Imprimatur,  
Apr. 14. 1692. JO. CANT.   

AN ANSWER To a BOOK, Spread abroad by the Romish Priests, ENTITLED, THE Touchstone OF THE Reformed Gospel.  
WHEREIN The True DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, and many Texts of the HOLY SCRIPTURE are faithfully Explained.  
By the Right Reverend Father in God, SIMON, Lord Bishop of ELY.  
LONDON: Printed for R. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1692.   

TO THE READER.  
I Must let the Reader understand, that the Book which I answer, first appeared in the latter end of the Reign of King James I. under the Name of A Gag for the New Gospel. When it was immediately so exposed to the Scorn of all Men, by Mr. R. Montague, (afterward Bishop of Chichester, and at last of Norwich) that for many Years it sculkt, and durst not show its head, till they imagined that Baffle was forgot; and then out it came again, in the Reign of King Charles II. as if it had never been seen before, with this New Title, The Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel: And the better to disguise the Cheat, they begin the Book with a New Chapter (or Section) and have quite left out that which was formerly the Last Chapter; transposing also the order of some of the rest; making Amendments, as they imagine, in several places, and adding several whole Chapters. For there were but XLVII. Points, (one of which, as I said, they now have wholly omitted) which they charged upon us, and undertook to confute in the First Edition: But now they are improved to Two and Fifty; and set out as formerly, with a long Preface, of the very same Stamp with the Book; full, that is, of broad-faced Untruths.  
Of which it may be expected, I should here give some account: But my Answer to the Book itself is grown so much bigger than I designed, that it must be omitted. For the great Reason which was urged by those who had power to persuade me to undertake a New Answer to it, was; because Bishop Mountagu's was so large, that few could purchase it. And therefore they thought it needful there should be a more Compendious Confutation of the Book, though now it be enlarged: especially since they found it in every Parish of this great City, and in the very Prisons, where the Romish-Priests could meet with any entertainment.  
For which Reason, the same Persons have persuaded me, that what I composed, at their desire, in the latter end of the late Reign, ought now to be published, because the Priests of that Church, they assure me, are still very busy; and make account this little Book, which I answer, will do their business. For they put it into the hands of all those whom they hope to make their Proselytes; and desire them to read it, as an unanswerable Piece.  
Let the Reader judge of that, when he hath seriously considered what I have said, to discover both the weakness and the dishonesty of its Author: Who understood neither the Scriptures, nor Fathers he quotes; or hath so perverted them, that as it cost me more time, so I have been forced to use more Words than I intended to employ, to represent his unskilful, or false dealing. But I hope I shall neither tyre the Reader, nor entertain him unprofitably; but increase his Knowledge, by a right understanding of a considerable part of the Bible, and of the Christian Doctrine. Especially if he will be pleased to turn to the Texts of Scripture; which I have explained, but not quoted at length, for fear of swelling this Answer into too great a Bulk.  
Febr. 22. 1690.   

AN ANSWER TO THE TOUCHSTONE OF The Reformed Gospel.  

I. The Protestants, he saith, affirm, That there is not in the Church One, and that an Infallible Rule, for understanding the Holy Scriptures, and conserving Unity in matters of Faith.  

Answer.  
THIS Proposition is drawn up deceitfully. For neither we maintain this, nor they maintain the contrary universally, and without limitation. No Papist dare say there is one, and that an Infallible Rule, for understanding all the Holy Scripture. For then, why have we not an infallible Comment upon the whole Bible? Why do their Doctors disagree in the interpretation of a thousand places? He ought therefore to have said, that we hold, There is not in the Church one, and that an infallible Rule for understanding as much as is necessary to Salvation, etc. And then he belies us: For we believe the Scripture itself gives us infallible Directions for the understanding of its sense, in all things necessary: which if all would follow, there would be Unity in matters of necessary belief. But God will not force men to follow those Directions. They may err; and they may quarrel, when they have an infallible Rule to prevent both.  
The Scriptures therefore, whereby he proves what he charges upon us, must needs be impertinent. But it is something strange, that in the very first of them he should be so senseless, as to give himself the lie. For he pretends to refute our errors, as his words are, by the express words of our own Bibles, and immediately puts in a word of his own, instead of that in our Bibles; which say quite another thing. For instead of, according to the proportion of faith, (which are the words of our Translation XII. Rom. 6.) He says, according to the rule of faith. What is this, but that chopping and changing, which he falsely charges us withal, in the end of his Preface? And it is a change not only of the words of our Bible, (which he promised to quote expressly) but of the sense of that Scripture; as it is expounded by the ancient Doctors: particularly St. Chrysostom and his Followers; 
XII. Rom. 6.  who by proportion understand the same with Measure in the foregoing v. 3. And thus Menochius, one of their own Interpreters, and a Jesuit, [secundum proportionem & mensuram Fidei], i. e. according to the measure of Understanding and Wisdom which God hath bestowed.  
Now what can you expect from a man who falsifies in this manner, at the very first dash? In the next Scripture, indeed, he finds the word Rule, (III. Philip. 16. 
III. Phil. 16. ) and presently imagines it is a Rule for the Interpreting of Scripture infallibly, etc. Whereas it is manifest to all who are not blinded with Prejudice, that the Apostle supposes in the words before, v. 15. they were not all of a mind in some things, for there were those among them that believed in Christ, who thought the observation of Moses' Law to be necessary also to Salvation; which was a dangerous error, to mix Legal and Evangelical things together, as Theodoret here expounds it; but might possibly be cured, if Christian Communion were not broken on either side, by reason of this difference: but every one, both the perfect, who understood their Freedom from the obligation of that Law, and the imperfect, who fancied it still lay upon them, walked by the same rule, etc. that is, preserved Christian Communion one with another, in the bond of Peace. For he speaks here, saith Theodoret, of concord; and the Rule is, the Evangelical Preaching or Doctrine: by which if we walked, it would help to procure agreement in matters of Faith. But they of the Church of Rome are so far from this, that they have broken all Communion, by their Tyrannical impositions, and making other rules besides the Evangelical Doctrine.  

VI Gal. 16.  The next place evidently speaks of the selfsame thing; that there is no necessity of being Circumcised and observing the Law; but if we be regenerated by the Christian Faith, we are sure of the Divine Favour. In short, the Rule here spoken of, is that of the New Creature, mentioned in the foregoing words, v. 15.  
But the 4th Text, 
2 Cor. X. 15.  more fully shows this man to be a mere Trifler with words, without their sense. For in 2 Cor. X. 15. There is not a Syllable of the Rule, or line of Faith, as he dreams: but only of the bounds and limits of those Countries, in which the Apostle had preached the Gospel, as Menochius himself interprets it. This he might have learned, if he had pleased, by the very next words, where the Apostle saith, he did not boast in another man's line, or rule, of things made ready to his hand: i. e. those Countries and Provinces which had been cultivated by other Apostles; glorying (as Menochius well glosses) in other men's Labours, as if they had been his own. Now this is a pretty infallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures, by the Regions in which the Apostles preached. An excellent proof, that there is one Rule of interpreting Scripture, because St. Paul had his own Rule, and others had their Rule: that is, not one and the same; for he took care not to preach the Gospel in another man's line; i. e. in those places where others had done it already. Are these Romish Emissaries in their wits, when they writ on this fashion? Either they have no understanding of what they writ; or hope their Writings will fall into the hands of Readers, who understand nothing; else they would be ashamed of such wretched stuff.  

1 Cor. XI. 16.  From hence he carries us back to the First Epistle unto the Corinthians, Chap. XI. 16. which no doubt he would have put before the Second, could he have found the Word Rule there; which was all he sought for, not regarding the Sense. But, alas! he could find only the Word Custom in that place; which he hoped his foolish Reader would be content to take for the same with Rule. And what is this Rule (as he will needs have it) of which the Apostle is there speaking? Is it about any matter of Faith? No, only about women's praying bare-faced, without a covering over them; which the Apostle says was against the Custom of the Church. So the same Menochius, whom alone I mention of later writers in their Church; because he saith, in his Preface, he hath gathered his Commentaries out of all the best Writers. And what Church doth St. Paul here mean? only one Church, or all that he had planted? He himself answers; We have no such custom, nor other Churches of God neither; therefore you not only cross us, but the whole Church, as Theophylact expounds the words: And to the same effect Theodoret, he shows that these things did not seem so to him only, but to all the Churches of God. Let the Romanists show us any such Authority as this, of all the Churches, for any thing wherein we differ, and see whether we will be contentious: Tho' I must tell them, that there are a vast many differences between the Decrees of the Pastors of late times, tho' never so many hundreds; and the Authority of those few Pastors (as this man calls them) which had the prescription only of twenty or thirty years after Christ. For these few Pastors were the Apostles themselves, infallible men; and other Apostolical persons, who were guided by their directions.  
And now he comes to tell us, by what other Titles this Rule of Faith is called in Scripture; instead of telling us by what names, the Infallble Rule for understanding Scripture is called: For the good man, when he had gone thus far, had forgotten what he was about.  
The Form of Doctrine mentioned Rom. VI 17. will do him no service; For it is, 
Rom. VI 17.  saith Theophylact, to live aright, and with an excellent Conversation. Or that Form of Doctrine, saith Menochius, which the Apostles had impressed upon the Romans by their preaching: Unto which, is there opposed, not disunion and disorder, etc. (as this Scribbler pretends) but their serving sin. But he hoped his credulous Readers would never trouble themselves to look into the places he alleges; else he would not have had the impudence (if it were not mere ignorance and Folly that betrayed him into it) to mention the next place of Scripture: 2 Corinth. X. 16. A thing made ready to hand.  

2 Cor. X. 16.  He should have said, things made ready, if he would have stood to his promise, of quoting express words of our Bible. For so it is both in our Translation, and in the Original, and even in the Latin Translation itself. By which is meant, as the same Menochius judiciously observes, Provinces or Countries already cultivated by the preaching of the Apostles, and prepared thereby to bring forth fruit. And so Theodoret, he reproves those, saith he, who would not preach the Gospel among unbelievers, etc. Let the Reader here again look about, and see if he can spy a word about disunion, discord, disobedience, etc. in this place; of which, this man saith there always is mention in the very Text which he alleges.  

1 Tim. VI 20.  In the next indeed there is mention of vain babbling; and opposition of Science, falsely so called, 1 Tim. VI 20. Where he bids Timothy keep that which is committed unto his trust, (not the Church's trust, as this man again shamefully corrupts both our Translation and the Text.) And what is this depositum or trust, but the plain Doctrine of the Gospel? unto which he opposes the new Phrases, and the new Doctrines, which the School of Simon Magus had brought in; as Menochius interprets it out of Theodoret, whose words are these; They that had their Original from Simon, were called Gnostics, as much as to say, men endued with Knowledge: For those things in which the Holy Scriptures were silent, they said God had revealed to them. This the Apostle calls a false Knowledge; From whence I think it clearly follows, that Theodoret thought true Christian Knowledge to be contained only in the Holy Scriptures: Which is the Doctrine he saith, (let the Romanists mind this) which all that have the dignity of Priesthood, ought carefully to keep, and propose to themselves, as a certain Rule, and by this square all that they say, all that they do. In short, Tertullian (de Prescript. C. 25.) understands by the thing committed unto him, that Doctrine which the Apostle delivered in this Epistle. To which Theodoret adds, the grace of the Holy Ghost, which he received at his Ordination: That is, his Office committed unto him, and all the Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on him, to qualify him for this Office.  
He bids us see more in several other places of Scripture, whose words he is not pleased to recite; and therefore I shall pass them by: Because if there had been any thing to be seen in them to his purpose, he would have set them forth at large.  
And there is as little to be seen in the Fathers whom he mentions, to confirm his pretended Catholic Doctrine. And therefore he doth no more than name Irenaeus, and Tertullian, without alleging their words. But he adventures to set down some words out of Vincentius Lirinensis, though he doth not tell us where to find them. We need not go far indeed to seek for them, they being in the beginning of his Book: where, he that is able to read it, may find a full confutation of the Romish Pretences. For having said, that the way to preserve our Faith found, is first by the Authority of the Divine Law; Secondly, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church: He raises this Objection (which shows how much the first of these is above the other) Since the Rule of the Scripture is perfect, and abundantly sufficient unto itself, for all purposes, (mark this, which cuts the Throat of the Roman Cause) what need is there to join unto this, the Authority of the Catholic Sense? To which he answers, that the Scriptures being a great depth, are not understood by all in the same Sense: But Novatian understands them one way, Photinus another; Sabellius, Donatus, Arrius, etc. another. And therefore because of the wind and turn of Error, the Line of Prophetical and Apostolical Interpretation, should be directed according to the Rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholic Sense. Thus he ends his Book, as he gins it. We have not recourse to Ecclesiastical Tradition, because the Scripture is not sufficient to itself for all things; but because of various Interpretations. But then he immediately subjoins, in the entrance of his Book, what that Catholic Sense is (Chap. III. viz. That which is believed every where, and always, and by all. Which is a Rule by which we in this Church guide ourselves, and from which the Church of Rome hath departed. For which I refer the Reader to King James I. his Admonition, pag. 331. and the Letter written in his Name to Cardinal Peron, where he expressly owns this Rule, p. 22. Edit. Lond. 1612.  
And yet even this Rule hath its limitations given it by Vincentius himself; which this Writer should have been so honest as to have confessed. For in conclusion (Cap. XXXIX.) he saith, that the ancient Consent of Fathers is to be studiously sought and followed, not in all the little Questions of the Divine Law, or Scripture, (for alas! there is no Consent) but only or chief in the Rule of Faith. That is, in those Questions (as he explains it (Cap. XLI) on which the Foundations of the whole Catholic Faith rely. And further he observes, That all Heresies cannot always be confuted this way, but only those which are newly invented, as soon as they arise, before they have falsified the Rules of the Ancient Faith, and before they have endeavoured to corrupt the Books of the Ancients, by the spreading of their poison. For inveterate Heresies, and such as have spread themselves, must not be impugned this way, but only by the Authority of Holy Scripture; or at leastwise, by the Universal Councils of Catholic Priests, wherein they have been convinced and condemned.  
I have been the longer in this, because he is a most worthy Witness, as this man calls him; by whom we are willing to be tried. And so we are by Tertullian, some of whose words he also at last adventures to allege, out of two Chapters of his Book of Prescriptions against Heretics. But as he jumbles together words far distant one from another; so he durst not take notice of a Chapter between the XV. and the XIX. which would have explained the reason why sometimes they disputed not with Heretics out of the Scripture; because that Heresy of which he there treats, did not receive some Scripture; and if it did receive some, 
Cap. XVII.  it did not receive them entire, but perverted them by additions and detractions, as served its purpose, etc. In short, they would not acknowledge these things, that is, the Scriptures, by which they should have been convinced. To what purpose then had it been to talk to them of the Scriptures? No, let them believe (saith he Cap. XXIII.) without the Scripture, that they may believe against the Scripture; just as the present Romanists now do. From whence it is, that he calls Heretics Lucifugae Scripturarum, men that fly from the light of the Scriptures. 
L. d. Resur. Carn. C. XLVII.  Insomuch that he lays down this for a Rule in the same Book, (Cap. III.) Take from Heretics those things which they have learned from the Heathen, that they may state their questions out of the Scripture alone; and they cannot stand. Unto which Rule, if the Papists will yield, their Cause is gone. Let all Doctrines be examined by the Scripture, and we desire no more: Unto which it is manifest Tertullian appeals in other places so plainly, that there is no way to evade it; particularly in his Book of the Flesh of Christ, Cap. VI Let them prove the Angels took Flesh from the Stars; if they cannot prove it, because it is not written, than Christ's Flesh was not from thence, etc. And again in the same Chapter, there is no evidence of this, because the Scripture doth not say it. And plainest of all in the next Chapter, I do not receive what thou inferrest of thy own, without Scripture.  
Let these men blush, if they can, who thus shamelessly pervert all things to a wrong sense; as they do these two words, Rule, and Form of Faith; Which this man hath the Confidence to say, is the knowledge of Tradition. But how we should know any Tradition to be true, which is not contained in the Scripture, is the Question; Especially since there have been so many false Traditions, as is confessed by all sides. Besides, it is so far from being true, that the Two forenamed Fathers lay down Tradition for the Rule of Faith, or put it before the Scripture, that Vincentius expressly puts the Divine Scripture in the first place as our Guide; and then the Ecclesiastical sense, as a means, in some cases, to find the sense of Scriptures. 
Cap. XIII.  And Tertullian as expressly in that very Book which he quotes, and in the Chapter preceding, makes the Apostles Creed, the Rule of Faith: Which is all contained in the Scripture, and needs the help of no Tradition but that, to prove it.  
But after all, I must ask, what's all this which he babbles in the conclusion of this Chapter, to that which he pretends to prove in the beginning? That there is one Infallible Rule for understanding the Holy Scripture? Which, if he would have spoken sense, he should have shown is Tradition: But not a syllable of this: He only endeavours to lose his Reader in a mist of Words. He knew, if he understood any thing, there is no Traditive Interpretation of Scripture: For if there be, Why is there such difference among their own Interpreters in the Exposition of it? Nay, Why do they reject Ancient Interpretations of Scripture, for which there is some Tradition? As Maldonate, a famous Jesuit doth upon XIX. Matt. 11. Where he confesses, 
XIX. Mat. 11.  that almost all expound those words, as if the sense of them was, that all men cannot live single; because all have not the gift of continency: (And among these almost all, he himself mentions, Origen, Greg. Nazianzene, St. Ambrose) But I cannot persuade myself, saith he, to follow this Interpretation. A most remarkable instance of the partiality of these men, who would tie us to receive the sense of One or Two, and miscall us if we will not be bound up by them; but take the Liberty to themselves, of rejecting almost all, when it serves their Interest.    

II. The Protestants, he saith, affirm. That in matters of Faith, we must not rely upon the Judgement of the Church and Her Pastors, but only upon the Written Word.  

Answer.  
OUR Doctrine is, That the Written Word is the only Rule of our Faith: And therefore we cannot rely barely upon the Judgement of the Church, and of Her Pastors (as Papists do) but must have what they deliver proved out of the Word of God.  
This is not contrary to our Bibles, but conformable to them: For they call us to the law, and to the testimony, VIII. Isa. 20. And the Apostles themselves, we find, nay, our Blessed Lord and Saviour, did not desire to be believed, unless they spoke according to the Scriptures, unto which they appealed, XXIV. Luke 27.44. 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4. Whose express words, if we contradict, we are void of all sense; but if we do not, it must be confessed he is void of all shame, in charging us with affirming that which is contrary to the express words of our own Bibles; particularly XXIII. 
XXIII. Mat. v. 2, 3.  Mat. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.  
Let the Reader here seriously consider, what a Front this Man hath, who talks of express words, when there is not an express Syllable in this place, either of Church, or of Pastors, or of their Judgement, or of Faith. O! but he speaks of Scribes and Pharisees, which is the same. But doth this answer his Pretensions of giving us express Words, and not words Tantamount? And if Scribes and Pharises be equivalent to Church and Pastors, it must be his own Church and Pastors, (for they are not our Patterns) which is not much for their Honour to be the Successors of the Scribes and Pharisees. Whose Authority sure, was not such, that our Saviour here required his Disciples to rely upon it, in matters of Faith. For if they had, they must have rejected their Lord and Master, and denied him to be the Christ. Into this Ditch those blind Guides at last plunged those who blindly followed them. Therefore all that our Saviour here meant, is, (as wiser Men than this, and Jesuits too, acknowledge) that they should obey them, being Teachers, in all things not repugnant to the Law, and the Divine Commandments. So the beforenamed Menochius upon the place, to say nothing of the Ancients, who would have thrust out of the Church such a Man as this, who maintains that Christ taught his Disciples, to obey those Pastors, not only in some principal Matters, but in all whatsoever, without Distinction or Limitation. Which I may truly say, is a Doctrine of the Devil.  
Nor is there any thing express in the next place, and therefore he only makes his Inference from it; 
X. Luke 16.  which should have been this, if he had known how to discourse; That the Apostles were the Legates and Interpreters of Christ, as Christ was of God. Therefore he that despised the Apostles, despised Christ; as he that despised Christ, despised God. But, what then? Truly nothing to this Man's purpose. For the Church and the Pastors now, have not the Authority of Apostles. If they had, they would not desire, no more than the Apostles did, to be believed without proof from the Scriptures.  
Upon the next place, XVI. Matth. 19 
XVI. Mat. 19  which is as impertinent, he passes a very wise Note; That our Saviour doth not say, whosoever, but whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. Whereby he shuts out St. Peter, and his Successors (to whom they commonly apply this Text) from all Jurisdiction over Persons, and confine it unto things only. Let his Church reward him for this Service; for we are not at all concerned in his Note; but rather note how far he is still from bringing express Texts to his purpose; here being as little express mention of Faith, and of Pastors, and of the Church, and their Judgement, as in the former places. And if you will believe Menochius (a better Interpreter than this) our Saviour speaks of the Supreme Power of remitting or retaining Sins, of excommunicating and absolving; not a word that he could see, of untying Knots and Difficulties in Matters of Faith.  
He bids us see more places in XVII. Deut. 8. etc. But I would advise the Reader not to trouble himself to turn to them. For the first, and two last, are nothing to his purpose; and the second is directly against him. For the Prophet doth not bid them go and ask the Priests their Opinion, but ask them what the Law of God was, in the case propounded.  
And there is as little to be found in the Fathers, the last of which is no Father. For he lived in the time of our King Henry 1. and was a stickler for his Master, Pope Vrban; who in this Man's Logic, is become the Church and her Pastors, upon whose Judgement we must rely. In good time: they will be Judges in their own Cause, and then the business is done.    

III. His next Charge is, that we affirm, The Scriptures are easy to be understood, and that therefore none ought to be restrained from reading of them.  

Answer.  
THIS is neither our Position, nor is the contrary theirs. For no Protestant will say, That all Scriptures are easy to be understood. Nor will any Papist say, They are all hard to be understood. Some are easy; as much, that is, as is necessary to our Salvation. Which is the express affirmation of St. chrysostom in many places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All things necessary are manifest, Hom. 3. in 2 Thess.  
Now let us see what there is expressly contrary to this in our Bible. First, St. Peter doth not say, 
2 Pet. III. 16.  That the Scriptures are hard to be understood; but that there are some things therein hard to be understood; and those things in St. Paul's Epistles. The rest of the Scripture, notwithstanding this, may be easy; and the hard places, he doth not say are wrested by every body, but only by such as are unlearned and unstable. Let us but learn, and be steadfastly fixed in the Principles of Religion, and practise accordingly; then we shall not be in that danger, but may read the Revelation itself without hazarding our Salvation. Nothing will be in danger of Destruction by reading the Scriptures humbly and piously (as they themselves teach us to do) but only Men's Vices, and the Roman Church; which it is easy to see, in that hard Book The Revelation, is doomed in due time unto Destruction. For without understanding every particular Passage, one may easily see in general, with a little help, that Rome is there intended; and not Pagan Rome, but Christian; which is degenerated into an Idolatrous and Tyrannical State.  
The following Text is like to this, which doth not say, 
VIII. Acts 30.  That the Eunuch could understand nothing in the Scriptures (for then he would not have troubled himself to read them) but that he could not understand that place of the Prophet, which he was reading when Philip met with him. Which was obscure to him only in part, not in the whole, before he was converted to Christianity; but is not so to us, who enjoy the glorious Light of the Gospel. In which there are some things we cannot understand; neither with a Guide, nor without: But other things, as I said, are so plain, that we cannot mistake them, unless we do it wilfully. Against which there in no help, though we had the most Infallible Guide that ever was.  
The next place speaks not one word of the difficulty of the Scriptures, but rather supposes them to be easy enough, even in those matters of which Christ was speaking, 
XXIV. Luke 25.  (XXIV. Luke 25.) if the Apostles had not been then fools, and slow of heart. Which Names they had not deserved, if the Scriptures had been so hard, that it was not their fault they could not understand them before he expounded them. The things they read there, were not in themselves difficult, but the Disciples did not at that time sufficiently attend to what was written. For if they could not (as this Man affirms) have understood them, I do not see how they could be justly blamed by our Saviour; much less so severely reprehended. Besides, it is to be observed, both of this place and the former, that they speak of the Prophetical Writings, in which there are greater Obscurities than in other Parts of Scriptures; and yet even these, if they had not been Fools, might have been understood without putting our Saviour to the pains of expounding them.  
One would be tempted to think the Man distracted, when he set down the next place, 
V Rev. 1.  V Revel. 1. to prove his Position. For the sealed Book, which the Angel said no man could read, was not the Bible, but the ensuing Prophecy; which our Saviour presently after opened, and hath in some measure let us into its meaning. I beseech the Reader to mark what a dolt this Man is, who makes the Book of Scripture to be shut with so many Seals, that even in St. John 's, and the Apostles times, none could be found either in Heaven or Earth, able to open the same, or look therein. For what is the consequence of this, if it be true, but that the Bible must be quite thrown away, and neither Priest, nor Bishop, nor Pope, nor Council look therein? For they cannot be more able than St. John, and the rest of the Apostles. O that all People would see by what sottish Guides they are led on in darkness!  
If he had thought that heap of Texts which follow, would have done him any Service, we should have had their words no doubt, and not merely the Chapter and Verse; but they are set down only for show, and the V Revelat. is reckoned again, to make up the Tale. The Holy Fathers are mentioned for no other end, their words being so full and so numerous on our side, that it would fill a bigger Book than this, if I should muster them up. Particularly, those very Fathers whom he quotes, and in the very Books he mentions, are of our minds. But it is sufficient for the ordinary Reader to observe, that at this Man's rate of proving, no Body must read the Scriptures, no, not such as St. Ambrose, if the Scriptures be such a Sea as he speaks of, a depth of Prophetical Riddles. But the truth is, St. Ambrose doth not say what this Man makes him speak; Not that it is a depth, etc. but that it hath in it profound Senses, and a depth of Prophetical Riddles. It hath so, and it hath also plain places in it, which are not so deep, but they may be fathomed by ordinary, even by shallow Capacities. St. Austin saith nothing contrary to this; but must be supposed to know enough, though much less than what he did not know. And so must the rest of the Fathers be understood, or else the Scripture is good for nothing, if even such Men as Dionysius, Gregory the Great, etc. could understand little or nothing of it. If what they say be to his purpose, it is concerning themselves, and not others; and therefore they ought to have refrained from reading the Scripture, as well as the Vulgar. What then will become of the Common People, if their greatest Guides could know so little of the Mind of God?  
His last Author he took upon trust, or else is an egregious Falsifier. For there is nothing to that purpose in the Chapter he quotes, L. VII. cap. 20. There are words to that effect in the 25th Chapter, where Irenaeus writing against those who denied the Revelation of St. John to be a Divine Book, saith, Tho I do not understand it, yet I suppose there is a deeper sense in the Words; and not measuring those things, nor judging of them by my reasonings, but giving more to Faith, I esteem them to be higher than to be comprehended by me; but I do not reject that which I cannot understand, but admire it the more, because I am not able to understand it. Now, with what face could this Man apply that to the whole Scripture, which is spoken only of the Book of the Revelation? Let the Reader judge by this, what honestly he is to expect in other Quotations.    

iv He makes us say next, That Apostolical Traditions, and Ancient Customs of the Church (not found in the Written Word) are not to be received, nor do oblige us.  

Answer.  
THIS is a downright Calumny; for we have ever owned, that Apostolical Traditions, if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible, are to be received and followed, if delivered by them as of necessary Obligation. But we do likewise say, That we know no such Traditions; for those which have been called so, have been rejected even by the Roman Church itself; or having received them, they have laid them aside again. In short, they sometimes pretend to Traditions, where there are none; and where there are, they have forsaken them; and in several Cases they pervert them, and turn them into another thing. As they have done, for instance, with Purgatory-fire; which the Ancients thought would be at the Day of Judgement, and not till then; but they have kindled already, and would have us believe Souls are now frying therein.  
As for ancient Customs, sometimes called also Traditions, they have not been always alike, nor in all places one and the same. But the Church of England declares, That whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions (i. e Customs) and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common Authority, aught to be rebuked openly, etc. They are the very words of our XXXIVth. Article of Religion. Which teaches withal, That every particular or National Church, hath Authority to change and abolish such Ceremonies or Rites as were ordained by man's Authority, etc.  
And now what hath this Babbler to allege out of our Bible against this? Truly, Nothing at all, but only the word Tradition, which he is very ignorant, if he do not know that we own. For we affirm, That the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture are Traditions: And of such, the Apostle speaks in 2 Thess. II. 15. 
2 Thess II. 15.  which is thus expounded by Theodoret, Keep the Rule of Doctrine, the words delivered to you by us; which we both Preached when we were present with you, and wrote when we were absent. So that the things which were spoken, were not different from those which were written, but the very same. He spoke when he was with them, what he wrote when he was gone from them. Whence it is clear indeed, That the Traditions delivered by word of mouth, were of equal Authority with what was written, (as this man gravely saith), for they were the same. And it is also certain, as he adds, That before the New Testament was written, all was delivered by word of mouth. But what then? Therefore Apostolical Traditions are to be received. Yes; because what was delivered by word of mouth, was the very same which afterwards was written. But here is no shadow of proof, that we are bound to receive Traditions which were never written.  
Nor is there more in the next place, 
2 Thess. III. 6.  2 Thess. III. 6. but much less; for there is not a syllable of word of mouth; and Theodoret expressly says, That by Tradition here the Apostle means not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Words, but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Works; that is, he bids them follow his Example, (as St. Chrysostom also understands it) which he proves to be the meaning by what follows; where he saith the Apostle teaches what he had delivered by his Example; For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you, etc. v. 7, 8. Wherefore (as I may better say than this man doth) in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, let all good men withdraw ftom them, who thus falsely pretend to Tradition; when they dare not stand to the Interpretations of the best of the Ancient Fathers; and walk disorderly, by breaking their own Rule, which requires them to interpret the Scriptures according to their unanimous consent. Counc. of Trent, Sess. iv  
From hence he runs back (like a distracted man who catches at any thing at random) to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
1 Cor. XI. 2.  which one would have expected in the Front. But perhaps he was sensible it had nothing in it, but the bare word Tradition, to his purpose; and therefore brought it in after he hoped the Reader's mind would be possessed with a false Notion; which would make any thing go down with him. And the truth is, there is nothing here for his turn. For if the Traditions mentioned by the Apostle, be about matters of Order and Decency, (as one would think by what follows, concerning Praying with the head covered or uncovered) they themselves acknowledge such Traditions do not oblige in all places and times. If the Apostle means other Traditions about matters of Doctrine, how doth it appear that now they are not written? As that about the Holy Communion is, which the Apostle speaks of in the latter part of that Chapter, v. 23, etc. In which the Church of Rome hath very fairly followed Tradition (I mean shamefully forsaken it), by leaving off the ministration of the Cup to the people, which according to what the Apostle saith, he received from the Lord, and delivered unto them, aught to be given as much as the Bread.  
Consider then, I beseech you, with what Conscience or Sense this man could say, That we reject all Traditions, when we receive this, for instance, more fully than themselves. And how he abuses St. Paul, in making him as schismatically uncharitable as himself, by representing him as disowning us for his Brethren (which St. Austin durst not do by the Donatists) who are so far from forgetting him in all things, that we remember him and his words better than they do; and keep to his Traditions (as I said) just as he hath delivered them unto us. Poor man! he thinks he hath made a fine speech for St. Paul, and made him say to us, quite contrary to that he says to the Corinthians. Whereas, (according to Theodoret, another kind of Interpreter than he) the Apostle dispraises the Corinthians, as much as he makes him dispraise us: For these words, saith he, do not contain true Praise; but he speaks ironically, and in truth reprehends them, as not having kept the Orders which he had set them. As if he had said, You have full well observed the Traditions which I left with you; when there is such unbecoming behaviour among you, in the time of Divine Service. Which no body need be told, unless he be such an Idiot as this, is not a form of Commendation, but of Reproof.  
Lastly, He comes from express Scripture, to none at all; for he betakes himself to Reasoning, and asks a very doughty question; If nothing be to be believed, but only what is left us written, wherein should the Church have exercised herself from Adam to Moses, the space of Two thousand six hundred years?  
Let me ask him another, How doth he prove nothing was written all this time? Whence had Moses all that he writes of the Times before him, if not out of Ancient Records? It is more likely there were Writings before his, than that there were not. However, our saying, There were, can no more be confuted, than his saying, There were not, can be proved.  
If the Reader be not satisfied with this, he bids him see more Scriptures, and names near a dozen places; in never a one of which there is any mention, much less express mention of Tradition: And in the last, the Decrees which the Apostles are said to deliver, are expressly written also in that very Chapter and place which he quotes, XV. Acts 28. For it is said, v. 23. They wrote letters after this manner, etc. and v. 30. They gathered the multitude, and delivered the EPISTLE. What an unlucky man is this, to confute himself after this fashion?  
As for his Fathers, he durst not quote the words of any, but two only; St. Basil and St. chrysostom. The first of which are out of a counterfeit part of a book of St. Basil 
* De Spiritu Sancto, c. 27. ; into which somebody hath foisted a discourse about Tradition, which as it belongs not at all to his subject, so it contradicts his sense in another place: Particularly in his book of Confession of Faith; where he saith, It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance, either to reject what is written, or to add any thing that is not written. But admit those words which this man quotes, to be St. Basil's, they are manifestly false, by the confession of the Roman Church, in that sense wherein he takes them: For if those things which he reckons up as Apostolieal Traditions, have equal force with those things which are written in the Scripture, how comes the Church of Rome to lay aside several of them? For instance; the words of Invocation at the ostension of the Bread of the Eucharist, and the Cup of Blessing; the Consecration of him that is baptised; standing in Prayer on the first day of the week, and all the time between Easter and Whitsuntide? And how comes it about that others of them are left at liberty, such as Praying towards the East, and the Threefold Immersion in Baptism? Both which they themselves acknowledge to be indifferent; and yet are mentioned by this false St. Basil (so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this) among the things which are of equal force unto Godliness with those delivered in Scripture. Nay, he proceeds so far as to say in the words following, that if we should reject such unwritten Traditions, we should give a deadly wound to the Gospel; or rather contract it into a bare Name. A saying so senseless, or rather impious, that if these men had but a grain of common honesty, they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world, by such spurious stuff, as I would willingly think they have wit enough to see this is.  
As for St. chrysostom, it is manifest he speaks of the Traditions of the whole Church. And unless they be confirmed by Scripture, he contradicts himself in saying, Traditions not written are worthy of belief. For upon Psal. 95. he saith expressly, If any thing unwritten be spoken, the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  understanding of the auditors halts and wavers, sometimes inclining, sometimes haesitating; sometimes turning away from it as a frivolous saying, and again receiving it as probable; but when the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Pag. 924. 30. Edit. Sau.  written Testimony of the Divine voice comes forth, it confirms and establishes, both the words of the speaker, and the minds of the hearers.    

V. Next he makes us affirm: That a man by his own understanding, or private spirit, may rightly judge and interpret Scripture.  

Answer.  
THere is no such crude saying as this among us: But that which we affirm is, That a man may, in the faithful use of such means as God hath appointed, rightly understand the Holy Scripture, so far as is necessary for his Salvation. Who should understand or judge for him, but his own understanding, we can no more understand, than who should see for him but his own eyes, if he have any, and be not blind.  
And what is there to be found in our Bible's expressly against this? The first place is far from express; for the gift of Prophesying doth not to every one expressly signify the interpreting of Scripture; 
1 Cor. XII. 8.  it having manifestly another signification in some places, viz. Inditing Hymns. Besides, if this place were pertinent, forbidding all to interpret Scripture, but only such as have the Gift of Prophecy; their Church must not meddle with that work, for they have not that Gift, no more than those that follow, discerning of Spirits, divers kinds of Tongues, etc.  
His second place is as impertinent, 
2 Pet. 1.20, 21.  for it doth not speak at all of interpreting the Scripture, but of the Prophetical Scripture itself. Which was not of private interpretation; that is, the proper invention of them that Prophesied; for the Prophetical Oracles were given forth, not at the will and pleasure of man, but the Holy Prophets when they laid open secret things, or foretold future, were acted by the Spirit of God, and spoke those things which were suggested by Him. These are the words of Menochius; which are sufficient to show the gross stupidity of this man's Glosses; who babbles here about a company of men, and those very holy, who are to do he knows not what; which private and profane men cannot do. As if all private men were profane, and all companies of men were holy. The Lord help them, who follow such Guides as these.  
The third place, 
1 Joh. IV. 1.  if it say any thing to this purpose, is expressly against him. For it is a direction to every Christian, not to be of too hasty belief. But to try the Spirits, that is, Doctrines which pretended to be from the Spirit of God. Now how should Christians try or examine them, but by using their own understandings, to discern between pretended inspirations and true. If they must let others judge for them, they cross the Apostle's Doctrine; for they do not try, but trust. To tell us, that their Church is infallible, and therefore ought to judge for us; is a pretence that must also be tried, above all things else; and in which every man's particular judgement must be satisfied, or else he cannot with reason believe it. And to believe it without reason, is to be a fool: Nor doth the Apostle leave those to whom he writes, without a plain rule whereby to judge of Spirits; but lays down these two in the following words: 1. If any man denied Jesus Christ to come in the flesh, he was a deceiver, v. 2. And, 2ly, if any man rejected the Apostles, and would not hear ●hem, he was not to be received himself, v. 6. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. This makes it plain, the Apostle did not leave them then, without means of judging aright, as he hath not left us now, who are to try all things by the Doctrine of Christ and of his Apostles.  
What this man means by the spirit of the whole Church, which cannot be tried by particular men, is past my understanding; and I believe he did not understand it himself, but used it as a big phrase, to amuse poor people withal. Who may easily understand that St. John speaks of particular persons, or of the Doctrines vented by certain persons, who pretended to be inspired; whom every particular Christian was bound to examine and try by this mark, whether they contradicted what the Apostles taught; which was sufficient, if they did, to discover them to be Impostors.  
His Fathers he only names, and  they signify nothing to common Readers; for whose sake I writ this confutation of his folly. Which makes him bring in Luther, as saying the same that he doth; that is, giving him the lie; who accuses Protestant's of affirming that, which the very chief of them (according to him) denies. But whether Luther say as he makes him, or in what sense, I am not able to affirm, for I cannot find the words.    

VI They affirm, That St. Peter's Faith hath failed.  

Answer.  
THere needs no more to make him confess the truth of this, than only to ask him, whether St. Peter did not deny his Master; which our Saviour supposes in the words immediately following those he quotes, 
Luk. XXII. 32.  Luk. 22.32. When thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren. He was therefore out of the way for a time; which is all we mean when any of us say, Peter's Faith hath failed. Not finally, but for that present. He fell, though he recovered himself. So that this is an Equivocal Proposition, Peter's Faith hath failed, which is true; and so is the contrary, his faith hath not failed. Both are true in different respects: It did fail, and that notoriously, when he denied his Master over and over: But it was more steadfast afterward, even by his fall; which our Saviour foreseeing, prayed particularly for him, that he might not utterly miscarry. Which is no Prerogative, as this man fancies it, that Christ prayed principally for him, but rather tended to his disparagement, as denoting him to be weaker than the rest; and indeed so much the weaker, because in his own opinion he was the strongest.  
The second Text Mat. 16.18. 
XVI. Mat. 18.  as he manages it, is expressly to another purpose. For he lays the weight of his Discourse (it appears by the consequence he draws) upon those words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against: What? the Text saith expressly against it, that is the Church, not against thee, that is, Peter. They that are wiser, argue from the foregoing words, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, etc. If this be to his purpose, the faith of St. Peter must be the Rock upon which the Church is built (which they do not love to hear of) and if it be the Rock, was thrown down, and the gates of hell prevailed against it, at the time before mentioned, when he denied his Master. Which made a great man 
* Dr. jack's. L. 3. c. 7.  say, Doubtless that Religion which hath no better ground of Infallibility than Peter 's faith, which was not secured from a threefold denial of Christ, was first planted by the spirit of error and Antichrist.  
The third Text we had before in the second Chapter, where I have answered his question, 
XXIII. Matth. 2, 3  how Christ might command the people and his Disciples also, to do whatsoever they that sat in Moses his chair bade them, and yet those Doctors might err. But to prove that Peter's faith could not fail, he asserts the Scribes and Pharisees, when they sat in Moses his Chair, could not err; which is to justify their putting our Lord Christ to death. Whither will not the folly of such men as this, carry them? who mind not when they overthrow the Christian Religion, to establish their own conceits. Nay, this man doth not mind, when he ruins even his own conceits. For if the truth of Christian Religion hath been no better preserved by the Romanists in the Chair of St. Peter, than the truth of the Jewish Religion was preserved by the Scribes and Pharisees in the Chair of Moses, the Roman Church is certainly become Antichristian.  
He hath picked up a fourth Text, which hath nothing in it of Peter, 
XI. Joh. 49, 51.  no more than the former, but only tells us, that the Jewish High Priest Prophesied, XI. Joh. 49, 51. Yet this is an express Text, forsooth, to prove that Peter's faith could not fail. It is not easy to have patience enough, so much as to read such wretched, nay wicked stuff, as this. Which still proves, if it be to the purpose, that the High Priest speaking forth of his Chair, could not but determine truly; and, consequently, gave a right judgement when he condemned Christ to be put to death. For he sat in the same Chair, when he passed sentence on Christ, and when he thus Prophesied; both were in a Council, which was assembled on purpose to resolve what to do with him, XI. Joh. 47. XXVI. Mat. 57  
Here the good man is in great want of Fathers, and contents himself, because he cannot help it, with Leo; whose words he doth not rightly translate. For Leo doth not say, If the Head were invincible, but if the Mind of the Chief were not conquered. Worsted it was for the present, though not quite overcome. For he lost the confession of Faith with his mouth, saith Theophylact, though he kept the Faith (or the seeds of faith, as he speaks) in his heart. But unless a man do confess with his mouth, as well as believe in his heart, he cannot be saved. Both are necessary, unless St. Paul cross St. Peter, X. Rom. 9, 10.  
But what is all this to the purpose? suppose St. Peter's faith did not fail, what then? Must we conclude from thence, the Pope's faith cannot fail? Stay there. One of his own Communion, a great man 
* Launoy Part V Epist. ad Jac. Bevillaq.  indeed, hath shown, that there being four Interpretations of this place (XXII. Luk. 32.) the greatest number of Ecclesiastical Writers (he reckons up XLIV. and among the rest this Pope Leo) expound it of the Faith of Peter alone, which Christ prayed might not be lost in that time of Temptation which was a coming. But next to this, they are most numerous who think Christ prayed for the Universal Church, that it may never fail in the faith. In which number is Thomas Aquinas, one of their Saints; who expressly proves from this place, that the Universal Church cannot err, because he who was always heard by God, said to Peter, upon whose confession the Church is founded, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. Where it is evident, he did not think our Lord prayed for Peter separately from the rest of the Church; but for the whole Church, whose person Peter sustained, as St. Austin is wont to speak: Or, as Gregory the Great's words are, of which Church he was the first Member.  
But this belongs to the next Head; where he saith we affirm,    

VII. That the Church can err, and hath erred.  
WHich is true in one sense, though not true in another. For if by Church be meant the Universal Church; and by erring be meant, departing from the Truth in matters of necessary belief; then we say the Church (though it may mistake in matters of lesser moment, yet) cannot thus err, because Christ will always have a Church upon Earth; which cannot be, without the belief of all things necessary to make it a Church. But if by Church, be meant the Church of Rome, or any other particular Church, we say it may err, even in matters of necessary belief (as St. Paul plainly supposes in his caution he gives the Romans, XI. Rom. 20, 21.) and thus many Churches have erred, and fallen from Christianity.  
Now what hath he to say out of our Bibles, which is expressly contrary to this?  
First, he alleges a place out of the Prophet Isaiah, 
LIX. Isa. 21.  LIX. Chap. 21. where there is not one express word either of the Church, or of it's not erring; but only of what God will do for those who turn from transgression in Jacob, (as the words before going are) upon whom (we may suppose) he Covenants and engages to bestow his Spirit, etc. Now before the Church of Rome (whom this man here intends) can apply this Text to themselves, they must prove that they are the people who turn from transgression in Jacob; which will be a very difficult task. And when that's done, this Text may prove to be a command rather than a promise, that it is their duty, having God's Spirit, who by faith and charity is diffused in the whole Church, that is, in the hearts of the faithful (as Menochius hear glosses); and his words, that is, saith he, his precepts, they should keep them faithfully, and not suffer them to departed out of their own mouth, and their own heart (as he goes on) or out of the mouth and heart of their Children. It is a most wretched inference (for after all his brags of express Texts, he is fain to come to that at last) which this man draws from hence, therefore the Church cannot err. He might (with respect to the sense) have said more colourably, therefore the Church cannot sin. The folly of which every one sees; men being too negligent on their part, when God hath done his.  
The next place is less to the purpose; for it is a peculiar promise (as appears by the whole context) unto the Apostles of Christ. 
XIV. Joh. 16.  In whose hearts he promises the Holy Ghost shall inhabit, as Menochius expounds it, performing the Office of a Comforter, and of an Instructor. And this for ever; not for so short a time as Christ stayed on Earth with them, but all the days of their life. But let us extend this promise to their Successors, they can never prove the Apostles have no Successor, but only at Rome. To which this promise can by no inferences be confined, but must extend to the whole Church of Christ, with whom he is still present by his Spirit, to preserve them in the way of truth, if they will be led by it.  
In the nex place, XVIII. Mat. 17. he is at his C ll●ctions again, instead of express words; for his Talon is mere bragging, 
XVIII. Matth. 17.  without any performance. But how doth he gather from this Text, that the Church cannot err? Why, that he leaves to his Reader, telling him only, it may be clearly gathered; but he, for his part did not know how, though it may be others do. Let them try, who have a mind. I can find nothing in this place, which concerns matters of faith; and he himself seems to be sensible of it, when he saith the Church cannot err in her Censure. But what Church is this? and what Censure? It belongs to every Church to censure him that wrongs his Brother, after he hath been admonished of the injury he hath done, first in private, and then before two or three Witnesses. This being done, where should he be proceeded against, but in the Church where he lives? Unto which if he will not submit, but continue obstinately his injurious actions, he is justly to be looked upon as no Christian. No man that is unprejudiced, can read this Text, with all its circumstances, and not take this to be the sense of the words. And then, if they prove the Church cannot err, we shall have as many infallible Tribunals, as there are Churches.  

XXXV. Is. 8.  That which follows, XXXV. Isa. 8. speaks of not erring, but says nothing of the Church; unless he make the Church to be fools, who the Prophet saith shall not err. How much wiser would this man have been, if he had but consulted some such Author as Menochius; Who, observing that the Prophet saith, v. 4. God will come, he will, and save you, i. e. God incarnate, as he expounds it; by the way (here mentioned v. 8.) understands that narrow way which he taught, leading by holiness of manners and life to the holy place, i. e. to Heaven. And upon the last words, fools shall not err therein; gives us this good Protestant Gloss; for even the simple and unskilful might easily learn those things which are necessary to salvation. The way is plain in these matters, and none need err about them, unless they will. And I wish it was not a wilful error in this man, to say that we affirm, the whole Church, and all holy men that ever have been therein, for these 1000 years, have erred. There cannot be a greater calumny; for we believe the whole Church cannot stray from the way that leads to Heaven; though some particular Churches may.  
There is nothing contrary to this in V Ephes. 27. 
V Ephes. 27.  Which if it prove any thing of this nature, proves the Church is so perfectly pure, that it hath no sin in it. But I doubt we must stay for this happiness, till the other world, when the Church will indeed be made a Glorious Church. I have noted, as he desires, the words, without spot, wrinkle, or any blemish; and yet I think it possible that some Church or other hath taught horrible Blasphemies and Abominations. For St. John in the Revelation tells us, it is not only possible, but certain, XVII. Rev. 3, 4. And there are, we think very evident proofs, that the present Roman Church, of which he is so fond (and always hath in his mind, when he speaks of the Church) is described by St. John in that place.  
We have seen so little in these Texts, that I cannot find in my heart to look into the rest; several of which we have had already, as XXII. Luk. 32. XXIII. Mat. 3. XVII. Deut. 8. XV. Act. 28. And he seems to have intended nothing, but merely to make a show of more strength than he had; which made him thrust in among the rest, V Ephes. 27. which I have just now examined. His Fathers also are only Names, without their sense, and so let them pass. Next, he saith, we affirm,   

VII. That the Church hath been hidden, and invisible.  
HE still goes on, in his ambiguous way of stating our Doctrine. There are no Papists but confesses that the most excellent parts, even of the visible Church in this world, are invisible or hidden. For none but God, who searches the heart, can know certainly, who are truly good men, and not hypocrites. And there are no Protestants who maintain, that they who profess the Christian Religion (who are the Church) have ever been hidden and invisible. But this they say, that this Church hath not been always visible, free from corruption; and that it hath not been at all times alike visible; but sometimes more, sometimes less conspicuous. Now these men by the Visibility of the Church, mean such an illustrious state, as by its glory, splendour and pomp all men may be led to it. This is it, and no more, which Protestants deny. And Mr. Chillingworth hath long ago told them, that the most rigid Protestants do not deny the Visibility of the Church absolutely, but only this degree of it. For the Church hath not always had open visible Assemblies; and so might be said to have been hidden and invisible, when they met under ground and in obscure places.  
There is nothing in the Texts of Scripture which he quotes, contrary to this, much less expressly contrary.  

V Mat. 14, 15.  The first of them, V Mat. 14, 15. is manifestly a precept to the Apostles, setting forth the duty incumbent upon them by their Office, that they might gather a Church to Christ. So the beforenamed Menochius interprets those words, Ye are the light of the world, who ought to illuminate the world by your Doctrine and Example. You ought not to be hid; no more than a City can be, which is seated on a hill: Men do not light a candle (much less God) to put it under a Bushel. Our Saviour, saith he, exhorts his Disciples by this similitude, that they should diligently shine, both in their words, and in their example; and not be sparing of their pains, or of themselves, by withdrawing themselves from the work, but communicate their light liberally to their neighbours. But after the world was thus illuminated by their Doctrine (which they could not always neither Preach in public, but some times only in private houses) Christians were forced to meet together, in some places and times, very secretly; not being able always to hold such public visible Assemblies, that all men beheld them, and what they did.  
The second we had before to prove the Church cannot err; 
XVIII. Matth. 17.  and now it is served up again to prove it was never hid; and this not expressly, but by a consequence, and that a very senseless one. For whoever said or thought, that no body can see a Church, when it is not visible to every body? It's members no doubt see it, even when it is invisible to others. Any man may be seen by his Friends, when he lies hid from his Enemies. And a Church is visible in that place where it is planted, and by them that belong to it, though strangers perhaps take no notice of it, especially those that are at a distance from it.  
In the third place, we have mention of the Gospel, but not a word of the Church; 
2 Cor. IV. 3, 4.  which he puts in (such is his honesty) contrary to the express words of ours, and of all Bibles. Nor doth the Apostle deny the Gospel to be hid, but expressly supposes it (2 Cor. IV. 3.) that it is hid from those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world; who shut their eyes against the clearest light, even the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. One would think this man besides himself, when he bids us behold the censure of St. Paul upon those who affirm the Gospel can be hid; when his words are a plain supposition, that it was hid to some people; Not indeed because they could not (for it was visible enough in itself) but because they would not see it. And I wish there be not too many of this sort in that Church for which this Writer stickles.  
The last place is an illustrious Prophecy of the setting up the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
II. Isa. 2.  Which was very visible in its beginning, when the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles, and by them the Law, that is, the Christian Doctrine, went out of Zion, and the word of the Lord, that is the Gospel, from Jerusalem. But did not always continue so, when grievous Persecutions arose for the Gospel's sake, and drove the visible Professors of the Religion into obscure places. And I hope he will allow those Scriptures to be as true as these, which say there shall be an Apostasy from the Faith, and that the Church shall fly into the Wilderness, 2 Thess. II. 3. XII. Revel. 6. which is not consistent with such a visibility of the Church as this man dreams of.  
As for the Prophecies which mention a Kingdom of Christ, particularly VII. Dan. 14. 
VII. Dan. 14.  they point at a state of his Church, which is not yet come; and when it doth come, will be with a vengeance to the Roman Church. Whose present state will be utterly overturned, to make way for the setting up of Christ's Universal and Everlasting Kingdom. Which is to be erected when the Mystery of God is finished, X. Revel. 7. & XI. 15. and that cannot be, till Babylon, that is Rome, be thrown down, XVIII. Revel. 2. & XIX. 1, 2, 6. And we are so far from thinking this Kingdom will be invisible, that we believe it will be the most illustrious appearance that ever was, of Christian Truth, Righteousness, Charity and Peace among men.  
He bids us, as his manner is, see more in other places. But if they had more in them than these, we should have had them at length. And his Fathers also; some light touches of which he gives us, just as he found them in a cluster altogether, word for word, in a Book called, The Rule of Faith, and the Marks of the Church; which was answered above LXXX. years ago, by Dr. J. White, who observes, 
* Way to the True Church. Sect. 23.  that when Origen (whom upon other occasions they call an Heretic) saith, The Church is full of Witnesses from the East to the West; he speaks not of the outward state or appearance thereof, but of the truth professed therein. Which though clear to the World, when he said so; yet doth not prove it shall be always so; for a Cloud of Apostasy might and did afterward obscure it.  
St. chrysostom doth not mean that the Church cannot be at all darkened; but not so, as to be extinguished, no more than the Sun can be put out. For he could not be so senseless, as not to know, that it had been for a time eclipsed.  
When St. Austin saith, They are blind, who see not so great a mountain. He speaks against the Donatists, who confined the Church to themselves, as the Papists now do. And he justly calls them blind, who could not see the Church all Africa over, it being at that time as plain as a Mountain, or a lighted Candle, as our Church now is at this day. But his words do not imply, that the Church shall always be so manifest, and never hid; Mountains themselves being sometimes hidden in a mist. For he saith in other places, The Church shall sometimes be obscured, and the Cloud of Offences may shadow it, Epist. 48. It shall not appear by reason of the unmeasurable Rage of  Persecutors, Epist. 80. It is like the Moon, and may be hid, in XIX. Psalm. Yea, so obscured, that the Members of it may not know one another; as he speaks in his sixth Book of Baptism, against the Donatists, C. 4.  
What St. Cyprian saith, is not contrary to this.   

V We maintain, he saith, That the Church was not always to remain Catholic, or Universal; and that the Church of Rome is not such a Church.  

Answer.  
WE maintain the quite contrary to the first Part of his Proposition; asserting that the Church is always to remain Catholic, or Universal; not confined to one Country as the Jewish was, but spread all the World over. The second Part indeed we do maintain, That the Church of Rome is not such a Church; that is (which is the thing they contend for) is not the Universal Church, but hath its limits, and was anciently bounded within certain Regions, beyond which it did not extend.  
The first Scripture he alleges against us, is a promise to Christ, which we believe hath been fulfilled in part, 
II. Psalm 8.  and will be more and more fulfilled before the end of the World; but hath nothing in it peculiar to the Church of Rome; which at the best, is but a piece of his Inheritance.  
The second speaks expressly, not of the Universality of Christ's Kingdom, 
I. Luke 33.  but of its Perpetuity; and is as much verified in other Churches, as in the Roman; which is so far from being the only Universal Church, that in this sense, it is not Universal at all.  
The third is directly against him. For it shows that the Faith of the Gospel (unto which he now skips, 
I. Colos. 3, etc.  when he should have said the Church, of which he was speaking) was planted at Coloss, (which was never under the Jurisdiction of Rome) and there fructified and grew, as much as in other places.  
Nor will the next place help him; where St. Paul doth not call the Faith of the whole World, the Faith of the Romans, but only saith, 
I. Rom. 8.  their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, I. Rom. 8. that is, the fame of it was spread all the world over; as Menochius, one of their own, honestly interprets it. For what was done at Rome, could not be concealed from the rest of the World, saith Theodoret, because the Roman Emperors having their Palace there, from whence all sort of Officers were sent, and whither all People resorted who had any boon to beg; by whom it was signified every where, That the City of Rome had received the Faith of Christ. Thus he; which shows the Gospel was spread in the World, before it came to the City of Rome; it not coming from thence, but from Jerusalem; and not coming thither till many other places had received it, who were not beholden to Rome for it. With what face then, against such a clear sense of the words, could this Man say that St. Paul in express terms, calls, The Faith of the whole World, the Faith of the Romans, or the Church of Rome? When the words rather import, that he calls the Faith of the Romans, the Faith received in the whole World. But he saith neither the one, nor the other; though if he had, it would prove nothing, but that there was one and the same Faith then at Rome, which was in other places. The truly Catholic Faith, from whence Churches were named Catholic, (not from their extending all the World over, which was impossible) and Jerusalem, and other Churches were as much so, as Rome itself, and were so before there was a Church at Rome. In short, a Catholic Church signified no more than an Orthodox Church.  
It is a matter of serious Lamentation, that men should go about to pervert such plain and easy Truths, as this; and should heap up Scriptures to prove mere Nonsense: For all the Scriptures which he bids us further look into, he saith, are not to be understood, That the whole World should be Catholic at one and the same time. Let the Reader consider what it is, for the whole World to be Catholic, as he hath explained it, but for the whole World to be the whole World.  
And he will have an hard task, to make Sense of the next words; that the whole World being converted unto Christ at sundry times, it shall comprehend a greater part of the World, than any Sect of Heretics shall ever do. I thought the whole World would certainly comprehended the whole World, and not only the greater part of the World. It is impossible, by such Jargon as this, to understand the true Sense of being Catholic or Universal. Which the Church is, either with respect to Faith; because there is the same Faith in all parts of the true Church; or with respect to Place, because no Country is excluded from it, which will receive this Faith; or with respect to Time, because it continues throughout all Ages, though not always in such an extent, as to be actually in all Nations. For those Countries which were once Parts of the Catholic Church, are not so now: And if those that are now so, should lose the Faith, still the Church might be Catholic, if others embraced it, as Bellarmine 
* L. IU. De Eccles● c. 7.  himself confesses, If only one Province should retain the true Faith, the Church might truly and properly be called Catholic; as long as it might be clearly shown, that it was one and the same with that, which had been at sometime, or in divers throughout the World.  
According to his former Method, he carries us now to the Fathers, and m●k●s them guilty of as much Nonsense as himself. For he makes St. Cyprian confess, that part is the whole. But the comfort is, he either did not understand, or else misrepresents St. Cyprian, who speaks not there of the Authority, but of the Example of the Roman Church, and especially of Cornelius their Bishop; who remaining constant in time of Trial, made all his Brethren every where rejoice; particularly Cyprian himself, who in that very place styles Cornelius and others, his Fellow-Priests or Bishops. For what Priest, saith he, can choose but rejoice in the praises of his Fellow-Priests, as if they were his own? It is not to be expressed with what Joy and Exultation he heard of his Fortitude, whereby he made himself a Captain and Leader of Confession unto the Brethren, etc. And then follows, While there is among you (i. e. Cornelius and his Brethren) one Mind, 
Epist. LX. Edit. Oxon.  and one Voice, all the Roman Church hath confessed, that is, their Faith which the Apostle praised, was be come famous, as it follows in the next words; and while they were thus Unanimous, thus Valiant, they gave great Examples of Unanimity and Fortitude to the rest of their Brethren. This is the meaning of Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est: They were all steadfast in their Faith; which this poor man construes, as if St. Cyprian owned Rome for the only Catholic Church. By translating those words thus, The whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church. Which he vehemently denied, ordaining in a Council at Carthage according to Ancient Canons, That every man's Cause should be heard there where the Crime was committed; and commanded those to return home, who had appealed to Rome; which he shows was most just and reasonable, unless the Authority of the Bishops in afric, seem less than the Authority of other Bishops, to a few desperate and profligate persons, who had already been judged and condemned by them. 
Epist. LIX.  This he writes in another Epistle to the same Cornelius; to which I could add a great deal more, if this were not sufficient to make such Writers as this blush, if they have any shame left, who make the whole Church to be the Roman Church.  
St. Austin (of whom I must say something, lest they pretend we cannot answer what is allegded out of him) and the whole Church of afric, in a Council of Two hundred Bishops, made the same Opposition to the pretended Authority of the Roman Church; and therefore could mean no such thing, as this man would have, in his Book of the Unity of the Church. Where he saith, in the 3d Chapter, That he would not have the Holy Church to be shown him out of Humane Teachings, but out of the Divine Oracles; and if the Holy Scriptures have designed it in Africa alone, etc. whatsoever other Writings may say, the Donatists he acknowledges will carry the Cause, and none be the Church but they. But he proceeds to show the Doctrine of the Scriptures is quite otherwise, designing the Church to be spread throughout the World. And then he goes on to say, (Chap. 4.) that whosoever they be who believe in Jesus Christ the Head, but yet do so descent (those are his words, which this man recites imperfectly and treacherously) from his Body, which is the Church, that their Communion is not with the whole Body, wheresoever it is diffused, but is found in some part separated; it is manifest they are not in the Catholic Church. Now this speaks no more of the Roman Church, than of any other part of the Catholic Church; and, in truth, makes them like the Donatists; since their Communion is not with the whole Body (which they absolutely refuse to admit to their Communion) but they are found in a part of it separated by themselves.  
The rest which he quotes out of Saint Austin, I assure the Reader, is as much besides the matter, and therefore I will not trouble him with it. And I can find no such saying of St. Hierom, in his Apology against Ruffinus. But this I find (L 3.) the Roman Faith praised by the voice of the Apostle (viz. I. Rom. 8.) admits not such deceit and delusion into it, etc. Where it is to be noted, That the Roman Faith commended by the Apostle, is one thing; and the Roman Church, another. And the Faith which they had in the Apostles time, was certainly most pure: but who shall secure us, it is so now? If we had the voice of an Angel from Heaven to tell us so, we should not believe it; because it is not what they then believed, nor what they believed in St. Hierom's time, but much altered in many Points. And suppose St. Hierom had told us, It is all one to say the Roman Faith, and the Catholic Faith; it must be meant of the than Roman Faith: and it is no more than might have been said in the praise of any other Church which held the true Faith. No, nor more than is said; for thus Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes in an Epistle 
* Council of Ephes. p. 107.  to Leo Bishop of Rome, We also have obtained the name of New Rome, and being built upon one and the same foundation of Faith, the Prophets and Apostles, (mark that, he doth not say on the Roman Church) wh●re Christ our Saviour and God is the Cornerstone, are in the matter of faith, nothing behind the elder Romans. For in the Church of God, there is none to be reckoned or numbered before the rest. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Wherefore let St. Paul glory and rejoice in us also, etc. (i. e. if he were alive, Nicephorus doubted not Saint Paul would have commended the Faith of that City, as he had theirs at Old Rome) for we as well as they, following his Doctrine and Institutions, wherein we are rooted, are confirmed in the Confession of our Faith, wherein we stand and rejoice, etc.    

X. The Reformers, he saith, hold That the Church's Unity is not necessary in all points of Faith.  

Answer.  
THIS Writer hath so accustomed himself to Fraud and Deceit, that we can scarce hope to have any truth from him. For no Reformers hold any thing of this nature, if by Points of Faith be meant what the Apostle means in the Text he quotes; where he saith, 
iv Ephes. 5.  there is One Faith. Which we believe is necessary to make One Church: every part of which, blessed be God, at this very day, is baptised into that one and the same Faith (and no other) contained in the common Creed of Christians, called the Apostles Creed. Therefore so far Church Unity is still preserved. But it is not necessary there should be unity in all Opinions that are not contrary to this Faith. Nor should the Differences, which may be among Christians, about such matters, break Unity of Communion. And if they do, those Churches which are thus broken and divided, by not having external communion one with another, may notwithstanding still remain, both of them, Members of the same one Catholic Church, because they still retain the same one Catholic Faith. Thus the Asian and Roman Churches in Pope Victor's time, and the African and Roman in Stephen's time, differed in external Communion, and yet were still parts of one and the same Church of Christ.  
This is more than I need have said in answer to him, but I was willing to say something useful to the Reader; who cannot but see that he produces Texts of Scripture to contradict his own Fancies, not our Opinions. We believe as the Apostle teaches us, 
iv Ephes. 5.  IV. Ephes. 5. and from thence conclude, That Unity is necessary in all points of Faith, truly so called; that is, all things necessary to be believed. Nor do we differ in any such things; and therefore have the Unity requisite to one Church.  

II. Jam. 10.  The second Text II. Jam. 10. speaks not a word of Faith, therefore, instead of express words, this man tells us, by a likeness of reason, it is the same in Faith, that it is in Sin: he who denies one Article, denies all. We deny none; but only their New Articles, which are no part of the Ancient Apostolic Catholic Faith.  

IV. Act. 32.  The next, IV. Acts 32. speaks of the Brotherly affection and unanimity that was among the First Christians. And that which follows, 
1 Cor. I. 10.  1 Cor. I. 10. doth not tell us what was, but what ought to be in the Church: For among those Corinthians there were very great Divisions, as appears by that very Chapter. Therefore he is still beside the Book; and very childishly objects to us the Sects that are among us, as an Argument we are not the true Believers the Apostle speaks of: when the Apostolical Churches were not free from them while the Apostles lived: nor is the Church of Rome, or any other Church, at such unity, but there are various Sects among them.  
He hath little to do, who will trouble himself, upon the account of such a Scribbler as this, to consider that heap of Texts which he hath huddled together, without any order, or any regard to his Point he was to prove. What St. Austin also, and the rest of his Fathers say about Unity, doth not at all concern us: who preserve that Unity which they have broken, by preserving that One Faith, from which they of the Church of Rome have departed. For it will not suffice them to believe as the Apostles did; but they have another Faith of their own devising. This is that wherein we cannot unite with them. And all the Unity they brag of, is, in truth, no better than that of the Jews, Heretics and Pagans: who, as St. Austin 
* De Verbis Domini Serm. VI.  speaks, maintain an Unity against Unity. In this they combine together to oppose that one Faith the Apostles delivered, as insufficient to Salvation. Which is a conspiracy in Error, rather than unity in the Truth.    

XI. That St. Peter was not ordained by Christ the first Head, or Chief among the Apostles; and that among the Twelve, none was greater, or lesser than other.  

Answer.  
WE are now come to the great Point, which is the support of the whole Roman Cause. But he neither knows our Opinion about it, nor their own: or else dares not own what it is. We believe Peter was the first Apostle, and that he was a Chief, though not the chief Apostle. For there were others who were eminent (that is, Chiefs) upon some account or other, as well as himself, 2 Cor. XI. 5. XII 2. But what he means by a first Head or Chief, neither we, nor those of his own Religion know, unless there were secondary Heads and Chiefs among the Apostles, one over another. This is strange language, which none understands. Peter was first in Order, Place, Precedence, but not in Power, Authority, and Jurisdiction; in these, none was greater or lesser than another. Which is not contrary to any Text in the Bible, but most agreeable thereunto.  
For so the Text saith, X. Matth. 2. 
X. Matth. 2.  and we needed not his Observation to inform us, That all the Evangelists, when they mention the Apostles which Christ chose, put Peter first: Which doth not signify he was the worthiest of them all; that no way appears; but that he and Andrew his Brother were first called, we expressly read, and possibly he might be the Elder of the Two. But if it did denote his Dignity and Worthiness, it doth not prove his Authority over the rest, (as he is pleased to improve this Observation, in the Conclusion of his Note upon this place) for though he had some eminent qualities in him which perhaps were not in others, they gave him no Superiority in Power; but in that, every one of them was his equal. What follows upon this Text, is so frivolous and childish a reasoning, it ought to be despised.  
Next he betakes himself to the Rock, 
XVI. Matth. 18.  mentioned XVI. Matth. 18. which they have been told over and over again, (but they harden their hearts against it), is not spoken of Peter, as this man most impudently, contrary to his own Bible, makes the words sound, but of the Faith which Peter confessed; as the general current of Ecclesiastical Writers expound it. But if we should by the Rock understand Peter, it insinuates no Supremacy, much less clearly insinuates it. For none but such a man as this, to whom the Bell clinks just as he thinks, would have thought of that, at the reading of the word Rock; but rather of Firmness, Stability, or Solidity; which the Word plainly enough imports, but nothing of Authority. Our Blessed Lord himself is not called a Rock or Stone, with respect to his being the Sovereign and Absolute Pastor of his Church, but because of the firm Foundation he gives to our Hope in God. Next to those who by Rock understand, as I said, the Faith which Peter confessed, the greatest number of Ancient Expositors understand thereby Christ himself. Unto whom this man hath the face to say, these words do not agree, because he speaks of the time to come, I will build; as if Christ were not always, what he ever was, being the same to day, yesterday, and for ever. It is a burning shame, as we speak, that such men as this should take upon them to be instructors, and to write Books, which have nothing in them but trifling observations, and false allegations For after all, should we grant Peter to be the Rock, it will not exclude the rest of the Apostles from being so, as much as he; for the Church was built upon them all, on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, II. Ephes. 20. And accordingly St. John had represented to him, not One alone, but Twelve Foundations of the Wall of the New Jerusalem, i. e. the Church of Christ; which had in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lord, XXI. Rev. 14.  
The next place XVIII. Matth. 18. 
XVIII. Matth. 18.  is so plain a promise to all the Apostles, that it is impudence to restrain it to St. Peter, or to conclude from thence any Preroragative to him above the rest; especially if it be observed, that when this Promise was fulfilled, they were all equally partakers of it; when our Saviour breathed on them, and said unto them, (mark that, he breathed on them all, and said not to Peter alone, but them, i. e. the Apostles), Receive ye the Holy Ghost; Whose soever sins ye retain, 
XX. John 22, 23.  they are retained, etc. XX. John 22, 23.  
Now he falls a Reasoning again (for, alas express Texts fail him) but it amounts to no more than this, That our Saviour did not call him Simon in the forementioned place, but gave him another name. I am sorry for his ignorance, that he did not know, or for his dishonesty, that he would not consider; this was become his name as much as Simon, before this time; for at their first meeting, Christ gave him this name of Peter, I. John 43.  

1 Cor. III. 4.22.  From that which follows, 1 Cor. III. 4, 22. there is a wonderful fetch. For as before he argues Peter's Supremacy from his being named first, so now he argues it from his being named last; whereas in his first observation it was an argument of Judas being the unworthiest, because named last. When he thinks again, perhaps he will prove his Supremacy, because in II. Gal. 9 he is named neither first nor last, but in the middle, between James and John. And according to his wise note, That the Apostle ascends from those he would have esteemed lesser, to those whom he would have esteemed greater, we must look upon Apollo's as greater than Paul, because he ascends here from Paul to him, and so to Peter. Whither will not the Folly of these men lead them?  

XXII. Luke 31, 32.  His Reasoning (for we are not to expect Express Texts, whatsoever he vainly brags) upon the next place, XXII. Luke. 31, 32. is still more strange. For who ever heard that to strengthen or confirm his brethren, can be nothing but to practice and exercise his greatness over them? This Greatness of his runs so in their heads, that they fancy they see it every where, even where there is not a shadow of it: For none before him sure ever thought, that to strengthen others, is an exercise of Greatness, but rather of Goodness: It implies indeed, that he who establishes another, is in that greater than he; but it doth not follow he is so in any thing else; nor doth it imply any thing of Jurisdiction over others: Tho if it did, they are not the Apostles who are here intended to be strengthened (for they were as strong as himself) but the Converted Jews, who might be in the same danger wherein he had been. And therefore our Lord bids him learn to pity their weakness, by the remembrance of his own; and to establish them in that Faith which he had denied.  
From hence he leads us back to v. 26. 
XXII. Luke 26.  of the same Chapter; and from the vain ambition which was in the Apostles, who strove which of them should be accounted the greatest, (v. 24.) concludes, That really some of them was greater than others, viz. in Power and Authority over the rest; or else he concludes nothing: But this vanity our Saviour checks; and therefore it is far from truth, that one of them was accounted greater than another, even by Christ himself. No such matter; he only shows them, that if in any quality one excelled another, it should make him more humble and subservient to his Brethren, not swell him, and make him perk up above them. And thus Theophylact understands it not of any Superiority in Power, but in other things. For the occasion of their contention, Who should be esteemed greatest; he thinks was this; That there being an enquiry among them which of them should be so wicked as to betray their Master, (v. 23.) and one perhaps saying, Thou art likely to be the man; and another, No, it will be thyself; They proceed from hence to say, I am better than you, and I am greater; and such like things: Which our Saviour expresses in the following words, The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them, etc. but it shall not be so among you, &c Which is a pretty plain denial of any Authority they were to have one over another. And indeed, when he comes to speak of Power in the following Verses, v. 29, 30. he saith indifferently to them all, I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, etc. It was divided among them; and none had an higher Throne given him than his fellows.  
We are at last come to the main prop of this Cause, which is as weak as all the rest, 
XXI. Joh. 15, 16, 17.  XXI. John 15, 16, 17. For who told him that the word used the second time by our Saviour, which we Translate Feed 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , must interpret the other two, which are used at first and last? Why may not they, being used twice, rather interpret that, which is used but once? And how doth he prove, that it signifies to govern and rule, rather than feed? Or if it do signify Government, what's this to his governing the Apostles, who had as much Power to Feed and Rule both Lambs and Sheep as himself? And thus the Ancients understood this to be spoken unto all the Apostles, as well as unto him; and even his own Companions, who have more Wit, and less Impudence, by Lambs and Sheep, understand, not the Apostles, but weaker and stronger Christians. I will mention only Menochius, whose words are these, in his Notes upon this place; By Lambs, he signifies, as the very name shows, those that were newly converted to the Faith, and were weaker in the Faith; whose number was very great, when the Apostles began to preach, and therefore needed greater care; for which cause Christ repeats this twice, FEED MY LAMBS, and but once, FEED MY SHEEP, who are those that are stronger in the Faith, and therefore needed less pains to preserve them. This is spoken like a man of sound sense: And with the like Judgement and Integrity he interprets the rest directly contrary to the silly Reasonings of this Trifler; who says, Peter loved Christ more than the rest, and therefore it follows necessarily, he received more Power to feed, than all the rest did. This is more than Peter himself durst say, That he loved Christ more than the rest. No, says Menochius, He dares not answer, that he loved more than others, but only that he loved; for his fall had made him more modest. He had preferred himself to others, when he said XXVI. Matth. 33. Though all be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended; and after this he fell more foully than others; therefore now he speaks of himself what he thinks to be true, but he doth not prefer himself before others, whose hearts he did not see.  
Now I thought we had done; when like a man out of his wits, or rather possessed, he flies to the Devil to help him at a dead lift; and thus argues (for express Scriptures have failed him long ago), from XII. 
XII Matt. 24.  Matth. 24. Satan therefore hath a kingdom, whereof he is chief. And what then? One would think he should have concluded, Therefore so hath our Lord Christ. But he was afraid of that; for he saw it would not do his business, but ours rather, who own Christ for the only Head of the Church. He tells us therefore (as if he had found it in the Text), There is but one visible Head, even in Hell, as there is one visible Head of the Church Triumphant in Heaven; and therefore why not a visible Head on earth? He might as well have asked, Why not one Universal Monarch over all the Earth? Which is as reasonable from these Principles, as one visible Head of the Church. But to answer his question plainly; There is no one visible Head here, because Christ the Head of the Church, both Triumphant and Militant, hath ordered it otherwise. Having placed, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. XII. 28. in the Church, first Apostles; not Peter, or any one alone over the rest, but the Apopostles were left by Christ, the Supreme Power in the Church.  
Here I cannot but conclude, as that great and good Man Dr. Jackson 
* L. III Chap ●  doth, upon such an occasion: Reader, Consult with thy own heart, and give sentence, as in the sight of God; and judge of the whole Frame of their Religion by the Foundation; and of the Foundation (which is this Supremacy of Peter) by the wretched Arguments whereby they support it.  
For from the other Scriptures which follow in this Writer, their Arguments stand thus; David was made Head of the Heathen (XVIII. Psal. 43.) therefore Peter was made Head of the Church. Instead of the Fathers shall be thy Children, whom thou mayst make Princes in all lands (XLV. Psal. 16.) therefore Peter ruled over all the rest as a Prince. Simon he surnamed Peter (III. Mark 16.) therefore he had authority over all, because named first. The same is gathered from I. Act 13 merely from the order of precedence, which must be granted to one or other, in a Body where all are equal. Finally, Christ's kingdom shall have no end (I. Luke 33.) therefore St. Peter must reign for ever in his Successors. St. Paul was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles, (2 Corinth. XI. 5.) therefore what? common Reason would have concluded, therefore there were more chief Apostles besides Peter; and St. Paul was not inferior to the greatest of them, not to Peter himself. These are his Scripture-Arguments for their Supremacy.  
And his Fathers affirm nothing at all of Peter, which is not said of other Apostles. Particularly St. Chrysostom (who says no such thing of Peter, as he makes him, in his 55th Hom. upon Matthew) expressly says, St. Paul governed the whole World as one Ship, Hom. 25. upon 2 Corinth. and frequently calls him, as well as Peter, Prince of the Apostles: and calls them all the Pastors and Rectors of the whole World, in his 2d Hom. upon Titus. And, to be short, the Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew (commonly ascribed to St. Chrysost.) calls all Bishops the Vicars of Christ. Hom 17. Finally, there is no Title so great, which is not given to others as well as Peter, by ancient Writers; even the Title of Bishop of Bishops, the name of Pope, Holiness, Blessed, and such like.    

XII. We hold, he saith, That a Woman may be Head, or Supreme Governess of the Church, in all Causes, as the late Queen Elizabeth was.  

Answer.  
NOne of us ever called Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church: unless, as it signifies Supreme Governor. And that indeed we assert she was, and all our Kings are, of all persons whatsoever, in all Causes. But because some lewd People perverted the meaning of this, our Church took care to explain it in one of the Articles of Religion; that no man might mistake in the matter, unless he would wilfully, as this Writer doth; who could not but understand, that it is expressly declared, Article XXXVII. that when we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government, we do not give to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or the Sacraments, etc. but that only Prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in the holy Scripture by God himself. That is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal; and restrain with the Civil Sword, the stubborn and evil doers. This is our avowed Doctrine.  
Now, what do our Bibles say against this? Nothing, but a woman may not teach, 
1 Tim. II. 12.  etc. 1 Tim. II. 12. And do not we say the same, that our Princes may not minister the Word, or Sacraments? What a shameless sort of People have we to deal withal; who face us down that we affirm what we flatly deny? And when he pretends faithfully to recite the words of our Bible, after the New Translation (as he doth in his Preface) here he gives us another Translation in the second Text he alleges, 1 Cor. XIV. 34. But take it as it is, it proves nothing but his folly and impudence; unless he could show that Queen Elizabeth preached publicly in any of our Churches. But see the Childishness of this Writer, in alleging these Texts against the Queen, which make nothing against our Kings; who are not Women sure: And we ascribe the same power to them, which we did to her; and no more to her than belongs to them.  
From Scripture he betakes himself to Reasoning; which proceeds upon the same wilful, Mistake we cannot call it, but, Calumny, (against our express Declaration to the contrary) That we give our Kings such an Headship, or Supreme Power, as makes them capable to minister the Word and Sacraments. From whence he draws this new Slander, That many hundreds of them have been hanged, drawn and quartered, for denying this Power. Whereas every one knows the Oath of Supremacy is nothing else but a solemn declaration of our belief, that our Kings are the Supreme Governors of these Realms, in all Spiritual things or Causes, as well as Temporal: and that no Foreign Prince or Prelate hath any Jurisdiction, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, in these Realms, etc.  
Now what can he find in his Fathers to oppose this? There were none of them, for above 800 years, who did not believe this; that Emperors and Kings are next to God, and the Pope himself ought to be subject to them. 
L. II. 1.  The words of Optatus speak the sense of them all; There is none above the Emperor but God alone who made him Emperor. And none can deny the Ancient Custom to have been, that the Clergy and People of Rome having chosen the Pope, the Emperor confirmed or invalidated the Election as he pleased. Adrian indeed would fain have changed this Custom, (Anno 811.) but still it continued a long time, that the Election was not accounted valid, till the Emperor's Confirmation. And he cannot but know, (if he have read his own Authors) that after Adrian's attempt, above forty Popes, from John IX. to Leo IX. were all created by the Emperors, who frequently also deposed Popes. And Popes were so far from having any such Authority over the Emperors, that when Pope Gregory VII. adventured upon it, it was esteemed a Novity, not to say an Heresy, (as Sigebert's words are, ad Anno 1088.) which had not sprung up in the World before.  
But the Reader may here observe how well skilled this Man is in the Fathers, who places John Damascen in the very front of them, who lived in the Eighth Century, and yet is set before Theodoret who lived in the Fifth, and St. chrysostom who lived in the Fourth, nay, and before his Ignatius, who lived in the time of the Apostles; whose words import no more, but that all must obey their Bishop as their Pastor; which agrees well enough with the Bishop's obeying the Emperor as his Prince. What John Damascen says, I cannot find; nor is there any thing of that nature in the place he quotes out of Theodoret. But Valens was an Arian, who commanded things contrary to the Christian Religion, and so was not to be obeyed. It is mere tittle-tatle about St. Chrysostom's calling the Bishop a Prince, as well as a King; for a greater than he, Constantine the Great, in like manner calls himself a Bishop, as to all External Government.    

XIII. That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man; and that the Pope is Antichrist.  

Answer.  
THIS Proposition hath two Parts; neither of which are the settled Doctrine of our Church, or of any other Protestants; but the Common Opinion of all, some few excepted. Especially the first Part, That Antichrist shall not be a particular Man, but a Succession of Men; which may be evidently proved from the Confession of the ablest Men in the Roman Church. For it is the Opinion of almost all their Interpreters, that the last Head mentioned by St. John. XVII Rev. 11. and called after a signal manner by the Name of THE BEAST, is no other than Antichrist. Now all the foregoing Heads do not signify so many single Persons only; but all Expositors, saith their Ribera 
* In XVII. Revel. , have understood that in every one of those Heads, there are a great many comprehended. And never hath any man, but Victorinus taken them only for Seven single Persons, whose Opinion ALL do deservedly gainsay. To the very same purpose, also Alcazar, another famous Roman Expositor, writes upon the same place. And let this man, or any one else tell me, if they can, why the last Head, i. e. Antichrist, as he is commonly called, should not comprehend a Succession of single Persons of the same sort, as it is is manifest the Beasts in Daniel signify. The Ram, for instance doth not signify Darius only, but the Ruling Power of Persia, during that Kingdom. And the He-goat, not Alexander alone, but him and his Successors, VIII. Daniel 4, 5.  
Now from this ground, it may be plainly proved, (which is the Second thing) that the Ruling Power at this time in the Roman Church is The Beast, that is, Antichrist. For the Beast and Babylon are all one in this Vision; and by Babylon is certainly meant Rome (as their great Cardinal Bellarmine and Baronius, the best of their Authors, not only confess but contend). And not Rome Pagan, but Rome Christian, because she is called the Great Whore, XVII. Rev. 1. which always signifies, a People apostatised from true Religion to Idolatry; and because it is the same Babylon, which St. John saith, must be burnt with fire, Ver. 16. XVIII. 18. From whence Malvenda, another of their Authors, confesses it probable, that Rome Christian will be an Idolatrous Harlot, in the time of Antichrist; because it is to be laid desolate, it is manifest, for some Crime against the Church of Christ.  
Now that this Antichristian Power ruling in that Church, is not to be adjourned to the end of the World, as they would fain have it, but is at this present; appears from hence, that the Sixth HEAD being that Power which reigned when St. John saw this Vision (XVII. Rev. 10.) there was but one Ruling Power more, and that to continue but a short space, to come between the end of the Sixth HEAD, and this last HEAD or Power, called in an eminent sense, THE BEAST, v. 11. Now that Imperial Power which reigned at Rome in time of St. John, it is evident ended at the fall of the Western Empire with Augustulus; when another settled Authority was received by the City of Rome itself, instead of that former Imperial Government. Which new Authority lasting but a short space, as the Vision tells us, it is plain, THE BEAST, that is, Antichrist, is long ago in the Throne of the Roman Church. Let this Man, and all his Friends, try if they can answer this Argument, and see how they will free the Papacy, from being that Antichristian Power, which St. John foretold should arise, and make itself drunk with the Blood of the Saints. I am sure this is a stronger and clearer Explication of that Scripture, than any he hath attempted.  
And now let us examine whether there be any thing in our Bible contrary to this. The first place he produces, 2 Thess. II. 3, 
2 Thess. II. 3.  etc. most evidently overthrows both parts of his Proposition; as I shall demonstrate. For the Man of Sin, and the Son of Perdition, v. 3. is no more to be restrained to a single Person, than he who now letteth, v. 7. is to be restrained to a single Emperor. Now St. chrysostom in plain terms saith, that the Apostle by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 5. that which withholdeth this Man of Sin from appearing, was the Roman Empire: And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 7, he who now letteth, the very same Roman Power, that is the Roman Emperors; not one particular Emperor, but the whole Succession of them, who as long as they lasted would keep back the Man of Sin. And this is not only his Sense (in his Comment upon the place) but the general Sense of the Ancient Fathers (Tertullian, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Hierom, and St. Austin, and a great number of Schoolmen in the Roman Church) that upon the fall of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall come. Which may satisfy any unprejudiced Man, both that Antichrist is come, and that he is not a particular Man, but a Succession of Men, who altogether make up one Person, called the Man of Sin, who can be none else but the Papacy. For what particular Man is there, to whom this can be applied, after the fall of the Empire?  
His next place of Scripture, as he quotes it, is neither out of our Bible, 
XIII. Rev 18.  nor out of theirs (so little is his honesty). For thus the words run in both, Let him that hath understanding count the number (not of a Man, as he falsely translates it, but) of the Beast, for it is the number of a Man. Now I have proved the Beast doth not signify a particular Man; and therefore this Number, whatsoever it is, ought not to be sought only in one Man's name. Which is not the meaning of the Number of a Man, as this Man would have it; but signifies, as a better Interpreter than he (viz. Arethas out of Andreas Caesariensis) A number, or counting, usual and well known to Men. And if we will believe Irenaeus, (who in all probability was not the Inventor of it, but had it from the foregoing Doctors of the Church) it is to be found in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. 
L. V cap. 30.  Latin, for saith he, They are Latins who now Reign; but we will not Glory in this. For it being the Common Opinion of the Church, the Latin, i. e. Roman Empire was that which hindered the appearance of Antichrist; Irenaeus might thence conclude, that Antichrist should reign in the Seat of that Latin Empire, when it was fallen. And Antichrist not being, as I have proved, a particular Man, this Number must be common unto all that make up that Antichristian Rule in the Roman Church. In which the Popes are all Latins; and they are distinguished from the Greeks by the Name of the Latin Church, and they have their Service still in the Latin Tongue; as if they affected to make good this Observation, that in them is found this number of the Beast. But I lay no great weight upon this Opinion of Irenaeus, though it will be very hard for them to confute it.  

1 John II. 22.  As to the 1 John II. 22. we do not say the Pope is the Antichrist there meant; and yet for all that, he may be the Great Antichrist. For it is to be observed, That St. John saith there, v. 18. that there were many Antichrists in his time; and this Antichrist who denied Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh, or that Jesus was the Christ, was one of them; yet not a single Person, but a Body of Men; there being several Sects of them, under Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and the rest who belonged to this Antichrist. All which Heretics their own Church acknowledges, were the foreruners of the Great Antichrist, whom we are seeking after, and can find no where but in the Papacy.  
From hence he runs back again to the 2 Thess. II. 4. where those very Characters, 
2 Thess. II. 4, etc.  which he saith do not agree to the Pope, are those whereby we are led to take him for the Man of Sin. He being manifestly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That wicked One; we translate it, who will be subject to no Laws; and sits in, or upon the Temple of God, that is, the Christian Church; where he exalts himself over all that is called God, that is, all Power on Earth; whom he makes subject to his decrees, which he would have received as the Oracles of God, and that by a blind Obedience against men's reason; which is more than God himself requires of us. The Original of his Greatness was out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire. His coming was with lying Wonders; and (whatsoever this Man fancies) our Lord Jesus Christ, though not yet come, will come and certainly destroy him: When the kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever, XI. Rev. 15.  
The last place upon which he adventures to discourse, is V John 43. 
V John 43.  where we have only his word for it, that when our Saviour saith, If another shall come in his own Name, he means, especially the wicked Antichrist. Why him especially? Or him at all? And not rather any one, who should pretend to be the Christ? As several did (according to our Saviour's Prediction, XXIV. Matth. 5.) such as Theudas, Barchozba, mentioned by Josephus, and another of the same Name in the time of the Emperor Adrian. And indeed there are such clear Demonstrations (which I have not room to mention) that this word another ought not to be restrained to one Single Person (such as they make the Great Antichrist) but signifies any body indifferently, who pretended to be the Christ; that we may well conclude those to be blinded, who make Christ have respect to the Great Antichrist, and from thence conclude the Pope not to be that Antichrist, because the Jews do not follow him. Alas! they see as little concerning Antichrist, as the Jews do of Christ (as was truly observed by an Eminent Divine of our own long ago). For as the Jews still expect the Messiah, who is already come, and was Crucified by their Forefathers; so they of the Roman Church look for an Antichrist, who hath been a long time revealed, and is reverenced by them as a God upon Earth. Thus Dr. Jackson 
* Book III. On the Creed, Ch. 8. , who ventures to say further, That he who will not acknowledge the Papacy to be the Kingdom of Antichrist, hath great reason to suspect his heart, that if he had lived with our Saviour, he would scarce have taken him for his Messiah 
* Ib. Chap. XXII. p. 452. .  
They that have a mind to see more of this Man's folly, may look into the other Scriptures, he barely mentions, where they will soon discover, how much they make against him.  
What the Fathers say about this matter, I have already acquainted the Reader; which is so positive and unanimous, that it is sufficient to overthrow what some of them say conjecturally. Particularly, upon the place last mentioned, V John 43. concerning which they speak with no certainty, as they do of the rise of Antichrist after the Roman Empire was removed out of the way, which gave the greatest advantage to the Bishop of Rome to advance himself unto that unlimited Power, which he hath usurped over the Church of God. In short, this Man hath stolen all his Authorities about this matter, out of Feuardentius' Notes upon Irenaeus 
* Lib. V C. 25. , where he makes this alius, another, to be Antichrist; because he is alienus à Domino; an alien from the Lord; which is not the right Character of Antichrist, whom St. Paul makes to be no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Adversary, who opposeth our blessed Saviour. And to show that this is a mere Accommodation, he adds in the next words, that he is the unjust Judge, whom Christ speaks of, that feared not God, nor regarded Man. It any one can think the Fathers intended to expound the Scripture, and to give us the express sense of it in such Speeches as these, he hath a very strange understanding.    

XIV. That no Man, nor any but God, can forgive, or retain Sins.  

Answer.  
THE strength of these Men lies only in their deceit and fraud. They dare not represent either their own Doctrine, or ours truly. For this Proposition, is both true and false, in divers regards. It is true, that none but God can absolutely and sovereignly forgive Sin: But it is false, that no Man can forgive Sins Ministerially and Conditionally. For by Authority from God, Men appointed thereunto do forgive Sins, as his Ministers, by Baptism, by the Holy Communion, by Preaching, and by Absolution. The only Qustion is, Whether their Absolution be only declarative, or also operative? And in this, if we be not all agreed, no more are they of the Roman Church. For P. Lombard did not believe that the Priest wrought any Absolution from Sins; but only declared the Party to be absolved. And the most Ancient Schoolmen follow him; such as Occam, who says, according to the Master, that Priests bind and lose, because they declare Men to be hound and loosed. In short, the Doctrine of the Church is, that God absolves by his Ministers; who cannot see into men's hearts; and therefore can only pronounce, that he absolves them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, upon supposal of their unfeigned Repentance. But it is apparent the Church always believed, it is God who properly absolves and forgives Sins, not the Priest. For all the Ancient Rituals show that the Absolution was given by Prayer to God for the Penitent, there being no other Form of Absolution in them, but Prayers; which being made in behalf of the Penitent, they believed did obtain from God the pardon of those Sins, which he had with all humility publicly confessed. And therefore the present form, I absolve thee, (which was never used but in the Latin Church, and not there neither, till the middle of the XIIIth. Century) must be understood to be only a very solemn declaration, That God forgives the person, upon his sincere Contrition and Repentance.  
This is the meaning of our Saviour, XX. John 21. 
XX. John 21.  when he made the Apostles his Delegates, saying, As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Which supposes a superior Power to theirs, in whose Name they acted only as Ministers.  
And therefore when he adds in the next words, 
Ibid. v. 22, 23.  v. 22, 23. Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, etc. Menochius expounds it thus; That though the Holy Ghost was not given till the day of Pentceost, yet on the first day of the Resurrection, they received the Grace of it, by which they might remit sins, and baptise, and make children of God, and give the Spirit of Adoption to them that believed, etc. Now let any man tell me, whether it were they that, for instance, gave the Spirit of Adoption, or God himself; they that healed and wrought Miracles, (as they did after the day of Pentecost), or God by their Ministry. In like manner, it was not they who conferred Forgiveness of Sins, but God properly bestowed it, as he did the other Blessings; they only serving as Ministers, by whom he conveyed it to the Penitent.  
In the next place of Scripture he makes bold to add words, which are neither in our Bible, nor theirs, IX. Matth. 8. When the multitude saw it, (i. e. the man take up his bed and walk) they marvelled and glorified God, which had given such power unto men, he adds, as to forgive sins. Whereas the Evangelist speaks of the power of healing a sick man, which they saw plainly; and which our Saviour alleges as an Argument that he could forgive sins; which the multitude could see no other way, but in this miraculous demonstration of it. But suppose the multitude had admired at his Power to forgive sins, will it follow that any body else hath that Power which Christ had? No; Christ could as man, forgive sins, yet not as any sort of man, (saith Menochius 
* Non ut qualiscunque homo, sed ut homo Deus.  himself), but as God-man; which no Priest whatsoever is.  
He bids us, after his usual form, see more in several Texts which he sets down without the words; and we are very willing to obey him, if there were any thing to be seen to this purpose: But the two first of them are only a promise of what our Saviour afterward bestowed; and we have heard what that was, from XX. John 23. The two next speak not of forgiving sins, nor merely of retaining them, but of delivering men up to Satan, which no body now can do.  

2 Cor. II. 10.  The next, 2 Cor. II. 10. proves too much, if it prove any thing to this purpose; for it speaks of the whole Church giving Pardon to an Offender, viz. by receiving him again, by the Apostles order, into their Communion. 
V 19  The next, 2 Cor. V 19 relates to the Apostles reconciling men, by preaching the Word of God, as Menochius expounds it; or if by Word of Reconciliation we understand, saith he, the thing, that is, Reconciliation itself, than the Apostle speaks of the whole Power and Ministry of reconciling men to God. The last place out of V Numb. 6. is as impertinent, as the quotations that follow out of the Fathers; which they have a little mended, since Bishop Montague lashed this Author severely for his childish and careless Transcriptions of them out of Father Bellarmine. You may judge of them all, by the last save one (which was the first heretofore) out of Irenaeus, L. V c. 13. who proving that we have a Specimen of the Resurrection, in those whom Christ raised from the dead, instances in Lazarus, unto whom he said, come forth, and the dead man came forth bound hand and foot, etc. A Symbol, saith he, or Type of that man, who is tied and bound in sins; and with respect to this, the Lord said, Lose him, and let him go. But what good would their losing him have done, if Christ had not first raised him from the dead? unto whose power, not theirs, all that followed is to be ascribed. And to whom did Christ speak, when he bade them lose Lazarus, but to the Jews who were present? As Maldonate, one of their own good Writers expounds it, and saith, It is the opinion of all good Authors, except Austin, Gregory, and Bede; and adds, That to found the Doctrine of Confession or Absolution upon this place, is no better than to build upon sand. But if it be supposed that he here speaks to his Apostles, and bids them lose him, still it can figure no more, but a declaration of Pardon of Sins, granted already by the Mercy of the Almighty. What St. Austin therefore saith in the place which this man mentions first, is to no purpose; for it is the very same with this of Irenaeus: For having said in the beginning of that Tractate 
* Tract. XLIX. in John. , that the works of our Lord were not only facta, but signa, and showed how the three persons raised by him from the dead, signify the raising up three degrees of sinners out of their sins: When he comes to this passage in the story of Lazarus' Resurrection, Lose him and let him go; he saith, What is lose him, etc. but what ye lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven? And let it be so, that our Lord's words fitly represent this, yet still it was God that properly loosed men from their sins; the Apostles were but Ministers in this business, who declared what God had granted: As God raised up Lazarus from the dead, they only untied him, after he had really made him alive, and raised him out of his Grave.  
All the rest out of the Fathers, is no better than this, and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with it, but pass to the next: Where he makes us say,    

XV. That we ought not to confess our sins to any man, but to God only.  

Answer.  
THis is a most impudent falsehood; for we press this as a Duty in some cases, for the quieting of men's Consciences, when they are burdened with Gild; particularly, before they receive the Communion, and when they are sick. But that which we affirm in this matter, is, That God doth not require all Christians to make a particular Confession, privately to a Priest, of every sin he hath committed, though only in thought, under pain of being damned, if he do not. Much less do we believe such Confession to be Meritorious, and Satisfactory for sin. Nor do the Scriptures which he quotes, prove a syllable of this doctrine.  
The first he alleges, III. Matth. 5, 6. 
Matth. III. 5, 6.  speaks of those who confessed their sins, before they received Baptism of John the Baptist. But what is this to Confession of sins after Baptism? And besides, there is not a word of their confessing them to John; nor of particular Confession of every sin: And therefore Maldonate tells such raw Divines as this, We ought not to rely upon this Testimony, for it is manifest it doth not treat of Sacramental Confession, which was not yet instituted. And Bellarmine, their great Master, durst venture no further, than to call this, which was done at John's Baptism, a figure of their Sacramental Confession. And this poor man himself concludes no more from hence, than this, That we may confess our sins, (who doubts of it?) not only to God, but also to man. But this is very short of what he undertook to prove by express Texts, That we ought to confess, etc.  

Act. XIX. 18, 19  Nor dare he venture to conclude any more from the next place, but that we may confess our sins to men, XIX. Acts 18, 19 Where he bids us, Behold, Confession, but doth not tell us to whom: So we are never the wiser; because it might be to God, and that before all the Company, as the words seem to import. But he bids us also, Behold Satisfaction; because several people, (not the same he spoke of before) brought forth their curious Books, which were worth a great deal of money, and burned them before all men. A plain and public demonstration indeed, that they detested those Magical Arts whereby they gave also satisfaction to all men, of their sincere renunciation of such wicked practices: But what proof is this of a Compensation made to God hereby for their Sins, which deserved of him an acquittance?  
His Third Text is still more remote from the business, V Numb. 6, 7. 
Numb. V 6, 7.  and therefore alleged by wiser heads than his, such as Bellarmine, only as a figure of Sacramental Confession; the least shadow of which doth not appear: For there is neither Confession of all sins here mentioned, but only of that particular for which the Sacrifice was offered; nor Confession of the sin to the Priest, but rather to the Lord, as the words more plainly signify; If a man or w●●an commit any sin that men commit, and do trespass against the LORD, and that person be guilty, than they shall confess their sin which they have done. An  Reader would hence conclude, they were bound to confess their sin to the LORD, against whom they had trespassed.  
His other Scriptures, perhaps, he was sensible, were nothing to the purpose; and therefore he only sets down the Chapter and Verse, as his manner is, when he bids, See more, where nothing is to be seen: For the first is only the same we had out of St. Matthew. The next, V James 16. speaks of one man's confessing his sins to his neighbour. The next we had before, under the former Head: And the last I am willing to think is misprinted, or his mind was much amiss when he noted it, XVII. Matth. 14.  
His Fathers also have only the word Confession, not saying, whether to God, or to man; and he thinks that enough: But it is a shameless thing to quote St. Chrysostom for this Doctrine; who in so many places exhorts his people only to confess their sins in private to God; that Sixtus Senensis is forced to expound him, as if he spoke only against the necessity of such Public Confession, as was abolished at Constantinople. But Petavius (who proves there was no such Public Confession) is fain to desire the Reader to be so kind, as not to take St. Chrysostom's words strictly, but spoken popularly, in a heat of declamation: And we are content to do so, if they would be so just as to do the same in other cases: But still we cannot think St. Chrysostom so very , but that sometimes he would have been so cool, as to have spoken more cautiously, and not have so frequently overlasht, as they make him.  
That which he quotes out of Ambrose, he is told by Bellarmine, is Greg. Nyssen; so little doth this poor man know of their own Authors. As for his sitting to hear Confessions, (if his Author be worth any thing, which is much suspected by Learned men of his own Communion) it is meant of Public Confession, such as was in use in his time.    

XVI. That Pardons and Indulgences were not in the Apostles times.  

Answer.  
NOthing truer, by the Confession of their own Authors; particularly Antoninus 
* Part I. Tit. X c. 3.  in his Sums; Of these we have nothing expressly, neither in the Scriptures, nor out of the say of the Ancient Doctors. The same is said by Durandus, and many others; who have been so honest as to confess, That such Indulgences and Pardons as are now in use, are but of late invention: There being no such thing heard of in the Ancient Church, as a Treasure of the Church, made up of the Satisfaction of Christ and of the Saints, out of which these Indulgences are now granted, for the profit of the dead, as well as of the living. Whereas of old they were nothing but Relaxations of Canonical Penances, when long and severe Humiliations had been imposed upon great Offenders; which sometimes were thought fit to be remitted, upon good considerations, either as to their severity, or as to their length. Now this, which was done by any Bishop, as well as he of Rome, we are not against. But such Indulgences are in these ages of no use, because the Penitential Canons themselves are relaxed, or rather laid aside, and no such tedious and rigorous Penances are inflicted; which the Church of Rome hath exchanged for Auricular Confession, and a slight Penance soon finished  
The first place he produces out of our Bible to countenance their Indulgences, 
2 Cor. II. 10.  we had before to prove men may forgive sins, Sect. XIV. and others have alleged it to prove men may satisfy for their sins; now it is pressed for the service of Indulgences. What will not these men make the Scripture say, if they may have the handling of it? But after all, this will not serve their purpose; for the Pardon the Apostle here speaks of, was nothing but the restoring him again to Christian Communion, who had been thrown out of the Church. But is this the Indulgence they contend for in the Church of Rome? Will this serve their turn? Then every Church hath as much power as this comes to; and the whole body of the Church will have a share in this power of Indulgences: For St. Paul speaks to all the Corinthian Christians in general, that they should forgive him.  
And so he doth also in the next place here alleged, v. 6, 7. 
Ibid. v. 6.7.  of the same Chapter; which speak of a Punishment inflicted by many; which he tells them ought not to be continued, but contrariwise, Ye ought to forgive him, and comfort him, etc. Upon which words hear what your Menochius says, This Punishment was public Separation from the Church, out of which he was ejected by MANY, i. e. by you all, with detestation of his Wickedness, etc. The forgiveness of which, was taking him into the Church again, as Theodoret expounds the next words, v. 8. Unite the member to the body; join the sheep together with the flock; and thereby show your ardent affection to him.  
He bids us see more in two other places of Scripture, which we have examined before for other purposes, but he would have serve for all: A sign they have great scarcity of Scripture-proofs; and therefore he gives us a larger Catalogue of Fathers; which he packs together after such a fashion, as no Scholar ever did. For after Tertullian and Cyprian, who speak only of the forenamed Relaxation of Canonical Censures, he mentions the Council of Lateran, but doth not tell us which; though if he had, it would have been to no end: For the first Lateran Council was above Eleven hundred years after Christ: And Innocent III. who is his next Father, lived an hundred year later; holding the IVth. Lateran Council, 1215. After these he brings St. Ambrose, Austin, chrysostom, who lived 800 years before, and knew of no Indulgences, but such as I have mentioned. Lastly, He tells us, Urban the second granted a Plenary Indulgence; and when lived this holy Father, do you think? Almost eleven hundred years after Christ, Anno 1086. A most excellent proof, that the Romish Indulgences were in use in the Apostles times. Can one think that such men as this, expect to be read by any but fools? who perhaps may imagine this urban was contemporary with the Apostles. It is some wonder he did not quote that holy Father Hildebrand, Greg. VII. who something before this, granted Pardon of Sins to all those who would take up Arms against his Enemies. Poor man! he did not know this, else he would have mentioned him rather than urban, who was but his Ape.  
The Protestants hold (if you will believe him),    

XVII. That the Actions and Passions of the Saints, do serve for nothing to the Church.  

Answer.  
A Most wicked Slander; for we look upon what they did and suffered, as glorious Testimonies to the Truth they believed and preached, as strong incitements to us to follow their Examples, and as eminent Instances of the Power of God's Grace in them; for which we bless and praise him, and thankfully commemorate them.  
But all this serves for nothing to the Church, that is, to the Church of Rome; unless men believe there is a Treasury which contains all the superfluous Satisfactions of the Saints, who suffered more than they were bound to endure. Of which vast Revenue that Church having possessed itself, it serves to bring abundance of Money into their Coffers; which must be paid by those who desire to be relieved out of these superabundant Satisfactions of the Saints, by having them applied to them, for the supply of their defects. This is the meaning of this very man, it appears, by the Scriptures he quotes for their belief.  

I. Col. 24.  The first is, I. Col. 24. which speaks of the Persecutions St. Paul endured, in Preaching the Gospel to the Colossians; which though grievous to him, was so beneficial to them, that he rejoiced in his Sufferings, and resolved to endure more for the confirmation of their Faith, and for the edification of the Church of Christ. This he calls, filling up what was behind of the afflictions of Christ: Because Christ began to testify to the Truth, by shedding of his Blood, and thence is called the Faithful Witness: But it remained still, that the Apostles should give their Testimony by the like Sufferings, because the Gospel was to be carried to the Gentile World; which could not be effected without their enduring such hardships, as Christ had endured in Preaching to the Jews. Thus Theodoret expounds, That which was behind, or which remained of the Affliction of Christ. But here is not a word of Satisfaction; no, not by Christ's Sufferings, which were of such value, that there was nothing of this nature left to be done by others. This, better Men than this, of their own Church, ingenuously confess. Particularly, Justinianus, a Jesuit, whose words are these upon this very place, He saith he filled up what was wanting of the Passion of Christ, not to merit indeed, or make Satisfaction (for what can be wanting to that which is Infinite?) but as to the Power and Efficacy of bringing Men to the Faith; that his Mystical Body, which is the Church, may be perfected, etc. For he signifies in the latter end of the Verse, That he suffered for the enlarging or propagating of the Church, to confirm and establish its faith, that he might provoke others to his imitation.  
I could add many more, to show the Folly of this Man; who saith, From hence Ground hath always been taken for Indulgences. A notorious falsehood; not always, for Indulgences are late things; not by all Men in their Church, since it used them. For Estius in his Notes upon this place, absolutely disclaims it, and saith, Tho some Divines hence argue that the Passions of the Saints are profitable for the remission of sins, which is called Indulgence; yet he doth not think this to be solidly enough concluded from this place.  
Which I have been the longer about, because they are wont to make a great noise with it. The next place they curtailed heretofore in this manner; 
Philip. II. 30.  He was nigh unto Death, not regarding his Life, to supply your lack (leaving out what follows, of service towards me) which made it sound something like, as if their lack of Goodness had been supplied by his Merits, or rather Satisfaction: for Merit will do no service in this case. But Bishop Montague banged them so terribly for this foul play, that now they have printed it right; though, alas! nothing to the purpose. And therefore this Man doth not venture to say so much as one word upon this Text; but barely recites the words, and leaves the Reader to make what he can of them. And all that Menochius, a truly Learned Expositor of their own, could make of them, is this, That St. Paul being in Prison, Epaphroditus performs him those good Offices, which the Philippians should have done, had they not been absent: But he so much neglected himself, while he was wholly intent upon serving the Apostle, that he fell dangerously sick, and lay for a time without hope of Life.  
Finding so little relief in these places of Scripture, he betakes himself to arguing from that Article of our Creed, The Communion of Saints. Which Bellarmine, 
L. 1. de Indulg. c. 3.  from whom he borrows these goodly proofs, manages on this manner, We are taught by this Article, that all the Faithful are Members of one another, being a kind of living Body. Now as living Members help one another, so the Faithful communicate good things among themselves; especially when those which are superfluous to the one, are necessary or profitable to the other.  
This is admirable Catholic Doctrine. The Saints have more than they need, and therefore they communicate it to us, for the supply of our wants. But this should have been proved, and not supposed, that the Saints have more than enough, something to spare; and that their Passions were Satisfactions, and Superabundant Satisfactions. After which it would still remain a pretty undertaking to prove, that because one Member helps another when it suffers any thing; therefore the Sufferings of one Member will Cure another Member; the Pain, for instance, of the long Finger will free the little Finger from the pain which it it suffers. Thus the Actions and Passions of Saints are not imparted to us; as this Man presumes from the Relation we have one to another; and yet they serve for very good purposes to the Church, as I have already shown.  
And one would imagine he disinherited this Argument after he had set it down, because he runs back again to the Scriptures. A great Company of which he heaps up, to no more purpose than if he had quoted so many Texts of Aristotle. I will give the Reader a taste of one or two: The first is, CXIX. Psalm 63. I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts. Thus the words run expressly in our Bible. Now let me beseech the Reader to consider what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant, for the Church Militant or Patiented, or for both, he can find contained in this Text, as he saith there is in all the Passages he quotes. Let him look into the next, and I will be his Bonds man, if he meet with a word of any Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant; but only mention of many Members, which make up but one Body, 1 Cor. XII. 12. And what Action or Prayer of the Church Triumphant, can one gather out of St. Paul's care for all the Churches, 2 Cor. XI. 28. As for LIII. Isaiah, the Church always thought it a Prophecy of the Sufferings of Christ, and not of the Saints; and so the Apostles interpret it in many places. If he mean, LIII. Psalm 9 (as one Edition of his Book hath it) there are not so many Verses in it; and we should be as far to seek for any sense, if we should see more, and therefore I will look no further.  
What the Fathers affirm, he bids us also see, but doth not tell us; and I cannot trust him so much, as to think it worth my pains to look into the places, to which he points us. St. Austin, I am sure (the first he names) is abused by him; who hath not a word of this matter in his Second Chapter of his Book, about the Care of the Dead; which is altogether concerning this Question, Whether the Dead suffer any thing for want of Burial? Upon the LXI. Psalm indeed (which he quotes at last) he mentions that place of St. Paul, 1 Coloss. 24. and discourses how Christ suffered not only in his own Person, but in his Members; every one of which suffers what comes to his share; and all of them together fill up what is wanting of the Sufferings of Christ. So that none hath Superabundant Sufferings; but he expressly saith, That we every one of us, Pro modulo nostro, according to our small measure, Pay what we own, (mark that, not more than we are obliged unto, which is the Romish Doctrine, but what we are bound unto) and to the utmost of our Power we cast in, as it were, the stint or measure of Sufferings, which will not be filled up till the end of the World. Which is directly against what this Man, and his Church, would have: For they that bring in but their share, and nothing more than they own, have no redundant Passions, out of which flow superfluous Satisfaction.    

XVIII. That no Man can do Works of Supererogation.  

Answer.  
HOW should he? When no Man can Supererogate till he have first erogated. In plainer terms, no Man can have any thing to spare, to bestow upon others (for this they mean by Supererogating) till he hath done all that is bound to do for himself. And therefore Bishop Andrews 
* Resp. ad Apolog. Bellarmini, p. 196.  well calls these works of Supererogation, proud pretences of doing more than a man needs; when he hath not done all he ought. For these two things are necessary to make such Works, as they mean by this word. First, That a Man have done all that God's Law commands. Secondly, That he have done something which it commandeth not. But who is there that hath done all which God's Law requires? That is, who is without all Sin? Therefore, who can by doing some voluntary things, to which he is not bound, do above his Duty, when he falls so much below it, in things expressly commanded? There is another great flaw also in this Doctrine; for they suppose precepts to require a lower degree of Goodness, and counsels a more high or excellent. Which is false, for God's Precepts require the height of Virtue; and Councils only show the means whereby we may more easily, in some circumstances, attain it. As forsaking all, keeping Virginity, are not perfections; but the Instruments of it, as they may be used.  
The places which he brings to prove men may do such works, are first, XIX. Matth. 21. 
XIX. Mat. 21.  Where there is not a word of doing any thing which might be bestowed upon others; but only of laying up treasure to himself in Heaven, by doing a thing extraordinary. We do not say, all things are commanded, but some are counselled; yet there are men of great Name in the Church (such as St. chrysostom, and St. Hilary) who call this a Commandment which Christ gave the young man. And so it is, if he would come and follow Christ, that is, be one of his constant attendants, as the Apostles were, who had left all, that they might give up themselves wholly to his Service.  
The next is no more to the purpose, 1 Cor. VII. 25. 
1 Cor. VII. 25.  for no body thinks there is any command to live single; but it was a prudent Counsel of the Apostle at that time, when the Church was in great distress; which made it adviseable for People, if they could, to keep themselves single, whereby they would shift the better, and be freed from a great many Cares and Troubles of this Life. But he doth not say, that hereby they would lay up a Treasure of Satisfactions, which would serve more than themselves, and might be bestowed upon others. This is the meaning of the Roman Church.  
The third, XIX. Matth. 12. 
XIX. Mat. 12.  hath no more in it, than the two former. It is a Counsel, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. But they who received it, did not thereby make Satisfaction for defects in obedience to God's precepts; muchless, did they do so much as to have to distribute unto others. Let who will look into the other Scriptures, which he barely notes, he will find them as empty as these; especially the first of them, X. Luke 25. 
X. Luke 25.  which contains only a question propounded to our Saviour by a tempting Lawyer: Unless he means the Answer to it, which is a Command for loving God with all the Heart, and all the Soul, etc. And it is not left at our liberty, I hope, whether we will thus love him or no.  
Not one of his Fathers say what he would have them. The first of them, St. Ambrose, only says, He that obeys a Counsel (for instance, sells all his Goods to follow Christ) may say more than he that obeys only a Precept. For he may expect a reward, as the Apostles did, when they said, Behold, we have left all and followed thee; what therefore shall we have? Whereas they that do what they are commanded, must say, We are unprofitable servants, and have but done our Duty. Now, what doth this Discourse prove? But that they shall have a greater reward themselves? but there is not a syllable of their supererogating for others. Nor in Origen, nor Eusebius, much less St. Chrysostom●, whose business it is to prove, that God's Commands are not impossible. What is this to Counsels? Of which Gregory the Great indeed (not Gregory Nyssen. who hath no such Work) speaks in his Morals; but is so far from maintaining works of Supererogation, that none can be more express than he for the Protestant Doctrine; Of the imperfection of all men's righteousness, and renouncing all confidence in our own Merits.    

XIX. That by the fall of ADAM, we have all lost our ; and that it is not in our Power to choose Good, but only Evil.  

Answer.  
THIS is another insufferable Slander in the first part of it; for if we had all lost our freedom of will, we should be no longer Men. We only say, we have not such a freedom of Will as we formerly had, and so all say. And he that says, (which is the second Part of this Proposition) It is in our power to choose that which is Good, without the assistance of Grace, is a Pelagian, that is, an Heretic; as this Man is, by contradicting what we affirm, That it is not in our power (that is, our natural strength) to choose Good, that is, Spiritual Good; of which, if he do not speak, he only babbles. For the will of Man (saith Bellarmine 
* L. VI de lib. arbitr. & gratia, c 4.  himself) in things appertaining to Piety and Salvation, can do nothing without the assistance of God's Grace; yea, without his special assistance. This is the Doctrine of the Gospel, and is our Doctrine in the Tenth Article of our Religion, unto which he hath nothing to oppose.  
For not one of his places of Scripture prove, Man hath a Power of himself to will what is good, without God's Grace. His first Scripture, 
1 Cor. VII. 37.  1 Corinth. VII. 37. speaks of a thing that is neither Good or Evil in itself; but indifferent; for no man is bound to Marry, or not to Marry; but it may be as he pleases, either way. Yet it is manifest by the very Text, that the Apostle supposes some Men have not a power to contain; and so, in their case Marriage becomes necessary.  
As to what he intermixes with this, (which is very foreign to it) My Son, give me thy heart; let me demand of him, whether any man can consent to this, unless God draw his heart to him, when he asks a man to give it? And he that is drawn, saith St. Hierom 
* L. III. adv. Pelag. , doth not run spontaneously of himself, but he is brought to it, when he either draws back, or is slow, or unwilling. But I will not abuse the Reader's time in so much as mentioning the rest; since we say nothing in this matter, but what the Gospel, what the Ancient Fathers, particularly St. Austin, say, nay, what Bellarmine himself confesses to be true; whose words in the conclusion of this Controversy, fully express our sense, and give an answer to all that this man foolishly as well as falsely charges us withal.  
The Conversion of Man to God, 
L. VI De Grat. & Lib. Arbit. c. 15. Decima scent.  as also every other good work, as it is a WORK (that is, an human act) is only from his free Will, yet not excluding God's general help; as it is PIOUS, it is from Grace alone; as it is a PIOUS WORK, it is both from our free Will, and from Grace. To this we subscribe.    

XX. That it is impossible to keep the Commandments of God, though assisted with his Grace, and the Holy Ghost.  

Answer.  
THIS is such a downright Calumny, that I cannot but say with the Psalmist, What shall be done unto thee, O thou false Tongue? We most thankfully acknowledge the Power of the Divine Grace to be so great, that it is possible for us to keep God's Commandments, to such a degree as he requires and accepts; though not with such an exact and strict obedience, as to stand in no need of his gracious Pardon of our defects.  

Phil. IU.  St. Paul means, no more, when he saith, he could do all things, that is, all before mentioned, and harder things yet, if occasion were, by the help of Christ, who administered strength to him, to do all those things, as Menochius interprets it. IV. Philip. 13.  

I. Luke 5, 6.  Nor doth St. Luke's Character of Zachary and Elizabeth, amount to more than this, that they were sincerely good People; who were therefore Blameless, or Irreprehensible, (as Menochius translates it) because, saith Theophylact, they acted out of pure respect to God, and not to please Men. For many walk in the Law of God, who are not irreprehensible, because they do all to be seen of men. But Zachary both did what God commanded, and did it irreprehensibly; not performing such things that he might please men. Thus he, and St. Austin gives another reason of this, glozing upon the Virgins mentioned Revel. XIV. In whose mouth was found no guile, because they were irreprehensible (as he renders the word, we (translate, without fault) before the Throne of God: They were, saith he, therefore without reprehension, because they faithfully reprehended themselves; and therefore guile was not found in their mouth; because if they had said, they had no sin, they had deceived themselves. It is plain by this, they did not look upon such persons as without all sin, but only sincere and entire in their obedience to Christ's Commands. Nay, it is evident Zachary himself, whom St. Luke so highly commends, was not thus blameless, as to be without all sin; for he was much to blame in not believing the Angel, who brought him a message from God, and was punished for not believing it, by being struck dumb till the Angel's word was fulfilled.  
All his other Scriptures therefore, and Fathers, proving that which none of us deny, are here alleged in vain.  
He next of all saith, we maintain,    

XXI. That Faith only justifieth; and that Good Works are not absolutely necessary to Salvation.  

Answer.  
WHat shall one do with a man that opposeth he knows not what? The first part of this Proposition is St. Paul's, who in effect saith the same, III. Rom. 28. II. Gal. 16. Therefore no man should be so bold as to contradict it, but rather explain it; which it is easy to do; for when we say, Faith only justifies, this Faith includes in it a sincere purpose of good living; without which, we believe it will not justify. And therefore the second part of it is a new slander, That we affirm Good works are not necessary to Salvation; the direct contrary to which, we hearty believe: For it is absolutely necessary to our Salvation, we all affirm, that we act according to our Faith; though by such Good works, we can merit nothing, neither Justification, nor Salvation: But we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ; by Faith, not for our own works or deserving, as the words are in the XIth. Article of our Religion. So that when we say, by Faith, it is manifest we exclude not Good works, but only the merit of them. And thus Luther himself shows (upon V Gal.) That Faith alone will not suffice, though Faith alone justifies.  
Therefore all his Scriptures might have been spared, especially the first of them, 
1 Cor. XIII. 2.  1 Cor. XIII. 2. which speaks of a miraculous Faith; and besides, doth not contradict us, who believe Faith without works will not avail to Salvation; though let us do never so much, we can never merit it by what we do.  
The second Text, II. Jam. 24. 
James II. 24.  is agreeable to what we say, That the Faith which justifies, includes in it a purpose of well-doing. Such an one as was in Abraham, whose Faith, in purposing to offer up Isaac, was imputed to him for Righteousness, though he had not actually done as he purposed to do. In like manner, if any man sincerely profess the Christian Faith, and be baptised, he is justified, though he have not as yet brought forth the fruit of it in good works; (witness the Eunuch, VIII. Acts 37.) which if he should not produce afterward, he could not be saved. St. Austin in that very Book and Chapter which he quotes, expressly saith, Good Works follow him that is justified, they do not precede him that is to be justified. What doth he think of the Thief upon the Cross, who only believed, and was not so much as baptised?  
TWO James 14. is not contrary to what we say, but according to it. Mr. Calvin himself upon these very words, saith, Therefore we are saved by Faith, because it joins us to God; which is done no other way, but that living by his Spirit, we be governed by him. St. Paul and St. James agree very well; though the one say: We are not justified by Faith only, (which is St. James' Doctrine); and the other, St. Paul, in effect says, We are justified by Faith only, when he saith, We are justified by Faith, without Works. As he shows in Abraham's case; where he opposes Justification by Faith, and Justification by Works; and affirms Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith. St. James alleging the same case, and the very same words, proves he was justified by Works, and not by Faith only. Can any one think they make use of the same instance, for quite contrary ends? It is a wonder men do not learn this plain and easy truth from hence; That Faith alone (having in it a purpose of well-doing) enters us into the state of Justification, before we have done what we purpose; but Good Works are necessary to continue us in this state, and so may be said to justify us; that is, continue our Justification, which Faith only cannot do.  
The last place, V Gal. 6. we have noted so well, that we expressly declare in our XIIth. Article, That Good works cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgement, (these are the great things we deny) yet they do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith. And the Doctrine of St. Austin 
* L. de F●de & Operib. c. 14.  is perfectly ours; which I will set down, because it explains all that I have said: A good life is inseparable from Faith; yea, in truth, Faith itself is a good life. And again 
* Lib. Quest. 83. q. 76.  How can he that is justified by Faith, choose but work Righteousness? But if any man, when he hath believed, presently departed this life, the Justification of Faith remains with him; no good work preceding, because he came to it, not by Merit, but by Grace; nor following, because he was not suffered to remain in this life. From whence it is manifest what the Apostle saith, We conclude a man is justified by Faith without works.  
All his other Scriptures therefore serve only to show his Ignorance, if not his Malice, in charging us with the denial of that which we affirm, That good works are necessary to Salvation. His Fathers he had better have kept to himself; for they frequently say, Faith only justifies. Even Origen 
* In Cap. III. , upon that very Book, the Epistle to the Romans, affirms, that Justification of Faith alone suffices, though a man hath not done any works. Which he proves by the example of the Thief upon the Cross; and the Woman in VII. Luke, to whom our Saviour said, Go in peace, thy Faith hath saved thee. But perhaps, saith he, some reading this, may think he may neglect to do well, since Faith alone sufficeth to Justification. To whom we say, That if any man doth wickedly after Justification, without doubt he despiseth the Grace of Justification. Neither doth a man receive Forgiveness of sins for this, that he may think he hath a Licence given him to sin again; for a Pardon is given him, not for sins to come, but for sins that are past. And what he saith upon the next Chapter, (not the Vth. as this man quotes him, but the IVth.) doth not contradict this; Faith cannot be imputed to those who believe in Christ, but do not put off the old man with his unrighteous acts. Which very well agrees with what he said before, and we with him: Faith enters us into a state of acceptance with God; but we cannot go to Heaven, unless we bring forth the fruit of Faith in new Obedience. So he explains himself most excellently, in that very place, a little before, in these words, which comprehend the whole business: I think that the first beginnings, and the very foundations of Salvation, is Faith; the progress and increase of the building, is hope; but the perfection and top of the whole work is Charity. I will not trouble the Reader with what the rest of his Fathers say, since they themselves are sensible their Cause is endangered by the Fathers. Which is so notorious, that they have taken care to have this passage expunged out of the very Index of St. Austin's works 
* Printed 1543. apud Ambr. Girau.  upon the Psalms, Through Grace we are saved by Faith; tho St. Paul affirms the same, II. Ephes. 8. And out of the very Text of St. Cyril upon Isaiah, these words are ordered to be expunged (by the Spanish Index of Gasp. Quiroga) the Grace of Faith is sufficient to the cleansing of sin; and Christ dwells in our heart by Faith. 
In I. Isa. & in 51.  No wonder than they have dealt thus with later Authors of theirs own, who followed the Father's Doctrine; particularly with Vatablus, out of whose Annotations upon VIII. Isa 32. they have ordered these words to be blotted out, They that beliive in the Lord, shall be saved; but they that do not, shall perish. And these upon VIII. Luk. Faith saveth.    

XXII. That no Good Works are Meritorious.  

Answer.  
AT last he speaks some truth, though very lamely. For if by meritorious were meant nothing, but that good works are highly valued by God, when performed out of love to him, and we deny ourselves to serve him; which undoubtedly he will reward with a glorious Recompense, though far transcending our services; there would be no quarrel about this matter. But by works meritorious, they mean such as are no ways defective, and have such an exact proportion to the Reward, that God is bound in strict Justice, to bestow, or rather pay it. Now this is it we deny, believing that Good works in the rigour of Justice, do not deserve eternal life as wages; and this is it which they presume, but can never prove.  
His first Text, 
XVI. Mat. 17.  XVI. Matth. 17. is so far from express, that quite contrary it saith, God will only reward every man according to his works, not for the merit of his works; which imports them to be an adequate cause; whereas according, signifies nothing of a cause, but only of a respect, or comparison between the work and the reward; so that they who have done evil shall be punished, and they that have done good be blessed. And he belies St. Austin (according to the manner of their Catholic Sincerity) to justify his Interpretation. For St. Austin speaks of the Punishment of Sinners, 
Serm. XXXV. de verbi. Apost.  not of the Reward of the Righteous. I beseech you, brethren, attend diligently, and be ye afraid as well as I, for he doth not say He will render to every one according to his mercy, but according to their works, (he saith not a word of their Faith, which this man put in of his own head) for now he is merciful, but then just. Would to God they would take St. Austin's counsel, and so diligently attend to this, as to repent of their shameless Forgeries, that they may find Mercy with God, which hereafter will be denied.  
The word for Reward in V Matth. 12. is not to be interpreted, Wages, and Hire, due to the work. For the Labourers who came at the Eleventh Hour into the Vineyard, as St. Hilary 
* In Psal. 129. in fine.  observes, received Mercedem, their Reward, not of the work, but of Mercy: Which is exactly according to St. Paul, IU. Rom. 4. where he saith, there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which this man would have translated, Wages), Reward of Grace, not of Debt. Which place St. Austin 
* In Psal. XXXI.  having occasion to mention, thus glosses; Now to him that worketh, that is, presumeth of his Works, and saith that for their merit the Grace of Faith was given, the Reward is not reckoned of Grace, but of Debt. What's this, but that our Reward is called Grace? If it be Grace, it is freely given. What's meant by freely given? It cost thee nothing. Thou didst not good, and Remission of sins is bestowed upon thee. I have quoted this at large, that if it be possible, such men as this may be put to the blush, if not confounded. As one would expect they should be, when they read St. Paul; who though he say, Death is the wages of sin, yet saith, Eternal Life is the Gift of God: Which the Fathers take great notice of, particularly St. Hierom; he doth not say, the wages of Righteousness, as he had said the wages of sin; for eternal life is not earned by our labour, but graciously bestowed by God's gift.  
The same Answer serves for the next place, X. Matth. 42. and all such Texts. And 2 Cor. V 10. was answered before; that we shall receive according to what we have done in the body; they that have done well shall be rewarded above their deserts; and they that have done evil, receive what they have deserved: Which is the highest encouragement unto well-doing; to believe, That God will do more abundantly for us, out of his infinite bounty, than we can ask or think; and not consider our merits (which are none at all) but his own incomprehensible Goodness and Mercy. They that teach otherways, derogate from the Grace of God, and proudly arrogate to themselves a worthiness, of which creatures are not capable.  
I need not examine that heap of Scriptures, which he confusedly huddles together; for they have no more in them than these we have already considered. And as for the Fathers, it is a most insufferable impudence to say, as he doth, That they unanimously confirm the same. The quite contrary hath been unanswerably proved by our Writers, That the Fathers from the first times, down to Venerable Bede, have taught as he doth, That no man ought to think his own merits will suffice him to salvation; but let him understand, That he must be saved by the sole Grace of God 
* In Psal. 31. .  
It is frivolous to allege the word Merit, so often used by the Fathers; for they mean no more thereby, but obtaining that which they are said to merit. So the word is used in innumerable places, and in many Authors: Insomuch, that in the Passion of St. Maximilian, it is said, his Mother, after he was killed, merited his Body of the Judge; that is, she obtained it by her Entreaties. Every Novice in Learning knows this.    

XXIII. Faith once had, cannot possibly be lost.  

Answer.  
IT was not possible for him to go on to speak some Truth; but he returns to his old way of Calumniating: For there is no such Position maintained among us, but expressly the contrary, in our XVIth. Article: After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may departed from Grace given (and Faith is a Grace and Gift of God) and fall into sin; and by the Grace of God we may rise again, etc. The only question is, Whether they that once have Saving Faith, may lose it totally and finally. In which there are various opinions, not only among us, but among themselves; some saying, it may be lost totally, but not finally; others, that it may be lost in both regards. But this is no matter of Faith, but only of Opinion; for which we do not break Communion.  
All his Proofs therefore out of Scripture, are perfectly impertinent; for they prove what none of us deny, That men may lose their Faith, after they have received it. As for his Fathers, St. Austin in that very Book which he quotes 
* De correp. & gratia, c. 12. , asserts the direct contrary to what is here pretended to be his sense, That there are some who cannot finally lose the Grace of God. For comparing the Grace which Adam had, with that which is now given to the Saints, he saith, To the first man (who had received a power not to sin, not to die, not to desert the good estate in which he was created) was given the aid of Perseverance; not whereby he was made that he should persevere; but without which, he could not by his  have persevered. But now to the Saints, who are predestinated by God's Grace to the Kingdom of God, there is not only given such an aid of Perseverance, but such an one, that Perseverance itself is given them; not only that without this gift they cannot persevere, but also that by this gift they cannot but persevere. For our Saviour saith to his Apostles, not only, without me ye can do nothing (XV. Joh. 5.) but withal, v. 16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain. I have quoted this at large, that such Writers as I have to deal withal, may blush, if they can, at such shameless Untruths as they father upon St. Austin. And let a deeper blush colour this man's cheeks, who quotes the Council of Trent, which was but a little above a hundred years ago, among the Ancient Fathers. His next Charge is,    

They maintain, XXIV. That God by his Will and inevitable Decree, hath ordained from all Eternity, who shall be damned, and who saved.  

Answer.  
AND who is he that dares maintain the contrary? When our Lord hath said in express terms, XVI. Mark 15, 16. Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature: He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. This is the eternal purpose of God in Christ, which the Apostles were commanded to publish every where, as his inevitable Decree concerning mankind, which cannot be avoided: That if they do not believe the Gospel which is preached to them, they shall perish; but if they sincerely believe it, and be baptised, they shall be saved.  
This Babbler, I doubt not, would have said something else, but he had not the wit, viz. That we maintain, God hath for his own mere Will and Pleasure, without any respect to men's Faith or Unbelief, resolved to damn some, and to save others. But this is not the Doctrine of our Church, as he might have seen in our XVIIth. Article. If any among us teach such Doctrine, it is no more than some of their own Doctors have taught. And it is a most senseless thing to accuse us of that, which if it be a fault, they are as chargeable with it themselves.  
His Scriptures prove nothing contrary to us; but we expressly teach according to the first of them, 
1 Tim. II. 3.  1. Tim. II. 3. That we ought to receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture. And therefore we must believe, That God would have all men to be saved; notwithstanding which, such Triflers as this man is, must be told, that God will have some men to be damned, (as I showed before) and these two Propositions do not contradict one the other.  
The next is of the same import, 2 Pet. III. 9 
2 Pet. III. 9  God is not willing any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. And yet he is willing, nay resolved, that all those shall perish, who will not repent.  
For want of other Scriptures, he runs to those that are Apocryphal, and quotes a passage out of the Book of Wisdom; which we believe to be Canonical enough in this point: And then he returns to Scripture; a great many Texts of which he jumbles together with some Apocrypha; but if any one will take the pains to consult them, he will find they do not contradict any thing that We or other Protestants affirm. Even they who believe the absolute and irrespective Decree, consent to what the Prophet Hosea saith, (XIII. 9 which is his first place), That every man's destruction is of himself. He beats the air therefore in alleging those places, and the say of the Fathers; to which we subscribe, and so do all other Protestants; whose true opinion this poor Ignoramus did not understand, and therefore could not oppose. For those that say, the cause why some are reprobated, is God's Will and Pleasure, yet maintain the cause of their Damnation and Destruction, is their own sins. This, if he had questioned, and asked them, Why God reprobates this man rather than another? they would have had St. Austin as ready at hand, as he hath, to answer for them. You seek to know the Causes of God's Will, when the Will of God is the very cause of all things that are For if the Will of God have a Cause, there is something which antecedes his Will, which it is impious to believe. If any man therefore ask, Why God made this? The Answer is, Because he would. If he go on to ask, Why would he? He searches for something greater than God's Will, when nothing greater can be found. Let human temerity therefore bridle itself, and not seek for that which is not, lest he do not find that which is, L. de Gen. contra Manich. C. 2.    

Further they hold (saith he) XXV. That every one ought infallibly to assure himself of his Salvation; and to believe that he is of the number of the Predestinate.  

Answer.  
NO man in his wits, much less any Church, ever uttered such foolish words as these; which are inconsistent with the former Assertion, That God hath resolved to damn some men. How can they who say this, oblige every man to believe he shall be Saved? The most that any one hath said is, that (not every one, but) every true believer; every one that is justified, aught to be so assured. So Bellarmine himself represents their Doctrine, which hath as many friends and favourers in the Roman Church, as it hath in ours. Where no more than this is commonly taught, That being assured of the truth of the Divine promises (which cannot deceive us) we are so far assured of attaining them, as we are certain, that we faithfully perform our duty; which is the condition upon which the attaining of them depends.  
But this is a very strange Man; for because every Man ought not to be assured of his Salvation, he will allow no Man to be assured; no, not St. Paul. Expressly against the Doctrine of his own Church, which looks upon him as a man particularly elected by God, not only to the Apostleship, but to Salvation. Nor doth he contradict this, in 1 Cor. XIX. 27. 
1 Cor. XIX. 27.  but rather tells us how he secured his Salvation, by keeping under his Body. By which means, we also may be secured; for if we continue in his Goodness, as the next Scripture speaks, XI. Rom. 20, 
XI. Rom. 20, 21.  21. we ought not to doubt he will continue it unto us to the end. And we teach no other assurance of Salvation, but by constant Fidelity unto Christ; which as long as we maintain, we ought to be certain of the other. The only fear is, lest we should not be steadfast; and therefore we are well admonished in the next Scripture, 
2 Philip. 12.  II. Philip. 12. to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling. But so doing, we shall undoubtedly be saved.  
No Church in the World more beats down vain security, than this of ours; nor doth any more encourage it, than the Church of Rome; where men are secured of their Salvation, if they can be so vain as to believe it, by confessing to a Priest, and receiving his Absolution at the last Gasp.  
The other Scriptures which he hath shovelled together, are of no different import from these, and therefore need not be examined. Nor his Fathers neither, which they have now made a shift to scrape together, though they had none in the first Edition of this Book. For they that read Bellarmine, could not but know what a great number of Testimonies are brought out of the Fathers, to confirm their Opinion, who hold men may be so certain they are in a state of Grace, that they may be assured of their Salvation. Particularly out of St. Austin, in a great number of places; more especially in XXII. Tract. upon St. John, where he argues thus. Our Saviour hath told me, He that hears my words, and believes on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation. Now, I have heard the words of my Lord; I have believed; when I was an Infidel, I was made a faithful man; and therefore, as he tells me, I have passed from Death unto Life, and shall not come into Condemnation; not by my presumption, but by his own promise. Which words are so convincing, that Bellarmine 
* L. III. the Justif. C. X.  himself acknowledges, every one may conclude from this promise of Christ, he is passed from Death unto Life, etc. The only question is, with what certainty this can be gathered, which St. Austin, saith he, doth not explain. But it is plain to every understanding, that there is the same certainty of the Conclusion, that there is of the Premises. A man may be as certain of his Salvation, as he is, that he sincerely believes Christ's words, and is obedient to them. Nor doth the place, which this man quotes out of St. Austin, contradict this, but rather confirm it; if the following words be added, which this man fraudulently conceals. They are these 
* In Psalm XLI. , There is no stability, nor hope in myself. My soul is troubled within me: Wilt thou not be troubled? do not remain in thyself; but say, To thee, O Lord, have I lift up my Soul. Hear this more plainly. Do not hope from thyself, but from God. For if thy hope be from thyself, thy Soul will be troubled; because it hath not yet found, whence it may be secure of thyself. Which shows St. Austin thought men might attain to security, but not in or from themselves; but in God alone, before whom every one ought to humble himself, that he may exalt him. It is to no purpose to examine the rest.    

XXVI. That every Man hath not an Angel-Guardian, or Keeper.  

Answer.  
MEN may believe, either that every one hath, or hath not, and yet not contradict our Church, which hath determined nothing about it; nor hath it been resolved in any Church, but every one left to think as he pleases. For all that Suarez and Vasquez (other kind of men than this) durst say in this case, is this; that though this Assertion be not expressed in Scripture, nor defined by the Church (mind that) yet it hath been received with such an universal consent, and hath such great foundation in Scripture, as understood by the Fathers, that it cannot be denied without great rashness, and almost Error. See here how cautiously these Learned men speak, and and how ingenuously they confess the Church hath determined nothing in this Point, but it is a kind of popular opinion. As for Scripture, in direct contradiction to this man, they tell us, it is not expressly delivered therein: And whatsoever foundations they think are there laid for this Opinion, it seems to me, upon serious consideration, that the Scriptures rather suppose, that every man (no, not the good) hath not a particular guardian Angel, that constantly attends him: But God sends either one or more Angels, as there is occasion, and as he thinks fit, to do what he appoints: Who after they have dispatched that business, depart from them, till he thinks fit again to employ those, or some other Heavenly Messengers for their good. This seems very manifest to me, in that which is reported, concerning Abraham, Daniel, St. Peter, St. John, and the Blessed Virgin herself in the I. of St. Luke. Let him, or any one else, show such proofs, if he can, out of Scripture, That the Angels do constantly remain with those whom they sometimes attend, and are fixed in their Office of Guardianship to them.  

XVIII. Matth. 10.  XVIII. Matth. 10. Speaks not of One Angel, but of more: and doth not say, they Guard Christ's little ones, but that they always behold the face of his Father in heaven; that is, wait to receive his Commands (as Servants who stand before their Master) which they are ready to execute. This confirms the other Opinion, I now mentioned, that Angels are only sent as God Orders, and are not fixed in their Attendance. Neither doth this Text speak of every man, as this Scribbler idly talks; but of Christians, and particularly the weaker sort, called little ones, who most needed their Ministry. Mr. Calvin also in that very place, which this man mentions, restrains his question to the faithful; who, he dare not say, have every one of them a particular Angel to minister to them, but rather inclines to the contrary Opinion.  
The XCI. Psalm 11, 12. 
XCI. Psal. 11, 12.  Proves the very same, That God gives his Angel's charge of Good men. But it neither speaks of one who is the Angel-keeper, nor that the Angels, whether more or fewer, remain always with good men. There were a great many about one Prophet Elisha, 1 Kings VI 12. But it is not likely, that those Troops were his constant Guard. But it is in vain to appeal to S. Cyril of Alexandria his opinion, that it is meant of the Angel-keeper; for they will not in other cases, as I shall show shortly, stand to his judgement.  
It is true, in the XII. Acts 13. 
XII. Acts 13.  The Jewish Christians, who were assembled in Mary's House, were of opinion, That it was the Angel of St. Peter, who knocked at the door: But whether this opinion was true, or no, is the question: which the Scripture doth not resolve: Nor can we gather the Faith of the Primitive Church (which this man thinks is apparent from this place) from the opinion of a few of the Jewish Christians; who had many opinions, which I hope this man will not justify. And though this should prove such a man as Peter had an Angel-Guardian, it will not prove that every man hath. For this seems to have been the old opinion among the Jews, That only excellent men, Persons of great integrity and usefulness, had such attendants to take care of them; for instance, Jacob, as one may gather out of St. Chrysostom's Third Hom. upon the Colossians. But it doth not appear that they thought they had them always; nor one and the same, when God favoured them with their Ministry. And thus Mr. Calvin (in that place of his Institutions, which this man quotes) says he does not see what should hinder us from understanding this Angel of St. Peter, of any Angel whatsoever, to whom God committed the care of him at that time, whom we cannot therefore conclude to have been his perpetual keeper.  
Let who pleases see more; he will not find one of the Scriptures he quotes, speak home to the point: No, not those out of Tobit (which he knows we do not own for any part of the Rule of our belief) for it doth not follow, that every man hath an Angel-Guardian, if Tobit had one who accompanied him in that journey. No, Tobit himself had not his company always; but the Angel when he had finished his journey, departed from him. See how foolish this man is, who not only quotes Books, which we allow not to be Holy Writ, but alleges places there, that make against him.  
And his Fathers he quotes as madly, beginning with St. Gregory; and putting even Gregory of Tours before St. Austin. And the Reader may judge of what value his Testimonies are, by what he alleges out of St. Hierome; whose words if he would have given us entirely, it would have appeared they carry no Authority with them. For it immediately follows, Whence we read in the Revelation of St. John, to the Angel of Ephesus, of Thyatira, and the Angel of Philadelphia: As if these had been Guardian Angels of these Churches, to whom our Saviour wrote; when all agree, they were the Bishops of those Churches; as Ribera confesses; who justly wonders that St. Hierome, or any one else, should think them to be Angelical Spirits. If St. Hierome wrote those Commentaries, it is manifest he departed from the opinion of other Fathers, when he saith, That every soul hath its Angel assigned it, from its Nativity: For they say only, That every Believer hath this privilege. There needs no more be said in this matter, which can at most be no more than a probable opinion; and therefore it is not contrary to the Faith, to deny, that every one of us hath an Angel for his custody and patronage.    

XXVII. That the holy Angels pray not for us, nor know our thoughts and desires on earth.  

Answer.  
NOne of us say, That the holy Angels pray not for us in general, (no, many Protestants grant it) but we have no reason to believe they pray for us in our particular concerns; and we are sure they do not intercede for us by their Merits, for they have none. We are sure also, that they know not our thoughts or desires; unless they be discovered by external effects or signs, or they be revealed to them by God. For the Scripture expressly saith, God only knows the heart, 1 Kings VIII. 39 1 Cor. II. 11. And this Suarez 
* L. 2. the Angel. c. XXI. n. 3.  himself saith, is a Catholic Assertion, That an Angel cannot naturally know or see the act or free consent of any created will, unless by him that hath such a tree affection, it be manifested to another. And this he saith is the fide; and proves it from Scriptures and Fathers. Now if any one will say, that God doth reveal our internal thoughts and desires to the Angels, he is a very bold man; unless he have a Divine Revelation for it. None of the Scriptures here mentioned, say any such thing.  
The first of them, I. Zach. 12. 
I. Zac. 12.  only proves, That an Angel prayed (not for a particular person, and his particular necessities, but) that he would have mercy upon Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; that is, upon the whole Nation. This many Protestants grant; and therefore he belies them when he saith, They believe the Angels do not pray for us. For this very place is alleged by the Apology for the Augustan Confession, and by Chemnitius in his Common-places, as an argument why they grant, Angels pray for the Church in general: For this Text proves no more.  
The next, 
Tob. XII. 12.  (though out of an Apocryphal Book, XII. Tob. 12.) says nothing of the Angels praying for us, but of their bringing men's prayers before the Holy One: Which the same Protestants also allow; meaning thereby only a Ministerial Oblation of men's Prayers before God, (as they explain themselves) not a Pr pitiatory Oblation, which is proper only to Jesus Christ.  

VIII. Rev. 4.  Unto whom the third place belongs, VIII. Rev. 4. not to an ordinary Angel, but to that great Angel of the Covenant (whom the Prophet speaks of, III. Mal. 1.) out of whose hand the smoke of the incense came, and ascended up before God. So St. Austin, and Primasius; nay, Viega, a famous Jesuit, affirms, that most Interpreters, by this Angel understand Christ: And he gives these good reasons for it: Unto whom, but to him alone, doth it belong to offer the Incense of the whole Church, that is, their Prayers, in a golden Censer? Who but he could send down part of the Fire with which the golden Censer was filled, (v. 5.) upon the earth, and inflame it with the Fire of the Divine Love, and the Flaming Gifts of the Holy-Ghost? etc. See the Folly of this man, who applies that to Angels, which belongs, in the opinion of most Interpreters, unto Christ alone. And see his Falseness also, who would make his Reader believe that Irenaeus understood this place as he doth; when he speaks not one word of this matter in the place he mentions; but only saith, There is therefore an Altar in the Heavens; for thither our Prayers and our Oblations are directed, and to the Temple there; as John in the Revelation saith; and there was opened the Temple of God, and the Tabernacle; for behold, saith he, the Tabernacle of God, in which he will dwell with men. In which words he hath no respect to this place, but to XI. Rev. 19 and XXI. 3.  
Once more, take notice of the wretched performance of this man, who took upon him to prove, That Angels not only pray for us, but know our thoughts and desires upon earth; about which there is not the least touch in any one of these places, which are all he quotes at large. And as for those, the Chapters and Verses of which follow, they only tell us, what Angels knew of the mind of God, which they brought in messages to men; but nothing of their knowing the minds of men. Let the Reader, if he think good, peruse them, and he will see I say true. What heart then can one have to look into his Fathers, when he deals thus insincerely with the Holy Scriptures? But to show that nothing else can be expected from such men, I will briefly note, That St. Hilary expressly speaks of such a Ministerial Intercession as many Protestants grant; that is, of their bringing men's Prayers to God, as he speaks. Whose words are a gloss upon the Apostles, I. Heb. For they are ministering spirits sent forth for to minister to them who are heirs of salvation Whereupon follows the words he quotes, Therefore the nature of God doth not need their intercession, but our infirmity; for they are sent forth for those who shall be heirs of salvation. What can be plainer, than that he speaks only of a Ministerial (for they are sent forth to Minister) not of a Powerful Intercession?    

XXVIII. That we may not Pray to them.  

Answer.  
HERE he speaks some Truth again; and a great many of his own Church ingenuously confess, That there is no command in Scripture, nor so much as an example of Praying to them.  
The Text they have most in their mouths, who assert we may Pray to them, is this which he first quotes, 
XLVIII. Gen. 16.  XLVIII. Gen. 16. But by this Angel, a great number of the Fathers understand Christ himself, St. Cyril, for instance, (to whose Authority, I told you, they dare not always stand) thus expounds it, L. 3. Thesaur. C. 1. And so doth Novatianus in his Book of the Trinity, C. 15. St. Athanasius also against the Arians, Orat. 4. And St. chrysostom upon the place (Hom. 66. in Gen.) and divers others. Therefore this is no sorry shift, (as this ignorant man presumes to call it) having such very great Patrons to maintain it. And what if St. Chrysostom in another place, understands this of an Angel, which attends (not every man, as this Writer pretends, but) every Believer (as his words are expressly, and St. Basil's) it is no more than some Protestants do, even Mr. Calvin himself is content with this Exposition in his Institutions, (though in his Commentaries on Genesis he saith it is meant of Christ), but they of the Church of Rome gain nothing at all from this concession. For Jacob's words are no direct formal Invocation or Compellation of the Angel, (for he doth not say, O Angel of God, bless the l●ds) but only an earnest desire that they might have the Angelical Protection; for which he prays to God, That he would send the Angel to preserve them, as he had done him.  
Tobit himself meant no more in the place which he next alleges, V Tob. 16. That God who dwells in Heaven, would prosper their Journey, by sending his Angel to keep them company. For it is certain, that the Jews never prayed to Angels; and it is as certain, that they constantly define Prayer by a direct and express relation to God, and none else. And therefore it is not to be thought, that any good man among them, ever joined Prayer to God and an Angel together in the same breath; as he makes Tobit do in this place. No, this is contrary to the sense of the greatest Divines in his own Church.  

XII. Hosea 4.  Before he ventured to allege the next place, XII. Hos. 4. he should have been sure that the Prophet speaks of a Created Angel, and not of the Son of God, who in the Opinion of Justin Martyr, Eusebius, St. Hilary, and many more Fathers, appeared to Jacob, and blessed him. Whence it is that he called the place Peniel, having there seen the face of God. And to this sense the next verse inclines, where he is called the Lord God of Hosts, who found Jacob in Bethel. Which the Fathers in the Council of Sirmium thought so certain, that they denounce a Curse against those that maintained it was the unbegotten Father, not the Son, (for God they concluded he was) that wrestled with Jacob. But suppose it was an Angel, the H●brews are so far from thinking that Jacob m●de supplication to him, that they conceive (many of them) the Angel made supplication to Jacob, for he prayed him to let him go. Take it otherwise; it signifies no more but that he desired him to give him his blessing: which we desire of men here upon Earth, to whom we do not properly pray.  
From hence he passes to satisfy Scruples, which he saith some have: who say, they would pray to them, if they could be assured that they hear us, etc. Who they are that say thus, I know not: they are none of us. For we do not think it lawful to pray to them, though they could hear us. But how doth he prove that they can hear us? Why, he brings the common place, XV. Luke 10. which saith there is joy in their presence, that is, in heaven (as it is, v. 7.) over one sinner that repenteth. Which shows they know when there is joy in Heaven, and what that joy is for; because they are in Heaven: but it doth not prove they know all things that pass upon earth; but only those things, of which notice is given in Heaven. At this rate we may prove, that good men know all that is done on Earth, because they rejoice at the Conversion of of a Sinner: that is, when they hear of it; and the Angels rejoice no other ways.  
They that like his Performances upon these Texts, may look into the rest: and see how, to fill up the number, he alleges the same over again, XII. Hos. 4. and now also quotes XIX. Gen. 18, etc. to prove we may pray to Angels, which in the foregoing Section, he brought to prove, that they pray for us. Nay, sends us to the Song of the three Children; where I can find nothing of praying to the Angels, no more than of praying to the Sun, and Moon, and Stars.  
His quotation out of St. Austin's Annotations on the Book of Job, is not worth our regard. For St. Austin 
* See his Retract. L. 2. C. 13.  himself was doubtful whether he should own them, being put forth by others, rather than him; and so corruptly, that he would scarce say they were his. And being admitted for his, he doth not speak home to this man's purpose: For he only says, Job seems to entreat the Angels, that they would deprecate for him; or rather the Saints, that they would pray for a Penitent. Now this is not the Religious invocation, which the Romanists plead for; but only such a desire as we make to a Friend here on Earth, to help us by his prayers. But whatsoever St. Austin may be supposed to say, it is manifest, he that thus interprets the place, mistakes very much; fancying those to be Friends in Heaven, who are Friends on Earth; of whom Job most certainly speaks. 
V Job 1.  And so doth the next place; V Job 1. which speaks not at all of praying to the Saints, but of desiring them to appear for him, and testify to his innocence. Thus Menochius himself expounds it, The meaning seems to be, I (that is Eliphaz) have already told thee my Opinion, If thou hast any Patron among the Saints, or whose testimony thou canst bring forth in thy defence; do not delay, but produce it before us. They can tell of none (as others enlarge upon the words) who was ever oppressed with such Calamities as are fallen upon thee, unless they deserved them for their sins. If these words relate to Angels, as some Protestants think they do (because the LXX. here have Angels, instead of Saints) the meaning is the same: If thou hast seen an Angel, as I have done (IV. 15.) he can give thee no other answer. Thus the same Menochius.    

Protestants hold, he saith, XXIX. That the Angels cannot help us.  

Answer.  
THIS man seems to have been in love with lying: else he could not have invented such a senseless falsehood. For no Protestant ever was so foolish as to say, they cannot help us. We believe they both can, and do: and we thankfully acknowledge their ministry, in our Public Prayers on Michaelmas day. But we look upon them only as Ministers; who can do nothing of themselves, but as they are ordered. For they are not set over us as Lords, to act according to their own pleasure: but sent by the great Lord of all, to do us service as he appoints them.  
Neither his Scriptures, nor Fathers, say more than this, and we say the same: therefore what a Trifler is this, who blots Paper to prove the Sun shines!    

XXX. That no Saint deceased, hath afterward appeared to any upon Earth.  

Answer.  
THIS is just such another Falsehood, devised on purpose to have something, right or wrong, to object against us: For no Protestant is of this mind. He saith, he hath met with some such: But for my part, I cannot give any credit to one, who hath told so many untruths.  
The Scriptures therefore which he alleges, need not be considered; much less his Story out of the Maccabees. And his Fathers are such as were imposed on by Fabulous Relations, devised to make way for the belief of Purgatory. And such Apparitions we have great reason to doubt of.    

XXXI. That the Saints deceased, know not what passeth upan Earth.  

Answer.  
NO; not every thing that here passeth, as his words seem to import. For so Aquinas 
* Pars I. Q. XII. Art. 8. ad 4.  himself resolves, speaking of the knowledge of the Blessed in Heaven, Though it be the natural desire of a rational Creature to know all things which belong to the perfection of its understanding (which are the species and kinds of things, and the reasons of them, etc.) Yet to know particulars, and the thoughts and actions of them, belong not to the perfection of a created understanding: nor doth its natural desire tend to this. The very same say we; and a little more: they may know some particulars, at some times; but not all, at all times. And let us hear what this vain Talker hath to say to the contrary.  

XVI. Luk. 29.  First, He says, out of XVI. Luke 29. That Abraham knew there were Moses and the Prophet's Books here on earth, which he had never seen when he was alive. What a Ninny is this! who undertakes to prove they know what passeth here at present (or else he doth nothing) by proving they know what is passed and gone long ago: Which they may know, and not understand what is done at this instant. Besides, if they know some such general things, it doth not prove they know all particulars: For instance, what I am now writing about this matter. St Austin, in that Book he mentions, 
* L. de cura pro mortuis.  doth indeed say, Abraham knew of Moses: But in the very same Book, and the Chapter foregoing (C. 13.) he expressly saith, the spirits of the dead are there, Where they do not see whatsoever things are done, or come to pass, in the life of men. And in the same place he allegeth, LXIII. Isa. 16. to prove, That Abraham and Israel did not know what is done in this world, nor how their children far. And (to confound this man, and all such false pretenders to Learning) he saith, in that very Chapter quoted by him (which is the 14th. not the 24th. for there are not so many Chapters in the Book) in express terms, he knew those things, not while they were a doing when they were alive, but being dead he might know them from Lazarus; and thus he resolves, lest it should be false which the Prophet saith, Abraham knows us not. And then immediately gins the next Chapter, in this manner, It must be confessed therefore, that the dead do not know what is done here, while it is doing; but may hear it afterwards from those, who dying, go from us to them. Not all things indeed, but such as they are suffered to relate, and such as they are suffered to remember, and such as are fit for them to hear. They may hear something also from the Angels, etc. It would be too long to Transcribe the rest; and this is sufficient to convince those that have a mind to understand the truth, how little credit is to be given to such men as this, Who to give us farther proofs of his folly, alleges, V John. 45. 
V John 45.  to prove the Saints know what's done here. When it's evident our Saviour doth not speak of Moses his Person, but of his Writings, or Laws; as he himself could interpret it in the foregoing place.  

XII. Rev. 10.  And who for shame (to use his own word) but such a man as he, would quote the XII. Rev. 10. to prove the Saints must know what is done on Earth, because the Devil doth; whose business it is to go to and fro (which the Saints do not) while he seeks whom he may devour: And to prove likewise the Devil knows what's done, because he lays false accusations to the charge of good Christians. So this Text signifies, as Menochius himself expounds it; The accuser, saith he, is the backbiter, the calumniator, the detractor, who accuses the Saints with false criminations, and calumnies, as anciently he did Job. A most excellent argument to prove the Devil knows what is done here, because he is a liar, a false accuser, who tells what was never done. Will people never open their eyes, and see the senselessness of these men, who trouble the World with their Brainsick Discourses?  
He promised express Scriptures, and perpetually falls into pitiful arguing. As he doth here upon another Scripture in the Old Testament, 2 King. VI 12. where, because Elisha is said to know what the King of Israel said in his Bedchamber, 
2 Kings VI 12.  he concludes that he knew by the light of Prophecy, even the inward thoughts. And what it God had revealed this to him (which he did not) would it follow that he knew the words and the thoughts of all Israel? And because he knew what the King said in secret, at some time, that he knew what he and all his People said at all times? These are extravagant Conceits; fit only for men in B●dlam. What the light of glory, as he calls it, can make the Souls of the Blessed understand, we cannot tell: but they are not capable to understand all particulars, as you heard before. And therefore St. Austin 
* Cura pro M●●tuis, c. 14. , in the Book and Chapter before-quoted by himself, argues quite otherwise: that it doth not follow, because the rich man told Abraham how many Brethren he had, therefore he knew what his Brethren did, and what they suffered at that time. In like manner, he would have argued, no doubt, in any other case, if there had been occasion; that because the Saints, for instance, know some things which they are told by others from this World, we must not infer that they know other things besides them.  
That which follows is like this, but much worse. For because Elisha, 2 Kings V. 26. 
2 Kings V. 26.  being afar off, as he says, saw all that passed between Naaman and Gehasi, therefore the Saints, he concludes, see what passes in this World. What mad stuff is this? Elisha was not afar off, for the Text saith expressly, v. 19 Naaman was departed from him a little way, when Gehasi ran after him. And in the very same Book we find, that though Elisha knew this thing, at some distance from him, yet he did not know another, which was as easy to know, viz. That the Shunamite's Son was dead, 2 King. IV. 27.  
And how doth St. Paul's being wrapped into the Third Heaven (which is his next proof) give us any reason to believe that they who are there, know what is done upon Earth? These things hang together, like Harp and Harrow.  
Nor doth it appear that St. Stephen saw from Earth, as far as Heaven. Our Saviour indeed presented himself unto him, standing (not sitting, 
VII. Acts 55.  as this man quotes it) at the right hand of the Divine Glory; which then also appeared. But so it had done, in ancient times, in the very door of the Tabernacle; where the Congregation of Israel saw it without looking as far as Heaven. But if we take it otherwise; it doth not follow, that because God can make his Divine Glory shine from Heaven to Earth, therefore any one can see from Earth to Heaven, or from Heaven to Earth. Much less, that the Saints can always see what is done here on Earth: For St. Stephen could not always behold the glory of God, and our Lord standing at his right hand; but only at that time, upon an extraordinary occasion, when God in an extraordinary manner shone upon him.  
All his own Divines will tell him, that Arguments are not to be drawn from Parables: such as that of the Rich man and Lazarus, (to which he makes his next resort). For if we allow that way of reasoning, than he may prove from hence, that we and the Saints may talk together, though at this distance one from another; as the Rich man did with Abraham, and Abraham with him. Of all the ways that have been invented, to show how the Saints may know what we do; there was never any so extravagant as this, of their seeing from Heaven what is done here.  
I believe the Reader is weary of such Discourse as this; especially if he looked for express Scripture; which this man bade him expect. Therefore I shall not exercise his patience, with any further notice of what he saith, about the Communion of Saints, which may be without the least knowledge they have of us, or we of them: as appears by the Communion of all the Members of Christ's Body here on Earth; some of which never heard of, or have ever seen the other.  
Look never so long in the other Scriptures he quotes, you will find nothing in them to the purpose. And the first of his Fathers is a Counterfeit; the two next we shall meet withal presently, to prove we may pray to the Saints; which is the drift also of this Discourse.    

XXXII. That the Saints pray not for us.  

Answer.  
THere is no such assertion as this among us; but he again calumniates us. For though the Saints cannot know our particular wants, and therefore cannot make particular Prayers for us; yet that in general they pray for that part of God's Church, which is here on Earth, and perhaps (for this we cannot affirm certainly) for some particular persons, who were well known, and dear to them, when on Earth, we do not deny: But if we did, he is so ill provided of Proofs, and of Scripture for it, that those which he alleges will work no belief in us.  
For in V Rev. 8. 
V Rev. 8.  there is a plain representation of the Church here on Earth, not in Heaven. So the latter end of their Song, v. 10. might have informed him, where they say, Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests, and we shall reign on the Earth. And thus many of the Fathers understood it; as he might have learned from Viega, one of their own Doctors. So th●t he might have spred his lo, how, etc. and we may rather say, in imitation of it, Lo, how silly an Interpreter this is of such Divine Mysteries!  
What is recorded in a Book of no authority, 
2 Macc. XV. 14.  2 Maccab XV. 14. concerning Judas his Dreams, is not worth considering: and it proves no more if we should allow it, but only a general recommendation of that Nation to God.  

XV. Jer. 1.  The next place out of XV. Jer. 1. doth not imply that Moses and Samuel then prayed for them in Heaven, but that if they did, or rather if two such powerful persons were then alive to intercede for that People, they should not prevail. And so St. Hierom (whom this man belies, as he doth us) plainly enough expounds it. Nay, his own Sixtus Senensis saith, upon the like place (though Noah, Daniel and Job stood before me) that the Prophet speaks upon a supposition, that if such men as they were in this sinful World, they should deliver none, etc. God would not hear them, for such a wicked People.  
It is of no consequence, what Baruch saith, being never reputed a Canonical Book, and, according to his own Rule in his Preface, aught to pass for nothing; unless he had proved the same that Baruch saith, by places of Canonical Writ. Besides, 
III. Baruc 4.  dead Israelites may mean no more but those now dead, who when they were alive, prayed as their Posterity now did. And so Nich. Lyra understands by dead Israelies, the holy Patriarches and Prophets, who when they were alive, prayed for the good Estate of their Posterity. Or dead, may signify those, whose condition was so low, that they could do nothing for themselves, as he describes all Israel, v. 10. that they were accounted with them that go down into the grave, that is, dead men. This, I will stand to it, is an Interpretation they cannot confute. Theodoret doth say, that these words clearly prove the immortality of the Soul: and that's all.  
I see no reason why II. Rev. 26, 27. may not be interpreted of the preferment Christ promised, in this world, to those who should keep his words, i. e. fulfil his Commands, to the end of that present persecution. But, if it relate to the other World, Menochius (a better Interpreter than he) expressly saith, that Christ speaks of the power which the Saints shall exercise in the day of judgement over all Nations, which did not obey Christ: judging them with Christ, and delivering them to the punishment of eternal death. Agreeable to what we read III. Wisd. 8. They shall judge the Nations, and have dominion over the people. St. Austin hath not a word of this matter upon the second Psalm, but only says, these words, ruling with a Rod of iron, is as much, as with inflexible Justice. We see what th●se men would bring things to, it they be let alone. The Saints may be looked upon now as Rulers of this World, by a power imparted unto them from Christ, who hath thus established them, this man saith, over the Nations. He should have shown us where he reads this, for we cannot find it here.  
But this leads him into reasoning again (finding so little help in his express Scriptures) and that is as weak as all the rest. For it is out of a Parabolical Scripture beforenamed; from which all acknowledge Arguments ought not to be drawn. And besides, it is not a Prayer to Abraham, but such a request as we make one to another here, when we want relief.  
What St. Austin saith on this place, is not worth the searching after; for it will prove no more than what he quotes out of his XVth. Sermon (de verb. Apostol.) he should have said the XVIIth. where he distinguisheth between the Commemoration that was made of the Martyrs at the Altar, and of other Faithful persons. For the l●tter they prayed; but this would have been an injury, he thinks, to the Martyrs, by whose Prayers we rather should be recommended to God. But this signifies no more than a general recommendation of the Church to God's Mercy. His next Father, St. H●lary, speaks only of what Angels do, not of Saints: And I gave an account of that before, but for want of company he brings him in again. He concludes with Damascen, a Father that lived almost Eight hundred years after Christ; and was so credulous as to vouch it for a Truth, That Trajan's Soul was delivered out of H ll by Gregory 's Prayers; and saith, The whole world witnesseth it. Which all the world now, even their own Church, believes to be a fable. And yet this Damascen s●ith no more, but that they are to be honoured as those that make Intercession to God for us; that is, for the Church.    

XXXIII. That we ought not to beseech God to grant our Prayers, in favour of the Saints, or their merits: nor do we receive any benefit thereby.  

Answer.  
IT is no small favour, that we can get so much truth out of him, as to confess, That this is one way of their Praying by the Mediation of Saints, to beseech God to grant their desires in favour of them and their merits. For some of his brethren mince the matter, and say, they only desire the Saints to pray for them. But their Missals and Breviaries confute such men, as notorious dissemblers; for there are abundance of Prayers like this, That 
* Decemb. VI  by the Merits and Prayers of St. Nicholas, God would deliver them from the fire of Hell. Which if it be an allowable way of Praying, I do not see but the Saints are Mediators of Redemption, as well as of Intercession, (as they are wont to distinguish) for by their merits is a great deal more, than by their Intercession. And if they intercede by their merits, wherein do they fall short of Christ? who by his Merits redeemed us, and in virture of the same Merits intercedes for us.  
But let us hear his Scriptures; which the Reader may take notice are every one of them out of the Old Testament, during which (according to the common Doctrine of their Church) the Souls of pious men were held in a Limbus, remote from God, in the borders of Hell; and therefore could not be Intercessors with God; much less plead their merits. This is enough to overthrow his whole Discourse in this Chapter: yet to show his folly a little more fully, I am content to consider them particularly.  
The first is XXXII. Exod. 13. which he hath the confidence to say, 
XXXII. Exod. 13.  is against us in express words; when there is no mention of merit, and the sense is evidently declared in the Text itself; which speaks of the Oath of God to those great men, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: showing that Moses his Prayer was grounded not upon their merit, but upon God's gracious Covenant with them, confirmed by his Oath, XXVI. Gen. 3. Which is the sense of Theodoret also (whom this man most shamefully belies) in the place by him quoted: Moses mentions the name of the Patriarches, instead of supplication: and remembers the Oaths made to them, and begs that the Covenants wherein he was engaged to them, might stand firm. Who would trust such a man as this, who makes Theodoret say that Moses added the intercession of the holy Patriarches, thinking himself insufficient? when he only saith, he mentioned their name (as men i e. in covenant with God) instead of supplication. And thus he deals with St. Austin, or rather worse; who, in the place he mentions, saith not a word of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but only of Moses, whose merits were so great with God, as his most faithful Servant, that God saith, Let me alone, etc. upon which Passage he makes this reflection, We are admonished hereby, that when our merits have so loaded us, as to make us not beloved of God, we may be relieved by the merits of those whom God doth love. For when he saith, Let me alone that I may destroy them; what is it but to say, I would have destroyed them, had they not been beloved of thee? Now what is this to the meritorious intercession of the Saints in the other World, when he speaks of the merits (as his phrase is) of Moses here on Earth?  
I have been the longer in this, 
2 Chron. VI 16.  because it will serve to answer all the rest. For in 2 Chron. VI 16. the Prayer expressly relies upon the promise God had made to his Servant David, not upon David's merits.  
In the next place, CXXXII. Psal. 1. 
CXXXII. Psal. 1.  God is desired to remember David's afflictions; but how doth it appear that they merited? If this Psalm was made by David, (as many think from the first 8 Verses of it) sure he was not so immodest as to plead his own merits with God. The truth is, the Penner of this Psalm, whoever he was, most likely Solomon, puts God in mind of David, and his fidelity to him under all his sufferings; because of the Covenant God had made, and confirmed by an Oath, with that pious man, v. 10, 11, 12.  
He doth wisely only to name the next place, 2 Chron. I 9 for the words are expressly against him, which are these, Now, O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my Father be established. But the alleging LXIII. Isa. 17. argues gross Ignorance, for it's a plain desire God would return to them, for the sake of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, which contained his people, who were his inheritance, as Menochius, and indeed the Text itself, expounds it. And this desire is founded upon the  Covenant, Promise, or Oath, made to their Fathers: which he may find in a number of Places, 1 King. VIII. 25, 26. 2 Chron. XXI. 7. LXXXIX. Psal. 3, 4.  
Why he adds the two next places, unless to make a show, I cannot imagine. For H ster's Apocryphal Prayer hath nothing in it sounding this way, but only those words, O God of Abraham. And David only says, 1 Chron. XXIX. 8. O God of Abraham Isaac, and Israel, our Fathers. Which no Man in the World but himself, I believe, will take to be naming them for his Intercessors, (as he speaks) when they evidently signify the favour and kindness God had to them, which he hoped he would graciously continue, according to his Promise, unto his People Israel.  
The last place, XX. Exod. 5. is a direct Confutation of all that he saith; for it mentions not the Merits of good Men, but the Mercy which God will show unto thousands of them that love him, and keep his Commandments.  
God of his infinite Mercy, put an end to the reign of these Men, who thus foully abuse his holy word; that they may no longer pervert the right way of the Lord, and misled his People into pernicious Errors.    

XXXIV. That we ought not expressly to pray them to pray or intercede to God for us.  

Answer.  
HEretofore the words were these, That we may not pray to them; which is the true point. But now they are changed into, We may not pray them to pray for us. As if the Church of Rome did no more than this; when it is manifest they pray directly to them; and Invocation, according to their Doctrine, is a part of that Worship which is due to them; whereas praying them to pray for us (as one man desires another to do) hath nothing of worship in it. He could not go on to deal sincerely, as he had begun in the former Section. Truth is a very great stranger to them; and their great business is to misrepresent both our Opinion and their own.  

Luk. XVI. 24.  The very first Scripture also, which he quotes over again, if it prove any thing, proves more than he would have us think is their Opinion. For the Man doth not say, I pray Father Abraham pray for me▪ but have mercy on me. But I have told him before, this is a Parable, which he will by no means allow, and thinks to choke us with the Voice of ten Renowned and Ancient Fathers, who all affirm this to be a true History, and not a Parable. But this Man hath very ill luck with his Fathers; for the very first he mentions (who should have been one of the last) Theophylact, not only calls it a Parable, but is so confident of it, that he says they think foolishly (so it is in the Greek, though in the Latin they leave out that word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foolishly) who take it for an History. The Reader, I believe, blushes for this Man, who if he could or would have looked into Maldonate, (a Jesuit of no mean note) he might have found several other Fathers, whom Theophylact follows in this opinion. And St. chrysostom among the rest, who indeed sometimes says it is a History; but doth not say, as this Man makes him, that it is not a Parable. And if the Cause must be carried by the Voices of Fathers, I can name him more than Ten, or a Dozen, who say the Souls of the Faithful do not enjoy the Glorious Vision of God till the Resurrection. And therefore Saints can neither know our Prayers, nor are to be invoked, as he concludes merely from this Parable. Concerning which, I think both Maldonate and Menochius (two considerable Jesuits) have very judiciously resolved, for the quieting of this doubt, whether it be History or Parable; that it is both. For that there was a rich man, and a poor, called Lazarus; that the one when he died went to Hell, and the other was carried to Abraham's Bosom, is a History. But that the rich man talked with Abraham, and desired him to send Lazarus to cool his Tongue with a drop of Water, is a Parable adjoined to the History; for they that are in Hell, do not ask Courtesies of the Saints. Now it happens unfortunately for this man, that what he grounds his Argument upon, falls within that part which is Parable, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. Which Maldonate judiciously observes, is a form of Speech, which Beggars use; as they lie in the Highway, showing their sores; and well represents how Lazarus and he had changed Conditions. Lazarus was poor here, and the rich man stripped of all there. Here the rich man enjoyed his pleasure, and there Lazarus rejoiced. No man of sense can reject this Interpretation. And yet this Writer cries out, Lo, two Saints are here prayed to, and besought in one verse. Nay, he hath the Confidence to ask us, For Godsake, where are your Eyes? Truly, mine are newly open this morning, when men are wont to be most sober; and I can see none to whom the rich man addresses his Request, but Abraham, alone. How this man came to see double, I leave it to himself to consider. Here is not a word said to Lazarus in this Parable, but all to Abraham; who is desired to send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger, etc. And yet this man was so intoxicated with some thing or other, that he thinks the rich man called upon Lazarus also, to have Mercy on him. For shame, let them throw this Book away, and not give it about any more. For all that can be gathered from this story is, that such was the torment of the rich man, that if he could have seen Abraham, and Lazarus in his Bosom, and have spoken to him, he would have expressed in some such words as these, his intolerable pain.  
It is to no end to look what St. Austin saith I know not where, when he declares himself so positively 
* L. XXII. de Civ. Dei c. 10. , That though they named the Martyrs at the Altar, yet they were not invoked by the Priest that sacrificed.  
The next place of Scripture, I have considered before, V Job 1. and both given the meaning, and answered his Cavils, when he brought it to prove praying to Angels, as now (so indigent and beggarly they are) it is pressed for praying to Saints.  
He will lose his labour, that looks into the other places, which he barely names; or into his Fathers. Some of which are forged, as Dionysius Areop. Athanasius de Annunc. St. Chrysostom, Hom. 66. ad Pop. (for there's but one and twenty in the Ancient Greek MS. as Posevine acknowledges) Maximus Taurin. whose Sermon upon Saint Agnes is by others ascribed to St. Ambrose; but Bellarmin confesses it contradicts St. Ambrose in another place, and therefore cannot be his, nor any one's else on whom we can rely. And others of his Fathers are falsely alleged, as St. Basil, who only says, that People run to their Memories, or Monuments; viz. there to pray to God, not to them. St. Bernard is a Father that lived above 1150. years after Christ, who should have learned of his Elders; particularly Epiphanius 
* Her. LXXXIX. , that Mary is to be honoured, but God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost alone to be worshipped. I could name a vast number of the Fathers, who expressly condemn this Worship of Saints; and none more than Saint Chrysostom. St. Hierom doth not pray to Paula, but speaking to her in an Oration, as if she were present, saith, Farewell Paula, and help thy honourer (that is, him that honoured her when she was alive) with thy Prayers. From hence one may plainly conclude, he never intended to pray to her, for he takes his leave of her, and bids her adieu; and is one of those Fathers, who believed the Saints do not know what we do here; as appears by another Epitaph he made upon Nepotian, as this upon Paula; where he saith, Nepotian was happy in that he neither saw, nor heard the Calamities which were then upon the Church.    

XXXV. That the Bones or Relics of Saints, are not to be kept, or reserved; no virtue proceeding from them, after they be once dead.  

Answer.  
HEre he saith some truth. We do believe they ought not to be kept or reserved (that is, to be worshipped) but to be decently buried: as we read, in the most ancient Letter of the Church of Smyrna, the Relics of Polycarp were.  
His first Text, 2 King. XIII. 21. 
2 King. XIII. 21.  saith not a word (much less speaks expressly) of their taking the Bones of Elisha out of the Sepulchre; but, for any thing that appears, they let them lie there still. Nor doth it say, any virtue proceeded out of them, but that, upon the touching of them, the dead man revived and stood upon his feet; that is, was raised by the power of God. Who thereby testified to the truth of Elisha's Prophecy; and confirmed the Israelites in the belief of what he had said a little before he died, concerning their Victories over the Syrians.  

Acts V 14, 15.  The next place V Act. 14, 15. is alleged so senselessly, that it may tempt one to be a little pleasant upon it. For is not a shadow cast from a man's Body a pretty Relic? Who caught it? How did they keep it? Who can show us this Relic? or where shall we find it reserved? And what proof is there that virtue proceeded out of Peter's shadow, and cured sick People? we believe it went forth from our Lord, as Peter passed by, and cast his shadow upon them. The Sermon he quotes of Saint Austin, is a Bastard, lewdly fathered on him. And the gloss which this man makes upon this passage of it, is very idle. For it is most reasonable to take the sense of it to be this, that if they received so much benefit by his shadow, the fullness of his power could do more for them; speaking, not of what he can do now in Heaven, but what at that time they might have received, when his very shadow coming upon them, they were healed of their Infirmities. So he says, the words are in their Bible; but he undertook to confute us out of our own. And if this passage was in ours (as it would have been now, if it had been found in the most ancient Copies) it would have signified no more, than the rest of the words do without it. Which give us sufficiently to understand, that the sick were cured when Peter's shadow overshadowed them.  
XIX. Acts II. 12. says not a syllable of those Aprons and Handcherchiefs being kept as Relics: much less of their working any Cures when the Apostles were dead, or after that time when they were immediately brought from St. Paul's Body unto the Sick. St. Chrysostom might well argue the Divinity of our Saviour, from the power that wrought in his Servants, nay accompanied their very Shadows and Napkins. But doth this prove, that these Napkins were kept as Relics (Shadows we are sure could not) and that this virtue proceeded from them, was inherent and continued in them when the Apostles were gone? For this, the Reader may go look, if he know where.  
Hitherto we have not heard one word to the purpose; and if we will see more, we shall find nothing but that they carried Joseph's Bones with them when they went out of Egypt (XIII. Exod. 19 
XIII. Exod 19 ) because he charged them so to do: as an argument God would bring them into Canaan; where he desired his Bones might be laid in the Grave of his Father; not kept as Relics for People to kiss and worship. We read also that Elijah's Mantle fell down from him, when he was carried to Heaven; with which Elisha smote the waters, 2 Kings II. 
2 King. II. 8.14.  8.14. but what became of this Mantle, we do not read; it is most likely he wore it out. I can find nothing of the reverend esteem St. John Baptist had of our Saviour's Shoe-latchet; much less of his keeping it for a Relic; 
I. Joh. 27.  I. John 27. He only expresses his reverend esteem of our Saviour, whom he was not worthy to serve in the meanest Ministry; as the Woman did her high opinion of him, when she stooped to touch the hem of his Garment.  
His Fathers help him not at all. For Eusebius only saith, the Chair of St. James, first Bishop of Jerusalem, was preserved: but not a word of its having any virtue in it; or of its being kept to be worshipped, as they now do Relics. Athanasius 
* In Vita S. Anton.  speaks of an old Cloak, and another Garment which St. Anthony desired might be given to him (who had bestowed it on him new) when he died; as we are wont to bequeath something or other in remembrance of us: But that he laid it up, and delivered it to posterity as a sacred Relic, we are yet to learn. And how far he was from desiring to have his Garments preserved as Relics, appears from the Charge he gives, in the same place about his own Body, which he would not have them carry into Egypt, lest it should be reserved in some of their Houses 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (mind this) but bury it in some unknown place. And so they did, none knowing where they interred it, but only two Servants to whom that care was committed. His Friends indeed, he saith, kept those Garments, as some great thing: but mark what follows as the Reason, For he that saw them, thought be saw Anthony; and he that wore them, was as if he carried about with him joyfully his Precepts. They were not laid up then as Relics, but used still as Garments, which put them in mind of him, and of his words. St. Basil doth speak of wonderful things at the touch of the Bones of a Martyr, whom God was pleased to honour at that time, to convince Unbelievers of the truth of that Religion, which Martyrs sealed with their Blood. But there is no reason to expect such things now; nor have their Bones been preserved to this Age. Saint Chrysostom's words are falsely alleged by Bellarmin (from whom this man hath all these Fathers) when he makes him say, Let us visit them often, let us adore their Tombs; when in truth the very Latin Interpreter hath it, let us adorn their Tombs: and this not according to the Greek, where it is, let us touch their Coffin. St. Ambrose his honouring the Ashes of Martyrs, is nothing to the worshipping of them. If we knew of any true Relics of their Bodies, we should not fail to honour them: And we think the greatest honour would be, to give them a decent burial.    

XXXVI. That creatures cannot be sanctified, or made more holy than they are already of their own nature.  

Answer.  
NO; not so much as to make them become Sacramental things, which have a power in them to purge away venial sins, cure diseases, drive away devils, preserve from all dangers, and produce other suchlike supernatural effects; which they ascribe to Holy Water, and many other blessed things. But that creatures may be set apart to holy uses, we own by our practice; and withal acknowledge, That by Prayer and Thanksgiving to God, they may be blessed to us in the use of them, more than otherwise they would be. It is only the forementioned Sanctification of them, which we believe to be superstitious and magical; for we can find nothing in God's Word, to warrant such consecrations of creatures to those supernatural effects.  
St. Paul in 1 Tim. IV. 4. 
1 Tim. IV. 4.  speaks only of a general sanctification of the things we eat and drink; which may be performed by any good Christian; not of such a special one as this man intends, made by the Bishop: For doth any creature that we receive (though sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer) cure diseases, lay storms and tempests, preserve from Thunder and Lightning, and suchlike mischiefs? The Apostle plainly disputes against those who condemned the use of certain meats (as not only the Jews, but the Followers of Simon Magus, Ebion, and others did) which he proves from the words of Moses, as Theodoret observes, are all good in their kind. And if they be received with Thanksgiving, in remembrance of God (who hath made these things, and by his Word given us allowance to eat them) they become more than good, saith the same Theodoret; being sanctified by that holy action, which makes the use of them wellpleasing to God. That's the most that can be meant by Sanctified: And so Emanuel Sa, one of his own Interpreters expounds it. It is sanct fi●d, that is, made fit for food Which Claud. Guillandus, like a man of learning, thus further explains; It is sanctified by the word of God, ' by which we believe that nothing is any longer common or unclean; and by Prayer, whereby we request that such things may be given us, and for which, being given, we return thanks to God. But the Popish Sanctification of Creatures, supposes, that they are not only unclean, but that the Devil is in them, or that they are under his power (the very opinion of the old Heretics), which is the reason of their Exorcisms, that they may cast the Devil out of them. Whereas, should we grant they are any way unclean (as Theophylact and Menochius think the Apostle speaks by way of Concession) it is quite taken away and purged (that's all they understand by Sanctification, if we take this to be the sense) by God's word, which allows the use of them; and by Prayer and Benediction, when we sit down to eat our meat.  
We need not be told, That in ancient time they sent sometimes part of the Consecrated Bread unto their neighbours, in token of mutual love and fellowship in the same Faith: But this was forbidden by the Council of Laodicea; and when afterwards they sent only Bread Blessed, not Consecrated, unto those who were not yet baptised, but in the number of Learners under instruction; that had the like meaning, to put them in hope they should at last be taken into Church Communion. But what is this to the Blessing of Water, and Oil, and Wax, etc. for such purposes as Agnus Dei's are Consecrated in the Roman Church? Which may be seen in several of our Authors out of the Ceremoniale.  
His Texts out of XXIII. Matth. 17, 19 prove no such Sanctification either of the Altar or Gift, but only the separation of them from profane uses; which doth not amount to the making them powerful against sin, the Devil, and all manner of evil.  
He bids us see more in 2 Kings II. where we find Elisha cast salt in the waters, and thereby made them wholesome to drink; but did not infuse into them such a virtue as they pretend to give to the water mixed with salt, which the Priest exorcises in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with Crosses at the name of every one of them; that it may become an exorcised water, to drive away all the power of the enemy, and to root out the Enemy himself, with all his apostate Angels; as their Church speaks in the Office for this purpose.  
Why he mentions Raphel's using the Liver of the Fish to drive away the Devil, and David's Harp to keep the evil Spirit from Saul, I cannot devise; for I never read, nor he neither, that they were sanctified any way.  
None of his Fathers, though half of them are young ones, in comparison, ascribe any supernatural virtue to such things; and therefore it is to no purpose to consider what they say of any other kind of Holiness.    

XXXVII. That children may be saved by their Parent's Faith, without the Sacrament of Baptism.  

Answer.  
NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Doctrine. For we teach, That there is no Salvation for Infants, in the ordinary way of the Church, without Baptism. Insomuch, that by an express Canon (LXIX.) every Minister is to be suspended for three months, who suffers any Infant in his Parish to die without Baptism, being informed of its weakness, and danger of death, and desired to come and baptise the same: And is not to be restored, till he acknowledge his fault, and promise before his Ordinary, that he will not wittingly incur the like again. But we do not tie God to those means, to the use of which he hath tied us; and therefore do believe, that by his infinite Grace and Mercy, those Infants may be saved, who, without their own fault, die unbaptised. And this was the Faith of the Ancient Church, as appears from Socrates 
* L. V. Hist. c. 22. , who says, In Thessaly they baptised only at Easter, by which means many died unbaptised; and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which shows it was an universal custom in other places, to baptise only twice a year; which custom, he saith, hath been changed, because a great many departed without Baptism. But still this is an evidence, they did not think it absolutely necessary; nor do the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church, such as Gabriel Biel, Card. Cajetan, and many others I could name, condemn children to Hell, who die unbaptised; but being the children of Faithful Parents, look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace, and capable of eternal life: For which they give these reasons: Frst, The infinite Mercy of God, who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained: And secondly, The like case under the Old Testament, when Circumcision answered to our Baptism (as this man acknowledges) and the children dying unbaptised, were notwithstanding saved by the sole Faith of their Parents. So S. Bernard, Epist. 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part. Thom. Q. 68 From whence we may gather, That even this notion of children's being saved by their parent's Faith, without Baptism, is no more our opinion, than it is theirs. Some say so among us; and so do some among them.  
Matters therefore being thus stated, all his Texts are already answered. We say the very same our Saviour doth, III. Joh. 5. 
III. Joh. 5.  in the very entrance of our Office of Baptism. Where we make it as a reason why the Church should pray, That God will grant to the child, that thing which by nature he cannot have, etc. But though this be the ordinary way, we dare not say it is the only. God's Grace, many of themselves acknowledge, supplies the want of Baptism, in extraordinary cases. Thus even Lorinus a Jesuit, in X. Act. 44. and he alleges St. Austin for it (who was very rigid in this point) that the invisible Sanctification sometimes is sufficient, without the visible Sacrament; when not by contempt of Religion, but by mere necessity, they are deprived of Baptism. And thus Peter Lombard 
* L. IU. Distin. 4. c. 2.  understands this Text, it is to be understood of those who can be baptised, and contemn it.  
III. Tit. 5. proves no more, but that Baptism is the ordinary way, and ought not to be neglected, where it can be had.  
From XVI. Mark 16. he concludes peremptorily, That children must be Baptised or not Saved, 
XVI. Mark 16.  because they cannot believe; which is to make Baptism more necessary than Belief: Whereas they cannot be baptised, but upon a supposition of belief, as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent 
* Sess. VII. Can. 14. : Children wanting Faith in the first act, are baptised in the Faith of the Church. And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is, that as our Lord saith, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; so he would have said (had he thought Baptism absolutely necessary) he that believeth not, and is not baptised, shall be damned. But he only saith, He that believeth not, shall be damned; which makes Faith only, absolutely necessary. And I showed before, there are those in his own Church, who think the Faith of the Parents sufficient for this purpose.  
And thus the most learned of the Fathers expound those words of St. Paul, 
1 Cor. VII. 14.  1 Cor. VII. 14. particularly Theodoret: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband; that is, saith he, hath hope of Salvation; but if either he or she continue in this disease, their seed shall partake of Salvation: Which is but reason; for if the unbelieving husband, suppose, should not have suffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptised; who can think this child, so dying, perished?  
His last Text, XVII. Gen. 14. 
XVII. Gen. 14.  proves no more but the necessity of both Circumcision and Baptism, where they could be had; as was shown before. For it is evident the children of Israel were not circumcised while they were in the Wilderness, V Josh. 5. But who will say, that all they who were born, and died within that time, which was forty years, went without remedy to Hell?  
His Fathers, which he hath picked up out of Bellarmine, are not worth examining; because some of them speak only against those who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptism, as St. Austin, Epist. 90. Others speak of it in such terms as are not easy to be understood; for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes, That our bodies have received unity by the washing of incorruption, and our souls by the spirit: And others speak such words of the necessity of Baptism, as the Papists themselves will not abide by; but confess St. Austin was too hard in his opinion, which must admit of some exception: And his opinion is condemned by later Fathers, as they call them; particularly St. Bernard, who disputes against it at large in the Epistle . As for St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus, it is wholly against the opinion which that Bishop had received, That children of two or three days old were not to be baptised; but they were to stay till the eighth day, as in Circumcision. But there is not a word of the absolute necessity of Baptism; but that none should be denied it, though newly born; who the rather should be received, because, not their own sins but another's was there remitted to them.    

XXXVIII. That the Sacrament of Confirmation is not to be used.  

Answer.  
HE knew very well, that though we deny Confirmation to be a Sacrament, yet we use it; not as a Sacrament, nor as absolutely necessary to Salvation (for we have declared that children baptised, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved), but so necessary unto complete Communion, that we require the Godfathers and Godmothers to bring children baptised, to the Bishop to be confirmed by him, when they come to years of discretion; and we admit none to the Holy Communion of Christ's Body and Blood, till they be confirmed, or be ready and desirous so to be.  
Now where doth the Scripture say it is a Sacrament? There is not a word of it in VIII. Acts 14. 
VIII. Acts 14.  much less is it there expressly declared, and declared to be necessary, or so much as to be used by others; but only that the Apostles laid their hands on those who were baptised, and they received the Holy Ghost; which I am sure no body can now communicate in such Gifts as were then bestowed. But above all, it is to be noted, that there is nothing said here of the Chrysm, or anointing with holy Oil; in which they make this Sacrament consist; but only of laying on of hands, unto which they have no regard. For thus Confirmation is performed in the Roman Church; the Bishop takes sanctified Chrysm, as they call it, made of Oil and Balsam, and therewith anoints a person baptised, with the thumb of his right hand, in the form of a Cross, upon the forehead, which is bound with a fillet on the anointing, till it be dry; and it is also accompanied with a box on the ear; all which is plainly ordered to be done in their public Office of Confirmation. But nothing of laying on of Hands is there mentioned, which they deny to be either the matter, or the form of this Sacrament; though we read of nothing else but this laying on of hands, either here, or in what follows. A clear Demonstration, that this place is expressly against their pretended Sacrament of Confirmation.  
VI Hebrew 1. is so far from being contrary to our Doctrine, that some of their own Authors 
* Salmero & Justinianus.  think it doth not speak of Confirmation at all, but of the Benediction of Catechumen, and others; and some of our Authors think it doth, even Mr. Calvin himself. But then, it is expressly said to consist in laying on of hands; and ought not to be turned into a Sacrament; but looked upon as a solemn Form of Prayer (as St. Austin calls it) for Youth, who being grown beyond Childhood, made a Profession of their Faith, and thereupon were thus blessed. Which pure Institution (as Mr. Calvin's words are) is to be retained at this day, and the Superstition corrected. Behold, how vilely the Protestant Doctrine is calumniated by such wretched Writers as this, who seem not to understand Common Sense. For he saith, Confirmation is here called, not only one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, but a Foundation of Repentance; when all, but such as himself, clearly see, that the Apostle here makes the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works, to be one of the Principles of Christ's Doctrine, as laying on of hands, is another.  
He betrays also notorious ignorance, or falsehood, in the Citations of his Fathers, to which he sends us. For Tertullian plainly speaks of the Unction which accompanied Baptism in his Country; not of a distinct Sacrament from Baptism. And Pacianus also mentions it, as a solemn Right in the Sacrament of Baptism, wherein Children are regenerated. So doth St. Cyprian likewise, even in that place which he mentions; where is no such sense as he dreams. For he disputes for the Rebaptising of Heretics, because it is not enough if hands be laid upon them, unless they receive the Baptism of the Church; for than they are fully sanctified, and made the Children of God, if they be born by both Sacraments; for it is written, Unless a Man be born again of Water, and of the Spirit, etc. This latter part this Man conceals, which shows St. Cyprian speaks altogether of Baptism, in which there were then Two Rites, Washing with Water, and Laying on of Hands. Which were not Two Sacraments properly, but Two parts of the same Sacrament; which he calls both the Sacraments of Baptism. Just as Hulbertus Carnotensis, calls the Body and Blood of Christ in the Communion, Two Sacraments, which in truth are but one. For speaking of three things necessary to Salvation, he saith of the Third, that in it Two Sacraments of Life, that is, the Lords Body, and his Blood, are contained. St. Hierom likewise speaks of Laying on of Hands, but not as a distinct Sacrament: For he earnestly contends (in that Book) that the Spirit is conferred in Baptism, and that there can be no Baptism of the Church, without the Spirit. I have not taken any notice of St. Ambrose, for those Books of the Sacrament, which gounder his Name, are none of his.    

XXXIX. That the Bread of the Supper of the Lord, was but a Figure, or Remembrance of the Body of Christ received by Faith; and not his true, and very Body.  

Answer.  
THIS is Fiction, and false Representation. For we expressly declare in the XXVIII. Article of our Religion, That it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death, in so much that to such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith receive the same, the Bread which we break, is a partaking of the Body of Christ, etc. And in our Catechism we also declare, That the inward and spiritual Grace in this Sacrament, is the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. And Mr. Calvin himself saith as much.  
But if we had not been of this mind, his first place of Scripture, XXII. Luke 15. 
XXII. Luk. 15.  would have proved nothing against us; for it speaks only of eating the Passeover; in which he instituted this Sacrament; but that followed after: Here he speaks only of the Paschal Feast. Insomuch, that Menochius thus interprets it, He most earnestly desired to eat the Paschal Lamb of this year, and this day, in which the Eucharist was to be instituted; and shortly after it was to be shown by his Death, how much he loved Mankind, whom he so redeemed. It was not therefore the Pasche (as this Man speaks) of his true Body and Blood, which our Saviour thus desired to eat. This is an idle fancy of a dreaming Divine, who hath a Divinity by himself; which forbids him to admit Faith to have been in the Son of God. But St. Peter was a better Divine than he, who applies those words of David to our Blessed Saviour, My flesh shall rest in hope, because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, etc. II. Acts 26, 27. Now I would fain know of this Learned Divine, whether there can be any Hope without Faith, which made him confidently expect to be raised out of his Grave.  

XXII. Luke 18.  That which follows also in XXII. Luke 18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, etc. plainly belongs to the Paschal Feast, as they stand in St. Luke; who immediately thereupon proceeds to the Institution of the Sacrament; and speaks of the Cup that is there administered, as different from the Cup he had before mentioned. If this Man had understood his business, he should rather have alleged XXVI. Matth. 29. where immediately after the Institution of the Sacrament, he adds these words, But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, etc. which St. Luke puts before the Institution. But it is a wonderful stupidity, to conclude from hence, as this Man doth, That Christ will drink his own Blood in Heaven, (or else he concludes nothing) because there is no material Bread and Drink in use there. Menochius (to name not others) might have taught him better, who thus expounds this passage. Our Saviour speaks after the manner of men, who being to departed from their Friends for a long time, are wont to say, We shall Eat and Drink together no more. As I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine, till that day, etc. when I shall drink ANOTHER New and Celestial Wine with you, in the Banquet of Eternal Glory. And he might have known, that we from hence, with a wonderful force, (to use his own phrase) conclude, That Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration; because our Saviour calls that which he said before was the New Testament in his Blood, the fruit of the Vine, that is Wine. And so not only we, but Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Austin, Hierom, Epiphanius, Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact, refer the fruit of the Vine unto the Blood of Christ, before mentioned; as Maldonate himself acknowledges, and could not produce so much as one Father to the contrary.  
He might have known also, that a great many of his own Church, 
VI John 51.  do not think St. John VI 51. and other verses of that Chapter, speaks of Sacramental Bread; as for other reasons, so for this; that if he did, than such as Judas, who eat the Sacramental Bread, must have Eternal Life. Which we find our Lord promises, v. 40, 47. to those who believe on him; and this we take to be the eating he here speaks of, as appears by the whole scope of the Chapter. For if any such Conversion, as they fancy in the Sacrament, and call Transubstantiation, could be proved out of this Text, it would prove the Flesh of Christ is turned into Bread, rather than the Bread into his Flesh; because he saith. The Bread that I will give you, is my Flesh. To make this good literally, it is manifest, his Flesh must be made Bread. See into what Absurdities these men draw themselves, by their perverse Interpretations. It is not worth considering what he saith about Beza's interpretation of one word in this Verse; there being those of his own Church, as well as he, that by living Bread, understand Bread that gives Life; which is must suitable to the words preceding, and unto v. 33.  
We have noted often enough our Saviour's words, both in XXVI. Matth. 26. and XXII. Luke 19 And therefore do not say, as he slanders us, That Christ gave, and the Apostles received, nothing else but bare Bread; for it was the Sacrament of Christ's Body; as Druthmarus, and a great many more Ancient than he, expound those words, This is my Body. We believe also, and thankfully acknowledge, that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. But those are St. Paul's words, 1 Cor. X. 16. not our Saviour's; which spoils this man's Observation, that our Lord calls it his Body, both before, and at the very giving of it. Which if he had done, (though these, as I said, are St. Paul's words, who only calls it the Communion of his Body, etc.) it would prove nothing, but that the Bread is his Body, which we believe, and they are so absurd as to deny. Tho we have bidden them note, how St. Paul, in that very place he next mentions (1 Cor. XI.) often calls that, which he saith is the Lord's Body, by the name of Bread, v. 26, 27, 28. But they shut their Eyes, and will not take any notice of it. Why should we then regard his frivolous Argument (to which he at last betakes himself) against our true and real receiving of Christ by Faith? Unto which Dr. Fulk hath long ago given a sufficient Answer, in his Notes upon this Chapter. We receive him after a Spiritual manner, By Faith on our behalf, and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalf of Christ. So there is no need, either of our going up to Heaven, or Christ's coming down to us, as he sillily argues.  
His Ancient Fathers have been so often viewed, and shown to be against them by our Writers, and that lately (particularly the two first he mentions) that I will not go about a needless labour, to give an account of them.    

XL. That we ought to receive under both kinds; and that one alone sufficeth not.  

Answer.  
VEry true: for so Christ appointed; so the Apostles both received and gave it; so the Church of Christ for above 1000 years practised; and woe be to them, who alter Christ's Institution. Which cannot be justified by such fallacious Arguments as this man here uses, instead of giving us express Scripture for it. That he promised, but alas! could find none; and therefore makes little trifling reasonings his refuge.  
First from VI John 51. 
VI John 51, 53.  which I have shown doth not speak of Sacramental eating: but if it did, the next Verse but one, he could not but see, told him, that it is as necessary to drink Christ's blood, as to eat his flesh. To which the Answer is not so easy as he fancies: for we have only Dr. Kellison's word for it, that the conjunction and is used for or. Men may put off any thing by such shifts: and it is as sufficient, and as learned, for us to say, it is expressly and in our Bible, and not or; and you do nothing if you confute us not, as you undertook, by the express words of our own Bible. How strangely do men forget what they promise, and what they are about? Besides, the Fathers from these very words prove the necessity 
* See late Treatise against Communion in one Kind. Ch. 3.  of giving both the body and blood of Christ: and attribute a distinct effect to each of them. Particularly the Author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambrose, in I. Cor. XI. The flesh of Christ was delivered for the salvation of the body, and the blood was poured out for our souls.  
He should have proved, not barely affirmed, that Christ gave the Sacrament to the Disciples at Emaus, 
XXIV. Luke 30, 35.  XXIV. Luke 30, 35. We say he did not; though if he had, it is to be supposed there was Wine as well as bread: else it will prove it is lawful for their Church to consecrate, as well as to give the Communion, in one kind alone. Nor are there any of the ancient Interpreters who thus expound it. St. Austin and Theophylact, only apply it allegorically and mystically to the Sacrament (as Jansenius ingenuously acknowledges) the virtue of which may be here insinuated (as Theophylact phrases it, not expressly declared) to enlighten the eyes of men. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew is thus to be understood: or else we must make St. Paul's breaking bread in the Ship among the Soldiers and Mariners (Acts XXVIII.) to be giving the Sacrament: for that Writer joins this together with the other. The later Scholastic Writers, all expound it of common breaking of bread, such as Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, Dionys. Cathusianus, nay Tho. Aquinas himself, whatsoever this man is pleased to say, as any one may be satisfied who can look into him, in Tertull. Dist. XXI. Q. 55.  
It is more impudence to quote II. Act. 42. to prove one kind to be sufficient: when all acknowledge this Action was performed in the Apostolical Assemblies, by giving the Wine as well as the Bread. Therefore breaking of bread is used as a short form of Speech, to signify they had Communion one with another, at the same holy Feast.  
He durst not here quote so much as one single Father, as hitherto he hath done every where else: because they are all manifestly against him. As not only Cassander, and such as he, acknowledge, but Cardinal Bonel 
* Rer. Liturg. l. 2. c. 18.  himself saith, that Always and every where, from the beginning of the Church, to the Twelfth Century, the faithful communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine.    

XLI. That there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice; and that the Mass is not a Sacrifice.  

Answer.  
HE began to speak some truth in this Proposition, but could not hold out till he came to the end. Falshood is so natural to them, that it will not let them declare the whole truth, when that which they said already, would directly lead them to it. For having said, we do not believe there is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church, why did he not conclude, that we deny the Mass to be a proper Sacrifice? This had been honest; for it is the very thing we have constantly said: because proper sacrificing is a destructive Act; by which that which is offered to God, is plainly destroyed; That is, so changed, that it ceases to be, what before it was. This they themselves confess: and it is from this principle (among others) that we conclude, there is no proper Sacrifice in the Sacrament.  
Malachy I. 11. It is manifest, 
Mal. I. 17.  from the current Consent of the Ancient Interpreters, speaks of an improper Sacrifice; viz. prayer and thanksgiving, represented by the Incense. So Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, chrysostom, and divers others. His reasoning upon this place therefore, is very childish: for the Offering here spoken of, is neither Christ sacrificed on the Cross, nor Christ in the Sacrament; for he cannot be often sacrificed. But if we will apply it to the Sacrament, it is the Commemorative Sacrifice which is there made of the Sacrifice of Christ; with the sacrifice of Prayer, Praises, Thangsgiving, and the oblation of ourselves, Souls and Bodies to him. Such a Sacrifice we acknowledge is offered in the Holy Communion.  
The Psalmist in CX. Psam 4. 
Psal. CX. 4.  speaks of the Priesthood of Christ, which endures for ever in Heaven (not of any Sacrificing Priest here on Earth) where he presents himself to God, in the most holy place not made with hands. Nothing can be more contrary to the Scripture, than to say Melchisedeck sacrificed Bread and Wine: unless we will make his offering them to Abraham (unto whom he brought them forth, as several of the Father's consent) to be a proper Sacrifice. But what dare not such men say, when he affirms, that Christ exercises an eternal Priesthood upon Earth, though the Apostle expressly tells us the contrary, VIII. Heb. 4? Some of the Fathers indeed make an Analogy between the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and that which Melchisedeck brought forth: but this is against the Popish Notion, who will not have Bread and Wine to be sacrificed in the Eucharist, though the Fathers expressly say they are.  
His Argument from XXII. Luke 19 is very idle. For when Christ saith, This is my Body which is given for you; the meaning is, which I have offered to be a Sacrifice to God (X. John 17.) and am about actually to give in Sacrifice for you. And so their own Vulgar Interpreter understood it, and translates this word, 1 Cor. XI. 24. tradetur, not which was then given, but was to be given, viz. to die. And so he constantly interprets the other part, not is shed, but shall be shed. And if he spoke here in the next words (XXII. Luke 20. of what was given to the Apostles in the Sacrament, it would prove that the Blood of Christ is shed in the Sacrament: which is directy contrary to their own Doctrine, which makes it an unbloody Sacrifice.  
All the other Scriptures speak of the Priesthood of Christ: which none can exercise but Christ himself. See them who will, he will find this true.  
Not one of his Fathers have a word of a proper Sacrifice; much less of a Propitiatory; but of a reasonable, unbloody, mystical, heavenly Sacristce: which proves the contrary to what they would have. As the Fathers do also, when they say it is a Sacrifice; and then immediately correct themselves in some such words as these, or rather, a Commemoration of a Sacrifice (viz. of Christ on the Cross) a Memorial, instead of a Sacrifice: And thus Aquinas himself understood it.    

XLII. That Sacramental Unction is not to be used to the Sick.  

Answer.  
THERE are many things Sacramental, which are not Sacraments: and others called Sacraments by the Ancients, which are not properly so; as the Sign of the Cross, the Bread given to Catechumen, washing of the Saints Feet, etc. because they were Signs and Symbols of some sacred thing. So was Unction; but not appointed by our Saviour to be a Sacrament of the New Testament. This he should have proved, if he could have performed any thing; and that it confers grace from the work done; or hath a power by Divine Institution, to cause holiness and righteousness in us, as the Roman Catechism defines a Sacrament. But it was impossible; and therefore he uses these dubious words, Sacramental Unction: which we see no reason to use; unless we could hope for such miraculous Cures, as were performed therewith by the Apostles.  

V Jam. 4.  His first Text, V Jam. 4. hath not a word of Sacrament, or Sacramental in it: and plainly speaks not of their Extreme Unction, which is for the health of the Soul, when a man is a dying: but of anointing for the health of the Body, and the restoring a man to life. Therefore he might have spared his Discourse about the matter and form, etc. of a Sacrament: for their Sacrament is not here described, but an holy Rite, for a purpose as much different from theirs, as the Soul is from the Body, and Life from Death.  
VI Mark 13. 
Mark VI 13.  His own best Writers confess belongs not to this matter; containing only an adumbration, and a figure of the Sacrament, but was not the Sacrament itself, as Menochius expounds the place, according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, which saith, this Sacrament (as they call it) was insinuated in VI Mark: Now that is said to be insinuated, which is not expressly propounded (mark that) but adumbrated and obscurely indicated. See how ignorant this man is, in his own Religion.  
XVI. Mark 18. makes not any mention of anointing, but only of laying on of hands: and yet this man hath the face to ask (as if the Cause were to be carried by impudence) if they are not sick in their wits who oppose so plain Scriptures? When nothing is plainer, than that these places speak of Miraculous Cures; as they themselves would confess, If they would speak the truth (to use his words) and shame the Devil. For Cardinal Cajetan, a man of no small learning, expressly declares, neither of the two places where anointing is mentioned, speak of Sacramental Unction. Particularly upon those words of St. James (which is the only place the best of them dare rely upon) he thus writes. It doth not appear that he speaks of the Sacramental Unction of Extreme Unction, either from the words, or from the effect: but rather of the Unction our Lord appointed, in the Gospel, for the cure of the Sick. For the Text doth not say, Is any man sick unto death; but absolutely, is any man sick? And the effect, was the relief of the sick man, on whom forgiveness of sins was bestowed only conditionally: Whereas Extreme Unction is not given, but when a man is at the point of death, and directly tends, as its form showeth, to remission of sins. Besides, St. James bids them call more Elders than one unto the sick man to pray, and anoint him; which is disagreeing to the Rite of Extreme Unction. Nothing but the force of truth could extort this ingenuous Interpretation from him: for he was no Friend to Protestants; but would not lie for the Service of his Cause. And before him, such Great men, as Hugo de S. Victori, Bonaventure, Alex. Halensis, Altisiodor. all taught, that Extreme Unction was not instituted by Christ.  
His Fathers say not a word of this Extreme Unction. Both Origen and Bede, as Estius acknowledges, accommodate the words of St. James unto the more grievous sort of sins, to the remission of which there is need of the Ministry of the Keys; and so they refer it to another Sacrament (as they now call it) viz. that of Absolution. See the Faith of this man, who thus endeavours to impose upon his Readers; as he doth also in the citing of St. chrysostom, who saith the same with the other two; and of St. Austin, who only recites the Text of St. James in his Book de Speculo, without adding any words of his own to signify the sense. As for the 215. Serm. de Temp. it is none of his. Next to this, he makes us say,    

XLIII. That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands, in Holy Orders. And that Ordinary Vocation, and Mission of Pastors, is not necessary in the Church.  

Answer.  
HERE are Two Parts of this Proposition; in both of which he notoriously slanders us; and in the first of them dissembles their own Opinion. For we do not say, That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands, in Holy Orders; but that this is not a Sacrament, properly so called, conferring sanctifying Grace; and that the outward Sign among them is not Imposition of Hands; but delivering of the Patin and Chalice, concerning which the Scripture speaks not a syllable. Nor is any man admitted to be a Pastor among us, but by a Solemn Ordination; wherein the Person to be ordained Priest, professes he thinks himself truly called, according to the Will of our Lord, etc. unto that Order and Ministry; and the Bishop when he lays hands on him, saith in so many words, Receive the Holy Ghost, etc. which is the conferring that Grace, which they themselves call gratis data; and which the Apostle intends in the Scriptures he mentions.  

1 Tim. IV. 14.  In the first of which, 1 Tim. IV. 14. there is no express mention of Grace, (which he promised to show us in our Bible) but of a Gift. By which Menochius himself understands, The Office and Order of a Bishop, the Authority and Charge of Teaching. And so several of the Ancient Interpreters, such as Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, understands it: As others take it to signify extraordinary Gifts, such as those of Tongues, Healing, etc. none think it speaks of sanctifying Grace. So that I may say (alluding to his own words) See how plain it is, that this Man doth not understand the Scripture! And hath made a mere Rope of Sand in his following reasoning; for there is this Mission among us, of which the Apostle speaks, viz. A Designation unto a special Office, with Authority and Power to perform it.  
The Apostle speaks of the same thing, in 2 Tim. I. 6. 
2 Tim. I. 6.  where there is no mention of Grace at all, but only of the Gift of God, which was in him. Which if we will call a Grace, (a word we dislike not) it was not a Grace to sanctify, but to enable him to perform all the Offices belonging to that Order, ex gr. strenuously to Preach the Gospel, and to propagate the Faith, etc. They are the words of the same Menochius; from whence I may take occasion again to say, See, how plain the Scripture is against him. And how foully he belies us, in saying that we affirm, Laying on of Hands, not to be needful to them, who have already in them the Spirit of God. For after the Bishop hath asked the question to one to be ordained Deacon, whether he trust that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon him that Office and Ministration, etc. And he hath answered, I trust so; then the Bishop (after other Questions and Answers) layeth hands on him. Which is not to sanctify him, for that is supposed; but to empower him to execute the Office committed to him in the Church of God.  
The Apostles words, V Hebr. 4. are alleged after his manner, to prove what none of us deny, That no man may take this Office upon him, unless he be called to it.  
They who have a mind to see more, may soon find that the rest of the Scriptures (some of which are the same again) prove nothing but a Mission, by laying on of Hands, which we practice. And one of them, 1 Tim. V 22. can never be proved to belong to Ordination; being referred by many, of no small Name, to Absolution. For Imposition of Hands was used in giving that, as well as in giving Orders; which is an unanswerable Argument, that this is not a Sacrament; because the only sign that can be pretended out of Scripture, to belong unto it (viz. Imposition of Hands) is not proper to giving Orders, but common to other things.  
None of his Fathers, nor any others, for many Ages, knew of more proper Sacraments, than two only. And therefore it is but to waste Paper, and abuse the Readers patience, to show how impertinently those, whom he mentions, are alleged.    

XLIV. That Priests, and other Religious Persons, which have vowed their Chastity to God, may freely Marry, notwithstanding their Vow.  

Answer.  
THERE is no such lose Doctrine among us: But we say, That it is free for Priests to Marry, as well as other Persons; for Marriage is honourable in all, and the Bed undefiled. Which signifies, we think, that Chastity may be preserved in Marriage, as well as in Virginity. Therefore, we further say, no man ought rashly to Vow he will never marry, when he is not sure of his power to contain For this is not given to all, as Christ himself saith, XIX. Mat. 11. but every one hath his proper gifts from God; one after this manner, another after that, 1 Cor. VII. 7. If any one hath made such a Vow, we say, he ought to use his endeavours to keep it; but if he cannot without Sin, he ought to Marry; for in this case, the matter of his Vow ceases. This is our Doctrine, which is not contrary to the Scripture.  

XXIII. Deut. 22.  There is mention of a Vow, in XXIII. Deut. 22. but not of Chastity, which he undertook to show us expressly in our Bible. Alas! that was impossible; and so he falls a talking of Vows about other matters. And yet, even in such Vows as this, whereof Moses speaks, if a Person was not in his own power, or vowed a thing impossible for him to give, or a thing not acceptable to God, he was not bound by his Vow.  

1 Tim V ● 12.  The next place, 1 Tim. V 11, 12. is against him. For the Apostle would not have Widows taken into the Office of Deaconesses, when they were young (as the Church of Rome lets Boys and Girls of Sixteen years old, vow Virginity) but requires Timothy to refuse such, if they offered themselves to that Service, and take in none under the Age of Sixty; when it was likely they would have no mind to change their Condition, as the younger would be apt to do. Who thereby; became guilty of a great fault (as Menochius expounds, having Damnation) in departing from the Covenant they had made, to devote themselves to the Service of the Church. For they had not chosen Widowhood with the Judgement of Reason, or just Consideration, (as Theophylact glosses) in which case the Apostle allows them to Marry, v. 14. Upon which the same Theophylact thus again Paraphrases; In the first place, I wish they would not make void their Contracts (or Covenants) but because they desire Marriage, I desire it also, condescending to them. For it is better they should be Mistresses of Families, that is, look after their own House, and Labour, than running about to other Folks Houses, be trifling and idle. Which is the sense of more Ancient Fathers than he; particularly of St. Cyprian, who speaks of Virgins, that after they had dedicated themselves to God, were found in bed with men, saith, It was better for them to Marry, than to fall into the Fire by their Offences 
* Epist. ad Pompon. . His Master, Tertullian, saith the same, speaking of this very Text. Nay, St. Austin, though he do not approve of Marriage after a Vow, yet resolves that such a Marriage is not to be dissolved. And their own Doctors determine, That when a thing is unprofitable, and hinders a greater good, what is promised by a Vow, ought not to be kept. Upon which their Dispensations are founded, even in this solemn Vow of Chastity.  

1 Tim. V 15.  I have said the more of this, because it answers what he pretends out of the 15th verse of the same Chapter; where the Apostle doth not call their Marrying, turning aside after Satan. For he had just before given them leave, or rather advised them to Marry, lest they should give occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully, etc. that is, as Theophylact explains it, Give the Devil occasion to make a mock of them, by drawing them into Adultery, through the unstedfastness of Youth. And for this very reason, he thinks the Apostle endeavoured to bring them under the yoke of Marriage (as his Phrase is) lest being left lose, they should run into the aforesaid mischiefs.  
By this the Reader may be convinced, with what Honesty this man quotes the Fathers, and reproaches those that Mary, (after they have unadvisedly devoted themselves to single life) as God's Adulterers; when they say the Apostle directs them to Marry, that they may not be such Adulterers.  
In all the other Scriptures which he would have us see, there is not one that speaks of the Vow of Chastity: But of Vow of Offering Sacrifice, or of being Nazarites (which was in some cases but for a time) or such like things, as any one may satisfy himself that will read the places.  
We and the Fathers do not differ in this point, as I have already said; and therefore I will not swell this Book by an unnecessary account of what they say, in the places he mentions.    

XLV. That Fasting and Abstinence from certain Meats, is not grounded on Holy Scripture, nor causeth any Spiritual Good.  

Answer.  
FAsting, that is, Abstinence from all Meat and Drink, is grounded on Scripture, and doth much good: But Fasting, or Abstinence from certain Meats only, is not Fasting, and hath no ground in Scripture, nor do we see any Spiritual Good in it; but, rather much hurt, because it cheats men into a belief that they Fast, when they Feast.  

XXXV. Jer. 5.  The Prophet, XXXV. Jer. 5. doth not speak of fasting from any Meat whatsoever, but of a total forbearance of all Wine, and from dwelling in Houses, or having any Land, etc. And all this, not out of Religion, but for a Civil Reason, as the very Text tells us, v. 7. Which laid no Obligation upon other People so to do, no not upon the Israelites, much less upon us Christians; being an Injunction to one Family only, by the Father of it. Are not these men rare Interpreters of Scripture, who expound it at this rate, and apply it to any purpose; for this very case, just before, was brought to prove the Obligation of Vows.  
The next place, I. Luke 15. is alleged as sillily. For it proves too much; an Abstinence, which no man thinks himself bound unto, from all Wine and Strong Drink, as long as he lives. Which John Baptist himself would not have practised, had he not been disigned to an austere sort of Life, after the manner of the Ancient Nazarites, as Menochius expounds this place. It is a wonder, when there are so many Texts that speak of Fasting, this man should pick out such as these, which have no respect unto it.  
The next indeed hath, XIII Acts 3. and accordingly we have our Fasts before every Ordination, in the Ember weeks.  
XVII. Matth. 27. proves nothing, but that upon extraordinary occasions, there must be extraordinary Prayer and Fasting; which we also both affirm and practise.  
The rest of his Scriptures, and his Fathers, I assure the Reader, say nothing that we deny; but he had a mind to slander us, as if we were Enemies to Fasting; when we Fast truly, by total Abstinence from Meat and Drink on our Fasting-days, they Fast only nominally, eating all sorts of Fish, and drinking Wine on their Fasting-days. Whereby they hope also, to satisfy for their Sins, and to merit a Celestial Reward; as Bellarmine speaks in his Second Book of Good Works. Why did he not prove this end of Fasting, and not spend his time about that which is not questioned; for we acknowledge that Fasting is good, if rightly designed.    

XLVI. That Jesus Christ descended not into Hell nor delivered thence the Souls of the Fathers.  

Answer.  
WHat an impudent Liar is this, to say we deny that which is an Article of our Creed, professed by us every day, That Christ did descend into Hell? Not indeed, to deliver the Souls of the Fathers in Limbo; because we read of no such thing in any of the Scriptures which he mentions.  

Ephes. iv 8.  The Apostle in IV. Ephes. 8. says nothing either of their Limbus, or of the Souls of the Fathers; but of leading captivity captive. Which hath no relation to the Souls either of the glorified, or of the damned, but of such men and women as we are: Whom Christ did not captivate, when we were free (saith Theodoret upon the place) but being under the power of the Devil, he rescued us; and making us his captives, bestowed liberty upon us. To the same purpose Theophylact, but a little larger, (comprehending all our enemies) What captivity doth the Apostle mean? That of the Devil: For he took the Devil captive, and Death, and the Curse, and Sin, and us, who were under the Devil's Power, and obnoxious to the forenamed enemies.  
The next place, II. Acts 27. 
II. Acts 27.  only proves our Saviour descended into Hell, but saith nothing of the Father's being there. What St. Austin saith, is not the business, but what the Scripture saith expressly. Yet the words which he quotes out of him, touch not us. who believe Christ's Descent into Hell, as much or more than himself. And it is worth the noting, how in this very place where he calls it Infidelity to deny Christ's going into Hell, he overthrows this end of it, (to fetch the Fathers from then●e); for he professes he could find the name of H●ll not where given unto that place where the souls of righteous men did rest.  
There is no mention in 1 Pet. 3.18, 19 
1 Pet. III. 18, 19  of so much as Christ's descending into Hell, but only of his Preaching to the spirits in prison; and that not in person, but by that Spirit which raised him from the dead. St. Austin wishes us to consider (in that very Epistle which he just now named, XCIX. ad Euod.) lest perhaps all that which the Apostle speaks of the spirits shut up in prison, who did not believe in the days of Noah, do not at all belong to hell, but rather unto those times (of Noah) whose pattern be applies to our times. And this St. Hierom relates as the opinion of a most prudent man; and is followed by Bede, Walfridus, Strabo, and others. And if this place should not be thus interpreted of his Preaching by his Spirit in the Ministry of Noah unto the old world, but of his own Preaching unto the spirits in hell, it must be to the damned spirits (for we read of no others there) as a great many Ancient Writers, through mistake of this place, conceived: And this is as much against his opinion, as against ours.  
The XI. Heb. 39, 40. proves no more, but that they had not their complete happiness; yet were not in Hell, as that signifies any thing of torment; but in Heaven, though not in the highest felicity of it. Thus Theodoret, and others of the Ancients understand it: Tho the combats of these men were so many and so great, yet they received not their Crowns: For the God of the Universe, saith he, expects till others have finished their race, that then he may solemnly declare them all together to be Conquerors. Which Theophylact thus farther enlargeth, Is not God unjust then unto them, if they who have got the start in labours, must expect us in Crowns? No such matter, for this is very acceptable unto them, to be perfected with their brethren; we are one body, and the pleasure is greater to the body, if all its members be crowned together, etc. but God gave to those who preceded us in labours, a certain foretaste, bidding them wait for the complete banquet till their brethren come to them. And they being lovers of mankind, joyfully expect (note that) that they may be all merry together. This plainly shows such men as these did not look upon the Fathers as in Hell, but in Heaven, in a state of joy; though not consummate, but in expectation of its completion. I could show this to be the sense which men in his own Church put upon this place; but I am afraid of being tedious, and therefore shall make shorter work of the rest.  
Ionas, mentioned XII. Matth. 40. 
XII. Mat. 40.  was a Type of Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection; and the Whale's belly represented his Grave, and nothing else. So Menochius acknowledges, That though many by the heart of the earth, understand the Limbus of the Fathers, yet others take it for the Grave. As Ignatius doth, in that very Epistle which he quotes presently, and St. chrysostom, to name no more.  
St. Matthew, XXVII. 52. speaks of the Resurrection of many out of their Graves; but whence their Souls came, neither he nor Ignatius say a word.  

IX. Zach. 11.  There is no reason to think that IX. Zach. 11. speaks of fetching souls out of the infernal prison; but Theodoret saith expressly, That if by the Pit or Lake, we shall understand either Eternal Death, or Idolatry, we shall not miss the mark. For when men were bound in this lake, our Lord Christ loosed them and brought them out; and bestowed liberty upon them by his Precious Blood, and sent them forth into the way of life, when he gave them the New Testament. And so St. Austin 
* LXVIII. de Civit. Dei, c. 25.  thinks it is best understood, of the profundity of human misery. And I assure the Reader, that both St. Hierom, and St. Cyril, (to the great shame of this false Writer) understand this place, as Theodoret doth.  

1 Sam. II. 6.  1 Sam. II. 6. is very foolishly applied to this matter; for the plain meaning is, as Menochius acknowledgeth, That God, if he pleaseth, raises dead men to life again; or by way of Allegory, he restoreth unhappy and miserable men to a happy and flourishing condition, according to his will: As in the next verse (saith he) is more clearly repeated, he raiseth up the poor out of the dust, etc. that is, from a low condition. He did not think it absurd to understand the Grave, by that word which they translate Hell; concerning which it is not proper now to dispute, because he promised to confute us out of our own Bible, not out of theirs. Nor is it fit to trouble ourselves about the rest of his Scriptures (which he barely names, and some of the very same over again) or his Fathers, which we have seen he alleges without Judgement or Fidelity.    

XLVII. That there is no Purgatory fire, or other Prison, wherein Sins may be satisfied for, after this life.  

Answer.  
VEry right; and there is nothing either in Scripture or Antiquity to prove it.  
The fire spoke of, 1 Cor. III. 13. 
1 Cor. III. 13.  is by their own Authors interpreted, to signify the fire at the day of Judgement, in the Conflagration of the World. So Menochius and Estius expressly disputes against the application of this to Purgatory. Nor doth one of the Ancient Fathers, in the Six first Centuries so understand it; but all apply the words to other purposes. St. Austin in a great many places, particularly in his Enchiridion 
* Cap. 67, 68 etc.  expounds it of the tribulations of this life, and that grief, wherewith a man's mind is stung, when he loses those things which he dearly loves; And hence saith, it is not incredible, that some such thing may be after this life; but whether it be so or no, he leaves it to every one's inquiry. Which demonstrates, he did not look on this, as an Article of Faith, but as a thing uncertain; and it is certain, understood these words of St. Paul otherways. And in the place he here mentions, Psalms 37. it is evident he speaks of the fire at the end of the world, as any one may see who will look into it.  
The Learned reasoning (as he esteems it) of Card. Allen upon XI. John 22. 
XI. John 22.  is so frivolous, that it shows how impossible it is, with all the Learning or Wit in the world, to make good their Cause. For Martha's Speech, any one may see without much Learning, hath respect to the Resurrection of her Brother out of his Grave, not to Praying for his Soul in Purgatory: Which if she learned in the Synagogue, we have the less reason to receive it: Especially if she was then so ignorant, as he saith she was, that she did not know our Saviour to be the Son of God.  
It might be sufficient to Answer to the next place, II. Acts 24. 
II. Acts 24.  that he falsifies our Bible, to make a show of an Argument against us, for we Translate those words, God hath raised him up, having loosed the pains of death; not as he reports it, the sorrows of hell. And St. Chrysostom, with other of the Ancients, justify our Translation, when by the pains of Hades, they understand Death; which suffered grievously by Christ's Resurrection from the dead. Menochius himself puts in both words, and saith; The pains of death and of hell, are by a Metanymy, most grievous pains: So that the sense is, God raised up Christ, death and hell being overcome, with all the pains that attend it; he losing, that is, making voided whatsoever death had done by its pains and torments. See by what pitiful wresting of Scripture these men maintain their Doctrine: Applying that to Christ's losing others, which is evidently spoken of God's losing him from the bands of death (as the plainest meaning is) for it was not possible he should be held by it, as the next words explain it.  
If those words, baptised for the dead, 1 Cor. XV. 29. 
1 Cor. XV. 29.  afforded such an evident proof, as he pretends, of the help which the Souls departed out of this world, may receive by the Church on Earth, for their deliverance out of Purgatory: It is a wonder that not so much as one of the Ancient Interpreters, thought of this sense of the words, among the very many they have given; but every one carry the sense another way. St Chrysostom, with many other of the Greek Writers, and some of the Latin, expound them of the solemn Baptism of the Faithful; which is said to be for the dead, because they are all Baptised into the belief of the Resurrection of the dead. This is a plain and natural Interpretation: Whereas this man's sense of the word Baptised, is violently forced and strained. For to be Baptised, no where signifies to afflict one's self, or to do penance. Our Saviour indeed saith he had a baptism to be baptised withal: But he doth not call any sort of afflictions by this name, much less speaks of afflicting himself, but of his suffering death. And if we thus understand the word Baptise in this place of the Apostle; Guillandus, a Doctor of his own Church (to name none of ours) hath given this probable Interpretation of those who were Baptised for the dead; that they were such, as did not stick to suffer Martyrdom, for the defence of their belief of the Resurrection of the dead.  
There are very few Scholars in the Roman Church, who adventure to allege XVI. Luke 9 for a proof of Purgatory. 
XVI. Luk. 9  For it is manifest, saith Maldonate, That the Poor, are the friends, who are to receive us into everlasting habitations. That is, we shall be received thither, for our Charity to them. And in this he says, all Author's consent, except St. Ambrose, whose singular opinion it is, that they are the Holy Angels, which is deservedly rejected by all: And yet this poor Creature follows that rejected opinion; (else why doth he quote St. Ambrose)? though it makes nothing for his purpose; Which is to prove, not what Angels, but what we on earth can do for the help of the dead. After the like senseless manner he allegeth St. Austin, who saith not a word of Purgatory in the place he names: But mentioning a double order of those that shall be saved, he saith, some have lived in such sanctity, that they may help their friends to be received into everlasting habitations; and others lived not so well, as to have been sufficient to attain so great a blessedness, unless they had obtained mercy by the Merits, that is, the Prayers (as Bellarmine acknowledges) of their Friends. Now what is this to Purgatory? Unless it can be proved that there is no way to receive Mercy from God, but by passing through that fire, of which he saith nothing. How the word fail in this Text, enforceth, as he fancies, receiving succour after death, I cannot conceive. For it signifies our dying, as Menochius himself expounds it; departing this life, as Theophylact, who knew of no other sense, unless it be understood, saith he, of Pusillanimity being condemned.  
Nor doth St. Austin in the next place, XXIII. Luke 44. say that Souls may be helped in Purgatory: But expressly declares, if no sin were to be remitted in the last judgement, our Lord would not have said of a certain sin, it shall not be remitted in this world, nor in the world to come. Which the Thief hoped for, when he Prayed, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And if the Thief had any such erroneous Notion in his head (which we do not believe) of going to Purgatory, when he died; our Lord presently freed him from that false conceit, by that gracious promise, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.  
It is a lamentable Cause which must be supported by such an Author as Jason of Cyrene, whose Book is of no credit. But if it were, the place he citys, 2 Maccab. XII. 44, 45. proves nothing but Prayer for the dead, which doth not infer a Purgatory. For the Greeks use Prayer for the dead, who believe nothing of Purgatory. And indeed the Text itself tells us, their Prayers had respect, not to the deliverance of those Prayed for out of the flames of Purgatory, but to their Resurrectien: And if they had believed Purgatory, they could not, according to the Popish opinion, have prayed for these men who died in mortal Sin; being defiled by things belonging to Idols, which were found under their Garments. Now the Romish Church doth not admit such people as die in mortal Sin, into Purgatory. See how weak all their proofs are, of this great Article of their Faith. For there is no greater strength to be found in the rest of his Texts, which he hath jumbled together, after a very strange fashion, as if a long row of Chapters and Verses would do his business. Nor did the Fathers in the Six first Ages, know any thing of this Doctrine. Gregory indeed, called the Great, began to talk of it, and laid the foundation of it: But his Authority is not great, being much addicted to Fables, and relying upon pretended Revelations, Visions, and Apparitions. And as for Origen's Purgatory, St. Austin saith, 
* De haeres. ●. 43.  What Catholic Christian is there, whether learned or unlearned, who doth not vehemently abhor it? And yet this man is not ashamed to allege his Testimony; by which the Reader may make a judgement of the rest.    

XLVIII. That it is not lawful to make, or have Images.  

Answer.  
THIS is another shameless slander, as his own Bellarmin confesses; 
●. 2. de Eccles. Triumph. c. 8.  who says, the opinion of Calvin himself is this, That Images are not simply forbidden, but he admits only of an Historical use of them. The sum of our Doctrine is this, That it is not lawful to make an Image of God (and so some of their own Church have confessed) nor to make any Image to be worshipped. If we should have further added, That it is unlawful to make or have Images, because of the danger of Idolatry, we could have justified ourselves by the Authority of as wise men, as any in their Church. For more than one of the Ancient Fathers were of this opinion; who were never condemned by the Ancient Church, nor was this reckoned among their Errors.  
His Texts of Scripture are impertinently alleged. 
XXV. Exod. 18.  For God might command that to be done (XXV. Exod. 18.) which he forbade them to do, without such a special Order. And there is no proof that the Cherubins were made with Faces of beautiful young men, as this Writer asserts; but the contrary is apparent, as many have demonstrated. He belies St. Hierom also, when he makes him say, the Jews worshipped them: which the best of their own Authors deny. Particularly Lorinus, a famous Jesuit, upon XVII. Acts 25. Concerning the Cherubims made by God's Command, and other Images made by Solomon, it must be said, that they were only an Appendix, and additional ornament of another thing: and were not of themselves propounded for adoration; which it is manifest the Hebrews did not give them. And Vasquez saith the same out of Tertullian, that no worship was given to the Cherubims; alleging no less than twelve Schoolmen of that opinion. Why should I trouble myself therefore any further with such a Writer, whose next Scriptures are still about the Cherubims, and therefore are already answered? For he doth not believe, I hope, that when the Apostle, IX. Hebr. 1. speaks of the Ordinances of Divine Service, that is, Commandments about the Worship of God (as Theodoret, and from him Menochius expounds it) and after many other things, mentions the Cherubims of glory, he intended they should have divine service performed to them. If not, than his observation is frivolous; for no body denies there were such things as Cherubims in the most holy place: where no body saw them, much less worshipped them.  
When he hath done with his Scriptures, he goes about to prove (so fond he is of Images) that an Image is of divine and natural right, because we always form one in our mind, when we conceive and understand any thing. As if it were all one to form an Idea invisibly in the mind; and to make a usible, standing representation of it, in Wood, Brass, or Stone. Such Writers tyre one with their folly and falsehood: which is notorious in what he quotes out of Saint Austin in the conclusion of this Chapter; Who taking notice that some Pagans had forged a Story of I know not what Books, written by Christ to Peter and Paul, concerning the secret Arts of working Miracles, says they named those two perhaps rather than other Apostles, to whom those pretended Books were directed, because they might have seen them painted with Him in many places. Which, whether it be meant in private Houses (as is most probable) or in public places, it is manifest St. Austin did not regard such Pictures; for he presently adds, in the very next sentence (which this false Writer conceals) these remarkable words: Thus they deserved to err utterly, who sought for Christ and his Apostles, not in the holy Books, but in painted Walls. And it is no wonder, if they that counterfeit (in forging Books he means) were deceived by them that paint.    

XLIX. That it is not lawful to reverence Images, nor to give any honour to insensible things.  

Answer.  
NOW we are come indeed to the business: but they seem afraid to touch it. For, first, instead of saying, it is not lawful to worship Images (as it was before, when Bishop Montague answered this Book) now they dwindle it into reverence of them. And then, they fallaciously tack to this a Proposition of another nature, that no honour is to be given to insensible things. Which is a new Calumny; for we do upon some occasions give honour or respect (though no Worship, nor Adoration) to things that have no sense in them.  
Therefore he might have kept to himself his first Scripture, 
Exod. III. 5.  which is brought to prove this; not the worshipping of any Creature. For putting off the shoes was a respect paid to earthly Princes in those Countries, when they came into their presence.  

Ps. XCIX. 5.  In the next place XCIX. Psal. 5. instead of our Translation, Worship at his footstool (which he promised to stick unto) he gives us their own, Adore the footstool of his feet; expressly contrary to the Original, and to the most ancient Translations; particularly the Chaldee Paraphrase, which runs thus; adore, or worship in the House of his Sanctuary, for he is holy. Which is so plain and literal an Interpretation, that Jansenius and Lorinus himself follow it. And they, among the Ancients, who follow the Vulgar Translation, thought it so horrible a thing to worship his Footstool) thereby understanding the Earth, which is called God's footstep, that they expound these words of Christ. Hear St. Austin upon the place. I am afraid to worship the Earth, lest he that made Heaven and Earth condemn me; (observe that) and yet I am afraid not to worship the Footstool of my Lord, because the Psalmist saith, Worship the Footstool of his Feet. What therefore shall I do? In this doubt, I turn myself to Christ, whom here I seek, and find; how without impiety the Earth may be worshipped; without Impiety may be worshipped the Footstool of his Feet; For he took Earth from the Earth, Flesh being of the Earth: and he took Flesh of the Flesh of Mary. He must have a brow of brass, if he can read this, and not be put out of countenance. But if they had any shame left, they would not draw in St. Hierom to conuntenance this Impiety; Whom this man quotes again (though he tells us not in what Epistle to Marcelia we may find it) to prove that the Ark was worshipped in regard of the Images that were set upon it, that is, the Cherubims. A foul Forgery! For he only saith, the Tabernacle was venerated; that is, had in honourable regard, because the Cherubims were there. Veneration is one thing, and Religious Worship is another: And his meaning is no more than this, that they reverenced the Sanctuary (as God commanded Moses) because of a Divine presence there. It was the more impudent to allege him, because he is the Father who saith 
* L. W. in Ezek. c. 16. , We have one Huband, and we worship one Image: which is the Image of the Invisible, Omnipotent God; i. e. Christ.  
What he intends by alleging, II. Philip. 10. for a proof that Images are to be worshipped, I cannot imagine: unless he be so senseless, as to take the Name of a thing, for an Image of it. And he could not but know also, that when we bow at the Name of Jesus, we worship our Lord Christ.  
His long Discourse of the brazen Serpent, mentioned XXI. 
Numb. XXI. 8.  Numb. 8. is as impertinent. For there is no proof that it was an Image, nor the least signification that it was set up to be worshipped. If it were, why did Hezekiah break it in pieces; for that very reason, because, in process of time, People burned incense to it? He ought to have known also, That Vasquez (as I showed before) together with Azorius, both learned Jesuits, with a great many other of the best Writers of his own Church, acknowledge that no Image among the Jews was set up for worship. And Azorius expressly confutes his most learned Dr. Saunders, for abusing the Testimony of some Fathers to prove the contrary. As this man doth those whom he hath named, particularly their Pope Gregory the Great: who is known to all the World to have been against the Worship of Images; though he earnestly contended to have them in Churches. But I refer the Reader to Bishop Montague for satisfaction about his Fathers (some of which are forged, others say nothing to the purpose, and John Damascen was no Father, but a superstitious Monk) because, contrary to his custom, he takes notice of some of our Objections against Image-worship, and endeavours to answer them; which may seem to require consideration, though I think the most ordinary Reader might be left to grapple with him.  
His Answer to the first Objection, of Hezekiah's breaking the brazen Serpent, seeing it the cause of Idolatry, if it have any sense in it, is an audacious reflection upon that good King; nay, upon the Holy Ghost, who commends him for what he did: Whereas this man going about to prove, that the abuse of a good thing, ought not to take away the use of it, doth as good as say, Hezekiah should not have broken it, but left it as a Monument of God's Mercy to them, without destroying it. What is this but censuring him, instead of answering us?  
His Answer to the next, is an impudent denial of their Principles, and of their Practice. For their greatest Writers say, it is the constant Opinion of Divines, that the Image is to be worshipped with the same worship wherewith that is worshipped of which it is the Image. So Azorius.  
The third is no Answer to what we charge upon them, but a false Charge upon us; Who do not fall down before the Sacrament, and worship it as an Image of Christ; but worship Christ himself, when we receive it upon our Knees.  
The Fourth is a fresh piece of Impudence; in denying Images to be set up in Churches with a special intent, that People should worship or adore them: and in affirming, That the worship is given them, as it were, by a consequence; and rather, because it may be lawfully given, than because it is principally sought to be given. For their great Cardinal Bellarmin 
* L. 2. de Imag. c. 21, 22. , to name no other, expressly saith, That the Images of Christ, and of the Saints, are honoured, not only by accident, and improperly, but per se, and properly: so that they terminate the Veneration, as they are considered in themselves; and not only as they represent their Exemplar. And their Opinion savours of Heresy in that Church, who say that they are not set up to be worshipped. Of which this man, I believe, was sensible, when he tells us, They are partly set up in Churches, to stir up our minds to follow the Example of those holy men, whose Images we behold. Which supposes this not the whole end for which they are set up; but that they are partly intended for another purpose. What that is, he durst not confess; for fear he should confute himself: For he knew that the stirring up of People's minds to follow the Saints, is but a small part of the reason for which Images are set up in Churches: the great end is, that they may be worshipped.  
His distinction between an Idol and an Image, is as vain as all the rest (as our Authors have demonstrated a thousand times) and that they do not give Latria to Images, is another egregious untruth: for they expressly say in the Ceremoniale, that Latria is due to the Cross: for which reason it is ordered to take place of the Imperial Sword, when they are both carried together.  
Neither he, nor any any one else (whatsoever he vapours) dare break in pieces, or tear a Crucifix, or Picture, solemnly consecrated to be worshipped: not with an inferior sort of Worship (as he pretends); for that, the greatest Men in his Church acknowledge is downright Idolatry. And therefore maintain, that the Image, and the Person represented by it, are worshipped as one Obect, with the same act of worship.  
What the Council of Trent saith, hath been considered by a number of our Writers, who have shown, that the Prayers wherewith Images are consecrated, the Pilgrimages that are made to them, the Prayers to the Wood of the Cross, do suppose they expect virtue, yea very great benefit from them: and that, notwithstanding all their distinctions, the worship of them is Idolatry.  
Thus much I have thought good to add in this place (that I may not be less careful than he) for the preservation of our People from being deceived by those who mince this matter of Image-worship. Concerning which, I may truly say, as Dr. Jackson hath done, that the Primitive Church abandoned it, as the Liturgy of Hell.    

L. That no man hath seen God in any form; and that therefore his Picture, or Image cannot be made.  

Answer.  
IN the First Edition of this Book, they condemned us for saying, No man hath seen God at any time (so well are they skilled in Scripture, where we find those very words, I. John 18.) but having been sound lashed for this foul Ignorance, by Bishop Montague, now they have altered the words, they think, more wisely; though still with a contradiction to St. Paul, who saith of God, that no man hath seen him, nor can see him: Which is as much, we think, as if he had said, no man hath seen him in any form, because his words import, that it is impossible one should see him at all.  
From whence it is a plain consequence, that his Picture, or Image, cannot be made. And nothing but stupid superstition, that horrid blindness where with those are struck, who fall into Idolatry, could make any man affirm the contrary. Their Ancient Schoolmen, it is well known, absolutely condemn the making any Picture of God; but only, as in Christ he took upon him our Nature. Nay, the Second Council of Nice (as blockish as they were) had so much sense remaining, as to condemn the making of an Image of God, when they established the Worship of Images. And John Damascen himself saith, it is the highest madness and impiety, to make any Figure of the Deity. But time hath wrought men's minds into this Madness: and one would think a real frenzy possessed this man, when he thought of the III. 
III. Gen. 8.  Gen. 8. (which only saith, They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden) to prove God hath been seen in a Corporal form: As if hearing were seeing; or one could paint the form of a sound, or of motion. To what Impiety may not such men arrive, who can satisfy themselves with such Arguments?  

XXVIII. Gen. 12.  Nor is there the least mention of anyform, wherein the Lord appeared to Jacob, XXVIII. Gen. 12. But if there had, it would be the highest impiety to call that the picture of God, who hath no form, no shape, no figure, or lineaments; and therefore cannot be Painted.  
God speaking to Moses face to face XXXII. Exod. 11. 
XXXII. Exod. 11.  doth not imply God to have a face; but only that he spoke most familiarly to him, as one Friend speaketh to another. His own Menochius goes farther; for his Interpretation is, By an Angel appearing in corporeal and humane shape, God spoke most familiarly to him. And indeed it is the opinion of his Order (the Jesuits) and of all later Divines in the Roman Church, very few excepted, that God never appeared, but by the Ministry of Angels.  
Which answers what he allegeth out of VII. 
VII. Dan. 9  Dan. 9 To which Menochius also gives this farther satisfaction, That every thing which is here attributed unto God, signifies only the splendour of the Divine Majesty; which, in one word, may be called Glory. This is the only thing that can be represented; which it is impossible for any one to describe.  
As for VI Isa. 1, 5. 1 Kings XXII. 19 There is not the least signification of any form wherein the Divine Majesty appeared. His reasonings upon these Texts are so weak, that they are not worthy any one's notice: But lest he should be wise in his own conceit, let him take this rational account from Abulensis, an Author of his own Church, why no Image of the Trinity should be made. First, For fear of Idolatry, lest the Image itself should be worshipped. 2dly. For fear of Error and Heresy; in attributing to God corporiety and essential differences, such as we see those Three Figures represent. This is sufficient to convince any man, who is not drunk with the cup of fornication, mentioned by St. John in the Revelation.  
We hear not a word of Fathers to countenance this Doctrine, which is a shroud sign it is so far from being Ancient, that they speak directly against it. And it is observable, that they bring in the Gentiles excusing their making Images of their Gods, just as the Papists now excuse themselves, and as this man argues: That Images were unto men, instead of writings (or Scriptures) upon which fixing their sight, they might have some Conceptions of God. They are the words of Athanasius in his Oration against the Gentiles. And so Eusebius tells us, Porphyry said, That men by Statues, as by Book●, have learned to know the Doctrine of the Gods. Behold the Fathers whom they follow. Thus the Sworn Enemies of Jesus Christ were wont to discourse.    

LI. That Blessing, or Signing with the sign of the Cross, is not founded in Holy Scripture.  

Answer.  
IT is uncertain, what he means by this proposition; whether he make Blessing, and Signing with the sign of the Cross, Two several things, or the same. If he mean that we say, Blessing things or Persons is not founded in Scripture, he is a notorious Calumniator; for we Bless our Children and our Meat. But if he mean, That Blessing by Signing with the sign of the Cross is not founded there, he saith true; for we find no Precept or Example for such a way of Blessing. Anciently indeed, when the Cross of Christ was counted foolishness, Christians used to sign themselves in the Forehead with this sign, in token that they gloried in the Death of Christ; which was nothing else, but to make a confession of their Faith, and to testify in what esteem they had Christ Crucified. The use of the sign upon such an occasion is not to be condemned, nor the use of it in their Benedictions: Whereby they declared their Belief, that they and all they had was Blessed by Christ, who was made a curse for us; and that through his Death and Passion (of which the Cross was a Memorial) they expected all manner of Blessings from God. But all this was of Humane Institution; for which we find no directions in Scripture.  
None of the places he allegeth, say a syllable of it; much less expressly mention this sign; Let the Reader look as long as he pleaseth into VII. 
VII. Rev. 3.  Rev. 3. he will find no more, but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the servants of God in their Foreheads; With what mark we are not told.  
In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV. Luke 50. we read of Christ's blessing the Children that were brought to him, and of blessing his Disciples; but nothing of signing either with the Cross, or any thing else; which therefore is not founded in these, or indeed in any other Scriptures.  
The Fathers, we know, speak of the use of the Sign of the Cross upon several occasions; but do they say it was founded in Scripture? Not a word of that, which is the only point. And signing with the Cross may be laid aside now, as many other Rites have been; which were no less in use in Ancient times, than that was; particularly, the Custom of Praying Standing, not Kneeling on the Lordsday and every day between Easter and Whitsuntide. Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice; and as it had been in use before, and not then introduced, but only confirmed, so continued in the Church for 800 years; and yet is now quite disused. I say nothing of the Spiritual Virtue, as well as Bodily Protection, which they in the Roman Church, now expect from the Sign of the Cross; for which there is not either Scripture, or other Ancient Authority.    

LII. That the Public Service of the Church, ought not to be said, but in a Language that all the People may understand.  

Answer.  
IT is some satisfaction that we shall part fairly; for in Conclusion he speaks truly and plainly. This is our Doctrine, which is so agreeable to the express words of the Bible; that unless the Bible contradict itself, nothing can be found there to the contrary.  

I Luke 8.  St. Luke I. 8. saith nothing of any words the Priest spoke, when he ministered in the Sanctuary. Nor do we find in the Bible, the least mention of Public Prayers he made there, but only of burning Incense; which the People well understood represented the going up of their Prayers to God with acceptance; which they made without, while he burned Incense within. Which may be called a Symbolical Prayer; the meaning of which was as well understood by the People, as what they themselves spoke. The Angel indeed tells him, v. 13. thy Prayer is heard; but this doth not prove he spoke any words, but rather lifted up his mind to God, when the Incense ascended towards Heaven. For it is manifest he continued his Ministration after he was struck Dumb; and therefore it was not the Custom to speak any words. But suppose he did, how doth it appear he did not speak in the Language he used at other times, the Language of the Country? Tho it is not material whether he did or no; for the People were not in a Capacity to hear his Voice. And therefore this place, if it prove any thing, proves too much; that the Public Service of the Church may be said in a place separate from all the People, where they can neither hear, nor see the Priest.  
The XVI. Levit. 17. 
XVI. Leu. 17.  is most absurdly alleged to serve this purpose, because it speaks of a Typical Service in the most Holy Place; unto which we have nothing here answerable upon Earth, but is fulfilling in the Intercession which our Lord Jesus Christ makes for us continually in Heaven, by virtue of his most precious Blood, wherewith he entered in thither. Besides, the Highpriest of old, said not one word while he stayed there; and therefore this can be no argument the People need not understand the Public Prayers of the Church, which are made, not in such a Secret Place as that was, but openly in the hearing of all the People. Who, by this reasoning, may be shut out of the Church, as well as excluded from understanding the Prayers, and the Priest left there to a silent Service by himself.  
Here Fathers being wanting (for they are all against a Service in an unknown Tongue) he pretends he hath no need of them; though he needlessly heaped them up, where he could find a word, that seemed to look that way he would have it. But he supplies this want with a bold untruth, That the practice of the whole Christian World, for these many hundred years hath been against us, who would have Divine Service in a Language the People understand: Which can be salved by nothing, but by another proud falsity, that the Roman Church is the whole Christian World. For no Church uses Latin Service, but such as are under the Dominion of the Pope of Rome; all others use the Language of their several Countries. Nay, there are some who have acknowledged his Authority, that would still have the Public Service in their own Language, which the People understood.  
For shame, let these men leave off Writing, and betake themselves to their Prayers, that God would forgive them their abominable Falsehoods, wherewith they have laboured to maintain their Cause; particularly in this point, about Public Service in a Language the People do not understand. Which they are sensible is against the express Doctrine of St. Paul, in 1 Cor. XIV. and therefore this man thinks himself concerned to attempt an Answer unto what we allege from hence.  
At first he distinguishes between Public Prayer and Private, which here is very idle, for it is evident, the Apostle speaks of Public Prayers in the Church, verse 19 When the whole Church came together in one place, verse 23.  
Secondly, He saith this place is against us, because it proves the Common Service of the Church, was not then in a Tongue which every man understood, but in another Language, not so common to all, verse 16. Mark, how he contradicts himself; before he supposed (or else he talked impertinently) that the Apostle discourses of Private Prayers; now he acknowledges it is the Common Service of the Church, of which he speaks, but shows it was not in the Common Language. What a brow have these men, who can thus outface the clearest truth? That which the Apostle condemns as a fault of some Persons, and condemns as utterly inconsistent with the very end of Speech, as well as with the Edification of the Church; this man makes to have been common allowed Practice. Was there ever such Prevarication? A man had better have no use of Reason, than Discourse on this fashion; no Tongue at all, than talk at this rate, expressly against the Apostle's Injunction, who requires him, who could not deliver what he spoke in a known Tongue, or had no Interpreter, To hold his peace, and speak to himself, and to God, v. 28.  
His Argument to justify their Practice is so silly, that it cannot but make a good man sigh deeply, to think that poor ignorant People should be misled by such Idiots. For he takes him, who occupied the place of the unlearned (in verse 16.) to be one, who was required, or supposed to be there, to supply the unlearned man's place, That is, saith he, one who should have further understanding of that Tongue in which the Service of the Church is said. Which he imagines is a proof, the Service was not in the Vulgar Tongue, for then there had been no need of one to supply the Idiots place, etc. This is such a gross piece of Duncery, as his Master Bellarmine would have corrected, if he had looked into him, or any of the Ancient and Modern Interpreters: Who by one that takes up the place of the Unlearned, do not understand, one that acts in the stead of an Unlearned Person, (that's a dull fancy, never heard of among the Learned) but one that sits in the Place or Bench, is in the Form, as we speak, of the Unlearned. That is, an Ignorant Person, who is the man that the Apostle saith, could not say, Amen, if he understood not what was said in the Thanksgiving. So Menochius upon that Text, He that sits among the Simple and Rude, who are ignorant of Tongues, how shall he say, Amen? That is, approve thy Prayer, if he do not understand it.  
His Cavil therefore at the Geneva Ministers is foolish, if not malicious; for they translate the words honestly, not deceitfully, according to the certain sense of them; there being no difference between an Idiot, and he who supplies the place of an Idiot.  
We know of no Reformed Churches, where they do not say Amen to their Public Prayers. Here we are sure the People are enjoined so to do. Therefore it is another Slander, if he object this to us, who have not turned Amen into So be it, as he says many of the Reformed Churches have done. If it be true, that any have expounded the word, into others of like signification, it was for the Edification of the People, and no body hath just reason to find fault with them, if the People did not understand its meaning. Which they did in Greece, as much as in Judea, and therefore the Apostle had reason to retain it.  
But he belies St. Austin, as he hath done us, when he makes him say, It is not lawful to turn Amen into any other language, without the scandal of the whole Church. For he saith, 
* L. 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 10.  There is such variety of Latin Interpreters of the Scripture, as makes the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek necessary; that when one doubts of the Latin, recourse may be had thither; (this is worth marking for other purposes). Tho some Hebrew words indeed we often find are not interpreted, as Amen, Allelujah, Racha, and Osanna, etc. Which Antiquity hath preserved, partly, for the more sacred Authority, though they might have been interpreted (observe that) as Amen, and Allelujah; partly, because it's said they cannot be translated into another tongue, as the two other words, Racha, and Osanna. In which discourse he says nothing of the unlawfulness of Translating the Hebrew words, nor of the scandal their Translation would give; but only of some of them, particularly, Amen, being more venerable in the Original Language, than in any other. What he says in his Epistles I cannot stand to examine; for in that Epistle which he quotes, there is nothing to be found about this matter.  
In conclusion, he is driven to this shift, to say, That our own Service is not understood, because it consists partly of the Psalms of David (which he most falsely says are the hardest part of all the Bible) and of Lessons out of the Old and New Testament, which are not understood by the people. But is this all that our Service consists of? Have we not Prayers and Thanksgivings, easy to be understood every word? As in the other part of the Service they understand enough for their Edification; whereas of their Mass, the simple people understand nothing: Or suppose they understand a little, yet this will not make their case like ours; because the people with us have all in their vulgar Language, though they do not every one understand all; but they have not a word in their vulgar language, though some perhaps may understand a little of the Latin Tongue.  
And what is the reason they dare not trust the Mass in the vulgar language? Because it is hard to be understood? No, but quite contrary, because the people would easily find things there which confute their own Religion, and are conformable unto ours. For who would believe Purgatory any longer, who heard the Priest say in the vulgar tongue, Lord, remember thy servants and handmaids that are gone before us, with the sign of Faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace? If they be in peace, every one would be ready to say, Then they are not burning in the Purgatory fire; and what need I give my money to Pray them out from thence? The like passages there are, that would make them believe Transubstantiation to be a Fable; and that it is a novel thing to have the Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue; which I have not room to mention: But desire the Reader to observe how this practice is condemned out of the mouths of many great persons in their own Church. I will name Two.  
One is Cardinal Cajetan, upon 1 Cor. XIV. who saith, Out of this Doctrine of Paul we learn, That it is better for the Edification of the Church, that the Public Prayers which are said in the audience of the people, should be said in the tongue common to Clerks and People, than said in Latin. A most ingenuous Confession; in which he doth but follow one of their Saints, viz. Anselm, in his Exposition of the same Chapter; That is good which thou sayest, but another is not edified by thy words, which he understands not. Therefore since you meet in the Church for Edification, those things ought to be said in the Church, which may be understood by men, and afford Edification to the hearers.    

CONCLUSION.  
NOW I leave all men, who have a grain of common sense and common honesty, whether this man, who (both in the Title and Conclusion of his Book) pretends to judge us out of our own mouth, 
II. Jam. 4.  be not, as St. James speaks, a judge of evil thoughts: That is, as his Menochius expounds it, one who reasons ill, and therefore judgeth ill: 
1 Tim. I. 7.  Who desiring to be a Teacher of others, understands neither what he saith, nor whereof he affirms. As will be confessed by all who follow our Saviour's Rule,  VII. John 24. 
Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  

PAge 38. line 20. r. to be come.  
P. 54. l. 26. r. of Religion.  
P. 90. l. 24. r. all together.  
P. 105. l. 1. r. Arts; whereby.  
P. 145. l. 24. r. 1 Cor. IX. 27.  
P. 172. l. 25. r. heard of, much less have ever seen.  
P. 184. l. 5. r. Rich Man.  
P. 187. l. 14. r. ad Pop. Antioch.  
P. 193. l. 21. r. things done at.  
P. 207. l. 15. r. solemn Rite.  
P. 213. l. 6. r. most suitable.  
P. 217. l. 16. r. Tert. Sum.  
Ibid. l. 17. r. mere impudence.  
P. 218. l. 1. r. Bona for Bonell.  
P. 224. l. 21. r. S. Victore.  
P. 231. l. 21. r. speaking of Virgins.  
P. 250. l. antepenult. r. visible.  
P. 253. l. 11. r. God's footstool.  
P. 262. l. 14. r. of Fathers to countenance.