BVt to take away the proppes of this their ruinous buil­ding, let vs see what grounds or foundations (for so Melchior Canus a learned Papist termeth them) they lay, of this their doctrine.

Obiection Melchior Canus in his common places of Diuinitie, [Page 2] and Bellarmine in his controuersies, lib. 3. cap. 3 Bellar. lib. 4 [...] of Gods worde d [...] written, and others also, set this downe as a most nece [...]rie principle, That the Church is more ancient than the Scriptures. As in trueth the Church was more than two thousand yeres before there was any written word of God in bookes, and therefore Bellarmine inferreth, That the Scriptures are not simply necessary.

Answere. First, this ground doeth not vpholde that which is in controuersie among vs. For they shoulde prooue traditi­ons to bee a part of Gods worde, so that without them Gods word could not bee counted perfect. And to proue that, they tel vs, that it was more than two thousand yeeres before the woord was written. Which maketh nothing for them, vnlesse they can shew vs, that this word which is now written, is not that same that before was deliuered by tradition vnto the fathers of that old world. For the question betweene vs and the Papists, is not of the maner of deliuering Gods word, whether it were deli­uered by word or by writing: but of the matter, namely, whether Gods word be any thing else, than that is writ­ten in the old and new testament, which we deny, but they affirme it, because the word was so long time vnwritten, & yet the church was not then without the word. So that because the word was reuealed after an other manner, the Papists wil haue it another word. Whereas in trueth that same word that was from the beginning, Iohn 1.1 what word that is that is written. is that verie word of God, that was so long after the beginning written for the Iewes, and is now deliuered vnto vs. Wee must therefore take heede that they deceiue vs not by the double signification of the word Scripture, which sometime ex­presseth the manner of deliuering the word, namely, by writing, and so we confesse, the scripture was not so anci­ent as the church by mo than two thousand yeares, but sometime the word Scripture signifieth the word it selfe which is deliuered vnto vs, as it is commonly now taken, and in this place must so be vnderstoode. And so hath the [Page] word written beene from the beginning. That is to say, that the selfe same word, which God, by word of mouth (as we say) and by tradition did teach the patriarkes, hee afterwards did cause to be written, which word wee call the holy scriptures. And further also we must remember, that one manner of deliuering the word of God, Diuerse maners of deliuering the word at diuerse times. is fit for one time, and an other manner of deliuering it for an o­ther time. As may appeare by that which hath beene said, how that God hath in his infinite wisedome seene it neede­full, to deliuer it one way afore the Lawe, in an other sort vnder the Lawe, and the Gospell, although not in like measure in both these latter times. So that this argu­ment cannot stand good: The scriptures haue not beene written in the first age amongst the patriarkes, therefore they are not necessary now amongst vs in these dayes, to whom God hath by them reuealed his word. Which ar­gument is strongly confuted by Chrysostome that lear­ned and ancient Father. In Matth. hom. 1. But to these men, who are (as Tertullian calleth the Heretikes of his time) lucifugae scripturarum, De resurrect. carnis. such as shunne the light of the scriptures, and flee from it, I may say as the same Tertullian speak­eth in an other place, De prescript. Beleeue without the Scriptures, that yee may also beleeue against the Scriptures. Let them seeke the desert of their owne deuises, and follow the trod of their owne traditions, to finde out some couert for their superstitions, but let vs content our selues to dwell in the cities of the Lawe, the Prophets, the Gospel, and the Apostles which are the Scriptures, and not goe out of them, In Mich. li. 1 as Saint Ierome speaketh, For euery word of God is pure, Prou. 30.5, 6 hee is a shield to those that trust in him. Put nothing to his word, lest he reprooue thee, and thou be found a liar.

The argument for traditions, and against the sufficiencie of the Scriptures.

Many things there are necessary to be beleeued, that are not expresly set downe in the Scriptures: yea, many things that are neither plainely neither obscurely in the Scriptures (say all the Papists) namely, Ca­nus in his second and third grounds: Lib. 3. cap. 3 Therefore the Scriptures are not sufficient.

For answere: the antecedent or first part of the argu­ment is vntrue: For whatsoeuer is to be beleeued, is ei­ther plainly set downe, or necessarily to be gathered out of the Scriptures, otherwise our Sauiour Christ should not seeme to haue plainely dealt with the Iewes, when hee biddeth them Search the Scriptures (making no mention of any traditions) and addeth his reason, Iohn 5.39 They (the scrip­tures) beare witnesse of mee, but this is manifest by the [Page 4] places before alleaged. Contra lit. P [...] il. lib. 3. cap. 6 Wherefore S. Augustine doth ac­count him accursed, yea he so pronounceth him, that will teach any thing either of Christ, or of his Church, or anie thing else that appertaineth either to faith, or to our life, besides that which we haue receiued in the Scriptures of the lawe and the Gospel. Marke how he saith: the Scrip­ture serueth vs for all turnes. Therfore the Authour of the vnperfect work vpon Mathew, euen in the beginning, Hom. 1 com­pareth the Scripture to a Store-house of some rich man, wherein one may find whatsoeuer he wanteth: so saith he, in this booke, euery soule may finde that which is necessa­rie. And Athanasius alluding to the place of S. Paule 2. Contra gen­tes. Tim. 3.16. saith, The holy scriptures giuen by inspirati­on, are sufficient to teach vs all trueth. It is therefore far better that we with Tertullian should adore the fulnes of the Scriptures, Cont. Her­mogenem. Lib. 3. cap. [...] than be partakers with those heretikes of whom Irene complaineth, who when by the Scriptures they were conuinced, accused the Scriptures themselues, as if something were amisse in them, and that they are not of authoritie sufficient, they are diuerse, and the trueth can not in them be found of them that knowe not the tradi­tions, for they were deliuered, not by writing, but by word: which are the very words of the church of Rome. So that a man can not so aptly paint out our popish here­tikes, as if he take his patterne by those ancient heretikes: For not one Ape is liker to an other, than they are.

Argument The argument whereby they indeuour to seduce men and to drawe them to their opinion is this: Whatsoeuer rule of faith or life may be changed, and according to mens affections expounded, is vncertaine and deceitful: but the Scripture is such, therefore it is an vncertaine rule.

Answere Which I answer thus. First, the maior or former pro­position, is not simply true, but with these additiōs: what­soeuer may aptly, or without doing violence to the words, be so drawen vnto sundry opinions, is an vncertaine r [...] . And hereby will soone be gathered the falsenesse of the mi­nor, which affirmeth the scripture to be such. For although out of one sentence of scripture a man may gather diuerse good lessons, and that with good fruit to others, and ap­probation of all men, so long as those interpretations are agreeable to the rule of faith: yet when any euill thing in faith or life is thereby maintained, without all doubt the words are then wrested, and it ceaseth to bee Gods word. Now this is not the fault of the word, but of mans corrupt affections which abuse the same. Rom. 7.12. For the Lawe truely is holy, and the commandement is holy, iust, and good. And as Epiphanius saieth, Heres. 70 There is no discord in the Scripture, nor one sentence disagreeing from an other. And in an other place, Heres. 76 All things in the holy Scripture are cleane enough to them that with godly considerati­on will come vnto that diuine word, and haue not con­ceiued in themselues the worke of the Diuell, indeuo­ring to throw themselues into the pit of death. Euen as saint Paul saith, If our gospell be yet hid, 2. Cor. 4, 3, 4 it is hid in them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath [Page] blinded their minds. And what is Gods word the worse, if the wicked will not know it, 2. Pet. 3.16 or the vnlearned or vnsta­ble peruert it to their owne destruction? I wil therefore conclude with that golden saying of Iustine the martyre. I would wish others to be of that mind, Iustin. Col. cum Try­phone Iud. that they would not swarue from our Sauiours wordes: For they can put religion into them that wander from the right way, and refresh with most sweete rest, them that are exer­cised therein.

But because this is a great stumbling blocke in the way of the ignorant, it shall not be amisse somewhat particular­ly to examine the Arguments that are vsed to prooue the hardnesse of the scriptures. Argument The first argument of Bellar­mines is this. Dauid prayeth thus, Giue me vnderstand­ing, and I wil search thy law. Open mine eies, Lib. 3. cap. 1. de verbi Dei interpr. and I will consider the woonderous things of thy lawe, shew the light of thy countenance vpon thy seruant, & teach me thy statutes: therefore the Scriptures are hard.

Answere. It is certaine that Dauids prayers were not to haue his naturall or outward man only instructed (for who can i­magine that the prophet Dauid, being so well acquainted in Gods booke, could not vnderstand Gods lawe) but to haue his mind and inward man lightned and directed: and therefore this proueth not the sense of scripture to be hard: for the like prayers are to be vsed of them that thinke it to be most easie. Secondly, euen the lawe, which they con­fesse to be easie, hath not only the literall sense, but should also be a bridle vnto the affections and thoughts of men, Matth. 5 as most plainly appeareth in those Commentaries which our Sauiour Christ maketh vppon the sixt, seuenth, and fourth commandements. Rom. 7.14 In which respect also S. Paul doth call it Spirituall, although Bellarmine seeme to account the [Page] commandements to be but Natural. The Precepts (saith he) of the x. Commandements, seeing they are natural, may easily be vnderstood. Dauid therfore may there pray (as all christians ought to doe) that he may know by Gods word, not only how to rule his actiōs, but also his words & affections. This thē doth not proue the scripturs to be hard concerning such good lessons as out of the literal sense may be learned, but he proueth that vnlesse God lighten vs, we cannot see the spirituall meaning, Psa. 119.27. which he calleth, the maruellous things of the law. Arg. 2 His second argument pro­ueth some parts of Scripture to be hard, which we denie not, and therefore deserueth no answere.

Arg. 3 Lib. 2. ca 47 Contra Cel­sum lib. 7 In Exod. hom. 12His third argument is taken from the Fathers. Irene saith, in the scriptures I commit many things to God. Orig. saith, the scripture is darke in many places. And in another place, that we must pray night and day, that the lamb of the Tribe of Iuda will come, and that hee will vouchsafe to open the booke that is sealed. Answere That many things in the scripture are hard we neuer denied, as before I said, and that with Reading wee should ioyne Prayer, therefore Bellarmine when he took these weapons in hand, did but feare his owne shadow. That Basil and Gregory Nazianzene did seeke, not by their owne presumption, but by other mens writings that were before them, to attaine to the vnderstanding of this written word, Ruffinus doth well to commend them. But I am sure that Bellarmine himselfe will not thereof conclude, that they vnderstoode nothing of themselues or without teachers, or that all the scriptures are hard. He bringeth in Chrysostome saying, that the deepe things therein cannot be attained vnto with­out great labour, and that Christ would haue the Iewes not to reade onely, but to search them also. If of this hee conclude therfore, al the scriptures are hard, his argument is to be denied, for that it hath no trueth in it: if hee say therefore, many things are hard, we say so with him. Argument Hee alleageth saint Ambrose also, who saith, The holy scrip­ture [Page 7] is a sea. Answere Saint Ambrose doth not in that place call it a Sea, because it is so deepe that the bottome can not be found, but because it is so plentifull that it yeeldeth abun­dance to all, as appeareth, not only by the sentence next af­ter that alleadged by Bellarmine, but also by that conclu­sion that he gathereth a litle after, saying: Therefore the holy Scripture hath diuers riuers, Thou hast to drinke the first time, the second time, and the last time. Ther­fore, although saint Ambrose say, that the scripture hath in it depths, yet doth he not say it is all darke. Argument But (saith he) Hierome in his epistle to Paulinus writeth, that with­out a teacher the scriptures can not be learned, and briefly going through euery booke by name, hee sheweth, that in them are many and great difficulties, or rather mysteries, for he findeth in them sundry allegories. Answere Yet all is not hard, as before hath often bin answered. And S. Ierome in that place as soone as hee hath made an end of reckon­ing vp of those books, and shewing the mysteries that are therein, he sheweth the cause why he did so: I would not (saith he) haue thee to be offended with the simplicitie and basenes of wordes in the Scriptures. Argument As for the other obiection out of Hierome, is, that Hierome was studious in the scriptures from his youth, and also went to Alexan­dria to conferre with Dydimus of all that he did doubt of in the scriptures. The simple may see, this maketh not a­gainst vs: Hierome studied them hard, therefore all the scriptures are hard: Or, he conferred with Dydimus of that he doubted, therefore all are hard. Obiection The last obiection out of Hierome is, That the whole Epistle to the Ro­manes is wrapped into great obscurities. Answere, This toucheth but onely that epistle, and therefore is no argument against all the scripture. And in that, seeing there be many things both concerning faith and manners very plaine, saint Hie­rome either speaketh hyperbolically as many times the fa­thers do, or else by these obscurities he meaneth such my­steries as may be gathered out of the scriptures, but not [Page] such doctrines as we must learne out of the same. And who knoweth not that the fathers do many times so are higher, and find out greater mysteries, than the text will well af­foord. Obiection Out of Augustine he hath foure testimonies. The first saith, that such as rashly reade, are many times trou­bled, because that some things that are obscurely spoken do greatly blinde them. Answere. Which maketh not against vs, that neither like of rash reading, neither say that all is easie. His second testimony is that exclamation that saint Augu­stine maketh, Confess. lib. 12. cap. 14 hauing entred into a deepe meditation what may be signified by these words heauen and earth in the be­ginning of Genesis, as appeereth by the chapter going be­fore, and also by sundry of the chapters following, & there­fore this his admiration, O the wonderfull depth of thy words! &c. doth not proue all the scripture to be hard. Nay seeing that the story of the creation may there bee plainely vnderstood, it must needes follow, that his meaning was not to say that Gods word is hard, but rather, that men may in the same consider of deepe matters, as I answered to the last place out of S. Hierome. Obiection The third and fourth places out of saint Augustine are these: There is so great depth of christian learning, that I might therein profit daily, if from my childhoode vnto my olde age, with much time, earnest indeuour, and a sharper wit, I could study it only. And lastly, In the holy Scriptures I know (saith Augustine) not so much by farre as I am ignorant of. Answere Both which places do prooue nothing else than, as I said before of Ambrose, that the scriptures are plentifull. So that he saith heere nothing else than in another place of that third epistle, out of the which the former of these two places is taken, The maner (saith he) of speaking vsed in the Scriptures al may come to, but very few can passe through, and so afterwardes sheweth howe sundry good things all may receiue by them. Lastly, the two testimo­nies, out of the Author of the vnperfect worke vpon Ma­thew, Hom. 44 and that out of Gregory vppon Ezech. Hom. 6. [Page] which giue two reasons why the scriptures are obscure, a [...] also like the rest, nothing against vs. For the author of that worke vpon Mathew doth plainly shew in the same homi­ly, that he meaneth, the scripturs to be obscure to them that will not reade them, these are the words: Therefore the trueth is not hid in the Scriptures, but it is darke, not so that they who seek it may not find it, but so as they can not find it that wil not seek it. And the same also appeares by the words of the place alleaged out of Gregory by Bel­armine. For one reason of the obscuritie is, saith he, that he may get that by labour, which by idlenes he can not. And then also because the knowledge of the scriptures is not gotten but by labour and paines taking, they are not so lightly esteemed.

Arg. 4 The last generall argument is, by reason, to prooue the scriptures to be hard, both in regard of the matter deliue­red, and the maner of deliuering it. And here for the matter he reckneth some of the principal points of diuinitie, wher­as we may find in the scriptures milke for children, that is, easie lessons for the ignorant, and meate for the elder sort. Yea, as Augustine saith, He giueth milk to yong ones, De verbis dom. ser. 38 fulgent. ser. de confessor. that when they are elder hee may giue them stronger meate. And as the matters contained in the scriptures are heauenly and spirituall, so the heauenly minded man, and he that is spiritually minded shal iudge of al things. 1. Cor. 2.15 And it shall not be vnperformed that God hath promised, The secret of the Lorde is reuealed to them that feare him, Psal. 25.14. and his couenant, to giue them vnderstanding.

Answere Now, for the maner of speaking, although it is true that there are in the scriptures speeches hard, by shew of con­trariety, by doubtfull and vnperfect speeches, because one thing is set before another, because of the proprietie of the Hebrew phrase, and of the figures (for these sixe he setteth downe the things whereby hardnesse may be in the scrip­tures by the manner of deliuering them) yet neither are these things so common or so strange, but that the godly [Page] may of the scriptures gather much fruit, if they will dili­gently, and with calling vpon God for help reade the same. So that in briefe this is all that these fathers haue said, ei­ther that many things are hard, which no body denieth, or else, that none can so sound the depth of them, but that something may alwayes be added thereto: and therefore that with diligence the scriptures must be searched, and without loathsomnes, yea with reuerence receiued. But that wee may, the more easily and euidently see how little these fathers do make for them: it is necessary to see with what purpose, and to what end these say, that they do write of the hardnesse of the scriptures. Namely, not to discou­rage men from reading of them, but to stirre them vp to more diligence and carefulnesse in reading them. As may appeare by the earnest and vehement exhortations, which the ancient fathers doe make, not onely to all men general­ly, Hom. 9. in e­pist. ad Co­loss. but euen to lay men in particular and especially. Heare (saith Chrysostome) all yee lay men that are present, and that haue wiues and children, howe the Apostle commandeth euen (you especially) to reade the Scrip­tures, and not to reade them only as it were by chance, but with great diligence: with many other such like ex­hortations in that place, as also in many other of his wri­tings. Saint Hierome in sundry of his epistles vnto god­ly women exhorteth them to diligent reading of the same, he also, to intice them to be conuersant therein, dedicateth vnto some women som of his treatises vpon the scriptures. Yea, and in his preface vnto Paula and Eustochium two women, before his first booke vpon the epistle to the Ephe­sians (which is the place out of which Bellarmines second argument out of Hierome was fetched) doth highly com­mend the study and knowlege of the scriptures. And in his preface vnto his second booke, doth extoll Marcella, for her diligent study therein, Hom. 20 in Ios. preferring her before himselfe, Thou wilt say (saith Origen) the scriptures are hard, yet it is good to reade them. And wisheth that we all would doe [Page] as it is written (namely) Search the Scripture [...] . [...]nelius Agryppa reporteth, [...] S [...] . that in the first Nicene coun­cell it was decreed, that no christian man should be with­out a bible in his house. And Chrysostome exhorteth e­uen lay men, and that very earnestly, to get them Bibles, Hom. 9 in Coloss. or at the least the new Testament. So then wee see to what intent the Fathers tell vs, that the Scriptures are hard, namely, because they would not haue vs to be careles in the study of them, and negligent, or to imagine when wee knowe somewhat, that we neede knowe no more, but as Hierome would haue vs to doe, Epistol. ad P [...] li [...] um. We must cracke the nut, if wee will eate the kernell. We must take paines to get knowledge, assuring our selues that wee can neuer learne too much, because wee can neuer knowe enough. And saint Augustine in his Confessions saith, Li [...] 6. cap. [...] . they ought to b [...] read of all. But the Papists, in complaining of the hardnes of the scriptures, shoot at an other marke, that is, to make the simple people afraide, that they meddle not with it, that they reade it not, neither yet heare it read vnto them. So that besides the other slaunders where­with they seeke to staine Gods word, proclaiming it not to be sufficient, but that it wanteth many things, and may be wrested to any fence, they adde this also, that it is hard, and therefore dangerous for them that are not lear­ned to reade it. And this is the very cause why they speake so much of the hardnesse of the scriptures, as not onely their writings and words proclaime in all places, but also their cruell executions against such as haue had in their mother tongue, For libr. [...] . [...] is and Momun. in the be­ginning. I say not the bible or the New Testa­ment, but euen the Lordes prayer, or the tenne com­maundements, which they would seeme to allow vnto the people.

Gregory Nazianzene doth write, In Apolog [...] . that some ancient men amongst the Hebrewes report of a custome which the Iewes had, which he also commendeth, which was, that some places of the scriptures were not permitted [...] [Page] body to reade before they were fiue and twentie yeeres old, but the rest of the scripture they should learne, euen from their childehoode. Where note that they make no diffe­rence of any state, calling, or sexe, but of age onely, and that when they were fiue and twentie yeares olde, they might reade any parcell of Scripture. But the Papists permit not any parcell of the scriptures to the lay people, nay hardly to their priests, but onely as they will followe such sence thereof as they appoint. Yea, I haue knowen bachellors of diuinity admitted to reade some booke of the master of sentences, as the vse then was when they pro­ceeded, so that this was their conclusion: They are hard, therefore you shall not reade them. That the scriptures are so hard as they are, Papists to be blamed for hard­nesse of the Scripture, by their and to so many, none are to bee blamed but the church of Rome, that so much complai­neth of their hardnesse, but in trueth are sory they are so easie: as is most plaine to see, first, in that they would not haue them in the mother tongues, but when they see there is no remedy, but that the scripture will be published whe­ther they will or not, they send vs a Testament from Rhennes, Translati­ons, so full of Hebrew, Latine, and Greeke wordes, turned into English letters, that all the world may see that they meane nothing lesse, than that they that reade it should vnderstand it. And yet they cry, The scripture is hard. Secondly, they are the cause of the hardnesse of the scriptures, when in the most plaine places that are, they will not suffer men to follow that sence, which the words themselues, and the circumstances both before and after doe affoord, Interpre­tations. but they must haue their interpretation from the church of Rome, without whose approbations they must neither trust their own eies for seeing, nor their eares for hearing, neither yet their wit for vnderstanding of any thing. When they change the very sence and wordes, and where they finde Lord, they put Lady, as in that blasphe­mous booke called the psalter of the Virgine Marie they doe through the whole psalmes, and some other places.

When the first promise that was made of that blessed seede that should breake the head of the serpent, they ap­ply as much as they dare vnto the Virgine Marie, when these wordes shall be currant stuffe, to proue worshipping of the Saints departed ( In as much as yee haue doone it to the least of these my brethren, Math. 25.40 yee haue doone it vnto mee, which are spoken of our goodnesse to Gods needy creatures aliue) as Eckius imagineth in his com­mon places: De vener. sanct. when (I say) the people are taught thus to vnderstand the scriptures, must they not needes bee hard? Lastly, the greatest cause of this hardnesse, is, that the people are not acquainted with them, for they are forbid­den to reade them: nay, Forbid­ding to reade scrip­ture. it hath beene death to haue them found with the lay people. And still there are, that in cor­ners seeke to perswade ignorant men and women, that there can be almost no greater daunger vnto their soules, than to reade the scriptures. Wherein they shew them­selues to be nothing of the minde of Phillip, Acts 8.31, 35 who forbade not the Eunuch to reade the scripture, but taught him: neither like to the fathers of the church some hundreds of yeares after Christ, whose care was to exhort and drawe the people to the diligent reading of the same. And who­soeuer they are, that with diligence, humilitie, and prayer, doe continue in the reading of the scriptures, (as wee see in sundry by experience) shall be able in reasonable manner to auoyde and passe through those sixe impediments that I before alleaged out of Bellarmine, and shall haue mindes exercised, as the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaketh, Cap. 5.14 and that not without great fruit, to discerne good and euill.

And thus wee may see how litle the fathers make for that which the church of Rome teacheth in this point. For the fathers say thus: The scriptures are hard, therefore you must reade them diligently. The church of Rome cleane contrary: The scriptures are hard, therefore you must not reade them. Therefore let vs detest as a most pestilent position that daungerous doctrine of the church of [Page] Rome, knowing that whosoeuer (be hee neuer so igno­rant) with reuerent reading seeketh to finde, and with de­uout prayer asketh knowledge of God, shall finde much knowledge and comfort in his godly and christian exercise. For, Hieron. ps. 147. The word of God is most fat and fertile, It hath in it all delicates. And thus to conclude: seeing the scrip­tures onely are Gods word, and they are so sufficient and plentifull, that in them the hungry may haue foode, the poore, treasure, the rich, direction, the sicke, physicke, the whole, diet, the sorrowfull, comfort, the ignorant, know­ledge, and the foolish, true wisedome: to be short, seeing there for all wants we finde a remedy, and seeing that rule is so true that it cannot deceiue, so straight that it can not be crooked, so constant to it selfe that it changeth not: last­ly, seeing it is so easie, that by diligence and prayer, the godly may not learne onely, but grow and increase daily from knowledge to knowledge, let vs account them as deadly enemies to our soules, who seeke to drawe vs from this sufficient and certaine written word of God, to the doctrines or traditions of men, what glorious names soe­uer they giue them. What shall wee then account of the popish crew that are not ashamed to teach the Scriptures to be daungerous, because euill men abuse them, so doth the drunkard, drinke, the glutton, meate, the prowd, ap­parell, the couetous, riches, and the euill men, all Gods graces: yet all these thinges are good, and so is Gods word holy and vndefi­led. But nowe to the second point.

Argument But lest they should seeme thus to dote without reason, they vse in effect these arguments for proofe heereof. The first is, that these bookes which we call Apocrypha, are al­ledged sometimes of the Fathers in their writings. Answers But the answere is easie. For the alledging of them doth not prooue, that they who alledged them did hold them for ca­nonicall, for then should it followe, that poets, philoso­phers, and such like (who are often alledged by the ancient writers) should so be. But this rule must stand alwayes good which S. Hierome hauing reckoned vp those bookes which now in our Bibles are accounted canonicall, and no other, [...] rologo in lib. Reg. qui Galeatus di­citur. Ruffinus in symbol. pro­log in Pro­uerb. hath, Whatsoeuer is besides these must be put a­mongst the Apocrypha. Yea to be short, they do alledge them, because they may bee read to the edifying of the people, but not to confirme the authoritie of any eccle­siasticall doctrine, as saint Hierome saith of Tobie, Iu­dith, and the Machabees, and Ruffinus also vppon the Creede.

De doct [...] ina christian. lib. 2. cap. 8.The second argument is taken out of Augustine, be­cause he reckoneth vp the books which we call Canonicall, [Page 12] and also the Apocrypha, and calleth all Canonicall. So doth the third councell holden at Carthage also, Cap. 47 with some other ancient writers. Answere. Admit that this were the meaning of saint Augustine, and of those Fathers, shall their bare authority without reason be heauy enough to weigh down so many fathers and reasons, as (partly) I haue alleaged to the contrary, and might haue alledged many mo? But their meaning is plaine enough. For although S. Augu­stine, and that Councel of Carthage, and others say, that all those bookes are canonicall, yet wee must vnderstand them according to their meaning. They diuided all the scripturs, that went in the name of scriptures, but into two parts. Those which they called Apocrypha, De ciuit. Dei lib. 15. ca. 23 l [...] b. 3. cap. 25 Euseb. had many fa­bles, as may appeare by saint Augustine: now all the rest they called Canonicall, so that they comprehend vnder that name, all that Eusebius and others do vnderstand, both by such bookes as were without all controuersie receiued of al men, and such as were not generally receiued of all, but well liked of many. And they comprehend all these in one name, not only because that in comparison of the other that were fabulous, these were good, but also because they were read commonly of them, although not for establishing of a­nie doctrine, as before I haue shewed, yet for reformation of manners. And that S. Augustines meaning was not, to make like account of all, appeareth not onely by that rule which himselfe setteth downe, in that very chapter, af­ter he hath reckoned vp those Bookes canonicall, Those canonicall bookes which are generally (saith he) recei­ued by the common consent of all Churches, De doctrin [...] christiana li. 2. cap. 8. 30 are to bee preferred before them that are reiected of many (but of those whom we call Apocrypha, Origen, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Melito, Hierome, Ruffinus, and many other haue doubted) but also by his practise. For it will appeare how that somtime himself doubteth of some of them, which we deny to be canonicall, namely of the Machabees hee writeth thus against the second Epistle of Gaudentius the [Page] Donatist, Lib. 2. cap. 23 This peece of Scripture of the Machabees, the Iewes do not so account of as of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalmes, vnto the which the Lord giueth testi­mony as vnto his own witnesses, saying, Al things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalmes of me, but it is receiued of the Church, not without profite, if it bee read or heard soberly. Wherin first I note, that the Iewes, with whom the word of God was kept, before it came to vs, did not account it canonicall. Secondly, note how he magnifieth the witnes of the scriptures which are indeede canonical, calling them the Lords owne witnesses: And thirdly, how coldly hee intertaineth the bookes of Machabees, saying, the church readeth them, and that with profit, if they be read soberly, by reason of some good examples in them. But yet more plainely in his Bookes of the citie of God. Lib. 18. c. 36. The reckon­ing of time (from the restoring of the Temple) is not found in the holy Scriptures that are called Canonicall, but in other writings, amongst which are the Bookes of the Machabees, which the Iewes reckon not canonicall, but the church doth, bicause of the extreame & strange sufferings of some Martires. Wherein wee see how that S. Augustine saith, that wee knowe not the story of those times, after the temple was built by any canonicall writer, but yet by the Machabees wee know it, therefore the Ma­chabees are not canonicall: And yet the church accounteth them (saith he) canonicall, because of the examples of the Martyres in them: As if he would haue saide, Although those Bookes be not indeede such as you may build your faith vpon, yet they are for some things worth the reading. Which two places I stoode vpon the rather, because Bell­armine alledgeth them, De verbo de lib. 1. cap. 15. especially this latter, as a speciall pillar to hold vp those Bookes of Machabees. But howe truely, let the Reader iudge.

Arg. 3 Their third and last argument is taken from that autho­rity which they imagine the Church hath to approoue or [Page 13] disprooue Gods word. And therefore is it so often repeated by Bellarmine handling this point, That the Councell of Trent hath allowed such Bookes. De verbo dei lib. 1. De ecclesia. So that hee iumpeth right with that which most blasphemously Eckius hath set downe, & that twice within few lines (he liked so well of it,) That the Scriptures are not authenticall (or canoni­call,) without the authoritie of the church. And Canus setteth himselfe to make a full discourse against them, that say, Lib 2. de lo­cis Theol. ca. 6 That the Scripture needeth not the approbation of the church. And thus they must reason. The church hath allowed those bookes to be canonicall which you call Apo­crypha, according as did also the ancient fathers, therefore they are canonicall. Answere. That the weakenesse and wickednesse of this argument may appeare, let vs first consider who is the Author of the holy scriptures, which the Apostle decla­reth as plainly as can be when he saith, 2. Tim. 3.16. The whole scrip­ture is giuen by inspiration from God. Therefore the scripture is the word, not of man, but of God. Secondly, let vs see how this word came to vs, whether by tradition of the church or by special reuelation. Which also is plain­ly answered by saint Peter, saying, 2. Pet. 1.21 that prophecie came not in olde time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were mooued by the holy Ghost. What will we then say? shall we imagin that God would direct by his holy Spirite the mouthes of his seruants to speake, but not their pennes to write? God forbid. Third­ly, the men whome it pleased God to vse as his meanes in setting downe this word, were knowen vnto the church of that time wherein they flourished, and their calling so confirmed vnto the godly, that without all doubt or waue­ring they receiued those writings as Gods word, because they knew the authors thereof to be directed by Gods spi­rit.

And this is the difference that the ancient fathers doe make, betweene those Bookes of scripture, whose authors were knowen, and their bookes alwayes receiued, and

therefore called Canonicall, that is, such as deliuer rules for life and doctrine that are infallible: and those other that are called Apocrypha, because either it was not knowen who wrote them, or else it was not knowen that they were indued with such a spirite, as they could not erre in any thing. And therefore their Bookes were not re­ceiued of the church then. Is it not then intollerable pride in the church of Rome, to commaund silence vnto God himselfe, and not to suffer him to speake, but when they giue him leaue, and to proclame it vnto the world, that euen his word is not of credite, vnlesse it be by their ap­probation and allowance of the same. And yet thus doe they say when they affirme, that the Scriptures are not Canonicall, but by the approbation of the Church. Yea, some make them no better than Esopes Fables, if the Church allowe not of them. O blasphemie intol­lerable! if this their argument might bee allowed, then the church of Rome, which falsely challengeth to bee the church, Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. ca. Autoritatem. D [...] st. 34. c. sector. dist. 82. presbyt. would soone prooue their abhominable Idola­tries and heresies, to be true religion. And therefore doe they challenge this authoritie, and striue for it. And the Pope sometimes dispenseth against the Apostle, as their Canonists doe note, and sometimes a Councell dispen­seth against the apostle, and all this is, to challenge vnto their church this prerogatiue, that it may deale with Gods word as it will.

When Gregorie the thirteenth pope of that name con­firmed the order of the fellowship of the blessed virgine Marie (a new deuised order, and come vp since the order of Iesuites) in his Bull hee confirmeth and ratifieth all such priuileges as they haue or shall haue, Notwithstan­ding anie Constitutions or Ordinances Apostolike, or whatsoeuer may be against it. Did you euer reade or heare any speake more like the beast mentioned in the Apo­calips, Apoc. 13.5, 6 who had a mouth giuen vnto him that spake blas­phemies? But to be short, I will against their argument [Page 14] oppose this. Whatsoeuer scriptures are not giuen by inspi­ration of God spirit, and by the godly receiued into the ca­non of the scripturs, those are not the word of God, though they haue the approbation of the latter churches: but such are the Bookes which wee call Apocrypha, which the councell of Trent would make of like authoritie with the canonicall Scriptures, therefore those Bookes are not the vndoubted word of God. And howe can any body i­magine, that that which once hath beene not canonicall, can by continuaunce of time, and confirmation of men be­come canonicall, or that which God hath not vouched woorthy to bee his word in times past, that nowe at the last he should acknowledge the same, as though hee were nowe chaunged or had repented him of his former opi­nion.

Admit once this doctrine of theirs, and farewell all certaintie in religion. For men will wander from one thing to an other, as wee see in the kingdome of darke­nesse and Poperie where there is no ende of deuotions de­uised, and inuentions of men. So that that which was good christianitie in the dayes of Christ and of his Apo­stles, is nowe holden to be farre from the perfection of a godly life, vnlesse wee doe helpe it with our will-worship­pings, and by the obeying the preceptes of the church. Nay, graunt them this, and then that worde written that wee haue, it shall speake nothing but Romish, so that whatsoeuer is the meaning and true sense of the scrip­tures, yet God must be taught to speake as the church of Rome will haue him. De verbo dei lib. 4. cap. 11. To this ende tendeth that com­mon axiome receiued of them all, and vsed by Bellarmine. The true sense of the Scripture hangeth of vnwritten traditions. So that beleeue them, and they will easily con­fute any aduersaries. For first they alow for scripture what they will. Secondly, that which they must needes confesse to bee Scripture, must bee expounded by their vnwrit­ten Traditions. That (I say) that is written by that [Page] which is vnwritten, the certaine by the vncertaine. Like to Procustes his bed, which who so lay in it, if he were too long, he was cut shorter, if he were too short, he was stret­ched out longer. So must all be made fit to their traditi­ons. Seeing therefore the Canonical Bookes haue so ma­nifest a testimonie, not onely of the godly, but euen of the aduersaries themselues, and the credite of the Apocrypha by so great authorities is suspect: I will conclude with bel [...] armines words: [...] That he is not well in his wit, that not regard [...] ng [...] e Scripture, the surest and safest rule, w [...] ll refe [...] re h [...] mself to the iudgement of the inward spi­r [...] t which is often deceitfull, and alwayes vncertaine, as in truth the Papists do. For they will make you beleeue that because they are guided by the holy Ghost, they cannot erre in their traditions. This rule then of Gods written word in the Canonicall bookes of the old and new Testa­ment, being set downe, as a rule most sure to tr [...] e all doc­trines with, let vs now proceed to examine other matters in controuersy among vs, when I shal first haue answered a common obiection, wherein all the most ignorant sort e­specially of Papists doe maruellously trust and triumph, and doe therewith deceiue others, such as them selues are.

How shal I know the scriptures (say they) to be the scri­ptures, but by the authoritie of the Church? I will not an­swer although I might very well) that absurdly they call that in question, whereof there is no doubt among vs. For neither we nor they denie Gods word. It is knowne of all, it is receiued of vs all. Therfore they put case of that there is not, neither is likely to be amongs vs. But for their sakes that are ignorant, I answer plainely and shortly out of Saint Augustine. Co [...] fe [...] . li. 6. cap. 5. Thou (Lord) hast perswaded me, that they are blame worthie not who haue beleeued thy bookes, which thou hast so setled almost in all nations, but they that haue not beleeued them And that I should not heare them if perchance any would say to me, How [Page 15] knowest thou that those bookes (the scripture) are gi­uen to mankinde, by the spirite of one, very, and most true God? Yea, Saint Augustine there confesseth, that when he was but a nouice in religion, yet was he perswa­ded, that God would neuer haue made the whole world so to reuerence the Scriptures, but that he meant to be be­leeued in them, and to be sought out by them. We see then by saint Augustine, that not onely that common account that the whole world (not the Church onely) maketh of the Scriptures, should be sufficient to stop our mouths for as­king that question; but also that he flatly telleth vs, that God would not haue vs to heare such faithles and fruitles obiections. But I know, they will by and by come vpon me with that place of Augustine, Cont. epist. [...] . c. 5. I would not beleeue the Gospel, vnlesse the authoritie of the Church should moue me thereto. Out of which, they will perchance con­clude as grosly, as you heard Eckius hath done, That the Scripture it selfe hath no credite, but as the Church will bestow it vpon the same. But Melchior Canus a lear­ned Papist doth gather otherwise out of that place, and doth in deed truely answere this common obiection for vs, out of the said words of S. Augustine, concluding thus. Therefore it teacheth not, Locor. Theo, lib. 1. cap. [...] . that beleeuing the Gospel is grounded vpon the authoritie of the Church, but onely that there is no sure way, whereby either Infidels or No­uices in faith may come to the holy Scriptures, but the consent of the Catholike Church. Yea, he hath taught a little before in that Chapter, that although to haue faith, certaine external meanes and helpes are required, yet those moue vs nothing, without the working of Gods holy spi­rit. And he much misliketh of them that teach, that our faith must rest vpon that point, That we beleue that the church is true, or cannot erre. For therevpon he gathereth this ab­surditie, that our faith should be grounded vpon the truth, not of God but of man. He also plainly affirmeth, that if a man should aske, how the faithfull do know that God hath [Page] reuealed that which they beleeue? they cannot answere by the authoritie of the Church, but it is by the inward light of Gods spirit that they know the same. If now thou aske me how I know the Scriptures to be the Scriptures, I answere out of Canus, not by the authority of the Church, but by the motion of Gods spirit, and witnesse thereof. If thou vrge that place of Augustine, Canus telleth thee that they who are become Christians, are not so brought to be­leeue the Scriptures but onely Infidels, and Nouices in religion. So that this place serueth nothing to obiect a­gainst vs, who professe Christianitie alreadie, and beleeue the worde which the Manichies did not, of whom, and to whom Saint Augustine there writeth. But we had neede out of that place to admonish you, that in respect of that reuerence which with one consent al that professe Christia­nitie doe yeeld vnto the scriptures, you would be ashamed so to depraue and despise them, so to abuse and reiect them at your owne pleasure, as you alwayes haue done. You make vnlawfull that which God hath mad lawfull: as for example: It was lawfull in the Apostles time, for euerie Priest, Dion. Carth. 1. Tim. 3. Bishop, and Deacon to haue one wife, but now by the appointment of the Pope they may not haue a wife, sayth a friend of your owne, a bird of your owne nest. So that not the scripture, or the will of God, but the worde of the Pope must be the rule of our life: so that whereas Au­gustine for the Church beleeued the scriptures, you for your Churches sake controll the scriptures, and disobey them. And for the establishing of that vndue honour which they would bestow vpon the most happie mother of Christ the virgin Mary: Marke the boldnesse of Durand, a great piller in the Popish Church, Rathon [...] . di [...] . li. 4. rub. 6. who writeth thus. Although it is said (in the Scriptures) that Christ rising did first appeare to Marie Magdalen, yet it is more truly belee­ued, that first of all he appeared to his mother. Is it not plaine, how that to establish their foolish toyes, he gi­ueth the lie to that word that is onely true? O grosse bold­nesse! [Page 16] Seeing therefore this worde hath not onely testimo­nie within vs which is the strongest witnesse, but also with so great consent is knowne to be Gods worde, be ashamed now to call it into question, or to put it to the triall of the Church (by which the Papists alwaies vnderstand the Ro­mish Church) whether it shal be allowed for currant or not. For in deede this blasphemous sense (which as I haue shewed, euen their owne friends can in no wise like of) is now the cōmon exposition of those words of S. Aug. I will not beleeue the scriptures, vnlesse the Church of Rome do allow the Bookes for Canonicall, and expound them as she shall thinke good. And thus much to answer this their common obiection.

Wherein this is worthie to be reproued in them, that whereas they crie out in worde and writing, The Catho­like church of Rome, and vnlesse you beleeue the Catho­like Church, you cannot be saued. And for proofe hereof they alledge this article, I beleeue the Catholike church, yet when they should tell vs what this Catholike church is, wherevnto we must so necessarily be subiect, they onely paint vnto vs I know not what Romish Church, The catho­like church in y ^e Creed, and the Romish contrary. which is no more like the true Catholike church, than that church of Israel, when it was started aside from the true worship of God, was like to the true church of God that remained amongest the people of the Iewes, as by these few rea­sons may appeare. The catholike church is One, One that is to say, one companie, and vnited and knit togither by one spi­rite, and the selfe same graces, but the reprobate and vn­godly (who fill vp a place in the Romish catholike church) neither are one company with the Saints, nor vnited to them by the same spirit and graces, to be partakers of the communion of Saints: Therefore that catholike and the Romish catholike Church are not all one. Secondly, that Church is Holy, Holy and that not in part, but perfectly, euen without spot or wrinckle. Ephe. 5.26.27 For in our Creed we doe not speake of the church that is, but that shalbe, not that which we see with our eye, but by faith, not that which is perfec­ted, but hoped for, which we shall not in deede behold with our eyes, Reuel. 21 vntill it come downe from heauen, as saint Iohn speaketh of the heauenly Ierusalem, Apoc. 11 which (as witnesseth saint Ambrose) doth represent the Church that shall bee after the ende of the world. Apoc. 21 Of which minde is also saint Augustine. But the Romish catholike church is of om­nigatheroms, [Page 17] as people goe to faires or markets, of all sorts and qualities. And although a man haue not one good thing in him, not one crum of honestie, hee is good enough to make vp a number in the Church of Rome, but such a church is not holy, and therefore not that that is mentioned in the Creede. Thirdly that church is catho­like, Catholike. that is (as all the godly haue acknoledged it) the mo­ther of all Christians, the companie of all the saints both in heauen and vpon earth. But the Romish catholike church receiueth only them that acknowledge the bishop of Rome to be their head. If then they dare not affirme the pope to be the head of them that are in heauen, I trust they will not from henceforth charge vs to be iniurious to the church of Rome, if we affirme it not to bee the true catho­like church. If they reply, that the church may bee called catholike in other respects than in that only which I haue mentioned. I graunt it. But the question amongst vs in deed is, whether the church of Rome be the true catholik church, which euen by our creed we are bound to beleeue. Which the papists affirm, & therfore would haue the world to imagine that we despise the catholike church which is mentioned in the creede, when we vpon iust causes depart from that Romish church, which hath set it selfe, these ma­ny yeares against Gods church. As for the principal argu­ments wherby they would proue that they say, do nothing touch the catholike church, which is the thing in question, but only the state of the church in this life, and therefore are not worthie the repeating. But among other absurdi­ties which they are forced to grant, for to defend this their vntrue assertion, this is blasphemous, although they all defend it, That some of the members of Christes bodie shal not be saued. As though there were not vertue inough in Christ, to quicken all them that are grafted into him, whereas in truth, He that hath the sonne hath life. That is also absurd, that if the wicked and reprobate bee of the church of Christ, as they say, thē they are members of two [Page] bodies, for they are of the church malignant, as they must needs confesse: which is as false as that one hand may be­long to two men. Lastly how absurd is it that the catholike church should acknowledge the Pope for her head? Shee is a citie or house, she can therefore haue but one founda­tion: shee is a fruitfull Vine, shee can haue but one roote: she is a Doue, she can haue but one mate: shee is Christs bodie, she can haue but one head: shee is the Lambs bride, she can haue but one husband. The foūdation of this house, the roote of this Vine, the mate of this Doue, the head of this bodie, Eph. 1. &. 5. the husbande of this wife, is Christ. Al­though most impudently the Bishop of Rome, and most blasphemously, doe take vppon him to be the husbande to that wife also, C. quoniam, de Immuni­tate. 6. or else, to take Christs wife from him. We (saith hee) being vnwilling to neglect the vpright dea­ling or iustice of vs, and of the Church our spouse. What greater blasphemie than this can there be? Saint Paule sayeth, 2. Cor. 11.2. I haue prepared you for one husbande, not for two, and he nameth him to be Christ, who though he bee absent, yet is he also present, absent in flesh, but present in power and spirite, and so will he bee alwayes with his, Math. 28.20 Iho. 14.16.17.18 euen vnto the end of the worlde. So that the church hath no neede of that ministeriall head, that cannot bee but in one place at one time: seeing Christes spirit is his Vicar in his church, Ter. prescipt. which can be in all places at once, as the church is scat­tered in many places through the whole world.

And although this is a common principle in the Catho­like Church, and in euery bodies mouth, That the Catho­like church is visible, which Campion in his third reason, and Turrian against Sadeel, Camp. rat. 3. doe manifestly affirme. Yet I know not how it commeth to passe, that euen the grea­test pillars of poperie, do not so much as define the Catho­like church, and deale (as I thinke) in this question verie fearefully, as may appeare, not onely by Melchior Canus in his fourth booke, Loc. Theolo. de eccle. milit. [...] b. 3. cap. 12. but especially by Belarmine, who ap­pointing a whole Chapter for proofe of this point, yet da­reth not, in the verie title of the Chapter, set downe that is in question, that is to say, that the catholike Church is vi­sible, (for so they say) but onely this is the title of that chapter, that the Church is visible. Which if he meane it of particular Churches, we say also that they may be vi­sible: If he meane it of the catholike Church, which is the thing in question, why is hee afrayed to say so? Sure­ly euen his owne conscience tolde him, that of all the argu­ments [Page 19] that he hath in that place, there is not one, out of which he may conclude, That the Catholike Church, ca­tholike (I say) in that sense that I haue proued it to bee taken in the Creede, is, or can bee visible to vs in this world. And therefore craftily he leaueth the question, and falleth to other matters. I therefore see no cause why I may not truely and boldly conclude, Apoc. 21, 2, 9 that that Hea­uenly Ierusalem, and bride of the Lambe, that spouse of Christ mentioned in the Apocalips, which in deed Saint Iohn sawe but by vision onely, is the same catholike church that we speake of in the Creede: but whilest wee wander here wee can not see it, but by faith onely. But when Christ our head and captaine shall haue put downe all rule, and all authoritie and power, 1. Cor. 15.24 then shall the glo­rie of the Church in deede appeare, then shall shee be ex­alted aboue the mountaines, In Apoc. Hom. 18 as Saint Augustine con­fesseth. Yea, then shall the Church be made perfectly ca­tholike, when no member shallbe wanting vnto it. Then shall the godly, not by faith as now, but euen with their renued eyes see her, and her beautie.

Now, for the Arguments whereby they would vphold their errour, the first sort is grounded vpon some places of Scripture, wrested and abused for their purpose, as, when the Scriptures promise the assistance of Gods spirit, to teach vs, or direct vs. And of these some are more particu­lar than other.

Argument Luke 22.32Christ said to Peter, I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, therfore Peter could not erre. And if Peter could not erre, neither his successours (as they sur­mise. Ver. 57, 58, 60) Answere And yet verie soone after, the very same Apostle did not denie onely his maister, and that three times, but also began to curse and sweare that he knew him not. Mat. 26.74 Shall we then say, that Christ was not so good as his promise? God forbid. Christ therefore prayed not that Peter might not erre at all, or that his faith might not any thing faint, but that it might not altogether faile. Or, to vse the wordes of Theophilact, Theo. Lu. 22 That if the leafe of his faith did fall, yet the roote should not die. Christs prayer therefore was not that Peter should not erre, but that he should not con­tinue [Page 20] in errour, and so it preuailed. And therefore here is no priuiledge for the church of Rome, or the Pope, that they may not erre, because wee see Peter himselfe had no such priuiledge. Neither was this prayer of Christs, for Peter onely, as is most plaine by the Euangelist saint Iohn, Iohn 17.20 I pray not for them onely, but for all that through them shall beleeue in my name. It was therefore for all the A­postles, yea for all the beleeuers. Although Christ spake there particularly to Peter, (as Theophilact sayth) per­chaunce, because he was bolder than the rest, In Luke 22 and proude because of that was said vnto him. And by this that hath beene said, appeareth the answere to the other places of the scripture that seeme more generall.

Argument When Christ promiseth to giue vs his spirit to teach vs, and direct vs, they inferre, therefore the church can­not erre.

Answere Wherein they commit two absurdities. First, in rob­bing a great number of Gods people of that comfort that belongeth vnto them, in that they make the promises, which generally belong to all the faithfull, to be spoken but to some few, (for, by the church they vnderstand either the pope, or the bishops.) Secondly, that they beare y ^e world in hand, that Christ prayed for that which he did not, or that he promiseth vs that which he neuer meant, or that he spake of such perfection, as it is vnpossible men should attaine vnto. Yea, In Iohn 16 Theophilact in my iudgement most notablie sheweth, that when Christ had promised to send the holy Ghost which should lead into al truth, least any body should thereby imagin that the holy Ghost is greater than Christ, if it can make vs partakers of greater and mo things than Christ can, he addeth, Hee shall not speake of himselfe, that is, he shall speake nothing of his owne, but that is mine. For he that sayth (he shall speake) whatsoeuer he hath hard, doth signifie, that he shal teach nothing but that which Christ hath taught. And these are the verie wordes of Theophilact, whereby he doth not onely say, that the [Page] holy Ghost can adde nothing of his owne to that which Christ hath taught, and so may not bring into the church a­ny new doctrines, as the church of Rome doth vnder this colour, but also, that it is a diminishing of Christs glorie, and a preferring of the holy Ghost before Christ, to suppose that the holy Ghost can or may teach any thing in Gods church that hath not bin taught by Christ himselfe. Wher­in he mightily beateth downe that proude bragge of the church of Rome, wherby they seeke to exempt themselues from all errour, because they falsely chalenge vnto them­selues, that their doctrines and traditions are vnwritten ve­rities, and to be beleeued as well as Gods worde, as com­ming from this spirit, whereas they are nothing consonant to that which Christ taught, and therefore the spirite had no commission to teach the same. Yea in vaine they say they are directed by Gods spirite, when as they teach that that Gods spirit neither can nor will teach, because Christ hath not taught it before. Neither doe we derogate anie thing herein from the power of the spirit, whose direction if we could follow, we should neuer do amisse: but impute it to our owne weaknes, & ignorance, & corruption, whereby it commeth to passe, that euen the godly many times grieue Gods spirit, and suffer him not to haue his perfect worke. Other arguments also they haue, but they haue scarce any shew of truth, and therefore I thinke them not worthie an­swering: for their places out of the fathers doe commend the faith of Rome that then was, and their constancie in the same, but what is that to this degenerate church of Rome that now is: of the church whereof we may say as one saith of their citie, that a man will seeke Rome in the midst of Rome: So a man will seeke the church euen in the midst of their most shewe of religion, and yet not finde it.

Because I haue in another treatise shewed (I trust) suf­ficiently, that those markes of the church which they make greatest account of, neither are any true markes, and that we may make as good claime to them as they can: it shall [Page] now be sufficient briefly to passe ouer this point, and with one or two arguments to answer this question.

The scrip­ture the true note of the true church.Those markes of the church, whereby wee may truely know the church, and not be deceiued, those I say onely are the true markes of the church:

But the scriptures onely are such: Therefore they one­ly are the infallible markes.

The maior or first proposition no man will deny. And that the Scriptures are such may appeare by infinite testi­monies. De pec. me­rit. & remiss. lib. 1. cap. 22. Saint Augustine saith, it can not deceiue, nor be deceiued. And against the Donatists de bapt. lib. 2. cap. 6. calleth the Scriptures, the holy wey-scales or ballan­ces. Cap. 1. And in his booke de bono viduitatis, he saith, that the holy scripture doth set him his rule how to teach. And to be short, writing vpon saint Iohns Epistle he saith, that A­gainst deceitfull errours, In Ioh. epist. tractatu 2. God would set a strength or stay in the scriptures. And Chrysostome saith vpon Ge­nesis, Hom. 12. in Genes. that the Scripture wil not suffer him to erre or go astray, that heareth it. And therefore Gregory Nazian­zene sometimes calleth the Scriptures, The Kings high way. Matth. 24. And our sauior Christ, although he foretold the dan­ger of error a litle before he suffered, yet doeth hee not giue the Disciples any such markes whereby they should know the true Christ or true church, as the Papistes speake of, but he earnestly commendeth his word vnto them, Ioh. 14.15, 23. & 15.7. And feruently prayeth vnto his father to sanctifie them with his trueth, Ioh. 17.3, 17 namely, with his word: for he knew that to be the way to keepe them from errour. By all which it appeareth, that the scriptures onely are ac­counted that perfect rule, not only by the iudgement of the fathers, but also by the practise of our sauiour Christ. But most plainly S. Chrysost. saith, Opere im­perf. hom. 49 That the true Church can be knowen only by the Scriptures. I know that Bellar­mine answereth this place in his 4. booke de verbo Dei, ca. 11. after two sorts. First, that the booke sauoureth som­what of Arianisme. But in these words, what Arianisme [Page 22] can Bellarmine finde. Yea Bellarmine himselfe doth in o­ther places alleage this booke. But his second answer I confesse is very forcible. For he telleth vs, that in a booke printed of late that place is left out. Haue they not (thinke you) answered the place strongly, when they haue thrust it quite out of the booke? If they had vsed Chrysostome onely in this, sort yet were it too bad dealing, but it may appeare by Franciscus Iunius his preface before the booke called Index Expurgatorius, that they haue left few of the Fathers vncorrupted. I would to God therefore that this and such other gelding and falsifying of the fathers, by that deceiuing church of Rome, which seekes to make them al say as she doth, could stir vp the christiā princes that pro­fesse religion in a godly care, to prouide for the safetie and maintenaunce of religion, and the trueth thereof in time to come. Which in my iudgement can not well be perfour­med, except that, to preuent the credite of those falsified co­pies, which within short time are almost onely like to re­maine, because the ancient, which are the truest, wil be worne out, the godly Princes by common consent woulde take some speedy order for printing of al the fathers, accor­ding to the ancientest and most pure copies that might be found. The second argument is this. Whatsoeuer notes do not teach it to be euidently true, that the church whereof they are the notes, is the true church of God, may deceiue, and therefore are not certaine notes of the true church: But such are the notes that the Papists would haue vs to be­leeue, therefore they are but deceitfull notes. De verbo de [...] . lib. 1. cap. 2. The maior or first proposition is most true, and may well bee prooued out of that axiome or rule that Bellarmine setteth downe, saying, De notis ec­cles. li. 3. ca. 3. That the rule of the catholike faith must bee sure or certaine. The minor or second proposition, is Bellarmines owne confession, euen in the selfe same words that I haue set downe. Therefore it followeth necessari­ly, that we must not trust the notes of the catholike church set downe by them.

De sacr. bap­tism. li. 1. ca. 4Now, the first reason whereby Bellarmine wil proo [...] , that the Sacrament of it selfe hath such force, of th [...] [...] [Page] doth worke in vs holinesse, and abolish sinne, and there­fore, that without it no man or woman can be saued, is that place of saint Iohn, Ioh 3.5 Vnlesse a man be borne againe of Water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the king­dome of God. And for the better credite of his assertion, he telleth vs, De peccato­rum merit. & remiss. lib. 1. cap. 30. that saint Augustine in his first booke of the merites of sinnes, and the forgiuenesse thereof, the thir­tieth chapter, doth shew, that these wordes are not a com­mandement, but declare the means of saluation: as though saint Augustine would make the Sacrament as necessary to saluation, as meate for our life, or physicke for recouery of health, for these are the examples alledged afterwardes by Bellarmine. But he belieth that learned father, for hee hath not any such thing in that place, although indeede hee handle that place of scripture largely there.

But first before I enter any further into the considera­tion of this point, lest I should bee mistaken, as though I accounted the Sacrament of no necessitie, I affirme it to bee so necessarie, that if it may bee had according vnto Christes institution, and any man or woman shall wilfully refuse the same, by this their contempt they doe wilfully cut off themselues from the body of Christ, and so make themselues vncapable of such graces as God in Christ be­stoweth vpon his. But if otherwise any man, woman, or childe, being desirous to enter into the felowship of the ho­ly couenant, and to be incorporated by that Sacrament in­to the presence of Christ, shall die or depart out of this life, before they can attaine thereto: God forbid that we should thinke either so vncharitably of them, as to iudge them vn­worthy of Gods mercy: or so hardly of God, as that hee would alter his eternall councell, for want of this external sacrament: or so slenderly of the vertue of Christ his blood, as that without this water it can not wash vs from sinne. No doubt many died in the wildernesse, before the Israe­lites came to the land of promise, that had not the sacramēt of circumcision, and also afterwards, by all likelihoode, in [Page 26] Babylon. The thiefe vpon the crosse, of whose saluation we make no doubt, was not baptised. Yea, the order that God vseth in sauing vs, doeth teach vs, that without the Sacraments we may be saued, Rom. 8.30 Ephes. 1.4 because that election or predestination goeth before calling, whether it be internall by the spirit, or externall by the word and Sacraments. Therefore wee must either imagine Gods election not to be certaine, which is blasphemous, or else, that all that are elect are saued, although they haue not oportunity to receiue that externall seale of Gods couenant. Therefore I say, that Baptisme is very necessary, and in any wise to be vsed and receiued of them, that may according to Chri­stes institution haue the same. But we detest that doctrine of the Papists, that teacheth it to be so necessary, that who­soeuer is not baptized, can not be saued: whereupon they permit lay men, yea women to baptise, whereas the virgin Mary might not baptize, as Epiphanius noteth, haeres. 97. and so prophane that holy sacrament in altering Christes institution. But rather we say with Tertullian de paeni­tentia, Wee are not washed, that wee may cease to sinne, but because we haue ceased to sinne, seeing in heart wee are washed. Which words, because Bellarmine lib. 2 de effect. sacrament. cap. 10. can not answere, he full wisely maketh as if hee neuer sawe them, and saieth nothing vnto them.

And nowe to returne to the Obiection. Howsoeuer saint Augustine esteemeth of the necessitie of Baptisme, he teacheth with vs the true vse of Baptisme, against the Papists, euen in the booke alleaged by Bellarmine, speak­ing of the infants hee saieth thus: Lib. 1. ca. 26. They stand in neede of those benefites of the Mediatour, That they beeing offered by the Sacrament and charitie of the faithfull, and so beeing incorporate into the body of Christ which is the Church, may be reconciled vnto God: that they may bee made in him liuing, safe, deliuered, re­deemed, and lightened. Marke that Saint Augustine [Page] most plainly ascribeth vnto the sacrament, to offer and in­corporate vs into the church, but to God (not to the sacra­ment) to quicken, saue, deliuer redeeme, and lighten vs. And seeing we see, that S. Augustine in the place alleged by Bellarmine, maketh nothing for him, but in the same booke in an other place maketh much against him: let vs see what other of the ancient Fathers doe gather out of that place of saint Iohn, whether they reason out of it as Bellarmine doeth. Chrysostome out of this place shew­eth, Homil. 24 in Ioh. that in that water spoken of there is represented vnto vs our Buriall, Mortification, Resurrection, life, and addeth: As it is an easie thing for vs to bee dipped in, and being pulled out to breathe againe, euen so is it for God to burie our old man, & to put on vs the new man. And hereby thou mayest vnderstand, that the vertue of the Father, the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost fulfil­leth all these things. What can be more plaine than these words of Chrysostom, to teach vs, that this working ver­tue is ascribed vnto God, and nothing at all to the Sa­crament, Theophilact. in Ioh. 3. as the Papists teach vs. And yet Theophilact is more plaine, Euen as in this bodily seede Gods grace worketh all: euen so in Baptisme the Water is but an vnderling, and it is the Spirite that worketh all. So that I cannot see how this ancient Father, if he had direct­ly spoken against this popish doctrine, whereby they as­cribe so much vertue vnto the Sacrament, coulde haue v­sed (if hee had liued in our time) more effectuall wordes to reprooue the same. If then wee graunt that that place speaketh of Baptisme, as many of the Fathers haue thought, yet that which the Papistes inferre thereupon followeth not, for wee see, the working of grace is onely attributed to the spirite of God, contrary to that they doe teach. Bellarm de Sacrament. lib. 2. cap. 3 For they will needes haue vs to beleeue, that the Sacrament it selfe by receiuing of it, giueth grace. But good reasons may be yeelded, why by water in that place, the water of Baptisme can not be meant. First, because [Page 27] our sauiour Christ spake there to Nicodemus, who knew nothing of the principles of religion, and therefore Christ teacheth him, that we haue not in our selues any thing to worke our saluation, but wee must be borne anew. It is vnlikely that our sauiour Christ would instruct him of the necessitie of baptisme, who as yet neuer knewe the pro­mises, which in baptisme are sealed vp vnto vs. Se­condly, Verse 6. Christ going about afterwardes to explane his meaning, in the next verse maketh mention of the spirite onely, and not of the water, whereas if he had spoken of baptisme, and had made it of such absolute necessitie, that in no case a man might be saued without it, hee would not haue left it out in that place, especially where hee sheweth how we are borne anew. Thirdly, that which is done in the sacramentall water, may very well be perceiued both of them that feele it, and of them that see it, or heare it: but this new birth that is spoken of in that place, how it is wrought a man can not perceiue, as our sauiour Christ telleth vs: Therefore by likelihoode, Verse 8. not the water of baptisme is there spoken of, but that water which God promiseth by his Prophet Ezechiel, and is called, Ezec. 36.24. the cleane water, because of that notable cleansing and ho­linesse, which no materiall water, be it neuer so excellent can worke, but onely Gods cleansing spirit, that is, The cleane water there spoken of. And this is the onely argu­ment out of the scriptures which Bellarmine hath for the necessitie of Baptisme. But in his second booke, where he speaketh of the sacraments in generally what force they haue, hee alleageth some moe, Lib. 2. cap. [...] de Sacram. as that of saint Iohn the Baptist.

Hee (speaking of Christ) baptizeth with the holie Ghost, and with fire. Matth. 3.11 His reason is sufficiently answe­red, by gathering it into an argument. Christ baptizeth with the holy Ghost: therefore baptisme of it selfe giueth grace. For the question among vs is, what vertue is in the Sacrament it selfe: and he telleth vs what Christ can [Page] do in it. As if he should say, Christ, when hee healed him that was borne blind, made clay of spittle, and bade him go wash in Siloam, Ioh. 9 therefore the clay put vpon the eies, and the water of Siloam, by their vertue made him to see.

Mar. 16.16Againe, He that beleeueth, and is baptized, shal be saued. By this wee may as well conclude, that faith saueth, (which in any wise the papists like not of) as that baptisme saueth, for it is said of both indifferently. But let vs marke his argument againe, that we may see how hee prooueth his assertion. Hee that is baptized, shall be sa­ued, therefore the sacrament of baptisme hath of it selfe that vertue to saue. For this is it that hee must prooue. But see how weakely hee performeth it. First, whereas Christ promiseth saluation to them that beleeue, and are baptized, Bellarmine draweth these words, to declare how this saluation is wrought in vs: which is not here hand­led. Secondly, Christ speaketh here of beleeuing or faith, which directeth vs vnto him, in whome our saluation that is promised in the word, apprehended by faith, and sealed vp in the sacraments, is performed and perfected, that is, Christ Iesus. And how doth this prooue the vertue of the sacrament in it selfe? The like is to be saide of that place that he bringeth out of the Actes, Actes 2.38 Amend your liues, and bee baptized euery one of you, in the name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes. As for his last place out of the scriptures, which is out of Peter, marke (I pray you) how he seeketh to hide the trueth: saint Peter saith, Baptisme saueth vs by the resurrection of Christ. 1. Pet. 3.21. which maketh nothing against vs. But Bellarmine to make his argument seeme stronger, alleadgeth onely the former wordes, Baptisme saueth vs, as though it did so by it owne vertue: and neuer maketh mention of the latter wordes, Through the resurrection of Christ, for that is against him, and sheweth from whence baptisme hath her vertue and efficacie. And this being well considered, it wil [Page 28] perchance not be hard to answere vnto much of that which they can say for this their dangerous doctrine, That the Sacrament of it selfe, euen by the very receiuing of it, giueth grace to the receiuer. And for the necessitie there­of, I haue saide before in this chapter, in the answere to the first reason, so much as (I trust) may satisfie the godly Reader.

De Sacram. confir. li. 2. cap. 2.But let vs consider how Bellarmine defendeth this, who for his learning is much accounted of, and that wor­thily, amongst the papists, so that his want of proofe doth plainely shew the weakenesse of his cause. Whereas there are but three things necessarily required in a Sacrament, as hee truely confesseth, visible signe, promise of grace, and Gods commaundement, (which much weakeneth that which hee saide of the working power of the Sacra­ments, as appeareth in the tenth chapter) he wil prooue, that confirmation hath all these three. Hee prooueth first, that this Sacrament (as hee termeth it) hath promise of grace: and why? Because the holy Spirite is promi­sed.

Is not this clarkely handled, and strongly proued? God promiseth the holy Ghost: therefore confirmation hath the promise of grace. Secondly, the visible signe is (saieth hee) the laying on of the hands vpon the head. But the popish confirmation hath not laying on of hands, neither is it ne­cessarie now a dayes, by their owne confession. Belarm. de confir. li. 2. cap. 13 For these are the ceremonies that doe belong to that their Sacra­ment. First, the Oyle must be consecrated by prayer, se­condly, by crossing: for without a crosse (saith Bellarmine) nothing can be consecrated. Wherein Bellarmine giueth Saint Paule the lie, because hee neuer spake of the crosse, when he said, 1. Tim. 4, 4, 5 Euerie creature of God is sanctified by the worde of God, and praier: and Bellarmine saith, nothing is sanctified without the crosse. But perchaunce he will say that oile is none of gods creatures, as indeed, in respect of the vse, or rather abuse of it, it is not. Thirdly, the Bi­shop must breathe vpon the cruet or cup of oyle. Fourthly, he must say to the oyle, All haile holy oyle. O foolish blasphemie. Then are there other ceremonies, but not es­sentiall in this Sacrament the Godfather, Certaine prai­ers, thirdly the Pax, then a blow vpon the cheeke, fift­ly, A ragge tied about the forehead, sixtly, He must not wash his forehead, for seuen dayes. Thinke you this slouenly Sacrament hath any such grace as they woulde haue vs to beleeue that it hath, when as they feare that wa­shing where the oyle was, may hinder the vertue of it? se­uenthly, it must be at Easter and Whitsuntide vsed; last­ly, they that receiue this Sacrament, must be fasting. But of the laying on of hands there is no mention, vnlesse you will say, that he that giueth him a blow vpon the eare, lay­eth his hands vpon his head. And as for that it is reckoned among the ceremonies that are not of the substance of this sacrament. But Bellarmine in another place saith, De effec. Sa­cram. lib. 2 cap. 24. that then is that ceremony of laying on of the hands performed, when the Bishop maketh the crosse in the forehead. But that is not so: for the laying on of hands was done vpon the [Page] head, and was borowed from the olde lawe, of that which they did vnto the sacrifices when they brought them to bee offered, they did by that ceremonie of laying their hands vp­on the head of the sacrifice, consecrate (as it were) the same to the Lord. Num. 27, 24 And when God commaunded Moses to con­secrate Iosue to succeed him, and to comfort and incourage him to the worke that he had to doe, he doth lay his handes vpon his head. Mat. 19, 16 Acts 6.6 1. Tim. 4.14 2. Tim. 1.6 According to which example Christ laid his hands vpon the children, & the Apostles vpon the deacons, and others, Acts 8.17. and the Elders, and Paule vpon Timothie. Now marke howe it is prooued that Popish Confirmation hath the outwarde signe of a Sacrament. The Bishop doth crosse the partie to be confirmed, in the forehead, therefore he layeth hands vpon his head. Well then, this their sacrament hath no promise (as I haue shewed) neither hath it any visible signe that was vsed and appointed by Christ and the Apostles. Nowe what com­maundement hath it, which is the thirde thing that is set downe by Bellarmine, De effect. sa­cram. lib. 2. cap. 24. Lib. 2. cap. 2 de sacram. confirm. without which a Sacrament can­not be? Bellarmine flatly confesseth that it hath no expresse commaundement in the scripture, but in stead of a com­maundement, he deliuereth vs the execution or practise of it, for so himselfe saieth. Why then I may thus reason: A sacrament must haue a promise of grace, a visible or sensi­ble signe, and a commaundement from God, or else it can­not be a sacrament, as Bellarmine confesseth: but confir­mation hath neither promise of grace, nor visible signe, nor commaundement from God: therefore it is no sacrament. Their arguments out of the fathers make a greater shew. It is well yet that they cannot presse vs but with the au­thoritie of men. Notwithstanding, this may be briefly said for their authorities from the fathers, that either they are such as haue no writings extant, but onely such scraps as they for their owne purpose haue gathered togither, and therefore are witnesses of vs worthily suspected: or, such as haue no sound credite of any indifferent man: or lastly, such [Page 30] as make nothing for them or against vs in this questiō. For the Papists will haue their Confirmation to bee a sacra­ment, the matter whereof must bee Oyle and Balme: but neither doe the most learned fathers make mention of the Balme, neither are the Schoole-men agreed amongest themselues, that it is needful for this sacrament, Lib. 2. de sa­cram. Con­firm. cap. 9 as Bellar­mine confesseth. Yea, they thinke it absurde, that a sacra­ment should be appointed by our sauiour Christ, the mat­ter whereof should bee so rare to finde, so vncertaine whe­ther we haue the true thing or not, and so costly, as hard­ly it can bee gotten, and it is doubted of some whether there be nowe any true Baulme or not. And this their sa­crament is built vpon so vncertaine foundations, that A­lexander Alensis, and Bonauenture, two olde pillars of Poperie, cannot find that it was instituted before the coun­sell at Melda. Out of all which it is easie to vnderstande, that as this Confirmation hath not in Gods worde any shew of warrant to make it a sacrament: so neither out of the fathers can anie certaine argument be gathered for the same. But such are all heretikes, Iren. lib. 5 and such as imagine they can find out somwhat beside the truth, following those things that are spoken diuersly and in sundrie sorts, and walking weakly, not being alwayes of one minde, are led about like blind men, by blinde guides, they shall and that worthily, fall into the hidden pit of ignorance, euer seeking the truth, but neuer finding it. Which iudgement of God here mentioned against the heretikes, we see to be fallen vpon the Papists, who had rather wander in such vncertaine and blinde wayes, than be ruled by the infallible word of God.

Seeing this doctrine of Transubstantiation, doth bring with it, so grosse, or rather so monstrous absurdities, a man would thinke that no Christian would stand in defence of the same. For how can we not abhorre such teachers, as indeuour to make vs beleeue, that the most wicked per­sons may eate the flesh of Christ, Iohn 6. Which whosoeuer ea­teth shall liue for euer, as our Sauiour Christ doth of­ten tell vs. And yet to defend their Transubstantiation, Bel. de euch. lib. 3. ca. 9. they defend this as a good and fruitfull opinion. Who will folow such guides, as lead vs into such marishes, as them­selues know no way to get out. Such is the question which before I touched, whether the Mouse doe eate the bodie of Christ if he eate the host. A question not mooued by vs, as Bellarmine would seeme to make men beleeue, De Ecuhar. lib. 3. cap. 14. and therefore would make vs like the Iewes, Pagans and Heritikes, but moued and disputed by themselues, as may appeare by the master of Sentences, lib. 4. dist. 13 in dist. 2. de consecrat. cap, Qui bene: and also in the place before alledged out of Durand. Yea, Bellarmine is not a little troubled about this matter in the place next before alled­ged. For first hee setteth downe flatly, That although Christ be truly in the Sacramēt, yet can he not be hurt, and therefore not eaten with Mice, but the formes one­ly [Page] of bread may be eaten. The absurditie hereof I will not stand vpon in this place. But Bellarmine will shewe vs this by a demonstration: The Diuinitie (sayeth hee) is euerie where, & yet not cōsumed by fire, nor defiled by filth. Is this good diuinity, to make the body of Christ not subiect to corruption, because y ^e godhead is not: Glorified it is, and therfore not corruptible: but deified it is not. This seemeth to bee all one with the heresie of Nestorius, who taught that Christ had a defiled bodie. But afterwards maister Bellarmine, perchaunce not liking very well of his first answere, seemeth to me to haue chaunged his opinion, as after shall appeare. But here in my iudgement he is of another minde than Durand hath learned of Pope Inno­centius, of the which I spake before in the comparison. For there Durand sayth, that it miraculously ceaseth to be Christs bodie. But, if we apply this similitude brought by Bellarmine, it should seeme that he will haue Christs body to remaine, but not to be hurt, as the deitie which is euerie where, cōtinueth, and yet is hurt of nothing. But if he be of one minde with Pope Innocentius, and Durand, I would then faine know, where that bodie of Christ that ceaseth to bee in that Mouseaten host, doth rest, or what becommeth of it. But in the ende of that Chapter: because manie (sayth he) mislike that Christes bodie should bee eaten of Mice, or beasts: When he was an infant, he might so be: and therefore why may hee not much more now in another shape, and when he cannot bee hurt thereby, bee eaten of them? Before he said, he could not bee eaten: Nowe hee sayth, he may. Whereby, it appeareth he knew not well what to say. These straights are they brought vnto, whi­lest they seeke to maintaine that their doctrine of Tran­substantiation. See of this point Bell. de Euch. li. 1 ca. 9. in the beginning. Now beside these, and many other absurdi­ties which follow this doctrine of transubstantiation, as that Christ hath his owne body: the darknes and hardnes of that doctrine is such, as that the schoolemen cannot agree vpon it, how Christs body should bee in the forme of bread. [Page 32] Whosoeuer should read the third book that master Bellar­mine writeth of the Eucharist, wherein he endeuoureth to establish this doctrine, De Euch. li. 1. cap. 6. shall find it too hard for them that haue many yeares professed learning, to vnderstand their subtilties in this point. And who then can imagine that our sauiour Christ would deliuer vnto his Church for Sacra­ments which should bee common to all those things that should containe such hidden mysteries as the verie learned men cannot vnderstand? De doct. Christ. li. 3. cap. 9. Nay Bellarm. thinketh it absurd so to thinke, or that saint Augustine would haue commen­ded our Sacraments as most easie, when all the learned finde these popish opinions to be most intricate and hard. We haue seene the absurditie of this doctrine: now let vs view the weaknesse of the proofe.

In the scriptures (for the most part) they can finde but one place, Take, eate, this is my bodie. Tit. Transub. Ioh. 6.51 For that which Eckius in his Enchiridion alledgeth out of the sixt of saint Iohn his Gospel, The bread which I will giue is my flesh, his owne friends thinke it not worth citing for this poynt. For what a reason is this? The breade which I saide before came downe from heauen is my flesh: therefore the Sacramentall bread is transubstantiated in­to the bodie of Christ. But for those wordes, This is my bodie, alledged out of the three first Euangelists, and saint Paul, because they are the verie rocke and refuge, which at all needes they haue recourse vnto, for helpe of this their doctrine of Transubstantiation, it would be some­what particularly examined. Sundry arguments there­fore I haue to induce me to affirme that this place can not proue transubstantiation. The first is this: If these words This is my body, do proue transubstantiation, then is that doctrine proued by plaine and expresse wordes of scripture: But, by expresse words of scripture that doctrine cannot be proued, therfore that place proueth not Trāsubstantiation: The truth of the first proposition is apparant, because ei­ther the plaine and literall sense of these wordes prooue [Page] that doctrine, or else it is not proued therby. And the minor or 2. proposition is not mine, but it is the words of Mel. Canus a learned Papist & of D. Chadsy. De locis Theol. li. 3. cap. 3. Disp. cum Pet. Mart. de Eucharistia. Therfore the first be­ing true, and the second being by them confessed, the con­clusion must needes be strong against them. The second argument maister Bellarmine will affoord me. The Sa­craments are instituted and appointed by such wordes as may giue least occasion of errour or doubt, for this Bellarmine proueth in many words, De Euchar. li. 1. ca. 9. and by many reasons, But so to expounde this place, that Transubstantiation should be forced out of it, bringeth many obscurities and doubts, therefore Transubstantiation is not to be prooued out of these wordes. The first proposition is Bellarmines (as I haue sayd) and therefore I neede not proue it. That so to expound the wordes, This is my bodie, that Tran­substantiation should be proued out of it, is to make Christ speake very obscurely and doubtfully, appeareth by their manifest wringing and wresting of the place. For the word (This) spoke by Christ, Bellar. de. Euchar. li. 1. cap. 11. when he had the bread in his hand, they will not haue to be vnderstood of the bread, no, nor of the bodie of Christ, but somthing contained vnder the forme of bread, as Bellarmine out of Thomas of Aquine, and out of Guitimund teacheth. And I pray you, when shall the people vnderstand what that third thing is that is contai­ned vnder those formes. But why should I looke for this at the hands of the vnlearned, seeing that the learnedst can not shew what this is. Are not such darke deuises the cause of many errours? Where now is (I pray you) that plain­nesse and aptnes of speach in the institution of a sacrament, which before Belarmine commended? Not in such vnsa­uorie subtilties. Bellarmi. de [...] ar. li. 3. cap. 8. Yea, it is by him flatly confessed, that al­though, in respect of that regard they haue of the councels and the Church, their Diuines agree herein, yet in the ma­ner thereof they disagree verie much. But what should I stand vpon this point? cap. 9. Bellarmine which in the first booke of the Eucharist, doth make his argument against Luther. [Page 33] of the easinesse and of the plainnesse of the wordes that be­long to the institution of the Sacrament, proouing that of necessitie they must so be, least thereby men should take occasion of errour or doubting, and condemneth Luthers doctrine as obscure: as though hee had beene then in a sound sleepe, and nowe were well wakened. li. 3. cap. 8. In his third booke he commendeth their doctrine vnto vs concerning the Sacrament, because it is exceeding hard, and con­demneth ours because it is so easie, that euery bodie may vnderstande it. Well, to be short, thus I reason, The wordes of the institution must be taken in the plainest sense or meaning: But that sense that is wrested out of them for Transubstantiation is not plaine: There­fore that sense of those wordes must not be taken that teacheth transubstantiation. Thirdly, the circumstan­ces of the place it selfe are flat against this doctrine of tran­substantiation. For if any thing els had bin signified by the worde This, then that which Christ tooke and brake, that is, the bread, it could not but verie much haue astonished them that were present, that speaking as it were of the bread, hee should haue meant any thing else. But to haue taught, that it had beene his very naturall bodie indeede, it would haue made them much more wonder than they did [...] e sixt of Saint Iohns Gospel, when they sayd, Ioh. 6.6 [...] . This is a hard saying, who can heare it. For, if they could not abide to heare our Sauiour Christ say, they must eate his flesh, and drinke his blood, howe much lesse woulde they not onely haue heard this saide againe, but also see­ing him sit at the Table, and hauing taken bread into his hand, to pronounce that that bread was his naturall bo­die, that was borne of the Virgine Marie, and that they must so eate him? But they knew, that about Sacra­ments, sacramentall speaches are to be vsed. And neuer imagined that because he said, This is my body, therefore that bread should bee chaunged in substaunce to the bo­die of Christ, no more than there should be an alteration [Page] in Christ, because he sayth, I am the doore, I am the vine, yea no more than the cup it selfe was changed in the words of consecration, into another thing. They knew, that it is not such a kinde of speach, as is vsed when God is purpo­sed to make any thing: Gen. 1. Let there be light: let there be a firmament. It is not a speach of cōmanding, but of shew­ing or declaring, when he sayth: This is my body. And therefore they made no such doubts, they did not so much as aske any question how it could bee, that he whose bodie they saw sitting with them at the table, could haue also an other bodie, though inuisible, yet a verie true and naturall bodie, hidden in those formes of bread. And as the Apo­stles did neuer imagine so grosly of Christ, and so absurd­ly, that he had two bodies, the one visible, the other inui­sible, the one sitting at the table, the other lurking in the formes of bread, but did eate that which Christ tooke, brake and gaue to them, that is to say, bread: so Saint Paule doeth flatly call it bread, 1. Cor. 11.27 28. de Euchar. li. 1. cap. 14. yea, and that after the words of consecration. And although Bellarmine would seeme to answere this argument, and indeed iustly cy­teth the answere which is commonly made to it, that it is called bread, not because it is so nowe, but because it was so: for, (sayeth hee) it is not needfull that if some­time that be vsed, yet that should bee vsed alwayes: yet neither will the answere that hee best liketh of serue the turne: For, (sayeth hee) it is called bread according to the Hebrew phrase, which calleth all meate by the name of bread. Now, to strike him with his owne weapon, if it bee so sometimes, must it so signifie alwayes? I am sure maister Bellarmine will not so say, for then shall wee doubt what it was that our Sauiour Christ tooke for the institution of the Sacrament. And if he dare not say, that so it must bee alwayes, then must hee giue better reason why heere it should not bee so, or else wee can­not beleeue him. Especially seeing the Apostle immedi­ately before, speaking of the institution of the Sacrament, [Page 34] hath shewed howe our Sauiour Christ tooke bread, which I trust maister Bellarmine will there confesse to bee bread in deed, and not other foode: why should hee then without proofe or reason, say here it is more gene­rally taken, to applie it perchaunce to the foode of the soule? Yea, this replie may serue for all the answeres that hee hath to this argument, because it is not inough for him to say, such a worde may so bee taken some­time, but hee must prooue that it must in this place so be taken. Moreouer, if you consider of that which they call the forme of bread, it is no other in colour, taste, or fashion, than it was: it putrifieth and corrupteth as soone as when it is not consecrated. Which to affirme, if it were transub­stantiated into the bodie of Christ, were in my mind absurd and blasphemous. Lastly, we see by the practise that the godly haue sometime vsed, that the fathers in the primitiue Church thought not the bread to be transubstantiated: For if they had knowne of any transubstantiation, they woulde not haue burned that which remained of the Eucharist, as Hesichius, Hesich. in le­uit. Ori. in Leuit. and also Origen vpon Leuiticus shew that they did. Thus then by many reasons, I trust it sufficiently ap­peareth, that the church of Rome cannot without great vio­lence done to the place, wring trāsubstantiation out of these words, this is my body: In Ioh. tract. 47. for Christ is many things by simi­litude, which he is not in deed, a rocke, a doore, &c. as saith S. August. And so we may see the words to be most easie and plaine, if according to the maner of such sacramentall speaches, we vnderstand the worde (Is. 1. Cor. 10.2) The rocke was Christ, that is, it was a figure of Christ: so here, This is my body, that is, y ^e figure of my bodie, Cont. Adi­mant. c. 12. as S August. most plainly expoūdeth in this place, saying: The lord made no doubt to say, this is my body, when he gaue the figure of his bodie. And thus much to take frō them that one wea­pon which they haue wrested frō the scriptures to fight a­gainst vs w ^tal. Now y ^e which they can bring against vs out of the writings of men, can haue no such force, and therfore is not so dangerous.

Answer to the pla­ces out of the fathers for tran­substantia­tion. Inst. Apol. 2 neer the endAnd yet it will not be amisse, to take a short viewe of that which they alledge out of the Fathers of the purer ages, namely that liued fiue hundred, or sixe hundred yeares af­ter Christ. Iustinus Martyr is the first whom he nameth, out of whom he gathereth, That the meate whereof our flesh is nourished, that is the bread sanctified by the prayer of the worde of God, is the bodie of the Lorde. Wherein I note first, that because hee speaketh of meate, wherof our flesh is nourished, he acknowledgeth no change of the substance of the bread: for it must be the substance of the bread that nourisheth our bodies, no change, I say, but Sacramentall, in regard whereof, he hath said a little be­fore, that we receiue it not as common bread, because that being so sanctified, it is a Sacrament of the bodie of our sa­uior Christ. Thē, the substance of the bread being proued, euen by these words, to remaine, it is nothing hard to see what he meaneth, when he sayth, it is the bodie of the Lord. For it is nothing else then it is, that is, it signifieth the bo­die of the Lord. Col. cum Trypho. Iu­d [...] o. Which exposition I haue from himselfe, who saith in an other place, That Christ hath deliuered vs bread, for the Remembrance of his bodie that is ta­ken vp (into heauen.) Where he doth not onely shew the Sacrament to be a Memoriall of Christs bodie, which here is to be proued, but also, that his bodie is absent and in heauē, in that he saith, it is for a remēbrance of his body that is taken vp. And in the same book afterwards, y ^e same father saith, that By the dry and moist nourishment (the bread & wine) we are admonished of those things, which it is said Christ hath suffred for vs. Where, by calling thē nourishment, & that of our bodies, for such nourishment be­longeth to thē, he plainly denieth any alteration of the sub­stance in those visible signes: and then further sheweth the true vse of y ^e sacramēt, which is, to admonish vs of Christs suffring for vs. Out of Iren. he allegeth these words: How shal they know, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. that that bread wherin thanks are giuē, is the body of their lord; but y ^t Iren. did not dream there of [Page 35] any Transubstantiation, it is plaine by his wordes that fo­low immediately, when he faith, that the Eucharist consi­steth of two things, the earthly, and the heauenly. If the bread were transubstantiate, it could not be called an earth­ly thing. Moreouer, hee writeth in that place against the heretikes that sayd, there was another God the father, be­sides him that made all things. Nowe he inferreth, if they should say true, howe shall they knowe that that bread is the bodie of their Lord? Whereby it appeareth, that his purpose is here, not to shew what is in that bread, but which Lord it representeth vnto them: As the verie next wordes in that sentence declare, which are these, If they say not, that he is the sonne of him that made the world: so that the chiefest force of this reason after Irene his true meaning, is in this word, Their Lord. And besides, to call the signe by the name of that which it signifieth, the bo­die of Christ, for the sacrament of the bodie of Christ, is verie agreeable vnto the Scriptures: but such maner of speaches are but a weake proofe for transubstantiation. Next commeth in Tertullian, but so maimed & mangled, that thereby maister Bellarmine proclaimeth vnto the world, that he meant nothing lesse, than to haue the truth knowne. Out of him hee alledged these wordes: Con. Marci­onem li. 4. neer the ende The bread which he tooke he made his bodie, saying: this is my bodie. A man would thinke this were a very plaine place, but Bellarmine dealeth falsly herein. For when Ter­tullian hath spoken for him what he would haue him, then he stoppeth his mouth least he marre all. For the very next wordes are, that is the figure of his bodie. Nowe, let vs take the whole sentence together, and so trie what hee can make of it. The bread which hee tooke hee made his bodie, saying: this is my bodie, that is, the figure of my bodie. And after also, to shew what he meant by that he saide he made it his bodie, he deliuereth it in other termes, he calleth it his bodie. If then maister Bellarmine will aske, how the bread can bee made his bodie? Tertullian [Page] telleth how, Li. de Euch. 3. cap. 18. Sacramentally, or figuratiuely. So that this bold question of maister Bellarmine commeth out of sea­son, like a triumph before the conquest. His fourth witnesse that he produceth, Cyp. de coe­na domini. is Cyprian, whose wordes are these: This bread which the Lord did reach to his disciples, being changed, not in shape or forme, but in nature, by the omnipotencie of the worde, is made flesh. This te­stimonie hee esteemeth as the club of Hercules, that no man can withstand: De Euch. li. 2 cap. 9. and therefore in another place, alled­ging it, he sayth thus: This testimonie cannot bee an­swered, although the aduersaries haue often assayed to answere it. Let vs then examine a little this vnanswe­rable place. And first, it is confessed by Bellarmine, that that booke is not Cyprians, and therefore the father of that booke is vncertaine, but yet wee will not denie it, but answere the place, if we can. How the bread is made flesh, hath beene sufficiently declared in the answer to the former arguments: so that all the hardnesse is in this, howe the bread is chaunged, not in forme, but in nature. First, that is true in respect of the vse that it is put to: For as it is a sacrament, and representeth vnto vs our nourishment in Christ: so must it truely nourish our bodies, it beeing chaunged in vs to that ende, and nowe, not the accidents, but the substaunce of bread, can worke this nourishment. And therefore, if wee take nature for substaunce, it may well so be expounded, and agree with that which Iusti­nus Martyr sayeth, as before is saide. And admit, that nature doeth here signifie substaunce, let vs see what they can prooue by it. They say the substance of the bread ceasseth, and is quite taken away: But Cyprian say­eth, the bread is but chaunged in nature, but still it re­mayneth bread you see, for hee so calleth it. Therefore because he vttereth it in such a maner, it is most certaine, that he meaneth not by that worde nature, the substance of bread, but something else. Nature therefore is somtime ta­ken for the disposition, or for the propertie or vse of a thing, [Page 36] as the authour of the booke of Wisdome sayth, Sap. 7.20 That God had giuen him knowledge, of the nature of beasts. In like maner, Rom. 1.26. Ephes. [...] .3 Iam. 3.7 We were by nature (saith saint Paul) the children of wrath. And saint Iames saith, The whole nature of beasts, hath beene tamed by the nature of man. So that this word nature, very often doth not sig­nifie the substance. And here it cannot signifie the substance of the bread, because the substance of it cannot be changed, but y ^t it must also be annihilated, or broght to nought, ther­fore he speaketh but of the vse or propertie of it, that it is altered. And doctor Chadsey, a learned Papist, as was any in Oxford in his time, doth confirme this my answer: For when Peter Martir disputing against D. Tresham, had pressed him with an authoritie of Theodorets, Dialog. 1 which was this: Christ hōnored those signes which we see, with the names of his bodie and blood, yet not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. And he (as it seemeth) not liking well of D. Tresham his answer, this Doctor Chadsey disputing another day, tooke vpon him to answer such places as master Martyr had before alledged against master Tresham: and amongst others he answereth this place out of Theodoret thus: I say that Thodoret mea­neth as other fathers doe, who, when they say that the nature remayneth, they meane the propertie of the bread. I trust then, it will not bee anie heresie for mee to expounde nature, the properties of the bread, seeing doctor Chadsey a catholike doth it. We see then, that this vnanswerable argument, that he made so great account of, and bragged that it could neuer be answered, is long since fully answered by one of his owne friends, & he knew not of it. Ciril is his fift witnes, not that learned father that was bishop of Alexandrie, but another that was B. of Ierusalē, Ciril. Ierus. cathec. Mi­stagog. 4 whose books are but lately set forth by thēselues, that now bring him in for a witnes, & therfore we may doubt whether he be wel delt w ^tal. Out of him he aledgeth 3. places: He once turned water into wine, & shal he not be worthy [Page] to be trusted that he turned wine into bloud. Beholde here (sayth maister Bellarmine) a reall change. And why so? I knowe he will answere: because it was so in the water, for it was really changed into wine: and therfore al­so saint Iohn, Iohn 2, 11 who reporteth the storie, saith, it was a my­racle. Now to change wine into bloud, is as great a mira­cle, and therefore it is likely, that if there had bin any such miracle wrought, some or other would haue noted it for a miracle, seeing so many haue spokē of that matter: namely three Euangelists, and S. Paul. Master Bell. knoweth, that the fathers vse many times to speake verie hyperboli­cally, and to amplify with excessiue speaches y ^e matters that they would set forth, as here this Ciril doth: & yet we must not gather thereof such a real change in the wine, as I haue said was in the water: but this is spoken to win that at our hands, that he in that place moueth vs vnto, that we should not thinke the sacramentall wine to bee but bare wine. His second witnesse for maister Bellarmine, is after in that place, Vnder the forme of bread, the bodie is giuen, and in forme of wine, the bloud. Wherupon maister Bellar­mine againe insulteth thus: Behold the accidents of bread which remaine. We grant it, but not the accidents or shew of bread only, but the substance also, and that he hath not yet denied: therefore let vs see his third place. Knowe this for a certaintie, that this bread which is seene of vs, is not bread, though thy tast perceiue it to be bread. In deed hee speaketh here farre otherwise than the auncient fathers doe, in that hee sayeth, It is not bread: For there is not one of the fathers, for at the least six hundred yeeres after Christ, that euer spake so, but this man onely. And therefore howsoeuer he amplifieth the matter in wordes, to bring vnto the holy Sacraments due regarde, which the fathers at those times vpon great causes did much ende­uour, Catec. Mist. 3 yet he is not to be thought to haue meant otherwise than that hee sayd before, that it is no more common bread. For although, if they regarde but the taste, they shall [Page 37] finde no change, yet that sacrament is an authenticall seale of our faith, which assureth vs, that Christ is spiritually gi­uen vnto vs. And thus much briefly of these authorities: that men may see, that they are not so very plaine, that in­fallible arguments may be gathered out of them.

But now I must needes speake somewhat of the Au­thor. And first for the Booke it selfe, Lib. Eccles. hist. [...] . ca. 23. out of which these places are alleaged, it seemeth to me, that saint Hierome hath somewhat burnt it in the eare, when he saith, that hee wrote it when hee was but a yong man, noting thereby (perchance) his yong and slender iudgement. And of him­selfe Ruffinus saith, Lib. 2. ca. 40 That hee did change sometime in faith, and in Communion often. And Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall history saith of him, that being summoned to answere some accusations that were laid against him, he fearing to come to his triall, for two yeares together appeared not, and therefore was deposed. What rea­son then, that wee should be content to stand to his triall for matters in question, that was himselfe afraide to be tried by the learned men of his time: Or that hee who was de­posed from his seate, by them that best knew him (yea, and that, as it seemeth by Ruffinus his saying of him, for some heresie) should now sit as Iudge, yea or else be allowed as witnes in so weighty matters? As for saint Ambrose, De iis qui initiantur mist. cap. 9. whom next he alleageth, he maketh not against vs. He saith indeede, that the bread is that which Nature hath for­med, but that Blessing hath hallowed. Which is nothing else but that which hath beene answered before, that it is not common bread, but as Theodoret saith, Theod. Im­mutabili [...] , di­alog. 1. the Nature not being changed, to Nature is Grace added. And that this is S. Ambrose his meaning, is most plaine, (not on­ly by that which he afterwardes saith in that very chapter, Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, an other thing is named: after the consecration, the bodie of Christ is signified) but also most euidently in his bookes of the Sacraments: Lib. 4. cap. 4. where speaking of the change that [Page] is in these visible signes, hee vseth these wordes: If there bee so great vertue in the worde of the Lorde Iesus, that the thinges that were not, beganne to bee, how much rather can it worke that they (the visible signes in the Sacrament) bee that which they were, and be changed into an other thing. By which hee can meane no other but a sacramentall change, because hee flatly af­firmeth, that these signes are that which they were. The first place that hee alleageth out of Chrysost. is this: It is he that doth sanctifie these things (the outward elements and change them: In Matth. Hom. 83. but that hee speaketh of a sacramental change only, his owne wordes a litle before, in that place, do prooue. For, in teaching how that by these sensible crea­tures, he deliuereth vnto vs things not sensible, hee brin­geth his example of Baptisme, wherein I know they wil not say the water is transubstantiated. And yet Chryso­stome maketh no difference betweene it and the sacrament of Christes body and blood, but that in them both, in like sort by sensible creatures, insensible graces are deliue­red. But most plainely in an other place doeth he confute that which the Papists woulde force out of these wordes, namely, the change of the substance of the bread, saying: Before the bread is sanctified, Ad Caesarium monachum. wee call it bread, but the diuine grace hauing sanctified it by the Priest, it is free­ed from the name of bread, and is vouched worthy of the name of the Lordes body, although the nature of the bread abide in it. Whereby wee see, the change that hee speaketh of is in the vse, not in the substance of the bread. In the latter place Chrysostome saieth thus: Doest thou see bread, De Euchar. in encaenus. doest thou see wine? doe these thinges goe to the draught as other meates doe? God forbid. Thinke not so. For as waxe being put into the fire is made like vnto it, none of the substance re­maineth, nothing aboundeth: euen so heere thinke the mysteries to bee consumed by the substance of the body.

In which words he bringeth nothing for Popish tran­substantiation. For although they doe teach, that the sub­stance of the bread is perished, yet the accidentes they teach still to remaine, and euer they say, that Christ is present in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine: But when waxe is cast into the fire, there is not so much as a shew that there hath beene waxe, but all is consumed: Therefore this similitude maketh not for tran­substantiation. And in trueth whosoeuer shall reade that whole sermon, shall easily perceiue, that Chrysost. there doeth but by rhetoricall amplifications exhort the peo­ple, so to be affected when they come vnto the holy sacra­ment, that their eie shoulde not bee occupied about anie earthly creatures, but their minde altogetherr exercised in heauenly cogitations, according (saith he) vnto the promise that you made vnto the Priest when as hee saide, Lift vp your mindes and hearts, and you answered, I haue it lifted vp vnto the Lord. Which is according to the councell which hee giueth vnto vs in an other place, that especially in these holie mysteries, Chrysost. in Math. hom. 83 wee shoulde not onely beholde that which is before our eyes, but especially remember his wordes. But it were too tedi­ous to answere euery place particularly that they doe al­leadge, and out of this which is already spoken, it is easie to answere any thing that they can bring out of the fathers for fiue or sixe hundred yeares. But if any man wil aske, why our sauiour Christ doth giue vnto the bread the name of his Bodie, and to the wine, the name of his Blood? And why the fathers doe so call these outward signes, the bodie and blood of our sauiour Christ, I will answere with Theodoret an ancient father: Dial. 1. Im­mutabil [...] . Hee would haue them that are partakers of the diuine mysteries, not to bee occupied in thinking of the nature of the thinges that are seene, but in respect of the change of the name, to beleeue the change that is made through grace.

As for the Councels which they bring for proofe of this doctrine, Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3 cap. 23 the first of them was more than a thousand yeeres after Christ, whereby it may appeare, how late this doc­trine is: whereupon Scotus a schooleman doeth confesse, that this transubstantiation was not a doctrine of faith be­fore the councel of Lateran, although Bellarmine reproue him for it. Seeing now this their lately hatched doctrine doeth bring with it so many absurdities, is darkened with so many doubtes, hath no warrant in the Scriptures, no ground in the ancient fathers, and is not to be accounted as an article of faith (euen by the confession of them that speake of the greatest antiquitie of it much more than fiue hundred yeares since:) let vs take heed of them, who crie continually, Antiquitie, Antiquitie, and yet indeuour to bring in new doctrines and deuises of their owne, and to turne away the hearts of the ignorant from the true anci­ent faith, deliuered by Christ and his apostles, and sincere­ly preserued many hundred yeeres in the church of God. But of this, because it is one of the speciall points of doc­trine wherein we dissent, I haue stoode longer.

Although this vnreconcileable difference that is among them, in so materiall a point of their religion, namely, what is becom of the body of Christ, after the wicked haue receiued the same: and these filthy blasphemies, and dete­stable shifts that they are driuen vnto, for defence of their [Page] heresie, be a sufficient confutation, both of that doctrine of transubstantiation, from whence doe spring all these fil­thie pudles and sinckes, and also of this other, that the wicked may eate the body of Christ, which is but a sowre grape of that vnkindely roote: yet for the better satisfying of the ignorant, I will (by Gods assistance) take a short view of their arguments, whereby they indeuour to proue that the most wicked men may eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ. Now their chiefe and almost onely proofe is taken from transubstantiation: of the vntrueth of which doctrine, I trust I haue spoken sufficiently in the former chapter.

And now therefore, that I may conclude, that if the wicked can not eate the body of Christ, vnlesse the bread be changed into the bodie, as themselues will confesse: then, because there is no such change, therefore the wic­ked eate not his body. But one shew of an argument they make out of the scriptures: 1. Cor. 11.27, 29 He that eateth and drinketh vnwoorthily, is guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord, and after, eateth and drinketh iudgement vnto himselfe, making no difference of the Lordes bodie. Out of which place they reason to this effect: The wicked or vnworthy receiuers, can not be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, vnlesse they receiue it: But they are guiltie of them, and receiue iudgement to themselues ther­by: Therefore they receiue the bodie and blood of the Lord. The minor or second proposition is true, for saint Paul saith it. But the first is most false. For although the wicked can not be, neither are partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ: yet because they come not to the sa­crament which was instituted of God (to offer and assure vs of the heauenly graces) with such reuerence as they ought to do, and in such sincerity as behoueth them, there­fore are they accounted (and that woorthily) to despise the things themselues that are represented by those visible signes. And this is it that S. Paul findeth fault with the [Page 40] Corinthians: For that by despising the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, they shewed their contempt of the thing signified thereby. And therfore S. Ambrose Ambrose. saith euen vpon these words: Because it is the Lorde, whose blood he drinketh in mystery. S. Hierome Hierome. yeeldeth the reason why he is guiltie of the body & blood of Christ, Be­cause he hath accounted as vile, the Sacrament (marke his wordes) of so great a mysterie. Not therefore are they guiltie because they eate Christ, but because (saith hee) they despise the Sacrament of so great a mysterie. And Theophilact Theophilact vppon these wordes saieth, Hee that receiueth it vnwoorthily, shall bee no lesse guiltie of wickednesse, than if hee shed the very blood of the Lord. Where we see, that Theophilact doth compare the vnworthy receiuing of the holie sacrament, with the shedding of Christes blood, and so maketh them two di­uerse things. And therefore, in his iudgement, it is not all one to receiue the Sacrament, and to receiue Christ. So that by these places it appeareth, that the wicked may bee guiltie of the body and blood of Christ, which are by the holy Sacrament represented and sealed vp vn­to the faithfull, and yet not receiue the body and blood of Christ. Yet by the way, I must needs note the false dealing of Andradeus a popish writer, who to make the Apostles argument the stronger for him, doeth falsifie his wordes. And therefore where the Apostle saith, hee that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of the Lordes cup vnworthily, he saith, Hee that eateth the Lordes body, Orthod. ex. pli. lib. 7. and drinketh of his blood. But it is no great fault in poperie to ab­vse the Scriptures, and to adde to them, or take from them, as they thinke good. Wee see therefore, that this cleane meate is for cleane men: this holy banquet is for holy guests, as they had wont to crie. For, De benedict. patria [...] ch. c. [...] as saint Am­brose saith, This bread is the foode but of the godlie. And why? because, Our abiding in him, Cypr. de co [...] ­na Domini. is our eating of him, and our drinking of him, is our incorporating [Page] into him, our seruices being subiected, our willes con­ioyned, and our affections vnited (to him.) Therefore the eating of his flesh, is a certaine earnestnesse and de­sire to abide in him. Which things to be in the vngodly, the Papists will in no wise affirme. Many testimonies might be alleaged, but with one shift they thinke to an­swer all. The an­swer of the Papists. Christ his body and blood (say they) may be re­ceiued of the wicked, but not the fruit or effect thereof. And may Christ be receiued of any, and they not to liue by him? Confutati­on of it. Can he that is full of all grace and power, be at any time, as it were, robbed of the same? God forbid. For, if they wil speake of his conuersing among the Iewes, and of his being among many whilest he was vpon earth, that got no good thereby, the reason thereof is plaine: it was because they receiued him not. Ioh. 3.19, 20. But to say, that any may receiue him, and is not partaker of his graces and bene­fites, is most expresly against the wordes of our Sauiour Christ, Ioh. 6.57. He that eateth me, shall liue through me. They can not therefore offer a greater disgrace to our Sauiour Christ, than to say, that any can receiue him, and yet not be partakers of his heauenly graces. So that whilest they take vpon them the defence of the wicked in some sort, they set themselues, euen wilfully to reproch the holy one of Israel. But if it should be granted to them, that the wicked may eate Christ, how, or when wil they agree, what shall be done with that body & blood of Christ that they so eate? For themselues deny, that the soules of the wicked are no­rished by him. And that their bodies should by his body be norished is too absurd. What then becommeth of his bo­dy and blood, which they say the wicked receiue? To an­swer this question resolutely and definitiuely, they haue not yet agreed, they neuer will, they neuer can. Therefore, vntill they can answere directly to such inconueniences, as of necessitie follow the doctrine that they teach, let vs beleeue, that Christ is the foode of the faithfull onely, be­cause none other but they do receiue him. Let vs not heare [Page 41] them, who in the sacraments, which should be, and are in­deede most plaine and easie, teach vs wholy to looke for miracles, as doe the Papists. For Christ is present by miracle, and absent by miracle, if they say true. And so, when all learning and scriptures faile, then they perswade vs, that we must seeke for a wonder, and so make them that will giue credite to them in these their grosse deuises, the wonders of the world for their folly. But enough of this.

And for the vpholding of this their doing, against both Trueth and Antiquitie, they bring some reasons. Fisher sometime bishop of Rochester in his booke against the assertions of Luther, Artic. 16. to defende that it was lawfull for the church to alter the institution of Christ, and therefore to take awaie the cup from the lay people, alleadgeth the example of the Apostles, who are saide to baptise in the name of Christ only, whereas the sacrament of bap­tisme, Acts 8.16. & 10.48 Matth. 28.19. was commaunded, In the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holie Ghost. But, to bishop Fish­er the papist, I oppose Bellarmine the Iesuite, and a pa­pist who writing of the sacrament of baptisme, Lib. 1. cap. 3. plainelie denieth, that the Apostles baptised in the name of Christ only, and largely proueth it: and sheweth, that where it is saide, that they baptised in the name of Iesus, or in the Lordes name, the meaning is, that they baptised in the faith of Iesus, or by his authoritie, or with baptisme which he instituted, or in his name, but not in his name only. So that this reason which Fisher maketh for to proue the au­thoritie [Page 42] of the church heerein, De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 28. is verie sufficiently answered by Master Bellarmine. It is therefore needefull, hee shoulde make a supplie of some other argument, to proue that, seeing hee hath taken that weapon out of their handes. Let vs therefore see how hee mendeth the matter. The church (saith hee) may ordaine, and pre­scribe those thinges, that belong not to the substaunce of the sacramentes, and are not ordered by the word of God: But the rite of eating vnder one kinde, or vnder two, is such: Therefore it maie bee ordered and prescribed of the Church. These are his verie wordes: this is his argument, where­of the maior or first proposition, (as himselfe saith) is most true, and therefore wee graunt it: but the minor, which is, that to eate in one kinde, or in both kindes, is not of the substaunce of the sacrament, or ordered by the word of God, that is most false. And because it containeth two pointes, I will brieflie touch them both. Where he saith it is not of the substance of the sacrament, whether we receiue in one kinde or in two: it is in my iudgement, euen against all reason and testimony of antiquity, and the very nature of a sacrament. For the sacrament must needes consist of matter and forme. The matter is the bread and wine (I speake of that which Irene calleth the earthly matter. Iren. li. 4. ca. 34) To the forme of this Sacrament belong these wordes, He brake breade, and gaue them, and saide: take, eate, Math. 26.26 27 this is my bodie. Hee tooke the cup, blessed and saide, drinke yee all of this &c. Yea and neither of these can be wel omitted, but that therby we are the lesse occasioned to meditate, of the ef­ficacy of Christs death & passion. For, as the breaking of the bread that it might be giuen to vs, y ^t our bodies might be nourished thereby, is a representation of Christes body which was for vs tormented: so the drinking of the cup is the representation of the shedding of Christs bloud for vs. Moreouer let vs consider, what is that which they would haue the material part or rather a substantial part in this sa­cramēt. To receiue the sacrament as appeares by y ^e censure [Page] of Collen, Expl. dialog. 9 expl. The­ol. lib. 7. and Andradius, but in what kinde it is recei­ued is not materiall (say they:) Marke their boldenesse. In the institution there is not one word that willeth vs in such generall termes to receiue the Eucharist or Sacra­ment, but expresse wordes to will vs, to Take and eate the bread, and to drinke of the cup: and yet that which God doth not mention, they will haue to be of the sub­stance of a sacrament: and that which is expresly set downe in the word, they may chuse whether they wil doe it, or not.

But how doth Bellarmine prooue, that the rite of com­municating in on or two kindes, De Euch. li. 4. cap. [...] 8. belongeth not to the sub­stance of the sacrament. The vse of a thing (saith he) that is permanent, is not the substance of it: but, the commu­nicating is the vse of the sacrament, which sacrament is a thing permanent: Therefore the communicating in one or two kindes is not the substance of it. The whole force of this argument consisteth in that which is chiefly in que­stion amongst vs, that is, whether the sacrament is a thing permanent, or not. And we vpon iust cause deny it. And therefore his argument is a plaine fallacie, called the begging of the thing that is in question, and can bee no strong reason against vs. By a thing permanent they vnderstand, that the Eucharist is not onely a Sacrament (as they say their other sacraments are, and as baptisme is in respect of the vse and receuing of it) but also that it being consecrated once to be a sacrament, continueth so to bee, whether it be receiued or not. Which opinion they holde stiffely for the maintenance of their adoration, and car­rying it about. For they teach it still to bee a sacrament, howsoeuer they vse it. Out of which absurde principle hee gathereth this false and detestable doctrine, that they may change this point of Christs institution, as they will.

But wee knowing, that the Sacraments are onelie helpes for our infirmities, and instituted to supply our wants, and that the eating of the bodily foode in the Sa­crament, and so applying it to the nourishment of our [Page 43] our bodies, is that which representeth vnto vs most liue­ly our receiuing of Christ by a true faith, to the nourish­ment of our soules: detest and despise those captious and curious subtilties whereby the papistes doe seeke to defend their wonderfull boldnesse, in changing the very instituti­on, and in breaking the expresse commaundement of Christ. Wherein wee haue for our warrant, the worde of Christ, which biddeth vs eate and drinke (and there­fore it can not be but arrogant presumption for man to for­bid that which Christ hath commaunded, howsoeuer hee will pretend, that it is not of the substance of the Sacra­ment.) We haue also the practise in the primitiue church, which is testified by Isichius, In Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. which vsed for to burne that which remained of the sacramēt: Origen also reporteth the same. Which they would not haue don, if they had thought as do the papists, that it had beene transubstantiated into Christs body, or else that it had beene, as heere they af­firme, a sacrament, although it be not receiued as Christ commaunded it should be.

Seeing therefore these men that would seeme pillars in the church of Christ, doe picke quarrelles at his ordi­nance, and make exception to his commaundement, and all to writhe their neckes out of his yoke, and to free themselues from his lawes, like lewd seruauntes, which will not frame themselues to doe that which woulde best please their maisters, but that onely which they must bee forced to doe whether they will or not: let vs nowe see how in the second point, they do seeke to peruert the verie decree it selfe that Christ set down concerning this matter, to make men beleeue, that hee meant no such thing, as in trueth he did.

The second part of his assertion is, that it is not orde­red by the word of God, what shall be done in that point. This is an intollerable boldenesse. Doth not our sauiour Christ take order, as well for the cup, as for the bread? Doth not he that saieth, Take, eate, say also, Drinke ye [Page] all of this? If any man will answere as Bellarmine doth in one place, De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 27. that they were not both giuen at one time, and therefore that properly to speake, the Supper of the Lord consisteth but of one kind, he should plainly declare, that he hath rather a desire to contend than to knowe the trueth. For what is it to vs how long time was betweene the one commaundement and the other, so that we know, that both the one and the other is instituted of Christ. Yea the Apostle saint Paul very plainely telleth vs, 1. Cor. 11. that the order both for the cup and the bread is deliuered to him of the Lord, That which I receiued of the Lord, I deli­uered vnto you. And then hee sheweth Christs institution for the bread and also the cup. But with full mouth, and one consent they tell vs, that that commaundement belon­geth to the Apostles onely, and not to all the disciples. And yet saint Mathew saith, Math. 26.26 he gaue it to his disciples. Yea, and Christ commaundeth, Drinke yee all of this: And hath not saide concerning the bread, eate ye all of this (although wee deny not, that euery one hauing prooued themselues should eate of it.) But seeing God hath giuen a more expresse commaundement vnto all for the cup, than for the bread, why should they rather restraine lay men from receiuing the cup, than from the bread? Againe, doeth he not say to all them, Drinke yee all of this, to whome before hee saide, Take eate? Yes verily, for the text is plaine, both in the Euangelists and saint Paule. But the bread must be giuen to al, they confesse, therefore why not the cup also? And that which saint Paule wrote concerning the vse of the Sacrament, it is plaine he wrote vnto all the church of Corinth (not onely by that place which Kemnitius alleadgeth, 1. Cor. 1.2. To all that call vppon the name of the Lorde, and that hee writeth vnto the church of Corinth, De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25. which Bellarmine doeth seeke to an­swere, rather least he should seeme to say nothing, than that in truth, he saith anie thing worth the setting downe) but also by the punishment that followed the abuse of the [Page 44] sacrament. For this cause many are weake and feeble amongst you, and many sleepe. Which came vpon them, not that did eate of that bread onely, but also that drunke of that cup vnworthily. And it cannot be imagined, that either the ministers were so bad at that time so generally, that so many of them would haue offended therein: or if the fault had beene in them, the Apostle would more par­ticularly haue reprooued them: neither were they then so many in one place, that it could haue beene truely saide of them, that many are weake, and many sleepe, or are dead. Therefore, whereas many were punished amongst the Corinthians for vnworthily receiuing both the bread and the cup, and this word (Many) cannot, as I haue prooued be there referred to their Teachers onely, it fol­loweth that this punishment was amongest the lay men, as well at the last, as amongst their ministers: and there­fore that the lay men in the church of Corinth receiued the cup.

And thus much of that wicked assertion, wherein they doe affirme, that it is lawfull for the church to alter this part of Christes institution, and also to take away the cup.

Nowe to a second, and as wicked a proposition as the other. Wherein they teach, that it is needelesse to be re­ceiued in both kindes. And to prooue this, Bellarmine ta­keth some paines in three whole chapters. De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 21, 22, 23 In the first two he sheweth, that the whole sacrament may be receiued vn­der one kinde: and therefore in the last hee teacheth, that no more good is to be gotten of the sacrament vnder both kindes, than vnder one. And although we can not allowe of that concomitance, as it is termed, that is, that insepa­rable coniunction of the body and blood vnder either of the signes, which especially hee prooueth in the first chapter of those three, namely, the one and twentieth, that the whole substance of a sacrament is found in either kinde, as hee [Page] teacheth in the two and twentieth chapter: yet if we should grant those two points, that which master Bellarmine would conclude in the three and twentieth chapter can not follow. For what if Christ may bee wholy receiued vnder one kinde? Yet it should not follow, that vnder one as ef­fectually he may be receiued, as vnder both. For, as be­fore I shewed, his death is more liuely represented by the bread, and his bloudsheding by the wine. And that which more effectually representeth it, is more profitable than that which lesse representeth the same. And it is too much sawcinesse so to controll the wisedome of God, that when hee saith, Drinke yee all of this, which is a plaine com­mandement, any foolish man dare say: It is to no profite: it can do you no good. As for the causes that are alleaged by Gerson and other, why the popish church thought good to take away the cup from the lay people, they are so foo­lish and friuolous, that a man would think rather that they iested, than spake in earnest. But what cause soeuer man can pretend to alter y ^t which Christ hath ordained, it doth but testifie, that he thought not Christ wise enough to pre­uent such inconueniences, as hee by his wisedome hath prouided for.

Seeing therfore the church cannot forbid that that God commaundeth (whatsoeuer causes they will pretend, and if they might, yet the causes set downe by the Romish church, either are blasphemous, or at the least friuolous) it is a sure way for vs, rather to regard gods holy commaun­dement, and follow the institution of our sauiour Christ, than to follow any the deuises of man. And when he com­mandeth, drinke you all of this, it is a great sinne, and de­deserueth Gods wrath, for any man to answer, I will not receiue the cup, because the Pope and the Popish church of late hath forbidden it.

De Missa. li. 1. cap. 6 Out of Ge. 14.18The first argument that Bellarmine hath for proofe of this vnbloudie sacrifice of the Masse, is at large handled by Bellarmine: but the effect of it is this. The thing figured must bee like to the figure: But Melchisedech, who was the figure, offered to God bread and wine, as a sacrifice: Therefore also must Christ offer his bodie in forme of bread, Bell li. 1. ca. 7. de Missa. Heb. 7. and his bloud in forme of wine, for a sacrifice. First, his first proposition is not simplie true, but onely inasmuch as the one must be figured of the other. But in what things Melchisedech is a figure of Christ, none can better tell than the Apostle to the Hebrewes, who ful­ly handleth that matter, Col. cum Tryph. fol. 36 and yet doth not once mention this sacrifice. And therefore we may gather, that Melchise­dech was no figure of Christ in that point: For if he was, then was not the Apostle faithfull to omit so necessarie a point. Iustin also hath a notable comparison of them, but he doth not touch that in one worde. Secondly, a sacrifice must be offered: but this bread and wine was but brought foorth for so doth their owne translation testifie. Thirdly, a sacrifice must be offered to God: this place mentioneth no such thing, and therefore most likely that it was brought to refresh Abraham, and his souldiers. Whereby we see, that Bellarmines minor hath no truth in it, wherein he af­firmeth that Melchisedech offred bread and wine to God in sacrifice. Lastly, what a consequence is this: Melchise­dech offered to God bread and wine in sacrifice: therefore Christ offered himselfe in forme of bread and wine. Rather is this a strong argument to the contrarie, if wee should graunt that he did offer the bread and wine to God, which hath no probabilitie in it: But I say, if that should be gran­ted, wee might thus reason: The thing figured must bee like to the figure: but Melchisedech who was the fi­gure, offered but bread and wine, therefore Christ of­fered nothing else but bread and wine: and so maketh it nothing for that sacrifice, for which the Papists doe al­ledge it.

As for his testimonies out of the fathers, for proofe of Melchisedechs offering of bread and wine to God in sa­crifice, because I purpose especially to goe through his ge­nerall arguments, I omit of purpose a particular exami­ning of euerie place, onely contenting my selfe with this generall obseruation, that out of the testimonies alledged hee can hardly conclude that which hee taketh in hande to prooue, because the fathers seeme rather to allude ma­ny times vnto that which he did, than so to alledge his do­ing, as that they thinke anie necessarie argument for proofe hereof, is to be gathered out of the same. And that may wel be gathered out of Chrysostom vpon this place, who saith thus: In Gen. hom. 3. For the honor that he shewed to the pa­triarke, see how a sacrament is insinuated: For he offred to him bread and wine. Marke (to him) that is, to Abra­ham, flat against that which they would. And this is most agreeable vnto the hystorie written by Iosephus, who by all likelihood knew best in his time how that storie was thē vnderstood, Ant. li. 1. c. 18 he saith that Melchisedech gaue great inter­tainment vnto the souldiers of Abraham, And so Chryso­stome in the place alledged saith, Abraham brought forth loaues and wine. And thus doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it: So that if we rightly consider, not onely what they say, but how they speake it, and vpon what ground, to answer whatsoeuer he can bring out of the fathers concer­ning this point, will not be hard.

Argument. 2 The celebrating of the Passeouer (saith Bellarmine) was an expresse figure of the Eucharist: de Missa. lib. 1. cap 7. But, the Passe­ouer was a kinde of offering of a sacrifice to God: There­fore the Eucharist must so be. Maister Bellarmine hath forgotten what he should proue: hee must teach Christ to be in his last supper a sacrifice properly so called: but this argument proueth the Eucharist to be a kinde of sacrifice.

This argument, to be short, is thus answered: There were two things in the Passeouer: The one was, the kil­ling of it, by which was Christs death represented vnto [Page] vs, as Iustine Martir that ancient father teacheth, Dialog. cū Tryph. Iudaeo. The other was, the eating of it, by which was figured vnto them that spirituall foode of the soule Christ Iesus, who was promised vnto their fathers. And in this respect may it in some sort bee called a figure of the Eucharist, because it represented vnto them that thing, that the Eucharist representeth vnto vs. Therfore, if in the first proposition. Bellarmine meaneth by celebrating the Passe­ouer, the eating of the Passeouer, I graunt it, but then is his minor or second proposition vntrue: For the eating of it was not the killing of it, and so not a sacrifice. But if by the celebrating of the Passeouer, he vnderstand the kil­ling of it, then is his maior to be denied, because in the Eu­charist is no killing, or shedding of bloud. But on the con­trarie, a man may thus reason: The celebrating of the Passeouer was not in euerie respect a figure of the Eucha­rist: For the Passeouer must haue the sprinkling of blood which might not be sprinkled but by the Priest only: as ap­peareth 2. Chron. 30.16. where that solemne keeping of the Passeouer, by king Ezechiah is described: and 2. Chron. 35.11. where it is declared, how zealously Iosiah performed the same seruice. And in that respect onely is it to be counted a Sacrifice: for that onely belonged to the Priests to doe, so as no other but the Priests might doe it. All other things might be, and were performed by others: But the Eucharist they all with full mouth, confesse to bee vnbloodie: and therefore in this thing wherein onely the Pascall Lambe may be accounted a sacrifice, it is no figure of the Eucharist: So the celebrating of the Passeouer, e­uen in that point wherein it is a sacrifice, doeth nothing proue that sacrifice which the Romish church would teach in the Masse. And see how vnnecessarie an argument this is: In the celebrating of the Passeouer, there was a bloody sacrifice: therefore in the Eucharist must bee a bloodie sa­crifice. This consequence the Papists themselues will not graunt: and yet it is as good and necessarie as that of [Page 47] theirs. In celebrating of the Paschall Lambe there was a sacrifice: therefore in the Eucharist there must bee a sacri­fice. For this principle that master Bellarmine doeth set downe, That celebrating of the Passeouer, was en ex­presse figure of the Eucharist: if it proue the Eucharist to haue a sacrifice, it doth also proue it to haue a bloodie sa­crifice: for otherwise the Lambe or Passeouer was not an expresse figure of the Eucharist. If therefore the Papists will denie that it is a bloudy sacrifice, why should we grant it to bee a sacrifice, vnlesse they can alledge better reason than this that is taken from celebrating the Passeouer. And thus much for the second argument.

Argument. 3 The third argument that master Bellarmine bringeth, he sayeth hee neuer read answere to it: and this it is, The blood of the olde Testament, Exod. 24. Cap. 8. was the bloud of a sacrifice alreadie slaine and offered: therefore the blood of the new Testament is so: Answere But this blood of the new Testament is the blood of Christ, as himself faith, This is my bloud: therefore he was the sacrifice offered vp in the Supper. It is true, that when Moses said, This is the bloud of the couenant that God hath made with you, the beast for sacrifice was alreadie slaine: but that it must needes be so in the bloud of the newe testament, there is no necessitie, and therefore that argument must bee de­nied. First, because master Bellarmine maketh the especi­al thing in this couenant to be, that the bloud was shed be­fore the words were spoken: whereas the principall part in deed is, that the couenant must be established by bloud. And therein Moses directed them to Christ, in whose bloud the couenant of grace is established with Gods people. Which the Apostle to the Hebrews doth rightly consider of, Heb. 9.8. and therefore looketh not to the time wherein the sacri­fice was slaine, but to the matter wherby the couenant was established. Secondly, the order which Mo [...] ses doth vse, and the Apostle obserueth out of him as a verie materiall point, is of vs to be marked. For first, the couenant was [Page] made betweene God and the people, & then it was ra [...] by the blood euen so because Christ must needs make this couenant, and set downe th [...] s h [...] s last will and Testament, therefore his blood [...] must of necessitie bee after the [...] of this his last will: so that although that blood of the [...] Testament was [...] before the words were spoken, yet it is not needfull it should so bee in the newe Testament. Nay, it can not so bee, because hee must ma [...] e this con [...] whilest yet hee was [...] e, and no other coulde make it for him. Then do hee confirme [...] by his blo [...] shedding, which was afterwardes vpon the crosse, whereof that bloud of the olde Testament was but a shadowe. And thus I trust, iust cause ap­peareth to denie his argument. And then that which fol­loweth, that Christ therefore must be sacrificed in his last supper without [...] further labour, falleth to the gr [...] . As for the fiue sundrie arguments alledged by him in the [...] th Chapter of the aforesa [...] de booke, [...] it is no mar [...] though master Be [...] armine make no great account of the same. For he cannot proue out of them, that Christ in h [...] s last supper did offer vp his owne bodie to God, [...] [...] 2 3 [...] and his blood, in forme of breed and w [...] . His arguments are ta­ken out of the story of Hely the 2. out of the Prouer. 9.1 2 The third, out of Esay, 19, 21. The fourth out of Esay, 66.21 [...] d Ier. 33.17, 18 the fifth out of Dan. [...] , 11, 12, and 12, 11 Read the places who so will, and it shall easily ap­peare, that they serue not to proue that which Bellarmine would, and therefore I passe them ouer thus briefly.

[...]But the mighte argument, the w [...] ght whereof well beare downe all before it, is taken out of Malachy. I haue no pleasure in you, [...] saith the Lord of hostes neither will I accept an offering at your hand For from the rising of the sunne, vnto the going downe of the same, my name [...] great among the Gentiles, and in euery place incense shall [...] offred vnto my name, and a pure offering, for my name [...] great among the heathē, saith the Lord of hosts. [Page] Which place to be vnderstood of a sacrifice properly so cal­led, [...] not of spirituall sacrifices, master Bellarmine will proue by sundry arguments: The first is drawne from the Hebrew word which the Prophet vseth there, which ma­ster Bellarmine will not in any wise haue to be vsed but for those sacrifices that are properly so called. And yet in this very booke, a little before, Cap. [...] he confesseth that sacrifice that is called by the same name, to be But as a part, or as it were the s [...] ce of another sacrifice. And that answer did then, as he thought, serue his turne, to stop the mouth of Kemni­tius. But, now hee will haue it, not onely to be a sacrifice, but euen a most proper sacrifice. But by that word, and [...] that place we are taught, that the sacrifices of Christians shalbe the true sacrifices, not consisting onely of outwarde shew, but hauing that [...] seasoning and true s [...] ceritie, which through Iesus Christ shalbe acceptable vnto God. And that singlenes of heart, was signified by that Mincha which was commanded to be offered by the people of God, with their dayly sacrifices. Therefore the name proueth not strongly inough the sacrifice for which it is brought. His second argument is taken out of that worde Cleane sacrifices, wherein he striueth much to proue, Howe [...] talked [...] that our spi­rituall sacrifices of prayers, thankesgiuing, yea, of our selues and all ou [...] obedience, cannot bee cleane: Wherein although he saith truly of our workes as they are in them­selues considered, yet are they also called Cleane: first, in respect of the fountaine of regeneration from whence they proceed, in regard whereof, although they bee not simpl [...] e cleane, yet in comparison of the workes of them that are se­cure in their wickednesse they are cleane. Secondly, be­cause God accounteth them as cleane for Christs sake. Thirdly, in respect of that whereunto the workes of the regenerate doe tende: for though they cannot attaine to perfection, yet doe they firme for it. And [...] this sort Dauid confesseth, some may be Cleane. Psa. [...] 4.3 [...] . Who shall climbe vp in­to the hal of the lord, or who shal stād in his holy place? [Page] He that hath innocent hands, and a cleane heart. To this Esay Esay 1.16 1. Tim. 2.8 exhorteth: Be you cleane. And of this speaketh the Apostle Saint Paule, In euerie place lifting vp pure hand, or cleane hands. And if M. Bellarmine do not con­tent himselfe with this cleannesse, he will find that euen the sacrifice of the Masse it selfe, for which he striueth so in this place, seeing the vertue therof must somewhat depend vp­on the goodnesse and deuotion of the Priest (as he saith) wil not be found verie cleane, De Missa li. 1. cap. 4 because the sacrificer is manie times verie vncleane. His third reason is taken out of the words that are in the beginning of the text alleaged. Out of which he will proue that it must bee a new sacrifice, and such as was not before: but our spirituall sacrifices haue beene alwayes, therefore the Prophet cannot meane of our spirituall sacrifices. It will neuer be proued that the Pro­phet speaketh of such a sacrifice as neuer was. But the Iewes trusted too much in their externall Sacrifices: yea, though they were not such as God commaunded that they should be. But on the contrarie, God telleth them, that e­uen among the Gentiles whom they despised, thinking that no good could be amongst them, I say, among them should be offered, not such polluted and vncleane things, as the Priests were content to take of the Iewes to offer to God, but a Cleane offering: euen such an offering as was the bodie of their shadowes, the truth of their figures, and the substāce of their ceremonies, in respect of him that brought the offering: that is, they should serue the Lord with a sincere and single heart. And this is the cleane sacriffce that Malachie meaneth, which was acceptable alwayes, and alwayes shall be. Fourthly, Bellarmine imagineth, that God by Malachy setteth the contempt and dishonouring of God, done by the Leuiticall Priests against the honour that he shall haue among the Gentiles. Be it so. What then: The Iewes (sayth he) dishonoured God in a visible sacrifice, therefore the Gentiles also must honour him by a visible sacrifice: otherwise the dis [...] onor done by the Iewes, [Page 42] is greater than the honour done by the Gentiles: I denie his consequence: for, they dishonored God but in a corner of the world, but the Gentiles worshipped him from the rising of the Sunne, to the going downe of the same: and herein standeth the force of the comparison, as by the wordes plainely appeareth. Fifthly, he supposeth that the Priestes of the olde lawe, are compared with the Priestes in the Gospel, but there is no such matter, as the wordes declare. But to wring and force wordes, to see what may be gathered out of them, rather than to search what their true meaning is, doth bring but small credite to their cause, and weake proofe to their doctrine. His last argument to prooue this place of Malachie not to belong to a spi­rituall sacrifice, is out of the fathers, where, in my iudge­ment hee sheweth his weakenesse, more than in his other reasons, or else a worse humour. For although that Iu­stinus Martyr whom hee first alledgeth, Col. cum Tryph. Iudaeo. doeth in trueth affirme, and wee denie it not, that Malachie sayeth that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, yet that hee speaketh not of a sacrifice properly so called, Bellarmine must needes con­fesse, except he speake agaynst his owne conscience, if hee consider what hee sayeth long after in that booke: namely, that Euerie one that is called by the name of Ie­sus Christ, are in deede made Priests to God, as God doth testifie, saying: In euerie place cleane and accep­table sacrifices shall bee offered. Which sacrifices also what they are, he afterwards testifieth, prayers and thanks giuings. What can be more plaine? But this especially is to be remembred, that not Priests only, but euery Chri­stian doth by Iustines wordes, offer vp these cleane offe­rings, and therefore that hee speaketh of spirituall sacri­fices. Irene his second witnesse, maketh little for his pur­pose: for euen immediately before the words whereby Bel­larmine woulde prooue the Eucharist to bee a sacrifice, after the proper signification of the worde, hee sheweth that God hath no delight in sacrifices or burnt offerings, but in Faith, obedience, and righteousnes. And after, that [Page] he taught his disciples to offer to God the first fruits out of his creatures, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32 not that hee needed any thing, but that they should neither be vnfruitful, nor vnthankfull. And so he tooke bread, and gaue thanks, and eat, as is by Bellarmine alledged. Can any thing be more plaine? He first sheweth that God regardeth not those reall sacrifices, that I may so terme them: then he sheweth, that the Eucha­rist is a sacrifice of thankesgiuing. And as in the words al­ledged by Bellarmine, it is an offering of the first fruits of his gifts, Cap. 33. that giueth vs our nourishment, and in the next chapter he expoundeth the incense (so alledging the wordes of Malachie, In euerie place incense shalbe offered vp) by that place of the Apocalips, Apoc. 5.8 that the incense was the prayer of the Saints: so we see that prayers and praises are the sacrifices that he speaketh of, & these are spiritual, and not reall sacrifices. And as for Tertullian Tertul. whom in the 3. place he bringeth forth: as he hath nothing for him in the place by him alledged, Tert. cont. Marcion. li. 4 so yet he plainly expresseth in ano­ther place what hee vnderstandeth by that cleane sacrifice that Malachie speaketh of, Exam. Con. Trid. 2. part. namely, Sincere praier out of a pure conscience. Which place being alledged by Kem­nitius against the councel of Trent, Bellar. to shift it off, as boldly as vntruly, he affirmeth that Tertul. doeth not ex­pound Malachies place, where he nameth the cleane sacri­fice, but where he nameth the incense. But the place of Tertullian plainly sheweth the vntruth of his answere: for Tertullian speaketh thus: In euerie place a sacrifice shal be offered in my name, and a cleane sacrifice, euen sin­cere prayer out of a pure heart. So that Tertullian did not so much as dreame of any incense there: and it is so pla­ced, that it must needes expound how he vnderstandeth that cleane sacrifice spoken of by Malachie. The next commeth in Cyprian, who saieth, That the olde sacrifice is aboli­shed, and the new celebrated: and then (sayeth Bellar­mine) he citeth this place of Malachie. Ad Quirin. lib. 1. ca. 16 Esay 1.11.12 Psa. 50.14.15, 23 It is true: but first he citeth Esay, and the 13. verse of the 50. Psalme, or as he doeth recken it, of the 49. for reiecting of their [Page 50] externall sacrifices, and then out of the same Psalme hee teacheth, that prayer and prayse are the true sacrifices: and also out of the 4. Psalme, Psal. 4.6 hee speaketh of the sacrifice of righteousnesse. And then followeth that of Malachie. whereby it is most manifest, that Cyprian vnderstandeth by the sacrifice mentioned in Malachie, no other than that which out of the Psalmes he learned. And in all these pla­ces, Bellarmines euill dealing is notorious: For hee will not so much as see the wordes that are before his eyes, but onely picketh out that which hee thinketh serueth for the establishing of his errour, and concealeth that which would giue light to the trueth. And it were too tedious to answere to euerie testimonie, especially seeing that which hath beene saide of the places before alledged, doth sufficiently testifie what was the iudgement of the aun­cient fathers concerning this place of Malachie nowe in question: I will therefore returne to his generall ar­guments.

Argument. 5 Maister Bellarmine his fift principall argument, Ioh. 4.21.23 is ta­ken out of saint Iohn, where he sheweth that the true wor­shippers shall worship in spirit and truth: but this wor­ship must needes be (saieth he) the offering of sacrifices pro­pely so called: Therefore the true worshippers in the daies of Christ shall offer these sacrifices properly so called. In Iohn Hom. 32 But Chrysost. vpon that place can find no such sacrifices, but expoundeth this place by the 12. to the Romans, of our spirituall sacrifices, with whom also Theoph. seemeth to agree. In. Iohn Tract. 15. And S. August. thinketh not that this kind of wor­shipping needeth to be performed in any materiall temple, but that our selues are Gods temple, yea, and that his holy temple, and therefore that this worship must bee in our selues, & therefore spirituall. Hitherto haue we heard some reasons to proue in the Eucharist that there is a sacrifice properly so called, gathered partly of the figures of the old law, of the which I may truly complaine, De vnit. Eccl, cap. 19. as S. August. did of the Donatists: You stay (saith he) vpon those dark points, least you should be forced to grant that which is [Page] plaine: or else forced out of some other doubtfull sentences, whereof also with the same father, against the same here­tikes, I may say, Alledge something that needeth no interpreter, Cap. 16 that cannot be prooued to be spoken of some other thing, and you indeuour to draw it to your owne meaning. And therefore, out of such vncertaine allegations a certaine conclusion cannot be gathered. But now let vs see what is alledged out of the verie institution it selfe: for if any thing worth hearing can bee brought out of it, it must needs be forcible. Therefore thus he rea­soneth: Argument 6 Bel. de missa li: 1 ca. 12. Christ in his last supper offered himselfe vnder the forme of bread & wine to God the father, and com­maunded that to be done of the Apostles, and their suc­cessors to the end of the world: But this is to offer a sa­crifice, properly and truly so called, and to institute that it should be offered: Therefore the Eucharist is a sacri­fice properly so called. For the maior in this argument, wherof all the doubt is, it is a plain fallacie: for he beggeth to haue that confessed that is denied, & to haue that granted that is in question. For if he could proue that Christ did of­fer himselfe in his last supper to God the father, we would easily confesse it to be a sacrifice true and proper. So that on the contrary, I may as well reason thus: Christ cōman­ded nothing to be don, but that which himself did in his last supper: but himselfe did not sacrifice: and therfore he com­maunded no sacrifice in the last supper. Wel, his first proof of this vntrue proposition, is y ^t which he hath said of Mel­chisedech, the paschal Lambe, & the blood of the couenant, of which I trust I haue spoken sufficiently, in the iudge­ment of any indifferēt man, in my answer to his 3. first prin­cipall arguments. Luke 22.19 20 1 Cor. 11.24 His second reason is this: These words, Is giuen, is broken, is shed, which are words of the present time, do signifie that he was giuen, broken, & shed vnto god for a sacrifice. M. Bellar. seemeth to me to be hopshakled, y ^t he cānot wel step forward. He hath taken vpō him to proue out of these words, y ^t christ offred his body in his supper to his father for a sacrifice: & how doth he proue it? because the [Page] words shew that he is giuen, broken and shed for a sacri­fice to God: is not this a good leape, thinke you? And yet his proposition that he should prooue, and his reason whereby hee doeth it, are all one. But if hee stand vp­on these wordes, Is giuen, broken, and shedde, there­fore it is an act that then was done, and therefore done in the Supper: what will hee say to their owne transla­tion, which translateth, Shall bee shed, in Matthew and Marke, and Luke also, and also of the bread, This is my bodie, which shalbe giuen for you. It seemeth when that translation was first set foorth, that peece of scripture was not so taken as it is now: but that those words of the sup­per, Math. 26.28 mar. 14.24 luk. 22.20 1. cor. 11.24 were taken for a promise of that which Christ perfor­med the next day, as in truth they were. I but master Bel­larmine telleth vs, that al these readings are good, because there may be a good reasō of either of them. I confesse that to be true: and therfore M. Bellarmins reason is not strōg, whose force hangeth vpon these wordes onely, which may well be translated otherwise. But by the way, what if I should thus reason? A representatiue sacrifice is not a pro­tiatorie sacrifice: but Christs sacrifice that in his supper hee offred vnto God, was representatiue, saieth Bellarm. in this place, therefore not propitiatorie, and much lesse then is the Masse a propitiatorie sacrifice: Neither do I see to what end Christ should represent to God the sheding of his bloud, which should be afterwards vpō the crosse, although M. Bellar doth say it: because he is loth to tell the true rea­son (which I haue alreadie touched) why their cōmon La­tin translation did not precisely follow the Greeke in trans­lating of these words, shalbe giuē, broken, shed. His third reason out of the words of the institution. to proue his sacri­fice, is as strong as the second, and is this: Breaking cannot be spoken wel of the bodie, and in this place (which is bro­ken for you) cannot be true of the bread, for the bread is not broken for vs: therefore it must be vnderstoode of Christs bodie in forme of bread. In this argument M. Bellarmine reiecteth their vulgar translation which somtime he and his [Page] fellowes doe highly extoll, for, that saith, which shalbe deliuered. And so doe Chrysostome, Ierome, Primatius, Theophilact, yea, and Thomas of Aquine also, al of them expounding these very words. Epist. 3 And Cyprian in his second booke of Epistles: and so doe our English Remists trans­late it likewise. Al whose translations do sufficiently proue, that they espied not any such mysterie in that worde, is broken, but that they were bolde to deliuer the verie true sence of it, shalbe deliuered, to signifie that the body of Christ should suffer the torments vpon the crosse, which S. Paul did expresse by the word of breaking. And in that respect doth Thomas of Aquine (who woulde faine haue the Eucharist to be a sacrifice) say it is a Representatiue sacrifice of Christs passiō, 1. Cor. 11. lect. 5. by which passion hee gaue his body to death for vs. But whereas Tho. and after him M. Bellarmine would make their Eucharist a representatiue sacrifice: read and peruse who so will the words of the in­stitution, it will not be found that our Sauiour Christ did offer in his last supper any sacrifice to God, but only spoke to the Apostles instructing them in the vse of the sacrament which then he instituted. As for that he reasoneth out of the words of S. Luke because he seemeth to speake of the shed­ding of the cup, not of the bloud: Matthew and Marke Mat. 26.28. Mar. 14.24. make the matter more plaine, and tell vs that the bloud of Christ is shed. Doth not this wringing & wresting of scrip­tures, to force them from their true and natural sence, to serue their turne, manifestly argue that it must needs bee a weake tottering building, that is raysed vpon so bad foun­dations? and that it is but for want of better proofe, that they are faine to scrape togither such poore helps? The se­cond argument of M. Bellarmines, to proue a sacrifice by the institution, is this in effect, Christs body & bloud are receiued in the Eucharist, therefore they cannot but be sacrificed. Which argumēt for vs to deny, it is sufficient, seeing that M. Bellarmine himselfe seemeth to inforce this only against them that confesse a real presence in, with, & vnder the bread, and yet deny the sacrifice. But whereas [Page 52] Kemnitius requireth in a sacrifice 4. properties, wherof he wanteth 3. in the Eucharist, M. Bellar. can finde them al. First the persons that should sacrifice are the priests, who are willed to sacrifice in these words (if ye wil trust Bellar.) Do this. Who would euer haue gathered thus, y ^t had eies to looke vpon the words of the institution? You must Doe this: ergo you must sacrifice? Yea, Bellar. seemeth in the beginning almost of this chapter, to be half ashamed of this argument, and blameth Caluine and Kemnitius, because they say that with the papists in that place, & those words, To do, is to sacrifice, and therfore it needeth no farther an­swer. But for the act of sacrifising: it troubleth Bellarmine to finde it out, neither knoweth he howe to distinguish be­tweene that act, I meane the sacrifice which Christ offered saith he. and other actions in the supper. And yet master Bellarmine is sure, that such a thing there is there, but where to finde it he cannot tell. Is this (thinke you) good dealing for them that should be good guides vnto others, to take vppon them to leade men they knowe not whether themselues? The words for a sacrament are very plaine, but if you would follow with a bloud-hound, you can neuer finde a sacrifice out of those wordes. As for the testimonies that master Bellarmine alleadgeth out of the fathers, they shall haue this answere. The Eucharist is in sundry res­pectes called a sacrifice, A sacrifice. of the fathers, not only because therein we offer the sacrifices of praiers, and thankes gi­uings, and duties of loue, but also, and that especially, be­cause it is a memoriall of the true sacrifice which Christ of­fered for vs vpon the crosse: Therefore it is not enough for M. Bellar. to bring them in, saying, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, which we deny not, but that it is a sacrifice proper­ly so called, which the papists affirme, but cannot proue.

Argument. 7 His 7. generall argument needeth no answer for it is so weak, that euery child may see y ^e fault of it. For out of those wordes, Act. 13.2. As they ministred vnto the Lord (speaking of Paul & Barnabas & others) ministring seemeth to be, or may be taken for sacrifycing: ergo it is takē there for sacrifycing, [Page] saith M. Bellar. Iudas seemed to be a true seruant of Christ but was not. Lib. 1. de M [...] ssa. ca. 13. And the very children doe know that it is no good argumēt to say, such a thing may be, therfore it is so.

Argument 8 Rhem. Test. De missa li. 1 cap. 14But in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Co­rinths, which the Papists make their strong bulwarke, maister Bellarmine findeth three arguments. His first ar­gument is this, Euerie altar which in deed is an altar, is builded for offering of sacrifices: But the Lords table af­ter a sort is an altar: therefore it is for offering of sacri­fices. We will not striue with master Bellarmine much for this point: for we will confesse that such sacrifices are offe­red vpon the altar, as maister Bellarmine confesseth the al­tar to be. The Lordes table (saith he) is a kinde of altar, or an altar after a sort: So we say, that sacrifices after a sort, namely spirituall sacrifices, are offered thereupon. His second reason out of this place, is a lowde lie: For thus hee saith: For the Apostle speaketh plainly, that we that are faithfull, doe so receyue the bodie and blood of the Lord, at the table of the Lord, as the Iewes their sacrifices, or the Gentiles their meates offered to I­dols, on their altars or tables. And because hee cannot proue this to bee true, you must trust him of his owne worde, for he bringeth no proofe at all. Let the indiffe­rent reader peruse the place, and marke his false dealing with it. The wordes cited by him, begin at the 14. verse of that Chapter, and continue vnto the 22. the summe whereof is this, as they that consider the place may see: As by participating at the Lords table, you are made par­takers of Christ, and ioyned togither, amongst your selues in one bodie, verse 16, 17: so by participating at the ta­ble of Idols, you are made partakers of them, and ioyned in fellowship with the Idolaters. But that which he telleth vs, is so plaine in these wordes, cannot be ga­thered out of them. And this also is a sufficient answere to his thirde argument that hee wringeth out of these wordes. Whereby he will force Saint Paule whether hee will or not, to finde out an offering in the Eucharist, [Page 53] because he saith, they that eate the offrings, are partakers of the altar. Out of which place, as hee cannot probably conclude any thing to proue a sacrifice in the eucharist, so hee plainely proclaimeth, that if it should be proued, that their masse were a sacrifice, yet the priest only is the better for it, because the priest onlie eateth vp all. For, They that eate the offrings, are partakers of the Altar.

The second sort of proofes which Bellarmine promi­sed, is gathered out of the fathers. Lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. And the first argument of that sort, is drawen from the wordes of sacrifice, sacri­ficing, offering, oblation and such like. Chap. 15. Why the fathers vse thus to speake of the Eucharist, I haue shewed a little before in the answere to his sixte argument. But nowe maister Bellarmine proueth, that a sacrifice may be both commemoratiue, and represent an other thing, as did the sacrifices in the Leuiticall law, and also be a true sacrifice indeede, which is most true: and thereupon concludeth, that this sacrifice representatiue in the eucharist is also a true sacrifice. But this his argument hath no necessarie consequence: for, the Leuiticall sacrifice must needes be a sacrifice truely so called, that by the death of the beast offe­red vp, and by the shedding of that blood, the death & blod­shedding of Christ, might be the more liuely represented to the faithfull, and more constantly beleeued of them, which thing being in trueth perfourmed, and Christ Iesus the true facrifice indeede being offered, Heb. 10.26 There remaineth no more sacrifice for sinne

Moreouer, in those sacrifices, that they might bee knowen to be sacrifices instituted and appointed of God, we see how the thing sacrificed, the manner of sacrificing, and all the circumstances are plainely set downe and com­maunded by God: And on the contrary, in this sacrifice which they seeke to maintaine, all things are obscure: not so much as a probable shew of any commaundement, or of any institution of a sacrifice: Therefore the Iewish sacri­fice can be no proofe for the sacrifice of the masse. Second­ly, [Page] he will prooue, that in the eucharist, is not only a repre­sentatiue sacrifice, because the fathers speake sometimes of oblations and sacrifices in the plural number, and there­fore there are more sacrifices than that one representatiue: but he taketh more paines then he needeth, for we teach that besides the representation of Christs sacrifice, we offer in the Eucharist the sacrifices of prayers, prayses, and such like spirituall oblations.

Thirdly, baptisme, saith hee, is a sacrament re­presenting Christes death, but is not called of any of the fathers, a sacrifice offered to God: therefore the on­ly representation of Christs death and bloudshedding can­not make the Eucharist be called a sacrifice. For baptisme, it representeth vnto vs the efficacy and vertue of Christes death, rather than the death it selfe: So that there is great difference betweene these two sacraments. For the sacra­ment of the Lords supper representeth the sacrifice it selfe which he vpon the crosse did offer, euen the tormenting and mangling of his body, & the shedding of his bloud. So that there is much more cause why the Eucharist should be cal­led a sacrifice, than baptisme. Fourthly, M. Bellarmine imagineth, that if it were not indeed a very proper sacrifice, we might in the Eucharist say to God truely, I offer to thee this gift, accept Lord this sacrifice. And moreouer he chargeth vs that we doe wholy abstaine from such wordes, and greatly reproue them for vsing of them. And yet in one short praier vsed after the receiuing of the communion with vs, we pray thus, Accept this our sacrifice of praise & thankesgiuing. And after, We offer and present vnto thee o Lord our selues, our soules & bodies, to be a rea­sonable, holy, & liuely sacrifice to thee. Which wordes doe not only answere the slaunder wherewith he vniustlie chargeth our churches, but also sheweth that well we maie vse those words, I offer to thee this gift, accept Lord this sacrifice, although we take not vpon vs to offer Christ re­ally in the Eucharist. As for the hyperbolicall speeches, [Page 54] which the fathers vse sometimes, which is his first reason, we learne thereby rather with howe reuerent an affecti­on we shoulde come to these sacramentes, than what wee shoulde thinke the thinges themselues to be. For howe can it els bee true that Bellarmine himselfe out of the Greeke fathers alleadgeth, that they call it a sacrifice terri­ble and full of horrour, which cannot be properly verified of the sacrifice propitiatorie which they woulde haue it to bee, for that must needes bee sweete and comfortable vn­to vs: in it is only grace and mercy, no horrour, no ter­rour.

Lastly, because the fathers acknowledge in this sacrifice of the Eucharist, that there is that honor performed, which is due to God only, therefore woulde master Bellarmine conclude, that it must needs be more than a sacrifice of re­presentation. And we doe easily yeeld vnto him, that it is also called a sacrifice, of the fathers, yea & of vs also, in re­spect of the spirituall sacrifices therein offered. And this yet must be noted, that properly to speake of the Eucha­rist, it is but a sacrament: But in the respectes aforesaide, De missa li. 1. cap. 16. it is sometime called, yet vnproperly a sacrifice. But saith master Bellarmine, the fathers make mention of an altar: therefore they also proue thereby that the Eucharist is a sacrifice: for there is no Altar, but in respect of a reall sacrifice.

But the first altars were but tables of wood, not altars of stone, such as are now for the popish sacrifice, in these daies commaunded: and these altars of worde they ca­ried about from place to place, as occasion serued: and therfore, although the names of altars be found in the most ancient fathers almost that are, yet popish altars are not thereby proued, neither were there any altars of stone be­fore the time of Siluester, who liued more than three hun­dred yeares after Christ: For hee first commaunded that stone altars should be made, as their freind Gerson wri­teth: And therefore as they call it sometime an altar, [Page] so sometime they call it a Table, Lib. 4. cont. Floratum. De consecrat. dist. 1. cap. Nemo as doeth Clement, who they say was one of the first bishops of Rome, he twice within few wordes mentioneth the Lords Table. If therefore it be a good argument thus to reason: The fathers do sometime mention an altare for the eucharist: therefore they thought it was a sacrifice, for there needeth no altar but for a sacrifice. I am sure this is as good an argument: Somtime they speake of a table for the eucha­rist as out of Athanasius, Theodoret, Augustine, this Clement, and others, is most plaine: and therefore they thought it not to be a sacrifice, for, there is no sacrifice vpon a table, but onely vpon an altar.

De missa lib. 1. cap. 17.Yet master Bellarmine roueth againe with his vncer­taine proofes. The fathers (saieth hee) speake of priests, therefore they will haue a sacrifice in the eucharist. And why may not the fathers vnderstand priests as wee doe in our booke of making of ministers, and in our booke of common prayer, who succeede in the publike ministery in the church the priests of Leui, Leuit. 10.11. Deut. 17.5. mal. 2.7. not in sacrificing, for the sa­crifices are ended, but in teaching: for that was also the priests office, and is now the office of them that we some­time call priests. And yet we, although we vse the name, do not alow that popish sacrifice, which Bellarmine would haue. And why then should this be holden for a good argu­ment: The fathers speake sometimes of priests: There­fore the eucharist is a reall sacrifice, or a sacrifice after the proper signification of that word. As for that which hee hath in the eighteenth chapter of that his first booke of the masse, is almost all one with that which hee saide in the fifteenth chapter, and therefore it is answered before. But his last proofe, Chap. 19 whereby hee will out of the fathers prooue a sacrifice, is, as himselfe saith, vnanswerable, vn­lesse we do vtterly reiect the fathers. The fathers desire not to be credited against the trueth. They were men, they might erre. Onely Gods word is perfectly true. And ther­fore, as wee do them no wrong, to trie and examine their [Page 55] doctrine by that rule and square that cannot deceiue: How the fathers are to be recei­ued. so if it be not agreeable to that word of trueth, wee must rather confesse all men to be liars, than swarue one iote from that perfect way. And therefore it is not absurd, if wee leaue the fathers, when they goe without their guide of Gods written word, or speake without their warrant of Gods infallible trueth. So that although wee are content, to shew how the fathers wrested by them, either must or may be vnderstoode, that by that meanes wee may pull from them that visard of antiquitie & consent of fathers, where­with they cloke and colour their dangerous and deceitfull heresies, yet we receiue the fathers but as men, and ther­fore no masters to giue vs new lawes, but yet men of ex­cellent gifts in their time, and alwayes worthy of much reuerence and honour. But yet this is not a good argu­ment: The fathers haue somctime written this, or haue done this: Therefore it is true, or it is good. But let vs view his vnanswerable argument: If the eucharist were not a sacrifice, the fathers would not haue offred the same, for peace, safety, and sundry such things: but they did: ther­fore it is a sacrifice. Marke howe hee prooueth that they did offer the eucharist for such things. Hee first alleageth Chrysostome in his homilies to the people of Antioch, Hom. 79. Hom. 7 [...] . and then also vpon Mathew, most notably belying that fa­ther, as though he spake thereof the sacrifice in the eucha­rist, whereas the first whole Homily is altogether of prai­er, and Chrysostome there sheweth, that they pray in deed for the whole world, and for sundry persons: but of stand­ing at the altar, not a word: And therefore master Bellar­mine belieth that father. And in the second place, Wee pray first for them that are possessed, the second, for the penitent, &c. Is this good dealing to auouch, that that ancient father saith in those places, that the Eucharist was offered for such things. Other falsifications of these very places I omit, as not much materiall.

When I heard his great cracke, I imagined this shot [Page] would haue made a great breach, but it is like to doe no hurt at all. Then, for that which he alleageth out of same Augustine, that the Eucharist was offered by one for free­ing a certaine house from euill spirites. De ciuit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. It is true that he reporteth such a thing, and addeth, That hee prayed as earnestly as he could, that that vexation might cease. First, it is not saint Augustine himselfe that doth this, but another: and this fact is not either commended or allowed to be wel done of saint Augustine. But they wil answere, The euill spirits left the house: And therefore the euent prooueth the fact to be good. Not so: but it is an argu­ment of Gods might and mercie, that can and will by e­uill, or the abuse of good meanes, bring to passe good things. Secondly, it may iustly be doubted, whether saint Augustine did impute this effect vnto that sacrifice that he speaketh of, or the earnest prayers that were made for it. Yea it seemeth rather that he imputeth it vnto the sacrifice of prayer, than any other sacrifice.

Moreouer it seemeth, that as in the dayes of saint Paul there were that were baptized ouer the dead, either to de­clare their hope of the resurrection, or to testify their dying vnto sinne, or for such other considerations: so in these dayes of S. Augustine, some, vpon such occasions would celebrate the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, by that assurance and pledge of Gods loue, to stirre vp and confyrme their faith, that with more earnestnesse and faith they might craue Gods helpe. But if master Bellarmine would haue this to be a catholike doctrine, that hath but one or few examples, he will haue Vincentius Lirinensis flat contrary to him. Confess. li. 9. cap. 12. So that also that is alleaged of the oblation for his mother: it can not bee denied, that there were at that time some such abuses creeping into the church of God, concerning that charitable superstition, that I may so terme it, of prayer for the dead, of the which some had good liking, some liked not. But out of them it is hard to establish a strange doctrine in Gods church, and such as [Page 56] Gods word is not acquainted withall. But euen by that booke of S. Augustine it is plaine, and namely by the next chapter to the place alleadged, that S. Augustine did not once thinke of any propitiatory sacrifice that was in the masse. And I would also desire the indifferent Reader to iudge how litle such matters sauour of the maiestie of that spirit, which is seene in the scriptures. Bellarmines last sort of arguments are drawen from reason: The first is grounded vpon this principle, De missa lib. 1. cap. 20. there is no religion without an externall sacrifice: which is most false, for God when he seeth his people to whom he commanded those external sa­crifices, to repose themselues too much vpon them, doeth not onely reiect those sacrifices which himselfe appointed, but also teacheth wherein true religion consists, Isa 1.15, 16. and Mich. 6.8. Yea, marke the whole scriptures & it wil appeare, that faith & obedience are the especiall things that god requireth of vs, & that the sacrifices directed ther­to. His second argument taken from reason is this: The Iewes had such sacrifices: therefore wee must haue them. Chap. 21. If this argument be denied, he can neuer prooue it. For the Iewes had those ceremonies and rudiments of the world, because they were in their nonage, Galat. 4.3. and Christ was not yet come, and so the reuelation of Christ, was not then so plaine as now it is: therefore they needed those things, but we do not. And moreouer, if these sacrifices were so ne­cessary as they affirme them to be, as that there is no reli­gion without them, & of necessity we must haue them, then were the Apostles too blame, who giuing direction to the Gentiles what were necessary for them, Acts 15.19.20. neuer warned thē of this externall sacrifice. For seeing there was not anie such thing plainely set downe in the word of God, it was needefull that it should haue beene signified to them, if any such thing had bin thought necessary. But Bellarm. thus prooueth his argument: God hath not abolished al things in his law, as he hath not taken away the commandemēts: therefore he hath not abolished the ceremoniall law.

I would master Bellarmine would haue taken some paines to shew what part of the ceremoniall lawe is conti­nued. But he telleth vs the sacraments are not takē away, they are but changed: so the sacrifices must be but chan­ged, not taken away. When hee sheweth what commissi­on hee hath to tell God what he must doe, we will regard his wordes, but vntill that bee shewed, hee must giue vs leaue, to acknowledge all these things in Christ to be per­formed, especially seeing the worde telleth vs not of anie commaundement to change it, or when, how, or into what it should be changed. But I am loath to confute his grosse assertions, and reasonlesse reasons, whereby he seeketh to keepe vs still in bondage to externall things. One or two arguments mo he hath, the one grounded vpon such diffe­rences as themselues haue deuised, betweene a sacra­ment and a sacrifice, the other is the generall consent of the church throughout the world: the first is somewhat touch­ed in the fifteenth chapter, the other is the thing that is in question, whether the true church haue acknowledged it to be a sacrifice, truely so called, and properly.

Now to conclude, seeing in the institution of this sacra­ment, there is not any sacrifice prescribed as the wordes do teach vs, neither can it be proued by the scriptures, nei­ther can we find any such doctrine vniuersally receiued of the fathers in the purer age of the church: Lastly, seeing the arguments that are brought for defence of it, are so hard and obscure, so forced and wrested, as they are both frō the scriptures & the fathers: let vs rest vpon this foun­dation, Heb. 9.28. Heb. 10.12 that Christ was once offered, to take away the sinnes of many: Once, I say, and not often, and that be­ing done, He sitteth for euer at the right hand of God. So that either they must deny him to haue a natural body, but so deified, that it may be in many places at one time, as Nestorius the heretike taught: or that hee sitteth not on Gods right hand, against that which in our creede wee ac­knowledge: or that he hath two bodies, the one in glorie [Page 57] and maiestie, with God in heauen, the other shrowded vn­der a little cake, the one visible in heauen, the other in­uisible in the earth, or else they must confesse, that he can­not be changed into that little peece of bread, that he may so be offered vp to God his father, for a sacrifice in the Eu­charist.

Of arguments whereby they defend this their sacramēt of penance they haue no great store, and those they aledge, haue no great strength. Their especiall, and in a manner onely place that they aledge out of the scripture, is, where­in it is said, Ioh. 20.22, 23 that Christ did breathe vpon his disciples, and said to them, Receiue the holy ghost, whose sins you remit, they are remitted to them, whose-soeuer sins you retaine, they are retained. For vpon this place doth the councell of Trent especially rely for this their do­ctrine, [...] [...] 4. ca. 5. as do also their other writers. Belike this place is very pregnant and plaine for their purpose, or else their cause is built vpon a weake foundation. Let vs therefore view the strength of this place, for proofe thereof for the [Page] which it is brought. This text m [...] st pro [...] th [...] p [...] is a sacrament properly so called, for to this and it is al­leaged by Bellarmine. But how it is prooued, De [...] te [...] let the in­different Reader iudge. And first, if we consider the expo­sitions of the ancient Fathers of the purer times, we shal see that they neuer gathered out of these wordes such a sa­crament. Read and search who will the commentaries and expositions of the most ancient Fathers, Cyril, Chryso­stome, Augustine, Theophilact, and others, they shal not finde that any of them haue out of this place taught the sa­crament of penance. The words themselues teach vs, that God hath giuen vnto his church authoritie and power to preach forgiuenes of sins, to them that are of a contrite and broken heart, and the danger of sin to the impenitent, as Peter Lombard himself one of the first establishers of this Popish sacrament confesseth, saying, that God hath giuen to the Priests power To binde and loose, that is, Lib. 4. dist. 18 Non a [...] tem. to shew that they are bound or losed. Which is agreeable to that that S. Luke of our sauiour Christ saith, Luc. 24.47. that repentance and remission of sins, should be preached in his name a­mong all nations, beginning at Ierusalem. As for any particular reckoning vp of sins, which they call Confessi­on auricular or forift in the eare of the Priest, without which secret Confession, saith Andradius. Orthod. e [...] ­plic. lib. 8. pag. 658. This diuine sa­crament could not long haue beene kept: or as for Sa­tisfaction that should be wrought for our sinnes by vs or our meanes, these things can not bee gathered out of the wordes alleadged. Nay, if that authoritie committed to the ministery wherof saint Mathew and S. Iohn speake, be to be expounded by the words of saint Luke, Mat [...] . 16.19. Ioh. 20.23. as I haue shewed that Peter Lombard doth, Popish shrift and satis­faction are quite ouerthrowen thereby, seeing that this lo­sing is the preaching of the forgiuenesse of sins in the name of Christ, that is, not for any Satisfaction that wee can make, but in respect of that Satisfaction that Christ hath wrought. It is therefore a wonder to see how boldly and [Page] confidently out of this Text they will auouch, that out of these wordes are plainly prooued the actes of the ab­solued, Bellar. de poenitent. lib. 1. ca. 10. that is Confession, and Satisfaction, which must needs be in him that is loosed to be from his sins. Is this to preach forgiuenesse in the name of Christ? Secondly, I finde not in the primitiue church any such doctrine of that their sacrament of penance, as nowe is taught. Indeede they required Confession, but especially to God, as throughout the auncient fathers wee may see, and name­ly in Tertullian his booke of repentance, which is by the Papists violently drawne in to bee a witnesse for them, but can say nothing that will doe them good in this cause.

And although the fathers doe also sometime allowe of Confession to man, and that priuately: yet did they ne­uer teach such necessitie therof, as that without it sinnes might not bee forgiuen, or that the mortall sinnes (for those onely must bee reckoned in Christ) cannot bee for­giuen, vnlesse the Priest haue them declared vnto him. Marke the writings of the Fathers, howe farre vn­like they are to the bookes of our Popish Cleargie, and Romish writers in our dayes. Tertullian, Ani­brose, Augustine, and others, haue made whole bookes of this title De paenitentia, of penance, or re­pentance. Chrysostome also hath made of that mat­ter eleuen Homilies: yet out of these auncient fathers this Popish doctrine of the sacrament of Penance cannot bee prooued, but that the teachers thereof, are for­ced here and there to get some peeces of sentences to make some shewe of proofe. And this verie shadowe of proofe is good enough to deceiue the ignoraunt and such as de­light in darkenesse, as the likenesse of men made of stone or other stuffe, set vpon the toppes of castels and holdes, make the enemie in the night afraide, for they think they are all men in deed, which in the day when they may bee viewed, doe easily shew what they are, namely stockes or [Page 59] stones. If Saint Ambrose had knowen any such Sacra­ment, might not he, writing two bookes of that matter, I meane of repentance, especially against the Nouatians who denied vnto such as offended after baptisme, any hope of pardō, although they repēted, might not he (I say) haue had from that sacrament of the church, if the church had then knowen any such sacrament, a strong and vnanswera­ble argument against Nouatus or his followers, for de­nying a Sacrament of the church? yes verily. But he vsed no such argument, because there was not then any such Sacrament. Nay, the matter was not agreed vpon ma­ny hundreth yeares after Saint Ambrose his time. For, as it appeareth by Gratian, de poen. dist. 1. c. quamuis. who liued about the yeare one thousand one hundred and fiftie, the matter was not then agreed vpon, but there were many and diuerse opi­nions, whether confession and satisfaction were necessa­ry for this Sacrament, some affirming, others denying it, and Gratian saith that on both opinions there were wise and godly men, and therefore hee leaueth it indiffe­rent. Which could not haue beene, if that their Sacra­ment of penaunce, had before beene perfected. There­fore as Andradius doth truelie gather out of that histo­rie of auricular confession banished out of the Church of Constantinople by Nectarius, Orthod. expl. li. 8. pag. 663. for a villanie committed by him that was appointed to heare confessions, that therefore they were vsed of olde, (although most falslie he teacheth that it beganne with the christian church: and as vntruelie applieth it against Kemnitius, who denieth not but secret confession hath of olde beene vsed, but not, as in the popish church) so if it were a thing to bee forbidden by man, we maie boldely saie, it was not orda [...] ned by God: but by man it was abolished, as appeareth by the ecclesiasticall history.

And whereas Andradius saith, Socrat li. 5. cap. 19. that the sacrament of penance began wi [...] h the christian church, Socrates in that place is directlie against him, who telleth vs that it [Page] beganne after Nouatus his heresie was published, which was about the yeare of our Lorde 220. For because the Nouatians would not communicate with them that deni­ed their profession in the persecution raised by Decius, the bishops therefore agreed amongst themselues, and appoin­ted some one to whom they might acknowledge their sins. So that heere we see against Andradius, that that confes­sion which being viewed is not like the popish shrifte, is more then 200 hundred yeares yonger then the Christian church. Moreouer, as of al other sacraments, so of this also the papists teach that it doth giue grace, and worke that grace that it doth signifie, Bellar. li. 1. de paenit. cap. 10. which grace is then when the outward signe is vsed, powred by God into them that re­ceiue the said signe. In which respect, as I take it, is that grosse absurdity set downe by Roffensis, Artic. 10. cont. Luthe­rum. That a sinner commeth oftentimes with faith, and without grace to the sacrament, who assone as hee hath receiued the sa­crament both he and his faith by grace are quickned. To say nothing of this popish paradox and far from al true taste of christian diuinity (that a man may haue faith and no grace, whereas in truth faith is Gods gift and that of his especiall grace) we see what vertue the papists doe attri­bute vnto this sacrament, as they doe call it, and yet Peter Lombard their owne friend, Li. sentent. 4. dist. 18. Levit. 13. (out of the priests office con­cerning leapers, who did only iudge whether they were cleane or foule, but hee coulde not make them lea­pers or not leapers, doth appoint also those limites vnto the priests concerning binding or loosing, or rather shew­eth, that such is their authority, not that they can make a­ny sinners, or voide of sinne, (which lesson he learned out of Hierom) but only to iudge whether they were sinners or not. vpon Matth. 16 By which he learneth, and plainely saith euen in this cause, that God doth not alwaies follow the iudgement of the church: And therefore god doth not alwaies binde or loose, as the church doth in her consistory. Is not this flatly to deny vnto this their sacrament, that working ver­tue [Page 60] and power which the papistes giue to it? Or rather is not this to deny it to be a sacrament, seeing it is denied not only by Saint Hierom, but also by a deare friend of theirs Peter Lombard, that it hath such vertue as they ascribe to their Sacraments? And heere their answere of the vn­worthines of him that receiueth this Sacrament, whereby he hindereth this worke of the Sacrament, will not serue. For we see that the iudgement of the church by their opi­nion doth only shew what men are, and according to it doth binde or loose, but it doth not make them good or bad. And therefore Chrisostome in an homily of repentance, Hom. 8. ad populum Antioch. Trust not (saith he) vnto thy repentance, for thy repentaunce is not able to take away so great sinnes. Now therefore we see, that nei [...] er the testimonie of the fathers, in their commentaries vpon this place, neither the words them­selues, if we looke vpon their naturall meaning, neither yet the practise of the church, for more then 1100. yeares, after Christ, can make these words to proue any sacrament of penance, which the papists so boldly without all proofe thrust vpon vs. For I pray you, where is the outward signe of this sacrament? Are these words, I absolue thee, Concil. Tri­den. Sess. 14. cap. 3. &c? But where are these words commanded? Bellarmine hath found them in these words, Whose sinnes you remit, are remitted, &c. And how doth hee proue it? Because the Lord would neuer grant vnto his Apostles power to for­giue sinnes, de pa [...] nit. li. 1. cap. 10. but he would haue that power exercised by some externall signe, for these are his words. We grant it, and for that cause hee hath appointed the ministery of the gospell: but the promises are generall, and whether they publikely, or priuately, are to be vsed to the comforte of the afflicted, we finde not in the scripture any set forme set downe for absolution: and therefore in the scriptures they cā neuer find that outward signe which is required in a sa­crament. And therefore it seemeth that Bellarmine scarce­ly dareth to defend that which the councell of Trent hath taught, concerning the forme of this their sacrament. For [Page] the councell of Trent saith, Li. 1. de poen. cap. 16. that these wordes are the forme of their Sacrament of penance. But master Bel­larmine saith, we are not tied to those wordes, but that these words, I remit thee thy sinnes, will also serue the turne. For this matter let them agree amongst themselues. But they must shew vs some outwarde signe appointed by Christ for this Sacrament, or els we must denie it to be a Sacrament. And that they haue laboured to doe these ma­ny yeares, and yet they cannot doe it. But M. Bellarmine striueth earnestly to proue that place, whose sinnes so euer you remit, they are remitted, not to be spokē of baptisme. We will ease him of some labour, we will graunt that it is not spoken only of that remission, that therein is done. Man is like a ruinous house, that must alwaies be repaired by repentance. Hom. 3. de paenitentia. We haue alwaies need to pray, forgiue vs our trespasses. Chrisostome pretily compareth sinne in man, to an oake tree, which he that will cut it downe, must strike not once, or twise only, but often, yea he must neuer leaue vntill it fall. So must we flie alwaies to this reme­dy, not only once, or twise, but ten thousands of times, if so often we offend, yea alwaies. The comfort of this promise therefore, we will in no wise restraine to the time of our baptisme only: but we confesse that that forgiuenesse of sinnes, which in our baptisme is sealed vp vnto vs, hath force and vertue, through our whole life: and there­by are we assured, that this promise of the forgiuenes of our sinnes, and remitting of the same is most certaine and true, and belongeth to our whole life, and to euery sinne that we commit.

Now this forgiuenes say (the papists) must be applied vnto vs by the sacrament of penaunce. They should proue that: for in matters of religion their credite is not so good that we dare trust them. And the lesse wee trust them in this matter, because we are sure that God hath giuen vnto vs other meanes to apply his mercy vnto vs, namely his word: for applying whereof vnto our consciences, hee hath [Page 61] appointed his ministery in his church. Yea, he hath giuen his word to be read and knowne of euery bodie. Then also hath he giuen vs Sacraments, to confirme vs in this word, and to make vs more confidently to beleeue it, and more faithfully to receiue it. These therefore are the meanes whereby our faith is nourished, and made more bolde and strong, to apply to our humbled hartes those comfortable promises of Gods good graces, which in the words are of­fered, and by baptisme, and the supper of the Lord are sea­led vp in our consciences. Nowe, other Sacramentes we know not, and namelie this of penance. Neither is there any necessarie consequence in this argument: These wordes are spoken of remission of sinnes, after bap­tisme: therefore there must needes bee a Sacrament of penance. And that should bee proued. And therefore to grant him that, which hee so striueth for, will doe him no good. After this one place that Bellarmine hath out of the Scriptures, he commeth to the fathers, De paenit. li. 1. cap. 10. who because they afforde him no plaine proofe, he indeuoureth to wring something from them by indirect meanes. The proofe therefore that he hath from them, as himselfe professeth, is either because that when they reckon vp the true Sacra­mentes, they often make mention of repentance also, or els they compare it with the sacrament of baptisme, shew­ing that it is God that worketh in them both. Had it not bin better to yeeld vnto the truth, then thus before hee proueth any thing out of the fathers to proclaime the weakenes of his proofe? For is not this a weake argument: The fathers in reckoning vp the sacraments do often also make mention of penance: therfore it is a sacramēt. Or this: bap­tisme & repētāce are many times cōpared togither, but the one is a sacramēt properly so called: therfore also the other must so be? I trust the weaknes of that argument is easie to spie out, seeing the fathers may in diuers respects speak of the sacraments, other than of their sacramentall nature, or of those things which they seeme to match with the sa­craments [Page] in speech, not minding to make any mo sacra­ments, than Christ left vnto the church: therefore so long as his arguments are but coniectures, euen by his owne confession, it is but lost labour to bestow any more time thereupon. Therefore, although we confesse that our whole life should be a continuall profiting in the doctrine of repen­taunce, and the practise thereof, yet the sacrament of pe­nāce we iustly reiect, because neither the scripture nor most ancient fathers, yeeld any plaine testimony thereof.

These grosse absurdities being thus euen by their owne bookes proclaimed vnto the world, I might say to our Pa­pists, Ad Ceesi­phontem. as S. Hierom did to the Pelagians, To lay forth your opinions, is to confute you. Your blasphemie is euē at the first very manifest: there is no need to refell that which is of it selfe blasphemous: Yet for the satisfaction of the ignorant, it is not amisse to lay open the principall grounds wherevpon this their sacrament is built. It hath (say they) all those things which are of necessitie required in a sacrament: namely, the outward signe, the promise of inward grace, and lastly, the commaundement, or Gods in­stitution. The outward signe they made to be imposition of hands: Bellar. lib. 1 de sacra. Ord. Chap. 2. Ibidem. for so saith Bell. And yet afterwards being better ad­uised, considering also that euen some of his owne friends, thinke that laying on of handes is but an accidentall thing vnto this sacrament, and that the very necessary matter of this sacrament, Cap. 9. is the cup with wine, and the couer thereof with bread, (for then is it said to them, Receiue power to offer a sacrifice, when these things are deliuered) he affir­meth that not only the giuing to thē of these things, but al­so the laying on of hands, is the matter or visible forme of [Page 63] this sacrament. Wherby we learn that themselues are not well resolued as yet, what shall bee the externall signe in this sacrament. For in deed that which Christ did when hee ordained ministers, that externall signe (I say) they make small account of: for he Breathing on them said, Iohn 20. Tract. in Iohn. 121 re­ceyue ye the holy Ghost. Whereby Christ would teach (as saint Augustine thinketh) that the holy Ghost procee­deth from the father and the sonne also. And no maruell if they vrge not that ceremonie: for Christ himselfe is not verie curious in that point. Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.15 Mar. 10.6, 7 And as himselfe did not com­maund that ceremonie to bee vsed: so neither did himselfe practise it any more but that once, as may appeare in sun­drie places, where hee authoriseth his Apostles to preach without breathing vpon them. And nowe, for laying on of handes, which many times the Apostles vsed, wee haue not only the testimonie of manie in the popish church, that thinke it not to be the principall outward signe in this sacrament, but thinke the giuing of a chalice with wine, and the couer of it with bread, to be more essentiall and ef­fectuall: but also we see that there is no commaundement giuen to the Apostles for it, and therefore neither doe they commaund it to be vsed, as a thing so necessarie that it may not be omitted. And whereas we acknowledge this cere­monie to haue sundrie vses: first in respect of the church, the partie ordained is by that ceremonie notified vnto the church: secondly, he is confirmed thereby in his calling, put in minde of his dutie, and assured of his vocation by this common approbation, that hereby the church sheweth. Thirdly, thereby the church doeth testifie, as it were before God, their sincere dealing in their election, and consecrate him to the seruice of God. Lastly, the Godly vsed manie times in praying for others, to lay their hands vpon them. Bellarmine in the place aboue named bestoweth some paines, to proue, that praier and laying on of hands are two distinct things, which is not denied. To be short, the summe of his argument is this: it was vsed of the Apostles, there­fore [Page] it is so necessarie that it cannot be omitted. We answer that that ceremonie had good vses, but yet might be omit­ted. Because our sauiour Christ did neither vse it nor com­maund it. And to thinke that he omitted anie substantial point of religion, or that the Apostles would account as simply necessary any thing not vsed or prescribed by Christ, is to absurd. And whereas they proue the promise of iusti­fying grace to be made by Christ, vnto them that receyue this their sacrament of Orders, I wonder that they see not, how y ^t both many are iustified that neuer entered into their Orders, & many also that haue had, and haue their greasing and scraping, are as wicked men, and so by likelihood as far from this iustifying grace as Turkes or Iewes. And so it easily appeareth, that this second thing required in a sa­crament, namely that it should seale in vs the promise of iustification, hath not so much as anie likelihoode, to bee in this their sacrament of Orders. The third thing necessarie in a sacrament is Gods commaundement, wher­in they confesse their want, and that they haue no com­maundement. But yet because God did giue grace with laying on of the Apostles handes, 1 Tim. 4. Bellar. de ord. sacra. li. 1. ca. 2. therefore they take it as commaunded of God. If this bee a good argumente God gaue g od successe to it: therefore it is commaun­ded of God, many strange partes in Sampson, Iehu, and others, will prooue to be commaunded of God: but that is most false, as the Papists themselues will confesse. God did not onely prosper Phinehas, Numb. 25 in that which he at­tempted against Zimrie, and Cosby, but commended the fact also, and graciously rewarded the same, but yet he had no commaundement for so doing. Therefore al­though God may bee saide in some sort to like of that to which he giueth good successe, yet no man can thereby con­clude, that God hath commaunded it: But rather on the contrary, we may thus reason. The laying on of hands was neither practised by our sauiour Christ, neither commaun­ded by him or his Apostles: therefore that ceremonie is not [Page 64] of such necessitie, but that ordination may bee without it. Yea but Christ is not tyed to the sacrament (sayth master Bellarmine) and therefore can giue the effect of the sa­crament without the sacrament, Cap. 2. li. 1. hee can make Priestes without laying on of handes. That hee can so doe, wee confesse, but that hee dealeth so in the institution of sa­craments, all the Papists in the worlde will neuer bee a­ble to proue: for in them we see that all things are most plaine, the outward signe, the promise, the commaunde­ment, nothing in them hidden, nothing doubtfull. But be­cause himselfe dare not well rest vpon that answere, hee concludeth that seconde chapter with another aunswere, for hee telleth vs, that it may bee that Christ did lay his hands vpon them whom he made ministers. Is this good dealing? Doeth not this manifestly bewray the weakenesse of their cause, when such friuolous coniec­tures are the chiefe strength of their cause? As for the Fathers whatsoeuer out of them they doe alledge, can­not prooue that which they take in hande: namely, that the sacrament of Orders is a sacrament like to Bap­tisme and the Eucharist. For all men must confesse, that these two sacraments, which wee acknowledge to be common to all Christians, are farre vnlike in that point to that popish sacrament, which belongeth but vnto a fewe.

And euen in this consisteth especially the true vse of Baptisme, and of the Eucharist, that they should be gene­nerall testifications vnto the whole church of Gods gra­ces, and seales of his promises, and pledges of his loue and fauour, And therefore the fathers sometime call Ordination a sacrament, yet it followeth not, that they take it to bee a sacrament in the proper sense, but in that sense onely as they call manie other things Sa­craments, which the Popish Church doeth not receyue as Sacraments. De Sacrat. ord. li: 1. ca [...] But (say they) the Fathers com­pare Ordination with Baptisme. For Bellarmine maketh [Page] great reckoning of that argument. The fathers may be so in some respect, because the sacrament of Baptisme can­not be reiterated: no more must he that is once ordained to the ministerie, seeke to be ordayned againe for euerie action that he performeth in his ministerie, but hee is once for all appointed thereto. But what is that to the nature of the sacrament, which must by a visible signe assure vs of inui­sible graces. So that, athough Ordination be like to Bap­tisme, after a sort, yet is it not like to Baptisme, in that it by a visible signe doeth assure vs of inuisible graces: but onely, because it is not to bee reiterated no more than Baptisme is. And thus wee see the weakenesse of this argument: Ordination is in some poynt like to Baptisme: therefore it is a sacrament in such sort as Bap­tisme is. Thus then, I trust it appeareth howe weakely they proue Ordination to be a sacrament, who haue nei­ther scriptures, Matt. 28.19 nor fathers for the same. But if they could prooue that Ordination which Christ vsed to bee a sacrament, what is that to Popish Ordination? Christ sent the Apostles to preach, Goe teach all nations: but by their ordination the popish priests Receiue power to offer a sacrifice. The Apostles executed their commis­sion which Christ gaue them, as appeareth in the Acts and their Epistles. And the popish priests on the other side thinke there is no seruice any thing so pleasing to God, as the offering of sacrifices. We see then, that as Ordination, euen as Christ and his Apostles vsed it, is not a sacra­ment properly so called: so popish Ordination is nothing but a meere prophanation of Christs order, and a wilfull breach of his commaundement, and therefore most vnworthie of the name of a Sacra­ment.

That matrimony is not a sacrament, speaking of a sa­crament properly, as when wee call baptisme or the supper of the Lord sacraments, it is most plaine: First, because the things that are required in a sacrament, are not to bee found in it, namely, an outward signe, a promise of iusti­fying grace, Gods institution or commandement. As for the commaundement, some woulde wring it out of these [Page] wordes, Matth. 19.6. That which God hath ioyned together, let no man put asunder. But that is onely a prohibition, that man shal not loose that knot which God hath knit, there is no sacrament commaunded. And master Bellarmine spying that fault, dareth not commend their indeuor there­in, but taketh another course. For he thinketh his friends troubled themselues more than they needed, to be too curi­ous, in searching where it is commanded to be made a sa­crament. But if Gods commandement, or the institution of the sacrament be necessarily required in a sacrament (as Master Bellarmine hath often shewed) the Papists (by his leaue) shall either shew, De sacram. matrimon. lib. 1. cap. 2. when, and how, it was instituted to be a sacrament, or else there is no cause that we should trust them, although they al had sworne, that it is one. For in truth this their doctrine is so doubtful & vncertaine, that themselues know not what to say of it. For, some thinke that it hath alwayes bin a sacrament, euen from the begin­ning of the worlde: De sacram. matrimon. lib. 1. cap. 5 Sess. 24. can. 2. but Bellarmine wil not in any wise a­gree to that. And the councel of Trent is flat of that mind, that it is a sacrament instituted by Christ, and therfore not of the old law. If then it be true, that matrimony was not a sacrament vntil Christ made it one, it is needful that they should prooue, that Christ hath made it a sacrament, before we can receiue it for one. And this reason is very strong a­gainst master Bellarmine, who reasoneth against them that think that matrimony was a sacrament of the old law, because, It is not read (saith he) that there was any insti­tution of marriage in al the olde testament: Ioh. 5.32. he meaneth after mans fall. Therefore, if they prooue no institution of it, they prooue no Sacrament. Nowe for the second point. For to prooue it to be an outward signe they bring those wordes of Saint Paule, This is a great sacrament (for so the old translation hath) but the word signifieth also a mysterie or secret. But wee will not contend of the worde. Will they imagine that this word can prooue ma­trimony to be a sacrament? Wee see that Christ and his [Page 66] Apostles are more carefull of the true vse of the Sacra­mentes, than of their names, as may appeare by those two Sacramentes which we acknowledge, which are not so much as named sacramentes. Secondly, to proue it to be a sacrament, it is not enough to shew that it is a signe of a holy thing, but that it was instituted to bee such a signe. And that can they neuer doe in this. Sacr. mat. li. 1. cap. 5. For it was instituted in paradise, where it was no such signe as themselues con­fesse, as is shewed, yea Bellarmine denieth that there is in matrimony any outward signe by the institution of it. So that although it represent vnto vs (to our vnspeakeable comfort) the vnion and coniunction, betweene Christ and his church, yet that it was not instituted to that end, & that it is not an outward signe by the institution of it, it is most plaine. But how will they proue the third thing, namely the promise of saluation to be in this their sacrament? For sooth because it representeth vnto vs the spirituall loue of Christ to his church, & hir obediēce to him againe. That is also performed in euery body of mā or womā, if we marke the vnion betweene the members and the head. In euery vine tree, yea in euery plant, if wee consider the coherence betweene the branches and the tree. Yea many such things there are that haue as much in thē belonging to a sacramēt as matrimony hath. And yet howsoeuer they may be vnto vs, if we cōsider of thē as we may do, I neuer heard or read that euer they were accōpted sacramēts in the proper sence. And why? because God neuer appointed them to that end. for in the sacramēts Christs institutiō is the especial thing, how little account so euer M. Bellar. make of it. The 2. ar­gument whereby I proue matrimony not to be a sacramēt is, bicause that many of the scholemen, who are the especial friends to those popish sacraments, doubt whether matri­monie giueth grace, which the popish church doth attri­bute to all sacraments. For as Canus reporteth: De locis Theol. li. 8. cap. 5. the Ma. of sentences, Thomas of Aquine, Scot, Bonauenture, Rich. de S. victore, Paludanus, Durand & others do not define, [Page] whether it giue grace or not, but leaue it to euery mans owne opinion. As for the matter or forme of this sacrament (to vse Canus his words) these schoolemen do shew them­selues so vnconstant and wauering, so vncertaine and doubtfull, that he shoulde but prooue himselfe a foole, that in such difference and disagreement, would set downe any thing for certaine or true. And for that cause the Councell of Florence (saith he) decreed nothing of the matter, forme, or minister of this sacrament, because it saw, that the Di­uines in the schooles had concluded nothing of them. See­ing therfore themselues within so few yeares doubted, yea and are not yet fully resolued, whether that sacrament giue grace, without the which it cannot bee a sacrament in the Popish church: they giue vs iust cause to suspect, nay flat­ly to affirme, that it was not a sacrament instituted by Christ. For if it had, before this time doubtlesse them­selues at the least woulde haue resolued of such principall points thereof. And if Christ did not institute it a sacra­ment, then also we may deny it at all to bee a sacrament: For neither men nor angels may institute any sacraments (as Bellarmine hath truely noted. De sacram. Matrim. lib. 1. cap. 2. Neither are they yet agreed, whether euery marriage is this their sacrament. For Canus in the place before alleaged, thinketh not any matrimony to be this sacrament, but that onely that is so­lemnized by the Priest. But Bellarmine with all the skill he hath opposeth himselfe against him, De sacram. Matrim. lib. 1. cap. 7 yea, it is high time he should so do. For hee plainely confesseth, that if that opinion of Canus be true, then they shall neuer out of the scriptures or councels bee able to prooue the sacrament of matrimony.

Then wee see it standeth him vpon to doe what he can: For, either must the marriages not solemnized by the Priests, bee this sacrament (and so euery man and wo­man is a minister in this sacrament) which his own friends will in no wise graunt vnto him: or else matrimony is not a sacrament. And then they haue deceiued the world some [Page 67] hundreds of yeeres. Thirdly, matrimony can not be a sa­crament, because the promise of grace is common vnto all sorts of men and women. And therfore the sacraments and signes also of those graces shoulde belong vnto all sortes. But in the Popish church matrimony is denied to some sortes, as to their cleargie: Therefore, by their owne doc­trine it can not be a Sacrament, especially such a Sacra­ment as baptisme and the eucharist, for they are com­mon to all sortes: Marriage lawfull for all men. but matrimony (they say) must not so be. And this is the second point of their doctrine which must be examined. For it seemeth to mee very strange, that they, who haue nowe so magnified this estate of life, that it must be no lesse than a holy sacrament, doe so so­dainely debase the same, that they thinke it not pure e­nough for their shorne and annointed creatures. But I looke that they should come against mee with an answere out of master Bellarmine, De sacram. matrim. ca. 5 that their Priestes in deede are forbidden to marry, but not in that respect that it is a sacrament, but because of those things that followe mar­riage, and are impediments and lets to them in their cal­ling. And yet neither all the consequents of marriage are denied to their clergie: For master Bellarmine telleth vs there, that if a man and wife being married together will promise continencie, they may well enough take their or­ders, and are truely both married folkes and priests. So that not cares or troubles that are incident vnto married folkes oftentimes, are any thing to bee respected in this case: For cleargy men may haue all these, but the especi­all duety of marriage they may not perfourme. Where­by the Papists to defend the credit of this their sacrament, doe robbe the Cleargie of that thing which is the especi­all representation of the coniunction of Christ and of his church, whilest they would make these beleeue, that the performaunce of the duety betweene man and wife, is a thing not to be suffered in Cleargie men.

The very ground of this assertion of master Bellar­mines, [Page] is that hee thinketh not the copulation of married folke to bee of the substaunce of Matrimonie. And this he prooueth by some testimonies out of the fathers in that fift Chapter. But yet himselfe will not, that this his say­ing should bee so vnderstoode, as if that hee sayd, that the vse of marriage is not any way of the substaunce of mar­riage. Chap. 6 For afterwardes hee sayeth, that this their sa­crament may haue two respects. As it is made, and as it is continued. As it made, that is, (if I be not deceyued) as the mutuall consent of parties ioyneth them together by their promises, the consent expressed by such wordes, is the matter and forme of their sacrament. And thus must wee vnderstand that common rule in their lawe, that consent maketh marriages. And thus doe the fathers vnderstand that which they say concerning the substaunce of marri­age to consist in the mutuall consent: partly, because af­ter such consent giuen, the parties are not free to chaunge the choyse which they haue made: Deu. 22, 23 24 And partly because that euen by Gods lawe, if parties after such consent giuen, shoulde carnally knowe another, it was death for them so to doe: which could not bee, but because this their con­sent is after a sort the marriage it selfe. This, if it repre­sent any thing to vs, doeth but represent that ioyning of Christ with vs by spirituall loue, Chap. 5 as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth. But that is not any speciall benefite, or sin­gular: For hee loueth all his creatures, and wept for the destruction of his enemies: And one man may be so ioy­ned with another. But it is a speciall grace, that marri­age representeth vnto vs: to vs (I say) that after a pe­culiar manner belong to him. Namely, howe wee are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, howe our bodies are the members of Christs bodie, howe in deed hee is, as in name hee is called, God with vs. This is represented vnto vs, but by that copulation that is be­tweene man and wife, whereby, as before by consent they were of one minde, so nowe by it they are one bodie. For [Page 68] by copulation the wife is made one bodie with her hus­bande. And this doe I take to bee confessed by maister Bellarmine himselfe, when hee telleth vs that in the se­conde respect by Matrimonie, is meant that which conti­nueth. And then must the bodyes of them that are mar­ryed needes be the matter of this sacrament, euen their co­pulation and dwelling togither. And therefore he allow­eth well of the iudgement of Peter Soto, that thinketh euen this vse of Matrimonie to bee the matter, not one­ly about which this Sacrament is occupyed, but of which it is made or consisteth. If then it bee the matter of their Sacrament, which they denie to their Cleargie, it is not true that maister Bellarmine saide, that they denie not their Cleargie men to marrie, as marriage is a sacra­ment. For they deny that to them which is the substance of their sacrament.

This may also appeare by the definition of matrimo­nie, which we may finde in the fathers. Strom. 2. li. De Monog. Marriage (sayeth Clemens of Alexandria) is the first lawfull ioyning toge­ther of man and woman, for the procreation of children. And Tertullian is inquisitiue what is marriage before God, and findeth it to bee when God ioyneth together two into one flesh. Then if we wil speake properly of mar­riage, it is the ioyning together, not of minds, or heartes onely, but of bodies also. Yea, li. 1. chap. 5 De Sacram. matrim. and it is confessed by mai­ster Bellarmine, that such marriages as haue not copula­tion, are but a maimed and vnperfect Sacrament, and that Priestes may so be married. And howe his fellowes will take this at his handes, I cannot tell: that they who count themselues most perfect, should not bee admit­ted but to that vnperfect Sacrament, whereas the com­mon sort, and knowne sinners, might bee partakers of the perfect Sacrament. But let them order those matters amongest themselues. But saint Basil perchance would admit them to the vse of marriage, since maister Bellar. doth permit them to marry, De vera Virginitate. so that they abstaine frō [Page] the vse of it. For (saith he) since the reason of the minde directing, hath manifestly ioined their hearts in respect of some necessitie, worthily doth the vnitie of bodies, to which they are knit, folow those hearts so vnited: wher­in this lerned father seemeth to me to be of that mind, that there is no cause, but that whosoeuer may in heart be ioined vnto another as to his wife, may also in bodie bee ioyned with her. And so if it be lawfull for them to marry, and to continue married, Cap. 5. as Bellarmine confesseth, it is also law­full for them to haue the vse of marriage, as saint Basill here saieth. But what is the reason why they stande so much in this matter? Are they not men? haue they not infirmities? Can they who this day finde themselues to be voyde of such assaults, as are the fruites of wanton lusts, promise to themselues that they shall bee so to morrowe likewise, and so to continue also? Let no man deceyue himselfe in that foolish imagination: no body can assure themselues of anie such thing, it is a rare gift of God. All men cannot receiue this thing, Mat. 19.11 1. Cor. 7, 7 17 De monac. li. 2. cap. 31 but they to whome it is giuen. If it be a gift of God, as Bellar. confesseth, it is too much presumption for vs to be so bold to promise it, as though it were within our owne reach. If it bee care, it is too much wickednesse, and too great occasion of offence, for the church of Rome to require it, so as they doe of all their cleargie. Yea, but they teach this as a doctrine that needes must bee beleeued, De Cler. li. 1 cap. 21 and with a full consent, and namely Bellarmine, That they haue the gift of con­tinencie that will. And againe, That there is no man that cannot liue continently, if himselfe will. Of this doc­trine of free will. I shall God willing speake more large­ly hereafter. But now for this bolde and grosse affirma­tion, I am verily perswaded, that it neuer could haue come from any man, vnlesse either his minde were blinded with ignorance, that hee saw not the trueth of his owne estate, or his heart were either possessed with such a senselesnesse that it could feele no sinne, or else so bent to resist the [Page 69] truth, that he would not yeeld to it, although hee knewe it. For what can bee found in the scriptures more com­mon, than the falles of the godly, the faults of Gods ser­uants, their complaints, their sighes, yea, their teares, be­cause of their sinnes? Shall we say, they sinned willingly, or that they walked not carefully in their wayes? S. Paul then wil proue vs to be liars, who for his part doth testifie, To will is present with me, Rom. 7.18 19 but I finde no way to per­forme that which is good. For I doe not the good thing which I would, but the euill which I would not, that doe I. Wee see, saint Paule would faine not haue done euill, but yet hee did it. Shall wee say, we are stronger than hee was? Then are wee fooles, and knowe nothing of our owne weakenesse. For this cause Paule willeth the yonger widowes, not to vowe chastitie, or striue for it, 1. Tim. 5.14 but to marrie, and doe such dutyes. Yea, and if the scriptures should not teach vs this, let vs but looke into our selues, and considering indifferently, and without partiality, how subiect we are to sinne, we must confesse, that if the A­postle had cause to sigh, wee may iustly tremble [...] d quake for feare. If hee complaine and mourne, wee may in bitternesse and anguish of soule crie out: for his weak­nesse shall bee founde strength, if it bee compared with our readinesse to fast. And yet I confesse, that God will giue grace to them that aske it, and let them that seek find, so that they aske and seeke in such sort as they ought to doe, and such things as are necessarie for them, to walke in their calling. But to aske, that we should not stand in need of that helpe and remedie agaynst sinne, that God hath prouided, or that wee should liue a more angellicall life, than hee hath appoynted vs to doe, is to tempt God in as­king without our warrant, and therefore without fayth, and to despise that measure of grace that God hath vou­chedsafe to bestowe vpon vs. The treasure is great that wee who are Gods ministers doe carrie, although in earthen vessels, that the power might bee of God, 2. Cor. 4.7 and [Page] not of vs. It is inough for vs if the Lord keepe vs so [...] his great goodnesse from falling, that we bee not dashed in peeces, and bee a reproch to this excellent worde of life. So that wee honour him, and glorifie his name, in what estate of life so euer it be, whether single life, or mariage, it maketh no matter. Gods will be done, and Gods name be praysed for it. Well then we see beggers must be no choo­sers, but looke what hee hath appointed vs to haue, let vs bee heartily thankefull for it, and craue Gods good spirite to direct vs in that way.

Seeing then it appeareth, I trust, that neither to liue vnmaried without burning in lust, is in our power, nei­ther yet it is needfull that anie should striue for that, vn­lesse hee see that God hath giuen him that gift, let vs yet further consider, what it is that they so much mislike in mariage. Cens. col. diall. 3 Ad Himer. They say, that it doeth open a doore vnto wantonnesse, and putteth fire to all lustes: And as Pope Sericius sayeth: for such to marrie is nothing else, but to liue in the flesh, yea, in pollution, and that they cannot please God. Censur. col. dial. 3. Yea, blasphemously doe the Iesuites of Colen call it the life of Sardanapalus for a Priest to mar­rie. But more like to the saying of a plaine Atheist, is that saying of that man of Colen, that a man were better to haue a hundred harlots, one after another, than one wife. And our countrey man Doctour Smith, in his booke of vowes and single life, D. Smith Obiection 8 is not ashamed to affirme, that it is a lesse sinne for one that hath made a vow, to take to him­selfe a harlot, then to marrie, we heare his impudencie: let vs heare what reason hee hath for him. If hee commit whoredome (sayeth hee) hauing vowed chastitie, he is at his libertie when he will to reforme his life, and to change it into a chast life. What man can doe in such case as I haue sayde before. But if they bee married, can they not also abstaine from the vse of marriage vpon iust cau­ses? Hath not the Apostle giuen plaine order, what shall bee done in that case? Doeth the Apostle giue [Page 70] commaundement, yea or counsell eyther, 1 Cor. 7.5. that men and women shoulde vowe, that they may bee the more free to serue God? No, but the contrarie rather. For al­though hee Suppose that it is good for the present ne­cessitie, that a man should continue a single life, 1 Cor. 7.26 whi­lest afflictions and great daungers did oppresse those first dayes of Christ his church, and they had no safetie to themselues, so that care for their wiues and children, might withdrawe them from their holie obedience and patient profession: 1. Cor. 7.2 yet notwithstanding hee woulde to a­uoyde fornication, that euery man shoulde haue his wife, and euerie woman her owne husbande▪ marke euerie man, euerie woman, none excepted. And againe: But if they cannot abstaine, let them marrie: for it is better to marrie than to burne. Doeth the Apostle open the doore vnto wantonnesse in permitting marriage to all, excepting none? Yea, and that men should not be too rash in making their vowes in this case, hee willeth that such as are married, defraude not one another, no not to giue themselues to fasting and prayer, but onely for a time, and so to come together againe, least Sathan shoulde tempt them for their incontinencie.

And for single life it is commended by the Apostle no further, then whilest a man standeth firme in his owne heart that he hath no neede, but hath power ouer his owne will. And it is worth the marking, howe Smith here, and also all the Papists almost in this poynt, doe so directly oppose themselues vnto the Apostles doc­trine, as if they had sworne to giue him the lye in his throte. For whereas hee sayeth of all, of all (I say) and not of laie men onely, It is better to marrie than to burne, this doting doctour Smith sayth, and so do his fellowes: it is better for a priest, not to burne onely, but euen to commit whoredome, than to marrie. It is better to haue a hundred harlots, (sayeth another) than only one lawfull wife. Lawfull (I say) because that howsoeuer [Page] some filthy men, condemne in some, that holy institution, yet Gods word doth not only suffer and also commend it, but euen command it to all that cannot liue without it, but that they must burne in lust. And Ciprian doth plainelie permit it vnto them whom we call Nunnes, saying, that If they will not, Epist. li. 1. ep. 11. or cannot continue (in virginity) it is better that they should marry, than that by their wan­tonnes they should fall into the fire. Which wordes, be­cause they are very flatte against the popish doctrine of vowes, the papists doe striue to finde some plaister for that wound. de Monach. li. 2. cap. 34. And amongst others, Bellarmine (liking nothing of that which Hosius, and others haue saide before him of this place, of Ciprian) imagineth that he hath hit the naile vpon the head. His answer is, that yet whilst they are free, and haue made no vow, if they see they cannot continue, Ciprian faith, it is best for them to marry. But that master Bellarmine hath as far missed the cushion, as others before him haue done: and that his answere is most vntrue, I proue, first by the question which was moued vnto Cipri­an. For Pomponius to whom he writeth, did aske of Ci­prian, what hee should thinke of some women, who had professed virginity, and yet were founde in bed with men. So that if he answere directly to Pomponius his questi­on he sheweth what should be done, with such as had alrea­dy vowed, and not of such as were to make the vow. Se­condly, in the very words next before, it doth most plainelie appeare, that he maketh two sorts of such as haue made the vow, the one sort he would haue to continue, namely such as through faith haue yeelded themselues to Christ: the other of them that will not, or cannot. Thirdly, that which fol­loweth, that to excuse themselues they would offer to bee tried by women, whether they were virgins, (for vnto that their excuse Ciprian maketh answere) is so strong an argument, as master Bellarmine, and all his friends, will neuer be able to answere, to proue that those words of Ci­prians are not ment, neither can be vnderstood, of such as [Page 71] stood in doubt, whether they would vow or not, as master Bellarmine affirmeth, but of such as after their vow, nei­ther would, nor could perseuere in their purpose. For if that only had beene their doubt, whether they could conti­nue virgins, that matter the women could not iudge of. If whether they were virgins, it is directly against master Bellarmines answere to this place. It is not therefore to giue occasion of wantonnes, to teach mariage to be lawfull for all men, as without shame they affirme, as by the holie Apostle and that learned father appeareth, but they that condemne it, doe let loose the raines vnto all vncleanenes, as saith Saint Bernard, Super cant, serm. 66. and they that forbid mariage vnto some sorts, doe sow the bad seed of vngodly life, and wan­ton lusts, the fruit whereof hath defiled the whole worlde. But what? Is it forbidden by God himselfe? They know not well how to answere to this question. For the Master of Sentences, for ought that I see, hath said nothing of that matter. And he is their very oracle, who, if he hold his peace, they know not what to thinke of the matter. But Iohn Maior, Clichtouaeus and some others, doe affirme that this single life is commanded by God himselfe. But Thomas, whom for the most part master Bellarmine is de­uoted vnto, and sundry others doe plainlie saie, that God hath giuen no law concerning single life. De clerici [...] . li. 1. cap. 28. And that master Bellarmine doth not only allow, but proueth it so to be, with whom we are also willing to ioine. For it is most true that there is not one such commandement in all the scrip­ture, neither yet is it necessarie that priestes should liue a single life, or vnmaried, both which things master Bellar­mine hath in that place. If God then haue not commanded it, neither the thing is necessary, let master Bellarmine bring what els he can to proue it, he shall not much trouble vs about his vnnecessary precepts. But the Apostle (saith he) hath commanded it. A bishop must be continent. De cler. li. 1. cap. 19. Tit. 1.8. Al­though continent and chaste is in truth all one thing, yet master Bellarmine wil not thinke it sufficient that a bishop [Page] should be chaste because he knoweth that Saint Augustine and other of the fathers affirme that there is chastity in ma­riage, but he will doubtles spie some greater vertue in con­tinency then in chastity, and therefore he will haue a bishop not chast only, but also continent. But if we must seeke for a difference betweene these two wordes, I take this to be it, that continencie is of shorter continuance, that is to say, but an abstinence for a time, and chastitie is a vertue that indureth. And the examples brought by master Bellar­mine himselfe approue this difference. But Chrisostome and Theophilact, doe take continencie to be an abstinence not from lusts only, but from al vice, so that as Theophi­lact saith, he must rule his tongue, his handes, and his eies. Hierom vpon these wordes saith plainelie, that the Apo­stle neuer speaketh of continencie or incontinencie, but in respect of wanton lustes, but yet he taketh continencie, to be such a vertue, as may be in maried folke. And therefore the Apostle (saith he) hauing spoken of a bishop, that hee may haue one wife, least he should seeme to permit incon­tinencie, to them addeth this: and with Hierom agreeth Primasius. So that they make continent, and chaste, all one. 1. Cor. 7.3.4.5. For although married folke must performe the duties of mariage one to another, yet so, as they passe not the boundes of chastitie or continencie. This reason then is not good. Priests must by Saint Paules rule bee con­tinent, therefore they must haue no wiues. But on the contrarie. Saint Paul in that verie place, where he requireth in a bishop continencie, doth permit at the least, that he shoulde be the husband of one wife, therefore in mariage there may be continencie. Tit. 1.6. As for that which hee alleadgeth out of Councels, popes, fathers and reason, because they proue not that which hee hath vndertaken to proue, Chap. 19. it is not worth an answere. For the title of that Chapter is, That single life by the Apostolicke law is verie well tyed to the holie orders. And when hee hath snatched at one poore worde, and findeth no greate [Page 72] helpe in it, hee seeketh to prooue by Councels, popes, fathers and reason, that single life hath beene commen­ded of some, commaunded of others. But that the A­postles commaunded it, hee prooueth not, and that hee tooke in hande. But on the contrarie, the Canons that are called the Apostles, haue this Canon, Can. 6, Let not a bishop or Priest put awaie his wife, vnder pretence of religi­on. If hee doe it, let him bee excommunicated, if hee stande in it, let him bee reiected. But what saith master Bellarmine to this? He answereth out of one Humbert a Cardinall, that to put away his wife, de cler. li. [...] . cap. 2 [...] . is to haue no care of his wife. But if we marke the fiftieth Canon of the A­postles wherein there is a prouiso, that none shoulde ab­staine from mariage because hee thinketh it to bee euill, it will easilie appeare, that the sixt Canon was made, to o­uerthwart the foolish opinion of them, that condemned ma­riage as a thing more vncleane, then that it should be fit for priestes or bishops. And thus much to proue, that mariage of priestes is not euill of it selfe, or vnlawfull in respect of any commandement in Gods word. Now that it is also lawfull, I am perswaded by these reasons. First, because of the vncertainety of the contrarie doctrine: for some say, that sole life is commanded by God, others denie it as you haue heard. Againe there are, and those papists too, that say the lawe of abstaining from mariage, Fab. Tract. 4. in Luth. de mat. clear. for the clergie was first made by pope Siricius, who liued almost four hundred yeares after Christ, although Iohn Faber report that Ca­lixtus forbad it somewhat before. But Bellarmine and o­thers thinke in no wise that it may be suffered, that this their doctrine shoulde bee thought so farre shorte of the times of Christ, and his Apostles.

Some holde it a necessarie lawe, Bellarm. li. 1. de clericis, cap. 18. others but con­uenient. And such diuersitie of doctrine in these and such like pointes is, if not an inuincible, yet a verie proba­ble proofe that their doctrine hath no sure grounde in Gods word, no great consent of antiquitie, and that is the [Page] cause that there is no certaine doctrine of it amongest themselues, and such is their agreement also concerning that other point, whether matrimony be a sacrament or not. Secondly, the weakenes of their proofe, doth euen pro­claime vnto the world, the weakenes of their cause. For the most and best learned of them doe confesse that God hath not commanded it. And the proofes that they bring out of the Apostle for it, as it seemeth, haue so little waight in them, that Bellarmine is ashamed to alleadge them. As for that small holde that he could get out of the Apostles words, Tit. 1.8. That a bishop should be continent, how little it can helpe his cause, you haue heard before. Seeing therfore that either they bring nothing worth hearing out of Gods word, or apply vnto the clergy only, that which the Apostle speaketh to all men and weomen indifferently, (such is all that they alleadge out of the 7. Chapter of S. Paules first epistle to the Corinthes) we are the lesse bound to beleeue, whatsoeuer they out of the fathers shall teach vs concer­ning this matter. Who themselues doe charge vs to exa­mine by the scriptures their writings, and not to beleeue a­ny thing that they shall teach, vnlesse they teach such things as are agreeable vnto Gods word. Yea, since their argu­ments are so weake, that euen Panormitane and other pa­pists whom Iohn Faber in some respects spareth to name, because they saw no necessary consequence in them (al­though they liued in daies of greater darckenes than wee do (God be praised for our light) indeuoured to obtain, that mariage might be lawful for the clergy. as Faber reporteth: yea and pope Pius the second, Cont. Luth. Tract. 4. was so little moued by those arguments, that he had wont to say, that there was great cause that priests should be forbiddē to marry, Pla [...] . in the life of Pius. 2. but greater, that mariage should be permitted vnto them: and the Am­bassadours of catholicke princes were earnest suiters, in the names of their princes to the councell of Trent, that mari­age might be free for the clergy Since these arguments (I say) were not able to persuade these men so deuoted to [Page 73] their doctrines, as it is knowen they were, how much more may we reiect this their lawe, as hurtfull to Gods church, and iniurious to our wise Law-maker, and suspect it not to rest vpon good ground. Thirdly, the most blasphemous commendation that they giue vnto this estate of life, and the efficacie and vertue, that impudently and vntruely they do ascribe vnto the same, maketh me thinke it is but a bird of their owne clecking, and that therein they seeke rather their owne praise than Gods glory. Because thereby they teach men to looke for remission of sinnes, and make it a thing meritorious: and so they robbe Christ of his honour, and take from him his office, to attribute the same to the obseruation of their vngodly lawe. And vnto this reason which is taken from the euil fruit of their wicked doctrine, I might also adde the sower grape of vngodly life that fol­lowed the same. Which made not Papists onely, but e­uen the Pope himselfe to wish the abolishing of that cruel lawe, and the remoouing of that dangerous stumbling blocke, as before you haue heard of Pius, the second pope of that name. Nowe besides these wants that wee finde in the contrary doctrine which may induce vs to see the vn­likelihoode of the same, wee haue also the first institution wherein it was saide to all without exception, Genes. 1.28. Increase and multiplie. Then also wee haue that generall aduise and counsell wherein the apostle aduiseth all men and wo­men, that it is better to marry than to burne: 1. Cor. 7.9. which ad­uise the apostle giueth in respect of that common experi­ence wherein wee finde it to be true that euery man can not attaine to the gift of chastitie in single life. Thirdly, wee haue also particular direction for bishops by name, so per­mitting marriage vnto them, 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.6. that no man can doubt ther­of, vnlesse hee wilfully winke for feare he shoulde see the light of the trueth. Fourthly, we haue the practise of the priests in the olde lawe, who were married, although they had the daily sacrifice to offer morning and euening. Al­most all the apostles, and many bishops of the Primitiue [Page] church also, if they will trust Vicelius their owne friend, were married men. Therefore we may conclude, that for the clergie, as for other it is lawfull, that euery man haue his owne wife, and euery woman her own husband▪ Wher­upon it also followeth, that not only the Montanists, Ma­niches, Eucratians. Martionists, or such like, who did who­ly condemne marriage, or at the least much mislike the same, but also the papists who doe accompt it too impure for their clergie men, are amongst the number of them of whom the spirit speaketh euidentlie, 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. that in the latter daies some shal departe from the faith and shall giue heede to the spirit [...] error, and doctrines of deuils, who haue their con­sciences burned with a hote iron, forbidding to marry. For although others may perchaunce in that point be worse, yet that proueth not that they cannot be euill. And although the fathers doe expound this place, of those heretickes that were before or in their time, yet is that no barre to vs, but that we may in like maner confute thereby all them, who doe in any sort condemne matrimony. But they saie they condemne not matrimonie, neither force men to single life. Whether they haue drawen men to their vowes or not, Bellarm. de cler. li. 1. cap. 20. let the world iudge. But it is but a shift to saie, they denie not mariage. They deny it to that whole estate, in so much as in Queene Maries time, we haue seene the clergy forced, either to leaue their function and ministery, or to forsake their wiues. So that although they say not to any man or woman particularly, thou shalt in no wise marry, yet they deny it to that estate of life, which needs must be in the worlde, as not holy enough for them, wherein if they were well examined, they would be found to conspire with those auncient heretickes.

Other differences also might be found, but these few are sufficient to shew, that the church of Rome hath added to the word of God, and practise of the Apostles in this point: and therefore, if that were graunted vnto them, which they can not prooue, namely, that that which the Apostles did, was a sacrament: yet can it in no wise fo­lowe, that the Popish anoyling can bee a Sacrament, vnto the which they haue added so many, yea, and some of them so vnseemely ceremonies. And yet the councell of Trent is not ashamed to affirme, that the church of Rome doeth obserue none other thing as belonging vnto the substaunce of this sacrament, Sess. 14. ca. 3 de sacram. vnct. than that which saint Iames hath prescribed? Where did saint Iames appoint that the oile shoulde be consecrated: for, that it shoulde be consecrated, De vnct. lib. 1. cap. 7. it is as master Bellarmine doth terme it, of the essence of the matter of this sacrament, and not ac­cidentary.

Master Bellarmines shift that hee hath for to answere this demaund, is too holde and shamelesse, and doth more lay open the badnesse of their cause. For hee saieth, that it is enough for them, if saint Iames doe not forbid it. And is that your touchstone (M. Bellarmine) whereby you wil trie your doctrines? What will you say then to that Lawe that God hath established for euer. Deut. 12.32. and 4.2. Whatsoeuer I commaund you to doe, doe it. Thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught there-from. Which, as it is true in all matters of religion, so especially in the Sacra­ments, wee must take heede, lest in adding any thing to them, wee change thereby the vse of them. In this thing, if in any, de Coron. Mil. is that true that Tertullian hath said, It is for­bidden that is not frankely permitted. And that also that in an other place he hath, de Monog. The Scripture forbiddeth whatsoeuer it noteth not. Secondly, master Bellar­mine thinketh it to bee a thing belonging vnto the sub­stance of the Sacrament, that the partes wherein the fiue senses are, shoulde bee annointed, that is, the eies, [Page 75] the eares, the nose, the lippes and the handes. Then let the councell of Trent shew this commaunded by saint Iames, but that can neuer be perfourmed: so that wee see that bolde affirmation of the councell of Trent, was ra­ther, to blind the eies of men, vnder a shew of good words, seeking thereby to make the world beleeue, that they adde no materiall point vnto that which saint Iames commaun­deth: and that is most false, as hath beene shewed, and might also further be prooued. For, where is that forme commaunded by Saint Iames, that is prescribed by the councell of Trent. By this holie ointment, &c. Sess. 14. ca. 1. de sacr. vnct. He had no minde of any such matter. Besides this their adding to that which saint Iames hath willed to be done, (which is but a small matter with the church of Rome, for all their religion wherein wee differ from them, is nothing else but additions to Gods worde) their owne diuersitie of o­pinions concerning this their sacrament, doeth shew it to be a deuise of their owne: for they knowe not what to say for the institution of it. They haue not so much as any shew or colour that it was instituted by Christ, or before his death, but onely that place of saint Marke, Mar. 6.13. where it is saide, that the Apostles annointed many that had in­firmities, and healed them. And therefore Thomas Wal­den, Alfonsus, and others, doe seeke for the institution of the sacrament out of that place.

But master Bellarmine seeing what danger may come to their sacrament, De sacr. vnct cap. 2. if they should seeme to make that the ground of their sacrament, because sundry of the auncient fathers seeme to make that vnction that saint Iames spea­keth of, to be none other, but that which saint Marke mentioned: hee seeketh to prouide a plaister for that sore. And he will not in any sort haue those wordes to bee the ground or institution of the Sacrament. And for that cause hee prooueth by many reasons, that they are not all one. For hee seeth that it can not be denied, and there­fore himselfe graunteth, that that vnction which the A­postles [Page] in that sixt chapter are saide to vse, was onely or especially for bodily diseases, and therefore that the sacra­ment cannot bee prooued out of it: for the sacraments as there he also confesseth, are belonging principally to the soule. Therefore hee will in no wise like of them that al­leadge this place of saint Marke for this their sacrament, although they bee many, yea, and those great pillers of Poperie, and no small fooles I warrant you: But such as Eckius, Decree 10. De Sacram. vnct. sess. 14. cap. 1. the Scotish man Nicoll Burne, the pro­uinciall Councell called Senonense, yea, and the Coun­cell of Trent, although it set it downe somewhat feare­fullie, (for it saith it was insinuated by our Lorde Christ in Saint Marke) all these with others (I say) esta­blish their sacrament of Vnction, and ground it vpon that place: yet Bellarmine (as I haue sayde) will not in any wise yeeld vnto it. And for my part I thinke hee saieth truely, when hee sayeth it is not grounded vpon that place.

And as truly also if hee should affirme, that it hath no warrant out of that place of saint Iames. For that place of saint Marke, and that other of saint Iames, speake both of one sort of annointing, as Beda, Theophilact. and Occumenius doe testifie. But saint Markes wordes can not proue the sacrament of Vnction, De Vnct. cap. 2. as maister Bel­larmine doeth not confesse onely, but hee taketh much paines to prooue it also by foure or fiue arguments: there­fore that place of saint Iames prooueth not their sacra­ment of annoyling. And then is it destitute of all proofe by Gods worde, and so must bee accounted but a foolish toy (as nowe it is vsed) of mans braine. Neither are they agreed vpon that other high poynt, what parts must be an­oynted of necessitie, whether all those seuen parts before mentioned, or els only those fiue first, which are the instru­ments of the senses.

Bel. de Vnct. Cap 10.Some thinke that there is not necessitie that anie one part shoulde bee anoynted rather than other: And o­thers [Page] thinke, that the anoynting of euerie of these seuen places is so necessarie, that it is not a perfect sacrament if any be omitted. But maister Bellarmine out of Thomas Aquinas telleth vs, that onely the fiue first are of the es­sence of the sacrament.

Nowe in this diuersitie of opinions, I knowe not whose part Laurence Vaus will take: but he resolueth vs of one great doubt. If a man want eyes, eares, nose, mouth, or handes, what the Priest should then doe. Hee must oynt the part next to the place where these members should bee. So it seemeth hee alloweth of the first opi­nion. But are these such matters, as should busie mens mindes so as they doe? No, no, it is the subtiltie of Sathan, to occupie mens heades about such trifles, that in the meane time hee may by false teachers, steale from the heartes of the people the trueth of all christian Religion.

They teach also that this their sacrament of annoy­ling or vnction, may be often receyued. In the life of Pius 2. And yet how long they haue beene of that minde, I knowe not, nor find men­ [...] ioned. But if wee will beleeue Platina, Pope Pius the second seemed not to bee resolued of that poynt, nor so perswaded. For hee at the poynt of death disputed with a learned man the Bishop of Ferrara earnestly, whether hee might againe bee annoyled, seeing hee had once before beene annoyled. By all which diuersities of iudgements in the most materiall pointes of this their Sacrament, they giue vs iust cause to doubt of their Sacrament it selfe, that it is not of God. And by the way, I cannot but wonder with what faces they can obiect to vs our diuer­sities in opinions, seeing that they in such materiall poynts of Religion, and in their doctrines that concerne the verie substance of their sacraments, are so verie farre from being of one iudgement.

And thus briefly we see, how the Papists differ from the scriptures, whereupon themselues indeuor (but al in vaine) [Page] to ground the institution of their Sacrament, and also disagree amongest themselues about the same. De Sacram. vnct. sess. 14. can. 1. And yet with great boldnesse they cursse all them, that say that this their Sacrament is not truly, and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ, for so doeth the Councell of Trent. Wherein I knowe not whether they haue somewhat wounded themselues, Cap 1. both because they say themselues but a little before, that it is insinuated by Christ, which is lesse than instituted. And also it is tanquam vere & propriè Sacramentum, as it were (which is a doubtfull speach) truely and properly a Sacrament. De sacram. Vnct. cap. 2. But let vs see howe maister Bellarmine prooueth this to bee a Sacrament out of that place of saint Iames. Hee can finde, as he supposeth, the outwarde signe. The out­ward signe True it is there is an outwarde signe, but it is not that which is re­quired in annoyling nowe: for nowe it must needes be con­secrated, but then it was not. The Apostles did vse it espe­cially against the diseases of the bodie, but this Oyle is in the Popish church, vsed especially for a remedie a­gainst the sickenesses of the soule. Therefore, I graunt it was in those dayes a signe of health of bodie, whilest God left with his church that gift of healing, but it was ne­uer a signe of spirituall grace, which is it that now they do affirme.

As for the health of the bodie, they so little regarde that it should be vsed to that ende, that they must not in a­ny wise annoyle them, but such as they haue no hope that they may escape. Whereas the Apostle saint Iames would haue it done to that ende, that God forgiuing them their sinnes, which are many times the cause of sickenesse, they might be Healed, as saith saint Bede vpon this place. As for the promise which is a seconde thing that must be in a sacrament, The pro­mise of grace. master Bellarmine maketh no doubt but that he can proue it, because it is said, The Lord shal raise him vp, and if he haue sinned, they shal be forgiuen him. The meaning of the apostle in this place is verie plaine, [Page] that wheras in the daies of the primitiue church, there were many myracles wrought by the apostles and others, they did not those things, by any power which they had in them selues, but by the prayer of faith the sicke were healed. And if their sinnes were the cause of their sicknesse (as they are many times, although not alwayes, Iohn. 9.3 as by saint Iohns gos­pel it appeareth) hee promiseth that God, to the ende that they may not doubt but that they shall bee healed, will take away their sinnes, and forgiue their offences, which otherwise might bee a let or hinderance. And that this condition is to be vnderstoode in this promise, it is plaine by these wordes, And if you haue committed sinnes: For the apostle nothing doubted but that they had sinnes, For if wee say wee haue no sinne, 1 Iohn. 1.8. wee deceiue our selues, and there is no truth in vs. But hee might iust­ly doubt whether sickenesse was alwayes layd vpon men, for, and in respect of their sinnes. Therefore to doubt whe­ther they might haue sinne or not, belongeth vnto them that knowe not the corruption of mans nature, which wee cannot thinke of the apostle saint Iames. But to knowe that God doeth not alwayes sende afflictions in respect of sinne: hee had learned by that which our Sauiour Christ himselfe sayde vnto his Disciples of the blind man, Neither hath this man sinned, neither his parents, Iohn. 9.33 but that the workes of God may be manifest. And for this cause saint Iames saith, If hee committed sinnes, they shall be forgiuen him, that is, if his sinnes haue beene the cause of his sickenesse, his sinnes shall be forgiuen him, that his sickenesse may cease. So then the promise of forgiue­nesse of sinnes, which should especially serue to make this oyling a sacrament, is but conditionall, whereas in the true sacraments in deede, the promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes is most certaine, otherwise wee should not haue in the vse of them any true comfort.

Thus then, seeing sicknes sometime commeth of sinne, sometime of other causes, the apostle sayeth, if it come of [Page] sinne, not onely the man ouer whom the elders make their faithfull prayer, and whom they so oynt with this visible oyle, shal be raised vp, but also his sinnes, the cause of his sicknesse shal be taken away. But that not forgiuenesse of sinnes was especially regarded in this ceremonie, but bo­dily health, the fathers afore named doe proue, and maister Bellarmine cannot denie, but that sundrie of the Papists do affirme, whilest they teach that the Apostles in the 6. of saint Marke his Gospell, did practise the selfe same thing that saint Iames commaundeth. The insti­tution of this Sa­crament. But for the institution of this sacrament, maister Bellarmine can bring no proofe at all, but onely in respect of this promise of saint Iames, which if it be not of spirituall grace, as I trust I haue pro­ued that it is not, then is there no institution of this sacra­ment to be found. Then wee see that all this whole buil­ding, hangeth vpon a weake foundation, to bee grounded vpon one onely authoritie, and that so little to the purpose vnlesse it be racked besides the meaning: and that out of that Epistle, which although it be in our churches recey­ued and read, yet we know that the authoritie thereof hath bin doubted of: and therefore the lesse force hath it to proue any thing, that is not taught in any other place. And espe­cially for their annoyling that is now vsed in the Popish church, which is farre vnlike that which the apostles vsed, there is in that place no proofe at all. And as master Bel­larmine hath the better lyking to expounde this place of saint Iames, of another oynting than the apostles vsed, marke eth sixt chapter, Cap. 2 because, as hee saieth Luther, Cal­uine, and Kemnitius, doe take both places for one annoin­ting: euen so doe I, and that with much better reason mislike the Popish anoyling, because it commeth so neare vnto that practise of the heretikes of whom Ieremie spea­keth, li. 1. cap. 18. That they redeeme their dead at the ende of their race or trauell, powring oyle and water vpon their heads. And whereas master Bellarmine would proue out of Epiphanius, that this oyntment was vsed when they [Page 76] were dead. And therefore therein they differ from the Pa­pists, yet saint Augustine in his booke of heresies, saieth, Cap. 16. they did it when they were dying. So that master Bellar­mine must not thinke so to face out the matter, as if those heretikes were nothing like them. And whereas they v­sed water also with their Oyle, although they differ there­in from the church of Rome, yet the difference is nothing so great by many degrees, betweene the Papists and those heretikes, as is betweene the apostles and the papists for this poynt, as maie appeare by that which before hath beene saide. De sacra. vnct. li. 2. cap. 4. But after this great scarcitie of proofe out of the scriptures, hee commeth at length to the authori­tie of man. And hee will prooue what men will say in his behalfe, where God keepeth silence. And the first that he bringeth in is Innocentius that liued at the least foure hundred yeares after Christ. What, was it no Sacra­ment for foure hundred yeares, and nowe vpon a sudden is it become a sacrament? howe doeth hee proue it to bee a sacrament? He bringeth no reason, hee hath no proofe, no, neither yet doeth hee so much as say it is a sacra­ment properly so called, but that it is Genus Sacramenti, A kinde of Sacrament. What then, if we graunt to ma­ster Bellarmine that which Pope Innocentius sayeth? If it bee a kinde of Sacrament, as hee sayeth, is it, therefore a sacrament truely and properly as maister Bellarmine saieth? I denie that argument, and maister Bellarmine will not proue it. And yet to helpe his bad cause, hee lowdly and lewdly belyeth Innocentius his woordes, in that hee affirmeth that Innocentius saieth expresselie and plainlie, that this oynting is that sacrament explaned by saint Iames. But Innocentius hath no such wordes, no neither yet any thing like. But M. Bellarmine, to deceiue them that can not looke into the fathers, doth many times falsifie them to make his cause to seeme better.

And nowe what cause hath this seconde Achylles of the Catholikes (for Eckius did bestow that name first vpon [Page] himselfe, as you may see in his Enchiridion in the title of the church in the margent) what cause I saie, hath this challenging champion thus to brag against Kemnitius, that hee durst not so much as name this Innocentius. When his testimonie is examined, the cracke is great, but he doth not hit the marke that maister Bellarmine would haue him to leauell at. As for Kemnitius if he haue but his due praise, we must needes confesse, that by his learning and trauell, he hath more beaten downe the walles of that popish Babilon, than that all the papists if they ioine togi­ther hand in hand, shall be able with all their skill and cun­ning to raise it vp againe. Of Innocentius the third, be­cause he came so late he is not worth the answering: for he liued about 1200. yeares after Christ in time of igno­rance and much superstition. As for the Councels which he alleageth, the first is the Nicene councell translated into latine out of the Arabic tongue. But since that canon is not amongst those canons, which wee haue in the tomes of the councels, and in those coppies that hitherto haue beene counted the true councels, we neede not much regarde those farre fetched authorities. His second authoritie is out of the councell of Cabilon, and some other particular coun­cels, and although he commend their antiquitie, yet the first of them was almost 800. yeares after Christ. And those which I haue examined, make not for his purpose. For they proue not, that this annointing is a sacrament properly so called. Now for the fathers, master Bellarmine needeth no aduersary, he confesseth his want of proofe out of them: For he deuideth the fathers into two sortes. The one he confesseth doe not plainly saie that it is a sacrament. Why then doth he produce them? He hath taken in hand to proue that anoyling, as it is vsed in the popish church, is a true and proper sacrament. If they will not proue this, they maie holde their tongues. For to this end only are they to be alleaged. An other sort there are, who speake it plainely, as he telleth vs. But they are of no credit, neither [Page 79] are once named among the ancient fathers. The eldest of them is about 800. yeares after Christ. And for his exam­ples of some few men what they haue done, it is no proofe to vs, that we ought so to doe. They might haue their rea­sons that might well induce them to it. They might also doe therein, as in many things many haue done of a blinde zeale, and foolish deuotion. How or in what sort they haue done that which they did, I wil not take vpon me to iudge: as for their doings they ought not to be an example to any man, so that we should be bound to follow them. But hee wil proue by reason, that it must needs be a sacrament: Bellarm. de sac. vnct. li. 1. cap. 5. For since God hath by a sacrament holpen vs, in the entraunce into the church, and also in our continuance in the same, we maie not imagine that his prouidence shall faile vs at our going out of the church: these are maister Bellarmine his wordes. I might briefly answere, that we are not to teach God what we thinke conuenient that he should doe, but to see what he hath done, and to content our selues therewith, and to frame our selues to performe the same. But if God faile in his prouidence, if their anoyling be not a sacrament, then must we imagine that God had no due regarde of the fathers of the old world, or of the patriarkes, or of the godly vnder the law. For vntill Christs time, ma­ster Bellarmine will confesse they had not this Sacrament. Yea the Apostles and all other the Godly and constant Martirs in Christs church, had not that sacrament. Nei­ther yet did they make complaint for want of the same, but comfortably and patiently indured all torments with great ioy, although they had not this anoyling, nor anie hope to haue it, no neither once thought of it. Lastly, our Sauiour Christ to prepare vs against death telleth vs, that whosoe­uer beleeueth in him shall not perish, but haue euerlasting life: and to cause vs not to feare it, he saith, that he is the re­surrection and the life. Many notable lessons did our Sa­uiour Christ giue to his disciples, before he left the world to goe to his father, which are recorded by Saint Iohn [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] from the twelfth to the seuenteenth chapters. And although he vse all arguments to comfort them, yet he neuer once thought of this anoyling, which yet then if he had purpo­sed to leaue vnto his church anie such Sacrament, it had beene good time to haue deliuered them for their comforte. To be short, whatsoeuer he commaunded vs to vse for the strengthning of our faith, with boldnesse we may, and with comfort and readinesse we ought to doe: But it is farre from either true or sound comfort, in the agony of death, or a sufficient weapon, to withstand the assaults of Sathan, and conflicts of conscience, to haue standing by thee some Idol pastor, whose greatest good, that he either can or will doe vnto thee, is to grease some parts of thy body. Let the world esteeme of these things as they will. But this is cer­taine that it is only true obedience that hath the promise of blessing. And without the commandement there can be no obedience, either in our duties towardes God, or our con­uersation amongst men. For obedience is nothing els, but an earnest applying of our selues to doe that which is plea­sing vnto God, and which he hath commanded. It is also far from the maiestie of Gods spirit, to deliuer to vs such trifling toyes, thereby to comfort the afflicted conscience. And thus I trust it appeareth, that this their sacrament of anoyling, is but a deuise of their owne braine, hauing nei­ther institution from Christ, neither any commaundement from his apostles, or example in the scriptures, especiallie as it is now vsed in the church of Rome, either for the mat­ter whereof it must consist, or the manner how it must bee done, or the end vnto which they especially haue regard in that ceremony.

I had thought here to haue ended both this treatise of the sacraments and this chapter, but before I go anie far­ther, I would haue the christian reader to marke the euill dealing of the popish church, who with their tongues and pennes proclaime as lowd as they can, that our doctrine is not catholicke, it is new, is lately deuised. And yet we [Page 80] appeale to the scriptures, & haue testimony for vs also, the cōsent of the fathers of the purer times. And on the cōtrary the church of Rome crieth stil, they are the catholick church, they haue the catholicke religion, yea all that is with them is catholicke. But if by the rules of catholicke which Vin­centius Lyrinensis giueth, Commoni­torio adver­sus haereses. (with whose authority they seek often to stoppe our mouthes) we examine their doctrines: we shall finde them as farre from the catholicke religion, as the priests and rulers amongst the Iews were from the truth. For whereas he accounteth no doctrine catholicke, but that which hath beene taught at all times, in all places, and by all men, or at the least by the most, and the best lear­ned, and godliest men, wee might by this rule reiect manie of their doctrines, which they deliuer to vs as ca­tholicke and necessarie, so that without beleeuing them there is no saluation. For shortnesse sake, let vs looke into this that last I handled. They will haue it a catho­licke doctrine to teach that anoyling is a true and proper Sacrament, yea, and the councell of Trent curseth them that saie the contrarie. And yet maister Bellarmine, who saith as much in effect as they all can saie in this point, how catholickely doth hee proue it? He with much adoe wresteth for it one place out of Saint Iames, and hath not one mo in all the Scripture for him. Then leapeth hee more then foure hundreth yeares after Christ, and pick­eth out one pope Innocent, who saith it is a kinde of Sa­crament. If he had proued it to be a Sacrament properly so called, yet had he beene but one witnesse in foure hun­dred yeares. Then about 1200. years after Christ, he hath gotten another witnes, and he is a pope also, Innocent the third. Then he telleth vs of the 69. canon of the councell of Nice, which had in al but twenty canons. Al aboue twenty were fetched out of Arabia, but are neither mētioned in the Nicene councel set forth by thēselues, Li. 1. cap. 6. neither yet of Ruffi­nus in his ecclesiastical history, where he setteth downe the canōs of that councel, who although he make 22. in nūber, [Page] Yet is the matter no other than is set downe in the 1. booke of the coūcels in those 20. chapters. Besides there are ma­ny other strong reasons, & pregnant presumptions to proue those 50. canons (for they haue 70.) to be falsly added to y ^e councel, & therfore they deserue no credit. He also alledgeth some particular councels, which he commendeth for their antiquitie, and yet the ancientest of them, is about 800. yeares after Christ. And about that time also are the most ancient fathers, that seeme to say any thing for him. Then if thou knowest the sunne to shine at noone day, thou maist also know that this is not a catholicke doctrine, neither can be so accompted. It hath not beene taught at all times, not in al places, not by al or the most of the learned. No, it hath had scarce one sufficient witnes in 1200. yeares. But for the substance of religion which we teach, if we haue not a vniuersal consent of the scriptures, and also the testimony of the fathers of the church, in her most pure times, we craue no credit, we aske no hearing. Therefore that which wee teach is the only catholicke faith, because it hath the vni­uersall consent of the purer times: that which for the most part they teach, is but new, not warranted by the word, not known or not taught amongst the godly fathers, at the least for 400. or 500. yeares. Which I thought good vpon this occasion thus offered, to note vnto the christian reader, that I might pull away from the faces of those counterfeites, the visard of catholicke, vniuersality, antiquity, and con­sent, that their religion may appeare indeede as it is, new, not old, particular not catholicke, false not true: because it is the deuise of man, whose wisedom is folly, whose words are lies: and not the wil of God, which is the infallible rule, and of whose word not one title shall perish. And thus I trust it appeareth, that they who brag most, of the name of catholicke church, are the greatest enemies to true catho­licke religion, teaching that which is nothing lesse then catholicke.

The reasons which moue vs, thus to laie open and amplifie our owne corrupt nature, and to confesse the pow­er and force of original sinne in vs are these. Partly our owne woful experience, whereby if we haue any true fee­ling of our fraile estate, or knowe any thing of our vnwil­lingnes to that which is good, and our ready inclination to that which is euil: we must needes confesse that the lawe of our flesh, Rom. 7.23. is alwaies rebellious to the law of the spirit which is in vs: And that the wisedome of the flesh is such a froward enemy to God, Rom. 8.7. as is not subiect to the law of God neither indeede can bee. Partlie also the manifold and manifest testimonies out of Gods word, which doe plain­lie proue, that this originall sinne hath so corrupted our whole nature, that it can bring forth nothing that is good or godly. Gen. 6.5. Such is that All the imaginations of the thoughts of mans heart, are only euill alwaies. And that also. Gen. 8.21. The imagination of mans heart is euill from his youth. Whereby we must needes confesse and acknow­ledge it to be true, that we are not sufficient of our selues, to thinke any thing as of our selues, 2. Cor. 3.5. in those thinges that belong vnto true godlines. And why? Because that by one man sinne entred into the world, Rom. 5.12.18. and by the offence of one, the fault came on all men to condemnation. In this respect the Apostle calleth such as are not regenerate, Enemies to God, the children of wrath by nature, ves­sels of dishonour, and by such like names whereby hee sheweth plainely, what we should iudge, or how we should esteeme of the strength and force of originall sinne, in them that are not regenerate. Namely, that no good at all can come from them in thought, word or deed. Which doc­trine the Church of Rome will in no wise heare of. But of that I must speake in another place. But euen we that haue receiued the first fruites of the spirite, and whom God hath deliuered from the condemnation of that com­mon corruption: we, I saie, do finde, that if sinne raigne not ouer vs, yet it dwelleth in vs. Whereby wee are [Page 82] many times forced, Rom. 7.1 [...] To doe that euill thing that wee woulde not, and to leaue vndoone, That good that wee woulde doe. Wee feele that there is, 2 [...] A lawe in our members, rebelling against the Lawe of our minde, and leading vs captiue to the Lawe of sinne, which is in our members. Insomuch as wee are for­ced, not onely to crie out with the Prophet Dauid, Psal. 19.12 Who can vnderstand his faultes? Cleanse mee from secret faultes: but also continually to pray as Christ willeth vs, Forgiue vs our trespasses. Heb. 12.1. For sinne hangeth so fast on vs, that euen When wee woulde doe good, Rom. 7.2 [...] . then euil is present with vs. And therefore well may our spirite striue, that the flesh preuaile not, and the new man waxe euery day stronger against the olde man: yet, so long as wee carry about with vs, this body subiect to corrupti­on, Sathan will not leaue buffeting vs, sinne will not cease to assault vs. But, as a froward and cruell enemy, euen then when it is almost quite subdued, and at the last cast, yet will it stirre, euen then, I say, will it striue to hurt vs. And this our deadly enemy was bred and borne with vs, wee carry him alwayes about vs. So long as wee liue wee cannot shake him off. Which made the A­postle saint Paul so wearie of this wicked world, that hee desired to bee dissolued, and to bee with Christ. Philip. 1.23. And no maruell. For, what can a spirituall minded man see heere, that may make him desire to liue in this flesh? In his minde there is such ignorance of heauenly things, as that although he be continually taught, yet hee needeth continually to pray, O teach mee thy Statutes, Psal. 119.12 and to aske that the eyes of his vnderstanding may be lighte­ned, by the spirit of wisedome and reuelation, Ep. 1.17, 18, Philip. 1.9 by the knowledge of Christ, more and more in all wisedome and spirituall vnderstanding. For, the perfection of knowledge that heere wee can attaine vnto, Coloss. 1.9. is euery day to learne, and when wee know most concerning heauenly things, yet our knowledge is vnperfect. Yea, that [Page] which wee knowe not, is much more than that wee doe knowe.

Then if hee consider of his owne heart, he shall finde the affections thereof so rebellious against the spirite, so running headlong vnto worldly and wicked lustes, that it will force him for to pray, Psal. 86.11 Knit my heart vnto thee, that I may feare thy Name. Psal. 5.8. Leade mee in the waie of thy righteousnesse, make thy way plaine before my face. Yea, hee will bee driuen to confesse, that no man can come vnto Christ to serue him, Ioh. 6.44. Vnlesse the Fa­ther drawe him. So that euen in respect of those excel­lent thinges that man doeth seeme to haue, he may tru­ly say, Rom. 7.18. I knowe that in mee, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing. For his minde is dark­ned that it can not knowe, his heart is clogged that it will not obey sincerely, and readily as it ought Gods holie will.

Thus then it appeareth, not onely, that all that are borne of vncleane seede, are conceiued and borne in origi­nall sinne, Rom. 7.24. Rom. 8.23 but also, that the same doth make great trou­ble euen to the godly, yea, it maketh them to sigh for their deliuerance from this their body, which by reason of sinne, is so subiect to death.

Concupis­cence is s [...] nAnd now, for this concupiscence, by meanes where­of wee are thus inticed vnto sinne, and also hindered from sincere obedience, the church of Rome will in no wise yeelde that it shall bee sinne in the regenerate, vnlesse it also drawe consent of reason to yeelde vnto it: for this they all teach. And yet saint Paul in the Epistle to the Ro­manes often calleth it sin, as M. Bellarmine himselfe con­fesseth, De amiss. gratiae lib. 5. cap. 10. yea, and that in the regenerate. But it is so called (saith he) vnproperly, not because it is sinne, but because it is the cause of sinne, and commeth also of sinne. But how doeth hee prooue that out of any thing that saint Paul hath said in those places? First, because saint Paul saith, Let not sinne raigne in this your mortall bodie. Rom, 6.12. Out [Page 83] of which words Master Bellarmine reasoneth thus: The Apostle saieth, that this sinne is in the body, not in the minde, but sinne properly so called can not bee in the bo­dy: therefore the Apostle calleth not concupiscence sinne, because it is so properly. I may aunswere with Saint Augustine, that the flesh neuer lusteth without the soule: De perfect. iustitiae. and also out of Saint Ambrose vpon this place, that the bodie is here taken for the whole man, bodie and soule: Neither is there any that doeth restraine this word Bodie vnto that part of man that is a distinct part from the soule, amongst all the auncient Writers that I haue seene. And then Maister Bellarmines argument hath no force, be­cause Saint Paules wordes may haue this sence, Let not sinne raigne either in your body or soule: and that sinne may be in the soule, sinne (I say) properly so called, I trust Master Bellarmine will not deny. But the words themselues do most plainely shew, that he speak­eth in this place of that part of man, wherein sinne properly so called may be: for he speaketh of that part of man, wher­in raigning sinne may be, otherwise his exhortation were needlesse: but raigning sinne, is sinne properly so called, as all doe confesse, therefore sinne properly so called, may be in this mortall body, whereof heere the Apostle saint Paul speaketh. And therefore Master Bellarmine tri­umpheth too hastily, when as he concludeth, that Saint Paul plainely signifieth hee calleth concupiscence sinne, but not properly, but vnproperly. But I may more iustly conclude against Master Bellarmine. The Apostle speaketh there of sinne properly so called. And he speake h of concupiscence: therefore concupiscence is sin properly so called. The minor is confessed here by master Bellarmine, in that he doth alleage it to proue his purpose of concupis­cence. The maior also is proued out of master Bellarmine. For, the principall thing that he doth alleadge to teach vs, that Concupiscence is no sinne: that it is not in that same part wherein sinne can bee, but in the flesh onely, where [Page] can be no sinne. But if it bee founde once to bee in that part of man wherein sinne may bee, hee will not then de­nie, but is also sinne. Therfore thus I reason, the apostle speaketh there of that sinne that is in that part of the body, De amiss. grat. l. 5. c. 13 wherein sinne is, that is properly so called, as before I haue proued: therfore he speaketh of sinne properly so cal­led. The other place alledged by master Bellarmine to proue that saint Paule calleth not concupiscence sinne in the proper signification, Rom. 7.18. is this, There dwelleth not in me, that is, in my flesh, anie good. Therefore concupis­cence is in the flesh. How vnnecessarie a consequence this argument hath, the verie children may perceiue. And al­so this word flesh, euerie one that is acquainted but with the principles of diuinitie knoweth to be spoken of whatso­euer is not regenerate in man, euen the verie mind of man. But of this I haue spoken sufficiently in the answer to the former place. Master Bellarmine also vseth some other reasons to proue that the apostles calleth concupiscence sinne vnproperly but they are not worth speaking of. As this is one. Sinne is manie times called vnproperly, there­fore here it is not called sinne properly. A kinde of reaso­ning which maister Bellarmine immediately afterwardes reproueth in Luther, and yet himselfe vseth it. Another reason whereby I proue concupiscence to be sinne in the proper signification, Rom. 7.23. De Amiss. gratiae li. 5. cap. 6. is because It rebelleth against the lawe of the minde. For master Bellarmine himselfe con­fesseth that to be vnderstoode of concupiscence. As also by The law of the minde, Ibid. cap. 10 he vnderstandeth The rule of a good action, which must needes be the law of God. Thus therefore I reason, whatsoeuer affection or lust rebelleth a­gainst the law of the minde, is in truth sinne: but concu­piscence is lust that rebelleth against the law of the minde, therefore concupiscence is in truth sinne. The maior may be proued out of saint Iohn, 1. Iohn. 3.4. who defineth sin to be a Breach of law, or lawlesnesse. But yet master Bellarmine wil not confesse that whatsoeuer rebelleth against the law is sinne [Page 84] properly, and namely concupiscence, De Amiss. grat. li. 5. cap 14. because it rebelleth onely as a thing stirring vp, and causing to transgresse, as I said of the diuell (saith he.) I am glad that concupiscence which the papists will in no wise to be sinne of it selfe, hath deserued no better of her owne friends and patrons, then to be matched in the same yoke with the diuell, who is a ly­ar and the father thereof. Iohn. 8.44. But maister Bellarmine cannot shift off this argument vnder this coulour. Wee inquire what concupiscence is, he telleth vs what it worketh, wee would knowe the nature of it, he telleth vs, the effect of it. There are therefore in concupiscence two things to be con­sidered: the one is, what it bringeth foorth in vs, of the which we say with saint Iames, Iam. 1.15. When lust hath concey­ued, it bringeth forth sin. The other, what it is in it selfe, or in it own nature. To that we answere out of the apostle in many places, that it is sin, as before it hath bin shewed: yea and in this very respect, that it hath in it a repugnancy against the law of the minde, and followeth not the direc­tion of the law of God. For euen as it is crooked, that is, not euen to the straite rule: so is it sinne, that is, not agreeable to the most infallible rule of Gods law, which I take to be master Bellarmines meaning, expounding the nature of the worde [...] which saint Iohn vseth, De Amiss. grat. li. 5. cap. 14 1. 1. Iohn. 3.4 he saith It is a departing from the law. If then concupiscence be examined, euen before it bee consented vnto, by Gods Lawe doe wee not finde that it is a motion disagreeing from Gods Lawe? No man can denie it. For looke vp­on the lust that mooueth to vncleannesse, to stealth, to crueltie, although the heart consent not, yet in that ve­rie lust, is that, that disagreeth from Gods Lawe. So that this is not true that maister Bellarmine saith, that concu­piscence rebelleth against the lawe onelie, as it stirreth vp or causeth to sinne: seeing in it selfe it hath that nature that swarueth from the law.

S. August. also proueth my maior in that definition that [Page] he giueth of sinne, Cont. Faust. li. 22. cap. 27. saying, that Sinne is that which is said, done, or lusted against the eternall law. And that that is a definition of sinne, properly so called, maister Bellarmine cannot denie. Nowe for my minor proposition, which is this, That concupiscence rebelleth against the lawe of the minde, maister Bellarmine himselfe confesseth it in plaine wordes, De Amiss. gratiae. lib. 5 cap. 10. & 14 but yet so, as that he seemeth to mee to counter­feit Iuglers, when they would play a tricke of leger-de­maine. For their greatest skill is Deceptio visus, the decei­uing of our sight, whereby they seeme to do that they doe not, or with a little cleanly conueyance, to beguile the sim­ple. For although he confesse, that these lusts rebell a­gainst the lawe, De Amiss. gratiae. li. 5. cap. 10. yet saith he, they rebell against the law as it sheweth the ende, not as it commaundeth the meanes. But who can imagine that euer saint Paule speaking of this point of Diuinitie, which is most necessarie to bee vn­derstoode of euerie one, euen from the highest, to the low­est, would speake or write so subtilly or obscurely? And who tolde him these lusts striue not against the lawe, as it commaundeth the meanes, that is to say, as it commaun­deth to resist, and not to yeeld to them? Doubtlesse that lust, which rebelleth against this commaundement, Thou shalt not lust, will neuer yeeld when it is resisted: for eue­rie thing naturally seeketh the preseruation of it selfe. But the resisting of lust is the destruction of it, therefore it will not yeeld to it. And as reason teacheth this, so saint Paule by experience found it to be true, when hee saide, Sinne tooke occasion by the commaundement, Rom. 7.23. and wrought in mee all maner of concupiscence. So that this concupiscence, is by resisting, made more stubburne, and is so farre from yeelding, that it fighteth more fiercely against the lawe. And hereof is that combat and battell, which the godly haue betweene the flesh and the spirite. The wicked are not acquainted with it, because they wil­lingly yeelde to their lusts. But the godly, because they resist the same, Doe see another lawe in their members, [Page 85] rebelling against the lawe of their minde. Rom. 7.23

Thus we see that this distinction whereby master Bel­larmine striueth against trueth, is neither according to the meaning of the Apostle, nor hath any colour of trueth. But here by the way I must note, how grossely, and how absurdly maister Bellarmine in the place next before al­ledged affirmeth, that he is not a sinner, that attaineth not to the ende of the commaundement. His reason is, be­cause it lieth not in his power: no more thā he is too blame, that being commaunded to subdue the enemies, can not do it. But master Bellarmine should consider where is the cause of this want in vs, and through whose fault it is that wee can not obey this commaundement, thou shalt not lust. If it bee in man, as in trueth it is, because hee fell from that estate of innocencie wherein hee was created, then is there no reason, but that sinne should bee imputed vnto vs, for not performing that commaundement, thou shalt not lust. And by this also it appeareth, that master Bellarmine his similitude is nothing like, because that the subduing of the enemie was not in their power. But not to lust wickedly was in mans power once, which because through his owne fault hee lost, the not fulfilling of that commaundement, may iustly bee layde to his charge for sinne. Thirdly, I thus proue concupiscence to be sinne: Not to loue the Lorde our God, with all our heart, Luke. 10.27 with all our soule, with all our strength, and with all our thought, is sinne. But to lust, is to faile in this loue. August. de perfect. iusti­tiae. cont. celest. For if the heart consent not, yet at the least the thought by this concupiscence is hindered from this perfection of loue, therefore concupiscence is sinne. Againe, De August. gratiae li. 4. Cap. 2. Li. 2. Dist. 3 [...] Originall sinne, is sinne properly so called, as maister Bellarmine confesseth: But Concupiscence is originall sinne, as the maister of Sentences affirmeth, therefore concupiscence is sinne, properly so called. Againe, whatsoeuer maketh vs hated of God is sinne. Andrad. Orthod. Explic. lib. 3. But concupiscence maketh vs hated of God, Bellar. de [Page] Amiss. gratiae, lib. 5. cap. 13: therefore concupiscence is sinne. And thus much briefly, to proue concupiscence not onely to be called, but indeed to be sinne. But what need I stand so much herevpon? If the church of Rome ment that the light of the truth should shine vnto men, she would neuer cast these mists before their eyes, thus to contend a­bout tearmes and wordes. For themselues doe ascribe vnto concupiscence, both the nature, and the effects of sinne, when they say it De Amiss. gratiae. li. 5. cap. 13 [...] . is vice, it is truly euill, Can 14. it is vnlaw­ful, condemned, and hated of God, & that Andrad. saith, sin only can worke. For all this M. Bellarmine affirmeth of concupiscence, Cap. 13. Orthod. explic. li. 3. and many such like things, which whe­ther they may be affirmed of any thing but sinne, let mai­ster Bellarmine and his fauourites well consider. But I for my part doe thinke, I may truely conclude, and boldly affirme, seeing the Apostle so often calleth it sinne, with­out any expounding of himselfe to speake vnproperty, seeing it rebelleth agaynst the lawe of the minde, and ma­keth such a want in the loue of God, that in this and such like respects, concupiscence is sinne properly so called, whatsoeuer the Councell of Trent decree to the contrarie. Sess. 5. can. 5

It may iustly be wondered at, why they, who take vpon them the name of holy catholicke church, & such as account themselues the members thereof, doe so stifly and stub­bornely, maintaine so bad a cause, and defend, yea commend the actions of such godlesse men. For not only the parti­cular writers among them, excuse from sinne the actions of Infidels, Sess. 6. can. 57. but also the councell of Trent doth hold them all accursed that dare say they are truly sinne. But their feare is, least if the nature of man be set forth in her owne co­lours, and duely considered of, the doctrine of merite by workes will seeme more absurd. But if the workes of gracelesse and godlesse men, may be thought to be voide of sinne: how much the rather maie we thinke, that the works of the faithfull may be so perfect, that they may merite at Gods handes? And in truth no man can denie, but that there is no comparison, betweene the workes of the godlie and the vngodly. Therefore that they may prepare a way for their doctrine of merites, they would first make vs be­leeue, that euen in the wicked there may be good workes. And least men should condemne the corruption of this our nature, being not renued by the spirit of God, as it iustlie deserueth, and so sincerely confesse, that we haue in vs no good, but that it commeth wholy from God: the councell of Trent doth not any thing mislike those opinions, that commend the works euen of infidels, yea attributing some merit vnto them, as doe some of the scholemen, but onlie accurseth them that accompt them to be sinne. Sleiden. comment. li. 23. An. 1552. And a Fran­ciscan frier, reading vpon the second chapter of the epistle to the Romanes, did most blasphemouslie teach, in the hea­ring of manie of them that were at the councel, and in the time of the councell, that They who had no knowledge of Christ, and yet liued honestly were saued. Which his vnchristian doctrine, was so farre from being condemned by that Antichristian councell, that the diuines that were sent from the protestantes to that councel, made their com­plaint to the emperours Ambassadours that he was heard [Page 87] with great liking. And indeed the councel did not accurse that doctrine, or him that taught it. No, the councel did not determine, but as Andradius telleth vs, Orthodoxa­rum expli­cat. li. 3. hath left it free for euery man to thinke as they wil of the workes of them that are not regenerate: this only that councel will not permit vs to thinke, that they are sinne, because they are not of faith. That therefore that the scripture teacheth vs, wee maie not once thinke of, but all other absurd opinions of men are very tollerable. Is not this strange dealing, that the spirit of truth only must not speake, and the lying spi­rits of foolish men, may saie what they will? But let vs see what reasons they alleadge to induce them to this persua­sion. I wil saie nothing of that which maister Bellarmine, (nothing like a graue deuine, which should with all dili­gence and praier search out, and with all humility submit himselfe to the trueth, but rather like a foolish & wrangling sophister, whose care were onely to contend, to make good that which he saith) most impudently affirmeth, enquiring, what knowlege of moral vertues men may haue by the po­wers of nature, & Gods general help. De gram. & libero a [...] bit. li. 5. cap. 1. Of two opinions he preferreth one, and why? So much the more gladly (saith he) we doe embrace and defend it, howe much the more our aduersaries mislike it. I see now it is no great mar­uel, though these pretended catholickes, doe manifestly and wilfully gainsaie and withstand manie thinges, most con­sonant to the infallible word of God. For I perceiue, that if we like of it, it is cause good inough for them to mislike of it. Only this will I saie, that because this persuasion is foolish, and dangerous: Iam. 2.1. Saint Iames giueth a good caueat to all that are of such an humour, My brethren haue not the faith of our glorious Lord Iesus Christ, in respect of persons. But, to like or mislike, in respect of the man, is to haue it in respect of persons. But hee hauing thus professed that generall reason whereby he is setled in his persuasion commeth afterwardes in the same booke to o­ther particular reasons. His first reason is this. Cap. 9. God is [Page] saide manie times to rewarde the workes of the Infidels, but God will not reward that which is sinne, The first argument to proue that all the infidels works are not sinne. therefore not all the workes of Infidels are sinne. If I should exa­mine the particular proofes that hee bringeth of his first proposition, the weakenesse thereof will soone appeare. For he must proue that the workes of infidels are rewar­ded of God. For proofe whereof his first example is of the midwiues, Exod. 1.21.17. that came to the women of Israel in their trauel in Aegipt, of whom the Scripture giueth testi­mony that they feared God, hath in that verie place, and before also. Why then doth he reckon them amongst infi­dels. Then also the rewarde which he saith was promi­sed to them, the best learned in the Hebrew tongue, apply not to the Midwiues, but to the Israelites of the increase of their families. Ezech. 27.18, 19. The second example is out of Ezechiel where God promiseth to giue Nabuchad-nezar and his ar­my as their wages, Aegipt for their seruice which they did against Tyre. Which seruice against Tyre, if maister Bel­larm. can commend in Nabuchad-nezar as a good worke, wherein hee had only regarde vnto his owne cruell and proud affection, he will hardlie finde anie euill. His third and last place out of Daniel, Daniel. 4.24. wherein Daniel giueth coun­cel to Nabuchad-nezar to redeeme his sinnes by being good to the poore, it is not very pertinent to the purpose, and I shal (God willing) haue more fit place afterwards to speake of it. Although therefore it doth easily appeare that his maior is not proued by him, yet I will confesse, that God is saide to rewarde such men, in respect that he giueth good successe to them, and prospereth them, to set forth by them his owne glorie: Alluding vnto the wages that seruantes haue for their worke. Who al­though they bee not alwaies of the best, yet good rea­son they should haue their wages for their worke. The minor is, that God will not rewarde sinne. I grant in that respect that it is sinne hee will not. But in euerie action, there are to be considered manie things.

First, the deede, as in this that Nabuchad-nezar did fight against Tirus: Secondly, the manner how, and with what affection: with a cruel and proud minde, and not with such compassion and pittie as wee ought to haue in correcting of others: Thirdly, the ende is to be re­garded, as, whether he did especially respect Gods glorie, or rather, as indeede he did, to subdue them vnto his owne dominion.

Nowe therefore true it is that God rewardeth not sinne. And yet hee manie times rewardeth and com­mendeth that action, which himselfe turneth to his glorie, and the executing of his good will, which yet in him that doth it, in respect of his euil affection, and wrong ende that hee looked vnto, in doing of it, is sinne. But the sinne it selfe, he is so farre from rewarding, that he vt­terly condemneth it, and him that delighteth therein., Arg. 2 Ma­ster Bellarmines second argument is, that Infidels doe or can doe good workes: therefore, not all their workes are sinne. That they do or can doe good workes, marke howe hee proueth. If yee salute your brethren only, what singular thing doe you? Doth not also the Eth­nickes likewise? Bee yee therefore perfect, &c. Maath. 5.47. Now Maister Bellarmine must reason thus. The heathen can salute one another, therefore they can doe a good worke. As strong a reason, as if I should say, Matt. 26.49. Iudas saluted his Maister: therefore he did a good worke. Againe, the Gen­tiles that haue not the lawe, Rom. 2.14. doe by nature the things of the lawe. Therefore they doe a good worke, and so not al they doe is sinne. These bald proofes, doe shew that ma­ster Bellarmine hath but a barren matter in hande. For by doing the lawe, he meaneth not that which the Apostle calleth fulfilling of the law, Rom. 23.8. for the Gentiles not regene­rate cannot doe that. But that they doe that which the lawe commaundeth after some sort, but not in such manner as is commaunded. And therefore hee saith they doe the worke of the law. But that worke of the law, because they [Page] doe it not, with such a minde, and to such an end as they ought, therefore it is sinne in them. And that the apostle himselfe in that place sheweth. For his endeuour is to proue, them to be vnexcuseable by reason of their sinne, al­though they had not the law written deliuered to them, be­cause they had by nature the substance which he calleth the worke of the law, written in their harts: yea, and framed very often their external actions according to the same and yet performed not that holy obedience that they should. Now who wil grant such an argument? The Gentiles do the external law: therefore there is not sinne in al their ac­tions. For to make our actions voide of sinne, it is not suf­ficient that we keepe the external law, but they must bee good workes well done. Serm. 5. in cap. 2. ad Rom. Neither doth Chrysostome when he saith, the Gentiles without the lawe did all the thinges of the lawe, meane all the circumstances of the law which maister Bellarmine falslie gathereth, but onlie all those thinges that externally the lawe hath commanded, as maie appeare by his owne wordes a little before, who saith, The greeke shall be set before thee, appearing to be a doer of those things that are in the law. Marke, he saith not doing, but appearing or seeming to do. Be­cause he doth that concerning the law that appeareth to the eie, and is externall. But with a sanctified affection, or to a holy end, he that is not sanctified cannot doe it. Argument 3 As for the testimonies out of the fathers, whereby he doth proue, that the Gentiles & the vnregenerate, may haue excellent vertues, out of the fa­thers. it is nothing to this question. For when we saie, that the Infidels haue not in them any thing that is good: our meaning is, that there is in them no worke so perfect, but that it hath sinne in it. And that this is true, saint Hie­rome (who seemeth to speake for him most effectually) doth manifestly proue. In eccl. ca. 7. Workes (saith he) because they are done by the body, are neuer without fault. Which if it be true in al workes, then can it not be but true in the workes of them, which themselues are most faulty, such as [Page 89] are the Infidels. Argum. 4 Lastly, from reson master Bellarmine hath in that place two reasons. The first is this. If works done with­out faith or Gods speciall helpe, be sinne, they are sinne, either because they are not done to the right end, which is Gods glorie: or because they proceed from a sinfull man: or because those morall workes are not of proportion with the strength of nature: or lastly, because these workes that are good are too hard, both in respect of the rebellion of the flesh, and the tyranny of Sathan. But in none of these re­spects they are sinne: therefore they are not sinne. Which his argument briefly thus I answer. That his minor pro­position is vtterly false, and directly against that which the Apostle saint Paul writeth in the Epistle to the Romanes, of the Gentiles, shewing how God gaue them vp, because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. Rom. 1.21. Wherein the Apostle sheweth how wickedly the Gentiles abuse that their knowledge, whereby they should be moued to glorifie God. And in that he denieth that they can be ac­counted sinfull, because they proceede from sinfull man. What doth hee else, but giue the lie to our Sauiour Christ himselfe, who hath plainely saide, Matth. 7.19. that an e­uil tree cannot bring forth good fruit And all the sophi­strie that master Bellarmine hath, can not salue this sore. For it is impossible to gather grapes of thistles: for that he speaketh of the proportion, betweene the worke and the strength of nature, it would be too long heere to examine. Lastly, whereas hee accounteth the tyranny of Sathan, and subiection to their owne lustes, not to be sufficient to make their worke sinfull: let him see how hee can answer, not S. Paul onely, who saith, that such are seruants to sin, but also our sauiour Christ, who telleth the Iewes, Rom. 6.17. that vnlesse the Sonne made them free, they could not be free. Then I pray you, what good works, Ioh. 8.36. wholy void of sin can such worke as serue so bad a M. as is sin? His second argu­ment taken from reason, is of the absurdity he imagineth to be in our doctrine. Himself reasoning most absurdly, thus.

If the Infidels in doing their good workes, do sinne, it is better for them not to do those workes, than to do them: but so to say is most absurde. That to say it is better not to do those externall good workes than to doe them, wee will with master Bellarmine willingly confesse. But how doeth hee prooue his maior, namely, that it is better to leaue them vndone, than to doe them? Because in doing them (saieth he) they sinne, in not doing them, they sinne not. De amiss. grat. li. 1. ca. 2 I see Master Bellarmine hath forgotten that which in an other place hee telleth vs, that a man sinneth aswell in not doing that hee should, as in dooing that hee shoulde not. And therefore Master Bellarmine saieth falsly, that in not doing such works as occasion is offered, they should not sinne. I might therefore conclude with that golden sentence alleadged out of saint Augustine by the master of sentences, Lib. 2. dist. 41 The whole life of Infidels is sinne, and there is nothing good, without the chiefe good. Where is want of knowledge of the eternall trueth, euen in the best manners, is but counterfait vertue: but that I think it very necessary to shew how violently master Bellarmine seeketh to wrest from the true sence, that euident testimo­ny of our Sauiour Christ, Luc. 6.43. & matth. 7.18 That an euill tree can not bring foorth good fruit: which, because it is applied to sundry purposes, as himselfe confesseth, it is plaine, that it is a generall sentence, both in the one place and the o­ther, applied as occasion serueth. And for the meaning of it, to the ende it shoulde not seeme to prooue that, for the which it is alleadged in this question, Master Bellar­mine hath three answeres to that place. De gratia & lib a [...] b [...] t. lib. 5 cap. 10. First, that as a good tree doeth not alwayes bring foorth good fruit, so an euill tree doth not alwayes bring foorth euill fruit: but commonly, or, for the most part, so it is. Which answere of his, doth flatly deny that which Christ affirmeth, Christ saith, An euill tree can not bring foorth good fruit: yes, saith Master Bellarmine (by your leaue) but it may some­time. Euery tree is knowen by the fruit (saith Christ:) [Page 90] not so, (saith master Bellarmine) for sometimes the fruit may be good, although the tree be euill. Is not this a sawcie mate, so impudently and openly to controll the Au­thor of all trueth? His second answer, if we will trust his owne report, is a plaine solution of the argument. And it is this, that this euil tree is the euil wil of man. De actis cum fol. Manich. lib. 2. cap. 4. Which answer he would faine father vpon saint Augustine, but in the place alledged there is no such matter. I remember that S. Augustine in another place doth say, De gratia Christi ca. 18 that this euill tree, is a man of an euill will, but not the euill will it selfe. Well, thus master Bellarmine granteth this place to bee true, that an euill tree, that is, lust, or a man that work­eth according to lust, cannot bring foorth good fruit. But first master Bellarmine hath falsified S. Augustine, as I haue saide: Secondly, he expoundeth this place otherwise than saint Ierome and Theoph. doe: for they vnderstand it euen as we doe, that an euill man, whilest he is euill, can not bring foorth good fruit, but being conuerted hee may. Yea the wordes themselues are very plaine, that our Sa­uior Christ meant it not of the euil wil that is in man, but of the man himselfe: in that he addeth, Luc. 6.45. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good, and an euill man out of the euill treasure of his heart bringeth foorth euill. Yet then this place alleadged pro­ueth substantially, that Infidelles or heathen men whilest they continue so, can not do any workes that shall be per­fectly good or voide of sinne. His third and last answere to this place is this. The euill tree (saith he) is an euil man, and the good fruit is a meritorious worke. And after this meaning he thus answereth the place. An euill man can­not do a meritorious worke. Is not this a notable abusing of Gods word, after his owne pleasure to wrest and wring it? what one word induceth him to dreame here of merito­rious workes? Nay the words confute him mightily: for it is said, An euil tree bringeth forth euill fruit. Euill, Matth. 7.17. I say, not onely, not meritorious. And the tree is knowen [Page] by the fruit. The fruit then must be bad that must shew a bad tree. And therefore this answere of M. Bellar. is, as are the rest too foolish. De gra. Chri­sti cap. 18. 19 Cont. I [...] lia­num Pelag. li. 4. cap. 3. But S. Augustine expoundeth it so, if you wil trust M. Bellar. but examine the places by him al­leadged, and there is no such thing in them. So smal a mat­ter it is for M. Bellar. to abuse his readers at his pleasure, by falsifying the fathers. And now the latter of these places which he falsly hath alleadged, for the confirmation of his vntrue assertion, I truely apply to the confuting of this their vngodly doctrine, vsing only the words of S. Augu­stine. If a heathen man who liueth not by faith, doeth cloath the naked, deliuer the distressed, cure the woun­ded, bestow his riches vpon honest friendship, will not by tormentes be brought to beare false witnes, I demād of thee (saith S. Augustine to Iulian the Pelagian) whe­ther he do these good works wel or euil? For if they be­ing good, yet he doth them euill, thou canst not deny, but that he sinneth that doth any thing euill. But be­cause thou wilt not say that he sinneth in doing this, thou wilt doubtles say, that both he doth good things, and he doth them well. Now marke S. Augustines conclusion vpon these wordes, If it bee so, an euill tree may bring forth good fruits, which thing the truth it selfe saith it cannot be, Thus much out of S. Augustine, not only to shew how falsely he is alleadged for proofe of M. Bellarm. senceles assertion, but also to let it be seene, how he iumpeth with vs in this doctrine that the Godlesse cannot doe the worke, that shall be without sinne. Therefore to conclude this question as Saint Augustine did to the Pelagians, so doe I saie to our aduersaries. Aug ibidem. How can it bee that you should not seeme, either to be mery or mad in these disputations, who praise the fruite of barren trees? Whose fruites are ei­ther none, or if they be euill, they are not to be praised.

Although I haue spoken before of Baptisme, Chap. 11. yet must I here, as occasion is offered, teach, that after baptisme, sinne is not altogether killed, no not in the faithfull. So [Page] that as before in the last chapters, I haue shewed the cor­ruption of our nature to be such, as that in our selues we finde nothing but occasion of death: So nowe we may see, what remedie God of his mercie hath prouided for the same: namely, that seeing we haue in this life continually, the law of the flesh rebelling against the lawe of the spirit, and leading vs captiues to the lawe of sinne, Rom. 7.23. which is in our members: we should haue our especiall comfort, in that blessednes which the apostle saint Paul saieth is descri­bed by the prophet Dauid, Rom. 4.6. euen the imputation of righte­ousnesse. Psal. 32.1.2 Because the prophet saieth. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are co­uered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne. So that the imputation of righteousnesse which our aduersaries cannot well like of, is taught vs by Paul, and confirmed by Dauid. Which imputation of righteous­nesse wee stand in neede of, because that euen the godly whilest here they liue, do finde themselues to be farre from that perfection which they should haue, and would wish For (as saith saint Bernard) although their be no doubt, In trans. 5. Malac. ser. but that sin is crucified with Christ, yet was it suffered, though not to raigne, yet to dwell in the apostle him­selfe whilest he liued. And therefore the same saint Ber­nard in another place truly saieth, O only happie man in deed is he, to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. For in whom there is no sin, Super cant. serm. 23. Rom. 3.23. there is none. For all haue sinned, and stand in need of the glorie of God. And by and by after he saieth. Not to sinne is only Gods righteousnesse but mans rightiousnesse, is Gods mercie. And in this re­spect he reckoneth Malachy in the sermon before alledged a happie man, because by death he was freed from this pe­ril of sinning: Gen. 39.12. 2 kin. 2, 13. Alluding to the cloke of Helia [...] & Putiphars wife. Helias (saith he) hath left his cloke, he needeth not to feare. He cannot now be touched, much lesse holden of the adultres, meaning of fleshly or sinfull lusts. S. Aug. also vpon the 32. Psal. seemeth to be of that mind: So that [Page 92] we must needs acknowledge the complaint which the apo­stle hath made to be iust and true, Rom. 11.1 [...] that God hath shut vp al in vnbeliefe, that he might haue mercie on all. And ther­fore although in baptisme the forgiuenesse of sinne is sealed vp vnto vs, yet that bitter roote, is not vtterly pulled out, but still euen the godlie sigh and grone, because they sinne and transgresse. Arg. 1 Bellar. de. sacram. bapt. li. 1. cap. 13. But let vs see howe they proue that after baptisme there remaineth no sinne. The scrip­tures say our sinnes are washed, cleansed, taken away, blotted out, therefore they are not onely not imputed, but also vtterly abolished. Wittingly and wilfully they in­deuour to deceyue the ignorant, and would make them beleeue, that wee acknowledge no other benefite, but one­ly that our sinnes are not imputed vnto vs. But wee (as is before shewed) are by baptisme assured, not only of the forgiuenesse of sinnes, but also of the sanctification of the spirite, knowing that He that is dead in sinne, Rom. 6.2. must not liue therein. We say therefore that a man is not iustified onely, but sanctified also. What then? must this sanctifi­cation be done at that instant as wee are baptised? 2. Cor. 3.18 The church of Rome teacheth vs so. But saint Paul sayth, Wee all beholde as in a mirrour, the glorie of the Lord with open face, and are chaunged vnto the same Image, from glorie to glorie. Marke, that hee sayth this change is not all at once, 2 Cor. 4.16. serm. in coena domini. but that it increaseth from glorie to glo­rie. Againe, the inward man is renued dayly. Which thing saint Bernard most notably confesseth. In the fall of the first man wee are all fallen: And that vpon a heape of stones, and in the mire: So that wee are not defiled onely, but wounded also and sore bruised. Wee may quickly be washed, but we must haue much a do, before we can be healed. And afterwards confessing this washing to be in baptisme, yet he complaineth that the beastly mo­tions are not tamed, neither that the itch of that sore may yet be abidden. By the which motions & itch he meaneth y ^t verie thing, which in his sermon at y ^e death of Malac. before [Page] alledged, he calleth sinne. But nowe let vs examine the particular proofes of this argument. Psal. 50 Dauid sayth, Blot out mine iniquitie, wash me throughly. Therefore all sinne is taken away in Baptisme. Dauid had receyued the Sacrament of Circumcision long before hee prayed thus, which was to them in stead of our Baptisme. And now hauing sinned long after, he maketh this prayer, that God would either pardon his sinne, or worke in him the subduing of the same, or both. But this proueth not, that sinne is vtterly subdued in baptisme: and that hee should proue. Micah. 7.18. Againe, the Prophet Micah saieth, that God ta­keth away iniquitie. Wee graunt it, that hee taketh a­way iniquitie by forgiuing vs our sinnes, and also by kil­ling sinne in vs by little and little, and so subduing it in the meane time, that it vtterly preuaile not against vs. But this proueth not that sinne is alreadie altogether vanqui­shed. Againe, Iohn the Baptist saide, Behold the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the worlde. Iohn 1.29. This also, to our singular great comfort we cōfesse and acknow­ledge, that he taketh away both the condemnation or cursse, and also the guiltinesse or corruption of our sinne: And therefore hee is truely sayde to take away the sinne of the worlde. Master Bellarmine should prooue, that this is perfectly done in baptisme, so that no sinne after baptisme remaineth, but this proueth no such matter. No not one of all these places make any mention of baptisme. Only they testifie, that either sinne is, or the godly would haue it abo­lished, which we also confesse and desire. But how, or when it is taken away, there is not any mention in the places al­ledged. Let vs then come to the last proofe of this argu­ment. The apostle speaking of Christs loue to the church his spouse, sayth: He gaue himselfe for it, that he might sanctifie it and cleanse it, Ephe. 5.25 26, 27 by the washing of water in the worde: that he might make it vnto himselfe a grorious church, not hauing spot or wrinkle, &c. Now if I should expound this place, Ezec. 47. by the 47. Chapter of Ezechiel, [Page 85] vnto the which the apostle may verie well seeme to allude, I knowe this exposition would be thought newe, and sin­gular. But yet as this exposition hath nothing in it a­gainst the rule of faith, so by saint Ieroms interpretation of that place of Ezechiel, it seemeth to be warranted. For by the waters mentioned in that place, hee vnderstandeth that which our sauiour Christ taught, as also both hee and Primasius doe expound this place of the apostle, As wa­ter (say they) washeth the bodie, Ierom & Pri­masius vpon Ephes. 5. so teaching doeth cleanse the soule. And so the apostle doth seeme to expound himselfe, when hee sheweth that this washing is in the worde. And thus this place serueth no more for his pur­pose then the rest. For none of them proue that baptisme taketh away all sinne. But admit that saint Paule spea­keth in that place of baptisme, yet this place will not serue to proue that they would haue it. For then the apostle tea­cheth vs, how the church of Christ, I say, that complete and whole bodie of Christ is sanctified, namely by himselfe in the worde, whereof baptisme is the sacrament. So that therein appeareth how, or rather by what meanes, the bo­die of Christ, his wife and spouse shall be without spot and wrinkle, but not in what maner, or in what compasse of time, euerie particular member of this bodie shall be freed from sinne, which is in controuersie amongst vs. But to ende this first argument. As this doctrine of the Romish Church sauoureth of Pelagianisme: so master Bellarmine and his fellowes borrow weapons of the Pelagians to fight withall. For saint Augustine doth note this place a­mongst those which the Pelagians did alledge to proue that man may be without sinne. De perfect. iust. cont. Celest. But more plainly writing to Boniface, hee writeth thus. Lib. 4. cap, 1 The Pelagians doe say that men by baptisme are perfectly renued, and bring for proofe the witnesse of the Apostle to the Ephes. 5. Not one ape is then liker another, than are the Pelagians and Papists, both in their doctrine, and in their proofe of it. But of all such testimonies I may say with saint August. [Page] Some of them exhort them that do runne, De perfect. iust. cont. Celest. that they run as they shoulde, some other shewe to what ende they should runne. And thus much for his first argument. His second argument is this. Arg. 2. of M. Bellarmine. The Scriptures say, that our spots, defilings, or pollutions, and our iniquities are ta­ken away, therefore in baptisme all sinne is taken away. For by these wordes is signified (saith hee) the verie cor­ruption of sinne. His argument is not good. For we con­fesse his antecedent, namely, that these things are taken a­way, as before hath beene shewed. But it followeth not thereupon, that by baptisme all sinne is taken away: wee acknowledge also that Christ is made vnto vs Sanctifica­tion: but in deed this holinesse wee say is not in this life perfected. 1. Cor. 1.30 Begun it is in Gods children, which walke not after the flesh, Rom. 8.1 but after the spirit. But doe what we can, we had need alwayes to pray as our Sauiour Christ taught his apostles, Forgiue vs our trespasses, as saint Augustin doth often teach vs, De perfect. Iust. Celest. De Amiss. gratiae. li. 5 cap. 8 and namely in the end of his booke of the perfection of Iustice: which place I the rather note, because most vntruly master Bellarmine writeth, that saint Augustine in that place saith, That the vnwilling motions of concupiscence, are so farre from being sinne, that a man neede not for the forgiuenesse of them say, Forgiue vs our trespasses: But saint Augustine affir­meth the contrary. For hauing alleadged that place of S. Iohn, 1. Iohn 1.8 If we say we haue no sin, we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs: then he addeth, that if any will say, that the apostle speaketh there of concupiscence, & that con­cupiscence if it be not consented vnto, is not sinne, He put­teth a subtill difference, which I would haue our aduersa­ries to marke, that they may know that S. Aug. counteth that but a subtill shift. And then he sheweth that we do som­times, somewhat consent to the lusts of that sinne, because otherwise we needed not to say, Forgiue vs our trespasses. So that we see saint Augustine maketh that a reason to prooue, that concupiscence often preuaileth, because wee [Page 94] haue neede so to pray. And thus we see how cleane contra­rie to all shew of trueth, master Bellarmine falsifieth saint Augustine. Which I would wish the simple to consi­der of: For many times either himselfe is so deceiued, or else hee seeketh to deceiue his Reader. But to returne to his argument, this we say, that euen here in this life, Gods children begin to haue a mislike of sin, & a loue of godlines, yea, and also by the assistance of Gods good spirit increase therin. But this shal not be perfected in vs, vntill we be de­liuered from this bodie of death, Rom. 7 Vpon Iohn tract. 41 and that made the apostle to crie out as he did. And therefore saint Augustine saith, that none in this life can be without sinne, yet sinne is dimi­nished in the life of them that do profit, but consumed it is in the life of the perfect: meaning after this life, when corruption hath put on incorruption, who then would al­lowe of this reason. The verie filth and corruption of sin, is taken away, therefore it must needes be taken away here by baptisme. Whereas on the contrarie, we are called children of God, because at the first, not in faith onely, but in life also we are beginners and weake, and must growe stronger and stronger in both. Arg. 3 His third argument. In cir­cumcision the flesh onely was cut away, not by imputation onely. Master Bellarmine verie vnskilfully doeth match togither things not of like nature. For as Circumcision is the cutting off the foreskinne, so is baptisme the washing of the bodie. But this is nothing to the effect of the Sacra­ment, to tel vs what the externall thing doth of it selfe. Out of that that hath beene said it is not hard to answer his 4. 6. 7. 8, and 9. arguments, if wee remember that God begin­neth in vs holines here, which shal be perfected else where. But in the meane time, for his Christs sake, hee accepteth our vnperfect holinesse for perfect, and forgiueth, euen the many and great sinnes of his children. As for his fift argu­ment, Bella. De iustificat, li. 2. cap. 7. Rom. 5.19 which in another place he saith that it seemeth vnan­swerable, euen in that respect that he trusteth so much in the strength of it, I would not omit.

And it is this, As by one mans disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many are made iust. But saith he, by Adams disobedience we were made indeede sinners, and not only by imputation: Therefore by Christ we are not by imputation only made righteous, but also indeed. What if I should answere ma­ster Bellarmine, that this word As, doth not signifie the likenesse in the maner of iustifying vs, but in the act it selfe. Namely, that many were partakers of Adams sinne, and many were made righteous by Christ. For this word As, doth not alwaies import an agreement or likenes in euery point. Among many examples that may be alleadged, this one may serue for all. Ioh. 20.21. As my father sent me, so sende I you. But God sent him from heauen, to take vpon him a nature that he had not, with fulnes of al power and graces: the apostles were not so sent. So that we see that master Bellarmine can not soundly reason because of this worde As, that this contrariety betweene the first and the second Adam, must hold in euery point. But what neede we to stand vpon so narrowe a point? Because the argument pleaseth him so wel, I wil yeeld to it, and confesse it to bee most true. And yet shall it nothing helpe maister Bellar­mine his cause. But in truth the summe of the doctrine that is taught in that place as Saint Augustine doth ga­ther, De peceat. met. & re­miss. li. c. 3 cap. 28. it is this, That as al in Adam die in whom al sinned, so they that are quickned, are quickned by Christ, in whom they are all iustified. But if hee will needes that this ma­king of vs righteous whereof the apostle speaketh, should be by our sanctification, I haue shewed that it cannot heere be perfect. But whensoeuer that shall bee perfected in vs, we must ascribe the glory thereof vnto Christ. For, what haue we that we haue not receiued? 1. Cor. 4.7. And that is the mea­ning of these words heere, That by him many are made righteous. But because that there is also another way wherby we are made righteous, namely, in that our sinnes are not imputed vnto vs, and that Christs merit is accoun­ted [Page 95] to vs as ours: and that our aduersaries wil in no wise heare vs speake of that: they shall yet heare how Saint Barnard writeth, euen alluding vnto the wordes from whence this vnanswerable argument in drawen. What (saith he) could man the seruant of sinne, Epist. 190. and bond-slaue of Sathan doe, to recouer righteousnes lost? Anothers righteousnes was assigned vnto him, because he lacked his owne. And then alluding to these wordes of S. Paul. Why should not righteousnes come from another, see­ing guiltines came from another? It is one that maketh vs sinners, and another that iustifieth from sinne. The one in his seede, the other in his bloud. Is there sinne in the seed of the sinner, and is not righteousnes in Christs bloud? And that we may know how he accompteth him­selfe made righteous by Christ, he addeth If the fault con­ueied to me is mine, why should not the righteousnes giuen to me be mine? And verily that is safer for me that is giuen me, then that is bred in me. Many things he hath in that place to this end, wherby it appeareth that he knew his owne righteousnes would not serue his turne, and ther­fore that he reposed his trust in Christ his righteousnes im­puted to him, which he calleth anothers righteousnes.

I might also let you see how substantially Fisher some­time bishop of Rochester proueth this. Christ, saith he, did say to some, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, therefore no sinne remaineth. But his owne friendes are ashamed of such arguments. For we confesse as our creede teacheth vs forgiuenesse of sinnes. But he should proue that wee are also so sanctified, that whilest heere we liue we be with­out sinne. And that his argument cannot doe. Thus then wee see, that although we haue in baptisme the promise of remission of all our sinnes sea­led vp vnto vs: yet we cannot say, Prou. 20.9. I haue made mine heart cleane, I am cleane from sinne.

[...]Maister Bellarmines first argument whereby he will p [...] e that man hath free well, is [...] in effect. We [...] not of [...] but of well, so that we may choose whether we will [...] or not, therefore we haue free w [...] ll. It is fal [...] that he saith we [...] not of necessity but of well. For although that were [...] Adam, in respect of his sinne that it was simply voluntary, for I speake not of Gods e­ternall decree: yet by reason of that corruption that we h [...] from him, Rom. [...] .23. and cleaneth vnto vs, Wee are so led capt [...] e vnto the law of [...] e, and haue in vs such a fountaine of [...] , [...] that we may truely say w [...] th the apostle, we are car­nall and folde vnder sinne. And th [...] s necessity of f [...] ing is in vs, by reason of that frowardnes of our will. Which although it be so reformed in the regenerate, that they haue a will to doe well: yet because the old man will dwell with vs, euen so long as we carry this mortal body: and the new man w [...] ll neuer be wholy put on, vntill the old man be put off: there will euer be in vs a rep [...] ing against good, & rea­ [...] s to euil. So that although it be true in some respect, that we sinne of will, because we are very reader & willing thereto, yet is our will drawen with the cordes or chaines of iust and concupiscence that it cannot but sinne. And therefore Saint Paul doth very aptly call concupiscence A law in the members, because of the necessity of obeying it.

And therefore on the contrary I may t [...] [...] . Rom. [...] .1 [...] . The godly are led captiue vnto the law of [...] : therfore they c [...] not chu [...] whether they will sinne or [...] : but because of [...] corruption they [...] sinne.

H [...] s second argument is th [...] . [...] If there be o [...] free will [...] made, then [...] [...] e [...] no point for reward or punishment. First, for the punishment of the worked, we do confesse [...] o [...] that they haue free will to do euill, and also iustly de [...] e the punishment that is lawe vpon the [...] . Thus farre then [...] agree. And also for the other part which concei [...] eth the godly, [...] as true, that if you take away free will, you take away the reward that the worke might merite or de­serue. But we pleade Gods promise, not o [...] deseruing, his mercy not our [...] , [...] s shalbe shewed by Gods grace hereafter. For we know, that as heere we haue [...] good thing in vs, but that wee haue receiued it of has [...] grant: so heereafter wee shall haue no glorie, 1 Pet. [...] [...] . but of he [...] onely [...] cy, Who hath kept vs by his power vnto saluation through faith. And therefore, although we [...] e [...] full, and so can not deserue the reward that wee looke for, yet God is faithfull, who h [...] h pro [...] sed: and there­fore it is a right [...] s thing with him to giue vs rest with him. Thus then may I reason. The reward of our good workes is not giuen in any respect of our free will: there­fore if free will be taken away, yet that reward is not ta­ken away.

His third argument. If it were not for fire will, Arg [...] all should be good, or all should be bad: yea, and that all a [...] ke good or euill. Which argument is answered by experience it selfe, and therefore needeth no long confutation. For themselues will confesse, that i [...] the Infidels there is not free will, but a seruile will. And yet amongst there some were better, some worse. Yea some among them came so neare being good, Iob. 3. 3 [...] . that some Papists thought they might be saued. And yet free will they could not haue, because the Sonne hath not made them free.

Arg. 4 ca. 17 De corrept. & grat. cap. 2 His fourth argument. Take away free will, and in vaine are exhortations, rebukings, praises, dispraises, commandements, councils, admonitions &c. Which argu­ment S. August. answereth for vs: They are, that men may know what they should do. And as he writeth of the Lawe, that it is necessary to be giuen, although it cannot be kept: so wee may answere of these things that master Bellarmine speaketh of. De perfect. iustit. contra Celest. His wordes are these: Why should not this perfection bee commaunded vnto men, although no man in this life attaine vnto it? For a man shall neuer runne well, that knoweth not which way to runne. And how shoulde that bee knowen, if by no precepts it should be shewed? Thus then I rea­son. Saint Augustine saith, that precepts must be gi­uen although they cannot be kept: therefore although man haue not free will to perfourme that is commaunded, yet commaundements are necessarie. In Cantic. serm. 50. And Saint Bernard saith, God doeth by that meanes humble vs. As for o­ther vses of admonitions, I will not now speake of them: for I trust this is sufficient for answere to the argument. Which also is an answer vnto his fift argument which is this. Arg. 5 ca. 18 In the scripturs many things are forbidden and com­maunded, and without free will that were in vaine: which is all one with the fourth argument. De gratia & lib. Arbit. c. 2 But because master Bellarmine doeth prooue this argument, and that very strongly (as himselfe saieth) because saint Augustine v­seth that very reason to prooue free will, I must needes speake a word of that place. Seeing therefore saint Au­gustine hath said in the place alleadged in the former argu­ment, that precepts are needefull though they can not bee kept: And now he saith, if there be not free will, precepts are in vaine. It seemeth that there were some amongest them, to whome he writeth, that thought that Gods grace did so worke in men, that they shoulde doe nothing at all themselues (for he complaineth of some, Cap. 2. that when grace was defended, though free will was denied.) Therefore [Page 98] hee teacheth them, that although wee be made partakers of grace, yet we are not without: nay rather wee haue free wil. But what manner of free wil? Haue we that free will that hath power and strength to doe good, and abstaine from euil? No, In Enchirid. cap. 9. Saint Augustine confesseth that to bee lost. Man not vsing well freewill, lost both himselfe and that. What then? A will freed from that bondage vnto sinne wherein it was. A will that nowe hath a loue and liking of that is good, and not altogither delighting in euill as before it did. And indeed in vaine are exhortations to them that are not so freed from euil, that they haue at the least a plkasure in good things,. Well may exhortations and instructions be to their confusion, but to their comforte they shall not bee. This then is is the meaning of that place, that God speaketh to vs in vaine in the scriptures, if we be, but as stockes and stones, not hauing so much as a delight therein, and hauing this willingnes, God must al­so by his grace inable vs, or els we cannot fulfill our will. The sixt argument is like the rest. Arg. 6. ca. 1 [...] . It hath no necessarie consequence. God maketh promise vnto vs vnder condi­tion that we shal obey him, therefore either we are able to obey, or els it is saith Maister Bellarmine, a mockery, and not a promise. Not so Maister Bellarmine. For in such conditional promises, it is not declared what we can doe, but what we ought to doe, and what in respect of the excel­lency of our creation, may iustly be required of vs, and what we must doe before we can be perfect. And because Maister Bellarmine thinketh it so scornefull a thing, that God shouln make promise vnder such condition cannot bee performed of vs: I would he woulde consider with him­selfe, where is the cause why we cannot performe it. Is it in good? No, for he requireth nothing of vs, but that hee gaue vs abilite to doe, if wee had kept vs in that estate. Is it in our creation? No, we were made good. Is it in the lawe? But that is pure, iust, and holie. Is it then in our selues? Yea truely. For in Adam wee [Page] are all sinners, and by sinne robbed of that power to keep the law, and performe such conditions, as once before we had.

If then the impossibility of keeping the conditions, is by our owne fault, God may iustly require of vs that debt, which hee knoweth wee were able to pay, when first we became his debters. We see then, that it is neither a good argument, to say God promiseth vpon condition, therfore wee can perfourme the condition: (for the condition doeth but shew, what we ought to doe, or what marke we must aime at, yea, and what wee must doe in the end) neither ab­surd that he should require that of vs now, which once we could haue performed, and might still haue done, if wee had not our selues bin in fault. But thus wee might rea­son truely. God maketh vnto vs many and great promi­ses if we obey him: therefore we must striue to obey him, striue (I say) by prayer, by meditating in Gods lawe, and by all godly exercises. And God would haue vs indeede, by such meanes to stirre vp our selues to attaine to the pro­mises. And because the promises belong but to the godly, and not to the wicked, we will easily confesse, that there is in them a willingnesse to obey. But yet not free will, be­cause it is hindred by tentations without and within them­selues, and by it owne weakenesse. So that, be they neuer so willing, yet they can not obey, but euen as they are led by Gods good grace. In psa. 109. enarratione. It is no great matter (saith Augu­stine) that God made his Sonne to shew the way, since hee hath made him the way it selfe, that thou mightest goe by him ruling thee, that goeth by himselfe. For in deede wee can not walke alone in those wayes, wee are as babes that cannot goe by themselues.

Arg. 7. & 8. His seuenth argument, as also the eight argument, is (in a manner) the very same with the first, ca. 20. & 21. Deut. 30.14. and neede not be answered againe. But yet I will touch that place of Deuteronomie, whereupon he especially resteth for the strength of the seuenth argument: and for interpretation [Page 99] whereof he inueieth against master Caluine. Moses saith, or God by Moses: The word is neere thee, euen in thy mouth, and in thy heart. By which words master Bellar­mine saieth Moses telleth vs, that this woord is easie to keepe: and therefore, that we haue free will. M. Bellar­mine is but too bolde in a bad cause, and too ready to speake more than hee can prooue. That which he had said before, This commaundement is not hid from thee, Verse 11. neither farre off: he prooueth in this place, because it is in their mouth and heart, so that they need not seeke far to get it. The Chalde paraphrase can finde no free wil in these words. Chris. expounds these words of the cōmandement, that it is easie to be had without trauell by sea or land, Chrysost. in Rom. ser. 17. not once dreaming of the easines of performing or doing it: but most plainly saith Theophilact: Vpon the Romanes the tenth. Gods commaundement (O thou Iew) is before thy eies, neither shalt thou need that thou mayest find and inioy it, either to clime vp in to heauen, or go down into the deepe. It is at hand, and nearer vnto thee: Beholde, it is euen in thy mouth, and in thy heart: For God by his lawe hath shewed thee all things. How impudently soeuer therefore master Bellar­mine dare affirme, that Moses speaketh there of the easi­nesse of keeping Gods lawe: yet the circumstance of the text, and the iudgement of the Writers alleadged especi­ally of Theophilact, is flat against him. Rom. 10.8. And to that end doth the Apostle saint Paul apply it also to his purpose, speaking of iustification by faith.

Arg. 9 His ninth argument consisteth of two places of scrip­ture. ca. 22 The first is out of that talke which God had with Caine, before he killed his brother Abel. Gen. 4.7. Also vnto thee his desire shall bee subiect, and thou shalt rule ouer him.

But that this may be an argument for freewill, ma­ster Bellarmine and others contend, that it should be read. The desire of it shalbe subiect vnto thee, and thou shalt beare rule ouer it. And so they prooue that sinne shall be [Page] subiect vnto Cain and he shall beare rule ouer it: There­fore he had free will. That manie of the fathers doe ex­pound these words so, it cannot be denied. But not what they say is only to be regarded, but how they proue it: yea the Iesuites that wrote, In dialog. 2 the censure of Colen will be there­in my warrant for they hauing condenmed some of the auncient fathers to haue spoken hardly, because they ac­counted the workes of infidels, how good soeuer they see­med, to be but sinne, doe then fall to trie how their proofe will warrant their doctrine. So must I heere examine vpon what ground the fathers doe thus expound it. And this I need not feare to do. For themselues giue me leaue to examine that they say. If then saint Hillarie haue gi­uen vs a true rule to interprete the scripture, when he say­eth, Lib. 9. de trinit. The vnderstanding of that which is spoken, must be looked for of the wordes that go before, or of those that followe, Let vs see what interpretation is to bee ga­thered out of the circumstances of that place: that wee may with the Church receiue the fathers, but not with the fathers forsake the faith of the Church, In Commo­nitor. contra haeres. as Vincen­tius Lirinensis warneth vs. First then, euen in respect of the verie Grammer, if the relatiue in both places must a­gree with the antecedent, then this worde (It) which is the relatiue in both places as they would haue it, or ra­ther his or him, as we say, being of the Masculine Gen­der, which themselues cannot denie, the worde (Sinne) which is of the Feminine Gender, cannot bee the antece­dent to those Relatiues, although it goe next them, which maister Bellarmine vnlearnedly affirmeth. And therefore that translation, and interpretation of the place, standeth not with the rules of Grammer. Secondly, the circum­stances of the place, teach vs so much. Cain is angrie that his brothers sacrifice is accepted of, and his not: There­fore when God hath questioned with Cain of his anger, hee bringeth this as an argument to pacifie him, because that Cain being the elder brother, should still haue the pre­rogatiue [Page 100] of the elder brother: and Abell should bee sub­iect vnto him. And that this is the plaine and natural sense of the wordes, I proue by sundrie reasons. First, because in the former Chapter, God speaking of the subiection of Eue vnto Adam, as they cannot but confesse, Cap. 3.16. vseth the selfe same wordes there, that are here vsed. And therefore by all likelihoode hee speaketh of the same matter also here, that there he did, howe Abell should be vnder his el­der brother. Conferre the wordes together, you shall see them agree.

Secondly, how impertinenly had the promise of free will, beene made in that place vnto Cain, God hauing re­iected his sacrifice, and knowing his furie towards his bro­ther, yea not any one circumstance inducing thereunto. But thirdly their owne doctrine doeth strongly confute them. For if they that are not regenerate (as Cain) haue the power of their will, by their owne confession weakened, and so clogged that they cannot haue free wil to doe good, then this cannot be verified of sinne, howe could God say that the lust or desire of sinne should be vnder him, or that he should haue dominion ouer sinne, being a gracelesse, and cruel man. Yea, the euent did presently declare, that hee was subiect to sinne, and that sinne got the dominion ouer him. So that I cannot see how they can be excused, from seeking to make God a liar, that affirme that God there promised that Cain should subdue sinne, the euent being so plain contrary. Which because I know it to be farre from those godly fathers, I will rather thinke, that they did but allude vnto that place, then expound the words. And thus I trust it is plaine, that neither the rules of Grammer, nor the circumstances of the place, neither yet their owne doc­trine of free will, can well stand with that interpretation that they doe bring. As for his second authoritie which is out of Ecclesiasticus, the booke it selfe, not being canonical, Eccle. 15.14, 15, 16. a necessarie argument cannot bee gathered out of the same.

And that man at the first had free will it can not bee [Page] denied, and of that especially the place mentioned doeth in­treat. De grat. & liber. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 23 Now certaine other arguments out of the scripture there are alledged, whereunto I will briefly make answer. The first out of Deuteronomie, where Moses hauing shewed them, how he hath deliuered to them Gods word (in obeying whereof is life, Deut. 30, 19. and in contempt of it death:) hee then addeth, Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seede may liue. Wherin Moses doth nothing else, but ear­nestly stirre vp the people, to endeuour to the vttermost of their power to serue God: Not shewing what they can ef­fectually applie themselues vnto, by the power of their will, but what they should doe in respect of their duetie towardes God, or care of their owne good. As for that of Iosue, Iosue. 24.15. Choose you this day whom you will serue, When Iosue, who had good experience of the frailtie of the people, and their readinesse to serue other gods, had set before them the great mercies of God, in their mightie deliuerance and preseruation from many perils, the more strongly to tie them vnto God, hee putteth them to this choise, not because he would haue suffered them to haue worshipped strange gods, if themselues would, (for that had beene contrarie to the dutie, that God required of him being a magistrate) but to this ende, that themselues ha­uing made choise to serue God, might by this their owne voluntarie submitting themselues to God, bee vrged to serue him more sincerely, as by the 22. verse appeareth. And this choise also is rather what external profession they would be of, which is a matter in our owne power, rather then of the inwarde affection, which is the thing in con­trouersie betweene the Papists and vs. For this we de­nie, and they should proue, that wee are able by our free will to doe things that are truely good, and to eschewe the things that are euill. And that this choyse that they were put to, was what externall profession they would be of, the wordes themselues declare. Choose (sayeth hee) whether ye will serue the Gods which your fathers ser­ued, [Page 102] or the gods of the Amorites, I and my house will serue the Lorde. As if a man would say now, choose whe­ther you will professe the Gospell or Poperie. His testi­monie out of Ecclesiasticus, Eccle. 31.10 Who might offend and hath not offended? or doe euill, and hath not done euill? I maruell bee so much commendeth, thinking it vnanswera­ble. Whereas, if it proue any thing, it is but that which we neuer denied, namely that the wicked haue a free will to euill. Now that which he alledgeth out of saint Paul, is too absurd: Neuerthelesse he that purposeth firmely in his heart that he hath no need, but hath power ouer his owne will, &c. What are these wordes to free will. The power y ^t here he speaketh of, is if he performe his purpose without inconuenience to his daughter, as may appeare not onely by Primasius, and Hierom, of this place, Primasius. Hieronimus. Tho. Aquin. but al­so by his owne friend Thomas of Aquine, who sheweth that then he hath power of his owne will, when hee know­eth his daughter, hath a purpose to continue a virgine. So that in effect, this is his argument. His daughter doth not hinder his will for keeping her a virgin: therefore hee hath free will in himselfe to doe good, or eschew euill. Of the strength of which argument, let maister Bellarmines owne friendes consider. His last place out of the scriptures is ve­rie like this. As euerie man wisheth in his owne heart, 2. Cor. 9.7. &c. He speaketh of the contribution to the Saints. You must (sayeth saint Paul) giue willingly. Therefore say­eth maister Bellarmine, you haue free will. Wee con­fesse that the regenerate haue a willingnes to do good, and eschew euill, and this the apostle would haue in them. But doeth this prooue that they haue free will? And thus farre for their arguments for free will out of the scrip­tures. Out of the fathers master Bellar. bringeth many proofes. And although there be iust cause, to suspect ma­nie of them in this question, because they could not so easi­ly forget that which in the schooles of philosophy they had learned: yet that it may appeare that they haue not so ge­nerall [Page] a consent as they bragge of, it is not amisse some­what to looke into and to examine the proofes, Bellar. de grat. & lib. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 25. that out of them they bragge. But maister Bellarmine would make a man afraide to heare his crackes. Hee braggeth al­wayes that his armour is of the best proofe that can not bee pearced, his arguments such as can not be answered. And first commeth in Ignatius, Epist. de. mag. whose wordes are so vn­answerable, that maister Bellarmine seeth no way but to denie the Authour. But let maister Bellarmine quiet him selfe, we will admit the authour. The effect of that he al­ledgeth out of the first place, is, that looke what men doe choose that they shal haue: and after, If a man do wicked­ly, he is a man of the diuell, so made not by nature, but by the will of his minde. Then let vs see his argument: Looke what men doe choose, they shall goe into the place of that they choose, whether it bee life or death, so sayeth Ignatius, therefore (saith maister Bellarmine men haue free will. The force of both his places is this, and the argument that can bee gathered out of the same: men haue will: ergo they haue free will. And are these his vn­answerable arguments. That which hee alledgeth out of Dionysius Areopagita, although hee make as great bragges of it, as hee did of the other: yet it neuer so much as mentioneth free will. De diuinis nominibus li. 4. cap. 4. part. 4. In deed he saith, If a man might not resist sinne, hee were lesse to be blamed: But if hee that is good giue strength, which as the holy Scrip­tures teach, doeth giue things conuenient simplie to e­uerie man, &c. That God giueth conuenient strength to them which with humilitie seeke it, but what doth this gift of God prooue that wee haue free will. It rather ouer­throweth it. For if we haue not strength but by his gift, then we haue it not in vs, or by free will. As for Clement of Rome, because himselfe dare not speake much for the trueth of that witnesse, I let him passe. Then com­meth in Iustine the Philosopher and martyr, whose words for free will maister Bellarmine taketh to be so plaine, that [Page 102] he saieth maister Caluine neither doeth, nor can feigne a­nie thing, that will carrie any shewe of an answer. What neede we to feigne, Master Bellarmine, that haue the truth for our warrant. We leaue faigning to painters, poets, and papists, who loue alwayes to make a shew of that that is not. If we consider the occasions why the ancient fa­thers did write in such sort, their meaning will bee pliane enough. And that may appeare by Iustinus Martyr here alledged. He saith, I grant. Apolog. ad senatum. Apol. ad An. That if men haue not free will to shunne euill and doe good, they are not to blame for that they doe, and deserue neither reward nor pu­nishment. Thus in effect hee saieth in the places alled­ged.

We neither denie the authour in this place to be Catho­like, nor his woordes (in his sense to be true. But be­cause there were some that beeing deceyued with that which the Stoikes taught, concerning that fatall neces­sitie whereby all things were done, as though man could not choose but do the euill that he doeth, and that he were by this fatall necessitie compelled thereto, in respect of the necessarie consequence of causes, and thereby made man to haue nothing to doe in the workes that himselfe did, but that hee were euen forced thereto without his owne will, as stone or wood is laide in the house, onelie at the pleasure of the workeman, without anie disposi­tion in themselues one way or other: because (I say) that some hereby did denie all will or inclination in man to good or euill, as not onely Simon Magus, and the Manicheis of whom maister Bellarmine speaketh, but also the Bardesanistes, Cap. 35. Cap. 6 [...] . of whome Saint Augustine wri­teth in his Booke of herisies, who ascribed all mans conuersation to destinie, and the Priscilianists, who because they make all their actions to bee ruled by the Planets, thinke that they sin against their will, and therfore doth not Iustin onely, but other of the godly fathers speak so plain­ly as they seeme to doe in defence of free will. Not because [Page] they thinke, that man hath such ability being once renued by grace, that he can doe what hee will, as the papistes teach, but they only impugne these Stoicall opinions that affirme that man doth of necessitie euill or good. And that this is the meaning of Iustine the Martir by his owne wordes doth plainly appeare, because in both the places al­leadged by maister Bellarmine, he setteth himselfe to rea­son against thē that would haue men thinke that all things were wrought by desteny. Against the which, he on the other side reasoneth, that if men had not will or choice in themselues to doe things, we should neither deserue pu­nishment for euil doing, nor haue reward for well doing. Thus haue I truely & faithfully deliuered vnto thee (good reader,) the cause that maketh this and other of the ancient fathers especially before Pelagius to write so plainelie for free will. De fide Or. thod. li 2. cap. 7. As also may wel be gathered out of Damascene. For when as yet there were none sprung vp, that did attri­bute too much to free wil as afterward the Pelagians did; but there were on the contrary, many that did wholy take al wil from man: no maruel if they did wholy oppose them­selues against the daunger which they sawe present before their eies. And therefore they did teach as they did, to whom also we giue our right handes of fellowship and con­sent in doctrine, Gal. 2.9. What wee say of mās will. as Iames, Cephas, and Iohn, did vnto Bar­nabas and Paul. For we also doe teach, that man though by his fal he lost his freedome of wil, to him and his po­sterity: yet his wil he lost not, but still had it, and hath it. Whereby very readily and willingly he runneth vnto euil. But hauing his wil renued by Gods spirit, it is then good, so much as it is renued, it loueth good, and would faine do it, Ad Bonif. cont [...] a. 2. e [...] ist. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 18 and in that sence wee also saie with saint Augustine, that it is free, that is, willing and readie: but yet not free, that is, not able to performe that good which we would, by reason of the infirmitie of our new man, the corruption of our nature, and the manifolde intisementes and tenta­tions whereby we are withdrawen from holy obedience. [Page 103] And now if the first fathers, did not so plentifully set forth mans weakenes, as they did his wil or power to do things, it is no maruell because they neither knew Pelagians nor papistes, but them that erred in the contrary o­pinion.

And this being wel considered of, maie serue I trust to answere to whatsoeuer they can alleadge out of the fathers for free wil: & may teach vs, that they cal it free, not as it is able, but as it is willing, to do good & eschew euil. De corrept. & gra. cap. 2. De gra. & li­bero arbitrio lib. 2. cap. 9. And therfore saint Augustine saith, Men are driuen, to the ende they should doe, not that they should doe nothing. And for this cause saint Bernard saith, That a man may not be called, or can indeed be good or euill, vnlesse he be wil­ling. And saint Ambrose, or whosoeuer wrote the bookes of the calling of the Gentiles, There is no kinde of ver­tue that may bee had, either without the gift of Gods grace, or the consent of our will. But of an infinite num­ber of such like places, let these few be sufficient, to teach vs, that they ment not to extol the power of mans wil, but to lay the fault in man, if he refuse the graces offered, and to stirre vp men willingly and readily to receiue them, and stedfastly to keepe, and holily to vse them. And thus much generally, for the true vnderstanding of all the testi­monies of the fathers that are alleadged by maister Bellar­mine, not only in his fift booke, Cap. 25, 26, 27, 28. de gratia & libero ar­bitrio: but also those other that he hath in his sixt booke, where he especially handleth the question of free wil, Cap. 11. in things appertaining to godlines. Whereas before he in­deuoured to proue it in moral vertues. But because that in the former, he did lay the foundation of that which in the sixt he teacheth, and al belonged to that end. Namely, to the question of free wil, which in this chapter I am to han­dle, therefore haue I thought good to answere in this one place whatsoeuer he saith tending to that end. As for his foure arguments out of the scriptures, which he bringeth in the sixt booke, Cap. 10. the answere to them I trust may be gathe­red [Page] of that is already answered. Sauing only that the first and third require a more special answere. For his second argument in this sixt booke, is al one with the fourth in the fift booke. And his fourth and last in the sixt, is like the first in the fift booke. His first argument in the sixt booke is ta­ken especially of the word Cooperarii, Worke men togi­ther with God, for so the greeke word doth signifie, not Fellow-helpers, 1. Cor. 3. as the common latin translation hath, as though God could not without vs worke. Wel let vs see his argument. We are workemen togither with God, ther­fore we haue freewil, say they. But we may more iustlie conclude on the contrary, therefore we haue not freewil as the papists teach, it selfe able to doe good, or auoide euill. For that is it that is in question. We willingly confesse, that we being regenerate haue a willingnes to good, and a mislike of euil, but we say that we cannot performe this our good desire. And therefore seeing we cannot worke, but as workemen togither with God, it is most euident and plaine, that our will hath not that power that the church of Rome teacheth it to haue, to be freely moued to good. And therefore wel saith S. Augustine, That we will, God worketh without vs, De gra. & li. arb. t. cap. 17. but when we will, and so will that we also doe, he worketh togither with vs. But without him either working that we may will, or working with vs when we will, we haue no power to the good workes of godlines. And by this also appeareth the answere to the other argument which I saide was not before answered. We are saith M. Bellar. holpen by God in praier, or in any good worke, therefore we haue free wil. If we remember how they teach, that a man being once holpen and stirred vp by Gods grace, is afterwards freely able to doe good, ha­uing his wil thus reuiued, or rather vnfettered, a mā would not thinke M. Bellar. to be in earnest in such argumentes. Suppose you should vndertake to beare a burden far hea­uier then you could carry, and another much stronger than you, taketh it vp, and beareth it you also laying your hands [Page 104] to the same, to helpe as you can. Wil you say you are able to beare it, because your hand also touched it? Euen such is our ability in keeping Gods commaundements. Or as chil­dren when they are first taught to goe. Their mother lif­teth them vp that they maie put their legges forwarde, holdeth vp their coates that they be no hinderance to them, yea helpeth them to step forward. There is nothing in the childe, but only that it would faine goe, but it hath not strength to perform it. Is it now any reason to say, the child is able to goe, because the mother doth thus helpe it. No no, seeing Gods helpe is such that he worketh both to wil and to doe in vs, let vs giue glory vnto him only, by whom we may doe al things, and without whom we can doe no­thing. Philip. 2.13. Phil. 4.13. Iohn. 15.5. And we may iustly be ashamed of such foolish rea­sons: God helpeth vs, therefore we haue free will. We may perchance conclude thereupon that we doe somewhat, but how little it is that we doe, nay how we doe very no­thing, without Gods good grace in the workes of Godli­nesse, in all this Chapter is I hope sufficiently de­clared.

But nowe for the conclusion of this Chapter, I woulde gladlie knowe of them that so stiflie maintaine free will, howe they can cleare themselues from the Pelagian here­sie, so hated of all the Godly, so often condemned by Councels, and so mightilie confuted by Saint Augustin in many of his bookes? Orth. explic. lib. 4. Andradius answereth this mat­ter fully. They confesse, saith hee, our strength to bee so weake (he speaketh of them that made the censure of Co­len) that vnlesse it be made strong by Gods grace, wee can neither doe nor will anie perfect good thing. But the Pelagians will grant thus much: And yet S. August. cal­leth them hereticks, & oftentimes enemies of the grace of Christ, yea new heretickes, enemies to the crosse of Christ, such as fought against, forsooke, yea persecuted the grace of Christ. And yet I say they grāted asmuch as the papists doe. First they cōfesse that by grace they were holpen that [Page] they might become Gods children. Aug. ad Bon. li. 1. cap. 3. Yea that they were al­waies holpen by Gods grace in euery good worke. And that grace helpeth euerie bodies good purpose. Cap. 19. Now let the reader iudge wherin the popish Pelagians, Lib. 4. cap. 6. differ from those old condemned Pelagians. They seeme to be birdes of one nest. What doth S. Augustine (out of whom I haue alleadged this confession of the Pelagians) I say, what doth he think of their words? he liketh them wonderful wel. In so much, as doubtles, saith he, a man would thinke this were spoken like a catholicke. Ibidem. How then fel it out that stil he was accounted an hereticke, and his fauorites? S. Augu­stine although he could not mislike much of that he saide, yet he could not but condemne their intent and meaning. And therefore when he had said it was spoken like a catho­licke, he addeth, If they would not thinke of merit in this their good purpose, to which merit reward should bee giuen as of duty, not of grace. Now I pray you to what end doth the church of Rome defende this doctrine of free wil? Is it not that the doctrine of merits may follow? Yes I warrant you. That is it they so earnestly contend for. For thereby they gaine both credit and coyne. So that they seeme then to agree in their words, and in their intent. See­ing therefore this doctrine of free wil, doth so conspire with the Pelagian heresie, and so dissent from the word of God as hath beene shewed: let vs say with saint Augustine, Thinking we beleeue, thinking we speake, thinking we doe whatsoeuer we doe: Aug. de bon. seuerantiae. cap. 13. but concerning the true waie of godlines, and seruice of God: we are not sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing as of our selues, but our sufficiency is of God. And therefore we liue more safely, when we yeeld all to God, and com­mit not our selues in part to him, and in part to our selues, Ibidem. ca. 6. as the same saint Augustine saith els where.

Now that our aduersaries are in this point, so stiffe vpon so small a ground, it being so necessary a point of reli­gion, that without true knowledge thereof, they cannot be saued, I cannot but maruell. For besides that which before I haue said of the imperfection of our works, which is con­fessed by themselues) for Andradius confesseth that the Ie­suits of Colen say, that it cannot be, Orthod. ex­plic. lib. 5. that we can loue God perfectly and sufficiently in this life) besides that imperfec­tion I say, which is in any thing that we can do, which can­not answere for that perfect righteousnes, which God iust­ly may require of vs: there are sundry other great reasons to induce vs, to detest that doctrine, as a thing most dāgerous for christians to giue eare vnto. Luc. 17.9. Our sauiour Christ when he hath by the parable of the seruant, taught vs that it is our duetie to do that which he commaundeth vs, he addeth this, So likewise yee, 10. when you haue done all those things that are commanded you: say we are vnprofitable seruauntes: wee haue done that was our dutie to doe. If then it be our dutie to keepe Gods commaundements, yea and that not once, but that so long as wee liue, In luc. li. 8. wee must doe it, as Saint Ambrose saieth: In luc. ca. 17. and if as The­ophilact saith, that wee are bounde to keepe all Gods [Page] commaundements: I would faine learne of some of our aduersaries, howe the doing of that thing which wee al­waies ought to doe, can satisfie Gods wrath, for neglect of such dueties as we haue not done, and such sinnes as wee haue committed contrary to Gods lawe? for if now I keepe the commaundement, it is my duety nowe and alwayes to doe it. Can this then bee any recompence to satisfy God for such times as I haue omitted my duetie? It cannot be, it hath no likelihoode of trueth. Nay, if he worke not (saieth Theophilact) hee is woorthy of many stripes, Luc. 17. and if he worke, let him content himselfe, that he is not beaten. Therefore let him not seeke for re­ward or honor for it. Therfore seeing euery worke that wee do is a sacrifice that then must be offered, a duty that then must be performed, and that also very short I war­rant you of that wee should performe, if it were well sif­ted, how can we say that such a worke can merite eternall life? Or, if that worke can but serue that duety that then is required, what recompence shall wee make for all other our sinnes. For it is a question amongst themselues whe­ther Christ by his death did take away any sinnes, but on­ly originall sinne. For Ambrose Catharinus an archbi­shop, In his booke de Incruento sacrif. and a great man at the Councell of Trent, doeth plainely write, that Christ died onely for originall sinne. As for actuall sinnes, they must be taken away by masses and such helps, saith he. Now if we had no other hope but such paltry popish deuises, to take away our sinnes where­in we continually offend, we were the most miserable of all creatures.

But to returne to the wordes of our sauiour Christ. Out of them we may reason thus. If our most perfect o­bedience be but duety, it is not merit: but it is but duety: therefore no merit. This whole argument is necessarily to be gathered out of the words themselues, as you see the forenamed fathers doe testifie. Which place also is very strong against their most blasphemous doctrine of their [Page 107] workes of supererrogation. For if all wee can doe, Against workes of Superer­rogation, Cap. 20. bee scarce our owne dutie, then can it not serue for others, to satisfie for their sinnes. And yet is this doctrine defended by them, as by Nichol Burne in his booke, yea, and by master Bellarmine, who is so little ashamed thereof, that as it were a doctrine that must needes be graunted vnto him, he endeuoureth thereby to prooue that we may keepe Gods lawe: A man (saieth he) may doe more than God commaundeth: De iustificat. lib. 4. cap. 13 therefore much more may hee fulfill the law.

Now if you will knowe the mystery of this great abho­mination, it is this (as they tel vs.) Whereas some men, say they, haue beene so godly that they haue done mo good workes than they needed, these are as it were the treasure of the church, which the Pope may at his pleasure bestow. And so he doth: for the pardons and indulgences haue their vertue from these workes. So that if there bee no such workes: then the Pope like a false merchant hath decei­ued the world for many yeeres, as still he doeth. For his pardons, Agnus Dei, his grana benedicta, and such baggage, haue no vertue, but from their workes of su­pererrogation. And here I can but wonder, at the who­rish forehead of the church of Rome in this thing. Shee can in no wise abide the imputation of Christes righteous­nesse for our iustification: shee may not heare of it. All Popish Writers write against it. And yet their doctrine of merites, especially of the workes of supererrogation, what is it but the imputation of other mens merites, as they think to satisfie for vs, and for our iustification. Shal Christes righteousnesse imputed to vs, be absurd to teach? and to teach the imputation of mans workes a sound doc­trine? We may see by this, that in the church of Rome, that doctrine is best that is most gainefull. For the Pope can gaine but little worldly wealth, by preaching the im­putation of Christes righteousnesse vnto vs: But by this doctrine of the workes of supererrogation hee gaineth [Page] much. For because it is the treasure of the church, who­soeuer will haue thereof must pay well for it to the church, that is to the pope. But howe doth master Bellarmine proue, that we can doe more than wee neede. Because that Christ bid one that said he had kept all the commande­ments, Mat. 19.22 Sell all he had, and giue it to the poore. I will not presse master Bellarmine here with the iudgement of the fathers, who finde this to be a commaundement and therfore not more than neede. Confess. li. 13. cap. 19. And saint Augustine seeth it to be a law against couetousnes. But who so euer will consider of the place, maie easilie see, that our sauiour Christ did purpose by this commaundement, to let him see his owne ignorance of his estate, and that he knew not his owne wants. Not meaning that it should be a comman­dement, of that he was not by Gods lawe bound to per­forme, but rather a rule whereby he might trie how far he was from keeping the second table of the commaunde­ments, and therfore that he might euen condemne himselfe to be much shorter, of keeping the first table. As for his proofe out of Chrysostome, Hom. 8. de poenitentia. Manie doe more than they are commanded, it is true that Chrysostome, saieth so, but it is also true y ^t he speaketh of such things, as are not simply of themselues good works, but indifferent of them­selues. But the vse or abuse of them, doth make them good workes, or euill. His examples that hee bringeth are of virginitie, that it is not commaunded (but this ma­ster Bellarmine omitteth of purpose, because it maketh agaynst their doctrine of vowes:) neither is it commaun­ded (saieth hee) that men should not possesse any thing. Yea, I knowe that the Scribes and Pharisees did many things that God neuer commaunded, as also the Iewes in the time of Esay, Esa. 1.12. to whom it was sayde, Who required these things at your handes? And this is also an answere to that which out of Augustine he alledgeth. What biddest thou? De verbis A­post. ser. 18. That wee should not bee adul­tresses? Commaundest thou that? In louing thee, [Page 108] we doe more than thou commaundest. For hee also speaketh of keeping virginitie. But master Bellarmines antecedent is thus to bee vnderstoode, that wee doe mo good workes than God commaundeth, or else his argu­ment is to bee denied. For we see by experience that the Papists doe an infinite number of things that God neuer commaunded. For which as they haue no warrant of God, so shall they haue no praise of him. And they may doe a thousand such workes, and bee neuer a whit nearer kee­ping Gods lawe, but much further off rather. For the more that men satisfie themselues with their owne works, Mat. 15 & 23 the lesse care they haue to keepe Gods commaundements, as our sauiour Christ teacheth vs. And maister Bel­larmines antecedent beeing thus vnderstoode (as I haue saide,) that wee may doe more good workes than God hath commaunded, is false. For in that it is not a good worke, if it bee besides Gods worde, And this is all that hee sayeth in that place for the woorkes of Supererro­gation.

Thus we see this rich doctrine hath a poore proofe. But if there were nothing to conuince the wickednesse of that doctrine, but this one thing, that they will seeme to mende that rule of perfection that God hath made, and take vpon them to prescribe more perfect rules, than God hath set downe, it argueth in them too prophane sawci­nesse. But thus much by the way of this kind of worke. For my purpose is not to make of it any seueral discourse, because that if it bee prooued, that wee cannot iustifie our selues by our workes, De iustif. lib. 5. ca. 5. it will followe that wee can much lesse helpe others. Nowe master Bellarmine finding this weapon too sharpe, this place to strong agaynst their me­rits would faine wrest it out of our hands. And first he telleth vs that saint Ambrose willeth vs to knowe what wee are of our selues. Wee must knowe the grace, but not bee ignorant of our nature, saieth saint Ambrose.

It is true, he writeth so, and that vpon iust occasion. For the very beginning of that sentence is, Peferre not thy self because thou art called a sonne: and then followeth: thou must confesse the grace, and not forget thy nature. As if he should say, thinke no wrong that thou art called an vnprofitable seruant, seeing thou art called a sonne. Thou art a sonne by grace, because God hath chosen thee, but if a man looke on thy worke, it is not woorth praysing. But what is this to answere the argument? Nothing at all. Maister Bellarmine perchance thinketh, that if he bring in the fathers as witnesses, they will speake as hee woulde haue them. Yet not Ambrose onely, but also Augu­stine and Chrysostome, Li. 8. in Luc. de verbis A­post. ser. de humilitate 18. in Oziam in the places by him cited, and Theophilact vpon these wordes, doe teach, that Christ would not haue vs proude of our good workes, that it is our dutie alwayes to worke, and as Ambrose saieth, We owe him our seruice, therefore let vs not boast of our worke. But as Theophilact sayth, If anie thing bee giuen vs, let vs be glad of it, hee that giueth it oweth vs nothing. But the seruant oweth to his master the kee­ping of all that he commandeth. So all this still streng­theneth my argument, that all that we can do, it is but our duetie, and therefore no merite. And although in respect of our election we may iustly reioyce that wee are Gods deare children: yet when we looke vpon our selues, wee must needes confesse vs to bee vnprofitable and vnperfect. Secondly, the repugnancie betweene grace and merite, set downe by saint Paul, Merit and grace ouer­throwe one ano­ther. Rom. 11.6 is a strong argument against iu­stification by workes. If it be of grace, it is no more of workes, or else were grace no more grace, or if it bee of workes, it is no more grace, or else were worke no more worke. Wherein we see how plainly the Apostle opposeth the one against the other, that we cannot be said to bee iu­stistied by grace, if we may attribute anie part of our iu­stification to workes. Neither will their common answer serue, that saint Paul speaketh of the first mercie that God [Page 109] sheweth vs, as that we are called to be Christian men or women, by grace without our workes, but that hereby hee excludeth not the workes that afterwardes we do, from me­rite. For seeing our aduersaries must needs confesse, that after our first calling, yea, and continually so long as we liue, we must acknowledge, that but by grace wee can­not bee saued: this grace which themselues dare not but confesse, taketh away merit: so that if grace bee free and without workes in our first iustification, it can neuer stand with workes in the rest of our life: The mi­strust of their workes. For still must this bee true, if it bee of grace it is not then of workes, if of workes then not of grace.

Thirdly, the great mistrust which I see themselues doe put in this their doctrine of iustification by workes, maketh me (who see no cause to like of it) the more to shunne it. For maister Bellarmine, no meane man for learning among them, when hee hath taken much paines to deceyue other with this doctrine, Bellar. a Lutheran, iustif. li. 5. cap. 7. yet himselfe dareth not trust it, and therefore setteth downe a verie good rule, which if Caluine or Luther had written it, it must needes haue beene called hereticall. Because (saith he) of the vncertaintie of our owne righteousnesse, and the daun­ger of vaine glorie, the safest way is to put our whole confidence in Gods mercie and goodnesse. Vnto which his good and true doctrine, wee say Amen, and yet I hope we shall not be called heretikes. The safest way to salua­tion is that we seek: let others passe what perillous places it shall please them. These and such other considerations doe make me muse, that euer men will forsake God, Ierem. 2.13. the fountaine of liuing waters, to digge them pits, euen broken pits that can holde no waters, that they will leaue the plaine and safe way, and choose the way that hath greatest daunger, wherein they deale not onely foolishly for themselues, but wickedly also with them that they leade into these blinde wayes. And I would haue all men to marke this well, that that doctrine, which vpon paine [Page] of saluation and damnation they teach men must beleeue, is daungerous by their owne confession, and the contrarie most safe. A great argument to teach vs, that they care not so much for the saluation of mens soules, as to get of men profit and credite. And therefore they are the lesse to be trusted or esteemed in other poynts in controuersie, who deale so vnchristianly in the most necessarie article of our religion. For you must vnderstande there are two wayes to eternal life, or rather (to speake with the Apostle) two kindes of righteousnesse. The one so hard to hit, that no man or woman, excepting onely Christ Iesus, God and man, could go it, so full of snares and traps, that none but hee could continue in it. This is that righteousnesse of the Lawe, Rom. 10.5. which Moses describeth thus. The man that doeth these things shall liue thereby. And this righteousnesse did our Sauiour Christ speake of, to the expounder of the lawe that came to him to aske, What shall I doe to inherite eternall life? Luke. 10.25 He sent him to the lawe. For if wee will be saued by workes, we must keepe the lawe. But then must we knowe, That whosoeuer keepeth the whole lawe, Iam. 2.10. and yet fayleth in one poynt, he is guiltie of all. Nowe this vngone, and vnbeaten way, so hard for vs to hit, so vnpossible to keepe, the church of Rome teacheth vs, that wee must keepe, and yet neuer any of her dearest darlings could get to heauen that way. But the righteousnesse that is by fayth, knoweth that Christ discended into the deepe, and died for our sinnes, and ascended into heauen to iustifie vs, and bring vs thither. For if thou confesse with thy mouth the Lorde Iesus, Rom. 10.9. and beleeue in thy heart that God ray­sed him vp from the dead, thou shalt bee saued. But this righteousnesse pleaseth not our aduersaries, be­cause all the glorie of working is giuen from themselues. This way they thinke too base, because it is not garnished with their workes, and strewed with their merits. And yet This is the way, Es [...] ie. 30.21. walke ye in it. As for that middle way [Page 110] which themselues haue deuised, which ioyneth Christes righteousnesse and theirs together, as though hee onelie could not saue them: it is no good way, for it maketh to wander from the path of Gods worde, and is daungerous by their owne confession. Take heede therefore of it, for it is the way that leadeth to death and damnation. Of this way I may say as saint Augustine doth of them that seeke for worldly happinesse by good workes. Aug. in. psal. 31 praefat. M. Bellar. Argument. for merits, Math. 5.12. De. iustif. 5, cap. 3. Although (saith he) thou stir thine armes in good works, and thou seeme most skilfully to rule thy boat, yet thou runnest vpon the rockes. But nowe let vs see what arguments maister Bellarmine vseth to prooue this their doctrine of iustification by workes. Great is your reward (or wages, or hire) in heauen. Eternall life (saith he) is the wages, therefore doubtlesse workes are the merits. Master Bellar­mine reasoneth thus. Eternall life is your wages, therfore your works haue deserued it. The weaknesse of this argu­ment appeareth at the first: but yet for y ^e more cleare vnder­standing of this & such other places, a worde or two may be added. That God giueth vs eternall life for wages wee will not denie, if it be vnderstood aright. Admit therefore that a man hireth two workmen to worke with him: the one of them a sufficient workeman, who doeth his worke: The other can worke little or nothing, yet he that hired him biddeth him worke also, and doe his best, and he shall haue his wages also. Nowe the one of these who is the woorkeman, his hire or wages is due to him for his worke, hee hath deserued it: the others wages is due also, and hee may challenge it: not because he hath [...] a [...] ned it by his worke, but hee that hired him, hath made him­selfe his debter by his promise. We see then, not euerie wages is deserued. Wee are that euill workeman, wee can doe nothing worthie of our wages, yet God by promise is indebted vnto vs. Therefore although our rewarde or wages be great, yet is it not deserued of our part. Praefat. in, Psal. 31. Our wa­ges is called grace (saith saint August.) If it be grace, it is [Page] freely giuen. What is the meaning of this, it is freely gi­uen? It costes vs nothing. Thou hast done no good, and forgiuenesse of sins is giuen to thee. It is then no good argument to say: eternal life is our wages, therefore we haue deserued it. His second argument. God shall re­ward euery man according to his worke: Therefore the workes are meritorious. The scriptures we confesse vse often so to speake, but not to establish merit, but to shake off security. And to this end they tell vs, that if the worke be good, it shall haue the reward of a good worke, if it be e­uill, Rom. 2.6. it shall be punished. And so doth Saint Paul, vsing the selfe same words, which are also alleadged by maister Bellarmine expound himselfe. vers. 7. To them which by con­tinuance in well doing, seeke glory, and honour, and immortality: 8. eternal life: But vnto them that are conten­tious and disobey the truth and obey vnrighteousnes: indignation and wrath. Thus then we see that this ac­cording to the worke, doth not signifie according to the me­rit of the worke, but according to the quality of the worke. And these kinde of speeches are very like to that, that God said to Cain, and perchance are grounded vpon it. If thou doe well, Gen. 4.7. shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou dost not well, sinne lieth at the dore. And when he telleth vs, that in this iudgement, God shal be the rewarder, he ar­meth vs against hipocrisie, seeing that he who cannot be corrupted with bribes, nor deceiued with ignoraunce of the cause, shal examine the worke. And yet for the comfort of the Godly we must also know, that hee accepteth of their worke, not according to the imperfection of the worke it selfe, but according to the spirit of regeneration which hee hath wrought in them that worke it. And so because the fruit commeth from a good tree, he accounteth the better of it. Therefore if he crowne in vs our merites, he crowneth nothing but his owne giftes, as saith saint Augustine. Thus then we see, Li. 50. Homi­liarum. Ho­mil. 14. there is not any necessity in this argu­ment: God rewardeth the good worke with glory and im­mortality, [Page 111] therefore the worke hath merited that rewarde. And this is the answere also to his thirde argument out of these wordes of saint Matthew, Matth. 25.34 Come yee blessed of my father, inherit the kingdome prepared for you, &c. For I was an hungred and yee gaue me meat, &c. We con­fesse that God rewardeth good workes, and that is all that canne be proued out of these wordes. But this reward is not giuen in respect of the worke, but chiefly in regarde of Gods promise. And the rather also it is accepted, because of that spirit of regeneration from whence the worke com­meth. But in the place alleadged by him out of the reue­lation he dealeth not sincerely. For thus doth hee cite it: These are they that came out of great tribulation, Apoc. 7.14. ther­fore they are in the presence of the throne of God. 15 But saint Iohn hath thus set it downe, These are they that came out of great tribulation, and haue washed their long robes, and haue made their long robes white in the bloud of the Lamb. Therefore are they in the presence of the throne of God. Not because they came out of tri­bulation, but because they did wash their robes in the bloud of the Lamb, That is in the grace of God through Iesus Christ our Lord, as saith saint Augustine. Deceitfullie therefore did maister Bellarmine leaue out the true cause of their being in the presence of God, In apoc. Hom. 6. that he might for for­tifying of his errour, set downe that which was no cause of their being with God, for the true cause. Seeking rather by Sophistry to beguile, than with sound learning to teach. His fourth sort of places are such as speak of the iu­stice of Gods iudgement, and out of them he maketh this argument. God in iustice rewardeth good works, therefore good workes are meritorious. Maister Bellarmine doth, as many euill Captaines doe that deceiue the Prince, who when they haue not men enough of their owne, against the muster will borrow some souldiars of some other, to make out their number: but when they encounter the enemie, their borrowed souldiars are not there to fight for them, or [Page] to doe any seruice, they were but borrowed to make a shew in the muster. Euen so falleth it out with maister Bellar­mine. He maketh a shew of many proofes. But of al these which are brought in heere, there is not one that proueth di­rectly, that God in iustice rewardeth good workes. He pro­ueth by them especially, that Gods iudgement is iust, which we deny not but say with Ieremie. O Lord are not thine eies vpon the truth. Ier. 5.3. And therefore these testimonies are to that effect that were the testimonies alleadged in his second argument, [...] . Thess. 1.4.5.6. and are there answered. The effect of that he saith in the two first places is this. It is a token of Gods righteous iudgement, [...] Tim. 4.7. [...] . that he dealeth well with the Godlie. To this end also is that out of saint Paul to Ti­mothy. I haue fought a good fight, and haue finished my course: I haue kept the faith. Henceforth is laide vp for me the crowne of righteousnes, which the Lord that righteous iudge shall giue me at that day. We neuer de­nied either God to be a righteous iudge, or his iudgements to be iust. What then will our aduersaries inferre? Must he therfore iudge according to the worthines of our worke? Iob. 9.3. Psal. 130.3. God forbid. For if God woulde dispute with man, hee were not able to answere one thing for a thousand. And if the Lord should straightly marke our iniquities, who should be able to abide it? And therefore now there is no way for vs, but to make our humble suit vnto God as doth Dauid: Psal. 143.1. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, for in thy sight shall no flesh liuing be iustified. And yet he is iust, yea and so iust, that he will not suffer sinne vnpu­nished. But rather then he should not be satisfied for the same to the vttermost, he gaue his sonne to satisfie for the same, euen to make recompence for vs. So that our sinne (the punishment whereof our selues could not beare) is pu­nished to the vttermost in Iesus Christ. And by this satis­faction which Christ hath made for vs, we may stand with­out feare before Gods iudgement seat, and plead not guil­ty: Because that he in whom God is well pleased, hath [Page 112] paid our debt. And seeing that Christ hath once made satis­faction for our sins, it were against Gods iustice to punish vs for the same. And thus we see how Gods iustice in iudg­ment, is an vnspeakeable comforte to our conscien­ces: assuring vs, that God looketh not vpon vs in his iudg­ment as we are in our selues, but as wee are belonging to his sonne Christ. Neither yet doth he weigh the merite of our workes, but how they are made acceptable through Christ: who hath merited by his death & passiō eternal life, for al them that beleeue in him. He looketh not I saie what we haue done, but what Christ hath done. And it is iust he should so doe: for he was content to take him to be our su­erty. And this is also for the vnderstanding of the fourth place alleadged by maister Bellarmine. Heb. 6.10. For God is not vnrighteous that he should forget your worke. In which place Gods righteousnes is taken for his truth and faith­fulnes in keeping promise, that he is as good as his word, and will rewarde euery good worke that is done for his sake, but not for the merit of the worke, but for his owne mercy. That which is alleadged out of Saint Iames, an­swereth it selfe, Iames. 1.12. if M. Bellarmine had not stopped S. Iames his breath too sone. Blessed is the man that indureth ten­tation: for when he is tried he shall receiue the crowne of life, saith S. Iames. But it followeth, which the Lord hath promised to them that loue him. And of this master Bellarmine saith nothing. And yet saint Iames saith plain­ly that that which they receiue, it is according to promise. And out of the reuelation. Apoc. 2.10. Be thou faithful vnto the death and I will giue thee a crowne of life. How can he proue merites out of it? Is this a good argument, I will giue thee, therefore thou hast deserued it? Two or three pla­ces more he there alleadgeth, but out of that I haue said, it is easie to answere them. His fift sort of places are such as promise to good workes eternall life. And out of them he reasoneth thus. Promise of rewarde for a worke, doeth make that he that doth the worke, maie bee saide to merite [Page] his rewarde. That the reward is due but yet not deserued, I shewed before in the answere to his first argument, and I need not heere to repeat it. His sixt argument, is taken from those places that speake of our worthines, and are of two sortes. 2. Thess. 1.5. Luc. 20.35. For two of them, namely that That yee maie be counted worthy of the kingdome of God: and that also, They shalbe counted worthy to inioy that world, and the resurrection of the dead, doe answere themselues. For that may be accounted worthy, which of it selfe is not so in truth. As in our workes is seene, which are accounted of, not as they proceed from vs: but as they are presented before God in the name of Christ, and their imperfection couered, with his perfect obedience. The other two places seeme more pertinent to his purpose, but yet being right­lie vnderstood, prooue nothing for him. The first is in the booke of wisedome, which booke although it is not Cano­nicall, yet because the place alleadged seemeth like vnto the words that he alleadgeth out of the reuelation, they may both receiue one answere. Wisdom. 3.5 Apocal. 3.4. God proueth them, and findeth them worthy for himselfe. The other place is, They shall walke with me in white, for they are wor­thy. First that this worthines doth many times signifie an aptnes or fitnes, it cannot be denied. Who (saith Salo­mon) can iudge, 2. Cron. 1.10 this thy great people worthily? Where by worthely he meaneth not as they deserue (for they were a stubborne and bad people many times) but as is fit or meete to gouerne them. And so the Apostle willeth vs to walke worthy of God, worthy of our calling, worthy of the gospell, that is, as becommeth Gods children, them that are called, and fit for the professours of the gospell. And this fitnes is said to be in vs in respect of the new man that is begun within vs, not in respect of perfection, that we doe or can attaine vnto. And yet if we should indeed be worthy, we must be perfect, which heere we cannot be. And in this sence you see his argument hath no necessity. Men are worthy of loue, that is fit to loued, therefore they haue de­serued [Page 113] it: for this fitnesse is not of themselues. Second­ly, although we be called worthy, in respect of our electi­on in Christ, or in respect of the fruits of the spirite, which God commendeth in vs, although they haue their wants, that we might not be discouraged, but go on forwards in the wayes of godlinesse, yet this argument will not hold. We are worthy of loue: therefore our workes haue de­serued this loue, or made vs worthy. For our worthinesse hangeth nothing vpon our works, but that God wil vouch vs to be so esteemed. But in respect of our works, we must confesse with the prophet Dauid: Psal. 53.3. There is none that doth good, no not one. And therefore we must pleade, euen the best of vs, mercy and forgiuenesse, not merite or worthi­nesse. Super Can­tic. ser. 61. My merit (saith Saint Bernard) is the Lordes mercy: neither am I without merite, so long as hee is not without mercie. His seuenth argument is groun­ded vpon those places of scripture, that say that God ac­cepteth no persons. But must he needes therefore respect the worthinesse of the worke? If there be with him no dif­ference betweene Iew and Gentile, bond or free, male or female, must merites needes be established? I haue often said, that God respecteth vs and our workes, but not for our goodnesse, but for his mercy sake. For this must needs be true that S. Paul teacheth vs according to the consent of the scripturs, that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe. Rom. 3.2 [...] . Therefore (as saith S. August.) let mans merits be silent, which were lost through Adam, De praedest. Sanct. ca. 1 [...] and let the grace of God through Iesus Christ raigne, as indeede it doth raigne. Now for the Fathers, if I should answer to euery testimony alleadged out of them, it would be too long: especially considering how largely I haue al­ready handled this question. Onely thus much woulde I admonish the christian Reader, that when he readeth them, he should remember, they be but men. Dial. 3. Im­patib. And if Theodoret said truly of the doctrines of the church, the decrees of the church are to be prooued, and not to be pronounced, in [Page] maner of a iudgement: then how much more should we re­iect whatsoeuer any men speake without a good warrant. Then also as they were men, so were many of them great Philosophers, & might somwhat perchance smel of that in­fection, & speake more of mans worthines, than had bin ex­pedient for christian religion. Aduersus Hermog. Orat. 21. In so much as not without great cause did Tertull. cal philosophers, The patriarchs of heretikes. And G. Nazian. cōpareth the subtilties of phi­losophy, which he saith, came vnhappily into the church, vnto the whips wherewith the Aegyptians did scourge the Israelits. Ser. de Arian. In which kind of reasoning the tongue figh­teth, the words are speares, the speech is the sword, & there is no end of contention all the day long, as the same father saith in an other place. And no maruel, for the Philosopher is gloriae animal, De anima. euen the creature of glory, as Tertull writeth. No doubt therfore but they might be somwhat ca­ried away with her intising words, especially to thinke wel of that thēselues do. Thirdly, as I haue said in the former chapter, the absurdities of thē that did teach, that God mo­ued man, & wrought in or by him, as a workeman might do in or by a stocke or stone, they not hauing so much as will thereto, made the fathers to speake more, not only of mans freewil, as before I taught, but also of the reward of them that worke according to the same. And that this did the ra­ther moue the fathers to speake somwhat too largely vpon this matter, vnlesse they be warely red, it may be gathered euen by that place that M. Bella. out of Origen alleadgeth, Lib. 2. in Rom. in ca. 2. first (saith he) let heretikes be excluded, that say that the nature of soules is good or bad, & let thē heare that God wil reward them, not according to their nature, but ac­cording to their merits. Now cōcerning the vnderstāding of these words, Rom, 2. I haue spokē in the answere vnto his secōd argument. But heere it appeareth that such heretikes did then trouble the church. Last of al, not al the vehemēt spee­ches of the fathers, are to be taken or vnderstoode as they sound: but they must be warely red, and wisely examined by [Page 114] the touchstone of Gods word. And then it will appeare, that the Fathers, either may well bee taken, or iustly re­fused.

And thus hauing (I trust) in the iudgement of the in­different Reader, sufficiently confirmed the trueth, answe­red the Scriptures alleadged to the contrary, and shewed some causes, why the fathers should in this point be read with good aduise and iudgement: it now onely remaineth that I lay open the absurditie of that shift, wherein they trust much, and which indeede is the chiefe strength of their cause. For being pressed with the testimonies out of scrip­tures, especially out of saint Paul, which plainely testifie that we are iustified by faith, Rom. 3.28 without the workes of the law: first, they deuised this answere, that S. Paul speak­eth of the ceremoniall laws, that we are iustified without them, but not without doing the works of the law morall, or of the commaundements. But this being so vntrue an answere, that master Bellarmine himselfe is ashamed of it, De iustificat. lib. 1. cap. 19. and reasoneth against it: Master Bellarmine bringeth an­other answere, namely, that the Apostle speaketh of the workes before faith. So that he would haue the wordes of the Apostle thus to sound: Wee are iustified by faith without the works of the law that were done before we be­leeued. And for the credit of this interpretation he would faine father it vpon S. Augustine and S. Ierome, De gr. & lib. arb. ca. 7. de praedest. sin­ctor. cap. 7. In praefat. ps. 31 Ier. ad Cte­siphontem contra Pela­gianos. but most vntruely, as he that examineth those places shall easily see, that S. Augustine and S. Ierome in those places doe not so expound those wordes of saint Paul, neither giue vs anie rule so to expound them. Neither yet doe Chrysostome, Ambrose, Theophilact, or Primasius vpon those words either in the third to the Romans, or second to the Gala­thians so expound it: Rom. 4.4. Or yet S. Ierome vpon the Galathi­ans. And in the Epistle that he writeth against the Pelagi­ans to Ctesiphon, he denieth that those words may be vn­derstood of the law ceremoniall: but concerning this expo­sition which master Bellarmine bringeth there is no word.

As for the reason that Bellarmine hath out of S. Paul to prooue this his exposition: let vs consider of it. Vnto him that worketh (saith S. Paul) the wages is not coun­ted by fauour, but by debt. Therefore (saith M. Bellar­mine) he speaketh onely of those workes that are done by the power of free will without grace. How little S. Paule dreamed of free will, hath in the former chapter beene de­clared. And that hee doeth not in these wordes expound, what he meant before by the workes of the lawe, the text it selfe prooueth. For, hauing said, that Abraham beleeued God, and that was counted to him for righteousnes: there­vpon the Apostle inferreth: that if he had beene iustified by workes, his iustification had bin of debt, not of grace. So that he doth not heere expound his former wordes, but be­ginneth in this fourth chapter an other argument, by the example of Abraham, being already iustified and a holie man, to prooue iustification by faith without workes, euen by forgiuenesse of sinnes or couering them. And as I haue shewed master Bellarmines interpretation to stand vppon no good ground, but that the place aledged maketh against himselfe: so that which we gather out of S. Paules words to be the most true meaning, namely, that workes neither before nor after our first iustification (as they call it) can merit, the circumstances of the place do proue, & the whole course of his doctrine. He instructeth the Rom. & Galath. in this doctrine, who were already become christians, & al­ready were iustified. He doth not only shew that the works of the law do not iustifie, but telleth vs, that y ^e nature of the law is to make vs to know sin, Rom. 7.7. Rom. 4.15. & to cause wrath, euen after we be iustified. And S. Paul himselfe teacheth so much, in that he counted al that was in him to be but losse, yea dung. That he might win Christ, Philip. 3.8, 9 & be found in him, not ha­uing his own righteousnesse, which is of the lawe, but that which is through the faith of Christ, euen the righ­teousnesse which is of God through Christ. Marke heere how the Apostle saint Paul in these wordes, which [Page 115] were written almost thirty yeeres after his conuersion, still relieth vpon the righteousnesse that is by faith: and he calleth it Gods righteousnesse, and refuseth that which commeth by workes, and that he calleth mans righteous­nesse. Now of this which is said, I trust I may thus rea­son. Saint Paul excludeth from iustification, not only the works that are done before we beleeue, but also the works which we afterwards doe: therefore master Bellarmines interpretation is not true. If then workes cannot iustifie (as hitherto I haue taught) wee may say with saint Au­gustine, Wo bee euen to the commendable life of man, Confess. lib. 9. ca. 13. if thou Lord setting mercie aside examine it. For, Enarrat. psal. 109. as he saieth in an other place, Whatsoeuer God hath pro­mised, hee hath promised to them that are vnworthie, that it shuld not be promised as wages for good works: but grace according to the name of it should be freely giuen. Confess. lib. 9. cap. 13. O therefore that all men (that with Saint Au­gustine I may wish that godly wish) would know them­selues, and they that reioyce, Ad Ctesi­phontem contra Pe­lagianos. would reioyce in the Lord. For this onely perfection is left to men, that they knowe themselues to be vnperfect: as truly and godlily saint Hierome writeth.

A great cause of the difference betwene vs and the papists in this question, is that we agree not in the signi­fication of the worde, what it is to be iustified. This therefore is the question, whether wee that are not only by nature sinners, but also euen after our regeneration, haue that Lawe in our members rebelling, against the lawe of the minde, Rom. 7.27 Bellar. de Amiss. grat. li. 5. ca. 13. which saint Paul calleth sinne, and the papists themselues confesse to be euil, damned and ha­ted of God: whether I say we being such sinners shal ap­peare righteous before God, in hauing our sinnes pardo­ned, couered and not imputed vnto vs, and Christs righte­ousnesse [Page 116] accounted ours: or in that goodnes or holines, or those good workes, which Gods grace worketh in vs. We say that Christ by faith is made ours: Christ I say with all his holinesse and righteousnesses, Ephe. 1.7 By whom we haue redemption through his bloud, the forgiuenes of sinnes, according to his rich grace. And in this assurance we stand euen before Gods iudgment seat without feare, and say with the apostle Who shall laie anie thing to the charge of gods chosen? Rom. 8.33.34. It is God that iustifieth who shal condemne vs. It is Christ that is dead, yea or rather is risen againe. Who is also at the right hand of God, and also maketh request for vs. And in this faith and assured perswasion, we haue peace of conscience here, and are in Christ and for his sake accounted righteous elsewhere, euen before him that shall iudge the quicke and the dead. They teach vs that after baptisme sinne is so killed with­in vs, Popish iu­stification. that we are able to doe such workes as doe merit iustification and eternall life. That iusti­fication is not by works, but by impu­tation. Gen. 22.18. And by this righteousnesse that is in vs, we are made so iust and righteous, that we are so iustified before God. To confirme that which we teach, we haue the promise made to. Abraham That in his seede all the nations of the earth should be blessed. In his seede I say, not in our selues we must all be blessed. And that Christ is this seede, saint Paul to the Galathi­ans doth affirme. Gal. 3.16. Secondly the iustification of the people of the Iewes, which they by their sacrifices obtained, is a right pattern of our iustification. For though the bloud of of the beasts could not make them holy, yet the sacrifice being offered for them according to the law, Hep. 9.9. did worke so much, that they who before were accounted vncleane, and might not appeare before the Lord, nowe were accounted cleane, and might serue before him. Euen so we, though wee bee not in our selues, yet by this our sacrifice that hath offered him selfe a sweete smell vnto God the father, wee are accounted cleane and without sinne, Rom. 5.2. and haue by him accesse vnto that grace wherein [Page] we stand. Thirdly, this iustification is commended vnto vs by Dauid, Psal. 32.1.2 Blessed is he whose wickednesse is forgiuen, and whose sinne is couered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquitie. And for this cause he stirreth vp his soule to praise the Lord: Psal. 103.3 because saith he, He forgiueth al thine iniquities. It is promised by Ieremie, I will forgiue their iniquities, Iere. 31.34 and remember their sinnes no more. And the Prophet Hose teacheth the people to pray for it, Hose. 14.2 saying thus. Take vnto you words, and turne to the Lord, and say vnto him, Take away all iniquitie, and receiue vs graciously. Where this is also by the way to be marked, that y ^e prophet here biddeth vs come to God, with such words, as if he had said, Your works are euill, and cannot helpe, they cannot merit, Yet come with good words, be suiters for grace. Fourthly, our sauiour Christ doth commend vnto vs this iustification which we haue by him, & apprehend by faith. Whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall not perish, Iohn 3.16 but haue euerlasting life. Of whom the apostles also haue learned that we are iustified by faith, that righteousnes is imputed vnto vs, & that we are accounted righteous. Rom. 3.28 Rom. 4.3.11 Lastly, we see how y ^e apostle doth exclude works frō iustifying, than which there can be no stronger argumēt against this inherent iustification which the papists contend for, or for the imputation of righteousnes by faith in Christ Iesus, which we according vnto the scriptures doe preach. And therefore he doth not onely exclude works in generall from iustification, Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.11. Rom. 4. Iustified by faith without the workes of the law: But also those works that Abraham did after his first calling, when now he was regenerate, euen then, I say, attributing iustification to faith and not to his workes. And likewise for his owne works long after he was rege­nerate, Phil. 3.9. he reiecteth them that he might attaine vnto righ­teousnesse by faith. So little did he trust vnto that inherent righteousnesse, that he counted it but dung: and so wholie did he depend on that righteousnes that we haue by faith in Christ Iesus. But of this I haue spoken in the end of the [Page 117] former chapter. And I trust this may serue the turne, to shew how farre we are from that inherent righteousnes and keeping of the law, which our popish Pharisees dreame of: especially if we consider what great perfection the law re­quireth to be in our workes, Master. Bellar. his profe for inherent iustice. De iustif. li. 2. cap. 3. Rom. 5.19. and what want through our corruption there is in the same. But master Bellarmine bringeth some arguments to proue this inherent righteous­nesse. The first is out of these words, As by one mans dis­obediēce many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many are made iust. Of this argument, because I haue spoken at large, towards the latter ende of the 23. chapter, I leaue the reader to that place. His second ar­gumēt is this, Al are iustified freely by his grace, Rom. 3.24.25. throgh the redemption that is in Christ Iesus, whom God hath set to be a reconciliation. In which place by grace master Bellarmine vnderstandeth that righteousnesse that God hath giuen, or infused into vs: for so he speaketh. But saint Augustine in that place vnderstandeth by Grace, De gratia Cristi cont. pelag. & Ce­lest. cap. 31. Prim. vpon this place. that which is set against workes. And Primasius saith, By (his grace) because hee paid for vs that which hee ought vs not, that he might saue vs being freely redeemed. Thus doth Augustine and Primasius take this word Grace, for Gods loue to vs, not for any vertue inherent in vs, cleane contrarie to master Bellarmines minde. And by these and some other places he would faine proue, that the worde of iustifying, may sometime signifie an inherent righteous­nesse. And what if we grant that to him? yet thereof it fol­loweth not, that that inherent righteousnesse doth iustifie vs before God, which master Bellarmine would faine proue. As for that which he saith of Abel and Noah, that they were accounted iust: if hee will by that commenda­tion that is giuen to them, exempt them from all sin, saint Augustine will be directly against him, De peccat. merit. & re­miss. lib. 2. cap. 12. 13. who speaking of Iobs righteousnesse, sheweth, that perfection was not in Iob, neither that it can be any. But in comparison of others he was iust. And if perfection cannot be in any, then shall no [Page] man by any inherent righteousnesse, answere Gods iust iudgement. Ber. epist. 34. For Our greatest perfection is desire to bee more perfect, and alwayes to confesse our imper­fection. Two or three argumentes mo hath maister Bellarmine in that place, but because they are not woorth answering, of purpose I omit them, concluding with that golden saying of saint Ambrose: Amb. epist 32 lib. 5. not the lawe, but faith maketh a man iust, because righteousnesse is not by the law, but by faith.

And thus much I thought good to set down concerning this point, to stop the mouthes, & to stay the pens of slaun­derous papists, who go about to discredit our true doctrine with the simple and ignorant, as though wee spake against good works: when as in truth we exhort earnestly all men, to shew their faith by their workes, and to walke worthy of their calling. Only this we admonish all men out of Gods worde, that they esteeme not as good workes, the foolish fancies of mans deuice: (for wee must giue God leaue, to teach vs what is good, and what is euill, for he is our law-maker) then also that they refer vnto Gods glory the good works which they do, and to no other end, and that they do them in singlenes of heart, to performe their dutifull obedi­ence to God. And these points being obserued, we instant­ly exhort, yea, & command all men, Gal. 6.9.10. whilest they haue time to do good, and neuer to be wearie of well doing.

First we must pray vnto God only, in respect of Gods commandement. Thou shalt haue no other Gods but me. For thereby God doth challenge vnto himselfe, not only that we should acknowledge him to be God, but also that we should performe to no other but to him those ser­uices and offices that are due vnto God, amongst which in­uocation or praier is one. Secondly, that commandement, which more particularly toucheth this point, Psal. 50.15. Call vpon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliuer thee, is flatly broken if we doe call vpon any other. Thirdly, the prophet Dauid doeth seeme to make it a property belonging to God only, to heare our praiers, Thou that hearest our praiers, to thee shall all flesh come. Psal. 65.2. And therefore if wee will be heard, we must pray to God only. Fourthly, Cont. Arian. Orat. 2. A­thanasius proueth Christ to be God, because he is praied vnto in distresse. Whose argument had not beene good, if any other besides God might haue beene praied vnto. Fiftly, faith only belongeth to this life, so that the Saintes haue it not in the life to come, De iustif. li. 2. cap. 4. & 7. as maister Bellarmine him­selfe affirmeth very truely: but praier without faith auai­leth not, and How shall they call on him, in whom they haue not beleeued? Therefore the saints after this life can­not pray for vs, or at the least their praiers cannot auaile. Sixtly, as it is not an office laid vpon the saints to pray for vs, in all the scriptures, so they regard nothing in the life to come, but only Gods glory, as may appeare by the exer­cise of singing praise to God only, as in the Apocalips [Page] manie times is ascribed vnto them. So little care they haue of their owne priuate estate, much lesse of our affaires, but of those things only, that belong to gods glory. Thus then we see, concerning this first point in controuersie concer­ning praier, that we must not pray vnto any creature, but to God only. De beatitud. Sanct. li. 1. cap. 19. Popish ar­gumentes for inuoca­tion. Gen. 48.16. But yet let vs see how M. Bellar. wil proue that we maie praie to the creatures. Iacob saith of Iosephs chil­dren, The angell that deliuered me from all euill, blesse the children, therefore Iacob praieth vnto the angel. That which there he calleth the angel is God, as appeareth not only by the words, because before he called him God: but also Chrysostome expounding this place, vers. 15. In Genes. Hom. 66. Iob. 5.1. not once naming the angell, maketh him to aske al these things of God. And that which he alleadgeth out of Iob, is of like force. Call now if any will answere thee, and to which of the saints wilt thou turne? for many of the Hebrews vnderstand this of the saints that are aliue, as if he had said, what good man is of thy mind, or wil take thy part? Some expounde this place of the angels, but so as they make Eliphaz to aske this question (to whom amongst the angels Iob wil turne) scoffingly. As if he had said, if thou shouldst aske of them it were in vaine, they would not answer thee. But howsoeuer it is, it is certaine, that heere is no mention of inuocation or praier vnto the angels, Philippus Presbiter in Iob. but rather as it seemeth by Phil­lippus Presbiter vpon this place, a taunting reproofe of Iob, if he beleeued not Eliphaz his words. But howsoeuer it is expounded, heere is no good argument for inuocati­on or praier vnto angels. For the Godly haue often tur­ned themselues vnto the angels, but not to pray vnto them. As for that that Moses said, Remember Abraham. Isaac, and Israel thy seruantes, Exod. 32.13. respecteth not the merits of these fathers, but the promise made to them, as in that place ap­peareth: for it followeth, To whome thou swarest by thine owne selfe, and saidst to them. I wil multiply your seede. Which words doe plainely burden God with his promise made to them. Neither doth that which maister [Page 120] Bellarmine alleadgeth out of Theodoret, proue any thing [...] o the contrary. For he saith that Moses vsed the helpe or defence of these patriarkes. And why not rather in respect of Gods promise, which we know hee is able and ready to performe, then of their merits. Theod. quest 67. in Exod. So that if there were any inuocation or praier to them, as there is not (it is onlie a re­quest that God will remember them) and therefore this place belongeth not to the matter now in question, but if there were any praier vnto them, we see that it cannot bee concluded out of this place that Moses would haue God to regarde their merites. But maister Bellarmine will helpe the matter with a testimonie out of the Psalmes. Lord remember Dauid and al his kindnes. Psal. 131.2. There saith maister Bellarmine, Salomon praieth in respect of his fa­ther Dauids merits: but the word vpon which his whole ar­gument dependeth, that heere is translated kindnes, may be trāslated Affliction. And S. Hierom trāslating the psalms according to the Hebrew doth so translate it. And how can he thinke with such vncertaine proofe, to make good so bad a cause? But I hasten to that argument, that coulde neuer yet be answered, for so maister Bellarmine saith. And it is this. We may desire them that are aliue to pray for vs, therefore we maie pray to the saints that are departed. If maister Bellarmine had not liked so well of this argument, I should not haue thought it worth any answere. For to praie one for another whilest we are aliue, is both warran­ted and commaunded of God: but to praie to them that are gone, wee haue neither commaundement nor pro­mise. And there is greate difference betweene praiers, which the papists woulde make to them that are dead, and such requestes as the godlie haue made, or we may make to them that are aliue to praie for vs. But maister Bel­larmine will strengthen his argument, by remoouing the causes that maie hinder this inuocation, or rather their intercession for vs. First if wee saie they will not praie for vs: hee answereth, they haue greater loue than [Page] they had, and therefore they will. But what manner of loue they haue to vs ward, is not described in the Scriptures: And therefore we cannot of that their loue which is vncer­taine, gather any certaine argument. But sure I am, their loue towards God and our sauiour Christ is so great, that they will not rob either God of his glory, or Christ of his office of mediation. And they cannot pray for vs because, as before I haue shewed euen out of maister Bellarmine, that they want faith. And whether they know that we pray or not, it is vncertaine. As for the wrong that is done vnto God, if any but he be praied vnto, which maister Bellar­mine imagineth to be the fourth let why they cannot pray for vs: he answereth that if that be any hinderance to Gods glory, Coloss. 2.23. it also is against Gods glory, that they who are a­liue, should request other to pray for them. Which his an­swere how foolish it is, the very wemen and children maie easily perceiue, how the one hath commandement, the other must goe amongst the wil-worshippings: especially if wee consider the practise of inuocation in the popish church. For although now to make some faire shewe of their doctrine, they will teach vs, De beatitud. sanct. li. 1. ca. 17. that the saints Are not the immediate intercessours vnto God for vs, but obtaine our requestes of God through Christ, as maister Bellarmine teacheth: yet it cannot be denied, that men and women haue had con­fidence in the saint it selfe, haue vowed, and performed their vowes vnto the same for their deliuerance, haue praied vn­to the same for helpe. Act. & Mon. pag. 1117. 1443. And these men haue not beene repro­ued, no they were thought to haue a good deuotion, and to merit thereby: but some haue beene accused of heresie for not praying in their trauell to the virgin Mary. Yea they haue published a blasphemous thing, called the Psalter of the Virgin, compiled by Bonauenture, in which whatsoe­uer in the Psalmes and some other scripture is spoken of the Lord, is most wickedly by them applied vnto the Vir­gin Mary, whom they call lady. Yea to be short, it is almost as full of blasphemies as of words. An infinite number of [Page 121] their owne prayers, might bee brought against them out of their owne bookes to testifie against themselues, of that superstitious confidence which they haue had in the crea­ture: and yet would they now perswade the world, that they neuer meant they should make intercession to God for vs, but by Christ: but in trueth they made them rather gods than mediators. As when the virgin Mary is wil­led to command her Sonne, and to shew her to be his mo­ther: Or when vnto her they pray thus: In al our trouble and distresse help vs, most holy virgin Mary. And thus haue I thought good, briefly to examine their proofes out of the scripture, and to take away that shew of reasons, that they made out of Gods word. I might haue brought their owne fellowes to testifie against them, that whilest they will seeme to alleadge scriptures, they doe but wrest them. In Enchirid. cap. 15. De Theol. lo­ci. li. 3. cap. 3 For Eckius a stowt Papist doeth frankely con­fesse, that the inuocation of saints is not expresly comman­ded or taught, either in the olde or new Testament. But Melchior Canus better learned than hee, doeth say, that neither plainely, nor yet couertly, it is contained in the Scriptures. And therefore we see that they doe alleadge Gods word, but to blinde mens eies, as though they had some warrant out of it, not because they thinke their arguments p [...] ooue that which they teach. Seeing there­fore their doctrine, is so quite voide of all warrant out of Gods word, and that which they do seeme to bring, is so weake and wrested, as may appeare: I trust I may con­clude with Tertullian that this commaundement, De praescrip. aduersus haer. aske and yee shall receiue, agreeth to him that knoweth of whome to aske, euen of him of whome somewhat was promised, that is, of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob. Now for the second point, which is, Christ our onely me­diatour. that Christ Iesus is this only mediator between God and man, to of­fer vp our prayers vnto God. Wherein our aduersaries do not deny but he is the mediator, but they had wont to tell vs, Eckius in Ench. cap. 15 that he is the onely mediator of redemption (and yet [Page] they rob him also of that office, by the Popes pardons, and such baggage) but there may be many mediators of inter­cession say they: But master Bellarmine hath found out another shift, namely, that they are but intercessours by Christ (as before I haue shewed.) But howe doeth master Bellarmine prooue, that the saints make inter­cession by Christ for vs. Hee hath not so much as one word out of scripture for it, neither yet out of any ancient father. His onelie proofe is out of saint Bernard, who liued eleuen hundred yeeres and more after Christ. Is this a doctrine to be receiued now as catholike, that hath so long beene buried in silence, and will not yet perchance be very well liked of. Indeede, that Christ is our media­tour he prooueth well: but that which he would especially haue vs to beleeue, is left without witnesse, as I haue shewed.

De beatitud. sanct. li. 1. ca. 17Well then, I will take it as a thing granted by master Bellarmine, that Christ is onely our immediate media­tour to God, and no saint, no angel, or any other creature: which thing the scriptures prooue plentifully. And I will (by Gods grace) shew also, that they may not be media­tors by or to Christ for vs. First, there is no warrant for it in the word, and therefore it must not be receiued of vs, whose rule for life and religion the word [...] st be. Second­ly, I haue shewed, that the saints departed haue not faith, and therefore they can not pray. Thirdly, to ioyne them with Christ in the office of Mediation, doeth shewe that they feare, that either hee can not by himselfe perfourme that office which God hath laide vppon him, and that is blasphemous: Or, that hee will not at our request do it, vnlesse hee be intreated by others.

Seeing hee hath died for my sinnes, shall I doubt whether hee will heare mee if I doe pray? If hee bid mee aske, seeke, knocke, and promiseth thou that I shall haue, finde, and to open, will hee not bee as good as his worde? Hebr. 2.17 In all thinges it became him to bee made [Page 122] like vnto his brethren that hee might bee mercifull, 18 and a faithfull high priest in thinges concerning God, Ebr. 4.15. that he might make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he suffred and was tempted, 16 hee is able to succour them that are tēpted. Our high priest is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Let vs therefore goe boldly vnto the throne of grace, that we may receiue mercy, and finde grace to helpe in time of need. Let vs, I saie, our owne selues come vnto him in this assurance that he will not faile to heare and helpe vs. For he calleth Come vnto me all yee that are weary and laden, and I wil ease you. Matt. 11.28. Shall we be afraid to draw nigh vnto him, that calleth vs so louingly? Or shall wee thinke that wee shall neede to sende mediatours to intreate him, that sendeth his embassadours to vs to intreate vs? Nowe we are embassadours for Christ (saith saint Paul) as though God did beseech you through vs, 2. Cor. 5.20. wee pray you in Christes steede, that you bee reconciled to God.

Let vs therefore saie with S. Augustine, or whosoe­uer it was that writ those bookes that goe in his name, Lib. 2. cap. 1. Of the visitation of the sicke. I speake more safely and sweetely to my Iesus, than to any of the holie spirites of God. Yea this grosse and absurd persuasion Saint Chry­sostome in many places seeketh to remoue, as they that do read his works may finde. In Matth Hom. 5. God (saith he) wil giue to vs sal­uation, not so much at others intreaty, as at our own. And this he proueth by the examples of the woman of Canaan, Mat. 15.23.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Luk. 7 Luk. 23.4 [...] .43. the sinnefull woman and the theefe that was put to death with Christ, and at his owne suite obtained para­dise. And Chrysostome seemeth in that place to yeeld a good reason why we should sue for our selues. Because it will make vs more carefull to amende our liues, to the ende wee maie the better please God. So that hereby wee maie gather, that they who teach vs that wee maie haue other aduocates or mediatours to God, teach vs to [Page] bee carelesse of our owne conuersation howe wee doe liue. Whereas if our selues onely must of necessitie intreate God for his sonne Christes sake, wee will be more care­full to serue him, that with greater confidence wee may come to intreate him.

This good seede of Inuocating and calling vppon God, continued about some two hundred yeares in the church vntill that enuious man at the last, whilest Gods seruants were asleepe, did sowe that euill seede of pray­ing to the creatures. And although some did like well of it, yet was it misliked also by some of the godly, as most notably appeareth in Epiphanius against the here­tikes called Collyridiani, Haeres. 79 who offered a bunne or cake to the virgin Mary, or for her sake: and of that they had their name. And so the Papists do offer their waxe can­dles, yea many times very pretious thinges vnto their saints. But Epiphanius compareth such to a common harlot, that runne a whooring from one onely God: and saieth this olde errour shall not preuaile, to leaue him that liueth, and to worship the creature. He will not haue her worshipped, neither yet that they should offer in her name. Bellarmine indeuouring to answere this place, De beatitud. sanct li. 1. ca. 15 saith that Epiphanius reprooueth that heresie, because they woulde make a god of her. But the place is maruellous strong a­gainst the Popish ceremonies, in their superstitious serui­ces. For Epiphanius gathereth of this that they did to the virgin Mary, that they made her a god, not that they esteemed or called her a god (for they neuer denied the one God) but that they did to her that which the Gentiles doe to their gods. And (I pray you) did they any more to the virgine Mary than our Papistes doe? Let it be examined. They offered bunnes or takes in her name: the Papists do offer sundrie sorts of things: and, the more, and the cost­lier, the Priests thinke the better of it. At a certaine day in the yeere some women vsed to trimme some Waggon, and couer it ouer with a sheete, and for certaine dayes [Page 123] woulde set there some breade, and offer it in her name, being assembled together: The Papists make many as pretie shewes as this could be: for, the worship of their Saints haue their dayes set downe for it. The women also doe with those heretikes, celebrate those holie my­steries. Howe many religious orders the Popish church hath to celebrate the mysteries in honour of their Lady, as they doe terme her, let the worlde iudge. But our Papists being compared with those heretikes, goe as neere (I warrant you) to make their saints gods, as e­uer did the Collyridians to make a God of the Virgine Mary. And howe doeth Epiphanius confute this here­sie? What Scripture (saith hee) hath taught vs this? which of the Prophets commaunded a man, much lesse a woman to bee adored? If then the Scriptures must teach vs, and the Prophets must direct vs in our religion: because this inuocation of the creature hath no warrant in the worde, wee may safely reiect it. And that our prayers, whether they bee priuate or publike, Prayers must be in a tongue that wee know. Orat. in su­litt. In Genes. hom. 29. De Orthod. fide li. 3. c. 24 must bee in a tongue that wee vnderstand, it is by many reasons to be prooued. For if that prayer bee as Saint Basil defineth it, A requesting of some good thing of God, powred out to God of the godlie: or as Chry­sostome saieth, It is a talke with God: or as Damas­cene doeth write, The ascending of the minde vnto God, or, the crauing of thinges fit to be asked of God: then is it most necessary, that whether we pray in publike, or priuatly, we should vnderstand what we say, lest in steed of good wee aske that which is euill, and our talke shoulde not be seemely or agreeable to the maiestie of God, with whom wee talke: neither can our minde ascend in prayer, if the vnderstanding of our words be not as it were a wing to helpe it vp. Therefore Chrysostome exhorteth vnto sobrietie, especially when we should pray, and woulde haue vs in prayer to gather together the powers of our minde, In Genes. hom. 29. That our minde may accompany our wordes to God, [Page] for feare least our prayer turne to our condemna­tion.

And most plaine is that that the Apostle saieth, If I pray in a strange tongue, 1. Cor. 14 14 my spirit praieth, but mine vnder­standing is without fruit. 1. Cor. 14.26 Thus then I reason: All thinges ought to be doone to edifying, But the praiers that are made in a strange tongue that the people vn­derstand not, are not done to edifying, therfore they are not such as they ought to be. This whole argument is saint Paules. For the first proposition is his very wordes. The second is necessarie to be gathered out of his words. For if such praiers are without fruit, as the apostle saith they are, Regal. bre­uiores quaest. 278. then they doe not edifye. For when (saieth Basil) the words of the praier are vnknowen to them that are present, then the minde of him that praieth is doubt­lesse without fruit, because none is the better for it. For as the same father in his answer to the next question saieth of the vnderstanding of scripture, Quaest. 278. so may we say of praier. he compareth the vnderstanding of the scriptures vnto the taste of our meate. And saieth that men heare profitably, when the vnderstanding of the word is vnto their minde, as the taste of the meate is vnto the body. And so may we likewise say, that then we praie with fruit, when in our minde we vnderstand what we praie for, as well as our mouth tasteth our meat what it is that we eat. Which place of saint Paul troubleth master Bellarmine so, that after that he hath seen and vewed many answers scarce anie can please him. De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 16 But at the length hee resolueth vpon this, that the apostle speaketh not of their common pray­ers, but of such spirituall songs as themselues made. But that answere will not serue the turne. For hee that commaunded that all things that are done in such mee­tings, should bee done to edifying, would not onelie that such spirituall songs should bee vnderstood, but also all other their prayers and exercises. And therefore Chry­sostome thinketh that they who come not to edifie others, [Page 124] may as well be away. And that this edifying should, Hom. 36. in 1. Cor. if not onely, yet especially be regarded, Let nothing (say­eth Primasius) bee in you, Primas. vp­on this place. wherewith you do not edifie one another.

And if edifying bee especially to bee regarded in our Christian assemblies, then they that edifie the greatest number, doe eyther winne or confirme most in the fayth, and so doe best seruice to God. And therefore I can not but maruaile at maister Bellarmine, that hee is so willing to defende the verie dregges of poperie, that hee will rather speake agaynst all sence, then hee will seeme to say nothing. Who would once ima­gine that which hee often affirmeth, De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 16. that all the people neede not vnderstande the prayers? What then doe they in the assemblie, if they vnderstande not what is sayde? All had woont to say Amen, as maister Bellar­mine noteth out of Iustinus Martyr. 1. Cor. 14.16 But saint Paule thinketh it absurde that they shoulde say Amen to that they vnderstande not, therefore all people shoulde vnder­stande.

But yet more foolish is that hee sayeth, that the people needeth not vnderstande the prayers, because they are made not to the people, but to God, and it is e­nough that God vnderstande them. What, is master Bellarmine in earnest, or but in ieast? is hee waking, or but in a dreame? The prayers are made to God, it is true, they should bee so. But the Popish Church will haue vs also to pray in Latine to the Saints, ma­nie of which when they were aliue, vnderstoode no La­tine, whatsoeuer they nowe doe. Well, we should pray to God.

But maister Bellarmine will confesse, that in the pub­like prayers, euery member of the Church should haue his share, which he cannot haue vnlesse his heart ioyne in con­sent with the words of the minister. S [...] that although God vnderstande what wee would haue, y [...] t that is not [Page] enough, vnlesse we also know what we sue for vnto God. For it is not in this case as it is with worldly princes, as master Bellarmine most prophanely surmiseth. For al­though hee for whome another maketh suite vnto the prince, needeth not to care whether he vnderstand or not the wordes that hee that maketh request for him doeth speake: yet if hee make request for himselfe, it is verie needfull hee should well vnderstande his owne wordes. Nowe the prayers of the Church, although they bee pro­nounced by one man to auoyde confusion, yet they are not the prayers of one, but of the whole Church, and ther­fore should the whole Church say Amen vnto them. So they did in the time of Iustine the Martyr and long af­ter: Apolog. 2. shewing thereby that they all had interest therein, not onely in respect of the benefite that they looked for: but euen in respect of that verie sacrifice of prayer, which the church did offer, wherein they had their part. And this is one part of the communion of Saints, that wee ioyne together in one to prayse God, or pray vnto him, as one bodie, though manie members, yea, as one minde in ma­nie bodies. And this they did when The Christians loo­king vp to heauen, Tertul. in Apolog. stretching out their handes (for they were harmelesse) bare headed (for they were not ashamed) yea and without anie to put them in minde to pray (for they praied euen from their hearts) al praying together, prayed for all. &c. as Tertullian reporteth of those times. For these their outwarde actions, did shew the affection of their minde, and agreement in that they prayed for.

Num­bring of praiers.Nowe for the numbring of their prayers vpon their beades, or otherwise, I doubt whether it can haue anie co­lour of excuse. For why doe they score them vp? Is it be­cause they wil go nothing beyond the number of praiers? or that they may bee sure to pay God all they owe him? To thinke they can giue him all his due, is too great wickednesse. And so to stint themselues in their praiers, [Page 125] howsoeuer they finde themselues affected to pray, doeth plainely shewe that they knowe not what it is to pray. For if it bee the crie (as one sayeth) of the heart, and not of the mouth: then is it time to make an ende of praying, when eyther our heart is satisfied, in hauing the request that it made, graunted, or else it waxe faint, and fall downe as Moses his handes did, Exod. 17. that it cannot lift vp it selfe to God.

And seeing men cannot bee alwayes alike minded in prayer, it is but follie to appoint themselues, alwayes the like measure of prayers. And such prayers are ma­nie times turned into prating and vaine babling. Or doe they number [...] eir prayers, that they may say to God: Thou art indebted vnto vs for so many prayers? It may so bee: For such is the foolish imagination of man, when hee once refuseth to bee directed by Gods worde, that there is nothing so absurde, no toy so childish, but they will account it to be a religious seruing of God. And so in this, by a little lippe labour, they seeke to buy those paltrie pardons, of such presumptuous Popes, as wil take vpon them by making a gaine of mens sins, to tread vnder foote the most precious bloud of Christ. But what nee­ded so rich a raunsome, as Christ his bloud, if so vile a price may serue the turne? If I would I might bring manie examples of such pardons, for saying a certaine number of prayers. But it is a filthie sinke, that I loue not to rake in

The ground of this blasphemous doctrine, is the blas­phemie of all other blasphemies, the summe whereof was vttered at Trent, in the time of Pope Pius the fourth, by Paulus Guidellus, in the hearing of manie of the fathers. That the Apostles and their schollers, Popish blasphemy did lay the foundation of Christian religion, vppon their owne bloud and merits, as vpon a most sure rocke, and thereby it came to passe that Christs kingdome was enlarged.

What greater iniurie could they doe to the bloud of Christ? But this perswasion being once entred, that the bloud of the Saints is so auaileable, they will hope well, if they can mumble vp a number of prayers to please them, that they shall haue pardon of their sinnes for ma­nie yeares. If the Papists bee ashamed of this doctrine, as iustly they may, let them shewe it condemned in that their Councell. If they allowe of it, they are ashame to the name of Christianitie. But, that prayers cannot bee meritorious, it followeth of that which before I haue said in the fiue and twentie Chapter. For if no workes can merit, then not prayer.

The last abuse in prayer, is, that as it is many times nothing zealous, or earnest, so it is not of faith, but with­out all assured perswasion of Gods goodnesse, or readi­nesse to heare vs. Yea, many times men speake the words of prayer, neither considering what they aske, or howe greatly they stande in neede to be heard, or to whom they speake, or with what boldnesse they may come vnto him, in respect of his abundant mercies. But because this is rather the fault of the men than of the doctrine, I will not meddle with it. But yet I cannot but maruell at ma­ster Bellarmine, De bouis o­peribus in particulari. lib. 1. ca. 9. who thinketh that a man needeth not in prayer to haue such fayth, as that he is assured thereby that God will heare him, but onely a generall perswasion of his power, will, &c. Against which daungerous doctrine, I will for this time onely say thus much. Our faith the more particular it is, the stronger it is, and the stronger it is, the better holde shall it take of Gods mercies, and the more readily obtaine at Gods hande: Therefore still weaknesse of fayth is reprooued. Iames. 1.6. And saint Iames willeth vs to pray in fayth without wauering. But this their generall or hystoricall faith, is sufficiently confuted, if we compare it with that exceeding great, and particular per­swasion of Gods goodnesse, which the Apostle did feele in the eight to the Romans, where hee assureth himselfe that [Page 126] no bodie can condemne him, no, neither yet accuse him, Rom. 8. no­thing can separate him from Gods loue: which his particu­lar faith also appeareth in many other places, and did make him pray with assurance. And thus I haue (I trust) pro­ued, that wee must pray to God onely. I can aske these things (saith Tertullian) of none but of him, In Apolog. [...] Tim. 2.5. of whome I knowe I shall speede, for it is onely he that giueth it. And that by one onely mediator, betweene God and man, the man Christ Iesus. And wee must pray in humilitie, and yet faithfully. Because although our prayers are not of themselues worthie to bee heard, yet Christ shall offer them vp vnto God as a sweete perfume, Apoc. 8.3. as saint Iohn in the spirit of prophecie did see.

And if in anie article of their religion, then sure in this, in my iudgement, they haue a most miserable defence, see­ing they cannot commend their Images as thinges com­mended to them of God, or vsed of the Godly. They can only plead not guilty. Our Images are not Idols. We worship them not with any vnlawful worship. And so all that they can doe, is to excuse themselues from being Ido­laters. No it is more then they can doe, considering howe God hath forbidden them, and good men haue detested them. Are they not carelesse thinke you of their owne, or o­ther mens saluation, that will commend that to the people as good and necessary, whereof when they haue spoken the best they can, they cannot truely saie it is not euill? But let vs see by what arguments they will proue that images are [Page 127] not euil, images I saie that haue anie worship done vnto them. For such images as are not in danger to be worship­ped, we speake not against. First they put a difference be­tweene an Idol and an image, & saie that an Idol is a false likenes of a thing, an image doth truely represent thinges vnto vs. Bellar. lib 2. de Imag. c. 5. First in matter or substance they will confesse that there is no difference betweene them. For both are made of gold, siluer, wood, stone or such like. Secondly, in forme they agree, for they are like some man or woman. Thirdly, they are of like might or power either against mise or rats, or dust and cobwebs, and alike able they are or rather vnable to helpe themselues, or others. Fourthly, the vse of the Idols that the gentiles had, De preparat. Euang. lib. 3. and that the pa­pists haue is all one. For Eusebius sheweth that the gen­tiles did vse their Idols as bookes, to learne by them God himselfe and his power, Contra gent. lib. 1. and to expresse and set forth the in­uisible things of God, by their images? And Athanasius a little before him affirmeth the same. For he reporteth that such as were the wiser sorte of them said, they were as bookes or letters, wherein they might read and learne to know God. And are they not vsed in the popish church to be laie mens bookes? Let themselues speake. We desire in this cause no other witnesses. Why then saith Athana­sius in the place before alleadged, what is there in the image that doth represent God? Is it the matter? What neede was there then that a shape should be giuen vnto it? Or what need we seeke that in few places that is in many? For stone, wood, gold and such like maie easlier els where be found then in churches. Is it the forme, the likenesse of men or other creatures? Why then shoulde it not bee thought that men themselues, or other creatures, shoulde more liuelie represent God than their image? Is it the cun­ning or workemanship? Then men that deuised this skill maie rather teach vs, than the image which they made. Thus we see how this ancient writer doth confute sound­lie, not only the opinion that Pagans had of the vse of their [Page] Idols, but also that popish vse of images to be laie mens bookes. And seeing in al these points they are so like, as if they were twinnes of one birth, why should we doubt but they are al one. But they are not more like in anie thing, than in that definition of an idol which maister Bellarmine himselfe hath set downe. De Imag. li. 2 cap. 5. The image of God the father. De Imag. li. 2 cap. 8. An Idol (saith he) is a false like­nesse. But the popish images are false likenesses, there­fore they are idols. First the image of God the father to be made like an aged man, which maister Bellarmine liketh wel of, is but a false likenesse. For graie heires, and age, are rather a token of weakenes, than a picture fit to set foorth Gods maiestie: and shew him rather to be pitied than pow­erful. Yea but God appeared (saith M. Bellarm.) to Dani­el hauing The haire of his head like the pure wool. Daniel. 7. [...] . It is true, but he bid not Daniel paint him so. He appeared in that shape to Daniel only, whom he had indued with a prin­cipal spirit, but did not shew himselfe so vnto the people. He appeared vnto his seruants in sundry shapes not often in one sort, to shew that he must not be made like vnto anie one of them, for none of them all can set him forth vnto vs, as he should be set forth, & therefore if we wil make them they are but lying similitudes. The image of Christ. And for the image of Christ, it is but a lying likenesse. For his very shape, or outwarde forme is not by them expressed, but one painteth him after one sort, another after another sort. But the especial things that we should receiue comfort or instruction by, cannot bee painted, his godlines of life, & his office of beeing redeemer and mediator. These things which are the chiefest, the gra­uer cannot graue, the painter cannot paint. These are liuely described in Gods booke. But they that are most giuen to i­mages, care lest to learne these thinges. And seeing the image cannot teach vs these things, for wee see nothing in it but a stocke or stone, or some other mettall made like a man, which cannot stirre or moue or helpe it selfe, therefore it is a false likenesse. But false also are such images in ano­ther respect, namely, because the eie beholding it, draweth [Page 128] the minde from the consideration and meditation of better thinges, and hindereth more heauenlie cogitations. False be­cause they intise to lies. Ier. 10.14.15. Habac. 2.18. And therefore wel saith God by his Prophet Ieremie, Their melting is but falshood, they are vanity and the work [...] of errours. What profiteth the Image? (saith God by Ha­bacucke) For the maker thereof hath made it an Image, and teacher of lies. These bookes then, they are of a false print, and teach not truelie, but as are idoles, euen so are these images false likenesses. De consens [...] euang. li. 1. cap. 10. And therefore worthely did S. Augustine finde fault with them Who sought for Christ & his apostles, not in the holy scriptures, but in painted wals. And this is indeed a dangerous falshood, vnder pre­tence of religion, to draw vs from true religion. And by sa­tisfying the eie with a faire shew, to rob the soule, of the spi­ritual comfort and instruction. Lastlie, they are like in name also. Which thing although M. Bell. & others would faine deny, yet G. Martin a great enemy to vs euen in this cause, Against our english translat. ca. 3. sect. 15. In Exod. 20. cannot but grant that the greeke word Idolum maie signifie an image. And Caietanus also another piller of poperie doth make an idol & an image alone, although M. Bellar. censure him for it. And the Hebrew names are so general, De imag. li. 2 cap. 7. as that they may very wel serue for image or idol: yea there is in the vse of them small difference. Sometime their names shew and tell what they are, as vanities, lies, abho­minations, yea dirtie and dungie. Sometime they are cal­led according to their making grauen or molten. Some­time according to the effect that they worke in such as serue them, they are called fleabogs: Cap. 3. sect. 5 Psal. 106.36. and where Gregory Mar­tin translateth, they Serued grauen Idols, the word signi­fieth vexation. Because idols bring vexation to them that serue them, they are so called.

But the words as I haue said, are very general. And ther­fore vniustly and without cause doth Gr. Martin find fault with our english translations, for translating, Ca. 3. sect. 20. Exod. 20.4. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image. For the wordes doe so well beare it, that euen their owne la­tine [Page] translation, which they allow so wel of, doth often translate that very word image as we doe, for the most ab­hominable Idols that are: as the images of the temple of Baal, 2. Kings. 11.1 [...] . Ezec. 7.20. & 16.19. Ezec. 23.14. the idolatrous images which the Israelites made, the images of the Caldeans. And that word which with the Hebrews most properlie signifieth a likenesse or image, doth their old translation translate an Idol, De Imag. li. 2. cap. 5. if this word Si­mulacrum doe signifie an Idol, as maister Bellarmine saith it doth. For Tselamim wich in Hebrew signifieth like­nesses or images, that latin translation calleth Simulacra Idols. 2. Cron. 34.3. Hos. 11.2. and els where. If the old translatour might indifferentlie vse the wordes that are of one significatiō, why maie not our translatours do the like, but they must by and by be falsifiers and corrupters? And more euidently to proue that the olde translatour did not ac­knowledge this nice difference: marke the place that we al­leadge against them out of Habacucke, Habak. 2.18. and it will appeare, that he maketh images, & that grauen thing which in this commaundement (Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a­ny grauen thing) is forbidden, all one, putting no diffe­rence betweene them. For thus doth hee translate that place. What profiteth the grauen thing, For hee that made it hath grauen it a molten thing, and a false image. Where he plainelie calleth that an image, which before he did translate, as the word doth in truth signifie, a grauen thing. If this be no fault in him, I trust the indifferent rea­der, will not thinke it to be a fault in vs. Well then images and idols agreeing so wel as they doe, in matter, forme, vn­abilitie, vse, definition, and name, why maie they not bee birdes of one nest? and whelpes of one litter, one of them taken for the other? If wee also consider how in other pla­ces of Scripture the idols are described, and compare those descriptions, with that which we see and know to be in their images, Psal. 115.4.5.6. we shall see them to be alike. Their Idols are siluer and gold the worke of mens handes. They haue mouthes and speake not, eies and see not, eares and [Page 129] heare not, noses and smell not, handes and touch not, feete and walke not, neither make they a sound with their throate. Are not the images such? Much like vnto this, is that that the Prophet Esay saieth of them, That they must be borne vpon mens shoulders, Esa. 45.7. they must be carried and set in their place. So do they stand and can not remoue from their place. Though a man crie vnto them, yet can they not answere, nor deliuer him out of his tribulation. If this be not true of their images also, then wee will confesse they are no idoles. And this is a thing well woorthy to bee noted, Bellarm. de imag lib. 2. cap. 5. that whereas the vsuall names that the scriptures giue idoles are these, as master Bellarmine confesseth, Elilim, false, or Auanim, lies, or Sheqed, a lie: neither these, nor any other of the most op­probrious names that are giuen vnto idoles are vsed in the commaundement, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a­ny grauen thing, but such a name as they can not deny, but that it may be truely applied to their images. The ho­ly ghost thereby preuenting this their subtill shift, when they say that images are not thereby forbidden: for the wordes as wel forbid images as idoles, yea any thing that is grauen: yea, and the sence of the commaundement ex­tendeth to any thing that is made with handes. For that that man can make, is not fit to be a god. And therefore Moses that man of God hauing threatned to the transgres­sours of Gods lawe desolation of their land, and captiuitie to themselues in a strange land, hee addeth: Deut. 4.28. And there shall yee serue gods the worke of mens handes, wood, and stone, which neither see, nor heare, nor eate, nor smell. Yea Moses before in that chapter, expoundeth vn­to them this second commaundement, and teacheth them what is meant by that grauen thing, Verse 15, 16 and how they should vnderstand it. Ye saw not (saith he) any likenesse in the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire: lest peraduenture ye might be decei­ued and should make vnto your selues, any grauen like­nesse, [Page] or any image of man or woman, &c. Wherein Moses telleth them, that God appeared not in any forme, because he would not haue them to make any image. In which place I vse their owne translation, because they may see, that not idols only, but images also are by it condem­ned. Lastly, the very practise of Gods people, and the de­testation that they alwaies haue against images, may suffi­ciently persuade vs how they vnderstoode the commande­ment. For as Bellarmine saith of the Iewes, that after Christs time they were most superstitious against images, Lib. 1. de I­maginib. ca. 7 and say that they are forbidden by Gods lawes: so he and all his fellows will neuer be able to proue, that the godly amōg them would at any time admit of images, vn­lesse it were some few that were but to beutify the tēple, or that God cōmanded to be vsed in the temple, as the beasts that held vp the caldron, or such like, and the cherubes o­uer the arke, which are no proofe for popish images. For popish images had no commaundement, but the images in the temple of Ierusalem had. Againe, the images that were in the temple were not praied vnto, or any way wor­shipped, as were popish images. Yea, and if Bellarmine wil beleeue Iosephus a Iew, writing of their story, he shal find that the Iewes were very scrupulous and precise in that point, Iosep. anti. cap. 11. Cap. 4. insomuch as they would not onely suffer the emperors image to be placed in their temple, but his verie banners wherein the emperor was painted from the waste vpward, and those that had the egle painted in them, they would not admit into their city, though no worship to them were demanded or looked for: & al because they would not breake the second commandement. Whether they did here­in wel or euil, I do not define. But hereby it appeares how they vnderstood this commandemēt, which could not haue bin, if their forefathers had at any time before admitted of images, (other than such as God commanded) to be vsed among them. This (I trust) may suffice to prooue that i­mages, such as the papists set in their churches, are idoles: [Page 130] and that the haui [...] and [...] rshipping of the [...] against the second com [...] ment. Now let vs see [...] [...] ­cuse themselues [...] doing vnla [...] ull [...] They say they doe not worship [...] [...] ut ho [...] them as Gods creatures. Of the worship of Images. I [...] e [...] [...] ter of the im [...] e as the wood or stone is gods [...] ea [...] e, & therfore good, & so in their kinde to be honoured. But the image it selfe is th [...] worke of mens hands, & none of gods creatures, but a dan­gerous stumbling blocke in the way of the simple, & cursed of God. And this very image it self, De imag. li. 2 cap. 21. to speak in Bellar. own words, is, to be worshipped not only by accident or im­properly, but of it selfe and properly, so that the wor­shippe hath respect but vnto the image considered in it selfe, not as it representeth that whereof it is an image. We see then the papistes will haue their images worship­ped. And then for the external worship, as capping, knee­ling, bowing, censing and such like, De imag. li. 1. cap. 12. M. Bellarmine confes­seth, they are al one that are done to God, and to their ima­ges. So that he thinketh the difference betweene the wor­ship of God and the image only to consist in this, that in the worship of God, the mind is in the highest degree humbled, and abased with an apprehension of God as the chiefest good. O miserable blindnesse that possesseth the hearts of these blind guides? how can it bee, that the nature of man, being so inclining to Idolatry, as the common experience of all times teacheth vs, hauing his eies fastened vppon an Image, and hauing a purpose to worshippe it, shoulde not striue to doe the greatest worshippe that hee can doe to it, and thinke that all that hee can doe is to lit­tle? These colours maie well serue the simple, or such as are willing to be deceiued, to make their eyes dazell, that they shall not well iudge betweene trueth and fal­shoode. But I warrant you that whosoeuer will set him­selfe deuoutlie to praie before an Image, as they vse to speake, wil humble himselfe as deuoutly as he can before the same. As for that their distinction of Latria Latria which is [Page] the worship that they will allow God: and Dulia Dulia. which is that that other images must be content withall: I neede not stand to confute it. For M. Bellarmine confesseth that these wordes are not of their owne nature proper to diuine worship, but that the schoolemen haue deuised this distinc­tion. Then let the schoolemen play with such toyes, and fight with such bables. But Gods people should be fed with sounder foode. But what meaneth this caueat that M. Bellarmine giueth, De Imagini­bus li. 2. c. 22 that a man must not say, especi­ally when he preacheth vnto the people, that any ima­ges are to bee worshipped with that worship that be­longeth to God? If it be true, why may not the people know so much? Perchance M. Bellarmine doubteth whe­ther that their opinion will proue true, Ibid. cap. 20 that the same ho­nour is due to the Image that is due to him, whom it re­presenteth. And therfore that the image of Christ should be worshipped with that worship that belongeth vnto God. Indeede these their rules can neuer prooue good, be­cause they are not commaunded of God. For it is alwaies in such thinges true that Tert. saith, De Mono­gamia. that which the scrip­ture doth not set downe, it doth forbid. Hee learned it of Gods owne mouth, who answered the superstitious Iewes pleasing themselues in such seruices as they had deuised, Esay 1.12. who required these things of your hands? But as they haue no warrant for that they teach, and therefore ought not of christians to be heard: so their opinions are in themselues so absurd, that but to shew them, is enough to make such as haue any care of their owne saluation to shunne them. But how shall the afflicted mindes, which would giue all that they haue for a little comfort, vnto whom the feare of death is nothing, in comparison of the terrour of sinne: how shall they finde comfort in the con­flicts of conscience, when faine they would aske, but they knowe not of whome: and pray, but they knowe not howe? for, if their teachers and Doctours, at their best leasure, can not yet resolue themselues, how they should [Page 131] pray vnto their stockes and stones: how shall he that hath to thinke of death, and to striue against the assaultes of sinne, and many feares, knowe in such a case which way to turne him? And therefore, as Cyprian saith to the chri­stians that sacrificed to idoles, O wretched man, De lapsis. why bringest thou an offering with thee? when thou com­est to offer or intreate, why doest thou lay on thy sa­crifice? Thou thy selfe commest an offering and a sa­crifice vnto the altar: thou hast there offred thine owne saluation, thy hope. In those wicked fires thou hast burned thy faith. Euen so I may say to those miserable men and women that are carried away after such vanities, that their owne imaginations shall punish them, and They shall eate the fruit of their owne way, Prouer. 1.3 [...] . Prouer. 22.8. Esa. 50.11. and be fil­led with their owne deuises. For it is good reason, that he that soweth iniquitie should reape affliction, and see by the sparkes of the fire that he hath kindled.

Fasting there is, publike and priuate: And of both sorts there are diuers kinds. But I speake not here of the spirituall fast which is the best, and without the which the other fasting is nothing els but a mockerie. Nether yet doe I speake of that ciuil abstinence, which in some poli­ticke respects is commaunded amongst vs, and is manie times called a fast. But of those fasts only doe I intreat, which are in question betwene vs and that superstitious church of Rome, that we knowing the true vse of fasting may more vse it, and shunne that superstitious and popish maner of fast. Somtime the cause of fasting, is the mor­tifying of our flesh, by denying the bodie that wherby it is puffed vp and made wanton and rebellious. Somtime [Page 123] some imminent daunger which wee see hanging ouer our heads or not far of, or some feare of Gods wrath doth moue vs vnto it. And this is for the most part publike and not al­waies after one maner: Iudg. 20.26 Hest. 4.16. for some fasted the whole daie from eating or drinking anie thing: Some did fast so three daies together as Hester commaunded the Iewes. Then was there another kind of fast wherin they did not abstaine from all meates and drincks, but from delicate fare. 2. Sam. 12.17 [...] Cro. 10.12 Dan. 10, 2.3. So Dauid fasted seuen daies when his child was sicke. So also did the people when Saul was dead. And Daniel fa­sted three weeks, all which time he did nether eat plea­sant bread, nether came flesh nor wine in his mouth. But these are for the most part priuate fasts, although not al­waies: for we see the people did fast after Saule was dead, as it seemeth, publikly seuen daies. And of the first cause of fasting, which I haue said is the mortifying of our flesh, and making vs more fit to serue God, perchaunce we haue an example in Anna, who serued God with fasting, Luke 2.37. and praiers night and daie.

But of the second cause of fasting, wee haue in the Scriptures manie examples. Ioshua 7. Iudges 20. and in manie other places, which for shortnesse I omit. And doubtlesse there is a great fault, I must needes confesse, in this our realme in this poynt, that that viperous ge­neration of popish tyrants and traitours, seeking so many wayes, by poysoning, fire, murthering, and all vil­laynous practises to roote out the trueth, to make ha­uocke of this our Countrey, and to shorten the most quiet gouernement and happie dayes of so mercifull and gra­cious a prince, of whose most gentle regiment, they haue no iust cause to complayne, vnlesse it bee that of her tender, and euill rewarded clemencie, and gentlenesse, shee suffereth such daungerous popish snakes, so neere her bosome, euen in all partes of the Realme, so vntouched and almost vnregarded, wee, I say, seeing with our eyes, and dayly hearing with our [Page] eares of these pestilent, and brutish, and most vnnaturall practises, and manifest daungers, doe not humble our selues before our God in fasting and prayer. Why doe wee not followe the infinite examples of the godly, of all ages, and the good practise of our neere neighbours on euerie side almost, in such present perill to proclaime a fast, that with the Niniuites wee might crie mightily vnto God? Ionah. 3.8. But as our enemies haue forgotten that they are men, and casting off all humane nature, are be­come more brutish than beastes in their practices, and shame not of anie thing that they can doe, so that they may worke wickedly enough: so wee on the other side doe not consider, that through our sinnes we haue deserued all these shakings of Gods roddes ouer vs, and threat­nings of his wrath. And that is the cause that wee seeke not by publike fastings and prayer to make a publike conuersion vnto God, agaynst whome so publikely wee haue sinned. God moue the hearts of them that are in authoritie, to rowse vp themselues at the length, to thinke better of their duetie in this poynt, and of our common saftie. For surely hee that was angrie with his owne people, Esa. 22.12.13 because When hee called to weeping and mourning, and baldnesse, and girding with sacke-cloth, They continued in their carelesse life that before they led, so that hee sayd, that Iniquitie should not bee purged, 14 but by their death: howe can hee but punish, and that seuerelie, so little regarde in vs, of his so manie and manifest proclamations of his conceyued anger against vs.

And thus would I with one breath, if I could, both moue our godly Magistrates as occasions are offered, to make this our realme better acquainted with this most Christian and godly exercise: and also let our aduersa­ries, see that it is not fasting that we speake agaynst, but the abuse thereof, that we iustly reproue. Why then, we confesse that fasting is good and commendable, it is a most [Page 133] godly and necessarie exercise to bee vsed. But not euerie ab­stinence is true fasting. First we see, the true vse of fasting is not in the popish church: For the godly did ioine fasting and prayer togither, not thinking that outwarde humilia­tion to be of it selfe a thing that God regarded, but it was vsed and practised that they might be more apt to pray, as wee may see in the examples that the Scripture mini­streth vnto vs. And therefore saint Hierome writing vnto Demetrias sayth, Epist. ad Demetr. that Fasting is not it self a perfect vertue, but the foundation of other vertues. And most plainly saint Chrysostome, Hom. 29. in Genes. Prayers must alwayes goe with fasting. And afterwards, You see that fasting stan­deth in neede of this helpe. And in another place, Hom. 10. in Genes. he see­meth not to make any great account of their fasting if it be alone. But the papists do say, that it doth appease Gods wrath, and that it meriteth forgiuenesse of sinnes. For this is their common doctrine, and this doth master Bellarmine endeuour to proue. De bonis o­peribus in part. li. 2. ca. 11. The children of Israel (saieth he) fa­sting with Samuel, appeased God, and got the victo­rie ouer their enemies. In deede there is once mention of fasting in that place. 2. Sam. 7.6.8.9. But the storie sayth that Samuel promised to pray for them, whē that they wept: for that he meaneth when hee sayeth, They drewe water, meaning out of their hearts, they fasted and confessed their sinnes: and so little they regarded the merit of their fasting, that they could not satisfie themselues therewith, but they also desire Samuel to pray, yea, that hee would not cease to crie vnto their God for them. Samuel offered a sacrifice, and prayed for the Israelites. Marke then howe deceit­fully maister Bellarmine hath dealt in this place. The peo­ple wept in abundance, confessed their sinnes, craued Sa­muel his prayers to God for them: he offereth sacrifice and prayeth to God to appease his wrath: & yet master Bellar­mine like a subtile sophister, to make men beleeue that that is the cause which in deede is not, speaketh nothing of all these meanes that they vsed to intreate God, but [Page] onely of fasting, as though that onely had turned away Gods wrath, and yet wee see by the storie, they made least account of it, but especially of praying. Neither is this a good argument: They did fast and God deliuered them: therefore their fasting merited this their deliueraunce. His seconde proofe is out of the example of Achab, who may in deede bee a good patterne of popish meriting, 1. Kin. 22.27 29 for he continued wicked still. But hee is in this, much like as faithfull as the other: For Ahab rent his cloathes, and put on sackcloath, fasted and lay in sackecloath, and went softly as men vse to doe in heauinesse. So manie tokens of sorrowe or feare did Ahab shewe, and yet ma­ster Bellarmine could see nothing in him but fasting. And in the storie of the Niniuites, Ionah. 3.7.8 which is the thirde example, they put on sackecloath, sate in ashes, fasted, (but farre otherwise than the Papists doe, and therefore what is this to their fast) cried mightily to God, turned from their wickednesse, and God sawe (not their fasting onely) their workes: but master Bellarmine can see nothing in them but their fasting. In deed in his fourth example which is the storie of Hester there is no mention in the place cited by him, Hester. 4.16 of anie thing that was done, but Hester comman­ded a fast. But shall we imagine that they did not other­wise humble themselues but onely by fasting, nor seeke to intreate God by prayer, as though this fasting could de­serue that they desired? God forbid. For in the ninth Chapter hee saieth, they did not fast onely, but pray al­so. Hester. 7.3 [...] . But as before I sayde, because they did these things and God deliuered them, doeth it followe that all the workes that they did, merited their deliuerance. Master Bellarmine can neuer proue that argument. Much lesse then shall hee be able to teach, that fasting alone could me­rit. And that is it hee would proue, and in deede that hee should proue, or else hee proueth nothing to serue his pur­pose. Iudith 4.9.10. [...] 12.13 14.15. They fasted likewise in the storie of Iudith, but they also prayed earnestly, put on sackecloath, sprinckled ashes [Page 134] on their heades, afflicted themselues maruellously, offe­red burnt offerings continually, and the peoples free gifts, crying vnto the Lorde with all their power. Lastly he al­ledgeth out of the Prophet Ioel, Ioel. 2.12. Turne to the Lord with fasting, weeping, and mourning. What then will he con­clude of that, that these things merit or deserue Gods wrath to be turned away? He cannot proue it. We denie not but God looketh vpon these things, but not for the merit of them, but for his owne mercies: And therefore master Bellarmine hath not yet prooued that fasting doth merit. And this is the thing that hee should proue. But on the contrarie, A true vse of fasting. in our fasting we acknowledge our selues to bee vnworthie of Gods creatures, and that by our sinnes wee haue depriued our selues of the vse of his benefites, and deserue not euen these his ordinarie graces, which the verie beastes themselues maie freely enioy. And in this heartie acknowledging of our owne vnworthinesse, wee prostrate our selues before Gods mercie seate, seeking for mercie, not pleading, but fearing and refusing our merit.

Now, of this popish opinion of merit by fasting, hath sprung vp another abuse in fasting, Of popish fasting dayes. That the papists haue dedicated these their fasting dayes, not onely to the seruice of God (for they supposed that they could by such meanes please him, whereas it is all one to him, whether wee come full or fasting, so that wee come so, as our hearts may bee most sitte to serue him) but also to the honour of their Saints, imagining thereby to deserue some fa­uour at their handes. And for this cause did they de­uise to fast vpon their Saintes Euens, and at such o­ther times, as wee see the Popish Church vseth, not so much to tame the flesh, for that fasting we also affirme to be necessarie, neither yet in any politike respect, which be­longeth not to our question: but euen because they foolishly thinke that in so doing they worship God and the Saints, and do a thing acceptable to him. And to this ende is also [Page] appointed their lent fast, their wednesdaie and fryday fast, saterday fast, embar fast, the fasts of aduent and cogation weeke. But that these cannot be accounted times of neces­sitie to be kept and obserued for fasting in respect of any re­ligious obseruation of the same, it cannot better be proued, than by that diuersitie of opinions and iudgement, which M. Bellarmine himselfe is forced to confesse to be in the an­cient fathers. De bonis o­peribus in part. li. 2. As they shall vnderstand that reade of the book before alleadged the fifteeneth, the seuenteenth, eight­teenth and nineteenth chapters. As for their fastes vppon saintes eues, they come after al the rest. Seeing therefore there is herein such diuersitie, it is plaine enough, that nei­ther any certainty of doctrine can heere be gathered, nei­ther can they cal it a catholicke religion, that is like Iacobs coate of many colours, farre from vnity of faith. But with saint Hillary I maie say, In ps. 118. A It is most hard for a man by the doctours of this world, to vnderstande the meaning of heauenly precepts. And this I could wish, that at al times we would striue, by this and other good meanes, to tame our rebellious flesh: and that we also would prepare our selues vnto the holy exercises of our religion, either by this or anie other way that maie further therein: but that fasting it selfe doth make vs acceptable to God, wee must not thinke. And out of this their opinion of the merit of fasting, ariseth another most absurd doctrine of binding the consci­ence to their lawes of fasting, Their lawes of fasting bind not the consci­ence. Li. 2. de bo­nis operibus in part. ca. 7. Ierem. 5.6. as the church of Rome tea­cheth with one consent, as M. Bellarmine confesseth. And he wil proue it by the example of the Rechabites, who vpon the commandement of Ionadab their father, abstained from drinking of wine. A weake proofe. The Rechabites obeied the politicke lawe that their father Ionadab gaue them: therefore the church may binde mens consciences with the law of fasting. It is one thing to bind the conscience, ano­ther thing to require external obedience. The fast and holie daie which is commaunded to be continued in the storie of Hester is like vnto it, Hester. 9.31. for a day of remembraunce of Gods [Page 135] great benefit towardes them, but not to binde the consci­ence. Such also is the fast mentioned in Zachary, of the fourth, fifth, seuenth and tenth monethes, which although it might perchance vppon good and godlie consideration be taken vp, and we debarre none, but exhort all persons to humble themselues vnto the Lord: yet how little their con­science is bound thereto, it partly appeareth, because God faith in the former Chapter that they did not fast vnto him, and willeth them to harken vnto the ministerie of prophets, and to execute true iudgement, and shewe mercy and compassion euery man to his brother, & not to oppresse: for these are in deede good workes that God regardeth, in comparison of which hee little esteemeth those their fastes. Partlie also because God wil turne their fasting into fea­sting, into ioy and gladnes and prosperous high feastes, as there he saith. Act. 15.29. And lastly he bringeth that law that the a­postles set downe, of not eating the bloud and things stran­gled. A law I saie, made by the direction of Gods spirite, as there is witnessed for a lawe: whereof they can finde no such praise. A law that was made according to the necessity of that time, to auoide diuision, and for the better vniting and gathering of the church of the Iewes and gentiles, as M. Bellarmine confesseth, and therefore such a law, as lawfully might be made. For in thinges indifferent, the church maie take order for the quietnes or anie other waie for the benefit of the fame. Whereby they would establish a law for euer to binde the conscience. A law I say, which themselues wil confesse we are not bound vnto, but doe a­gainst that law that the apostles made. But how could we breake that law if it bound the conscience? Or if it doe not binde the conscience, why doth M. Bellarmine bring it to proue that the church may tie or bind the consciences of the faithfull, vnto their lawes of fasting?

Thus we see that not one of all the places alleadged by him out of the scripture, doth prooue the necessity of these lawes of fasting, which so straitly they command. There­fore [Page] by the weakenes of their proofe, we may see the false­nes of their doctrine. Difference of meates. Now I come vnto the last point of their doctrine which we mislike, which is the difference of meats that they make. Wherein if they doe not conspire with the Ebionites and sundry other hereticks that did con­demne flesh as a thing vnpure: yet it seemeth that they haue bin brought vp in the schoole of the heretickes called Apo­stolici, Serm. 66. in Cantica. of whom S. Bernard reporteth that they would eate no whit-meate, milke and whatsoeuer came of it, or whatsoeuer was ingendred. But our aduersaries tel vs, that the Ebionites, Tatianites, Maniches, Priscillianists, and such other heretickes, doe vtterly condemne flesh, as vncleane or vnlawful, to be eaten at any time: But them­selues thinke it only at certaine times vnlawful. Admit it be so. If they wil not goe in the rancke with the old here­tickes, let it then be an heresie, deuised (in such sort as now it is) by popish heretickes. De violandis virginibus. For if heresie be, Whatsoeuer sauoureth against the truth, although it be euen an olde custome, as Tertullian very wel defineth it, then doubtles this popish forbidding of certaine meats for conscience sake, wil be found heresie. For the truth saith, that they who commaunde to abstaine from meates which God hath created to bee receiued with giuing of thankes, 2. Tim. 4.1.2.3. depart from the faith, giue heede vnto spirites of errour, and doctrines of diuels, and that they speake lies through hipocrisie, and haue their consciences burned with an hote iron. But the church of Rome teacheth, that this is a ca­tholike doctrine, a sounde religion. And they that teach it are good catholickes. The church of Rome then sa­uoureth against the truth, as in manie other articles so in this also, and therefore it is hereticall. But I knowe their answere, that Saint Paul speaketh against the E [...] ­bionites, Tatianites, and such heretickes as did vtter­lie condemne flesh as an vncleane thing of it selfe. It is true hee doth so, but not against them onlie, but rather against the popish heresie than against anie other. And [Page 136] that for these reasons. First the circumstance of the time moueth me to it. 1. Tim. 4.1. For he saith that these men shal be in the latter time. Nowe it were absurde to thinke, that he that speaketh heere by the spirite of prophesie of this false doc­trine, should account for the latter times the times of those heretickes, the world induring so long after as now it hath done. And Ebion that was the first, as I remember, that deuised that heresie, liued in the daies of the apostle, and did sow his seede of that heretical doctrine, verie soone after the apostles death. Yea and Tatian also taught the same heresie, about some seuentie yeares after Saint Paul. If therefore had saint Paul ment of that heresie especially, he woulde neuer haue pointed so farre, as to haue tolde vs of the latter daies, but rather woulde haue said, that it were at hande. The apostle therefore had respect chief­lie to more dangerous heretickes than they were, that could carry the matter more cunninglie than wholy to condemne the creature. His wordes also are verie plaine if wee marke them well. For he doth not saie that they shal con­demne or dispraise meates, which God hath made, which was the heresie of those olde heretickes: But, they shall commaunde others to abstaine from them, to refuse them, not to receiue them: and this is flat the heresie of the pa­pists. And the apostle confuting this heresie, doeth not commend the goodnesse or purenesse of the creature, as it had beene needefull for him to haue done, if hee had chieflie ment his wordes against them: but hee sheweth the lawful vse of the creature, that it is to bee receiued, and it is not to be refused. Which especially armeth vs a­gainst the Romish infection, for to speake as Saint Ambrose doeth vppon these wordes, Ambrose vpon these words. When such do­ctrines are hearde, we maie knowe the diuel hath deui­sed them.

Thirdly, the apostle seemeth to haue regard vnto such as shoulde teach the doctrine vnto that ende, that some in his daies did among the Colossians, to put some religi­on [Page] in these outward and bodily exercises, exhorting them thus: Touch not, tast not, handle not, which all perish with the vsing, Coloss. 2.21.22 and are after the commaundements and doctrines of men. And thefore the apostle saith by and by after, 1. Tim. 4.8. that Bodily exercise profiteth little. Amongst which bodily exercises saint Ambrose counteth fasting. And thus in deed doe the papists vse their fasts, thinking that a little pinching of their body, should satisfie for their sinnes. A­gainst which foolish persuasion it is a sufficient confutation to saie with the apostle, Coloss. 2.16. Let no man iudge you in meates and drinke. Let no man thinke you worse, for eating, or better for not eating. Rom. 14.17. 1. The. 5.22. For the kingdome of God is not meate and drinke, but righteousnes, and peace, and ioie in the holy ghost. Now I cannot but maruel, seeing the apostle willeth vs to abstaine from all appearance of euil, what is the reason that our aduersaries wil come so neere those heretical opinions, which are so condemned by the godly of al ages, Iohn. 4.24. and doe not rather seeke to worship in spirite and truth as our sauiour Christ telleth vs we must doe, than to put any holinesse in these external obseruances, which wee see so many heretickes haue delighted in. I would therefore exhort our aduersaries to be more wise in that point: for they get them an euil name, by hauing so great a smacke of such corrupt opinions, and haue had lucke in the choice of their obseruances, wherein they not­withstanding repose a great piece of holines. For those two things wherein they suppose they commend themselues ve­ry much vnto the world, which is forbidding of marriage to some sort of men, and meates at some times to al, and at al times to some men, doe most euidently bewray their su­perstitious religion. Wherein they are not only noted be­fore of the apostle, and pointed at to be had teachers, but al­so almost al those heretickes that condemned flesh as vn­holy, were also enemies to marriage, as in part at the least the papists are. And thus whilest they will seeme more holy then others, in not vsing holily and with thankes giuing; [Page 137] Gods good ordinance and creatures: they come so neare those prophane and wicked heretikes that haue gone before them, that al good men take them to be a branch out of that roote, and water of the same spring. Bellar. de bonis o­peribus in part. li. 2. cap. 5. But what arguments haue they to iustifie this their doctrine? Master Bellar­mine can affoorde vs but one, that maketh any shewe of proofe, that flesh is more vnlawfull to be eaten than other meates, and that but a simple one. Dan. 10.3. It is out of Daniel where he saieth, I haue not eaten any pleasant bread, nei­ther came flesh nor wine in my mouth. Master Bellar­mines arguments are like to fruit that sheweth faire at the first, but is rotten at the heart. For, what can hee prooue out of this? Daniel abstained from flesh, therefore no man that will chastice his body must eate flesh. First, that that Daniel did, is no lawe to vs, because it is not com­manded vnto vs. Secondly, he did it but for a time, name­ly, for three weekes: what is this to prooue that it must be a continuall lawe for fasting? He did it voluntarily: what warrant can that be to force other men to it? But to come to the very point. I would aske of our aduersaries, whe­ther they thinke that Daniel commendeth vnto vs his fast, in that he abstained from flesh onely, or that hee abstained from all dainty fare? If because he abstained from al dain­tie fare (as saint Hierome in plaine wordes doth expound it, then it maketh nothing for the forbidding of flesh onely. Iero. in Dan. cap. 1. But that is it that the Papists so stiffely maintaine, and so superstitiously hold, that they suppose themselues more to breake their fast, in eating but one bit of flesh, be it neuer so meane, or of little nourishing, or neuer so little whit­meate, than if they should eate a sufficient meale of dain­tie and nourishing fish. Now if one should aske them whe­ther one bit or lesse of flesh doeth more pamper our bodie, than a good quanti [...] ie of daintie fish, our aduersaries must needes confesse, that a sufficient meale of the one, nou­risheth more than the small quantitie of the other. And yet a crumme of flesh doeth breake their fast, and a meale [Page] of fish doth not. So that they make the vnlawfulnesse to be in the meate it selfe: which, howe neere it commeth to the former heresies, let the world iudge. If they doe an­swere, that the commandement of the church doth make it vnlawfull: I reply, that the church hath not power to take away our christian liberty, neither must in things indiffe­rent set downe a constant and continuall order, for al times and places. And also the reason that master Bellarmine giueth, why the church forbade flesh, is, for taming of the flesh, which in this case set downe is more pampered by the fish. De operibus bonis in part. lib. 2. cap. 4. And therefore the very respect that their church had in giuing this commandement, maketh not simply gainst the vse, but against the abuse of it. So that still the strait forbidding of the vse of flesh, with such scourings, wash­ings, and cleansings of any thing that hath come neare flesh as they vse to haue, seemeth to come from no other but those ancient heretikes. But they will not be compa­red to them: Yet they must not take scorne to be yoked with the Manichees, whose fastings saint Augustine de­scribeth, as like the Popish fasting as one egge can be like an other, not in their diet onely, but in their opinion of it also. For hee there sheweth how the Manichees vsing in their fasts, daintie fare, and much spice, and costly drinkes, woulde yet preferre their fasts before an other that had not touched a peece of resty bacon with his lippes, whose follie hee much inueyeth against. And who know­eth not, De moribus Manichaeo­rum li. 2. c. 13 that the fasts of many (euen of them whom they call religious men) amongest the Papistes are more nou­rishing vnto the body, than the best feast that many a poore man getteth throughout the whole yeare. Yea, one draught of their spiced cuppes, is much better than his Christmasse dinner? And yet these men, whose meanest meale shoulde bee a poore mans feast, are saide to fast. And the other, whose greatest fare is with scarcitie, doth not fast. Let our fast then bee an abstinence from anie thing that may pamper the flesh, yet not superstitious, [Page 138] not ioyned with opinion of merite, not thinking any meate vnlawful, but in Christian sorrow for sinnes to humble our selues.

The absurditie of this their doctrine, maketh me loath almost to meddle with it: for, what christian eares can [Page] heare the blasphemy of the councell of Trent in the place before alleadged, The blas­phemous saying of the [...] oun­cel of Trēt, & the Ie­suites. that there are some (they meane of such as shall dwell with God) that are not fully purged in Christ? And yet the scriptures do onely and wholy ascribe vnto Christ, our perfect redemption, whereof his bloud is the price, his death is our ransome. Or, who can but de­test the folly of those Iesuites, who are not ashamed to write, that God receiueth such to fauour, as he wil not suf­fer to come where he is, vntill they haue satiffied for their punishment? No, they blush not to affirme, that God is like to a froward man, who although he can be content by intreaty to forgiue, yet will he not forget the offences that are committed against him, but will haue them punished with temporall punishments, either here or else-where. Which not to be true, among other the thiefe vppon the crosse may teach vs. For what satisfaction did hee make for his temporall punishment? None at all: for Christ said to him, Luc. 23.43 This day shalt thou be with mee in Paradise. Yea this example prooueth, that it is not according vnto Gods iustice so to deale. For if hee being a malefactor, had no punishment enioyned vnto him, but were freelie pardoned, howe can wee imagine that God will deale more hardly with other? Againe, to say that wee must make any satisfaction, is to ouerthrowe that free grace and mercy of God, and the only merit of Iesus Christ, and so to diminish the benefite that wee haue of his gratious goodnesse, or to charge him with weakenesse and impo­tencie, as though hee were not able without our satisfacti­on for our sinnes, to take away the same. And how doubt­fully they set downe this their doctrine, their Writings doe testifie, to beare witnesse of their owne vncertaintie of that which they doe teach. For, Allen that most vnna­turall countrey man of ours (but he that sitteth in heauen, hath defeated his purposes, and laughed him to scorne) concerning this point hee thus setteth it downe, that Of­ten there remaineth a due temporal punishment for sa­tisfaction. [Page 139] And master Bellarmine saith, Defence of purgatorie chap. 1. De purgat. li. 1. cap. 7. Censur. Co­lon. dial. 10. that al the tem­porall punishment is not alwayes pardoned with the sinne. And the Iesuites of Colen say, that this commeth often to passe. And so they all teach, that not alwayes, but often it is so. But this is a very doubtfull doctrine for the afflicted conscience that would faine finde comfort and re­lease of sinnes. But so must it alwayes be, nothing but doubting, nothing but wauering, so long as wee trust to our owne satisfactions. No quietnesse and securitie, but onely in Christ. But because I haue spoken else-where of our satisfactions or workes, how little auaileable they are, I meane not to stay vpon this point. But for the example of Dauid, which is alleadged both by Allen, 2. Sa. 12.14. maister Bellarmine, and the rest, whereby they chiefly indeuour to prooue, that punishment may be inflicted, the sinne being pardoned, it maketh little for them. For seeing there are in sinne two things, as themselues will confesse, the verie corruption it selfe, and the danger or condemnation that followe [...] h it: the condemnation being taken away by for­giuenesse of sinne, yet the corruption or infection of sinne still remaineth (as before hath beene taught in the three and twentieth chapter. The cause of chastice­ments. Esa. 48.10. God therefore sometime chasti­ceth his seruants to humble or reforme: So he cha­sticed the Iewes. Sometime to trie and prooue them whether their hearts bee right or not: so did hee prooue the Israelites in the wildernesse fortie yeeres. Deut. 8.2. Sometime to glorifie his owne name, and for example to others: as in the storie of Iob appeareth. Then they can not reason thus: Dauid was afflicted: therefore it was to satisfie for his sinne. For God wee see may send affliction for many o­ther causes, and not that wee might satisfie any thing by temporall punishment. But master Bellarmine replieth against this answere out of the very wordes. For there it is saide, 2. Sam. 12.14 Because thou hast caused the ennemies of the Lorde by this thy deede to blaspheme, the childe that is borne to thee shall surely die. Where he noteth [Page] the cause saieth master Bellarmine, why Dauid should be punished. True, but not thereby to satisfie for that he had done: But that the enemies of God seeing the chastice­ments that God laieth vpon his children, and how that Gods iudgements begin euen at his owne house, and with his owne deare seruants, 1. Pet. 4.17. they may the rather looke for his heauie wrath, if they turne not to him. And thus much for the right vnderstanding of the place. But what is this to purgatorie, for Dauids sinne was mortall, and therefore could not be helped by purgatorie, by their own doctrine? De purgat. li. 1. cap. 9. for M. Bellarmine saith, they al agree ther­in. To what end then doe they bring in Dauids punish­ment for a mortall sinne, to shew howe God will take away veniall sinnes? or howe doth it folow, Dauid was here punished for his sinne, therefore all men here or else where must be punished. But to handle this question as briefly as I can, master Bellarmine himselfe, doth handle it doubtfully, Iren. lib. 5. and so vncertainly, yea, and as Irene spea­keth so vnconsequently, and so euil agreing with it selfe, that he giueth iust cause to suspect the truth of it. Where the place of purgatorie is they haue not yet agreed, Bellar. de purg. li. 2. c. 6 Cap. 6. but are of eight sundrie minds. And although in the first booke of purgatorie master Bellarmine hath alledged sundrie fathers for proofe of it: Cap. 1. yet in the second booke he telleth vs that they are not agreed of it, who shall come thether. Some will haue all but Christ, neither will exempt from thence so much as the virgin Marie, others are of another minde. But who must satisfie for them that are in purga­torie? De purg. li. 2. cap. 17. only he that is iust. Why then where shall they finde priests to serue the turne. For they are cōmonly as bad as who is worst. And the time will scarcely serue them to recken vp their owne, Li. 2. cap. 10 de purgat. much lesse shall they be able to satis­fie for others sins. Other doubtes also there are which M. Bellarmine speaketh of, but cannot certainly resolue. Is this doctrine to be receiued as catholicke, of so manie points whereof euen the greatest Doctours among them [Page 140] do disagree. No certaine place, no certaine people, no certaine proofe of it. What should we doe with such an vncertaine religion, especially where so little good com­meth towardes vs, and so much of our goodes goe from vs? For onely veniall sinnes they tell vs, Veniall sinnes onely ta­ken away in purga­torie. can bee taken away by purgatorie. But for such small faults, be­cause they doe not (as the Papists would make vs be­beleeue) turne vs from God, they can tell vs manie mo easie remedies, Holie bread, holy water, giuing a little almes, pardons, Pilgrimages, Pater nosters, and Auies. And to bee buried in a Monkes Cowle, and bootes, it is a soueraigne remedie for such things, or else they lie. But one thing I cannot but muse at, that in this life these veniall sinnes maie so easilie bee satisfied for, as they all agree: and yet after this life their torments shoulde bee so grieuous as they report them to bee. For maister Bellarmine bestoweth a whole Chapter to proue the paines of Purgatorie to bee most bitter, De purgat. li. 2. cap. 1 [...] . and that no torments that are in this life, may bee compared with them.

Can a little holy water wash them awaie heere, and must the fire be so sharpe that must burne them a­waie else-where? But I thinke I knowe nowe the mysterie of it. The more that mens sinnes are heere mittigated, or the lesse grieuous that they appeare vnto their iudgement, the lesse carefull will they bee to satisfie for the same heere, or rather to auoyd them, and will liue more securely. But when vppon their death-bed, they shall finde anie conflict of conscience, and can finde no rest, then must they giue much for Mas­ses and Trentals: then must the bellowes of the Priests false and lying tongues, blowe the fire of pur­gatorie, vntill they haue made it so hote, that a great peece of that which hee hath left behinde him, and shoulde serue for the maintenance of wife and chil­dren, must bee bestowed in the slaking of that [Page] great heate, and the quenching of that tormenting, and vn­satiable fire.

De purgat. lib. [...] . cap. 3.Now for his proofs of purgatorie out of the scriptures, they haue either so little waight, or are so obscure, and so wrested from their natural sense, that the simplest (if with­out partialitie they could weigh them) would find them too light, to satisfie their consciences to be perswaded of the truth of that doctrine. The two first, the one of the Ma­chabees, 2. Mac. 12. Tob. 4. 1. Sam. 31.30 2. Sam. 1.12 the other of Tobie, are out of the bookes that are not Canonicall, and therfore can proue nothing. Third­ly, the inhabitants of Iabes Gilead fasted when Saul was dead seuen dayes, and Dauid mourned and fasted for Saul and Ionathan. It may bee thought (saieth master Bel­larmine) although they seemed to doe it in token of heaui­nesse, yet that they did it especially to helpe the soules de­parted. So here wee must take master Bellarmines, it may be thought, 2. Sam. 12.17 as a proofe for purgatorie. But howe he will prooue it, out of Dauids fasting and prayer for his child while it was aliue, I can not see, & he cannot well tell vs. But whereas maister Bellarmine, most falsely, with­out all warrant affirmeth, that this was the cause why the Patriarches so carefully desired buriall in the land of pro­mise, as Iacob and Ioseph did, that they might bee parta­kers of the prayers there made, Gene. 47.30 Gene. 50.25 In Gene. Hom. 65. and the sacrifices there of­fered, Chrysostome telleth vs it was for another cause, namely to assure their posteritie, that the promised land at the length should be theirs. And this hee confirmeth by Scripture, Gene. 50.25 euen by Ioseph his wordes: Surely God will visite you, and you shall carie my bones hence. Fourthly, Psal. 38.1. O Lord rebuke me not in thine anger, nei­ther chasten me in thy wrath. Where is purgatory here? Chastice me not in thy wrath, that is, Let me not be in pur­gatorie. No authoritie of man, no credit of person can make this a good proofe. His fift place, Wee went through fire and water, Psal. 66.12. & thou broughtest vs into this wealth, shew­eth how God had dealt with his people here, but what is [Page 141] this to purgatorie, which is else where? or what is this to proue our state that must be hereafter? Sixtly, Esa. 4.4. The Lord shal wash the filthines of the daughters of Sion, &c. with the spirit of burning. Now this burning must needs be in purgatorie fire, master Bellarmine thinketh, Iero. in Esa. 4. Math. 3. otherwise here is no proofe for purgatorie. But S. Hierom expoundeth it by that place of Matthew, Esa. 9.18. He shall baptise with the holy Ghost, and with fire. The seuenth, Wickednes burneth as fire: it deuoureth the briers and thornes. What is there no torment of sinne, or for sinne here, none else where but that purgatorie must needes be proued out of this? Let the indifferent reader iudge of it. The eight place, Mich. 7.8.9. Reioyce not against me, O mine enemie, though I fall, I shal rise, when I shal sit in darknesse, the Lord shall be my light, I will bear the wrath of the Lord, because I haue sinned against him. Li. 2. in Mic. 7 Saint Ierom expoundeth these wordes to be the wordes of Ierusalem to Babilon, that the Babyloni­ans should not reioyce at their captiuitie. What proofe is this for purgatorie? Perchance they were in purgatorie in Babylon, that was not this popish purgatorie, which they would picke out of it. Ninthly, he will proue it by that lake that Zacharie speaketh of, Wherein is no water. Zach. 9.11. Where the prophet speaketh of their deliuerance out of Babylon. But if we will haue it expounded figuratiuely, S. Hierom vnderstandeth of that lake wherein the rich man was, and that was a place out of which he could not come. Lastly, Malac. 3.3. the place in Malachie, is to this effect, that he will sanctifie the priests, that they may offer holy offerings. What? And shall they come out of purgatorie to offer sacrifices? If not, he might haue spared this place, as also all the rest. For there is not one that hath any shew of proofe of that, for which they are brought. Surely, fit for these proofes, were that conclusion which I remember a preacher in Queene Maries time made in a funerall sermon. Nec est qui se ab­scondat a calore eius, Neither can any man escape purga­torie. And was not this clearkely handled? Psal. 19.6. The pro­phet [Page] speaketh of the sunn whose heat none can hide them­selues from, and he perchance in a dreame or some vision, learned to expound it of purgatorie. But here I must ad­monish the reader, that in most of these places alledged. M. Bellarmine bringeth perchance some one in, or some mo of the fathers so expounding the same: but therin he playeth but the part of Cham, Gene. 9.22. who hid not, but proclamed the na­kednesse of his father. De purg. li. 1. cap. 4. It had beene his part rather, to haue buried in silence, those their senselesse and singular inter­pretations. But now let vs see what he bringeth out of the newe Testament? Whosoeuer shall speake against the holy Ghost, Mat. 12.32. it shall not bee forgiuen him, neither in this worlde, nor in the worlde to come: there­fore, say they, some mens sinnes bee remitted in the worlde to come. Mark. 3.29. But Saint Marke comming after saint Matthew expoundeth his wordes, Hee shall neuer haue forgiuenesse, but is culpable of eternal damnation. A direct answere to their obiection. Secondarily, they ob­iect out of saint Paul, [...] . Cor. 3.15 Himselfe shalbe safe, yet as it were by the fire. Out of saint August. M. Bellar. confesseth this place to be hard, and in deed is diuersly expounded, by rea­son of the hardnesse of it: and therfore, out of an vncertaine place, he cannot gather a certaine argument. But of purga­torie it cannot be meant, because he maketh this fire a triall of euery mans worke, De ciuit. dei. li. 22. cap. 26. as saint Augustine wel noteth. And though themselues shall bee saued, yet is it as it were by fire. But I trust they will neuer thrust saint Peter and the other apostles into purgatorie. Yea, they teach that some come not there. Therefore this fire whereby Euerie mans worke is tried, cannot bee purgatorie. Saint Augustine in the place named, thinketh it to bee tribulation. Saint Ambrose seemeth to expound it of the confusion of minde. Ambrose vpon this place. 1. Cor. 15.29 But of purgatorie, I haue shewed it cannot be meant. His third proofe is far fetched, euen beyond all compasse of rea­son, What shall they doe that are baptised for dead? that is, (saith maister Bellarmine) what shall they do that pray, [Page 142] fast, mourne, and afflict themselues for the dead. So that to pray, fast, or lament, if wee will beleeue master Bellar­mine, is to be baptised. Hath hee not wrung hard, thinke you, to wring such a meaning out of these wordes? To poynt vnto his folly, I trust, is sufficient confutation of it. Mat. 5.26. Fourthly, Thou shalt not come out thence, vntill thou haue paid the vttermost farthing, therefore it must bee payd, say they,. First in the words, there is no such necessi­tie. Ioseph knew not Marie, Mat. 1.25. vntill she had brought forth her first begotten sonne, that is, as they will confesse, ne­uer. So we say, in that place, thou shalt neuer come out thence. Secondly, the place is wholy parabolical, & therfore out of such speaches, infallible arguments cannot be gathe­red, Thirdly saint Augustine by this prison meaneth hell, De salut. docu. cap. 64 from whence the sinner shall neuer come. Now what is this to purgatorie? The fift place alledged by master Bel­larmine, is out of the same chapter, Mat. 5.22. Whosoeuer is angrie with his brother, &c. Here master Bellarmine gathereth out of S. August. that all these punishments belong to the life to come. Then also that there are three sorts of sinnes. De ser. dom. in mont. li. [...] He might also haue told vs out of S. Augu. that in Gods iudgement, anger that is the least of these sinnes, deserueth hell. But that maketh against purgatory, and therefore he would not see it. And it is most certaine, that our sauiour Christ there teacheth vs, that y ^e cōmandement, Thou shalt not kill, is sundry waies broken: Neither can out of these words be gathered, that there must be satisfaction after this life, which Bellar. would proue. Moreouer he reasoneth out of S. Luke, Make you friends of riches of iniquitie, Luke 16.9. that when you shall want, they may receiue you into euerla­sting habitations. If by friends in this place we should vn­derstand the saints, yet it maketh not for purgatory, as may appeare. For in this argumēt there can be no necessarie cō ­sequence. The saints must receiue vs into heauen: therfore we must go by purgatory: but the saints cānot neither must they haue that honor giuē to thē, that they shuld receiue vs [Page] into the euerlasting habitations: Mat. 25.34. it is Christ that must say Come ye blessed: He must giue that inheritance, that hath bought it with his pretious bloud: or else a man may giue it vnto the wicked, that shall neuer come there, or to such as out liue him, neither of which can bee there to receiue him. By al which reasons it appeareth, that in those words our sauior Christ doth but allude vnto such as whilest they haue ability, doe make others their friends. So would hee haue vs whom God hath made his stewards, with well v­sing of our riches to please God, that hee also of his grati­ous goodnes may shew mercy to vs. Luk. 23.42. Seuēthly, Remem­ber me when thou comest into thy kingdome, saide the thiefe that was put to death with Christ, therefore saieth maister Bellarmine, he thought that sinnes might be after this life remitted. So that this is his meaning, as the pa­pistes would perswade vs: remember me, that is, let me be praied for when I am dead. Vers. 43. But they doe not remember how Christ promised he should not come in purgatory, but be with him euen that day in Paradise. His eight place, He loosed the sorrows of death (so it is in greeke, Act. 2.24. but M. Bellarmine that hee might get an argument out of that place, woulde haue vs reade the sorrowes of hell.) It is not worth answering, because hee must alter the wordes, or els he must haue one argument fewer than hee looked for. His last place himselfe misliketh, and thinketh it not to proue any thing for them, and therefore I will not speake of it. Now for their argumentes out of the fathers, hee that will but indifferentlie consider of them shall finde the fathers to be in this point verie vncertaine. And the questi­on being amongst vs, whether purgatory bee a catholicke doctrine, wee haue not to regard what they in their priuate and doubtful opinions doe set downe, but what with one consent and constantly they teach. Seeing therefore that neither the fathers with one consent teach it, neither them­selues knowe well what to saie of it, as in many places of maister Bellarmine his two bookes of purgatory may ap­peare: [Page 143] I wil conclude with that golden saying taken out of Gelasius a pope. We reade that Christ raised the dead, Causa. 24. Q. 2. ca. legitur. but that hee absolued such as died in error wee doe not reade. And afterwardes speaking of the authority of bind­ing and loosing, giuen in those words, Math. 16.1 [...] . Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth, shall bee loosed in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon earth, &c. Gelasius thus inferreth, In earth saith he: for he that is dead being bound, he said not that he should be absolued, or loosed.