of chrysostom, which he also mentioneth, and saith, that 
Quod subjungit, Domine tu scis, non solum moderationis causâ dictum puto, sed multo etiam magis, ut quod dixerat, etiam, ipsus Christi testimonio confirmaret. Maldon. Ibid.  Peter saying, Lord, thou knowest, did speak so, not so much out of modesty, as to confirm that which he had said, (viz. that he loved Christ) by Christ's own testimony. Austin in Psal. 40. hath nothing (that I can see) to the purpose; I suppose it should 
Novi quia justitia Dei manet, ultrùm mea maneat nesclo. Terret enim me Apost. dicens, Qui se putat stare, videat ne cadat. Aug. in Psal. 41. 8.  be in Psalm 41. from whence Bellarmine doth produce this, I know that the righteousness of God doth remain, whether my righteousness may remain, I know not. For the Apostle doth make me to fear, saying, Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor. 10. 12.) I acknowledge 
Ergo quia non est in me firmitas mihi, nec est mihi spes de me, add me ipsum turbata est anima mea. Vis non conturbetur? Non remaneas in teipso, & dic, Ad te Domine levavi animam meam. Hoc planiùs audi, Noli sperare de te, sed de Deo tuo. Nam si speras de te, anima tua conturbabitur ad te, quia nondum invenit unde sit secura de te. Ergo quoniam ad me conturbata est anima mea, quid restat nisi humilitas, ut de se ipsâ anima non praesumat? Aug. Ibid.  these words of Austin; but that which follows immediately, shows the meaning of them. Therefore (saith he) because I have no strength (or stability) in myself, neither have I hope of myself, my soul is troubled toward myself. wouldst thou not have it troubled? Do not abide in thyself, but, say, unto thee, O Lord, have I lift up my soul (Psal. 25. 1.) Hear this more plainly, Do not hope of thyself, but of thy God. For if thou dost hope of thyself, thy soul will be troubled towards thee, because it hath not yet found whereby it may be secure of thee. Therefore because my soul is troubled towards me, what remains but humility, that the soul do not presume of itself? Thus it clearly appears, that Austin spoke not against assurance of salvation, but only against self confidence, and presumption.  
The last Father alleged is Bernard, who saith, This doth add to the heap of care, and 
Accedit ad sollicitudinis cumulum, & pondus timoris, quòd cum & meam, & proximi conscientiam servare necesse sit, neutra mihi satis est nota. Utraque abyssus est imperscrutabilis, utraque mihi nox est, etc. Bern. Ser. 3. de Advent.  to the weight of fear, that when as it's necessary to look both to mine own, and my Neighbour's conscience, neither of them is sufficiently known unto me. Both are an unsearchable depth, both are night unto me.  
But Bernard only means that it's very hard for a man to know his own heart, because of the deceitfulness of it, not but that by the Spirit of God a man may know it so far forth as to be assured of the truth of Grace in him; which hath been proved before by Bernard's testimony in divers places. So elsewhere he saith indeed, Who can say, I am of the Elect, I am of those that are predestinate unto life, 
Quis potest dicere, Ego de electis sum, ego de praedestinatis ad vitam, ego de numero filiorum? Quis haec, inquam, dicere potest? reclamante nimirum Scripturâ, Nescit homo si sit dignus amore, an odio. Certitudinem utique non habemus, sed spei fiducia consolatur nos, ne dubitationis anxietate penitus cruciemur. Bern. Ser. 1. in. Septuag.  I am of the number of God's children? who, I say, can say these things? the Scripture saying on the contrary, Man knows not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred. Surely we have no certainty, but the confidence of hope doth comfort us, lest we should be tormented with the anxiety of doubting.  
But 1. Bernard here builds upon a false ground, viz. that the Scripture saith, No man knows whether he be worthy of love or hatred, i. e. whether he be in such an estate, as to be loved of God, or hated of him: whereas Solomon Eccles. 9 1. (which place he meaneth) only saith, No man knoweth love or hatred by all that is before them; that is, by outward things which befall men, as prosperity and adversity, they cannot conclude either that God doth love, or that he doth hate them: because (as it follows immediately) All things come alike to all, i. e. all outward things; prosperity happens to the wicked, and adversity to the godly; and therefore there is no judging of God's love, or hatred by these things: yet it follows not but that by other marks and trials a man may know whether God love him or no; and so much Bernard himself hath confessed, as I have showed.  
2. Neither doth Bernard here absolutely deny that any can know himself to of the number of those that shall be saved, only he denies such a knowledge, so sure and certain, as to exclude all care of obtaining salvation. For so he adds immediately, Therefore there are given certain signs, and manifest tokens of salvation, that it may be without doubt that he is of 
Propter hoc data sunt signa quaedam & indicia manifesta salutis, ut indubitabile sit eum esse de numero electotum, in quo ea signa permanserint. Propter hoc, inquam, quoa praescivit Deus, & praedestinavit conformes fieri imagini filii sui, ut quibus certitudinem negat causâ sollicitudinis, vel fiduciam praestet gratiâ consolationis, Bern. Ibid.  the number of the Elect, in whom those signs shall remain. Therefore, I say, whom God foreknew, them also he predestinated to be be conformed to the image of his Son, that to whom he denies certainty, that they may be careful, he yet affords confidence, that they may have comfort. I grant, that Bernard presently after seems to be very peremptory against a man's being 
Quales sumus, nosse possumus, vel ex parte; quales autem futuri sumus, id nosse penitus nobis impossibile est. Bern. Ibid.  assured of his perseverance, saying, What we are we may know, at lest in part: what we shall be, that is altogether impossible for us to know. But it hath been proved before both by Scriptures and Fathers, that true justifying faith once had cannot be wholly lost. And even Bernard himself (as before is showed) doth hold that a man may know assuredly that he is justified, and that therefore he shall be glorified, because the Apostle saith that whom God hath justified, them also he hath glorified, that is, will certainly glorify, Rom. 8. 30.  
And therefore here he must be understood as intending only to prevent security, and a casting off all care for the future. For so immediately he goes on, Therefore let him that standeth take heed lest he fall: 
Itaque qui stat, videat ne cadat, & in formâ, quae salutis indicium est, & argumentum praedestinationis, perseveret atque proficiat. Bern. Ibid.  and let him continue and go on in that, which is both a token of salvation, and an argument of Predestination. Thus then notwithstanding any thing contained either in the Scriptures, or the Fathers, which are alleged, the Doctrine of Protestants concerning assurance of salvation doth remain firm and sure, viz. that a man may have this assurance. And if so, then surely (which is the other position) all aught to labour for this assurance, it being to be had, and well worth the labouring for that it may be had; the Scripture also requiring us to give diligence to make our calling, and our election sure, 2 Pet. 1. 10.  
To proceed, We say (saith the marquis) that every man 
Page 67.  hath an Angel guardian; you say he hath not. We have Scripture for it, viz. Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in Heaven there Angels do always behold the face of my Father. Acts 12. 13. S. Peter knocking at the door, they say, It is his Angel. They believed this in the Apostles time. The Fathers believes it, etc.  
Answ. For every one's having a peculiar Angel to guard him, I know not any great controversy that there is betwixt Protestants and them of the Church of Rome about it. Bellarmine in all his three great volumes of controversies hath none of this that I do find. Whether several Believers have several Angels for their guardians Calvin neither affirms, nor denies, Instit. lib. 1. cap. 14. Sect. 7. The Rhemists on Mat. 18. 10. say that he will needs doubt of it, but that he dares not deny it. The Scripture is clear for this, that the Angels are appointed to guard the Elect; They are all ministering spirits, sent forth to Minister for those that shall be heirs of salvation, Heb. 1. 14. The like is to be seen in other places, as Psal. 34. 7. and 91. 11. But that every one hath his peculiar Angel, this is not so clear but that we may well doubt of it. Yea, if it be so understood, that each believer hath only one Angel guarding him, it will not agree with that Psal. 91. 11. He hath given his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee, etc. Nor with that Gen. 32. 1, 2. Where it is said that as jacob was returning out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, the Angels of God met him; and therefore he called the name of the place Mahanaim, that is, two Camps, or two Hosts, viz. that of his own, and the other of the Angels. In this therefore Calvin might well be confident, as he was, that every one of us hath 
Hoc quidem pro certo habendum, non tantum uni Angelo unumquemque nostrum esse curae, sed omnes uno consensu vigilare pro salute nostrâ. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 7. Similia habet ad Mat. 18. 10.  not only one Angel to care for us, but that they all with one consent to watch for our safety. This, he saith, is to be held for certain. Neither durst the Rhemists, or any others (that I know) quarrel with him about it. For those two places, which the marquis allegeth, they are neither of them sufficient to prove that every believer hath his peculiar Angel. That Mat. 18. 10. where our Saviour speaking of believers, calls the Angels their Angels, doth evince no more than this, that believers have the Angels to attend upon them. For there is no necessity to understand it so that each particular Believer hath his particular Angel; no more than because it's said, obey your guides (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or governor's, Heb. 13. 17. therefore each one hath his peculiar guide or governor: or because it's said Isai. 3. 4. I will give children to be there Princes, therefore each several person had his several Prince, or Magistrate. The other place, viz. Acts 12. 15. it is his Angel, viz. Peter, is more obscure, neither (I confess) do I well know how to understand it. Some by Angel there understand not a celestial spirit, but a messenger, as the Geeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence the Latin Angelus, and 
Camer. Myroth. ad Act. 12. 15.  the English Angel is derived, doth primarily import. And they conceive this to be the meaning, that the damosel did not tell those within, that she heard Peter's voice, but only said, that Peter was at the door, and she constantly affirming this, they supposed that Peter had sent some messenger, and that the damosel mistaking what he said, imagined that Peter himself was there. But it is not probable but that the damosel would signify that it was Peter's voice, which she heard, the Scripture expressly saying, v. 14. that she knew Peter's voice. On the otherside, if a Heavenly Angel be there meant, it seems to imply, that they supposed the Angel that guarded Peter, and therefore is called his Angel, to represent the person of Peter, and to assume his voice; which conceit seems very uncouth. However, if such an Angel be there meant, yet only this can be inferred from thence, that Peter had his Angel to guard him; but it follows not, that therefore he had an Angel proper and peculiar to himself, and that only one certain Angel was appointed his guardian.  
Neither do the Fathers, that are cited, (so far as I can see) speak home to the point in question. Gregory 
Quis enim fidelium habere dubium possit, in ipsâ immolationis horâ, ad sacerdotis vocem caelos aperiri, in illo Jesu Christi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse, etc. Greg. dial. lib. 4. cap. 58.  of whom mention is first made, is here so impertinently alleged, that I suppose there was some oversight in it. For he speaks nothing at all of the Angels guarding men, but only of their being present at the celebration of the Eucharist; which is nothing to our present purpose.  
Athanasius, who is mentioned next, saith only that there 
Athanas. de communi essentiâ, sub finem.  are some supercaelestiall powers, qui apud homines permanent, that do abide with men, and are hominum paedagogi, mens instructors or governor's: but of particular Angels belonging to particular men he speaks nothing. chrysostom in one place, 
Chrysost de Sacerd. lib. 6.  which the marquis quoteth, speaks of the Angels being present, when the Eucharist is celebrated, and of their conveying to Heaven the souls of such, as immediately before their death with a pure conscience received that Sacrament; which he saith one told him, that saw it; but to the question now agitated, I find not that he saith any thing in that place. Indeed Hom. 3. (not as it is misquoted, Hom. 2.) in Coloss. he citeth, Mat. 18. 10. and saith, Every Believer hath an Angel: but this doth not necessarily import, 
Unusquisque n. sidel is habet angelum. Chrys. hom. 3. in Coloss. Similiter, ad Mat. 18. 10. His innuit verbis nostrum unum quemlibet angelum habere.  that each Believer hath his peculiar Angel. What Gregorious Turonensis saith, (whose testimony is the next) wanting his works, I cannot yet examine. The next after him is Austin, but he is misalleged, viz. Epist. ad Probam cap. 19 Whereas there are but 16. Chapters in that Epistle, which is wholly about prayer, and hath nothing (that I find) about Angels. The last witness is Hierome, who saith indeed, Great is the dignity of souls, that every one from his birth 

Magna dignitas animarum, ut unaquaeque habeat ab ortu nativitatis in custodiam sui Angelum delegatum. Hieron. in Mat. 18. 10.  
Unde legimus in Apocalypsi Joannis, Angelo Ephesi, Thyatirae, et Angelo Philadelphiae, & angelis quatuor reliquarum Ecclesiarum scribe haec, Hieron. Ibid.   hath an Angel appointed to keep him. But it doth not appear, that he thought every one to have his peculiar Angel. The contrary rather appears by that which he adds immediately after, viz. that hereupon john Revel. 2. & 3. was bidden to write to the Angel of Ephesus, Thyatira, Philadelphia, and the other four Cburches there mentioned. Though Hierome do misinterpret the Angels there spoken of in the Revelation, and therefore both he, and some others of the ancients are in this rejected by Ribera, yet thereby we may perceive, 
Riber. in Apoc. 1. ult.  that he did not hold every one to have a peculiar Angel, but one Angel to be for a whole Church. If it be said, that there by Angel he meant Angels, the singular number being put for the plural, the same may be said concerning the other words which are objected. But enough of this point; there is more controversy about those that follow.  
We say (saith the marquis) the Angels pray for us, knowing 
Page 67.  our thoughts, and deeds: you deny it. We have Scripture for it, Zach. 1. 9, 10, 11, 12. Then the Angel of the Lord answered, and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on jerusalem, and on the Cities of judah, against whom thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before the Lord. This place was so understood by Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hilary in Psal. 129. tells us, This intercession of Angels God's Nature needeth not, but our infirmities do. So S. Ambrose lib. de viduis, Victor Utic. lib. 3. de persecut. Vandal.  
Answ. Had the marquis only said, that the Angels know our deeds, and pray for us, there had been little cause to oppose: but whereas he saith that they know our thoughts, that may not be granted, the Scripture making this God's Prerogative. For thou, even thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men. 1 Kings 8. 39 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. in Luc. 5.  Theophylact therefore upon Luke 5. 22. saith that CHRIST proved himself to be God by this, that (as it is there said) he knew men's thoughts. And the same also is observed by 
* Ostendit sibi competere, quod etiam Scripturae Deo proprium esse passim docent, dum declarat se cordium esse inspectorem, etc. Jansen. Concord. cap. 32.  jansenius in his Comment upon the place. For that in Zach. 1. 12. some by the Angel there spoken of understand Christ, the 
Vulg. Angelus testamenti.  Angel (or Messenger) of the Covenant, as he is called Mal. 3. 1. But others understand a created Angel, viz. the Angel that talked with the Prophet Zachary, and thence observe that the Angels pray for the Church. This seems more probable by the words immediately following, And the Lord answered the Angel that talked with me, v. 13. In the other place, viz. Revel. 
Hunc multi Christum esse existimant. Rib. ad Apoc. 8. 3. The same also is confessed by the Rhemists upon the place.  8. 4. Ribera telleth us, that many think the Angel there mentioned to be Christ. And though he dislike that Exposition, yet it is more than probable by that which is said v. 3. There was given him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints, etc. For what can we well understand by that incense, but Christ's Merit and Meditation, whereby the prayers of the Saints are acceptable and well pleasing unto God?  
For the Fathers alleged, 
* Est ergo altare in caelis. Illuc enim preces nostrae diriguntur, & ad templum, quemadmodum Joan. in Apocal. ait, Et apertum est templum Dei, & tabernaculum. Ecce enim, inquit, tabernaculum Dei, in quo habitabit hominibus. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34.  Irenaeus speaketh not either of this Angel spoken of Revel. 8. 4. or at all of Angels praying for us. All that he saith is, that there is an altar in Heaven, to which our prayers must be directed: and then he citys john saying in the Revelation, that the Temple and Tabernacle of God was opened: but this is nothing to the point in hand.  
Hilary is truly cited, speaking of the intercession of Angels, he saith, that not God's 
Intercessione itaque horum non natura Dei eget, sed infirmitas nostra. Hilar. in Psal. 129.  Nature, but our infirmity doth stand in need of it.  
But (as I said before) I see not why we should deny, that 
Whether those blessed spirits pray for us, is not here the question, but whether we are to pray unto them. B. Usher. Answ. p. 421. He speaks of the Saints, but it may hold of the Angels. Hieron. praefat. in Proverb.  the Angels pray for us; for it doth not therefore sollow, that we may pray to them; which is the next point to be considered. Yet I should have liked it better, if Hilary had grounded himself upon that place of Zachary, which the marquis produced, then that he should build upon the Book of Tobit (as also doth Ambrose Ser. 92. for I find nothing this way in the place, which the marquis quoteth) that Book (as Hierome long ago hath censured it) being Apocryphal, and of no authority for the determining of matters of this nature. What the last Author saith, viz. Victor Vticensis, being not furnished with his Book, I cannot tell; neither is there need to inquire after him, he being alleged for no more than Hilary, and he asserting no more than (I think) may be granted.  
But from the angels praying for us the Marquis passeth to our 
Page 68  praying to the angels. We hold it lawful (saith he) to pray unto them: you not. We have Scripture for it, Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless these Lads, etc. Hos. 12. 4. He had power over the Angel, and prevailed: he wept and made supplications unto them. S. Austin expounding these words of Job 19 21. Have pity upon me, O ye my friends, for the hand of the Lord is upon me, saith, that holy Job addressed himself to the Angels. 
Prayer is a worship, a Religious worship as our adversaries grant. Now worshipping of Angels is condemned, Col. 2. 18. & Revel. 19 10. &. 22. 9   
Answ. That it is lawful to pray unto angels, Protestants deny, and that justly, there being no ground, nor warrant for it in the Scripture, but much against it. For the Scripture every where teacheth and requireth us to pray unto God, and to none other. Call upon me in the day of trouble. Psal. 50. 15. After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father, etc. Mat. 6. 9 When ye pray say our Father, etc. Luke 11. 2. In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee. Psal. 85. 7. As for me I will call upon God. Psal. 55. 16. For this shall every one that is godly prey unto thee. Psal. 32. 6. How shall they call upon him, in whom they have not believed? Rom. 10. 14. Now we both profess in the Creed, and so are taught in the Scripture, to believe only in God. That your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Pet. 1. 21. Ye believe in God, believe also in me. Joh. 14. 1. viz. because Christ, who there speaks, is God. Prayer must proceed from the heart, and not from the lips only. Give ear unto my prayer, that goeth not out of feigned lips. Psal. 17. 1. Unto thee O Lord do I lift up my soul. Psal. 25. 1. Pour forth your hearts unto him. Psal. 62. 8. Hannah spoke in her heart, etc. 1 Sam. 1. 13. Now God only knoweth the heart, as was showed before.  
The Fathers were of this mind. 
a Name & Deum oramus, etc. Tertull. de orat. cap. 2.  Tertullian writing of prayer, and expounding the Lords Prayer, upon the first words of it saith, We pray unto God. And afterwards in the same book, 
b Commendamus Deo preces nostr as. Ibid cap. 13.  We commend our prayers unto God: neither does he speak of praying unto any other. And elsewhere, 
c Nos pro salute imperatorum, Deum invocamus aeternum, etc. Tertull. Apolog. cap. 30.  We call upon the Eternal God (saith he) for the safety of the Emperors. 
d Haec ab alio orare non possum, quam à que me scio consecuturum, quoniam & ipse est, qui solus praestat, etc. Tertull. Ibid.  And again more fully to the purpose, These things I cannot pray for from any other, but from him, from whom I know I shall obtain; because he it is, who alone doth give them.  
So Cyprian also writing of the Lords Prayer, all along supposeth, and taketh it for granted, that it is God to whom we must pray. He saith that to pray otherwise then Christ hath taught us, is not only ignorance, 
Ut aliter orare quam docuit, non ignorantia sola sit, sed & culpa. Cypr. de orat. Dom.  but a sin also. Now Christ hath taught us to pray unto God only.  
And Cyprian saith, that We must pray with the heart rather than with the voice, 
Quia Deus non vocis, sed cordis auditor est. Nec admonendus est clamoribus, qui cogitationes hominum videt. Cypr. Ibid.  because God hears not so much the voice as the heart. He saith that before prayer (viz. in the Congregation) the people were required to lift up their hearts; and they used to 
Ideo & sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissà, parat fratrum mentes dicendo Sursum corda; ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Dominum, admoneatur nihil aliud se, quam Dominum cogitare debere. Cypr. Ibid. Quomodo te audiri à Deo postulas, cum te ipse non audias? Ibid.  answer, we lift them up unto the Lord; whereby they were admonished to think of nothing but the Lord when they prayed. And taxing those that pray negligently, How dost thou request that God should hear thee, when as thou dost not hear thyself?  
And some of the ancients have proved Christ to be God by this very argument that he is called upon, and prayed unto. If Christ be only man (saith 
* Si homo tantummodò Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad praestandam salutem inefficax judicetur? Novat. de Trinit. cap. 14.  Novatian) Why is man called upon in prayers as Mediator, seeing that the invocation of a man is judged ineffectual to afford salvation? Though Novatian in some things proved an Heretic, yet was he not an Heretic in this: yea 
† De Trinitate disputaturus Novatianus Presbyter Romanus sub S. Fabiano Papa, quantum apparet, adhuc Catholicus, etc. Pamel. in argum. lib. de Trivit.  Pamelius a Romanist tells us, that he wrote this while, for any thing that appears, he was a Catholic.  
Thus also that great hammer of the Arians, Athanasius, proved Christ to be consubstantial to the Fathet, by that of the Apostle, 1 Thess. 3. 11. Now God himself, and our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you.  
For (saith he) none would pray to receive from God and from the Angels, or 
Neque enim quispiam precaretur accipere à Deo, & ab Angelis, aut ab ullis rebus creatis. Neque quisquam hanc verborum formam concepit, Det tibi Deus, & Angelus; sed contra ä Patre, & Filio propter unitatem uniformemque rationem dandi. Athanas. orat 4. contra Arianos.  from any of the creatures. Neither would any speak in this manner, God and an Angel give unto thee. But the Apostle asks of the Father and of the Son, because of the unity of their nature, and the uniform manner of their giving.  
And immediately after he answers that place which the marquis allegeth, viz. 
Non aliquem Angelorum cratorum, & qui naturâ Angeli erant in unum copulavit cum Creatore Deo, neque omisso nutritio suo Deo, ab Angelo benedictionem suis nepotibus postulavit: sed quia disertè locutus est de Angelo, qui illum ab omnibus malis liberaverat, satis prae se tulit non ex creatis Angelis aliquem, sed Filium fuisse Patris, quem Patri in suis precibus consociavit, per quem Deus liberat quos vult. Hunc enim magni consilii Patris Angelum noverat, nec alium nisi illum ipsum, qui benedicit, & liberat ex malis, suis verbis expressit. Athanas. Ibid,  Gen. 48. 16. The Angel that reedemed me from all evil, bless the Lads, saying, Jacob did not couple any of the created and natural Angels with God the Creator; neither did he omit God that nourished him, and desire a blessing for his nephews from an Angel. But in that he spoke expressly of the Angel that redeemed him from all evil, he showed sufficiently, that it was none of the created Angels, but the Son of the Father, whom he in his prayers joined with the Father, by whom God doth redeem whom he pleaseth. For he knew him to be the 
* So Christ is styled Isai. 9 6. according to the Greek Translation.  Angel of the Father's great Counsel, neither did he in his words express any other but him that doth bless, and redeem from evil.  
Austin also in his book of true Religion, doth frequently assert that religious worship 
Quarta de Invocatione, quae est eximium genus adorationis. Bellarord. disput. de Eccles. Triumph.  belongs not unto Angels, but to God only; and consequently that Angels are not to be prayed unto, Prayer and Invocation being (as Bellarmine confesseth) a singular kind of adoration. That (saith 
* Quod colit summus Angelus, id colendum etiam ab homine ultimo.— Hoc etiam ipsos optimos Angelos, & excellentissima Dei Ministeria velle credamus, ut unum cum ipsis colamus Deum, cujus contemplatione beati sunt.— Quarè honoramus eos charitate, non servitute.— Rectè itaque scribitur hominem ab Angelo prohibitum, ne se adoraret, sed unum Deum, sub quo ei esset & ille conservus.— Ecce unum Deum colo, etc. Quisquis Angelorum diligit hunc Deum, certus sum quòd etiam me diligit.— Religet ergò nos Religio uni omnipotenti Deo. Aug. de ver â relig. cap. ult.  Austin) which the highest Angel doth worship, is also to be worshipped by the lowest man.— Let us believe that the best Angels and the most excellent Ministers of God desire this, that we together with themselves may worship only God, by whose contemplation they are blessed.— Therefore we honour them with love, not with service.— Rightly therefore is it written, that a man was forbidden by an Angel to worship him, and was required only to worship God, under whom the Angel was man's fellow-servant.— Behold I worship only God, etc. Which of the Angels soever doth love this God, I am sure doth also love me.— Therefore let Religion bind us only to the Almighty God.  
Now for the two places of Scripture, which the marquis objecteth, one of them is already answered from Athanasius. And the same answer also belongs to the other place, viz. Hos. 12. 4. the Angel there spoken of is not a created Angel, but God himself, as appears by the words immediately going before v. 3. He had power with God; then follows v. 4. yea he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he wept also, and made supplications unto him. This shows that God and the Angel there mentioned are one and the same. This which the Prophet speaketh of Jacob's making supplications to the Angel, hath reference to that Gen. 32. 26. I will not let thee go except thou bless me, as Hierome upon the place observeth. Now if jacob would not desire a blessing for his Nephews from a created Angel (and we have seen that in the judgement of Athanasius he would not) then surely neither was it such an Angel of whom he himself did seek to be blessed. And Hierome upon the words of Hosea saith 
Roboratus benedictionibus Angeli, qui ipse est Deus. Hicron. in Hos. 12.  plainly that this angel is God. None of the Fathers are here alleged against us, but only Austin, whom I have showed to testify abundantly for us. That which he 
Angelo's videtur postulare, ut pro eo deprecentur, aut certè sanctos, ut pro paenitente orent. Aug. in Job. 19 21.  saith in the place quoted, is that job seemeth to desire the angels to entreat for him, or else some of the Saints. But Pineda a Jesuit doth not like this Exposition, but calls it allegorical, and expounds it (as it 
Quod Augustinus exponit hîc Angelos, aut sanctos invocari, allegoricum est. Pined in Job 19 21.  ought to be expounded) of those friends of job that disputed with him. If our adversaries shall reply, that though Austin 
Amicos nominat, quibuscum disputat. Pined. Ibid.  did not rightly expound the words of job, yet however he showed it to be his opinion, that the angels might be prayed unto. I answer, first Austin here maketh as well against them, as against us. For he speaks as much of jobs praying unto Saints, as unto angels: now our adversaries hold (as I shall show more hereafter) that in those times before Christ's coming the Saints were not to be prayed unto. Again, Austin doth not say, that job did pray either to Saints or angels, but that he desired, yea only that he seemeth to have desired, that they might pray for him. Thirdly for one place, wherein Austin speaketh obscurely and doubtfully for praying to angels, we have many plain and evident testimonies of his against it, as before I have showed.  
Lastly, Austin himself hath taught us to believe neither him, 
Neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quam vis Catholicorum & laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat saluâ honorificentiâ, quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare, atque respuere, si fortè invenerimus quòd aliter senserint quam veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel à nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum; tales volo esse intellectores meorum. Aug. Epist. 111.  nor any other further than they accord with the Scriptures, but that we may, saving the reverence that is due unto them, descent from them, when as they descent from the truth. Thus he saith, he did in respect of the writings of others, and so he would have others to do in respect of his writings.  
From the Angels the Marquis passeth to the Saints deceased, 
Page 68  saying, We hold that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on Earth; you say they know not: we have Scripture for it. Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophet's books here on Earth, which he himself had never seen when he was alive. The Fathers say as much, Euseb. Ser. de Ann. S. Hiero. in Epit. Paulae, S. Max. Ser. de Agnete.  
Answ. That the Saints deceased do not know the particular affairs of men here on Earth, the Scripture doth teach us, job. 14. 21. His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not, and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. There job speaks indefinitely of a man departed out of this life (whether he be Saint, or no Saint) and showeth, that he doth not so much as understand the estate of such as had most near relation unto him: and how then shall we persuade ourselves, that he doth understand the estate of others? And from those words Isai. 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel knoweth us not, Austin doth infer that the Dead are not acquainted with the affairs of the Living. 
Si parents non intersunt, qui sunt alii mortuorum, qui noverunt quid agamus, quidve patiamur? Si tanti Patriarchae quid erga populum ex ipsis procreatum ageretur, ignoraverunt, quomodo mortui vivorum reb●s, atque actibus cognoscendis adjuvandisque miscentur? Aug. de cur an pro mortuis. cap. 13.  If not our parents, (saith he) what other dead persons know what we do, or suffer? If so great patriarchs (Abraham and Jacob) knew not how it fared with those that did descend from them, how do the dead intermeddle in knowing and helping the affairs of those that are alive? For my part, I think that place of Esay not so pertinent to the purpose, but that the meaning of it is, that the people of Israel were so degenerate, that Abraham and Israel (if they knew what manner of persons they were) would not own them, not acknowledge them for their posterity: yet however, Austin showeth what his Opinion was concerning those that are deceased, viz. that they are ignorant of the things that are done here; which is evident enough by those words of job before cited.  
Bellarmine says that Gregory upon the place doth answer, that 
Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib 1. c. 20.  naturally the dead know not how it fares with the liking; but that yet the Saints, being glorified, do see in God all things, quae nimirum ad ipsos pertinent, viz. which do belong unto them. But Gregory upon those words of job saith thus, As they that are alive, know not where 

Sicut enim high, qui adhuc viventes sunt, mortuorú animae quo loco habeantur, ignorant: ita mortui vitam in carne viventium post eos qualiter disponatur, nesciunt. Greg. Moral. lib. 12. cap. 14.  
Quod tamen de animabus sanctis sentiendum non est: quia quae omnipotentis Dei claritatem vident, nullo modo credendum est, quia foris sit aliquid, quod ignorent. Greg. Ibid.   the souls of the dead are; so they that are dead, know not how they live that are after them. Indeed he adds presently after, This yet is not to be thought of the holy souls, because they that see the brightness of Almighty God, are by no means to be thought ignorant of any thing besides. Therefore he understands job as speaking only of such dead persons, as are unholy, whereas indeed jobs words are indefinite, and indifferently to be understood of all that are dead, except by special Revelation any thing done here below be made known unto them. Thou destroyest the hope of man, v. 19 viz. his hope of continuing here in this life. Thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away, v. 20. This holds in respect of all: and then follows, His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not, etc. v. 21. So that the coherence of the words shows, that they are meant generally of all that are deceased. And that which Gregory saith of the Saints, that seeing God, in him they see all things, Bellarmine himself (it seems) did think too lavish, and therefore he limits it to all things which concern them, or belong unto them. Which limitation doth indeed mar his market; for how doth it appear, that it belongs unto the Saints departed to understand particular occurrences here below, and namely all the prayers that any shall make unto them? which is the scope, that they of the Church of Rome aim at, when they speak of the Saints knowing things here on Earth: but of that more (God willing) hereafter. But for the Saints knowing our affairs, it was (it seems) in the time of Lombard (above 1100 years after Christ) a point not much believed; For Lombard moving the question, saith only this, It is not incredible that the souls 
Non est incredibile animas sanctorum quae in abscondito faciei dei veri luminis illustratione laetantur, in ipsius contemplatione ea, quae foris aguntur, intelligere, quantum vel illis ad gaudium, vel nobis ad auxilium pertinet. Lomb. sent. lib. 4. dist. 45. lit. f.  of the Saints enjoying the vision of God, do understand humane and earthly affairs, so far as concerns their joy, and our help. He doth not say, that this is certain, but only that it is not incredible. And Bellarmine himself relating four several 
De modo aurem quo cognoscunt, quatuor sunt Doctorum sententiae, etc. Bell de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 20.  opinions about the manner how the Saints know things here upon Earth, of two of them, viz. that they know them by the relation of Angels, or by being after a sort 
Sed neutra est sufficiens, etc. Bellarmin. Ibid.  every where present, he saith plainly, that neither of them doth satisfy, and gives convincing Reasons for it.  
And for the other two opinions, viz. that the Saints from the beginning of their blessedness do in God see all things that any way appertain unto them: Or that God doth then reveal things unto the Saints, when any at any time do pray unto them; he likes not the latter of these, because (he saith) If the Saints did need a new revelation upon every occasion, the Church would not so boldly 
Si indigerent Sancti nouâ revelatione, Ecclesia non diceret ita au dacter omnibus Sanctis, Orate pro nobis, sed peteret aliquando à Deo, ut eis revelaret preces nostras. Bellar. Ibid.  say unto all the Saints, pray for us, but would sometimes desire of God to reveal our prayers unto them: And for the other Opinion, which remains, he says no more but only that it is probable. So that we see 
Estque probabilis haec sententia. Bel. Ibid.  by our adversaries own confession, they have no certainty of this, that the Saints in Heaven are particularly acquainted with things here on Earth. Some may say, that they are certain that it is so, though they be uncertain how it comes to be so. I answer, indeed if the Scripture did affirm that so it is, than we might and ought to be assured of it, though we could not see why it is so. But the Scripture is so far from affirming it, that it denies it, as I have showed; and therefore they that maintain it, must both answer the Scripture where it is denied, and also by Scripture prove the contrary assertion, which they neither do, nor can do. That place cited by the marquis, viz. Luke 16. 29. is not of force to prove it. For 1. Some Romish Expositors, and namely jansenius doth confess that it is doubtful whether that which is spoken of the rich 
Dubium est, an hoc exemplum sit tantum parabola, etc. Jansen. Concord. cap. 97.  man and Lazarus, and so of Abraham, be any more than a Parable: and if it be a History, and a Narration of a thing done, 
Si Historiam quis esse dixerit, & rei gestae narrationem; necesse est camen fateatur, non omnia sic contigisse ut narrantur. Certum est enim divitem in inferno non locutum esse linguâ, nec oculis corporalibus vidisse Abraham, etc. Jan. Ibid.  yet this (he saith) must needs be confessed, that all things did not happen so as they are related. For that it is certain that the rich man being in Hell, did not speak with a Tongue, nor with bodily Eyes did see Abraham, and Lazarus in his bosom, nor did complain of the scorching of his Tongue, nor did desire water to coal it. Therefore (he saith) Christ did accommodate himself to our capacity, and declare the things of the life to come after the manner of the things of this life, so that those 
Ita ut corporalia, quae post hanc vitam commemorantur, sint allegoricè & spiritualiter accipienda, sive sit nuda parabola, sive vera Historia. Jansen. Ibid  things are to be understood allegorically and spiritually, whether it be a bare Parable, or a true History. And for the words objected, he showeth that they are more easy to be understood, if this part of Scripture be taken not for a History, but only for a Parable. For than it may be said, that Christ did feign these things, which were not done indeed, only to instruct and admonish those that are alive, that they should not think to excuse their impenitency by this, that they were never informed of the estate of the life to come by any that did return from it. That men might not think thus, he saith, that Christ did bring in the 
Si autem exemplum hoc non Historia esse dicatur, sed parabola tantùm, facilior erit quaestionis explicatio. Dici enim poterit haec sic à Domino conficta esse, cum sic gesta non essent, tantùm ad erudiendum & monendum vivos, ne suae impenitentiae praetexant, quòd de statu futurae vitae nihil unquam didicerint ex his, qui è futurâ vitâ redierunt.— Ideò quò hanc cogitationem Dominus castigaret, proposuit hunc divitem orasse, ut Abraham ad fratres suos Lazarum mitteret, & vulgarem hanc hominum cogitationem exposuisse, ut sic Abrahae cujus magna erat apud Judeos authoritas, responsum subiiceret quo talis cogitatio reprehenditur & confutatur.— Hic jam ergò Abraham hanc vulgi opinionem consutans respondit, Si Mosen & Prophetas non audiunt, etc. jan. Ibid.  rich man, desiring Abraham to send Lazarus to his Brethren, that so he might also bring in the answer of Abraham, who was of great authority among the Jews, by which answer that conceit is reproved, and confuted. For Abraham confuting that opinion of the common sort of people answered, If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe, although one should arise from the dead. Thus than that place doth not evince, that Abraham knew that the Jews had the writings of Moses, and of the Prophets. 2. Suppose that part of Scripture to be a History, and that Abraham did indeed know that the writings of Moses and the Prophets were upon the Earth, yet it doth not therefore follow that he knew all the several things done amongst men. What God would please to reveal, he might know, but how much that is, who can tell? yea the Romanists themselves do hold that neither Abraham, nor any other, during the time of the old 
Responderi potest, Abrahamum, Israelem, & alios Patres veteris Testamenti non cognovisse posteros suos viventes, quia nondum beati erant, etc. Bellarm, de Sanct. beatit. lib. 1. cap. 20.  Testament, did understand the estate of men here alive. Although the ground of this opinion of theirs be not good, viz. because as then they did not enjoy the blessedness of the life to come, yet however this is sufficient to extort from them this place of Luke, and to show that they by their own principles can draw no argument from it for their Purpose. For the Fathers which the marquis allegeth, I can only look into Hierome, as being destitute of both the other; But I have here, and continually almost cause to complain of the Marquis' quotations, they being so wide, as here, and in many other places they are. For there are 14. Chapters of this book of Hierome, that is mentioned, but in which of these Chapters any thing to the purpose is to be found, is not expressed, yet with much ado I find that Hierome seemeth to suppose that Paula being dead knew this estate. But I find in another place (viz. Adversus Vigilantium cap. 2.) that Hierome makes the Saints departed to be every where, and by consequence to know what is done any where. 
Sequuntur agnum quocunque vadit; Si agnus ubique, ergo & high, qui cum agno sunt, ubique esse credendi sunt. Hieron. advers. Vigilant. cap. 2.   
But 
* Ad cognoscendas preces, quae eodem tempore fiunt in diversissimis locis, non sufficit celeritas, sed requiritur vera ubiquitas, quam nec Angelorum, nec hominum spiritibus convenire credimus. Bell. de beatit. Sanct lib. 1 cap. 20.  Bellarmine likes not to build upon such a foundation, confessing that truly and properly to be every where, is a thing, that doth not belong either to the souls of men, or to the Angels.  
From the knowledge, which the Saints deceased are pretended 
Page 68  to have of our affairs, the marquis passeth to their praying for us. This he proves by Revel. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps, and golden Vials, full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints.  
And by Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites. He adds also the testimonies of Aug. Ser. 15. de verb. Apostoli, Hilar. in Psal. 129. and Damas'. de Fide l. 4. c. 16.  
Ans. That the Saints in Heaven do not pray for us in particular, appears by what hath been proved already, viz. that our particular affairs are not known unto them. That they pray for us in general, Protestants do not deny: about this we do not contend, saith Amesius against Bellarmine. And Bellarmine himself citys the Apology 

Sancti orant pro nobis, saltem in genere] Neque de istâ propositione contentionem ullam fovemus. Ames. advers. Bellar. de Invocat. Sanctor.  
Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 20.   of the Augustane Confession granting thus much, that the Saints in Heaven do pray for the Church in general. But for that place Revel. 5. 8. I see not how it makes for the purpose. For neither doth it appear, that the 24. Elders there mentioned, are the Saints departed; nor, if they be, is it said, that they pray for the Church here upon Earth. Indeed the Rhemists upon the place say, Hereby it is plain, that the Saints in Heaven offer up the prayers of faithful and holy persons in Earth, etc. And hence they infer, That the Protestants have no excuse of their error, That the Saints have no knowledge of our affairs, or desires. But there is no such thing, as they speak of, plain by this place of Scripture, except (to use the Marquis' words) it be margined with their own notes, fenced with their own meaning, and enlivened with their own private spirit. 
Page 52. and 53.   
They take it for granted (as the Marquis also doth after them) that the Saints in Heaven are meant by the 24. Elders, and that the Saints after mentioned, are the 
De viginti quatuor senioribus tam varia Patrum & Expositorum sententia est, ut quo magis leguntur, eò lector reddatur incertior. Riber. in Apoc. 4. 4.  Saints upon Earth, whereas the former of these is so far from being evident, that their own Jesuit Ribera doth tell us, that Concerning the 24 Elders the opinion of the Fathers, and of Expositors is so various, that the more one reads them, the more uncertain 
Alii totam Ecclesiam, etc. Ibid. Non esse totam Ecclesiam constat, quoniam quatuor animalia non numerantur in illis.— At si quatuor animalia sunt quatuor Evangelistae, quomodo secernuntur à numero 24 Seniorum, cum ipsi maximè ad hunc numerum pertinere videantur, ut qui inter beatos omnes multum excellant? Respondeo non secerni ab illis, quasi ipsi inferiores sint, aut ad numerum illum, aut ad illam dignitatem pertinere non possint, sed quòd dignitate quâdam praetereà emineant, cujus causà extra illum numerum constitui, & nominari debeant. Riber. ad Apoc. 4. 6.  he shall be. And among other opinions he faith that some by the 24. Elders understand the whole Church. This Exposition indeed he dislikes upon this ground, that the four beasts spoken of, are not comprehended in the 24. Elders. But he enervates this reason himself, understanding by the 24. Elders the most eminent among the Saints in Heaven, and by the four beasts the four Evangelists, who yet are of the number of those eminent Saints, and so the four beasts are also part of the 24 Elders, only (he saith) they are mentioned apart by themselves, as being out of that number, because besides the excellency which is common to them with others, they have some excellency which is proper and peculiar to themselves. By the thread of his own Exposition it appears, that his argument is of no force why the 24. Elders may not signify the whole Church. And although he make it to be without doubt, that the 24. Elders 
Deinde ipsi offerunt orationes sanctorum, haud dubium quin eorum, qui sunt in terrâ. Riber. ad Apoc. 4. 4.  do offer up the prayers of other Saints, viz. which are upon Earth, yet when it is said, that the 24. Elders had golden Vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints, Revel. 5. 8. I see not but that by the Saints there may be understood the 24. Elders themselves as well as any others. If other Saints be meant, distinct from the 24 Elders, Master Medes Exposition seems probable, that by the 24 Elders are meant Ministers, and by the 
Mede on Revel. 4.  four beasts the rest of God's people, and so here by the Saints, whose prayers are offered up by Ministers, who in the public Assemblies are the mouth of the people, and offer up their prayers unto God for them. But how ever it be, thus much may sufficiently appear by what hath been said, that the Romanists can evince nothing from this Scripture as to this point, that the Saints in Heaven do understand the particular estate of men here upon Earth, and pray for them. For the other place alleged, viz. Baruch 3. 4. I give this answer, that the Book is not Canonical, the Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of God (viz. the Scriptures 
Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus, qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur, nec habetur, praetermisimus. Hieron. praefat. in Jer.  of the old Testament) Rom. 3. 2. Luke 16. 29. not owning it, as is observed by Hierome, who therefore did let it pass, as himself testifieth.  
For the Fathers that are cited, Austin de verb. Apost. Ser. 15. hath nothing, that I see, to the purpose. Neither hath Hilary in Psalm 129. any thing about the Saints praying for us, but only about the 
Sunt secundum Raphaelem ad Tobiam loquentem Angeli adsistentes ante claritatem Dei, & orationes deprecantium ad Deum deferentes. Hil. in Psal. 129.  Angels carrying the prayers of men unto God, which he fetcheth from the Book of Tobit, but to that I have spoken before. Indeed in another place, viz. upon Psalm 124. (which Bellarmine produceth) he 
Sed neque desunt stare volentihus sanctorum custodiae, neque angelorum munitiones. Hilar. in Psal. 124.  saith that neither the guards of the Saints, nor the Munitions of Angels are wanting unto us. But I see not how any more can be inferred from this, then that the Saints do in general pray for us, which we do not deny.  
Neither do the words of Damascen in the place quoted import more than thus, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Damasc. de Fide lib. 4. c. 16.  when he saith that the Saints departed make intercessions for us, and that therefore they are to be honoured by us. This may well be understood 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Damas'. Ibid.  of their praying in general for us. A little before indeed he hath that which doth not sound well, viz. that every good gift doth come down from the Father of lights by them (viz. the Saints departed) to those that ask in faith without doubting. The Scripture teacheth us no such thing concerning the Saints, but attributeth this honour unto Christ, that by him we obtain of God whatsoever is good and needful for us. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Rom. 8. 32. But Damascene, though a man famous in his generation, yet 
Bell. de Eccles. Scriptor.  is of no great antiquity, being (as Bellarmine computes) 731 years after Christ, and therefore his testimony is of the less force, besides that some of the Romanists, namely Sixtus Senensis 
Sixt. Sen. Bibl. li. 6. Annot. 187.  doth note him as in some point of faith erroneous, viz. about the proceeding of the holy Ghost.  
But at length the marquis comes to our praying to the 
Page 69.  Saints, that being the mark aimed at a long time. We hold (saith he) that we may pray unto them; you not: we have Scripture for it, Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, etc. You bid us show one proof for the lawfulness hereof, when here are two Saints prayed unto in one Verse. And though Dives were in Hell, yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much, without a non nobis domine, if it had been itself a thing not lawful. You will say, it is a parable: yet a jury of ten Fathers, of the grand inquest, as Theophil. Tertull. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys. S. jer. S. Amb. S. August. S. Greg. Euthym. and Ven. Beda, give their verdict, that it was a true History. But suppose it were a parable, yet every parable is either true in the persons named, or else may be true in some others. The holy Ghost tells us no lies, nor fables, nor speaks not to us in parables consisting either of impossibilities, or things improbable. Job 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz to have asked Job the question, if invocation of Saints had not been the practice of that time. The Fathers affirm the same, S. Dionys. cap. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Annunt. S. Basil. Orat. the 44. Martyr. S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Pop. S. Hierome prayed to Paula in Epitaph. S. Paulae, S. Maximus to S. Agnes Ser. de S. Agnete, S. Bern. to our blessed Lady.  
Answ. This point of praying to Saints, the marquis (it seems) made great account of, in that he bestowed so many words about it: but the unlawfulness of this practice is clear enough by that which I have said before about praying unto Angels. For I have demonstrated both by authority of Scriptures, and also by testimony of Fathers, that prayer is to be made unto God only. And if the Saints do not know our affairs here below (as I have showed that they do not) than it must needs be absurd and irrational to pray unto them. Yea, although we should but only desire them to pray for us, as here we desire the prayers one of another. But whatever our Adversaries sometimes may pretend, yet they are far from contenting themselves with this liberty, though it be more than is allowed them. Their praying unto the Saints, is a worshipping of them, as I have showed before by their own confession. Bellarmine also tells us, that when they say, the Saints are only 
Notandum, cum dicimus, non debere peti à sanctis, nisi ut orent pro nobis, nos non agere de Verbis, sed de sensu verborum. Nam quantum ad verba, licet dicere, S. Petre miserere mei, salva me, aperi mihi aditum caeli, item da mihi sanitatem corporis, da patientiam, da mihi fortitudinem, etc. dummodo intelligamus, salva me, & miserere mei orando pro me, da mihi hoc & illud tuis precibus, & meritis. Bellar. de sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 17.  to be requested to pray for us, they do not mean but that we may say, S. Peter have mercy on me, save me, open an entrance into Heaven for me: give me health of body, give me patience, courage, etc. So that we understand it thus, Save me, and have mercy on me by praying for me: give me this or that by thy prayers and merits. But what is this, but to displace Christ, and to set up Saints in his room?  
Their Pope Leo cited by their Cassander, concerning this same point, hath taught a 
Accepere sancti, non dedere coronas; & de fortitudine fidelium exempla nota sunt patientiae, non dona justitiae. Leo apud Cassand. consult. de merit. & intercess. sanct.  better lesson, saying, The Saints have received, not given crowns: and by the fortitude of Believers we have examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness.  
This Cassander citys, showing how ill it suits with the Romish practice, which he (although a Romanist) complains of as too exorbitant. Bellarmine takes it very ill that Calvine says they pray unto the Virgin Mary to command her Son: with great 
Dicit nos rogare Virginem, ut filium jubeat facere quod petimus. At quis nostrum hoc dicit? Cur non probat ullo exemplo? Bell. de beat, sanct. lib. 1. cap. 16.  indignation he cries out, Who of us doth say this? Why doth he not prove it by some example?  
But the forementioned Cassander plainly 
Quin & cò ventum est, ut etiam Christus jam in caelo regnans Matri subjiciatur: quomodo in nonnullis Ecclesiis canitur, Ora Patrem, & jube filio, O faelix puerpera, Nostra pians scelera, jure matris impera Redemptori. Cassand. ubi suprà.  shows that Calvin did not charge them in that manner without cause. For (saith he) it is come to that pass, that Christ now reigning in Heaven is made subject to his Mother, as they sing in some Churches, Pray the Father, and command the Son, O happy child▪ bearing woman, who dost expiate wickedness, by the authority of a Mother command the Redeemer. He tells us also, that as Ahasuerus told Esther he would give her half of his Kingdom, if she would ask it; so 
Imò non defuerunt viri etiam celebres, qui assererent, id quod Hester Assuerus promisit se petenti, dimidium regni daturum, in Mariâ completum esse, in quam Deus regni sui, quod judicio & misericordiâ constat, dimidium, hoc est, misericordiam transtulerit, alterâ regni parte sibi rete●tâ. Cassand. Ibid.  some famous men among them say, that God's Kingdom consisting of Judgement and Mercy, God hath indeed given half of his Kingdom to the Virgin Mary, viz. that part which consisteth in mercy, reserving the other part unto himself, viz. that which consisteth of judgement. Whereby they intimate, that who so desires mercy, must seek to the Virgin Mary for it, otherwise he can expect nothing but judgement.  
And (as Cassander also complains) all Davids Psalms they 

Quid quod totum Psalterium sublato ubique Domini nomine in nomen Dominae commutatum legimus? Cass. Ibid.  
Domina in te speravi. Psal. 7. In Dominâ consido. Psal. 10.  
Conserva me Domina, quia speravi in te. Psal. 15. Ad te Domina levavi animam meam. Psal. 24. In te Domina speravi, non confundar in aeternum. Psal. 30. Judica me Domina, & discern causam meam. Psal. 42. Domina refugium nostrum es in omni necessitate nost. a, Psal. 45. Miserere mei Domina, quae mater misericordiae nuncuparis, & secundum viscera miserlcordiarum tuarum munda me ab omnibus iniquitatibus meis, effunde gratiam tuam super me, & solitam clementiam tuam ne subtrahas à me. Psal. 50.   as they call it, instead of Lord putting in Lady, and attributing that unto the Virgin Mary, which David attributeth unto God. As for example, Lady, in thee have I put my trust. In the Lady do I trust. Save me O Lady, for I have trusted in thee. To thee O Lady have I lift up my soul. In thee O Lady have I trusted, let me never be confounded. judge me O Lady, and discern my cause. O Lady, thou art our refuge in all our necessity. Have mercy on me O Lady, which art called the Mother of mercy, and according to the bowels of thy mercies, cleanse me from all mine iniquities; Pour out thy grace upon me, and withhold not thy wont clemency from me. And so all along throughout all the Psalms it runs after this manner. May we not now most justly apply that to the Romanists, which Ambrose spoke of the Heathens? They think themselves not guilty, 
Et isti se non putant reos, qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae, & relicto Domino conservos adorant; quasi sit aliquid plus, quod reservetur Deo. Ambr. in Rom. 22.  who give the honour of God's Name to the creature, and leaving the Lord adore their fellow-servants; as if there were any thing more, that might be reserved for God.  
Now for the Marquis' proofs, I marvel he should stand so much upon that in Luke 16. 24. For 1. Chemnitius says well, We will not learn how to pray, of the damned, whom God hath cast off, and who are 

Non igitur à damnatis, qui à Deo abjecti, & in aeternâ desperatione sunt, discemus veram invocationem. Chemnit. in Exam.  
Orent igitur cum divite illo, qui ita exaudiri, & juvari volunt. Ibid.   in eternal despair.  
And again, Let them pray as that rich man did, who would be heard, and helped as he was.  
2. Whereas the marquis bringeth in a jury of ten Fathers, to prove that this Scripture is no Parable, but a History, why should we be any more moved in this case with their verdict, than jansenius a Romanist was, who (as I have showed before) thought it more probable, that it is no History, but a Parable: or at least a History related after a parabolical manner? Theophlylact also saith expressly that it is a Parable, and censures them as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophylact. in Luke 16.  void of understanding, who take it for a History. His reason, I grant, is not good, viz. that as yet neither the just, nor the unjust do receive their reward. And yet 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophy. Ibid.  that assertion of his also is advantageous unto us in this point. For our Adversaries hold (as hath been noted before) that therefore in the time of the old Testament there was no praying to the Saints departed, because the Saints then (as they say) were not in bliss, and so could not hear the prayers that should be made unto them. Now Theophylact held, that the Saints in the time of the new Testament are not in bliss until the last judgement, and the same was the opinion 
Bell de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 4 & 5.  of many other Fathers. I know Bellarmine doth endeavour to free both Theophylact, and the rest, interpreting them as if they meant only in respect of full and perfect bliss both in soul and body. But others of the Roman Church do confess, that it was their opinion, that the souls of the righteous do not enjoy the beatifical vision until the day of judgement. Sixtus Senensis doth 
Sixt. Sen. Bibl. l. 6. Annot. 345.  cite Irenaeus, justine Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, chrysostom, Lactantius, Ambrose, Austin, Theodoret, Theophylact, Bernard, and others, as being of this opinion: and therefore by our adversaries, own principles they could not rightly hold the Invocation of Saints deceased. But to return to that Scripture, Luke 16. justine Martyr (as he is cited by Bellarmine,) denies that it is a true History. 
Justinus quaest. 60. ex iis, quas Gentes Christianis opponunt, dicit narrationem de divite & Lazaro non esse veram Historiam. Bell de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 1.  chrysostom also saith plainly that it is a Parable, Hom. 1. de Lazaro. And yet he is one of the Fathers, whom the marquis allegeth to the contrary. I know not what that meaneth, which the marquis saith, every parable is either true in the persons named, or else may be true in some others. For we do not find persons named in any parable besides this; which is the main, if not only argument which is used to prove it a History rather than a Parable: 

Narratio magis quam parabola videtur, quando etiam nomen exprimitur. Amb. in Luc. 8. cap. 16.  
Nomen proprium ipsius Lazari arguit esse Historiam, quamvis non efficaciter, ut infrà patebit. Jans. Concord. cap. 97.  
Atque utraque haec ratio nominati mendici conveniens est, five exemplum hoc sit nuda parabola, five etiam Historia. Jan. Ibid.   though jansenius did not think this to be a convincing argument; and he shows two reasons why the poor man was named, and not the rich, viz. 1. To teach us that God regards the poor that are righteous, more than the rich that are wicked. 2. Because when one is commended, it is meet to name him, but not so when one is condemned. And both these reasons (he saith) stand good, whether this narration be only a Parable, or a History. It is certain, the holy Ghost tells no lies, nor fables, etc. Parables are not false, nor fabulous, yet 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophylact. ad joh. 3. page 410. Edit. Rom.  Theophylact saith well, We must not take all things that are spokken in Parables, as Laws and Canons.  
So Maldonate thought meet often to 
Tutissimum est, quod saepè moneo, non nimis pressè tractandas esse parabolas: frangi saepè tractando; solereque hîc accidere, quod proverbio dici solet, ut qui nimium emungit, sanguinem eliciat. Maldon. ad Luc. 15. 22.  admonish this, as a thing most safe, that Parables are not to be handled too strictly; that they are often broken by handling; and that here that doth happen, which is said in the proverb, the too much wring of the nose bringeth forth blood.  
The other place, viz. job 5. 1. is very inconveniently alleged by the marquis for invocation of Saints deceased. Bellarmine was more wary in citing it only to prove, that Angels, whom he there understands by Saints, may be invocated. These words (saith he) show, that it was the 
Indicant (haec verba) tunc fuisse consuetudinem invocandi patrocinium sanctorum Angelorum. Bell. de sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19 
Ante Christi adventum, sancti qui moriebantur, non intrabant in coelum, nec deum videbant, etc. ideo non fuit consuetum, ut diceretur, S. Abraham ora pro me. Bell. Ibid.   custom then to call upon the holy Angels for their patronage. But to say (as the marquis doth) that it appears by these words, that they used then to call upon the Saints departed, is contrary to the tenet of the Romanists, who hold, that during the time of the old Testament praying unto the deceased Saints was not in use, because then the Saints that departed out of this life (as they hold) did not go to Heaven, nor enjoy happiness. But the truth is, those words job 5. 1. Call now, etc. and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? make neither for the invocation of Saints, nor of Angels, the meaning of Eliphaz being only to convince job that none is punished as he was except he were wicked; and therefore he bids him show any of the Saints, if he could, that was so punished as he was. For this was the error of Eliphaz and the other two friends of job, that they thought job could not be a godly man, because God did so afflict him. Therefore God said his Anger was kindled against them, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right. job. 42. 7. For the Fathers, which are here objected, the first, viz. Dionys. is cited cap. 7, but of what? For he wrote divers Books. But his testimony is of little worth, it being uncertain who he was, and when he lived, and this being evident to all that have any the least taste of him, that he was not (as is pretended) that Dionysius that is mentioned Acts 17. 34. which his fustian and bombast-stile doth sufficiently declare. The next is Athanasius; but I find no such piece as Ser. de Annunt. either in his works, as they are extant both in Greek and Latin, nor in Bellarmine's Index or Catalogue of them, which he hath in his Book of Ecclesiastical writers; If perhaps the marquis meant 
* That I find to be it, by Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 19  Ser de Sanctissimâ Deiparâ, Bellarmine in that same book censures it as not belonging to Athanasius, but to some other long after his time, and in some thing (as it seems) not very sound. Basil I have not to peruse, nor Maximus. 
* Stat sanctis supplicaturus, ut prose apud Deum intercedant. Chrysostloc. cit.  chrysostom in the place quoted, viz. Hom. 66. de Pop. Antioch. doth indeed seem to speak for praying unto Saints to pray for us. But we must remember how he is reckoned among them, who held that the Saints departed are not yet in glory, and therefore if the Romanists will have him speak agreably to this position, they must not have him for a patron in this cause touching the invocation of Saints. And upon the same ground must they also let go Bernard, who is likewise noted for the same opinion; 
He lived 1130 years after Christ. Bell. de Eccles. Script.  though the truth is, he lived in very corrupt times, and therefore it is no marvel if he did draw some dregs; it is indeed a marvel, that he was not more corrupted and infected than he was. There remains only Hierome, who in the end of his Epitaph or Funeral Oration concerning Paula, addresseth his speech unto her, bidding her farewell, and help him with her 
Vale, O Paula, & cultoris tui ultimam senectutem orationibus juva. Fides & opera tua Christo te sociant, praesens quod postulas facilius impetrabis. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paul. in fine.  prayers. But 1. I have showed before, that Bellarmine doth overthrow the foundation that Hierome builds upon, viz. that the Saints departed are every where, and so can hear and understand whatsoever any stand in need of, and desire of them; which Bellarmine confesseth to be incompetible to any mere creature, as indeed it is, this being a property that belongs unto God only. 2. When the Fathers sometimes speak in that manner to the Saints deceased, their speeches proceeded rather from affection then from judgement, and are Rhetorical rather then Theological 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. in julian. orat. 1. circa initium.  expressions. As appears by that of Gregory Nazianzen, who in his first Oration against julian speaks thus unto Constantine, who was then dead, And hear O thou soul of the great Constantine, if thou hast any sense (or understanding) of these things. Where the Greek Scholiast notes that 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scholiast. Ibid.  Nazianzen did imitate Isocrates a Heathen Orator; This is spoken (saith he) in imitation of Isocrates, as if he should say, If thou hast any power to hear the things that are here spoken. And observe how Nazianzen (whom Hierome calleth his Master) spoke doubtfully, making it a question whether the Saints departed do understand 
Gregorius Nazianzenus praeceptor meus. Hieron. Catal. Scriptor. Ecclestast.  things here upon Earth. 3. Austin (who lived in the same time with Hierome) in his book of true Religion 
Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem. Aug de verâ relig. cap. 55.  speaking of the Saints debarred saith plainly, They are to be honoured for imitation, but not to be worshipped for Religion. And in the 
Uni Deo & Martyrum, & nostro, sacrificium immolamus; ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confessione vicerunt, suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote, qui sacrificat, invocantur. Ang. de Civit Dei lib. 22. cap. 10.  last book of that famous work entitled Of the City of God, in the tenth Chapter of it, speaking of the Martyrs, he saith, that in the celebration of the Eucharist they were mentioned in their place and order (viz. to praise God for them, and to stir up others to the imitation of them) but yet that they were not invocated, and that no prayers were put up unto them. This may suffice to show how far in this point they of the Roman Church are departed both from the Rule of God's Word, and also from the judgement and practice of the ancient Fathers.  
We hold (saith the marquis) Confirmation necessary; you 
Page 69.  not: We have Scripture for it, Acts 8. 14. Peter and john prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost (for as yet he was fall'n upon none of them, only they were baptised in the Name of the Lord jesus) then laid they their hands on them, and they received the holy Ghost. Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confirmation, which was not given in Baptism. Also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying against the foundation of Repentance from dead works, and of Faith toward God, of Baptism, and of laying on of hands, The Fathers affirm the same, Tertul. de Resur. S. Pacian. de Bapt. S. Amb. de sacr.. S. Hierome contra Lucif. S, Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of Baptism and Confirmation saith, Then they may be sanctified and be the sons of God, if they be borne in both Sacraments.  
Answ. Concerning Confirmation, the Romanists make it a Sacrament properly so called, of the same nature with Baptism, and the Lords Supper. The matter of this Sacrament they make 
Bell. de Confir. lib. 2. cap. 8. & 9, 10, & 11.  to be a certain Ointment compounded after a special manner, and consecrated by a Bishop, wherewith the person to be confirmed, is anointed in the forehead in the form of a cross. The form of the Sacrament they make to consist in these words, I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism (or ointment) of salvation, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. The effect of this Sacrament they say is to confer true sanctifying grace, and that more abundantly than Baptism doth in respect of the strengthening of the soul against the assaults of Satan. Now this Confirmation Protestant's deny to be a Sacrament, as having no institution, nor any ground for it in the Scripture. The Author of the Treatise entitled De unctione Chrismatis, who goes under the Name of Cyprian, 
Nec tamen cessantibus his, quae ritu antiquo inoleverant, cum jam in populo Christiano circumcisio videretur damnabilis, & sacrificia idololatriae imputarentur, unctionis mysterium Religio Ch. istiana contempsit, etc.  but appears to have been some other, shows that this anointing, which they use in confirmation, was taken up in imitation of that anointing which was used in the time of the Law.  
Bonaventure also (who lived betwixt 
Credo quòd illud Sacramentum Christus nec dispensavit, nec instituit. Bona. in sent. l. 4. didst 7. art. 1 quaest. 1. Et quaest. 2. Christus hoc sacramentum non instituit.  1200 and 1300 years after Christ) held that Confirmation was neither dispensed, nor instituted by Christ.  
And if it were not of Christ's instituting, 
Patet unum eundemque Deum in Christo justificationis, & Sacramentorum auctorem agnoscendum esse.— Perspicitur Sacramenta à Deo ipso per Christum instituta esse. Catechis. Trident. de Sacram.  it can be no Sacrament properly so called, only Christ (as the Council of Trents Catechism doth acknowledge) being the Author and Ordainer of every Sacrament.  
And therefore the Council of Trent denounceth Anathema 
Concil. Trid. Scss. 7. can. 1.  against all those that shall deny any of the Sacraments to have been of Christ's institution.  
For that Acts 8. 14. 17. which the marquis allegeth, it is nothing to their Confirmation. For 1. There was laying on of hands, but no anointing with Chrism, nor signing with the sign of the Cross. 2. The giving of the holy Ghost there spoken of, was in respect of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, as speaking with strange Tongues, etc. as Cajetan himself upon the place observeth; and he solidly proveth it 
Accepisse eos Sp. S. in effectu sensibili (puta locutione linguarum) testantur subjuncta, quòd Simon qui fuerat Magus, viderit Spiritum S. datum per impositionem manuum. Cajet. ad. loc. Bell. de Confir. lib. 2. cap. 2.  by this, that Simon Magus saw that the holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles. Besides, Acts 19 6. (which place Bellarmine doth join with the other) it is expressly said, when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the holy Ghost came on them, and they spoke with Tongues, and prophesied. That therefore, which the Scripture speaks of the Apostles laying hands on some that had been Baptised, and conferring the holy Ghost upon them, is far from proving that the Apostles did administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, there being neither the matter, nor the form, nor the effect of that pretended Sacrament. Bonaventure saith plainly, 
Nec materiam, nec formam Apostoli dispensaverunt. Bonav. lib. 4. dist. 7. art. 1. quaest. 2.  The Apostles did dispense neither the matter, nor the form. And for the effect, we have had already Cajetans' Confession, viz. that the effect of the Apostles laying on of their hands was a sensible giving of the holy Ghost, and therefore not that which they make the effect of Confirmation. For the other place of Scripture, viz. Heb. 6. 2. what reason is there why by laying on of hands there mentioned, should be meant the Sacrament of Confirmation, which they will have to be administered with an ointment made of Oil and Balsam; whereas that Scripture speaks of no anointing? why may not that laying on of hands be the same with that, 1 Tim. 5. 22. lay hands suddenly on no man? viz. the laying on of hands used in the ordination of Ministers: which also we read of 1 Tim. 4. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. 6. Or that laying on of hands, which is mentioned Acts 8. and 19 whereby (as hath been showed) the extraordinary and sensible gifts of the holy Ghost were conferred upon Believers? Thus 
* Impositionis quoque manuum, Quam scil. & Spiritum S. accipiebant, cujus gratiâ & futura praedicerent, & miracula ederent. Theophyl. ad loc.  Theophylact upon the place expounds it, of laying on of hands, whereby they received the holy Ghost so as to foretell things to come, and to work miracles. 
† Et hoc ad prima fidei fundamenta in primitiuâ Ecclesiâ spectabat. Cajet. ad loc.  Cajetan also understands it in like manner, of that laying on of hands, which was peculiar to those Primitive Christians.  
For the Fathers alleged, it is granted, that the Fathers do often speak of anointing, and that they speak of it as of a Sacrament. But divers things are to be considered;  
1. That the word Sacrament is by ancient Writers taken very largely. Bellarmine 
Invenimus nomen Sacramenti in Scriptures tribui multis rebus, quae omniú consensu non sunt Sacramenta, de qualibus nunc agimus. Bell. de effect. sacram. l. 2. c. 24.  confesseth that in the vulgar Latin Translation of the Scriptures the word is used of many things that by the consent of all are no Sacraments properly so called.  
So Cassander saith that besides those seven 
Et extra hunc numerum quaedam sunt in Ecclesiâ celebrata signa, quae & ipsa latioris vocis notione Sacramenta nonnunquam dicuntur. Et de his quoque septem Sacramentis certum est, ne ipsos quidem Scholasticos existimasse omnia ea aequè propriè Sacramenta vocari. Nam et de confirmatione quidam scripserunt, gratiam confirmationis non esse univocè gratiam cum illâ, etc. Cassand. Consult. artic. 13.  which the Church of Rome accounteth Sacraments, there are some other things used among them, which by a more large acception of the word are sometimes called Sacraments. And that of those seven Sacraments it is certain the Schoolmen themselves did not think them all to be alike properly called Sacraments. And he instanceth in this very Sacrament of confirmation, showing that some of the Schoolmen (namely Holcot) did not take it for a Sacrament of like nature with Baptism.  
The same Author tells us, that one shall hardly find any before Peter Lombard 
Nec temerè quenquam reperias ante Pet. Lomb●rdum, qui certum aliquem & definitum numerum Sacramentorum statuerunt. Cassand. Ibid.  (who was 1145 years after CHRIST) that did set down a certain and determinate number of the Sacraments.  
But the Council of Trent hath decreed, If any shall say, that the Sacraments of the new Testament were not all instituted by jesus 
Si quis dixetit Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino nostro instituta; aut esse plura, vel pauciora quam septem, viz. Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, paenitentiam, Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem, & Matrimonium: aut etiam aliquod horum non esse verè & propriè sacramentum, anathema sit. Concil. Trident. sess. 7. can. 1.  Christ our Lord; or that they are either more or less than seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme unction, Order, and Marriage; or that any of these is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called, let him be anathema. We may see therefore of what small standing the present Roman faith is.  
2. Some of the Fathers do expressly 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Basil de Spir. S. cap. 37.  tells us, that the anointing, which they used, hath no foundation in the Scripture. Basil speaking of it, asks, what written word hath taught it? And so Bellarmine confesseth that there is no institution of it in the Scripture, and that they have it only by Tradition, which yet he saith is most certain, and no less to be believed then the written word itself. But we are bidden go to the Law, and to the Testimony; and are told, that if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isai. 8. 20.  
3. The Fathers so peak of their anointing, as that they seem to make it only an Appendix of Baptism. We came to the water; thou goest in (saith Ambrose) then presently he adds, Thou wast anointed as 
Venimus ad fontem, ingressus es— Unctus es quasi athleta. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 1. c. 2.  a wrestler.  
So Tertullian, Being come out of that laver we are anointed with the blessed anointing. 
Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur benedictâ unctione Tertull. de Baptis. c. 8.   
I know Pamelius makes that anointing there spoken of by Tertullian distinct from 
Pamel. Annot. in Tertull. Bellarm. de Consim. lib. 2. cap. 6.  that used in Confirmation: but Bellarmine citys those words as meant of confirmation.  
So those very words of Cyprian, which 
Tunc enim demùm plenè sanctificari, & esse filii Dei possunt, si sacramento utroque nascantur. Cypr. lîb. 2. Epist. 1. sive edit. Pamel. Epist. 71.  the marquis citeth, Then they be fully sanctified, and be the Sons of God, if they be borne of both Sacramments; those very words, I say, do argue that Cyprian though he seem to speak of two Sacraments, yet indeed accounted them but one Sacrament, in that he makes one and the same effect of both, viz. to be borne, whereas they of Rome make birth only the effect of Baptism, and strength the effect of Confirmation. Neither doth it follow that in Cyprians judgement they are two distinct Sacraments, because he 
Corpus & sanguis Domini in duo Sacramenta secantur; quod apertè fit à Rabano. Cassand. Consult. art. 13.  saith both Sacraments. For so he might speak in respect of two several signs, though both used in one and the same Sacrament; Even as Rabanus calleth the body and blood of Christ two Sacraments; he means the consecrated bread and wine, which though they make but one Sacrament, yet because they are two sacramental signs, he calls them two Sacraments.  
4. Whereas the Fathers used to add Confirmation presently after Baptism, whether it were one of years, or an infant that was Baptised, as is acknowledged by Bellarmine, and other Romanists: now they think it not meet to Confirm children 

Bell. de Confir. lib. 2. c. 7. Durant. de ritib. l. 1. c. 20.  
Hoc tempore cum Baptizantur adulti, eodem die datur Baptismus, Confirmatio, & Eucharistia, ut veteres faciebant: sed cum Baptizantur infants, differuntur alia duo Sacramenta, donec ad usum rationis pervernerint, etc. Bell. Ibid. Summâ ratione receptum est, quicquid Gerson censeat, hoc sacramentum mininè conferri antequam pueri rationis usum habuerint, & fidem suam confiteri possint. Durant. Ibid. Si duodecimus annus non expectandus videatur usque ad septimum certè hoc Sacramentum differre, maximè convenit. Catech. Trident. de Confirmat.   until they come to the use of reason, and be able to confess their faith. The Catechism set forth by the decree of the council of Trent, thinks it requisite, that children be either twelve years old, or at least seven years old before they be confirmed. And 
* Piè & Religiosè Synodus Mediolanensis Anno 1565. decrevit, minori sptennio Confirmationis sacramentum minimè praebendum. Durant. ubi supra.  Durantus tells us that a Synod at Milan did decree (and that, he says, piously and religiously) That the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administered to none under seven years old. Thus have they (by their own confession) departed from the judgement and practice of the ancient Fathers themselves; and why then should they press us with it?  
After Confirmation the marquis cometh to communicating 
Page 70.  in one kind, which they hold sufficient. And he saith that they have Scripture for it, viz. joh. 6. 51. (not 15.) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. Whence he infers, If everlasting life be sufficient, than it is also sufficient to communicate under one kind. So Acts 2. 42. They continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayer. Where is no mention of the Cup, and yet they remained steadfast in the Apostles Doctrine. So also Luke 24. 30, 35. Where Christ communicated (he saith) his two Disciples under one kind. He adds, that Austin, Theophylact, and chrysostom expound that place of the Sacrament.  
Answ. The Scripture plainly shows, that our Saviour instituting the Sacrament of his Supper, took, and blessed, and gave the Cup as well as the bread, and commanded that to be drunk as well as this to be eaten in remembrance of him. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. And the Apostle tells us, that, As oft as we eat this bread, and drink the Cup of the Lord, we show forth the Lords death till he come. 1 Cor. 11. 26. And he bids v. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. Protestant's therefore have good reason to hold it necessary to communicate in both kinds, and that it is utterly unlawful to withhold the Cup from people, as they in the Church of Rome do. Our Adversaries think to put off those words of our 
Haec verba (Bibite ex hoc omnes) dicuntur solis Apostolis, etc. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25.  Saviour, Drink ye all of this, by saying that Christ spoke so only to the Apostles, and therefore we must not infer from them, that the common sort of people are to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament. But 1. by this reason they may as well withhold the bread also from the people, and so deprive them of the whole sacrament. For when Christ gave the Bread, and bade take, eat, he spoke only to the Apostles, as well as when he gave the cup, and bad that all should drink of it. 2. The Apostle spoke universally of all Christians, requiring that having examined themselves they should not only eat of the bread, but drink of the cup also. All antiquity is here on our side. How do we teach, or provoke them (saith 
* Quomodo docemus, aut provocamus eos in confession nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? Aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus? Cypr. Epist. 54. edit. Pamel.  Cyprian) to shed their blood in the confession of Christ, if we deny them the blood of Christ, when they are going to war-fare? Or how do we make them meet for the Cup of Martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink the Lords Cup in the Church by the right of Communion? Thus spoke Cyprian (and he spoke in the name of a whole Synod of Africa, as Pamelius observes) concerning 
Id Episcoporum statutum, totius Synodi nomine, nuntiat Cornelio Cyprianus; atque adeò non tam ipsius Cypriani, quam Synodi Africanae est haec Epistola. Pamel. in argum. epist.  such as though they had grossly offended, yet were judged meet to be admitted to the Sacrament because of a persecution, which was ready to come upon them, that so they might be strengthened and prepared for it. This clearly shows, that in Cyprians time all that did communicate at all, did communicate in both kinds, and not in one only. So also in another place, Considering (saith Cyprian) 
Considerantes idcircò se quotidie calicem sanguinis Christi bibere, ut possint & ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere. Cypr-epist. 56.  that they therefore daily drink the cup of Christ's Blood, that they also for Christ may shed their blood. There is a decree of Pope julius recorded by Gratian, wherein he condemneth the practice of some, who used 
Illud verò, quòd pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi Apostolis corpus suum commendavit & sanguinem. Seorsim enim panis, & seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur. De consecrat. didst 2. cap. Cum omne.  to give unto people the bread dipped for a full communion. This he saith is not consonant to the Gospel, where we find that the bread and the cup were given severally each by itself. Much more, we may suppose, he would have disliked that the bread alone, without any manner of participation of the cup, should have been administered. Sure I am, the reason that he allegeth is every whit as much against this as against the other. So another Pope. viz. Gelasius (as the same Gratian relates) hearing of some, that would only receive 
Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione, à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant; qui proculdubio (quum nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Quia divisio unius & ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. ● Ibid. cap. Comperimus.  the bread, but not the Cup, bade that either they should receive the whole Sacrament, or no part of it, because the division of one and the same mystery (he saith) cannot be without great Sacrilege.  
And whereas they speak of a concomitancy 
Nec superfluit haec, vel illa sumptio— Nam species panis ad carnem, & species vini ad animam refertur; cum vinum sit sacramentum sanguinis, in quo est sedes animae; ideóque sumitur sub utraque specie, ut significetur quòd utrumque Christus assumpsit, carnem & animam, & quòd tam animae quam corpori participatio valeat: unde si sub unâ tantum specie sumeretur, ad tuitionem alteriùs tantùm valere significaretur. Glossa Ibid.  of the blood with the body, and so would have it sufficient to receive the bread only, the gloss upon that canon is expressly against them, saying, that the bread hath reference only to Christ's Body, and the Wine only to his Blood: and that therefore the Sacrament is received in both kinds to signify that Christ assumed both Body and Soul, and that the participation of the Sacrament is available both to Soul and Body. Wherefore (it saith) if the Sacrament should be received only in one kind (in Bread only) it would show that it avails only for the good of the one, viz. of the Body, and not for the good of the other, viz. of the Soul. Not to multiply testimonies, 
* De administratione sacresancti Sacramenti Eucharistiae satis compertum est, Universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem verò seu Romanam mille ampliùs à Christo annis in solenni praesertim & ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse: id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoniis manifestum est. Cassand, Consult, art. 22.  Cassander in the very beginning of the Article, wherein he treats of this point, ingenuously confesseth that the Universal Church of Christ to this day doth, and the Western or Roman Church for more than a thousand years after Christ did (especially in the solemn and ordinary dispensation of the Sacrament) exhibit both kinds, both Bread and Wine to all the members of Christ; which (he saith) is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greek and Latin.  
And he adds, that they were induced 
Atque ut ita facerent inductos fuisse, primùm instituto exemplóque Christi, qui hoc sacramentum corporis & sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis & vini symbolis discipulis suis fidelium communicantium personam repraesentantibus praebuit: tum quia in sacramento sanguinis peculiarem quandam virtutem & gratiam hoc vini symbolo significatam esse credebant: tum ab rationes mysticas hujus instituti, quae à veteribus variè adducuntur, viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam passionis Christi in oblatione corporis, & effusione sanguinis, juxta illud Pauli, Quotiescunque comederitis panem hunc, & calicem Domini biberitis, mortem Domini annuntiatis donec veniat. Item ad significandam integram refectionem sive nutritionem, quae cibo & potu constat, quomodo Christus inquit, Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Item ad designandam redemptionem & tuitionem corporis & animae, ut corpus pro salute corporis, & sanguis pro salute animae, quae in sanguine est, dari intelligatur, Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumsisse, corporis, viz. & animae, ut utrumque redimeret. Cassand. Ibid.  hereunto, first by the institution and example of Christ, who did give this Sacrament of his Body and Blood under two signs, viz. Bread and Wine, unto his Disciples as representing the person of faithful Communicants. And because in the Sacrament of the Blood they believed that a peculiar virtue and grace is signified. So also for mystical reasons of this institution, which are diversely assigned by the ancient Writers. As to represent the memory of Christ's Passion in the offering of his Body, and the shedding of his Blood, according to that of Paul, As oft as ye eat this Bread, and Drink the cup of the Lord, ye show forth the Lords death till he come. Also to signify full refreshing and nourishing which consists in Meat and Drink, as Christ saith, My flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed. Likewise to show the redemption and preservation of Soul and Body, that Christ's Body may be understood to be given for the salvation of our body, and his Blood for the salvation of our soul, which is in the Blood. And so also to signify that Christ took both Body and Soul, that he might redeem both.  
And therefore he saith, It is not without good cause, that very many good men, even of the Catholic profession, being conversant 
Quarè non temerè est, quòd optimi quique etiam Catholicae porfessionis in divinorum & Ecclesiasticorum scriptorum lectione versati, & his quas supra diximus rationibus incitati, summo desiderio potiundi Dominici calicis incenduntur, omnibusque modis contendunt, ut hoc salutare sacramentum sanguinis Christi unà cum sacramento corporis juxta veterem & multis seculis perpetuatam universalis Ecclesiae consuetudinem in usum reducatur, etc. Cassan. Ibid.  in the reading both of Divine and Ecelesiasicall Writers, do most earnestly desire to partake of the Lords cup, and by all means strive that this saving Sacrament of Christ's Blood together with the Sacrament of his Body may again use to be received according to the ancient custom of the universal Church, which was continued for many Ages.  
For the Scriptures which the marquis allegeth, the first of them, viz. joh. 6. 51. doth not concern the Sacrament, which is not treated of in that Chapter, as I have noted before, and that according to the judgement of jansenius a Romanist; to whom may be added divers others of the Church of Rome, who (as Bellarmine confesseth) were of that opinion, viz. 
Bellar. de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 5●  Biel, Cusanus, Cajetan, Tapper, and Hesselius. And even Bellarmine himself, and others, who hold 
Non est controversia an in toto capite agatur de Bucharistiâ: constat enim non ita esse.— Solun igitur quaestio de illis verbis, Danis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vitâ, & de sequentibus ferè ad finem capitis. Bellar. Ibid.  that the Sacrament is spoken of in joh. 6. yet hold it not to be spoken of till after those words, which the marquis citeth, in those words, which follow immediately after, vers. 51. And the bread, which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World; in those words, I say, and the rest that follow almost to the end of the Chapter, they say that our Saviour speaks of the Sacrament, but not in any of the former words of the Chapter. And if the Sacrament were spoken of in that Chapter, those words v. 51. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, would not so much evince a sufficiency of communicating in one kind, as the words a little after, viz. v. 53. Verily, verily I say unto you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you, would evince a necessity of communicating in both kinds. For if those words be understood of a Sacramental eating and drinking, it cannot be avoided but that by those very words, as it is necessary to eat of the bread in the Sacrament, so is it to drink of the cup also. For though by the forementioned concomitancy of the blood with the Body, they say that when one kind only, viz. bread is received, the Blood of Christ is drunk as well as his Body is eaten; yet (as jansenius well observes) that outward act of 
Verùm non facilc apparet, quomodo exterior illa sumptio possit dici bibitio. Manducatio enim rectè dicitur, quia sumitur ibi aliquid per modum cibi: sed quomodo bibitio, cum nihil sumatur per modum potûs? Jansen. Concord. cap. 59  taking the bread in the Sacrament cannot be called drinking. It is rightly called eating (saith he) because something is taken by way of meat: but how is it called drinking, when as nothing is received by way of drink? Neither is it certain that in the other two places, viz. Acts 2. 42. and Luke 24. 30. by breaking of bread is meant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Cajetan 
Cajet. in Act. 2. Jansen. Concord. cap. 146.  expounds the former place of ordinary bread, and the other place is expounded by jansenius after the same manner.  
Neither is it true that Bellarmine saith, 
Docet (Jansenius) voluisse Dominum hoc exemplo demonstrare fructum & utilitatem Eucharistiae in unâ specie. Bell. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 24.  that jansenius teacheth that Christ by that example would show the fruit and benefit of the Sacrament received in one kind. Jansenius 
Effectu hîc subsecuto commendare fidelibus Dominus voluit vim Eucharistiae dignae susceptae, nempe quòd per eam oculi hominum illuminantur ad cognitionem Jesus. Jansen. Concord. cap. 146.  doth not speak of receiving the Sacrament in one kind (though I know he did approve of it) but only saith, that by the effect, that followed, the Lord would commend unto us the virtue of the Sacrament worthily received, to wit, that thereby our eyes are enlightened to know jesus.  
And whereas Austin, and Theophylact are said to understand 
Ex quibus Theophylacti & Augustini sententiis apparet multis, illos sensisse Dominum jam impertiisse suis Eucharistiae Sacramentum: verum magis intelligendum eos hujus Sacramenti mentionem fecisse, quòd illud hîc à Domino mysticè fuerit commendatum & insinuatum. Jansen. Ibid.  that in Luke 24. of the Sacrament, jansenius tells us, that so many think, but that indeed they did rather make mention of the Sacrament, because it was (not here spoken of in Luke, but) mystically commended and insinuated by our Saviour.  
But suppose that the Sacrament were spoken of in those places, as probably it is in Acts 2. because breaking of Bread is there joined with Doctrine and Prayer, yet there is no sufficient ground for communicating in one kind. For the figure Synecdoche, whereby the part is put for the whole, is not unusual in the Scripture. Thus Soul, which is but a part of man, is put for man. All the Souls that came with Jacob, etc. that is, all the persons. Gen. 46. 26. So likewise flesh being a part of man, is used for man. I will not fear what flesh can do unto me. Psal. 56. 4. that is, what man can do unto me, as it is expressed, vers. 11. So whereas David saith, In thy sight shall no man be justified, Psal. 143. 2. Paul hath it, There shall no flesh be justified in his sight. Rom. 3. 20. Thus the whole celebration of the Sacrament may be termed breaking of bread, because that is one, and that an eminent part of it.  
The marquis goes on still concerning the same Sacrament, but so as in the Church of Rome it is changed into a Sacrifice.  
We hold (saith he) that Christ offered up unto his Father, in 
Page 70.  the Sacrifice of the Mass (as an expiation for the sins of the people) is a true and proper Sacrifice. This you deny: this we prove by Scripture, viz. Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gentiles: and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name, and a pure offering. This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the jews; because it was spoken of the Gentiles: neither can it be understood of the real sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross; because that was done but in one place, and at one time, and then, and there, not among the Gentiles neither. Which could be no other but the daily sacrifice of the Mass; which is, and ever was, from East, to West, a pure and daily sacrifice. Luke 22. 19 This is my body, which is given for you, not to you: therefore a sacrifice. The Fathers are of this opinion.  
Answ. That Christ is offered up in the Eucharist a Sacrifice truly and properly so called, Protestants have good cause to deny. For the Eucharist is a Sacrament, to be received by us; not a sacrifice, to be offered unto God. Christ instituting the Sacrament, gave it to his Disciples; he did not offer up himself as then unto his Father. The Scripture tells us, that We are sanctified through the offering of the Body of jesus Christ once for all. Heb. 10. 10. And immediately after there it follows, that whereas the levitical Priests did often offer the same sacrifices, Christ having offered one Sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. And Heb. 9 25, 26, 27, 28. the Apostle proves that Christ was not to be offered often, because his offering was his suffering; so that if he should have been offered often, than he should also have suffered often. But (saith he) as it is appointed unto men to die once, etc. So Christ was once offered, etc. Bellarmine also avers, that unto a true sacrifice it is required, that the thing, 
Ad verum sacrificium requiritur, ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium, planè destruatur, id est, ita mutetur, ut desinat esse id, quod antè erat. Bell. de Miss. lib. 1. cap. 2.  which is offered unto God for a sacrifice, be plainly destroyed, that is, that it cease to be what it was before. So that if Christ be offered up in the Eucharist, a true and proper Sacrifice, than he must be destroyed, he must cease to be what he was before. Whether or no it be blasphemy to affirm this of Christ, let all judge.  
Bellarmine indeed afterward endeavours to answer this argument; Let us see what he 
Hostiam, quae offertur, occidi & mactari necesse est: Ergo si Christus singulis Missis sacrificatur, eum singulis momentis mille in locis crudeliter interfici oportet.— Respondeo, Sacrificium Missae esse verissimum sacrificium, & tamen non exigere veram hostiae occisionem. Solùm enim occisio requiritur in oblatione rei viventis, & quae in formâ rei viventis offertur, ut cum offeruntur agni, vituli, aves, & similia, quorum destructio in morte consistit. At cum forma sacrificii est rei inanimae, ut Panis, Vini, Thuris, & similium, non potest requiri occisio, sed solum consumptio rei illi conveniens. In Missâ igitur offertur quidem Christus, qui est res vivens, & offertur in formâ rei viventis, quantum ad repraesentationem, ubi solum requiritur mors Repraesentata, non autem mors reipsà: sed ut est sacrificum real, & propriè dictum, offertur in formâ panis & vini, juxta ordinem Melchisedech, & proinde in formâ rei inanimae.— Quarè consumptio hujus sacrificii non debet esse occisio, sed manducatio. Bell. de Missâ. l. 1. c. 25.  saith. The argument he propounds thus, The sacrifice, that is offered, must be slain. Therefore if Christ be sacrificed in every Mass, he must every moment in a thousand places be cruelly slain. To this he answers thus, The sacrifice of the Mass is a most true sacrifice, and yet doth not require the kill of that which is offered. For killing is only required in the offering of a thing that hath life, and which is offered in the form of a thing that hath life, as when Lambs, Calves, Birds, and the like are offered, whose destruction consists in death. But when the form of the sacrifice is of a thing without life, as of Bread, Wine, Frankincense, and the like, killing cannot be required, but only such a consuming of the thing as is agreeable to it. In the Mass therefore Christ is indeed offered, who is a thing having life; and he is offered in the form of a thing having life, in respect of representation, where only a death representative is required, but not death indeed. But as he is a real and properly so called sacrifice, he is offered in the form of Bread and Wine, according to the order of Melchisedech, and therefore in the form of a thing without life.— Wherefore the consuming of this sacrifice ought not to be Killing, but Eating.  
I have rehearsed his words at large, that so his answer may be seen at full. But though there be many words, which he useth, yet it is somewhat hard to know what he meaneth. Certainly this is a very strange kind of sacrifice, that he speaketh of. Christ is offered up a sacrifice both in the form of a thing that hath life, and also in the form of a thing that is without life. And as he is offered in the form of a thing that hath life, he is only offered in respect of representation; but as he is offered in the form of a thing that is without life, he is really and indeed offered. So that Christ being offered in the form of a thing that hath life, his death is represented; but he being offered in the form of a thing that is without life, his death is not represented, and much less is it really executed, and yet Christ is so really and properly sacrificed. These things do but very unhandsomely hang together. But whereas he saith, that the consuming of this sacrifice is the eating of it, I demand, is Christ's Body so eaten, as that it ceaseth to be what it was before? If it be not, (as certainly it is not, Christ's Body being now glorified, and so free from all mutation) then is it not truly and properly sacrificed, Bellarmine himself telling us (as I have showed before) that whatsoever is truly and properly sacrificed, is so destroyed, as that it ceaseth to be what it was before. To talk here of consuming the species or form of bread, so that it ceaseth to be what it was before, is nothing to the purpose; for they maintain, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are that sacrifice, 
Corpus & sanguis Domini sunt id sacrificium, quod in Missâ propriè offertur, & sacrificatur. Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 27.  which is properly offered and sacrificed in the Mass.  
And whereas Bellarmine also speaketh of Christ's being offered in the form of Bread and Wine, according to the Order of Melchisedech, I desire to know by whom CHRIST is so offered? For either by himself, or by the Priest that saith Mass. Not by himself; for here we speak of Christ's being offered in the Eucharist, which is not administered by Christ, he being now in Heaven. Nor by the Priest on Earth, there being no Priest after the order of Melchisedech, but Christ only. Psal. 110. 4. Heb. 7. 15, etc. And thus indeed there is no Priest upon Earth, that is properly so called; and consequently there is no true and proper sacrifice to be offered. For every sacrifice presupposeth a Priest to offer it; and such as the sacrifice is, such also must the Priest be; he must be a Priest properly so called, if it be a sacrifice properly so called. But there is no such Priest upon Earth; there being none (as I have showed) after the order of Melchisedech; nor yet any after the order of Aaron, for that order is abolished, as all the levitical sacrifices are. And of any other order besides these we read not in the Scripture.  
Again, in a sacrifice properly so called, it must be some sensible thing, (as our Adversaries 
Sacrificium est oblatio, etc. quâ res aliqua sensibilis, & permanens ritu mystico consecratur, & transmutatur. Bell. de Miss lib. 1. cap. 2.  themselves acknowledge) that is offered. But Christ is not sensible in the Eucharist; for by what sense is he there discerned? And therefore neither is he there truly and properly sacrificed. Neither was this Doctrine (viz. that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist) received in the Church of Rome for more than 1100 years after Christ, as appears by the Master of the Sentences, 
* Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos, propriè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidiè immoletur, vel semel tantùm immolatus sit. Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote, vocari sacrificium & oblationem, quia memoria est & repraesentatio veri sacrificii, & sanctae immolationis factae in arâ crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus est in cruse, ibique immolatus est in semetipso; quotidiè autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in hoc sacramento recordatio fit illius, quod factum est semel. Lombard. lib. 4. dist. 12. lit. e. & f.  Peter Lombard, who propounds the question, whether that which the Priest doth, be properly a sacrifice, and whether Christ be sacrificed daily, or were only once sacrificed. And to this he answers that, that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest, is called a sacrifice, and an offering, because it it a memorial, and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy immolation, that was made in the Altar of the Cross. And Christ died once on the cross, and was there sacrificed in himself; but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was done once.  
Here we plainly see that he determines, that Christ is not properly sacrificed in the Sacrament, but improperly, in that his sacrificing of himself upon the cross is remembered and represented in the Sacrament, which is no more than the Apostle saith, viz. that Christ's death is showed forth in the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. 26. And thus Ambrose (as Lombard doth cite him) Although we offer daily, 
Etsi quotidie offerimus, ad recordationem mortis ejus fit.— Offerimus & nunc, sed quod nos agimus, recordatio est sacrificii. Ambros. apud Lombard. Ibid.  it is for the remembrance of his death.— We also offer now, but that which we do, is a remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ offered. To this purpose also he citys Austin.  
Now for the places alleged by the marquis, the first, viz. Mal. 1. 11. doth not particularly concern the Eucharist, but generally the spiritual worship and service, which the Prophet foreshowed should be performed unto God in the time of the New Testament, and which should not be confined and limited to one certain place, and as the solemn worship and service of God in the time of the old Testament was, but should be performed in every place, as well in one place as another. This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at jerusalem worship the Father.— The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit, and in truth, etc. Joh. 4. 21, 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose, I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, etc. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offering, which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place. This incense and pure Offering are the prayers of the Saints, Revel. 5. 8. And all spiritual sacrifices, which Christians offer acceptable unto God through jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacrificed in the Eucharist? It is true, the 
* Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Aug. de Civ. Dei lib. 18. c. 35.  Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed, nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more than any other spiritual worship now to be performed under the new Testament. Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament, and in the very 
Et in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Joannes in Apocalyp. si orationes esse alt sanctorum. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 33.  next immediately after he applies it to Prayer. Having cited the words of Malachy, In every place incense is offered to my Name, and a pure offering, immediately he adds, Now john in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints. So also 
* Ergò propiè nunc ad sacerdotes Judaeorum sermo fit Domini, qui offerunt caecum & claudun, & languidum ad immolandum; ut sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successuras. Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumque sanguinem, sed thymiama, hoc est, sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas, & none in unâ orbis provinciâ, judaeâ, nec in unâ Judaeae urbe, Jerusalem, said in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquam immundam, ut à populo Israel, sed mundam, ut in ceremoniis Christianorum. Hieron. ad Mal. 1.  Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy. Now the Lord directs his speech to the jewish Priests who offer the Blind, and the Lame, and the sick for sacrifice, that they may know that spiritual sacrifices are to succeed carnal sacrifices. And that not the blood of Bulls, and Goats, but incense, that is, the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord; and that not in one province of the world, judea, nor in one City of judea, Jerusalem, but in every place is offered an offering, not impure, as was offered by the people of Israel, but pure, as is offered in the ceremonies (or services) of christian's. Here it is very observable, that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet, to show the meaning of it, was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist, that he doth not so much as mention that Sacrament, otherwise than it is comprehended in those spiritual sacrifices, which he saith are here spoken of: but as he saith, that spiritual sacrifices in general are here signified, so particularly he applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer, saying that it is the incense which the Prophet speaketh of.  
The other place of Scripture, viz. Luke 22. 19 is as little to 
Bell. de Missâ. l. 1. c. 12.  the purpose, though Bellarmine also doth allege and urge it in the same manner, saying that Christ did not say, Vobis datur, frangitur, effunditur, sed pro vobis, is given, broken, shed to you, but for you. But what of this? We know and believe that Christ's Body was given, and his Blood shed for us on the cross, in remembrance whereof according to Christ's institution we receive the Sacrament: but doth it therefore follow, that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament? The ground 
Illa verba temporis praesentis, etc. Bell. Ibid.  of this conceit is, that the word is in the present tense, datur, is given, not in the future, dabitur, shall be given. But this is too weak a foundation to build upon. For Bellarmine cannot deny, but that in the Scripture 
Fateor in Scripturâ saepè accipi praesens, aut praeteritum pro futuro. Bellarm. Ibid.  the present, or the preter tense is often put for the future. And well might it be so here, Christ being now ready to be offered, he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed, 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before he suffered. And therefore Cardinal 
* At si praesentis temporis verbum, frangitur, in quaestionem quis deducat, animadvertat scripta ab aliis Evangelistis, & cessabit quaestio— Eâdem siquidem ratione, quâ illi Evangelistae futuram in cruse effusionem sanguinis significaverunt in praesenti, effunditur: câdem ratione Paulus futuram in cruse fractionem carnis Christi significat in praesenti, dicendo frangitur.— Communis autem omnium horum ratio (quarè scil. Dominus Jesus in caenâ expressit futuram in cruse sanguinis effusionem, & carnis fractionem verbis praesentis temporis) est ut manifestaret discipulis, hujusmodi effusionem, & fractionem non distantem tempore, sed tanquam praesentem esse. Et verè loquendo de tempore praesenti Grammatico more, tempus effusionis & fractionis erat tunc praesens, quoniam jam inchoatum erat tempus passionis ejus. Ac per hoc sicut inchoato die potest significari verbo praesentis temporis quicquid fit illo die: ita inchoato jam die passionis ejus, potuit significari verbo praesentis temporis omnis ejus passio. Praesens enim Grammaticè non est instants, sed quoddam confusum praesens. Cajet. in 1. Cor. 11.  Cajetan was much more ingenuous than Cardinal Bellarmine. For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes, that both the Evangelists, and also Paul relating the words of the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, use the present tense is given, or broken, and is shed, because when Christ did institute the Sacrament, though his Body was not yet crucified, nor his Blood shed, yet the crucifying of his Body, and the shedding of his Blood was at hand, and in a manner present. Yea, the time of Christ's suffering (he saith) was then present, as being then begun. And therefore as when the day is begun, we may signify in the present tense whatsoever is done that day: so the day of Christ's Passion being begun (the Jews beginning the day at the Evening) all his Passion might be signified by a word of the present tense. The present being taken Gramatically not for an instant, but for a certain time confusedly present. The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense (used in the words of the institution) by the future.  
Hear Christ himself (saith 
* Audi ipsum tibi dicentem, quia hic est sanguis meus, qui pro vobis effundetur, etc. Origen. Hom. 9 in Levit. ab ipso Bellarmino citatus lib. 2. Euchar. cap. 8.  Origen) saying unto thee, This is my Blood, which shall be shed, etc. So also 
† Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Tertull. lib. 3. in Martion. citat. à. Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 7.  Tertullian rehearseth Christ's words thus, This is my Body, which shall be given for you. And even the vulgar Latin Translation, Mat. 26. 28. & Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense, effundetur, and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur, shall be shed: and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur, shall be given.  
Now for the Fathers, whom the marquis allegeth as being of their opinion, I answer, the Fathers indeed do frequently use the word sacrifice, and offering, when they speak of the Eucharist; but it doth not therefore follow, that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist. For it is certain that they do also frequently use the same words, when they speak of those things which the Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called; even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer, Psal. 141. 2. of praise, Heb. 13. 15. of Alms, Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves, Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers (as the marquis observeth) call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice, they sufficiently show that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it. For (as Bellarmine himself doth tell us) All sacrifices (properly so called) that the 
Omnia omnîao, quae in scriptures dicuntur sacrificia, necessariò destruenda erant, si viventia per occisionem, si inanima solida, ut simila, & sal, & thus, per combustionem, etc. Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 2.  Scriptures speak of, were to be destroyed, and that by staying, if they were things having life; and if they were solid things without life, as fine Flower, Salt, and Frankincense, they were to be destroyed by burning. Besides I have showed before, by the testimony of Lombard, that the Fathers sometimes expressly speak of Christ's being sacrificed in the Eucharist, in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the cross did offer for us.  

* Baptismus est sacramentum repraesentativum mortis Christi:— Et tamen nulli veterum Baptismum sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt. Non igitur ista sola repraesentatio causa esse potuit cur actio Caenae Domini sacrificium appellatur. Bell. de Miss. lib. 1. cap. 2.  Bellarmine objects that Baptism doth represent the death of Christ; and yet none of the ancients do ever call Baptism a sacrifice: and therefore the representation of Christ's death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a sacifice.  
I answer, doubtless Bellarmine's reading 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecum. in Heb. 10.  was sufficient to inform him that divers ancient Writers call Baptism a sacrifice. Oecumenius upon Heb. 10. 26. saith, that the meaning of those words, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, is that there is no second Baptism to be expected. For by sacrifice (he saith) is there meant the cross (Christ's Sacrifice on the cross) and Baptism, wherein that sacrifice is represented. After the same manner, and almost the same words writeth Theophylact upon that place to the Hebrews.  

* Chrysost. & ejus sequaces per hostiam intelligunt aut Baptismum, aut potius mortem Christi, quatenus in Baptismo operatu. Estius in Heb. 10. 26.  Estius also upon the place saith that chrysostom and his followers by sacrifice there understand either Baptism, or rather the death of Christ, as it doth operate in Baptism.  

† Sed quaeris quid causae plerisque antiquorum fuerit, ut Baptismum hostiam appellaverint, ideóque dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato, quia Baptismus repeti non potest. Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur, & per hoc sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem; hinc illi Baptisma translatitie hostiam nuncuparunt, ac post Baptisma semel susceptum nullam hostiam esse reliquam interpretati sunt, quia Baptisma secundum non est. Can. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 13. pag. 680. Edit. in 8.  And Melchior Canus affirms, that most of the ancients did call Baptism a sacrifice, saying that there remains no sacrifice for sin, because Baptism cannot be repeated. And he gives this reason why they spoke so, viz. because in Baptism we die together with Christ, and the sacrifice of the cross by this Sacrament is applied unto us for full forgiveness of sins. Therefore (saith he) by a metaphor they called Baptism a sacrifice, and said that after Baptism there remaineth no sacrifice, because there is no second Baptism.  
Thus than it may sufficiently appear, that there is nothing either in the Scriptures, or in the Fathers, to prove that in the Eucharist Christ is offered up unto the Father a sacrifice properly so called, but that both Scriptures and Fathers are against it.  
In the next place, We say (saith the marquis) that the Sacrament 
Page 71.  or Orders confers grace upon those, on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed: you both deny it to be a Sacrament, notwithstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby; and also you deny that it confers any interior grace at all upon them. We have Scripture for what we hold, viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, and with laying on the hands of the Presbytery. So 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest super Num. S. Cypr. Epist. ad Magnum. Optat. Milevit. the place beginneth, Ne quis miretur. Tertull. in Prescript. the place beginneth, Edant origines.  
Answ. That Orders (or the 
* Magis propriè deberet vocari Ordinatio quam Ordo. Durand. l. 4. dist. 24. quaest. 1. Concil. Trid. Sess. 23. can. 3.  Ordination of Ministers) is a Sacrament truly and properly so called, of the same nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper, they of the Church of Rome do hold, and the Council of Trent hath denounced Anathema against such as deny it. 
† Chemnit. in Ex. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 19 Sect. 28.  Protestants on the other side, though they do not deny but that the name of Sacrament largely taken may be given to Ordination, yet they deny that it is a Sacrament in that sense as Baptism and the Lords Supper are Sacraments. A Sacrament properly so called (as the name is attributed to Baptism and the Lords Supper) is a Sign and Seal of the covenant of Grace, confirming unto us that Christ is ours, and we his; that in him we are justified, and through him shall be saved. Thus circumcision was a Sacrament in the time of the old Testament, a token of the Covenant betwixt God and his people, Gen. 17. 11. a Seal of the righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. So now is Baptism, Mat. 28. 19 Acts 22. 16. And so the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25. But thus Ordination is not a Sacrament, not serving to signify and seal the covenant of Grace, as Baptism and the Lords Supper do. 
* 
Calvinus agnoscit Ordinationem esse verum Sacramentum. Bellar. de Sacram. Ord. lib. 1. cap. 1.  
Quantum ad verum Presbyterii munus, quod ore Christi nobis est commendatum, libenter co loco habeo. Illic enim ceremonia est, primum ex Scripture is sumpta, deinde quam non esse inanem, nec supervacuam, sed fidele Spiritualis gratiae symbolum Paulus testatur.— Spiritus S. gratiam (Christus) promisit, non ad peragendam peccatorum expiationem, sed ad gubernationem Ecclesiae rite obeundam & sustinendam. Calv. justit. lib. 4. cap. 19 Sect. 28.   Bellarmine saith, that Calvin doth acknowledge Ordination to be a true Sacrament. But Calvin so grants it to be a Sacrament, as that he plainly shows it to be no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Lords Supper are. As for the true office of a Presbyter (or Elder, saith he) which is commended unto us by the mouth of Christ, I willingly account it a Sacrament. For there is a ceremony, first taken from the Scriptures, and then also such as Paul doth testify not to be empty and superfluous, but a faithful token and pledge of spiritual grace. But presently after he adds, Christ hath promised the grace of the holy Ghost, not for the expiating of sins, but for the right governing of the Church.  
Thus much also is yielded by Chemnitius (whom yet Bellarmine would make to descent from Calvin) There is 
Bell. ubi Supra.  (saith he) a promise added, that God will 
Addita elt promissio, Deum daturum gratiam, & dona, quibus ea, quae ad Ministerium pertinent, rectè, fideliter & utiliter praestare & exequi possint, qui legitimè vocati sunt. Joh. 20. Acciplte spiritum S. Chemnit. in Exam.  give grace, and gifts, whereby they who are lawfully called, may rightly, faithfully, and profitably perform and execute those things, which belong unto the Ministry. Joh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost.  
And afterwards again, This serious prayer (saith he) used in the Ordination of Ministers, because it builds upon God's Precept 
Et haec seria oratio in ordinatione Ministrorum, quia nititur mandato & promissione Divinâ, non est irrita. Hoc vero est, quod Paulus dicit, Donum, quod est in te per impositionem manuum. Chemnit. Ibid. Si hoc modo intelligatur Ordinatio, de Ministerio verbi & Sacramentorum, jamdudum Apologia Augustanae Confessionis nostrarum Ecclesiarum sententiam declaravit, nos non gravatim Ordinem vocaturos Sacramentum. Et additur ibi, Neque Impositionem manuum vocare Sacramentum gravabimur. Latè enim vocabulum Sacramenti patere suprà ostendimus. Ibid.  and Promise, is not in vain. And this is that which Paul saith, The gift, which is in thee by the laying on of hands. He adds immediately, If ordination be thus understood, viz. of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the Apology of the confession at Auspurge hath long ago declared what our Churches hold, viz. that we are not unwilling to call Order a Sacrament. And there it is added, neither will we stick to call Laying on of hands a Sacrament. For we have showed before that the word Sacrament is of a large acception.  
Thus Chemnitius; whereby it may appear, that neither doth he descent (as Bellarmine pretends he doth) from Melancthon, 
Bellar. Loc. suprà. citat.  the Author of the Apology of the confession at Auspurge, though I have not now liberty to consult that Author. And thus also it appears, that though Protestants deny Ordination to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord, and that justifying and saving grace is either conferred, or confirmed by it; yet they do not deny but that it may be called a Sacrament, and that some interior grace is conferred by it, and that because of those very words of the Apostle, which our Adversaries stand upon, the gift that is in thee by the laying on of hands.  
But Bellarmine will easily prove (he saith) that Ordination is a true Sacrament. For 
Facilè ostendemus Ordinationem esse verum Sacramentum. Nam gratia, quae illi promissa est, non est donum aliquod gratis datum, ut prophetia, vel donum linguarum, sed gratia justificans. Nam imprimis Joh. 20. cum Dominus tribuit Apostolis potestatem remittendi peccata, quae est pars quaedam sacerdotii, dixit, Accipite Spiritum S. non autem vocatur absolutè Spiritus S. in Scriptures donum illud, quòd in impiis esse potest. Praetereà 2 Tim. 1. ubi dixerat Apostolus gratiam Timotbeo per manus impositionem datam, subjungit explicans quae sit illa gratia, Non enim dedit nobis (id est, nobis Episcopis) Spiritum timoris, sed virtutis, & dilectionis, & sobrietatis. Bell. de Sacr. Ord. lib. 1. cap. 2.  (saith he) the grace that is promised unto it, is no common gift, as Prophecy, or the gift of Tongues, but justifying Grace. And this he proves by that joh. 20. Receive ye the holy Ghost. For that gift which may be in the ungodly, is never (he saith) in the Scriptures called absolutely the holy Ghost. He adds also that the gift spoken of 2 Tim. 1. 6. viz. which was given to Timothy in his Ordination, was the spirit of love, and of power, and of a sound mind, as it follows vers. 7.  
I answer, the places alleged do not prove that justifying grace is promised, or by promise annexed unto Ordination.  
For 1. It is not true, that the gift, which may be in the wicked, is never in the Scripture called the holy Ghost. For Acts 19 6. it is said of some, that when Paul laid his hands upon them, the holy Ghost came on them: yet by the holy Ghost there is meant such a gift of the holy Ghost, as the wicked may receive, viz. the gift of Tongues, and Prophecy: for so immediately it follows, and they spoke with Tongues, and Prophesied.  
2. Neither doth it appear, that the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 7. doth explain what he meant by the gift mentioned vers. 6. but having exhorted Timothy to stir up the gift that was in him by laying on of hands, he adds as a motive to enforce the exhortation, For God hath not given unto us the spirit of fear, but etc. As if he should say, All true Christians have received this Spirit of God, and more especially all faithful Ministers: therefore stir up the gift that is in thee, etc. But the end of Ordination is not the justification of the person ordained, but the edification of others for whom he is ordained. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. (Why? for what end?) For the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Ephes. 4. 11, 12.  
So Durandus 
* Sacramentum Ordinis est spirituale medicamentum, non tamen illius, qui Ordinem suscipit, qui jam debet esse sanus, sed communitatis: quia per Ordinem efficitur homo dispensator sacramentorum, Durand. in Sent. lib. 4. dist. 24. quaest. 1. ad 1m.  an acute and learned Schoolmen, saith that the Sacrament of Order is a spiritual medicine, yet not for him that is ordained, but for the people; because by Ordination a man is made a dispenser of the Sacraments etc.  
For the Fathers here objected, there is only one, viz. Cyprian, that I can punctually answer unto. He in the place cited hath nothing (that I find) about Ordination. He speaks indeed there of imposition of 
Si habent (scil. haeretici Spiritum S.) cur illic Baptizatis, quando ad nos veniunt, manus imponitur ad accipiendum spiritum S. Cum jam utique illic acceptus sit, ubi si fuit, dari potuit? Cyrian. Epist. 77. (Edit. Pamel.) ad Mag.  hands for the receiving of the holy Ghost; but the imposition of hands there spoken of was not by way of Ordination, but by way of Confirmation, of which I have spoken before. For Cyprian there speaks of laying hands upon all that had been baptised by Heretics, when they did return to the Church, and not of laying hands upon such as did receive Ordination.  
The marquis himself in the point of Confirmation alleged Cyprians 71. Epistle, and this which he now allegeth is in respect of the former part of it, of the same subject with that, and the rest that follow, as Pamelius noteth in the Argument of the Epistle. The other Fathers 
Prior pars Epistolae ejusdem est argumenti cum praecedentibus. Pamel in argum. Epist. 77. ad Magnum.  are so cited, that there is no examining what they say, without more labour than the thing is worth, or reason doth require. Austin is cited in his questions upon Numbers, now there are 65 questions upon that book, but which of them is meant, is not expressed. In like manner are Optatus and Tertullian cited, without any mention made of the book, wherein Optatus hath any thing to the purpose, whereas there are seven Books, which he wrote; or of the Chapter, in which Tertullian de Prescript. speaketh about Ordination, whereas that Book of Tertullian hath 53. chapters. Neither doth Bellarimne in this controversy about Ordination 
Bell. de Sacram. Ord. lib. 1. c. 3.  allege either Tertullian, or Optatus at all; nor Cyprian, but only in a work, which himself confesseth to be none of Cyprians: nor yet Austin in that place, which the marquis citeth. But how ever, it is granted, that the Fathers sometimes call Ordination a Sacrament; and so do Protestants too, as hath been showed; though they deny it to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper; and so much (as I have showed) Durandus himself doth acknowledge, making it to be a remedy provided for the spiritual welfare of others, and not of him that is ordained.  
To proceed, We hold (saith the marquis) that the Priest, 
Page 71. and 72.  and other Religious persons, who have vowed chastity to God, may not marry afterwards. You deny first, that it is lawful to make any such vows: and secondly, that those who have made any such vows, are not bound to keep them. We have Scripture for what we hold, Deut. 23. 2. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will require it of thee. So 1 Tim. 5. 11, 12. But the younger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton against the Lord, they will marry, having damnation, because they have cast off their first Faith. What can be meant hereby but the vow of chastity? or by their first faith, but some promise made to Christ in that behalf? Otherwise Marriage could not be damnable. So all the ancient Fathers have expounded it. S. Aug. de bono viduit. cap. 9 S. Athanas. de Virginit. S. Epiphan. haer. 48. S. Hier. contra jovin. l. 1. c. 7.  
Answ. One thing is here omitted by the marquis, which yet we must observe, viz. that they of the Church of Rome hold that Priests and Clergymen (as they are called) ought not to Marry, and that they restrain them from Marriage, causing them to vow against it. Some of them hold this to be of divine institution; Bellarmine though he likes not that, yet makes it to 
Ego verissimum puto, decretum hoc, quo votum est annexum Ordinibus, non quidem propriè divinum esse, sed tamen esse Apostolicum, etc. Bell. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sanctissimus mos est Romanae Ecclesiae, rationique & Scriptures consentaneus, atque à majoribus acceptus, quo neminem ad sacros ordines admittat nisi caelibem, aut qui de uxoris consensu castitatem suam Deo consecravit. Coster. Encbirid. de Caelib. Sacerdat. Quinta propositio.  be an Apostolical decree, which indeed amounts to as much. Costerus the Jesuit saith, It is the most holy custom of the Roman Church, agreeable to reason and the Scriptures, and received from our ancestors, not to admit any to holy Orders, but him that is unmarried, or that with the consent of his wife hath consecrated his chastity unto God.  
And the same Author affirms, that Although a Priest fin grievously if he commit 

Sacetdos si fornicetur, aut domi concubinam foveat, tametsi gravi sacrilegio sese obstringat, gravius tamen peccat, si contrahat Matrimonium. Ibid. Nona propositio.  
Sacerdotibus nullo modo permittenda sunt Matrimonia. Ibid. Decima propositio. Communiter dicitur, quòd pro simplicls fornication quis deponi non debet, cum paucissimi sine illo vitio inveniantur. Gloss. in didst 81. cap. Maximianus. Dicunt hodiè pro fornicatione neminem deponendum, nisi in eâ perduret; & ideo quia hodiè fragiliora sunt corpora nostra quam olim erant. Gloss. in didst 82. cap. Presbyter.   Fornication, yet much more if he Mary. And therefore he concludes, that Priests are by no means to be suffered to Marry: Yet they may be suffered to commit fornication; for so the Gloss upon Gratians Decrees tells us, that it is commonly held, that one ought not to be deposed for simple fornication. And mark the reason, because (saith he) very few are found without that fault. And so in another place, They say that now none is to be deposed for fornication, except he continue in it: and that because our bodies are now more frail than they were in times past.  
How well doth this agree with the Scripture, which saith that Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge? Heb. 13. 4. But saith Bellarmine, if Marriage be honourable in all, then in those that are near allied, and in 
Si conjugia omnium sunt honorabilia, etiam conjugia consanguineorum in primo & secundo gradu erunt honorabilia; & conjugia adolescentium injussu parentum contracta, erunt honorabilia. Bell. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 20.  those that marry without the consent of their Parents. I answer, Marriage may be, and is honourable in all; and yet not all kind of Marriage. It is lawful for any to marry, yet not to marry with any; they that marry, must marry in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39  
Bellarmine himself approves of Theophylacts' 
In omnibus, i. e. in omnibus legitimè conjunctis, quicunque illi sint, etc. Ita Theophylactus in hunc locum, & videtur magis literaliae expositio. Bellar. Ibid.  Exposition, viz. that Marriage is honourable in all, that is, in all that are lawfully joined together, whosoever they be: Now such are all they, whom the Scripture doth not exclude, as it doth not the Clergy. Gratian himself confesseth that it is 
Cum ergo ex sacerdotibus nati in summos Pontifices supra legantur esse promoti, non suut intelligendi de fornication, sed de legitimis conjugiis nati: quia sacerdotibus ante prohibitionem ubique licita erant: & in orientali Ecclesiâ usquè hodiè licere probantur. Dist. 56. cap. Caenomanensem.  but an Ecclesiastical Law, that forbids Priests to marry, and that before this prohibition their Marriage was every where lawful, and so in his time was accounted in the Eastern Church. Yea he saith, that many, whose Fathers were Priests, were promoted to be Popes; and that they were not to be thought borne of fornication, but of lawful wedlock.  

* 
Non levibus de causis olim adducti fuerunt proceres Ecclesiae, etc.—  
Contra tamen fatendum est graviter à posteris esse peccatum, qui hanc utilem pro tempore constitutionem multis in laqueum verterunt, etc. Cassand. Consult. artic. 23.  
Quarè nimis rigidâ & intempestiuâ hujus constitution is exactione, gravissima & abominanda in Ecclesiâ scandala exitisse videmus. Nam causae illae, quibus majores ad constitutionem hanc faciendam inductos esse diximus, non solùm hodiè cessarunt, sed in contrarium sunt conversae. Nam primùm videmus hoc decreto usque adeò castitatem & continentiam in Christo non confirmatam, ut per illud ad omne libidinis & flagitii genus fenestra aperta esse videatur. Tum res in plerisque sacerdotibus ita comparatae sunt, ut conjugum piarum consortio non modò ad functiones Ecclesiasticas obeundas non impediantur, sed etiam ad earum procurationem adjuventur ab eyes: quemadmodum de patre suo Gregorio, & matre Nomiâ Gregorius Nazianzenus testatur. Ibid.   Cassander also acknowledgeth it to have been but a constitution of the Church, and that though for a while it was expedient, yet afterwards it became a snare to many. He saith, that by the rigid and unseasonable exacting of this constitution, most grievous and abominable scandals are in the church. For that the causes, which moved them in former times to make that constitution, are not only now ceased, but even turned quite contrary. That by this decree chastity and continency is so far from being confirmed, that thereby a window may seem to be set open unto all kind of lust and lewdness. And that it fares so now with some Priests, that the society of their godly wives is not only no hindrance, but it is a help and furtherance unto them in respect of their Ecclesiastical functions and employments, as Gregory Nazianzen testifies of his parents.  
It remains therefore (he saith) that henceforth this statute 
Restat primùm ut in posterum ordinandis hoc statutum relaxetur, & more veteris Ecclesiae, & huc usque Orientalium Ecclesiarum honesti quoque mariti ad Ecclesiae Ministerium admittantur, etc.  be released, and that according to the custom of the ancient Church, and of the Eastern Churches unto this day, honest married men may be admitted to the Ministry of the Church, etc.  
There are weighty causes (he saith) why this constitution should be released. And he citys Panormitan (a Cardinal, and great 
Sunt igitur hujus constitutionis relaxandae graves causae, etc. Prudenter itaque observavit & monuit Panormitanus, Experientiâ docente contrarium prorsus effectum secutum ex lege illâ continentiae, cum hodiè non vivant spiritualiter, nec sint mundi, sed maculentur illicito coitu cum illorum gravissimo peccato, ubi cum propriâ uxore esset castitas. Unde debere Ecclesiam facere sicut bonus medicus, ut si medicina experientiâ docente magis obsit quam profit, eam tollat. Ibid.  Canonist) observing and admonishing, that experience shows, that a quite contrary effect hath followed by that Law of continency, when as now they do not live spiritually, nor are pure, but defiled with unlawful copulation, to their most great sin, whereas with their own wives they might live chastely. That the church therefore aught to do, as a good Physician doth, who if he find by experience, that the medicine doth more hurt then good, he will prescribe it no longer.  
He goes further yet, and holds that not only they, who were 

Sunt autem causae non leves, cur hodiè iis quoque, qui jam ordinati, non libidine, sed conscientiâ ducti, uxores duxerunt, & Ecclesiis utiles esse possunt, gratia hujus legis fieri debeat, etc. Ibid. Posterior error longè gravior est, non solum licere ante Ordinationem, sed etiam post Ordinationem, uxorem ducere. Bell. de Cler. l. 1. cap. 19  
Cum igitur haec Matrimonii contractio post Ordinationem solo statuto prohibeatur, & exempla prisca extent, quae testentur, hujusmodi statuta non tam anxiè observata fuisse, quin ob Ecclesiae necessitatem aliquando relaxata fuerint, quis non concedat in extremâ hâc Ecclesiae necessitate hoc idem hodiè fieri posse?— Curio autem etiam in Ordinatis conjugium hodiè admitti possit, haec ratio est, quòd ex hujusmodi conjugio non modò nulla offensio populi, sed magna etiam utilitas sit expectanda. Nam eò res jam rediit, ut vix centesimum invenias, qui ab omni commercio faeminarum abstineat, populus verò ita affectus est, ut sacerdotis fornicatoris vel concubinarii Ministerium vel prorsus condemnet, vel leviùs aestimet: maritum verò sacerdotem aequius ferat, ut cum populo quoque jam notum sit, honorabile esse in omnibus conjugium, adulteros autem, & fornicatores à Deo judicandos. Ibid.   married before, may be ordained, and yet still keep their conjugal society, but also that such as are already ordained, may afterwards marry, and yet still continue their Ministry; though Bellarmine doth call this an error much more grievous than the other, that not only before Ordination, but even after Ordination it is lawful to marry. But surely both Scripture and reason shows this as lawful as the other. And to return to Cassander, he testifies that marrying after Ordination is only forbidden by humane statute; and that ancient examples do show that such Statutes are not precisely observed, but that when the necessity of the Church doth require it, they are dispensed with; and therefore so it ought to be now (he saith) in this case, there being so great need of it. And he gives this reason why they that are ordained should be permitted to marry, because not only no offence, but much benefit is to be expected by it. For that scarce one of a hundred is to be found, who doth wholly abstain from women, and the people are so affected, that if a Priest be a fornicator, or keep a concubine, they will either altogether condemn his Ministry, or make less account of it, and will rather suffer a Priest that is married, it being now known even to the people, that Marriage is honourable in all, and that Whore-mongers and Adulterers God will judge. Wherefore (he saith) if ever it were time to change an ancient 
Quarè si unquam tempus fuit antiquae alicujus consuetudinis immutandae, certè haec tempora hujus quamvis prisci moris immutationem aliquam efflagitate videntur, cum optimi quique, & religiosissimi sacerdotes, infirmitatem suam agnoscentes, & perpetuae scortationis faeditatem exhorrescentes, si publice non audent, certè privatim conjugium ineunt, etc. Cum igitur hoc tempore, eò necessitatis res propemodum redacta sit, ut aut conjugatus, aut concubinarius sacerdos sit admittendus, quis non videt, etiamsi quid in hoc conjugio sit incommodi, minoris mali ratione potius esse eligendum? Ibid.  custom, then certainly these times call for a change of this custom, though it be ancient, when as all most good and religious Priests, acknowledging their weakness, and abhorring the filthiness of continual Fornication, if they dare not do it publicly, yet privately do marry. He concludes, that the matter being brought almost to this, that a Priest must either be married, or have a concubine, every one must needs see, that though there be some inconvenience in this Marriage, yet it is to be chosen as a less evil than the other.  
This was the judgement of Cassander, a man of such note and eminency in his time, that two Emperors, viz. Ferdinand the first, and Maximilian the second, made choice of him above all, as a man most meet to compose (if it might be) the differences betwixt Protestants and them of the Church of Rome.  
Now whereas the marquis saith, that Protestants hold it unlawful to make vows of chastity; it is true, such vows of chastity as are made & maintained in the Church of Rome, which (as hath been showed by the testimony of Cassander) prove snares, and occasions of much unchastity, such vows (I say) Protestants do indeed, and that most justly, hold unlawful. None ought to vow that which is not in his power to perform; this is granted by all. Now it is not in every one's power to live unmarried, nor in the power of any, but to whom God is pleased to give it. I would that all men were even as I myself, (saith S. Paul) but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And when the Disciples said, If the cause of the man be so with his wife, it is good not to marry: our Saviour answered, All men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. Mat. 19, 10, 11. And again v. 12. having said, There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake, he adds immediately, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Maldonate though he would wrest the words another way, yet he is forced to 
Ita ferè omnes exponunt, ac si sensus esset, Non omnes, quod dicitis, praestare possunt, i. e. uxore career; quia non omnes castitatis donum habent, sed quibus datum est. Quam interpretationem adduci non possum ut sequar, etc. Maldon. ad loc.  confess that generally all do expound them thus, All are not able to perform that which you speak of, viz. to be without a wife: because all have not the gift of continence, but only they to whom it is given. And though any see no necessity of marrying for the present, yet they know not what necessity there may be of it afterwards; and therefore to vow against it must needs be rash and dangerous. The Apostle bids, to avoid Fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, 1 Cor. 7. 2. And is it lawful then for any to vow never to marry, when as they know not but that thereby they shall expose themselves to the danger of Fornication? Even as they of the Church of Rome by their vows do, very few being free from Fornication, as I have showed before by the confession of Cassander, and so of the Gloss upon Gratian. So also again the Apostle speaking to the unmarried, saith, If they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry then to burn. 1 Cor. 7. 9 But the vows of chastity which the Romanists speak of, and contend for, presuppose that it is in any one's power to contain, and that there is no fear of such burning, as the Apostle speaks of. And whereas the Apostle would not have any under 60. years old to be chosen into the number of widows, though without any vow that we read of, 1 Tim. 5. 9 they of the Church of Rome allow as well young as old, of both Sexes, to vow to live unmarried.  
Estius himself upon the place saith, that the Apostle requires that age, because 
Exigit hanc aetatem, quia in hâc aetate non solet esse periculum incontinentiae. Est. in 1 Tim. 5. 9  in that there useth to be no danger of incontinency.  
But he adds presently after, that in the 
Tunc nondum extructa erant monasteria, seu claustra, quibus coercerentur faeminae continentiam professae, ne ad viros evagandi liberam potestatem haberent. Est. Ibid.  Apostles time they had no Monasteries, or close places, to keep Women in, professing continency, that so they might not freely wander abroad unto men. I do easily believe that there were indeed as then no such places, nor yet any such profession neither, excepting such Widows as the Apostle speaks of, of whom more anon. But withal I suppose, that although wandering abroad may be an occasion of defilement, as the example of Dinah showeth, yet walls and bars are not enough to preserve chastity. And howsoever this is nothing to those young Priests, that vow chastity, and yet are not shut up in that manner as their Nuns are. That to be able to live a single life, is no common gift, and consequently that such a life is not to be so commonly vowed, as now it is in the Church of Rome, divers of the Fathers do inform us, though some of them went too far in this kind. Hilary speaking of those several kinds of eunuchs 
In uno posuit naturam, in alteron necessitatem, in tertio voluntatem. Naturam in eo, qui nascitur; necessitatem in eo, qui ita factus est; voluntatem in illo, qui spe regni caelestis talis esse decreverit: cui nos similes esse, si tamen possimus [NB.] admonuit. Hilar. can. 19 in. Mat.  mentioned by our Saviour, Mat. 19 saith, that one is so by nature, viz. he that is borne so; another so by necessity, viz. he that is made so; and the third so by will, viz. he that in hope of the Heavenly Kingdom hath determined to be so. And such (he saith) Christ would have us to be, if (mark that) yet we be able. Hierome, a man of excellent learning, and of great piety, of all the ancient Fathers seems most exorbitant, as concerning Virginity; surely in his writings against jovinian he expresseth himself many times very harshly; as thus, If it be 

* Si bonum est mulietem non tangere, malum est ergò tangere. Hieron. contra Jovinian. lib. 1.  
Oro te, quale istud bonum est, quod orare prohibet?— Jubet idem Apost. in alio loco, ut semper oremus. Si semper orandum est, nunquam ergò conjugio serviendum: quoniam quotiescunque uxori debitum reddo, orare non possum. Hieron. Ibid.   good not to touch a woman; than it is evil to touch a woman. And again, What kind of good, I pray you, is that, which hinders from praying? So he wrists the words of the Apostle, as if he spoke of ordinary Prayer, taking no notice of fasting, which the Apostle joins with Prayer, 1 Cor. 7. 5. The Apostle (he saith) elsewhere bids pray always. If we must pray always, than we must never do the office of married persons. For whensoever I render due benevolence to my wife, I cannot pray. And in the same manner again, If we must pray always, than we must always 

Si semper orandum est, ergo semper carendum Matrimonio. Hier. Ibid.  
Vae pregnantibus, etc. Non hîc scorta, non lupanaria condemnantur, de quorum damnatione nulla dubitatio est: sed uteri tumescentes, & infantum vagitus, & fructus atque opera nuptiarum. Hier. ibid. Consideranda vis verbi, Replete terram: Nuptiae terram replent, virginitas paradisum. Hieron. ibid. De Adam & Euâ illud dicendum, quòd ante offensam in paradiso virgines fuerint: post peccatum autem, & extra Paradisum protinus nuptiae. Hieron. ibid.   be free from Marriage. And citing those words, Woe to them that are with child. etc. Mat. 24. 19 he saith, Not harlots and brothelhouses are here condemned, of whose condemnation there is no doubt; but great bellies, and the crying of infants, and the fruits and effects of Marriages. Thus also doth he wrest that spoken to our first Parents, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth. Gen. 1. 28. Marriage (saith he) doth replenish the Earth; but virginity doth replenish Paradise. And he saith, that Adam and Eve before they had sinned, were virgins; but after the fall, and out of Paradise, they were Married.  
Whereas nothing is more clear in the Scripture than this, that God did join Adam and Eve together in Marriage before the fall, when they were in Paradise. Divers other such like inconvenient passages he hath, being carried away with the heat of contention. Yet even Hierome himself in that very book doth show, that 

Rectè quidem sentitis, ait, quòd non expediat homini ad caelotum regna tendenti, accipere uxorem: sed difficilis res est, & non omnes capiunt verbum istud, verùm quibus datum est. Hieron. ibid.  
Noli metuere, ne omnes virgines fiant, difficilis res est virginitas, & ideò rara, quia difficilis.— Si omnes virgines esse possent, nunquam & Dominus diceret, Qui potest capere, capiat: & Apostolus in suadendo non trepidaret, De virginibus autem praeceptum Domini non habeo. Hieron. Ibid.   to live unmarried, is no ordinary matter, nor for every one to undertake. This (saith he) is a hard matter, and all do not receive it, but they to whom it is given. And again, Do not fear lest all become Virgins. Virginity is a hard thing; and therefore rare, because hard.— If all could be virgins, the Lord would never say, Let him that is able to receive it, receive it. Neither would the Apostle be so fearful in persuading to virginity, saying, Now concerning virgins I have no Commandment of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7. 25.  
And in his commentary upon Mat. 19 
Unde & infert, Qui potest caperè, capiat: ut unusquisque consideret vires suas, utrum possit virginalia & pudicitiae implere praecepta. Der se enim castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens: sed considerandae sunt vires, ut qui potest capere, capiat. Hieron. in Mat. 19  Christ (saith he) infers, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it; that every one may consider his strength, whether he be able to perform those things that are required of unmarried persons. For virginity of itself is pleasing, and alluring any one unto it; but men's strength is to be considered, that he that is able to receive it, may receive it. It's true, Hierome saith there a little before, that he that asks it, and labours for it, may receive it: but that must be understood, if God see it to be for his glory, and our good. So is that to be interpreted, Ask, and it shall be given unto you. Mat. 7. 7. And so also that, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. Mar. 11. 24. The Lord will give grace, and glory, as the Psalmist saith, Psal. 84. 11. And so consequently he will give all things that have a necessary connexion with grace and glory; such things may simply and absolutely be prayed for. But virginity is not of that nature, and therefore there can be no such assurance of obtaining it, although we pray for it.  

* Veritas dicit, Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc. Quod eo innotuit summum esse, quo denegavit omnium: & dum praedicit quia difficilè capitur, audientibus innuit, captum cum quâ cautelâ teneatur. Greg. Past. par. 3. admon. 29. Admonendi sunt itaque, ut si tentationum procellas cum difficultate salutis tolerant, conjugii portum petant. Scriptum namque est, Melius est nubere, quam uri. Greg. Ibid. admonit. 28. Sine culpâ quippe ad conjugium veniunt, si tamen necdum meliora voverunt. Gregor. ibid.  Gregory also saith, that those words of our Saviour, All do not receive this saying, show that all are not capable of it; and that it is a thing hard to be obtained. And he saith, that they that are unmarried, are to be admonished to get into the haven of Wedlock, if they endure the storms of temptation so as to endanger their salvation. And that because it it written, It is better to marry, then to burn. Indeed he adds immediately, that it is no sin for them to marry, if yet they have not vowed that which is better, he means, to live unmarried. But the question is how such could lawfully vow a single life, not knowing how unmeete they should be for it. And how obligatory such a vow is, we shall consider anon.  
But thus also 
* Utinam magis turrim inchoaturi, sedentes computarent ne fortè sumptus non habeant ad perficiendum. Utinam qui continere non valent, perfectionem temerariè profiteri, aut caelibatui dare nomina vererentur. Sumptuosa siquidem turris est, & verbum grande, quod non omnes capere possunt. Bern. de Convers. ad Cler. cap. 29.  Bernard complaining of the incontinency of the Clergy in his time, I wish (saith he) that they who are about to build a Tower, would sit down, and count the cost, lest they prove unable to finish what they take in hand. I would that they who cannot contain, would be afraid rashly to profess perfection, and to give up their names to a single life. For it is a costly Tower, and a great Word, which all are not able to receive.  
Now for the other charge against Protestants, viz. that they hold, that such as have made vows to live unmarried, are not bound to keep them; I answer, they hold indeed, that such vows being made, and tending to the prejudice of a man's soul by exposing him to unavoidable danger of Fornication without using the remedy of Marriage, do not bind, but are better broken then kept; even as it had been better that Herod had broken his Oath then that he should keep it so as for his Oaths sake to cause john Baptist to be beheaded. That of the Apostle holds good in respect of all, To avoid Fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 
Quantò tolerabilius tali fulsset perjurium Sacramento? Amb. Offic. lib. 3. cap. 12.  1 Cor. 7. 2. And that v. 9 If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry then to burn. As therefore none ought simply and absolutely to vow a single life, so if they have vowed, they ought to repent of their rashness, and not to add sin to sin by keeping their vow whatsoever follow upon it, but rather to marry then to burn with lust, or to commit Fornication. The Gloss upon Gratian tells us, that in every Vow, or Oath, such general conditions as these are understood, If God will, 
In omni voto vel Sacramento intelliguntur hujusmodi generales conditiones, Si Deus voluerit, si vixero, si potero. Gloss. in Caus. 22. Quaest 2. cap. Beatus. In malis promissis rescinde fidem: in turpi voto muta deretum: quod incautè vovisti, ne facias: impia est promissio, quae scelere adimpletur. Caus. 22. Quaest 4. cap. In malis.  If I live, If I be able. And Gratian himself citys that of Isidore, In evil promises break thy word; in a dishonest vow change thy purpose; that which thou hast unadvisedly vowed, do not perform: it is a wicked promise, which is performed by wickedness.  
The same words are also cited by Lombard in his Sentences. To 
Lomb. lib. 3. dist. 39 lit. i. Ille, qui vovet, quodammodo sibi statuit legem, oblig●ns se ad aliquid, quod est secundunt se, & in pluribus, bonum. Potest tamen contingere quòd in aliquo casu sit vel simpliciter malum, vel inutile, vel majoris boni impeditivum, quod est contra rationem ejus quod cadit sub voto, ut ex praedictis patet. Et ideò necesse est, quòd determinetur in tali casu votum non esse servandum. Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 88 art. 10. Si ex observatione talis voti magnum & manifestum gravamen sentiret, & non esset facultas ad superiorem recurrendi, non deberet homo tale votum servare. Aquin. Ibid. art. 2. ad 3m.  this purpose also Aquinas, He that voweth (saith he) doth after a sort appoint a Law unto himself, binding himself unto something, which in itself, and for most part is good. Yet it may happen that in some case it is either simply evil, or unprofitable, or hinders a greater good, which is against the nature of that which falls under a vow, as appears by what hath been said before. And therefore it is necessary, that it be determined, that in such a case a vow is not to be kept. And so again that Angelical Doctor, as they style him, If by observing a vow great and manifest grievance ensue, a man ought not to keep such a vow.  
And 
* Quod si ex fide se Christo dicaverunt, pudicè & castè sine ullâ fabulâ perseverent; ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent. Si aurem perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt, melius est nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant. Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 11. vel Epist. 62. Edit. Pamel.  Cyprian writing of some that had professed virginity, but were found to act contrary to their profession, upon that occasion gives this advice; If they faithfully dedicate themselves to Christ, let them continue honest and chaste without any simulation; and so being strong and stable, let them expect the reward of virginity. But if they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better that they marry, then that they fall into the fire by their offences.  

† S. Cyprianus occasione quarundam Virginum, quae parum honestè se gerebant post votum continentiae, monet alias, ut si non habent firmum propositum perseverandi, non voveant, sed nubant. Bell. de Monach. lib. 2. cap. 34. Loqui Cyprianum de iis Virginibus, quae simplex (ut loquuntur) votum castitatis emiserunt, non de velatis, quarum votum erat solemn, multa sunt, etc. quae convincere videantur. Pamel. in Cypr.  Bellarmine would have Cyprian here only to admonish such as have not vowed continency, rather to marry then to vow, if they have not a firm purpose to persevere. But the words of Cyprian cannot without violence done unto them be otherwise understood then of those Virgins, who did dedicate themselves to Christ (as he speaks) by professing continency. And so Pamelius, though he make some use of that other Exposition of Cyprians words, yet he cannot but confess that Cyprian spoke of those Virgins that vowed chastity; only to mitigate the matter, he will have Cyprian to speak of such as only made a simple vow, and not a solemn vow, as they distinguish it. But this is nothing; for the Scripture speaking of the force of vows, and requiring the performance of them, doth not use any such distinction, nor give any intimation, that a simple vow more than that which is solemn may be broken, if it be just and lawful. A vow hath its power of binding, not from the solemnity of it, but from its nature, viz. that it is a promise made to God; whether it be made solemnly or no, is not material; though its true, the more solemn that it is, the greater is the scandal in the breaking of it, but the sin otherwise is the same, whether the vow be simple or solemn.  

* Hoc votum (nempe simplex) habet efficaciam ex jure divino. Aquin. 2. 2 ae. quaest. 189. art. 5. Clemens dicit, quòd apud Deum non minùs obligat votum simplex, quam votum solemn. Bonav. in Sent. l. 4. dist. 38. art. 2. qu. 1.  Aquinas speaking of a simple vow, wherein no solemnity is used, saith, This vow is efficacious by divine right. And Bonaventure citys this saying of Clemens, A simple vow doth bind in respect of God, no less than a solemn vow.  
For the Scriptures alleged against us, that Deut. 23. 2. and so divers other places do indeed require those that make a vow, to perform it: but this cannot be understood of all vows whatsoever, but only of lawful vows. For (as I have showed) unlawful vows are not to be kept, but to be broken; and I have also showed, that vows of chastity, when they prove snares, and hindrances of chastity, are unlawful, and so consequently to be broken. There is more difficulty in the other place, viz. 1 Tim. 5. 11, 12. concerning which place also Bellarmine saith that nothing can there 
Quo loco per primam fidem nihil aliud intelligi potest, nisi continentiae votum, ut omnes omninò veteres intellexerunt. Bell. de Monach. lib. 2. cap. 24.  be meant by first faith, but the vow of continency; and that generally all ancient Writers did so understand it. But it doth not appear by any thing in the words of the Apostle, that the widows, which he speaketh of, did make any such vow; although by entering into the number of Widows, that were maintained by the public charge of the Church, and withal did service to the Church, in attending the sick, and the like, they did in a sort profess that they intended to live unmarried. What need was there for such Widows to vow continency, when as none of them were to be under 60. years old? 1 Tim. 5. 9 Bellarmine tells us, that the Apostle, saying, Let not a Widow be chosen under threescore 
Dico Apostolum, cum ait, Vidua eligatur non minùs sexaginta annorum: &, Adolescentiores viduas devita, i. e. non eas eligas, non loqui de admissione ad votum continentiae, sed vel de electione ad quandam praefecturam, & ordinem Diaconissaes.— vel, quod probabilius est, de admissione ad numerum earum viduarum, quae ab Ecclesiâ alebantur. Bellar. de Monaeb. l. 2. c. 24.  years old; and, The younger Widows refuse, that is, do not choose them, doth not speak of admission unto the vow of continency, as if the younger Widows might not be allowed to vow it; but he speaks either of election unto a certain Office and Order of deaconess; or (which he thinks more probable) of admission into the number of those Widows, which were maintained by the Church. But there is scarce any thing sound in all this, save that it is true indeed, the Apostle doth not speak of admission to the vow of continency, there being no such vowing in those times: but it is evident, that the Apostle speaks of admission to a kind of profession of continency. For therefore he bids refuse the younger Widows, because of their incontinency; But the younger Widows (saith he) refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry. 1 Tim. 5. 11. And vers. 14. I will therefore that the younger Women marry, etc. As if he should say, let not such as are not likely to contain, be admitted among those who are to live unmarried. Now these, it seems, were such as both had a kind of Office in the Church, were Deaconesses, as Phoebe is stilled Rom. 16. 1. according to the Original; and also had maintenance from the Church. The former appears by 1 Tim. 5. 9, 10. The latter by 1 Tim. 5. 3, 4. 16. So that whereas Bellarmine would make several Expositions of these, they are to be joined together to make one entire Exposition. And in both these respects, viz. both in respect of the Office, and in respect of the maintenance, though more especially (it seems) in respect of the Office, these Widows were to remain Widows, and not to marry again; and that there might be little fear of their marrying the Apostle would have the younger Widows refused, and none admitted but such as were threescore years old, or more. But the greatest difficulty is, what is meant by the first faith, which the Apostle saith the younger Widows did cast off, and therefore had damnation, 1 Tim. 5. 12. It is true, the ancient Writers for most part expound it of a promise, or covenant of a single life; but all that go this way, do not speak of any vow that was made: neither chrysostom, nor Theophylact doth upon the place. Yea, 
Fidem pactum dicit. Chrysost.  some of the ancients show that they understood 
Fidem conventa dicit, & pactiones. Theophyl.  the Apostle as speaking of the Christian faith, or the common faith, as it is called 
Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor, & Basilidem, & omnes haereticos, etc. Hieron. praefat. in Epist. ad Tit.  Tit. 1. 4. sure I am, some of them make use of the Apostles words, and apply them that way. Hierome speaking of Heretics saith that they have cast off (or made void) their first faith. So 
* Scitum etenim cunctis est, quam graviter, etc. invehatur in quosdam B. Apost. Paulus, qui mitâ levitate nimium citò translati fuerant ab eo, qui eos vocaverat in gratiam Christi, in aliud Evangelium, quod non est aliud: qui coacervarunt sibi Magistros ad sua desideria, à veritate quidem auditum avertentes, conversi verò ad fabulas; habentes, damnationem, quod primam fidem irritam fecissent. Vincent. Lirin. advers. Haeres.  Vincentius Lirinensis in his Book against Heresies, saith, It is well known, how grievously the blessed Apostle Paul doth inveigh against those, who with wonderful lightness are quickly removed from him that called them to the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, which is not another: who heap up to themselves teachers after their own lusts, turning away their Ears from the truth, being turned unto fables; having damnation, because they have made void their first faith.  
Bellarmine therefore was more curious 
Quòd debeat fides hoc loco pro pacto ac voto accipi, non pro fide Christianâ, quâ Deo credimus, colligitur ex illo verbo adjuncto (irritam fecerunt.) Nam fides, quâ Deo credimus, non rectè dicitur irritari, sed amitti, vel corrumpi: pacta autem & vota propriissimè irritari dicuntur. Bell. ubi suprà.  and critical, if not rather more captious and contentious, then tender and respective of the credit of these ancient Doctors, when he said, that faith here must be taken for covenant and vow (yet there may be a covenant where there is no vow) and cannot be taken for Christian faith; because Christian faith is not rightly said to be made void, but to be lost, or corrupted: but covenants and vows are most properly said to be made void. Hierom and Vincentius understood the propriety of words as well as Bellarmine, who shows himself 
* Irritari twice put for irrita fieri.  barbarous in these very words, wherein he so plays the critic; yet they (we see) thought it not improper to say, that Heretics make voide the faith, which is necessarily meant of the Christian faith, and not of any vow or covenant. Nether do I see but that we may as properly say, that faith, being meant of the Christian faith, is made void, as 
1 Tim. 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. 10. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gal. 2. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that the Law is made void, Heb. 10. 28. or that the grace of God is made void, Gal. 2. 21. we read it in the former place despised, in the other place frustrate, but the Greek word in both places is the same with that in the Epistle to Timothy. And as the words will well bear this sense, viz. that it is the Christian faith, which the Apostle saith, some did cast off, or make void, so this sense is agreeable to the Apostles expressions in other places of this Epistle. Holding faith and a good conscience, which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck. 1 Tim. 1. 19 If they continue in faith. 1 Tim. 2. 15. Some shall depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4. 1. And in the very same Chapter, in which are the words controverted, If any provide not for his own, etc. he hath denied the faith, etc. 
* See also 1 Tim. 6. 10. & 21.  1 Tim. 5. 8. So also in the other Epistle to Timothy; who concerning the truth have erred, etc. and overthrow the faith of some. 2 Tim. 2. 18. Men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 2 Tim. 3. 8. I have kept the faith. 2 Tim. 4. 7. In all these places faith is understood of Christian faith: and therefore probably so is it in that other place, about which we dispute. So that this may well be the meaning of the place, that they, of whom the Apostle speaks, being censured of the Church for their lightness and lasciviousness, and not able to bear the disgrace, did quite cast off the Christian faith, which before they professed, and so exposed themselves unto damnation. I see nothing uncouth, nor incongruous in this Exposition; and it doth well agree with that which the Apostle saith a little after, For some are already turned after Satan. 1 Tim. 5. 15. which words seem to import a plain and open renouncing of Christ; as on the other side to come after CHRIST, is as much as to profess his Name. Mat. 16. 24. Luke 9 23.  
Object. But may some say, the Apostle reproves these of whom he speaks, for that they begin to wax wanton against Christ, and will marry, which argues, that they had vowed, or professed continency; for else why might they not marry? The wife is bound by the Law so long as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39  
Ans. I grant, that those Widows, though they did not vow, yet by the very course of life which they entered upon, did profess continency, marriage and that course being inconsistent. And justly might they be reproved both for their rashness in taking upon them that profession, and for their lightness in falling off from it when there was no just cause for it. The Apostle doth not simply condemn them for having a mind to marry, but because out of wantonness they would needs marry. And it might be called wantonness against Christ, because they had addicted themselves to the service of Christ in his Church and Members, which service they did desert by their wantonness. And in this sense, by their first faith may be meant the promise, either formal, or virtual, which those Widows did make unto the church, that they would remain Widows, and not marry; which promise they breaking merely out of wantonness, well might the Apostle say that they had damnation for it. But all this proves not that it is sinful and damnable for any that have vowed continency, afterwards to marry. Though Bellarmine will by no means endure that those words 
Bell. de Mon lib. 2. cap. 30.  of the Apostle, I will therefore that the younger Widows marry, etc. 1 Tim. 5. 14. be understood of such as had professed continency, as if the Apostle would have such to marry, if they could not contain. So also Estius upon the place, who saith, that otherwise the Apostle should 
Non hoc dicit Apost. de junioribus illis viduis, quae jam voverant se non amplius nupturas. Neque n. eas vult praecipitare in damnationem. Nam si damnationem habebant nubere volentes, quanto magîs nubentes? Est. ad 1. Tim. 5. 14.  cast them headlong into damnation. For if they have damnation, who have a will to marry; how much more they that do marry? But though I think, that the Apostles direct meaning was, that the younger Widows should not be admitted into the number of those who were by their place and calling to profess continency, into which number he would have none admitted under 60. years old; yet Estius his reason is not valid. For the Apostle doth not say, that the younger Widows being admitted into that number, and afterwards willing to marry, or actually marrying, therefore had damnation; but because they would marry out of wantonness, and so out of wantonness make void their first faith, viz. their promise of continency made to the Church, if not their Christian Faith, which before they professed. Notwithstanding which sentence, it follows not, but that if, not through wantonness, but through weakness, they were forced to marry, the Apostle would have them to do it, rather than to do worse, viz. burn with lust, and commit Fornication. For whereas the same author saith, It is not better for such as have vowed contineney, to 
Qui continentiae voto sunt alligati, iis non est melius nubere, quam uri. Est. ad 1. Cor. 7. 9  marry, then to burn, this is nothing else but a flat contradicting of the Apostle; or at least a contradicting of that Rule, We must not distinguish, where the Law doth 

Non est distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit.  
Nos autem nullum talibus laqueum debemus injicere. Pellag. apud Grat. Caus. 27. quaest. 1. cap. De viduis.  
Laqueum; eos separando; vel eos praecise prohibendo ne contrahant. Glos. ibid.   not distinguish. And we find in their own Canons, that if Widows did profess continency, yet a snare was not to be cast upon them, to wit, as the Gloss doth expound it, by separating them from their Husbands, if they did marry, or by forbidding them precisely to marry. Another Canon also, which 
Quotquot Virginitatem pollicitam praevaricatae sunt, professione contemptâ, inter bigamos, i. e. qui ad secundas nuptias transierunt, haberi debebunt. Caus. 27. quaest. 1. cap. Quotquot.  they have, enjoins no more but this, that if such as profess Virginity, did afterwards marry, they should be ranked amongst those that did marry the second time, viz. after the death of the first yoke fellow: which marriage the Scripture doth clearly allow, Rom. 7. 2, 3. and 1 Cor. 7. 39 neither did any Orthodox Writer ever condemn it. Their Canon-Law indeed debars those that are twice married, from being Priests, 

Qui iteraverit conjugium, culpam quidem non habet coinquinati, sed praerogatiuâ exuitur sacerdotis. Dist. 26. cap. Quisine.  
Cajet. in 1 Tim. 3.   (grounding upon the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. 2. and Titus 1. 6. which places their own Cardinal Cajetan doth yet interpret otherwise) but yet grant that such do not sin. They grant also that if any marry after a simple vow of continency, the marriage doth stand good, and is not to be dissolved. For this they have a Canon out of Austin, which runs thus; Some say, that they 
Quidam nubentes post votum asserunt adulteros esse: ego autem dico vobis, quòd graviter peccant, qui tales dividunt. Dist. 27. cap. Quidam. Si vir simplex Virginitatis votum habens, adjung●tur uxori, posteà non dimittat uxorem, sed tribus annis paeniteat. Ibid. Si vir.  that marry after a vow, are adulterers: but I say unto you, that they that divide such, do sin grievously. And another out of Theodorus, thus; If a man having a simple vow of virginity, join himself to a Wife, let him not afterwards put her away; but let him do penance three years.  
And so Estius confesseth, that we never 
Respondeo, nusquam legi apud veteres, quod nuptiae viduarum, quae continentiam voverunt, irritae fuerint. Neque enim votum earum erat solemn, etc. Estius in 1 Tim. 5. 12.  read in ancient writers, that if Widows, who vowed continency, did marry, their marriage was void, and of none effect. For (saith he) their vow was not solemn. But I have showed before, that the distinction of simple and solemn vow hath no ground in Scripture; and that in respect of God, a simple vow doth bind as much as a solemn. And besides, if (as they allege, and cite some of the ancients also for it) one 
Estius in 1 Tim. 5. 11. Bell. de Monach. l. 2. c. 24.  having vowed continency (whether solemnly, or simply) is married unto Christ, and therefore may much less marry another, than one that is already married to a mortal man, then surely the marriage of such should much rather be judged adultery, and be dissolved, than the marriage of those, who marry again, when they are already married. Yet Bellarmine goes further, and acknowledgeth 
At Scotus & Paludanus in 4. dist. 38. & Cajetanus in 2. 2. qu. 88 art. 7. & omnis schola Jureconsultorum, ut refert Panormitan: in c. Rursus. Qui clerici, vel voventes, asserunt solo jure Ecclesiastico matrimonium irritum, quod post votum solenne contrahitur.— utraque sententia probabilis est. Bell. de Mon. l. 2. c. 34.  that many prime Writers of the Church of Rome, as Scotus, Paludanus, and Cajetane, and generally, as Panormitan doth relate, all the Canonists affirm, that only by Ecclesiastical right marriage made after a solemn vow is of no force. And this opinion he granteth to be probable. So then, by their own confessions it may appear, that there is no Law of God against it, but that such as have vowed continency, should marry if they be not able to perform what they have vowed. And this may suffice for this point.  
The marquis goes on thus, We say, Christ descended into Hell, 
Page 72.  and delivered thence the souls of the Fathers: ye deny it. We have Scripture for it, viz. Ephes. 4. 8. When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, etc. Descending first into the lower part of the Earth. This lower part of the Earth could not be a grave; for that was the upper part: nor could it have been the place of the damned; for the Devils would have been brought again into Heaven. More clearly Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption. There is Hell for his soul for a time, and the grave for his body for a while. Plainer yet, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19 Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit; by which also he went, and preached unto the spirits in prison. This prison cannot be Heaven; nor Hell, as it is the place of the damned: nor the grave, as it is the place of rest. Therefore it must be (as S. Aug. Epist. 99 ad Evod. saith) some third place: which third place the Fathers have called Limbus Patrum. Also Zach. 9 11. As for thee also, by the blood of thy Covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is 
* No is left out in the marquis his writing, but not I suppose by his fault.  no water. By this pit could not be meant the place of the damned; for they have no share in the Covenant; neither are they Christ's prisoners, but the Devils: neither could this pit be the grave, because Christ's grave was a new pit, where never any was laid before. The Fathers affirm as much, S. Hieron. in 4. ad Ephes. S. Greg. l. 13. Moral. c. 20. S. Aug. in Psal. 37. 1.  
Answ. That Christ did descend into Hell in that sense, as they of the Church of Some do hold, viz. into a Region of Hell called Limbus Patrum, to deliver the faithful thence, that lived and died under the old Testament, this Protestants deny; and they have just cause to deny it. For the Scripture doth not show us any such Hell as this, which they speak of, much less that CHRIST did descend into it. 1. The faithful that were before Christ, did enjoy the benefit of him, as well as they that are since his coming. We believe (said Peter) that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. we shall be saved even as they. Acts 15. 11. Therefore they were saved by Christ, as well as we now are saved by him: and consequently the faithful then through Christ did go to Heaven, as well as now they do. 2. It is said of the faithful of the old Testament, that they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon the Earth. Heb. 11. 13. and that they did seek a country, v. 14. not an earthly country, but a better country, that is an Heavenly; and that God did prepare for them a City, v. 16. 3. Abraham's bosom (as the place is called, where the souls of the Saints of the old Testament were) is so described in the Scripture, as that it could be no such place as they call Limbus Patrum. For 1. The soul of Lazarus was carried thither by Angels; and therefore it should rather be Heaven then Hell. 2. It was a place of comfort, Luke 16. 25. But 
* Nondum inveni, & adhuc quaero, nec mihi accurrit inferos alicubi in bono posuisse Scripturam duntaxat Canonicam: non autem in bono accipiendum sinum Abrahae, & illam requiem, quò ab Angelis pius pauper ablatus est, nescio utrum quisquam possit audire, Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 12. c. 33. Ita etiam. Epist. 99  Austin could not find (he saith) with all his searching, where the Scripture doth make Hell to be any place of comfort; and he thought this a good argument why Abraham's bosom could not be Hell. 3. There was a great gulf fixed betwixt the place where Lazarus was, viz. Abraham's bosom, and the place where the rich man was in torment, Luke 16. 26. And hence also 
† In his ipsis tanti magistri verbis, ubi ait dixisse Abraam, Inter vos & nos chaos magnum firmatum est, satis, ut opinor, appareat, non esse quandam partem, & quasi membrum inferotum tantae faelicitatis sinum. August. Epist. 99  Austin inferreth, that Abraham's bosom is no part, or member as it were of Hell. This (he saith) doth in his opinion sufficiently appear by those words, betwixt us and you there is a great gulf fixed. Luke 16. 26. 
* Augustinus etsi in Epist. 99 ambigere videatur, an sinus Abraham, ubi erant animae Patrum olim, in inferno esset, an alibi; tamen in lib. 20. de Civ. Dei c. 15. affirmat in inferno fuisse. Bell. de Christi animâ. l. 4. c. 11.  Bellarmine therefore doth abuse his Reader, when he saith, that Austin here may seem to doubt whether Abraham's bosom, where the souls of the Fathers in times past were, was in Hell, or some where else.  
jansenius is much more ingenuous, who confesseth that Austin by disputing the 
Augustinus Epist 99 disputando colligit, sinum Abrahae non fuisse aliquam inferni partem. Jansen. Concord. cap. 97.  point did gather, that Abraham's bosom was no part of Hell. And he observes also that Austin makes the faithful that 
Et Augustinus lib. 9 Confess. loquens de Nebridio dicit, Quicquid illud est, quod sinus Abrahae vocatur, ibi Nebridius meus vivit. Jansen. Ibid.  died since Christ, to be in Abraham's bosom, whereas their Limbus Patrum they hold to have been only for the faithful that were before Christ. Neither is it true, which Bellarmine saith, that Austin elsewhere affirmeth Abraham's 
Si non absurdè credi videtur, etc. Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 15.  bosom to have been in Hell. For Austin in the place which Bellarmine citeth, only saith, If it seem not absurdly to be believed; so that where Austin speaks doubtfully, there Bellarmine makes him to determine; and where he doth determine, there Bellarmine makes him to speak doubtfully. 4. That argument, which Bellarmine useth to prove that now in the 

Deus non est pronior ad puniendum, quam ad remunerandum. Quarè cum impii jam nunc in tormentis sint, aequum certè videtur, ut etiam justi praemia sua percipiant. Bell. de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 6.  
Esse autem nunc impios in tormentis Evangelium testatur, Luc. 16. Bell. Ibid.   time of the new Testament the souls of the godly go to Heaven, is also of force in respect of those in the time of the old Testament. God (saith he) is not more prone to punish, than he is to reward. Therefore seeing the wicked are now in torments, it doth truly seem equal and reasonable, that the righteous do also now receive their rewards. And that the wicked now when they die, go presently to the place of torments, he proves by that Luke 16. where it is said, that the rich man immediately after his death was in torments. Now by this reason the godly also that were before Christ, went to Heaven when they died, for that Luke 16. shows, that before Christ, the wicked, when they died, went to the place of torment. 5. Christ said unto the believing Thief, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Now Bellarmine approves 
Vera ergo expositio est Theophylacti, Amrbosii, Bedae & aliorum, qui per paradisum intelligunt regnum caelorum. Bell. de Sanct. beatitud. lib. 1. cap. 3.  of the Exposition of Theophylact, Ambrose, Bede, and others, who by Paradise here understand the Kingdom of Heaven. And so is the word Paradise taken (as Bellarmine also observes) 2 Cor. 12. 4. compared with v. 2. By this than it appears, that the soul of Christ, when he died, went to Heaven, and consequently to no such Limbus, or part of Hell, as they talk of.  
For the places of Scripture, which the marquis allegeth, first that Ephes. 4. 8, 9 doth not speak of Limbus Patrum.  
Cajetane upon the place, by the lower parts of the Earth understands the Earth it 
Ac si apertiùs dixisset, quia descendit primùm ad inferiorem partem mundi, terram. Caje. in Ephes. 4. 9  self, which is the lower part of the World.  
And Estius notes, that besides Cajetane, other Romanists also as Catharinus, and Arias do embrace this Exposition, and that 
Alii terram ipsam intelligunt; q d. in infimam mundi partem, quae est terra. Sensum hunc S. Thom. non reiicit; Cajetan: amplectitur, & Catharin: & Arias: Pro his facere videtur consequentia, quam Apost. indicat, hujusmodi: Christus ascendit in caelum: ergò prius descendit, etc. Quae consequentia promptior est, si terram absolutè intelligas, quam si quid aliud. Nam ascensio Christi è terrâ in caelum intelligitur. Est. ad loc.  Aquinas doth not reject it. And (as Estius also observes) the argument which the Apostle useth in those words, This that he ascended, what is it, but that he descended first into the lower parts of the Earth, this argument, I say, doth much favour that Exposition. This consequence is more easy (saith Estius) if you understand the Earth absolutely, then if any thing else: because Christ's ascension from Earth to Heaven is here understood.  
And (say I) before Christ could ascend from Earth to Heaven, as he did, it was necessary that he should descend from Heaven to Earth, viz. by his Incarnation: but there was no necessity of his descending to Limbus Patrum before his ascending into Heaven; for he might well enough ascend thither, though he did never descend into the other place, suppose such a place to have been. Estius also notes that some expound there the lower parts of the Earth to 
Alii de sepuschro exponunt, juxta illud quod Dominus de se dicit Mat. 12. Sicut fuit Ionas, etc. sic erit filius hominis in cord terrae, etc. Est. Ibid.  be the grave, which is called the heart of the Earth, Mat. 12. 40. And if by the Lower parts of the Earth, some certain parts of it, which are lower than some other parts, are to be understood, then most meet it is to understand the Grave, into which CHRIST descended. It is strange that the marquis saith, that the Grave was the upper part, and yet a little after saith, Christ's Grave was a new pit. If it were a pit, than was it not the upper part of the Earth, but the lower part of it. Ezech. 32. 18. by the neither parts of the Earth are meant Graves, as appears vers. 23. So in the place objected, Christ's Grave may be called the lower parts of the Earth, that is, one of the lower parts (as judg. 12. 7. its said that jephtah was buried in the Cities of Gilead, that is, in one of the cities) in opposition to the surface, or uppermost part of the Earth, on which we live.  
Finally, Estius confesseth, that it is not 
Hieron: & plerique infernum intelligunt, etc. Qui sensus ersi non certus, probabilitatem tamen prae caeteris habet. 1. Ex ipsâ phrasi, quâ utitur Apost. nam inferiores parts, i. e. infima terrae, nihil aptius quam quod nos infernum dicimus, significant. Ut in Psal. 62. Introibunt in inferiora terrae. 2. Quia descensus Christi ad inferos Pausò antè praecesserat ipsius in caelos ascensionem.— Denique ex eo, quod hîc sequitur, ut impleret omnia. Est. Ibid.  certain, that there by the lower parts of the Earth, is meant a certain Region of Hell, although he think that Exposition more probable than the other. But that it hath any such probability in it, his reasons do not evince. For 1. It is not so, as he saith, that the lower parts of the Earth do most fitly signify Hell, either as they take it here for Limbus Patrum, or as usually it is taken for the place of torment. I have showed out of Ezech. 32. 18. how the phrase is otherwise used, viz. for the Grave. Neither doth it appear that the words are taken in any other sense, Psal. 63. 9 which place Estius allegeth; they shall go into the lower parts of the Earth, that is, they shall be taken away out of the Land of the living, as it follows immediately, They shall fall by the Sword, etc. 2. Christ's descent into Hell in that sense, which the Romanists maintain, did not (as Estius pretends) go a little before his ascension into Heaven. Neither (which he urgeth also) do those words, prove it, that he might fill (or fulfil) all things. For those words (as Estius himself doth show) are diversely expounded. Some understand it of Christ's fulfilling all things, that were written of him. Others expound it thus, that he might fill all kinds of men 
Ut impleret omnia, de se scripta, ut quidam exponunt. Alii omnia hominum genera spiritualibus donis implenda significari putant. Est. ad Ephes. 4. 10.  with spiritual gifts. And this sense doth well agree with that v. 8. He gave gifts unto men: and with that v. 11. And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, etc.  
The other place which is next cited, viz. Acts 2. 27. is indeed more clear to show that Christ's Soul was for a while left in Hell, but not in that Hell which our adversaries speak of, viz. Limbus Patrum. For 1. Some by Hell there understand the Hell of the damned. Thus 
Aug. Epist. 99 dicit Christum descendisse ad loca inferni, ubi erant dolores, & tormenta. Et Fulgentius, etc. Bell. de Christi animâ lib. 4. cap. 16.  Austin and Fulgentius expound it, as Bellarmine observes, who also citys for this Exposition Cyrill, Ambrose, Eusebius Emissenus, and Gregory Nyssen. And therefore contrary to the opinion 
Aquinas 3. p. q. 52. art. 2. docet Christum per realem presentiam solùm descendisse ad Limbum Patrum, etc. At probabile est profectò Christi animam ad omnia loca inferni descendisse. Bell. Ibid.  of other Romanists, he thinks it probable, that Christ's Soul did descend to all the parts of Hell. But where doth the Scripture show that Christ descended into any Hell but one? If therefore he descended into the Hell of the damned (which yet I do not say, nor believe that he did) than not into that Hell, which they call Limbus Patrum. 2. Those words Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, as spoken by David Psal. 16. and commented upon by Peter Acts 2. those words, I say, do show that Hell there mentioned could neither be the Hell of the damned, nor Limbus Patrum, or at least that there is no necessity to expound it of either. For 1. It is spoken of as a great benefit, a matter of joy and rejoicing, that Christ's Soul was not left in Hell. Therefore my Heart is glad, and my glory (or Tongue) rejoiced, etc. For thou wilt not leave, etc. Psal. 16. 9, 10. Acts 2. 26, 27. But they that hold Christ's descending either into the Hell of the damned, or into Limbus Patrum, make him to descend as a conqueror, one that went either to 
Patres describunt terrorem gehennae ac daemonum in descensu Christi.— Christus fuit in inferno liber, & liberator aliorum, ut omnes Patres clamant. Bell. ubi supra.  triumph over the Devil in his own place, as it were; or to deliver the souls, that were in limbus. Now why should it be accounted such a benefit, such a matter of joy and rejoicing, for one not to be left there, where he is only as a conqueror, and deliverer? 
Respondeo beneficium fuisse animae Christi, quòd celeriter corpori conjungeretur, sicut malum erat ei separatio: & hoc modo beneficium illi fuit liberatio ab inferno, non ratione loci, sed ratione separationis à corpore. Bell. Ibid.  Bellarmine answers, that it was a benefit to Christ's Soul, that it was quickly joined again unto the Body, even as it was evil to the Soul to be separated from the Body. And thus (saith he) it was a benefit unto him to be delivered from Hell, not in respect of the place, but in respect of separation from the body. But who seeth not, that by this reason Christ's Soul might as well be in Heaven, as either in Limbus Patrum, or the Hell of the damned? For though Christ's soul were in heaven, yet it was a benefit unto it to be delivered out of that estate of separation, which it was in. 2. Those words, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, were meant of Christ's Resurrection, as S. Peter telleth us, Acts 2. 31. But Christ's Resurrection, though it did presuppose his being in Hell, either as Hell is taken for the grave, or for the state of death, yet not as it is taken either for Limbus Patrum, or for the place of torment: Christ might well enough rise again, and yet never be in any such Hell as one of these is, and the other is supposed to have been. 3. S. Peter shows, that David in those words, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, spoke not of himself, but of Christ; for that the words being understood of David, were not true, but most true, as understood of Christ. Men and Brethren, let me freely speak unto you concerning the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his Sepulchre remaineth with us to this day. Therefore being a Prophet, etc. Acts 2. 29, 30, 31. Here by David's Sepulchre remaning with them unto that day, he means, that David was left in that Hell of which he speaks, and so did not speak of himself, but of some other, viz. of Christ, who was not left in it. Thus also S. Paul having cited the latter part of the Verse, Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption, he also to prove that this was meant of Christ, and not of David, adds, For David after he had served his own Generation by the Will of God, fell asleep and was laid with his Fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised up, saw no corruption. Acts 13. 35, 36, 37. David spoke not of himself, but of Christ, when he said, Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption; because David did see corruption, which Christ did not see. So David spoke not of himself, but of Christ, when he said, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell; because David's Soul was left in Hell, where Christ's Soul was not left. This is the Apostles argument; and hearse it necessarily follows, that by Hell cannot be meant either the place of torment, or yet Limbus Patrum: Not the place of torment; for David's soul was not left in that Hell, it never came in it. Nor yet can that Limbus be meant; for even the Romanists themselves do hold that it was quite emptied before that time that Peter spoke; and therefore David's soul was not in it then, whereas yet Peter signifies, that then it was in that Hell, of which he spoke. By Hell therefore must be meant either the grave, or the state of the dead. Ruffinus 
Sciendum sanè est, quòd in Ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum, descendit ad inferna; sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo: vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in eo, quòd sepultus dicitur. Ruffin. in Symb.  in his Exposition of the Creed, observes that in his time the Article of Christ's descending into Hell was not in the Creed of the Roman Church, and that the Eastern Churches had it not; yet he saith, that it seems to he implied in that which is spoken of Christ's Burial. And it is observed, that in all the ancient 
B. Usher of Christ's descent into Hell.  Creeds, that were within 600 years after Christ, except one which Ruffinus followed, if the article of Christ's burial were mentioned, then that of his descending into Hell was omitted; and if his descending into Hell were mentioned, than his burial is omitted, which argues, that the ancients did take these two, viz. Christ's burial and his descending into Hell, to import but one thing, or to differ but very little, and therefore thought it sufficient to mention either the one, or the other. It is most evident that the Hebrew word Sheol, and so the Greek Hades, which Psal. 16. and Acts 2. are rendered Hell, are often taken for the grave. Some of the Romanists deny that Sheol is ever so used, but Genebrard, 
In errore versantur, qui eam vocem (Sheol) nunquam sepulchrum designare contendunt. Genebr. in Symbol. Athanas.  who was sometimes Hebrew Professor at Paris, doth confess that they are in an error; and there are many places of Scripture to convince them. Gen. 42. 38. If mischief befall him, etc. you shall bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to Sheol, i. e. the grave. For to what Hell else should grey hairs go down? So Gen. 44. 29. and 31. and 1 King. 2. 6. And job. 17. 13. If I wait, Sheol is mine House, that is, the grave, as appears v. 14. I have said to corruption thou art my Father; and to the worm, thou art my Mother, and Sister. So Psal. 141. 7. Our bones lie scattered at the mouth of Sheol, i. e. the grave. So Genebrard upon the place expounds it juxta Sepulchrum, i. e. by the grave, whereas the vulgar Latin hath it secus infernum, near Hell. But what Hell, except the grave, should dead men's bones lie scattered by? So in many other places; and in all these places the Greek version hath Hades, so that Bellarmine needed not to have made so strange a matter of it as he doth, that 
H. Stephanus in suo magno Thesauro in gratiam Bezae (ut videtur) dicit posse accipi pro sepulchro vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed nullum invenire potuit auctorem, qui ita locutus fuisset Bell. de Christi anima. l. 4. c. 10.  Henry Stephen in his great Thesaurus, should say that Hades may be taken for the grave; neither had he cause to say that Stephen could find no Author that did use the word in that sense. I have not now Stephens Thesaurus to look into, but sure I am, that a man of far less reading then Stephen was of, might have alleged many examples to that purpose. And for the Hebrew word Sheol, Genebrard and Bellarmine pretend that 
Bell Ibid. Geneb. in Symb. Athan.  the Chaldie Paraphrast, and the Rabbins do expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gehinnom, which signifies the place where the damned are in torment. But 1. If it were so, this were nothing to that Limbus which they contend for. 2. Neither is it true, that those authors do usually so expound the word. For the Chaldie Paraphrast for the most part keepeth the Hebrew word Sheol itself, only sometimes it is a little changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shiol: and many times doth he use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kebura, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Keburta, that is, the Grave, to express the Hebrew Sheol by; or, which is the same in effect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be Keburta, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the house of the Grave. As job. 7. 9 and 14. 13. and 17. 13. and 16. Psal. 89. 48. and 141. 7. and Eccles. 9 10. In all these places doth the Chaldie Pharaphrast render the Hebrew word Sheol the grave, or the house of the grave; let any Romanist show that he renders it so often by that word, which signifies the place of torment, though (as I said before) that were nothing to their Limbus Patrum. And thus also do the Rabbins interpret the word Sheol, R. Levi saith that Sheol doth signify the Grave, and that therefore it is put for Death, 2 Sam. 22. 6. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Levi in 2 Sam. 22. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Nathan de voc● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ab. Ezra in Gen. 37. 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ab. Ezra. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kimchi ad Psal. 16. 10.  So also R. Nathan Mordecai in his Hebrew Concordance saith, that the interpretation of Sheol is the Grave. Aben Ezra also saith the same in his commentary on Gen. 37. 35. And moreover he taxeth the vulgar Latin Translator for interpreting Sheol there Hell, supposing him to have meant the Hell of the damned. Kimchi likewise saith that those words Psal. 16. 10. thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption, are but a repetition of that which went before, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell. Which shows that he took Sheol (there rendered Hell) for the Grave. It is true, sometimes the Rabbins expound Sheol by Gehinnam, i. e. Hell, the place of torment, but they do not hold that to be the simple and genuine signification of the word; as appears by R. Solomon on Gen. 37. 35. who saith that Sheol there, according to the literal Exposition, is the Grave, and that 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Sal. ad Gen. 37. 35.  Jacob's meaning was, that he would go mourning to the Grave, and would not be comforted; but that according to the mystical Exposition, by Sheol there is meant Gehinnam, the Hell of the damned.  
So Kimchi upon those words Psal. 9 17. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kimchi ad Psal. 9 17.  The wicked shall be turned into Hell, where the Hebrew is Sheol, interprets it, Let the wicked be turned into the Grave, and afterwards adds, that mystically there by Sheol is understood Gehinnam, the place of torment.  
Obj. But they say that in these words, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, the Grave cannot be meant by Hell, because the Grave is not a place for the soul, but for the body.  
Answ. The word Soul is sometimes put for the body, or (which is all one) for man considered in respect of the body. As Gen. 46. 26. All the souls that came with jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, etc. There by souls are meant bodies, or persons in respect of their bodies; for so generally both Protestants and Romanists do hold, that not the Souls properly, but the Bodies of children do proceed from the loins of their Parents. Yea, and sometimes by Soul is meant the Body, when the Soul is departed out of it. As Num. 19 13. Whosoever toucheth the dead Body of any man, etc. There the word rendered 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  dead Body, is that which Psal. 16. 10. and so usually elsewhere is rendered Soul. 
* Dico multum inter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interesle. Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est generalissima vox, & significat sine ullo tropo tam animam, quam animal, imò etiam corpus, ut patet ex plurimis Scripturae locis.— At Graecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Latinum anima, non est tam generale, ut sine tropo possit accipi pro toto animali. Itaque in Levitico non ponitur pars pro parte, i. e. anima pro corpore, sed vocabulum, quod ipsum corpus significare solet; aut certè ponitur totum pro parte, i. e. vivens pro corpore. At Act. 2. ponitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae animam solam significat. Bell. de Gbristi animâ l. 4. c. 12.  Bellarmine to take away this answer, saith that there is great difference betwixt the Hebrew word Nephesh and the Greek Psyche, both which are rendered soul. For Nephesh (he saith) is a most general word, and without any trope doth signify both Soul, and living creature, yea and the Body also. But the Greek Psyche (he saith) and so the Latin Anima, is not so general, as without a trope to signify the whole living creature. And therefore in 
* Levit. 21. 1. and 11. where also Nephesh i. e. Soul, is put for Body, yea for dead Body.  Leviticus (he saith) one part is not put for another, viz. the Soul for the Body, but there is the word that usually signifies the Body itself: or the whole is put for the part, that is, the living creature for the Body. But in Acts 2. is used the word Psyche, which doth signify the Soul only. Thus Bellarmine; but a pity it is to see how a learned man, rather than he will submit to truth, doth plunge himself into absurdity, yea more absurdities than one. But to pass by the rest, this is most gross, that Bellarmine doth so distinguish betwixt Nephesh and Psyche, as if the former sometimes did signify the whole living creature, or the Body only, but not so the latter; when as in these very places of Leviticus, which Bellarmine doth speak of, viz. Levit. 21. 1. and 11. as in the Hebrew 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Levit. 21. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. v. 11.  the word Nephesh, so in the Greek the word Psyche is used; and therefore it is apparently false, that the Greek word Psyche doth signify the Soul only. Yea, but saith Bellarmine, when even Nephesh is opposed to flesh, it 
Praetereà etiam Nephes, quando oponitur carni, non potest sumi pro carne.— Hic autem anima opponitur carni, cum dicitur, neque anima relicta est in inferno, neque caro vidit corruptionem. Ergo hoc loco nullo modo tolerari potest Bezae interpretatio, qui pro animâ cadaver intelligi voluit. Bell. Ibid.  cannot be taken for flesh. Now here soul is opposed to flesh, his soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Acts 2. 31. And therefore here by no means can signify a dead body.  
I answer, that in those words Acts 2. 31. there is no opposition betwixt Soul and Flesh, no more than there is an opposition betwixt Leave and Forsake in those words Heb. 13. 6. I will not leave thee, nor forsake thee. So then notwithstanding any thing that is objected, in those words, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, by Hell may be meant the Grave, and by Soul the Body. But if the word Soul be taken properly, then by Hell is to be understood the power of death, or the state of the dead. And thus do Romish Writers sometimes expound the word Hell. As jansenius upon those words Prov. 15. 11. Hell and destruction are before the 
Per infernum & perditionem significatur status mortuorum, & non solùm damnationum, ut nos ferè ex his vocibus auditis concipimus, sed in genere status defunctorum, Jansen. in Prov. 15. 11.  Lord, notes that by Hell and destruction is signified the state of the dead, not only of the damned, as we usually conceive when we hear those words, but the state of all in general, that are departed out of this life. So Genebrard expounds that Psalm 30. 3. Thou hast brought up my Soul from Sheol, 
Ab inferno, id est, è statu mortuorum liberasti. Genebr. ad Psal. 29. 4. vel. 30. 3.  from Hell, as the vulgar Latin reads it, he expounds it, I say, thus, Thou hast delivered me from the state of the dead. So likewise the same author upon Psal. 88 (or 89.) 48. 
Infernus significat totum mortuorum statum. Genebr. ad Psal. 88 48.  saith, Hell doth signify the whole state of the dead. Thus generally all that die, whether they be godly, or wicked, are said as in respect of the Body to go to the Grave, so in respect of the Soul to descend into Hell.  
This is the Law of humane necessity, (saith Hilary) that when men's bodies are buried, 
Humanae ista lex necessitatis, ut consepultis corporibus ad inferos animae descendant. Quam descensionem Dominus ad consummationem veri hominis non recusavir. Hilar. in Psal. 138.  their souls descend into Hell; which descent the Lord to prove himself true man, did not refuse. The words also of S. Peter do confirm this Exposition, viz. that Hell, in which Christ's Soul was, but was not left, is the state of the dead, or the Power of death; Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, etc. Acts 2. 24. etc. To prove that CHRIST could not be held by death (be 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  still kept under the power of it) Peter allegeth the words of David concerning Christ, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell. Therefore Christ's not being left in Hell signifies nothing else, but 'tis not being left under the power of death: and consequently his being in Hell importeth nothing else but his being under the power of death, under which he was kept for a while, viz. until his Resurrection. And this may suffice for answer to the Objection from Acts 2. 27. The next place Objected is 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19 of which place I marvel that the marquis should say that it is yet plainer than either of the former. Austin being consulted by Evodius about the meaning of that place, confesseth that 

Questio, quam mihi proposuisti ex Epistolâ Apostoli Petri, solet nos, ut te latere non arbitror, vebementissimè commovere, etc. Aug. Epist. 99  
Vides quam latebrosum sit, & quae me moveant, ne affirmare hinc aliquid audeam. Ibid.   it did exceedingly puzzle him, and that he durst not affirm any thing about it. And the Jesuit Lorinus in his Commentary upon it, calls it difficillimum locum, a most difficult place, and rehearses ten several Expositions of it. And So Estius also upon the place saith, This place in the judgement 
Locus hic omnium penè interpretum judicio difficillimus, idemque tam variè expositus, ut novem ejus interpretationes recenseat Jo. Lorinus, quibus ipse suam addit decimam; tametsi nec omnes attigerit. Est. ad 1 Pet. 3. 29.  almost of all Interpreters is most difficult, and is so diversely expounded, that John Lorinus doth reckon up nine interpretations of it, to which he adds his own for the tenth; and yet he hath not touched all neither. And both he and Lorinus note that only Arias Montanus did think the place easy to be understood, but withal that his Exposition of it is such, as that others will not easily embrace it. For, as they relate, Arias by the spirits in prison doth understand those eight persons, that were shut up in the Ark, which was a kind of prison unto them. Bellarmine also upon occasion of this controversy 
Ut autem hic locus, qui semper obscurissimus habitus est, intelligatur, etc. Bell. de Christi animâ lib. 4. cap. 13.  about Limbus Patrum, and Christ's descending into Hell, treating of this place of Peter, saith that it hath always been accounted a most obscure place. Some have thought that by Prison in those words of Peter is meant Hell, the place of torment, and that Christ went and Preached there, and that such, as did then believe were delivered. And thus 
* Scit ergo (David) exhortationem hanc sanctos quiescentes in inferno desiderare; scit, testante Apostolo Petro, descendente in inferna Domino, etiam his, qui in carcere erant, & increduli quondam fuerant in diebus No, exhortationem praedicatam fuisse. Hilar. in Psal. 118. (vel 119.) 81. etc.  Hilary seems to have understood it, who saith, that the Apostle Peter doth testify, that when Christ descended into Hell, exhortation was Preachde also to those that were in the Prison, who had sometimes been incredulous in the days of Noah. For this opinion Hilary is taxed (though not named) by Bede, as Estius observes, who yet endeavours to excuse Hilary, as not meaning by this Prison the Hell of the damned, but Purgatory; and in that sense 
* Hilarius distinguit sanctos in inferno quiescentes, i. e. in sinu Abrahae tunc positos, ab iis, qui in carcere erant, ut in loco paenali, vetera adhuc peccatorum suorum debita luentes; quem locum Purgatorium vocamus. Est. ubi suprà. Praedicavit— animabus, quae apud inferos in carcere, velut paenarum loco, conclusae detinebantur— Propter peccata sua quoad paenam adhuc expianda, apud inferos carceri & cruciatibus addicti remanserunt, usque ad Christi Redemptoris adventum. Est. Ibid.  Estius himself also doth understand the words of Peter, viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the souls of those that were in pain and torment for the expiating of their sins, until that Christ came, and Preached deliverance unto them. But of Purgatory I shall speak hereafter; in the mean time so much is obtained, that if the place be meant of Purgatory, than not of Limbus Patrum, for that place (as they describe it) did much differ from Purgatory, as being a place (they say) in which was no pain or torment.  
But it may seem strange that the marquis should allege Austin Epist. 99 as holding that by the prison, which Peter speaketh of, is meant Limbus Patrum, when as indeed Austin in that Epistle is much against it. For besides what I have before cited out of that 
Unde illis justis, qui in sinu Abrahae erant, cum ille in inferna descenderet, nondum quid contulerit, inveni; à quibus eum secundum beatificam praesentiam suae divinitatis nunquam video recessisse. August. Epist. 99  Epistle, he saith that Christ by the beatifical presence of his Divinity did never depart from those just persons that were in Abraham's bosom, (which the marquis saith, is the same place with that called Limbus Patrum) and therefore he did not find what Christ did for them, when he descended into 
Considera tamen, ne fortè totum illud, quod de conclusis in carcere spiritibus, qui in diebus Noe non crediderant, Petrus Apostolus dicit, omninò ad inferos non pertineat Aug. Ibid.  Hell. And having considered what he could of the words of Peter, he rather thought that they did not speak of Hell at all. And therefore by the spirits in prison he conceived to be meant men, that lived in the days of Noah, whose souls were in their mortal bodies, as in a prison; to which men, he saith, Christ by his Spirit in Noah did Preach, though they yet nevertheless would not believe. 
Bell. & Est. locis autè citat.  Bellarmine and Estius and others do acknowledge this to have been the opinion of Austin in that Epistle concerning the words of Peter. And Bellarmine also doth confess, that this of Austin doth differ but little from Bezaes' Exposition of the place, viz. that by the spirits in prison are meant the souls of men, which were now, when Peter wrote of them, in prison, that is, in Hell, to which men Christ by his Divine Spirit in Noah did Preach, when they were alive upon Earth. And surely any that are impartial, will judge this Exposition in that, wherein it differs from Austin's, the more probable: and yet Bellarmine, to show his 
Hanc Expositionem non refutarem, si ipsi Augustino placeret omninò, &c Bell. ubi suprà.  partiality, saith that he would not have refuted Austin's Exposition, if Austin himself had been altogether pleased with it. 

Prima expositio est Augustini Epist. 99 ad, Evod. quem sequitur Beda. Bell. Ibid.  
Sequitur hanc Expositionem Beda in Comment. & Thomas 3. q. 52. ar. 2. ad 3. cum paucis aliis. Non dissimilis sententia est Jo. Hesselii, etc. Est. ad 1 Pet. 3. 19   Austin's Exposition is embraced not only by Bede, whom Bellarmine only mentions as herein following Austin, but also by Aquinas, and others, as Estius observes, who also adds that Hesselius (a Romish Author) doth understand the place much after the same manner. And, as Lorinus doth relate, Diegus 
Lorin. in 1 Pet. 3.  Paiva, one that wrote in defence of the Council of Trent, doth directly expound the words of Peter as Beza doth, though he would not have it thought that Paiva did receive his Exposition from Beza. But against both Austin's and Bezaes' Exposition it is objected first, that 
Spiritus, qui hîc distinguitur contra carnem, non videtur posse significare aliud quam animam, etc. Bell. loc. citat.  the Spirit by which Christ went and Preached to the spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19 is opposed to the Flesh; and therefore must signify Christ's Soul, and not his Divine Nature. I answer, that Christ's Divine Nature is most fitly understood there by the word Spirit, even as by the word Flesh is to be understood not only his Body, but his whole humane Nature, in respect of which nature Christ was put to death, and was quickened by his Divine Nature. Thus doth Oecumenius expound it, Put to death in the nature of flesh, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecum. ad loc.  that is, the humane Nature, and raised again by the power of the Divine Nature. And why should this Exposition seem strange, when as Flesh is put for Christ's humane Nature, joh. 1. 14. The word was made Flesh. And so also Rom. 1. 3. and 9 5. And therefore on the other side the word Spirit may well denote Christ's Divine Nature. For this Exposition Estius also citys Austin, and Athanasius as alleged by Bede. And he doth well observe, that this sense agrees with that which is said of Christ, 2 Cor. 13. 4. For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. Besides, if we should read quickened in the Spirit, and by Spirit understand Christ's Soul, it would follow, that Christ's Soul 
Sed haec ratio non concludit; nam in Scripturâ passim dicitur vivificari id, quòd non occiditur. 1. Reg. 27. Virum & mulierem non vivificabat David, i. e. non relinquebat vivum. Bell. de Cbr. an. l. 4. c. 13. ubi etiam alia istiusmodi exempla affert.  was sometime dead. This was Austin's argument against that Exposition, as is observed by Bellarmine. Who saith that the argument doth not conclude; for that often in the Scripture that is said to be quickened, which is not put to death. But his answer is not satisfactory. For though it is true, that in the Scripture to quicken or to make alive is sometimes no more than to preserve 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vivificare.  and keep alive; as 1 Sam. 27. 11. and 2 Sam. 8. 2. where both in the Original, and in the vulgar Latin the word used doth signify to make alive. Yet nevertheless nothing in Scripture is said to be made, that is, kept alive, but that which is obnoxious unto death, and may die: but Christ's Soul, and generally the Souls of men are of an immortal nature, and do not die, when the body dyeth. Besides, what great matter was it (as Estius observes) if when Christ's Body died, his Soul did remain 

Quid magnum, si anima Christi, moriente carne, vivens permansit; quando nec in pessimis hominibus anima moritur ut quae naturâ sit immortalis. Est. ad 1 Pet. 3. 18.  
Proinde meliùs intelligitur Christus vivificatus spiritus, i. e. animâ: quiâ factus est in spiritum vivificantem, hunc scil. quando à morte Resurrexit ad vitam immortalem. Est. Ibid.   alive; when as even in the worst men that are, the soul doth not die, as being by nature immortal? And therefore he saith it is better understood thus, Christ was quickened in the Spirit, that is, he was made a quickening Spirit, viz. when he rose from death unto life immortal. And he citys that 1 Cor. 15. 45. The first man Adam was made a living Soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. But that sense will not well suit the words of Peter, which do not show what Christ is made being risen again, but in what respect and by what means he did rise again, viz. by the spirit, that is, by his Divine Nature, as in the flesh, that is, his humane Nature he was put to death. But again it is objected, that S. Peter saith Christ went and preached to the spirits in prisons; therefore it is meant of the soul, not of his Divine Nature, in which respect 
Illud, veniens praedicavit, si de animâ intelligatur, propriè accipi po●erit: vere enim venit ad locum, ubi non erat: at si de Divinitate, non potest accipi nisi impropriè. Bell. loc. cit.  it cannot be said but improperly that he went. I answer, there is no necessity to take it properly in the words of Peter, more than in the words of Paul, Ephes. 2. 17. when he saith that Christ came and Preached peace unto the Ephesians; which must be meant of coming and Preaching by the Apostle; for otherwise Christ in his own person did not come and preach unto them. And thus Estius notes it to be expounded by Ambrose, the Interlineary Gloss, Aquinas, Lyra, and Cajetane. It is objected again, that by spirits in prison cannot be understood living men, except S. Peter should on 
Per spiritus, qui in carcere erant, non videtur posse intelligi homines viventes, nisi de industriâ S. Petrus affectaverit improprietatem, & obscuritatem. Bell. ubi suprà.  purpose speak improperly and obscurely. I answer, according to Bezaes' Exposition, (which in his particular doth differ from Austin's, and is the more probable) not living men, but the souls of men separated from their bodies, are termed spirits in prison, as being in the prison of Hell when Peter wrote of them; though they were not so, but were joined to their bodies, and so both souls and bodies joined together were living men, when Christ preached unto them. But Bellarmine further objects that 1 Pet. 4. 6. where it is said, that 
Bell. Ibid.  the Gospel was preached to the dead, which he will have so understood, as that men being dead, and departed out of this life, the Gospel was Preached unto them. But the true and genuine meaning of the words rather is this, that the Gospel was Preached to them, that are now dead; though they were not dead, but alive when the Gospel was preached unto them. Even as in the verse immediately going before it is said, that Christ will judge both the quick and the dead, that is, those that are now alive, or shall be alive at Christ's coming; and those that are now dead, or shall be dead at Christ's coming; who yet shall not be judged whiles they are dead, but they shall be raised up, and made alive, and so be judged. As therefore Peter calls them dead, because so they are now, and were, when he wrote of them, though they shall not be dead, but alive, when they shall be judged. So for the same reason he calls them dead, to whom the Gospel was preached, though when the Gospel was preached unto them they were alive, and not dead. And in like manner he calls them spirits in prison, to whom Christ went and Preached, because so they were when he wrote, though they were not so when Christ went and preached unto them. But Bellarmine chargeth Beza with being so bold as to change 
Augustinus servat textum, ut invenit à majoribus Scriptum: Bezs pro suâ audaciâ mutat, & ubi nos habemus, Qui in carcere erant, ipse vult legi, Qui in carcere sunt. Bell. loc cit.  the Text, because where they read, the spirits that were in prison, he reads, the spirits that are in prison. But, as Beslarmine himself could not but confess, in the Original there is neither that were, nor that are, but the words 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  are (as our Translatours render them) the spirits in prison; so that either the words that were, or that are, may be understood, as the sense will bear. Estius confesseth that some (I suppose, he means some not 
Quamvis nonnulli (sunt) supplendum putent, multò tamen meliùs noster interpres, ut alii fere omnes (erant) suppleverant. Nam verbum praeteriti temporis (praedicavit) supplementum postulat temporis consimilis, erant, vel fuerant, eo scil. tempore, quo praedicavit. Est. ad loc.  Protestant's) understand, that are: but he holds it better to understand, that were, as the verb is of the Pretertense, preached. But this reason is of no moment. For if because the word Preached hath reference to the time past, therefore it must be meant of the Spirits that were in prison, when Christ Preached unto them: by the same reason when it is said that Christ shall judge both the quick and the dead, because shall judge doth respect the time to come, therefore also it must be meant of those that shall be dead, when Christ shall judge them. But this doth not follow; and so neither doth the other. And thus, I hope, it may appear, that those words of Peter make nothing for Limbus Patrum. The fourth and last place of Scripture, which is alleged by the marquis is Zach. 9 11. where the pit that is spoken of, he saith, cannot be the place of the damned, nor the Grave. But what then? must it therefore be Limbus Patrum? It doth not follow; for by the pit there may be something else meant then either the place of the damned, or the Grave, or Limbus Patrum, viz. the Babylonish captivity, as the Rabbins upon the place expound it. Bellarmine citing Calvin for this 
R. Sàl Kimchi and Abrabanecl. Bell de chr. an. l. 4. c. 11.  Exposition saith, that it hath no probability, because immediately before there is a prophecy of Christ, Rejoice greatly O Daughter of Zion, behold thy King cometh unto thee, etc. Therefore (saith he) how should 
Quomodo ergò ista cohaererent, si de captivitate Babylonicâ ageretur? Bell. Ibid.  these things cohere, if the captivity of Babylon were spoken of? I answer, well enough; the Prophet having told them of Christ's coming unto them, might well presently after speak of their deliverance out of captivity, as a great benefit which they had already obtained through Christ (in whom all the promises are yea, and in him amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20.) and whereby they might be assured of far greater benefit by him, even of deliverance from the captivity of sin and Satan. Estius in his Exposition of the hard places of Scripture, treating of this place, saith indeed that many understand it of Christ's descending into Hell, and delivering thence the souls of the just; but 
Variè hoc exponitur— Unus sensus est, Christum per Meritum Passionis suae omnes electos suos, qui tenebantur tanquam vincti sub potestate diaboli, liberasse.— Sic lacus, in quo non est aqua, est captivitas humani generis, quâ quamdiù detinetur, vacuum est ab aquâ Divinae gratiae. Est. ad Zach. 9 11.  withal he tells us, that it is diversely expounded, and that one Exposition is, that Christ by the Merit of his Passion did free all the Elect, who were held captive under the power of the Devil. And thus (he saith) the pit, wherein is no water, is the captivity of mankind, in which so long as it is held, it is empty of the water of Divine Grace. Divers Romanists do 
Bell. loco proximè eitato. Ribera ad loc. Annotat. on the Doway-Translation.  cite Hierome as interpreting this place of the Prophet Zachary, of Limbus Patrum, and of Christ's descending thither: But they that peruse Hieromes own words, will find, that he neither speaks of Christ's descending, nor of Limbus Patrum; and that indeed he meant only that which Estius expresseth. He giveth, the sense of the Prophet's 
Quod ita intelligitur; In sanguinê passions tuae, eos, qui vincti in carcere tenebantur inferni, in quo non est ulla misericordiâ, tuâ clementià liberasti.— In hoc lacu inferni morabatur dives ille quondam puratus, cujus lingua magniloqua paenarū exurebatur incendiis; & in tantum non habebat ulla aquarum refrigeria, ut extremi digiti pauperis tincti in aquâ refrigerium postularet. Hieron. ad Zach. 9 11.  words thus; By the blood of thy passion, thou through thy clemency hast delivered those, who were held bound in the prison of Hell, in which there is no mercy. And he adds a little after, that the rich man spoken of Luke 16. was in that pit, which was so void of all water of comfort, that he desired Lazarus might but dip the tip of his finger in water to cool his Tongue. Here it is evident, that Hierome by the pit without water understands the Hell of the damned, which is without all comfort, though the marquis say that place cannot here be meant. Now whereas Hierome saith that Christ by his Passion did deliver those that were bound in that prison, I suppose he did not mean, that any being once in Hell, as that rich man that he mentioneth, were afterwards delivered out of it; himself seems to exclude that sense, when he saith, that in that prison there is no mercy, viz. to be obtained: but his meaning was, that such, as by reason of sin were in the state of damnation, Christ did deliver by his Passion. But thus neither this place of Zachary, nor any other place of Scripture doth prove a Limbus Patrum, or that Christ descended into Hell in that sense as they of the Church of Rome maintain. For the Fathers, whom the marquis citeth, Austin in Psal. 37. 1. hath nothing about Limbus Patrum, or Christ's descending into Hell; and I have showed before that he gathered by the Scripture, that Abraham's bosom, was no such Limbus, as the Romanists imagine: yea, that he held the Saints that died before Christ's incarnation to have always enjoyed the beatifical presence of Christ's Divinity, which is point blank contrary to their opinion. Hierome, I grant, in Ephes. 4. 9 seemeth to speak for them, where he saith, By the lower parts of 
Inferiora autem terrae infernus accipitur, ad quem Dominus noster Salvatorque descendit, ut sanctorum animas, quae ibi tenebantur inclusae, secum ad caelos victor abduceret, Vnde & post Resurrectionem ejus, plurima corpora justorum in sanctâ civitate visa sunt. Hieron. ad Eph. 4. 9  the Earth is understood Hell, to which our Lord and Saviour descended, that he might victoriously carry with him to Heaven the souls of the Saints, which were kept there. Whereupon also after his Resurrection many bodies of the just were seen in the holy City.  
But Hieromes meaning might be only this, that Christ by the virtue and efficacy 

Ascendens quippe in altum, captivam duxit captivitatem. Nos qui nunc in Christum credimus de gentibus congregati, cum essemus creatura Dei, à diabolo capti sumus, & ejus satellitibus distributi. Venit igitur Dominus noster Jesus Christus, secundum Ezechielem, vasa captivitatis secum apportans, & operto capite (ne ab adversariis cognosceretur) praedicavit his, qui capti erant, remissionem, & qui tenebantur in vinculis solutionem, & nos de catenis hostium, & de compedibus libetavit. Hieron. ad Ephes. 4. 8.  
Liberatosque nos, & per novam captivitatem de captivitate veteri erutos, secum duxit in caelum. Ibid.   of his death, did deliver the Souls of all Saints (whether before or after his coming) from Hell, which otherwise by reason of sin was the place that did belong unto them. Thus a little before upon those words, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, Hierome doth express himself, saying, We, who now believe in Christ, were taken captive by the Devil, and were delivered over to his officers. Therefore our Lord jesus Christ came, bringing with him the vessels of captivity, and preached remission to those that were taken, and deliverance to those that were bound; and delivered us from the Chains, and Fetters of our enemies. And having delivered us, and by a new captivity brought us out of our old captivity, he carried us with him into Heaven. He cannot here mean, that we were actually in Hell, and then from thence, delivered, and carried up with Christ into Heaven. But his meaning must needs be this, that whereas sin had brought us under condemnation, so that nothing but Hell did remain for us, Christ by his death delivered us, and made a way for us into Heaven, into which otherwise we could find no entrance. After the same manner very well may the other words be understood so as to import no such place as they call Limbus Patrum. However he meant, yet it appears sufficiently by the words of Austin before cited, that the opinion of Limbus Patrum was not generally received in that time wherein Hierome lived, Austin and he being contemporaries. The other Father yet remaining, is Gregory, but there is no such place as that mentioned, viz. li. 13. Mor. ca 20. for that book hath only 17. Chapters in it: yet I find Bellarmine also to cite 
Bell. de Christ. anum. l. 4. c. 14.  Gregory after the very same manner, yea and to bid us also see Cap. 21. But the words, which Bellarmine citeth as out of Cap. 20. are indeed in Cap. 15. viz. Whiles our Master and Redeemer penetrating the 
Dum conditor ac redemptor noster claustra inferni penetrans, electorum exinde animas eduxit, no, illo ire non patitur, unde jam alios descendendo liberavit. Gregor. Moral. lib. 13. cap. 15.  cloisters of Hell, did bring out from thence the souls of the Elect, he suffers not us to go thither, from whence by descending he did deliver others.  
These words of Gregory might admit of 
Priores etenim sancti & sustinere adversa pòterant, & tamen à corporibus educti, adhuc ab inferni locis liberari non poterant: quia necdum venerat, qui illuc sine culpâ descenderer, ut eos, qui ibi tenebantur ex culpâ, liberaret, Ibid. c. 16.  the same Exposition with those of Hierome before spoken of, but that in the next Chapter he is more plain saying, The former Saints could endure adversity, but yet they could not be delivered from Hell, when they died, because he was not yet come, who should descend thither without sin, that he might deliver those, who were held there by reason of sin. But the reason that Gregory here giveth, is too weak; for though Christ were not then come in the flesh, yet his death was as effectual to those, that believed in him, then, as after his coming, as I have proved before. Neither is the ground or occasion of these words of Gregory good; for he builds or comments upon that of job 17. 13. If I wait, Sheol (Hell, as Gregory understands it) is mine house. But I have showed before, that Sheol doth not properly signify Hell, as either we, or our adversaries usually take the word, but the Grave, or the state of the dead. And so the Chaldie Paraphrast 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  there for Sheol hath that which signifieth the house of the Grave. This appears to be the meaning in that place by that which follows immediately after, v. 14. I have said to corruption, Thou art my Father, to the worm, thou art my Mother and Sister. If our adversaries will yet stand upon the authority of Gregory, I answer, that we are not tied to the authority of any in this kind, further than they concur with the Scripture: and if we were, yet Austin's authority were to be preferred, as being 200 years more ancient than Gregory; but of this point enough.  
From Limbus Patrum we must now pass to Purgatory, to 
Page. 73.  which the marquis doth next lead us. We hold (saith he) Purgatory fire, where satisfaction shall be made for sins after death: you deny it. We have Scripture for it, 1 Cor. 3. 13, 15. The fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is; if any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. S. Aug. so interprets this place upon Psal. 37. also S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 3. and ser. 20. in Psal. 118. S. Hier. l. 2. c. 13. advers. joan. S. Greg. l. 4. dial. c. 39 Origen Hom. 6. in cap. 15. Exod.  
If there be any such place as Purgatory, it doth much more concern us then Limbus Patrum, which they hold to have been made void, and of no use long ago, but this they pretend to continue still, and to be of as much force as ever it was. But we find nothing in Scripture to prove any such place, or any such fire, as that of Purgatory, wherein they that have not fully satisfied for their sins in this life, must lie, and fry, until they have made full satisfaction, and then be taken out, and conveyed to Heaven. For thereore they call the place Purgatory, and the fire Purgatory fire, 
Vocatur Purgatorium locus quidam, in quo tanquam in carcere post hanc vitam purgantur animae, quae in hac non plenè purgatae fuerunt, ut nimirum sic purgatae in caelum ingredi valeant, quò nihil intrabit coinquinatum. Bell. de Purgat. l. 1. c. 1.  because (they say) in that place, by that fire the Souls are purged, which were not fully purged in this life, that being so purged, they may have entrance into Heaven. But how doth this agree with the Scripture? That tells us, that the Blood of jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin; 1 joh. 1. 7. And that if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the righteous; And he is the propitiation for our sins. 1 joh. 2. 1, 2. It is only Christ, who by his blood doth satisfy for our sins, and so purge us from them; we cannot do it by any thing, which we either do or suffer in this life, much less is it to be done by us hereafter when we are dead. God doth indeed afflict his children here in this World, thereby to purge them; By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sin. Isai. 27. 9 But this affliction is only castigatory, not satisfactory. When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the World. 1 Cor. 11. 32. After this life is ended, there remains no more affliction for the godly, for any thing that we can find in Scripture. We know, that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens.— Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whiles we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by Faith, and not by sight. We are confident, I say, willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5. 1, 6, 7, 8. The Apostle speaks there not peculiarly of himself, or such eminent ones as he was, but generally of all Believers, as appears by those words, For we walk by faith, and not by sight; which is as true of every believer, as it was of Paul. Now if the faithful, when they depart out of this Tabernacle, the body, go to their house prepared for them in Heaven, and are present with the Lord, and enjoy the sight of him; then surely there is no such thing as Purgatory, to keep them, I know not how long absent from God, in pain and torment. And so the Scripture tells us, that they that die in the Lord, are blessed, and rest from their labours. Revel. 14. 13. But how are they blessed, and how do they rest from their labours, if yet after they are dead, they must endure Purgatory, the pains whereof, they say, are most grievous, and such as that no pains here in this life are to be 
Paenas Purgatorii esse atrocissimas, & cum illis nullas paenas hujus vitae comparandas docent constanter Patres. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 14. B. Thomas dicit, minimam paenam Purgatorii esse majorem maximâ paenâ hujus vitae. Bell. Ibid. Repugnat Ecclesiae consuetudo, quae anniversaria sacra celebrat pro defunctis, etiamsi constet eos ante centum vel ducentos annos esse mortuos. Quod certè non fieret, si Ecclesia crederet, non puniri animas ultra decem annos. Bell. Ibid. cap. 7. Scribit Beda l. 5. Hist. c. 15. cuidam ostensas fuisse Purgatorii paenas, dictumque illi esse, animas, quae in Purgatorio degunt, salvandas omnes in die judicii, etc. ubi clarè indicat, aliquos jam defunctos usque ad diem judicii mansuros. Bell. Ibid.  compared with them? Yea, some hold that the least pain in Purgatory, is greater than the greatest pain that is in this life. And whereas Dominicus à Soto thought that none did continue in Purgatory above ten years, Bellarmine confutes this by the custom of their Church praying for those that were known to be dead a hundred or two hundred years before. Which argues, that (as they suppose) souls may continue so long in Purgatory. Yea, he citys Bede, who lived about 900 years ago, telling of one, to whom was showed the pains of Purgatory, and it was told him, that all the Souls in Purgatory should be delivered and saved in the day of judgement, etc. whence he infers, that according to Bede some now dead (yea that were dead many hundred years ago) must abide in Purgatory until the day of judgement. And will any call such blessed? will any say that such rest from their labours? In a word, the Scripture tells us but of two places appointed for such as depart out of this life, the one a place of comfort, and the other a place of torment; and withal it tells us, that betwixt these two places there is such a great gulf fixed, that they that are in the one, cannot pass unto the other. Luke 16. 25, 26.  
Neither do we want the testimonies of 
Quamdiù enim corpus hoc permanet, commune cum caeteris sit necesse est, & corporalis conditio communis, nec separari generi humano ab invicem datur, nisi istinc de seculo recedatur. Intra unam domum boni & mali interim continemur: quicquid intra domum evenerit, pari sorte perpetimur; donec aevi temporalis fine completo, ad aeternae vel mortis, vel immortalitatis hospitia dividamur. Cyprian. ad Demetrian.  the ancient Fathers for the asserting of this truth, which we maintain. Cyprian saith, that though the godly and the wicked fare alike here, yet when this life is ended, than their estates do much differ. We are contained (saith he) for a while both good and bad in one house; whatsoever doth happen within the house, we suffer alike, until this temporal life being ended, we are divided to the habitations either of eternal death, or of immortality. He makes no third place distinct from those of immortality, and of everlasting death; neither doth he make any stay after the end of this life, but that such as escape the habitation of endless death, do immediately pass to the habitation of immortality. So the same Father again. The Kingdom now is very near at hand, etc. 
Regnum Dei, fratres dilectissimi, caepit esse in proximo, etc. jam terrenis caelestia, & magna parvis, & caducis aeterna succeduant. Quishîc anxietatis & sollicitudinis locus? Quis inter haec trepidus & maestus est, nisi cui spes & fides deest? ejus est enim mortem timere, qui ad Christum nolit ire: ejus est ad Christum nolle ire, qui se non credat cum Christo incipere regnare. Scriptum est enim, justum fide vivere. Si justus es, & fide vivis, si verè in Deum credis; cur non cum Christo futurus, & de Domini pollicitatione securus, quod ad Christum voceris, amplecteris, & quòd Diabolo careas, gratularis? Cyprian. de Mortal.  now after earthly things follow heavenly, after small things great, after fading things eternal. What place is there here for anxiety and carefulness? who can now be fearful, and sad, but he that hath neither hope, nor faith? For it is for him to fear death, who is not willing to go to Christ: and it is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ, who doth not believe that he begins to reign with Christ. For it is written, that the just doth live by faith. If thou be'st just, if thou dost live by faith, if thou dost indeed believe in God; why being to be with Christ, and being sure of the Lords promise, dost thou not embrace this, that thou art called unto Christ; and rejoice that thou art freed from the Devil? Thus in a time of mortality did Cyprian comfort and encourage Christians against the fear of death. But how will all this consist with Purgatory? How is the Kingdom of God so nigh at hand? how do things heavenly and eternal succeed things earthly and fading, if after this life the souls of Christians may continue many hundred years perhaps in the flames of Purgatory before they can get to Heaven? Might not this well make every one to fear death, and to tremble at the approach of it? Might not a Christian at his Death well cry 
O animula, vagula, blandula, Quae nunc abibis in loca? Adrian. Imperat.  out with the Heathen Emperor, O poor Soul, whither art thou now going? But 
* Simeon denique ille justus, etc. Probans scil. atque contestans tunc esse servis Dei pacem, tunc liberam & tranquillam quietem, quando de istis mundi turbinibus extracti, sedis & securitatis aeternae portum petimus, quando expunctâ hâc morte ad immortalitatem venimus. Cypr. Ibid. Deus de hoc mundo recedenti tibi immortalitatem, atque aeternitatem pollicetur, & tu dubitas? Hoc est Deum omninò non nosse; hoc est Christum credentium Dominum & magistrum peccato incredulitatis offendere; hoc est, in Ecclesiâ constitutum fidem in domo fidei non habere. Quantum prosit exire de seculo, Christus ipse salutis atque utilitatis nostrae magister ostendit: qui cum discipuli ejus contristarentur, quòd se jam diceret recessurum, locutus est ad eos dicens, si me dilexissetis, gauderetis, quoniam vado ad Patrem: docens scil. & ostendens, cum chari, quos diligimus, de seculo exeunt, gaudendum potius quam dolendum. Cyprian. Ibid.  Cyprian goes on, and citing that of Simeon, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, he adds, that then the servants of God have peace, than they have free and calm quietness, when being taken out of the tempests of this world, we arrive at the haven of eternal rest and security, when as this death being passed we come to immortality. And so again, God doth promise immortality and eternity unto thee, when thou goest out of the world; and dost thou doubt? This is not at all to know God: this is to offend Christ the Lord and Master of believers, with the sin of unbelief; this is to be in the Church, the house of Faith, and yet to have no Faith. How profitable it is to go out of the World, Christ himself, the Master of our salvation and welfare doth show, who when his Disciples were sorrowful, because he said he was to leave them, said, If you had loved me, you would rejoice because I go to the Father, (Joh. 14. 28.) teaching us, that we should rather rejoice then be sorry, when they depart out of the world, whom we love, who are dear unto us.  
Thus also Hierome writing to Paula to 
Lugeatur mortuus, sed ille, quem gehenna suscipit, quem tartarus devorat, in cujus paenam aeternus ignis aestuat. Nos quorum exitum angelorum turba comitatur, quibus obviam Christus occurtit, gravamur magis, si diutiùs in Tabernaculo ista mortis habitemus. Quia quamdiù hîc moramur, peregrinamur à Domino. Illa nos cupido teneat, Hei mihi, quia peregrinatio mea prolongata est, etc. Hierou. Epist. 25.  comfort her concerning the Death of her Daughter Blaesilla, saith, Let the dead be lamented, but such an one whom the place of torment doth receive, whom Hell doth devour, for whose punishment the everlasting fire doth burn. We, whose departure a troop of Angels doth accompany, whom Christ doth come to meet, are more grieved (or, as some read gravemur, let us be more grieved) if we abide longer in this Tabernacle of death: because so long as we abide here, we are as pilgrims absent from the Lord. Let that desire possess us, woe is me, that my pilgrimage is prolonged, etc. Austin plainly saith, that the Catholic faith by Divine authority doth believe the first 
Primum locum fides Catholicorum Divinâ authoritate credit, regnum esse caelorum; secundum gehennam, ubi omnis apostata, vel in fide Christi alienus ae●ern● supplicia experietur; tertium penitùs ignoramus, imò nec esse in Scriptures sanctis invenimus. Aug. in Hypognost, ultra medium.  place to be the Kingdom of Heaven; the second to be Hell, where every apostate, or such us are aliens from the faith of Christ, do suffer everlasting punishments; a third place we are altogether ignorant of, yea we find in the holy Scriptures, that there is no such place. Bellarmine answers that Austin there speaks of those places, which are everlasting. 
Loquitur de locis aeternis. Bell. de Purg. lib. 1. cap. 13.  Which indeed is true; for he speaks of Heaven, and of Hell (the place of torment) which are everlasting places for those to abide in, that are in them. But withal he saith that there is no third place, viz. for those that depart out of this life. Besides, how can the Romanists yield that there is no everlasting place besides Heaven, and Hell, viz. Gehenna (which is the word that Austin useth) the Hell of the damned? when as they hold a Limbus infantium, an everlasting place for Infants to 
Pro paenâ solius damni aeternâ est Limbus puerorum. Bellar. de Purgat. l. 2. c. 6.  abide in, that die without Baptism: which place they make to be distinct both from Heaven, and from the place of torment. For there (they say) such children as die unbaptised, suffer the punishment of loss, whereby the place differs from Heaven; but not the punishment of sense, whereby it differs from the Hell of the damned. But 
* Quod autem non negaverit Aug. aut quicunque fuit auctor Hypognostici, tertium locum temporarium post hanc vitam, ex eo potest intelligi, quod fides Catholica docet praeter caelum & infernum fuisle ante Christi passionem sinum Abrahae, ubi degebant animae sanctorum Patrum. Bell. de Purgat. l. 1. c. 13.  Bellarmine proves that Austin, or whosoever was the Author of the book called Hypognosticon, did not deny that there is a third place to abide in for a time after this life, because the Catholic faith doth teach, that besides Heaven and Hell there was before Christ's death Abraham's bosom, where the souls of the holy Fathers did abide. I answer, that Abraham's bosom was any such Limbus Patrum as the Romanists imagine, was no part of Austin's Creed, as I have showed before out of Austin's undoubted writings. And therefore Erasmus (though Bellarmine unjustly carp at him for it) might well write Purgatory in the 
Ineptè igitur Erasmus ponit in margin ad illa verba [tertium penitùs ignoramus] Purgatorium, q. d. Purgatorium est locus tertius, quem ignorat fides Catholica. Bell. Ibid.  margin over against those words, a third place we are altogether ignorant of; signifying that Purgatory is a third place, of which the Catholic faith is ignorant. But what need is there to allege particular Fathers, when as the Bishop of Rochester, who was 
Nemo certè dubitat Orthodoxus, an Purgatorium sit, de quo tamen apud priscos nulla, vel quam rarissima mentio: sed & Graecis ad hunc usque diem non est creditum esse. Roffens. contra Luther. citat. à Polydor. Vergil. de Invent. l. 8. c. 1.  beheaded in the reign of Henry the Eighth for maintaining the Pope's supremacy, in his book against Luther (as he is cited by Polydore Vergill, who was an agent here in England for the Pope in the time of Henry 8.) when as (I say) that Author confesseth, that Purgatory is never or very seldom mentioned by the ancient writers; and that the Grecians to this day do not believe that there is any such thing as Purgatory. Now for the place of Scripture, which the marquis saith they have for Purgatory, viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13, 15. First it is to be observed, that whereas Bellarmine doth allege divers other places besides this for proof of Purgatory, the marquis waves all the other, and mentiones only this, conceiving it (as it seems) more plain and pregnant than the rest. Yet, 2. Bellarmine tells us, and bids us mark it, that this is one of the most obscure 
Nota in primis, locum istum Apostoli, 1 Cor. 3. esse unum ex difficillimis, & utilissimis totius Scripturae. Nam ex co statuunt Catholici duo Ecclesiastica dogmata, purgatorium, & venialia peccata. Bell. de Purgat. l. 1. c. 5.  places of all the Scripture: though withal he saith, it is one of the most useful places, because from thence they have (as he supposeth) a foundation both for Purgatory, and for venial sins. But (as hath been observed before out of Austin) 
In iis quae apertè posita sunt in Scriptures, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem moresque viv●ndi. Aug. de doct. Christ. l 2. c 9  the Scripture is clear in those things, which concern faith; and therefore we must not build points of faith upon obscure places. Now so obscure is this place, viz. 1 Cor. 3. 13, 15. that Bellarmine spends a long Chapter merely in the explication of it. And yet when all is done, nothing can be made of it for Purgatory. For Bellarmine confutes those that 
Alii intelligunt de paenis Purgatorii; sed neque id rectè dici potest. Bell. de Purgat. l. 1. c. 5.  think Purgatory to be meant by the fire mentioned, v. 13. The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is: and he proves, 
Superest igitur, ut dicamus hîc Apostolum loqui de igne severi, & justi judicii Dei, qui non est ignis purgans, vel affligens, sed probans, & examinans. Bell. Ibid.  that the fire there mentioned, is the fire of God's severe and just judgement, which is not a purging and afflicting, but a proving and examining fire. So that Bellarmine doth take away one half of the Marquis' quotation; and indeed the whole quotation. For though Bellarmine would have those words v. 15. he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire, to be understood of Purgatory; yet who seeth not, that it is absurd to take the word fire otherwise there then v. 13. And therefore 
In primis apparet, ignem uno modo in hoc contextu accipi debere. Est. ad 1 Cor. 3. 13.  Estius upon the place saith, that it is evident, that one and the same fire is meant in both Verses. Which fire he will have to be that, which shall burn up the World at the last day. So also Bellarmine notes some to understand it; as some of the tribulations of this life: and some of everlasting fire. All these Expositions 
Ignis conflagrationis.  Bellarmine relates, and confutes, as justly he may, that being indeed the true Exposition, which he embraceth, but doth not extend far enough, viz. that by fire is meant Gods Severe and just judgement, whereby the works of all must be tried, as it were by fire; though the Apostle there speak peculiarly of Ministers, and of their Doctrine: and so as it were by fire shall they be saved, that adhere to the foundation Christ, though their works be found like wood, hay and stubble, vain and unprofitable, so that they suffer loss in that respect, as having no reward nor benefit of those works. Now whereas the marquis saith, that Austin interprets this place of Purgatory, in his commentary upon Psal. 37. I answer, it is true, Austin there doth cite or rather glance at this place, and expound it as meant the emendatorio igne, of a purging fire, and saith that this fire is more grievous than 
Gravior tamen est ille ignis, quam quicquid potest homo pa●i in hâc vitâ. Aug. in. Ps. 37.  any thing that a man can suffer in this life. But besides what hath been cited before 
Libri, qui inscribuntur Hypognosticon eruditi sunt, & utiles, & vetusti auctoris, sed phrasin non habent Augustini, etc. Bell. de Scriptor. Ecclesiast.  out of Austin (if Hypognosticon, be his, which Bellarmine thinks not, though he saith, the work is learned and profitable, and done by some ancient Author) but besides that, I say, Austin in his most elaborate piece, de Civit. Dei, handling this place of 
Sive ibi tantùm, sive & hic & ibi, sive ideò hîc ut non ibi, secularia, quamvis à damnatione venialia, concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inveniant, non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est. Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 26.  the Apostle, shows himself altogether unresolved whether there be any Purgatory fire after this life is ended. Whether (saith he) they find the fire of transitory tribulation burning up those secular affections, which yet do not bring damnation, there only (in the other World) or both there and here, or therefore here that they may not find them there, I do not gainsay, because perhaps it is true.  
Here we see Austin taking the point into consideration, had no more than a perhaps, he was far from being assured of that which they call Purgatory. Bollarmine pointing at that place of Austin, but not 
Solùm dubitat, an ignis Purgatorius sit idem in substantiâ cum igne Gehennae, de quo dicitur Mat. 25. Ite in ignem aeternum. Bell de Purgat. l. 1. c. 10.  citing the words, saith that Austin there doth only doubt whether Purgatory fire be the same in substance with Hell-fire, of which it is said, Mat. 25. Depart into everlasting fire. But it was his policy to conceal Austin's words; for all that have any view of them, must needs see, that he doubts whether there be any Purgatory fire in the World to come. So the same Father in his Enchiridion, (which it seems, he wrote when he was old) speaks as doubtfully as may be of Purgatory. That there is some such thing also after this life, is not incredible; and whether it be so, may be inquired. But whether it be 
Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est; & utrùm ita sit, quae ri potest. Et ut inveniri, aut latere possit, nonnu los fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium (quando magis minúsue bona pereuntia dilexerunt) tanto lardiùs citiusque salvari: non tamen tales, de quibus dictum est, quòd regnum Dei non possidebunt, etc. Aug. Enchir. c. 69.  found, or lie hid, that some faithful ones are so much the later or the sooner saved by a certain Purgatory fire, by how much they did more or less love these good things that perish; yet not any such, as of whom it is said, that they shall not possess God's Kingdom.  
Here he makes it a question whether it be so, or no, and the most that he saith is, That it is not incredible, which is far 
Bell. ubi supra.  from asserting it as a thing that ought to be believed. Bellarmine saith that Austin here only doubts, whether after this life souls be burnt with the fire of grief for the loss of temporal things, as here they use to be when they are forced to want things, which they most desire. But besides that the words of Austin (which here also Bellarmine did prudently omit) do plainly refuse this gloss, there is no sense at all (that I can see) in it. For how should souls after this life grieve for the loss of temporal things? Is there any use of temporal things after this life is ended? How then should Austin make it a question, whether souls in the other World are grieved, and even burnt with grief for the loss of these things, which could do them no good, if they had them? But again, in the preceding Chapter of the same Book Austin treating 
Ignis enim, de quo locutus est eo loco Apost. Paulus, talis debet intelligi, ut ambo per eum transeant, id est, & qui aedificat supra hoc fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosoes, & qui aedificat ligna, faenum, stipulam.— est quidem ignis tentatio tribulationis.— Salvus est quidem, sic tamen quasi per ignem. Quia urit eum rerum dolour, quas dilexerat, amissarum, sed non subvertit, neque consumit, fundamenti stabilitate atque incorruptione munitum. Aug. Enchir. cap. 68  of this place, 1 Cor. 3. 13, 14, 15. saith, that the fire, which the Apostle speaketh of, must so be understood, as that both pass through it, both he that up●● the foundation builds Gold, and Silver, and precious stones, and he that builds wood, hay, and stubble; and this he clearly proves by the words of the Apostle. Now this doth quite exclude Purgatory from being the fire there mentioned. For they will not have Purgatory to touch him that builds Gold, and Silver, and precious Stones, but only him that builds wood, and hay, and stubble. Austin therefore makes this fire that the Apostle writes of, to be tribulation, and saith, that a man is said to be saved, yet as it were by fire, because the loss of those things, which he loloved, doth burn him with grief, yet nor subvert, nor consume him, because he is strongly fixed upon the foundation. And this may suffice for Austin's testimony, which is objected against us. The next is Ambrose, who indeed saith that the Apostle in those 
Cum dicit, sic tamen qua si per ignem, ostendit salvum illum quidem suturum, sed paenas ignis passurum, ut per ignem purgatus fiat salvus, & non sicut perfidi aeterno igne in perpetuum torqueantur. Ambros. in 1 Cor. 3.  words, yet so as by fire, doth show that such a man shall be saved, yet so as that he shall suffer the pains of fire, that being purged by fire he may be saved, and not as they that are perfidious, be for ever tormented with everlasting fire. Here he interprets the Apostle indeed as speaking of a Purgatory fire; but yet it doth not appear that he meant it of a Purgatory after this life. For notwithstanding any thing that I yet see to the contrary, he may be understood of the fire of affliction, with which God doth purge his people here, that so they may not perish hereafter, 1 Cor. 11. 32. The same Author (if yet the same; for many think that those Commentaries upon Paul's Epistles, are not Ambroses, and that 
Commentaria in Epistolas S. Pauli à multis non creduntur Ambrosii, nec sine causâ. Bellar. de Sc iptor. Ecclcfiastic,  not without cause, as Bellarmine judgeth) in the other place that is pointed at, as by the marquis, so also by Bellarmine, viz. Serm. 20. in Psal. 118. toucheth upon the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. but how our 
Cave ligna, cave stipulam ad judicium Dei tecum deseras, quae ignis exurat. Cave cum in uno aut duobus habeas quod probetur, in pluribus operibus deferas quod offendat. Si cuju, opus arserit, det●imentum patietur, potest tamen & ipse per ignem salvari. Unde colligitur quia idem homo & salvatur ex parte, & condemnatur ex parte. Ambros. in Psala 18. Scrm. 20.  adversaries can gain any thing by him, I cannot see. Take heed (saith he) thou do not bring with thee wood, or stubble, which the fire may burn up, 〈◊〉 God's judgement. Take heed lest being approved in one or two things, thou bring that, which in more works doth offend. If any one's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, yet he also may be saved by fire. Whence it is gathered, that the same man is in part saved, and in part condemned. Here Ambrose himself sufficiently shows, that he speaks of the fire of God's judgement, whereof he makes express mention. Neither can he mean any such Purgatory as our adversaries plead for, seeing he speaks of that which shall befall a man at the last judgement; for immediately before he brings in that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear 
Omnes oportet nos ante tribunal Christi assistere, etc. Cave ligna, etc. Amh. Ibid.  before the judgement seat of Christ, etc. and then adds that before cited, Take heed thou bring not with thee unto God's judgement wood, stubble, etc. Now when the day of judgement 
Primus error est Origenis, qui extendit tempora Purgatorii ultra diem Resurrectionis. Bell. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 1.  cometh, than our adversaries hold that Purgatory ceaseth. Bellarmine notes this as an error in Origen, that he extends the time of Purgatory beyond the Resurrection. So much therefore for Ambrose. After him is cited Hierome lib. 2. cap. 13. advers. Joan. I suppose it is meant of john Bishop of Jerusalem, to whom Epiphanius wrote an Epistle, admonishing him to beware of the error of Origen, which (it seems) he suspected him to be guilty of; this Epistle being written by Ephiphanius in Geeke, Hierome translated into Latin, and so it is inserted among the Epistles of Hierome, being the 60 Epistle. Then Hierome himself wrote a long Epistle, which is the 61. to Pammachius about the errors of this john of Jerusalem, which Epistle is divided into 16 Chapters. And after that another about the same subject to Theophilus, which contains but three Chapters. Therefore the marquis here must mean the Epistle to Pammachius, which yet Chapt. 13. hath nothing at all about Purgatory. Bellarmine citys nothing out of Hierome, against john of Jerusalem, 
Bell. de Purgat. l. 1. c. 10.  but something out of him against the Pelagians, viz. this, If Origen say, that no reasonable creatures shall be destroyed, and give repentance to the 
Si Origenes omnes rationabiles creaturas dicat non esse perdendas, & Diabolo tribuit paenitentiam; quid ad nos, qui & Diabolum, & satellites ejus, omnesque impios & praevaricatores dicimus perire perpetuò; & Christianos, si in peccato praeventi fuerint, salvandos esse post paenas? Hieron. advers. Pelag. l. 1. c. 9  Devil, what is that to us, who say that the Devil, and his Angels, and all the wicked and ungodly do perish for ever, and that Christians, if they be prevented in sin, shall be saved after punishment? Here indeed Hierome seems to make some Christians after this life to suffer punishment, and yet to be saved. But if he do speak of punishment to be endured after this life (which is not clear and certain, though, I confess, it is probable by those words, if they be prevented in sin) yet he seems withal to have held that some even after the day of judgement shall be punished, yet so as to be saved, which Bellarmine (as I have showed) noted as an error in Origen; and therefore Hierome in this (as it seems) following Origen, doth descent as well from Romanists as from Protestants.  
Now that Hierome was of that opinion, may appear by that which he saith a little 
Illud verò, quod in sequenti ponis capitulo, in die judicii iniquis & peccatoribus non parcendum, sed aeternis eos ignibus exurendos, far quis potest, & interdicere te misericordiam Dei, & ante diem judicii de sententiâ judicis judicare; ut si volverit iniquis & peccatoribus parcere, te praescribente non possit? dicis enim, scriptum est in Psal. 103. Deficiant peccatores à terrâ, & iniqui, ita ut non sint— Non dicit eos aeternis ignibus exurendos, sed à terrâ desicere, & iniquos esse cessare. Aliud enim est, ipsos à peccato, & iniquitate desistere; & aliud ipsos perire imperpetuum, & aeternis ignibus concremari. Hieron. Ibid.  before in the same Chapter. That which thou puttest in the Chapter following (saith he to his adversary) that the unjust and sinners shall not be spared in the day of judgement, but shall be burnt with everlasting fire; who can endure, that thou shouldest interdict God's mercy, and before the day of judgement judge of the judge's sentence? For thou sayest, that it is written in Psal. 103. Let the sinners fail from the Earth, and the unjust, that they be no more.— He doth not say, that they shall be burnt with everlasting fire, but that they fail from the Earth, and oease to be unjust. For it is one thing for them to cease from sin, and from iniquity; and another thing for them to perish for ever, and to be burnt with everlasting fire. Hierome seems not to be so clear in the other words for this, that some are punished after this life, and yet saved; as he is in these words for this, that some shall be punished after the day of judgement, so as thereby to cease from sin and iniquity (to be purged from it) but not so as to perish for ever and to be burnt with everlasting fire. Our adversaries therefore (so far as I can see) must relinquish Hieromes testimony, who either saith nothing at all for them, or more than they would have. After Hierome is cited Gregory lib. 4. dial. cap. 39 It is true, Gregory there saith, that for some light faults we are to believe 
De quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante judicium purgatorius ignis credendus est. Greg dial. lib. 4 cap. 39  that there is a Purgatory fire before the (last) judgement. But mark 1. Gregory there immediately before citys many places of Scripture, as joh. 12. 35. Isai. 49. 8. with 2 Cor. 6. 2. Eccles. 9 10. by which places he saith it is certain, that such as every one is when he goeth out of this World, such shall he 
Ex quibus nimirum sententiis constat, quia qualis hinc quisque egreditur, talis in judicio praesentatur. Greg. Ibid.  be when he comes to judgement. See then if these places of Scripture be not more clear against Purgatory, then that which he after allegeth, is for it. He allegeth that Mat. 12. where it is said, that he that sinneth against the holy Ghost, shall not forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. From whence he gathers, that some sins are forgiven in 
In quâ sententiâ datur intelligi, quasdam culpas in hoc seculo, quasdam verò in futuro posse laxari. Gregor. Ibid.  this World, and some in the World to come. But 1. how will this stand with that which he said before? For if some sins not forgiven in this world, may be forgiven in the world to come, how shall every one be found at the last judgement such as he is when he dieth? 2. The collection from that place of Matthew, is not good. For those words, neither in this World, nor in the World to come, import neither more nor less than never, as S. Mark expresseth it, He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness. Mark. 3. 29. Theophylact expounds it thus, he shall not be forgiven neither in this World, nor in the World 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophy. in Mat. 11.  to come, that is, he shall be punished both in this World, and in the World to come. And so also (as jansenius confesseth) it is 
Jansen. concord. cap. 49.  expounded by chrysostom. Some observe that neither in this World, nor in the World to come, is a Hebraisme for never. Bellarmine saith that this is false; but he was not so conversant in the Jewish writings, as to be fit to give sentence in this case. Drusius, who was better skilled in that kind, citeth 
Drus. Prov. class. 2. l. 3. prov. 24.  the Scholiast upon Ben Sirrah saying thus, They that are of an intemperate tongue, cannot be cured, neither in this World, nor in the World to come. Besides jansenius saith that this Conduplication, neither in this 
Hâe conduplicatione significatur, quod sicut non remittetur hoc peccatum in praesenti seculo propter sui enormitatem: ita multo minùs remittetur in futuro, quod non est seculum gratiae, sicut praesens: Jansen, Concord. c. 49.  World, nor &c. doth signify that as this sin shall not be forgiven in this World, because of the enormity of it; so much less shall it be forgiven in the World to come, which is not a time of Grace, as this present World is. If it be not a time of grace, how then can sins be pardoned in that World, which here were not pardoned? We grant, that sins may be said to be forgiven in the World to come, yet only such sins as are forgiven in this World, the forgiveness of which sins shall be declared and made manifest 
Sicut ergò sententia fertur in morte uniuscuiusque, & tunc incipiunt aliqui puniri, aliqui praemiari; & tamen dicuntur haec eadem fieri in novissimo judicio, quia tunc fient coram toto mundo manifestissimè, etc. ita & examen fieri potest in morte uniuscujusque privatim, & iterum posteà in ultimo judicio publicè. Bell. de. Purge l. 1. c. 5.  in the day of judgement. Bellarmine himself saith that every one is examined, and receiveth his sentence when he dieth, and then some begin to be punished, and some to be rewarded: and yet nevertheless these things are said to be done in the last judgement, because than they shall be done most manifestly before all the World, to the greater honour of the godly, and the greater shame of the wicked. Even so though sins are forgiven in this World, or not at all, yet they are said to be forgiven in the World to come, because in the last judgement it shall be made manifest to all the World that they are forgiven. 3. Gregory grants a Purgatory after this life only for some small and light sins, as idle talking, immoderate laughing, etc. But they of the Church of Rome do now hold, 

Sed tamen, ut praedixi, hoc de parvis minimisque peccatis fieri posse credendum est, etc. Greg. ubi supra.  
Peccata mortalia remittuntur in hoc seculo quoad culpam, & in alio interdum quoad paenam. Bell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 4.  
Quamvis hoc de igne tribulationis in hâc nobis vitâ adhibito possit intelligi, etc. Greg. loc. citat.   that mortal sins (as they call them) in respect of the punishment are sometimes remitted not here in this World, but in the World to come. 4. Gregory in that same place saith that the fire which the Apostle speaks of 1 Cor. 3. 13, 15. may be understood of the fire of tribulation, which is endured in this life. What do our adversaries now gain by Gregory? He takes away one principal place, that they build upon for Purgatory: he allegeth many places, from which by his own confession so much is evinced as indeed cannot consist with Purgatory: he builds upon a place, which both in the judgement of other Fathers professedly commenting upon it, and also by divers reasons appears to make nothing for Purgatory: and concerning that Purgatory, which he doth hold, he comes short of the opinion of our adversaries; all which things considered, they can get little by his testimony. The next and last Father objected against us is Origen, whose testimony, if it were most clear for a Purgatory after this life, yet it were of small force, he being censured (as I have showed before) by Bellarmine as erroneous in this point, holding that there shall be a Purgatory even after the day of judgement. Yet Bellarmine also thought good to make use of his testimony, viz. this, He that is saved, is saved by fire; that if perhaps he have any lead mixed with 
Qui salvus sit, per ignem salvus sit, ut si quid fortè de specie plumbi habuerit admixtum, id ignis decoquat, & resolvat ut efficiantur omnes aurum putum. Orig. 6. hom. in Exod. 15.  him, the fire may melt and consume it, that so all may be made pure Gold. Thus I confess, Origen writes in the place, which the marquis citeth. And so also in the same 
Veniendum est ergò omnibus ad ignem, veniendum est ad conflatorium. Orig. Ibid.  place he hath these words, which though Bellarmine doth not allege, yet some have thought to make for Purgatory, and so they do as much as the other. All must come to the fire, all must come to the Furnace. Where 
Interpretatur locum Pauli 1 Cor. 3. de Purgatorio, quod conflatorium vocat. In marg.  in the margin it is noted (by Genebrard, I suppose, who was the overseer of that Edition) that Origen speaks of Purgatory. But it may easily appear to any that look into 

Sicut forna● probat aurum, sic homines justos tentatio. Orig. Ibid.  
Non enim tantus erat, ac talis (Petrus) qui nihil omninò de specie plumbi in se haberet admixtum. Habuit licet parùm; propter quod dicit ad cum Dominus, Modicae fidei, quarè dubitasti? Idcircò igitur qui salvus sit, etc. Orig. Ibid.   Origen, that neither in these words, nor in the other before cited, Purgatory is meant by that fire and furnace which he speaks of, but affliction. As the furnace (saith he) doth try Gold, so doth affliction the righteous. And speaking of Peter he saith, He was not so great, nor such an one as that he had no mixture of lead in him. He had some, though but a little; and therefore the Lord said unto him, why didst thou doubt, O thou of little faith? And then immediately follow the words which Bellarmine allegeth, and the marquis (I presume) aimeth at, Therefore he that is saved, is saved by fire, etc. What is this to the Romish Purgatory? I am confident, they will not say, that Peter had need of this Purgatory, yet he had of that which Origen speaks of, and so all whosoever they be, it being affliction, by which here in this life even the best are tried and also purified. And thus much for Purgatory; in the last place comes extreme unction.  
Lastly, (saith the marquis) We hold extreme Unction to be a Sacrament: you neither hold it to be a Sacrament, neither do you 
Page 73.  practise it as a duty. We have Scripture for it; Jam. 5. 14. Is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him in the Name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Neither any, nor all the Sacraments were, or could be more effectual to men's good, nor more substantial in matter, nor more exquisite in form, nor more punctual in the designation of its Ministry: other Sacraments being bounded within the limits of the souls only good; this extends itself to the good both of soul and body. He shall recover from his sickness, and his sins shall be forgiven him. And yet it is both left out in your practice, and acknowledgement. The Fathers are on our side; Orig. hom. 2. in Levit. Chrys. l. 3. de Sacerd. Aug. in Speculo, & Ser. 215. the temp. Vener. Bed. in 6. Mir. & S. james; and many others.  
As for extreme Unction, as they call it, that is, the anointing 
Answ.  of the sick with oil, as the manner is in the Church of Rome, Protestants do not acknowledge it to be either a Sacrament, or a duty, because they see no ground in Scripture either for the one, or for the other. The Scripture indeed in two places, viz. that which the marquis citeth, and Mar. 6. 13. doth speak of anointing the sick with oil: But that anointing was extraordinary, peculiar to those times, when there was, as other extraordinary gifts bestowed upon men, so, the gift of healing, which is mentioned, Mat. 10. 1, 8. and 1 Cor. 12. 9, 30. in which places of Scripture this gift is ranked with casting out devils, speaking with strange tongues, and working of miracles. And so Mark 6. 13. It is said of the Apostles, They cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. It is plain, that this anointing with oil was of like nature with casting out of devils, that is, that it was a miraculous cure wrought by the Apostles. And that in Saint james was of the same kind with this in Saint Mark, as I shall show anon. But now the gift of healing in that manner being ceased, we say that the ceremony is to cease also, and not to be used. The marquis insisteth much upon the words of Saint james, as being very clear and full to prove both that this anointing is a duty, and also that it is a Sacrament. And so the Romanists must hold, because the Council of Trent hath determined, that the holy anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ 
Instituta est sacra haec unctio infirmorum, tanquam verè, & propriè Sacramentum N. T. à Christo D. N. apud Marc. quidem insinuatum, per Jacob. autem Apost. ac Domini fratrem fidelibus commendatum, ac promulgatum. Concil. Trid. Cess. 14. de instit. extr. Unct. cap. 1.  our Lord, as a Sacrament of the new Testament truly and properly so called; and that this Sacrament is insinuated in Mark, but commended to the faithful, and promulgated by James the Apostle, and the Lords brother. And who soever shall gain say this, the Council doth 
Ibid. de extr. Unct. can. 1.  pronounce them accursed. But there being two places of Scripture, which mention this anointing with oil, it may seem strange that the marquis should allege only the one, and wholly wave the other: we shall see (I hope) by and by that this is as much as to quit both places, they being both to one and the same purpose. The Council of Trent (we see) thought good to make use of both, yet so as to lay the more weight upon that in james, saying only that the Sacrament of anointing is insinuated in the other. And so Bellarmine doth 
Bell. de extr. Unct lib. 1. cap. 2.  mainly build upon the words of james, yet so as that he will have the words of Saint Mark to contain in them a figure and adumbration of this Sacrament, which they call extreme Unction. Let us take what they grant, viz. that the anointing mentioned Mar. 6. was not properly sacramental. So much the marquis tacitly doth acknowledge, and Bellarmine expressly, citing for 
Bell. Ibid.  this opinion Ruardus, jansenius, Dominicus à Soto, and others, yea confirming it by divers arguments. 1. Because that anointing, which the Apostles used, was referred only or chiefly to the cure of the body, as is manifest by the words of Saint Mark; but Sacraments directly concern the soul, and the body only by accident. 2. The Apostles as then were not Priests; and therefore could not administer Sacraments. Though they did baptise, yet (he saith) that is nothing, because it is not so of the essence of Baptism, as it is of extreme Unction, that he should be a Priest that doth administer it. 3. The Apostles did promiscuously anoint all that were diseased, the blind, and the lame, etc. but the Sacrament of Unction (they hold) is only for those that lie sick, and are like to die. 4. The Apostles did not inquire whether they whom they did anoint were baptised, or no, and it is altogether probable, that many were anointed by them, that were mere infidels. But neither extreme unction, nor any other Sacrament, (they say) belongs unto those that are not baptised. By these reasons Bellarmine proveth that the anointing, which we read of Mar. 6. was not the Sacrament of extreme Unction. Now if this Sacrament be not meant in Mar. 6. neither is it in jam 5. For by the testimony both of ancient writers, and also of modern Romanists, the anointing which Saint james speaketh of, is the same with that which Saint Mark mentioneth. Beda upon the words of Saint 

Hoc & Apostolos fecisse in Evangelio legimus. Bed. ad illud jac. 5. Ungentes eum, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Theophyl. ad Mar. 6. Ita etiam Occumenius ad jac. 5.  
Quod sit eadem (Unctio) apparet ex Theophylacto & Beda, qui testantur hanc unctionem talem fuisse, qualis est ea, cujus meminit jacob. in epist. suâ.— Ex quibus patet, hos sensisse Unctionem, cujus hîc fit mentio, eandem fuisse cum eâ, cujus meminit jacobus. jansen. ad loc. Mar. in Concord. cap. 55.   james, anointing him with oil, etc. doth parallel that place with the other, Mar. 6. saying, We read in the Gospel, that thus did the Apostles. Thus also Theophylact upon the words of Saint Mark saith, That the Apostles anointed with oil, only Mark doth relate; which also james the Lord's brother doth say, Is any among you sick, let him, etc. jansenius confesseth that these Authors, Beda and Theophylact, do testify that the anointing spoken of Mar. 6. is such as Saint james doth mention in his Epistle, and this he saith is evident by their words, which he citeth. Bellarmine doth attribute this opinion (viz. that the same anointing is meant both Mar. 6. and Jam. 5. to Waldensis, and Alphonsus de Castro, two late writers (though one of them was a good while before Luther) both very 
Alphons. advers. hoeres. de extr. Unct.  zealous in defence of the Church of Rome; yet I confess, that in Alphonsus where he speaks of extreme Unction, I do not find Mar. 6. mentioned. Maldonate upon Mar 
Vellem hoc loco soli mihi essent haeretici refellendi, liberius in solos incurrerem. Nunc autem nonnullos ex nostris auctoribus in haereticorum càstris recognoscens timeo, ne dum in haereticos tela conjicio, aliquem fortè Catholicum feriam. Mitto illos paulo vetustiores, etc. Quid attinebat vigente nunc Lutheranorum & Calviniansrum haeresi Catholicos doctosque viros dicere, scriptisque mandare, oleum illud ab Apostolis non tanquam Sacramentum ad sanandos animos, sed tanquam medicamentum ad curanda corpora, adhibitum fuisse, neque hîc de Sacramento, quo nunc Catholica utitur Ecclesia, extremae Unctionis agi? ergo Sacramentum est, si hîc non est? Maldon. ad Mar. 6.  6. is most vehement for this, that the same anointing is spoken of there, and Jam. 5. and takes it very ill that any of their Authors should hold otherwise, and should say, and write, that the anointing which the Apostles used, was not sacramental for the healing of the soul, but rather medicinal for the curing of the body, and that the Sacrament of extreme Unction, is not treated of in Mar. 6. Where then (saith he) is this Sacrament, if it be not here? Very good;— Ubi yet Bellarmine by unanswerable reasons hath proved that no such Sacrament is here, viz. Mar. 6. and therefore by Maldonates own inference it is no where, viz. in no place of Scripture to be found. Maldonate objecteth, that the anointing Mar 6. could not be medicinal, because it 

Si medicamentum tantùm erat, cur ad omne morborum genus adhibebatur?— Deinde quorsum Apostoli medicamentis usi fuissent? Non enim medicinam sed Evangelium profitebantur, etc. Ibid.  
Illud certum, quòd oleum hoc non naturaliter sanabat aegrotos, nec adhibebatur ab Apostolis veluti naturale pharmacum. Nam quomodo eodem pharmaco quis mederi possit omnibus morbis? Sed ex Domini institutione Unctionem hanc sequebatur sanitas, etc. jausen. Concord. cap. 55.   was used for the healing of all diseases; and because the Apostles were not to use medicines, seeing it was not Physic, but the Gospel, which they professed. But this is of no force; for they whom Maldonate opposeth, acknowledge that the oil, which the Apostles anointed with, did not naturally cure the diseased, nor was used as a natural medicine; and they prove it by Maldonates own argument, because naturally one medicine cannot cure all diseases. But they say, that by Christ's institution upon this anointing with oil, the sick were healed. Maldonate would take away this answer, saying, 
Quid ejusmodi opus erat signo, quum secura statim sanitas fidem faceret? quam poterat quidem oleum non augere, sed abrogare, etc. Maldon. loc. cit.  that there was no need of any sign, seeing that the cure which was wrought would work belief; and that the using of oil, would rather hinder faith; for that thereby people might think that the cure was wrought by the natural virtue of the oil, and not by divine power. But the reason, which himself allegeth, would hold off people from any such conceit, viz. because they might see that all manner of diseases were healed with one and the same oil, and that therefore it could not be by the natural virtue of it. Besides, that immediately upon the anointing with oil, the sick were healed, whereas naturally some time would have been spent before the cure was wrought; Yet was not the anointing with oil superfluous, no more than the laying on of hands, which was used both for the healing of the sick, Mar. 16. 18. and also for the giving of the Holy Ghost, Acts 8. 17. though naturally that ceremony had as little virtue in that kind as the other. Thus than whiles some of our adversaries say, that extreme Unction is not that which Saint Mark treateth of; and others of them say, that Saint Mark, and Saint james do both speak of one and the same Unction, and that if extreme Unction be not spoken of Mark. 6. we know not where to find it in the Scripture; betwixt them both we may safely conclude, that this Sacrament of theirs hath no firm foundation. But because the marquis only, and others mainly build upon the words of S. james, this is to be added, that Cardinal Cajetane in his Commentary upon james doth not only 
Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione extremae Unctionis; sed magis de unctione, quam Dominus Jesus instituit in Evangelio, à discipulis exercendam in aegrotis. Textus enim non dicit, infirmatur quis ad mortem, sed absolute, infirmatur quis? Et effectum dicit infirmi alleviationem: & de remissione peccatorum non nisi conditionaliter loquitur: quum extrema unctio non nisi prope articulum mortis detur, & directè (ut ejus forma sonat) tendit ad remissionem peccatorum. Praeter hoc quòd Jacobus ad unum aegrum multos Presbyteros tum orantes, tum ungentes, mandat vocari, quod ab extremae Unctionis ritu alienum est Cajet in Jac. 5.  parallel him with Mark, but also doth both say and prove that he doth not speak of the Sacrament of éxtreme unction. Because 1. The Text doth not say, Is any sick unto death? but absolutely, Is any sick? whereas extreme unction, as they use it in the Church of Rome, is only for those of whose life there is no hope. 2. The effect of S. james his anointing is the raising up (the bodily amendment) of the sick; neither is any thing spoken but conditionally of the forgiveness of sins. Whereas extreme unction (as the form of it doth show) tends directly to the remission of sins. 3. james bids send for many Elders to one sick person, both to pray for him, and to anoint him, which is different from the manner of extreme unction. Thus we see how many of our adversaries by consequence, and some of them directly grant, that there is nothing in the Scripture for that extreme Unction, which they use, and maintain to be a Sacrament.  
Now for the humane testimonies, which the marquis allegeth, the first is origen's, who in the place mentioned hath nothing to the purpose. He 
Cum non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indicare peccatum suum, & quaerere medicinam, etc. In quo impletur & illud, quod Apost. dicit, Si quis autem infirmatur, Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit.  citys indeed the words of S. james, which speak of anointing with Oil, but it is not in respect of Unction, but in respect of Confession of sin that he doth cite-them. After him is cited Austin in Speculo; but there being 33. Chapters of that Book, which of them is meant, we cannot tell. Neither is it much worth the inquiry; for Erasmus shows that Book to be none of Austin's, in that the Author inserts some verses out of Boetius, who was long after Austin; Besides other reasons, which he giveth; yet Bellarmine asserting Austin to 
Bell. de Scriptor. Eccles.  be the Author of the Book, takes no notice of the reasons alleged against it, though he confess that some do doubt of it. In the other place of Austin, which is pointed at, I find indeed, that he doth 
Infirmatur aliquis, inducat presbyteros, etc. Videte, fratres, quia qui in infirmitate ad Ecclesiam cucurrerit, & corporis sanitatem recipere, & peccatorum indulgentiam merebitur obtinere. Cum ergò duplicia bona possint in Ecclesiâ inveniri, quarè per praecantatores, per fontes, & arbores, & diabolica phylacteria, per characteres, & aruspices, & Divinos, vel fortilegos multiplicia sibi mala miseri homines conantur infer? Aug. Ser, 215. the temp.  cite the words of S. james, but yet so as that our adversaries gain little by it. For he referreth those words of anointing with Oil, etc. unto bodily health; and so inveigheth against those that by Charms, and Spells, and the like superstitious and ungodly practices bring upon themselves manifold miseries. Now bodily health is a thing, which the Romanists have no respect unto in their Unction, but use it directly for the good of the Soul, even as they do Baptism, and the Lords Supper. And this also takes off the testimony of chrysostom, who showing what benefit people have by Ministers, or (as he calls them) Priests, 
Parents ne corporalem quidem interitum à liberis amoliri possunt, neque ingruentem morbum propulsare; cum high (sacerdotes) laborantem, ac morti jam jam propinquam animam identidem servarint, aliis remissiorem paenam infligentes, alios prorsus labi non permittentes, non Doctrinae solùm, atque commonitionis, sed etiam precum subsidio. Chrys. l. 3. de sacerd.  saith that Parents cannot prevent so much as the bodily destruction of their children, nor keep off a Disease when it seizeth on them; but these do often preserve people alive, when they are even ready to die; and sometimes mitigate their pain; and sometimes keep them from being ill at all, not only by the help of their Doctrine, and admonition, but also of their prayers. And then he citys that jam. 5. Is any sick among you? Let him send for the Elders, etc. All this is nothing to the Romish Unction; for besides that chrysostom doth not at all speak of Priests anointing, but of their teaching, admonishing, and praying, and in this respect doth bring in the words of S. james; besides this, I say, it is directly a corporal benefit, which he insisteth on, as freedom from sickness, mitigation of pain, deliverance from Death; and therefore that which he saith, makes nothing for extreme Unction, which they of the Church of Rome say, was instituted of God to this end, that we departing out of this mortal life, may have a more ready way to Heaven. 
Ut ex hâc mortali vitâ decedentes, expeditiorem ad caelum viam haberemus, extremae Unctionis Sacramentum (Deus) instituit. Catechis. Trident. Sacramentum exeuntium. Ibid.  And therefore they call it the Sacrament of such as go out of this World. What is this Sacrament then concerned in the words of chrysostom, who speaks only of preserving life and health here in this World? In the last place Venerable Bede is alleged. But 1. He is against them in this (as I have showed before) that he makes Mark and james to speak both of one and the same thing; whereas divers of them both say and prove, that 
Plurimorum se adjutorio, & hoc seniorum curare meminerit, neque ad juniores minusque doctos causam suae imbecillitatis referat, etc. Bed. in Jac. 5.  Mark doth not speak of Sacramental Unction. 2. By Elders Bede understandeth Elders in respect of age. And he saith expressly, and allegeth also Pope Innocentius 
Nec solum Presbyteris, sed ut Innocentius Papa seribit, etiam omnibus Christianis uti licet eodem oleo in suâ & suorum necessitate ungendo. Bed. Ibid.  for it, that not only Presbyters, but also all Christians may use this Oil and anoint with it, when either they, or any belonging unto them have need. Which is enough to prove that he doth not make this Unction a Sacrament, as they of the Church 
Ut Minister sit sacerdos, est de essentiâ Unctionis— Non est rata Unctio, si laicus inungat, Bell. de Extr. unct. l. 1. c. 2.  of Rome do. For (saith Bellarmine) it is of the essence of the Sacrament of extreme Unction, that the Minister of it be a Priest: and if a lay man do anoint any, it is of no force. 
Si quis dixerit proprium extremae Unctionis ministrum non esse solum sacerdotem, anathema sit. Concil. Trident. sess. 14. can. 4. the extreme. unct.  Yea the Council of Trent says, If any one shall say, that not only a Priest is the proper Minister of extreme Unction, let him be anathema. What do they say to Bede then, and to Innocentius whom Bede citeth? They answer, that Innocentius and Bede speak 
Bellar. de Extr. Vnct. l. 1. c. 9 Jan. Coneord. cap. 55.  not of him that is to administer the Unction, but of him that is to receive it. But this is a very violent and forced interpretation, and such as Bedes words will not admit. For he having said, It is the custom of the Church, that they that are weak should be anointed by Presbyters with 
Ecclesiae consuetudo tenet, ut infirmi oleo consecrato ungantur à Presbyteris, & oratione comitante sanentur, Nec solùm Presbyteris, etc. Bed. joc. cit.  consecrated Oil, and by Prayer accompanying it be made whole: immediately after he adds, Neither only Presbyters, but also (as Pope Innocentius writeth) all Christians may use this Oil by anointing with it either in their own, or in their friend's necessity. It is manifest, that Bede here speaketh of Christians using the Oil not so as to be anointed, but so as to anoint with it, and that both themselves and others, as they saw cause. 3. Bede also (as appears by his words even now cited) makes this anointing with Oil, which (he saith) the Church did use in his time, to have reference to the body, and the health of it; neither doth he speak any thing of any spiritual effect, that it should have upon the soul. And thus also it appears, that he doth not speak of the Sacrament of extreme Unction. 
* Olim haec unctio non, ut hodiè ferè fit, ad extremum usque vitae periculum, & valetudinem jam deploratam differebatur, sed graviore aliquo morbo invadentehujusmodi orationes, & unctiones per septem aliquando dies continuabantur. Idem illud veteribus in more suit, ut post officium unctionis, si periculum imminebat, corporis & sanguinis Dominici communicatio, quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & perfectio omnium Sacramentorum habebatur, subjiceretur; à quo veteti more licet nonnihil hodiè variatum sit, etc. Cassand. consult. artic. 22. Servanda est Ecclesiae Catholicae perpetua consuetudo, ut ante extremam unctionem, Paenitentiae & Eucharistiae Sacramentum administretur. Catechis. Trident. de extreme. unct.  Cassander also confesseth, that in the Church of Rome they have now departed from antiquity. 1. In this, that in more ancient times they did not use (as now they do) to defer this anointing, until life were even in extreme danger, and there was no hope of recovery. 2. In this, that anciently they used after this anointing, if there were danger, to receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood; whereas now they have no such custom. Yea, the Carechisme of the Council of Trent saith, that before extreme Unction, the Sacrament of Penance and of the Eucharist is to be administered; and that this is the perpetual custom of the Catholic Church; which is directly contrary to that which Cassander affirmeth. But this (I hope) may be enough to show that the Romish Sacrament of extreme Unction hath no support either from the Scriptures, or from the ancient Fathers.  
The marquis having waded through all the forementioned parts of controversy, and (as he supposeth) proved the Scriptures to be on their side, now sings as it were an Epinition, or a song of victory, saying, Thus, most sacred Sir, we have no reason to 
Pag. 154.  wave the Scriptures Umpirage; so that you will hear it speak in the Mother language, etc.  
But how little the Scriptures Umpirage doth favour them 
Answ.  of the Church of Rome, let the Reader judge by what hath been said on both sides, the Scripture being understood in that sense, which itself doth make out, and to which also the ancient Fathers and Doctors have subscribed, which (I suppose) the marquis doth mean by the Scriptures Mother-language. As for the Church of Rome, it hath long showed itself the Scriptures stepmother, keeping it shut up in an unknown tongue, or not permitting Christians the liberty to make use of it, excepting such as can obtain a special dispensation for it; yea in many things going directly contrary to the Scripture, and even in a manner casting off the authority of it. Here presently after the marquis brings in the saying of Austin, Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae authoritas commoveret, I should not believe the Gospel itself, unless I were moved by the authority of the Church; as if, were it not for the authority of the Church, the Scripture were of no force, neither could deserve any credit. So the Romanists do frequently pervert those words of Austin; but Austin's meaning was only this, that the Church's authority by way of introduction was a means to bring him to believe the Gospel, by propounding and commending the Gospel unto him, as a thing to be believed, whereas otherwise he should not have given heed to it, nor taken notice of it; not as if he did finally rest in the authority of the Church, and resolve his faith into it. No; for (as I have showed before) he would have the Church itself sought in the Scripture, and proved by it. Had not the woman of Samaria told those, among whom she lived, of Christ, they had not come to the knowledge of him, much less to believe in him; yet having heard Christ himself, they did not rest in the testimony of the woman, but said unto her, Now we believe not because of thy saying; for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, and the Saviour of the world. Joh. 4. 42. So should not the Church hold out unto us the Scriptures, we should not know, much less believe them; but at length (God by his Spirit opening our understandings that we may understand the Scriptures, Luke 24. 45.) we come to be convinced by the Scriptures themselves, that they are the Oracles of God, and of divine authority. Melchior Canus, a learned Writer of the Church of Rome, holds that the formal reason of our faith is not the authority of 
Cui & tertium subjiciendum est, rationem formalem nostrae fidei non esse Ecclesiae auctoritatem, h. e. fidei ultiman resolutionem non fieri in Ecclesiae testimonium.— Eorum hîc errorem dissimulare non possum, qui asserunt, fidem nostram eo, tanquam in ultimam credendi causam, reducendam esse.— Huc enim pertinet illud joannis 4. Jam non propter tuam loquelam credimus: Ipsi enim audivimus, & scimus, etc. Mel. Can. locor. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 8. Non est enim Ecclesiae auctoritas ratio per se movens ad credendum, sed causa fine quâ non crederemus. Can. Ibid. Proponit enim Ecclesia, ut rem exempli causâ illustremus, Evangelium Matthaei esse à Deo revelatum, etc. Ego igitur non credo Evangelistam dicere verum, quia Ecclesiâ eum dicit verum dicere, sed quia Deus revelavit. Et tamen Ecclesia proponens est causa sine quâ ego non admitterem illud Evangelium esse Matthaei. Ibid. Nec si nobis aditum praebet ad hujusmodi sacros libros cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est; sed ultra oportet progredi, & solidâ Dei veritate niti. Quâ ex re intelligitur quid sibi voluerit Aug. cum ait, Evangelio non crederem, nisi me moveret Ecclesiae authoritas. Et rursum, per Catholicos Evangelio credideram. Videlicet negotium Augustino erat cum Manichaeis, qui absque controversiâ suo cuidam Evangelio credi volebant, & Mani●baeorum fidem astruere. Rogat igitu Aug. ecquid facturi sint, si in hominem incidant, qui ne-Evangelio quidem credat, quóve genere persuasionis sint eum in suam sententiam adducturi. Certé se affirmat non aliter potuisse adduci, ut Evangelium amplecteretur, quam Ecclesiae auctoritate victum. Non it a que docet fundatam esse Evangelii sidem in Ecclesiae auctoritate, verùm simplicitet nullam esse certam viam, quâ sive infideles, sive in fide novitii, ad sacros libros ingrediantur, nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae unum eundemque consensum. Id quod ejusdem Epistolae cap. 4 & in lib. de utii. creder. di ad Honorat. satis ipse explicavit. Can. Ibid.  the Church, that is, that the last resolution of our faith is not into the Church's testimony. And he saith, that he could not dissemble their error, who hold that our faith is to be reduced thither, as to the utmost cause of believing. For the confuting of this error, he saith belongs that joh. 4. Now we believe not because of thy saying, for we ourselves have heard him, and know, etc. The same author avers, that the authority of the Church is not a reason by itself moving to believe, but only a cause (or means) without which we should not believe, viz. Because (as he adds) the Church doth propound unto us that the Scripture is the word of God, and except the Church did so propound it, we should never (ordinarily) come to believe it; yet we do not therefore believe the Scripture to be God's word, because the Church doth say it, but because God doth reveal it. If the Church (saith he) doth make way for us to know such sacred books, we must not therefore rest there, but we must go further, and must rely on God's solid truth. And then he brings in that very speech of Austin, and shows what he meant by it. Hereby is understood (saith he) what Austin meant, when he said, I should not believe the Gospel, except the authority of the Church did move me. And again, By the Catholics I had believed the Gospel. For Austin had to do with the Manichees, who without dispute would have a certain Gospel of theirs believed, and so would establish the faith of the Manichees. Austin therefore asks them what they would do, if they did light upon a man, who did not believe so much as the Gospel; what kind of persuasion they would use to bring him to their opinion. He affirms, that himself could not be otherwise brought to embrace the Gospel, but that the authority of the Church did overcome him. He doth not therefore teach, that the faith of the Gospel is grounded upon the Church's authority, but only that there is no certain way, whereby either infidels, or novices in the faith, may have entrance to the holy books, but one and the same consent of the Catholic Church. This he himself hath sufficiently explicated in the fourth Chapter of that Epistle, and in his book to Honoratus concerning the benefit of believing. I have thus largely cited the words of this learned Romanist, because no Protestant can speak more clearly, and more fully to the purpose. That which the marquis after addeth, is nothing against us, viz. That there was a Church, before there was any Scripture; that though the Scripture be a light, yet we have need of some to guide us; though it be the food of our souls, yet there must be some to administer it unto us; though it be an antidote against the infection of the devil, yet it is not for every one to be a compounder of the ingredients; that though it be the only sword and buckler to defend the Church from her Ghostly enemies, yet this doth not exclude the noble army of Martyrs, and the holy Church, which through all the world doth acknowledge Christ. All this, I say, is nothing at all against us, who do so assert the authority of the Scripture, as that we do not evacuate the Church's ministry. Timothy must preach; but it is the word (viz. of God contained in the Scriptures) which he must preach. 2 Tim. 4. 2. If any man speak (for the instructing of others) he must speak as the Oracles of God. 1 Pet. 4. 11. He must confirm that, which he doth speak, by the Scriptures. And so on the other side they that hear, must take heed how, and what they hear. Luke 8. 18. Mark 4. 24. They must not believe every Spirit, but must try the Spirits, whether they be of God. 1 John 4. 1. They must to the Law, and to the Testimony; for that if any speak not according to this word, it is because they have no light in them. Isai 8. 20. They must search the Scriptures diligently, to see whether the things delivered unto them be so, or no. Acts 17. 11.   

OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND. THE SECOND PART OF THE rejoinder to the Marquis of WORCESTER'S Reply majesty's Answer to the said Marquess' Plea for the ROMISH RELIGION.  
THE marquis saith, that he will now 
Page 75.  consider the Opinions of Protestants apart from them of the Church of Rome, and begin with the Church of England. The Religion of this Church, he saith, as it is in opposition to theirs, consists wholly in denying, (for that what she affirms, they affirm the same) as, the Real presence, the Infallibility, Visibility, Universality, and Unity of the Church, Confession and Remission of sins, freewill, Possibility of keeping the Commandments, etc. And you may as well (saith he) deny the blessed Trinity (for we have no such word in Scripture, only inference) as that which you have already denied, for which we have plain Scripture, etc.  
But, 1. it is not altogether so, that what the Church of England doth affirm, the same they of the Church of Rome 
Answ.  do affirm also. For the Church of England, Art 9 doth affirm (alleging the authority of the Apostle for proof thereof) that Concupiscence hath of itself the nature of sin even in the regenerate, which the Romanists deny; the Council of Trent accurseth 
Si quis per Jesu Christi D. N. gratiam, quae in baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitti negat; aut etiam asserit non tolli totum id, quod veram & propriam peccati rationem habet, sed illud dicit radi tantum, aut non imputari; anathema sit, etc. Concil. Trident. de orig. peccat.  those that hold this doctrine. 2. In what sense we deny the Real presence, and the other particulars here mentined, I have showed before; as also what little cause they have to boast, that either Scripture or Fathers do make for those assertions of theirs wherein we descent from them.  
That which the marquis after addeth of a Woman's being 
Page 75.  head, supreme, or moderatrix in the Church, I have likewise spoken to sufficiently before.  
That a Layman should excommunicate, and that upon every ordinary occasion, as nonpayment of Fees, and the like, for which the marquis taxeth this Church, I am content that it pass among the Erratas of our Church, as he was pleased to speak (though without cause) concerning some passages in the Fathers, as I have noted before. It is our Doctrine, and not our Discipline, that I endeavour to defend.  
After the Church of England, the marquis cometh to 
Page 76.  the Church of Saxony, and so passeth to the Church of Geneva, as he pretendeth; but yet indeed he speaketh only of two particular persons relating to those Churches, viz. Luther and Calvin, as if whatsoever were held by them, were to be imputed to those Churches to which they did relate: which surely is not fair dealing; much less, that all Protestants should stand charged with all their sayings, were they indeed such as the misconstruction of adversaries would make them. We honour these, and many more, as men eminently active in that great work of reforming the Church; yet do we not ascribe an infallibility unto them, as the Romanists do unto their Popes: We do not say of them, as Bellarmine 
Bell. de Pontif, lib. 4. cap. 5.  doth of the Pope, that if they should command vices, and forbid virtues, we were bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be evil. No, we know the Apostle bids us prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5. 21.  
But let us see what it is that the marquis doth say, and 
Of Luther's Doctrine.  first of Luther.  
1. He chargeth Luther as saying of the book of Ecclesiastes, 
Pag. 76.  That it hath never a perfect sentence in it, and that the Author 
Obj.  thereof had neither boots nor spurs, but rid upon a long stick, or in begging shoes, as he did when he was a Friar.  
The places which the marquis citeth for proof of this, 
Answ.  I cannot examine, they not being in Luther's Works, of that Edition at least, which I have liberty to peruse. But therein I find that Luther doth comment upon the book of Ecclesiastes, and doth speak after a far other manner of it, saying, that it is a Book 
Is liber multis nominibus dignus, qui omnium manibus tereretur, ac quibusvis, tum vel maxime reipublicae procuratoribus notissimus esset. Luth. tom. 4. praesat. in Eccles.  worthy that all should be much versed in it; and that all, and especially Magistrates, should be well acquainted with it.  
2. He taxeth Luther for saying of the book of Job, That 
Obj.  the argument thereof is a mere fiction, invented only for the setting down of a true and lively example of patience.  
If Luther did say thus (which is more also than I can find) 
Answ.  though I am far from being of his mind; for I suppose, that if there had not indeed been such a man as Job in the history of him is described, the Prophet Ezekiel, and S. James would not have mentioned him as they do, Ezek. 14. 14, 20. Jam. 5. 11. Yet that most famous Doctor amongst the Jews, Moses Maimonides, 
Nosti quosdam esse, qui dicunt, Jobum nunquam fuisse, neque creatum esse; sed historiam illius nihil aliud esse quam parabolam: quae incertitudo (temporis in quo vixit Job) sententiam illorum confirmat, qui dicunt illum nec fuisse, nec creatum esse. Maimon. More Neb. par. 3. cap. 22.  shows that some were of this opinion, that there never was such a man as Job, and that the history of him is but a parable. And this opinion himself inclines unto, though (I confess) his reason is of small force, viz. because they that hold otherwise, cannot agree about the time in which Job lived.  
3. Luther (as is alleged against him) saith, That it is a 
Obj.  false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are four Gospels; and that the Gospel of S. John is only true.  
Neither can I find any such thing as this in Luther, that 
Answ.  the Gospels written by the other three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are not as true as that written by John. But I find that which doth sufficiently evince the contrary, viz. that Luther in the fifth volume of his Works, hath Annotations upon the first seventeen Chapters of St. Matthews Gospel; and that in his Notes upon the first Chapter, he divers times calls both Matthew and Luke Evangelists, or publishers of the Gospel.  
4. Luther (as the marquis allegeth) saith of the 
Obj.  Epistle of S. James, That it is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolical spirit.  
Thus also divers other Romanists have charged Luther, 
Answ.  as Campian, Duraeus, Breerley, and Silvester Petrasancta; yet the 
Camp. rat. 1. Dur. contra Whil. Breer. Apol. Eilv. contra I●pi. Molin.  words which they mention are not to be found in Luther's works. But (say the Romanists) they were in them, though afterward they were left out. I answer, Then, it seems if there were any such words, they were not approved. Duraeus confesseth 
Tibi vero Whitakere ignosco, qui exemplaria Wittembergae tantùm, vel Argentorati excusa legeris. Nam si quae Jenae olim edita fuerunt, vidisses, & c. Dur. contra whitak. fol. 8.  that those words are not in Luther's works set forth either at Wittemberge, or at Strasburge, but only in those set forth at Jena; which argues that if there were any such words, they found but little approbation. Mr. Breerley saith, that the later 
And concerning the Epistle of St. James, Luther, not in the latter editions of Wittemberge corrupted by the Zwinglians, and others, etc. Breerl. Apol. Tract. 2. ch. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 2.  Editions of Luther's works at Wittemberge were corrupted by the Zwinglians and others. But surely if Luther's Works were corrupted, and that in the Editions of Wittemberge, it must be by others, and not by the Zwinglians. For is it likely, that the Zwinglians, who were such adversaries unto Luther, that Mr. Breerly, and after him the marquis doth frequently allege them against Luther, is it likely (I say) that they should corrupt Luther's Works in that kind, so as indeed to purge them from that which was amiss in them? And if they would do Luther this favour, yet how should they do it at Wittemberge, where (I suppose) not the Zwinglians, but the Lutherans did bear sway, and would have the chief hand in setting forth Luther's Works in that place? And for that first Edition of Luther's Works at Jena, though (it seems) Luther did speak less honourably of St. James his Epistle, as I confess 

Atque inde etiam facilè discitur, Epistolam Jacobi nomine inscriptam, haudquaquam Apostolicam esse Epistolam. Nullum enim propè elementum in eâ de his rebus legis. Luth. tom. 5. in 1. Pet. 1.  
Sanè in primâ Bibliorum Germanicorum Editione in Praesat. Epist. Jacobi scribit, cam non posse dignitate certare cum Epistolis Petri & Pauli, sed Epistolam stramineam esse, si cum illis comparetur. Sed 1. Nuspiam vocat contentiosam, tumidam, aridam. 2. Aliud est loqui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aliud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. In posterio●ibus Bibliorum Editionibus verba illa sunt omissa. Post annum 1526. in nullâ Bibliorum Editione straminea à Luthero vocatur. 4. Contrarium potius in posterioribus illis Editionibus habetur, videl. quòd eam quamvis à veteribus rejecta, tamen laudet, ac pro utili ac commodâ habebat. Gerh. de S. Scrip. sect. 279.   I find him to speak elsewhere in his Works, yet not so basely as his adversaries of Rome do charge him. Gerhard, a great Lutheran, saith that Luther indeed in his Preface to S. James his Epistle, in the first Edition of the Germane Bible, did say that this Epistle is not of like worth with the Epistles of Paul and Peter, and that it is strawie, if it be compared with those Epistles. But that he no where terms it contentious, swelling, dry; nor yet simply, but only comparatively strawie. And that after the year 1526. in no Edition of Luther's Works it is so called, but the contrary rather is to be found, to wit, that Luther did commend this Epistle (though some of the Ancients did reject it) and account it good and profitable. It seems then, that Luther himself did retract that, which he had written concerning the Epistle of S. James, his censure of it having been too bad, though yet not so bad as the Romanists would make it: And although this doth not justify 

Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 23. & l. 3. c. 22.  
Hieron. in Cata. Scriptor. Ecclesiastic.  
Cajet. in Jac. 1. 1. & in Heb. 1. Whit. contra Camp.   Luther (as I do not desire to defend him, or any man in that wherein he is to be condemned) yet it might make his opposers the more mild, that Eusebius and Hierome of old do show, that the authority of this Epistle was some while doubted of; and Cardinal Cajetane, Luther's contemporarie, did somewhat scruple at it; and so did he also argue against the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Some also say, that Erasmus censures this Epistle of James, as not savouring of Apostolical 
Ve●ùm supervacuum arbitror anxiè de autore digladiari; rem potius amplectamur, & Spiritum S. autorem exosculemur. Eras. in Jac. 1. 1.  authority. But in that Edition which I have of Erasmus his notes upon the New Testament, I find no such censure, but that he would not have us contend about the 
* Whether it were the Apostle James, or some other.  Author, but to i● brace the matter, acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Author of it. This advice is worthy to be followed by Protestants as well as Papists.  
5. Luther is taxed for saying, That Moses in his writings 
Obj.  showeth unpleasant, stopped and angry lips, in which the word of grace is not, but of wrath, death and sin. And that he calls him a Gapler, executioner, and a cruel Sergeant.  
This doth Mr. Breerley object against Luther, and I grant 
Answ.  that Luther indeed hath those words, tom. 3. in Psal. 45. But he speaks of Moses only as contradistinct to Christ, as a 
Breerl. ubi sup.  mere Lawgiver. For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, Joh. 1. 17. So Moses his ministration was the ministration of death, 2 Cor. 3. 7. and the ministration of condemnation, v. 9 The Law simply considered, doth convince of sin, and condemn for sin. For by the Law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3. 20. And it saith, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. Now no man doth, or can perform this, and therefore (saith the Apostle there) as many as are of the works of the Law, are under the curse. And so the Law worketh wrath, Rom. 4. 15. This is not through any fault of the Law, but by reason of sin, which is a transgression of the Law, 1 Joh. 3. 4. and so makes liable to the curse and condemnation, which by the Law belongs to those that transgress. The Law (saith Ambrose) is not wrath, but it worketh wrath, 
Non ergo lex ira est, sed iram operatur peccati, id est, poenam, dum non ignoscit sed vindicat. Ambros. in Rom. 3 Quando enim nulli proficit gloria vultus ejus (sc. Mosis) non habuit fructum gloriae, sed magis obfuit; licet non suo vitio, sed peccantium. Ambros. in 2 Cor. 3.  that is, punishment to him that sinneth, in that it doth not pardon sin, but revenge it. And again, The glory of Moses his countenance (saith he) had not the fruit of glory, in that it did not profit any, but rather hurt, though not through its own fault, but through the fault of those that sin. This is spoken of the Law, as it stands in opposition to the Gospel, wherein reconciliation and salvation 
Per totum Psalmum facienda est antitithesis Mosi seu legis cum Evangelio. Luth. ubi supra.  through Christ is set forth. And in this sense only did Luther speak of Moses, as himself expressly showeth.  
6. The marquis adds, that for Luther's doctrine, he holds 
Obj.  a threefold Divinity, or three kinds, as there are three Persons.  
For proof of this, only Zuinglius is cited. But Luther and 
Answ.  he being such adversaries, their testimonies one against the other are of small force. Had any such thing been in Luther's writings, the Romanists themselves (I doubt not) would have found it out, 
Sancti Patres (praesertim Augustinus l. 11. de civ. Dei, c. 24.) observant, quòd Moses his tribus verbis utitur, Deus dixit, fecit, vidit, quasi hoc modo tres Divinitatis Personas voluerit ostendere. Luth. in Gen. 1.  and not have referred us only to Zuinglius for it. Luther on Genes. 1. doth expressly speak of three Persons, but one Divinity, as being the same in all the three Persons.  
7. That Luther is angry with the word Trinity, calling it a humane 
Obj.  invention, and a thing that soundeth very coldly.  
The place alleged I have not opportunity to examine: 
Answ.  but thus much I say, that Luther believing the thing, viz. that there are three Divine Persons, (as I have showed immediately before) I see not why he should dislike the word Trinity.  
8. That he justistifies the Arrians, and saith, they did very well 
Obj.  in expelling the word (Homoousion) being a word that his soul hated.  
Thus also Duraeus, and before him Campian, and before 
Answ.  them both Bellarmine chargeth Luther with saying, that his 
Dur. defence. camp. Camp. rat. 8. Bell. praesat. disp. de Christ.  soul did hate the word Homoousion, which the Orthodox Fathers used, to show against the Arrians the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. But they wrong Luther, as their manner is: For 
Quòd si odit anima mea vocem Homoousion, & nolim eâ uti, non ero haereticus. Quis enim me cogit uti, modo rem teneam, quae in concilio per Scripturas definita est. Luth. cont. Latom.  he doth not say, that his soul did hate that word; but that if his soul did hate it, and he would not use it, yet he should not be a heretic, so that he did hold the thing signified by the word, which the Fathers in the Nicene Council did determine by the Scriptures. He speaks thus in respect of the Papists, who will not be content with Scripture-terms, but will invent terms of their own to pervert the sense of Scriptures. As Latomus (against whom he writes) would not call Concupiscence sin, as the Apostle calls it, but a punishment of 
Paulus praecipit, ut vitares profanas vocum novitates, & loquereris ut ipse loquitur, & facris vocum antiquitatibus inhaereres. Luth. contra Latom.  sin. Hereupon Luther (I think) went too far concerning the word Homoousion, though not so far as his Romish adversaries do charge him. He saith that this word used in confutation of the Arrians 
Nec est quòd mihi homousion illud objectes, adversus Arrianos receptum. Non fuit receptum à multis, iisque praeclarissimis, quod & Hieronymus optavit aboleri, etc.— Etsi Arriani malè senserunt in fide, hoc tamen optimè, sive malo, sive bono animo exegerunt, ne vocem profanam, & novam in regulis fidei usurpare liceret. Scripturae enim sineeritas custodienda est, nec praesumat homo ore suo loqui aut clariùs, aut sinceriùs, quam Deus ●locutus est ore suo. Luth. ibid.  is not to be objected against him: For that many, and those most excellent men did not receive it, and that Hierome wished it were abolished. And that although the Arrians did err in the faith, yet they did well however to require, that a profane and new word might not be used in rules of faith: For that the sincerity of Scripture is to be preserved, and man is not to presume to speak either more clearly, or more sincerely than God hath spoken. I confess that Luther in this seemeth to me to exceed, as men are apt to do in favour of that cause which they prosecute. But yet it appears that he was sound in the faith, and did not comply with the Arrians, who opposed the word Homoousion, not so much for the new invention, as for the signification of it.  
Mr. Breerly, who hath also this charge against Luther, (as 
Breerl. Apol. tract. 2. ch. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 13.  indeed he hath most of that which the marquis objecteth against Protestant Divines) citys Luther against Latomus, in the Edition of Wittenberg 1551. and saith, that the latter Editions are altered and corrupted by Luther's Scholars, as he had showed (he saith) the like before, viz. concerning that place, where Luther (they say) did speak so reproachfully of S. James his Epistle. But, 1. This is not like the other: For here he saith, Luther's works were altered by his Scholars; but there he saith, they were altered by his adversaries. 2. As I have showed the other to be improbable, so also is this. For Luther died anno 1546. so that the Edition which 
Sleidan. comment. lib. 16.  was anno 1551. was five years after Luther's death; and surely by that time Luther's Scholars had leisure enough to make such an alteration, as Mr. Breerly speaks of, in Luther's works, if they had been so minded. I cannot therefore but take this as a trick of Mr. Breerley's, when he saw Campians quotation of Luther confuted by Dr. Whitaker, to pretend some former Edition of Luther's Works, as having it so as Campian alleged. And this is the more apparent, in that Dureus professedly taking upon him the defence of Campian against Dr. Whitaker, never so much as takes notice of that which the Doctor saith against Campian for falsifying the words of Luther, so far was he from knowing of that pretended Edition anno 1551. which should have it (forsooth) just so as Campian quoted it.  
9 Luther (as the marquis telleth us) affirmed, that Christ was from all eternity, even according to his humane nature. For 
Obj.  proof hereof only Zuinglius is cited.  
But (as I noted before) Zuinglius his testimony is not sufficient 
Answ.  to make good a charge against Luther. Let Luther's words be produced, and then it will appear that he is justly charged.  
10. He affirms (saith the marquis) that as Christ died with 
Obj.  great pain, so he seems to have sustained pains in hell after death.  
Indeed I find such words in Luther on Plal. 16. and I acknowledge 
Answ  it to be a gross error, so far am I from defending him in it. 
Christus sicut cum summo dolore mortuus est, ita videtur & dolores post mortem in inferno sustinuisse, ut nobis omnia superaret. Luth. tom. 3. in Ps. 16. Ita ego intercà verbis Perri Act. 2. inherebo, donec meliorn doctus suero. Luth. ibid.  But withal this I find, that Luther was nothing confident in that particular. For he adds immediately, that he would so understand the words of Peter Act. 2. 24. until he were better informed  
11. That the Divinity of Christ suffered, or else he were none of 
Obj.  his Christ.  
This also Bellarmine doth object against Luther; and I confess, 
Answ.  that if the word Divinity be strictly and properly taken, 
Bell. de Christ● in Presat.  the assertion is most erroneous. But Bellarmine 
Propter identitatem, quae in divinis est inter naturam & hypostasin, quandeque natura ponitur pro personâ, vel hypostasi. Et secundum haec dicit Aug. naturam divinam esse conceptam & natam, quia scil. persona Filii est concepta & nata secundum naturam humaner. Aquir. part. 3. quaest. 35. art. 1. ad 1.  probably was not ignorant that Aquinas observeth, that because of the identity that is betwixt the divine Nature, and the divine Person, sometimes the Nature is put for the Person. And that thus Austin saith, that the divine Nature was conceived and born, because the Person of the Son was conceived and born, in respect of the humane nature. So in like manner Luther might say, that the Divinity, or divine Nature did suffer, because the Person of the Son did suffer according to the humane nature. That Luther meant no otherwise then thus, is clearly his 
Si enim persuaderi mihi patiar, ut credam solam naturam humanam pro me passam esse, profectò Christus mihi non magni pretii salvator erit, sed ipse tandem salvatore eget.— Si fortè venefica illa domina ratio reclamare voluerit, dicens, Divinitas neque pati, neque mori potest; tu respondebis, verum id quidem est, nihilo minùs tamen quia Divinitas & Humanitas in Christo unam personam constituunt, Scriptura propter hypostaticam illam unionem etiam Divinitati omnia illa tribuit, quae humanitati accidunt, & vicissim humanitati quae divinitatis sunt. Et sanè reverà ita se res habet; ho enim fateri necesse est, Haec. persona (monstrato Christo) patitur, moritur. Haec autem persona est verus Deus. Rectè igitur dicitur, Filius Dei patitur. Etsi enim una ipsius pars (ut sic loquar) Deitas videl. non patiatur, tamen ea persona, quae Deus est, patitur in altera suâ parte, nimirum humanitate. Revera enim Filius Dei pro nobis crucifixus est. Ipsa enim, ipsa, inquam, persona crucifixa est secundum humanitatem. Luther. apud Gerherd. de Person. & ossi. Christi, sect. 195.  words, which I find in Gerhard, viz. these, If I shall suffer myself to be persuaded that only the humane nature did suffer for me, truly Christ shall be a Saviour of small worth unto me, for he himself at length will need a Saviour.— If perhaps that bewitching lady Reason will reclaim, saying, The Divinity cannot suffer, nor die; thou shalt answer, That indeed is true; yet nevertheless because the Divinity, and the Humanity in Christ make one person, therefore the Scripture because of the hypostatical union doth attribute to the Divinity all those things which happen to the Humanity; and so to the Humanity those things which belong to the Divinity. And truly thus it is indeed; for we must needs confess, This Person (Christ being pointed at) doth suffer and die. But this Person is true God, Therefore it is rightly said, The Son of God doth suffer. For though one part of him (as I may so speak) viz. the Deity doth not suffer, yet that person, which is God, doth suffer in his other part, viz. the Humanity. For indeed the Son of God was crucified for us. That same, I say, that same Person was crucified 
Si in unâ lance appendantur peccata nostra & ira Dei peccatis nostris debita, ac in alterâ lance ponatur tanuim humanae naturae mors aut homo tanuim pro nobis passus, tunc altera lanx ad infernum usque nos deprimet. Quod si verò in adversa lance ponatur Dei passio Dei mors, Dei sanguis, seu Deus pro nobis passus; & mortuus, tunc gravior & ponderosior fiet lanxista quam omnia peccata nostra, & universa Dei ira. Luth. ibid.  according to the Humanity. And again, If our sins, and God's weath due to our sins be weighed in one scale, and in the other scale be put only the death of humane nature, or only a man having sufered for us; then the other scale will weigh us down to hell. But if in the opposite scale be put the passion of God, the death of God, the blood of God, or God having suffered for us, than that scale will be more heavy and ponderous than all our sins, and all God's anger. This doth abundantly show that Luther was most orthodox in this point touching Christ's Person and Natures. And thus that also is answered, which immediately followeth, being indeed but the same with that which went before; viz. That if the humane nature should only suffer for him, Christ were but a Saviour of vile account, and had need himself of another Saviour. In what sense Luther spoke this, and how sound and true it is in that sense wherein he spoke it, is evident by his own words before cited.  
12. The marquis citys Hospinian, saying, that Luther 
Obj.  held the body and blood of Christ both is and may be found according to the substance not only in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, or in the hearts of the faithful, but also in all creatures, in fire, water, or in the rope and halter, wherewith desperate persons hang themselves.  
Whether Hospinian writ thus of Luther, not having his 
Answ.  book which is cited, I cannot say. Hospinian being, though a Protestant, yet against Luther in point of the Sacrament, might peradventure wrest Luther's words beyond his meaning. However if Luther did hold so, I leave him to answer for himself, or some other to answer for him. I hold both him to have erred in his Consubstantiation, and the Romanists in their Transubstantiation.  
13. Luther (as is objected) averreth that the ten Commandments 
Obj.  belong not unto us; for God did not lead us, but the Jews forth of Egypt.  
That Luther speaketh to this effect, I grant; yet was he far from teaching that Christians are free from the observation 
Answ.  of the ten Commandments. For immediately after that which the marquis 
Falsò ergo fanatici lege Mosi nos onerant, qui ad nos nihil locutus est. Doctorem sanè Mosen recipimus, & agnoscimus, unde multum salutaris, ut paulò post dicitur, doctrinae discimus. Sed legislatorem aut gubernatorem non agnoscimus, cum ipse suana ministerium tantum ad illum populum restrinxerit.— Non habere Deos alienos, Deum timere, ei considere, & obedire, non abuti eius nomine, parentibus honorem habere, etc. sunt ab omnibus servanda, & ad omnes pertinent, sed non quia à Mose praecepra, sed quia naturae hominum hae leges (quae in decalogo recitantur) inscriptae sunt. Quare etiam gentes, quibus Moses ignotus suit, & quibus Deus non est locutus, ut illis, norunt Deo esse obediendum, Deum esse adorandum, honorandos parents, etc. Luth. tom. 3. Quomodo ●●ori Mosis legendi sunt.  citeth, he saith thus; Falsely therefore do fanatical persons burden us with the Law of Moses, who spoke nothing unto us. Indeed we receive and acknowledge Moses as a teacher, from whom we learn much wholesome doctrine, as shall be showed a little after. But we do not acknowledge him our Lawgiver, or Governor, seeing he restraine● his Ministry to that people, viz. the Jews.— Not to have other gods, to fear God, to trust in him, and to obey him, not to abuse his name, to honour parents, etc. these things are to be observed by all, and belong to all; yet not because they were commanded by Moses, but because these Laws (which are rehearsed in the Decalogue.) are imprinted in man's nature. Wherefore also the heathens, that knew not Moses, and to whom God did not speak, as he did to the Israelites, knew that God is to be obeyed and worshipped, that parents are to be honoured, etc.  
This doctrine of Luther is no other than they of the Roman Church do teach. Estius, a great Doctor of that Church, writing upon 
Quamvis expeditior sensus videatur de lege quatenus ceremonialis est▪ nihil tamen vetat universam legem à Mose latam intelligi, quatenus ab eo lata est. Tota e●im Mosis legislatura cessat per Christum, nec lege decalogi Christianus tenetur, nisi quatenus cum lege naturae convenit, & à Christo renovata est. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ad Gal. 2. 19  those words, Gal. 2. 19 I through the Law am dead to the Law, saith, Although the sense may seem more easy, if it be understood of the Law, as it is ceremonial; yet may the whole Law given by Moses be understood, so far forth as it was given by Moses. For the whole legislative office of Moses doth cease by Christ; neither is a Christian bound by the Law of the Decalogue, but as it doth agree with the Law of nature; and is renewed by Christ. So the Catechism set forth by the decree of the Council of Trent, 
Quamvis haec lex ●●daeis in monte à Domino data fuerit, tamen quoniam naturâ omnium mentibus multo antè impressa, & consignam erat, atque ob eam rem De●s universos homines illi perpetuò parere voluit; p●●rjmum prodo●●t verba●illa, qu bus, Mose ministro atque interpret, Hebraeis promulgata ●st, & populi Israelitici hist●riam quae mysteriorum, est plena diligenter expli●are. Catechis. Tridens. in init●o ex●is. cation●s decalogi.  coming to explain the ten Commandments, saith, Although the Law was given by the Lord in the Mount to the Jews, yet because by nature it was long before imprinted in the minds of all, and so God would have all at all times to obey him; it will be very profitable diligently to explain these words in which by the Ministry of Moses the Law was promulgated to the Hebrews, etc. Here they clearly intimate, that the ten Commandments do not concern Christians as published by Moses, but as imprinted in the heart of man by nature; which is all that Luther teacheth, who both in his greater and lesser Catechism expoundeth the ten Commandments, which he would not have done, if he had held that they do not bind Christians to the observing of them. But this doctrine he expressly disclaimeth, as I have already showed.  
14. Luther is taxed for saying, that faith, except it be without (even the least) good works, doth not justify, and is not 
Obj.  faith.  
Nothing is alleged out of Luther's writings for proof of 
Answ.  this, but only C●vels defence of Mr. Hooker is cited, which book I have not to peruse; yet I find Bellarmin● citing Luther's own words 
Tom. 1. operum suorum sic ait in 3. Propositione, Fides nisi sit sine ullis, etiam miminis operibus, non justificat im● non est sides. Bellar. de Justis. l. 1. c. 121.  to this very purpose. But Luther's meaning (I suppose) was only this, that in the work of justification faith is altogether without works, so that no works concur with it unto justification: not but that otherwise faith is accompanied with good works, so that where faith (true justifying faith) is, there will be good works also. Bellarmine indeed doth tell of some rigid Lutherans, 
Bell. ibi●●  who so hold faith alone to justify, as not to admit other virtues so much as to be present with it. And this he saith they would have to be Luther's opinion; yet he confesseth Chemnitius, a famous Lutheran, to agree with Calvin in this, that though faith alone doth justify, yet faith that doth justify is not alone▪ even as the heat of the Sun alone doth burn, yet that heat is not alone, but hath light joined with it.  
And for Luther himself, his writings plainly show, that although he exclude works from having any thing to do in our justification, as generally Protestant's do, yet he was no enemy to good works. After that we have taught faith in Christ (saith he) we 
Postquam fidem in Chris●●m doctrimus, docemus etiam de bonis operibu●. Non quòd opera ●ut charitatom rejicimus, ●t adversa●ii nos acc●sant. Luth. in Gal. 2. Fides non ficta, neque hypocritica, sed vera, & vivax ea est, quae exercet, & urget bona opera per charitatem.— Verè non credit si opera charitatis fidem non sequuntur.— Dicunt, si fides, sine opere justificat, ergò nihil operemur, sed credamus solum, & faciamus quae volumus. Non sic impii, dicit Paulus: verum est, sine operibus fidem justificare; sed de fide verâ loquor, quae postquam justificaverit, non stertet otiosa, sed est per charitatem operosa. Luth. in Gal. 5. 6.  also teach good works. And again, We do not reject works, and love, as the adversaries do accuse us. And again, Faith not feigned, nor hypocritical, but true and lively, is that, which doth exercise, and urge good works through love. So also again, Some say, if faith without works do justify, then let us not work, only let us believe, and let us do what we will. Not so, ye ungodly, saith Paul. It is true, that faith alone doth justify, but I speak of true faith, which when it hath justified, is not idle, but doth work through love.  
15. Luther is charged with saying, That we are equal in dignity 
Obj.  and honour with St. Paul, St. Peter, the blessed Virgin Mary, or all the Saints.  
The Edition of Luther's Works which the marquis citeth, 
Answ.  not agreeing in the folios with that which I meet with, I cannot tell whether Luther saith thus or no; or if he do, in what sense he saith it; but if he have such words, I presume he meaneth in respect of imputed righteousness, which is one and the same to all that believe, not in respect of inherent righteousness, which is more in some then in others. In respect of imputed righteousness, the Spouse of Christ here upon earth is 
Sine maculâ deputatur, quia culpa non imputatur. Gilbert. in Cant. 4. 7.  all fair, and there is no spot in her. But in respect of inherent righteousness just men are not made perfect until hereafter in the life to come. Heb. 12. 23. In this respect the inward man is renewed day by day, 2 Cor. 4. 16.  
16. That all the holiness, which they have used in fasting, and prayer, enduring labours, chastising their bodies, austerity and hardness 
Obj.  of life, may be daily performed by a hog or a dog.  
Whether this charge be true, I cannot examine for the 
Answ.  reason even now alleged. Neither do I see how Luther or any rational man should make prayer a thing performable by a hog or a dog. Otherwise who seeth not, but that these bruit creatures may be made to fast (see Jon. 3. 7. 8.) and to endure bodily hardness? The Apostle clearly distinguisheth betwixt bodily exercise and godliness, 1 Tim. 4. 8. And both Scripture and experience show, that all these things mentioned by the marquis, may be performed by the wicked as well (I mean for the outward act) as by the godly. See Isa. 1. 11. to 15. and Isa. 58. 3. etc.  
17. Another charge against Luther is that he holdeth, That in the absence of a Priest, a woman, or a boy, or any Christian 
Obj.  may absolve.  
It seems then that Luther doth not say, that any may do it as well as a Priest; for then what need to say, in absence of a 
Answ.  Priest? And may not any Christian declare the glad tidings of salvation unto an afflicted conscience? Doth not the Apostle, speaking to Christians in general, bid them comfort the feeble-minded, 1 Thess. 5. 14. As for that confession to, and absolution by a Priest, which the Romanists contend for, we know no ground nor warrant in Scripture for it.  
18. The next charge is, that he saith, They only communicate worthily, who have confused and erroneous consciences. 
Obj.   
I find this objected by Campian, and answered by Dr. 
Answ.  Whitaken, so as to acknowledge the truth of the assertion in this sense, that they only are meet for the Sacrament, who 
Camp. rat. 8. whitak. Resp. ad rat. Camp.  are sensible of their sins, and so of the need they have of Christ for the remission of them, according to that of our Saviour, The whole have no need of the Physician, but they that are sick, Mat. 9 12.  
19 That a Priest, especially in the New Testament, is not made, but born, not consecrated, but created. 
Obj.   
Where Luther saith thus, I cannot find, nor can I conjecture what he meaneth, if he do say it. 
Answ.   
20. That the Sacrament were true, though it were administered by the Devil. 
Obj.   
How Luther is baited for this by Hospinian and Covel, 
Answ.  his fellow-Protestants (as the marquis saith he is) I wanting their books cannot see: but it Luther meant of such a Devil, as Christ spoke of, viz. a Judas, Joh. 6. 70. neither Protestants nor Papists can justly oppose him, they holding (as generally they do) that the virtue of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the dignity of him by whom it is administered.  
21. That among Christians, no man can or aught to be a Magistrate; 
Obj.  but each one is to other equally subject: and that among Christian men none is superior save one, and only Christ.  
This same charge is also brought against Luther by Mr. 
Answ.  Breerley, who yet hath that which is a sufficient answer to it: 
Breerl. Apel. tract. 3. sect. 5.  For he citys Luther admonishing to obey the Civil Magistrate, only not allowing him power over the conscience. This indeed is Christ's prerogative; and in this respect Christians are to be subject only unto Christ. Ye are bo●ght with a price, be ye not the servants of men, I Cor. 7. 23. We must indeed be subject to the higher power for conscience sake, Rom. 13. 5. but that is, because God, who is Lord over the conscience, doth command it: so that it is not the Magistrates, power, but Gods only that doth reach the conscience.  
22. That the Husband, in case the Wife refuse his bed, may say 
Obj.  unto her, If thou wilt not, another will; if the Mistress will not, let the Maid come.  
This being objected by Campian, Dr. Whitaker answers, 
Answ.  that Luther counselled the Husband to speak thus to the Wife, in terrorem, so as thereby to affright her out of her obstinacy. Yet he acknowledgeth, that Luther in point of Divorce went too far, and that he was not willing to plead for him. Neither will I, in any thing wherein he is justly taxed: As I confess he is in the two next particulars that follow, (which also concern the same subject) if he did indeed assert those things which are alleged.  
23. That Polygamy is no more abrogated then the rest of Moses 
Obj.  law; and that it is free, as being neither commanded nor forbidden.  
Two places in Luther's Works are here quoted to make 
Answ.  good this charge, one whereof I cannot find, but the other I meet with, (though not of that Edition indeed which is expressed) and find that which is quite contrary to this here objected. Luther commenting on Gen. 16. where Abraham by the advice 
Abrahae quoque insign's sanctimonia est, qui cum se usitato exemplo tueri, & aliam ducere poterat, (polygamia enim tum in usu erat) tamen id non facit, nisi uxore jubeme. Luth. in Gen. 16.  of Sarah being barren, took Hagar for his Concubine, saith that Polygamy was then in use, and so Abraham might of himself following the custom of the times have taken another wife, 
Porro ex hoe facto non est constituendum exemplum, quasi nobis eadem liceat facere: circumstantiae enim considerandae sunt, etc. Igitur singulare hoc horum conjugum factum neutiquam in exemplum habendum, praesertim in Novo Testamento: nam Vetus Testamentum polygamiam etiam liberorum causâ permisit. Luth. ibid.  but yet would not do it till Sarah did put him upon it. And from this fact of Abraham, he saith, we must not frame an example, as if we might do the like. And that though the Old Testament did permit Polygamy, yet now in the New Testament it is otherwise. So that Luther (so far as I find) was far from making polygamy a thing indifferent, and free for any that have a mind to it.  
24. That it is no more in his power to be without a woman, than 
Obj.  it is in his power to be no man: and that it is more necessary then to eat, drink, purge, or blow his nose.  
Luther here speaks of himself; and what his power was in this particular that he speaks of, he had best cause to know. 
Answ.  Indeed Mr. Breerly together with these words citys some other sayings of Luther, wherein he seems to speak generally 
Breerl. Apol. tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subdivis. 11.  of all, as being altogether unable to contain from women. And to this effect also the marquis here immediately after citys some words of Luther in Latin, saying that not any of his English shall be accessary to the transportation of such a blast into his native language. But it is usual with them of the Church of Rome to pervert, if not the words, yet the meaning of their adversaries, and especially of Luther and Calvin, against whom they bear the greatest hatred. Candour and ingenuity would easily conceive, that Luther spoke in that manner, of men, as for most part they are, viz. not having the gift of continency, which comparatively but few have. Luther's own words (as Mr. Breerly himself doth cite them) sufficiently declare 
Puella, in quâ non est sublime hoc donum continentiae, nihilo faciliùs carere potest matito, aut viro, quam cibo, aut potu, somno, etc. I. ●th. apud Brecrl. loc. citat.  his meaning. The young woman (saith he) that hath not this high gift of continency, can no more want a husband, or a man, than she can want meat, drink, sleep, etc.  
25. Luther (saith the marquis) saith, How can a man prepare 
Obj.  himself to good; seeing it is not in his power to make his ways evil? For God worketh the wicked work in the wicked.  
One of Luther's books, wherein he is said to speak thus, 
Answ.  I find among his Works, (viz. de servo arbit.) But the Edition being divers from this here mentioned, I cannot find the words that are objected. If Luther have these words, I doubt not but by the circumstances of the place it will appear, that he was free from charging God foolishly, however that expression seem harsh, That God worketh the wicked work in the wicked. Yet in some sense this may be affirmed. For a wicked work may be considered as a work, and as wicked. As a work, 
Actus peccati & est ens, & est actus, & ex utroque habet quòd sit à Deo. Omne enim ens, quocunque modo sit, oportot quòd derivetur à primo ente.— Sed peccatum nominat ens, & actionem cum quodam defectu; defectus autem ille est ex causa creata scil. lib. arbit. Aquin. 12. qu. 79. art. 2.  so it is from God, who is the supreme cause of every thing that hath any entity, or being in it. But it is not from God, as it is wicked; for so it imports defect, and therefore is not to be ascribed unto God, who cannot any way be defective, but it is to be imputed only to the creature. But though God be not the author of men's wicked works as they are wicked, yet is he the orderer and disposer of them. And thus Luther might well say, It is not in man's power to make his ways evil, viz. so as he himself will, but as God will, who permitteth, restraineth, ordereth, and disposeth man's waves as he pleaseth. Thus, as the Prophet saith, The way of man is not in himself, neither is it in man that walketh, to direct his steps, Jer. 10. 23. Bellarmine himself doth tell us, That God by his 
Deus mirabili potentiâ regit corda etiam impiorum, & impedit ne aliud perficiant, conentur, velint, cogitent, quam quod ipse permittit, ipsamque culpam eis vertit in poenam, & ad multa bona malis eorum voluntatibus ipse summè potens, summeque bonus utitur. Bellar. de amiss. great. & statu peccati lib. 2. cap. 16.  wonderful power doth rule the hearts even of the wicked, and doth restrain them so that they cannot effect, endeavour, will, or think otherwise then be doth permit, and doth turn their fault into their punishment; and being both most powerful, and most good, doth use their evil wills for the accomplishing of much good. And he citys Augustine saying, That God doth not make men's wills evil, but he maketh use of them as he pleaseth. But the 

Non facit voluntates malas, sed utitur eis ut voluerit. Aug. apud Bellar. Ibid.  
Deus non solùm permittit impios agere multa mala, etc. sed etiam presidet ipsis voluntatibus malis, easque regit & gubernat, torquet ac flectit in eyes invisibiliter operando; ut licet vitio proprio malae sint, tamen à divinâ providentiâ ad unum potius malum, quám ad aliud, non positiuè, sed permissiuè ordinentur. Bellar. ibid. cap. 13.   Cardinal speaks yet more fully: God (saith he) doth not only permit the wicked to do many evil things, but also is precedent over their evil wills, and doth rule and govern them, yea wrest and bend (N B) by working invisibly in them; so that although they be evil through their own fault, yet by the divine providence, not positively, but permissively they are ordered to one evil, rather than to another. This expression, which Bellarmine here useth of Gods wresting and bending the wills of wicked men in their wicked designs, is (I think) as high as any that either Luther or Calvin do use, of whom yet the Romanists, and amongst them Bellarmine himself complains, as making God the author of sin, though they disclaim and abhor the Position as much as they that are so invective against them,  
Before the marquis hath fully done with Luther, he hath 
Page 79.  by the way a fling at Zuinglius, saying that he denies all Paul's Epistles to be sacred. But in the place cited I find it otherwise. Zuinglius 
Quasi verò Paulus Epistolis suis jam tum tribue rit, ut quicquid in eyes contineretur sacrosanctum esset. Non quòd ipse velim non sacrosancta esse, quae illius sint, sed quod noim Apostolis imputari immoderatam arrogantiam, etc. Zuingl. tom. 2. sol. 10.  doth not deny all Paul's Epistles to be sacred, yea he saith expressly that he doth not deny this; only he saith, that Paul then when he wrote, did not attribute so much to his Epistles, as that whatsoever was contained in them, should be sacred; he thought that if the Apostle had done so, it had been too much arrogancy in him; wherein I am far from being of his mind.  
There is nothing material, which the marquis here 
Answ.  doth further allege against Luther; only he citeth two or three passages, wherein Luther doth vaunt of himself; which though it may perhaps argue some vanity of the man, yet doth it not argue any falsity of his doctrine. I never required (saith Luther) 
Nunquam exegi ut me quis modestum aut sanctum haber et, sed ut Evangelium omnes agnoscerent. Luth. ad Praesat. Latonii.  that any should account me modest, or holy, but that all should embrace the Gospel. Yet might he without any vain boasting say, (as the marquis objecteth Page 170.) that he would not have his doctrine to be judged either by Men or Angels; that is, he being assured of its truth, and agreeableness to God's word, he would not refer it to the censure either of Men or Angels, so as to submit unto them if they should condemn it. In this he had respect (it seems) to that of the Apostle, Though we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. And thus much for answer to those things which are alleged against Luther.  
In the next place the marquis falls upon Calvin, and brings many charges against him; but by the examination of the 
Pag. 8 c.  matter it will appear, that Calvin is altogether as injuriously dealt with as Luther, if not more. 
Of Calvin's Doctrine.   
1. He maintains (its said) that three Essences do arise out of the holy Trinity. 
Obj.   
I wish the marquis had either cited Calvins words, or at least the place so, as that I might have found what he saith. 
Answ.  But he only citeth Tract. Theol. p. 793. Where in the Edition which I have (viz. Genev. an. 1576.) is no such thing to be found. Neither need I to search into calvin's Works for the answering of this charge. Bellarmine himself (who would have been ready 

Calvinus fatetur lib. 1. Instit. cap. 13. sect. 13. Unam numero naturam esse in tribus distinctis personis. Bellar. de Christ. l. 2. c. 19  
Praeterea ibid. sect. 23. apertè dicit, essentiam à Patre, Filio esse communicatam. Bellar. ibid.   enough to find out any such gross stuff in him) doth justify him in this point, confessing that Calvin doth acknowledge only one nature in three distinct persons. And that he doth plainly say, that the Essence is communicated to the Son by the Father: which also doth take away the next charge, viz. That the Son hath his substance distinct from the Father, and that he is a distinct God from the Father. By Bellarmine's own confession calvin's doctrine is directly contrary.  
2. He teacheth (saith the marquis) That the Father can 
Obj.  neither wholly, nor by parts communicate his nature to Christ, but must withal be deprived thereof himself.  
This is clearly confuted by calvin's words which Bellarmine 
Answ.  allegeth: If there be any differe we in the Essence (viz. of the Father and the Son) 
Si in essentia est discretio, respondeant, anon cum Filio eam communicaverit? Hoc verò non potuit esse ex parte, quia dimidium fabricare Deum nefas esser. Add quod hoc modo foedè lacerarent Dei essentiam. Restat ut tota & in solidum Patris & Filii sit communis. Calvin Instit. lib. 1. cap. 13. sect. 23. citat. à Bellar. ubi suprà.  let them answer whether the Father did communicate it to the Son, or no? Now this could not be in part; for it is not lawful to make half a God. Besides by this means they should foully tear in pieces Gods Essence. It remains, that the whole and entire Essence is common to the Father and the Son.  
3. Calvin is said to deny that the Son is begotten of the Father's 
Obj.  substance, and to affirm that he is God of himself, not God of God.  
Divers Romanists besides, and before the marquis 
Answ.  would make Calvin guilty of some gross heresy, in saying that the Son is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself. But Bellarmine hath a whole Chapter about 
Dum rem ipsam excutio, & Calvini sententias diligenter considero, non facilè audeo pronuntiare illum in hoc errore fuisse, siquidem docet Filium esse à se respectu essentiae, non respectu personae, & videtur dicere velle, personam esse genitam à Patre, essentiam non esse genitam, nec productam, sed esse à seipsâ, etc. Bellar. loco antè citato.  this very point, and doth clear Calvin from that aspersion which others cast upon him, showing that he spoke of the Son, not in respect of his Person, but in respect of his Essence; and that his meaning is, that the Person of the Son is begotten of the Father, but that the Essence of the Son is not begotten, nor produced, but is of itself. So another 
Revera si attentè Calvinus legatur, tantùm videbitur voluisse, Filium, ut Deus quidem essentialiter est, ex se esse, & solummodo ut persona est, esse ex Patre. Id quod veruin est. Nam licet verissimè Patres & Concilia asserant, Deum esse ex Deo, accipiendo vocabulum: Dei personaliter, ut seil. significat quoque personam ipsam Patris & Filii; tamen Filius quatenus essentialiter Deus est, id est, ut est illud simplissimum quod est Deus, non est ab alio, quia ut sic est quid absolutum.— In eo sensu videtur Filium appellasse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. haer. 69. Greg. de Valent. citat. à Rivet. in Gen. exercit. 14.  learned Jesuit, viz. Gregorius de Valentia (as I find him cited) doth ingenuously confess, that calvin's doctrine in this point, being rightly understood, is sound and true, viz. That the Son as he is essentially God, is of himself, and only is from the Father as he is a Person. When the Fathers and Counsels affirm the Son to be God of God, he saith, they take the word God personally, viz. as it signifieth both the Person Father, and of the Son: yet (saith he) the Son, as he is essentially God, so he is not from another. And in this sense he saith Epiphanius seemeth to have called the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, God of himself.  
4. He taxeth Calvin for saying, That dream of the absolute power of God, which the Schoolmen have brought in, is execrable blasphemy.  
Calvin in one of the places alleged (for the other I cannot consult) saith thus: Neither do we bring in the device of absolute power; which 
Neque tamen commentum ingerimus absolutae potentiae; quod sicuti profanum est, ita meritò detestabile nobis esse debet. Calv. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. sec. 2. Non fingimus Deum exlegem, qui sibi ipsi lex est. Calv. ibid.  as it is profane, so we have just cause to detest it. But Calvin was far from denying that absolute power of God, whereby he is able to do whatsoever he pleaseth: Only he seems to deny God to have such an absolute power, as to be able to do any thing, whether it be right or wrong. For he adds immediately, We do not feign God to be without law, who is a law unto himself.  
5. It is objected against Calvin, that those words, The Father is greater than I, (Joh. 14. 28.) he will not have restrained 
Obj.  to the humane nature, but will extend them to Christ as God and man.  
Many places are cited for proof of this; some whereof, 
Answ.  for want of the same Edition, though I have the book, I cannot examine, viz. Tract. Theol. p. 794. & 792. my book in those pages hath nothing to the purpose. And so also it is in all other places, where the marquis doth cite those Theological Tractates. Another place here also the marquis citeth, which is as if it were not cited, viz. Calvin on Mat. 22. the verse being not mentioned, the quotation is to no purpose. Two other places he citys also, viz. Calvin Instit. l. 2. c. 14. §. 3. and on Joh. 17. 12. but in neither of these places doth Calvin speak any thing about those words, My Father is greater than I. It may seem strange, that the Marquis should here cite so many places out of calvin's Works, and yet pretermit his Commentary upon those very words about which he taxeth him. Now Calvin commenting upon those words, saith, That 
Variè detortus fuit hic locus. Ariani, ut Christum probatent quendam secundarium esse Deum, objiciebant minorem esse Patre. Patres orthodoxi, ut tali calumniae ansam praeciderent, dicebant hoc debere ad naturam humanam referri. Atqui ut impiè hoc testimonio abusi sunt Ariani, ita nec recta nec consentanea fuit Patrum solutio. Hic enim neque de humanâ Christi natura, neque de aeterna ejus divinitate sermo habetur; sed pro infirmitatis nostrae captu●se medium inter nos & Deum constituit.— Utres clar●ùs pa●cat, crassuis adhuc loquendum est. Non consert hîc Christus Patris divinitatem cum suâ, nec humanam suam naturam divinae Patris essentiae omparar; sed potius statum praesentem coelesti gloriae, ad quam mox recipiendus erat, etc. Calv. ad Joh. 14. 28.  the Arians did wickedly abuse this testimony, to prove that Christ is but a secondary God, and not equal with the Father; and that yet on the other side, the Orthodox Fathers did not rightly interpret the words of Christ's humane nature: For that here neither Christ's humane nature, nor his eternal divinity (he saith) is spoken of; but Christ according to the weakness of our capacity doth set himself in the midst betwixt God and us. He explains it further thus: Christ (saith he) doth not compare his Fathera Divinity with his own, nor doth he compare his humane nature with his Father's divine essence; but rather his present estate with that heavenly glory, into which he was by and by to be received. Though calvin's exposition here may seem somewhat acquaint, neither do I see why the received interpretation should not stand, viz. that Christ spoke of himself, as he was man; yet however Calvin plainly shows, that he was far from having any compliance with the Arians, in denying the equality of the Son with the Father.  
6. Calvin is charged to sever the person of the Mediator 
Obj.  from Christ's divine person; and to maintain with Nestorius, two persons in Christ, the one humane, and the other divine.  
Calvin had nothing to do with the heresy of Nestorius, 
Answ.  neither do the places alleged prove him any whit guilty of it. He speaks indeed of the person of the Mediator, yet doth he not make 
Mediatoris personam nondum attingo. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 13. sect. 9 Nondum de Mediatoris personâ nobis sermo est. sect. 23. Mediatoris suscepit personam & munus. sect. 24.  that a distinct person from Christ's divine person. I meddle not yet (saith he) with the person of Mediator. And again, We do not yet speak of the person of Mediator. His meaning plainly is this, and no more than this; that as yet he spoke of Christ only as God, and not as Mediator. And when he saith, that Christ took upon him the person and office of Mediator, 

Gerere personam aticujus, etc.  
Vide Vallam Elegant. lib. 6. cap. 34.   he seems to take the word person not for that which in Greek is hypostasis, a substance subsisting by itself; but as the Latins frequently use the word for quality, or state. Thus he seems to use the word Person, in that after it immediately he adds the word office. However, Calvin doth expressly condemn the heresy of Nestorius, and hath a whole Chapter to prove that in 
Procul abigendus est à nobis Nestorii error.— In Ephesinâ synodo merito damnatus fuit Nestorius. Calv. Inst. l. 2. cap. 14. sect. 4. Similiter etiam sect. 5.  Christ two natures make but one Person. Calvin therefore here hath hard measure, being charged with Nestorianisme, when as he not only in plain terms doth explode it, but also doth bend his whole force against it.  
7. Calvin is taxed for saying, That Christ's soul was subject 
Obj.  to ignorance; and that this was the only difference betwixt us and him, that our infirmities are of necessity, and his were voluntary.  
It is true, Calvin understands that Luke 2. 40. and 52. so, as that Christ as man was not perfect in knowledge at first, 
Answ.  no more than he was in stature. And surely this seems to be the plain and simple meaning of the words, especially those v. 52. And Jesus increased in wisdom, and stature; though others expound them, that as Christ grew in age, so he did show forth his wisdom more and more. But Jansenius confesseth that Ambrose saith, that Christ as man did grow in knowledge. And 
Ambrose hoc loco fatetur Christum secundum quod homo erat, profecisse.— Et sub nomine Theophili in catena aureâ legitur, etc. Proficere dicitur exeo, quòd humanitas proficiebat in ipso. Jansen. Concord. cap. 12.  that the same exposition also is found under the name of Theophilus, another ancient Author. He adds indeed, that these sayings of the Ancients are well understood by the Schoolmen of Christ's wisdom acquired by use and experience, when as before from his first conception he had the knowledge of all things infused into him. Yet he speaks of this infused knowledge only as a thing which he 

Omninò videtur Christo etiam quatenus homini tribuendam perfectam omnium rerum à conceptione cognitionem ei infusam.— Omninò verisimile est, etc. Janss. ibid.  
Vetùm cum sapientiam hanc, quae Christo tanquam homini ab initio conceptionis sit insusa, quâque omnia ab initio cognovisset, etiam ut homo, quidam putent non posse ex Scripturis probari, putant simplicius hunc locum sic explicandum, ut dicatur Christum secundum sapientiam divinam, h. e. eam quae ei competit tanquam Deo, non profecisse; secundum sapientiam autem humanam, h. e. eam, quae ei ut homini competit, verè profecisse, hominum quidem more, sed tamen supra modum humanum. Jansen. ibid.   thought very probable, not as a thing which he held most certain. And he confesseth that some (I presume he means of the Church of Rome; for otherwise he would not so much regard what they thought) are of opinion, that it cannot be proved by Scripture, that such wisdom was infused into Christ from his conception, whereby as man he should know all things at the very first: and therefore they think the words of S. Luke more simply understood thus, that Christ in respect of that wisdom which he had as man, did truly grow, as other men do, though in a far greater measure. Thus also did Erasmus (who was before Calvin) understand it, not thinking it meet that 
Neque verò perinde nos move●t, si id pugnet cum aliquo placito Scholasticorum, etc. Eras. ad Luc. 2. 52.  the opinion of the Schoolmen should sway in this matter.  
8. Of like nature is that which followeth, viz. that 
Obj.  Calvin saith, It is evident that ignorance was common to Christ with the Angels. And that he particularizeth wherein, viz. that He knew not the day of judgement; nor that the figtree was barren, till he came near it.  
That Christ as man, knew not what kind of tree it was, 
Answ.  until he came nigh it, Calvin thinks not Improbable; yet he grants, that Christ 
Nihil absurdi est, si dicamus, secundum hominem speciem arboris suisse illi incogniam: fieri tamen potest, ut consultò accesserit, eventum non ignorans. Calv. ad Mal. 21. 18.  might on purpose go unto it, though he were not ignorant oft the event. Concerning the other place, viz. Mar. 13. 32. he is more confident; and so well might he be, the Text being clear and express: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Some understand it so, that Christ did not know it, to make it known: But thus neither doth the Father know it; for he doth not make it known. It is therefore to 
Cer●e Cyrillus lib. 9 Thesaur. cap. 4. fatetur Christum de se, quatenus homo erat, dixisse, quòd ignoraret diem judicii, etc. Jansen. Concord. cap. 123.  be understood of Christ in respect of his humane nature. And so Cyril understands it, as Jansenius confesseth, though he himself rather likes the other exposition.  
9 The marquis saith, that Calvin is not afraid to censure 
Obj.  certain words of Christ to be but a weak confutation of what he sought to refute. And that he says, Christ seems here not to reason solidly.  

Answ.  This is just as if one should charge their Angelical Doctor Aquinas with saying, That there seems to be no God, and that, God seems 

Videtur quòd Deus non sit. Aquin. part. 1. qu. 2. art. 3.  
Videtur quòd Deus sit corpus. Ibid. quaest. 3. art. 2.   to be a body: Or rather indeed with saying, That there is no God, and that God is a body. For thus is Calvin dealt with, commenting upon that, Matth. 12. 25, 26. Every Kingdom divided against itself, etc. If Satan cast out Satan, etc. by way of objection he saith, 
Videtur tamen pa●ùm solida esse refutatio, etc. Verùm nulla in Christum cecidit talis suspicio, etc. Calv. ad Mal. 12. 25.  This confutation may seem not very solid; and then immediately he answers the objection. Thus also in his Commentary upon that Mat. 9 5. Whether is easier to say, etc. Christ (saith he) doth seem not to reason solidly, etc. Then presently he adds, But the 
Videtur tamen parum solidè ratiocinari Christus, etc. Sed in promptu est solutio, etc. Calv. ad Mat. 9 5.  answer is easy, etc. Of this same nature are the five next following passages, wherein Calvin is made to say that, which (as the manner of Expositors is for the better elucidating of that which they have in hand) he only brings in as an objection, and presently gives answer to it. This is a piece of the strangest dealing that ever I met with. I do not find that the marquis had these allegations from any, as many of the rest (I see) he had: neither can I think him to have been of such an ignoble disposition, as wittingly and wilfully so to pervert a man's words and meaning. Therefore I suppose it was his immoderate desire to find any thing in Calvin, that might be liable to exception, which made him hastily take hold of that which did occur, never considering the true sense and meaning of it. But to proceed.  
10. Calvin (saith the marquis) saith, that Christ refused and denied, as much as lay in him, to perform the office of a Mediator. 
Obj.   
It's true, Calvin hath these words, but they also are part of an objection. For the very next word is, Respondeo, I answer. 
Answ.  So that I might have joined this with those other 
Calv. ad Mat. 26. 39  passages immediately before mentioned; though there seems indeed some more colour for this allegation then for the other, yet is there no just ground for this neither.  
11. The next charge against Calvin is, that he saith, That 
Obj.  Christ manifested his own effeminateness, by his shunning of death.  
This also is of like nature with the former. Calvin writing 
Answ.  upon those words, Joh. 12. 27. Now is my soul troubled, etc. saith, that 
Videtur initio sententia haec multum diserepare à proximo sermone. Illud plusquam heroici pectoris signum erat, hortari suos non modò ad subeundam mortem, sed libenter & cupidc oppetendam, ubi res ita postulat: nunc mortem refugiendo mollitiem suam fatetur. Nihil tamen hîc legimus, quod non optimè conveniat, etc. Caeterum saluti nostrae utile fuit, imò necessarium, sic affici Filium Dei.— Sciamus ergo mortem non fuisse delitias, aut lusum Christo, etc. Calv. ad Joh. 12. 27.  this doth seem to differ much from that which is next before. For that there Christ showed great courage, exhorting his Disciples not only to suffer death, but to suffer it willingly and defirously, if the case so require; but now by shunning death, he confesseth his weakness (or softness) of spirit. Then he adds by way of answer, that yet here is nothing which doth not very well agree. That it was expedient and necessary for our salvation that the Son of God should be so affected. And that hence we are to know, that Christ's death was no sport or play unto him, etc. So then the word mollities (which the marquis rendereth effeminateness, and not unfitly, I confess, for it properly signifieth softness, and is used for softness of spirit) that word, I say, is here applied to Christ in a way of 
* Scornful men (Nasuti homines, as Calvin speaks) are apt to interpret Christ's sear of death effeminateness.  objection, though Calvin doth positively aver, that Christ was deeply affected with the horror of his approaching death; and that he was so indeed, is most evident both by this, and other places of the Evangelical history.  
12. The marquis adds, He saith that Thiefs and Malefactors hasten to death with obstinate resolution, despising it with 
Obj.  haughty courage, others mildly suffer it. But what constancy, courage, or stoutness was there in the Son of God, who was astonished, and in a manner stricken dead with fear of death? How shameful a tenderness was it to be so far tormented with fear of common death, as to melt in bloody sweat, and not be able to be comforted but by the sight of Angels?  
Calvin disputes against those who would have it only a 
Answ.  mere bodily death, not having any curse 
Convicti ad aliud tandem cavillum transiliunt; quamvis mortem timuerit Christus, maledictionem & iram Dei, à quâ se tutum esse noverat, non timuisse. Sed expendant pii lectores, quam honorisicum hoc sit Christo, molliorem ac magis meticulosum fuisse, quam plerosque gregarios homines. Contumaciter ad mortem properant latrones, etc. Calv. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 16. sect. 12.  and wrath of God annexed to it, which Christ did fear. But (saith he) let the godly Readers consider, how honourable this is for Christ, to have been more effemivate and faint-hearted then most ordinary men. Then follow the words objected, Thiefs and other Malefactors do hasten unto death with obstinate resolution, etc. The series of the Discourse doth plainly show, that Calvin speaks not positively, but upon supposition, that if it were so, as some hold, than all this would follow; which he is so far from asserting, that by the absurdity of it, he proves the erroniousnesse of their opinion whom he doth confute.  
13. The marquis proceeds in his charge against Calvin, saying, He saith that the same vehemency took 
* Rather it should be, took from Christ, etc.  Christ from the 
Obj.  present memory of the heavenly decree; so that he forgot at that instant, that he was sent hither to be our Redeemer.  
This allegation I grant, is true. Calvin on Mat. 26. 39 hath these words indeed; neither will I undertake the defence 
Answ.  of all Calvin's expressions, or opinions: I think it not so safe to ascribe forgetfulness unto Christ, though as Calvin meant it, I do not see that there is any impiety in it. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 14. 33. importing horror, and astonishment, may seem to make for it. However Calvin was careful to inculcate 
Tenendum quidem est, quod nuper dixi, non fuisse turbulentos Christi affectus, qui more nostro ejus animo puram moderationem excuterent, etc. Calv. ad Mat. 26. 39 Ibid. Resp. non posse in hâc naturae nostrae corruptione perspici affectuum fervorem cum temperie qualis in Christo fuit. Vide plura. Et vide Instit. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 12.  this, that he would have none to think that there was any turbulency and disorder in Christ's affections, as there is in ours; but only that Christ was stricken with fear and anxiety so far forth as the sound and entire nature of man can bear.  
14. Calvin is taxed for saying, That Christ's prayer was not 
Obj.  premeditate, but the force and extremity of grief wringed from him this hasty speech, to which a correction was presently added, and he chastiseth, and recalleth that vow of his, which he had let suddenly slip.  
I acknowledge that Calvin hath these words in the same 
Answ.  place, viz. on Mat. 26. 39 neither do I much approve of them: yet, by what hath been said already, it may appear that Calvin's meaning was good, only so to set forth the anxiety of Christ's soul, as yet to exempt him from whatsoever is evil and sinful. Bellarmine himself, though he rake up, and rack calvin's sayings, to 
Dicit (Calvinus) Christi naturam fuisse perfectum, & nullam in eo fuisse passionum inordinationem. Bellar. de Christ. lib. 4. cap. 8.  make them odious, yet confesseth that he saith, that Christ's nature was perfect, and that there was no inordinacy of affections in him. But I will make use of the words of learned Dr. Field, who hath answered these objections against Calvin, long ago.  
The Papists (saith he) impute I know not what blasphemy to Calvin, for that he saith, Christ corrected the desire and wish that 
Dr. Field, of the Church, book 5 chap. 18.  suddenly came from him. But they might easily understand, if they pleased, that he is far from thinking, that any desire, or expressing of desire was sudden in Christ, as rising in him without consent of reason, or that he was inconsiderate in any thing he did or spoke; but his meaning is, that some desires which he expressed, proceeded from inferior reason, that considereth not all circumstances; and that he corrected and revoked the same, not as evil, but as not proceeding from the full and perfect consideration of all things fit to be thought upon, before a full resolution be passed. Another learned man also saith, that Calvin 
Calvinus appellar posteriora haec verba Non siout ego, etc. correctionem, sed eo sensu, quo Rhetores correctionis figurâ uti solent; non quasi aliquod malè effatum emendaret, sed ut quod adhuc effatum non erat, opportunè adderet. Origen. revocans desiderium, & quasi recogitans. Hieron. & Gloss. Interl. revertens in semetipsum. Parker (ni fallor, neque enim nunc mihi liber est ad manum) de descens. Christ. add infer.  calls those words, Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt, a correction, in that sense as Rhetoricians are wont to use the figure so called: not as if he did amend that which was ill spoken, but seasonably to add that which yet was not spoken. And he citys Origen saying, that Christ did in those words recall his desire, and as it were recogitate. So likewise he citys Hierome, and the Interlineary 
Non, inquic, hoc fiat, quod humano affectu loquor, sed propter quod ad terras tuâ voluntate descendl. Hieron. ad Mat. 26. 39  Gloss, saying, that Christ did return into himself. Hierome doth yet further paraphrase thus: He saith, Let not that be, which I speak with a humane affection 
Relinquebat naturam humanam partes suas agere, quemadmodum egisset, si neque cum Divinitate conjuncta fuisset, nec de divino decreto quicquam scivisset.— Apt apposita moderatio: Sic enim naturae infirmitatem oftendit, ut ultra divinae voluntatis terminos non egrediatur. Maldon. ad Mat. 26. 39  but that, for which by thy will I descended to the earth. The Jesuit Maldonate saith, that Christ left the humane nature to act its part, as it would have done, if it had not been joined with the divine nature, nor had known any thing of God's decree. So he writes upon those words, Father, if it be possible, etc. And upon those, Nevertheless not as I will, etc. he saith, A moderation is fitly added: For he so shows the infirmity of nature, that yet he does not exceed the bounds of Gods will. That which Maldonate here calls a moderation, and Hierome calls a returning into himself, and Origen and the Gloss call a recalling of the desire, and a recogitating, is as much as that which Calvin calls a correction.  
15. But the marquis proceeds, and charges Calvin with 
Obj.  these words: Thus we see Christ to be on all sides so vexed, as being over whelmed with desperation, he ceased to call upon God, which was as much as to renounce his salvation: and this (the marquis saith, he saith a little before) was not feigned, or as a thing only acted upon a stage.  
Surely all that have any spark of Christianity in them, 
Answ.  must needs assent to Calvin in this, that Christ's passion, as the Evangelists relate it, was not feigned nor acted upon a stage; though (it seems) 
Nec verò fictc vel theatricè conqueritur se à Patre relictum. Calv. ad Mat. 27. 46.  they of the Church of Rome on Good Friday (as they call it) use to make a kind of Stage-play of it. But how unworthily 
In die Parasceves crucifixus paulatim detegitur, & ostenditur. Bellar. de Imag. Sanctor. lib. 2. cap. 23.  is Calvin here used? He is made to say,- that Christ was overwhelmed with desperation, ceased to call upon 
Sic impios Christi hostes impulit, (nempe Satanas) ut proteruè ejus precationem in risum converterent; volens hoc artificio cum praecipuis armis spoliare. Et certè haec admodum gravis tentatio est, etc. Tantundem igitur valuit haec ironia, vel caninus latratus, ac si negassent Christo quicquam esse negotii cum Deo, quòd Eliam implorans in aliud asylum se conferret. Sic videmus omni ex parte fuisse vexatum, ut desperatione obrutus ab invocando Deo absisteret; quod erat saluti renuntiare. Calvin. ad Mat. 27. 47.  God, and did as much as renounce his salvation. But any that look into the place alleged, may see that Calvin is far from this blasphemy. That which he saith, is this, that the wicked enemies of Christ, by Satan's instigation, deriding him when he cried, Eli, Eli, etc. did labour to overwhelm him with desperation, and to make him cease calling upon God, which had been as much as to renounce salvation.  
As before Calvin was made positively 
Caeterum si hodiè tam conductitii Antichristi rabulae, quam domestiei etiam nebulones, quae à nobis rectè dicta sunt, suis calumniis indignè depravant, ne miremur idem nobis quodcapiti nostrò accidere. Calvin. ibid.  to aver that, which he brought in by way of objection; so here that is censured as spoken by him, which he only speaks of Christ's enemies. But it is worthy to be observed, that immediately after those words, which are so pitifully perverted, Calvin comforts himself and others with this consideration, that if our words, which are right and good, be depraved and slandered, it is no marvel, seeing Christ himself was thus dealt with. But to proceed.  
16. Calvin (as is alleged) saith, That Christ in his soul 
Obj.  suffered the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man.  
This allegation is true, and so also is that, which follows 
Answ.  in the next passage but two, and I note it here, because it is of the same nature. It is no marvel, if it be said that Christ went down into hell, since he suffered that death, wherewith God in wrath striketh wicked doers. Calvin hath these sayings in the place alleged, viz. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 16. sect. 10. I am not 
Serm. on Psal. 16. 10.  of calvin's mind for the meaning of the article about Christ's descent into hell, as I have elsewhere showed. And peradventure Calvin might go too far in exaggerating the sufferings of Christ's soul, as others in this may be too remiss. But when Calvin speaketh of Christ suffering the torments of a damned man, he means such torments as are without all mixture of sin, for that he always removes far from Christ, as I have showed before.  
And that Christ did suffer the torments of a forsaken man, his own words upon the cross do show, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Christ had special cause (as Jansenius observes) to complain, that he was forsaken of his God, in 
Propriâ quâdam ratione Christus se derelictum à Deo suo conqueri potuit, qui cum unitam sibi haberet divinitatem, ejus tamen consolationem in carne non sensit diffusam. Jansen. concord. cap. 143.  that he had the divine nature united to him, and his humane nature did not feel any comfort of it. And in this respect it may be said, that Christ suffered that death, wherewith God in wrath doth strike wicked doers, though in other respects there was great difference.  
17. Calvin is charged with this saying, In the death of 
Obj.  Christ occus a spectacle full of desperation.  
Calvin's meaning will easily appear to any that look upon 
Answ.  his words as they are in the place quoted. He speaks of Joseph of Arimathea 
Nunc dum in Christi morte spectaculum desperationis plenum occurrit, quod etiam viriles animos frangere posset, unde illi repertè tam generosa animositas, ut inter summos tetrores nihil metuens, longiùs quam rebus pacatis progredi nón dubitet? Calv. in Mat. 27. 57  his courage in begging of Pilate Christ's body to bury it, saying, Now when in Christ's death occurs a spectacle full of desperation, which might have been able to break a stout heart, whence hath he on the sudden such a generous spirit, that in the midst of terrors fearing nothing, he should not doubt to proceed further than when all was quiet? Any may here plainly see, that Calvin speaks not of any desperation that Christ in his death did fall into; but his meaning is, that a natural man, yea one that had but a small measure of faith, could have apprehended nothing in Christ's death but matter of desperation. And surely this appears by the words of the two Disciples (not to speak of the deportment of the Apostles) We trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel, Luke 24. 21.  
Another sentence is here immediately after cited out of Calvin, viz. In this spectacle there was nothing but matter of extreme despair. The very words show it to carry the same sense with the former, though otherwise I can say nothing to it, the place from which it is taken being miscited; for on Joh. 14. 6 Calvin hath no such thing.  
18. The marquis taxeth Calvin for saying, Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, holds but a second degree with him in 
Obj.  honour, and rule, and is but his Vicar.  
Calvin on Mat. 26. 64. doth say, That Christ is said to sit at 
Answ.  the right hand of the Father, because he 
Dicitur autem Christus sedere ad dextram Patris, quia summus rex constitutus (qui ejus nomine mundum gubernat) quasi secundam ab eo honoris & imperii sedem obtinet. Sedet ergo Christus ad Patris dextram, quia ejus est Vicarius. Calv. ad Mat. 26. 64  hath as it were after him the second seat of honour and rule; and because he is his Vicar. So that Calvin indeed doth not say, that Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father; but, that Christ as sitting at the right hand of his Father, holds but a second degree, etc. that is, that Christ's sitting at the right hand of God, though it import great honour and dignity, yet such, as whereby Christ is but in a second degree of honour under the Father. And surely this is most true, it belonging unto Christ as man, to sit at the right hand of God, (as the Council of Trents 
Ad explicandum Christi gloriam, quam ut homo prae caeteris omnibus adeptus est, eum in Patris dextrâ esse confitemur. Catechis. Coucil. Trident.  Catechism doth teach) the honour and dignity which that sitting imports, though otherwise it be most great, yet must needs be inferior to that, which belongs to the Father and so also to Christ, as he is one and the same God with the Father.  
19 Lastly (saith the marquis) Calvin holds it absurd, that Christ 
Obj.  should challenge to himself the glory of his own resurrection, when the Scripture every where teacheth it to be the work of the Father.  
It may seem wonderful, that men's words and writings should be thus depraved. Two places of Calvin are cited for proof of this which is alleged against him. Now in the 
Answ  former place, viz. on Joh. 2. 19 he saith thus. Here Christ doth challenge to himself 
Hîc sibi Christus resurrectionis gloriam vendicat, quum tamen Scriptura passim testetu esse opus Dei Patris. Sed haec duo probè inter se conveniunt. Scriptura enim, ut Dei potentiam nobis commendet, Patri hoc disertè adscribit, quòd excitaverit Filium à morte: hîc verò Christus peculiariter Divinitatem suam praedicat. Ac Paulus utrumqut conciliat ad Rom. 8. 11. nam Spiritum; quem facit resurrectionis authorem, promiscuè nunc Christi, nunc Patris Spiritum nominat. Calv. ad Joh. 2. 19  the glory of his resurrection, when as the Scripture usually doth testify that this is the work of God the Father. But these two do well agree together. For the Scripture, to commend unto us God's power, doth expressly ascribe this to the Father, that he raised his Son from the dead: but here Christ peculiarly sets forth his own Divinity. And Paul doth reconcile both, Rom. 8. 11. For the Spirit, which he maketh to be the Author of the resurrection, he promiscuously calls sometimes the Spirit of Christ, sometimes the Spirit of the Father. So also in the other place, viz. on Rom. 8. 11. Surely (saith he) Christ rose 
A selpso certè ac propriâ virtute Christus resurrexit: Sed quemadmodum solet Patri transcribere quicquid in se divinae virtutis est, ita Apostoius non impropriè ad Patrem transtulit quod fuit in Christo maximè proprium opus. Calv. ad Rom. 8. 11.  again of himself, and by his own power: But as he used to transcribe to the Father whatsoever divine power is in him, so the Apostle doth not improperly transfer to the Father that which was Christ's most proper work. Who doth not now see, that Calvin is most far from saying that, which is charged upon him?  
20. But the marquis (notwithstanding the word lastly 
Obj.  did seem to speak as much) hath not yet done with Calvin; but further taxeth him for saying, God is author of all those things, which these Popish Judges would have to happen by his idle sufferance.  
Calvin in the place cited, not barely saith that it is so, 
Answ.  but saith that he hath plainly showed by Scripture that it is so. And therefore 
Et jam satis apertè ostendi, Deum vocari eorum omnium authorem, quae isti censores volunt otioso tantùm ejus permissu contingere. Calv. Instit. l. 1. c. 18. s. 3.  it had been meet that calvin's proofs should have been examined, before his doctrine were condemned. Calvin abhors that position, that God is the author of sin; as may be seen in the very next Section to that which the marquis citeth: Yet he proveth by many places of Scripture, that God doth not only permit those things wherein men sin, but also in some respect is the author of them: As for example, that God was the author of Shimei's cursing; not as it was his sin, but as it was David's affliction. So David acknowledged, saying, The LORD hath said unto him, curse David, 2 Sam. 16. 10. And again, v. 11. The LORD hath bidden him.  
21. The next and last charge against Calvin, is little or 
Obj.  nothing different from that immediately preceding, viz. that he saith, Our sins are not only by God's 
* It is misprinted, commission.  permission, but by his decree and will.  
The marquis speaks of calvin's famous brethren condemning this blasphemy. But they, whom he mentioneth, 
Answ.  are (I think) all Lutherans, and so ready to make the worst they can of any thing that they find in Calvin. But whereas in the conclusion he saith, What Scriptures or Fathers is there for all this? Surely Calvin hath alleged many Scriptures for that which he asserteth; which it 
Quòd aurem nihil efficiant homines nisi arcano Dei nutu, etc. innumeris & claris testimoniis probatur, Calv. Inst. l. 1. c. 18. sect. 1. Non male alicubi Augustinus ita definite, quòd ipsi peccant, eorum esse; quod peccando hoc vel illud agant, ex virtute Dei esse, tenebras prout visum est dividentis. Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 4. sect. 4.  had been meet to take some notice of, as I have said before. He also citys Austin determining thus, That men sin, it is of themselves; but that by sinning they do this or that, it is by the power of God, who divideth the darkness as he pleaseth.  
And thus have I also answered those things that are in point of Doctrine objected against Calvin.  
After Calvin the marquis deals with Zuinglius, and objects 
Os Zuinglius his Doctrine  divers things against his Doctrine.  
1. Zuinglius (saith the marquis) confesseth himself to have 
Obj.  been instructed against the Mass, by a certain admonisher, which he 
Page. 184. etc.  knew not, whether it was black or white.  
It is true, Zuinglius relates, how having disputed with a 
Answ.  Scribe about the meaning of those words, This is my body; and having been 
Visus sum mihi in somno, multo cum taedîo demio contendere cum adversario Scriba, etc. (nihil altius quam somnium na●●amus, quod ad nos attinet, tamet si leve non est, quod per somnium didicimus, gratia Deo, etc.) Ibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visus est monitor ades●e (after fuerit, an albus, nihil memini; somnium enim narro.) qui diceret, Qoin igna●e, respondes ei, quod Exo. 12. scribitur, Est enim Phase, h. e. transitus Domini. Protinus ut hoc phaslna visum est, simul experg●●●o, &c Zuingl. tom. 2. sol. 249.  urged to produce some place, which is not a parable, where the word is doth import as much as signifieth, lie was much troubled about it in his sleep, and thought that one (whether black or white, he could not remember) stood by him, and bade him allege that in Exod. 12. 11. It is the Lords Passeover. Whereupon he awaked, and rose, and considered the place, and presently after preached upon it, so that such as did a little stick before, were fully satisfied.  
Now though Mr. Breerley, and after him the marquis 
Breerl. Apol. tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdivis. 2.  make a great matter of this, and say that is derided by learned Protestants (they cite some Lutherans, as great adversaries to Zuinglius in the matter of the Sacrament, as the Papists are) yet I see nothing in it that is liable to any just exception. For it is usual with men to be troubled in their sleep about that wherein they have been busied before; and sometimes it happens, that in their sleep that is represented unto them, which before with all their study they could not find out. As Austin somewhere (I do not now remember the place, but I have read it in him) tells of one that taught Rhetoric, and being troubled about the meaning of something that he met with, and was to treat of to his Scholars, in his sleep he thought that Austin did explain it unto him. But that which here they take hold of, perhaps is this, that Zuinglius saith, he did not know whether his admonisher were black or white; they seem to understand this so, as if he knew not whether that admonisher were an evil, or a good spirit. But if they so take it, they bewray too much ignorance of the Latin tongue, wherein it is usual, and indeed 
Albus an after sis, nescio. Solet dici de homine vehementer ignoto. Eras. Adag. cent. 6. adag. 99  a proverbial speech to say, I know not whether he be black or white; that is, he is one altogether unknown unto me. Erasmus in his Adages sufficiently shows this to be the meaning of the words, and citys Cicero, Quintilian, Apuleius, Hierome, using them in this sense.  
2. The marquis saith that Zuinglius is taxed by Calvin for depraving the Scripture, for changing the word est, and putting in 
Obj.  significat, in his Translation of the New Testament.  
But the marquis doth not tell us, where Calvin doth 
Answ.  thus tax Zuinglius; and I suspect that there is some mistake in that word Calvin, and that it should be some other name.  
3. He chargeth Zuinglius with saying, that these sayings, and the like, If thou wilt enter into life, keep 
Obj.  the Commandments, etc. are superfluous, and hyperbolical.  
But in the place alleged, viz. Tom. 1. Fol. 137. 
Answ.  Zuinglius hath no such matter, there is no mention made of those words, If thou wilt enter into life, etc.  
4. Zuinglius is taxed for saying, that Original sin 
Obj.  
* It is misprinted can damn us.  cannot damn us; calling it but a disease, or contagion.  
It is true, Zuinglius saith, that Original sin is a disease, but 
Answ.  such an one as of itself is not capable, 
Unde colligimus, peccatum originale morbum quidem esse, qui tamen per se culpabilis non est, nec damnationis poenam inferre potest, etc. donec homo contagione hâc corruptus Legem Dei transgreditur, quod tum demum fieri consuevit, cum Legem sibi positam videt, & intelligit. Zuingl. de Bap. tom. 2 fol. 90.  nor can infer damnation, except a man being corrupted with this contagion transgress the Law of God, which then useth to happen, when he sees and understands the Law given unto him. And in this I plead not for Zuinglius, I confess he erred, and is worthy to be taxed. But I do not know any Protestants that do second 
Some endeavour to excuse Zuinglius in this, but I see not how he can be excused.  him in this; I speak not of Socinians, Arminians, etc. but such as are otherwise sound and orthodox. Neither should the Romanists here so much tax Zuinglius, seeing they hold that Concupiscence after Baptism, though it remain the same that it was before, is in itself properly no sin, but 

Bellar. de amiss. great. & stat. peccat. lib. 5. cap. 7.  
Bellar. de great. primi hom. cap. 5.   is only called sin, because it proceeds from sin, and inclines unto sin. Yea they hold, that had man been created (as they suppose he might have been) in his pure naturals, that is, in a mere natural condition, not having any supernatural grace superadded to his nature, he should have had the same concupiscence, which now he hath in the state of corrupt nature. The state of man since the fall of Adam (they say) doth not 
Quarè non magis differt status hominis post lapsum Adae à statu ejusdem in puris naturalibus, quam differt spoliatus à nudo.— Proinde corruptio naturae non ex alicujus doni naturalis carentiâ, neque ex alicujus malae qualitatis accessu, sed ex solâ doni supernaturalis ob Adae peccatum amissione perfluxit. Bell. ibid.  differ more from the state of man in his pure naturals, than one that is stripped of his clothes differs from one that is naked, having never had clothes. And therefore (they say) the corruption of man's nature doth not proceed from the want of any natural gift, nor from the access of any evil quality, etc. It's true, some of the Romish writers are of another opinion; but Bellarmine 
Bell. ibid.  shows that the most of them hold thus; yea he alleadges, that this is the determination of two Popes, and that therefore all aught to hold it.  
5. Zuinglius is said to make baptising of Infants a thing indifferent, which may be used or left off. 
Obj.   
Zuinglius complains of the Catabaptists in his time, for keeping such a stir because children were baptised, 
Answ.  saying, 

Num tanti momenti res haec est, ut tantas turbas & dissidia propter hanc excitare conveniat, etiamsi par vulorum haptismus nullis, omnino Scripturarum testimoniis inniteretur? externum quiddam est, & ceremoniale, quo ut aliis rebus exter●is, ecclesin dignè & honestè uti potest, veliidem hoc omittere, & rite tollere, quatenus ipsi ad aedificationem & salutem omnium facere videtur. Zuingl. de Baptis. tom. 2. fol. 96.  
Baptismum in Circumcisionis locum successisse, abundè satis demonstratum est. Zuingl. ibid. fol. 95.  
Prohibere ne baptismi signum infantes accipiant, quid aliud est, quam eosdem à Christo repellere? Ibid. fol. 86.   That the matter was not of such moment, as that there should be so much stir about it, though there were no testimonies at all to prove it. It is (he saith) an external thing, and ceremonial, which as other external things, the Church may lawfully either use, or omit, as she sees it make for edification and salvation. Here Zuinglius seems only to mean thus much, that the Church for avoiding of tumults and combustions, may for a while forbear the administration of Pedobaptisme. Yet Zuinglius was far from holding the baptising of children to be a thing indifferent: For he saith, that it succeeded in the room of Circumcision; And that to hinder children from receiving Baptism, is as much as to repel them from Christ.  
6. Zuinglius is censured for saying, That Princes may be 
Obj.  deposed by the godly, if they be wicked, and go contrary to the rule of Christ.  
I grant that Zuinglius hath words to this purpose. But 
Answ.  (as a learned Writer observes) Zuinglius living in a Republic, did not sufficiently 
Idex toto illo tractatu constat, Zuinglium in eâ sententia fuisse, regna omnia esse electiva, nulla proprie successiva, & haereditaria; in quo non negamus eum errasse in facto, ut loquintut; contrarium enim nobis certum est: sed vivebat ille in republicâ, in quâ regnonorum jura non satis expenderat. Hoc igitur posito fundamento, existimavit eos, ad quos jus electionis pertinebar, illud sibi etiam reservasse, ut si Rex vel Princeps electus, non staret juramento suo, sed rempub. pessum ire sineret & tyrannicè gubernaret, tum etiam possent talem Principem deponere, etc.— Quid mirum si ita senserit Helvetius, etc. Rivet. Jes. vap. cap. 13. sect. 8.  consider the Laws and rights of Kingdoms. He thought that all Kingdoms were elective, none successive and hereditary, which was his error. And hereupon, that they, to whom belonged the right of election, did reserve this power to themselves, that if the King did not keep his oath, but did rule tyrannically; they might depose him. Zuinglius also (in the place cited by the marquis) hath these words, (which also the forementioned Author doth relate) Non est quèd eum trucides, nec ut bellum & tumultum quis excitet, sed aliis viis res tenianda; quia in pace vocavit nos Deus, 1 Cor. 7. that is, Thou must not kill him, nor must any raise war or tumult, but the matter must be attempted some other way; for God hath called us in peace, 1 Cor. 7. Concerning Zuinglius his opinion in this point, see likewise B. Bilson in his book entitled, The true difference betwixt Christian subjection, and Antichristian rebellion, pag. 513, etc. But when the Romanists tax Zuinglius, and so other Protestant writers for stitch doctrine, what do they else but verify that of the Poet, Clodius accusat moechos, Catalina Cethegum? What do they else but tax others for that, wherein themselves are most fatilty? See B. Bills. ibid. p. 425, etc. & Rivet. Jes. vap. cap. 12.  
7. In the last place, Zuinglius is charged with this saying, 
Obj.  That when we commit adultery, or murder, it is the work of God, being the mover, the author, or inciter, etc. God inoveth the thief to kill, etc. he is foreed to sin, etc.  
That learned Protestant, viz. Graweras, by whom (the marquis saith) Zuinglius is reprehended for this, was a 
Answ.  Lutheran, and so as ready to reprehend any thing in Zuinglius as they of the Church of Rome are. But let Zuinglius speak for himself. The Law 
Cum lex homini est data, semper peccat, cum contra legem facit, quamvis nec sit, nec vivat, nec operetur nisi in Deo, ex Deo, & per Deum. Sed quod Deus operatur per hominem, homini vitio vertitur, non etiam Deo: hic enim sub lege est, lile liber, etc. Unum igitur atque idem facinu●, puta adulterium aut homicidium, quantum Dei authoris, motoris, ac impulsoris opus est, crimen non est; quantum autem hominis est, crimen ac foelus est. Ille enim lege non tenetur, hic autem lege etiam damnatur. Zuing. de Provide. tom. 1. fol. 365.  (saith he) being given unto man, he always sins, when he doth any thing against the Law; although he neither is, nor lives, nor works, but in God, from God, and by God. But that which God worketh by man, is reckoned as a fault in man, but not in God. For man is under a law, but God is free, etc. Therefore one and the same act, to wit, adultery or murder, as it is of God the author, mover and inciter, so it is no crime: but as it is of man, so it is a crime and a wickedness. For God is not bound by any law; but man is even condemned by the Law. Here Zuinglius teacheth no other doctrine then (as I have showed before) Aquinas doth, and no learned Romanist (I am sure) will gainsay, viz. that God is the author of that which is sin in man, as adultery, or murder; yet not as it is sin, viz. an irregularity and swerving from the Law, but only as it is an action, and hath some entity or being in it. Whereas he speaks of Gods forcing man 
Permitto coactum esse, etc. Zuing. ibid. p. 366.  to sin, though I do not like the expression, yet it is but like to that which Bellarmine (whose words I cited before) useth, when he saith that God doth bend and wrest the wills of wicked men. The meaning of them both, I suppose, is, that God by his overruling providence doth so order it, that though (as was also cited before out of Austin) men do wickedly of themselves, yet he maketh them to do this rather than that, as he pleaseth.  
The marquis now comes to Melancthon, and his doctrine. 
Of Melancthons' Doctrine.  And 1. he chargeth him with teaching, that there are three Divinities, as there are three Persons. 
Pag. 85.   
Stancarus, whom the marquis citys as reprehending 
Obj.  Melancthon for this, was Melancthons' adversary, and therefore 
Answ.  his testimony in this case is of no weight. But the marquis also citys Melancthons' Common-Places, an. 1545. Now in Melancthons' Works set forth in four Volumes at Wittemberge, an. 1580. in the Index of the Books contained in the first Volume, the last Edition 
Locorum Theologicorum postrema Editio absoluta anno 1545.  of those Common-Places is said to have been in the year 1545. though afterwards where the Common-Places 
Locorum Theologicorum postremn Editio absoluta Wittembergae anno 1543.  themselves are exhibited, the last Editidition of them is said to have been an. 1543. But thus it seems the last Edition was at least an. 1545. if not before. Now it is not probable, that if such a gross error had slipped from Melancthon, in his Common-Places, it would have been in the last Edition of them. However, I find no such thing in them, as is alleged, but the quite contrary, viz. Una est aeterna Essentia divina; that is, There is one eternal divine Essence. And again, Sunt tres Personae Divinitatis, that is, There are three Persons of the Divinity. So that Melancthon doth acknowledge but one Divinity, though three Divine Persons.  
2. The marquis saith, That he affirms Polygamy not 
Obj.  to be against Jus divinum, and adviseth Hen. 8. to it.  
I find no such piece among Melancthons' Works, as Concil. 
Answ.  Theol. which the marquis citeth to make good this accusation. But I find Examen Theologicum, 
Vidimus etiam multos, qui usitatas leges connubiorum ideò negligebant, quod leguntur dissimilia veterum exempla de polygamiâ, & de conjugiis Jacobi, qui duas sorores duxit. Non est autem exemplis, sed legibus judicandum, & in hâc tantâ re considerentur praecepta divina. Certissimum est, legem conjugii primam ita sancitam esse, ut unius maris, & unius foeminae conjunctio esset.— Filius Dei nos ad primam institutionem retrahit, etc. Melancth. tom. 1 fol. 339.  and in it the contrary to this, which Melancthon is here charged with. We have seen many (saith he) who did neglect the usual Laws of Marriages, because we read how of old they had many wives, and Jacob married two sisters. But we must judge not by examples, but by Laws; and in a matter of such moment as this, let God's precepts be considered. It is most certain, that the first Law of Marriage was so established, that one man, and one woman should be joined together.— The Son of God doth draw us back to the first institution, etc.  
3. He is said to teach peremptory resistance against Magistrates; 
Obj.  and to enable the inferior Magistrate to alter Religion against the contrary Edicts of the Superior.  
For the latter part of this charge the marquis citeth 
Answ.  Concil. Theol. which book I find not (as I said) amongst Melancthons' Works. For the former part, he citeth Melancthon on Rom. 13. but in that place there is not a syllable (that I can see) whereby it may appear, that Melancthon teacheth any resistance against the Magistrate. All that I find is, that he teacheth Magistracy to be of God, and answereth the arguments of the Anabaptists against it.  
Here the marquis adds, So Calvin, so Beza, so Goodman, so Danaeus, so Knox, etc. all hold it lawful to depose, murder, or to arraign their Prince, etc. But where these Authors, either all or any of them do hold thus, he showeth not, he doth not so much as point at any of their writings where such doctrine may be found. I know that some of these Authors here mentioned, are charged in this kind by Romish Writers; but withal I know that the charges brought against them are answered. See Rivet. Jes. Vap. cap. 13. §. 9 10, 11. Bills. of Christ, subject. Page 509. etc. The former of these answers to what is alleged against Calvin; the latter, to what is alleged both against him, and against Beza, Goodman, and Knox. But some of the Authors, whom the marquis here citeth, as being of this opinion concerning Magistrates, he was much mistaken in, viz. Bancroft, who did declare himself 
To this purpose doth the marquis himself cite Mr. Bancroft, page 203.  so much the other way, that he taxed some of these here mentioned by the marquis, as being not respective enough of the honour due to Magistrates. His book I have read, though now I have it not; nor do I perfectly remember the title of it. I think also that there is the like mistake concerning Sutcliffe, whom the marquis also joineth with the 1▪ ●st; I think that he also was so far from teaching such doctrine, that he did rather tax those, who did but seem to teach it. But I am not so well assured of him, as of the other.  
After Melancthon the marquis speaketh of Andraeas' Musculus, 
Of Andraeas' Musculus his doctrine.  who (he saith) was not afraid openly to teach, that the Divine nature of Christ died upon the Cross with his humane nature. 
Page 86.   
Wolfangus Musculus is an Author well known; but Andraeas' Musculus, I confess, I have not heard of before, so far am I 
Answ.  from being able to say what he holdeth: but if he hold, as the marquis here allegeth, I shall be as ready to explode and abhor his opinion, as any other.  
In the next place the marquis speaketh of the divisions 
Pag. 86. etc.  of Protestants, which (I confess) have been, and are too 
The divisions of Protestants.  great; though divers of the Sects which he mentioneth, I do not know that ever I read of before. But what if Protestants differ among themselves, and so must needs some of them be in error? Yet may they for all this be in the truth so far forth as they all agree, and consequently so far forth as they descent from the Church of Rome. There were many Sects among the Jews, as Pharisees, Sadduces, and Herodians, spoken of in Scripture, and the Essenes' mentioned by Josephus. These differing one from another, must certainly some of them err; yet as they agreed together in opposing Paganism, they were all right.  
Whilst the Catholics (saith the marquis) have no jars, no differences uncomposed, having one common Father, one Conductor 
Page 87.  and Adviser, as Sir Edw. Sands confesseth.  
The Authors book, which the marquis citeth, I have, 
Answ.  but not so distinguished as that which he referreth unto, and therefore I cannot find the words which he allegeth. But seeing mention is made of this book, I think it meet here to insert some things out of it, that so the Reader may perceive what manner of unity and agreement it is that is amongst them of the Church of Rome. But now (saith that worthy Author) to come to the view of their Ecclesiastical government, 
Sir Edward Sand's Europae Spec. p. 23. etc.  not so much as it is referred to the conduct of souls, though that be the natural and proper end of that regiment, but rather as it is addressed to the upholding of the worldly power and glory of their 
Of the unity that is in the Church of Rome.  order, to the advancing of their part, and overthrow of their opposites, which I suppose be the points they now chiefly respect; I think, I may truly say, there was never yet State framed by man's wit in this world more powerful and forcible to work those effects; never any either more wisely contrived, and plotted, or more constantly and diligently put in practice and execution: insomuch that but for the natural weakness, and untruth, and dishonesty, which being rotten at the heart abate the force of whatsoever is founded thereon, their outward means were sufficient to subdue a whole world.— In their art they have certain head-assertions, which as indemonstrable principles they urge all to receive and hold, As, That they are the Church of God, within which great facility, and without which no possibility of salvation. That divine Prerogative gramed to them above all other Societies in the world, doth preserve them everlastingly from erring in matter of faith, and from falling from God: That the Pope Christ's deputy, hath the keys of heaven in his custody, etc. In these 〈◊〉 no doubt or question is tolerable; and who so join with them in these, shall find great connivance in what other defect or difference soever, etc. And by this plot they have erected in the world a Monarchy more potent than ever any that hath been before it, etc. And afterward, To what a miserable push (saith he) have they driven the world, either in their pleading against them with such force of evidence, 
Page 202. & 203.  or in their learning of them, and joining with them, as to stop the month of the one, and hang the faith of the other on this 〈◊〉 paradox, I and my Church cannot possibly err, and this must you take upon our own words to be true. For as for their conjectural evidence out of the Scripture, there seems to be as much, or more for the King of Spain's not erring, as there is for the Popes; it being said by the wisest, that the heart of the King is in the hands of God; a divine sentence is in his lips, and his mouth shall not transgress in judgement. And a little after: Although it were perhaps not untruly said by a great Clerk of their own, that the Popes not erring was but 
Page 204. & 205.  an opinion of policy, and not of Theology; to give stay to the Laity, not stop to the Divines, of whom in such infinite controversies and jarrings (NB) about interpretations of Texts, and conclusions of Science, wherein many have spent a large part of their lives, never any yet went, neither at this day doth go to be resolved by the Pope, as knowing it to be true, which their own Law delivereth, that in holiness any old woman, in knowledge many a Friar might outgo the Pope, but in power and authority the whole world was under him; yet at this day they do so generally cling to him, and draw by his line (as having no hope either of standing against their opposites, but only by him, or of unity among themselves, but only in him) that touch him, and touch them, etc. And elsewhere in the same book, It is a 
Page 114. etc.  wonderful thing (saith he) to see what curious order and diligence they use to suffer nothing to be done, or spring up among themselves; which may any way give footing to the Religion which they so much hate. And first for the Scriptures, for as much as the Reformation seems grounded upon them, etc. though as well to beat back the irksome out-cries of their adversaries, as also to give some satisfaction to their own, that they might not think them so terribly afraid of the Bible, they were content to let it be translated by some of their favourers into the vulgar, as also some number of Copies to be saleable a while at the beginning; yet since having husbed that former clamour, and made better provision for the establishing of their Kingdom, they have called all vulgar Bibles straight in again (yea the very Psalms of David, which their famous Preacher B. Panigarola translated) as doubting else the unavoidableness of those former inconveniences.— Neither yet in their very Sermons, though they preach always in a manner on the Gospel of the day, do they read, or any other ways recite the Text, but discourse only on such points of it as they think fittest, without more solemnity, that no sound of Scripture may possess the people; although the use in France be otherwise for that matter. Yea some parts of Scripture, as S. Paul's Epistles, they are so jealous of, and think so dangerous, that by report of divers (for myself did not hear it) some of their Jesuits of late in Italy in solemn Sermon, and other their favourites elsewhere in private communication, commending between them S. Peter for a worthy 
Paul, and his writings censured by the Jesuits, and others of the Church of Rome.  spirit, have censured S. Paul for a hotheaded person, who was transported so with his pangs of zeal and eagerness beyond all compass in sundry his disputes, that there was no great reckoning to be made of his assertions; yea he was dangerous to read, as savouring of heresy in some places, and better he had not written of those matters at all. Agreeable to which I have heard other of their Catholics deliver, that it hath been heretofore very seriously consulted among them, to have censured by some means, and reform the writings of S. Paul; though for mine own part I must profess I can hardly believe this, as being an attempt too too abominable and blasphemous, and for these times too desperate a scandal. But howsoever, he of all others is least beholding to them, whom, of mine own knowledge and hearing, some of them teach in the Pulpit not to have been secure of his preaching, but by conference with St. Peter, and other of the Apostles; nor that he durst publish his Epistles till they had allowed them.— And as in the foundation of the Reformation, which is the Scripture, so much more in the edifice itself, the doctrine and opinions, they beat away all sound and echo of them, being not lawful there to allege them, no not to glance at them, not to argue & dispute of them, no not to refute them. In ordinary communication to talk of matter of Religion, is 
Reasoning about matter of Religion not suffered in the Church of Rome, nor scarce to talk of it.  odious and suspicious; but to enter into any reasoning, though but for argument sake without other scandal, is prohibited and dangerous. Yea it was once my fortune to be half threatened for no other fault then for debating with a Jew, and upholding the truth of Christianity against him: so unlawful are all disputes of Religion whatsoever. And their Friars even in France, in their endeavours to convert others, will say it is lawful to persuade them, but not so to dispute with them. But in Italy this is much more exactly observed, etc. — But the most strange thing, as to me it seemed of all other, is, that those principal Writers, who have employed themselves wholly in refuting from point to point the Protestants doctrine and arguments, are so rare in Italy, as by ordinary enquiry, I believe, not to be found. The controversies of 
Bellarmine and such like Writers scarce to be found in Italy.  Cardinal Bellarmine I sought for in Venice in alplaces. Neither that, nor Gregory of Valentia, nor any of su●● quality could I ever in any Shop of Italy set eye on; but in instead of them an infinite number of mere invectives and declamations: which made me entertain this suspicious conjecture, that it might be their care that no part of the Protestants positions and allegations should be known, they were so exact, as to make discurrent in some sort even those very books, which were constrained to recite them, that they might refute them, etc. By these and other passages in that book, which the marquis was pleased to cite, we may see what a politic, indeed, yet withal a poor and pitiful Unity that is, which is amongst them of the Church of Rome, though the marquis here (as also before about the beginning of his Reply) doth so boast of it.  
But the marquis begins again to fall upon Protestant 
Page 87, etc.  writers, and to inveigh against them, as guilty of strange and unheard of blasphemies, vileness and wickedness. And as if the testimonies which he allegeth for proof hereof, were not to be doubted of, he saith, that they are the testimonies of Protestants themselves, and not of any of the Church of Rome. But the most of his testimonies are those of Luther and his followers, concerning Zuinglius and those that joined with him; or the testimonies of these concerning the other. Now these being adversaries one to the other, as the Romanists are to them both, the testimonies of the one against the other are to be accounted no more valid, then if the testimonies of the Romanists had been alleged against them. Mr: Breerley premonisheth him, that shall undertake to answer his Apology, to forbear to urge the testimonies 
In his Advertisement.  of such, as persisted professed enemies to the Roman Sea, and also of those, who, though but for a time, did stand in some opposition against it. Yet himself (and from him the marquis) usually doth urge the testimonies of those, who were professed adversaries to them, against whom they are urged. But waving those particulars which are founded upon such testimonies (as indeed the most are) there are some other, to which I shall endeavour to give answer.  
1. It is objected, That Luther was taught by the Devil, that 
Of Luther's conference with the Devil.  the Mass was naught; and overcome with the Devils reasons, he abolished it.  
Ans. It is true, Luther himself doth at large relate, how 
Luth. de Missprivat. & unct. sacerdot. tom. 7. fol. 228, etc.  that about midnight when he awaked, the Devil did dispute with him, and convince him, that the Mass, which for many years he had celebrated, was evil and unlawful, as being most repugnant to Christ's institution. This many of the Romish writers upbraid him with, as if the Mass must needs therefore be good, because the Devil did plead against it, & Protestants make use of those very arguments which the Devil did urge in his dispute with Luther. But though the Devil be a liar, and hath always some evil and false end at which he aims, yet the thing itself which he saith is not always false. For he confessed Christ to be the Son of God, Mat. 8. 29. and Paul and his companions to be the servants of the most high God, which did show the way of salvation, Act. 16. 17. Neither do I see any reason, why Luther might not come to see his error, and to correct it, by the Devils dispute with him, though the Devil intended no such matter; as well as Monica, Austin's mother, came to see her vice and to abandon 
Aug. Confess. lib. 9 cap. 8.  it, by being upbraided with it by one, whose intent was nothing less than to work such an effect upon her. Mr. Breerley will not admit, that the Devil in that dispute did seek to drive Luther to despair: But Luther, whom any indifferent man will rather believe in this case, did judge otherwise of it. It is true (saith 
Verum quidem est, quòd mendax sit (sc. diabolus) sed ejus mendacia non sunt simplicis artficis, sed longè callidiora & instructiora ad fallendum, quam humanus animus assequi possit. Ipse sic adoritur, ut apprehendat aliquam, & solidam veritatem, quae negari non potest, atque eam adeò callidè & astutè urget & acuit, adeò speciose fucat suum mendacium, ut fallat vel cautissimos. Uti cogitatio illa, quae Judae cor percussit, vera erat, Tradidi sanguinem justum: hoc Judas negare non poterat. Sed hoc erat mendacium, Ergo est desper andum de gratia Dei. Et tamen diabolus hoc mendacium, hanc cogitationem tam violenter ursit, ut Judas eam vincere non posset, sed desperaret. Proinde, bone frater, domine Papista, non mentitur Satan, quando accusat, aut urget magnitudinem peccati, etc. Sed ibi mentitur Satan, quando ultra urget, ut desperem de gratia, etc. Confessus quidem sum (lege Dei convictus) coram diabolo, me peccasse, me damnatum esse, ut Judam. Sed verto me ad Christum cum Petro, etc. Luth. loc. citat. fol. 230.  he) the Devil is a liar, but an artificial liar; his lies are more cunning and crafty, than man is able to imagine. He lays hold on some clear truth that cannot be denied, and doth urge it so subtly, and doth so varnish his lie, as to deceive even those that are most wary. As that thought which he put into Judas, was true, I have betrayed innocent blood: this Judas could not deny. But this was a lie; Therefore I must despair of God's mercy. Yet did the Devil bring him to this. Therefore when the Devil doth urge the greatness of sin, he doth not lie: but herein he lieth, that he would make me to despair of God's grace. I confessed (being convinced by the law of God) before the Devil, that I sinned; but with. Peter I turn me unto Christ, etc. This plainly shows, what (in Luther's judgement) the Devil did aim at, though he failed in his design. Neither is this answer impertinent, as Mr. Breerley also doth pretend, as may sufficiently appear by what I have said before. It makes nothing (he saith) to prove that the Devil therefore did not instruct Luther against the 
Breerl. Apol. pag. 741.  Mass. But what if Luther were convinced of his error by those arguments, which the Devil urged against him, only to drive him to despair? This doth but set forth the wisdom and goodness of God, in making use of the malice of the Devil for the good of those whom he loveth. As Austin observeth in the reformation, which God wrought in his Mother, when she 
Quid tunc egisti Deus meus? Unde curasti? Unde sanasti? Nun protulisti durum & acutum ex alterâ animâ convitium, tanquam medicinale ferrum, ex occultis provisionibus tuis, & uno ictu putredinem illam praecidisti? Illa enim irata, exagitare appetivit minorem dominam, non sanare, etc. At tu Domine rector coelitum & terrenorum, ad usus tuos contorquens profunda torrentis, fluxum seculorum ordinans turbulentum, etiam de alterius animae in saniâ sanasti alteram. Aug. Confess. lib. 9 cap. 8.  was a young girl, by the means of a maid that falling out with her, cast her in the teeth with her wine-bibbing, thinking only to reproach and vex her; but God by the distemper of the one did work a cure upon the other.  
From Luther the Marquis passeth to Zuinglius, saying, that 
Pag. 88  Gualterus calls him the author of war, the disturber of peace, proud and cruel: and instances in his strange attempts against the Tigurines his fellows, whom he forced by want and famine to follow his Doctrine, and that he died in armour, and in the war.  
When I only looked upon the place, as cited by the Marquis, 
Answ.  viz. In Apolog. pro Zuing. I could not but admire, 
Zuinglius vindicated.  that Gualterus in his Apology for Zuinglius should write thus of him: But examining the truth of the Quotation, I am much more filled with admiration. For Gaulterus is made to charge Zuinglius 
Hîc ergò nonnullorum infirmitate abusa adversariorum improbitas, Zuinglium iniquissimum belli authorem, & violentum pacis publicae turbatorem fingit, etc. Duo itaque hîc nobis agenda veniunt: primum quòd Zuinglius nec belli author fuerit, nec violento gladio immanis & barbari militis instar, in aciem & pugnam eruperit: alterum, quòd non ideo vel miser, vel mendax, & blasphemus dici possit, quòd eo mortis genere sublatus fit.— Licet his & communem patriae morem addere, quae non abs re militiis pro patria susceptis, verbi & rerum sacraru● ministros adhibere solet.— Pug●ae non ut belli imperator, vel antesignanus, sed ut Pastor pro more gentis, & civis fidelis, Zuinglius interfuit.— Obiit certè in bello Zuinglius, & armatus obiit: sed bonus civis, & fidelis pastor suis periclitantibus deesse, nec gregem suum pereuntem deserere potuit. Gualt. Apol. pro Zuingl.  with these things, which he doth purposely and professedly clear him of, complaining of those that do charge him with them. He shows that Zuinglius was not the author of that war, which was betwixt the Tigurines and their neighbours. It was the fashion (he saith) among the Tigurines, when they went to war in behalf of their country, to have their Ministers along with them. And so Zuinglius went out to battle, and died in it, and that armed; yet not either as chief Commander, or Ensign-bearer, but only as a good Citizen, and faithful Pastor, who might not leave his people in such an exigence. And whereas the Marquis speaks of Gualterus his instancing in Zuinglius his strange attempts against the Tigurines, etc. it was a great oversight in him: For Gualterus only taxeth them, who say, Zuinglius Tigurinis novi & exquisitifacinoris contra socios audendi author fuerit, ut videl. victus inopiâ & famis necessitate eos in suas partes concedere cogeret, etc. that is, That Zuinglius caused the Tigurines to attempt a strange enterprise against their companions, (other Helvetians that were their confederates) so as by want and famine to force them to join with them, etc. Thus all this great charge brought against Zuinglius, is built merely upon mistakes.  
The next that the marquis falls upon, is Beza, upon whom is cast a most foul asperfion, That in his Epigrams he 
Page 89.  hath Verses concerning his Boy Andebert, and his Wench Candida; and that having debated at large which sin is to be preferred, he chooseth the Boy at last.  
Answ. If Beza had indeed sometime been guilty of this 
Beza vindicated.  vile enormity which is feigned of him, what could any justly infer from hence, but that the grace of God did eminently appear in that change which afterwards was wrought in him? The Apostle having spoken of such as are guilty of gross sins, and among the rest of this here charged upon Beza, saith to the Corinthians, And such were some of you, but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, I Cor. 6. II. But it can never be proved that Beza was guilty of such wickedness, though divers both Romanists and Lutherans have charged him with it. Beza hath made answer for himself. I. He confesseth 
Poeticos meos lusus, quum ut res seriò dictas & scriptas interpretaris, quis te judex ae quus audiat? Beza Apol. 2. ad Claud. de. Saints.  that in his younger years he had exercised his Poetical faculty by composing amatorious Verses: but, he saith, it is no equal dealing, that what he did in 
Cur, publico scripto à me abdicatos faetus aboleri non sinis? Beza ibid.  sport, should be interpreted as done in earnest. 2. He professeth, that he had by a public writing rejected and disavowed 
Et quaenam, illa est Candida? Uxor mea scilicet, quam in meis versiculis, praegnantem super is commendo, quum uxor mea nunquam etiam pepererit. Beza, ibid.  those Verses; and complaineth of his adversaries, who would not suffer them to be abolished. 3. He showeth that this Candida spoken of in his Epigrams, is but a feigned name. 4. That 
Quid, quum usque eò proveheris, ut meam cum honestissimo viro, & jam tum in Senatu Parisiensi advocato, quem vocant, nunc verò in civitate Aureliensi magnâ cum dignitate versanti, amioitiam & familiaritatem summam ad nefarium & execrandum illud scelus transferas, etc. quis teipsum vir honestus non execretur? Beza ibid.  Andebert, who is also mentioned in those Epigrams, was a man of known integrity, and of great dignity in France; and that therefore an odious thing it was, so to pervert that great friendship and familiarity which he had with him, as to turn it into that execrable filthiness not to be named. Mr. Breerley, who sets down a great 
Breerl. Apol. pag. 583, etc.  many of those Verses, which the marquis doth but point at, takes upon him to refel that which some others answer in the behalf of Beza, but never takes notice of this which Beza hath said in his own behalf.  
But the marquis returns to Luther; and besides other things which he objects against him, but proves only by the 
Page 90.  testimony of his adversaries, or by such pieces of Luther's own Works as I have not liberty to peruse, he taxeth him for giving such opprobrious terms to King Henry 8.  
Ans. It is true, K. Hen. 8. having written (or at least some other in his name) against Luther and his Doctrine, Luther 
Of Luther's writing against K. Hen. 8.  did return answer so as to show but small respect to the person against whom he wrote. But afterwards Luther, in an Epistle which he wrote to the King, confessed his fault, humbly craving 
Mihi conscius maximè sum gravissimè esse tuam Majest, libello meo, quem non ingonio meo, sed incitantibus his qui Majest. tuae parùm favebant, stultus & praeceps edidi—. Quare his litter is prosterno me pedibus Majest. tuae quam possum humillimè, & per Christi amorem, crucem & gloriam oro & obsecro, Majest. tua dignetur sese submittere, & veniam donare in quibuscunque Majest. tuam laesi, etc. Deinde si Majest. tuae sereniss. non videbitur contemnendum, ut alio libello publico palinodiam cantem, & nomen Majest. tuae rursus honorem, det mihi clementem aliquam significationem, tum in me mora non erit ulla, faciam illud libentissime. Luth. epist. ad Reg. Angl. tom. 2.  pardon, and offering to write a public recantation, and to do the King honour, if he should require it. Indeed the King not answering Luther's expectation, but instead of accepting his submission setting forth another book against him, with his Epistle annexed to it, and insulting over him as if he had recanted his doctrine, Luther made answer to this book also, yet so as to abstain from those terms of contumely and reproach which before he had used, only showing that he was firm and steadfast in his doctrine, yea daily more and more confirmed in it; and that no 
Superbè ad istud Regis scriptum eram taciturus, nisi me mea Epistola moveret, quom quicunque est libelli author, it a interpretatur, quasi palinodiam cecinerim, h. e. meam doctrinam retractaverim, ut omnino respondendum esse putem.— Si quis vel regum vel principum arbitratur Lutherum seize ita submissurum ipsis, ut quasi partim rectè pienque docuerit, petiturus sit veniam supplex: nemo omnium mortalinm (quod ad doctrinam nostram attinet) unquàm à me tanti fiet, ut eum sim vel flocci pensurus, tantum abest ut quisquam me palinodiam cantaturum sperare debeat.— Absit nobis in causa religionis submissio: absit omnis patefactae veritatis revocatio.— Si quis fortè libellum Regis contra me scriptum legens, dubitet de me meâque constantiâ, & voluntate, quasi quae antea scripserim & docuerim, eâ Epistolâ, quam Regi seripsi privatim, recantaverim; is hoc sibi persuadeat, adeò ●●e non recant●sse, nec recontaturum unquam, ut apertè sentiam me indies incredibiliter magis magisque divinâ gratiâ corroborari, tam procul abest ut apicem vel iota sim revocaturus. Luth. ad maledic. & coutumel. Script. Reg. Angl. lit. tom. 2.  man's person, how great soever he were, should be of any esteem with him so as to bring him to any recantation in that respect.  
The marquis having censured some of the prime Doctors 
Page 93.  of the Reformed Churches, falls to censure the people, as being generally averse from all honesty and godliness; and to this end he all eadgeth the words of Luther, and some others, who complain of the vicious and corrupt ways of those that live under the pure preaching of the Gospel; and he concludes, How could the people be better, when their Ministers were so bad?  
Bellarmine urging also some of these testimonies, proceeds so far in his censure, as to say, that though among them of the Church of 
Quod verò attiner ad populum, sunt quidem in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ plurimi mali, sed ex haereticis nullus est bonus; & quanquam res ipsa notissima est, etc. Bell. de Not. Eccles. l. 4. c. 13.  Rome (for that he means by the Catholic Church) there be many bad, yet among Protestants (whom after his manner he terms Heretics) there is none good; and this (he saith) is notorious. 
Of the people professing the Protestant Religion.   
But if both Ministers and people were bad, as their adversaries pretend, yet might their doctrine and profession be good for all that. It was the Apostles complaint in his time, All seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's, Phil. 2. 21. Yet the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which they preached and professed, was never a whit the worse for all this, though with some it might be worse accounted of. In like manner the Prophets frequently complain of the people of the Jews, whose Religion nevertheless was the only true Religion in the world. See Isa. 1. 4, 5, 6. Jer. 5. 1. 2. & 9 2. etc. Ezek. 22. 2. etc. and so many other places. And that the Protestant doctrine is not to blame, what ever the Preachers and professors of it be, may appear by those very testimonies which the marquis and other allege. For in that (as they show) Ministers tax and reprove people for being so bad, it argues that the doctrine delivered unto them, is good, though they make no good use of it. But that Protestants are so universally bad, as that Bellarmine should say there is none good among them, is too gross an aspersion; and 
Sedillud apud Genevates laudabile, si quid usquam gentium, quodque Rempub. efficit, si non opibus, & imperii magnitudine, certè vitrutibus ac pietate florentem: illa scil. Pontificum censura, quâ nihil magis, ac diviniùs cogitari potuit ad coercendas hominum cupiditates, & ca vitia quae legibus humanis ac judiciis emendari nullo modo possunt.— Igitur nulla meretricia, nullae ebrietates, nullae saltationes, nulli mendici, nulli otiosi in câ civirate reperiuntur. Bedin. Method. histor. cap. 6. prope finem.  wondrous impudence it is to add, that this is notorious to all that know them. I will only cite the testimony of Bodinus one that never withdrew himself (for any thing I find) from communion with the Church of Rome: He speaking of Geneva, where Calvin and Beza were Ministers of the Gospel, exceedingly commends the discipline there used, Than which (he saith) nothing could be imagined greater, and more divine for the restraining of men's lusts, and those vices, which by humane Laws and Judgements could no way be reform. Insomuch that no whoredoms, no drunkenness, no dance, no beggars, no idle persons are found in that City.  
But to proceed, the marquis in the conclusion of all that he hath in this kind, relates horrible things of Calvin 
Page 95.  in respect both of his life and death, alleging that they are written by two known and approved Protestant Authors.  
One of these Authors, whose words the marquis allegeth, was indeed a Protestant, but a great Lutheran, to 
Answ. calvin vindicated.  wit, Schlusselberg, and a professed adversary unto Calvin; and I presume so also was the other, who (the marquis saith) did write the life of Calvin, and confirm that which is said by the former, to wit, 
* So the name is printed whether rightly or no I know not.  Herennius, though I have not heard of him before. Mr. Breerley (so far as I find) never mentions him, though he make very frequent use of Schlusselberg, whose words concerning Calvin, here cited by the marquis, he all eadgeth in two several places of his Apology. But however, 
Breerl. Apol. p. 416. & 580.  Bolsecus is the man from whom at first did proceed whatsoever any have in disgrace of Calvin, either for his life, or death. Now this Author lived some while at Geneva where Calvin was, and being opposed by him (it seems) for some things which he could not approve, he both became 
Vide Beza in vitâ Calvin.  calvin's bitter enemy, and also turned back to Popery, and was a Papist at that very time when he wrote of Calvin, as is confessed by Mr. Breerley, who saith, that therefore he doth purposely forbear to urge his testimony; in which respect 
Breerl. Apol. p. 580.  also, it may be, the marquis made no mention of this Author, because he would not seem in this case to allege any of their own Church. But to what purpose is it, that they forbear to cite Bolsecus, when as they cite those, who have nothing in this kind but from Bolsecus? He was the first, and for some while the only man that did traduce Calvin, as concerning his life and death. And therefore Bellarmine, 
Bell. de Not. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 14. & 17.  as writing before those, whom Mr. Breerley and the marquis mention, allegeth only Bolsecus as relating things that concern Calvin of this nature.  
But if Mr. Breerley (and so other Romanists) could think there was just cause to except against the testimonies of 
Breerl. in his Advertisement  Benno, and others concerning Pope Hildebrand, called Gregory 7. alleging that they were his adversaries, and took part with the Emperor against him, though yet Benno was a Cardinal, and the rest were all Romanists; what candour and ingenuity is there to allege against Calvin the testimonies of those who did profess themselves adversaries unto him? Besides, that Bolsecus the first deviser of these calumnies, was one of their own party. For the things that are objected; That concerning the manner of calvin's death, appears most false, by what Beza hath written of it, who being with Calvin at Geneva when he died, had more cause to know 
Beza in vitâ Calvin.  the truth than Bolsecus, who was removed (I think) from Geneva before that time.  
And the other particular about Calvins being stigmatised, is clearly and fully refuted by Andrea's Rivetus in his Jesuita Vapulans, where he produceth the very Records of that 
Rivet. Jes. Vap. cap. 2:  City, where this is said to have been done, and showeth by the inquisition that was there made concerning Calvin (it being the place where he was born) that nothing is objected against him, but only his falling off from the Roman Religion. And thus (I hope) both Calvin and others are sufficiently vindicated, and purged from those aspersions that are cast upon them.  
Now if I had a mind to recriminate, I might easily (to use the marquis his words) enlarge my Paper to a volume of 
Page 93.  instances in their Popes & Cardinals, Monks & Friars, Priests and Jesuits (not to speak of their other sort of people) of whose monstrous wickedness their own Authors have largely testified. But I like not Camarinam hanc movere, to stir this puddle; I'll only cite one Distich of Mantuan, who was somewhat before Luther, and is commended by Bellarmine as a learned and godly Poet, and one that wrote much in 
Bel. de Eccles. Scriptor.  commendation of the Saints; but see what he writes in commendation of Rome, where the Pope's Holiness (as they style him) hath his Palace:  
Vivere qui sanctè cupitis, discedite Româ: 
Mantuan. Silu. lib. 2.   
Omnia eum liceant, non licet esse bonum.  
That is,  
Depart from Rome, if holy you would be:  
For there may be all things but Piety.  
Towards the end of the Reply, the marquis goes about to prove, That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the 
Page 96. etc.  same still that it was at the first.  
But, 1. if all the testimonies were truly and pertinently alleged, yet are they not sufficient to evince what he asserteth, not so much as one place of Scripture being produced for proof of any of those points, on which he insisteth. And therefore though those ancient Writers, which are cited, did indeed speak so much as is pretended, yet there being no ground nor warrant for those things from the Scripture, we may say in the words of our Saviour, From the beginning it was not so. 2. Most of the particulars 
Mat. 19 8.  which are mentioned, I have spoken to before, and have showed, that neither Scripture nor Fathers are on their side, but both against them. 3. And for some few points not touched before, I shall briefly consider and examine what is objected.  
The marquis saith, That of old the Church did offer prayers for the dead, both public and private, to the end 
Page 98.  to procure for them ease and rest, etc.  
Prayer for the dead, as they of the Church of Rome do 
Answ.  now use it, is grounded upon Purgatory. It is certain (saith Bellarmine) 
Certum est, Ecclesiae suffragia non prodesse beatis, nec damnatis, sed solum iis qui in Purgatorio degunt. Bel. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 18. in initio.  that the suffrages of the Church do not profit either the blessed, or the damned, but only those that are in Purgatory. Now concerning Purgatory I have spoken enough before, showing that it hath no foundation in Scripture, and also that the ancient Writers do give sufficient testimony against it. That prayer for the dead therefore which the ancient Church did use, was not such as the Church of Rome now useth: It was not to deliver any out of Purgatory-pains, which they were supposed to be in, but to perfect and consummate their happiness. This may appear by Ambrose his praying for the Emrour Theodosius after he was dead. He believed him to enjoy perpetual light, 

Absolutus igitur dubio certamine fruitur nunc augustae memoriae Theodosius luce perpetuâ, tranquillitate diuturnâ, & pro iis, quae in hoc gessit corpore, munerationis divinae fructibus gratulatur. Ambros. de obitu Theodos.  
Da requiem perfectam servo tuo Theodosio, requiem illam quam praeparasti sanctis tuis. Ibid. In B. Ushers Answer p. 200. it is cited, Dam requiem perfecto servo tuo Theodosio. But in my book Edit. Basil. 1567. it is as I have alleged, which reading doth seem much better than the other.  
Dolendum est, quòd nobis citò raptus fit; consolandum, quod ad meliora transierit. Ambros. de obitu Valentin. Quod in terris seminasti, hîc meet.— In Jacob Patriarchae tranquillitate quiescas. Ibid.  
Nulla inhonoratos vos mea transibit oratio; nulla nox non donatos aliquâ precum mearum contentione transcurret. Omnibus vos oblationibus frequentabo. Ibid.  
Te quaeso summe Deus, ut charissimos juvenes maturâ resurrectione suscites & resuscites: & immaturum hunc vitae istius cursum maturae resurrectione compenses. Ibid. in fine.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Liturg. Basil. & Chrysost. cited by B. Usher Answ. p. 216.   and tranquillity, and to have obtained the reward of those things which he had done in the body; yet he prayed for him; but how? That God would give him that perfect rest which he hath prepared for his Saints.  
Ambrose also prayed for the Emperor Valentinan after his death. But did he think him to be in Purgatory? No such matter: He was persuaded that he was removed to a better estate; that what he had sown upon earth, he did then reap; and that he did rest in the tranquillity of the Patriarch Jacob. Yet he professeth, that he would not cease to pray both for him, and for his brother Gratian, who was departed out of this life, and (as Ambrose believed) translated into a better before him. How doth he then pray for them? Only thus, That God would vouchsafe to raise them up with a speedy resurrection. And thus the Church (as it is in some ancient Liturgies) used to pray unto God, to remember all those that were departed in the hopes of the resurrection of life eternal.  
The marquis citys Tertullian and Austin; but besides that Tertulliun was fallen into the heresy of Montanus, when he wrote that book, which is cited, as is noted by Pamelius, and the book itself 
Enimverò & pro animâ ejus orat, & refrigerium interim adpostulat ei, & in prima resurrectione consortium. Tertul. de Monogam. cap. 10.  doth make manifest; besides this, I say, Tertullian speaks of a woman's praying for her deceased husband, that he might have part in the first resurrection, which savours of the opinion of the Chiliasts, amongst whom he is reckoned by Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecolesiastical Writers, where he speaks of Papias whom he notes as the first founder of that opinion. As for Austin, I have showed before that he was not resolved concerning Purgatory, and therefore neither can any thing be concluded from about praying for the dead in that kind as they of the Roman Church do practise it.  
After prayer for the dead, the marquis speaks of the 
Page 99  fast of Lent, which he saith the Church anciently held for a custom, not free, but necessary, and of Apostolical tradition, and so to fast all the Fridays in the year in memory of Christ's death, except Christmas-day fell on a Friday.  
It is true, Hierome (as is alleged) speaks of a Fast of forty days, which they used to observe, and that according to 
Answ.  the tradition of the Apostles. But this tradition was very 
Hicron. ad Marcel. Epist. 54.  uncertain, it seems, and the observation of the Fast very various. For Socrates an ancient Ecolesiastical historian records, that somewhere they fasted three weeks before Easter, somewhere 
Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 21.  six weeks; and that in some places they began their Fast seven weeks before Easter, but did fast only fifteen days, not altogether, but now one day, now another. And yet (which he saith he wondered at) all did call their Fast Quadragesimam, A forty days Fast: He says also moreover, that they did not only thus differ in the number of days, in which they fasted, but also in the manner of their fasting. For some (as he relates) did eat both fish and foul: Some did abstain from eggs, and all fruit that is enclosed in a hard shell: Some did eat nothing but dry bread: Some not so much as that neither: Some having fasted until the ninth hour (three a clock in the afternoon) ' did then use divers kinds of meats. And he adds, that seeing there is nothing in Scripture 
Ac quoniam nemo de eâ praeceptum literarum monumentis proditum potest oftendere, perspicuum est, Apostolos liberam porestarem in eâdevi cujusque mentin & arbittio permisisse, etc. Socrat. ibid.  commanded concerning this matter, it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to every one to do herein as he should think meet. And the like also for the different manner of observing the Lent-fast in respect of the time, 
Sozomen lib. 7. cap. 19  hath Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical history, who lived in the same time with the other, viz. 440. years after Christ according to Bellarmine's computation. 
Bel. de Scrip. Eccles.   
The Church (saith the marquis) held then mingling of water 
Page 99  with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, for a thing necessary, and of divine and Apostolical tradition.  
Cyprian indeed in the place all eadged, viz. Epist. 63. doth 
Answ.  speak of the mixture of wine and water in the Eucharist, as a thing necessary to be obsered. But 1. Austin hath taught us, That it is no wrong to Cyprian to make a difference betwixt his writings 

Nos nullum Cypriano facimus injuriam, cum ejus quassibet literas à canonicâ divinarum Scripturarum authoritate distinguimus. Aug. contra a Crescon. lib. cap. 31.  
Unde est ista traditio? utrumne de dominicâ & Evangelica authoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens? Ea enim facienda esse, quae scripta sunt, Deus testatur, & proponit ad Jesum Nave, dicens, Non recedet liber legis, etc. Item Dominus Apostolos suos mittens, mandat baptizari gentes, & do eri, ut observent quaecunque ille praecepit. Si ergo aut in Evangelio praecipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis, aut Actibus continetur, etc. observetur divina haec ●● sancta traditio. Cyprian Epist. 74.   and the Scriptures. 2. Cyprian himself, though speaking of another occasion, doth show us what we are here to answer, Whence (saith he) is this tradition? Did it come either from Christ in the Gospel, or from the Apostles in their writings? For God doth require us to do those things that are written, saying to Joshua, The book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth, etc. Jos. 1. 8. And when Christ sent his Apostles, he bade them baptise all Nations, and teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded, Mat. 28. 19 20. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained either in the Epistles, or in the Acts of the Apostles, then let it be observed as a divine and holy tradition. Now in the Epistle, which the marquis allegeth, Cyprian proveth against the Aquarians (such as did use only water in the Eucharist) that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament used wine; this he proves by that which is written Mat. 26. 29. I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, etc. but that Christ also did use water, he doth not prove, neither can it be proved by the Scripture. Yet our Divines do grant, that probably Christ might mix wine and water in the Sacramental cup, not for any mystical signification, nor as a matter of necessary observation, but only as in those hot Countries they used commonly to drink wine mixed with water 
Vide Chemnit. Exam.  to abate the strength of it. Neither do they therefore condemn them of the Church of Rome for using this mixture, but for using it so as to make it a sin not to use it. Bellarmine 
Bel. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. Caterum.  indeed saith, that it is no less certain that Christ did mix water with wine when he instituted the Sacrament, then that he did use any wine at all for that purpose. For, he saith, neither the Evangelists, nor Paul make any mention of wine when they speak of the cup in the Eucharist. As for the words, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine, etc. he saith, S. Luke doth plainly show, they were spoken not of the cup in the Eucharist, but that cup which was given after the eating of the Pascal Lamb. But this contradits Cyprian in that very Epistle, which is alleged against us. For their citing these words, he infers from them as a thing 
Dico vobis, non bibam amodò, etc. Quâ in parte invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse, quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit. Unde apparet, sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, etc. Cypr. Epist. 63.  clear and evident, that it was wine which Christ called his blood; and that the Sacrament is not rightly celebrated, if wine be wanting. Yea Maldonate citys many of the ancient Writers besides Cyprian, who understand those words of the cup in the 
Maldon. in Mat. 26. 29.  Eucharist. And whereas Bellarmine doth urge Luke 22. 17, 18. to prove that those words, I will not henceforth drink etc. have reference to another cup, and not that in the Eucharist, Austin (as himself confesseth) taketh those words in Luke to 
Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 1: cap. 11. sect. Si rursus.  be related by anticipation, and not in their due order, which Matthew and Mark observed. And though he say, that Austin did not diligently consider the place, yet Jansenius writing professedly 
Jam quae de chalice narrantur à Lucâ, antequam acceptum panem commemoret, verisimile omninò est secundum Augustini sententiam, intelligenda esse de calice sacro, quo scil. sanguinis sui participationem Dominus tradidit, ut per prae occupationm illa Lucas narraverit ante acceptum panem, etc. Jan. Concord. c. 131. sub ini●. Vetùm verisimiliorem D. Augustini sententiam, illud facit, etc. Jansen. ibid. Quidam Catholici asserunt haec verha (Mat. 26. 29. Mar. 14. 25) non esse dicta à Domino post calicem sacrum, sed post priorem illum calicem, cujus meminit Lucas, quem volunt alium esse ab isto, etc. At istud non patitur ordo horum Evangelistaruum. Cum enim nullius alterius calicis feceri●t mentionem praeterquam sacri, quando dicitur, ex hoc genimine, nullus alius calix intelligi potest ab eis demonstratus, quam cujus meminerunt. Jansen. ib. sub finem cap.  upon it, approves Augustine's opinion rather than Hieroms who conceives two several cups to be spoken of in S. Luke's Gospel; neither doth Bellarmine answer his argument, which he doth allege for it. But however, he shows that the words, as they are related by S. Matthew, and S. Mark, cannot be referred to any other cup than that in the Eucharist, of which they make mention immediately before, and of none other. 3. Cyprian in this very point about the mingling of wine and water in the Eucharist doth differ as well from them of the Church of Rome as from Protestants. For he makes this mixture of such necessity, as to hold it no Sacrament, if there be not in the cup both wine and water. Otherwise 

Sic autem in sanctificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest. Nahr●st vinum tantùm quis offerat, sangius Christi incipit esse sine nobis: si verô aqua sit sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Quando autem ut●umque miscetur, etc. tunc sacramentum spiritale & coeleste perficitur. Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, etc. Cypr. Epist. 63.  
Falsò Chemnitius Catholicis in common tribuit, quòd asserant aquam in Eucharistiâ esse de necessitate Sacramenti cum paucissimi id affirment. Bel. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. Po●rò.  
Acculat (Chemnitius) Ecclesiam, quòd existimet non posse esse calicem Domini, nisi aqua adsit, & hanc vocat falsam opinionem necessariò taxandam. At opinio illa, quod attiner admodum loquendi, S. Cyprian. est lib. 2. epist. 3. Quod ad rem attinet, non est Ecclesiae Catholicae, fortasse etiam nec S. Cypriani. Bel. ibid. cap. 11. sect. Quinto.   if there be either only water, or only wine, he holds it to be none of Christ's Cup, none of his Sacrament. But Bellarmine taxeth Chemnitius for charging them of the Roman Church with this opinion, and saith, that very few of them do hold it. Why then do they press us with the testimony of Cyprian, they themselves dissenting from him as well as we? For it is over vain and frivolous, that Bellarmine saith, that though Cyprian spoke in that manner, yet perhaps he meant otherwise.  
But to proceed, The marquis saith that anciently the 
Page 99  Church held exorcisms, exsufflations, and renuntiations, which are made in Baptism, for sacred ceremonies, and of Apostolical tradition. And a little after, The Church in the ceremonies of Baptism used then oil, salt, wax-light, exorcisms, the sign of the Cross, the word Ephata, and other things that accompany it, etc.  
But 1. What authority is there from God's word for all, or any of these Ceremonies? Let them be proved by the 
Answ.  Scriptures, and then we will acknowledge them for divine and holy traditions; but otherwise we have no reason to do it. And for this we have Cyprian (to whom other ancient Writers might be added, if need were) to speak for us, as I have showed a little before, though here among others he also be alleged against us. 2. Bellarmine speaking of rites and ceremonies saith, That they must not, so be multiplied, as with their multitude to 
Ritus non sunt nimis multiplicandi, ita ut sus● multitudine obruant quodammodo religionem, cui servire debent.— Ita docet Augustinus, Epist. 119. c. 19 Bell. de effect. Sacram, l. 2. c. 30. sect. His addunt.  overwhelm Religion, to which they ought to be subservient. And for this he citys Austin. But surely the ceremonies of Baptism, which the marquis here partly expresseth, and partly intimateth (Bellarmine doth 
Bel. de Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 25. & 26. & 27.  reckon up particularly no fewer than two and twenty) are so many, as that they must needs overwhelm Baptism. 3. Some rites and ceremonies anciently used in Baptism, are now abolished 

Nunc pro regionum varietate vel una, vel trina mersio adhibetur neutrum enim est de essentiâ Sacramenti. Bell. de Bap. lib. 1. cap. 26. sect. Quarta.  
Ecclesia statuit, ut unâ tantùm mersione daretur baptismus, ut patet ex Concil. 4. Tolet. cap. 5. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 28. sect. Ac primum.   in the Church of Rome. Anciently they used to dip the person baptised thrice in the water, which now Bellarmine saith is not so, but in some places they dip once, and in some place thrice; neither being of the offence of the Sacrament. But elsewhere he tells us, that the Church hath determined in the fourth Council of Toledo, that there shall be but one dipping used in Baptism. So also Bellarmine amongst the ceremonies of Baptism anciently used, mentioneth 
Quinta ceremonia olim suit delibatio lactis & mellis, seu vini; quae tamen hoc tempore non est in usu. Bellar. de Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 27.  the tasting of milk and honey, or wine; which ceremony yet, he saith, now is not in use. Thus their Apostolical traditions, as they call them, they themselves can reject when they please.  
The Church held then (saith the marquis) Baptism for Infants of absolute necessity; and for this cause thou permitted Laymen 
Page. 99  to baptise in danger of death.  
The absolute necessity of Baptism is not here simply 
Answ.  urged, but only in respect of infants. The marquis, it seems, considered, that there are express testimonies of Antiquity for the salvation 
Sed audio vos dolere, quòd non acceperit sacraments baptismatis.— Non habet ergo gratiam, quam desideravit? Ambros. de obitu Valentin. Vide ibidem plura. Vide etiam Bernard. Epist. 77. & Aug. de bapt. contra Donatist. l. 4. c. 22.  of some of years that die unbaptised. 2. And why is there not the same hope for infants? Why must Baptism be more absolutely necessary for them then for others? The Romanists themselves distinguish of baptism, and tell us of the baptism of water, 
Baptismus fluminis, flaminis, & sanguinis. Bell. de bapt. lib. 1. cap. 6.  of the Spirit, and of blood or martyrdom; and hold either of the two last to be available unto salvation without the first. Is not God able to baptise Infants with his Spirit, though they want the baptism of water? And where hath he said, that he will not do it? It is without doubt (saith Bellarmine) that true 
At sine dubio credendum est, veram conversionem supplere baptismum aquae, cum non ex contemptu, sed ex necessitate sine baptismo aquae aliqui decedunt. Bellar. loc. citat.  conversion doth supply the want of the baptism of water, when any not through contempt, but through necessity die without it. Now it is without doubt, that God can, if he please, work spiritual regeneration in Infants that are not baptised with water; and that if they die without that baptism, it is on their part merely of necessity, and not of contempt. And if children dying unbaptised, do necessarily perish for want of baptism, than Christian parents must sorrow for the death of such children, as they that have no hope; whereas the Apostle forbids Christians to sorrow for the dead in that manner, 1 Thess. 4. 13. Bellarmine also confesseth, that divers 
Si baptismus est necessarius, peribunt sine suâ culpâ infiniti infants; quòd alienum videtur à Dei misericordia. Hoc argumentum Petri Martyris fuit etiam quorundam Catholicorum, ut Cajetani, Gabrielis, & aliorum, etc. Bellar. de Baptis. lib. 1. cap. 4. sect. 5.  great & eminent writers of the Church of Rome, as Cajetan, Gabriel, and others have thought it not agreeable to the mercy of God, that innumerable infants should perish without any fault of theirs, merely for want of that outward baptism, which it was not in their power to have. And Cassander testifieth that in his time many very learned 
Cassand. Consult. artic. 9  men did hold, that though children died without baptism, yet the desire of the Church, and especially of their parents to procure them baptism, if it could have been, is accepted of God, and available to those children, as if they had been baptised. 3. The Ancients were as much for the necessity of Infants receiving the Eucharist, as for the necessity of their being baptised. 

Augustinus sexcentis locis docet aded esse omnibus Eucharistiam ad salutem necessariam, ut ne infantes quidem nisi eâ sumptâ salvi esse possint. Mald. ad Joh. 6. 28.  
Missam facio Augustini & Innocentii sententiam, quae 600 circiter annos viguit in Ecclesiâ, Eucharistiam etiam infantibus esse necessariam. Idem ibid. ad v. 53.   Austin (as Maldonate relates) in many places makes the Eucharist so necessary, as to deny that Infants can be saved without it. For which opinion also the same Jesuit citys Pope Innocentius, and saith, that for 600. years it did prevail in the Church. Yet the Romanists have taken leave to depart from the Ancients in this, therefore in reason they may give us leave to depart from them in the other, except the authority of Scripture can be proved to be against us. 4. Concerning the estate of Infants dying unbaptised, the Romanists themselves generally recede from the opinion 
Venturus est Dominus, etc. ditas partes facturus est, dextram & sinistram. Sinist●is dicturus, Ite in ignem aeternum, etc. Dextris dicturus, Venite benedicti, etc. Nullus relictus est medius locus, ubi ponere queas infants.— Qui non in dextrâ, proculdubio in sinistrâ. Ergo qui non in regno, proculdubio in ignem aeternum. Aug. de verb. apost. serm. 14.  of Austin, whom here the marquis doth allege against us. For he saith, that there is no middle place for Infants; but that either they must inherit the kingdom of Heaven, or else must endure everlasting fire: and this latter he makes to belong unto all that die without baptism. But they of the Church of Rome are of another mind: For they make the damned to be in one region of Hell, 
Constituunt Scholastici communi consensu intra terram quatuor sinus, sive unum in quatuor partes divisum; unum pro damnatis, alterum pro purgandis, tertium pro infantibus sine baptismo abeuntibus; quartum pro justis, qui moriebantur ante Christi passionem.— Pro poenâ solius damni aeternâ est limbus puerorum. Bellar. de Purgat. lib. 2. cap. 6.  where they are in torment; and Infants that die unbaptised, in another region of Hell, where they suffer no pain, but only the loss of Heaven, and that happiness which the Saints enjoy. They have no reason therefore to urge us with Austin, when as themselves do not accord with him.  
The Church held then (saith the marquis) divers Degrees 
Page 99  in the Ecclesiastical regiment, to wit, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, the Acolythe, Exorcist, Reader, and Porter.  
Here are eight several sorts of Ecclesiastical officers, 
Answ.  which are reckoned as so many several orders. For so presently after the marquis adds, And in the Episcopal order acknowledged divers seats of jurisdiction of positive right, etc. Thus he makes Episcopacy, and so the rest, each of them a distinct order, and that (as it seems) of divine right.  
But 1. for Episcopacy, the Schoolmen hold it to be no distinct order. Lombard, the Master of them, reckons but seven distinct orders; to wit, all these here mentioned excert 
Lombard. lib. 4 dist. 24.  Bishops, and says that anciently Bishops and Presbyters were the same. 

Apud vetres idem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuerunt. Lomb. ibid.  
Intra hunc gradum & ordinem contingit esse distinctionem dignitatum & officiorum, quae tamen novum gradum vel ordinem non constituunt, ut Archipresbyter, Episcopus, Archiepiscopus, Patriarcha, Pontifex summus.— Hanc ergo opinionem sustinendo dicamus, quod Episcopatus praecise loquendo non est ordo, etc. Bonavent. in Sent. lib. 4. dist. 24. art. 2. quaest. 3.   So also Bonaventure, whom the Church of Rome hath canonised for a Saint, and styles the Seraphical Doctor, he also (I say) professedly disputing the question, whether Episcopacy be an order, concludes that it is not, but only a dignity, and that a Bishop is in that respect of like nature with an Archpresbyter (or Dean) an Archbishop, a Patriarch, and a Pope. And he citys also Hugo de S. Victore, who was somewhat more ancient than Lombard, as being of this opinion. Cassander saith, that the Divines and Canonists do not agree in 
An Episcopatus inter ordines ponendus sit, inter Theologos & Canonistas non convenit. Convenit autem inter omnes, olim Apostolorum aetate, inter Episcopos & Presbyteros, discrimen nullum fuisse, sed postmodum ordinis servandi, & Schismatis evitandi causâ, Episcopum Presbyteris fuisse praepositum, cui soli Chirotonia, id est, ordinandi potestas servata 〈◊〉. Cassand Consult. artic. 14.  this, whether Episcopacy be to be reckoned amongst orders. But all (he saith) agree in this, that in the Apostles time there was no difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, but that afterward for the keeping of order, and the avoiding of Schism, a Bishop was set over the Presbyters, and the power of ordaining was reserved unto himonly. 
Apud veteres iidem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuerunt. Hieron. Epist. ad Ocean. Vide Hieron. Epist. ad Evagr.  Hierome is plain to this purpose, to wit, that at first Bishops and Presbybyters were the same, and he proves it by Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5, 6, 7.  
2. For the last five orders, to wit, Subdeacons', Acolythe, Exorcist, Reader, and Porter, they have no foundation at all in Scripture; we find there no mention 

Cum omnes sint spirituales, & sacri, excellenter tamen Canones duos tantùm sacros ordines appellari censent, Diaconatus scil. & Presbyteratus, quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus. Lomb. lib. 4. dist. 24.  
Constat etiam sacros ordines proprie Diaconatum, & Presbyteratum, ut quos solos primitivam Ecclesiam in usu habuisle legatur, id quod testatur Urbanus Papa, & annotavit Chrysost. & Ambros. in 1 Tim. ex. eo quod Episcopi ordinationi statim Diaconi ordinationem subjiciat. Ad minores verò ordines quod attinet, qui olim quinque se ordine consequentes memorari consuerunt; high sanè praesente tempestate, neglectâ omni disciplinâ, & politiâ Ecclesiasticâ prorsus confusi sunt, & eorum officia propemodum cessarunt, etc. Cassand. Consult. artic. 14.   of them. And Lombard confesseth, that the office of Deacons and of Presbyters, are by way of excellency called holy orders; for that the primitive Church had only those two, and the Apostle gave precept concerning them only. So also Cassander saith, it is manifest, that Deacons and Presbyters are properly called holy orders; for that the primitive Church had those only. And this he saith is testified by Pope Urban, and noted by chrysostom and Ambrose. And as for the five lesser, and inferior orders, he saith, that now in the Church of Rome: they are altogether confused, and almost abolished.  
The marquis saith, that anciently the Church had one 
Page 100L.  Supereminent (by Divine Law) which was the Pope, without whom nothing could be decided, appertaining to the universal Church, and the want of whose presence, either by himself, or his Legates, or his confirmation, made all Counsels (pretended to be universal) unlawful.  
1. The name of Pope anciently was common to all 
Answ.  Bishops. Hierome calls Alipius an African Bishop, Pope Alipius. So also he 
Sanctum & venerabilem fratrem nostrum Papam Alipium, ut meo obsequio salutes obsecro. Hieron ad Aug, Epist. 98. Memento mei, sancte et venerabilis Papa. Hier. Epist. 91. ad Aug. Beatissime Papa, Epist. 94. ad Aug. Damasus & Ursicinus, supra humanum modum ad rapiendam Episcopalem sedem ardentes, scissis studiis asperrimè conflictabantur, adusque mortis vulnerúmque discrimina adjumentis utriusque progressis.— Constatque in Basilica Sicinini, ubi ritus Christiani est conventiculum, uno die centum trigin●a septum reperta cadavera peremptorum, etc. Neque ego abnuo, ostentationem rerum considerans urbanarum, hujus rei cupidos, ob impetrandum quod apperunt, omni contentione laterum jurgari debere; quum id adepti, futuri sint ita securi, ut ditentur oblationibus matronarum, procedantque vehiculis insidentes circumspectè vestiti, opulas curantes profusas, adeò ut eorum convivia regales superent menlas. Qui esse poterant beati reverà, si magnitudine urbis despecta, quam vitiis opponunt, ad imitationem antistitum quorundam provincialium viverent, quos tenuitas edendi potandique parcissimè, vi●itas etiam indumentorum, & supercilia humum spectantia perpetuo nu●ini, verisque ejus cultoribus ut puros commendant, & verecundos. Am. Marcel▪ lib. 27.  styles Austin in divers Epistles, which he wrote unto him. 2. That the Bishop of Rome, to whom the name of Pope in after times came to be appropriated, is Supereminent by divine Law, was no part of the Ancients Creed. Indeed of old the Bishops of Rome, by reason of the wealth and glory of the City, did live in a very pompous and stately fashion, so as in their feasts to exceed Kings: And thereupon there was great striving for the place: when Damasas (whom the marquis here points at as so highly honoured by Hierome) came to be Pope, there was such a conflict betwixt him and Urscicinus about it, that in one day there were found in a Church 137. dead bodies of those that were slain in the conflict. This is related by Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived in the same time when this happened. And though he were no Christian, yet that he did not write thus out of any ill affection towards Christians, and a desire to disgrace them, may appear, as by that ingenuity and impartiality which he elsewhere usually shows in his history, so by this, that in this very place he much commends other Bishops of meaner places, and saith, that the Bps. of Rome might have been happy indeed, if they would have imitated them, and despising the greatness of the City, would have lived sparingly, and carried themselves humbly as other Bishops of the Roman Provinces did. But so also for the same reason, to wit, the honour and dignity of Rome, the Bishop thereof had some privilege and preeminency above others. And so the first Council of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Constantinopol. 1. can. 3.  Constantinople decreed, that the Bishop of Constantinople should have the second place, to wit, next after the Bishop of Rome, because it was new Rome. And afterwards the Council of Chalcedon 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Chalced. can. 28.  (which was the fourth general Council, as that of Constantinople was the second) for the very same reason confirmed the same, plainly expressing thus much, that because Rome had been the seat of the Empire, therefore the Fathers had given the chief honour to the Bishop of that City, and that now Constantinople being advanced to that honour (Constantine having removed his seat thither) it was meet that the Bishop of that place should likewise be advanced, so as to be next to the Roman Bishop. Thus it plainly appears, even by this very Council, which the marquis allegeth, that the dignity of the Bishop of Rome is built merely upon humane authority, and earthly consideration. Neither doth Hierom attribute such supereminency as is 
Nune in occidente sol justitiae oritur; i● oriente autem Lucifer ille, qui ceciderat, supra sidera posuit thronum suum. Hieron. ad Damas'. Epist. 57  pretended, to Damasus the Roman Bishop: but being in the Eastern parts, which were much infected with Arianisme, and knowing that Damasus was free from that infection, he consulted him about a point, wherein he feared lest some Arians in the East might ensnare him. But that Hierome did not hold the Bishop of Rome to be supereminent by divine 
Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandria, sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est & sacerdotii. Potentia divitlarum, & paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem, vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Ceterùm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt. Hieron. ad Evagr. Epist. 85.  Law, is clear and evident by what he wrote to Evagrius, namely this, Wheresoever a Bishop is, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, whether at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, whether at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he hath the same merit, and the same Priesthood. The power of riches, and the meanness of poverty, doth not make a Bishop either higher, or lower: but they are all the successors of the Apostles.  
The marquis goes on, saying, In the Church than the Service 
Page 100  was said throughout the East in Greek, and throughout the West, as well in Africa, as in Europe, in Latin; although that in none of the Provinces (except in Italy, and the Cities where the Roman Colonies resided) the Latin tongue was understood by the common people.  
That divine Service should be performed in a tongue, which the people understand not, is most repugnant both 
Answ.  to reason and Scripture. The Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. plainly and fully declares against it, and shows the absurdity of it. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him, v. 2. Now brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues (viz. unknown tongues) what shall I profit you? v. 6. And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? v. 7. For if the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? v. 8. So likewise you, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. v. 9 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian unto me, v. 11. Else when thou shalt bless in the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? v. 16. In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, v. 19 The case here is so clear, that Cardinal Cajetan in his Commentary 
Ex hâc Pauli doctrinâ habetur, quod melius ad aedificationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi Clericis & populo, quam dici Latinè. Cajetan. in 1 Cor. 14.  upon the place, is forced to confess, That by this doctrine of the Apostle, it is better for the edification of the people, that public prayers be made in a tongue, which both the Clergy and the people understand, then that they be in Latin. And hereupon 
Unde discere debèmus eligibilius esse, aut in Ecclesiâ dicantur divina (horae fell. canonicae, & missae) intelligibiliter sine melodiâ Musica, quam sic ut non intelligi possint, qualiter sunt tam particulae quae sonis commi●untur, quam quas cantus reddit imperceptibiles, etc. Cajet. ibid.  also he expresseth his dislike of the use of Organs, and of chanting in Divine Service, and saith, that it were better such musical melody were laid aside, and that Divine Service were so performed, as that people might understand it. Austin indeed shows, that in 
Illud etiam; quod jam auferre non possumus de ore cantantium populorim, super ipsum floriet sanctificatio mea, nihil profectò sententiae detrahit; auditor tamen peritior mallet hoc corrigi, ut non floriet, sed florebit diceretur. Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 13.  his time and Country the Latin tongue was used in Divine Service; but withal he shows, that the people did understand it, though they were not very Grammatical and exact in it. And therefore sometimes barbarous 
Habeo in abscondito quoddam ossum. Sic enim potius loquamur. Melius est, ut reprehendant nos Grammatici, quam non intelligant populi. Aug. in Psal. 138.  words were permitted, because the people were acquainted with them, and understood them better than pure Latin words. For this reason he saith in that place, which the marquis 
Name & Latina aliquando (infans utique) nulla noveram; & tamen advertendo didici sine ullo metu atque cruciatu, inter etiam blandimenta nutricum, & joca arridentium, & laetitias alludentium. Didici vero illa sine ulla poenali onere urgentium, cum me urgerer cor meum ad parienda concepta sua: & quia non esset nisi aliqua verba didicissem, non à docentibus, sed à loquentibus, in quorum & ego auribus parturiebam quicquid sentiebam. Aug. Confess. lib. 1. cap. 14.  citeth, that floriet was used for florebit, that is, shall flourish. And so elsewhere he saith, that he would rather use the word ossum for a bone, then os, choosing rather to be reproved by Grammarians then that the people should not understand him. And that the Latin tongue was then generally understood by the people where he lived, is most evident also by that which he writeth in his Confessions, to wit, that though he had very much ado to learn the Greek tongue, yet the Latin he learned without difficulty, even whilst his Nurse and others played with him, and because he heard none speak any other Language.  
The marquis, to prove still, that the Church of Rome is not changed, but is the same that it was of old, mentioneth 
Page 100  divers things which the Church then (he saith) observed, as distinction of Feasts, and ordinary days, etc.  
1. These are things of an inferior alloy in comparison of many things wherein Protestants charge the Church of 
Answ.  Rome to be altered from what of old it was. 2. The same things might be observed of old, yet not in the same manner as now in the Church of Rome they are, viz. so as to place the worship of God in such things. So they now do, which makes 
Vide stupiditatem nostram, & perversitatem.— O praeposteram Religionem! Ferus in Mat. 15.  Ferus (though one of their own Authors) cry out, Behold our stupidity and perverseness. And again, O preposterous Religion! 3. If Protestants have abolished such things, besides that they might lawfully do it, God in his word not requiring them; and had just cause to do it, they being grown into such abuse; besides, I say, the Romanists cannot justly tax them for it, seeing they themselves have abolished some things, which formerly were observed in the Church, as I have noted before. And to those particulars before mentioned let this be added, that anciently Vigils were in use; both Priests and people used to watch the night before some solemn festival. And when Vigilantius spoke against it (though not without 
Polyd. Verg. de Invent. l. 6. c. 4.  cause, as Polydore Vergil confesseth) Hierome inveighed against him for it, 
Nam quòd dicis eum vigilias execrari, facit & hoc contra vocabulum suum, quòd dormire velit Vigilantius. Hier. ad Riparium, epist. 53.  and scoffingly said, that in this he did contrary to his name, that he had more mind to sleep then to watch. But the abuse of these Vigils was such, that (as the said Polydore 
Polyd. Verg. loc. cit. Bell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3. c. 17.  Vergil relateth) though the name continued, yet the thing itself was abolished; and so much also is acknowledged by Bellarmine.  
The marquis speaks of the Church anciently making Processions with the Relics of Martyrs, kissing 
Page 100  them, etc.  
Austin in the place which the marquis citeth (viz. the Civ. 
Answ.  Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8.) hath much about Miracles wrought at the monuments of some Martyrs: but of honouring or worshipping their Relics, I do not see any thing that he saith. Hierome, indeed, in the place alleged speaketh of honouring the relics 
Dicit (Vigilantius) quid necesse est te tanto honore non solum honorare, sed etiam adorare illud nescio quid, quod in modico vasculo transfer endo colis? Et rursus in eodem libro; Quid pulverem linteamine circumdatum, adorando oscularis? Et in consequentibus; Prope ritum gentilium videmus sub praetextu religionis introductum in Ecclesias, sole adhuc fulgente moles cereorum accendi etc. Quis enim, o insanum caput, aliquando martyres adoravit?— Cereos autem non clarâ luce accendimus, sicut frustra calumni aris; sed ut noctis tenebras hoc solatio temperemus, etc. Hierón. contra Vigilant. cap. 2. & 3.  of Saints, and doth contest with Vigilantius about it. But whereas Vigilantius did inveigh against the adoring of them, and burning Waxe-candles before them at noonday, Hierome calls him a madbrain, ask, Who did ever adore Martyrs? And saying, that they used Wax-lights, not as he did slander them, in the daytime, but only in the night, when there was need of them. And in his Epistle to Riparius, which was written about Vigilantius, he saith, that they were so far from worshipping the relics of Martyrs, that they did 
Nos autem non dico martyrum reliquias, sed ne solem quidem & lunam, non angelos, non archangelos, non cherubin, non seraphim, & omne nomen quod nominatur & in praesenti seculo & in futuro, colimus & adoramus, etc. Hieron. ad Ripar. epist. 53.  neither worship the sun, nor the moon, nor Angels or Archangels, nor Cherubin, nor Seraphim, nor any name that is named either in this world, or in that to come. He taxeth Vigilantius for grudging, that any respect was showed to the 
Dolet martyrum reliquias pretioso óperiri velamine, & non vel pannis vel cilicio colligari, vel projici in sterquilinium. Hieron. advers. Vigilant. cap. 2.  relics of Martyrs, and that they were not rather cast to the dunghill. If this were his opinion, I think few Protestants will plead for him. But howsoever, Hierome shows himself far from that, which they of the Church of Rome do now maintain and practise. How exceeding gross they are in this kind, Erasmus hath lively set forth, and that not in his Colloquies (which he wrote for delight, yet for profit also; and as the Poet says, Ridentem dicereverum quid vetat?) but in a more serious work, viz. his Annotations on the New Testament. 
Videas hodicpassimad quaestum ostentari lac Mariae, quod honore propemodum aequant corpori Christi consecrato▪ prodigiosum oleum; fragmenta crucis tam multa, ut si in acer vum redigantur, vix una navis oneraria vehat: hîc ostentari Francisci cucullum, illîc intimam vestem Mariae virgins; alibi pectinem Annae, alibi caligam Joseph, alibi calceum Thomae Cantuariensis, alibi Christi praeputium, quod cum sit res incerta, religiosiùs adorant quam totum Christum. Neque verò haec ita proferunt tanquam toleranda, & pleboculae donanda affectibus; verùm huc ferè summa religionis vocatur, etc. Eras. in Mat. 23. 5.  You may now (saith he) every where see held out for gain Maries milk, which they honour as much almost as Christ's consecrated body; prodigious Oil; so many pieces of the Cross, that if they were all gathered together, a great ship would searce carry them: Here Francis his Hood set forth to view; there the innermost Garment of the Virgin Mary; in one place Anna's Comb, in another place Joseph's Stocking, in another place Thomas of Canterbury his Shoe, in another place Christ's Foreskin, which though it be a thing uncertain, they worship more religiously than Christ's whole person. Neither do they show these things as things that may be born with, and to please the common people, but they place almost all religion in them, etc.  
From Relics we pass to Pictures. The Church then 
Page 100  (saith the marquis) had the picture of Christ, and of his Saints, both out of Churches, and in them, (not to adore them with godlike worship, but) by them to reverence the Soldiers and Champions of Christ.  
Were there no other point but only this concerning 
Answ.  Pictures and Images, it were enough to show how much the Church of Rome is degenerate. Irenaeus taxeth the Carpoeratians (who are also 

Etiam imagines, quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem & de reliquâ materiâ fabricatas habent, dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato, etc. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24.  
Si statuas, & imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus, quas milvi & mures, & araneae intelligunt, nun laudem magis quam poenam merebatur repudium agniti erroris? Tertul. Apologet. cap. 12.  
Etsi à Numa concepta est curiositas superstitiosa, nondum tamen aut simulachris, aut templis res divina apud Romanos constabat. Ibid. cap. 25.   called Gnostics) for having Images, some painted, some carved; and for saying, That when Christ was upon earth, his resemblance was made by Pilate. And Tertullian not only shows, that Christians did not worship Images, but he speaks most contemptibly of them, calling them cold Images, & saying that Kites, Mice, & Spiders, do perceive what they are. And he observes, that even the heathen Romans themselves had no Images in the time of Numa Pompilius, though he was the deviser of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. in Numa.  that superstition, which was among them. And it is very observable, that Plutarch, a heathen Writer relates, that Numa forbade the Romans to make any Image, whereby to represent God; and and that for 170. years the Romans had no Images of a religious nature. For (saith he) it is not lawful to represent better things by worse; neither is it possible to apprehend God otherwise then by the act of the understanding. The Pagan Caecilius 

Cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulacra? Cacil. de. Christianis apud Minut.  
Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam, eum si rectè existimes, sit Dei homo ipse simulachrum? Minut. in Octau. Deum illum suum, quem nec ostendere possunt nec videre, etc. Caecil. ibid.  
At enim quem colimus Deum, nec ostendimus, nec videmus: imò ex hoc Deum credimus, quod cum sentire possumus, videre non possumus. Minut. ibid.   upbraided Christians, because they had no Images. Minutius Felix granted they had none, saying, What Image shall I devise of God, seeing that, if you consider well, man himself is God's Image? And when the same Pagan objected, that Christians talked of a God, whom they could neither show to others, nor see themselves; Minutius answered, That by this they did believe that there is a God, in that though they could not see him, yet they were sensible of him. This argues, that Christians than had no Images, as Pagans had; for but by their Images, the Pagan's themselves could neither show, nor see the gods that they did worship. Arnobius also writing against the Gentiles, reproves them for their 
An nunquid dicitis forte praesentians vobis quandam his numinum exhiberi simulachris; & quia Deos videre non datum est, eos ita coli, & munia officiosa praestari? Hoc qui dicit, & asserit, Deos esse non credit; nec habere convincitur suis religionibus fidem, cui opus est videre quod teneat, ne ina ne fortè sit, quod obscurum non videtur. Deos (inquitis) per simulachra veneramur. Quid ergò, si haec non sint, coli se dii nesciunt, hec impertiti à vobis ullum sibi existimabunt honorem? Arnob. contra gent. lib. 6.  Images, saying that they showed themselves not to believe that there were any such gods as they pretended to worship, seeing they must have some Images to look on, as if their gods being not seen, were not at all. And whereas they did allege, that they did worship their gods by their Images; he asks them, if except there were such Images, their gods could not tell that they did worship them? That of Epiphanius is very famous, and most remarkable 
Inveni velum pendens in foribus Ecclesiae tinctum, atque depictum, & habens imaginem quasi Christi, vel sancti cujusdam: non enim satis memini cujus imago fuerit. Cum ergò hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra authoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, & magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci, ut pauperem mortuum eo obvolverent, & efferrent. Epiphan. ad Johan. Hierosolym. inter opera Hieron. tom. 2. Epist. 60.  to our purpose, which he writes in an Epistle to John Bishop of Jerusalem, which Epistle Hierome translated out of Greek into Latin. He saith, that as he traveled, he happened to espy a Veil before a Church door, having in it the Image either as it were of Christ, or of some other Saint; for he could not remember whose Image it was. But when he saw such an Image, and knew that it was repugnant to the Scriptures, he tore it in pieces, and counselled the Churchwardens to make a winding-sheet of it, to wrap some poor man in when he was dead. Marianus Victorius (a Romish writer) saith, It is wonderful, how they that oppose Images, do exult from this place of Epiphanius. And 
Mirum est, quam ex hoc loco Iconomachi hodiè exultent. Cum tamen ipsa verba planè demonstrent, non Christi, aut fahcti alicujus, sed puri hominis eam fuisse imaginem. Imò si quis diligenter locum expendet, constabit ex eodem contrarium maximè. Cum enim superiùs dicat, Inveni ibi velum, etc. dicere-videtur, talem fuisse eam imaginem, qualis soleat esse vel Christi, vel alicujus Sancti, quae in Ecclesiis depingi solita sit. Mar. Victor. in Annotat. ad. loc.  I say, it is wonderful, how they that defend Images, are put to their shifts to elude this place of Epiphanius, it being so plain and home against them. This Author saith, that Epiphanius speaks not of the image of Christ, nor of any Saint, but of some ordinary man. Yea, he saith, if one mark it well, he shall find this to be the sense, That it was an Image like the image of Christ, or of some Saint, which was usually painted in Churches. What can be a more violent perverting of words then this is? Bellarmine therefore disliking this answer, as also that which some others give, saith, that the more common and true answer is, that 
Communior & verior solutio est, verba illa esse supposititia. Bell. de Imagine. Sanctor. lib. 2. cap. 9 sect. Ad Quintum.  those are none of Epiphanius his words, but are supposititious. But Hierome, it seems, took them for the words of Epiphanius; for else he would not have translated them, and joined them to the Epistle as a part of it.  
The marquis, to prove the ancient use of Images, citys Euseb. de vita Const. but he citys neither book nor chapter, when as there are four books of that subject, and in some of them above 70. in some above 60. and where the fewest, above 50 chapters. It may be he meaneth that, which Eusebius relates lib. 1. cap. 22, etc. viz. That Constantine in a vision from heaven saw the sign of the Cross, with this inscription, In this overcome! and being warned by Christ in his sleep to do it, he caused that Figure to be painted in his Banner which he used in his wars. But Dr. Rainolds hath long 
Rain. confer. cap. 8.  since showed by the description which Eusebius makes cap. 25. that it was not properly the sign of Christ's Cross, though it had some resemblance with a Cross, but was indeed the two first Letters of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ, joined together thus & so that it was the name of Christ, that was thus represented unto Constantine. And if it had been the very sign of Christ's Cross, yet there being a special injunction for the making and using of it, (for I dare not discredit the relation) it would not follow, that therefore ordinarily the picture of Christ's Cross (much less of Christ crucified) is lawful; no more than it follows, that the Jews might lawfully have brought pictures and images into the Temple, because God commanded Cherubims to be pictured in it. 
* si eundem Deum observas, habes legem ejus, Ne seceris similitudinem. Si & praeceptum sactae posteà similitudinis respicis, & tu imitare Mosen, Ne facias adversus legem simulacrum aliquod, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. Tertul. de. Idolol. cap. 5.   
The marquis also doth allege Basil. in Martyr. Bar. But, 1. Bellarmine (whom it is likely the marquis followed) 
Bell. de imagine. Sanctor. l. 2. c. 9  understands (or would have others to understand) Basil so, as if he had seen the picture of Martyr Barlaam (of whom he was speaking) somewhere in the Church, whereas in Basil there appears no such 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. homil. in Martyr. Barl.  matter. Only he calls upon the famous Painters, and bids them show forth their art in drawing the pourtraicture of this Martyr. 2. I see not why by Painters there must be meant such as are properly so called; but that the word may be taken metaphorically for Orators, whom Basil would have to set forth the praises of the Martyr more lively than he had done. 3. However it were in Basils' time, yet the more ancient Writers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Arnobius, and Minutius, (who are before cited) show that in their time Images were not in use. And to those may be added Clemens Alexandrinus (who was almost 200 years before 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Clem. Alex. in Protrept. edit. Graec. in fol. pag. 24.  Basil) who proceeds so far as to make it unlawful for Christians to exercise the Art of Painting or Image-making; so far was the Church then from using any such Pictures or Images as we now 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. pag. 25.  treat of. And he tells the Heathens, that they were very studious to make an Image as fair and beautiful as might be, but had no care to keep themselves from being like to images in stupidity. 
Zelum vos, ne quid manu factum adorari possit, habuisse laudamus; sed frangere cased imagines non debuisse judicamus. Idcircò enim pictura in ecclesiis adhibetur, ut hi qui literas nesciunt, contr saltem in par●etibus videndo legant, quae legere in codicibus non valent. Tua ergo paternitas & illas servare, & ab earum adoratu populum prohibere debuit, etc. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 111.  4. A long time after Basil, when images came to be used in Churches for history sake, yet they were not worshipped. Gregory Bishop of Rome (above 200 years after Basils' time) hearing that Serenus Bishop of Massilia had broken certain Images that were in Churches, because some did worship them, wrote unto him about it, and commended him 
Et quidem quòd eas adorari vetuisses, omnino laudamus; fregisse vero reprehendimus.— Si quis imagines facere voluerit, minimè prohibe; adorare vero imagines, modis omnibus devita. Greg. lib. 9 Epist. 9  for his zeal in not allowing Images to be worshipped, yet disliked his breaking of them, saying that such as cannot read, may be instructed by them. And to the same purpose he wrote unto him again, willing him not to hinder the making of Images, but by all means to hinder the worshipping of them.  
But what more common now in the 

Non solùm autem licere in Ecclesiâ imagines habere, & illis honorem & cultum adhibere ostendet. Parochus, cum honos, qui eis exhibetur, referatur ad pro●otypa, verùm etiam maximo fidelium bono ad hanc usque diem factum declarabit. Catechis. Trident. p. 43. edit. Colon. an. 1567.  
Sequitur quòd eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi, & ipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae, consequens est, quòd ejus imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda. Thom. part. 3. qu. 25. art. 3.   Church of Rome, then to worship Images? Their Trent-catechisme requires the Parish-Priest to instruct people, that the worshipping of Images is not only lawful, seeing that the honour done to them, redounds to those things that are represented by them, but also very profitable. And the prime Doctors of the Church of Rome hold, that the very same worship belongs to the Image, which belongs to that which it represents. The same reverence (saith Aquinas) is to be exhibited to the image of Christ, as to Christ himself. And therefore seeing Christ is worshipped with divine worship, it follows, that his Image is to be worshipped with divine worship. So Bonoventure saith, All reverence which is showed to the image of Christ, is showed to 
Omnis reverentia quae imagini Christi offertur, exhibetur Christo. Et proptereà imagini Christi debet cultus latriae exhiberi. Bonav. in Sent. lib. 3. dist. 9 art. 1. quaest. 2.  Christ himself: and therefore the image of Christ ought to be worshipped with divine worship. And Bellarmine mentions divers of their Schoolmen besides, as Cajetane, Marsilius, Almain, Carthusianus, Capreolus, and others, 
Bell. de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 20.  that did hold this opinion. And though he himself labour to qualify the matter with distinctions, which few understand, yet he grants, that 
Admitti potest, imagines posse coli impropriè vel per accidens eodem genere cultûs, quo examplar ipsum colitur.— Sic concionatotes alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi, eique dicunt, Tunos' redemisti, tu nos Patri reconciliasti, etc. Bell. de Imagine. lib. 2. cap. 20.  improperly and by accident images may be worshipped with the same kind of worship wherewith the sampler is worshipped. And thus Preachers (he saith) speak to the image of Christ crucified, and say, Thou hast redeemed us, thou hast reconciled us unto the Father. I will only here add the words of Sir Edwin Sands, who speaking of the scandals 
Europe. Specul. page 228. & 230.  of Christians which hinder the conversion of the Jews, saith thus; But the greatest scandal of all other is their worshipping of Images, for which both Jews and Turks call them Idolatrous Christians.— And therefore they say, for their coming to the Christian Sermons, that as long as they shall see the Preacher direct his speech and prayer to that little wooden Crucifix, which stands on the Pulpit by him, to call it his Lord and Saviour, to kneel to it, to embrace it, and kiss it, to weep upon it (as is the fashion of Italy) this is preaching sufficient for them, and persuades them more with the very sight of it to hate Christian Religion, than any reason that the world can allege to love it.  
Whereas the marquis speaks immediately after of the 
Page 100  sign of the Cross; I grant, that anciently it was much used by Christians, as 

Adomnem progressum, atque promotum, ad omnem●aditum & exitum, ad vestitum & calcoatum, ad lavacra mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quacunque nos conversatio exercet, frontenr crucis signaculo terimus. Tertull. de Cor. Mil. cap. 3.  
Harum & aliarum ejusmodi disciplinatum si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam invenies. Ibid.  
Et qui hominem summo supplicio pro facinore punitum, & crucis ligna feralia corum ceremonias fabulantur, congruentia perditis sceleratisque tribuunt altaria, ut id colant quod merentur. Caecil. apud Minut.  
Cruces etiam nec colimus, nec optamus. Minute in Octau.   appears by Tertullian. But besides that he confesseth, that there is no Scripture for it, and other things which likewise they did observe; besides this, I say, he speaks nothing of adoring of the Cross; and Minutius Felix, who lived about the same time with Tertullian, is express against it. When Cecillus objected against Christians, that they worshipped the wood of a Cross, Minutius answered saying, We neither worship, nor desire Crosses. The Author, that the marquis allegeth to prove the ancient adoration of the Cross, viz. Paulinus, I have not, and therefore cannot examine what he saith; but howsoever, he was above two hundred years after Minutius; and Gregory, who was about as much after Paulinus, was against the worshipping of any thing made with hands, as appears by the words before cited.  
Finally (saith the marquis) the Church then held, that to the Catholic Church only belongs the keeping of the Apostolical tradition, 
Page 101.  the authority of interpretation of Scripture, and the decision of controversies of faith: and that out of the succession of her communion of her doctrine, and her ministry, there neither was Church, nor salvation.  
1. For Apostolical traditions, enough hath been said before. 2. And so also of interpretation of Scripture, and 
Answ.  decision of controversies of faith. 3. I understand not what is meant by objecting against us, that out of the Catholic Church there is no Church. For the Catholic Church being the Church universal, and so comprehending all particular Churches as parts and members of it, who can doubt, that there is no Church out of the Church Catholic? But what is this to the Church of Rome, which once indeed was a sound part of the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church it never was, nor could be, except a part could be the whole?  
In that which follows, page 101. etc. there is nothing but the same matter as before, only the form is somewhat altered, and therefore there is no need that I should trouble either myself, or the Reader any further about it; only I shall add one or two Animadversions. 1. Whereas it is objected (page 105. etc.) that Luther, after his deserting the communion of the Church of Rome, did yet hold some points of Popery; and so also hus, and Wickliff, and others, that otherwise opposed themselves against the errors and corruptions of that Church. I answer, That as Rome was not built at once, so neither was it demolished at once, but by degrees: it is no marvel therefore, if those worthy men did (at least for a while) retain some Romish opinions and practices, after that in many things they had discovered the truth, and stood up in defence of it. 2. Whereas it is pretended (page 106.) that before Berengarius, who was above 1000 years after Christ, none did oppose that real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which the Romanists maintain; besides that I have sufficiently confuted this before, the marquis might have seen from Bellarmine himself, that there were 
Hic autor primus fuit, qui seriò, & copiosè scripsit de veritate corporis & sanguinis Domini in Eucharistiâ contra Bertramum Presbyterum, qui fuit ex primis qui eam in dubium revocarunt. Bell. de Paschasio Ratherto in lib. de Scriptor. Eccles.  some, who above 200. years before Berengarius, did oppose that doctrine, which in this particular the Church of Rome now doth hold, namely Bertram a Presbyter, who was about 800. years after Christ, and (saith Bellarmine) was one of the first that did call in question that doctrine. But Bellarmine doth too much mince the matter; for Bertram did more than call in question that real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which the Romanists do hold; he did plainly assert that which Protestants maintain, viz. that the substance of bread and wine doth still remain after consecration, as is to be seen in Hospinians first part of the Sacramentary history, and so in others that cite that Author; for the book itself (I confess) I have not seen, that I do remember. But that is here worthy to be observed, which the Romish censurers of Books say, speaking of this book of bertram's about the Sacrament; Although (say 
Quanquam librum istum magni non existimemus momenti, itaque non magnoperc laboraturi. simus, si vel nusquam sit, vel intercidat; attamen cum jam saepè recusus sit, & lect us à plurimis, etc. in veteribus Catholicis aliis plurimos feramus errores, & extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato commento persaepè negemus, & commodum iis sensium affingamus, dum opponuntur in disputationibus, aut in conflictionibus cum adversariis; non videmus cur non eandem aequitatem, & diligentem recognitonem mereatur Bertramus, ne haeretioi ogganniant nos antiquitatem pro ipsis facientem exurere, & prohibere. Index Expurgat. an. 1599 pag. 12.  they) we do not much value this book, nor should greatly ear if it were no where to be found, yet seeing it hath been often printed, and read of very many, etc. and we sufer very many errors in other ancient Catholics; we extenuate them, we excuse them, and finding out some device, we often deny them, and fain some good sense of them, when they are opposed in disputations, or conflicts with the adversaries; we see not why Bertram may not deserve the same favour, and diligent recognition, lest Heretics prate against us, and say, that we burn antiquity, and prohibit it, when it makes for them. Some things therefore in bertram's 
Non malè aut inconsultò igitur omittantur omnia haec à pa. 3. (Considerandum quoque quòd in pane illo etc.) usque ad illud multo post (Sed aliud est quod exterius geritur, etc.)— Legendum invisibiliter pro visibiliter. Ibid. p. 16. & 17.  book they will have to be quite left out, and some things to be quite altered, as namely for visibly to be read invisibly. Such devices have they of the Church of Rome to corrupt ancient Writers, when they make against them, and then they pretend that all are for them. Thus the marquis in the conclusion of his Reply (page 230.) pretends, that they have the prescription of 1600. years' possession and continuance of their Church's Doctrine, and evidence out of the word of God, and the Father's witnessing to that evidence, and the decrees of Counsels, and Protestants own acknowlegdements. But what ground there is for this pretence, let the Reader judge by comparing and considering what is said on both sides. And so I also shall leave the success of my labour unto God, in whose hand are the hearts of all.   

An Addition of some few things omitted in the foregoing REJOINDER.  
THe marquis, pag. 69. citeth Basil orat. in 40 (it is misprinted 44) Mart. as affirming that we may pray unto the Saints departed. But in that Oration Basil affirms no such thing: He shows indeed his approbation of praying (not 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. orat. in 40 Martyrs.  unto the Martyrs, but, which is quite another thing) to God at the monuments of the Martyrs. The most learned B. Usher observes, That the memory of the Martyrs indeed was from the very beginning had in great reverence; and at their Memorials and Martyria, 
B. Ush. Answer of Prayer to Saints, pa. 434.  that is to say, at the places wherein their bodies were laid, (which were the Churches, whereunto the Christians did in those times usually resort) prayers were ordinarily offered up unto God, for whose cause they laid down their lives. But this is no argument, that they then prayed to the Martyrs, though that error might take occasion (afterwards) to creep in by this means.  
The marquis taxeth Calvin for holding, that Christ's soul was subject to ignorance. To what I have already said in answer to this charge, I add, that in this particular Fulgentius was of the same mind with Calvin. For confuting those that held 
Si anima vel incellectus naturae in Christo defuisse credetur humanae, quid in infante bonum malúmqne dicitur ignorasse? (citat Isa. 7. 16. atque addit) Anima igitur humana, quae rationis capax naturaliter facta est, bonum malúmque in infante Christo nesciisse dicitur, quae secundum Evangelicam veritatem in puero Jesu sapientiâ & gratiâ profecisse narratur. Fulgent. ad Trasim. lib. 1.  Christ to have no humane soul, he saith thus: If we must believe that the humane nature in Christ wanted a soul, what is it, that in Christ being an Infant, is said not to have known good and evil? (Then he citys Isa. 7. 16. expounding it of Christ, and adds) Therefore the humane soul, which is naturally made capable of reason, in Christ being an Infant, is said not to have known good and evil; which according to the truth of the Gospel, in Christ being a child, is related to have increased in wisdom, etc.  
To that also that hath been said before concerning calvin's death, let this be added: How far Calvin was from despairing at his death, as the marquis doth object, may appear by what he wrote to his dear friend Farel, when he looked for death every moment. I hardly breath (saith he) and expect continually 
Aegrè spiritum traho, & assiduè expecto dum me anhelitus deficiat. Satis est quòd Christo vivo, & morior, qui suis lucrum est in vitâ & morte. Calv. Epist. 344.  that breath should fail me. It is enough that I live and die to Christ, who to those that are his is both in life and death advantage. This (as appears by the date of the Epistle). Calvin wrote at Geneva the second day of May, in the year 1564. and (as Bucholcerus in his Chronology notes out of Beza) the twenty seventh day of the same month he died.  
The marquis, page 99 speaks of Marriage as anciently held by the Church to be a true and proper Sacrament. This particular I omitted, having spoken of the rest which he there mentioneth, to wit, Confirmation, Orders, and Extreme Unction, in answer to that which elsewhere he saith of them. For Marriage therefore, 1. There is nothing in the Scripture to prove it a Sacrament properly so called. That of the Apostle 
Non habes ex hoc loco prudens Lector à Paulo conjugium esse Sacramentum. Cajetan. in Ephes. 5. 32.  so much insisted on, This is a great mystery, Ephes. 5. 32. Their own Cardinal Cajetane upon the place confesseth to make nothing to the purpose. 2. That the Fathers call Marriage a Sacrament, doth not evince that they thought it to be of the same nature with Baptism and the Lords Supper. For (as I have before showed) they often use the word Sacrament largely, and apply it to divers things, which even in our Adversaries account properly are no Sacraments. 3. Durandus an acute and learned School-man, who lived about the year 1320. doth hold, that though Marriage be a sign of a holy thing (to 
Argumenta prima probant, quòd matrimonium non est sacramentum strictè & proprie dictum, sicut alia sacramenta novae Legis; sed non probant quin sit sacrae rei signum, & sic largo modo sacramentum. Durand. in Sent. lib. 4. dist. 26. quaest. 3. num. 15.  wit, the conjunction of Christ and the Church) and so in a large sense a Sacrament, yet it is no Sacrament strictly and properly so called, nor of the same nature with the other Sacraments of the New Testament, to wit, Baptism, and the Lords Supper: and this he confirms by divers arguments. I know Bellarmine endeavours to answer Durandus his arguments; but his answers are confuted by Amesius and others, and therefore I will not stand about them. I will only prove from Bellarmine himself, that Marriage is properly no Sacrament. Every Sacrament properly so called, is administered by some other, and not by the same party, to 

Commune est omnibus Sacramentis, ut ab alio dentur, ab alio accipiantur: neque ullus sibi ipse Sacramentum administret. Bellar. de Missa lib. 1. c. 22. in initio.  
Matrimonium non eget alio Ministro praeter ipsos contrahentes. Bel. de Matr. l. 1. c. 5. sect. Atque hinc. Et c. 6. sect. Ex his.  
Necesse est conjuges ipsos esse proprios hujus Sacramenti Ministros. Et ibid. sect. Neque absurdum. Propriè qui Matrimonii Sacramentum efficiunt, ipsi conjuges sunt.   whom it is administered. But Marriage is not administered by some other, but by parties themselves that are married, whiles they mutually express their consent one to the other: Therefore Marriage is no Sacrament properly so called. Bellarmine doth own both the Proposition and the Assumption, and therefore he may not deny the Conclusion. This is argumentum ad hominem (as they call it) of force against Bellarmine: I do not see what he could, or any holding his principles can answer to it. But to make the argument simply and absolutely convincing, I will frame it otherwise. For indeed the Proposition laid down by Bellarmine is not simply and absolutely true, to wit, Every Sacrament properly so called is administered by some other, and not by the same party to whom it is administered. This is not essential to a Sacrament; for then the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament to the Minister himself, but only to those that communicate with him. And so if Abraham did circumcise himself, (as is probable he did) his Circumcision should have been no Sacrament unto him, which is most absurd. Thus therefore I frame the argument: Every Sacrament of the New Testament is to be administered by such as are peculiarly appointed of God to be Ministers of his holy things. But Marriage is not administered by such; Therefore it is not a Sacrament of the New Testament. In the Proposition I say, Every Sacrament of the New Testament, because whether it were so in respect of Circumcision, the story of Zippordh, and some other places of Scripture perhaps may make it questionable. But for the Sacraments of the New Testament, our Saviour hath ordained those that are Ministers of the word to have the administration of them also, Mat. 28. 19, 20. And the Apostle bids, Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. The Sacraments therefore being the mysteries of God, only the Ministers of Christ are now the stewards and dispensers of them. But this is not necessarily requisite in the point of Marriage, that a Minister 
Quanquam requiritur ex decreto Ecclesiae Minister Ecclesiasticus, qui consensum conjugum exquirat, & eundem approbet & declaret, & benedictione Sacerdotali confirmet; tamen propriè qui Matrimonii Sacramentum efficiunt ipsi conjuges sunt. Bell. de Matr. l. 1. c. 6. sect. Neque absurdum.  should dispense it. Though ordinarily a Minister be employed in the celebration of Marriage, for the instructing and exhorting of the parties married, and for praying unto God for his blessing upon them; yet this is not by Christ's peculiar appointment, but only (as our Adversaries confess) by the Church's order, and therefore not simply necessary; Marriage were every way complete, though no Minister were employed in it, though in divers respects that is expedient; but howsoever properly the parties themselves that are married, are they by whom Marriage is administered, whiles they give themselves each to other.  
The End.   


Errata in the First Part.  
Pag. 114. Properly, read piously. p. 121. deceived, r. deceased. p. 122. saw, r. slew. p. 123. work, r. rock. p. 124. that, r. not. p. 136. supposition. r. suspicion. p. 166. Patres, lege fratres. p. 205. reply, r. rely. p. 214. thy, merit, r. my merit. ibid. die, r. did. nomen, l. nomine. p. 215. discente, l. dicente. p. 222. So say the Translators, etc. That hath reference to those words, Some may, and indeed do say, etc. ibid. inevitable, r. inevitably. be being, blot out being. p. 230. If the Apostle had — add these words, considered mankind as corrupt, he would not have said. p. 231. fastened, r. fashioned. p. 235. were affirmed, r. we affirm. p. 252. to, r. do. p. 262. liking r. living. p. 291. Lombard who, blot out who.   

Errata in the Second Part.  
Pag. 26. this same, r. the same. p. 40. at least, r. at furthest. p. 45. commending, r. contending.