CHAP. XXXIX. They pick up the mistakes or harsh passages of some particular Divines, and persuade men that
CHAP. XXXIX. They pick up the mistakes or harsh passages of some particular Divines, and persuade men that these are the Protestant Religion.
D etect. 30. Another of their frauds is, by culling out all the harsh, unhandsome passages, or mistakes that they meet with in any
Protestant Writers, and charging all these upon the Protestant Religion, as if they were so many Articles of our Faith: or at least were the common doctrines of our Churches.
They will not give us leave to do so by them, when yet we have much more reason for it. For 1. They teach the People that they are bound to believe as their Teachers bid them: and they reproach us for confessing that we are not in all points of Doctrine infallible: And yet we still confess this fallibility, and say in plain terms, that we know but in part. 2. diverse of their particular Doctors that we use to cite, are such as the Pope hath
Canonized for Saints: and they tell us that in Canonizing he is infallible:
And therefore an Infallibly Canonized Saint must not be supposed to err in a point of faith. 3. They boast so much of Unity and Consent among themselves, that we may the better cite particular Doctors. And yet we think ourselves bound to stand to their own Law in this, and to charge nothing on
them as the faith of their Church but what their Church doth own: and therefore while they refuse to stand to particular Doctors, we will not urge them to it: for its good reason that all men should be the Professors of their own belief.
But what reason is there then that we may not have the same measure from them which they expect? We profess to take no man, nor Council of men, for the Lord's of our faith, but for the Helpers of our faith. They tell us, that they know not where to find our Religion. We tell them it is entirely in the written word of God, and that we know no other Infallible Rule; because we know no other Divine Revelation (supposing what in Nature is revealed.) They tell us that, All Heretics do pretend to Scripture, and therefore this cannot be the Test of our Religion? I answer, that so all cavilers, and defrauders and extortioners, may pretend to the Law of the Land, to undo poor men by quirks of wit, or tire them with vexatious suits:
And yet it follows not that we must seek another Rule of Right, and take the Law for insufficient: And what if Heretics pretend to Tradition, to General
Councils and the Decretals of the Popes (as you know how frequently they do) Will you yield therefore that these are an insufficient Rule, or Test of your own Religion? Open your eyes, and judge as you would be judged.
But I will come to some of the particular Opinions which they charge us with. And because I know not a more weighty renowned Champion of their cause then Cardinal Richleiu (then Bishop of Lucion:) I shall take notice of his twelve great errors which he so vehemently chargeth on the Reformed
Churches, as contrary to the Scripture. And sure I shall do much to make clean our Churches, if I fully wipe off all the pretended blots of error, that so wise a man could charge upon them. In his Defens. contra script. 4.
Ministr. Charenton. c. 2, p. 12. &c. he begins his enumeration thus.
1. [The Scripture saith, Jam. 2, that a man is not Justified by Faith only; but you say, that he is Justified by Faith alone, and by Faith only, which is found in no place of Scripture: and do you not then resist the Scriptures?]
Answ. 1. We believe both the words of Paul and James. that a man is Justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law, and saved through Faith— not of works, lest any man should boast, Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8,9, and also that a man is Justified by works, and not by Faith only, Jam. 2. Did not this
Learned man know that we believe all the Bible? Why then should he charge us with denying that which we retain, and publicly read in our
Churches as the word of God? Did he think that we set so much by Luther's, or any man's writings, as by the Bible? 2. But if he can prove that we understand not these words aright, he should have evinced it better then by the use of the words [Faith alone] For our Churches by [Faith alone] do profess openly to mean no more than Paul doth by [Faith without works]
And can they find fault with Paul? 3. Indeed we are not all agreed upon the fittest Notion of the interest of Faith and works in our Justification: but our difference is more in words and notions then matter, of which see my
Dispute. of Justification. 4. And. why do you not quarrel with your own Cardinal Contarenus de Justif. and others of your own, that join with us in the doctrine of Justification.
His second Accusation is, [The Scripture saith, that we can Love God with all the heart: you say, that no man can Love God with all the heart, which is nowhere read in Scripture: and yet do you not resist the Scriptures?] Answ. 1. Unprofitable Confusion! We distinguish between Loving God with all the Heart, as it signifieth the sincerity and predominant degree of Love, and so every true Christian hath it: and as it signifieth some
extraordinary degree above this mere sincerity; and so some eminent stronger Christians have it, and as it signifieth the highest Degree, which is our duty, and which excludeth all sinful imperfection: And thus we say, that no man actually doth Love God perfectly in this life: nor do we think he speaks like a Christian, that dare say, Lord I Love thee so much, that I will not be beholden to thee to forgive the imperfection of my Love, or to help me against any sinful imperfection of it. Your own Followers whom you admire as the highest Lovers of God, do oft lament the imperfections of their Love (as M. de Renty, for instance, in his Life.) But now if the question be only of the posse, and not the act, we say, that the Potentia naturalis is in all: and the Potentia Moralis, which is the Habit, is in the sanctified: but this Moral Power is not perfect itself, that is, of the highest degree, and without any sinful imperfection; though yet it hath the perfection of sincerity, and in some, the perfection of an eminent degree.
And will not this content you?
His third Accusation is, [The Scripture saith, that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, with the adjunction of those words that signify a true Body and Blood: you say that it is not Christ's Body and Blood, but only a figure, sign, and testimony, which the Scripture nowhere saith.]
Answ. 1. The Scripture saith not that it is his Body and Blood substantially, or by Transubstantiation: And we say not, as you feign, that it is not his Body and Blood, but a figure, &c. For we say, that it is his Body and Blood Sacramentally and Representatively: as he that personateth a King on some just account, is called a King; and as in actions of Investiture and Delivery; the delivering of a Key is the delivering of the House, and the delivery of a twig and turf, is the delivery of the Land; and the deliverer may say, Take, this is my House, this is my Land, which I deliver thee. If
you be among many Images in a room, you will not blame him that saith, This is Peter, and this is Paul, and this is the Virgin Mary. 2. The Scripture often calls it Bread after the Consecration; which you condemn us for: therefore we are taught to call it so. 3. The Scripture saith, 1 Cor. 10:4.
[That Rock was Christ] and he saith, [I am the door, Joh. 10:7. I am the true Vine, Joh. 15:1.] David saith, [I am a worm and no man, Psal. 22:6.] we believe all this. But must we be therefore reproached, if we say, that David was a man; that the Rock was Christ typically; that he was a Vine and Door
Metaphorically only? And yet these are as plain as, This is my Body, and This is my Blood.
His fourth Accusation is, [The Scripture saith, that Baptism saveth us, and that we are cleansed and regenerate by the washing of water: On the contrary you say, that Baptism doth neither save us, nor regenerate us, but is only to us a symbol of salvation, ablution, and regeneration, which is nowhere said in Scripture.] Answ. A childish contest about words! We say, that two things go to our full possession of our state of Regeneration, Justification, and Cleansing:
One is our fundamental Right, which the Promise of the Gospel gives us upon our Heart consent or Covenant with God: the other is our Solemn
Investiture: in regard of the former, we are Christians, and Regenerate, and Justified before Baptism: In regard of the later, we are made Christians, regenerate, justified, saved by Baptism. This we commonly hold, and so never denied what you falsely say we deny. As a man is made a King by his
Coronation, that yet in a sort was one before; or as Marriage makes them Husband and Wife by public solemnization, that were fundamentally so before by Private Covenant; or as possession is given by a Key, a twig and a turf (as I said) of that which a man had right to before; so are we solemnly
invested with those benefits by baptism, which we had a fundamental Title to before. Do not your own writers confess this of a man that is Baptized many years after he had Faith and Charity? Do you think Cornelius and the rest that had the Holy Ghost before Baptism, Act. 10, had not Justification before? Do you think that Constantine the great was unpardoned, unregenerate and no Christian till he was Baptized? Or rather would you make quarrels against your own Confessions?
His fifth Accusation is [Scripture saith, that Priests do forgive sin: on the contrary you say that they do not remit them, but only testify that they are remitted, which the Scriptures nowhere say.]
Answ. As if Testification could not be a Remission. We say, that whose sins the Pastors of the Church remit, they are remitted. Do you not know that these very words were used to every Presbyter in our Ordination here in England? We say 1. That Pastors do as God's Ambassadors, proclaim his
General Conditional Pardon unto all. 2. That they are God's Ministers to make a particular Application, and delivery of pardon in Baptism, on supposition that the Baptized be qualified for pardon. 3. That they are as his
Ministers, to make the same Application by Declaration and Delivery in the Absolution of the Penitent; on supposition that their penitence be sincere. 4.
And as Church Governors, they may on good considerations sometimes remit some humbling disgraceful acts that were imposed on the penitent for the testification of his repentance, and the satisfaction of the Church. And are not these four concessions enough? Or are you minded to pick quarrels, that yourselves and others may have fuel for the rancor and uncharitableness of your minds?
But indeed we do not think that any man can primarily as the chief Agent forgive sins; but God must be the first pardoner: Nor that any man can
pardon the sins of the dead, and abate or shorten the pains of the soul in a fire called Purgatory. Here we leave you.
And verily if the Pope have power to remit but the very temporal punishment, he is a cruel wretch that will not forgive men, even good men, the torments of the Gout, and the Stone, and an hundred diseases; nay that will not remit them to himself, no nor the pains of death, when he is so loath to die: (But I forgot that the Pope hath nobody to forgive him, because none above him) He that cannot remit the punishments which we see, and feel, how shall we believe him (without any Divine Testimony) that he can remit a penalty that he never saw nor felt, nor no man else, that can be proved.
His sixth Accusation is [Scripture saith, If a Virgin marry she sinneth not: but you say that the just sin in all works: which Scripture mentions not.]
Answ. 1. Do you believe in your Conscience that the Scripture meaneth that a Virgin sinneth not at all in any circumstance or defect in the manner or Concomitants of her Marriage? Then I pray tell your Nuns so, that if they marry they sin not. Tell Priests so, that if they marry they sin not. Your own reason can expect no other sense in the words, but that Marriage, as such, is no sin to the Virgin. And this we grant: But yet if you think that in this or in any other work, you see God as apprehensively, and believe as strongly, and restrain every wandering thought as exactly, and Love God as much as you are bound to do by the very Law of Nature itself; so that you are perfectly blameless, and need not be beholden to the blood of Christ, to the Mercy of God, to the Spirit of Grace, either for the forgiveness of these failings; or the cure of them, you show then a proud Pharisaical spirit, unacquainted with itself and with the Gospel. Do you go on and say, Lord I thank thee that I am not as other men: and I will rather say, Lord be merciful to me a
sinner: and which shall be rather justified, Christ hath told us. The streams cannot be perfectly sinless, till the fountain be so: and [Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? Prov. 20:9.] [For there is not a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not, Eccl. 7:20.] Christ telleth us that the fruit will be like the Tree, the actions like the heart: and therefore an imperfect Heart will have imperfect duties. If you dare say there is no remnant of sin in your hearts, you have so much of it that hindereth you from seeing it. Humility and self-knowledge would soon end this controversy. We say not that all our works are sins, that is, either materially forbidden, or done in wickedness, and from vicious predominant habits; But that the same works which Materially are good, are tainted with our sinful imperfections, having not in them that measure of knowledge, faith, love, &c. as we ought to have; and therefore that we must beg pardon for our imperfections, and fly to the blood and merits of Christ, through whom God will accept both our works and us, for all the imperfections, which he pardoneth to us of his grace.
His seventh Accusation is [Scripture saith that there are wicked men and reprobates, that believe in Christ: But you contend that they believe not, but have only a shadow of faith: which no Scripture saith.]
Answ. Again, a quarrel about the name of faith, unworthy serious men!
We say that Reprobates do believe, and we say that they believe not, taking belief in different senses. We believe whatever the Scripture saith, even that the Devils believe and tremble: and yet as Believers and Christians are all one, we are loath to call the Devils Believers and Christians; but you may do it, if you please. As Belief signifieth a bare ineffectual conviction or superficial Assent which you call fides informis, so we still confess that the wicked may believe. But as Belief signifieth our Receiving of Christ, and
Coming to him, and being planted into him as his members, and taking him heartily as Christ, our Lord and Savior, and so becoming Christians and Disciples: as it signifieth such a faith that hath the promise of pardon of sin, of Adoption, and of Glory, so we say that the wicked have but a show or shadow of it. And this is the sense of the words of Calvin, P. Martyr, Beza, and Danaus, whom you cite. And do you not think so yourselves? Indeed you know not what to believe in this, as I have shown in Postscript to my
Dispute. of Sacraments.
His eighth Accusation is this [Scripture saith, that there are some that believe for a time, and after at another time believe not. You deny that there are any that believe for a time, and then fall from faith, and that he that once believeth doth ever lose that faith, which is not in any Scripture to be found.] Answ. It is too light in serious matters, to play thus upon words. 1. We still maintain that there are some that believe but for a time, and afterward fall away: but we say it is but with an ineffectual or common assent that they believe, such as you call fides informis. Your accusation therefore is false.
The semen vitae and faith that Calvin speaks of, in the place which you cite, is meant only of a saving faith, such as you call fides charitate formata. If any of you think that faith is called charitate formata, or justifying or saving faith, only by an extrinsical denomination, from a concomitant, and that there is no difference in the faith itself between that of the unjustified and of the justified, you are mistaken against all reason. Your own
Philosophers frequently maintain that the will (which is the seat of charity) followeth the practical dictates of the Intellect (which is the seat of Assent.)
And therefore according to those Philosophers, a Practical Belief must needs be accompanied with charity. And those that deny this, do yet
maintain that a powerful clear Assent of the Intellect will infallibly procure the determination of the Will, though every assent will not, and though it do it not Necessarily. So that on that account (and in common reason) there must needs be an intrinsic difference between that Assent which prevaileth with the will to determine itself, and that which cannot so prevail: And therefore your unformed and your formed faith, have some intrinsic difference.
2. The Lutherans that are half the Protestants, do think that justifying faith may be lost. So that (be it right or wrong) you cannot charge this on them all.
3. The rest which be not of their mind, do hold a brotherly communion with them; and therefore take not that point to be of so much moment as to break communion.
4. Are you not at odds among yourselves about perseverance? Some laying it first on man's free will, and some with Austin, ascertaining perseverance to the Elect, because Elect, and laying it on God's free Gift; and some Jesuits and School men affirming that the confirmed in Grace are not only certain to persevere, but that they necessarily believe and are saved, and cannot mortally sin (strange doctrine for a Jesuit!) Of all this controversy of perseverance, I desire the Reader to see a few sheets called
An Account of my Judgment hereabout. When I wrote those I knew not whom Alvarez meant (lib. 10. Disp. 104, p. 419. s. 1, de Auxil.) When he disputed against this sort of men: But since I find it in his Response. ad Obj.
Lib. 2, c. 9, p. 522, &c. Where he tells us that it is the Jesuit Greg. de Valentia, Tom. 2, disp. 8, q. 3, punct. 4. s. 2, and Tom. 1, d 1, q. 23, punct. 4. s. 7. Ubi docet non solum esse praeelectos ut salventur, sed ut necessario
salventur, ac per consequence non posse peccare Mortaliter, & Necessario persevere are in gratia, ac eatenus non libere, sed necessario salvari.
And also that he meant Alexand. Ales. 3, p. q. 9. Et Almainin 3, d. 11, q. 2.
Qui asserunt confirmatos in Gratia non habere libertatem, &c. Quam sententiam Medina impugnat. 3, p. q. 27, art. 4.
This is more than Protestants say, And yet will you quarrel?
His ninth Accusation is this [Scripture saith, If thou will enter into life, keep the commandments: You say that there is no need of keeping the Commandments, and that he that saith, it doth deny Christ and abolish faith, of which the Scripture speaketh not a word.]
Answ. Still confusion plays your game, and you strive about words. We distinguish between the keeping of that Law of Works, or Nature, which made perfect obedience the only condition of Life: and the keeping of the Law of Moses as such, and the keeping of the Law of Christ. For the two first, we say that no man can be justified by the works of the Law. Is this a doubt among Papists, that believe Paul's Epistles? But as for the Law of Christ, as such, we must endeavor to keep it perfectly (thats necessary necessitate praecepti;) and must needs keep it sincerely (necessitate medii) if we will be saved. This all Protestants that ever I spoke with are agreed in:
And dare any Papist deny it? If we be not all (nor you neither) agreed on the sense of that text of Scripture, yet are we agreed on the doctrine, and yet you quarrel.
His tenth Accusation is [Scripture saith, that some that were illuminated and made partakers of the Holy Ghost, did fall, and crucify again to themselves the Son of God. But you defend, that whoever is once partaker of the Holy Ghost, cannot fall from his Grace: which Scripture speaketh not.]
Answ. The same again: and a mere untruth! We still maintain that those words of Scripture are of certain truth. But we distinguish between the common and the special gifts of the Spirit. The common gifts may be lost: we never denied it: The special gifts that accompany salvation, some of us judge are never lost: others of us think are left only by those that are not predestinate, as Austin thought, and your Dominicans think. And what cause is here of your quarrel?
His eleventh Accusation is this [Scripture saith that God taketh away, and blotteth out our iniquity as a cloud: and puts our iniquities far from us, as the East is from the West, and maketh us as white as snow; You say, that he takes not away, nor blotteth out our sin, but only doth not impute it, and doth not make us white as snow, but leaveth in us the fault and uncleanness of sin: which Scripture nowhere speaks.]
Answ. This is half falsehood, and half confusion, raked up to make a matter of quarrel with. 1. Its false that we say, He doth not take away, nor blot out our sin, nor make us white as snow: Do not all Protestants in the world affirm all this? 2. There are these things here considerable. 1. The Act of sin. 2. The Habit. 3. The guilt, or obligation to punishment. 4. The culpability, or reatus culpae. 1. As for the Act, how can you for shame say, that God takes it away, when it is a transient act that is gone of itself as soon as acted, and hath no existence, as Scotus and all your own take notice. 2.
As to the Culpability, you will not sure for shame say, that God so put away, e. g. David's Adultery, as to make it reputable as a virtue, or not a vice. 3.
As to the Reatus ad paenam, the full Guilt, we maintain that it is done quite away: and if your eyes be in your head, you may see that it is in regard of this guilt and punishment that the Scriptures mentioned by you speak (or principally speak at least) For I pray you tell us, what else can they mean,
when they speak of actual sins that are past long ago, and have no existence. Learned wranglers! Would you make us believe, that Grace is given to David to put away the Act of his Murder and Adultery, so that it may be quid praeteritum, & non jam existens? A thing past and gone, which it is without grace? So that when you feign us to say, that God takes not away sin, but only not imputeth it, you feign us to make synonymal terms to be of different senses. He takes them away by not imputing them.
4. But if you speak not of the sense of a particular Text, but of the Matter in difference, it can be nothing but the habit of sin that you mean, that we say, that God takes not away. And here you play partly the Calumniators, and partly the erroneous Pharisees. 1. You Calumniate, in feigning us to deny, that habitual sin is done away. Because our Divines say, that it is not the work of mere pardon (which we call Justification) to put it away, therefore you falsely say, that we hold it is not put away at all: whereas we hold (without one contradicting vote that ever I read or heard) that all that are Justified, are Sanctified, Converted, Regenerate, Renewed, and must live an holy life: And that all their sins are so far destroyed, that they shall not have dominion over them: that Gross and Willful sin they forsake, and the least infirmities, they groan, and pray, and strive against to the last, and then obtain a perfect conquest. 2. But if you mean, that no degree of habitual or dispositive sin, or absence of holy qualities remaineth in the Justified soul, it is a Pharisaical error, yea worse than a Pharisee durst have owned. And it seems this is your meaning, by the words of Calvin's which you cite. And dare you say that you have no sin to resist, or purge, or pardon? Are you in Heaven already? The whole have no need of the Physician, but the sick: and have you no need of Christ to heal your soul?
Would you be no better than you are? O proud souls! And strange to
themselves and the purity of the Law! Hath not the Holy Ghost pronounced him a Liar and Self-deceiver, that saith he hath no sin, 1 Joh. 1:8,10. In many things we offend all, Jam. 3:2. I shall but recite to you two Canons of a Council, which if you use the Lord's prayer, are fit for you to consider.
Council. Milevit. cont. Pelagianos Can. 7. [Item placuit, ut quicunque dixerit in Oratione Dominica ideo dicere sanctos, Dimitte nobis Debita nostra, ut non pro seipsis hoc dicant, quia non estea jam necessaria ista, sed pro aliis, qui sunt in suo populo peccatores, & ideo non dicere unumquemque sanctorum, Dimitte mihi debita mea; sed Dimitte nobis debita nostra, ut hoc pro aliis potius quam pro se Justus petere intelligatur,
Anathema sit.
Can. 8. Item placuit, ut quicunque verba ipsa Dominicae Orationis, ubi dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, ista volunt à Sanctis dici, ut humiliter, non veraciter hoc dicatur, Anathema fit. Quis enim ferat Orantem, & non hominibus, sed ipsi Domino mentientem, qui labiis sibi dicit dimitti velle, &
Corde dicit, quae sibi dimittantur debita non habere?] You see here the Council curseth all those as intolerable Liars, that say the Lord's prayer, desiring him daily to forgive or remit their sins, and yet think that they have no sins to forgive, yea or that every Saint hath not such sins.
What can a Papist say to this, but by making Councils as void of sense, as they feign the holy Scriptures to be?
Hus twelfth and last Accusation is this [The Scripture saith, that Blessedness in the Reward, the Prize, the Penny, the wages of Laborers, and the Crown of Righteousness: you contend that its merely the free gift of God, and not a Reward, which no Scripture doth affirm]
Answ. A mere Calumny, and perverting of Calvin's words, who often saith, as we constantly do, that Eternal life is given as a Reward and Crown
of Righteousness. But we distinguish between the Act of God in his Gospel Promise, which is a Conditional Deed of Gift of Christ and Life to all that will Accept them, and the execution of this by Judgment and Glorification.
And we say that it was Antecedenter merely of God's free Grace that he made such a Deed of Gift (the blood of Christ being the purchasing cause,) and nothing of our works had a hand in the procurement (Dare you deny this?) But that our Justification in Judgment, and our Glorification, which are the Execution of the Law of Grace, do make our works the Reason; not as having merited it ex proportione operis, or in Commutative Justice, but as having performed the condition of the free Gift, and so being the persons to whom it doth belong. And this is the sense of Scotus and of one half of the Papists, (for still you are together by the ears) who say that Merit of Condignity is but ex pacto by virtue of God's Promise.
And now I leave it to the Conscience of any sober Papist, whether we be guilty in any one point that this great Cardinal chargeth us with? And whether Papists and Protestants were not in a fair way for reconciliation, if we differed not more in other things then in these?
And here again I must let them know, that Scripture only is the Rule and Test of our Faith and Religion. Their Polidor Virgil in this speaks truly of us, saying [They are called Evangelical, because they maintain that no Law is to be received in matters of Salvation, but what is delivered by Christ or his Apostles] (so sapless and putid is their scorn of the Evangelium quintum.) If therefore Luther, Calvin, or any man speak in any word amiss, blame the man that spoke it for that word; but blame not all, or any others for it, if you are men. Austin Retracted his own errors, and which of us dare
Justify every word that hath fallen from our mouths or pen, before God?
How many hundred points do Schoolmen and Commentators charge on one
another as Erroneous, among yourselves? Shall all the errors of the Fathers be charged on the Catholic Church, or all your writers errors upon yours?
And that we do well to stick to the Holy Scriptures as the sufficient Rule, we are the more encouraged to think, by the concessions of our adversaries of greatest Note (as well as by the Testimony of the Scripture itself, and the consent of the ancient Doctors of the Church, and the unprovedness of their pretended additionals.) Among others even this great Cardinal Richlieu saith thus, p. 38. [Nos autem nullam aliam, &c. i.e. As for us we put (or assert) no other Rule but Scripture, neither of another sort, nor total: Yea we say that it is the Whole Rule of our Salvation: and that on a double account, both because it containeth immediately and formally the sum of our salvation; that is, all the Articles that are necessary to man's salvation, by necessity of means (N.B.) and because it mediately containeth whatsoever we are bound to believe, as it sends us to the Church to be instructed by her, of whose infallibility it certainly confirmeth us.]
Note here that 1. He grants us that all Articles necessary to our Salvation, as Means, are immediately and formally in the Scripture: And then surely they may be saved that believe no more than is in the Scripture: 2. That we are to believe no Church but that which the Scripture sends us to, and to believe its infallibility no further than the Scripture doth confirm it. And that the Scripture is our whole and only Rule. O that all Papists would stand to this! But let them not blame us now for standing to it. Had this Cardinal done no more by Policy and Power then by Disputing against the Reformation, he might easily have been dealt with.