A Case for the Spectacles, Chapter 11
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, and comfort of the Protestant faith out of Catholike 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 common opinion, doth he presently say, the Protestant faith is safe?
… …e points of Protestant religion, which of themselves perhaps might seeme indifferent, their disobedience and spirit of contradiction makes damnable.
The Protestant religion is not safer then the Roman, 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, then 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 Father hath neither right hand, nor left.
There is no more fafety in the Protestant doctrine of Iustification, than the Romane. For Catholikes trust wholy in God, attributing no more to their owne good workes, than that they cooperate to Iustification, meriting grace and glorie: and on the contrarie, 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?
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 profitable, when the people comnunicate with the Priest, 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.
Aeneas Sylvius, Cassander, and Panormitan are of opinion indeed, that Priests should have libertie to marry: yet they would not have them marry against 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, yet they are lawfull and safe, and the fruit of refection of the understanding by Prayer in a knowne tongue, whereof Aquinas speaketh, will not countervaile the tenth part of the inconvenience which may happen by having publike Prayers in a knowne tongue. The inconveniences are vanitie, curiositie, contempt of Superiours, disputes, schismes, prophanation, and divulgation of secret Mysteries: besides, the very ignorance of the Latine tongue, and consequently, of all learning which would follow thereof onelyonly 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 mistaken in the very end of Prayer, which is not edification, or instruction of the people, but the honour of God immediately. Gabriel Biel speaketh not of Prayer in a knowne tongue, nor of publike Prayers, but onelyonly 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, or praying to Saints: and Erasmus, Cassander, and Chemnitius, who teach the contrary, are of none authoritie.
Neither Bernard, nor Waldensis, nor Bellarmine, 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 rewardeth the good workes of his servants, out of his justice and fidelitie, which out of his merciemercy he gave them grace to doe: and though Waldensis and some other Divines, approve not of the word of Merit, especially De condigno; yet in the thing it selfe, they all agree, to wit, that eternall life is given 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.
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 onelyonly, resolution of our faith upon Gods word, relying wholly upon his Grace and mercy, and renouncing mans merit. And whose understanding apprehendeth not, that it is safest to pray to God with understanding; whose spirituall senses 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 onelyonly; whose reason perswadeth 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; and 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 often, and tumbleth also, as the Reader may observe in the severall annotations at his particular slips, or rather downefalls in this Chapter.
To the first. The Knight doth not conclude out of any one particular, but maketh an induction out of many particulars in this manner. The Protestant faith by the best learned among Papists 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 Roman: ergo, simply and generally it is safer. Though Silurus his Son could breake every Arrow 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 juvant; 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. By the uncharitable censure of the Iesuit, he sheweth of what spirit he is. The searcher of all hearts knoweth that we contradict Romish doctrines, not out of disobedience 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 Papists intentions 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 themselves, might seeme indifferent: yet as they hold them they are not, because they are not of faith,Rom. 14.23. and whatsoever 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,Resp ad Archi- epis. Spalaten. c. 47. Firmitas fundamenti et firma licet implicita in aureo hoc fundamento veritatis adhaesio valebit, ut in Cypriano sic in nobis ad salutem: faenum & stipula imbecilitas & caries in tecto & contignatione, & explicita erroris opinio non valebit, nec in Cypriano, nec in nobis ad pernitiem. or Church of Rome, which is but the authority of man; whereas on the contrary as Doctor Crakenthorpe demonstrateth, If any Protestant build hay or stubble upon the true foundation, he may be saved; because he 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 weight the Authors 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 derogatory to God and his truth, are not so safe.
To the third. With what face can the Iesuit avow this? considering that Prieras before alleaged, and other writers approved by the Church of Rome, mainetaine this blasphemous assertion, that the authority of the Church is greater then the authority of Scripture, and all Papists of note at this day, hold that the Scripture is but an imperfect and partiall rule of faith; all Protestants on the contrary teach, that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith; Papists believe the Scripture 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 confesseth,De verbo Dei non script. l. 4. c. 1…. containeth all things necessary for all men to beleeve, and is a most certaine and safe rule of beleeveing. Yea but saith the Iesuit out of Vincentius Lerinensis, De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 2.he that will avoid the deceits and snares of Haeretikes, and remaine sound in 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 tradition 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 confirme faith, and confound Heretikes. Vt Scripturae ecclesiastice intelligentiae jungatur authoritas.For the stopping of whose mouth that Father saith, and we deny it not, that there is great neede to add to the Scripture the Churches sense or interpretation, albeit as he there addeth, which cutteth the throat of the Iesuits cause, The Canon of Scripture is perfect, and sufficient of it selfe for all things: nay rather, as hee correcteth himselfe, Over and above sufficient; cum sit perfectus scripturae canon sibi{que} ad omnia satis super{que} sufficiat.
To the fourth. Here the Iesuit would make his Reader study a little, and his Adversarie to muse; Vero nihil verius, certo nihil certius.but it is indeed, whether hee be in his right wits, or no. For first, as Seneca well resolveth, 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 degrees of certainty, at least quoad nos, there can be yet no comparison, in regard of such certaintie betweene an Article of the Creed assented unto by all Christians, and a controverted conclusion, maintained onelyonly 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,Mark 16.19. Luke 24. consented unto by all Christians in the world; whereas the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation, is no Article extant in any Creed, save onelyonly 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 consequence, as foure great Cardinals of the Roman Church confesse, Cameracensis, Cajetan, Roffensis, 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 Iesuit contradicteth himselfe within eight lines: for having said in the eighteenth line,Pag. 384. 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 expounding 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. Lastly, by Body, they understand such a body as indeed is no body, without the extension of place, without distinction of Organs, without facultie of sense, or motion: and will hee make this figment so incredible, so impossible, as sure, nay more sure than the Article of Christs ascension into heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of his Father there? Yea, but the Iesuit demandeth, 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 answer, 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 Cultum latriae, divine worship to a piece of Bread.
To the fift. 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 easily plucked out; for the Knight chargeth them with nothing, but what the Iesuit himselfe confesseth. For if men cooperating to their justification, 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 Papists 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 blessed 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 standeth not by his owne strength, but by Gods power, Who worketh in him both the will and the deed; hee ought not to be high minded, but to feare, and in this feare to worke out his salvation. I meane, in feare:Phil. 2.13. 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 not onelyonly joyned with assured hope, that God will worke both the will and the deede, but also with joy, rejoyce unto him with trembling.
Psal. 11.To the sixt. 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 Sacraments effect what they represent, it will follow upon the Iesuits owne confession, that in regard 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 operation: and if so, then more safety and comfort in our entire, then in their halfe communion.
Bell. de Missa, l. 2. c. 10. Negari non potest quin sit magis perfecta et legitima, missa ubi cōmunicantes adsunt quā ubi non adsunt. Harding, art. 1. of privat Masse, Where the people cōmunicate, it is more cōmendable, & more godly. Concil. Trent, ses. 22. cap. 6. more fruitfull, and more profitable.To the seventh. The Iesuit would faine contradict the Knight, but indeede he contradicteth himselfe. For in granting that which Bellarmine, Harding, and the Councell of Trent extorteth from him, that it is more profitable for the people to communicate with a Priest at the Masse, then to looke 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 dangerous: 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. Aeneas Silvius maketh no mention at all of any Law of single life, but simply saith,De gestis concil. Basil. l. 2. that It were safer for Priests to marry; for that meanes many Priests might be saved in married Priesthood, Coss. de caelib. Sacerd. art. 23. Panor. de cler. conjug. c. Quum olim. Credo pro bono et salute animarum statutum nunc iri ut non valentes continere possint contrahere.which now in barren Priesthood are damned. Cassander and Panormitan make mention of the law, which tieth Priests to single life, and both thinke that the abrogation of it would be good and behoovefull to the soules 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 restraining them from marriage, that law may be abrogated: Secondly, for the future, that no law prohibiting marriage in the Clergie may be enacted. Yea but saith the Iesuit, all the Doctors, all the Fathers, all the Councells, and the continuall practice of the Church from the very beginning is against Priests marriage, of all which you have abundant 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 Chaumerus their reply to Bellarmine, and most larg…ly and plentifully in Dr. Hall now Bishop of Exon. his three bookes against Cosfin; intituled, The honour of the married Clergy. Pag. 392.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 Stentorian untruth is here uttered by a foule mo…thed Iesuit? Was Paphnutius the confessor, Spiridion the Saint, were all the Fathers of the first generall 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. The Iesuit here onelyonly 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 whatsoever is unlawfull, is consequently unprofitable, and whatsoever is unprofitable in divine service is unlawfull, because against the rule of the Apostle, 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 Hebrew nor the Greeke Churches, nor all the reformed 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 ignorance of the Latine tongue, and consequently of all learning that would follow thereon onelyonly in Clergie men, is a thousand times more harme, than the fruit in the Laitie is good. Here the Iesuit straineth very high, but without all shew of reason, or shadow of Truth, and against daily experience: for who knoweth not, that the Clergie in the reformed 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 overlavish, 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 comparison 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 ignorance 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 because Latine is your best mettall, you undervalue Gold and Silver. For Cardinall Cajetan, hee may for the Iesuit goe with Crassus, and gather 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 tincture of modesty. Doth Cajetan sometime nodd?
Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus?
And doth the noddie Flood never? Cardinall Cajetan affirmeth, that Saint Paul in the fourteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corynthians, speaketh of publike Prayer; the Jesuit Flood denieth it, utri credemus? Whethers authoritie will beare downe the scales? Cardinall Cajetan saith, that edification is the end of publike Prayer; and hee hath Saint Paul of his side, prescribing in this chapter,1 Cor. 14. 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 Subordinata 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 also, the instruction and edification of the people. For Biels seven reasons,Can. missae. lect. 62. insisted upon by the Knight, though they were not alleaged professedly 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,Pag. 401. l. 11. 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. 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 the 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 memorie, 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 cannot pray to any Saint living or dead: but according to the title of his whole booke, and speciall 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 delight to my JESVS.
To the eleventh. Here the Knight may well say, Dicite Iō Pean & Iö bis dicite Pean: For here twice hee hath brought his Adversaries to subscribe unto Iustification by Faith alone; and to confirme with his owne hand, the title of the Knights booke with advantage. The title is but Via tuta, but the Iesuit confesseth over and above, that the Protestants way, who relye upon Christs merits onelyonly for salvation, is Via tutissima, The safest way. And if Vasquez and Bellarmine, and other pleaders for merit by condignitie, meane no otherwise than the Iesuit interpreteth them, we shall all soone shake hands; for who ever denied, that God rewarded our good workes? but here, either wittingly or ignorantly, 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 otherwise 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 Vasquez speaketh, Be worthy of the reward, and have an equall value of worth to the obtaining thereof. VponUpon all these conditions wee contest with Papists, and consequently deny any merits of condignitie; 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 deserts.