The ancient doctrine of the Church of England maintained in its primitive purity. Containing a justification of the XXXIX. articles of the Church of England, against papists and schismaticks: The similitude and harmony betwixt the Romane Catholick, and the heretick, with a discovery of their abuses of the fathers, in the first XVI ages, and the many heresies introduced by the Roman Church. Together with a vindication of the antiquity and universality of the ancient Protestant faith. Written long since by that eminent and learned divine Daniel Featly D.D. Seasonable for these times.
Lynde, Humphrey, Sir., Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.
Page  1


Spectacles Chap. 9. Sect. 1.

THE Knight faileth in the proofe of his first point of Iustification, producing but one only place out of a booke intituled, Ordo bapti∣zandi & visitandi, and that of no speciall good anthoritie, as hee al∣ledgeth it out of Cassander and Author placed in the first Classis in the first index librorum prohibi∣torum; and even in that which he alledgeth, there is nothing that doth not very well stand being rightly under stood with the Catholique faith which wee now professe,* for there is nothing but that which was shewed before out of Bellarmine, to wit, that in regard of the uncertaintie of our owne ju∣stice that is, whether wee bee just or no, and for the perill of vaine-glory it is most safe to put our whole confidence in the sole mercy and benignitie of God; Which word sole, doth import confidence Page  2in that, and in nothing else with which it may stand very well, that men in the favour and grace of God may doe workes meritorious of encrease of grace and glory, which is the controversie betweene us and heretiques.

The Hammer.

AS David cut off Goliahs head with his owne Sword,* and Brasidas ranne through his Antagonist with his owne Speare, and Iustine Martyr refuteth the Philosophers out of the principles of Nature; and Constantine the ancient Romans out of the Oracles of Sibylla, and Eusebius the Gentiles out of their owne Historians,* and S. Paul the Athenians out of their owne Poets: so doth the Knight here in a litigious case, of greatest moment, convince the Iesuite out of his owne evidence a booke intitu∣led, The forme and order of baptizing and visi∣ting the sicke; printed and reprinted, and practi∣sed for many hundred yeares without any check, or controle. In this booke the Priest is directed to put this question to the sick; Dost thou beleeve that thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? the sicke person answereth; I be∣leeve; then the Priest goeth on saying, Goe too there∣fore as long as thy soule remaines in thee, place thy whole confidence in this death only, have confi∣dence in no other thing, commit thy selfe wholly to Page  3this death, with this alone cover thy selfe wholly, if hee say unto thee, thou hast deserved damnati∣on, say Lord, I set the death of our Lord lesus Christ betwixt mee and my bad merits, and I offer his merit in stead of the merits which I ought to have and yet have not. What could Luther or Calvin, or Zuinglius, or Peter Martyr, or any Protestant in the world speake more expressely for the renouncing all merit, and relying upon Christ wholly and solely for justification and salvation? Yet our Spectacle-maker by a false glosse, as it were, a false glasse, would make us beleeve, that the author of the Liturgie cast his eyes another way, and that this allegation ma∣keth nothing for us.

First, he excepteth against this Authour as a single witnesse, you produce, saith he, but one only place out of one authour, &c. I answer as the Lio∣nesse doth in the fable to the aemulous beast twitting her,* that whereas other females had many young ones at once, shee had but one, ac pol leonem in quit; but, saith shee, that one is a Lion of more worth then twenty whelpes: so I grant, that in this place hee insisteth but upon one allegation, but it is a most remarkable one; It is very likely that this ordo visitandi, as other parts of the Liturgie and Catechismes, and con∣fessions might bee penned by one man: yet atfer they are generally received, and approved, and passe currant for many ages, they carry the au∣thoritie of many, yea the whole Church; and Page  4howsoever the Iesuite would intimate that the Authour was an anonymus, yet hee might have learned from their greatd Cardinall Hosius that hee was the famous Archbishop of Canter∣burie. Neither is ther any reason to make scruple thereof, for it hath beene anciently printed with his Workes, and passed under his name, and both the style and the doctrine in it is very con∣formable to that wee find in his unquestionable writings, as namely in his Comment upon Ro∣mans chapter the eight (v. 18.) I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthie to bee compared with the glorie which shall bee revea∣led in us, if a man, saith he,eshould serve God a thousand yeares, and that most fervently, he should not deserve of condignity to bee halfe a day in the kingdome of heaven. Neither is Cassanders te∣stimonie of this booke (at which the Iesuite gives so many a flert) to be sleighted, for he was a man of eminent note, and in high esteeme a∣mong the learned of his age, hee was a favou∣rite of two great Emperours, and lived and died in good reputation, as appeareth by the sundrie encomiums before his Workes; as also the E∣pitaph on his Tombe. As for the setting him in the first Classis of prohibited bookes, no whit ecclipseth the glorie, but rather enobleth him, for that Index is a kind of Ecclesiasticall ostra∣cisme, by which the Romanists banish as farre as their power stretcheth, the most eminent Au∣thours, and most free and ingenuous professors Page  5of the truth. AsfTertullian draweth an argu∣ment to prove the sincerity and holinesse of the Christian Religion from the barbarous decree of wicked Nero against the professours thereof; it must needs, saith hee, bee singular good which that damned monster condemnes: so if any man peruse the Authours censured, and the passages expunged in the Index expurgatorious, he shall find them to be of speciall note, and singular use. Albeit the Inquisitors pretend that they change not, nor blot out any thing, but onely where manifest errour is crept in, and that since the yeare 1515. Yet the Knight hath demonstrated be∣fore by undeniable instances in all ages, that they blot out of the Index of the Bible, the wri∣tings of the ancient Fathers; and since 800. yeares out of the Doctours of their owne Church, what maketh most against their er∣rours and superstitions. Yea, but saith the Ie∣suite, this supposed booke of Anselme hath beene printed, and reprinted by heretiques, and therefore may well fall under the Inquisitions censure; so hath Ignatius, Cyprian, Theodoret, and Ambrose, and Austine; yea and the originalls of the old and new Testament, and must they therefore come under their file, and bee sub∣ject to their Index correction? Asg Christ spake to the high Priests servant; If I have spo∣ken ill, beare witnesse of the ill, if well, why smitest thou mee? So say wee of these bookes printed and reprinted by those whom hee tearmes here∣tiques, Page  6because they impugne his errours and he∣resies, if they have printed ought amisse declare it: if not, why doe you prohibit or correct their impressions?

Well (saith he) for all this, if the worst come to the worst, if this Authour prove to be S. An∣selme and his words Gospell, the Knight gaines nothing by it, or we lose, for though it bee the sa∣fest way to cast anchour at the last in the bottome of Gods mercie, and put our whole confidence in Christs merits, it doth not from hence follow, but that men may doe workes meritorious of increase of grace and glory. First, why doth he lispe here, and not speake plaine out the Romish tenet which is that our Workes doe merit not only in∣crease of grace and glorie, but remission of sinnes, andheternall life? Next, I would faine know how mercy and merit, nay sole mercy and merit can stand together? Certainly as mercy exclu∣deth merit, so sole mercy all merit. Can those workes which is S. Anselmes judgement will not beare scale in Gods ballance, weigh downe super-excellens pondus gloriae, a super-excellent weight of glorie? Certainly the Spectacle-maker put in a burning glasse into his Spectacles which hath much impaired his eye-sight, or else hee could not but reade S. Anselmes words in this place, in which he renounceth all merit, and that in most direct and expresse tearmes, I be∣leeve that none can bee saved by his owne merits,*or by any other meanes, but by the merit of Christs Page  7passion. I set the death of Christ betwixt 'mee and my bad merits, and I offer his merits in stead of the merits which I ought to have, and have not.

Concerning Transubstantiation Spectacles chap. 9. Sect. 2. à pag. 132. ad 187.

THE Knight and the Protestants com∣mit a great sinne in administring the Sacrament of Baptisme without those Ceremonies which were used in the Church from the Apostles times.

[ 1]

Elfrick was not the Authour of the Homilie and Epistles, [ 2] the Knight citeth against Transub∣stantion, in which notwithstanding there is nothing against Transubstantiation, but much for it, if the Knight had not shamefully corrupted the Text by false translating it, in five severall places.

The difference of Catholique Authours about things not defined by the Church maketh nothing for Protestants, [ 3] because they vertually retract all such opinions by submitting their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church.

Cajetan is falsely alledged by putting in the word supposed, and Transubstantiation: [ 4] he denied not the bread to bee transubstantiated into Christs body, though hee conceived that those words, This is my body, doe not sufficiently prove the reall pre∣sence Page  8of our Saviours body for which he is worthily censured by Suarez and the whole schoole of Di∣vines.

Biel affirmeth that it is expresly delivered in holy Scriptures, [ 5] that the body of Christ is contai∣ned under the species of bread, &c. Which former words the Knight leaveth out, because they made clearely against him, and in the latter set downe by the Knight, he denieth not that Transubstantiation may bee proved out of Scriptures, but that it may be proved expresly, that is in expresse tearmes or so many words.

Alliaco his opinion maketh nothing for the Knight being a Calvinist, [ 6] though hee seeme to fa∣vour the Lutherans tenet: and though hee thought the Doctrine of consubstantiation to be more possi∣ble and easie, yet therein hee preferred the judge∣ment of the Church before his owne.

B. Fisher denieth not that the reall presence can be proved out of Scripture; [ 7] for the fourth chapter of the booke cited by the Knight, is employed in the proofe thereof against Luther: but that laying a∣side the interpretation of Fathers, and use of the Church, no man can be able to prove, that any Priest now in these times, doth Consecrate the true body and bloud of Christ.

Durand B. of Maundy doth not deny Transub∣stantiation to bee wrougnt by vertue of the words, [ 8] This is my body; For though in the first place hee saith that Christ then made the bread his body when he blessed it, yet hee after addeth that wee doe Page  9blesse, illâ virtute quam Christus indidit verbis,* by that power which Christ hath giuen to the words.

Odo Cameracensis calleth the very forme of Consecration, [ 9] a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ, for so holy an end, and because they produce so noble an effect, or because they are joyned alwayes with that benedi∣ction and thankesgiving, used both by our Saviour in the institution of this holy Sacrament, and now by the Priest in the Catholique Church, in the Con∣secration of the same.

Christopherus de capite fontium is put in the Roman Index of prohibited bookes, [ 10] and in the words cited out of him by the Knight, there is a grosse historicall errour in this that hee saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of Trent, and all Writers did agree till the late time of Caie∣tan, as if Caietan were since the Councell of Trent; and in citing this place, the Knight is against him∣selfe, for whereas hee maketh Cardinall Caietan, and the Archbishop of Caesarea his two Champions against the words of Consecration, as if they did both agree in the same: here this Archbishop saith quite contrary, that all are for him but onely Cajetan.

Salmeron relateth it indeed to bee the opinions of some Graecians that Christ did not consecrate by those words, This is my body, [ 11] but by his bene∣diction: but this opinion of theirs is condemned by him as Chamier saith expressely in the Page  10place coted by the Knight, l. 6. de Eucha. c. 7.

Bellarmine in the place alledged saith nothing, [ 12] but what is granted by all Papists,* to wit, that though the words of Consecration in the plaine con∣naturall and obvious sense inferre Transubstan∣tiation: yet because in the judgement of some learned men, they may have another sense, which proveth only the reall presence, it is not altogether improbable, that without the authority of the Church, they cannot inforce a man to beleeve Tran∣substantiation out of them.

Alfonsus à Castro affirmeth that of Transub∣stantiation there is rare mention in the ancient Fa∣thers: [ 13] yet of the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, there is most frequent mention; and the drift of Castro in that place is to shew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Wri∣ters of a thing, or plaine testimonie of Scripture, that yet the use and practice of the Church is suffi∣cient, bringing in for example this point of Tran∣substantiation, and the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son.

The meaning of Yribarne and Scotus, [ 14] saying Transubstantiation of late was determined in the Councell of Lateran is only this, that whereas the words of Consecration may bee understood of the reall presence of our blessed Saviours body either by Transubstantiation, or otherwise; so the sub∣stance of bread doe remaine: the Church hath de∣termined the words are to be understood in the for∣mer sence. And moreover Yribarne saith, that Page  11Transubstantiation was not from the beginning de substantiâ fidei, because it had not beene so plainely delivered, nor determined in any Councell, till Gre∣gorie the 7 his time wherein it was first determined against Berengarius.

It is not the reall presence whereof either S. Au∣stine or Maldonate speaketh, [ 15] but how they that eate Manna have died, and they that eate the body of our Lord shall live according to our Saviours say∣ing, which is a cleane different thing.

Gregorie de Valentia having brought two or three severall and substantiall answers to a place al∣ledged out of Theodoret concludeth somewhat roundly with the heretiques in this manner, [ 16] that if no other answer will serve the turne, but that they will still stand wrangling; that it is no marvell that one or two (hee meaneth Theodoret and Gelasius) might erre in this point, and that Bellarmine Sua∣rez, and others answer the place otherwise, to whom hee remitteth the Knight.

Cusanus speaketh not of ancient Fathers, [ 17] but of certaine ancient Divines, whose names and errours are set downe in our late Schoole-men: and this Cardinall himselfe in the place alledged by the Knight declareth his beliefe of Transubstantiation.*

The Waldenses agree not with Protestants in the point of the Sacrament; [ 18] for they had Masse but once a yeare, and that upon Maundy Thursday, nei∣ther would they use the words, hoc est corpus me∣um, but seven Pater nosters, with a blessing over the bread.

Page  12

Durand affirmeth not, [ 19] that the substance of the Bread and Wine remaineth in the Sacrament, but the materiall part only, and hee acknowledgeth that all other Schoole-men were herein against him.

Gaufridus and Hostiensis, [ 20] though they recount three opinions concerning the presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrament, of which the one saith, the bread is the body of Christ, another, that the Bread doth not remaine, but is changed into Christs body; a third, that the bread doth remaine, and is together with the body of Christ: yet they ap∣prove none for true, but only that of the body of Christ, being upon the Altar by Transubstantiation.

Tonstall with Scotus, [ 21] speake either of the word Transubstantiation, or of the proofe thereof by de∣termining that sense of Scripture, or if they meane otherwise the matter is not great. For one single Au∣thour, or two contradicted by others, carry little credit in matter of beliefe.

Erasmus is not an Authour to be answered or na∣med as the Knight hath beene often told.

[ 22]
The Hammer.

AS Nugno wrote of an Argument of Suarez the Iesuite,*that it was in a manner insoluble, not in regard of the difficultie of the matter, but in regard of the intricacie and obscuritie in the manner of propounding it: so this Section may be truly said to bee uncapeable of a cleare and di∣stinct Page  13answer thereunto, not in regard of any dif∣ficultie in the matter it selfe; for there is nothing contained in it, but Crambe centies cocta; but in respect of the confusion thereof, the Adversary following no tract at all, but leporis instar viam intorquens, purposely like a Hare leaping out of the way, that hee might not be caught, for which cause I have beene enforced to leave the order, or rather disorder in his Paragraphes, and cull out of the whole Section here and there, what hee materially answereth to the Knights allegations, and reduce it to the numbers following, where∣unto I purpose to referre my ensuing animad∣versions.

To the first Exception. [ 1] Whereas hee taxeth the Protestants for leaving out ceremonies in Baptisme used in the Church, since the Apostles time, hee shamefully abuseth his reder, for hee speaketh not of the signe of the Crosse, or of Godfathers and Godmothers, which ceremonies and custome of the ancient Church hee knoweth that we retaine: but of Salt and spittle, or baptis∣mall chrisme, which can never be proved to have beene used in the Apostles time, or many hun∣dred yeares after. Of the most ancient of them, to wit, Chrisme he himselfe else-where, Apolog. c. 2.* acknowledgeth that it began but about Con∣stantines time (as Aurelius the Sorbonist obser∣veth in his booke intituled Vindiciae censurae, wherein the Iesuite is trimmed, as such a shave∣ling deserveth.)

Page  14

To the second concerning Elfrick. That Ael∣frick was not the Authour of the Homilies wee acknowledge, neither doth this any whit dero∣gate from their authoritie, but adde rather. For the more ancient the Authour was, the more au∣thoritie the Sermons carry. Now it appeareth out of an ancient Manuscript, that these Homi∣lies were extant in Latine before the dayes of Ael∣frick,* who was commanded by the Archbishop of Yorke Wolstanus to translate them into Eng∣lish, which after hee had faithfully done, the Bi∣shops at a Synod commanded them to bee read to the people on Easter day before they received the Communion. As for the shamefull corrup∣tion hee objecteth to the Knight by false transla∣ting the Homilies in five places, I cannot suffici∣ently pitty the grosse stupidity and blindnesse of the objecter. Hee who hath made a paire of Spectacles for the Knight, had need to have a Festrawe made for himselfe to spell withall; for here hee most absurdly and ridiculously mista∣keth a Collation for a Translation, and Bertram for Aelfrick. Doctor Vsher now Primate of Ar∣math, whom the Knight here followed step by step, maketh a kind of parallel betweene the words of Bertram, and divers passages in the Ho∣milies and Epistles translated by Aelfrick, to shew the conformitie of the doctrine in both. This parallel by this blind buzzard is taken for a translation,aViste, asine, literas doceam, saith Tully to Anthony, non opus est verbis sed fustibus: yea Page  15but the Authour of this Homilie is so farre from condemning Transubstantiation, that hee pro∣fessedly teacheth it in these words,bAs there∣fore a little before hee suffered, hee could change the substance of Bread, and the creature of Wine into his proper Body, which was to suffer, and into his Bloud which was there extant to bee afterwards shed, so in the Desert hee was able to change Manna and water into his owne body and bloud. I answer, this passage hee doth well to whet like a sharpe knife to cut the throat of Transubstantiation. For let it be granted according to the doctrine of lfrick and Bertram, that Christ so turned the Bread into his Body at his last supper, as hee tur∣ned Manna and water into his owne flesh in the wildernesse, what will hereupon insue? but that the conversion or change which is made in the elements is not reall, and corporall, but spirituall and sacramentall, as that was in the Desert: of which the Apostle speaketh, thecspirituall rock followed them, and that rock waes Christ. When Manna fell, and the rock was strucken, Christ was not incarnate, nor many hundred yeares after: how then could the Manna, or the water bee real∣ly and properly turned into his flesh and bloud? Moreover, howsoever hee eludeth the former words of Aelfrick; There is a great difference be∣twixt the body wherein Christ suffered, and the body which is received of the faithfull, the body in which Christ suffered, was borne of the flesh of Mary, and consisted of bloud and bone, but the Page  16other is gathered of many cornes without hloud and bone, (by saying) that the difference which Aelfrick sheweth betweene Christ on the Crosse and Christ on the Sacrament is in his manner of be∣ing, not in the being it selfe, not denying him to bee really in both: yet the later words which containe an inference upon the former: therefore there is nothing to bee understood in the Sacrament bodily, but spiritually: admit of no colourable evasion, for if nothing bee there understood bodily but spiri∣tually; then must needs the words, This is my bo∣dy, be understood figuratively, then must we not according to the doctrine of those times under∣stand any substantiall change of the bread into Christs very body, or the Wine into his bloud really and corporally.

To the third. [ 3] The difference betweene Papists of most eminent note concerning the words, by vertue whereof they teach Transubstantiation is effected, maketh much against the doctrine it selfe, and by consequence quite overthroweth it. For thus we argue against them out of this their difference: If the bread bee turned into Christs body, then either by the words of benediction before hee brake the bread, or gave it, &c. or by the very words of Consecration, viz. hoc est corpus meum. But hee neither changed the bread into his Body by the one, nor by the other; Ergo, hee changed it not at all. Not by the pre∣cedent benediction, as Aquinas and Bellarmine prove. For till the last instant of the prolation of Page  17the words This is my Body, the substance of bread remaineth. Not by the words of Consecration: for as Durand and Odo Cameracensis, and Christo∣pherus Archbishop of Caesarea prove, Christ could not have said after hee had blessed the Bread, This is my body, unlesse by blessing it he had made it his body before. If when Christ said Take yee and eat. yea at that time the Bread by bene∣diction were not changed, it would follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take, and eate the substance of Bread, which to say is to deny the article of Transubstantiation. Neither can the Iesuite heale this sore by his vertuall salve, in saying, that those men above alledged, who impugne the prsent tenent of the Schooles con∣cerning the words of Consecration, in which the es∣sence of the Sacrament consisteth vertually retracted such opinions, because they submitted their writings to the censure of the Catholique Church: for so wee may say with better reason, that what they held against us, they vertually retracted by submitting their judgement to the Catholique Church, which we can easily prove not to bee the particular Ro∣man, but the Universall, which in all times, and all places through the Christian world hath pro∣fessed the common faith once given to the Saints without any of those later Articles which P. Pius the fourth,* and the late conventicle of Trent hath pinned unto it.

To the fourth, [ 4] Cajetan is truly alledged by the Knight; for though neither the words Transub∣stantiation,Page  18nor supposed are in him, yet the sence of them is to be found in him; for as both Suarez and Flood himselfe acknowledgeth (p. 147.) Cajetan said, that these words, This is my body, doe not sufficiently prove the reall presence of our Sa∣viours body without the presupposed authoritie of the Church; and if in his judgement they prove not so much as the reall presence of Christs bo∣dy in the Sacrament, much lesse prove they the presence thereof by Transubstantiation, or tur∣ning the bread into it. By the word supposed, which the Knight addeth more fully to declare Cajetans meaning, hee intended not suppositions, or barely pretended authority of the Church, but truly presupposed, which maketh not the speech sound at all contemptibly of the Church as Flood would have it, whose stomack is so bad, that it turneth sweet and wholsome meate into choler;

Nectar cui fiet acetum
& vaticani perfida vappa cadi.

To the fifth. [ 5] The Knight transcribeth so much out of Biel as was pertinent to his purpose: with the rest he thought not fit to trouble the reader.* The whole passage in Biel standeth thus, It is to bee noted, that though it bee expressely deli∣vered in Scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained under the forme or species of Bread, and received by the faithfull, yet it is not found in the canon of the Bible, how the body of Christ is there, Page  19whether by conversion of any thing into it or whether it beginneth to be there without conuersion, or turning the substance, and accidents of bread remaining. The former words in which passage, make no∣thing against the Knight: Who in this chapter for the most part condemneth Papists out of their owne mouth, and therefore taking Biel for such, hee maketh use of his testimonie against the Ro∣man Church in point of Transubstantiation. Which is very direct and expresse, and the Ie∣suites answer is very weake and unsufficient there∣unto, to wit, that hee denieth only that Transub∣stantiation is found in Scripture in expresse words. For first Biel saith not non invenitur expressum, but non invenitur; It is not found in Scripture, whe∣ther Christs body be there by conversion of any thing into it. Now many things are found in Scrip∣ture, as the Trinity of persons, the eternall gene∣ration of the Sonne, the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne, the number and nature of Sacraments: which yet are not set downe in expresse words. Second∣ly, it is evident out of the former words of Biel, that hee accounted those things expressely to be delivered in Scriptures, which yet are not set downe in expresse words: for hee saith that it is expresly delivered in Scriptures, that the body of Christ is truly contained under the species of bread, and yet those words are not found in Scripure. If wee should admit then of Flood his glosse up∣on Biel, Transubstantiation is not found in Scrip∣ture, Page  20that is, is not found expressely: Yet our Argument from Biels testimonie is no way dis∣abled thereby, because it appeareth out of Biels owne words, that hee holdeth that to bee expresly delivered in Scriptures, which is either expressed in word, or sence; the reall presence, he saith is expresse, not in the letter or forme of words in the text, yet in the sence: but so saith he, is not Transubstantiation; the apparant oppositi∣on betweene the members of his sentence shew∣eth that what hee beleeved of the reall presence, hee beleeved not of Transubstantiation, but the former he beleeved could bee proved out of Scripture, though not in expresse words yet in sence: therefore the later hee beleeved could not be proved so much as in sense, much lesse in ex∣presse words.

To the sixt. [ 6] Although Petrus de Alliaco in∣clineth rather to the Lutherans opinion in the point of the Sacrament, then to the doctrine of the Church of England: yet the Knight upon good reason produceth him as a witnesse; for hee speaketh home against Transubstantiation:* his words are that (the conversion of bread into Christs body) cannot evidently bee proved out of Scripture, and that that manner or meaning which supposeth the substance of bread still to remaine in the Sacra∣ment is possible, neither is it contrary to reason, or to the authoritie of the Scripture; nay it is more easie to bee understood, and more reasonable then that which saith, the substance doth leave the accidents.Page  21If this bee not as Flood will have it so much as in shew for the Knight, I am sure it is both in shew and substance against the Trent faith: for if it bee granted that Consubstantiation is not contrarie to Scripture, nor reason; it followeth necessarily that Transubstantiation is grounded upon nei∣ther, but rather repugnant to both, for as trans. denieth con. so con. trans. If the remaining of the substance of bread with the substance of Christs body be not repugnant to the authoritie of Scripture, nor the meaning of Christs words, then doe not these words, This is my body signifie, or make Transubstantiation which necessarily a∣bolisheth the substance of Bread, and putteth in place thereof the substance of Christs bodie. If Consubstantiation bee more easily to bee un∣derstood, and more agreeable to right reason in Alliacoes judgement then Transubstantiation: it is evident but for feare of his Cardinalls cap, hee would have simply avowed the former, and renounced the latter.

To the seventh. [ 7] Take Roffensis his words at the best, the Iesuite is at a great losse: admit hee said no more then I.R. here confesseth that no man can bee able to prove, that any priest now in these times doth consecrate the true body of Christ: see what will follow hereupon, that no man is able to prove that your priests and people are not grosse Idolatours, adoring a piece of bread for Christ. Secondly, that none is able to prove that Christ is really and substantially offered in your Page  22Masse: for if it cannot bee proved that he is there corporally present, as Roffenfis confesseth, and you be are him out in it: it cannot bee proved that hee is corporally offered, restat ita{que} ut missas, missas faciatis;* it remaineth therefore that you dismisse your misses, or Masses. For what can they availe the living, or the dead, if nothing but meere accidents and shewes of Bread and Wine bee offered, which are meere nothing. Wee may yet gather farther upon Roffensis his words, if it cannot bee proved by any Scripture, that Christs body and bloud are present in the Roman masse: it cannot bee proved that they are present in any Masse, unlesse it bee granted that the Roman masses are of a worser condition then others: if not in any masse, much lesse must Papists say in any Sacrament without the Masse. What then be∣commeth of the maine and most reall article of the Trent faith, which hath cost the reall effusion of so much Christian bloud, I meane the reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament. To Roffenfis I.R. should have added Cajetan, and so hee might have had a parreiall of Cardinalls, for the Knight alledged him, and his words are most expresse, not only against the proofe of Transubstantiation,* but also of the corporall pre∣sence of Christ (as out of the words hoc est corpus meum.) The Cardinalls words are, that which the Gospell hath not expressed wee have received from the Church, to wit, the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, I say from the Church, be∣cause Page  23there appeares nothing out of the Gospell that can enforce a man to beleeve that the words, This is my body, are to bee taken properly. How doth this Flood swell in pride, that to so great a Cardinal, so profound a Schoole-man, so eminent a Do∣ctour, so divine a Commentatour, so golden a Writer (all which titles are given by the Roman Church to Cajetan) he vouchsafeth not a looke. But indeed he held a Wolfe by the eares, and was in a quandarie what to doe, whether to keepe his holt, or to let him goe: if hee had taken notice of his testimonie against the Roman Church, ei∣ther hee must have disparaged the Cardinall, or given his Trent faith a grievous wound.

To the eight. [ 8] Durand his words are plaine e∣nough to prove that the conversion of bread into the body of Christ, is wrought by the vertue of Christs benediction before hee uttered the words,*This is my body, hee blessed, saith hee, the bread by his heavenly benediction, and by vertue of the Word, whereby the Brend is turned into the sub∣stance of Christs body. Yea but faith Flood, hee ad∣deth, Wee blesse, ex illa virtute quam Christus indidit verbis, wee blesse by that power or vertue which Christ hath given to the words, true: verbis benenedictionis, not consecrationis according to Durands mind by that power which Christ gave to the words of benediction going before, not those words which you call the words of Conse∣cration ensuing after, viz. This is my body, which words yet Durand there rehearseth not to prove Page  24the conversion to bee wrought by them, but to prove Christs body to be truly there.

To the ninth. [ 9] Though the forme of Conse∣cration may be called a Benediction for the rea∣sons alledged by the Spectacle-maker:* yet it is certaine that Odo Cameracensis distinguisheth the one from the other, and ascribeth the conversi∣on of bread into Christs body to the vertue of the precedent benediction, and not of the subse∣quent Consecration, Christ blessed the bread, hee made it his Body, that which before was Bread by his blessing is made flesh; for hee would not have said after hee had blessed it, This is my Body, un∣lesse by blessing it hee had made it his Body. Yea, but Flood threatneth to bring a place out of Odo expresly to the contrary, which is this, Take away the words of Christ,* and take away the Sacraments of Christ, wilt thou have the Body and Bloud of Christ made, put thereto the word of Christ, but which word of Christ? for therein is the cardo questionis, whether the word of Benediction going before, or the word of Consecration following af∣ter? In Odo his judgement by the word of bene∣diction; for hee saith Benedictione factus est caro, by blessing it became flesh, and that before hee ut∣tered the words, This is my Body; which in Odo his apprehension as wee heard before, could not bee true: unlelesse bread had beene turned into Christs body, before he pronounced them.

To the tenth. [ 10] * Here Iohannes de Rivis, or Iohn of the Flood speaketh very disgracefully of his Page  25Father Christopher us de capite fontium, Christopher of the head of the Fountaines: Nay, to a most re∣verend Father, the Archbishop of Caesarea; for the Archbishop of Caesaerea his booke, saith hee, De correctione Theologiae scholasticae; I doe not so much as looke into him, but remit it to the Roman Index, where you shall find this booke by you here cited forbidden, and even the arrogancie of the title sheweth it to deserve no better a place.* The Bonasus when hee is hard followed casts dung in abun∣dance on the pursuer, and brayeth hideously; so doth I.R. cast filth, and raile downe right, when he is so hard pressed with a testimonie that he hath nothing to reply. The Roman Index Prohibitorum librorum is to Flood like the Philosophers pons asinorum in all extremities hee flieth to it. But what is this Index to us? hee might as well al∣ledge the Turkes Alcharon against the Knight. This Index of prohibited bookes deserveth not only a prohibition, but a purging by fire. For in the first ranke we find the holy Bibles translated into vulgar languages to bee set, and after them most of the prime and Classick Writers, almost in all professions. There is nothing so easie as to prohibit this or any other booke: but unlesse our Adversariee back this Papall prohibition with detection of errours and heresies contained in such bookes, and a solid confutation thereof; this tyrannicall Prohibition of the workes of Au∣thours wil prove an evident conviction, that they forcibly smother that truth, the light whereof Page  26dazleth their eyes. Yea, but saith Flood, there is a grosse historicall errour, in that he saith, that in that opinion of his, both the Councell of Trent, and all the Writers did agree till the late time of Cajetan, as if Cajetan were since the Coun∣cell of Trent. No historicall errour at all in the Archbishop, but a frivolous cavill in Flood. For hee saith not that the Councell of Trent was be∣fore Cajetan, but that the Councell of Trent, and all Writers (before it also) did agree till the late time of Cajetan. Yea, but the Knight maketh Cardinall Cajetan, and the Archbishop of Caesa∣rea his two champions against the words of Con∣fecration, as if they did both agree in the same, whereas here the Archbishop saith quite contra∣rie, that all are for him but only Cajetan. A ridi∣culous sophisme, ex ignoratione Elenthi: the Knight alledgeth both Cardinall Cajetan, and the Archbishop of Caesarea against the words of Con∣secration, but not ad idem, not to prove the same conclusion: hee alledgeth Cajetan to prove that there is nothing in the words hoc est corpus meum to enforce Transubstantiation; but the Archbi∣shop of Caesarea to prove that the supposed con∣version is made, not by the words of Consecrati∣on, This is my body, but by the precedent words of Benediction,* and this hee proveth against all Pa∣pists strongly after this manner; Vnlesse before Christ uttered those words, this is my body, his body had beene made of bread, this Proposition had not beene true, This is my body, for when Christ Page  27said, take ye, eate yee, if at that time the Bread by benediction were not changed, it will follow that Christ did command his Disciples to take and eate the substance of bread, and so wee must denie the article of Transubstantiation; therefore, saith he, (certo certius constat Christum, non solùm per ista sola verba non consecrâsse, sed ne quidem illa par∣tem aliquam fuisse consecrationis quam fecit) it is most certaine that these words were no part of the Consecration; And this hee proveth to bee the o∣pinion of all the ancient Fathers by name of Iu∣stine Martyr, Dionysius, S. Austine, Hesichius, S. Ierome, Gregorie, Ambrose, Rupert, Alquine, Bernard, Seotus, Landulph, Peter de Aquila, Pel∣bert, and others.

To the eleventh. [ 11] The Knight alledgeth not Salmerons opinion, but his relation of the opini∣on of other men: and although his credit bee cracked with Protestants, yet it is whole with Flood and his fellow Iesuits: as Chamierus on the contrarie, his credit is good with Protestants, though none with Pontificians.* Yea but saith Flood, Chamier discovereth the Knights bad dea∣ling, I would faine know how, or wherein; first how? by the spirit of prophesie? or by some letter sent to the Knight after Chamier his death; for Chamier was dead many yeares before the Knight wrote. Were he alive what bad dealing could he discover in the Knight,* who out of him truly and sincerely relateth the words of Salme∣ron the Iesuite concerning the Graecians in these Page  28words, seeing the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine, nor gave hee simply bread; it followeth that when hee gave it, the transmutati∣on was made, and those words, This is my Body, did demonstrate what was contained in the bread. What fault findeth hee in this allegation? If the Greekes had no such opinion, or Salmeron rela∣teth no such thing, the blame must light between Salmeron and Chamier; howsoever the Knight is free. For hee truly quoteth Chamier, neither dare Flood say that Chamier misquoteth Salme∣ron;* For, saith hee, though I found not this place in him, yet I will not say but it may bee there. Let this Spectacle-maker put on a better paire of Spe∣ctacles, and hee shall plainly reade the words al∣ledged out of Salmeron in the place quoted by Chamier.* The geese in the Capitoll, if they gagled without cause, were to be beate for it: and the dogges to have their legges broken, if they barked when there was no suspition of a theefe approaching; Some such like punishment they deserve in Tullies judgement, who lay foule a∣spersions upon others without any colour of proofe or semblance of truth.

To the twelfth. [ 12] At the Knights allegation out of Bellarmine, Flood here nibleth, but can no where fasten his tooth, hee excepteth at the chan∣ging of the singular number into the plurall, and translating Scriptures for Scripture, and the most learned and acute men, such as Scotus for most learned and acute men. It seemeth this Iesuite is Page  29descended of the race of Domitian;* whose grea∣test exercise was all day to strike at flies with a sharpe iron bodkin: reade Scriptures in the plu∣rall, or Scripture in the singular or most acute,* or the most acute, the confession of Bellarmine ma∣keth still altogether as strongly against the groun∣ding of Transubstantiation on Scripture. Scotus saith, that there is no place of Scripture so expresse (viz. for Transubstantiation) which setting aside the declaration of the Church evidently enforceth a man to admit it. For though the Scripture, viz. That text of Scripture brought by him to prove Transubstantiation, seemed to bee so plaine as to enforce a man not refractorie to beleeve it; yet it may bee doubted whether that text, viz. Hoc est corpus meum bee cleare enough to enforce it, seeing most learned and acute men, such as Scotus was, thought otherwise. If it may bee justly doubted whether the text, This is my body, inferre Tran∣substantiation, why doe our Adversaries blame us for doubting of it? If sharp-sighted Scotus, and other most learned and acute men thought the text enforceth no such thing: let our Adver∣saries give us leave to preferre their opinion be∣fore the judgement of Flood and others, neither so learned nor so acute.

To the thirteenth. [ 13] * The Knight regarded not at what Alfonsus à Castro aimed, but hee tooke up his arrow where hee found it, and shooteth it against your Trent doctrine. Of the Transubstan∣tiation, saith hee, of the bread into Christs body, Page  30there is rarely or seldome any mention made in an∣cient Writers: What doth I. R. answer hereunto? Alfonsus (saith hee) saith true, and the Knight most false. For though of Transubstantiation there bee no mention, yet of the conversion of the bread into Christs body there is most fre∣quent mention;* Reade my riddle, wats this? rare mention of Transubstantiation, but not rare mention of the conversion of the bread into Christs body, pugnantia te loqui non vides? Is not this a flat contradiction? I would faine know, what diffe∣rence there is betweene Transubstantiation, and the conversion of the substance of Bread, into the substance of Christs body in the Sacrament. Neither can the Iesuite free himselfe here from uttering an evident contradiction in the same sen∣tence, by saying that Alfonsus speaketh of the word Transubstantiation, not of the thing it selfe. For Alfonsus there speaketh of things not of words, as Flood himselfe confesseth in the same page five lines after, saying, that Alfonsus his drift in that place is to shew, that though there bee not much mention in ancient Writers of a thing, or plaine testimonie of Scripture, that yet the use and practice of the Church is sufficient, bringing in for instance the point of Transubstantiation, and pro∣cession of the holy Ghost. See here Alfonsus spea∣keth not of the word Transubstantiation, but of the point or thing it selfe; and of this thing or point (hee saith) there is rare or seldome mention in ancient Writers.

Page  31

To the fourteenth. [ 14] Neither Scotus nor Yri∣barne speake of the interpretation of the words, This is my body,* nor of the manner of the delive∣rie of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in for∣mer times, but de dogmate fidei, of a doctrine of faith, which they expresly denie Transubstantia∣tion to have beene, and what they say, may bee confirmed by Flood his owne answer in this place. For if Transubstantiation in former ages was not plainly delivered, as hee confesseth, p. 167. it could not bee then dogma fidei, or de substantiâ fidei, any doctrine of faith. For all do∣ctrines of faith are plainly and evidently set downe in holy Scriptures, as S. Austine and S. Chrysostome joyntly teach. As for the pas∣sage alledged by Scotus out of S. Ambrose it is ful∣ly answered, & retorted by Andrew Rivet, Mr. Ga∣taker, and others; Whereunto I thinke fit to adde nothing, but that Scotus in the place alledged speaketh not confidently of S. Ambrose, that hee held the doctrine of Transubstantiation: but that in words he seemed to favour that opinion.

To the fifteenth. [ 15] Albeit S. Austine in the place alledged by the Knight speaketh not expresly a∣gainst your carnall presence, yet by consequence hee quite overthroweth it; for if the unbeleeving Iewes in the Desert, and Iudas in the new Testa∣ment Page  32died spiritually, after they had received the Sacrament: it followeth that neither the one, nor the other in S. Austines judgement received Christs true flesh, which whosoever eateth shall live for ever. Againe, it followeth that the true flesh of Christ cannot be eaten, but by faith only, and doth not this make much for the Knight? Yea, but saith the Iesuite, with due reverence bee it spoken to S. Austines authoritie, Maldonat his interpretation is more sutable to the text, and discourse of our Saviour in the whole chapter then that of S. Austines. And with due reverence bee it spoken here, Flood and Maldonat two Ie∣suites like Mules in the Latine proverbe, Mutuum scabunt, scratch and claw one the other; But let a∣ny man examine the interpretation of Maldonat, and that other of S. Austins, and apply them, both to the words of Christ, and his maine scope and drift in that sixt Chapter, and hee will find S. Austins discourse in that tractate to bee pure gold; and Maldonate his glosse to be drosse or Al∣cumie stuffe, which will not indure the fire.

To the sixteenth. [ 16] Gregorie de Valentia conclu∣deth not roundly with heretiques,* (as Flood spea∣keth) but dealeth very squarely, confessing in effect that Gelasius and Theodoret are against Transubstantiation. Yea but (saith Flood) Bel∣larmine, Suarez, and Valentia himselfe bring o∣ther substantiall answers to those Fathers. Very substantiall answers indeed, that by substance are understood accidents like to the glosse in the Ca∣non Page  33law, statuimus, id est, abrogamus, & quo magis id est, quo minùs. The words of Theodoret are, that the mysticall signes after Consecration doe not goe out of their proper nature, but continue in their former substance, shape and figure, and may be seene and felt as before. How doth the Iesuite thinke you, expound these words?*Theodoret speaketh not (saith he) of the substance of bread, as if that did remaine, but hee only saith that the ac∣cidents remaine in their owne substance, that is their owne entitie, nature or being, which to them is not accidentall, and therefore may be tearmed their substance; for it is plaine that accidents have a cer∣taine being of their owne, different from that of their subject wherein they inhere, or rest. I grant that it is plaine they have: but it is as plaine or rather plainer, that Theodoret in that place by sabstantia understandeth no such thing. For in this very Dialogue hee exactly distinguisheth be∣tweene substance and accidents, and telleth us that by (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) or substance, hee meanes not ac∣cidents, but substance properly so taken, saying,*wee call a body a substance, but health and sicknesse an accident. Besides that which hee here calleth signum mysticum, hee in this very Dialogue tear∣meth donum oblatum, the gift offered, & eibum ex seminibus, bread made of seeds; and afterwards, a thing visible and tangible: but who ever heard of accidents without a subject offered to God for a gift? or that dimensions or colours or fi∣gures are a nourishment made of seeds, or that ac∣cidents Page  34without a subject can bee felt? Againe, it is evident and confessed by all, that accidents properly so called have not shape or figure. For that implies thrt the accidents should bee one thing, and shape and figure another, whereas shape and figure are meere accidents themselves. Last∣ly, if Theodoret had thought that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth, and is changed into the very body and bloud of Christ: and that the ac∣cidents thereof only remained; Theodoret ahd not taken the heretique in his owne net, by retor∣ting a similitude drawne from the Sacrament up∣on him; but the Heretique had taken Theodoret after this manner; It is granted by us both, that the body of Christ after his ascension is so changed, as the sacred Symbolls after Consecration: but the sa∣cred Symbolls are so changed, that in the Eucharist there remaineth only the outward shape and forme of bread, and not the reall substance; therefore Christs body after his Ascension is so changed, that the shape and forme of flesh remaineth, and not the very na∣ture and substance.* Yea but (saith Flood) Theo∣doret speaketh of something which is wrought or made by Consecration, and which is understood and adored: What is this that is made here? not the accidents for they remaine the same, not the sub∣stance of the bread, for that was before, neither is that said to bee heleeved, much lesse adored. I an∣swer briefly; of bread that was before common, a holy Sacrament of Christs body and bloud is made, and beleeved and reverenced as a most Page  35sacred mysterie: as when Waxe is made a seale, or bullion the Kings coyne, or money:* the sub∣stance is not changed, but the use, significancie or efficacie: so in the Sacrament according to the mind of Theodoret there is a change made, but accidentall only, not substantiall.

To the seventeenth. [ 17] Cardinall Cusanus is not produced by the Knight, as a witnesse speaking plaine against Transubstantiation: but as lisping something to that purpose, not as maintaining professedly Consubstantiation: for that had not beene safe for him, the Roman Church from whom hee held his Cardinals hat determining the contrarie:* but yet secretly favouring that o∣pinion, his words are, that some ancient Divines are found to have understood (by the words, This is my body) the Bread not to bee transubstantiated, but to be over clothed with a more noble substance. Had he held Transubstantiation an article of faith, he would have branded those who held the contrarie with a note of heresie, and not said some ancient Divines: but some old heretiques thought, that the words, This is my body, implyed not Transubstantiation, but rather a kind of Con∣substantiation. As for that errour of the Printer in the marginall quotation at which the Iesuite glanceth, as if the Knight had mistaken libros ex∣citationum, for exercitiorum or exercitationum. I answer, the errour is as happy as that in the Co∣len edition of S. Cyprian, cessat error Romanus, for error humanus; and that in Platina, nisi qui du∣arum Page  36partium ex Carnalibus integra suffragia tule∣rit,* for Cardinalibus; or that of the Printer of In∣golstade, Wolfeum conatu summo nixum esse pri∣mam toties ecclesiae sedem occupare, & vanitatis sacerdotalis fastigium conscendere, for unitatis: For indeed those bookes of the Cardinall are no other then the exercise of his readers patience, or at the best of his owne wit or imagination.

To the eighteenth. [ 18] For Wickliff and the Wal∣denses, the Knight insisted not upon their testi∣monie, though well hee might; (for they were most eminent professours of the truth, and most free from those foule aspersions which their sworne enemies, and bloudy persecutors cast upon them) because his purpose was in this chap∣ter, as hee professeth in the title, vos vestris gla∣dijs jugulare, to cut your throat with your owne swords, and condemne you out of your owne mouth, as Christ doth the evill servant in the Gospell. 'Tis true, Wickliffe was condemned for an heretique in the Councell of Constance many yeares after his death, and barbarous inhumani∣tie was also exercised upon his bones. Yet will it follow no more from hence that Wickliffe was an heretique, then that Ieremie was a false Pro∣phet, or Christ and his Apostles false teachers, because they were condemned by councells of Priests. And of all Councells that of Constance carries the least credit, because it is not only con∣demned by all the reformed Churches, but by the Roman Church her selfe, and the Decrees Page  37thereof repealed in later Councells. Touching the Waldenses what the Iesuite here writeth of them hee confirmeth by no testimonie, and the contrarie may be demonstrated out of Orthwinus Gratius,* and the Historie and confession of the Waldenses lately set forth out of authenticall re∣cords in French.

To the nineteenth. [ 19] The Iesuits answer to Durand concerning the materiall part of bread remaining in the Sacrament, but not the substance, imply∣ing that the materiall part of Bread, and the sub∣stance are different things is not materiall nor true. For though the materiall part of any substance be a distinct thing, both from the forme & the com∣positum: yet is it a substance, and hath accidents inherent in it. For according to the axiome of the metaphysickes, ex non substantijs non fit sub∣stantia, a substance or substantiall compound is not made or composed of non substances. Sith the whole is not distinct really from all the parts united together, the compound cannot bee sub∣stantiall, unlesse the parts of which it consisteth be substances. Durand therefore affirming that the materiall part of the bread remained in the Sa∣crament after Consecration: held that some part of the substance of bread remained, and there∣fore the Knight no way wrongeth Durand, but Flood the Knight. If Durand held that the whole substance of the bread was turned into the body of Christ according to your Trent Decree:* why doth Card. Bellarmine censure his doctrine as he∣reticall: Page  38if he taught not that the whole substance was converted, hee must needs hold that some part of the substance remained as it was before; which is all the Knight chargeth him with. As for that the Iesuite addeth to salve the matter, that he acknowledgeth all others to bee against him in this point,* let him put on his Spectacles and reade the place againe, and hee shall see there are no such words. Only I find quest. 3. This modest parenthesis salvo meliori judicio. Which indeed are respective words befitting a modest man: but no way amounting to a confession that his opini∣on in that point was singular, and that all others were against him, which notwithstanding Flood puts upon him.

To the twentieth. [ 20] Touching Gaufridus and Hostiensis cited by the Knight out of Durand,* it is evident that howsoever they might peradven∣ture incline to that, which the Roman Church determined, viz. the second opinion that the bread doth not remaine, but is changed, yet they no way condemne the third opinion, viz. the sub∣stance of bread remaines, and is together with tho body of Christ. For as Durand well noteth, they call it an opinion, not an errour, or an heresie; nei∣ther doe they say it is to bee reproved, but let it passe without any censure, which they would not have done, if they had held Transubstantiation to be a doctrine de fide to be beleeved of all upon paine of damnation.

To the twentie one. [ 21] Cutbert Tunstall was a Bi∣shop, Page  39and in great esteeme among all the learned in his time,* and therefore not lightly to bee filli∣ped off, and sleighted by a priest and Iesuit de face vulgi, by saying that the matter is not great, whether Tunstall said, that for which hee is alled∣ged or no, because one single Author or two con∣tradicted by others carrieth no credit. For I find not that hee is contradicted by any. His words are these, of the manner and meanes of the reall presence, either by Transubstantiation, or otherwise perhaps it had beene bettter to leave every man that would bee curious to his owne conjecture, as before the Councell of Lateran it was left free. Neither did that learned Bishop of Duresme ever retract this opinion. For Mr. Bernard Gilpin a holy man, and a kinsman of the Bishop affirmeth, that the Bishop his Diocesan often told him, that Innocent the third had done very unadvisedly, in that he had made the opinion of Transubstantiation an article of faith. Neither doe wee find that any in his dayes or since before Flood taxed this Bishop for this his opinion.

To the twentie two. [ 22] None more sleight men of worth then those who want it. Erasmus will live both in his owne workes, and in the wri∣tings of the ancient Fathers, and other Classick Authours corrected and set forth by him, when a thousand Floods, and Leomelij, and Daniels a Iesu shall bee buried in perpetuall oblivion. Erasmus was in great esteeme with Archbishop Waram, and Sir Thomas Moore Lord Chancellor Page  40of England, and of divers Bishops, yea and Car∣dinalls also beyond the Sea, and what Tully spake of Aristotle may bee truly said of him,*there is in his writings, aureum slumen: but in the Iesuit his adversarie, lacus averni.

Concerning private Masses, Spectacles Paragraph 3. à pag. 187. vs{que} ad 199.

OVR Saviours words take yee, [ 1] eate ye, make nothing against private Masse, for Christ there spake to all his Apostles who did all eate: and out of that place a man might as well say, that all must communicate that are in the Church at the same time as two or three.

S Pauls words where hee inviteth Christians to imitate him, [ 2] are meant of chastening the body, fa∣sting and praying, and the like, in which Protestants follow him not, and if the words bee extended to the Sacrament, Catholike Priests imitate S. Paul there∣in, because they are readie to communicate with all such as come worthily to receive, but the Knight must prove that S. Paul would not say Masse, un∣lesse others would communicate with him, or that he teacheth that other Priests must not.

Where S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. [ 3] commandeth the people Page  41to tarrie one for another when they came together to cate hee speaketh to the people, who made the suppers called Agape, as is plaine by the text wherein bee reprehendeth the Abuses that were committed, as that some did exceed, others did want, some were drunke, some went away hungry, which could not pertaine to the blessed Sacrament; besides the distri∣bution of that belonged to the Priests not to the peo∣ple who are here instructed, and reprehended for their manner of making their suppers.

The cup of blessing is called a Communion, be∣cause it uniteth us to Christ our head, [ 4] and also a∣mong our selves, as members of the same body, and though it doe this most perfectly when it is also recei∣ved sacramentally, yet not only so, but it doth the same also in some measure being spiritually received: and as this union may remaine among us members, though every one among us doe not receive every day: so it may also remaine betweene us and the Priest, though hee say Masse, and wee not receive. If this argument of the Knight were good, it would follow that not only some, but that all the people must receive together with the Priest.

The Catholique Doctours cited by the Knight say indeed, [ 5] that it was the practise of the primitive Church to communicate every day with the Priest, but they say not that it was of necessitie so to doe; nay some of them as Bellarmine and Durand prove manifestly that there was no such necessitie or dependence of the Priests celebrating upon the peoples communicating, that they might not cele∣brate Page  42unlesse the people did communicate. For S. Chrysostome saith of himselfe that hee celebra∣ted every day, though there were no body to partici∣pate with him.

The Councell of Nants forbidding Priests to ce∣lebrate alone, [ 6] speaketh only of not saying Masse all alone, without one or two to answer; to whom the Priest may seeme to speake, when hee saith, Domi∣nus vobiscum, and the like; but whats this to say∣ing Masse without some body to communicate with him?

The Councell of Trent doth not blesse and curse out of the same mouth, [ 7] or approve or condemne the same thing, when it commendeth sacramentall com∣munion of the people together with the Priest, and yet condemneth those who say private Masses are unlawfull. For it is one thing for the Councell to wish that the people would communicate, because to heare Masse and receive withall will be more profi∣table: an other to say, that if there bee no body to communicate, such a Masse is unlawfull, or that the Priest must not say Masse.

The Hammer.

THe Iesuits answer to this Section of the Knight, wherein hee impugneth private Masse by foure texts of Scripture, two Ca∣nons of Councells, and twelve pregnant Con∣fessions of Romish Doctours, consisteth partly of Page  43sophismes, and partly of sarcasmes, to both which I purpose to returne a short and smart an∣swer, first by refuting his sophismes, and after by retorting his sarcasmes.

To the first sophisticall answer I replie. [ 1] That the words of our Saviour, Take, eat,*this is my body were spoken to all future communicants as well as to the Apostles then present, for they containe in them an institution of a Sacrament to bee celebrated in all Christian Churches, till the end of the world, as the Apostle teacheth us from the 23. to the 28. especially at the 26 verse,*as often as yee eate this bread, and drinke this cup, ye shew the Lords death till he come. This the Apo∣stles in their persons alone could not fulfill, for they lived not till Christs second comming: they must of necessitie therefore bee extended to all that in succeeding ages should bee present at the Lords Supper, who are as much bound by this precept of Christ to communicate with the Priest, or dispencer of the Sacrament, as the A∣postles were to communicate with Christ him∣selfe, when hee first in his owne person admini∣stred it; otherwise if the precepts Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee appertained to the A∣postles only, what warrant hath any Priest now to consecrate the elements? or administer the Sacrament? nay, what command have any faith∣full at all to receive the Communion? Yea but saith the Iesuit, if not only the Apostles and their successors, but all the faithfull are here enjoyned Page  44to eate: it would follow that whensoever the Sa∣crament is administred, all must communicate that are in the Church at the same time. It will follow that all who are bid to the Lords table, and come prepared to whom the Priest in the person of Christ saith, Take eate, this is my body ought to communicate;* and this was the custome of the ancient Church as Micrologus teacheth, Wee must know, saith he, according to the ancient Fathers, that none but Communicants were wont to be present at the mysteries, and therefore before the Communion, the Catechumenie and penitents which were not prepared to communicate, were commanded to depart ite, Missa est: and wee find an ancient Canon of the Roman Church attri∣buted to Gelasius, enjoyning all under paine of ex∣communication that are present after the Consecra∣tionis finished, to participate of the blessed Sacra∣ment.

To the second. [ 2] The precept of the Apostle, bee ye followers of mee as I am of Christ, 1 Co. 11.1. is generall, and reacheth as well to acts of pietie, as charitie. As non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit, so non est restringendum ubi lex non re∣stringit; as wee may not distinguish where the law doth not distinguish: so we must not restraine where the law hath no restriction. The Iesuite himselfe saith, that S. Pauls imitation is directed to all, if to all, then to Priests; and againe hee saith, these words come in very fitly to prove that in all things that appertaine unto salvation wee should Page  45seeke to imitate S. Paul as hee doth Christ. And I hope the Iesuit holdeth the worthy receiving of the Sacrament a matter of salvation. I am sure the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 11. Hee that eateth and drinketh unwerthily, eateth and drinketh damnati∣on to himselfe. But what need wee dispute this point any further? sith the Apostle after hee had delivered this precept in the beginning of the chapter, in pursuit thereof at the 23 verse instan∣ceth in the Sacrament it selfe, saying, What I re∣ceived of the Lord, that I delivered unto you, that the Lord Iesus the same night hee was betrayed tooke bread &c. Surely if wee are to follow the Apo∣stle in the performance of morall duties, much more of religious, and this the Iesuit in the end is compelled to grant, and therefore addeth for his further answer, that Catholique Priests doe imitate S. Paul in the administration of the Sacrament, be∣cause they are ready to communicate with all such as come worthily to receive. Catholique Priests, that is in his language Romanists imitate S. Paul in their Masse; wherein? and how? he administred a Sacrament, they offer a sacrifice: hee prayed in a knowne tongue, they in the Latine unknowne to the people: he acknowledgeth no Lords supper where there is not a Communion,* whereby ma∣ny are made one bread and one body, because they all partake of that one bread; they say private Masses in which the Priest bids the people eate, and drinke, but eateth and drinketh all himselfe: hee speaketh of breaking of bread, they breake none Page  46at all: hee commandeth every one to examine him∣selfe, and so to eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup, ver. 28. They forbid the Laytie to touch the cup: and call they this an imitation of the Apo∣stle? is it not rather an immutation and violation of the Apostles holy precepts and practise? in these things they tread in the Apostles steps, as the Antipodes doe in ours, who are therefore so stiled, because their feet and steps are diametrally opposite to ours.* Yea but saith Flood, there are many things which S. Paul did, and wherein he did desire to bee followed, as chastening of his body, fa∣sting and prayer, in which Protestants are not so well able to prove themselves followers of him, as Papists can doe. I answer, that although S. Paul in this place speaketh of no such thing, neither can his words reasonably bee stretched to the chastening and beating downe of his body to bring it in sub∣jection, because hee addeth, as I am of Christ bee ye followers of mee as I am of Christ. Now wee reade not that Christ beate his owne body, or needed to endeavour to bring it into subjection, which was alwayes so from the beginning: yet let him rightly understand the Apostles practise in taming his flesh, and subduing his body, and he will find Protestants as ready to follow him as any the most austere Papist. For by taming his body hee meaneth not whipping or scourging, which Papists receive by tradition from the here∣tiques called flagellantes or the whippers: nor was his fasting an abstinence from flesh and fee∣ding Page  47on the daintiest fish, and powring downe the sweetest and strongest wines,* but an afflicting his body by watching, continuall labour, and fasting from all kind of sustenance, and such fasts not only private Christians among us keepe often, but our whole Church in publike calamities by the command of supreame authoritie religiously observeth, and hath reaped singular benefits thereby.

To the third. That the precept of S. Paul, [ 3] to tary one for another when they came to eate, apper∣taineth to the Sacrament is evident,* first by that hee calleth it the Lords supper which they came together to eate, when yee come together in one place, this is not to cate the Lords Supper. Now that by the Lords Supper, not the Agape which were not instituted by him, but the Sacrament is meant not only S. Austin and S. Cyprian,*tract. de coen. dom. and the Fathers generally quoted by Casaubonus,* but Baronius and Gregorius de Valen∣tia, and the Fathers in the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent expresly affirme. Secondly, it is evident by the coherence of the Apostles discourse in this chapter, who having reproved some abuses in eating the Lords Supper, to set an edge upon his reproofe relateth, v. 23. & sequen∣tibus the institution of the blessed Sacrament, and from thence inferreth, verse the 33. and 34. where∣fore my brethren, when you come together to eate ta∣ry one for another, and if any man hunger let him eate at home, that ye come not together to condemna∣tion.Page  48Yea but saith the Iesuit,*some among the Co∣rinthians exceeded others, and some did want, some were drunke, and some went away hungrie, which could not pertaine to the Sacrament as every one knoweth. I grant these abuses could not fall out in the very act of receiving the Sacrament in which every one had but some part of the Con∣secrated bread, and a draught also of the holy Cup in such a small measure and quantitie, as they could not bee distempered thereby: neither doth the Apostle taxe these abuses at the Lords Supper, but in their owne supper which they tooke before, v. 21. their disorders in these hee sharply reproves, not only as breaches of the Morall law, and acts of intemperance, but also as prophanation of the Sacrament, to which they ought to have come with a holy preparation be∣fore. Yea but saith the Iesuit, the distribution of the Sacrament belonged to the Priests, not to the peo∣ple who are here reprehended for their manner of making their suppers. I answer, that albeit it ap∣pertaineth to the Priests to deliver the sacred ele∣ments, and the people to receive them from them: yet because the Priests cannot give, if none bee to take from them, the people who either ab∣sented themselves from the Communion, or came not together, but one after another, are justly reproved: because by this their negli∣gence or disorder, the Sacrament could not bee so decently, or solemnly celebrated, as it ought. Now if the Apostle as the Iesuit will have it, re∣quireth Page  49the people to tary one for another, before they began their feasts called Agapae; how much more thinke you would hee require this dutie of expecting one the other before they began the Lords Supper? which is one of the chiefest and most publike Act and service, whereby we pro∣fesse, and expresse the Communion of Saints. The neglect of the former dutie in not staying for their guests at their Agapae, could bee at the most but a discourtesie or incivilitie; but the neglect in the later, as the Apostle teacheth, trenched upon their conscience, and hazarded their salvation, wherefore my brethren, saith the Apostle, v. 33.34. When you come together to eate tarie one for a∣nother, and if any man hunger, let him eate at home that you come not together to condemnation.

To the fourth. The text of the Apostle, [ 4] the cup of blessing, which wee blesse,*is it not the Communi∣on of the bloud of Christ? the Bread which wee breake, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ, for wee being many are one bread and one body, be∣cause wee are all partakers of that one bread, is per∣tinently alledged by the Knight against private Masse, which is a communion without communi∣cants; much like to Caesars monument,* which the Oratour fitly tearmeth insepultam sepulturam, an unburied buriall. How is the cup of blessing a Communion if none pledge as it were the one the other in it? how is the Bread a Communion if it bee communicated to none? How are the people made one bread, and one body by it, if they partake Page  50not of it. I grant the union betweene the head and members, and Priest and people may re∣maine though the Priest say Masse, and the peo∣ple receive not: as likewise it may remaine though the Priest say no Masse, nor communicate him∣selfe, because, there are other meanes of this Communion besides the Sacrament: yet because this Sacrament was ordained principally to con∣firme this union, and communion, and from thence taketh its name, they who impropriate a common, and of a publike communion make a pri∣vate Masse, destroy both the name and nature of this Sacrament. Moreover, as the worthy parti∣cipation of the Sacrament wonderfully confir∣meth: so it was instituted by Christ to represent the union of the Priest with the people, which cannot bee done in private Masses wherein the Priest communicateth alone. For that represen∣teth rather a distinction and separation of the Priest from the people, then an union. Yea but (saith the Iesuit) if this argument of the Knight were good, it would follow that not only some, but all the people must receive together with the Priest, and that the people must not receive one without the o∣ther. I answer, that it followeth indeed that all the people that are solemnly invited by the Priest, and come prepared, ought to receive together; and this the Apostles words strongly enforce, wee being many are one bread and one body,*because wee are all partakers of that one bread, marke it, all partakers of one bread, and therefore all one Page  51bread and one body. How can Papists make this argument good out of their private Masses, wherein none partaketh of the Bread, or ta∣steth of the Cup but the Priest?

To the fifth. [ 5] By the Iurie of twelve men true and honest in the Iesuits account, (for they all li∣ved and died in the communion of the Church of Rome) all Priests that say, (I cannot say cele∣brate) private Masses are cast as transgressours of the traditions and customes of the primitive Church; Nay farther as novelists and innova∣tors. For they all testifie and that joyntly, that the practise of the primitive Church is for our pub∣like Communion, and against their private Mas∣ses, true saith the Iesuit, they testifie concerning the practise of the primitive Church, but they affirme not that the contrary practise was unlawfull: the people then did communicate ordinarily with the Priest, but there was no necessitie so to doe. Admit this answer were true, that the verdict of this Iurie passed for the practise and manner of the primitive Church, not for any Canon or precept so to doe: yet the Knight hath the better of the cause. For they all prove that for which hee produceth them, viz. that by the confession of our Adversaries antiquitie is for us in this point, and that there was a Church celebrating the Lords Supper as we doe, in the first and best ages when there was no Church extant in the world, either maintaining or practising private Masses. No man doubteth but that the constant and uni∣forme Page  52practise of the primitive Church ought to sway more with all religious Christians,* then any novell constitution or practise of any later Church whatsoever. If wee had nothing but their practise, that alone were of great moment. Yet wee have more, I meane their judgement. For sith whatsoever is not of faith is sinne, especi∣ally in actions of this nature, their constant and uniforme practise in this kind, may serve as a de∣monstration to any sober-minded man, that what they did, they thought most agreeable to Christs institution. But the Witnesses depose farther, for some come home to the point of unlawfulnesse of private Masses. Albeit Cocleus saith no more then that anciently the Priests and people did com∣municate together; and Durandus, that all that were present at the celebration of the Masse did every day communicate. And Bellichus and Micro∣logus, and Tholosanus, and Innocentius the Third, that in the infancie of the Church, all that were pre∣sent together at the Sacrament were wont to com∣municate. Yet Odo Cameracensis goeth a step far∣ther, saying, in the Primitive Church they never had Masses without the convention of the people to communicate together. Iustinian addeth to the pra∣ctise of the primitive Church, the present practise of the Greeke Church backing them both with a good reason, In ancient times, saith hee, which the Greeke Church useth at this day of one loafe of bread Consecrated, divers parts were distributed to each communicant, that by this their Communion their Page  53union with Christ might bee more plainly expressed.* and Hugo out strippeth him, saying, it is there∣fore called the Communion, to teach us that we ought all to communicate of it, or because the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day toge∣ther. Cassander enforceth the Argument drawne from the name of this Sacrament yet farther a∣gainst private Masses, it cannot bee said properly a Communion, but where some people are partakers of the same sacrifice with the Priest. And lastly Io∣hannes Hoffmisterus not only speaketh plainly, but cryeth out against your private Masses, The thing it selfe doth speake and cry alowd, that both in the Greeke and the Latine Church, not only the sacri∣ficing Priest, but the other Priests and Deacons, and the rest of the people, or at least some part of the people did communicate together, and how this cu∣stome ceased it is to bee wondered, and wee ought to endeavour that it may bee restored againe in the Church. Yea but saith the Iesuit, Bellarmine and Durand prove by manifest authoritie, that in the Easterne Church in the time of S. Ambrose, S. Austine and Chrysostome, the people did com∣municate but once a yeare: and yet S. Chrysostome even there where hee complaineth of the peoples coldnesse, saith of himselfe, that hee celebrated every day, though there were none to commu∣nicate with him. I answer, that the publike and solemne time at which all were bound to com∣municate in the Easterne Church, was but once a yeare, to wit at Easter: yet did the people in those Page  54dayes both at other times, and especially when they lay on their death-bed, receive the Com∣munion: which was therefore called Viaticum morientium. As for S. Chrysostome; 'tis true that he much complaineth of the backwardnesse of the people in comming to the Communion, and professeth for his owne part, that hee neglected not his dutie to ce∣lebrate the holy Sacrament, though hee were much discouraged therein by the paucitie and raritie of those, who presented themselves at the Lords Table: yet I find not that he any where saith, that he cele∣brated the Communion when there was none to participate with him. For though it may bee at some time especially on the weeke dayes, none of the people did communicate with him: yet al∣wayes some of the Clergie, who assisted that acti∣on communicated with him; and therefore the Iesuits inference, that by our doctrine the Priest must not say Masse once in seven yeares, unlesse the people bee so devout as to receive with him, is most absurd. For in all Colledges, and Cathedrall Churches, the Priests and Deacons communi∣cate every moneth at the least, though none of the people sometimes receive with them. But in parish Churches it were a prophanation and a meere mockerie to administer the Communion without some of the people, to say, Take, eate, and drinke you all of this, when there is none to eate or drinke but the Priest himselfe, none, I say, neither Layk nor Clergie man.

To the sixt. [ 6] The Canon of the Councell of Page  55Nants is mounted against solitarie Masses; and what are solitarie Masses but private Masses? the Fathers in that Councell account it a ridiculous superstition in a Priest, to say, the Lord bee with you, and lift up your hearts, and wee give thankes unto the Lord, or let us pray, when there is none to make answer,* or present whom hee inviteth to pray with him; and is it not altogether as ab∣surd and ridiculous for the Priest to say as hee doth in all private Masses, Take, eate,*and drinke yee all of this, when there is none to eate or drinke with him? Neither will Innocentius evasion serve the turne, that wee are piously to beleeve that though there are no men present, yet that the Angels ac∣companie them that pray; for neither can the An∣gels joyne in such formes of prayer as are used, looke upon our infirmities, and deliver us from for∣nication and other deadly sinnes: neither is it a∣greeable to sound Divinitie or Philosophie to bid Angels that are spirits receive the body and bloud of our Saviour. Here for want of better an∣swer the Iesuit picketh a quarrell with the Knight for not citing the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Cassander,*beyond whom and one or two more such fellowes, saith he, it seemeth his learning did not stretch. I will repay him in his owne coyne. For the Iesuit himselfe citeth not the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Bellarmine and Burchard, beyond whom,*and one or two more such fellowes, it seemeth his lear∣ning did not stretch. Is it no disparagement for Page  56Flood a professor in Divinitie, and writer of Con∣troversies to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Bellarmine his fellow-Iesuit, and is it a disparage∣ment for a Knight no professed Divine, to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Cassander a most learned Doctour, and great Antiquarie in high esteeme when hee lived in the Roman Church? If the Iesuit answer that hee could not cite the originall, because that Decree is not now extant in any Councell of Nants that wee have, with one and the same answer hee justifieth the Knight as well as himselfe. It is no argument of Ignorance, but rather of faithfulnesse and since∣ritie when a man cannot come to the sight of a record himselfe to transcribe it out of others ver∣batim, who have seene it and avouch them for it.

To the seventh. [ 7] The Councell of Trent like Satyrus in the Poet bloweth out of the same mouth hot and cold;* or like the fountaine in S. Iames, sendeth forth at the same place sweet water and bitter,* for the Councell accurseth them who say private Masses are unlawfull, and yet wisheth that there might bee no private Masses. It is true that it is one thing to wish that the people would communicate because to heare Masse and receive withall, will bee more profitable: another to say, if there bee none to communicate the Priest must not say Masse, or that such Masse is unlawfull, yet there is such affinitie betweene these two sayings, that a good argument may bee drawne from the one to the other. For hee that wisheth a reforma∣tion Page  57in private Masses, or (which is all one) that of private Masses they were made publike Com∣munions, consequently acknowledgeth that pri∣vate Masses are faultie, or defective: and if faulty so farre as they are faulty, unlawfull.

And thus the indifferent reader may see that the water of this Flood wants ashes and soap to bee mingled with it, lavat enim non perluit, for it washeth but scowreth not, nor fetcheth out foule staines in the Masse-priests linnen.

Having refuted his sophismes,* I come now to retort his Sarcasmes. Tigers if they heare a drum grow madde: in this section the Knight sounded an alarum, and caused the drum to beate hard, at the sound whereof the Iesuit his adversarie after the manner of the Tiger groweth starke madde, and snappeth at every one hee meeteth. First hee falleth upon the Knight for creating a Cardinall, to wit, Hugo de S. Victore,*of his owne free goodnesse to make up the number of his Bishops and Cardinals. I answer for the knight, that he created no super∣numerall Cardinall: for he would not usurpe up∣on the Poges priviledge; but committed a small errour in an 〈◊〉 and cry, which was made after one Hugh in stead of another, yet peradventure it was not the Knights mistake, but the Correctors. For Hugh of S. Victor, though he hath his Cardi∣nals hat in the margent, yet hee standeth bare∣headed in the text (it is called a Communion,*be∣cause it is a common union of Priests and people, otherwise, saith Hugo, it is called a Communion, for Page  58that the people in the primitive Church did com∣municate every day.) But admit the Knight mi∣stooke Hago de S. Victore, for Hugo Cardinalis, as Bellarmine confesseth, that many learned men of his owne side mistooke Anselmus Laudunensis, for Cantuariensis; yet Flood should have pardo∣ned or let passe and overseene this small over∣sight, because wee tooke him at a worse fault in the like kind in examining his last Section, where∣in as I there shewed hee grosly mistaketh Bertram for Elfrick, and a collation of two Authours for a translation of one.

Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus.* after this hee jeareth at the Knight for saying that the Councell of Trent wished well to our doctrine,*What, saith hee, have you Masses Sir Humfrey? take heed it may cost you money: an In∣former that should heare this might catch you by the backe, and bring you in for so many hundred markes as you have received bits of bread in your Church, which truly might prove a deere ordinarie for you. The Orator said well,*nihil tam volucre quàm ma∣ledictam, nothing is so easily cast out as a contu∣melious word, and I may adde nothing so easily returned backe. The Knight no where saith that wee have any Masses in our Church, but only that the Councell of Trent wisheth well to pub∣like Communions wherein the people communi∣cate with the Priest, which are not certainly your private Masses: but admit hee had said wee have Masses in our Church, hee might very well have Page  59defended this speech by my Lord of Duresme his distinction of Christ his Masse,* and the Pope his Masse. Wee have Christ his masse at every com∣munion, neither is any man merced for being present at it, but for being absent from it. For Masses are not sold with us, as they are with Pa∣pists where there is a price set for drie Masses, and wet Masses, for low Masses and high Masses; the ordinarie was but a groat for the one, and a tester for the other, but now it is raised; and so to speake in the Iesuits language the Priests Masses prove a Deere ordinarie for the Laitie. After this madde Tiger hath left the Knight, hee fastens his teeth upon our Communion Table, calling it an emptie Communion, nothing but a morsell of bread,*and a sup of wine, and a prettie service and good-fellow Communion.*Flood is the same full and fa∣sting, in jeast and in earnest, for in both hee con∣tradicts himselfe, which discouereth an idle and addle braine. If our Communion bee emptie and nothing but a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine what good-fellowship can there bee in it? But in good earnest how can the Iesuit call ours an emp∣tie Communion, which is every way full, and ful∣ler then theirs, both for the signes, and the things signified? for the signes, we have the substance of Bread and Wine, they nothing but hungrie acci∣dents and shewes, a bit of quantity, and a morsell of colours, and a soppe of figures; neither have the Laitie among them so much as a sup of the conse∣crated cup. For the thing signified we teach that Page  60all communicants by faith feed on the very body and bloud of Christ, and all that so feed partake of all the benefits of Christs passion: they teach that Infidels and reprobates eate Christs body, and reape no benefit at all by it. As for his good-fellow Communion, let him take it to himselfe, for Aquinas noteth, that sometimes their Priests are overseene by drinking the liquor in the Consecrated cup,* and the cautels of the Masse appoint what is to bee done in case the Priest being drunke before cast up the host. As for our Communion there can bee no excesse, or as hee tearmeth it good-fellowship in it. For the people have warning a weeke at least before to prepare themselves, and they receive alwayes fasting before, and the quan∣titie is so smal that it cannot distemper any, which this bone Compaignion could not bee ignorant of: But it seemeth hee tooke a cup of vinum Theolo∣gicum in the Taverne before hee set pen to paper in this section. For besidemanifold contradictions before noted, hee tearmeth in it our Commnuion sacrilegious,* not considering that they sacrilegi∣ously take the cup from the Laity, and that we have restored it, and he concludeth the Section with these words, here is enough of such an idle subject. Now the subject as appeares by the argument of the Section, and the title he putteth throughout, is Private Masse. Nay which is a most certaine demonstration of his distemper; when hee wrote this Section hee forgot that hee was a Priest, and reckoneth himselfe among the Laitie, saying, Page  61the union may remaine betweene us and the Priest,*though he say Masse, and wee not receive.

Concerning the 7. Sacraments, Spectacles, paragraph. 4. a pag. 199. us{que} ad 242.

THe Knight unjustly chargeth Bel∣larmine for laying a foundation of Atheisme, [ 1] * in saying that if wee should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of Trent (which decreeth the precise number of 7. Sacraments;) the Decrees of other Councels, nay even Christian faith it selfe might be called in question, for if such a generall Councell may erre, the Church may erre; if the Church may erre, the faith which that Church teacheth may faile, and consequently there can bee no certaintie. S. Gregorie the great, did often say, and write, that hee did hold the 4, first Councels in the same honour that hee did the 4. Gospels, which is the same, as to say they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels. And the Parliament lawes of England give as great authoritie to those 4. first Councels, as S. Gregorie doth, acknowledging that for heresie, whatsoever is condemned for such by any of them, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a Rule of faith, Page  62and consequently of infallible authoritie: neither can any thing be said more against the present Church, and present Councell of Trent, then against the Church of that time, and the Councels of those times.

The Knight impertinently alledgeth the testimo∣nies of S. Paul, [ 2] *Acts 20.20. and Bellarmine l. 4. d. verb. Dei. All those things are written by the A∣postle, which are necessarie for all men, and which they preached generally unto all. For S. Paul spea∣keth not of the written word, but of the doctrine of Christ by him preached; neither doth Bellarmines saying helpe any thing, because though those things which are necessarie in generall for all to know, which are but few bee written, there bee yet many more not written, which are necessarie to bee knowne by some in the Church.

The Knight in praying that the Anathema de∣creed by the Councell of Trent might fall upon his head, [ 3] if any Papist could shew the number of seven Sacraments to have beene the beliefe of the Church for a thousand yeares after Christ, is too forward to draw malediction upon himselfe; it will come fast enough to his cost. It is an heavier thing then he is a ware of to have the curse of a mother, and such a mother as the Church which doth not curse without cause,* nor out of passion. For as the Scripture saith, maledictio matris eradicat fundamenta, the male∣diction of a mother doth roote out the foundations.

The Knights definition of a Sacrament, [ 4] to wit, that it is a seale witnessing to our consciences, that Page  63Gods promises are true is senselesse, and without ground, largely refuted by Bellarmine,* and proved to bee most absurd. For how can the Sacraments bee seales to give us assurance of his words, when all the assurance wee have of a Sacrament is his word? this is idem per idem. Besides, what promises are these that are sealed? or if they be sealed, what need we more seales and Sacraments then one? if there may bee more, why not seven as well as two? Againe, how doe wee see the promises of God in the Sacra∣ments? these are but foolish fancies bred in here∣ticall braines, and so to be contemned.

The Knights Argument against five of our Sa∣craments, [ 5] that in them the element is not joyned to the Word, or they have not their institution from Christ, or they bee not visible signes of invisible sa∣ving grace, is frivolous. For confirmation and ex∣treame Vnction have the element, and the Word, to wit, oyle and the forme: order and penance have institution from Christ, as is confessed in order the patten with an Host and Chalice with wine in it is the outward element: in penance humble confessi∣on with prayer, fasting, and almes-deedes, are the outward element: in Matrimonie the bodyes of a man or woman are as much an outward element, as water in baptisme: and though Matrimonie might bee a naturall contract before the Gospell, yet was it exalted to the dignitie of a Sacrament by Christ, and though it bee an holy thing as order is, yet as or∣der is forbidden to all women, so upon good reason Mariage is forbidden to all Priests: because it is good, Page  64but of an inferiour ranke, and not so agreeable to the high estate of Priest-hood.

That S. Ambrose, [ 6] Austine, Chrysostome, and Bede* teaching, that out of Christs side came the Sa∣craments of the Church prove no more two then se∣ven Sacraments. For they say not that they were then instituted, or that there were no more Sacra∣ments instituted, or that other Sacraments did not issue from thence.

Saint Ambrose maketh expresse mention of the Sacrament of confirmation, [ 7] * and of penance, as Bel∣larmine sheweth: who also yeeldeth a reason why S. Ambrose in his bookes de Sacramentis mentio∣neth no more but three Sacraments, because his in∣tent in that worke is only to instruct the catechu∣menie in those things which are to bee done at the time of Baptisme. For hee neither writeth to the be∣leevers of his age, but only to some beginners, as is manifest by the title of one of his bookes: neither doth he there speake of the Sacraments which the Church hath taught and declared, but of the Sacra∣ments which those beginners that hee spake to, had newly received.

S. Austine in those places where hee speaketh of two Sacraments restraineth not the number to two only. [ 8] * For in his first Sermon upon the 103. psalme, hee saith, cast thine eyes upon the gifts, or offices of the Church in Baptisme, the Eucharist, and the rest of the holy Sacraments: and in his Epistle 118. having brought in the two Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, he addeth this generall clause, Page  65and if there bee any thing else commended in cano∣nicall Scriptures. Neither doth the place the Knight citeth out of the third booke de doctrinâ christianâ availe him any thing; for it is plaine by the word sicuti, that he bringeth in Baptisme, and the Lords Supper for example only, which doth no way re∣straine the number. Besides, his word in this place is not sacraments as the Knight citeth him, but signa signes, which is therefore a corruption of the Knights.

S. Cyprian de ablutione pedum, [ 9] reckoneth but five Sacraments, not that hee thought there were no more:* but that it pertained not to his purpose to speake of more in that place: his scope being only to speake of such Sacraments as had relation to our Saviours last Supper, and by ablutio pedum, that Authour meaneth the sacrament of penance, as ap∣peareth by the words following, for this, O most be∣nigne Lord, thou didst wash thy Disciples feet, be∣cause after Baptisme which may not be iterated, thou hast procured another laver which must never bee intermitted.

S Isidore in his sixt booke of Etymologies cited by the Knight, [ 10] doth not so much as intend to speake of any Sacrament at all, but his only intent is to treat of the names of certaine feasts, as the title of the chapter sheweth, to wit, of feasts and their names. Among which he putteth Christs Supper. Moreover, to shew that S. Isidore held more then the three Sa∣craments the Knight speaketh of, in his second booke de Ecclesiast. offic. c. 16. & l. 23. c. 19. he mentio∣neth Page  66two more, Penance and Matrimonie.

Alexander hales in the place alledged by the Knight saith not, [ 11] that there are no more then foure Sacraments, but on the contrarie concludes, Par. 4. q, 5. n. 7. art. 2. that there bee neither more nor fewer then seven Sacraments; tis true indeed that Hales was of opinion that the forme and matter which wee now use in the Sacrament of confirmation were not appointed by our Saviour but by the Church in the Councell, at Melda: but this Hales saith, sine praejudicio, that is with leave, not stifly nor arro∣gantly maintaining his owne opinion.

Hugo de Sancto victore excludeth not Penance from being a Sacrament. [ 12] For in his 23. chapter hee calleth Penance the second board after shipwrack,* and saith, that if any man endanger his cleansing, which he hath received by Baptisme, he may arise, and scape by Penance. Moreover, the same Hu∣go in his Glasse of the mysteries of the Church saith, that there are seven prinoipall Sacraments of the Church, whereof five are called generall, be∣cause they belong unto all, to wit, Baptisme, Confir∣mation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreame vnction; and two speciall, to wit, Matrimonie and Order.

Although Bellarmine denieth that Extreame Vnction can be deduced out of the last of S. Marke: [ 13] and Cajetan out of the first of S. Iames, and al∣though Hugo, and Peter Lomberd, and Bonaven∣ture, and Alenfis, and Altisiodorensis denie it to bee instituted by Christ: yet none of them all denie it to be a Sacrament.

Page  67

Bessarion the Cardinall saith not that there are but two Sacraments; [ 14] for he was a great man in the Councell of Florence, wherein seven Sacraments are precisely taught: but that we find these two Sacraments expresly delivered, and that wee find none other, and none of the rest so delivered, that is, so plainly.

Soto, though he denieth that ordination of Bi∣shops, [ 15] is truly and properly a Sacrament: yet hee denieth not the Sacrament of order in the Church.

Durand saith indeed that Matrimonie is not ae Sacrament univocally, [ 16] agreeing with the other six: but all acknowledge it to bee an errour in him, and Divines of his owne time did note it for such, though the matter then were not so clearely defined.

Cajetan saith indeed, that the prudent reader cannot inferre out of the words of S. Paul, [ 17] Ephes. 5. hoc est magnum Sacramentum, that Matrimonie is a Sacrament: yet hee denieth it not to bee a Sacra∣ment. [ 18] For though it bee not inferred from that place,* it may be inferred from oiher; or if neither from that nor other, yet it may bee deduced out of tradition.

Canus telleth us that the Divines speake so un∣certainly of the matter and forme of Matrimonie, that hee should bee accounted an unwise man, who in so great differences of opinion, would take upon him to establish any thing certainly: yet hee denieth not Matrimonie to be a Sacrament. For these are his words, if the Lutherans argue that Mariage admi∣nistred with sacred Ceremonies, sacred matter, sa∣cred Page  68forme, and by a sacred Minister, as it hath e∣ver beene administred in the Roman Church, even from the Apostles time; if I say they argue that this is not a Sacrament of the Church, then let a Catho∣lique answer confidently, let bim defend stoutly, let him gainsay securely.

Vasquez doth not say, that Matrimonie is not a Sacrament properly so taken: [ 19] but that S. Austine speaking of Matrimonie doth use the word Sacra∣ment but in a large sense: This is true, but it is but Vasquez his private and singular opinion, not in a point of faith, but only in the meaning of one Father, in the use of a word, and in this his opinion he is con∣tradicted by other Catholique Divines.

Bellarmine saith, [ 20] that the Sacraments signifie three things,* one thing past, to wit, the Passion of Christ; another thing present, to wit, sanctifying grace, which they worke in our soules; another thing to come, to wit, eteruall life. The signification of these three things is most apparant in Baptisme, and the Eucharist: but not so apparant in the rest. Thus farre the Knight quoteth Bellarmine, but leaveth out that which followeth, tamen certum est impli∣citè illa omnia significari; but it is certaine that the rest of the Sacraments signifie all these things at least implicitly.

Page  69
The Hammer.

ALthough the Iesuit was very angrie when hee wrote this Paragraph, as appeareth by his snarling at every passage almost: yet in his discretion hee thought good not to meddle with some things, which were too hard for his teeth. To Theophylact, Fulbert, and Paschasius, and the last passage out of S. Austine, as also to the refutation of the popish arguments for their sep∣tenarie number of Sacraments, from incongru∣ous and ridiculous congruities, hee replieth not a word, and three of their prime Schoole-men, Durand, Vasques, and Cajetan, hee lets shift for themselves, defend them he neither will nor can; yet for all this hee puts up as if hee had done wonders in this Paragraph, and filleth up the de∣fect of solid answers with bragges, and swelling words of vanitie;

Bullatis vndi{que} nugis pagina turgescit.
But these bubbles wee shall see will dissolve of themselves, in the particular answer to his twen∣tie severall exceptions against the Knights dis∣course.

To the first. [ 1] The Iesuit in this Paragraph thinketh that hee discourseth very profoundly, for page 201. he saith, the Knight is not capable of it; whereas his chanel here is so shallow, that any child instructed in his Catechisme, may wadePage  70thorow it. Without an infallible rule, saith he, there can be no certaine beliefe in God. An extreame ve∣ritie, without an unerring Pope no certaine rule of faith, an extreame falsitie: the Iesait cannot see Christ for the Pope, nor the Scripture for the Trent Canons. Let him remove them out of the way; and if hee have an eye of faith, hee may clearly see both, and in them an infallible rule of faith, and certaine meanes to learne true beliefe in God. The occasion of this discourse of the Iesuit was the Knight charging Cardinall Bellar∣mine for laying a foundation of Atheisme in say∣ing that if we should take away the credit of the Roman Church and Councell of Trent, the Christian faith it selfe might bee called in questi∣on. The charge lieth heavie upon the Cardinall. For to disparage the selfe-sufficiencie of the holy Scriptures, and suspend our Christian faith upon the Decrees of a late factious conventicle, reje∣cted by the greater part of the Christian world, is a ready way to overthrow all Divine faith, and true religion. Yet the Iesuit seeketh to cover the nakednesse of the Cardinall with these fig leaves, If agener all Councell may erre, the Church may erne; if the Church may erre, the faith which that Church teacheth may faile, and consequently there can bee no certaintie. How easily are these leaves plucked away, and torne in pieces. 1. Though such a Councell as the Councell of Trent, con∣sisting of a few Bishops swaied by the Italian fa∣ction may erre, it would not from thence follow, Page  71that the whole representative Church might erre. 2. Though the whole representative Church in a free and generall Councell lawfully called might erre, yet many millions in the Catholique Church may hold the orthodox beliefe, and con∣sequently the faith of the Church not totally faile. Yea but saith the Iesuit, take away the infal∣libilitie of the Church there is no rule of faith. This assertion of his is open blasphemie, as if God would not bee true, though all men were found liars: though the Roman Church and Pope erre a thousand times, yet the rule of faith remaineth unvariable in the holy Scriptures. Yea but S. Gre∣gorie equalizeth the foure first generall Councels to the Gospel, and saith in effect, that they could as little erre as the 4. Gospels, and that upon the deniall of their authoritie the Christian faith might be shaken as well as by the deniall of the Gospels: and the like authoritie giveth your Parliament unto them. I answer, S. Gregorie e∣qualizeth the foure first generall Councels to the foure Gospels, not in respect of authoritie, but in respect of the veritie of the articles defined in them: he saith not, they could as little erre, but they did as little erre, in their decisions, or to speake more properly that their doctrine was as true as Gospell, because the determinations in those first generall Councels against Heretiques are evidently deduced out of holy Scriptures. Our Parliament alluding to the words of S. Gregorie speaketh in the same sense, as hee doth. Yea but Page  72saith the Iesuit, your Parliament lawes acknow∣ledge that for heresie whatsoever is condemned for such in any of those Councels, which is in other words to acknowledge them for a rule of faith, and consequently to bee of infallible au∣thoritie, and to joyne them in the same ranke with the Canonicall Seriptures. Idem jungat Vulpes; by the like reason the Iesuit might say we joyne the booke of Articles of Religion, and Homilies in the same ranke with the Canonicall Scriptures, because we condemne for heretiques all that obstinatly maintaine any doctrine repug∣nant to them: which wee doe not, because we hold the Decrees of a provinciall Synod, to bee of in fallible authoritie: but because wee are able to prove all the Articles there established, to be con∣sonant to the holy Scriptures. Yea, but further saith the Iesuit in the same statute,*you give power to the Court of Parliament, with the assent of the Clergie in their Convocation to adjudge or deter∣mine a matter to be heresie, which is the very same as to give it power to declare faith, or to be the rule thereof. I answer, the statute giveth power to the Convocation, to declare faith, and deter∣mine heresie out of Gods word, and by the sen∣tence thereof, and no otherwise. In such sort to declare faith, is not to be the rule of faith, but to judge and measure things by the rule. There is a maine difference betweene these two, (which yet the Iesuit here confoundeth as if they were co∣incident) to declare faith, and to bee the rule of Page  73faith every Iudge declareth the Law, yet is he not the rule of the Law. The Inquisitors in their jn∣dices expurgatorij, and the Sorbonists in their censures declare what is heresie: yet the y are not Itrow the Rule of popish faith, every meater in the market declareth that such or such is the measure of corne and graine: yet is not every, or any corne-meater the Winchester standerd. It is one thing to be the rule, and another to measure by the rule, and declare what we have measured. But to retort the Iesuits phrase upon himselfe, hee is not capable it seemes of this discourse which yet every market-woman or boy is. Well, let the authoritie of generall Councels bee great in the Church, and of the foure first Councels greatest of all, quid hoc ad Rombum? what maketh this for the infallibilitie of the Trent conventicle? much saith the Iesuit every way, for what, saith hee, can you say more against the present Church, and present Councell of Trent, then against the Church and Councels of those times? What can we say? nay what can we not say? what have we not said? or what could all the Papists in the world answer to what wee have already said? After hee hath taken away the legall exceptions made against this conventicle by the Authour of the historie of the Councell of Trent, and of the litterae missivae, and Iewel his Treatise affixed to that Historie, and Chemnisius his Examen, and Doctor Bowles his latine Sermon preached to the Convocation, and lately printed: after hee hath Page  74proved which hee will never bee able, that the Assemblie at Trent was a free and generall Coun∣cell, and called by lawfull authoritie, and all the proceedings in it according to ancient Canons: yet it will still fall as short of the Councell of Nice in authoritie, as in antiquitie: that consisted of most eminent, learned, and holy Bishops and Confessors: this for the most part of hungrie ani∣mals depending on the Popes trencher as Dudi∣thius a Bishop present at that Councell declareth at large in his letter set before the Historie of the Councell of Trent, to which I referre the reader.

To the second. [ 2] The testimonies alledged by the Knight for the sufficiencie of holy Scriptures are ponderous, and weightie, and the Iesuits ex∣ceptions to them are sleight, vaine, and frivolous. To the testimonie out of the Acts, I have kept backe nothing that was profitable unto you, and I am pure from the bloud of all men,*for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the Councell of God, hee saith that S. Paul speaketh of the doctrine by him preached, not of the written word of God: as in like manner our Saviour saith, that what hee heard from his Father hee made knowne unto them, Iohn 15.15. and yet delivered not one word in writing. It is true, S. Paul speaketh of the do∣ctrine which he preached, but it is as true that the doctrine which he preached hee confirmed unto them by testimonie of Scripture. For S. Luke saith Acts 17.2. that S. Paul as his manner was, reasoned with them out of the Scriptures opening Page  75and alledging that Iesus whom hee preached unto them was Christ, and they that received the word with all readinesse of mind searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so:*and again I con∣fesse that after that way which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my fathers, beleeving all things which are written in the Law, and the Prophets. If the Iesuit had read the verse immediatly fol∣lowing, testifying to the Iewes and Greekes repen∣tance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Iesus Christ: hee could not but have seene the absurdi∣tie of his answer, wherein he denieth that S. Paul speaketh of the written word. For who knoweth not that repentance towards God, and faith to∣wards Iesus Christ are written almost in every Sermon of the Prophets, and chapter of the E∣vangelists. What hee addeth for confirmation of his answer, (from the example of our Saviour, who made knowne to his Disciples whatsoever hee heard from his Father, and yet delivered not one word in writing) no whit at all helpeth his cause. For albeit we grant that our Saviour wrote nothing (except wee give credit to a relation in Eusebius of a letter written by him to King Ab∣garus) yet hee commanded his Apostles to write those things which they had heard and seene, what thou seest write it in a booke,*and send it to the seven Churches; and S. Peter saith,*that no Scripture is privatae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, as Cal vin well rendereth the words privatae impulsionis, of private impulsion or motion: for the prophecie Page  76came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost: and therefore Irenaeus saith expresly,* that what the Apostles preached first by word of mouth by the will of GOD, they afterwards delivered in writing to bee a pillar and foundation of our faith: and S. Austine affirmeth, that what Christ would have knowne of his words and deeds as needfull to our salvation, that hee gave in charge to his Apostles to set downe in writing. If this suffice not, I will stop the mouth of this Iesuit with the free confession of a greater Iesuit then hee, Gregorie of Valence in his eight booke of the Analysis of faith the fift chapter, minimè in ip∣sorum arbitrio positum fuit scribere, aut alio tempore aut alijs verbis scribere, the penmen of the holy Ghost were so guided by the spirit that it was not in their power, or at their choyce to write, or not to write, or to write at another time, or to write in other words then they did. To the testimonie of Bel∣larmine the Iesuit gives as sleight an answer as to the former out of S. Luke, whereunto I need to reply nothing, because in a case so cleere wee need not the Cardinals confession, having such expresse testimonie of Scripture and Fa∣thers, as namely of Esay, to the law and to the te∣stimonie, if they speake not according to this word,*it is because there is no light in them, of Moyses, yee shall not adde unto the words which I command you (which to bee spoken of the written law is apparant by comparing this text with GalathiansPage  773.10. and Deuteronomie 31.9.) And the words of Christ, Iohn 5.39. search the Scriptures, for in them you thinke you have eternall life. And of S. Iohn his beloved Disciple, Iohn 20.31. these things are written that yee might beleeve that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God, and that beleeving ye might have life through his Name. And of S. Paul, if we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel then that yee have received;* (that is as S. Austine expoundeth it praeterquam quod in Scripturis lega∣libus & Evangelicis accepist is, if any preach unto you any Gospell beside that which is contained in the writings of the Law and the Gospell, let him bee ac∣cursed. And, thou hast knowne the Scriptures from a child which are able to make thee wise unto salva∣tion through faith which is in Christ Iesus, for all Scripture is given by Divine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instruction and righteosnesse, that the man of God may bee perfect throughly furnished to all good workes. And of Tertullian, I adore the fulnesse of Scriptures; let Hermogenes prove what hee saith out of Scriptures, or otherwise let him feare the woe denounced against all such as adde any thing there∣unto, or take there-from. And of S. Cyprian; our brother Steven will have nothing to bee altered in the Church tradition; Whence is this tradition, is it from the Gospel, or the Acts of the Apostles, or their Epistles, if it be so then let this holy tradition bee kept, for God himselfe witnesseth that wee ought to observe those things that are written. And of Page  78Athanasius,*the holy Scripturesare sufficient to in∣struct us in the truth. And of S Basil, it is a mani∣fest falling away from faith, either to refuse any thing of those that are written, or to bring in any of those things which are not written. And of S. Chry∣sostome, all things that are needfull are manifestly set downe in holy Scriptures; And againe, in the ho∣ly Scriptures wee have a most exact ballance and rule of all things. And of S. Ierome, who maketh the Scripture a two edged sword cutting heresies on both sides, both in the excesse, and in the defect, We beleeve, saith he, because were ade in Scriptures, we beleeve not what were ade not. And of S. Austine, among those things which are openly set downe in Scriptures, all such things are to bee found as ap∣pertaine to faith and manners. And so of S. Cyril, all things which Christ spake and did are not writ∣ten, but all are written which the writers of the Gos∣pell thought to bee sufficient for doctrine of faith and manners. And of S. Vincentius Lyrinensis, the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and over and above sufficient for all things. And of the prime of the Schoole-men Gabriel Biel, The Scripture a∣lone teacheth us what we ought to beleeve and to hope for what things are to bee done, and what to bee Page  79shunned, and all other things that are necessarie to salvation. And of William Pepin, Dom. 2. advent sala haec scriptur adocet perfectè & planè quid cre∣dendum, &c. The holy Scripture alone teacheth per∣fectly and plainely, what wee ought to beleeve as the articles of our Creed, what wee ought to doe, as all divine precepts what wee ought to desire as hea∣venly joyes, what we ought to feare; as eternall tor∣ments. And of Scotus;*The holy Scripture suffl∣ciently containes doctrine necessarie for away faring man, that is in his travell to heaven. Howbeit, because Cardinall Bellarmine beareth downe all before him, the more to convince this Iesuit, and nonplus all Papists, I will examine what the Knight alledgeth out of him to our present pur∣pose; All thing, are written, saith he, by the A∣postles, which are necessarie for all men to know: If all things which are necessarie for all men to know, then all things which are necessarie for all Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, yea and the Pope him∣selfe to know, unlesse the Iesuit will prove them to bee no men. Assuredly the Apostles and the Fathers assembled at Nice and Constantinople set not downe a different Creed for the Priest, and for the people, but one for all Christians. Yet I grant, that as the measures of the sanctuarie were double to the common; so the learning of a Priest ought to bee double at least to that of the common sort: a more exact, full, and exquisite knowledge of all, both the principles, and con∣clusions of faith is required in thom then in the Page  80other: yet nothing is required of them as necessa∣rie to salvation, which may not bee drawne out of holy Scriptures, in which are contained all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge.* The Apostle saith not only they are able to make wise unto salva∣tion indefinitely, but that the man of God, that is the minister of God, may be wise & not only wise unto salvation, but furnished to every good worke, that is, as S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius expound it, ful∣ly accurately, and exactly instructed. And for ever to seale the Iesuits mouth; thus much Gregorie the thirteenth Pope of Rome in his letters to Phi∣lip King of Spaine, freely confesseth thus expati∣ating in the praises of holy Writ, as for Theologie which is the prime Philosophie or metaphysick in these bookes (speaking of the Bible) all the my ste∣ries of our religion, and divine knowledge are un∣folded, and as for that part which is tearmed mo∣rall; from hence all precepts to all vertues are ga∣thered, and on these two parts depend all the course or meanes of our salvation and happinesse.

3. To the third. What Dominicus Banes wrote of certaine Divines in his time, that were so free in their censures of other men, that they became a laughing stook to all men of judgement, may bee truly applyed to the Bishops assembled at Trent, who are so free in casting their thunder-bolts of anathemaes against all that differ from them in judgement, that the learned and judicious ac∣count divers of their Canons no better then Pot∣guns. As arrowes that are shot bolt upright fall Page  81downe upon their heads that shoot them, unlesse they carfully looke to it: so causelesse curses fall alwayes upon the cursers themselves, and hurt none else. This made the Knight so much sleight the bruta fulmina of your Trent Councell. Yea but saith the Iesuit, It is a heavie thing to have the curse of a mother,*and such a mother which doth not curse without cause. The Church of Rome I grant is a mother, but mater fornicationum, as shee is tearmed the mother of fornications and abominati∣ons of the earth; but shee is none of our mother, Ierusalem, or to speake more properly the catho∣like christian Church is our mother, the Roman Church must speake us very faire; if wee owne her for a sister, even this sheweth her to bee no Mother, that shee is ever cursing us: the true Mother would by no meanes suffer her child to bee divided. This cruell Stepdame not only suf∣fereth those whom shee would have taken for her children to be cut in sunder, but her selfe as much as in her lieth by her curses, divideth them from God, and all the members of Christs mysticall body, yet wee spare to apply the words of the Psalmist unto her; shee loved not blessing, and therefore it shall bee farre from her;*shee delighteth in cursing, and therefore shall it enter like oyle into her bowels, and like water into her bones. Howso∣ever wee are not scared with the bugbeare, the Iesuit goeth about to fright us withall; Maledi∣ctio matris eradicat fundamenta, the curse of a Mo∣ther doth roote out the foundation; For first the Page  82booke out of which he citeth this text is not Ca∣nonicall. Next we denie that the text any way concerneth us, who are blessed and not cursed by our Mother the true Catholike Church; as for the Roman Church shee can in no sence bee tear∣med our mother. For we had Christian Religion in this Island, before there was any Church at Rome at all, as I have else-where proved at large. Lastly, the text the Iesuit alledgeth is falsly translated,* he should have rendred the Greeke thus; A Mother in dishonour or defamed, is a reproach to her chil∣dren, such a Mother wee grant the Church to be a reproach to all her children.

To the fourth. [ 4] The number of Sacraments we prove two manner of wayes, first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; first by demonstrating our two; secondly, by refuting the five they adde there unto. Howsoever the Iesuit here as also Baylie the antagonist of Ri∣vet insult upon us, as if it were unpossible to prove the precisenumber of two Sacraments and no more, because neither the name, nor the num∣ber of Sacraments is any where set downe in ter∣minis in Scripture: yet they shall find that wee faile not in proofes of this point, but they in their answers. For to reserve the refutation of their five to the next Paragraph, we demonstrate our two by arguments drawne first from the name, secondly from the definition of Sacra∣ments, thirdly from the example of Christ, fourthly from the end of the Sacraments, fiftly from the testimonies of the ancient Doctours of the Church.

Page  83

1. From the name, Sacramentum is derived from the verbe sacrare, to consecrate, and signi∣fieth a holy thing, a holy Rite whereby wee are consecrated unto God. Now it is evident that by Baptisme wee give our names to Christ, wee take our militare sacramentum, to fight under his banner, and that thereby wee are sanctified and consecrated to his service: the like wee may ob∣serve in the Lords Supper, wherein wee offer our bodies and soules, as a holy and lively sacrifice un∣to God, we are incorporated into Christs body, and made one bread and one body, because wee partake of one bread, the bread which we breake; Is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? the Cup of blessing which wee blesse, is it not the Communion of the bloud of Christ? In the rest which our Ad∣versaries tearme Sacraments, there cannot bee given the like reason of the name. For by them wee neither put on Christ, as in Baptisme: nor are made members of his mysticall Body, as by the Lords Supper.

2. From the definition of Sacraments; every Sacrament of the New Testament is a seale of the new Covenant.* Now it is agreed on all parts that he only hath authoritie to seale the charter, in whose authoritie it is to grant it. But wee find that Christ in the New Testament set only two seales, Baptisme, the Institution whereof wee have, Teach all nations baptizing them,*in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost; and the Lords Supper, the institution Page  84whereof wee have, bee tooke bread and brake it, saying,*this is my Body, doe this in remembrance of mee. In these Sacraments wee have all the con∣ditions required, first an outward and visible sign, in Baptisme water, in the Eucharist bread and wine. Secondly, an Analogie or correspon∣dencie betweene the signe and the thing signified, betweene Water which washeth the body, and the spirit which washeth the soule; betweene bread and wine which nourisheth the body, and Christs body and bloud which nourisheth the soule. Thirdly, a promise of sanctifying and sa∣ving grace, to all that use the outward rite accor∣ding to our Lords institution: the promise annex∣ed to Baptisme wee find,*Hee that beleeveth and is baptized, shall be saved; to the Eucharist wee find, this is the bloud of the new Testament, which is shed for you,*and for many, for the remission of sinnes, and if any one eate of this bread hee shall live for ever. When our adversaries shall prove in each of their five supernumerarie sacraments, these three conditions wee will subscribe to their whole number of seven, till then wee content ourselves with our two.

3. From the example of Christ. [ 2] Christ our head consecrated in his owne person all those holy rites, which hee instituted for his owne members.* This Christ himselfe intimateth, when being repelled by S. Iohn from his baptisme, say∣ing, I had need to bee baptized of thee, and com∣mest thou to mee? He answered, Suffer it to bee so Page  85now, for thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righte∣ousnesse. And S. Austine saith therefore Christ would bee baptized,*because hee would doe that which hee commanded all others to doe, that as a good master hee might not so much insinuate his Do∣ctrine by words, as exhibit it by acts. But this our good Master exhibited by acts the doctrine of two Sacraments only, whereof hee participated himselfe: of Baptisme, Math. 3.16. And Iesus when he was baptized, went up straight way out of the water: of the Eucharift; Matth. 26.29. I will not drinke hence-forth of this fruit of the vine, un∣till the day when I drinke it new with you in my Fa∣thers kingdome. Which words necessarily imply that before hee uttered them, hee had drunke of the cup which hee gave to them, saying, Drinke yee all of this.

4. From the end of the Sacraments. [ 4] We need but two things to instate us in grace, remission of our sinnes, and ablution; no more to maintaine us in our christian life, but birth, apparell, food and physick: but all these are sufficiently represented, and effectually conveied unto us by two Sa∣craments. For we receive ablution by the one, ab∣solution by the other: wee are bred by the one, wee are fed by the other: wee are clothed by the one, wee are healed by the other.

5. From the testimonies of the ancient Do∣ctours of the Church, S. Anstine,*Christs side was strucken, as the Gospell speaketh, and presently there issued out of it water and bloud, which are the Page  86two twin Sacraments of the Church, water whereby the Spouse is purified, and bloud wherewith shee is en∣dowed. S. Isidore, the Sacraments are Baptisme and Chrisme, the body and bloud of Christ. Rupertus, which and how many are the chiefe Sacraments of our salvation? Hee answers two, holy Baptisme and the holy Eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ, the double gift of the holy Ghost. Paschasius, the Catholique Sacraments of the Christian Church, are Baptisme and the body and bloud of Christ. Fulbertus, the way of Christian religion is to be∣leeve the Trinitie and veritie of the Deitie, and to know the cause of his Baptisme, and in whom the two Sacraments of our life are contained. Of all these arguments brought by Protestants the Iesuit could not be ignorant. Yet hee glaunceth only at one of them, to wit, the second which he would make us beleeve to bee an absurd begging the point in question; How can, saith he, Sacraments bee Seales to give us assurance of his Word, when all the assurance we have of a Sacrament is his Word? This is idem per idem, or a fallacie called petitio Principij. As S. Austine spake of the Pharisees, Quid aliud eructarent quàm quo pleni erant, What other things should these Pharisees belch out, then that wherewith they were full: wee may in like manner aske, what could wee expect for the Ie∣suit to belch out against the Knight, then that which he is full of himselfe, sophismes and falla∣cies. That which hee pretends to find in the Knights argument every man may see in his, to Page  87wit, a beggarly fallacie called homonymia. For the Word may be taken either largely for the whole Scripture, and in that sense wee grant the Sacra∣ments are confirmed by the Word, or particular∣ly for the word of promise, and the Word in this sense is sealed to us by the Sacrament: and this wee prove out of the Apostle, against whom I trust the Iesuit dare not argue; what Circumcisi∣on was to Abraham and the Iewes, that Baptisme succeeding in the place thereof, is to vs: but Cir∣cuncision was a Seale to them of the righteousnesse of faith promised to Abraham and his posteritie:* therefore in like manner Baptisme is a seale unto us of the like promise. What Bellarmine urgeth against our definition of a Sacrament to whom the Iesuit sendeth us, is refuted at large by Mo∣lineus Daneus, Rivetus, Willet, and Chamier, to whom in like manner I remand the Iesuit, who here desiring, as it seemed, to bee catechised as∣keth, what promises are sealed by the Sacra∣ments? I answer, of regeneration and com∣munion with Christ. His second quaere is, what need more seales then one? or if more, why not seven as well as two? I answer, Christ might adde as many Seales as hee pleased, but in the new Te∣stament hee hath put but two, neither need wee any more, the first sealeth unto us our new birth, the second our growth in Christ. If I should put the like question to the Iesuit concerning the King, what need he more Seales then one? or if he would have more, why not seven as well as two? Page  88I know how hee would answer, that the King might affix as many seales to his patents, and other grants as hee pleaseth: but quia frustra fit per plur a quod fieri potest per pauciora, because two seales are sufficient, the Privie seale, and the broad seale: therefore his Majestie useth no other. Which answer of his cuts the wind-pipe of his owne objection. His last question is a blind one, how may wee see, saith he, the promises of God in the Sacraments? S. Ambrose and S. Austine will tell him by the eye of faith, Magis videtur, saith S. Ambrose, quod non videtur, that is more or bet∣ter seene, which is not seene with bodily eyes; Sa∣craments, saith S. Austine, are visible words, be∣cause what words represent to the eares, that Sacra∣ments represent to their eyes, which are anointed with the eye-salve of the spirit. In the Word we heare, the bloud of Christ clenseth us from our sinnes, in the Sacrament of Baptisme we see it af∣ter a sort in the washing of our body with wa∣ter: in the Word wee heare Christs bloud was shed for us: in the Sacrament of the Eucharist af∣ter a sort we see it, by the effusion of the Wine out of the flagon into the Chalice, and drinking it; In the Word wee heare, that Christ is the bread of life, which nourisheth our soules to eternall life: In the Sacrament after a sort wee see it by feeding on the Consecrated elements of Bread and Wine, whereby our body is nourished, and our tempo∣rall life maintained and preserved.

To the fift. [ 5] In the former Paragraph we han∣dled Page  89those Arguments which the Logicians tearme Dicticall,* in this we are to make good our Elencticall; in the former we proved positively two Sacraments in this privatively we are to ex∣clude, and casheere all that the Church of Rome hath added to these two which deviseth Sacra∣ments upon so weake grounds, and detorteth Scripture in such sort for the maintenance of them, that a learned Divine wisheth, that as for the remedie of other sinnes, so there were a Sa∣crament instituted as a speciall remedie against audacious inventions in this kind, and deprava∣tions of holy Scripture to convince them. For of an Epiphonema this is a great mysterie,* they have made a Sacrament, the sacrament of Matrimo∣nie: of a promise, whose sinnes yee remit,*they are remitted; they have made a second Sacrament the sacrament of Penance: of an enumeration of the Governours and Ministers of the Church, Ephes. 4.11. And hee gave some, Apostles: some Prophets: some, Pastours some, Evangelists: some teachers, a third Sacrament, the sacrament of Or∣der: of a relation what the Apostles did, Acts 8.17. In laying hands on them, who received the gift of tongues; a fourth Sacrament, the sacrament of Confirmation: Of a Miracle in restoring the sick to their former health by anoynting them with oyle in the name of the Lord; a fift Sacrament, the sacrament of Extreame Vnction. A child can∣not be bishopped; a single partie contracted; a Priest or Deacon ordained; a penitent reconciled; a dying Page  90man dismissed in peace, without a sacrament, the sacrament of Extreame Vnction. If they take Sacrament in a large sense, for every divine My∣sterie, holy Ordinance, or sacred Rite, they may find as well seventeene as seven Sacraments in the Scriptures: if they they take the Word in the strict sense for such a sacred Rite, as is instituted in the New Testament by Christ, with a visible signe or element representing and applying unto us some invisible sanctifying and saving grace; I wish the Iesuit might but practise one of their Sacraments, that is, doe penance so long till hee found in Scripture that, and the other foure Sa∣craments which they have added to the two Insti∣tuted by Christ. To begin with them in order, and give Order the first place, wee acknowledge the ordination of Priests and Deacons by Bi∣shops to be de jure divino, and we beleeve where they are done according to Christs Institution, that grace is ordinarily given to the party ordai∣ned, but not sacramentall grace, not gratia gra∣tum faciens, but gratia gratis data, a ghostly po∣wer for the good of others, not a necessary grace of the Spirit sanctifying and saving the soule of the ordained. Besides, this Sacrament of order is out of order. For it hath no element added to the sanctified forme of words. Yes that it hath (saith Flood) the Host, Chalice, and Patent, or Letters of order. The Bread and Wine, I grant are ele∣ments appointed by Christ, but in another sacra∣ment the Eucharist, not in this, and tis confessed Page  91on all sides, that as in the Sacraments of the old Law, so of the New, the elements must not bee confounded. Neither doth Christ any where command that in the ordination of Bishops, or Priests, such a Rite or Ceremonie should be used: neither doth the Host or Chalice signifie or re∣present the invisible Grace, or Ghostly power then given. And as for the instrument it is a parch∣ment, but no element; it is a legible writing te∣stifying the party is ordained, but no visible signe of an invisible grace; no Seale of the new Co∣venant. For the Patent, Chalice, and Bible, they are not, as before was said, any sacramentall signes of divine grace, but only ensignes and tokens of their severall offices and functions, or instru∣ments that are to bee used in their ministration besides, every one of these orders is conferred by words and Ceremoniss cleane differing one from another, whereupon it followeth, that ei∣ther none of them is a Sacrament properly so called, or that each of them apart is a Sa∣crament, and so the number of Sacraments will bee neere doubled. Bellarmines evasion De Sacram. ordin. l. 1. c. 8. to wit, that they are all unum genere, and referred to one end will not serve the turne, for so all the other six Sacraments are unum genere, and all referred to one end, to wit, to unite the receivers some way to Christ, or derive some grace from Christ to them, and yet they are not one Sacrament, but as they teach, six distinct species.

Page  92

For Confirmation, we allow of it as an Aposto∣licall tradition, not as a Sacrament of Divine In∣stitution. For where doth Christ command that those who have heene baptized, should bee after confirmed by a Bishop? Where is an element or forme of words prescribed by Christ as in Bap∣tisme and the Lords Supper? The Iesuit answe∣reth that the element in this Sacrament is chrisme, or oyle, but this cannot be: as well because in di∣vers Sacraments there ought to bee divers ele∣ments, and therefore sith Chrisme and oyle is the element in Extreame Unction, which taketh the name from thence, it cannot bee the matter or element in Confirmation. Accedit verbum ad ele∣mentum, saith S. Austine, & fit Sacramentum, the word of promise being added to another ele∣ment appointed by God maketh a Sacrament. In this we have neither Word nor Element, there∣fore as the Greeke Oratour spake of the evill lawes enacted in his time,*〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the lawes need a law to mend them: so we may say of this Sacrament of Confirmation, it needeth confirmation and better proofe for it, then yet we see.

For Penance, as it is practised at this day in the Roman Church, it is not of divine institution: as it was practised in the Primitive Church, and is at this day in ours is a Divine ordinance, but yet no Sacrament: because we find in it no outward element with a forme of words prescribed by Christ: no visible signe of invisible grace. No Page  93(saith Flood) is not the true sorrow of heart decla∣red by humble confession, together with prayer, fa∣sting, and Almes-deeds, an outward element, or thing to bee perceived by sense? I answer, that eve∣ry thing perceived by sense, is not presently an element in a Sacrament, it must bee as the Schooles out of S. Austine define a visible signe of invisible grace. Confession and prayer are in∣deed audible, but not visible: Fasting and Almes∣deedes are visible, but visible workes of pietie and charitie, not visible elements in the Sacra∣ments: they are morall duties, not sacramentall Rites. For what correspondencie is betweene these, and absolution or remission of sinnes? how doth Fasting or Almes exhibit to the eye this invisible grace? Contrition of the heart of which hee speaketh, is no visible or sensible signe, Confession is sensible, but not vi∣sible, nor ordained as the elements are in Sacra∣ments to signifie the grace of God, but to aske it: the sacred signes ought to be administred by the Priest, but Confession is made by the penitent, the same may be said of corporall satisfactions which are accomplished by the sinner, and com∣monly in his house by fastings, or whippings, or abroad by pilgrimages, whereas sacred signes are to bee administred by the hands of the Priest, and ordinarily in the Church; Absolution also cannot bee a sacred signe of the grace of God, seeing that if it bee good and available, it is the grace of God; besides this Absolution, is not an Page  94element, nor a visible signe of an invisible grace, for the words are not seene: if it be said that it is sufficient, that it is significantly the grace of God, by the same reason the preaching of the Word should bee a sacrament, for it is significantly the grace of God. In all Sacraments the Word must bee joyned to the element; but here they will have the Word to bee an element: the imposition of the Priests hands on the penitent is a visible action, but not a visible element, nor is it institu∣ted by Christ. When the Trent Councell, and the Roman Catechisme come to assigne the matter of this Sacrament, they doe it very faintly with a quasi materia, Sess. 14. de poenit. c. 3. & Catechis. Rom. part. 2. c. 5. They say the actions of the pe∣nitent are, quasi materia, and such as the matter is, such is the Sacrament quasi sacramentum.

For Matrimonie, it is a holy ordinance of God, but more ancient then the New Testa∣ment, and therefore can be no seale of it: it was instituted by God in Paradise, not by Christ in the Gospell: yea but (saith the Iesuit) though it were before a naturall contract, yet might it not be exalted by Christ to the dignitie of a Sacra∣ment? I answer, the Iesuit must not dispute what Christ might doe, but what hee did; When hee proveth out of the Evangelists or Apostles, that Christ exalted it to the dignitie of a Sacrament, wee will hold it in that high esteeme, but this hee can never doe: for none of the Evangelists relate that hee altered the Law, or nature of Matrimo∣nie: Page  95but only that hee confirmed it, and honou∣red it with his presence, and the first Miracle which hee wrought. Other exaltation wee find not in the Gospell; And as S. Ierome speaketh in the like kind, quia non legimus, non credimus, be∣cause wee reade it not, wee beleeve it not.

Our second exception against the Sacrament of Matrimonie is, that in it there is no outward element sanctified by the Word of promise. To this the Iesnit answereth; the bodies of men and women, are they not as much as an outward ele∣ment? Yes surely as much in quantitie and more too:* but none ever before this Iesuit and his Ma∣ster Bellarmine maketh mens bodies outward ele∣ments in any Sacrament: the bodies of men and their soules are either the Ministers, or receivers in every Sacrament, not the elements or materi∣all parts thereof. The element in every Sacra∣ment hath the denomination of the whole, as when wee say the sacrament of Circumcision, of the Passeover, of bread and wine: but who ever heard of the sacrament of men and womens bo∣dies. Our third exception against the sacrament of Matrimonie is that if it bee a sacrament con∣ferring grace, as they teach, ex opere operato, why doe they deprive Priests of it? and make them take a solemne vow against it? The Iesuit answe∣reth, that though Mariagebee a holy thing, as Order also is, yet as Order is forbidden to all women, so upon good reason Mariage is forbidden all Priests. Tis true, I grant that all holy things in them∣selves Page  96are not fit for all ages, sexes, and callings. In particular it is no way fit that women should be admitted into holy Orders, because they are forbidden to speake in the Church;* and it seemeth to bee against the law of nature, that the weaker and more ignoble sex should be appointed to in∣struct and governe the stronger and more noble: but there is not the like reason in Order and Ma∣trimonie.* For the Scripture saith, Mariage is ho∣nourable among all, but not that the order of Priesthood is commendable in all men. Much lesse women, yet the Iesuit saith, that upon good reason Mariage is forbidden Priests, because it is not agreeable to the high and holy estate of Priest∣hood and religious life. A strange thing that a sa∣crament should not bee agreeable to the most sa∣cred function, that a holy Rite conferring grace should not bee agreeable to a religious life. If Marriage were any disparagement to the holinesse of priesthood, why did God appoint married Priests under the law? and Christ chose married Apostles in the Gospel? Eusebius saith of Spiri∣dion, that though hee were married, and brought up children,* vet that hee was nothing thereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉hindered or disparaged in his sa∣cred function, and S. Chrysostome in his Homi∣lie upon those words, Enoch walked with God, noteth it that it is said twice for failing, Enoch walked with God, and begat sonnes and daughters to teach us that marriage is no impeachment to ho∣linesse, or the highest degree of perfection, whereby Page  97wee are said to walke with God. To shut up this point concerning Matrimonie, Cardinal Bellar∣mine teacheth us, that the seven Sacraments an∣wer seven Vertues; Baptisme answereth to Faith, Confirmation to Hope, the Eucharist to Chari∣tie, Penance to Iustice, Extreame Vnction to For∣titude, and Matrimonie to continence or tempe∣rance; if so, then certainly Matrimonie is most a∣greeable to the office of a Bishop or Priest;*For a Bishop must hee continent and modest, and as it there followeth, the husband of one wife; and unlesse the rules of Logick faile, if Matrimonie hold correspondencie with temperance, the prohibiti∣on thereof, and forced single life must needs an∣swer to intemperance, as the testimonie of all ages proveth it.

For Extreame Vnction the lagge of all their Sacraments little or nothing can bee said. For it wanteth all the three conditions requisite to a Sa∣crament: it hath neither element, nor forme of words prescribed by Christ, nor any promise of saving & sanctifying grace. The Apostles indeed used oile, but as a medicine to heale the body, not as a sacrament to cure the soule. As the Apostles used oyle, so Christ spittle in restoring sight to the blind: will they hereupon make spittle an eighth sacrnment? Sacraments ought to be of perpetual use in the Church, whereas the Unction whereof the Scripture speaketh, wherby the sick were mi∣raculously cured, is ceased long agoe; if the Iesuit will not give eare to us, let him yet yeeld so much Page  98respect to Cardinall Cajetan, as to peruse what he commenteth on that text of Scripture on which the Church of Rome foundeth this Sacrament; Is any sick among you,*let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anoyn∣ting him with oyle in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if hee have committed sins they shall bee forgiven him.* On these words thus Cajetan inferreth, it cannot bee gathered either from the words, nor from the effect here mentioned, that the Apostle speaketh of sacramentall or Ex. treame Vnction, but rather of that anoynting which Christ appointed in the Gospell to bee used in hea∣ling the sick, for the Text saith not, is any man sick unto death, but simply is any man sick; and the effect hee attributeth to this anoynting is the ease or raising of the sick; of remission of sinnes he speaks but conditionally, where as Extreame Vnction is gi∣ven to none but at the point of death, and directly tendeth to remission of sinnes as the forme impor∣teth. Adde hereunto that S. Iames commandeth many Elders to be sent for, both to pray and anoynt the sick, which is not done in Extreame Vn∣ction.

Page  99

To the sixt. [ 6] The Knight having shot two ar∣rowes out of S. Austines quiver, the one with a head, the other without, yet sharpe pointed: the Iesuit quite concealeth the one, and endeavours to blunt the other. The former hee drew out of S. Austine his treatise de symbole ad catechumenos, where speaking of Baptisme and the Lords Sup∣per, he saith, haec sunt Ecclesiae gemina Sacramen∣ta, these are the two twin Sacraments of the Church.* to this the Iesuit answereth, negry quidem. To the other taken out of the 15. tract vpon S. Iohn, that out of the side of Christ the Sacraments of the Churchissued, he would seeme to answer some∣thing. First he quarrelleth at the quotation, say∣ing, I doe not thinke you will find in Chemnitius your good friend S. Ambrose and Bede cited: Whereunto I answer, that though the Knights good friend Chemnitius cite not Ambrose and Bede, yet the Iesuits good friend Card.*Bellarmine citeth them both, his words are, Ambrose in his tenth booke upon S. Luke, and Bede in his comment upon the 19. of S. Iohn understand by blood which issued out of our Saviours side the price of our re∣demption by water Baptisme. Next the Iesuit en∣deavoureth to untwist this triple cord, by saying that these three Fathers speake of Sacraments is∣suing out of Christs side, but no way restraine the number to two. Whereunto I reply, that though the word Sacramenta for the number may bee as well said of seven as two Sacraments: yet where S. Austine alludeth to the same text of Page  100Scripture, and falleth upon the same conceite, he restraineth the number to two, saying, there issued out of Christs side water and blood, quae sunt Ec∣clesiae gemina Sacramenta. Now I would faine know of the Iesuit where ever hee read gemina to signifie seven, or more then two? Were the Dioscuri which are commonly knowne by the name of gemini seven, or two only, to wit, Ca∣stor and Pollax? As for S. Ambrose and Bede though they say not totidem verbis, that the two Sacraments of the Church issued out of Christs side, as S. Austine doth: yet they can bee under∣stood of no more then two Sacraments: for there were but two things which issued out of our Saviours side, to wit, water and blood, whereby they understand Baptisme and the Lords Supper. Had there issued out of our Saviours side, toge∣ther with water and blood Chrisme or balsamum, or had a rib beene taken from thence, the Iesuit might have some colour to draw more Sacra∣ments out of it: but now sith the Text saith there issued onely two things, water and blood; and the Fathers say the Sacraments of the Church are thereby meant: it is most apparant that by Sacra∣menta they meant those two only: which they there name in expresse words, Baptisme and the price of our redemption, that is Christs blood in the Eucharist.

To the seventh. The authoritie of S. Ambrose is as a thorne in the Iesuits eye, for it cannot but bee a great prejudice to their cause, that so lear∣ned Page  101a Bishop as S. Ambrose, writing six bookes professedly of the Sacraments omitteth the Ro∣mish five, and spendeth his whole discourse upon our two. If the Church in his time beleeved or administred seven Sacraments, hee could no way be excused of supine negligence for making no mention at all of the greater part of them: it were all one as if a man professing to treate of the ele∣ments, or the parts of the world which are foure, or of the Pleiades or the Septentriones, or the Planets which are seven should handle but two of that number. Bellarmine therefore and after him Flood pluck hard at this thorne, but cannot get it out (saying that S. Ambrose his intent was to instruct the Catechumeni only, as the title of one of the books sheweth.) For first S. Ambrose hath no booke of that title, viz. An instruction to them who are to bee catechized, or are beginners in Chri∣stianitie. The title of that booke is De ijs qui ini∣tiantur, of those who are initiated or entred into ho∣ly mysteries. Secondly, this is not the title of any of the six bookes de sacramentis alledged by the Knight, but of another tractate. Thirdly, admit that S. Ambrose, as S. Austine and Cyrill wrote to the Catechumeni, and intended a Catechisme: yet they were to name all the Sacraments unto them, as all Divines usually doe in their Catechismes: because the Sacraments are alwayes handled a∣mong the grounds, and principles of Christian religion. And though the Catechumeni are not presently admitted unto all, yet they are to learne Page  102what they are, that they may bee the better pre∣pared in due time to receive them. Fourthly, it is evidently untrue (which the Iesuit saith) that S. Ambrose writeth not to the beleevers of that age, but only to some beginners. The very front of his booke proves the Iesuit to bee frontlesse. For S. Ambrose his first words are, I will begin to speake of the Sacraments which wee have recei∣ved, &c. In Christiano enim viro prima est fides, for the first thing in a Christian man is faith. And as hee writeth to all beleevers not beginners on∣ly, so hee speaketh also of the chiefe Sacraments of the New Testament, and not of those only which the catechumeni received, as is apparant out of the fourth chapter of the first booke De sacra∣mentis. Wherein hee proveth according to the title of that Chapter, Quôd sacramenta Christia. norum diviniora sint, & priora quàm Indaeorum, That the Sacraments of the Chrìstians are more an∣cient and more divine then those of the Iewes; and hee instanceth especially in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Lastly, the Iesuit in this answer apparantly contradicteth himselfe, first, saying that S. Ambrose intent in that Worke was only to instruct the catechumeni in those things that were to be done in the time of Baptisme,* and with∣in a few lines after he saith,* that he writeth of the Sacraments whereby they were so initiated which are three, Baptisme, Confirmation, and the Eucha∣rist. So true is Budaeus his observation, That lyes dash one with the other, and truth breakes out of Page  103the mouth of the lyar ere hee is aware. Who ever heard of the Eucharist to bee administred in the time of Baptisme, or that the Eucharist was administred at all to the punies or catechumeni whilest they were such, certainly if the catecu∣meni or younger beginners, to whom hee saith S. Ambrose wrote, were capable of the doctrine of the Eucharist, containing in it the highest myste∣ries of Christianitie, they were much more capa∣ble of Penance, Matrimonie, and Extreame Un∣ction, which are easie to bee understood by any novice in Christian religion.

To the eight. [ 8] That it may appeare what was the judgement of S. Austine in this maine point of difference, betweene the Reformed and the Ro∣man Church, I will weigh what is brought on both sides, first what the Iesuit alledgeth for se∣ven: and then what the Knight for two. S. Au∣stine having written divers Catechisticall trea∣tises, in which hee had occasion to name and handle the Sacraments: yet no where defineth the number of them to bee seven, neither nameth all of them either joyntly or severally: this the Iesuit knowing well enough, bringeth no one testimonie for the proofe of their seven Sacra∣ments out of him, but forceth only some senten∣ces to prove out of them that hee held more then two, as namely out of his first Sermon upon the 103. Psalme, Cast thine eyes upon the gifts or of∣fices of the Church in Baptisme, the Eucharist, and the rest of the holy Sacraments, and Epist. 118. Page  104having brought in two Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper, hee addeth such a generall clause, and if there bee any thing else commended in holy Scriptures; which words of his import that hee held more sacraments then Baptisme and the Lords Supper, in that very sense wherein those two by him named are called Sacraments. I answer, S. Austine in neither of these places ta∣keth the word Sacrament in a strict sense: but in a large for every sacred rite commended in Scrip∣ture, or gift and office of the Church. As for the word coeter is, the Iesuit insisteth upon: it impor∣teth only a generical convenience and similitude not a specificall; and so wee acknowledge that there are many sacred rites in the Church, which agree with Baptisme and the Lords Supper in the genericall notion of Sacraments: but not in the specificall as the word Sacrament is taken for a peculiar seale of the New Testament, having thereunto annexed a promise of justifying grace. Now let us weigh what the Knight alledgeth out of S. Austine for two Sacraments only,*Our Lord (saith that Father) and his Apostles have delive∣red unto us a few Sacraments in stead of many, in performance most easie, in signification most excel∣lent, as is the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper. To disappoint this testimonie, the Iesuit first layeth corruption and falsification to the Knights charge, because S. Austines words are signa pauca, not sacramenta. Which is nothing but a meere cavill, for signa and sacramenta are in Page  105S. Austine no other then synonima, by signa hee can meane no other then sacramenta. For he in∣stanceth there in no other, neither did Christ de∣liver unto us any other signa or sigilla but these two. Yes, saith the Iesuit, for it is plaine by the word sicut, that hee bringeth in Baptisme and the Lords Supper for example only, and doth not re∣straine the signa to these two. It is not plaine, for sicut bringeth in an example be it one, or more, neither can wee from thence inferre that there are more. For S. Iohn speaking of our Saviour saith, vidimus gloriam ejus sicut unigeniti filij Dei, Wee beheld the glorie as of the only begotten Sonne of the Father. Will the Iesuit from thence inferre that God had more only begotten sonnes? but to expound S. Austine out of himselfe those signes or Sacraments which here hee calls a few, in his 118. Epistle hee tearmes most few (Sacrament is numero paucissimis) surely seven Sacraments are not numero paucissima, fewest in number, but two are so: and therefore in his booke De symbolo ad catechumenos, he tearmeth them gemina Ecclesiae sacramenta; which passage the Iesuit taketh no notice of, because hee could give no answer at all unto it, yet hee setteth a good face upon the matter saying, this may suffice for such testimo∣nies as were alledged out of S. Austine. Of all the Roman Captaines I cannot liken him fitter to a∣ny then to Terentius Varro, who though hee fought so unhappily against Hanniball at Cannae, that hee lost 40000. men upon the place, yet hee Page  106seemed to bee little daunted therewith, and the Roman Senat sent him publike thankes, quòd de republicâ non desperâsset, that hee despaired not of the Common-wealth.

To the ninth. [ 9] The authour of the treatise De ablutione pedum, who was farre later then S. Cy∣prian, mentioneth indeed five sacraments which are more then two, yet lesse then seven, and for those five hee nameth, it is evident hee intended not that they were Sacraments in a strict sense. For one of them is ablutio pedum, which if it bee a Sacrament in the proper sense, then hath the Ie∣suit an eighth sacrament as himselfe is sapientum octavus. Not so, saith hee, for ablutio pedum which that Authour meaneth is the sacrament of Penance. Then belike Peter and the Apostles did Penance whilest Christ washed their feet. Al∣though there may lie hid some mysterie in that ablution,* and therefore it may bee tearmed a Sa∣crament in a large sense, as Bellarmine expoundeth that authour. Yet our Lord himselfe revealeth unto us no other mysterie, nor maketh any other inference from it then a patterne of humilitie,*If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers feet. Yea but (saith Flood,) the authour speaketh of another Laver after Baptisme, and what can that bee other then Penance? He speaketh of another laver, not of another Sacrament, which laver is no other then the laver of penitent teares. But dicis causa, let ablutio pedum be Penance, yet wee have but foure Page  107Sacraments mentioned by this Author, what be∣commeth of the other three? To this hee answe∣reth that the Authour mentioned not them because his scope was in that place to speake of such Sacra¦ments as had relation to our Saviours last Supper. A ridiculous evasion, for what relation hath Bap∣tisme, or Penance, or Confirmation, or order to our Lords Supper? But the Iesuit like a Lawyer that hath taken his fee of his Client, thought himselfe bound in conscience to speake some∣thing in behalfe of this Authour, though no∣thing at all to the purpose, like Erucius in Tully Ego quid acceperim scio, quid dicam nescio.*

To the tenth. The Iesuit in his answer to S. Isi∣dore bewrayes extreame negligence. For the Knight quoting S. Isidore at large in his sixt book, and not naming any chapter, this Desultorius Miles posting through one chapter, and finding not the words there, chargeth the Knight with falsification; whereas in the chapter immediatly following, to wit, the 19. according to the later edition of S. Isidore (but in the 18. according to the former) the testimonie alledged by the Knight is found in expresse words, and Baptisme, Chrisme, and the Lords Supper reckoned by him for the Sacraments of the Church there, without ad∣dition of any other; If hee had held seven sacra∣ments, questionlesse in that place hee would have named all, or at least the major part of them. The Iesuit applieth a plaister to this sore, to wit, that else-where the same Father mentioneth Penance Page  108and Matrimonie. But the plaister is too narrow, and the salve of no vertue at all. First, it is too narrow, for though Penance and Matrimonie be added to Baptisme, Chrisme and the Lords Sup∣per, we have yet but foure (or if we take Chrisme not for a Ceremonie used in Baptisme but a di∣stinct Sacrament from it) at the most, but five: wee are still out of our reckoning, wee heare no∣thing of Order and Extreame Vnction. Second∣ly, as the plaister is too narrow, so the salve spread on it is of no vertue at all. For though S. Isidore compareth Penance to Baptifme in respect of the effect thereof, viz. washing away of sinne, yet he maketh not thereby Penance a Sacrament. Whatsoever washeth away sinne is not therefore a Sacrament,* Faith purifieth the heart, as the Apo∣stle speaketh;* and Christ himselfe saith, doe Almes, and all things shall bee cleane unto you; Yet doth it not from thence follow, that either Faith or Charitie are Sacraments. For Matrimo∣nie he saith indeed there are three boones or good things in it, or as the Iesuit translateth the words, three goods of it, fides, proles & sacramentum, faith, issue, and a Sacrament, but by sacrament there hee understandeth the great mysterie of the union of Christ with his Church, whereof Ma∣trimonie is a signe, and hee alludeth to the words of the Apostle,*〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this is a great my sterie,* which the Latine interpreter translateth sacramentum, as hee doth also the sacrament of the woman, and as strongly might they conclude out Page  109of him, that the Whore of Babylon is an eight Sa∣crament, as Matrimonie is the seventh.* In our booke of Homilies Mariage is called a Sacrament as all sacred Rites may in a large sense. The Iesuit should have proved according to his undertaking pag. 202. that Mariage is a Sacrament in a strict sense, but his proofes are as his honesty is at large.

To the eleventh. Hallensis lived in a darke age, yet in this point hee saw some light through a chinke, whereby he discovered that three of their supposed Sacraments, to wit, Order, Penance, [ 11] and Matrimonie had their being before the New Testament,* and consequently were not to bee said properly the Sacraments of the new Law: and hee giveth us also a sufficient reason to ex∣clude the fourth, to wit, Confirmation; because as hee teacheth, the forme and matter thereof were not appointed by our Saviour, but by the Church in a Councell held at Melda. Yea but saith the Iesuit hee addeth, fine praejudicio dicendum, let this bee spoken with leave, adding, let us heare but such a word from the Knights mouth, and hee shall see the matter will soone bee ended. For answer whereun∣to I say, first, that the words of Hallensis, sine praejudicio, no whit prejudice the truth of his as∣sertion: but only shew the modestie of the man. Next, for the Knight, whosoever peruseth his Booke with the Preface, shall find that hee spea∣keth farre more modestly and submissively then Hallensis here doth,*Sed tumor Iesuitae non capit illius modum. What Hallensis concludeth that Page  110there be neither more nor fewer then seven Sa∣craments, maketh little against us, for he neither addeth Sacraments properly so called, nor Sa∣craments of the new Law, in quibus vertitur car∣do quaestionis; if the Iesuit so expound Hallensis he maketh him contradict himselfe, and so utter∣ly disableth his testimonie. For all Sacraments properly so called of the new Law must be insti∣tuted by Christ, the authour of the new Law, which Hallensis denieth of Confirmation. A∣gaine, they must have their being by the new Law, not before which hee affirmeth of three of the seven Sacraments as I shewed before.

To the twelfth. [ 12] Wheresoever the Knight ma∣keth mention of Hugo, the Iesuit maketh an hi∣deous noise like an hue and cry, you say, saith the Iesuit,*of Hugo, that hee excludeth Penance from the number of the Sacraments and admitteth holy water. For both which Sir Humphrey a man may hold up his finger to you, and wagge it, you know what I meane, &c. The Knight knoweth well what you meane, and also what manner of men they are, who hold up their finger in such sort, viz. fooles or mad-men, utrum horum mavult accipi∣at. Is it a matter that deserveth such hooting to al∣ledge Hugo de sancto victore out of Master Perkins in his Problemes a most learned worke, against which never a Papist yet durst quatch. How ma∣ny hundred testimonies doe Bellarmine and Baro∣nius, and this Iesuit alledge at the second hand? Were the allegation false, Master Perkins must Page  111beare the blame, who misquoted Hugo, not the Knight, who rightly alledgeth Master Perkins, but the Iesuit neither doth nor can disprove the allegation, but out of another booke of Hugo he alledgeth a passage for seven Sacraments, which yet as I shall shew hereafter may well stand with that which Master Perkins alledgeth out of him against Penance. But before I expound Hugo, I wish the reader to observe in the Iesuit, how true that is which the Naturalists relate concerning Serpents, that the more venemous they are,* the shorter sighted they are. Hee who odiously and malitiously chargeth the Knight with a false quo∣tation in this very place falsly quoteth the same Authour himselfe. For the words hee alledgeth out of him, to wit, that there are seven principall Sacraments of the Church, are not found in the booke he quoteth, viz. speculum de myst. Eccles. c. 12. It is true such like words are found in another Treatise of his, to wit de sacrament is, but this neither excuseth the Iesuits negligence, nor helpeth at all his cause. For he that saith there are seven principall Sacraments, implieth that there are more then seven, though lesse principall. Either Hugo taketh the word Sacrament in a large or strict sence: if in a large, he contradicteth not us; if in a strict sence, he contradicteth the Iesuit and the Trent Fathers, for they teach there are no more then seven Sacraments, whether principall, or not principall. Hugo reckoning seven as prin∣cipall tacitly admitteth other as lesse principall.Page  112Yet the Iesuit singeth an Iôpoean to himselfe, and most insolently insulteth upon the Knight,* say∣ing, Bcause you may lesse doubt of Penance, whereof for thus abusing your authour and reader you de∣serve no small part, he hath a particular •• hapter, wherein hee calleth it as wee doe with S. Ierome the second board after shipwrack, and saith that if a man endanger his clensing which hee hath received, by Baptisme he may rise and escape by Penance. How say you to this Sir Humfrey? have I not just cause to tell you your owne? Agreed, suum cui{que} let the Iesuit tell the Knight, and I will tell the Iesuit his owne; the Knight neither holdeth with the do∣ctrine of Merit, nor the sacrament of Penance; the Iesuit who holdeth both may by his beliefe merit their holy sacrament of Penance, for egre∣giously abusing Hugo de Sancto Victore, and S. Ie∣rome and his reader, by making a Sacrament of a metaphor, and out of them arguing thus wood∣denly against the Knight. Hugo hath a particular chapter wherein hee calleth Penance as wee doe with S. Ierome, the second boord after shipwracke, Ergo, Penance is a Sacrament of the new Law; doth he not deserve for concluding so absurdly, to have the character of his owne sacrament in∣delebly imprinted upon his flesh?

To the thirteenth. [ 13] The Knight alledgeth not Bellarmine nor Hugo, nor Peter Lombard, nor Bo∣naventure, nor Hallensis, nor Altisiodorensis, nor Suarez himselfe; as if they expresly and in direct tearmes denied Extreame Unction to bee a sacra∣ment: Page  113this they doe not, neither as things stood with some of them might doe safely, the Roman Church having defined the contrarie. Yet so great is the force of truth, that what in words they affirme they consequently deny; and thus much Suarez ingenuously confesseth; some,* saith hee, have denied that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ, whence it followeth by plaine consequence that it is no true Sacrament. Yea but saith Flood, if those Schoole-men had lived in this age, they would have said that Christ did institute it. Whereunto I answer, that all Iudgements pro∣ceed ex allegatis & probatis, not allegandis & pro∣bandis upon things alledged, and proved not upon things to be alledged and proved in future times, neither is it likely that they would have altered their opinion, upon notice of the Trent decision, for if the Church of France, and divers other Romish Catholiques, as they tearme them, sub∣mit not at this day to all the Decrees of that Councell: much lesse may it bee thought that those ancient and acute schoole Divines, who bare the greatest sway in their times, would have suffered themselves to baffled by the pretence of a pettie Councell, charging her canons with no∣thing but paper-shot: every Sacrament of the New Testament is supported with two pillars, institu∣tion by Christ, and a promise of justifying grace annexed to the due receivers thereof set downe in Scripture, the former pillar the ancient Schoole∣men take from Extreame Unction: the later Bel∣larminePage  114and Cajetan, how then can it stand? The Iesuit answereth upon a third pillar unwritten tra∣dition. But this I have proved before to be a weak and rotten one: and to speake the truth it serveth Papists as pons Asinorum did the ancient Logi∣cians to which they fly for shelter, when all other helpe faileth them. Albeit they bragge much of Scripture, yet upon examination of particulars it will appeare, that their new Trent Creed consi∣sting of twelve supernumerarie Articles, hath no foundation at all in Scripture: and therefore they are forced for their support to fly to verbum Dei non scriptum, an unwritten word of God, which I would faine know of them how they prove to be Gods word? Whether by Scripture, or by unwritten tradition? by Scripture they cannot say, for it implies a flat contradiction, that ver∣bum non scriptum should be scriptum, that unwrit∣ten traditions should be found in, or founded on Scripture; if they say they prove it to bee Gods word by tradition, then they prove idem per i∣dem the same thing by it selfe, and build their faith upon a sillie sophisme called petitio príncipij, the begging the maine point in question.

To the fourteenth. [ 14] In the allegation of Car∣dinal Bessario the Iesuit chargeth the Knight with ambiguous translation,* and so placing the words, that they may have a double sence, the one to deceive the simple, and the other to excuse him∣selfe against the objections of the learned: and for this he pronounceth a woe against him, vae Page  115peccatori terra ingredienti duabus vijs, Woe to the sinner going on the earth two wayes: But the truth is, as Pentheus after he was distracted, ima∣gined, duplices se ostendere Phoebos,* that hee saw two Sunnes, when yet there was but one in the skie: so the Iesuit in a fit of frantick malice, ima∣gined the Knight to goe two wayes whereas hee goeth but one, and that a faire and streight way, for he setteth the Latine words of the Cardinall without any adition or detraction in the mar∣gent, haec duo sola sacramenta in Evangelijs ma∣nifestè tradita legimus, and hee translateth them faithfully: wee reade that these two Sacraments only were delivered us plainly in Scriptures; hee rende∣reth not the words we reade plainly in Scriptures, that there were two only Sacraments delivered unto us, which had beene a misplacing of Bessa∣rions words, and mis-interpretation of his mea∣ning, bu wee reade that these two only were plainly delivered in the Gospell; there is no more ambi∣guitie in the translation then in the originall, which though it denieth not that other Sacra∣ments may bee delivered in the Gospell, yet it affirmeth that these two only are plainly delivered there, and consequently that these two only are, de fide, matter of faith, and upon paine of damna∣tion to be beleeved; for as I proved before out of S. Austine, and S. Chrysostome, all things that con∣cerne faith and manners, and are necessarie to sal∣vation are plainly delivered in holy Scriptures.

To the fifteenth. [ 15] Some Papistsas Flood con∣fesseth Page  116denie the foure inferiour Orders to be Sa∣craments,* and Soto denieth the superiour, what a confusion is here in your sacrament of order? If the ordination of Bishops be not truly and pro∣perly a Sacrament, as Dominicus Soto acknowled∣geth, neither is the ordination of Priests a Sacra∣ment; for what can be alledged more for the one then the other? and if the ordination of Priests be no sacrament, much lesse Deacons, or subdea∣cons or Acolytes or Exorcists. Whether there be the same character imprinted in the ordination of Bishops, and Priests, it is not materiall to our present question, for if it be the same, then it fol∣loweth according to the doctrine of the Schooles, that they are one and the selfe-same Sacrament: if a diverse character bee imptinted by the one, and by the other, then are they two distinct Sacraments. If they are the same Sacra∣ments, then Soto denying the one, consequently denieth the other to bee a Sacrament: if they are distinct Sacraments, then there are eight Sacra∣ments. Yea but saith the Iesuit, Whither there bee a new character in a Bishop, or the same extended is no matter of faith, and therefore wee are not to dispute with you of it, but keepe you off at the staffes end, or rather out of doores: when you are once ad∣mitted into the Catholique Church, wee may admit you to speake of a Schoole-point or else not. Wee know well that yee are loath that we should heare of your differences among your selves: but the fire of contention cannot bee kept within the Page  117walls of your Schooles, quis enim celaverit ig∣nem? Lumine qui semper proditur ipse suo, it breaketh out, and if ye looke not to it, it will set on fire the whole fabrick of your Romish Babel. Meane while the Iesuit giveth us great incou∣ragement to desire to bee admitted into the Ro∣man Church, because then forsooth wee shall have leave to tread the endlesse mazes of scholasti∣call disputes.

To the sixteenth. If Soto come short, [ 16] Durand commeth home to the point in question, for hee affirmeth that which is alledged by the Knight, and confessed by the Iesuit, that Matrimonie is not a Sacrament univocally, if not univocally, not truly and properly, but equivocally or analogical∣ly. Yea but saith the Iesuit, all acknowledge it for anerror in Durand: hee saith all, but hee names none. Surely the Divines of the reformed Church acknowledge it for no error in Durand, but defend it for a truth: and for such Romish Divines that adhere to the Councell of Trent, they are but a faction in the Church, nor is their authoritie more to be urged against the Doctours of the reformed Churches, then the authoritie of the Doctours of the reformed Churches against them: which yet if any should produce against any of the Articles of their new Creed, they would not vouchsafe them so much as a looke. For the definition of the Church in the Councel of Florence, which the Iesuit toucheth upon, it is of little or no authoritie, because that Councell Page  118was not general, nor called by lawfull authoritie, but by the schismaticall Pope Eugenius the fourth, who was deposed by a generall Councell held at Basil.

To the seventeenth. [ 17] Because the Iesuit is for∣bidden by the Popes law to tast of the fruits of Matrimonie, at which it seemes his mouth waters, hee is content to let the tree fall to the ground, for want of support. To Cardinal Cajetan who gave a strong push at it, by denying that it can be pro∣ved to bee a Sacrament. Out of the words of S. Paul Ephesians the fift, hee answereth nothing but with ifs, if it be not proved out of that place it may be out of others, if out of no other, yet out of tradition to his ifs I returne fies; fie for shame that they should bind all their followers under paine of a heavie curse to beleeve this Sa∣crament of Matrimonie, and yet know not where to ground this their beliefe, upon Scrip∣ture or tradition. If it may be proved to bee a sa∣crament out of S. Paul,* their most learned Car∣dinal Cajetan is out: if it may not be proved out of those words, Cardinal Bellarmine and almost all Papists that wrote since Cajetan are in an er∣rour. The Iesuit holdeth a Wolfe by the eare: hee dares neither hold with Cajetan, nor against him: but puts the matter off with an iff. If it cannot be proved to bee a Sacrament out of that passage, as Cajetan affirmeth, yet it may bee out of other texts. What texts? why doth he not name them? it is a signe hee feareth his coyne is counterfeit, that Page  119hee dare not bring it to the test. If that place which seemeth to make most for his Romish te∣net, make nothing at all, as the acute Schoole∣man, and most learned Cardinal Cajetan confes∣seth there is no likelihood that other texts which have lesse appearance will stand them in any stead, and therefore for his last refuge he flyeth to unwritten traditions, as the old Dunces as I noted before, ad pontem asinorum.

To the eighteenth. [ 18] Canus puts a strong sharpe weapon in our hands to wound your Trent do∣ctrine concerning Matrimonie,* but withall for∣biddeth us to strike with it, as the Iesuit Flood tel∣leth us, as if we were at his beck, and might not use our weapons as wee list. But let him know, though he be so foolish as to give advantage, wee will not bee so childish as to leave it. If that bee true which he writeth, that the Divines of Rome write so uncertainly of the matter and forme of Matrimonie, that it were folly in any to goe about to reconcile these differences, and determine any thing certaine in the point: we will inferre upon him that it is likewise folly to define Matrimonie to be a Sacrament, for if the matter and forme of Matrimonie bee so unknowne as hee saith, the genus of it must needs be unknowne. For the ge∣nus as Porphyrie teacheth, is taken from the matter,*and answereth thereunto as the difference is taken from the forme. If the genus be uncertaine, how can it bee an article of faith, that matrimonium is species sacramenti. The whole nature of a thing Page  120consisteth of matter and forme, which if it bee unknowne, the specificall essence is unknowne, and if the specificall essence be unknowne, how can it be ranked in his predicament under its pro∣per genus? What Papist soever therefore defineth Matrimonie, and putteth it under a Sacrament as the proper genus, Canus putteth the foole upon him take it off when you can.

To the nineteenth. [ 19] Vasquez giveth the Iesuits cause not so light a blow (as hee imagineth) in saying that where S. Austine calleth Matrimo∣nie a sacrament, hee taketh the word Sacrament in a large sense, and not in the strict and proper: for if S. Austine bee so to be understood, he held not Matrimonie a sacrament properly so called, but in a large sence onely, and if that were his judgement, we have a great advantage of our Ad∣versaries in the cause, for S. Austine carrieth a great stroake, not only because hee is held the a∣cutest of all the ancient Fathers, and father of all the Schoolemen: but especially, because the Pope in the Canon law professeth Augustinum sequimur in disputationibus, Wee follow for the most part, saith Pope Gelasius, S. Ierome in the interpretation of Scripture, S. Gregorie in matter of moralitie, but S. Austine in point of controversie. Yea but saith Flood, this is but Vasquez his pri∣vate and singular opinion concerning S. Austine. Neither doth the Knight otherwayes urge it then as the singular opinion of a singularly learned Iesuit enforced by evidence of truth, to give over Page  121their chiefest hold of antiquitie in this point the authoritie of S. Austine. Well, be it so saith Flood, Vasquez is so farre for you, yet we have an Oliver for a Rowland, Bellarmine for Vasquez; for this opinion of Vasquez, is contradicted by other Ca∣tholique Divines, and by Bellarmine in particular. Where is then the unitie our Adversaries so much bragge of? two of the greatest Champions of the Pope Vasquez and Bellarmine strive about S. Austine, and the one refelleth the reasons of the other, so that it seemeth our popish Divines are as ill resolved about the proofe of their doctrine, as I shewed before out of Canus, that they were in a wood concerning the doctrine it selfe. More∣over I adde, that though Bellarmine may goe in equipage with Vasquez: yet Vasquez against them more disparageth their cause, then Bellarmine for them helpeth it. For a testimonie from an ene∣mie is of more force for us, then the testimonie of a friend, or rather sworne vassall to the Roman Church can be for them.

To the twentieth. [ 20] Sithence signification is of the essence of the Sacrament, and Bellarmine will have this signification necessarily to containe in it three things, the Passion of Christ, sanctifying grace, and eternall life. And whereas farther he confesseth that the signification of these three things is most apparant in Baptisme and the Lords Supper. The Knight strongly concludeth out of him that our doctrine concerning two Sacra∣ments is more certaine and evident, then theirs Page  122concerning seven, and consequently that our be∣leefe is safer in this point then theirs. As for that which the Iesuit addeth out of Bellarmine, that the rest of the Sacraments signifie all these things at least implicitly were it true, yet wee had the better of the cause. For our two Sacraments, as it is confessed, signifie these things plainly and evi∣dently; theirs obscurely and implicitly; but in∣deed it is not true that they signifie or represent those things at all. For what representation is there betweene imposition of hands in orders, or joyning of hands in Matrimonie, or confessing sinnes in penance, or chrisme in Confirmation, or oylein Extreame Unction, and the Passion of Christ, and eternall life? What the Iesuit addeth for conclusion, that the rest of the Knights secti∣on is nothing but such foolish stuffe as hee is wont to talke, without rime or reason, needeth no other answer then this that the Knight indeed from p. 157. to 161. taketh an inventorie of a great deale of foolish stuffe, but it is theirs, not the Knights, to wit, that Christ satisfied the people with five loaves and two fishes which make seven, and that which Andrew said, there is a boy here which hath five loaves and two fishes, must be un∣derstood of the ranke of S. Peters successors,*and that which is added; make the people sit downe, signifieth that salvation must bee offered to them, by teaching them the seven Sacraments. Againe, there are seven Vertues, seven mortall sinnes, seven Planets, the Lord rested the seventh day, seven Page  123dayes thou shalt eate unleavened bread; Balak effered seven Bulls, and seven Rams; and in the Apocalips wee reade of seven Candlesticks, seven Seales, seven Trumpets, seven Angels: Ergo, there are seven Sacraments properly so called, or rather properly so proved.

Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? Are such argumemts the reasons of men, sobriae & vigilant is fidei, as S. Austine speaketh, are they not rather dreames of the seven Sleepers? or as Epictetus spake of arguments against the truth,*Haec sunt infernorum somniorum Phantasmata.

Concerning the Communion in both kindes. Spectacles, chap. 9. Section 5. a pag. 242. us{que} ad 259.

THe Knight in alledging the Coun∣cell of Constance touching Com∣munion, [ 1] in one kind translateth the Latine falsly and absurdly. I con∣fesse that under one kind only all and whole Christ, and the true Sa∣craments are received, as if the Councell had said, omnis & totus Christus, whereas the words are, totus at{que} integer Christus, that is, whole and en∣tire Christ.

In bringing this Decree, [ 2] hee hath brought a staffe Page  124to beate himselfe withall, for the non obstante which hee would joyne with Christs Institution in both kindes, as if the Councell forbid it in both kindes, notwithstanding Christ did so institute it, is not so joyned in the Councell, but otherwise thus; Though Christ did Institute this venerable Sacrament after supper, and administred it in both kinds, yet not∣withstanding this, the approved custome of the Church hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacrament is not to bee Consecrated after Supper, nor to bee received by the faithfull but fasting; which Decree I suppose the Knight will not con∣demne.

This was no new thing begun by that Councell, [ 3] but it being growne to bee a generall practise to com∣municate in one kind, which also from the beginning was somewhat practised, and certaine heretiques arising, and condemning the practise and beliefe of the whole Church; this Councell condemned them, and commanded the former custome to bee still re∣tained.

Though Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kindes, [ 4] yet it is lawfull to receive in one: neither doth the Councell decree any thing against Christs Precept by establishing the Communion in one kind, for Christ may institute a thing without comman∣ding it. For example, hee did institute Mariage, yet commanded not every man to marry.

The Councell of Trent doth not any way contra∣dict Christs institution or practise as the Knight would have it: [ 5] but inferreth only thus much, though Page  125Christ did institute and deliver the blessed Sacra∣ment to his Apostles in both kindes in the last Supper, yet is Christ contained whole and entire in one kind, and a true Sacrament received, wherein saith hee, I would faine see, what opposition the subtiltie of the Knights wit can find? what reason can hee give? why it may not stand with Christ his institution in both kinds, that he be whole under one, and if whole, why not also a true Sacrament?

The words, Drinke yee all of this, [ 6] and doe this in remembrance of mee were spoken and apper∣taine only to the Apostles, and in them to Priests, as appeareth more plainly by S. Mark, who sheweth all which our Srviour meant of when hee said, Drinke yee all of this, for saith S. Marke, and they did drinke all.

Though Christ at his last Supper did institute a Sacrament in both kindes, [ 7] and so gave it to his A∣postles: yet Christ might at some other time after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind; and some Fathers thinke hee did his two Disciples at Emmaus.

The Knight needeth not to produce ten or eleven Authours to prove it to have been the practise of the primitive Church, [ 8] to communicate in both kinds: for that would have beene granted him without all that labour: but hee should have proved that the practise was grounded upon some divine precept indispensable, or else it followeth not, but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practise in the use, and administration of the Sacrament.

Page  126

Bellarmine bringeth six severall Rites or pra∣ctises of the ancient Church which Protestants can∣not deny, [ 9] evidently convincing the frequent use of one kind.

The Nazarites among the first Christians in Ie∣rusalem did communicate in one kind, [ 10] for they were forbid to drinke wine, or even eate a grape or reisin.

The Knight in alleging Tapperus against the Communion in one kind, [ 11] leaveth out the principall verbe, and one halfe of the sentence answering the former, which of it selfe was imperfect, which was the Authours absolute judgement and determination for the whole sentence of Tapper, art. 16. is this, it were more convenient if wee regard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof to have the Communion under both kindes, then under one: for this were more agreeable to the Institution thereof, and to the integritie of a corporall refection, and the example of Christ; but in another consideration, to wit, of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament, and to the end wee may avoide all irreverence, it is lesse con∣venient, and no way expedient for the Church, that the Christian people should communicate in both kindes.

In the lawes of King Edward the sixt revived and confirmed by Queene Elizabeth, [ 12] it is ordained that the Communion bee delivered to the people un∣der both kindes with this exception, unlesse necessi∣tie otherwise require.

[ 13]

That it is not requisite that every article of faith Page  127have sufficient and expresse proofe of Scripture,* for as S. Ierome teacheth, although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting, the consent of the whole world on this side should have the force of a Precept.

The Hammer.

IN this Section the Iesuit beginneth merrily with a fiddle, but endeth sadly, and every where answereth sorily. For to omit his omissi∣on of some things that pincht him shrewdly, as namely, first that the Councell of Constance by reason the first Sessions judged the Councell above the Pope, is condemned, and rejected by the Councell of Florence and last Councell of Lateran; but for the last Sessions wherein the halfe Communion is e∣stablished contrarie to Christs precept, and holy in∣stitution, it is allowed by Pope Martine the fift, and rectived of all Catholiques; whereby it appeares that Papists are more tender of the Popes supremacie, then Christs honour; Secondly,* that Bellarmine saith, that it is not to be doubted; but that is best and sittest to bee practised that Christ hath done. Now it is evident out of Scriptures, and confessed by the Fathers in the Councell of Constance and Trent, that Christ instituted and administred the Sacrament in both kindes: Lastly, that the Papists in this point apparantly contradict themselves, for they require antiquity, universality, and consent, as Page  128the proper markes of Catholique doctrine, and yet confesse that in this the practise of their Church is contrarie to the practise of the Primitive Church, nor was it ever received in the true Church, till a∣bove a thousand yeares after Christ.* To let passe these his preteritions, all that hee saith in replie to other passages of the Knights may be dicotomi∣zed into idle cavils, and sophisticall evasions, as shall appeare by the examination of each parti∣cular,

To the first. The Iesuit as it should seeme tooke Ennius the Poet for his patterne, who as Horace observeth, Nunquam nisi potus ad arma prosiluit, &c. never undertooke the description of a warre, or set himselfe to write strong lines be∣fore hee had comforted his heart with a cup of strong liquour. For if the French wine had not assaulted his Capitoll, as the Frenchmen did some∣times the Roman: if a strong fume had not made his head so dizzie, that he thought all things be∣fore him went round, hee would never in so seri∣ous a subject as is the Sacrament of Christs blood use such light and comicall saracasmes as he doth; against this saith he, hee bringeth two pla∣ces of Scripture,*and the practise of the Primitive Church, and so concludeth the antiquitie and uni∣versalitie of his Church, this goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humfrey: if hee had a purpose to make sport to his reader in the merrie pin hee was set on, hee should rather have said you Creed Sir Humfrey goeth round with a crowd. But crowde Page  129or fiddle whether hee please to tearme the lear∣ned discourse of the Knight, I hope it will prove like Davids Harpe, and conjure the evill spirit out of the Iesuit. To fall upon the particulars in order, whereas in the first place hee chargeth the Knight with false and absurd translation of the Decree of the Councell, rendering totus Chri∣stus, all Christ, not whole Christ, and would make us beleeve that all can in no sense bee attri∣buted to Christ; hee forgot that text of the Apo∣stle that Christ is all in all. Surely it should seeme this Iesuit is descended from Pope Adrian, who was choaked with a fly, for what a silly fly choa∣keth him here? The Knight to avoid a tautolo∣gie in translating totus & integer Christus, whole and whole Christ, rendereth the word all and whole Christ, and what falsitie or absurditie is there in this? doth not every punie know that omnis in Latine, and all in English is often taken collectivè, as when wee say Lazarus was covered all over with sores, doe not the Papists themselves sometimes so render the word totus, as namely in those places, I have stretched my armes all the day long to a rebellious people? and all the day long have I beene punished, and all Scripture is given by di∣vine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righte∣onsnesse that the man of God may bee perfect, throughly furnished to all good workes: In which passages it is most evident that all is taken for whole, and so the best interpreters render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Page  130tota scriptura, that is the whole Scripture.

To the second. [ 2] The Knight in bringing the Decree of the Councell of Constance, hath not brought in a staffe to beate himselfe withall, but to beate all such Romish curres as barke at the light of the Sunne, I meane the cleare words of Christs institution,*Drinke you all of this. Yet saith that Councell to the Laitie, none of you drinke of this. If Christ had said in like manner, receive you the Communion after supper, we would ne∣ver receive it fasting. It is true that he instituted it the night he was betrayed after supper, which circumstance yet bindeth us not now to receive it at that time: but the argument no wayes fol∣lowes from the change of a circumstance to the change of a substantiall act: the Church may dispence with the one, not with the other. Wee argue not barely from the practise of Christ and his Apostles, but from their doctrine and pra∣ctise. What Christ did and taught, as S. Cyprian soundly collects, must bee perpetually observed in the Church: but he taught and practised the Communion in both kindes, fecit & docuit, hee both did so, and taught us so to doe; but for the circumstances of time, number of Communi∣cants, & gesture sitting or leaning, though at that time he used such circumstances: yet he cōmanded not us to use them, and therefore wee may admi∣nister the Sacrament at another time, to a greater or lesser number then twelve, we may receive it also with another gesture then Christ or his Ap∣stles Page  131used, because he no where tieth us to those circumstances, but wee may in no wise admini∣ster or receive it in one kind, because he comman∣deth us to communicate in both, saying, drinke ye all of this; and what though the Councell joyne not the word notwithstanding to Christs institu∣tion in both kindes, but to his administring after supper: yet this no way excuseth the Fathers in it from confronting Christ, and abrogating his commandement by their wicked Decree: for notwithstanding Christs command, drinke you all of this; that Councell by a countermaund forbiddeth any Priest under a great penaltie to exhort the people to communicate in both kindes, or to teach that they ought so to doe.

To the third. If the Iesuits forehead had not beene made of the same metall which hee wor∣shipeth in his images, hee would have blushed to utter so notorious an untruth contrary to the Re∣cords of all ages, and the confession of all the learned of his owne side. Never any before this Iesuit durst to say, that the halfe Communion was the beliefe, and practise of the whole Church before the Councell of Constance, for besides Salmeron, Arboreus, Aquinas, Tapperus, Alfonsus a Castro: the Councell of Constance, Bellarmine and Cassander alledged by the Knight,* I could adde Estius the Sorbonist, Ecchius the great adversarie of Luther, Suarez their accom∣plished Iesuit, Soto their acutest Schoole-man, and Gregorie de Valentia, who of all other hath most Page  132〈◊〉 laboured in this argument, all not only affir∣ming, but some of them also confirming that the Communion in both kindes was anciently, and universally administred to the people. It is well knowne that the Easterne Churches in Greece and Asia, and Southern in Africa, and Northerne in Muscovia have ever, and at this day doe admi∣nister the Communion to the Laitie in both kindes: and in the Westerne and Roman Church it selfe for a thousand yeares after Christ and more, the Sacrament was delivered in both kindes to all the members of Christs Church, which is manifest saith Cassander,*by innumerable testimonies of anci∣ent Writers, both Greeke and Latine. And when the new custome of communicating in one kinde began a little before the Councell of Constance,* it was impugned not by heretiques, as Flood would beare us in hand, but by good Catho∣liques, as Soto a man farre before Flood ingenu∣ously confesseth.

To the fourth. [ 4] Albeit I grant there is some difference betweene an institution, or constituti∣on, or command: yet our argument drawne from Christs institution in both kindes is of force a∣gainst the Romish halfe. Communion. For a command is, as the genus, and an Institution is as the species, every command is not an institution: but every institution is a command; for what is an institution, but a speciall order or appoint∣ment in matter of Ceremonie or Sacrament? was not the institution of Circumcision an expresse Page  133command to circumcise every male child? was not the institution of the Passeover a command for every familie to kill a Lambe, and eate it with sowre herbes? Was not the institution of Bap∣tisme a command to Baptise all Nations in the name of the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost? Was not the institution of the Lords Supper by words imperative, Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee, and drinke yee all of this? Yea but the Iesuit instanceth in Mariage, which we acknowledge to be instituted by God, yet not commanded. I an∣swer, all sacred Rites (and namely the ordination of Mariage) are injunctions and commands to the Church, or mankind in generall, though they bind not every particular person, but such onely as are qualified for them;* if crescite & multipli∣camini, bee rather a benediction upon Mariage, then a command to marrie, yet certainly those words used in the Institution of Mariage, therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall bee one stesh, containe da direct command not to every man simply I grant, but to every one that hath not the gift of conti∣nencie.* to avoide fornication, saith the Apostle, let every man have his owne wife, and let every wo∣man have her owne husband. And againe, if they cannot containe let them marry,*for it is better to marry then to burne.

To the fist. [ 5] There needs no subtiltie of wit to find out the opposition betweene the Decree of the Trent Councell and Christs institution; the Page  134dullest wit cannot but stumble upon it. For if whole Christ be received in either kind, why did Christ who doth nothing superfluously, institute the Sacrament in both kindes? If the Sacrament can no otherwise exhibit Christ unto us then by vertue of his Institution, how can wee be assured that whole Christ is communicated unto us, when we violate his institution administring the holy Communion but by halfes? the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it signifieth, but the bread signifieth Christs body not his blood: the wine signifieth his blood, not his bodie; there∣fore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his bo∣dy, the other his bloud. Againe, if Christ bee whole in either kinde, then a man might receive whole Christ in drinking of the cup only, though he eate not at all of the bread, and consequently a man may without sinne at the Lords board drinke only of the Consecrated cup, and not eate of the bread which yet no Papist to my know∣ledge ever durst affirme.

To the sixt. [ 6] This evasion of the Iesuit is ex∣ploded by Philip Morney,*& Chamierus tom. 4. resp. Bellar. & in D. F. his conference with Eve∣rard p. 256. and divers others. This may suffice for the present, for the overthrow of this gene∣rall answer of all Papists to the words of the in∣stitution, Drinke you all of this, viz. (that by all in S. Mathew and S. Marke, Priests only are to be un∣derstood.) First I note at this time the Apostles were not fully ordained Priests. For as yet Page  135Christ had not breathed on them, nor given them the power of remission of sinnes: next admit they were Priests, yet in the institution of this Sacrament they were non conficients, supplying the place of meere communicants, and therefore consequently whatsoever Christ commanded them, hee commanded all receivers after them. Thirdly, Christ commanded the same to drinke, to whom before hee said, Take, eate, this is my bo∣dy; but the former words, take, eate, are spoken to the Laye-people as well as Priests, therefore the words drinke you all of this, are spoken to them also,*those things which God hath joyned to∣gether let no man put asunder. Fourthly, I would faine know of our Adversaries when Christ saith, This is the cup of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes, who are those many? will they say Priests only? have the Laytie no sinnes, or no remission of sinnes by Christ bloud? if they have, as all professe they have, why do they forbid them that which Christ expresly commandeth them, saying, Drinke ye all of this, for it is shed for you and for many. All worthy communicants are to drinke Christs bloud for whom it was shed, thus much Christs reason importeth; but it was shed for the Laytie as well as the Clergie, they therefore are alike to drinke it. If the Laytie expect life from Christ, they must drinke his bloud as well as eate his flesh,*for except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, hee hath no life in him.Page  136Lastly,* when the Apostle enjoyneth all to exa∣mine themselves before they receive the holy Communion, I desire to bee informed by our Adversaries, whether this Precept of examinati∣on concerneth not the Laytie especially? I know they will say it doth, because the people most need examination, that they may confesse their sinnes, and receive absolution for them before they presume to communicate: let them then reade what followeth in the same verse, and so let them eate of that bread, and drinke of that Cup, let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup: the coherence of the members in this sentence inferreth, that as none are to be admitted without precedent exa∣mination: so that all who have examined them∣selves are to be admitted to the Lords table, both to eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup.

To the seventh. [ 7] There is no force at all in the in∣ference which the Iesuit would make from Christ his breaking of bread with the two Disciples at Emmaus, to prove the Communion in one kind, for neither is it likely Christ instituted any sup∣perafter his last Supper, neither was the place fit for a Communion being a common Inne: nei∣ther reade wee of any preparation on the Apo∣stles part, nor of any words of institution used then by Christ: neither could the Iesuit alledge any one Father, who saith that Christ at that time administred the Communion to those two Disci∣ples in bread only. For it is well knowne to all Page  137that are acquainted with the language of Canaan, that breaking of bread in Scripture by a Syneodo∣che is taken for making a meale, and it is very unlikely that the disciples travelling at that time of the yeare in so hot a countrey as Iudaea is, when they came to their Inne for a repast, should call for bread only and no drinke.

To the eighth. [ 8] Though the Iesuit make many a bravado here, and else-where: yet upon the matter in granting to the Knight that the generall practise of the primitive Church was to com∣municate in both kindes, he yeeldeth up the buck∣lers. For the maine scope of the Knight in this and other Sections is to prove the visibilitie of our reformed Church in former ages by the con∣fession of our Romish adversaries: this hee doth in the point of the Communion in both kindes abundantly in this Section, and the Iesuit cannot denie it; it followeth therefore that in this maine point of controversie betweene us and the Church of Rome, wee have antiquitie, universa∣litie, and eminent visibilitie, and the Roman Church none of all: whereby any understanding reader may see that the Knight hath already wonne the day; Yet for the greater confusion of the Iesuit I adde that what the primitive Church did uniformly, they received it from the Apo∣stles, and what the Apostles did joyntly, no doubt they did by the direction of the holy Ghost, according to our Lords will: and so their example amounteth to a Precept. Againe, the Page  138practise of the Catholique Church is the best expositour of Scripture, therefore the question being concerning the meaning of that text of Scripture, Drinke you all of this, whether they concerne the Laytie, or Clergie only, that must bee taken for the true exposition which the Ca∣tholique Church by a constant and vniforme practise hath allowed. Lastly, either this practise of the Catholique Church was grounded upon some divine Precept, or it is a meere will-wor∣ship which the Iesuit dare not say: if it be groun∣ded upon any divine precept undoubtedly upon this, Drinke yee all of this, that is, as well Mini∣sters as Laye people, as Paschasius commenteth up∣on the words.

To the ninth. [ 9] The arguments of Bellarmine drawne from six ancient Rites to prove the fre∣quent use of Communion in one kind are an∣swered at large by Philip Morney, and Chamierus, in the places above mentioned, and they are every one of them retorted against Bellarmine himselfe by D. F. in his booke intituled the Grand sacri∣ledge, cap. 14. accipe quomode das si tibi machera est, & nobis vervina est, if it be sufficient for him to ob∣ject by proxe, why may not we answer by proxe?

To the tenth. [ 10] To the instance in the Naza∣rites, I answer first, that I read of no other Na∣zarites since Christs time in the writings of the ancient Fathers, then certaine Heretiques so tear∣med of the sect of Ebionites, who went about to cloath the Gospell with the beggarly rudiments Page  139of the Law, upon whom S. Austine passeth this verdict,*that whilest they laboured to bee both Iewes and Christians, they became neither Iewes nor Christians, but a sect of heretiques, partly judai∣zing, partly Christianizing. Secondly, if there were any Nazarites that sincerely imbraced the Gospell, questionlesse they communicated in both kindes: for though they had vowed against drinking of wine, yet either their Vow was to be understood of drinking it civilly not sacramen∣tally: for their corporall refection, not for their spirituall repast: or if their vow were absolutely against wine, yet Christs command, Drinke yee all of this, implied a dispensation for their Vow in that case. A private vow of any man must give place to a publike command of God: even now a dayes those who upon any great distemper of body or mind by wine, vow to abstaine from it, yet make no scruple of conscience to take a small quantitie of it physically for the recoverie of their health: how much more ought they to doe so notwithstanding their vow, if it bee pre∣scribed by the heavenly physician for the cure and salvation of their soules?

To the eleventh. [ 11] Concerning Tapperus the Knight no way misquoteth him though hee leave out some passges in him; for the truth is Tappe∣rus halteth betweene two opinions, he speaketh some words plainly in the language of Canaan, and o∣thers hee lispeth in the language of Ashdod, where he speaketh in the language of Canaan, as Page  140hee doth most plainly in those his words (if wee regard the Sacrament and perfection thereof, and the integritie of corporall refection, and the exam∣ple of Christ, it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kindes) the Knight hearke∣neth to him: but where hee lispeth in the language of Ashdod, saying, (that in consideration of the reverence due to this Sacrament it is ill and incon∣venient to communicate in both kindes) the Knight had reason to turne a deafe eare to him, for it is cosin germane to blasphemie to say that is ill and inconvenient, which Christ and his Apo∣stles, and the whole Church in all places for more then a thousand yeares practised: the Knight might well say to Tapperus in the words of him in the Poet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will be sober with you, but I will not runne madde with you.

To the twelfth. [ 12] For the statute made in the dayes of that Phoenix of his age, King Edward the sixt, the meaning is, unlesse among the people there bee some that either by a naturall antipa∣thie to wine or other infirmitie, cannot receive the Sacraments in both kindes, it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kindes, ces∣sante ferreâ necessitate obtinet haec aurea regula, that all receive the whole Sacrament in which the Statute, and the articles of Religion, published first in the reigne of this blessed Prince, fully ac∣cord; For so wee reade Article the thirtieth, both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordi∣nance Page  141and command ought to bee ministred to all Christian people alike.

To the thirteenth. [ 13] That every article of faith ought to have sufficient proofe out of Scripture is proved by innumerable testimonies of antiqui∣tie produced by Philip Morney in his Preface to his booke De Eucharistia, Bilson of Supremacie part the fourth Abbot against Bishop, chapter the seventh; and Laurentius de disp. Theolog: Neither doth S. Ierome any way contradict them or us, for wee beleeve that the consent of the whole Christian Church is an infallible argument of truth. Albeit wee teach that any particular Church, as namely the Roman or the French, or the Dutch or the Greeke Church may erre: yet we denie that the catholique Church universally hath ever erred, or can erre in matter of faith ne∣cessarie to salvation: and further I adde for con∣clusion, that as the words of S. Ierome alledged by the Iesuit make nothing against us, so if they bee applied to our present subject they make most strongly against him, being propounded after this manner. Although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kindes, (which is not so) yet the consent of the whole world, on this side testified by their uniforme practise confessed by Papists them∣selves, ought to have the force of a divine Pre∣cept, and so there would bee an end not only of this Section as the Iesuit speaketh, but of this whole Controversie.

Page  142

Concerning Prayer in an un∣knowne tongue. Spectacles, Sect. 6. a pag. 259. us{que} ad 283.

THe Knight falsly chargeth the Councell of Trent with approving prayer in the vulgar tongue: [ 1] for though the Councell saith that the Masse containeth great instruction, yet it doth not say that it ought to bee in the vulgar tongue: nay contrarily it pronoun∣ceth an anathema against any whosoever shall say that the Masse ought to bee celebrated in the vulgar tongue.

It hath beene the generall practise and custome in the Church of God, [ 2] of having the Masse, and the publike office in Latine, all over the Latine and Westerne Church, both in Italie, Spaine, France, Germanie, England, Africa, and all other places, and so likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Ea∣sterne Church, though it were as large in extent, and had as much varietie of languages in it as the Latine Church hath.

Vniformitie which is fit to be used in such things and unitie of the Catholique Church is excellently declared, [ 3] and also much maintained by this unitie of language in the Church office.

Page  143

The use of vulgar tongues in the Masse or Church office would cause not only great confusion, [ 4] but breed an infinite number of errours by many severall translations.

The use of vulgar language in such things would breed a great contempt of sacred things, [ 5] with pro∣phanenesse and irreligiositie, besides the danger of heresie, which commeth no way sooner then by mis∣understanding of holy Scripture.

The place of Scripture alledged by the Knight concerning announcing our Lords death, [ 6] is not un∣derstood by words but by deeds, as is most plaine by the circumstances.

The text of S. Paul where he asketh how hee that understandeth not the prayers shall say Amen, [ 7] is not of the publike prayers of the Church which no man can doubt of, either for the truth or goodnesse, and therefore he may confidently say Amen to them, but of private prayers made by private and Laye men extempore in an unknowne tongue.

Haymo requireth not that all that are present at Divine service should understand, [ 8] but only that he that supplieth the place of the idiot or Laye-man in answering for the people, should bee so farre able to understand, as to answer Amen at the end of every prayer.

Iustinian the Emperour is ordinarily taxed for taking too much upon him in Ecclesiasticall matters: [ 9] yet all that hee saith may bee well maintained with∣out prejudice to the present practise of the Roman Church, for in the Decree alledged by the Knight,Page  144hee requireth nothing more, but that Bishops and Priests should pronounce distinctly and clearely that which according to the custome of the Easterne Church was to bee spoken aloud.

The Canon law capite quoniam in pleris{que} [ 10] re∣quireth only that where divers Nations are mingled, that the Bishop of the Citie should substitute one in his roome to celebrate the divine Office, and admini∣ster the Sacraments according to their ownerites and language: for indeed it is a matter of necessitie in administration of some Sacraments to use the vul∣gar language, as in Mariage and Penance, but not so of other things.

Lyra, [ 11] Belithus, Gretzer, Harding, Cassander, and the rest of the Authours quoted by the Knight say indeed, that in the beginning, Prayers were in the vulgar tongue, but the reason was because those three holy languages, Hebrew, Greeke, and La∣tine dedicated on the crosse of Christ, were then most vulgar, none of them speake a word of any Precept.

There is no precept in the Scripture commanding prayers in a knowne tongue, [ 12] or forbidding in an unknowne, whose authority or example can you bring for your selfe in this matter? name him if you can.

It was more needfull in the Primitive Church that the people should understand, [ 13] because they were to answer the Priest, which now is not so as Bellarmine noteth, because that belongs only to the Clarke.

That the Knight contradicteth himselfe in one place, [ 14] saying That the alteration of the Church ser∣vice was occasioned by certaine Shepheards, who in Page  145the dayes of Honorius having learned the words of Consecration by heart, pronounced them over their Bread and Wine in the fields, and thereby Transubstantiated them into flesh and bloud, and for this prophane abuse were strucken dead by the hand of God. In another place hee saith, that the alteration was brought in by Pope Vitalian about the year 666. which cannot well agree with his former observation, for Honorius the first was the sixt Pope before Vitalian, by which computation the alte∣ration must have beene fourescore, or a hundred yeares before Vitalian.

The Hammer.

AMong the knowne errours of the Roman Church, there is none more grosse or palpably absurd, then this concerning Prayers in an unknowne tongue; For as Velleius the Epicure in Tully, goeth about to maintaine by reason that it had beene better a man had not beene indued with reason then with it: so in this argument our Adversaries in good earnest strive cum ratione insanire, to prove by reasons, that it is best to exhibit to God an unreasonable service to speake understandingly for speech without un∣derstanding, and that in the publike worship of God: to perswade civill men that in their prayers the Priest ought to bee a Barbarian to the people, and the people to the Priest; In a word, to enforce Page  146the people instead of offering the calves of their lippes to God, to offer to him the lippes of calves bel∣lowing without understanding. The Knight therefore upon very just reason taketh the Church of Rome to taske for this unsufferable abuse, and undeniable aberration from the Primi¦tive, and catholique Church. Wherein he con∣foundeth all Papists not only with pregnant testi∣monies of Scripture, and ancient Fathers, but al∣so with the confession of the learnedest of their side. Yea, but Flood the Iesuit maketh great brags that he will reckon with him for it; and reckon he doth according to his best skill in Arithmeticke, but to halves, for the Knight presseth the Roma∣nists with the historie of the Councell of Trent, and the contradictions of their Bishops there, and other passages of moment which the Iesuit li∣sently passeth by, being willing to charge him∣selfe with no more then he thought he was faire∣ly able to put off. What he saith either by way of objection against the practise of the reformed Churches, or in answer to our arguments shall be particularly discussed in my replie to his par∣ticular heads.

To the first. [ 1] The Knight saith not that the Councell of Trent approveth in expresse and di∣rect words the practise of our Church,* but that by consequence it doth so in saying the Masse containeth great instruction for the common people, and commanding that the Masse Priest, or some other should frequently expound or declare unto Page  147them the mysteries of the Masse: for if the Masse containe as the Councell saith great instruction for the people, and for that end ought to bee ex∣pounded unto them, by the same reason it ought to be translated into the mother-tongue, and so read unto them; Unlesse they will say that the people receive as much instruction form that they understand not, as from that they under∣stand. Which none will say but he that were a degree below S. Pauls idiot.* Doubtless that which was written and appointed to bee read before the people for their instruction, and edification, ought to be delivered unto them in a language which they understand: but the Masse was writ∣ten and appointed to beeread before the people for their edification and instruction (as the Councell agnizeth) therefore it ought to be ce∣lebrated in a knowne tongue. This reason alone prevailed so far with two Roman Cardinals, Ca∣jetan and Contarenus, that they subscribed to the doctrine of the reformed Church in this point. The former his subscription is in these words, It were better for the edification of the Church, that the publique prayers which are made in the audi∣ence of the people should bee said in a tongue com∣mon to the Priest and people, then that they should bee said in Latine. The other in these words, The people that prayeth in an unknowne tongue wanteth that fruit which they might reape, if they under∣stood those things which they pronounce with their lips, for they would in a speciall manner apply their Page  148mind to God, that they might obtaine of him those things which they pray for especially, and they would bee more edified by a godly feeling of those prayers which they utter with their mouth.

To the second. [ 2] The generall practise and cu∣stome of the Westerne Church, having their publike service in Latine, and of the Easterne Churches, having their service in Greeke, maketh for us, not against us. For the Latine service was generally understood in the Westerne Church, and the Greeke in the Easterne; when and where it was not so generally understood they had their service in their Mother-tongue, as namely among the Syrians, Armenians, Russians, Egyptians, Ae∣thiopians. While the Roman Empire flourished, and the Imperiall lawes bare the sway, as namely in It alie, Spaine, France, Germanie, England, A∣frica, and wheresoever the divine service was ce∣lebrated in the Latine tongue, the people gene∣rally understood the Latine. If the Iesuit speake of later times after the inundation of Gothes and Vandals, when the Latine tongue was corrupted and degenerated into severall languages, as Itali∣an, Spanish, and French, in such sort, that the people in those parts underdood not the Latine: God stirred up in these Westerne parts many re∣ligious and learned men, who turned the Bible, and the common prayers into the vul∣gar tongue, and the Bishops of Rome were very much to blame, who commanded not the like to be done throughout all their jurisdiction, and it Page  149is worth the observation that Irenaeus teacheth,* that the number 666. containeth the name latinus, and that in that very yeare of our Lord Pope Vi∣talian commanded the Latine service generally to be received in the Westerne Church, though at that time in most parts few of the people un∣derstood it.

To the third. We are not so much to regard uniformitie in the Church. service, as conformi∣tie to the will and word of God, which requireth that all things in the Church bee done to edification,*that we pray with the spirit, and with understan∣ding also, that the people joyne with the Priest in all parts, as well prayers as giving of thankes and te∣stfie it by saying Amen, Which cannot be done if prayers be said in a tongue which people under∣stand not. Moreover, as diversitie of instru∣mentstuned together marreth not the musicke, but maketh it sweeter: so diversitie of languages, in which the same prayers are said, breeds no de∣formitie at all, but uniformitie rather. Sith it is not the different sound of words, but of sense that makes a difference either in the beliefe or practice of the Church. There was never more unitie then in the Apostles time,*when all the be leevers were of one mind yet then they praised God in divers languages,*Parthians and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Indaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Lybia, about Cyrene and strangers of Rome, Iewes Page  150and Proselites, Creets and Arabians, wee doe heare them speake in our tongues the wonderfull workes of God.

To the fourth, [ 4] The diversitie of translations either of the Scriptures or the Church office breedeth no inconvenience at all, provided care betaken that the translations bee revised by the learned, and licenced by authoritie: nay on the contrarie the Church reapeth much benefit by it for languages have beene therby improved, and the Scriptures much opened. For oftentimes that which is obscure in the originall, is cleared in a good translation. An unknowne tongue is like a vaile before a beautifull picture, or a filme before the eye, which by a good translation is taken a∣away. If it were either unlawfull or inconveni∣ent to translate the holy Scriptures, or choyce parts of them in the Church Liturgie into vulgar languages; why did Severus translate them into the Syrian, S. Ierome into the Dalmatian, S. Chry∣sostome into the Armenian, Vlphila into the Gothi∣an, Methodius into the Slavonian? Bede into the British, and the Divines of Doway and Rhemes of late into the English?* Nay, why did the Pope himselfe signe and subscribe unto the Petition of Cyrill, and Methodius Monkes sent to convert the flaves, and Dalmatians who in behalfe of their Converts, desired of his holinesse, that he would give leave to say service unto them in the Slavo∣nian tongue, which the Pope consented unto up∣on their much pressing him with that text of holy Page  151Scripture,*Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord, and let every tongue confesse unto him.

To the fift. [ 5] If there were any force in the Ie∣suits reason at all, it would prove that neither the Scriptures of the Old Testament should have beene delivered to the Iewes in the Hebrew, nor the New Testament to the Greekes in the Greek. For Hebrew was then the vulgar tongue of the Iewes, and the Greeke to the Gentiles, yet wee find that neither the writing the Old Testament in the Hebrew, nor the New in the Greeke, which were then the vulgar languages to those people, bred any contempt of sacred things with prophanesse and irreligiousnesse, but the cleane contrarie effects. The use of Scripture in a vulgar tongue is not the cause why any dise∣steeme or undervalew it, but want of instruction in heavenly mysteries, and carelesse and superfi∣ciall reading without searching into the bottome of the spirituall meaning, where Orient Pearles lie. A counrerfeit stone if it bee often handled is discovered to be false, and thereby looseth its va∣lew, whereas a rich Diamond though it be worne every day on the finger, loseth nothing of the price, or valew of it. If the publike use of Scrip∣tures would have derogated any thing from the worth and valew of it, God would never have commanded the children of Israel to rehearse the booke of the Law continually to their children,*to talke of it when they tarried in their house, and when they walked in the way, when they lay downe, Page  152and when they rose up, to bind the words of the law for a signe upon their hand, and as frontlets between their eyes to write them upon the posts of the house, and upon the gates. Worldly wise men seeke to improve their knowledge by concealing it, or at least impropriating it to some few: but God con∣trariwise valeweth his wisdome by making it common. Earthly commodities the rarer the dearer, but heavenly Iewels the more common they are, the more pretious: of other liquour the lesse wee tast, the more we thirst after it, but hea∣venly wisedome thus speaketh of her selfe, Hee that drinketh of me, the more he drinketh the more hee shall thirst. As the comfortable beames of the Sun which shineth daily upon us are not lesse valewed, then the raies of those starres that sel∣dome appeare in our horizon: so the word of God which is the light of our understanding issu∣ing from the Sunne of righteousnesse loseth no∣thing of the reverend estimation, and religious respect due unto it by the frequent irradiation thereof at the preaching and reading of Scrip∣ture, nay it gaineth rather with all hearers in whom there is any sparke of grace. As for dan∣ger of heresie,* indeed Claudius Espenceus wri∣teth, that a friend of his in Italie told him, that in that countrey they made shie of reading Scrip∣ture, for feare of being made heretiques thereby, but by heretiques hee meaneth such as S. Paul was, who after the way which they call heresie wor∣ship the God of their Fathers,*beleeving all things Page  153which are written in the Law and the Prophets, for otherwise if heresie bee taken in the proper sence for erroneous doctrine in point of faith, it is as absurd to say, that the stequent use of Scriptures is a cause or occasion to bring men into heresie, as that the often taking of a sovereigne antidote a∣gainst poyson, is the ready meanes to poyson a man.* S. Chrysostome in his Homilie de Lazaro ex∣horteth all his Christian hearers to the frequent reading of Scriptures, as a speciall meanes to preserve them from errours and heresies. For all errours in point of faith arise from the ignorance of Scriptures, as our Saviour teacheth the Sadu∣ces, saying, Yee erre, not knowing the Scriptures. Assuredly there is lesse danger of falling into heresie by reading Scriptures, then any other booke whatsoever, partly because they alone are free from all possibilitie of errour, partly because God promiseth a blessing to those that reade and meditate on them: yet our Adversaries suffer all other bookes to bee translated out of the learned Languages into the vulgar, only they forbid the translation and publike use of the Scriptures, which containe in them most wholsome receipts, not only against all the maladies of the will, but of the understanding also: not onely against all morallvices, but also all intellectuall errours in matters of faith which wee call heresies.

To the sixt. Had the Iesuit but an ounce of di∣scretion and common understanding hee would never translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to announce, which is Page  154no English word at all, neither is hee of sufficient authoritie to coyne new words at Doway or Saint Omers, and make them currant in England. For the matter it selfe it is false which hee saith, that the Actions at the Lords Supper without the words shew forth, or as he speaketh, announce the death of our Lord, for Bread is broken, and Wine poured out at common meales, yet our Lords death is not thereby declared: both must concurre, mysterious rites, and sacred formes of words lively to present Christs death. The Knights argument therefore standeth firme. The Sacraments ought so to bee celebrated, that by them the Lords death might bee shewed forth: but it cannot be shewed forth, unlesse the Evan∣gelicall storie, and especially the words of the In∣stitution be pronounced in a language that may be understood. For to speake Latine to the peo∣ple that understand it not, is surdo narrare fabu∣lam, to tell a tale to a deafe man, or to set a beau∣tifull picture before him that is blind, or in the Knights phrase to speake to a wall; at which not∣withstanding the Iesuit ridiculously carpeth, say∣ing, I never heard before, that it was all one to speake Latine, and to speake to a wall, were hee ac∣cording to our English proverbe as wise as a wall, hee could not but understand what was the Knights meaning, to wit, that to speake Latine prayers and exhortations, as Papists doe at their Masse to those who understand them not, is no better then to speake to so many walls, when the Page  155Apostle touching upon the same string the Knight doth,* tearmeth the uttering words in an unknowne tongue, as speaking into the ayre; This Iesuit in the spirit of Lucian might in like man∣ner have jeared at the Apostle, saying, I never heard that to speake in an unknowne tongue, bee it Greeke, Latine, or Hebrew, is to speake to the ayre. The meaning of both phrases, to speake to a wall, and to speake into the ayre, is all one to lose a mans breath to speake idlely and unprofitably, or to no end and purpose, when no man is the better for it, as the Iesuit afterwards confesseth, saying, The other reason from the Apostle is, that those which heare a prayer in a strange language, are nothing the better for it, nor can say Amen unto it. What then can the common people bee the better for hearing popish Mattens or even-song, which are chaunted in Latine, a language which they un∣derstand not?

To the seventh. [ 7] Admit the Apostle in that place spake not of publike prayers, but rather of private extemporarie devotion: yet the reasons he there useth against prayer in an unknowne tongue, are as forcible against publike as private ptayers. For if wee may not pray without un∣derstanding, or speake into the ayre in our private devotions, much lesse in our publike. But the truth is, the Apostle speaketh evidently of pub∣like prayers, and all the parts thereof; first of pe∣titions v. 15. secondly, of giving of thanks v. 17. thirdly, of prophecying and interpreting of Page  156Scriptutes v. 4. fourthly, of singing Psalmes v. 15. and all this when the whole Church bee come together in one place v. 23. Moreover, he speaketh of prayers made in the Church, v. 19. of the edification of others, v. 12.26. and of blessings also wherein the people are to joyne with the Priest v. 16. and what can such prayers, benedictions, hymnes, and thankes-givings bee other then parte of the publike Liturgie in the Church in those dayes? Yea, but saith the Iesuit, hee cannot speake of the publike prayers of the Church which no man can doubt either for the truth or goodnesse of them, and therefore hee may confi∣dently say Amen to them, though they bee uttered in an unknowne tongue. I answer, that the Apostle here speaketh not of confidently saying Amen, but understandingly saying it, which no man can doe, who is utterly ignorant of the tongue in which the Priest prayeth.* And howsoever none of the coliers implicite circnlar faith can make any doubt of the truth or goodnesse of the prayers said in the Masse: yet those whose eyes are not put out with the Romish coale dust, may very well doubt of them; first they may well doubt whether the Church of Rome which appointeth them may not erre as other Churches have done, especially considering what the Apostle speaketh expresly of that Church,*that if shee continued not in her goodnesse, shee should be cut off. Second∣ly, hee may doubt whether all those corruptions and abuses which the Fathers in the Councell of Page  157Trent complaine to have crept into their Masse are reformed. Thirdly, he may doubt whether the Priests booke may not bee some-where false printed. Lastly, he may doubt whether the Priest alwayes reades true; surely that Priest who bap∣tized a child, in nomine patria filia, & spiritua sancta; and another who read in the Doxologie glia pni: flo: & spui sco scutrat in primpo scla sclo∣rum, Amen, said Masse by rote, and could not have skill of brachygraphy, nor well spell La∣tine, and can no man then doubt of the truth and goodnesse of any of the prayers that are said by your Masse-priests?

To the eighth. [ 8] The shaft which the Knight draweth out of Haymo his quiver, flieth home. For first he expresly teacheth that S. Paul speaketh of publike prayers,* and among other reasons used by the Apostle against the conceiving of prayers in an unknowne tongue, hee insisteth upon that v. 16. when thou shalt blesse with the spirit, how shall hee that occupieth the Roome of the unlearned say Amen at the giving of thankes, seeing he un∣derstandeth not what thou sayest? adding if one knoweth that onely tongue wherein hee was borne and bred; if such an one stand by thee whilest thou dost solemnly celebrate the mysterie of the Masse, or make a Sermon, or give a blessing, how shall hee say Amen at thy blessing, when hee knoweth not what thou sayest? for asmuch as hee understanding none Page  158but his mothers tengue, hee cannot tell what thou speakest in that strange and barbarous tongue. Hereunto the Iesuit answereth, that if wee take Haymo altogether, wee shall find hee doth not re∣quire, that all that are by, shall understand, but that hee that supplieth the place of the idiot, or laye-man in answering for the people shall under∣stand. An answer befitting an idiot indeed, for doth not S. Paul,* and after him Haymo speake indefinitly of any that occupie the place of the unlearned, or standeth by at Service or Sermon in an unknowne tongue? or is it lesse absurd for any other man to be present at a prayer which he understandeth not, then for a Parish-Clarke whom alone hee will have here to be understood. Who is very much beholding to him for be∣stowing the name of idiot upon him, and truly such a Clarke as the Iesuit here defineth, may ve∣ry well take the idiot in the worst sence to him∣selfe. For he requireth no more in a Clarke then that hee understand the Service so farre,*as to bee able to answer Amen. But it seemeth the Iesuit tooke his holy orders per saltum, and skipt over the Clarke. For if hee had well considered what belongs to the Clarkes office, he should find that he hath more in his part then to say only Amen; for in all ancient and later Liturgies that I have seene, many short sentences or responds are to be said by him, as namely Christe eleeson & cumspi∣ritn tuo, & habemus ad Dominum, and the like, neither can hee say Amen to any prayer in the Page  159Apostles sence, unlesse hee perfectly understand it: for to say Amen, is not only to utter the word which a Parret or Popenjay may doe, but to joyne in prayer with the Priest, and to give his assent to every clause.

To the ninth. [ 9] The Iesuits answer to Iustinian is lame on both feet. For whereas hee taxeth him for taking too much upon him, it will appeare to any who peruseth the Code & Digests, that hee ta∣keth no more upon him then God commendeth to Princes, to wit, the custodie of both tables: he did no more then S. Austine affirmeth appertaineth to Christian Kings, to command those things that are just and honest not only in civill affaires, but also in matters of religion; for what he did, hee had ma∣ny excellent presidents before him in David, Sa∣lomon, Hezekiah, and Iosiah, Kings of Iudah; and Constantine and Theodosius, and other Chri∣stian Emperours, as is declared at large by B. Bil∣son in his defence of the oath of supremacre, and Doctor Crakenthorpe in his most learned Apolo∣gie of this Emperour. Next what hee saith that the Decree of this religious Emperour may well stand with the present practise of the Roman Church is most false.* For the words of the Empe∣rour are generall, commanding all Bishops and Priests to celebrate the sacred oblation of the Lords Supper, and prayer used in Baptisme, not in secret, but with a lowd and cleare voyce, that the mindes of the hearers might bee stirred up with more devotion, to expresse the prayses of Page  160God. Now I would faine know to what end all Bishops and Priests are commanded to pro∣nounce their words clearely and distinctly, both at the administration of Baptisme, and the Lords Supper; but that their hearers might undetstand what they say, and bee affected with those things they heare; which cannot beif the Priest speak to them in an unknown tong? For how can the lowd pronouncing of words in a strange language stirre up the devotion of the people to praise God for his benefits, which the Emperour here requireth under a great penaltie, saying? Let the Bishops and Priests know that if they neglect to doe according to our princely command, they shall yeeld an account in the dreadfull judgement of the great God for it, and wee having information of them will not leave them unpunished.

To the tenth. [ 10] After the Imperiall Decree the Knight alledgeth a text out of the Canon law, not to shew his skill in both lawes, as the Iesuit would have it, but to demonstrate that the pra∣ctise of the Roman Church in this point of pray∣er in an unknowne tongue, is against all law both Ecclesiasticall and civill,* and that the walls of the Romish Babell are battered by her owne canons; for though the Decree of Pope Gregorie were made upon a speciall occasion: yet it is grounded upon this generall rule, that Service and Sacraments must bee said and administred to the people in a language they understand, which the Iesuit him∣selfe confesseth in part, saying, that it is a matter Page  161of necessitie in the administration of some Sacra∣ments to use the vulgar tongue, as in Mariage and Penance; as for the Councell of Lateran, and the Pope in his Decree, they speake indefinitely of holy Service and Sacraments, and the Logitians rule is that indefinite propositions in materia ne∣cessaria are to be taken for universals, and by the same reason, which the Iesuit alledgeth for Pe∣nance and Mariage to be celebrated in a knowne tongue wee may conclude, that Baptisme also, and the Lords Supper ought to bee so celebrated. For in both, questions are put to the people, to the god fathers in the one, and communicants in the other, and answers are expected from them.

To the eleventh. [ 11] The Iesuit is like them taxed by the Apostle who knew not what they spake, nor whereof they affirme. Our question is not, whether divine Service ought alwayes to bee said in the mother tongue, for wee our selves doe o∣ther wayes in divers Colledges: but the point in controversie is, whether the service ought al∣wayes to besaid in a tongue understood by those that are present: this all the Authours alledged by the Knight affirme, and therefore they make for us, and assuredly if for seven or 800 yeares the publike prayers of the Church were offered to God in a language understood by the people, as is confessed: questionlesse in many places the prayers were turned into vulgar languages. For it cannot be imagined that all the people in the Christian world before Pope Vitalians time un∣derstood Page  162Hebrew,* Greeke, or Latine, neither is it a point much materiall, whether the Authours alledged by the Knight speake of any Precept of praying in a knowne tongue or not, it is sufficient, that they confesse that it was the generall practice of the Primitive Church, to performe their de∣votions in the vulgar tongue. For certainly what they generally practised in their divine Service, they thought to be fittest and most agreeable to Gods commandement. If wee had nothing but their practise for us, it alone would prove the vi∣sibilitie of our Church in this maine point, wherein wee stand at a bay with the Roman Church; but the truth is, though the Iesuit would bee loath to heare it, his owne witnesses Cassan∣der, Belithus, Waldensis, and Aquinas speake home to the point even of a Precept; the words of Cassander are, the Canonicall prayers, and especial∣ly the words of Consecration of the body and blood of our Lord; the Ancients did so read that all the people might understand it and say Amen according to the precept intimated by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 16. The words of Belithus are, that in the Primi∣tive Church it was forbidden that any should speake with tongues, unlesse there were some to interpret; for what saith hee, should speaking availe without understanding? Waldensis saith more then that, in the Apostles time, the giving of thankes was in a knowne tongue, he confirmeth the practise with a reason, saying, There was reason it should bee so, because in those times not only the Priests, but the Page  163people also were wont to answer Amen. Aquinas go∣eth a step farther, that it was madnesse in the Primi∣tive Church for a man to have prayed in an un∣knowne tongue, because then the people were rude and ignorant in Ecclesiasticall rites. Now if the Iesuit thinke that it was not prohibited in the A∣postles time, to doe any madde act in time of di∣vine Service, he himselfe is bound for the Anti∣cyrae. Now for that the Iesuit addeth for the im∣bellishing of his former answer, that none of the vulgar languages but the three learned, to wit, the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, were Dedica∣ted on the crosse of Christ, and consequently that they being the best and perfectest of all lan∣guages were fittest for divine Service to be said in them: it is more plausible then substantiall. For though I grant that every devout soule so affect∣eth the person of our Lord and Saviour, that shee loveth the very ground hee trod upon, and ho∣noureth those languages above all other in which his titles were proclaimed, for the greater ad∣vancement of his kingdome: yet the reason hol∣deth not in our present case. For though a gol∣den key bee simply better then a key of iron, yet a key of iron which will open to us a casket of most pretious Iewells, is better for that use then a key of gold which will not open the lock. Admit the originall languages of Greeke and Hebrew are simply perfecter, and better then any other which are derivatives from them, yet the Mother-tongue, or vulgar language, is better and fitter Page  164for the congregation in time of divine Service, be∣cause it answereth the wards of their understanding, and openeth to their capacity the Divine mysteries then celebrated, which the learned languages cannot doe. As for Pilats writing over the Crosse, it is certaine he had no end therein to honour the three Languages, with this title: but to dishonour our Saviour thereby, and put a scorne upon him; and therefore that inscription in the three lan∣guages was rather a pollution then a Dedication of those tongues. If Pilats action herein bee of any force it maketh rather against then for our Adversaries. For Pilat therefore commanded the title to be written in those three languages, that it might be understood of all, or the greater part of those that then were at Ierusalem. By which reason people of divers languages ought to have their mysteries (for so the Iesuit calleth this title) celebrated in their owne severall lan∣gurges.* S. Hilarie who is alledged by Baylie the Iesuit for the consecration of these tongues, nei∣ther saith that these tongues were consecrated by that inscription, not that Christs kingdome is to be proclaimed in them only. His words are in these three languages, especially the mysterie of Gods will, and the expectation of his blessed kingdome is preached; and hence it was that Pilat wrote our Lord Iesus Christ King of the Iewes in those three tongues. This testimonie cutteth the throate of our Adversaries, for the adverbe maximè or chiefly implieth that the mysteries of Christs Page  165kingdome were to be preached in other tongues, though in these especially, because these were then, and are some of them at this day most ge∣nerally knowne and understood.*Lyra and S. Ie∣rome harpe upon this string, God would have saith Lyra, that the cause of Christs death should bee written in divers tongues that every tongue might declare the trecherie of the Iewes, and which marreth all the Iesuits musick, the Popes Diapa∣son soundeth out the same note, for so wee reade in Bope Iohns Epistle to the King of Moravia, we commend the Slavonian letters found out by Con∣stantine the Philosopher, whereby those of that coun∣trey set forth the due prayses of God, and we com∣mand that the preaching and workes of Christ our God bee declared in them, for we are admonished by the Divine authoritie which commandeth, saying, Prayse the Lord all yee Gentiles, to prayse the Lord not in three tongues only, but in all, for hee who made the three principall languages, Hebrew, Greeke and Latine; hee created also all other for his glorie.

Page  166

To the twelfth. To this insolent interrogation of the Iesuit wee answer, that in generall, prayer in an unknowne tongue is commanded in all those texts of Scripture, which require us to come neere unto God, and pray unto him with our heart. For by the heart the understanding as well as the will and affections are meants, as ap∣peareth by that prayer of Solomon, Da mihi cor intelligens? in particular and expresse words it is commanded in the 1 Cor. 14. chapter through the whole, out of which wee thus argue, if it be bet∣ter in the Church to speake five words with un∣derstanding, that by our voyce wee may teach others, then a thousand words in an unknowne tongue: then certainly the publike Service of the Church ought to be in a knowne tongue; but it is better in the Church to speake five words with un∣derstanding to instruct others thereby, then a thou∣sand words in an unknowne tongue, v. 19. There∣fore the publike Service of the Church ought to bee in a knowne tongue. If all things ought to be done in the Church to edification, then ought the publike Service to bee in a knowne tongue; (for hee that speaketh in an unknowne tongue edifi∣eth not, v. 5.) but in the Church all things ought to bee done to edification, v. 26. Ergo, the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue: If in the prayers of the Church the people are to joyne with the Priest, and testifie their consent with him by saying Amen to his prayers, and gi∣ving of thankes: then ought the publike Service Page  167to be in a knowne tongue: But in the prayers of the Church, the people ought to joyne with the Priest, and testifie their consent by saying Amen to his prayers, and giving of thankes. Ergo, the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue. If in the Church prayers wee ought to pray and sing with understanding, then ought Church ser∣vice to bee in a knowne tongue (for if wee pray in an unknowne tongue our spirit prayeth, but our understanding is unfruitfull, v. 14.) But in the prayers of the Church wee ought to pray and sing with understanding, v. 15. Ergo, the publike Service ought to bee in a knowne tongue. Nei∣ther can the Iesuit shift off these passages with a wish, saying that S. Paul indeed adviseth and wisheth, that when any prayer is made in an un∣knowne tongue, there should bee some to interpret, but that hee requireth no such thing to bee observed as a divine precept: for v. 37. hee addeth, if any man thinke himselfe a prophet or spirituall, let him know that the things which I write unto you, are the commandements of God. To conclude, when S. Iames commandeth, that whosoever prayeth,*aske in faith, nothing doubting but that hee shall receive what he asketh, hee necessarily implieth, that wee ought to pray to God in a knowne tongue. For how can hee beleeve that hee shall receive what he prayeth for, if he knoweth not what himselfe saith in his prayers, or what an other prayeth for him, to whose prayers hee saith Amen. To the Iesuits second quaere, where prayer in an un∣knowne Page  168knowne tongue is forbidden. I answer, Esay 29.13. and Marke the 7.10. Well Esay prophesied of you hypocrites, this people honoureth mee with their lips, but their heart is farre from mee: and 1 Cor. 14. where the Apostle professedly dispu∣teth against speaking in the Church in an un∣knowne tongue. But the Iesuit excepteth, that S. Paul in that chapter condemneth not simply prayers in an unknowne tongue, though hee pre∣ferreth prophecie. By which his ignorant ex∣ception, it should seeme that hee read that chap∣ter in an unknowne tongue; for hee speaketh so wide from the matter as if hee understood never a word in it. It is true that the Apostle in that chap∣ter comparing the gift of tongues, and prophecie together condemneth neither of them, but pre∣ferreth the gift of prophecie; and in prosecution of the comparison falleth upon those who used the gift of tongues in publike prayers in the Church, and hee expresly condemneth that pra∣ctise of them, because they that prayed in such sort uttering words that were not understood, spake not to men, because no man understood them, v. 2. spake into the ayre, v. 5. edified. not by those prayers, v. 12.17. because others could not joyne with them in their prayers, nor say Amen to their thankes, v. 15. Now if the Apostle reproved the use of the miraculous gift of tongues (which re∣dounded so much to the honour of God) in the Church, without an interpreter, v. 28. saying, if there bee no interpreter, let them keepe silence in the Page  169Church; How much more may wee conceive would he have sorbidden the use of an unknowne tongue acquired by humane industrie? To his third quaere, what authoritie we can bring for our selves, or example? I answer, that the Knight hath brought the authoritie, and example of the catholique Christian Church for 700. yeares at the least, and because he calleth upō us to name a∣ny Father, who teacheth as we do, that the service of the Church ought to bee in a knowne tongue,* I name S. Chrysostome, who in his Commentarie upon the 14. chapter of the first to the Corinthians saith that the Apostle teacheth, that we ought to speak with our tongues, and withall to minde what is spo∣ken, that wee may understand it; and S. Austine willeth, that wee understand what wee sing like men indued with reason, and not chatter like birds, for ousels, parrats, crowes, pies, and such other birds, are often taught by men to sound out that which they know not, but to know what they sing, or sing with knowledge and understanding, is by Gods will pecu∣liarly given unto man. I name also Iustine Mar∣tyre, and S. Basil, and many other ancient Do∣ctours, whose testimonies are plentifully alled∣ged by Bishop Iewell, Article the third, and Bil∣son of Supremacie, part the fourth, and not yet answered by any Papist to my knowledge.

To the thirteenth. [ 13] The observation of Car∣dinall Bellarmine concerning the different cu∣stome of the ancient Church, and the present Roman, maketh rather against the Iesuits then Page  170for them. For who will not attribute more to the uniforme practise of the primitive Church, then to the heteroclyte practise of later Churches? as∣suredly the practise of the primitive Church wherein the people answered the Priests, and not the Clarke only, is most agreeable to the do∣ctrine of S. Paul, and consonant to reason. For publike prayers were instituted especially for three ends, first, for the most solemne worship of God, when thousands of hands are at once lifted up to him, and as many tongues confesse his name: secondly, for the stirring up of greater de∣votion, when many hundreds praying and bles∣sing, and singing together, like so many coales on the same hearth kindle one the other, and in∣crease the flame. Thirdly, for more prevalencie with God, when we offer violence, as it were to heaven, and send up our united devotions like a vollie of shotte to batter the walls of it; They who pray in a tongue which the people understand not, and therefore cannot joyne with them in their prayer, faile of all these ends. Yet to sodder all, the Iesuit beareth us in hand, that the Masse be∣ing the same continually, the people understand it sufficiently for the exercise of their devotion, though not to satisfie vaine curiositie; which speech of his is partly sencelesse, and partly blasphemous: it is sencelesse to imagine that a man who never learned his Grammar, nor ever was taught Greek or Latine, by hearing onely the Masse read over, though a thousand times should come to under∣stand Page  171it; secondly, it is blasphemous to say that to desire to understand the particular contents of the Epistles and Gospels read in the Masse, or the psalmes of David, sung in the Church is vaine curiofitie, or hereticall pride. Loe here Flood his channell falleth againe into the Stygi∣an lake.

To the fourteenth. There is no contradiction at all in the Knights observations. [ 14] For though this story of the shepheards abusing the words of Consecration, and strucke dead for it, might peradventure occasion some alteration in those Churches, where it was beleeved, yet there was no generall command for the practise of the La∣tine Service, in all Christian Churches before Vitalians time; who in the yeare 666. verified the number of the name of the beast in himselfe, which according to the interpretation of S. Ire∣naeus, who flourished within two hundred yeares after Christ, is lateinos, as before I noted. But for mine owne part I have no faith at all in that le∣gendarie fable of the Sheepheards; First because those that coyned it, agree not in their tale, for some say, that the Bread and Wine were transub∣stantiated into flesh and bloud, and the sheepe∣heards for their prophane abuse strucke dead: others tell it otherwise,* that neither the Bread nor the Wine were transubstantiated, but consumed by fire from heaven, nor the sheepheards strucken dead, but onely laid for dead. As for the Au∣thour of the booke called Pratum spirituale, hee Page  172is of no credit at all. For in his Spirituall mea∣dow, as hee tearmeth his worke, there are many such Eutopian flowers, as this is, where I leave the Iesuit to gather him a nosegay, till I have leisure to meete with him in the next Section.

Concerning worshiping of Ima∣ges. Spectacles, Sect. 7. a pag. 283. us{que} ad 319.

THe text of Scripture which the Knight quoteth, [ 1] maketh not any mention of Image-worship, but I∣doll-worship, which hee could not but know to bee a different thing ha∣ving beene so often told it.

It followeth not the Iewes might not adore Ima∣ges; [ 2] Ergo, wee may not: for the Iewes might not eate bloud nor swines flesh, nor many other things which wee may.

If the second Commandement were morall, [ 3] and now in force, the Knight could not have his wives picture, nor shee his, without breach of that Com∣mandement: therefore in that sence hee cannot urge it more against our pictures, then wee against his.

Cornelius Agrippa was a Magician, [ 4] and there∣fore no heed to be given to what he testifieth against the Roman Church.

Page  173

Philo Iudaeus saith nothing, [ 5] but that the Iewes admitted no image into the Temple, which is true; for God cannot bee painted, neither could they have the Image of any Saint: for there was none as yet which might have that honour, to have their images or pictures in the Temple, themselves being not yet admitted into the heavenly Temple of God.

It is no marvaile that the Iewes hate crucifixes, [ 6] sith they could not indure Christ himselfe.

Notwithstanding the prohibition in the second Commandement, [ 7] were it Morall or Ceremoniall, men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple, and the Arke and the Temple it selfe.

There may in the New Testament bee some pre∣cept, [ 8] or example both of our Saviour and his Apo∣postles for the adoration of images, though not written in Scripture, because as S. Iohn saith that all is not written, or rather a very small part is writ∣ten as his words import.

Wee have the example of our Saviour and his A∣postles testified by good authenticall histories, [ 9] many great and grave Authours make mention of two severall images made miraculously by our blessed Saviour himselfe, one was that which hee sent to Abgarus King of Edessa, who had a desire to see him: the other was that of Veronica, which hee made with wiping his face, as hee was carrying his Crosse: a third was one which Nicodemus gave to Gamaliel, all which are testified, not only by grave and learned Authours, but by God himselfe, though not in Scripture, yet by great and wonderfull mi∣racles.

Page  174

S. Austine taketh not Simulachrum for an image, [ 10] as the Knight falsly translateth him, but for an idoll, and so commendeth Varro for comming neerer to the knowledge of the true God, and going further from idolatrie then other Gentiles.

Eusebius saith not, [ 11] that images sprang from an heathenish custome, but hee meaneth by mos gen∣tilis, the fashion of their owne people, and kindred, who were wont to honour such that had done them a∣ny benefit, or helpe by erecting statues in memorie of them. Moreover, Eusebius relateth this storie of the womans statua with approbation; upon the basis or foot thereof, there grew a certaine strange and unusuall kind of herbe, which as soone as it grew up so high as to touch the hemme of the brazen gar∣ment, it had vertue to cure diseases of every kind.

The Councell of Elliberis, [ 12] was an obscure pro∣vinciall Synod of 19. Bishops onely, without any certaintie of the time when it was held, to which we oppose one of Constantinople, another at Rome, under Gregorie the third, and a third at Nice, of 350. Bishops. Moreover, this Councell forbiddeth not pictures absolutely, but painting on walls, and soleaving them to the furie, and scorne of the Gen∣tiles, and it is plaine, that the Councell made the Decree out of honour to images, because they thought not the walls a place convenient, because the plaster breaking off in some places, they might become de∣formed, and so contemptible.

Valens and Theodosius whom the Knight joy∣neth in making a law against images, [ 13] were not alive Page  175together: Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theodofius was borne; besides Valens was a wic∣ked Arrian heretique, upon whom God did shew his judgement by a disasterous end, and the law made by him cited by the Knight is fowly corrupted, and the meaning wholly perverted, for the law was made in honour of the Crosse, towit, thus wee com∣mand that it shall not bee lawfull for any to carve or paint the signe of our Saviour Christ, either on the ground, or in any stone or marble lying on it.

Nicolaus Clemanges was himselfe a Wiclefi∣an heretique.

[ 14]

Cassander, Erasmus, [ 15] and Wicelius, are of no account in the Roman Church.

The Councell of Nice, [ 16] held under Constantine and Irene, was not condemned at Frankford; Nay, in that very Councell an Anathema is said to all such as deface Images.

Polidore Virgill, [ 17] in saying the ancient Fathers condemned the worship of images, for feare of Ido∣latrie, speaketh not of the Fathers of the New Te∣stament, but those of the Old; particularly naming Moses and Hezekias: nay farther, Polydore ac∣counteth him a dissolute and audacious man, who judgeth otherwise of the worship of Images, then hath beene approved by the Decree of two or three Councels which he there alledgeth.

Peresius denieth not the worship of Images, [ 18] but that the picture is to bee adored with the same wor∣ship, as the prototype, or thing represented by it, which maketh nothing against the doctrine of the Page  176Catholique Church touching the worship of Images.

Agobardus his drift in his booke De picturis & imaginibus, [ 19] is onely against the idolatricall use or abuse rather of images against which hee speaketh very much, by occasion of some abuses in his time.

Although it were true that some silly women, [ 20] or ignorant rusticks should bee so blockish, as to con∣ceive some Divinitie in pictures, and accordingly adore them: yet the use of pictures must not bee ta∣ken away for the abuse, for the axiome of the law is, utile perinutile non vitiatur.

The Hammer.

AS those who beheld the head of Medusa wereturned into stocks and stones, and presently deprived of all life and sense: so those who gaze upon with admiration, this head of the Romish doctrine concerning Image-wor∣ship, become so stupid and senslesse, as if they were turned into those stocks and stones, to which they give religious veneration. A notable expe∣riment hereof we have in a conference in France, in which a Sorbon Doctour present, hearing how absurdly the Patrones of Images maintained the worship of them said, of a truth I find the words of Psalmist verified, those that make them are like un∣to them, and so are all they that put their trust in them. But wee need not goe so farre for an in∣stance; the Iesuit in this Section maketh good Page  177that observation, shewing us a forehead of the same metall the images are made for which hee pleadeth. For he loadeth the Knight with shame∣lesse calumnies, and most impudently defendeth such grosse idolattie as the wiser of the heathen were ashamed of: hee whetteth his poysonous tooth, and like a mad dogge snaps at all hee mee∣teth with, and farre out-raileth Rabsekah himselfe, as the Reader cannot but judge if hee peruse but a few passages ensuing, namely first, page 298. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey, wherein you have given so sufficient testimonie of notorious had dealing, especially in the two places of Eusebius, and of the civill law: that if there were nothing else falsified or corrupted in your whole booke, this were enough utterly to deface all memorie of you, from among honest men. And page 301. What say you to all this Sir Humphrey? looke now into your owne conscience, and see whether it can flatter you so much, as to say you are an honest man. And page 205. May not you then beare away the bell from all lying, and corrupting fellowes that have ever gone before you? Hee that seeth such foule stuffe come out of the Iesuits mouth, would hee not thinke that he were sicke of the disease called miserere? but I leave his Grobian language, and come to consider first what hee laieth to the Knights charge, and after, how hee dischargeth himselfe of the idolatrie and superstition, where∣with the Knight in this chapter burdeneth the Roman Church. First, he chargeth the KnightPage  178with false translation, of the Councell of Trent. Wee teach that the image of Christ, the Virgin Mo∣ther of God, and other Saints are chiefly in Churches to be had, and reteined, which Decree he might have translated a little better, and more clearely by say∣ing, that those images are to bee had, and reteined especially in Churches, the Latine word being prae∣sertim, and his translating it chiefly, and placing it so odly, gives cause to thinke he had an evill meaning therein, as if hee would have his reader thinke that the Councell taught that those images were the chiefe things to be had in Churches, &c. It is a signe of a light head to stumble at a straw: yet here lyeth not so much as a straw in the Iesuits way: only he wanted a festrawe to point to the accent, which is set upon Churches not upon had, the meaning of the Councell and the Knights is all one, to wit, that images by that Decree were to bee had, and reteined chiefly or especially in Churches, not to bee had or held to bee the chiefe thing in Churches. For no man would imagine that the Councell could bee so absurd and impious, as to preferre images before the sacred Scriptures, the Font and Chalice, the Altar or communion Ta∣ble: much lesse the sacred Symbols of Christs bo∣dy and bloud. Secondly, he chargeth the Knight with grosse ignorance, in Chronologie, But I may aske you, saith hee, how come you to say the Iewes never allowed adoration of Images for foure thou∣sand yeares, when as the people of the Iewes were not such a people above two thousand yeares; nayPage  179Moyses lived not past 1500. yeares before our Sa∣viour, so that of your owne liberalitie and skill in Chronologie you have added 2000. yeares to make your doctrine seeme ancient. There is a grosse mi∣stake I confesse, but in the Iesuit, not in the Knight: who saith not 4000. yeares, but for al∣most 4000. yeares in the first edition, and in the later editions this scape of the presse is mended, and the figure altered. For the matter it selfe, the Knight might truly have said, that the people of God, who lived partly under the law of nature, partly under the law of Moyses, never allowed adoration of Images for 4000. yeares: so ancient is the doctrine of the reformed Churches in this point. Thirdly, he chargeth the Knight with Sim∣bolizing with Iewes in the hatred of Christ, You saith hee, in alledging the Iewes hate of the crosse, as an argument why you should also hate the same, ta∣citly confesse that you love Christ so well as they:*A fearefull charge: for whosoever loveth not the Lord Iesus, let him bee anathemamaranatha, but a ridiculous proofe; for a man may hate an idoli∣zed crucifix, out of love of Christ, because hee cannot endure Christ his honour to bee given to graven images. Heate of zeale against idolatrie, doth no way argue coldnesse of affection to the true religion;* Witnesse King Hezekiah the non pareil of a religious Prince, who demolished the brazen Serpent, and stamped it to powder, cal∣ling it nehustan, though it were an image and type of Christ crucified, as Christ himselfe teacheth Page  180us.*As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse, So must the Son of man be lifted up; Witnesse Saint Peter, who loved Christ more then the rest of the Disciples,*Diligis me plùs quàm hi? and yet hee brandeth all Image worship by the title of abo∣minable idolatrie. Nay, witnesse S. Iohn the be∣loved Disciple, who went behind none in zeale against idolatrie,* saying, babes keepe your selves from idols. It is one thing to dislike crucifixes in Churches out of hatred of Christ, as Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels may doe: and another thing to disallow them out of hatred of idolatrie and superstition. To stab the Kings picture, or any way deface it out of hatred, or contempt of his per∣son is disloyaltie: yet to take a piece of counter∣feit coyne prohibited by law, though bearing the Kings image, and pricke it full of holes, or naile it to a post, is no argument of disloyaltie, but contrarie, an act of Loyaltie, and obedience also to the Kings lawes. Lastly, hee chargeth the Knight with Sacriledge and prophanation of ho∣ly things, saying, You, and such as you, have had your shares in pulling downe of images, and silver shrines, this last hundred yeares, are more like to be drawne with the love of gaine, to the pulling downe of Images, then wee that lose all for maintaining and setting them up: for what wee and our Ance∣stors have parted with from our selves, and out of our owne purses for the honour of God and his Saints; you or men of your religion, pull back from God and his Saints, to bestow upon your backs and Page  181bellies, and upon your Ministers, their wives and brattes. I would cast this dunge backe againe on your Nunnes bellies, and Popes face, and tell you of the brats of the one buried in the earth, and drowned in moates, to cover the shame of the parents, and give you a bill of the expence of the other upon their mistresses, farre surmoun∣ting the charge of all the Ministers wives in Eng∣land; but I choose rather to purge the Knight from all foule aspersion herein, who is so farre from having any hand in pulling downe your silver shrines, and images, and making sale of them, that he was not then borne, when by command of King Edward the sixt those Monuments of idolatrie were knocked downe and defaced, which yet was accounted a worke so acceptable to God,*that the selfe same day that the images were broken downe in London, God gave us a nota∣ble victorie in Scotland; but the truth is, the Knight chargeth the Iesuit home with the exam∣ple of Demetrius and his followers maintaining images, because they were maintained by them. For who seeth not in all popish countries, how when all other Artificers shut up their shoppes, to wit, on Sundayes and holy dayes the Priests open theirs, setting out as it were their golden puppets on the stalls, whereof they make no small advantage? and therefore to all his railing rheto∣rick with which he concludes this section, I hold sit to returne no other answer then the French provethe, The Asse brayeth never so hideously, as Page  182when hee is over-hard girt. Thus having held up my buckler for the Knight, and warded off the Iesuits blowes: now I fall on whetting and shar∣pening the Knights sword, wherewith he woun∣deth the Idolatrous superstition of the Roman Church, the edge whereof the Iesuit endevoureth to dull by the twentie exceptions above mentio∣ned, which now I will scan in order.

To the first. [ 1] It is true that wee have beene oft told by Papists, that we ought to make a diffe∣rence betweene Image-worship, and Idoll-wor∣ship: but it is as true that this is a distinction without difference, which hath beene a hundred times refuted by all those who have entred into lists with Papists about the question in hand, and did not the Iesuit arme his forehead with the me∣tall of his images, he would blush to say that the texts alledged by the Knight make against idols,* and not at all against images; for the first text, Levit. 26.1. word for word according to the ori∣ginall, and agreeably to the vulgar Latine is thus to bee rendred, Yee shall make you no idols nor gra∣ven images, neither reare you up a standing image, neither shall you set up any image of stone in your land to bow downe to it. The second text Exod. 20.4. is thus to be translated, Thoushalt not make thy selfe any thing carved or graven, in Hebrew Pesel derived from pasal, signifying to carve or en∣grave, in Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the vulgar Latine unto which all Papists are sworne sculptile. To which Commandement Tertullian alluding saith, Page  183Peter knew Moses and Elias by the spirit, when they appeared with Christ in the Mount, not by any picture or image which hee had seene of them, for the people of the Iewes had no such, the law prohi∣biting it. And Vasqnez the Iesuit convinced by the evidence of the text confesseth, that God in the second Commandement forbiddeth not only to worship an image for God, but also to worship God in any similitude, and consequently hee thereby ta∣keth away all use of any image of God. Yet were there any mist in the word pesel, the words fol∣lowing clearely dispell it; nor the likenesse of any thing, that is in heaven above, or in the earth be∣neath, or in the waters under the earth, thou shalt not bow downe to them, viz. with thy body, nor wor∣ship them in thy soule: Papists doe both, and there∣fore though they could escape the net laid for them in the first words (non facies tibi sculptile) yet they are caught and strangled in the next. For albeit they could prove that their images are no idols prohibited in the word pesel, yet cer∣tainly they are the similitudes of something that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. The third text alledged by the Knight out of Dent.* 4.15.16. & 17. is thus rendered in their owne vulgar Latine, keepe care∣fully your soules, you saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spake to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire; take heed lest peradventure be∣ing deceived, you make to your selves any graven image, or the likenesse of male or female. Neither Page  184is the last allegation out of Esay the fortieth, lesse prevalent then the former, to batter downe all popish images,*to whom will you liken God? or what likenesse will you compare unto him? in the vulgar Latine, quam imaginem ponetis ei; and verse the 20. the worke-man melted a graven image, and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chaines, hee that is so im∣poverished, that hee hath no oblation, chooseth a tree that will not rot, hee seeketh unto him a cunning work-man to prepare a graven image that shall not bee moved, &c. And this may serve to illustrate the texts alledged by the Knight. Now for the words imago & idolum, upon which the Iesuit foundeth his distinction of image-worship, and idol-worship, if wee respect the originall, and ancient use of them, they are all one for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifying the shape, or forme of any thing;* and Aristotle calleth the species of such things as we apprehend by sence idola; and Tullie interpreteth the word imagines by ido∣la:* and the second Councell of Nice, action the sixt, tearmeth the images then used in the Chur∣ches idols, saying, these idols may bee converted to other uses. And lastly, Cardinall Cajetan in his Comment upon the 20. of Exodus speaking of the images of the Angels in the Arke tearmeth them idola Cherubinorum, word for word, the idols of the Cherubins. But if wee have regard to the more common use; the words imago & ido∣lum, differ as much as mulier & scortum, a wo∣man Page  185and a strumpet. For as such women only as are abused, and defiled by corporall fornication are tearmed strumpets: so now for the most part, those images only which are abused to spirituall fornication are called idols. Thus Tertullian de∣fineth idolatrie to be the consecration of images,*or devoting of them to a religious use, or setting them up to be worshipped; and agreeably hereunto S. Isidore defineth an idoll to be an image, conse∣crated in a humane shape, and such were all idols at the first, but in processe of time as men in a quag∣mire sinke still deeper, and more foule them∣selves: so the Pagans fell by degrees into grosser idolatrie, and turned the glorie of God, not only into the similitude of a corruptible man, but also of beasts and fowles, and creeping things, Rom. 1.23, 24. The difference which Cardinall Bellarmine maketh betweene an image and an idoll, viz. that an idoll is the representation of that which hath no existence in nature,*but an image the likenesse of something existent, is very false and absurd. For as Martinus Paresius confesseth, there were ma∣ny idols of the Gentiles, in which they represented God as a benefactour. The mother of Mica dedi∣cated the hundred shekels of silver unto the Lord, to make a graven and a molten image,* and per∣swaded her selfe that God would blesse her for it: yet no man doubteth but that was an idoll, and shee an idolatresse, Iud. 17.4. Nay, the Car∣dinall him selfe ingenuously acknowledgeth, that to exhibit divine worship, even to the image of God Page  186is idolatrie; which, saith he, is committed not only when an idoll is worshipped in stead of God, but al∣so when an idoll is worshipped together with God. By his owne confession then, an image made to represent the true God, may bee an idol, by attri∣buting to it latria, or the worship proper to God. Moreover, the Cherubins hee will have to bee as they were indeed images, and not idols in his sence: yet never was there any thing in nature existent in that forme, as they were expressed, namely, as the Rabbins teach, and the popish Painters draw them at this day, in the shape of a child with wings; or as Lorinus hath it, with the face, hands, thighes, and body of men, but with the mane of Lyons, wings of Eagles, and parted feet of Calves. And no man doubteth but that the image which Aaron made, and which Ezekiah brake downe, and which the Philistines conse∣crated, and the Baalites worshipped were idolls: yet were they representations of things existent in nature, the first of a calfe, the second of a Ser∣pent, the third of a fish, the fourth of the Sunne.

To the second. [ 2] The Iesuit maketh a brutish re∣plie unworthy a Christian, much lesse a Divine. For who knoweth not, that delectus ciborum, the difference of meates was apart of the Ceremo∣niall law abrogated by Christ, who teacheth us, that it is not that which goeth into a man which de∣sileth him,* but that which commeth out of him; Who sent Peter to Cornelius, Acts 10. and by a miraculous vision revealed unto him, ver. 14.15. Page  187that he might not account any meate common or un∣cleane, what God hath cleansed, saith he, that call not thou common. Let the Iesuit shew us a like abro∣gation of the law concerning making and wor∣shipping of images, and then wee will free his Church from idolatrie in this point. But on the contrarie, it is so evident, that the second com∣mandement in the Decalogue is not ceremoniall, and positive, but morall,* that not only the anci∣cient Fathers; but their great Cardinall is forced to confesse as much; nay, he is so zealous in the point that he taketh Peresius, Catharinus, and all such Romanists to taske, as affirme the second Commandement to bee juris positivi, and solid∣ly proveth out of Irenaeus, Cyprian, and S. Austine, that it is a morall, and consequently bindeth us as strict as the Iewes.

To the third. [ 3] The Iesuits argument is a non se∣quitur, for God by Moses forbiddeth not simply to make any image, but to make any image to our selves, thou shalt not make thy selfe any graven image, to wit, to bow downe to it, or to worship it, as the words following declare, thou shalt not bow downe to them, nor worship them. Now what a loose kind of arguing is this of the Iesuit, the law forbiddeth us to make any image of God there∣by to worship him: therefore it forbiddeth us to make any image of man or woman to remember them: the law forbiddeth all superstitious use of images, therefore it forbids all civill use of them scilicet?

Page  188

To the fourth. [ 4] Although Cornelius Agrippa wrote bookes De occultâ philosophiâ, wherein he seemeth to hold too neere correspondencie with Magicians, and Conjurers, yet this doth not al∣together disable his testimony. For Eusebius and Constantine the great made good use, not only of the prophecies of the Sybbillaes, who for ought appeares were heathenish women: but also of the Oracles of Apollo, dictated by the divell him∣selfe. Seneca would have taught the Iesuit a better lesson by precept, non quis dicat, sed quid dicat; we are not to consider so much who it is that speaketh, as what it is that is spoken: and Virgil by his practise, who often read the Poemes of Ennius, whose skill was little in poetrie, & language obso∣lete, and being questioned for it, answered aurum è stercore, I gather gold out of muck. By the Iesuits rule no Physician or Apothecarie should make use of a pretious stone called Bufonites, because it is found in the head of a Toad, or of a Turkes; or Lyncurie, because it issueth out of the body of a spotted beast, called Lynx. Let Cornelius Agrip∣pa be in his eyes as ugly as the Lynx or Toad, yet the sentence or testimonie rather which the Knight taketh from him like the Lyncurie or toadstone, it is of price and of good use, to wit, that the Iewes were so farre from making any thing that they worshipped, or worshipping any thing that they made, that they abhorred nothing more then images.

To the fift. [ 5] Philo Iudaeus in this point is Philo-ChristianusPage  185a friend to our orthodox Christian doctrine, concerning the unlawfulnesse of ma∣king any image of God,* or setting it up in the Church or Temple. For in his booke wherein he treateth of his Embassie to Cajus hee writeth, that the Temple from the first beginning to his time never admitted any image, being the house of God: for the worke, saith hee, of painters and carvers, are the images of materiall gods, but to paint the invisible God, or to faine any representation of him, our Ancestours held a wickednesse. Philo is secon∣ded by Iosephus, When the Emperour Caligula was desirous to have his owne image set up in the Church of Ierusalem, the Iewes, saith Iosephus, first intrea∣ted him, that hee would not defile the holy Citie with images forbidden by the law, and for their owne particular, they resolved rather to die, then suffer the law which forbad the setting up of images in Churches to bee abrogated. Neither was this the common opinion only of those learned Iewes, that none could, or ought, expresse the majestie of God by pictures: but of the Christian Doctors in all succeeding ages, for

In the second age Adrian the Emperour com∣manded, that Temples should be made in all Cities without images, and thereupon it was presently con∣ceived, that he intended those Temples for Christi∣ans. Clemens Alexandrinus teacheth, that Moses made a law whereby hee plainly and expresly forbad any image molten, carved, or painted, to be made of God, because, saith hee, there is nothing in the Page  190creature that resembleth the image of God. Tertullian living much about the same time, in his booke De spectaculis affirmeth, that God hath forbidden the likenesse of any thing to be made, much more the likenesse of his owne image: the au∣thour of truth doth not love any thing that is false or counterfeit, and all that is feigned or formed by art of him, is nothing but counterfeit. Origen spea king of the South Church, saith, the Christians make no image of the incorpor all and invisible God.

In the third age Minutius Felix, when the Gen∣tiles demanded of the ancient Christians, why they had no Images returned this answer, What image shall I make to God, when man himselfe, if we rightly judge, is Gods image? Lactantius conclu∣deth peremptorily, there is no doubt that there is no religion, whersoever there is an image, for seeing reli∣gion consisteth of Divine things, and nothing divine is to be found, but in heavenly things; images there∣fore are voyd of religion, because nothing that is hea∣venly can bee in that thing which is made of earth.

In the fourth age, the Councell of Eliberis decreed, that no pictures should bee in Churches, lest that which is worshipped and adored, should be painted on walls. Athanasius condemneth them for fooles and senselesse, who liken God to corporall Page  191things:* Eusebius is as hot in the point as Athana∣sius, what similitude hath the body of man with the mind of God, who would bee so mad as to imagine the forme and image of God to be resembled by an image and statue like unto man; and in his Epistle to Constantia the Empresse, who sent to him for an Image of Christ, he thus debateth the matter, What image doe you require of Christ, such an one as may expresse the characters of his divine nature? but I thinke you are sufficiently instructed of this, that no man hath thus seene the Sonne, but the Fa∣ther. Doe you require the image of the forme of a servant which he tooke?* but you must understand that that was joyned to the glory of his God-head, in so much, that his Apostles could not behold the glory of his flesh in the mount; much more glorious is it now having put off mortalitie, who is therefore able with dead and livelesse colours, and a shadowed picture to expresse those bright and shining beames of so great glorie. Epiphanius as zealous as either for entring into a Church at Anablathra, and fin∣ding there a vaile hanging at the doore died, and painted, and having the image as it were of Christ, or some Saint, seeing this, that contrary to the au∣thoritie of Scriptures the image of a man was hung upin the Church of Christ, he cut it, and the vaile and gave counsell to the Keepers of the place, to wrap and burie some poore dead man in it, and he intreated the Bishop of Ierusalem to give charge hereafter, that such vailes as that was, being repug∣nant to Christian religion should not bee hanged up Page  188in the Church of Christ. S. Ierome in his Com∣ment upon the sixteenth of Ezekiel teacheth, that Christians never acknowledge, nor worship any image of the invisible and omnipotent God save one, to wit, his Sonne.

In the fift age Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium instructeth us what account the Church made of images in these words, Wee have no care to figure by colours the bodily visages of Saints in tables, be∣cause wee have no need of suchthings; But by ver∣tue to imitate their conversation; and S. Austine treating of the catholique Church professeth that hee knew many worshippers of graves and pictures, and withall addeth the Church censure of them, but the Church, saith hee, condemneth them, and seeketh every way to correct them as un∣gracious children: and in his 109. Epistle to Ia∣nuarius, C. 11. hee writeth that in the first Com∣mandement, any similitude of God devised by man, is forbidden to bee worshipped, not because God hath not an image, but because no image of him ought to bee worshipped, but that which is the same thing that hee is; as for drawing him after the simili∣tude of a man hee utterly disliketh it, saying, it is unlawfull for a Christian to erect any such image, and place it in the Church; for as else-where hee argueth, images prevaile more to bow downe the Page  193unhappy soule, in that they have a mouth, eyes eares,*nostrills, hands and feet, then to correct it, in that they neither heare, nor see, nor smell, nor handle, nor walke.

In the sixt age. The Emperour Iustinian set∣teth downe a law made by Theodosius and Valen∣tinian, which forbiddeth Churches to bee obscured with any images or painted tables.

In the seventh age. When Images began to be set up in the Churches, Serenus Bishop of Mar∣silis brake them downe, which fact of his, though Gregorie disliked, because he thought that images might profitably be retained as lay-mens books: yet in this hee commended his zeale, that hee would by no meanes suffer them to bee wor∣shipped.

In the seventh age. There was a Councell held at Constantinople, Anno 754. whereinlt was de∣creed by 338. Bishops in this manner, Wee doe de∣clare that all images of what nature soever, made by the wicked art of the Painter be cast out of Chri∣stian Churches, whosoever from this day forward shall dare to set up any images of God either in the Church, or in a private house; if hee be a Bishop let him bee deposed, if he be a lay-man let him bee ac∣cursed. Zonoras saith, that in the hearing of all the Page  194people they openly forbad the worshipping of Images,*calling such as adored them idolater. And in the yeare 794. Charles the great called a Councell of 300. Bishops of France, Italie, and Germany, in which the second Synod of Nice, which decreed the erecting and worshipping of images is refuted and condemned; yea, and some of the patrones of images, as namely Durand, and Gregorie the se∣cond professedly inveigh against all Images and Pictures, made to represent the Deity or Trini∣tie, it is unpossible, saith Damascene, that God who can neither bee seene by man, nor circumscribed, should be expressed in any shape or figure; nay, saith hee, it is extreame madnesse and impietie to make a representation of the Godhead:* and Gregorie the second giveth this reason to Leo the Emperour why they painted not God the Father, Quoniam quis sit non novimus, because wee know not who hee is, and the nature of God cannot be painted, and set forth to mans sight.

In the eighth age.*Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes tells us, that not long before his time a generall Synod was called in Germanie by Charles the great, and therein by the rule of Scriptures and Fathers, the Councell of Nice indeed saith he, a wicked Councell touching images, which some would have to bee broken in pieces, and some to bee worshipped was utterly rejected. In this age in the yeare 824. a Synod was held at Paris under Lu∣dovicus Pius, where the foresaid Councell of Nice was likewise condemned.

Page  195

In the ninth age.*Ionas Bishop of Orleans wrote against Claudius Bishop of Turin concer∣ning images, wherein he holdeth, that the images of Saints are not to bee worshipped, though they may be set up in Churches for ornament, and to bring in∣to the mind of simple people the storie of the Bible. And Agobardus Bishop of Lions telleth us, that the orthodox Fathers for the avoiding of supersti∣tion, did carefully provide that no pictures should bee set up in Churches. Rhemigius boldly profes∣seth, that neither images nor Angels are to bee worshipped.

In the tenth age. Anselmus Laudunensis the authour of the interlineare glosse upon the Bible, composed of the Fathers writings, expoundeth that text of Deuteronomie, Yee saw no manner of similitude in this sort, lest that willing to resemble that similitude by engraving, thou shouldst set up an idoll to thy selfe.

In the eleventh age. Nicetas Croniates a Greeke historian reporteth in the life and reigne of Isaac Angelus, one of the Easterne Emperours, that when Frederick Emperour of the West made an ex∣pedition into Palestine, the Armenians did gladly receive the Almaines, because among the Almaines and Armenians the worshipping of images was forbidden alike.

Page  196

In the twelfth age.*Roger Hoveden an English Historian condemneth the worship of images: for speaking of the Synodall Epistle written by the Fathers of the second Nicene Councell, wherein Image worship was established, hee addeth, quod omninò ecclesia Dei execratur, which the Church of God altogether abhorreth.

In the thirteenth age. Nicephorus writing of the Iacobites saith, that they made images of the Father, and the holy Spirit, which, saith he, is most absurd. Durand stoutly maintaineth, that it is utterly unlawfull to picture, or represent the Trini∣tie, or God, otherwise then as in Christ hee tooke our flesh: and Pope Iohn the 22. calleth certaine men that dwelt in Bohemia and Austria, Anthropomor∣phitas (that is, heretiques ascribing an humane shape to God) because they painted the Trinitie in forme of an old man, with a young man and a Dove.

In the fourteenth age. Abulensis is utterly against all painting of the Trinitie, because from thence two inconveniences may follow; first the pe∣rill of idolatrie, in case the image it selfe should come to bee worshipped: secondly, errour and here∣sie by ascribing to God such bodily shapes and formes, as the Trinitie is usually pictured withall. And Gerson commenting upon the first Com∣mandement speaketh fully in the Protestant lan∣guage, all images are forbid to bee made to adore or worship them: thou shalt not adore nor worship them; that is, thou shalt not adore them with any Page  197bodily reverence, as bowing or kneeling to them,*thou shalt not worship them with any devotion of mind.

But to returne back to Philo, whose testimonie the Iesuit would faine put off by a double answer, first, that the Iewes had not in their Temple any picture of God, because hee cannot be painted: next that they had no picture of Saints, because there was none as yet might have the honour to have their pictures in the Temple, being not yet admitted them∣selves into the Temple of God. The first of these answers, the better it is, the worse it is for him∣selfe; the stronger it is, the more it maketh against the practise of his owne Church: in which wee see the Trinitie familiarly painted. In his second answer hee palliateth idolatrie by impietie, and that hee may have some colour to set up images of new Saints in Churches upon earth, hee excludeth all the old Saints before Christ, out of the heavenly temple of God. Not to digresse here to a dispute about their imaginary Limbus, I would faine know of the Iesuit, where did Enoch walke with God after hee was translated, that hee should not see death? to what place was Elias carried in a fierie chariot, not into heaven? When Dives soule was dragd by Divels into hell, was not Lazarus soule carried by Angels into heaven? the text saith,*hee was carried into Abra∣hams bosome; and where is that S. Austine will informe you, even where the soule of his friend saint Nebridius, and other blessed Doctours and confessours now live: whatsoever place, saith hee, Page  198is meant by the bosome of Abraham, ibi vivit Ne∣bridius meus quis enim alius locus tam piae animae?*there my Nebridius liveth, for what other place were meete for so godly a soule?

To the sixt. [ 6] There is nothing so easie as for a man with Antipho to pursue his owne fancie, or shadow, to set up a man of straw, and push him downe with a festraw: the Knight doth not thus argue, the Iewes hate the Image, and crosse of Christ, therefore Christians ought so to doe: for by the like reason it will follow that wee should condemne the very Gospell, yea and hate Christ himselfe, because the Iewes doe so; that is not his argument, but the Iesuits phantasme. The Knights argument standeth thus if of his enthy∣mem we make a Syllogisme;

None may or ought to give a scandall to Iew or Gentile.

But by setting up images or crucifixes in Temples, the Iewes are so scandalized, that even those among them, who other wayes might be enclined to embrace the Christi∣an faith are made utterly averse from it: because they cannot perswade themselves that it can bee the true religion which main∣taineth image-worship, which is so directly and expresly forbidden by God in the law.

That the Iewes are thus scandalized at the idola∣trous practice of the Roman Church, the Knight proveth by an eye-witnesse Sir Edwine Sands, who in his description of the religion in the West Page  199parts observeth, that the worship of images as it is at this day practised by the Roman Church, is such a stumbling block to the Iewes, and hinderance to their conversion, that when they come to Christian Sermons, as in Rome they are enjoyned at least once a yeare, so long as they see the Preacher direct his speech to a little woodden crucifix that standeth on the Pulpit by him, to call it his Lord and Saviour, kneele to it, embrace it and kisse it, to weepe upon it, as it is their fashion in Italie, it is preaching suffi∣cient for them, and perswadeth them more with the very sight of it to hate Christian religion, then any reason the world can alledge to love it.

To the seventh. [ 7] The argument drawne from the Cherubins, is refelled professedly by Tertul∣lian,*the Apostle, saith he affirmeth, that all things happened to the Iewes in figures, and hee addeth well, the same God, who in his generall law forbad any similitude to be made, by an extraordinary pre∣cept commanded some similitude to bee made, if thou dost serve the same God, thou hast his law; Make to thy selfe no graven image, or similitude, if thou regardest the Precept of making a simili∣tude (as of the Cherubins, or brazen serpent, &e.) imitate thou Moses, make thou no image a∣gainst the law, unlesse God command thee by a Precept. Whereunto wee may farther adde, that the Cherubins were not made publikely to bee seene and gazed upon by the people: but were kept in the holy place whither the Priests only resorted; neither were they worshipped by the Page  200Priests, as Lyra (cited by the Iesuit) who was himselfe a Iew at the first, and well knew their practice, professeth, the Iewes, saith he, worshipped not the Arke nor the Cherubins, nor the mercy seate, but the true God which promised to helpe them, neither were they set up in the Temple for adoration, but for ornament,* as Azorius convinced by evi∣dence of truth acknowledgeth, saying, the Che∣rubins were not painted or engraven on the Arke, to the end they might bee adored, but only to adorne and beautifie the Tabernacle, and more fully to ex∣presse the majestie of God, with whom Lorinus and Vasquez accord, concerning the Cherubins made by the command of God; and other images in Solomons Temple, wee must say that they were there as appendices and additions for the adorning of something else, not set forth by themselves in a manner fit for adoration; which it is manifest that the Iewes never exhibited to them, both which Tertullian teacheth. Vasquez commeth not behind Lorinus, teaching a contrarie lesson to Flood here, his words are, That the Cherubins were never adored nor worshipped, neither by kissing them, nor with bowing of the knee, or by offering Frankinsence, or by any other meanes, neither can Page  201any man affirm the contrarie, except it be out of his owne braine without any foundation or ground at all.

To the eighth. [ 8] In this allegation the Iesuit sheweth from whence he and his fellowes are de∣scended,*viz. from the ancient Gnosticks and Valentinians, who as Irenaeus testifieth against them, When they are convinced of their heresies out of Scripture, they fall on accusing the Scriptures themselves, impeaching their authoritie, and char∣ging them with ambiguity, and saying that the truth cannot be found out of them by those who know not tradition, for that it was not delivered by letters, but by word of mouth. But because I have beate the Ie∣suit heretofore out of this dodge, and have pro∣ved abundantly the sufficiencie and perfection of Scriptures, I will spare farther labour herein, and only shew how shamefully he depraveth one text to the derogation of the whole Scripture, S. Iohn in the place alledged by him speaketh not of points of faith or manners, precepts, or exam∣ples for our imitation, but of miracles, 10.20. 30. Many things truly did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this booke; Upon which words S. Austine and S. Cyrill thus glosse full in the Protestant language, the holy E∣vangelist testifieth that Christ did, and said many things that are not written, but those things were chosen to bee written, which seemed sufficient for the salvation of them that beleeve; and S. Cyrill, all things which Christ did are not written, but what Page  202the writers thought to bee sufficient as well for our conversation as doctrine, that shining with theright faith and vertuous workes, we may attaine to the kingdome of heaven.

To the ninth. [ 9] Were the grave authours, the Iesuit speaketh of authenticall, and these stories gospell: yet the Adversarie would gaine nothing thereby, nor we lose; For we are none of the I∣conomachi that bid battell to Images, and knock them downe wheresoever they find them with battle-axes. Forbeare the representation of the invisible Deity, and blessed Trinitie, and remove all scandall from the people, and perill of idola∣trie, and let the images and pictures of Christ and his Saints stand where they doe for memorie, hi∣storie, and beautifying and adorning the walls and windowes. Wee dislike it not as the Iesuit may reade in our bookes, and see in our Chur∣ches, and houses. But the truth is, neither are the stories of credit, nor the authours of them of that account as the Iesuit would have them.* Of some of them wee may truly say, as Espencaeus doth of Nicephorus, that they are in these relati∣ons, si non mendaces, saltem audaces, if not altoge∣ther fabulous, yet very audacious; for the image sent to King Abgarus, it is of no more credit then the letter sent with it, which the Romish Church, as all other Christians, hold to bee Apochrypha were it Canonicall it should make a part of the Page  203New Testament. And for the second we cannot but wipe our eyes in bewayling their folly, who beleeve that Christ by wiping his face, as hee was carrying his Crosse, should imprint his image in his handkerchiefe. Yea but these images are confir∣med by wonderfull miracles wrought by them. I answer first out of Biel upon the canon of the Masse,* that the Divell is much delighted in pro∣phane worship (such is your worship of images) and helpeth it forward as much as hee can by see∣ming miracles; next, that this was the heathens plea for their worshipping of images; for Tully speaking of the image of Ceres in Sicily, saith, many wonders doe shew the divine vertue thereof; and the Graecians as Strabo writeth, used to set upin tables the diseases cured by Aesculapius in Epidaurius, as the Papists at this day doe, the di∣seases cured by the image of the blessed Virgin in Lauretto. Thirdly, that learned Papists finde much fault with the seventh generall Councell for founding the worshipping of images upon the delusion of Divels, and old wives tales, and dreames. Lastly, most of the Popish legendary stories in this kind, may easily be proved to bee no miracles of God, nor wrought by sorcerie or enchantment through the power of Satan, but to be meere impostures wrought by their Priests, who are the greatest juglers in the world in this kind.

To the tenth. [ 10] S. Austine maketh great ac∣count of this speech of Varro, for hee twice Page  204maketh mention of it in this fourth booke. First chapter the ninth,*Varro was so farre out of love with images, that though hee were pressed with the perverse custome of so great a City as Rome was, yet hee made no bones, both to say and write that they, who first brought in Images, both tooke away religious feare of God, and added errour to boote: and in his thirtie one chapter he hath this memo∣rable observation, the Romans worshipped their gods more then a 170. yeares without images, and if they had done so still, saith hee, the gods had beene more chastly or purely worshipped by them. Yea, but the Iesuit with a wet finger turneth over these passages, as if nothing were said by S. Au∣stine or Varro to the prejudice of their images shrines, or Altars: for S. Austine by Simulacrum meaneth not animage, but an Idoll, not the repre∣sentation of the true, but a resemblance of false and feigned deities. The distinction of image and i∣doll, I have before refelled: nothing remaines for the refutation of this answer of the Iesuit, but that I shew out of S. Austine,* that by Simulacrum hee meaneth any image, even of the true God. And not to trouble the reader with many instan∣ces those words of his in his Treatise of faith, and the Creed, clearely convince the Iesuit, Wee must not think, saith he, that God the Father who is said to sit, sitteth in heaven-with bowed knees, as a man sitteth in a chaire, such a simulacrum or image, it is not lawfull to set up in the Temple of Christians, had the Iesuit but perused the chapter Page  205pointed to by the Knight, to which he professeth to give a direct answer, hee would have given himselfe the lye, and checked his former inter∣pretation of S. Austines words; for immediatly after the former period, the Father addeth, that Varro in proofe of his assertion alledgeth the custome of the Iewish nation;* and a little after he saith, that Varro thought that God by whom hee beleeved the world was governed, ought to be worshipped without an image: by which words it is evident, that by simulacra hee meant, not only the images of false gods, which alone the Iesuit calls Idolls, but al∣so of the true God; For the Iewes whose cu∣stome hee bringeth in for himselfe, abhorred all Images or Pictures even of the true God: and Varro himselfe by that Governour of the world whom hee would have to bee worshipped, with∣out an image, meant the true God, as S. Austine himselfe testifieth of him. Howsoever the title which hee there giveth him of anima mundi, or soule of the world, soundeth harshin a Christian eare: yet S. Austine alloweth of Varro his asserti∣on or opinion, as comming neerer to the truth, then other of the heathen Phiosophers, in that hee taught but one God, and him to bee not ma∣teriall or corporeall, but of a spirituall and invisi∣ble substance, and therefore not to bee drawne with pensill, or counterfeited with colours, with∣out errour or impietie.

To the eleventh. [ 11] Eusebius relateth the storie of Veronica her statue dedicated to the memorie Page  206of Christs miraculous cure wrought upon her, with approbation there of as being a lasting mo∣nument, and standing testimonie of her gratitude to our Saviour, and much tending both to the confirmation of the Gospell in generall, and that particular miracle of Christ, for who would not beleeve that the woman was cured of her bloudy issue by touching the hemme of Christs garment, when hee saw an unusuall kind of herbe growing at the foot of that Statua, which as soone as it grew up so high, as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment, received a miraculous vertue from it to cure diseases of every kind; notwith∣standing all this faire weather Eusebius falleth fowle upon the Originall of this erecting statuaes to the memorie of the dead, attributing it to a heathenish rite or custome. Neither doth the Knight any way wrong Eusebius in the relation, or translation of this passage. For certaine it is, that the people of God began not first to set up images, or erect statuaes. The first which wee ever read of, was consecrated to Belus, the suc∣cessour of Ninus by the Assyrians who were Paynims, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ethnicus or gentilis, signifieth Gentile or Heathen; whatsoevr the Iesuit alledgeth out of Thomasius Dictionarie to the contrarie, saying, Looke in your Dictionarie of Thomas Thomasius, whether amongst all the Englishes of Gentilis which are there set downe,*you can find heathenish, which I dare say you cannot. The Greeke word in Eusebius text is〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Page  207Latine gentilis signifieth the same thing, to wit, belonging to a countrey, people, stocke, or family, had the Iesuits, and Seminarie Priests at Doway and Rhemes, better studied Thomas Thomasius Di∣ctionarie, they would not have fraught their English translation of the Bible, with so many affected harsh-sounding, and uncoth words to English eares, as announce archisynagogue, a∣zymes, commessations, depositum, didrachme, euro∣clydon, exinanited, holocaust, hosts, victimes, pa∣raclete pasche, resuscitate, neophyte, superedified, and the like. Againe, though Thomasius render not the word Heathenish, yet he rendereth it gentile, which is all one; and let the Iesuit turne over all his Thomasius, and Eliots, and Riders, and Coopers, and Calepines, and see whether hee can find any other proper Latine word answering to the English Heathen, or heathenish, then gentilis or ethnicus, a word derived of the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very word used by Eusebius in this place. When so often in the holy Scriptures of the old Testament the word gentes occurreth, as in the 2 Psal. v. 1. the 9. v. 5. and the 10. v. 16. and the 44. v. 2. and the 98. v. 1. and the 135. v. 15. and else-where, what can the Iesuit meane by it but Gentile,* or how can he translate it in pure and proper English, but heathen or heathenish na∣tions: according to the meaning of the holy Ghost in those texts? What will hee say to the words of S. Ambrose, When Helena read the title upon the Crosse then newly found, shee fell downe Page  208and worshipped what or whom? The King (saith that Father) to wit, Christ there entitled the King of the Iewes; not verily the wood, for that is a heathe∣nish errour, and a vanity of ungodly men. Doth not gentilis here signifie prophane, Pagan and heathe∣nish, therefore the Knights credit is salved in that his translation of Eusebius, and the Iesuits credit and cause also lyeth a bleeding. For though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greeke, and gentilis in Latine; sometimes in good authours signifieth no more then belonging to a countrie or nation,* be it Chri∣stian or heathenish: yet in this place of Eusebius it cannot be other wayes taken then for heathen, for Eusebius a little before saith, it is not to be wondered that those who are sprung of the Gentiles, or came of heathenish parents, and received benefits of our Sa∣viour where he lived, did thus unto him, adding it is very likely, that our ancestours herein followed the custome of the heathen; who honoured all such with Statuaes who had been as saviours unto them preser∣ving their lives.

To the twelfth. The Councell of Eliberis is as a thorne in the Iesuits eyes, and therefore he hath many plucks at it: yet he plucks it not out, but pricketh his owne fingerse. First, he saith it was an obscure Councell,*without any certainty of the time when it was held. As obscure as he maketh it, it is a Councell of reverend antiquity cited by S. A∣gobardus, and approved by him, and honourably mentioned by all Writers, who impugne idola∣trous innovations, & corruptions in the Church. Page  209As for the time Baronius and the best Chronolo∣gers affirme, that it was held in the yeare of our Lord 305. in the time of Marcellus the first, and was consequently more ancient then the first most famous Councell at Nice; if to this Councell the Iesuit oppose one of Constantinople, the other at Rome under Gregory the third, and the third at Nice in favour of images: we in like manner op¦pose to those idolatrous and hereticall, many Councels of better note, condemning image∣worship, as namely the Councell of Constantino∣ple, held in the yeare 754. and another celebrated there in the yeare 814. and a third at Frankford in the yeare 794. and a fourth at Paris under Lu∣dovicus, in the yeare 824. together with the book of Charles the great, and the Epistle of the English Bishops penned by Alcuinus, and mentioned by Houeden in his storie of England, and many other tractates of famous writers of England & France, who professedly impugned and refuted the De∣crees of the second Councel at Nice, establishing i∣mage-worship. Yea, but saith the Iesuit, the Canon of Eliberis shooteth not home to the point in questi∣on, for it forbiddeth not pictures absolutely in Chur∣ches, but only painting them on the walls. I reply first, that the Councell forbiddeth pictures in Churches absolutely, the expresse words of the Canon are, placuit in ecclesiâ pictur as esse non de∣bere, it seemed good to the Councell, that pictures should not be in Churches; Whereof the 19. Fathers present at that Synod render this reason, ne quod Page  210collitur in parietibus depingatur, lest that which is worshipped should be painted on the walls. Secondly, I reply if the Councell of Elliberis, as the Iesuit granteth, forbiddeth any image to be painted on the Church-walls, why doe Papists every where in their Churches at this day paint images on the walls? Yea but the Iesuit addeth, who is best at a dead lift, that we are besides the matter, in produ∣cing the Canon of this Councell against images, which was made in honour of them, si crederefas est. For the Councell, saith the Iesuit, forbad painting images on the walls of the Church, because they thought not the walls a place convenient, lest the plaister breaking off in some places, they might be∣come deformed, and so contemptible. Where unto I rejoyne, first, that if the Councell did this out of honour to images,* why doth their learned Bishop Canus so severely tax this Decree, tearming it not only a foolish, but an impious Canon? Secondly, if the Councell made this Deeree out of honour to images; Why doe not all Papists, who stand so much for the honour and worship of images, o∣bey this Decree, and deface all images that are painted on Church-walls? Thirdly, if it bee an honour to images to be removed out of all Chur∣ches according to the purport of this Decree in the Iesuits understanding, then the reformed Churches may justly be thought to have shewed the most respect, and done the greatest honour to images of all other, by casheering them out of their Churches, prae amore excluserunt foras; no Page  211doubt out of love they shut them out of doores. Fourthly, this reason taken from plaister breaking needeth a plaister to make it whole, for if for this reason images may not bee painted on walls, for feare of being defaced by weather or the plai∣ster breaking: by the like reason they should not bee painted in cloth, or upon board, be∣cause they are in like manner subject there to be soyled, razed, stolne away, or many other wayes to be injured.

To the thirteenth. [ 12] The Iesuit sueth a Du∣plex querela against the Knight concerning Va∣lence the Emperour; first, because hee stileth him a good Emperour; next, because hee ranketh him with Theodosius as Copartner with him in the Empire, whereas Valence was killed twen∣tie three yeares before Theodosius was borne. Against his first quarrell I need plead nothing, because Valence is not so styled by the Knight in the last corrected edition of Via tuta. If the Knight had so styled him in any former edition,* he might have vouched a good authour for it, namely Bap∣tista Egnatius who speaking of Valence, and his brother Valentinian saith, Digni imperia fratres, & inter bonos referendi, they were worthy the Em∣pire, and to bee ranked among good Princes, saving that Valence was somewhat blemished by being se∣duced in judgement by the Arrians;* as also was Constantius the Emperour; and yet Gregorie Nazianzen commendeth him for a religious Prince, that much promoted the affaires of the Page  212Christians against the heathen. and for the blotte of errour in his judgement hee layes the blame of it upon the subtile wits of the Arrian here∣tiques, who put tricks upon that other-wayes good Emperour. For the second quarrell hee pickes, it is not worth a straw. For though Valence and Theodosius lived not together, yet they might both enact the same law. Valence might first make it, and after Theodosius confirme and revive it, as King Iames hath revived many lawes made by Queene Elizabeth, and other her predeces∣sours, though they never reigned together in this Kingdome; howsoever if there were any er∣ror in relating this law out of the Coad as the Iesuit pretendeth,* he ought to plucke Petrus Crinitus by the beard for it; for the Knight quoteth not the Coad or Digests for this law, but Petrus Crini∣tus, De honestâ disciplinâ, l. 9. c. 9. where hee may find the precise words alledged by the Knight, unlesse peradventure his Petrus Cri∣nitus hath felt the razor of the Popish Inquisiti∣on, and if so, let him looke to more ancient editions of Crinitus, quoted by the Authour of the English Homilies, and Zanchius in his Com∣ment upon the second Commandement, where this golden locke of Petrus Crinitus is not cut off. For what Timon spake concerning the Editions of Homer, may bee said of Crinitus and other Ro∣mish Authours, the most correct copyes are those that were never corrected.

Page  213

To the foureteenth. [ 14] The Iesuit should have said a Paulian heretique, for Clemanges and Wickliffe professe with Paul, Acts 24.14. That after the way which they (the Papists) call heresie, they so worship the God of their fathers in spirit and truth, that they beleeve all things written in the Law and the Prophets; and nothing as neces∣sarie to salvation, which is not written in them. It is true, Wickliffe was condemned for an he∣retique: but it was many yeares after his death, when hee could not plead for himselfe: and the Councell which condemned him was a perju∣red and a condemned Councell, not only in the judgements of Protestants, but also ingenuous Papists; for in that Councell three Popes were deposed, and a fourth chosen, Martin the fift Huz and Ierome of Prage, contrary to the safe conduct, sent them under the Seale of the Em∣perour Sigismund, were burnt to death, and their ashes throwne in the River. Now as it is an ho∣nour laudari à laudato, to bee commended by men that themselves deserve commendation: so it is no disgrace or disparagement at all damnari à damnato, to bee condemned by a Councell which is condemned, and reproved it selfe even by the Roman Church at least in the first Sessions of it.* And such as are the first fruits, such is the whole lumpe.

Page  214

To the fifteenth. [ 15] All the Iesuits Geese are Swannes,* but our Dircaean Swannes with him are no better then geese, antiquum obtinet; this was just the fashion of the ancient here∣retiques, the Gnosticks, and the Donatists, if any came over to their side, hee was pre∣sently cryed up for a man of singular parts and vertues, but if hee returned to the bo∣some of the Church, hee was cryed downe for a Weather-cocke, or a tressis agaso. It was well saith Saint Austine, for Maximia∣nus and Primianus, that they fell to the Do∣natists sect, whereby presently they gained the reputation of great Clarkes and prime men, wher as other wayes if they had kept their old sta∣tion, Maximianus would have beene held Mini∣mianus, and Primianus Postremianus: but let me tell the Iesuit that how much soever he sleighteth Cassander, Erasmus, and Wicelius: that the worst of them in the time when he lived, was of bet∣ter account then I. R. or Leomelius, or Daniel a Iesu. As for gravitie and wisedome, hee commeth farre short of Cassander, for zeale and integritie, of Wicelius: so if wee speake of all kind of learning, hee is not worthy to carry E∣rasmus bookes after him;

Dispeream, si tu matulam praebere Mamurrae dignus es.

But I spare him in this kind, because for his Page  215impudencie and ignorance: two Sorbon Do∣ctours, Aurelius and Lallier, have disciplined him to the purpose, and I will bee 10th saevire in plagas & vulnera. Yea but some of these mens Workes are marked in the Roman Index, saith the Iesuit, they are so indeed to the eter∣nall prayse of their ingenuity: and to the ever∣lasting infamie of the Romish Inquisitors cru∣eltie, who so deale with the witnesses of truth, as Pope Sergius did with Formosus his prede∣cessor after his death; they mangle and deface them, cutting off their thumbes and fingers wherewith they testified and signed the truth in their writings.

To the sixteenth. [ 16] In this Paragraph the Ie∣suit is totus in fermento: it wonderfully transpor∣teth him, and putteth him in a cold sweat, that the Knight should say out of Chemnitius, that the second Synod of Nice, in which Image∣worship was established, was condemned in the Councell of Frankford held in the yeare of our Lord 794.*The Magdeburgians, saith hee, and other your owne Authours affirme, that that very Councell of Frankford did say an Anathema to all such as deface images; is not this then abo∣minable falshood in your friend Chemnitius to cite, nay forge it against images, and in you to fol∣low him in it? ne Saevi magne Sacerdos: let not the Iesuit lay about him so furiously, lest per∣adventure hee lend a blow to his best friends, Page  216for besides other Historians of good note, Hinc∣marus Archbishop of Rhemes,* whom himselfe calleth a Catholique indeed; nay, and Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith as much as Chemnitius or the Knight, to wit, that the Councell of Nice was condem∣ned in the Councell of Frankford; neither doth the Anathema pronounced in that councell a∣gainst such as deface images, fall upon us who fight not against images, as the Iconomachi did, but against image-worship, as that Councell of Frankford doth.

To the seventeenth. [ 17] The words of Poly dore Virgill are these,*Let us now speake of the Worship of images, which not only those which were ignorant of our religion, but as Saint Ie∣rome testifieth, almost all the ancient holy Fa∣thers condemned for feare of idolatrie. To this allegation the Iesuit saith, that Polydore is to be understood of the Fathers of the Old Testament only. Although Polydore hath not the word Old Testament, but ancient Fathers and Saints, which style the Church of Rome never attri∣buted to any before Christ. But bee it so, let us take what hee granteth, wee have then the testimonie of the true Church before Christs Page  217Incarnation against image-worship: and this is advantage enough, unlesse the Iesuit could con∣front their judgement by Christ and his Apo∣stles, or some of the Fathers of the New Te∣stament. Yet what if Polydore Virgill in that place nameth some of the Fathers in the New Testament?* will not that stoppe the Iesuits mouth? reade then a little further in Polydore in the same chapter courteous Reader, and thou shalt meete with these words. Saint Gregorie also reproveth Serenus the Bishop of Marsellis for breaking downe images, and yet commen∣deth him in that hee forbad the worship of them.

To the eighteenth. [ 18] Peresius saith, that there can bee no sound proofe brought either out of Scripture, or tradition of the Church, or com∣mon consent of Fathers, or determination of a generall Councell, or any other effectuall rea∣son to perswade a man, that the image of Christ,*and the Saints are to bee worshipped with the same adoration that the samplers are. Is this no∣thing against you? then Aquinas, and in a manner all the Schoole-men, Ludovicus Para∣mo, Bernardus, Pind, Franciscus Petigianis, Petrus de Cabrera, Azotius, Lamas, Rubio, Bu∣stus, quoted by the Bishop of Ely, in his re∣ply to Fisher, with divers others reckoned up by Bellarmine, l. 2. de imag. c. 20. were no Page  218Papists. For all the above-mentioned, hold that opinion for Catholique, which Peresius con∣demneth.

To the Nineteenth. [ 19] The more wee looke into Agobardus the greater reason wee have to make account of him: for the first hee alled∣geth the Councell of Eliberis against setting up of images in Churches: next hee affirmeth that the ancients had pictures of Saints painted or carved, ad recordandum non ad colendum, to remember the Saints by them, not to worship them. Lastly, hee averreth that there is no example in all the Scriptures, or Fathers for adoration of ima∣ges: and what doth or can any Protestant say more against the doctrine of the Roman Church in this point, then this Agobardus doth, whom this Iesuit canonizeth for a saint? neither can he put him off by saying,* that hee speaketh against Idoll-worship, or some abuse of Images which crept in in his time; for Bellarmine who bet∣ter studied Agobardus, then this Iesuit, in his booke of Ecclesiasticall Writers, ad an∣num 820. in his censure of Ionas Bishop of Or∣leans saith, this Authour is to bee read with caution, because hee was infected with the same opinion that Agobardus, and other French Bishops Page  219of that age were, who denie any religious worship to bee due to images.

To the twentieth. [ 20] Sententias loquitur Carnifex; this is the first essay wee heard from this Iesuit, but nothing to the purpose, for wee grant that things that are good in themselves, and of a necessarie and profitable use, are not to bee taken away for the abuse: but wee denie that Images in Churches are of that nature; neither is his law-Axiome uni∣versally true, Vtile per inutile non vitiatur, that which is profitable, is not corrupted or made bad by that which is unprofitable. For the brazen Serpent in the Wildernesse was for a time utilis, profitable, curing them that had beene stung by the fiery Serpent: yet per∣inutile vitiabatur, it was corrupted and made scandalous and unprofitable by the peoples abusing it to idolatrie: and if that Image be∣ing a type of Christ, and set up by Gods spe∣ciall command, was yet broken in pieces by good King Ezekiah, after the people began to worship it: how much more ought those images to bee knocked downe, and stamped to powder, which are set up in popish Chur∣ches against GODS commandement, and have beene abused to idolatrie above eight hundred yeares in such a grosse manner, espe∣cially Page  220by the vulgar, that as Polydore Virgill ingenuously confesseth, many of the ruder sort of them, magis ijs fidunt quàm Christo, put more confidence in the image then Christ him∣selfe?

Page  1

Concerning Indulgences, Specta∣cles, paragraph 8. a page 319. usque ad 345.

THE Knight himselfe granteth the use of giving Indulgences, [ 1] to have been in the ancient Church, and that Bi∣shops had power to grant them.

Christs Merits lying in store for the need of all men, [ 2] may be fitly com∣pared to a common Treasure, and be called by that name. So farre forth then as those Pardons were grounded on Christs merits, or granted by applica∣tion of them to the penitent, there is no difference betweene theirs and ours.

Saint Paul forgave the incestuous Corinthian, [ 3] not onely in the person of Christ, but for their sake also: which importeth, the prayer and deserts of Saints to have some place in the bestowing of that Indulgence; and so likewise, it was the practise of the Primitive Church: and what was this, but by applying the superabundant merits in the one, to supply the want in the other?

That the merits of Martyrs were applied to others, [ 4] appeareth by Tertullian, who being become now an Heretike, did reprehend that custome, say∣ing, Page  2that a Martyrs merits were little enough for himselfe, without having any surplussage to helpe others withall.

Many a man continueth his great austerity of Fasting, [ 5] Watching, Praying, and other exercises of all vertues, after hee hath obtained pardon for the fault it selfe, by hearty contrition and by humble confession obtained also remission of the temporall punishment, within the space of 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, or 12 yeares (for example sake) hee then leading the same life for 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 yeares, as many have done; what shall become of all that satisfaction which is over and above, for that sinne or sinnes which hee committed before? It doth not perish or passe without fruit, though not of him, yet of others: and if they be not applied presently, why may they not then be said to lye in deposito, as money in a Treasurie?

Sith all grant Indulgences for the living, [ 6] why not for the dead, so long as they pertaine to the Commu∣nion of Saints, and have need thereof?

The authority which the Knight citeth, [ 7] to make Indulgences applyed to the soules in Purgatorie to be ridiculous, out of the old Sarum booke of the houres of our Lady, doth not mention Purgatorie, but one∣ly saith, That whosoever shall say these and these prayers, shall gaine so many thousand yeares of pardon, which is no more for the dead than for the living.

It is false which the Knight averreth, [ 8] that wee give Pardons for thousands of yeares in Purgatory Page  3after death. For wee doe not so, neither doe wee un∣derstand those Pardons, wherein are mentioned such number of yeares so, as if men were without those Pardons, to remaine so long in Purgatorie: but wee understand those yeares according to the penitentiall Canons, by which, many yeares penance were due for one sinne, and many mens sinnes being both very grievous, and as a man may say, without number, according to the account of the ancient penitentiall Canons, they may soone amount to thousands of yeares, which, though a man cannot live to per∣forme here in this world, nor even in Purgatory, for the length of time; yet hee may in Purgatorie, in few yeares space, nay, few months, or few weekes space, suffer so much punishment as is answerable to all that penance of many thousand of yeares, which a man should have performed here, if hee could have lived so long.

The Authours alleaged by the Knight, [ 9] against Indulgences, prove no more than wee grant, that there is not so expresse mention in Scriptures or an∣cient Fathers of them, as of many other points, because there was not so much use of them in those dayes.

Though some Fathers mention them not, [ 10] wee prove the use of them out of others more ancient, to wit, out of Saint Cyprian and Tertullian, as you may see in Bellarmine, lib. de indul. c. 3. and be∣sides them, the authority of certaine Councels, as that of Nice, Ancyra, and Laodicea.

Though wee had not either the testimonie of these Page  4Fathers, [ 11] nor of those Councells, yet would not that follow which the Knight groundeth thereon, to wit, that wee want antiquitie, and consent of Fathers for them; for it is a most strong argument of anti∣quitie, that it is the practise of the Catholike Church, time out of mind, and of consent, that no man is found to have spoken against them, [ 12] but onely knowne Heretikes,* such as the Waldenses, who were the first impugners of Indulgences.

Durand, whom the Knight alleageth in the first place, having propounded the question, in 4. sent. dis. 20. q. 5. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae, after the manner of the Schooles, putteth two arguments against them in the first place, and then commeth with his arguments. Sed contra, agreeing expresly with his conclusion. On the contrarie, saith he, is the generall custome and doctrine of the Church, [ 13] which should containe falshood,* if something of the punish∣ment due to a Sinner, should not be forgiven by In∣dulgences; and presently after, hee nameth Saint Gregory, and saith of him, that hee did institute Indulgences at the stations in Rome.

Alfonsus a Castro, though hee confesse the use of Indulgences, not to have beene so much in those ancient times as since; yet hee alloweth them so farre, as to condemne any man for an Haeretike that shall deny them.

14. The Knight prateth very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences, and bringing money to his owne coffers by them: but to that I need to make no other answer, but that it is such riff-raff-stuffe Page  5as their Ministers are wont to eeke out their bookes, & Sermons, without being able to shew any Bull of Pope, or testimony of good authour of any Indulgence so granted.

For the Knights prophane jeast out of Guicciar∣dine of playing a game at Tables for an indulgence, [ 15] suppose that were true, might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants, who in their pots have made so bold with Almighty God him∣selfe, as to drinke a health to him; and were not this a fine argument to prove that there is no God?

It is intollerable presiemption in the Knight to take upon him to censure so great a Councell as that of Trent. [ 16] Wherein the whole flower of the Catho∣lique Church, for learning and sanctity was gathe∣red together, the splendour of which Councell, was so great, that your night owle Heretiques durst not once appeare, though they were invited to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish.

Whoreas the Knight saith that it is a senselesse and weake faith that giveth assent to doctrine, [ 17] as necessary to be believed, which wanteth authority out of Scriptures and consent of Fathers. I answer, he knoweth not what he saith, for all the Fathers agree, that there are many things which men are bound to believe upon unwritten traditions, whose authority you may see in great number in Bellarmine.*

The consent of Doctours of the Catholique Church cannot more erre in one time then another, [ 18] the authority of the Church, and assistance of the Page  6Holy Ghost being alwayes the same, no lesse in one time then another,* and Tertullians rule having still place, as well in one age as another, that which is the same amongst many, is not errour but a tra∣dition.

St. Paul thought, he answered sufficiently for the defence of himselfe, [ 19] and offence of his contentious enemy, when he said (1 Cor. 11.) If any man seeme to be contentious, we have no such cu∣stome, nor the Churches of God.

It is false which the Knight againe repeateth, [ 20] that an article of faith cannot be warantable, without authority of Scriptures, for faith is more ancient then Scripture; to say nothing of the times before Christ, faith was taught by Christ himselfe without writing, as also by the Apostles after him, for ma∣ny yeares without any word written.

As no lesse credite is to be given to the Apostoli∣call preaching, [ 21] then writing, so no lesse credit is still to be given to their words, delivered us by tra∣dition, then by their writings: the credite and sense of the writings depending upon the same tra∣dition.

[ 22]

St. Austine defendeth many points of faith,* ei∣ther onely or chiefely by tradition, and the practise of the Catholique Church; as single Baptisme against the Donatists, consubstantiality of the Sonne, the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and even unbegottennesse of the Father against the Arrians, and the Bap∣tisme of children against the Pelagians: to say no∣thing of prayer for the dead, observation of the Page  7feasts of Easter, Ascention, Whitsontide, and the like. Nay, this truth was so grounded with him, that he accounted it most insolent madnesse to dispute against the common opinion, and practise of the Catholique Church. In his booke of the unity of the Church, he saith, that Christ beareth witnesse of his Church; and in his Tractates upon John, ha∣ving occasion to handle those words of St. Paul. If we, or an Angell from Heaven, &c. where∣with the Knight almost concludeth every Section, he thus commenteth upon them, the Apostles did not say, if any man preach more then yee have re∣ceived: but besides that which you have received, for if he should say, that he should prejudicate, that is, goe against himselfe, who coveted to come to the Thessalonians, that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith, but he that supplieth, ad∣deth that which was lacking, taketh not away that which was before: these are the Saints very words in that place, by which it is plaine, that he taketh the word praeter besides, not in that sense, as to signifie more then is written, as you would understand it, but to signifie the same that contra. St. Paul him∣selfe useth the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, para, besides, Rom. 16.17. for contra, and you in your owne Bibles translate it so. I beseech you brethren marke them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

Page  8
The Hammer.

AS Erucius the accuser of Roscius Ame∣rinus having little to say against him,* to fill up the time, rehearsed a great part of an invective which he had penned in former time against ano∣ther defendant: so the Iesuit here, failing in his proofes for indulgences (for which little or no∣thing can be said) to fill up the Section, tran∣scribeth a discourse of his, which he had former∣ly penned, concerning the necessity of unwritten traditions, which hath no affinity at all with the title of this Chapter, de Indulgentiis. In other pa∣ragraphs we finde him distracted, and raving; but in this he turneth Vagrant, and therefore I am to follow him with a whip as the law in this case provideth. Touching the point it selfe of Indulgences, which Rivet fitly termeth Emul∣gences, but the Iesuit the Churches Treasury: whosoever relieth upon the superabundant me∣rits and satisfaction of Saints for his absolution, for his temporall punishment of sinne after this life, shall finde according to the Greeke proverbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of treasure,*glowing coales heaped upon his head in hell. For neither are there any merits or superabundant satisfactions of Saints,* Christ saying, when you have done all, you are unprofitable servants, nor were there any, could they be applied or imputed to any other men,* the Apostle teaching that every man shall receive Page  9according to that which himselfe hath done in his body, whether it be good or evill,* nor hath the Pope any more power to dispose of this treasury for the remission of sinnes; our Saviour, Matth. 18. v. 18. and Iohn, 20.23. conferring the same power of remitting sinnes upon all the Apostles which he promised to S. Peter, Matth. 16. Nei∣ther, if the Pope had any speciall power of grant∣ing Indulgences, could it extend to the soules in Purgatory, quia non sunt de foro Papae, because they are not subject to the Popes court,* as Gerson rightly concludeth. Neither lastly, can it be proved, that there is any Purgatory fire for soules after this life, St. Iohn expresly affirming, that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sinnes.* the fire therefore of Purgatory is rightly ter∣med chymerica and chymica, chymericall and chymicall; chymericall, because a meere fiction, and chymicall, because by meanes of this fire, they extract much gold. The Apostle saith, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus. If no condemnation, no punishment,* eter∣nall or temporall. The Prophet saith,*he will cast our sinnes into the depth of the Sea, surely there is no fire to purge them: if we repent us of our sinnes,*God promised us that they shall be remembred no more, if they shall not be so much as mentioned, surely they shall not be sentenced to be punished with fire, either temporall or eternall. In that time, saith the Lord,*the iniquity of Israel shall bee sought for, and there shall be none, and the sinnes ofPage  10Iudah, and they shall not be found, for I will pardon them whom I reserve: from which text we thus argue. All their sinnes whom God pardoneth, shall be found no more, if found no more, then to be purged no more, especially after this life. Where there is no spot, there needs no purging, or clensing, but in the soules of all beleevers there remaines no spot, as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth,* shaping this answer to our objection, out of St. Iohn (that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all sinne) the Apostle speaketh of the remis∣sion of the fault which properly begets a spot in the soule, for it is the spot which is taken away by wash∣ing. When we say that Christs merits are applied to us, our adversaries jeare at us, holding it for a most absurd doctrine, that the merits of one should be imputed to another: and yet what they deny to Christ, they attribute to Saints: that which they deny to God, they attribute to the Pope: they will by no meanes heare that God imputeth to us the merits and sufferings of his sonne, although the Scripture is expresse for it: and yet they teach that the merits and satis∣factions of Saints by the Pope, may be applied to us, and that they satisfie for our temporall punishments. But to leave farther prosecution of the point in generall, and to graple with the Iesuit in the ensuing particulars.

To the first. [ 1] The Iesuit playeth the Sophister, and faine would deceive the simple Reader with the ambiguitie of the word Indulgence, which Page  11the Knight accuratly distinguisheth; and shew∣eth, that the Indulgences now granted by the Pope, are no more like the Indulgences in use in the Primitive Church, than an Apple is like to a Nut. The Indulgences wherof we reade in the ancient Fathers, were mittigations of some cen∣sures of the Church, before inflicted on the living for their amendment:* these are reluxations from satisfactorie paines in Purgatorie flames after this life. After which, notwithstanding, as Saint Cy∣prian truly informeth Demetrian, there remaineth no place for repentance, no effect of satisfaction, here eternall life is either gained or lost.

To the second. [ 2] As the Iesuit doth sometime an∣swer to that wch we object not, so he oft proveth that we deny not. We attribute more to Christs merits than any Romanist doth; for we teach, that they are a Treasure of infinite value, abun∣dantly sufficient, without the additiō of any Saints merits to them, to discharge the infinit debt of all mankind: to release all who by faith apply them to themselves, from all temporall, as well as eter∣nall punishment. We professe, with that religious Divine, Effusio justi sanguinis Christi tam dives fuit ad pretium, ut si universitas captivorum redem∣torem sum crederet, nullum diaboli vincula retine∣rent: The effusion of Christs righteous blood is so rich in price, that if all the captives did be∣lieve in their Redeemer, the devils bands could hold none. And in very deed, this is one of our mainest exceptions against the Roman Church, Page  12that they infinitely wrong the infinite bounty of our Redeemer, by going about, as it were, to ••ke out his merits by the excrescensie and superabun∣dancie of Saints satisfactions. What they arro∣gate to Saints in this kind, they derogate from our Saviour; wee acknowledge his merits to be a rich Treasurie, containing in it, many millions of pure gold; whereunto, to adde the sufferings of any Saints or Martyrs, were no better than to take away pure gold, and instead thereof (to fill up the roome, not the summe) to lay a few brasse tokens. This seemed so absurd to some of the acutest Schoolemen, as by name, Durandus a Sancto Portiano,* and Iohannes de Mayro, that they excluded all Saints satisfactions out of this treasurie: their reasons are specially these, No∣thing needeth, or indeed can be added to that which is of infinite value, but such are Christs merits and sufferings. Secondly, the Saints are already abun∣dantly rewarded, and that far above their desert, as the Apostle witnesseth, Rom. 8.18. I account, that the afflictions of this present life are not wor∣thie the glorie which shall be revealed: and (2 Cor. 4.17.) our light affliction, which is but for a mo∣ment, worketh for us a farre more exceeding and eternall weight of glorie. Wherefore, the Saints sufferings being so fully recompensed already, cannot helpe towards the expiation of the sinnes of others.* To which point, Angelus de Clavatio, verbo Indulg. numero. 9. I hold, saith hee, with Francis Mayro, in his Treatise of Indulgences, Page  13that forasmuch as the merits of Saints are rewarded of God beyond their merit, and thereby the treasure of them is exhausted, that Pardons are onely given for the merit of Christ and his passion: the least drop of whose blood, or sweat, would have been suf∣ficient to expiate all the sinnes that ever have beene or shall be committed. Thirdly, the intention of him that meriteth, is most necessarie required to this, that the fruit or reward of his merit redound to another: but, supposing that the Saints were so rich in merits and sufferings, that they had any to bestow upon others, yet it cannot be proved, that the Saints had ever any such intention, to transferre the fruit of their passions upon others. Fourthly, if the Saints sufferings could expiate our sinnes, the Saints might be accounted our Redeemers, which Aquinas himselfe blushed to affirme,* and there∣fore resolveth the quite contrarie; the Sufferings of Saints profit the Church, not by way of Redemp∣tion, but by way of Example.

To the Third. [ 3] The instance is not to the pur∣pose: for the Corinthian, whose punishment Saint Paul released, was alive; our question is of Indulgences, releasing soules after death. Se∣condly, the incestuous Corinthian was excom∣municated, and thereby excluded for the time, from the Communion of Saints: our question is Page  14of those that died reconciled to the Church, in the state of grace, Whether they by the Popes Indulgence, may receive ought out of the trea∣surie of Saints sufferings, to purchase their free∣dome from Purgatorie, or at least, mittigation of their paines there? Thirdly, the Indulgence Saint Paul granted the Corinthian, was the relea∣sing the sentence of Excommunication, not aba∣ting flames of Purgatorie. Fourthly, Saint Paul condescended more willingly to grant that ex∣communicate Corinthian his absolution, for the earnest prayers and intreatie of some of his neighbours and friends: hee did not impute the sufferings or merits of his friends unto him, and in that consideration absolved him. These things therefore, agree as well as Harpe and Harrow, to absolve the living from sentence of Excommuni∣cation, at the suit or request of persons that have well deserved of the Church, or have a speci∣all interest in our love: and to release the dead out of Purgatorie, by imputing the surplus∣sage of another mans merits and satisfactions un∣to him.

To the fourth. [ 4] The Iesuit might have lear∣ned of Dr. Francis White in his reply to Fisher the Iesuit, from whom hee borrow'd this ob∣jection, an Answer thereunto: or if hee thought much to learne of him, hee might have beene be∣holding to his owne Pamelius, so farre, as to informe him, that the Indulgences which Ter∣tullian impugned, were not such as wee treate Page  15of, but the same whereof Saint Cyprian speaketh,* to wit a relaxation of canonicall censures, and pe∣nance to adulterers and other notorious sinners upon the request of martyrs, being in prison and yet alive. Now it seemed to this Father to be unjust and unfitting, both that the Martyrs in such cases should be intreaters, and that the Church should grant absolution to such persons, or mitigate the censures most iustly imposed upon them. Whether Tertullian in this were in the right or not, it makes nothing for the Iesuit, or a∣gainst us, for he speaketh of living Martyrs and not dead: of forgiving the crime it selfe, not on∣ly the temporall punishment, and that in this life, not in Purgatory. As this is one of the most im∣pertinent allegations in his booke, so he handles it as strangely and absurdly; for first, he discredit∣eth and disableth his witnesse, by branding him with the note of an Heretique, and then he pro∣duceth him.

To the fift: [ 5] What rope of sands hath the Ie∣suit here twisted; first he can never prove that any man can fully satisfie for the least finne commit∣ted against the infinite maiesty of God, much lesse by any penance he can endure, though never so long, satisfie over and above as he speaketh. Se∣condly, the continuance of his penance, if it bee done in true humility, and sincerity, shall not be without fruit to himselfe, for it shall be a meanes to mortifie his fleshly lusts, and prevent future sins and through faith in Christ, to obtaine a greater Page  16reward in heaven. Thirdly, had the Saints any such surplussage of merits, and were there nothing allowed to themselves for it here, or hereafter: yet could not these their merits be communicated to others for their behoofe, because God hath set it downe in his law expressely,*that as the sin of the sinner, so the righteousnesse of the righteous shall be upon himselfe. To the Iesuits quaere there∣fore. Why may not the over-plus of their sufferings lie in deposito as money in a treasurie, for the bene∣fit of others? I answer briefly, because there is no such money, nor such treasurie, nor order from the master of the house, to lay up such supposed money in such an imaginary treasury, as it were in a Banke, for the benefit of others. Doe we say this onely, doe not the Scriptures and the Fathers say the same.* Doth not Iob demaund how should man be just with God? if he contend with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand. Doth not David?*Who knoweth how oft he off end∣eth?* Doth not Solomon? Who can say, I have made my heart cleane? I am pure from my sinne. Doth not Esay ingenuously confesse?*We are all as an uncleane thing, and all our righteousnesse is as filthy ragges, and St. Iames, in many things we offend all, and after him St. Basil, We are not Angels, but mon, we fall and rise againe, and that often times in one and the selfe-same houre. And Ambrose. Every one of us how often doe we sinne? every houre. And most fully of all, St. Bernard, Who dare gruntle from henceforth, saying? Page  17we labour too much, we fast too much, wee watch too much, seeing that a man cannot answer the thousandth, nay, not the least part of his debt. And againe, commenting upon those words, 25. of Matth. and the 8. Give us of your oyle, a foolish petition, the righteous shall scarce be saved, the oyle of their owne righteousnesse, hardly sufficeth the Saints to salvation, how much lesse will it serve themselves and their neighbours.

To the sixth. The reason is not alike, for In∣dulgences for the living, are the releasing of Ec∣clesiasticall censures inflicted upon their per∣sons, which undoubtedly the Bishops have pow∣er to mittigate upon the submission of the party, whereof they can take notice: which can have no place, in the soules of the deceased, as the Church hath no power to enjoyne them penance for their misdemeanour, so neither to take it off: for as the Iesuit himselfe confesseth, [ 6] the Pope is no superiour in respect of the soules in Purgatory, nor are they under his power.* Here by the way, let the Reader observe how the Iesuit un∣wittingly striketh a blow at the Popes triple crowne. For if the soules in Purgatory are none of his subiects, where is his third Kingdome? Why should he weare a triple crowne, if he may not beare his sword in Purgatory? the word Mysterium anciently engraven upon the Popes Miter, was wont to be thus declared, that the three Crownes compassing it, signifie the rule he beares in Heaven, Earth, and Purgatory, but if Page  18he hath of late lost that kingdom, and is not now as the Iesuit saith, Superior to the soules that frie in Pur∣gatory. What power hath he to mittigat their fine, or release their mulct, or abate their fire? much lesse wholly absolve them from the guilt of tem∣porall punishment there in toto? As for that he ad∣deth, concerning communion of Saints, it yeelds no support at all to his cause: for the communion of Saints, which all Christians beleeve, is partly in the blessings of this life, partly in the use of spiri∣tuall graces, whereby they pray one for another, admonish, instruct, and comfort one the other; this communion no way extendeth to inward habits, as faith, hope & charity, nor to outward penall suffe∣rings, wch can be imparted to no other, as may be most evidently deduced out of Scriptures, and the joynt testimonies of the ancient Fathers. First therefore wee say, that the Saints have no supera∣bundance of merits or satisfactions, as I have pro∣ved before: next that admitting they had any, they cannot dispose of them to others, for every one shal beare his own burdens, every one shall receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath don, whether it be good or bad, not according to that wch he hath don or suffred in the body of another.* the wise virgins said to the foolish that begged of them oyle to fil their lamps, Not so, lest there be not enough for us & for you; the righteousnes of the righ∣teous shalbe upon him, & the wickednes of the wicked shalbe upon him, Ez. 18.20. Who ever (saith Tertul∣lian) satisfied by another mans death, his owne death, Page  19but only the Son of God: therfore thou, who imitatest him in forgiving sins, if thou hast sinned in nothing thy selfe I pray thee suffer for me; but if thou arta sin∣ner as I am, how will the oyle of thy little lampe suf∣fice for thee and for me? If Tertullians coyne be not currant, I am sure StAustine & StLeos is, Although, saith StAustine, brethren dye for their brethren, yet the blood of no Martyr was ever shed for the remission of their brothers sinnes. For, as St. Leo testifieth, the righteous have received, they have not given crowns: from the fortitude of true beleevers; we receive exam∣ples of patience, not gifts of righteousnes. For their death was singular; neither did any of thē by it dis∣charg the death of another; the head hath satisfied for the members, & the satisfactiō of one is imputed to all. Marke, he saith of one, not of more, & the head satis∣fied for the mēbers, not the mēbers one for another.

To the seventh. [ 7] I freely subscribe to the con∣clusion, and beleeve without any scruple, that the 56000. yeares of pardon granted by the Pope, to every one that shall say seven prayers before the Crucifix, and seven Paternosters, and seven Ave∣maries, is no more for the dead then for the li∣ving. For done to such an intent, neither are the better for it, neither the living nor the dead are gainers, but onely the Pope himselfe and his A∣gents, who sell paper and lead at a deerer rate, Page  20than any Merchant or Stationer in Christen∣dome. Yet, by the Iesuits leave, Pope Gregory granting 14000 yeares of Pardon, and Nicolas the first, as many, and Sixtus the fourth, twice as many, which make up the full number of 56000; must needs be thought, to intend benefit to the soules in Purgatorie, or in hell: unlesse you will make the Pope to be so absurd, as to suppose that any were to live upon earth so many thousand yeares, which had beene an errour 55000 times worse than the errour of the Mille∣naries. For they taught, that the Saints should live a thousand yeares with Christ on earth: but these, that sinners should live in durance here, or in Purgatorie 56000 yeares, which is 50000 yeares longer than by all computations, the World hath, or as most thinke, shall last.

To the eighth. [ 8] What Scripture or Tradition hath the Iesuit for this his incredible paradox? If wee should grant him such a Purgatorie as hee desires, which no man yet could find either in the Map of this world, or in the Table of holy Scriptures: yet is it impossible to defend with any probability this position of his, that in few weekes space, a soule might suffer punishment answerable to the Penance of many thousand yeares. For, the learned Romanists generally ac∣cord, that Purgatorie fire differeth little from hell, but in time; that the one is eternall, the other temporall: they beleeve it to equalize, or rather exceed any fiery torment on earth. How Page  21then can they imagine so much fuell to be laid on that fire, and the torments in it so im∣proved, that a man may suffer so much punish∣ment in a few weekes, which may weigh downe, or beare scale with the penance of 56000 yeares; or if the torments could be so increased, what soule would be able to beare them for those few weekes, nay rather a few houres?

To the ninth. [ 9] The Authours alleaged by the Knight, namely, Durand, Sylvester Prierias, Major, Fisher Bishop of Rochester, Alfonsus a Ca∣stro, Antoninus, Cajetan and Bellarmine, speake not, as the Iesuit would have it, comparatively, but positively. Durand saith,*The Scriptures speak not expressely of Indulgences, neither the Fathers, Austine, Hilarie, Ambrose, Jerome, &c. Syl∣vester Prierias affirmeth, that Pardons have not beene knowne to us by the authority of Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome, and the Popes. Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth, that of Purgatorie there is little or no mention a∣mongst the ancient Fathers, and that as long as Purgatory was not cared for, there was no man sought for Pardons: sith Purgatorie therefore hath beene so lately knowne and received of the whole Church, who can now wonder concerning Indul∣gences? And here Master Flood is at a stand, Page  22his Flumen is turned into Stagnum; for having made offer to answer Durand, and finding that his answer would not hold, his heart failed him, and hee durst not venture to shape any answer at all to the Authours last mentioned, namely, Alfonsus a Castro,* whose words are; There is no∣thing in Scripture lesse opened, or wherof the ancient Fathers have lesse written, than of Indulgences; and it seemeth the use of them came but lately into the Church: there is seldome any mention of Tran∣substantiation among the Ancients, almost none of Purgatorie. What marvell then, if it so fall out with Indulgences, that there should be no mention of them by the Ancients? Antoninus; There is not any expresse testimonie, for proofe of Indulgen∣ces, either in Scriptures, or in the writings of the ancient Fathers. Cajetan; There is no authoritie of Scriptures, or ancient Fathers, Greeke or Latin, that bringeth the originall of Indulgences to our knowledge. Bellarmine; It is not to be wondered, if wee have not many ancient Authours which make mention of Indulgences; for, many things are re•••∣ned in the Church onely by use and custome, without writing. See how the Romanists second one the other: Bellarmine saith, That not many ancient Authours make mention of Indulgences. Cajetan and Antoninus say, Not any. Durand saith, that The Scriptures speake not expresly of them. Prierias saith, That they speake not at all of them.

Page  23

To the tenth. [ 10] The Indulgences those Fathers and Councells speake of, have no more affinitie with the Pardons the Pope selleth now adaies, than the Rivers of Paradise have with Styx or Avernos; or Simon Peter with Simon Magus; or Phillip the Apostle with Phillip King of Macedon, as I shewed before.

To the eleventh. [ 11] The Iesuit hath neither pro∣ved the practise of the Catholike Church, nor of the Romane, time out of mind, for Indulgen∣ces: but onely practises of later times, since ma∣nifold abuses crept into the Roman Church. As for his negative Argument, to wit, that It is a strong evidence of consent, for Indulgences, be∣cause none is found to have spoken against them: unlesse hee otherwise qualifie it, it will no more prove Purgatorie, or the lawfull use of Indul∣gences, than it will prove there is a Common∣wealth in Eutopia, or Cities, or Countries in the Moone, or many worlds; because, peradventure none is found to have spoken or written against them. And for the Waldenses, that they were the first impugners of Indulgences, is said by the Iesuit, but not proved; much lesse, that these Waldenses were known Heretikes. For they were farre from heresie by the confession of their grea∣test adversarie, the Inquisitor Rainerius.*They live, saith hee, justly before men, and believe all things well concerning God, and all the Articles contained in the Creed, Solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant. & Clerum, onely they Page  24speake evill of the Romane Church and Clergie.

To the twelfth. [ 12] It was happy for Durand, that hee lived before the Inquisition and Index Expurgatorius.* For he argueth so strongly against Indulgences, saying, (that Little can be spoken of any certainty concerning them, because the Scrip∣ture speaketh not expressely of them; for what is spo∣ken, Matthew the 16. to Peter, I will give thee the Keyes, and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven; is understood, of the power given him in the penitentiall Court, and cannot be understood of the bestowing of Indulgences; for the holy Fathers, Ambrose, Hilarie, Augustine, Je∣rome, speake not at all of Indulgences) that his wri∣tings, if not his person, would have beene purged by fire, if hee had lived in these times: yet, true it is, that having argued strongly against Indul∣gences, and the Church Treasurie, so farre as it consisteth of the merit of Saints, hee bethought himselfe, and pro formâ, alleageth to the contra∣rie, the Custome and Doctrine of the Church, meaning the Romane Church; whose lash hee feared, if hee should not have given backe that by Whole-sale, which hee had taken away from her by Re-tale. Its true also, that hee mentions Indulgences at the stations of Rome in the dayes of Saint Gregory: but let it be noted, that Gregory is without the compasse of the Pri∣mitive times, and that hee was interested in the cause; for, Purgatorie fiers began to singe men in his time, and thereupon, Indulgences to be Page  25in request, which afterwards proved a Staple commoditie to the See of Rome. Lastly,* as Mar∣tial writeth of Labulla, it may be truly said of this Gregory, that hee was the worst of the good, and best of the bad Popes.

To the thirteenth. The Knight, after Alfon∣sus, quoted Antoninus, Cajetan, and Bellarmine, to prove the noveltie of Indulgences, and that there is no ground for them in Scriptures, or the writings of the ancient Fathers: to whom, the Iesuit answereth not a word; and here the second time, hee is Gravelled in this Section. [ 13] To Alfon∣sus hee seemeth to say something, but upon due examination as good as nothing: first hee falsi∣fieth his words, saying, page 334. that Alfonsus confesseth the use of Indulgences to be most an∣cient, and of many hundred yeares standing; whereas his words are not; that the use of In∣dulgences was most ancient, but that it was said by some, to be most ancient among the Romanes: Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum usus; this praedicatur is of no more credit, than Plinie his fertur, or Solinus his aiunt. For not∣withstanding this report, Alfonsus resolves in that very place, It seemes that the use of Indul∣gences came but lately into the Church. Secondly, the Iesuit forceth a wrong Inference from Al∣fonsus his words. For albeit, hee affirmeth that Indulgences are not to be contemned, because they have beene in use in the Church for some hundreds of yeares: yet hee condemneth not Page  26a man for an Haeretique that shall deny them, but any one that shall contemne the Church or de∣spise her autority: his words are Quoniam ecclesiâ Catholicâ tantae est authoritatis ut qui illam contem∣nat Haereticus meritò censeatur, we say the same also,* and the Scripture beareth us out in it, tell the Church and if he refuse to heare the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican, but what if Alphonsus out of feare blowes hot and cold with one breath, whats that to us? He lived and died a professed Papist, and therefore what he writeth against Protestants, is little to be set by, but what he writeth against the Church of Rome whom he had a minde to defend in all things, and whose feed advocate he was, must be thougt to be drawne from him by evidence of truth; howsoe∣ver let it be noted that Alphonsus calleth not him an Haereticke, who denieth Indulgences, as the Knight doth,* but who contemneth the Catho∣like Church, which neither the Knight, nor any Protestant doth: we deny not, much lesse doe we contemne the authority of the Catholike Church. But we deny that the Roman Church is the Catholike, or a sound member thereof.

To the fourteenth. [ 14] Our Ministers doe not like Flood, and other Iesuits, bring muddy stuffe in their sermons, out of Petrus de Voragine, and the like fabulous Authors: but what they produce in this kinde against the Pope for his base sale of In∣dulgences, and making merchandize of his ghostly power, they proove out of good Authors, Page  27grave Historians, Canonists, and Schoolemen, such as are the author of the lives of Popes, and the booke called Taxa camerae Apostolicae & Cen∣tum granamina, together with Wescelius Cronin∣gensis, Guicciardine, Henricus de Gandavo, & Al∣tisiodorensis. If Altisiodorensis words are not plaine enough, Summ: l. 4. d. relap. Dicunt quidam quod relaxatio non valeat quantum ecclesia permit∣tit, sed facit ut excitentur fideles ad dandum, et de∣cipit eos ecclesia; some say that the Popes Indulgence prevailes not so much as the Church promiseth, but that thereby men are stirred up to give more freely and that therein the Church deceaveth them; what say they to that note in Taxa camerae Apostolicae,*note diligently that such favours, to wit, Indulgen∣ces are not graunted to poor folke, because they have not wherewithall, they cannot be comforted: or that pregnant phrase of Matthew Paris; that Christs blood alone though it be all sufficient to save soules, yet the same without saintly satisfaction applied by the Pope, is not sufficient to impregnate his holinesse Coffers. If the Iesuit smell not in thse sentences the fat steame of the Popes Kitchin he hath no nose.

To the fifteenth. [ 15] It is well the Iesuit termeth the drinking of a health to Almighty God, a tale, and by his quoting no authou or it, sheweth that it was a signal lye of his owne inventing, when he was betweene hawke and buzzard: Never any but himselfe who can blush at nothing, affirmed any such thing of any Protestant, that ever came to Page  28that height of impiety and prophannes, as to drinke a health to his Maker:* but Luitprandus and Polonus, telleth us of one Iohn the twelfth, a Pope of Rome, and consequently no Protestant: who made so bold with Almighty God, as to give Orders in a Stable, and so familiar with the Divell, as to drinke a health to him. As for the Knights prophane jeast as he calleth it: it is no jeast, but a serious testimony out of a grave histo∣rian, convincing the Popes agents of Atheisme and prophannes, and the Popes themselves, of sordid covetousnesse, his words are, Leo published large privileges through the whole world without any distinction of times and places, by which he pro∣mised not onely pardon to the living, but also power to deliver soules of the dead out of Purgatory paines; which because it was knowne that they were granted onely to fill the Popes coffers, and because his farmers carried themselves lewdly in the sale of them, great offence was taken at them, especeally in Germanie, where such Indulgences were set at a low price, and seene to be staked in Tavernes and Ale-houses at games of Tables.

To the sixteenth. [ 16] The Trent Synod was not a Councell, but a Conventicle, wholly swayed by the Italian faction, wherein not the flower of the Catholique Church for learning: but the bran of the Romish, boulted by the Pope, was gathered to∣gether. Page  29Let Andreas Dudithius the Bishop of Quinque eccles.* who was present at this Councell, speake his minde of it, the matter came to that passe, through the wickednesse of those hungry Bi∣shops that hung upon the Popes sleeve, and were cre∣ated on the suddaine by the Pope, for the purpose, that that Councell seemed to be an assembly, not of Bi∣shops, but of Hobgoblins, not of men, but of Images, moved like the statues of Daedalus by the sinewes of others. What the Iesuit addeth of night owles, not daring to appeare in the splendour of that Councell, hath no colour of truth. For it is no newes for owles to appeare at popish Councells. At a Councell held at Rome by Pope Heldebrand,*Or∣twhinus Gratius writeth, there appeared an huge great Owle, which could not be frayed away, but sca∣red all the Bishops. As for Protestants, whom this Blacke-bird of Antichrist termeth night Owles, if they had flocked to that Councell, they had shewed themselves not Owles, by appearing in that twi-light at Trent, but very Wood-cocks, to trust any security offerd them by those, who after publike faith given to Iohn Huz, and Ierome of Prage, notwithstanding the safe conduct of Si∣gismond the Emperour, for their going to, and comming from the Councell at Constance, most cruelly burned them at a stake to ashes.

To the seventeenth. [ 17] Divine faith must be grounded upon divine authority, and that cannot be the Catholike faith, which wanteth consent of Fathers. As for those Fathers whose authority Page  30Bellarmine draweth ob torto collo, to testifie for unwritten traditions de verbo Dei. lib. 4. cap. 7. the Iesuit may see them fully answered in Iunius Whitaker, Daniel Chamierus, and Dr. Davenant Bishop of Sarum, and a farre greater number of Fathers alleaged to the contrary, by Robert Ab∣bot in his answer to William Bishop, cap. 7. Phillip Morney in his preface to his booke, de sacrâ Eu∣charistiâ and Iacobus Laurentius in his singular tractate de Disputationibus, and others.

To the eighteenth. [ 18] The assistance of the Holy ghost was more speciall in the times of the Apo∣stles then in latter ages: they could not erre in their writings, others might; yet we charge not the Catholike Church of Christ in any age, with any fundamentall errour, though we may the Roman; Tertullian his rule may have still place, and as well in one age as another if it be rightly taken, and not misconstrued and misapplied; for if it be taken generally, that whatsoever is the same amongst many, is no errour but tradition, it is it selfe a great errour. For the same opinion concerning the inequality of the Father and the Sonne is found amongst many; to wit, the Arrian Chur∣ches: the same doctrine concerning the proces∣sion of the Sonne from the Father onely, is found amongst many, namely, all the Greeke Chur∣ches at this day: the same practise of admini∣string the Eucharist to children, was found a∣mongst many; namely, all the Churches of Af∣frica in St. Austines time, yea, and in all Chur∣ches Page  31subject to the Bishop of Rome for many ages, as Maldonat the Iesuit confesseth; yet the above named Positions, and this latter practise are con∣fessed on all sides to be erroneous. But Tertullian by many understandeth not the practise of some particular Churches,* much lesse of factious per∣sons of one Sect, but the generall and uniforme doctrine and practise of the whole Church as his words in the same Chapter, quoted by the Ie∣suit declare. Goe too now, admit that all Churches have erred, is it likely so many, so great Churches should erringly conspire in one faith?

To the nineteenth. [ 19] We derogate nothing from any generall custome of the Catholike Church, let the Iesuit produce out of good Authors any such custome for Indulgences to redeeme soules out of Purgatory flames by Papall Indulgences, and this controversie will soone be at an end; howsoever let me tell the Iesuit the way, that this text of St. Paul is impertinently alleaged to prove this or any other article of the Trent faith. For St. Paul in this place speaketh not of any Article of faith nor matter of manners necessary to salva∣tion, but of habits, gestures fashions, and indif∣ferent rites: in matter of which nature there is no question at all, but that the custome of the Churches of God ought to sway, as is abundantly proved by Dr. Andrewes late Bishop of Winche∣ster, in his printed Sermon upon that text.

To the twentieth. [ 20] Disputabamus de alliis re∣spondet Iesuita de cepis, we dispute of Indulgences, Page  32the Iesuit answereth of Traditions in matter of Faith. These are very distinct questions, and so handled by all that deale Work-man-like in points of difference betweene the Reformed, and the Romane Churches, but the Jesuits common place of Indulgences was drawne drie, and therefore hee setteth his cocke of Traditions on running, which yeeldeth nothing but muddy water. What though Faith be ancienter than Scriptures, the Argument is inconsequent? Ergo, Scripture is not now the perfect rule of Faith. Faith neither is, nor can be more ancient than the Word of God, upon which it is built, this Word of God is now written; and since, the consigning and confirming the whole Canon of the written Word, by Saint Iohn in the Apocalypse, is be∣come the perfect, and as the Schooles speaketh, the adequate rule of Faith. It is true, Christ and his Apostles first taught the Church by word of mouth;* but afterwards, that which they preached, was by the commandment of God, committed to wri∣ting, to be the foundation and pillar of Faith; as Irenaus testifieth in expresse words.

To the twentie one. [ 21] If the Iesuit could prove as undoubtedly any words of the Apostles that are not set downe in Scriptures, to be their owne words, as wee can prove the writings we have, to be theirs; wee would yeeld no lesse credit to Page  33them, then to these: but that neither can hee, nor so much as undertaketh to doe. And where∣as he further faith, that the credit of the Scrip∣ture depends upon Tradition; unlesse hee qualifie the speech some way, it is not onely erroneous, but also blasphemous; for it is all one, as if hee should say, that man gives credit and authority to God (as Tertullian jeareth the Heathen,* not receiving Christ for God, because the Romane Senate would not give their consent and appro∣bation to make him one, Iam homo deo propitius esse debet) or that the credit and authority of Gods Word dependeth upon mans receiving it. Whereas in truth, Gods Word is not there∣fore of divine and infallible authoritie, because the Church delivereth it to be so; but on the contrary, the Church delivereth it to be so, be∣cause in it selfe it is so; and the Church should erre damnably, if shee should otherwise conceive of these inspired Writings, then as of the un∣doubted Oracles of God, to which we owe ab∣solute consent and beliefe,* without any question or contradiction.

To the two and twentieth. [ 22] Saint Austine de∣fends no point of Faith against Heretikes, either onely or chiefly, by the Tradition and practise of the Catholike Church; but either onely or chiefly by the Scriptures. For example, in his booke of Baptisme, against the Donatists, after hee had debated the point by Scriptures, hee mentioneth the custome of the Church, and re∣lateth Page  34Stephanus his proceeding against such as went about to overthrow the ancient custome of the Catholike Church in that point. But hee no where grounds his Doctrine upon that custome, though hee doth well approve of it, as wee doe. Againe, in his booke against Maxi∣minus, and his 174 Epist. to Pascentius, hee con∣firmeth the faith of the Trinity by the written Word, against those Heretikes: his words, Ep. 175,* to the same Pascentius are; Here thou maist heare, if thou wilt, how these points of our Faith are maintained by Scripture. So farre is hee from founding those, or any other points of faith only, or chiefly upon unwritten Traditions. What the Iesuit alleageth out of his tenth booke, De Genes. ad literam, cap. 23.* no whit advantageth his cause; for there Saint Austine saith no more, but The custome of the Church in baptizing Infants, is no way to be despised, or to be accounted super∣fluous. Wee all say the same, and condemne the Pelagians of old, and Anabaptists of late, who deny Baptisme to be administred to children, or any way derogate from the necessitie of that Sa∣crament. The Iesuit saith, hee will say nothing of Prayer for the dead, yet hee quoteth Saint Austine, de curâ pro mortuis, as if in that booke hee taught Prayer for the dead, and grounded it upon unwritten Tradition. Whereas in that booke, hee neither maintaineth Prayer for the dead, nor maketh mention of any unwritten Tradition for it; but on the contrarie, solidly out Page  35of Scriptures proveth,* that the Saints departed have no knowledge of our affaires upon earth: the Prophet Esay saith, Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel is ignorant of us. If so great Patriarchs knew not what befell their posteritie after their death; how can it be defended, that the dead inter∣meddle with the actions or affaires of the living, to helpe them onward, or so much as to take notice of them? A little after, he concludes flat upon the Negative, The Spirits therefore of the dead there remaine where they knowe not what befalleth to men in this life. To what end therefore, should wee call upon them in our troubles and distresse here? Neither hath this Father any thing in his 118 Epistle for the Iesuit, or against us; for there hee speaketh of Ecclesiasticall Rites and Customes, as appeares in the very title of that Epistle, not of Doctrines of Faith: and yet, even in these, hee giveth a preheminence to the Scrip∣tures. If, saith hee, the authoritie of divine Scrip∣ture prescribe any Rite or Custome to be kept, there is no question to be made of such a Rite or Custome: and in like manner, if the whole Church throughout the world constantly useth such a Rite or Custome. The Iesuites next allegation out of this Fathers booke De unitate Eccles. cap. 22. falleth short of his marke; hee saith there, that Christ beareth wit∣nesse to his Church, that it should be Catholike, that is, spread over the face of the Earth, and not to be confined to any certaine place; as the Province of Affrica. Wee say the same, and adde, that the Page  36bounds of it, are no more the territories of the Bishop of Rome, than the Provinces of Affrica. Wee grant, that Whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church, to wit, the Catholike, or universall Church, resisteth, or goeth against our Saviour, who promised by his spirit, to leade her into all truth, and to be with her to the end of the World. Which promise may yet stand good and firme, though any particular Church erre in Faith, or manners, as did the Churches of Asia, planted by the Apostles themselves, and the Church of Rome doth at this day.* Now, because that testimonie of Saint Austine, wherewith the Knight concludes almost every Section; If wee, or an Angell from heaven, preach unto you any thing, whether it be of Christ, or of his Church, or any thing which concerneth Faith, or manners, besides that which you have received in the Legall and Evangelicall Scriptures, let him be accursed; is as a beame in all Papists eyes; therefore, they use all possible meanes to take it out, but all in vaine; for the words of the Apostle, on which Saint Paul commenteth, are not as the Iesuit would have them: If any man preach unto you, Contra against; but if any preach unto you, Praeter besides:* as Saint Chrysostome and Theophylact ac∣cutely observe. The Apostle saith not (if Chryso∣stome rightly understand him) if they should preach any thing contrary; but if they shall in their prea∣ching, adde any thing, be it never so little, besides that which wee have preached unto you, let him be Page  37accursed. And Theophylact is altogether as plaine as Chrysostome, in his Glosse upon the words, The Apostle inferreth not, if any man preach con∣trarie to that yee have received; but if any preach besides that which wee have preached unto you, that is, if they shall presume to adde any thing, though never so little, let them be accursed. Neither doth Saint Austine in his tractate upon Saint Iohn, upon which Bellarmine, and after him, Flood, so much beare themselves, any whit contradict the for∣mer interpretations of Saint Chrysostome and Theophylact. For his words in that place carry this sense, The Apostle saith not, if any man preach more unto you, than you have already received, that is, perfectly conceived and apprehended: for then hee should goe against himselfe, who saith, that hee desired to come to the Thessalonians, to supply that which was lacking to their Faith; to supply, I say, that which was lacking to their Faith, not to the Gospell which Saint Paul preached: hee saith not, let him be accursed, who further infor∣meth you in the Doctrine of the Scriptures, or delivereth you more out of them, than yee have yet received within that Rule; but hee that deli∣vereth you any thing besides that Rule. And that this is his meaning, appeareth by the words im∣mediately following, which the Iesuit cunningly suppresseth, to wit, these, Qui praetergreditur re∣gulam fidei, non accedit in viâ, sed recedit de viâ; Hee that goeth besides the Rule of Faith, doth not goe on in the way, but departeth out of the way.Page  38Yea; but the word in the Greeke translation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here used, is the same with that, Rom. 16.17. which wee in our Bibles translate, against, not Praeter, besides. Yea, but the Jesuits in their owne Latine vulgar translation, to which they are all sworne, (as wee are not to ours) render this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Praeter besides, and not Contra against: and that this translation is most agreeable to the A∣postles meaning, appeareth by comparing this text, Rom. 16.17. with a parralell'd text, 2 Thes. 3.6. Withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the Tradition which you have received of us. There is no necessity therefore, of expounding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in that text to the Romans, by Contra against; wee may as well (or better) expound it by Praeter, that is, besides: yet, if in one place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might signifie Contra, it doth not follow that it must be so taken, Galathi∣ans 1.8. for it is well knowne, that the naturall and most usuall signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greeke, is Praeter besides, not Contra against; and words are to be taken in their most proper and usuall signification, unlesse some necessarie reason, drawne from the circumstances of the text, or analogie of faith inforceth us to leave it, which here it doth not. As for Saint Austines judge∣ment in the point it selfe, to wit, that Scripture is the perfect rule of Faith, hee plainely delivereth it, both in his 49 tractate upon Iohn, and in the ninth chapter of the second booke De doctrinâ christianâ; and in the last chapter of his second Page  39booke De peccatorum meritis & remissione, and in his booke De bono viduitatis, cap. 11. What words can be more expresse and direct for the sufficiencie of Scripture, than those in his 49 tra∣ctate upon Iohn? The Lord Iesus did,*and spake many things which are not written, as the Evan∣gelist testifieth; but those things were chosen to be written, which seemed to suffice for the salvation of Beleevers: unlesse those in his second booke, De doctrina christiana, Among those things which are openly or plainly set downe in Scriptures, all things are found which concerne or containe Faith or manners: or those in his second booke of the remission of sinnes, I beleeve that the autho∣ritie of divine Scriptures, would have beene most cleere and evident in this point, if a man could not have beene ignorant of it, without perill of his sal∣vation: or lastly, those in his booke in the com∣mendation of Widowhood, What should I teach thee more than that which thou readest in the Apo∣stle? for the holy Scripture setleth the rule of our Doctrine, lest wee should presume to be wise above that wee ought.

Page  40

Concerning the infallible certain∣ty of the Protestant faith, and the un∣certainty of the Romish; Spectacles, Chapter the 10. a page 346. us{que} ad 380.

THE Knights failing in his proofes of our novelty is a sufficient proofe of our antiquity, [ 1] and his owne novelty.

The Jesuits may not be ashamed of the oath they take to defend the Papa∣cy, [ 2] nay, they may glory in it as an heroicall act, whereby they binde themselves to the defence of that authority whereon the weight and frame of the whole Catholike Church and salvation of all soules from Christ his owne time, to the very end of the world; hath, doth, and still shall de∣pend.

Catholike Doctors whom the Knight chargeth with division among themselves, [ 3] may indeede differ in opinion so long as a thing is undefined, for so long it is not faith, but when it is once defined, then they must be silent, and concurre all in one, because then it is matter of faith.

The Knight can have no certainty of his Christia∣nity, [ 4] Page  41because that dependeth upon his Baptisme, or the faith of his parents which he cannot know.

He can have no certainty of his Marriage, or the legitimation of his children, [ 5] because the validity of the contract dependeth upon the intention of the parties which marry, and no man can have any certaine knowledge of anothers intention, and so the Knight is in no better case then his adversaries in this respect.

It is cleane a different thing to dispute of the cer∣tainty of the Catholique faith which we maintaine, [ 6] and of every mans private and particular beliefe of his owne justification or salvation, which we deny to be so certaine: the one being grounded upon the authority of Gods divine truth, and revelation, the other upon humane knowledge, or rather conje∣cture. Howscever though we be not certaine by cer∣tainty of divine faith, that this or that man in parti∣cular is truely baptized or ordained a Priest; yet we are certaine by the certainty of divine faith, that not onely there be such Sacraments, but that they are also truly administred in the Catholike Church.

It might be good and profitable as Bellarmine noteth, to invoke the Saints, [ 7] though they them∣selves should not heare us, as the Knight would prove out of Peter Lumbard and Gabriel Biel, who though they doubt of the manner, yet they doubt not of the thing it selfe; Gabriel saith, the Saints are invocated not as givers of the good things for which we pray, but as intercessours to God the gi∣ver Page  42of all good. And Peter Lumbard saith that our prayers become knowne to the Angells in the word of God which they behold, so also doe Saints that stand before God.

Though it be true which Caietan saith, [ 8] that it cannot be knowne infallibly that the miracles where∣on the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints be true: yet it followeth not that we are uncertaine whether the Canonized Saints be in Heaven or no, because the certainty of Canonization dependeth up∣on more certaine ground, to wit, the authority of the See Apostolique, and continuall assistance and di∣rection of the Holy-ghost, the spirit of truth, to whom it belongeth not to suffer Christs Vicar, using humane diligence, and proceeding prudently in a matter of that moment,* to erre; and whereas St. Austine saith that many were tormented with the Devill in Hell, who were worshipped by men on earth: it may be well understood of the Martyrs of the Donatists, who were Canonized by those Haeretikes to be Martyrs, whose soules were tormented in Hell: and whereas Sulpitius and Cassander speake of wicked Robbers and damned persons honoured by the name of Holy Martyrs, it followeth not that because some peo∣ple in St. Martins time did erre in worshiping a dead theefe for a Saint, without any approbation of the Church: ergo Catholikes may erre in wor∣shiping of Saints Canonized and Authorized by the Church.

Though Gregorie, [ 9] and other Catholike Divines differ about the place, manner, punishment, and du∣rance Page  43of Purgatorie: yet, none rejecteth the beliefe of Purgatorie it selfe. And as for Saint Austine, alleaged by the Knight to the contrary, his words are to be meant of the finall and eternall place of soules. For otherwise, Saint Austine is so expresse for Pur∣gatory, in the very booke and place quoted by the Knight, to wit, in his Enchiridian ad Laurentium, that Mr. Antonie Alcock, a zealous Disciple of Luther, as it seemeth, translating it into English, is faine to write certaine annimadversions upon this Chapter, wherein hee confesseth,* Saint Austines opi∣nion is here for Purgatorie. The Saints owne words are, Neither is it to be denied, that the soules of the dead are relieved by the pietie of their friends li∣ving, when the sacrifice of our Mediatour is offred for them, or almes given in the Church. The same Father elswhere saith, The whole time betweene the death of a man, and the generall resurrection, con∣taineth the soules in hidden receptacles, as each is worthy, either of ease or paine.

The Doctrine of Catholikes, [ 10] concerning worship∣ping of Images, is not uncertaine, it being this onely, that Images are to be worshipped, but not as Gods. For the second Councell of Nice, it requireth not onely kissing of Images, and a civill kind of imbra∣cing, but a prostration on the ground, and praying on the knees before them: Gregorie de Valen∣tia taketh the word Simulacrum, in a good sense, and concludeth out of Saint Peter, that some Image∣worship is lan full, not any Idoll worship, as the Knight imposeth on him.

Page  44
The Hammer.

IN this Chapter, the Iesuit in the fourth, fift, sixt, seventh, twelfth, fifteene, and sixteene Paragraphs, doth nothing but seeth againe his old Coleworts, which were tasted before, and after cast into the dunghill. From whence, I purpose not to gather them againe, or set them before the Reader, lest his stomacke should rise at them: but I addresse my selfe to examine onely such Sophismes, Cavils and Evasions, whereby hee indeavoureth to elude or retort the Knights ar∣guments, brought against him in this Section, in order as I have set them downe.

To the first. [ 1] The consequence of the Iesuit, drawne from the Knights supposed failing in his proofes, failes many wayes, as may be proved by manifold instances. For albeit, many later Mathematitians faile in refuting Copernicus his giddy opinion of the earths circular motion, and the heavens standing still: yet this their fai∣ling is no sufficient proofe of Copernicus his new fancie: neither will it follow, that the religion of Pagans & Infidels hath sufficient ground, because Lactantius failes in his proofes of Christianitie, in Saint Ieromes judgement: and Cyprian also in the judgement of Lactantius. The defects of the Patron or Advocate, ought not to be imputed to the cause. It is a weake and silly Religion, whose whole strength consisteth in the weakenesse of Page  45some of the opposers of it. The truth is, the Knight hath not failed in his proofes of the no∣veltie of the Trent Creed, as the judicious Rea∣der will find: yet if there were any defect in them, it may be abundantly supplied out of Iuels challenge at Saint Pauls-Crosse, Abbots answer to Bishop, intituled, The true ancient Roman Catholike, and Doctor Faner in his Booke of Antiquitie, triumphing over noveltie, and divers others.

To the second. [ 2] That the salvation of all soules dependeth upon the Popes supremacie, which the Iesuits are bound by a fourth, and supernu∣merary vow to defend, is a bold and blasphe∣mous assertion, derogatorie to Christ himselfe, who is the Saviour of his body,* and only foundation which beareth up the waight and frame of the whole Catholike Church. When Christ said to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rocke will I build my Church; hee meant not, as Saint Au∣stine rightly observeth, To build himselfe upon Peter, but Peter and the whole Church upon him∣selfe; non super te edificabome, sed super me edifi∣cabo te. The Church was founded and establi∣shed before there was any Pope or Bishop at Rome, and shall so continue, when Rome shall, perchance, be burnt with fire,* and the Papacie which now tottereth, shall be utterly destroyed. Doth not their owne Gerson teach, that the Pope may be quite removed, and yet the Catholike Church still remaine? how then can the Jesuit Page  46say, that the waight and frame of the whole Catho∣like Church dependeth upon the authoritie of the Pope?

To the third. [ 3] The Knight used a dilemma, or two-forked Argument. Either the Popes sworn-Servants, and our sworne enemies, whose depositions before wee heard, against divers ar∣ticles of the Trent Faith, concurred with other Papists in judgement, or not: if they concurred, then by the joynt confession of all, for those points, at least, they are destitute of universality, which yet they make a prime note of their Church: if others concurred not with them in judgement, then their Doctors are divided a∣mongst themselves, and consequently, they want another speciall marke of their Church, which they make unitie in point of Faith. To avoid the push of this Ramme, the Iesuit starts* aside into a Scholasticall speculation, whether any thing is to be held for an article of Faith before it be defined, and resolveth the matter thus: When a a thing is once defined, to wit, by the Church, then it becomes a matter of Faith. Hee should rather determine, because this or that is a matter of Faith, therefore the Church defineth it to be so, and not because the Church defineth it to be so, therefore it is a matter of Faith. For Faith, if it be divine, is founded upon Gods Word, not the Churches definition: if nothing be matter of Faith, before it be defined by your Church, then Transubstantiation was no article of Faith, Page  47before the Councell of Laterane, and Innocentius the third his dayes; nor the Doctrine of Con∣commitancie, and lawfull communicating in one kind, before the Councell of Constance, under Martin the fift; nor the Popes superioritie to Councels, before the Councell at Laterane, un∣der Leo the tenth; nor most of Pope Pius the fourth his Articles, before the late Councell of Trent, wherein those points were first defined. Then which, what Argument can be more for∣cible, to convince the novelty of the Romish Faith? But whether an article of Faith is to be accounted such, because it is defined to be such by the Church; or whether it be defined to be such by the Church, because it is such in its owne nature; it will little serve the Iesuits turne to make up the breaches of the Roman Church. For certaine it is, that their Doctors differ a∣mongst themselves, even in points defined by the Church. For after the bookes of the Old Testament, with all the parts (knowne by the name of Apocrypha) by the Councell of Trent were defined to be of Canonicall authoritie; Six∣tus Senensis makes scruple of some of them.* Af∣ter the immaculate conception of our Lady was defined by Sixtus the fourth, and the feast in te∣stimonie thereof, authorised by him; yet, the Dominicans generally hold, that shee was con∣ceived in sinne. After Justification by inherent righteousnesse,* was defined in the Councell of Trent, Albertus Pighius and others, cited by Page  48Vegas held the contrary. And though the Coun∣cell of Trent stigmatize the doctrine touching assurance of salvation, yet Ambrosius Catharinus, a learned Papist, set forth a learned treatise de cer∣titudine salutis. Lastly, though Pope Leo the tenth, in the Councell of Lateran, defineth the Pope to be above a generall Councell, yet the Sorbonists at this day maintaine, that a generall Councell is above the Pope. Therefore as StTho∣mas Moore said pleasantly of a poore Physitian that he was more then medicus, to wit, by one letter,* meaning that he was mendicus. Vna tibi plus est litera quam medico; so it may truely be said of the unity Papists brag so much of, that it is more then Vnity by a letter, to wit, Vanity.

To the fourth. [ 4] If the Knight or any Prote∣stant suspended the efficacy of their Baptisme up∣on the faith of their Parents, or (as all Papists doe) upon the intention of the Priest, the Iesuit might with some colour object to us the uncer∣tainty of our Christendome: but let him know if he doth not, that we maintaine generally that the effect of Baptisme dependeth not upon the faith of the Parents and God-fathers, nor yet upon the intention of the Priest, knowne to God onely and himselfe; but upon his outward acti∣on and his words knowne to all the Congrega∣tion. We say that the observation of Christs in∣stitution in baptizing the partie in the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the Holy-ghost, and not the Priests hidden intention makes Baptisme Page  49effectuall to all that belong to the covenant.

To the fift. [ 5] The Iesuit most absurdly infer∣reth absurdities upon his owne Tenet, suppo∣sing it to be ours, whereas we disclaime it, affir∣ming that although the Church useth in marriage, all meanes possible by questions and answers, by joyning hands, by plighting their troth in most significant tearmes, and confirming their mutu∣all promises by giving and receiving a ring, and denouncing Gods judgments against them in most fearfull manner, if they know any thing one by the other, why they should not be ioyned in marriage, yet because the heart is knowne to God alone, the validity of marriage with us de∣pendeth upon the outward profession, and sa∣cred action done before sufficient and undoubted witnesse and not the secret intentions of the par∣tie. What the Iesuit addeth by way of jeare, that a small deale of orders serves our turnes, for he seeth not any thing done by vertue of our ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it. I hold it not worthy any other answer then that, sith he professeth his eye sight to be so dimme, he would make use of the Spectacles he made for the Knight, by helpe of them if he be not starke blinde, he may see, that by vertue of our ordination, men in holy orders preach the Gospell, administer the Sacraments, remit and retaine sinnes: which if he thinke any man or woman may doe without ordination, like the foole in the Poet,* he is gone from one extreame to the other, and of a PapistPage  50become an Anabaptist. With us none may execute the Priests office, but he that is called thereunto, as was Aaron. If the Iesuit meane that any man or woman may doe the outward acts of Priesthood de facto, though not de Iure: may they not doe the like also sometimes among them? doth not their Legend tell us that some Boyes getting by heart and pronouncing the words of Consecration, hoc est Corpus meum, turned all the Bakers bread in the street into flesh? Do not Lady Abbesses and Nuns chaunt Mattins together in Romish Chap∣pels? Do not Midwives christen children in their Church? With what face then can he charge us with those disorders whereof all the world seeth we are free, but he and his Church most guilty?

To the sixt. [ 6] If we can have but a conjecturall and wavering knowledge of our salvation, what comfort can a true Christian have in life or death? If his hope be onely in this life, the Apo∣stle affirmeth expressely,*that he is of all men most miserable; and certainely he is but little bet∣ter if all his hope in the life to come be no better then a guesse, or slender conjecture. Iustly there∣fore did Martin Luther tearme the Romish do∣ctrine concerning uncertainty of salvation, non doctrinam fidei sed diffidentiae, no doctrine of faith but of diffidence and distrust, which if this Iesuit stiffely maintaines, I would faine know of him how he interpreteth that Article of the Creed, I beleeve the remission of sinnes. Is the meaning onely this, that there is a remission of Page  51some sins in the Church? if so, then the Devill beleeves as much concerning this Article as he, but if as he beleeveth in the Article of the Resur∣rection, the Resurrection of his owne flesh, so in the Article of remission of sinnes, the remis∣sion of his owne sinnes; then his owne justifi∣cation, and particular beliefe of his owne sal∣tion is a part of his Catholike faith; and if that be but conjecturall, then there is no certainty in the Catholike Faith. It is true, that it is a different thing to dispute of the certainety of the Catholike faith in generall, and of every mans private and particular beliefe of his owne justification, and salvation: yet there is such a dependance be∣tweene them, that if the former be uncertaine the latter cannot be certaine. Yea but (saith the Iesuit) we are certaine, by the certainty of divine faith, not onely that there be seven Sacraments, but that they are also truely administred in the Church, so as there can be no danger of the fai∣ling of either, to the notable preiudice of faith and the salvation of soules. I reply first, that for five of the seven as was discussed at large, Section the fourth, the Iesuit is so farre from any certainty that indeede he can bring no probability that there be any such Sacraments in the Catholike Church; and for the other two which we ac∣knowledge to be Sacraments properly so called, he cannot be certaine that they are ever effectual∣ly administred in his Church according to their owne Tenents, who suspend the efficacy of them Page  52upon the Priests intention. Nay farther, he can∣not be certaine that they have any Church at all amongst them, for there can be no Church (as they teach) without a visible succession of lawfull Pastours, whereof hee cannot be certaine, sith no man knoweth whether the Bishops, who or∣dained their Priests, or the Archbishop, who or∣dained their Bishops, or the Pope, who conse∣crated their Archbishops, intended that which your Church intendeth; and if there failed an intention in any of all these, or in him who bap∣tized or ordained their first Pope, (since the Bi∣shops of Rome began to be Popes) hee hath no certainty according to his owne grounds, of any Priesthood or Christianitie in his Church.

To the seventh. [ 7] I never heard before, that it could be good, or any way profitable surdo fa∣bulum narrare, to tell a Tale in the care of a deafe man. Where doe the Scriptures, or ancient Fa∣thers give any approbation to such senslesse de∣votion? can a man call upon him with faith, or any hope of obtaining his suit, whom hee con∣ceiveth to be out of his hearing? Yea, but Ga∣briel Biel speaketh not doubtfully, but certainly, of Invocation, though hee seeme to doubt of the manner how Saints in heaven know our necessi∣ties on earth. Biel indeed lispeth somewhat that way, but hee speaketh not plaine; hee saith, In∣vocantur sancti, not sancti sant invocandi; hee speaketh confidently and certainly of the pra∣ctise of the Romane Church, out not of the truth Page  53of this point of the Romish Faith, that Saints ought to be called upon: for that hee taught,* that It may seeme probable that God revealeth to Saints, all those suits which men present unto them: consequently holdeth, that it may seeme also probable, that the living may pray unto them. But what is this his probabile, or Peter Lumbards not incredibile, to build an Article of Faith upon? Yea, but Pe∣ter Lumbard, though hee make some doubt, whe∣ther the Saints heare our Prayers as they pro∣ceed from us, (they being in Heaven, and wee in Earth, they being but in one place,* and those that call upon them in a million of places, di∣stant farre one from the other) yet, Hee maketh no doubt of their knowing and seeing our Prayers in the Word of God, as the Angels doe. I answer, that this imaginarie Glasse of the Schoolemen, wherein they conceive, that the Saints and An∣gels see all things by the contemplation of God, in whom are all things, hath beene long agoe battered in pieces. For if, because they see God, they must needs see all things that are in him, and know all that hee knoweth; it would hereupon insue, that the Saints knowledge should be infi∣nite, as Gods is: that they should know the day and houre when Christ shall come to judgement, contrary to the expresse words of our Saviour, Marke 13.32. that they should know the secrets of all hearts, which the Scripture ascribeth as a singular prerogative to God. To avoid these Rockes, if our Adversaries will confine the Page  54knowledge of the Saints or Angels, to such things onely, as God shall be pleased to reveale unto them, they beg then the point in question, which they ought to prove: viz. That God will reveale to every Saint, what every man on earth pray∣eth to him for.

To the eighth. [ 8] First the Iesuit in this answer flatly contradicteth Cajetan, whom hee under∣taketh to defend: for, if the Church groundeth not the canonization of Saints upon the report of miracles voyced on them: Cajetans Argument in that place is weak, and of no force. Secondly, for the authoritie of the See Apostolike, and the infallibility of the Popes judgement, they are as uncertaine, or more then that such persons ca∣nonized by the Pope are Saints.* Saint Cyprian in his time, severely censured those who arroga∣ted to themselves that which the Father hath gi∣ven to the Sonne onely; to wit, in the floore of the Church, to take the fanne in his hand, and sever the Wheat from the Chaffe. If God onely knoweth the hearts of all the children of men, either the Pope must be God, as the Canonists blasphemously called him, or hee cannot infallibly know who are true Saints, and sincerely beleeve, and love God. As for Saint Austines complaint (that many were worshipped by men on earth that are tormented by the devill in hell) they are in∣definitely spoken, and not restrained to Dona∣tists, or any other Heretikes: yet, were it so, wee may see in those Donatists a perfect picture of Page  55Papists. For what Donatus did in Affrica, that doth the Pope in Europe; hee canonizeth those of his faction for Saints. And as the Donatists gave the honour of Martyrs to those, who justly suffered death for Robberies and Murders, so doe the Papists crowne the heads of Murderers and Traitours with the garland of Martyrdome; witnesse Becket, Campian, Oldcorne, and Garnet; whereof the first standeth in the Kalender of Ro∣mish Saints, the later in the Register of Jesuiticall Martyrs. Neither can the Iesuit so easily fillip off the testimonie of Cassander, as if hee taxed the ignorant for making a Saint of a Thiefe,* and no way touched upon the Pope or your Church; for hee layeth not the blame upon the people, as the Iesuit here doth, but saith simply, that Saint Martin found a place honoured in the name of a holy Martyr, to be the sepulcher of a wic∣ked Robber. Secondly, 'tis well knowne that the people cry not up at first a Saint; or Martyr after his death, but the Priests, who voyce mi∣racles upon them, and keepe their Shrines and Reliques, and by shewing them to the people, make no lesse gaine, than Demetrius and his fellow Crafts-men did of their silver Shrines of Diana.

To the ninth. [ 9] As hee that plucks the stickes out of the Chimney one by one, at last puts out the fire: so the Knight by loosening, or quite removing the fuell of Purgatorie fire, conse∣quently extinguisheth it. If all the parts and cir∣cumstances Page  56of the Doctrine of Popish Purgatory are doubtfull and uncertaine, the whole certainly can be no Article of Faith: but the Antecedent the Knight proves out of Bellarmine, Dominicus a Soto, Fisher Bishop of Rochester, Gregorie the great, and venerable Bede, let the Iesuit there∣fore looke to the Consequent. The Church of Rome commandeth every one upon paine of hell∣fire, to beleeve a temporarie purging fire after this life. First, upon what ground, Scripture, or unanimous consent of Fathers, or Tradition of the Catholike Church? no such thing. But upon apparitions of dead men, and testimonie of Spirits, whether good Spirits or evill they can∣not tell. Next, wee demand what soules, and how long doe they contine there? To this they must answer likewise Ignoramus. Soto think∣eth that none continueth in this purgation ten yeares. If this be true, saith Bellarmine, No soule needs to stay in purging one houre. Thirdly, the soules that are supposed to be there, till their sinnes are purged, where with are they purged? With fire onely; so saith Sir Thomas Moore, and proves it out of Zacharie 9.11. Thou hast delive∣red the prisoners out of the place where there is no water: or with water and fire: so saith Gregorie in his Dialogues, lib. 4. Some are purged by fire, and some by bathes: and Fisher Bishop of Roche∣ster, proves it out of those words of the Psalmist, Wee have passed thorow fire and water. Fourthly, admit they are purged by fire, whether is this Page  57fire materiall or metaphoricall? Ignoramus, Wee know not, saith Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 6. Lastly, is there any mittigation of this paine in Purgatorie, or no? They cannot tell this nei∣ther. For venerable Bede, hist. Ang. lib. 5. tels us of the apparition of a Ghost, reporting that There was an infernall place where soules suffered no paine, where they had a brooke running through it. Neither is it improbable, saith Bellarmine, l. 2. de Purg. cap. 7. that there should be such an hono∣rable prison, which is a most milde and temperate Purgatorie. Yea, but saith the Iesuit, Saint Austin is a firme man for Purgatorie, and hee will prove it out of that booke of Enchiridion, and place quoted by the Knight. Resolutely spoken, but so falsly,* that in this very booke, chapter 69, Saint Austine speaking of a purging fire, and commenting upon the words of Saint Paul, Hee shall be saved as it were by fire; addeth immediately, It is not unlikely that some such thing may be after this life: but whether it be so or no, it may be argued; and whether it can be found, or not found, that some Beleevers are saved by a purging fire; yet it is certaine, that none of them shall be saved, of whom the Apostle saith, they shall not inherit the Kingdome of God. And in the same booke, chapter 109. he resolves, that All soules from the day of their death to their resurrection, abide in expectation what shall become of them, and are reserved in secret receptacles accordingly as they deserve, either torment or ease. These hidden Cells or Receptacles wheresoever Page  58they are scituated in St. Austins judgment,* cer∣taine it is, they are not in the Popish Purgatory; for St. Austine placeth in these secret Mansions all soules indifferently, good or bad, whereas the Popish Purgatory is restrained only to those of a middle condition, being neither exceeding good nor exceeding bad. Againe, in St. Austines hid∣den repositories, some soules have ease, and some paine, as each deserveth: but in the Ro∣mish Purgatory, all soules are in little-ease, being tormented in a flame little differing from Hell fire, or rather nothing at all, save onely in time, the paines are as grievous but not so durable. Else where St. Austine is most direct against Purga∣tory, and wholly for us, as namely, de peceat. meritis de remissione, l. 1. c. 28. There is no mid∣dle or third place, saith he, but he must needs be with the Devill who is not with Christ. And Hy∣pog. l. 5. The first place the faith of Catholikes by divine authority beleeveth to be the Kingdome of Heaven, the second to be Hell, tertium locum pe∣nitùs ignoramus, the third place, we are alltogether ignorant of; and in his booke de vanit. seculi cap. 1. Know that when the soule is seperated from the body, statim, presently, it is either placed in Para∣dise for his good worke, or cast headlong into the bot∣tome of hell for his sinnes. Neither can the Iesuit evade by saying that there are two onely places where the soules remaine finally and eternally, to wit, Heaven and Hell, but yet that there is a third place where the bodies fry in purging for Page  59a time; for St. Austine speakes of all soules in generall both good and bad, and saith that statim, that is, presently upon death, they are receaved into Heaven, or throwne into Hell; and therefore stay no time in a Third place. What then say we to the passage in which the Iesuit so triumpheth? Enchirid. ad Laurenc. c. 110. Neither is it to be denied, that the soules of the dead are relieved by the piety of their friends living, when the Sacrifice of our Mediatour is offered for them, and Almes given in the Church. We answer, that where St. Au∣stine is not constant to himselfe, we are not bound to stand to his authority, and therefore we appeale from Saint Austine missing his way in this place, to the same Austine,* hitting his way elsewhere, namely, l. 2. Quest. Evan. c. 38. There can be no helpe of mercy afforded by just men to the soules of the deceased, although the righteous would never so faine have it so, because the sentence of God is immutable: and Ep. 80. ad Hesich. such as a man is when he dieth, for such he is judged of God, neither can the sentence of God be changed corrected, or diminished. As for Mr. Anthony Al∣cots confession, that Saint Austines opinion was for purgatorie, it maketh not for the Iesuit, but against him; for he saith, it was his opinion, not his resolved judgment, and his opinion at one place and at one time, which after he retracted and resolved the cleane contrary, as Mr. Alcots there in part sheweth, and Danaeus most fully in his Comment upon St. Austine his Enchiridian ad Laurentium.

Page  60

To the tenth. [ 10] If all Papists did agree in this, that all Images were to be worshipped, but not as Gods; yet are they at odds in other Quillets concerning Images, namely, whether they are to be worshipped in themselves, and for them∣selves, or onely ratione prototypi, in regard of that they represent: whether properly, or im∣properly: whether with kissing and imbracing, and other civill complements, as Tharasius the Patriarke of Constantinople teacheth, or with pro∣stration, or corporall submission before Images, as the Iesuit indeavoureth to prove out of the Acts of the second Councell of Nice. Neither is it certaine, and resolved among all Papists, that Images are to be worshipped, but not as Gods. For some of them deny, that they are at all to be worshipped, others over-lavish on the contra∣ry, and teach, that they are to be worshipped as God.* For though Bellarmine himselfe approve not the opinion of those Roman Catholikes, who teach that Latria, or divine honour is due to Ima∣ges, unlesse it be improperly, and by accident; yet hee confesseth that Alexander de Hales, Aquinas, Cajetanus, Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almaine, Carthusian, Capreolus, and Henricus teach, that The Images of God are to be worshipped with the same worship wherewith God himselfe is worship∣ped; and what is this lesse, than to worship Ima∣ges as God? As for the Canons and curses of the Councell of Nice, they are but Bruta fulmi∣na, and if the Iesuit be not as senselesse as the Page  61Images which hee worshippeth, hee must needs confesse as much. For to speake nothing of the ridiculous arguments used in that Councell, such as these are; God made Man after his owne Image, therefore we may make or worship Images: and the Angels are to be painted, quia corporei sunt, be∣cause they are bodily substances. What is there spo∣ken in the 115 Psalme, the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 ver∣ses, against Idols, which may not be applied to your Popish Images? It is said of them, They are the workes of mens hands; are yours the worke of Angels, or Devils? It is said of them, They have mouthes and speake not, eyes and see not, eares and heare not, noses and smell not, hands and han∣dle not, feet and walke not: doe any of your vene∣rable Images made of silver and gold (or rather, of which you make so much silver and gold of) speake, see, heare, smell, handle or walke? I conclude therefore in the words of the Psalmist, They that make these Images are like unto them, and so are all they that defend the worship of them. For Gregorie de Valentia, the Iesuit telleth but a sorry tale; for first, hee disparageth his lear∣ning in the Greeke, saying, that alleaging a Text out of Saint Peter, who wrote in Greeke, hee followed the Latine translation, never look∣ing to the originall: which argueth in him, ei∣ther grosse ignorance in the Greeke, or grosse negligence. After hee hath thus disgraced their noble Champion, hee leaveth him in the open field, saying, pag. 377. Neither doe I allow Valen∣tia Page  62his use of the word Simulacrum, nor his explica∣tion of Saint Peters text, neither this his argument drawne from thence. The truth is, Gregorie de Valentia is unexcusable;* for howsoever hee di∣stinguisheth of Image and Idoll-worship, and intendeth to prove no more out of Saint Peter, then that some Image-worship is lawfull: yet, if his collection were good out of Saint Peter, it would prove some Idoll-worship to be lawfull. For Saint Peters word is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, un∣lawfull Idolatries; and if because Saint Peter bran∣deth Idolatrie with the epithet of Vnlawfull, he will infer that therefore some Idolatrie is lawfull: by the same reason he might conclude, that some Adulterie or Theft were good and profitable, because the Apostle, Ephes. 5.21. biddeth us to have no fellowship with the unfruitfull workes of darknesse. For the distinction of an Image and an Idoll, I have spoken at large heretofore; here onely I observe, that the Iesuit (in saying that Idolum, according to the prime signification of the word, might be taken more indifferently, because it signifieth the seeming shape or beauty of a thing or person) contradicteth himselfe, and the whole current of his owne Doctours, and strength∣neth our Arguments against them, drawne from the prohibition of making or worshiping Idols, that is, the shape or beauty of any thing or person.* The shape or beauty of any thing or per∣son, according to the prime signification and ety∣mologie of the word is an Idoll: but all Popish Page  63Images are the shapes of some thing or person, they are all therefore Idolls, and the worshipers of them Idolaters, according to the primitive signification of the word. The truth is, every I∣doll is an Image, and every Image an Idoll, ac∣cording to the first signification of the word: but according to the present use, an Idoll for the most part is taken in the worst sense, and signi∣fieth such an Image onely as is idolized, that is made for religious worship, or rather irreligious, as all Popish Images are: and because they are so, the places of Scripture which we bring a∣gainst the worship of Idolls, as this of Saint Pe∣ter, are strong and in force against them and their Worshippers. And this may serve for answer of the fourteenth Paragraph of this tenth Chapter. In the 15. and 16. following, he doth but champe somewhat of that which before he chewed, and there∣fore I conclude this Chapter with his owne words a little altered: we finde nothing in matter of faith uncertaine in the Protestant Church, no∣thing certaine on the Iesuits side but onely this, that he is alwayes and every where himselfe, that is a Proteus: whose motto may be that of the Hea∣thens Goddesse, Fortune: constans in levitate suâ, constant to his inconstancy, and true to his false dealing.

Page  64

Concerning the greater safety and comfort in the Protestant faith then in the Romish; Spectacles, Chap. 11. a page. 381. us{que} ad 404.

THE Knight though he talke so much of proving the safety, [ 1] and comfort of the Protestant faith out of Catho∣like Roman Authors, yet he cannot name that man that saith any such thing: for suppose he finde one or two Authors that say some thing different from the com∣mon opinion, doth he presently say, the Protestant faith is safe?

Even those points of Protestant religion, [ 2] which of themselves perhaps might seeme indifferent, their disobedience and spirit of contradiction makes dam∣nable.

The Protestant religion is not safer then the Ro∣man, [ 3] in regard of the all-sufficiency of Scripture, on which the Protestants relie, for the Catholikes relie upon the same ground of safety, acknowledging and reverencing the authority of Scripture, as much, nay much more then Protestants.

It is not safer to adore Christ (as Protestants doe) sitting at the right hand of his Father in Heaven, [ 4] Page  65then to adore the Sacrament: for Christ is as surely in the Sacrament as in heaven, the same Catholique faith teaching both verities; and to make you study a little, saith hee, I may say in some sort, more sure; for a man that would be contentious, may deny Christ to sit at the right hand of his Father, because his Fa∣ther hath neither right hand, nor left.

There is no more fafety in the Protestant doctrine of Iustification, than the Romane. [ 5] For Catholikes trust wholy in God, attributing no more to their owne good workes, than that they cooperate to Iustifica∣tion, meriting grace and glorie: and on the contra∣rie, Protestants teach vaine confidence in most of these points, as that a man must assure himselfe that his sinnes are forgiven, that hee must assure himselfe of his salvation, and that he cannot fall from grace, and the like: which ground supposed, how can hee worke out his salvation with feare and trembling?

[ 6]

Though some Catholikes say, that there is more perfection of the Sacrament, which consisteth in the representation in both kinds, than in one; yet there is the same safety and fruit in one, and in both kinds.

Though the sacrifice of the Masse is more profi∣table, when the people comnunicate with the Priest, [ 7] as the Knight proveth out of the Councell of Trent, Harding and Bellarmine: yet hee proveth not, that there is any danger in private Masses, or that it is unlawfull for the Priest to say Masse without hee have some to communicate with him, which is the Controversie between Catholikes and Protestants.

Page  66

Aeneas Sylvius, Cassander, [ 8] and Panormitan are of opinion indeed, that Priests should have libertie to marry: yet they would not have them marry a∣gainst the law standing in force, but they would have the law taken away: which is a farre different Doctrine from that of Protestants. Howsoever, it is safer to follow the judgement of all other Doctours of the Catholike Church, all other Fathers and Councels teaching the contrarie; of all which, there is abundant proofe in Bellarmine, and which was never contradicted by any, but knowne wicked men.

Though publike Prayers in Latine may not be so profitable to the people, [ 9] yet they are lawfull and safe, and the fruit of refection of the understanding by Prayer in a knowne tengue, whereof Aquinas spea∣keth, will not countervaile the tenth part of the in∣convenience which may happen by having publike Prayers in a knowne tongue. The inconveniences are vanitie, curiositie, contempt of Superiours, dis∣putes, schismes, prophanation, and divulgation of secret Mysteries: besides, the very ignorance of the Latine tongue, and consequently, of all learning which would follow thereof onely in Clergie men, is ten hundred times more harme, than that fruit in the Laitie is good. Cajetan was greatly mistaken, when hee expoundeth the fourteenth chapter of the first Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corynthians, of publike Prayers in the Church: and hee is also mis∣taken in the very end of Prayer, which is not edifi∣cation, or instruction of the people, but the honour of Page  67God immediately. Gabriel Biel speaketh not of Prayer in a knowne tongue, nor of publike Prayers, but onely of mentall Prayer, and vocall; and giveth those seven reasons which the Knight alleageth, to shew, that besides mentall Prayer, it is convenient to use vocall.

There is no danger in worshipping Images, [ 10] or praying to Saints: and Erasmus, Cassander, and Chemnitius, who teach the contrary, are of none authoritie.

Neither Bernard, nor Waldensis, [ 11] nor Bellar∣mine, contradict the Doctrine of the Romish Church in the point of Merit. For Catholikes acknowledge with Bernard, that there is no safe rest or securitie for a weake soule, but in the wounds of our Saviour; which doth not hinder but a man may say, God re∣wardeth the good workes of his servants, out of his justice and fidelitie, which out of his mercie he gave them grace to doe: and though Waldensis and some other Divines, approve not of the word of Me∣rit, especially De condigno; yet in the thing it selfe, they all agree, to wit, that eternall life is gi∣ven to men, as the reward of their good workes: which is all that others meane by condigne Merit. The Doctrine of Bellarmine, to wit, that it is most safe to trust wholly in the Merits of Christ, is as well the Catholike Doctrine, as the Protestants: who condemne not Protestants for not trusting in their workes, or trusting wholly in Christ; if so be they deny not the necessitie and efficacie of good workes, for purchasing grace and glorie.

Page  68
The Hammer.

AS Asia Minor is called by some Geographers Asia Asiae, and the field of Agrigentum, Sicilia Siciliae, and Attica, Graecia Graeciae, and the Ball or Apple in the eye, the eye of the eye: so this Chapter of the Knight may be not unfitly termed via viae, the safest path in his safe way, other Chapters tend to the proofe of his title Via Tuta: but this is full upon it. For here he proves by many remarkable instances, that our rocke is much more sure then theirs, our very adversaries being judges; his instances are prayers in a knowne tongue, communicating in both kindes, partaking of the Sacrament with the Priest, immediate addresse to God by Christ, adoring the Creator onely, resolution of our faith upon Gods word, relying wholly upon his Grace and mercy, and renouncing mans merit. And whose understand∣ing apprehendeth not, that it is safest to pray to God with understanding; whose spirituall sen∣ses tell him not that it is more comfortable and profitable to communicate with a Priest then to looke on, and to receive the Sacrament in both kindes, then in one onely; whose reason per∣swadeth him not that it is safer to worship God in spirit, then by an Image; to adore Christ in Heaven, then in a peece of bread; to expect ayde from God, then Saints; to trust in Gods word, then in mans; in his Grace, then our will; Page  69and in Christs merits, then our owne? yet as restie jades stumble in faire way: so the Iesuit in this fairest rode of the safe way stumbleth of∣ten, and tumbleth also, as the Reader may ob∣serve in the severall annotations at his particular slips, or rather downefalls in this Chapter.

To the first. [ 1] The Knight doth not conclude out of any one particular, but maketh an inducti∣on out of many particulars in this manner. The Protestant faith by the best learned among Pa∣pists in the point of Communion in both kindes, of Prayer in a knowne tongue, justification by Faith alone, et sic de ceteris, is safer then the Ro∣man: ergo, simply and generally it is safer. Though Silurus his Son could breake every Ar∣row by it selfe, which his Father gave him, yet he could not in like manner the bundle or sheafe of Arrowes which he put in his hand, and bid him assay to breake them if he could, —nam vis unita fortior. Et quae non prosunt singula multa ju∣vant; but the Iesuit hath not beene able to breake any one of the single Arrowes shot by the Knight in the former Sections, how then will he be able to breake the sheafe in this?

To the second. [ 2] By the uncharitable censure of the Iesuit, he sheweth of what spirit he is. The searcher of all hearts knoweth that we con∣tradict Romish doctrines, not out of disobedi∣ence to man, but out of obedience to him who commandeth us to contend for the true faith: and to reprove and convince all gainesayers. What Pa∣pists Page  70intentions are, we take not upon us to judge: their doctrines we put to the test of Gods word, and finde them false and adulterine, and all be it some points of their beliefe, considered in them∣selves, might seeme indifferent: yet as they hold them they are not, because they are not of faith,* and what soever is not of faith is sinne. Now no point of the Romish Creed as they hold it, is of that faith the Apostle speaketh of, that is, divine faith; because they ground and finally resolve all their articles not upon Gods word, but upon the authority of the Pope,* or Church of Rome, which is but the authority of man; whereas on the con∣trary as Doctor Crakent horpe demonstrateth, If any Protestant build hay or stubble upon the true foundation, he may he saved; because be holdeth the true foundation, which is, that every doctrine of faith ought to be built upon Scripture. If the Iesuit wonder at this conclusion, let him weigh the Au∣thors reasons, and he will be forced to confesse, that the errors, if there be any in Protestants, in regard they sticke close to the true foundation, and implicitly deny them, cannot in them be damnable, whereas the very true doctrines of faith in Papists, because they hold them upon a wrong ground and foundation, very much dero∣gatory to God and his truth, are not so safe.

To the third. With what face can the Iesuit avow this? [ 3] considering that Prieras before al∣leaged, and other writers approved by the Church of Rome, mainetaine this blasphemous Page  71assertion, that the authority of the Church is greater then the anthority of Scripture, and all Papists of note at this day, hold that the Scripture is but an imperfect and partiall rule of faith; all Prote∣stants on the contrary teach, that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith; Papists believe the Scrip∣ture for the Churches sake, Protestants the Church for the Scripture sake; Papists resolve all points of faith generally into the Popes infalibility, or Churches authority, Protestants into the written word of God, which as Bellarmine himselfe con∣fesseth,*containeth all things necessary for all men to beleeve, and is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeve∣ing. Yea but saith the Iesuit out of Vincentius Lerinensis,*he that will avoid the deceits and snares of Haeretikes, and remaine soundin the faith, must strengthen his faith two wayes, to wit, by the authority of the divine law, and the tradition of the Catholike Church. This advise of Vincentius is sound, and good if it be rightly understood, and not in the Iesuits sense. Vincentius there by tradi∣tion of the Catholike Church understandeth not unwritten verities, but the Catholike expositions of holy Scriptures, extant in the writings of the Doctors of the Church in all ages, and we grant that this Catholike exposition of the Doctors where it can be had, is of great force to con∣firme faith, and confound Heretikes.* For the stop∣ping of whose mouth that Father saith, and we de∣ny it not, that there is great neede to add to the Scrip∣ture the Churches sense or interpretation, albeit as he Page  72there addeth, which cutteth the throat of the Iesuits cause, The Canon of Scripture is perfect, and sufficient of it selfe for all things: nay ra∣ther, as hee correcteth himselfe, Over and above sufficient; cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibi{que} adomnia satis super{que} sufficiat.

To the fourth. [ 4] Here the Iesuit would make his Reader study a little, and his Adversarie to muse;* but it is indeed, whether hee be in his right wits, or no. For first, as Seneca well resol∣veth, one thing cannot be said truer than another; one truth in Divinitie may be more evident to us than another, but in it selfe it cannot be truer or surer. Secondly, admitting there could be de∣grees of certainty, at least quoad nos, there can be yet no comparison, in regard of such certain∣tie betweene an Article of the Creed assented unto by all Christians, and a controverted con∣clusion, maintained onely by a late faction in the Westerne Church. But the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his Father, is an Article of the Creed, set downe in expresse words in holy Scripture,* consented unto by all Christians in the world; whereas the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Tranfubstantiation, is no Article extant in any Creed, save onely that of Pope Pius his coyning, in the yeare of our Lord, 1564. It is neither in words set downe in Scripture, as the other Articles are; neither can it be necssarily inforced or deduced by con∣sequence, as foure great Cardinals of the Roman Page  73Church confesse, Cameracensis, Cajetan, Roffen∣sis, and Bellarmine. Neither was this Doctrine of the Romane Church ever assented unto by the Greeke Church, nor by the Latine anciently, or generally, as I shewed before. Thirdly, the Ie∣suit contradicteth himselfe within eight lines: for having said in the eighteenth line,* that Christ his corporall presence in the Sacrament was more sure, than his presence in heaven at the right hand of his Father; about seven lines after, forgetting himselfe, hee saith, that Wee shall find as much to doe (marke as much, not more) in expounding that Article of the Creed, as they doe in expounding the words, This is my Body. Wherein it is well hee confesseth, that Papists make much to doe in ex∣pounding the words, This is my Body, which is most true; for by the demonstrative Hoc, they understand they know not what. Neither this Body, nor this Bread, but an Individum vagum, something contained under the accidents of Bread, which when the Priests saith Hoc, it is Bread; but when hee hath muttered out an Vm, it is Christs Body. Likewise by the Copula est (is) they understand they know not what; either shall be, as soone as the words are spoken, or is converted unto, or is by Transubstantiation. Last∣ly, by Body, they understand such a body as in∣deed is no body, without the extension of place, without distinction of Organs, without facultie of sense, or motion: and will hee make this fig∣ment so incredible, so impossible, as sure, nay Page  74more sure than the Article of Christs ascension into heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of his Father there? Yea, but the Iesuit deman∣deth, Wherein are you more safe than wee? if hee be not there, wee are in danger of adoring him where hee is not; if hee be there, then are you, saith hee, in danger, by not adoring him where hee is. I an∣swer, wee are every way safe, and they both wayes in danger: wee are safe, because if hee be there, wee who worship him there in spirit and truth, not under any corporall shape, are in no danger at all; because wee worship him at his Table, as hee requireth: if hee bee not there, wee can be in no danger, for not worshipping him there where hee is not. They are in danger both wayes, of Will-worship if he be there; of Idolatrie, if hee be not there. Of Will-worship, I say, if hee be under the accidents of Bread and Wine, because they are no where commanded to worship him under such formes: if hee bee not there, then are they apparantly guiltie of grosser Idolatrie, by exhibiting Culium latriae, divine worship to a piece of Bread.

To the fift. [ 5] Here the Iesuit, like an Adder, thrusteth out his forked sting, pricking with one of his forkes, the Knight, for calumniating their Doctrine: with the other, the Doctrine of the Reformed Church, touching assured hope of salvation, as matter of vaine confidence, and a dangerous precipice of the soule. The first is ea∣sily plucked out; for the Knight chargeth them Page  75with nothing, but what the Iesuit himselfe con∣fesseth. For if men cooperating to their justifica∣tion, merit both grace and glorie, they doe not ascribe the whole glorie of it to God; but as the Romans, for the victorie they gained over the Cimbri, sacrificed Deo & Mario: so doe the Pa∣pists at this day, for the conquest of their ghostly enemies, and their purchase of heaven, burne incense Deo & Mariae, to Christ and Mary, and attribute their justification and salvation, partly to Christs merits, partly to their owne; together with the superabundant satisfaction of the bles∣sed Virgin Mary, and other Saints. The other forke reacheth not home to invenome our most wholsome doctrine, concerning assured hope of salvation: for though wee teach, that a man ought to be assured that his sinnes are forgiven him: yet withall wee teach, that this assurance is upon condition of Repentance and Faith. And withall wee affirme, because hee stan∣deth not by his owne strength, but by Gods power, Who worketh in him both the will and the doed; hee ought not to be high minded, but to feaxe, and in this feare to worke out his salva∣tion.* I meane, in feare: as feare is opposed to carnall security and presumption, not as it is opposed to religious confidence: and as hee must worke out his salvation with this feare, so also with trembling; as trembling is taken for an awfull and filiall reverence, not for a servile affrighting. For the trembling here meant, is Page  76not onely joyned with assured hope, that God will worke both the will and the deede, but also with joy, rejoyce unto him with trembling.*

To the sixt. [ 6] Though the Iesuit tug hard, yet the Knight holdeth him fast in Hales, Vasquez, and Valentia his net. For if it be true that the Sa∣craments effect what they represent, it will fol∣low upon the Iesuits owne confession, that in re∣gard the Sacrament is perfecter in both kindes then in one, in regard of representation, it must needs be more perfect also in the fruit and ope∣ration: and if so, then more safety and comfort in our entire, then in their halfe communion.

[ 7]

To the seventh.* The Iesuit would faine con∣tradict the Knight, but indeede he contradi∣cteth himselfe. For in granting that which Bellar∣mine, Harding, and the Councell of Trent extor∣teth from him, that it is more profitable for the people to communicate with a Priest at the Masse, then to loake on; he sayes by consequent that there is more safety in it: which is the proper point in controversie in this Chapter. For as that which is unprofitable for the soule, cannot but be dange∣rous: so that, which is profitable to the soule cannot but be safe, nothing is profitable to the soule but that which some way tendeth too, and furthereth the salvation thereof: and is not that safer which more tendeth to salvation?

To the eight. [ 8] Aeneas Silvius maketh no men∣tion at all of any Law of single life,* but simply saith, that It were safer for Priests to marry; for Page  77that meanes many Priests might be saved in married Priesthood,*which now in barren Priesthood are damned. Cassander and Panormitan make men∣tion of the law, which tieth Priests to single life, and both thinke that the abrogation of it would be good and behoovefull to the foules of many Priests that those who cannot attaine to the first degree of chastity in a single life, may be permitted to live in the second degree of chaste marriage. And what is it else that we contend for, but that it may be left free to the Ministers of the Gospell to marry if they thinke good? which liberty implieth two things; First, that where there is a law restrai∣ning them from marriage, that law may be abro∣gated: Secondly, for the future, that no law pro∣hibiting marriage in the Clergie may be enacted. Yea but saith the Iesuit, all the Doctors, all the Fathers, all the Councells, and the continuall pra∣ctice of the Church from the very beginning is a∣gainst Priests marriage, of all which you have abun∣dant proofe in Bellarmine. I answer, of all this, nay, none of all this, as you may see in Chemnitius History de celibatu sacerdotum, Iunius, and Chaume∣rus their reply to Bellarmine, and most largely and plentifully in Dr. Hall now Bishop of Exon. his three bookes against Coffin; intituled, The honour of the married Clergy.* Yea but saith the Iesuit in the last place, the law restraining Priests marriage was never contradicted by any but knowne wicked men. What a lowd and Stentori∣an untruth is here uttered by a foule mouthed Page  78Iesuit? Was Paphnutius the confessor, Spiridion the Saint, were all the Fathers of the first gene∣rall Councell of Nice, together with Pope Pius the second, and the Fathers at the Synod at Basill, besides infinite others, produced by the Authors above named, all knowne wicked men? The Lord rebuke thee thou false tongue.

To the ninth. [ 9] The Iesuit here onely troubleth the water, that the truth may not be clearely seene in the bottome; let the water but settle a little, and we shall presently discerne it: for though the tearmes be different, profitable, and lawfull, as likewise unprofitable and unlawfull: yet the question, whether prayers in an unknown tongue be profitable and safe for the soule, and whether they be lawfull or coincident. For what∣soever is unlawfull, is consequently unprofitable, and whatsoever is unprofitable in divine service is unlawfull, because against the rule of the A∣postle, let all things be done to edification; now in a prayer which a man understandeth not, how is the understanding bettered? or as Aquinas speaketh, fed by the fruit of refection. As for the inconveniences that are pretended to come by prayers in the vulgar tongue, neither the He∣brew nor the Greeke Churches, nor all the refor∣med in the Christian world finde any such: and if there should fall any such, they are not to be imputed to Gods Holy Ordinances, but to mens abuses. Yea, but saith the Iesuit, the very igno∣rance of the Latine tongue, and consequently of all Page  79learning that would follow thereon onely in Clergie men, is a thousand times more harme, than the fruit in the Laitie is good. Here the Iesuit straineth ve∣ry high, but without all shew of reason, or sha∣dow of Truth, and against daily experience: for who knoweth not, that the Clergie in the refor∣med Churches, where Divine Service is in the vulgar tongue, are as ready and expert (to say no more) in the Latine tongue, as your ordinary Masse-priests. Againe, you are exceedingly over∣lavish, in saying, that ignorance in Latine in Clergiy-men, is a thousand times more harme than that fruit is good which the Laitie might reape by the publike service in a knowne tongue. For the Clergie are but exceeding few, in com∣parison of the Laitie, scarse one for a hundred, I may say a thousand; and the saving knowledge which the Laitie might, and doe reape by the Divine Service, and Sacred Scripture read in a knowne tongue, is a thousand times more worth, than the knowledge of the Latine tongue in the Clergie. Lastly, his consequence, that the ig∣norance of the Latine tongue would bring with it the ignorance of all Sacred learning, is most ignorantly absurd. For who knoweth not, that the Scriptures themselves (the treasurie of all Sacred learning) were written in Hebrew and Greeke. To say nothing of the first generall Councels, and the prime and flower of all the Greeke Fathers, to the knowledge of whom a man may attaine without any Latine at all. But Page  80because Latine is your best mettall, you under∣value Gold and Silver. For Cardinall Cajetan, hee may for the Iesuit goe with Crassus, and ga∣ther cockles and pibles at the shore of Cajeta; for he maketh no more account of Allegations out of this Cardinall, than of

Tricae apinaeque aut si quid vilius istis;
Me thinkes the Scarlet robes of the learnedst of all the Romane Cardinals, and Schoolemen of his time, should produce a like colour in the cheekes of this Iesuit, if hee have not lost all tin∣cture of modesty. Doth Cajetan sometime nodd?
Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus?
And doth the noddie Flood never? Cardinall Cajetan affirmeth, that Saint Paul in the four∣teenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Coryn∣thians, speaketh of publike Prayer; the Jesuit Flood denieth it, utri credemus? Whethers autho∣ritie will beare downe the scales? Cardinall Ca∣jetan saith, that edification is the end of publike Prayer; and hee hath Saint Paul of his side, pre∣scribing in this chapter,* that All things be done to edification: but Sus docet Minervam, the Jesuit Flood instructeth the Cardinall better, that the end of Prayer is the honour of God, as if Subor∣dinata pugnarent, things that are subordinate were contrarie; or as if the edification of the people tended not to the honour of God, or there might not be severall ends of Prayer: the first and chiefe, the immediate worship of God; the secondary and lesse Principle, yet necessary Page  81also, the instruction and edification of the people. For Biels seven reasons,* insisted upon by the Knight, though they were not alleaged profes∣sedly to preferre Prayer in a knowne tongue, before Prayer in an unknowne; yet the reasons there set downe, as strongly inferre the Knights conclusion, as that which there Biel intendeth. The evidence whereof is so cleere, that the Iesuit himselfe is constrained to confesse,* that Some of his reasons indeed, have no place where the words are not understood. Those reasons therefore fight for us, and the rest with a little helpe, will be brought to doe good service against Romish and unintelligible Prayers; for how can a Prayer whereof never a syllable is understood, Stir up the mind to inward devotion? which is Biels first reason: Or enlighten the understanding? which is his second: Or cause the remembrance of things spoken in the time of Prayer? which is his third: Or keepe the thoughts from wandering? which is his fourth reason: Or cause a more full performance of dutie, both in body and soule? which is the fift: Or a better redoundance from the soule to the body, by a vehement affection? which is the sixt: Or serve for the instruction of our Brethren? which is the last.

To the tenth. [ 10] The Knight needed not here to alleage any more authorities against the perill of Idolatrie and Invocation of Saints, because before in the seventh Section, hee had cloyed his Reader with testimonies in this kind; for Page  82the worth of Erasmus and Cassander,

Quos rumor albâ gemmeus vehit pennâ;
their Epitaphs, and printed Eulogies before their workes, which have kept their fame alive this hundred yeares, make good proofe to the world, that they are like to flourish in perpetuall memo∣rie, after the leaves of a thousand such scribblers as the Iesuit is, shall be withered. In Chemnitius the Iesuits eyes failed him; for the Knight in this place, alleageth not his words, but the words of S. Austine; and them, not to prove that we can∣not pray to any Saint living or dead: but accor∣ding to the title of his whole booke, and spe∣ciall Argument of this chapter, that it is the safest and sweetest way to have immediate addresse to our Saviour: Tutiùs, saith he, & jucundiùs loquor ad meum Iesum; I speake with more safety and de∣light to my JESVS.

To the eleventh. [ 11] Here the Knight may well say,

Dicite Ió Pean & Iö bis dicite Pean:
For here twice hee hath brought his Adversa∣ries to subscribe unto Iustification by Faith alone; and to confirme with his owne hand, the title of the Knights booke with advantage. The ti∣tle is but Via tuta, but the Iesuit confesseth over and above, that the Protestants way, who relye upon Christs merits onely for salvation, is Via tutissima, The safest way. And if Vasquez and Bellarmine, and other pleaders for merit by con∣dignitie, meane no otherwise than the Iesuit in∣terpreteth Page  83them, we shall all soone shake hands; for who ever denied, that God rewarded our good workes? but here, either wittingly or ig∣norantly, the Iesuit concealeth the conditions required, to every meritorious Act, ex condigno. First, that the worke be properly ours, and not his, of whom wee pretend to merit. Secondly, that it be opus indebitum, a worke to which other∣wise wee are not bound. Thirdly, that it be some way profitable and beneficiall to him from whom wee expect our reward. Fourthly, that it have condignity to the reward expected; or as Vas∣quez speaketh, Be worthy of the reward, and have an equall value of worth to the obtaining thereof. Vpon all these conditions wee contest with Pa∣pists, and consequently deny any merits of con∣dignitie; yet freely acknowledge a reward of good workes, and this reward to be due unto us, (but a reward of grace and free bounty) and due to us by his promise, no way by our de∣serts.

Page  84

Concerning the Fathers, whether Protestants or Papists attribute more unto them; Spectacles, chap. 12. a page 405. us{que} ad 434.

IT cannot be unknown to any man of lear∣ning, [ 1] or that hath but any the least ac∣quaintance with the Controversies of this age, what great advantage wee Catholikes have by the writings of the ancient Fathers, how highly wee esteeme them, what confidence wee place in them, and how wee appeale to them for decision of our Controversies; and how small respect on the other side Heritikes shew, either to their persons or writings, as being in their opi∣nions but men, and subject to errour. Or rather how contemtibly they speake of them; for proofe whereof, a man need not goe no farther than that little Trea∣tise of Campian's ten reasons, the fift of which is of the Fathers.

In the thirteene Instances, [ 2] by which the Knight will prove, that Bellarmine, and Stapleton, and Senensis, and Gregorie de Valentia, and Sanders, and Ribera, and Canus, and Salmeron, either elude or reject the Fathers, the Knight dealeth not squarely. For, though hee quote the words for the Page  85most part truly, yet hee concealeth their reasons which they give of their answers. Neither doe those Writers insist onely upon those answers to the places objected out of the Fathers, but adde many other unto them, to give the Reader better satisfaction, as will appeare by the particular examination of each passage.

The Hammer.

ALthough in this Chapter the Iesuit lye as open to the lash, as in any of the former; yet partly because hee is like him in the Poet, that was so tawed and fleade with rods, that there was no skin left on his body for a new stroke to fetch off: partly because, Page 406, hee confes∣seth hee cannot tell what to say to the Knight; but especially, because the Argument of this Chapter is most fully and accurately handled by Dr. Humphrey, and Dr. Whitaker, in their answer to Campian his fift reason, and in a singular Trea∣tise lately set forth by Laurentius, intituled, Re∣verentia Ecclesiae Romanae erga sanctos patres. I will forbeare to examine the severall Paragraphs in this Chapter, (wherein, whatsoever is mate∣riall, is refuted in the answers to the former Se∣ctions) onely I will point at some notorious fal∣sities and absurdities, if not to rectifie the Iesuits judgement, yet to disabuse the credulous Reader. First, hee denieth not that the Romane Doctors above mentioned, utter those disgracefull spee∣ches Page  86of Saint Austen, Origen, Theodoret, Cyprian, Tertullian, and the rest, but he addeth that they gave other answers to our objections out of those Fa∣thers. What is that to the purpose, or against the Knight? who denieth not that Popish writers have other shifts and evasions to our arguments drawne from the testimony of ancient Fathers besids those, which are here set down in this chap∣ter, which are refuted by Chamierus, Iunius: and for the better part of them by me in the for∣mer Sections: but he produced these passages onely to shew the Romanists disrespect and sleigh∣tening of the ancient Fathers, if in any thing they crosse their Trent Faith. Secondly, to touch up∣on some particulars, how ridiculously and absurd∣ly doth the Iesuit speake, Pag. 417. Epiphanius saith in plaine manner, that the Image which he saw hang in the Church at Anablatha, and tare downe the vale in which it was drawne, was not the Image of Christ or any Saint, but the Image of a man, he knew not whom; which if it had bin Christs, or any Saints he would have knowne whose it was, neither would he have called the Image of Christ or any Saint the Image of a man. Why I pray you? is not Christ a man? were not Saints men? What should E∣piphanius have said else, who saw there the re∣presentation of the feature, and liniaments of a man, but knew not what man that was? he saith, he saw a vaile having on it the Image as if it had beene of Christ, or some Saint, for he knew not whose it was. If he knew not whose it was, for Page  87ought he knew it might be made for the Image of Christ, or any Saint. Vpon what ground then doth the Iesuit say, that it was neither the I∣mage of Christ nor of any Saint?* Thirdly, he saith it is evident that Saint Chrysostome did say Masse every day; whereas neither in that place quoted by him, neither in any place in all his workes can it be gathered, that he ever said Masse, or administred the Sacrament without communi∣cants: the Romish Masse is of a farre later date, then the age of Saint Chrysostome.* Fourthly, he most shamefully and falsely traduceth the Prote∣stants (whom he tearmes the Haeretikes of this age) that they speake generally, very meanely and contemptibly of the most sacred Virgine. I mar∣vaile his heart did not smite him, when his hand wrote these words so directly against the truth, and his owne conscience. For he cannot be igno∣rant that King Iames in his admonition to all Prin∣ces, set forth in Latine, French, and English, and our Church in the booke of Common Prayer, speake most honourably and reverently of that most Sacred and blessed Virgine, religiously ob∣serving the feasts of her Annuntiation, and Puri∣fication, and rehearsing at every Evensong, her Magnificat.* Fiftly, he saith that Saint Ierome al∣loweth the the booke of Judith to be Canonicall Scrip∣ture: whereas in the place quoted by him, the preface to Iudith he saith onely that it is read, or that he had read somewhere, that the Nicene Synod did reckon the booke of Judith among the holy Scrip∣tures,Page  88but for himselfe he saith in that very Pre∣face, that this booke is not fit to be alleaged for the confirmation of those things that are in controver∣sie. And in his Preface to the booke of Proverbs, he saith expressely, that the booke of Judith is not accounted by the Church for Canonicall. Iudith & Tobie,*& Machabeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed cos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit. Sixt∣ly, he affirmeth that there is no controversie be∣tweene them and us concerning the immaculate conception of our Lady; whereas both Chemni∣tius and Reynolds, & many other Protestant writers have overthrowne the ground of their feast of the immaculate conception of our Lady; and all reformed Churches in generall have strucke that feast out of the Calender, and the title of the 15. Article of religion of Christ alone without sinne, sheweth to the world, that we beleeve it to be the prerogative of our blessed Saviour, among all the Sonnes of Adam, that he alone was free from all originall and actuall sinne. And now Master Flood, sith you are taken in so many and fowle untruths in one Chapter; I hope the Reader will not envie you that Guerdon, which Aristotle bestowes upon a lewd and lowd Lyer, not to be credited when he speaketh the truth.

Page  89

Concerning Razing of Records and clipping Authors tongues; Spe∣ctacles, Chap. 13. a page 435. us{que} ad 446.

BECAVSE there have beene ma∣ny bookes published this last age, [ 1] by occasion of Haeresie, and liberty which came therewith to the great prejudice of the Catholike faith: there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such, not onely writings of Haere∣tikes, but even of Catholikes which have any tang of haeresie: and this kinde of care hath beene ever used in the Catholike Church. So wee see in Scripture it selfe some that followed curiosities be∣comming Christians, confessed their deedes and burnt their bookes.

Gelasius in the yeare 490. [ 2] maketh a Catalogue of haereticall bookes, which he forbiddeth: and I would know of the Knight, or any man else that cry∣eth so bitterly against our Index Expurgatorius, what he can say against it, that he may not say a∣gainst this Decree, and Councell of Gelasius, and against which we may not defend our selves by oppo∣sing Page  90it as a buckler against all their darts?

Sith all swarving from the rule of faith is a decli∣ning to haeresie, [ 3] it appertaineth to the Catholike Ro∣man Church, which as Gelasius saith, hath neither spot, nor wrinkle, to prevent the danger that may come by such bookes forbidding the use of them.

It were a more dangerous and unnaturall part in the Church not to use this care, [ 4] then it were in a mo∣ther that should see sugar and rats-bane lie together, and seeing her child going to taste thereof, should for∣beare to warne it.

I will not stand particularly to examine every Au∣thor, [ 5] and justifie the inquisition: onely I cannot omit one Author called Bertram, whom of all men living me thinkes the Knight should never so much as have named, considering how much disgrace he hath su∣stained by translating that booke, and ventring his owne credit, and the credit of his Church, upon the faith thereof.

Another thing I am to note concerning his quo∣ting the Canon of the Councell of Laodicea, [ 6] where∣in first is to be noted his error in Chronologie concer∣ning the time of this Councell, which he maketh to be in the yeare 368. forty three yeares after the first Councell at Nice; whereas it was celebrated before that Councell. Secondly his corruption in the transla∣tion and cutting off the Canon, which is thus; non oportet relictâ ecclesiâ ad angelos abominandae idolatriae congregationes facere, quicunque au∣tem inventus fuerit occulte huic idololatriae va∣cans anathema sit. Now where in this Canon doth the Page  91Knight finde the word invocation of Angells, which is the thing he pretendeth, to be forbidden.

Whereas the Knight objecteth to us the recantati∣on of Henry Buxhorne, [ 7] who was sometime appointed to put in execution the tyrannicall Decree of the in∣quisitors, and had noted 600. severall passages to be spunged and blotted out; which animadversions of his he wished he could have washed away with his teares and blood, his heart being smitten, and his eyes open by the mercy of God: I answere, if such matter will serve the Knights turne he may have enough: neither neede I search corners to finde out such obscure fellowes, as this Buxhorne; he might bring the Fathers of the Knights religion: for ex∣ample, Luther, Calvine, Zuinglius, Beza, Carol∣stadius, and who not? for though they might pre∣tend severall causes, yet there was one principall one, which consisted indeede in the smiting of their hearts with a fiery dart of carnall love, and when they found an Eve to give them an Apple, then their eyes were opened, and so it proved also with their friend Buxhorne, as I shall shew by a briefe story of his life, most authentically related by that grave and Holy man Oliverius, of the society of Jesus. Henry Buxhorne, a licentiate of Divinity, &c. It was not the razing then of evidences that made Buxhorne fall from his faith, but there were certaine Luthe∣ran baites wherewith many of them were catched, which were aurum, gloria, delitiae, veneres, gold, glory, delights and Venus, of which some are cat∣ched with one, and some with another.

Page  92
The Hammer.

IN the former Section, the Iesuit shewed him∣selfe a prevaricatour, but in this a cowardly runnagate. For to the mangling of authors, and ra∣zing out of Records objected against him, name∣ly, this marginall note out of Stephanus his Bible, Deus prohibet sculptilia fieri. This Glosse upon Gra∣tian the Priest, cannot say significatively of the bread, This is my Body, without telling a lie, Cassanders observation upon the same words, that setting aside the authoritie of the Church, they prove not sufficiently Transubstantiation, Cassanders whole Tract concerning the Communion in both kinds, Vdalricus his Epistle touching the lawfulnesse of Priests marriage, Anselmes Treatise concerning the visitation of the sicke, together with divers passages in Cassander against merit, in Polydor Vir∣gil against Images, in Langus against Transub∣stantiation, in Ferus against the Popes suprema∣cie. The Iesuit answereth nothing at all in parti∣cular, but onely applies Salves in generall, which no way heale the wounds given by the Knight to the Inquisitors, as the Reader shall see by taking them off one after another, and viewing the Sores.

To the first. [ 1] The Iesuits instance is wide from the purpose. For those Books were not burnt by any decree of the Church, much lesse the Church of Rome, which was not then in being: but by Page  93the owners of them, to testifie their unfeined Re∣pentance; for so wee reade, Acts 19.19. Many also of them, brought their Bookes together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it 50000 pieces of silver. Secondly, these Bookes which the owners burnt of their owne accord, were Bookes of such as used curious Arts; that is, Books of Art-magick, Necromancie, Sorcerie, and the like. Whereas, the Bookes which the Romish Inquisitours either mangle or utterly deface are Christian Treatises, written for the most part by them, that lived and died in the bosome and peace of the Church of Rome.

To the second. [ 2] This Decree of Gelasius which the Iesuit opposeth, as a Buckler against all our darts, is not altogether approved by the present Romane Church; for in reckoning the Canoni∣call bookes of Scripture, the Pope there exclu∣deth the booke of Baruch, and the second booke of the Macchabees, and the booke of Nehemiah, which the present Romane Church receiveth for Canonicall. Secondly, Gelasius with his Roman Councell, freely give their censure of all Theo∣logicall bookes then extant, but they clip not the tongues of any Authors, nor burne their bookes. If the Romish Inquisitors had done no more, if they had let the Records and Evidences remaine, and onely censured them at their pleasure; wee would not so much have blamed them, for using the freedome of their judgements: wee would Page  94only freely have censured their Censures,* and left all to the judicious and intelligent Readers judge∣ment. An errour in Criticisme is pardonable, but the making away of the evidence of Truth,* and defacing authenticall Records, is a damnable practise, and an undoubted Argument, both of an evill conscience, and a desperate cause; as Ar∣nobius layeth the Law to the Gentiles.

To the third. Gelasius his testimonie of the Romane Church, whereof hee was then Bishop, can be of no great moment. It seemeth at that time, [ 3] the Church of Rome wanted good neigh∣bours, that the Pope was faine to blazon his owne armes, and guild his owne Diocese; not thinking of the old Proverbe, Laus propria sordet in ore. Howbeit, wee grant in Gelasius his time, the Ro∣mane Church had not many spots and wrinkles, for then shee was young in comparison; now she is old and decrepit, and all full of wrinkles: and after the manner of crooked old age, boweth downe, to wit, to rood-lofts, Images, and Pictures. But nei∣ther then nor now, hath shee any power to forbid the use of any Books through the whole Church: but onely within her owne jurisdiction.

To the fourth. [ 4] This Plaister is a great deale too narrow for the Sore of the Romane Church, to which the Iesuit applieth it. For it is not their admonitions to the Children of their owne Church, which we here complaine of; but their cutting out of the tongues of learned Authors, when they witnesse the truth: not the censuring their Page  95own Writers, but the mangling of some of them, and utterly abolishing others. Vnder colour of taking away Rats-bane out of the way, they take away Sugar from their Children; and which is worse, debarre them from the sincere Milke of the Word, I meane, the Scriptures in the vulgar language. Yet were there Rats-bane, in some of the Writers with whom the Inquisitours have to deale, they should have onely given notice there∣of, or prescribed some Antidote against it, con∣sidering that Physitians, and Apothecaries, and Housholders also, make good use of Rats-bane sometimes.

To the fift. [ 5] The Iesuit doth well, not to under∣take justifying of the Inquisition, which hee well knoweth hee is not able: onely here and there hee nibleth at some Author or other that hath falne into their hands, as Bertram in this place: whom the Knight long agoe rescued, and gave unto him the wings of the Presse to flie abroad; whereby hee hath received no disgrace, but ma∣ny thankes from all that love the Truth in since∣ritie. For the translation thereof, which the Iesuit imputeth to the Knight, as a great dispa∣ragement to him; the truth is, the Knight tran∣slated not Bertram, but published the translation of another, by re-printing it, and gracing it with a learned and elegant Preface of his owne. Which, I marvell not that the Iesuit kicketh at, because hee and his fellow Iesuits are sore Galled with it. When the Iesuit shall prove any falsi∣fication Page  96in the translated Copie, or any errour inserted into it, hee shall receive a further an∣swer. Till then, let the brand remaine upon the Romane Index, for damning the originall; and upon the Iesuit, for defaming the true translated Copie of so learned and orthodox a Writer as Bertram was.

To the sixt. [ 6] In citing the Councell of Laodi∣cea, and detecting the Inquisitours foule dealing with it, by turning Angels into Angles, to gaine a starting hole for their Idolatrie: the Iesuit by recrimination objecteth to the Knight, errour in Chronology, and corruption of the Councell. To the first I answer, that the Primate of Armath, and other learned Antiquaries have set this Councell about the yeare mentioned by the Knight; your Binius ingeniously confesseth, quo anno celebratum fuit incertum est; It is uncertaine in what yeare of our Lord this Councell was held; hee saith, it was celebrated before the Councell of Nice, but hee brings no proofe of it. If wee should grant him that this Councell were elder by 40 or 50 yeares, than the Knight accoun∣teth it, it would be more for our advantage, and against him; sith Councels, the more ancient they are, caeteris paribus, the more authority they car∣rie with them. To the second I answer, that the translation which the Knight followed, agreeth verbatim with the originall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which words, two of the Romish Translators set Page  97in Columnes one against the other by Binius, render, as followeth. The first thus, Quod non oporteat Christianos relictâ dei ecclesiâ abire, & Angelos nominare. The other thus, Quod non opor∣teat ecclesiam dei relinquere atque Angelos nomi∣nare. That is, that Christians ought not to leave the Church of God, and goe their wayes, and name An∣gels: that is, mention them in our Prayers, or take their names in our lips, as the Psalmist spea∣keth of Idoll-worshippers;*Their drink-offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take their name in my lips. And thus Theodoret in his Comment upon the second Chapter of St. Paul to the Colossians, vers. 18. alleageth the Canon of this Councell: Because, saith hee, they commanded men to worship Angels; Saint Paul enjoyneth on the contrarie, that they should send up Thanksgiving to God the Fa∣ther by him that is Christ, and not by the Angels. The Synod of Laodicea also following this rule (of the Apostle) and desiring to heale that old disease, made a Law, that they should not pray unto Angels,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here the Iesuit hath both the Canon, and the Report; the Canon of the ancient Councell held at Laodicea, thun∣dring against their Invocation of Angels: and the learned and ancient Father Theodoret his Re∣port of it.

To the seventh. [ 7] Those men whom the Iesuit nameth, were not Fathers of our Religion, but Brethren onely of our profession; neither was their motive for the change of their Religion Page  98carnall love as the Iesuit, like impure Nero, judging others by himselfe, conceiveth; but a voyce from Heaven saying unto them, goe out of Babylon my people,*lest you partake of her Plagues. It is true, those instruments of Gods glory were married as the Apostles St. Peter and St. Phillip, and many of the chiefe Bishops and Pastours in the Primi∣tive Church were, of whom it may be said as Sozomen spake of Spiridion that famous Bishop of Cyprus:*they lived in wedlocke, and had many chil∣dren without any disparagement at all to their Sa∣cred function. As the Rod of Aaron in these brought forth fruit in Holy Matrimony: so it budded also in others in our Church, who fol∣lowed virginall chastity, and lead a single life, as Iewell, Reinolds, Andrewes, Lakes, and many o∣ther reverend Prelates and Doctors, who for e∣minent learning and examplary life, may com∣pare with any of the Romish Mitred Prelates, or late Canonized Saints. Neither can they pre∣tend that any Eve gave these an Apple, whereby their eyes were opened: but on the contrary we can produce many a Lucretia who have given Apples to their Popes,* whereby their eyes have beene blinded, and their reputation for ever bla∣sted. See Picus Mirandula his oration extant in Fasciculus rerum expetendum & fugiendum, and Mantuan his Poem.

Sanctus ager scurris, venerabilis ara cinaedis
Servit honorandae Divûm Ganymedibus aedes.

As for Olivereus Manareus his Legend of Bux∣horne,Page  99if the Reader will be pleased to peruse an apologie for this Buxhorne, written to the Chan∣cellor of Lovan, wherein the true cause is rela∣ted, for which this licentiate Divine abandoned the Papacy, he shall finde in that treatise printed in the yeare of our Lord, 1625, a Rowland for his Oliver, or Oliverius Manareus the Iesuit, to whose relation as much credit is to be given as to Cocleus his History of Luther, and Bolsecs of Cal∣vin. The Devill, the grand Calumniator hath suborned in all ages men of prostituted conscien∣ces, and corrupt mindes and mouthes, to staine with their impure breath, the golden and the silver vessells of the Sanctuarie: but Illi linguarum, nos aurium dominsumus, their tongues are their owne, they may speake what malice dictateth; our eares are our owne, and we will hearken unto, and assent onely to what truth confirmeth. As for their Lu∣theran baits, he mentioneth, aurum, gloria, dilitiae, veneres; gold, glory, delights and Venus, if these things abound any where, it is in the Roman Church, where the Pope who pretends himselfe to be the successor of Peter the fisher; fisheth with a golden hooke, and baits it with fleshly lusts; what so pompeous and glorious as his Holinesse triple Crowne, and his Cardinals Hats, and his Bishops Miters and Croziours; for what sence hath not the Romish Religion baits? for the eyes they have gawdie shewes; for the eares, most me∣lodious musicke; for the smell, sweetest incense and perfumes; for the taste, feasts without num∣ber; Page  100for the touch, whole streets of Curtezans, not onely in Rome it selfe, but in all the Popes Townes which are commonly knowne by this fowle Cognizance.

Concerning our adversaries their blasphemous exceptions against the Scripture; Spectacles, Chap. 14. à page 447. us{que} ad 463.

THough Catholikes hold for most certaine, [ 1] that the Scripture is not the sole rule of faith, nor that out of it alone all controversies can be decided, as for example in particu∣lar, which bookes be Canonicall Scrip∣ture, which not: yet for most things now a dayes in controversie, many Catholikes have offered to trie the matter onely by Scripture.

Though Catholikes ground many points upon tradition and practice of the Church: [ 2] yet they ground others upon plaine and expresse authority of Scripture, from which, Protestants are faine to flie, running to this or that corner of I know not what fi∣gurative, or tropicall interpretation.

Though the Pope question not, [ 3] much lesse con∣demne Page  101Scriptures of obscurity and insufficiency: yet his Apostles and Evangelists have left some things in writing, of which some are hard even by the judg∣ment of Scripture it selfe, for so saith Saint Peter of the Epistle of Saint Paul, which saith he, the un∣learned and unconstant doe abuse as they doe other Scriptures, to their owne perdition.

If any condemne the Scripture of insufficiency, [ 4] it is St. John in saying, that all things are not written, and St. Paul in willing the Thessalonians to hold the traditions which they had learned, whether by speech or letter.

Whereas the Knight chargeth us with ranking the Bible in the first place of prohibited bookes: [ 5] wee say it is false; for it is not in the Catalogue of such bookes: onely in the rules which concernes the In∣dex there is mentioned, how the free use of vulgar translations is not to be permitted; but for the La∣tine vulgar translation there is no manner of re∣straint, though if there had beene, we might very well have warranted it by the authority of St. Je∣rome, who did no way admit such free use even of the Latine Bibles.

It is no such crime to forbid the reading of Scrip∣ture to some sort of people, [ 6] as may appeare by the te∣stimony of this holy Father, who in the same place saith moreover, that the beginning of Genesis, and the beginning and end of Ezekiel were not to be read by the Iewes, till they came to thirties yeare of age.

A kinde of forbidding of reading the Scripture Page  102is no derogation, [ 7] but a great commendation of it, for they are forbidden to be read out of reverence and honour due unto them, and in regard of the danger which may come by them, not of themselves, but in regard of the weakenesse of the Reader for want of necessary learning and humility.

For Cornelius Agrippa, [ 8] it maketh no more matter what he saith, then what the Knight saith, for it is but aske my brother if I be a theefe.

Not to answer the places objected by the Knight, [ 9] out of Lindan, Lessius, Turrian, and Pighius, I say in generall, that those things are spoken not of the Scripture, as it is in it selfe, that is, consisting of both words and meaning, but of bare words and letters only, which Haeretikes still do, and ever have abu∣sed, as the Devill himselfe did to our Saviour; and in this sense it is a wood of theeves.

Our Authors say no more then St. Jerome doth in effect; [ 10] Marcion, Basilides, and other plagues of Haeretikes have not the Gospell of God,* because they have not the Holy Ghost, without whom it be∣commeth the Gospell of man which is taught; nor let us thinke that the Gospell consisteth in the words of Scripture, but in the sense; not in the superficies or barke, but in the pith; not in the leaves of speech, but in the roote of reason: so that if the Knight will say any more of this matter, he must undertake the quarrell against St. Ierome.

Lessius in particular, [ 11] whom the Knight most up braideth to us, is farre from saying that the Scrip∣ture is uncertaine in it selfe; that is, that the do∣ctrine Page  103thereof is doubtfull, but onely that our rule will be uncertaine, or rather wee uncertaine of the rule, because wee cannot know the Scripture by it selfe.

It is not all one to say that Scripture alone is no sufficient Rule, [ 12] and to say it is imperfect. For al∣though the Knight imagineth, that the All-suffi∣ciencie, or containing of all things expressely, is a necessarie point of perfection, hee is deceived; for then would it follow, that the Gospell of Saint Mat∣thew, Saint Marke, and other particular Bookes should be imperfect, and especially that of Saint John, wherein hee saith expressely, that all things are not written.

Were the Scripture perfect in the Knights sense, [ 13] yet would it not then be a sufficient rule of Faith of it selfe alone; for it would still be a booke or wri∣ting, the very nature whereof, doth not suffer it to be the sole rule of Faith, or judge of Controver∣sies; for a Iudge must be able to speake, to heare, and to answer, whereas, the nature of a Booke is, as it were, to leave it selfe to be read, and expounded by men.

No Catholike declineth the triall of Scripture, [ 14] in regard of imperfection, but onely in regard that it being a written Word; no Heretike can be convinced by it, as I shewed you even now out of Tertullian, who saith, It is lost labour to dispute with an Here∣tike out of Scripture.

Let any man by the effects, [ 15] judge who reverence the Scripture most, Catholikes or Protestants: let Page  104him compare the labours of the one in translating and expounding Scriptures, with the labour of the other, and hee shall find the truth of this matter.

In admitting any triall with Protestants by Scrip∣tures, [ 16] * wee condescend more to their infirmitie than wee need, or they can of right challenge. For wee acknowledge that saying of Tertullian most true, that Heretikes are not to be admitted to the Scrip∣tures, to whom the Scripture in no wise belongeth; who are you, when, and whence are you come? What do you in my ground, you that are not mine? By what right, ô Marcion, dost thou fell my wood? By what leave, ô Valentine, dost thou turne my fountaines? By what authoritie, ô Apelles, dost thou remove my bounds? &c. This is Tertullians discourse and words, where it is but changing the names of Mar∣cion, Valentine, and Apelles, into Luther, Calvin, and Beza; and it will fit as well, as if it were made for them.

You must first shew your selves owners of the Land, [ 17] before you can claime the writings and evi∣dences belonging to it, and which make good the Title.

The Hammer.

VVHereas many other things argue, that our Adversaries maintaine a desperate cause: so especially their excepting against the holy Scriptures of God, and refusing to be tried by them in the points of difference betweene Page  105us and them. For what was the reason why the Manichees called in question the authoritie of the Gospell of Saint Matthew,* and the Acts of the Apostles? Desperation; because by those writings they were convinced of blasphemous Errour. What was the reason why the Ebionites rejected all Saint Pauls Epistles? Desperation;* because by them their heresie was most apparantly con∣futed.* What was the reason why the Gnosticks and Valentinians disparage the Scriptures, saying, that They were not of authoritie, and the truth could not be found out of them by those who were ig∣norant of Tradition? Desperation. What was the cause why Papias, and the Millenaries pre∣ferred word of mouth before Scriptures, and pretended 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unwritten tradition for many of their fables? Desperation. What was the reason why the Heretikes in Tertullians daies refused to examine their Doctrines by the touch∣stone of the Scriptures, saying, More things were required than the Apostles had left in writing, for that either the Apostles knew not all, or delivered not all to all. In like manner, wee can impute it to nothing else but diffidence, and distrust of their cause; that Lyndan, Turrian, Lessius, and Pig∣hius speake so disgracefully of holy Scriptures as they doe, terming them dead Characters; a dead and killing Letter, a shell without a kirnell, a leaden rule, a boot for any foot, a nose of wax, Sy∣bils Prophesies, Sphinx his riddles, a wood of Thieves, a shop of Heretikes, imperfect, doubtfull, Page  106obscure, full of perplexities. If they should bestow the like scandalous Epithets upon the Kings Let∣ters patents, or the Popes Buls or Briefes, they would bee soone put into the Inquisition, or brought into some Court of Judicature, and there have either their tongues or their eares cut, or their fore-heads branded: yet the Iesuit is so farre from condemning these blasphemous speeches in his fellow-Jesuits and Romanists, that hee deviseth excuses for them, and sowes fig∣leaves together, to cover these their Pudenda: which I will plucke off one after another, in my answer to his particular exceptions against the Knight.

To the first. [ 1] It is true, that some Roman wri∣ters of late have made an assay to prove some of their Popish doctrines out of Scripture: but with no better successe than Horantius had in un∣dertaking to refute Calvin his Institutions, as ap∣peareth by Pilkington his Parallels. If the Scrip∣tures were so firme for our Adversaries, why are not they as firm for them? why doth the Iessuit in the fore-front of this Section, bid, as it were, defiance to them, professing in plaine termes, that The Scripture is not the sole rule of Faith; nor that out of it alone, all Controversies can be decided. Doubtlesse, any indifferent Reader will con∣ceive, that the Scriptures make most for them who stand most for their authoritie, and per∣fection, as all the reformed Divines doe, not onely affirming, but also confirming, that the Page  107Scripture is not only a most perfect, but the only infallible rule of faith:* every article of divine faith must be grounded upon a certaine and infallible ground to us, but there is no certaine and infalli∣ble ground to us of supernaturall truth but Scrip∣ture, as is abundantly proved by Saint Austine; If any thing be confirmed by perspicuous authority of Canonicall Scriptures, we must without any doubt or haesitation beleeve it, but to other witnesses or testi∣monies, we may give credit as we see cause, and in his 97. Epistle to St. Ierome, I have learned to yeeld that honour and reverence onely to the Cano∣nicall Scriptures, that I most firmely beleeve, that no Author of them could erre in any thing he wrot: and in his booke de natura & gratia, I professe my selfe free in all such writings of men, because I owe absolute consent without any demurre or staggering onely to the Canonicall bookes of Scripture. To the same purpose he writeth against Faustus the Ma∣nichee l. 11. c. 5. and ep. 48. But what neede I presse St. Austine when the evident letter of Scripture is for this truth, Titus, 1.2. Rom. 3.4. God cannot lie, and let God be true and every man a lier that is subject to error and falsehood. A∣gaine, the Scriptures are sufficient to instruct us in all points necessary to salvation: therefore every article of divine faith is evidently grounded upon Scripture. The Antecedent I thus prove, 2 Tim.Page  1083.15.16. whatsoever is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righteousnesse, in such sort that it is able to make a man wise unto salvation, and perfect to every good worke, is sufficient to instruct in all points of salvation: but the Scripture is so profitable, that it is able to make wise unto salvation and per∣fect to every good worke: Ergo, It is sufficient to in∣struct in all points necessary to salvation. The major is evident ex terminis: the minor is the let∣ter of the text; and that the adversary may not except that this is my collection onely,* I will pro∣duce to him impregnable testimonies of the anci∣ent Fathers. Irenaeus, We have not knowne by o∣thers, the meanes which God hath appointed for our salvation, then by those by whom the Gospell came unto us, which at the first the Apostles preached by word of mouth, but afterwards by the will of God, de∣livered in writing to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. The second is Saint Austine, Whether concerning Christ, or concerning his Church, or con∣cerning any thing that pertaineth to our faith and life, I will not say, if we but even as he going forward addeth, if an Angell from Heaven shall preach unto you any thing but what you have received in the Scriptures of the law and the Gospell, accursed be hee. Yea but the Iesuit objecteth against us and these Page  109Holy Fathers, that by the Scriptures we cannot prove, which bookes of Scripture are Canonicall, and which are not. I answere: first, our questi∣on here, is not of the principles of Divinity, but of Theologicall conclusions. Now that Scripture is the word of God, and that these bookes are Canonicall Scriptures, are principles in Divinity, and therefore not to be proved (according to the rule of the great Philosopher) in the same science: It is sufficient to make good our Tenet, that the Canonicall Scriptures being presupposed as prin∣ciples, every conclusion de fide, may be deduced out of them. Secondly, that such bookes of Holy Scriptures are Canonicall, and the rest which are knowne by the name of Apochrypha, are not Canonicall, is proved by arguments and testimo∣nies drawne out of Scripture it selfe, by Whitaker, Disputatione de sacrâ Scripturâ, controversiâ primâ; by Reynolds most copiously in his Censura librorum Apochryphorum. Thirdly, I retorte the Iesuits argument against himselfe, when they teach tra∣dition is part of Gods word, how prove they it to be so? by Scripture, or Tradition? by Scrip∣ture they cannot prove, that unwritten traditions are Gods word: if they prove it by Tradition, then they begge the point in question, and prove idem per idem.

To the second. [ 2] The Romanists ground some doctrines of their faith upon the letter of Scrip∣ture, but it is that letter which killeth, as for ex∣ample; they ground their carnall presence of Page  110Christ in the Sacrament, upon those words in the sixt of St. Iohn; unlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of God and drinke his blood, you have no life in you: which words, if you take according to the letter, this letter killeth, saith Origen; but it is the spirit saith our Saviour, that quickeneth, the flesh profi∣teth nothing, the words which I speake unto you, they are spirit, and they are life, Iohn, 6.63. He that pierceth the barke, and commeth to the sap, runneth not from the tree of life, but rather run∣neth to it: so doe we when we leave the barke of the letter upon necessary occasions, and pierce into the heart, and draw out the sap of the spiritu∣all meaning. To presse the letter of Scripture a∣gainst the spirituall meaning and analogie of faith, is not onely Iewish but Haereticall. For ex∣ample, The Anthropomorphites ground their hae∣resie upon plaine and expresse words of Scrip∣ture: from which to use the Iesuits owne words, All Orthodox Divines are faine to flie to figurative and tropicall interpretations.

To the third. [ 3] First, Saint Peter saith not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not in which Epistles of St. Paul, but in which points and heads of doctrine many things are hard to be understood. Secondly, though some points be hard to be understood in themselves, or are obscurely set downe in Scripture, it fol∣loweth not from thence, that all things necessary to salvation are not plainely delivered therein. For, as before I proved out of Saint Austine and Saint Chrysostome, Among thuse things which are Page  111plainly delivered in Scriptures, all such points are found as containe faith and manners, all things that are necessarie are manifest. Thirdly, those things which are obscurely set downe in Saint Pauls Epistles, may be, and are elsewhere in holy Scriptures more perspicuously delivered. Last∣ly, Saint Peter saith not, that those things are hard to be understood simply, and to all men; but to the ignorant and unstable, who wrest all Scripture to their owne destruction. Among which number, the Iesuit must reckon himselfe and his associates, before they can fit this text to their purpose.

To the fourth. [ 4] First, this passage out of Saint Iohn hath beene discussed before, and cleered; where I shewed, that it maketh nothing against, but strongly for the sufficiencie of Scripture, to instruct in all points necessarie to salvation. For, though all Christs speeches and actions are not registred by the Evangelist, yet as Saint Austine rightly inferreth out of the words following, (haec scripta sunt ut credatis & credentes vitam aeternam habeatis.)*electa sunt quae saluti creden∣tium sufficerent: Such things were made choice of to be written,*as might suffice for the salvation of all Beleevers. Neither is that text of Saint Paul any whit derogatorie to the perfection of Scrip∣tures: for whatsoever hee meanes by Tradition (per Sermonem) taught by word of mouth, it is certaine out of the seventeenth of the Acts, that all Saint Pauls speech and discourse to the Thessaloinans, whereunto the words have Page  112reference were out of Scripture. Secondly, the words themselves, Tenete traditiones quas dedi∣cistis sive per sermonem, sive per Epistolam; im∣port not that the Apostle delivered divers things to them in writing by an Epistle, and without writing, by word of mouth: but that he prea∣ched to them, and taught them the Christian doctrine both wayes, by Letters, and by speech: and that they should have as much care of his writings, as of those things hee spake to them in presence. Thirdly, admit they were different things which hee spake to them, and which hee wrote: all that can be from thence inferred, is but this, that all points of saving Doctrine are not written in this Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians: which may be granted without any prejudice to our Tenet. For those things that are not written in that Epistle, might be, and undoubtedly are written in other of his Epistles, or other bookes of holy Scripture.

To the fift. [ 5] Saint Ierome is not against the free use of Scripture in the vulgar tongue, for hee himselfe translated the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue of the Dalmatians; hee dedicates his Commentarie upon Scripture to Lay-persons, yea many of them to women: whom he exhor∣teth,* to account them as their chiefe casket of Iewels; let these Iewels hang upon your neckes, and in your eares, Epist. ad Demetriad: wherein hee much commendeth the Husbandmen about Bethlem, for being so perfect in Scriptures, that They had Page  113the Psalmes of David by heart, and sang them as they followed the Plow. Arator stivam tenens can∣tat Davidicum melos: he instructeth Laeta a reli∣gious Matron, how to bring up her daughter in the knowledge of the Scriptures, and what me∣thod to observe in the reading thereof, Progem∣mis & serico divinos codices amet,*discat primo Psalterium his se Canticis avocet, & in Proverbiis Salomonis erudiatur ad vitam. In Ecclesiaste con∣suescat quae mundi sunt calcare. In Iob virtutis & patientiae exempla sectetur. Ad evangelia transeat nunquam eapositura de manibus, &c. Neither are the words you quote out of him, against the free use of the Scripture, but against the practise of some forward persons, who, Lapwing-like, offer to flye with a piece of the shell on their head, taking upon them to expound holy Scriptures to others, which they understand not themselves, and to teach that which they never learned, do∣cent quod nunquam didicorunt.

To the sixt. This practise of the Iewes con∣cludeth nothing at all, [ 6] but that those passages of Scripture above mentioned are very difficult, and subject to misconstruction; and therefore require a discreet Reader of ripe yeares, and judgement. Whether this their practise be commendable or no, in restraining all before they arrive to thirty, from reading those passages of Scripture, I dis∣pute not: but this is certaine, that even this cu∣stome of theirs which the Iesuit brings against us, makes for us; for they permitted all men be∣fore Page  114thirty, to reade all other chapters of holy Scriptures, and after thirty, these also.

To the seventh. The honour the Papists doe the Scriptures, [ 7] in prohibiting them to be read, is like the favour she did her Paramour in the Poet, Quae prae amore exclusit foras, which out of pure love thrust him out of doores. The greatest honour wee can doe Gods holy Oracles, is diligently to reade them, attentively to heare them, humbly to obey them, and daily to search them, as the deeds and evidences of our salvation;* according to the Precept of our blessed Saviour, Search the Scriptures, for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life, and they are they which testifie of mee. As for the Iesuits reason, drawne from the weaknesse of the Readers, it is very weake, and of no force at all.* First, because the Scriptures were written to give knowledge to the simple, and wisedome to the unlearned. Secondly, because if this his rea∣son were good, their Church should prohibit all other bookes as well as Scriptures, or rather much more than Scriptures, in regard there are errours in them, but none in Scriptures: and God hath promised a speciall blessing to those, who in obedience to his ordinance, diligently reade and study the holy Scriptures, which hee hath not to those that reade other books.

To the eight. [ 8] This Proverb might most right∣ly have beene applied to the Iesuit in the former Section, when he, a Iesuit, produced Oliverius Manerius a Jesuit, against Henry Buxhorne, Deane Page  115of Tyelmond, then hee said in effect, Aske my brother Jesuit if I be a thiefe, or rather a slande∣rer. But it no way fitteth Cornelius Agrippa, and the Knight, the one being a zealous Protestant, the other a professed Papist, though discovering, and ingeniously confessing divers abuses in the Papacie. If hee were as the Iesuit sayes, a Ma∣gician, because hee wrote of Art-magicke; what were Pope Hildebrand and Sylvester, who not onely studied, but also practised the black-Art, as Benocardinalis, Platina, and others write.

To the ninth. [ 9] The Iesuit will not stand an∣swering every one severally, because hee dare not keepe that station for feare of Gun-shot. For the answer hee giveth in generall, it is false and absurd, if not impious: false, because it is cer∣taine, that those similitudes cannot be applied to the letter onely, without the meaning; nor doe the Heretikes now a dayes, nor did the Devill himselfe alleage onely the letter and syllables of Scripture, but the meaning also,* though perver∣ting and wresting it to an evill end, and drawing false conclusions from it. Hee that calleth the Scriptures Sybils Prophecies blasphemously car∣peth at the obscuritie of the meaning: and Pig∣hius, who compared it to a nose of wax, impi∣ously taxeth the diversitie of senses, and interpre∣tations which the Scripture is subject unto in it selfe. Lastly, the Iesuit taketh himselfe by the nose, in saying, Heretikes in all Controversies run to the letter of the Scriptures, leaving the true Page  116sense, and spirituall meaning: for so doe the Ro∣manists apparantly, namely, in the Controversie of Supremacie, Ecce duo gladii; Loe here two swords: therefore the Pope hath the temporall and spirituall Sword at command. Peter, rise up, kill and eate: therefore the Pope hath power to put Princes to death. In the question about the number of Sacraments, they alleage the letter of that text in the vulgar translation, Hoc est mag∣num Sacramentum, to prove marriage a Sacra∣ment; whereas the Apostle in the same place saith, that hee speaketh not of corporall mar∣riage of a man and his wife: but of the spirituall marriage of Christ and his Church. Likewise in the Controversie about the reall presence, they run to the letter, Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood: though Christ in the same place expounding himselfe, saith, The words which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life: the like may be observed in other Controversies. For answer to all which texts, wee tell him out of Saint Ierome, whom himselfe quoteth in the next Paragraph; That the Gospell consisteth not in the words of Scripture, but in the sense: not in the supersicies or barke, but in the pith: not in the leaves of speech, but in the root of reason.

To the tenth. [ 10] How neere neighbours the Ro∣manists are to Marcion, who denied, or by conse∣quence, overthrew the truth of Christs humaine nature; as the Papists doe in the Sacrament, vail∣ing him under the outside, or accidents of a round Page  117water; and what affinitie the Iesuit hath with the rest of the ancient Heretikes, the Knight shewed him before in his seventh Section: and if hee desire to know more of his pedegree from them, I referre him to an Appendix to Whita∣kers answer to Sanders his Demonstration, page 801. As for the aspersion of old Heresies, which hee casts upon us, they are washed away by Bi∣shop Morton, and Doctor Field, in their Treati∣ses of the Church, Ad notam sextam. But why hee denies that wee have the Spirit, arrogating it onely to himselfe, I see no reason but the pride of his owne spirit, together with the malice of the evill spirit, who suggested unto him this un∣charitable censure of us.

To the eleventh. [ 11] The Scripture is a Light, Psal. 119. and the nature of a light is, first to discover it selfe, and then all things else: there∣fore Calvin to his fond question, how know you Scripture to be Scripture? answereth acutely by retortion, how know you the Sun to be the Sun? If hee say, by his bright lustre and beames; wee say the same of holy Scripture, that it is discer∣ned by its owne light. Which, if the Papists see hot, the fault ought not to be laid upon the Sun∣beames, but upon their Owles eyes.

To the twelfth. [ 12] That rule which needeth any thing to be added to it, is imperfect: but all Pa∣pists teach, that to the written Word unwritten Traditions must bee added to make a compleat and perfect rule of Faith: all Papists therefore Page  118teach, the Scripture alone to be an imperfect Rule. We on the contrary stand for the perfecti∣on of Scripture, and constantly and unanimously defend that not onely the whole Scripture is per∣fect, but that every part also hath its owne per∣fection, but not the perfection of the whole. Be∣cause the eyes have not the perfection of the whole head; or the head, the perfection of the whole body; a man cannot conclude, that the eye, or the head is imperfect: no more can the Ie∣suit conclude that the Gospell of Saint Matthew, Saint Marke, or Saint Iohn are therefore imper∣fect, because they containe not in them all do∣ctrines in particular necessary to salvation. It is sufficient that they together with the rest, per∣fectly instruct us in all points of faith: by them∣selves they perfectly informe us so farre as the Holy Ghost intendeth, that we should be infor∣med by each of them in particular, and this is their perfection, that they have no defect in mat∣ter or forme, and that they concurre with the rest of the bookes of Scripture, to the maine end of the Holy Ghost in committing the word of God in writing, for the infallible and perfect in∣struction of the Church, and every faithfull soule in all Doctrines needfull to salvation.

To the thirteenth. [ 13] Although many Protestants have written de Scripturâ judice, and they have warrant our of Scripture so to stile it; (the words which I have spoken they shall judge you) yet in pro∣priety of speech, which especially ought to be Page  119used in stating questions, the Scripture is rather to be termed a rule and law, or sentence of the judge, then the judge himselfe: the supreame and infallible judge of all controversies, we teach to be the Holy Ghost, speaking to us out of Scrip∣tures, and the subordinate or inferior Judge the consencient authority of the Catholique Church.

To the fourteenth. [ 14] The Iesuit shewed no such thing, nor can shew out of Tertullian,* who con∣vinced the greater part of Haeretikes in his time by Scripture, as appeareth in his writings. In the place which the Iesuit quoteth, he hath no such words as he alleageth out of him: viz. that there is no good to be done with Haeretikes by Scriptures. He saith indeede in that place, that it was but in vaine to con∣ferre with a certaine kinde of Haeretikes by Scriptures alone, quia ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scriptu∣ras, et si recipit, non recipit integras et si aliquatenus integras praestat, &c. That is, This haeresie admits not of certaine Scriptures, or not intire, or if in some sort in ire, it perverts them by divising divers inter∣pretations. In which words he no way dispara∣geth the holy Scriptures, or derogateth from their perfection: but discovereth the wicked practise of Haeretikes, and their evasions and tergiversations, when they are most evidently convinced by Scrip∣tures. Will you say that if a Bedlam or willfull ma∣lefactor either by puffing out the Candle, or shut∣ting his eyes, or looking another way, will not reade or see the evidence that is brought against him, that therfore the evidence is not able to con∣vince him?

Page  120

To the fifteenth. [ 15] Though it were granted the Iesuit, that the Papists have written more upon the Scriptures then Protestants, it will not from thence follow, that they more reverence or ho∣nour the Scripture: sithence in their very Com∣mentaries upon Scripture, they derrogate from the authority, sufficiency, and perfection of them, by refusing to referre all points of faith in contro∣versie to their decision: by resolving their faith last of all not into them, but into the Church: by teaching, that they are obscure even in points ne∣cessary to salvation; and that unwritten Tradi∣tions are equally to be reverenced with them. Secondly, compare men with men, and oportu∣nities with oportunities; it may easily be proved that the Protestants in their preaching, and wri∣tings upon Scripture, have beene farre more la∣borious then the Papists. Name me one Papist who Preached so often, and wrote so accu∣rately upon the Holy Scriptures, as Calvin. I grant their bookes exceede in bulke and number, because they have a hundred to one, and they a∣bound with leisure, and meanes, having many thousands maintained in their monasteries, who are not charged as our Divines are, with care of soules, and perpetuall labours in their Pastorall function.

To the sixteenth. [ 16] If it were sufficient to ban∣dy sentences without proofe, and words without reasons, how easily could we say, mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. It is but changing the names Page  121of Marcion, Valentine and Apelles, into Bellarmine Valentia and Lessius, or if you will, into Iohn Flood, and it will fit as well as if it were made for him. How proves he that Papists are in the Church, and Protestants out of it? He shall ne∣ver prove but that we have as good title, and much better, to the Holy Scriptures, the deedes and evidences of our salvation then they.

To the seventeenth. [ 17] Possession of a land, pro∣veth not necessarily a right to the writings, and evidences belonging unto it. For possession may be got by violent usurpation, or intrusion; but on the contrary, the writings and evidences left by the disposer and bequeather of the land, be∣ing examined, will shew who hath the true title to the land, that is, the Church. By these deedes and evidences, we offer to be tried, but they re∣fuse the triall, pretending I know not what nun∣cupatory will by word of mouth, and disparaging these writings, and evidences as uncertaine, am∣biguus and unperfect, as the Knight hath made good against him in this Section.

Page  122

Concerning the testomonies of Cardinall Bellarmine; Chapter 15. Spectacles, a page 464. us{que} ad 485.

THE testimonies alleaged by the Knight out of Cardinall Bellarmine for the Protestant faith, in the points of Transubstantiation, private Masse, Prayer in an unknowne tongue, Com∣munion in both kindes, the number of Sacraments, the necessity of good workes, and justifi∣cation by faith alone, have beene all answered in the former Sections, and that which he addeth concer∣ning universality and miracles, maketh for the Ca∣tholike and against the Protestant faith.

The Hammer.

THe testimony of an adversary is of great force,* especially a learned one, most of all one his death-bed, when he looketh every houre to be summoned before the Judge of all flesh: and therefore we have all reason to make great dainties of the noble confession of the learnedest of all our Romish adversaries in the maine point of faith, wherewith he gave up the ghost: Domi∣ne Page  123me admittas in numerum sanctorum tuorum, non meriti astimator, sed veniae largitor. Lord admit me into the number of thy Saints, not weighing my merits, but pardoning my offences: this testimony and prayer of his, printed in his will, the Knight in this Section backeth with another taken out of his third booke Dejustificat. c. 17. Vel habet homo vera merita, vel non habet, &c. Either a man hath true merit, or he hath not; if he hath not, he is dan∣gerously deceived, and seduceth himselfe, whilest he trusteth in false merits; for these are deceitfull ri∣ches, saith Saint Bernard, which rob a man of the true: but if he hath true merits, he looseth nothing by this, that hee regardeth them not, but putteth his whole trust in Gods mercie only. This is not on∣ly Forte, but Fulgens telum: to use the words of Quintilian, Not onely a strong, but a beautifull, bright, and shining weapon: wherwith the Knight giveth his Adversary such a deadly wound, that hee panteth as it were for life, through all this Section. Much adoe hee hath to say any thing, which yet is as good as nothing: to wit, that Bellarmine in his first booke De Iustificatione, cap. 1. saith, that Hee will indeavour by five principall Arguments, to demonstrate that a man is not justi∣fied by Faith onely. What will the Iesuit conclude from hence? that the Cardinall contradicteth himselfe? I grant it, and I take it for a singular Ar∣gument and Evidence of Truth on our side, which inforced this great Cardinall, after hee had spent all his strength in justifying the Ro∣mish Page  124Tenet concerning justification by workes, and the merit therof, in the end to undoe all that he had done, and conclude fully with the Knight, that In regard of the uncertainty of a mans owne justice, and the danger of vaine-glory, it is safest to renounce all mans merit, and to put our trust onely in Gods mercie. Sufficit ad meritum scire, quod non sufficiant merita. For other passages in this chap∣ter, I shall passe them over with a drie foot, be∣cause there is nothing materiall in them said in excuse of Bellarmine his warping from the Ro∣mish Religion, which hath not beene discussed before. As for such Rotten-stuffe wherewith hee pieceth it up in his later Paragraphs, namely, five, six, seven, and eight; fetched from Romish Broker-shops concerning the name Catholique, and multitude of Professours, and miracles, because none of it sutes with the title or argument of this Chapter, I will not defile my hands with it: one∣ly I wish the Reader to take notice, that the Iesuit twice in this Chapter convinced by evidence of Truth, yeeldeth the Knight the Bucklers, ac∣knowledging out of Cardinall Bellarmine, That our Doctrine is safer than theirs, in two maine points: the one concerning the Sacrament, the other justification by Faith onely. For the first,*Page 465, hee is constrained to con∣fesse, that though hee holdeth Private Masse to be lawfull; yet, that It is a more perfect; and in a certaine sort more lawfull Masse, where there be some to communicate with the Priest: Page  125for then it hath both the ends for which it was or∣dained. Certainly, that which is more lawfull, is safer: our Communion therefore, wherein some of necessitie communicate with the Priest, is safer than their Private Masse by the Iesuits owne confession. For the second, I find, page 471. that, though much against his will, yet in Terminis, hee concurres with Bellarmine, in ac∣knowledging our Doctrine concerning relying onely on Christs merits, and Gods mercie for salvation, to be safest: and what else doe all Pro∣testants contend for in the point of Justification by Faith alone; but that all men renounce their owne inherent righteousnesse, and trust onely to Gods mercie in Christ for Justification and Sal∣vation? If at Christs dreadfull Tribunall, the safest Plea are Christ his merits applied to us by Faith, I wonder any dare to use any other? If there be safety, nay most safety, as the Iesuit con∣fesseth in this point of Protestant doctrine, there must needs be truth in it; for there can be no safe∣tie for the soule in a lye.

Page  126

Concerning Romish Martyrs; Spectacles, Chapter 16. a page 485. usque ad 490.

THE blessed Martyr Edward Cam∣pian in his tenth reason, [ 1] bringing all sorts of witnesses for proofe of the Catholike Faith, beginneth with Martyrs; those particularly, who being Pastours of the Roman Church, suffered Martyrdome successively one after another, to the number of thirty three. These (saith Cam∣pian) were ours, and nameth some of them, as Te∣lesphorus, Victor, Sixtus, Cornelius, with the particular points, which they held conformably with us against Protestants.

That these Martyrs are ours, [ 2] notwithstanding they died not for any of those points the Knight men∣tioneth, is plaine, because they professed the same Catholike Faith which wee doe; which wee also prove by the Faith of their successour Vrban the eigth, who, as hee holdeth their seat, so also their Faith; for Peters Chaire and Faith goe together, as the very Heretike Pelagius confessed to Pope So∣zimus, saying to him, Tu qui Petri fidem & sedem tenes. Not to stand here upon the most effectuall and Page  127infallible Prayer of our Saviour himselfe, Oravi pro te Petre ut non deficiat fides tua: which proofe must stand firme till Sir Humphrey can tell us what Pope began to vary from his predecessors.

For adoration of Images, [ 3] whereas the Knight asketh whether any of these three and thirty were canonized for it: though there be no speciall men∣tion of any of these three and thirty, their adoration of Images, yet there is very pregnant presumption thereof by this, that Pope Sylvester, who was the very next after the three and thirtieth, and was Pope in time of Constantines conversion, had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, which it is most like, he received from his Predecessors.

Moreover it is plaine, [ 4] that those three and thirty were ours, by their owne decretall Epistles, which are so full of those points which Father Campian citeth, that the Heretikes have no other shift, but to denie the authority of the same Epistles.

That the consecrated Bread depending upon the Priests intention, is the reall Flesh of Christ: [ 5] or that this Priest, Garnet by name, hath power to conse∣crate, is no matter of Faith; but that in the Sacra∣ment, the matter, forme, intentton, and all things requisite concurring, the Bread and Wine is really and truely converted into the Body and Blood of Christ: this is a matter of Faith, and this a man is to die for. Neither maketh it any matter whether any man have died for it, or not; for that is more in the persecutors power, to appoint what point of a mans Faith hee will put him to death for, than in Page  128the Martyrs owne, who must be readie to die for all and every one, as well for one as for another.

The Hammer.

IN this Chapter the Knight pulleth the gar∣land of Red Roses off from the heads of all Pa∣pists: I meane the Crowne of Martyrdome, by three most forcible arguments, which may thus be reduced into Syllogisticall forme.

  • 1.
    • None of those who suffered death for the common Articles of the Christian Faith, which we all professe: are to be accounted Popish Martyrs.
    • But the 33. Popes and all the Martyrs in the Primitive Church, suffered death for the common Articles of faith, which we all pro∣fesse.
    • Ergo none of them were Popish Martyrs: neither can they lay any more or better claime to them then we, if so good.
  • 2.
    • All that may be tearmed truely Popish Mar∣tyrs, must suffer death either for the profes∣sion of the Trent Faith in generall, or some speciall point of it, wherein they differ from the reformed Churches.
    • But none of the Primitive Martyrs suffered death for the profession of the Trent Faith in generall, or any point thereof wherein Page  129they differ from the beliefe of the reformed Churches.
    • Ergo, none of the Primitive Martyrs were Popish.
  • 3.
    • If the Articles of the Romish Creed published by Pope Pius were either unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared to be de fide, none in those dayes could suffer Martyrdome for them.
    • But the twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were altogether unknowne to the Primitive Church, or not then declared and defined to be de fide, as the Iesuit Page 490. in part acknowledgeth.
    • Ergo, none in the Primitive Church could suffer Martyrdome for them.

What wards the Iesuit hath for these blowes, we shall see in the examination of the particular exceptions before mentioned.

To the first. It is as true that those 33. marty∣red Popes were Martyrs of the Romish Religion, [ 1] as that Campion the Iesuit, who suffered death for Treason against Queene Elizabeth, was a Martyr. The truth is, that although Campion in his tenth Reason, search Heaven, and rake Hell also, for wit∣nesses to prove the truth of the Romish Religion, yet he findeth none, as D. Whitaker clearely de∣monstrateth in his answer to that tenth reason, and his defence thereof against Dureus. To let Page  130others passe, those 33. Bishops of Rome, the Iesuit mentioneth, who now weare Crownes of Mar∣tyrdome in Heaven, never ware the Popes tri∣ple Crowne on Earth.* They sate as Bishops of Rome, they sate not as Lords over the whole Church: neither was the cause of their death any contestation with Princes for Soveraignty, nor the maintenance of any points now in con∣troversie, as the Iesuit himselfe confesseth, but the profession of Christianity. They were not therefore Martyrs of the Roman Church as she is at this present, nor of their Trent Creed; but of the Catholike Church and the common faith once given to Saints.

To the second. [ 2] The Iesuits argument drawne from these 33. Bishops of Rome to Pope Vrbane the eighth fall short at least by 1300. yeares. If he should thus argue in the Schooles: Pope Vr∣bane the eighth, in the yeare of our Lord, 1633. held the Trent faith, and beleeved Pope Pius the fourth his Creed: therefore the 33. Bishops that suffered Martyrdome under the Heathen Empe∣rours within 300. yeares after Christ, held the same faith, and subscribed to the same Articles of Trent; he would be stampt at, and hissed out by all present; for who knoweth not that George the Arian immediatly succeeded Athanasius the most Orthodox Bishop, and that all the Arian Bi∣shops in Constantius his time, held the Sees of those Orthodox Bishops, who in the first Coun∣cell at Nice condemned that blasphemous haere∣sie. Page  131In our memory, did not Cardinall Poole a Papist, succeede Cranmer, a Protestant Bishop and Martyr? againe, did not Parker, in Q. Elizabeths daies, a learned Protestant succeed Cardinall Poole an Arch-papist, in his Arch-bishoprick of Canter∣bury? What a wooden Argument then is this, to in∣ferre succession in Doctrine from succession in the same Chaire? This wretched Argument the Iesuit proves as lewdly, by the testimonie of Pelagius the Heretike. This is indeed to Aske his brother if he be a thiefe, or no: to aske an Heretike whether your Romish Doctrine be not hereti∣call. Yet so unfortunate is hee in his proofe, that even this his onely witnesse, how liable soever to exception, saith nothing for him: Pelagius was not so absurd as to hold this position, that Peters Chaire and Faith goe alwaies together; but only spake in a glozing manner thus to Pope Sozi∣mus, Thou holdest Peters Chaire and Faith: and will the Iesuit inferre an universall from a parti∣cular? Pope Sozimus held Peters Chaire and Faith: therfore all that hold Peters Chaire, hold his Faith. What holdeth these two together?* a most strong and effectuall Bond, saith the Iesuit, namely, Christs promise to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith faile not. The time will faile me to declare particularly how many waies this Argument of the Iesuit failes: first, Christ prayed not here for Peter onely, as Saint Austine affirmeth, What doth any man make question here∣of? did Christ pray for Peter, and not for James Page  132and John? To say nothing of the rest, it is manifest, that in Peter all the rest are contained. This prayer then no more privilegeth the See of Rome from error, than of Ierusalem or of Ephesus, or any other See of the Apostles. Secondly, Christ prayed not that Peter might not erre, who afterwards erred,* and was reproved by Saint Paul, Galathians the second: but that his Faith might not faile, that is, be overcome in that fearfull temptation, in such sort, that hee might not rise againe after his fall. Thirdly, Christs prayer is for Peter himselfe in his person, and the Apostles whom Satan winnowed, not for his See. Fourthly, if this promise any way belonged to his Successors, certainly no more to those of Rome, than Antio∣chia; so infirme is this the Iesuits proofe, which yet hee saith, Must stand firme, till Sir Humphrey can tell what Pope began to varie from his Predeces∣sours. Agreed: Sir Humphrey shall presently tell him by name, Liberius the Arrian, Vigilius the Eutychian, Honorius the Monothelite condem∣ned in three generall Councels sixth, seventh, and eighth; Iohn the three and twenty, deposed in the Councell at Constance: as for other enormous crimes, so for this his damnable heresie, that Hee denied the immortalitie of the soule, and the life to come. To which, after the Iesuit hath replied, in∣stance shall be given in many other Popes, which have beene branded with the note of heresie in like manner.

To the third. [ 3] A strange and loose inference, Page  133three and thirty Popes adored Images because their Predecessor had the pictures of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Pope Gregorie allowed of the standing of pictures in the Church,* yet would have them by no meanes adored: Helena the mo∣ther of Constantine had the wood of Christs crosse, yet adored it not, saith Saint Ambrose. If to have the picture of Saint Peter, or Saint Paul, nay, or of Christ himselfe, maketh a man an Idolater, or a Papist, then not onely all the Lu∣therans generally, but very many of the most or∣thodoxe Divines in our, [ 4] and other reformed Churches, will be proved as good Papists as Pope Sylvester.

To the fourth. Not only Protestants, whom the Iesuit nick-nameth Heretikes, but also Contius, and other Romanists have disparaged these Epi∣stles: and if the Iesuits nose be not very flat, and stuffed also, hee may smell the forgerie of these Decretals by the barbarisme of the stile, disa∣greeing to those times, [ 5] and many absurdities and contradictions noted in them by Coqueus and others.

To the fift. If it be no matter of Faith, that this particular Priest Transubstantiateth the Bread, because no man knowes his intention, nor that particular Priest, Et sic de caeteris: It followeth, that it is no matter of Faith to beleeve, that any Priest in the Roman Church, by the words of Consecration, turneth the Bread into Christs Body. As for that, hee Page  134addeth, that it is no matter whether any ever died for this point in particular; I answer, it is a matter of great moment: for if Garnet would not take it upon his salvation, that this Bread hee consecrated, immediately before the death, was turned into Christs Body; nor any ever would, or did pawne his life for Transubstantiation: it is evident, that Papists themselves doubt of the certainty of that Arti∣cle. On the contrarie, wee can produce hundreds, nay thousands, who for denying Transubstantiation, have beene put to death, and have signed the truth of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the Sa∣crament with their blood: and therefore the Doctrine of the Protestants in this point, is of more credit than the contrarie, because it is strengthened and fortified by a Noble armie of Martyrs.

Page  135

Concerning the Protestants chari∣table opinion of the salvation of Pa∣pists; Spectacles, Chap. 17. à page 491. us{que} ad 508.

THE Knights discourse in this Chap∣ter is wholly from his purpose, [ 1] which he pretendeth in the title of his Chapter, which is to answer our objections.

The Knights eight instances in the Doctrine of Merits, Communion in both kinds, [ 2] publike use of Scripture, Priests marriage, Service in a knowne tongue, Worship of Images, Adoration of the Sacrament, and Traditions, are all answered before, and proved some false; for the things wherewith he chargeth us are all absurd, if we consider the proofes of Scripture which he bringeth.

All testimonies from an enemy proceede not from charity, but from truth, [ 3] and such are those which Catholikes bring out of learned Protestants, to prove that a man dying in the Romish Religion, may be saved.

Free-will, Prayer for the Dead, Honouring of Re∣likes, [ 4] Reall Presence, Transubstantiation, Communion Page  139in one kinde, Worshiping of Images, the Popes Pri∣macy, Auricular Confession, and the like, are all ac∣knowledged, some by one Protestant, some by ano∣ther, not to be materiall points; so as a man may without perill beleeve either way: the severall au∣thors are, Perkins, Cartwright, Whitgift, Fulke, Penrie, Somes, Sparks, Reynolds, Bunnie, and Whitaker.

John Frith, [ 5] a Foxean Martyr, acknowledgeth, that the matter touching the substance of the Sacra∣ment bindeth no man of necessity to salvation or damnation, whether he beleeve it or not.

John Huz held the Masse, [ 6] Transubstantiation, Vowes, Freewill, Merit of workes, and of the haeresies now in controversie held onely one, to wit, commu∣nion in both kindes.

Dr. Barrow acknowlegeth the Church of Rome to be the Church of God, [ 7] Hooker, a part of the house of God, and limbe of the visible Church of Christ; Dr. Somes, that all learned and reformed Churches, confesse that in Popery there is a Church, a Ministry, and true Christ: Field and Morton, that we are to be accounted the Church of God, whose words may be seene in the Protestants Apologie, Tract. 1. Sect. 6.

Whereas the Knight saith, [ 8] that men otherwayes morally good, relying wholly on the merits of Christ, that is, living Papists, and dying Protestants in the principall foundation of our faith, may finde mercy, because they did it ignorantly: where hath the Knight learned this Theologie, that a man may be Page  137saved in one Religion, yet so as he must die in ano∣ther. This is a new conceite never heard of before, that a man may be saved in a Religion, but so as not to die of it.

To conclude, since Protestant Doctors make no doubt, but we may be saved in our faith: [ 9] and no Doctour of ours saith so of your faith, it is out of doubt the safer way to embrace ours. The force of which argument, the Knight goeth not about to a∣void, otherwise then by denying that to be the opini∣on of learned Potestants, which being proved to be so manifestly, the argument still hath his force, and the more, because he cannot answer it.

The Hammer.

IN the former Chapters the Knight brandish∣ed his sword: but in this he holdeth up his Buckler to beare off a blow, wherewith some Professors especially of the Female Sex, are said to have beene wounded to death. For thus they whet their sword, and shape it on the Protestant an∣vile: Protestants confesse, at least, many of them, that there may be salvation in the Roman Church; but Papists absolutely deny that there may be any salvation in our Churches:*therefore it is safer to come to theirs, then to stay in ours; to be where al∣most all grant salvation, then where the greatest part of the world deny it. Hereunto the Knight truely and solidly answers.

First, that our Protestant Tenents are of that na∣ture, Page  138that the Papists themselves cannot pretend with any probability, that there is any danger in them, but rather in the contrary; as he ma∣keth it evident by eight remarkeable instances.

Secondly, that our Religion is not to be ac∣counted the worse, but rather the better for our charitable opinion of our Adversaries: for true piety is ever joyned with compassionate charity.

Thirdly,* that though we leave the persons of Papists to their and our judge, not pronouncing damnation on them, as they doe on us: yet we proclaime confidently to all the world, that their doctrine is not safe.

Fourthly, he distinguisheth also the persons of Papists, some are invincibly ignorant, who are compelled to resigne up their own eye-sight, and to look through such Spectacles as their Priests and Pastors have tempered for them; for these poore soules if they make as good use as they can of the publike and private means afforded them for sa∣ving knowledge, and hold fast the Articles of the Apostles Creed, without opposition to any ground of Christian Religion; and furthermore have a minde and purpose to obay God, and keepe his Commandements, according to that measure of knowledge and grace which they have recei∣ved, and live for outward things in the unity of the Church where they dwell, much may be said: other live under Princes and States, who as Gods true Watchmen and Shepherds, desire they should be better informed, and take care, Page  139that they may have meanes to be instructed in the true saving knowledge of Christ; such Papists shutting their eyes against Gods light, and per∣sisting in their ignorance, and saying in effect, Wee will not the knowledge of thy wayes, Iob 21.14. goe not safely out of the world. How the Ie∣suit refuteth these answers, wee shall see in the examination of his particular exceptions.

To the first. [ 1] That cannot be farre from the Knights purpose, which agreeth with the title of his whole Booke, Via tuta, The safe Way: this safe way hee proves to be the Protestants way by divers instances, in which the Papists af∣firmation is dangerous, but our Negation cannot but be safe. For example, there is apparant dan∣ger in maintaining the adoration of Images, and the creatures of Bread and Wine in the Sacra∣ment: because it is expressely forbidden under many fearfull curses; to offer Sacrifice, burne In∣cense, or exhibit any Divine Worship to any save God onely, Psalm. 97.7. Confounded be all they that worship graven Images, and boast themselves of Idolls: but there can be no danger in not Worshipping the Creature insteed of the Crea∣tour, who is blessed for ever, Rom. 1.25. They are in danger of a curse that forbid Marriage, and hold it in some persons to be unlawfull and un∣cleane; which Saint Paul calleth, The Doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. But there can be no danger in not prohibiting Marriage in any, which is Honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, Page  140Heb. 13.4. They are in danger who equall Traditions with Scripture, because it is written, Cursed be hee that addeth or taketh away from the words of the Law, or the Gospell, Deut. 4.2. Apoc. 22.18. There is danger in confidence in our owne merits; because, Cursed is hee that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arme, Ier. 17.5. but there can be no danger in not relying upon our owne merits; for Blessed are they that trust in Christ, and him onely, Psalm. 2.12. for that the Cardinall himselfe confesseth to be Tutissimum. There is danger in taking away the Cup from the Laity, for it is a violation of Christs insti∣tution; for Jesus said unto them, Iohn 6.53. Ex∣cept yee eate the flesh of the Son of man, and drinke his blood, yee have no life in you: but there can be no danger in not taking away the Cup from the Laity, but reaching it to them; for Whosoever eateth Christs flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternall life, vers. 54. There is danger in keeping the Scriptures from the Laity; for The people perish for want of knowledge:* and God powreth his wrath upon the people that know not his name:* but there can be no danger in permitting them to Search the Scriptures, for in them they have eternall life, Ioh. 5.39. and, Blessed are they whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and that exercise them∣selves in that Law both day and night, Psal. 1.2. There is danger in praying in an unknowne tongue; for they which doe so, Worship they know not what; draw neere to God with their lips, Page  141but their hearts is farre from him: but there can be no danger in Service in a knowne tongue; for the Apostle saith, I will pray with the spirit, I will pray with understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, I will sing with understanding also, 1 Cor. 14.15. It was a curse inflicted upon the builders of Babel, that they understood not what was spo∣ken: and the gift of tongues hath beene ever esteem'd a singular blessing conferred upon the Church, whereby the people of all Nations and Countries understood the Apostles, and their Successors preaching to them, and praying for them.

To the second. I reply, [ 2] that all his answers are refuted in my Animadversions upon the for∣mer Chapters, onely some Cavils hee addeth, which I will answer in a word.


I presume, his Father had some Apprentise bound not to marry during his Apprentiship: I would then know of him, whether his Father in that case did forbid marriage, and teach the Do∣ctrine of Devils.


It had beene fitter for the Iesuit to be bound Prentise than set to schoole, hee is so dull and stu∣pid that hee maketh it all one to forbid a Boy Page  142under age to marry during the time of his Ap∣prentiship, and that under a legall penalty, with∣out any vow or oath: and to forbid the whole Clergie to marry at all, by tying them to single life by a vow and solemne oath, whether they have the gift of continencie, or not.


Saint Paul saith, the gift of Tongues is a signe for Infidels; but Prophecie, that is, Exhortation or Interpretation, is for the Faithfull, or those that believe already: wherein, I would know what any man can find against Prayer in the La∣tine tongue.


I will easily helpe the Iesuits ignorance herein: Prayer in the Latine tongue, when it is not un∣derstood, is Prayer in a Strange tongue, which the Apostle here implyeth, No way tendeth to edi∣fication. Nay farther, he proveth it to be a curse out of the Prophet Esay,* to a people to heare a Language which they understand not: and if that people were accursed, in that they heard a Lan∣guage which they understood not; our people in this regard must needs be blessed, who heare in the Church the Word of God read, and Divine Service said in a Language which they under∣stand.

Page  143

The Catholike Church doth draw in severall Nations to unity of Language, making all to speake one and the same Tongue: whereas He∣retikes in the severall places, by use of other Lan∣guages, understand not one the other, and there∣in most perfectly resemble the Babel-builders, as well in their diversitie of tongues, as in the di∣versities of Doctrines.


The Iesuit here ignorantly babbleth about Babel, and the builders thereof, upon whom God sent as a curse, not simply the diversitie of Languages which Acts 2. was given to the Apostles by mi∣racle for a blessing: but confusion of Languages, whereby it came to passe, that though they all spake one to another, yet none understood one the other. This curse cannot be denied to be fal∣len upon the Lay-people in Poperie in the time of their benediction; and hereby the Romane Church, as by many things else, may be discer∣ned to be Spiritually Babylon. Now whereas the Iesuit saith, that they make all Nations to speake one and the same tongue, his tongue runneth be∣fore his wit: for though the Pope by injoyning Latine Service, make all Nations under the Ro∣mane jurisdiction, heare one and the same tongue Page  144in their Service: yet hee maketh them not to speake it, nor so much as understand it. Where∣as all the Reformed Churches, as they agree in the unity of their Doctrine against Romish er∣rours and superstitions; so they also concurre in this, that they have all their Liturgies in their Mother tongue, that all the children of our Chur∣ches may heare their heavenly Father speake un∣to them in his Word, and they to him in their Prayers in a language understood.


But for that which hee saith, that hee acknow∣ledgeth universalitie of Nations and people, not to be a marke of his Church, I cannot but won∣der at it; for what is this, but even in plaine termes to confesse his Church, not to be the Church of Christ? Esay saying, All nations shall flow unto it: and the Prophet David describing the kingdome of Christ, saith, that Hee shall beare sway from Sea to Sea: and Daniel describeth the kingdome of Christ, Like a mountaine growing from a little stone, and filling the whole Earth: Saint Iohn seeth a Multitude which no man could reckon, of all Nations, and Tribes, and People.


Wee doe not say that the Church of England is the Church of Christ, that is, the whole, or Page  145only Church of Christ, but a Church of Christ; or to speake more properly, a member of the Catholike Church scattered over the face of the the whole earth. The texts alleaged by the Iesuit, are meant of the Catholike or universall Church, not of a particular; for it implieth a kind of contradiction, that a part should be the whole, and all Nations comprised in one. Secondly, the Knight speaketh not, Page 312. simply of multi∣tudes, nations, and tongues, when hee denieth that wee have any such in our Church: but of multitudes, and nations, and tongues that are at the Woman her command in the Apocalypse: The Citie which raigneth over the Kings of the Earth,*which sitteth on seven mountaines, and is drunke with the blood of Saints and Martyrs: of whom it was foretold, that shee should ascend out of the bot∣tomlesse pit, and goe into perdition. These can be no markes of our Church, as all the world seeth: and if they be, as indeed they are most visible and apparant markes of the Romane Church, let them lay claime to her, and keepe her to them∣selves, wee no way grudge or repine at it. But if the question be, where it is safer being with the Woman that fled into the wildernesse, or this Queene-regent of the world, wee give warning to all that have Care of their salvation, to come out of Babylon, that they be not partaker of her plagues.

To the third. [ 3] It is not true, that all testimonies proceeding from an enemie, are from evidence of Page  146Truth; for a testimonie may proceed from an enemie sometimes from weaknesse of judgement, as Tertullian long agoe hath observed, conclu∣ding, that it is no certaine and undoubted Argu∣ment of strength and valour to conquer an Ene∣mie: for many times the victorie is gotten, not because the conquerour was a man of might, and well handled his weapons; Sed quia qui vinceba∣tur infirmis erat viribus: but because hee had the good hap to enter into the lists with a weake Adver∣sarie. Yet, let the Iesuits Observation be gene∣rall, the Knight will gaine by it; for the greatest part of his booke consisteth of Testimonies ta∣ken from the mouth of learned Romanists: and therefore by this Rule laid downe by the Iesuit, all must be presumed to proceed from evidence of Truth. For the testimonies which hee here alleageth out of Protestants against us, though they have beene long agoe answered, in the Pro∣stants Apologie, written against Brerely his falsly so called Catholike Apologie: yet in the due place I shall shew, that they make nothing for, but ra∣ther against the Romish Church.

To the fourth. [ 4] The Iesuit cannot be ignorant, that the misnamed Catholike Apologie set forth by Brerely, was refuted seven and twenty yeares agoe by a Catholike Appeale for Protestants; there all these shafts which Brerely taketh out of the Protestant Quivers, are either broken, or their heads so taken off, that they can doe no hurt to any that hath his Buckler of Faith on, or his eyes Page  147in his head. To which Appeale I referre the dis∣creete Reader; when the Iesuit shall quote any of these Authors for any particular point, he shall have a punctuall answer.

To the fift. [ 5] Frith was a worthy and glorious Martyr, whose faith may be knowne by his bookes yet extant: wherein he no way appro∣veth of Transubstantiation, but condemneth it expressely. Neither doth he say that a right be∣liefe in the Sacrament touching the substance thereof is no matter of salvation: but that it is no matter of salvation to beleeve after what manner the substance of Christs body is in the Sacra∣ment, whether by Consubstantiation, or Tran∣substantiation which is most true: for as Doctor Andrewes, late Bishop of Winton acutely obser∣ved, Christ said hoc est Corpus meum, non hoc mo∣do est, or fit Corpus meum, this is my Body, not the bread is after this manner my body.

To the sixt. [ 6] If communion in both kindes be an haeresie, Christ, his Apostles, and the Primi∣tive Church which administred and received the Communion in both kinds, as is confessed in the Councell at Constance, cannot be free from hae∣resie. And whereas the Iesuit saith, that this Martyr in all other points held with Papists, the contrary appeares in his printed bookes, and by the prayer he made at his death, mentioned by Cocleus in the history of the Huzzites, wherein he prayeth to God, that his soule after his death might be where the soule of Wickliffe is.

Page  148

To the seventh. [ 7] To the Iesuit his allegations out of Barrow, Hooker, Some, Bunnie, and Covell; Dr. Morton now Bishop of Duresme answereth at large in his Catholike appeale, l. 4. from the first Section to the sixth, where he proveth, that the testimonies themselves, and the reasons an∣nexed to them doe shew, that the above cited Protestants yeeld no more security to the Romish Church, then they doe to any other erroneous Church, wherein there is true baptisme and the the profession of the chiefe principles of faith. Barrow acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be a Church of God, that is a Church professing Christianity, in which there may be a possibili∣ty of salvation, not an Orthodox or right belie∣ving Church, in which there is certainty of sal∣vation. Hooker saith, that the Church of Rome is a member of the visible Catholike Church, a member, not the Catholike Church, and no sound member nei∣ther, according to that Thesis of Doctor Rey∣nolds, Romana ecclesia nec est Catholica, nec sanum membrum Catholicae. Dr. Somes saith, as likewise Iunius,* that in Popery there is a Church, that is, under the Popes dominion Christ hath his Church, or that Popery is in the Church: yet that Popery is not the Church. Bunnie saith, that we are not a severall Church from the Papists, that is, not essentially deffe∣rent from it, no more then a sicke man differeth from a sound. Covell saith, the Church of Rome is a part of the Church of Christ, but a very unsound part. From all which passages, this onely may be con∣cluded Page  149of the Roman Church, as of other erro∣neous assemblies, that though in regard of their manifold errors, they must be esteemed sicke and unsound Churches; yet in regard of the be∣ing and essence of a Church, they must be ac∣knowledged visible Churches of Christ. Nei∣ther Field nor Morton saith, that the Church of Rome is the Church of God, but a Church of God. Fields words are, Romana ecclesia est verè ecclesia, non vera ecclesia; is truely a Church, not a true Church: Morton proveth in one whole Section, that the Church of Rome is not properly the Catho∣like Church, but a particular Church subject to er∣ror. Sect. 6. Protest. appeal, l. 4. But in this point, in what sense the Protestants call the Church of Rome a true Church, see a late Trea∣tise set forth by Doctor Hall, the Bishop of Ex∣ton, called the Reconciler; wherein, both he and Bishop Davenet, and Morton, in their letters affixed thereunto, cleare the matter nothing at all I assure you to your advantage.

To the eight. [ 8] The Knight saith not that a man may be saved in one Religion, yet so as he must not die in it: but that a man living in one Religion, to wit, the Popish, may be saved: so that he renounce it before his death, and dye in a better: for not onely the bosome of the Church, but also the gates of Heaven are alwayes open to the penitent, as the Prophet Ezekiel teacheth:* neither is this any new conceit of the Knight, but the generall opinion of all Protestants, as the Ie∣suitPage  150may read in the Catholike Appeale, l. 4. c. 1. The Reverend Bishop now mentioned, under∣standing how that great and honourable personage in the last Act of her life, renounced all presumption of her owne inherent righteousnesse, and wholly af∣fianced her soule to Christ in beliefe to be justified onely by his satisfactory justice, did therefore con∣ceive hope of her salvation by vertue of that Cordiall prescribed by the Holy Apostle, viz. that where sinne aboundeth, the grace of God doth superabound, which the Apostle hath ministred for the comfort of every Christian, who erring by ignorance, shall in sincere repentance for all his knowne sinnes, de∣part this mortall life, having the heele or end of his life shod with the preparation of the Gospell of peace, not of the new Romish, but of the old Catholike faith, which is the faith of all Protestants.* And againe, in his booke intituled, the Grand Imposture, If you demand why Protestants have so charitable opinion of some Romanists, you are to understand, that it is in regard of that, without which they cannot be sa∣ved, that they died in the beliefe of this Protestant Article of Faith, which is to be justified by remissi∣on of all their sinnes, through the satisfactory righte∣ousnesse of Christ, apprehended by faith, and not by the legall justice or perfection of inherent righteous∣nesse in themselves, as your Councell of Trent hath decreed: and this opinion we finde verified in the experience of many Papists, who howsoe∣ver in their life time they professe and magnifie your doctrine of perfection of works: yet on their Page  151death bed as soone as the least glimpse of the ma∣jesty of Christs tribunall is revealed unto them, and the booke of their conscience begins to be unclapsed, and so laid open before them that they cannot but reade their sinnes, which in their life∣time they held as veniall, to be deadly and written in Capitall litters: then they take Sanctuary in the wounds of Christ, from whence floweth the Ocean of all expiatory merit and satisfaction, by which it is impossible but that every faithfull pe∣nitent should receive life.

To the ninth. [ 9] To this argument I say, that it is paralyticall and weake in the sinewes. For how doth this follow? the Donatists held as the Pa∣pists doe, that all men were damned that were not of their sect; St. Austine de unit eccles. c. 12. and other Catholike Bishops thought that some of them might be in the state of grace, and that their Baptisme was good, Ergo, it is a safer way to embrace the Donatists haeresie then the Ca∣tholike Faith: or at least send their children to the Donatists to be baptized,* because both parties granted that there was true Baptisme among the Do∣natists, whereas the Donatists denied that there was any true Baptisme among the Catholikes; or this, the Indian Priests teach, that it is unlawfull to take bread from the hand of a Christian; the Christi∣ans teach that it is lawfull to take bread from an Indian: therefore it is safer to take bread from an Indian then from a Christian, or have fellow∣ship with an Infidell Indian then with a charita∣ble Page  152Christian, because a Christian hath a better opinion of the Infidell, then the Infidell hath of him: as Protestants have a more charitable opi∣nion of Papists, then Papists have of them. When the Iesuit is sober let him thinke how to give an answer to Bishop Morton his instance, whereby he sheweth the invalidity of this mad argument of Iesuits, A mad man thinketh other men to be beasts, a sober man confesseth that a mad man is a man and no beast: is a mad man therefore in the right or in the better case then the sober man, because the sober man judgeth better of the mad man, then the mad man doth of the sober?

Concerning the confession of all sides for the safety of the Protestant Religion; Spectacles, Chapter 18. à page 509. us{que} ad finem.

THAT the ground of safety which the Knight thinketh he taketh from Ca∣tholikes, [ 1] is foolish, impertinent, and without sense as he setteth it downe; for thus he saith, it is the safer way to persist in that Church, where both sides agree that salvation may be had, then where one Page  153part standeth single by themselves in opinion: for I would know what Church is that wherein there be two sides to agree or disagree? or what Church that is, that doth not stand single in opinion by it selfe, if it be a Church of a different faith (as we speake here of a Church?) A Church must have unity, it being a company of men, all professing the same faith and Re∣ligion, therefore it is plaine there is no sense in this principle of his.

I would aske him whether the Protestants doe not stand single as well as we, [ 2] by affirming of what we deny, or denying what we affirme: or rather whe∣ther he and his Church be not so much more single then we, as they have not one on their sides for every million, which we have or have had on ours.

By the Knights argument, [ 3] a man may prove any haeresie that ever was, nay, Iudiasme and Turcisme to be a safer way then the Catholike, or even the Knights Protestant faith: for Arius may say, he a∣greeth with us Catholikes in all things, save onely in the Divinity of the second Person of Trinity, whom he acknowledgeth with us to be an Holy Man: and that we stand single by our selves in the assertion of his Divinity. Macedonius may say the same of the Holy-Ghost: Nestorius of the plurality of per∣sons in Christ: Eutyches of the singularity of Na∣tures: Sergius Pyrrus, and the Monothlites of the unity of will in Christ: Ebion, Cerinthus, Mar∣cion, and almost all haeretikes in their severall haere∣sies, may say as the Knight doth, of the points con∣troverted, that we stand single by our selves in them: Page  154and so it is the safer way to beleeve onely that wher∣in they and wee agree; nay, the Iewes may make the same argument thus, That they agree with us, that there is one God Creatour of heaven and earth, and that the old Testament is Canonicall Scripture; for the rest wee stand single: and the Turke may say that hee agreeth with us, that Christ was an holy man, and a Prophet; for the rest wee stand single: and therefore hee is in the safer way.

What can the Knight say for defence of his Argu∣ment? [ 4] For though Iewes and Turkes doe not agree with us in the profession of the Christian Faith, yet I see not why that should be necessary by the Knights Argument; and thereby a man may see what a good guide he is, and how safe a way he goeth: and whether the saying of Salomon be not truly verified of his Safe Way;*There is a way which seemeth to a man straight, and the end of it leadeth to death, and consequently to hell: for what other is the end of Heresie, Judaisme, and Turcisme? whereto the Knights rule doth leade all such as will be ruled thereby.

The Hammer.

SEmper ego auditor tantum nunquam ne reponane? Hitherto the Knight held up his Buckler, and stood upon his owne defence: but here hee set∣teth upon his Adversarie, closeth with him, wresteth his owne Sword out of his hand, and therewith giveth him as many wounds as Iulius Page  155Caesar received in the Senate. For, besides the 12 Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed, in all which, the Papists stand single, hee inffan∣ceth in eleven points more, wherein the Papists agree with us in our affirmative positions, but they alone maintaine their affirmative addition; wher∣upon hee condemneth the Iesuit as Christ doth the Evill Servant in the Gospell, out of his owne mouth thus:

That Religion is lesse safe, in which the Professours stands single, than that in which the parties, other wayes dissident, a∣gree.

But in all or most of the affirmative points of Popish Religion, they stand single; but in all such positive points of the reformed Faith, not only Papists, but in a manner all Christians of the world concurre with us.

Therefore the Popish Religion, by the Iesuits owne rule, is lesse safe.

To illustrate this by a few instances, the posi∣tive points of our Doctrine are chiefly these:

  • 1. That the three Creeds; the Apostles, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius are to be recei∣ved upon paine of damnation.
  • 2. That religious worship is due to God.
  • 3. That God is to be called upon.
  • 4. That Christ is head of the Church.
  • 5. That hee is our Mediatour and Advocate.
  • Page  156
  • 6. That hee was conceived without sinne.
  • 7. That wee are saved by his merits and satis∣faction.
  • 8. That the Scripture is a rule of Faith.
  • 9. That there are two and twenty Canonicall Bookes of the old Testament.
  • 10. That the originals in the Greek and Hebrew are authenticall.
  • 11. That there are two Sacraments of the new Testament, Baptisme, and the Lords Sup∣per.
  • 12. That Children of the Faithfull are to bee christened.
  • 13. That in Baptisme, water is necessarily to be used.
  • 14. That Christ is truly present at his Supper; and that the worthy Receiver is by faith made spiritually partaker of the true and reall body and blood of Christ.
  • 15. That the Sacrament may be administred in both kinds.
  • 16. That the Images of Christ and his Saints may serve for Ornaments and Memorials, and that there is a lawfull historicall use of them.
  • 17. That Peter had a Primacie of Order among the Apostles.
  • 18. That there are two places for soules depar∣ted, Heaven and Hell.
  • 19. That there are three holy Orders in the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
  • Page  157
  • 20. That Confession to a Priest, in case the Con∣science be troubled with any grievous Sin, is profitable and behoovefull.

To all these points, and many more like unto these, the Papists assent; but in all their additions they stand single, as namely:

  • 1. That a fourth Creed made by Pius the fourth, is likewise to be received under paine of dam∣nation.
  • 2. That religious worship is due to Saints.
  • 3. That Saints and Angels are to be called upon.
  • 4. That the Pope is the visible head of the Church.
  • 5. That Saints are our Mediatours and Advo∣cates.
  • 6. That the Virgin Mary also was conceived with∣out sinne.
  • 7. That wee are justified and saved in part by our owne Merits, and superabundant satisfactions of Saints.
  • 8. That Tradition is a rule of Faith as well as Scripture.
  • 9. That besides those two and twenty, there are other Books of the old Testament, to wit, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, The Wisdome of Salomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees, to be ad∣mitted into the number of Canonicall Scrip∣tures.
  • 10. That the vulgar Latin translation of the Scrip∣ture is most pure and authenticall.
  • 11. That besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper, Page  158there are five other Sacraments; Confirmation, Order, Penance, Matrimonie, and Extreme Vnction.
  • 12. That Gallies and Bels may, and ought to be christened.
  • 13. That besides Water; Creame, Salt, and Spittle are to be used in Baptisme.
  • 14. That Christ is present in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation, and that his body and blood is not onely received spiritually by Faith, but also carnally by the mouth.
  • 15. That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may lawfully be administred to the Laity in one kind onely.
  • 16. That besides an historicall, there is a religious use of Images; and that they are to bee wor∣shipped.
  • 17. That Peter had not onely a Primacie of Order, but a power also, and jurisdiction over the Apostles.
  • 18. That besides Heaven and Hell, there is a third place of abode for soules, to wit, Purga∣torie; and a fourth also, termed Limbus in∣fantum.
  • 19. That besides those three holy Orders of Bishops, Prists, and Deacons, there are others, as namely, Exorcists, Acolyts, &c.
  • 20. That confession of every knowne Sin to a Priest, is necessarie.

Now because Negatives are not properly Ar∣ticles Page  159of Faith, but Positives or Affirmatives; it appeareth evidently, that the Faith of the refor∣med Churches is assented to by Papists them∣selves, and all Christians in the world, and ther∣fore is most certain & safe by the confession on all sides: wheras the Popish additions, wherein we stand onely upon the Negative, and they are to make good the Affirmative, are assented to by none but themselves; and therefore by the Iesuits rule, are weak, doubtful, and lesse safe. This is Vul∣caneum telum et argumentum palmarium, the main and principall argument whereby the Knight de∣monstrateth the title of his Booke; and hee is so confident of it, that if that be to be accounted the safer way, wherein different parties agree both in one, as the Iesuit laid it downe in the former chapter, hee will joyne issue with all Papists in the world in this very point: and if in this hee make not good the title of his Booke, that wee are therefore in the safer way, because they agree in the principall and Positive points of Religion with our Doctrine; hee will reconcile himselfe to the Roman Church, and creepe upon all foure to his Holinesse for a Pardon. At this the Iesuit is so mad, that he fometh at the mouth, and raveth, saying,*That to creepe upon all foure is a very fit gate for men so devoid of reason, as to make such Discourses, and to use such malicious insinuations, as if men used to creepe upon all foure to the Pope,

Parce sepulto
Parce pias scelerare manus:
Page  160be not so inhumane and barbarous, in tearing the fame of the dead; there is no cause at all given of such rage and furie. The Knight doth herein no way blaspheme, or falsly traduce Dominum deum Papam; for those that ordinarily kisse the Popes toe, unlesse his Holinesse be the more courteous to hold up his foot the higher, must needs be neere creeping on all foure. To say nothing of Dandalus King of Creete and Cyprus who was upon all foure, and that under the Table before the Popes Holinesse, as Iewell in his Apo∣logie, and the defence thereof undeniably pro∣veth out of good Authors against Mr. Harding; yet the Knight in this place chargeth not the Pope with any such imperious demand of Lucife∣rian pride: but onely professeth what penance hee would willingly enjoyne himselfe, if hee should abuse the Reader, and not make good the Title of his booke by the argument above pro∣pounded; against which, what the Iesuit here particularly Articleth and objecteth, I will now consider.

To the first. [ 1] The words which the Iesuit would make seem so ridiculous, are related by the Knight, as their owne words not ours, as any may perceive by the Preface to them, therefore say they, and by this that they are written in a lesser Character, and is it not senslesse in the Iesuit, and most ridiculous to laugh at himselfe, and put his owne nonsense upon the Knight, who taking the Iesuits words as he found them, scorning to nible Page  161at syllables, interpreted the Iesuits words at the best, and taking his meaning, joynes issue with him upon the point in this manner.

In a Church professing Christianity, where the Scriptures of the old and new Testament are received, and the two Sacraments instituted, by Christ admi∣nistred, suppose we there to be two sorts of Professors, either publikely allowed as in France, or at least tollerated, as in other King∣domes, both these entituling themselves to be members of the pure Orthodox Church, and neither of them having beene particularly con∣demned in any generall Councell, received through the Christian world; the probleme then is, whether of these two, that party is not in the safer way, who holdeth no positive Arti∣cle of faith, to which both parties (besides all other Christians) give not their assent unto: then the other who maintaineth twelve Arti∣cles of faith at least, wherein they themselves stand single, and are forsaken by all Christians, not onely of the reformed Churches, in Eng∣land, France, Germany, Denmarke, Swethland, Norway, Poland, Transylvania, but also in the Ea∣stern, and Greek Churches dispersed through the large Dominions of the Turke in Europe, Asia, and Africa. But thus it standeth betweene us and Papists, all the positive Articles which we hold necessary to salvation, they themselves, and all other Christian Churches in the world assent unto: whereunto the Church of Rome hath ad∣ded Page  162many other positive Articles in joyning all under paine of damnation to beleeve them; in all which additions, she standeth alone by her selfe: therefore it is safer to adhere to the do∣ctrine and faith of the reformed churches, then the Pope his new Trent Creed.
The Iesuits ex∣ceptions against this argument are very idle, and all his instances in Turkes, Iewes, and Haeretikes, nothing to the purpose: for the unbeleeving Iewes and Turkes never were, nor yet are mem∣bers of the Catholike Christian Church: the A∣rians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Marcionites have beene long agoe excluded out of the true Church of Christ, and their Haeresies are by name condemned in ancient generall Councells approved by the whole Christian world. These therefore come not within the verge of the Knights proposition, which is restrained to Chri∣stian Churches, and such whose Tenets have not in particular as yet beene cryed downe, and cen∣sured as erroneous in any oecumenicall Councell: among such, doubtlesse those are in the safer way, who hold nothing for an Article of faith necessa∣ry to salvation, which is not clearely deduced out of Holy Scripture, and assented unto, even by the opposite part, whose testimony, saith the Iesuit, Page 498. must needs proceede from evidence of truth.

To the second. [ 2] The Iesuit hath received an∣swer already to the former of these demands, where I shewed by twenty instances that we Page  163stand not single as they doe, by affirming what they deny, and denying what they affirme: for the most, if not all the affirmative Articles of our Creed, are firmed and subscribed by Papists them∣selves, whereas their additionalls to them are fir∣med by none but themselves: and therefore herein our cause hath a great advantage on theirs. For if their beliefe be true, our beliefe in all the affirmative Articles thereof must needs be so; but not on the contrary, because they have many affirmative Articles which we give no credit un∣to. To his second demand I answer, that though a multitude of Professors is no perpetuall and in∣fallible marke of the true Church:* for Christs flocke is but a little flocke in comparison, and broade is the way that leadeth to death and destruction; and though it is true that in the latter and worser ages of the Church, especially after the yeare 666. which is the number of the name of the Beast, and much more after the thousandth yeare wherein Satan was let loose, the Romish Church was much more visible to the eye of the world then the Protestant, as it is prophecied in the Apocalypse the 16. 6. that the false and malignant Church should be farre more glorious and pompous then the true Spouse of Christ: yet in the first and best ages of the Church, our adversaries have not so much as one single witnesse, who can be pro∣ved to have given testimony to their Trent faith, and since the happy reformation began by Mar∣tin Luther in King Henry the eights dayes, the Page  164better part of Europe is fallen from the Pope; adde we to them all those, who in Asia and Africa professe the Christian faith, and yet acknowledge not the Pope, nor subscribe to the Trent faith: and it will appeare we have neere a thousand for one in the Catholike visible Church scattered far and wide over the face of the earth, as may be seene in the Mapps set forth in a booke printed the last yeare, and intituled Christianographie, or the De∣scription of the multitude and sundry sorts of Chri∣stians in the World, not subject to the Pope, with their unity, and how they agree with the Protestants in the principall points of difference betweene them and the Church of Rome.

To the third. [ 3] If the argument bee so weake, let the Iesuit remember that it is his owne, and that he confesseth as much in the first words of this Chapter, which are these, The substance of this Section is contained in the title, and it is nothing but to turne the Catholike argument, mentioned in the former Section the other way for the Protestant side. The argument then is a Catholike argument of their owne, and if it make for Haeretikes, Iewes, and Turkes, as he saith it doth, the blame and shame thereof must light upon the Iesuits, that first framed it, and not upon the Knight who re∣torteth it onely upon them:

for thus it mooveth upon their Axletree, that wherein Professors of different religions both agree, is safer to beleeve then that wherein they stand single, but Iewes and Christians agree in the beliefe of the old Page  165Testament; Christians and Turkes agree in the truth of Christs humane nature, in other points the Christians are single, therfore the beliefe of a Iew or a Turke is safer then the beliefe of a Christian.
The conclusion is here false and blasphemous, the minor or assumption is evi∣dently true, and confessed on all sides: the fault therfore must needs be in the major or ground of this argument, but the major or ground is your owne, as will appeare by reducing the Iesuits Ar∣gument, propounded in the former Section, into forme:
That Church wherein parties of a dif∣ferent Religion, as Papists and Protestants a∣gree, is a safer way than that wherein one party stand single. But Papists and Protestants both agree, that salvation may be had in the Romish Church; but the Protestants stand single, in that they say, salvation may be had in the Pro∣testant Church: therefore it is safer living and dying in the Papists Church than in the Prote∣testant.
In this Syllogisme, the Knight and all Protestants, though they answer to the Assump∣tion by distinguishing, as is expressed in the for∣mer chapter: yet they simply & absolutely deny the Major, which is not universally true, nor at all necessarie. Secondly, Dato & non concesso: that the Major is true, the Knight nimbly turnes the mouth of the Papists owne Canon, to batter their owne walls, thus: That position, say you, in which both Papists and Protestants agree, is safer than that wherein one partie standeth single: but in the Page  166eleven Points mentioned by the Knight, Papists and Protestants agree: in the twelve Articles coy∣ned by Pope Pius the fourth, the Papists stand single; therefore the Protestant Faith is the safer.

To the fourth. [ 4] A strange Argument, for the Iesuit to conclude other mens sight from his owne blindnesse: because hee seeth not how the Knight can avoid the instances in Jewes, Here∣tikes, and Turkes, whereby hee goeth about to disable the Knight his retorted Argument; ther∣fore will hee inferre, that any man may see that the Knight is no good guide. For pitty let some fit the Iesuit with a paire of Spectacles, that he may bet∣ter see the Knight his way, and his own wandrings.*Iews and Turks are out of the Christian Church, hold not all Positive Articles necessary to salva∣tion, and therefore they come not in the Knights way at all; nor hath hee to doe with them in this Argument, which proceedeth from professed Christians, and not open enemies to the Faith. For the Knight from his heart detesteth all pathes leading to any of those dangerous pre∣cipices; and chaulketh to all men Viam vere tu∣tam, certam, rectam & regiam; a faire and Safe Way, and the very Kings High-way to his Pallace, wherein wee have Christ and his Apostles for our Leaders; the holy Spirit for our Guide; the blessed Angels for our Convoy; the ancient Fa∣thers and Doctors of the Church for our fellow Travellers through the whole, and the best lear∣ned Page  167of the Romane Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Schoolemen to beare us companie the grea∣ter part of our way. Wherefore, I doubt not, but that the indifferent peruser of the Knights Book, and the Iesuits Answer, and my Reply unto it; will breake out into the Apostles exclamation, and say to this Romish Sorcerer,* or rather if hee will so, false Spectacle-maker, Flood: O full of all subtiltie and mischiefe, thou child of the devill, wilt thou not cease to per∣vert the right way of the LORD?