OF THE BOOKES CALLED APOCRYPHA.

Section. 1 Out of this Canon they cut off the bookes of Tobie, Iudith, Ba­ruch, Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdome of Salomon, and the Machabees, and all whatsoeuer displeaseth them, out of the Scriptures.

He that can reade the Hebrew tongue, knowes well that this accusation is false and vntrue. The Hebrew Bible is the originall of the old Testament; for it was necessary and conuenient, that those bookes which containe in them the doctrine of the people of God, should be written in the natu­rall language of the people of God. Now the bookes of Tobias, and of Iudith, &c. are not found in the Hebrew Bible, how then can we cut those bookes out of the Bible, which were neuer therein? The Apostle Saint Paul in his third Chap­ter to the Romans, verse 2. saith, that The diuine Oracles of God were committed vnto the Iewes. Now the Iewes neuer acknow­ledged these books. They were not read in their Synagogues, neither did the Priests nor the Scribes euer expound them to the people.

The testimony of the Church of the old Testament is of more credit touching the bookes of the old Testament, then the Romane Church that now is. For here I speake of the Iewes; not such as they are at this day, but then when they onely were the Church and people of God. Reade Iose­phus against Appion, alledged by Eusebius, lib. 3. cap. 10. There you shall see, that the Iewish Church did not receiue these bookes of Iudith, Tobias, &c. And Iesus Christ himselfe and [Page 4] his Apostles, who often and many times alledge the bookes of the old Testament, neuer alledge those bookes: (M. Arnoux that saith,Pag 21. of His answer. that Iesus Christ and his Apostles alledged them in the new Testament, should produce examples for the same.) But those that speake but by here-say, commonly are most bold in their assertions. Iesus Christ in the last of Saint Luke, verse 44. comprehendeth all the Scriptures vnder the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalmes. Vnder any of these parts, neither the bookes of Tobias, Iudith, Ecclesiasti­cus, Susanna, nor the Machabees are contained. Hereunto let vs adde the false fables which in these bookes are set downe vnto vs for truth. In the fifth Chapter of Tobias, the Angell Raphael is falsely said to be one of the Tribe of Nephtaly, cap­tiues in Nineue.

The Author of the booke of Iudith, in the fourth Chapter thereof, verse 2. and Chapter 5.16. speaketh as if this histo­rie happened after the destruction of the Templo, and after the returne from captiuitie: and yet in the first and second Chapters, this historie is recited as hauing hapned vnder the reigne of Nabuchodonosor reigning in Nineue, dead a­boue sixtie yeares before; King Arphaxad reigning in Media: but then there was no king Arphaxad, for one king then raigned both in Assiria and Media: and likewise Nineue at that time was destroyed, witnesse the last verse of the booke of Tobias, conformable to the prophesie of Na­hum: and not long before it had bene taken and destroyed by Cyaxares King of Media, as Herodotus writeth in his first booke.

In the 49. of Genesis, I [...]cob lying vpon his death bed, con­demneth the spoyling and murther of the Sichemites, done by Simeon and Leui, as an impudent and cruell action. Neuer­thelesse, Iudith in the ninth Chapter praiseth and exalteth that action. There also she desireth grace of God to deceiue with her lips: and purposely, being curiously and brauely at­tired, to moue the Pagan Prince to be in loue with her, she commendeth his valour and braue spirit, saith that she cannot refuse to do any thing that he requesteth. Cap. 12.13. She [Page 5] promiseth to conduct and guide him throughout all Iudea, and to place his throne in Ierusalem, cap. 11.16. so farre as falsely to interpose the Name of God for a couerture of her lies, verse 13.14. and 15.

Saint Augustine in his second booke of Retractations, saith, that the booke of Wisedome was not made by Salomon. Saint Hierome attributeth it vnto Philo the Iew, in his Pre­face vpon the bookes of Salomon: neuerthelesse the Author of the booke affirmeth himselfe to be a King: and speaketh as if he were Salomon.

Saint Hierome in his Preface vpon the Commentaries of Daniel saith, that the booke of Susanna, Susannae Be­lisque ac Dra­gonis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico. and of Bell and the Dragon are fables. And what apparence or likelihood is there, that a handfull of Iewes, captiues in Babilon, should haue Israelites for Iudges in Babilon, that should command one absolutely to be executed to death without appeale, and that a child should make himselfe a Iudge of Iudges, who without other forme of proceeding were condemned to die? Who knowes not, that in Babilon, the vulgar language was Chaldean, and not Greeke? [...]. and yet the Historie of Susanna with her Greek allusions vpon the etimologies of the Holme and the Masticke trees, presupposed that the ordinary lan­guage which they vsed in iudgments and publike actions was Greeke.

In the bookes of Machabees, Antiochus the famous died three times in seuerall manner: in the first booke cap. 6. he died at Babilon in his bed. But in the first Chapter of the se­cond booke, he died in the Temple of Nannaea ouerwhelmed with stones: and in the ninth Chapter of the same booke he died in the mountaines, falling out of his chariot as he retur­ned out of Persia; and all that is said to happen in the time of Iudas Machabeus, in whose time there was but one onely king Antiochus.

In the eight Chapter of the first booke of Machabees, it is said, that the Romans had taken king Antiochus the Great prisoner, and that they had giuen the Indies to Eumenes. All that is false. The Romans ouerthrew Antiochus in three bat­tels, [Page 6] but neuer tooke him prisoner. They neuer had any part of the Indies, their greatest Empire neuer extended it selfe much beyond the riuer Euphrates. See Saint Ierome vpon Daniel, Appian Alexandrine, Zozimus and Iustin.

Little children know, that then the Romans euery yeare made two Consuls that had soueraigne power: but in the sixteenth verse of the eight Chapter of the first book of Ma­chabees it is said, that the Romans euery yeare committed the gouernment of their Seigniorie to one man alone.

In the twelfth Chapter of the first of Machabees, there is an excellent thing to be noted, which is, a letter written by Arius king of Sparta, to Onias the high Priest of the Iewes, wherein it is said, that they of Sparta, (which are the Lace­daemonians,) are of Abrahams race. Can there be a foolisher thing alledged? And it is to be found, that in the time of O­nias, there was no such king Arius in Sparta. For Arius (as Pausanias in his Laconiques, and Plutarch in the life of Pyr­rhus say) liued aboue eightie yeares before that.

In the first Chapter of the second booke, and nineteenth verse, it is said, that the Iewes were led captiues into Persia, in stead of saying, into Babylon.

In the second Chapter it is said, that Ieremie hid the Arke of the Lord in a ditch, that it might be found againe when God should reassemble the people, whē they returned out of captiuitie: which is contradicted by Ieremie himselfe in the third Chapter and sixteenth verse,Rabbi Shelo­mo, larki mi­no prophetiae Aggaei, v. 8. where it is said, In those dayes, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, the Arke of the coue­nant of God. And in the Temple built againe by Zorobabel the Arke was no more there.

And at the end thereof, the Author acknowledging his weakenesse, doubteth whether he hath said well or no. If (saith he) I haue done well, and as it is fitting the Historie: and a little after, If I haue spoken slenderly and meanely, it is that which I could attaine vnto. The Spirit of God doubteth not whether he hath said wel, excuseth not his style, nor confesseth his im­becillitie. In the vulgar translation the Author asketh pardon, saying, If I haue not spoken as I should do, you must pardon [Page 7] me. Is it a conuenient thing for the Spirit of God to aske pardon of men? And which is more, in the second Chapter, verse 19. he aduertiseth vs what account we should make of his booke, saying, We will assay to abridge the fiue books of Ia­son the Cirenien into one volume. What, shal the abridgment of a prophane booke be a Canonicall booke? To follow the inspirations of the Spirit of God, must we follow the steps of a prophane booke? He also saith that he hath made that a­bridgment with great labour and much watching, as if he had taken extreme paines to make a small booke ful of fables.

The booke of the rest of the Historie of Hester, in many things contrarieth the booke of Hester which is in the He­brew Bible. In the first Chapter it is shewed that it happened in the second yeare of king Artaxerxes, which in the true Historie, cap. 2. vers. 16. is placed in the seuenth yeare of Assuerus. Haman is called a Macedonian, cap. 6. verse 10. who in the true Historie is said to be an Agagien, that is, an Amalekite. And this lying booke in the foureteenth verse saith, that Haman sought to transport the Empire of the Persians to the Macedonians. As if one should say, that some French man should haue enterprised to trans­port the Empire of the Turkes to the king of Iuetot: for then the kings of Macedonia were little kings, vnknowne to the Persians, and of no power.

Section. 2 They quote no text in the margent. This Canon of the Scrip­tures made according to their pleasures, and without authoritie, hath no proofe in the Scripture, by the which they can iustifie this enormous abridgment of the number of the bookes in times past re­ceiued in the ancient Church. Therefore I challenge this funda­mentall article to be false, and nought worth.

This discourse is as much as nothing, for it hath no ground. This Doctor requireth of vs a passage in the holy Scriptures, which containeth the catalogue & number of the canonicall [Page 8] bookes. I answer, that as to proue there is but foure Euan­gelists in the new Testament, it is not necessary to produce a passage which saith, that there is but foure bookes of the Gospell, that is, Saint Mathews, Saint Markes, Saint Lukes and Saint Iohns, but it is sufficient to reade the titles, and to looke ouer the inscriptions of the bookes: so to proue by the Scripture, the number of the canonicall bookes, it suf­ficeth to take the Bible in the originall tongue, and looke o­uer the titles of the bookes. By this meanes you shall there finde all the bookes contained in the article of our Confessi­on: & there you shall not find Tobias, Iudith, the Machabees, &c So the Apostles Creed is found by peeces in the Scripture, although it be not found whole in any one passage alone. The holy Scripture saith, that God is Truth, Rom. 3. Then it followeth, that bookes full of lies, as Iudith, and the Ma­chabees, are not the word of God. Then touching this Dis­course made by M. Arnoux, we will, as he doth, say nothing.

Section. 3 Contrary places of Scripture, Apocalyps 22. verse 19. If any man shal diminish of the words of the booke of this prophe­sie, God shall take away his part out of the booke of life, and out of the holy Citie, and from those things which are written in this booke, Deuter. 12.32. What thing soeuer I command you, obserue to do it, thou shalt not adde thereto nor diminish from it. And more plainely, Chap. 4.2. You shall not adde vnto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it. These passages according to the sence which they giue vnto them, and according to the vse where­unto they imploy them, without reply ouerthrow the third article quoted before: because they haue no force against our traditions: which is an argument against him that so hardly presseth vpon them. For if by these passages they ordinarily dispute against our traditions, as peeces that are out of the formall passage of the holy Scriptures, by the same passages I reuerse their Canon, whereof I finde no formall passage, which to haue, it is necessary that the ex­cluding [Page 9] of the passages which they reiect, must be formally marked in some place of the Scripture; with the numbring of all those bookes which they receiue.

I haue already answered to that, and shewed that the num­bring of the canonicall bookes is expressely prooued by the Scriptures: whereby the passages which condemne those that adde or diminish, to, or from the word of God, touch not vs at all; but are as many thunder-bolts against the church of Rome, which establisheth traditions, and an vn­written word, to be of like authority with the holy Scrip­tures: but that shall be made more euident in the Section fol­lowing.

Section. 4 Then I say, That the Canon of the Scriptures is an article of the faith.

To speake properly; The articles of the faith, are the do­ctrines of Christian religion. In this sence, the numbring of the canonicall bookes is no article of the faith, but a decla­ration and numbring of the bookes from whence the arti­cles of the faith and the instructions of Christian religion are drawne. In the same maner, as the numbring of the books of Hippocrates and Galen is not a precept of Phisicke, but an as­signement to the places and the bookes wherein the pre­cepts of Phisicke are to be found; and that is the meaning of our Confession. For seeking by order to set downe the arti­cles and doctrines of Christian faith, at the beginning it de­clareth from whence these doctrines are drawne. Which de­claration is no addition to the Scripture: first, because that this numbring of the catalogue is proued by the Scripture, as we haue shewed. Secondly, by this, that to declare that such bookes are canonicall, (that is, rules of our faith,) it is not to adde any thing to those sacred bookes, but rather to declare that we must not adde any thing vnto them. It is an acknowledgement that we make of their perfection, and of [Page 10] our obedience. When we say that the Scripture is sufficient to saluation, thereby we vnderstand, that we must reiect all those doctrines which adde any thing to the Scriptures. Now to say that these bookes are canonicall, is not to adde any thing to the Scripture, but to declare that we must not adde any thing thereunto. Then it is false that maister Arnoux saith, that setting down this number of the canonicall books, we adde something to the Scripture, seeing that on the con­trary we thereby declare, that we must adde nothing there­unto; for that those bookes are the canon and rule of our faith.

Of the testimony which the Church giueth of the Canonicall bookes.

Section. 5 Then I say: The Canon of the Scripture is an article of the faith, and being an article of the faith, either they receiue it im­mediatly from the Church of God, (whether it be Iudaicall or Christian,) or from the holy Scripture. If from the Church, they do vainly attribute the discretion and knowledge of this Canon, to the interior perswasion of the Spirit, and falsely teach in their fift article, that the Scripture is the rule of all that which we ought to beleeue. If from the Scripture, let them quote some formall pas­sage, together with the booke and the chapter, where this Canon is set downe, and the excluding of the rest of the bookes which the Church receiueth: which because they neither do nor can, let them confesse, that this Canon, which is the foundation of all their Beleefe, is grounded vpon nothing, and not vpon the word of God, and by them added to the Scripture.

We haue already confuted that, and proued that the num­bring of the canonicall bookes,Before, 4. Section. contained in the article of our Confession, and the excluding of the rest that are apocry­pha, [Page 11] is clearely proued by the Scripture; and that, if it could not be proued by the Scripture, yet this numbring doth not adde any thing to the Scripture. Touching that which he demandeth, whether we receiue the canon of the Scripture immediatly from the Church of God: I acknowledge, that euery one receiueth the holy Scriptures immediatly from the Church in his country where he dwelleth, whether it be a pure, or an impure and hereticall church; as the Apostles receiued the bookes of the old Testament from the High priests and the Scribes, enemies to Iesus Christ. So the Ne­storians and the Eutychians gaue the Scriptures to those whom they taught: but therein the Church (be it pure or impure) onely dorh the office of a witnesse, and not of a Iudge. She attesteth onely, that those bookes are sacred and canonicall, but she maketh them not sacred, nor yet giueth them any authority. The tradition of the Church testifying that those bookes are diuine and canonicall, is but a protesta­tion of her subiection to the Scriptures, and not an addition to their imperfection, nor an vsurpation of authority ouer the written word of God. The Booke-seller that sheweth a chapman a booke of the ordinances and laws of this Realme, doth not thereby authorise those ordinances. He that shew­eth the King to a stranger, is not therefore aboue the King, neither giueth authority to the King. An inferior may testi­fie before a greater person then himselfe. And it hath often times fallen out, that a man hauing receiued the Scriptures by the hands of the church in his country, by the same Scrip­ture hath corrected and iustly condemned the same Church of heresie, from the which he receiued the Scripture. That which is most worthy to be considered of in this place, is, that as the Church attesteth that these books are the holy Scrip­tures, so the holy Scripture attesteth, that there must be a Church in the world; and that the Scripture abundantly tea­cheth what Church it ought to be, and prescribeth lawes vn­to it. So it appeareth, that the testimony which the Scripture giueth of the Church, is much stronger then that which the Church giueth of the Scripture. For the witnesse which the [Page 12] Church giueth of the Scripture, is a simple declaration to ac­knowledge those bookes to be the word of God, and a pro­testation to obey them. But the witnesse which the Scripture giueth to the Church, is a rule, and a law, making the Church subiect thereunto: for by the Scripture we vnderstand not the paper and the letters printed thereon, but the diuine instru­ctions contained therein. The Church is compounded of men, who both in grosse and retaile, are subiects to this word, and shall one day be iudged by the same, howsoeuer they (with abhominable pride) brag and boast themselues to be Iudges of the holy Scripture, and giue authority there­unto. Touching particular inspiration, and the perfection of the holy Scriptures, it shall be spoken of hereafter.

What the beleefe of the ancient Church was touching these Canonicall books. And whether the Church is the infallible Iudge of the sence of the Scriptures.

Section. 6 As for vs, in this respect we are out of danger, because we re­ceiue the Scriptures and the interpretations, Canon, and true sence of the same from the hand of Gods Spouse, and freely confesse that this Canon is a tradition, whereby we haue the truth, and the puritie of the holy Scriptures.

Our aduersaries to couer themselues against the Scripture, haue recourse to the Church, which Church neuerthelesse they belie, and openly contrary it. Master Arnoux saith, that he hath receiued the Canonicall books from the Church, and in the meane time he opposeth himselfe against the number of the Canonicall bookes, and openly contradicteth the con­sent of all the ancient Church, as well of the old as the new Testament.

[Page 13]

Touching the Church of the old Testament, we haue shewed, that by it the bookes of Tobias, Iudith, Wisdome, Ma­chabees, &c. were neuer receiued, nor holden to be canonicall.

Touching the Church of the new Testament, Iesus Christ and his Apostles neuer vsed nor alledged them. The Councell of Laodicea holden about the same time that the first Coun­cell of Nice was holden, maketh a catalogue of the bookes of the old Testament, wherein the bookes of Tobias, Iudith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisedome, Susanna, and the bookes of the Ma­chabees are not numbred.

S. Ierome in his Preface vpon the bookes of Salomon, speak­ing of Ecclesiasticus and the Wisedome of Salomon, saith; As the Church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, and the Ma­chabees, but receiueth them not among the canonicall Scrip­tures; so also let her reade these two volumes, but not to con­firme the faith of the Church. Note here that he saith, that it is the beleefe of the Church. He saith the same in his Pro­logue.

Saint Cyprian, or rather Ruffin, in the booke of the Exposi­tion of the Creed, after he had made a catalogue of the cano­nicall bookes, saith: Ye must vnderstand that there are other books which the ancient Church did not call canonicall, but Ecclesiasticall; as the Wisedome of Salomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, Iudith, and the bookes of Machabees. All which they would haue to be read in the Church, but not to be cited for the confirmation of the authoritie of the faith. Saint Atha­nasius in his booke entitled Synopsis, names all the books of the old Testament, conformable to the Hebrew Bible, and then addeth, and saith: Besides these, there are other bookes of the old Testament, which are not canonicall, which are read onely vnto Catechumenians, as the Wisedome of Salo­mon, the Wisedome of Iesus the sonne of Syrach, Iudith, To­bias, &c.

Eusebius in his Chronicle vpon the 117 Olympiade, saith, The Hebrew history of the Machabees reckens from hence the reigne of the Grecians, but those bookes are not receiued among the diuine Scriptures.

[Page 14]

Pope Gregorie the first, in the 19. of his Morals vpon Iob, cap. 19, seeking to alledge a passage out of the Machabees, excuseth himselfe in these words: Of which thing we speake not without reason, if we produce the testimonies of the bookes that are not canonicall, but written for the edifica­tion of the Church.

Meliton Bishop of Sardis, in an Epistle to Onesimus, reci­ted by Eusebius in the fourth booke of his historie, cap. 25. numbreth the bookes of the old Testament, wherein he pla­ceth not Iudith, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, nor the Machabees.

Origen, in Eusebius, lib. 6. cap. 24. Saint Hilarie in his Pre­face vpon the Psalmes, Gregorie Nazianzen in his verses of the holy Scripture, Eusebius lib. 3. of his historie, cap. 10. Epipha­nius in his booke of Measures, and diuers others, make cata­logues of the bookes of the old Testament, and put not Iu­dith, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, nor Machabees into them, but all with one accord say, that there are but twentie two bookes in the old Testament, agreeable to the letters in the Hebrew Alphabet.

The fourth Councell of Carthage, in their Latine copies put the bookes of Machabees among the Canonicall books; but in their Greeke copies they are not found to be there. It is most [...]ertaine, that there is no booke more falsified nor cor­rupted then the Latine tomes of the Councels.

Against this so vniuersall a consent of the ancient Church, they oppose the onely testimonie of Saint Augustine, who lib. 2. of Christian doctrine, cap. 8. putteth Tobias, Iudith, and the Machabees among the canonicall bookes. But ye must vnder­stand, that in the same place he maketh two sorts of canoni­call bookes, the one of greater, the other of lesser authoritie; the one really receiued, the other receiued by some Churches of lesse authoritie.In Canonicis Scripturis Ec­clesiarum ca­tholicarum quamplurium quamplurium authoritatem sequatur. In eis quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, prae­ponat eas quas plures grauio­resque accipi­unt, eis quas pauciores mi­norisque au­thoritatis Ec­clesiae tenent. Imago Samue­lis mortui Sauli regi ve­ra praenuncia­uit. See the 15 Chapter of the booke, de cura pro mor­tuis. Hoc tanquam non Canonicū definiunt o­mittendum. In matter (saith he) of the canonicall Scriptures, we must follow the greater number of Catho­licke Churches. And a little after, Among those which are re­ceiued of all, we must make more account of those, which more Churches, and of more authoritie receiue. And he him­selfe in the 23. cap. of his 2. booke against Gaudentius, saith, [Page 15] that the booke of Machabees is not vnprofitably read, if it be read discreetly: & that the same book is none of those wherof Iesus Christ witnesseth. Also in the same place of the 2. book of Christian doctrine, he acknowledgeth that the book of Wis­dome was not made by Salomon: which is a proofe that the Author thereof lyeth, which affirmeth himselfe to be Salo­mon. And in the same place he omitteth the booke of Susan­na, and the historie of Bell and the Dragon, as not being ca­nonicall. And in the three and twentieth Chapter of the same booke, as also in diuers other places, he beleeued not that Samuel appeared to Saul, but is of opinion that it was his image, and a diuellish illusion: therein contrarying the booke of Ecclesiasticus. In the seuenth tome Hilarie Bishop of Arles writeth to Saint Augustine, and telleth him, that diuers seruants of Christ in France did not thinke well of him, that he had alledged a passage of Ecclesiasticus in his booke: They define (saith he) that the same passage ought to be omitted, as not being canonicall. It is to no purpose to say, that diuers Fa­thers alledge these bookes, for they also alledge the third and fourth bookes of Esdras, which the Councell of Trent re­ceiueth not for canonicall. Ambrose alledgeth them in the tenth Chapter of his booke of the benefit of death, cap. 10: and Augustine in the sixth Chapter of the fourth booke to Boniface. The allegations of particular persons are no pub­licke rules, nor the opinion of the vniuersall Church; a man may alledge a booke which is not holden to be canonicall, S. Paul alledged Aratus and Epimenides Pagan Authors.Acts 17.28. Tit. 1.12.

Now it appeareth whether M. Arnoux hath any know­ledge of Antiquity, & whether he hath reason to say, that he hath receiued the Canon of the Scriptures from the Church: seeing that all the ancient Church reiecteth those bookes which the Church of Rome receiues for canonicall.Baron. Annal, anno 1076. sect. 33. Quod nullum capi­tulum, nullus{que} liber Canoni­cus habeatur absque illius authoritate. But now at this day, when we speake of the Church, we must by the Church vnderstand the Pope. For the Councell of Rome, hol­den in the yeare 1076. vnder Gregorie the seuenth, ordained, that no chapter nor booke should be held to be canonicall, without the Popes authority. Must we haue an approbation [Page 16] from the Pope to receiue the fiue bookes of Moses, and the foure Euangelists for canonicall? What is he that doth not abhorre the impious words of the Romish decree, in the 19. distinction of the Canon, In Canonicis: whereof the super­scription is,Inter canoni­cas Scripturas decretales epi­stolae connume­rantur. That the decrees of Popes are reckoned among the canonicall bookes? Which they proue by a passage out of Saint Augustine, wickedly falsified.

With the like impietie, at this day, they will haue the Church to be iudge of the sence of the Scriptures. There are two kindes or sorts of iudgements, the one a iudgement of discretion, the other a iudgement of authority. By the iudge­ment of discretion we iudge of meats, not to prescribe lawes, but to discerne what is good for vs. Of this iudgement the Apostle speaketh in the first of the Corinthians, chap. 10. verse 15. I speake as vnto them which haue vnderstanding, iudge ye what I say. By this iudgement, Saint Iohn in his first epistle chap. 4. will haue vs not to beleeue euery Spirit, but that we should trie the Spirits. But there is another kinde of iudge­ment, which is a iudgement of authority; which serueth for a law, and which maketh decrees, against the which it is not lawful to resist: In that maner the court of Parliament iudgeth capitall crimes. Between these two kinds of iudgemēts, there is a third kind, which participateth with the other two, which being a iudgement of discretion, in the meane time hath a kinde of authority: As when diuers learned and wise men giue their aduice vpon any difficult matter; specially if they be men, to whom, by the iudgement of God, we owe respect and reuerence. Whom, (although subiect to erre) and though that they pronounce not iudgement with soueraigne autho­ritie and infallible certainty, we are neuerthelesse ashamed to contradict; and we are bound to be content with their iudgement, vntill the thing be better knowne and examined. Such is the iudgement of diuers Pastors assembled in a natio­nall or a prouinciall Synode. Whose iudgement neuerthelesse is not soueraigne, but subiect to be examined by the word of God: as latter Councels oftentimes correct precedent Councels. But to esteeme that the Church may iudge of [Page 17] matters of faith, and of the sence of the Scriptures, with a iudgement of soueraigne authoritie, and with infallible cer­tainty; it is a thing not onely vniust, and absurd, but also im­possible. For, in the question whether the Church is iudge, or not, is it possible that the Church should be soueraigne and infallible Iudge therein? And when question is made, to know what the duety of the Church is, is it reasonable that the Church should be Iudge, with full authority of deciding the same? for by this meanes, she shall be bound to do no more then she will her selfe, and to obey those lawes which she shall giue vnto her selfe. And when question is made of the infalliblenesse or authority of the Church, if the Church be Iudge thetein, she shall be Iudge in her owne cause. See­ing therefore, that all the Prelates of the Church are sinners, and by consequence culpable, and punishable by the Law, what apparence is there, that criminalls should be soueraigne and infallible Iudges of the sence of that Law which con­cerneth their crime? by this meanes they shall neuer be con­demned. It is a ridiculous and prophane conceit, to imagine that transgressors of the Law should be infallible Iudges of the same Law whereby they ought to be iudged. If the Church were an infallible Iudge of the sence of the Scrip­tures, her authority should be much greater then that of God: for such an interpreter would be much more obeyed then the law-maker; for that the people should not be subiect to the words of the law, but to the sence and the interpretation which that interpreter would giue thereunto: which is the meanes whereby the Pope hath made himselfe so great, and so rich; for still he interpreteth the word of God for his pro­fit, and hath proceeded so farre, that in the Romish decrees, there are glosses that say, that the Pope may dispense with the Scriptures, by interpreting rhe same.

Neuerthelesse,Causae 25. quaest. 1. Can. sunt quidam. Dispensat in Euangelio in­terpretando ipsam. let vs say that so absurd and impossible a thing is iust and receiuable; yet, before the authority of a Iudge & an infallible interpreter of the Scripture be referred to a Church, wee ought to be well assured, that the same Church is sound of iudgement, and pure in faith. Into the [Page 18] which examination, if we enter by the Scriptures, then such a Church is subiect to be iudged by the Scripture. Or if to know, whether such a Church is pure in faith, men refer them­selues to the iudgement of the same Church, she will be sure not to condemne her selfe. And there is no Church, how cor­rupt soeuer it be, which vaunteth not of her selfe to be pure. And among diuers Churches, as the Syrian, the Greeke, the Romaine, and the Affricane, who all draw their successions from the Apostles, and boast that they haue Saint Peters chaire; why should one be iudge rather then the other? Then we must necessarily haue recourse to the Scripture, which is one, and receiued by all; and an vncorrupted Iudge, and wherein, that which is cleare and euident, hauing no need of an interpretation, is sufficient to saluation. Where, if in things necessary to saluation, there are any obscure passages, they are found to be interpreted and expounded in diuers o­ther cleare passages. For no man but the Law-giuer, can giue interpretations to the Law, that are of equall authority with the Law. And if there be any obscure passages found in the Scriptures, which are not expounded elsewhere, it is better to be ignorant, then to presume to be infallible Iudges of the sence of the Word, by the which God shall iudge vs: for that which therein is cleare and manifest, is sufficient to salua­tion.

Of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and whether the Church of Rome is an infallible interpreter, and whe­ther it belongs to euery particular person to interpret the Scriptures.

Section. 9 Contrarie passages. Saint Peter in his second Epistle, Chap. 1.20. No prophesie of the Scripture is of any priuate interpre­tation. Therefore it is contrary to the Apostolicke commande­ment, that euery one of you should take vpon him to iudge the true sence & vnderstanding of the Scriptures. The interpreter hath his manner of interpretation, and assureth himselfe to be iudge by a particular spirit, and for a foundation of all that which he shall be­leeue, layeth this presumptuous and prohibited assurance.

The passage of Saint Peter is not contrary to the article of [Page 24] our Confession. S. Peter in this passage reiecteth particular interpretations: but in this fourth article of our Confession, there is nothing said of interpretation, nor of the sence or intelligence of the Scripture. This man doth not vnderstand himselfe. And to what purpose should he impugne particular interpretations, seeing that we also condemne them? For it is so farre from vs to receiue the interpretations of a particular man for lawes, that we receiue not the interpretations of a particular Church, how great soeuer it be, when such inter­pretations are giuen for infallible rules, and are equalized in authoritie with the holy Scriptures, as the interpretations of the Popes and of the Romish Church are.

It is true, that in our Sermons we interpet the Scriptures, but we giue not our interpretations for lawes: and alledge no o­ther interpretations of the Scriptures, then those which the Scriptures themselues affoord. Wherby it is not our interpre­tation, but that which God himselfe giueth.

But this requireth a little more discourse, to let you see wherein our interpretations differ from those of the Romish Church: wherein there are fiue notable differences.

1 The first is, that the interpretations of the Scripture which we bring are drawne out of the Scripture it selfe. But the Ro­mish Church draweth the most part of her interpretations from an vnwritten word, and from traditions. As when the word saith, Thou shalt worship one onely God, and him onely shalt thou serue, the Church of Rome vnderstandeth, that the ado­ration of Latria is here onely reserued vnto God, but that the same hindreth not man from adoring Saints, Images, and the relicks with the adoration of Dulia: but the Scripture speaketh not of this adoration of Dulia giuen vnto creatures. So when the Apostle in the ninth Chapter and tenth verse to the He­brewes so often inserteth, That as it is appointed vnto all men, that they shall once die, so Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many, and that by the offering once made he hath sancti­fied vs: the Romish Church vnderstandeth, that he speaketh there of the bloudy sacrifice; & say, that besides that sacrifice, there is another sacrifice of the body of Christ which is not [Page 25] bloudy, (that is, the Masse:) but the Scripture speaketh not of this sacrifice of the body of our Lord without bloud. So, when Iesus Christ saith to Saint Peter, Feede my sheepe; the church of Rome vnderstandeth that to be said to Peter, & to his successours, in the charge of the head of the vniuersall Church. But the Scripture saith not, that Saint Peter should haue successours in his Apostolicall place, as the other Apo­stles also haue had none; & faith not that his successors should be Bishops of Rome. I could produce an infinite number of such examples.

2 The second difference is, that when we draw an inter­pretation of a passage in the Scripture, out of the Scripture. we exhort the people to looke into the place, and to reade the Scripture, that euery man may know whether we alleadge it truly, and proceed sincerely therein: according to the ex­ample of those of Beroea, in the seuenteenth of the Acts, who after they had heard the Apostle S. Paul, went to conferre his words with the Scripture, to know whether it were so, or not. On the contrary, the Doctors of the Romish Church, interpre­ting the Scripture to the people, will not haue them to consult with the Scriptures, which in those places where the Pope is absolutely obeyed, is a booke wholly prohibited to the peo­ple. And in Spaine or Italie, if an Italian or a Spanish Bible be found in any Lay mans hands, it is a crime deseruing bur­ning, and an Inquisition case.

3 The third difference is, That we giue not our interpre­tations for lawes, as if we were infallible interpreters, nei­ther make our selues iudges of the holy Scriptures. For we say, that in the cleare passages of the Scriptures that haue no need of interpretations, all that which is necessary for our saluation is contained. On the contrary, the Church of Rome attributeth vnto her selfe, the power to be an infallible iudge of the sence of the Scriptures, and of giuing interpre­tations that are of equall authority and force with the holy Scriptures. A prodigious thing, that sinners and guilty per­sons will take vpon them to be infallible iudges of the sence of the lawes which concerne their crimes and offences: [Page 26] That sinful men should be iudges of that word, by the which at the latter day they shall be iudged. And whereas our sen­ces and our wills ought to be subiected to the word of God: that the word of God should be subiected to the sence and meanings of men. That Maister is like to be well serued, whose seruants be the interpreters of his commandements, and thinke it lawfull for them to say to their maister, Thou hast commanded vs to do thus, but we iudge that it ought thus to be vnderstood. This is to subiect religion vnto men, whereas men should be subiects to religion. Certainly, no man but the King can giue interpretations to the Kings pro­clamations and precepts, that should be of equall force and authoritie with the Kings Edict. None but God can bring interpretations to the word of God, which are of as much force and authority as the word of God is. I say, if there be any Prelates that are infallible interpreters of the word of God, and that vpon the sence of the Scriptures pronounce ir­reuocable decrees, that such Pastors haue much more autho­rity then the law of God; because the people are not bound to follow the words of the law, but the interpretation of those Prelates. It were better to be an interpreter in this ma­ner, then to be a law-giuer: and it is impossible that such an interpreter should be subiect to the law. For it is fit that he should be without sinne, lest he should make his interpreta­tions of the law, couertures and cloakes of his sinne.

Therein, besides the impietie, the absurditie is most ma­nifest; for, before that men should giue the church of Rome the authority of an infallible iudge of the sence of the Scrip­tures, it is necessary to be first assured that it is sound, and of a good iudgement in faith. Into the which iudgement if we enter by the holy Scripture, then the church of Rome is subiected to be iudged by the Scriptures. Now if to know whether the Church of Rome be pure in faith, we must re­ferre our selues to the testimony of the church of Rome it selfe, then she is iudge in her owne cause, and she will be sure not to condemne her selfe. So, when question is made, to know what the duty of the Church is: If in this question [Page 27] the Church be iudge, she is both iudge and partie, and will haue no other lawes but those which she her selfe will make and ordaine. And seeing that in the interpretation of the Scriptures, the Greek, Syrian, Affricane and Roman Churches are different; how shall a simple artificer know which in­terpretation is best? seeing the other Churches are ancienter then the Romaine, and boast of Saint Peters chaire, and of diuers Apostles? We must therefore come to this point, that if they vnderstand the word Iudge, to signifie Discerning, (as when we iudge of meates by the taste,) euery saithfull per­son ought to pray vnto God for grace to iudge, to dis­cerne, and to know the true sence of the Scripture. But if by Iudging, they vnderstand, to pronounce decrees, and defini­tiue and infallible iudgements, touching the sence of the Scriptures, thereby to binde other mens consciences, there is no man in the world that hath that power. That which is cleare and manifest in the Scripture, hauing no need of inter­pretation, is sufficient to saluation; or if there be any obscure places, they are clearely expounded else-where. And if there be any passages that are obscure, and can not be vnderstood by other passages, it is better to be ignorant therein, then to play the interpreter with authority of a Iudge. For, for this cause God thought it requisite, that in his word there should be some places that are obscure, among a great num­ber of cleare & manifest places; that by those that are cleare he might instruct our ignorance, and by the obscure, proue our sobriety and temperance.

4 The fourth difference betweene the Interpretations that we make of the Scriptures, and those of the Romish church, is, That they neuer as yet accused vs of wresting the Scrip­ture for our owne profit, nor to haue giuen it a sence which serueth to make vs rich, or to aduance vs to worldly digni­ties; which is one of the great mischiefes in the church of Rome. Couetousnesse and Ambition, that are ingenious to wrest and racke the Scriptures, haue found out and inuented admirable interpretation. In the first Tome of the Councels there is a Decree attributed to Anacletus, which saith, that [Page 28] Peter is Cephas, Cephas, id est, caput & prin­cipium Apo­stolatus. It is the 72. in the Hebrew. that is to say, Chiefe or Head, and holding the principall place among the Apostles. In the ninth Sessi­on, of the last Councell of Lateran, the seuenty one Psalme is alledged, where it is said, All Kings shall fall downe before him, and all nations shall serue him; as if it were spoken of the Pope. And a little after, that is attributed to the Pope which Iesus Christ saith in the 28. chapter of Saint Mathew, All power is giuen vnto me in heauen and in earth. Pope Boni­face the eight in the Extrauagant, Vnam Sanctam, sheweth, that all the world ought to be subiect to the Pope, because in the tenth of Iohn it is written, There shall be one sheepfold and one shepheard. There also he proueth the superioritie of the Pope, by that which is written, In the beginning God created heauen and earth, For, saith he, there is, in principio, in the sin­gular number, and not in principijs in the plurall number, which is a notable obseruation. There he proueth, that both the Swords are in the Popes power, that is, both the Spiritu­all and the Temporall, because that in the 22. of Saint Luke, the Apostles hauing said, Lord, behold here are two swords, he said vnto them, It is enough. To the same end he applieth that which God said to Ieremie, chap. 1. See, I haue this day set thee ouer the nations, and ouer the kingdomes. Bellarmine in his book against Barkley, proueth the power of the Pope to depose Kings, by that which is said to Saint Peter, Feede my sheepe: also by that, that Saint Paul will haue, those that preach the Gospell to liue of the Gospell. Kill and eate, alleadged by Ba­ronius, applied to moue & incite the Pope to thunder against, and to persecute the Venetians, is a ridiculous manner of in­terpreting the Scriptures. I could alleadge a thousand such like interpretations, which are as many confessions of a bad cause, seeing it cannot be defended but by wrested passages, and violent and rash interpretations of the Scriptures. There­fore the churth of Rome vsurpeth the title of an infallible Iudge of the sence of the Scriptures, to the end that where reason wanteth, it may be supplied by authority: for such proofes haue no force, but onely by the authority of him that propounded them.

[Page 29]

5 The fifth & last difference is, that we cannot be charged nor accused to make profane and ridiculous interpretations, thereby to expose the holy Scriptures to be laughed at, as the church of Rome doth. The second Councell of Nice, which our Aduersaries place among the vniuersall Councels, vpon paine of cursing and excommunication commandeth the a­doration of Images, and faith, that they are of as much esti­mation as the Gospell. To proue this detestable doctrine, the Fathers of that Councell produce diuers passages of the Scri­ptures, with a strange compasse, and extrauagant subtiltie: and because the Iconoclastians mocked at those allegations, Pope Adrian the first expressely made a booke,Tom. 3. Con­cil. Editionis Colon. pa. 205. and dedica­ted the same to Charlemaine, which is found at the end of the said Councell, whereby he maintaineth all those passa­ges to be well alleadged. The Fathers of that Councel for the adoration of Images had alleadged the passages in the secōd of the Canticles: Let me see thy countenance, let mee heare thy voice; and God created man in his owne image and likenesse, Gen. 1. Abraham worshipped the Hethites, Genes. 23. Moses worshipped Iethro his father in law, Exod. 18. Iacob blessed Pharao, Genesis 47. and, No man, when he hath lighted a candle, couereth it vnder a vessell, Luke 8.16. Pope Adrian defendeth these pas­sages, saying, Rectè illud protulerunt: They haue truely allea­ged them, & valdè nimis atque pulchrè contra eos qui Imagines contemnunt dixerunt, poni lucernam sub modio. They haue spo­ken excellent well, and with a good grace, against those that contemne Images, that they set a Lampe vnder a bushell. What man is he that hath any free or common sence, that wil not detest such prophanation of the Scriptures? And neuer­thelesse, this is the interpretation of the Church, it is a Coun­cell that speaketh, and a Pope that defendeth this Councell. He that desireth to see the horrible prophanation of the pas­sages of the Scripture, alleadged in manner of a ieast, let him reade those that write of the mysteries of the Masse, and of the ceremonies of the Romish church: As Innocent the third, of the mysteries of the Masse; The booke of sacred Ceremo­nies: Durants Rational: Tolet of the instruction of Priests: [Page 30] Titleman, &c. and there he shall finde the Scripture most ri­diculously wrested. They say, that the Altar must be of stone, because it is said, Petra erat Christus: That tapers are set vpon the Altar, because it is written, I am the light of the world: That the Priest kisseth the Altar, because in the Canticles it is written, Let him kisse me with the kisse of his mouth: That the Priest turneth his backe to the people, because it is written; Thou shalt see my backe parts, Exodus 33.23. That the Clarke that serueth the Priest, moueth and stirreth his body as the Priest doth, because it is written, Where I am, there also my seruant shall be. That the Priest washeth his hands twise, be­cause it is written, Amplius laua me, Psal. 51. That the Bi­shop at Masse changeth his hose and his shooes, because it is written, Put off thy shooes for this place is holy, Ex. 3.5. With the like subtiltie the Pope at this day, when he is crowned, ca­steth certaine copper money among the people, saying, Sil­uer and gold haue I none, but that which I haue, I giue thee. Where religion is changed into a Comedie, it is no mar­uell that the Scriptures are exposed vnto laughter, and turned into a ridiculous sence. Thus much touching the interpreta­tion which father Arnoux saith to be receiued from the hand of Gods Spouse, that is (as he vnderstands it) the church of Rome. Thus you may see how the word of God is dexte­rously alleadged, and God worthily serued.

Whether the Church may erre: and whether the church of Rome hath erred.

Section. 10 All this abuse is grounded vpon this supposition, that the Church cannot erre: that is, that the Church being as­sembled to decide matters of faith, cannot erre. A proposi­tion, which being well weighed and considered, will be found to be rash, without reason and apparence, and by ex­perience contradicted.

For if by the Church, our aduersaries vnderstand the Church of the elect predestinated to saluation, which S. Peter [Page 31] in his first Epistle, cap. 2. calleth a chosen generation, and with the Apostle to the Hebrewes, cap. 12. calleth, The assemblie and congregation of the first borne which are written in heauen: It is a great absurditie to aske, if that Church assembled to iudge the differences of religion may erre: seeing that it ne­uer assembleth to decide any point of faith.

If by the word Church, they vnderstand the vniuersal visi­ble Church, which is, the assembly of all those that make pro­fession to be Christians, it is no lesse absurd, to aske if that Church assembled to iudge the points of faith can erre: for that now it is impossible for the same to be assembled: for it is composed of different parts, that is, of the Greeke, the Ro­mane, the Syrian, and the Affrican Churches, &c. which are particular Churches, separated from communion. For who shall assemble them? who shall set them at agreement? who shall be arbitrator of their discord? who shall be president in that assemblie? seeing that euery one of them attributeth vn­to herselfe the perfections & testimonies which God giueth to his Church in his word.

But if by the word Church, our aduersaries vnderstand a particular Church, as that of Rome, of Antioch, or of Con­stantinople, they themselues confesse, that euery particular Church may erre: and say that the Church of Ierusalem foun­ded by Iesus Christ, and that of Antioch founded by Peter erred.

The holy Historie witnesseth, that the Church of Israel, which vnder the old Testament was the onely Church in the world, oftentimes erred. It was idolatrous in Egypt, Ezech. 20.7.8. The people in the desert worshipped the golden Calfe, to the which also Aaron the high Priest erected an al­tar, and proclamed a solemne feast vnto it, Exod. 32. Ʋriah the high Priest erected a pagan altar in the Temple of God, 2. Kings 16. In the fifteenth Chapter of the second of Chro­nicles it is said, Now for a long season Israel hath bene without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law. Which cannot be vnderstood of the ten Tribes that reuolted from the couenant of God, for that a little after he addeth, [Page 32] that they turned againe vnto God, but those ten Tribes neuer turned. Ieremie in cap. 2.27.28. reprocheth the Church of Iu­da, that it had had as many gods as townes; & that the Kings, Priests, and Prophets, said vnto the woods, Thou art my fa­ther, which is the language of idolaters. He maketh the like complaints, cap. 5.31. and cap. 6.14. and Esay cap. 56. saith, His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant, they cannot barke. It is hard to maintaine that the high Priests, Scribes, and Pha­rises, that held Moses chaire, and the ordinary succession did not erre in the faith, when being assembled they decreed, that whosoeuer did confesse Iesus to be Christ, should be cast out of the Synagogue Iohn 9.12. which is one of the causes (a­mong many others) for the which Iesus Christ warneth his disciples to beware of the leauen of the doctrine of the Pha­rises, in the sixteenth of S. Mathew: whose instructions Iesus Christ would haue the Iewes wholly to obserue when they preached in Moses chaire, but not when they preached against Moses, and against the Law. For that is not a succession, but an ouerthrowing of the chaire and the doctrine. Among the which Caiphas the high Priest & head of that succession, iudged that Iesus Christ was a blasphemer and worthy of death, Math. 26. Then when the said prelate in the eleuenth of S. Iohn, prophesied that one man was to die for the whole nation, he did not prophesie, because the infallible truth was fixed to his chaire, but God inspired him extraordinarily, to the end that that prophesie whereby the price and the vertue of the death of Iesus Christ is declared, might be of more weight and authority among the Iewes, in regard of the qua­lity of the person.

Then, if the Church which was the onely Church in the world, and the Pastors that onely held the chaire erred, is it credible, that the Church being deuided into contrarie Churches, in chaires separated from communion, one parti­cular Church may or can presume, not to erre, and to subiect all others to her will? without producing her priuiledges? and contrary to the experience of so many ages? and the iudge­ment of all antiquitie?

The sixt Councell held in Constantinople in the thirtenth Canon condemneth the Church of Rome by name, because she reiected married Priests; and in the fiue & fiftieth Canon because she fasted on the Saturday. Then those fathers be­leeued that the Church of Rome could erre. The Greeke and the Romane Churches ioyned together in the second Coun­cell of Nice: did they not erre, when in that Councell they decreed, (vpon paine of cursing and excommunication,) that images ought to be adored, and that they are of as much estimation as the Gospell, and that the image is better then the word, where in the tradition it is said: Maior est imago quàm oratio?

And after the death of Pope Formosus, Platina. Stella. Anastasius. Luitprandus. Sigibert, &c. so many times vn­buried by his successors, and drawne about the towne, and af­ter laid honourably in the graue againe; how many contrary Councels (wherein the Popes were presidents) were there, that allowed and disallowed the decrees and ordinances of precedent Councels? And you must note, that then there was a question about a point of doctrine, which was, whether the Pope may dispence with an oath made to God, and whether he ought to be held to be lawfull Pope, that hath receiued the Papacie contrary to the oath which he had made neuer to take it on him.

Did not the Church of Rome erre in the Councell of Rome holden vnder Gregorie the seuenth, anno 1076. where it was declared and defined,Baron Annal. anno 1076. that there was no other name vnder the heauens but that of the Pope? and that no booke is canoni­call without his authoritie, and that all kings ought to kisse his feet?

Did not the Councell of Rome erre in the Councell of La­tran, vnder Innocent the third, where power is giuen to the Pope, to dispossesse and driue Princes that are excommuni­cate out of their lands and Signiories? cap. 3.

Or in the Councell of Constance holden anno 1414, where she declared, that we must neither obserue faith nor promise with heretickes, and that it is lawfull to put them to death after safe conduct is giuen them? And that to haue the peo­ple [Page 34] to receiue the Sacrament vnder both kinds, following the example of Iesus Christ and the ancient Church, is rashnesse, and an heresie punishable by the secular power?

Or in the Councell of Florence, holden anno 1440: where it is decreed that the Pope may adde to the Creed?

Or in the last Councel of Latran, where the holy Scriptures were laid at the Popes feet, and he called a king most like vn­to God? where also it is said, that all people ought to adore him: that he hath all power both in heauen and earth, that he is the Lyon of Iuda, the Roote of Dauid, the Sauiour of Sion, and the diuine Maiestie?

Lastly, shall the Church of Rome continue pure and entire then, when (according to the opinion of our aduersaries) An­tichrist shall abolish the Masse? or at the time whereof Iesus Christ speaketh, Luke 18. Thinke you when the Sonne of man cometh, that he shall find faith on the earth?

To be short, to say that she cannot erre, is a language that onely belongeth vnto God, or to him that maketh himselfe to be God,2. Thess. 7. whom Saint Paul calleth the sonne of perdition. The Apostles neuer bragged that they could not erre, not­withstanding that the Spirit of God guided them in all truth. Whosoeuer saith, I cannot fall by ignorance, is partly fallen by pride: whosoeuer saith I cannot erre in the interpretation of the Scriptures, makes himselfe infallible Iudge of that doctrine by the which one day he shall be iudged. He that is fallen shall neuer rise againe, as long as he presumeth that he standeth. He will not be subiect to any rule as long as he thinketh himselfe to be the rule: and there is no riches nor dignity whatsoeuer vpon earth, whereunto he will not aspire, seeing that no man may contradict him. By this meanes the Scripture will be held and esteemed to be of little necessitie: for what need I studie, if a man that cannot erre leadeth me directly vnto heauen? If God, to the end that the people should not be seduced, hath giuen those Prelates the vertue not to erre, it is wonder that he did not likewise giue them the vertue neuer to be vicious, seeing that nothing causeth Atheisme sooner to breed among the people, then the pro­phane [Page 35] liues of Pastors, whereof being conuinced it maketh the doctrine contemptible. The Canon, Si Papa, in the fortieth Distinction, teacheth vs that in most expresse termes, which saith: If the Pope being negligent of his owne saluation, and of the saluation of his brethren, vnprofitable and slack in his businesse, and besides that doing no good, in the meane time he leadeth after him, being himselfe first a bondslaue of sin, in­numerable multitudes of people into perdition, to be tor­mented with him by many plagues: no man may presume or dislike of him for the same, because he that ought to iudge all men, ought not to be iudged by any man, if he be not found to haue erred from the faith. This speech certainly is diabo­licall: and yet he, that to flatter the Pope hath vomited out so many impieties, freely acknowledgeth that the Pope may erre from the faith. Whereupon I am, and haue often times bene abashed, wherefore the Pope that vaunteth that he can­not erre in the deciding of doubts, abstaineth (now many yeares past) from pronouncing any definitiue sentence vpon the controuersie which is in the Church of Rome, about the questions of freewill and predestination: for the which the Iacobins and the Iesuites in Spaine are at continuall strife. The props wherewith they support this proud doctrine are so weake, that if you blow vpon them they are ready to fall. They alledge vnto vs, that it is said in the second chapter of Malachie: For the Priests lips should keepe knowledge, and they should seeke the Law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hoasts. But it is a great abuse to make a promise of that which is a commandement. And those Priests of whom it is here spoken, seduced the people and corrupted the co­uenant, as it is said in the next verse.

They also alledge, that Iesus Christ in the sixteenth of Saint Mathew, promised that the gates of hell should not preuaile against the Church: but there he speakes not of any particular Church, nor of Rome, neither yet of the vniuersall visible Church; which although the power of the diuell cannot vtterly abolish it, yet he often preuaileth against her diuers wayes, corrupting some by vices, seducing others by heresies, [Page 36] and dissipating many particular Churches by persecution. The beast shall make warre with the Saints, and ouercome them, Apoc. 13. The Church flieth before the red Dragon, Apoc. 12. In that passage our Sauiour speaketh of the elect Church, which cannot be seduced, nor depriued of saluation by the tempta­tions of the diuell, as Iesus Christ teacheth in the thirteeenth of Saint Marke, saying: For false Christs shall arise, and false Prophets, and shall shew signes and wonders to deceiue, if it were possible, the very elect. Where if he speakes of the vniuer­sall visible Church, his meaning is, that Sathan can neuer abo­lish it.

But specially our aduersaries make shew of the 15. verse of the third chapter of the first to Timothie, where the Church is called the house of God, the pillar and ground of truth. The abuse consists herein, that they take that which is but a description of her dutie, to be an infallible perfection of the Church. The Apostle thereby teacheth vs, that the Church is established in this world to defend and support the truth; but saith not, that it cannot faile in her dutie. So false Churches are pillars and grounds of lies, but it followeth not from thence, that they can neuer turne to the truth. To thinke or esteeme that the truth of God is grounded vpon men, is to make mans autho­ritie firmer then Gods truth. On the contrary, the Apostle to the Ephesians the second chapter, saith, that we are built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles: [...]. Euangelium in Scripturis nobis tradide­runt funda­mentum & columnam fidei nostrae fu­turum. not vpon them as they were mortall men, but vpon their doctrine which en­dureth for euer. So the ancient Fathers vnderstand it. Chry­sostome in the eleuenth homilie vpon the first of Timothy saith, The truth is the pillar and ground of the Church. And Irenaeus in the first chapter of his third booke saith, They haue left vs the Gospell in the Scriptures to be a pillar and the ground of our faith. Our aduersaries themselues say it without thinking thereon, as often as they ground the authority of the Church vpon this and other such like places, for thereby they silently confesse that the authority of the Church is grounded vpon the Scriptures: and so (not knowing it,) dispute against them­selues. And it is certaine, that whosoeuer groundeth the au­thority [Page 37] of the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Church, bereaueth the Church of the meanes to ground her authori­tie vpon the Scriptures, & neuer ought to alledge the Scripture for a ground of the Church. He that buildeth the walles vpon the foundation, supposeth that the foundation is not groun­ded vpon the walles: So if the Church be the foundation of the word of God, it is not grounded vpon the word of God. Why then do they ground the authority of the Romane Church vppn this passage?

Now after all this, if it were granted vnto them, that the word of God is grounded vpon the Church, they haue gotten nothing, if they do not also proue that this Church is the Ro­maine, rather then the Greeke or Syrian Churches, which are ancienter then the Romane, and purer, and also boast of the succession of Saint Peter. They also to the same end apply the words of our Lord in the sixteenth of Saint Iohn, verse 13. Howbeit when he is come, which is the Spirit of truth, he will leade you into all truth. This promise properly belongeth to the A­postles, whereof they receiued the full accomplishment vpon the day of Pentecost, when the holy Ghost descended vpon them, and taught them the truth of the doctrine of saluation. And if this promise should appertaine vnto the Church, and should be perpetuall in al ages, yet by that, the infalliblenesse of the Church is not hereby proued, much lesse the infallible­nesse of any particular Church.

They also alledge the passage of the eighteenth of S. Ma­thew: If thy brother trespasse against thee, tell it vnto the Church; and if he refuse to heare the Church, let him be vnto thee as an heathen man or a publican: but this place shall be examined hereafter when M. Arnoux obiects it against vs.

For the infalliblenesse of the Romish Church they alledge, that Iesus Christ said to S. Peter Luke 22.31. Simon Simon, behold Sathan hath desired you, to winnow you as wheate but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not. Marke that two lines after, he foresheweth to Peter that he should deny him three times. So it appeareth, that by those words Iesus pre­pareth him against the temptation and promiseth not to for­sake [Page 38] him nor to suffer his faith to faile. Which is euident, for that by the word faith, he vnderstandeth not the doctrine, but the trust and confidence in Iesus Christ: and by the word faith, he vnderstandeth not to erre in the doctrine, but to fall by weaknesse. But what makes that for the Romish Church? doth all that is said to S. Peter, or that is said by S. Peter be­long to the Pope?Math. 16. Acts 3. as, go behind me Sathan, and siluer and gold haue I none? &c. or when Iesus Christ sent Peter with his companions to preach without scrip, money, or any proui­sion?

Section. 11 Also to the Galathians 2.1. Then foureteene yeares after I went vp againe to Ierusalem with Barnabas, and tooke with me Titus also, I and went vp by reuelation, & declared vnto them that Gospell which I preached among the Gentiles, but particularly to them that were the chiefe, lest by any meanes I should run or had run in vaine. Behold also S. Paul as well as Saint Peter, who for­mally both by example and words condemne the interior perswasion of the holy Ghost. He receiued his Gospell from the Sonne of God, and is well assured that it is canonicall, neuerthelesse, he taketh not that for a rule, that the holy Spirit truly perswadeth him thereunto, but rather the iudgement of the Apostolicke colledge, and the reuelation that he should go vnto them, and feareth to run in vaine if he doth it not.

It is false that in this place Saint Paul condemneth the in­terior perswasion of the holy Ghost and I am abasht how it is possible that a man which maketh profession to teach Di­uinitie dares deny that Saint Paul was led by an interior per­swasion of the holy Ghost. For in the Acts 13.9. it is said, that Paul was filled with the holy Ghost:Gal. 1.12. and a little before in the passage which M. Arnoux alledgeth the Apostle saith, that he had receiued the Gospell by reuelation from Iesus Christ, which could not be, vnlesse Iesus Christ inwardly touched his heart by his holy Spirit, therein to imprint the doctrine of saluation. Saint Peter in the first chapter of his first Epistle [Page 39] saith, that the Apostles preached the Gospell by the power of the holy Ghost; in the sixteenth of the Acts the holy Ghost forbiddeth S. Paul to preach the Gospel in Asia. And if S. Paul refused the perswasion of the holy Ghost to be a rule, and ac­cepted the iudgement of the Apostolicke colledge for a rule, we must say, that he preached three yeares without rule, see­ing that he had no conference with any of the Apostles till three yeares after his conuersion, Gal. 1.7. and 18. where S. Paul saith, that when it pleased God to reueale his Sonne vn­to him, he returned not againe vnto Ierusalem to those that had bene Apostles before him, but went into Arabia. Three yeares after he went to Ierusalem to conferre with the Apo­stles, not to receiue or take any rule which he had not before, but to the end that this conference might be a publicke pro­fession of concordance, without the which he and the other Apostles had runne in vaine, and their labour bad bene fruit­lesse. Not that I am of opinion that any man at this day can take Saint Pauls example therein, for a rule to dispence with himselfe for a certaine time, from conferring and commu­nicating with his brethren, vnder pretence or shadow of particular inspiration: for Saint Paul had gifts and preroga­tiues, which no man at this day can nor may vsurpe without great pride and presumption of himselfe.

Section. 12 To be short, it is possible that the Spirit of God should be more assuredly in the heart of euery particular person, then in the whole Church, wherein it resideth, and worketh this common agreement and consent?

The aduersarie in these words makes vs say that which we do not beleeue. Let those that beleeue it answe [...] him: In the meane time let him procure those parties (whereof the vni­uersall Church at this day is composed) as the Greeke, the Syrian, the Affrican, and the Romane Churches, to agree to­gether, before they can pronounce an assured and true iudg­ment. [Page 40] And for the rest no man denieth that in an orthodox­all Church we must giue more credit to the iudgement of the Pastors and Ministers assembled together, then to a particu­lar mans iudgement.

The iudgment of the ancient Fathers touching the perfection of the holy Scriptures.

Section. 16 Saint Augustine in the second booke of Baptisme against the Do­natists, c. 7. saith, Many things are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in those that followed them, neither in the Councels; [Page 54] and yet because such things haue bene obserued, and holden by the Church, we beleeue that they come from them, and are taught and commanded by them.

And note, that in the same place he proueth by this rule of tra­dition, that we ought not to rebaptize those that haue bene baptized by hereticks, which is an article of the faith, and no Ecclesiasticall practise.

Quam con­suetudinem credo ex Apo­stolica tradi­tione venien­tem, sicut mul­ta non inueni­unturin literis eorum neque in concilijs po­steriorum, & t [...]men quia per vniuersam custodiuntur Ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commendata creduntur.This place is hardly handled: these words of S. Augustine, Neque in consilijs posteriorum, are translated by our Iesuite thus, Neither of those that followed them, nor in the Councels. Wherein there is neither sence nor reason: and he turnes com­mendata into commanded. All this proceeds not from want of vnderstanding in the Latine tongue, but from trusting to another mans report. To vnderstand this place of Saint Augu­stine, you must know that he disputeth against the Donatists, and maintaineth that we must not rebaptize those that haue bene baptized by heretickes: which custome he saith is not written in the Epistles of the Apostles; and yet in the same worke he defendeth it,Lib. 1 cap 7. Ne videar hu­manis argu­mentis agere ex Euangelio, profero certa documenta. by many places in the Scriptures, which he saith are most certaine. Then it appeareth, that in this place, by, the things that are not written, he vnderstandeth those things that are not in exp [...]esse termes in the Scripture, but are gathered by good consequence. As also that Saint Augustine placeth not this matter among the necessary points of saluation: for there he saith,Nondum erat diligen­ter, illa baptis­mi quaestio pertractata. that the same question was not yet well handled, or soundly cleared in Saint Cyprians time. And yet it is not credible that Saint Cyprian wanted the vnderstanding of any thing necessary to saluation. To say that Saint Augustine did beleeue, that the holy Scriptures do not containe all that which is necessary to saluation, is a plaine confession that he that saith it neuer studied that Do­ctors workes. In his Epistle 142. cap. 9.Persolas Scripturas po­tes plenam Dei intelligere voluntatem. he saith, By the Scriptures onely thou maist fully and plainly know the will of God. In the second booke of the merits of sinnes, and of [Page 55] pardon, cap. 36. he saith,Vbi de re ob­scurissima disputatur, nō adiuuantibus, diuinarum Scripturarum certis claris{que} documentis, co­hibere se debet humana prae­sumptio. When we dispute of a thing that is very obscure, without the aide of the cleare and certaine in­structions of the diuine Scriptures, mans presumption must be limited. And he himselfe against Petillians letters, lib. 3. cap. 6. saith,Legite haec nobis de lege, de Prophetis, &c. & crede­mus. Reade this vnto vs from the Law, the Prophets, the Psalmes and the Gospell, & the writings of the Apostles: and we will beleeue it. In the second booke of Christian Do­ctrine, cap. 6. it is said,In his quae apertè posita sunt in Scrip­tura inueniun­tur, illa omnia quae continent fidem mores{que} viuendi. In those things that are plainly set downe in the Scriptures, all things that containe faith and good manners are contained.

The rest of the Fathers speake not otherwise, [...]. S. Atha­nasius in the beginning of the prayer against the Gentiles saith, The holy Scriptures diuinely inspired, are sufficient to make men vnderstand the truth.

S. Hierome vpon the first chapter of theSed & alia quae abs{que} au­thoritate & testimonijs Scripturarum quasi traditio­ne Apostolica sponte reperi­unt atque con­fingunt percu­tit gladius dei Prophet Aggee, saith, Those things which men inuent of themselues, for A­postolicall traditions, without authoritie and witnesse of the holy Scriptures, are confounded by God.

S. Basil speaketh excellently vpon that place, about the end of his Ethickes or morall Philosophie, which are among his Ascetiques. If (saith he) all that which is not of faith is sinne, as the Apostle saith, and that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, [...]. Edit. Basil. pag. 437. all that which is without the Scripture, (diuinely inspired,) not being of faith is sinne.

If in things necessarie to saluation, these Doctors reiected all traditions not contained in the holy Scripture, by greater reason, after so many ages and continuance of time, there is lesse apparence to make new additions. For when will they cease from adding? Bellarmine in the third chapter a­gainstNon rectè de Ecclesia Christi sentit qui nihil admittit nisi quod expresse in veteri Ecclesia scriptū, aut factū esse legit. Quasi Ecclesia posterioris temporis, aut desierit esse Ecclesia, aut facul­tatē non habeat explicandi, & declarandi, constituendi etiam & iubendie quae ad fidem & mores Christianos pertinent. Barkley, seeing that the Popes power to depose kings is destitute of all ancient testimonie saith, That the Church in these latter times, yet hath power to constitute and or­daine things that concerne faith and good manners. Where­upon [Page 56] it followeth, that the religion of the Romish Church is not yet perfected, seeing that yet men may adde precepts touching faith and good manners thereunto. And the Bull Exurge, which is at the end of the last Councell of Latran, placeth this among Luthers heresies, that he said, That it is not in the Popes nor the Romish Churches power, to esta­blish articles of the faith.

Section. 17 The same article lower. All things ought to be examined, ruled, and reformed, by, and according to the word of God.

True, according to the word of God, but how to be vnderstood? Note that they pretend, that the sence by them giuen to the word of God, is the touchstone of all the truthes of our beleefe. For other­wise, it is not to be doubted, that the word of God strengthened by the sence which the Church giueth thereunto, is the law, which nei­ther can nor ought te be contested withall.

It is false that we pretend, that the sence which we giue to the word of God, should be the touchstone of all truths. None of vs nameth himselfe an infallible interpreter. We receiue no other interpretation of the word of God, then that which is drawne out of the word of God. So they are not found by vs, but by the word of God, which is infallible. And in such things as are clearly set downe in the Scripture, & that haue no need of interpretation, all doctrines necessarie to sal­uation, are contained. By this meanes there is no need of an interpreter, in that sence, whereby an interpreter at this day is vnderstood, that is, of such a one as giues his interpretations for laws: such as the Pope & his Prelats say they are. Of which impietie, and how thereby, guiltie persons make them­selues iudges of the law, and seruants interpreters of their Masters commandements, and how they alwaies interpret the Scriptures for their profit, and to serue for gaine, and what horrible and extrauagant interpretations they make of the Scriptures, it hath bene formerly handled at large in the ninth. Section.

[Page 57]

Section. 18 Passages quoted in the margent of the Confession. 1. Cor. 11.1.2. Be ye followers of me, euen as I am of Christ. Now brethren, I commend you that you remember all my things, and keepe the or­dinances as I deliuered thē to you. And in the 23. verse, For I haue receiued of the Lord, that which I also haue said vnto you. Do these two passages conclude the article, for the which they are set downe as a proofe?

These two passages are wholly and altogether formall, to proue that all things ought to be ruled and reformed by the holy Scripture. For here the Apostle to reforme the abuse which the Corinthians cōmitted in the celebration of the Sa­crament of the Lords Supper, draweth it to the institution of the holy Supper, as it is written in the Gospell. It importeth not, whether all the foure Euangelists, or one part onely were then written: for alwaies, this is certaine, that he refor­meth the Corinthians by the rule contained in the Scrip­tures, which we at this day haue.

By the way you must note,M. Arnoux falsification. that M. Arnoux falsifieth the words of Saint Paul, and putteth, I haue receiued of the Lord, that which I haue said vnto you: in stead of that which I haue de­liuered vnto you: because these words [...], quod tradidi vobis, shew that Saint Paul calleth a doctrine contained in the Scriptures, a tradition.

Of the authoritie of the Church, and whether she be the Iudge of the Scriptures, and whether M. Arnoux hath reason to call the Scriptures a dumbe rule.

Section. 19 Contrary passages. Mathew 23.2. and 3. The Scribes and Pha­resies are set in Moses seate, all therefore whatsoeuer they bid you obserue, that obserue and do, but after their works do not: and Ma­thew 18.17. Tell it vnto the Church, and if he refuse to heare the Church, let him be as an heathen man or a Publican. And in Den­teronomie [Page 58] 17.8.It is the 11. verse. Thou shalt do all that, that they shall tell thee, which preside in the place which the Lord hath chosen, and which they shall teach, according to the Law, and thou shalt follow their sentence, without declining to the right hand or to the left. But he that by presumption will not obey the commandement of the Priest, which shall, for that time, be the Minister of thy God, and hath the sentence of a Iudge, that man shall die.

Now you must note by the second of Paralipomenon, chapter 14. verse 10. that iudgement and examination belongeth to the Priest, in all the foure chiefe controuersies, that is, when there was any question of the law of the tenne commandements, of morall commandements not set downe in the Law, of ceremoniall precepts for diuine worship, and of Iudiciall precepts for peace and iustice. Behold then, both the one and the other law (the iudgement of truths,) put into the hands of the Church established by God, and not left to the mercie of their opinions which would abuse a dumbe rule, casting off the yoke of the interpreters that are ordained by God.

By the passage of the three and twentith of Saint Mathew, M. Arnoux setteth the Pastors of the church of Rome in the Pharisies place, and vnderstandeth, that although they say, and do not, & that their liues are contrary to their doctrines, yet men must obey them in all things, and doe all that they command, because they haue the chaire and the ordinarie succession. I answer, that in that wherein he condemneth the actions of the Pastors of the Romish church, and compareth them to the Pharisies, I will not contradict him. But where­as he thinkes it fit for vs to beleeue the Pharisies in all things, and to do all that which they say, without any exception, he contradicteth Iesus Christ, which reproched them, that they transgressed the commandement of God by their tradition: and that they taught doctrines that are the precepts of men, Matth. 15.3.9. Therefore Iesus Christ, Math. 16.11. hauing com­manded his Disciple, to beware of the leauen of the Pharisies, Saint Mathew declareth that they vnderstood, that Christ would haue them to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisies. [Page 59] Therefore he would not haue them obeyed in all things And, is not that iudgement a manifest impietie, and a diuellish do­ctrine, which they pronounced with one accord in the ninth chapter of Saint Iohn, that whosoeuer confessed Iesus Christ, should be cast out of the Synagogue, that is, excommunica­ted? Was that a good doctrine, whereby Caiphas the high Priest, and his adherents, pronounced Iesus Christ to be a blasphemer, and worthy of death? Bellarmine himselfe ac­knowledgeth,Lib. 5. de a­miss. gratia & statu pec­cati cap. 10. that the Lord in the fift of Saint Mathew con­futed the peruerse opinions of the Pharisies, that taught, that inward or secret cogitatious were no sinne. When Iesus Christ saith, Do all that they shall say vnto you; he meaneth things conformable to the Law. And as Chrysostome in his seuentie two Homily vpon Saint Mathew (where he expoun­deth this passage) saith, [...], All those things that correct and a­mend manners. And so the Iesuite Maldonat vnderstandeth, the 23. of Saint Mathew. M. Arnoux addeth a place out of the seuenteenth of Deuteronomie, and the eleuenth verse, which confirmeth that. For there God saith, Thou shalt do all that they shall teach, according to the Law. Iesus Christ mea­neth not that they should be obeyed when they teach any thing against the Law: for the rule of the fourth of the Acts is without exception, that we must not rather obey men, then God.

The second passage alleadged by M. Arnoux, is, the eighteenth of Saint Mathew, where Iesus Christ saith, Tell it vnto the Church, and if he refuse to heare the Church, let him be vnto thee as a heathen man or a Publican. From whence it is inferred, that in matters of doubt touching faith, we must goe to the catholike Romish church, which is an infallible iudge.

I answer, that our Aduersaries alleadging this place, cor­rupt it three wayes; first, they say, that by this place, Iesus Christ establisheth the Church to be Iudge of the contro­uersies in Religion, and of points of faith. But there our Lord speaketh not of points of faith nor of doubts in reli­gion but of quarrels between two particular persons; where­of [Page 60] the one hath offended the other: Iesus Christ speaketh of the censure of maners, and not of doctrine. If (saith he) thy brother hath sinned against thee, &c. To say, that if the Church hath authority to iudge of quarrels betweene two particular persons, by greater reason she hath authority to iudge of points of faith with authority and infallible certainty; is to dispute with as good probability, as if I should say, that he that can carry a burthen that weigheth an hundred weight, by greater reason may carry a burthen of a thousand weight. Secondly they will, that by the word, Church we must vn­derstand the vniuersall Church: which is impossible; for, for to end a quarrell betweene two neighbours, we assemble not the vniuersall Church. We must go to a particular Church, which all men confesse to be subiect to errour, and namely, in that which is spoken of in this place that is, in gi­uing admonitions, and vsing of censures, wherein faults are committed, either by passion or by ignorance. In the third place they will that by the Church we must only vnderstand the Roman, which is a rash supposition, without any colour. For if two Christians haue a quarrell in Syria, or in Ethiopia: must they go to the Romane church to end their difference? And in doubts of faith, why should not the Syrian or the Greeke Churches as well be Iudges, which are much anci­enter then the Romane, and haue Saint Peters chaire, and from whom the church of Rome hath receiued Christian re­ligion? And th [...] words of Church, of Priest, of Bishop, of Deane, of Baptisme, of Eucharist, and of Christian, that are Greeke, proue that the religion came from them, from whom those termes are borrowed.

Extra. de Iu­dicijs.Pope Innocent the third speaketh better, who in the chap­ter, Nouit, attributeth vnto himselfe the knowledge of the differences betweene Philip Augustus King of France, and Iohn King of England, because it is said in the Gospell, Dic Ecclesiae, as if by the Church, we must vnderstand the Pope himselfe.Pontifex de bet dicere Ec­clesiae, id est, sibi ipsi. Which interpretation seemes good to Bellarmine, in the 2. book of the authority of Councels, cap. 19. The Pope (saith he) ought to tell it to the Church, that is, to himselfe.

[Page 61]

To these three eminent corruptions of this passage, our Aduersaries adde two apparent kindes of iniustice: The first, that this place, being one of those whereon they ground the authoritie of the Romish church: neuerthelesse, the church of Rome wil be the onely iudge of the sence of this place. In a case where she is party, and where her greatnesse and au­thoritie is to be decided, she will be absolute and infallible iudge. By this meanes she will be sure to giue sentence with her selfe, and be well assured to win her cause.

The other iniustice is much worse, for when a question is made, to know the true orthodoxall Church, that men may follow it; the Romish church taketh all meanes possible from the people, of knowing whether her Pastors teach the true doctrine, or not: for that, to examine the doctrine of her Pastors by the holy Scriptures, is a thing not permitted to the people. To learne the resolutions of doubts by reading of the Greeke and Latine Fathers, (the length and multitude whereof is infinite) is a thing which the people vnderstand not. If we must be saued by that meanes, all women, and plaine countrey and vnlearned people, are damned. In such manner, that to know whether the Church wherein we liue be a Church well grounded in the faith, there resteth no o­ther meanes for the poore people, but to beleeue their Pa­stors, who will be sure not to condemne themselues. Was there euer more horrible cruelty laid on m [...]ns consciences? Is not this a way to make the people, in a maner, desperatly to play at hazzard for their saluation, by following custome, and thrusting themselues in amongst a company of blinde fellowes, that follow and goe on, without knowing any thing.

The third passage alledged by M. Arnoux, out of the se­uente [...]nth chapter of Deuteronomy maketh for vs. For it com­mandeth to obey the Priests, that teach according to the Law. If they teach otherwise, God will not haue men to beleeue them. When Pope Iohn the three and twentieth taught, that there was neither Paradise nor Hell, as he said in the Councell of Constance: or when Pope Honorius main­tained [Page 62] the Monothelites heresie, for the which he was ex­communicated by three vniuersall Councels, M. Arnoux would not haue men to beleeue him in that.

Then he needed not to speak of the foure principall points of controuersie, whereof he saith the examination belongeth to the Priest: wherein neuerthelesse he wrongeth himselfe, to name morall commandements besides the Decalogue or ten commandements. The Doctors of the Romane church, (as well as we,) draw all the morall instructions and docu­ments of good life and conuersation, from the Law of God. Let the Reader marke by the way, the impious words of the Iesuite, when he termeth the holy Scripture to be a dumbe rule: vnder pretence that it hath neither mouth nor throate. Our aduersaries writings are farced with such iniuries against the word of God. Baile the Iesuite, whose mouth M. Riuet hath perpetually stopt, in the first treatie of his Catechisme, saith, that Without the authoritie of the Church, he would be­leeue Saint Mathew no more then Titus Liuius a Pagan Au­thor. Bellarm. li. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 4. Bellar. compareth and equaliseth the testimony which the holy Scripture yeelds of it selfe, to be diuine, to the testi­mony which the Alcoran of Mahomet giues of it selfe, to be descended from heauen. There also he saith, that the Scripture is but a peece of a rule. Doctor Charron in his third truth saith, that the Scripture is a two handed sword, and that by it men become Atheists. Thus one of them after another call the Scripture diuinely inspired, a dumbe rule, as if it were a woodden rule; which he durst not say of the Kings procla­mations, published and set on the posts, although the paper hath no voyce. And although the word of God contained in the Scriptures makes no sound in the paper, yet it hath a sound in the mouth of the Sonne of God, and of the Apo­stles, and when God published the Law in the middle of fire: which ought to haue the like force as if God at this day spake from heauen.

What? shall the commandement of God pronounced by his owne mouth, (Not to haue any other god but himselfe, and not to fall downe before or worship any image) be estee­med [Page 63] a dumbe rule, vnder pretence that it is written? Yet here­in it is cleane contrary to the images whereof Dauid spea­keth, saying, that they haue mouthes and speake not.Psalme 115. For it may be sayd of the Scriptures, that they haue no mouth, and yet they speake, seeing that they speake sufficiently, when they tell vs, how God hath spoken, and when they teach vs to speake; as Esay saith in the 28. chapter and 20. verse, If we speake not according to this word, it is because there is no light in vs. The holy Scripture speaketh sufficiently, when it tea­cheth vs, how we must speake. If it speaketh not, it is suffici­ent that it ruleth vs. Then it is great impietie to deny, that the word of God is our Iudge, vnder pretence that the pa­per hath no sound. For that is not to bereaue the paper of the qualitie of a Iudge, but God himselfe the Author of that do­ctrine.

They serue their turnes also with another reason, to be­reaue the holy Scripture of the title or office of a Iudge, by saying, that the Church is ancienter then the Scriptures. If this reason be good, Magistrates could not be Iudges of the people; for the people are ancienter then Magistrates: and the people should not be subiect to the Lawes, [...]. for they are ancienter then the Lawes. Although diuers things contai­ned in the holy Scriptures are found to be ancienter then the Church: as all that which therein is sayd of the nature of God, of his properties, of his eternall counsels, and of the work of the creatiō. For by the Scriptures, we vnderstand not the paper and the print, but the doctrines therein contained.

But notwithstanding all these considerations, the ancient Fathers made no difficultie to acknowledge the Scriptures for Iudge. Clemens Alexandrinus in the seuenth booke of Tapistries faith, In the seeking out or examination of things, wee make the Scripture our Iudge. AndQuaerendi sunt iudices. Ergo in terris de hac re nul­lumpoterit re­periri iudici­um, de coelo quaerendus est Iudex. Sed vt quid pulsa­mus coelum cum habea­mus hic in E­uangelio? te­stamentum inquam. Optat. Mileui­tan in the fift booke against Parmenian saith, We must seeke for Iudges. If they be Christians they cannot be allowed on neither side, for affections hinder the truth. We must seeke a Iudge without. If he be a Pagan, he cannot vnderstand the mysteries of Christians. If he be a Iew, he is an enemie to [Page 64] Christian baptisme. If then we cannot finde any iudgement in this cause here on earth, wee must seeke for a Iudge in heauen. But what neede we knocke at heauen gate, seeing we haue one here in the Gospell, that is, the Testament? of which Gospell Iesus Christ himselfe saith, Iohn the 12. chap­ter and 48. verse: He that refuseth me, and receiueth not my words, hath one that iudgeth him, the word that I haue spoken, it shall iudge him in the last day. The Pope and his Prelates must passe by this iudgement, and shall be iudged by the same word whereof they say themselues are Iudges and infallible interpreters. Although Pope Innocent the third in the Bull, Ad liberandum, which is at the end of the Councell of La­tran, speakes as though he should be Iudge at the latter day, and signifieth vnto all those that would not go on the voy­age into the East, nor contribute any thing towards the same, that they should answer for it vnto him at the terrible day of Iudgement. Reade Saint Augustine vpon that, in the eighteenth booke of Grace and Free will,Sedeat in­ter nos index Apostolus Iohannes &c. Iudicet cum Christo Apo­stolus, quia in Apostolo ipse loquitur Chri­stus. where he will haue the Apostle to be Iudge, and to that end alleadgeth a place out of the Apostle. And in the three & thirtieth chapter of the second booke of Marriage, and of Concupiscence; be­fore he would alledge a place out of the Apostle, he vsed this preface: Let the Apostle be Iudge with Christ, for Christ him­selfe also speaketh by the Apostle.

Whether the Priests lips do infallibly keepe knowledge.

Section. 20 The lips of the Priest keepe knowledge, and they shall seeke the law at his mouth, Malachie 2.7. The law giuen is not a law, but in the mouth of the Priest.

In the Hebrew it is, The Priests lips should keepe know­ledge; which is not a prophesie, but a commandement. By [Page 65] these words God doth not foreshew that the Priests should neuer turne from the true doctrine, but forbiddeth them to turne from it. As when God in the Law saith, Thou shalt not kill: he doth not foreshew that there shall be no more mur­ther, but forbiddeth to do it. To make Gods commande­ments prophesies, is as absurd a thing, as if we should make prophesies commandements: as if when Iesus Christ said, One of you shall betray me, the Apostles should haue taken that for a commandement to betray him. There is the like absurdity in this changing or altering of the word of God, whereby this commandement giuen to the Priests to keepe know­ledge, is taken for a prophesie that they shall alwayes keepe it; vpon it to ground the infallible knowledge of the Popes, and the Prelats of the Church of Rome. Here are already two faults, one, in the falsification of the words, the other in the corruption of the sence; and now you shall see a third, that is, a cutting away a peece of the passage,M. Arnoux falsification. which M. Arnoux cuts cleane in the middle: for the lines following shew, that the same Priests to whom Malachie speaketh, had not kept knowledge, had seduced the people, and had corrupted the couenant of God. For presently after Malachie saith, But you are departed out of the way, you haue caused many to stumble at the Law, you haue corrupted the couenant of Leui: but the Ie­suite would not adde that.

It was not enough in one place of two lines to haue com­mitted three faults, as falsification of the words corruption of the sence, and cutting off some part of the passage: but to fill vp the measure of iniquitie, he addeth blasphemie, say­ing, That the Law is not a rule, but onely in the mouth of the Priest. If that be so, to reade the holy Scriptures, is not to reade the rule of saluation: and the written commandements are not the Law of God, but begin to be a Law, when the Priest pronounceth the same, that men should take no regard vnto that which they reade, but to that which the Priest saith: who by this reckning may say vnto God: When we pronounce thy Law, we make it begin to be a Law, and thou art beholding vnto vs, that we giue authority to thy word contained in the [Page 66] holy Scriptures: to the end that no man should be so simple to beleeue that the words of the Priests and Bishops of Rome haue any force, vnlesse they be cōformable to the holy Scrip­tures: for on the contrary, if we will beleeue M. Arnoux, this Scripture and the doctrine therein contained, takes their au­thority from the Priests and Bishops of Rome: which being g [...]āted, it is to be presumed, that God in acknowledging the kindnesse that he hath receiued from them, he will easily grant them liberty to clip the Law of God, and to patch thereto some peeces of their owne. As we see in our La­dies houres, the commandements of God set downe in this manner:Printed at Paris by Heu­reux Blanui­lain in Saint Victors street at the signe of the three Moores, an. 1611. 1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not haue, nor worship any other God but me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine. 3. Remember that thou keepst holy the Sabboth, & other holy daies. They haue taken away the second commandement, and in the fourth thrust in the obseruation of holy dayes. From thence also it followeth, that as the Law giuen by God, is not a rule but onely in the Priests mouth: so, that which is in the Priests mouth, ceasseth not to be a law although it be not found in the written word of God which is the dumbe rule, and the peece of a rule. Af­te [...] that what more is to be done, but to take the Turban, or Turkish wreathe?

Of the prouidence of God, and how God conducteth the actions of the wicked, without being author of sinne, or participating with their vices.

Section. 21 Three maximes or generall rules serue for the ground of this matter. The first is, that all things are gouerned and con­ducted by the prouidence of God. As Saint Paul saith, Ephes. 1.11. That God worketh all things after the counsell of his owne will. The second is, that God is soueraignly iust, and is not the author of sinne, neither inciteth man to do euill: as it is said in the 45. Psalme, and 7. verse: Thou louest righteousnesse, and hatest wickednesse.

The third is, that man is the cause of his owne destruction, and that he sinneth by his owne will: as God saith by the Prophet, Hosea 13.9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy selfe, but in me is thine helpe. Euen as in the generation of creatures ce­lestiall causes worke with the inferiour, and if any imperfe­ction hapneth, as when a monster is ingendred, that imper­fection is neuer imputed to the celestiall, but to the inferior causes, and to the euill or bad disposition of the matter. So in voluntary actions, although God moueth and sustaineth them, neuerthelesse if any default hapneth, it ought to be im­puted to the will of man, and not to God. Whosoeuer recei­ueth not these three maximes, defendeth the reprobates cause, casteth the cause of their destruction vpon God, and will teach God to be iust, or bind him to yeeld an accompt of his actions.

But the holy Scripture oftentimes vseth diuers manner of speeches, from whence prophane men take occasion to make God author of their sinne, as if God had thrust them into it, or as if necessitie to sin, had bene imposed vpon them by the will of God, which man cannot withstand. For example the children of Iaacob by a wicked conspiracie, sold their bro­ther Ioseph to be carried into Aegypt, whereof behold what Ioseph saith, Gen. 45.7. God sent me before you, to preserue you a posteritie in the earth, and to saue your liues by a great deliuerance. [Page 70] Whereby it appeareth, that the selling of Ioseph was done by Gods prouidence. And in the first of Sam. 2.25. it is said, That the children of Ely hearkened not vnto the voyce of their father, because the Lord would slay them. And in the 25. chapter of the 1. of kings, 10. verse: A wicked spirit came before the Lord, and offered to make the Prophets lie, to whom God said, thou shalt per­swade them, and preuaile also, go forth and do so. In the second of Samuel chapter 16. Semei curseth Dauid with execrable speeches, whereupon Dauid said, So let him curse, because the Lord hath said vnto him, curse Dauid. And in the 12. chapter of the same booke, God intending to punish the murther and adulterie committed by Dauid, said, that he would raise vp euill against him in his owne house, (that is, the rebellion of his owne sonne,) and that he would take his wiues before his eyes; and after addeth, For thou didst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel. So God suffered the diuell to af­flict Iob, and the Caldeans to rob him of all his goods: and all that historie is recited to haue bene done by the proui­dence of God; and therefore Iob said, God giueth it, God taketh it, blessed be the name of the Lord. Ieremie in his Lamentations 3.37. speaketh thus of the desolation of the Iewes by the Ba­bilonians: Who is he that saith, and it cometh to passe, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most highest, pre­ceedeth not euill and good? Saint Peter in Acts 4.28, speaking of the conspiracie of the Iewes, of Herod, and of Pontius Pilate, against Iesus Christ, saith, they gathered themselues together to do those things which the hand and counsell of God had determined before to be done. Thereby shewing, that all the euils committed against Iesus Christ, were not done without the counsell of God. The Apostle Saint Paul in the first to the Romans, speaking of prophane men and infidels, saith, that God gaue them vp to their hearts lusts, to vncleannesse, to vile affections, to a reprobate minde, to do those things that are not conuenient. And God declareth, Exod. 10. and Romans 9. That he hardened Pharaos heart. Gods words to the Prophet Esay in the 6. chapter verse. 10, are fearefull, say­ing, Make the heart of this people fat, and make their eares heauie, [Page 71] and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and heare with their eares, and vnderstand with their heart, and conuert and be healed. Words, which being wrung and wrested by some pro­phane man, might giue him occasion to make God the cause of his infidelitie.

But lest that any man on the one side should abuse these pla­ces of Scripture, to brand the iustice of God, or to make him author of sinne, or ro excuse libertines and prophane persons, as if God had constrained them to do euill; and lest that on the other side we should derogate any thing from the proui­dence of God, esteeming that the wickednesse which man committeth happeneth without his prouidence, Diuines pro­duce and set down certaine doctrines and distinctions, which are reduced into the sixteene propositions herafter following.

1 The holy Scripture speaketh vnto vs of two sorts or kinds of the will of God, the one the commandement of God, the other, the decree of his prouidence. The first is the rule of his righteousnesse which is manifested vnto vs, the se­cond is the decree of his secret counsell. The first ruleth and gouerneth our thoughts, words, and works: the second dis­poseth and ordereth the euents of all things which happen and are done in the world. We are bound onely to obey the will of God, which is his Law, without enquiring or making question of his secret decrees, and the determinations of his prouidence, Deut. 29.29. The sonne that prayeth vnto God for the health and recouerie of his father that is sicke, doth a worke acceptable vnto God, and according to his comman­dements, although his prayer be conrrary to Gods decree, and his counsell, whereby he hath decreed that his father shall die of that disease. The wicked are not excusable in the execution of wickednesse or euill for hauing serued Gods se­cret decree, which the diuels also execute. For we shall not be iudged according to that whereby we haue serued God in his secret decree, but according to the measure whereby we haue obeyed Gods commandements.

2 To speake properly, the decree of God onely, which is a determination of his prouidence, is the will of God. Tou­ching [Page 72] his commandements, they are rather a rule of righte­ousnesse, and a declaration of that which God approueth, and which man is bound vnto, then a will decreed or determi­ned.

3 When we say, that the decrees of the counsell of God are hidden from vs, we must except those which God hath made manifest vnto vs by the execution and accomplishment ther­of, and those that are declared vnto vs in the word of God, although they are not yet fulfilled: as the decrees of the counsell of God, touching the destruction of Antichrist, and of the resurrection and the iudgement to come.

4 There are two kinds or sorts of euill, the one is the euil of the fault, the other the euill of punishment. The first euill pro­ceedeth from man, the second commeth from God, that pu­nisheth the sinnes of men: neuerthelesse the euill of the fault sometimes serues for the euill of punishment; when God in his wrath, withdraweth his grace and assistance from a man, because he abuseth it by ingratitude. And then that brydle and restraint being broken, men giue themselues ouer to vi­ces, which draw them into destruction. Then the euill of fault which serueth for a paine or punishment, proceedeth not from God, as it is the euill of fault, or as it is sinne, but God onely maketh it serue for a punishment.

5 God permitteth or suffereth sinne. For if God would let or hinder man from sinning, he is powerfull enough to do it. As Saint Paul Rom. 9.19 saith, Who is he that can resist his will? This permission is not a forcible, but a voluntarie permission: no man hath constrained him to suffer sinne to enter into the world. Therefore then he hath of himselfe permitted e­uill. God will haue nothing but that which is good. There­fore it was good that God permitted euill, for those reasons which he knoweth better then we do. So then that which we perceiue thereby is, that by that meanes God is much more glorified: for if there were no sinne committed in the world, we should not know Gods iustice in punishing of sinne, nor his mercy in pardoning of sinne, nor his infinite loue in the [Page 73] mysterie of the incarnation of his Sonne haue bene reuealed. Not that God hath any need of the sinnes of men to main­taine his glory, and his beatitude; but I say, that God ha­uing determined to make man perfectly happy, by this per­mission of sinne, the way to leade a man to this perfection is opened. For if man had not knowne what sinne and wicked­nesse is, he could neuer haue attained to a perfect knowledge of the goodnesse and iustice of God. The finall end for the which all things are made, is, that God might be glorified: and withall the Scripture teaching vs, that God punisheth one sinne by other sinnes. If God onely permitted this pu­nishment contrary to his will, it should not be a punishment of a Iudge, who neuer punisheth by permitting the culpable to be punished, but by commanding. Looke, touching this punishing of one sinne by another sinne, in Saint Augustine lib. 5. cap. 3. against Iulian.

6 There is none but God, that permitting euill can turne it into good: but men ought not to suffer or permit sinne, nor to do it, vpon hope that good may come thereof. The Pope that permitteth the stewes in Rome, to shun and preuent So­domiticall sinne, as they say that seeke to excuse him, doth not remedie that euill; for Sodomiticall sinne ceasseth not still to be committed there. Adde hereunto, that the actions of God, are not the rules of our life, but his commandements.

7 The permission whereby God permitteth the wicked to sinne, is not a vaine or idle permission, but such as bridleth the wicked, to the end that they should not passe the limits of the prouidence of God, or to do hurt vnto those whom God will blesse and preserue. For although the will of man be corrupted, yet God hath not lost his power, whereby he conducteth all things, and keepeth mens wils in subiecti­on, euen those that resist his knowne will, which is his com­mandement.

8 There are two faculties in the soule of man, that is, the vnderstanding and the will; the one, whereby man knoweth; the other, whereby he moueth; the one, whereby we are wise or ignorant; the other whereby we are good or [Page 74] euil: That which is in the vnderstanding, is to affirme or deny; that in the will, is to desire or shunne. God neuer puts euill desires into the will of man, nor inciteth him to do euill, but sometimes in his wrath blindeth his vnderstanding. For as a master doth well to put out his schollers candle, when he seeth that he employeth the night in leudnesse, or to reade wicked bookes: so God taketh away the light of his knowledge from those that abuse it by ingratitude. As Saint Iohn, 12.40, saith. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts, &c. Now as it may happen to that scholler being without light, to stum­ble and to hurt himselfe, vnlesse his master guide him: so af­ter God hath blinded the vnderstanding of any man, he fal­leth into vices and addicteth his mind vnto euill, vnlesse God guideth him. So we must vnderstand that which God saith in the Psal. 81.12. I gaue them vp vnto their owne hearts lusts, and they walked in their counsels. Looke Acts. 14.16. and Rom. 1.25.26. It may also be said, that God hardeneth the hearts of the wicked, in setting before them meanes proper and wholsome for saluation, as his word and his sacraments; and not giuing them grace and vertue, to serue him as they should, whereby it happeneth, that of themselues they waxe worse, God by that meanes punishing their peruersitie. This hardening of the heart, which followeth by accident of the blinding of the vnderstanding, is the reason whereby the Scripture saith that God hardeneth the heart of the wicked. And yet to shew that the ground of this hardening procee­deth from man, the Scripture doth not only say, that God har­dened Pharaos heart, but also that Pharao hardened or exas­perated his owne heart, Exod. 8.15. But there are two kinds of those whom God hardeneth, as also there are two kinds of hardening. For besides that hardening which is cōmon to all reprobates that haue abused the knowledge of God, there are some men wickeder then others, whom God deliue­red to Satan by a particular iudgement, and an extraordinary manner, as Pharao, Saul, and Iudas.

9 Euen as the Sunne is not the cause of darkenesse, (for of his owne nature he produceth nothing but light) although [Page 75] darknesse necessarily succeedeth when it is gone downe: So God is not the cause of sinne; for of his nature he is righ­teousnes it selfe, although irregularity, sinne, and disorder of affections necessarily ensue when he hath withdrawne his grace. Some say, that the Sunne withdrawing it selfe, is the cause of darknesse, not the efficient, but the defectiue cause. But these termes are harsh, and ought not to be attributed vn­to God: as also that by this distinction a thing that is no more, (as a light put out) might be called a defectiue cause. Now that which is no more, can in no manner be a cause. But the absence thereof may well be a cause of the truth of some affirmation.

10 Although the wicked worke voluntarily of them­selues, and without God being any cause of their sinne, yet the euents that happen thereby, are directed by his proui­dence. For, as the water of a spring, by nature is inclined to runne downeward, but by mans industrie is drained, and by channels made to runne where & which way he will: so the wicked are of themselues inclined to euill, and God moueth them not to do euill, but directeth their wicked wils to exe­cute one thing rather then another, by his secrct iudgement to punish those whom he will, and to exercise and trie his children. The Wise man in the 21. of the Prouerbs vseth this similitude, saying: The Kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the riuers of waters, he turneth it whither soeuer he will.

11 God slacketh or looseth the bridle to Sathan and to the wicked, to execute their wicked intents, which pro­ceed from themselues, and not from God: neuerthelesse, all whatsoeuer they shall do, shall serue to effect the counsels of God. And as Saint Peter saith, They shall do those things which the hand and the counsell of God had determined before, Acts 5.

Euen as horsleaches applied to a mans body, intend no­thing but to fill themselues with blood; but the Phisitians end who applieth them, is to heale his patient: So the wic­ked, by whom God serueth his turne to chasten his children, haue no other end, but to satisfie their inordinate lusts and desires. But God making them his instruments, hath a re­gard [Page 76] to the saluation and instruction of his children. See E­say 10.6.7. Howsoeuer God vseth the seruice of the wicked, in such manner that he constraineth not their wils, and ta­keth not from them their free choice, which in the wicked is most free to do euill.

12 As God is necessarily good, and yet most free and without constraint; so the diuell and those whom he gouer­neth absolutely, are necessarily euill, and yet do euill with­out constraint, and with free libertie. Necessitie is not op­posite to libertie, but constraint. Necessitie is so much the stronger, when it is voluntarie. If man were driuen to do e­uill by a compulsiue necessity and not voluntary, God should be vniust to punish him.

13 We must carefully distinguish the action from the de­prauation or imperfection which is in the action. It is one thing to go, and another thing to halt as we go. The soule which moueth a lame man maketh him go, but maketh him not halt. That which is naturall (as going) comes from the soule. That which is vicious, is accidentall, and proceedeth from some other thing. So the action whereby a man sin­neth, is one thing, and the defect and deprauation in the a­ction, another thing. There is great difference betweene the naturall mouing of the murtherer to kill, and the vice or re­pugnance to the Law of God, which is in the action. That which is naturall in this action, proceedeth from God; For by him we haue life, mouing, and all things, &c. Acts 17.25. And wee cannot stirre nor moue without his aide. That which therein is vicious comes from man and not from God.

14 We must carefully distinguish these three things, the will to sinne, the execution of this will, and the euents which follow this execution. For example, in the selling of Ioseph, the treason and the crueltie was in the hearts of his brethren, and came from them, and not from God. The execution thereof, which is the selling of Ioseph, was also done by them, but directed by the prouidence of God. The euents that fol­lowed, as the exaltation of Ioseph, and the preseruation of the people of Israel, are purely and simply effects of the pro­uidence [Page 77] of God. Wherein there is nothing so easie as to ca­lumniate, by interpreting that which some of vs shall haue said of the execution, or of the euents after the execution: as if his meaning were to speake of the will to sinne.

15 As in naturall workes or actions, God sustaineth and moueth all creatures not onely by a generall vertue, but al­so by his particular assistance: So we must say, that to moue mens wils to good, and to direct the wils of the wicked to the end and intent that God hath purposed, God ruleth and assisteth, not onely by his generall aide, but also by his particular prouidence: seeing it appeareth that the effects which follow, as the death of Iesus Christ happened by the wickednesse of the Iewes, and the preseruation of the peo­ple of God by the selling of Ioseph, are things manifestly guided by the speciall prouidence of God.

16 When God looseth the bridle to Satan, to tempt man, well may the diuell solicite him, or present obiects vnto him to tempt him, or by some alteration of the humors of the bo­dy, moue his fantasie, but he hath no power ouer the will of man, to constraine him to sinne: otherwise, God should be vniust to punish man, and all the fault should be in the di­uell.

17 Saint Augustine vseth hard termes in this matter, which neuerthelesse, by the distinctions aforesaid, may be mitiga­ted. In the twentieth chapter of Grace and Freewill, spea­king of Semei cursing Dauid, vpon that which God had said to Semei, curse Dauid: Non enim iubendo dixit vti obedientia laudaretur, sed quod eius voluntatem proprio vitio malam, in hoc peccatum iu­sto suo iudi­cio & occulto inclinauit. God (saith he) did not command him to do it, that his obedience might be praised, but because God, by his iust iudgement, did incline his will to that sinne, which was euill by his owne fault.Operatur Deus in cordi­bus hominum ad inclinan­das eorum vo­luntates quo­cun{que} volue­rit, siue ad bona pro sua misericordia, siue ad mala pro meritis eorum. And chapter 21. God worketh in the hearts of men, to incline their wills which way he will, either to good by his mercie, or to euill accor­ding to their merits.

And in the fifth booke against Iulian, the third chap­ter, The peruersitie of the heart cometh not without the se­cret iudgement of God, which maketh men not to hearken to the truth, and by that means they fall into sin: and so, that [Page 78] sinne is the punishment of precedent sinne. And a little after, Then God giueth them ouer to villanous desires, to do things that are not conuenient: but he giueth them iustly ouer, and so those sinnes become punishments for sinnes past, and me­rites for future sinnes.

Thomas Aquinas followed him, in his commentarie vpon the ninth to the Romans, the third Lecture, where after he hath said, that God suffereth some to fall into sinne, for pu­nishment of precedent iniquities, he addeth: I am of opinion, that in this place there is more to be vnderstood: that is, that by a certain interior instinct men are moued by God to good or euill. Therefore also Saint Augustine in his booke of Grace and Freewill saith, that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wils which way it pleaseth him, whether it be to good, according to his mercie, or to euill, according to their merites.

Bellarmine is intollerable in the fifteenth chapter of the se­cond booke, of Falling from grace, and the state of sinne. The second meane (saith he) is, that wee vnderstand that God moueth and prouoketh some men to euill, or that he com­mandeth them to do euill, and that he vseth them as instru­ments, because he suffereth them to do euill. And in the 14, chapter, By the iudgement of the most mighty God, by pre­cedent sinnes, man is in such sort destitute of diuine aide, that it is impossible for him morally not to fall. After he ex­poundeth from whence this necessitie of falling cometh; that is (saith he) because God doth not call him, nor moue him so, as he seeth it fit and requisite for him, that he may follow Gods calling him, that is, vouchsafeth him not congruent grace for him in this estate.

Whether man by his free-will, can chuse goodnesse.

Section. 26 Contrary passages. Deut. 30.19. I call heauen and earth to record this day against you, that I haue set before you life and [Page 86] death, blessing and cursing: therefore chuse life that thou and thy seede may liue. Note this word chuse: can a man chuse without libertie, or by constraint?

By this place the Iesuite disputeth not against vs, but a­gainst those that say, that we do good by constraint. There­fore those that beleeue that, must answer him: and not we, who therein agree with the Church of Rome.

Our aduersaries haue vsed to produce this place, to proue that it is in our power to chuse good, and to leaue euill: see­ing that God saith chuse, for (say they) God commandeth no impossible things. But they contradict themselues: for M. Arnoux said before, that man can do no good thing, without the grace of God. Now this grace of God is not in our po­wer: we beare not the keyes of this treasure. God giueth not his graces to euery one, but to whom he will. Neuerthelesse, this commandement is giuen vnto all men, to chuse good, & to shun euill, and that to those that are not regenerated by the grace of the Spirit of God, euen to Pagans and infidels. Be­hold then, by the confession of our aduersaries, men that can­not obey this commandement which is giuen vnto them, be­cause they haue not the grace of God, without the which we can do no good, that tendeth to saluation.

That which maketh our aduersaries to combat one ano­ther, and not to vnderstand themselues, is a false presupposi­tion, which they make, that man by his free will can do all that which God commandeth: which is a maxime that we must banish out of Diuinitie; for God in the Gospell com­mandeth vs to haue faith in Iesus Christ; and neuerthelesse Saint Paul, Ephes. 2.8. saith, This faith cometh not from our selues, but it is a gift of God. God by his Prophet, Ezekiel 18.31. commandeth vs to make vs new hearts: but he himselfe by the same Prophet, 36.2 [...]. declareth, that it is he that giueth a new heart, and a new spirit, that taketh away the heart of stone, and giueth a heart of flesh.

God in his Law speaketh to all men, for the Law is our [Page 87] naturall debt: and yet it is a thing granted by all men, that without being instructed in the word of God, it is impossi­ble to accomplish it; & there are an infinite number of peo­ple, to whom the word of God is not preached, who neuer­thelesse are bound to accomplish the Law.

This proofe is demonstratiue, that if by our free will we cannot dispose of the grace without the which we cannot obey God, nor do that good which serueth to saluation, that also by this free will we cannot obey God, nor do that good which serueth to saluation. Then let M. Arnoux learne, that the Law of God is not a proofe of our ability, but of our duty; and that he which asketh a man that which he oweth him, is not vniust, although the debtor be become vnable by his owne fault. And if the debtor be become poore by his owne prodigalitie, yet thereby he is not lesse bound to pay: and the creditor that will be payd, considers him not as rich or poore, but as a debtor. So it is in this case, for God had crea­ted man righteous, and by his free will able to chuse good or euill: by his owne fall he hath lost this righteousnesse,Aug. Euchir. ad Laurentiū cap. 3. Libero arbitrio hom [...] male vtens, se perdidit, & ipsum, nam cū libero peccare­tur arbitrio, victore pecca­to, amissum est liberum arbi­trium. and by bad vsing of his free will, lost both it and himselfe. So that if by his owne fault, he is become vnable to fulfill the Law of God, is God vniust to aske him that which he oweth? seeing that God cōmanding him to keepe the Law, speaketh not to him as to a righteous man, nor as to a sinner, but simply as to a naturall man, bound to this obedience.

In which rigour the mercy of God is admirable: for in ex­acting from a corrupt man, a perfect righteousnesse, which he cannot accomplish, he maketh him afraid, and by this feare driues him to Iesus Christ: who hath payd this debt for all those that beleeue in him. God asking vs that which we can­not do teacheth vs what we should aske him and that which Christ Iesus hath done for vs. Quod Lex impetrat, Aug. Ep. 89. fides impe­trat. That which the Law commandeth, faith obtaineth of the goodnesse of God by prayer.

Section. 27 To Philemon verse 14. I would do nothing without thy mind, [Page 88] that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessitie, but as willingly. Note this last as, to be added for the pleasure of the Ministers. In the originall you haue simply and without restraint, willingly: but that importeth not much, seeing that this word restraineth not, but expresseth the manner that Saint Paul requireth to be obserued in the good action of his disciple, which is freedome and liberty.

We hold with M. Arnoux, that the good which Saint Paul required of Philemon, ought simply to be voluntary, and with­out constraint. The word as, added in our translation, is not cō­trary to that, but we were forced to adde the same, to shun an harshnesse of phrase, which the French tongue cānot beare: as for example, if the Apostle had said in Greek, that Iesus Christ suffered not as God, but man, he translateth truly that saith, Iesus suffered not as God, but as man. If I should say, that a French man ought to be apparelled, not as the Spaniards, but the F [...]ench men, I should speake against our māner of speech, and must necessarily adde thereunto, as, and say, as the French men. And the efore whereas Paul, according to the Greeke saith, to the end that thy good should not be as by constraint, but voluntary, it was necessary in French to translate, but as voluntary. M. Arnoux himselfe iustifieth vs, saying, that it importeth not much.

Section. 28 I could quote an hundred and an hundred places wherewith the Scripture floweth, to iustifie this truth; without which, hell, Para­dise, the preaching of the word, the exhortations, threatnings, and all that which we beleeue of the efficacie of the grace, whereby God disposeth of vs with awfull obseruance, and maketh vs worke effectually, but yet mildly drawing vs without violence, were in vaine.

All that is good against those that hold that we do no good but by constraint, but not against vs, which onely say, that God vseth the preaching of the Gospell, and exhorta­tions [Page 89] and threatnings, with efficacie to touch our hearts, that voluntarily and without constraint they might be moued to serue him.

That the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed vnto vs.

To know the truth of our beleefe, we need but take the contrary to that which M. Arnoux attributeth vnto vs: for he is sworne neuer to report the truth of our beleefe.

Then to set downe the truth of our doctrine, and the point of the difference: we say, that by the obedience which Iesus Christ yeelded to his Father, we are made righteous, and that the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ is ours, because it is impu­ted and allowed vnto those that beleeue in Iesus Christ. On the contrary, the Church of Rome saith, that man is iustified by his owne workes. Bellarmine in the first booke of Iustifi­cation, cap. 2. saith, that the forme of iustification is charitie. And in truth this word, iustification, among our aduersaries, is taken for regeneration or sanctification, and for the studie of good workes. And therefore the Councell of Trent in the sixt Session, setteth downe diuers increasings and degrees of Iustification.

In this matter we agree with our aduersaries in two things: [Page 104] The first, that good workes are necessarie to saluation, and that God acknowledgeth not those men to be iust, that con­tinue and take a pleasure in doing euill. The second is, that the question is not, touching that iustice whereby we are iustified before men, but of that whereby God acknowledg­eth vs to be iust, and by the vertue whereof we may stand be­fore him at the day of Iudgement.

The word of God teacheth vs, that this righteousnesse which iustifieth vs before God, is the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ, whereby he hath satisfied for vs, yeelding himselfe culpable, to the end that we might be absolued; lading him­selfe with our sinnes, to the end that his righteousnesse and obedience might be imputed, allowed, and reckoned vnto vs.

The Apostle Saint Paul, 2. Cor. 5.21. saith, God hath made him to be sinne for vs, which knew no sinne; that we should be made the righteousnesse of God through him. And, Romans 5.19. By the obedience of one man, many are made righteous: and in the 18. verse, he teacheth, that the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ iustifieth vs, saying, that The iustifying of one doth iustifie vs. If by iustifying, we must here vnderstand sanctifying, or re­generating, the Apostle would haue attributed this iustifi­cation to the Spirit of God, and not to the obedience of Ie­sus Christ, which iustifieth vs, because that by it we are ab­solued, and acknowledged to be righteous before God, as if we our selues had accomplished this righteousnesse. For see­ing that our Aduersaries confesse, that our sinnes haue beene imputed to Iesus Christ, why do they finde it strange, that the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ should be imputed vnto vs, seeing our sinnes were imputed vnto Iesus Christ, to no o­ther end, but that his righteousnesse should be imput [...]d vnto vs?Bellarm. de amiss. gratiae & statu, pec­cati li. 5. ca. 17 peccatum A­dami nobis cō­municatur per generati­onem, eo modo quo communi­cari potest id quod transi [...] ­nimirum per imputationē, omnibus enim imputatur qui in Adamo nascuntur. So they acknowledge, that the sinne of the first Adam is imputed to vs, and yet find fault that the righteousnes of the second Adam should be imputed vnto vs: seeing that the se­cond Adam which is Iesus Christ, came to no other end, but to remedie the euill that entred by the first Adam, bringing thereunto a contrarie remedy.

Much more the Church of Rome, by the doctrine of su­perabundant [Page 105] satisfactions, gathered in the treasure of the Church whereof the Pope hath the keyes, will haue the fa­stings, stripes and paines of the Saints, to be imputed and reckoned vnto those that buy or get pardons; and in the meane time they chafe and vexe themselues when we say, that the obedience and the passion of Iesus Christ are impu­ted vnto vs.

The same Apostle, Romans 4.6. saith, that God imputeth righteousnesse without workes: speaking of Abraham alreadie regenerated, to whom (he saith) that faith was imputed for righteousnesse. Then Abraham was iustified, not by the workes of regeneration, but by another righteousnes which is imputed vnto him Now, what this righteousnesse is, hee himselfe declares afterward in the eighteenth and nineteenth verses of the chapter following, where he speaketh of one one­lie iustifying, and saith, that By the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous. Where he speaketh of the obedience of Ie­sus Christ.

The same Apostle in Rom. 4.5. saith, that Faith is counted for righteousnesse. Whereupon I aske, which of these two, (to speake properly) is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse, whether faith in Iesus Christ, inasmuch as it is inherent in vs, or the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ apprehended by faith. It is certaine, that faith, forasmuch as it is a vertue inherent in vs, cannot be imputed vnto vs: for our vertues and our a­ctions are not imputed vnto vs, but another mans, when they are allowed and reckoned vnto vs, as if we had done them. As also, that to beleeue, (of its owne nature) is not a righteousnesse: much lesse to beleeue according to the faith of the Romish church; which is, but to beleeue that all that which God hath said, is true; which is a beleefe that the diuels haue, and more certainly then men. It resteth then, that faith is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse, because it ap­prehendeth and layeth hold vpon the righteousnesse and the benefit of Iesus Christ, by the which we are iustified, that is, absolued and quit before the iudgement seate of God. And so faith iustifieth, in the same manner, that the mouth feedeth [Page 106] man, because it taketh and receiueth in the meate, but to speake properly, it is the meate which nourisheth.

For these causes the Prophet Ieremy, in the twenty three chapter and verse the sixt, calleth our Sauiour, The Lord our righteousnesse. And the Apostle to the Philippians, chapter 3. verse 9. will be found in him (that is Iesus Christ) not ha­uing (saith he) mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Iesus Christ.

For also, when we shall appeare before the iudgement seate of God, by the vertue of our righteousnesse to obtaine eternall life, what shall we present vnto God? Shall we pre­sent our owne righteousnesse,Esay 64.6. which is like a menstruous cloth? our imperfect perfections, and our merits, which are no merits? Certainly God receiueth no payment if it be not perfect. God forbid that hee should weigh our good works in the exact ballance of his iustice. Then we must pre­sent vnto him a perfect righteousnesse, which is able to hold the examination of the iustice of God. Such is the most com­plete righteousnesse which Iesus Christ hath accomplished for vs, and the payment which he hath made, that it might be allowed vnto vs.

[...]So Iustin Martyr said, aboue fourteen hundred years past, in an Epistle to Diognetus, What other thing could couer our sinnes but the righteousnesse of Christ? In whom can we that are impious and wicked be iustified, but in the onely Sonne of God? O sweet exchange! O incomparable art! O benefites surmounting all expectatiō, that the iniquity of ma­ny should be hidden in one righteous man, & that the righ­teousnes of one, should make many to be reputed righteous!

In this the truth is so strong, that Bellarmine, after hee had tried all wayes, at the last yeelded vnto vs; for behold his words in the 7. chapter and 2. booke of Iustification: If the heretikes would onely haue, that the merites of Iesus Christ should be imputed vnto vs, because they are giuen vnto vs, and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins, because Christ hath taken on him the burthen to satisfie for vs, and to reconcile vs to God his father, their opinion should be true and right. We say no [Page 107] other thing, and this simply is our beleefe. And in the tenth chapter, after he hath said that Christ is our righteousnesse, because he hath satisfied for vs, he addeth; In this manner it should not be an absurditie, if any man should say, that the righ­teousnesse and the merites of Christ are imputed vnto vs, because they are giuen and applyed vnto vs, as if we our selues had satisfied vnto God. Then let vs hold there; for we say nothing more. By this meanes God shall not be deceiued, as M. Arnoux saith; and our righteousnesse shall be much more assured then if it were grounded vpon our owne workes: and yet God will not leaue to regenerate and sanctifie vs inwardly, and frame vs to good workes. As God was not deceiued when he imputed our sinnes to Iesus Christ, so he is not deceiued when he imputeth the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ vnto vs. There is neither iniustice nor ignorance committed, to deli­uer a prisoner that lieth in prison for debt, when another man hath payd it for him. For, as the sinne of Adam was imputed to his posteritie, because he represented all humane kinde, as the beginning of them; so the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ is imputed to all the faithfull, because that by accomplishing all righteousnesse, he represented all the Church, as the be­ginning thereof. And the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ is imputed vnto the faithfull by greater reason then the sinne of Adam is imputed vnto other men, because Adam did not vndertake for others to obey God:Galat. 3.13. and cap. 4.4.5 but Iesus Christ volun­tarily subiected himselfe to the Law, to deliuer vs from the curse of the Law.

Section. 34 Places quoted in the margent of the Confession: 1. Pet. 2.24. Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his body on the tree, that wee being dead to sinne, should liue in righteousnesse: by whose stripes ye were healed; and in the verses following. For ye were as sheepe go­ing astray; but are now returned vnto the Shepheard and Bishop of your soules.

These places are so farre from confirming that for the which they are alledged, that they rather ouerthrow it: Seeing the A­postle [Page 108] saith, That we are by Iesus Christs meanes, dead to sinne, healed of sin, conuerted from sinne. Could he clearlier say, that sin liueth no more in vs, that the mortall disease thereof is no more in vs, and that we no more go astray? And can a man from thence con­clude the contrary, that we are holden and reputed to be righteous, although in effect we are not?

This place of Saint Peter is not imployed in our Confessi­on, to that sence, or to that end which this Doctor imagi­neth. Our Confession saith, that by the onely Sacrifice which Iesus Christ offered vpon the crosse, we are reconci­led to God. For proofe thereof, the first Epistle and second chapter and twenty fourth verse of Saint Peter, is quoted in the margent; Christ bare our sinnes in his body, on the tree: that we being dead to sinne, should liue in righteousnesse, by whose stripes ye were healed. Can there be a stronger, or a more ex­presse place alledged, to proue, that Iesus Christ by his death vpon the crosse hath reconciled vs vnto God? for that is the bearing of our sinnes in his body, and to heale vs. But it pleaseth M. Arnoux to make this place to serue to another end, contrary to our meaning.

And yet this place proues not, that we are already wholly dead to sinne, nor that we are exempted from sinne. S. Peter speaketh of the benefits which the death of Iesus Christ brin­geth vnto vs; but of these benefits there are some, where­unto we cannot attaine but by degrees, & wherof the perfect accomplishment shal not be performed but in the kingdome of heauen. But M. Arnoux will perswade vs, that he is ab­solutely righteous, and that sinne liueth no more in him. And yet neuerthelesse, he goes to the Iubilie to get pardons; and when he is confessed, he receiueth absolution. When he saith his Pater noster, he saith, Forgiue vs our trespasses; he belee­ueth to go to Purgatorie, and makes profession to doubt of his saluation. And if with the rest of the Iesuites, he appro­ueth and alloweth of Equiuocations in matter or trials of Iu­stice; of the rebellions of subiects against their King, and [Page 109] of the secret of Confession, by the which a Priest shall haue knowledge of an ent [...]rprise against the life of a King: I can not see how that agreeth with a perfect righteousnesse.

Section. 35 Contrary places. Rom. 5.5. The loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost, which is giuen vnto vs. Weigh these words (Shed abroad in our hearts.) Then it is not imputed without other effect.

To whom speakes he? The Apostle saith, and we also with him, that the loue wherewith God loueth vs, is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost. What is that to the purpose touching the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ, and of his impu­tation? And againe, did we euer say, that this imputation is without any other effect?

Section. 36 Eph. 4.23.24. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which after God is created vnto righteousnesse and true holinesse.

It is an errour to beleeue, that by the new man he vnderstandeth Iesus Christ, seeing that Iesus Christ was neuer the old man, and that Saint Paul alwayes attributeth to one and the same subiect, to be the old man, or the man of sinne, and the new man, or renewed by the grace of Iesus Christ; as old, he is a member of the first Adam, as new, of the second: he descendeth from the first by na­turall generation, which transferreth sinne vnto him; and descen­deth from the second, by the second birth, which maketh him a child of God by the fountaine of grace.

This in no sort toucheth or concerneth the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. I thinke M. Arnoux thought vpon some other thing, or that some other body hath thrust this allegation into his booke without his knowledge. What [Page 110] makes this to our question, whether Iesus Christ is called or not called the new man?

Section. 37 Adde, Romans 5.19. For as by one mans disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One, many also shall be made righteous.

And then as it is true, that we are sinners by Adam, and not onely reputed so; euen so are we righteous by Iesus Christ, and not onely accounted so.

All that is true: for by Iesus Christ the children of God are truly made righteous in two sorts: first, because they are tru­ly absolued and iustified before the iudgement seate of God. Secondly, because the Spirit of Iesus Christ working in them, truly regenerateth them. But this regeneration is done by de­grees, it beginneth here on earth, and is perfected in heauen.

Section. 38 The same article lower. We professe that Iesus Christ is our en­tire and perfect cleansing or washing, and that in his death we haue entire satisfaction, to discharge vs of our offences and iniquities whereof we are culpable.

These faire words are set downe to abolish all sit or proper satis­faction, to draw the spirit of penitencie out of a mans heart, to quench the desire to endure or suffer any thing for the loue of God whom we haue offended, to drowne the soule in the bog of negli­gence and carelesnesse of good workes: and to be short, to assure the wickedest man that is, of the righteousnesse of the Sonne of God, and of escaping the rigour of his Father in his person, without binding the sinner to punish his sinnes in himselfe with a good will.

Of humane Satisfaction.

Our Confession saith that Iesus Christ is the only purgation [Page 111] of our sinnes, and that his death is a full and a perfect satis­faction for the same: which we ground vpon the word of God, which saith, Apocalips 1.5. That Iesus Christ hath washed vs from our sinnes in his owne bloud. 1. Ioh. 1.7. The bloud of Iesus Christ cleanseth vs from all sinne: Colos. 2.13. By him God freely forgiueth all our trespasses. Acts 4.12. There is no other name vnder heauen whereby we must be saued. Colos. 1.19.20. For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulnesse dwell, and hauing made peace through the bloud of the crosse by him to recon­cile all things vnto himselfe, both which are in earth, and which are in heauen. 1. Iohn 2.2. He is the reconciliation for our sinnes, and not for ours onely, but also for the sinnes of the whole world. Heb. 10.14. For by one offering he hath perfected for euer them that are sanctified. Heb. 7.25. He is able also perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him. Rom. 3.24. We are iustified free­ly by his grace through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ. And to conclude, it is the whole scope of the Gospell.

This so holy, so euident and so true a doctrine, full of con­solation, displeaseth M. Arnoux: he saith it abolisheth our satisfactions, quencheth the spirit of penitence, and drow­neth our soules in the gulph of presumption.

Touching mens satisfactions, we say briefly, that if the word Satisfaction were taken in that sence which the anci­ent Fathers tooke it, that is, for humiliation and acknowledg­ment of our faults, there should be no disputation betweene vs. But at this day, satisfaction signifieth a payment of debts, and a recompence which man maketh to God to satisfie his iustice. The Catechisme of the Councell of Trent, saith, that satisfaction is an entire payment of that thing which is due,Cap. de Sacra­mento poeni­tentiae. Satis­factio est rei debitae inte­grasolutio: est compensatio cum homo pro peccatis com­missis Deo ali­quid persoluit. and a recompence which man maketh vnto God for his sins: as when a man punisheth himselfe (as M. Arnoux saith) by fasting, whipping, pilgrimages, and giuing something to the Church, and when God torments him in purgatory. Car­dinall Bellarmines words are remarkable vpon this point, in the first booke of Indulgences, cap. 4. If a righteous man (saith he) by his works may by equiualence merit life euer­lasting, why can he not satisfie for temporall paine, which is [Page 112] a lesse thing? And in the second chapter of the same booke he saith, The remission of the paine is due to the satisfying work, by commutatiue iustice: which is a iustice that payeth so much for so much, or a bartering iustice, in such manner that God ought to be content therewith. By this reckning, God should do contrarie to iustice, if he should not accept for good payment, the satisfying paines wherewith a sinner punisheth himselfe. And in the 10. chap. of the first booke of Purgatorie; It seemeth (saith he) more probable, that in effect there is but one satisfaction, which is ours. Touching that of Iesus Christ, he will haue it to serue onely to make ours auaile­able. Nay the pride of the Romane Church is so great, that in it they hold that a man can make more satisfaction vnto God then he ought to do, so that there is something remaining to be allowed to the sinner ouer and aboue: that is it which they call superabundant satisfaction, which is the monasticall life.

1 As for vs, seeing that in Iesus Christ we haue a full sa­tisfaction for all our sinnes, we are content therewith, and take not vpon vs by our owne sufferings to pay a debt which Iesus Christ hath wholly satisfied.

2 Also we do not beleeue that Iesus Christ died to make our sufferings of any worth before God, but to free and ex­empt vs from suffering. For the benefite of Iesus Christs suffe­ring consisteth not herein, to make vs pay, but to pay and sa­tisfie for vs vnto God. Saint Paul in the 1. to Tim. 2.6. saith, that Iesus Christ gaue himselfe for a ransome for vs. But he saith not, that he gaue vs the vertue to pay our owne ransome. And the Apostle, Hebr. 1.3. saith, that The Sonne of God hath by himselfe purged our sinnes. Then not by our satisfactions.

3 That if it be an honour which God doth vnto vs, by our sufferings to make our owne satisfaction, (as the Papists al­ledge) & that if our satisfying paines and punishments are rec­koned among the graces of God, the diuels and the dam­ned shall haue more part in those graces then we; seeing God doth them that honour, to make them to pay by continuall torments, and draweth full satisfaction from them.

4 God forbid that we should beleeue, that God takes [Page 113] payment twise for one debt, when the first payment is suffi­cient. Will God that is soueraignly iust, (after he hath par­doned all our offences,) punish those sinnes that he hath par­doned, with satisfying paines?

5 And seeing that the Church of Rome beleeueth, that by the death of Iesus Christ all our guiltinesse is taken away, will God punish men without fault in a burning fire? The cause (which onely produceth an effect) being taken away, by necessitie the effect ceasseth. Now the fault is the cause which onely produceth the satisfying punishment. Therefore the fault being taken away, necessarily satisfying punish­ment is taken away:Exempto rea­tu remittitur & poena. as Tertullian saith in his booke of Bap­tisme cap. 5. The fault being taken away, the paine also is ta­ken away.

6 Besides, God is no mocker: but he should manifestly mocke vs, if he should say, I will forgiue thee, but yet I will punish thee. I forgiue thee thy debt, but thou shalt pay me. For our sinnes are debts, the payment whereof is the punish­ment.

7 It is not credible, that God would haue vs to be more mercifull then himselfe. But he will haue vs wholly to forgiue him that hath offended vs: he permitteth not vs to take any vengeance or reuenge, after we haue forgiuen him. For what is forgiuenesse but not to punish? Then if God forgiueth the sin, & not the punishment of the sin, the way is made open to fraudulent reconciliations: & he that shall haue pardoned an iniury will in his heart receiue a punishment for the same. For he wil say: Will you haue me to be more mercifull then God? herein I haue followed his example. We are too much in­clined to vice, without seeking to proue that God incites vs thereunto by his example.

8 I would haue them to shew me, how and in what man­ner Iesus Christ bore our offences.Suscipiendo poenam, & nō suscipiendo culpam, & cul­pam deleuit & poenam. Was it not by suffering the punishment due to them? And if he endured the punishment, was it not to exempt vs from it? This is it which S. Augustine saith in his 27. Sermon of the words of the Lord. Christ taking vpon him the punishment and not the fault, hath abolished [Page 114] both the fault and the punishment.

9 It also appeareth, how foolish this doctrine is, that the fault should be remitted and not the punishment, by this, that there is no criminall person but would be very well content that the king should not pardon his offence, so that he would wholly remit the paine and punishment thereof, and not suffer him to endure any punishment at all.

10 I [...] by our owne suffering we must satisfie and appease the wrath of god, when shall we haue satisfyed for the least part of our sinnes? seeing that by the iudgement of the Sonne of God Mat. 5.12, to call our brother foole is a fault punish­able with hell fier: & that S. Paul 1. Cor. 6, saith, that euill spea­kers shall not inherite the kingdome of God. And yet these are sinnes from which the most righteous men can hardly cleare themselues.

11 Adde hereunto, that by this doctrine the afflictions of the faithfull are bitter, and their finger is dipt in gall. For the faithfull which beleeueth that God punisheth him for his good, and that it is a great punishment not to be chastised, is easily comforted in his afflictions, which he receiueth as spi­ritual remedies. The maladies of the body, are vnto him me­dicines of the soule. Pouertie to him is a diet, and a discipline of abstinence. Banishment an abandoning of the world, & an admonition that he is a stranger vpon earth. And if they be afflictions for the Gospel, he glorieth therein, as in honorable wounds and badges of our warfare, and conformitie to the crosse of Christ. But where shall the faithfull finde comfort and consolation in their euils, if they must beleeue that God punisheth them to satisfy his iustice? and that their sufferings are satisfactions vnto him? Therein they haue no other con­solation then Pagans haue, which is, to giue place to necessi­tie, and to arme our selues with hardnesse against blowes, with a kind of patience without comfort.

12 Then when these satisfactions shall be well weighed, they will be found very light: and it will appeare, that the Pa­pists would pay the iustice of God with base money; whose satisfactions are, to abstaine from flesh certaine dayes, to [Page 115] go on pilgrimage, and so to leade an idle life; to gird their bodies with cords, to enter into the Order of any Friers, to whip themselues openly, as the penitents in Rome vse to do in the weeke before Easter, some for their owne sinnes, others being hired, whipping themselues for other mens sins: some also for loue, and to satisfie God for the sinnes of their mistresses. Thus you see wherewith they would haue God sa­tisfied and contented for their sinnes, for they esteeme it to be an easie composition. To ioyne these things with the infi­nite satisfactions of the Sonne of God, is as if one should few beggers rags to a kings robe.

13 Certainly these people with their penall workes, whipping, and voluntarie torments, seeme to men to speake vnto God, and say, I will satisfie thee. Thou wilt wholly re­mit my sinne, but I will not be so much beholden vnto thee. Then it is great reason that they should pay to the full: and if hereupon by a Capuchins penitence, or by a proud humilitie they cut and mangle their flesh, I trow they haue well deser­ued it. And seeing that to satisfie God they are obstinately bent to be burnt after this life in so long and burning a fier, it is reason that they should soake in fire, and that sentence which they alledge of Christ should be practised vpon them­selues, Mat. 5.26. Ʋerily I say vnto thee, thou shalt not come out thence, till thou hast payd the vtmost farthing.

14 But at the day of iudgement, when they must yeeld an account of their actions, and that their sinnes shall be laid o­pen before them what shall be their excuse? They will say, Lord it is true, I haue committed such and such sinnes, but I haue satisfied for them; for I whipt my selfe, I abstained from eating of flesh for so many dayes, I went on pilgrimage, I was one of the order of Gray friers. But here I am afraid, that things being put into the ballance of Gods Iustice, they will be found too light by many graines, & that the same which they giue for satisfaction, would rather be found to be a sinne; seeing they are things which God neuer required at their hands. I am afraid, that these satisfiers will be found culpa­ble, not onely for seeking to pay God with false money, but [Page 116] also finding out another satisfaction, then that of the Sonne in whom the Father is well pleased,Math. 17.5. 1. Ioh. 1.7. and whose bloud clean­seth vs from all our sinnes.

15 But among the satisfying paines, there is one kind that to me seemes to be full of impietie. The Church of Rome placeth prayers and almes among penall works and satisfying paines. What a religion is this, that placeth good workes a­mong sufferings for sinnes? which on the contrarie [...] if they should be prohibited to a man fearing God, it would be an vnsufferable punishment vnto him And by this meanes they will haue men to serue God by punishment. By this meanes good workes are made odious, and the exercise of pietie be­comes a punishment. Neuerthelesse they haue some reason to put prayers (such as they make) among penances; for, to be condemned to repeate one prayer fiftie times one after the other, in an vnknowne language, and euery day to say his seuen Psalmes of mercy, without vnderstanding them, byting their fingers because of the tediousnesse thereof, me thinkes it is a great punishment.

16 Superstitious ignorance hauing fowne the seeds of this abuse, the auarice & ambition of Priests hath nourished them: for there is nothing but they will do it for gaine. Who being very sensible in the belly, are much moued when men touch theit profits, and seeke to shorten their commons. For these sa­tisfactions are very fruitfull vnto them, seeing that Purgatory is so beneficiall vnto them, & that by the satisfactions which Priests impose vpon men, they take authority to inflict corpo­rall punishments vpon sinners, which by the order of the Ro­mane Church may be changed into pecuniarie punishments. And that by the same meanes, the Popes haue bene so bold to punish kings, and make them to endure blowes with a whip; as Alexander the third did to Henry the second King of England, and as of late Clement the eight did to our great King Henrie the fourth in the person of the Bishop of Eureux his embassador; to whom falling downe at his feete the Pope caused certaine blowes with a staffe to be giuen, for a satis­faction. Pope Innocent the third imposed vpon Iohn King [Page 117] of England for satisfaction, that he should resigne his king­dome vnto him, and make his Crowne and Realme tributary to the Pope.

17 Iesus Christ did not so, for in the eight of Saint Iohn, hauing pardoned the woman taken in adulterie, he imposed no satisfiing paine vpon her, but onely said vnto her Go, and sinne no more. The Apostle Saint Paul: 2. Cor. 2. saith, that he had pardoned the incestuous person to whom neuerthelesse inioyned no penance after the pardon.

18 If these satisfactions be euill, why do they enioyne them? If they be good, why do they dispence with them by Indulgences? why do they hinder the sinner from making be satisfaction vnto God?

The abuse being thus discouered, they runne for aide, and seeke to support their ruinous cause with reeds.

1 They alledge the counsell that Daniell, 4.27. gaue to Nabucadnezzer, Redeeme thy sinnes by righteousnesse, and thine iniquitie by shewing mercy to the poore. But they are deceiued to thinke, that Daniel speaketh of sinnes before God: for he speaketh of redeeming and satisfying before men whom the king had wronged, whom he ought to recompence by libe­ralitie. Adde hereunto that almes are good workes, and not punishments nor penances. And which is more our aduer­saries will haue almes and other satisfactions, not to satisfie for sinnes, but for the punishments due to sinnes. The chiefe point is, that the Chuch of Rome holdeth, that satisfactions serue onely to satisfie for the temporall punishment, and not for the eternall: and that they serue for nothing before bap­tisme, no more then they did in time past before circumci­sion. Now this king was a pagan vncircumcized, and ought rather to thinke vpon sauing himselfe from eternall paines. For satisfactions of Purgatorie are of no value nor worth vnto them that go into hell. To go about to satisfie for tem­porall punishment, when a man is bound to eternall punish­ment, is all one, as for a man to set vp a weathercocke before he hath laid tht foundation of the building.

2 They say, that the benefit of Iesus Christ ought to be [Page 118] applied vnto vs, and that it is applied vnto vs, by satisfacto­rie punishment, and by the torments of Purgatorie; where­unto I answer, that they say it without proofe, and without testimony of the holy Scriptures. It belongs to the word of God to prescribe vs the meanes to apply vnto our selues the benefit of our Redeemer, and not to vs to guesse at it. Adde hereunto, that none can applie any thing by his contrary, as these Doctors do, that will haue God to apply the remission of our debts, by making vs pay them, and the pardon in Iesus Christ by the punishment, as if a man should apply a medi­cine by poyson. Certainely, to apply the grace of God to a man, by rosting him in a fire, is a strange kinde of applicati­on. The benefits of our Sauiour, are applied vnto vs by faith, Ephes. 3.17. by Baptisme, Galat. 3.27. By the holy Supper of our Lord, 1. Cor. 10.18: but not by blowes with a whip, wasting of the spirits by a haire-cloth, or by a Monks coule.

3 They adde, that in all the workes of God, his Iustice as well as his Mercie must appeare; but Saint Iames, 2.13. con­tradicteth that, saying, There shall be condemnation mercilesse to him that sheweth not mercie. Then let vs say the like, that there shall be mercie without iudgement to him that shall shew mercie. And as Saint Paul saith, Rom. 8.1: There is no con­demnation to them that are in Christ Iesus. If none, then nei­ther eternall nor temporall, and yet the iustice of God hath euidently bene displayed against the sinnes of the children of God, by punishing them in Iesus Christ, who bare the punishment; and his mercie shewed by freely imputing that satisfaction vnto vs.

4 They also say, that after the King hath pardoned an of­fender, yet the partie offended is to be agreed withall. I an­swer, that that falls out so, because the King and the partie are two; but here God which is the King, is also the partie: who hauing remitted al that belongs to him, there is no more parties to content.

5 Their reason is no better, when they say, that the King hauing granted an offender his life, neuerthelesse condemnes him to pay a great fine. For in that case (say they) the pardon [Page 119] which the King giueth, is not a full pardon, but a diminish­ing of the punishment. But Gods pardon is full and entire, Coloss. 2.13 God freely forgiueth all our offences. And 1. [...] Iohn 1.7. The bloud of Iesus Christ cleanseth vs from all sinne.

6 They also set downe experience for a proofe: for they say, that after God hath pardoned vs, he ceasseth not to pu­nish vs. So Dauid was punished by God after he had decla­red vnto him, by the Prophet Nathan, that he had forgiuen his offence, 2. Sam. 12.13. And from thence Cardinall Bel­larmine in the tenth chapter of his first booke of Purgatorie inferreth, That Iesus Christ hath not fully satisfied for all the punishments of our sinnes.Si Christus satisfecit pro omni culpa & poena nostra, cur post re­missam cul­pam adhuc tam multa mala pati­mur? If (saith he) Christ hath satisfied for all our faults, and for all our punishments, why do we yet suffer so many euils after the fault is remitted? This Pre­late wrongs the Sonne of God, denying that his death is our full payment. But to answer to this obiection, I say it is no­thing to the purpose, for the question is of satisfactory pu­nishments: but the punishments suffered by Dauid were cha­stisements; the one, are punishments of a Iudge, the other, the corrections of a father. The one serueth to make satisfa­ction to him that is offended, and to the iustice of the Iudge; the other to correct our vnrighteousnesse, and to amend a sinner. The chastisements wherewith God visiteth his chil­dren, are benefits, and are spirituall medicines: they are ex­ercises and not payments. Medicines are not satisfactions. A good father correcteth his children to make them better, and not to content himselfe, and to satisfie his iustice. If our Aduersaries would, with vs, beleeue that God punisheth not his children, but with punishments of amendment and father­ly chastisements, Purgatorie would soone fall, where a­mendment hath no place. For they will haue Purgatorie to be a vengeance which God taketh for faults past, and not a warning for the time to come. The death of Iesus Christ ser­ueth to exempt vs from satisfying the iustice of God by satis­factorie punishments, but not to exempt vs from chastise­ments. For it ought not to serue to hurt vs, and to make vs incorrigible; but those whom God hath adopted in Iesus [Page 120] Christ, are those whom he chastiseth most seuerely for their instructions. So he chastened Dauid, who in supporting his fatherly corrections, neuer thought by that meanes to satis­fie the iustice of God.

7 Maister Arnoux, to make vs odious, saith, that by abo­lishing our owne satisfactions and merits, we pull the spirit of penitence out of our hearts, and drowne the soule in the bog of slothfulnesse and negligence of good workes. On the contrary, I maintaine, that there is nothing which more stirreth vp and wakeneth repentance, nor that inciteth a man more to feare God, & loue him, then the memorie of our free redemption by Iesus Christ, and of our full reconciliation. The true motiue vnto pietie, is not the ambition of merites, or of paying God with our owne, nor the feare of a fire after this life, but filiall loue, kindled by the acknowledging of his loue. He that serueth God onely for feare of punishment, is moued thereunto by a seruile feare, and not by a filiall loue. God sheweth great clemencie vnto such a man, if he pu­nisheth him not for his seruice. Therefore, the Scripture that speaketh of free pardon, and of redemption in Iesus Christ, ordinarily from thence draweth exhortations to feare God, and to liue holily. Dauid, Psal. one hundred and thirtie, and the fourth verse, saith, But there is forgiuenesse with thee, that thou mayest be feared. And Saint Paul Rom. 12 1. exhorteth vs, by the mercies of God, to offer and consecrate our bodies vnto the Lord.Tit. 2.11.12. For (saith he) in another place: The grace of God that brings saluation vnto all men hath appeared, and tea­cheth vs, that we should deny vngodlinesse, and worldly lusts, and that we should liue soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. Iesus Christ hath redeemed vs, to the end that we should serue him: his benefit is not a prophane impunitie: Christian liberty is not a licence. Peace of conscience is not a carnall sluggishnesse. The Apostle saith, Iesus Christ can­not be deuided:1. Cor. 1.13. but it is a deuiding of him, if we will haue him for a Redeemer, and not for a Maister, and participate in his promises, reiecting his commandements 1. Peter 2.24. He bare our sinnes in his body on the tree, that we being dead to sin [Page 121] should liue vnto righteousnesse.

We see not in the Romish church, where humane satis­factions are preached, that by that means vice is diminished; for the church of Rome is the onely church in the world, where vice is become a law, and where, by publike ordi­nances, the Stewes are erected, whoredome permitted, and marriage forbidden. There is none but the Romish church, wherein by lawes & decrees the people are taught to be re­bels to their Prince, and not to keepe faith with those that are excommunicated, and where a trafficke of sacred things is publikely established.

8 All this abuse is grounded vpon a most pernitious max­ime, which is one of the cankered vlcers of the church of Rome. This maxime is, that the punishment for sinne before Baptisme is remitted vnto vs by Baptisme; but that for the punishment of sinnes committed after Baptisme, we are to satisfie for them by penall workes and satisfactory penance, aswell in this life as in Purgatorie. A new Gospell, whereof there is not one print nor footstep in all the word of God. The Councell of Trent in the fourteenth Session, eight chap­ter, to defend this doctrine, saith, That it seemes that the Iu­stice of God requireth, that those that before Baptisme haue sinned by ignorance, should be more fauourably vsed then those that haue sinned voluntarily after Baptisme. But these Fathers, by saying so, condemne themselues. For, may it not fall out, that some may sinne maliciously before Baptisme: and on the contrary, that after Baptisme they may sinne by ignorance or infirmitie? In this case what apparence is there, that God will not exact any satisfactorie punishment for sins committed of deliberate malice, and will exact them for sins committed by ignorance or infirmity? And which is more, may it not happen, that a man should cause himselfe fainedly or for gaine to be baptized, and yet in his heart is an enemy to the Name of Christ? Is it a iust thing, that hypocrisie should be auaileable vnto him, and that for mocking of God, all his sinnes committed before baptisme should be pardoned, with­out any pennance or satisfaction?

[Page 122]

To conclude, the bloud of Iesus Christ cleanseth all our sinnes, 1. Iohn 1.7. Then as well sinnes before baptisme, as sinnes after baptisme. By Iesus Christ God pardoneth all our offences, Colos. 2.13. This word, all, alloweth no exception. Saint Paul to the Galat. cap. 3.27. saith, That all those that are baptized haue put on Christ. By this word put on, he sheweth vs, that the fruite of baptisme is specially for the time after baptisme, for we put on clothes for the time to come.

Section. 39 Places of the Scripture noted in the margent of the Confession. Hebrewes 9.14. How much more shall the bloud of Christ, which through the eternall Spirit offered himselfe without fault to God, purge your consciences from dead workes, to serue the liuing God? And 1. Peter 1.18.19. Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as siluer and gold, from your vaine conuer­sation receiued by the traditions of the Fathers: but with the pre­cious bloud of Christ.

In these two places there is not one word spoken of satisfaction, and the words of entire and perfect washing vnder the which the venome is hidden, are not found therein: but here the Apostle ascribeth to the merits of Christ the vertue to purifie our conscien­ces, to deliuer them from dead workes, to make vs serue the liuing God, and to redeeme vs from our vaine conuersation.

It is true that in these places the word Satisfaction is not found, but the word redeeme, which is all one in effect; for our redemption by Iesus Christ, is a satisfaction for vs. He that redeemeth a prisoner, by that redemption satisfieth for him. The word wash also is not there, but the word cleanse, which is all one,To him that hath loued vs, and washed vs from our sinnes, &c. and is found in other places, as in Apoc. 1.6. Touching the perfection and integritie of this redemption and washing, we haue before produced a great number of places to proue it. That which M. Arnoux addeth, that the merits of the Sonne of God purifie our consciences, and de­liuer [Page 123] them from dead workes, &c. is true, but to what end serues that to establish humane satisfactions?

Of superabundant Satisfactions, and whether the me­rite of Christ is applied vnto vs by our owne Satisfactions.

Section. 40 Contrary places of Scripture. Coloss. 1.24. Now reioyce I in my sufferings for you, and fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his bodies sake which is the Church.

It is not because the Sonne of God hath not abundantly satis­fied, as touching the sufficiency of his paines and dolours infinitely meritorious, and of the smallest drop of his bloud that was shed, which is much more worth then a thousand worlds: but the Apo­stle teacheth vs, that if we be not like Iesus Christ, and do not suffer with him following his example, his rich treasures of merits will serue vs for nothing, for want of being applied by our proper satis­factions, which are the true and first effects of his death, by the which he hath merited grace for vs to do them, following his ex­ample.

Our aduersaries ordinarily alledge this place out of the first chapter of the Colossians, to proue that the Saints and Monkes make more satisfactions, and endure more paines then they need, to satisfie for themselues; whereupon they in­ferre, that the same is meritorious for others. Therefore Bel­larmine in the fourth chapter and first booke of Indulgences, saith, that the Saints in some manner are our redeemers. Ther­fore also, the Canon of the Masse requireth aide of God, not only by the prayers of Saints, but also by their merits.Quorum prae­cibus meritis­que rogamus, &c. Which is a new Gospell, & a meere prophanation of the doctrine of saluation, whereby they will haue God to receiue and accept the superabundant stripes and fastings of S. Francis, or of S. [Page 124] Dominicke, in recompence for our sinnes, as if a Iudge should discharge and set a prisoner free, because his brother was whipt for him. How can he haue any remnant or super­fluitie of merit, that hath need of pardon? How can he satis­fie for another, that cannot satisfie for himselfe?

But M. Arnoux dares not stirre this filthy puddle, but con­tents himselfe to alledge this place, to support humane satis­factions presupposing that S. Paul by his suffrings made satis­faction vnto God: which is false, for in this place there is nei­ther trace nor footstep therof to be seene. It is true, that S. Paul suffered for the Church, but not to make satisfaction for the Church, but to edifie and confirme the Church, as Lombar­dus, Anselmus, and Thomas expound it in their Commenta­ries vpon this place, conformable to that which the said A­postle saith to the Philippians, 1.12. Th [...] rest of the afflictions of Christ, which are not yet accomplished, are the afflictions of the Church, which Iesus Christ saith are his, Acts 9.4. Saul Saul (said he) why persecutest thou me? And Matth. 25.40. In as much as ye haue done it vnto one of the least of these my brethren, ye haue done it to me. That which our Doctor saith (that we must suffer according to the example of Iesus Christ) is true, but not thereby to satisfie Gods iudgements, or to content his iustice. That is to conuert the afflictions for Iesus Christ into bitternesse, and to make them intollerable, if we make them payments, satisfactions, and penances to ap­pease and content the iustice of God: whereas they are the liueries of Christian souldiers, an honourable opprobrie and conformitie to the Sonne of God. It is no glory to be pu­nished: but it is an honour to fight after Iesus Christ and for Iesus Christ.

Touching that which M. Arnoux saith, that the merits of our Sauiour are not applied vnto vs, by our owne satisfa­ctions, it is an inuention forged vpon the anuile of couetous­nesse, and blowne with the bellowes of pride, without the word of God, to the which belongeth the authority to pre­scribe the manner how to apply Iesus Christ vnto vs, and not to vs to inuent the meanes. Behold the meanes which it [Page 125] giueth vs to apply Iesus Christ vnto vs. First by baptisme, Galat. 3.27. For all ye that are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. Secondly, by the holy Supper, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we brake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Thirdly by faith, Ephes. 3.12. By whom we haue bold­nesse and entrance with confidence, by faith in him. And this faith is by hearing of the word of God. Rom. 10.17. But to apply Iesus Christ vnto vs by suffering paines and torments in this life, or in Purgatory, the word of God speaketh not at all. The rea­son is most manifest; for we do not apply a thing by the con­trary thereof, as the Church of Rome doth, that will haue God to apply grace and pardon of sinnes freely vnto vs by pu­nishing vs: and that God applieth the remission of our debts vnto vs, by making vs to pay them: that is, not to apply but to cut off and drie vp this grace. Is not this a notable appli­cation, to burne a man two or three thousand yeares in a fire? And yet to intoxicate our braines, they place this fire among the graces of God: they will haue the bloud of Iesus Christ to giue vertue to this fire to be a satisfaction. In the end we shall find by their doctrine, that the diuels are Gods minions: for God sheweth them that fauour to satisfie to the full, and by that meanes they haue this aduantage, not to be much bound vnto him.

Section. 41 And Romans 12.1. I beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that you giue vp your bodies a liuing sacrifice, holy, acceptable vnto God, which is your reasonable seruing of God.

I cannot conceiue how this place serueth for humane sa­tisfactions. Saint Paul by this holy and pleasing sacrifice to God, vnderstandeth our good workes, but not corporall or pecuniary punishments which make amends or satisfie for our sinnes. Our good workes are sacrifices of thanksgiuing, and not expiatory punishments, to recompence or satisfie the iustice of God.

What Faith is, and whether it can be without hope, and without knowledge.

[Page 128]

He speaketh of vs as of enemies vnto charitie and all ver­tue, and as if we contented our selues to beleeue, and to haue a faith without works, and by consequence dead and vnprofi­table. Cardinall Bellarmine purgeth vs of this slander in the third booke and sixt chapter of Iustification. The aduer­saries (saith he) do not deny, but that faith and repen­tance are requisite, that is, a liuely faith, and an earnest re­pentance: and that without them no man can be iustified. Whosoeuer is an enemy to charitie; whosoeuer saith that good workes are not necessary to saluation: and whosoeuer thinketh to be saued by a faith without workes, let him be accursed. In the meane time, this accusation made against vs, is very vnseemely in the mouth of the Church of Rome, wherein vices are in the last degree or ranke, specially in Rome, from whence with the decisions of faith, comes exam­ples of vices without example.

The originall of this abuse proceedeth from this, that our aduersaries know not what this word faith in the Scripture signifieth: and point and set forth vnto vs a false imagination, for the true faith; for if they could discerne and perceiue what faith is, they would behold it necessarily accompanied with vertue, and fruitfull in good workes.

The Councell ofSi quis dixe­rit fidem iusti­ficantem nihil aliud esse quā fiduciam di­uinae miseri­cordiae peccata remittentis propter Chri­stum, Ana­thema sit. Trent in the tenth Canon of the sixt Session, pronounceth a curse vnto those that say, that iusti­fying faith is no other thing, but hope in the mercy of God that pardoneth our sinnes in Iesus Christ. And Bellarmine in the first booke and fift chapter of IustificationProbatur fidem iustifi­cantem non esse fiduciam misericordiae Dei, sed solum assensum fir­mum, ac cer­tum, ad ea om­nia quae Deus credenda pro­ponit. saith, that iustifying faith is not a hope that God will be mercifull vnto vs, but onely a firme consenting vnto all that which God will haue to be beleeued. Touching the affiance whereby some men particularly perswade themselues that God will be mer­cifull vnto them, he saith at the end of the chapterCatholici certam pro­missionem spe­cialis miseri­cordiae, nō tam ad fidem quā ad praesump­tionem perti­nere conten­dunt. that it is rather a presumption. And to make an end of painting out of faith, he bereaueth it of knowledge: and in the seuenth chapter maintaineth:Probatur fi­dem non esse notitiam sed assensum. that faith is not a knowledge, but a consenting; and that, Fides melius per ignorantiam quàm per [Page 129] notitiam definitur: That faith is better defined by ignorance then by knowledge. For the Church of Rome will haue the people to beleeue without knowledge, and to referre them­selues therein to the Church, without knowing what the Church beleeueth, or what it ought to beleeue.

This is the ground of the mischiefe. For seeing that our ad­uersaries by faith, vnderstand a consenting to an vnknowne doctrine, which onely beleeueth that all that which God hath said is true, without knowing what it is, and without confidence in his promise; it is no maruell that they seeke for their iustification in another thing, and not in faith: and that M. Arnoux thinketh, that to extoll faith, is to fight against charitie and the exercise of vertues. For there is nothing found in faith (as the Church of Rome defineth it) which may not be found in diuers prophane persons, yea euen in the di­uels themselues, who beleeue that all that which God hath said is true, and consent thereunto: for faith without know­ledge is a voluntary blindnesse vnder shadow of docility. To know the promise of God, and not to beleeue it, is an iniury done vnto God, and matter of torment, and disquietnesse of conscience.

The word of God describeth faith vnto vs in a contrary manner. For Iesus Christ not onely saith, Beleeue me, but be­leeue in me, Iohn 14.1. Now to beleeue in Iesus Christ, is to put our trust in him. And in Rom. 4.10. Abrahams faith is de­scribed by this, that he made no doubt of the promise of God with distrust, but was strengthened in faith. And Abraham is called the father of the faithfull: that his faith may be an ex­ample to conforme vs thereunto. Saint Iames 1.6. will haue the faithfull pray in faith, and wauer not: for that faith in prayer excludeth doubt and distrust to be heard. And in Matth. 8.26. When the disciples were afraid to be drowned, although Iesus Christ was with them in the ship, he rebuked them, say­ing, Why are ye fearefull ô ye of little faith? H [...]re there was no question made of consenting, but of trusting in the aide and succour of Iesus Christ: for feare fighteth directly against confidence.

[Page 130]

How often doth the holy Scripture attribute effects vnto faith, which cannot agree to a simple consent, without trust to the promise of God? Iesus Christ in the Gospell an hundred times at the least vrgeth, that He that beleeueth in him hath life euerlasting, Iohn 6.47. And S. Paul, Rom. 1.17. saith, that the iust shall liue by faith. And in the fifth chapter he saith, that being iustified by faith, we haue peace towards God: making peace of conscience to spring from faith. All these things are false, if the Romish definition of faith be true: for all those which beleeue that all that which God hath said is true, haue not life eternall, for then the diuels should be saued. To yeeld a consent to the doctrine of the Gospell, and not to trust in the promise of God, procureth not peace of conscience, but ra­ther trouble and perplexitie.

Therefore Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11.1. who will haue vs to be followers of him, bindeth vs by his example, to speake as he doth, and particularly to apply vnto our selues the promises of the Gospell, by saying as he saith, 1. Tim. 1.15. This is a true saying, and by all meanes worthy to be receiued, that Christ came into the world to saue sinners, of whom I am chiefe. By saying, This is a true saying, he cons [...]nteth to the doctrine of the Gospell; but by adding, I was receiued to mercy, he applyeth the promise of God (with a firme confidence) particularly to himselfe. And so Gallat. 2.20. he saith, The Sonne of God loueth me, and hath giuen himselfe for me. Otherwise that which he saith, Ephes. 3.12. that we haue boldnesse [...] and entrance with confidence by faith in Iesus Christ, should be false. For can a man approch vnto God with confidence, if he distrusteth his promise? Thereby it appeareth that the Councell of Trent aforesaid cursed and excommunicated the Apostle, by ex­communicating those that haue a particular affiance in the mercy and promise of God. The like abuse it is to make a iustifying faith without knowledge, and to haue a man to be­leeue without knowing: seeing that on the contrary, we must first haue knowledge to beleeue, that we may know what we beleeue. To haue a man to beleeue before he knoweth, is as much as to put out a mans eyes before we leade him. To be­leeue [Page 131] so, is to beleeue we know not what, and onely to haue a good opinion of him that leadeth vs. But the Scri­pture doth ioyne faith with knowledge, Iohn 17.8. They haue knowne surely, that I came out from thee, and haue be­leeued that thou hast sent me. And Iohn 10.38. That ye may know and beleeue, that the Father is in me, and I in him. And Iohn 6.69. And we beleeue and know, that thou art that Christ. For faith cometh by hearing of the word of God, Rom. 10. And we heare the word of God to know it, and to be instru­cted therein. And knowledge is so necessary in faith, that sometimes the word Knowledge is set in the place of faith: as in Esay 53.11. whereas the Apostle ordinarily saith, that we are iustified by saith in Iesus Christ, it is there said, that He shall iustifie many, by the knowledge which they shall haue of him.

Then this faith which is moued by knowledge and which entirely trusteth in the promise of God, necessarily abounds in good works: For, from the knowledge of the loue which God beareth vnto vs, proceedeth our loue towards God. And it is altogether impossible to trust in the promise of God without louing him. True faith is discerned from false, when it worketh by charitie, when it is ioyned with earnest and hearty repentance: when it is humble, and trusteth not in her owne merites, but in the promise of God in Iesus Christ, and when it kindleth zeale and the loue of God.

If M. Arnoux had vnderstood what this word Faith im­porteth, and what the nature of true iustifying faith is, he would neuer say, that we placing our Iustification in Faith onely, make men negligent and carelesse of good works. He should rather take heed, that vnder pretence of commending charitie, he ouerthroweth not faith: and that vnder a shadow of fearing God, he doth not reiect his grace, thinking to me­rite saluation by his owne righteousnesse.

As touching Caluine, which M. Arnoux alledgeth, he neuer said, that he himselfe, or any particular person, was as well assured of the kingdome of heauen, as Iesus Christ him­selfe is. He speaketh there of the body of the Church, con­sisting [Page 132] of the Elect, which can no more perish then Christ himselfe, because it is one body with him: in such manner neuerthelesse, that all the firmnesse and beatitude of the Church dependeth on Iesus Christ. This is not to equalize or compare the Church to Iesus Christ, but to say that it is ioy­ned vnto Iesus Christ by an inseparable band.

Of Iustification onely by faith: and of the word Iustifie.

Section. 43 Places of the Scripture quoted in the margent of the Confession. Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Law. And Galat. 3.24. Wherefore the Law was our Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. And 2.16. Know that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law, but onely by faith in Iesus Christ.

In the first and second of these places, the word onely is not there; and in the third, the word onely doth not in any sort ex­clude the workes of the morall and Christian Law, by the which Abraham and his children according to the Spirit, are iustified, saith Saint Iames; but those of the ceremoniall and figuratiue Law of Moses, which ceassed when the Sonne of God entred into the world. As the posts or props of wood serue no more for any vse after the bridge of stone is perfectly built.

To say that a man is iustified by faith onely, and to say that a man is iustified by faith without workes, are all one thing. For eu [...]n as in the question, whether the man or the woman ought to be master, he that saith the man ought to be maister in the house, and not the wife, saith also that the man ought onely to be maister. So in the question, whether man is iustified by faith or by workes, or by the one and the other: he that saith, that man is iustified by faith without workes, by [Page 133] consequent saith, that man is iustified by faith onely. To stay vpon the words where the thing is cleare, is as much as to fly the truth. So the ancient Fathers vnderstood it. Origen vp­pon the third chapter to the Romanes saith,Apostolus dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationē. The Apostle saith, that Iustification by faith onely is sufficient. [...]. Basil in his Sermon of Humilitie, saith, The Apostle Saint Paul ac­knowledgeth himselfe to be poore concerning true righte­ousnesse, and that he was iustified by faith onely in Iesus Christ. Saint Hillarie in the eight canon vpon Mathew saith, Fides sola iustificat, Faith onely iustifieth. Chrysostome in the homily of Faith and of the law of Nature saith, Faith onely of it selfe saueth. Saint Hierome vpon the third chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians saith,Quia nemo illam seruat, ideo dictum est, quod sola fide iustifi­candi essent credentes. [...] Because no man obserueth the Law, therefore it is said, that the faithfull ought to be iustified by faith onely. And a little after,Vt sola fid­benedicerentur gentes in Christo. To the end that by faith onely all nations should be blessed in Christ. Ber­nard in the two and twentieth Sermon vpon the Canticles, saith, Being iustified by faith onely, we shall haue peace to­wards God.

Our Doctor wrongeth himselfe to thinke, that the works which Saint Paul excludeth, are the workes of the ceremo­niall Law. In the third chapter to the Romans, verse twenty seuen: The Apostle concludeth, that Man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law: He there speakes of the morall law; by the which, in the chapter before, verse twelue, he said, that Those that shall haue sinned shall be iudged. And from thence he saith also, that The Gentiles which haue not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, because they haue naturall impressions; which Law in the same chapter he saith the Iewes had transgressed by stealing, and by committing a­dultery, which cannot haue reference but to the moral Law. And in the fourth chapter he insisteth to proue, that Abraham was not iustified by workes. It had beene in vaine for him to proue that Abraham was not iustified by the workes of the ceremoniall Law, seeing that the ceremoniall Law was not then made, nor was not giuen vntill foure hundred yeares after.

[Page 134]

Touching the Epistle to the Galathians, it is manifest that Saint Paul in the second chapter, saying, that Man is iustified by faith, and not by the workes of the Law, excludeth from Iustification, not onely the workes of the ceremoniall, but also those of the morall Law. For in the fift chapter and four­teenth verse, he saith: For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, which is this: Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe. And in the third chapter and tenth verse he saith, that Iesus Christ hath deliuered vs from the curse of the Law, euen from that Law which saith, Cursed is euery man which continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the Law, to do them: which is a place taken out of the seuen and twentieth chapter of Deuteronomie, twenty sixt verse, where it is spoken one­ly of the morall Law.

Notwithstanding we do not abolish good workes, al­though we exclude them from our iustification. No man can be iustified without workes, although he shall not be iusti­fied by workes. Euen as the eyes are not without the eares, and yet the eyes onely see, and not the eares. For faith one­ly hath the vertue to iustifie vs that is, to cause vs to be ab­solued and accounted iust before the iudgement seate of God, because faith onely hath this property, to apprehend the benefit of Iesus Christ, and to appropriate his righteous­nesse vnto vs.

Now that which troubleth our Aduersaries in this questi­on, is, that the word Faith, and also the word Iustifie, by them is taken in another sence then it is meant in the Scripture, as often as it speaketh of our iustification before God. For the Councell of Trent in the sixt Session, and all our Aduersaries, by iustifying vnderstand regenerating & sanctifying; where­as the holy Scripture, when it speaketh of our iustification before God, alwayes taketh the word Iustifying for absoluing, in the same sence that a man accused of a crime, is dismissed, being absolued and iustified. That appeareth by this, that iu­stifying is opposed against condemning; and consequently, is as much as absoluing. As in Prouerbs, chapter 17. verse 15. He that iustifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the iust, [Page 135] euen they both are abhomination to the Lord. And Iob chapter 9. verse 20. If I iustifie my selfe, mine owne mouth shall condemne me. And Deut. 25.1. Then they shall iustifie the righteous, and condemne the wicked. And Matth. 12.37. By thy words thou shalt be iustified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. And Romans chap. 8. verse 33. It is God that iustifieth, who shall con­demne?

It is manifest by the first of the Corinthians, chapter 4. ver. 4. what the Apostle vnderstandeth by Iustifying, and how he maketh account to be iustified. Speaking of his administra­tion in his Apostleship, he saith: For I know nothing by my selfe, yet am I not thereby iustified. He maketh not account to be iu­stified by his innocencie, which should be false, if by Iustifi­cation he vnderstood holinesse of life, or regeneration, or if he pretended to be iustified by his workes. And in Mathew, chapter 11. verse 19. it is said that Wisedome is iustified by her children. Will our Aduersaries say, that the wisedome of God was regenerated or sanctified? It is most manifest that Iesus Christ would onely say, That the wisedome of God was ac­knowledged to be iust, and exempted from the slanders of men.

If man be iustified by the workes of the Law, Saint Paul did wrong to magnifie with Dauid, The blessednesse of those men to whom God imputeth righteousnesse without workes. Rom. 4.6. especially seeing that there he speaketh of the workes of Abraham and of Dauid, then when they were already in Gods fauour. For these causes, you shall finde that Saint Paul neuer exhorteth vs to be iustifi [...]d, because Iustification is not a vertue in man, but a grace of God, whereby he ab­solueth sinners, in beholding his Sonne. But his Epistles are full of exhortations, to be sanctified and renewed, Romanes chapter 12. vers. 1.2. And therefore, Romans chapter 5. ver. 9. he saith, that We are iustified by the bloud of Iesus Christ. And if by iustifying he vnderstood sanctifying or regenera­ting he would rather say, that we are iustified by the Spirit of Christ.

How according to Saint Iames, man is iustified by workes.

Section. 44 Contrary places of Scripture. Iames 2.24. You see then, how that of workes a man is iustified, and not by faith onely.

I alledge this Apostle, whose Epistle, and this place, by them is acknowledged to be canonicall. Can he more clearely and more manifestly contradict their article? and dare they yet make men­tion of their onely faith, altogether voyd, altogether barren, and altogether dead?

It is true that we speake of faith onely, altogether barren or bare &c. but detesting it as a shew of faith, a spirituall drowsinesse, and a prophane sluggishnesse.

As for the place of Saint Iames, it is nothing to the pur­pose; for in this question we speake of our Iustification be­fore God, but Saint Iames speakes of our iustification before men: Shew me (saith he) thy faith by thy workes. He speaks of making our faith appeare vnto men by our workes. But as touching Iustification before God, the Apostle Saint Paul de­clareth, That Abraham was not iustified by workes: For if (saith he) Abraham were iustified by workes, he hath wherein to reioyce, but not with God. And if Saint Iames intent had bene to proue that Abraham was iustified before God by workes, he would not haue contented himselfe to set downe the onely sacrifice of Isaac, but would haue shewed the entire course of his obedience during his life. For if a man be iusti­fied before God by workes, it should not be by one onely a­ction, but by the continuance of an holy and innocent life. M. Arnoux seeketh to proue that Saint Iames speaketh here of faith and of workes, as farre as they serue to saluation, which we willingly confesse. He saith also, that these words [Page 137] not onely, shew that Saint Iames speaketh of the same sort of iustification. Wherein he is abused; If I say, that a man is learned, not onely in Philosophie, but also in Diuinitie, doth it follow, that Philosophie and Diuinitie are all one kind of learning?

Section. 45 And what doth the Sonne of God meane. Luke 7.47. When he speaketh of Marie Magdalen to Simon that erred in faith, Many sinnes are forgiuen her, for she loued much: to whom a little is forgi­uen, he doth loue little?

Then was Mary Magdalen iustified onely by faith: or whether did not the Sonne of God vnderstand the mysterie of saluation, so well as the Ministers?

This place is nothing to the purpose, and speaketh not of iustification by workes. Note also that our aduersaries by iu­stification, vnderstand sanctification or regeneration: and the end whereunto they tend, is to proue, that we are rege­nerated by workes; a thing which we willingly grant. The question is, if by our workes we can stand before the iudge­ment seate of God, and be iustified before God: which is not spoken of in this place. Dauid cutteth them off clearely touching that, Psal. 143. verse 2. where he saith, For no man liuing can be iustified before God.

Some alledge the place in Luke 7.47. to ground their me­rits, that the word for, importeth a cause of iustifica­tion; whereas it is onely a marke. Of that we will speake more hereafter.

Of the Certainty of saluation, and of perseuerance.

Section. 46 In the same Article, somewhat lower, after they haue said, that we are iustified by faith onely, they adde, that it is done for that the [Page 138] promises of life which are giuen vs in him are apropriated to our vse, and we feele the effects when we accept them, not doubting that being assured by the mouth of God, we be frustrated thereof. That is alwaies to assure euery man of his saluation, and to ground the interiour peace of conscience of the faithfull vpon presumption: which makes men liue without feare, and carelesse of the time to come, as if a man were already in possession. But what is he among them, who (if he haue his right wits) liueth and dieth in this assu­rance, freed of all feare? We may well perswade and assure our selues, that God will hold his promise, but we cannot assure our selues of the vse of his particular will, whereof God in the Scriptures giueth not any infallible promise vnto any man.

Now we enter into the question touching the assurance of man to be saued, which is a point wherein our aduersaries disfigure our Confession, and propound it otherwise then it is. They say that euery one of vs boast and brag, that we haue a particular reuelation thereof, and that among vs euery one assureth himselfe of his saluation. All that is false. For, to be assured of our saluation, we need not enter into the secret counsell of God. Whosoeuer seeketh by curiositie to enter into it, shall therein find his condemnation. Whosoeuer will presume to climbe so high, shall be throwne downe by des­paire. The certaintie of our saluation ought not to be sought for so farre off: it is found in the examination of our owne consciences, conferred with the doctrine of the Scriptures. For if being earnestly conuerted by true repentance we haue recourse to Iesus Christ, and feele in our consciences that we haue no other hope nor affiance but in his death and passion, we haue the doctrine of the Gospell which declareth vnto vs, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish, but haue eternall life, Ioh. 3.15. This is the foundation of our assurance, and the support of our faith.

It is also false, that euery one of vs boasteth that he is as­sured of his saluation. It is true, that God commandeth vs to be assured thereof, but he wils vs not to boast, nor make [Page 139] open profession of it: and we are not bound to beleeue those t [...]at brag thereof For prophane persons may boast of it, who by a vaine confidence imagine they shall ascend vp into heauen while in the meane time their vices weigh them downe into hell.

And which is more, this full certainty of faith, is a gift which God giueth not to all the faithfull at one time, nor in like measure; to some he giueth it sooner, to others later, to some onely at the houre of death, and there are some who by prayer and good works seeking to fortifie their faith, are ne­uerthelesse assailed with doubts touching the same, and haue not as yet that full confidence: who if they perceiue any pro­ceeding thereof in themselues, and an earnest desire to in­crease this faith, we [...]xhort them to take and esteeme that conflict which they feele within themselues, for a marke of th [...]ir election.

Then our Confession consisteth in these two points, the one, that God will haue vs to be assured of the accomplish­ing of his promise; the other, that God giueth this assurance to whom, when and in what measure it pleaseth him; but specially at the houre of death: for then certainly it is most necessarie.

This doctrine is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures. The Apostle Saint Paul Rom. 8.16. saith, The Spirit of God witnes­seth with our spirits, that we are the children of God. Can there be a more credible witnesse then the Spirit of God? Can we without horror reade that which Bellarmine saith, chap. 9. in his third booke of Iustification, that the testimony of the ho­ly Spirit is not certaine, but by a coniecturall certainty? that is, an vncertaine certaintie. He that beleeueth in that Sonne of God, hath the witnesse of God in himselfe. Ioh. 1.5.10. We can not without impietie accuse the testimony of God of vncer­taintie. If M. Arnoux doth not feele this testimony in him­selfe, it is better for him to haue a bad opinion of himselfe, then to contradict the word of God, or to seeke to measure other men by his owne measure, and to limite the grace of God in others, by the euill estate of his owne conscience.

[Page 140]

The Apostle to the Hebrewes, 3.6. will haue vs to hold fast vnto the end the confidence and the glorie of the hope. And 4.16. Let vs therefore go boldly vnto the throne of grace, that we may receiue mercy, and find grace to helpe in time of need. And 10.22. Let vs draw neare with a true heart in assurance of faith. For saith he, Ephes. 3.12. that by Iesus Christ we haue boldnesse, and entrance with confidence by faith in him. And Iohn, 1.13. will haue vs to be assured of eternall life: These things haue I written vnto you that beleeue in the name of the Sonne of God, that ye may know that ye haue life eternall.

Let vs adde hereunto the promise of God, which is, to giue vs all things that we shall aske of him in the name of Ie­sus Christ, Ioh. 16.23. Let vs aske of him saluation and perse­uerance in faith, for God promiseth to heare vs: and therefore Saint Iames 1.6. will haue vs to aske in faith, and wauer not. Therefore we must aske saluation of God without doubt or distrust.

Of this ranke are those places in the Scriptures, which compare the testimony of the Spirit in the hearts of the faith­full, to a seale, or an earnest penny to assure vs. Ephes. 1.13. Wherein also after that ye beleeued, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance: and 4.30. And grieue not the holy Spirit, by whom ye are sealed vnto the day of redemption. And 2. Cor. 1.23. Who hath also sealed vs, and hath giuen the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

The Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 8.37. saith, For I am assured that neither death nor life, nor Angels, nor Principalities, nor any other creature shall be able to separate vs from the loue of God, which is in Iesus Christ our Lord. For which cause also, going to die, he speaketh as if he had the prize in his owne hand, and as being ready to lay hold vpon the crowne: 2. Tim. 4.7.8. I haue fought a good fight, and haue finished my course, I haue kept the faith: from henceforth is layd vp for me the crowne of righteousnesse. And a little after: The Lord will deliuer me from euery euill worke, and will preserue me vnto his heauenly kingdome. Is there any thing fuller of assurance, then that which Iacob said lying on his death-bed, Genes. 49.18. I haue [Page 141] waited for thy saluation ô Lord: or then that of Dauids words, Psal. 17.15. As for me I will behold thy face in righteousnesse, and shall be satisfied when I awake, with thy likenesse: and in Psal. 49.15. But God will redeeme my soule from the power of the graue, for he shall receiue me: or the words of Simeon when he appro­ched neare vnto death, Luke 2.29. Lord now lettest thou thy ser­uant depart in peace according to thy word?

All these holy seruants of God are condemned by the Councell of Trent, which saith thus in the sixt Session: Who­soeuer shall say, that the regenerated and the righteous man is bound to beleeue with certaine confidence that he is of the number of those that are predestinated, let him be ac­cursed.

By pride or presumption to curse a man that obeyes God commanding vs to be assured, and which putteth his trust in the promise of God, is to contest and striue with God vnder the shadow of humility. This humility is prophane, and this modesty is iniurious vnto God. It is as if a man should say to God, It is true that thou hast promised me, but I am not wor­thy to beleeue thy word: I am too base to trust in thy promise. To ground the assurance of our saluation vpon our merits, is presumption: but to ground our assurance vpon the promise of God, is faith and obedience.

Neuerthelesse, to proue that we may be incredulous with reason, M. Arnoux alledgeth two things. First, that we can­not assure our selues of the vse of our will. Whereunto I say, that God hath promised to gouerne our wils,And I will make an euerlasting coue­nant with thē that I will not turne away from them to do thē good: but I will put my feare in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. and to put his Law in our hearts, and to make vs that we shall not with­draw our selues from him, Iere. 32.40. And Iesus Christ saying, Mar. 13.22. that False Christs shall arise, and false Pro­phets, and shall shew signes and wonders to deceiue, if it were possi­ble, the very elect, sheweth that the elect cannot be seduced with a finall seduction or irrecouerable. And God also pro­miseth to heare vs, when we aske perseuerance of him. To conclude, so many places before alledged, which will haue vs to be assured of our saluation, presuppose that God also will haue vs to be assured y^t he will not forsake vs: for without that [Page 140] [...] [Page 141] [...] [Page 142] there can be no assurance.

The other reason alledged by M. Arnoux is, that God in the Scriptures makes no man any infallible promise. This rea­son is impious, and ouerthroweth all piety. For if Henry or Charles be not bound to be assured of his saluation, because it is not said in the Scripture, that Henry or Charles by name shall be saued, it followeth that those persons are not bound to be honest men, nor to feare God, because in the holy Scripture it is not said, that Henry or Charles ought to be ho­nest men. As the generall rules of piety bind all particular persons: so the generall promise, that whosoeuer beleeueth in Iesus Christ hath life euerlasting, assureth euery particular person thereof that beleeues in Iesus Christ, although his name be not specified in the Scripture.

Whether a man is saued and elected vpon condition that he shall beleeue, and do good workes.

Section. 47 Places of the Scripture noted in the margent of the Confession. Matth. 17.20. And Iesus said vnto them, because of your vn­beleefe, for verily I say vnto you, if you haue faith as much as a graine of mustard seede, ye shall say vnto this mountaine, Remoue hence to yonder place, and it shall remoue, and nothing shall be vn­possible vnto you, Iohn 3.16. For God so loued the world, that he hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. These two places containe conditionall propositions, and therefore insufficient to giue the pretended assurance. The one saith, If you beleeue, the other saith, Whosoeuer beleeueth; but neither the one nor the other make any assurance, that such or such a particular person is endowed with true faith, nor that if he were so endowed, that he should perseuere. And the Sonne of God speaketh of a working faith: then where are the tearmes that in them containe a safe conduct of assurance?

[Page 143]

It is the same obiection that we haue formerly cleared, in the end of the last section. The Scripture nameth not particu­lar persons, but giueth generall rules which binde them. We confesse that this proposition; Whosoeuer beleeueth in Iesus Christ hath life euerlasting, is conditionall, and that life eter­nall is giuen onely to those that beleeue. But this condition is not doubtfull, because it dependeth vpon the counsell of God, and vpon his election, by the which he hath predesti­nated the elect to beleeue, and to do good workes. The Scripture saith not, that God hath elected any one because he is faithfull, but that God hath giuen him grace to be faith­full, to the end that he should be saued. So Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 7.25. saith not, that God determined to shew mercy vnto him if he were faithfull; but saith, I haue obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithfull. And Ephes. 1.4. he saith not, that God hath elected vs, because he foresaw that we should be holy, but, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in loue. And Iohn 15.16. I haue chosen you, and ordained you, that you go and bring forth fruite. And Rom. 8.29. he saith, that God hath predestinated vs, to be made like to the image of his Sonne. Our faith and obedience is not a condition whereupon ele­ction dependeth, but an effect of election, and grace which God giueth to all those whom he hath elected to saluation. I ioyne faith with obedience, because faith it selfe in some re­spect is a kind of obedience, and because it worketh by cha­rity, Galat. 5.6. In the thirteenth of the Acts, the Apostle Saint Paul preached the Gospell in Antiochia. Of all his au­dience, those onely which were ordained to life euerlasting beleeued, as it is said, verse 48. He saith not that those be­leeued that were disposed or inclined to life eternall, but those that were ordained thereunto. This Greeke word [...] can be no otherwise interpreted, seeing that all of vs by nature are vndisposed and vnapt to apprehend saluation and faith.

Section. 48 Contrary places of Scripture. Eccles. 8.14. There is another [Page 144] vanity which is done vpon the earth, that is, that there are wicked men that are as bold as if they had done the actions of the iust, but also I iudge this to be vaine.

M. Arnoux falshood.This place is all false. According to the Hebrew it is, There is a vanity which is done vpon the earth, that is, that there be iust men, vnto whom it happeneth according to the worke of the wicked: againe there be wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the worke of the righteous; I say that this also is vanity. This Do­ctor made his brags, to confound our Confession by our owne Bibles, and now he serueth his turne with his owne Bible falsified, and contrary to the Hebrew.

And say that this place were not fasified, yet it maketh no­thing against vs, that acknowledge that there is a false, a pro­phane, and a barren trust or affiance in good workes, which benumeth the conscience, in stead of kindling loue, and nou­rishing pietie therein.

Of the feare of the faithfull, and whether it derogateth any thing from the certainty of saluation.

Section. 49 1. Cor. 9.27. I beate downe, and bring my body into subiection, lest by any meanes when I haue preached to others, I my selfe should be reproued.

And if he did apprehend (as they say) nothing but the iudge­ment of men, he had no need to carrie his mortification so farre, as to dompt and subiect his most inward and secret motions, and to pull downe the most liuely and secret prouocations of his flesh: but it had bene sufficient for him to haue vsed dissimulation, and some out­ward shew of pretended reformation. Now sith the Apostle trem­bled, where are those reedes of the desert, which say they are the pillars of the Temple?

[Page 145]

This Doctor makes vs to say that Saint Paul did appre­hend nothing but the iudgement of men, and goes about to confute a thing forged by himselfe, and which we beleeue not. For on the contrary 1. Cor. 4.3, he declareth: I passe very little to be iudged by you, or of mans iudgement. The Apostle fea­red to offend God, and to faile in his charge: which is a vigi­lant feare, and not a feare of the distrust of his saluation: whereof he speaketh as assured,I haue fought a good fight, I haue fini­shed my course; I haue kept the faith, from henceforth is laid vp for me the crowne of righteousnes. in the passages before alledg­ed, Rom. 8.37. and 2. Tim. 4.7. and 8.18. We ceasse not to tra­uell with care in things, whereof the euent is sure. Iesus Christ auoyded dangers, although he knew that his houre was not yet come. Ezechias had a promise to liue fifteene yeares more: and yet he ceassed not to eate, to attaine to that time. Saint Paul, Acts, 27.31, had a promise of God, that he should scape shipwracke, & yet ceased not to exhort the sailers to worke. So the faithfull man assured of his saluation, ceasseth not to trauell by those meanes that are fit to attaine thereunto; which assurance is not grounded vpon his owne force, but vpon Gods promise. Euen as a child that learneth to go, (when his father holds him by the hand,) may be assured that he shall not fall; not because he is strong enough of himselfe, but because his father leades him: so it is with the faithfull, of whom it is said, Psal. 37.24. Though the iust man falleth, he shall not be vtterly cast downe, for the Lord vpholdeth him with his hand.

In the meane time, consider what these Doctors are that preach incredulitie by modestie, and that fearing to be proud, will die in doubt whether they be the children of God or of the diuell. These are they that boast of their merits, yea of me­rites of equiualence and of dignitie, as they say to giue God so much for so much, lest he should complaine. But that is but a small matter, for they make superabundant & supererogato­ry merits, doing more then God would haue them to do, that they may giue him more then enough. And yet wh [...]n all is done, they know not whether they shall go into heauen or into hell.

[Page 146]

Then here you see the difference betweene true and false re­ligion, which is, that true religion fashioneth mens hearts to an humble confidence or assurance, but false religion for­meth them to a proud distrust. Which pride as it is prophane, so also their distrust is most iust. For he that trusteth in his me­rits, careth not for assurance. For hauing laid his foundation in the aire, his expectation must of force hang in suspence. These Doctors teach men to trust in themselues, and to di­strust God: hanging their spirits betweene feare and ambi­tion, trembling with feare to thinke vpon hell, and in the meane time presuming to haue a degree of glory in heauen aboue the common Saints, which degree by scholers is cal­led Aureola.

This error is nourished by coueteousnesse and ambition. For from a people that are in a feare, a man may exact all what soeuer he will: we may easily feele in a mans purse that is a­mazed or asleepe. A man that beleeueth when he dieth that he shall go into Paradice, will not pay for Masses to be said when he is dead.

Of the first and second Iustification, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

[Page 159]

Section. 61 In the same Article somewhat lower. Neuerthelesse we confesse that the good workes which we do by the guidance of his Spirit are not brought into an account to iustifie vs, or to merite that God should esteeme vs for his children. If they vnderstand that no man can merite his first iustification, that is true, and in that sence we are freely iustified.

The holy Scripture speaketh but of one iustification, by the which a sinner is iustified before God, which iustification is the absolution of a sinner by vertue of the death of Iesus Christ, & by the imputation of his righteousnesse. The Church of Rome which by iustification vnderstandeth regeneration or sanctification, may not onely make two iustifications, but an hundred also, if they will take the degrees of our procee­dings in our regeneration for so many iustifications.

In the meane time it is good to know in what sence M. Arnoux confesseth that we are freely iustified. The holy Scripture attributeth the remission of sinnes to the mercy of God, and to the redemption in Iesus Christ; but for sancti­fication, or regeneration, it is an effect of the holy Spirit, which for that cause is called the spirit of sanctification. Ther­fore when the Apostle, Rom. 5.9. saith, that we are iustified by the bloud of Iesus Christ, and 3.23. that we are freely iusti­fied, it is clearer then the day light, that by iustifying he vn­derstandeth absolution, and not regenerating. These words of free regenerating sound not currantly: but to say that God freely pardoneth vs, is to speake according to reason and agreable to the holy Scripture. Colos. 2.13. He hath freely pardoned vs all our offences. But the Church of Rome, which peruerteth all the Scripture, by iustifying freely, vnder­standeth freely to regenerate. And thereby maketh two rege­nerations, whereof the first is freely, and the other not freely, but merited, as if God gaue vs some graces not freely, nor of his meere liberalitie.

Of Merits

Section. 62 But they pretend, that workes done by the grace of the holy Spi­rit, are not meritorious; as if the holy Spirit were not able to worke in vs, and by vs, and with vs, such things as are worthy of himselfe.

Our aduersaries will haue workes done by grace and the aide of the holy Ghost to be meritorious. This is a bold asser­tion. For there is not any man in France (what seruice so euer he hath done for the king,) that dares presume to say to the king that he hath deserued to be made rich by the king: And which is more, if we merit eternall life, God should be vniust if he giues it not vnto vs; for it is iniustice to withhold a seruants wages from him which he hath deserued. By this meanes we are in a good case, and need do no more but to aske payment of God, if he will not be vniust. Then seeing it is so, it shall not be amisse to examine these merits, and to know the value and possibilitie of them.

In this point the Masse and the Councell of Trent are at va­riance. For in the Canon of the Masse which is said euery day, the Priest maketh this prayer: Receiue vs into the fellowship of thy Saints,Non est aesti­mator meriti sed veniae lar­gitor. not weighing our merits, but granting vs par­don, by Iesus Christ our Lord. But the Councell of Trent in the sixth Session hath ordained otherwise,Si quis dixerit homi­nis iustificati bona opera ita esse dona Dei vt non sint etiam bona ip­sius iustificati merita, &c. Anathemasit. defining, that the good workes of a righteous man are in such manner gifts of God, as that they are also our merits; and that a man (by the grace of God) may not onely merite eternall life, but al­so an augmentation of glory, that is, a degree of blessednesse in heauen more then ordinarie. The opinion of Thomas is,Thomas 1. par. 2 Quaestio­ne 14. art. 3. that our good works for so much as they proceed from the holy Spirit, condignely or worthily merite, that is, by equalitie in value. But that the same merits for so much as they proceede from our owne free will, onely merite by congruitie, and by right of well beseeming or correspondence, but not in rigor of iustice.

[Page 161]

But now adayes merits are higher aduanced. Cardinall Bellarmine which wrote in Rome with a generall approba­tion, and is commonly followed; in his fifth booke, chap. 7. of Iustification saith,Magis hono­rificū est ha­bere aliquid ex merito quā ex sola dona­tione. that it is more honorable to obtaine a thing by a mans owne desert, then to haue it by the onely gift of God. And in the foureteenth chapter he saith,Deus consti­tuet absolu­tam aequalita­tem inter o­pera & mer­cedes, vt vnus­quisque non minorem ha­beat mercedē quàm iusto iu­dicio merea­tur, quod est iustitiae com­mutatinae. That God will wholly equalize the worke and the reward, to the end that no man should haue lesse recompence then he deser­ueth, to iudge rightly, which is commutatiue iustice; This iustice is that which giues one for another, or so much for so much. And after he hath gone about (in the seuenteenth chapter) to proue, that good workes etiam sine pacto, that is, without the promise of God, haue a proportion with life e­ternall, he concludeth his proposition by a doctrine which he saith to be the common doctrine of Diuines, which is, that the good workes of the righteous merite eternall life by condignity or worthinesse, not onely in consideration of the promise and the acceptation, but also in consideration of the worke, in such sort that in good works proceeding from grace, there is a proportion and equalitie to the price of e­ternall life; from whence he inferreth, in the eighteenth chapter,17 § Iam ve­rò opera bona iustorum me­ritoria esse vi­tae aeternae, non solum ratione pacti & ac­ceptationis, sed etiam rae­tione operis, ita vt in opere bono ex gratia procedence, sit quaedam pro­portio & ae­qualitas ad praenium vi­tae aeternae. Non ex sola promissione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficitur debitor. That God is become debtor vnto vs, not onely because of his promise, but also because of our workes. So that we may say, that this Prelate is ready with Counters in his hand, to reckon with God, and to shew him how much he oweth vnto vs.

The beleefe of our Church is contrary to that. We say, that good workes are necessarie to saluation; not as causes of saluation, but as the way to attaine thereunto; via regni non causa regnandi. Good workes serue to glorifie God to edifie our neighbour, by exercise thereof to strengthen faith, to leade vs to saluation. But they are not the price of the ob­taining of saluation, which is sufficiently gotten for vs by the free redemption obtained by Iesus Christ.

1 It is sufficient to possesse or enioy the kingdom of God, as children of God; and by the title of Heires, and receiue it of free gift, without boasting, to possesse it by the title of [Page 162] buyers or purchasers thereof by our owne merites. Seeing that we haue in our hands a price of infinite value, whereby the kingdome of God is obtained for vs, that is, the merite of our Lord Iesus Christ, what neede haue we to buy that with our owne merites, which Iesus Christ hath bought for vs, and which God of his meere liberalitie giueth vnto vs?

2 The holy Scripture pricketh this swelling pride, and wholly bereaueth man of this confidence, and trust in his merites. For it calleth saluation a gift of God, and not a pur­chase by our merits, Ephes. 2.23. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternall life, Rom. 6.23. Vpon which place Saint Augustine saith thus:Cap. 9. de gra­tia & libero arbitrio. Cum posset dicere & recte dicere stipen­dium iustitiae vita aeterna, maluit dicere Gratia autē Deivita aeter­na, vt hinc in­telligeremus, non pro meri­tis nostris, De­um nos ad ae­ternam vitam, sed pro sua miseratione perducere. Whereas the Apostle might truly haue said, That the wages of righteousnesse is life eternall; he chose rather to say, That the grace of God is life eternall; that th [...]reby we should vnderstand, that God leadeth vs to life eternall by his mercie, and not by our merites.

3 The same Apostle, 2, Tim. 1.9. saith, He hath saued vs, and called vs with an holy calling, not according to our workes, but according to his owne purpose and grace, which was giuen vnto vs through Iesus Christ before the world was. Note these words, He hath saued vs, to confute M. Arnoux glosse, who onely confesseth, that the first iustification, that is, the beginning of regeneration proceedeth not from our merites, but touching saluation he saith that we merite it. Cleane contrary to the Apostle, who denyeth that we are saued by our workes.

4 Therefore, when question is made, to know by what meanes we obtaine eternall saluation, the same Apostle op­poseth the grace of God against workes, as things disagree­ing, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the wages is not counted by fauour, but by debt. You may well say he speakes to our Ad­uersaries, saying: To you which put your trust in your works, the reward of life eternall must not be reputed for a free gift of God, but for a thing due vnto you: as before we haue heard Bellarmine boast that God is debtor vnto vs. And you must note, that the Apostle speaks of Abraham then when he beleeued in God, and that faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse; to the end that no man should thinke or con­ceiue [Page 163] that he spake of vnregenerated persons, or of workes that are done by naturall force.

5 The same Apostle, Romans 11.6. saith, If it be of grace, it is no more workes, or else grace were no more grace: But if it be of workes, it is no more grace, or else worke were no more workes. Then to obtaine eternall life by the grace of God, and to ob­taine it by our workes, are things contrarie. The merits of our aduersaries are they not works? And if they obtaine saluation by their merits, saluation is no more a grace of God. Some of them excuse themselues and say, that we merite by the ayde and help of the grace of God, and that our merits are not ac­ceptable, vnlesse they be died with the blood of Iesus Christ, and that Iesus Christ merites makes ours auaileable.

6 Whereby they get nothing, for seeing that the grace of God excludes mans merites, how shall we merite by his grace? Did Iesus Christ merite that I might merite, seeing it is the merite of Iesus Christ which makes my merites su­perfluous? for he merited expresly to the end that we should no more be bound to obtaine saluation by our merits. The Apostle to exclude the merites of workes, propoundeth the grace of God, saying: If it be by grace it is not by workes. Then how wil they haue vs to merit by grace? To merite by grace, is a thing as much disagreeing as for a man to freese with heate, or to be wet with drinesse. For grace presupposeth a gift, and to merite is a kinde of buying: so to merite by grace, is to buy by meere gift, which is a ridiculous conceit.

7 To conclude, God giueth no man grace to derogate or disparage his grace, nor vertue to obtaine by merites a thing already fully gotten by the merite of Iesus Christ. As for this imaginarie dying with the blood of Christ, I say [...]hat Iesus Christ doth not die our workes with so high a colour. Let vs rather learne to disburthen our soules of pride, then to stuffe this shapelesse idole, inuented by men, besides, yea contrary to the word of God.

8 The example of yong children that die shortly after they are baptized, is most cleare and manifest for this pu pose. For our Aduersaries grant that those children possesse life e­ternall [Page 164] without merites, by vertue of the free adoption in Ie­sus Christ. Now there is not diuers meanes of saluation according to the diuersitie of persons, in such manner that one should be saued without merites, and another by his merites.

9 Free election is an inuincible proofe against merites. The Scripture speaketh of men elected, predestinated, and preordained to eternall life, Ephesians 1.4.5. Romans 8.9. Acts 13.48. And saith, that this election is free. Paul. cal­leth it, The election of grace, Romans 11.5.6. Now to shew how it is by grace, he expoundeth it adding that it is not by workes, saying: Euen so then at this present there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if it be of grace, it is no more of works. And 9.11.16. That the purpose of God might remaine according to election, not by workes, but by him that calleth. And then addeth: So then it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercy. To attaine to this sal­uation whereunto they are predestinated, God freely giueth them his holy Spirit, which imprinteth faith in them, and fra­meth their mindes to good workes. Ephes. 1.4. As he hath chosen vs in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy. Philip. 2.13. For it is God which worketh in you both the will and the deede, euen of his good pleasure, Iohn 15.5. For without me can ye do nothing. 2. Cor. 3.5. But our sufficiencie is of God. Then if we haue not merited to be elected to saluati­on, we haue not merited to be saued. If neither the election to saluation, nor the meanes giuen vs to attaine to this salua­tion, are not merited, how shall this saluation be merited? To say, that God hath freely predestinated vs to merite salua­tion, it is to contradict our selues. For it is as much as to say, that God freely predestinateth vs to be saued but not freely. If a man should freely giue me an house or an inheritāce, two hundred miles from hence, vpon condition to go thither to take possession thereof, and conducteth me on the way, nourisheth me, releeueth me when I fall, setteth me in the way when I go wrong, giueth me strength to go vntill such time as he putteth me in possession: can I say that I haue [Page 165] gotten this inheritance by my merits? shall my steps be the price of the acquisition or getting thereof? This giuer is God, those to whom it is giuen are the Elect, the inheritance giuen is the kingdome of heauen; the way to attaine thereunto, are the commandements of God: euery good worke is a step in this way. In which way if we stumble, or go wrong, God vpholdeth vs, and sets vs in the way againe, giueth vs strength to go forward: and being at the end of our iourney shall we be so brutish to presume to reckon our steps for merits? yea and for merits of condignitie or equiualence, and to thinke that God is debter vnto vs? But what can the creator owe to the creature? or what can he owe vnto vs, vnto whom we owe our selues?

10 Those that are of opinion that God hath not elected this or that man because or in consideration of his good workes, but because he foresaw that they should beleeue in Iesus Christ, fall into the like inconuenience; because they speake of faith as of a kind of worke, and of a vertue in the faithfull, which they make to precede the election of God. And I see no reason why they will not haue good workes also a condi­tion which preceds the election of God, seeing that God electeth none but those that shall do good workes, and that good workes are as necessary to saluation as faith is. Then we must say, that God hath freely elected those whom it pleased him, and that to them freely and without merit he giueth his holy Spirit, which in their hearts imprinteth a liuely faith working by charity.

11 If we will comprehend what this word merit impor­teth, the difficulty would soone be decided. There are sixe things required to merit.

1 The worke that is done must not be a worke that is due to be done for it is no merit for a man to pay his debts.

2 We must offer that which is our own. For to present any thing to the king that belongs vnto him, that is no merit.

3 The worke that a man doth to merit of any man, must be fit for his vse and purpose: for a man cannot merit of a­ny man by a worke that is not good nor profitable for him.

[Page 166]

4 The worke that we do to merit withall, must not be de­fectiue, and wherein there is any thing to be pardoned.

5 There must be some proportion betweene the worke and the reward that a man will merit by the worke.

6 Lastly, the thing that we desire to obtaine by merito­rious workes, must not be already obtained by another for­mer meanes: for to seeke of a proprietary or possessor, to be a purchaser, it is to remit our propriety. By these sixe reasons following the word of God teacheth vs that we cannot merit of God.

1 First, all the good that we do, is a thing due, as Iesus Christ saith, Luke 17.10. So likewise when you haue done all these things which are commanded you, say, we are vnprofitable seruants, we haue done that which was our dutie to do.

2 All the good that we do comes from God, and by con­sequence cannot merit at Gods hands. 2. Cor. 3.5. Not that we are sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing, as of our selues, but our sufficiency is of God. Phil. 2.13. For it us God which wor­keth in you both the will and the deed, euen of his good pleasure. He crowneth his owne gifts, and repayeth not our me­rits.

3 Our workes are no profit vnto him. Psal. 16.2. My good­nesse extendeth not to thee. It is true that they are pleasing vnto God, for God loueth that which he doth, but yet they are not meritorious. For if they merited, it should be God that should merit, and not man. The Mother Terese, translated by Monsieur de Berulle, which nameth himselfe the Confessor of the blessed, saith with a good grace, that the seruants of God haue taken so much paines to aide our Lord. cap. 3. fol. 11.

4 Moreouer, our good workes are imperfect, and there is alwayes some defect in them, Rom. 7. The Spirit striueth against the flesh, Galat. 5.18. So that we alwayes ought to grow in grace, and alwayes haue need to aske pardon. The loue of a thing is according to the knowledge that a man hath thereof: now, here we know but in part, and obscurely, as S. Paul 1. Cor 13.9.12. saith: Therefore now we loue but in part and imperfectly.

[Page 167]

5 If we compare the worke with the reward which we pretend to merit, what comparison is there betweene im­perfect workes, and which in a moment passe away, and an eternall and celestiall kingdome? Martyrdome is one of the most excellent workes, notwithstanding the Apostle Rom. 8.18. saith, I count that the afflictions of this present time, are not worthy of the glory which shall be shewed vnto vs. 2. Cor. 4.17. Our light affliction which is but for a moment, causeth vnto vs a farre more excellent and an eternall weight of glory.

6 Lastly, how can we by our merits obtaine eternall life, which is already obtained for vs by our redemption in Iesus Christ, and which appertained vnto vs, in as much as we are children of God, adopted in Iesus Christ? Galat. 4.7. If thou art a sonne, thou art also the heire of God through Christ. Rom. 8.17. If we be children, we are also heires, euen the heires of God, & heires annexed with Christ. Wherupon also the kingdome of God is not called a purchase by our workes, but by an inhe­ritance, Ephes. 1.14.18. Whosoeuer pretendeth by his merits to purchase the inheritance that he hath from his father, ca­steth off childlike affections, and renounceth his succession, and of a sonne and heire, becomes mercenary and a pur­chaser, and in conclusion goeth about to pay God with coyne ouerlight.

12 For this also is a great imperfection in the Church of Rome, who not contenting themselues to gaine Paradise by their merits, bring in diuers other workes for merits, which are none, and which not onely do not merit a reward, but ra­ther deserue punishment: as to pray without vnderstan­ding what they say: to fast for another man: to kisse holy graines: to say their Pater-noster and Aue Marie by tale vpon a paire of beades: to go to the Iubilie: to worship relickes: to run on pilgrimage into Spaine, leauing their houses, worke and families: to make garments to put vpon images: to take from their poore children to giue to rich Monks, &c. These are workes for which God is indebted vnto men, and is in arrerages vnto them. Now if good workes become euill when they are done in pride, as thereby to bind God to men, [Page 168] How much lesse are euill workes meritorious to saluation, and all this trash and trifles of mens inuentions which they present vnto God for merits? For our aduersaries thinke that they haue reason to presume, that God is not vnthankfull vn­to those that do good vnto him.

The effects of this doctrine of pride are sufficient to ouer­throw it. For these men that are so laden with merits, say, that they know not whether they shall be saued or not, and die in feare and disquietnesse of conscience: It is (say they) a kind of rashnesse to assure our selues of our saluation. This distrust is most iust; this doubt of theirs is well grounded, see­ing that the trust of our merits is without g [...]ound. For who knoweth the value or worth of euery merit? Who knowes for how much euery peece of this money goes currant in Pa­radise? Who knowes when he hath done merits enough? Therefore the deuoutest men buy other mens merits, & (as the Priest doth in the Masse) aske saluation of God for the merits of Saints.

From this assurance & trust that any man hath of his merits, there springeth a most euident consequence, that is, that in stead (as in the Scripture) that faith produceth good workes, here on the contrary, workes produce faith, and are the foun­dation of the hope of saluation. That which M. Arnoux thrusteth in by the way touching workes of supererogation, shall be hereafter examined apart.

Section. 63 Places of Scripture quoted in the margent of the Confession, Psal. 16.2. O my soule thou hast said vnto the Lord, My goodnesse extendeth not vnto thee.

It is very true, that our workes serue for nothing vnto God, and that he hath no need of them: but doth it therefore follow, that being conformable to his Law, and done by his holy Spirit, that they are not pleasi [...]g vnto him, and worthy of his commendation, that is meritorious?

They are pleasing vnto him, and worthy of commenda­tion, [Page 169] but not meritorious.

Section. 64 Luke 17.16. So likewise ye, when ye haue done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are vnprofitable seruants, we haue done that which was our duty to do.

This place makes nothing for them, as I haue shewed in the Ar­ticle.

But on the contrary it is euident and manifest against me­rits, because they are vnprofitable to God; and you haue said nothing against it, but onely that you said, that they that do more then they are bound to do, are no vnprofitable seruants: which is another abuse worse then the first, whereof I will speake hereafter.

Section. 65 Rom. 4.1. What shall we say then, that Abraham our father hath found concerning the flesh? for if Abraham was iustified by workes, he hath wherein to reioyce, but not with God.

Abraham by workes voyde of faith, (whether they were morall or ceremoniall) could not be iustified, nor haue any glory but be­fore men; and faith onely without workes did not iustifie him, saith Saint Iames. But faith ioyned with workes got him true glorie, and iustified him before God.

It is false that Saint Paul, Rom. 4.1. said, that Abraham was not iustified by the workes of the ceremoniall Law, whereof Saint Paul had not yet spoken in the precedent chapters, and which was not a law in Abrahams time.

It is false also that Saint Paul said, that Abraham was not iustified by morall workes without faith. For he speakes ex­presly of the workes that Abraham did hauing faith, then when Moses saith of him, Abraham beleeued, and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse. Gen. 15.6. He beleeued then, and yet it was from that time that Saint Paul faith, that his faith [Page 170] was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse. Which is confir­med by the example of Dauid, added to that of Abraham, who also established righteousnesse without works, when be wrote the 32 Psalme, wherein he placeth all the blessednesse of man in the remission of sinnes: at which time Dauid was regenerated and iustified. It was of morall workes, and done by him in the time of his Apostleship, that Saint Paul spake 1. Cor. 4.4. saying, For I know nothing by my selfe, and he addeth thereunto, yet am I not thereby iustified.

Section. 66 He hath saued vs, not by the workes of righteousnesse which we had done, but according to the washing of regeneration and renew­ing of the holy Spirit. Tit. 3.5.

That is true, that our workes without the sacraments of Bap­tisme and of Penance which renew vs, cannot saue vs. Those Sa­craments are necessary, either done in vow or in act, but what serues that for the Article?

M. Arnoux falsification.You falsifie this place of Scripture: this is the truth of it. He saued vs, not by the workes of righteousnesse, which we had done, but according to his mercie, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy Spirit. You haue left out these words, but according to his mercy: which excludes merits. If by the word regeneration Saint Paul vnderstandeth bap­tisme, or interior satisfaction, it is another question. But to the purpose, is not this place expresly against merits, seeing he saith, that God hath not saued vs by our works? Touching that which M. Arnoux addeth, that Baptisme and the Sacra­ment of Penance are necessarie either by vow or in act, it shall be examined hereafter. By the way let the Reader marke, that M. Arnoux esteemeth not Baptisme to be necessarie to saluation, seeing that a vow is sufficient; and that he holdeth that a man may be saued without doing actuall Penance, for he holdeth that it is sufficient that a man hath an intent to do it.

[Page 171]

Section. 67 Contrary places of Scripture. Iames. 2.21. Was not Abraham our father iustified through workes, when he offered Isaac his sonne vpon the altar?

Do you not see, that man is iustified by workes, and not by faith onely?

It is true, before men: but not before God, as the Apostle Rom. 4.2, saith. For Abraham were iustified by workes, he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God. But seeing that our aduer­saries take the word iustification for regeneration, it is in vaine for them to obiect this place against vs; for we know that man is not regenerated onely by faith. Charitie, and other Christian vertues, are also a part of regeneration.

Whether God is debter vnto vs. And touching the reward.

Section. 68 Heb. 6 10. For God is not vnrighteous, that he should forget your workes. And therefore if he should forget it, he should be vn­iust, and he cannot be vniust in this case, but in refusing that which he oweth.

These words are horrible. If God should denie life eter­nall to M. Arnoux, he should denie him that which he oweth him, and God should be an ill payer of his debts. It may be he is afraid that he will play banckrupt, for how should he pay so many debts? The mischiefe is, that the Iesuite hath no meanes to constraine him, nor to summon him. Let this Doctor learne that God is iust in regarding our good works, not because our workes deserue it, but because Gods promise is such. It is a iust thing to accomplish his promise. A man may promise to one a thing that he hath not yet de­serued. A man may reward one that hath not merited a re­ward. [Page 172] For there are full rewards which are giuen in considera­tion of the person, & not for the merite of the worke. As a fa­ther giueth a new coate to his sonne as a reward for making of a line with a shaking hand. He would not reward another in that manner which should haue done an hundred times as much. That which in Matthew 5.36, is called a reward, in Luke 6.32, is called grace, [...]. And the penny giuen to the workemen that came at the last houre, is called a reward; al­though much aboue their desert, Mat. 20. Saint Ambrose writeth expresly vpon this place, in the first Epistle of his first booke:Alia est mer­ces liberalita­tis & gratiae, alia virtutis stipendium la­boris remune­ratio. There is (saith he) a kind of reward which is giuen of liberality and of grace, and another which is the wages of vertue, and the recompence of a mans labour.

Section. 69 If they did not reiect Ecclesiasticus, I would intreat them to con­sider of the sixteenth chapter, verse. 14. Make way for euery worke of mercy, for euery man shall finde according to the merits of his workes, and according to the vnderstanding of his pilgrimage. And the 3.15, of Wisedome: He found them worthy for himselfe. Dignitie and merite are all one thing.

M. Arnoux falsification. [...].This place of Ecclesiasticus is horibly falsified. This word of merite is not found therein. In the Greeke which is the o­riginall, there is, Euery man shall finde according to his workes, and not according to the merite of his workes. This falsifi­cation is very remarkable.

Touching the place of the third of Wisedome, He found thē worthy of himselfe. M. Arnoux sheweth how little he is ac­quainted with the Scriptures:Reuel. 3.4. Luc. 20.35. Luc. 10.7. for in stead of producing places out of the Canonicall bookes where oftentimes the faith­full are called worthy, he brings vs a place out of the Apocry­pha, and which is not in the Hebrew Bible. But to conclude, I say, that if any man be worthy of saluation, it is God that makes him worthy, and not his merits. Dignitie is no merit before God, seeing that dignitie comes from God. And I [Page 173] say, that if mans dignitie came from man himselfe, and from his owne strength, yet there should be no merite before God, who can not be bound to his creature, and to whom our good workes bring no fruite. Much lesse can there be any merite towards God, seeing that all the dignitie in man pro­ceedeth from his liberalitie, and what dignity soeuer is in him, it is mixed with much imperfection.

Whereas the Scripture saith, that God will reward men according to their workes, as Saint Paul 2. Corinthians 5.Aliud redde­re secundum opera, aliud propter opera; aliud agere de causa salutis, aliud de qua­litate eorum quibus datur. 10. saith That euery man may receiue the things done in his body, according to that which he hath done, whether it be good or euill. Pope Gregorie the first, vpon the seuenth Psalme of mercie, noteth very well, that it is one thing to render to euery one according to his workes; and another to render vnto them for their workes. It is one thing to speake of th [...] cause of sal­uation, and another to speake of the qualitie of those to whom it is giuen.

Of workes of Supererogation.

Section. 70 We confesse that we are unprofitable seruants in this, that who­soeuer obserueth the commandement, without doing any more then he is bound to do, shall haue no other recompence then that which followeth the obseruation of the commandement, and shall be estee­med vnprofitable, as touching the receiuing of the fulnesse of re­compence that followeth those that do something more then that whereunto they are bound.

It is not enough to seeke to merit life eternall by workes, as our Aduersaries say, for M. Arnoux will perswade vs, that there are some which merite more then life eternall, and a degree of glorie in heauen aboue the ordinary sort of men. M. Arnoux saith, that those that obserue the commande­ments of God, and do no more then that whereunto they [Page 174] are bound, shall haue no other recompence then that which followeth the obseruation of the commandement, that is to say, that all their recompence shall be life eternall, which is promised to those that accomplish the commandements of God. Those that haue no other perfection, but onely that they haue perfectly obeyed God, are vnprofitable seruants; and incapable of a greater glory: therfore they must be con­tent with eternall life without pretending to haue more. But there are some that do more then God will haue them to do: and (as M. Arnoux saith) that do something more then that which they are bound to do: those shall haue the full accom­plishing of the recompence, and a glorie aboue the common sort. This is a new Gospel, drawne out of the vnwritten word, This is a doctrine full of courage, which esteemeth it a small thing to fulfill the Law of God, and studieth for another per­fection, for feare to be an vnprofitable seruant. This surplus­sage which is done ouer and aboue that whereunto a man is bound, is that which they call Counsels of perfection, and workes of Supererogation, perfecter, and more excellent then all that which God commandeth in his Law, and more then to loue God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himselfe. Such is perpetuall virginitie, martyrdome, and di­stribution of all that a man hath vnto the poore, monasticall vowes of obedience, pouerty, and chastity. Of those that do these supererogatorie workes,§ Quocirca si addam alterū gradum plus quàm teneor atque eo modo facio actum supererogatio­nis & consilij Cardinall Bellarmine in the thirteenth chapter of the booke of Monkes, saith, That they loue God more then they are bound to do. Those (fol­lowing Bellarmine) M. Arnoux saith, are not vnprofitable seruants. But he tells vs not to whom they are profitable: for it is necessarie that they should be profitable, either to God, to themselues, or to their neighbours. To God they are not, for he hath no need of our seruice. Then they must either be profitable to themselues or to their neighbors. Then how are they who by their merites obtaine nothing but life eter­nall, called vnprofitable seruants, seeing that M. Arnoux will not deny but that they profite themselues, and do the like to their neighbours?

[Page 175]

We on the contrary, acknowledge our selues to be so farre off from being able to do more then that which God come mandeth, that we are farre from being able to do that which he commandeth; and putting all our hope and confidence in the mercie of God, seeke not after a degree of glorie aboue the ordinarie sort of the elect. In what degree of glorie soe­uer we be, it sufficeth vs, so we may be with our Sauiour, and see the face of our God. In the meane time we reiect not the counsels which are found in the Scripture. It is wise counsell to abstaine from lawfull things, that a man may the easier ac­custome himselfe to leaue vnlawfull things. It is wise coun­sell to abstaine from meates which God permitteth to eate, when a weake conscience may be troubled thereby. It is wise counsell to a Minister of the Church, not to take any reward, when he can make shift without it, or when the aduersaries take occasion thereby to make his preaching suspicious. It is wise counsell to a man that is continent not to marrie, to the end that he may not be diuerted by domesticall cares, and so beare persecution the easier. But we call these counsels, coun­sels of Christian wisedome, and not of perfection; the ob­seruation whereof is not meritorious, nor supererogatorie, but a thing much lesse then the accomplishment of the Law.

Our reasons against these counsels of perfection or works of supererogation are these:

1 God in his Law commandeth vs to loue and to serue him with all our hearts, and with all our strength. And a man can do no more then his strength will permit him to do. Bel­larmine will, in effect, haue vs by this word all, Lib. de Mo­nachis cap. 13. to vnderstand part. So that when the Scripture saith a thing is white, we must vnderstand blacke. If such interpretations be permitted, what euident testimony would be found in the word of God?

2 The Apostle Saint Paul to the Philippians, chapter 4.8. commandeth vs to thinke on those things that are iust, pure, com­mendable and honest. If workes of supererogation be iust and pure, they are commanded by the Apostle, and so are not su­p [...]erogatorie: If they be not iust nor pure, wre must not ob­serue them.

[Page 176]

3 If a man cannot accomplish the Law, much lesse then can we do more then the Law commands. Iames 3.2. For in many things we sinne all. 1. Kings 8.46. For there is no man that sinneth not. Psalme 116.11. All men are liers. All the Apostles daily said, Forgiue vs our offences. Noah, Abraham, Dauid, Iob, Saint Peter, and the most excellent seruants of God, sinned. Iob is called iust & perfect, and yet cursed the day of his birth. It is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth, Luke 1.6. that they were iust before God, and walked in all the commandements and ordi­nances of the Lord, without reproofe. But these words, without reproofe, must be expounded, that they walked in such sort in the commandements of God, that no man could reproue them in any thing: notwithstanding it appeares that Zacha­rias was a sinner; for that not long after he was punished, because he did not beleeue the word of God declared vnto him by the Angell. Then how can we present vnto God more then he asketh, seeing we cannot giue him that which is his due? How can we do superaboundant workes, if we want necessarie workes?

4 The perfection of the Angels, Psal. 103.20. is said to consist in executing the commandement of God. Iesus Christ himselfe saith, that he came to do the will of him that sent him, Iohn 6.38, and Hebr. 10.7. These Doctors doing more then the will of God, surpasse the Angels and Iesus Christ himselfe, who could haue attained to monastical perfectnesse, if he had thought vpon or remembred to haue done workes of supererogation.

5 I would also know of our Aduersaries, that do more then God will haue them to do and that by consequence exceede the commandement of God, if in doing those workes of su­pererogation they do the will of God, or their owne. If they do the will of God, then they do no work of supererogation, but a necessarie worke. If they do their owne will, how dare they say that their will is perfecter then the will of God?

6 If to do these superabundant works, God giueth them his Spirit and his assistance, then necessarily they are bound to do them, lest they should make the grace of God of no ef­fect. [Page 177] And so they should no more be workes of supereroga­tion, because they are bound to do them.

7 But is not this to wrong the Law of God, which is the rule of righteousnesse, and to accuse it of imperfection, to go about to do perfecter workes then those which the Law commandeth? The righteousnesse of the Law is poore and miserable, is sinners can exceed it. I [...] there be rules of perfe­ction aboue the Law, what followeth, but that the Law is an imperfect rule?

8 But is not this an intollerable pride to make Monkes profitable seruants of God, and Abraham, Iacob, and Da­uid vnprofitable seruants, because they did none of those workes of supererogation?

9 I am afraid that he which intrudes himselfe to do more seruice vnto God then he will haue him do, in the end will finde himselfe ill paid for his seruice. For, who required that at his hands? Where do we finde in the word of God the in­stitution of Monkes, and of their monasticall vowes?

10 Compare these superabundant workes with those which God commands, and you shall finde much inequality in them. For the loue of God commanded in the Law is al­wayes good and necessary: but the vow of single life is euill for those that haue not the gift of continencie 1. Corint. 7 9. For it is better to marry then to burne. To giue all our goods to the poore, is oftentimes a great sinne, if by that meanes we bereaue our children of them, deceiue our creditors, and dis­inherite our right heires. Pietie doth not ouerthrow nature. 1. Tim. 5.8. He is worse then an infidell that hath not a care of his familie. Is pietie like a frenzie, which maketh a man forget Iustice? It may so happen that some men with hypocrisie or ambition will giue all their goods to the poore, as S. Paul 1. Cor. 13.3. saith. Adde hereunto, that Mon [...]s that make vowes of chastitie, pouertie, and obedience, are by experience con­uinced of the contrary. For the vow of chastitie makes them vnchaste, and abstinence from marriage pusheth them for­ward to adultery. They make a particular vow of pouerty, to be rich in common, and follow a fat and idle kinde of beg­ging, [Page 178] in stead of a sober and vigilant labour. They make a vow of obedience to the rules of Saint Francis, or Saint Ig­natius, and dispense with themselues for not obeying the commandements of God.

11 Touching Martyrdome, there are two sorts, one which God calleth men vnto, the other, whereinto men rashly thrust themselues. God calleth men to martyrdome, when a man cannot saue his life, but by renouncing true Religion: Then martyrdome is a worke commanded; and so necessary, that without it, in that case, a man cannot be saued. It is not then a superabundant worke: it is not a counsell, but a com­mandement. For God in his Law commandeth vs to loue him aboue all things; therefore more then our liues. In this case then, whosoeuer would saue his life shall lose his soule. He that shall deny Iesus Christ before men, Iesus Christ will deny him before his Father. But if martyrdome be vndertaken rashly, and if a man run into it without being called there­unto, then it is a transgression of the commandement of Ie­sus Christ, which saith, Matt. 10.23. When they persecute you in one citie, flie into another. And it is against Saint Paules ex­ample, who to escape from his enemies, caused himselfe to be let downe in a basket out at a window in Damascus. Faith walketh betweene rashnesse and cowardise. In time of need it maketh the faithfull resolute to die, but it is not angry or vnwilling to liue. Withall, in martyrdome there are two things, the dolor and paine of the body, and the constancie and zeale of faith. The dolor of the body is not a vertue, but an exercise of vertue. Firme faith is a vertue commanded by God, & not a perfection beyond the commandement of God.

12 Adde vnto that a demonstratiue proofe, that is, that a good thing of it selfe is alwayes better then a thing that is not good but because of another thing. So life is better then meate, because meate is made to maintaine life. So it is with the loue of God commanded in the law, compared with these works of supererogation: For the loue of God is always holy, good, and necessarie. but to distribute our goods, or to suf­fer martyrdome, is not good vnlesse it be done for the loue [Page 179] of God. If we ioyne these things together, the distribution of our goods to the poore is not good, but because men are moued thereunto for the loue of God. If you separate them, the loue of God alone is good and holy: but the distribution of our goods without the loue of God is a fault, an iniu­stice, and hypocrisie.

13 The example which our Aduersaries take out of the nineteenth of Saint Mathew, makes nothing for this abuse. A presumptuous yong man said, that he had kept Gods com­mandements from his youth vpward: to whom Iesus Christ said, verse 21. If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that thou hast, and giue it to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen. Our Aduersaries say, that Iesus Christ did onely counsell, and not command the yong man to sell all his goods, with a counsell of perfection; and that this treasure in heauen is a glorie a­boue the ordinarie glorie of the Saints, promised to those, who hauing accomplished the Law, do something more, & follow a greater perfection. To cleare this, we must know, that this yong man abused himselfe, and lyed, in boasting that he had accomplished the Law. For Iesus Christ accuseth him of putting his trust in his riches, Marke 10.14. And for forsaking Iesus Christ, and preferring his goods before Iesus Christ, he manifestly shewed his couetousnesse. He that lo­ueth his riches more then Iesus Christ, doth not loue him with all his heart, and with all his soule, and by consequence hath not accomplished the Law. Chrysostome in his 64. Ho­milie vpon Saint Mathew saith, that he was couetous. Saint Augustine in his 89. Epistle saith, That yong man answered more arrogantly then truly,Ad Hilarium libr. 4. de lin­quendis sacul­tatibus. [...]. that he had obserued the com­mandements of the Law. Basil in his Sermon against Riches speaketh thus to that yong man: It is euident that thou art farre estranged from the commandement, that thou giuest false witnesse of thy selfe. Seeing therefore that this man had not fulfilled the Law, it had bene in vaine for Iesus Christ to counsell him to do more then the Law: it had bene as much as if a man should set vp the weathercocke before the foundation be laid.

[Page 180]

Iesus Christ, that knew his heart was set vpon his riches, gaue him that commandement, thereby to discouer his a­uarice, and to checke him for the same. And it is not to be doubted, that refusing to do that which Iesus Christ said vnto him, but he offended God. Whereas the Gospell saith, that Iesus Christ loued him, it doth not argue that he was without sinne: for Iesus loued Ierusalem, when he wept ouer it, and yet he accused it that it had slaine the Prophets. And dying for sinners, he shewed sufficiently that he loued them. It was then a compassionate loue that he shewed to that man, in whom he acknowledged some commendable in­deauour, and some seedes of the feare of God.

Of Inuocation of Saints.

Section. 71 The Sonne of God is the onely Mediator which maketh inter­cession for vs, and he alone it is who speaking for vs cannot be de­nied or refused; and he onely, without whose mediation all others can preuaile nothing before God; and he onely that neuer ceasseth to intermediate for vs, and that by his onely and proper merits. But whither do they runne which thinke or imagine, that none others but onely the Sonne of God can implore the bounty and mercy of God by the merits of Christ: seeing they agree with vs, that we may obtaine all whatsoeuer we aske for our selues in his Name and that we shall not be denied for others?

[Page 182]

He speaks according to his accustomed manner, which is, neuer to report the truth of our beleefe. We say nothing of all that which he maketh vs to say; we know well that others besides Iesus Christ may implore the bounty and mercy of God by the merits of Iesus Christ.

Section. 72 Why sooner, or rather in this life then in the other, shall we haue this credite?

This also makes vs say things farre differing from our be­leefe. Our Confession defineth not what we shall do in the life to come, nor whether we shall pray for those that are li­uing after vs vpon the earth. That is not our difference. The question is, whether when we shall be in heauen, men that are on earth ought to pray vnto and call vpon vs. It is one thing to enquire or to seeke to know what the Saints do in heauen, and another thing to know what we should do here on earth. But M. Arnoux not vnderstanding the question, mixeth those two things together, which are much differing one from the other.

Section. 73 Haue the Saints in heauen lesse knowledge of our necessities, or lesse charitie then we?

Whether the Saints vnderstand our prayers, and all whatsoeuer is done vpon earth.

The Saints that are in heauen haue more charitie then we, and more knowledge of those things which belong or [Page 183] serue to their blessednesse. But it is not necessarie nor con­uenient for their blessedness [...], that they should haue an exact knowledge of all particular things which are done here vp­pon earth, nor that they should know euery processe that is handled in Courts of Law, the troubles and businesse in a Faire, or for how much euery oxe is sold in a market. I speake not of many filthy & dishonest things: as also of diuers other things which might trouble their blessednesse: as if a father should see the vices and afflictions of his children, one sent to the gallowes, another vpon a scaffold to be executed, ano­ther cast downe into hell, and another kneeling before an I­mage to pray vnto it.

The holy Scripture makes it euident vnto vs Salomon in the 9. of Ecclesiastes, 5.6. saith, that the dead know not any thing, nei­ther haue they any more a reward. And a little after, Neither haue they any more a portion for euer in any thing that is done vnder the Sunne. And Iob 14.21, speaking of a father that is dead, saith, His sonnes come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiueth it not. And 2. Kings. 22.20. God promiseth king Iosias, to let him go peaceably downe to his graue, that his eyes should not see the euill which God intended to bring vpon the Iewes.

Againe. If the Saints vnderstood our prayers, it is necessa­ry that they should know the imaginations of our hearts, to know whether we pray with a good affection. But the holy Scripture, 2. Chron. 6.30. saith, that God onely knoweth the hearts of the children of men. It is to no purpose to say that God onely of himselfe knows the hearts of men, & that the Saints know them by reuelation: for besides that this is to diuine and affirme a thing which is vnknowne vnto vs, and where­of the Scripture speaketh not, in this distinction there is a contradiction. For they giue vs a reason why the Scripture saith, that the Saints know not our hearts, which is, because God hath giuen them vnderstanding to know them: they say, that they know not our thoughts, because God hath made them know them. As if I should say, I haue no money because you gaue me some: by the same reason I may say, that God [Page 184] onely knowes that Iesus Christ died for vs, because he knoweth it from, and by himselfe; but we know it not, but by reuelation. He that hath taught a thing to another man, cannot say that he onely knoweth it. I confesse that God sometimes reuealed the thoughts and counsels of some men vnto his Prophets: but that knowledge was seldome giuen vnto the Prophets, and onely in as much as it was necessary for the execution of their charge. And 2. Kings 4.47, Elisaeus saith that God had hidden the death of his hostesse the Suna­mites sonne from him; how much more the hearts of all men? And by consequence, that cannot be alledged for the Saints that are dead, to whom God hath not giuen any charge in the Church. For to say that men giue the Saints charges and offices in Paradise, making one the protector of women in childbed, another a Physition to heale the toothach, another to cure horses, another Patron of a towne or a whole coun­trie, is a thing no lesse absurd then if the flies should take vpon them to distribute and giue the charges and offices of the Empire of Rome to whom they would.

And this may serue also for answer to the argument drawne from the example of the Angels, amongst whom the Gospell teacheth vs, there is ioy for the conuersion of a sinner, Luke 15.10. God hath appointed the Angels to be gardians of the faithfull. Psal. 34.7. The Angell of the Lord encampeth round about them that feare him, and deliuereth them: and Heb. 1.14. They are ministring spirits, sent forth to minister for their sakes which shall be heires of saluation. It is no maruell then that God reuealeth vnto them the interior repentance of a sinner, and that they reioyce at the effects thereof which appeare out­wardly.

To thinke that the Angels and the Saints in the presence of God, know all things, or to say with Pope Gregorie in the three and thirtieth chapter and fourth booke of his Dialo­gues,Quid est quod ibi nesciant, qui scientem omnia sciunt? What know not they there, where they know him which knoweth all things? is to giue their rash coniectures for lawes, and without the word of God, to speake of that which is done in heauen, as if they came newly from thence: [Page 185] and it is contrary to the word of God. For Iesus Christ, Mat. 18.10. saith, that The Angels alwayes behold the face of the Fa­ther which is in heauen: and yet they know not when the day of iudgement shall be, Marke 13.32. By the publication of the Gospel they haue learned things which before they knew not. For Saint Paul, Ephes. 3.10. speaking of the publication of the Gospell among the Gentiles, saith, that it was done, to the intent that the manifold wisedome of God might be made knowne vnto principalities and powers in heauenly places. Whereupon Saint Peter in his first Epistle, 1.12. saith, that The Angels desire to see those things; as desiring to learne them.

Touching Pope Gregories words, they may well be borne withall, if he speake of the knowledge that the Saints haue of things belonging to their blessed state. But if he speake of a general knowledge of all things, his words are as full of ab­surdity; as if one shold say, that he which seeth Philip, necessa­rily seeth all that which Philip sees. If standing on the ground I see a man vpon the top of a steeple, do I see all that which he seeth? If the sight of him that looketh, is to be measured ac­cording to the sight of him on whom he looketh, he that sees a blind man shall see nothing at all.

To be short, to affirme that the knowledge of the Saints should be of the like extent that the sight of God is, it is to make the creature infinite. For first, it is necessary that the Saints (in that respect) should know the infinitie of Gods essence, and in a finite spirit should containe an infinite knowledge: and also that in a moment they should know all things: and that Saint Nicolas in an instant should see all the thoughts of men, and vnderstand all their prayers. Things which repugne the essence of creatures, whose essence as it consisteth in a currant for a time, so the actions thereof are successiue, and are done one after another, and not all in a moment. The ancient Fathers speake of the state of the Saints, and of the memory of things which they haue seene and knowne in this life, and of the knowledge which they haue had of things here below, sometimes with cer­tainly, [Page 186] and some times doubtfully and vncertainly. Saint Hierome Licet possit dici, quod in coelo nouo, & in terra noua, omnis conuer­sationis pristi­nae memoria deleatur, ne hoc ipsum pars malorum sit, prioris angu­stiae recordari. vpon the sixty fiue chapter of Esay saith, It may be said, that in the new heauen and in the new earth, all the me­mory of forepassed conuersation is defaced: lest that the same might be an affliction vnto the Saints, to remember affliction past. And in the Epitaph for Nepotian he saith: We know that our friend Nepotian is with Christ, and in the company of the Saints. And yet he saith that Nepotian neither saw nor vn­derstood that which he said and did vpon the earth.Quicquid dixero quia ille non audit mutum vide­tur. Cum quo loqui non pos­sumus de eolo­qui nō desina­mus. Felix Ne­potianus qui haec non videt, qui haec non audit. [...]. All this that I say in a manner is vaine, because he heares it not. And let vs not ceasse to speake of Nepotian, with whom we can speake no more. And, blessed Nepotian which neither seeth nor heareth these things.

Gregory Nazianzen in his Orations maketh many apostro­phes, and sundry oratory compellations, not onely to the Saints that are dead but also to things without life. In his first Oration against Iulian, after he hath spoken to heauen and earth, he speaketh also to the soule of Constantine, dead long before, saying, * Hearken ô thou soule of great Con­stantine, if thou hast any feeling: not knowing whether he vn­derstood him or not. He speaketh also with the same vncer­tainty of the soule of Basil.

The booke of the Spirit and the Soule attributed to Saint Augustine in theIbi quidem sunt spiritus defunctorum vbi nō vident nequeaudiunt quae aguntur aut eueniunt in ista vita hominibus. Ita tamen est eis cura de vi­uis, quāquam quid agant omnino nesci­ant, quemad­modum est no­bis cura de mortuis, quā­uis quid agant vtique nescia­mus. nine and twentieth chapter saith, that the spirits of the dead are in a place where they neither see not heare that which is done, nor what happeneth in this life vn­to men. Neuerthelesse, they haue a care of the liuing, al­though they know not by any meanes what they do, in the same manner that we haue a care of the dead, although we know not what they do. Yet he saith, that it may be that the dead know something that is done here on earth, by the report of those which die here and go vnto them: or that the Angels tell them somewhat, or that God reuealeth something vnto them, not all, but that onely which they must vnderstand. Thus this Doctor diui­neth, speaking by coniectures onely, as men do when they speake without the word of God. All this is taken out of S. [Page 187] Augustines booke, of the care that we ought to haue or the dead where he holds for an assured opinion that if the dead knew what is done here, his good mother Monicha would not haue forgotten him.

There are diuers places found in Chrysostome wherein he saith, that the Saints do not yet enjoy celestiall glory; and o­thers wherein he saith that they do enioy it. And there are some places found in him, wherin he seemeth to approue the inuocation of Saints, and others in much greater number, wherein he condemneth it. Which is a proofe, that of malice some places haue bene thrust into the writings of that holy man.

Whether Iesus Christ is our onely Mediator and aduocate.

Section. 74 Places of the Scripture set downe in the margent of the Confes­sion. 1. Tim: 2.5. For there is one onely God, and one onely mediator betweene God and man, which is the man Iesus Christ, who gaue himselfe a ransome for all men.

In this place the word Aduocate is not there, and the word Me­diator is an equiuocation, for that it may be taken for a mediator of intercession, and for a mediator of redemption. Besides this, the text in the Ministers Bible is false: for in the Greeke, (which is the originall,) the word onely is not there.

The word Aduocate is not in the place of the 1. to Tim. but it is found in Ioh. 2.1. his first Epistle. If any man sinne, we haue an aduocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the iust. It is from thence that our Confession hath taken the word Aduocate. And if that word were not there, yet by the word Aduocate we vnderstand nothing but a Mediator, which is the very word vsed by Saint Paul. Touching that which Master Arnoux saith, that the word mediator is an equiuocation, he accuseth Saint Paul to haue equiuocated. He saith, that the word mediator may be taken for a mediator of intercession, [Page 188] or for a mediator of redemption. But the coupling of these together, God is one, and the Mediator is one, confuteth this di­stinction. For as the Apostle maketh not two sorts of Gods, so he alloweth not of two sorts of mediators towards God. If it be lawfull to make distinctions vpō the word Mediator, why not vpon the word God, and so to induce diuers Gods? For although we do not denie that the Saints pray for vs, yet they are not called mediators of intercession, because we call him the Mediator of intercession that receiueth our prayers to present them vnto God: which the Saints cannot do, because they vnderstand not our prayers, as we haue already proued.

Adde hereunto, that this distinction maketh the Saints to be but mediators of intercession, contrary to the Church of Rome, which beleeueth that the Saints do not onely mediate for vs, but also pay, merite, and satisfie for vs. Witnesse the doctrine of Indulgences or pardons, by the which the Pope distributeth vnto Christians the superabun­dance of the satisfactions of the Saints to serue thē to obtaine remission of sins before God. Witnesse also the Masse, which asketh saluation of God by the merits of the Saints,Quorum me­ritis precibus{que} rogamus, &c. as if they had merited for vs. Whereupon Bellarmine also in his first booke and fourth chapter of Indulgences, makes no difficulty to say, that the Saints in some sort are our redeemers.

Now for the imputation laid on vs, to haue falsified this place, and to haue put in our text, one onely God, and one onely Mediator, otherwise then it is in the Greeke, where the word onely is not found, this accusation argues, that our ad­uersarie either hath no vnderstanding in the Greeke, or else that he hath no conscience. According to the Greeke, it is thus, [...]. There is one God, and one Mediator. Is not that as much to say, as There is one only God, and one only mediator? And when we translate, There is one onely God, our aduersaries dislike it not; but when in the words following we translate, There is one onely Mediator, they accuse vs of falshood; and yet the manner of speaking is all one in the Greeke, and in the same line. The French Bible translated by the Doctors of Louain iustifieth vs therein; for in the third chapter of the same [Page 189] Epistle, verse. 2. Where there is vnius vxoris virum, they haue translated the husband of one onely wife, because that [...] in Greek, as also vnus in Latin is as much as alone, and by consequence onely.

The ancient Doctours did not reiect this word alone in this matter.Ipse qui so­lus praestat & ego sum cui impetrare de­betur, famulus eius qui eum solum obsecro. Tertullian in the thirtieth chapter of his Apo­logie saith, We cannot aske these things of any other but of him of whom I know I shall obtaine them. For also it is he onely which granteth it, and I am he who am to be heard, that am his seruant, which call vpon him onely.

Origen in his eight tome against Celsus, saith, [...] We must pray to none but to God onely for all things, and to his onely Sonne.

Saint Ambrose in his oration vpon the death of Theodosius, correcting that which he had said in the booke of Widowes, made when he first beganne to be a Christian:Sed tamen tu solus Do­mine inuocā­dus es. Thou neuer­thelesse, O Lord, oughtest onely to be called vpon, and prai­ed vnto.

As touching making Saints our mediators, Saint Augustine in many places is expresly against it: in his two and twentieth Treatise vpon Saint Iohn, That is it which thy Sauiour saith,Non est quo eas nisi ad me, non est quo e­as nisi per me. Lib. 2. cap 8. Nam si esset mediator Paulus essent vti­que & caeteri Apostoli, ac sic multi media­tores essent nec ipsi Paulo constaret ra­tio qua dixe­rat vnus Deus vnus media­tor. Thou hast no where to go but vnto me, thou canst not go but by me.

And in his epistle against Parmenian he saith, If Saint Paul was a mediator, so should al the other Apostles be mediators; and so there should be diuers mediators: and Saint Paul also should haue mistaken himselfe in saying, that there is but one God and one Mediator. You must note,Non dixit habetis, nec me habetis dixit, nec ipsū Chri­stum habetis dixit, sed Christum posuit non se: & ha­bemus dixit, non habetis. Maluit se po­nere in nume­ro peccatorum vt haberet aduocatum Christum, quam ponere se pro Christo aduocatum. that in that chap­ter he speakes but of a mediator of intercession, for he dis­puted against Parmenian, that had called the Bishop media­tor betweene God and men.

And in the first Treatie of the first Epistle of Saint Iohn, the second chapter, vpon these words of Saint Iohn, We haue an Aduocate with the Father; he saith thus: This great person said not, You haue an Aduocate with the Father, but, if any man hath sinned, we haue an Aduocate with the Father; he saith not, You haue, nor also, you haue me, nor, you haue [Page 190] Christ: but he hath put Christ, and not himselfe, and said, we haue, and not, you haue: he chose rather to put himselfe into the number of sinners, that he might haue Christ for an Aduocate, then to put himselfe for an Aduocate in stead of Christ, and so to be found among the proud damned crue.

Among ancient writers there are some places found which speake of the intercession of the Saints. There are also wi­shes found that were made by liuing men, that the Saints would pray for them: but we haue already said, that our dif­ference is not, whether the Saints pray for vs, but whether we must pray vnto, and call vpon them. And although that in ancient Writers there are particular examples to be found,Concil. Car­thag. 3. Can. 23. Cum ad al­tare assistetur semper ad pa­trem diriga­tur oratio. who by disordered rules called vpon Saints, yet it is not long time since the inuocation of Saints hath bene put into the common Seruice, and is established by lawes and rules of Councels.

But alwayes they are such men that speake, in whom our Aduersaries themselues note diuers errours: and therefore their allegation makes rather against then for the inuocati­on of Saints. Hauing the holy Scripture for vs, it sufficeth vs; wherein our Aduersaries themselues confesse, that the inuo­cation of Saints is not commanded: and now they beginne to say, that it is not necessary: contradicting Pope Innocent the third,Necessarium nobis est in via sanctorum suffragium. who in the third booke of the mysteries of the Masse, chapter 9. saith, That the Suffrages of Saints are necessary for vs, as long as we are in the way.

Section. 75 Iohn 1. Epistle 2.1. If any man sinne, we haue an Aduocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the reconciliation for our sinnes.

He saith not, that we haue but one Aduocate, he is farre from that. But speaking of the excellencie of the Aduocate, without whom all the others are not to be receiued; he saith, We haue an Aduocate, without excluding others.

That the Saints are not our Aduocates, and that the Church of Rome inuocateth diuers Saints that neuer were, and whose holinesse is very questionable.

Whosoeuer knoweth what it is to be an Aduocate with God, knoweth also that the same tide belongeth not vnto the Saints. He is an Aduocate with God for vs, who recei­ueth our prayers, & presenteth our requests to God, and accō­panieth them with his intercession. The Saints vnderstand not our prayers, as we haue already proued, and by conse­quence cannot present them to God. And if they vnderstood our prayers, God hath receiued them before the Saints haue any leisure to ioyne their recommendations with them. And in the same place, Saint Iohn hauing said that we haue an ad­uocate with God, addeth, For it is he which is the reconciliation for our sinnes: Shewing how he is our Aduocate, that is, be­cause he maketh reconciliation for our sinnes. Then to be an Aduocate for sinners, is to be their reconciliator; and if Ie­sus Christ be our onely reconciliator, then also he is our onely Aduocate.

Our Sauiour Iesus Christ decideth the question in manifest words, Iohn 14.6. saying, I am that way, and that truth, and that life, no man cometh to the Father but by me. Then not by the Saints, nor by the intercession of creatures.

If the Saints be aduocates in heauen, who hath made them such? who hath receiued them for such? who commanded vs to pray vnto them? Haue children any need to vse inter­cessors for them to speake vnto their fathers? And seeing that God frames and inspires our prayers, must we haue interces­sors to recommend that prayer vnto God which he himselfe hath put into our hearts and mouthes? If I present my prayer vnto God by the intercession of Iesus Christ onely, shall my [Page 192] prayer be lesse acceptable vnto God, then if I had employed the Saints to make intercession for me?

If we throughly consider of this matter, it will be found that our aduersaries seeking to go to God by the intercessi­on of the Saints, draw mens spirits into an endlesse labyrinth. For they say they go to God by meanes of the Saints, but in effect they go to the Saints by Gods meanes: for they con­fesse that God reuealeth our prayers to the Saints. Then they bring in God aduising the Saints, as if he should say to Saint Francis, Blessed Saint, know that such an one that liues be­low in the earth in such a place, asketh such and such things of thee, whereof I tell thee, to the end that thou shouldest pray vnto me for him, and then I will take aduice whether I will heare thee or not. Which is an hatching of goodly con­ceptions, which make God mediator to the Saints, rather then the Saints mediators to God.

Now if by the Saints we go to Iesus Christ, and if they be mediators to the Mediator, the prayers that we shall make to the Saints shall first go to God, and from God to the Saints, and from the Saints to Iesus Christ, and from Iesus Christ to God. A man that is in danger of drowning, may sinke foure times at the least before his prayer shall haue passed through so many hands.

And yet there is some difficultie, for before we make the Saints our mediators, we must be well assured that they are Saints. Now the church of Rome calleth vpon many Saints that neuer liued in the world; and many whose blessednesse may iustly be called in question.

The three Kings, Saint Longinus that pierced Christs side: Saint Martiall cosin to Saint Peter, that waited on the table when Iesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist, that draue Pa­gan religion out of France, in the time of the Gothes, when there were no Gothes in France: Saint Vrsula daughter to the King of England (when there was no King in England) cap­taine of an army of eleuen thousand Virgins: Saint Kathe­rine daughter to Costus King of Alexandria, when there was no King in Alexandria, who in the Emperor Maxentius [Page 193] time, conuerted Queene Faustina and fifty Philosophers: are persons that neuer liued in the world, as we may easily proue, and whose liues (by Baronius confession, in his booke of Martyrs) are stuffed with a number of fables. The witnesses which they produce for their liues, are Ʋsuard, Simeon Me­taphrastus, Molanus, Euthymius, the Calendar of the Greci­ans, and such new fabulous authors, which Baronius wholly contradicts. But no good ancient author that liued fiue hun­dred yeares after the time which is named, wherein they say these imagined Saints should liue, doth speake of them. Ba­ronius maketh account that Saint George and Saint Christo­pher are symbolicall pictures, in the same sort that we paint the vertues: and yet men call vpon these Saints; and it is found that Saint George was an Arian Bishop, enemy to A­thanasius. The like of Saint Margaret, whom the diuell swal­lowed downe into his belly, and burst therewith, which is a kind of lying in childbed, and therefore they reade her Le­gend to women lying in childbed. They make these Saints to liue vnder kings that neuer were; and in a time and in a country wherein there were no Martyrs, nor the name of Christianity knowne. They begin to be borne sixe or seuen hundred yeares after they died. There are a thousand absurd and ridiculous actions attributed vnto them. A man should sooner make cleane Augias stable, then cleare the liues of these Saints of fabulous tales.

Adde to these imagined Saints, the Saints which the Popes canonize, and place in the rolle of Saints, commanding the Church of Rome to call vpon them,Lib. 1. Sacr. Cerem. Sect. 6. cap. 1. Papa tunc quodam­modo cogeba­tur ad canoni­sandam quen­dam contra suam opinio­nem, & prop­terea protesta­batur. and attribute an holy day vnto them. An innouation whereof there is not one footstep to be found in all antiquity. The cause is pleaded in the Popes Consistory, and sometimes it happeneth that the Saint for whom they pleade, loseth his cause, and hath not men that pleade well for him: sometimes he partly wins his cause, and is declared to be blessed, which is a degree to sanctification, insomuch that many Saints are much bound and beholding to the Popes. And the booke of Sacred Ceremonies saith, that sometimes it happeneth that the Pope is constrained to [Page 194] canonize some Saints against his will: and that, for that cause at this day he yet maketh protestation to discharge his con­science.Cap. 1. & 2. de reliquijs & sanctorum in­uocatione. The Popes, Innocent the third, and Alexander the third forbid calling vpon any Saints without the Popes ap­probation. But how many Saints are called vpon, of whose holinesse the Pope neuer made declaration, and of whom he neuer heard speaking?

To acknowledge those for Saints with certainty of faith, a man must be of a very light beleefe: seeing that all those which say that the Pope cannot erre in faith, confesse that he may erre in matter of fact, and that he may be deceiued, Now the canonization is made at the solicitation of Princes, or of Prelates, or of Commonwealths, with manifest dealing vnderhand, and dependeth vpon the honesty and vertue of him that is canonized; which is a question which consisteth vpon information, wherein men may vse deceit and false witnesse, because thereon depends a profit and aduantage to some towne or village, by the assembling and repairing of people to visite a new Saint, who presently doth miracles.

Chap. 26. of the first book of the Insti­tution.Touching this matter, Cotton the Iesuite saith, that to doubt that those (whom the vicar of Iesus Christ hath decla­red to be blessed) are not Saints, it is to make a challenge a­gainst the booke of life, to oppose against the manifestation of the booke of Predestination, and to belie the booke with seuen seales which was opened by the Angell. Words which he placeth rather to make ostentation of his high con­ceits, then for any beleefe that he hath of that which he saith. For a man must be a flatterer in the highest degree, [...]. .1 [...] to make the Pope beleeue that the role of his Canonizations is the booke of life, or the booke sealed with seuen seales, whereof there is mention Apocalips 5.1. And it is hardly to be thought, that the Pope should be assured of another mans predestination, seeing he is not assured of his owne: there being so many Popes which our aduersaries themselues say are damned. By this meanes a man registred among the dam­ned, puts whom he will among the Saints.

Experience manifestly sheweth it: for the Popes often­times [Page 195] put not those into the role of Saints that haue most conformed their liues according to the word of God, but those that supported and aduanced the Papall Empire, as Thomas of Canterbury, and Anselmus, who suffered not for the defence of any of the Articles of the Christian faith, but for the inuestitures and other rights and temporall profits which the Pope attributed to himselfe in England. From this spring it floweth, that those that haue sought to kill and to mur­ther kings, are at this day put into the role of Martyrs. By this meanes Saint Dominicke became a Saint, who for the maintenance of the Papacy caused diuerse thousands of good Christians to be massacred,Antoninus Archiep. Flor. Parte 3. Tit. 23. in vita Ca­tharinae Se­nensis. Pater Dominicus in adiutorium sumpsit quas­dam deuotas personas ze­lantes pro fide, quae corporali­ter illos haere­ticos gladio materiali ex­pugnarent. preaching the croysado, to roote out the true faithfull people, which then were iniuriously ter­med Albigenses, in the same manner as we are called Hugue­nots, because we receiue not, nor allow of any other doctrine then that of Iesus Christ and the Apostles. This is that Saint which Saint Antoninus Archbishop of Florence compared with Iesus Christ, and found but very little inequality be­tweene him and Iesus Christ.

Section. 76 Contrary places of Scripture. Iames 5.14. Is any sicke among you, let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them pray for him. And 16. Pray one for another, that you may be healed. Colos. 1.3. We giue all thanks for you vnto God, which is the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, alwayes praying for you.

Here are diuers aduocates: Then Iesus Christ is not giuen vnto vs for our onely Aduocate: and if praying here on earth one for ano­ther, do no way preiudice his office of Aduocate, how and wherefore should the Saints praying in heauen diminish the glory of his intercession? But rather is it not greater, seeing that all their prayers are grounded vpon his merits?

That the mutuall prayers of the liuing, praying one for another makes nothing for inuocation of Saints that are dead.

[Page 196]

M. Arnoux will proue, that the Saints pray for vs in hea­uen, which is not in controuersie betweene vs. The Saints may pray generally for the Church, without knowing the thoughts and the necessities of particular persons.

But let vs see how he proues it. He produceth three places out of the Scripture, which speak of the prayers which the li­uing make one for another. Which is nothing to the purpose. For here the question is not touching the prayers of the li­uing, which God hath commanded to be made, & which are made by those which particularly and mutually know our necessities. But the question is here touching the prayers which the Saints that are dead make for the liuing, whose particular necessities they know not, and we know not what commandement God hath giuen them touching the same. Moreouer when we recommend our selues to the mutuall prayers of the faithfull one for another, it is a reciprocall du­tie among vs, which is not so betweene vs and the Saints.

And withall, when we pray our neighbours to pray for vs, we do no religious seruice vnto them. We kneele not downe before them in the Church. We do not acknowledge them to be the searchers of our hearts. We esteeme them not to be our Patrons or gardians. We light not vp candles before them. We are well assured that they vnderstand vs when we speake vnto them. To be short, the prayer of the liuing one for another hath no affinity with the intercession and calling vpon dead Saints.

If a man should aske whether the liuing praying one for another may be called aduocates with God, I say, that the word of God giues them not that title, to the language or speech whereof it is requisite for vs to be conformable. It gi­ueth that title to Iesus Christ onely, because that to be a mans aduocate, he must exactly know the cause, and the depth of a mans griefe: & must not only intreate the Iudge for the party, but also debate and defend his parties cause to be iust and well grounded. Now there is none but Iesus Christ to whom this appertaineth. For men praying one for another, do [Page 197] not well know the ground of their neighbours griefe, be­cause they know not their hearts; nor the nature and great­nesse of their sinnes, nor of their repentance. And they cannot argue with God touching our cause, because they haue no­thing to satisfie and pay for vs. Their prayer for vs is a simple supplication, and not an action of an Aduocate. There is no body but Iesus Christ who pleading our cause, can confute the diuels accusations, which is that accuser spoken of in the twelfth of the Reuelation, which accuseth vs day and night before God.

Of the credit and reputation of the Saints in heauen.

Section. 77 In the same Article somewhat lower. All that which men haue imagined of the Saints that are dead, is but an abuse and a deceit of Sathan.

They thinke to make a sacrifice of praise to Iesus Christ, by giuing him credit (as they suppose) by the excluding of all his ser­uants, which should be hardly welcome into heauen, and but meane­ly entertained, if they had lost the credit they had vpon earth.

The question betweene vs and our aduersaries is twofold; one, whether the Saints know our hearts; the other, whether we must call vpon, and pray vnto them. These two questi­ons M. Arnoux toucheth not, but moueth a third, which is not in controuersie, to know whether the Saints pray for vs in heauen.

This discourse, although from the purpose, is neuerthe­lesse stuffed with prety conceits: he saith, that the Saints should be hardly welcome into heauen, and but meanly en­tertained, if they had lost the credit that they had vpon earth. This diuinitie is delicate, and serues but for those that are of generous spirits, whereby he placeth Saints in Paradise, [Page 198] that are not welcome thither. For it is certaine, that there are many Saints in Paradise that are vnknowne to vs; and many, that hauing liued holily, haue bene forgotten, or defamed after their deaths: in such manner, that it resteth in the power of the liuing to make a Saint, whether he be wel­come or not into heauen. If men care not whether they serue them, and presently forget them, then it is maruell that such a Saint is suffered to enter into Paradise, and that the gate is not shut against him, seeing he cannot stand God in stead with his credit on earth. For Saint Peter at the gate might aske him, What account art thou of on earth? hast thou any of credit in thy country? For God hath need of Saints that are of credit among men. What should Saints do in Para­dise, to whom men burne no tapers on earth? Yet M. Arnoux will haue those Saints to enter therein, but to be hardly wel­come thither, and to receiue a disgrace at their entring into heauen. Therefore we haue reason to pittie Abraham, Mo­ses, and Dauid, whose credits are much diminished, so farre as that at this day he should be laughed at that should say, Saint Moses, or Saint Abraham. They passe onely in the prease among the Patriarkes. No man makes any particular prayer vnto them. No man lights the least waxe candle that is before Abraham the father of the faithfull. They speake of Saint Geneuesses and Saint Anthonies Masses, but not of Saint Moses nor of Saint Abrahams Masses. And euery Saint hath his charge, one of a sicknesse, another of a towne: but Moses and Abraham neuer receiued any charge or commission from men. This also is iniurious against the Popes: for I see not that Innocent the fourth, Boniface the eight, nor Alexan­der the sixt, which were great men on earth, keepe their cre­dits after their deaths. Therefore they are hardly welcome into heauen, and were but meanly entertained there.

Yet M. Arnoux should be borne withall, for that by a recreatiue dexteritie he likeneth or compareth the kingdome of heauen to the formes and complements of the Courts of Popes and Kings. From thence it proceedeth that the Papists dresse God the Father like the Pope. From hence it cometh [Page 199] that father Gonteri called Iesus Christ the Dolphin of hea­uen.Barradius in Concordiam Euangelicam. Tom 1. lib. 6. [...]. 11 Fortassis Domine, ne tuae coelesti cu­riae veniret in dubium cui potius occurre­ret, tibi Domi­no suo, an ipsi Dominae suae. And that the Iesuite Barradius made that goodly ob­seruation, after Anselmus, who asketh of Iesus Christ, Why he tooke not his mother with him when he ascended vp into heauen. But the answer is of his owne deuising, saying: It may be, Lord, for feare lest thy heauenly Court should be in doubt which of the two they should go to meete first, whe­ther thee Lord, or her which is their Lady. Then it was well aduised of him to leaue her behind him on earth. But lest any man of a hard beleefe might doubt that which is said before, the Iesuite brings forth Aristotle to helpe him.

Proofe of Inuocation of Saints by Aristotle.

Section. 78 These seruants of God should be depriued of one part of humane felicitie, which consisteth, (as Aristotle noteth in his Morals,) in the care and remembrance which the soules of the dead should haue of their frends which they leaue vpon the earth.

The place in Aristotle which he alledgeth is in the first of his Ethickes, 11. chap: where there is nothing of all that which M. Arnoux makes him say. For in all that chapter, [...], A­ristotle disputeth, whether the affaires of the liuing touch or concerne their parents and freinds dead, whereof he spea­keth so vncertainely, that he saith, that it is to be doubted whether the dead haue any feeling or participation either of good or euill; and in the end concludeth like a man that had no sight therein at all, That if the affaires of the liuing con­cerne the dead, it is very little, and not of force to alter their beatitude. This place therefore is falsly alledged.M. Arnoux falsification. It was ill aduised of him to take on him to teach vs what the blessed­nesse and knowledge of the Saints in heauen is, by the con­iectures of a heathen Philosopher; and much more, to imagine that a part of the felicitie of the Saints consisteth in hauing a [Page 200] remembrance of their friends that they left behind them vpō the earth. For if the remembrance of their prosperitie and vertue augmenteth the blessednesse of the Saints that are in heauen, the remembrance of their aduersities, and of their vi­ces will also diminish their felicitie. Yet this doth not stretch the care and the knowledge of the Saints but vnto those whom they knew here vpon earth, and left them behind them liuing in the world, which is a restraining of their know­ledge into very streight limits.

Section. 79 Places of Scripture quoted in the margent of the Confession, Acts. 10.25. and 26, where it is said, that Cornelius met Peter, Peter lifted him vp, saying, Stand vp, for I am a man.

Places of Scripture cut off in the middle by M. Arnoux.This place is set downe in the margent of our Confes­sion, to confute all the religious seruice and adoration that men giue to creatures: which if M. Arnoux had not cited by halues, and had not taken away the words wherin the force of that place consisteth, euery man might haue perceiued how fitly it was alledged. Thus the text hath: As Peter came in, Cor­nelius met him, and falling downe at his feete, worshipped him, but Peter tooke him vp saying, For euen I my selfe am a man. M. Ar­noux hath cut off these wordes, he fell downe at his feet and wor­shipped him. And see here the like falsification.

Section. 80 And Acts. 14.15. Paul and Barnabas said, Men why do ye these things? we also are men subiect to the same condition.

Places of Scripture cut in the middle by M. ArnouxYou omit that which is said a little before, that they of Lystria would haue offered sacrifice to Barnabas and Paul, as if they had bene gods: which the said Apostles would not suffer them to do.

[Page 201]

Section. 81 And Apocalips 19 10. And I fell before his feet to worship him, but he said to me, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow seruant, worship God.

All these three places teach, that we must not giue vnto men that worship which belongs vnto God, nor to liuing men, the honour which we owe vnto the Saints that already enioy part of his glory. Where then is Sathans deceit, in the adoration of Saints?

Confutation of the Inuocation of Saints by the holy Scriptures.

Our Confession condemneth the intercession of Saints, that is, it condemneth those which imploy them for inter­cessors, and pray them to be intercessors for them: which prayer is a religious worship. Now the Church of Rome commandeth the adoration of Saints and their reliques, but setteth downe distinctions of adoration, one proper to God, which they call Latria, the other (which is referred to Saints) they call Dulia; which are both religious worships, and an act of religion. For the inuocation of Saints which is vsed in the Church of Rome, is a part of the publike Seruice; and when men pray kneeling before their Images, they haue their re­course vnto them, as to those to whom men owe a religious seruice, that know their hearts, and that haue power to heare them.

Against this abuse our Confession quoteth these three places of Scripture, wherein are condemned, the worship which Cornelius would haue giuen to Peter, that which the Lystrians would haue giuen to Paul, and that which Iohn would haue giuen to the Angell. In which places there is no mention made of two sorts of worshipping, but generally all religious worshipping of creatures is forbidden. And withall there is no apparence, that Cornelius a man which feared [Page 222] God, was so dull to thinke Saint Peter to be the soueraigne God, or that an equall honour (due to the soueraigne God,) belonged vnto him. Touching Saint Iohn, that would haue adored the Angell, that spake vnto him, for the which the Angell rebuked him, saying, Take heede thou do it not, I am thy fellow seruant, worship God: you must know, that twise Saint Iohn would haue worshiped the Angell, one Reuel. 19.10. the other 22.9. And that after the first time that the An­gell rebuked him, saying Worship God, I am thy fellow seruant, it is an euident proofe, that the second time when Saint Iohn would haue worshiped him, he knew well that it was not God, seeing the Angell told him so before: but being afraid, he would haue giuen him some inferiour worship, which ne­uerthelesse the Angell refused. If that Angell had bene a Ro­mish Catholike, he would haue spoken to Saint Iohn in this manner: The worship which thou giuest me, is too high for me, I will be content with a meaner worship, and an adora­tion of Dulia: for that of Latria belongeth onely vnto God. But the Angell had not learned so farre. So when the Ortho­doxe Diuines called the Arians Idolaters because they wor­shipped Iesus Christ,Reade Atha­nasius in the life of S. An­thony. whom they held to be but a creature; the Arians might well haue excused themselues by saying, that they worshipped Iesus Christ with an inferiour worship. But then they acknowledged but one religious worship, and that due to God onely.

2 Saint Iames the Apostle, 1.6. will haue vs to pray in faith and wauer not. But the prayer made to Saints cannot be made in faith, seeing that God hath not commanded it in his word. For faith is by hearing of the word of God, Rom. 10.17. Now that prayer vnto Saints is not commanded in the word of God, M. Cotton the Iesuite in the first booke of his Institu­tion, in the chapter of Inuocation of Saints, confesseth it saying: Touching a commandement to pray vnto, and to call vpon the Saints, the Church neuer taught that there was euer any such commandement. Then if it be not a commande­ment of God, it is a commandement of men: seeing that in the publicke Seruice of the Romish Church, and in the [Page 223] Letanies, the Saints are called vpon, the people are bound thereunto, and it is not in any particular mans power to di­spense with himselfe therein.

3 The Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 10.14. maintaineth, that we cannot call vpon any other then on him in whom we be­leeue, saying; How shall they call on him, in whom they haue not beleeued? Our Creed teacheth vs to beleeue in God, Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost. And Iohn 14.1. You beleeue in God, beleeue also in me. Then it is manifest, that Saint Paul without exception reproueth all inuocation of creatures. And if any man will induce a second religious inuocation, he ought to proue it by the word of God.

4 The same Apostle, Galat. 4.8. saith, Then when ye knew not God, ye did seruice vnto them which by nature are not gods. The Church of Rome seruing Saints and Angels, serueth those who by their nature are no gods. Now it is to be noted, that in the Greeke there is [...], that is to say, you giue Dulia, which is the seruice which the Church of Rome giueth vnto Saints. The Apostle reproueth the Galathians for gi­uing Dulia to any other but to God.

5 The Scripture is full of places which command vs to addresse all our prayers vnto God. The Apostles desired Iesus Christ saying, Teach vs to pray, and he said vnto them,Luke 11.1.2. When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heauen. We must teach this lesson to those that pray vnto Saints, and say vnto them, When you pray, say, Our Father which art in heauen. God in the Psalme 50.15. saith, Call vpon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliuer thee: and in the same Psalme, verse 14. Offer vnto God thanks­giuing, and pay thy vowes vnto the most High. How many are there in the Church of Rome, that make vowes to Saints, or that vow to go on pilgrimage to them, or to offer vnto them? Deut. 6.13. Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God, and serue him, and shalt sweare by his Name. The Catechisme of the Councell of Trent teacheth the contrary, saying, We sweare by the crosse, by relickes, and by the names of Saints.In the exposi­tion of the third com­mandement. To sweare by any one, is to acknowledge him to be a witnesse of the inte­grity of our consciences, and a reuenger of periury; which [Page 204] agreeth not with relickes. To say, that swearing by the re­lickes of Saints, we sweare by God that loueth the Saints, is to accuse the Prophets & the Apostles herein, that knowing well, that God loued Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, they did not sweare by their relickes. By the same reason I might worship the Sunne, and sweare by heauen, and say, that I do it to ho­nour God that made it.

6 Iesus Christ, Matthew 4.10. said to Sathan, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue: There­by confuting Sathan, that offered him all the kingdomes of the world, if he would worship him. Who doubts not but that Sathan would haue bene content with an inferiour wor­ship? Our Sauiour might haue confuted Sathan by telling him of the dignitie of his person, as being the Sonne of God; or by shewing Sathan of his own indignity, as being the prin­cipall slaue or diuell in hell. But he chose rather to send him to that rule whereby all adoration of creatures is forbidden.

7 But seeing that our aduersaries make two sorts of good workes, one commanded by God, the other onely counselled, and perfecter then those that are commanded, I would gladly know in what place they put the inuocation of Saints. For seeing that our aduersaries do acknowledge that God hath not commanded it, to be a good worke it must be counselled, and by consequence, the inuocation of Saints is a perfecter worke then calling vpon God. In the meane time there is no man so brutishly superstitious, that seeing two men kneeling on their knees, whereof the one prayeth vnto God, the other to Saint Francis, but will confesse, that he which prayeth vnto God, doth a better worke then the other.

8 Particularly for the inuocation and seruice of Angels, we haue an expresse passage of the Apostle, Colossians 2.18. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you by humble­nesse of minde, and worshipping of Angels, aduancing himselfe in those things which he neuer saw. Let men as much as they will diuine the meaning of Saint Paul in this place, yet it is cer­taine that he generally prohibiteth the seruice of Angels, and by consequence that which is practised in the Church of [Page 205] Rome. And in the Church of the old Testament, when An­gels appeared vnto men, and visibly did those messages and commissions wherein God employed them, yet the faithfull neuer did ordaine any religious seruice to be done vnto them. In all the publike Seruice prescribed in the bookes of Moses, there is nothing spoken of any seruice done to Angels in the Tabernacle. And I would gladly know why now, when their ayde is lesse sensible, they ought rather to be serued and cal­led vpon. Theodoret in his commentarie vpon this place, saith, Those that forbad the Law, induced them so to serue Angels, saying, that the Law was giuen by their interposition. This vice continued a long time among them of Phrygia and Pi­sidia. Therefore the Synode assembled in Laodicea, the capi­tall citie of Phrygia, by expresse ordinance forbad them to pray vnto Angels; and yet at this day we see among them and their neighbours Oratories or Chappels to pray in to S. Michael: which those that maintained them, said they did in humilitie, saying that the God of the whole world is inuisi­ble, incomprehensible, and vnaccessible; and therefore that they had need to make God fauorable vnto them by Angels. And that is it which Saint Paul said, in humblenesse and ser­uice of Angels. There are three things to be noted in this ex­cellent place. The first, that Theodoret beleeued that the Coun­cell of Laodicea forbad prayer to Angels. The second that he condemned the Chappels made to pray to S. Michael, which neuerthelesse are vsed in the Romish Church. The third, that those heretickes whereof he speaketh, vsed the same words that the Church of Rome doth, which is, that to make God fauourable vnto them, they haue their recourse to Angels and Saints, with deuotion and humilitie of spirit. Baronius is angrie, and chideth Theodoret for writing in this manner, in the first Tome of his Annals in the sixetieth yeare.§ 20. Ex his videas Theo­doretum haud feliciter (eius pace dictum sit) assecutum esse Pauli ver­horum sensum By this (saith he) we may see that Theodoret did not well vnder­stand the sence of Saint Pauls words. In such manner our aduersaries respect the Fathers.

The Canon of the Councell of Laodicea whereof Theodo­ret makes mention, is the fiue and thirtieth Canon, the words [Page 204] [...] [Page 205] [...] [Page 206] whereof are these: Christians must not leaue the Church of God to go to worship Angels, and to meet together in con­gregations apart, which are things prohibited. If any one shall be found to vse this secret idolatrie, let him be accur­sed, because he hath forsaken our Lord Iesus Christ. Those Fathers esteemed and thought, that men could not call vpon Angels without leauing the Church and renouncing Iesus Christ. [...], Ecclesia non inuocationibus Angelicis fa­ciens aliquid, sed mundè, pu­rè & mani­festè orationes dirigens ad Dominū, &c. For that cause also Saint Augustine in his booke of Heresies, putteth the Angelicans among the heretiques, which were Angelorum cultui inclinati inclined or bent to the seruice of Angels.

Irenaeus in the second booke, 58. Chapter, ioyneth with the Apostle Saint Paul, saying. The Church doth no­thing by Angelicall inuocations, but purely, simply, and manifestly addresseth her prayers to God which hath made all things, in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ.

The ordinarie excuse is, that men haue accesse to God by the Saints and Angels, as they haue accesse to kings by their officers and attendants. But the case is not all one. For kings are not in all places, neither vnderstand all things, and it is not fit that euery man should speake vnto them, and they haue need to be informed of the truth of things by o­thers. In God it is cleane contrarie. And which is more, it is God which frameth prayers in our hearts, Rom. 8.25.26, Whereupon it followeth, that the prayer which God him­selfe inspireth into our hearts, is pleasing or acceptable vnto him without the recommendation of the Saints. Should not the voyce of the Spirit of God speaking in our hearts be pleasing vnto God? Besides that we haue already shewed our aduersaries do cleane contrary ro that which they say, and haue recourse by God to the Saints. And albeit God were in all things like vnto kings, yet when the king cals, we must go directly to him. But he saith, Come to me, Matth. 11.28, and call vpon me, Psal. 50.15.

Places of the Scripture for the Inuocation of Saints.

Section. 82 Contrary places of Scripture. 2. Peter 1.15. I will endeuour to haue you often after my departing, to the end that you may haue re­membrance of these things.

Here is Saint Peter which promiseth to pray for them after his death. And Geneua seeing the force of this place, set downe in these termes, according to the originall and the common translation, hath changed the order of these words by a manifest deprauation: putting this particle that before these words, before my depar­ting, which is not found in the Greeke originall.

The onely reading of this place of Saint Peter as M. Ar­noux alledgeth it, prooueth the falshood: [...], for there is neither sence nor reason in these words. I will indeuour to haue you often after my departing, to the end that you may haue re­membrance of these things.

This is the place according to the Greeke: I will indeuour therefore alwayes, that ye also may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my departing. This word may in Greeke is [...], which signifieth to haue meanes. Yong scholers that haue but a little vnderstanding in Greeke, may easily com­prehend, that this is the sence of the Greeke in the Apostle. And if it were so that we had no vnderstanding of the Greek at all, the whole sence of the place it selfe forceth vs to vn­derstand it so. For Saint Peter in the verses before, and also in this, yeeldeth a reason vnto the faithfull why he wrote vnto them, which was, that perceiuing himselfe to be neare his death, he would leaue a remembrance of his instructions, that they might haue a meanes after his death often to re­member that which he had said vnto them in his life time. This is the whole place: For I thinke it meete as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stirre you vp, by putting you in remembrance, seeing I know that the time is at hand that I must lay downe this [Page 208] abernacle, euen as our Lord Iesus hath shewed me. I will en­deauour therefore alwayes, that ye also may be able to haue re­membrance of these things after my departing. And so the greatest part of our aduersaries which haue translated or written Com­mentaries vpon this Epistle vnderstand it, as Arias Monta­nus, Cardinall Caietan, the ordinary Glosse. And aboue all, Thomas the Prince of Schooles,Quia cito transiturus, ideo dum viuo dabo operam vos cōmonen­do, non solum semel, sed & frequenter, id est, instanter & diligenter, habere vos, id est, vt habeatis memoriam praedictorum post obitum meum. is very formall in his Com­mentary vpon this Epistle: Because (saith he) that I must soone depart, therefore while I liue I will indeuour my selfe by ad­uertising you not onely once, but often times also, that is to say, instantly and diligently, that you may haue a remem­brance of the things aforesaid after my death. Oecumenius saith, that this exposition is the plainest, and that the other is hyperbaticall that is to say, ouerthrowing and troubling the construction.

Neuerthelesse, if it were as true, as it is false and absurd, that Saint Peter promised the faithfull to pray for them after his death, what is that to the purpose? If Saint Peter being in heauen prayeth for the Church, doth it follow that we ought to call vpon him? doth it follow that he knowes our hearts?

Section. 83 And in Reuelation 5.8. The foure and twenty Elders fell downe before the Lambe,M. Arnoux hath put two harpes.hauing euery one harpes and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints. Reade, and it is sufficient.

The reading of this passage sufficeth to shew that the same toucheth not the question. The question is, whether we must pray vnto and call vpon the Saints. Whereupon M. Ar­noux alledgeth a place which saith, that the Saints presented their prayers. This place saith, that the Saints prayed in hea­uen, but saith not, that we must pray vnto them here on earth.

Of Purgatorie.

Section. 84 Touching places of Scripture noted in the margent of the Con­fession, there are none at all but against abstinence from meates, and obseruation of holy dayes; vpon which the Reader may see my reply to the Ministers.

They haue with one selfe same faithfulnesse cut off the Canoni­call bookes, before in the third Article, and denyed all these things, whereof one part may be proued by the bookes which for that pur­pose they haue cut off. In such manner, that after they haue cut the throats of the witnesses that might accuse them, they haue boldly committed a kinde of parricide or vnnaturall murther.

It was not needfull to note places in the Margent against Purgatorie, nor against Monasticall vowes, pilgrimages, prohibition of marriage and of meates, auricular confes­sion, and Indulgences or pardons, because the places no­ted in the margent of the fifth Article of our Confession, where humane traditions are condemned, and the perfection of the Scriptures proued, are sufficient to ouerthrow and confute these points, which are humane traditions inuented [Page 210] for gaine and for ambition. Besides, the margent had not bene great enough to confute so many points briefly tou­ched in one Article. This Doctor being not able to disgrace the body of our Confession, seeketh to scratch at the mar­gents thereof.

Touching the cutting off of the Canonicall books where­of we are accused, I haue heretofore sufficiently satisfied the Reader therein, and cleared our Churches of that slander. And I say, that if we should allow of Iudith, Wisedome, and the Machabees to be Canonicall bookes, our Aduersaries should not therein find their religion, no more then in the bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles. And M. Arnoux before in the 69. Section sought to serue his turne about me­rites, with a place out of an Apocryphall booke, but yet fal­sifying it most horribly.

Then although I might leaue those points as they are, against the which M. Arnoux produceth nothing but iniu­rious words; yet for the better satisfaction of the Reader, I will say something of euery one of them.

Of the description of Purgatorie,

Section. 85 To confute Purgatorie, we neede but paint it out, and shew it in the true colours thereof.Lib. 4. cap. 1. Baille the Iesuite, in his Catechisme of Controuersies, and Cotton the Iesuite, in his Institutions, say, That Purgatorie is a prison or gaole, and a place vnder the ground, aboue hell where the damned are, where the soules that are laden and defiled with veniall sins, and which haue not here on earth satisfied the diuine Iustice, are purged by that temporall fire. Yet they make that fire to be as hote as that in hell, and very long; witnesse the pardons of diuers thousands of yeares.

This doctrine is cruell, and beareth her condemnation in her forehead. For our aduersaries will haue:

1. That God which hath giuen his Sonne to die for the [Page 211] redemption of his enemies, taketh pleasure to burne his chil­dren for their sinnes already pardoned, and for the which Ie­sus Christ hath made satisfaction.

2 That God tormenteth his elect in a fire, not for their amendment (for they are iustified already before they en­ter thereinto,) but to satisfie himselfe, and to content his iu­stice. No father euer punished his children in such manner.

3 That God, to satisfie his iustice, exerciseth iniustice, taking two payments for one selfesame debt, and two satis­factions for one sinne, that is, the passion of Iesus Christ, and the paines of Purgatory; although the first satisfaction, which is the passion of Iesus Christ, is most sufficient, as well for Purgatorie as for hell.

4 That the passion of Iesus Christ being sufficient to ex­empt vs from Purgatorie as well as from hell, neuerthelesse God accepteth not the passion of his Sonne for as much as it is worth, but closeth his hand, and restraineth his libera­litie, and cutteth off some of the worth of Iesus Christs death, that his children may not be exempted from torment.

5 That the passion of Iesus Christ is applied vnto vs by burning and tormenting vs for many yeares; which is to ap­ply the mercie of God by the execution of his iustice, to ap­ply pardon by punishment, to apply the remissiō of our debts, by making vs pay them: and briefly, to apply the benefit and grace of Iesus Christ, by a means derogating from this grace, and contrary to that benefit.

6 That Iesus Christ making intercession in heauen for all the faithfull, their burning soules come not out of that fire by his intercession, but that they come forth by the Popes pardons.

7 That the Pope hauing power to draw more soules out of that fire then he doth, yet he that boasteth himselfe to be the common father of Christians, lets them burne therein many yeares.

8 That the soules entring into Purgatorie, are already pure and without sinne, and yet haue need of purgation: for the fault remaineth no more, and yet neuerthelesse they say [Page 212] it hath need to be purged. So purgatorie is made to purge soules that are pure without sinne, and to cleanse filthinesse of sin which is no more in them.

9 That sins pardoned are purged by torment, as if a man should call a whip, a wheele, or a gibet a purgation.

10 That sins fully pardoned, are punished in this fire, and that God hauing fully defaced and taken away the fault, makes them endure paine that haue no more fault, and were no more culpable. As if God said vnto vs I forgiue thee all thy sins, but thou shalt be punished in a fire. I forgiue thee all thy debt, but not the payment of the debt: for our sins are debts, whereof the punishment is the payment. Certainly pardon is no other thing, then not to punish. And a guiltie person would be very well content that the King should not forgiue him his fault, so he would remit the punishment. Ie­sus Christ tooke our sins vpon him, to the end that we should be discharged of the punishment. It were in vaine for him to haue made full satisfaction for vs, if he had not discharged vs.

11 That God will haue vs fully and freely to pardon our neighbours, and holdeth him for a wicked man, that hauing bene iniured by his neighbour would pardon his offence, but neuerthelesse would determine to make him endure punish­ment for it. Whereby it followeth, that God will haue vs to be more mercifull then himselfe: seeing that our aduersa­ries say, that after God hath pardoned all our offences, he ma­keth vs suffer and endure satisfactory punishments in a burn­ning fire many yeares.

12 All these abuses spring from a peruerse maxime which subuerteth all the Gospell, which is, that Iesus Christ by his death exempteth vs from satisfactory punishments, due for sins committed before Baptisme, but not for satisfactory pu­nishments due for sins after Baptisme. A maxime, whereof there is not one word found in the Scripture: which neuer­thelesse ought to be more clearely set downe therein then a­ny other doctrine, seeing that to know what Iesus Christ hath done for vs, is that which makes vs Christians. It is the [Page 213] soule and foundation of Christian religion.

All that which is said before, is an entrance and an intro­duction to that which followeth.

13 That the Pope, by vertue of that which Iesus Christ said to Peter, Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose or vnbinde vpon earth, &c. looseth or vnbindeth also vnder the earth, and can deli­uer soules out of Purgatorie. And by that power, he giueth fiue or sixe hundred thousand yeares of pardon, and erecteth priuiledged Altars, whereon whosoeuer saith a Masse vpon a certaine day, at his choice or pleasure draweth a soule out of Purgatorie; and priuiledgeth certaine persons, to whom he granteth, either not to enter at all into Purgatory, or to come presently out againe. Those are the white Friers, who boast that they haue a priuiledge to be no longer in Purgatorie, then till Saterday next ensuing after their deaths: and the Franciscan or gray Friers, to whom Pope Sixtus the fifth granted a free pardon; and the deliuering of a soule out of Purgatorie, for saying of certaine Pater nosters mixed with Aue Maries on Satterday before Palme Sunday, and on the feast day of Saint Iohn Baptist, and of S. Iohn Port-latine. In the Treasure of Indulgences of the Franciscan or gray Fri­ers, printed in Roan, these words are found; For euery day,By Thomas Dare in the Iewes street neare the Pallace, 1614. pag. 119. vntill the natiuitie of our Lady, there are 862000 yeares and 100 dayes of pardon and remission of the third part of sinnes granted. The booke of Roman Indulgences speaketh of much more.

14 To that end there is a great trafficke made of pardons, and the Cleargie by that meanes sucke and draw vnto them­selues the substance and treasure of the Laitie, liuing vpon the ignorant feare of poore people, who dying, thinke themselues to be easily quit of the punishment in hell, if they may onely remaine in a burning fire for the space of some hundreds of yeares: and for that cause bereaue their children and their heires, of their goods, to giue it vnto those that weepe not, but to such as laugh and sing; not to those that want and haue need thereof, but to rich and idle Monkes. For rich men they say diuers Masses and Trentals, for which [Page 214] they pay deare, thereby (as they say) to ease and comfort their soules in that torment; but for the poore, or those that giue them nothing, they neuer say any particular Masses. They die good cheape. They must content themselues with generall prayers, whereof neuerthelesse rich men also haue a part. Towards the poore they will haue God to vse the rule of the Gospell, which is, Verily I say vnto thee, thou shalt not come out thence vntill thou hast payd the vttermost far­thing, Matth. 5.26.

The opinion of the ancient Fathers, touching the state of the soules of the faithfull after they are dead.

Section. 86 The ancient Fathers were so farre off from beleeuing that the soules of the faithfull are tormented in a fire before the day of Iudgement,Neque pati quicquam po­test anima so­la fine stabili materia; id est, carne. Animam per se separatim ignis nunquā attigerit, nec tenebrae qui­dē ei molesta fuerint, vt­pote quae ocu­lis caret, &c. that many of them are of opinion, that the soule cannot suffer any torment, when it is once separa­ted from the body. Tertullian in the fortie eight chapter of his Apologie saith, The soule alone cannot suffer any torment without solide matter or substance, that is, without the flesh. He saith the same in his book of the Testimony of the Soule, chapter 4. Gregorie de Nisse in the third oration of the Resur­rection of Christ, saith, Fire can by no meanes touch the soule separated from the body, neither can darkenesse be troublesome vnto it, because it hath no eyes. For these con­uenient reasons, we are moued and perswaded to allow of the resurrection of the dead.

Chrysostome [...]. in his thirtie nine Homilie vpon the first of the Corinthians, saith, Although the soule remaineth, al­though it were ten thousand times immortall, as in truth it is it shall not, without the body, receiue those vnspeakable blessings, nor suffer any punishment. All the punishment which the soules suffer, being separated from their bodies (according to Saint Ambrose, in his 10. chapter of the booke [Page 215] of the Benefit of death) is, that they are in great feare and dis­quietnesse, attending the punishment which is prepared for them at the latter day.

Staying for the latter day, many of the Fathers place the soules both of the good and the wicked, in holes or dennes vnder the earth, or in certain secret places which they call re­ceptacles:Constitui­mus omnem animam apud inferos seque­strari in diem Domini. Tertullian, in the 55. chapter of his booke of the Soule, saith, We hold for certaine, that all the soules are set apart in hell, vntill the day of the Lord. Irenaeus saith the like in his 5. booke,Animae ab­ierunt in inui­sibilem locum definitum ipsis à Deo, & ibi vsque ad re­formationem commorabun­tur. grounding vpon this, that Iesus Christ was in hell vntill his resurrection, whose example all the faithfull must follow; for (saith he) the disciple is not aboue his mai­ster. Origen in his 2. booke of Principles ca. 12 saith,Puto quod sancti quiqu [...] discedentes de hac vita per­maneāt in loc [...] aliquo in ter­ra posito, quē Paradisum dicit Scriptu­ra diuina, ve­lut in quodam eruditionis lo­co, & vt [...]st dicam audi­torio. I am of opinion, that all the Saints going out of this world, stay in a place of the earth, which the Scripture calleth Paradise, or in some place of instruction, and as it were in an Auditorie. And from thence he makes the souls to ascend vp by degrees higher and higher.

Lactantius in his seuenth booke chap. 21. saith,Omnes in v­na communi{que} custodia deti­nentur donec tempus adueniat, quo maximus iudex meritorum [...]ciat examen. All mens soules are kept in a common prison, vntill such time that the great Iudge calleth them to account for all which they haue done.

Saint Hilarie vpon the 38. Psalme saith,Humanae ista lex necessitas tis vt sepultis corporibus animae ad inferos descendant. Quamdescensionem Dominus ad con­summationem veri homini non recusauit. It is a law of ne­cessitie, whereunto all men are subiect, that their soules de­scend downe into hell, after their bodies are buried, which descending Iesus Christ himselfe refused not, to accomplish that which belonged vnto his manhood.

Ʋictorinus Martyr, on the 6. of the Reuelation, saith, that S. Iohn saw the soules of those that were slaine and martyred vnder the Altar, and saith, Sub ara, id est, sub terra: esteeming that the soules of the Saints are vnder the earth.

Nouatianus in his 1. cha. of the booke of the Trinity, saith,Quae infra terram iacent neque ipsa sunt digestis & ordinatis potestatibus vacua. Locus enim est quò piorum animae & impiorum ducuntur. The things that are vnder the earth, are not without power [Page 214] [...] [Page 215] [...] [Page 216] disposed by order: for it is the place where the soules of the faithfull and of the wicked are carried, hauing already a pre­sage of the future Iudgement.

Saint Augustine is very vncertaine in this matter, yet these are his words vpon the 36. Psalme:Post vitam istam nondum eris vbi erunt sancti, quibus dicitur, Venite benedicti, &c. Nondum ibi eris, quis nescit? Nunc vel mortaliter peregrinantur in terris, vel in eis qui mor­tem obierunt secretis ani­marum recep­taculis, sed il­lic vsque re­quiescent. After this short life, thou shalt not yet be in the place where the Saints shall be, to whom it shall be said, Come ye blessed of my Father, &c. Thou shalt not yet be there: who knowes not that? But thou maiest be there where the proud rich man being in tor­ment, saw the miserable poore man in rest; in which rest thou shalt remaine quietly til the day of iudgement. And in his 12. second booke of the Citie of God, chapter 9. he saith, That part of the citie of God, that should be ioyned to the immor­tall Angels, being an assembly of mortall men, is, either a pilgrimage on earth in a mortall condition, or as touching those that are dead, consisteth in the hidden receptacles and seates of the soules. And in his Manuell to Laurentius, chap­ter one hundred and ninth he saith,Tempus quod inter ho­minis mortem & vltimam resurrectionē interpositum est; animas abditis recep­taculis conti­net, sicut vna­quaeque digna est vel requie vel aerumna. The time that is between death and the last resurrection, holdeth the soules in secret receptacles, according as euery one is worthy of rest or tor­ment.

Chrysostome, in his eight and twentieth Homilie, vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith, [...]; That Abel hath not yet receiued the crowne, nor Noah, and that they are set in a place staying for vs; and that that place where the soules stay, by the Fathers is ordinarily called Abrahams Bosome. And yet neuerthelesse, as well in Chrysostome as in Augustine, there are places found, which say, That the soules of the faithfull leauing their bodies, go straight to Iesus Christ, and see God face to face. And Saint Augustine in his first booke and foureteenth chapter of Retractations, moueth this question, and leaueth it vndecided, without resolution. Whereupon al­so Sixtus Senensis keeper of the Popes Librarie, in his sixt booke three hundred fortie and fifth Annotation, saith, that the Church had not as yet resolued vpon any certainty tou­ching that Article.

Almost all the Greeke Fathers deferre the blessednesse of mens soules vntill the resurrection, as Theodoretus, Arethas, Oecumenius, Theophylactus, and Euthymius: with whom Pope Iohn the 22. ioyned, as Gerson in his Sermon of Easter wit­neseth, Villanus in the tenth booke of his Historie, and Eras­mus in his Preface vpon the fifth of Irenaeus. And Okam in his worke of 93 dayes: the rest of the soules in their receptacles by some ancient Fathers is called a sleeping. The Canon of the Masse prayeth for the dead in these termes: Remember ô Lord thy seruants which sleepe in the slumber of peace. For when that prayer was hatcht, they did not beleeue that the soules of the children of God were tormented in a fire.

Many did not beleeue that the soules should come out of those receptacles, all at one time, & that some should not rise so soone as others, that is, such as were heauier laden with sinnes, which should be punished by the delaying of their re­surrection. Modicum quodque delictum mora resurrectionis luen­do: as Tertullian in the last chapter of his book of the Soule saith. And following that error he will haue a woman to pray for her husbād that is dead, thatRefrigerium ei adpostulet & in prima resurrectione consortium. she shal aske some refreshing for him, & that she may beare him company in the first resur­rection; in his booke of Monogamia, cap. 10. Which also is conformable to the prayer whichOrat. funebr. de obitu Va­lentiniani, Te quaeso summe Deus vt cha­rissimos iuue­nes matura resurrectione suscites & re­suscites. Ambrose made for Gratian and Ʋalentinian that were dead, desiring God that it would please him, to releeue and raise them vp in the best time.

But I find the Fathers to agree in nothing more then in this opinion, that as soone as the dead shall be risen, they shall be singed and burnt by the fire of the day of iudgement, which they call a Baptisme of fire, & the flaming sword at the entrie of Paradise, from which fire they exempt no man, no not the Apostles, nor the virgine Marie.

Ambrose in his twentieth Sermon vpon the 118. Psalme, saith,Omnes opor­tet transire per flammas, siue ille Iohan­nes Euange­lista, siue ille Petrus. Euery man must passe through the flame, yea Saint Iohn the Euangelist whom God loued, and also Saint Peter. And in his third Sermon vpon the 36. Psalme:Igne purga­buntur filij Leui, igne E­zechiel, igne Daniel, &c. The sonnes of Leui shall be purged by fire. Ezechiel, Daniel, and they al­though they shall be examined by fire, shall neuerthelesse say, [Page 218] we haue past through fire and water.

Lactantius in his seuenth booke chap. 21. saith,Iustos cum iudicauerit Deus, igni eos examinabit. Tum quorum peccata vel pondere vel numero prae­ualuerint per­stringenturat­que amburen­tur. When God shall haue iudged the iust, he will examine them by fire. Then those whose sinnes shall exceed either in weight or number, shall be seared by fire and lightly burnt.

Saint Hilarie vpon the 119. PsalmeGimel. in the third part, maketh the virgine Mary to passe through this fire of the last iudgement, saying, Shall we desire the day of iudgement, wherein we must passe through that continuall fire? wherein we must vndergo those grieuous punishments to purge and cleanse our soules of their sinnes? And a little after,Si in iudicij seueritatem capax illa Dei virgo ventura est, desiderare quis audebit à Deo iudicari? If the virgine which conceiued God, must vndergo the seuerity of that iudgement, what is he that dares desire to be iudged of God? And in the second Canon vpon Saint Mathew. Baptizatis in spiritu S. reliquum sit consummari igne iudicij. Those that are baptized by the holy Ghost, must also passe through the fire of iudgement.

S. Augustine in the sixteenth booke, chap. 34. of the Citie of God: saith,Significa­tur isto igne dies iudicij di­rimens carna­les per ignem saluandos, & igne damnan­dos. By that fire (which appeared vnto Abra­ham) is signified the day of iudgement, which shall separate those that shall be saued by fire, and those that shall be dam­ned to the fire. And in the twentieth booke, and 25. chapter:Ex his quae dicta sunt vi­detur euiden­ter apparere in illo iudicio quasdam quo­rundam poe­nas purgato­rias futuras. By the things aforesaid, it appeareth euidently, that in that iudgement there shall be some purging paines giuen to some men. The title of the Chapter sheweth that he expresly spea­keth of the last iudgement.

Origen in his third Homilie vpon the 36. Psalme, saith, I thinke we must all come to that fire: yea though it were a Saint Paul or a Saint Peter, yet he must come to that fire.

Gregorie Nazianzen in his foure and twentieth Sermon of Baptisme, calleth penance a second painefull purgation af­ter baptisme. [...]. But (saith he) who will warrant me that this cure will come to any end, and that the iudgement will not ouertake vs, as being yet indebted, and hauing need of bur­ning in the fire which shall be there?

Basil in the fifteenth chapter of the booke of the holy Ghost (if that be his worke) saith: [...]. That by the Baptisme [Page 219] of fire whereof Iesus Christ speaketh, is vnderstood the triall that shall be made at the day of iudgement. Gregorie de Nisse speaketh of the same purging fire, in his Oration of those that sleepe. And Cyril of Ierusalem in the fifteenth Catechisme, saying, [...] That at the day of iudgement, the Lord will come in the clouds from heauen, drawing after him a floud of fire, to trie men.

Such is the Purgatory of the ancient Fathers, and not a fire vnder the ground, where the soules of the faithfull should be burnt before the day of iudgement for sinnes that are pardo­ned, nor a prison whereof the Pope is the Iaylour. And all the seruice and the prayers for the dead which are said in the Ro­mish Church, do not in any sort speake of the fire of Purga­tory, but of the sleeping of the soule, and that it is not cast into eternall fire. So the Greeke Churches pray for the dead, and deny Purgatory. Epiphanius in the heresie of Aerius, and Denis in the booke of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie spea­keth of prayer for the dead, and neuerthelesse presupposeth that the dead for whom they pray are already in rest and blessednesse. Saint Augustine in his booke of the Care for the dead, approueth prayer for the dead, but in all that booke speaketh not one word of Purgatory. The second booke of Machabees, chapter 12. commendeth prayer for the dead, when in that prayer men haue a regard vnto the resur­rection: that is to say, when we pray for one that is dead, that he may rise to saluation, but not to draw him out of Purga­tory. The Ancients prayed and gaue gifts, and made offe­rings for the dead to the end aforesaid, to wit, for the quiet resting of soules, for the resurrection, and that the dead may rise one of the first, and to the end that he may be friend­ly handled by the purging fire of the day of iudgement, but neuer to draw a soule out of Purgatory. And to conclude: in all antiquity there is no mention made of priuiledged altars, whereon he that causeth a Masse to be said, draweth a soule out of Purgatorie at his choise, nor of pardons giuen by the Pope to the dead.

In the time of Pope Gregorie the first, that wrote in anno [Page 220] 595, Sathan hatched that which the ages ensuing haue dis­closed. For by the fourth booke of Dialogues written by this Pope, you may see that then they placed Purgatory in the wind, in the smoke of bathes, and in riuers. At last Purgatory was put vnder the ground and placed neare to hell. Bellar­mine in his second booke of Purgatogy and sixt chapter saith, That in a manner all the Doctors are of one accord, that the damned and the soules in Purgatory are in one selfe same place, and are tormented all alike. And yet when the soules come out of that fire, they will not haue them presently to enter into Paradise. For Beda, and after him Bellarmine in the seuenth chapter of his first booke of Purgatory, will haue the soules when they come out of that fire, to refresh them­selues, for a while in a medow full of flowers which is neare to that place. Which is a subiect of profound speculation, as if there were greene medowes full of flowers in the conca­uities vnder ground, where there is no Sunne: and as if the soules could smell flowers, then who mowes those medowes? This fabulous doctrine, forged to enrich the Clergie, and to affright the consciences of the ignorant, let vs further exa­mine by the word of God.

Confutation of Purgatorie by the word of God.

Section. 87 1 This doctrine agreeth not with the holy Scripture, wherein there is no mention made of seruice nor sacrifice made to draw mens soules out of the fire after this life, nor of any power giuen to the Apostles to deliuer any soules out of Purgatory, nor of any priuiledged altars, nor of any par­dons giuen to the dead. All this proceds from the vnwritten word.

2 The second booke of Machabees, which we haue proued not to be canonicall, in the 12. chapter speaketh of praying for the dead, and saith; that, that prayer is made hauing respect to the resurrection, that is, to the end, that the dead may rise to [Page 221] saluation, but not to draw them out of Purgatory. On the con­trary, there it is said, that if Iuda had not hoped that the dead should rise againe, it had bene a superfluous thing, and full of follie, to pray for the dead. Then the prayer for the dead, which is made in the Romish church, by the iudgement of the Author of that booke, is foolish, because it is not made in hope, or with any regard of the resurrection, but to pull mens soules out of a burning fire.

3 The holy Scriptures giue vs many examples of men, that when they died entred into blessednes, Luk. 2.29. Simeon made his account to enter into rest by his death saying, Lord now lettest thou thy seruant depart in peace, according to thy word. Luke 16.22. Lazarus soule is by Angels carried into Abra­hams bosome, where it is comforted, while the wicked rich man was tormented. Iesus Christ said to the good theefe at his death, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.

4 They make answer, that these are exceptions which de­rogate nothing from the generall rule. But they that say so, ought to produce that generall rule, and find it in the Scrip­tures. These people will haue, that in the Scripture there should be nothing but exceptions without rules. At the least, if they want rules, let them find one onely example of a soule that is sent to that fire: But they neither produce examples nor rules. But on the contrary we produce a whole age, wherein all those that shall liue, shall be exempted from Pur­gatory, that is, those that shall be aliue in the world, when the day of iudgement shall happen. Seeing then you see so many men that shall be saued without Purgatory, and that the Pope himselfe exempteth many from it, why cannot God ex­empt the rest, without doing wrong to his iustice?

5 The Prophet Esay 57.1. speaketh thus of the death of the faithfull: The righteous is taken away from the euill to come: he shal enter into peace, they shal rest in their beds, each one walking in his vprightnesse. The Spirit of God, Reuel. 2.10. saith, Be thou faithfull vnto the death, and I will giue thee the crowne of life. Then the faithfull by death obtaine the crowne of life, and are not cast into a fire vnder the ground. And Saint Paul, 2. Cor. [Page 222] 5.1. saith For we know, that if our earthly house of this taberna­cle be destroyed, we haue an etenall house in heauen. And Reuel. 14.13. The dead which die in the Lord, are fully blessed; euen so saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labors, and their workes follow them. Paul, Hebrewes 9.27. saith, It is appointed vnto men that they shall die once, and after that cometh the iudgement. He should say as the Papists say, and after that Purgatory.

6 The wise man in Ecclesiastes 12.7. saith, Then shall the dust returne to the earth, as it was, but the spirit shall returne vn­to God who gaue it. And the Apostle, Rom. 8.1. saith, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus. If no condem­nation, then in no eternall fire, nor in a temporall fire. And Ie­sus Christ, Ioh. 5.24. saith, He that beareth my word, and be­leeueth him that sent me, hath euerlasting life, and shall not come into iudgement, but hath passed from death vnto life. Then he en­treth not into a fire like to that wherein the damned are.

7 And seeing that our aduersaries hold the booke of Wise­dome to be canonicall, why do they contradict the words thereof cap. 3.6. which are so euident and cleare, saying: The soules of the righteous are in the hands of God, there shall no tor­ment touch them? For they hold that the soules in Purgatorie are righteous.

8 Adde to that the places alledged, and the reasons at large produced against Satisfactions in generall, wherein we haue shewed how castigatorie punishments are compatible with full pardon, and are benefites and spirituall cures, but not satisfactory punishments. Where also we haue shewed how S. Iohn in his first Epistle, 1.7, saith, That the bloud of Iesus Christ cleanseth vs from all sinne. And Saint Paul Col. 2.13. saith, That God hath freely forgiuen vs all our trespasses. He saith all and freely, to the end to exclude all satisfaction on our parts to the Iustice of God. For if we must satisfie the Iustice of God by our torments, we can neuer make satisfaction for the least part of our sinnes, for that God receiueth no satisfaction but that which is most exact and complete; for the Scrip­ture telleth vs, that he which shall call his brother foole shall be punished with hell fire, Matth. 5.22. And that no railers shall in­herite [Page 223] the kingdome of God, 1. Cor. 6.10. faults wherewith euen the better sort of Christians are sometimes ouertaken.

9 The proofes drawne from the definition are demonstra­tiue. Then to know whether God pardoneth our offences without any satisfying punishments on our behalues, we must know what it is to pardon. I say, that to pardon, is to remit the penalty or punishment deserued and not to impose any satisfying punishments, nor to take any vengance or reuenge. Now God forgiueth vs all our offences, and doth it freely; therefore he expecteth no punishment, nor satisactory paines from vs.

10 God also is a most gracious Father. Now a father, (if he be not altogether vnnaturall) neuer correcteth his children to draw any satisfaction from them, but giueth correction to amend them. The afflictions of this present life serue to a­mend vs, and not to appease his wrath. But the torments of Purgatory serue not to amend a sinner, seeing that there the soules sinne no more. They will haue them onely to serue to satisfie the iustice of the Iudge. Then they are not corrections of a father, but punishments of an angrie Iudge.

11 All satisfactory punishment is a satisfaction for a fault. Now when the fault is wholly remitted, there is no more sa­tisfactory punishment to be endured.

12 And all purgation is to cleanse some filthinesse or spot: but in the fire of Purgatory no spots or filthinesse are purged; for paine is not a spot nor a filthinesse, but the fault. Then the fault being abolished and pardoned, what is there to be purged?

13 To say that after the king hath pardoned a man he will haue him to make satisfaction to the partie offended, is no­thing to the purpose. For the king and the partie are two. But here the king which is God, is also the partie, who being re­conciled, and hauing remitted all his right, there resteth no more parties to be contented, nor satisfaction to be made vn­to iustice.

14 To say that the benefit of Iesus Christs passion is ap­plied vnto vs by burning and tormenting vs in a fire, it is not [Page 224] onely to speake without authority of the Scripture, but also to contrary the Scripture, which saith, Heb. 1.3. That Iesus Christ hath himselfe purged our sinnes. Then not by a fire, not by the tormenting of soules, which he hath bought with so great a price.

15 Touching the ease and comfort which the soules in Purgatory receiue by the prayers of the liuing, Ecclesiastes 95.6, saith, That the dead haue not any more reward, neither haue they any more portion for euer in any thing that is done vnder the Sunne. Therefore God who in his Law ordained sacrifices and purifications for all sorts of sinnes and corporall filthi­nesse, euen for the Leaper, and for touching or handling of the dead, ordained not any sacrifice nor propitiation for the dead.

16 Neuerthelesse, to maintaine this fire, our aduersaries gather heapes of straw, that is, some small and light places out of the Scripture, whereat I wonder how they can be so ill aduised, seeing that the same places are of no value for their purpose. They alledge Luk. 12.58.59. which saith, While thou goest with thine aduersarie to the ruler, as thou art in the way, giue diligence in the way, that thou maist be deliuered from him, lest he draw thee to the Iudge, and the Iudge deliuer thee to the Iaylor, and the Iaylor cast thee into prison. I tell thee thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the vtmost mite. And Matth. 5.25, saith, Agree with thine aduersary quickly, in steed of these words, Giue diligence in the way that thou maist be deliuered from him. Our aduersaries will haue the way to signifie life, the Magistrate God, & the prison the fire of Purgatory, the aduer­sarie the diuell: and by consequence they would haue vs to agree with the diuell. And if in this place it is meant that the diuell is the aduersarie, who shall be the executioner? And are we in the way with the diuell? for Saint Matthew saith, Agree with thine aduersary quickly whilest thou art in the way with him. For these causes some of them will haue the diuel to be the sergeant, & the Law the aduersarie; which is yet worse. For doth the diuell draw the faithfull into Purgatory? Are we in the way with the Law? Is the Law of God our enemy? Are [Page 225] we to seek meanes to deliuer our selues from it, and to shake off the yoake thereof? For Saint Luke saith, that we must giue diligence in the way, that we may be deliuered from our aduersarie. And what absurditie is it, to call a prison a bur­ning fornace? And how is Purgatorie a prison, from whence the soules shall not come forth, till they haue paid the last far­thing, seeing that the Pope, by pardons, taketh soules from thence before satisfaction is fully accomplished? And, al­beit we should receiue and allow of their Allegories for de­monstrations, and according to the sence which it pleaseth them to giue them, yet in the end they must proue that this Purgatorie is a fire, and not a water or a field couered ouer with snow, wherein the soules wash, or roll and turne them­selues; for in this place there is no more spoken of fire then of water.

The sence of this place is cleare and manifest. Iesus Christ exhorteth vs to peace and concord with our neighbours that trouble vs, and counselleth vs, not to wrangle and striue with them in law. That is the counsell which Saint Paul giueth, 1. Cor. 6.4. to end our controuersies, rather by the aduice and arbitration of brethren of the Church, then to go to law be­fore Iudges that are infidels. So Saint Ambrose expoundeth the twelfth of Saint Luke, where he saith, that Iesus Christ speaketh,De reconci­lianda pace dissidentium fratrum. To make peace betweene brethren that are at vari­ance. Hilarie of the same place, in his fourth Canon vpon Saint Mathew. AndManifestus est sēsus, quod nos Dominus & Seruator nosterdum in saeculi via currimus, ad pacem & con­cordiam hor­tetur. Hierome in his Annotations vpon the fifth of Saint Mathew. Among the Greekes, Chrysostome, Euthy­mius, and Theophylactus vpon the fift of Saint Mathew. Mal­donat the Iesuite vpon the same place, by the prison, vnder­standeth hell, by the Sergeant, the diuell. But Berradius the Iesuite, and Cardinall Tolet vpon the twelfth of Saint Luke, expound this place as we do.

Some alledge these words of the Apostle, 1. Corin. 15.29. What shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? From whence they inferre, with incom­parable subtiltie, that therefore there must needes be a Pur­gatorie. [Page 226] To proue Purgatorie in that sort, is silently to con­fesse, that there is none. By being baptized they vnderstand, to be afflicted: from whence they inferre, that to be afflicted, signifieth, to afflict our selues, to fast, to whip our selues, and to pay for Masses to be said for the dead. For, whosoeuer (say they) afflicteth himselfe, and doth penall workes for the dead, presupposeth that there is a fire of Purgatorie. I thinke, that saying so, they do not thinke that they shall be belee­ued; and none of the ancient Fathers euer expounded this place in that manner. For although that sometimes afflicti­ons are called a Baptisme, yet it shall neuer be found, that to be baptized signifieth that a man should afflict himselfe. As also, that whosoeuer afflicteth himselfe for a dead man, doth not necessarily suppose that he is in a fire. Can he not afflict himselfe, shead teares, and pray, to the end he may obtaine Gods fauour, that the dead shall rise againe to sal­uation? which is the end of the prayer for the dead, which is spoken of in the second booke of the Maccabees chapter 12. And why should he that afflicteth himselfe for a dead man, be more bound to beleeue that the dead man is rather in a fire then in water?

Touching the true sence of this place, I confesse that it is one of the obscure places in the Scripture, whereby God ex­erciseth our sobrietie. Yet I will speake that which I thinke to be most probable. [...], &c. From Cerinthus came the heresie of the Cerinthians, which denied that Iesus Christ rose againe, and thereby weakened the beleefe of the resurrection of the dead. This Cerinthus liued in the Apostles time, if we be­leeue Epiphanius, and vsed many meanes to oppose against them, and to hinder their preaching. Of these heretickes Epiphanius, in the heresie of the Cerinthians, which is the eight, saith, That when any of them dyed without Bap­tisme, they baptized some other man in the name of the dead person, fearing lest he should be punished at the day of the resurrection, because he died without baptisme. Against these heretickes, who denying the resurrection of [Page 227] Iesus Christ, silently made the generall resurrection doubt­full, Epiphanius esteemeth that Saint Paul in this place dis­puteth, and seeketh to confute them by themselues, say­ing, That if according to the doctrine of those false Do­ctors, the dead should not rise againe, how cometh it, that among them liuing men are baptized for the dead that were not baptized, to the end, that the baptisme of the liuing man receiued, for, and in the name of the dead man, might be profitable vnto that dead man in the resur­rection?Si autē et bap­tizantur qui­dam pro mor­tuis, videbi­mus an ratio­ne; certè illa praesumptione hoc eos insti­tuisse conten­dit, qua alij etiam vicari­um baptismae profuturum existimarent ad spem re­surrectionis. So the Apostle sheweth them that they contradict themselues. This exposition is confirmed by Tertullian, in the eight and fortieth chapter of his booke of the Resurre­ction of the flesh; How (saith he) are they baptized for the dead? Certainly he maintaineth that they ordained this cu­stome, grounded vpon this opinion, whereby they thought that baptisme receiued for another, should be profitable to an other body for the assurance of the Resurrection. From thence the Marcionites brought vp a custome, to put a liuing man vnder the bed wherein a dead man lay that di­ed without Baptisme, and then asked the dead man, and said; Wilt thou be baptized? whereunto the liuing man hidden vnder the bed, made answer and said: I will; as Chry­sostome in his fortieth Homilie vpon the first Epistle to the Corinthians saith.

The place wherewith they make the greatest shew is the 12. chap. of S. Mathew 32. verse, where Iesus Christ speaking against the sin of the holy Ghost, saith, It shall not be forgiue [...] him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. The world to come, (our Aduersaries say) is the fire of Purgatorie. But how is that possible? seeing that (if we may beleeue it) Pur­gatorie was before Christ was borne? And why should that world to come rather be a fire then water, or ice? for there is no mention made neither of the one nor of the other. Be­sides that, how will they haue that world to come wherein sinnes are pardoned, to be Purgatorie, seeing that Purgato­rie is a torment and a punishment? and that (according to their doctrine) sinne is pardoned before the soules enter in­to Purgatorie?

The sence of this place is cleare, not to pardon sinne is to punish it. Then Iesus Christ declareth that God will pu­nish the sin against the holy Ghost in this life, and at the day of Iudgement, which is called the other world Luke 20.35. Those that shall be counted worthy to enioy that world, and the re­surrection from the dead.

They also alledge the first of the Corinthians, 3.11.12.13.14.15. where Saint Paul saith, For other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd, which is Iesus Christ. And if any man build on this foundation, gold, siluer, precious stones, timber, hay or stubble, euery mans worke shall be made ma­nifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be reuealed by fire, and the fire shall trie euery mans worke of what sort it is: If any mans worke abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receiue wages: If any mans worke burne; he shall lose, but he shall be saued himselfe, yet so as it were by fire. Our Aduersaries will haue this fire to be Purgatorie.

I answere, first, That we can ground no doctrine vpon allegoricall places: Secondly, That seeing our Aduersaries vnderstand the words, wood hay, stubble, or siluer, allego­rically, there is no reason to take the onely word Fire pro­perly; specially seeing that that is the onely word where­upon the Apostle putteth the note of a similitude, saying, He shall be saued yet as it were by fire. Thirdly, adde hereunto, that here he speaketh of a fire which trieth the worke, and not of a fire which punisheth the person. Fourthly, of a fire whereby the worke shalbe made manifest: but what is done in Purgatorie is not manifest. Fiftly, Of euery mans worke: then of the Apostles and the Martyrs workes, whom neuer­thelesse the church of Rome exempts from purgatorie. Sixtly, also here it is spoken of a fire wherein the worke burneth, & not soules. Seuenthly, of a fire whereby the workeman loseth his worke, but in Purgatorie nothing is lost. And if men will say that sinnes therein are lost, there is a benefit in that losse.

The sence of the place is plaine. The Apostle speaketh of Pastors and Doctors, which teaching retaine the foundation which is Iesus Christ, whereupon some build holy and firme [Page 229] doctrines, which are called gold, siluer, and precious stones; other build vaine and light doctrines, which degenerate from the price and soliditie of the foundation; and are called wood, hay, and stubble. The Apostle saith, that those light do­ctrines, examined by the word of God as mettals by fire, shall not subsist; that the worke of such a Minister shall perish, and that proofe shall manifest and make knowne, that there is no firmenesse in it. But touching the person of the Pastor, although his worke perisheth, yet he may be saued, because of the foundation which he hath holden. But yet after a triall of his worke hath bene made, as mettals are tried by fire. Therefore here the Apostle speaketh of a triall that shall be made in this life, and not afterward; and of a triall of the do­ctrine of Pastors, and not of tormenting of soules in a fire.

Some make a shew of the place of Saint Paul, Philip. 2.10. That at the name of Iesus should euery knee bow, both of things in heauen, and things in earth, and things vnder the earth. And of that which is said, Reuel. 5.13. And all the creatures which are in heauen, and on the earth, and vnder the earth, and in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Praise, and honour, and glory and power, be vnto him that sitteth vpon the throne, and vnto the Lambe for euermore, &c. With these places our adue saries blow this imaginarie fire, saying, that those that are vnder the earth are the soules that are tormented in Purgatory. They ought also to tell vs, what those creatures are which are in the sea: and also shew vs a reason, why by those that are vnder the earth, they will sooner vnderstand soules in Pur­gatory, then the soules of little children that died before they were baptized; because they place thē also vnder the ground. But there is much more apparence and likelihood, that by those which are vnder the earth, is vnderstood those whose bodies are in the graues, or those that are in hell: for all men both good and bad shall bow their knees before Iesus Christ at the day of iudgement, and shall humble themselues in his presence. For Saint Paul in that place to the Philippians speaketh of the kingdome giuen to Iesus Christ ouer all crea­tures without exception. As also in Rom. 14.10.11, where [Page 230] God saith thus, For we shall all appeare before the iudgement seate of Christ. For it is written, I liue (saith the Lord) and euery knee shall bow to me, and all tongues shall confesse vnto God. In this place it is plaine, that the Apostle taketh, Appeare before the iudgement seate of Christ, and to bow the knee before God; for one selfe same thing. To kindle this imaginary fire, they yet bring a match which will not take light, that is, the 21. chap. of the Reuelation, 27 ver. where the Spirit of God speaking of the celestiall Ierusalem, saith: And there shall enter into it no vn­cleane thing. From whence they infer, that the soules of the faithfull that are spotted with sinne, ought to be purged be­fore they enter into Paradise. But the words following shew, that by the vncleane, is not vnderstood the faithfull spotted with sinne, but the wicked and the abhominable. This is the whole place: And there shall enter into it no vncleane thing, nei­ther whatsoeuer worketh abhomination or lies, but they which are written in the Lambes booke of life. Then those vncleane are the abhominable and liers, and such as are not written in the booke of life. Not therefore the soules of the faithfull, which haue no need to be put in the crurible or into the fire to be purified. For the bloud of Iesus Christ purgeth them from all sinne. 1. Ioh. 1.7.

The rest of the places which they alledge, haue so little shew, that we thinke our aduersaries are beholding vnto vs for letting of them passe, without arguing thereon. If in the Scripture there be any speech of a boyling pot, of the filthi­nesse of the danghters of Sion, of a ditch wherein there is no water; or if it be said that God rebuketh in his wrath, they are (as they say) as many proofes of Purgatory. Coueteousnesse hath made these Doctors expert in fire-wor [...]es, and most in­dustrious to kindle this fire. They want nothing but the word of God, and common sense.

Places out of the ancient Fathers against Purgatory.

Section. 88 We haue al [...]eady heard, how diuerse ancient Fathers are of [Page 231] opinion that the soule cannot be tormented without the bo­dy, an opinion directly against the torments of soules in Pur­gatory. We haue also seene how prayer for the dead practised in the ancient Church is contrary to Purgatory: and that the prayers for the dead which are at this day made in the Church of Rome, make no mention of the fire of Purga­tory.

The booke of Questions and Answers to the Orthodoxe, which is at the end of Iustine Martyrs workes, saith thus in the 75. question: [...]. After the soules are departed out of the bodie, presently a separation is made of the good from the bad, for they are carried by Angels to the places fit for them: the soules of the good into Paradise, where the Angels re­sort, and are conuersant; but the soules of the wicked into hell.

S. Cyprian in his booke against Demetrian: Aeui tempo­ralis fine com­pleto ad aeter­na vel mortis vel immorta­litatis hospitiae diuidimur. This tempo­rall life being ended, we are sequestred into the habitation either of eternall death or of eternall life.

And in the same Treatise towards the end:Quando istine excessū fuerit, nullus iam locus poe­nitentiae est, nullus satisfa­ctionis effe­ctus. Ad immorta­litatem sub ipsa morte transitur. When we are gone from hence, there is no more place of repentance, nor no fruite or effect of Satisfaction. And then he addeth: If thou askest pardon of God for thy sinnes, although it be at the issuing of thy soule out of thy body, and at the end of this temporall life, pardon shall be granted vnto thee vpon re­pentance and confession of thy sinnes: and pardon of salua­tion is granted to the beleeuer by diuine grace and good­nesse, and from death we passe and go into life eternall.

Cyprian throughout his whole booke of Mortalitie ex­pressely speaketh thereof, where among other things he saith,Deus tibi de hoc mundo re­cedenti aeternitatem pollicetur atque aeternitatem, & tu dubitas? hoc est Deum omnino non nosse. God, at thy going out of this world, promiseth thee immor­talitie and eternall life, and dost thou doubt it? this is not to know God at all as thou shouldest.Non exitus sed transitus & temporali itinere decurso ad aeterna transgressus. There also he saith, that death is a passage or way to eternity; that our brethren which are dead, are not lost, but sent thither before vs; and that we must not put on blacke gownes, sith our friends haue put on [Page 232] white robes. And there speaking of the day of death, he saith,Amplecta­mur diem qui singulos assig­net domicilio suo, qui nos istinc ereptos, & laqueis se­cularibus exu­tos, Paradiso restituit & regno coelesti. Let vs embrace that day which putteth euery man in his house, which hauing drawne vs from hence, and vnburthened vs of the snares of this world putteth vs into Paradise, and in­to the heauenly kingdome.

Saint Hierome vpon the ninth of Amos saith,Quando ani­ma vinculis laxata corpo­ris, volandi quò velit siue quò ire com­pellitur prop­ter tenuitatem substantiae ha­buerit liberta­tem, aut ad in­ferna ducetur, aut certè ad coelestia suble­uabitur. When the soule loosed from the bandes of this body it shall be liber­tie, because of the thinnesse or lightnesse of her substance, to flie whither it will, or whither it is constrained to go, then it shall be carried to hell, of whom it is written, Sinners shall be carried or cast into hell; or else it shall be lifted vp into the heauenly habitation.

In the Romish Decree, 13Can. In prae­senti. Cause, second question, this place of Saint Hierome is alledged: In this world we know that we can helpe one another by prayers or by counsell; but when we shall come before the iudgement seate of Iesus Christ, neither Iob, nor Daniel, nor Noe can pray for any man, but euery man shall beare his owne burthen.

Gregorie Nazianzen in the Epitaph vpon his brother Caesa­rius saith, [...]. I beleeue the words & sayings of the wise, that is, that euery good soule fearing God, being deliuered from this body, (which here on earth it hath,) and separated from it, is presently admitted to the fruition and contemplation of the good which is reserued for it, and enioyeth admirable plea­sure.

Saint Ambrose in the booke of the benefite of death, cap. 8. saith,Insipientes mortem quasi summum malum reformidant, sapientes quasi requiem post labores & finem malorum expetunt. Fooles feare death as the principall euill, but wise men desire it, as a rest after their trauels and end of their euils. And in the second chapter, speaking of the day of death, he saith,Cùm dies aduenerit, intrepidè ad Abraham patrem nostrum proficiscamur, intrepide pergamus ad illum coetum iustorum{que} conuentum. Ibimus enim ad patres nostros, ibimus ad illos nostrae fidei praeceptores, vt etiamsi opera desint, fides opituletur, defenda­tur haereditas, When that day comes, we go assuredly to our father Abraham, to the assembly of the Saints, and to the congregation of the iust. For [Page 233] we shall go to our fathers, we shall go to the teachers of our faith, to the end, that although our workes faile vs, our faith may secure vs, and the inheritance be kept for vs. Note these words, Al­though our workes faile vs; that men should not thinke, but that he speaketh of the most holy, and the most perfect a­mong men.

Epiphanius in his second booke of Heresies, in the 39. Here­sie, which is the heresie of the Catharists or Nouatians, saith, In the world to come after man is dead, there is no more helpe by fasting, no more calling for penance, no more giuing of almes. And then he addeth, [...]. The barnes are shut vp, the time is accomplished, the combat is ended, the place of the lists is emptie, and the crownes are giuen. And saith, that all this is done when the soule lea­ueth the body; & a little before he said, there is no more place for almes, nor for penance.

Chrysostome in the second Homilie of Lazarus, saith, [...]. While we are here on earth we haue faire hopes, but as soone as we haue left this world, it is no more in our power to do penance, nor to vndo or amend that which we haue commit­ted and done vpon earth. And in his 75. Homilie vpon Saint Mathew he saith, That penance after death is vnprofi­table.

And in his fourth Homilie vpon the Epistle to the He­brewes, speaking of Hymnes and Prayers which in his time were said at burials of the dead, he saith. [...]. What signi­fie these burning tapers, but that we bury the champions of Christ? and these Hymnes or songs, but that we glorifie God, and giue him thankes, because he hath crowned the dead, and deliuered him from all paine and griefe?

And in his 22. Homilie vpon Saint Mathew, he chideth those which weepe for the dead, [...]. Because (saith he) death is an hauen of safetie. And in the same Homilie he saith, Why doest thou call the poore after the death of thy friend, why doest thou desire the Priests to pray for him? Whereunto he maketh answer himselfe, and saith, That it is to the end that the dead may obtaine rest, and find his yoke easie. Thinkest thou (saith he) that thou must weepe for these things? Dost [Page 234] thou not see, that therein thou doest him wrong, raisin stormes against him, when he is safely arriued at the hauen?

Gregory Nissen in his booke of those that Sleepe, saith,Per mortem soluto bello, quod in nobis est pacemmens agitat. Postea quam dolor mortis ad al­teram vitam hominibus quasi obstetri­cata fuerit. The war that is in vs being ended by death, our soules rest, hauing left the field wherein the battell was fought, that is, the bo­dy. And a little after: The paines of death are as it were a midwife vnto man, to bring him into eternall life. The pur­ging fire whereof he speaketh in the same booke, is the fire of the last iudgement, which (according to the opinion of the ancient Fathers) must purge all men, yea, and the virgin Ma­rie, as we haue proued before. Sometimes also the Fathers callAug lib. 21. de ciuitate Dei cap. 13. Nos in hac mortali vita esse quasdam purgatorias poenas confite­mur. the afflictions of this life a purging fire: Saint Cyprian in the second Epistle of his fourth booke, calleth Ecclesiasti­call penance imposed vpon those which by feare were be­come idolaters, a purgation by fire.

Saint Augustine, or whosoeuer is the author of the booke of the Vanitie of this world, in the ninth tome, chap. 1. saith,Scitote quod cum anima à corpore euelli­tur, aut in Pa­radiso pro me­ritis bonis col­locatur, aut certè pro pec­catis in inferni tartara praeci­pitatur. Know that when the soule departeth out of the body, it is presently placed in Paradise because of her good workes, or is cast downe into the pit of hell because of her sinnes. And in the margent these words are set, Vbi nunc purgatorium? And in the second Sermon of the Consolation of the dead, which is in the ninth tome of Saint Augustines works, cap. 1, he saith:Recedens ani­ma ab Angelis suscipitur, & collocatur aut in sinu Abra­hae si fidelis est, aut in carceris inferni custo­dia si peccatrix est. The soule going out of the body is receiued by the Angels, and placed in Abrahams bosome if it be faithfull, or in the in­fernall prison of hell if it be sinfull.

In the eighteenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle he saith,Duae sunt habitationes, vna in igne aeterno, altera in regno aeterno. There are two habitations, the one in the eternall kingdome of heauen, the other in the eternall fire of hell.

And in the 232 Sermon which is against drunkennsse, he saith,Nemo se decipiat, fratres, duo enim loca sunt & tertius non est vllus. Qui cum Christo regnare non meruerit, cum diabolo absque dubitatione vlla perihit. Let no man deceiue himselfe my brethren, for there are two places, and no third place. He that shall not merite to reigne with Christ in heauen, without doubt shall perish with the diuell in hell.

In the booke of the Desert of sinnes, and of pardon thereof, cap. 28. He saith,Nec est vllus vlli medius lo­cus vt possit esse nisi cum diabolo qui non est cum Christo. There is no middle way, in such manner that he which dwelleth not with Iesus Christ, must dwel elsewhere with the diuell. And it is to be noted, that Saint Augustine in this place maintaineth, that little children which are not baptized, are in hell. Certainly he would not haue bene so hard and rigo­rous against those children, if he had knowne of any other place of punishment, which is not so rigorous, or shorter, as Limbus patrum, or Purgatorie.

These places in this Father ought to be taken for a reso­lation of a doubt which he sometimes had, whether after this life, there is any temporall torment and purging fire. And in his Manuell to Larentius, cap. 68. he saith, That that fire which proueth euery mans worke, whereof Saint Paul 1. Cor 3.11, speaketh, is the triall of afflictions which is made in this life. And proceeding in that matter in the chapter fol­lowing he saith,Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredi­bile non est, & vtrum ita sit quaeri potest, & aut inueni­ri aut latere non nullos fide­les per ignem quendam pur­gatorium. Quanto magis minusue bona pereuntia di­lexerunt, tanto tardius citius­que saluari. It is not a thing incredible, that such a thing may happen after this life, and we may doubt whether it be such as may be found or whether it be an hidden thing, that certaine faith­full persons shall be saued by purging fire, some sooner some later, as they loued and affected the things of this world. He doubteth whether he should beleeue this purgation by fire, which ma­ny ancient Fathers referred to the day of iudgement.

And in the booke of the eight questions propounded by Dulitius, in the first question, he saith, Whether men suffer afflictions onely in this life, or whether after this life some such punishments ensue, it is not a thing (as I thinke) farre from the apparence of truth.

In the 26 chapter of the 21 booke of the Citie of God, he saith of transitory tribulation after this life, Non redarguo quia forsitan verum est, I denie it not, because it may be it is true. We haue also seene before, two formal places out of the book of the Citie of God, wherein he putteth this purgation to be at the day of iudgement: but in the 21 booke and 16 chap­ter he is of a contrary minde, and saith,Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud vl­timū tremen­dumque iudi­cium. That we must be­leeue that there are no purging paines, but those that are be­fore the latter iudgement. Which makes me beleeue that [Page 236] this place hath bene corrupted or thrust into his booke by malice; and that it is not credible, that this Doctor who in so many other places affirmeth the contrary, should be so for­getfull, and that in one selfe same booke he should contradict himselfe; or that by purging paines he vnderstandeth the af­flictions of this life.

We will end this question with an expresse sentence out of Pope Gregorie the first in his 13. booke vpon Iob, cap. 20, where he saith,Quia autho­ris nostri gra­tia redempti sumus hoc iam coelestis mune­ris habemus, vt cùm de car­nis nostrae ha­bitatione sub­trahimur, mox ad coelestia praemia duca­mur. Because we are redeemed by the grace of our creator, we haue this heauenly gift, that when our soules depart out of this fleshly habitation, we are presently carried to the reward of eternall rest. I know not what may be spo­ken to this purpose more expresly.

Of Indulgences or Pardons.

Section. 89 The fire of Purgatory being in this manner quenched, In­dulgences or pardons whereby the Pope draweth soules out of this fire, grow cold. In such manner, that the Pope hath no need to heape vp & gather the superabundant satisfactions of Saints into his treasurie to distribute them by his pardons, and to conuert them into payment or satisfaction for others, and thereby to draw soules out of Purgatorie. This businesse is altogether superfluous.

For he shall not need to trouble himselfe to take that out of prison which is not there. And though it were so, yet the afflictions and troubles of the Saints whom God hath suffi­ciently rewarded in their owne persons, would not be an ac­ceptable satisfaction. For the Scripture saith, Gal. 6.5. That euery man shall beare his owne burthen: and 1. Cor. 3.8. Euery man shall receiue his wages according to his labour. And 2. Cor. 5.10. Euery man shall receiue the things which are done in his bo­dy, whether it be good or euill. And Psal. 49.7. No man can by a­ny meanes redeeme his brother, nor giue to God a ransome for him.

As also that the satisfaction of Iesus Christ is sufficient, without borrowing the afflictions of the Saints, or the fa­stings, pilgrimages, and whippings of Monkes, 1. Iohn 1.7. The bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ cleanseth vs from all sinne: and Acts 4.12. There is no saluation in any other. He giueth no ver­tue to the Saints to pay a debt which is discharged, nor to make Satisfaction for that for the which he himselfe hath fully satisfied. It is a mocking of the Saints, to set them on worke to do a thing which is done before.

If the Pope were bound to yeeld an account of his actions, and to shew by what authority he doth that which he doth, could he shew in what place God hath giuen him that power to take soules out of Purgatory? Secondly, who hath com­manded him to heape vp the superabundant satisfactions of Saints and Monkes in his treasurie? Thirdly, where and when did God first command him to distribute them to others? I beleeue he would be hardly bestead: for that the high Priests in the old Testament did not gather together the superabun­dant satisfactions of Noe nor of Abraham, nor made any di­stribution of them: nor neuer thought of taking any soules out of Purgatory, either by power of iurisdicton, or any man­ner of suffrages. Seeing also, that neither Iesus Christ, nor the Apostles, nor yet the ancient Church for many yeares neuer spake of this treasure, nor did not by Pardons distribute the ouerplus of humane satisfactions, nor established priuiledged altars, nor tooke any soules out of Purgatory. And Gabriel Biel in his 57. Lecture vpon the Canon of the Masse, and Cardinall Caietan in the beginning of the booke of Indulgen­ces, acknowledge, That in all antiquity there is nothing found touching Pardons.

The abuse thereof is most euident and cleare, in this, that the remission of sinnes is tyed to a certaine Church, in such manner that he which should elsewhere do three times as many deuotions should not haue the same pardon. And in this, that when the day of Iubilie is at Rome, those that are neare thereunto haue their remission at their ease; but those which are three hundred leagues from thence, and want mo­ney, [Page 238] or a good horse, or a good paire of legs, are depriued of that spirituall liberality. And herein, that the Pope giueth full pardon of all sinnes, and a third part of sinnes besides, that is to say, that he forgiues all their sinnes, and many others. As also herein, that the Pope and the Clergie draw great pro­fits and vse a great trafficke thereby. The Iubilie is the great haruest of the Citie of Rome: then offerings and treasure come thither from all places. And in this, that the Pope giueth pardons without any exact calculation, (as hauing secretly reckoned with God) giuing eighteene thousand yeares of pardon, and as many times forty dayes, and some dayes more: there wanted nothing but houres and minutes. And in this, that he throwes pardons abroad like a handfull of crownes among the prease, as when he throwes a thousand yeares of pardon among the prease of the people vpon the day of his Coronation.

But specially and aboue all, it is an admirable thing, that Ie­sus Christ mediateth and intreateth for the soules that are in Purgatory, and that they come not forth from thence by his intercession, but come out by the Popes pardons. Which can neither be blanched nor excused, by that which some say, that the intercession of Iesus Christ doth not exempt the faithfull from sicknesse and other afflictions in this present life. For the intercession of Iesus Christ serueth not to hurt vs: but it should be hurtfull vnto vs, if it depriued vs of the wholesome remedies which God vseth to amend vs, which are sicknesse and afflictions. In which rancke Purgatory is not to be reckoned, which serueth not to amend and instruct sin­ners, and to keepe them in the feare of God. We cannot say, that it should be an hurtfull thing to those soules not to be burnt, and to be presently carried into Paradise. Christs satis­faction exempteth vs from satisfying, but depriueth vs not of corrections and wholesome trials. And the Pope doth not by his pardons exempt men from sicknesse, but will haue them to beleeue that he drawes soules out of Purgatory. Wherein he manifestly exalts himselfe aboue God: for if it be Gods will to punish his children in a fire, why will not the Popes [Page 239] suffer him to punish them as it pleaseth him? Aske him by what authoritie he doth that, and he will say, That God gaue Peter the power to vnbinde and loose vpon earth. Put the case that this were likewise said of the Pope, yet that place speaketh not of loosing vnder the earth; the power of the Keyes extendeth not to the dead.

Of Single life, or perpetuall abstinence from marriage.

Section. 90 To beginne this question we declare and auouch, that we honour and much esteeme constant virginitie, and ac­knowledge, that it hath many aduantages aboue marriage. And that a man which is not married, if he be chast and con­tinent, is the fitter to beare the crosse of Christ, and to resolue with himselfe to endure banishment for the word of God. For he is lesse tied and combred with humane cares, and hath more libertie. His minde is lesse distracted by the cares of this present life. And he hath more time to employ himselfe in the seruice of God.

But these praises and commendations belong onely to continent and constant virginitie,Hieron. lib. 1. cont. Iouinian. Illa virginitas hostia est Christo, cuius nec mentem cogitatio, nec carnem libido maculauit. Ambr. li. 3. de virginib. Non sola carnis virginem fa­cit, sed etiam mentis inte­gritas. which is not onely an in­tegritie of the body, but also a puritie of spirit voyd of all concupiscence. Which is a gift that happeneth to a very few men, and may as well be giuen to a Lay man as to a Pastor of the Church.

This commendation of Virginitie ought not in any sort to preiudice Marriage, ordained by God in Paradise, and which Iesus Christ would honour with his presence: who also would be borne of a virgin, but yet contracted, and vn­der shadow of marriage, to honour virginitie without dis­honouring marriage, ordained by God to be a remedie a­gainst incontinencie, an ease of afflictions, a mutuall sup­port, a meanes of the conseruation of humane kinde, and by consequence, of the Church.

Against this mariage the Popes haue banded themselues, [Page 240] and haue inuēted a thousand means to make it odious. PopeCan. Propo­suisti. nec eos ad sacra officia fas sit admittere, qui exercent cum vxoribus carnale con­sortium quia scriptum est, Sancti estote quoniam ego sum sanctus. Innocent in Distinction 82. forbiddes those that dwell car­nally with their wiues to be receiued into any sacred offices, because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy: as if holinesse were disagreeing with marriage; or as if the commandement to be holy, belonged onely to Ecclesiasticall persons. There also he groundeth single life vpon the place of Scripture, Ti­tus 1.15. which saith, Ʋnto the pure all things are pure, but vnto them that are defiled and vnbeleeuing nothing is pure. And vpon that which is said, Rom. 8.8.9. Those that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Pope Syricius in the same Distinction speaketh thus,Can. Pluri­mos. We vnderstand that diuers Priests and Deacons long time since their consecrations haue begotten children, not onely in marriage, but in adulterie. And a little while after, he cal­leth both the one and the otherQuisquis ille est sectae­tor libidinum, praeceptor vi­tiorum. Epi­phan. Ancho­rato. [...]. Sectaries of adulterie, and teachers of vices. Which the Apostle to the Hebrews did not beleeue, when in the 13. chapter, verse 4, he calleth mar­riage, The bed vndefiled. Nor Epiphanius when he said, that Enoch was not a virgin, and yet he was continent.

Bellarmne in 34 cha. of the book of Monks calles the mar­riage of Monks a Sacriledge, and saith, it is a greater sin then adultery for them to marry. And yet they are not abashed to see a Priest keepe a whore. In Rome the Priests and Pre­lates go publikely to the Stewes. But if any of them marrie, he is esteemed a monster, and I thinke that he should not scape the Inquisition. So the Popes forbid marriage, and permit adultery. The Iesuite Emmanuel Sà in his Apho­rismes, at the wordEpiscopus potest proce­dere contra quencun{que} ob peccatum mor cale, nisi esset iure permis­sum, vt mere­tricum. Bishop, maketh no difficulty to say, that whore-hunting is by right permitted vnto them.

And although that in the church of Rome those that are Bigamies are irregular, that is, that those that haue bene twise married are not admitted to the Priesthood; yet he is not irregular that hath had diuers concubines,Extra. De Bigamis, cap. Quia circa. postulasti per sedem aposto­licam edoceri, se presbyteri plures concubinas habentes bigami censeantur. Ad quod duximus respondendum, quod cum irregularitatem non incurrerint bigamiae, cum eis tanquam simplici fornicatione notatis, quod ad executionem sacerdotalis officij poteris dispensare. as Pope [Page 241] Innocent the third declareth. All that is done for feare lest married priests should eclipse the goods of the Church, to giue them to their children, as PopeCan. de Sy­racusanae Su­perstes vxor aut filij per quos Ecclesia­stica solet pe­riclitari sub­stantia. Gregorie the first saith in the 28. Distinction. By the like policie where any profit may be procured to the Popes and Prelates, they haue aduanced the dignitie of marriage, placing it among the number of the Sacraments of the Church, thereby to draw the knowledge of matrimoniall causes to themselues, vnder pretence that it belongs to the Church to take knowledge of the Sacraments. And yet forgetting themselues, they mar­rie some by deputies, which they would finde to be absurd in the other Sacraments, and would not suffer any one to be baptized for another. By the same policy they haue forbid­den marriage in the third and fourth degree, and forged for­bidden degrees of spirituall parentage; because, the more prohibitions that are made, men come the oftener vnto them for Dispensations.

1 Touching this question, if we take the word of God for Iudge heerein, the difference will soone be ended. For the chiefe Doctors of the Church of Rome confesse, that we haue no commandement from God touching the same.Thomas 2. 2. Quaest. 88. Art. 11. Tho­mas, and after him Bellarmine, in the first booke of Clerkes, cha. 18. teach, that the prohibition made to spirituall persons not to marrie, is no diuine law, but a humane & positiue law; and neuerthelesse we haue heard before, and experience wit­nesseth the same, that this humane commandement is inuio­lably obserued, but that adulterie is permitted, and the Stewes established in Rome, by the Popes permission, con­trary to the commandement of God.

2 The Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.2. saith, To auoide fornication, let euery man haue his wife, and euery woman haue her owne hus­lband. Note, euery one: to the end that spirituall persons should not be exempted. And to auoide fornication. Then this com­mandement is made to spirituall persons subiect to fornica­tion.

3 In the same chapter verse ninth, it is said; But if they can not abstaine, let them marrie, for it is better to marie then to [Page 242] burne. Then an vnchast priest that hath not the gift of conti­nencie is bound to marrie. It serues not his turne to say, that he hath made a vow not to marrie, and that he must obserue and keepe his vow. For the same priest hath also made a vow not to commit adultery: and although he had not made that vow, yet he is bound thereunto, seeing that God in his Law forbiddeth adulterie. Now which promise is most strictly to be obserued, either that which a man maketh to God, to obserue and obey his commandements, or that which he maketh to the Church, without the commandement of God? Which bond or obligation is the strongest, either that which a man oweth to God whether he will or not, or that where­in we willingly binde our selues, without any necessitie, and without the word of God? Then how comes it to passe, that the marriage of a priest, contrary to an vnnecessarie vow, is called sacriledge; but if he committeth adulterie a­gainst the commandement of God, the fault is esteemed a thousand times lesse? I say, that adultery committed by a priest, not onely breaketh his vow made to God to obey his Law, but also infringeth the vow of chastitie that he made when he was made a priest, so that he breaketh two vowes. But if he marrie, he breakes but one, and that was made con­trary to the word of God. So adultery committed by a priest is a double sacriledge, because therby two vowes are broken.

4 If all men be bound, and that without a vow, to obey God, then priests are bound to obey the commandement of God pronounced by the Apostle, If they cannot abstaine, let them marrie. Holy, iust, and necessarie obligations to salua­tion, cannot be broken by vnnecessarie subsequent vowes.

5 Hereunto I adde, that it is an abuse heere to alledge the vow not to marrie: for that vowes are good, first, if we vow good things: secondly, if we vow willingly and with know­ledge what we do: thirdly, if we vow things which are in our power to do. Now in this vow, not to marry, there wanteth three things. First, for that a man that is not continent, vo­weth neuer to marrie: that is to say, that he will vow to dis­obey God, that will haue persons that haue not the gift of [Page 243] continencie, to marrie, feeling himselfe not able to containe, he will vow to abstaine from the remedie of incontinencie which God hath ordained. This vow being cōtrary to Gods will, is of no force, and yet he is constrained to keepe his vow, although he should commit adultery a thousand times.

6 Secondly, this vow also is ordinarily made vnwillingly, and without knowing what it is. Men make their daughters Nunnes at twelue yeares, and their sonnes Monkes at four­teene yeares of age: then when they do not know what con­cupiscence meaneth: which after beginning to kindle in them, worketh with double force, like cinders that are co­uered ouer with ashes, and at the last breake out violently into a flame. A father to discharge himselfe of his dutie to­wards his children, putteth the weakest and imperfectest of them into an house of religion, and offereth the maimed and lame vnto God. And those poore children entring ioyfully into the Fishers weele, soone after, at their leisure, sigh and grone in their captiuitie.

7 Lastly, by this vow men promise things which are not in their power: for chastitie is a gift which God bestoweth not vpon many men. The vnchaste life of the most part of those that make this vow, sufficiently sheweth it. To quench naturall affections, we must haue a supernaturall gift, which is not in our power. The Apostle 1. Cor. 7 7. feeling him­selfe to be exempted from those desires, said, I would that all men were euen as I my selfe am: But to shew that few haue that gift, he addeth. But euery man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that.

8 Whereupon Bellarmine confesseth,Lib. 2 de Mo­nac. cap. 31. that this gift is not in our power; yet, that euery man may aske the same of God. But he considereth not that God will not heare our prayers, if they be not made in faith; as Saint Iames saith 1.6.7. and also that this faith is a gift of God. Ephesians 2. which gift God giueth not to all men, 2. Thes. 3.2. As also that he which asketh grace of God not to marrie, hath no promise that God will heare him. It is true that God promiseth to giue vs all things that we shall aske in the name of Iesus Christ: but [Page 244] he speaketh of things necessarie to saluation, of which num­ber, perpetuall virginitie is none. And God gaue not that gift to those men whom he loued most, as to Moses, to Sa­muel, to Dauid, and to Esay, &c. But, how should Priests and Clerks of the church of Rome be assured to obtaine the gift of chastitie, which is not necessarie to saluation, and which God hath not promised, seeing that they make pro­fession, not to be assured by prayer to obtaine the saluation which God promiseth? Then vowing chastitie, they vow that which God hath not promised them, and which they are not assured to obtaine, and which is not in their power. Whence it followeth, that this vow is rashly made, and by consequence, is not to be obserued.

9 Also, we haue examples of the Prophets extraordinarily and miraculously inspired, and indued with the Spirit of God; as Moses, Samuel, Esay, &c. which were married and had chil­dren. The priests also in the old Law were married, and that in such a time, when as in externall things, and in cleanenesse and ceremoniall exactnesse, God required a greater puritie then he doth vnder the Gospell. And if marriage had bene vnfit for the priests in the old Law, God would haue ordai­ned some other meanes to continue the order of priests, then by succession from the father to the sonne. To this they make no answer: for that which they say, is no answer: They say that the priests abstained from their wiues in the time of their seruice. A thing inuented by themselues, and which cannot be proued. But to the contrary it is found that Aaron and his sonnes were daily both morning and euening to at­tend vpon the sacrifice, and to burne incense euery morning, Exodus 30.7. as also, that the ordinarie food of the high Priest and of his familie, was that portion of the sacrifices which was allotted vnto them.

10 Neuerthelesse, put case that it were so; can abstinence for a few dayes serue, or be sufficient to establish perpetuall virginitie? For such an abstinence did not depriue the priests of the end and intent of marriage, which is to beget chil­dren, and to preuent incontinencie: but perpetuall single life [Page 245] depriueth a man of those things, intangleth him in wicked desires, and resisteth nature. Which serueth for an answer to the like allegations. As the prohibition made to the Israe­lites, not to touch their wiues carnally for the space of three dayes before the publication of the Law. And that which the Apostle 1. Corint. 7.5. saith, Defraud not one another, ex­cept it be with consent fot a time, that you may giue your selues to fasting and prayer, and againe come together, that Sathan tempt you not for your incontinencie.

11 Many of the Apostles were married. In the first of Marke 30. mention is made of Peters wiues mother. Igna­tius liuing neare vnto the Apostles time, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, saith, [...]. that Peter and Paul, and the rest of the A [...]stles were married. Saint Ambrose vpon the 11 chap­ter of theOmnes A­postoli excepto Ioanne et Pau­lo vxores ha­buerunt. 2. Corinthians saith, All the Apostles, except Iohn and Paul, had wiues. Clemens Alexandrinus in his third of Strom. saith, [...]. &c. Do they reiect the Apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children. Philip gaue his daughters to husbands. And Paul made no difficultie in one of his Epistles, to speake to his companion, being a woman. Which I alleadge, not that I beleeue that Saint Paul was married, but to shew that Clement did not esteeme marriage to be incompa­tible with the Apostles office. In the 21. chapter of the Acts, verse 9. it is said that Philip rhe Euangelist had foure daugh­ters. Platina in the life of Cletus the first saith, that Saint Luke was married, and that his wife was in Bithynia.

12 Our Aduersaries answer, and say, that it is true, that those holy seruants of God had wiues, but that they lay not with them, and had not the carnall vse of their bodies. These men diuine what they list, without producing any prohibi­tion made to the Apostles touching the same. What would the Apostles haue thought, when Iesus Christ call [...]d them, if he had layd that necessitie vpon them to abstaine from their wiues? Who doubts that the high Priests and the Pharisies that sifted him so narrowly, would not haue persecuted him therefore, as hauing imposed a yoke vpon them which God had not set downe in his Law? Defraud not one another, saith [Page 246] the Apostle, but come together againe, 1. Cor. 7.5. If to defraud one another be a vice in other men, why had it bene a vertue in the Apostles?

13 It is true, that the Apostles said to Iesus Christ, Matth. 19.27. We haue forsaken all, and followed thee: To whom Iesus Christ made answer and said, verse 29. Whosoeuer shall forsake houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or chil­dren, or lands, for my names sake, he shall receiue an hundred fold more, and shall inherit eternall life. But it is a great abuse, to take that which he saith to all the faithfull, as if it were onely said to the Apostles and Pastors of the Church. For he saith, Whosoeuer shall forsake, &c. All the faithfull ought to forsake houses, fields, wiues, children, fathers, mothers, yea and their owne liues, when they cannot keepe them but by [...]nying Iesus Christ, or forsaking that vocation whereunto God hath called them. In that case God will haue all humane bands broken, and that all naturall affections shall in a man­ner be choked by the zeale and the desire to saue our soules and to follow our vocations. Saint Augustine in his 89 Epistle expoundeth that place in this manner, saying: Sometime there happeneth such a necessitie, that we must either leaue our wiues, or Iesus Christ. The place is long, and very ex­presse to this purpose, and he speaketh of all the faith­full.

14 It is to be noted also, that Iesus Christ there speakes of forsaking wiues, children, houses, and goods generally, Then seeing the Church of Rome doth iudge, that by this place Priests & Bishops are not bound to forsake and leaue the vse of their goods, why should they by the same place be bound to leaue the vse of their wiues? If a father that is become a Priest, is not bound by this place to be no more a father, why should he by this place be bound to be no more an husband? If he may keepe his goods, why should he not also keepe his wife? for these two things are also ioyntly set downe in this place. And we see by the History of the Gospell, that after Iesus Christ had said that to his Apostles, they did not leaue the propriety and vse of their fisher boates, nor Saint Iohn of [Page 247] his house, whereinto he receiued the virgine Mary after the death of Christ our Lord.

15 To be short, touching this matter we haue the expresse prohibition of our Lord Iesus Christ saying to his Apostles, Matth. 19.9. No man shall put away his wife, except it be for whoredome &c: and verse 6. The man and his wife are no more twaine, but one flesh. Let no man therefore put asunder that which God hath coupled together. Seeing that the Lord spake to his disciples in that place, with what shew can they except them onely from the obedience of that commandement? And if they must haue abstained from their wiues, would they haue kept them with them? this could not h [...]ue bene without of­fence. Whither would they haue driuen them away, and sepa­rated them from their children, but there would haue bene inhumanitie and a publicke scandall?

16 The Apostle Saint Paul in the first to Tim. 4.1.2.3. saith, In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, and shall giue heed vnto spirits of error, and doctrine of diuels: which speake lies through hypocrisie, & haue their consciences burnt with an hot iron, forbidding to marrie, &c.

To shun this place, they say, that the Apostle speaketh a­gainst other heretickes, which condemned mariage as a wic­ked and filthy thing in it selfe.

Wherunto I answer, that there is no prohibition in the word of God which a man may not shift off by the same meanes. So theeues may dispense with the Law, which saith, Thou shalt not steale, by saying, that that is spoken against those that steale without necessitie, or that steale from their friends, but not to those that steale for need, or that rob a stranger. So adultery may be permitted, by saying that God forbid­deth women to haue to do with many men, but not to haue a friend in a corner. The Apostles words are generall; and with­out exception condemne those Doctors which forbid mari­age. When the King by his proclamation maketh a generall prohibition, doth it belong to the subiect to make excep­tions and restraints vpon the same, which are not contained in the Proclamation? and without hauing any warrant or de­claration [Page 248] of the Kings will touching the same? Whosoeuer brings any exceptions or restraints against a generall com­mandement of God, made vnto vs in his word, ought to draw and take his exceptions out of the word of God. If it be euill to condemne mariage as a filthy vncleane thing, it is not much lesse to condemne it by tyrannie and by superstition. We may run into one selfe same danger by diuerse meanes: one selfe same error may enter and be grounded in mens minds by diuerse and seuerall reasons. And I see not how those which condemne mariage as being a filthy vncleane thing, can speake of mariage in more odious termes, then the Popes Syricius and Innocent aforesaid do, which call it a vice, and an impurity and vncleannesse, and esteeme it to be contrary to holinesse.

17 The same Apostle in the 1. Tim. 3.2. saith, A Bishop must be vnreproueable, the husband of one wife, one that can rule his owne house honestly, hauing children vnder obedience with all honestie: for if any cannot rule his owne house, how shall he take care of the Church of God? And in the 12. verse, Let the Dea­cons be the husbands of one wife: and verse 11. Likewise their wiues must be honest not euill speakers, &c.

To contend and striue about that, is not to dispute against vs, but to giue the Apostle Saint Paul the lie, vnder a colour of interpreting his words. For you must note, that he saith not, that the Bishop hath bene, but that he must be the husband of one wife. For if the Apostle had vnderstood that a Bishop had bene the husband of one wife, we must by the same rea­son say, that Saint Paul will haue a Bishop to haue bene, but not that he should be, without reproofe. By this meanes the bishopricke shall be an entry into vice, and an exemption from doing good.

Againe the Apostle ordaineth, that their wiues shall be ho­nest, sober, and faithfull: he speaketh then of Bishops and Deacons which haue wiues, and not of those that haue none as being dead. For the Apostle instructeth not dead women, but instructeth Bishops wiues, lest that by their vices they should dishonour their busbands vocation. Pope Leo the first, [Page 249] in his 85. Epistle vnderstood it so: saying. The Apostle saith,Dicente Apo­stolo vt Epis­copus ordine­tur quē vnius vxoris virum fuisse aut esse constiterit. that we must chuse a Bishop that hath bene, or that is, the husband of one wife.

Not that the Apostle esteemeth or placeth mariage to be one of the vertues in a Bishop, or that he forbiddeth a man vnlesse he be maried to be made a Bishop. The Apostle onely forbiddeth a Bishop to haue two wiues, for that as then po­lygamie, or the hauing of many wiues together, was vsed a­mong the Iewes, as Iosephus in the 17 booke of his Antiqui­ties, cap. 1. witnesseth saying: [...]. It is the manner of our coun­trie to haue many wiues together; and then Herod had nine wiues. Saint Hierome to Oceanus saith the same. Theodoret vpon this place saith the same both of the Greekes and the Iewes. Looke also in Chrysostome in his 10. Homilie vpon the 1. to Timothie.

A man may haue two wiues two wayes, either by keeping two wiues in his house together, or else putting away his lawfull wife without any cause of adulterie, and marrying with another. For Iesus Christ in Mathew 19.9. declareth, that marriage cannot lawfully be dissolued, vnlesse it be for adul­tery. In this latter manner a woman may haue two husbands, if she haue left her first husband, or if she hath bene put away without committing adulterie, and is married to another husband. A thing which was common, as Saint Augustine in his 89 Epistle, Question 4 declareth. Saint Hierome in his E­pistle to Oceanus saith, That Fabiola forsooke her husband. Of which women that loued to change, Seneca in the third booke of Benefits, cap. 16. saith,Illustres quaedam ac nobiles foemi­nae non consu­lum numero sed maritorū annos suos computant & exeunt matri­monij causa, nubunt repu­dij. That they reckoned their yeares, not by the Consuls, but by the number of their hus­bands. Cicero Soror Tri­arij diuertium sine causa fe­cit, nuptura est Decio Bruto. in the eight booke of his familiar Epistles, Epistle 7, speaketh of Triarius sister, who without cause made a diuorce with her husband. As also the Proculeia of Martial:

Such were the women which the Apostle 1. Tim. 5.9. ex­cludeth from hauing any charge of ministring in the Church, [Page 250] saying, Let not a widow be taken into the number vnder 60. yeares old, and that hath bene the wife of one husband. That is to say, that hath not had two husbands together, the one dwelling with her, the other separated by diuorce, whether she sought a diuorce with the first, or whether her husband put her a­way for adulterie. For you must not beleeue that the Apostle excludeth a widow from ministring in the Church, that hath maried againe to another husband after the death of her first husband, seeing that in the same Chapter he commandeth yong widowes to marrie againe. For else he should command them to do a thing which would make them vnworthy to mi­nister in the Church. Whereupon I cannot but be much a­bashed at a Romish Decree, wherein they permit a Canon to be extant, which saith, that the Apostle spake both against reason and truth, and that by commanding to marrie againe, he permitteth fornication. It is the 31 Cause in the first Distin­ction, Hac ratione. The words are these:Hac ratio­ne Apostoli praeceperunt secundas adire nuptias, prop­ter incontinen­tiam hominū. Nō secundam quidem accipe­re secundúm praeceptum A­postoli licitum est: secundùm autē veritatis rationem verè fornicatio est. Sed cum per­mittente Deo publicè & li­center com­mittitur, fit honestè forni­catio. By this meanes also the Apostle commanded to marrie againe, because of the in­continency of men. For according to the Apostles comman­dement, it is permitted to take a second wife, but according to the reason of truth, it is meere adulterie. But seeing God permitting it, it is done puclickly and by licence, he committeth an honest adulterie. SomeThe Iesuite Baile Quest. 23. of his Ca­techisme. being not able to auoyd the force of this so cleare and expresse a place of the Apostle, confesse that then Bishops were married: but that they were constrained to chuse such Bishops because as then they could not find a sufficient number of men that were not married to gouerne the Church.

To say so, is to weaken the power of Iesus Christ. For it is certaine, that it was not by constraint, nor for want of other meanes, that he chose his Apostles which were married men, namely Saint Peter, seeing he had the hearts of all men in his power, and could inuest the most incapable persons with suf­ficient graces to that end. And if at this day those onely which are endued with the gift of continencie were admitted into the priesthood, would there thinke you, be a sufficient num­ber found to fill the places that are voyd?

18 The Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 9.5. saith thus, Haue we not power to leade about a wife being a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Bellarmine after others saith, that Saint Paul by a wife that is a sister, vnderstandeth not a wife which is ioyned vnto a man by marriage, but a wife to serue them necessarily in the way, and to supply their wants. Such as the women were that followed Iesus Christ, who hauing bene healed by him, did minister to him of their substance, Luke 8.2.3.

But Pope Leo 9 (who by the prerogatiue of his seate hath the gift not to erre) in the 31 Distinction of the Canon Om­nino, Omnino confi­temur non li­cere Episcopo vxorem abij­cere à cura sua. Sed vt ei victum & ve­stitum largia­tur, sed non vt cum ea carna­liter ex more iaceat. Sicut sanctos Apo­stolos legimus egisse, beato A­postolo dicente: Nunquid non habemus po­testatem mu­lierem soro­rem circum­ducendi? declareth that by a wife that is a sister, is vnderstood a wise married to an Apostle, from whose carnall company ne­uerthelesse he abstained, although he tooke her with him. And the glosse of the Doctors thereupon saith, Ducebant vx­ores secum vt seruirent eis in cibis parandis: They tooke their wiues with them, to serue to dresse their meat. And Tertullian, although he were a Montanist, and an enemy to mariage, in his eight chapter of the booke of Chastitie, saith thus a­gainst himselfe: Licebat & Apostolis nubere, & vxores circum­ducere: licebat & de Euangelio viuere. It was permitted to the Apostles to marrie, and leade their wiues about with them, and to liue of the Gospell.

Reason it selfe without any other proofe ouerthroweth Bellarmines exposition. For such women could not haue fol­lowed the Apostles honestly and without suspition. Those women that followed Iesus Christ might do it without aban­doning or leauing their families. For the way which they w [...] was short, and not aboue 30 leagues, which is the di­stan [...] from Galilie to Ierusalem, whereunto Iesus Christ went to the solemne feast. But to go out of their countrie, to passe ouer the seas, to go a thousand or twelue hundred leagues with the Apostles, was a thing which an honest wo­man neither could nor ought to do: and which naturall af­fection towards h r familie would not haue permitted. They would rather haue paid the charges of some seruants to haue followed the Apostles in their iournies.

The Apostles words take away all difficultie: for such wo­men would haue followed the Apostles by charitie, and not by any power which the Apostles had ouer them: for the A­postle saith: Haue I not power to leade about a wife being a sister? He would rather haue said in the plurall number: Haue I not power to leade about women being sisters? For such duties of charitie and domesticall seruices, are more easily and ho­nestly performed by diuers women.

19 Among many meane obiections of our aduersaries, I see but one that hath any shew or colour. The Apostle, 1. Tim. 5.11.12. saith, But refuse the yonger widowes, for when they haue begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marrie, hauing damnation, because they haue broken their first faith. In this place the Apostle speakes of certaine widowes which then tooke the charge vpon them of ministration, or being seruants to the Church, to releeue the sicke, and to succour the poore, Those women entring into that charge voluntarily, promi­sed to end their dayes in that holy seruice. But it fell out so, that some of them altered their purpose, either by becom­ming harlots, and wanton against Christ, (as the Apostle saith) or else by marrying againe. Whereby being vnder the power of an husband, they had no more libertie to con­tinue in that charge which they had taken vpon them in the Church. For which cause the Apostle saith, that they are to be condemned or reproued for hauing violated that faith and promise which they had made to the Church, to perseuer in the seruice of the poore and sicke persons. Which to preuent, the Apostle forbiddeth yong women to make such promises as might hinder them from marrying, and will haue [...]ng widowes to marrie and bring forth children. verse, 14. A [...] [...]or­biddeth to receiue or admit any widow into the administra­tion of the Church, which is lesse then 60 yeares old, verse 9. at which time the vow of not marrying would be ridiculous. So that this place being well vnderstood, is contrary to the vow of not marrying, seeing that he forbid­deth yong widowes to do it, and will haue none but old wo­men of 60 yeares of age, and not vnder, to be receiued into a [Page 253] charge which disagreeth with marriage. Which is farre from prohibiting notorious incontinent Clarkes from marrying, as at this day they do.

I need not aggrauate the filthinesse of their constrained sin­gle life, nor the vices as well naturall as contrary to nature, which thereby haue crept in among those that make profes­sion thereof. The same Prelates which preach continencie, liue incontinently. As they liue, so they dispute against na­ture, and burning in wicked and euill desires make a promise to God not to vse those remedies against them, which he or­daineth in his word. The Pope which forbiddeth Priests to marrie, for a recompence hath opened the stewes for them, and by rules and publicke authoritie hath permitted fornica­tion. Which drew this true confession from Pope Pius the second, that for great causes Priests wiues were taken from them, but that for greater causes they ought to be restored vn­to them againe, as Platina in the life of the said Pope sheweth.

Of the Difference of meates.

Section. 91 I thought not to haue proceeded any further, but that these Ministers producing no place of Scripture for their Article, I de­termined to set downe a number of places whereof their bookes are full, for a proofe of euery one of these points. But for that the places noted in the margent of this Article are distinctly set downe a­gainst abstinence from meates, I am content onely to produce this place, Act. 15.28. For it seemed good vnto the Spirit, and to vs that you should abstaine from bloud and from things strangled. Did this counsell proceed from Sathans forge? And may not the same Spirit by the Church prescribe fasting and abstinence from meates for some good end?

The holy Scripture commendeth fasting, and recommen­deth it vnto the faithfull, but yet ordaineth no certaine dayes to fast, as SaintQuibus die­bus non opor­teat ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, praecepto Domini aut Apostolorum non inuenio definitum. Augustine in his 86 Epistle saith.

[Page 254]

1 Touching the distinction of meates, and the forbid­ding to vse certaine kinds of meates, the Apostle Saint Paul expressely condemneth it, 1. Tim. 4.1. where he calleth for­bidding of meates a doctrine of diuels.

They thinke to auoide this, by saying that the Apostle speaketh not of those who abstaine from certaine meates with humilitie and to tame their flesh: but of those that estee­med meats to be polluted & abominable. That was long ago the pretence of those to whom the Apostle spake, and which in his time erred in that point, saying, Eate not, touch not, taste not, as the Apostle, Coloss. 2.20. saith, Why, as though you li­ued in the world, are ye burthened with traditions? as, touch not, taste not, handle not. which all perish with the vsing, and are after the commandements and doctrines of men? Then he ad­deth that which made the prohibition of meates, to those that forbad it to seeme plausible, saying, Which things haue indeed a shew of wisedome in voluntarie religion and humblenesse of minde, and in not sparing the body, not in any honour to the sa­tisfying of the flesh. This is iustly the words and allegations of our Aduersaries, and the ends for the which they ordaine and establish the distinction of meates, which neuerthelesse the Apostle reiecteth, calling them Commandements and Do­ctrines of men. It makes no difference whether he speaketh to the Iewes or to the Gentiles, seeing that generally he con­demneth those that abstaine from meates with humilitie and by exercise.

Such also was theAduersus Psychicos. excuse of Tertullian a Montanist, in his booke contra Psychicos: for so he calleth true and faithfull Christians, because they fasted not enough, and as often as he would haue them, and abstained not from flesh and liquid things, and would haue fastings to be free at mens choice; and against him obiected this place of the Apostle, which putteth the prohibition of meates among the doctrines of diuels. To whom this Montanist answereth thus, and saith in his 15. chap. The Apostle condemneth those which comman­ded to abstaine from meates.Reprobat e­tiam illos qui iubebant ci­bis abstinere, sed de proui­dentia Spiri­tus sanctus praedamnans iam haereticos perpetuam ab­stinentiā prae­cepturos ad destruenda & despicienda o­pera creatoris. But it is, because the holy Spi­rit, by his wisedome and fore-sight condemned those here­tickes [Page 255] before they came, that would command a perpetuall abstinence, to destroy and despise the workes of the Creator. And againe: We abstaine from meates, which we reiect not, but surceasse from the vse of them for a time. And a little after he saith,Ita scie bat quosdam ca­stigatores & interdictores victus incu­sare qui ex fastidio, non qui ex officio abstinentur. The Apostle accused certaine correctors and forbidders of meates, which abstained from them with dis­daine and not of duty

Such was the excuse of Eustachius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, as Sozomenus saith in the 13. chapter of his third booke in the Preface of the Councell of Gangres, which is found in the Greeke Canons published by Du Tillet. In which Councell this Eustachius being reproued, because he had introduced certaine distinctions of meates and apparrell, he excused himselfe, and said, [...]. That he had not introduced those things vpon a presumptuous opinion but as an holy dis­cipline, according to godlinesse.

And if we would be ouer rigorous herein, we could not want proofes good store, to let you see how the Church of Rome hath trauelled and laboured, to make certaine meates abhominable among Christians. For Pope Gregorie the se­cond, in an Epistle to Boniface Archbishop of Mentz,Agrestem Caballum aliquantos adiunxisti comedere, ple­rosque & do­mesticum. Hoc nequaquam fieri deinceps sanctissime frater sinas, sed quibus po­teris modis per omnia com­pesce & dig­nam eis indi­cito poeniten­tiam, immun­dum enim est & execrabile. commandeth to suppresse those, and to force them to do penance, which had eaten wilde or domesticall horses, for that (saith he) is vncleane and execrable. And Zacharias his successour writing to the same Boniface, forbiddeth Christi­ans to eate Iayes, Crowes, Storkes, Beauers, Hares, and wilde Horses. And I cannot imagine to what end that custome is vsed, to carry meate into the Church before Easter to coniure it, if it be not thereby to take away the pollution, or to driue away the diuell from it.

2 The said Apostle in the same chapter, 16. verse, saith, Let no man therefore condemne you in meate and drinke, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moone, or of the Sabbath dayes. Then why doth the Church of Rome condemne vs for not obseruing their prohibitions of meates, and for not keeping those holy dayes which they ordaine?

3 The said Apostle in 1. Cor. 10.25. saith, Whatsoeuer is [Page 256] sold in the shambles, eate ye, and aske no question for conscience sake; for the earth is the Lords, and all that therein is. If any of them which beleeue not, call you to a feast, and if you will go, what­soeuer is set before you, eate, asking no question for conscience sake. What can be more expressely said? The Church of Rome e­steemeth vs to be heretikes and placeth vs among the ranke of infidels. Now if we should bid one of the Church of Rome to a dinner or supper, would he eate of all things that should be set before him vpon a fish or fasting day? would he without scrupulositie eate of euery thing there?

4 But is it credible that Iesus Christ hath by the Gospell abolished the distinctions of meates in the Law of Moses, to establish other distinctions, and to make prohibitions that are a thousand times more troublesome? and for one fasting day that was vnder the Law, to establish fiftie vnder the Gospell?

5 The Apostle Saint Paul 1. Cor. 8.8. saith, Meate ma­keth vs not acceptable to God, for neither if we eate haue we the more, neither if we eate not, haue we the lesse. And Rom. 14.17. The kingdome of God is not meate nor drinke, but righteousnesse, and peace, and ioy in the holy Ghost.

And generally of all such obseruations, Saint Paul 1. Tim. 4.8. saith, For bodily exercise profiteth little, but godlinesse is profitable vnto all things, which hath the promise of the life pre­sent, and of that that is to come.

All this which we said before, is not spoken to condemne fasting, nor the obseruation of Ecclesiasticall fasts, ordinarie or extraordinarie; onely we seeke to take away and abolish the opinion of merites and satisfactions thereby. And make fasting to consist in abstinence and sobrietie, and not in di­stinction of meates, commanded by a man to whom God hath not giuen that power, and that vnder pretence of absti­nence establisheth his Empire, and layeth a yoke vpon mens consciences contrary to the word of God. We also condēne not that man, who to ease and tame the motions and pro­uocatiots of his desires or concupiscences, abstaineth from wine or from certaine meates; so his fasting be voluntarie, [Page 257] and not scrupulous, nor with opinion of merit or satisfaction, nor by command vsurped ouer him by any man. Such was Daniels fast, abstaining from wine, flesh, and pleasant bread, Daniel 10.3. for there was no law in Israel touching such ab­stinence.

Therefore it is in vaine here to make discourses in the praise of fasting and of sobrietie, which we know to be the nurses of vertues, guardians of chastitie, and prouocations to watchfulnesse. In the composing of mans bodie, God placed the braines farre from the belly, to the end that the kitchin of the bodie should be far from the Study, and that the sauor of meates should not interrupt meditation. For nothing more troubleth holy cogitations then the tumult of concupiscen­ces, stirred vp and kindled by drunkennes or gluttonie. No­thing is harder to be brought to the feare of God, then a man who better relisheth sweete sauces then wholesome instru­ctions, and hath a better palate then braine. Therefore the Scripture oftentimes ioyneth fasting with praier, that prayer might sanctifie fasting: and that fasting might kindle prayer. So Anna, Luke 2.37. and Cornelius Acts 10.4. serued God in fastings and prayers. And Iesus Christ telleth vs of a certaine kinde of spirits, which are not driuen out but by fasting and prayer, Matt. 17.21.

The ancient Christians were much giuen to this exercise, abstaining from lawfull things, that they might the easier avoyd vnlawfull things. They sought to make diuers ne­cessarie things to become superfluous vnto them, whereas to those that are voluptuous, superfluous things become ne­cessarie.

But the Church of Rome hath changed this exercise into a scrupulositie, and this abstinence into a distinction of meats, which are more carefully obserued then the Law of God. For adultery, fornication, murder, and periurie, ordinarie priests giue absolutions: but he that confesseth that he hath eaten flesh in an Ember weeke, is sent to a Penitentiarie, because the absolution of so great a sinne is not in the power of ordinarie priests.

[Page 258]

He that hath neuer so little tasted of flesh in Lent, hath broken the fast, but not he that hath filled his gorge with fish and banquetting stuffe, &c. And the number of these obser­uatiue fasts are so great, that they almost take vp sixe moneths in the yeare. Fasting that should be an exercise of humilitie, is become an occasion of pride, and an opinion of merit and of satisfaction: not onely for him that fasteth, but also for o­thers. Bellarmine in his second booke of Good workes, chap. 11. goeth about to proue that fasting is satisfaction for sinnes, and meritorious for life eternall. And Cardinall Tolet, in his sixt booke of the Instruction of Priests, saith, that fasting is satisfactio pro poenis peccatorum, that is, a satisfaction for paines due for sinnes: which satisfaction he saith to be meritorious for grace, and an augmentation of glory. Fasting should serue for a confession of sinnes, but at this day it serueth to establish merits, according to the example of the Pharisie, which boa­sted of his fasting before God, and therefore was reiected, Luke 18.12. How pleasing a prayer do you thinke it would be vnto God, if a man should say, Lord I haue deserued life eternall, for I haue not dined? Or why shouldest thou punish me for my sinnes, seeing I haue satisfied for them, by abstai­ning from eating of egges and cheese? Yet this is but a small matter, for it is said that some fast oftener then they should do to satisfie for their sinnes, and so there is a superabundance in their satisfaction. Then God owes them something which he is to returne back againe, that that surplussage might serue for others. And eating nothing but fish, a man may satisfie for others. Thereupon Tolet saith,De instru­ctione sacer­dotali, lib. 2. cap. 8. Si ieiu­no pro qua­tuor, nō minus prodest ad sa­tisfactionem singulis quàm vm prodesset si pro vno tan­tū ieiuuassem. If I fast for foure persons, I sa­tisfie as much for euery one of them, as if I fasted but for one. See the Canon Animae, in the 13. Cause, second Question. And to fill vp the measure of this abuse, fastings are redeemed by mony, as it is said in the Distinction 82. in the Canon Pres­byteri. And in the Glosse vpon the same Canon, he may giue a penny to redeeme or buy out the fast. For certainly he must of force be light of beleefe, that beleeueth that God deliue­reth a man out of Purgatory, because his neighbour did not dine. If the fastings of liuing men refresh the dead, then feasts [Page 259] made by those that are aliue must also burne the dead.

I confesse that God oftentimes granteth his aide and deli­uerance to those that fast: but it is a great abuse, to attribute that to the merit of fasting which is granted to faith and to prayer which sanctifieth the fast, without which fasting is either a diet for sicke persons, or a want to those that are hun­gry, or an hypocriticall abstinence. Fasting serueth to obtaine, and not to satisfie.

To couer this abuse M. Arnoux onely addeth a place out of the 15. of the Acts, where the Apostles assembled together in Councell in Ierusalem, commanded the Gentiles that were conuerted to the faith, to abstaine from bloud and from things that are strangled. But the Apostle Saint Paul which was at that Councell, and knew the Apostles meaning, taketh away that defence, 1. Cor. 10.27. where he saith, If any of them which beleeue not, call you to a feast, and if you will go, what­soeuer is set before you, eate, asking no question for conscience sake. Now it might be that in infidels houses they se [...]ued strangled fowles vpon the table, or something wherein there was bloud. Shewing thereby that such prohibitions were made, to the end that the Gentiles should not giue offence to the Iewes then newly conuerted to the profession of Christ, and by little and little to bring them thereunto, and to burie the legall ceremonies with honour. Now the Apostle hauing planted the Gospell in Corinth, Acts 18. and after going to Philippi, from thence wrote to the Corinthians: whereby it appeareth, that Saint Paul wrote that Epistle long time af­ter that Councell was holden in Ierusalem, spoken of in Acts 15.

Diuerse ancient Churches hauing not well considered thereon, most exactly obserued abstinence from bloud and things that were strangled, asNe anima­lium quidem sanguinem in epulus esculen­tis habemus. Tertullian in the ninth Chap­ter of his Apologie witnesseth. The Councel of Gangres in the second Canon speaketh of bloud, and things that are strangled, as of things esteemed to be vnlawfull. The same prohibition is found in the 67. Canon, of the sixteenth Coun­cell assembled in the pallace of Constantinople. The like also [Page 260] is found in the Councels of Wormes and of Orleans But Saint Augustine, better instructed in the holy Scriptures, explaineth this point in the 32 booke against Faustus, cap. 13. saying: TheFlegisse mihi videntur Apostoli pro tempore rem facilem, in qua cum Israelitis gentes aliquid communiter obseruarent. Quis iam hoc Christianus obseruat vt turdos vel mi­nutiores aui­culas non at­tingat, nisi quarum san­guis effusus est? Et qui fortè pauci ista tangere formidant â caeteris irri­dentur. Apostles to accommodate themselues to the time, chose an easie thing, wherein the Gentiles should conioyntly ob­serue something with the Israelites. And after addeth, What Christian is there, who at this time will obserue the not touching of Thrushes, or other little birds, whose bloud hath not bene shed? and a few persons that make scruple of these things are mocked by others, The Church of Rome is of the same iudgement, knowing well that the Apostles established those prohibitions for a time, and not for a perpetuall rule. But she is much to be condemned herein, for hauing in stead of those two prohibitions, established many other more grie­uous. Certainly, if the Christian Church had need of any ob­seruations touching the distinction of meates, it were much better to haue reuiued the abstinences obserued in the Apo­stles time, rather then to forge a multitude of others, a thou­sand times more painfull, and contrary to the practise of the Apostles and of Iesus Christ himselfe, who in the weeke be­fore Easter vsually did eate the Paschall Lambe.

Of the word Church, and the significations thereof.

Our aduersary fats himselfe with the question of the visi­bility of the markes of the Church, with most pleasing elo­quence, and that which serueth onely for quicke spirits. To looke better into this matter, it is necessary for vs to vnfold the ambiguitie of the word Church.

The word Church, is a Greeke word, which signifieth an [Page 263] assembly, and which belongeth as well to the assemblies of infidels as of the faithfull. In the 26. Psalme, verse 5. according to the vulgar translation it is said,Odiui Eccle­siam malig­nantium. I haue hated the Church of euill doers. And Acts 19.32. the assembly of the Pagans crying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, is called the Church. Vse hath brought in a custome, that the assemblies of Chri­stians are called Churches, and thereby were distinguished from the Synagogues of the Iews, although these two words haue all one signification.

Then to restraine our selues to the sence wherein this word Church is taken among Christians, I say, that this word Church in the Scriptures is taken diuers wayes. Sometimes the Church is taken for the whole body and assembly of the elect, and those that are predestinated to saluation, whereof some are already triumphant in heauen, others militant here on earth; the rest not yet borne, but in the counsell of God are enrolled and registred to fight in Gods warre in future time, and ordained to obtaine the victory. Saint Peter in his 1. Epistle 2.9. calleth it a chosen generation. And because the Scripture saith, that the elect are written in the booke of life, and that their names are written in heauen, the Apostle, Hebr. 12.32, calleth it, The assemblie and congregation of the first borne, which are written in heauen. Iam in corpore Christs nō sunt quod est Eccle­sia, quoniam non potest ha­bere Christus membra dam­nata. This Church by the A­postle is often called the body of Christ, and by consequence, false, hypocriticall, and prophane Christians are no part there­of: for the body of Iesus Christ hath no dead members, nor men cast off by God, as Saint Augustine in his 21 chap. 2 booke against Cresconius teacheth. And in his 5 booke, chap. 27 of Baptisme, he saith,Numerus er­go ille iustorū, qui secundùm propositum vo­cati sunt de quibus dictum est, Nouit Do­minus qui sui sunt, ipse est hortus conclu­sus, &c. That the same Church which is spoken of in the Canticles, the garden enclosed, that sister and spouse &c. is the number of the righteous, which are called ac­cording to Gods decree, of whom it is said, The Lord know­eth who are his. For he that is a member of the body of Christ, cannot be a member of the diuell. This Church is the spouse of Iesus Christ, to the which he hath ioyned himselfe, that he might make it a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle, to the end, that it should be holy and vnreprou [...]able, Ephes. [Page 264] 5.27. Those that are of this Church, as long as they are here on earth, are visible as they are men, but not as they are e­lected, for election is not discerned by the eye, but is chari­tably presumed vpon by profession of faith, and by good workes. Out of this Church there can be no saluation.

Sometimes by the word Church the Scripture vnderstan­deth all the assemblie of those that make professiō to be Chri­stians. That is the vniuersall visible Church, which is com­posed of diuers particular Churches; as in the Apostles time, the Churches of Corinth, Rome, Thessalonica, and the seuen Churches spoken of in the 2 and 3 of the Apocalyps. Of these particular Churches some are purer then others, and some so impure that in them a man cannot be saued, specially when idolatrie is maintained, and the doctrine of the benefite of Christ wholly corrupted therein.

This vniuersall visible Church is that which the Apostle 1. Tim. 3.14 calleth, the pillar and ground of truth, because the dutie thereof is, to vphold and maintaine the diuine truth against all those that seeke to corrupt and suppresse the same. Which also is the dutie of euery particular Church. And there is no particular Church which is sound in faith, but it is a pillar, and ground of the truth.

When we say, that out of this vniuersall visible Church there is no saluation, we vnderstand that no man can be saued which separateth himselfe from the communion of the vni­uersall Church, and liueth apart, without ioyning himselfe to any flocke. Neuerthelesse, if any man should be excluded out of the communion of the Church, by an vniust excommuni­cation; or if any man seeking to become a Christian, and be­leeuing in Iesus Christ, is preuented by death before he can be baptized, we do not beleeue that such a man is excluded from saluation. So that as well by our Confession, as also by that of our aduersaries, in this maxime (that out of the vi­sible Church there is no saluation) there are some exceptions to be made.

Touching particular Churches, there is not one of them, whereof (to be saued) we must necessarily be a member. If [Page 265] the Church of Rome were without error, yet a man might neuerthelesse be saued out of her. Those that shall liue in o­ther particular Churches where the Gospell is purely prea­ched, shall not be without saluation, although they had ne­uer heard of the Romish Church, because it is but a particu­lar Church.

Besides these three significations of the word Church, the Scripture sometimes vnderstandeth the people to be the Church, without comprehending the Pastors of the Church therein; as when Pastors are commanded to feed the Church, Acts. 20.28.

Sometimes also by the word Church, the Pastors onely are vnderstood, as in these words, Tell the Church, Matth. 18.17. For Iesus Christ will haue the partie offended, to go to the Pastors of the Church, to take vp the matter.

The conclusion of all this is, that the word Church in the Scripture is taken:

1 Sometime for all the assemblie of the elect.

2 Sometime for the vniuersall visible Church.

3 Sometime for a particular Church.

4 Sometime for the people onely.

5 Sometime for the Pastors onely.

These diuers significations of the word Church, are neces­sarie to be remembred, for that in the ambiguitie of the word the error lieth hidden, and slippeth into it like a snake into brambles & briers. And our aduersaries expresly studying to confound this matter, take all those fiue significations for one, & as often as the Scripture speaketh of the Church, they will alwaies haue it to be vnderstood of the Church of Rome. Sometimes also by the Church they vnderstand the Pope on­ly as Pope Innocent the third did, who attributed the contro­uersie betweene Philip Augustus king of France, and Iohn king of England, to belong vnto himselfe, because in the Gospel it is said, Dic Ecclesiae. In the chapter, Nouit. Extra. de Iudicijs. And Cardinall Bellarmine in the second book of Councels, 19 chap. saith, The Pope should tell it to the Church, that is, to himself.

But specially in the question which M. Arnoux propoundeth touching the visibilitie of the Church, these distinctions are [Page 266] necessarie, to the end that when men speake of the visible Church, they should not produce those places of Scripture that speake of the Church of the elect, which is not discerned by the eye. To the end that when we speake of the iudge­ments and decisions of the Church, we should not speake of the Church of the elect, which is neuer assembled to decide any causes. And to the end that no particular Church should call it selfe vniuersall, as if all the rest were nothing, or were no Churches but by her permission.

So when men aske which are the marks of the true Church, our intent is not to speake of the Church of the elect, which hath no markes discernable by the eye. God knoweth who are his 2. Tim. 2.19. He sealeth them hy his Spirit vnto the day of re­demption, Ephes. 4.30. and giueth them the white stone spoken of in Reuelation, 2.17, which is the testimony of the Spirit of adoption which witnesseth with our spirits, that we are the chil­dren of God, Rom. 8.16. But this witnesse is secret, and not ex­posed to the sight of man.

I say more, which is, that when we dispute of the markes of the true Church, we speake not of the vniuersall visible Church, the markes whereof are without question. For the marke which discerneth the vniuersall visible Church from the Iewes, Turkes, and Pagans, is the profession of Christi­anitie, and the sacrament of Baptisme. Then the disputation is touching the particular Churches: for that, there being di­uers particular Churches disagreeing among themselues, we seeke those markes whereby the true Church, that is, the pure, and orthodoxall Church (wherein a man may be sa­ued,) is discerned from the impure, wherein there is no salua­tion. For by this word, true Church, we must necessarily vn­derstand the pure and the sound Church. For otherwise an hereticall Church may be called a true Church, euen as a man that hath a canker, or a plague sore, is yet a true man.

Whether the Church is visible, and to whom it is visible.

Section. 93 Then to come to M. Arnoux, which accuseth vs that we put the Church out of sight, he saith it without proofe, and our Confession saith nothing thereof. But on the contrarie we know that there hath alwaies bene, and shall be a Church visible in the world. But we must know how, and to whom it is visible. For it is one thing to see the Church, as an assem­ble of men calling themselues Christians; and another thing to see it to be a true and a pure Church, wherein a man may be saued. Those that are out of the Church, as Turkes and Iewes see the Christian Church as we see a company of men, but see not whether it be good, and whether in it a man may be saued, which is the sight and the knowledge which we seeke for, that we may ioyne our selues thereunto. Infidels see the Church, as the incredulous Iewes saw our Sauiour, with­out knowing that he was the Sauiour: and as a yong child sees a Mathematician without knowing what the Mathema­ticians are.Videmus coetū hominum qui est Ecclesia, sed quod ille coetus sit ipsa vera Christi Ecclesia non videmus. As Bellarmine in his 15 chapter of the third booke of the Church confesseth. Where neuerthelesse he slandereth vs, and imputeth to vs, that we do not acknowledge any visi­ble Church.

Thereby it appeareth, that no man seeth or knoweth the true Church but those that are members thereof, or that af­ter sufficient instructions haue determined to enter into the same. If the vniuersall Church were reduced but to twelue men onely, yet it should be visible to those twelue. On the contrary, if the Christian Church should containe and pos­sesse the halfe of the world, the other halfe continuing in in­fidelitie, should not see that to be the true Church, and would not know it to be an assembly of the faithfull.

As touching this superficiall sight whereby those that are out of the Church, see it and know not whether it be a true or a pure Church, if one should aske whether the Church ought in that sort to be visible to all men in the world, & at all times, the question is easie to be answered. For it is certaine, [Page 268] that the Christian Church began first in Iudaea, at which time it was not visible in France, nor in Denmarke. Before the Portugals and Spainards sayled into the Indies, the Ro­mane Church was not visible to the west Indians. And there are alwaies more Pagans then Christians in the world, and an infinite number of people that haue not once heard speaking of the Christian Church.

And to rise higher, was the Church visible then when Abra­ham was yet in Vr in Chaldea, lying in his fathers house, which was an idolater? as it is said in the 24 chapter of Iosua. Was the Church visible vnto the Infidels, when the Israelites were in Aeygpt, and there serued the Infidels? as it is said, Ezech. 20.7. and 8. Was the Church visible to the Infidels in the time of king Achas and Manasses, when those kings made the Temple to be shut vp,2. Chron. 29.6.7. and when no continuall sacrifice was made, and that Idols were in euery towne, when Vrias the high Priest placed a Pagan altar in the Temple? But where shall the Church be visible to those that are out of it, where all the earth shall follow the beast? Apocalyps. 13.3. and when the time shall come whereof our Lord Iesus Christ speaketh, Luke. 18.8, saying, But when the Sonne of man com­meth, shall he finde faith on the earth? Shall the Church be vi­sible to infidels, in whose time our aduersaries say that Anti­christ shall abolish the continuall sacrifice, that is, the Masse, if you will beleeue them?

To be short, it is an euident and visible thing, that the Church of God is not alwayes visible to all men: but alwaies visible to those that are members thereof.

Of the true Markes of the true Church.

Section. 94 Touching the markes of the true Churches, that is to say, the markes whereby we may discerne a true, orthodoxall and a pure Church, from an hereticall and an impure Church, our Confession in that Article putteth no other marke but the word of God purely preached; vnder which word we also [Page 269] comprehend the pure administration of the Sacraments: be­cause the right and true vse of them is prescribed in the word of God. Wherein we speake according to Iesus Christ, who in the 8.31. and 10.27. of Saint Iohn, giueth no other marke to discerne his sheepe, and those that truly are his disciples, but onely to heare his voyce, and to perseuer in his word; If ye continue in my word, ye are verily my disciples, Iohn 8.31. The sheepe heare the voyce of the shepheard, and follow him; for they know his voyce, and wil not follow a stranger. And say that the word of God did not so expressely speake thereof, yet it is certaine, that we must be voyde of common sense, if we cannot conceiue, that to discerne a pure Church from an im­pure, there is no other meanes then to see whether it agreeth with the rule of puritie, which is the word of God. As to know whether a Line be straight, we apply it to a straight Rule.

But that displeaseth M. Arnoux, because (in his iudge­ment) this marke is obscure, and as hard, or hardlier to be knowne then the Church; and that it is the same whereof we dispute, that is, to whom belongeth pure Religion, and who possesseth the word. For he presupposeth, (and with reason) that the markes to know a thing by, ought to be plainer and easier to know, then the thing which we know by those markes.

Then the question is, which of these two things is easiest to be knowne, either true faith and Religion, or the true Church

Besides the places of Scripture before alledged, which will haue vs to know the true sheepe and disciples of Iesus Christ, that is, if they hearken to his voyce, and keepe his word; reason giueth vs a demonstratiue proofe, grounded vpon this maxime, that definitions and expositions of things ought to be clearer and better knowne then those things which are expounded or defined. Now the definition of the true Church is, that it is the assembly of true beleeuers. Then before we can know which is the true church, we must know who are true beleeuers, and by consequence, which is true [Page 270] faith. Now if we will define the Church as Bellar. doth, which is, that the Church is the assembly of those which are ioyned together by confession of the Christian faith; we must ne­cessarily know what is true Christian faith, before we know the true Church, seeing that true faith is a chiefe point where­by to define the Church. From thence also it followeth that we must know Iesus Christ, that is, his nature and of­fice, before we can know the true Church; for that faith in Iesus Christ, is of the very definition of the Church. But see here a Iesuiticall Doctor, that will haue vs to know the true Church before we know the true doctrine: and by consequence, before we know Iesus Christ. Which is a strange conceit, to imagine that a man may know which is the true Church, without knowing Iesus Christ; and who are true beleeuers, without knowing true faith.

Adde hereunto, that it is necessarie to know and to be in­structed in the word of God, before we can discerne the true Church, seeing that by the word of God onely we know that there must be a Church in the world. By the which, God who declareth vnto vs, that his will is that there should be a Church, declareth also what manner of Church he would haue it to be, and giueth vs markes to know it by.

Our Aduersaries themselues vnwittingly say the same, as often as they alledge the Scripture for themselues, & ground the authoritie of their Church vpon the testimonies of the word of God. For thereby they presuppose, that the know­ledge of the contents of the Scripture is necessarie, before they can know whether they haue the true Church, seeing they ground their Church vpon the Scripture.

Adde hereunto, that there being diuers contrarie Chur­ches, and but one word of God contained in the Scriptures; and acknowledged by all the Churches in the world; an in­fidell that would become a Christian, but is in doubt to which Church he should yeeld himselfe; cannot determine thereupon, but by beginning with the knowledge of that which all Christians receiue and embrace, which is the holy Scripture.

And I cannot conceiue how in this doubt, which Church is the purest of all, it is possible to take any other marke or any other direction then the rule of puritie, which is the word of God. And that if there were any one, who before he had any knowledge of true religion, met with or found out the true Church, and ioyned himselfe with the good flocke, I say that such a man, as long as he is so, is not a true Christian. He is like a blinde man that layeth hold on the first man that reacheth his hand vnto him. Such a man hath no heresies, be­cause he hath no knowledge, and by consequence, no faith nor pietie. He deriueth his Religion from his birth, or from custome, or from the concourse of ciuill affaires. If he were borne in an other countrie, or if the State should alter and be changed, he would haue another religion: he followeth the true Church, without knowing whether it be the true Church, and is a Christian, and knowes not Christ.

Reade all the historie of the New Testament, and you shall neuer finde, that any man did acknowledge the true Church, before he was instructed in the doctrine of the Gospell. But on the contrary, we see that the Apostles preached Iesus Christ, and the doctrine of Saluation, and that the people by beleefe in that doctrine ioyned themselues to the Church, without making any other enquirie touching the markes of the Church.

If men haue maliciously made difficulties touching the knowledge of the true doctrine, that ought not to be impu­ted to the obscuritie or incertainty of this Marke, but to the malice of men. For all difficulties laid aside, that which re­steth cleare and manifest in the holy Scripture, hauing no need of interpretation, is sufficient to saluation. And besides that, they are difficulties which men may auoyde, and where­upon we must craue the aide and assistance of God, which he hath promised. But to know the true Church before we know the true doctrine, it is not onely difficult, but also im­possible. For, how shall I know whether this Church is a true Church, and pure in faith, if I know not what the puri­tie of true faith is, nor what true doctrine is?

This appeareth by the impossibilitie and absurditie of the markes which our Aduersaries propound, whereby to know the true Church.

Of false Markes to know the Church: and first of the title of Catholike.

Section. 95 The first marke of the Church, they say, is, that she is Ca­tholike. If by Catholike they vnderstand a sound opinion, right faith, and true beleefe, as the ancient Fathers often take that word, who for that cause speake of Catholike chur­ches in the plurall number, we willingly allow and receiue that for a marke: for it is the same that we say, that the pu­rity of doctrine is the onely marke of the true Church.

But if by Catholike they vnderstand Vniuersall, then that marke is false, and contrary to common sense. For seeing that the quarrell is betweene particular Churches, is it not a contradiction against themselues, to seeke among parti­cular Churches, to haue that to be the best which is not par­ticular, but vniuersall? So in the disputation betweene the Greeke and the Romane Churches, how should I know that the Church of Rome is vniuersall, seeing that there being a Greeke Church, it is a proofe that the Church of Rome is not vniuersall? And the Greeke Church also calleth it selfe Catholike, and the Patriarch thereof for aboue 900. yeares together was called Vniuersall. This disputation be­tweene particular Churches, to know to which of them the title of the Vniuersall Church b [...]longeth, hath no better grace, then if Asia, Affrica, and Europe, which are parts of the vniuersall world, should dispute among themselues to know to which of them the title of Vniuersalitie belongeth. Time was, that the Churches of Syria and Aegypt, &c. agreed with the Church of Rome: then all those Churches were cal­led Catholikes, that is, Orthodoxall, and following the faith which ought to be vniuersall. But neither the Syrian, nor the [Page 273] Aegyptian Churches called themselues Romane: but all of them together called themselues, The Vniuersall Church.

Of Antiquity.

Section. 96 They also produce Antiquity for a marke of the true Church. If they vnderstand that that Church is the true Church whose doctrine is most ancient of all, and that do­ctrine which is conformable to the Apostles times, we allow of that marke; and by it the Church of Rome will lose her suite, which hath made a thousand new additions, and euery age increaseth them, all tending to the aduancement of the Papall Empire. For it was requisite to haue great alteration in religion, to bring to passe that the Bishop of one towne should become the earthly Monarch of all Christendome, and to surpasse the greatest Kings of the world in riches. Is it to be found, (I speake not of the vniuersall Church) that any particular Church in the first ages of the Church did exclude the people from the participation of the chalice? or that read the Scripture to the people in a language which they vnder­stood not? or that hath forbidden Christians to reade the ho­ly Scriptures without speciall licence? or that made pictures and representations of the Trinity? or that worshipped Ima­ges? or that called the virgine Mary Queene of heauen, and Lady of the world? or that beleeued that the Pope can dispose of Emperours and Kings? or that the Pope hath the superabundant satisfactions of Saints in the treasury of the Church, and that he can draw soules out of Purgatory? or hath adored the host with the diuine worship called Latria? Where is the least mention made in all Antiquity of the Ro­mish Indulgences, of pardons of 800000 yeares, of holy graines, and of rosaries? of the least mention of the Court of Rome, of Cardinals, of the order of begging Friars? of pray­ing to God without vnderstanding what a man saith? and that Bishops ought to take oathes of allegiance to the Pope, [Page 274] vpon their admissions? Herein our aduersaries hold their tongues, and say nothing, and by their silence accuse Anti­quity to be ignorant of religion.

Besides that, a doctrine cannot be called ancient, which hath not bene so from the beginning. As copper by age will neuer become gold, so a lie, will still be a lie notwithstan­ding Antiquity: there is no prescription against God and his word. And as shamelesse women, the older they grow the impud [...]nter they are, so vntruth is more dangerous by pro­cesse of time, because it still taketh more roote. We dispute not by yeares, but by reasons; and that which at this day is called ancient, was once new. Let them tell me how many yeares are required to authorise a doctrine.

I say more, that the oldnesse of a chaire, is a presumption that there is something to be mended, seeing that from the time of the Apostles, corruption then began to creepe into the Church, and that Saint Paul saith, that in his time the my­sterie of iniquitie began to be hatched, 2. Thes. 2.

Of Succession. The third Marke.

Section. 97 Aboue and before all others, they make account of a li­neall Succession, continued from the Apostles times. This marke might haue serued once, in the ages next ensuing after the Apostles, when all the chaires erected and set vp by the A­postles, agreed together, and when the Succession was short, and the memory of the beleefe (holden by the Bishops after the Apostles times) fresh. But now this marke is vnprofita­ble, because of the length of so many ages, and the confusion and contradiction of Histories, but specially because the chaires which draw their successions from the Apostles are now in discord and separated from communion. Among the which that of Rome which seeketh to draw her succession from Saint Peter, is condemned by the rest of the chaires, which also draw their Succession from Saint Peter, that is, by the Church of Antiochia, and of Alexandria; among which [Page 275] the Church of Rome is the newest and the most corrupt, and condemned by all the rest. So that if we should stand vpon the succession of chaires, it will be hard to range it to the Church of Rome.

If the succession of chaires since the Apostles times be a marke whereby ignorant people should know the true Church, how is it possible that plaine countrie people, artifi­cers and women should know this succession, which is lear­ned onely by reading of the Greeke and Latine Fathers, the length and obscurity whereof wearieth the wisest men, and which oftentimes contradict themselues?

Adde hereunto that the pretended succession of the Pope, is partly broken off by heresies which haue defiled that chaire, & by schismes which haue oftentimes cut off the line of that pretended succession and neuer was knit againe, as we haue proued in the booke of the Vocation of Pastors.

Adde hereunto, that the doctrine of the Church of Rome, is contrary to Saint Peters doctrine. The succession of the chaire, without succession of doctrine, is rather a subuersion of the chaire then a succession. We shall not be iudged by chaires at the latter day, but by the rules of the word of God. Chaires speake not, but men speake, who not onely speake lies in chaires, but also makes vse of chaires to tell lies, and seeke to authorise lying by the dignity of chaires and by suc­cession. They make a chaine of sand which cannot bind mens consciences. They shew a list of Popes in print, without shewing whether the last of them are of the same religion that the first were. It is a succession in persons, and a contra­riety in faith. Those haue not the succession of Saint Peter, Non habent haereditatem Petri, qui fi­dem Petri non habent. which haue not Saint Peters faith. So saith Saint Ambrose in his first booke and sixt Chapter of Penitence.

Of perpetuall Continuance. The fourth pretended Marke.

Section. 98 They also bring perpetuall continuance for a marke. If this [Page 276] marke be good, diuerse Churches planted by the Apostles were false Churches, seeing they haue ceassed to be Churches. And there are diuers Churches which the Church of Rome calleth heretickes and schismatickes, which haue continued euer since the Apostles time, and yet to this day continue. But for that the finall continuance of a Church cannot be seene but at the end of the world, I would aduise that the de­termination of this question should be put off vntill the end of the world. For some Church may flourish now, which within short time may haue an [...]nd.

Of Multitude. The fifth Marke.

Section. 99 Our aduersaries place Multitude and greatnesse of number among the markes to discerne the true Church. This marke makes vs euidently see and perceiue, that our aduersaries seeke the markes of a particular Church. For as touching the vni­uersall Church they confesse that it is but small in number, in respect of the Pagans and infidels. But there being many particular Churches which contend together they will haue the greatest to be the best. Now there is no colour to make that a marke of the true Church, wherein the true Church is surmounted by Mahumetans and Pagans: and much lesse ap­parence that to know the true Church we must haue a rope to measure the length and breadth of it: or to number the per­sons, in stead of propunding the rules thereof. By this reason, of two small heretical Churches, the lesse shall alwayes be the worst. And when the ten tribes which made three quarters of the land of Israel, reuolted in Roboams time and became idola­ters, they were to be followed. By this account Iesus Christ misreckoned himself when he called his Church a little flock, Luk. 12.32. and when he will haue vs to go in at the narrow gate and straigh [...] way wherein but few do enter, because the wide gate & broad way whereat many go in, leadeth to per­dition, Math. 7.13. and when the high Priests and the Do­ctors, [Page 277] and the greatest part of the people held with the Phari­sies, the Iewes should haue rather followed the Phari­sies then Iesus Christ. There was a time when the Greeke Church was at discord with the Romane Church, at which time it was greater then the Romane, and had the power of the Empire to vphold it. The holy Ghost foresheweth that a time shall come, when all the earth shall follow the beast. Reuel. 13. To be short, these people for a marke of the true Church, take the multitude which the Scripture placeth on the false Churches side, as if one should set painting and pow­ders for markes of chastitie, and to be without bookes, for a marke of knowledge.

In the second booke of Theodorets Historie, Liberius Bi­shop of Rome, speaking to the Emperor Constantine, that vp­braided vnto him that he was alone, said, Although I am a­lone, the cause of faith is not the weaker. And Gregorie Na­zianzen in his oration against the Arians saith, What are they that vpbraid vs with our pouertie? which define the Church by multitude, and despise the little flocke? As they haue the people, so we haue the faith; they haue gold & siluer, we haue faith and doctrine: this is our condition.

Of Miracles. The sixt pretended Marke.

Section. 100 Of the same nature are Miracles, which they also make to be a marke of the true Church, which Iesus Christ in the la­ter times makes to be markes of the false Church, saying, that There shall arise false Christs, and false Prophets, and shall shew great signes and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) the very elect, Matth. 24.23. And Saint Paul saith, That the sonne of per­dition shall come with all power and effectuall working of Sathan, and signes and lying wonders. 2. Thessa. 2.9. Many shall say vnto Iesus Christ at the latter day, Haue we not by thy name prophesied? and by thy name cast out diuels? and by thy name done many great workes? And then Christ shall say vnto them, I neuer knew you, depart from me yee that worke iniquitie, Matth. 7.22.23. So in [Page 278] Tertullians time heretickes boasted and bragged that they wrought most miracles.Lib. de prae­scrip. cap. 44. As the miracles done at the publica­tion of the law, did still serue to authorise the law after mira­cles ceassed in Israel; so miracles done in the publication of the Gospell by Iesus Christ and the Apostles, do yet serue to authorise the Gospell, although miracles haue ceas­sed. When king Iosias openly shewed the booke of the Law which had bene suppressed, 2. Chron. 34. he had no need to do any miracle, because he shewed no new thing. An euill and an adulterous generation seeketh a signe. Matth. 12.39. It be­longeth to the Church of Rome to do miracles, because she propoundeth new doctrine. But what miracles doth she, and when? They are miracles oftentimes condemned of false­hood, and punished by iustice. Miracles onely wrought to driue out diuels, wherein the fiction is very easie, and wherein Sathan taketh pleasure, makes himselfe sport, & coming forth of set purpose to authorise a lie. And yet that is neuer done before vs, for in the presence of a man which feareth God, and bele [...]ueth in Iesus Christ, Sathan loseth his credit.

Of Vnitie, the seuenth pretended Marke.

Section. 101 They also giue for a marke of the Church, that it is one. Which is a pleasant and most certaine marke. For there is nothing in the world which is not one; euery horse is one, & euery tree is one, and the Sunne is one. By this meanes they giue vs a thing to be a mark of the Church which agrees also to an egge or to lettuce. If by this word one they vnderstand vnited and liuing in concord with all the Churches in the world, the Church of Rome shall not be the true Church, for it is at controuersie with her neighbours. And there would be no true Church in the world, because it is impossible to a­gree with all Churches: and Christian religion should be false, because it is deuided in sects and heresies Or if by this word one they vnderstand vnited in it selfe, and hauing no discord within it, this vnion belongeth not to the Church of Rome, [Page 279] wherein there is a great debate touching the principall point of religion, that is, which is the head and soueraigne of the Church, the Pope or Councels. For there can be no greater nor more important a quarell in any State, then to dispute and make question to whom the soueraigenitie belongeth. Also vpon the question whether the Pope may dispose of and command kings to be slaine, whereof there are infinite bookes on both sides written. And to speake of particular men, you shall hardly finde two men which in all things agree together, one is content to pray vnto God without calling vpon Saints, another beleeues not Purgatory, another mocks at pardons, another imagineth a manner to participate in the body of Christ otherwise then his Church beleeueth. But so a man will go to Masse, and allow of the Popes authoritie, all this is tollerated. In the meane time the Councell of Trent excommunicateth all those which disallow of any of the points of the Romish Churches doctrine. In such manner, that there are not any persons found in the Church of Rome, which are not excommunicated by the generall iugdment of their Church. He that would take the paines to reade the bull De Coena Domini, which the Pope publickly pronounceth and thundreth out euery yeare on Thursday before Easter, shall find, that the French kings and their Courts of Parlia­ment, and the most part of French men, are therein excom­municated and made as blacke as a coale, by the strongest & most solemne excommunication which is pronounced in the Church of Rome. And if it were not for the great profits and riches which knit the parts of this body together as twins with different heads, but tyed together by the bellies, we should soone see this great body of the Church of Rome scat­tered and dispersed.

On the contrary, there are many hereticall Churches, whose bodies are ouer strongly vnited, and whereof the members liue peaceably together. As the Turkes, enemies to Christians, who haue a very great Empire, neuer disputing among them­selues of any points of their religion.

It is nothing to the purpose to tell vs, that we are at vari­ance [Page 280] with the Lutherans and the Anabaptists, for the Church of Rome also is at variance with them: Nor to serue their turnes against vs with those arguments which the Turkes & Iewes vse against the Church of Rome with the like reason, which obiect against her, that she agreeth not with so many Christian churches. Discord with other churches is no proofe of error, but contrariety to the word of God. But where truth is, Sathan seeketh to raise trouble. Adde hereunto that there are many Churches which men thinke to be at discord with vs, which neuerthelesse agree with vs touching the ground and the essentiall parts of piety, and the meanes to attaine to saluation.

Of Holinesse. The eighth pretended Marke.

Section. 102 Lastly, they put holinesse for a marke of the true Church. If they vnderstand holinesse of manners, the Church of Rome doth not attribute this praise and commendation vnto her selfe, but willingly confesseth the enormitie of her vices. If they vnderstand her holinesse to be in doctrine, we willingly allow of this marke. For that holinesse is no other thing but purity in doctrine.

Which also ought to be said touching the title of Apostoli­call, for that is the Apostolicall Church, which followeth the doctrine of the Apostles. Many Churches founded by the A­postles, striuing to hold the chaire, haue lost the doctrine.

Of the Circle in disputation.

Section. 103 Whereby they fall into the fault of the Circle blamed in Logicke. Which is the true Church? That which hath true religion. Which is pure religion? That which is in the Church. I know as much [Page 281] now as I did before. Which is Peter? It is Blittry. Which is Blit­try? It is Peter. Behold the Circle wherein they couertly keepe thē­selues, against those which with reason blame them to haue gone out of the Church by the gate of apparences of the pure word of God.

Aristotle in the second book Priorum Analyticorum, 5. chap­te [...], speaketh of a circulary syllogisme, which is made when after a man hath made one syllogisme he makes another, wherin the conclusion of the first syllogisme becomes one of the propositions, which ioyned with the other proposition conuerted, the conclusion which followeth is no other thing but the proposition of the first syllogisme in place whereof the conclusion was set. Whereby it appeareth that M. Arnoux vnderstands not what a circle in Logicke is: for euery circle is composed of syllogismes, but this circle which M. Arnoux giueth vs, is not a syllogisme. Who is Peter? It is Blittry? Who is Blittry? It is Peter. Which are words of some shew, and a conception fit for the Court, where mens spirits are po­lished. This Doctor discerneth not what difference there is betweene a circular syllogisme and a conuertible proposi­tion: and yet in giuing vs a conuertible proposition, he con­uerteth it very vnfitly. The conuertible proposition which he propoundeth, is, The true Church is that which hath true religion. Let vs see how he conuerts it: which is thus: Pure religion is that which is in the Church. This is not to conuert but to peruert. To conuert it truly, he should say, Pure religion is that which hath the true Church, which should be an ab­surd proposition: whereby it appeareth, that falsly for a con­uertible proposition, he putteth one which cannot be conuer­ted without spoyling. Therefore he hath in such sort wrapt and intangled himselfe in this circle, that he himselfe is taken therein, as one that hath failed in his coniuration. And his conception of Peter, Blittry, and of Blittry Peter, hath no more conceit, then his imaginary circle. He also teatheth that the sensible properties of a subiect, and conuertible [Page 282] with that subiect, do not ceasse to be markes whereby to know the subiect. As in these propositions, Euery horse neigheth, Euery fire burneth, Euery Adamant stone draw­eth iron to it. Then let him not thinke it strange, if the pure preaching of the word be a marke of the true Church, and yet conuerteth with the Church. Of two conuertible termes the one is ordinarily more knowne then the other, and a man may make vse of the one, to make the other knowne.

Of the Church, and of the Markes.

Section. 104 Places of Scripture noted in the margent of the Confession, E­phe. 2.20. Being built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro­phets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe cornerstone. And 4.11.12. He therefore gaue some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Euangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers: for the repairing of the Saints, for the worke of the Ministerie, and for the edification of the bodie of Christ, and 2. Timothy 3.15. That thou hast knowne the holie Scriptures of a childe, which are able to make thee wise to saluation, through the faith which is in Christ Iesus.

By all these places we see that the Apostle goeth on distinguish­ing all the bodie, and the buildings of the Church, in her mem­bers and peeces, the better to instruct vs touching the diuersities of graces, the ordaining of charges, and the intent which God had in the establishing of so faire a Monarchie. But he saith nothing of giuing puritie of the word, nor the puritie of religion for markes of the Church, for that such things ought rather to be knowne by the Church, which makes vs know them.

Of these three places, the first is very fit to proue that [Page 283] which our Confession saith, which is, that the true Church is that which conformeth her selfe to the word of God. For, whosoeuer groundeth himselfe vpon the Prophets and the Apostles, of necessity will conforme himselfe to their words, and will follow their instructions. And note, that there Saint Paul speakes of the body of the Church, which he likeneth to a building, saying, In whom all the building coupled toge­ther, groweth vnto an holy temple of the Lord. Thē if the Church be grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles, the doctrine of the Apostles must go first; and that as the true Church is grounded vpon the doctrine of the Apostles, so the know­ledge of the true Church, should be grounded vpon the knowledge of the Apostles doctrine.

The second place also is very fit for the same purpose: for God hath not ordained Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelists, to any other end, but that we should follow their word; and this subiection of the faithful consenting to obey their word, is that which ma [...]eth the assembly of the Saints, and the buil­ding of the body of Christ which is the Church.

The third place is very pertinent and effectuall to proue, that the knowledge of the Scriptures makes the faithfull, and by cons [...]quence, the true Church wise to saluation. Now the Church cannot be made wise to saluation by the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, without following that word, and conforming it selfe thereunto.

Touching M. Arnoux, who in stead of acknowledging the pure word of God to be a marke which maketh the Church knowne, will haue that the Church maketh knowne to vs which is the pure doctrine: He sheweth thereby, that he conceiueth not what the state of the question is, nor the point of our difference. For the difficultie is, how among di­uers Churches contrary in beleefe, a man may know the best, and that which propoundeth true doctrine. Therein, none of those Churches ought to be iudges, because they are parties: and therefore it is requisite and necessarie, that among those parties contēding together, there should be a common rule, which serueth to discerne the pure Church from the impure: [Page 284] Now there is nothing but the word of God which is the rule of puritie. I grant that the true and orthodoxall Church tea­cheth pure doctrine, but we are at variance which is the true orthodoxall Church, whereof we will haue God, by his word, to be Iudge. But the church of Rome will be iudge in this cause, and will be both iudge and party: and to the end that she may not be contradicted by the word of God, hideth this word from the people, and forbiddeth them to reade the holie Scripture: and also saith, that she is the infal­lible iudge of the Scripture, and of the s [...]nce and the autho­ritie of the Scripture. It is true that the orthodoxall Church teacheth the word of God, not as a Iudge, but as a witnesse and a guardian of the truth. But the word of God maketh the true Church to be knowne, with infallible authoritie of a Iudge, and ordaineth what the true Church ought to be.

Which is so certaine and true, that we should not know that God will haue a Church to be in the world, if the holy Scripture taught it not: which declaring that there must be Church, declareth also by what markes it shall be knowne, which is, if she hearkeneth to the voyce of the good Pastor, and followeth not a stranger: Iohn 10.4.5. And if she perse­uereth in the word of God, Iohn 8.31.

Seeing there is but one holy Scripture, it will easily make vs know the pure Church: but there being many contrarie Churches, vnto which of them must we referre our selues touching pure doctrine? And how will she perswade a man (who to obey the Church of Rome, dares not looke into the holy Scriptures) that her doctrine is conformable to the word of God?

If the true Church doth beare witnesse that this is the ho­lie Scripture, she doth it because she is bound to say so: but God is not bound to speake to vs in his holy word, which the Church must obey Now how can I know whether she obeyeth this word, if before I beleeue the Church, I do not know what the word is, nor what it commandeth to be done?

[Page 285]

He that hath no other proofe to know the word of God, but onely because the Church telleth him so, hath but a very slight and an easie impression thereof, and a coniecture with­out knowledge, vntill such time as he himselfe hath tasted and comprehended the doctrine of saluation, and that God there­by hath imprinted faith and repentance in his heart.

But now let vs see, by what markes M. Arnoux will haue the vniuersall Church to be knowne.

Markes whereby M. Arnoux will haue the true Church to be knowne.

Section. 105 Contrary places of the Scripture. They must yeeld themselues to the Creed or Simboles by them receiued in their Confession of the faith, in the fifth Article, wherein are shewed the markes of the Church, as vnitie, holinesse, vniuersalitie, and succession from the Apostles, &c. All drawne and taken out of the holy Scripture. One Ephes. 4.5. Holy, 1. Cor. 6.11. Catholicke, Marke 16.15. A­postolicke, Psal. 10.18. Spouse of Iesus Christ, Osee 2.19. The house of God, Mathew 16.18. Visible, Psal. 18.6. Pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. All these together, Cant. 4.6.8.9. He is blind and very blind which seeth not this.

It is a great error to thinke that all that which the Creed or Symboles say of the Church, should be a marke whereby to know the visible Church. Saint Paul, Ephes. 5.25. saith, That Christ loued the Church. And in Canticles it is often cal­led welbeloued. And Hebrewes 12.23. the Church is called The assembly and congregation of the first borne, which is written in heauen. Would M. Arnoux haue the loue which Iesus Christ beareth to his Church, or to be written in heauen, to be markes whereby to discerne the visible Church? It is very true, that there is but one vniuersall Church; but doth it [Page 286] therefore follow that this word one is a proper marke to know the true Church from the false? seeing also that euery false Church is one? Adde hereunto, that M. Arnoux searcheth for the markes of the vniuersall visible Church, but this vni­uersall Church likewise containeth the false. We haue also shewed, that vnitie, vniuersalitie, holinesse, and the succession of the Apostles, agree not with the Church of Rome. The Greeke and Syrian Churches boast that they haue these markes, in such manner, that the discord still continueth, vn­till we come to the word of God, which endeth the conten­tion and makes the truth knowne. Therefore the Church of Rome hindreth the reading of it, and diminisheth the au­thority thereof.

Let vs see what places M. Arnoux setteth downe vnto vs. He saith,One. that the Church is called one, in Eph. 4.5. This is the verse, There is one Lord, one faith, one baptisme. Of the Church here is nothing spoken.M. Arnoux falshood. Thus you see already one falshood.

He saith that the Church is called holy, Holy. 1. Cor. 6.11. That al­so is falsly alledged.Falshood. The place is thus, And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are iustified, in the name of the Lord Iesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Where­in there is nothing spoken of the vniuersall Church. For in the vniuersall visible Church, all are not sanctified, ordinarily there are more wicked then good in it. This is a second false­hood.

He saith that the Church is called Catholicke, Catholicke. Marke 16.15. This also is falsly alledged.Falshood. The place is thus. And he said vnto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospell to eue­ry creature. Of the Church nor of vniuersality there is nothing spoken. It may be that he thought these words all the world, & all creatures signified the Catholicke Church. That is false, for by these words, Pagans and Infidels are also vnderstood, to whom the Apostles preached, and whereof the greatest part beleeued not their preaching. This is the third falshood.

He addeth, that the Church is called Apostolicall, Apostolicall. Psal. 10.18. That likewise is false,Falshood. the place is thus, To iudge the fa­therlesse and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more [Page 287] oppresse. The lanterne of Iudas which is kept in S. Denis Church might with as good reason haue bene alledged to this pur­pose. And it is not to be imagined that there is any fault in the cypher, for in all the Psalmes there is nothing spoken of the Apostolicall Church. Then this is the fourth falshood.

He saith, that the Church is called the Spouse of Iesus Christ, Spouse of Iesus Christ. Osee 2.19. To what purpose serues that, when here we speake of the markes of the visible Church? Is the coniunction and nearenesse of the Church with Iesus Christ a marke of the vi­sible Church? Is that a marke which is discerned by the eye? Adde hereunto that this honourable title belongeth princi­pally to the Church of the elect, to the which Iesus Christ hath ioyned himselfe, to make it a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle, Ephes. 5.27.

He addeth further, that in Math. 16.18. the Church is cal­led the house of God: House of God. although no mention of the house of God is found in that place, yet, let vs put the case that it were truly alledged. For to be the house of God is that a marke of the visible Church? Do those that are out of the Church see God dwelling therein? Adde hereunto, that there is no false Church which prerendeth not to be the house of God.

He goeth on and saith, that the Church is called visible, In the He­brew it is the 19. Psalme & 4. verse. Falshood. Visible. Psal. 18.5. This is most false. The true place according to the Hebrew is thus, Their line is gone out through all the the earth, and their words to the end of the world: in them hath he set a tabernacle for the Sunne. Of the which Sunne, he after de­scribeth the beauty, swiftnesse, and heate, but speaketh not of the visible Church. The vulgar translation saith, In sole posuit tabernaculum suum. He hath set his tabernacle in the Sunne. Which corruption being receiued, yet therein nothing is spoken of the visible Church. Sanctes Pagninus a Lucquois, and a Iacob in Friar translateth this place as we do, & Arias Mon­tanus a Spanish Doctor doth the like. But Sixtus Senensis keeper of the Popes library reiecteth that exposition, and saith that the true and proper sence of those words is, that God hath set a tabernacle for the Sunne in heauen. So here you haue a fift falshood, and that ioyned with fopperie. [Page 288] For what apparence is there to place visiblenesse among those markes which discerne the true Church from the false, seeing that the false Church also is seene, and that to be visi­ble is also proper to a tree, or to an horse? The markes where­by men discerne one thing from another, ought to be proper vnto them. And what makes that against vs, which acknow­ledge the Church to be visible?

He also saith, that the Church is called the [...]round and pillar of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. which is true, for it belongeth to the Church to defend and support the truth against errors. But what is that to the purpose, when we speake of the markes of the visible Church? Is the duty of the Church without the performance a marke of the Church? How absurdly should I speake, if I should say, that one of the markes to know a vertuous man from a vicious man, is, that the vertuous man ought to be wise?

Lastly, he saith that in Canticles 4.6.8.9. all these markes are there found together. Let the Reader peruse the places, and he shall not there find one trace or footstep of any of these markes.Falshoods heapt one vpon ano­ther. Then this is the sixt falshood. Where is conscience? Is not this an abusing of the people? Doth the Doctor in this manner contend against the places noted in the margent of our Confession, by heaping vp so many falshoods in so few lines? But it is true, that lying cannot be defended but by lies, and by corrupting of the holy Scripture.

Of Licenciousnesse and prophane life.

Section. 110 Touching Licenciousnesse and impietie, wherewith M. Arnoux vpbraideth those Churches that are separated from the Church of Rome, therein he speaketh against his owne conscience. For he knowes well, that in those points the Church of Rome beares away the bell for prophanenesse of life and impietie, from all the Churches in the world. I speake [Page 293] not of particular persons, among whom I doubt not but that there are many that liue with ciuill honestie, and which thinke that in their religion they do seruice to God. I speake onely of publike orders. For in all other Churches, vices are accounted euils and corruptions, but in the Church of Rome, vices are accounted vertues, and are become lawes. None but the Church of Rome teacheth periurie, which by a de­cree of aThis is to be seene in the 19. Sessiō of the Coun­cell of Con­stance. Councell, declareth that men are not bound to keepe faith and promise with heretikes: and which teacheth that the Pope can dispense with oathes made to God.

None but the Church of Rome, by publike order, hath e­stablished the Stewes, and by law permitteth fornication.

None but the Church of Rome, giueth remission of sinnes, vpon condition to do euill, and which maketh the grace of God to be a reward of disloyaltie and wickednesse. So whilest the last warres of the League in Fraunce conti­nued, the Pope gaue nine yeares of pardon to all those French-men that should reuolt from the obedience of the King. Those pardons were set vp vpon church doores, and on the corners of the streets.

None but the Church of Rome, maketh God an example of iniustice, and of deceitfull reuenge, in this, that they teach, that God pardoneth mens faults, but not the punishment for them, quitting our debt, but not the payment of the debt. For so he that shall haue receiued any iniurie, and hath par­doned the partie that did it, may, after pardon giuen, be re­uenged on him, and say, that he did pardon his offence, but not the punishment of the offence. For, why will they haue a man to be more iust and mercifull then God? We are too much inclined to do euill, without being incited thereunto by the example of God.

None but the Church of Rome, giueth way to crueltie, teaching that he is not a murtherer which with zeale to the holy mother Church of Rome, killeth one that is excommu­nicated, which is Pope Vrbans doctrine, in the Canon Ex­communicatorum, Causa 23. Quaest. 5.

None but the Church of Rome, dispenseth with subiects [Page 294] oathes of Allegiance to their Kings, and which inciteth them to rebellion, when it hath pleased the Pope to pronounce sentence of Deposition against a King. Whereof there is a Canon and a Rule in the Councell of Latran, vnder Innocent the third, Canon 3. And the Councell of Constance practised the same against Fredericke Duke of Austria in the twentieth Session.

None but the Church of Rome dispenseth with children to be disobedient and to leaue the subiection to their fa­thers and mothers, commanded by the Law of God, when against their fathers and mothers wils, they saue themselues, and enter into a Monasterie as into a Sanctuarie of rebellion. Reade Numbers 30.4.5.6. where the vowes of a daughter, made contrary to her fathers will, are declared voyd, and of no force.

None but the Church of Rome permitteth Doctors, by word of mouth, and by writing, to maintaine, that it is law­full to vse equiuocation in iustice, and that confessions of enterprises against the liues of Kings and Princes, ought not to be reuealed,Toletus libr. 5. de Instruct. sacerd. Cap. 1. In duo­bus casibus fi­lius debet ac­cusare patrē; in crimine lae­sae maiestatis, & in crimine haeresis. Suares in his booke a­gainst the K. of great Bri­taine, li. 6. c. 4 saith, that the lawful succes­sor of a King which is de­posed by the Pope, ought to kill that King. and that it is lawfull for a sonne to accuse his father, and to procure his death, if he be an heretike.

None but the Church of Rome selleth sacred things, and praiers for the dead, and maketh open trafficke of Benefices and Ecclesiasticall functions.

None but the Church of Rome suffereth a man which cal­leth himselfe, Head of the Church, to weare the Crosse of Christ vpon his shoe, and to lay the holy Scripture at his seete when he cometh into Councels. The practise where­of was seene in the firstOfficiales, ad pedes san­ctiffimi Do­mini nostri iactis sacro­sanctis scrip­turis praestite­runt corp [...]rale iuramentum. Session of the last Councell of La­tran.

None but the Church of Rome permitteth fables to be read, and forbiddeth the reading of the holy Scripture.

If I would display and set forth what is done in Rome, from whence these rules come, and shew how vices against nature are there become naturall; how men there burne those which beleeue that there is no other Head of the vni­uersall Church but Iesus Christ, no other Purgatorie then [Page 295] his blood, nor other propitiatorie Sacrifice then his death; and where neuerthelesse they let the Iewes liue in peace, which affirme Iesus Christ to be a deceiuer, and which for money buy libertie to blaspheme. It is an easie matter to make long and true discourses vpon this subiect, and yet I should say nothing, but from the Popes themselues, and from the writers in the Roman Church, which make the like com­plaints.

And I say that the vices of other Churches are more tolle­rable then the vertues of the Romish Church, seeing that vertues there are degenerated into outward shewes; and pie­tie into a scrupulous deuotion: as also that there they pre­sume to do greater numbers of workes, and such as are per­fecter then God hath commanded, in such sort that God is debter to men, and is bound to make them restitution. For God easlier beareth with sinnes for which men repent, then with righteousnesse proudly presumed on.

Seeing also, that in stead of framing men to a voluntarie obedience, and to a filiall loue, by the knowledge of the loue which God beareth vnto vs, she inciteth men to good works, by the feare of a fire prepared for the children of God in Pur­gatorie, planting in their spirits a trembling pietie, and a seruile feare, in stead of a filiall loue; and to be short, a re­pentance, whereof they must repent.

Of Saint Peters Supremacie.

Section. 111 Contrary places of Scripture, I say vnto thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this stone I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it.

By this place, first the Sonne of God assigneth some recompence to the notable and excellent confession of the Apostle, who first a­fore all others, acknowledged the naturall Sonne of God.

[Page 296]

Others before Saint Peter made that confession, as Natha­nael, Iohn 1.49. Thou art that Sonne of God, thou art that King of Israel. And all the Apostles knew that Iesus Christ was the Sonne of God, hauing heard the voice of God speaking from heauen, saying, This is my welbeloued Sonne, heare him. It was not by his owne naturall sense but by diuine reuelation, that Peter acknowledged Iesus to be the Sonne of God; as Iesus Christ himselfe said vnto him in the same place, Flesh and bloud hath not reuealed it vnto thee, but my Father which is in heauen.

This promise therefore which the Lord made vnto him in this place, is an augmentation of graces, and not a recom­pence for merites.

Section. 112 Secondly, this recompence is giuen to none other but to him to whom onely he addressed himselfe with all the circumstances which in any sort may make a discourse indiuiduall.

I answer with Saint Augustine, in the 118. Tractate vpon Saint Iohn, That Saint Peter spake, that for all the Apostles, and receiued that for them all, as representing vnitie in his person: and with Saint Ambrose, vpon the 38. Psalme: Quod Petro dicitur, Apostolis dicitur: That which was said to Saint Peter was said to the Apostles. And our Aduersaries con­fesse that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to all the Apostles. Whereby it followeth, that Iesus Christ (in this place) promising to giue the keyes to Saint Peter, promised them also to the rest of the Apostles. For he spake not vnto them of the keyes, but in that place onely.

Section. 113 Thirdly, the recompence which he assigned vnto him, is a dig­nitie of preheminence, seeing he saith, that he is the corner stone of the foundation whereon all the house dependeth.

[Page 297]

In this place Iesus Christ giueth not any power to Peter, but onely maketh a promise thereof. And that which he here promised, he giueth and conferreth it actually vpon him, Ioh. 20.22.23. where Iesus Christ speaketh thus to all the A­postles, saying, As my Father sent me, so send I you. Whosoeuers sinnes ye remit, they are remitted vnto them, and whosoeuers sinnes you retaine, they are retained. So in the actuall conferring of the power which he had promised, he made the Apostles e­quall. As also Matth. 18.18. he speaketh thus to all his Apo­stles, Verily I say vnto you: whatsoeuer you binde on earth, shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen.

And it is to be noted, that after that promise made to Saint Peter, the Apostles stroue among themselues for the superioritie, which they would not haue done, if they had vnderstood, that by those words the Lord had promised the superioritie to Peter, and would not haue vnderstood the commandement of the Lord. But M. Arnoux hath a conceit, that he vnderstandeth Iesus Christs words better then the A­postles did. Also it is false, that Iesus Christ did declare Saint Peter to be the corner stone of the Church. He saith not, Super te Petrum, but, Super hanc Petram, he saith not, Ʋpon thee Peter, but, vpon this stone, which is cleare in the Greeke, where it is said: [...], and not [...]. For [...] in Greeke also signifieth a stone: and so the allusiō had had a good grace. But the holy Ghost guiding Saint Matthewes penn, thought it better to lose the grace of that allusion, then to let vs stumble at ambiguitie.

And certainly the Church of God is not grounded vpon a mortall man; it was a Church before S. Peter was, and at Saint Peters comming, it altered not the foundation. And Saint Peter being dead, the Church must of force haue changed her foundation, and thereby haue bene much impaited. We are grounded vpon the same foundation whereon Saint Peter was grounded, but he was not grounded vpon himselfe. And if it be so, that the Church spoken of in this place, should be the Church of the elect, if Saint Peter was the foundation of [Page 298] the elect, he was also the foundation of the election. Now it appeareth that here the Scripture speaketh of the Church of the elect, because Iesus Christ saith, that the gates of hell, that is, the power of the diuell, should not preuaile against it, and by consequence that neither the diuell, nor hell can cast any one of those which are of the Church, into hell. Which cannot agree with the vniuersall visible Church, whereof Sathan seduceth many:Apocal. 13.7. against the which the beast shall make warre, and ouercome it. Our aduersaries themselues say, that Antichrist shall abolish the Masse, and therefore he shall pre­uaile against the Church of Rome.

Not that I denie, that Saint Peter may be called the foun­dation of the visible Church, so that by Saint Peter we vnder­stand his doctrine, in which sence the Fathers vnderstand it. But also in this sence all the Apostles equally are foundations of the Church: as it is said, Ephes. 2.20. And are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the chiefe corner stone. Note these words him selfe ex­pressely set downe to discerne Iesus Christ from the Apostles, which are not foundations themselues, but in their doctrine.

Then this fundamentall stone is Iesus Christ, confessed by S. Peter: for Iesus Christ is commonly called the stone. As 1. Cor. 10.4. The rocke was Christ. And Psal. 118.22. Esay, 28.19. Rom. 9.33, and in many other places. So S. Augustine vnderstands it in his tenth Treatise vpon the first of S. Iohn, saying. What meaneth this, Vpon this stone I will build my Church? Vpon this faith, vpon that which hath bene said, Thou art the Christ,Super hanc confessionis Petram Eccle­siae aedificatio est. [...], the Son of the liuing God. Reade also his 50 and 24 Treatise vpon S. Iohn. And the 13 Sermon vpon the Words of our Lord, where he earnestly insisteth thereup­pon. And Saint Hilarie in his sixt booke of the Trinitie: Vpon this stone of the Confession the Church is built. Chrysostome in the 55 Homilie vpon the 16 of Saint Matth. saith: Vpon this stone, that is, vpon the faith of the Confession. And in the Sermon of Pentecost, he said: Vpon this stone, & not vp­pon Peter. For he built not the Church vpon men, but vpon the faith. See S. Ambrose also vpō the second to the Ephesians.

Of Saint Peters Successors.

Section. 114 This dignitie which cannot die with Saint Peter, is necessarily transferred to his successors, for that God neuer changed the forme of the gouerment, once established by diuine right.

If Saint Peter had not the dignitie to be the chiefe corner stone of the Church, as we haue already shewed, he had no successors in a dignitie which he had not.

But put the case that Saint Peter had bene the head, and the foundation of the vniuersall Church: doth it from thence follow, that he had a successor in that dignitie? Moses was by God established to be the Prince, Law-giuer, and Priest in Israel, but left no successors, because God had not so ordained it. Saint Iohn Baptist had no successor. The rest of the Apostles had no successors in their Apostleship, why then should Saint Peter haue a successor in his? seeing that God in his Law did not ordaine it to be so? and that Saint Peter in his second Epistle which he wrote vnto the vniuersall Church, doth not will Christians to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for his successor? Was there euer any kingdome or temporall or spirituall soueraignty established in the world, without lawes made touching the succession thereof, and touching the forme of chusing or succeeding? Here we haue no such thing, nor no declaration of the will of God vpon this matter.

Adde hereunto, that if Saint Peter was established head of the vniuersall Church, it was then when it was little, and compounded of a small number of men, which order could not be obserued when the Church began to spread abroad it selfe through out all the world. There are no one mans shoulders strong enough for so great a burthen. It would [Page 300] make a mans head giddie to be lifted vp so high.

And if after Saint Peters death, there had bene necessitie to haue a successor in the office of the head of the vniuersall Church, I make all men Iudges, that haue any sparke of free iudgement, whether that office ought not of right to apper­taine to Saint Iohn or Saint Iames, whom Saint Paul, Gala. 2. calleth pillars, and which outliued Saint Peter long time, ra­ther then to deferre it to Linus Saint Pauls disciple, of whom we know nothing but the name? or to Clement, who saith in hisCan. Dile­ctissimis cau­sa. 12. Quaest. 1 Epistles, That mens goods and women ought to be common, andIb. 3. Constit. Apost. cap. 2. Id quod supra trigamiam sit manifesta for­nicatio iudica­tur. that fourth marriages are manifest fornica­tion?

At the least, it had bene reason, and very requisite to haue done those excellent Apostles that honour to haue called them, and to haue askt their aduice touching the choise of a head of the vniuersall Church. Who wil beleeue that the peo­ple of the Citie of Rome had the credit, of their owne autho­rity to giue a head to the Church of all the world, and that during the liues of the Apostles, and without making them acquainted therewith?

Especially after the death of all the Apostles, when by the witnesse of all Antiquity, Bishops, and among other the Bi­shop of Rome, were chosen by the voices of the people of the Citie: could the people of Rome giue a head to the Churches of Asia, Egypt, Persia, and the Indies, without acquainting them with it? No man will beleeue it, but he that hath a mind to be deceiued.

If Saint Peter was at Rome, and there erected the Church and the Bishopricke, as they say, the Bishop of Rome may be called Saint Peters successor, but not in the quality of an Apo­stle or head of the vniuersall Church, but in quality of the Bi­shop of the Citie of Rome, which is the highest qualitie which the ancient Bishops of Rome tooke on them in their Epistles. And yet this succession ceasseth when the doctrine begins to be corrupt.

Pag. 120. M. Arnoux about the end of his booke, to support the [Page 301] Popes supremacie, alledgeth a place out of the third booke of Irenaeus, cap. 3. but falsified and corrupted according to his manner. He maketh Irenaeus say, that it is absolutely necessa­ry, that all the Church should agree, and adhere to the Church of Rome, wherein the preheminence of principality resideth. This place is falsly alledged, M. Arnoux hath added the word adhere, which is not in Irenaeus. Also he transla­teth the word conuenire, to agree, whereas it signifieth to ar­riue, or come from diuers parts to one place. To this falshood of words he addeth a corruption of the sence. For Irenaeus by this principall preheminence vnderstandeth the power of the Citie of Rome, because it was the Imperiall feate, and not the supremacy of the Bishop or of his Church. He would say,Ad hanc Ec­clesiam prop­ter potentio­rem principa­litatē, necesse est omnium conuenire Ec­clesiam. that because of the Imperiall seate, and of the Senate, Chri­stians from all places of necessity came thither. This is the place as it is in Irenaeus, It is necessary that all Churches should come hither to this Church, because of the soueraigne po­wer, that is, the power of the Empire. Which is the reason why the 9. Canon of the Councell of Antiochia ordained that the Bishops of great Cities should haue preheminence. [...]. Be­cause (saith the Councell) that all those that haue any busi­nesse come to the Metropolitane Citie, therefore it hath bene ordained, that the Bishop thereof should haue a prehemi­nence of honour. For that cause therefore the Church of A­lexandria went before that of Antiochia, although the Church of Antiochia was the ancienter, and founded by Saint Peter, because that among the cities of the Romaine Empire, Alex­andria according to ciuill order was the second n [...]xt to Rome. The 17. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon spea­keth expresly thereof, where it is ordained, [...]. that the order of Ecclesiasticall Dioces should be accommodated according to ciuill and publicke forme. Following that order, the 630. Bishops assembled at that Councell, ordained that the bi­shopricke of Constantinople should haue the same preroga­tiues that the ancient Imperiall bishopricke of Rome had, and that it should be as much honoured as Rome in Ecclesiasticall affaires, as being the second Citie in rancke after Rome.

Of the Perpetuity of the Church.

Section. 115 Such an house of God founded vpon this stone, hath for an infalli­ble marke, that it shall neuer be shaken, and that the gates of hell, that is to say, heresies and persecutions shall haue no power against it. Then if there be any other Church which enioyeth this priui­ledge of a perpetuall interruption and a succession neuer broken, let them shew it vs. If there be not, let them pull this place out of their Bibles, or deface their Article, which striuing against the Church of Rome, disanulleth the promise of the Sonne of God.

If by Succession our Aduersarie vnderstandeth a succes­sion of persons without succession of doctrine, this succession is nothing, but rather a corruption then a succession. Such (by the iudgement of the Church of Rome) is the succession of the Greeke Church, which hath continued from the Apo­stles time, and yet continueth, and is ancienter then the Church of Rome. But if by perpetuall Succession he vnder­standeth a line of succession of men perseuering in the same doctrine, this succession doth not in any manner belong to the Church of Rome. The latter Bishops of Rome, are no­thing like the first, and it seemeth that the last are expresly ri­sen vp to condemne the first. In the first age of the Church, were the Bishops of Rome temporall Princes? Did they weare a Regall Crowne? Did they take vpon them to depose Empe­rors and Kings? Did they draw soules out of Purgatorie? Did they giue pardons for seuen or eight hundred thousand years? Did they allow adoration of Images? Did they prohibit to giue the cup to the people, & to reade the Scripture? Did they say seruice in an vnknowne tongue? Did they worship the host with diuine worship called Latria? Did they call vpon Saints? Did they paint the Trinity? Did they call the virgine [Page 303] Mary Queene of heauen? These are smarting sores, which none of the aduersaries dare once touch, nor vndertake to produce a place of antiquity for any of these points. There­fore our aduersaries haue but little cause to boast of perpetui­tie, after they haue made a new religion, and by consequence a new Church.

Neuerthelesse, say that the Church of Rome had conti­nued euer since the Apostles time, doth it follow that perpe­tuall continuance of the Romish Church, is a marke of her puritie? Is the latter day yet come? Will M. Arnoux warrant it from this time vntill then from subuersion? A thing cannot be called perpetuall which hath not continued vnto the end. This Doctor giues vs his future hopes, for present markes of the church. Besides there are diuers false churches which haue continued from Christs time, and still continue to this day.

Of Idolatrie in the Romish Church, and in how many sorts the Church of Rome is Idolatrous, and what Idolatrie is.

Section. 116 The 28. Article of our Confession saith, that in the Church of Rome all superstitions and idolatries are permitted. This accusation is of no small moment, seeing that, 1. Cor. 6.9. the Apostle saith, that Idolaters shall not inherit the kingdome of hea­uen. Therefore we cannot intreate of a matter of more impor­tance, because it concernes saluation, and exclusion out of the kingdome of heauen. If the word Idolatrie doth offend our aduersaries, we would haue them to consider, that we cannot call things otherwise then the word of God calleth them; and also to beleeue, that our intent is not thereby to of­fend them, but to make them know and feele their owne e­uill: which cannot be done by flattering them, or by disgui­sing the truth. And that if they be offended at this which we say of them, God is much more offended at that which they do vnto him. And if for propounding the word of God vn­to them, they hate vs, we neuerthelesse will not ceasse to take [Page 304] compassion on them, and lend them our helping hands, at least to discharge our owne consciences.

I say that in sixe things the Church of Rome committeth idolatry. First, by adoring the host which the Priest holdeth in his hands, and calling that God which is not so. Secondly, by attributing that honour to Saints which onely appertai­neth to God; by calling vpon them, by making them media­tors, by asking saluation of God by their merits, and by be­leeuing that they know the hearts and thoughts of men. Thirdly, by calling the virgine Mary the inuentrix of grace. Queene of heauen, and Lady of the world: for the royalty and empire ouer all creatures belongeth to God onely. Fourthly, by adoration and worshipping of images. Fifthly, by adoring the crosse. And sixtly, by worshipping the bones, apparell, and other relickes of the dead. The first sort of ido­latrie, shall be spoken of in the end of this worke. The second and third sort hath bene declared and discoursed on at large in the 24. Article of our Confession. There remaine the three last, that is, adoration of images, of the crosse, and of relicks. Vpon all which in generall we say, that we call those idola­ters which yeeld a worship and religious seruice to creatures, or that partly or wholly transport to creatures, that honour which is due to God. By which definition it appeareth, that the most holy and most excellent creatures may be transfor­med into idols by those that are superstitious: so farre, as that ancient Christians called the Arians idolaters, because de­nying Iesus Christ to be the eternall and soueraigne God, ne­uerthelesse they called on him, and yeelded religious seruice vnto him. From whence it followeth, that those which ho­nour Saints with such honours wherby God is dishonoured, do wrong to Saints by honouring them, seeing that as much as in them lyeth, they transforme them into idols.

Of the words Image and Idoll. And of the Hebrew words Pesel and Temunah, which God vseth in the Law.

Section. 117 Before we proceed further, you must vnderstand the words: Image is a Latin word, and Idol is a Greeke word: both the one and the other in their first originall, and as they are taken and vnderstood by good and ancient Authors, sig­nifie resemblance and representation. Tertullian a great Do­ctor touching significations of words, calleth all figures and representations Idols, in his third chapter of the booke of Idolatrie. Idos Idos Graecè formulam so­nat, ab eo di­minutinum I­dolum dodu­ctum, aeque apud nos for­mulam facit: Igitur omnis forma vel for­mula idolum dici exposcit. in Greeke signifieth a forme or representa­tion, from whence the diminutiue Idolon is deriued, which signifieth a little forme or figure, and therefore euery figure or forme should be called Idol. Cicero of the same in his first booke De finibus saith,Imagines quae idola no­minant, quo­rum incursi [...] ­ne non solum videamus sed etiam cogite­mus. Images which they call Idoles, by which we both see and thinke: Taking Image and Idoll for one thing. Chrysostome vpon the third chapter of the Epi­stle to the Philippians, Homilie 10. saith, [...]. We beautifie and set out our houses, placing Idols and Images in them. And Xiphilinus the Abridger of Dion, in the life of Seuerus, in stead of saying that there was an image or figure of wax at the funerall pompe of the Emperour Pertinax, representing the dead Emperour, saith, [...]. That there was an Idoll of wax triumphantly adorned. In all these places and infinit others, Image and Idoll signifie one selfe same thing, and the word Idoll is taken in good part, and simply signifieth a resem­blance or representation. Reade Isidore in his eighth booke of Originals, cap. De Dijs Gentium.

Therefore Iohannes Molanus appointed to be Censor and Examiner of the Nomenclator of Adrian Iunius, vpon the chapter of the Tooles, Instruments, or Mooueables of the Church, giueth this censure, saying,Non male Nomenclator, statuam, sculp­tile, imaginē, simulacrum, idolum pro ijsdem habet. The Nomenclator hath not done amisse to take the words, proportion, carued, representation, Image, Idoll, and figure, all for one thing. Neuerthelesse, the Reader ought to remember, that some of these words, by the vse of the Scripture, and Ecclesiasticall Authors are taken in euill part.

These words therefore in their proper signification, signi­fie all one thing. But common vse hath restrained the signifi­tion of the word Idoll, in such sort, that now it is taken in [Page 306] euill part: and in the new Testament written in Greeke, the word Idoll is taken for the Image of a false god, or for an I­mage which men do abuse vnto Idolatrie. From whence it followeth, that he should be thought to speake amisse that should say that Iesus Christ is the Idoll of the inuisible God, in stead of saying, the Image; or that should say, that God made man according to his idoll or likenesse. In this sence, and according to the common vse, Image is more generally vsed then Idoll, and euery Idoll is an Image, but euery Image is not an Idoll.

The words by the which God in his Law forbiddeth vs to make any grauen Image, or the likenesse of anie things which are in heauen aboue, or in the earth below, are Pesel and Themuna; whereof the last signifieth euery image and resemblance, but the first signifieth a grauen image or figure: and is not taken in euill part, but when the sence and cir­cumstance of the place constraines vs to take it for an Image forbidden, and which is abused for Idolatrie. Therefore the word Pesel by the Greeke Interpreters is translated [...], which signifieth a carued or grauen Image, as in the first verse in the 26. of Leuiticus, and Deuter. 4.16.25: and 5.8. and in many other places, and sometime [...], Idolum, as Exod. 20.4. sometime [...], which signifieth Image and re­semblance, as Esay 40.18.20. The Romish translation ordi­narily translateth Pesel, sculptile, that is, a grauen Image and also an Image or representation, specially in these places al­ledged, out of Exodus, Leuiticus, Deuteronomie, and Esay.

Our Aduersaries, which make a controuersie about these words, thereby to hinder the examination of things, will haue men to translate the second commandement of God, in this manner; Thou shalt make no grauen Idoll, nor any resem­blance of things which are in heauen, &c. And say, that Idoll is the resemblance of a thing which is not, but that Image is the representation of a thing which is; wherein they con­tradict their owne Bible. These are the very words whereby this commandement is set downe, Deut. 5.8. in the French [Page 307] Bible translated in Louaine, and approued by the Facultie of Diuines there: Thou shalt make no grauen representation, nor a­ny likenesse whatsoeuer, of that which is in heauen, &c. And in Deuter. 4.16. To the end, lest peraduenture being deceiued, you should make to your selues a grauen similitude, [...]or the Image of male or female: And Esay 40.18. To whom then haue you like­ned God, and what Image do you set for him? In which places the word Pesel, which our Aduersaries would haue transla­ted, a grauen Idoll, is translated in our Aduersaries Bible, re­semblance, Image, and grauen representation. And their Latin Bible hath, Non facies tibi sculptile: Thou shalt not make any carued or grauen Image.

And whereas in this commandement they will haue Idoll to signifie the representation of a thing that is not: it procee­deth from a voluntarie blindnesse; for the words following, Nor resemblance of things which are in heauen, &c. shew, that God speaketh of the Images of things that are. It is true that S. Paul 1. Cor. 10.19.20. saith, that The Idoll is nothing; be­cause it is no diuine thing, but onely wood or stone; but that may also be said of the Images of things which are, and that become Idolles, when religious seruice is attributed vnto them. And it is certaine, that although the Sunne and the Moone are fixed and seene, yet to adore the Sunne and the Moone, is Idolatrie.

Of the Images of God, and of the Trinitie.

Section. 118 The Temples of the Romish Church are full of Images of the Trinitie; they paint an old man sitting in a chaire appa­relled like a Pope, with a Papall triple crowne, and a robe, to the end (it may be) that he should be respected because of his clothes. They also make a Pigeon hanging at his beard, and a Crucifixe in his armes. Such pictures are printed at the beginnings or titles of the Bibles printed at Rome, by autho­ritie of the Popes, Sixtus the fifth, and Clement the eight. They also serue for Signes for Alehouses and Innes, which is a common thing in Paris: where they say, Monsieur is lodged [Page 308] at the Trinitie, and his men at Gods head, making a derision of diuinity. The title of the 8. chap. of Bellar. book of Images, is, That the Images of God are not forbidden. That seemes to be done, to render to God as much as he hath done for vs. For seeing that God hath made man according to his I­mage; man, in recompence, makes God according to mans image.

This error is of late times crept into the Church of Rome, by the conniuence of an obscure age, wherein the holy Scrip­tures being taken away, the people had no other knowledge of God, then that which was giuen them in Pictures. The second Councell of Nice, wherein it is ordained that Ima­ges should be adored, excēpteth the Images of God, as a thing wherof as then they spake not. Baronius Cur tandem Patrem Domini Iesu Christi non oculu subijcimus ac pingimu [...]? Quoniam quis sit non noui­mus, Dei{que} natura spe­ctanda pro­poni non po­test ac pingi. in the 726. yeare of his Annales speaketh of two Epistles written by Pope Grego­rie the 2. a great defender of Images; in the first whereof he saith, that they painted the Sonne, but not the Father; say­ing, Why do we not set before mens eyes and paint the Fa­ther of our Lord Iesus Christ? Because we know not what he is, and the nature of God cannot be painted nor set forth to mens sight. Whereupon Baronius noteth in the margent, that since that time they haue vsed to paint God in Chur­ches, and found it requisite to do so, against that Popes de­termination. Nicephorus, a new Author,Imagines Patris et Spi­ritus Sancti essigiant quod perquam ab­surdum est. in libr. 8. cap. 53. saith, The Armenian heretickes paint the Image of God the Father, and of the holy Ghost, which is most absurd. Auen­tine, libr. 7. of the Bauarian historie saith, that Pope Iohn the 22, which liued in anno 1318. calleth certaine men (that dwelt inQuosdam qui in finibus Bohemiae at{que} Austriae su­premam, illam maiestatem senis, adoles­centis, colum­bae imagine pingebant, laesae religi­onis accersi­nit, Anthropo­morphitas esse renunciauit, quosdam ad ignem con­demnauit Bohemia and Austria) Anthropomorphites, (that is, men which thought God to haue humane shape and mem­bers) because they painted the diuine maiestie in forme of an old man, with a young man and a pigeon; and condemned them to be burnt. And among the new Doctors of the Ro­mish Church, Durand, Abulensis, and Peresius, condemne those Images, and will not haue the Image of the Trinitie to be painted in any manner.

1 Against this abomination we haue a formall commande­ment [Page 309] in the first Table of the Law of God, according to our Aduersaries translation: Thou shalt not make vnto thy selfe any grauen representation, or any likenesse whatsoeuer of that which is in heauen, &c. Deut. 5.8. Could he more expresly forbid the making of the likenesse of God which is in heauen? And in the 4. of Deut. 15.16. it is said, Take ye therefore good heed vn­to your selues, (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake vnto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire) lest ye corrupt your selues, and make you a grauen Image, the simili­tude of any figure, the likenesse of male or female. And in Esay 40.18. To whom then will you liken God, or what likenesse will you compare vnto him? In all these places it is formally forbid­den to make any resemblance of God, or to represent him by Images, and that according to the translation receiued in the Church of Rome, as also in the Hebrew.

2 Therefore, neither in the ancient Tabernacle, nor in Salomons temple, was there any picture or Image of God: al­though it was then a time of shadowes and figures.

3 The Apostle Saint Paul Rom. 1.23. among the causes for the which God blinded the Gentiles, placeth this for one, Because they turned the glorie of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man.

4 And without the word of God, Reason it selfe is most euident and plaine against it: for euerie Image and represen­tation, ought in some sort, to resemble that which it repre­senteth. Now what resemblance can the infinite Spirit haue with a peece of wood? an inuisible and immateriall sub­stance, with a visible picture? or a Spirit without bodie, with a substantiall Image? What King will endure to haue his picture made like a Frog or an Ant? And yet the distance and difference betweene the greatest Monarch in the world, and the least creature that is, is not infinite, for that both the one and the other are finite. But betweene God which is in­finite, and a mortall creature, what excellencie soeuer it is of, the distance and inequalitie is infinite. For this our Ad­uersaries bring some small excuses, not for an answer, but be­cause they will not seeme to say nothing.

5 They say, that in representing God, they intend not to represent his essence. But it is to no purpose to shew to what end men represent God by images, seeing the commande­ment giuen by God, not to represent him by images, is ge­nerall and without exception. Also it is certaine, that no man was euer so brutish, as to thinke he could represent the essence of God in a picture seeing y^t it is impossible to paint the essence of a man, or of the least beast that is. By this di­stinction then it may by said, that the prohibition which God so expresly maketh (with thteatnings) not to represent him by any image, is made to no body, seeing that no man euer went about to represent the essence of God. And there is no Pagan idolater but may excuse himselfe by this meanes.

6 They adde, that the Scripture attributeth feete, hands, eyes, and mouth to God; and therefore that we may repre­sent God in the same forme. This argument hath as good reason as if they should say, Because the Scripture in words maketh figures, let vs also make images of stones; let vs paint God with wings, and in forme of a bird; or let vs paint him like a rocke, or like a fountaine, or like a Lion, be­cause the Scripture saith that God couereth vs with the sha­dow of his wings, and calleth him our rocke, the fountaine of life, and compareth him to a Lion. This reason therefore is without reason: for the word of God which attributeth feete, hands, and eyes vnto God, expoundeth it selfe, and oftentimes elsewhere declareth, that God is a Spirit, and that he is infinite. But the images of God expound not them­selues, and there are no other images that speake to preuent the error and their grosse conceits. The people of God, and all the Patriarkes and Prophets vnderstood not this subtilty; for from those figuratiue words whereby God spake vnto them, they drew no such strange consequences, neither tooke any liberty there by to erect images of God.

7 The reason ensuing, which is, that whereof they make the greatest shew, doth also make against thems [...]lues. They say, that God sometime appeared in forme of a man, as to Daniel in forme of an old man. From whence they inferre, [Page 311] that we may paint God in the same forme wherein he appea­red. But they ought rather to reason thus, and to say that God appeared to Daniel in forme of a man, and yet the Church at that time did not represent God in that forme, but obey [...]d the commandement of God, which forbiddeth them, to corrupt themselues by making God after the image of male or female, Deut. 4. Therefore we ought to do as the Church at that time did, and obey the commandement of God. For here we argue not what God hath done, but what God will haue vs to do. The commandements and not the actions of God, are the rules of our liues. It is by his com­mandements & not by his apparitions that we shall be iudged at the latter day. It is mad religion to violate the com­mandement of God, and to counterfeit his actions: as if a man should despise the Law of God and go about to coun­terfeit thunder. And I cannot finde that God euer appeared in that forme wherein the Church of Rome represents him. He neuer appeared with a Miter with three Crownes, in a Popes robe, nor set in a Pontificall chaire.

8 Bellarmine was not ashamed to reason in this manner, God made man according to his image:Lib. 2. de reli­quijs & ima­ginibus San­ctorum, cap. 8. § Quinto. then we may make images of God. But this Cardinall, which playes with God, and maketh a iest of his word, is not ignorant, that man is created after the image of God, because his soule is illumi­nated with knowledge, and his will adorned with righte­ousnesse and holinesse: those are the lineaments and prints of image of God. In this sence it is good and necessarie that man should frame himselfe after the image of God. But from this, that God hath created man with righteousnesse and ho­linesse, to inferre, that man may paint God after the image of man, is to haue more need of a Physition then of a teacher, and of purgation then of instruction.

Whether it is lawfull to set vp pictures and images of the Saints that art dead, in the Church, for aides and helps of pietie and deuotion.

Section. 119 The Romish Churches are full of images and pictures, diuersly adorned and set forth, one with a sword; another with keyes; another with a hog, as Saint Anthonie; another with a dog, as Saint Roc, another with rats and mice, as Saint Padagond; and those beasts also haue part of the incense, and are as much lighted with candels as the Saints themselues. Saint Anthonie could not reade, yet ouer the gate of Saint Anthonies Abbey, not far from Paris, he is made with a booke in his hand. There are diuers images of Saints which are poorely clad: and there are diuers images of one Saint, some apparelled in silke, laid on with lace of gold, and which of­tentimes change their apparell; others dustie, and before whō they light not many candels. Hard by an image clothed in white damaske; you shall see one starke naked, which is the image of God. At the death of a Prince you shall see both he and shee Saints clad in blacke, and our Lady endu­ring part of the affliction. They say, they are helpes in deuo­tion, yet they hide them in Lent time, which is the time of deuotion. They call them the bookes of the ignorant: and there are many Saints which were neuer in the world, and which are Saints and neuer were men. As the three kings, Saint Longinus, Saint Vrsula, Saint Catherine, Saint Margaret, Saint Martiall, Saint Christopher, and the 11. thousand virgins, &c. And if the idoll be an image of a thing which is not, it is certaine that such images are idols, and by consequent, those that serue them are idolaters.

The naturall inclination of man hath hatched this error, but the subtiltie and pollicie of the Bishop of Rome hath bene the nurse thereof. For naturally man loueth images: little children loue babies, specially if they be finely clothed, and hauing set them in some eminent place, beare them I know not what [...]espect. This childish humor hath crept into religion, and as babies are childrens idols, so images and pictures are mens babies. For in regard that all our knowledge commeth by sense, man desireth to see an obiect of sensible deuotion: and will haue something to bind or prouoke his attention. Whereunto also the pleasure of the eye & easinesse [Page 313] inuiteth him. For it is an easier thing to see pictures then to comprehend doctrines, and to forme prayers to the image of man, then to forme man to the image of God.

Popes by their subtilty haue dexterously serued their turns with this inclination, to draw the light of the Scripture from the people, that in a darke mistie night they might lay the foundation of their Empire. For the people did easily neglect instruction, when they fed them with recreation, and were v­sed to haue images in stead of sacred books, pictures for do­ctrines, and candles lighted at noone day, in stead of the light of the holy Scripture, which driueth away the obscuri­tie of ignorance. And we see in Histories, that as fast as igno­rance increased, images also multiplied, and the Popes Em­pire was strengthened.

Against this permission to fill Churches with images, we haue the commandement of God, which not only forbiddeth to serue images or to worship them, but also to make them. For the first table of the Law is expresly made to order reli­gion and the seruice of God. Then I say, that in matter of re­ligion, God forbiddeth to make images. The words are very direct: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue, nor in the earth be­low, nor in the waters vnder the earth: Thou shalt not bow downe to them, nor worship them. There it is manifest, that in matter of religion and piety, he forbiddeth two things, one to make a­ny image or likenesse of things that are in heauen or earth: the other, to bow downe to them, or worship them. He saith not, Thou shalt make no any grauen image to worship it, but he saith, Thou shalt make no grauen image, nor worship it. For al­though the end for the which images are forbidden in mat­ter of religion, is for feare lest men should fall into idolatrie by worshipping them, yet God knowing that man is natu­rally giuen to idolatry, did not onely forbid the worship of images, but also the making of them for any religious vse, and hath prohibited the meanes and inducements thereunto for feare of the end. The like prohibition is made, Leuit. 26.1. You shall make you no idols, nor grauen image, neither reare you vp [Page 314] a standing image, neither shall you set you vp any image of stone in your land to bow downe to it. For I am the Lord your God.

Therefore also the Israelites in their Temple and in their Synagogues, had not the images of Abraham, Iacob, Moses, Samuel, nor Dauid; persons neuerthelesse which were of as much worth as S. Iuniper, or S. Amador.

Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 23. and 24. saith, that the GnostiquesEtiam ima­gines quasdam depictas, quas­dam de reli­qua materia fabricatas, di­centes formam Christi factam à Pilato. had certaine painted images, and others made of other mat­ter, saying that they were the figures of Christ made by Pilate.

Saint Augustine in his booke of Heresies, cap. 7. speaking of the Carpocratians, saith,Colebant imagines Iesus eas adorando & incensum ponendo. They serued the images of Iesus, worshipping them, and offering incense vnto them. The Col­lyridians are blamed for the same by Epiphanius in his 79, He­resie: who also being at Anablata, tore a veile in a Church wherein there was a picture of Christ, or of some other Saint; saying that it was contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, as he reciteth in an Epistle translated by Saint Hierome, and which is found in the second Tome of the said S. Hieromes Epistles.

Placuit in Ec­clesiis picturas esse non debe­re, ne quod co­litur aut ado­ratur in parie­tibus pingaturThe 36 Canon of the Councell of Eliberia, held at the same time that the Councell of Nice was holden, saith thus: It hath bene ordained that there should be no pictures in Churches, for feare lest men should adore that which is painted vpon the walls.

Our aduersaries reasons to the contrary, are rather excuses and shifts then proofes. They say, that images are the bookes of the ignorant; and they say true, for they maintaine igno­rance. It is hard for them that haue chosen stones to be their teachers, to attaine to any instruction: as S. Augustine saith,Aug. de Con­sensu Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Sic omnino er­rare merentur, qui Christum & Apostolos eius non in sanctis codici­bus, sed in pi­ctis parietibus quaesierunt. So they deserue to be seduced, which haue sought Iesus Christ and his Apostles, not in the holy Scriptures, but in painted walles. The books of the ignorant are good, when they are a remedy of ignorance. Such are the sacred bookes of the old and new Testaments: which they hide from the people, lest they should instruct the ignorant. And it is not without a mysterie, that in Lent, which is the time of prea­ching they hide the images, to shew that images ought to [Page 315] hide & draw themselues out of the way, before the preaching of the Gospell. And certainly they would hide themselues for euer, if that which they preach in the Church of Rome were the doctrine of th [...] Gospell. The Prophet Habak. cap. 2.18. calling the images of idolaters, teachers of lyes, without doubt answereth to Pagans and Iewes that were idolaters which made the like excuse. [...]. And Athanasius in his Oration against the Gentiles saith, that Pagan idolaters made this ex­cuse, saying, That images serued men in stead of bookes, wherein reading, they might comprehend the knowledge of God: and a little after, [...]. If these things serue you for bookes, as you falsly alledge, to behold and contemplate God.

They also say, that Moses by Gods commandement made a serpent of brasse, which was a figure of Iesus Christ, in that it healed the bitings of the old serpent, which is the diuell. But speaking in this manner, they make answer vnto them­selues, and confute their images. For they say that Moses made that serpent by the expresse commandement of God, but they set vp images in the Church without Gods com­mandement, and against his commandement. And yet it is false that the serpent was properly an image of Iesus Christ, (howsoeuer it were a type of Christs grace:) for what resem­blance had the forme of a serpent with the humanity of the Sonne of God? Considering also that our aduersaries say, that idols are figures of things which are not, but that images are figures of things that are. But then the humanity of Christ was not; and therefore the brazen serpent could not be an image of Iesus Christ: howbeit the sauing vertue which God displayed in the serpent, was an example and a figure of the sauing efficacie of Iesus Christ, & of the healing of our soules by his vertue. The figure was not in that heape of brasse, but in the healing.

They also alledge the image, of the Cherubins or Angels, placed vpon the Arke by Gods commandement. But what makes that for the images of Saints, which God hath not cō­manded? And yet it is false that those Cherubins were the images of some Angels: for let them tell me of which of the [Page 316] Angels those Cherubins were figures? As also that the resem­blance of Angels which are inuisible and incorporeall, cannot be made in any corporall figure. Then we must say, that those Cherubins were not the images of any Angels, but symboles and characters of their office, in the same manner as men paint vertues and vices. So we paint Enuie leane, Pride swolne and puft vp, Iustice with a sword and a paire of ballance. Which symbolicall pictures produced diuers Saints, as S. Christopher, S. Margaret, and S. George which were not the images of any Saints that euer liued in the world, but figures and characters of Christians and combats of faith, as Baronius in his booke of Martyrs is oftentimes constrained to confesse.

Being put from these weake proofes, they alwayes returne to this, that we must translate, Thou shalt make no grauen idoll, and not, no grauen image. What need haue we to dispute hereof, seeing that the words following do auoyd the dispu­tation: for God addeth, Nor resemblance or similitude whatsoe­uer. These words cut it cleane off, and admit no exception. Besides we haue shewed before, that our aduersariesThe Latine hath sculptile, in the 20 of Exod. The French hath repre­sentation in the 5. of Deut. Bibles, both Latine and French, translate the words as we do, gra­uen image, and representation.

Our aduersaries themselues sufficiently shew, that this com­mandement displeaseth them, seeing they haue taken it out of their Ladies Houres and Seruice books, which they suffer the poore people to reade. Behold word for word how the first table ofPrinted at Paris by Heu­reux Blanui­lain in S. Vi­ctors streete at the signe of the three Moores, anno 1611. the Law is set downe in our Ladies Houres af­ter the manner of Rome, and which at this day are most vsed.

1. Commandement.

I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not haue, nor worship any o­ther God but me.

2. Commandement.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine.

3. Commandement.

Remember to keepe holy the Sabboth day, and feasts.

With the like corruption they haue put the commande­ments of God into verse, where the prohibition to make any grauen image is cleane omitted. So the Councell of Aus­bourg [Page 317] which is in the last Tome of Councels,One onely God thou shalt adore, & loue him per­fectly. Thou shalt not sweare by Gods Name in vaine. holden anno 1548. puts the commandements of God in high Dutch as they are to be propounded to the people, wherein there is no speech of images: nor of the resemblance of things which are in heauen or in earth.

Herein our aduersaries do as he doth, that out of ten bags of mony stealeth one, & then puts one of the nine that are left in­to two bags, to the end y^t his theft may not be perceiued. For hauing taken one out of the ten commandements of the Law, they cut the last in two, making the not coueting of a mans wife, the ninth commandement, and the not coueting of the house, the man seruant, and the maid seruant, &c. the tenth. By this meanes they might make 14. commandements, if on e­uery thing whereof God forbiddeth the coueting they would make a commandement apart. But God, by his pro­uidence hath taken all excuse from our Aduersaries: for in the 20 of Exodus, the not coueting of our neighbours wife, which they make the ninth commandement, is thrust into the middle of the tenth, and put after the not coueting of thy neighbours house, whereby it followeth, that according to the Church of Rome, in the 20. of Exodus there is no ninth commandement.

Whereupon we should giue them good matter to make fowle exclamations against vs, if we should follow them. For what would they say of vs, or rather what would they not say, if we had bene so bold as to cut off or to suppresse one only syllable of that most sacred Law which God pronounced by his owne mouth, and wrote with his finger in Tables of stone? which he published from the midst of the fire and the smoke, with an extraordinary maiestie? Shall wormes of the earth be so audacious to correct the Law of God, or to find any thing superfluous therein? Will men be so bold to enter­prise to cut off, and to change that soueraigne Law, by the which they must be iudged at the latter day? to the end that they may be culpable, to haue not onely transgressed the Law by disobedience, but also to haue pared it through contempt, yea and to haue made it shorter by a commandement, where­in [Page 318] God speaketh with great maiestie calling himselfe strong and iealous, and thereunto adding his threatnings and his promises?

Of adoration of Images, and of the seruice and worship which is yeelded and gi­uen vnto them.

Section. 120 The holy Scripture speaketh of two adorations, one ciuill, the other religious. Ciuill adoration is that which is giuen to Princes and Superiors, yea although they be wicked. So Genesis 23, Abraham bowed himselfe before the Hethites; and Genesis 33. Iacob bowed himselfe before his brother E­sau. In which places the Hebrew word is the same which we translate to worship, when we speake of the worship of God.

Religious adoration, is an action of religion, whereby a reasonable creature humbleth himselfe before one, calling vpon him, and seruing him with seruice belonging to religi­on, appearing before him as before one that knoweth his heart and his thought and that can heare his prayers. When we dispute of the adoration of Images, we vnderstand religi­ous adoration: for this adoration is done in the Church, and by order from the Pastors; and is an act of religion, by the which in worshipping the Images of Saints, men thinke they do seruice to God.

In this point, the Church of Rome hath vnmeasurably gone astray, and hath directly striuen against God. The se­cond Councell of Nice, which the Church of Rome placeth among the generall Councels, whereof Pope Adrian the first was the procurer, aboue twenty times ordaineth that I­mages should be adored. And finally, for conclusion setteth downe this determination, which is found in the seauenth Act: We hold that we must adore, and salute the Images of the virgine Mary the vndefiled mother of God, and of the [Page 319] glorious Angels, and of all the Saints. And that if any one be of a contrarie opinion, and doubteth or wauereth tou­ching the adoration of venerable Images, our holy and ve­nerable Synode holdeth him to be accursed. In the same Councell there is an Epistle written by Pope Adrian to Thae­rasius Patriarch of Constantinople, where the said Pope faith thus; Let your Holinesse perseuer to serue andImagines omnium San­ctorum beati­tas vestra co­lere & ado­rare pergat. adore the Images of all the Saints. There also Images are aduan­ced to such degree of excellencie and holinesse, that in the fourth action it is said, ThatVt etiam meo iudicio cum sanctis Euangelijs & veneranda cruce aequiua­leant. Images are of like and equall value with the holy Gospell. Also, Maior est Imago quàm o­ratio. And, to the end that men might paint Angels, it is said in the fift Action, that The ChurchEcclesia sentit non om­nino esse cor­poris expertes & inuisibiles, verùm tenui corpore prae­ditos aerio siue igneo. holdeth, that Angels are corporeall and not inuisible, hauing a body either of aire, or of fire.

Now, to the end that by adoring we should not onely vn­derstand to reuerence, honour or respect, but also to yeeld and to giue them religious worship, the Patriarch Tharasius, which was President at that Councell, pronounced this sen­tence in the 6. Action: All those which confesse that they reuerence Images, & neuerthelesse refuse to adore them, are reproued by the holy father Anastasius to be hypocrites: for when they refuse that adoration, which is a signe or marke of honour, it is manifest that they do the contrary, that is, that they speake iniuriously of the Saints.

Following this doctrine, our Aduersaries haue written di­uers bookes De cultu Imaginum: Of the worship of Ima­ges. Cardinall Bellarmine, in the 22. chapter of his booke of Images, will haue them to be adored, not onely in re­gard of that which they represent, but also in themselues; saying, The ordinarie adoration which men giue to exter­nall Images, is in themselues, and properly. And in the 21. chapter he setteth downe this maxime in great letters, saying, thatImagines Christi, & Sanctorum venerandae sunt, non so­lum per acci­dens, vel im­propriè, ita vt ipsae terminēt venerationem vt in se consi­derantur, & non solùm vt vicem gerunt exemplaris. the Images of Christ, & of Saints ought to be worship­ped, not onely by accident, and improperly, but in them­selues, and properly: in such manner, that the worshipping is limited to the Image considered in it selfe, and not onely [Page 320] in this, that it representeth the person for whom it is made.

Gregorie de Ʋalentia Editionis Paris. p. 1610 Nec absurdè putaueris B. Petrum insi­nuasse cultum aliquem simu­lacrorum (nē­pe sacrarum Imaginum) esse, cùm fide­les nominatim ab illicitis i­dolorum cul­tibus deter­rere voluit. the Iesuite, in his second booke of Idolatrie, cha. 7. hath these words; It is not absurd to thinke, that Saint Peter would say, that some religious seruice of I­mages (which are sacred Images) is good, when he would expresly withdraw the faithfull from vnlawfull worship of Idoles. The reason is, seeing that Saint Peter forbiddeth the vnlawfull worship of Idols, it is a signe that there is a lawfull worship.

But this is worse, and such as would make a mans haire to stand vpright vpon his head to heare it. Ʋasques the Iesuite, De adoratione, lib. 3. disp. 1. cap. 2. p. 458. printed in Mogun­tia, anno 1601, in 8.Non solùm Imago depi­cta, & res sa­cra authori­tate publica in cultum Dei exposita; sed quaeuis etiam alia res mun­di siue inani­ma & irrati­onalis, siue ra­tionalis ex na­tura rei, et se­cluso periculo, ritè, cū Deo si­cut Imago eius adorari potest. Ibi. §. 8. p. 455 Quid quaso obstare potest quo minu [...] quamcunque rem mundi cum Deo qui in ea est secun­dùm essentiam & quam contin [...]a sua virtute conseruat, secluso periculo, adorare & colere pos­simus? maintaineth, that all things, euen vn­reasonable creatures, and without life, may be adored with God, as being his Image. In such manner, that according to this Doctors opinion, men may worship a Frog or a Mouse, considering them to be the Images of God, and in as much as God is present in them. Nay, he proceedeth further, to maintaine that it is lawfull for Christians to worship a straw. saying, The Wicklessians in vaine obiect against Christians which worship Images, that they may as well adore a straw, because in it there appeared some signe or token of the Tri­nitie. For Leontius would as willingly haue confessed the same touching a straw, which he confessed of al other things; so farre off is it to be thought to be absurd.

Then seeing that the Doctors themselues are so blinded, it is no maruell that the common people are so furiously su­perstitious, about the seruice and worship of Images. ForCap. De Oratione: Cum ad Imaginem sancti alicuiu [...] orationem Dominicam pre­nuntiat, itatum sentiat, se tum ab illo petere vt secum eret. they fall downe before them, they light Candles vnto them, they put costly apparell vpon them, and bring them offe­rings. In the beginning of Lent, the people go on procession to the Image of our Lady, to haue leaue to eate butter. Poore old women rub their kerchers vpon the feet of an Image, and then kisse them. The Catechisme of the Councell of Trent, [Page 321] thinks it good, that before the Image of an he or a she Saint, men should say, Our Father which art in heauen. It is an ordi­narie thing to speake to a peece of wood or to a painted I­mage, as if it vnderstood them. There are particular pray­ers which are made to the Image of the face of Iesus Christ,Salue sancta faci [...]s nostri redemptoris. In qua nitet species diuini splendoris: Im­pressa panni­culo niuei candoris. Salue vultu [...] Domini ima­go beata. Nos deduc ad pro­pria ô foelix figurā ad vi­dendam faciē quae est Christi pura. printed in a peece of linnen cloth, wherein the words are di­rectly spoken to the painted cloth and to the Image, and are not agreeable to Iesus Christ. The prayer saith: I salute thee, oh holy face of the Redeemer, printed in a white cloth, giuen to Ʋeronique in signe of loue. Cleanse vs from vices, & ioyne vs in societie with the blessed. Oh blessed Image, and happy figure, cause vs to see the face of Iesus Christ. With the like abuse, when they lift vp the Image of the Crosse, they say, Aue lignum triumphale, All haile triumphant wood. And, Aue crux spes vnica, All haile ô crosse our onely hope, in­crease righteousnesse in the faithfull, and pardon sinners. This superstition beganne already to enter into the mindes of some particular persons in Saint Augustines time, of whom he speaketh thus, Libr. 1. cap. 34. of the Customes of the catholike Church: saying,Noui multos esse sepulcro­rum & pictu­rarum adora­tores. Noui multos qui super mortuos luxurio sissimè bibant. I know that there are many wor­shippers of Sepulchers and Pictures: I know many which drinke excessiuely ouer the dead.

Against this so prodigious an abuse, and so lamentable blindnesse, we haue the commandement of the Law of God, which our Aduersaries haue put out of their Ladies houres and seruices; Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, nor the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen aboue, nor in the earth below, nor in the waters vnder the earth, thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them. This word pronounced with thunder and lightening, as yet thundreth against idolatrie, and lighteneth darknesse. So Iesus Christ said to the diuell, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue. Reade Leuit. 26.1.

Against this so cleare and manifest word of God, accom­panied with terrible threatnings, our aduersaries shroud themselues with weake reasons, as if a man should hide him­selfe in the water, against raine.

1 They contest about the words Idoll and Image, but the Bible of their owne translation saith, grauen image and repre­sentation. And the general prohibition not to make any resem­blance of things which are in heauen and in earth, (which is added thereunto,) stops all euasions whatsoeuer.

2 They say y^t they reserue all diuine worship called Latria vnto God & yeeld an inferior religious worship called Dulia, to Saints and their images: but the word of God speaketh but of one religious seruice, and that is to be performed to God onely. When the prohibition to adore Images is generall in the Law, it belongs not to man to make any restraints or ex­ceptions against it, drawne out of their owne braines. Such distinctions are to be receiued when they are contained in the word of God. It belongs to the law maker, and not to subiects, to make exceptions vpon the law. Now our aduer­saries neither bring places out of the Scripture, commande­ment of God, nor any examples, which in any sort do ap­proue or establish religious adoration of creatures. But on the contrarie, in the Scripture this religious seruice which our aduersaries call Dulia, is expresly reserued to God onely, with an expresse prohibition to attribute it to any other but to God. So in Sam. 1.7. The Greeke hath, [...]: Direct or prepare your hearts to the Lord, and giue Dulia to him onely. And Paul, Gal. 4.8. [...], Then when you knew not God you gaue Dulia, that is, you serued those who by nature were no Gods. And whosoe­uer vnderstandeth Greeke, knoweth that Latria is lesse then Dulia; for Latria simply signifieth seruice of honour, reue­rence, and subiection; but Dulia, (besides that,) importeth a slauish seruitude. Saint Augustine in his 20 booke, cap. 21. a­gainst Faustus a Manichee, & in his Questions vpon Genesis, lib. 1. cap. 61. vseth this distinction, but in contrary sence to our aduersaries. For he saith, that Dulia is giuen to men that are aliue▪ and consequently by the word Dulia he vnderstan­deth no religious seruice. And in fine, who seeth not the p [...]ruersitie of this proceeding? For after they haue suppressed [Page 323] the second commandement of the Law, if any one make it knowne to the people, they set before them a forked distin­ction of words in bad Greeke, which the people vnderstand not, and which those that are wise know to be mistaken, rai­sing vp a cloud of dust with their Latria, Dulia, and Hyper­dulia, to escape through this thicke mist.

3 If these two sorts of religious adoration were receiued, the proofes which the Scripture vseth to proue the diuinity of Christ, would be weake and of no force. As when the Apostle, Hebr. 1.6, proueth Christs diuinitie by this which he writeth of him, That all the Angels of God worship him; the enemies of his diuinitie would say, that there he speakes of an inferior adoration, and which may be attributed to a creature.

4 They say, that the honour which men do to Images, turneth to the honour of that which they represent; which is the speech of all idolaters. So Michaes mother, Iudges 17.3. determining to make a molten Image in the house of God, said, I had wholly dedicated the siluer vnto the Lord from my hand, for my sonne to make a grauen Image. And therupon Micha perswaded himselfe that God would blesse him. It appeareth by the 5 and 6 verses of the 18 chapter, that the prayers made before that Image were directed vnto God. The same excuse a Pagan made kneeling on his knees before an Image, as Saint Augustine saith vpon the 113. Psalme, saying, I worship not the Image, but thereby I represent vnto my selfe the re­semblance of that which I should adore.

5 If we consider what honours men yeeld and giue vnto Images of Saints, we shall finde that the honour is properly done to the Image, and that the Saint is neuer the more ho­nored; and that Bellarmine hath reason to say, that the Image is worshipped for it selfe. For when they clothe an Image, the Saint is not adorned thereby; if they offer to an Image, the Saint hath no part thereof; if they set vp candles lighted be­fore an Image, the Saint is not lighted therewith; if any man speakes to an Image, the Saint esteemeth himselfe to be no more honored then if a King should thinke himselfe to be ho­noured, when a man speaketh to his picture before his face.

6 The abuse is euident, in that our aduersaries to vntwine themselues, twist intricate cords of darke words, giuing vs an adoration of Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia, and each of them either absolute or relatiue; in such manner, that there are sixe sorts of religious adoration which the people neither vnder­stand nor practise, who falling downe before an Image, come thither with all their deuotion, and diuide not their intents into so many parts. Whosoeuer shall enter into the examina­tion of these adorations, shall find that in them there is not onely deceit and intricatenesse, but also manifest foolish­nesse: for the last refuge of our aduersaries is, to say, that the adoration of Images is a relatiue adoration, and which hath regard to the thing represented by the Image. But that is no­thing, for to adore an Image relatiuely, is to adore the Image; and to adore an Image, hauing a regard to the Saint which it representeth, is no adoration of the Saint. And seeing that the adoration of the Image is relatiue, and the adoration of the Saint is absolute and not relatiue, it followeth, that the ado­ration of the Saint, and the adoration of his Image are two sorts of adoration. And which is more, If this relatiue adora­tion be receiued, there is no creature in the world but it may be adored. So men may adore and worship the Sunne, and the Moone, and beasts, and trees, and say that such adoration is relatiue to God, & that they adore them because of him that created them, and in respect of him.

7 Adde hereunto, that all these distinctions onely serue to shew what the intent of the Church of Rome is, but not to ground this intention vpon the word of God, nor to shew that God or the Saints approue this relatiue adoration. For if it were lawfull to worship and adore Saints, yet before we should adore their Images with relatiue adoration, it were good to be assured that the Saints will be honoured in that sort. Seeing it is not likely that a king would thinke himselfe to be honoured by him that should do reuerence to his pi­cture, or that should speake to his cloke, although he should say, that the honour he doth is relatiue, and the reuerence re­spectiue.

8 They adde, that the abuse offered to an Image redoun­deth to him that is represented by that Image; whence, say they, it followeth, by a reason drawne from cōtraries, that the honour which is done to an Image, is an honour to him that is represented thereby. I answer, it is false, that the disgrace done to an Image, doth alwayes disgrace him that is re­presented thereby: for oftentimes he which is represented, hateth that representation. So the King ordaineth that his Image stamped vpon false money shall be cut in peeces, and molten. The Israelites worshipped the brazen serpent in ho­nour of God▪ and yet Ezechias did well to breake downe that serpent; for it is not credible that those which worshipped that brazen serpent did beleeue that a peece of brasse was the soueraigne God: but they referred an inferiour adoration vnto it, in remembrance of the vertue which God had shewed thereby.

9 They mend the matter much, by saying that they wor­ship not the Images of false gods, as the Pagans did, but the Images of the friends and seruants of God. For we must not transport that religious seruice which is due to God onely, to his friends nor to his enemies. If it be euill to honour euill things, it is euill to abuse good things, and to vse Gods friends to prouoke him to iealousie. Idolatrie in the Scripture is cal­led adultery. A woman is not excusable, although she giueth her body adulterously to none but to her husbands friends. Then this excuse shall be allowed, when they haue proued that God will haue the Images of his seruants to be adored.

10 They also alledge a number of false miracles, done by Images. But if they were true, doth it follow y^t we must adore all that wherby God hath done miracles? Then we must adore the asses iaw which Samson vsed, Moses rod, and the water of Iordan which healed Naaman, and many such like things.

11 Wanting reasons, they haue recourse to the Scripture, hoping that that will serue them without reason. The second Councell of Nice, and Pope Adrian which expresly made a declaration fot the defence of that Councel, with a ridiculous subtiltie collected an heape of places out of the Scripture for [Page 326] the adoration of Images: as in the second of Cant. it is said, Shew me thy face, Act. 6. & let me heare thy voyce. In the second of Ge­nesis it is said, God made man after his own image. And Exod. 18 Moses bowed downe to Iethro his father in law. And Rom. 15. Paul saith,Act 4. Act. 6. That all things which are written, are written for our instruction. And Psalme 47, As we haue heard, so we haue seene. And Luke. 18, No man after he hath lighted a candle, set­teth it vnder a bushell. Vpon these places those reuerend Fa­thers grounded the adoration of Images. They forgot Goliah combat with Dauid, and Samsons foxes, for those may be al­leadged to as good porpose for the adoration of Images. Whosoeuer doth not acknowledge the absurditie of these proofes, is blinder then images themselues.

12 New commers vse other weapons. Bellarmine in the 12 chap. of the booke of Images,Imagines Che­rubin super arca existen­tes necessariò adorabantur ab ijs qui ar­cam adora­bant. saith, that the Iewes worship­ped the Cherubins placed vpon the Arke. First I say, if that be true, it must needs be that God commanded it, but that is no where to be found. Secondly, if the Israelites adored the Che­rubins, they would much more haue adored the Angels figu­red, as they say, by those Cherubins; which before we haue shewed to be false. Thirdly, if the Israelites adored the two Cherubins placed vpon the Arke, then the Cherubins must needs haue bene the Images of some certaine Angels, other­wise they should haue adored they knew not what. In the Church of Rome it selfe, they worship not any Image whose name they know not, and what Saint it representeth: but those Cherubins had no names, nor were the figures of any particular Angels. Then to worship them had bene a seruice done to an vnknowne Cherubin, as in Athens they worship­ped the vnknowne God. Fourthly, adde hereunto, that if the Israelites adored those Images, then it must needs be that they saw them. But the Cherubins were shut vp in the San­ctuarie, and the people saw them not, no more then those that were painted in the curtaines in the holy place. And for the space of 500 yeares and more after Salomons time, the people saw them not. God by taking them away from the peoples sight, preuented idolatrie. Fiftly and lastly, [Page 327] put the case, that the people did adore the Arke, (which ne­uerthelesse is false) yet thereby it followeth not, that they adored the Cherubins placed vpon the Arke. He that salu­teth the king, doth he salute his hat, or his clothes? There is neither reason nor apparence thereof.

13 In the end, failing of better proofes, they produce two notable falsifications of the Scripture. They say, that in the Psalme 98. verse 5. it is said, Worship the stoole vnder his feete. From whence they draw this ridiculous consequence, that we must adore Images. But according to the Hebrew it is, Worship towards the stoole vnder his feete. So the holy place is called, towards the which the people turned their faces when they worshipped; in the same manner & termes as it is said in the last v. of the same Psal. Worship toward the mountaine of his holinesse. The Chaldean Paraphrase expounds it so, & Nicola [...] de Lira, Pagninus, and Arias Montanus do the like. It is true, that to adore God, or to fall downe before God, are all one thing. And when we speake of ciuill adoration, to worship the king, or to kneele before the king, is all one. But when we speake of things insensible, to kneele downe before an altar, or before a mountaine, is not to adore the altar or the mountaine: specially in matter of religious adoration, which God reserued to himselfe onely, and which is enioyned by his commandement.

14 With the like falsenesse and to the same end, they al­ledge Hebrewes, 11.21. where it is said according to the Ro­mane translation, that Iacob dying, Adorauit fa­stigium virgae eius. blessed both the sonnes of Io­seph, and worshipped the end of his staffe. But in Greeke it is [...], he worshipped vpon the end of his staffe. The second Councell of Nice in the se­cond Act translateth faithfully, saying, Iacob in summitate vir­gae adorauit, and not summitatem. The Iesuites Ribera and Ema­nuell Sa, translate this place as we do. The thing is as cleare as day, and the falsification of the place most euident.

Of adoration or worshipping of the Crosse. And of the signe of the Crosse made in the aire.

Section. 121 The Crosse of Christ is the glory of the faithfull, the support of their hope, and their principall consolation. This Crosse is a terror to the diuels the victory of hell, the death of death e­ternall. It is the body of the shadowes of the Law, the truth of figures, the substance of Prophecies, the foundation of the Couenant made with God, the effect of the Gospell. For in it consisteth our learning to know Iesus Christ and him cruci­fied. This Crosse is more worth then kings Crowns; the suffe­rings of the Sonne of God surpasse the triumphs of mighty Monarkes, his death is more worth then the life of all men.

But by the Crosse of Christ I do not vnderstand a peece of wood, but the sufferings and passion of our Sauiour, Colos. 1.18.19. it is said, For it pleased the Father by him to reconcile all things to himselfe, through peace made by that bloud of the Crosse. God hath washed our soules in his bloud, and buried our sinnes in his death. There is nothing sweeter to our con­sciences then the remembrance of this bitternesse, nothing more honourable then this reproch.

Ancient Christians in Tertullians time, that is 200 yeares after the birth of our Lord, marked their foreheads with the signe of the Crosse, to witnesse that they were not ashamed of the Crosse of Christ. Not long after they proceeded to paint the figure of the Crosse. The Labarum or standart borne in the wars before the Emperors of Rome, namely before Constan­tine, was made like a Crosse. But Constantine added thereunto the name of Christ, which made some say, that Constantine fixed the signe of the Crosse in his standart. Kings made that signe to be stamped vpon their moneys, and carried it in the flags of their Christians ships. Vntill that time there was no­thing to be disliked therein.

But when deuotion began to degenerate and turne to superstition, euery age adding some new thing, after that [Page 329] men had once learned to make wisedome or comelinesse a rule, in stead of subiecting themselues to the rule of the word of God, the signe of the Crosse made both in the aire, and painted, did insensibly change his nature. Men began to make the signe of the Crosse in the aire by forme of coniu­ration to driue away diuels: and to make a precise multitude of Crosses vpon the host, and vpon the chalice by order; and if a Priest failed in that number, the mysterie was spoyled. Pope Innocent the third in his booke of the Mysteries of the Masse, cap. 58. saith,Efficit super ea crucis sig­naculum, vt per crucis vir­tutem omnis conatus diabo­licae maligni­tatis effugiat, ne contra sa­cerdotem vel sacrificium a­liquo modo praeualeant. That the Priests make signs of the Crosse vpon the host to withstand the force of diuels, lest they should preuaile against the Priest, or against the host, which is Iesus Christ, (if we will beleeue it.) This did come in good time to Iesus Christ. It is no small benefit that a Priest doth to his God to defend him with signes of the Crosse made in the aire against the force of the diuell.

With an abuse much worse then that, they adore little peeces of wood, which they say to be peeces of the wood of the true Crosse, with diuine worship called Latria, that is, so­ueraigne adoration which belongeth to God onely;Thomas 3 parte. Quaest. 5. Artic. 3 & 4. & Caieta­nus in Tho­mam. Ibid. Alexander 3. parte. Quaest. 30. art. vltimo. Bonauentura, Marcellus, Al­mano Carthu­sianus, Capreo­lus in 3. dist. 9. Henricus quodlibetico, 10. 4. 6. Nanclantus in epist. ad Rom. c. 1. as al­most all the Doctors of the Romish Church teach. And they adore the Image of the Crosse with religious worship, as Car­dinall Bellarmine in the 30 chap. of his book of Images saith,Omnes cru­ces adoramus quia omnes sunt imagines verae crucis. We worship all Crosses because all of them are Images of the true Crosse, yea and simple Crosses without the crucifixe. We adore (saith he) the Crosse it selfe without the crucifixe thereon. Therefore also they offer incense vnto it, as we see in the Pontificall. And when they lift vp the Crosse, they say, Ecce crux, adoremus. And they speake to the wood of the Crosse, saying, Aue lignum triumphale, All haile triumphant wood, and Aue crux spei vnica, auge pijs iustitiam, reis{que} dona veniam: I salute thee oh Crosse, our onely hope, increase righ­teousnesse in the faithfull, and pardon sinners. You must note that they do not worship the Image of the Crosse but after it hath bene consecrated, and that he which did consecrate it, presently thereupon doth worship it, as the Pontificall teacheth, in the chapter of the Blessing of a new Crosse: [Page 330] Hoc signum crucis tuae sit remedium sa­lutare generi humano, sit soliditas fidei, profectus bo­norū operum, redemptio ani­marum, sola­tium & pro­tectio ac tute­la contrà saua iacula inimi­corum. and that when the Crosse is blest, they be se [...] oh God, that that signe of the Crosse may be a sauing remed [...]e, the redemp­tion of soules, and a defence against the cruell arrowes of ad­uersaries.

But we, who by so many afflictions and persecutions haue learned to beare the Crosse of Christ, and to glory in his re­proch, and which with the Apostle, Galat. 6.14. say, God for­bid that I should reioyce, but in the Crosse of our Lord Iesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified vnto me, and I vnto the world; be­cause of the abuse haue left off making the signe of the Crosse and painting it in our Churches, knowing how therein d [...] ­ceite is easie, and superstition credulous, and the effects dan­gerous, so farre as to worship a peece of wood with that worship which is due vnto God onely.

1 Then to begin with adoration of peeces of the Crosse, Paul Rom. 14.13. saith, that whatsoeuer i [...] not of faith is sinne: and speaketh this concerning the vse of meates, in which that a man sinne not, he will haue him to vse them in faith, that is to say, with assurance that God liketh that which he doth therin, & that it is not contrary to his word: by greater reason then, we must haue this assurance in matters of adoration, and when question is made touching the yeelding of religi­ous seruice to the creature. For first, how shall a man be assu­red that that chip of wood is a peeece of the true Crosse? see­ing that if the wood of the Crosse which at this day is kept in relickes, were all put together in a heape, it would be wood enough to loade fiftie carts? Specially seeing there was a publicke trafficke made of that wood in our fa­thers times, and that the same wood is distributed abroad like merchandise? In the yeare of our Lord 1239. Iohn de Brennet calling himselfe king of Ierusalem, hauing need of money, sold the Crowne of thornes to Lewis the ninth king of France, a meeke, vpright, and religious Prince according to the time, but easie to be circumuented: and the true Crosse to the Venetians, who sold the same againe for twice the value that they paid for it, to the said king Lewis: who for those relicks onely caused the holy Chappell in the pallace of Paris [Page 331] to be built to keepe them in.

2 Secondly, it is impossible to worship peeces of wood with assurance that God liketh of that adoration, seeing that God hath not commanded it, and that there is not one word spoken thereof in the Scripture: besides that God hath for­bidden to worship and serue any other but himselfe, as we haue proued in the precedent Section, and that the Prophets in all their Prophecies condemne those that worship wood and stone.

3 Adde hereunto, that if a peece of wood which men by coniecture suppose to be a peece of the true Crosse, ought to be adored with religious worship, much more the whole Crosse. And if at this day a peece of rotten worme eaten wood ought to be worshipped, by greater reason the whole Crosse ought to haue bene adored when it stood vpright, and was yet bloudy and hote with the bloud of Iesus Christ: and yet the Apostles did not then adore it, nor commanded the faithfull to adore it. It had bene an easie matter for euery one of them to haue cut a peece thereof to beare about them, to serue them for a preseruatiue against euill aire, against thunder, and against the diuels; but they neuer thought vpon it. And not onely they, but also the Christians after them for the space of three hundred yeares, left that Crosse, without once troubling themselues to seeke for it. Certainly our ad­uersaries by their scrupulous dilligence accuse the Apostles of carelesnesse and negligence.

Bellarmine in the Booke of Images, cap. 20 and 22, percei­uing that in it there is an abuse, opposeth himselfe against that multitude of Doctors who will haue the Crosse to be worshipped with diuine worship called Latria, which is due to God and will haue the Crosse to be worshiped with an in­feriour worship, by that meanes making the worshipping of the crosse to be another worship then that wherewith men worship the crucifixe, which ought to haue soueraigne worship. And hereby he troubled the imagination of the peo­ple, who worshipping the Crosse, thinke they do but one worship but Bellarmine will haue them to do two at one time, [Page 332] and to cut their deuotion in two peeces. But how soeuer he pretend to adore the Crosse with inferiour religious seruice, yet still he yeeldeth religious seruice to the creature, and so incurreth that punishment set downe in the Law of God, a­gainst those that serue the creature in stead of seruing God onely.

It is to no purpose for them to say, that the wood of the true Crosse is to be worshipped, because it touched the body of Iesus Christ. If that be so, that part of the Crosse which touched the body of our Lord, ought to be more worshipped then that part which touched it not. And by that reason we must worship the ground whereon Christ went, and the ri­uer wherein he was baptized, and their handes that strooke him, and Iudas mouth that kissed him. And we must therupon haue some commandement of God, to worship those things which touchted the body of our Lord.

Certainly if the body of our Lord by being touched did sanctifie insensible things, in such manner as to make them worthy of worship, much more would he haue sanctified those, who bearing great loue vnto him, had touched him. Then why would he haue depriued Marie Magdalen of that grace,Ioh. 20.17. saying vnto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father? The Church of Rome doth not worship emptie chalices, although they beleeue that the bloud of Christ hath bin in them. It doth not worship the Priest when it beleeueth that he hath Iesus Christ in his stomacke. And certainly after the death of a Priest, it is a wonder that his stomacke which was wont to be the ordinarie receptacle of Iesus Christ, is not layed vp among Relickes, and consecrated for that touching.

Touching the adoration of the Image of the Crosse, we haue already condemned it to be idolatrie, by all that which we formerly produced against adoration of Images. And if it be idolatrie to worship the Image of a liuing thing, much more to worship the Image of a senslesse thing. And I would gladly know, to whom they speake, when in the Romish Church they say, I salute thee wood. Do they speake to Iesus [Page 333] Christ? Iesus Christ is not wood. Do they speake to the wood? That wood vnderstands them not. Do they speake to that wood in honour of Iesus Christ? That whereunto men speake in honour of Iesus Christ, ought to vnderstand what a man saith. No man (if he be not mad) doth speake to the wood of the kings chaire in honor of the king. But on the contrary, he were worthy to be bound with Hyppocrates bands, that speaketh to a painted chaire, and doth reuerence thereunto. That is it which is done in the Romish Church: where they not onely speake to the Crosse, but also to the Image of the Crosse, adoring it.

To be short, we must alwaies haue recourse to the com­mandement of God, and to the prohibition to make any I­mage, nor the likenesse of things which are in heauen or in earth, nor to fall downe before them, nor to do any worship vnto them.

Touching this custome of carrying a peece of the wood of the true Crosse about men, note by the way, that the nature of false religions is to change vertues into outward shewes, and necessary piety into superfluous ceremonies. And so to o­bey the commandement of our Sauiour, that will haue vs to beare his Crosse; & for example, in the Church of Rome they beare a peece of wood hanging about their necks. They car­rie the Crosse hanging down vpon their bellies, but that bel­ly is an enemy to Iesus Christ. But touching the true Crosse wherof Iesus Christ speaketh, which is affliction for the Gos­pell, the Church of Rome makes vs beare that: persecuting those which say the Crosse of Christ is our onely satisfaction, our onely merit, and our onely propitiatory sacrifice.

Of Relickes, and of their worship.

Section. 122 Our difference is not, whether we must with honour keepe the relickes of Saints, or whether their sepulchers ought to be set in decent places, and their memories honourable. That [Page 334] is not questionable: for if with a commendable curiositie we visite the Sepulchers of ancient Pagan Emperors, and persons of great fame, either for military vertues, or knowledge in good learning, and doing so we are not blamed: how much more willingly would we see the tombes of the Apostles, and of thoses organs of the holy Ghost, which yet speake now after they are dead? And if their sepulchers were in an vnde­cent place, or exposed to the comtempt and disgrace of infi­dels, it were a godly duty and a good worke, to transport them into some more conuenient and sure place. If Vigilantius said, that the bones of Saints ought to be cast vpon dunghils; & if Hierome did truly and without passion report the opinion of that person, there is not one of vs but would abhorre those profane words. It is true, that our aduersaries obiect against vs, that during the troubles and ciuill warres, we burnt the Saints relickes, and melted the shrines wherein their bodies lay: But if those relickes had bene true relickes, and worthy of reuerence, yet they do wrong to impute that to the religiō which was done by the insolency of certaine souldiers, wher­of a great part were of the Romish Church; & seruing those that first hired them, had authority among ours to haue part of the booty. They ought also to remember, that those things were done by the souldiers without warrant frō the Church, to reuenge those massacres and burnings which were done vpon and against vs many yeares before we thought vpon our owne defence. It is a small matter to spoyle Churches, in re­spect of burning and massacring of the faithfull, which are the temple of God. And it is an hard & a difficult thing, when men are once entred into armes, to retaine and hold them that are prouoked to anger within the bounds of mediocritie. But the chiefe point is, that all those relickes which were in that manner dispersed, were of the same nature with those which are yet left, that is, false relickes of true Saints, or true relickes of false Saints that liued not long since, and were be­holding to the Pope for their title of Saints. Which if those that worshipped them had buried in perpetuall obliuion, they had thereby healed Christendome of a great wound and had [Page 335] abolished strange superstition. Adde hereunto, that by the dissipation of relickes obiected vnto vs, the number of re­lickes is rather increased then diminished. For soone after they forged others in greater number, which being newer and lesse vsed, ought to be of greater value, and haue more vertue.

Who could here declare the enormitie of this abuse? In the Church of Rome they adore bones old clothes, milke, and haires: they speake vnto those relickes, they kisse them, they perfume them with incense they offer vnto them, and they carrie them about in procession. When they shew them vnto the people, alwaies the basin is hard by, whereinto e­uery one throwes a peece of money. The second Councell of Nice holden anno 787. in the 6 Action, will haue their bones,Edit. Colon. p. 104. Ossa, cine­res, pannos, sanguinem, se­pulcra deni{que} martyrum a­doramus. §. 14. Me tan­to licet mune­re indignissi­mum praemisit explorare & adorare vene­randum Caeci­liae corpus. ashes, and old clothes worshiped. Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of the booke of Relickes grounded the worshiping of them vpon these words of Chrysostome, in his Sermon vpon Iuuentius and Maximus: Tumulos martyrum adoremus: Let vs adore Martyrs tombes: putting adoremus for adornemus, by an euident falshood. Cardinall Baronius in his 9 tome, an. 821, saith, that Pope Clement the 8, sent him to view and to wor­ship the venerable body of Caecile. Without the quire of Saint Pauls Church in Paris on the left side, the miracles of Saint Roc are painted, with this inscription, That men are hea­led of a bile or a plague-sore by adoring his pretious body. The catechisme of the Councell of Trent, in the exposition of the third commandement, approueth the custome to sweare by the relickes of Saints. Now to sweare by any thing, is to take it for a witnesse of the puritie of our conscience, & for a reuenge in case of periurie: which belongs onely vnto God, whose commandement in the sixt of Deuteronomie is thus, Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God, and shalt serue him, and sweare by his name. This was the forme and manner of an oath vsed in Israel, The eternall liueth, and, As true as God liueth, &, I call God to witnesse. But they neuer sware by the creature. It is a friuo­lous excuse to say, that to sweare by relickes, is to sweare by God which hath sanctified them: for by the same reason we [Page 336] may sweare by the Sunne, and by heauen, and by the earth, and excuse our selues and say, that we vnderstand by them God which created those things. As also when they speake to those relickes, worshipping them, they say things vnto them which are not agreeable vnto God. When they say, God preserue thee triumphant wood, they speake not to God, which is not wood. Or if men speake to wood in honour of God, that thing whereunto one speaketh in honour of God, must alwayes vnderstand that which is spoken vnto it. The worship of relickes ought to be relatiue, so the greater part of our aduersaries say. Then to adore relickes, is not to adore God, for we must adore God with absolute adoration, and for the loue of God onely. So the prayer which they make to the Iron point of the speare, is spoken in termes which are not agreeable with Iesus Christ; for after they haue said vnto it,In hymno, Aue ferrum trium­phale. Felix hasta nos a­more, per te fixo saucia. I salute thee triumphant Iron, they say vnto it, Wound vs with the loue of him, whom thou didst pierce. To these re­lickes the people go with such feruent desire, that the ser­uice of God is key-cold in respect of that. All the Angels together haue not the fourth part of the honour which the people in Paris giue to the shrines of Saint Geneuiefue, and Saint Marcel.

But if we looke nearer into these reliques, we cannot but admire their ingredients, and the diuersitie of trinkets and toyes contained in them. The cautions of the Masse or­daine, that if Mice haue eaten the body of our Lord, those beasts shall be taken and burnt, & their ashes put into coffins or shrines for relickes. The same commandement is made touching the casting vp of the sacrament by a priest, or a sicke person that shal haue cast his god out of his belly. At Beauvais in Beauvoisis, there is one of S. Christophers teeth, so great, that a dozen such teeth will fill the mouth of an ouen. At Rome, in Saint Iohn de Latrans Church, they keepe the fore­skin of Iesus Christ. In the Church which is in the Parke of wood at Vincennes, they haue some of the powder of Saint Martins cloake, and one of Iesus Christs sucking teeth. At Courchiuerney neare to Bloys, they keepe Iosephs hemme at [Page 337] the sound of his breathing when he hewed timber. Our pil­grimes from Galicia bring feathers of hennes that are of the race of that Cocke which crowed when Saint Peter de­nied Iesus Christ. Cardinall Baronius, in the nine hundred and two and twentieth yeare of his Annales, maketh men­tion of a locke of the haire of Saint Peters beard which did miracles:Quantumli­bet ipsi qui fu praeius se­dem sedent eam impugnēt moribus prae­uis. And although (saith he) those that do sit in his Throne, seeke to ouerthrow it by euill manners. And these reliques are kept so many yeares, and neuer corrupt. They say, that the virgine Maries Milke hath continued sixeteene hundred yeares, and neuer was sowre.

In the meane time, we see the hosts which are called Iesus Christ, become mouldie in a few dayes, and the presence of Iesus Christ which is life it selfe, cannot keepe the acci­dents of this ridiculous corruption from moulding; by the which they will haue the roundnesse, the breadth, the white­nesse, and the softnesse, to mould and breede wormes; that is to say, that from Accidents they should turne into Sub­stance. But not long since some reliques are become cor­rupt. For Gregorie of Tours, at the end of his Historie, saith, That hauing visited the reliques in S. Martins church in Tours, he found them to be very rotten, but many years after they were all whole againe. The falshood of these re­liques appeareth not onely by the absurditie, but in this, that they are contradicted by the truth of ancient Histories, as also by our aduersaries themselues.

At Chartres they haue the virgine Maries smocke, which was brought from Constantinople into France by Charles the Bald, as they say that keepe it. And so saith Fauchet (from their reports) in his eleauenth booke of the Antiqui­ies of France, chap. 7. But Charles the Bald was neuer in Constantinople. And in the virgine Maries time they wore no smockes, which was the reason they vsed so many baths to wash the sweate from their bodies.

The Councell of Constance, in the tenth Session saith,Edit. Colon. pag. 813. that Saint Iohns head is in Saint Siluesters Monasterie of Nunnes in Rome. But Amiens and Arras brag that they haue it: [Page 338] and Saint Iohn d' Angeri hath long time bene famous for that relique.

Who shall decide the controuersie betweene Treues in Germanie, and Argentueil neare Paris; for both of them boast to haue the coate without seames which our Sauiour Christ wore? Baron. in his Annals, anno 1052 produceth a Bull of Pope Leo the ninth; whereby he declareth that those of Saint Denis by Paris mistake themselues, pretending that they haue the body of Saint Denis Areopagita; and saith, that the body of that Saint is whole in Ratisbone, to a very finger.

All men know, that in Saint Iohn Baptists time, there were no altars in Iudea, but those that were in the Temple in Ierusalem: yet the booke of Romish Indulgences printed in Rome, saith, that Saint Iohn de Latran was guardian of the altar whereon S. Iohn Baptist said Seruice in the wildernesse.

§ 1. Christi natalis nobi­lissimum mo­nimentum in ligno confi­ctum. Nullá que argenti vel auri: Cae­latura conte­ctum post multa tempo­ra inde tran­slatum, Roma possidet. Baronius, in his Preface vpon his Annales, 1. Tome, al­ledgeth a place of Chrysostome which saith, That the manger wherein Iesus Christ was borne, was of earth. Which he con­futeth, because that which is kept in Rome is made of wood. Sigonius in the 7. booke of his Historie of Italie, saith, That at Genes they keepe a Cup made of Emeralds, wherein our Lord Iesus Christ celebrated the holy Supper. But Baronius, in anno 34. of his Annales, §. 63. (following Beda) saith, That it was a siluer cup with two handles or eares, and that the Sponge is in the Chalice.

At Collen men go to worship the three Kings, which ne­uer were. They call them Gasper, Melchior, and Baltazar: whereof the two first names were Dutch. This fable is con­futed to be false, by all circumstances of times, places, and the history of Saint Matthew, Hist. 12, Can. Quis nesciat. Legant si in his prouincijs vllus Aposto­lus inuenitur aut legitur docuisse &c. as also by all antiquitie.

Spaine boasteth, that at Compostella in Galicia they haue the body of S. Iames the Apostle brother of our Lord, which they say died there after he had conuerted Lupa Qu. of Spaine, and planted Christianity in Spaine. But Pope Inno­cent the first denieth that any other Apostle besides Saint Pe­ter, did teach the Gospell in France and in Spaine, And the [Page 339] truth is, that then there was neither King nor Queene in Spaine, it being at that time wholly vnder the domini­on of the Roman Empire. And Saint Iames death which hap­ned not long after the death of Christ, Acts 12. gaue him not time nor leisure to make so long voyages. From this Saint Iames in Galicia Pilgrims bring Schallop shels, as from Saint Claude they bring Whistles; and from Rome holy graines. It is good, vpon this subiect, to heare whatDisp. 3. ca. 8 §. 114. Quod verò apud ali­quos incertè aliquando re­liquiae sint, non obest quo mi­nus eas quas humanis con­iecturis & rationibus certas habemus reue­renter colere debeamus. Denique sicut in prima di­sputatione, ca. 3, diximus, nō esse peccatum Idolatriae a­dorare radiū luminis sub quo daemon delitescat. quā do quis putat esse Christum. Eodem modo si quis putans aliquam esse particulam Sancti, quae reuera non est, merito suae deuotio­nis non caret. Vas­ques the Iesuite in his third booke of Adoration, saith: his words are these: As touching this, that sometimes among reliques some are vncertaine, that hindereth vs not from worshipping those reuerently which we hold to be certaine by coniectures, and humane reasons. To be short, euen as in the first Disputation, chap. 3. we haue said, that it is no sinne of Idolatrie, to worship a beame of the light vnder the which the diuell hides himselfe when any one thinketh it to be Christ: so when any one thinketh that that is a part or member of a Saint which is not, yet neuerthelesse he lo­seth not the merite of his deuotion.

George Cassander in his Consultation, in the chapter of the worshipping of reliques, after he hath said, that in times past, when the memorie of Martyrs was fresh, and their reliques certaine, miracles were done at their sepulchers, but a­buse had crept in: That in the times of Basil, Ambrose, and Augustine, assemblies made in memorie of Martyrs, were changed into Faires, and into feasts, where the people are drunke: That to beguile the people, men haue suppo­sed false reliques, and false miracles, and that oftentimes, by diabolicall illusions, superstitious persons haue beene abused: That trauellers, for profit and gaine haue made merchandise of false reliques: That the custome to lay the bodies of Saints vnder the altar, is changed, and that now they laid them vpon the altar. At last he addeth these words, saying,Hodie vero cum passim o­mnia reliquijs sanctorum plena videntur, verendū est, ne si Episcopi & Principes in veris reliquijs inquirendis & diiudican­dis eam quam debent operam adhiberent, ingentes & detestandae imposturae patefierent, quem­admodum innonnullis locis factum est, vt olim B. Martino accidit, &c. At this day, when euery place seemeth to be full of [Page 340] Reliques of Saints, it is to be feared, that if Bishops and Princes would take that paines which they should do, to search for and to examine which are true reliques, great and detestable impostures would be found, as it hath happened in some places: and as heretofore it hapned to Saint Martine, who going to a place of his Diocesse, famous because of the sepulcher of one whom they reported to be a martyr, found that the people reuerenced, and came, not to the sepulcher of a Martyr but of a wicked thiefe, which he presently cau­sed to be razed and pulled downe to the ground. This testi­mony out of the mouth of one of our aduersaries is much to be considered.

Confutation of this worship of Reliques by the word of God.

Section. 123 Besides the places of Scripture produced in the precedent Sections, whereby we are forbidden to giue any worship, or to do any religious seruice to any other but onely vnto God, there are particular places against the worshipping of Re­liques.

1 In the old Testament we see that the bodies of holie Patriarchs and Prophets were buried, and put in the sepul­chers of their fathers. Ioseph dying, ordained that his bones should be kept vntill the people went out of Aegypt, Genesis 50.25.

2 Moses being dead, God would not let the Israelites know the place where he was buried, lest they should haue abused it to Idolatrie.

3 In the 2. and 23. of Kings, King Iosias forbad the peo­ple to take vp the bodie of a dead Prophet out of the earth, and willed them to let it lie where it was buried. He made no transportation of his bones, nor did no worship, no ser­uice, no offering nor adoration thereunto. The like is said in generall of all the bodies of the Saints, as of Abraham, I­saac, Iacob, Samuel, and Dauid, whose bones haue not bene [Page 341] remoued, worshipped, nor separated one from the other, that diuers townes might haue their parts thereof. S. Peter in the 2.29. of Acts, witnesseth that then in his time Dauids sepul­cher was to be seene, whose bones were not remoued from thence.

4 In the 2. of King. 13.21 verse, God raised a dead man, by touching the dead body of the Prophet Elisaeus: God by that miracle authorising the authoritie of that Prophets doctrine. Yet for all that it is not found that his body was taken out of his graue, nor laid vpon an altar, nor that the people fell downe before his bones, nor that they offered vnto it, nor that they kissed his bones, nor carried them about in proces­sion.

5 If any man thinketh that the bodies of the Saints vnder the old Testament were polluted, or lesse holy then the bodies of the faithfull in this time, he is confuted by this example: for if euer any sepulcher of a Saint may be said to haue bene sanctified by God, it was that of Elisaeus, at the which God shewed forth so admirable vertue. Then the death of the iust was precious before God, as it is said, Psalme 116. And our aduersaries shew that they esteemed not the bon [...]s of the Saints vnder the old Testament to be lesse holy then others, seeing that they haue some of them yet among their preten­ded relickes. And this euasion cannot serue but for the bones of the Patriarches and Prophets, but not for their apparell and moueables, which then were not kept in shrines, as at this day they keepe small rags and torne coates and shirts of the Apostles and other Saints.

6 The Prophets, Esay 14. and Ieremie 22.19. among the threatnings and curses of God, make want of buriall one. Then how is that which God placeth among his curses, at this day turned into an honour? Why do men take the Saints bones out of the places where they rest? Why are they laid o­pen to the sight of men? Why are they separated and carried to diuers places?

7 And to come to the new Testament, Acts 8. certaine men fearing God, layd the body of Saint Steuen which was [Page 342] stoned into the ground, but worshipped not his body, nor did not dismember it, to separate his bones into diuers places.

8 In the 19 of Acts many were healed by touching the kercher and linnen clothes that came from Saint Pauls body: yet those linnen clothes were not put into a shrine, nor any worship done vnto them. These miracles were not done to cause them to adore those clothes, but to authorise the prea­ching of the Apostle.

9 The Prophet Esay 8.19.20. after he had reproued diui­ners and inchanters which went to the dead to aske counsell for men that liued, saith not vnto them, Why do you not ra­ther go to the relickes of Saints that are dead, but sends them to the Law and to the Testimony, if they would be illumina­ted by the true light.

10 And to be short touching this worshipping of Relicks, when our aduersaries are pressed to produce one onely place of the word of God for it, they are at a stay, and say nothing. And if they produce any thing, it is rather to mocke God, then to instruct men. Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of the booke of Relickes,§ Ad tertium Scriptura ap­probat cultum sepulcri & fimbriae Chri­sti: Item vm­brae Petri, su­dariorum & semicintiorum Pauli. falsly and against all truth, saith, that the holy Scripture approueth the worshipping or religious ser­uice done and vsed to the sepulcher of our Lord, to the skirts of his gowne, to the shadow of Saint Peter, and to S. Pauls kercher. A wise man cannot affirme it, vnlesse he speakes a­gainst his owne conscience: for he knoweth, that in the Scrip­ture there is not one word spoken of religious seruice done to those things. And it is a wonder, seeing among the relickes which are worshipped he placeth Saint Peters shadow, that the Church of Rome doth not keepe some peeces of that shadow, as well of the blowing and breathing of Io­seph.

The same Cardinall in the beginning of the third chapter, falsly alleadgeth Esay 11.10, in these words, His sepulcher shall be glorious: but according to the Hebrew, it is, And his rest shall be glorious. A sepulcher may be honored without religious worship.

In the meane time, an indifferent Reader will consider [Page 343] what religion that may be, which hideth the writings of the Apostles from the people, and shews them their bones; which burieth their doctrine, and vnburieth their bones. As if a sonne should carefully keep old bootes, or a peece of his fathers skull, and hide away his Testament The best relickes of Saint Peters and Saint Paul are their writings diuinely in­spired. That which onely should be cherished, and sought for, is the onely thing which is neglected: as the Iewes did, who beutified the sepulchers of the Prophets, and persecu­ted those which followed their doctrine. Wherein marke their policie. For they seeke for, and worship the bones of the Apostles, in stead of seeking for their writings, because those bones speake nor, but their writings speake, and say things that are odious vnto the Papists: as also because in stead of those bones they can haue others; but they cannot make another holy Scripture. And because it is not so easie for them to trafficke with places in Scripture, as with peeces of relickes, whereof they onely sell the sight, and make a traf­ficke of merchandise, and neuer deliuer it.

Of Saint Peters Supremacie.

Section. 129 And Mathew 10.2. Now the names of the twelue Apostles are [Page 351] these: The first, Simon called Peter. Could he more formally speake against the Article which establisheth equalitie?

Saint Peter might be the first in age, or in zeale, or in knowledge, or in eloquence, or in vertue, or in prioritie of order, & precedence: without power of iurisdiction ouer the rest of the Apostles. We reiect not this inequalitie, and our Article saith nothing against it.

Now, that Saint Peter had no superioritie nor power of iu­risdiction ouer the other Apostles, neither was head of the vniuersall Church, the Scripture sheweth it so clearely, that he that denies it must striue against his owne eyes, and belie his owne sence and reason.

1 We haue two Epistles written by Saint Peter, wherein there is not one word which soundeth or sauoureth of his so­ueraigntie. His manner of phrase therein is not the phrase of a maister or of a superior. He giueth himselfe no other ti­tle, but an Apostle of Iesus Christ, and an Elder. Doth a So­ueraigne write long Letters to his Subiects, without once shewing himselfe to be a Soueraigne, without taking any quality of a Prince vpon him, or without any command?

2 And when the Apostles stroue among themselues, a­bout the Supremacie the day before Christs passion, the Lord said not vnto them, Why do you dispute about Supe­rioritie, seeing you may remember that I haue already giuen the Supremacie to Saint Peter? But he onely said vnto them; The Kings of the Gentiles reigne ouer them, but it shall not be so among you, Luke 22. Then was the time, or neuer, to com­mand the Apostles, euery one to keepe in his order, and not to disturbe Saint Peter in his Supremacie. But in the 23. of Saint Mathew he saith, But be you not called Rabbi, for one is your Doctor, to wit, Christ, and ye are brethren.

3 In Acts 8. the Apostles sent Peter and Iohn to preach in Samaria. Would the Pope at this day take such a commissi­on? would he subiect himselfe to other Bishops that should send him to preach in Swizzerland or in Poland?

[Page 350] [...][Page 351] [...][Page 352]

4 How many times in the Scripture are the other Apostles set before Peter? as 2. Galathians, Iames, Cephas, and Iohn which are esteemed pillars. As also Saint Iohn 1.44. putteth An­drew before Peter, saying, Philip was of Bethsaida, the Citie of Andrew and Peter. And 1. Cor. 9.5. The Lords brethren and Cephas: a manner of speaking which at this day would be hardly taken, if we should put the Bishop of Paris before the Pope of Rome.

5 And 1. Cor. 3.4. it is said, that among the Corinthians some said, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos; others, I am of Peter. An euident proofe, that neither Paul nor Apollos had taught the Corinthians to acknowledge Peter to be the head of the vniuersall Church. For those that say, I am Pauls, with­out doubt would haue beleeued Paul, and by consequence would haue acknowledged Peter for head and superior by Paul. For Paul would haue taught them to honor Peter more then himselfe.

6 Which appeareth by the reproofe which Paul gaue them thereupon; for he said not, why do you say that I am of Paul rather then of Peter, seeing that Paul told you that he was subiect to Peter? But he sends them to Iesus Christ, the on­ly head of the Church, saying, Is Christ deuided? was Paul cru­cified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

7 The same Apostle, 2. Cor. 11.5. saith, verily I suppose that I was in nothing inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles. Saying in nothing he excepteth nothing, to the end that men should not say▪ that Saint Paul vnderstood that he was not lesse then Saint Peter in doctrine, or in the charge of preaching the word, or administing of the Sacraments. Therefore Saint Hierome in his Commentary vpon the second to the Gala­thians,In nullo sum illo inferior, quia ab vno Deo sumus in ministerio or­dinati. bringeth in Saint Paul comparing himselfe in this sort with Saint Peter: I am nothing inferior vnto him, for we are established in the ministerie by one and the same God.

8 Saint Paul in Gal. 2.6. saith, For they that are the chiefe, did adde nothing to me. Saint Peter therefore gaue not power to Saint Paul, nor conferred any authority vpon him.

9 The same Saint Paul saith, That the preaching of the Gos­pell [Page 353] of the vncircumcision was committed vnto him, as the Gospell of circumcision was committed to Peter. Therefore those two A­postles parting that labour betweene them, the one preached to the Iewes, the other to the Gentiles. It would be a nota­ble example, and worthy of Apostolicall humility, if a Bi­shop would diuide halfe the charge with the Pope. And yet the charge that fell to Saint Paul, was of more importance. For what comparison was there between a handfull of Iewes committed to Saint Peters charge, with all the rest of the world? Which by the way sheweth, that Saint Peter did not reside in Rome, for then the Iewes were banished frō thence, as Saint Luke witnesseth, Acts 18.2. And Saint Peter would not haue chosen a towne to reside in, and to preach to the Iewes, where there were no Iewes.

10 And a little after in the ninth verse the Apostle saith, That Iames, and Peter, and Iohn, which are accounted to be pil­lars, gaue him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that is, they receiued them for companions. Is there any Prelate at this day that dares call the Pope his companion? Note also, that Peter is not onely named after Iames, but also that Iames and Iohn are esteemed pillars of the Church as well as Saint Peter. As also in the Councell of Ephesus there is an Epistle of the Councell of Alexandria inserted, which saith, that Pe­ter and Iohn are of equall dignitie one as the other.

Of the perpetuall stability of the Church of Rome.

Section. 132 Because motion is made to put the Church of Rome from her possession, and to shew that Iesus Christ hauing once giuen himselfe vnto her as an inheritance, which she hath held so many ages, as they confesse, hath withdrawne himselfe from her: Or that she being inheritrix of life, can die: and of the truth, can lie; and likewise of the way, can erre and be lost.

In all this discourse there is not one true word, not yet common sense. It is false, that we go about to put the Church of Rome from any possession. We come to helpe the Church of Rome, and she complaines that we would take her goods from her; she vnderstands aide to be iniury. For those that go­uerne her, feare that the Gospell will diminish their riches and great wealth: and that is the possession for the which they dispute.

It is false also, that we euer confessed that Iesus Christ gaue himselfe for an inheritance to the Church of Rome, in that sence which our aduersary meaneth. By the Church of Rome, we vnderstand the Church of the citie of Rome, to the which Iesus Christ neuer gaue himselfe for an inheritance, in other sort, then to the Church of Corinth, Ephesus, or Constanti­nople. He made his couenant with those Churches, with threatnings to take it away, and to remoue their candle­sticke, in case of contempt or rebellion: a mischiefe which hath happened to the Church of Rome. Life and truth are [Page 363] riches whereof the Church of Rome neuer was proprietarie, although in the first age of the Church it was one of those Churches which professed the word of God. The riches thereof which from age to age haue increased therein, by peruerting of manners, haue peruerted doctrine. For it hath bene forced to wrest the doctrine to make it appliable to vi­ces, to build an Empire, and to giue a particular Church the title and properties of the vniuersall Church. And if M. Ar­noux will haue the Church of Rome to be seized in perpe­tuity of truth and life, without erring or falling away, he ought to produce places out of the Scripture, which con­firme this prerogatiue vnto her. For there is no Church in the world how wicked soeuer it be, which may not also brag and say of it selfe, that it cannot erre nor be ouerthrowne. So the Iewes, conspiring against Ieremie, said, The law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsell from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet, Iere. 18.18. But God maketh them liers therein, saying, The law shall perish from the Priest, and counsell from the ancient Ezechiel, 7.26. So Babylon speaketh, sitting vpon se­uen hils, and exerciseth a trafficke or merchandise of soules, Apoc. 18.7. I sit being a Queene, and am no widow, and shall see no mourning. Note this word sit, for that is the word which the Popes vse to denote their dominion. To conclude, to say I cannot erre, is the worst of all errors. That Church which saith I cannot fall by error, is already fallen by pride, and lieth, in saying she cannot lie. In saying, that she is the rule, she exempteth her selfe from all rule, and her fall is the lesse recouerable, because that being fallen, she still thinketh that she stands vpright. Neuerthelesse, to proue that the Church of Rome cannot erre, behold what places of Scripture our aduersary setteth downe.

Section. 133 Daniel, 2.44. the Prophet speaking of the Christian Church, vn­der the word Queene, saith thus, And in the dayes of those kings, shall the God of heauen set vp a kingdome, which shall neuer be de­stroyed, and the kingdome shall not be left to other people, but it [Page 364] shall breake in peeces, and consume all these kingdomes, and it shall stand for euer.

In this place there is no speech of a Queene, nor yet of the Church of Rome. The Prophet speaketh of a kingdome which shall endure for euer. Which is vnderstood of the kingdome of the Saints, and the elect, who shall reigne with Iesus Christ eternally in heauen, as Daniel himselfe de­clareth, 7.18. saying, But the Saints of the most High shall take the kingdome, and possesse the kingdome for euer, euen for euer and euer. If the Church of Rome be eternall, then after the day of iudgement, there must be Popes eternally on earth.

Section. 134 And Exodus 4.1. Moses making difficultie to go vnto Pharaoh to reforme him, and saying, They will not beleeue me, nor hearken to my voyce, for they will say, God hath not sent him: God gaue him power to worke miracles, adding the reason, To the end that they may beleeue that the true God appeared vnto thee.

If by these two places M. Arnoux pretends to prooue that the Church cannot erre, he doth according to his accu­stomed manner, which is iust quidlibet ex quolibet. As when before, he prooued that the Church is visible, beeause it is written, That God hath placed a pauilion in heauen for the Sunne, Psalme 19. and that she is Apostolicall, because it is written, God doth iustice to the orphane and to him that is oppressed. But if by this place he will prooue the necessitie of miracles, he digresseth from the question, for this hath no coniunction with that which goeth before. Touching miracles we haue before spoken at large, and in the Section following we will speake more. But where did he learne, that Moses was sent to Pharao to reforme him? To bring the Israelites out of Aeygpt, is that to reforme Pharao or the religion of Aeygpt?

[Page 365]

And Iohn, 10.37. If I do not the workes of my Father, 135. Sect. beleeue me not. To conclude, neither the Sonne of God, nor the Apostles, nor Moses, nor Elias, euer tooke on them to appeare, as being sent in an extraordinary manner, without hauing markes of their au­thoritie from God.

Our Sauiour said, If I do not the workes of my Father, beleeue me not. Touching that, we haue already said, that as the mi­racles done by Moses still serued to authorise the Law, euen after miracles ceassed in Israel: so miracles done by Christ, and by the Apostles still serue at this day to authorise the Gospell, although miracles haue ceassed. When king Iosias openly shewed the booke of the Law which had bene lost, 2. Kings 21. he did no miracle, because he propounded no new thing, but reestablished the ancient doctrine of the Law, sufficiently authorised by miracles at the publication thereof in Horeb. It belongs to them that teach new doctrine to do miracles. False Prophets shall rise vp, and do great signes and miracles, Matth. 24.24. The sonne of perdition shall shew signes and lying wonders. 2. Thess. 2.9. An euill and an adulterous genera­tion seeketh a signe. Matth. 12.39. To those that shall say vnto Iesus Christ, Haue not we in thy name cast out diuels, it shall be said, Depart from me, I neuer knew you, Matth. 7.23. These are places which seeme to haue bene written expresly of our ad­uersaries, whose miracles at this day are all reduced to the ca­sting out of diuels. For to restore sight to a man that was borne blind, or to raise a dead man to life againe, there is no speech of such matters, their art extendeth not so farre. To conclude, all this is grounded vpon a false supposition, that we haue no ordinary vocation. Those which besides their ex­traordinary commission, haue ordinary vocation, need no mi­racles to authorise it. Now this extraordinary commission is grounded vpon the necessity of reforming the Church of Rome, and vpon the euident corruption of ordinary voca­tion.

Of Excommunications in the Church of Rome.

Section. 139 The Church of Rome makes Admonitions and Excom­munications to serue for the finding againe of things that are lost. He that hath lost an horse,Toletus libr. 1. De instru­ctione sacer­dotali ca. 8. Fertur excommunicatio in eum qui ali­quid alteri surripuit. causeth an excommunication to be published against him that hath stolen it, if he bring it not againe. Whereby it happeneth sometimes, that a father causeth his sonne to be excommunicated not knowing it; & for the body of an horse, causeth his sonnes soule to be de­liuered to the diuell. The Councell of Trent in the 25. Sessi­on approueth these Excommunications made to find things lost: but will haue none but Bishops to publish them.

They do worse then that:Tolet. lib. In­struct. sacer­dotal. ca. 8. Fulminatur in futurum. Toletus Ibid. for they excommunicate for future time, and for sinnes not yet committed. That is, the Bishop pronounceth or causeth a writing to be pronounced, signifying thereby, that he excommunicateth all those that shall touch the stockes or trees of the Lord of a towne or vil­lage, although no man hath once laid hand vpon them.

At the re [...]est of a creditor that hath a desire to be paid his money, they excommunicate a debter if he payeth not within a certaine time.

The Pope onely excommunicateth Kings, and censureth them: as Emmanuel Sà the Iesuite saithEman. Sa Aphorismi in voce excommunicatio. Reges àsolo Papa excōmunicantur & censu­ris ligantur. in his Aphorismes. The example of Ambrose disliketh him, who being but Bi­shop of Millane, durst take vpon him publikely to suspend Theodosius the Emperour, without communicating the same to the Bishop of Rome.

The Pope can giue power to a Lay man, yea and to a wo­man, to excommunicate; as CardinallTolet. In­struct. sacerd. li. 1, ca. 6. Foe­mina excom­municare po­test ex cōmis­sione Papae, vt notant Panor. & Antoninus Tolet after Panor­mitanus and Antoninus say. For the keyes which are spoken of in the Scripture, are not tied to the preaching of the Go­spell; therefore diuers persons vse them, which cannot preach the Gospell.

Papa man­dat vt aliquē excōmunicet sine aliqua cognitione causae.The Pope also may giue commission to any one to ex­communicate a man, without shewing him the cause or rea­son wherefore he doth it. As the same Cardinall saith, in the 16. chapter and first booke of Instruction of Priests.

And if the Pope excommunicateth any man vniustly (for they all confesse that he may iudge amisse, (because he may erre in action, and condemne him that is innocent, to be cul­pable) yet Pope Gregorie the 1. declareth, that theCausa 11. Quaest. 3. Can. Sententia pa­storum, siue iusta siue in­iusta, timenda est. sentence of a Pastor, whether it be iust or vniust, is to be feared.

But that which in this matter is most pernicious, is the common rule, that an excommunicated person is suspen­dedTolet. lib. 1. Instr. sacerd. c. 3. Excommunicatus non potest exer­cere actum iurisdictionis absque pecca­to, imò si pub­lica est excommunicatio fa­cta, sententiae nullae sunt. of his charge, and cannot exercise any act of Iurisdi­ction, and that all the sentences which an excommunicated iudge pronounceth, are of no force. By this rule the Pope pre­tendeth that he hath power to depose Kings, and to displace the Officers of the Crowne and all Iudges, as well soueraigne as inferior, whom when it pleaseth the Pope, or the Prelates to excommunicate them, their acts, ordinances, and iudge­ments are of no effect, (if we beleeue the maximes of the Romane Church:) and by consequence their places must be supplied by other persons the Popes friends, that their iudge­ments may be auaileable.

Our Kings and their Officers, and Courts of Parliament, are dealt withall in the like vniust manner, in the Bull de Coe­na Domini, which is a solemne excommunication which the [Page 371] Pope thundreth out euery yeare on Maundy thursday before Easter. Vpon which day the Pope appeareth standing in a Porch of a gate, with two Peacockes tailes on each side of his eares or head, and there in the presence of the people being assembled about him in Saint Peters Pallace, he pro­nounceth a long excommunication; wherein expresly he nameth the Chancellors, Presidents and Counsellors of the Courts of Parliament, ordinarie Iudges, and extraordinarie Commissioners; as also Emperors, Kings, Dukes, &c. which shall appeale from the Pope to any future Councell: or that lay or impose new taxes and tallages vpon their subiects without speciall permission from the Pope: or that take tithes of the Clergie: or that in any sort take knowledge of Eccle­siasticall causes. In which clauses of excommunication, our Kings, and their Officers, and Courts of Parliament, are in­tangled, who euery day crosse and contradict those pro­hibitions; and for recompence of so many good deedes which the Pope receiueth from them, are excommunicated by the Pope, and euery yeare sent to hell by the strongest and most solemne excommunication which is made in the Church of Rome.

Our Churches in this 33. Article declare, that they ap­proue not of excommunications made for things that are lost, nor to molest men that are in debt, nor for future sins not yet committed, but for scandall and rebellion against the Church, and perseuerance in impenitence: according to Iesus Christs commandement, who speaking of him that had wronged his brother, ordained, that if he despised the admonitions of the Church, he should be esteemed as a Pa­gan or an Infidell, and by consequence, put out of the com­munion of the faithful. For in the verse following, he giueth faithfull Pastors power to bind and to loose sinnes, with pro­mise that their iudgement shall be ratified in heauen. Which power the Apostle Saint Paul will haue the Corinthians to vse against the incestuous persons, 1. Cor. 5.3. saying, Put a­way that wicked person from among you.

[Page 372]

Section. 140 Places of Scripture alledged. And those that are alledged, in my iudgment are rather referred to certaine words which are lower in the Article, as that of Rom. 16.17. and 1. Cor. 3.3. where the A­postle exhorteth Christians to shunne partialitie, and nothing else.

The 33. Article of our Confession saith, that we receiue that which serues to nourish concord, and thereupon noteth, Rom. 16.17. where the Apostle saith, I beseech you brethren, marke them diligently which cause diuision and offences. And 1. Cor. 3.3. For whereas there is among you enuie, and strife, and diuision, are ye not carnall? Nothing can be quoted that is fitter to the purpose.

Section. 141 These places are nothing to the purpose to weaken the force and vigour of humane lawes, which are good, and made by those whom God hath established, but serue onely to appease seditions, and to breake ciuill factions.

I grant that those places may be fitly vrged against sediti­ous and quarrelsome persons, and we alledge them to no o­ther end; not to dispense with humane lawes, I meane such as M. Arnoux vnderstands by humane lawes, to wit, the or­dinance of God to obey kings, calling that a humane law, thereby to embase the authority of our Soueraignes, by per­swading vs that their authoritie is not deriued from the di­uine Law of God.

Section. 142 Contrary places of Scripture. Luke. 10.16. He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Our 33. Article reiecteth humane inuentions. But in this [Page 373] place of Luke 10.16. which M. Arnoux opposeth against vs, our Lord Iesus Christ commandeth to obey the Apostles, and all faithfull Pastors which speake in his name. Which if M. Arnoux placeth among humane inuentions, I know not what else is diuine. Therefore this place is so farre from ma­king any thing against our Article, that it is little lesse then blasphemy to wrest it to establish humane inuentions.

Section. 143 And Rom. 13.2. Whosoeuer therefore resisteth the power, re­sisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receiue to themselues condemnation. And verse 5. Wherefore ye must be sub­iect, not because of wrath onely, but also for conscience sake. There­fore we cannot say that the obseruation of humane lawes, belongeth not to the seruice of God, nor binde the conscience.

Humane lawes, that is, humane inuentions, and mens tra­ditions, which corrupt piety, burthen mens consciences, and draw money from the people vnder prerence of deuotion, are condemned by our 33. Article. But touching obedience due to Magistrates, whereof the Apostle speaketh, we call it not a humane law, but a diuine constitution. M. Arnoux which calleth it a humane law, offendeth the Maiestie of our Kings, and vnder a shew to exhort men to obey them, vnder­mineth their authoritie.

Of the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation.

Sect. 2 Confirmation is a Sacrament of the Church of Rome not to be reiterated,Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. cap. 9. which ought to be celebrated fasting, which imprinteth an indelible character in the soule, and which is not conferred but by a Bishop: wherein there are godfathers and godmothers, betweene whom and the child that is con­firmed [Page 377] by that Sacrament,Pontificale c. De confir. Hoc Sacramento contrahitur spiritualis cog­natio impedi­ens matrimo­nium, contra­hendum, & dirimens con­tractum. Idque contra Decretum Cō­cilij Cabilo­nensis. 2. c. 31. there is a spirituall parentage be­gotten, which hindereth marriage, and which also causeth the dissolution of marriage, notwithstanding the prohibition made by Iesus Christ, forbidding the dissolution of marriage vnlesse it be for adultery, saying, Matth. 5.32. and 19.6.9. Let no man therefore put asunder that which God hath coupled together. &c. Neuerthelesse, the Pope by speciall priuiledge, sometimes permitteth a man to marry his gossip: as it is said in the book of the Taxing of the Apostolical chancery, where the Datarie of the Popes Bulles which hath made this taxe, speaketh in the 23 leafe, saying,Dispensatio de contrahen­do incognatio­ne spirituali. gr. 60. Expo­diui tamen v­nam pro gr. 50. sed de gra­tia. A dispensation to contract marriage betweene spirituall kinred costs 60 groats, neuer­thelesse I granted one for 50 groats; but that was done by fauour.

This Sacrament is administred in this manner: A child is presented to the Bishop by a godfather if it be a boy, or by a godmother if it be a daughter. The Bishop sits downe, wash­eth his hands, layeth them vpon his breast, and sayes certaine prayers, by the which he asketh or requireth the seuenfold spirit. Then he asketh the godfather the childs name, and dipping his right thombe in the sacred oyle, which is called Chrisme, which they bring in a bottle, whereon the Bishop breatheth to sanctifie it, speaketh to the oyle saying, Aue Chrisma, I salute thee Chrisme.

That done, the Bishop annonits the childs forehead there­with in manner of a crosse, saying, Signo te signo crucis, & con­firmo te chrismate salutis, in nomine patris, & filij & spiritus sancti. I marke thee with the signe of the crosse, and confirme thee by the Chrisme of saluation, in the name of the Father, &c.

After that he giues the child a blow on the eare to streng­then him in the faith, then he kisseth it, and hauing rubbed his thombe with crums of bread, after many signes of the crosse by him made, he commands the godfathers and godmo­thers to teach the child the Creed, the Pater noster, and Aue Maria.

While this is doing, the child if it can stand vpright, setteth his right foote vpon the right foote of his godfather or god­mother, [Page 378] if it be a daughter. The action ended, they bind the childs forehead with a cloath, and vpon the band put certaine golden spangles in manner of a crosse, and so the whole action is ended.

Nunquam e­rit Christia­nus, nisi in Cō­firmatione E­piscopali fue­rit Chrisma­tus.Touching the efficacie and fruite of this Sacrament, the Canon Omnes, in the 5. Distinction of Consecration, saith, That all the faithfull ought to receiue this Sacrament, Vt pleni Christiani inueniantur, to the end they may be found to be full Christians; as if without that Sacrament they were but halfe Christians. Therefore also in the same Distinction, in the Ca­non, Vt ieiuni, it is said, That he shall neuer be a Christian, which hath not bene annointed by Episcopall Confirmation. Following this doctrine Thomas the Angelicall Doctor, in the third part of his summes, 72 question, Article 9.Hoc Sacra­mentum est perfectiuum Baptismi. saith, This Sa­crament is administred to giue perfection to Baptisme, as if without Confirmation Baptisme were imperfect. Therfore al­so the rules of the Romish Church import, that this Sacrament ought to be more honorable then Baptisme: as it is expresly said in the Canon De his, in the fift Distinction of Consecra­tion, which saith,Maiorī veneratione vene­randum est & tenendum. This Sacrament ought to be reuerenced & obserued with greater reuerence then Baptisme. Neuerthe­lesse, to mitigate the matter, there is added,Sed ita con­iuncta sunt haec duo sacra­menta, vt ab inuicem nisi morte praeue­niente nulla­tenus possint separari, & vnum sine al­tero perfici non possit. § Denique. Id­circo tam ra­tione Ministri quàm ratione subiecti, prae­stat Confirma­tio Baptismo, vt rectè dicit Magister. Vide Costerum Augment. en­chiridij de Sa­cram. Confirm. That these two Sacraments are in such manner conioyned, that they can by no meanes be separated one from the other, vnlesse death preuent them, and that the one cannot be perfect without the other. Then by this reckoning, Baptisme is either no­thing, or imperfect without Confirmation.

Bellarmine in the first chapter of the booke of Confirma­tion, maketh Confirmation worthier then Baptisme in three things, first, Ratione ministri, In considerarion of him which ad­ministereth, which ought to be a Bishop, but Baptisme may be administred in the Church of Rome by a porter and by a woman. Secondly, Ratione subiecti, in consideration of the subiect, that is, of the part of the body, for Confirmation is done in the forehead. Which are two comparisons as wisely made, as if a Prince hauing giuen a peny for an almes, and a subiect hauing giuen 10 crownes, I should say, that that peny [Page 379] is of more worth then the ten crownes, because of the qua­lity of the giuer, and because the one laid the penny vpon the poore mans head, and the other put the ten crownes into his hand. Thirdly and lastly, he wil haue Confirmation to sur­passe Baptisme, Ratione virtutis, because of the vertue, which is the principall point. For in the beginning of the 11 chapter, he saith, that this Sacrament conferreth a grace, which ma­keth the person acceptable, yea a greater grace thē that which is conferred by Baptisme, as touching this point, to fortify the soule against the assaults of the diuell. To that end the blow on the eare serueth. Which being so, I maruell▪ why Ie­sus Christ would be baptized, and did not thinke vpon re­ceiuing of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

The 25. Article of our Confession, by receiuing none but Baptisme and the holy Supper for Sacraments in the Christian Church, silently reiecteth this Sacrament of Confir­mation, as iniurious to Baptisme, seeing that the Church of Rome in the places aforesaid, is not content to make Bap­tisme inferiour in dignitie to Confirmation; but also accu­seth Baptisme of imperfection, adding a Sacrament there­unto, without the which men are but halfe Christians, and which supplieth the want and imperfection of Baptisme.

But I will passe ouer all these trifles of ceremonies, which haue a shew of coniuration. Our aduersaries, to proue this Confirmation by the Scripture, say, that Iesus Christ the same day when he instituted the holy Supper, taught his Apostles to consecrate the Chrisme which they vse in Confirmation: which is some dreamers tale: whereupon neuerthelesse the custome in the Church of Rome to consecrate the oile on thursday before Easter day is grounded. This fable is found in a Decretall ofEp. ad O­rientales. Pope Fabian, which as well as others of the three firstBaron. tom. 9. ad annum 861. Sect. 5. 6. 7. quas du­bias esse, non dubium est. Item illis ad­uentitijs & recens inuentis non eget Ec­clesia. Ages, is acknowledged to be false by the wi­sest among our Aduersaries. This is rather to mocke then to defend the cause, that they ground their Confirmation vpon this, that the holy Spirit descended vpon the Apostles in forme of fierie tongues. From whence they inferre, that a Bishop ought to annoint and strike a child to strengthen [Page 380] him in the faith. Tobias Dog might as well serue for a proofe thereof. But our Aduersaries mistake themselues. They haue no lesse reason to ground their Confirmation vpon Acts 8.16 and 19.6. of the same, where the Apostles laid hands vpon certaine persons that were already baptized, who by that laying on of hands receiued the holy Ghost. For is there any thing spoken of Chrisme or Vnction in those places? which is the essence of this pretended Sacrament (for in the very forme which they vse in Confirmation there is mention of these things, as also of the blow, and of the head­band, and such inuentions. The Imposition of hands by the Apostles, was not to celebrate a Sacrament, to perfect or strengthen Baptisme, but to conferre miraculous and extra­ordinarie gifts, as it is said Acts 19.6, After Paul had laid his hand vpon them, the holy Ghost came on them, and they spake the tongues, and prophecied. The same appeares Acts 8. where Simon Magus offered money, perceiuing that by imposition of hands the Apostles gaue the holy Ghost; which he could not haue seene, if some visible and extraordinarie miracle had not bin shewed. Certainly he would haue giuen nothing for the confirmation of the Romish Church. Those extraor­dinarie graces were sometimes conferred before Baptisme, as to Cornelius and his familie.Acts 10.44.47. Which makes Bellarmine in his booke of extreame Vnction, cap. 2. to say, that Confirmation was giuen to Cornelius before Baptisme: a thing neuerthe­lesse forbidden in the Church of Rome.

Touching the word Sacrament, if any man will call this Imposition of hands by the Apostles, a Sacrament, we will not contest with him touching that, for it was a sacred signe of the graces of God, as the Serpent of brasse, and at this day the Rainebow are the like. But they are not Sacraments in that strict sence, in which the word Sacrament at this day is taken: that is, for a sacred signe of Iesus Christ, and of his graces, common to all beleeuers, and perpetuall in the Chri­stian Church. Of such Sacraments we acknowledge but two, that is, Baptisme and the Lords Supper, because Iesus Christ ordained but these two. Saint Augustine, in his 118. Epistle [Page 381] 9. chapter, 3. booke of Christian Doctrine, restraineth him­selfe to theseSacramenti [...] numero pau­cissimis, obser­uatione facil­limis, signifi­catione prae­stantissimis, societatem no­ui populi colli­gauit, sicuti est baptismus, Trinitatis no­mine conse­cratus, et communicatio corporis & san­guinis ipsius, & si quid a­liud in Scrip­turis Canoni­cis commenda­tur. Graeci haere­tici, qui Pon­tificem & La­tinos omnes habent pro ex­communicatis sacramentum confirmationis paruulis suis mox post bap­tismum confe­runt per sim­plices sacer­dotes. two Sacraments; and it is vsual with him to say, That the Sacraments of the Christian Church, issued out of our Lords side, when bloud and water came out of it.

Saint Ambrose booke of Sacraments speaketh but of Bap­tisme and the Eucharist. When the Fathers call other cere­monies Sacraments, they take that word in another gene­rall signification, whereby they call the Gospel a Sacrament, and the Incarnation a Sacrament, and to be short, all other things wherein there is any sacred mysterie.

The ceremony of ancient Christians to impose hands with vnction, was not a Sacrament apart, but was done at the time of Baptisme, presently after Baptisme was done, if it were possible. For the manner was that the Catechumeni were baptized by troupes. And in the same place, after they were baptized, they receiued the vnction with imposition of hands by the Bishop, and were exhorted to perseuerance in faith. Which was no part of Baptisme, but a dependance and a ce­remony, nothing like to the Confirmation practised in the Church of Rome. The Supplement of Philastrius puts this a­mong the errours of the Greekes, to wit, that they hold the Pope and all the Latin Churches for excommunicated, and that they conferred Confirmation presently after Baptisme.

The Church of England retaineth that which is commen­dable in this custome, where Confirmation is no other thing, but a profession which the child (hauing attained to the age of discretion) maketh to keepe the promise which his god­fathers and godmothers made in his name when he was bap­tized, and answereth touching his faith & instruction: which done, he receiueth the Imposition of hands, and the blessing of the Bishop: which ceremonie is not called nor held by them a Sacrament. Our Churches in stead of that, cause children to be presented at Catechizing, and to answer pub­likely touching their faith, before we admit them to the ho­ly Supper: which is done with prayer, that it will please God to extend his blessing on them. Which customes being of their nature free touching exterior forme and order, the end [Page 382] thereof ought to be the welfare and instruction of those which are in that manner receiued, together with the edifi­cation of the Church.

Of the Sacrament of Penance.

Sect. 3 The word Repentance in French, and the word Penitence in Latin, are all one thing. Penitence is the conuersion of a sinner, which consisteth in griefe for his sinnes fore-passed, and in amendment of life in time to come. The Hebrews call this vertue,Tesh uba [...]. a Returning vnto God, and the Greekes, an After-mind and changing of the will.

The Church of Rome, to peruert the thing, hath corrup­ted the signification of the word; for Penitence in the church of Rome is taken for whippings, fastings, pilgrimages, and corporall and pecuniarie punishments. Of a vertue they haue made a punishment: and of a repentance of the heart, a cor­porall exercise: according to the manner of false religions, which change vertues into outward shews, and into corpo­rall exercises, whereof the Apostle 1. Tim. 4.8. saith, Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godlinesse is profitable to all things, which hath the promise of the life present, and of that that is to come.

Luther acknowledging this abuse, preached, that the best Penance of all is for a man to amend his life, and to become an honest man.Optima poeni­tentia noua vita. For which heresie, among many the like, he is blasted with thundrings & excommunications, in the Bull Exurge, of Pope Leo the 10, which is at the end of the last Councell of Latran, where he is condemned for saying, that the best Penance is a new life. In which Sentence of con­demnation Iesus Christ himselfe is comprised, who, Apoca­lypse 2.5. speaketh thus to the Church of Ephesus, saying, Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first workes. In the Romish translation it is, Age poeni­tentiam, do Penance. Which Iesus Christ maketh to con­sist in the study of good workes.

The difference betweene vs is not, whether Penance be necessarie to saluation, and whether we must confesse our sinnes, and turne vnto God by earnest repentance: but whe­ther this Penance is a Sacrament or a sacred signe, wherein a contrite sinner ought punctually to confesse his sinnes to his Curate, from him to receiue iudiciall absolution, vpon con­dition to make satisfaction vnto God by corporall or pecuni­arie Penance, which whosoeuer doth not accomplish in this life, shall accomplish it in Purgatorie, from whence neuer­thelesse the Pope drawes out mens soules by Pardons.

We say, that admit there were no euill at all in this, and that this kind of Penance were conformable to the word of God, yet it can in no wise be a Sacrament: Our reasons are these.

1 All our aduersaries with vs acknowledge, that euery Sa­crament is a sacred and a visible signe of an inuisible grace of God.Can. Sacrifi­cium. Sacra­mentum est inuisibilis gratiae visibi­lis forma. The Romish Decretall in the second Distinction of Consecration, maketh this definition of a Sacrament, drawne out of Saint Augustine: A Sacrament is a forme or visible ap­parence of an inuisible grace. And this sentence of S. Augu­stine is receiued among our aduersaries, that The word ought to be added to the element to make it a Sacrament. That being granted, it is manifest that this Penance is no Sacra­ment: for where is the element? where is the visible signe instituted by Christ? for they compose this Sacrament of foure peeces, which are, Contrition, Confession, Absolution, and Satisfaction. Contrition of the heart is no sensible nor visible signe. Confession also is no signe of the grace of God, but a declaration that we are vnworthy of his grace. Confession is not ordained to signifie the grace of God, but to aske it. Moreouer the sacred signes ought to be administred by the Pastor, but Confession is made by euery particular man. I say the same of corporall or pecuniary Satisfactions, which are accomplished by the sinner, and commonly in his house, by fastings or whippings, or abroad by pilgrimages: whereas sacred signes are administred in the Church, by the hands of the Pastor. Absolution also cannot be a sacred signe of the [Page 384] grace of God: seeing that if it be good and auaileable, it is the grace of God. Adde hereunto, that this absolution is not an element nor a visible signe of an inuisible grace, for the words are not seene. If they answer, that it is sufficient that significantly it is the grace of God 'I say, that by the same reason the preaching of the word of God is a Sacrament, for it is sensible and a signification of the grace of God. It is not sufficient that Sacraments should be sensible signes, they must be visible, as the definition aforesaid saith, which is drawne out of the ancient Fathers, and receiued by the Church of Rome. The word must be ioyned to the element, but here they will haue the word to be an element.

I confesse, that the imposition of the Priests hands is a vi­sible signe, but it is no element but an action, as the distribu­tion of the bread in the Supper is not the element, but the bread sanctified. Moreouer this imposition of hands was not ordained by Iesus Christ, for he did not command that the Priest should lay his hands on a man to conferre Sacra­mentall absolution. If these words, absoluo te, &c. be a visible signe, or a sensible element, by the same reason these words in Baptisme, Baptizo te, &c. should be a sensible signe, and an element, and not a word added to the element to make it a Sacrament. Certes in disputing with our aduersaries we are constrained to speake as it were to children, to beate into them the first principles of reason and common sense.

2 The proofes which follow are no lesse plaine and e­uident. Our aduersaries make Contrition of the heart the first part of this Sacrament, which Contrition and griefe of heart is so necessary, that without it Penance is a kind of moc­kerie, and meere hypocrisie. But thereby they wound and ouerthrow their imaginary Sacrament: for besides the absur­dity therein found, which is to make a vertue or disposition of the soule part of a Sacrament, as if one should make faith part of the holy Supper▪ there is a further matter, which is, that the Priest is vncertaine whether thereby he confer­reth a Sacrament, because he cannot be assured of the Con­trition of the sinner, and knoweth not whether the declara­tion [Page 385] which the sinner maketh, to be sorry for offending God, be true or fained. And yet if that Contrition be not had, there is no repentance, and by consequence no Sacrament of Pe­nance. Surely this must needs be a presumptiue Sacrament which a man must guesse at, and a Sacrament which depen­deth vpon the will and disposition of the sinner, who if he will, can make it no Sacrament.

3 Adde hereunto, that all Sacraments are ministred by the Pastor; but of this Sacrament three parts, (that is, Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction) are done by euery particular man, who, if he be but halfe contrite, if he maketh but halfe a Confession, if he maketh but halfe Satisfaction, it is but halfe a Sacrament: which are extrauagant conceptions, and a strange kinde of an irregular Sacrament.

4 But the grossest absurditie of all appeareth in this, that oftentimes the Priest enioynes a sinner to make satisfaction within diuers yeares: in the ancient penitentiall Canons, there are penances found of 10, and of 20 yeares. Then seeing that this satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament of Penance, we may say that a man is 20 yeares administring a Sacrament, as if a man should employ 7 or 8 yeares to baptize a child, or to confer extreme vnction. But this is worse: for there are satisfactions which are made by respits, or spaces of times, as when a sinner is condemned to fast three yeares together, three dayes in a weeke, that is a Sacrament which is celebra­ted by respites, and hath a thousand delayes. So full of inuen­tions is superstition, and our aduersaries so ingenious to dis­guise religion.

5 But to shew the roote of this euill, if Penance be a Sa­crament of the Christian Church, then Iesus Christ ordained it. The Councell of Trent in the 14. Session and first Chap­ter, findeth the institution thereof in the 20. Chapter of Saint Iohn, where Iesus Christ blowing vpon the Apostles, said vnto them, Receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes soeuer ye remit, they are remitted vnto them, and whose sins soeuer ye retaine, they are retained. In these words of Iesus Christ, our aduersaries (which inferre quidlibet ex quolibet) finde Auricular Confes­sion, [Page 386] and pecuniary and corporall Satisfaction.

Note that these words are spoken to the Apostles after the resurrection of our Lord. Whence it followeth, that repen­tance preached by the Prophets, was no Sacrament. And in the Gospell,Matth. 3. when S. Iohn Baptist preached saying: Repent for the kingdome of God is at hand, that repentance was no Sacra­ment, for then Iesus Christ was not risen againe. And which is more,Vulgata poeni­temini. when in Marke 1.15. Iesus Christ said, Repent, and beleeue the Gospell, that repentance was no Sacrament, for then the Lord was not yet risen againe. And after the resur­rection of Iesus Christ, Acts 2.38, when Saint Peter exhor­ted the Iewes (not then baptized) to repent, saying, Agite poe­nitentiam, Repent, or amend your liues, that repentance was no Sacrament:Nec ante ad­uentum Chri­sti poenitentia erat Sacramē­tum, nec est post aduentum illius cuiquam ante Baptis­mum. for the Councell of Trent in the same place saith, That Penance is no Sacrament before Baptisme. There is no other Penance found to be in the Scripture; and it is not to be found, that this word Penance is prooued to be a Sacrament, or an exterior signe of the grace of God, but is said to be an earnest conuersion and an amendment of life. With the which Penance if we content our selues, we cannot be blamed for not receiuing other Penance then that which the Prophets, Iohn Baptist, Iesus Christ, and the Apostles preached.

6 And if we must haue a Sacrament of Penance, we haue Baptisme, whereof S. Marke speaketh thus in the first chapter, fourth verse, saying, Iohn preached the Baptisme of amendment of life, for remission of sinnes.

Which hindereth not, but that after Baptisme we should seeke to amend our liues, and bring forth fruits worthy of re­pentance. That also is no hinderance, but that all faithfull Pa­stors, as successors of the Apostles, may bind and loose [...] of which power we will speake hereafter.

Of Auricular Confession, a part of the Sacrament of Penance.

Sect. 4 Confession of sinnes is necessary to saluation. He that coue­reth [Page 387] his sinnes shall not prosper, Prou. 28. v. 13 but who so confesseth and forsaketh them, shall haue mercy, saith Salomon. So sinners came to Iohn Baptist confessing their sinnes. This Confession is made, ei­ther to God onely, or publickly to the Church, or priuatly to the Minister of the Church, or to our neighbours whom we haue offended. All these Confessions are good, and are pra­ctised in our Churches: wherein, besides the Confession which euery one maketh apart vnto God, the Confession of sinnes publickly committed, and knowne to the most part of the people, are made publickly before the Church: which publicke Confession the Councell of Trent commandeth,Sess. 24. cap. 8. in Decreto de reformatione. Apostolus mo­net publicè peccantes pa­làm esse corri­piendos. Socrat. l. 5 cap. 19. Sozo. l. 7. c. 16. and saith, that the Apostle, 1. Tim. 5.20. ordained it. It was the manner of the ancient Church publickly to confesse their faults. As Socrates and Zozomenus witnesse.

Besides this publike Confession, we haue priuate Confes­sions of faults that are not publike, which are made, either to the Minister alone, when the sinner comes vnto him priuately to discharge his conscience, and to seeke for comfort and as­surance of remission of sinnes; or to the Consistorie, which is with vs, the assembly of Pastors and Ancients, to whom the managing of Ecclesiasticall discipline among vs belongeth. Finally there are Confessions of sinnes, which particular per­sons mutually make one to another, after they haue offended one the other, of which mutuall confessions Saint Iames 5.16 speaketh saying: Acknowledge your sinnes one to another, [...]. and pray one for the other. The Greeke and the Latin word signifie Confesse your faults mutually and reciprocally. That which is added, And pray one for another, euidently sheweth, that as Saint Iames commandeth vs not to pray onely for Priests: so he doth not command vs to confesse our faults onely to Priests. He speaketh therefore of a reciprocall prayer,Intercessores sunt apud De­um pro pecca­toribus iusti, hoc pro se ipsi peccantesinui­cem vt faciant admonentur. and of a mutuall succour, as also of a mutuall Confession to be made betweene particular persons after quarrels and off [...]nces giuen, So Saint Augustine vnderstood it in his 54 Epistle saying. The righteous are intercessors vnto God for sinners. Sinners are admonished to do it one for another. For it is written, Confesse your sinnes mutually, and pray one for ano­ther. [Page 388] Cardinall Caietan doth the like in his commentary vpon this Epistle, saying,Nec est hic sermo de con­fessione Sacra­menti, vt patet ex eo quod di­cit, cōfitemini inuicem, &c. Here it is not spoken of sacramentall Confession, as it appeareth by that which is said, Confesse your sinnes one vnto another. But sacramentall Confession is not made one vnto another but onely to the Priest. The Apostle speaketh of that Confession whereby we mutually acknow­ledge our selues to be sinners, that men may pray for vs, and of the Confession of faults which are made on either side, to ap­pease and reconcile men mutually together.

If Saint Iames did hereby command vs to confesse our sinnes to the P [...]iest, yet that makes nothing against vs which admit this Confession; we onely [...]eiect auricular Confession, which all the East Church reiecteth: and that racking of consciences which bindeth a man to tell all his thoughts in the eares of a man, and not onely to discouer all his sinnes vnto him, but also all the particular circumstances, which change (as the Councell of Trent saith,Sess. 14. can. 7.) the nature of sinne. Whereof if a man willingly omitteth any thing, the absolu­tion is voide, and the Confession without fruite. Besides, the silence of this secret Confession is so inuiolable, that when by a Confession a Priest shall haue vnderstanding of any enterprise to be made against a king, he may not disclose it. No more do we allow of the distinction which the Councel of Trent maketh,Sess. 14. can. 5. which ordaineth that a man shall confesse all his mortall sinnes, but touching veniall sinnes, (that is, such as are pardonable,) it bindeth him not to confesse them. By this meanes a man shall confesse nothing, for mortall sinnes are pardonable to those that repent and amend their liues.

The fruite of this auricular Confession is, First that Priests and confessors make themselues fearefull to those whose ini­quities they know. Secondly hereby they know the secrets, infirmities, and purposes of Princes, whereof the Pope is presently aduertised. Thirdly, that in a rebellion of subiects against an excommunicated Prince, they perswade bloud­shedding and rebellion secretiy in the peoples eares, as it hap­pened in the last troubles. Fourthly, that therby they know all the dishonest women in a towne, and know those with [Page 389] whom they may commit fornication or adulterie without difficultie. Fiftly, that thereby they take pleasure it asking immodest questions, and teach vices vnder pretence of soun­ding mens consciences, and make enquiry of married mens se­crets, whereof also they haue made rules. Reade the 19 booke of Burcharts Decree, the Roman Penitentiall, Nauarrus, San­ches, Emanuel Saes Aphorismes, and other Casuists, Cardinall Tolets Instruction to Priests, and the immodest booke of the Benedictins touching Confessions. There you shall see a thousand secrets of enormous vnchastitie: the shamefull trickes of Couents, and prophane curiositie whereby they teach and reduce vices into an Art, as well naturall as against nature, vnder colour to reprooue them.

Of Absolution and sacramentall Satisfaction.

Sect. 5 Our Lord Iesus Christ hath giuen power to his Apostles and to theit successors to pardon sinnes, and to binde and lose sinners, Matth. 16.19. and 18.18. and Ioh. 20. A sinner is bound as long as he is obliged to the punishment due for sinne, and is vnbound when he is absolued, and that his con­science is discharged of that obligation to the punishment in which he was before bound.

This power of faithfull Pastors is exercised not only by the preaching of the Gospell in generall, whereby remission of sinnes is promised to all beleeuing and repentant sinners, and the iudgement of God pronounced against all incredulous and impenitent persons: but also by Ecclesiasticall discipline, whereby the penitent sinner is admitted and reconciled to the Church, and the impenitent put from the Communion of the faithfull. Which receiuing or reiecting God declareth to be ratified in heauen, Matth. 18.18. That is the power of the keyes which God hath put into his seruants hands, who pronounce this pardon not as Iudges, but as Ministers, and Heralds of peace and of reconciliation: declaring to the pe­nitent [Page 388] [...] [Page 389] [...] [Page 390] sinner, that his sinnes are remitted by the authoritie which God giueth to the Preachers of his word. There is none (to speake properly) but God, that can absolutely for­giue sinnes. It belongs to the partie offended absolutly to par­don. It is in him to pardon sinnes, that can punish soules. It is is in him certainely to pardon, which knoweth the hearts, and the interiour repentance of sinners. Now there is none but God to whom these things are proper. In the pardon whereby a Priest pardoneth a sinner for an offence by him committed to God, there are two things to be considered, one, that there is no pardon if the sinner doth not earnestly repent, the other, that he himselfe which pardoneth hath need of pardon. Of these two points, the first is the cause that the Priests pardon is conditionall, because he knoweth not the heart, the other is a cause that the Priest should consider of himselfe, that he is rather a delinquent then a Iudge: and to teach him to feare, lest that after he hath pardoned others, he himselfe may not obtaine pardon. It is a thing certaine, that if a sinner seriously conuerting and beleeuing in Iesus Christ, canot obtaine absolution of his Pastor which is passionate, or badly informed of the truth: God will pardon him. On the contrary, if a Pastor that is indulgent, and winketh at vices, or that is deceiued by apparence of repentance, absolueth an hypocriticall sinner, and receiueth him into the communion of the faithfull, that hypocritall sinner remaineth bound be­fore God, and shall be punished not withstanding. For God partaketh not with the errors of Pastors, neither regardeth their passions, nor can be hind [...]ed from doing iustice by their ignorance.

As God in the Scripture saith,1. Cor. 9.22. 1. Tim. 4.16. That Pastors saue mens soules, because God vseth their ministerie to saue them: so Pastors pardon sinners, because God vseth their ministerie to pardon them, giuing efficacie to their words pronounced, either to al men publikely, or priuately to sinners confessing their sinnes, and thereby imprinting an assurance of absolu­tion in sinners hearts, or thereby aggrauating the condem­nation of those which despise the pardon by them propoun­ded: [Page 391] this despising being contrary to God himselfe, who in the same place where he giueth them power to preach, saith, As my Father sent me, so I send you. Whose sinnes, &c. The places of Scripture where it is said that Pastors saue men, are 1. Cor. 9.22. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all meanes saue some. And 1. Tim. 4.16. For in doing this, thou shalt both saue thy selfe, and them that heare thee. Lombard, the father of the Romish Schoole, ioyneth with vs in his fourth booke, Distinct. 28. saying,Littera F. Dominus Sa­cerdotib. tri­buit potestatē soluendi & ligandi, id est, ostendendi ho­mines esse li­gatos vel so­lutos, The Lord hath giuen power to Priests to binde and vnbinde, that is, to shew that men are bound or vnbound.

The absolutions of the Church of Rome, (as well abso­lution sacramentall, whereby they say, that the fault of mortal sinne is remitted, as indulgences or pardons, by the which satisfactorie penance is remitted and released) are of another nature.

For their Priests pardon with authoritie of iurisdiction o­uer mens soules. And the Pope giues absolutions sealed with lead, in forme of a iudiciall sentence in a Court, although he knoweth not the sinners repentance. He hath reserued the power to himselfe to pardon all sorts of sinnes: and hath li­mited the power of Bishops and Priests to certaine cases. And vnder the shadow and pretence that it was said to Saint Pe­ter, All that which thou shalt vnbinde on earth, he pretends to vnbinde vpon earth, and to draw soules out of Purgatorie, whereby he reapeth great profit.

And vnder pretence, that in the Scripture there is mention made of vnbinding sinnes, he taketh vpon him to discharge men of their othes, and of the subiection and fidelitie which they owe to their naturall Princes, and children of the obe­dience which they owe to their fathers and mothets, when­soeuer by dispite or despaire they runne into monasteries, as into a sanctuarie of rebellion. By the same power he dissol­ueth marriages lawfully contracted, if he find that they haue both bin gossips at the christening of an Infant, or are allied by the sacramēt of Confirmation. Which are euident proofs, that the Scripture is alledged by our Aduersaries to vphold [Page 392] this power, more in mockerie then for any hope that they haue to be beleeued.

Emman. Sa Aphorism. in verbo Excom­municatio, Absolutio ex causa falsa valet. Tolet. De In­struct. Sacer­dot. li. 1 ca. 14 Absolutio in. iustae valet I­did. Potest absolutio fieri per procurato­rem Homo in­uitus potest absolui igna­rus & inscius, vide Azor. li. 1. cap. 9. q. 2 Eman. Sa in verbo Excom­municatio.The absolution of Excommunication, although it be dif­ferent from that of the sacramentall absolution; yet in re­gard of the affinitie vnto it, deserues a line or two. The abu­ses therein are enormous.

The Doctors of the Church of Rome teach, that vniust absolution is auaileable. Also in the Church of Rome a man is absolued by a Proctor. And there a sinner is absolued when he knoweth it not, yea and against his will, which is as much as to saue a sinner whether he will or not. I haue seene those that haue caused absolution of their sins to come from Rome by bils of Exchange. The same Doctors say, that an here­ticke and an excommunicated person may giue absolution at the houre of death. Tolet saith it in his first booke of the Instruction of Priests, chap. 15. That is to say, that an ex­communicated person may administer the Communion, and conferre those graces, which he himselfe hath not, and whereof (if he had them) God maketh him no distributer.

Emanuel Sa the Iesuite, in the beginning of his Apho­rismes sheweth vs what words the priest vseth in giuing ab­solution. Among other things the Priest saith to the sinner: The passion of our Lord Iesus Christ, and the merites of the most blessed Virgine Marie, and of all the Saints; and all the good which thou shalt do, and the euill which thou shalt pa­tiently endure, serue thee for remission of thy sinnes, and for increase of grace, and for reward of eternall life. But the Scripture saith, That the bloud of Iesus Christ cleanseth vs from all sinne, 1. Iohn. 1.7. And, That we are iustified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ, Rom. 3.24. And, That by him God freely pardoneth all our offences, Co­loss. 2.14. And, That there is no saluation in any other, Acts 4.12. Away then with merits, either of our owne, or borro­wed of others, and all trauels and humane perfections where­by men pretend to merite pardon before God. For if in all these workes and labours there were nothing to be disliked, yet they are things which we are bound to do. For he which [Page 393] oweth an annuall rent, in paying that yeares rent cannot satisfie and discharge his old debts. Moreouer, to ioyne these things with the infinite merite of the Sonne of God, is, as if a man should tie a blacke coale to a bracelet or chaine of bright shining diamonds, and couple most vnequal things together.

To be short, in what place of the Scripture do they finde one word, to proue, that by our merites, or by the merites of other men, we should deserue pardon of God? That is a new Gospell, a rule of merchandise seruing for trafficke: and a doctrine drawne out of the vnwritten word. The more we stirre this matter, the more the abuse is discouered: it is like a common sincke. The taxe of the Apostolicall Chan­cerie rateth letters of absolution for euery particular sinne at a certaine price, without excepting parricide or incest. And alwayes sinnes committed against the Pope are rated at an higher price, then those sinnes that are directly committed against God. This trafficke extendeth it selfe euen vnto the dead.Pro mortuo excommuni­cato pro quo parentes sup­plicant litera absolutionis vaenit. Dus. 1. can. 9. For in the 44. leafe of the said Taxe these wordes are found: For a dead man that is excommunicated, for whom his parents are suppliants, a letter of absolution is sold for a ducket and nine Carolus.

And when there is an absolution to be giuen to an excom­municated King, that is done vpon profitable conditions for the Pope, but preiudiciall and ignominious for the King. Sometime those poore Kings are condemned to certaine stripes in their owne persons; as Henrie the second King of England, that was whipt by a number of Monkes: or in the persons of their Ambassadors, as Henrie the fourth of famous memorie, our late king deceassed, was beaten by Pope Cle­ment 8. with diuers blowes with a staffe, in the person of Monsieur de Perron Bishop of Eureux his Embassador: Or else the Pope condemnes them to send certaine troupes of souldiers to aide his Holinesse, and to make their kingdoms tributarie to the Papall Seate, as he did to Henrie the second, and to Iohn and Henrie the third, Kings of England. By these practises he hath impouerished the Emperours of Germany, [Page 394] and brought a puissant Empire into a poore estate, as we see at this day.

Session 14. c. 6The Councell of Trent maketh this sacramentall absolu­tion vaine and of no effect; declaring, that notwithstan­ding the faith and contrition of a sinner, yet he ought not to presume that by this absolution his sinnes are truly pardo­ned, if the Priest at that time had not an intent to absolue him; as oftentimes there are prophane priests, or incredu­lous, or such as hate those to whom they giue absolution. Now this intent of the P [...]iest is vnknowne, and onely to be presumed. They also make their absolution vaine by the sa­tisfactorie penances which they impose on men. For, vnloo­sing the sinner by Absolution, at the same instant againe they binde him by corporall punishment, which they impose vpon him. They pardon him, and in the meane time make him subiect to a punishment. They pardon the fault, and yet constraine him to suffer the punishment. Iesus Christ did not so: For in the 8. of Saint Iohn, pardoning the woman taken in adulterie, he onely said vnto her, Go, and sinne no more: without imposing any satisfactorie penance, either corporall or pecuniarie on her, after her absolution. All the Ecclesia­sticall censures which the ancient Church vsed, and thereby humbled the sinner, were made before Absolution and Re­conciliation to the Church. By those exercises of Penitence, the sinner satisfied the Church, but not Gods Iustice, which Iesus Christ hath fully satisfied.

Yet this is not all, for our Aduersaries hauing imposed sa­tisfactorie punishments vpon a sinner, presently after they dispence with him for money, and change corporall into pe­cuniary punishments, as we haue shewed in the 38. Section of the first booke. Bellarmine in the 13. Chapter 4. booke of Penitence saith, that the Pope by his pardons dischargeth vs from the obedience of the commandement of God, which saith, Do workes worthy of repentance. That is to preferre the Pope before God.

Indulgentiae faciunt vt pro poenis quae per indulgentias condonantur, non teneamur praecepto illo de faciendis dig­nis poenitentia fructibus.You must also note, that the Councell of Trent, will not onely haue those satisfactions to serue to amend the sinner, [Page 395] but also to take vengeance of sinnes pardoned. A doctrine which contradicteth it selfe: for God taketh no vengeance after he hath pardoned.

Touching cases which a Priest cannot absolue, but are re­serued to the Bishop, whose power also is limited, many cases being reserued onely to the Pope himselfe, the Councell of Trent in the 14. Session, groundeth those reseruations vpon Romans, 13.1. noted in the margent of the said Councell, where Saint Paul saith, Quae à Deo sunt, ordinata sunt: Those things that are of God, are ordained or set downe in order. From whence he inferreth, that superior powers ought to reserue some things to themselues, aboue inferior persons. But this place is falsified both in sence and words: first in the sence; for this place of Saint Paul speaketh of ciuill Magistrates which beare the sword, and not of Pastors of the Church, nor of po­wers set in ranke and order, but ordained and established by God. Secondly, in the words, for according to the Greeke ori­ginall it is, For the powers that be, [...]. are established or ordained of God. And so the French Bible translated by the Doctors of Louain hath it. With such quotations the margent of that Councell is filled.

Those Prelates quoted not Mathew 18.18. nor Iohn 20.23. where Iesus Christ giueth all his disciples equall power to pardon all manner of sinnes, without reseruing any cases to Saint Peter, saying, Whatsoeuer you bind on earth, shall be bound in heauen; and whatsoeuer ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen.

Of the pretended Sacrament of Mariage.

Sect. 6 Our aduersaries call Marriage of Priests and Clergie men sacriledge, and neuerthelesse call the Marriage of lay men a Sacrament, which conferreth iustifying grace. By this deuice the Prelates haue drawne the knowledge of Matrimoniall causes to themselues, because (as they say) it belongeth to the Church to iudge of Sacraments. It is not knowne what great [Page 396] profit they reape thereby, and how many persons come to Rome for matrimoniall causes. The same auarice which for­bad Marriage to Priests, thereby to preserue the goods of the Church, hath made Marriage a Sacrament, thereby to take the knowledge of matrimoniall causes from the Magistrate. Truth herein is so manifest, that vntruth finds no place wherein to hide it selfe. For our aduersaries say, that a Sacra­crament is a sacred signe instituted by Iesus Christ, proper to the Christian Church, wherby iustifying grace is conferred to those which receiue it. But nothing of all this agreeth with Marriage.

1 Euery Sacrament of the Christian Church was instituted by Iesus Christ. But Marriage was not instituted by Iesus Christ: for Marriage was vsed in the world before Iesus Christ was borne. If they answer, and say, that Iesus Christ changed the nature, or the vse, or the signification of Marriage, and that he ordained that from thence forward Marriage should be a Sacrament, then they must produce that ordinance of Iesus Christ. Which they could neuer yet do: it is a thing drawne from the vnwritten word.

2 Sacraments are remedies against sinne, & aides to our in­firmities: Marriage therefore is no Sacrament, because it was ordained before sinne entred into the world, and then when there was no infirmity in man.

3 The Sacraments of the Christian Church are not vsed a­mong Pagans. Marriage therefore is no Sacrament of the Christian Church, because it is vsed among Pagans, whose marriages are lawfull, as the Apostle teacheth vs, 1. Cor. 7.13. For counselling a beleeuing wife not to leaue or forsake her husband that is an infidell, he presupposeth that their marriage is lawfull, although it was before the conuersion of the wife vnto the faith.Dist. 26. Can. Vna. Tantum ex Ambrosio. Io­annes Baptista dum Herodem ab incestu pro­hiberet, dicens, Non licet tibi habere vxo­rem fratris tui, euidenter ostendit inter infideles con­iugia esse. Whereupon Ambrose noteth, that Iohn Baptist would not haue said to Herod, It is not lawfull for thee to haue thy brothers wife, if there had bene no Mar­riage among infidels. And if a man and a woman that are infidels become Christians, shall their Marriage which was not a Sacrament, become a Sacrament? Or if that be absurd, [Page 397] and that their Marriage is not a Sacrament after their conuer­sion, shall there be Ch [...]istians whose Marriages are lawfull, and yet it is no Sacrament?

4 The Church of Rome in effect acknowledgeth that Marriage is no Sacrament, by this that Marriages are there permitted to be made by a Proctor. For the Sacraments are not administred by a Proctor. To baptize a man for another man, and after a man hath for himselfe bene participant of the holy Supper, to participate the same againe for another man, is as much as to make a play of Christian religion.

5 In all Sacraments the word must be ioyned with the element, that it may be a Sacrament: but here there is no ele­ment: for neither the words nor actions are elements.

6 And when a Priest (not knowing it) hath maried two persons together, whereof one is defectiue and incapable of marriage by their rule, either he hath truly conferred a Sa­crament, or he hath not conferred a Sacrament. If he hath not conferred a Sacrament, then marriage is a Sacrament which dependeth vpon the integrity of the body of those which re­ceiue it: and an action which to a man that is entire and sound is a Sacrament, but to a man that is defectiue is no Sa­crament. And so it shall fall out, that the Priest doth that which he thought not to do, and thinking to administer a Sacra­ment, he administreth nothing. But if those persons haue re­ceiued a Sacrament, what is it when the marriage within short time after is dissolued, by complaint made by one of the parties? That were an vndoing and defacing of a Sacra­ment, as if Baptisme should be frustrated, or the Lords Supper disanulled, being receiued by a man that is ill disposed.

7 Adde hereunto, that the Church of Rome holdeth, that Sacraments conferre iustifying grace, ex opere operato, that is to say, by bare action, without the necessary vertue and holi­nesse of him that conferreth it, or the attention of him which receiueth it. Then let them shew me what this action pre­cisely is in Marriage which conferreth iustifying grace. Is a men regenerated by solemnizatiō of Marriage in the Church? If it be so, how cometh it to passe, that a man then becometh [Page 398] more licentious in superfluity of apparell, bankets, dancing, &c. Is that the iustifying grace which thereby is con­ferred?

8 If they will that Marriage since the institution made by Iesus Christ, doth conferre iustifying grace, then they must produce the promise made by the Sonne of God, which pro­miseth this iustifying grace to those that are married. This puts our aduersaries to a non-plus, and they are faine to send vs to the vnwritten word.

9 By the Apostles counsell, 1. Cor. 7.37. one that is conti­nent, and not tempted with euill desires, doth wisely not to marrie. Which should be false, if Marriage were a Sacrament conferring grace. For is it a commendable thing to abstaine from a Sacrament which conferreth grace and iustifieth?

10 But why should the Marriage of Patriarkes and Pro­phets be no Sacrament, and the Marriage of a vicious Chri­stian, which marrieth incontinently, and against the will of his parents, be a Sacrament? What more holy or more mysti­call things are there at this day in the marriages of Chri­stians, then were in the marriages of the Prophets and Apo­stles? For if Marriage be at this day called a Sacrament, be­cause it is a figure of the vnion of the Church with Iesus Christ, it signified the same in the old Testament, where that spirituall vnion is oftentimes represented vnder the figure of Marriage: as we see in the 45. Psalme, the Canticle of Salo­mon, the 16. of Ezechiel, and the first and second chapters of Osee. And if euer any Marriage was sacred and full of myste­rie, it was the Marriage of Adam and Eue. For as God vsed the casting of Adam into a profound sleepe, in the meane time to forme a wife for him, so God vsed the sleepe of the death of the second Adam, to get him a wife, that is, the Church. Or if the Marriage of Christians be esteemed to be a Sacrament, because it is indissoluble, how doth the Church of Rome separate Marriages onely because the parties mar­ried did both together present a child at Baptisme, or at Con­firmation? Adde hereunto, that the inseparability doth not make a thing to be a Sacrament. If that were so, faith and [Page 399] repentance should be Sacraments, because they are insepara­ble. And it is not found that the Marriages of Christians are more indissoluble then the Marriage of Adam with Eua, or of Abraham and Sara. And when Iesus Christ, Matth. 19.8. abo­lished the liberty of diuorces vsed among the Iewes, say­ing, Whosoeuer puts away his wife, except it be in case of a­dultery, he draweth them backe to the first institution, and saith, In the beginning it was not so.

11 The Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 4.11. calleth circumci­sion, The seale of the righteousnesse of faith, shewing thereby, that Sacraments serue not onely to signifie some graces of God, but also to ratifie the same vnto vs, and to confirme the promises of God in vs. If then they will haue Marriage to be a Sacrament, it must not onely be a figure of the vnion of Ie­sus Christ with his Church, but also seale and confirme vnto vs some particular promise of God which is found in his word. But they say nothing to this, that is any thing likely.

12 Sacraments are tyed together by a naturall bond, one hindereth not the vse of the other: but the Church of Rome hath forged two discordant Sacraments, whereof the one im­peacheth the vse of the other, that is, the Sacrament of Or­ders, by the which a man being made a Priest, becometh in­capable to receiue the Sacrament of Marriage, and then that Sacrament of Marriage becometh sacriledge and an abhomi­nation vnto him. There are Ecclesiasticall functions which differ one from another, as seruing the tables, and preaching of the word, Acts 6.2, because of humane infirmity, which cannot attend diuers things at once. But it shall neuer be found, that a thing which is holy and sacred to some men, is profane and abhominable to others, and that the same which is a Sacrament to one man, is sacriledge & an abhomination to another.

13 And to conclude, this error doth wrap and intangle it selfe so many wayes, that this pretended Sacrament, is a Sa­crament which men must diuine and presume of: in such manner, that in the Church of Rome no man can assure him­selfe [Page 400] that he is married, although he hath had a dozen chil­dren by his wife.Sess. 7. ca. 11. For the Councell of Trent pronounceth ex­communication and a curse against all those which shall say, that the intent of the Minister in conferring a Sacrament is not necessary. It is a doctrine generally receiued in the Church of Rome, that if he which baptizeth, or marrieth, or singeth Masse, hath not an intent to do that which the Church ordaineth, or hath not an intent to celebrate a Sacrament, Baptisme and Marriage solemnized by him are nothing, and neither Consecration nor Transsubstantiation is made. Now this intent must be diuined or presumed vpon. Wherein ne­uerthelesse there is matter and subiect enough to doubt of: for the Church of Rome is full of Priests, which acknow­ledge and detest the abuses of the Church of Rome, & which condemne their owne actions: without speaking of Atheists, whereof the world is full, who in their hearts laugh and mocke at all that which is done in the Church.

Dur. in Sent. l. 4. Dist. 26. q. 3.14 For these causes or the like, Durand is of opinion, that to speake properly, Marriage is not a Sacrament. And which is more, Pope Leo the 1. in his 90. Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbonne saith: Quod societas nuptiarum ab initio constituta est, vt praeter sexuum coniunctionem, haberet in se Christi & Ec­clesiae Sacramentum: That the societie of Marriage was esta­blished from the beginning, that besides the coniunction of sexes, it might be a Sacrament of Christ and his Church. This Bishop saith, that Marriage hath bene a Sacrament of Christ and the Church, ab initio, from the beginning, and not onely since the coming of Iesus Christ.

To be short, if we should say nothing, the thing it selfe would speake: for Marriage hath bene made infamous and abhominable to Priests, for the preseruation of Ecclesiasticall goods, lest they should take vpon them to withdraw some part thereof from the Church for the benefit of their chil­dren,Vxor superstes & filij per quos Ecclesia­stica solet peri­re substantia. as Pope Gregorie the 1. in the 28 Distinction, in the Ca­non De Syracusana, saith. But where it was profitable for the Clergie to exalt Marriage, Popes haue found meanes to ad­uance it so farre as to make it a Sacrament, conferring iusti­fying [Page 401] grace,Can. 3. Si quid dixerit eos tā­tùm consan­guinitatis & affinitatis gradus qui Leui­tico exprimun­tur, posse im­pedire matri­monium con­trahendum & dirimere con­tractum, nec posse Ecclesiā in nonnullis il­lorum dispen­sare, aut con­stituere vt plures impedi­ant & diri­mant, Ana­thema sit. to draw the knowledge of matrimoniall causes to themselues.

Which appeareth by dispensations and other practises, whereby in this matter the Pope exalteth himselfe aboue God. For the counsell of Trent in the 24. Session pronoun­ceth all those to be accursed which say, that the Church can not dispence with degrees of consanguinitie prohibited by the word of God in Leuiticus. And that men may know that in those dispensations the Pope is ruled by humane re­spects and worldly considerations, in the same Councell, and the same Session, can. 5.In secundo gradu nunquā dispensetur ni­si inter magnos Principes & ob publicam causam. An. 1520. By Tonssains Denis rue S. Iaques pres S. Iues. Item etiam dispen­sare potest poe­nitentiaria in primo gradu, affinitatis in soro conscien­tiae; & litera vaenit duc. 9. gr. 9. prohibition is made, not to dis­pence with the second degree, but onely betweene great Princes, and for publike causes. If marriage in the second de­gree be permitted by the word of God, why doth the Pope prohibite it? If it be prohibited by the word of God, why doth the Pope dispence with Princes for the same? Haue Princes priuiledges to offend God? This artificiall deuice also appeareth herein, that the Pope hath inuented degrees of imaginarie kinreds betweene godfathers and godmothers & the infant, which may not marrie without dispensation, and a great priuiledge. He hath extended the prohibition of mar­riage to the fourteenth degree of affinitie, but he dispenceth therewith and with the first degree of affinitie, alway paying for it. The taxe of the Romane Chancerie imprinted at Paris with priuiledge and approbation, in the 40 leafe hath these words. The penitenciary may dispence with the first degree of affinitie at the barre of conscience, and the bill is sold for 9 duckets and sixe grosse. That is, that the Pope may giue permission to a man to marrie the sister of the wife deceassed, against the expresse prohibtion thereof made Leuit. 18.16. and 20.21. Innocent the third did it, as Bellarmine acknow­ledgeth, in the 28 chapter of the booke of Marriage. The Almaine Doctor in the 12 chapter of the booke of spirituall and temporall power hath these words, saying,Martinus quintus consilio maturo habito, dispensauit inter aliquos in secundo gradu consan­guinitatis qui est lege diuina prohibitus. Similiter temporibus nostris Papa dispensauit cum ali­quo quòd haberet duas sorores vnam post alteram contra legem Dei. Martin the fifth with ripe deliberation granted a dispensation betweene [Page 402] certaine perfons in the second degree of consanguitie, which is prohibited in the diuine Law. Likewise in our time the Pope gaue a dispensation to a certaine man to marrie two sisters one after the other, contrary to the Law of God. &c. Whereupon this Doctor produceth the authoritie of Panor­mitanus and Angelus, who maintaine that the Pope may dis­pence against the Law of God.

To make Marriage a Sacrament, our aduersaries produce Ephesians, 5.32. which in the vulgar translation is thus set downe, This Sacrament is great, but I say in Iesus Christ and the Church. But in Greeke it is thus, This is a great secret or a mysterie, but I speake concerning Christ, and concerning the Church. In this place the Apostle speaketh of the sacred vnion betweene Iesus Christ and his Church: which vnion he com­pareth to corporall Marriage betweene the husband and the wife. His intent was not to exalt the mysterie of Marriage, but the vnion of the Church with Iesus Christ. This mysterie then whereof he speaketh, is the mysticall vnion betweene Iesus Christ and the Church, and not the vnion betweene the husband and the wife. For hauing said, This is a great mysterie, that we should not thinke that he speakes of the mysterie which is in Marriage, [...], Hauing re­gard to Iesus Christ and to his Church. he addeth, But I speake touching Iesus Christ and his Church.

But be it so, that Saint Paul calleth Marriage a mysterie or secret: and that the vulgar translation hath truly translated Mysterie by the word Sacrament, what is that to prooue Mar­riage to be a Sacrament of the Church? Will our aduer­saries haue all those things which in the vulgar translation are called Sacraments, to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome? By that reckoning, the great whore shall be a Sacra­ment of the Romish Church: for in Apocalyps 17 7, accor­ding to the vulgar traslation, it is said, I will shew thee the Sa­crament of that woman, and of that beast that beareth her. And the seuen starres in Apocalyps. 1.20. should be a Sacrament, for in the vulgar translation they are called so. And three times in Dan. 2. in the same translation dreames & visions are called Sacraments. And in 1 Tim. 3.16. Pietie is called a great [Page 403] Sacrament, in steed of a secret or mysterie. But most of all the fraud of this translation specially appeareth herein, that in the chapter following, verse 19. S. Paul prayeth the Ephesi­ans to pray for him, that vtterance might be giuen vnto him to o­pen his mouth boldly to publish [...], the mysterie, or secret of the Gospell. In this the vulgar translation, aith, Mysterium Euangelij, and not Sacramentum Euangelij. Here are two places one neare vnto the other, in one Epistle, where one selfesame Greeke word in one place is translated mysterie, & in another Sacrament. Let them translate these two places both alike, and the difficultie is ended.Non habes ex hoc loco pru­dens lector à Paulo coniu­gium esse Sa­cramentum. Non enim aicet Sacra­mentum, sed mysterium hoc magnum est. Et verè mysterium ve [...]borum ho­rum magnum est. Cardinall Caietan acknowledged the same in his Commentary vpon this place, where he saith, Prudent Reader, here thou dost not learne of Saint Paul that Marriage is a Sacrament: for he saith not, this Sacrament, but this mysterie is great, and in truth the mysterie of those words is great. I confesse that Marriage is a figure of the v­nion of Iesus Christ and his Church: but by the same reason, the vnion of the head with the members, and the stoeke of a vine with the twigs and branches thereof should be Sa­craments. Adde hereunto, that Marriage prefigured the same in the old Testament, when Marriage was no Sacrament, if we beleeue our aduersaries. This might serue for an answer to the words which M. Arnoux addeth.

Sect. 7 Ephesians 5.32. speaking of Marriage, This Sacrament is great, I say in Christ and his Church. Then why do they receiue but two Sacraments onely, seeing the Apostle calles Marriage a Sacrament, and a great Sacrament? But they perceiuing that this place ouer­throweth their doctrine, they haue corrupted the pl [...]ce, putting the word secret in steed of Sacrament, leauing the Greeke origina [...]l, and the Latine translation.

This hath already bene confuted. This man sheweth that he vnderstandeth not the Greeke, and that he hath badly read ouer the Bible. In the Greeke it is mysterie and in the La­tine Bible it is translated so, in the chapter following, verse nineteene.

Of extreame Vnction.

Extreame Vnction is a Sacrament of the Church of Rome, wherein the Priest annointeth the eyes, eares, nose, mouth, hands and feete of the sicke person, with consecrated oyle, making the signe of the crosse with his thombe dipt in oyle, and beseecheth God to pardon the sicke person all the sins which he committed by those parts of his body. Then he tur­neth to the sicke person againe, and annointeth his reines, be­cause in them is the seate of the sinne of lecherie. That done, he washeth his hands with Water and Salt, and casteth the water into the chimney.

All this is done after the reading of the Letanie, wherein fiftie Saints at the least are called vpon, with diuers prayers which craue health and remission of sinnes for the sicke per­son.

This Sacrament is administred to none but to sicke per­sons, which are in danger of death. It is not permitted to be administred to those that go to be hanged, or which go to place a petard vnder a gate, or which enter into a dangerous combate, or which go a long voyage by Sea.

Catechesis Tridentina cap. de Extre­ma vnctione.The Catechisme of the Councell of Trent saith, that this Sacrament serueth to deface and blot out small and veniall sinnes: for touching mortall sinnes, penitentiall absolution hath defaced them before. The Councell of Trent in the 14. Session, saith, that by this Sacrament the rest of mens sins are cleansed.

To ground this pretended Sacrament they produce two places of the Scripture, the first is, Marke 6.13. where it is said, that the Apostles Cast out many diuels, and annointed ma­ny that were sicke with oyle, and healed them: The second is, Iames 5.14.15. where it is said, Is any sicke among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray for him, and annoint him with oyle in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of [Page 405] faith shall saue the sicke, and the Lord shall raise him vp. If he hath committed sinnes, they shall be forgiuen him.

In the exposition of these places, our Aduersaries are di­uided into contrary opinions, and their contention is great. Some of them, as Thomas Waldensis, Alphonsus de Castro, Alphons. de Castro libr. de Haeresib. verbo Extre­ma vnctio. and Maldonat in his Commentarie vpon Saint Marke, are of o­pinion, that in the sixt of Saint Marke there is nothing spo­ken of extreame Vnction; and that both Saint Marke and Saint Iames speake of sacramentall Vnction.

Cardinall Bellarmine on the contrarie denieth that the Vnction spoken of in Saint Marke, Lib de extre­ma vnctione cap. 2. is the same that is spoken of in Saint Iames, and is not of opinion that that whereof Saint Marke speaketh, is the Sacrament of extreame Vn­ction.

Cardinall Caietan is of another opinion:Nec ex ver­bis, nec ex effe­ctis verba haec loquuntur de sacramenta­li vnctione extremae vn­ctionis, sed magis de vn­ctione quam instituit Do­minus Iesus in Euangelio à discipulis ex­ercendam in aegrotos. Vide Sixtus Senensis Bib­lioth. libr. 6. Annot. 339. for he formally denieth that Saint Iames speaketh of sacramentall Vnction, and beleeueth not, that vpon that place extreame Vnction can be grounded, saying: These words of Saint Iames are not meant of sacramentall Vnction, neither if we consider the words, nor the effect thereof, but rather of the Vncti­on which the Lord Iesus ordained in the Gospell, to be vsed by his Disciples to the sicke. For the Text saith not, Is anie sicke to death? but absolutely, Is any sicke? and saith, that the effect of that vnction is the easing of the sicke person.

Among these mixtures of opinions, the Councell of Trent takes a new way, saying in the 14. Session, that in the sixt of saint Marke Iesus Christ insinuateth the Sacrament of ex­treame Vnction. And the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent saith, that our Sauiour giueth a scantling, and a begin­ning or an entrance. It is the manner of this Councell when it findeth any thing against it, to vse ambiguous and wrested words, which euery man may interpret for his owne aduan­tage.

All this difference and contention may be drawne to these two heads.

1 The first is, whether this ceremony of annointing the sicke ought to be perpetually in the Church.

2 The second, whether this Vnction practised in the time of the Apostles, is one of the Sacraments of the Christian Church

1 The first question is void, because these two places, one the sixt of Saint Marke, the other, the fift of Saint Iames, say,First point. that this Vnction serued for the healing of the sicke. They annointed diuers sicke persons with oyle, and healed them, Mar. 6. Let them annoint the sicke person with oyle in the name of the Lord, [...]. and the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke, and the Lord shall raise him vp. Whereby it appeareth, that while the gifts of healing, and the vertue of miraculous restoring of health, were in the Church, it was expedient to obserue that Vnction▪ as an exterior signe of the vertue of God wher­unto God gaue efficacie. But since that vertue ceassed, there is no more reason to obserue that ceremony, then if a blind man should still vse spectacles: or if one should vse to combe him­selfe when all his haire is fallen off and gonc. Interior vertue ceassing, exterior obseruation ought to ceasse. God him­selfe giueth vs an example thereof, in this, that he tooke the tree of life from Adam, when by sinne he fell into death. Not that life depended vpon that tree, but because God will not haue vnprofitable signes.

2 From hence it appeareth▪ that Saint Iames speaketh not of extreme Vnction, seeing he speaketh of an Vnction whereby a man is restored to health. The Vnction is extreme which is giuen in extremitie, but this vnction is giuen to those which are to liue still, and that being restored to health might in the same necessitie vfe the same remedy againe.

3 Adde hereunto, that Saint Iames speaketh not of oyle consecrated by a Bishop, nor of oyle kept in the Church; for the Apostles (in that healing) vsed such oyle indifferently as was at hand; neither doth he speake of that heape of cere­monies at this day vsed in the [...]hurch of Rome. And as the Apostles annointed all those with oyle indifferently which were brought vnto them, so Saint Iames makes no distincti­on of persons. But the Church of Rome giueth extreme Vnction to none but to those that are baptized, and which [Page 407] haue receiued the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Pe­nance, and which are not by iustice condemned to die.

4 The commandement therefore of saint Iames ought yet at this day to be practised, touching the prayer of faith made by Priests or Ministers, to the which remission of sinnes is promised, but not touching corporall annointing, which was vsed for healing. So Christians in the first ages vsed it. Tertullian against Scapula, chap. 4. saith, that the Emperour Seuerus Seuerus Proculum Christianum, qui Toparchiō cognominaba­tur Euhodiae procuratorem, qui eum per oleum curaue­rat requisiuit. vntill he died, kept Proculus a Christian in his house, which had healed him of a disease by annointing him with oyle. And Sulpitius Aegram in­tuens dari sibi oleū postulat, quod cum be­nedixisset, in os puellae vim sancti liquoris infudit. in the life of Martin, saith, that Martin healed a maide of the palsey, by powring oyle into her mouth. We haue the like example inHic à sancto Nepotiano vi­sitatus & sancto oleo per­unctus reddi­tur sanitati. Gregory of Tours, in his 1. booke 46. chapter. Cassander, in the 22. Article of his Consultation, reciteth the forme of the ancient annoin­ting of the sicke, which is worthy here to be set downe. In times past (saith he) the sicke person was annointed with oyle (which was called Oyle for sicke persons, or for luna­ticke persons, or such as were possessed with euill spirits,) in all their members, but specially in that member or place where his paine was, and then they added this forme of prai­er: I annoint thee with sacred oyle▪ in the name of the Fa­ther, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, beseeching the mercy of God, our onely Lord and God, that all the paines and griefes of thy body being driuen away, thou maist reco­uer thy strength and thy health, in such manner, that b [...]ing healed by the operation of this mysterie, and by the vnction of this sacred oyle, and by our prayer, thou maiest receiue thy first and strongest health, by the power of our Lord. Words which testifie, that the principall end of this vnction, was the healing of the body.Deus qui fa­mulo tuo Eze­chiae ter qui­nos annos ad vitā donasti, ita & hunc famulum tuū à lecto aegri­tudinis erigat ad salutem. Respice domi­ne famulū tu­um ininfirmi­tate corporis laborantem, vt castigatio­nibus tuis e­mundatus cō­tinuo se senti­at tua medici­na sanatum. To the same end are the most part of the prayers, which the Priest saith ouer the sicke; spe­cially that wherein he prayeth, that the sicke person may be healed by that medicine.

That which Saint Iames addeth, is nothing repugnant thereunto, when he saith, If he hath committed sinnes, they shall be forgiuen him. For those words are as much in [...]ffect, as [Page 408] if he had said, that health shall be restored vnto him, those sinnes for the which God had afflicted him, being pardoned. Iesus Christ himselfe teacheth vs that, Matth. 9.5. where he saith, that to say vnto a sicke person, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, and to say, Take vp thy bed and walke, are all one in ef­fect. For, the cause of the euill being taken away, by neces­sity the euill ceasseth. Saint Iames therefore in that place followeth the words of his Maister. Besides, he attributeth not this remission of sinnes to the vertue of the oyle, but to prayer made in faith, saying, The prayer of faith shall saue the sicke, and the Lord shall raise him vp; if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiuen him.

6 Thereupon our aduersaries aske vs, why S. Iames in that place speaketh of sicke persons, and not of deafe and blind men. But this is not to dispute against vs, but to demand of Saint Iames a reason of his speech. It may be that the Apostle by one kind of corporall infirmity, did also vnderstand others: and it may also be, that Vnction was vsed to none but to those that lay sicke in their beds, and that they vsed not that kind of remedy for deafe, blind and impotent persons, as we may see of the lame person spoken of, Acts 3.2.

It is to no purpose to obiect, that many also besides Priests had the gift of healing; and that therefore it was not need­full to call them to performe this annointing to heale the sicke. For then God more commonly conferred those gifts vpon Pastors, and in a greater measure then vpon others, to authorize their preaching.

It is also to no purpose to say, that if as often as Priests an­nointed the sicke they were healed, no man would haue died in those times: for many had no desire to call them, and ma­ny had not the meanes nor the leisure. And Saint Iames did not promise that they should heale all without exception. For in the ninth of Saint Marke, the Apostles could not heale a man possest with a diuell. And it is not vnlikely, that when God reuealed to an Apostle, that the time of the sicke parties death approched, the same Apostle abstained from vsing of that remedie which he knew would not preuaile.

Now for the second point,The second point, whe­ther extreme Vnction be a Sacrament. which is to know whether the Vnction which the Apostles and their Disciples vsed, may be called a Sacrament.

Touching that I say, If we take the word Sacrament in the same sence which the ancient Fathers and Romish Bible or­dinarily take it, that is, for a mysterie, or for a sacred signe, nothing hindereth but that we may call this Vnction a Sa­crament, seeing it was a sacred signe of the grace and assi­stance of God.

But this Vnction cannot be called a Sacrament, in the same sence that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are called Sacra­ments, that is, sacred signes and seales of the Couenant made by God in Iesus Christ, instituted by Iesus Christ himselfe; I say that in this sence, the Vnction whereof Saint Iames spea­keth cannot be called a Sacrament.

1 For Sacraments taken in this sence, are instituted for the health of the soule, but that Vnction specially and principal­ly serued for the health of the body.

2 Not onely the practise of Sacraments (as of Baptisme and of the Lords Supper) but also the institution of them by Iesus Christ are found in the Gospell. But none of the Euan­gelists do recite the institution of this Sacrament, neither where, when, nor how Iesus Christ did institute it. Onely we see a practise of this Vnction by healing of the sicke, which of a miraculous medicine is changed into an ordinary Sacra­ment, laden with a thousand ceremonies after the custome and manner of superstition, which is to multiply ceremonies after the vertue is lost. I do not deny that this Vnction was commanded by Iesus Christ: for it is not credible that the A­postles did any thing without his commandement. But euery thing which Iesus Christ commanded his Apostles to do, is not a Sacrament. He commanded his Apostles to do many things which were personall to themselues, and which ought not to be perpetuall: as when he commanded them to go and preach the Gospell, without money, and without prouision for themselues. And if this Vnction were a perpetuall Sacra­ment, the Euangelists would carefully haue recited the In­stitution [Page 410] and the commandement thereof to be perpetually obserued in the Church.

3 The Sacraments of the Christian Church ought to be administred in the Church: but this extreme Vnction is neuer administred but in particular mens houses.

4 The fruit & vse of this extreme Vnction witnesseth that it is no Sacrament. For the Councell of Trent in the 7. Session, in the 6. and 7 Canon, saith, That Sacraments containe the grace which they conferre, and that they conferre the same to those which duly receiue them. Therefore the sacramen­tall words of other Sacraments are conceiued at the present time when they are conferred, as in Confirmation, Signo te sig­no crucis, & confirmo te Chrismate salutis, I marke thee with the signe of the crosse, and confirme thee with the chrysme of saluation. And in Baptisme, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, &c. and so in all the rest. There is none but this Sa­crament onely, which doth not conferre grace, but onely maketh a request: which saith not, I heale thee, or I absolue thee, but onely asketh health and remission of sinnes. Then if it be a Sacrament, it must be an optatiue Sacrament, and not a Sacrament conferring the grace of God, an irregular Sacra­ment, which by his signes doth not represent graces but de­sires. For our aduersaries might perceiue, that if they had said, I heale thee, they had bene confuted by experience, be­cause very few sicke persons escaped death after extreme Vn­ction, which was carried to none but to those that were at the point of death, as if that Sacrament serued onely to end life, and not to prolong it. They might also consider, that if they said, I forgiue thee thy sins, this Sacrament should vsurpe vpon the Sacrament of Penance.

5 In the meane time by this manner of optatiue speaking, they imprint a scruple in mens minds: for seeing that of two things which the Priest requireth of God, that is, healing of the sicke person, and remission of sins, it appeareth that God doth not heare him in the one: how then shall we be assured that God heareth him in the other? seeing that the place of Saint Iames whereon they partly ground this Sacrament, e­qually [Page 411] promiseth health and remission of sinnes?

6 Lastly, [...]eeing that before this Sacrament the sicke per­son hath receiued absolution by the which all his sinnes are remitted what sinnes were they which still remained to be remitted by this extreme vnction? If by the Sacrament of Penance mortall sinnes are remitted, why should not the same Sacrament remit small and veniall sinnes? Why should not that which effecteth the greater effect the lesser? There­by it manifestly appeareth, that this Sacrament is vnprofi­table, and is like a plaister laid vpon a wound that is whole, and which seru [...]th to aske remission of sinnes, which are said to be pardoned before.

7 To prooue this Sacrament to be new, and vnknowne in the ancient Church, it app [...]areth by this, that there is no trace or signe thereof in all antiquitie. For the Canons of the Councell of Nice translated out of the Arabian tongue, are an inuention of Turrian the Iesuite: for, (if it may be credited,) none before him euer knew what the Canons of that so fa­mous a Councell were. Innocent the first which wrote in anno 407. or 408. speaketh of this vnction, but calls it not a Sacra­ment. And euery man knowes how much all those Decretals are suspected of falshood, and to be of small au [...]horitie. Bel­larmine setteth downe a place of Chrysostome in the 3. booke of Priests, but such as placeth not this vnction among the Sacraments. The places of Saint Augustine which he produ­ceth are drawne out of the Sermons De tempore, and out of the booke of the Glasse, and out of the book of the Visitation of the sicke, which are suspected bookes. The oldest wit­nesse that speaketh, is the eleuenth Councell of Chaalons vpon Soame▪ holden 800 yeares after the birth of Iesus Christ;Tit. 21. De secundis nup­tijs. cap. Vir autē. In Glos­sa. Quid enim impediret hanc iterari cum nō sit Sa­cramentum? and yet was but a particular Synode. But notwithstanding that Councell, the Canonist Doctors which haue written Glosses vpon the Decretals, are of opinion that extreame vnction is not a Sacrament. What reason is there (say they) why it should not be reiterated, seeing it is no Sacrament.

Of the Sacrament of Orders.

Sect. 9 The conferring of sacred Orders in the Romish Church is called a Sacrament. Those orders are 7. viz. Porters, Readers, Exorcists or Coniurers, Acolyths or such as minister to the Priest at Masse, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests, vnder the which Bishops are contained. For the Church of Rome doth not make two orders of Priests and Bishops.

Our aduersaries do not say that Iesus Christ did institute these seuen Orders aforesaid: and no Sacrament is of force which was not instituted by Iesus Christ. But they say, that Iesus Christ did execute and exercise those seuen Orders, and supplied those functions. They say that he did the office of a porter, when he said, I am that doore of the sheepe, Ioh. 10.7. That he did the office of a Reader, when he tooke the booke of the prophesie of Esay, and read it in the Synagogue, Luk. 4.16.17. That he did the office of an Exorcist, when he draue out wicked spirits. Pope Inocennt 3. in the first booke of the my­steries of the Masse, cap. 3. saith, that Iesus Christ did the office of an Acolyth (or a seruer of the Priest at Masse,) when he said (I am the light of the world:) for that office was to beare waxe candels. And in the fourth chap. he saith, that Iesus Christ did the office of a Subdeacon, when he washed his disciples feet, and in the fift chapter he saith, that Iesus Christ did the office of a Deacon, when he distributed the Sacrament, and when he waked the disciples when they slept, Luk. 22.45.46 Lastly all of them say, that Iesus Christ did the office of a Priest, when he sacrificed his body in the Eucharist, vnder the signe of bread. But which of these seuen offices did he, when he preached the Gospell? That is a point wherewith those sub­tile Doctors do not trouble themselues: and in truth it is not a necessarie thing, for a man may be a Priest among them without being a preacher. There rested nothing but to make Iesus Christ an Abbot, or a Cardinal, or a Pope; for the Scrip­ture [Page 413] would haue furnished these Doctors with places which they might wrest to their purpose with the like dexteritie.

Euery one of these orders are conferred by words and cere­monies cleane differing one from the other. Whereupon it followeth, that each Order is a Sacrament apart, and that it is an abuse by them committed to reckon but seuen Sacraments in the Church of Rome, when there are thirteene.

To examine each of these Orders, were as much as to picke strawes, and to shew diligence where there is no need. The Order of Priests only deserueth and requireth some discourse, for that vpon the puritie and lawfull exercise of Priesthood, the integritie of all other Orders, and the puritie of all religion dependeth.

Whether the order of Pristhood be a Sacrament.

The office of the Priest, or Minister, or Pastor of the Church, is conferred by imposition of the hands of those which con­ferre that Order, and which establish a Pastor in his office. This imposition of hands was vsed in the old Testament, as you may see Numbers 27. and 34. of Deut. where by Gods commandement Moses laid his hand vpon Iosua to esta­blish him in his office. This custome was practised by the A­postles wh [...]n they established Pastors. The Apostle Saint Paul saith to his disciple Timothee, 1. Tim, 4.14. Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was giuen thee by prophesie, and the laying on of the hands of the company of the Eldership. And in the 5. and 22. Lay hands sodenly on no man.

The question betweene vs is, whether this Order may be called a Sacrament. I answer, that if the word Sacrament be taken simply for a sacred signe or for a mysterie, which is the sence wherein this word is ordinarily taken among the Latine Fathers, and in the translation of the Romish Church, we [...]asiely admit this imposition of hands to be called a Sa­crament, because it is a visible signe of an inuisible grace, v­sed by the Apostles.

But to be called a Sacrament, in the same sence that Bap­tisme and the holy Supper are called, there are many things that hinder. For this imposition of hands, is not a sacred signe of the couenant of God in Iesus Christ, and is not com­mon to all the faithfull: neither is the expresse Institution thereof, found in the histo [...]ie of the Gospell. For Iesus Christ did not establish his Apostles in their offices by laying his hands on them, but by breathing on them, and saying vnto them, Receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes soeuer you remit, they shall be remitted, &c.

The Church of Rome hath a particular reason not to place sacred Orders among the Sacraments: for by prohibiting Marriage to Priests, and calling a Priests Marriage sacriledge, it maketh the Sacraments fight together, and causeth one to exclude the other, and to become sacriledge.

But this disputation, whether the ordaining of Priests may be called a Sacrament, is not the principall difference be­tweene vs; and we could be content to call it a Sacrament, so Priesthood did not change nature, and that the functions thereof were ruled and limited by the word of God. But the corruption therein is so great, that Priesthood at this day is not the ministery of the Gospell. For of Preachers of the Gos­pell and Ministers of the Sacraments, Priests are become sa­crificers of the body of Christ, which they maintaine to be a reall and propitiatory sacrifice. Their office is to make Iesus Christ with words, to sacrifice him to his Father. By the same corruption the bishopricke among them is become an earth­ly principality, and a dignity of a Prince of the Popes Monar­chie. This requireth a chapter apart.

Of the order of Priesthood in the Church of Rome, and of their sacrificing.

Sect. 11 In the Scripture the office of Priests is to labour in the word, 1. Tim. 5.17. and to feede the flocke of the Lord, Acts 20.17. In [Page 415] the 2. chap. of the Acts, the offices of Pastors are, to continue in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, & breaking of bread, & prayer.

At this day the office and duty of a Priest consisteth not in preaching the Gospell: for in the Church of Rome the grea­test part of the Priests preach not. To be a Preacher, they must haue another dignitie besides Priesthood. By the manner of their ordination they are made sacrificers of the body of Iesus Christ.

The Bishop putteth the couer & the chalice into their hands,Accipe pote­statem offerre sacrificium Deo, Missas{que} celebrare, tam pro viuis quā pro mortuis. saying, Receiue power to offer sacrifice to God, and to cele­brate Masses as well for the liuing as for the dead.

By these words the Bishop conferreth a charge which Ie­sus Christ did not institute, yea and such a charge as surpasseth all the dignity and power of Angels, whose vertue and excel­lency is nothing in regard of making Iesus Christ, and of of­fering him to God for a sacrifice: which deserued a formall commandement and an expresse institution of Iesus Christ. But there is no such thing found in the Scripture.

1 For the Apostle, Ephesians 4.11. and 1. Cor. 12.28. no­minateth the offices which Iesus Christ established in his Church. He himselfe (saith he) gaue some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Euangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. There is no mention neither there nor elsewhere made of the sacrifice of the body of our Lord.

2 And further, in the same place, their functions which God would haue them to exercise, are particularly declared: Which are, for the repairing of the Saints, for the worke of the ministerie, and for the edification of the body of Christ. But not to sacrifice the body of Christ.

3 And it is not without cause, that oftentimes in the new Testament all the faithfull are called Priests: but there is no place in the Scripture to be found where Pastors of the Church are expresly called sacrificers. The holy Ghost fore­seeing that there would some Pastors arise that would take that title vpon them in an iniurious sence against the Sonne of God.

4 For, not to speake of the iniurie done to the sacrifice of [Page 416] the crosse, whereof I will speake hereafter: I say, that by this office of a sacrificer of the body of Iesus Christ, the Priest exalteth himselfe aboue Iesus Christ. For it is manifest, that to sacrifice, is a more excellent thing, then to be sacrificed: as Aaron was more excellent then his offerings, or the things that he offered; for Aaron represented Iesus Christ sacrifi­sing, as the thing offered represented Iesus Christ which was to be offered. The dignity of the sacrificing priest makes the offering acceptable. The Priest therefore sacrificing Ie­sus Christ, exalteth himselfe aboue Iesus Christ, because the Priest is the Sacrificer, and Iesus Christ is the Sacrifice. For although y^t in the Masse they pretend that Iesus Christ is also the sacrificer, yet this is certaine, that the Priest sacrificing Iesus Christ in the Masse, is more excellent then Iesus Christ, in as much as he is there sacrificed. For when we shall haue examined and considered all the actions whereby the Priest pretendeth to accomplish his sacrifice, as the pronunciation of the consecrating words, the eleuation of the Host, the prayers which beseech God to accept of that offering the breaking; and the eating, we shall finde that the Priest doth all these things, and that they cannot be attributed to Iesus Christ. From whence it followeth, that in the sacrifice of the Masse, Iesus Christ is not sacrificed.

5 It also appeareth that in the Masse the Priest exalteth himselfe aboue Iesus Chrlst, in this, that he holdeth the Host in his hands, he breaketh it when he will, he carrieth it whi­ther he will, and when it pleaseth him he may throw it into the fire, or treade it vnder his feete. For that Iesus Christ which he pretendeth to sacrifice, is without sense and moti­on, and cannot defend himselfe. He cannot breathe, nor o­pen his eyes, nor stirre his hands. And although the Priest were a murtherer, an incestuous person, or a Sodomite, yet (according to the opinion of the Romish Church,) he hath Iesus Christ in his power.

6 If we aske our Aduersaries, wherein the sacrifice of the new Testament, and that perpetuall office of sacrificing according to the order of Melchizedech consisteth: they an­swer, [Page 417] that it consisteth herein, That euery day the Priest sa­crificeth the body of our Lord, vnder the accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist. How then comes it to passe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is one of the longest, and which (in a manner) speaketh of no other thing then of the sacrifice of the new Testament, and of the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedech, speaketh nothing of the Eucha­rist, nor of the sacrifice of bread and wine, nor of any earthly sacrifice? but speaketh of no other sacrificer then Ie­sus Christ, nor of any other Sacrifice then of his death? How did he forget that wherein at this day they make the Priest­hood of the Christian Church onely to consist? The Apostle by this reckoning, doth like one that writing of the dutie of a King, speaketh neither of his kingdome, nor of his sub­iects: or, as if one should write of the art of Horsemanship, without speaking of horses. For the Apostle hath at large written of the continual office of the Sacrificing in the Chri­stian Church, without speaking of the sacrifice of the Eu­charist, wherein they will haue this office of Sacrifice onely to consist.

7 Further, if we aske our aduersaries, when this Sacra­ment of the order of Priesthood was instituted, they answer, that Iesus Christ did institute it when he celebrated the Eu­charist among his Apostles, and say, that then they receiued the order of Priesthood. But in that action, where was there any conferring of that Order? Where was the imposition of hands? or any other ceremony which supplied that want? Where was there any instructions touching the office of Priests? seeing that priesthood (according to themselues) hath many other functions, besides sacrificing of the body of our Lord?

8 But who will beleeue, that Iesus Christ celebrating the holy Supper, did institute two Sacraments by one acti­on? Two different or seuerall Sacraments should necessa­rily be instituted by different words or seuerall ceremonies. We cannot by like words and actions administer Baptisme and Marriage; or conferre Confirmation, & extreme Vnction.

9 If the Apostles were made Sacrificers when Iesus Christ said vnto them; Do this in remembrance of me: it followeth, that they might sing Masse (as at this day they say) while Iesus Christ was vpon the Crosse, or in the Sepulcher; which necessa [...]ily at one time maketh one Iesus Christ suffering vpon the Cr [...]sse, and another Iesus Christ (not suffering) in the Host: one dead and laid in the Sepulcher, and another liuing in the Masse, both at one time.

10 From hence also it would follow, that the Apostles were for a while Priests without keyes, and could sing Masse without giuing absolution: for the power to remit sinnes promised vnto them in the 18. of Saint Matthew, was not actually conferred vnto them, but in Iohn 20.23, certaine dayes after the resurrection of the Lord.

11 Let the Reader that hath any care of his saluation, earnestly consider that which I shall say: which is, that Saint Matthew and S. Marke, reciting how, and in what manner Iesus Christ instituted & celebrated the Eucharist among his Disciples, haue set downe these words, Do this, and adde no more. Then if by these words, Do this, the Lord did e­stablish Sacrificers of his body, and instituted the sacrificing Priesthood of the new Testament, as the Councell of Trent saith: and if by those words Iesus Christ instituted a Sacra­ment, we must say, that those two Pen-men of the holy Ghost, whereof the one, that is, Saint Matthew, was present at the action, haue made a rehearsall vnto vs of this institu­tion, which is defectiue in the principall point, and haue o­mitted the institution of this Sacrifice so important, and of this office of Sacrificer of the new Testament. If they had done as S. Iohn doth, who speaketh not at all of the Instituti­on of the Supper, it might be thought to be lesse strange that S. Matthew and S. Marke had omitted both the institution of the holy Supper, and of the office of Sacrificer. But reciting the institution of the holy Supper; and omitting those for­mall words, whereby they say he instituted an office of a Sa­crificer and a Sacrifice, it is manifest and most euident, that they were ignorant of that office of Sacrificer, and of that i­maginarie [Page 419] sacrifice.

12 I would likewise haue them shew me, who conferred the office of Sacrificer to Saint Paul the Apostle, and who gaue him authoritie to sacrifice the body of Iesus Christ: for he was not at the Table with the Apostles, when the Lord said vnto them, Do this in remembrance of me. In the Acts of the Apostles we see, how Iesus Christ called him, and how he established him in his office of Apostle, in which office he saith, he was not established by any man, but by Iesus Christ. And the office whereunto Iesus Christ called him, was not to be a Sacrificer of his bodie, but to be an instrument, to beare his name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the children of Is­rael, Acts 9.15. Behold here then an Apostle without the of­fice of a Sacrificer, to whom Iesus Christ neuer said, Sacrifice me in remembrance of me.

13 And seeing that our Aduersaries are of opinion that Iesus Christ celebrated Masse in Emaus with two of his Dis­ciples, whereof we reade in Luke 24. I aske then, If in that action he made those two Disciples Sacrificers of his bodie? If, saying vnto them, Do this, he did not make them Sacri­ficers; it followeth, that these words, Do this, do not sig­nifie, Sacrifice me. But if by these words he made them Sa­crificers, it will follow that there were Sacrificers which had not their vocation from Saint Peter.

14 The Apostle S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11.14. rehearseth the insti­tution of this holy Sacrament, that the Corinthians might be confirmed therein. There he witnesseth that Iesus Christ saying, Do this in remembrance of me, spake to all the faith­full: for those to whom he directed those words, are they (who in the verse ensuing) he commandeth to declare the death of the Lord, and to eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup after they haue examined themselues: which is a commandement made to the people, and which euery faith­full Christian ought to do. By this meanes euery Christian shall be a Sacrificer, and may sing Masse.

15 If these words, Do this in remembrance of me, were words that ordained the office of Sacrificers, euery time, & as often [Page 420] as we should exhort the faithfull in that holy action, to do that in remembrance of Iesus Christ which Iesus Christ did, we should establish as many sacrificers as there are commu­nicants.

16 The Apostle Saint Paul to the Hebrewes speaketh ab­solutely against this inuented office of sacrifice; for besides that which he saith in the 5. Chapter 4. verse, that No man ta­keth this honour vnto himselfe, but he that is called of God, as Aa­ron was, in the chapter 7.23.27. he giueth two peremptory reasons, for the which the sacrifice and the office of sacrificing ought to be abolished. The one, that the soueraigne sacri­ficers of the Law were subiect to die, and that death hindred them from continuing. The other is, that they were bound to sacrifice first for their owne sinnes, and after for the peo­ples sinnes: which also concerned inferior sacrificers, who al­so being mortall and sinners, died and were taken away. What is in all this that equally concernes not the sacrifices of the Church of Rome, who are likewise mortall and sinfull? And what cause may be giuen, why the Priests should continue and be suffered in the Church, which may not as well be for the continuance and maintenance of the Priests of the Law? Was the Apostle so voide of sence, as not to see and perceiue that speaking in that manner against the office of the legall sacrifice, he also spake against the office of sacrificing vnder the Gospell? Would he not (thinke you) haue taken away this scruple, and preuented this obiection?

17 To be short, the Bishops of the Church of Rome are continuing there still, and yet could neuer shew their power, nor their commission from Iesus Christ to establish sacrificers of his body in the Church.

Of the sacrifice of the Masse.

Sect. 12 The Councell of Trent in 22. Session and 2. Canon, thun­dreth out excommunications and curses against all those that [Page 421] say that our Lord Iesus Christ by these words, Do this in re­membrance of me, did not conferre the order of Priesthood to his Apostles, nor commanded them to sacrifice his body and his bloud.

The ordinary exposition which they make of these words, Do this in remembrance of me, is, Sacrifice my body and my bloud, really vnder the kinds of bread and wine, as a propi­tiatorie sacrifice for the liuing and the dead. To expound the Scripture in this manner, is not so much to wrest it, as to play therewith. These Doctors contrary to all apparence of truth, will haue that to be Iesus Christs meaning, which the words of our Lord can by no meanes beare.

1 For we cannot sacrifice Iesus Christ, in remembrance of Iesus Christ. The memories of things are of other nature then the things themselues: as mens pictures are not the persons themselues.Bellar. l. 2. de Euchar. c. 24. Idem Christus fuit figura sui ipsius. Et §. Tertia. Est ve­rè corpus Do­mini, & signū eiusdem cor­poris. And there is nothing more absurd nor extraua­gant then the affirmation of these Doctors which hold, that in the Masse Iesus Christ is the figure of himselfe, and the signe, and the thing signified, as if a man should say that the Kings picture is the King, or that the King is his picture.

2 Adde hereunto, that remembrance is necessarily vnder­stood of things absent. Men may well make rehearsals or remembrances of the valors of a King in his owne presence, but those rehearsals or remembrances are not remembran­ces of the Kings person being present, but of his actions past. So the sepulchers of Martyrs were called the memories of Martyrs, because they put men in mind of their sufferings past. It cannot but very improperly be said, that the person of a Martyr is in his tombe, when the best part thereof is in hea­uen, and that which resteth is consumed to dust. The ashes of a Martyr are not the person of the Martyr.

3 These words, Do this, are so clearely and manifestly ex­pounded by the Apostle Saint Paul, that there is no contradi­ction to be made. For 1. Cor. 11.25.26. after he had said, Do this in remembrance of me, for an exposition of these words he addeth, saying, For as often as you shall eate this bread, and drinke this cup, you shew the Lords death till he comes. To do [Page 422] this therefore in remembrance of Iesus Christ, is to eate this bread and to drinke this cup, to shew and celebrate his death, and not to sacrifice it.

4 Moreouer in all the action of this Sacrament, we see no shew nor apparence of a sacrifice. First, Iesus Christ spea­keth not of a sacrifice nor of an offering. Secondly, Iesus Christ presenteth nothing vnto God, but to his disciples, say­ing, Take, eate. Now whosoeuer offereth a sacrifice to God, presenteth something vnto him, and prayeth God to accept of his offering. Thirdly, Iesus Christ did not lift vp the host, which is a common custome and vse in all sacrifices. Fourthly, the Apostles did not adore the host, but sate still at the table without vsing any adoration. For although they had Iesus Christ ordinarily present with them, yet they did neuer eate him, nor euer were present at any such kind of sacrifice. And if euery sacrifice requireth adoration, how much more then such, and so admirable a sacrifice? specially in an action, which should serue for a patterne and an example in the Church, to conforme men thereunto in time to come? And if any one (when the host is lifted vp) to conforme himselfe to the ex­ample of the Apostles, should sit still, without adoring it, should he not be thought and esteemed to be a prophane per­son? And if he were in Spaine or Italie, should he not be sent to the Inquisition? And yet in the person of such a man they should make a processe against the Apostles.

5 It is to be considered, that if the body of Iesus Christ be really sacrificed in the Masse, it is conuenient and very ne­cessary, that the bread should be consecrated before they sacrifice it. And therein we agree with our aduersaries. Which being graunted, I reason thus: Whosoeuer offereth an obla­tion vnto God, necessarily speaketh vnto God. But in this action, after the words which they say are consecrating words, Iesus Christ speaketh not to God, Ergo, in this action after the consecrating words, Iesus Christ offereth no obla­tion to God. The action of thanks-giuing and the blessing of the bread went before the words that are called consecra­ting words; therefore they can be no part of that sacrifice. For [Page 423] that to blesse bread, and to giue thankes to God, is not to sacrifice it to God. This blessing is vsed at all meale times, and Iesus Christ did it at the distribution by him made of the loues of bread in the desert.Matth. 14.19. Luc 9.16.

6 It is to be noted that the Councell of Trent saith, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory,Hoc sacrificiū laudu pro re­demptione a­nimarum. and that in the Canon of the Masse, the Priest saith, that he offereth a sacrifice for the redemption of soules. If the Masse be a sacrifice of redemp­tion, necessarily it must be called so, either because the death of Iesus Christ is applyed vnto vs thereby, or because Iesus Christ dieth in the Masse, and suffereth there for our redemp­tion. But it is not because Iesus Christ dieth in the Masse; for Rom. 6.9. Iesus Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more. Then the Masse must be propitiatory, and a sacrifice of re­demption, because in it the death of Iesus Christ is applyed vnto vs, which onely is the price of our redemption. But if that be so, Baptisme and the preaching of the Gospell, and faith in Iesus Christ, are sacrifices of redemption, and sacrifices truly propitiatory. Adde hereunto, that to apply the sacrifice of the Crosse vnto vs, which is the death of our Lord, it is nei­ther conuenient, nor possible to sacrifice the Lord againe. For as to apply a plaister, or to make a payment of mony, we need not another plaister, nor another payment: So to apply the reall sacrifice of the body of Christ vnto vs, we must not real­ly sacrifice the body of Christ. By that reason, to apply the death of Iesus Christ vnto vs, we must make Christ die a­gaine. And in so important a thing, we must ground vpon the word of God, and shew that God will haue vs to apply the death of our Lord, by sacrificing him really in the Eu­charist.

7 There is no reason more absurd, then to apply a ransome payd for vs, vnto vs by paying it againe. Yet this is done in the Romish Church, which will haue the faithfull to apply vnto themselues the redemptiō of their soules made for them on the crosse, by offering the same redemption againe, and by sacrificing Iesus Christ againe in a sacrifice of redemp­tion.

8 Moreouer, that which our aduersaries do is cleane con­trary to that which they pretend to do: for to offer Iesus Christ to God▪ is not an application and an appropriating of him vnto our selues. There is as much difference betweene these two things, as there is betweene giuing a thing to ano­ther, and keeping it for our selues. In the holy Supper we ap­ply the sacrifice of Iesus Christ vnto our selues, by receiuing and accepting it by faith, as giuing himselfe vnto vs; and not by offering him as a sacrifice to God.

9 I would haue our aduersaries tell me, whether the re­demption or propitiation which the Priest offereth and ma­keth to God in the Masse, be all one with the propitiation which Iesus Christ offered and made on the crosse, or ano­ther. If it be the same, necessarily the Priest must offer a reall sacrifice of the death of Iesus Christ, which is impossible; for Iesus Christ dieth not really in the Masse. If it be another re­demption and propitiation, then there is two prices of re­demption, and another propitiation for our soules besides the death of Iesus Christ, and vnder shadow of applying the re­demption made on the crosse, to vs, they substitute another redemption, and so forge another Gospell.

10 The Apostle to the Hebrewes witnesseth excellently of this matter, he speaketh much of the office of a sacrifice according to Melchisedech, without speaking of the Eucha­rist: whereby it followeth, that the Eucha [...]ist is not the sacri­fice of Melchisedech.

11 Besides in Hebrewes 10.14. it is said, That Iesus Christ with one offering hath reconciled for euer them that are sanctified. Here is one onely oblation or offering, and the ver­tue thereof for euer. And to exclude the reiteration thereof, in the tenth verse he saith, That we are sanctified euen by the of­fering of the body of Iesus Christ once made.

12 They answer and say, that he offered himselfe but once in a bloudy sacrifice, but that he is offered diuers times in a sacrifice that is not bloudy. Which is a manifest errour; for, to offer himselfe diuers times in a sacrifice without bloud, is alwaies to offer himselfe diuers times, and so to contradict [Page 425] the Apostle. Adde hereunto, that the bloudy sacrifice is found in the Scripture, but there is no mention made of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ without bloud. To mocke the Scripture by distinctions vnwritten, is vnder pretence of interpreting, to correct the Scripture. And our aduersaries hauing rackt the words of the institution of the holy Supper, finde nothing therein but their owne condemnation. For, to alledge the words of Iesus Christ saying▪ This cup is the new Testament in my blo [...]d which is shed for you, to prooue a sacrifice without bloud, is to cōdemne themselues: because those words speake of effusion of bloud, and not of a sacrifice without bloud. To prooue a sacrifice wherein there is no bloud shed, by a place that speaketh of shedding of bloud is as good an argument, as if to excuse theft, a man should alledge the law which saith, Thou shalt not steale.

13 Therefor the Apostle preuenteth this excuse; for Hebr. 9.25.26. after he had said that Iesus Christ did not offer him­selfe oftentimes, he addeth, That then he must haue suffered often­times. Manifestly shewing, that he acknowledged no other sacrifice of Iesus Christ but his passion. And to cut off all dif­ficulty, he addeth, verse. 27.28. And as it is appointed vnto men that they should once die, and after that commeth the iudgement: So Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many, and vnto them that looke for him, shall he appeare the second time, without sinne, vnto saluation. Now where is the distinction of a bloudy and no bloudy sacrifice? seeing that the Apostle sheweth, that as a man can die but once, so Christ offered himselfe but once? How ridiculous a thing should it be, for one to say, that a man can die but once bloudily, but diuers times vn­bloudily?

14 The same Apostle, in the same chapter and the 22 verse, after he had spoken of sacrifices and purifications of the law, concludeth by this generall maxime, That without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes. If then the Masse be no bloudy sacrifice, there is no remission of sinnes made by it. And you must note that he speaketh of the present time, saying, There is no remission of sinnes: lest men should thinke [Page 426] that he spake onely of Iudaicall sacrifices that were aboli­shed. The Apostle will haue this rule to be certaine at this present time. Note also, that the Apostle saith not, that there is no remission of sinnes, but by the vertue of bloud-shedding: but he saith, that in sacrifices there is no remission of sinnes without effusion of bloud. It is nothing to the purpose, to seeke in the old Testament for examples of propitiatory sa­crifices, wherein no bloud was shed: as the goate of Azazel, or the Scape-goate, which was sent away aliue into the desert laden with the sinnes of the people, Leuit. 16.20. That is not to dispute against vs, but against the Apostle. And yet that goate was but a part of the sacrifice: there being two goates, wherof the one was killed, the other let go, and both of them were but one sacrifice. As in the sacrifice of two sparrowes, whereof one was killed,Leuit. 14. the other let flie away; one to repre­sent the death of our Lord, the other, to be a figure of his re­surrection: which two things could not be represented by one beast. If our aduersaries find reasons to prooue that propitia­tory sacrifices without shedding of bloud, ought to be practi­sed vnder the new Testament, the same reasons of like force are to be found vnder the old Testament: where neuerthelesse they were not suffered to be done.

15 He that is carefull of his owne saluation, will consider what kind of religion that is, which maketh two sacrifices of redemption, wherein Iesus Christ is really sacrificed. Two sacrifices of Iesus Christ differing in specie and in definition, in proprietie, in accidents, and in efficacie. For the sacrifice of the crosse is the death of Iesus Christ, but the sacrifice of the Masse is not the death of Iesus Christ. The one is a painfull sacrifice, the other without paine. The one bloudy, the other without bloud. The one wherein the body of Iesus Christ is broken, the other wherein it remaineth whole. The one visi­ble, the other inuisible. The one done but once, the other which is done a thousand millions of times. The one done immediatly by Iesus Christ, the other by the hand of a Priest. The one which being offered was sufficient for the redemp­tion of all mankinde; the other, which is repeated a thousand [Page 427] times, to draw one soule out of Purgatory. The one which is done freely, the other which is sold for money. The one offe­red for the remission of sinnes, and for the saluation of mens soules; the other which is offered for a sicke horse, for corne that is blasted, for the successe of a voyage, and to be short, which serueth for all things, but not for the saluation of soules. White is not more contrary vnto blacke, nor heauen more distant from the earth, then there is difference betweene these two sacrifices.

16 This pretended sacrifice without effusion of bloud, is contrary to the nature of all sacrifices so called properly. For both we and our aduersaries say, that in euery sacrifice pro­perly called a sacrifice, the thing that is offered must be visible, and that visible thing must be destroyed by the sacrifice. In this it is cleane contrary. For in this sacrifice, Iesus Christ which is the thing sacrificed, is not seene, nor perceiued; and he is so farre off from being visible vnder the species or acci­dents of bread, that on the contrary, it is the accidents that hide him, & make him inuisible, if we beleeue our aduersaries. And that which is destroyed in the Masse, is not the thing which is offered vnto God. The body of Iesus which they pretend to sacrifice, suffereth no distruction in the Masse. For the de­struction of a liuing thing is nothing else but death. The accidents onely are destroyed, which are not offered vnto God. And if (as our aduersaries say) the sacramentall being of Iesus Christ is destroyed, it followeth that the same sacra­mentall being is sacrificed. Then that sacramentall being is the price of our redemption: for that which is sacrificed to God, ought to be the price of our redemption. Now Iesus Christ in his naturall being is our redemption, which was de­stroyed vpon the Crosse, and not in a sacramentall being, that is, significantly, which is a Chimaera, and a meere fiction. So that nothing is destroyed in the sacrifice of the Masse which can be our redemption. Adde hereunto, that the destruction of the species or accidents being done onely in the Priests sto­macke, when the same species dissolue by digestion, we ought to say, that the sacrifice is not done till certaine houres [Page 428] after the Masse is finished, and that the Priests stomacke is the altar, and that the sacrifice is made two or three houres in the afternoone.

17 And when it is to be defined, in what action or part of the Masse the sacrifice formally consisteth, nothing troubleth our Doctours more then that, notwithstanding all their sub­tiltie. If they say, they sacrifice consisteth in the eleuation of the host, then Iesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he vsed no such eleuation: if in the breaking of the consecrated bread, then Iesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he brake the bread before he pronounced those words wherein the Church of Rome make the Consecration to consist. And if that which is bro­ken in the Eucharist or Sacrament is sacrificed, by that rec­koning Iesus Christ sacrificed nothing but bread. And Iesus Christ remaineth whole vnder the species of bread and wine, and by consequence is not broken vnder the species, and therefore is not sacrificed.

And if they say, the sacrifice consisteth in the eating, then the Priests mouth is the altar for the sacrifice; and by that rea­son,Snaè dici po­test, quòd Christus vir­tute diuina confecit: & postea formam expressit sub qua posteri benedicerent. Ipse namque per se virtute propria bene­dicit, nos autē ex illa virtute quam indidit verb [...]s. Catharinus et Capitefontiū, haue made two bookes expresly of this matter. as many as are communicants are as many sacrificing Priests.

They are no lesse troubled touching the Consecration, that is, whether the Sacrifice formally consisteth in the Con­secration; for they agree not among themselues about the words by the which Christ consecrated. Pope Innocent the third, in the sixt chapter and fourth booke of the Masse, is of opinion, that Iesus Christ did not consecrate by these words, This is my body, but that he had consecrated before by his diuine vertue. And all the ancient Fathers with one accord say, that Consecration is made by prayer. Whereupon the Grecians call Consecration, Inuocation, and Prayer. At this day they say, that Consecration is done by these words, This is my body, which are no words of Sacrifice nor Oblation, because they offer nothing vnto God, neither are directed vnto God, but to the Apostles; Take, eate, this is my bodie which is broken for you. And if to consecrate be to sacrifice, then by this reason it will follow, that consecrating of daies, [Page 429] of the Temple, and of the vessels belonging thereunto, are so many Sacrifices.

18 Touching this point we haue inuincible reasons, which hold our Aduersaries so fast bound that they can by no means vnloose themselues. They say, (and that with good reason) that in all Sacrifices, that which is offered vnto God ought to be consecrated. But in the Masse, that which is sacrificed to God, is not consecrated. Therefore nothing is sacrificed vnto God in the Masse. That no consecrated thing is offered to God in the Masse, it appeareth hereby; that if any conse­crated thing is offered to God in the Masse, it must either be the Bread, or the accidents of the Bread, or else the Body of Christ. But it is not the Bread, for it is no more bread, (as they say) after the consecrating words are pronounced; nor the accidents of the Bread, for they are not offred vnto God: The colour, the roundnesse, and the breadth of the bread, without bread, is not a fit and proper offering for our re­demption. Nor the body of Iesus Christ, for he cannot be consecrated by vs; seeing that on the contrarie, it is he that consecrateth vs, as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 10.14. For with one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified. So there is nothing that is consecrated in the Masse which the Priest can offer vnto God. Here our Aduersaries are at a stay, and say that the bread is consecrated, but tell not what consecrated thing is offered to God in the Masse.

Reasons which our Aduersaries alledge for the Sacrifice of the Masse.

Sect. 13 The proofes which our Aduersaries bring for this matter, are very weake and miserable.

1 They say Melchizedech offered Bread and Wine. Be it so, but what do they inferre thereupon? By that they con­clude that the Priest in the Masse sacrificeth the bodie and bloud of Christ. This consequence is ridiculous, and made [Page 430] as it were of set purpose to discredite their cause: for from thence rather it should follow, that the Priest sacrificeth no­thing but bread and wine, no more then Melchizedech did.

I could shew byPhilo lib, de Abraham. Io­sophus lib. 1. Antiquitatū. Philo the Iew, by Iosephus, by the Chal­dean Paraphrase, and by diuers of our Aduersaries themselues, as by Hugo de S. Ʋictore, and by Cardinall Caietan, and also by the Romish Bible, that in Genesis 14.18. from whence this place is taken, it is not said, That Melchizedech sacri­ficed, but that he brought forth, or presented bread and wine, to refresh Abraham and his souldiers, not to make an offering vnto God. I could likewise shew, that the Apostle in He­brews 7.1. compareth Melchizedech to Iesus Christ, not in this, that he sacrificed bread and wine, but herein, that he is set downe to be without father or mother: Also in this, that he was a King and a Priest: and in this that he blessed Abra­ham, and tooke tithes of him, as his superiour. I could also shewPererius Iesuita in Gen. ca. 14.18. & 20 Hebraea lectio Latine ad verbū con­uersa, sic ex­pressit hunc locum. Et Melchisedech rex Salē pro­tulit panem & vinum, & ipse erat Sa­cerdos Deo al­tissimo: & paulo post Ca­ietanus quasi vulgatam translationem non approbās. Quod (inquit) in vulgata editione sub­ditur, vt cau­sa oblationis, erat enim sa­cerdos Dei al­tissimi, in He­braeo non ha­beatur vt cau­sa, sed vt se­parata clau­sula. that the Romish Bible hath falsified this place, and haue put an enim for an &, and translate, For he was a Priest of the most high God, in stead of, And he was a Priest of the most high God, according to the Hebrew, and the Chaldean Paraphrase:The version of the 70: [...]. or as the seuentie Interpreters translate it: But he was a Priest. But it is needlesse to take so much paines to confute so ridiculous an argument, and which is alledged to proue that the Masse is a sacrifice of bread and wine. One thing is not to be omitted, that is, that our Aduersaries make two sorts of Sacrifices, one bloudy, the other without bloud: one according to the order of Aaron, the other according to the order of Melchizedech: one of lesse excellence, the other of more excellencie; and say that the Masse is that excellent Sacrifice, according to the order of Melchizedech. By this meanes they make the Masse to be more excellent then the death of Iesus Christ: which is a bloudy Sacrifice, and which by consequence is not a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedech. But the Apostle in Hebr. 5.6.7. maketh Mel­chizedechs Sacrifice to be bloudy: for there he sheweth, that Iesus Christ at his death did execute the office of a Priest, af­ter the order of Melchizedech.

Howsoeuer, seeing that the Priesthood of Melchizedech continueth for euer, Psal. 110.4. Hebr. 5.6. I cannot see how our Aduersaries can affirme that the Masse is the Sacrifice of Melchizedech; for they say that it shall no more be done af­ter the day of iudgement, and that before the day of iudge­ment Antichrist shall abolish it.

2 With the like subtiltie they alledge the Paschall Lamb, to proue that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice. They say, the Pas­chall Lambe was a Sacrifice: and therefore, that the Eucha­rist which is ordained in stead thereof, is a Sacrifice. Where­by they go about to proue that which is not in question be­tweene vs: The speciall point of difference is. Whether the body of Christ is really sacrificed in the Eucharist; and not, Whether the Eucharist is in some sence a Sacrifice.

3 They likewise make a great shew of the place in Mala­chie 1.11. where it is said; For from the rising of the Sunne, e­uen vnto the going downe of the same, my Name shall be great a­mong the Gentiles, and in euery place Incense shall be offered vnto my Name, and a pure offering. In this place I see nothing spo­ken of sacrificing the bodie of Christ, nor of making a pro­pitiatorie Sacrifice for the liuing and for the dead. In more then a dozen places of the New Testament, prayers, almes, puritie and innocencie of life, and the worke of the Ministe­rie are called Sacrifices. In that sence I doubt not but that the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice; but yet a Sacrifice of Eucharist, that is, a sacrifice of Thanks-giuing. And the word Oblation in Malachie is [...] minha, which signifieth a Cake, with aspersion of oyle, which was not offered in a propitiatorie sacrifice, but in a sacrifice of Thanks-giuing.

This exposition disliketh our Aduersaries: for they will haue this pure oblation to be the sacrifice of the Masse, where­in Iesus Christ is sacrificed. An interpretation drawne out of the vnwritten word. For the Scripture speaketh not of sacri­ficing the body of Iesus Christ in the Masse; neither is there any shew thereof in that place.

The reasons why they reiect our exposition, although it be grounded vpon the Scripture, are, because prayers and [Page 432] almes are no new things, in that they were vsed in the Old Testament; and here (they say) he speakes of a new Oblati­on. I answer, that the ministerie of the Gospell, and the pro­fession of Christian faith, are new things, and not vsed in the Old Testament: and those things also are called Sacrifices, Rom. 15.15.16. I say the same of the holy Supper, which by the same reason may be called a Sacrifice of Praise, and of Thankes-giuing. And also, that touching the manner and forme of praying in the name of Iesus Christ, it beganne with the publication of the Gospell. And it is euident, that the same which Malachie specifieth to be new, is, that pray­ers and spirituall offerings should beginne to be offered to God, from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same, by the vocation of the Gentiles.

But they reply, That prayers, almes, and spi [...]ituall Sacrifi­ces, cannot be that pure offering, seeing that we say, that our best workes are vncleane and imperfect. I could shew, that they wrong vs herein; but it sufficeth at this time, that the Ministerie of the Gospel, and the Sacrament of the holy Supper, cannot (without blasphemie) be called impure or vncleane; for although that he which administreth them is a sinner, that changeth not their nature. The puritie of the Gospell and of the Sacraments dependeth not vpon the pu­ritie of those that pronounce and administer them.

4 The rest of the places which they alledge out of the old Testament, seeme rather to be alledged in ieast, then for in­struction; in 1. of Samuel 2.35. God foresheweth to Hely, that he would take the office of Priest from him, and would raise vp vnto himselfe a faith full Priest, to whom he would build a sure house. And Prouerbs 9.1. Wisedome hath built her house, she hath killed her beasts, she hath mingled her wine, she hath also furnished her table. Therefore (say they) the Priest sa­crificeth Iesus Christ in the Masse. To prooue the Masse by those places of the Scripture, is all one as to warme them­selues by Moone light.

5 Now let vs come to the new Testament. First, they al­ledge these words, This is my body. But we will speake of the [Page 433] sence of these words hereafter when we come to Transsub­stantiation. Now we say, put the case it were so, that by these words the bread should be transsubstantiated into the body of Christ; what makes that for the sacrifice? Is the bo­dy of our Lord Iesus Christ sacrificed in euery place where it is? And say that the body of Iesus Christ should be really in the Priests hands, yet the Priest must not sacrifice it, vnlesse God command him to do it. Now that is it which we de­sire to see, but they could neuer yet produce it.

6 Being put from that, they insist vpon the words that fol­low, This is my body which is giuen for you, or which is broken for you. From whence they inferre, that seeing those words are spoken of the present time, it must needs be that Iesus Christ at that present time brake his body, & gaue it to his disciples.

This is to play with the Scriptures, and (in effect) to re­nounce the Bible and their beleefe. For they which dispute in that manner, might learne by the Romish Bible, by the Masse, and by their owne Doctors, that Iesus Christ by those words speaketh of giuing his body to die for vs, and of the breaking of his bodie vpon the crosse. For that which Saint Paul saith, Which is broken for you, the Romane translation saith, Quod pro vobis tradetur, which shall be giuen for you. And in the consecration of the cup, in stead of Which is shed, both the Romish Bible and the Masse, haue Effundetur, which shall be shed. To giue them to vnderstand, that he spake not of any effusion then made, but of that which should be made at his death. It was our Sauiours manner and vse to speake in that sort. Matth. 26.45. Before any of the Iewes were come to lay hands on him, he said, Behold the Sonne of man is giuen into the hands of sinners. And Ioh. 10.17. I lay down my life, that I might take it againe: and 17.11. Now I am no more in the world, and a little after, When I was in the world, &c. And Saint Paul 2. Tim. 4.6. I am already offered: [...], speaking of his death which was neare. And Iesus Christ administring that Sacrament had reason to speake of his death as present, because it was the euening before he died. So Saint Chry­sostome vnderstood it, in his 83. Sermon vpon Saint Mathew; [Page 434] his words are these. [...]. This is my bloud which is shed for the re­mission of sinnes: he said that, to shew that his passion and his crosse is a mysterie. The Iesuite Sa vpon the words of Saint Matthew, saith, In Greeke it is said which is shed: the present for the future tence. And Cardinall Caietan vpon the 22. of LukeEadem ra­tione qua E­uangelistae fu­turam in cruce effusionē san­guinis signi­ficauerunt in praesenti effun­ditur, eadem ratione Paulus futuram in cruce fra­ctionem carnis Christi signifi­cat in praesen­ti, dicendo Frangitur. saith, Euen as the Euangelists by the present tence haue expressed the future effusion of bloud, saying, is shed, S. Paul saying, is broken, signifieth by the present time the breaking of his body which was after to be done vpon the crosse. Barradius the IesuiteVtitur Do­minus praesenti tempore pro paulò post fu­turo: de futura enim & pro­pinqua passio­ne sunt verba intelligenda. Hoc sensu. Hoc est corpus meū quod pro vobis passioni & morti paulo post dabitur. in the 4. Tome of his Harmo­nie of the Euangelists, lib. 3. cap. 4. saith, The Lord vseth the time present, in stead of the future time which then appro­ched; for the words ought to be vnderstood of his future passion which then drew neare, in this sence, This is my body which shall shortly be giuen for you, to suffer and to die.

It cannot be said, that these words, is giuen and is broken, can be vnderstood presently and futurely: for one selfe same word cannot signifie both present and future. For the Masse and the Romish Bible should do wrong to translate those words in the future tence, if they were to be vnderstood in the present tence. Those interpreters which translate that which is spoken in the present tence, by the future tence, do it because there is an inconuenience to vnderstand it in the present tence, & to follow precisely the letter. And it is not to be doubted, that if he which set that downe in the Canon of the Masse, had beléeued the real sacrifice, as at this day it is be­leeued, he would haue left the word effundetur in the present tence to ground his owne opinion, and would not haue rested himselfe vpon so weake a ground as otherwise the Gospel af­foords him; I say a weake ground, because those words read in the present tence, and translated according to the Greeke copie, make nothing for the reall sacrifice of Christs body in the Eucharist. For the action it selfe which is a Sacrament, bindeth vs to beleeue that they are sacramentall words, and that the sence of those words is, that in the Eucharist the body of our Lord is broken, and his bloud sacramentally shed, to represent the breaking and the shedding of his body [Page 435] and bloud vpon the crosse. In the same manner that the bread in that place is called the body of Christ, and the cup the co­uenant. Therefore it is expedient to translate it in the present tence, that all the speech may be sacramentall, and confor­mable to the nature of the action. For the clearing of the truth hereafter, nothing maketh more then the diuersitie of the words which Saint Luke and Saint Paul vse touching the same; the one saying, Which is giuen, the other saying, Which is broken. For if Saint Luke vnderstands, that the body of our Lord is really and actually giuen in the Sacrament, we must also say that Saint Paul vnderstood, that in the same Sacrament the body of our Lord is really and actually broken. For they are things disagreeing, to say, that the body of our Lord is really broken vnder the species of bread and wine, and yet that it is whole vnder the species. The body of our Lord is not broken vnder the species, seeing it remaineth whole vn­der the species. They are as much combred about the shedding of the bloud. For they say, that the bloud of our Lord is shed in the Eucharist, and yet that it stirreth not, and that it comes not out of the body nor from the veines. That it is shed vnder the species, and yet that it stirreth not from vnder the species. And as it is certaine that all shedding is a mouing, they make a shedding without mouing. They say that the bloud of the body of Christ is shed, and yet that not one drop of bloud comes out. These men are angry when they are con­tradicted, and in the meane time they contradict rhemselues: they will be beleeued, and yet they beleeue not that which themselues say.

And this is yet more absurd which the Romish Churches beleeue, to wit, that the body is whole in euery drop of the wine in the cup, and that in the cup the bloud is not out of the body: in such manner, that it is the body which is shed and the Priest drinks the flesh and the bones. It seemes that these men were in doubt to be beleeued, and tooke pleasure to heape vp a number of absurd conceptions.

7 Some much please themselues with an opinion of acute­nesse in reasoning on this manner: All shedding of bloud made [Page 436] for remission of sinnes, is a propitiatory sacrifice. But Iesus Christ saith that his bloud is shed in the Eucharist for the re­mission of sinnes. Ergo the Eucharist is a propitiatorie sacri­fi [...]e.

The first proposition is not vniuersally true. For there is a sacramentall and not a reall shedding of bloud, which is made to represent the shedding of Christs bloud vpon the crosse: that is no propitiatorie sacrifice. Therefore to take a­way the ambiguitie, the first proposition ought to be made in this manner, All reall shedding of bloud made for the re­mission of sinnes, is a propitatory sacrifice. And yet still the proposition will beare exceptions. For in the circumcision of Iesus Christ, there was reall shedding of the Lords bloud made for the remission of our sinnes, and yet circumcision was no sacrifice. The reall shedding of bloud is then a pro­pitiatory sacrifice, when it is made by the death of the thing offered.

The second proposition also is false: for in the Eucharist Iesus Christ saith that his bloud is shed, but saith not, that it was shed in the Eucharist. In this question we speake of a reall shedding, without which there can be no reall pro­pitiatory sacrifice.

8 Their most vsuall obiection against vs is out of Acts 13.2. where it is said, As they ministred to the Lord, and in the Ro­mish Bible it is, Ministrantibus illis Domino. That is, as they ser­ued the Lord in their ministerie, conformable to the Greeke, [...]. They would needs haue (but I know not why) this seruice to be the Masse. For these our Maisters command it shall be so. Say it were so, (although there is neither reason nor colour fot it to be so) and let vs beleeue that there it is said, that the Apostles were assembled together to sing Masse: yet still the difficultie remaineth, that is, whether in that sacrifice they sacrificed the body of Iesus Christ. I know not what moueth them to interpret [...] to sacrifice. By the same reason we must say that the Angels sing Masse, and sacrifice Iesus Christ, seeing that in Heb. 1.14. the Angels are called ministring spirits, [...] [Page 437] [...]. We must also say that Epaphroditus sacrificed and sung Masse, seeing Saint Paul, Philip. 2.25. calleth him [...], administrator. But Saint Paul confuteth that, and expoundeth himselfe, saying, [...]. He that ministred vnto me such things as I wanted.

9 Some also alledge this place for the Masse, Hebr. 13.10. We haue an altar, whereof they haue no authoritie to eate which serue in the tabernacle. By this altar they will haue the Apostle to vnderstand the sacrifice of the Masse, and that in this Masse Iesus Christ is sacrificed: which are great supposi­tions without proofes. But Cardinall§. Respondeo: & §. Accidit. Apostolus non meminit sacri­ficij panis & vini. Et paulo post. Apostolus dedita opera omisit oblatio­nem panis & vini, ne coge­retur explica­re mysterium Eucharistiae, quod altius e­rat quàm vt ab illis capi tunc posset. Bellarmine in the sixt chapter of his first booke of the Masse, reiecteth this place, and all whatsoeuer they can alledge out of that Epistle for the Masse. For he acknowledgeth that the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes speaketh nothing of the Eucharist, saying, That the Apostle maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread & wine. And a little after he saith, The Apostle hath expresly omitted the oblation of bread and wine, lest he should be constrained to expound the mysterie of the Eu­charist, which was too high a subiect to be comprehended by those to whom he wrot. Reade the whole place of the Apostle, and you shall see that he speaketh of the death of Iesus Christ, which he suffered without the gate: of which sacrifice the crosse was the altar. Where also he speaketh but of one altar in the singular number. In this sacrifice the A­postle saith that those that serue in the tabernacle of cere­monies haue no participation.

How and in what sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice.

Sect. 14 The holy Scriptures call almes, prayers, an humble and con­trite heart, martyrdome, the ministerie of the Gospell,Phil. 4.18. Heb. 13.16. Psal. 51.19. 2. Tim. 4.6. Rom. 15.16. and generally all kinds of good workes, sacrifices.

1 But there are two particular reasons why the holy Sup­per [Page 438] may be called a sacrifice. First, because that Sacrament was instituted to declare the death of our Lord, vntill he comes againe, 1. Cor. 11.26. In that sence the holy Supper may be called a sacrifice, because it representeth the sacrifice of the death of our Lord: as the manner is, that signes and representations ordinarily haue the names of that which they signifie.

2 It may be said, that in the holy Supper we offer Iesus Christ vnto God, in as we pray much as vnto God that he would receiue the sacrifice of his death for a satisfaction for our sinnes.

3 Thirdly, the holy Supper is a sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the benefites which God hath bestowed vpon vs; speci­ally for the benefit of our redemption by Iesus Christ.

4 The ancient Church had a particular reason to call the holy Supper a sacrifice: for then the custome and manner was, that euery communicant brought gifts and presents which they set vpon the table, whereof one part was employed for the holy Supper, the rest was for the nourishment of the poore: and those presents were called sacrifices and oblations. Saint Cyprian in the ninth Epistle of his first booke commandeth Priests, that receiuing the offerings of the people which contributed, they should not depart from the altar nor from the sacrifice. And in his Sermon of Almes, he saith, Thou rich woman, which thinkest to celebrate the Supper of the Lord, which hast no care to bring an offering, which comest to the Supper of the Lord without a sacrifice, which takest part of the sacrifice which the poore haue offered. Reade Theodoretus in the third booke of his Historie, chap. 12. and lib. 4. cap. 19. For these causes the ancient Fathers ordina­rily called that Sacrament a sacrifice. Which they did the ra­ther, because that thereby they brough [...] infidels and Pagans to Christian religion: for their opinion was that a religion without sacrifices was no religion: as by the reproches that Pagans gaue to Christians it appeareth. For Origen in his fourth booke against Celsus, faith, that Christians had neither altars, images, nor temples. And in the Dialogue of Minutius [Page 439] Foelix, the Pagan Caecilius saith, Cur nullas aras habenti Chri­stiani, nulla templa, nulla nota simulacra? How cometh it that the Christians haue no altars, temples, nor images that are seene? And in the beginning of the 7. booke of Arnobius, Quid ergo? Sacrificia cen­setis nulla om­nino esse faci­enda? Resp. Nulla. the Pagans faid, Do you thinke that no sacrifices are to be made? Whereunto the Christians answered and said, No, none at all.

Therefore, there are two sorts of sacrifices, the one propi­tiatorie for our redemption, the other the Eucharisticall or sacrifice of thanksgiuing. The holy Supper is a propitiatory sa­crifice significantly and in commemoration, in the same manner that the cup is the Testament, that the bread is the body of Christ, that circumcision was the couenant of God, and that the rocke from whence water issued foorth was Christ, as the Scripture saith. But to speake properly, the holy Supper is a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, & as it is said in the Canon of the Masse, Sacrificium laudis, a sacrifice of praise. Therefore the ancient Fathers called it Eucharist, that is, a thansgiuing.

You must not thinke it strange that one selfe same action should be called a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Albeit there is as much difference betweene a Sacrament and a sacrifice, as be­tweene giuing, and taking or receiuing; for you may obserue both these in the Lords holy Supper, which is a Sacrament, because therein God giueth and communicateth his graces vnto vs; and a sacrifice, because therein we offer praise and thanksgiuing vnto him.

The opinion of the ancient Fathers touching the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Sect. 15 This is a point which euery man takes vpon him to know. For there is nothing easier then to collect diuerse places out of the ancient Fathers, taken vpon trust, and so to make a booke. But to sound into the depth of them, and to find their [Page 440] manner of writing for the time, their alteration of words and customes in seuerall ages, their intents, and the occasions and consequences of abuses which ages and times ensuing haue disclosed, is a thing whereunto few men attaine, and for which 20. yeares study is a small time.

For the foure reasons aforesaid, the ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a sacrifice, and a sacrifice of the body of Christ, and a sacrifice of our redemption. But where occasion ser­ued, they gaue vs enough to vnderstand, that their meaning is sound, and altogether contrary to our aduersaries opi­nions. To proue it I will produce a few places out of them.

The booke of Faith written to Peter the Deacon, were it Augustines or Fulgentius his disciples, in the 19. chapter saith,Sacrificium panis & v [...]ni in fide & cha­ritate, sancta Ecclesia Ca­tholica per v­niuersum orbē terrae offerre non cessat. In illis enim car­nalibus victi­mis, figuratio fuit carnis Christi quam pro peccatis no­stris ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, & sanguinis quē erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum no­strorum. In isto autem sa­crificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, &c. The vniuersall Church throughout all the world doth not ceasse to offer a sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and chari­tie. For in the carnall flesh-offerings (of the old Testament) there was a representation of the flesh of Christ, which he being without sinne, was to offer for our sinnes; and of his bloud, which he was to shed for the remission of our sinnes. But in this sacrifice (of the Eucharist) there is a thansgiuing and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which he offe­red for vs, and of his bloud which the same God shed for vs. Note here specially that they offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, in commemoration of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ that was broken and shed for vs.

And in the 17. Chapter and 17. booke of the Citie of God, he saith,Manducare panem est in nouo Testamento sacrificium Christianorum. To eate the bread in the new Testament, is the sa­crifice of Christians.

And in the 20. book against Faustus the Manichee, cap. 21. he saith,Huius caro & sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimarum similitudinem promittebatur, in pas­sione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: Post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae [...]elebratur. This flesh & bloud of Christ was promised before his coming, by the resemblance of sacrifices: in his passion it [Page 441] was truly exhibited. After the ascention of Christ it is cele­brated by the sacrament of commemoration.

In his 23. Epistle to Boniface he saith: Oftentimes when the passion approcheth, we say, To morrow or the next day is the passion of our Lord, although there are so many yeares past since he suffered, and that the same passion was done but once. And vpon the Sabboth day we say, This day the Lord rose againe, though there are so many yeares past since his re­surrection. Why doth not some vain fellow tel vs that we lie, in saying so, but because that day is called the Sonnes day, which is not the same day, but like vnto it, by reuolution of Time?Non semel immolatus est Christus in ip­so, & tamen in Sacramen­to non solùm per omnes paschae solem­nitates, sed omne die po­pulis immola­tur? Nec vti­que mentitur qui interroga­tus, eum respō­derit immola­ri. Si enim Sacramenta quandam si­militudinem earum rerum quarum Sa­cramēta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacra­mēta nō essēt. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque e­tiam ipsarum nomina accipiunt. Was not Christ once sacrificed in his body? and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred signe, not onely at e­uery solemnization of the feast of Easter, but also euery day. And yet he lieth not, who being asked that question, maketh answer and saith, That he is sacrificed. For if the Sacraments had not some resemblance of the things whereof they are Sa­craments, they should not be Sacraments. Now for this re­semblance most commonly they haue the name of the things themselues.

And to shew how he vnderstandeth the word Sacrament, in the tenth booke and fifth chapter, of the Citie of God, he saith thus,Sacrificium visibile est inuisibilis sacrificij sacramētum id est, sacrum signum. The visible sacrifice is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred signe of the inuisible Sacrifice. And a little after, That which men call a Sacrifice, is a signe of the true Sacrifice. And in his 5. epistle to Marcelline, he saith,Illud quod ab hominibus vocatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. The signes when they belong to diuine things, are called Sacraments.

In the Canon, Hoc est, taken out of Saint Augustine, in the second Distinction of Consecration, these words are found:Vocatur ipsa imolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio [...]mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio. The sacrifice of the flesh which is made by the hands of the Priest, is called the passion, the death, and the cruci­fying, not in truth, but in a significant mysterie, in the same manner as the Sacrament of faith, whereby we vnderstand [Page 442] Baptisme is called faith.

In the booke of the Sentences of Prosper, gathered out of Saint Augustine, in the same Distinction, this place is alled­ged;Can. Semel. Dist. 2. de Con­secrat. Iesus Christ was but once sacrificed in his owne body, and yet he is euery day sacrificed in the Sacrament: that is, (as he expounded it before) in a sacred signe. And thereup­pon the ancient Glosses of the Romish Church note in the margent:Christus immolatur, id est, immo­latio eius re­praesentatur: & fit memo­ria passionis. Christ is sacrificed, that is, his Sacrifice is repre­sented, and a commemoration is made of his passion.

Therefore the Fathers not onely say, That the Sacrifice which is offered in the Church, is the Sacrifice of the bodie of Christ, but also, that the same Sacrifice which they offer, is his death and passion. Saint Cyprian, in his third Epistle and second booke saith:Passio est Domini sacri­ficium quod offerimus. In all the Sacrifices which we of­fer, we make mention of his passion, for the Sacrifice which we offer, is his passion. And Chrysostome in his 21. Homilie vpon the Acts, speaking of the holy Scripture, saith, [...]. While this death is finished, and this dreadfull sacrifice, and these vnutterable mysteries. The body therefore of Iesus Christ is taken and sacrificed in the Eucharist, in the same manner as he dieth there, that is, as it is said before in the Romish De­cretall, not in truth, but in a significant mysterie.

Chrysostome in his seuenteenth Homilie vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith. [...]. We alwayes offer the same Sacrifice: or to speake more properly, the commemoration of the same Sacrifice.

Eusebius in the tenth chapter of his first booke of the De­monstration of the Gospell, saith▪ [...]. Seeing that we haue re­ceiued the memorie of this Sacrifice to celebrate the same vpon the Table thereof by the signes of his body and of his bloud, according to the institution of the new Testament, we are taught by the Prophet Dauid, saying, Thou hast prepa­red my Table, &c. And it is to be noted, that the same chapter being very long, speaketh of nothing else but of the Sacrifi­ces both in the old and new Testament; but speaketh not of sacrificing of the body of our Lord in the Eucharist, but one­ly of celebrating the memorie thereof.

Iustin Martyr against Triphon saith,Pag. 201. Edit. Con [...]el. [...], The oblation of the Cake of fine floure was a figure of the bread in the Eucha­rist, which Iesus Christ hath commanded vs to do in comme­moration of his death.

It is the propertie of Grammarians, and specially of those that make Dictionaries, to name things by their names, and to speake simply. So doth Suidas the Grammarian, in the word Ecclesia. [...]. The Church (saith he) maketh an oblation of the signes of the body and of the bloud of Christ, sanctifying the whole lumpe by the first fruits.

The Priest in the Masse speaketh as though he beleeued not that that which he sacrificeth is the body of Iesus Christ, seeing he offereth that Sacrifice by Iesus Christ; and desi­reth that the Angels would present that Oblation vnto God and carry it to his heauenly altar; for Iesus Christ hath no need of the aide of Angels to present him to his Father. And it also appeareth in this, that he calleth his oblation,Per Christū Dominum no­strum per quē haec omnia Domine sem­per bona cre­as, sanctificas, viuificas, be­nedicis et prae­stas nobis. gifts, and presents, in the plurall number, which God blesseth, cre­ateth, quickneth, and alwaies sanctifieth: of all which words, none can be applied to Iesus Christ. For it is hard to be con­ceiued how the consecrated Sacrifice or Host may be called, All these good things, if Iesus Christ be the Host. And it is like­wise more hardly to be comprehended how God continually createth Iesus Christ: and how he blesseth and quickeneth Iesus Christ by Iesus Christ. These words haue a good mea­ning, being spoken of the bread and wine, but not of Iesus Christ. If by these words the Priest vnderstandeth that he speaketh of the bread and the wine, and giueth thankes to God, because he alwaies createth and quickneth those things, he falleth into three ineuitable absurdities. The first is, that he giueth thankes to God, because he createth the bread and the wine in the Eucharist, when according to their doctrine there is neither bread nor wine. The second is, That he she­weth the bread and the wine as being present, saying All these good things, whē those things are no more those things, being (as they say) transsubstantiated into flesh and bloud. Adde hereunto, that these words are said at the very same [Page 444] time when the Priest lifts vp the Host to cause it to be ado­red. But is not this a thing against all reason and apparence, that then when men adore the Host, and when they sacrifice the eternall Sonne of God to God for the redemption of soules, in stead of praising God for so great a benefite, they giue him thankes▪ because he maketh the corne to grow, and that he createth and blesseth it continually? That is all one in effect, as if when God admitteth any one into the Church by Baptisme, men should giue thankes vnto God, because he created the water, and maketh fountaines and riuers continu­ally to runne.

To be short, the Truth is so strong, that our Aduersaries out of the heate of disputation, ordinarily say as we say. Reade Lombard in the fourth booke of Sentences, the twelfth Di­stinction, at the letter G: and Thomas Aquinas in the third part of his Sermons, Question 83. Article 1. and you shall see that they wholly agree with vs: and that they say, that the Eucharist is called a Sacrifice for no other reason, but because that therein a commemoration is made of the sacrifice of the Crosse, and because the sacrifice of the death of our Lord is therein applied vnto vs, that we may be partakers of that be­nefite.

Of Baptisme, and of the necessitie thereof.

The same 35. Article of our Confession speaketh of Bap­tisme, and particularly of the baptisme of little children, in these words:

Neuerthelesse, because God receiueth little children into his Church with their fathers, we say, that by the authoritie of Iesus Christ, young children that are begotten by Christi­an parents ought to be baptized.

Against this M. Arnoux reasoneth in this manner.

[Page 445]

Sect. 16 By this Article they pretend to inferre, that children begotten by Christian parents are receiued into the Church by the faith of their fathers.

This is vntrue: we pretend not to auouch that, neither is it our beleefe. Baptisme is conferred to diuers children whose fathers and mothers are both without faith and pietie. That was Bernards opinion, in his 77. Epistle, saying, Who know­eth not, that touching little children the faith of their fathers onely auayleth for them, yea and is sufficient? But we say not so.

Sect. 17 By this Article also they pretend to iustifie, that although little children ought to be baptized, if they be not baptized, yet that they are saued without it, which is a point of their beleefe.

Places alledged to the contrary. Iohn 3.3. Verily verily I say vnto thee, Except a man be borne againe, he canot see the kingdome of heauen. Note this word againe, which manifestly proueth that he which is not regenerated by Baptisme, is not receiued into the Church. And verse 5, Verily verily I say vnto thee, Except that a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. And verse 7. You must be borne againe. To what end then serueth it to be begotten by Christian parents?

Places noted in the margent of the Confession, Matth. 19.14. But Iesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me, for of such is the kingdome of heauen. Doth it there­fore follow that they are receiued into it with their fathers, and that we must not baptize them as we say onely by Tradition, or that they are saued without Baptisme? 1. Cor. 7.14. For the vnbeleeuing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the vnbeleeuing wife is sancti­fied by her husband, else were your children vncleane, but now they are holy. If this word holy were not an equiuocation, this place would haue some shew for them; but it is too manifest & plaine, that the word holy when it is spoken of children, ought to be taken in the same sence as a little before in the same place it beareth, where and [Page 446] when it is spoken of a man and his wife. For neither the one nor the other being infidels, are properly sanctified by him that is faithfull. Then this sanctification as well of the married couple, as of their children, consisteth herein, that as marriage is holy because it is lawfull, and in this sence those that are married are sanctified one by the other: so the children that are borne of that marriage are holy, because they are lawfully begotten, and issued from an holy marriage. Therefore the Apostle vnderstands, that if the faithfull should by diuorce separate himselfe from the infidell, onely because of infidelitie, two mischiefes would thereby ensue; the one, that the infidell thereby should not haue the meanes to be conuerted, nor to be sanctified by conuersation with the faithfull: the other, that the children left with the infidell, which would conuert then to his owne religion, could not be taught the faith and worshipping of God, as they are when their fathers and mothers liue together.

Of the signification of the word Baptisme.

This discourse is intangled and badly contriued. Where­unto whosoeuer should exactly answer, he must not respect the soundnesse of his reasons but the importance of the mat­ter: but to proceed orderly herein, first I will speake of the word Baptisme, and of baptizing, and then of the thing it selfe.

To baptize is a Greeke word, which signifieth to dip into the water or to wash. In this generall sence washings in the old Testament are called baptismes, [...], Marke 7.4. [...]. Hebr. 9.10.

The word Baptisme is sometimes taken figurately, for af­fliction and persecution for the Gospell: as Marke. 10.38. where it is said, Can ye drinke of the cup that I shall drinke of, and be baptized with the baptisme that I shall be baptized with? Speaking of the participation of his afflictions. See Luke 12.59. Oftentimes also it is taken for purging and sanctifying of [Page 447] the heart, and for effusion of the graces of the holy Ghost. So Acts 1.5. Christ promiseth his disciples, That they should be baptized with the holy Ghost, within few daye. And Iohn Baptist saith, That Iesus Christ baptizeth vs with the holy Ghost, and with fire, Math. 3.11.

But ordinarily Baptisme is taken for the Sacrament of our entrance into the Christian Church, and of the clensing of our sinnes by the bloud of Iesus Christ, and by the power and efficacie of his Spirit. A Sacrament which Iesus Christ hath sanctified in his owne person, and established by his owne ordinance. Which succeeded circumcision, by Saint Paul called the seale of the righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 4.11.

This Baptisme is conserued by dipping him into, or sprinck­ling of water vpon him that is baptized, saying, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, Matth. 28.19.

If we take this word Baptisme generally for a washing or a sprinckling, or in a figuratiue sence for affliction, or for the effusion of the graces of the holy Ghost, we confesse that there are diuers baptismes: As the Apostle Hebr. 6.2. spea­keth of the doctrine of baptismes in the plurall number. But if we take it for that sprinckling of water which is a marke of Christianitie, and a Sacrament of our entring into the Church, there is but one Baptisme: as the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.5.6. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme, one God, one Father of all. The Greeke saith Baptisme is one.

Touching this Baptisme, men dispute whether it be neces­sarie to saluation. First, we will speake of the necessitie there­of in those persons which are capable of instruction, and af­ter of the same in little children.

Of the necessitie of Baptisme in persons that are of yeares of discretion.

Sect. 18 Touching those that haue attained to that age to be ca­pable [Page 448] of inst [...]uction, the Church of Rome makes a shew to disagree with vs therein, but in effect, they hold with vs, that the baptisme of water is not absolutely necessarie for them, & that if a man being of yeares of discretion dieth without bap­tisme, yet he may be saued, so that that want of baptisme happened not vnto him by reason of contempt, or for want of will and desire, but by want of meanes and conueniencie. The Councell of Trent in the sixt Session, 4. chap: saith,Quae quidē translatio, post Euangelium promulgatum sine lauacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri nō potest. That a man cannot be admitted into the state of grace without the washing of regeneration, or without a desire or religious promise; that is, that no man can be acceptable vnto God without baptisme, or for want of baptisme, without the desire or will to be baptized. And Thomas in his Commentary vp­pon the third of Saint Iohn saith, that to enter into the king­dome of God, a man must be baptized vel in re, vel in voto, vel in figura, either in effect, or in desire, or in figure, &c. In the 43. title of the Decretals, cap. Apostolicam, Presbyterum quem sine vn­da baptismatis extremum diem clausisse significasti quia in sanctae matris Eccle­siae fide & Christi nomi­nis confessione perseuerauerit ab originali pecca [...]o solutū & coelestis pa­triae gaudium esse adeptum asserimut in­cunctanter. Pope Innocent 3. de­clareth, that a Priest dying without baptisme enioyeth eter­nall glory, because he perseuered in the confession of the name of Christ. For which cause, in the same chapter Saint Augustine is alledged in the eight booke of the Citie of God, saying. Baptismus inuisibiliter ministratur, quem non contemptus religionis, sed terminus necessitatis excludit: Baptisme is inuisibly administred to him that hath bene debarred thereof, not by contempt of religion, but by necessitie of time preuenting him. And thereupon the Glosse of the Canonists Doctors noteth that the Emperour Valentinian died without baptisme, and that neuerthelesse Ambrose in his Oration made vpon the death of that Emperour, saith that he was blessed in hea­uen. That which is specially to be noted in this Historie, is, that the Emperour Valentinian was a Christian borne, and had a thousand meanes to haue bene baptized, if he would.

To the same end, and to make baptisme by water vnne­cessary, the Church of Rome speaketh of two other bap­tismes which supply the want of baptisme by water, which are, baptisme of the spirit, which is sanctification and inte­riour renewing wrought by the Spirit of God; and baptisme [Page 449] by bloud which is martyrdome. But these two allegoricall baptismes are no Sacraments. For conuersion and renewing of a mans mind from sinnes, are not conferred by the ministerie of men, but it is a worke of the Spirit of God: wherein there is no element, nor any words added to the element. This can be no Sacrament of the new Testament, seeing that the same spirituall renewing was necessary in the old Testament. And it cannot be said that this worke of the holy Ghost in the hearts of the faithfull doth supply the want of baptisme, seeing it is necessarie to saluation, whether a man be bapti­zed, or not baptized.

Martyrdome also is no Sacrament of the new Testament, for that the same was in the old Testament. And the Coun­cell of Trent declareth, that Sacraments are not conferred, if he that conferreth them hath not an intent to confer them. And it is not to be thought nor beleeued, that the executio­ners of martyrs haue an intent to confer a Sacrament at their executions. And there is no likelihood, that of two Mar­tyrs, whereof the one is baptized, the other not baptized, the martyrdome of the one should be a baptisme, and the others none. Neither can I see how the martyrdome of a man that is drowned or strangled without any effusion of bloud, can be called a baptisme or washing in bloud. Besides that, we often deceiue our selues in this word Martyr. For 1. Cor. 13.3. the Apostle sheweth, that a man may giue his body to be burned, and yet haue no charity. It is a common thing among men to suffer martyrdome, to win reputation. Among a num­ber of the faithfull that are massacred in their beds without any leisure to speake, it is not vnlikely but that some of them would haue recanted for feare, if they had had any respite giuen them to thinke thereon. So that in calling him a Martyr which in Gods iudgement is not so, we giue the name of baptisme to sufferings which are vnworthy the name of mar­tyrdome.

To be short: that rule so often times repeated in the Gos­pell, which is, That whosoeuer beleeueth in Iesus Christ, shall haue life euerlasting, will beare no exception. Therefore he [Page 450] that hath the faith of a Martyr, and loueth God more then his owne life, although God exempteth him from marryrdome, doth not lose the same reward. For God doth not reward the paines but the vertue of a man. Because dolour and paine for martyrdome cannot be suffered by Hypocrits, but faith is proper to the children of God, to whom life eternall is pro­mised: for the want of baptisme by default of meanes cannot annihilate Gods promise.

Of the necessitie of Baptisme in little children.

Sect. 19 Touching baptisme of little children, the discord is grea­ter.Lombard. 4. Sententiarum Dist 4. lit. E. Si absque baptismo fue­rint defuncti, etiam cum de­ferentur ad baptismum, damnabuntur. Our aduersaries say, that baptisme with water is simply necessarie for them to saluation. And proceed so farre there­in, that Lombardus saith, That if any infant which is brought to the Church to be baptized, dieth by the way, it shall be damned. This they affirme by words, but denie it in effect. For they are of opinion, that martyrdome supplyeth the de­fault of baptisme with water, and that a child which is not baptized with water, entreth into the kingdome of God by martyrdome. And to proue it they alledge the little chil­dren that were slaine by Herod in Bethleem and there abouts as soone as they were borne, & all those that were two yeares old, whom the Church of Rome doth reuerence for Saints and Martyrs, without any distinction betweene those that were circumcised, and those that were not circumcised.

But seeing that in the Church of Rome the godfather be­leeueth for the child which is baptized, and forsaketh the di­uell for him, saying, Credo & abrenuntio, I maruell why the same godfather cannot also make a vow for the child, seeing that the Councell of Trent teacheth, that a vow supplyeth the want of baptisme.

It is likewise very requisite to be noted, that our aduersa­ries are of opinion, that the baptisme which Iesus Christ con­ferred by the hands of his disciples, Ioh. 4.2. was not necessa­ry [Page 451] to saluation. Bellarmine in the 5. chapter of his first booke of Baptisme, saith,Baptismus Christi nō fuit neeessarius, necessitate me­dij aut praecep­ti, ante Christi mortem. That the Baptisme of Iesus Christ, was neither a necessary meanes, nor a necessary commandement before the death of Iesus Christ. And Pope Leo 1. in the 4. Epistle to the Bishops of Sicilie 3. chapter, saith,Christum regenerationis gratiā ex sua resurrectione coepisse. That Ie­sus Christ from his resurrection began the gift of regenera­tion. For so he calleth the grace of God giuen in Baptisme. But there is no apparence that that Baptisme which at this day is conferred by a Pagan, by a Iew, or by a woman should be more necessary, and of more efficacie then that which was administred by Iesus Christ and by his Apostles. It is to no purpose to say, that circumcision did then supply that which wanted in the baptisme which Iesus Christ conferred. For the Church of Rome is of opinion, that circumcisionEx opere o­perato. by vertue of the action did not conferre iustifying grace. And Pope In­nocent the 3. saith,Extra. de Baptismo & eius effectis, Tit. 42. cap. Maiores. Per circumcisionis mysterium & damnationis periculum vi­tabatur, non tamen perue­nichatur ad regnum coelo­rum. Gerson tom. 3. Serm. de Na­tiuitate virgi­nis. Consider. 2. Constat Deum misericordiam saluationis suae non ita legibus communibus traditionis Christianae, nō ita sacramen­tis ipsis alligasse, quin absque praeiudicio legis eiusdem possit pueros nondum natos extra vterum, intus sanctificare gratiae suae baptismo. That by circumcision a man doth not at­taine to the kingdome of heauen. Then it could not supply those wants which they say were in the baptisme of Christ, seeing that those to whom it was conferred were also cir­cumcised.

Many Doctors of the Church of Rome, being confuted by the force of truth, beleeued that children might be saued without baptisme with water. That is the opinion of Gerson Chancelor of the Vniuersitie of Paris, in his Sermon of the Natiuitie of the virgine Marie; and of Gabriel Biel vpon the 4. booke of Sentences, Dist. 4. quest. 2. and of Lombardus mai­ster of Sentences, that maintaineth the necessitie of Baptisme, and neuerthelesse (constrained by force of the truth) in the 4. Distinstion, in the letter E. saith.Deus suam potentiam sacramentis non alligauit. Quod verò inuisibilis sanctificatio sine visibili sacramento quibusdam insit, apertè Augustinus tradit super Leuiticū, dicens, Inuisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam profuisse sine visibilibus sa­cramentis. That it is certaine that God hath not tyed his power to the Sacraments, and that S. Augustine vpon Leuiticus plainly saith, that some haue inuisi­ble sanctification without the visible Sacrament.

Howbeit, our aduersaries had rather contradict them­selues [Page 452] then agree with vs, and with the truth. And to that end build an imaginary lodging for little children that die without Baptisme, which they call the Limbus of little chil­dren, forged by mens braines without the word of God: where they say those poore children lie in eternall darknes, in a hole or caue vnder the earth, depriued of Gods sight, and of eternall saluation, without dolour and torment, and by con­sequence without griefe; for perpetuall griefe and sorrow for the losse of our soueraigne good, is a perpetuall torment: and if without griefe to be excluded from the presence of God, then also without knowledge of God, and without the loue of God, which is the greatest euill that can be in a reasonable creature.

This Limbus is a field fit to exercise the subtilty of these Doctors, and a subiect to be disputed of when men are fa­sting, to know what the soules of those little children do in that prison vnder ground, seeing that there they haue no com­munication with God, nor with the Saints in Paradise, nor a­ny remembrance of those things which they saw and heard vpon earth, because there they neither saw nor heard any thing. As also whether those children shall rise againe at the latter day, whether they shall appeare before the iudgement seate of Christ: what sentence the Iudge will giue; and how they can heare or comprehend that sentence. Whether they shall remaine still in that caue vnder the ground then when the earth shall be no more, or whether the Pope hath appoin­ted them any other lodging. To what end their eyes and their eares shall serue them in that Limbus after the resurrection: Whether the Pope can draw them from thence by Indulgen­ces, as well as Pope Gregorie 1. drew the Emperour Traians (a Pagans) soule out of hell, if we beleeue our aduersaries. When that horrible custome began which is vsed in the Hos­pitall of Paris, where they throw little children (that are dead without Baptisme) into a deepe well, as vnworthy of a­ny buriall. And lastly, whether that any one euer came from that Limbus to bring them that newes, seeing that God neuer shewed vs of any such thing.

A deciding of this difference by the holy Scriptures.

Sect. 20 1 The Scripture draweth vs out of this difficultie, Genesis 17.7. where God saith to Abraham, I will be thy God, and of thy seede after thee. Now children that died before circumci­sion cannot be excluded from Abrahams posteritie. Then God is also their God, and by consequence they are inheritors of eternall life. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the liuing. So saith Iesus Christ, Matth. 22.32. And Acts 2.39. Saint Peter saith to the Iewes that were conuerted to the faith of Christ, For the promise is made to you, and to your children. Where speaking of children in generall, he also comprehen­deth as well those that are new borne, as those that had re­ceiued Baptisme. Then if God (without exception) decla­reth himselfe to be the God of the children of the faithfull, and acknowledgeth them to be his, and if to them the pro­mise and the couenant of God belongeth, is it not a rash iudgment, and an iniurious crueltie against the goodnesse of God, to condemne them to eternall damnation?

2 The Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 7.14. speaking of a man and a wife, whereof the one is an infidell, the other a Christi­an, and of children borne in that marriage, saith that their children are holy, Otherwise (saith he) your children were vn­cleane, but now they are holy. If children borne in marriage where but one of the parties is a Christian, are holy by the Apostles iudgement, what apparence is there for men to thinke that those children which are borne of two Christian parents are not holy? and that they should be excluded from the grace of God, vnder pretence that they died without Bap­tisme? Many of our aduersaries to saue their honesties, say that by the word holy is vnderstood children lawfully borne; and that by vncleane children, the Apostle vnderstandeth ba­stards and children vnlawfully begotten. Thus they play with [Page 454] the Scriptures, and contradict themselues. For the Church of Rome is of opinion with vs, that Marriages betweene Pagans are lawfull,Dist. 26. Can. Vna tantum. Iohannes Bap­tista dum He­rodem ab in­cestu prohibe­ret, dicens: Non licet tibi habere vxorē fratris tui: e­videnter osten­dit inter infi­deles coniugia esse. and their children legitimate. Saint Iohn Baptist said to Herod, That it was not lawfull for him to haue his bro­ther Philips wife, Matth. 14.4. Then he esteemed that the marriage betweene Philip and Herodias his wife was indisso­luble, and consequently lawfull. Ancient Christians acknow­ledged the Pagan Emperors children to be lawfull successors in the Empire, and obeyed them, which they had not bene bound to do, if they had esteemed Pagans marriages to be vnlawfull. Then if Pagans children are legitimate, and that the Apostle calleth all children legitimate (as our aduer­saries say) the children of Turkes and Pagans are holy. But it is certaine, that the Apostles intent was not to shew vs how children are holy in that sence, but to shew vs by what meanes children are consecrated to God. The Scripture also neuer calleth a child holy because it is lawfully begotten, but it is an ordinary thing in the Scripture to call those persons and those things holy, which are consecrated to God, and dedica­ted to his seruice. So in the Law euery first borne that opened the matrice was holy vnto God. In the same sence the Tem­ple, the vessels, the sacrifices, and the Sabboth day were ho­ly to the Lord. So are children that are borne of Christian parents. And seeing that God acknowledgeth them to be ho­ly, why should the Church of Rome esteeme them to be pro­phane, and excluded from the couenant of God? It is true that they are borne in originall sinne: but Saint Iohn saith, that the bloud of Christ clenseth vs from all sinne: the vertue of which bloud and the efficacie of his death, is not tyed to the water in any such manner, as that when time and meanes faile & are wanting to be baptized, God therfore cannot cause his grace to be felt, and manifest his goodnesse towards the chil­dren of the faithfull, borne within the couenant of God.

Hereby M. Arnoux discourse is confuted, which saith, That children are called holy, because they are lawfully be­gotten, and issued from an holy marriage. We grant him that in that place the children are called holy, in the same sence [Page 455] that in the same place it is said, that the vnbeleeuing husband is sanctified by the woman. For the Apostle therby teacheth, that the faith and holines of one of the parties, sanctifieth the marriage betwixt the husband and the wife, in such manner that the children born in that mariage are cōsecrated to God.

3 Matthew 19.14, Iesus said, Suffer the little children to come vnto me, and forbid them not, for to such belongeth the king­dome of heauen. Those children which were presented vnto him had not as then bene baptized by him nor by his Apo­stles, and yet he declared that the kingdome of God belon­ged vnto them. It is true that it appeareth not whether they were circumcised or no, but that is to little purpose, seeing that our aduersaries say, That circumcision doth not bring a man to the kingdome of heauen. Then baptisme was neces­sary for those children to enter into the kingdome of heauen, if we beleeue our aduersaries. Adde hereunto, that Iesus Christ saith not, that the kingdome of heauen belongeth to childrē that are circumcised, but simply to children. He considereth the Infancie, and not the Circumcision in them.

4 To this purpose those places of Scripture may be alled­ged, which say, That God neuer punisheth the innocent for the guiltie, and doth not punish the sonne for the fathers sin, if the sonne doth not participate in his fathers sinne. As Eze­chiel 18.20. saith, The soule that sinneth, it shall die: The sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of the father, neither shall the father beare the iniquitie of the sonne. The Church of Rome sinneth against this rule, when they will haue a childe to be for euer excluded from the kingdome of heauen, because his father negligently delayed his baptisme. That is, to punish the inno­cent for the guiltie. The example of Adams sinne, which brought so many euils vpon his posteritie, is not contrary to this rule; for Adam sinned not as a particular man, but as re­presenting all mankind in the root. For hauing receiued cer­taine benefites for himselfe and for his posteritie, he lost them for himselfe and for his posteritie. Moreouer, that euill des­cended from Adam vpon vs by naturall propagation, which no way can be applied to the wilfull negligence of parents, [Page 456] in not baptizing their children.

5 If we desire to haue more pertinent examples, the holie Scripture furnisheth vs sufficiently. Euery man knowes that Circumcision was the same to the faithfull in the old Testa­ment, that Baptisme at this day is vnto vs. And yet infinite numbers of people were saued vnder the old Testamēt with­out Circumcision, as all the faithful women, and those which truly repented among the Gentiles.

6 Circumcision was conferred vpon the eight day after the childe was borne. In which time of eight dayes a great num­ber of children died, which according to our Aduersaries doctrine must haue bene eternally damned. The goodnesse of God towards all men, specially towards his owne people, and those which feare him, bindeth vs to beleeue, that if Circumcision had bene necessarie to saluation, God would haue commanded children to haue bene circumcised present­ly after they were borne. He would not haue excluded milli­ons of soules (borne of faithfull parents, and of Abrahams posteritie, and to whom the blessing of God was promised,) from his grace, by the delay of eight dayes. For God taketh no pleasure in the destruction of his creatures, much lesse in losing children borne vnder his couenant. If the people of Israel had beleeued that which the Church of Rome belee­ueth, they would haue desired Moses to haue had a shorter time limited vnto them for circumcision. And there would haue bene great and extraordinarie lamentations made by the Iewes for those children that died before those eight dayes were expired. And it is manifest that the people of the Church of Rome do not beleeue that which they are taught, seeing that the mothers whose children die before they are baptized, are so easily and so soone comforted, and trouble their mindes no more with the eternall perdition of their children.

7 But specially the children of Israel that died in the De­serts, are a notable example herein: For those people omit­ted the vse of Circumcision for the space of forty years toge­ther, in which time there was aboue sixe hundred thousand [Page 457] men borne, and that died therein: which great multitude of soules are eternally lost, by the iudgement of the Romish Church. And yet those men were they for whom Manna rai­ned downe from heauen, & whom God couered by day with a pillar of a cloud, and lighted by night with a pillar of fire: which offered sacrifices vnto God, and whose sacrifices God did accept: whom without doubt Moses would neuer haue suffered to haue bene vncircumcised, if he had beleeued that without circumcision they could not haue bene saued.

8 But what is more contrary to God and to his word, then to make God subiect vnto men, yea, and that he should be subiect to the will of his enemies, in such manner that he openeth and shutteth the entrie into Paradise at their plea­sure? And yet that is the beleefe of the Church of Rome. For Pope Nicholas De Conse­cratione. Dist. 4. Can. A quo­dam Iudaeo, nescitis v­trum Christi­ano an Paga­no, multos in patria ve­stra baptiza­tos asseritis, & quid sit in­de agendum consulitis, &c. the first defined, that Baptisme conferred by a Iew or a Pagan is good and auailable, so that the same Iew or Pagan did baptize in the name of the Trinitie, or onely in the name of Iesus Christ. By this meanes, if either a Pagan or a Turke hath a Christiā child in his keeping, he can saue or lose the soule of that childe: and if he will baptize that child, it shall be saued; but if he will not, that child dying, is presently cast headlong into eternall darknesse. By this reason, the sal­uation of a Christian child dependeth vpon the wil of a Turk or a Pagan, of whom it is to be beleeued, that he doth confer baptisme no otherwise then for a mockerie or in despite.

9 The like absurdities rise from the baptisme of Midwiues, who receiuing a child that dieth in the birth, must haue the saluation of the child in their powers. By this reckoning the Apostles with all their meanes, and with all their wisedome and doctrines neuer did more good to any man then such a Pagan or such a woman do vnto a child, which without them had died without baptisme.

10 But is it not an easie matter for a Iew or a Turke hypo­critically to cause himselfe to be baptized? Do we thinke or imagine that the same Iew or Turke shal be more acceptable vnto God for prophaning the sacrament of his Couenant? and that dying thereupon, he goes strait into Paradise?

An examination of that which our Aduersaries produce out of the Scriptures for the ab­solute necessitie of Baptisme.

Sect. 21 M. Arnoux, to proue that no man can be saued without baptisme with water, alledgeth the third and fift verses of the third chapter of S. Iohn, where Iesus Christ saith to Nicode­mus, Ʋerily verily I say vnto thee, except a man be borne againe, he cannot see the kingdome of heauen. And, Except a man be borne of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. And verse 7. You must be borne againe. But our Aduersa­ries seruing their turnes with these places, ouerthrow that which they haue set vp. For the Church of Rome is of opini­on, that this place doth not proue the absolute necessitie of baptisme with water to all persons: seeing it saith, that Mar­tyrs may be saued without baptisme with water; that those which haue vowed to be baptized, and haue not had conue­nient time and commodious thereunto, may be saued with­out it; and those also that are sanctified by the holy Ghost, as we haue already declared. All those may be saued (as they say) without baptisme with water. And which is more, al­though our Lord Iesus Christ spake vnto Nicodemus, yet our Aduersaries say, that baptisme with water was not ne­cessarie for Nicodemus, because he was circumcised; and that the baptisme of Christ was not necessarie to saluation (by their iudgement) but after his resurrection, as we shewed before. Aboue all things, it is to be considered, that Christ did not onely speake to Nicodemus, but also for Nicodemus, which spake of himselfe, and in respect of himselfe, when he said, How can a man be borne againe when he is old? By this is discouered the nature of errour, which is, to interrupt it selfe, and to vndo that which it hath done. For it is euident, that the Lord spake of a new birth, without which Nicodemus could not be saued. But our aduersaries say that Nicodemus [Page 459] might be saued without baptisme, because he was circum­cised. How should a man beleeue these Doctors, seeing they beleeue not themselues? and hauing set downe a generall rule to proue, that no man can be saued without baptisme with water, presently after they breake that rule by a multitude of exceptions? The sence of this place is cleare, Iesus Christ spake to Nicodemus, and in him to all those persons that are capable of instruction, and sheweth them that they cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen, if they be not borne a­gaine in newnesse of life, and regenerated by the holy Ghost: whose grace being infused into our hearts, is a baptisme without the which no man can be saued. And it is most cer­taine that this rule can beare no exception. For as in Matth. 3.11. it is said, that Iesus Christ baptizeth vs with the holy Ghost and with fire, vnderstanding thereby the Spirit mouing and purifying our hearts: so in this place Iesus Christ saith, that to enter into the kingdome of heauen, We must be borne againe of water and of the spirit; vnderstanding thereby, a spiri­tuall washing, or the Spirit washing and purifying the heart. The words to be borne againe, can receiue no other exposition. For, to be borne againe, doth not signifie to be baptized with water, but to be renewed and regenerated in a new life by the Spirit of God. And Iesus Christ plainely sheweth, that he speaketh onely of the efficacie of the Spirit secretly working in our hearts, when (verse the eight) he addeth and saith, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is e­uery man that is borne of the Spirit. Then to be borne of water and of the Spirit, by our Sauiour Iesus Christs owne exposi­tion, is to be simply borne of the Spirit: and this comparison of the winde blowing inuisibly cannot agree with any thing but onely with the Spirit of God.

Yet to gratifie our aduersaries, let vs grant them that Iesus Christ in this place would say, that without the Sacrament of Baptisme with water, we cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen; why should they not herein vse the same equitie of iudgement, and the same discretion which they vse in the [Page 460] exposition of those places whereby they say that Iesus Christ speaketh of the necessitie of the Eucharist? In Ioh. 6.53. Iesus Christ saith, Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man, and drinke his bloud, ye haue no life in you. There our aduersaries restraine Christs words to persons that are of the age of discretion, and that are capable of instruction, and that haue meanes to par­ticipate the Eucharist. Then let vs say the same in this place, that is, that Iesus Christ speaketh to men that haue attained to yeares of instruction, and to those that haue meanes to be baptized, which cannot be saued if they despise baptisme. By this meanes our disputation would be at an end, and we should be at agreement with our aduersaries touching the ne­cessitie of baptisme.Lomb. lib. 4. Sententiarū. Dist. 4. litt. & illud intel­ligendum est de illis qui possunt & contemnunt baptizari. And that is it which the Maister of Sen­tences acknowledgeth, saying, That the same place ought to be vnderstood of those that may be baptized, and despise bap­tisme.

The marriage of pride with superstition hath begotten this errour. For pride seekerh to exalt the necessitie of the mi­nisterie of men, and to perswade that the grace of God ne­cessarily passeth through their handes. And superstition layeth hold vpon the exteriour action, as if God did nothing with­out it.

But in the meane time, while the Church of Rome exal­teth the necessitie of baptisme, it imbaseth the worthinesse thereof, perswading those that beleeue her, that the benefit of Iesus Christ is in such sort applied vnto them thereby, that by the same they are not exempted from satisfying Gods iustice for the punishments and paines of sins by them committed after baptisme. They haue abridged the benefit of Iesus Christ, to make way for their trade. They say that it is no reason that the benefit of the redeemer should as equally exempt those from punishment which haue wittingly sinned after baptisme, as those that sinned by ignorance before bap­tisme. But may it not fall out, that a man may sinne willingly before baptisme, and ignorantly after baptisme? Then why shall sinne which is wittingly committed before baptisme be remitted without any satisfaction: and rhat which is com­mitted [Page 461] by ignorance after baptisme, not be remitted without satisfactorie punishments imposed vpon it by God?

The Church of Rome also hath embased baptisme, by per­mitting women and Pagans to administer the same, whereas Confirmation is onely conferred by the Bishop: as also by ad­ding thereunto spittle, salt, and blowing into the eares of those that are baptized: and by baptizing bells and gallies, as if they condemned baptisme to the gallies.

And in like manner the booke of Sacred ceremonies, lib. 1. cap. 8. in the seuenth Section saith, that theOmnibus baptizatis per Pontificem &c. Pope baptizeth Lambes made of waxe.

The beleefe of both parties.

Sect. 24 The Church of RomeConcl. Trid sess. 13. is of opinion, that presently after [Page 468] these words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, are pronounced, the substance of the bread changeth into the body of our Lord by transsubstantiation, and the substance of the wine into the bloud of our Lord. In such manner neuerthelesse, that by concomitance the body also is whole in euery drop of the wine in the cup, as the body is whole in euery crum and vn­der euery part of the host, which is done by vertue of the words; which being pronounced as well ouer the substance of the bread as ouer the accidents, do not worke but vpon the substance, so that the accidents remaine without a subiect; not that the body of Iesus Christ which is set on the right hand of God, cometh into the host, but it is made there by transsubstantiation.

Vpon condition neuerthelesse,Concil. Trid. Sess 7. can. 11. that the Priest must haue an intent to consecrate. For without that, the consecration is not made: and yet in the meane time the people out of a pi­ous and an holy presupposition do not ceasse to adore the host at all aduentures. Bellarmine in the first booke of Sacra­ments, chap. 27.Extra. de ce­lebr. Miss. Tit. 41. cap. De ho­mine. §. Pe­tes. saith, It is sufficient that the Priest hath an intent to do as the Church of Rome doth.

To confirme this transsubstantiation andPlatina in Leone 3. Io­docus Coccius. Matthaus Pa­ris an. 1247. pag. 713. reall presence, our aduersaries produce diuerse miracles, wherein the host (as they say) being prickt hath shed many drops of bloud, and in some of them the host appeared like a little child, entring into some mens mouthes.Durand. Ration lib. 4. cap. 35. & In­nocent. 3. lib. 3. de myster. Missae, cap. 1. Canon Poeni­tentialis 39. Quando mus comedit vel corrodit cor­pus Christi. And say that certaine shep­heards hauing pronounced the words of consecration vpon their bread being at breakfast, changed all the bread into flesh.

And because many inconueniences happen, either that the consecrated cup may freese, or that the consecrated host may be stolen, or is eaten by mice, or vomited vp againe by weaknesse of body, the penitentiall Canons, andCautelae Missae. Species distinguantur, & reuerenter sumantur, & vomitus comburatur, &c. the prouisions of the Masse haue ordained certaine rules for euery one of these inconueniences, and say, that it is not to be [Page 469] thought a strange matter, that a rat or a dog doth eate the whole body of Iesus Christ, now when he sitteth at the right hand of God in his glory, seeing that while he was in his in­firmitie here on earth fleaes might sucke the drops of his bloud, and dogs might licke vp his bloud that fell downe from the crosse.

By this doctrine the Priest may do that which all the An­gels and Saints together cannot do;Toletus de In­struct. sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 25. Posset conse­sacerdos mul­tos cophinos panu & vinidolium si prae­sentia ista ha­beret. for he can make Ie­sus Christ; and hauing made God by certaine words, he hath God in his owne power. From thence proceedeth their man­ner of speaking to lift vp God, to eate him, and to receiue their Creator. From thence proceedeth this prodigious do­ctrine, that a Priest may transsubstantiate whole vessels of wine, and change all the bread in the market into flesh. From thence proceedeth the adoration of the host in the Priests hands, but not after it is gone downe into his stomacke, al­though it be present there as well as in the host.

To shew in what manner the body of our Lord is in the Eucharist, they say, that his body is there, but not corporally: and that his body is there, but spiritually, with as much reason, as if they said, that a spirit is present corporally. They likewise say, that he is in this place, but not locally; that he is visible vn­der the species, & yet that the species hinder vs from the sight of him: that he is there in length without extention: that he is a body without a locall space; that in euery part of the host he hath his greatnesse, and that in euery crum of the bread he hath his full magnitude as he had vpon the crosse:Innocentius 3. l. 4. de myster. Missae, cap. 2. Est enim hic color & sapor, quantitas & qualitas cum nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum, aut quantum, aut quale. that he hath two eyes in one selfe same point: that he cannot moue nor breathe vnder the host: that he is whole in heauen, and whole in earth, and yet not in the region betweene both, nor separated from himselfe: that in the host, there is quantitas, & nihil quantum, length and nothing that is long, sauour and nothing that sauoreth, whitenesse and nothing that is white. This is it which they call the accidents without subiect. See the diuinitie of this age.

It is one of the greatest graces which God hath shewed vnto vs, that we are freed from so strange an errour, and that [Page 470] in our Churches they speake not of making of God by cer­taine words, nor of adoring Iesus Christ made by mens hands: as also that we beleeue in one Iesus Christ, which is very man, and hath a true humane body, and who by this meanes is our brother, by his conformitie with our nature, and by the vnion of his Spirit, who being ascended vp into heauen, will come againe vnto vs the second time, at the latter day.

Touching the holy Supper, we beleeue with the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.26. That we eate bread to shew forth the death of the Lord Iesus Christ. And 1. Cor. 10.16. That the bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ. Which bread is called the body of the Lord, because it is the commemo­ration thereof; as Iesus Christ addeth to expound his mea­ning, according to the manner of the holy Scripture, which is, to giue the signes the names of those things which they signifie. Not that we beleeue that those signes are onely bare figures bereft of all truth, but with the Apostle we beleeue, that breaking that bread we communicate the in body of Christ. Those signes are not onely significatiue, but also ex­hibitiue of Iesus Christ, and of his benefits. For although Iesus Christ is not inclosed in that bread, yet is he truly made ours if with true faith, and loue of God we participate of this holy Sacrament, and put all our trust and confidence in the death of Iesus Christ. Therefore we do not adore the Sa­crament, but Iesus Christ which is in heauen: taking the A­postles for an example, who did not adore the host in the holy Supper, as neither Iesus Christ did command them to a­dore it, neither yet vsed they any eleuation.

A proofe of the doctrine of our Churches by the words of the institution of this Sacrament.

Sect. 25 Our Lord Iesus Christ after the last Paschall lambe cele­brated with his disciples, instituted an other Sacrament, which Saint Paul calleth the Supper of the Lord, at the which [Page 471] he will haue bread to be broken and eaten by the faithfull, and a cup with wine distributed in remembrance of him, and to declare his death till he comes againe. This institution is found in Saint Matth. 26. in Marke 14, in Saint Luke 22. and 1. Cor. 11. From these places, not by peacemeale, (as our ad­uersaries do,) but wholly, and compared together, the truth ought to be drawne.

Saint Matthew saith, That Iesus Christ tooke the bread, and when he had blessed it, he brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, and said, Take, eate, this is my body. Saint Luke saith, that he added, Which is giuen you; do this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul in steed of saying, Which is giuen for you, saith, Which is broken for you. The holy Ghost which guided the hands and the spirits of the Apostles and of the Euangelists, vsed that diuer­sitie, that it might serue for a declaration and opening of the truth, and to the end that one Euangelist should serue to make the other to be vnderstood.

All the words of the Euangelists are true, not onely taken altogether, but seuerally. Then let vs first examine them seue­rally and apart, and after that altogether.

1 I say that the Gospell witnesseth, that Iesus Christ tooke bread, that he blessed it, and that he brake it. Then seeing that Iesus Christ tooke, and brake bread, how comes it that in the Church of Rome they say, that the Priest doth not breake bread? and that it is no more bread, when the breaking of the Sacrament is made?

2 The Gospell saith, that Iesus Christ tooke bread, that he brake it, and that he gaue it. Then it is true that he gaue bread, contrary to the Romish Church which saith, that in the Masse the Priest giueth no bread. And note these words, That Iesus Christ gaue bread. Which is not giuen but after consecration; it is bread therefore still after consecration.

3 And S. Matth. witnesseth, That Iesus Christ tooke bread, that he blessed it, and that he brake it, and that he gaue it to his disciples, and said, Take, eate, this is my body. Therefore we must beleeue, that the bread which Iesus Christ brake, & gaue, was his body, & not as the Church of Rome, which beleeueth that [Page 472] it is no more bread, but onely the body of Iesus Christ, made by the conuersion of bread. He that will not be culpable of changing the words of the Gospell, ought constantly to hold these two truths set downe in the Gospell: the one, that Iesus Christ gaue bread; the other, that that bread which he gaue was his body: and must not do as the Church of Rome doth, which vnder a pretence to lay hold on the second truth, ouerthroweth the first, and imagineth a transsubstantiation whereby the bread is abolished.

4 These words alone, This is my body, whereon they build their doctrine, cannot beare vp this frame of Transsubstan­tiation. For they are declaratiue words of that which is, and not effectiue of that which is not: and which presuppose that the same bread was alreadie the body of the Lord, before he pronounced those words.

5 And indeed both we and our aduersaries agree, that the bread is made the body of Christ by consecration, but con­secration is not made by these words This is my body, but by prayer and blessing which went before, as the Canon of the Church of Rome acknowledgeth, which beginneth Corpus, Corpus & sanguinem Christi dici­mus illud quod de fructibus terrae acceptū & prece mysti­ca sanctificatū rectè sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam Dominicae pas­sionis. in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, and saith, We call that the body and bloud of Christ, which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mysticall prayer, is directly taken by vs for spirituall saluation, in memo­rie of the passion of our Lord. And Pope Innocent 3. in the 4. booke of the Mysteries of the Masse, cap. 6. saith, That Ie­sus Christ did not consecrate by these words, This is my bodie: but that he consecrated by his diuine vertue before he vtte­red those words. AndReade the booke of Ca­pitefontium, which in the Preface saith, that Innocent and Catharius and Gabriel Biel and the ancient Fathers are of opinion that consecration is made by prayer. certainly reason confirmeth it: for we must be voyde of sence, if we know not, that to consecrate bread to God, we ought rather to speake to God then to the bread. But our aduersaries had rather go against reason, their owne Popes, and their Decrees, then obey the Gospell, pla­cing consecration in these words, This is my body, by which the Priest speakes not to God, but to the bread.

6 Moreouer, no man can denie, that when Iesus Christ said, This is my body, but by that word This, he vnderstood [Page 473] that which he held in his hands. Now both we and our aduer­saries acknowledge, that when Iesus Christ pronounced the word this, he held nothing but bread in his hands. It follo­weth then that by the word this, he vnderstood that bread: and by consequence that these words, this is my body, signifie this bread it my body, and not vnder these species is my body. Nor this shall be transsubstantiated into my body, as our aduersaries vnderstand it.2. De consecr. Can. Qui man­ducant. Quod videtur panis est & calix, quod etiam oculi renun­ciant, quod autem fides postulat in­struenda, pa­nis est corpus Christi. The Decretall of the Romish Church saith as we say, that, Panis est corpus Christi, The bread is the body of Christ. That which is seene (saith the Canon) is bread and a cup, as our eyes witnesse. But touching the instruction which faith requireth, the bread is the body of Christ.

7 Sith therefore the sence of these words, This is my body, is, This bread is my body, we must know how this bread can be the body of Iesus Christ. Which he himselfe declareth in all the words that follow, which we will particularly sift and examine.

8 Iesus Christ (as the Apostle Saint Paul saith) hauing said, This is my body, addeth, Which is broken for you.

The bread of the holy Supper must needs be the body of Christ, in the same manner that the body of Christ is broken in the holy Supper. But he is not therein really broken; for it is impossible: onely there he is sacramentally broken: there­fore in like sort, the bread is not really the body of Christ, but sacramentally, and as the signes ordinarily take the names of the things by them signified, in the same manner as in the line following, the cup is called a Testament; as circumcision is called the couenant of God, Gen. 17.9.10. As the paschall Lambe is called the passeouer, Exod. 12.11. and 21.2. and 2. Chro. 30.15. &c. As the Arke is called the Eternall, 2. Sam. 6.2, & Psalme 24. because it was a signe of the fauourable pre­sence of God amongst his people. As the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10.4. saith, that the rocke was Christ, because it was a figure of Ie­sus Christ. The Scripture is full of such examples: it is the or­dinary style thereof, to giue vnto the signes the names of those things which they represent. And reason also alloweth it; for what is more naturall and proper then in sacraments to vse sa­cramentall [Page 474] words, and in an action which is figuratiue, to vse a figure conformable to the action? To the end that by calling the signes by the names of those things which they signifie, we may apprehend the vnion which the signe hath with the thing signified. Because God all at one time representeth the signes vnto our eyes, and the thing signified vnto our faith.

To say, that hereby we open a gap vnto heresies, and there­by fauour the Marcionites, who in like manner might figura­tiuely interpret these words of Saint Iohn, The word was made flesh, is nothing to the purpose; for Saint Iohn in that place, speaketh not of a Sacrament: and therefore the sacramentall manner of speaking agrees not to that place. This imputation may iustly be layd vpon our aduersaries themselues, who to establish their Transsubstantiation, wrest and wring all the words of the institution of the Eucharist, and therein induce a dozen vnaccustomed and prodigious figures, as hereafter we shall see.

Then to returne to these words, Which is broken for you, we must vnderstand that the Romish Churches translation, and the text of the Masse, haue corrupted this place, and haue translated that in the future tense which Iesus Christ spake in the present tense, and haue put shall be broken, for is broken, frangetur, for frangitur: which translation although it be good touching faith, yet it hindreth men from knowing that the purpose of Iesus Christ is sacramentall, and that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe.

9 Then to make the truth manifest, we aske our aduersa­ries, whether the body of Iesus Christ be really broken in­to peeces in the Eucharist? or whether therein it be onely broken sacramentally, and significantly in a mysterie? If they say it is broken sacramentally, then they are bound to inter­pret these words in the same manner, This is my body, and to say, that that which Iesus Christ gaue to his Disciples was his sacramentall body, and a remembrance of him. But if they will haue the body of our Lord to be really bro­ken in the Masse, thereby they fall into three inconueniences: The first is, that they wrong Iesus Christ, who being impassi­ble, [Page 475] can no more be broken. The second is, that they contra­dict their Masse and their Bible, which hath translated, shall be broken, in the future tense, because there is no other reall breaking of the body of our Lord, but that which was to be done the next day vpon the crosse. The third is, that they contradict themselues: for the Church of Rome beleeueth, that the body of Iesus Christ cannot be broken, and that when the Priest breaketh the host, there is nothing but the accidents that are broken, and that the body of our Lord re­maineth whole in euery peece thereof. So that it is a mocke­rie for them to say, that the body of our Lord is broken vnder the species, seeing they say that he remaineth whole vnder the species. That which remaineth whole vnder the species, is not broken vnder the species. Whereby they speake as wisely, as if I should say, that a sword is broken in the scabbard, when the scabbard onely is broken, and the sword is whole and not broken.

Herein they ought to giue glory vnto God, and yeeld to the force of truth, and acknowledge, that seeing [...]he body of Christ cannot be really broken in the Sacrament, that therein it is broken sacramentally, in the same manner that the bread is the body of Christ. This breaking hath relation to that vpon the crosse, and taketh the name of that which it repre­senteth.

10 I say the same of the words which Saint Luke vseth, This is my body which is giuen for you. For Iesus Christ did not say, This is my body which I giue you to eate: but said, This is my body which is giuen for you. Which words, for you, are as much as, for your redemption; which was really done vpon the crosse, but is sacramentally done in the Supper, and for a remem­brance, as Iesus Christ addeth, saying, Do this in remembrance of me.

These words decide the question. For if that which Iesus Christ giueth be the remembrance of Iesus Christ, it is not Iesus Christ: nothing is the remembrance of it selfe. And there is nothing so absurd, as that which our aduersaries say,Bell. lib. 2. de Euchar. ca. 24. Idem igi­tur Christus fuit figura sui-ipsius. that in the Eucharist Iesus Christ is the figure and the re­membrance [Page 476] of himselfe; as if one should say, that the king is his picture, and that he is the image of himselfe. It is to no purpose to alledge diuerse respects, and to say, that Iesus Christ in the Masse is the figure of Iesus Christ on the crosse. For whatsoeuer diuersitie of respects may be alledged, yet the king sitting at the table shall neuer be the figure of him­selfe on horsebacke. And if the king himselfe should repre­sent one of his battels, yet he should not be the figure of himselfe, but his present action should be a figure of his action past. Adde hereunto, that visible things may be fi­gures of inuisible things. But here they will haue Iesus Christ (inuisible in the Masse) to be the figure of Iesus Christ on the crosse, where he was visible.

11 Beside, remembrance is of things past or absent, as A­ristotle saith in his first [...], chapter of the booke of Memorie and remembrance. So when the ancient Fathers called the tombes of Martyrs, remembrances, they shewed thereby, that those Martyrs were in heauen. And the Manna that was kept in the Arke, was not a remembrance of that portion of manna that was in the Arke, but of the miraculous feeding of the people in the desert. And whosoeuer extolleth the valour of a king in his owne presence, doth not renew the remem­brance of the kings person that is present, but of his actions past, So to haue a remembrance of God, is to remember his maruellous workes, his promises, or his commandements. The same is to be found in all other examples.

It cannot be denied, that the holy Supper is a commemo­ration not onely of the person of Iesus Christ; but also of his death, seeing that the Apostle commandeth vs to eate that bread, to shew forth his death. 1. Cor. 11.26. and Iesus Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me.

Then we haue the exposition of these words, This is my body, giuen vs by Iesus Christ himselfe, that is, that the bread which he gaue was the remembrance of his body.

12 Whereupon it is necessarie to set downe something, whereby to stop the mouthes of those that haue their spirits hardened, and are most resolute to contradict the truth. Then [Page 477] it is to be vnderstood, that the language of the Iewes in the old Testament was the Hebrew tongue, which was still cal­led the Hebrew tongue although it fell from the purity there­of, by mixing it with the Syrian tongue. In this Hebrew tongue, the word signifie or represent is not found: but the ancient Hebrew Testament in stead of signifie alwaies vseth the word is. So Ioseph in Genesis 40.12. interpreting the dreames of Pharoes cup-bearer and of his baker, saith, The three branches of the vine are three dayes; and in the 18. verse, The three baskets are three dayes, that is signifie three dayes: and in the 41. chapter verse 16. The seuen fat kine are se­uen yeares, and the seuen full eares of corne are seuen yeares. And the seuen leane euill-fauored kine which came vp after the other, are seuen yeares: and the seuen emptie eares of corne blasted with the east winde, are seuen yeares of famine. And in foure places of that chapter the word are is put for signifie or represent. So in Ezechiel 37.11. These bones are the whole house of Israel: to shew, that it was represented and figured by those bones. And Daniel 2.38. It is thou ô King that art this head of gold, in stead of saying, It is thou that art signified and prefigured by the head of gold. And 4.20.22, The tree which thou sawest is thou ô King. And 7.17. These foure great beasts, are foure kings. And 24. verse, The ten hornes are ten kings. And in the 8. chap. 20, and 21 verses, The ram which thou sawest hauing two hornes, are the Kings of Media and Persia: and the rough goate is the king of Graecia. In all these places and many others, the word are is as much as to signifie or represent. From thence it comes, that al­though the Greeke tongue wanteth no words to say, signifie, figure or represent; yet the new Testament in Greeke, which oftentimes imitateth the Hebrew phrase, ordinarily saith, is for signifieth. So the Apostle 1. Cor. 10.4. speaking of the rocke from whence water issued forth in the desert, saith, that the rocke was Christ. And Galat. 4.22.24. it is said that the bond seruant and the free, that is, Agar and Sara, are the two couenants: and Apocal. 17.9.18. The seuen heads are seuen mountaines whereupon the woman sitteth, and the woman which thou sawest is that great citie.

Then because Iesus Christ could not in his language, say, This signifieth or representeth my body, because those words are not in the Hebrew tongue, he spake as the same language led him, and followed the manner of speaking vsed among the Iewes, and continued in the holy Scripture. But foreseeing that Sathan by those words would plant idolatrie in the Church, he added, that that which he did was a remem­brance, which is as much as if he had said, This is the remem­brance of my body.

13 Let vs follow the words of the institution of this Sa­crament, and let vs come to the second part, which is the di­stribution of the wine. Matthew 26.27. describeth it in these words: Also he tooke the cup, and when he had giuen thankes, he gaue it them saying, Drinke ye also of it, for this is my bloud of the new Testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of sinnes.

Saint Luke that wrote since, setteth downe these words 22.20. in this manner, saying, This cup is that new Testament in my bloud, which is shed for you. Saint Paul saith the same 1. Cor. 11.25.

These two pen-men of the Spirit of God, Saint Paul and Saint Luke, which wrote after the rest, serue for expositors, and make a paraphrase of the words of our Lord rehearsed by Saint Matthew. For it is to be presupposed, that he which writeth after another, writeth not to obscure him, but to ex­pound and make him euident. It were a great abuse to make Iesus Christ to be the expounder of Saint Pauls words, seeing that Saint Paul wrote expresly to expound the words of Iesus Christ, to cause the same to be vnderstood.

Our Sauiour Iesus Christ hauing said, that the cup is his bloud, the Apostle Saint Paul teacheth vs in what sence that ought to be taken, that is, This cup is the new Testament, or the new couenant in his bloud.

These words of Saint Luke and of Saint Paul, This cup is the new Testament, or this cup is a new couenant, (for the Greeke signifieth both the one and the other) leade vs directly to the knowledge of the truth.

14 For I demand of our aduersaries, whether that which is [Page 479] in the cup be a couenant sacramentally and in a significant mysterie, or whether they will haue it to be the Testament & couenant of God in effect. If that which is in the cup be not really the couenant of God, but in a mysticall signification & sacramentally, we must say, that that which Iesus Christ brake and put into his disciples hands, was not really the body of Iesus Christ, but sacramentally, & in a mysticall signification.

But if they will haue that which is in the cup really to be a Testament, and the bloud of Iesus Christ (which they pretend to be in the cup) to be a Testament, thereby they say and af­firme that which they themselues beleeue not. 1. For will they haue the wine to be transsubstantiated into a couenant, or to become a Testament? 2. Can they speake more absurdly, then to say, that the bloud of Iesus Christ is a couenant or a testa­ment? For a couenant and a Testament is a relation, or an action, but the bloud of our Lord is a substance 3. A Testa­ment consisteth in clauses and promises, which agreeth not with the bloud of Christ. 4. What an absurditie is it, to call Ie­sus Christ a Testament, seeing he is the testator, or to call him a couenant, seeing the couenant is betweene him & vs? 5. If one of the parties contracting may be called the couenant, the faithful also may be called the couenant, because the couenant is contracted with them. 6. If the bloud of our Lord be the co­uenant and testament, the Priest (as they say) making the bloud of Iesus Christ euery day, maketh the couenant of God, and the Testament of Iesus Christ. But the couenant of God is no more made, it is eternall, and the Testament of the Sonne of God is not reiterable; and to apply the same, we must not make it. 7. Besides, if the bloud of our Lord in the cup be really the new Testament, then it followes, that the new Testament began at that time, which notwithstanding was before. For before the institution of this Sacrament, the Gospell was already preached, which beareth this inscrip­tion, The new Testament. And Baptisme also was then already instituted, which is a Sacrament of the new Testament. 8. And Saint Matthew saith, that That which is in the cup is the bloud of the new Testament; then it followeth, that that bloud is not [Page 480] the new Testament. For as Philips cloake is not Philip him­selfe, so the bloud of the new Testament is not the new Testament it selfe. And yet our aduersaries fully hardened in errour, obstinately maintaine that the bloud of the Lord which they say is in the cup, is truly and really a couenant, and that the wine is transsubstantiated into a couenant.

Howbeit truth is so strong, that it makes them say the truth when they thinke not thereon. For they say, that the cup is called the couenant, because that by the cup the couenant is confirmed, and that it is the seale thereof; which is the same that we say, and by which we proue, that the cup is not the co­uenant really, but the Sacrament thereof: for the confirmation of a thing is not the thing it selfe, and a seale set vpon a letter is not the letter it selfe. So that against their wils they yeeld vnto vs. For seeing that the cup is called the couenant, be­cause it is the seale thereof, by the same reason the bread also must be called the body of Christ, because it is the seale and the confirmation thereof, which is our beleefe. For the Sa­craments are seales, as Saint Paul, Rom. 4, calleth circumci­sion, The seale of the righteousnesse of faith, although in it there was no transsubstantiation.

16 And in saying that the cup is the seale of the couenant, they confesse (against their wils,) that the cup is not really the bloud of Iesus Christ. For the seales and confirmations of a couenant, and the signatures of a Testament, ought to be visible, and exposed vnto our senses: but the bloud in the cup is inuisible. For it is not onely hidden vnder the accidents and apparence of wine, but it is also hidden in the body: for our aduersaries say, that the body is in the cup, and that the bloud which is in the cup, is in the veines of the body, in its naturall places.

17 And if these things were not as cleare as the Sunne, yet the words that follow are strong enough to force those that are most obstinate to yeeld, and to make such as are wilfully blind to see the truth. For the Gospell saith, This cup is the new Testament in my bloud.

These words, in my bloud, cleare the point, and manifestly [Page 481] shew, that that which is in the cup is not really the bloud of Iesus Christ. For say, that by this cup we must vnderstand this bloud, and let vs see what will ensue thereof. Is not this to make the words of our Lord ridiculous, to make him say, This bloud is the new Testament in my bloud? What? is that bloud of Iesus Christ in the bloud of Iesus Christ? Must we by this meanes make two sorts of bloud of Iesus Christ, asBell. lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 11. §. Ad quartum. San­guis accipitur duobus modis in his duobus locis. Bellarmine doth, for feare of putting the bloud of Iesus Christ into the bloud of Iesus Christ? For it is certaine, that that which is in a thing, whether it be contained therein, whether it be infused therein, or whether it be adherent therein, is not one selfe same thing with that thing. For seeing that the Gospell witnesseth that Calix est in sanguine Christi, it saith euidently, that Calix non est sanguis Christ: a cup which is in the bloud of Christ, is not really the bloud of Christ, but sa­cramentally, and by commemoration, as it is added.

18 Our aduersaries charged with so many absurdities, de­fend themselues by impietie, which casteth them headlong into other absurdities. They say that there is mention made of two sorts of bloud of Iesus Christ, where of the one is a cup, the other was shed vpon the crosse; wherof the one was pow­red vpon the other, and whereof the one is the Testament, and the other not. But still it is the same bloud. If these seuerall respects, should make seuerall blouds of Christ, there would be a thousand sorts of bloud, one at the table, another in the ship, and another after the resurrection, &c. And if the bloud in the cup hath the honour to be the couenant, why should we depriue the bloud of the crosse of that honour? Then to effect this, they must forge two sorts of couenants, and by that meanes creep among thornes as snakes do, and couer rhemselues with a thousand wrested deuices against the force of truth.

19 Saint Matthew addeth, This bloud, or as Saint Luke and Saint Paul say, This cup is shed for many for the remission of sinnes.

The vnderstanding of these words depends vpon those that went before; for seeing we haue proued that the Lord giueth [Page 482] to the signes the names of the things signified, it is agreeable to reason, that as the cup is the bloud of Iesus Christ sacra­mentally, so it should be shed sacramentally. For you must note, that the Euangelists say, is shed, and speake in the pre­sent tense, saying effunditur, and not effundetur, as the Masse and the Romish translation say. For although that this sacra­mentall shedding of the bloud of Christ for the remission of sinnes, hath relation to the effusion vpon the crosse, yet we ought to translate the words faithfully. Also the translation in the present tense doth hinder vs from knowing that our Sauiours intent was sacramentall, and that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe.

20 Herein our Aduersaries are much troubled. For if this shedding be sacramentall and a commemoration, we haue wonne our cause: and the Doctors of the Romish Church are on our side, who hauing glossed vpon the Decretall in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, say, Sanguis effunditur, id est, effundi significatur, Cant. 5. Quo­tiescunque. The bloud is shed, that is, it is signi­fied or represented that the bloud is shed. The Masse it selfe also, translating in the future tense effundetur, shall be shed, leadeth vs the right way, to giue vs to vnderstand, that the ef­fusion in the Sacrament was a signification and representation of the effusion the next day vpon the Crosse.

21 Yet our Aduersaries contend with vs herein, and af­firme, that the bloud of Iesus Christ is really and effectually shed in the Eucharist. But if you aske them, whether in the Eucharist the bloud issueth out of the body, or out of the veines; they say, no, and so contradict themselues, and confesse that the bloud is not really shed. They themselues call the Eucharist a Sacrifice without bloud; which should be false if therein bloud were really shed. They also con­tradict themselues when they say, that the bloud of our Lord stirreth not in the Eucharist, nor moueth, and yet it is shed therein, for all shedding is a mouing.

22 In this perplexitie their onely refuge is, neuer to an­swer any thing to the purpose. For being asked, whether [Page 483] the bloud of our Lord is shed in the Masse, they say it is shed vnder the species. But we aske them not, vnder what thing the bloud is shed, but whether it be shed therein, or no. Adde hereunto, that the bloud which cometh not out of the bodie vnder the species, and which stirreth not from vnder the species, is not shed vnder the species.

23 They say, that the accidents which they call species, are shed, which is a capricious kinde of Philosophie, to ima­gine that the Priest powreth our lines, taste, and colour of wine without wine, and that the bloud is shed without is­suing out of the body. So that the Priest filleth out, and drin­keth, bones, flesh, and a liquid and potable humane bodie, which is whole in euery drop of the wine.

24 The Lord concludeth his intent by a clause which defi­nitiuely decideth the controuersie, saying, Matth. 26.29. I say vnto you, I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine. Saint Marke saith the like. Our Lord could not more plainly say that it was the fruit of the Vine which he dranke, and not bloud. For the fruit of the vine and wine are all one thing. It is true that Saint Luke speaketh of two cuppes, one of the paschall Lambe, the other of the holy Supper, and witnes­seth also, that Iesus Christ called the cuppe of the paschall Lambe the fruit of the Vine. But Saint Matthew and Saint Marke speake onely of the cup of the Eucharist, which they call the fruit of the Vine. It cannot be said, that they call that wine in the Cup the fruit of the Vine, of which they speake not at all. Then to make the Euangelists to agree, we must necessarily say, that Iesus Christ spake twise of the fruit of the Vine, and that administring the cup of the Eucharist, he vsed the same termes.Quod autem vinum in san­guine conse­crauit patet ex eo quod ipse subiunxit, non bibam à modo de genimine, &c. For it were an intollerable boldnes to correct Saint Matthew and Saint Marke by Saint Luke, and to charge them to haue troubled the order and method of our Sauiours words in so important an action, whereat Saint Mathew himselfe was present. Pope Innocent the third, in the fourth booke of the mysteries of the Masse, 27. chapter, acknowledgeth, that Iesus Christ called that the fruit of the Vine which he consecrated in the Cup.

Being put from that, they haue another refuge, and say, that the wine is called the fruit of the Vine, in regard that it was so before. As if we should call a man of fiftie yeares of age, a childe, because once he was a childe: and ripe grapes veriuice, because they haue bene so. This is to say that a thing is that which it is not. The examples by them alled­ged of Moses Rod, that was called a Rod after it was chan­ged into a Serpent; and of the water, called water after it was changed into wine, Iohn 2.9. are to no purpose. For that Serpent had bene a Rod, and that wine had bene water; but the bloud of Christ neuer was wine. And that Rod was tur­ned into a Serpent, which it was not before. But here they will haue this wine to be turned into bloud, which was so al­ready before the conuersion. Adde hereunto, that such a fi­gure is repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament, which requi­reth that the name of the thing signified should be giuen vn­to the signe, and not that the name of the signe should be giuen to the thing signified. When we call the wine, bloud, we speake according to the custome and nature of Sacra­ments; but when we call the bloud of our Lord wine, or the fruit of the Vine, we ouerthrow the nature of the Sacrament, and embase the thing signified; and to shun a naturall and v­suall figure in these words, This is my body, induce a figure against nature, which is not vsuall, in these words, I will drinke no more of this fruit of the wine.