AN APPEAL TO Scripture & Antiquity, In the Questions of 

1. The Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels.  
2. The Worship of Images.  
3. Justification by and Merit of good Works.  
4. Purgatory.  
5. Real presence and Half-Communion.   Against the ROMANISTS.  
By H. FERNE D.D. late Bishop of CHESTER.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to His most Sacred MAJESTY, 1665.   

THE PREFACE.  
BEing both provoked and invited to make some Answer to Mr. Spencer's Book of Scriptures Mistaken, I assayed to do it as briefly as I could; and it was needful I should confine myself to the Order, he observed, and to the places of Scripture, he examined as urged by Protestants against the Romish Doctrine and Practice, and to those he alleges as witnessing for it.  
But seeing he boasts in his Preface, that he will deal with the Protestants, and beat them at their own Weapon, Scripture: and so comes not to the trial of Antiquity, which he pretends, and with too much confidence presumes to be their own: therefore I shall add A Brief Survey of the Ancient Doctrine and Practice of the Catholic Church, as to the points here Controverted; that it may appear, how they are worsted there, what brags soever they make of Antiquity.  
But it may be said, There are Bocks enough and too many: which do but continue the Controversy, and keep the breach open; More need there is to endeavour some closing, and to make offers of Agreement. True, if we could conceive any hope of condescension on their parts, or perceive any intent of Peace in them, whom we still find lying at the catch, and laying hold upon all advantages, which may promote their cause with all sorts of people: into whose hands they thrust such Books, as may render it more plausible, and into whose ears they are continually whispering, what may represent the Protestant as guilty of Schism, and Heresy: thereby enforcing us to break silence, and to inform our People (if we will not have them seduced) of the cunning of our Adversaries, to discover their Dawbing, and vain Pretences, such as Mr. Spencer and others sent over to the same purpose, do use for deceiving of the Unwary.  
Peace among Christians, surely is the most beseeming, the most desirable Thing in the world; and would be, considering how it now stands with the too much divided Catholic Church, the greatest blessing; and we have been sufficiently taught how to value it by the past and present distractions and differences amongst us. But when we talk of Peace to them of Rome, they are ready to reproach us with Physician heal thyself, make up your own breaches and Divisions, before you speak of being received into the Unity of the Catholic Church. Let them alone a while with their so much pretended unity: our first care certainly is to make peace at home, and in the mean time (as we see it the care and prudence of all States to guard the Borders against the Foreign and Common Enemy) to fortify those Doctrines wherein the Parties dissenting do agree, and are as within common bounds enclosed.  
And blessed be God, we have a great expedient for the restoring of our Peace by the return of our gracious Sovereign unto us; who is the true Defender of the Faith, the great Example of Constancy in Religion, and of Clemency in fogiving and forgetting injuries. And when we his Subjects, being assured of the Truth and Religion which he defends, have also learned to obey by His Example, and with mutual condescensions and endeavours of peace, to entertain and embrace one another: then shall our hearts be better prepared with a charitable compliance for the Adversary abroad, when soever he shall think it convenient to admit thoughts of Peace, and shall seriously consider how we are all bound to profess and believe One (not Roman, but Christian) Catholic Church.  
We cannot but be sensible, what hand they that stile themselves Catholics, have had in kindling this fire among us, and bringing fuel to it: and we would have them (being so oft convinced and told of it) sensible, how unchristian, uncatholick a part it is; how contrary to the Peace of the Church.  
But could they that are sent over amongst us to blow the coals, forget their Instructions, and Vow of Obedience: and they that send them learn to value the Peace of Christendom: yet what hope (may some ask) could there be of an Accord in Doctrine? If we consider what passed in the  Colloquies, during the Time of the Trent Council, and observe what condescension and moderation appeared then, notwithstanding the intervention of so many Nuncio's from Rome, and the so much boasted pretence of Infallibility in that Church: If also we carefully look into their Controversy-writers, and note what concessions they sometimes make in the point, what mincings of the Romish doctrine, when they are put to it: there may appear a possibility in the thing itself, if peaceable men had the handling of it. But when we consider on the other hand, how all those endeavours for Peace became Fruitless: and all the offers made at Truth by moderate Men in that Council were silenced and rejected; and notwithstanding all their mincings and concessions in those points, the Doctrine and Practice of that Church goes as high as ever: We may imagine there are some overruling points of State-doctrine, (of the Court rather than Church of Rome) which command the Rest and forbid all condescension and moderation: such at least, as may give us any hope of a tolerable agreement.  
And thus it will be, what ever we endeavour, till order be taken with him, that pretends to the Infallibility and exorbitant Power: of whom we may say in this particular, as the Apostle doth of that lawless person, 2 Thess. 2.7. He who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way: that is, until he be reduced within the bounds of the Canons of the Catholic Church. A glorious work for Christian Princes: a work of greatest concernment to the Peace of Christendom.  
But till that be done, I would commend those considerations following, to All, that delight, or are inclined to be in the Communion of that Church, and in subjection to that pretended infallible and all-powerful Head.  
I. Why should they desire to be under a lawless boundless Power? under a Head so notoriously perjured? If this seem harsh; let them seriously consider, what they in reason and conscience find to excuse him from that charge, who binds himself by Oath in the Conclave, and then in the Papal Chair holds himself lose from what he swore to observe; who also swears to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils, yet will not keep within the bounds, they have set Him; but challenges and exercises an Universal Jurisdiction, to the overthrow of that Government, which those Canons have fixed in the Way of the Church.  
II. Why they should so much desire to be of the Communion of that Church, which (while the Court of Rome is suffered to desine all, to overrule all) is in so dangerous a condition. This will appear, if they consider:  
First, that through the pretended infallibility of their Head, they can have no certain groundwork or Reason of their belief; but are in a way to lose all true Faith. For let the Cardinal make the Proposition: If the Pope could Err or turn Heretic, then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Virtue, Error for Truth. (This he plainly lays down in his 4. Book de Pontifice, and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain.) Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption: But the Pope may turn Heretic; what can the Conclusion speak, but the hazard of that Church, which will be under such a pretended infallible Head?  
Secondly, That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholic: and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians, and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors, to be ancient Catholic Doctrine. We do not envy them, the Title of Catholics, that they should enjoy it together withal other Chrictians, who are baptised into the Catholic Faith, and do profess it without any destructive Heresy; but the appropriating of that Title to themselves, (and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith, proper to that Church) implies all other Christians to be no better than Heretics, and excludes all conditions of Peace, unless they will come in, as the Israelites to Naash, with their right eyes put out, 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm, it will appear, that no Church of known and ancient denomination, as Greek, Asian, African, British, doth less deserve to be called Catholic, or has more forfeited that Name: because none so much falsified her trust; whether we consider the Errors entertained, or the Imposing them as Catholic, and Christian Faith.  
The three great concernments of Religion, and so of the Church are, the Faith professed, the Worship practised, the Sacraments administered: all which are dangerously violated in that Church. For first, How have they kept the Faith undefiled, (which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoins) that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles, and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain persuasion of a pretended Infallibility?  
Secondly, The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue; for without understanding the people cannot say Amen; The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools, not a reasonable service. Again, Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service; as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book.  
Lastly, Sacraments violated, by addition of New ones, and those properly so called. A great invasion it is upon God's property, if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace, which God who is the only Author of Grace, has not appointed to be so.  
Again, upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute, a great invasion is made, by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements, and then taking away from the people half of that, which remains. Our Saviour said, Drink ye all of it, Mat. 26.27. The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it: Nay, None of you shall, but the Priest only.  
Add to this, the Impossibility they put themselves upon (as I said) to prove all their New Articles of belief (for which they will be the only Catholics) to be the Ancient Faith, and Catholic Doctrine of the Church. They will hardly be brought to say, The Church may make New Articles of Faith: but rather, The Church may declare, what was before but implicitly believed. This is true if duly explained: yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church. For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith, which was not expressly taught before, it is such a Truth, as was necessarily contained and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed, and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable; as the Consubstantiality of the Son, declared against the Arrians: the two Wills in Christ, against the Monothelites: the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance, against the Eutychians: This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils, but that, what before was simply believed, might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed— And to show that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number, but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge, He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body, which are as many in a child as in a grown man; no addition made of new parts; for that would render the body monstrous; but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees. To this purpose he, in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can show their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truths of that Creed, into which we are baptised: then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith, & this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholics.  
III. May they consider, how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholic Doctrine of that Church, are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold.  
Their Masters acknowledge, and so does their Trent Council, that the worship of Saints and Angels, Invocation of them, Adoration of Images, is not commanded, but commended as profitable. Why then should Scripture be so oft alleged to deceive the unwary? why are they retained as profitable, when Experience shows what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks? what offence to so many Christians as protest against them? what a stumbling block to their own people, exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry?  
They acknowledge, that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administered it in both kinds; and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church, yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it. And in their defence of this half Communion, they acknowledge, if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments, yet it must be Saluâ illorum substantia, saving their substance, Concil. Trid. ses. 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding, they can take away the whole substance of the Elements, and defraud the people of the half of what is left: and notwithstanding our Saviour's Institution, and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages: This custom must be held for a Law, which none may contrary: as that Council decrees in the same chap.  
They acknowledge, it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass, i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses, and they wish it were so, and yet decree the contrary, cap. 6. de Missa. So they acknowledge the Mass contains (magnam populi eruditionem) great edification and instruction for the people; yet decree it not expedient to have it (or the Liturgy) in the popular or vulgar tongue, cap. 8. But if the Court of Rome had seen it equally to their advantage, they could have held the people to that which they ought, viz. the Communion, as well as keep all their Priests from that, which they ought not, viz. Marriage.  
They acknowledge that Justification precedes good Works. Sos. 6. c. 8. yet deliver this doctrine (Justified by Works) grossly to the People; They know, how it is to their advantage. And in the 16. chap. of that Session, They acknowledge the grace of God for performance of the work, and his gracious promise of the reward: yet decree, that good Works do truly Merit.  
Add to this, their mincing of points of doctrine, when they are put to it. As when the enquiry is driven home, what worship is due to Saints and Angels. What Invocation to be used. What worship or adoration to be given to Images. We see how they lessen it, and seem to be contented with very little, as we observe in Mr. Spencer's concessions upon those points: yet do they keep up the practice, in the height and full extent, suffering (if not encouraging) the people to perform it grossly and superstitiously: as they must needs do, being uncapable of such nice distinctions, as are used to excuse that worship.  
So when they are put to it in the points of Satisfactions, Purgatory, Indulgences, to show what is satisfied for, what is remitted, and consequently what is granted in the Indulgence, and to what sort of Persons; they are forced to bring it to such an uncertainty, and to so small a scantling, that the people, if they knew it, would consider well what they laid out that way, before they parted with it; but these points are so in gross propounded to the people, that they have cause to think (as generally they do) they are by these satisfactions and indulgences freed from any sin, and do escape thereby Hell fire itself.  
This which has been said, speaks concessions and yield on their part, and shows a possibility of agreement, and that some fair way might be found for some tolerable accord: did not filthy lucre, gotten by those points, and the exorbitant greatness of Papal power obstruct it: the Court of Rome (as we see in all the offers made for reformation) being always more solicitous of upholding itself, then of reforming the Church: of advancing its own greatness, then of promoting the peace of Christendom.  
To conclude. The peace of Christians, the agreement of the Roman and other Churches is possible, if 〈◊〉 e possible for the Pope to do his duty, or Christian Princes, theirs: that is, if he would do the duty of a Bishop of Rome, or prime Patriarch, the duty he is bound to, sworn to, in taking oath to observe the Canons of the Ancient General Councils, which prescribe the bounds of the Roman, and other Patriarchal Jurisdictions. But if he make light of this and all other bonds of duty, why should it not be possible for Christian Princes to do their duty in reducing him within those known and confessed bounds, fixed by the Ancient Church?  
In the mean time, let them cease to reproach us with Schism, till he return to his station, where he may receive the obedience due to him by those Ancient Canons: let them rather consider, whom they follow, in all his transgressions and extravagances, thereby engaging themselves in his Schism against the whole Catholic Church. And let them not please themselves with the specious Name of Catholics, for holding such points of Difference from other Christians, as will upon trial appear to be far from the Truth and soundness of Catholic Doctrine. And to make this appear by the undeniable Rules of Christian verity, Scripture, and Catholic Tradition, (as they are solidly set down by Vincentius) is the scope and purpose of this ensuing Treatise. If any of their Masters shall think fit to make any Reply, let him do it, not as one carping at small things, and catching at seeming advantages: but as one really intending the Manifestations of Truth, and the Expedients of Peace: the restoring of which, throughout the Catholic Church, is the Prayer of  
H. Ferne.   

The Points of Doctrine here Examined.  

I. OF the worship of Saints and Angels.  
II. Of the Invocation of Saints and Angels.  
III. Of the worship of Images.  
iv Of Justification by Works.  
V Of the Merit of Good Works.  
VI Of Purgatory.  
VII. Of Real Presence.  
VIII. Of Communion under one kind.    

An Answer to Mr. Spencer's Book ENTITLED, SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN By the Protestants.  

CHAP. I. The first Point. Of the Worship of Saints and Angels.  
THis Author first tells us, 
Introduction.  what the Council of Trent delivers touching the Worship and invocation of Saints and Angels, not as Gods or Saviour's, but as Creatures dependent on God and Christ— and that it is not commanded as necessary, but commended as profitable— and this, to disabuse vulgar Protestants, who think the Roman Church teaches, it is as necessary to salvation, to invoke and worship the Saints, as to invoke and worship Christ himself— Pag. 3.4. The Council indeed touches this point warily, and in general: which circumspection and cunning we find used in most of the decrees; they best know wherefore. But Vulgar Protestants are not abused, when they are told, that according to the practice of that Church (if we look into the applications made to Saints and their shrines, both for the forms and the frequency) there appears not much of that dependency on Christ, but very much of an opinion (connived at, if not rather cherished) among the Vulgar Papists, that it is as necessary and profitable, if not more, to invoke and worship them, than Christ himself. But if they will commend this as profitable, why did not the Council for the disabusing their own people, condemn those unprofitable, poisonous forms of invocation yet extant in their books, and used in their Churches? why has it not yet anathematised that blasphemous Lady Psalter, and that horrid doctrine, broached by Aquinas, and still maintained by most of this Author's society, that the Image is to be worshipped 
* Greg. de Val. in Th●disput. vi. Qu. xi. punc●o. 6. Azor. Instit. Mor. To. 1. li. 9 c. 6. qu. 5.  with the same worship, with which he is whose Image it is? So that if it be the Image of Christ it is to be worshipped with divine worship. The 
† Bel. de Imaginib. l. 2. c. 22,  Cardinal acknowledges, they which speak so, are forced to use distinctions, which they themselves scarce understand, much less the people: So that Mr. Spencer had need look home, to disabuse his own people.  

The first place of Scripture. Matth. 4.10. Thou shalt worship, the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.  
Numb. I Here he needlessly spends time in showing, that worship and service may be given to others besides God; 
The quest. is about Religious worship.  and therefore notes it as a double mistake of the Protestants, to infer from this place that worship and service are only due to God: pa. 5. etc.  
It seems he was bound to make up his tale or number of mistakes, he does so causelessly fasten them upon the Protestants: for he knows they do not argue from this place, that all kinds of worship or service are to be given to God only: but that kind of worship, which according to his own expression, pag. 8. is performed by an act of Religion: i. e. religious worship: or as S. Aug. gives us the limitation of that Word Worship, and indeed the determination of the question, that if we add Religion to that word, 
Aug. de Civ. l. 10. c. 1.  than it speaks that worship, which is due to God only. This Author knew well enough that Protestants confine their dispute here to a Religious worship: and he speaks it pa. 11. that this place Mat. 4.10. must according to Protestants be understood to forbid only religious worship to any save God: and therefore applies himself under his second pretended mistake to the consideration of it, endeavouring to find out such a worship given to Creatures, as may be called Religious. All that he brings we shall see very far short of the purpose, altogether insufficient to excuse their practice, or answer what we charge them with, for their encroachments upon the Worship and Service due to God, in the way of Religion.  
The first thing we need take notice of, is his premising the distinction of Worship, 
The Acts of Worship inward and outward.  into Interior & Exterior, as subservient to his purpose, (pa. 1.2.) telling us (pa. 13.) The External deportment, as prostration, may be the very same, when we worship God, or Saint, or Angel, Bishop, Apostle, King, Magistrate, Father, Mother: yet they become different kinds of Worship, according to the different humiliations, intentions, and acknowledgements; which he who worships, desires to express by those outward deportments of the body. It is true that the inward intent makes a difference in the worship given, when the outward act is the same, though not always so different a kind of worship, as he would have the worship of Saints and Angels to be, in regard of the Civil worship and honour, as we shall see below. But here note (for there will be use of it hereafter) that in all this discourse of worship he only insists in such outward expressions, 
Some Acts of worship proper to God.  as properly fall under the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as bowing, kneeling, prostration, which are indeed common to the worship of God and Creatures: but there are other, which both in Scripture and in the nature of the thing, appear proper to God, and the worship due to him, Altars, burning incense, oblations, nuncupation of Vows; upon which score we may find the Church of Rome faulty, as in doctrine, so much more in practice. The 
* Bel. de Beat. sanctorum l. 1. c 12.  Cardinal having said, the external acts are common to all worship, makes his exception, of sacrifices, and those 
† Greg. de Val. in Tho. 2.2. Disp 6. qu. 5. the virt. Riligionis puncto. 2.  things which have relation to them: And Greg. de Val. acknowledges it of Prayer, Oblations, Sacrifices, etc. that they immediately belong to Religion, and do peculiarly contain a certain subjection of the creature to God.  
The second thing we are to take notice of, 
Excellency & Dignity how the Reason of Honour and Worship.  is that to lay some groundwork for raising such a worship on, as they give to Saints and Angels, he sets himself to show, that besides the Civil and Divine dignities or excellencies, there is a third sort neither infinite as the Divine, nor humane as the Civil; but Spiritual and Supernatural, and would make his Readers believe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in showing, there are three worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honoured by an act of worship, pag. 14. Whereas we grant such supernatural excellencies in Angels and Men, and that there ought to be an acknowledgement and honour in the mind commensurate to such a worth or excellency, and that to be expressed by such acts as are fitting: and we believe that the Romanists have not such an acknowledgement in their minds when they worship Saint or Angel, as they have when they worship God Almighty: but whether that acknowledgement they have, be commensurate to created Excellencies, and no more, they know best: We cannot but say, the expressions they make of it in the several particulars of their Religious Worship, do too plainly show, they yield them more devotion of soul than is due to mere Creatures, entrenching far upon the religious worship and service due to God.  
The third thing we take notice of is, that albeit he said, 
Of the words Religion, and Reliigous worship.  All the difficulty consisted in clearing the third sort of worth or excellency to be acknowledged and honoured; yet he knew well enough, the difficulty stood not in that, but in the acknowledging and honouring them with acts of Religious worship. And therefore (pa. 20, 21.) he sets himself to distinguish of the words; Religion and Religious, that among all the acceptions of those words mentioned in Scripture, he might find some, according to which, the worship of Saints and Angels may be called Religious.  
Religion (saith he pa. 20.) may be taken either in a strict sense, for the virtue of Religion: So when the School Doctors dispute about the nature of infused graces; or largely, for the whole belief or profession of those that esteem themselves to have the true way of serving God: so when we say, the Religion of the Christians, or of the Jews: having thus distinguished, he determins (pa. 22.) It will be sufficient for the defence of the Cathol. Roman faith in this point: to affirm, that when the Doctors say, that any thing created may be or is worshipped with religious worship, it is religious in the larger sense: i. e. virtuous, pious, Christian, as belonging and proper to our Religion, and tending finally to the acknowledgement of God and our Saviour's honour, as Author of our faith and religion, and pa. 23. instances in Levit. 7.6. where the giving of the breast and shoulder of the sacrifice to the Priest, is called a perpetual religion in their generations; and then in ja. 1. ult. where a work of mercy done to the poor (to a Creature) is called Religion, i. e. proceeding from and belonging to Religion. But this, together with all the instances be can give of Religion or Religious in such a sense, comes not home either to the thing in question, (Religious worship) or to defence of his Catholic Roman Church, attributing more to Saints and Angels, than he can bring out of Scripture or Fathers either, either to parallel or excuse it. For upon examination, and for reasons following, it will appear plainly, that the worship as by them allowed and performed to Saints and Angels, must be called Religious, according to his first and stricter sense of Religion, and so by his own confession undue to Creatures.  
But before we come to our reasons let us hear how Gregory 
Val. in Tho. 2. 2ae. disp. 6. qu. 1. punct. 2.  de Val... expresses this matter a little more clearly. He speaking of the Acts of the virtue of Religion (as the School calls it) tells us some of them pertain to it remotè & imperatiuè, remotely and only as commanded by it; (this with Mr. Spencer is religious in the larger sense:) some pertain to it proximè & elicitive, immediately, and more inwardly proceeding from it, and declaring a subjection due to God; such acts are prayers, oblations, sacrifices, vows, etc. This is religious in Mr. Spencer's first and stricter sense: accordingly the Schoolmen treat of those particulars, as Acts or immediate exercises of the virtue of religion. Now albeit Valentia, and Mr. Spencer and all of them affirm, that religious worship according to this sense, is due only to God: which is a great truth; and do deny, that the worship they give to any creature is to be called religious so: or that it pertains to religion in that stricter sense; which is also true, as to many things they do to Saints and Angels, (being not so much as remotè and imperatiuè, by way of command from true religion) yet as used and exercised by them, those acts of their worship are interpretatiuè, acts of religion according to the first sense: so to be interpreted and accounted of as to them, and their performance: as all undue and misapplied worship, given to the Creature in way and exercise of religion, yea given to a false God, is to be accounted of. This will appear in the reasons following.  
The first reason shall be that which Azorius (one of the same Society) gives; 
How the Romish creature-worship must be accounted religious. Azor. Instit. Mor. part. 1. l. 9 c. 10. qu. 2.  because, the virtue of religion is not of two kinds, one which gives God his worship, and another which gives worship to Saints, their Images and Relics. And they (saith he) that think religion is not of one kind, are moved by the reason of the several kinds of dignities and excellencies in things; (this was Mr. Spencer's reason of his several sorts of worship, as above nu. 3. and so it is Bellarmine's reason) but religion (saith Azor) is not a virtue which generally gives to any one worship for the excellency, but which gives Divine worship and honour to God: and 
* Non igitur religio, quicquid excellit, honorat & colit, sed ●●icquid divinum est, et quâ ratione divinum est: quemadmodum ergò unus Deus est, sic una quoque specie relig●o est. Azon● ibid.  therefore the virtue of religion does not honour and worship whatsoever excels, but whatsoever is Divine, and as it is Divine: wherefore as God is but one, so religion is but one in kind. Now this is very true and rational, and concludes all religious worship to be Divine, and only due to God: and that albeit there be an honour due to such excellencies, (an honour commensurate to them) yet not a religious worship.  
But what will Azorius then say to the religious worship given to Saints and their Images in the Church of Rome? It is the objection immediately following, and he answers not by mincing the matter, as most of his fellows do, by saying it is religious in a remote or a large sense, such a sense as (considering what they do, and allow in that Church) speaks nothing to the purpose; or by saying it is an act of special observance, as Greg. de Val. would lessen it to no purpose, as see below, num. 8. or by other frivolous distinctions used by them in this point of worship: No. He seemed to consider what is done and allowed in their Church, and that all such excuses help not: therefore 
* Sanctos honoramus non solum co cultu quo homines virtute & dignitate praestantes, sed etiam divino cultu, qui est actus religionis— Sed divinos cultus & honores non dam●s sanctis propter se●psos sed propter deum, qui eos sanctos effecit. Azor. ibid. qu. 5.  he saith down right, (and saith it often in this chapped.) that it is Divine (which in Mr. Spencer's strict sense is religious) honour and worship which is given to Saints, in erecting Altars, Offering, making vows to them, invoking of them, etc. and excuses it from Idolatry by saying it is given them, not for themselves, but for God's sake, that made them such. But there is enough in Greg. de Val. and Bell. and other Romish writers to show, that divine honour given to the creature, though with such reference to God cannot be defended: which is a great truth; so then between these truths the Church of Rome must be in a great strait; it gives and allows according to what Azorius proved, a divine and religious worship to creatures, and according to the truth that the other deliver, it cannot be defended in it.  
Second reason. What does religion in Mr. Spencer's strict sense sound, but that virtue and devotion of the heart which sends out such expressions of subjection and worship in the exercises of religion! and what is the Romish worship but the exercise of that devotion or religion which is in the heart of any Romanist so desiring to express itself? and how is it expressed and performed but by their addresses to God, Saints, Angels by the former acts of Religion, Prayers, Praises, Vows, Offerings? Look into their offices private, public: observe what is done at their Altars, Shrines, Images: what prayers, offerings, vows made there! see their incense burned before an Image, which is a consumptive oblation, and as much as was done to the brazen Serpent: and as for Prayer, (one of the Acts of religion) under it 
* Val. disp. 6. qu. 2. de oratione ●unct. 10.  Valentia puts their daily recital of the office, which contains prayers to Saints and Angels; and therefore this worship by prayers, vows, to Saints in their way of religion must belong to religion in the first sense, as immediate exercises thereof.  
Thirdly, they do not only use those immediate acts of religion, prayers, praises, vows: giving them to Saints in their exercise of religion: but in these religious acts join the Saints with God: 
Athan Orat. 4. contra Arianos.  which Athanasius makes an Argument of the unity of the Son with the Father, else he could not be joined with him in prayers;— in praying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to join the Son to the Father, which he denies to all creatures— so when St. Paul prays— 1 Thess. 3.11. Now God himself and our Lord Jesus direct, etc. Now see how in the Church of Rome they join the Saints with God: in their vows, as at entrance into some religious orders; I vow to God and the blessed Virgin; in their Praises that Psalm or Hymn venite adoremus, 
Psal. 99  is in some of their books thrice broken, by Ave Maries inserted: Bellar. and Valentia close some of their books thus, Laus Deo & Beatae Virgini, praise to God and the blessed Virgin; and as I remember in the Lion's Edition Bellarm. closes his book de cultu Sanctorum, thus, Laus Deo, Virginique Mariae, Jesus item Christo: praise be to God, and to the blessed Virgin Mary, also to Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God; the like is done by Valentia at the end of some of his books. Now what is this but to set her if not in equal rank with God, yet surely as high as the Collyridians' did? And what can this import but religion in the first sense? A presumptuous entrenching on what is due to God.  
Fourthly, when they divide worship into Latria and Dulia, it is not a Division of the word worship at large (as when it is divided into religious and civil) but it is a division of religious worship, given by them with this distinction, to God and the creature, in the way and exercise of their religion: also the word service implied in Dulia, being not a civil service with them, necessarily implies a religious service; such as God forbids to be given to creatures: also when they affirm the same worship given to the Image of Christ, as to Christ, is it not religious in the high sense? The defenders of this take ground from their known Church Hymn. Hail O Cross, our only hope, etc. as the 
* Bel. l. de Imag. c. 19 fundament.  Cardinal acknowledges, and would shift it off by many figures in the speech.  
Lastly, when they pray to God, which they grant is the exercise of religion in the strict sense, they acknowledge they do it by the mediation of Saints and Angels prayed unto for that purpose: and what is this else but a performing of the creature-worship out of the virtue of religion, and in way of religious offices or devotions, in and together with, and in order to a worshipping of God, at the same time begging of God the gift of mercy, and begging the Saints mediation, for presenting that prayer, or joining his intercession with it?  
As for his large and lax sense of religious for that which proceeds from and belongs to religion, 
Religious in their large sense not excuse their creature-worship.  it is so general that it brings in all the duties of the second table, as that act of mercy he instanced in out of Ja. 1. ult. And here by that and his other instance out of Leu. 7.6. we might expect, if he will have this creature-worship any way belong to religion, he should have shown it commanded by God, as those two particulars were which he brought as instances: but it is the profession of this Author in the name of his Church, that it is not commanded but commended as good and profitable: i. e. as invented and taken up of themselves, and pertaining to, and proceeding from religion, i. e. the religion of the Romish Church, far from being Catholic in this point; indeed if we speak of a worship due to Saints and Angels, that is, an acknowledgement and honour we own them, answerable to the worth and excellency in them: it is a duty or thing commanded, and so religious in that large sense, by the fifth commandment; yea, and tends finally to God's honour, as the Author of all gifts and excellencies in the creature. And we are ready to express this inward acknowledgement or honour (and do it sufficiently) by celebrating their memories, by thanksgiving to God for them, by proposing their virtuous examples for imitation; but as for the worship they perform and plead for, whatever inward acknowledgement they pretend to have commensurate to the worth of those glorious creatures, yet such are the acts they express it by, as do plainly show it a worship neither commanded nor commended, nor consistent with that worship which we find commanded, those acts, and acknowledgements of honour and subjection, which God requires in his worship.  
Lastly, the examples he brings out of Scripture for countenancing his worship, who sees not how far they fall short of what he should prove? They are of Lots bowing to the Angels that came unto him; and of the Shunamite worshipping Elisha, and the Captain of fifty, Elias, p. 25. and this he will have religious worship, because of their Authorities derived and acknowledged only from faith and religion. Be it so: and that they had a motive for that worship more then merely ●ivil: we need not fear if it be called religious in so large and remiss a sense, viz. such a religious worship or reverence as is given to holy men living. But I would ask this Author, if it would not be held abominable in the Church of Rome, to give unto any holy men living, the worship and service they do to Saints departed: as to erect Altars, Temples to them, fall down before their Images, burn incense to them, make vows and prayers to them at any distance, and in the same forms, and in the same place and time, where and when they do to God?  
Well, leaving this for him to think of: 
Mr. Spencer's mincing of the matter.  hear how he concludes this discourse, pag. 27. where (to the praise of his ingenuity, but prejudice of his undertaking) he saith: If any wilfully deny all kind of religious worship, in how large a sense soever, to be lawfully exhibited to any save God alone; so long as he yields the thing itself, that is, to exhibit reverence and worship to persons and things, in acknowledgement of the supernatural gifts and graces and blessings of God, wherewith they are enriched: let him call that worship Christian, or pious, or an extraordinary rank of civil worship, I shall not contend about the name, when the thing is done. This is fair, if he deal plainly, and do not expect (by seeming to be content with the thing we yield,) such a thing as they make of this worship; for we are ready to yield the thing that is due: that is a reverence and honour commensurate to their excellency: as much or more than was given to holy men living: and to do it by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a bowing or prostration) where it can be done: to an Angel, if visibly appearing to us as to Lot. And as for the Saints departed, they are not by reason of their absence, capable of that which was given to holy men living; but we are willing to express the honour we own them, as we can: by commemorating and praising their virtues, propounding their examples for imitation. And if we must properly speak, what the worship is, which they exhibit to the Saints departed, 
Superstition.  it must be called superstition, which as the notation of the word shows, is a worship of the dead exhibited to them by those that overlive them, or remain after them; or as Lactantius tells us, they are called 
* Superstiriosi sunt, qui superstitem memoriam defunctorum colunt, eorumque Imagines celebrant. Instit. l. 4. c. 28.  superstitious, who worship or religiously honour the remaining memory of the dead, and celebrate (or honour with religious service) their Images. And now let this Author if he can, defend his Catholic Roman Church in her pretended religious worship, from this charge of superstition: and then consider if she be not also so far chargeable with Idolatrous practice, as those applications to Saints and Angels, those expressions of worship which they make by vows, oblations, prayers and adorations, shall be found to yield to the creature any thing proper to God.  
To conclude, we have seen how the worship, which they religiously, 
The honour due to Saints and Angels of what sort i● it?  but unduly give to Saints and Angels stands charged: now if for the perfecting of this discourse, it be enquired to what sort of worship, that honour, which we acknowledge due to Saints and Angels (the thing, which he said, we yield) may indeed be reduced: we have two sorts of worship apparent and unquestionable, Divine and Civil: the divine is due to God by reason of his supereminent majesty, and by reason of his dominion over the whole man, and contains all the religious worship and service, all the obedience man can give him according to any of his commands, all the honour he can return him upon any due occasion. The civil, is due to man upon that dominion he has over others according to the outward man and affairs of this life, and contains the honour, subjection, and obedience due to Magistrate, Masters, Parents, Between these two, the Cardinal (whom this Author follows every where) fixes the worship or honour due to a finite supernatural excellency, such as is in Saints and Angels: And it is true, that if we give the creature no more than is commensurate or due unto it, the honour given will not be a Divine or Religious, nor yet a Civil worship properly, because given without respect to dominion or subjection. But there is a worship or honour due to persons (to whom we own not subjection) as they are endowed with qualities and excellencies, though not supernatural, as Wisdom, Learning, Justice, and other Virtues: which worship is not Divine, or Civil properly, but as some call it, the worship or honour of Moral reverence due to all moral virtuous endowments; or as others Cultus officiosus, officious, or out of courtesy. So likewise the honour due to gracious and supernatural gifts and qualities, may though in a higher degree be called the honour of moral reverence, making but one kind of both, because the motive or ground of both is a thing of moral persuasion, arising from the worth and excellency of gifts and endowments without the reason of dominion.  
Greg. de Val. 
Val. in Thom. 2.2. disput. 6. qu. 11. punct. 5.  has a phrase for it not much differing; telling us, the worship due to Saints, is not an act of religion immediately, but singularis observantiae, of a singular observance, or respect to saints; & that it is not religion immediately, which procures them that esteem, commensurate to excellent Creatures; but peculiaris observantia, i.e. that special observance & reverence w ch. such excellencies deserve. Now this is to speak what is due to saints, not what the Romanists allow them, or suffer their people to give them: which often falls into the way and acts of Religion, by their vows, prayers, raise, oblations to Saints.  
That this worship or honour (which may be called an act of moral reverence or of officiousness, or of special observance, if they please) is of a differing kind, from the religious or divine, and may be differenced from the civil or humane, cannot be denied; but if asked, to which of the two it is reducible, or analogical, we say to the civil. For gifts and virtues which for their principle and Original are supernatural, are for their use, civil, i. e. for the good of the concives, fellow Citizens, members of the same society of the Church; yea Saints and Angels are concives fellow Citizens with us, Eph. 2.19. So that civil worship might be divided, into that humane civil according to the Polity of the world; and this of moral reverence, which is analogically civil according to the Polity of the Church society. But they must reduce it to Religious worship which they divided into Latria and Dulia, as above; ehre its made medius cultus, a middle worship between Divine and Civil, as the Card inal and they all do, 
Bel. de Beat. Sanctor. l 1. c. 12.  to bring it nearer to the Divine; and then to make it entrench upon the divine or religious worship by such applications and expressions as we heard above. As for their usual starting hole (to which they commonly retire in this point of worshipping of Saints, Angels, Images,) to say they have no such acknowledgement of them, as of Gods, or infinite excellencies, it will not secure them; so long as they yield them some acknowledgement not commensurate to them, and express it by such acts and exercises of religious worship as above said. We shall find the Heathens made the like excuses for the worship, they gave to the inferior Deities, and to their Images. Nor could the people have such a conceit of Moses' dead body or carcase, as of an Infinite and divine excellency, which yet God hid from them, lest they should make an Idol of it, as the Cardinal saith 
* Bel. Apol. pro respons. sua ad Reg. Jacob. cap 8. Sect. jam. vero. ; that is, lest they should do to it, and give it such acts of worship, as the Church of Rome doth to Angels, to Saints, and to their Relics.  
Now lest there should be made some pretence● of plea from what the Author said of supernatural worship and excellency, 
Of the Authority and Rule, that Saints and Angels are said to have over us.  which he seemed to raise not only upon supernatural gifts and graces, but also upon that dignity and authority which is more than humane or Civil, and truly by him called Ecclesiastical, such as was in Prophets and Apostles: and withal mentioned several places of Scripture, to imply the dignity and authority in the Saints and Angels, as 1 Cor. 6.2. that they shall judge the world— Rev. 5.19. that they shall reign upon the earth. And that the Angels were Promulgators of the Law, Act. 7.53. Captains of the Armies of God, Jos. 5.14. controllers of Kingdoms, Dan. 10.12. So he pa. 17.18. I say, least by this Authority which he seems to ascribe to them, he should imply (for he does not plainly infer) a subjection to them, and upon that account, a duty of worship: therefore to exclude all pretences; It may be said 1. That in Prophets and Apostles there was a dignity of authority as well as excellency of grace and holiness: and still there is such Authority in the Bishops and Pastors of the Church; and that Authority not Civil properly, but Ecclesiastical; and upon that Authority a subjection due to them (Heb. 13.17.) in things pertaining to Religion and Conscience; and the honour or worship thereupon due to them, as it may in his large sense be called Religious (which we every where grant without prejudice to our, or advantage to his Cause) so may it better be called the Civil Ecclesiastical worship, because as in the world, so in the Church there is a policy or government: for the Church below, as a City and society within itself, and does also with that above make up the whole City of God. Therefore are we called by the Apostle (Concives) fellow Citizens Eph. 2. But 2ly, Albeit Saints and Angels belong to the higher part of this City, the triumphant, and as to the state they enjoy are of higher dignity and glory then any in the militant, or part below: yet being not capable of that conduct of souls as the Governors and Pastors in the lower city are, they cannot challenge that subjection from us, nor the worship that arises upon it, Nor can they by reason of their distance receive from us those tenders of worship and honour which are applied to holy men living. 
* Eo cultu dilectionis & societatis qu in h●c vita Sancti homines. contra Faust. l. 20. l. 21.  S. Aug. determins it thus: We honour the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship, wherewith Holy men in this life are worshipped: Of fellowship— with reference to the Apostles fellow-citizens, and of holy men living, with reference to supernatural gifts and graces, and the honour thence arising; such as we give to men upon the account of holiness and such graces, though they have no authority over us; and let the Saints departed have all such honour (inward or outward) that they are capable of. Lastly, If this Author will drive those places of Scripture he cited for authority of Saints and Angels, so far as to prove the worship due which they give unto them: as his Mr. the Cardinal endeavoured by the like places to defend the invoking of them: He may take answer from S. Aug. determining what manner of worship is due unto them, as above (the worship of love and fellowship,) and 
* Charitatis non servitutis. Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55.  elsewhere, the worship of charity not subjection or service; or from S. Paul Eph. 2. saying we are fellow-Citizens; or from the Angel, Rev. I am thy fellow-servant: And if they will still make use of such places as this Author alleged, it will be easy to show how inconsequent the argument is from such places of Scripture, how insufficient to prove such a worship as is allowed by the Church of Rome.  
To conclude, This Author will not say we are mistaken, 
Recapitul. of the premises.  when we affirm, that all worship properly religious, and according to his first and stricter sense, is due to God, and not to be exhibited to any Creature; Nor can he say we are mistaken, in proving that truth by this Scripture, Thou shalt worship the Lord, etc. unless he will deny this Scripture speaks of worship properly religious. It remains then, that our mistake (if any) must be in concluding by this Scripture, their creature-worship to be unlawful. That we are not herein mistaken appears by what has been said already; First, by that which is said above to show the worship they exhibit, by Oblations, Incense, Invocation, Vows, adoration of Images, belongs and must be reduced to that sort of worship, which is proper to Religion, in the first and stricter sense. Not only the effect of Religion but part of it, I mean as performed and misapplyed by them; and I would it were not the greater part of their Religion. Secondly, by the insufficiency of what this Author has said to the contrary, in putting off the imputation from themselves, and fastening the mistake on us: As first, his pretence from the immediate signification or bare importance of the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in the text; which speaks a bowing or prostration of the body, and is common to the religious and the civil worship, to the worship of God and the Creature: and accordingly all the instances and examples he brought, speak no more than that outward reverence and worship shown in bowing the body: Whereas this comes not home to our charge laid upon their worship, and cautioned against by this Scripture: viz. their worship exhibited to creatures by the above said acts, and exercises of religion and devotion: Secondly, his pretence of religious in his larger sense as sufficient, which is as short of the purpose as the former; for so all the duties of the second Table (as we saw above) may be called religious, i. e. pertaining to, and commanded by Religion; but here we speak of the acts of worship proper to religion, or exhibited in the way and exercises of Religion and Devotion; which in their worship are such, as are proper to the worship of God, the same by which our religion and devotion to God is exercised, (as Vows, Invocation, etc.) or such as are proper to the Heathen worship, in the exercise of their religion and devotion to their greater or lesser deities, as adoration of their Images, whom they pretend to worship.  
All this will farther appear by the next part of this Scripture, and him only shalt thou serve.  
Him only shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10.  
Here he would fasten a mistake upon us, 
Of Latria or service properly due to God.  by a misunderstanding of the word Serve pa. 28. why so! because having examined all the places of Scripture where this word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which is here translated serve, he finds it signifies that religious worship which is exhibited to God, never used for a religious service done to a Creature as to a Creature, pa. 31. Again, that word is never used, but for the serving either of the true or of a false God, when it is referred to worship belonging to religion. And he provokes any Protestant to prove the contrary, pa. 32. But how did he conceive we understood the word; when we affirm the same thing, which to find out he bestowed as he saith, some days study by examining all the places of scripture; where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, we say, it is very true that in all the scripture neither that word nor any other is ever used to express religious service done to a creature, as to a creature, that is, as due to it. Again we affirm, that this word, when it is referred to worship belonging to Religion is never used, but for serving either the true, or a false God: and therefore it is easily seen whether the Romanists be mistaken in their Inference; therefore there is another religious service, which may be given to some Creature: which is altogether inconsequent, unless they can show some other word in Scripture, that imports such a Religious service: or whether the Protestants be mistaken in their inference: therefore there is no religious service, (or as he expresses it, no worship belonging to Religion) save what is due to God. So that, whereas he provokes any Protestant to show that the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) imports any religious service save Divine: the Protestant provokes him to show any word in Scripture that signifies a religious worship or service, save that which is divine or due to God: and therefore duly infers from scripture, that a religious worship or service is due only to God. No Roman Catholic teaches (saith he) that divine service due to God only, is to be given to any Creature. pa. 33. But seeing the scripture teaches no other religious worship, but what is given to God: you teaching there is another, teach besides the book, broach your own invention, and consequently give to the Creature something of that which is due to God. Whatever you reserve for God, this is plain, your devoting yourselves to such or such Saints, doth very much express the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a slave or mancipated servant; and the frequency of your performing outward acts of religion and devotion to them, in Pilgrimages, Vows, Oblations, etc. speaks a plain serving of them, and takes up (I fear) the greater part of your religious service.  
Nor can this Author excuse his Roman Catholics, 
Insufficient excuse of their worship.  by saying this word always implies the serving of the true, or a false god, but their serving of Saint or Angel, is not such a service as is given to God, or a false god: for they do not think them to be Gods or serve them as Gods; and this I suppose was the Author's meaning and design, in adding a false god, that he might lie safe, as he thought, under that covert. But this will not serve his turn, for if by a false god, he means, that they which worship, must think it to be God, or apply the worship and service to it as to a God: than it is not true, that this word always signifies the serving of a true, or false God: but this is true, that the word, when it is (as he said) referred to worship belonging to religion, always signifies a service due to God, whether given to him, or misapplied to any other thing, although that thing be not held a God by him that worships, or the worship not given to it as to a God: For this obliquity of worship or religious service; it is not necessary, that the thing worshipped be 
* Greg. de Val. in Tho. Disp. vi. qu. punct. 3. de Idolatria.  thought to be a God, is acknowledged by their own Authors: It is plain in scripture, the worship given the Golden Calf Exod. 32. was Latria misapplied, yet that not thought a God, nor given to it as to a God, but only as to a visible representation, to be used in the worship of the true God that brought them out of Egypt. Of which more below, in the question of Image-worship. So the worship given to the brazen Serpent, was a misapplied Latria, yet given to it not as to a God, but as to a holy thing, that had been instrument of such saving operations. So the Apostle Rom. 1.25. speaks of them, that served the Creature, (the word is Latria there) more than (or besides) the Creator: but together with him, yet not serving the Creature as God, but reserving something more for God, as S. 
Ambr. in locum Quasi aliquid plus sit, quod Deo reservetur.  Ambrose notes their vain excuse. And therefore the limitation which the Trent Council gives here, that they invocate and worship the Saints not as Gods, (which this Author made use of pa. 3. and for that as it seems added here a false God) is a poor and empty excuse; for the Heathen were not so gross in their worship or the defence of it, but that they could plead this and other excuses, which the Romanists make for their creature-worship, as we shall see 
* In Survey of antiquity cap. 1.  below.  
But he goes on in his bold assertions. From this ground, saith he, proceeds the ordinary distinction of religious worship into Latria and Dulia. A distinction this, that (as the Romanists use it) has neither ground in Scripture nor yet in St. August. who first used it, but to another purpose: as we shall see.  
First for Scripture, 
Impertinent distinction of Latria and Dulia in the Romish use.  as he said of Latria, that when it is referred to worship belonging to religion, it signifies the serving of God, or some false God, (which he makes the ground of this distinction) so we say of Dulia, when this word is referred to worship belonging to religion, or to religious worship it always imports the service of God, that is due to God, and given to him or misapplied to other things; and so this distinction has not ground in Scripture: the places are infinite, wherein this word as well as Latria is used in expressing the service and worship of God, and of other false Gods: take one just parallel to this text of Mat. 4. and that is, 1 Sam. 7.3. serve him only— where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So is this distinction against St. Augustinu's mind, as appears by the 
* Contra Faust. l. 20. 21. de Civi. Dei l. 10. c. 1. Qu. in Genesin. l. 1. de Trinit. c. 6.  several places where he uses it. For he finding the word serve applied in Scripture to God and man, thought the first service might be called Latria, and the other Dulia, not making it a distinction of religious worship or service into several sorts, but a severing of the divine from the civil by these words, putting nothing of religious service in the Dulia, but placing it in the Latria as wholly due to God; and this he confirms often, as in opposition to their design in their Dulia, so to their whole endeavour of having religious service or worship given to the creature, as we shall see by several places of that Father, cited below in the trial of Antiquity. Lastly, as we see this distinction has no ground in Scripture; as to the use of the words Latria and Dulia, both being used there indifferently to express the religious service given to God: so likewise as to the thing itself intended by the Romanists, (viz. a sort of religious worship due to the creature besides that which is given to God) it is so far from having ground in Scripture, that it is against the strain and severity of Scripture, which is very strict in securing God's worship; and it serves finely to evacuate the force of the Apostles argument, Heb. 1.6. who proving the Deity of our Saviour by that of Psal. 97.7. Let all the Angels worship him; might receive this answer, it is a religious worship of the inferior rank, such as may be given to the most excellent creatures; and doubtless the Arrians would have made use of this distinction, had the Church of Rome then taught this doctrine: so then, either the Apostle was mistaken in his argument, or the Church of Rome is in her distinction. And if we be mistaken in our argument from this Scripture, than was their Gregory the great mistaken, who against Image-worship urges the same text, 
Greg● ep. l. 9 ep. 9 quia scriptum est dominum Deum odorabis, & soli servies.  because saith he, it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.  
To conclude, Peresius a Romish writer moved with what the Scripture and St. Aug. saith against this cultus servitutis, this worship of service given to the creature acknowledges (as 
* Bel. de Beat. Sanctorum l. 1. c. 12.  the Cardinal relates it, and checks him for it) that he did not approve the name of Dulia to signify the worship of Saints, for we are not servants of the Saints, but fellow-servants.  
Rev. 22.8, 9 See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant, worship God.  
Here as elsewhere he needlessly multiplies mistakes, 
Of worship refused by the Angel and by St. Peter.  repeating what he had above of Angels receiving worship from Lot; and of men receiving worship, as Elias and Elisha, though Peter refused it from Cornelius, Act. 10. and affirms, the worship of Elias and Elizaeus to be the very same with the worship which by Roman Catholics is given to Saints and Angels, pa. 35, 36. How all this comes short of the purpose, both as to the worship which the Church of Rome gives by many more expressions, than prostration or bowing of the body, which is all the worship that his places of Scripture and instances concern; and also as to the term religious, which in his large sense comes not home to the question; I say how far all this falls short: was abundantly shown above. Now for the Text Revel. 22. That which we gather from it against their Angel-worship, does not arise from the bare prohibition of worship, but rather from the reason of it, for I am thy fellow servant: and so from St. Peter's reason, for I am a man, which shows some undue worship was given, yet not as to a God, but too much entrenching upon that which was due to God. The Romanists feign two reasons of this prohibiting or refusal of worship: first, 
* Bel. Post Christi adventum prohibuisse ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi, de Beatit. Sanctor. cap. 14.  that the Angels refused, after Christ's coming in the flesh, to be worshipped of men, for the reverence of the humanity of Christ: But if they did right in refusing it, then must the Romanists think they do ill in giving it to them; for we men are bound to have as great a reverence and respect to Christ as the Angels are, and note the Cardinal saith, not only that they refused the worship, but forbade it, prohibuisse saith he. Secondly, because John took the Angel for Christ: but we may ask, how did the Angel know what St. John thought? Besides, it was improbable that he took the Angel for our Saviour Christ, for this is the second time, that he thus worshipped: neither do we find that our Saviour in all the visions appeared to him after such a manner. But this falling down at the Angel's feet, shows it was in St. John a transport of joy, for the revelation of such things as the Angel brought, and thereupon an expression of that (more than beseeming) reverence to the messenger: and it is evident the Angel conceived he gave some undue reverence, for which he admonishes him to give none, but what befits a fellow servant, which ought not to be a religious worship or service entrenching upon any thing due to God: the very reason that 
* Aug. de vera religioone cap. 55. Honoramus Angelos charitate non servitute.  St. August. gives to exclude all such worship by the word service or servitude. We honour Angels (saith he) in charity, not service; and immediately before insinuated, God is communis Dominus, our common Lord, Lord of Angels and men; that is, as the Angel said, we are fellow-servants. So we need not contend so much, what the Angel thought, as look to what he said; whether he thought St. John took him for our Saviour (which this Author strives to make probable) is uncertain, but the reason the Angel gave is clear, and enough to exclude their Angel-worship.  
So that which St. Peter refused, Acts 10. was not a Divine worship, and therefore refused; for this Author grants pa. 38. that Cornelius could not suppose him to be a God: nor was it a due bounded worship, and refused only out of humility, as he supposes here: for than he would not have given this reason, I am a man. The Protestants are not bound to say (as he thinks they must, pa. 37.) one of the two, either that Cornelius gave him divine worship as to a God, or that St. Peter refused it out of humility. For though the Protestants acknowledge there was humility in this refusal, (for humility is seen in refusing not only due, but undue honour too) yet have they cause to say, it is evident that Cornelius gave him some undue worship, exceeding his condition; and entrenching upon something due to God, and therefore St. Peter gives him the reason of his refusing it, for I am a man, as the Angel, for I am thy fellow-servant.  
Col. 2.18. Worshipping of Angels.  
He will have us here mistaken, because this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels, 
How far the Romanists agree with those worshippers of Angels.  whereby they are made equal to Christ, or that Christ is depending on them, which Roman Catholics (saith he) condemn as injurious to Christ, pa. 43. His reason is, because the Apostle adds not holding the head, by which it appears such a worshipping of Angels is forbidden, as destroys the belief of Christ's being sovereign head of the Church, pa. 44. to which he subjoins as a proof, the Testimonies of several Fathers witnessing that Simon Magus, and other ancient Heretics broached such fancies of the Angels, pa. 48. That there were ancient Heretics, that held strange fancies about Angels is very true: but that these worshippers of Angels were such as held such a fancy of making them equal or superior to Christ, cannot be proved: that they were not such, appears rather; for the Apostle first tells us this was done in a pretence of voluntary humility; now what humility is there in going to God by any equal or superior to his Son? therefore they went to God by Angels as inferior mediators: and they of the Church of Rome have a pretence not unlike, in their applying to God by the mediation of Saints and Angels. Secondly, the Apostle in this chapter speaks against those that joined the observation of legal ordinances with the profession of Christ, and therefore it is very probable he condemns such worshippers of Angels, as did it upon that account, because the law was given by the disposition of Angels. 
* In Colos. c. 2.  Theodoret, who is shoved in among the rest of the Fathers cited by this Author, speaks directly to this purpose, that these worshippers of Angels were such Christians as joined the observation of the law with the Gospel, and therefore used them as mediators, because the law was given by their ministry. The other Fathers cited by him speak of strange fancies of some Heretics about Angels, but without such reference to this place of the Apostle, as Theodoret doth, who comments upon the Text, and citys the canon of the Synod of Laodicea, (a place not far from Coloss) forbidding any to pray to Angels: Oecumenius also upon the text agrees with Theodoret touching these Angel-worshippers, and out of chrysostom (for he borrows it from him) shows the pretence they made of humility in this their going to God by Angels, saying, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chryst. & Oecum. in locum.  It was more than belonged to us, to go to God by Christ: which excludes Mr. Spencer's pretence above that these were such as made Angels equal or superior to Christ; when its plain they in humility applied to them as of inferior rank.  
As for his reason from the Apostles adding, not holding the head; that proves not, that they placed the Angels in Christ's stead, or destroyed his sovereign headship directly, as the fancy of those Heretics, he would have here to be meant, did; for he may be said not to hold the head, that holds it not in that manner he ought, or because this worshipping of Angels was the way to let go the head; as in the Church of Rome, their worshipping of Angels and Saints, and their Images draws off the people much from Christ.  
And albeit the Church of Rome does not retain the observation of the law, as these did: and so has not the same cause of their worshipping Angels as they had: yet let the cause or motive be what it will, (for the same deslexion from truth and duty has not always the same motive) they of the Church of Rome have the same pretence of humility in their coming to God by the mediation of Angels, and do place the Angels where they should not, intruding into things they have not seen, and not holding the head (the one mediator between God and man) as they ought.  
Again he will have us mistaken, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion of Angels.  in rendering the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a worshipping, when it should be translated a religion of Angels, and thereupon declaims against Protestants, as having a design in it, pa. 45.46. But this is needless, for the word religion had been more advantageous to us, in as much as we yield a worship to creatures, but when religion is added to it, we mean it a worship due to God, as St. Aug. also said above. Indeed if we look into the Church of Rome, and well consider their exercises of devotion, how they are directed, how frequented, there will appear a very religion of Saints and Angels. And as in this point the Romanists are too like these half Christians, whom the Apostle blames for their worship or religion of Angels; so will they appear not much unlike to the Heathen Platonics, in their worship or religion of their Daemons and Hero's, whom they placed and worshipped as celestial messengers, and mediators between men and the supreme God. Of which below * in the consent of Antiquity.  
But to make up his number of mistakes: he must needs repeat here also pa. 49. how worship was given to Angels by Lot and Joshua, and that it may be called religious by Ja. 1.26, 27. not remembering how much he is mistaken, in giving us still, for the worship we blame in them, examples only of the worship we allow, the bowing of the body to Angels when they appeared: whereas we charge them with the worship, which the Laodic. Synod forbade, which the Apostle here blames, the praying to them, and making them mediators; nor will he remember how he is mistaken in telling us still St. James calls a work of mercy, religion, as if this were any thing to the religious worship they give to Saints and Angels; which is the exercise or performance of their religion and devotion, as religion belongs to the first table in a stricter sense; whereas that work of mercy as all duties of the second table because commanded, and proceeding from religion, may in that general sense be called religious works, not religious worship. But indeed this Romish worship cannot truly be called religion in the larger sense, or in any sense: for it is not commanded, it proceeds not from religion, not dictated by that devotion and religion we own to God; it pertains not therefore to religion, unless it be to the Romish. Of all this more largely above.    

CHAP. II. Of Prayer and Invocation.  
NOw we are come to a special act of worship given to Saints and Angels; the places of Scripture here examined are, Come unto me, Mat. 11.28. Ask the Father in my name, Jo. 16.21. When ye pray, say, Our Father— One mediator— 1 Tim. 2.5. We have an advocate— 1 Jo. 2.1. The Protestants inference (therefore we must come to God by no other Name, Mediator, Advocate) he will have inconsequent: Indeed such arguments from the affirming of one to the denying all others, are not for the most part concluding and valid, yet in the point of God's worship they are of good force, if we allow the truth of the rule which S. 
Aug. de consensu Evang. l. 1. c. 18.  Aug. saith, that Socrates allowed; God is so to be worshipped as he has commanded himself to be worshipped. 
A general Rule for worship.  So that it must be a bold presumption in man, when the Lord has in so many places prescribed the way, to add thereunto, by admitting and using other Mediators, though inferior to Christ.  
What he saith to the Lords Prayer, comes to this: 
The form of the Lords prayer.  that Protestants by like argument might prove, We are only to pray to God the Father— and that one Christian living may not pray for another, pa. 57 But this is not alike, for we have command and direction to come and pray unto the other persons of the Trinity: and also for one another living: And we may call any of the Persons Father, for all the works of the Trinity ad extra, towards the Creature (as giving life and being, nourishing and preserving, Fatherly acts toward us) are as the School saith, undivided, common to all the persons: but because we can also call God the Father our Father upon special relation by and through his only Son; therefore this form implies we ought to come in prayer to God the Father only by his mediation, by and in whom we can call him Father; and for his other part of reply, than one Christian living may not pray for another: who sees not the disparity between praying for, and praying to, or invocating, and that at such distance, as they do Saints and Angels; but of this of the living to pray for one another, more conveniently 
* Nu. 6.  below.  
In the other places 1 Tim. 2.5. 1 Jo. 2. 1. He will have the protestant mistaken, 
The office of Mediator and Advocate.  in excluding thereby all Mediators or Advocates of Intercession: the Text speaking only of a Mediator of Redemption, because it follows in one place, who gave himself a ransom— and in the other, He is the propitiation for our sins. Secondly, that the Text speaks of such a Mediator or Advocate that deserves to be heard for his own worth and merits, pa. 69. That we may better discover this usual but ungrounded evasion; Note First, others besides Christ may be said to Intercede for us, 
Intercession of Saints.  as the blessed Saints no question do: but that makes them not Mediators or Advocates of Intercession; for they do it without our Invocating of or application by prayer to them, out of that charity and propension which all the members of Christ have to one another; also they do it in general, in such desires as make for the accomplishment of that body, of which they are members. Out of which propensity we pray also for them, i.e. for their consummation and glorious resurrection, etc. yet this renders us not their mediators. Secondly, Note, that to state them in the condition of Mediators and Advocates: they must be enabled to receive our particular requests and prayers, and so to present them unto God: yea as the word Advocate significantly implies they must be admitted in that Court to plead their cause for whom they appear. This being made manifest that they are no way enabled thereunto: it will easily be seen whether the Protestants are mistaken, in excluding them from this office, or the Romanists in admitting them to it, without, or rather against scripture.  
For this Author was wont in his imputed mistakes to show the word or thing in which he placed the mistake, otherwise taken, and applied to others in scripture: and it's but reason, that he who will enlarge to others, what the scripture seems to restrain, should be bound to make it appear by scripture, and not do it by limitations, and distinctions of his own invention; as it fares with all Romanists, in this point and that of Image-worship. That which this Author makes the pretence of his distinction, or limiting to Christ only such a kind of mediation (viz. of redemption) from the words following, viz. ransom and propitiation, overthrows his distinction, and shows the whole office belongs to Christ only: for it shows that his mediation of Intercession, or Advocateship, and his fitness thereunto, is grounded on his bloodshed or ransom, or making God thereby propitious; which the Apostle through the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks most evidently: showing our high priest is entered to appear for us, Heb. 9.24. i e. to be our Advocate, or Mediator of Intercession; and that he entered with blood.  
This also shows the distinction is not good, 
Distinction of Mediator of Redemption and Intercession.  for one member of it is grounded upon the other; in the Intercession of our Mediator and Advocate upon his redemption; for that tells us none can come under one member of it, to interceded as an Advocate with God to whom the other belongs not too. So for his other exception or limitation; That Christ is the only Mediator or Advocate, that can intercede by his own worth and merits, comes to the same purpose, for he that can do so, must be a Redeemer too; It is a great Truth: but that it should not exclude (as they pretend) the Saints and Angels from being Mediators in and by the merits of Christ, is only a saying of their own, without all proof or warrant of scripture, and a bold saying it is; For when scripture saith, there is one Mediator and tells us of no other; points us out our Advocate, and tells us of no other: directs us by whom, and in whose name we must come to God, and shows us no other, how can we without great presumption take upon us to appoint others, though in order to him that is appointed? For our coming to or praying to God, is a worship of God, an immediate serving of him, and therefore binds us to go the way he prescribes, as the rule 
* Nu. 1.  above directs us, and reason also persuades it, for else there would be no thing fixed and certain in religion and worship; For if in this point we may invent new ways and new distinctions that have no ground in God's word, than that One God in the same verse would be obnoxious to man's conceit (in framing other gods of lower rank) as that one Mediator is to this distinction of the Romanists.  
Again, Here especially in a point of God's worship, 
Reasons against their Invocation.  that of the Apostle takes place, What is not of Faith is Sin, Rom. 14. ult. For how can it be of faith to come unto God by Mediators, whom they cannot believe to be appointed of God to stand between himself and us, or between our Mediator Christ and us; whom they cannot believe to hear or know our requests and desires: having no warrant from God to assure their people, that he will reveal or make known their desires to the Saints they invocate. Furthermore, it may be another reason against this presumption; because it is God himself that prepares the heart to pray and inspires it; what boldness then is it for any Creature as Mediator to present our prayers? or, as the Apostle Rom. 8.26. In our prayers according to Gods will the spirit makes intercession, therefore prayers to Saints, are not of the spirit, not according to Gods will, or else the spirit than maketh intercession by the Saints. Lastly it is a senseless perverting of the order God has set us: for our prayers (at least mental) must as the Romanists acknowledge, 
Saints how said to know men's prayers.  be known to the Saints by revelation from God: so our prayers must first come to God, then by him to the Saints, so by them to Christ to be presented to God. The best account which the 
* Bel. l. de Beat. Sanctor. c. 20.  Cardinal can give us of their knowing prayers made to them is this, First he rejects wholly that way which some have conceited, that the Saints know prayers of the living by the report of Angels. Of the two other ways, that they know by seeing in God (as in a glass) from the beginning of their beatitude, those things that do any way belong to them: or that they know by revelation, from God, when the prayers are made. Of the former of these, he saith it is probable, then comparing it with the latter, he saith it is more probable than it, yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Heretics. Where note, that their best way is but probable, and the Heretics must be convinced in this point, by that way which is less than probable. So uncertain is this Article of their faith, so unlikely to convince Heretics, however they persuade their people to it.  
This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers; he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of disputing that which their Church cannot agree on. Beside all that has been said to it, methinks reason should tell them, how improbable it is, that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thousand suits put up to it at once; or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss, for those glorified souls to be taken up or avocated, by the care of earthly affairs; yea, such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature. If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner, (as Luk. 15.7. which sometimes is made an argument by them) its a matter of joy, and answerable to their general votes and intercession, for the accomplishing of the Church, and consistent with their state of bliss.  
Now come we to the prayers of men living, one for another, 
Prayers of men living for others, no argument for praying to Saints departed.  often urged by this and other their Authors: who having no permission or appointment from God's word, for making the Saints departed, their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven, seek pretence from this duty of the living. Therefore to a Protestant ask, how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate than Christ? this Author rejoynds: How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them, to pray to God for them? for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates? pa. 61. And of Protestants usually commending themselves to the prayers of others: This (saith he) is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels. pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it; But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the prayers of the living and their invocating of Saints or Angels: also between the prayers or interceding of men living for others, and that Mediation or Advocateship they put upon Saints departed. First, We have warrant for the one and not for the other; we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living, because we are commanded to pray one for another: and divers reasons there are for it, which hold not in the other case. The mutual exercise of charity among those that converse together on earth, and much need that bond (as the Apostle calls it) to hold them together; 
Eph. 4.3. Col. 3.14.  also, the benefit we receive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings: 
Heb. c. 13 3.  we ourselves being also in the body, as the Apostle tells us. Lastly, in this there is no peril of superstition, as there must needs be in their religious addresses to the dead. Secondly, our praying others to pray for us, is not Invocation or a Religious worship, as theirs is to the Saints departed; they placing a great part of their offices of Religion both public and private in such Invocations. Thirdly, As the living when they are desired to pray for us, are capable of this charitable duty, knowing our necessities, which Saints departed do not: so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us: that is, of a middle order between us and God Almighty, (as they make their Mediators of intercession; but as Comprecatores fellow-suiters, of the same rank, condition, and distance with us from God: in the mutual exercise of this charitable duty, they praying for us at our entreaty, and we for them at theirs.  
St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture: 
Aug. contra Epist. Parmen. l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum & populum, sed rogat, pro se orent invicem, si Paulus mediator esset, non ei constaret ratio, qua dixerat, unus mediator.  St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people, but entreats they should pray one for the other (so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediators; nay doing it, upon mutual entreaty and intimation, are therefore not mediators) If St. Paul should be their Mediator, it would not consist with what he had said: there is one Mediator, (which proves the former consequence, that the mediation they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediator. His other instance is from St. John's, we have an advocate, 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediator: and so makes it conclude against Parmenian, who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people: we shall examine the Cardinal's answer, by which he would shift this off, when we come to trial of Antiquity. But  
This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediator and advocate of redemption and salvation: but more than one of praying to Almighty God with us, and for us by way of charity and society, as St. Aug. saith, citing, contra Faust. l. 22.21. I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter, but in the l. 20.21. where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society, as we honour holy men living, which this Author misreports, as if said they pray for us, which is truth; but his adding with us, supposes they pray for us, when we pray, upon knowledge of our particular necessities and requests; which is false.  
He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture: 
Their Invocation destitute of Scripture-proof.  If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture, he may please to examine, Job 5.1. Gen. 48.16. 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs; in the first, Eliphaz tells Job, if he take it thus impatiently, he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels, whose ministry in those days was frequent; in the second place, Jacob prays to God for his blessing upon the lads, and wishes the ministry of Angels for them, as it had pleased God to use it, in blessing and delivering him in all his troubles; or we may say as Athanasius and other Fathers do, that the Angel there was Christ. In the third he produces Saul worshipping and invoking Samuel; which many ways fails of proving Invocation of Saints, both in the truth of the thing and the consequence; Proofs these, fitting for such Articles of Faith.   

CHAP. III. Of Images.  
THe Council of Trent, as we see by the Decree touching Images, 
Pretended care for the people.  would seem very careful that the people be taught, how they may safely conceive of, and worship Images: and that all superstition and filthy lucre be taken away in the use of them. This is easily said and pretended, but what boots it, when people are taught contrary to the commandment to bow down and worship: and to direct and secure them in it, do hear a company of distinctions, 
* Vid. supra in introduct. ex Bel.  they understand not? Whatever therefore becomes of the truth of that doctrine now to be examined, we may without rash judgement (which this Author lays to our charge, pa. 72.) challenge the Church of Rome for so needlessly exposing her people to the peril of Idolatry or superstition; in this and other points of worship.  
The first Protestant position, saith he, is; That it is unlawful to represent God the Father in any likeness: and the Scripture is, Deut. 4.15, 16.  
This Scripture he will have mistaken and misapplied to the Church of Rome, 
Of picturing God the Father.  pa. 75. Before we ask his reason, note here how they of the Church of Rome are divided in this point 
* Bel. de Imagine. l. 2. c. 8. Docent imaginem Dei non recte fieri.  the Cardinal acknowledges some of his Catholics (Abulensis, Durand, Peresius and others) to be of calvin's opinion herein, that an Image of God is not rightly and lawfully made. And though these be the smaller number in the Church of Rome, specially since the Jesuits arose and multiplied: yet are they in this more suitable to the ancient Christians, who had no Images of God, as Minutius Foelix, and other ancient writers affirm.  
Now see this Author's reason, why that Scripture is mistaken, and misapplied by us. First, because they of the Church of Rome do not represent God by any Image directly, that is, to signify he is of a figure or shape like that Image, pa. 27. Nor did the understanding Heathens say, they did so represent their Gods by their Images. Again, we represent God (saith he) only historically, as he appeared to the prophets (as Dan. 7. the ancient of days) neither is it forbidden to represent him, as he pleased to represent himself, pa. 75. But we must put a difference between the representing of a Vision and of an History: 
Difference in picturing of a Vision and History.  to represent a vision in which God Almighty pleased to show himself to the eye, is tolerable; but the Church of Rome takes greater liberty, (as appears by the decree set down by this Author, pa. 72.) of figuring 
* Historias & narrationes Sacrae Script. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24.  histories, and passages of Scripture, in which God did not show himself to the eye under any kind of figure, thus also in the story of our Saviour's baptism, they figure him like an old man looking out of the clouds, when as they only heard a voice, saw no shape: so in the story of Creation, they figure him like an old man with a globe in his hand; and without reference to history, they figure the Trinity, God the Father as an old man with the Son on one hand, & Holy Ghost in shape of a Dove on the other hand.  
His Hieroglyphical figuring of God's attributes, as of providence by an eye, and the figurative speeches of Scripture attributing hand, wings, feet, to God Almighty, I let pass as altogether unfit to make any argument for representing God by an Image; neither is he so confident of them as to make any concluding argument, but only some semblance for representations of God: for if he will make Images of these Hieroglyphical or Emblematical expressions, they will not prove innocent Images, which according to his own definition of an Image do represent the things as they are in themselves.  

The second protestant position (saith he) is, That no Image ought to be worshipped. The Scriptures are Levit. 26.1. Exod. 20.4, 5.  
Here he makes (as they do all in this point) a great noise about the words and translations, 
The pretended distinction of Idol and Image.  to amuse the Reader in examining the thing itself, spending thirty pages upon the words, Idol, graven-image, likeness: and quarrelling at our Translation as false and partial; for saith he, no word in the first Text signifies Image, and that which we render graven-image (out of the Hebrew Pesel) every where signifies an Idol, and so it is rendered by the Septuagint in the second Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idolum; now there is a great difference between Idol and Image; for an Image is the representation of a true thing, but Idol a representation of what neither is, nor can be, as he who makes or uses it intends; thus he, in pa. 78, 79, 80, 81. But he should remember that in the first text the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin sculptile, and our Translation then does duly render it graven-image; also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (by which the Septuagint in the second Text renders the same word Pesel) does generally imply Image, likeness, representation, although when taken with connotation of Idolatrous worship given it, it signifies an Idol in his sense; and seeing the Heathen false Gods were worshipped by Images and representing statues, he should not be so offended that we in rendering those texts put in the word Image; well, let the texts run as rendered in their latin Bible, our reasoning and argument against Image-worship will stand firm: it being but the simple truth which all antiquity for 600. years, according to Scripture asserted; and after the Cardinal (whom this Author follows) had laboured so much in his conceited difference between Idol and Image, he is forced to admit that which defaces it, as this Author, we shall see, is content to do, in acknowledging any Image may be made an Idol by the worship given it.  
That the prohibition of the commandment concerned only Heathen Idols, 
The prohibition of the Commandment.  was the device of the goodly second Council of Nice after the year 700. which Council, to introduce or defend the Image-worship then begun, so grossly abused both the words of Scripture, and the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers. They of the Church of Rome see themselves concerned for the maintaining of their Image-worship, to defend that hold, and in order to that, conceive it necessary to make such a distinction between Idol and Image, as may seem to clear their Images and statues from the prohibition of the Commandment, and leave only that which they call an Idol under it. Upon his long descant upon the words, we may note, 1. this their acception of the word Idol restrains it to the visible thing representing (and such was Pesel the graven images, statues, pillars forbidden in those texts) whereas the things represented, or the reputed Deities, Baal, Jupiter, Diana, were Idols too, and the main ones: and they that prayed or offered sacrifice to them, without sight or presence of their representations or graven Images, were Idolaters by the first commandment. And this note is necessary for distinction of the first 
*  infra, 〈◊〉 12.  and second Commandment, which they would confound. 2. Note, that he fixes the whole notion of his Idol in the false representation as we saw above; whereas the notion and reason of an Idol, if we will speak of it as Scripture intends and forbids it, stands chief in the worship unduly given to it, for that makes the representation forbidden; else if we set aside the consideration of undue worship, all Chimaeras and monstrous fancies of man's brain, expressed by the painter, would be Idols forbidden in the Commandment. 3. Whereas according to that restrained notion of an Idol (as he usually expresses it, to be a representation made to represent any thing as God which is not so) he would vindicate the Images of the blessed Saints from being made Idols, because they represent them as they are, pa. 83. This is a lame defence. For first, any representation made to worship the true God by, may be, nay is an Idol; such were Laban's Images, Gen. 31. and Micha's Teraphin, Jud. 17. and such was the golden calf, Exod. 32. and it is apparent that the likeness or representation forbidden, Isa. 40.18, 19 refers to the true God; and so by Deut. 4.15. that to make them an image or representation of the true God, was a corrupting of themselves; so by Exod. 20.22.23. Ye shall not make with me Gods of silver— the worshipping of the graven image 
* Bell. de Imaginib. c. 24. Idololatria est non solum cum adoratur idolum relicto Deo, sed etiam cum adoratur simul cum Deo, ut Exod. 20.22, 23. True difference of Image and Idol.  with God is forbidden. Secondly, the images of the Saints, although representing them as they are, yet become idols by undue worship given them: this Author is forced to acknowledge, pa. 81. and that the same material representation may in divers respects be an image and an idol; the image being made an idol, by attributing to it any thing proper to God, pa. 82, 83. so then the distinction of idol and image comes to this: first it is an image or representation, whether painted or graven, then made an idol in the use of it, Qui colit ille facit, he that worships makes the idol: so little does their distinction of idol and image serve the turn.  
As for the word Temounah in Exod. 20. albeit in Scripture-use it signifies any kind of likeness, 
The likeness of any— sorbidden in the Commandment.  natural, artificial, or spiritual, yet here he will have it of no larger extent than the other word Pesel as he restrained it to signify an idol or representation of any thing as God, pa. 84. and concludes pa. 86. line 3. No other representation, picture or likeness of any creature is here forbidden, but such as are intended to represent them, by way of idolatry as Gods and Deities, which they neither are, nor can be; so he. But this is not demonstrated (as he boasts) from the places of Scripture, which he brought for these words. For though it be true, that idols and the gross idols of the Heathen are forbidden, Exod. 20. and that in those places he brings, the words do import such idols; yet can it not be concluded from those instances, either that such idols only (i.e. the representations of false Gods, or of any taken for a God which is not, as he usually and cunningly renders the notion of an idol) are here forbidden; or that the col Temounah, any likeness of things in heaven or earth should be restrained to such idolatry; for who shall restrain a Commandment of God so generally expressed, without warrant from the same God, to tell us some likeness or images of things in Heaven or earth may be worshipped, so they be not counted for Gods, or worshipped as Gods? Tertul. 
Tertul de Idol. l. 5. Situ eundem Deum observas, etc.  gives a good caution to this purpose: If thou observest the same God, thou hast his law, that thou adore nothing besides God: and if thou lookest at the precept that came after: (touching the Ark) imitate thou the prophet, and do not adore any images, unless God command thee. Not that he commanded any where to adore images, but did command to make them, viz. the Cherubin.  
This slender evasion, that only such idols as he has described are here forbidden: 
The worship forbidden.  will the better be seen through when we have looked upon the words following, not bow down, nor worship; for whether the representation be pesel a graven image, or Temounah, the likeness of anything, it is no idol till the using of it, by bowing down, and worshipping of it or the like, do come. Here therefore he makes the like restraint of worship forbidden by the Commandment; it must be saith he, proportionate to the thing those idols represented, a God, and so a Divine worship, pa. 86. and then he heaps up places of Scripture, noting the grossest of Heathen idolatry: esteeming the material picture, as a God, to hear prayers, to be able to help; and therefore they bowed down to it, prayed to it, and put hope in it: that it may appear how far the Church of Rome in her fubtil and refined worships of creatures, is from the idolatry of the Heathen here forbidden. But I fear the gross fort of Papists fall down to their stocks and images, much like as those gross idolaters did to theirs; (some honest Romish writers have complaints to that purpose) and as for the understanding and learned Heathens, they were almost as subtilin their conceits and distinctions of their worship, as the more knowing Papists are: as will appear below in the Trial of Antiquity.  
But a great complaint he makes of our translation rendering in the Commandment, nor worship them, 
Of our translating worship for serve.  which should be, nor serve them, by which word he will have a Divine worship only forbidden: for the word serve shows an homage done to those Idols, as to things capable of such offices, and endued with knowledge, power, and divinity; so he pa. 88.89. We answer, Though service be more and may perform more (than worship) to persons endowed with understanding, and power to give commands: yet in regard of inanimate statues, Images, and likenesses, serving them, stands only in acts of worship, and therefore the one may in that case be indifferently put for the other: and both of them are put as indifferent expressions of the same thing Deut. 4.19. to worship them and serve them: so Jos. 23.16. serve and bow down as equal expressions: Only serving may imply a frequenting of those acts of worship, in an order and way of Religion towards those objects of worship; and so the Romish worshipping of Images and Saints may be called a serving of them. And unless he will exempt those Heathens (before spoken of) from the serving of graven Images which they worshipped: it may appear, that the importance of that word, serve them, does not infer such a divine worship, or homage given to such as they esteem endued with understanding, power, divinity, as he expressed it; for if by this importance of the word serve, the Romanists think to secure their worshipping of Images, because they do not give divine worship or homage to them, nor esteem them endowed with understanding, power, and divinity: then I say those more understanding Heathens may be excused from serving of Images, because they did not give Divine honour to them, or esteem them so endued with, etc. and yet their worshipping was a serving of them. So we see there was no need of such an outcry as he makes against our Translation, saying worship, where it should have said serve; we had no advantage by the one, nor hath he by the other.  
Besides this of worship for serve, he busieth himself to find three other mistakes in our translating that one verse of the Commandment, 
Other needless exceptions against our translation.  which in his zeal to Image-worship he brands with the note of fraud and double dealing. The one in translating Pesel a graven Image, which should be Idol, as he would make us believe and all because the Septuagint has it in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & the Latin Idolum; so he will have us contrary to the Hebrew, Greek & Latin texts, so he p. 91. But what if here the Septuagint rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in the parallel place Levit. 26.1. it renders the same Hebrew word Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin Sculptile, and who can deny that this signifies a graven Image? and if their Latin Sculptile be not contrary to the Hebrew, than we are safe enough. His second exception is, that we translate it any graven Image. But his Logic might teach him, that the force of Indefinites, amounts to an Universality: that to say there is not a man in the Church, is as much as to say, there is not any man in the Church: so thou shalt not make to thyself a graven Image, and, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image: where's the difference? besides he acknowledges, that in our New Translation the word any is put in a different character. His third exception is not much unlike the former: To make the Text (saith he) sound yet more against us in the ears of the Vulgar they make it say, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven: when as it should be, nor any likeness which is in Heaven, pa. 92. But what English man would make any difference in these, more than that the first is the rounder expression? and the zeal Mr. Spencer has for the Images of Saints (which are in heaven) makes him so suspicious (if not uncharitable in judging) we had a design in the translation, to make the unlearued think that the likeness of all things in heaven, and consequently of our Saviour, and of the Saints, is here forbidden; so he pa. 93. But the words any thing are here also put in a differing character to show they are added for the rounder English expression; and as for the Religious or Romish worshipping of the likeness or Images of our Saviour and Saints, we conclude it forbidden not by any consequence of an advantageous translation, but by the force and intent of the Commandment. Besides Deut. 4.16. will bear printing it out so in the Catechism, for there is Col. after Temounah, the likeness of any—  
After this in his zeal to Image-worship, he spends 11. 
Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11.  pages in noting places of our translations, where the word Image (as he pretends) is unduly and fraudulently put in; but because most of them were so in the old Translation, and are corrected in the New: I will only note two, where the word stands still in our present Translation. The one is Ro. 11.4. to the Image of Baal. But how could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be better rendered? whether we supply it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Erasmus did) which signifies Image, or with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies statue and may well be understood, it being the word which the Septuagint useth in that History of Baal 1 Kings 10.27.— the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, statuam Baal sic. Vul. Lat.  Image or statue of Baal. Mr. Spencer for fear the word Image should be here supplied, would make it refer to a Female Deity. But let him show that any female Deities, came under the name of Baal's, or Baalim; he acknowledges that in 1 Kings 19.18. (to which this place of the Romans relates) it is, that bowed not the knee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore no female Idol is here meant: but because the falsely supposed Deity was acknowledged and worshipped, by bowing the knee to his Image, S. Paul more expressly and elegantly put it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The other is Act. 19.35. where he quarrels at our Translation for adding the word Image, in rendering the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies that which fell from Jupiter: But seeing that which was supposed to fall was a statue or Image, what harm is there or fraud in adding the word Image, and rendering it more clearly, the Image that fell—? And what need this tenderness in Mr. Spencer for the word Image, if he would not show himself zealous for that, against which God Almighty has in this Commandment declared himself a jealous God.  
But its time from words to return again to the consideration of the thing, worshipping of Images; which he gins to do pa. 107. where he undertakes to show that the very Translations of the Protestants prove nothing against the use of Images, 
Of Graven Images.  practised in the Romish Church: Certainly much may be proved against what is practised there: but here we are to consider the Doctrine: see then how he makes good what he said. He supposes, the Protestant must take Graven Image, either in his sense above, for an Idol and false God, or in the sense he put upon the word Image, i.e. for a true representation of some holy person: the Church of Rome detests Graven Images in the first sense, and in the other sense a Graven Image is not forbidden. Thus he. But he should consider that Protestants can tell him of Graven Images, which may and have been made to worship by them not a false god, but the true; and so forbidden in the Commandment: such were those we spoke of above, Laban's Images, Mica's, the Golden Calf: and note that those Images which were stolen from Laban, are called strange Gods, Gen. 35.2. not that the false Heathen gods were worshipped in them by Laban or any of jacob's family, but because they used these in the worship of the true God, which was to worship God after a strange manner, as the Heathens worshipped their gods; Again the Protestants can tell him of Graven Images, which represent neither the true nor false God, yet falling under the prohibition by undue worship given unto them; and such was the brazen Serpent, and so their Images as used in the Romish Church, may by undue worship become prohibited.  
But see his argument. If all kind of worship of Images were forbidden by the Commandment Exod. 20. 
Worship towards the Ark no proof for Image-worship.  then David contradicted God's command in bidding them, worship his footstool, Ps. 99.5. so he pa. 108. By better warrant may we say, the Church of Rome contradicts the Commandment of God: He saith, Thou shalt not bow down and worship: she saith, bow down and worship, and commends the practice as religious and profitable. But seeing he alleges Scripture, to prove his Position: let it be our turn now to show his many mistakes, in urging that of Psal. 99.5. for worshipping of Images. He gins with a complaint of our Translation, for rendering it worship at his footstool, when it should be, worship his footstool, the Ark and Cherubins upon it. First, we might quit him with a more just complaint of their rendering Heb. 11.21. Jacob worshipped the top of his staff, which the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will not bear. But the Original in Ps. 99 will admit ours, at or towards his footstool, the same word and phrase being used in the last verse: worship his holy Mount; or at or in his holy Mount: Pagnin and Montanus rendering both places alike (to show the indifferency of the phrase) Incurvate Scabello, and incurvate Monti: so that by Mr. Spencer's argument, they were commanded to worship the Mount as well as the Ark or Cherubins; and if the latter be capable of this sense, worship at or in his holy Mount (as the Septuagint turns it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) then may the former place be also rendered, worship at or toward his foot stool; so the Chalde Paraphrase renders both alike, Adorate in Domo Sanctuarij, worship in or at the house of his Sanctuary that's his footstool, or place of presence on earth: and so the last verse, Adorate in Monte Sanctuarii, worship in the Mount of his Sanctuary: the place where his Temple stood. Now as the same phrase in the last verse directs the rendering of the fifth verse, worship at his footstool, so does reason also persuade it; for the people could not see the Cherubins which were in the holiest place, how then commanded to worship them, and that as Images and representations? But the intent of the Psalm is to bid them frequent that place of worship where his footstool was; and in worshipping to look that way, not for the Cherubin's sake, but for God's presence sake of which the Ark was a sign and witness; so the Ark or place where it stood did but circumstantially determine the worship, (i.e. that way) it did not objectively receive the worship. Secondly, he will have (which also he repeats pa. 127. and 133.) 
The Cherubin there no proof for Image-worship.  images commanded to be made and set in holy places for worship, because these Cherubins were so; but how many mistakes and inconsequencies are here? First, in drawing warrant from God's action to their inventions; Secondly, in supposing them the images or representations of Angels, which being set out for worship, must according to his own definition of an image represent the thing or person as they are— but let him say, what individual Angels these did represent? Or what Angel is like, or did ever appear like to those Cherubins? Therefore images according cording to his own notion of image are not here commanded. Thirdly, the truth is, those Cherubs were symbolical or emblematical representations of the ministry of Angels, which God as it pleaseth him useth in and about his Church: and therefore is said to sit on the Cherubins, and to ride upon them: and this pair of Cherubs over the Ark is called the chariot of the Cherubins, 1 Chro. 28.18. Lastly, his mistake in supposing them set there for worship, which is a great falsehood, and injurious to Almighty God that set them there, and I fear a wilful mistake; for he cannot be ignorant how it is acknowledged, that the Jews did not worship Angels themselves, much less their images; that the Jews had not those images of the Cherubins and Brazen Serpent, 
Azor. par. 1. Instit. mor. l. 9 c. 6 qu. 7. Vasq. de Adorat. l. 2. disp. 4.  nor any images for worship, this is asserted by several ●athers, acknowledged by some of this Author's Society.  
He excuses (pa. 112.) their leaving out these words; 
Their maiming of the Commandment in their Catechisms.  thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness, etc. in their shorter Catechisms; Did we (saith he) deliver the Commandments as Protestants do, with the Preface: The same which God spoke— we were obliged to put them word for word, or else the Commandments would not be answerable to the Title, pa. 114. But though you set not that preface before them, yet prefixing the Title of God's Commandments, and pretending to deliver in your Catechisms the ten Commandments, you are obliged to deliver all the fubstantial parts or things commanded or forbidden; otherwise you make them unanswerable to the title, and to your pretence.  
Upon this occasion he makes his defence of their division of the Commandments, 
The division of the Decalogue.  which reckons but three in the first Table, by crowding the second commandment into the first; and making seven Commandments in the second table, by breaking the last into two. The division of the Decalogue, if it were a point of great moment, might be cleared on the Protestants side, as more agreeable to the greater part of Antiquity, and more rational in itself. For though 
* Aug. de decem chordis, & qu. ●1. in Exod.  St. August. with some few others liked the former division, into three and seven: conceiting three in the first table (which prescribes the worship of God) suitable to the three persons in Trinity: yet Romanists have another and more dangerous reason, because they see it more suitable to their image-worship, to make the first and second Commandment but one, and forbidding only an Idol or false God, and to be rendered in brief, Thou shalt make to thyself no idol. Therefore this Author, pa. 119. and 121. where he gives the sum of the Commandment, would have the strange God in our first Commandment, and the graven image in our second, to be all one. But if we consider the Heathen Deities or strange Gods were idols, and their praying or sacrificing to them 
*  supra, Nu. 3.  without an image, was idolatry, according to the first Commandment; so also the worshipping of their images, yea, the worshipping of the true God by an image, is another sort of idolatry by our second Commandment forbidding the graven image. The worship also which the Turks give their Mahomet (I hope our Romanists will say) is forbidden by God's Law here: yet do they not worship him as a God, but at his Tomb, (and therefore the thing forbidden must not be restrained to a false God as he would have it;) nor do they worship him by any graven image, for they have no representations or likenesses of things: therefore it is fit that our second commandment, which forbids such should stand divided from the first. And for the last commandment which they break into two, and pretend a reason from the several objects, Goods and wife: yet the unity of it rests upon the desire forbidden (in the word covet) let the object or thing coveted be what it will; therefore the Apostle renders the commandment by that one word, non concupisces, thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7.7. And God himself has so disposed the words of this commandment, Exod. 20. that he has put the not coveting of a neighbour's wife (which they make the ninth commandment) into the midst of their tenth commandment; putting before and after it the not coveting of his goods, which shows them but one commandment.  
But enough of this. It is not the division of the Commandments that is so much to be stood upon, as the observing and keeping of them; did the Romanists hold this way of dividing the Decalogue, with the same simplicity and uprightness that St. Aug. and some others with him did, we should not quarrel at it; but this we have cause to charge upon them, that in dividing they maim the Commandments, either by leaving out some material parts, as what concerns the graven image, likeness, bowing down to it, and God's jealousy against it, or by restraining the sense of them, as we have heard.  
Now he proceeds to give us the double respect, 
The pretended respects upon which worship is given to Imates.  under which they give reverence and worship to images, pa. 124. But it is in vain to show in what respect they give, if the Scripture exclude it. First he pretends it is but such a reverence as is given to holy things dedicated or tending to the worship of God: and in this respect (saith he) we give them no more honour or worship then Protestants do to Churches, pa. 129. This is too remiss and comes short of their worshipping and serving of images. For we worship not holy things used in God's service, but use them reverently with difference from common things; also sometimes they determine our worship (we give to God) circumstantially, ad hic & nunc, for the performing it then and that way: not objectively receive it; but who can without shame make images, holy things dedicated, or tending to God's service, when there is such caution in Scripture against that danger? Or affix a special presence of God to them? For this would be what the grosser sort of Heathens conceited of their images: yet does this Author allege for the worship of their images, that reverence which the ground had as made holy by the presence of God, Exod. 3.9. where in token and acknowledgement of that presence, shoes were to be put off. The presence of Patriarch, Prophet, or Saint made not the ground or place holy where they stood themselves: much less can the representation of them in or by an image, render that image holy, and to require our reverence and worship.  
His second respect is, because of their representing the thing to which the worship is conveyed, pa. 125. and is not ashamed to argue (but he learned it from his Master the Cardinal) from the necessity of the inward image or representation we have in our mind of the thing to be worshipped, to prove the conveniency of an outward image to help our imagination— and to help us to think of God, pa. 126. That outward images and representations may help our imagination in conceiving of the object, yea, and raise our affections, Philosophy tells us: but in the act of worshipping God, the danger of using images is great, lest they possess our minds and carry away what belongs to the thing represented; as St. Aug. on Psalm 113. shows how hard it is for him that prays, beholding an image (such is the manner in the Church of Rome) to keep his mind from thinking, the image heareth and helpeth him; where also he tells us that the Heathens who would seem to be of a more refined religion, 
Use of in ages.  
* Qui videntur sibi purgationis esse Religionis: di●unt, simulachrum non colo utc Damonium: sed per offi●iem co●poralem, ejus rei signum intueor quod colore debeo. August. in Psalm 113.  alleged in excuse of their worship such respects as these, of helping and fixing the imagination, and conveying the worship to the thing represented. We allow not only the historical use of images, but in some sort the affective also: yet that only as to meditation and preparation; not for or in the exercise of prayer or worship: much less to be the medium or instrument of coveying the worship; hereby images in the Church of Rome become great stumbling blocks to the people that are not capable of the nice distinctions and limitations, which their learned ones are fain to use in defence of this image-worship.  
Again he seeks warrant for his holy images as things that put us in mind of God, 
Bowing at name of Jesus no prerence for Image-worship.  from our bowing at the name of Jesus: and is so courteous as to say; what reverence a Protestant would judge to be given to that name printed or engraven: let him say the like may be given to any image of our Saviour, and no more will be required, so he pa. 128. But a Protestant may say; first, if he bow at the name of Jesus, he has a Text will bear him out, Phil. 2.10. which cannot be said of doing so to an image: Secondly, he may say, that the adoration done at the name of Jesus in our holy offices, is given to Christ only as the object, but is circumstantially determined ad nunc, by or at the naming of him, that is, such worship is given to Christ at the hearing of that name, or when he is named: and if upon sight of that name printed or engraven, any man worship Christ, then is that name the occasional motive of his worship; now as for an image as it may not be the object of worship (in which point the Romanists do require more than a Protestant can yield) so it may be the occasional motive of worship, as should a man upon sight of a Crucifix worship the Lord Christ, lifting up his heart, putting off hat, and bowing; and in that we may say the image determines the worship circumstantially as to the nunc, the time (worship being given upon the sight of it) but should not determine it ad hic, to do it towards the image, for fear of making it any object of the worship, or medium in conveying the worship to the thing it representeth, and minded us of; and in all this there is no more of worship done to the image, than there would be to an iron chain, which he, that was bound with it in his captivity, looking upon, taketh occasion to remember God's mercy in his deliverance, and so worships God uncovering his head and bowing.  
Again, he seeks pretence for his holy Image-worship, 
Kneeling at Communion no pretence for it.  from our kneeling at the Communion: that if we say we afford any reverence to the sacred signs, it must be religious, and then (saith he) I have my intent, pa. 130, 131. This seems to be fairly spoken; but here's the cunning: to go very low in their doctrinal concessions, but still hold up the practice, for there they may easily exceed and extend it as occasion requires. But first, reverence speaks less than adoration or worship; far less than that adoration, which is allowed in the Church of Rome to images.  
Secondly, we do not make our kneeling at the Communion a sign or profession of that reverence we have towards the holy signs: there being other reasons of it. But we express our reverence towards them, by handling them duly as becomes such holy things, using them only in that holy administration: taking order with the remainder, that no undecent usage happen unto them; all worship and adoration that is performed in the use of them, is given to God: and not belongs any way to them but only circumstantially, in as much as it is done towards them; because that which they represent and convey unto us, is the great motive of our worship and adoration But thirdly, what boldness is this, by the reverence due to the sacred sacramental signs instituted of God, to challenge like reverence to images invented by man, 
Images not capable of the reverence due to holy things.  and not capable of that holy use? They have a kind of relation to the thing represented, such as arises from representation, which is the weakest relation: not such as arises from dedication to holy use, of which, as I said, images are not capable; being such things as God will not accept of, if dedicated to worship: and therefore not capable of that reverence which belongs to holy things piously dedicated by man: much less of that which holy things instituted by God may expect; and yet much less capable of that honour and adoration, which is allowed in the Church of Rome. And what if this Author saith, he has his intent, as satisfied with so slender a reverence to be given to his holy images? It behoves them to speak and write warily of such points in English: but which of their Latin controversy-writers would or could say, he had his intent, if no more were yielded then this Author pretends to be satisfied with? There being two respects upon which (as the Romish writers dispute it) worship is held due to images: either propterse for their own sakes, as a reverence is due to holy things, or propter exemplar for the things sake which they represent: 
Bel. lib. de Enagin. c.  the Cardinal disputes honour and worship is due to them in both respects, and so could not have his intent, if only a reverence were given to them, such as is to holy things dedicated: though indeed they are not capable of so much; as was said before; nor would Azorius (though disagreeing with the Cardinal) have his intent: who casting off the first respect (as deserving little or no honour) holds only to the second. 
〈◊〉 part. 1. Instit. more. l. 9 c. 6. qu. 9 Dupli●i honore non coli●ur Ima●●—  The image (saith he) is not worshipped with a double, but one single honour, and that for the exemplars sake— and that honour is the worship of Latria, if to the image of Christ; of Hyperdulia, if to the image of the blessed Virgin; and of Dulia if to the images of the Saints. This is downright, and scarcely can be excused from idolatry, even in the opinion of the Cardinal, 
Bel. l. de ●mag. c. 24.  passing his judgement upon that doctrine, which yields Latriam to the Image for the exemplars sake.  
Let us now hear what St. 
Instrumenta in usum administrandorum sacramemorum.  Aug. saith to the Allegation (such as Mr. Spencer made) of things dedicated to holy use, as about the Sacrament. He shows a difference between them and images, as to this point of reverence. For albeit, (saith he) they be made of the same metal, and are work of men's hands, as images are, 
— quo ipso ministerio consecrata— in ejus honore, cui pro salute nostra inde servitur.  yet by that ministry those vessels are consecrated, and called holy, in his honour, to whom for our salvation we do service by them. And it is not said of them as of images, they have eyes and see not, mouths and speak not— this he adds to show the danger of images (by reason of their representation) when used in holy duties: for as he saith there, 
— Valet in affectibus miserorum, etc. Aug. in Psalm 113.  the form of the image, like to one having life, much prevails upon the affections of silly men; and more to this purpose this Father hath there; which see added below in trial of Antiquity, Chap. of Images.  
One plea more he has, and it is fetched from, Rev. 13.15, 16. 
Image of the beast made an argument for Image-worship.  which speaks of worshipping the image of the beast: whereupon he argues to this purpose. If worship of the image tend to his honour, that is represented by it, (as is evident by that place;) and it be lawful to do all that tends to the honour of our Saviour, than the worship of his image and so of all the Saints is lawful, pa. 133. As if he should reason thus; if the Devil or Antichrist or that accursed thing (as he calls it) will have, and takes it for an honour to have his image worshipped; then is it so with Christ or God; who saith notwithstanding I am a jealous God— And albeit the reverence done to the Emperor's image tends to his honour, because this is but civil respect, of conveying which the image is capable; yet is it far otherwise in this religious worship; for there the representation of God or Christ or Saint by images for worship, is like the stamping of the King's image upon adulterate money without his leave: which is so far from passing currant among his subjects, or that he takes it for his honour, that he will command it, notwithstanding his image on it, to be defaced and cut in pieces. Again it is too unreasonable for him, either to take image in that place of Rev. 13. for such a material representation we speak of; or to draw the argument from that image of the beast, to such material representations; (much like the arguments their Nicen Council makes for worshipping these material images, from what some Fathers had spoken of worshipping Christ as the image of the Father:) In that place of the Revel. is meant one power, state and government, which for likeness may be called the image of the former: and it is probable, that image speaks some state among Christians, that shall imitate or be like the first beast or Heathen Rome: and I know not wherein one can be like the other, more than in erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image-worship, and in persecuting the gainsayers, that will not receive the mark or worship the beast. So that this Author and those of his communion may be concerned in this prophecy more than they are ware of; I am sure they can have no advantage from hence for their image-worship.  
I will but add this one thing; had this image-worship been used in Irenaeus his days, and thought tending to Christ's honour, then would those Heretics he speaks of (who held our Saviour not to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament, that made the world and gave the Law) have had a fair plea: for how should they think him his Son, if allowing and taking it for honour, what was so cautioned against and abominated by God in the old Testament, and for which the Jews still do abominate Christian Religion, viz. the use of images in religious worship? It is a great piece of cunning in the Dragon or Devil, to induce men to believe, that this service of images, and creatures, so strictly forbidden by Moses Law, is authorized by the Gospel, allowed by Christ.    

CHAP. IU. Of Justification by Works.  
HAving set down the Trent decree, against Justification by works before grace, 
Merit of congruity.  and against the merit of them: he challenges the 13. Article of our Church for charging the School-Authors with the merit of congruity in such works, which he denies any of them to have held, and is something passionate against the composers of the Articles, pa. 138. and 139. But what need such anger here? Seeing the Article determines the same truth, as to this doctrine, that the Trent decree doth; it might have so far pacified him as to allow that parenthesis in the Article (as the School-Authors say) such a candid interpretation as it is capable of; for it may refer to their expressing of the doctrine by that phrase of their invention, (deserve grace of congruity) not to their holding of that doctrine, for thus the words stand in the Article neither do they (works done before grace) make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-Authors say,) deserve grace of congruity, do but for say put in express or phrase it, and you have that sense plainly. But suppose the Article had directly said the School-Authors held that doctrine: will Mr. Spencer hazard his credit and call it a great untruth, and say none can be produced that held it?  
It seems, He is acquainted only with Thomists; for though their Angelical Doctor did not approve it, yet their Seraphical (Bonaventure) does not account it such an honour, no more does Scotus, and they were not without their followers. Yea, since the Council of Trent the two 
* Trigosius and Fr. Longus à Coriolano.  Commentators or Epitomizers of Bonaventure acknowledge it may be defended, and do answer the objections from the Trent Decrees. And as they say it may be defended and do defend it; so I think, to defend it is as little or less to God's dishonour, than their merit of condignity in works after grace: which besides its own untruth, is attended in that Church by more corruptions both of Error and Practice, than the other is possibly capable of.  
Of the seven Particulars, which he draws out of the Trent Definitions pa. 
State of the question.  142, 143. he should have told us, which he opposes to Protestant doctrine, for not any one of them can be framed into a just Controversy. Only he tells us, that in the last chief consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works, pa. 143. See then what that last particular is, and mark what this great noise they make of Justification by works comes to.  
His last particular or collection out of the Trent decrees stands thus, Being freely justified, we may do good works, and by them (accepted through Christ's merits) become more and more just in the sight of God: 
To fix it upon the second Justification, is to yield the Gause.  Wherein chief consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works. He might have added, wherein we yield up the cause to the Protestants; for this is the second Justification as they call it: and he knows unless he will grossly mistake, that when we say, justified by faith, and not by works, we mean their first Justification, which indeed and properly is Justification, and from which they themselves exclude works, as the words above also do imply, Being Justified we may do good works: they follow Justification. As for that which they make the second justification, and is thus described by the Council of Trent, Being therefore thus justified, and made the friends of God (there's the first or true and proper justification) going on from virtue to virtue, they are renewed from day to day, and using those arms of justice to sanctification (you have Mr. Spencer's words) by the observance of the Commandments of God and the Church: their faith co-operating with their good works, they increase in the justice they have received, and are justified more and more, as it is written, he who is just let him be justified still, Revel. 22. Now if this be their second Justification, and they intent no more by it then is here expressed in the Trent decree, viz. renovation day by day, and yielding up our members as weapons of righteousness to sanctification, and increase in righteousness. We have no cause to quarrel at the thing, but only that they will call that Justification, which indeed is Sanctification. But if under this their Justification they intent also a meriting of remission by good works, or a redeeming of sins (done after grace) by the merit of good works, (which neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer mentions, but their earnest contending for Justification by works, and some arguments their writers use for it too plainly shows they are concerned in it) I say if they intent so, and would speak it, we would think ourselves more concerned in the cause. Now, as Mr. Spencer thought good to premise seven collections he made out of their Council, the better (as he conceived) to show, wherein the Roman doctrine of Justification by works, did consist: so I shall take leave before I come to examine his confused labour and impertinencies in the defence of that pretended doctrine, to set down some particulars, the better to show, wherein the true Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith doth consist.  
I. Albeit good works do not justify, but follow Justification, 
Preparatory works to justification.  yet are there many works, or workings of the soul required in and to justification; what the Council of Trent saith; Can. 9 pronouncing Anathema, to him that shall say, a wicked man to be justified by faith alone, so that he mean, there is nothing else required, which may cooperate, to the obtaining of the grace of Justification, nor that it is necessary, he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will. It implies that which I said, and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justification by faith alone, for it condemns him that saith, a wicked man to be justified by faith alone, so that he means, there is none of these required.  
II. These works or workings of the soul, are preparatory and dispositive to Justification, for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before, desire, fear, love, sorrow, purposes, (which may be called Initials) upon the ministry of the word, the threaten and the promises: as before childbearing many throws, so in the travail of the soul, for the second birth: Faith itself rises by degrees of persuasions (for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith) till it come to that last act, (that believing with the whole heart) immediately requisite to Justification. Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence, for it gives beginning to them; for by the persuasions that faith has (of those threats and promises in the Gospel, 
Preeminence of faith in them.  and of all the truths of Christ's performances and merits) arise desires and fears, sorrow, love, the motions of the heart or will, and these Initials advance, and gather strength, according to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and persuasions; for this the Trent Council, acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of Justification. Chap. 8. this is well said, in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works, had they but given to it, its due in the act of Justification, that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the apprehending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification, Christ and his righteousness. Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing: as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will, dispose himself to justification; the Trent Council condemns such doctrine, Can. 3.  
III. There are other acts and works also besides faith, 
Conditions and qualifications, in Justification.  which according to their measure are required in Justification, as conditions of receiving remission of sins; so repentance, and the act of charity in forgiving others. But Faith here also has the preeminence, no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause: and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul, as those of Repentance and Charity according to their measure, be required as conditions of receiving the benefit, 
Preeminence of faith.  which is remission of sins, or as qualifications of the subject that receives it; yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritorious cause of justification and remission, as faith is: for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith.  
FOUR As for that infused inherent Righteousness, 
Inherent Righteousness.  which the Church of Rome lays so much upon in the point of our Justification, seeing it is the Work of God, as they acknowledge, it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works: and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification, when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification, as a necessary qualification of the person Justified: A needless dispute it is, what should be the formal cause of our Justification, seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides.  
But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other than Christ's righteousness as imputed, 
Formal Cause.  and by faith apprehended, and made ours; for that phrase of the Apostle, he is made unto us righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. and we made the righteousness of God in him, sounds something to a formal cause, not inherent, but by way of imputation and account: not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it, but that for his righteousness performed for us, he not only forgives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith, but accounts of them, receives them as righteous. Therefore instead of ask after the formal cause in us, more proper it is to inquire according to the Apostles expression (Ro. 4.13. it was counted to him for righteousness & v. 23. it shall be imputed to us.) what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness, i. e. upon which being performed on our part, God receives accounts of us as righteous? We find by the Apostle it is our believing, for it was so with Abraham, He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness: not the To Credere the very act of believing, but more concretely considered with that which it apprehends, the receiving of what is offered in the promise, Christ and his righteousness.  
V last, as for those that are commonly called good works, which being done in the state of grace are more perfect than the former (such as were preparatory, and dispositive to justification, or according to their measure required in Justification, as Conditional to the remission of sins given in it.) Those good works I say, are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works; yet is not the first justification by these works, for they follow it; Our Adversaries when put to it, do grant it, and draw the whole dispute (as we see by this Author) to that which they call the second Justification of which if they will make no more than (as I hinted above) their Council makes of it: we might here sit down, having the cause yielded up to us; but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people, Justified by works, and in their disputes for it, to confound the first and second Justification, using places of Scripture, which treat of the first, or true and proper Justification, as we shall see in examining of them.  
This Author gins with S. James. 2.24. which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position, that Faith only does not Justify: where it is our turn now to observe his mistakes. Should we therefore demand, what justification is this that S. James treats of, first or second? he must confess his impertinency: for the Apostle here treats of the first, the true and proper Justification, and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free, and not by works; now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justification which S. James and S. Paul treats of, and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3. Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness; But it is plain that S. Paul every where treats of the first and proper Justification; The other example also that S. James makes use of, (viz. of Rahab) plainly speaks the first Justification. And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men; to prove that S. James speaks of true internal Justification before God, does but prove what we allow, and what makes against himself, who must acknowledge a man is truly justified before God before he does such works.  
Seeing then this is the first Justification which S. James intends, and that as both they and we say, is not by works: this cannot without gross mistake and impertinency be objected (as it is by them) against us; but they and we are both of us concerned to reconcile the seeming contrariety between the two Apostles. As for the distinction of Justification before God, and before men (albeit there may be a several consideration of Justification to that purpose, and good works do declare a man Justified, and (as I may say) do justify his faith, yet) we need not here make use of it; but the purpose of S. james in writing this Epistle does direct us rather to a several consideration of Faith or believing: for when he denies a man to be justified by faith alone: he speaks not of a lively working faith, (to which S. Paul attributes justification) but of a bare and seeming faith, in profession only, and (as to good works) dead and barren, such as they rested in against whom he writes. This is plain by S. James his subjoyning v. 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed etc. how could the Apostle bring this Scripture (the same that S. Paul does for justifying faith Rom. 4.3.) in confirmation of what he saith of works, but to show, that Abraham's faith which justified him, was a working faith?  
Now if the Romanists conceive themselves less concerned (for fear of the former truth) to labour in the clearing of the contrariety which seems to be between the Apostles; 
Romanists confound their First and Second Justification.  and think it more popular, and for their advantage, to cry up S. James his bare words of justification by works: we cannot help it; but must only note their wilful mistake and impertinency, in so eagerly urging S. james, who speaks of the first justification. Mr. Spencer indeed promises pa. 148. to reconcile the two Apostles: but does it so, as neither of them will be reconciled to his second justification; as we shall see by examining the places of S. Paul, which he insists on, to show the Protestants mistaken: but first take notice of what he saith here upon occasion of the former Text of S. james. justified by good works, working with faith, and perfecting it, informing and vivificating it, as S. James describes them here, p. 148. This is not only impertinent but guilty of falsehood, belying the Apostle; for first he said not, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ja. 2.22.  that works wrought with faith, but that his faith wrought with his works. Secondly, Albeit the Apostle saith, by works was faith made perfect, yet does he not therefore describe works as informing and vivificating it; for here is no other perfection meant, than what the effect brings to the Agent, fruit to the tree, operation to the power or virtue from which it is; as every thing that is made for use, ordained to practice and operation, is then said to be made perfect and consummate, when it comes to working; but this is far from informing or vivificating it; he may as well say the breath which proceeds from the life of the body (its S. james his similitude v. 26.) does inform and vivisicate it; In like manner good works do not inform, or give life to faith, but receive from it: proceeding from it as effects, and fruits: the whole chapter Heb. 11. shows it, speaking the effects of faith, even of Abraham's here mentioned. And that which this Author pa. 143. gathers from his Trent Council, speaks plainly (as we noted above) that men are freely justified, and then do good works: And this shows his impertinency, for they require (fidem formatam) faith informed, for the first justification, how then by works that follow? and his inadvertency in again crossing their own doctrine, for they say, Faith is informed by charity infused in the first justification: how then by works that come after?  
Now for the Places out of S. Paul, which he insists on to show the Protestants mistaken. The first is, Rom. 3.28. 
Without the works of the Law.   
Here, and in all such places which exclude the works of the Law: he will have Protestants mistaken in the understanding of the works of the Law: Because by the Law is understood, that which is written in the books of Moses both Moral and Ceremonial, and by works of the Law, Saint Paul understands such works as are done by force and knowledge of the Law, before the faith of Christ is infused into the soul, or that it is enlightened, and assisted by his grace, pa. 149, etc. It is true that the Law is often so taken: but when the Apostle excluds works of the Law in relation to Abraham's justification, it cannot refer to Moses Law after given and written. But the speech by faith and not by works, comes to this issue: no man can be justified by doing or working according to the Law he is under: Not Abraham by the works of the Law then; Not Jews by the works, of the Law then, the Law of Moses: Not Christians by works, or by doing what they are bound to do, by the Law and Commandments which they are under; But by reason of their many failings in those works and do, they must stand by faith apprehending Christ's obedience and satisfaction, to bear them out against the sentence of the Law, or God's judgement.  
And it is true also, that the Apostle sometimes takes the works of the Law for such as are done by force and knowledge of the Law, before the faith of Christ, etc. as when he speaks of such as sought righteousness by the works of the Law without Christ; but we cannot think the Apostle excludes works of the Law, i. e. such as are done before grace (as this Author saith) from justifying, to admit works done in grace into their stead for justification: nor think, that as Pharisees sought it by the former works and mist of it, Rom. 9.31. so the Romanists may seek it by the latter sort of works, and find it; for Rom. 10.3, 4, 5, 6, 9 he sets the righteousness of the Law and of faith simply one against the other: neither can the righteousness of faith be imagined to be any righteousness of our working. Observe farther what this Author saith pa. 150. that Rom. 3. v. 20. is added By the law is the knowledge of sin, which is a reason wherefore such works as are done by the knowledge of the Law only, cannot justify; from whence we likewise infer; If by the Law is the knowledge of sin, and the Law still convinces those that are under grace, of sin: they cannot be justified by their works before God: David and holy men in his time had the same way of justification as we (notwithstanding they were under Moses Law) who when they were justified and in grace, were concerned to acknowledge. If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss, who could abide it, or stand? Psal. 130. and to pray, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified: Psal. 143.2. that is, if thou in strict judgement wilt examine what he does. The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle, No flesh can be justified, Rom. 3.20. Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer, vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal, under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature: So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself: No man can be justified, not thy servant, by his own do. So that still upon the same reason, no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God, by what he does: because the Law convinces him of sin, (and to the same purpose it is said, We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin, 1 Io. 1.10.) So that if God enter with him into judgement he cannot be justified, if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it.  
What he saith to Gal. 2.16. as to the works of the Law, is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28. and needs no farther reply. But that which is the main exception, and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversy, is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification, which is not by works. So then the Protestant position (as he calls it) of justification by faith only, stands good as they intent it: by faith only, i. e. not by works, and this also shows their exception against the word only, is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless; the word only being but exclusive to works, which he and his Council exclude from the first justification.  
Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification: 
Sanctification, and increase of grace, and righteousness.  it is not worth our contending about, as to proper speech, which controversies require; for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification, to be done in sanctification, and to be properly so called, viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received: and that such increase is made by works or acting: Philosophy teaches, it is so in ordinary habits, much more in these which have also the influence, and assistance of God's spirit for their increase. But if he would have said any thing to purpose, whereby this Increase of righteousness by works, should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification: he should have resolved us (as I noted above) whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fallen, as David; and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works, so he should have told us plainly, whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall (which may be called in some sort a second justification) can by any works of that person be merited? They sometimes pretend to this, when they urge daniel's saying to Nabuchadnezzar, Redeem (break off) thy sins by righteousness— c. 4.27. Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem: yet must they confess, this remission of sins to Nabuchadnezzar, would have been the first justification, and not to be acquired by works; in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency, when by Luc. 7.47. for she loved much, they endeavour to prove, that her love was the cause of her forgiveness, when this was her first justification: But thus do they confound their first and second justification, in their proofs of justification by works, and being pressed by argument, they retire for answer to their second Justification.  
That which they cite out of Revel. 22. justificetur adhuc, let him be justified still, is all the pretence they have for this second justification: where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness, but it's their mistake to make this (which is sanctification) to be justification which stands in remission of sins. That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness, 
Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 the justific.  saith— by yielding up (our members) weapons of righteousness unto sanctification, and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather than justification.  
And therefore it is to little purpose, that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us, they must produce a Text which saith, good works of such as are justified already, done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify, that is augment and increase, that righteousness already received, and make us more just: for we must tell them this is sanctification, and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense, unless that place of Revel. c. 22. be so translated: and we need not fear it should be, seeing the word there is to signify no more than a continuance in the state of justification, or an increase of righteousness, which we grant to good works, yea we grant them more, the increase of the favour of God: if they will put that also into their second justification, for the more good works a justified person doth, the more he is accepted of God; But such a person if he fall into sin (as David did) must come unto remission of sins, 
Justification by Faith  by the same way as he did in his first justification, viz. by faith and repentance. And albeit repentance has its works or workings, and charity also, in the first justification or remission of sins as jona 3. ult. God saw their works, i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way, and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen, Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies; because they are required (according to their measure) as conditions present, but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance; its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon, and bringing in its hand as it were, the meritorious cause for justification, and so that only and properly on our part said to justify.  
To conclude, that other mistake which he would fasten on us, 
Justifying Faith.  in regard of the word faith, pa. 153. is needless; we must understand (saith he) a faith vivificated, informed, animated by charity and other Christian virtues joined with it. The impropriety (I may say absurdity) of his speech, in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other virtues, we noted 
* Nu. 6.  above, where he said it was vivificated by good works, which was somewhat more absurd: for charity receives life from faith, arising and advancing according to the apprehensions that faith has of the goodness and mercy of God, and his several manifestations of it: and therefore S. Paul saith it worketh by charity, Gal. and note, that all his proof for this informing or vivificating of saith by charity, is S. james his saying, that Abraham's faith was made perfect by works; wherein (as I noted 
* Ibid.  above) appear both the falsehood of his interpretation, and the impertinency of his argument, for works belong to his second justification, but that informing of faith by charity is supposed to be done in the first. A working faith it is that S. james requires, and so do we, to justification, a believing with the whole heart, as Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.37. a faith that engages the whole heart in receiving Christ, not only for the benefits of his merits and participation of his righteousness, but also for obedience to his command, and performance of every Christian duty. Such was Abraham's faith or believing (to which his justification is ascribed) the acts of it were pure acts of faith: though virtually including works, because a readiness to do works of every kind, or obey any of God's commands. Lastly, Albeit such a faith justifies; as gaining at present remission of sins past, and giving a right to the heavenly inheritance, yet no man shall gain final justification, and absolution if he continue not in doing good works, i. e. if his faith continue not to work, as abraham's did. And this is that S. james intended by propounding Abraham's example for works, not denying his justification by faith, but urging it was such a faith or believing, that continued working, by fuitable obedience to every command of God.   

CHAP. V Of the Merit of good works.  
THe Council of Trent has defined, 
The notion and reason of merit.  that good works do (verè mereri) truly merit increase of grace, and eternal life, but neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer, tells us wherein the reason of merit stands, that we might know what it is they contend for, when they speak of a work truly meritorious. Many fair acknowledgements their Council makes, as of the free grace, mercy, promise of God, merits of Christ: Sess. 6. c. 16. which Mr. Spencer calls the grounds of merits pa. 162. But if they stand to this, we have the cause yielded to us; and nothing left but a verbal controversy: for those former particulars are so far from being grounds of our meriting truly and properly, that they directly overthrow it. One would have thought that the verè mereri our truly meriting, should imply all the conditions requisite to merit truly and properly taken; and that the doctrine of condignity, or merit upon worth of the work, (which the men of Mr. Spencer's society generally contend for) should be the sense of the Councils definition: but that Council was wiser than to speak too plain in this point, in which there is so great difference amongst them, and therefore may seem to content both parties: the one with this verè mereri● truly merit, and the other dissenting party with the former acknowledgements of free grace, mercy, promise, Christ's merits, as grounds of merit; And Mr. Spencer may remember of what society he is, and how most of his Fellows speak out, and say, The righteous merit eternal life by their good works, even as the wicked do eternal death by their evil works; this is plain and home to a (verè mereri) truly meriting: however he minces it at the beginning, with professions of free grace, divine acceptation, and promise, as pa. 164, 165. Well notwithstanding all the fair proressions they make (when put to it) such indeed as overthrow merit truly taken, yet will they hold the name and thing of man's meriting eternal life, and so propound it grossly to the people. They know best how it concerns them.  
By reason of such general concessions of their Council, 
Goodworks acceptable to God.  he will have some words in our 22. Article, to favour merit of good works: because it saith, they are pleasing and acceptable unto God in Christ. From whence he infers. 1. Then are they no way sinful but truly and absolutely good and just, for no sin can be pleasing to God in Christ, pa. 167. But this is too carlessly spoken, for if absolutely good (say we) then had there been no need to have added, in Christ: such works would been pleasing and acceptable of themselves. We say also, good works are truly good and just, but not absolutely so: they are not sins, but something sinful may stick to them in the performance: some imperfections, and defects, some mixture of by-respects and glances at self-interest; yet because they are good, both for substance, and for manner of performance, as to the chief respects, and motives, upon which they are done: they are truly good, though not absolutely; for which the Article saith, they cannot endure the severity of God's judgement; Not that God accepts those sinful imperfections or accrescencies (as he would infer upon us) but pardoning and overlooking them in Christ, he accepts the good works. And what else is the cause that they acknowledge it so hard for a man to know he has merits, (upon which 
* Tutissimum est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia reponere. De justific. l. 5. c. 7.  Bellar. concludes it most safe to put our whole confidence in God's mercy only) what but defects and imperfections which are less perceptible, when the works themselves are notorious enough? 2. He infers, seeing such good works have the promises annexed to them, and shall be rewarded in Christ: they are truly meritorious in Christ, having such a supernatural goodness in them, 
The conformity of good works to the Reward.  conformable to that heavenly reward: and this is all which is taught by the Church of Rome in this point. So he pa. 168. This is the most he speaks to the reason of merit, or why works are meritorious: viz. Reward and Conformity; but the first, Reward upon the free promise (as he affirms it to be) takes away more from the reason of merit, than the latter (which is Conformity) can add unto it: for that conformity (if our works or sufferings be weighed or examined with the weight of glory) falls short by infinite degrees, 2 Cor. 4.17. Rom. 8.17. A conformity we grant between good works and the reward, as between grace and glory, the way or means and the end; but it must be equality in worth and value that makes merit; And that Conformity or Equality, (were it to be had) is but one of the things requisite to make truly meritorious; there are other conditions; as that the service be of our own, not his enabling us, of whom we are said to merit, also that the service be not of antecedent duty to the Compact, also that the reward be (though by compact, yet) not out of free promise and liberality. Seeing then the matter stands clean otherwise between God and man, as appears by the former concessions of free grace for the performance, of free acceptation of it unto reward, of free and liberal promise in appointing the reward: the service or work cannot be truly meritorious.  
And certainly these considerations did and still do cause divers in the Church of Rome, to decline this truly meritorious, 
Against merit of condignity in goodworks.  or merit of Condignity, as we may gather by the 
* Bel. l. 5. the justific. c. 16. sect. quod attinet.  Cardinal acknowledging it of Tho. Waldens. And of P. Brugens, who would have them called meritorious, not ex condigno of condignity, but ex gratia Dei tantum, only of the grace of God, which is the ancient notion of the word meriting, as it signifies the obtaining of the reward, through the grace and liberal promise of God; and speaking of Durand, he saith, that the same arguments that fight against the Heretics, fought against his judgement in this point; 
Bel. the Just. l. 5. c. 17. sect. Al●j contra.  Also of Scotus and other Schoolmen, and of Viega, that they held good works meritorious only ratione pacti, in regard of God's compact and promise, not ratione operis, for the worthof the work, which falls in with the former: so that the Cardinal finds only this difference between the Lutheran doctrine, and theirs: They hold good works verè bona & non peccata, truly good and not sins, which the Lutherans did not: That we grant them truly good and not sins was said above. But this satisfies not the Cardinal, and therefore chap. 18. endeavours to prove them meritorious ex condigno, not only ratione promissionis, because of the promise assuring the reward, but ratione operis, because of the worth of the work itself: and fears not to affirm, that God is made our Debtor, 
Non sola pro missione, sed etiam ex opere nostro, Deus efficitur Debtor. Bel. ibid. cap. 18.  not only by virtue of his promise, but also by reasonof our work. This I note, to show, how the reason of verè mereri, truly to merit, does force from the Cardinal, (who strives to defend it) such affirmations, and from others (who did not see how merit could be properly between God and man) such concessions and yielding up of the Cause. For this being agreed according to former Concessions, First, What is required to make a work truly meritorious, and then what man receives of God's free grace to enable him for working, and how man stands indebted to God, the controversy is at an end; all their proofs fall short, as not (ad idem) to the point: all our proofs from Scripture stand good, against merit properly taken, and the mistakes Mr. Spencer would fasten on us, appear frivolous, as we shall now see.  

The first place he sets down, as alleged by us is. Rom. 8.18. The sufferings of t his present time, are not worthy to be compared with the glory.  
Nothing here (saith he) against merit. Why so? because, 
Goodworks produce eternal life but not, ex condigno.  as a grain of mustardseed, is not to be compared with the great bulk it bears, yet it produces it: so do sufferings— the fair tree of life— as Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4.17. This flourish of a similitude in transferring things Physical to Moral, neither proves nor answers any thing Controversal: Again, it comes not home, speaking only to the word Compared, whereas the force is in the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) not worthy, which in comparing things Moral, as the work and the reward, is mainly considerable; so is here a great deal of difference between Physical or Natural productions, and Moral. For we grant that the small sufferings of this life, may produce or work (as S. Paul saith there) in their way and measure, a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory: but if this Author will have it any thing to the reason of merit, he must affirm, that sufferings and good works do produce it veritate insitâ, by their own virtue and worth, as that seed doth the bulk (which comes of it) by its own inbred virtue.   

The next place is Luc. 17.10. When ye have done all— say, Unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty.  
The mistake here he imputes to us, is, because we will have merit excluded here, 
Unprofitable servants in respect of God.  by this acknowledgement of doing but our duty, and being unprofitable. Why then (saith he) deserves a servant his Wages, by doing his duty and nothing else? pa. 169. Because duty of a servant does not exclude merit or desert, for the servant is not bound to that duty antecedently, or before his voluntary compact or Covenant with his Master, as man stands bound to God. Neither does the Master supply the Servant with life, health, ability: these the servant brings with him, and therefore may be said to merit or deserve his wages, though his service was duty after covenant with his Master. It is not so between God and Man. For the acknowledgement of being Unprofitable servants; Who (saith he) can bring profit to God? hence is only proved that God is no way beholden to us, but we own to him for all our good works, (this is good Catholic doctrine, but contrary to what his Master the Cardinal saith, as 
* Num. 2.  above cited, and directly overthrowing the v●re mereri, the merit of works in any proper sense, for if we own to him for all our good works, as we do, because he enables us to do them by his grace, how can we merit properly by those works at his hands?) therefore we are all to humble ourselves before him, and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts, and the reward bestowed on them, grounded on his free promise, and acceptation of them, for the merits of Christ, so he pa. 169. This is good doctrine again, but still contradictory to merit: for if his gifts, than not our merits; if reward upon free promise, and divine acceptation, then are not our works truly meritorious of such reward. Nor will such concessions which Truth and shame forces from you, salve the matter, whilst your doctrine delivered in Gross, teaches to plead merit, and to place confidence in it; that is, to be proud of your own works, and to excuse it by saying, Thou O Lord hast given me to be confident, and think thus well of my do; Thou O Christ hast merited that I should merit. That saying, Our Merits are his Gifts, though it be S. Augustine's: yet as used by you, together with your other say, do no more witness you humble in this point, than the Pharisee was, who said, God I thank thee, etc. yet all the while was proud and conceited of what he had done, and so returned unjustified; nay he did not, as we can gather, add the conceit of merit to his do, and therefore more justifiable than a Romanist, holding the doctrine of Works truly meritorious, and accordingly trusting in them.   

The next place is, Rom. 6.23. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.  
Here he will have us mistaken in the word Wages, 
Life eternal the gift of God excluding merit.  and gift misapplied by us: Why so? because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendered Wages, signifies the base stipend of common Soldiers, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendered gift, signifies a donative, a more noble reward anciently given to them that had carried themselves more valiantly, thus pa. 171. thence he will have the true meaning of the Text to be, the base recompense of sin is death, but the high and noble reward of God is life eternal, pa. 172. But first, who taught him to render the true meaning of Scripture, by such significations of the word, as the Scripture does not own, for where can he find in Scripture the word Charisma to signify such a Donative, 
Charisma free gift.  but always the free gift of God? his own Latin edition renders it gratia Dei, the grace i. e. free favour or gift of God. Again, be it so, that the Apostle (whose purpose is to show the different reward of sins service, and Gods) had some reflection that way of stipend and Donative among Soldiers, it's but verbal, an using of like words, not affording any plea or answer in this point: when we speak of God's gift or donative.  
For first, If Soldiers could pretend any merit for a donative, it was for some special service above duty; or of custom upon the succession of a new Prince: and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a gift, rather than, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift, such as that word in Scripture-use signifies, and such as God's gifts and rewards to us are.  
Secondly, Soldiers have not from the Emperor (that so rewards or gratifies them) the strength, courage, and valour which he so rewards in them; but this Donative of God's gift implies such notions of grace (free grace, for the performance of the service, free grace for the acceptation of the service, free grace in the promise of the reward) as exclude all merit.  
At length he gins to yield to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If we take the word (saith he) for a pure free gift, we may answer with S. Augustine and the Council of Trent, that because the good works and merits themselves are the free gifts of God: so also the glory of heaven, which is deserved by them, is called truly a gift; also because the primary title and right which all God's children have to eternal life, is that of inheritance, which is the free gift of eternal life, may be properly called the gift of God. 172. Thus does his answers and concessions which truth forces from him, overthrew the doctrine of merit properly taken. For if eternal life is called properly the gift of God, and our good works be the free gifts of God, then cannot they in any proper sense be truly meritorious of eternal life. And because he mentioned Saint August. take his sense of this Text. 
* Cum possit dicerectrecle dicere, stipendium justitiae vita aeterna, maluit dicere, gratia Dei vita aeterna, ut intelligeremus, non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam, sed pro sua miseratione perducere. Aug. de gratia & lib. Arbitrio cap. 9  Whereas the Apostle might say, and say it truly, the wages of righteousness is life eternal, he chose rather to say, the gift of God is life eternal, that we might understand, how God brings us to eternal life, not for our merits, but for his mercy's sake.   

Another place is Eph. 2.8, 9 Saved by Grace not by works, lest any should boast.  
He gives here the Answer we had above in the point of justification, 
The Grace of God excludeth merit properly taken.  That these works are such as are done before Justification of Grace, distinguished from the good works of the Regenerate, of whom it is said v. 10. Created to good works: so he p. 170. True they are to be distinguished: but here the opposition stands between Works and Grace, not only in regard of Justification, but even to the last, Salvation, and with a denial of merit, which is here boasting; so Rom. 4.4. to him that worketh, etc. he directly shows that meriting by works (which challenges the reward as of debt,) is excluded by grace in the way of salvation; so that if any man will merit by works, he must do them of himself: according to the condition of the Legal Covenant; but if he must come into the way of grace, to stand in need of a Redeemer, for forgiveness of sins past, for a supply of free grace for performance of good works for divine acceptation of his performances through the merits of that Redeemer, he is clean out of the road of meriting, or challenging the reward as debt, in any proper sense.  
And therefore how vain are their pretty say for evasions, That our merits are his gifts; That they merit through the merits of Christ, or that Christ has merited that we should merit: and that good works are meritorious through divine acceptation: All which speaks contradiction or folly. For to say Christ has merited that we should merit, is to acknowledge we are indebted to God, for giving his Son to die for our sins, and for his purchasing or meriting the first grace for us; but then that we enabled thereby, should begin to make God and our Saviour indebted to us, in the reward of eternal life. Christ indeed has merited that we should not be bound to merit, that is, to obtain salvation by our merits, or performance of exact obedience by ourselves, according to the Legal Covenant. Again, he has merited that we might be under grace, and so perform good works, created unto good works. To say that Christ has merited that we should merit, or that God accepts our works as truly meritorious, is to allege that for the merit of works, which excludes it: To obtain the reward by works, because they are done in Grace, or of grace, is sense; but to merit by works, because done in or by grace is folly and contradiction.  
He proceeds to prove the Catholic Position, as he calls it. That the works of the Regenerate are such, as can deserve Heaven: where it is our turn again to observe his mistakes in the places of Scripture, which he brings to prove his Catholic Position. The argument from them is altogether inconsequent to prove a deserving of heaven in any proper sense of merit.  
His places are, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. 
God is righteous in rewarding, yet works are not meritorious.  wherein he will have the words, righteous or just judge, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, give or render, and a Crown of righteousness to favour his plea for merit; as if by these expressions were implied, that God in justice rewards, that he renders or restores, so he will have the importance of it p. 173. as if due before: that the reward is a Crown of justice, so he will have it, that is, saith he a true reward or price gotten by labour— Which appears saith he, by 1 Cor. 9.24. our running for it; and by 2 Cor. 4.17. by afflictions working for us an eternal glory— whence he gathers, if they work a Crown of glory, then are they a true cause of it, which cannot be but by merit, pa. 173. then to show they are worthy of eternal life, he citys Revel. 3.4. for they are worthy: adding, Heb. 6.9. for God is not unrighteous to forget your work, which must imply the same as, the righteous judge will render, 2 Tim. 4.8.  
If he will stand strictly on these words according to the reason of true merit, he overthrows his former true concessions of free grace, promise, acceptation: which also gives us the true meaning of these words or expressions, not such as he would draw out of them. For the free grace, which he and his Council yields, is given us for performance of the work, that is, of that fight and running, and then cannot merit truly, what follows on it in the way of reward: also that free and liberal promise of the reward, in performing of which God is just and righteous to render the reward, the Crown of righteousness, will not suffer good works either to challenge the reward of God's justice as due to the worth of the work, or to be true causes of eternal life by way of merit: they have their work and causality, in their way or measure: 
Non causa regnandi sed via Regni.  They are not the cause of reigning, but the way of or to the kingdom, saith a Father: Conditions of obtaining the promise, not true Causes, in the way of meriting it; we may add, 1 Jo. 1.9. where God is said, to be just in forgiving our sins, in regard of his promise of it to them that perform the condition of it, confessing their sins. Lastly, that divine acceptation which Mr. Spencer and his Council do yield, is that by which they are accounted worthy, Rev. 3.4. And we may note, that when the Scripture saith, not worthy, as Rom. 8. 
How said to be worthy.  v. 18. and in other places saith, are worthy; the Negative must be taken properly as to true value and worth; the affirmative must be understood in some respect, are worthy as to God's account and gracious acceptation. Also note that the Scripture saith, not worthy of our do or sufferings, to show they are so if examined, compared with the reward; but saith, Worthy of the Persons, which argues its divine acceptation that makes them so, and then accepts their works also to the rewarding of them, though imperfect and unanswerable to it. See what this Author acknowledges pa. 175. All their merits are his gifts as S. August. saith, and rewarded, through the free acceptation of them through the merits of Christ.  
To the Protestant argument of the Saints ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness, 
The best acknowledge unworthiness.  he answers, that by this cannot be understood, that no just man hath any works truly good and pleasing to God, pa. 175. Neither do we understand or prove by unworthiness that they have no good works, but no merit in proper sense— So to Ps. 130.3. If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, who may abide it? This proves not, saith he, that no Saint has any good works or merits: for they do many things amiss, yet through the grace of Christ may do somethings aright, pa. 177. Good works and merits go for the same with this Author, which is his perpetual mistake: and that which he grants, they do some things amiss, some things aright, shows good works may be where no merit is, i. e. where many things are done amiss: Merit cannot be where there is still need of pardon, where there is still need to beg, Lord enter not into judgement with thy servant, Psal. 143.2. that is, that God would not deal with him in extremity of judgement, or as he deserves: How then can any just person that needs divine acceptation for mercy and pardon of many things amiss in him, and again needs divine acceptation for his good works that they may be rewarded, notwithstanding they are accompanied with many things done amiss, and are in themselves imperfect,— how can such a person by his works be said truly or in any proper sense to merit the reward of eternal life? There is a saying of S. Augustine, 
Multum nobis in hac carne tribueremus, si non usque ad ejus depofitionem sub venia viveremus.  We should attribute too much to ourselves in this flesh (or time of this life) if we did not live under Pardon to the very deposition of it, or to the end of our life. So then to conclude, as S. Augustine said, our merits are Gods gifts, which excludes merit à parte ante in the original of our works, because done by God's free grace or gift, so was it a saying of an ancient Father, my merit is the mercy of God: which excluds merit à parte post, in the end when our works are admitted to the reward, because that is done through God's merciful acceptation.    

CHAP. VI Purgatory.  
OF the four particulars which Mr. Spencer notes out of the Trent Council, 
The unreasonableness of Romish Purgatory.  three of them speak their own unreasonableness, and carry their condemnation in their forehead. 1. That just persons after they have (as they hold) merited heaven at God's hand by their justice: and died acceptable to him, should go to a Purgatory to be tormented. 2. That the merciful God, after the Remission of their sin, after he had forgiven them for the all-sufficient satisfaction of his Son, should exact of them such extreme satisfaction or punishment, and that only for some remainder of temporal pains, not satisfied or born in this life: when as that punishment exceedingly goes beyond all that can be suffered in this life though never so long. 3. That the Church of Rome forbidding all temporal gain to be made of this doctrine of Purgatory, should notwithstanding suffer it daily to be done, where the poor must be content with the general suffrages of the Church, but the Rich that die (and can pay for it) have many particular Masses, Indulgences in order to their ease or delivery.  
The places of Scripture here brought, in the sense of which he will have us mistaken, are such as are intended for comfort against sufferings in this life, and against dissolution or death, by the bettering of their estate: but this doctrine makes all these miserable comforts, and his answers miserable (not only mistakes, but) wrest of Scripture.  

The first place is Revel. 14. Blessed are the Dead, who die in the Lord— that they may rest from their labours, and their works follow them, or follow with them.  
The text saith not, they rest presently after death; that's his first exception: 
The present blessedness of them, that die in the Lord.  and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3. where the poor in spirit are called Blessed, and and yet in their misery: but blessed, because the kingdom of heaven belonged to them, pa: 181. It is true, that hope in this life makes blessed: but the blessedness of the next life stands in fruition, according to the measures God has appointed: But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed, but the reason, their dying in the Lord, and resting from their Labours; for dying in the Lord, and sleeping in Christ are all one, and that sleeping does necessarily infer, that the Rest gins at death, as the sleep doth; and little comfort would it be, if they went not presently to Rest: for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life, to go to worse? again, that which enforces this presently is their works following them, that they follow them for reward, he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but presently, if the reason of giving the reward after Labours cease, do not evince it, the expression here may, for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, follow them, which might be at some distance, but more than the translation expresses, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow with them, that is immediately: As Rev. 6.8. Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy, and Hades followed with him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, immediately, as Hades, or the invisible state to which the soul goes, follows immediately upon death. More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death, in the next place of Scripture. His second exception is like the talking of a man in his dream; that we mistake the word Labours, which here is not taken saith he, for all labours, but the labours and persecutions of this life; or that they cease from their good works, pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours, than reason, and the comfort intended by this Text would infer, that those labours being at an end, the service performed, the reward should immediately follow; the warfare and combat being ended, some Prize or Crown should be received, and so indeed their works following them, or with them, does imply; but here instead of receiving reward, or rest, the Combatant that has laboured, and conquered, is carried to the house of Correction, delivered up to certain torments. And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must, and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after; then is the Romish Purgatory excluded, which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spoken for their comfort: and allows them no more in this Rest, than the wicked have when they die, a freedom from the labours of this life, leaving them only hope of coming out after some time.   

The next place is, 2 Cor. 5.1. For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven.  
Here again he tells us, we are mistaken, for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house, 
The same again proved.  pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house, must imply a present entering into the other or into some part of it: also the word unclothing (which is in death) must imply a clothing with that house, v. 2. The Apostle desired to be clothed upon, without unclothing, (which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age, that are taken alive at the last day; no Romish Purgatory can be for them,) but if that clothing upon were denied to them of the Apostles age as it was, so that it came to an unclothing: the Apostle had said little to their comfort, in telling them of their house from heaven, if he had not implied, that upon their unclothing they should be received into it; but that contrarily they should first go to a house below, and there suffer, in the next region to hell, exquisite torments for many years. Also the opposition he makes between, at home in the body, & absent from the Lord, v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shows the denial of the one, infers the other: if absent from the body, then present with the Lord; and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdom of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8. that when ye fail, (there is this dissolving, or going out of the body) they may receive you into everlasting habitations: there's the heavenly house: a present reception is necessarily implied, even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him, as soon as he should be turned out of his Lord's house.   

The next place is Wisd. 3.1. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them.  
The word Torment here is misunderstood, saith he. Why so! 
Righteous souls a●●●● Death, 〈◊〉 from T●●ment.  because it is in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a torment, that malefactors, or suspected to be so, are put to, to make them confess the truth: Now no such torment shall touch the righteous, for God has sufficiently tried them, and proved them, and found them worthy of God, v. 5. which is a plain place for merits, pa. 184. If he lose one thing by this Text, he will catch at another. If it make against Purgatory, he will have it make for merits. Well if it be so plain for merits, he must wring them out of the word worthy: which being 
* cap. 5. num. 8.  objected above in the point of merits, was answered too. But as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which concerns Purgatory: let the original use or strict importance of the word be it what it will: the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment, and what matters it, if they that go to Purgatory, suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons; so that indeed they suffer the like, as Malefactors do? It would be mockery and not comfort, to tell them they shall suffer not under that name, but as much. And to suffer this, now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies (against which this is their comfort) into the hands of God, (which the Text puts as the reason, why no torment can touch them,) and thus to be handled there? and that after God had proved, and found them worthy of himself, as this chapter v. 5. hath it; how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text, which is spoken for their comfort?  
But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Trinity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Consubstantial, pa. 185. 
His Argument for Purgatory punishment  This is great boldness, whether we look at the comparison of the things, or the difficulty of the undertaking: but he learned this from his Master the 
* Bel. l. 1. de Purgat. c. 15.  Cardinal who was not ashamed to say it, and Mr. Spencer is not afraid to follow him, let him say and undertake what he will. His pretended Demonstration proceeds thus, Purgatory is the place where temporal punishments are suffered by just persons after death, which they deserved in their life, now if any justified soul be liable to suffer such after death, than there is a place where they must suffer them. To prove them liable to such punishments, he endeavours to show, that justified persons yet living after remission of their sins, and consequently of eternal Torment are liable to some temporal punishment, pa. 185, 186. This proposition is too infirm to make a demonstration or proof of Purgatory: for we may ask if upon remission of sin consequently there be a remission of eternal, why not consequently of temporal punishment? he dare not say that temporal punishment is not remitted when sin is forgiven, and therefore saith, liable to some temporal punishments; and pa. 187. he saith, God retains part of the punishment, he means, to be satisfied or paid by us; which will be found true, only when it pleases God to reserve some, and inflict it, yet not as satisfactory punishment, but for other purposes, as we shall see. Again we may ask, though it be true that remission of sin be consequently the remission of eternal punishment, and that so me living are after remission of their sin temporally afflicted with respect to that sin: yet how will this consequently fall upon just persons dead?  
To make good the proposition, that just men living are liable to some temporal punishment, he brings the example of David punished with the death of his child 
* 2 Sam. 12.13, 14. Of punish. ment reserved and inflicted after forgiveness of sin. , and of Adam who after his sin forgiven, was notwithstanding liable to death, as all just persons are for the same reason, pa. 186. His alleging the example of Adam's sin punishmed by death— is altogether impertinent to the question, and Mr. Spencer surely knew it well enough; for his question is not concerned in the punishments immediately upon Original sin, which cleaves universally to our nature, and from which no just persons whatsoever, though they have fully satisfied (as they suppose) for temporal punishments, are free: but the question is concerned only in the temporal punishment due to actual sins committed after baptism; for to these only belongs the doctrine of satisfaction, as he knows their Trent Council has defined; for mortality and bodily infirmities following the natural state, are not matter for satisfactions, or indulgences to work on, as the Romanists will grant. Let us therefore examine his other example of David whether it will prove his Proposition. We say, just persons after the remission of their sins are not liable to temporal punishment Ordinary, ordinarily and of course, that is, God does not always reserve some temporal punishment or part of the temporal punishment due to their sin, and to be inflicted, or satisfied for by themselves; but does reserve such punishments to be inflicted, when and as he thinks fit. Again when he does reserve and inflict them it is not in ordine justitiae, in order to his justice requiring punishment as satisfactory to it, which he must suppose when he saith, if not suffered here, it must be else where; But Almighty God inflicts such punishments for other reasons and purposes: as for correction and amendment of persons so suffering, or at least for admonition to others, as when the person suffering dies, or is taken away by the punishment; So that such punishments after sin forgiven are not properly satisfactory (as the Romanists must and do suppose) but Castigatory, at least admonitory to others.  
We grant such punishments are inflicted, 
Other reasons of punishment besides satisfaction.  and that with relation to and by occasion of sin, as david's was, not out of vindicative justice requiring satisfaction, as they must suppose, but for other reasons of Correction, or admonition, as was said, and as appears by the reason the Lord gives of David's punishment, Howbeit (that is, notwithstanding that thy sin is taken away, and the punishment due unto it) because thou hast by this deed (or sin) given great occasion to the enemies of the lord to blaspheme— which also gives us another reason of Gods some time punishing such persons, that he may show he does not approve sin in his children, but that it is displeasing to him, as is said 2 Sam. 11. ult. but the thing that David had done, displeased the Lord: Now that God Almighty does not ordinarily and always reserve such punishment after forgiveness: appears, 1. Because he has no where declared, that such punishments are reserved or do remain after forgiveness, to be satisfied for by us: but every where has declared, he is well satisfied with the fruits of repentance: that is, if the person to whom he forgives sin, carefully avoids the like sin, and performs the contrary duties. 2. because he has set out his forgiveness as perfect and full, a pardoning of the whole debt, of which the temporal punishment due to sin, is part; and in this point of forgiving he would have us imitate him, Be merciful as he is merciful, Luc. 3. Another reason of our denying satisfactory punishment inflicted after forgiveness of the sin, is because that forgiveness is imparted for the satisfaction of Christ, which was full and all-sufficient, paid by him for the whole debt or punishment due to sin: for he bore our griefs, and our chastisement (Isa. 53.4, 5.) even all that sin made us liable to, whether eternal or temporal. And yet is the Cardinal so bold as by distinguishing of satisfaction for sin, to give us part with and under Christ in the work: saying, that our Saviour satisfied immediately, (i. e. 
Bel. l. 4. de poenit. c. 15. porro. Immediatè pro culpa & reatu mortis aeternae, mediate pro poena etiam temporali, quatenus gratiam praebet, per quamipsi nos Domino satisfacimus.  by himself) for the fault, and for the guilt of eternal death, and mediately for the temporal punishment also, in as much as he affords us grace, whereby we ourselves satisfy the Lord. Had he said, our Saviour satisfied for the Temporal punishment also: so that it is either wholly remitted to the Righteous: or if any be inflicted, grace is given to bear it, and the affliction sanctified to their advantage, even death itself, with all other corporal infirmities and afflictions whatsoever: Had he spoke to this purpose, it had been wholesome doctrine.  
Thus for his Antecedent or Proposition, 
That Reservation of punishment whether it can hold after death.  as concerning just persons living liable to some Temporal punishment after forgiveness; which how far, and in what sense, true, we have seen; Now let us see how supposing it true in the Romish sense (as indeed it is not) he can transfer it from the living to the dead, that it may be a ground and proof of Purgatory after death, as they suppose it is of satisfactions in this life: for if ask, supposing such persons in this life liable to some temporal punishment, why should they be so in the next? it rests upon that false assertion of his Council, that such punishment must be satisfied or paid either in this world or the world to come; for there is a third way, which 
* Vid Alens. sum. l. 4. qu. 15. mem. 3. artic. 3.  some have allowed: and that is, a removal of all the stains of sin and guilt of punishment by the final grace, and in the passage of the soul from the body: And how bold is this Author to make God a respecter of persons, if he should not punish in the other world one that had sinned as David, and not paid for it in this, pa. 187. for then he should not (saith this Author) reward every man according to his works? 
God no respecter of persons, if he forgive all Temporal punish. meant with. out our satisfaction.  But this is, First, a bold inference upon the former falls supposal, of such punishments retained and inflicted in the Course of vindicative justice, if not satisfied for by us: whereas we saw three reasons against it, and other purposes which God has in so retaining and inflicting punishment when he sees fit, for chastisement, amendment, admonition to others, and to show how he is displeased with sin in his children; yea it is very profitable for us that he should retain and inflict it after forgiveness, as, and when he sees fit: But none of these purposes can hold in the punishments of Purgatory. Secondly, that Rewarding every man according to his works, is misapplied to sins of just persons forgiven: for the reward of punishment which God without respect of persons renders to works, is to works not reckoned for, i. e. not repent of, not forgiven: And whereas they will not allow that God either in mercy or justice, can remit the remainder of Temporal punishment, without being a Respecter of persons: why do they contend for the power of Indulgence to be in the Pope? and allow him to be a Respecter of persons, as the Rich find him to be? And whereas they hold Christ to entreat and intercede for souls in Purgatory, yet none come out upon his Intercession, but upon the Pope's Indulgence.  
All they can pretend to here is, that by such Indulgencies the application of Christ's merit and satisfaction is made. 
Papal Indulgences.  But why should they allow the Pope to be a respecter of persons in applying the merits of Christ with respect (as he does) to friends, or those that can pay well, when they will not allow God Almighty to dispense his own mercy or justice to them that have not satisfied here, unless they do it in Purgatory? or why do they allow the Pope to extend that power of losing to souls in Purgatory (that is, under the earth) which was given to the Church, for losing only things 
* Mat 16.19. Mat. 18.18.  upon earth? Indeed God has appointed many ways and means in his Church of applying Christ's satisfaction, such as his Word, both Sacraments, and Absolution: but as for the many new invented ways of the Church of Rome, they are unwarrantable, and ineffectual to the purpose: deceiving the people not only of their money, but of their souls, by staying on things that must be paid for, yet profit not, false applications of (what they pretend) the merits and satisfaction of our Saviour Christ.  
Unto this debate of Purgatory, it will not be amiss to add something concerning satisfactions. 
Of satisfactions and of doing the things signified by that name.  We do not here condemn, or deter people from doing the things, which in the language of the Church of Rome, come under the name of satisfaction, viz. those Penals, self-afflictives, acts of self-denial, or such spiritual exercises, or bodily austerities reasonably used that way: But we commend them as profitable, and to good purpose, if rightly undertaken and directed; only we cannot allow the grounds upon which that Church has established her satisfactions, nor the purposes that Church seems to have in the commending or enjoining them.  
The grounds we saw in the discourse of Purgatory, That God does retain part of the temporal punishment, which may by works of penance be remitted here in this world, or paid in the world to come, as this Author expresses it, pa. 187. of this sufficiently above. Nor can we allow the purposes (or at least practices) of the Romish Church, in commending those Penals as meritorious and satisfactory to God's justice, that I may say nothing of the no small gain that is made thereby. But we allow and commend the doing of the things, these self-afflictives, First, in order to the obtaining of remission of sin and punishment, so the Sackeloth, Ashes, Lying on the ground; as in the Ninivites, jon. 3. this they do, not as having any merit, or satisfaction for punishment due by God's justice unto sin, nor yet as the prime conditions of forgiveness, but as expressions of that inward Repentance and humiliation, of which they are effects, and which they conduce to increase, by a reaction or working back again upon the soul. Secondly, After forgiveness they are profitable when done, either in respect to sin past, by way of wholesome discipline to make more wary of such sins, more careful to avoid them hereafter, and more diligent in doing the contrary duties; or when done, in order to the averting some Temporal judgement, wherewith God might strike us justly for some failing, remissness, or want of due carefulness, as is requisite for that avoiding of sin, and performance of duty: For these are the fruits of Repentance, which God accepts as the great and only satisfaction on our parts, as for those Penals and bodily afflictives, they are pleasing unto him so far as conduce to enforce care and strength of the spirit against sin, and as they are expressions and effects of that humiliation and Repentance, which is the Condition of forgiveness.  
And these Afflictives or exercises of self-denial, may be either voluntary undertaken of ourselves, or by advise of the Priest, that has the ministry of reconciliation, and the power of losing committed unto him: and the less that God does inflict on us, i e. the greater prosperity, health, ease, quietness, that any man enjoys in the world: the more is he concerned to impose on himself such acts of self-denial, and keep the soul exercised by sometimes afflicting the body, or else the flesh will gather strength against the spirit, and bring in the world too fast into the soul.  
Upon the aforesaid Respects, we commend and allow the things, and leave it to the Church of Rome to draw God's example, (his sometime inflicting punishment after forgiveness) to their own advantage, and make a General Rule of it for themselves to practise by.    

CHAP. VII. Of the Real Presence.  
THis Controversy about the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist the Romanists we find, 
State of the Controversy.  had rather dispute under the Title of Real presence, then of Transubstantiation: Whereas, First I do not observe, that the Ancients expressed the being of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, by the word presence, but rather by affirming it to be his body, blood.— And in the time of Bertrams, Pascasius, and so down to Berengarius, the question was, how it is his body, and this more consonant to Scripture exprestion, This is my body, this is my blood. Secondly, Seeing we admit the old saying praesentiam credimus, modum nescimus, We believe the presence, know not the mode or manner: it is needless for them to dispute about the presence, unless they add the mode which they have defined, Transubstantiation. For the Arguments that make against Transubstantiation conclude also (though not against all real presence yet) against theirs. Their Council also having defined in the first Canon, that the body and blood of Christ, are really and substantially contained in the Eucharist, which speaks a presence, does in the next Canon define that which concerns the mode: the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord.  
Durand proves the remaining of the substances of Bread and Wine, 
In 4. sent. didst 11. qu. 1.  together with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be possible: and albeit he adheres to the way of Transubstantiation, yet he grants that other way to be pressed with fewer difficulties. It is indeed most evident, that he who denies Transubstantiation, does not therefore deny a Real presence: nor does the remaining of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament exclude the real presence or communication of the body and blood of Christ, but clears it of many Difficulties, and needless miracles, (which must accompany the way of Transubstantiation) and makes a fairer interpretation of the words, This is my body, This is my blood: According to S. Paul's explication: The bread which we break is communion of, etc. 1 Cor. 10. to let us understand, where there is a due participation of this Bread broken, and this Cup blessed, there is a real participation of the body and blood of our Saviour. Let the Romanists take away their mode of Transubstantiation (which as we shall see by the following discourse is pressed with so many difficulties, infers so many inconveniencies) and we will not quarrel with them about a Real presence or participation of Christ's Body and Blood; believing such a one is afforded as is fitting and necessary to all the ends and purposes of the Sacrament.  
Now for the Arguments of Protestants, which equally serve against Transubstantiation, and against their Real presence: Mr. Spencer sets them down in this order, with his answers to them.  
The first is from the contexture of the words, 
That the substance of 'Fraid remains.  as we have them in three Evangelists, and in S. Paul. 1 Cor. 11. that Jesus took bread blessed it, brake, and gave to his Disciples; which shows plainly, he broke and gave what he took and blessed; true bread, not the species only. His Answer is a denial that our Saviour gave what he took and blessed, the same substance of bread; and for a pretence of this denial, he complains of our translation or addition of the word, it to blessed, broke and gave, which is not in the Original Greek, nor the Latin: and upon this silly exception makes an invective against the cunning which Protestants use in their Translations, pa. 194, 195. But he that knows any thing in those languages Greek and Latin, finds they are not forced to repeat the pronoun it, as our English is; in which there would be else, but an imperfect sense; and when it is not expressed in the other Languages, it must be implied to give a subject to those transitive verbs, blessed, broke, gave. And if to make the sense perfect, we ask what did he bless, break, and give? the subject first mentioned still must be meant, unless the change be expressed in the story, or made evident to the sense: this rule he must grant, or else nothing can be certain in such contextures of Scripture-language. It is said 2 Sam. 23.16. They drew water and took, and brought to David. So the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew; the English renders, took it, and brought it; Will he say, this is a fraud and falsification, as he complains here? But that he may see and acknowledge, how answerable the manner of speech in the one is to the other: It follows, David said (of it, or of that Water) is not this the blood of these men? answerable to these sacramental speeches of the Text in hand, but of this manner of speech more hereafter.  
The second part of his answer, is by denying the Consequence: 
A Rule to be observed in change of substances.  therefore he gave the same in substance which he took; the bread which he took being changed (as he will have it) into his body which he gave: as when in Gallilee, the Water was turned into Wine, it could not be thence proved, that as the servants filled the Vessels with natural Water, so they drew, and carried, and the Master of the feast drank natural water. But this is answered by the Rule above, The subject first mentioned must still be meant, unless the change be expressed in the story, or made evident to sense: Now we have it not either in the story of the institution of this Sacrament, or elsehwere expressed, that our Saviour would or did change the very bread into his very body, neither doth the effect or change sensibly appear, therefore it must follow, that what he took and blessed, the same also for substance he gave. As for those words, this is my body, they do not expressly speak a substantial change, but more suitable to the purpose of the Sacrament, admit another meaning, like as David's speech (above mentioned) did, and many other such figurative speeches in Scripture do. And for his instance of the Water turned into Wine, Joh. 2. the story expressly speaks, and the senses evidently showed then there was a change; and therefore though it follows not (as to that story) they filled water, therefore they drew and carried, and drank water, yet here it does follow, that as he took bread, and blessed it, so he broke bread and gave it, when neither the story nor the sense shown such a change of the subject.  
The Second objection which he pretends Protestants do make, 
Of breaking the bread which proves substance remaining.  is of his own framing, and so may easily be answered by him. But thus I may object what he cannot answer. What our Saviour broke that he gave, but he broke substantial bread, therefore he gave it; The exception Mr. Spencer used in answer to the former objection, viz. He gave the same he took, unless it were changed, which they affirm it to be before he gave it, did not serve him there it will less here: for the affirming of such a change of the subject in such contextures of Scripture we found unreasonable, unless the story or our senses did evidence the change; but here it's more unreasonable to answer, ●e gave what he broke, the same for substance, unless substantially changed: for the end of our Saviour's breaking it, was to give or distribute it to his Disciples: if therefore he changed the substantial Bread, which he broke, he did not give them, what he broke for them; and broke that which he broke, to no purpose; it being presently to be changed and annihilated. To no purpose I say, of Communion and distribution; which our Saviour intended in this Sacrament: For I acknowledge another purpose of breaking, and that mystical, to show the breaking of his body on the Cross: which might hold, though the substance of the bread had been presently annihilated; but the other purpose of distribution must needs be frustrate; That this was the end and purpose of our Saviour's breaking, the Romish Commentators upon the place acknowledge; saying our Saviour broke it into so many parts, that every Disciple might have one; But the Church of Rome does not break now, in order to Communion, or distributing to the people; but in order to a sacrifice, the Priest breaks a Wafer into three parts; and this only to himself, not for others to take or receive.  
Here they cannot serve themselves of the Species, as when they say of the eating, and showing, (which is a breaking of the Sacrament with the Teeth) that the Species of the bread are only broken, the body of Christ remaining whole under them, which is senseless enough; but here in the breaking for distribution, more senseless, for it supposes only the species remaining to be distributed; which cannot answer the purposes of the Sacrament (nourishing incorporation, of which as enforcing the necessity of substantial bread to remain, more below) nor can it answer S. Paul's purpose in saying, The bread which we break is it not the Communion of, etc. Nor answer the purpose of the Scripture, expressing the Administration of this Sacrament by the breaking of bread; as sometimes in the Acts of the Apostles: Nor can they of the Church of Rome answer our Saviour's command, Do this; They do not what our Saviour did, they do not break bread; the bread they use, is broken for them by the Baker, those little portions of bread or wafers being severed from one another by him or her that makes them, before they come to the Priests hands, nay before they come into the Oven, and are sit for eating. If they say they break i e. distribute; that indeed is sometime signified by breaking, and is implied consequentially in that phrase or expression breaking of bread, and in S. Paul's, the bread we break, for they did break it (as our Saviour also) to the end they might distribute it. But this will acknowledge the substance of Bread in the distribution, i. e. after Consecration; and still the Argument from our Saviour's breaking bread is good; for he broke it to that end, to give and distribute it.  
In the next objection p. 200. which is also much of his own framing, he speaks something of breaking, but uncertainly— whether our Saviour brak before those words This is my body, or while our Saviour was speaking them, or after they were spoken, i. e. after Consecration; if he will fix on the last, as he seems most inclined to do, there is enough said against it, from that senseless supply they make by the Species and accidents of the bread, from that expression of breaking bread, from S. 
1 Cor. 11.  Paul's, the bread we break— and further from that representation of Christ's body broken on the Cross, intended in the breaking of the Sacramental element; therefore Saint Paul, to this my body, adds, which is broken for you.  
The next objection or Argument of Protestants is upon the word this— when our Saviour said this, 
What the word (this) denotes.  it must signify what he took and held in his hand, and so the proposition must be This bread is my body: He answers pa. 206. by demanding, whether our Saviour when he turned Water into Wine, Joh. 2. could not truly have said: This is Wine, the water remaining when the word this was pronounced, and changed, when the whole proposition was spoken? But we reply, this is to change the Case, which inquires de facto of the deed or being, to that which inquires de possibili, of the possibility. The question is, whether the words This is Wine, or this is my body: do of themselves imply such a change, there being nothing else evidently showing us the change done or to be done? if they do, then is there no certainty in speech, (as was shown above) no not in Indicative propositions, as these are, and should be therefore most punctual and determinate in their affirming or denying any thing.  
As for the possibility or power of changing one substance into another we doubt not of: but if that change be to be signified by the proposition this is Wine, (the first substance Water, remaining when the word this is pronounced, the proposition must have this sense to make it true, this water shall be changed into wine, so is must be put for shall, which the word is cannot of itself import: nor be that way intelligible without some declaration of the change done, or about to be done. So the Argument above from the thing present under the word this: though not good against all possibility of change (nor is it intended against that) yet always good against the intelligibleness, or determinate signification of such propositions, if intended to import a change, without signifying otherwise by some clear evidence it is done or to be done: so it was in that change joh. 2. but nothing to clear the change they would have signified in This is my body. Another Difference between the change of that Water into Wine, and the supposed change in the Sacrament, and therefore a difference between this is wine spoken of the first, and this is my body, affirmed of the other: because that Wine was made of the Water, the same matter remaining: which they cannot, dare not say of Christ's body, that it is so made of bread. Again, another difference; (I note these, because he so oft makes use of this instance, as adequate to the change he supposes in the Sacrament) Although the Water was turned into wine, yet not into the same wine which the Governor of the feast had, or which was existent before: but here the bread is by them said to be turned into not only flesh, and wine into blood, but into Christ's flesh or body, and into Christ's blood, which were exislent before. So that whereas he infers, so bold are Protestant's in restraining the omnipotency of God, to defend their own groundless fantasies, pa. 207. We may more justly say, so bold are Romanists in obliging God's omnipotency (without any signification of his will) to work miracles, to make good their fancies, yea such miracles as they can give no examples or instances for, nor any indication in the story that he did, or would engage his omnipotency to work such a miraculous change.  
The Instances he brings for like manner of speech, 
His pretended Instances for the word (This) to denote a thing future.  wherein the word this speaks the thing not present but about to be, come not home to the purpose; as This is my commandment, that ye love.— This is a circle, when but part of it drawn: and this is fire, speaking of flax kindled, as those words are pronounced, p. 208, 209. The first instance is of words to be spoken, as the subject of this, and do to any man's apprehension refer necessarily to the future, or that which follows in speech: but the case is quite different, when there is a visible substance as bread, taken and held up while the pronoun demonstrative this is pronounced, and must in any man's apprehension point it out. The other two instances are of successive Mutations, and visible. Of which after begun, it is intelligible if said, this is a Circle. For he that hears the words, and sees the thing knows what it means: but the change or mutation they suppose made and signified by these words, this is my body, is instantaneous and invisible, which is not begun when the words are begun but accomplished in a moment when they are fully spoken: and cannot have truth in proper speech till then: nor that truth be understood till the supposed change become visible, or be expressly affirmed to be done. If they can show this of their change they contend for by those words, than we shall understand and believe it true, and then we wall admit the sense he gives of the words, pa. 211. This which I am to give you, and which ye are presently to eat, is my body, but till he can show us express declaration of such a change, or evidence of sight for it; he must give us leave to think the sense Saint Paul puts upon those words, This is my body, by saying, The bread (that is, this bread) which we break is the Communion of my body far better and sitter to rest on.  
Whereas, pa. 213. he commends the ingenuous profession, 
Ingenuity of Protestants in this point.  and good disposition of the Protestant, that acknowledging bread remaining, yet believes it to be the body of Christ, because he has said, this is my body: though he cannot comprehend how this may be: it is the profession of all true Protestants. And there would be no question made of the Presence, if the Romanists would be so ingenuous as to rest satisfied in it, and not so contend about the Mode, their conceit of transubstantiation; as I noted at the beginning of this discourse; and would have the Reader note diligently, that notwithstanding the former objections for the remaining of Bread in substance: yet are they not brought to exclude, or prove any thing against, the true presence but the Romish conceited presence, of Christ's body.  
The next objection or argument of the Protestants is from Do this in remembrance of me; of which I must say, 
Remembrance of Christ made in the Sacrament excludes not a real presence.  this argument is not to be pressed against, the true presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, from the importance of the word remembrance which is of things past, not present; but first, it more directy concludes against their propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, which they pretend to be the very same with that sacrifice on the Cross: we say as some Fathers do, that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice, a showing a commemoration, an application of that sacrifice of our Saviour's, therefore not the same. Secondly, though by the importance of the word remembrance, it conclude not against a true presence as I said; yet may it against their manner of presence, by Transubstantiation; because that takes away the presence of substantial bread, that is, of the Sacramental Element, which is the necessary subject upon which passes what is done in the Sacrament for the showing of the Lords death, and for the commemorating of his body broken, his blood shed upon the Cross; which the very body and blood of Christ put in the place of the substantial Elements, cannot supply: therefore he thinks himself concerned pa. 224, to 229. to show how the same thing may in divers respects be a remembrance of itself. Therefore to omit his Cavilling or trifling, pa. 220, 221. that what our Saviour did could not then be a Remembrance, for that is of things past, and Christ himself was present, and his passion was to come; To which we briefly say, and he cannot deny it, that our Saviour in his first institution did mean and appoint this Sacrament for a Remembrance of Him, and therefore said, do this in Remembrance of me: and for that first time it was enough to be the showing or representation of his death, and for ever after both representation and remembrance of it; but both then and after, the exhibition and communication of his body and blood to all purposes of the Sacrament. The Paschal Lamb, or blood of the Lamb, sprinkled on the door-posts was a remembrance of the Angels passing over— and for that called the Passover: and for that purpose instituted, as appears Exod. 12. Yet primâ vice, at that first time, it was not in proper force of the Word, a Remembrance, for it was done before the Angel passed over.  
But we need not spend time about this, 
The same body not a Remembrance or Sacrament of itself.  see how he endeavours to show the same thing may be in divers respects a Remembrance of itself? viz. by doing some action bring to remembrance something he had done himself: This is true, and so our Saviour shall be seen of them that pierced him, Zach. and therein shall be a remembrance of what was done to him; but this nor any other instance brought can make it good in the Sacrament: for here we affirm, nothing can be a Sacramental remembrance of itself; because that confounds the essential parts of a Sacrament, making the same thing the Sign, and the thing Sgnified, Visible corporeal, and invisible incorporeal. The Apostle saith plainly, So oft as ye eat this bread— ye show the Lords death: therefore they are forced to say, and use such speeches as this Author doth pa. 211. lin. ult, the body of Christ made a Sacrament: and so the same thing must be a Sacrament of itself; which comes in with the former absurdity, a sacramental representation and remembrance of itself, and yet altogether invisible. But it may be said the Actions in the Sacrament are visible. True; yet this will not salve the matter, notwithstanding the explication he makes pa. 227. which is but a handsome disguise. Hence, saith he, appears, that the very same body which was given, and that very blood that was shed for us, remaining in its own proper substance (but after an invisible manner) by reason of the visible actions— puts us in remembrance of the same body blood and person so many years ago, given, shed, crucified; nay but those visible actions seen in the Sacrament, (seeing they pass not upon the body which they fix under the species in place of the substantial bread, for that body of Christ they grant is impassable,) do tell us the body cannot be by reason of them a remembrance of itself; seeing also that body is invisible, & those actions cannot appear to be terminated upon it, therefore it cannot be made a Sacrament, or sacramental remembrance; for what is so must by the senses instruct and mind us of the thing represented and not seen; so that according to this Romish fancy, the species and nothing else must be the sacrament, and sacramental remembrance, and in them must all those sacramental actions be terminated; which absurdity shows the necessity of substantial Bread remaining, even upon this account also, of sacramental representation and remembrance; not excluding as I said a true presence of Christ's body and blood, but the Romish mode of presence by transubstantiation, which takes away the substantial element of the sacrament.  
The next objection he sets down thus; 
The Cup called the New Testament.  The Cup is called by our Saviour the New Testament, for that it was a holy sign of the New Testament, pa. 230. This is carelessly set down, but let us see what he saith to it; instead of giving a direct answer he first challenges any Protestant to produce any clear text of Scripture, where that reason mentioned in the objection is alleged; but if he had fully set down the objection, the force of it (as we shall see presently) would have extorted this to be the reason why it is called the New Testament; which must needs be a figurative speech; and therefore implying it to be the sign, Sacrament, or seal of the New Testament; confirmed in his blood; secondly, in stead of a direct answer, he gives us a needless discourse of the signification of the New Testament, and then answers, I deny that by New Testament is understood a sign of the New Testament, but truly and really the New Testament itself, 233. this is a careless mistake, for New Testament in the objection is taken for that which is truly the New Testament itself: nor does it imply, that by New Testament is understood the sign of the New Testament; but that the verb is which couples this and the new Testament together, is put for significat, signifies, or is the sign. Thirdly, from Exod. 24.8. where the Testament of God with the Israelites was confirmed with blood, and the like saying used, This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath made with you, it must be real blood, not a sign or figure of it, which is here called the blood of the Testament, for such a solemn Testament required no less, but rather more, then that in Exodus, to be confirmed with true blood, pa. 235, 236. This is true, but here's his failing, first that the true blood by which our Saviour's Testament was confirmed, and to which that in Exodus, and all other sprinklings of blood under the Law referred, was the blood shed on the Cross, as the Apostle plainly shows in the Epistle to the Hebr. whereas this Author refers it to the blood in the Sacrament, which is not the confirmation of the Testament, but by reference to the blood on the Cross. Secondly, he gives us no direct sense of the proposition, this Cup is the new Testament in my blood: to exempt it from that figurative manner of speech, which we contend our Saviour used throughout this Sacrament. He acknowledges it to be in the Canon of the Mass, and they say it daily in saying the Mass: and could not but know, that the necessity of a figurative speech to be admitted in that proposition, was the intent and force of the former objection, yet gives us no account of it; knowing that if a figure be admitted here, why not in this is my body? And if the words were operative there for turning the bread into his body, why not here for transubstantiating the Cup or that which was in it, into the New Testament? If it be replied, that S●. ●●ke and St. Paul's words must be interpreted by St. Matthews, this is my blood of the new Testament: first, it is more probable those other were the words our Saviour spoke, because of the agreement of Saint Luke and St. Paul, and because St. Paul saith, he delivered what he received of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.23. The Canon of the Mass also retains the same words. Secondly, they cannot be reduced to Saint Matthews words without a figure, for they must then sound thus, this Cup is my blood of the new Testament: but saith Mr. Spencer, our Saviour never said, this cup is my blood, no more than he said this bread is my body, pa. 238. And this in abhorrence of the figurative speech, that must be admitted in saying this bread is my body, and answerably in saying, this Cup is my blood: yet in the same place he acknowledges our Saviour said, this Cup is the New Testament, and is willing to overlook the most apparent figurative speech in it, notwithstanding that the force of the objection rested chief upon it, and provoked him to a direct answer.  
The next objects to them their disagreement about the word this, 
Disagreement of Romanists about the words of consecration; This is my body.  in our Saviour's saying this is my body 24.1. where note briefly, that declining, the explication of this is for this shall become, or shall be transubstantiated; for than saith he, by this must be understood bread, yet pag. 243. being to answer for one of their opinions that saith by the word this, is signified nothing present: he grants, by this is signified nothing present precisely in that moment, when the word this was pronounced: but present after consecration; what is this but to put the word is upon the future, after Consecration? And what is that but shall be? And who ever heard that the word is properly taken (as they will have it here) should not precisely signify the present time or existence? Or who ever heard that the pronoun this should not be demonstrative? Or signify nothing in that moment present when our Saviour held up bread, and said this? Nor is this disagreement about the mode, as among the Protestants: for they agree about the subject and predicate of this Proposition, that by this is meant bread, by body, the true body of Christ, only differ about the manner, how it is made so, or how that body and blood are present in the sacrament. But the Romanists cannot agree what is the subject of the proposition, or what is meant by this, cannot agree about the words of consecration: the more general opinion is the false one, which places it in these words, This is my body, making them operative, to their transubstantiation; whereas the Ancients placed the Consecration, in oratione & invocatione, not so much in the pronouncing these words, as in prayer and Invocation; and so our Saviour's blessing and giving thanks belongs to the Consecration, as well as his saying this is my body.  
And Mr. Spencer however he would have this saying of our Saviour's so clear for Transubstantiation, knows that some Schoolmen and others of their Doctors have spoken plainly, that the Scripture, and that saying of our Saviour's in particular does not infer Transubstantiation, without the definition of their Church; and indeed the different opinions in the explaining of it, or drawing it to that purpose speaks as much.  
The next thing remarkable, is the objection of S. 
Called bread after Consecration.  Paul's calling it often bread after Consecration.— 1 Cor. 11.— to which Mr. Spencer returns these pitiful answers. 1. He helps himsef of his old instance, of the Water made Wine Jo. 2. and called Water after; for it is said v. 9 tasted the water, that was made wine pag. 251. But the Text speaks also plainly that it was not water, but made wine. 2. S. Paul saith not it is common or natural bread, Nor will the Protestants say so, therefore with them when S. Paul calls it Bread before and after Consecration, though the name bread be the same, yet the signification is not the same. So the Catholics may give, saith he, the same answer, that before Consecration, bread in Saint Paul is natural bread, after supernatural, spiritual, divine bread. p. 252, 253. This is but a slender disguise, which any eye that can distinguish substances from qualities, may see thorough: for as we deny it is common or mere natural bread after consecration, so we affirm it is substantial bread, bread to be eaten; So oft as ye eat this bread, 1 Cor. 11. and therefore although the Protestants allow such a change in the bread, notwithstanding S. Paul calls it bread before and after Consecration: yet will not the change which the Romanists make, consist with S. Paul's calling it bread, for they take away the whole substance and nature of bread, and leave nothing but the species or qualities of Bread; to supply the uses of the Sacrament. And what if our Saviour termeth himself bread, Jo. 6. which at first sight is a figurative speech: S. Paul cannot be so answered, when he calls that which was truly bread, bread still: nor they excused, who seek to help themselves by figures, when the Sacramental bread is called bread, (viz. what it is indeed) and allow no figure, when it is called his body; viz. what it is in signification and exhibition, He concludes, It can no more be gathered, from its being termed bread by S. Paul, that it is natural, substantial bread, than it can be gathered from the Canon of our Mass, that we believe it to be the substance of bread, because it is often called Bread in the same Canon after Consecration, p. 252. There are many passages in the Canon of your Mass, which did not alter with the times, and may confute your novelties, and reprove your not believing according to that Canon, speaking yet the Ancient language and belief; It cannot be gathered by the Canon of your Mass (so far as is ancient) what ye do believe, but what ye ought.  
The enforcement of the former objection: 
A farther enforcement of the same.  If by the word bread often repeated, S. Paul should understand flesh, he would have warned the people to believe it so, though the senses shown it bread: he would not have joined himself to the report of the senses (against the persuasion of faith) calling it always bread without any explication; He answers here, by his former impertinency of the spiritual food of the soul called bread; and Christ's flesh called bread: Io. 6. which first, was not a joining with the report of our senses, but telling us what we must believe it to be in effect: and so understand it was a figurative speech. And secondly, this that S. Paul calls bread was substantial bread before consecration, and his calling it still bread shows it continued so still: tells us we must believe it to be so still, unless he had admonished us of the change into flesh. His retorting upon the Protestants is vain; If S. Paul by this word bread so often repeated should understand a Sacrament or Mystery, as it is believed among Christians; were he not to be blamed for holding the people in error: seeing he knew that sense and reason, giveth evidence that it is usual and common bread, etc. p. 255. and in anger concludes, Protestants bring Arguments fit for Infidels than Christians. ibid. But there was no cause for him to be so moved: seeing there is a great difference between our argument or Reasoning and his, as much as between, this is not bread, and this is not common bread: It is not true, that reason as he saith, giveth evidence, that it is common bread; sense may, because it cannot discern between holy and common: but he that can use his reason, as all that know any thing belonging to Sacraments or Religion, knows also, by what he hears and sees said and done for the consecrating or setting apart the elements for holy use, that it is not common bread. The Apostle also says enough to take off that mistake or error, by calling it this bread, and this Cup of the Lord, and threatening judgement unto the unworthy receiver, as guilty of the Lords body, and because they discern not the Lord's body; which is enough to exclude all conceit of it, as of common bread, though not to infer it is no more bread, but the very body, as he would have it concluded from those expressions of the Apostle, p. 255. Nor does his similitude come home. A subject (saith he) cannot be said to be guilty of the body and blood of the King, that receives not his signet with that reverence, as becomes a subject, ibid. I say this comes not home, as any may see that knows what a great difference there is between moral signs or tokens and sacramental; for these are not only significant and representative, but exhibitive, and communications of the thing signified, and in them offered: they carry it along with them, and therefore he is guilty of the body and blood, who receives this Sacrament unworthily.  
To omit his needless discourse of the fruit of the Vine mentioned in the Gospel: 
Their impertinent instances they bring to parallel it.  It is familiar with Romish writers in answer to S. Paul's calling it bread after consecration, to use the help of such speeches, Dust thou art, because made of Dust; and the serpent called a Rod, because made of Aaron's Rod, and the wine called water, Jo. 2.9. because made of water: so the body of our Lord by S. Paul called bread, because made of it: yet dare not stand to it, when we reply: The former things are called so, because of the same matter remaining in the thing made, which was in that, of which it is made; but not so in this making of Christ's body, which was but once made, and that of the seed or blood of the blessed Virgin: Mr. Spencer being put to speak to this point, goes backward and forward: he acknowledges p. 266. by reason of the subject which remains common to both (in philosophy called Materia prima, the first matter) Adam was called Dust, and the Serpent a Rod; and acknowledges p. 269. that our Saviour's body cannot be said to be so made of bread; and therefore must acknowledge those former usual instances to be impertinent. This is backward.  
Now see how he strives forward to maintain the speech, made of bread. The body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same Accidents, and so issues from it as the day issues from the night, as from the term from which it gins to be, as one may say ex nocte fit Dies, the day is made of the night, so ex pane fit corpus Christi, Christ's body is made of bread, as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament, and therefore might be called bread after consecration, p. 269. Therefore it might be called— Wherefore? because, forsooth, it is made of it, as the day of the night; but he should have said as the day is called night, because it succeeds end comes in place of it, as the body of Christ, (according to their Tenet) doth instead or place of the bread: and he might have bethought himself whether ever any man called Day Night? or whether this be not translocation or succession rather than Transubstantiation? and whether for such a supposed translocation the body of Christ can be called bread, as we see S. Paul often asserting bread after Consecration: He has some strains of invention in the pages following: as this. That the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread— he means by way of nourishment from the bread our Saviour did eat: but not knowing how to make use of this impertinency in this question, he lets it fall.  
But the complete reason of Catholics (saith he) why S Paul calls the Sacrament bread after the consecration, 
Their pretended Reason why S. Paul calls it Bread so oft.  is because the flesh of Christ into which the bread is changed, is put under the species of bread, which gives occasion of giving it the same denomination it had before, p. 272. What had before that denomination of bread? the species or the flesh of Christ? neither surely: such careless expressions he every where takes hold of, when they fall from his Adversary: and can spend whole pages against them. But this complete reason was no reason to S. Paul, neither did it give him any occasion of giving it still the same denomination of bread, for than he had joined with the report of sense against faith; and had deceived them, in bidding them eat that bread, if nothing but species of bread remained. For albeit things set out to sight only may bear the names of the things they are like: yet not when proposed for use, which requires the substance of the things, as eating does; you may say of things painted, this is bread, these are grapes: but if you say of them, take, and eat, this is bread, these are grapes, you mock those that you invite to eat. Which shows also the impertinency of Bellarmine's instance (of the brazen serpent, bearing the denomination of serpent from the outward likeness) to enforce this complete reason, for that serpent was only for sight, to be looked on, not for stinging.  
But this is all the reason the Romanists can give; and these poor species the form, colour, smell, appearance of bread, must help them at every turn; they must stand for substance when there is occasion, must be the visible part or sign of the Sacrament, must be broken, eaten nourish; what not?  
As for those say, I am the Vine, I am the Door, I need not follow him in examining the differences he seeks out between them, and this is my body: but thus far they be appliable to our purpose: that they were figurative speeches, yet was our Saviour truly so, that is, what a Door or Vine is in their kind, and uses, such was our Saviour spiritually indeed and in truth. So what the bread and wine is to the corporal effects being eaten and drunk, that the body and blood of our Saviour taken by faith, is spiritually, 
Omnem essectum quem materialis cibus & potus quoad vi. tam agunt corporalem, hoc idem quoad vitam spiritualem, & hoc Sacramentum operatur. Concil. Floren.  and to the spiritual effect, (it is the very expression of their Council of Flerence,) and as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are really offered and given, so is the body and blood of our Saviour in the Sacrament really and to all the purposes of the Sacrament, given and communicated to them that have faith to receive it: for this the Sacramental bread after consecration is called (and made to us) the body of Christ, or (as St. Paul expresses it) is the communication of his body. Upon occasion of showing difference between Christ's saying, my flesh is bread, and his saying, this is my body: he has something which may seem in part to make reply to that which was presently delivered. Bread (saith he of the first saying) cannot signify true and material bread: but in the other, by my body is signified the real natural body of Christ, 281. What does he infer? That by bread in the Protestant doctrine is signified real, material bread, which cannot be his body, p. 282. We grant, that when our Saviour said, this is my body, he meant his true natural body, which was broken and given for us, but why cannot it be said truly of real and material bread after consecration this bread is my body? It cannot indeed be properly said so, but may after the use of Sacramental speeches, as when said that rock was Christ: by rock is meant the real and natural rock out of which the water flowed, and by partaking thereof they were really made partakers of the spiritual drink: much more in the Sacrament of the New Testament, the Bread may be truly called the body of Christ, because in the due partaking thereof we are made partakers not only of the spiritual effects of Christ's death, but also of his very body and blood bringing along with it those spiritual effects and graces: which is that St. Paul saith the bread is the communion or communication of the body of Christ; the manner we know not (as we said above of the presence) but believe the communication of it to all the purposes of the Sacrament.  
But hear a great subtlety; that bread should be a Sacrament of his body cannot (saith he) stand with the Protestant doctrine: 
Bread how Sacrament of his body.  which in the little Catechism defines a Sacrament to be an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace; but our Saviour's body in the first institution was as visible as the bread: and though after Ascention his body became invisible by reason of the distance, yet that makes it not an inward spiritual grace— his conclusion is, therefore bread could not be the Sacrament of his body, 283. Mr. Spencer surely thought he was dealing with children that had newly learned their Catechism: for see him presently afraid this should be returned upon themselves, He knows first, that albeit our Saviour's body was in the first institution visible, and so it is still visible in itself; and knows also that no men make more use of his invisibility in the Sacrament, than the Romanists do, His body is broken, eaten, blood shed, drunk in the Sacrament, invisibly,— yea, all this really done (but invisibly) when he was visible himself to the Apostles in the first institution, and before his body was indeed broken, or his blood shed on the Cross. Thus can they make all good by the virtue of this word invisible, yet will not allow Protestant's to make Christ's body and blood the inward spiritual part of the Sacrament, because he was visible. Nay but though he be now invisible, yet is not his body the inward spiritual grace: this is Mr. Spencer's subtlety: but he that makes the blood go along with the body, that who receives the one, has the other too, might allow us here a concomitancy of Christ's body and the spiritual grace, which as I said, goes always along with it: so that as in the general definition of a Sacrament it is said, sign of an inward spiritual grace, so in respect of this particular Sacrament it may be said sign of Christ's body and blood, which is here by the outward visible part of the Sacrament represented, conveyed with all the spiritual effects and graces.  
Well, we are to thank him for venting that subtlety, 
Mr. Spencer's several confessions of truth in this point of the Sacrament.  for it brings him presently to plain confession of truth; he did see that by his former precious argument against the Protestants, any man might think (if he were in earnest) it would follow, there is no Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: and therefore he subjoins, pa. 283. line ult. yet we are not constrained to acknowledge there is not a Sacrament: why? For i● signifies that heavenly and divine grace, which by virtue of it is given to nourish our souls, which is truly inward and spiritual, this is well; but if the spiritual grace be given by virtue of it, i. e. the Sacrament; does not the Sacrament give that grace by virtue of Christ's body given in it? Yea, we hear him presently acknowledging also that our Saviour's body invisibly existent in this Sacrament and nourishing our souls, may be truly called a spiritual grace, and inward too, when it is Sacramentally received: very good all this. But is there no sign of this body? Hear him also saying, that which sensibly appears and is called Sacramentum tantum, the Sacrament only, is a Sacramental sign of our Saviour's body, p. 284. All this acknowledged to the defiance of his former subtlety, and what could a Protestant desire more? Only when he said nourishing our souls, he adds and our bodies, which I take to be a slip; for it is not the doctrine of his Church to say, Christ's body nourishes our bodies. And now in the name of God why should he not acknowledge the advantage of truth to be on the Protestants side, for thus far we agree that there is divine grace by virtue of the Sacrament given to nourish our souls; that, that which appears in the Sacrament is the Sarramental sign of our Saviour's body: that our Saviour's body is truly existent, or given in the Sacrament; that our Saviour's body nourishes our souls.  
Now in the difference between us, see which has the advantage. 1. 
Transubstantiation a wrong to the Sacrament several ways.  That which sensibly appears (saith he) and is called Sacramentum tantum: is the Sacramental sign of our Saviour's body; but what is that which appears, he tells you presently, those shows and species, under which he will have Christ's body to exist; but are these fit to bear the name of a Sacrament? Of the Sacramental sign of a body? (What advantage would this have given to Martion in his conceit of our Saviour's body, as fantastical, and in show and appearance only?) Can these shows and appearances of bread serve to the uses of the Sacrament, the corporal breaking, the eating, the nourishing? Whereas Protestant's retaining the substance of the Sacramental element, Bread, preserve the outward part of the Sacrament, and all the uses of it: without which the Sacrament is mairned, if not destroyed: preserve I say the outward part, without prejudice to the inward, which is Christ's body and blood, for we hold of it as above, existent, really given, and nourishing the soul; which is the full purpose of the Sacrament as to the inward spiritual part. But 2. they prejudice the inward spiritual part, by making it existent under those shows or species, (as he saith here) for how would this have confirmed Eutychians if it had been really the doctrine of the Church then, who upon the mistake of the Church's doctrine, as Theodoret in his Dialogues shows, made semblance for their heresy, saying the humanity of Christ is swallowed up into the divinity, shape and figure remaining as the Bread is in the Sacrament, shape only and appearance remaining. Again, they bind our Saviour's body so to these shows and species of bread, that Christ's body and they make unum quid, but one thing, so that Christ's body goes along with them wheresoever they go, or are cast; into the mouths and stomaches of wicked men, and stays wheresoever the species are, till putrefaction of the species (if they without the body of Bread be capable of it) drive the body of Christ away. This and hundred prejudices and inconveniences follow upon this unnecessary fancy of putting Christ's body under the species, in the place of substantial bread: we, as was said, preserve the Sacrament entire, acknowledging the very body and blood really given in the Sacrament to every one that comes duly to receive; given I say to all the purposes of the Sacrament.  
What he says p. 285. The words of Institution This is my body, are properly and literally to be understood, when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary: might pass for a truth, if he did not suppose there is nothing constrains. All the former inconveniences, inconsistencies, with many more tending to contradiction, do constrain to the contrary.  
To avoid the Argument from the manner of the Old Testament, 
Sacramental speeches in the Old Test.  in calling the signs by the names of the things signified: as circumcision called the Covenant; and such is the name Passover: He strangely fancies two Covenants made with Abraham in that one chapter Gen. 17. the first in 2, 3, 4, 5. verses, the other verse 9 as if he understood not that in every Covenant, there is a mutual stipulation, the promise on God's part, the condition to be performed on man's, to which he consents and engages. That first Covenant (which he fancies) contained God's promise to Abraham, and that which he required of Abraham, was in general expressed in the first verse, viz. to walk before God and be perfect: Now that which this Author calls the other Covenant, was but the imposing of Circumcision, as the sign of that Covenant, made with Abraham and his posterity, and a witness of their engagement to him: as it is plain ver. 11. where it is called the token or sign of the Covenant. And if this were a new Covenant, where are the promises of it? He confesses as much, when he saith, The second Covenant was a sign and seal of the first, only he abusively calls that the second Covenant, which he should have called Circumcision: for so S. Paul, whom he citys, saith, he received the sign of Circumcision, the seal of righteousness, Rom. 4.12. And so his own instance he brings p. 287. makes against him: for that promise of favour and Patronising one of inferior rank, is but part of their agreement; and that waiting on him once a year, is the other part, the condition to be performed, as a testification of his service and obligation.  
To the objection of the Lamb called the Passover, Exod. 12. he answers: 1. The Scripture does not expressly call the Lamb, the Passover. 2. He saith by Passover is meant the feast of the Passover kept to the Lord, as v. 11. of that Chapter, pa. 289, 290. It is true the Feast was called the Passover, but so was the Lamb, and that more chief and immediately: as v. 21. ye shall kill the Passover, and elsewhere eat the Passover. So Mat. 26.17. eat the Passover, v. 29. they made ready the Passover, Mar. 14.12. killed the Passover: in all these the Lamb is the Passover, and from the kill and eating that, the yearly feast or celebration, is also by figure, called the Passover. And the Lamb called Passover, by a figure, in reference to the Angels passing over the houses of the Israelites.  
Unto 1 Cor. 10.4. The Rock was Christ, he answers, the Apostle speaks not of any Rock which was the sign of Christ, a visible material rock, but of a spiritual rock: now Christ was that spiritual rock, truly, really, and so no figure, pa. 294. Here to avoid one rock of a figurative speech in those words, he falls upon two: for first, he must hereby acknowledge that all the Israelites did eat really of Christ, and drink of him, as we under the gospel do, if by that spiritual meat, and spiritual drink Christ be immediately meant; but this the Romanists carefully avoid, answering the Israelites did eat the same spiritual meat (Manna) and drank the same spiritual drink among themselves, but not the same with us. The second rock he falls on is, that by this his interpretation, he must contrary to the Apostle grant, they did all (good and bad, worthy and unworthy) really and truly partake of Christ, who was truly according to Mr. Spencer, this spiritual rock and drink. Whereas the Apostle means they did all partake of Christ Sacramentally: Fathers also and their own Commentators grant it spoken of the material rock; but because of the sacramental relation, which that rock, and the water flowing from it to serve the whole Congregation, had to Christ, and that which flowed from him, it is called a spiritual rock, and by a figure called Christ.  
But in producing figurative speeches, he binds us to this condition: 
Mr. Spencer Rule for understanding speeches in Scripture, figuratively or literally examined.  that if we will bring any thing against them, it must be such a proposition, that may possibly be verified in a proper sense, and yet must be understood figuratively; whereas the Protestants produce propositions that cannot possibly be understood in a real and proper sense, as this is my body may, pa. 299. But may not Manna or Rock be by the omnipotency of God turned into flesh as well as Bread? or the water that came out of the rock into blood, as well as wine may? For that proposition; this is my body is so far from being connaturally to be understood in a proper sense as he boldly affirms there, that it cannot possibly be so understood without the engaging of omnipotency to make such a change of the subject bread, and therefore they are still fain to fly to God's omnipotency to make this proper sense of theirs good: but why cannot propositions, which possibly can be understood in a proper sense be rather figuratively taken? Because (saith he) the words of Scripture and also of other Authors, must be understood properly when they can be understood so: or when nothing compels to the contrary. This reason is good, but misapplied to this is my body: for it is one thing to say can be so understood, another to say can possibly be so understood; taking in all the ways of possibility and omnipotency, without which that proposition, this is my body, cannot be possibly understood in a proper sense; for many things, yea circumstances may compel us to the contrary, and hinder us from taking it in a proper sense, beside absolute impossibility: else should we multiply miracles in Scripture, and be still offending against the rule of reason, that forbids us to conclude a possibili ad esse, the thing to be so indeed, because it is possible to be made so. The Scripture saying all flesh is grass, saith or might say, of every man, this is grass: and it is as possible for omnipotence to turn it into grass, as the bread into Christ's body, must we therefore so understand it in a real proper sense? So when God said of Adam thou art dust— so when David said of the water of Bethlem, this the blood of these men, 2 Sam. 23.17. Romanists that say the wine is turned into Christ's blood, must say that water could be turned into their blood, and therefore possibly verified in a proper sense; but those about David understood the figurative sense of it.  
Did nothing else compel us to the contrary, (that is, not to understand these propositions in a proper sense) but the engaging of omnipotency to work so miraculously to make it good, it were enough. For when he works so, he tells us plainly of it, or at least gives us the evidence of sense for the change; neither of which we have for understanding this is my body in the Romish proper sense. Then to impose upon Scripture such a sense when the speech will bear another more agreeable to the purpose of the place, and to impose upon omnipotency a necessity of making it good, what is it but to tempt God? And here we may mind him again of the other proposition, this cup is the new Testament in my blood, which we found him above loath to speak to, but desire him here to examine whether this Scripture can be taken in a literal proper sense? He can not say it, many things compel to the contrary: then is it a figurative speech, and that in the words of institution, as well as this is my body.  
The last objection is from Jo. 6. the Capernaites conceit of eating our Saviour's flesh, and his saying, the flesh profiteth nothing: some indeed will apply this against the Romish doctrine: but I will not quarrel with him about the force of it. The Protestant doctrine rests not upon this place of Scripture, we say the true flesh of Christ profiteth where ever it is really given and received, or eaten; and let the Romanists consider whether they must not say, the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing, when they say the wicked really eat the true flesh of Christ. It is plain by what our Saviour saith in that Chapter of eating his flesh, that albeit the Sacramental eating of his flesh may profit nothing, as in them that receive unworthily; yet is there no real eating of our Saviour's flesh, but what profiteth. St. Paul might say, He that eateth that bread unworthily, but could not say, he that eateth Christ's flesh unworthily: taking it not for the bare Sacramental eating, but for real participation of his very flesh; which the Romanists allow unto the wicked. The cause of this and many more and greater incongruities, is that gross kind of Real Presence, which puts our Saviour's body in stead of the substantial bread, fixing it under those species or qualities of bread, making it unum quid (as we noted above) one thing with them; and so carried whither soever they are, given to whom soever, and received by whomsoever they are.  
Having done with these objections, which he calls the chief arguments of protestants from Scripture; 
Considerations of Transubstantiation, as to natural reason.  he tells us there are other drawn from Natural Reason, fit for Heathens than Christians, p. 306. If we do but speak the horrid inconveniences, and indignities that the blessed and glorious body of our Saviour is, or may be exposed to by this gross way of presence or binding his body under & to the species: they presently cry this is fit to be spoken by Infidels than Christians: we may not so much as utter the ill consequences of their belief without note of infidelity. So if enquiring a Reason of this their belief: (and not finding in Scripture any express witness of God's will, nor any example of the like conversion, but finding many things, that compel to the contrary, from the reason of a body and of a Sacrament:) we profess that we cannot see how it should be, and that we have no reason to make it an Article of our belief: then are such arguments or questionings of it fit for Heathens than Christians; so unwilling is that Church to have any thing questioned or searched into, that it propounds as Article of Faith. St. chrysostom, speaking of that questioning of the Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15.35. how are the dead raised, and with what body do they come; saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: To be ask still how shall this be, is the part of one that believes not; and it was well said, supposing the Article or thing to be believed, clearly expressed in Scripture, as the Resurrection of the dead, Incarnation, Birth of our Saviour and the like: when God Almighty has expressly declared these, then to ask how this shall be, sounds unbelief, it's more fit for a Heathen than Christian: & therefore we believing the Sacrament is his body and blood, or as S. Paul, the communication of his body & blood, and consequently his body and blood really present in the Sacrament, we do not question nor define the Modus, how this is done; but challenge the boldness of the Church of Rome, that has determined the Modus, by transubstantiation (that is, by destroying one essential part of the Sacrament, the outward Element, Bread and Wine) and would impose this upon the world, as an Article of Faith.  
These arguments from Reason (as he calls them) he will undertake to answer, and because he deals with such as profess themselves to be Christians, he will endeavour it, by giving clear instances in some Article of Christian faith, which they believe wherein they must solve the like difficulties, to those they urge from natural Reason against this mystery, p. 306. This is fair, and will be satisfactory, if he can make it good. But still we must remember, if he could make it good, it evinces but the possibility of the thing, which is needless in this point to contend much about, and does acknowledge a needless multiplying of miracles and engaging of God's omnipotency, where he has made no express declaration of his will or evidence of the thing. The Arguments, as he calls them, are propounded here by way of question, and he answers by other questions; which binds him to see to it, that there be no disparity between the reason of the one and of the other; or that the like difficulty (as he undertook above) must be solved in that Instance he gives. But this is not likely to be done, if we observe the doubts proceed upon our Saviour's body considered not only simply in itself, or nature of a body, but also as concerned in this business, in the nature of a Sacrament; also if we observe his way of proceeding, for he is fain still to serve himself of the capacity of a spirit, as Soul, Angel, God himself, to show the possible conditions a Body may be put under: or of the mystery of the hypostatical union, to show the like supply of defects in nature here; now this at first sight presents a great disparity between the things.  
The first question inquires, how can Accidents (the species of bread and wine) exist without a subject.  
This question, 
Accidents without a subject.  although we will not dispute it to the denying of God's omnipotency in sustaining Accidents without a Subject; yet may it be put to the prejudice of Romish Transubstantiation many ways. First, because it implies a needless multiplying of miracles in the Sacrament; Secondly, because it binds the body and blood of Christ to and under those Accidents or Species, upon which many inconveniences follow; Mr. Spencer's answering this question by the humane nature in Christ, which subsists without its proper personality, and receives it from the divine nature, must suppose that Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist does supply the defect of the proper subject of those species: 
* Bell. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. Sect. sed haec.  Bellarm. makes them and Christ's body Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing, 
† Valen disput. 6. in 3. Tho. punct. 1. Sect. 19 Christum & illa accidentia in Eucharistia, vere, proprie, formaliter inter se uniri.  Greg. de Val. proves, Christ and those Accidents to be truly, properly, formally united: From hence as I said many inconveniences follow, for what happens to the species, must also to the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly, if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament, we may well put the question, how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject, how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament (as to the outward part of it) without the substances of bread and wine? or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances (as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply) then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd: By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question, and the three last; But the disparity is evident, for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane, by reason of the hypostatical union which joins the humane nature to the divine: But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject, neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above: yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour, to supply all— and the Romish writers by that strict union, which they suppose to be between his body and the Species, make it subject to many inconveniences.  
To the question, how can the same body be in several places at once? 
Same body in several places.  he returns this question as satisfactory, how can the Soul, or an Angel, or God be at the same time in many places? But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer. Nor is it true which he here must suppose, that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other, or an Angel in distant places at once: therefore they are forced to take in God's property of being present in many places: 
l 3. c 4. de Enchar. quomdo Deus est in Loco.  Mr. Spencer learned it of the Cardinal, affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is.  
To that of Penetration of parts, if our Saviour's body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host, 
Penetration of Dimensions.  he answers by our Saviour's body passing through the doors, and through his mother's womb, both being shut. But it's no where said they remained absolutely shut, 
* in 4. sent. dist. in 44. qu. 6.  Durand shows how with more reason it may be said, our Saviour came in, the doors opening to him, unperceived by his Disciples; for it is not said (saith he) that he came in, per januas clausas but januis clausis, not through the shut doors, but the doors being shut. And for his passage through his Mother's womb it being shut, the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb, and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut, yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity, and much to this purpose Durand shows (in the place above cited) may be said of our Saviour's coming out of the womb, citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg.  
Another objection p. 308. If our Saviour's flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament, 
Our Saviour's body exposed to indignities  then may Cats and Rats eat it: This objection is not carefully expressed, for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence, but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy, which binds his body and blood to the species, and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them. But see how he would answer it, by the like as he supposes. If the flesh and blood of Christ (saith he) were really in the Passion, then might dogs eat his blood that was shed. As if it were alike what was done to his passable body (appointed then to suffer) and done now to his glorious body: All the disgraces and indignities, that were done or could happen unto him then, were agreeable to the work he came about, viz. to redeem us by suffering: and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed, it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption; but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities (as they do by uniting it so to the species) does not beseem Christians.  
The next objection or question: If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament, 
Multiplying of miracles need. lessy  Why are none of them seen? He answers by another question, If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour, why were none of them seen? p. 309. But great disparity here: for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it, yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought. Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working, but for our believing it, the word doth sufficiently attest it, and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident, therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14. The word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, and we saw his glory, etc. Nothing like in the sacrament, notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments, requires all be done to the sense for confirmation: and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles, so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them, so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence.   

CHAP. VIII. Against Communion in one kind.  
THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome, delivered in the Council of Trent, and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer, carries its Condemnation in the forehead: 
The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point.  acknowledging, that our Saviour instituted, and administered in both kinds, and that the use of both kinds was frequent (might have said Constant) in the beginning of Christian Religion (might have said, for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion) yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice: and to plead for it an authority in the Church, about the Sacraments, to make a change Saluâ substantia, that is, the substance being preserved entire; where again it speaks its own condemnation; for how can the substance be preserved, when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people. He calls this (half Communion) the sequel of the former Article, of Real presence: and acknowledges, that without the establishing of the one the other cannot be defended, so p. 322, 323. We see then what goodly fruit the Romish Real Presence has brought forth, to the great and just offence of Christian people, in denying them the Cup: besides other goodly sequels of it, as Adoration, and Circumgestation. It is not Real Presence truly granted (no not such as the Romanists will acknowledge to be true) that gives a ground for half Communion, or makes it defensible; for they grant as we see here p. 123. the Lutherans convinced of this mystery, i. e. to believe a true Real Presence; but cannot say they are convinced of this sequel, or that it follows, then may the Communion be delivered in one kind, there being other Reasons from the Institution of this Sacrament, and our Saviour's purpose therein, which forbidden it; as we shall see by what follows.  
To the first Argument from the Institution, which is carefully to be observed, 
Halse Communion against the Institution.  he answers: I. that the accidentary circumstances of the first institution are to be distinguished from the substance and essence of the Sacrament; This is always to be held, not the former, p. 324. This we admit; only note, he reckons the giving it then to Priests only, among the accidentary circumstances of the first institution; II. he answers: that the entire substance of the Sacrament is under each kind; he means both body and blood are under each kind; we shall see asterward how far that is true. But be it so, that both body and blood are under each; yet is not that the whole substance of the Sacrament, which stands in the outward part (Bread and Wine) as well as the inward or spiritual part, the body and blood; nor is the Institution held to, if the body and blood be given but in one kind. And notwithstanding that he reckoned, the giving it at first to Priests only, among the Accidentary circumstances of the Institution, here he tells us: All that can be gathered from the bare words of Institution is, that it is to be consecrated and received by Priests, (Mr. Spencer may say what he will; and yet add a greater untruth) such as were the Apostles, who were then made Priests, p. 325. If then made Priests, let him show us what words, what imposition of hands or other Ceremonies were there for that purpose? Was our Saviour then conferring orders, or instituting the Eucharist? or could he with the same words, actions, and ceremonies, institute and administer two several Sacraments? Do this, he said, and that is all they can pretend to: but if by this the Disciples were made Priests, than they doing what our Saviour did, must also ordain others so oft as they administer the Eucharist: Now the whole importance of that precept (Do this) concerns the whole company, Priest and people; as is plain by 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. And it is generally held by the Ancients, that the Disciples then represented the whole Church, or company of faithful: and that they received orders, or Priesthood after his resurrection, Jo. 20.22. Lastly, the Church of Rome gives not the Sacrament in both kinds to Priests, when they are not Conficientes, consecrators or administers of it, as the Disciples than were not; but leaving this senseless assertion and novel device (of our Saviour's making them Priests when he said, do this) let us come to the main, viz. the whole substance of the Sacrament under each kind.  
He that receives under one kind (saith Mr. Spencer) receives a true Sacrament, 
Whether the whole substance of the Sacrament be in one kind.  p. 326. He that receives (may we say) according to the Romish Church in one kind, he does not receive a true Sacrament, or not the true Sacrament, because not the outward part truly and wholly as it was purposed and appointed at the Institution; so that definition which he gives here, may pass for a complete definition of a Sacrament in general, but is not completely used, when applied only to one of the kinds or outward parts of this Sacrament; For there is (as he noted p. 324.) something particular in this Sacrament, (not the particular he there notes, that the whole substance may be received in each kind, but) that it stands in two kinds, or signs or outward Elements; both which together make the complete sign of the spiritual grace, signified and exhibited in this Sacrament; each sign apart cannot represent and exhibit the whole spiritual grace, of this Sacrament.  
He acknowledges a different grace conferred here, 
A different grace conferred in each kind.  one of spiritual meat, the other of spiritual drink: only he will have both in each kind p. 327. Which is as much as to say; the effect of drink is shown and exhibited by the meat we eat: and the effect of meat, by the drink we take: so with equal absurdity to say, that the blood shed is shown by the blood in the Veins of unshed (for so it's given with the body under one kind) and that the blood is drunk when we eat the flesh. For though it be true, that he who receives Christ by faith, receives whole Christ, and by that mouth of faith eats his flesh and drinks his blood, is really made partaker of his body given, and his blood shed for him: thus without the Sacrament; and when we come to receive him in the Sacrament, the same act of faith receiving him in one kind (as under the bread) can and doth at the same time receive also his blood; 
Totum Christum, not Totum Christi.  or whole Christ: yet does he not receive his blood sacramentally, as blood shed, and so not all of Christ, or Christ wholly. Thus by reason of the act of faith, he that receives but in one kind out of necessity, may be assured that he is not defrauded of the participation of Christ's blood shed; but he cannot be so assured, that wilfully receives but in one kind: because though there is a concomitancy of flesh and blood in Christ's body, as to the natural condition of it, yet not a concomitancy of his flesh and bloodshed, as to the Sacramental consideration of them, which therefore are set out in the Sacrament apart by two several elements; Also because such a one being a Transgressor of our Saviour's Institution, and enemy to his own comfort, falls short of the benefit thereof. Therefore the Church of England had cause to say (though not to the purpose he would have it, p. 326.) in the distribution of the bread. The body of our Lord— preserve thy— and then adding the Cup, to say there also, preservethy— and this conformably, as to our Saviour's Institution, so to his saying, Except ye eat— and drink— Jo, 6.53. and to the Apostle, in what he received from the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.28.  
This Author is forced to confess that if by a complete sign be meant a full and express representation of the two particulars, 
The Romish Sacrifice wrong to Christ Sa. crament.  (the spiritual meat and spiritual drink, which he granted to be a different grace) then under one kind there is not a complete sign of both. But it must be proved (saith he) that the substance of this sacrisice, requires they should be always so fully represented in each particular communion of the people: why needs it such proof if we look into the institution of this Sacrament? his reason is, because the full representation under both kinds is exhibited unto Lay Christians, by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dreadful sacrifice of the Mass, p. 327. But what have we to do here with their sacrifice of Mass? or to inquire what is required to such a Sacrifice? We are treating of the Communion or Sacrament, which our Saviour instituted for all Christians and to such purposes; and that cannot be complete except administered in both: no more than their sacrifice can be complete, unless consecrated in both. For it is senseless to think the sacrifice must be mutilate, unless the Priest consecrate and receive it in both, and yet the Sacrament not mutilate, though the people receive it but in one kind; and senseless to hold or call it (as he doth) a Communion, when the Priest receives it alone. But having turned the Sacrament into such a Sacrifice, they take off the people from seeking the benefit of Christ's blood shed in the Sacrament to seek it, and be content to have it applied to them in their pretended sacrifice: where they are only spectators. This however more profitable to the Priests, I am sure it is little to the People's advantage.  
But when this sacrifice, which they pretend to be real and properly propitiatory, comes to be driven home, it interfeirs so injuriously and unhandsomely with that true and only propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross, that they are fain to take up, with making it the application of that sacrifice on the Cross: which we say is the work and purpose of a Sacrament, viz. to apply a sacrifice and make men from time to time partakers of that which was made or offered but once; And such is the intent & purpose of this Sacrament to apply that sacrifice of the Cross unto us and for this respect also it is always requisite that in this Sacrament or Communion, there should be a full representation and exhibition made in both kinds, not only of his body broken, but of his blood shed also.  
His Instance of thrice dipping in baptism for a full expression of the Trinity, 
His impertinent instance in Baptism.  whereas Protestants acknowledge once dipping sufficient, is far from concluding one kind in this Sacrament to be a full expression of what is signified, or a sufficient exhibition of what is to be received there: That Ceremony of thrice dipping, or that purpose of representing thereby the mystery of the Trinity, was not of our Saviour's institution, but a practice taken up in the Church, and not universal.  
But he goes on, or rather urges again what he had said. If our Saviour instituted each species or kind apart, to confer saving grace, than he which receives either kind devoutly, receives that grace for which he instituted it, p. 329. But this is cunning through ambiguous expressions. For our Saviour instituted each apart, that is, several or one after the other, but not that one therefore should be received without the other. Or if this apart, belongs to confer, it is true that our Saviour did institute each to confer (and he that receives devoutly does in each receive) the grace for which he instituted that kind or part: but does not receive the whole grace for which he instituted the Sacrament. Also he that receives the one kind or part, devoutly in order and with respect to the other, he receives the grace for which it was instituted: but he cannot assure himself of receiving that grace who receives the one exclusively to the other; for how shall he be partaker of Christ's bloodshed in the Sacrament, or as it is represented, held out and exhibited in the Sacrament, that will only receive that kind or part, which gives him the body to eat, not that bloodshed to drink it?  
I have been the longer upon his first Assay; because what is already said will meet with most of his sophistical Replies. As when to the next objection p. 330. that the Priest is obliged to receive the Cup notwithstanding, that according to the Romish Tenet, he had received a true Sacrament in the Host: He answers by their being Priests, and by the reason of a sacrifice; upon which double account, he will have the Priest obliged to both, not Lay people. This appears vain by what was said above Num. II. & FOUR  
So to the following objection, 
A complete refection intended in the Sacrament.  taken from the complete Refection by meat and drink: He answers as he said above, that both the graces of spiritual meat and spiritual drink, or grace sufficient to salvation, is conferred in each kind: and All that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Saviour in the first Institution gave a most plentiful and abundant banquet, whereof each part was sufficient to confer life, p. 332, 333. Now albeit in a plentiful feast many dishes might be taken away; yet none can say it is either a plentiful or sufficient feast and Refection: if drink be wholly denied. And considering what our Saviour purposed by this Sacrament (which he made sanguinis effusi, of his blood shed, and that of his New Testament) it must needs be his intention that both should always be received: nor finally does one confer that saving grace (as was said above) if the other be wilfully neglected. His pretence from Joh. 6.57. He that eateth me shall live by me, to prove the sufficiency of receiving in one kind, is inconsequent: for the verses before, 53, 54, 56. show one as needful as the other; As when it is said, He that reputes and believes shall be saved: both are set down as necessary: and we may not conclude, because we meet sometimes with one only mentioned, as Jo. 6. v. 47. He that believeth hath everlasting life: therefore this without the other is sufficient. Faith (as above said) by the same act of believing, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, extra Sacramentum, out of the Sacrament; but if we come to do this in the Sacrament (that is, by faith there to partake of his body and blood) the eating and drinking must be distinct acts, according to the Sacramental way of participation: for so his blood shed is not drunk in the eating of his flesh.  
And therefore the people are deceived, while they are borne in hand, that by receiving in one kind, they are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation. (as he p. 334.) For that Church as much as in it lies, does deprive them of the benefit of Christ's blood shed in this Sacrament; and however it please God to deal in mercy with the poor abused people: yet no man can assure himself of receiving the grace of this Sacrament, that doth wilfully neglect and refuse to receive it, as our Saviour instituted and appointed it. But see how he would stop the people's mouths in the close of this point, by telling them, that albeit they want the extent of grace, which Priests have by receiving in both kinds, yet they have sufficient: and that they are obliged to have respect, not only to their own spiritual profit in the increase of grace by this Sacrament: but also, to the reverence due unto it, and must be content to want that increase, when it cannot be obtained but by some irreverence offered to this divine Sacrament, p. 335. As if our Saviour intending the participation of his blood shed, and bidding all to drink thereof, could not or did not foresee, what inconvenience would or might happen upon the observing of what he appointed: and as if the greatest irreverence, were not disobedience: and obedience to his will, the greatest Reverence. But the Reverence and honour of the Priest is hereby provided for among them, and the people must be content with a mutilate and incomplete Sacrament.  
The next argument is from the Precept Drink ye all of this, 
All commanded to drink of the Cup.  p. 341. where he pitifully shuffles, running backward and forward to evade the force of it. First he would have it no command: notwithstanding that the speech is plainly imperative, as well as the other, Do this, in which they place a strict command. His instances of like speeches will appear impertinent, if compared with this: as Jo. 13.14. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Ye ought to wash— the speech is not imperative, but indicative, of a duty taught them by that action or example of our Saviour's washing their feet, viz. the duty of humility: not binding them to that very action or expression by washing, as this precept of drinking doth, and needs must bind all who come to receive, and when they come. Now that of Mat. 26.26. Take, though it doth not absolutely command the Mode, or manner of taking it in the hand (he aimed in this instance at the Priests putting it into their mouths) yet doth it peremptorily command a taking which amounts to a receiving; this is the substance or necessary requisite of the Sacrament, the other by hand or by mouth immediately, is but of the mode or circumstance.  
Again, being loath to have it a command: The words (saith he) of themselves cannot import a command, but may signify only a bare invitation: as when we say to a Guest, sit down, eat, and drink of this or that, p. 334. But he should have considered, that if they may signify only a bare invitation, than the one as well as other, and both of them (the eating and drinkng) may be refused: and so the Sacrament left free for every one to receive or not to receive it at all, which below he will deny. Again, though it be but manners among men, to leave a Guest at his liberty, and therefore such words imply a freedom left them, do not impose a necessity, or duty, as this ordaining of this Sacrament doth: where it is our duty by drinking and eating, and doing so as at first was done, to remember and show forth our Saviour's death: and withal it is our great and necessary concernment, to receive the benefit there offered. And yet you use not the people so kindly as a man that makes a feast, doth his guest: for dare you thus invite the people, and give them the freedom to eat and drink? does not the Priest notwithstanding those words of Invitation, eat and drink up all himself, in the celebration of the Mass, the people looking on only? Nay is not this Invitation come to a plain Interdict, a forbidding of the people to receive the Cup? Drink ye all of this, saith our Saviour; ye shall not drink of this, saith the Church of Rome. I might add, is not this a mocking of the people? nay is it not a mocking of Almighty God, when in a prayer of the Canon of the Mass, it is said by the Priest (according to the ancient practice) quotquot sumpserimus— implying that others have received with the Priest and in both kinds, whereas none do nor are suffered to do.  
At length Mr. Spencer yields a command given in those words, Drink ye all of this: but given to the Apostles only, and extendible to Bishops and Priests: But why to them and no farther? here he seems to refer the meaning and Extent of such Commands given without Limitation, to the practice and perpetual tradition of the Church, p. 344, 345. We deny not, but that is a good direction for understanding matters of practice; and in this point we affirm, and are sure the practice and perpetual Tradition of the Church for above 12. hundred years is against this Romish innovation: And we are sure, that Antiquity is against them, as concerning the Capacity of those persons to whom the Sacrament was first given, and who were then bidden all of them to drink; which must therefore be extendible not only to Bishops and Priests, but to all faithful Christians, who were then represented in those first persons.  
Now as for the other Precept, Do this in remembrance of me, 
Do this, concerns allpresent.  he will have a strict command in those words, so far as concerns the Priest, to bless, consecrate, offer, administer, 346. But it's plain the Priest doth not as our Saviour did, for he does not administer so oft as he consecrates; and when he does administer it is not in both kinds as our Saviour did: Again if the Priest be hereby bound to administer, is not the people consequently bound to receive? He is not willing to grant it yet, but shall below; here he makes instance in Priesthood and marriage, which they are bound to administer, when justly required to do it, yet is no man bound to receive the one or the other, 347. It is still the hap of his Instances to be impertinent: for he himself acknowledges a little below, the disparity between receiving of priesthood or Marrioge, and the receiving of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour under both kinds; the disparity I say between them as to this point of freedom: for first, though no man be bound to receive Priesthood or Marriage, yet is neither the one or other ever conferred, but when some are to receive them. Secondly, let these pass for the present as Sacraments: yet is it very inconsequent, from the liberty in receiving these, which concern the particular estates of men, to argue for like freedom in receiving that Sacrament, which concerns the salvation of all Christians; or from the free choice of a particular profession or state, to conclude an indifferency in the duty of our general profession or calling, as we are Christians: the duties of which profession, are incumbent on us in order to our salvation.  
Again he replies; 
The obligation of that precept, upon particular persons.  That command may be answered by saying, It is a precept given to the Church in general, that what our Saviour here commands be done, p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith, but here is an implicit receiving; so it be done in the Church, the command is performed; as if every Christian in particular, were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament, or could live by another man's eating and drinking. At length persuaded by S. Thomas his authority, (he would not by S, Paul's alone) to apply the do this, both to the Host, and the Cup, and to admit a precept in it for the Laity, to receive this Sacrament: he betakes himself to the usual refuge; They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either, p. 148, 149. that is, they drink the Cup, if they eat the Bread. His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this, nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and lose, this Author so often plays in answering to the precept, Do this.  
The order he speaks of, prescribed by holy Church, now ordaining both to be received, now but one: and to some the Host to others the Calais only: doth not where appear, but in the late orders of the Romish Church. In the ancient Church (though sometimes in cases of necessity, one part might be administered privately) never were such Orders made: nor such practice used publicly, solemnly, or when both could be administered.  
To Joh. 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood: he answers. It is a general command given to the generality of Christians, to receive his body by way of eating, and his blood by way of drinking: and to every particular Christian to concur to the execution of this command: not that every one in particular is obliged to do both, but that some eating some drinking, others doing both, each particular confers to the performance of the Command, p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed, are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance, and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by virtue of Concurrence, every person conferring to the performance of it. This is Implicit receiving; so both be done among you it is sufficient, when as our Saviour lays both upon every particular person, and so repeats it in the singular, He that eateth— and drinketh, v. 54, 58. and that in order to his having life in him; His instancing in the precept to teach and baptise all Nations, Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptise the whole world, 352. has the fate of all his instances, to be impertinent; for it runs upon the extent of the object only, (the whole world) which employed an impossibility, not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office, which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptising. For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking, so there to a double act of their office, Teaching and Baptising, That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only, should not do his duty.  
It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general, then may the command be satisfied and performed, so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive, and exempt all the rest. In his answers to this, we may see the giddiness of man's brain, when set against the apparent Truth of God's word: If we take the sense (saith he) according to the common strain of Doctors, every particular will be obliged by the words— (except ye eat and—) especially secing that S. 
1 Cor 11.  Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular. This is one Truth he so much strained against above, notwithstanding those Doctors, and S. Paul: that every particular man is obliged— but how! and to what? to eat and drink— that's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively (as he saith elsewhere, p. 350.) that is, to eat or drink: here's the giddiness and vanity of wilful error,— to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text, for our Saviour's words oblige to these acts conjunctively, eat— and drink— thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul, thrice conjunctively eat— and drink 1 Cor. 11.  
Secondly, in answer to the former objection, he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations, p. 356. If he will have this pertinent, he should add; but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve, from doing the whole duty, or several acts enjoined by our Saviour: that if one of them taught only, another baptised only, and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviour's command, it had been sufficient: He will not surely say this: yet dare defend it in their Churches, exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoined them by our Saviour: He subjoins, It is not in the Church's power to exempt any one from this precept, by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Authority, 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part (drinking his bloodshed) which lies under the command and obligation, as well as the other of eating.  
Thirdly, he grants here another Truth, to the acknowledgement of his Impertinency above: where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage, to imply a liberty of receiving, or not receiving the Cup, but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free (as Marriage and Priesthood are) without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it, p. 357. This is fair, but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilful error: That eating only is sufficient, because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it; He that eateth me shall live by me, Joh. 6.57. Nay, that the words (ye eat— and drink v. 53.) cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person, without contradiction to this Text, so he, p. 358, 359. As if one should reason, If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, than cannot the Text Joh. 3.5. unless a man be born of water and spirit, include a necessity of both,— nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdom of heaven, without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult. where one only is mentioned, and life attributed to it, He that believeth in me hath everlasting life.  
Again, it may be said, that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter, as answerable to the occasion of the discourse, Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith, which at the same time also drinks his blood shed: so it did till the Sacrament was instituted, and so it still doth, extra Sacramentum, out of the Sacrament, but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament, then drinking is as necessary, both to answer the whole act of Faith, and the whole purpose of the Sacrament, in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection: And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57 yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number, mentions and enjoins them both, v. 34, 36.  
His instancing in the command about the Passover, enjoining to kill, roast, sprinkle and eat, but not binding every one to perform all, but some one thing, some another, p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent; for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament (of the Passover by eating, of the Eucharist by eating and drinking:) and I hope, he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover, and to eat it as the Lord enjoined it, under pain of being cut off, Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, those that concern the consecration and administration, as well as the reception of it: every one is not bound to perform all; but that which concerns the Reception, belongs to all; not to do all that our Saviour did, but all that the Disciples than did, belongs to all to do; because they then represented the whole company of the faithful.  
He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants— charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour: not thinking that either of them (as they are in this Sacrament) is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them— p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting, there Passion must make it out; But as to the worth and power of our Saviour's body and blood, we acknowledge it 
* See N●. 3. & 5.  above, and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace, and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received: but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them (the blood shed) can be said devoutly to receive, or can expect that sufficient grace, which is given in the Sacrament to them, that receive it according to our Saviour's Institution. It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviour's body and blood, but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both: What he adds runs still upon that Assertion (that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both, pag. 365.) which we shown above to be false— by our Saviour's commands in his Institution of this Sacrament; Drink ye all, and Do this; by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53. by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour; 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoins, and the custom of the Primitive, Ancient, and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary: will appear to be far from Truth, as to the Primitive and Ancient Church, when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point.  
To conclude, I could wish that Mr. Spencer, who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age, (as he tells us in the close of his book) would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth, which he contends against as in this, so other points of Romish doctrine; and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits, which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise, and bend all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar.    

A Brief Survey of Antiquity, for the trial of the former points:  
Whether they can, as held by the Church of Rome, pass for Catholic Doctrine.  

SECT. I.  
Introduction. VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholic doctrine. 
Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet, Primo divina legis authoritate, deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione, cap. 1.  If any (saith he) would continue safe and sound in a sound faith, he ought two ways to fortify his belief: First, by the Authority of God's word (or Scripture,) then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church: bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word. Then for the Tradition of the Church, it must be universal, to prove it Catholic Doctrine: That is properly Catholic which was received or believed, 
Quod semper & ubique creditum— c. 3.  every where (through all the Churches) and always; (through every Age.)  
According to this Rule we ought to direct the Trial, and may justly expect, that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholic faith, should give us them clearly proved by this Rule; whereas we find them in these points pitifully destitute of Scripture, which is the first and main groundwork of faith. Yet because Scripture is Scripture, and by all Christians received for the word of God, and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith: therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point: such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose: far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have, that hold out unto us matters of Faith.   

SECT. I. Of worshipping Angels and Saints.  
HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here, may appear, 
Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof.  by what could be alleged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it, as we saw above Cap. 1.) from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others; or to men living, as to Elias and Elisha— which proved impertinent, and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practices. It is also confessed by some of them, 
* Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp. 8. Sect. postremò.  that this business of worshipping and Invocating Saints or Angels, is not expressed in the New Testament, and reason given for it, because it would seem hard to the Jews, and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them.  
As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholic Church, or witness of Antiquity, which here runs with a full stream against them. And now for the Trial, we will first speak to the General, Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature, though most excellent: such as are Saints and Angels; the particulars of this worship, by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below.  
Our first evidence of Antiquity; shall be from the force of the word Religion, 
The force of the word Religion.  whereby the Fathers did prove and conclude all Religious worship or service due to God. The name of Religion (saith 
* Lactan. l. 4. Inst. c. 28.— quòd hominem sibi Deus relegaverit.  Lactantius) is deduced from the bond of piety; because God has bound man to himself; S. Aug. is copious to this purpose; who in one place deduces Religion from another word but to the same effect: from religendo choosing God again, whom we had lost, and serving him only, (Hunc eligentes vel potius religentes, nam amiseramus negligentes etc. Civit. Dei l. 10. c. 4. 
* Aug: de vera Relig. c. 55. Non est nobis Religio, etc.  Elsewhere, Our Religion stands not in the worship of the Dead (or Saints departed) They are to be honoured for imitation, not to be adored for Religion's sake, and so having denied the worship of other creatures, even Angels too, he concludes, according to the force of the Word Religion given above by Lactantius, 
* Religet ergò Religio uni omnipotenti Deo.  Let therefore Religion bind us to Almighty God alone. And speaking of worship; 
† Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 10. c. 1.  Cultus (saith he) the word worship if we say no more, agrees to many things; but if we add to it the name of Religion, it distinguishes it from all other, and speaks that worship which is due to God.  
Our second evidence, is from the Argument which the Fathers made for the Godhead of our Saviour: 
The Father's argument against the Arrians.  and of his consubstantiality with the Father against the Arrian Heresy: proving the Deity of the Son, by worship to be given unto him: according to the Apostles argument, Heb. 1.6. worship him all the Angels: and challenging the Arrians for allowing him to be worshipped and invocated, yet denying him to be God; which might have been evaded by the Arrians if the Romish answer and distinction had been known doctrine then; for they might according to that have said, they allowed him to be religiously worshipped, not as God, but as the most excellent Creature, and in high favour with God. Here Athanasius, 
* Athan. 2. orat. contr. Arr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  charging the Arrian Heresy with this absurdity consequential to it, Now that the worship of the Creature was done away, (viz. the Heathen worship taken away by Constantine) again to worship and serve a Creature, and that which was made: so they accounted Christ to be. Also in the same oration, he argues against that saying of the Arrians, that our Saviour began then to be worshipped, when he was exalted of God; but more fully against this in his next oration: citing that of the Apostle Heb. 1.6. Let all the Angels worship him, for a disproving of that Arrian tenet, and a proof of our Saviour's Deity, and he goes on there to take away as it seems, the Arrian limitation of worship, (something like the aforesaid evasion of the Romanists) That he was worshipped by the Angels as higher than they in glory, 
Athan. 3. orat. contr. Arrian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  exalted above them: This the Father denies: and adds; If he was adored as higher in glory, then ought every inferior worship him that is so; but so it ought not to be; for (saith he) A creature doth not worship a creature: citing S. Peter and the Angel who refused worship, Act. 10. and Rev. 19 then concludes, Therefore it belongs only to God to be worshipped. And this, saith he, the Angels know, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who albeit excelling one another in glory, yet being all of them Creatures, they are not in the number or rank of those that are to be worshipped, but of those that do worship: The like argument from adoration he 
* Athan. in libr. de Trinitate, & ad Serapionem.  elsewhere uses, and so does Hilary in his books of the Trinity more than once; so does S. Aug. use it to prove the Deity of the holy Ghost, in his first book of the Trinity and sixth chapter. So Nazianzen. 
Nazen. orat. 37. de spiritu sancto. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  If the Holy Ghost is not to be worshipped, how doth he deify or sanctify us in baptism? but if he must be adored, then worshipped: if worshipped, how then is he not God? for the one cleaves to or follows the other, as a Golden Chain. Thus the Fathers generally proved the Deity of the Son and holy Ghost: because to be worshipped.  
Our next evidence, that the ancient Church knew no such Religious worship, 
The Father's answer (to the Heathens) denying such worship.  is taken from the answers given to Heathens, who observing, that Christians did acknowledge the ministry of Angels, and resort to the memories of the Martyrs, objected to the Christians, that they held and worshipped Angels and Martyrs, like as they themselves did their Daemons and Heroes, that is, as mediators between men and the Supreme God.  
Origen had to do with Celsus upon this argument, 
Orig. l. 5. contrà Celsum. omnia Vota interpellationes, etc.  and acknowledges Angels to be ministering spirits, but all our Vows, Interpellations— put up to God the Lord of all— by our high Priest— then shows that our applying to Angels, without our better knowing of them (that is, their nature and offices) is not agreeable to reason: wherein he seems to relate to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 2.18. an intruding or searching into those things a man has not seen or known: as those worshippers of Angels did, who could not see or know, that the Angels had any such place or office appointed to them. But more below out of this place of Origen, when we come to the point of Invocation. Elsewhere Celsus objecting that the worship or honour given to those, 
Orig. l. 8. contr. Celestina sum.  that the supreme God would have honoured, was a thing acceptable to him, so is their worshipping of Daemons and Hero's; for an honouring of his subjects cannot offend him; and that this was apparent in Kings and their subjects and officers: and that it was seditious to say otherways. This discourse of Celsus is not much unlike what the Romanists plead for their worshipping and honouring of Saints and Angels. But Origen by way of answer, 
Nostra ratio potior est, adducens nos ad serviendum uni Deo per filium— Quisquis habet Deum propitium—  insinuates it is not so with God, as amongst men: and that our reason is more forcible, inducing us to serve God only, by his Son— and a little after saith he, God alone is to be worshipped, and prayed to by his Son— and whosoever has God propitious by his Son the Angel of the great Counsel, let him be content; he cannot want the protection of Angels; and more to this purpose. So may we say, Our Reason is more forcible, which induceth us Protestant's to refuse their way of worship, and to serve God only by his son, our only high Priest and mediator.  
Now hear what St. Aug. saith of this matter: he tells us from Apulcius and other Platonics what they held their Daemons to be, 
Aug. de Civ. dei l 8. c. 22.— Medios inter Deos & homines tanquam interprete & internuncios qui— Ideoque cultum eorum à supernorum Deorum religione, non separant.  and what respect and worship they had for them. They held them spiritual or airy substances, but denied them to be Gods: set in a middle condition or place between Gods and men; as interpreters and messengers that may carry from hence our petitions or prayers, and bring back from thence the helps and supplies of the Gods: and therefore they do not separate the worship of these from the religion of the supreme Gods; let the Romanists consider well what they find like to this in their Angel-worship; how they do not separate the worship of Saints and Angels from the religion and service of God, 
Mald. in Mat. 5.34. Impitus' error Lutheran: nullum nisi Deo religionis honorem trib.  is shown above, cap. 1. num. 5. and Maldonat could conclude it is a silly error of the Lutherans and Calvinists, yielding no honour of religion but to God only: It may (saith he) to the creature in reference to God; and proves it by that which our Saviour there reproves; their swearing by Heaven.  
St. Aug. in the same book above cited: speaks of their resorting to the memories of Martyrs, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 27. Martyrs de functos non habemus Deos.  and of that which was done there; and this in answer to the worship of Martyrs objected by the Heathen. We hold not the dead Martyrs for our Gods; no more do we, say the Romanists hold the Saints and Angels, when we worship them: and no more did the heathen Platonics hold their Daemons and Heroes to be Gods, as above said. So then the Romanists say nothing when they so excuse their worship; and S. Augustine had said nothing if he had said no more to the objection than this: we hold them not to be as Gods: therefore he goes on to show, what honour they afford the Martyrs, and what the heathens falsely charged them with, as by them given to the Martyrs, because done at their Tombs or memories.— But saith he, 
* Sed eorum Deum Colimus, & eorum memorias honoramus.— ad Dei honorem cultumque.— apud eorum memori. as offeratur Deo— ad imitationem— ex eorum memoriae renovatione—  we worship their God and honour their memories: then for what they did there; that the Altar, over the body of the buried Martyr, was erected there for God's honour and worship: that the prayers and sacrifices there, were offered to God: that they gave praise there to God for the victories of the Martyrs, and by making a remembrance still of them, exhorted one another to imitation of the Martyrs, God being prayed to for help and assistance.  
To Faustus objecting, they had but made a change from many heathen deities to their Martyrs. 
* Aug. count. Faust. l. 20. cap. 21. Non coli similib. votis.  He first denies, that they are worshipped with like vows and applications: then how they worship or honour the Saints departed; we worship and honour Martyrs, 
† Eo cultu dilectionis et societatis quo in hac vita coluntur sancti homines.  with that sort of worship, as we do holy men living, which he there calls, the worship of good will and fellowship: and conformable to what he said above, he adds here; what is offered there, is offered to God, but therefore offered at the memories of Martyrs, that 
* Ex ipsorunt locorum admonition●.  by the admonition or remembrance, which the very places may give us, a stronger affection may arise to inflame our charity, both towards those, whom we may imitate (that is the martyrs) and towards him, by whose assistance we may be enabled to do it. 
Memorias Martyrum religiosa solennitate concelebr at. ibid.  But there is something here that the Romanists take hold of, for he saith in the same place; Christian people by such religious solennity, celebrate or honour the memories of Martyrs— That religious solennity is all the 
† Bel. de Beat. Sanctor. c. 12.  Cardinal could oppose out of S. Aug. against the many places of the same Father denying religious worship to the Saints. Whereas he might have seen, that S. Aug. calls it religious solemnity, not for worship given to the Martyr, but for the religious acts there performed to God. But it follows in the Father, 
* Et ad excitandam Imitationem, et ut meritis eorum consocietur, & orationibus adjuvetur, Aug. ut supra.  both to the exciting of Imitation of the Martyrs, and that the Christian people might come to a fellowship of their merits, and be helped by their prayers— the meaning of which is, that by imitating the Martyrs, they may come to obtain what they have obtained, (which is the usual acception of merit with the Ancients) or that by their merits, that is, by that favour they have with God, and by their intercessions (which we acknowledge the Saints make, and the Church below has benefit by) there might be help found, and received from God. No more than this can be wrung out of this saying of S. August. considering what he saith so often against such worship, and invocation; as we see in this sect. and shall below sect. II.  
And unto Maximus the Grammarian, 
Aug. ep. 43. & 44. Bust a Martyrum stulte frequentant— Scias à Catholicis Christianis nullum coli mortuorum.  objecting that the Christians did foolishly frequent the tombs of their Martyrs, neglecting the Ghosts of their Ancestors— He Answers as he did in his book, of true Religion above cited; know thou that none of the dead are worshipped by Catholic Christians. And elsewhere speaking against Heathen worship— that they worshipped Devils— They saith he, 
* Aug in ex pos. Ps. 69.  seek divine honour to be given them, but all good Angels will that God alone be worshipped. So in his book of true Religion chap. 55. after he had said Our Religion stands not in the Worshipping of the Dead, he adds, 
* Quid st pie vixerunt non quaerunt— Sed illum à nobis coli volunt.  For if they lived holily, they seek not such honours, but would we should worship him— So in the same place, having said, our Religion stands not in the Worship of Angels, he affirms of them; 
† Hoc ipsos velle, ut unum cum ipsis colamus Deum. Euseb. Hist. l. 4 c. 15.  This they would have, that we with them worship one God.  
When the Jews reproached the Christians, that they would leave their Christ and worship Polycarp, because of the great affection they shown to that Martyr; their Answer was as Eusebius relates it; that they 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  would worship none else but Christ; As for his Disciples and Imitaters, they 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Loved them worthily; which was the Cultus dilectionis, as St. Augustine styled it above.  
Unto Julian reproaching the Christians, that they worshipped miserable Men, 
Cyr. l. 6. contra Julianum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (so he called the Martyrs) St. Cyril answers, We do not worship them with any divine or Religious Worship: but with that of affection, observance and honour, or as the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) implies an honour convenient and proper for them. And by his following discourse it appears wherein that honour stood; viz. in a Reverend respect they had to their, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Repositories, where their bones, or remainder of their bodies was laid; and celebrating their praise and Virtues; We 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.  crown them, saith he, with the greatest honours, as those that have fought valiantly, and obtained the victory: he adds the example of the Grecians, who every year celebrated the fame of those that valiantly fought against the Persians. So this perpetual memory of the martyrs is afforded them as a reward due to their fortitude.  
Add to these what Epiphanius saith, being put to express himself in this point, 
Epiph. Haer. 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  upon the Heresy of the Collyridians', The Blessed Virgin (saith he) is to be Honoured, but she is not given to us for worship: 
Amb. in Ro. 1. ver. 21. & 25. Relicto Domino conservos adorant— quasi plus sit, quod Deo reservetur.  and afterward, Let Mary be had in honour, but let the Lord be worshipped. Also it is observable what St. Ambrose saith upon the Pretence of the Heathen Worship, which he calls Miseram excusationem, a miserable excuse. Leaving the Lord, they adore their fellow-servants: and then their pretence, or excuse is; that they reserve more (or an higher sort of worship) for God himself: wherein we may read the Romish excuse. And what St. 
Honorem Dei Creaturae defer. ibid. Aug. l. 10. c. 4. Multa de cultu Divino usurpata honoribus deferri humanis, sive humilitate nimiâ, sive perniciosa adulatione, ità tamen ut i●s quibus deferunruntur, homines habeantur: qui dicuntur colendi, & venerandi, si an●em multum i●s additur, & adorandi.  Ambrose saith there of their yielding the honour of God to the Creature: St. August more larely unfolds the matter in his Book of the City of God: where speaking of worship, and several sorts of it. Many things used in and belonging to Divine worship, are yielded up to the honouring of men: whether out of too much humility, or pernicious flattery: yet so, as they to whom such honours are yielded, are still held to be men; (as Romanists say, they acknowledge them as Creatures, do not worship them as Gods) who are said to be honoured, reverenced, and, when much is yielded to them, adored.  
Lastly, St. Hierom being put to it by Vigilantius, 
Hier. ad Riparium; Nos non dico Reliquias Martyrum— sed nec Angelos, Archangelos— colimus & adoramu●— Honoramus Reliquias Martyrum, ut cum cujus sunt Martyres adoremus. Honoramus servos, ut honor servorum redundet ad Dominum.  who found fault with the honour given to the Relics of Martyrs, & spoke contemptuously of them: answers thus, We do not worship or adore the Relics of Martyrs; no nor Angels, or Archangels: we honour their Relics, that we may adore him whose Martyrs they are: We honour the servants, that the honour of servants may redound to their Lord. Now it will not serve to say here, which is the usual evasion of the Romanists; that St. Hierom denies them Divine honour; for Vigilantius could not think such was given to them by the ancient Christians.  
As these Testimonies conclude against Religious Worship given to a Creature, 
What manner of honour allowed to the Saints.  and exclude the pretences and limitations used by the Romanists: so do they afford us true and allowable distinctions and limitations of Worship or Honour: as of the Blessed Virgin, she is to be honoured not adored, or to have religious worship. So Epiph. above; So St. August. above, of the Martyrs: They are to be honoured not adored,; and that honouring of them to be for imitations sake, not for Religion: and again, an honour of charity, not service or subjection. Lastly, the worship or honour of love and fellowship, wherewith we worship also holy men living, and that the honour of the Martyrs stands in Celebrating their Victories, and praise, in giving God thanks for them, and in propounding their examples for Imitation: These out of the Fathers above cited especially out of St. Augustine.  
To these we may add St. Greg. Nyssen. in his praise of the Martyr Theodorus: speaking to the Martyr, he saith, 
Nyss. Orat. de Theod. Martyr.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  We hold this assembly for thee: but how, or to what purpose? to adore our Common Lord, and make full commemoration of thy victorious combats. 
Bas Orat, in 40 Mar●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  So his brother St. Basil in that very Oration of the 40 Martyrs (wherein the Romanists think they have a fit testimony for Invocation: we shall examine it in the next Section) gives such reasons, why they celebrate the memory of Martyrs. 1. Because the honour given to the best of our fellow servants, is the sign and demonstration of our good will and respect towards our Common Lord. Where we have two words, fellow servants, and Common Lord, that excludes the Romish religious worship given to Saints and Angels, as we saw it, by those words excluded in the Testimonies of St. Aug. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.  above cited: 2 because that by remembering the virtue of the Martyr, we stir up to imitation (does not say we stir up to invoke or worship them) Again to the Martyr's praise and our imitation he saith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.  Think and call the Martyr blessed, (where the Latin Translation hath Venerare Martyrem, which though it may be allowed in a good sense, yet was it to be translated otherwise) and mark the end of such celebrating of the Martyr's praise and virtue: That thou mayst so become a Martyr, in resolution and preparation of mind, fitted, as it were, for it by often thinking and speaking him happy.  
Now let us examine the Testimonies, which the 
* Bel. l. 1. de beat. Sanct. c. 13.  Cardinal brings out of Antiquity for Religious worship of Saints and Angels. In these, as also in those, which he alleges for the next point of Invocation, 
Romanists unfaithful in their allegations out of Antiquity.  there is great cause to challenge his honesty or his diligence. For first, these Testimonies for the most part are too general; They speak an honour given to Saints and Angels, but short of that which the Church of Rome allows and defends. Some of them speak honour done to holy Men living; and the rest may be answered by that honour which was done to the Martyrs in frequenting their Memories, keeping their Festivals, celebrating their Victories, Virtues and Praises, or by that reverend respect had to their bones or Relics.  
But secondly, we may question the Cardinal's honesty in his very first Testimony; where he brings in Justin Martyr with this pomp of words. Justin speaking in the Name of all Christians, 
Bel. ibid.— Loquens nomine omnium Christianorum & fidem totius Ecclesiae explicans— Illum, & Filium qui ab ilto venit & docuit nos haec, & bonorum Angelorum exercitum, & Spiritum propheti●um colimus & adoramus.  and delivering the faith of the whole Church, saith, We worship and adore Him (the Father) and the Son that came from Him, and taught us these things, and the host of good Angels, also the Spirit of prophecy: so that Author usually styles the Holy Ghost. Now what a strange sense (little less than blasphemy) doth the Cardinal put upon that ancient Father for the Advancing of Angel-worship! as if the Host of good Angels were set here as one of the parties to be worshipped, and that before the Holy Ghost; whereas the 
* Bel. l. 10. de Christo.  Cardinal in his first Book (de Christo) did argue well, that the Holy Ghost was not a Creature, because coupled with the Father and the Son. This indeed was answerable to the usual argument made by the 
* Sic Basil l. de Spir. Sancto, c. 18, & 19  Fathers for the Deity of the Holy Ghost; but here the Cardinal can couple the Host of Angels with the Father and the Son as to be adored with them, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justin, in Apolog. 2.  and that before the Holy Ghost. He that looks into Justin, will easily discern, that the Host of Angels there is coupled with these things, and both relating to the word taught not to worship or adore; For he spoke immediately before of the wicked Angels or Devils not to be worshipped, and as the Son taught us these things, so likewise concerning the Host of good Angels.  
Another place he hath out of St. Aug. saying to Heathens that professed to worship Angels, 
Aug. in Ps. 96. utinam velletis colere Angelos; ab ipsis disceretis non illos colere, id est (adds the Cardinal) non ut Deos sed ut Sanctos.  i.e. their Daemons, I wish you would Worship Angels, for you would then learn of them, not to worship them. Here the Cardinal adds his own words in the same character, that is, not as Gods, but as holy. But St. Aug. did not intent really to commend Angel-worship to them, but wisheth they would instead of their Daemons, honour the good Angels, and of them they might learn true worship, for he had said a little before, The good Angels would have God alone to be worshipped.  
Another Testimony he pretends from Eusebius, 
Euseb. de praepar. Euang. l. 13. c. 11. hath it thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. e. at their monuments) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  whom he makes to say, We approach their Monuments and make Vows unto them, by whose intercession we profess ourselves to be much helped. Thus the Cardinal wilfully following the corrupt Translation of Trapezuntius; whereas Eusebius saith we make vows and prayers, not to Them, but there: i. e. at their monuments, but to God, as the custom than was. And that which follows, by whose intercession we profess— is added in stead of, we honour their blessed souls, for so it follows in Eusebius.  
Lastly out of St. Chrysost. he citys Adoremus tumulos— Let us adore the Martyr's monuments; whereas that Father saith not so, but thus: 
* Chrys. homil. de Juvent. & Maxim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Let us visit, or often go thither, let us touch their Coffin or Chest, Embrace their Relics. This is all the Adoration he speaks of. Then a little after he shows the profit of it: That from the sight of the Saints Monuments, and consideration of their rewards, we may gather much treasure. Thus hath the Cardinal acquitted himself in the Testimonies from Antiquity.  
To conclude, 
Bel. de beat. Sanct. c. 13.  In his arrgument which he makes from the objections of Jews and Heathens, we may challenge his want of Candour, in concluding, that it was the practice of the Ancient Church, because their Enemies charged the Christians with such a Worship. That which the Heathens observed in the practice or doctrine of Christians was, (as we have seen above) their allowing of and depending on the Ministry of Angels, their resort to Martyr's Tombs, their offering up prayers there, their keeping the days of the Martyr's sufferings, their celebrating of the Martyr's praise; Now it was a gross mistake in the Heathens, thence to infer, the Christian Church did worship them, or did set Angels and Martyrs in like place and office, as they did their Daemons and Heroes; So is it a false inference in the Romanists from the practice of Christians then, to conclude a Romish Worship, and to make the mistaken allegation of the Heathen a pretence for it; when the Fathers in answering their objection, so plainly discover the mistake, and deny the Worship. There were some excesses, it is like, committed at the Tombs of Martyrs, by some inconsiderate Christians, but not to be charged upon the Church: as appears by St. Aug. his answer above, to Maximus the Grammarian: A Catholicis Christianis— None of the Dead are worshipped, by Catholic Christians: what ever excesses were used by some, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 27. Sed non fieri à melioribus Christianis.  yet none of the Catholic Christians so worshipped: also by what he saith of feasting and banqueting used by some at the Tombs of Martyrs: These things are not done by the better sort of Christians. I will only add what I meet with in the History of the Council of Trent anno 1549. How the Archbishop of Mentz, during the Interim, held a Synod; by which in the 45 Head of Doctrine, it was determined according to St. Augustin; That the Saints were to be honoured, but with Civil worship, or honour of dilection and love, no otherwise then Holy Men in this Life.   

SECT. II. Of Invocation of Saints or Angels.  
AS for Scripture proof, by the Confession of Romanists little is to be expected in this point: 
Pretence of Scripture.  yet because Scripture is Scripture, the written Word of God (as I said at 
* Sect. 1. in Introduct.  the beginning) it must and is pretended to, and many places alleged by them. There is nothing express (saith 
† Salm. in 1 Tim. c. 2. disp. 7. Nihil hac de re expressum habetur—  Salmeron) in the Old Testament, or Gospels, or Epistles of the Apostles, touching this matter; but in the Apocalypse, where there was occasion of writing the future success of the Church, it is expressed; The places he notes are ch. 5. 8. ch. 6. 10. ch. 8. 3. which we shall touch below; but hear what he saith in his next disputation: 
* Non fuisse morem in V T●●adeundi Sanctos Intercessores,— Erat etiam olim periculum Idololatriae. Salm. disp. 8. sect. postremo.  It was not their manner in the Old Testament to use the Saints as intercessors; the Reason; because they were not then glorified, and because of old there was danger of Idolatry: Mark the danger of the Romish practices in Religion and Worship. But was there not danger under the New Testament? he acknowledges it, saying, it is not express but was left to Tradition, secretly to be delivered, which he calls 
* Tacitam Spiritus suggestionem. ibid.  the silent suggestion of the Spirit: but why! because 
† Quia durum erat id Judaeis praecipere, & Gentib. daretur occasio putandi multos sibi deos exhibitos, pro—  it was hard to command such a thing to the Jews: and it was likely to give occasion to the Gentiles of thinking that many Gods were put upon them, in stead of the many Gods they had forsaken. And might not the same Reasons still be good against Romish Invocation, and Image-worship, either to keep them out, or cast them out of the Church; seeing they give such occasion of scandal to Jews and Infidels throughout the Romish Communion?  
The Cardinal is not so liberal with us, 
Bel. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 19 Non consuetum— Nec ordinariè cognoscere preces— etc. 20 sect. sed dices.  for he would confine it to the Old Testament, acknowledging: It was not the custom then to say Holy Abraham pray for us— and his reasons are, because they did not see God, and could not ordinarily (i. e. without special Revelation) know the prayers of the living. Neither is the Cardinal so ingenuous with us as was his fellow Salmeron, for albeit he gives reasons why prayers were not made to them in the Old Testament: (which reasons were good against their Invocation till our Saviour's ascension) yet he brings places out of the Old Testament for a seeming proof of it. Some of them indeed concern Invocation of Angels, as that Gen. 48.16. & Job 5.1. to which we briefly answered 
† Chap. II. nu. 9  above; And though the Cardinal's reasons which exclude the Saints of the Old Testament, do not conclude against the Angels which did see God's face, and as well hear and know what was said and done below on Earth, in the time of the Old Testament, as after; yet Salmerons Reasons might prevail against invocation of them, because of danger of Idolatry then,— and it would have seemed strange and hard to the Jews— And albeit they had Cherubins in the picture, yet not Angels in their worship— Which is acknowledged by Azor: and Vasquez, and that out of several Fathers clearing the Jewish Church from Worshipping of Angels or Images; and something to this purpose was said 
† Chap. III. nu. 10.  above.  
Now for the places out of the Revelation, 
Places of Scripture alleged for Invocation.  which are the only Texts that have any semblance or pretence for Invocating Saints or Angels: they are mistaken as applied to that purpose.  
That Text, Rev. 5.8. where the four living Creatures, and the 24 Elders are set out as falling down before the Lamb, having harps and viols full of odours (or incense) which are the prayers of the Saints. Here the Romanists that would have these prayers of the Saints, to be meant of the prayers of men living, offered up by the Saints in heaven, are mistaken: for the whole place is a representation of the Church below offering up prayers to God by Christ (the Lamb) and those Eucharistical or prayers of thanksgiving and praise chief, for the Victories of the Lamb, and Redemption by Christ, as the next verse specifies them. Thus Viega understands them of the Church below, and he follows good Authors in it.  
The next is Rev. 6.10. how long O Lord— Here also is a great mistake of Romanists making this a formal prayer of the Martyrs for revenge: which stands not with that charity they have in so great a degree; and therefore this is but a figurative or emblematical representation of their Souls lying under the Altar and calling for revenge, only to show the certainty of that judgement and vengeance, which God would in time bring upon the Heathen Persecutors for their blood: as when Abel's blood is said to cry for vengeance. And for the Argument they make, If the Souls of Martyrs cry for Vengeance upon their Enemies, therefore their charity much more prompts them to pray for God's servants: It fails first in the Antecedent; for they do not as we see make any formal prayer for vengeance: and then it fails in the Inference, for it would only conclude that they do pray for the Church Militant, which we grant; not that they offer up prayers made to them, which is the point in question.  
The third Text, Rev. 8.3. where Another Angel is said to stand by the Altar, having a golden Censer, and much incense was given to him, that he might offer it with the prayers of all Saints. A great mistake this and impious to make this the office of any created Angel, for the very Text seems to imply that this was a special Angel differing from the seven Angels, set out in the second verse as ministering Spirits; and what one created Angel is sufficient for this, to receive and offer up their prayers that are made by all the Saints or just men on Earth? Therefore generally it is interpreted of Christ the great Angel of the Counsel of God; as Viega, and other modern Writers, and herein they have Ambrose, Haimo, Rupertus, and the Interlineary Gloss consenting: To whom I may add what Irenaeus saith, reflecting upon this place, and the other, cap. 5.8. where speaking of the Church offering up all by Christ, applies to it that of Malachi cap. 1.11. in every place Incense shall be offered— then adds, Now 
† Iren. l. 4. c. 33. Incensa autem Joan. in Apocal. Orationes ait esse Sanctorum. Tert. advers. Martion. l. 4. c. 9 Per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris sacerdotem.  St. John in the Revel. saith, that Incense or the sweet odours are the prayers of the Saints. And Tertul. upon that of our Saviour to the Leper cleansed: show thyself to the Priest, and offer, Mat. 8.4. Inferreth, we must offer up all our prayers and thanksgivings by Jesus Christ, the Catholic or universal Priest of the Father. No Created Angel can be such a Catholic Priest, to offer up the Prayers of all Saints.  
Thus much for Scripture, to show how destitute they are of any real proof, and therefore want the first and main ground of Catholic faith and doctrine, 
Sect. 1. in Introduct.  according to Vincentius his certain and safe Rule, at first mentioned. Now let us make a brief Survey of Antiquity, and see what may be brought for or against this Invocation of Saints and Angels allowed in the Roman Church.  
Being forsaken of Scripture, they fly to some say of the Fathers, that seem to allow and commend, the practice, then set on foot by some in the fourth Century; higher they cannot go for the rise of it: and so fall short of the second ground of Catholic doctrine, requiring it be delivered down from the Apostles time, held and believed in all Ages, as Vincentius his Rule also tells us. For clearing of this, We will lay down some Generals, which will evince this doctrine and practice (though Ancient, yet indeed) New and not Catholic: and so may render what they bring, weak and impertinent to prove the contrary.  
First, It was the opinion of very many of the Ancients, 
The opinion of some of the Ancients touching the state of the Dead inconsistent with Invocation.  that the Souls of the faithful, are not admitted into Heaven, or to the sight of God till the Resurrection; being still in the like condition, as the Romanists suppose the Fathers of the Old Testament to be in; and therefore not in a condition to be invocated, or prayed to: but were prayed for, that God would give them 
† Lucem & refrigerium.  light and refreshment, as we find in ancient forms of prayer for the Dead. Senensis, and other Romish Writers acknowledge this to be the opinion of many Ancient Fathers: and therefore Invocation of Saints could not then be Catholic belief or Doctrine; The 
† Bell. de Beat. Sanctor. c. 1, 2, 3.  Cardinal well saw, how this was inconsistent with the ground of Invocation, and therefore seeks to make the Contrary appear, viz. that the Souls of the faithful do see God: But though many Fathers may be brought to the contrary, especially after the many Miracles done at the Tombs of Martyrs in the fourth Age, yet the general opinion of the more Ancient Fathers being as I said, it plainly shows that Invocation of Saints could not be their belief or practice— Bellarmine seems to be troubled in shifting off two testimonies especially. The one of John the 22. who though of later times yet a Pope, and so more cross to their pretended ancient belief of Invocation; which sentence of the Pope 
* Bell. de Beat. Sanct. c. 2.  he seeks to elevate it as if the Pope held it doubtfully and recalled it, but elsewhere the 
† Bel. de Pontifice Romano, l. 4. c. 14.— cum Liberum esset—  Cardinal answers roundly to it, that Pope John thought so, when it was free to think so, the Church having determined nothing therein: But if Invocation of Saints departed had been a defined and determined doctrine of the Catholic Church, then would it not have been free for any to hold them in a place, where they could not be Invocated.  
The other Testimony is of Irenaeus, 
Iren. l. 5. c. 31. Legem mortuorum servevit—  one of the most ancient Fathers, most plainly asserting the former opinion, and giving Reason for it, from our Saviour's example, who did, saith he, observe the Law of the dead, that he might be the first born from the dead; and what Law was that? 
Manifestum est, quia & discipulorum animae— Bell. l. de beatit. Sanctorum c. 4. sect. tertio— Erat animâ beatus.— animâ sunt in paradiso beati.  that his soul should stay in the lower parts, unto his resurrection; or in an invisible place, as he calls it in that chapter: It is manifest therefore that the Souls of his disciples must stay in the invisible place till the resurrection, and then adds, for no disciple is above his Master: Of all that the Cardinal saith, this only carries a show of Answer, That Christ before his resurrection was beatified in Soul (so was he before his death by reason of the hypostatical Union) In like manner the Saints, while they rest, as to their bodies, in the Sepulchre, are blessed in soul and in Paradise. That they were in a blessed condition, though out of heaven or the beatifical vision of God was not doubted, but that Paradise which Bell. in reference to Luc. 23.43. places them in, does not reach the highest heaven or sight of God, and so he saith nothing, as to their capacity of being invocated. So also, what he saith 
† Bell. l. 1. de Beat. Sanctor. c. 6.— fuisse tamen in Fara diso Coelesti formaliter, i. e. fuisse Beatam & gloriosam—  afterward: That Christ's Soul, though it did not ascend into that corporeal Heaven, before his resurrection, yet was it in the celestial Paradise formally, i. e. it was blessed and glorious; Which if our Adversaries would yield unto the Souls of the Saints, we would not be much solicitous for that corporeal Heaven. We cannot yield, nor you neither, that the Souls of Saints, if not in the highest heaven and that sight of God, could be glorified and beatified as the Soul of our Saviour was, only that they were blessed in Soul though out of that heaven we yield; but that will do the Romanists no good as to Invocation. And if our Saviour's Soul was formally in Paradise before his resurrection, because it was gloriosa & beata, glorious and beatified, then was it so in Paradise before his death, whilst he conversed on earth, or was on the Cross; for his Soul by reason of the Hypostatical Union, was always in the Vision of God and beatified: and so the Cardinal still said nothing to the purpose. But this is enough to our purpose, that many of the Ancients deny the Saints departed, to have sight of God till the resurrection, or speak doubtfully of their place and condition: which plainly evinces that Invocation could not be a point then of belief or Catholic Doctrine.  
Our second General is, 
This practice of Invocation took beginning but in the 4. Century.  That this Doctrine or practice cannot be made to appear before the fourth Century: and therefore also not Catholic. This is proved first, because the defenders of it can bring no Testimony for it beyond that Age. That which Coccius citys out of Origen upon Job, and the Lamentations, is indeed not out of Origen; for neither of those Comments are his; and what the 
† Bell. de beat. Sanctor. l. 1. c. 16.  Cardinal makes his first Testimony out of Dionysius his Hierarchy, fails two ways; for that writing is of a much later date; and the place cited concerns the prayers of the Living for the Dead, not to the Dead; as appears by the purpose of the whole Chapter from whence the words are taken. The Cardinal's second Testimony is from Irenaeus, an ancient Father indeed: but what saith he for Invocation? He calls the Blessed Virgin Evae Advocatum, the Advocate of Eve: and Bell. cries, Quid clarius? what more clear? If this imply any Intercession, yet can it not prove Invocation: for how could Eve invocate the Blessed Virgin? But this is a strong and high expression importing, not the Advocation of Words or pleading, but of Deeds and acting: The Father sets the one Woman against the other; the great Good that came by one, against the great Evil that was caused by the other; 
Gen. 3.  as the Scripture sets the Woman's Seed against the Effect of the Woman's transgression: the meaning of Irenaeus in calling the Blessed Virgin Eves Advocate, is, that she was an Instrument or Means in bringing forth the Saviour of Mankind, the Only Mediator between God & Man. St. 
* Ambr. de Obitu Theodosii. Foeminam visitavit Christus in Maria. Visitata est Maria, ut Evam liberaret.  Ambrose may explain that speech of Irenaeus, by what he saith to like purpose but more clearly; Christ, saith he, visited the Woman in Mary: Mary was visited, that she might free Eve.  
What they have out of the True Origen, speaks only that the Saints do or may pray for us, which cannot be denied; But as for Invocation, we shall presenly see he declared against it. 
The Intercession of Saints departed for the living, how far extendible.  Such Testimonies as imply the Saints interceding or entreating for us, are frequent among the Ancient Fathers, and not only in General, but in Particular for those they knew here: both for their particular Persons, & for their particular Necessities or Infirmities, known to them, before they went from hence; for as they lose not their memory, so they increase their charity by going to God. Thus 
† Ignat. Ep. ad Trallens. Salutat vos spiritus mons non modo nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ignatius, My spirit salutes you, not only now, but will also when I obtain (or enjoy) God: So between Cornelius and Cyprian, it was agreed, that which of them went first to God should remember the other. 
† Cypr. epist. 57 Perseveret apud Dominum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororibus nostris apud misericordiam patris non cesset Oratio.  Let our love continue, when either of us shall be with the Lord, and let not our prayer cease to solicit the mercy of the Father for our brothers and sisters, left behind. So Chrysost. in his Oration ad Illuminandos, to those that were to be baptised: Remember me (saith he) when that Kingdom receives you.  
Such say as these, that avouch the Saints praying for them they knew, and in general for all the Church, are often shuffled in by the Romanists, as good proofs of Invocation, and sufficient to take the unwary, that discern not the Paralogism or inconsequent Reasoning: From such intercession of the Saints departed, to infer, they were (or aught to be) invocated by the Living.  
That which they bring out of Athanasius as a Testimony of primer Antiquity for invocating of the blessed Virgin, is taken out of the book De Sanctiss. Deipara, Of the most holy Mother of God: Not written by that holy Father, but by a much later and unlearned Author, and so rejected of Baronius with scorn; But see the other 
† Bell. de Script Eccles. tit. Athanasius.  Cardinal's honesty or diligence, who having censured this very Book as Suppositious and written after the sixth General Council, (300 years after Athanasius his Time) yet can cite it as his.  
Hitherto the first proof of our second General; 
Testimonies of Antiq. against Invocation.  because the Defenders of Invocation can bring no witness for it beyond the middle of the fourth Age: Our second proof is from Testimonies excluding or denying such Invocation. Irenaeus in his first Book speaks of Heretics that had strange Fancies concerning Angels, attributing much unto them; in relation to which he denies, 
† Iren. l. 2. c. 25. Nec invocationibus Angelicis faciat aliquid, nec incantationibus, sed purè &  orationes dirigens ad Dominum qui fecit omnia, & nomen Domini Jesu Christi invocans—  that the Church did do any thing (he speaks of miraculous Cures done then) by Invocation of Angels, nor by incantations, but purely and manifestly directing prayers to the Lord that made all, and invocating the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Fevardentius his Gloss here will not help, saying the Father means Invocation of such evil spirits as the former Heretics used: for if the Church had used, to the working of those cures, the Invocation of good Angels, the same Father could not have condemned their invocations, and so absolutely denied (without any mention or limitation of such use in the Church) all Angelical Invocations; could not have bound up the prayers of the Church (as we see here) to God the father through the Name of his Son. So afterward when Cures were so frequently done at the Monuments of Martyrs, the first and regular way was, as here, to direct their prayers to God through Christ; not using Invocations of the Martyr; which was the abuse creeping in by degrees, as we shall see below. Our next Testimony is from Origen, out of whom we cited some passages 
* Sect. 1. Num. 4. Orig. contra Celsum l. 5. Omnia Vota deprecationes, & gratiarum actiones destinandae ad Deum— per summum Pontificem—  above against Angel-worship; so is he very express against their Invocation. 
† Angelo's invocare absque ipsorum cognition—  Notwithstanding that the Angels are Ministering Spirits as he acknowledges, yet all our vows, prayers, thanksgivings are to be directed unto God the Lord of all, by our High Priest, greater than all Angels. And he gives several reasons against Invocation of Angels; Because (saith he) to invoke Angels without knowing them (better then we do, as to their nature, condition, offices) is little agreeable to reason. But, saith he, if we had sufficient knowledge of them and their condition, yet 
* Hoc cohibebit ne quis preces ●udeat offerre nisi soli Domino Deo, qui omnibus abunde suffi●it, per servatorem nostrum Dei fill 'em. Angelo's habet satis Propi●ios—  this will withhold any from daring to offer up prayers to any save God alone, who abundantly is sufficient for all through our Lord Jesus Christ; and because this will render the Angels sufficiently propitious to us, and willing to do all things for us: if we (so far as humane nature permits) be well affected, as they are to God's service. Something like it is, that S. Aug. saith of every good Angel 
† Aug de vera Religcap. 55.  In illo me exaudit, in illo me adjuvat. He hears me in him (i.e. in God when I pray to God) in him he helps me.  
To the like purpose doth Origen reply again to Celsus, 
Origen. l 8. contrae Celsum propè initium.  that prayers are to be offered up to God alone by his only begotten Son and this exclusive to Angels, because opposed to Celsus pleading for their going to God by their Daemons: For our Saviour Christ, saith Origen, 
* Qui ut pontifex ea● deferat ad Deum.  as high Priest presents our prayers to God the Father. Again, 
† Quisquis habet Deum propitium propter magni consilii Angelum—— quae multitudo (Angelorum) cum videt homines suam erga Deum pietatem imitantes, adjutat e●s contendentes ad s●lutem, & Deum invocantes.  Whosoever, saith he, hath God propitious by the Angel of the great Counsel, Jesus Christ, he may be content with that, and shall not want protection: for the multitude (of Angels) seeing men imitating their piety towards God, helps them, whilst they contend to salvation, calling upon God. This was the wholesome doctrine of those times. And to the same tenor sounds that which above was cited out of Tertul. saying we must offer up all by our Catholic, or universal High Priest Jesus Christ, called so to the exclusion of all others.  
Our third General is, After the Practice began in some manner towards the end of the fourth Age, 
Invocation of God alone asserted in that Age.  yet do we find the former doctrine, of God alone to be Invocated by Jesus Christ, asserted often in the Fathers; 
* A mbr. de obitu Theod. Tu tamen Domine solus es invocandus.  St. Ambrose speaking with relation to the two young Sons of Theodosius, yet thou O Lord art only to be invocated, that is, for a blessing and protection upon them. And in Rom. 1.21. (if those commentaries be his, or if of a later writer, it is so much more to the prejudice of Invocation) He answers the Heathens excuse for their coming to the Creator by the Creature, 
Ambr. in Rom. 1.21. Per Commites perven●t●ur ad Regem quia ●o●no est, & nescit—  that they did it, as to Kings we come per Comites & Tribunos by their great officers at Court: (the Romanists use the like reason or excuse,) We come (saith the Father) by such officers to the King, because he is a man, and knows not all—. But God knows all men's conditions and merits, and we need not use such an Intercessor to Him, but only a devout mind. 
* Chrys. 4. hom. de Paenit. In Deo nihil ●ale.  Chrysost often to the like purpose denying the way of our coming to God, to be like the manner of King's Courts; In God, saith he, there is no such thing: Elsewhere he forbids us to bring in Angels, when we would have any thing prosper, but with reference to the Apostles precept, Col. 3.17. 
Chrys Hom. 9 in 3. Colos. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  do all in the name of the Lord Jesus; he bids, set that name before, and all things will be happy and prosperous: and do not bring in Angels; and the marginal note in the Paris Edition is; Angeli non adjungendi ad invocationem Trinitatis: Angels are not to be joined, when we invocate God: Indeed it is Athanasius his argument for the Deity of our Saviour; because the Apostle joins him in prayer with the Father, 1 Thes. 3.11. as above cited; 
Chap. 1. nu. 5.  and this makes Athansius interpret the Angel, which Jacob seemed to join with God in Invocation (Gen. 48.16. 
Athan. in 4. contra Arrianos.  to be Christ;— and by many examples he shows, none to be Invocated but God: and speaking of David, He never invocated any save God himself: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ibid.  Now to answer here as Romanists would do, that the Saints were then out of sight of God; or that none was to be invocated as God, but God himself: would be first impertinent, because the Angels whom Athanasius expressly excludes from being Invoked, did see the face of God then, as well as now, also because such answer if it were proper by that limitation (as God) would render the Father's Argument invalid and impertinent, when he so often proves the Deity of our Saviour by Invocation, and so doth other Fathers after him.  
St. 
Hier. l. adversus Vigilant.  Hierom lived in the fourth age, after that practice began, but if it had been the practice or doctrine of the Church, he would not have spared Vigilantius in that point, as he doth not in any, wherein he could have advantage against him. Seeing therefore he only defends the Saints praying for us, which was the Doctrine of the Church, hath nothing in defence of our Invocating them, it is evident this was no doctrine, nor to be accounted of as the practice of the Church: yet is St. Hier. often cited as a witness for Invocation; because upon other points he wrote against Vigilantius, who found fault with that beginning practise of Invocation.  
St. 
Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 10. Nominari à Sacerdote, non invocari.  Aug. saith expressly, of the Mantyrs, they are named in the daily Sacrifice, they are not invocated. Indeed it was later by much ere Invocation of Saints came into the public office; But St. August. being by the objections of Enemies often put to it, punctually to set down what was done at the Monuments of Martyrs, (as we saw 
* Sect. 1. nu 4.  above) no where mentions Invocating of Them but of God.  
But the 
† Bell. I de Beat. Sanct. c. 17. sect. Quariò Sanctum Augustinum, doeere Sanctos Invocandos non ut Deos, sed ut qui à Deo impetrent, quod volunt.  Cardinal boldly, though untruly, tells his Reader, that St. Aug. teacheth, the Saints are not to be Invocated as Gods, but as those that can obtain of God, what they will: and the places he notes are, De Civit. Dei. l. 8. c. ult. & l. 22. c. 10. whereas St. Aug. in the first place speaks of no Invocation but of God, and for the Martyrs he speaks only of our Imitating them. In the second place he expressly denies they are Invocated, as we cited it hard above. Again the 
* Bell. l. de Beat. Sanct. c. 19 sect. ult.— docere, quò● in Sacrificio ipso memoria srat Martyrum, & invocentur, ut pro nobis orent.  Cardinal saith, St. August. teacheth, that in the Sacrifice itself, there is a remembrance made of the Martyrs, and that they are invocated, that they would pray for us. The places he citys, are Tract. 84. in Jo. and Serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli. Now its strange that St. Aug. should so forget himself, as in one place to say, they are named or remembered in the sacrifice, not invocated: and in another to say (as the Cardinal imposes upon Him and the Reader) they are invocated; In the first place St. Aug. saith, We do not remember Martyrs there, as we do others that rest in peace, 
*— Non— ut pro iis oremus, sed magis ut ipsi pro nobis orent, ut eorum vestigiis adhaereamus.  to pray for them, but rather that they pray for us, that we may follow their steps. In the second place, thus; The Martyrs are recited at the Altar, not that we should pray for them, For its an Injury to pray for a Martyr, 
* Cujus nos orationibus debemus commendare.  to whose prayers we ought to commend ourselves. This is the most that fell from St. Aug. yet this comes short of what Bell. will have him say, that they are then Invocated at the Altar; for he had said expressly, they are not invocated, and that we invocate God there, to enable us to imitate them, as above in the two places out of his book de Civit. Dei. What then is this commending ourselves to their prayers? it cannot be direct Invocation, for that he denies: but an invocating of God or begging of him, the benefit of their prayers; as we shall see more below.  
We have found the Cardinal very unfaithful hitherto in his Testimonies of Antiquity: we will add two more; He citys Chrys. 5. Hom. in Matt. which is plainly of the prayers of the living Saints. It speaks of the woman of Canaan coming of herself to Christ without suing to any of the Disciples to entreat for her; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys.  And this (saith he) I speak, not that we ought not to entreat or sue to the Saints— The other place is that which we noted above, how corruptly it was cited by the Cardinal, for the Worship of Saints; afterward it is again alleged by him for Vows made to Saints: it is out of Euseb. de praepar. Evang. l. 13. c. 11. where as we noted above, in stead of making vows and prayers at the Monuments of Martyrs, the Interpreter has rendered it, making Vows to them, that is, to the Martyrs; and this (in three times alleging this Testimony) the Cardinal would not see.  
Our fourth General. That practice of Invocation which began in the fourth Century was not such as the Romish is, 
The Invocation begun in the fourth Age was not such as the Romish is.  either for the manner or the use: that is, it was not formal and direct Invocation, nor used in sacred offices till long after.  
1. They were Wishes not formal Invocation: as Nyssen upon our Saviour's, 
Nyssen. de Oratione Dominica, orat. 2.  when ye pray, Luc. 11.2. distinguisheth between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vowing, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praying by direct address and petition to God: so we in this discourse of Invocation, must distinguish between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vow or wish, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a praying to, or religious address to any by petition: So when they cried out in the Council of Chalcedon, Oret pro nobis Flavianus, Let Flavianus pray for us: it was a speaking of their judgement of Flavianus his being in bliss, and a wishing of the benefit of his intercession. Thus we find in Theodoret's History of the Lives of many Fathers, such closures of most of them; I wish and desire, that by their intercession I may obtain the divine help. Some think there are additions and insertions made in this work; 
Theod. in Sanct. Patrum hist. Rogo & quaeso ut ipsorum intercessione divinum consequer Auxilium.  but whether these be Theodoret's words, or any others, they do speak the wish of having the benefit and effect of the Saints prayers put up for the Church below. But this is not Invocation.  
2. In that practice, we meet with for the most part only Indirect Invocation; that is, a praying to God himself directly, that he would vouchsafe the effect of the Saints Intercession, or prayers they made in behalf of the Members of the Church below, and give the benefit thereof unto them as he saw fit. This still is not the Invocating of Saints, which we contend about; no more than Moses can be said to have Invocated Abraham, 
Aug. l. 20. ●. 21. contra Faustum  Isaac,. and Jacob, when he prayed to the Lord to remember them, in behalf of that people, Exod. 32.13. To this sense speaks that passage of St. Aug. cited sometimes by Romanists for Invocation and explained above Sect. 1. nu. 4. Speaking of Christian people frequenting the Tombs of Martyrs with a Religious solennity, that they may be stirred up to imitation of the Martyrs, come to a fellowship of their merits, and be helped by their prayers; and this not by invocating or praying to them; but by imitating of them, and praying to God there, 
— quo adjuvante possumu● imitari. ibid.  for his aid to enable us to imitate them, and for his favour in affording us the benfit of their prayers, this is not Invocation of the Saints, but of God: and if St. Aug. had asserted a direct Invocation of the Martyrs themselves, he had yielded up the Cause to Faustus; To the like sense is that which we noted 
* Hac Sect. nu. 5.  above of St. Aug. his saying Commendare nos orationi— we ought to commend ourselves to the prayers of the Martyrs: not by direct Invocating of them, but of God, as before, And to this purpose also that of Aug. elsewhere, 
Aug. de cura pro mort. c. 4.  which at first hearing sounds harsh: Where enquiring what benefit accrues to a man's friends to have their bodies laid near the Monuments of Martyrs; 
— i●sdem Sanctis illos tarquam Patronis suscept●s, apud D●minum adju●andos ●rand● commendent.  He saith he sees none unless this, that when they look upon the place where their dear friends lie buried, they may be moved to commend them to those Saints as Patrons, to find help with God, yea but he saith, commend them by praying; true, but to God not to the Saints or Martyrs themselves. To this purpose of indirect invocation speaks that of Cyril in his Catech. cited also by the Cardinal. When we offer the sacrifice we make mention of the Saints (does not say we Invocate them) that God by their Intercession may receive our prayers. Thus far it prevailed so as to have approbation; and the practice of this Indirect Invocation (or praying to God at Martyrs Tombs, and begging for their sakes) got strength by a common opinion of many, that when God was so invocated or prayed to, than the Martyr was present, as some thought, or did join his prayers with them, as most thought. This St. Aug. leaves as uncertain in his Book, de Cura pro mortuis: c. 16. and something of doubt in his Book, de vera Relig. c. 55. But there he concludes for certain of the good Angel in illo me exaudit, adjuvat, he hears me in God, and helps me in God, that is, when I pray, or by my praying to God, I have the Angels help; we may indeed say it with comfort, as Origen did above in answering to Celsus. He that piously and faithfully invocates God, is sure to have the Angels propitious, and the benefit of their ministry; So is he sure to have the benefit of the Prayers, which the Saints put up in behalf of the Church Militant.  
I may add here that place of Basil often alleged by the Romanists, 
Basil. in Orat. de 40. Martyr. prope finem.  but see how abused by the Cardinal: who thus alleges it, (Qui aliqua premitur angustia ad hos confugiat; qui rursus laetatur hos oret.) He that is distressed let him fly to these, again he that rejoiceth, let him pray to these. Where we have a double corrupting of the Text; St. Basil saith, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he doth fly to these, the Cardinal saith, let him fly to these; again the Father saith, he doth run to these, the Cardinal saith, let him pray to these; The Father in this oration, at the beginning of it, giveth Reasons, why they celebrate the Days of Martyrs with such panegyrics: viz. to praise their virtue, and propound them as examples for imitation, but saith nothing of Invocating them.  
And concerning these 40 Martyrs he insinuates, that at Caesarea they had a Church bearing their name; 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that there was help to be had by their joint prayers; there, saith he, a mother praying for her sons is heard, he doth not say, praying to Them, but there, i. e. at their Monument, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and it follows immediately, let our prayers be made or joined with the Martyrs— upon supposal of their continual praying for the Church below.  
3. By degrees it came to direct and downright Invocating of the Martyr; but this not to be imputed to All, or to Most, but to the Excess of some private men in their devotions and applications to the Martyr. It pleased God to work many wonders at the Memories of the Martyrs for the honour and confirmation of that faith, for which they died: and in those days, especially when the Roman Empire was to be subdued to the faith and confirmed in it; wherefore it became a custom to frequent those places and to offer up prayers there to God. And some in begging relief of God, were easily led on to speak directly to the Martyr, and desire his intercession; such was the rise of Invocation, the excess of some particular men in addresses to the Martyr: And the frequency of Miracles and Cures done at their Monuments, and upon those that applied there to God Almighty, easily drew on the Vulgar sort to a downright application to the Martyr, and caused some speeches to fall from eminent Fathers as allowing and commending that New Devotion, out of their great Affection they bore to the honour of the Martyrs, and their great desire of magnifying the glory of Martyrdom, or suffering for the Faith; And such excess of speech we meet with usually in the close of an homily or oration, when the reins are let lose to Rhetorical excursion; whereas when they deliver themselves dogmatically, to lay down any thing by way of Doctrine, they speak more safely, and in this very point more conformably to the former Catholic Doctrine, of Invocating God alone. This is plain in chrysostom, to him that will but look, what and how he delivers himself in the body of his Homily upon the Text of Scripture, and then how he often lashes out in his Ethicon or Application at the end of it. 
* Lib. 6. Annot. 152.  Sixtus Senensis gives us a good caution to this purpose, and he gives it with a Sape Monuimus, we have often admonished, that the words of the Fathers are not always to be taken as they sound, for in their declamatory Orations and Sermons they often speak, affectuum impetu & orationis cursu rapti, carried on more violently by the force of affection, and the course of their Oration.  
And therefore what falls from them in this kind, we should rather cover or fairly interpret, then produce it as the Romanists do in this point, to make argument of it for Invocation of Saints and Angels against the former Catholic Doctrine delivered by the foregoing Fathers: and therefore also in the preceding General I have endeavoured to show, that some of the Father's speeches alleged by Romanists for direct Invocation of Saints, or Angels, do but indeed mean the indirect, which makes the address or Prayer to God himself. There are three other Testimonies out of the Fathers, 
Chrys. in 2 Cor. Hom. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which are much urged. One of chrysostom, speaking of the Emperor at the Monuments of Martyrs, Supplicating them that they would be his Patrons with God: and he, that wears the Diadem, Supplicates the Tentmaker and the Fisherman (Paul and Peter) as Patrons. This the Father Rhetorically sets forth, to magnify the Faith of Christ, and to show that the greatest in this world's glory do need the benefit of the prayers of Saints: and so the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies to need as well as to supplicate. Now whether the Emperor did by direct Invocation supplicate them, or beg of God to have benefit by them is not expressed; if he did the first it was an excess according to the New Devotion: if the second, it was tolerable.  
Another Testimony is cited out of St. Ambrose, in his Book De Viduis, 
Ambros. de viduis Obsecrandi sunt Angeli, Obsecrandi Martyrs—  the Angels are to be entreated, the Martyrs are to be entreated. This may be interpreted, to be the obsecration or Entreaty of Deeds rather than Words; for there he teaches a widow (pleading she was w ak and without help) to make the Apostles her friends and neighbours to procure her help, 

— Si ipsis devotion is societate & misericordiae muneribus appropinques.  
— Virtutis cognatio proximos facit.   as Peter and Andrew entreated our Saviour to cure Peter's wife's mother: Now the way to make them so to her, was to draw near to them in the fellowship or likeness of piety and doing good; for it was not the relation of blood, but the kindred of virtue, that makes the Martyrs our friends and neighbours— Then a little after; the Angels are to be entreated, for they are given to us for ministration; and Martyrs to be entreated because we are in the body as they have been— The ministry of Angels— and the remembrance the Martyrs have of what they suffered in the body, is a good argument to assure us, that Angels are ready to help, and Martyrs do pray for all those, that draw near to them in virtue: but no argument for our Invocating them: such a Doctrine is as harsh and strained as his reason which follows, that the Martyrs are fit to interceded for our sins that washed their own sins in their own blood, which if not candidly interpreted is directly contrary to Scripture, 1 Jo. 1.7. Rev. 1.5. But St. Ambrose is thought to be but a young Christian, when he wrote that book. 
* Ambr. de Obitu Theodosii.  Afterward he could say, Thou O Lord only art to be Invocated.  
The last is of Nazienzen: 
Nazien. Orat. 18. in Laudem Cypriani.  relating how Justina a virgin calling upon the blessed Virgin in distress was helped: Nazienzen was deceived in that Book of Cyprians conversion (from whence he had that story) for it is false and forged as to the conversion of Cyprian the Martyr. But it may be said, whether the book be forged or no, and the story of Justina true or false: yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practice. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  We answer that he tells us; she betook herself to God for help, and to Christ: that she strengthened herself with the Examples of Susanna, Daniel, etc. then follows, having considered these things, she also supplicated the Virgin Mary, that she would help a Virgin now in danger: and so he leaves the story, neither commendig this practice, nor reproving it.  
We have seen what Testi moneys the Romanists allege out of the Fathers, and how faithfully it is done, especially by the Cardinal. One Argument remains, which all of them make from the success they found who applied themselves to the Martyrs, whereby it is evident that God did approve the practice. But this is a fallacious Argument, à non Causa: making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success. It is certain in History, that many were heard, who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there; yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession, which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below; but if some were heard, that did directly invocate, or pray to the Martyr, (of which Examples cannot certainly be given) we may say, God overlooked the Excess, or the voluntaries of their mouth, as St. August. 
Aug. Confess. l. 9 c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei.  called his Excesses or break out in his praying for his mother, whom he believed to be in bliss: hoping that God would pardon the extravagance. And as the same Father insinuates, God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth, 
Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod.— non potuit ad laudem, sed ad Veniam pertinere.  and rewarded their good will, Exod. 1.20. Their untruth could not deserve praise, might obtain pardon. So when the Romanists urge the miracles (which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first, is said to work) as God's witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome; we say those Miracles (supposing them to be wrought) were God's witnesses to the Catholic Faith which Austin preached, and planted here; not to all that he taught: God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities, when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ. But this may suffice for the former Argument. If therefore we be asked, why we do not conform in this practice to the Ancient Church, it may be answered; Because we see what the more Ancient Church held, and practised: and we find by St. 
Aug. conFaust. l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus, aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur.  Aug. that many things were done at the Martyr's Tombs, but not by the better sort of Christians, as we noted above, Sect. 1. nu. 6. and that in his answer to Faustus; about the worship or honour given to Martyrs, he concludes thus: It is one thing that we teach, another thing which we bear with— and we are compelled to tolerate it, till we can amend it. Therefore, because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practice from the Primitive Verity, when we had opportunity and power to amend it (the thing St. Aug. desired) we did it, and with good Reason: allowing in this point what may consist with Catholic Doctrine; such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the wish of having benefit by those prayers, which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below; yea such we may account the indirect Invocation, which begs of God that benefit, or effect of those Prayers; but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or direct Invocation, to consist with Catholic Doctrine, when it is made to Saints, and that by way of Religious address, as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices, which practise none of the Ancients knew.   

SECT. III. Of Image-worship.  
HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them, 
Romanists altogether forsaken here, of Scripture and Antiquity.  we saw above, Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps. 99.5. to worship his footstool, and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark; This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture: yet so weak and ungrounded, that their own Authors give it over as impertinent, and raised upon a false supposal, that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship: as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu. 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity, which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them.  
Our first evidence against this Image-worship. 
The first Evidence.  Had there been any such thing amongst Christians, those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens (Justin, Clemens, Tertullian, Minutius, Lactantius, Arnobius, Eusebius) would have mentioned it, when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies; Nay they could not have declined it, when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship. And therefore Tertul. 
Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas & imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus, quas milvi & araneae intelligunt, nun laudem—  in his Apologetic professes and defends their not worshipping of Images. If therefore (saith he) we do not worship Statues and cold Images, like indeed to the Dead whom they represent: and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough, it deserves praise rather than punishment. See how he not only denies the worship, but vilifies them as unfit for worship, cold, and like the Dead, and that the Birds understand them, and therefore fear not to dung upon them. Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen, that objected against the Christians their having no Temples, no Images, gives reasons wherefore they had not, or not used them in worship. Clemens Alexandr. as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship: saying 
* Clem. storm. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshipped; so is he very severe against Images among Christians, insomuch that he scarce allows the Art of painting or of making Images: as we may see in his Protreptic. Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation, and to answer, why the Christians gave it not to Angels (whom they acknowledged to be ministering Spirits sent of God) as they (the Heathen) gave it to their Daemons: of which in the two former Sections; But he was also put to satisfy Celsus, why the Christians did not use Images: and for which he compares them to Scythians & Barbarians, that had no Temples and Images, because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were. How does Origen answer? by saying as a Romanist would do, we only hate the heathen Idols and decline them, but as for the Images of Christ and his Saints, we have and worship them? No! They and we (answers Origen) have not the same cause of declining these things; 
Origen contra Celsum l. 7. Non eandem aversandi cau vam esse illis & nobis.— Aliis rationibus moventur quam Christiani & Judaei, quibus Religio est, sic Numen colere— Sibi ab his temperant propter illud Legis, Deut. 6. Exod. 20.  and again, Those barbarous Nations are moved to it by other reasons than Christians and the Jews are, to whom it is horrid impiety, so to worship the Deity. They keep themselves carefully from these, because of the Law. Deut. 6. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him shalt thou serve, and that of Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven Image: And because Celsus had said, Those Barbarians have not Temples, Altars, Images, by reason that they know not what the Gods and Heroes are: 
Impossibile est ut qui Deum novit supplex fiat statuis.— Nos ideò non honorare simulachra, quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in istam Credulitatem—  therefore Origen subjoins here; It is impossible that he who knows God should be a worshipper of Statues. Again, We therefore do not honour Images, because we take heed, as much as in us lies, lest by any means we fall into the Credulity of attributing to them, any thing of Divinity. In like manner Minutius Felix and Arnobius were put to answer the Heathens, challenging the Christians for having no Temples, 
Minut. in Octavio.  Altars, Images; for which Caecilius reproaches them, that they could not show the God, they worship, and is answered, We believe our God, though we see him not. Again he reproaches them with their poverty and afflictions, as if their God could not help them, 
Cruces nec Colimus nec optamus. ibid.  The Cross is not to be worshipped by you, but born: and is answered, We neither worship Crosses, nor desire them. And Man is the Image of God— Arnobius answers the like challenge— and is so far from acknowledging that Christians had Images, 
Arnob. l. 6. Contra Gentes.  or did worship their God by Images, (as he must needs have done, if they had Images then) that he replies to the Heathen, that said, we worship the Gods by Images; 
— Scire Deum & rei alteri supplicare. Opem sperare à Numine, & ad Effigicm nullius sensus dep●ecar●.  What, saith he, can be more injurious, more reproachful to say they know God, and yet worship another thing, to profess they hope for help from the Deity, and yet turn to and supplicat the Image which has no sense? which speaks reason against Image-worship in Heathens or Christians.  
Lactantius amongst many say against this folly, 
Lactan. l. 2. c. 18. Perversum est ut simulachrum homi nis à simulachro Dei colatur.  hath this: It's absurd, that the Image of man should be worshipped by the Image of God. The Ancient Council of Eliberis in Spain decreed, That Pictures ought not to be in the Church.  
Epiphanius was very severe against Images; 
Epiph. Epist. ad Johan. Hierof. Velum depictum, habens imeginem quast Christi vel sancti cujusdam.  as he shown both by Deed and Doctrine. At Anablatha, going into a Chapel to pray, he finds a Veil hanging there, and having in it a picture, as of Christ, or some other Saint; wherefore he cut it in pieces as a thing not to be suffered in the Church against the Authority of Scripture, as he relates it himself in his Epist. to John Bishop of Jerusalem, in whose Diocese that place was. The Cardinal not liking the shifts that some of their writers make to avoid the prejudice of this Authority: thought good to 
* Bell. l. 2. de Imagine. cap. 9 sect. ad quintum.  cut off that part of the Epistle as supposititious, and added to the rest by an after hand; but this is sure, that St. Hierom, who was contemporary to Epiphanius, and held correspondency and friendship with him, translated the whole Epistle out of Greek into Latin: this part of it as well as the rest, and accounted this to be Epiphanius his deed and Report; And this one thing is of more weight than those many petty pretences of Reasons, which the Cardinal holds out for the proof of what he said. Now let us hear what Epiphanius saith doctrinally of Images. 
Epiph. de Collyridianis Har. 79.  Writing against the Collyridians', that worshipped the Virgin Mary calling her the Queen of Heaven: he tells us the Original of Images, or rather of the honour and worship they got in the world, that the Devil brought them in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  under pretence of Just, (that is, of giving famous men their due, by honouring them after death) creeping into the minds of men, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  consecrating or designing the mortal nature to divine honours, he set before men's eyes humane likenesses and Images polished with great art: that seeing they that are worshipped, were dead (and out of sight) their Images might appear, and receive the honour and adoration. So that ancient Father.  
St. Ambrose, 
Ambr. de obitu The odosii Regem adora vit, non lignum utique, quia hic Gentilis est error, & vanitas Impiorum.  hath this passage of Helena mother of Constantine when she had found the very Cross of Christ. She worshipped the King (Christ) not the Wood The Cardinal replies, that St. Ambrose would have the Cross, not adored for itself, but for Christ's sake: as if that Age of the the Church knew the new Romish distinctions, or limitations, of giving worship to Crosses and Images, for themselves, or for the Exemplars sake; but the Cardinal did advisedly in cutting off what follows in that Father, for this is a Heathen Error and vanity of the wicked, viz. to worship such things religiously; yet there he finds something, which he thinks may favour the adoration of the Cross. 
— Levavit Crucem in capite Regum ut Crux Domini in Regibus adoretur, Ambr. ibid.  Helena (saith Ambrose) did wisely in setting the Cross upon the head of Kings, (for she had commended it to Constantine her son to set it upon his Crown) that the Cross of our Lord might be adored in Kings. What? that material Cross, placed on the Diadem of any King, be adored? So must the Cardinal suppose it: or else he must grant that the Intent of Helena and the saying of St. Ambrose upon it, was only to show, what esteem she had, and all others ought to have of the Passion of Christ; 
Non insolentia haec, sed pietas cùm desertur sacrae Redemptioni.  and therefore it follows in St. Ambrose, This was not a strange or unseemly thing, but Piety: seeing the honour is given to the sacred Redemption.  
Hear now what St. Aug. 
Aug. de Morib. Ecclesiae, c. 34. S●pul●hrorum & picturarum Adoratores— jurbas Imperitorum.  saith in several places in his Book of the manners or Customs of the Church, he notes some to be Worshippers of pictures and sepulchers: and puts them among the companies of ignorant and indiscreet men; and saith the Church owns not, allows not such custom or practice. The Cardinal replies, Peradventure St. Aug. 
Bell. de Imag. l. 2. cap. 16. Forte—  speaks of the Idols of the Gentiles,— Peradventure of those that did superstitiously; without all peradventure St. Aug. speaks not of Heathen Idols,— but of the irregular honour given by some to the Martyrs; and without any peradventure, they did superstitiously worship and honour them, for that necessarily follows upon Religious worship given to a Creature: and cannot be declined in the Church of Rome. But after two peradventures the Cardinal is resolved to say, St. Aug. was then newly converted when he wrote that Book, and so 
* Offensum quibusdam ritibus Ecclesiae.  offended with some customs of the Church (it seems the Cardinal took that practice which St. Aug. blames, to have been a Custom or usage of the Church) but after being better instructed, he could excuse them. But where did St August. ever excuse such practice,, or show himself reconciled to Image-worship? We do not find he recalled it in his Retractations: but we find 
* Aug. contra Adimant. c. 13. Velle videri se favere simulachris, ut vesanae sectae Paganorum concilient benevol.  him blaming the Manichees in that they would seem to favour Images, for gaining the good will of the Pagans to their mad sect. 
Aug. contra Acad. l. 1. c. 1. Nihil omnino colendum esse, tot●●que abjiciendum quicquid oculis cernitur, qui●quid ullus sensus attingit.  Again we find him in his first book against the Academics, pronouncing in general, Nothing is at all to be worshipped, but to be cast away, what ever is seen with mortal eyes, and what ever any sense can reach: This Book indeed he wrote when he was newly converted: but when he wrote his Retractations, 
Retract. l. 1. c. 1. Est en●m sensus & Mentis.  he was an aged Christian; there he repeats this sentence, not retracting it, but only explaining the word Sense, by saying he meant the senses of the body, not of the mind.  
Also we find the very same Father in his Book of true Religion, 
Aug. de vera Relig. c. 55. Non est nobis Religio humanorum operum cultus, meliores enim sunt i●si Artifices.  denying it and saying (as we saw above Sect 1.) Worship of Dead Men— or of Angels, is no part of our Religion— So likewise denies he there, that the worship of the works of men's hands is any part of Christian Religion, and adds Reason for it, because the workmen themselves are better then their works,  
We find him also upon occasion of the Heathen-worship ask this question: 
Aug. in Ps 113. Quir adorat vel orat intu●● simula●h 'em, qui non sic afficitur ●t ab eo se coe●●●rt pute●?  Who is he that adores or prays beholding an Image, and is not so affected as to think he is heard by it? Where he not only condemns the practice, but shows the danger of it in withdrawing the mind from that which is to be adored, and prayed to. Nor is this so easily to be turned off as the Cardinal would do it, by saying, St. Aug. speaks of Images with supposal of the Heathen error, as if he should say, 
Bell l. 2. de Imag. c. 9 Loqui de simulachris supposito errore Gentilium: quando quis putet simulachrum esse Deum, & accedit ut adoret—  when any thinking the Image to be God (as the Heathens did) comes to adore and pray; As if there were no danger of withdrawing the mind so, but in them that think the Image to be God; But all Heathens did not think so, as we shall see below, and St. Aug. puts his question generally of all; and subjoins the example of those that could not think the Image to be the thing it represented; but might see them different and distant one from the other at the same time, as the Sun itself and the Image of it. 
Aug. ibid. Homines talibus superstitionibus obligati, ad ipsum solem plerumque dorsum ponentes, preces fundunt statuae.  They (saith he) that are engaged to such superstitions, do often turn their backs to the Sun itself, and pour out their prayers to the statue or Image of it: and then St. August. tells us the danger of it, which is common to Heathen or Christians, 
Contra hunc affectum quo humana infirmitas facile capi potest, cantat Scriptura— Aug. ibid.  that will bind themselves to such superstition; Against this affection (arising from the use of the Image) wherewith humane infirmity may be easily taken, the Scripture cries out, telling them often, They are the works of men's hands. And a little after upon the same Psalm, shows the danger that arises, 
Valet in affectibus miserorum similis viven●● forma Aug. ibid.  by reason of the similitude. The likeness, saith he, which the Image hath to One living, much prevails upon the affections of silly miserable men. And thus much out of St. Aug. against the worship of Images, and to show the danger of using them in holy worship.  
Let us hear what St. Gregory Bishop of Rome saith: In his time (which was about 600 years after Christ) they were gotten into Churches, for the historical use that might be made of them, but not yet obtained any worship. Serenus Bishop of Marscilles had caused some Images to be broken, because he saw the people inclined to give them worship. 
Greg. Epist. l. 9 Ep 9  Gregory Bishop of Rome, writes to him commending him, in that he forbade them to be worshipped, but not praising him for breaking them. 
Bel. de Imag. l. 2. c. 16.— Vsum superstitiosum quo Imagines coluntur ut Dii.  The Cardinal answers with their usual limitation of worship. That their Bishop forbade only the superstitious use of worshipping Images as Gods: when as its plain to him that reads the Epistle, he simply forbids the worship, by such say, Adorare omnibus modis devita, by all ways possble avoid the adoring of them; and all the use he allows of them is historical: as appears by many passages in that Epistle, that speak that use the only reason of having and retaining them; as for example. 
Aliud est adorare, aliud per Picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere. Greg ibid.  It is one thing (saith he) to adore, another thing to learn by the history of the Picture, what is to be adored. Again, They were not placed in the Church (ad adorandum) for worship, but (ad instruendas solummodo—) only for Instructing of the minds of the simple. After this he advises Serenus to call his people together, and teach them, that nothing made with hands is to be adored, because it is written Luc. 4. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
Omne M●nufactum non licet adorari, quia scriptum est, etc.  and him only shalt thou serve; and then to tell them; Because thou didst see Pictures (which are for instruction of Ignorant people that they may learn the history) to gain worship, 
Quia Picturas quae ad aedificationem— ut histori●m discerent, transisse in adora tionem videras— Si ad hanc instructionem ad quam factae saint, habere vultis— Greg. ibid.  therefore thou didst break them: but now if ye will have them for instruction, for which they have been anciently made and used, ye may. Thus he, and what more plain that the use of Images was only historical, not for worship?  
That which the Cardinal brings (in the place above cited) as a proof of his Answer, comes short still of the point in hand; He alleges out of Gregory's Epist. to Secundinus, 
Greg. Ep. l. 7. Ep. 53. Scio quod Imaginem salvatoris non ideo petis, ut quast Deum colas, sed ob recordationem filii Dei—  that desired of him the Image of our Saviour; I know thou desirest the Image, not that thou mayest worship it, as God: but for remembrance of the Son of God. Now that limitation (as God) is added, not as now it's used in the Church of Rome, to imply a Religious worship of inferior rank is to be given to the Image: but because anciently they knew no difference between worshipping a Creature, and worshipping it as God, that is, giving to it what belonged to God. That which follows there in St. 
Nos quidem non quasi ante Divinitatem ante illam prosternimur. Sed illum adoramus quem per imaginem— ●ecordamur.  Gregory sounds a little harsher at first hearing, and speaks a declination then beginning. And we truly (saith he) lie prostrate before the Image of our Saviour, not as before a Divinity, but we adore him, whom by that Image we remember as born, or suffering, or sitting in his throne: Supposing this sentence to be Gregori●s, and not inserted (for there are some interpolations and additions in these Epistles, as it is conceived) it speaks no worship given to the Image, but that the use of it is only recordation, as in the former sentence too: for to worship before or toward such a thing, as towards the Ark, Temple, Altar, does not infer that thing is worshipped, or that it determines the worship objectively, but only circumstantially; as 
* Chap. III. nu. 15.  above; but when this is done before or towards an Image, though it may possibly be done without giving any worship to the Image, yet scarcely without scandal to others, hardly without danger to himself that doth it, as appears by what is said above, especially out of St. August. And truly if this prostration was a custom in St. Gregory's time (though without fixing any worship on the Image, as we see by what he said of the only use of Images for history and recordation) we see in it a beginning of declination towards this Image worship, which began to be asserted in the following Age.  
Our second evidence, is from the pretences wherewith the Heathens excused their worshipping of Images, 
Excuses made by the Hea. thence in defence of their Images from which our second Evidence.  which we find recited and rejected by the Ancient Apologists and Writers for the Christian faith: and thereby the sinews of Romish worship proportionably upheld by such pretences, cut in sunder. It is the usual answer of Romanists, that they worship them not as Gods, or as having any divinity in them, as the Council of Trent hath it: and the 
* Bel. l. 2 de Imag. c. 13.  Cardinal thinks himself much concerned, to show the Heathens did think them to be, and worship them as Gods. All that he saith from Scripture or Fathers for it, can but speak of the grosser sort of Idolaters; but those that were 
* Aug. in Ps. 113.  purgatioris Religionis, of a more refined Religion, as they took themselves to be, had that and other excuses. 
Origen. l. 7. contra Cel sum.  It's plain by what Celsus the Philosopher pleads, and for it citys Heraclitus, who pronounced of them, that so offered their prayers to Images, (viz. as to Gods) that they did not know what the Gods or Heroes were. Also, Origen repeats it as spoken by the Adversary: Who, 
Quis nisi totus fatuus hac Deos esse credit—  but a fool, will think them to be Gods, and not rather Statues dedicated to the Gods? 
Arnob l. 6. contra Gentes. Deos per simulachra veneramur.  And Arnobius brings them in replying, they did by Images worship the Gods, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 24. Non quòd credatur inesse in iis aliqua Divinitas—— ita ut per Imagines— Christum adoremus.  therefore held them not Gods. Compare with this what the Trent Council saith.— Not that any Divinity is believed to be in them: and that by Images before which we uncover, and lie down, we may worship Christ.  
Lactantius also tells us what they used to reply, We fear not, 
Lactan l. 2.2. Non timemus opera digitorum si. mulachra, sed eos—  (say they) the work of men's hands, these Images; but those we fear, to whose Names they are consecrated. These men could not think them or worship them as Gods— and if they did not fear them, 
— Vel quòd fidu●ia in illis sit coll●. canda. Concil. Trid. ibid.  neither did they put their trust in them: which is another thing, that the Council saith in excuse of Image-worship— Not that confidence or trust is to be put in them: and we may see by Arnobius, (as above cited nu, 1.) 
Arnobius l. 6. contra Gentes.  that they could profess they hoped for help from the Deity: upon which he infers it as a great absurdity and perverseness, ad effigiem— to supplicate to an Image that hath no sense, if thou expectest help from, and trustest in the Deity. This reason touches all Image-worship; and so doth that which Lactantius replies to their saying above— If you fear not Images, 
Lact. l. 2. c. 2. Cur ergo oculos ad Coelum non tollitis? quid simulachra volunt mortuorum, & Absentium Monumenta! Et si absentium, non sunt colendi, si nec vident quae facimus, nec audiunt qui precamur—  but those to whose Names they are dedicated: Why lift ye up not your Eyes to Heaven? and what mean these Images of the Dead and Absent; for if absent they are not to be worshipped; if they hear not what we pray nor see what we do. Letoy Romanists consider whether this spoken to Heathens doth not concern them.  
To these I will but add two replies we meet with in St. August. repeated as from the mouth of Heathens. I neither worship the very Image, 
Aug. in Ps. 113. Nec si mulachrum colo— Sed per effigiem— Ejus rei signum intueor quam Colere debeo.  nor a Devil, but in the Corporal representation I look upon the sign of that thing, which I ought to worship. 
Aug. in Ps. 96. Non illum Lapidem, a●t simulachrum colo quod est sine sensu, sed adoro quod video, & servio ei quem non video.  And in another place, I do not worship that stone, or that Image which is without sense, but I adore what I see, and serve him whom I do not see. Thus could the Heathens plead and profefs, in excuse of their worshipping Images. The Romanists had need study and give out some new pretences. I will close this point with the consideration of one chief Cause of Image-worship, that which made it be so readily entertained, and so tenaciously held, as among the Heathen, so proportionably in the Church of Rome, and that is satisfaction of sense or sight: So in Arnobius by applying to their Statues, 
Arnob. l. 6. contra Gentes P●asentiam quandam exhiberi—  they conceited an enjoyment of their Gods as present, by praying to their Images, they did as it were talk with their Gods. And for this, they objected to the Christians that 
* Minutius Felix in Octavio. Deum suum nec ostendere possum nec videre.  they could not show or see the God they worshipped. To this satisfaction of sense in Religion, belongs that of Lactantius; 
Lact. l. 2. c. 7. Horum pulchritudo perstringit oculos, nec ullam Religionem putant, ubicunque haec non fulserint.  The beauty of these Images dazzles the eyes, neither do they think there is any Religion, where those do not shine and appear. Were not these words spoken by so ancient a Father, one would think them spoken of the present Church of Rome.  
Our third Evidence is from the Inevidence or weakness of the proof, 
The plea made for Image worship weak; and the pleader's unfaithful in their Allegations.  that can be made by the Adversary for Image-worship. For that which they pretend to bring from before the seventh Age or Century, is either out of forged writings; or if out of true Authors, the words are perverted, or the argument made from them inconsequent, as to the worship of Images. This will appear if we examine the Collection which the Cardinal has made, or rather some careless Scribe for him, but He too blame-worthy, that would not better inquire into them, or think that others would not.  
First he makes a semblance of proof from St. 
Bel. l. 2. de Imaginib. c. 12. sect. primò.  Hierom in his Epist. to Marcelia, where he invites her to Bethlem: saying the Tabernacle was venerable for the Cherubins— But no such words in that Epistle; Indeed in an Epistle of Paula and Eustochium to invite Marcelia to Bethlem, there is such a thing but not the words of Bellarmine: 
Venerabantur Judai Sancia Sanctorum, quia ibi erant— Nun venerabilius tibi videtur Sepulchrum Domini  The Jews? (say those Women) worshipped or reverenced the Holiest of Holies, because there was the Chernbins, Ark, Aaron's rod: and doth not the Sepulchre of the Lord seem to thee more venerable? So the sentence or words are not Hieroms, but the women's: nor are they their words neither as Bellarm. repeats them. But let them go as he would have them, the argument for Image-worship is altogether inconsequent, from that reverence the Jews gave towards the Temple or the Ark.  
He subjoins immediately, a Testimony out of St, Aug. who in his third Book de Trin. c. 10. 
— Loquens de quibusdam signis, quae venerationem tanqu●m religiosa merentur, point pro exemplo serpentem aeneum: Bell. ubi supra.  Speaking of certain signs which deserve veneration as things pertaining to religion, puts for example there the brazen Serpent. St. Aug. there gives other examples as well as the brazen Serpent, as the Stone which jacob's head lay upon, when he had the Vision, Gen. 28. but because the brazen Serpent was an Image, this must be mentioned, as also in the next testimony, though falsely there, and impertinently here; for the brazen Serpent was not an Image of Christ but a Type or Sign as St. Aug. has it, 
— haec h●● norem ut Religiosa possunt habere. So St. Aug.  and upon that score there was an honour due to it, as to all other signs of God's institution: but when religious worship was given to it by burning of Incense, (which is also done in the Romish worship before Images) it was broken in pieces. To this the Cardi nal there 
* Bel. nbi suprà. Tam de Imaginibus Cherubinorum, quàm Serpentis aenei quod honorari debuerint, pate● ex Regula Augustini, signa divinitus instituta esse veneranda quia honor eorum ad prorotypum transit. Fuisse autem illas Imagines Cherubin. & Serpen●is.  adds another place of St. Aug. and thus brings it in, As concerning the Images of the Cherub. and of the brazen Serpent, that they are to be honoured appears by Saint Aug. in his third Book de doctr. Christiana, c. 9 where he saith, Signs appointed of God are venerable, because the honour of them redounds to the Prototype; and they were the Images of the Cherubins and of the Serpent: having thus repeated St. Aug words, as he saw fit, he makes his argument from thence: If it was lawful to worship the Images of Angels, why not of the Saints? But first this has a false ground, viz. that the Jews worshipped the Cherubins, 
* Chap. III. nu 10.  as above shown that they did not. Again, from the veneration or reverend respect given to the holy signs instituted of God to infer Romish worship given to Images, is inconsequent upon a double account, because such veneration is of the weakest sort of honour, far short of the worship contended for; also because there is great difference twixt holy signs instituted of God, and Images of man's invention, and so from that looking towards or bowing towards the Temple or Ark used by the Jews to infer Image-worship, is inconsequent and fails upon the former respects, and also because a circumstantial determining of worship given to God, this way rather than another, as towards the Ark or Temple, is far different from the objective determining or receiving of the worship as an Image doth. But indeed, the Cardinal wrongs St. Aug. both in his words and meaning. For St. Aug. doth not there deliver a Rule, nor saith as the Cardinal sets it down, but only by the way saith, 
Aug. de doctr. Christiana l. 3. c. 9 Qui veneratur utile signum divinitus Institutum: non hoc veneratur, sed illud poti●s quò talia cuncta referenda.  He that reverenceth signs appointed of God (he means the Jewish Types before Chri●●) does not reverence these but that to which all these had reference: where this reverencing of such a sign, is so to regard it, as to understand it in the spiritual meaning of it, as it is plain there by St. Aug. who has no such thing, as the honour of the sign or Image redounding to the prototype, nothing of the Images of the Cherubins or Serpent: as the Cardinal made him to speak. The purpose and meaning also of the Father is far from giving any countenance to Images, and its worthy our hearing. He shown in the chapters before, how the Gentiles did serve under unprofitable signs, i. e. their Statues and Images; 
Aug. de Doctr. Christana l. 3. c. 8.— Aliqui corum non tanquam Deos venerabantur simulachra, sed tanquam signa Deorum interpretari conantur.  for foam of them did not worship them as Gods, but did interpret or call them the Signs of the Gods. (this may be added to the testimonies above, that Heathens could say in excuse of their worship, that they did not hold their Images which they worshipped to be Gods.) Then St. Aug. shows how the Jews were under profitable signs instituted of God. Now the Gospel freed both: the Gentiles by removing wholly those unprofitable signs, and bringing them to the worship of the One God; 
— ad unius Dei cultum.  but freed the Jews by bringing them to those things, of which they had before but the signs. 
— ad eas res quarum illa signa sunt, liberavit. Signorum operatione gravi non sumus onerati,— Sed pauca pro multis— observatione Castissima.  Then he shows we Christans, are not burdened with the heavy observance and toil of such Signs or Ceremonies. But we have few for many— and those most chaste in their observance (whereas Images exposed to worship are every where marked out as things tending to spiritual fornication) and these few Signs are Baptism and the Lords Supper; none else are named by that Father. He should have excepted Images as Signs, with the observance of which, the Church of Rome heavily burdens her people; we shall see presently the Cardinal making him to except them, where he intended no such matter.  
But because those Signs, which St. Aug. did speak of, were instituted of God, therefore the Cardinal thought himself bound to say as much for Images; else would all be impertinent; and he says it boldly (in the same chapped. where he repeats these places of St. Aug. again) Now that the Images of the Saints are profitable signs instituted of God, 
Bel. de Imag. l. 2. c. 12. sect, August. Quòd antem Imagines Sanctorum finitutilia signa divinitus instituta patet ex—  appears by St. Aug. in his 2. Book of Christian doctrine, c. 25. How doth it appear? because speaking of Pictures and Statues, he saith, 
* Totum hoc genus inter superflua hominum instituta numerandum: exceptis iis quae ob finem bonum, suo loco & tempore proponuntur ab eo qui autoritatem habet. Sic Bel.  This whole kind may be numbered among the superfluous institutions of men: those being excepted, which for a good end are in their due place and time propounded by them that have Authority; as if St. Aug. were cautioning here for images dedicated and set up by the Bishop for Worship; but here (as I said above) the Cardinal makes the good Father except what he never intended: for that exception is none of his, and its strange the Cardinal would be thus abused by his Collector, or thus abuse his Reader. The purpose of St. Aug. in the whole chap. is to-speak of the Signs instituted amongst men for civil use of Society, The title of the chapter is 
* Instituta humana.  Humane Institutions. To these Signs he first reduces the Actions and Gestures of the Pantomimi or cunning players on the stage, by those Signs representing any Person; Then he names Pictures and Statues as Signs by which things and persons are signified; then follows; This whole kind (viz. 
Sic Aug. Totum hoc ge nus inter superflua hominum instituta numerandum, nisi●cum interest, quid eorum, & qua de causa, & ubi, & quando, & cujus autoritate—  of Action, and Pictures) may be numbered among the superfluous Institutions of men, except when (the exception Bell. puts on him was clean another thing) it concerns upon consideration of occasion, time, place, and the Authority instituting or Commanding it, Such he presently names and calls, Convenient and necessary Institutes, 
Commoda & necessaria instituta, quae in habitu & cultu corporis—  which in Apparel or habit of body serve for discerning sexes, honours, or the like; without which humane societies can hardly consist or be well held.  
One place more the Cardinal adds; where because St. Aug. in the tenth Book of his Confess. cap. 34. hath these words— in pictures transgressing moderate and necessary use and pious signification: 
St. Aug. l. Confes. 10. c. 34. hath it thus: In vestibus, calceamentis, Vasts, & hujusmodi fabricationibus, in Picturis— & figmentis usum necessarium & moderatum; Et piam significationem transgredientibus, addideruut homines ad illecebras oculorum.  from which words thus taken out of the midst of a sentence, and severed from those that went before, and follow after, the Cardinal infers, Here St. August. reprehends the Painters and shows that some Images are of necessary use, some of pious signification: what boldness is this, thus still to abuse the Father and the Reader? The Title of that Chapter is, the Allurements of the eyes, (Oculorum illecebrae) and accordingly the Father complains, that men have added much to the allurements of the eyes, in apparel, shoes, furniture, and such kind of workmanships, also in pictures and such figments, all transgressing the necessary, and moderate uses of pious signification. So that he no more reprehends the Painters (as the Cardinal confines it) than the Shoemakers, or any other Artificers that serve to set out this Luxury and excess; But what's that pious signification, which the Cardinal thinks proper to Images only? what else but that moderation and sobriety which becomes those that profess godliness, 1 Tim. 2.10. and is seen in apparel, ornaments, furniture, and many things they use or have about them, as well as in Pictures. These places out of that Father, I have the longer insisted on: partly to show how destitute the Romanists are of proofs in this point, how unfaithful in pretending of them; partly to lay open the profitable instruction which that Father delivers in these places: nothing indeed to Image-worship, as the Cardinal would have it.  
One more example of the Cardinal's unfaithfulness. 
Bel. ibid. ex Ambr. Qui coronat Imoginem Imperatoris, illum honorat cujus est Imago, qui contempserit statuam Imperatoris, il le fecisse injuriam videtur, etc.  He alleges in the same chapped. the Testimony of St. Ambr. out of his 10. Serm. upon the 118. Psalm. He that Crowns the Emperor's Image, honours him, whose Image it is: he that contemns the Emperor's Statue, seems to do him injury, etc. Thus the Cardinal and no more: thinking every one would imagine, the application of this concerned the Images of Christ and the Saints; that the honour or contempt done to the Image would redound to the Prototype; but the words before and after plainly show, that the Father's intent there is to apply it not to material, but living Images, poor men especially, to whom if any do wrong, God takes it as done to himself, as if do good to them Christ takes it as done to himself, as Mat. 25.40. and to stir them up to charity, 
Quot inter Imagines Christi ambulamus? Ambr. ibid.  how many Images of Christ (saith he) do we daily walk among? and so have opportunity of doing good. But it is usual with the Romanists, where ever they meet with this Instance of honour redounding to Emperors or Kings when done to their Statues: or with that General saying, the honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype: they lay hold on it as an argument for Image-worship: This they learn from their Nicone Council, which after the Seventh Age laid the foundation of this Image-worship. There besides many misapplications of Scripture and Fathers, this is one: And Athanasius, Basil, and Chrysost. ancient and learned Fathers pretended; who did indeed in proving the Son to be worshipped with the Father, because he was his express Image, use that Instance of honour done to the Emperor's Image, and that General saying, of honour done to the Image redounding to the Prototype: as most plainly appears in St. Basil. 
Bas. de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 18.  Now what boldness is this to transfer to the worship of material Images, that which the Fathers spoke of Christ the Image of the Father, because to the illustrating of it, they took instance from the Civil worship?  
One place more I must take notice of, which the Cardinal alleges, and truly out of St. 
Bel. l. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Prostrata ante Crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret, adorabat.  Hierom concerning Paula. That lying prostrate before the Cross, as if she had seen the Lord hanging there, she adored. We must consider Paula is here visiting those very places at Jerusalem where our Saviour suffered and was buried: and if she was more than ordinarily affected and made such outward expressions of it, as St. Hierom relates of her, it is not much to be marvelled at: 
Ingressa sepulchrum— osculabatur— ore Lambebat— Hieronym. in vita Paulae.  Going into the Sepulchre she kissed the stone which the Angel had removed, and licked the place where our Saviour's body laid: So before the Cross she lay prostrate, adoring the Lord that hung upon it: This may be done without giving the Cross itself any Worship: as above noted, in the like place out of St. Gregory: If Paula transported in affection, did exceed: she is not therein an example to us: St. Hierom doth not say she gave worship to the Cross, or that it was her practise thus in her devotions to lie prostrate before the sign, but only tells us how she was affected in those very places.  
I will conclude with the dangerous inconveniences of this Image-worship, 
Complaints of the inconveniences of this Romish practice.  which even their own Authors complain of. Images at first brought in for better remembrance of the History, and to teach ignorant people what they could not read, after once they began to be worshipped, became ill Teachers of those rude Scholars: who could not well distinguish what and how they worshipped: Polydore speaking of it, complains thus: To such a madness is it come— Many of the Ruder and ignorant sort, 
Polyd de Invent. Rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eò insaniae de ventum est— Permulti rudiores— stultitiâ stultitiam cumulantes— Illi qui talem proventum metunt.  so worship, that they trust in them more than in Christ, or the Saints represented by them; And adding folly to folly, they offer gold and silver unto the Images. And that they may be the better enticed to do it, They that reap the profit by it (the cunning Priests) hang up some of those Gifts and offerings to be seen. 
* Cassand. in Artic. 21.  Cassander gives us many other complaints, made by Gerson, and Gabriel Biel— of the poor simple people led on hereby to superstitious if not Idololatrical misconceits and practices. But enough of this.   

SECT. iv Of Justification.  
BY that which was said above Chap. IU. 
Romanists make a confused work of this doctrine.  It may in some measure appear, what a confused work the Romanists make of this doctrine of Justification; and with what difference from St. Paul's meaning, and from his way of handling it.  
For first to settle the Justification of a Sinner upon inhaerent righteousness they confound Justification and Sanctification. 
Decret. c. 7. Non est sola remissio pecca●orum sed etiam Sanctificatio.  The Trent Decree saith, It is not only Remission of Sins, but also Sanctification. Justification indeed and Sanctification go together, yet are they to be distinguished, as very different Acts and communications of divine grace, the Apostle distinguished them expressly, saying, 
* 1 Cor. 6.11. 1 Cor. 1.30.  but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified: and who is made unto us— Righteousness, and Sanctification.  
Secondly, 
Remission & delotion of sin.  They deny not, that Remission of Sin is Justification, but confound that Remission, (which according to Scripture and Fathers, stands in the forgiveness of the offence and punishment) with the actual deletion or expunging of the stain and corruption of sin that is in us: which is another thing from Remission and forgiveness: And when Scripture expresseth Remission by blotting out or deletion: as Isa. 43.25. Psal. 51.9; it is the blotting our sins out of God's Book of remembrance, not out of the tables of our heart; It is as much, as God will remember them no more, no more impute, or lay them to our charge. As for the blotting or purging the stain and corruption of Sin out of the Soul: though it be not done by Remission, but by another act of grace; yet we grant, it is done with Remission in the justifying of a sinner; and inhaerent Righteousness (by which that stain of sin is done out, and the dominion of sin broken) is wrought in the Soul, together with the righteousness of Justification.  
Thirdly: 
The first and second Justification.  Having made a distinction of their Justification into First and Second: That by inhaerent habitual Righteousness, This, by actual or continuance in well-doing, they usually confound their first & second Justification, in the proving or commending their doctrine of Justification by Works. And when they are put to it, in plain terms to speak what they mean by Justification by works; they restrain it to that which they call the second Justification; in the explaining whereof the Council of Trent saith nothing, which contraries the Protestant Doctrine; saving that it calls that Justification, which is not so, according either to Scripture or Fathers. Of this second and improper Justification, we spoke 
* Chap. iv nu. 2 & 5.  above, and shown how it brings the Controversy of Justification by Works to nothing, if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification, than their Council seems to make of it. So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to show what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works, in Scripture and Antiquity; And as for their first Justification, by inhaerent habitual Righteousness, it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works: that Righteousness being God's work, not ours at all, as they do acknowledge; yet, because we were in the former Treatise (chap. 4.) bond up by Mr. Spencer's Replies to say only, what he gave occasion for, it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that, wherein they and we do differ, to enter a farther consideration, of Inhaerent Righteousness, of Faith and of Works, as to this point of Justification. By which it will appear, They lay too much upon the Inherent, and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness: also that they give Faith too little in this business, and are needlessly afraid of the Sola Fides, Faith only: Lastly that they speak too confusedly, when they say and give out, Men are justified by Works.  
1. For inhaerent Righteousness: The question being, 
Of johaerent Righteousness, as to Justification.  by what Righteousness we are Justified before God? We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths: Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out, but such as are necessary for understanding this Question, as to the two Terms in it, Justification and Righteousness.  
The first Truth is this, 
Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation.  That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation, as Rom. 8.33, 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin (offence, and punishment) the remission, or not imputing of his sin, the reconciling of him to the favour of God; and according to this importance or sense, the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it. The definition or description which the 
* Decret. c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Ad●—  Trent Council gives of Justification is this: It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam, into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ. Here is no mention of Remission of sins, but elsewhere it is implied, they grant it, when they say, 
Decret. c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed etiam sanctificatio.— In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum, fidem, spem & charitatem accipientes.  Justification is not only Remission of Sins, but also Sanctification: and a little after, In Justification we receive faith, hope and charity, together with Remission of sins: Here it is employed that in Justification there is remission of sins; but since the Jesuits prevailed, it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin, and that with them is Remission of sin, or Deletion of it: for these they confound, as above noted: and are loath to express Remission of sin, as the Scripture doth, by not imputing of sin.  
A Second Truth, 
Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love.  which they are not so willing to profess, is, That by the Grace of God, to which we find Justification and Salvation often ascribed, is meant the Favour, Love, or good Will of God towards Man; I do not say, they deny such an acception of Grace, for the Trent Council condemning those that say, 
Concil. Trid. can. 11.  the Grace by which we are justified, is only the Favour of God: doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified: and their Writers, when put to it, will acknowledge Grace so taken; but decline so to interpret the word Grace, where ever they can, holding out for it, the gift of grace inhaerent in us.  
A third Truth, 
Of Impuaed Righteousness.  they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is: that there is an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us for justification. Their Council acknowledges, 
* Decret. c. 7.  Christ the meritorious cause of Justification: which doth closely imply this Truth, viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification; and this imputation is mentioned, when in that 
* Cannon. 11.  Council they are Anathematised, that say: Men are justified by the only imputation of Christ's righteousness. And we shall have occasion below to show how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation; in one place, with a Non est absurdum— It is not absurd to say, 
Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 10.  Christ's righteousness and merits are imputed to us, as if we ourselves had satisfied; It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christ's righteousness for justification: but deny it they cannot.  
A fourth Truth is: 
Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect.  That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion, and also in the working; This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it: but they must and do acknowledge this Truth, as we shall see below.  
Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed, since the Jesuits prevailed: whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace, but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement. Yet notwithstanding a●l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth, and enemies of Peace; we gain by the former Truths, this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner: 
What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands.  That it is a not-imputing of his sin, an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them, a reconciling of him or receiving him into God's favour, an accepting of him in the beloved, through the imputation of Christ's satisfaction and merits, apprehended by Faith. Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given, by which the sinner is made righteous also, and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness: yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification, (his appearing and standing in judgement) he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting, and to cover what is amiss.  
Contaremus, a Cardinal of Rome, and a writer against Luther, was in this point clearly Protestant, convinced of the former Truth and expressing it; as we shall see by his words below rehearsed.  
But now let us see what work they make, in that Church, 
Of Inherent Right. Habitual and Actual.  with the doctrine of Inherent Righteousness: and what they bring from Scripture or Fathers to make it seem Catholic.  
Inherent Righteousness, they distinguish into Habitual, which is by infusion of Grace, and Actual, which is acquired by Works; and here they are not agreed, 
* Bel. l. 2. de Justif. c. 15. An sit Habitualis an Actualis an utraque: De hac re disputant Catholici Doctores: Sed conveniunt in eo omnes, ut sit in nobis ver a justitia inhaerens, non autem Christi justitia imputata.  whether a sinner be made formally righteous by the Habitual, or by the Actual righteousness, or by both together? for the Cardinal acknowledges their Doctors dispute it, but, saith he, all agree, that it is a true inhaerent righteousness (by which we are made righteous formally) not the imputed righteousness of Christ. How their Catholic Doctors agree in this we shall examine presently. But first see, how the Cardinal declares. He professeth in the same place, that his judgement is for the 
* Solam habitualem esse, per quam justi formaliter s●mus. ibid.  Habitual as infused; and answers the places of Scripture which are alleged by those that plead for the Actual also; where we may note, that the places of Scripture, here alleged for the Actual righteousness against the solam habitualem the habitual only, are the very same which they usually bring for works, against solam fidem, Faith only: and the Answers which the Cardinal returns to them, may serve us to exclude works from the true Justification. The places and answers briefly are these.  
Rom. 
Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 16.  2.13. The doers of the Law shall be Justified: The Cardinal answers out of S. Aug. They shall be adjudged or declared just, in the Divine Judgement; St. James c. 2.24. By works a man is justified: The Cardinal answers out of the Council of Trent, which interprets that place of the second justification, in as much as by good and just works the increase of habitual justice is merited. Lastly, 1 Jo. 3.7. He that doth righteousness is righteous: The Card. answers, the Apostle doth not speak what makes a man formally just, but that whereby a man may be known to be just. By this it appears how the Cardinal removes the Actual righteousness of Works, from that which they hold to be the first and true, and proper Justification; much more are they removable from the formality of that which we hold the true and proper Justification, according to the doctrine of St. Paul.  
Now let us examine whether they all agree, 
Concessions of Romanists about Imputation.  (as the Cardinal boasted) upon the inhaerent righteousness; against the imputed: First see what Vasquez and Bellarmine two great Defenders of inhaerent Righteousness and the perfection of it, are forced to grant about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Vega had said (as Vasquez notes and corrects him for it) Divine providence ordered it so, 
Vasq. in 1.2. Disput. 222. cap. 1.  that the Fathers used not the word of Imputation, lest they should seem to give occasion to the Heretics of these days, for their Error of false Imputation: He was not afraid it seems of the Apostles giving them occasion and warrant for the Doctrine of Imputation. But Vasquez acknowledges the Fathers did use that word, and other words equivalent, as Communication and Application. And he grants, 
Concedimus imputari nobis Merita & obedientiam Christi— acsi revera essent nostra— ibid.  that the merits and obedience of Christ are imputed to us, as if indeed they were ours: and he giveth a good Reason: Because the merits of Christ are the Merits of our Head. This is fair, and enough for our purpose, if he did not pull back what he had given out; and restrain, what he had freely and truly granted; Therefore he subjoins, 
Dissentimus ab Haereticis in eo, ad quod merita Christi existimamus nobis imputari. Dicimus imputari ratione Effectus, quo pacto loquitur Concil. Trid. etiam ad aliquem effectum imputari. ibid.  We differ from the Heretics in that, to which, or for which the Merits of Christ are imputed: How is that? We say they are imputed, saith he, by reason of the Effect, as the Council of Trent speaks: also that they are imputed as to some effect.  
Now if we ask, to what effect? He tells us in the two next chapters, They are imputed unto Justification, and unto life eternal: This is very true: But how unto Justification? In regard of the dispositions, and in regard of the Form of Justification: in as much as by or through the Merits of Christ grace pravenient and adjuvant is given to dispose us to Justification, and Inhaerent Righteousness given, formally to justify us. Thus he explains himself in the second chapter: and as for remission of sins by the satisfaction of Christ imputed, no mention of that: We must look for it in that purgation of sin which he supposes to be made by Infused Righteousness; for they usually confound Remission, and Deletion or purgation of sin, as above noted, nu. 1.  
The Cardinal in his Concessions speaks a little clearer for Remission of our sins by the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ imputed: reserving himself still for his inhaerent Righteousness, and having nothing to keep him off from the protestant Doctrine (which allows the being and necessity of Inhaerent righteousness) but only the nicety of a Term Formaliter. For 
* Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 7. Si sol●m vellent imputari nobis Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo patri offerre pro pecca●is nostris, quoni●m Christus suscrpit— onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, recta esset corum sententia.  speaking of Protestants: If they would (saith he) have only Christ's merits imputed to us, because they are given to us, and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins, because he undertook the burden of satissying for us; their doctrine were right and sound. But so to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us, as if by it we were formally just: is repugnant to right reason— Well, we say the first which he cannot but approve: we do not say the other, for that formally just or justified, is their expression not ours.  
Again, Although by inhaerent Righteousness, saith he, 
Bel. l. 2. de Justific. c. 10. Etiamsi per justitiam inhaer— tamen per eam non sa●isfacimus Deo pro peccatis & poena aeterna— Non absurdum, etc.  we are truly denominated, and made righteous: yet do we not by that satisfy God, for our sins and eternal punishment— therefore it is not absurd to say, Christ's merits and righteousness is imputed to us, as if we ourselves had satisfied: so that it be not denied, there is besides an inhaerent righteousness in us: we do not deny there is: but affirm they ascribe too much unto it, and may observe how careful the Cardinal is for this inhaerent Righteousness, but as for the imputed, a Non absurdum will serve that; It is no absurdity to grant it.  
There is one place more, where the Cardinal admits the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and that the similitude of a garment (used by the Protestants) may agree to it, in as much as Christ's satisfaction for our sins is applied to us, 
Bel. de Justif. lib. 2. c. 11. Nobis donatùr & applicatur, & nostra reputatur.  and reputed ours. This is fair: but then he adds in behalf of the formality of his inhaerent Righteousness: That one man should satisfy for another, is reasonable: not that one should be formally just, because another is so. True, a man cannot be therefore formally just, that is, inhaerently just, or as by an inhaerent qualification; but why may he not be therefore (that is, for Christ's satisfaction and righteousness imputed) accepted of God as just and righteous in the notion of Justification? that is, one to whose charge nothing can be laid, one reconciled, restored to favour, accepted to life eternal; And as Belgiosa said, Christ's satisfaction is reputed ours, he means really: so why may not we thereupon be also reputed really just and righteous, as to the notion or importance of Justification? and if by that satisfaction and righteousness of our Saviour imputed we are acquitted in our Justification from our sins and eternal death (as the Cardinal granted and so doth their Trent Council) why should not a sinner so acquitted be also accepted to eternal life, purchased for us by that satisfaction and righteousness imputed? accepted, I say, to eternal life, as to the first Right.  
This may be inferred also from the words of that Council, when it tells us (as we had it 
* Num. 2.  above) what Justification is: A translation from the state of the Sons of Adam, into the Adoption of the Sons of God through Jesus Christ. Which though no good definition, yet implies there is in Justification a remission of sins and the condemnation due to them; under which all men lie while they are in the state of the Sons of Adam. Again it implies, such persons acquitted of their sins, are received into favour, as sons by Adoption, and that gives Right in the same moment to the heavenly inheritance. Lastly, that all this through Jesus Christ; which implies the satisfaction and merits of Christ applied, imputed.  
Now albeit Inherent Righteousness be given, 
Other purposes of inhaerent Righteousness, then that we should be justified by it.  in Justifying of a sinner (as often said before) yet it is not given for the formalizing of Justification itself properly taken, but as consequential to it, for qualifying the subject answerably to that which is received in Justification; For there is Remission of sin as to the offence and condemnation, therefore grace also put into the Soul for doing away by degrees the stain and corruption, and for breaking the dominion of Sin. There is also Adoption and receiving the person as a son of God, therefore Grace infused for the New-birth, and as a Principle of New life and obedience; There is acceptation and Right to eternal life or heavenly inheritance, therefore grace and inherent Righteousness given for the fitting and preparing of the Person to the pursuit, obtaining and enjoying of it. We see other purposes of Inhaerent Righteousness given us, then that we should be Justified by it.  
Furthermore, that the accepting of us as righteous in our Justification follows immediately and is intrinsically joined with Remission of sins, is plain by the Apostle, Ro. 4.6, 7, 8. telling us who are those, blessed ones to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness: even Those, to whom he will not impute sin. And the similitude of a Garment, or of jacob's wearing his elder brother's  to get the blessing and the birthright, (which the Cardinal granted appliable to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us) does imply more than remission of sins: Even the accepting of their Persons, and receiving of them as Sons unto the blessing. Also, that the Imputation of Christ's righteousness should not be confined (as the Romanists would have it or delight to express it) to the bare importance of satisfaction: they might think it reasonable by that which they yield to the satisfactions of Saints appliable and imputable to others; For when we urge (against that Treasure of their Church, and the applying of it) that common judgement of the School, Meritum non excedit Personam, Merit exceeds not the Person, Christ only excepted: They distinguish and consider the good works and sufferings of the Saints, as Satisfactory, and as Meritorious: and say as they are Meritorious, they exceed not the Person, but as Satisfactory, they are imputable, appliable to others. Which albeit said without ground or warrant, might keep them from restraining thus the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the point of satisfaction, and allow it to be not only as satisfactory in the Justification of a Sinner, but as Meritorious also, to all effects and purposes, for completing the act of Justification in the accepting of the Person as Righteous, to whom it is imputed or applied.  
We have seen what concessions are made of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, by those that are most for the inhaerent, I mean the Jesuits: and how they lay too much upon the inhaerent righteousness in the point of Justification, when the Imputed would bear it better.  
Now see what Vasquez (who has handled this doctrine of Inhaerent Righteousness most copiously and diligently) acknowledgeth touching their dissenting Authors, 
Romish writers dissenting in the point of Justification by Inhaerent Righteousness.  to the great prejudice of this their supposed Catholic Doctrine.  
First 
* Vasq. in Thom. 1.2. disput. 205. c. 1.  he acknowledges of Durand and other Schoolmen, that they held We are pleasing and accepted of God, before he infuseth Grace, or inhaerent Righteousness. And that this gift of inhaerent Grace, or habitual righteousness does not necessarily arise from that acceptation of God: but from the will of God appointing, that every one who is to be brought to eternal life should have it. This is that which we say; that albeit inherent grace or habitual righteousness, doth accompany and follow immediately upon Divine Acceptation, yet it does not necessarily accompany or arise from it as to justification, but for other purposes (as noted above) one whereof and the main one is here mentioned, viz. the bringing, preparing, fitting us to eternal life: and is there approved by Vasquez himself; But for the former part of their Sentence that pronounces us pleasing unto God, and accepted of him unto Justification, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, antecedently to infusion of habitual righteousness: 
* Non parum favere Haereticis nostri tempori, Vasquez disp. 205. c. 2.  He saith, it doth not a little favour the Heretics of our days. And in another place, speaking of the Imputation of Christ's righteousness and merits, which the Protestants assert in Justification: he saith, 
Vasq. in 1.2. Tho. disp. 222. c. 2. Hoc genus imputationis seu applicationis fateri debent quotquot ex Catholicis asserunt Justitiam— Similiter & illi qui censent qualitatem nobis inhaerentem— Non purgare nos a peccatis nisi accedente nova voluntate & favore Dei condonantis peccata.  This kind of Imputation or application of Christ's Merits, all those Catholics must acknowledge, that say, inhaerent righteousness renders us acceptable to God, not by its own nature and worth, but through the acceptation and favour of God— In like manner all those must acknowledge it, that hold the quality which is in us, to be true righteousness and sanctity, yet in its own nature not able to purge us from our sins, without the superadding of a new will and favour of God in pardoning sin. Of these he saith; Will they nill they, 
Velint nolint coguntur concedere novum imputationem meritorum Christi, ad remittenda & condonanda peccata. ibid.  they are compelled to grant a new imputation of the Merits of Christ for the remitting & pardoning of Sin. Why! the Jesuits allow the imputation or Application of Christ's Merits to this effect, 
The Brief of the Jesuits Doctrine of Justification.  that inhaerent grace or righteousness may be given us, and then the whole work of Justification is done by it; by it we are rendered acceptable to God, by it our sins done away or purged out (which with them is the Remission of Justification) without a new imputation of Christ's merits. This is the brief of the Jesuits doctrine of Justification.  
But note we, out of Vasquez his acknowledgement newly recited; 
Imperfection of Inherent Righteousness.  There are two sorts of their Catholics that do admit inhaerent righteousness in some order to Justification; one in regard of rendering us acceptable to God, but not of itself but through the favour of God and imputation of Christ's Merits; The other sort in regard of doing away sin; which it cannot do throughly, but still needs the imputation of Christ's Merits for pardon. Both these acknowledge the Imperfection of Inhaerent Righteousness, and upon that the necessity of Christ's righteousness imputed. Against both these Vasquez 
* Vasq. in 1.2. disp. 214. c. 3.5.  disputeth as against Adversaries to their Inhaerent Righteousness.  
And to these all those Schoolmen whom Vasquez complains of, to have conspired in this opinion, 
Vasq. in 1.2. disp. 204. c. 1. In quam sententiam non pauci Scholastici conspirarunt— Nihil nobis inesse sive habitum, sive operationem quod suapte natura possit Justificare animam, & eam à peccatis purgare—  That there is nothing in us, either habit or operation (i. e. either habitual or actual righteousness) which of itself in its own nature, can justify the soul and purge it from sin; but unto this it necessarily needs the favour of God accepting it (viz. that righteousness which is in us) and pardoning or remitting the sin. To those Schoolmen he adjoins Victoria and Canus, as agreeing with them. Also in the next chap. Vasquez gins thus: I cannot but wonder at those ancient Schoolmen, 
Non p●ssum non mirari Antiquos Scholast. quod tam abjectè de inharente justitia sense●int, ut veram ei—  that thought so abjectly of inhaerent righteousness, as to fear to ascribe unto it the true reason of righteousness; But I much more wonder at our modern Divines, that after the Definition of the Council of Trent, 
Multò magis recentiores Theologos, quòd post Concilii Trid. defin. tàm exilem justitiam inhaerentem Justis concesserint.  they should grant so weak and imperfect an inhaerent righteousness to just persons: or to the Justifying of them. 
— Veram rationem justitiae inhaerentis de medio tollunt: quam Patres Tridentini pro viribus astruere— Vasq. disp. 204. c. 2.  Both of these (saith he) do take away the true reason and effect of inhaerent righteousness, (that is, as to justification by it) which the Fathers of the Council of Trent, did so much strive to assert and defend.  
And yet more home in the next chapped. Otherwise (saith he) I do not see, 
Alioquin non video quomodo declinare possimus corum sententiam, qui negant justitia inhaerente tanquam forma fieri justificationem nostram. Vasq. ibid. c. 3.  how we can decline their Tenet, that deny our Justification to be made by inhaerent righteousness as by the Form of it, that is, unless we assert the contrary to that, which the forementioned Schoolmen and Divines asserted. So that Bellarmine was out, when he said (as above noted) All their Doctors agreed upon the inhaerent righteousness, against the imputed; Certainly he knew the contrary, but Vasquez was more ingenuous in acknowledging it.  
Unto all the former Witnesses, we must add what Pighius and Contarenus say as to this question between the inhaerent and imputed righteousness. 
The acknowledgement of some late Romish Writers.  Pighius out of the saying of St. Paul, Act. 13.38, 39 concludes that Justification stands in Remission of sins through Faith: Therefore, saith he, to be justified, 
Pigh. controversia secunda. Hoc ergo est justificari, peccata nobis misericorditer remitti à Deo in Christo.  is this: to have our sins mercifully remitted of God in Christ. Again, from 2 Cor. 5.18, 19 he concludes: 
In illo igitur justificamur, non in nobis, non nostrâ justitiâ, sed illius justitia, quae nobis imputatur. Non nostra sed Dei justitia in Christo ibid.  In him therefore we are justified before God, not in ourselves, not by our own righteousness, but by his, which is imputed to us: and from 2 Cor. 5. v. 22. We made the righteousness of God in him; Pighius concludes, We are made the righteousness of God in Christ Exclusively to all righteousness in ourselves. Also out of Rom. 5. v. 18, 19 
In Christi autem obedientia quòd nostra collocatur Justitia inde est, quod nobis illi incorporatis a●st nostra esset accepta ea fertur, ità ut eâ ipsâ etiam nos justi habeamur. ibid.  By the righteousness of one— by the obedience of one are many made righteous: he gathers; Thence it is that our righteousness stands in Christ's obedience, because for us, being incorporated into him, his obedience is accepted, as if it were ours; so that by it we also may be accounted righteous; and then adds the example of Jacob clothed with his elder brother's raiment to obtain the blessing.  
Contarenus in his Tract of Justification, gives us first his distinction of Righteousness. 
Contar. de Justific. Justitiam inhaerentem— Et non inhaer— Sed donatam nobis cum Christo; Christi (inquam) justitiam & omne ejus meritum.  One, saith he, is inhaerent in us, the other not inhaerent in us, but given us with Christ, the righteousness of Christ and all his merit; and afterward he calls it the Imputed righteousness, 
Ad utramque attingimus por fidem.  and saith, we attain to both sorts of Righteousness by faith. Then he puts the question, Upon which of these righteousnesses we ought to rely, or hold ourselves justified before God and accounted righteous? He concludes, 
Justitiâ Christi nobis donatâ, non autem Sanctitate & gratiâ nobis inhaerente. ibid.  it must be upon the righteousness of Christ given us, not upon the Sanctity or Grace inherent in us: and adds the Reason, 
Inchoata & imperfecta, quae tueri nos non potest, quin in multis offendamus, & assidue peccemus—  because that which is in us is but inchoate and imperfect, which cannot keep us from offending often, 
Idcircò in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc—— Est vera & perfecia justitia, quaeomnino placet oculis Dei, in qua nihil est quod Deum offendit.  and sinning daily, and therefore have daily need to say, Forgive us our Debts; therefore we cannot be accounted just in the sight of God, for this our righteousness: but the righteousness of Christ given to us, is the only true and perfect righteousness, which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offends him. Unto this the same Author applies Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteousness, but the Righteousness, which is through Faith— He gives us withal a good lesson; It is found by experience, (saith he) that holy men, 
*— quantò magis in sanclitate proficiunt, tanto minùs sibi placere, & tanto magìs intelligunt se indigere Christo, & justitia Christi sibi donata, ideóque se relinquunt & soli Christo incumbunt. Contar. ibid.  the more they advance in Sanctity, the less are they pleasing to themselves, and the more do they understand, how they stand in need of Christ and his Righteousness given unto them; therefore they forsake themselves and rely upon Christ only.  
He answers also to some places of Scripture objected: as, that the Psalmist saith often, Judge me, O Lord according to my righteousness, and the Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness— for I have kept the ways of the Lord— Ps. 18.20, 21. If David had said and meant this so, 
— it à ut putasset se propterea justificatum esse coram Deo—  as to think himself therefore justified before God, he had spoken as arrogantly as the Pharisee, Luc. 
— Scd & essent mera mendacia.  18. Nay he had spoken mere lies— All this was spoken in regard of his Enemies, especially Saul and Absalon, of whom he had deserved well; and not in regard of his righteousness before God. Also to that place of Deut. 6.25. It shall be our righteousness, if we observe all these Commandments— he answers; 
* Justitia nostra Legalis est custedire omni●, sed quia nullus servet omnia praecepta Legis, ergò sub maledicto omnes, ideoque omnes indigemus Christo—  Our legal righteousness is to observe all— but because there is none, that keeps all the precepts of the Law, therefore all lie under the curse, (or condemnation) and all stand in need of Christ and his righteousness. Thus that Cardinal was convinced of the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine in this point or question between imputed and inhaerent righteousness, acknowledging the imperfection of the Inhaerent as to its effect of Justifying, and that the imputed was to be relied on.  
We might to these add, what the Colen Divines in their Antididagma, 
Antidida/ gma, Tit. Justific.  or book opposed to the reformation endeavoured by Hermannus the Archbishop; do acknowledge, speaking of the Causes of Justification: 
— Nobis imputatur ad justitiam, dum fide apprehenditur.  That the righteousness of Christ, as it is apprehended by Faith, is imputed to us for righteousness— and more to like purpose.  
Hitherto we have shown by the foregoing witnesses, that this Romish Doctrine of inhaerent Righteousness has not been Catholic, within that Church, not so generally held among themselves, as they pretend.  
It is now time to look higher, and briesily examine what they bring from Scripture and Antiquity to make it seem (according to Vincentius Rule) Catholic. 
Romanists destiture of Scripture in this point.  And by this trial it will still appear less worthy of that name.  
The Cardinal brings 
* Bell. l. 2. de Justif. c. 3.  eight places of Scripture for justification by inhaerent righteousness. Which might all be answered with this one exception: They may prove that there is an inhaerent righteousness, but not that there is Justification by it. To instance in the chief of them: His first place, is Rom. 5.19.— Made sinners really inhaerently. We grant it true, and answerably made righteous by Christ, but were we made sinners only so by Adam's disobedience, were we not also made so by imputation? the Cardinal himself acknowledges it, 
Bell. de A● miss g●a l. 5. c. 17. sect. itaque.  and then are we not also made righteous by imputation of the second Adam's obedience? The Cardinal (as we saw 
* Nu. 4.  above) in three places acknowledges the imputation of Christ's satisfaction and merits for freeing us from the offence of sin and and the guilt of eternal death: and therefore from that condemnation under which we are by the first Adam's disobedience. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That condemnation the Apostle here vers. 18. sets against Justification; and so in this Antithesis vers. 19 between made sixners. and made righteous must first stand good in regard of Condemnation, and Justification taken properly— then between the inhaerent depravation, and the inhaerent Righteousness: Take what the Ancient Commentators here say is meant by made sinners. 
Chrys in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Chrysost. and after him Occumenius and Theophylact to the like purpose— expounds it, made subject to punishment, and condemned to death, that's the first sense of made sinners, and unto that is Justification in the first and proper sense opposed.  
The Cardinal's second Testimony is Rom. 
Bel. quo suprá.  3.24. Here he would find all the Causes of Justification, and in the word Grace taken for inherent righteousness, he fixes the Formal Cause. 
Of Grace and Gratis.  That it is taken for the gift of Grace inhaerent, and not for the favour of God, he would prove by the word, gratis, freely, which was enough to set out the favour of God and his love to Mankind. But the Cardinal here also is impertinent and his argument inconsequent: For the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, gratis, freely, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is not put here to set forth the true Cause of our Justification (viz. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  God's gracious favour) so much as to exclude the false Causes, viz. any cause, desert, motive on man's part: Freely, that is, without any price paid by us, without any Cause given by us, or any worth in us. Thus gratis is taken in Scripture, and though it consequently implies the mere favour and love of God; yet where grace is added, as here, it is taken in the first respect, exclusively to any thing in us more than faith to believe that Grace and favour of God towards man. Hear what 
* Ambr. in Ro. 3. Gratis; quia nihil operantes nec vicem reddentes solâ fide justificati sunt dono Dei.  Ambrose on the place, Freely, saith he, because working nothing, nor making any returns to God, they are by faith alone justified through the gift of God: also for the word Grace: 
Gratiâ Dei in Christo, quia voluntate Dei à Christo redempti sumus. ibid.  By his grace, because we are redeemed by Christ by the will of God; that will of God appointing and sending his Son for our redemption, as he there explains it: and thereby expresseth the favour and good will of God. Oecumenius also interprets the word Freely, 
Oecum. in locum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  exclusively— Freely, that is, without any good deeds, and again, to bring nothing with us but faith, and afterward, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he shows by the Apostle all have sinned, and therefore freely justified, 
* Aug de verbis Apost. Serm. 15. prorsus gratis; qui nihil invenis, unde salves, multum invenis unde damns.  bringing with them faith only. Add St. August. of this word gratis, God freely gives, and freely saves, because he finds nothing, for which he may save, finds much for which he may damn.  
A third Testimony from Scripture the Cardinal pretends, 
Bel. ubi suprà, Quo. loco, ut exponunt Chrys. Ambr. Theoph. Apostolus docet in baptisino purgari homines & Sanctificari: atque hoc ipsum est justificari.  is 1 Cor. 6.11. In which place, (as Chrysost. Ambrose, Theophylact, expound it) the Apostle teaches, that in Baptism men are purged and Sanctified; and that this is to be justified; that all this is done in Baptism, is plain by the Apostles words, but that to be sanctified is to be justified, the Apostle saith not, nor yet those Fathers; But the Cardinal has this Gift often to give us Names, when their words will not serve his turn— For Chrysostom, and Ambrose have nothing to his purpose; Theophyl. indeed has a succinct expression, 
Theoph in locum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in Justifying he Sanctified them; if he had said in sanctifying he justifies, it had sounded something to the Cardinal's purpose; but in saying justifieans sanctificavit, he speaks that (which we often insinuated above) the concomitancy of sanctification with, and the dependence of it upon Justification.  
The Cardinal's next Testimony, is from Tit. 3.5, 7. where he would conclude Regeneration to be Justification. The place is answerable to that above, 1 Cor. 6.11. and may be accordingly answered, that there is regeneration and justification mentioned, and that they go together; but that Regeneration is Justification is still the false assertion of the Gardinal, inconsequently drawn from this, as from other places. He adds also Rom. 8.29. & 1 Cor. 15.49. which do prove, especially the second place, our being made like to Christ in sanctification & inhaerent righteousness: but what's this to Justification by that Image or likeness? It was far from the Apostles intent to say any thing in those places of Justification. Now whereas the Cardinal makes this Argument, as Christ was righteous, so shall we, but he was not righteous by imputation, therefore not we— is fallacious,— It follows affirmatively not negatively: He was righteous by inhaerent righteousness, therefore we shall be so; this is true. But he was not righteous by an imputed righteousness, therefore not we; this follows not: for we are to be made righteous not in the same manner every way, and reciprocally, but so as we are capable of, and stand in need of being made righteous. But thus much may serve for the Cardinal's Testimonies from Scripture which we have found either to be impertinently applied, or to speak against him: and therefore no marvel, that he could not allege any Fathers so interpreting them, as he misapplies them to Justification by inhaerent grace or righteousness.  
Now let us take a brief View of the Testimonies of Fathers which he brings as Witnesses for him; 
Justification by inhaerent Grace not proved by the Fathers.  of which we may say: as we found in his allegations out of Scripture, that they prove there is an inhaerent Grace or righteousness in us, not that we are properly justified by it; Amongst all the Fathers 
* Bel. l. 2. de Justif. cap. 8.  he citys, there appears but one Greek, and among his Latin Fathers St. Augustin chief, a good witness indeed, if taken as he means, To the many places alleged out of him, we may give this general answer; they either, only prove there is inhaerent righteousness, or if they speak of Justification by it, then is that word used according to the Latin Etymology: of making a man just or righteous by a real inhaerent qualification: and that St. August. is so much inclined to interpret the word Grace used in Scripture, of the gift of grace inhaerent in us: and sometimes to say a man is justified (i. e. made righteous inherently by it) came to pass, by reason he had so much to do against the Pelagians in asserting that grace given and inherent in us: for they denied not the grace of God in the prime sense, as it speaks the favour and love of God to Mankind: but made little or nothing of the other.  
The chief and most considerable sentences cited by the Cardinal out of that Father are these. 
Aug. Confess. l. 12. c. 15. Quantum distat inter lumen quod illuminat, & quod illuminatur, tantùm distat inter justitiam justificantem, & justitiam, quae ex justificatione facta est.  As great a difference as there is between the light which doth illuminate, and the light which is illuminated, so great a difference is there, between that righteousness which does justify (which surely is the Divine righteousness) and that which ariseth from Justification; which is the inhaerent; for else to take it as the Cardinal must for a comparison between the inhaerent and actual righteousness, there is not such a difference between them. So this place proves there is inhaerent grace or righteousness, as light communicated unto us, doth not prove a justification by it, but by the righteousness from whence that inhaerent righteousness proceeds: & therefore speaks against the Cardinal.  
Another place alleged is this: Which Nature, 
Aug. l. 15. de Trinit. c. 8. Quae natura, cum à suo conditore justificatur, à deformi forma formosam transfertur informam.  when it is justified of the maker, is translated from a deformed form to a beautiful form. Here the Cardinal thought so much noise of the word Form, would be enough to speak the inhaerent righteousness to be the Form of justification; whereas this only proves our renewing, transforming from the Image of the first Adam; that is, that there is a new righteousness also put in us, in our Justification, which we every where acknowledge; and is that which Theoph. said above, Justificans Sanctificat, when he Justifies he Sanctifies.  
Two other places he brings to prove the inhaerent to be our true righteousness: which we grant, in its order and measure, but not to the excluding of the imputed; from its due order and place. The 
* Bell. l. 2. c. 8.  Cardinal tells us, that St. Aug. in his Book of Nature and Grace, ch. 38. teaches, that charity infused into our hearts is our true righteousness: This is the Cardinal's Collection; he does not give us the very words of that Father; we must therefore know that Book was written against the Pelagians; against whom it was his usual work to assert the true grace of God given us, and that all the good we have or do is from God, and that all the righteousness which is in us, though true, yet imperfect; and this is the very purpose of that place: He shows there, that Abel and many others in Scripture, were just, yet were not without sin,— and, 
Justi fuerunt, & sine peccato non fuerunt— qua una verè justus est, quicunque justus est: adhuc erat quo posset & deberet augeri, quicquid●minus erat, ex vitio erat. Aug. de na. & gra. c. 38.  if in Abel the just, there was the Love of God, by which only every one is just, that is just (that is, without which there is no true inhaerent or actual righteousness) yet was it such, as might and aught to be increased, and whatsoever was less (than it ought) was to be reckoned, as of vice, or faulty. It is plain he did not mean the righteousness of Justification, or that those just men were justified by that righteousness he there speaks of; which will farther appear by the next place out of St. Aug. 
Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 19 c. 27. Hic itaque in uno quoque Justitia est, siobedienti Deus homini, etc.  Book Of the City of God, the Cardinal draws this Testimony: Here therefore it is righteousness in every one, that God should rule over man obeying him, the mind over the body, and reason over vice. In this definition (saith the 
* Bel. ubi suprá.  Cardinal) the imputed righteousness of Christ hath no place, but only inhaerent righteousness: Definition of what? he could not say of Justification: for that Father speaks not of it in that place, and so the Cardinal is impertinent; But put the Case, that any were to give a Definition of Justification, should the imputed righteousness of Christ have no place in it? This is that they strive for, and think they allow it enough, if they grant that by the merit of Christ's satisfaction and righteousness, we have grace & righteousness given us, by which we are justified, and have our sins purged out (which with them is Remission) and our persons made acceptable: we noted this 
* Nu. 4. ex Vasque.  above: and this is that which keeps the Gap from closing, which might be reasonably made up, if they would give the Righteousness of Christ its due for our Justification, as we are ready to give inhaerent grace and righteousness its due: both for the Connexion it hath with our Justification, and for the necessity of it to our sanctification. But to return, there is enough in that chap. to show how little this serveth to the Cardinal's purpose. The whole place speaks of Actual righteousness, and that is not for his purpose: and the two first words (Here therefore) shows the dependence of this upon what went before, and thereby the imperfection of our righteousness here in this life; and that also is not to the Cardinal's purpose. That which went before runs thus: Our righteousness though it be true, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 19 c. 27. Nostra justitia quamvis vera sit propter veri boni finem, ad quem refertur, tanta tamen est in hac vita, ut potiùs peccatorum remissione construe, quam perfectione virtutum. Testis est oratio totius Civitatis Dei— per omnia membra sua clamat ad Deum, Dimitte nobis—  as to the end of that true good, to which it refers or tends, yet is it such in this life, that it rather stands in the remission of sins, then in the perfection of virtues: which shows the imperfeon, as I said, of any righteousness in us, as needing continually in this life the mercy of God for pardon, and therefore unable to Justify. As witness and proof of this St. Aug. adds, the prayer of the whole City of God, so journing upon earth witnesseth this, for she cries in all her members unto God, Lord forgive us our Debts: and gives a reason, from this mortal condition and corruptible body, 
*— quod aggravat animam, non perfecte ratio vitiis imperat; ideo— necessaria est justis talis oratio.  which presseth down the soul, so that Reason does not perfectly rule over vice; therefore is such prayer necessary for just persons. The Cardinal replies to the first part, that man's righteousness consists in both, that is, in the forgiveness of sins, and the perfection of virtues, which is true of the Righteousness St. Aug. speaks of, viz. the actual righteousness of man in this life— for such is the righteousness of just or justified men: of whom the Father speaks here— but they had another kind of righteousness by which they are first justified. 
Sic orare justos, ac per hoc indigere indulgentia ventalium delictorum. Bel. ubi suprá.  To the latter part he replies, That just persons pray so (as St. Aug. said they do) and by this show they need indulgence of their venial sins. But if only need remission of such (which may so easily be satisfied for and done away) St. Aug. had not said potius in remissione; rather in the remission of sins: experience also tells us that just men commit greater sins, and need indulgence or remission of them too: and see how heedlessly contrary the Cardinal is to himself in so few lines; He had said, Man's righteousness stands in both these, Remission of Sins, and Perfection of Virtue, and meant it of the righteousness of Justification: in which he will grant the Remission of all sins and of eternal death due to them: Here presently he restrains Remission to the indulgence of Venial sins.  
I will but add two other places cited out of the same Father rendering the word Justify, 
The word Justify sometimes improperly taken by the Fathers.  by making just or righteous as when he saith: Who has made righteousness in man, but he that justifieth the ungodly? that is, of an ungodly man, by his grace makes a just and righteous man: 
Aug. in Ps. Ps. 118. conc. 26.— qui justificat impium, i. e. per gratiam suam ex Impio facit Justum.  and to the like purpose he speaks upon Ps. 96. By such expressions St. Aug. truly speaks the inhaerent righteousness given us of God: and when he calls this Justifying a sinner, he uses the word Justify according to the Latin origination and importance of it: for thereby a man is made truly righteous by that grace received: righteous I say, for its measure and proportion: not to exclude Justification by an imputed righteousness through faith, which is the primer and more proper meaning of the word justify. If therefore we find St. August. acknowledge another Righteousness and justification, differing from that which he seems to ascribe to Inhaerent Righteousness: then have we our intent and purpose, and the Cardinal is impertinent, in his allegations out of St. Aug. as also in those other, which he pretends from other Fathers, which we may let pass, as speaking but the being of Inhaerent righteousness: not proving justification by it, 
Ambr. in Hexam. l. 6. c. 8. Justitia, unde justificatio derivata est.  in any proper sense: as for example. St. Ambrose (who is one of those Fathers cited by the Card.) speaks of it according to the Grammatical origination of the word, Justice (saith he) from whence Instification is derived.  
Now for St. Aug. his allowing of the imputed righteousness and our Justification by it. 
Aug. Enchir. cap. 41. Ipse ergo peecatum, ut nos justitia, nec nostra sed Dei simus; nec in nobis, sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum, non suum, sed nostrum, nec in se, sed in nobis constitutum.  See his Enchirid. where he thus explains that of the Apost. 2 Cor. 5. ult. He therefore was made sin, that we might be righteousness; and that not ours, but of God, and not in ourselves but in him: even as he was Sin, not his own but ours, and not in himself but in us. This admits none of their exceptions: as that we are made righteous in him, because we have our righteousness by his Merit, and the righteousness of God because we have it of his gift, and by the infusion of his Grace. This is all they can say, and this though true of our inhaerent righteousness, yet comes not home to the purpose of St Augustine, who saith plainly, As our Saviour was made Sin, not in himself but in us— and manifestly acknowledges we are so also made righteousness in him, that is, righteousness is imputed to us. See also how this is asserted by the Greek Fathers,  
Chrys. on that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30. He doth not say he hath made us wise, and just and holy, but he is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification: which is as if he had said, He hath given himself unto us. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And upon that of 2 Cor. 5. ult. Made him sin for us, the same Father thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in locum.  He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner. And here also he observes, as above: The Apostle did not say we are made righteous, but righteousness, and that of God, for it is the righteousness of God, when it is not of Works, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  but that we are justified by the Grace of God: and he gives this as a reason of the need we have of such a righteousness: because there must be found no blot or slain, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  so he observes, the Apostle said not, made him a sinner, but sin; for he named not the habit (as if sin had been inhaerent in him) but the bare quality, (as in the Abstract.) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in locum.  Which shows that when he said righteousness, rather than righteous, there is a righteousness made ours beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inhaerent quality. With Chrysostom agree Oecumenius and Theophylact, upon the places cited.  
So St. 
Cyril. Glaphyr. 5. cap. ult.  Cyril sets out our Saviour under the name of josedeck, which signifies the righteousness of God, because we are justified in him through the mercy of God, and unto this he applies that of jerem. 23.6. The Lord our Righteousness. Oecumenius upon Psal. 
Oecum. in Phillip 3. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  3.9. not having my own righteousness but the righteousness which is of God by faith: gives us a distinction of Righteousness not properly, or properly taken: That is, our Righteousness, or the righteousness of Works. This is the Righteousness which is by Grace, and the faith of Christ: And needful it is, in this Question and the Testimonies of Fathers concerned in it, to hold to the Justification properly taken.  
To this imputed righteousness belongs that of the ancient Father justin Martyr. 
Justin ad Diogen.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  What thing else can cover our sins, but his righteousness? and that which he adds, to be justified in him only, Which is a stronger expression then to be justifiedby him; and then he cries out, O sweet and happy exchange! wherein that? because, as the Apostle, He made sin for us, we righteousness in him: or as justin subjoins, because one man's righteousness justifies many unrighteous men.  
To this also belongs what Chrysost. hath— who with reference to Isa. 43.26. that thou mayst be justified: 
Chrys. homil. 3. de poenitenti●. Eximens poenae, donat justitiam, facit enim peccatorem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  thus expresseth himself as to this point. Freeing us from punishment he gives righteousness, for he makes a sinner to be alike (or in the like condition) to him that had not sinned: which must needs be by not imputing sin and imputing righteousness upon his faith and repentance.  
This imputing of Righteousness to him that believes will also appear by the Father's using the expression of sola fide, by faith only: There is scarce any Father but so expresses himself.  
I promised at the beginning to speak something of Faith only, and of Works, 
Of Sola Fides in this point of Justification.  as to that which Antiquity yields unto them in the business of our Justification.  
What this Faith is which justifies, was sufficiently debated 
* Chap. iv nu. 3, 4, 9  above, and also why and in what respect Faith alone is said to justify: The expression is exclusive; yet did not (as appeared above in the fourth chapter) exclude the praeparatory workings of the soul, dispositive to Justification: did not exclude Repentance and charity, but admitted them as conditions to Remission: did not exclude inhaerent Righteousness, but only from being the formal cause of Justification properly taken: else it was admitted as a Concomitant and necessary qualification of the subject or person justified. Lastly, it did not so exclude good works as if justifying faith could be without them: but did infer them as necessary consequents, engaging the soul to do them; and till so, it is not a believing to justification; and unless it continue so doing, (that is still to engage the Soul to well doing or good works) the state of Justification will not continue: I say, till Faith does so engage the Soul, it is not a believing with the whole heart, not a Justifying Faith. 
Chrys. in Phil. c. 3. v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  As St. Chrysostom (who often attributes the whole to Faith alone) requires it should be a working Faith; as where he saith, Faith ought not to be simply by itself, or alone: and then shows how our willingness to suffer, (and in like manner our well doing) is from faith: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for our fellowship with him in sufferings is from faith, for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer.  
I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers, using that expression of Sola Fides, Faith only: The Cardinal has recited many, 
Bell. de Justificat. l. 1. c. 25.  and undertakes to answer them. Well, he acknowledges the Testimonies, and for his Answers they come to this, That Faith only, is set against the works of Moses Law. It is true, that it is sometimes so: but we must not think that the Apostle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law, do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification; but do rather imply, that no men, jew or Christian can be justified by doing, what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandment, under which they are, as 
* Chap. IU. p. 102, 103.  above was shown more amply.  
Another of the Cardinal's Answers is; That faith only, excludes the outward work only (as in the sentences there cited out of Origen and Chrys.) but not Repentance and Charity. How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above; i. e. it admits them as Conditions of Remission, but not to that condition or Causality rather, which the Church of Rome advances Charity to, in the work of our Justification: which is not a little to the prejudice of the imputed Righteousness, and of that singular act of Faith, for which it's said, we are justified by faith only: But when the Cardinal tells us, those Fathers said by faith only, because the outward work was wanting: not to exclude Repentance and Charity: he should have told us, whether he meant charity in habit only, or as sending forth its elicit Acts, and inwardly working— I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justification to a bare, not working Habit, as to a bare and not working faith: which they falsely reproach us with; and then he should have remembered, he made Habitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification, excluding the Actual, that is, charity as it is acting inwardly or outwardly; for this it must come to.  
A third sort of Answer the Cardinal, and generally they of the Church of Rome have, for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in ourselves (and cannot be shuffled off by saying, they exclude thereby all righteousness of Works before Grace, or done by power of our Freewill without Grace) then to say, all righteousness in us is excluded and sometime denied, as of ourselves, because so we have none, but of the gift of God. This is in itself a great Truth, but makes no apposite answer, to Faith only, which we have not of ourselves any more, than we have other Graces, and which is the gift of God as much as they. When Chrysost. saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2. 
Chrys. in Ro. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  we have by Faith access into this Grace, (of Justification, reconciliation and peace with God) We brought nothing with us, but faith only: and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24. 
Oecumen. in Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith likewise, bringing with us Faith only, to our Justification: it cannot be answered, we brought nothing else of ourselves, for neither did we bring Faith of ourselves, to our Justification; seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else, as above granted: they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions, to our Justification, or as requisite conditions to the Remission that is in our Justification; or as fitting qualifications of the subject or person justified; yet Faith we bring, as that which has a singular property and efficacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification, for which it may be said Fide Sola, by Faith only. And this we are taught to say, both by Fathers and Scripture, that so we may attribute the more to Christ's merit and righteousness (which Faith apprehends) and the more lessen, or take off from, any righteousness in ourselves. We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact, which the Cardinal citys as objected by the Protestants: 
Fides sola habet in se justificandi virtutem. ex Theo. phyl. in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3.  Faith only has the power in its self of justifying: & cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it; Faith only is said to have that power, because there is nothing can justify without Faith: for so there are other things without which there can be no justification: but among all those things, or Graces, Faith only can be said properly to Justify.  
And now for justification by works, 
Not justification by Works in the prime sense.  it is in vain to put it to the trial of Antiquity: For as we may observe, the Cardinal, though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question, and pretends several places of Scripture, to prove good works do Justify: yet has he nothing from Antiquity for it. Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification, to which the Romanists (when they are forced to speak distinctly) do restrain their Justifying works; acknowledging all good works follow Justification (in the first and proper sense) and that this second Justification, is but increase in righteousness, (as 
* Chap. iv nu. 2.  above shown) We grant and so will the Fathers, 
Vide ch. iv nu. 8.105, 106, 107.  that we are of duty to increase in righteousness, and that our often actings, or doing good works, do augment the inhaerent Righteousness: and that the more we do good works, the more Favour we have with God, the more acceptable are we to Him: but there are two words we have cause to reject; Merit & justification. That good Works cause an increase of the habit, and do obtain additional grace, we grant: but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken, we shall see in the next Section: Our good works cannot properly merit. Also we see no reason why this should be called Justification, to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment, Man's Justification before God, and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works, barely delivered unto them. If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christ's merit and righteousness, and give Faith its due, which apprehends that righteousness, and be content that inhaerent Righteousness should hold its due place: there would be little cause of Controversy in this great point of Christian Doctrine. I will conclude with the Cardinal's answer to a saying of holy Bernard upon the Canticles. 
* Bern. in Cantic. Christus nobis justitia,— & in dulgentia Dei nostra justitia.  Christ is our righteousness because he justifies us from our sins: and, the Indulgence of God is our righteousness. By Indulgence and Remission (saith the * Cardinal) he understands full and complete Justification, 
Bel. de justif. l. 2. c. 13. Nomine Indulgentiae. & Remissionis, intelligit plenam justificationem, quoniam ut saepè diximus nunquam remittitur cul●a, quin simul—  because (as we have often said) the sin is never remitted, but righteousness is together with it insused. And so say we: But the righteousness, which Bernard calls Indulgence, is not the Infused, but the righteousness of Justification; for where sin is not imputed, there righteousness is imputed, as 
* Nu. 4.  above shown out of Rom. 4.6, 7. and this is indeed Divine Indulgence. But still we acknowledge, that continuance in the state of Justification, is by good Works, or continuance in welldoing.   

SECT. V Of Merit of good works.  
IT was observed above (Chap. V. nu. 1.) that the Council of Trent had defined, 
Explication of the Question and the Reason of Merit properly taken.  Good works do truly merit eternal life: but did not tell us plainly, wherein the Reason of Merit, truly so called, doth stand; only it gives us certain acknowledgements of God's bounty, promise, and grace, which are so far from being the grounds of Merit, as Mr. Spencer there calls them, that they do by necessary consequence overthrow it. The Question therefore being about Merit truly so called, it will be first necessary to see into that; for the clearing of it will plainly show the impertinency of what they allege out of Scripture or Fathers for their works truly Meritorious.  
We spoke something to this purpose (in the V Chap.) as Mr. Spencer gave occasion; We may further observe, that They who hold up the Controversy (for the moderate sort in the Church of Rome, do let it fall) use three Adverbials which speak the meaning of that Vere merentur, or truly meritorious: and they are simplicitèr, propriè, ex condigno, simply, properly, and condignly meritorious; as we see in their 
* Bel. 5. de justif. c. 16. Vasq. in 1.2. Tho. disp. 213. c. 4.  two great Champions for Merit.  
The word, Simply, is always exclusive of that which is so or so, according to some respect only; Now the respect here considerable and to be inquired into, has regard to God's promise, bounty, and acceptation, whereby good works (say we) obtain so great a reward; The Asserters of Merit, will not say, that their simply meritorious, does exclude the Promise, or all respect unto it: but lay the Promise as a groundwork of their merit. 
The word Merit sounds two things.  The better to understand this mystery, we must consider, that the word (to merit) sounds two things, obtaining, and deserving: the first stands by the promise, but the second (which carries the reason of merit) stands by the worth of the work. The Cardinal and his fellows must say, that if God had not made the promise, and of his gracious bounty appointed such a reward, the best service of man could not have obtained it, or brought him to eternal life: but they will also say, that such service would by the worth of the work and labour have deserved the reward. See to this purpose, what the Cardinal putting the question of works condignly meritorious, delivereth: 
Bell. l. 5. de Justif. c 17. Meritoria ex condigno, ratione Pacti tantùm, vel operis tantùm, vel ratione utr●usque.  This may, saith he, be three ways varied or considered: that works be called condignly meritorious, In regard of the Covenant or promise only; or in regard of the work only, or in regard of both; 
— Opus multò inferius mercede promissâ.  In the first he supposeth the work or service far inferior to the reward promised: as if a hundred Crowns should be promised for one day's labour in the Vineyard, 
— Opus revera aequale mercedi,—— Opus verè par mercedi.  In the second he supposeth the work equal to the reward, but no covenant or promise intervening; In the third he supposeth the work truly equal to the reward, set out in the Covenant or promise; and the example of this he makes the penny given to the Labourers in the vineyard, Mat. 20. And this third way he declares for, that Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of both, the promise and the work itself: Whereas it is plain, that the promise makes but way for the Consecution, or obtaining of the reward, and is requisite to make works meritorious only according to the first and less proper importance of the word meriting for obtaining: but as for deserving of the reward, (wherein the reason of Merit properly stands) that is laid upon the worth of the work, which is supposed, as we see, to be truly equal to the Reward promised.  
Vasquez, usually more free and open then the Cardinal, plainly professeth and mamtains, 
† Vasquez in Tho. 1.2. disp. 214. c. 5.  that good works without any promise, or divine acceptation are condignly meritorious of eternal life, and have of themselves a value or worth equal to it: For he saw that the pretence of the Covenant or promise, or divine acceptation, was no ground, but a prejudice to the reason of Merit truly so called: and therefore a little after sets himself to prove, 
Vesq. c. 8.— nullo msd● pertinere ad rationem meriti.  that the Covenant or promise does not at all belong to the reason of Merit; and makes this his argument for the condign meriting of Good Works: Sin, saith he, deserves a punishment equal to it, without all Covenant or Commination— therefore also the works of the Just do condignly merit the eternal Crown of glory, 
Vasq. ibid. cap. 10.— absque ullo pacto vel comminatione.  without all Covenant or promise, 
*— siqui dem ho● praetr●● aequale est—  for this reward is equal to the worth of the work without the promise.  
But this is thwarted by the Bull of Pius V and Greg. XIII. two Popes condemning certain Propositions, of which this is one. 
Vasq. ibid. cap. 13. ●  Even as the evil of sin in its own nature deserves eternal death, so a good work of its own nature deserves or merits eternal life. What else did Vasquez say? but he strives to clear himself by pretending this difference between his Assertion and the condemned Proposition: that the Author of those Propositions held good works without Grace were so meritorious, which Vasquez does not: Now whether Jesuits little regard what their Popes define in their Bulls, being never destitute of an Evasion: or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur, (that good works done in grace do as truly deserve; and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life, as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death) I will not further inquire into: but out of that which has been said, we may draw up the Question to this Issue.  
That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him (Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only) was indeed, 
The Issue of the Question.  if rightly interpreted, the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church, asserted by the Fathers, and the former Writers of the Church of Rome, as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted, and rejected. We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious: for being joined with those words, (in regard of the Covenant and promise only,) they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow: which is, by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining: and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation, when we do the condition which the promise requires, in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding; Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect, through divine acceptation. So it comes to this plain Truth: The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service, and certainly obtain eternal life. See Mat. 25.21. Well done, thou good etc.  
In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious; nor Brentius and Melanchthon, as Vasquez notes of them; and in this sense we need not be afraid to admit it, and to say, that good works do merit, that is, do obtain, or are rewarded with eternal life, through the gracious acceptation, bounty, and promise of God; and one would think this were enough for us, both to encourage us to do good, and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it, and persevering in it, without standing upon any farther title, or contesting with God that we have made him our Debtor, or that eternal life is due to our works, for the worth of them. This is therefore that which we deny, That good works do truly, and properly merit eternal life: Truly and properly, I say, as deserving it upon the worth of the work; and good reason have we to deny it: Finding all, they can bring from Scripture or Fathers, as I hinted above, impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called; yea, it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it, yea, they that asserted it, are forced sometimes by Truth itself to yield so much, as may overthrow it.  
First, out of Scripture, they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit; 
Scripture alleged for the Name Merit.  but it is only according to their Latin translation, not according to the Original Greek: The one place is Eccles. 16.15. according to the merit of their works, so their Edition; but the Original, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is according to their works, as we find it often said in the Scriptures. But Bellarm. 
— reddere sicut opera merentur.  and Vasquez reply: what is it to render according to their works, but to render to them as their works deserve or merit? to which we may say: Albeit such expression, (as their works deserve) may be very well admitted, yet is there much difference between Secundum opera, according to works, and as their works deserve or merit, taking the word Merit in the Cardinal's sense; for to say according to their works, is but to speak the quality of them, that it shall be well with those that do well, and on the contrary, evil to those that do evil: it does not speak equality between the work and the reward. St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. 
Greg. in 7. Psalmum penitential. v. 8. Si secund●un opera, quomodò misericordia aestimabitur? Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. In eo enim— ipsa operum qualitas intelligiu●—  Psalm. If it shall be rendered to every one, saith he, according to their works, how shall it be accounted mercy? but it is one thing to render according to works, another to render it for the works themselves: for in that, where it's said, according to their works, the very quality of the works is meant: that they whose works appear good, shall have a glorious retribution.  
Another place they allege for Merit, is Heb 13.16. which in their Latin Edition has promeretur Deus, as bad Latin as Divinity. In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is well pleased, and so by Occumenius, the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies as much as well pleased. Indeed the Ancient Latin Fathers did some of them, especially St. Cyprian, (according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit) use to say promereri Deum, i. e. to engage, or obtain of God what he had promised; but we do not contend about Words or Phrases. Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing itself, Merit truly so called.  
First they allege all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward, 
Their Scriptures to prove the thing. From Reward.  and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers: We grant it is so often called: but the Inference, therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward, is inconsequent; for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aug. in prafat. Ps. 31.  as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4. Accordingly St Aug. (Merces nostra vocatur Gratia—) Our Reward is called Grace, and if so, then is it freely given. And St. Ambrose tells us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis, the Reward or Recompense of liberality: where bounty is seen on the one part rather than desert on the other. Between man and man, there may be Merit, and Reward according to debt, or justly due: not so between God and man; yet is God's rewarding set out by the other, to show the certainty of the recompense, and that it shall be rendered according to their works; not that the similitude stands good in all parts: for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise, the ability man has to perform it is from God's free grace, the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do.  
Secondly, 
Of Reward given in proportion to Works.  They allege all such Scriptures, as speak the reward given according to works, therefore proportionably to the works; and what is that else but according to Merit, when as in giving there is regard had to the worth or dignity of the work? This Argument also is inconsequent: for admit that the reward is given according to works, and in the giving it, there is regard had to the dignity of them, yet does not this conclude them meritorious: as we saw above, Nu. 3. Good works indeed may be different in worth and dignity: yet all infinitely belwo the eternal reward: And in the reward there is the substance, and degrees considerable: the essential beatitude or eternal life, and the degrees of glory: All that are saved, have eternal life, not all the same glory; The Penny was given to all Mat. 20.10. To this purpose St. 
Ambr. l. 7. in Luc. 15. v. 17.— aqualem mercedem Vita, non gloriae.  Ambrose, Thou hirest in Labourers at the eleventh hour, and dost vouchsafe them an equal reward: an equal reward of life, not of glory: The difference of reward upon the difference of good works is in the degrees of glory: and if some proportion be observed in this, yet nothing of Merit: where God does but crown the greater gifts he bestowed here, with the greater glory there. If they will plead proportion, our Saviour tells them, 
Mat. 19.29.  an hundred fold is received: and that's no fit proportion, to ground Merit on; If they plead reward given according to dignity of the works: St. Paul tells them, 
Rom. 8.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The sufferings of this life, are not worthy to be compared with the glory— excluding all proportion of worth between the sufferings and the glory.  
Thirdly, Such places of Scripture, as speak works to be the cause or reason of giving eternal life— as Mat. 25.35. For— ye have fed— clothed— Which places (saith the Cardinal) do witness eternal life so given, 
Bel. l. 5. de Justif. cap. 3.— ut ipsam rationem cur detur vita aterna, in operibus ponant.  that they put the very Reason, wherefore it is given, upon the works. Those places do give a reason indeed, why such and such obtain eternal life— but not the very Reason, or the chief Reason; for there is a greater Reason; a Reason, wherefore such works are rewarded with eternal life; and that destroys the Merit of such works, though not the certainty of their obtaining; and that is God's gracious bounty and liberality appointing such a reward to such small performances; and therefore is it said in the 34. verse, an Inheritance and Kingdom prepared for them: and then dependently on that it is said Inherit the Kingdom, for ye have done that which I required of you, in order to inheriting the Kingdom; ye are such as they, for whom the Kingdom is prepared.  
Fourthly, 
Reward in Justice, how?  Such places of Scripture as speak God's Justice in giving the reward. 2 Thess. 1.6. 2 Tim. 4.8. But this is still inconsequent as to the inferring of Works meritorious: unless they can say, God renders the reward to good works, according to Commutative justice, which gives one for one by equal proportion; but such Justice is not found between God and Man; for man returns nothing to God, which he can call his own, nothing but what he has received of God. As for the destributive or remunerative justice, it is true that God may be said in some sense to render the reward in justice; yet not for the merit of the works, but out of the bounty of his liberality, and the faithfulness of his promise: God was not bound in justice to prepare, appoint, or promise such a reward to such works, but having appointed & promised it, it is just with him to render accordingly. So the Apostle speaking of the Justifying of a sinner (which the Romanists themselves say cannot be merited) useth the same word: that he might be just, i e. in keeping his promise to all that believe in Jesus. So when the Fathers in their high language speak of Man making God his Debtor, they mean it only in regard of his own promise, whereby he has freely bound himself. St. August. 
Aug. in Psa. 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se fecit, non accipiendo, sed promittendo.  may answer for them all, The Lord, saith he, made himself debtor, not by receiving any thing, but by promising.  
Lastly, Such places of Scripture, 
Worthy of the Reward, how?  as speak us worthy— So Luc. 10.7. 2 Thess. 1.5. Rev. 3.4. This argument as the rest is inconsequent— They are worthy, therefore their Works are meritorious, or therefore they have the reward for the worth of their works: whereas this worthiness arises by divine acceptation, by which they are accounted worthy. Bernard may answer them once for all, 
Bern. de dedic. Eccl. ser. 5.— illius dignatione non nostra dignitate.  We are worthy, saith he, by his dignation not by our own dignity: See also above Chap. V nu. 8, 9  
In the Testimonies alleged by them out of the Fathers, they give us but words, or bare say; 
Their Testimonies out of Antiquity examined.  But we produce the Father's witnessing for us against Merit, and giving reason withal to overthrow it. The Greek Fathers have not any word that fully answers the importance of the Latin word Merit; but the Romanists usually translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which occurs frequently in these Fathers, especially chrysostom, and signifies no more than recte facta, Deeds rightly done or good works) Merita, Merits. Such merits, that is, good works, we acknowledge the Fathers do allow: and the Cardinal acknowledges that St. Aug. 
Bel. de gra. & lib. arbitr. l. 1. c. 14. Meritum appellat quemlibet actum bonum, ratione cujus aliquid aliud accipimus.  (in whose Books the word Merit is most frequently found) uses it, for every good work, in regard of which we receive some other thing. Well then: we acknowledge holy men full of such Merits or good Deeds, and that they shall obtain, or be rewarded with, eternal life. And I dare say there is not any Father that affirms more: as we may see by that Collection, 
Bel. l. 5. de Justis. c. 4.  which the Cardinal has made.  
He gins with the Greek Fathers: but produces their say only in Latin and there he has (as I noted above) this gift, usually to choose the worst translation; so when he makes Ignatius say, ut possim promereri Deum, whereas the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to obtain or enjoy God; although we need not be afraid of the phrase (promereri Deum) which we shall see St. Cyprian often using, in an innocent sense, according to the meaning of those ancient Times. So the Cardinal makes Justin Martyr to say, victuros cum eo suis meritis, that they shall live with him (God) by their merits: 
Justin. Apolog 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  whereas the Greek is, to be accounted worthy of his conversation, or of being with him; In like manner, that St. Basil should say, speaking of the Forty Martyrs; 
Basil. in orat. de 40. Martyr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  They have merited (promeriti sunt) crowns of glory; and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits? where the same word is used, they were accounted worthy, or did obtain such Crowns; and that which he renders their Merits, is in the Greek their worthiness or virtue.  
He citys Chrysostom, saying in his hom. on Lazarus: rendered, according to their Merits: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Greek sounds according to their desert, and speaks of both wicked and good, and is no more than what the Scripture often saith, according to their works, 
Dispunctio utriusque meriti. Tertul. in Apolog. c. 18.  and what Tertullian calls the discrimination or severing of both merits, of the one to punishment, and of the other to reward; as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32. and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus, Luc. 16.25. they were dealt with according to their different lives: and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more than once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is according to their works, or desert: It speaks the difference of desert, in the one and the other, does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life: To this purpose it was spoken 
* Nu. 3.  above upon their alleging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits, for according to their Works.  
That which he alleges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers, speaks only to this purpose, that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works: which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients, and by us admitted, as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit, truly so called.  
The Latin Fathers cited by the Cardinal, 
Bel. l. 5. de Justific. c. 4.  albeit they have the word Merit more frequently, yet do they indeed speak no more than the former. St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase (promereri Deum) but according to the innocent meaning (as I said above) of those Times, 
— promeneri Deum.  for obtaining or procuring God's Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him: or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory.  
That which the Cardinal citys out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist. and out of Bernard in Cantic. contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit, put for good Deeds, only Gregory implies there, that the glory will be proportionably the greater, and answerable to the measure of good Deeds, which we deny not; but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory, which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality, should be made an argument for condignity of man's merit, as the Romanists do, and the Cardinal did, (above nu. 3) urging those Scriptures for Merit, which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works. But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine, (who was also Bishop of Rome, and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit) speaks indeed against them: So great (saith he) is the goodness of God towards all men, 
Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei, ut nostra velit esse Merita, quae sunt ipsius dona, & pro his quae largitus est, aeterna praemia sit donaturus. Celestina. in Ep.  that he is pleased, they should be our Merits, which are his Gifts, and that he will give us the eternal rewards, for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before, which destroys the very reason of their Merit properly taken.  
That which is cited out of Ambrose, de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more, then according to their works, whether they be good or bad: as above in the Testimony drawn out of chrysostom. The say of Hierome and Hilary, speak but the second thing we acknowledged, viz, that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded. Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more than the former. 
Aug. ep. 105. ad Sixtum. Sicut merito peccati, tanquam stipendium redditur mors: ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium, vita aeterna.  As unto the merit of sin, death is rendered as the stipend and wages, so is life eternal rendered (as a stipend) to the merit of righteousness. Where the stipend or wages is no more than Reward. This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom, 6. ult. A stipend is rendered as due for the labour of the warfare, 
Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur, non donatur: Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors; gratia verò nisi gratis sit, gratia non est.  is not freely given: therefore the Apostle said, The wages of sin is death, (and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend) but grace (or the gift of God) except it be free, is not grace; and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it: 
Intelligendum est igitur, ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera: quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur, quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi. tur? Aug. ibid.  Therefore we must understand, that the Merits (or good Deeds) of Man, are the gifts of God: to which when aeternal life is given, what is there else given, but grace for grace? And by this we may see, how St. Aug. meant, what he speaks elsewhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult. a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle: St. Aug. saying is this: 
Aug. de Gra. & lib. arb. c. 9 Cum posset dicere & recte dicere, stipendium justitiae vita aeterna, maluit dicere—  The Apostle might have said, and said it truly, that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal; he chose rather to say, the Gift of God— He might have said it in a true sense, (taking the word stipend as above, for a reward or recompense) not in an equal or answerable sense to the other (the wages or stipend, of sin is death) for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that, which the Apostle did say, but the gift of God is life eternal; nor with the end and purpose, wherefore the Apostle did choose to say, the gift, rather than the stipend; viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity: as it follows there in St. 
Maluit dicere, Gratia Dei vita aeterna, ut intelligeremus, non pro meritis nostris, Deum nos ad vitam aeternam, sed pro sua miseratione perducere.  Aug. He chose rather to say, The gift of God is life eternal: that we might understand, how God brings us to eternal life, not for our Merits, but for his Mercy sake. There is scarce any of the Ancients, that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally fallen upon it, but observes the apparent distinction which the Apostle purposely makes, in saying Death is the wage or stipend of Sin— but not saying so of life eternal.  
There is another place cited out of St. August. that makes a great noise of Justice in giving the reward: 
Aug. de nat. & gra. c. 2. Non est injustus Deus, ut Justos fraudet mercede justitiae.  God is not unjust (saith he) that he should defraud, or disappoint, the just of the reward of their justice, or righteousness. But upon what respect God is said to be Just in rewarding: was shown 
* Nu. 3.  above in answer to those places of Scripture, which spoke God's Justice in that particular. And the same answer may serve all those Testimonies which the Cardinal or others bring out of the Fathers, saying in some loftiness of Language that man by good deeds may make God his Debtor: The Wiseman in effect said so, Prov. 19.17. and that proverbial way of speech may bear it. That saying of St. Aug. (which in this Controversy of Merit, Truth has forced the Cardinal thrice to mention) will clearly unfold how God becomes, and may be called, Man's Debtor, and answer all plea of Merit, made from such speeches of the Fathers. The Lord, saith he, 
Aug. Ps. 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se secit, non accipiendo, sed promittendo.  makes himself a Debtor, and how is that? not by receiving from us, but promising unto us. To this purpose it is what the same Father saith elsewhere, 
* Aug. l. 1. Confess. c. 4.  O thou, that payest Debts, or renders what is due, yet owest nothing to any man, (qui reddis debita, nulli debes) where (debita) debts, are (promissa) his promises. And 
† Aug. Serm 16. de verb. Apost.— red, quia accepisti; sed●edde, quia promisisti.  elsewhere: We do not say to God, render because thou hast received, but render because thou hast promised.  
The Cardinal pretends he can easily answer all this, and replies thus: It is said so by St. 
Bel. l. 5. de Justif. c. 18. sect. Sed facilis— absolutè, sed solum ex promissione & dono suo; quod autem non ex sola promissione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficiatur Debtor, docet Aug. cum subjungit,— red, quod promisisti, quia fecimus, quod jussisti.  Aug. because God owes nothing to any man, absolutely, but only by his promise, and his own bounty and gift; This is fair and true: but nothing to his advantage, and therefore not many lines after, he sups it up again with the same breath, saying; Nevertheless, that God is made our Debtor not only by his promise, but by our work too: St. Aug. teacheth, when he subjoins; we may say render what thou hast promised, for we have done, what thou commandest. If this may be said to God Almighty, yet with such caution, that it cannot (as bold as it is) be a plea for Merit: for it must be said with respect to the bounty and promise of God appointing such a reward for them, that do so and so; and with acknowledgement of his Freegrace helping us to do so; wherefore it follows immediately in St. 
Et hoc tu●fecisti, qui laborantes juvisti. Aug. Ser. 16. de verbis Apost.  Aug. (which the Cardinal thought good to omit) and this thou hast done, which hast helped those that labour, or strive to do well. If we take it not as said in such a respect, St. Aug. himself will judge it a proud and presumptuous saying; for so it is censured by him, 
Against the plea of Merit.  upon Ps. 142. vers. 2. Enter not into judgement— where he brings in the presumptuous justifiers of themselves, saying; 
* Aug. in Ps. 142. Jejunavimus, & non vidisti; fecimus quod jussisti, quare non reddis quod promisesti— ut accipias quod promisi, ego dediut faceres—  We have fasted and thou seest not— we have done, what thou hast commanded, why dost thou not render what thou hast promised? To such (saith he) God will answer, that thou mayst receive what I promised, I gave unto thee to do. Finally the Prophet speaks to such proud ones, etc. If therefore man may so plead, render what thou hast promised, for we have done what thou hast commanded, it must be with such corrections; We have done what thou commandest, what thou graciously dost require of us, and accept as condition of obtaining what thou hast bountifully promised: We have done, but what was our duty antecedently to thy gracious promise; done what thou mightest have required of us without such reward: done what thou didst help and enable us to do: and done it but imperfectly, so that it needs thy merciful acceptation: and still we need to say, 
Testimonies of Fathers a 'gainst Romish Merit.  Enter not into judgement with thy servants, O Lord.  
Now to proceed to the Testimonies of Fathers, against Romish Merit. First we allege their say, whereby they plainly deny Merit, or that we are worthy. And here we must observe (as to the sense of those words, 
Those that deny Merit and Worthiness in us.  Merit, and Worthy, in this Controversy) a great difference between those say of the Fathers, which barely affirm our Merits or Worthiness, & those which deny the same: I say a great difference between the force of the one and of the other; For when they affirm, they speak according to the remiss sense of Merits, put for good works obtaining eternal life: and do mean such a worthiness that consists by divine acceptation; but when they deny either, they speak punctually to the exclusion of that worth and merit, which the Church of Rome would establish in the Works themselves, 
Bern. de dedicat. eccls. ser. 5.— dignatione divinâ, non dignitate nostra— Nec dignatio locum habet, ubi fuerit prasumptio dignitatis.  as answerable to the reward; Thus Bernard, We are so by divine dignation, not by our own worth ordignity: & a little after he saith, Divine dignation hath no place, where there has been a presumption or conceit of self-dignity: Thus when they are upon the negative, they speak punctually & distinctly of merit and worth, as concerned in this Controversy. St. Basil speaks home, 
* Basil in Ps. 114.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Eternal rest, saith he, remains for them that have striven lawfully in this life; not rendered, according to Debt, unto their works: but given according to the grace of a bountiful God. He speaks it with reverence to those words of the Apostle, Henceforth a Crown is laid up for me, 2 Tim. 4. and a distinction borrowed from the same Apostle, Rom. 4.4. of grace, or of debt: and so cuts out all the core of pretended Merit, which the Romanists would fix in the former place of 2 Tim. 4. 
Bel. l. 5. de In●●●f. c. 6.  The Cardinal citys this Testimony of St. Basil, as objected by Protestants, and shuffles pitifully in his replies to it: First leaving out the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to grace, he repeats the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Debt in the second place: and makes St. Basil speak thus, rendered not according to the Debt of their works, but according to the debt of a bountiful God, meaning, it is not rendered according to absolute debt or right: but according to the debt of Bounty. This exception of absolute right or debt is one of their general answers; But the Cardinal has this gift as to choose the worst translation, so to follow the worst copy, for the Paris edition has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the necessary consequence of the words would infer it, beside the reserence it had plainly to Rom. 4.4. from whence it was borrowed: And the Cardinal might have bethought himself, what good sense he could make of his repeating the word debt in the reddition, saying, the debt of a bountiful God— which surely cannot reasonably be said by the Assertors of Merit. But to show, he could yet speak more against sense and reason, 
Merita quae sunt homini à se, & suis viribus. Bel. ibid.  he adds a second reply: that St. Basil excludes only Merits, which man may have from himself and his own strength. This is their other usual exception to the Testimonies of Fathers denying Merit, that is say they, only such merits as are pretended to before Grace, such as are of ourselves and own strength; but how impertinently is this replied here to St. Basil, who most plainly speaks of their reward and works that have fought a good fight? 
Aug. in Ps 70. con. 2. Coronabit dona sua, non m●rita tua.  St. Aug. we hear often denying Merit. When the reward, saith he, shall come, He will crown his own gifts, not thy Merits. And above we had him speaking to Rom. 6. ult. we are brought to eternal life, not for our merits, but through his mercy: and elsewhere, 
Aug. Tract. 3. in Jo. Non pro merito quidem accipies vitam aeternam, sed progratia.  Thou shalt receive eternal life, not through thy Merits, but the Grace of God The two former places of Aug. the Cardinal sets down, and replies according to their usual exception: that he speaks against Merits before or without Grace. It is most true, that St. Aug. in his Controversy with the Pelagians does very often speak against such Merits, and that all those say of the Father are misapplied in this Controversy of Merit of good Works: but it is as true, that he often calls good works Merits, (Merits after grace) and of those he denies Merit in a proper sense, when he denies, not only the first grace to be given for our Merits; but eternal life also, and saith, that when the Lord gives it, he crowns not our merits but his own gifts: i.e. our good works, not upon the account of Merit, but of his free gift and bounty. That place which the Cardinal brings out of St. Aug. to countenance his impertinent reply, affords enough to confute it. What hast thou (saith that Father there) which thou hast not received? 
Aug. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum. Quid habes quod non accepisti? quapropter, O homo, si accepturus es vitam aeternam, justitiae quidem stipendium est, sed tibi gratiae est, cui gratiaest ipsa justitia.  (this indeed excludes all Merit before the first receiving of grace, but he goes on to the receiving of life eternal) wherefore, O Man, if thou shalt receive eternal life, it is the stipend indeed or reward of righteousness, (because righteousness or holiness of life is appointed as the condition of obtaining it) but to thee it is grace (or the gift of God) to whom also righteousness (or power of welldoing) is grace, and of the gift of God. And a little after he adds, 
Nunc ergò de plenitudine ejus accepimus non solum gratiam, quâ justè in laboribus usque ad finem vivimus; sed & gratiam pro hac gratia, ut in requie postea sine fine vivamus. ibid.  Now therefore we receive of his sulness not only grace, by which we live justly in our labours and endeavours to the end, but also grace for that grace, that we may for ever hereafter live in rest. Here is excluded plainly, not only Merit before grace, but afterward, and not only the first grace is here called grace; but eternal life alfo is called grace, and Merit every where excluded, because the righteousness, which carries the reward, is not of ourselves but of grace, and Gods free gift: as also the reward is of his free bounty and promise. In like manner, when he saith, 
Aug. Ep. 105. Cum Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud corona● qud●● muaera sua.  God crowns his own gifts, not our Merits, or as he saith in the same Epistle, God, when he crowns our Merits (our good Deeds) crowns nothing else but his own gifts: in saying so, he plainly excludes Merit after grace, Merit I say properly taken.  
To the like places out of Prosper (de vocat Gent. c. 17.) out of Gregory (on the seventh penit. Psalms, above cited) and out of Bernard, (de annunc. Serm. 1.) all denying Merit: the Cardinal has nothing to oppose but his usual impertinency, of Merits before, or without Grace; whereas they all speak of giving (not the first grace, but) the reward of eternal life.  
Our second rank or sort of Testimonies, is of such as affirm: 
Testimonies affirming our continual need of mercy and indulgence.  That the best need mercy and forgiveness, and that our righteousness stands chief in God's mercifulness and indulgence; and therefore our need of mercy excludes the plea of merit. St. Aug. upon Ps. 142. Enter not into judgement— and answer me in thy Righteousness— saith thus: 
Aug. in Psal. 142. In tua justitia non in mea, ad me enim cum respicio nihil aliud meum quam peccatum invenio.  In thy righteousness, not in mine: for when I look back upon myself, I find nothing mine but sin. He that begs so cannot plead Merit. We had occasion in the former Sect. to allege what St. Aug. in his 19 Book, de Civit. Dei, speaks of the imperfection of our own righteousness in this life: the same is forcible to exclude our plea of Merit. Such, saith he there, 
Ang. de Civ. Dei. l. 19 c 27. ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quam petfectione virtutum.  is our righteousness in this life, that it stands in the remission of sins rather, then in the perfection of virtues. And in the same chapped. he shows, such necessity incumbent on us in this mortal and bodily condition, that one thing, 
— ut à D●o petatur venia delictoum.  wherein man's righteousness stands, is to beg of God pardon of his offences and failings; and this, he saith, the Lords Prayer witnesseth, which teacheth us daily to beg, forgive. To this purpose that of 
* Ambr. in Exhort. propè finem. Vnde mihi tantum meriti, cui indulgentia pro Corona est?  St. Ambr. in his exhort. to Virginity. Whence have I so great merit, to whom Indulgence is in stead of a Crown? and upon Ps. 118. in reference to those words, thy tender mercies, and thy judgements, in the 156. 
Ambr. in Ps. 118. contione 20.— quis enim mostrum sine divina potest miseratione subsistere?  verse. The Lord (saith he) tempers his judgement with mercy: for which of us can subsist without the divine mercy & indulgence? And a little after concludes, the process of divine Judgement is made, 
* Non ergo secundum merita mostra, sed misericordiam Dei—  not according to our Merits but God's Mercy.  
St. Hilary upon the beginning of the 31. Ps. (or as with us, the 32.) where the Psalmist places righteousness in the forgiveness or not imputing of sin: 
Hil. in Ps. 31. Opera justitiae non sufficient ad beati●ud. nisi misericordia Dei— non reputet vitia.  saith thus, The works of righteousness will not be sufficient for a desert or Merit (or obtaining) of that bliss, 
Greg. mor. 9 c. 14.— ad vitam non ex meritis, sed ex venia—  unless that the mercy of God— do not impute our faults.  
Greg. the great, saith thus in his Comments on Job, If I grow up to the work of virtue, I come to life, not by my merits, but by his pardon and indulgence: To these say of Hilary and Gregory, the Cardinal answers, by their needing of the remission of Venial sins: as if the several acknowledgements of these and other Fathers, yea of the 
* Ps. 143.2.  Psalmist too, did but imply, they complained only of some venial sins; and stood in need only of mercy for them. Experience may sufficiently convince such conceit of vanity and presumption. 
Bern. de Annunc. ser. 1.  Holy Bernard in one Sermon gives many reasons against the presumption of Merits, and alleges the example of the Psalmist, Who (saith he) is better than the Prophet? (that is, could better plead merit and righteousness) yet he held it necessary to say, Enter not into judgement with thy servant.  
Our third rank or sort of Testimonies, 
Testimonies affirming our Duty to the excluding of Merit.  is of such as speak our Duty in doing all we can: conformably to that of our Saviour Luc. 17.10. Say, unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. The Romanists think to elude this Scripture, by saying: Though we be unprofitable to God, yet we may be profitable to ourselves, gaining everlasting life by our good works— This is true, but it's one thing to gain or obtain so great profit, as eternal life by good works, another thing to merit it by doing them: and if our being unprofitable to God will not overthrow the Romish Merit, yet our duty to do all we can will do it. Indeed unto Merit taken in the most strict sense according to absolute right and debt, it is required that a man bring profit and advantage to the person, of whom he challenges any thing by such Merit: but because the Romanists will say there is not such Merit between God and Man, therefore the force of the Argument rests upon the Duty— which silences all plea of such Merit they contend for: Merit truly so called.  
St. Aug. thus, O the great goodness of God 
Aug. Serm. 3. de verb. Domini— Cui cum pro conditione reddere debeamus obsequia— ut mancipia redemptori—  to whom though we ought by reason of our Creation to return all service and obedience, as servants to our Lord, as bond-servants to our Redeemer: he makes us promises of rewards as to friends.  
Bernard in his Sermon of the fourfold Debt, shows (as the 
* Bel. de Justific. l. 5. c. 14. sect. Tertia.  Cardinal acknowledges) that all our good works are so due to God, that he might exact them, although he would give no reward: 
Bern. de quadrup. debito. Creator tuus est, tu Creatura, tu servus, ille Dominus, ille Figulus ●u figmen●um, Totum ergò quod es, illi debe●—  He is thy Creator (saith Bernard) thou his Creature: thou art a servant, He thy Lord: He the Potter, thou his workmanship: therefore all that thou art, thou owest to him, of whom thou hast all.  
Theophyl. saith, 
Theophyl. in Luc. 17.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  A servant that doth not his work, is worthy of stripes, but when he has done his work, let him be content that he has escaped stripes: that is, if reward come for so doing, let him account and receive it as of mere bounty; for it follows in Theophyl. Therefore that servant ought not to expect honour or reward as necessarily following, or as due (as he might, if he truly merited) for it is of his Lord's liberality and bounty, to give him, yea rather frankly to bestow any thing upon him; where we may observe he did not think it enough to say (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) give him, but adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, freely bestow on him; the better to express the undeserved bounty of God, so rewarding man for doing what was his duty to do.  
Bernard gives a good reason against our Meriting, 
Bern. de Annun. ser. 1.  because all our Merits are Gods gifts (that St Aug. said often) but he adds, and for them man is a debtor to God. So far are God's gifts of Grace from being the ground of Merit (as the Romanists pretend) that they take from it by increasing our Duty and Debt.  
Our last sort or Rank of Testimonies, is of such as speak, 
Testimonies affirming the Improportion of our works to the reward.  our sufferings or do not to be compared with the Reward in any proportionable measure: and herein they have the Apostle going before them. Rom. 8.18. 2 Cor. 4.17.  
St. Ambrose thus; What can we do worthy of those Celestial rewards? 
Ambr. in Ps. 118. conc. 20. Quid possumus praemiis dignum facere coelestibus?  which has so much the more force in it, if we consider what goes before, and what follows after it. He had said before; God tempers his judgement with mercy, and none of us can subsist without the divine indulgence: then immediately after alleging that of the Apostle Rom. 8.18. he concludes, Therefore the execution of the heavenly decrees proceeds not according to our Merits but the mercy of God. Something of this, we had above in the second rank of Arguments, Nu. 6.  
Greg. the first, upon the seventh penit. Psalms, having said, God renders according to works, 
Greg. in Psal. 142. Illi namque beatae vitae, in qua cum Deo & de Deo vivitur, nullus labor aequari potest, nulla opera comparari, presertim cum Apostolus—  not for our works (which saying was made use of above) he adds immediately as a reason; For unto that blessed life, in which we live with God, and of God, no labour can be equal, no endeavour or do compared with it, especially seeing the Apostle saith, The sufferings of this life are not worthy— Rom. 8.18.  
Anselm saith, If a man should serve God most fervently for the space of a thousand years, 
Amselm. de mensur. Crucis prope medium— Non mereretur ex condigno, dimidiam diem esse in regne coelorum.  he would not merit condignly to be half a day in the kingdom of heaven; so great a disproportion did he conceive there was between our performances and the heavenly reward.  
Lastly, Bernard, on the Canticles: It may suffice for Merit to know, 
Bern. in Cant. Serm. 68 Sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant Merita.  that our Merits are not sufficient: for such a reward and bliss: besides many other say he hath in those Sermons to beat down Merit; as also in his Sermons on the Annunciation (the place above cited Nu. 6.) where among other Reasons that may be gathered, this from the improportion of our good works to so great a glory is one.  
The whole School agrees in this, that to merit is an act of justice; and justice always requires an equality between the things, which are awarded one for the other; as between the price, and the thing bought; between the offence and the punishment, between the work and the reward; And though the Assertors of merit as it stands between God and man, cannot find the Reason of Justice either commutative or distributive properly between them: 
Dur. l. 2. dist. 27. qu. 2. nu. 6  yet Durand holds them to it, if they will have good works condignly meritorious of eternal life in proper speech and sense, they must find such an equality and proportion between Man's service and God's reward, as Justice in a proper sense requires. To make up some proportion between them, it was Aquinas his invention, (and is held to by all the Assertors of Merit, for they have no better defence then to say) Good works are proportionable to eternal life, 
Quatenùs à spiritu San cto fiunt.  in as much as they proceed, or are done by the Holy Ghost.  
But this could not blind Durands eyes, 
Dur. quo suprà nu. 8, 9  who answers it with good reason. The force of that invention he thus puts by way of objection or Doubt: The grace of God's Spirit which we have, 
Etsi non actu, est tamen aequalis ●n virtute— Seminarium quoddam gloriae; Semen autem in virtute est tota Arbour.  is equal to glory though not in act, yet in virtue: because it is a kind of Seminary of glory; Now the Seed of a Tree, is in virtue the whole Tree; Which was the reasoning of Mr. Spencer above in Chap. V nu. 4. Durand answers first to that of their proceeding from the Spirit of God: An Agent, saith he, 
Agens non perficit passum secundum seipsum sed secundum aliquid immissum—  doth not perfect the patiented according to itself or its own perfection, but according to that which is put into or impressed, and formally exists in the act or the power of the subject: that is, although the Holy Ghost be of infinite perfection, yet the grace or gift infused or impressed is finite and imperfect in itself: Indeed the Master of the School who did not distinguish the gift of Charity from the Holy Ghost itself, (could he have made it good) might have stood upon the extraordinary perfection of that Gift; But all that followed him quitted that erroneous opinion: and the Assertors of Merit, not able to defend that opinion, can as little defend the answerable proportion, they say good works have to eternal life, because they proceed from the Holy Ghost: Durand adds another reason to confute them; because the Holy Ghost 
* Movet ad actus, qui non sunt meritorii. ibid.  moveth to acts which are not meritorious, as the prophesying of Balaam, and Saul; So the many gifts which St. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. 12. were all from the Holy Ghost; though such as the School calls Graces given gratis, 
Gratia gratis datae.  or not to the purpose of justification or Merit: yet all proceeding from the same Spirit.  
I will conclude with the Concessions of those that assert Merit truly so called. 
Concessions'  The Council * of Trent thus: Eternal life is to be propounded to them that do well, 
Sess. 6. c. 16.— tanquam Gratia filiis misericorditèr promissa, & tanquam Merces ex ipsius Dei promissione fideliter reddenda—  both as a Grace mercifully promised through Jesus Christ to children, and as a reward faithfully to be rendered through the promise of God to their good Works and Merits. If they would hold here, there would be no further Controversy; and if they will give cause still for exception, by adding for all this, that good works do truly merit, yet is that decree of the Council enough to refute it. 

— tanquam Caput in membra, jugitèr virtutem influit— Semper antecedit & comitatur & subsequitur—  
— Grata & meritoria— & Verè promeruisse—   Moreover, in the same Chapter the Council affirms, Christ infuses virtue continually into Persons justified, as the Head into the Members: which virtue always precedes, and accompanies and follows their good works: and without which they could not be acceptable to God. This is good: but inconsistent with that which follows: and meritorious— and that such do truly merit eternal life— for therefore those works (though acceptable to God) cannot be also meritorious because they are so from his free grace.  
The Cardinal, 
Bel. l. 5. de Just. c. 16, 17, 18.  that stoutly takes upon him to maintain (against so many honest Schoolmen and Writers, (that went before him) That good works are Condignly and truly meritorious, not only by reason of the promise of God, but by reason of their own worth: and that God is made Debtor to us not only by his promise but by our work: He I say, had before granted enough to overthrow such bold Assertions. 
Bel. l. 5. de Justif. c. 12.  For he proves a man must be received into the state of Adoption before he can Merit, and that is an Act of free Grace, also that life eternal is due to such children as an Inheritance: which Title overthrows the other pretended Title of Merit; For albeit Almighty God has freely prepared the heavenly inheritance, yet he will have us do something for it; upon the doing whereof we may expect and shall obtain what he has so freely prepared and faithfully promised: without challenging it by the Title of Merit.  
Furthermore, He tells us, 
Bel. c. 14.  the Doctor (whom Pius V condemned, and of whom we spoke at the beginning of this Sect.) 
— meritoria ex sua natura—  held that good works were of themselves meritorious, so that a Convention or free promise was not requisite for this, 
— gratuita promissio ad hoc, ut ex justitia debeatur—  that the reward of eternal life should be in justice due to good works. Now albeit what this Doctor asserted, was most false, yet does it plainly follow upon the Romish Doctrine of truly meritorious: which the Doctor saw plainly must be deserted, or this must be maintained: he saw plainly, that if good works were truly meritorious, they would be so whether there were promise made or no (for as I noted above, The promise makes not for the merit of the work, but for the consecution or obtaining of the reward) also he saw, that if eternal life were by a gracious and free promise, it could not be due to the work of Justice.  
Lastly, the Cardinal in the same place acknowledges, 
Bel. l. 5. de Just. c. 14. sect. Tertia— Omnes conditione servi & Mancipia Dei—— operibus nostris alioqui debitis—  We are all by our Creation servants, yea bond servants of God: and that there cannot be justice between us & God: unless he had been pleased of himself by a free Convention to appoint a reward to our works, which were otherwise due. Due antecedently to all promise, due from our being and Creation: and if all the justice that can be found 'twixt God Almighty and us men, be in regard of his promise only, as indeed it is, it cannot be in regard of any obligation the work itself casts upon God, to make him our Debtor, as the Cardinal above did not fear to assert.  
Truth, and the Conviction of God's free and bountiful dealing with man, extorts such Concessions from them, as do sufficiently contradict their bold Assertions, and might put end to the Controversy, if some unjustifiable ends did not still engage them.   

SECT. VI Of Purgatory.  
THat Purgatory is conceived to be a Place of pain or punishment, 
What Purgatory is?  & that for Souls of just Persons, departed out of this life, is plain by the 
* Sess. 6. Can. 30.  Council of Trent: and by the Reason or ground of it according to the Romish conceit; because it is for those, to whom the sin and the eternal punishment is forgiven, but the temporal not fully satisfied by them here, and therefore must be paid or born hereafter. This appeared above, chap. VI nu. 1.5.6.  
The Cardinal is bold to affirm, 
Bel. li. 1. de Purgat. c. 15.  that Purgatory is an Article of the Catholic faith, and may be proved all the four ways, that points of Faith use to be proved by, viz. by express Testimony of Scripture, with the Declaration of the Church; So is the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father proved; or by evident deduction from that which is express in Scripture; So is the Article of two Wills in Christ proved, etc. and so is Purgatory proved, saith the Cardinal: and he boasts that he has so proved it, by giving us many places of Scripture mistaken, as to that sense, and many say of Fathers misapplied, as to that purpose; which will appear upon the Trial following.  
It will appear, that this Doctrine of Purgatory is not Catholic, but the invention of later Times: taking Rise from that which St. Aug. hinted, as probable, touching pains after death: and then having an Advancement by fabulous reports of Visions and deluding apparitions in St. Gregory's time and after; at last receiving a Definition and establishment in the Church of Rome. And for the countenancing of it, They force many places of Scripture, and whatever they find in the Fathers, concerning prayer for the Dead, or touching a purging Fire; though spoken to other purpose: doing therein as those Heretics of whom St. Hilary said that they drew Scripture to that, 
— ad id quod praesumpserunt credendum.  which they had of themselves presumed, or before conceived to be proposed and held as matter of Belief.  
For better proceeding: We will reduce all to these Heads. The Place or state of Souls after death: The Prayers that were made for the Dead: The Remission of sins after death. The pains or punishment after death. What the Romanists bring from Scripture or Fathers touching any of these, we shall meet with. As for the Texts of Scripture alleged by them, we may say this in General: They have no consent of Fathers for such a sense as they would fasten upon the Texts they cite in behalf of Purgatory.  
First for the Place or state of souls departed; 
Of the Place or state of Souls departed. Scriptures alleged by the Romanists.  There are two Scriptures especially which they allege for such a place of Souls, as they fancy Purgatory to be. The one is Zach. 9.11. I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the Pit, where no water is: which text in the first and immediate sense speaks the deliverance of that people out of the Babylonish captivity: but is by many of the Ancients applied to our Saviour's bringing forth the Souls of the Fathers of the old Testament out of their Receptacle or Limbus. And the Cardinal acknowledges, 
Bel. l. 1. de Purgat. c. 3. Non est aqua Con● solationis.  it has been usually taken in that sense, but thinks it as proper for Purgatory, and the rather because in this there is not the Water of consolation, as there was in the other; And this is to be noted here, because we shall find the Cardinal below put to devise how prayers for the Dead, made by the Ancient Church for those that rested in peace, 
Bel. l. 2. de Purgat. c. 4. — admixtam cum cruciatibus incredibilem consolationem, propter certam spem salutis.  could concern Souls in purgatory, that is in Torment, and cannot invent any expedient for it, but by referring that rest and peace to the Comfort and satisfaction they have there together with their Torment, by reason of their hope, and assurance of coming out of those pains into eternal bliss. That which the Cardinal, for proof of his interpreting that text of Zach. in behalf of Purgatory, fastens upon St. August. is not that Father's expression or intention, but the Cardinal's misapplication. St. August. in the places cited by the Cardinal Epist. 49. ad Euod. & lib. 12. in Genes. c. 33. speaks of our Saviour's descending into Hell, and delivering some that were there; but i. e. in Purgatorio, is the Cardinal's addition.  
The other Text is Mat. 5.25. where we read of a prison and a payment to be made there, but what proof is there more than a strong fancy, that this must signify Purgatory? The Cardinal indeed alleges some Fathers, using those words of our Saviour as a Commination against Sinners, but that they should thereby intent a Romish Purgatory is still the Cardinal's misapplication. One and the chief of those Fathers cited by him, is St. Cyprian in his Epist. 52. ad Antonian. where He plainly, as we shall see below, applieth that of the prison, and the paying of the utmost farthing, to the Severity of Ecclesiastic Pennances and Satisfactions, under which the Lapsi, or those that fell in time of persecution, were held. Now when the Fathers give any direct interpretation of that place, they either restrain it to the literal, as it enforces concord and agreement between man and man: or take it in the parabolical sense as appliable to our agreement and reconciliation to God, for want or neglect of which the prison of Hell and eternal sufferings there will follow. St. Chrysostom and some others are content with the first way, 
* Aug. 1. qu. ad Dulcitium; and elsewhere.  St. Aug. and others apply it in the Parabolical sense: not to any place or pains of Purgatory, but to Hell and the pains never ceasing. To this their own Author's consent. Maldonat on the place expounds it of Hell and eternal punishment; so Jansenius. and others. 
Jans. concord. c. 40.  Salmeron seems indifferent, first setting down that Interpretation of the eternal punishment, and acknowledging Aquinas and others so to take it; but thinking it appliable also to Purgatory, citys the very same Fathers, which we said above, were cited by the Cardinal and misapplied as to this belief of Purgatory.  
Now see we what the Fathers hold out concerning the Place of state of Souls, 
The opinion of the Father's incounstent with Purgatory.  between the Day of Death, and of the Resurrection: We shall find it inconsistent with Romish Purgatory; as may appear by the Particulars following.  
I. They held but two stairs, places or Receptacles of Souls, the one of pain and grief, the other of rest and bliss; There is scarce any Father, but concludes this from the Parable or story of Dives and Lazarus, Luc. 16. the one going to Hell, the other to Abraham's bosom. I need not cite the places, which are obvious to every one that looks into their Writings.  
II. They did not agree about the particular place of the Souls of Just persons: which difference among the Ancients, shows plainly that this place of Purgatory was not then known. 
Iren. l. 5. ●. 31.  St. Irenaeus and many that followed him, held they were all kept in a secret Receptacle below or out of Heaven and sight of God till the resurrection; which place was also called by them Hades, or an Invisible place; and sometimes Abraham's bosom: This condition of Souls, 
Legem mortuorum servavit—  Irenaeus calls Legem mortuorum, the Law of the Dead: and saith, as our Saviour observed it, not ascending to his Father till after his Resurrection, so must all his Disciples: and gives this Reason for it, Because the disciple is not greater than his Master. Of this common Receptacle of Souls till the Resurrection speaks Lactantius in his 7. Book, and chap. 21. 
Tert. l. de Anima c. 7. & cap 55. & contra Marc. l. 4. c. 34.  Also Tertullian in several places: only he seems to allow Martyrs this prerogative to enter Heaven upon their death, as in his Book d● Anima c. 55. and in his Book of the Resurrection, c. 43. This was one opinion of the Ancients, and held by many; But others conceived the Souls of Just persons were admitted into Heavenly bliss and a sight of God: whom Irenaeus notes in the first words of the chap. above cited: 
Quidam ex his qui rectè putantur credidisse, transgrediuntur ordinem promotionis Justorum.  Some (saith he) of those, that are thought to believe aright, do transgress the order or degr●●s of the promotion of the Just, viz. by admitting them (as he conceived) too ha●●ily into Heaven: Of this Judgement was Cyprian and generally the Fathers after him: as we shall see presently. Now as the former opinion that kept Souls out of Heaven till the Resurrection could not stand with the doctrine of Invocation (as we noted above in the II. Sect.) so this diversity of judgement touching the place of Souls after death could not consist with a belief of Purgatory.  
III. Although the Ancients were not agreed upon the particular place, or degree of bliss: yet all held the place and condition, in which they put the Souls of Just persons, to be a place of rest and refreshment, and a blessed condition. This is manifest; because they set it out by the place of Lazarus: also because the Prayers which the Church anciently made for the Dead, were still pro quiescentibus, for them that were at Rest, as we shall see below; And St. Aug. (whom I specially name, because he first stumbled on a conceit tending to Purgatory) doth often speak of the secret Receptacle of good Souls as at rest: sometimes with distinction from that place where they shall be after the resurrection (as in his Confessions, l. 9 c. 3, and of the City of God, l. 12. c. 9) sometimes in opposition to that other receptacle or place of pain and grief, as in his Enchirid. c. 107. and in his second quest. to Dulcitius. But we shall have occasion below to show that St. Aug. was not at any certainty, as to this point of Purgatory.  
Lastly, Those ancients which held the Souls of Just persons admitted into Heavenly bliss, 
Souls of the Just go presently to bliss.  did suppose (and so expressed it) that they went thither presently after Death, without any diversion to, or detention in any place of pain and torment.  
The Author of the Questions in Justin Martyr thus: 
Quest. ad O●thod. ●5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  After their going out of the body, there is presently made a difference between the Souls of the just and the wicked: for they are both carried to places worthy of them: What are those places? The Souls of the Just (saith he) into Paradise; but the wicked into the Regions of Hell. St. Cyprian in his Book of Mortality, 
Cypr. l. de mortalitate.— Possessio Paradisi— in Patriam regredi— ad Christum ire— & cum Christo inciper● regnare.  giving comfort against the sickness that swept away many Christians, as well as other, useth these Reasons: Because good Christians by death are put into possession of Paradise: they do return into their own Country after their peregrination in this life: they then go to Christ, begin to reign with Christ: It is for him to fear death, that is not willing to go to Christ, and that believes not, he shall then begin to reign with Christ. 
— de turbinibus mundi extracti—  And when the servants of God are drawn out of the storms of this world, they gain the haven of and eternal mansion and security, 
●●tranquillam quietem— Justi vocantur ad refrigerium, i●justi ad supplicium.  and have an undisturbedrest; and at death, the Just are calle● to a refreshment, the unjust to punishment. All this to comfort Christians against death by their present removal to a blessed condition: And none of these can be said of them that go to Purgatory; for that is not to take possession of, or enter into Paradise: that is not the Country which the faithful seek: not a reigning with Christ: not the Mansion of Rest, or Port of eternal security, and undisturbed quietness. And these several expressions of this Father may assure us, that the place so much urged by the Romanist for a semblance of Purgatory, must have another meaning, then that they would put upon it. 
Cypr. ●p. 52. ad Antonian.  The place is this: It is one thing to stand (as a Penitent) for pardon, another thing to come to glory: One thing to be cast into prison, 
Aliud est ad veniam sta● re—  and not come thence till the utmost farthing be paid, a not her thing presently to receive the reward of their faith and virtue: 
— pro peccatis longo d●lore ●●uciatu● emunderi, & purgari diu igne— pendere in die judicii ad sententiam Domini.  One thing to be cleansed by suffering a long grief for sins, and to be purged a great while by fire, another thing to have all a man's sins purged away by the passion of Martyrdom. One thing with suspense to expect the sentence of the Lord in the day of judgement, another thing to be presently crowned of the Lord. The objectors of this place, were they not so ready to fancy a Purgatory meant, where ever they find mention made of a Prison, or last Farthing, or Fire, might easily see those phrases and expressions to be used with reference to the severity of Ecclesiastical satisfactions and penance, to which they that fell (the Lapsi) either by Adultery, or renouncing through fear the Christian Faith, were put to: The occasion upon which he spoke it, was an objection made against the receiving of those, that fell in time of persecution: that if such savour were shown them, and Ecclesiastical discipline let lose, we should have no Confessors or Martyrs. He answers, 
* Name & Maechis à nobis poenitentiae tempus conceditur, & pax datur, Non tamen, ideirco virginitas in Ecclesia desicit.  We give peace to Adulterer's after their time of penance fulfilled: and yet Virginity fails not in the Church, but flourisheth: then follows that place as affording reason for their receiving of penitents, from the severity they are put to, and the great difference between their Condition, and the happiness of those that have continued constant or proved Confessors and martyrs; And therefore he expresses that severity, with which the Lapsi were handled, in a reference to the Martyr's sufferings and privilege: That they stood long desiring pardon; before they could be restored to former state: that they were as Men held in prison, till they made full satisfaction; that they were put to a great Torment, in the shame and grief of their penance, and the anxious solicitude of obtaining what they desired: And lastly, as to the Sentence and Judgement of the Lord, there is a great difference between them and the Confessors, or other Just persons, who without suspense and such solicitude expect the sensence of the Lord: for that, Pendere ad sententiam Domini, is spoken either of the Time, while they are under Ecclesiastical Censures, during which time they continue in great perplexity and suspense, as to the sentence of the Lord, till they be reconciled to the Church: which often was deferred to the time of their Death: or else it is spoken in relation to a more severe scrutiny and examination, which they shall undergo at their appearing before the Lord; and not have that ready admittance, which Confessors and other Just persons that needed not their repentance shall find, being admitted without delay readily, 
Sine cunctatione—  as St. Cyprian speaks of them, or without judgement to grace and favour, 
Sine judicio ad gra●iam.  as Ambr. on the first Psal. vers. 5. whereas the other shall be held under a scrutiny, examination, an opening of their failing and denials: 
— quis pudor quae consusio?  what shame then and confusion of face (saith St. Ambrose there) when all shall be laid open, or when taken in that, which thou taughtest others should not do? Thus sometimes some Fathers speak of those, that die in a salvable condition, through faith and repentance though late: as distinguishable from those that died Martyrs, or having repent betimes, had lived long in a constant course of Christian profession, and careful performance of righteousness. St. Ambrose thus: 
* Ambr. de bono Mortis c. 12.  When that day comes (the day of death) they go to their Redeemer, to the bosom of Abraham: yet 
* ibid. c. 10.  elsewhere he seems to defer it to the Resurrection, according to the first opinion of the Ancients delivered above: Unless we take that going to Abraham's bosom generally, for a state of blessed Rest: and be that where it will, either below or in Heaven, yet their going thither presently upon death, excludes Purgatory.  
Dionysius in his Eccles. 
Dionys. Eccl. Hier. c. 7. parte 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hierarchy speaking of those that die in the Lord, transmits' them presently to a Christ-like Rest. Nazianzen in the death of his brother Caesarius towards the end of his oracio●, saith, Every good soul loosed of the body, 
Nazien in Epitaphio 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  goes presently to the state of bliss, which he there describes, such as he believed ●●s brother was gone to. And which is to be noted, he brings in the former Assertion thus: I believe the say of the wise, Every good soul being loosed etc. and for the Purgatien, mark the Parenthesis he there puts in, 
(Eo quod tenebras effundebat, purgato & deposito: vel quo verbo ca res appellanda sit. Nazian. ibid.  (that which did cause darkness, being purged, and deposed) which must be by death or separation from body: or by what word that thing is to be called, I know not.  
Chrysost. 
Chrys. in Mat homil. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  thus: This present life is subject to many sorrows and troubles, but no such thing, saith he, is spoken in Scripture, of the future: but there all grief flies away; and 
* Chrys. ad Philip. Serm. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  elsewhere speaking of Sinners and Righteous, he saith of these, being gone from hence, they are with Christ face to face— as the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.7. saith being absent from the body we are present with the Lord, 
Chrys. ad Hebr. ser. 4.  And in another place, he asks: what mean the Lamps, and Hymns, and Prayers (viz. at the Funeral of the Dead) but as signs of joy to tell us, The Lord has crowned him: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and has him with him. And in his 61. hom. in Joan. he saith of the righteous man dying, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) he goes away with the Angels, alluding to Lazarus his Soul carried by Angels into Abraham's Bosom. All this and often thus he speaks of the Just man, opposed to the Sinner that dies in his sins without Repentance: (for he usually divides All men into these two sorts.) but such righteous Men the Church of Rome sends to Purgatory. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
Epiphanius, 
Epiph. Haer. 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in the Heresy of the Cathari, shows that after this life ended, the condition is unalterable, the receptacles sealed up— the Crowns given— Not so, if souls truly penitent go to purgatory for of such souls he speaks there against the Novatians. Thus much of the Place of Souls.  
We come now to the second Head: 
Prayers for the Dead, infer not Purgatory.  that is, Prayer for the Dead, from which the Romanists would infer Purgatory. And for Scripture proof they give us 2 Machab. 12.43, a fit foundation for such an Article of Faith; the book of all the Apocryphals least considerable; which will easily appear to him that lays together, what the Author himself saith of his own work, in his 2. chap. v. 23, 24, 26. and chap. 15.38, 39 Evidences enough of a mere humane work, done by the labour of the brain not the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. St. Aug. indeed sometimes calls these books Canonical according to the large acception of the African Church: but being put to answer an argument of the Donatist, grounded upon the 
* Machab.  example of Razis, he much lessens the Authority of them: as not to be compared with the books of the Law, and Psalms, 
Aug. contra Gauden l. 2. c 23.— quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis. Luc. 24 44.— recepta non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur.  and the Prophets; to which (saith he) our Lord gives testimony, as to his Witnesses: But this writing of the Mach. is received of the Church not unprofitably if it be read soberly— Gregory Bishop of Rome citing a place out of these Books, 
Greg. Moral. l. 19 c. 13.  excuses it, because he did it out of Books not Canonical: in Moral. l. 19 c. 13.  
Again; he that well considers the place, will easily distinguish between the Fact of Judas, and the mistaken collection or misapplication of the writer of that Book. Judas no doubt did piously: for he seeing their Sin or Sacrilege, as the cause why they were slain: vers. 40. fell to his devotions; prayed and sent a sin-offering to Jerusalem, v. 42.43. Not for the sin of them that died: that's the mistake of this Writer; but upon occasion of their sin, to divert the Wrath from the rest of his Army: as Joshua thought himself concerned, upon the sin of Achan, Josh. 7.10. Also it is apparent that they died in their sin (the things they had stolen being found about them) which argues both the incogitancy of this writer (who vers. 45. supposes they died godly) and the impertinency of the Romanists, who suppose them in Purgatory, whither they send none that die in their sins, but only justified persons.  
They also urge 2 Tim. 1.18. for praying for the Dead: whereas that prayer for Onesiphorus (supposing him dead at that time) has but reference to the Mercy, which shall be imparted at the last day; to which also the prayers of the Ancient Church do much refer, and make nothing for Purgatory. And therefore all the Testimonies they bring out of the Ancient Fathers or Councils for praying for the Dead are impertinent as to the proving of a Purgatory: there being other Reasons for such praying; as we shall see. A wilful perverting it is of that Ancient Practice, to draw it off (as the Church of Rome has done) from the first intent and purpose, to fasten it upon their conceit of Purgatory pains. We shall see this better by the trial following.  
The Ancients, when they set themselves to give reasons of the Churches praying for the Dead, 
Other purposes of such Prayers.  give not this of Purgatory, (which had been most obvious and most fit to stop the mouth of the Adversary, had it been the Doctrine of the Church) but other Reasons they allege differing from, or inconsistent with Purgatory. This appears by Epiphanius, who was put to it by Aerius questioning the prayers made in the Church for the Dead: and by Dionysius in his Hierarchy, who puts himself to answer the like Questions. In both of them it appears, that the intent of the Church by those Prayers was mainly this: The instruction of the living and the confirming of their Hope. See first what Epiphanius saith.  
He calls this practice a seemly preaching or publishing: 
Epiph. Har. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of what? of the happy estate and Rest of those that die in Christ: whereby the belief of the living was confirmed and their hope raised. What more profitable, saith he, then that the living should believe, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  they that are departed are in being, and do live with the Lord. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  And again, There is hope, saith he, to them while they pray for their Brethren, as now in their peregrination or absence: Insinuating that albeit they are departed or gone from them, yet they shall meet again. Also to show 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is more perfect: which must refer to the state of the next life: for, saith he, while we are here in the world, we offend often. And lastly, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  because all men do offend and slip in this life more or less, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  therefore we pray for all even for Patriarches, etc. to separate Christ from all other; for he being without sin altogether, is not to be prayed for, but to be prayed unto, and worshipped These are all the Reasons he gives of their praying for the Dead: which we see do respect and provide for the instruction of the Living: and do not imply any such state of the Dead in pain and grief, as Purgatory supposeth, but the Contrary.  
Now see we, what the Romanists endeavour to pick out of words; Because he saith, Prayer for the Dead is profitable, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  although it cuts not off sins, all or wholly: they infer thence, therefore it doth cut off sin in part. We answer; As Epiphanius does not say that, so neither could he mean it: For first, we must suppose he would not answer impertinently to Aerius, who objected, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  If the prayers of the living altogether profit the Dead, then let no man live Godly, etc. Therefore Epiphanius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must answer to Aerius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and must be understood of the sins of such persons as Aerius spoke of, such as had no care of their lives, but left it to their living friends to pray for them after death. Now if Epiphanius should mean, that prayer did in part cut off such men's sins, then must he speak according to that merciful opinion, of mitigating the pains of the Damned by the prayers of the Living; with which conceit some of the Ancients were tainted: as we shall see below; but this would be nothing to Purgatory. Secondly, if his meaning had been, (as the Romanists would have it) that prayer for the Dead did not cut off such men's sins: but that there was another sort of sinners, whose sins and punishment it does in part cut off, (viz such as have not fully satisfied here, but must do it elsewhere) then would Epiphanius (had he known such Doctrine) have much forgotten himself, and betrayed the Church in not stopping the mouth of the Adversary therewith. To conclude; Epiphanius his answer to Aerius must come to this: Albeit Prayer for the Dead doth not (as you misconceive the intent of it) cut off such men's sins, yet is it for other reasons profitable; for such as were above recited.  
Another thing they object out of Epiphanius his words: that he saith, we pray for sinners, and implore mercy of God for them; but such sinners, say they, must be in Purgatory. Answ. Epiphanius doth not say, we pray for sinners, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but we make mention of the Just, and also of sinners: and of sinners, as imploring the mercy of God. Again, let the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) stand, which some question as put for (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) looking unto or looking at the mercy of God; and let it sound, as they would have it, an imploring of God's mercy: and let it have respect to the forgiveness of the Dead, which yet Epiphanius doth not say, but seems rather to direct it to the instruction of the living, to show, that forasmuch as we offend all in this world (as above noted) we all need mercy: I say let all these be granted, it would amount to no more than that which Dionysius speaks of their praying for the Dead at his carrying forth to burial: that all his sins committed through humane weakness may be forgiven him, 
Dionys. Eccles. Hierar. c. 7. parte tertia. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  and he placed in light in the Region of the living, in Abraham's bosom. And now see what this Author saith of that praying for the Dead, suitable to Epiphanius his account of it.  
He there by way of objection puts the Question: 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys. ibid.  By what prayers of the Bishop or Priest can he (the Dead person) be transferred into any other seat or state, than he deserves to be in? How obvious had the Answer of Purgatory been here, had it been known doctrine then? But nothing is said by him to that purpose: his Reasons (as Epiphan. above) implying that the intent of such praying was mainly to give hope and instruction to the living. First, he insinuates, In vain is the benefit of such prayers expected by those who are careless of the precepts, i. e. who live not well. Then, that the Bishop or priest in so praying, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  is the Interpreter or publisher of the Divine judgements: 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  viz. in giving rewards according as men deserve— and how that? 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the divine loving kindness in great goodness overlooks their infirmities or spots and stains of sin contracted by humane weakness. Thus that prayer which begs all his sins may be forgiven, is doctrine to the living, showing and assuring them of God's mercy to them that strive to live well, notwithstanding through humane weakness they offend often, and cannot be free from all spots and stains of Sin.  
Then in relation as it seems, to the other part of the Prayer, which begged, that he might be placed in light, etc. this Author adds. The Bishop or Priest knows such good things are promised, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  therefore prays, that they may come to pass, and be given to them, that have lived well. Also, He knows that the good things promised will come to pass, and therefore 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  as the Interpreter of Gods will. he shows they will surely be made good to them that so live and die. This is the very sum of his Answer, which plainly speaks comfort and instruction to the living. His conclusion is this: Wherefore the Bishop or Minister prays for those things which are promised of God, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  are to be rendered and performed; in which 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he declares both the good disposition of his own mind to God, and to those that are present, the good things, which shall be to the Saints. So still the end of those prayers was (as Epiphanius called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a preaching or Instruction to the Living that were present.  
Now these instructions for the living, and Indications of the will of God, and their own good disposition, They gave out by way of prayer and wishing, rather than by bare Assertion of the happy estate of them, that die in Christ: because this did not only speak such Truths, but did also witness their compliance of desire, and signify their affection towards the Deceased, and show their complacency and congratulation in and for the happy estate of the Deceased; that mutual wel-wishing, which is between the Members of the same body, the Church. It was more prompt, as to the expressing of their own affection; and more profitable as they thought, for the Living, to speak by way of Prayer, what the departed had, then by bare assertion.  
If it be objected, (as it is sometimes by the defenders of Purgatory,) that the like Prayers were made for the Dead, not only at the departure and Funeral, but every year afterward; and therefore must suppose them in such a state, or place wherein they wanted still forgiveness, and light: the things prayed for. This infeference is inconsequent; for still there may be like intent in the yearly using those Prayers, as was before expressed; the showing of their hope of them that were Departed, the instruction of the Living. 
Bel. lib. 2. de purgat. c. 5.  But the Cardinal also will furnish us with another Answer; for being put to clear an objection arising from a prayer in their Mass for the Dead: which runs thus (Deliver O Lord the Souls of all the faithful departed from the pains of Hell, from the deep Lake, from the mouth of the Lion—) and seems not to agree to Souls in purgatory, which they hold are delivered from Hell, and sure of Heaven; He answereth first, That albeit the Souls in Purgatory have received their first sentence already in their particular Judgement: 
Etiamsi jam acceperint primam sententiam in particulart judicio, eaque Sententia liberae sunt a Gehenna: restat ●amen Generale, in quo secundam accepturi—  and by that sentence are delivered from Hell; yet there is a General Judgement behind, in which they must receive a second sentence. It is a Truth indeed and Catholic Doctrine, that sentence for Mercy or Condemnation is passed both in the first appearing of the Soul before God at death, and after at the Resurrection or general Judgement, when the sentence is pronounced openly and before all the World: and to these, the Prayers made at the Funeral and afterward, may refer without supposing Purgatory: for this answer of the Cardinal though he applies it to souls in Purgatory, will fit all faithful Souls going immediately to bliss. Again, he answers. The Church useth the same manner of speech (in praying yearly for the Dead) as if their Souls were then going out of their bodies, or in their passage. So then prayers anciently made for the Dead year by year, need not suppose their Sou●s were in Purgatory: for such prayers may have (as the Cardinal yields) ●o other meaning than they had at the Obits or Funeral of such persons: which was to accompany them as it were to God's Tribunal, and to instruct the Living, by showing them, what they that die in Christ have, forgiveness, light, rest, joy.  
Thus much for Epiphanius and Dionysius, who on set purpose give us an account of this practice in the Church: by which we see, Their Prayers as they might be Petitions for what the Departed were yet to receive, so were they C●lebrations and Congratulations in regard of what they had received, and in both instruction to the living for confirming their saith and Hope as to the happy state of those that die in Christ: And by this also is apparent, what was intended by Offering the sacrifice of the Altar for the Dead, as they used to speak: No more, than the remembering of them in their prayers there and then offered up. But more to this purpose in the next point.  
Again; The Prayers of the Church for the Dead must in all reason refer to such a state of the Dead as was then known and taught: which as we saw above, was inconsistent with Purgatory.  
First, It was held by many, that the souls of the faithful were kept in a secret Receptacle till the Resurrection: and it is probable that this opinion being so ancient, gave the first beginning to these prayers for the Dead, the most ancient forms of which begin with a Memento Domine, Remember them Lord, because they held such souls not yet admitted to God's presence: and did beg, that God would give them Refreshment, 
Refrigerium.  because of that burning desire they have to the time of their Resurrection: and Light, 
Lucem.  because they had not yet the heavenly light of the beatifical Vision: This is that stay or expectation of the resurrection, 
Mora resurrectionis. Tertul.  which Tertullian speaks of sometimes.  
Secondly, It was held by most (as above also was shown) that the Souls of Just and godly persons, dying in Christ, went to bliss & heavenly happiness: who at the last day should rise first, and receive their public and final acquittance, and consummation. And certainly the Ancient Church, in her prayers for the Dead, had special relation to the Day of Judgement and Resurrection, finding how much it is referred to in Scripture. 2 Tim. 1.12.18. and cap. 4.8. and elsewhere.  
And to this did also refer the offering of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist for them; 
The Sacrifice of the Altar: or offering of the Eucharist.  which employed first, praise and thanksgiving for all that were departed in the true Faith of Christ, Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and all other, that were at rest in Christ: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quiescentibus in Christo.  This is that offering, pro dormitione, for the sleeping of such, which we meet with in St. Cyprian, that God had taken such a one out of the world's troubles, and given him rest in Christ; Secondly, Supplication by virtue of that once offered All-sufficient Sacrifice to beg all the mercies and good things promised; 
Chrys. in fine Hom. 24. in Act.  That they and we may attain to the good things promised, saith St. Chrysost. and so Dionysius spoke of the prayers made with respect to the good things promised (as we saw above) such was a joyful resurrection, a final acquittance, a Consummation in bliss: the mercy to be found in that day, 2 Tim. 1.18 and so it was pro dormitione, for their sleeping too by way of supplication. For that phrase of St. Cyprian, cannot imply prayer and supplication properly (for who can be said properly to pray for the sleeping of such a one, when he is dead?) but only in regard of the good things which he that sleeps in Christ, shall receive at his awaking. In the Liturgy going under the the Name of St. James: thus, 
Memento Domine omnium— ab Abel justo— facito eos requiescere etc.  Remember Lord all the faithful— from Abel the Just— Make them to rest in the Region of the living, in the delights of Paradise, in thy Kingdom— This cannot suppose these souls to be in Purgatory, for the Romanists cannot suppose Abel and the other Patriarches to be in such a place. So in St. Mark's Liturgy, for Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, it is thus prayed: Give them, O Lord, 
Dona iis requiem in regno tuo. Memento fa. mulorum— qui dormi. unt in somne pacis.  rest in thy Kingdom; So in the ancient Canon of the Mass: Remember Lord thy servants, which sleep in the rest of peace. Now as some of the Ancient prayers mentioned Patriarches, Apostles, Martyrs: so all of them were made for those that were at rest in Christ, and could not imply them to be in Purgatory. Nor is it here implied, that they wholly wanted these things that are prayed for, but that they might fully and consummately receive and enjoy, what already they had in part and in some measure.  
The Reason of this remembering of the Faithful, 
Reason of remembering the Dead in the offering of the Altar or Eucharist.  that are departed, is because all the Faithful Dead and Alive belong to the same body: and do therefore wish and desire mutually the good, which each other are capable of: they in bliss interceding for the Church below, and we below glorifying God for their reception into bliss, and entreating for their consummation, and the completing of Christ's Kingdom: and this most especially in the participation of his body and blood; in which all the members of the Church have their Interest, and by which they receive what they have or shall have. St. August. speaking of the Kingdom of Christ above and below, saith to this purpose: 
Aug de Civit. Dei l. 20. c. 9 N●que enim animae Piorum mortuorum separantur ab Ecclesia quae nunc est ●egnum Christi: Alioqui nec ad Altare D●i sieret eorum memoria in communicatione corporis Christi.  For neither are the Souls of the godly (which are dead) separated from the Church, which now is the Kingdom of Christ: Otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the Altar of God in the communication of the body of Christ.  
Thirdly, it was a known Truth, held, and taught in the Church: that Souls after departure from the body do appear before God's tribunal and receive their first and particular judgement: therefore prayers were made for Mercy and Remission at or in reference to their passage thither: the Living as it were accompanying them with their prayers, wishes, intercessions; Thus they prayed at the Burial or carrying out of the Dead: and did it as we saw above, for the reasons there mentioned, viz. the instruction of the living and confirming of their hope, and demonstration of their affection, and the like: And upon the like respects they yearly repeated the like prayers, as we hinted above, out of the Cardinal, acknowledging as much.  
Lastly it was a private opinion, but notorious and held by many: 
That the Damned had benefit or ease by the Prayers of the Church, a private opinion or misapplication.  That they which died in their sins without true faith and repentance might at length be recovered out of their Pains, or at least have them mitigated. And to these, the Prayers for the Dead, which begged forgiveness, ease or release were (I do not say referred by the Church, but) applied or rather misapplied by many. Origen gave occasion first to this Error; for he held that All should at length come out of their Torments: and his Error was, as Vincentius notes, a great temptation to the Church, by reason of the wit and parts of the Author, 
Aug. Enchirid. cap. III. Frustra quamplurimi aeternam damnatorum poenam miserantur affectu—  and St. Aug. tells us in several places that many were of this merciful opinion. Very many, saith he, do commiserate through humane affection, the eternal sufferings of the damned, and do not believe it will be so, etc. Of these also in other places, especially in his work Of the City of God: l. 21. c. 17, 18, 19, 20. where he reckons five latitudes in the extent of that Opinion, refuting them all.  
Greg. Nyssen seems to be deeply tainted with that merciful opinion, and is noted for it by the Greeks in their Apology against the Romish Purgatory made and given out in the time of the Council of Florence: for that 
* Nyssen in orat. Deus omnia in ommbus. Idem in orat, le Mor. tu●s. pag 1067. Mixtam clementi sententiam—  Father seems plainly to assert the restoring of all men to salvation: and in another place speaks of the purging of some, and their turning to God after death, who were impure in their lives. And that place of St. Hierom upon Isa. 66. ult. which the Cardinal misapplies to Purgatory (for it plainly speaks of wicked Christians) does show some tincture of that merciful opinion: Now it is plain that Chrysosto●e applies the Prayers and oblations made for the Dead, to such sinners; And I should choose rather to silence those errors and mistakes of some ancient Fathers: did not the importunity of the Romanists force us to show the misapplication of them to Purgatory: I shall insist therefore in some passages of St. chrysostom. 
Hom. 61. in Jo. Hom. 21. in Act. Serm. 3. in Philip.  The sinners he speaks of to be prayed for, are in several Homilies, towards the End of them, thus set forth by him. One, saith he, that daily offended God, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  One that lived every day to his own pleasure. One that died in his riches, and never used them to the benesit of his soul. 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  One that was (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) corrupted and lost: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and of whom he saith (Hom. 32. in Mat.) If God had seen he would have changed, he would not have cut him off before his Repentance: Such as these the Romanists will not say, that they go to Purgatory but to Hell; yet of these he saith, Let us mourn for such a one; but that avails not: Let us help him as we can. How is that? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by prayers and alms; 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  those things must be done, which may bring some comfort and ease to him. To this tenor he speaks in all the places above cited: but especially in Hom. 21. upon the Acts: Shall we not try (saith he of one that lived to himself and the Devil) to rescue him from the dangers and evils he is encompassed with? 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for there is a way, if we will, to make his punishment lighter; and this by making prayer for him, and almsdeeds, and these, saith he, so much the more, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as he was guilty of the more sins. And this he takes to be doctrine suitable to the loving kindness of God towards man. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And then a little after he adds, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Though we be not virtuous ourselves, yet let us get friends that will do this for us, when we are gone. Then presently follows. 
*— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Oblations are not in vain, nor Supplications, nor Almsdeeds. All these things the Spirit has ordained, willing or commanding, that we should help one another: Then he mentions the Offering of the Eucharist, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and saith; It is not the Minister simply (or only) that prays so for those that are fallen asleep in Christ: It is not he only that sends forth that voice, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but the Spirit. He indeed holds the Offering or Sacrifice in his hands, etc. And so goes on expressing the honour to be then remembered, and the power and efficacy of Christ's death, then represented.  
Where we may observe; that this saying of his, The Spirit has ordained all these things (which the Romanists do much urge, as if their prayers and offerings for souls in Purgatory were by an Ordinance of the Spirit) relates to the help of one another by Prayers, Oblations and Almsdeeds: which in general is true, so far as we are capable to be helped by them. But if it be particularly applied to the helping of such sinners as before he had spoken of, it makes nothing for the Romanists, for they will not allow that the Prayers and Oblations of the Living do avail or help such as died in their sins; but if it be applied to the Prayers and Offerings in the Eucharist, as he seems here to intent it, it makes nothing still for them or against us; for we allow that Ancient practice of remembering there, and praying as they did for those that sleep in Christ. The intent and purpose of those prayers he expresses in the close of his speech, that they and we, saith he, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  may obtain the good things promised, through the Grace and merciful loving kindness of our Saviour Christ.  
A place parallel to the former he hath in his third Hom. on the Epist. to the Philip. where speaking of Prayers and Oblations, with respect to the Dead, These things, 
Chrys. in Phil. hom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith he, were not in vain ordained by the Apostles: that a remembrance be made of those that are dead in the most reverend and holy Mysteries: For when all the people stand, and the company of Priests with their hands stretched out toward heaven, and the great sacrifice lies before them, how shall we not them move and make God propitious, while we pray for them that are departed? Here again the Romanists triumph, as if St. Chrysost. made their praying for Souls in purgatory an Ordinance of the Apostles: whereas he plainly restrains this Ordinance of the Apostles, as above he did the Ordinance of the Spirit, to that which the Church did in the Holy Eucharist; and that concerned only them, who were at rest in Christ: Nothing of Souls in pains and torment is mentioned in the Ancient Liturgies, or Prayers of the Church. As for this Father's speaking of prayer for such sinners, as he described in all the forementioned places, such as were gone to endless pains, yet might receive as he thought, a little case thereby: we must reckon it as a private opinion, and misapplication of that practice of praying for the Dead. And indeed he seems to acknowledge so much himself; for in his forementioned Hom. 61. in Jo. he faith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  in relation to those his exhortations for such prayers and offerings, These things I speak not as one giving precept or setting a Law: but as one allowing, and condescending to the affections and frailties of men.  
The Romanists here reply: that St. Chrysost. and others seem to urge Prayer for All: because they knew not who died in the state of repentance: and so they pray for all in the Church of Rome, yet hold those prayers appliable to, and available for only those that die in that state, and go to Purgatory pains. This is a mere shift, for St. Chrysost. does plainly suppose, that those sinners he speaks of died in their sins, such, 
Chrys hom. 61. in lo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as if God had seen they would have changed, he would not have cut them off before their repentance, as we had it above; such as he in another place speaks thus of, of such a one there is no cause to rejoice, but only, because the course of his wicked life is cut off: yet for such he exhorts to pray and offer, and help him as they can. And indeed the reason of this extending the benefit of Prayers to such sinners was not any supposal of Purgatory, but of some mitigating and easing of those eternal pains, to which such sinners were adjudged: and this in part according to that merciful opinion, and the motion of humane affection, of which St. Aug. speaks in his Enchiridion, C. 111. as we noted above; and to which affection St. Chrysost. gives too much scope, as we see in the forementioned passages of prayers & oblations for such sinners. But as for Purgatory pains, which are supposed to begin at death, & to end before the resurrection, he knew no such pains, as evidently appears by that exact distribution of the several sorts of punishments, made by this Father and cited below Nu. 11.  
What we have said of some expressions of Chrysost. applying prayer and relief to such sinners as before were described, may be said of that place, which the Romanists much urge out of St. 
Cyril. Mist. ●atech. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Cyril, who tells us, they prayed simply for all: and accounted it a great help to those souls, for which the prayer of the great and holy sacrifice was offered: and the great power, which that prayer hath to help, he sets out by the similitude of a King entreated to pardon and call back one that is banished; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  According to the same manner (saith he) we praying for sinners, render God propitious. Now if it be after the same manner, then by the force of this similitude it must be employed, that the prayers of the Church may obtain pardon for sinners not reconciled to God before their death, for so the banished person is supposed to be, not reconciled to his Prince: and then it sounds to like purpose as those passages in Chrysostom did, and is but a private application or misapplication of that Ancient practice: neither agreeable to the intent of the Ancient Church, remembering in her prayers and offerings only those, that were at rest in Christ, as by the Forms of those prayers may appear: nor making any thing for Purgatory, which supposes the person reconciled and justified before he comes there.  
But if the Sinners (which Cyril here saith are prayed for) be taken in a more remiss sense, for such as the Romish Church sends to purgatory: then the praying for them, comes to no more, than what we said above to Epiphanius and Dionysius; that such prayer had reference to the passage of such souls, and their appearing in judgement, not to their being in pains after death; For that such persons must appear in judgement, the first and the last judgement, and undergo a scrutiny or examination, and have as it were their hay and stubble burnt up, was a Catholic Truth: but that persons reconciled to God, dying and resting in Christ, should presently go to pain and torment was no doctrine of the Church, and therefore the prayers of the Church could not refer unto such persons. And we may observe that the undoubted Cyril (for those Mystagogical Catechisms are thought to be composed by John B. 
Cyril. Catech. 15.  of Jerusalem) tells us that Christ, when he comes to judgement shall draw after him a 'slud of trying fire, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which shall burn up all hay and stubble of their Actions. So that if such sinners be prayed for, it must be with reference to the fire of trial and examination, which they are to undergo in the day of Judgement, and according to the true Cyril. Thus much for that practice of the Church praying for the Dead: that it does not prove a belief of Purgatory, but was used upon other Reasons.  
The third general Head was Forgiveness of sins after Death: 
Forgiveness of sins after death or in the world to come.  out of which the Romanists would conclude a Purgatory. The Text of Scripture is our Saviour's speech Mat. 12.32. it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Here they are bound to make good three things. 1. That the world to come, signifies the Time beginning at every man's death. 2. That from our Saviour's Negative, nor in the world to come, this affirmative follows, therefore there are some sins shall be forgiven in the World to come. 3. That if some sins shall be forgiven, then to them to whom they shall be forgiven, there remains pain and torment to be suffered.  
I. For the Time. 
Of the world to come.  The world to come is not where put for the Time between every man's death and the Resurrection: for so it would be present to some and future to others; but is every where seculum futurum, which is so to every one: whether it be taken according to the Jewish acception, or the Christian. With the Jews, the world to come, did sometimes signify, the Time of their expected Messiah; and indeed that place of Isa. 9.6. where the Messiah is called Pater futuri seculi the father of the Age or world to come: to whom a generation shall be accounted, Ps. 22.30. does accord thereunto. Now it was an opinion among the Jews (as they that are acquainted with their Rabbins do tell us) that some sins should then be forgiven, which could not before: and accordingly it was an usual expression, by saying such a sin shall not be forgiven, no not in the world to come, to show the Atrocity and flagitiousness of such a sin, which the grace that the Messiah should bring, would not take away: and so our Saviour might speak this ad hominem, according to their common opinion and saying, to express the heinousness of that sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  
But take this Phrase according to the tenor of the New Testament which supposes the Messiah come already, The world to come, every where signifies that which gins at the Resurrection, or last day of this world. Then is fixed the End of this world, Mat. 13.39.40. & cap. 28.20. and then gins the world to come, Marc. 10.30. Luc. 18.30. Eph. 1.21. And so it must be taken by St. Aug. in that place which the Romanists cite, as to their purpose, for the forgiveness of sins not forgiven before: 
Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. Neque enim de qui busdam veraciter diceretur, non remittetur—  Otherwise, saith he, it could not be truly said of some: it shall not be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come: for if we inquire of him, when shall this be? 
— factâ resurrectione.  He tells us there, after the Resurrection is done. And so also Futurum seculum, the world to come, is taken both by Greeks and Latins 
* Concil. Flor. Sess. 1. de Purgatorio.  in their debate of this point.  
II. 
Of the Forgiveness.  For their inference from our Saviour's Negative, Not forgiven (saith he) in the world to come, therefore, say they, there are sins to be forgiven in the world to come: The Cardinal acknowledges it does not follow according to the Rules of Logic: Indeed such forgiveness, as they pretend in relation to Purgatory cannot in any reason follow upon our Saviour's speech. That there is a forgiveness of sins after death cannot be denied, so long as we believe there is a Judgement of God to come; for when that comes, and passes upon the Souls of men, either privately at their death, or openly at the Last day, there is an absolution of some, and a condemnation of others: a forgiving, and a not forgiving in the world to come: whether we begin that Time at the day of Death, or of Resurrection; but this forgiveness is nothing to Purgatory.  
Again, This forgiveness or not forgiveness of sins in the world to come may have regard to the forgiveness or retaining of sins by Man in the Ministry of reconciliation in this life; so there is a losing and binding on Earth, and a losing and binding in Heaven: in like manner a declaration of sins forgiven in the Church in this life, and a declaration of sins forgiven or not forgiven in the world to come For then it shall appear, that many sins forgiven by Man, (Clave errante, through misapplication of the Keys) are not forgiven of God, but shall receive sentence of condemnation; and many that have been unjustly excommunicated and condemned here, shall be owned and absolved there. And so in this respect it may be said truly, that whoever will continue obstinate, and rebel against light, as they that here blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, must not expect to have his sin forgiven, either in this life by the Church, or in the world to come, when God shall appear in judgement, and so it comes to what St. Marc. saith, 
Hier. in Mat. 5. Huic nullo tempore blasphemia remittetur.  he hath never forgiveness: and what St. Hier. saith upon the place; This blasphemy shall never be forgiven him.  
The Sins which the Romanists will have forgiven in the next life, 
Venial Sins.  are Venial or light sins. But why these forgiven in the next world when the great sins are forgiven in this life (as they acknowledge) unto those justified persons, whom they send to Purgatory? why should such small sins, which do not cut off the state of justification, or put the person out of the favour of God, be retained and called so so severe a reckoning, as is that of the Purgatory Prison? It is true, that sanctified persons after their Justification, are subject to the daily subreption of such lighter sins: but seeing, as St. Aug. saith often, we do for them daily confess and say, Forgive us our debts— why should not the general repentance and confession with which such Persons die, be available to the forgiveness of all such failings and secret sins, (that cannot be remembered in particular) through the merit of Christ's perfect obedience, apprehended by the faith of such justified persons?  
And as for the stains of sinful corruption, 
The stain or remaining corrupting of Sin.  yet remaining after forgiveness of the guilt and punishment: (the doing away of which the Romanists call forgiveness) what need is there of a Fire to purge them away? for it is not fire but the grace of God, likened unto fire, that can work that effect upon the soul. And why may not final grace, as some call it, do away the remaining corruption, at the parting of soul and body? They acknowledge that grace infused does it in the first Justification: not only taking away the guilt but the stain and corruption too; and why may it not do so, in the last infusion or communication? They acknowledge also that the stain of original Sin comes upon the Soul in a moment at the conjunction of it with the body: and why may not the contracted stains and blots of sin, be by the grace of God done away at the separation of soul and body? All this is far more reasonable to say, then from our Saviour's speech not forgiven, to infer, some shall be then forgiven: and from that forgiveness, to conclude such a Purgation of Souls as they imagine: More reasonable, I say; though not so prudential, it may be, considering what is gained by it in the Romish Church. For hear what the Cardinal saith of that Inference of the affirmative (shall be forgiven) from our Saviour's Negative (shall not be forgiven) It doth not follow, 
Bel. l. 1. de Purgat. c. 4. Non secundum Regulas Logicae, sed sequi secundum regulam prudentiae, alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptissimè locutum—  saith he, according to the Rules of Logic (that is of Reason), but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence: Else should we make our Lord speak inconsiderately in saying, neither in this world nor in the world to come. For their Prudence in drawing Purgatory out of so many pretended places of Scripture besides the Rules of Logic or Reason, we envy it not; but it was neither Prudeut nor seemly for the Cardinal to conclude, that unless such Inference were good, our Saviour had spoken inconsiderately, or (as his word sounds) foolishly; whereas we saw above, our Saviour might speak so in many respects, without reference to any such Purgatory: In respect to the Age of the Messiah, according to the opinion of the Jews; In respect to the General judgement of God, and the sentence then to be passed: In respect to the forgiveness of sins, and that losing made on earth. Another respect we may add, and say our Saviour might speak so in regard of the punishment of the world to come: which is the necessary consequent of not forgiven; shall not be forgiven, i. e. shall be punished. So Ferus on the place; and Chrysostom. And this will bring us to their Inference from these words which was the third thing they were to make good: and it is directly contrary to that of St. Chrysostom.  
III. They infer Purgatory pains from the forgiveness, which they suppose to be in the world to come: forgiven, i. e. punished. This is inconsequent and inconsistent.  
First, in regard of the Time, for the forgiveness of the world to come, is that final open absolution or forgiveness at the Last day: but their Purgatory forgiveness and punishment is secret and before that last day. But here they seem to answer; that sins indeed are forgiven at the last day, but to them that have first parsed the Purgatory fire; and for this an obscure place of St. Aug. is alleged. Even as at the resurrection, there will not be wanting some, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 21. c. 24. Sicut factâ resurrectione non deerunt quibus post poenas, quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum impertiatur misericordia, ut in ignem non mittantur aeternum; Neque enim de quibusdam veraciter directeur—  to whom, after the pains which the souls of the departed do suffer, mercy may be imparted, so that they shall not be cast into eternal fire. For it would not else be truly said of some: it shall not be forgiven, neither in this nor the world to come. What these pains are, and when suffered, he speaks not; and in the application of this Scripture he goes alone. Only he is plain for the Time of this forgiveness or imparting of mercy; that it is at the resurrection. But this will not stand with the Purgatory forgiveness nor with the profit to be raised out of Papal Indulgences, by which Souls may be loosed out of Pains every day, and sent to heavenly bliss before the resurrection.  
Secondly, in regard of the Opposition between Forgiveness and punishment. The former Inference, which from our Saviour's Negative shall not be forgiven, concluded, some sins shall be forgiven then, the Cardinal acknowledged not to follow according to the Rules of Logic; but from their supposed forgiveness, to infer punishment, is still more unreasonable. The Scripture sets, reconciliation with God against paying the utmost farthing, Mat. 5.25. sets the forgiving of the debt, against the paying of the debt, Mat. 18. 32. 34. The Greeks after the Council of Florence set out their Apology concerning Purgatory, in reference to what they had discoursed with the Latins there: where we find this to be one point of difference between them: 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  What agreement, say they, is there between Remission and such purgation or punishment? there is no need of both; and a little after they show that St. Aug. was the first that conceited this middle kind of punishment after this life in order to forgiveness of some sins; and the occasion that brought him into that conceit they also declare, which we shall mention under the next Head.  
Our fourth General Head, was concerning the Pains and punishment between Death and the Resurrection. 
Of Pains after Death. The Text of 1 Cor. 3.13. misapplied to the Purgatory Fire.  We have already considered them in relation to Forgiveness of ●n: now more specially of the Purgatory punishment, to which the Roma●●ists apply what they meet with touching the purgation of fire. We will first examine that noted place of Scripture so often misapplied by them to their purgatory Fire. It is 1 Cor. 3.13. the fire shall try every man's work, and vers. 15. He shall be saved yet so as by fire.  
The Cardinal acknowledges this to be one of the most difficult places, 
Bel. de purge. l. 1. c. 5. Vnum ex difficillimis locum—  and that so St. Aug. thought of it; and consequently he should have acknowledged it no fit place to ground an Article of Faith on: as affording no more certainty of a purging fire after death, than such as St. 
— non in credibile:— so sitan ita est.— non redarguo.  Aug. does usually express in the several places, where he falls upon this Text, such a thing is not incredible; It may be, it is so: and if any will take it so, I do not reprove him.  
Again, the Cardinal giving us the several opinions of the Ancients about the meaning of Hay and Stubble there mentioned, he cannot find any before St. Gregory that understood thereby Venial sins, and therefore all the Ancients were far from conceiving any such purgatory couched in this place. Also in giving us the several opinions of the Ancients touching this Fire: 
Bel. ibid. Sect. Tertio quia—  He tells us all the Ancients seem by the day (mentioned ver. 13.) to understand the day of the last judgement: and he gives four Reasons to prove it so: and after their different opinions of the fire (there also mentioned) he concludes, that cannot be the purgatory fire, because the fire in St. Paul, touches all, 
Bel. ibid. onmes tangit— at Ignis purgatorius non probat opera eorum.  even those that build gold and silver— But the Purgatory fire does not prove their works. 
— Apostolum ●olqui de igne severt & justi judicii Dei qui non est ignis purgans & affligens, sed probans & examin●ns.  It remains therefore that we say, the Apostle speaks of the fire of the severe and just judgement of God, which is not a purging and afflicting fire, but a proving and a trying fire: and for this he gives unanswerable reasons, and in asserting this the Cardinal is sound and ingenuous. But what will become then of his Purgatory fire? and wherefore is this Text urged for it? He finds it in the 15. vers. shall be saved, yet so as by fire; This in the Cardinal's imagination is the purging fire: But what consent of Fathers for this interpretation? He acknowledges that some of the Ancients do here also understand the fire of Tribulation, some the fire of Conflagration, some the eternal fire: as St. Chrysost. and Theophylact, taking the word, (
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saved) catachrestically, for an eternal abiding or living in the fire: All these therefore are not for the Romish purgatory fire: As for those Fathers he citys, they have another meaning; Cyprians words, Long purged with fire, 
— purgari diu igne.  were above cleared to be spoken in relation to the severity of Ecclesiastical censures and penances: in this Sect. nu. 3. That which he has out of St. Ambrose speaks no more then, (what the Cardinal before had cited him for) the fire of the severe judgement of God. 
— cui jun emendato (not emendatorio) igne opus non sit.  That which he brings out of St. Aug. upon Ps. 37. To whom there is no need of the amending fire: is falsely cited; for it should be thus, To whom being amended, there is no need of fire, that is, the fire of tribulation which God uses in this life to that purpose, and of which St. August. often interprets the fire here mentioned in this place. These are the three Fathers he alleges here for his interpretation of this Text, altogether impertinently; and these very Testimonies he citys again 
* Bel. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10.  in his chapped. of proofs out of Fathers for the Purgatory Fire or punishment. The like impertinency may be observed in all his other witnesses alleged there, and misapplied by him. 
Testimonies o● Father's misapplied, as as to the Purgatory F●re   
That which is cited out of St. Ambrose upon ps. 36. is plainly spoken of the last day. That which the same Father hath upon Psal. 1. vers. 5. of a fire, which they must endure between the first and second resurrection, 
— 〈…〉 magi quàm Lu●em.  that loved darkness more than light, I know not well what to make of, sure I am, it cannot fit their Purgatory Fire: For they that love darkness more than light, are of the worst sort; and those the Church of Rome does not send to the Purgatory, but Hell fire. In Hilar. upon Ps. 119. Gimel, the Cardinal meets with mention of an unwearied or not ceasing fire: 
Ignis indefessus.  and misapplies it to his conceit of Purgatory: but is plainly meant of the Fire at the last day. Hierom also upon the last words of Isa. their fire is not quenched: is alleged by the Cardinal, but the Father expressly speaks there of wicked Christians, for whom the unquenchable fire of Hell is prepared, and to that fire, that place of the Prophet is applied in the Gospels. Basil upon Isa. 9.18. is cited; to which may be added what the same Father saith upon Isa. 4.4. In both places he has nothing appliable to the Romish Purgatory fire: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but speaks of the Purgation or examination by the fire of the day of Judgement: and shows in cap. 9.18. how our sins are like grass for the spreading increase thereof, but by repentance and confession are dried and withered, and made like Hay and Stubble fit for burning up, (which alludes to 1 Cor. 3.) 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Then shall sin so dried and withered be consumed by the purging fire: viz. by the fire of the divine judgement before mentioned. The Greeks in the Council of Florence do well interpret that devouring or consuming of the hay and stubble by being made to vanish or disappear, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as things burnt up do; And so shall such sins or errors (as are there compared to hay and stubble) after they have passed the examination of divine Judgement be done away and appear no more. St. Basil also upon the 19 verse of that chapter, speaks of a punishing and afflicting fire: but what fire is that? the fire, saith he, that the Lord sent into the earth, Luc. 12.49. and that is the fire of tribulation in this life: 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Unto this punishing fire are our Terrene (sinful, carnal) affections delivered up; for the benefit and amendment of the Soul.  
Gregory Nyssen (in orat. pro mortuis) speaks of the Furnace of a purging fire, and is cited by the Cardinal for the Romish purgatory, but plainly means the fire at the last day, which (as the Father thought) should at length purge and restore all men. And those other words (which the Cardinal citys out of the same Orat.) 
— Non potest nisi pur gatus fieri particeps.  Of it he cannot be made partaker unless first purged, do plainly speak of one, that died impure and in his sins, yet may (as that Father thought) receive a purgation after, when the Soul (parted from the body) sees a difference between virtue and vice, and so turns to God: This speaks, what we noted 
* Nu. 7.  above of this Father, that he was tainted with the stain of that merciful opinion: derived down from Origen.  
Nazianzen also (in Sancta Lumina) is cited by the Cardinal, but intends the fire of the Damned, for it concerns the Novatians, that denied the baptism of Tears, (or the reception of Penitents) and therefore were in danger, if they go on, to be baptised with fire: So that Father threatens them there: and let the Romanists judge whether obstinate Heretics, such as they were supposed to be, are in danger of, and to be threatened with, the Purgatory or the eternal fire.  
And now our Argument for the Negative, 
They knew not such a Fire.  that the Fathers did not know the Romish purgatory fire (which gins at Death and goes out before the Resurrection, which afflicts and torments justified Souls) is evident by their speaking of several sorts of fire, that of tribulation in this life, that of the severe judgement of God at the last day, that of Conflagration at the end of the world, that of eternal pain after, and by their attributing a purgation to every of these; yet none of them mentioning the Romish Purgatory. Besides places newly cited out of the Fathers, I find Nazianzen, thus speaking of fire, in his 26. Orat. for Moderation in disputing: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The last fire, by which all our do must be judged, and purged: which is the fire of God's judgement at the last day. And in his 40. Orat. in Baptism. he thus distinguishes the several sorts of Fire. I know (saith he) the purging fire, viz. that which Christ came to send on earth, Luc. 12.49. the fire of tribulation in this life: I know, saith he, another fire, but it is a punishing, not a purging fire, viz. the fire of the damned. Had he known another sort of fire, that was both purging and punishing after death, as the Romish Purgatory fire is conceived to be, he would have mentioned it: In his Orat. de Pasch. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he saith, there is no purging after this life: and in his Orat. de plaga Grandinis, after this life is a time of punishing, not purging. The Romanists are ready to restrain such say of the Fathers, to such persons as were not at all purged here, or did not in this life begin to purge themselves; but his saying is general to all unto whom punishment or chastisement is due; and had he known the Romish Purgatory after death, he would not have let those former say slip from him, without some mention of it. Nicetas also that comments upon him would have taken occasion to have spoken of it.  
It was noted 
* Nu. 8.  above that St. Chrysost. upon that of Mat. 12. not forgiven in this— expounds not forgiven, by shall be punished here and hereafter. In the same place, he takes occasion to speak of punishment in this life, and in the next: Some, saith he, are punished here and hereafter, as the Sodomites: Some not here, but hereafter, as the Rich glutton, Luc. 16. Some here, not hereafter, as the incestuous Corinthian: Some neither here nor hereafter, as the Apostles and such Disciples of Christ. He did not know any other sort or rank of men punished, such as they are that go to be tormented in Purgatory; And lest it should be objected, that the Apostles and such Disciples of Christ suffered great persecution and affliction, and therefore were sore punished in this life: He severs the notion of Punishment from their afflictions or Trials. For speaking of the sufferings of Job, and such men, he tells us, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—.  they were not the sufferings of punishment, or inflicted on such men as punishments, but belonged to the combat, and were for their exercise. So may there be other ends of Gods sending Afflictives (after sin forgiven) then for punishment: but of that Torment in Purgatory, no end or reason can be given, besides punishment. We will conclude with St. Aug. the only Father that (for the first 400 years) spoke any thing to the purpose of that Purgatory punishment between Death & the Resurrection.  
It is very evident how he came first to stumble upon that conceit; 
St. Augustine's opinion touching Purgatory pains.  if we consider the prevalency and danger of that merciful opinion touching the pains of the damned, which this Father observed and endeavoured to work out of men's minds. This opinion touching the end or mitigation of those pains, we noted 
* Nu. 7.  above. The danger of it the Greeks in their forementioned Apology, do well note: saying, It was thought in the 5. Synod, to be a most cruel opinion, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  pernicious to the Church, and losing the nerves and endeavours of the virtuously disposed. St. Aug. saw this, and therefore often encounters it, especially in his book of the City of God: but in his contending against it, stumbled, as I said, upon this conceit; seeming out of his earnest desire of working that dangerous merciful opinion out of the minds of Christians, to be content there should be Temporary pains conceived to remain for some sort of men between their death and Resurrection. And this also the Greeks, in the aforesaid Apology, do observe in that Father: 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saying of the Latins in General, that to take away a greater evil (the ceasing of the pains of Hell fire) they yielded to a less: (a kind of purging fire) before the resurrection; and of St. August. they say, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that he willing & endeavouring to work that opinion out of men's minds, admitted this third sort of punishment. This is evident to him that will examine the several passages of St. August. one and twentieth Book of the City of God: as where he seems to be content, that men should think favourably of some mitigation in the pains of the damned, 
Aug. l 21 de Civ. De c. 24.— noideo consir. ●●, quia no resisto.  so they would hold them eternal; for of that opinion of mitigation, he saith; I do not therefore confirm it, because I do not resist it; he had 
* Aug. l. 21. c. 16.  before suggested what he thought more probable, viz. Some Temporal pains before the last day.  
There is a place which the Romanists much urge in behalf of Purgatory; what sense it bears is not very certain; but certainly it cannot be applied to Purgatory. Speaking to those words, in the sweat of thy brows, Gen. 3.19. he saith, He that tills his field, (i. e. orders his life carefully and virtuously) it is not needful that he should suffer after this life: 
Aug. de Genesi. contrà Manich. l. 2. c. 20. Qui coluerit agrum suum, post hanc vitam non est necesse ut patiatur; Qui non coluerit, sed Spinis eum opprimi permiserit, habet in hac vita maledictionem, & post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem purgationis, vel poenam aeternam.  but he that tills it not, but suffers it to be overgrown with thorns, he has in this life a Curse, and after this life, he shall have either the fire of purgation, or the eternal punishment. That he alludes here to Heb. 6.7. is very apparent: that such as are sent to Purgatory cannot be intended here, is also apparent; for these are careless and profane Christians, whose lives are overgrown with vice, and are supposed to so continue till death, and are therefore subject to cursing, and must be burnt with the eternal fire. And it is probable, he puts in that fire of purgation, by way of concession only to the merciful opinion: as if he had said, He that suffers his life to be so overgrown— must have his burning, either such as that opinion fancied, such at least; or else eternal pains, which indeed is the Truth.  
Now concerning these supposed pains or purging fire after death, St. Aug. uses many expressions of uncertainty, 
Aug. de fide & operibus, 〈◊〉 16. De Civit. Dei, l. 21. ● 26. Enchirid. c. 69. Ad ●ulcitium qu. 1.  far from any steadfastness of belief. As when he saith, If in that interval, 
Si hoc temporis intervallo— forsitan verum est— non redarguo.  or space between death and resurrection, any will conceive such a fire, such pains, It may be true, and I do not reprove or contend against it: Again, Some such thing may be after this life— and, 

Tale all quid etiam post hanc vitam fieri potest— & utrum ita sit quaeri potest. Non est incredibile.  
Talia quaedam judicia post hanc vitam— non abhorret, quantum arbitror, a ratione veritatis.   whether it be so, may be questioned, or inquired into: It is not incredible, that it should be so. Again, that some such judgements or punishments follow after this life, it does not in my opinion abhor from the reason of Truth. All these the Cardinal recites by way of objection in his first Book de Purgat. c. 15. But what answer gives he? This, That St. Aug. 
— dubitare solùm de genere peccati, quod punitur.  did only doubt of the kind or sort of sin, that was to be punished— which is altogether impertinent, as may at first sight appear to him, that looks into the places cited: Therefore elsewhere he gives these Answers; That St. Aug. doubted only of the quality of the pain or torment, 

Bel. l. Dubitat de poenae qualitate, an idem sit ignis—  
— an animae urentur igne illo doloris de amiss●one temporalium—   whether it were the same fire in substance with that of Hell: also, that he doubted, whether souls shall be scorched with that fire of grief, for the loss of things temporal.— But these exceptions or answers are also impertinent: for his Tale aliquid, some such thing, and his Talia quaedam judicia, some such punishments do not refer to any material fire, or fire properly taken, or to such a fire as Hell fire: but to the fire of tribulation in this life, which he every where speaks of, when he falls upon that place of 1 Cor. 3.13. and that some such thing, that is afflictive, may be after this life, he thinks not incredible; and that perhaps it is so. For let the Romanists conceive the pain or Torment of purgatory to be of what condition or sort soever they please, it will be answered by that tale aliquid, and talia quaedam judicia; and so will imply that Father's uncertainty in that his opinion of Purgatory pains after death; So for that fire of grief upon loss of Temporals, which the Cardinal will have St. Aug. doubt of: it is plain he could not mean that very kind of grief when he said tale aliquid, some such thing, but any kind of grief or vexation that should torment the soul as with a kind of fire. Whether there were any such thing, any such grief or pain, that's it he put to the question, and declared his opinion of it, that it was not incredible, but rather that he held it probable: and that place in his Book de Civit. Dei, where he delivered it positively, that there were such purging pains, can amount to no more than an opinion he had entertained; which he delivers there the more peremptorily, in opposition to that other opinion of the Ceasing of the pains of the damned.  
To conclude, the Cardinal declares it as a thing Certain, 
Bel. de purge. l. 2. c. 10. Certum, esse in Purgatory poenam ignis, sive propriè accipiatur sive Meta●hori●é.  that there is in Purgatory the punishment of fire, whether taken properly or Metaphorically: whether a real fire, such as of Hell, or such a pain, that as fire, torments the souls of men: Now St. August. his tale aliquid— of which he doubted, was such a thing, such a fire or tormenting pain: and therefore St. Aug. was uncertain of that, which the Church of Rome delivers as certain, and as an Article of Faith.   

SECT. VII. Of the Real Presence.  
TOuching the state of this Controversy, 
The question.  there was enough said above, Chap. VII. Nu. 1. That we deny not a Real presence, but such a presence as they contend for, such as by a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine, six the body and blood of Christ under the remaining species: the inconveniencies of which are hinted above chap. VII. Nu. 13, 16, 17. I will only add, to the farther clearing of this state of the Question, what the Cardinal notes upon the word substantialiter in the Trent Council, can. 1. sess. 13. It means, that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner, 
* Bel. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Christum esse in Eucharistia ad eum modum, quo erat substantia panis subsuis accidentibus—  that the substance of bread was under its accidents: this only excepted, that those accidents were inhaerent in the substance of the Bread. So then, such a manner of Presence is that which we deny.  
The Scripture which they pretend, (This is my body) was examined 
* Chap. 7.  above, and found to be best explained by that of the Apostle. 
* 1 Cor. 10.16.  The bread which we break, is the communion or communication of the body of Christ: which supposes the bread continuing in substance, and tells us how it is (notwithstanding) the body of Christ.  
And now for a brief Survey of Antiquity, upon this enquiry: 
Testimonies of Antiquity.  whether such a presence by way of Transubstantiation or fixing the body of Christ under the species, in stead of the substance of the bread, was taught as Catholic Doctrine. The Truth will quickly appear by the different condition and force of those Testimonies which they and we bring from Antiquity, within the compass of 600. years. Many sayings of the Fathers they allege, and want not for number but weight. For if those say or sentences be examined, they will be found not to speak properly and strictly to the point, but either fall short of the change here intended, or shoot beyond all measure, by some hyperbolical expressions: whereas we bring Testimonies of Fathers speaking punctually of the nature and substance of the Elements according to the proper and strict sense of those words: Also we bring real Arguments, necessarily concluding (by that which the Fathers disputed against Heretics) that Transubstantiation, or such a Presence, by putting the body of Christ in the place of the substance of Bread, could not be the Doctrine of the Church. We will reduce all to this Head: The remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine.  
First, To omit all those bare sentences, which affirm it to be the body or flesh of Christ, 
Say of Fathers alleged by the Romanists.  after Consecration; as speaking nothing but what we say, and what we conceive aught to be answered in the affirmative, if the question be put, Whether is this the body of Christ: And it speaks no more than the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16. This bread is the communication of the body of Christ: And it is to be noted that some of the sentences alleged by the Romanists, expressly make Bread the subject of that affirmative proposition, saying, Panem esse corpus Christi, that bread is the body of Christ, or the like: which kind of speech the Romanists, themselves acknowledge improper and figurative. Also to omit all those sentences, which barely say, the bread is changed: or transelemented, or the like. For there are many kinds of change, and that only, which is concerned in the Question, is the change of substance.  
Secondly therefore, Those Testimonies only may seem to speak something to the purpose, which say the Elements are changed in Nature: for this Cyprian, Ambrose and Nyssen are alleged by 
* Bel. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20.  the Cardinal. But the word Nature is of a large acception here: not expressing the substance or essence of the thing, but the condition and special quality of it, as we say; Things are of different Nature, some are common and profane, some holy and divine: so the elements after consecration are changed in their Nature, beginning then to be of holy use and divine virtue. On the contrary, we allege Theodoret denying they are changed in Nature, taking the word strictly for the substantial nature, as the dispute he there makes required he should do: 
* Theod. Dialog. 1. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  changing, saith he, not the Nature (of the Symbols or Elements) but adding grace unto nature, by which grace or blessing of consecration they become of holy use and divine virtue. Again he saith, 
Theod. Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Symbols do not go out of their proper nature. And this he spoke in answer to the Eutychian, objecting the change made in the Sacrament as a proof or illustration of the change of the Humane Nature into the Divine, asserted by those Heretics. In the place which the Cardinal alleged out of St. Cyprian, in his Sermon de Caena: is subjoined the similitude of the Humanity and Divinity of Christ, united together: which very frequently is by the Fathers applied to the business of the Sacrament. 
Omnipotentrâ Verbi carc. factus.  The Cardinal opposes, that St. Cyprian saith there, The bread by the omnipotence of the Word is made his flesh: Now what omnipotency is it, saith he, to make the Bread only signify his body? The Omnipotency, say we, is not in making the Bread a bare sign of his body, as he would impose upon us, nor yet in changing it substantially into the body of Christ, as he would have us believe; but in making the bread his body (or communication of his body) and yet to remain what it was, the same in substance: 
Ambr. de Sacram, l. 4. c. 4.  sint, quae erant, & in aliud commutentur.  as St. Ambrose expresses it, That they be what they were, and yet turned into another thing, viz. into the body and blood of Christ; and this he affirms to be a greater work than that of Creation, which made things to be, which were not. There is one place which the Cardinal citys out of St. chrysostom de Euchar. in Encaeniis. I could not find it, 
Num vides panem? num vinum? num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? absit! ne Cogites.  but thus it speaks as he reports it, Dost thou see Bread? or Wine? do they go as other meats into the draught? far be that from them! do not think so. Then follows, for as Wax, if it be held to the fire, is assimulated to the fire (or turned into a flame) and nothing of the substance remains. 
Sic & hic puta, Mysteria consumi Corporis substantia.  So also think here, the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body. Answ. It is familiar with that father, for better raising the thoughts from all earthly considerations in this Sacrament, to use such manner of speeches: Elsewhere he bids them, not to think they are now on Earth, but in Heaven, and that they receive it from the hand of a Cherubin or Seraphim: So here, Do not think thou seest Bread and Wine, etc. and so think here the Mysteries are consumed, as Wax turned into a flame; to show there is nothing of terrene or bodily consideration, nothing for filling the belly, intended or left in the use and purpose of this Sacrament: and so neither should there be any thing of that concernment in our thoughts. Now as to the point, which the Romanists aim at, the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine: We may say in strict reasoning it would follow also, that the Species of Bread and Wine do not remain, for he saith, the Mysteries are consumed, and those according to the Romish doctrine, are the Species after consecration. But in all Reason we ought to have more regard to Father's speaking punctually and properly in their Commentaries, or disputes, then loosely and and at large in their Rhetorical flourishes and persuasions, as St. Chrysost. often doth, and most especially on this matter of the Sacrament. We shall therefore now add some Testimonies of the Father's speaking distinctly and properly to the point.  
First of those that had to do with Heretics, 
Testimonies for remaining of the substance of the Elements.  and were in their disputes bound to speak properly and to the point.  
Irenaeus dealt against such as denied our Saviour to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament, or of the God that made and created all; against whom he brings one argument from the Sacrament instituted by our Saviour: saying, Our sentence or doctrine is consonant to the Eucharist, 
Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Nostra sententia est consonans Eucharistiae, & Eucharistia confirmat nostram sententiam.  and the Eucharist confirmeth our Doctrine: Why? because Christ as the Son of God, took of his Creatures Bread and Wine, to apply them to his own use and purpose. So his making an Eucharist of those Creatures or fruits of the earth, made against the vanity of that Heretical assertion: In like manner the Eucharist, or that which Irenaeus saith of it here, confirms our Doctrine against the Romanists. For there he saith. The Bread (after consecration) is not now common bread, but an Eucharist, 
Panis non jam communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. Iren. ibid.  consisting of two things, the terrene and the Heavenly. If not common bread, yet bread still: and if it consists of these two, then is bread still in it; for else it could not consist of it. And this is according to the Cardinals own reasoning, who intending by this place to prove a Real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, argueth thus. 
Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 6. Nihil constare dicitur ex eo, quod in ipso non est.  Irenaeus saith, It consists of the Earthly and the Heavenly part, but nothing can consist, saith the Cardinal, of that which is not in it: not observing that it equally proves the substantial presence of the Bread, for it consists of the terrene as of the celestial. Now we can say the celestial part, the substance of Christ's body and blood is given in the Sacrament; they dare not say it of the substance of the Terrene part; but betake them to the species of bread and wine: when as Irenaeus speaks of the substantial creatures and fruits of the earth, and it concerned him to mean so; else those Heretics might have said our Saviour took those Creatures to destroy them, and leaves only the appearance and species of those things, which the God of the Old Testament had made.  
Again, the Cardinal makes another argument from those words of Irenaeus, Our bodies receiving the Eucharist, 
— jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Iren. ibid.  are not now corruptible, as having the hope of a resurrection: wherein he abuses that good Father, and himself. For thus he argues from that saying. 
Corpora nostra reipsa fient immortalia, ergo panis terrenus reipsa fit corpus Christi. Bel. ibid.  Our bodies shall be truly & indeed incorruptible, therefore the terrene bread is truly indeed made the body of Christ. Whereas that Father speaks of the present, Our bodies are not now corruptible, which the Cardinal turns into, shall be incorruptible: because he could not say, they are now truly and indeed incorruptible. So that according to this Father the Argument would stand thus: As our bodies now are incorruptible, (not because they are so according to nature and substance, but) in as much as they have the hope of a resurrection; so the Bread is the body of Christ, (not because changed in nature and substance, but) in as much as by the grace of consecration it is the communion of his body.  
Tertullian had to do with Martion and such Heretics that denied Christ had a true and solid body. And he proves the contrary by Bread the figure of his body, 
Tertul. contra Martion. lib. 4. c. 40. Non fuisset figura, nisi veritatis esset corpus.  both in the Old Testament and in the Eucharist. Now, saith he, it could not be the figure of his body, if his body were not a true body; And if there be force in this Reason, than should Martion (supposing Transubstantiation) have great advantage upon a fantastical figure, that had no substance of bread, but only the Accidents and appearances: and upon such a fantastical mode of a Body, 
Si proprereas panem sibi corpus sinxit, quia corporis carebat veritate— Tert. ibid.  as the Romish doctrine puts our Saviour's body into. Also the words following: If he took bread (as those Heretics said) to make it his body, because he wanted a true body: than it would follow, that Bread was given and crucified for us: These words (I say) do necessarily suppose the substance of Bread to remain: for how could that be said, if the Bread also should want the truth of a body; remaining only in show and appearance? which would much have confirmed Martion in his misbelief of the reality of Christ's body, of which there should be so fantastical a figure or sign. This is so evident and convincing, that Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations, acknowledges Tertullian of this judgement, That Bread is so the figure of Christ's body, that it still remains the same in substance as it was before.  
Add to this what he saith elsewhere: 
Tertul. de anima c. 17. Sensus non falli circa objecta, ne hinc aliquid procuretur Haereticis, de Christo phantasma credentibus. Non est gustus Discipulorum judificatus—  The senses are not deceived in their own objects, lest thereby something of advantage might be yielded to the Heretics, making but a phantasm of Christ. The taste of the disciples was not deceived, when in the marriage of Cana they drank wine made of Water, nor was the Feeling of Thomas abused, when he put his finger in our Saviour's side— Nor are our senses (may we say) abused or deceived, when they tell us, this is true bread, which is in the Sacrament.  
Theodoret had to do with the Eutychian Heretics, that held our Saviour's humanity swallowed up in the Divine Nature: for which they made Argument from the Sacrament; 
Theod. D●● al. 2.  That even as the Symbols or Elements were after consecration changed into another thing (for such was the common phrase of that Time, when speech was of the Sacrament) so is the humane Nature or body of the Lord, after assumption changed into the divine substance. This Argument had been unanswerable had Transubstantiation been then the Doctrine of the Church; But Theodoret answers him that makes this Argument; Thou art taken in thy own Net: for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but remain in their former substance, and figure and shape. That the words, Nature, and Substance must be here taken properly, and not confounded (as in the Romanists irrational answer they are) with the Accidents or Species of the Bread and Wine, is clearly evinced both by the absurdity of putting Substance for Accidents, and by the very reason of the Argument here made, which supposeth Nature and Substance properly taken on the Eutychian part, and so must be meant in Theodoret's Reply, to the plain exclusion of a Substantial change.  
The like demonstration is made by Gelasius in his 
* In Biblioth. Patrum, To. 5. part. 3.  Book of the two Natures of Christ, against Eutyches & Nestorius. Of which Book the 
† Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 27. Idem prorsùs docet, quod Theodoretus, & ad eandem rem confirmandam.  Cardinal acknowledgeth, that Gelasius taught the same with Theodoret, and for confirming of the very same thing. It being familiar with the Catholic writers of those Times, to use the instance of the Eucharist against the Eutychian Heresy; which did necessarily infer the remaining of the substance of the Elements, to show the remaining of the humane Nature of Christ after its assumption. Nay before that Heresy appeared, some of the Ancients did make use of the same Instance, arguing from the Union of the two Natures in Christ, to show the Sacramental Union, as they that wrote against Eutyches did from the Sacrament borrow a demonstration or illustration for the two Natures united in our Saviour Christ. Justin Martyr saith thus, We take these not as common bread, or common drink, 
Just. Apol. 2. ad Anton.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  but even as Jesus Christ being made Flesh by the Word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation: 
*— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  So we learn also, that the meat or food, (which by the prayer of his Word is blessed and made an Eucharist, & by which our flesh and blood through the change of it, are nourished) is the flesh and blood of the same incarned Jesus. Here is Bread, though not common bread after consecration; and Bread remaining in Substance, for it nourishes our bodies by a change into our flesh, and it must answer to our Saviour's flesh remaining in substance after the Incarnation: notwithstanding that it is made the body of Christ, so far as the reason and purpose of the Eucharist requires.  
St. Cyprian or the Author of that Sermon de Coena: of the Lords Supper saith, Even as in the Person of Christ, 
Sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat, latebat Divinitas; ità sacro visibili divina se ineffabiliter infundit essentia.  the humanity appeared, and the Divinity laid hid: So doth the divine essence ineffably insinuate itself into the visible sacred Element. This place is cited for a Real Presence, by the Cardinal: but he should have considered, it cannot be such a Real Presence as will serve his turn. For the substantial presence of the visible outward element is equally proved by this saying of the Father; and a dangerous thing it is to make the bread and wine remain, as the Cardinal doth, in show and appearance only; which renders this instance of the Sacrament held altogether useless against those Heretics, which held our Saviour's body or humanity was but such in appearance only, not substance.  
Thus the Fathers that dealt with Heretics were bound to speak properly and distinctly; and did so, as we have seen. We will add to these, First, Origen speaking by way of distinction, 
Orig. in Mat. 15.17. Ille cibus quisanctificatur per— juxtà id, quod habet Materiale, in Secessum mittitur.  and therefore exactly to the point. That food, saith he, that is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer, according to the Material part of it, (there's his distinction) goes into the belly and is sent into the draught. The Cardinal is here driven to their poor shift, of interpreting the Material part of that food, by the Visible Accidents of it.  
Secondly, St. Ambrose his saying is remarkable, speaking of the Elements: That they be what they were, 
Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4.  sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur.  and yet be changed into another thing: that is, made the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Cardinal makes two impertinent answers: First, that some read it, ( quae erant, in aliud commutentur) that the things which were, be turned into another thing; and this he approves as consonant to that, which St. Ambrose speaks in his Book de Initiandis: 
Ambr. de Init. c. 9 Sermo qui potuit ex nihil● facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt mutare in id, qued non erant?  That Word, which could make of nothing that which was not (so in the Creation) can it not change those things that were, into that which they were not? So in the Sacrament. But the purpose of the Father in this place is different, from what it was in the former: here he shows the possibility of this change in the Sacrament, by that of the Creation: arguing a majori ad minus, from the greater work to the less: it being a greater work to make a thing out of nothing, then out of that which was; and so in that respect it was fitting to say, ea quae sunt— those things that are, be changed into what they were not. But in the former place it was his purpose to show the greatness of this work or change in the Sacrament above that of the Creation: for which it was necessary to say (ut sint quae erant) that they be what they were: for though it be a greater work to make a thing out of nothing, as Wine created, then to make it out of that which was before, as Wine out of water, Joh. 2. yet is it a greater work than that of Creation, to make or change things into another thing, and yet those things to remain what they were: as in the Sacrament. 
Quantò magis est operatorius— ut sint quae erant—  How much more operative is that word (saith he) that they be what they were, and yet changed into another thing? The Cardinal therefore in his second answer, retires to his old shift, saying that the outward Accidents remain what they were. But he might have remembered that sint and erant are Verbs Substantives, and when spoken of bodies (as here) simply and without the adjection of qualities or Accidents attributed to them, must mean the substantial being of such bodies. Or if the Cardinal had inquired, what are changed into another thing, he would have found, those things that are, what they were: but those things cannot be the outward Accidents of Bread and Wine, for they are not changed into that other thing: i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ. Or lastly, had he considered the purpose of St. Ambrose, he might easily have observed it was necessary for him to say of the substances of Bread and Wine, that they are what they were.  
I might add many Testimonies out of St. Aug. which upon the consideration of the nature of a Sacrament, and upon other Reasons and occasions, speak punctually to the same purpose; that the visible signs or outward Elements remain in their former substance, and yet are the body and blood of Christ, so far as the reason and purpose of that Sacrament requires. But these which I have alleged may suffice.   

SECT. VIII. Of Communion in one kind.  
IN the state of this Controversy, we find two points asserted by the Romanists (as appears by what said above, Ch. VIII.)  
I. That it may be so administered to the People, when it may be done otherwise: or that the People may be forbidden to receive it otherwise.  
II. That such a receiving is a complete Communion.  
The Scriptures that concern this Controversy were examined above. And for the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholic Church, we will only add some Generals, which will clear the point on the Protestants side.  
I. The confession of the Romish writers, granting the use of receiving in both kinds, continued from our Saviour's time many ages throughout the Church. As may be seen in the Council of Constance, in Alphons. de Castro, Soto, Costerius, Tolet.  
II. In answering to the Testimonies of the Fathers (asserting Communion in both kinds) we find the Cardinal (and so the rest of them) forced to acknowledge the use and practise, 
Bel. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 26.  and content to say, Those Testimonies do not speak a Necessity it should be so.  
Now that it should be so, where it can be so, necessarily follows upon our Saviour's precept, Drink ye all of this, (the Disciples, that did all drink, representing then the whole company of the faithful, as the Fathers frequently assert) and upon the force of his Institution, and Example, and the answerable practice of the Catholic Church in the succeeding Ages; For if so, what Church or Age following shall think itself at liberty to do otherwise?  
III. In proving those false Assertions, but necessary for the Romanists to hold, (viz. 
* Bel. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 22. & 33.  That the whole Reason of the Sacrament is contained in one kind: and That there is not greater profit received by communion in both kinds, then in one:) we find the Cardinal cannot allege One Father, nor rise higher than Thomas Aquinas.  
iv As they cannot bring one Sentence of any Ancient Father commending or allowing their half Communion: so the Instances they give us for it, are impertinent, and unconcluding: far from proving, the People may be held from receiving in both: or made to believe they have a complete Communion in One.  
A Collection of such Instances we find in the 
* Bel. in defence. Apolog. contra Regem Jacobum c. 13. & in l. 4. de Euch. c. 24.  Cardinal; The chief of them are these following. I. The breaking of Bread, often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and sometimes signifying the Sacrament. What then? They gave it to the people in one kind only, because one only is mentioned. If this be a good argument as to the administration, it will be good also as to the Consecration: they consecrated it in one kind only, because one only is mentioned. But if the Romanists count it Sacrilege (as indeed it is) so to consecrate: they might think it Sacrilege also, wilfully so to administer it. II. 
Intinct●.  The custom of giving the Bread dipped in the Wine for a whole Sacrament. What then? therefore it is not necessary that both kinds should be given severally; But by this expedient we see they thought it necessary to give both; Also this was only used in some places, and it seems at first to be found out for Communicating Infants and sick persons, that could not well swallow it dry. And afterward this custom was rejected and forbidden. III. The carrying of one kind to the sick, viz. 
Communio Aegrorum.  Bread only. But where both could, both were carried: it was necessity, if in one; and better one then neither, and an incomplete Communion, 
Communio Presanctificatorum.  than none at all. iv The Communion of the preconsecrated Elements: when as one day in the Passion Week, they used to receive in one kind. But this was not from the beginning: 2. Not held a complete Communion: but a consuming of the remainder os the preconsecrated Bread: the Wine being all consumed or made an end of, the day before— 3. From this usage to conclude a liberty of abstinence from the Wine in celebration of the Sacrament is unreasonable: 4. The Priest did that day receive but one kind: therefore it might be likewise concluded: that it was (or may be) the practice of the Church, to have the Priest, as well as the people, confined to receive in one kind. 
Microl. in Biblioth. Patrum c. 19 de vitanda intinctione: Non est Authenticum, etc.— ut populus plenè communicare possit.  I will only add, what Micrologus; saith in his Ecclesiast. Observations, where the Title of his 19 chapped. is Of avoiding Intinction: or giving the Host dipped. It is not Authentic, faith he, which some do, giving it dipped, for the completion of a Communion: and that the Wine or other Species is to be given, (he means severed from the other) that the people may fully and completely communicate. Also he there tells us, that Julius the first, (Bishop of Rome) writing to certain Egyptian Bishops, forbids that usage, and enjoins, that both kinds be received severally (Scorsùm panem & scorsùm Calicem.) And that Gelasius (Bishop of Rome) puts them under censure of Excommunication, who abstain from the Cup, having received the body of our Lord: and in the same Decree, defines it Sacrilege to do so. This is also in Gratian. Decr. part. 3. de Consecratione. And this enough to convince the boldness of the Romish Church, in doing contrary to all this, and yet asserting her Doctrine and Practice to be Catholic.  
Deo Gloria.   
THE END