ANSWERE.

THe first thing which we are to marke in this point, is the Art by which you vse to gaine mens harts, and to alienate them from the Ca­tholike [Page 33]Church in which we liue. You represent your beleife hated for many reasons by which notwith­standing you pretend to make it com­mendable before God and man. You will haue it to be hated, for sustay­ning, in points controuerted bet­weene vs, that which makes most to Gods honour, and for condemning in our Faith, that which you hold vnworthy of his perfection. In this you imitate the old Heresiarkes, who opposed the principall points of Catholike religion, vnder pretext of conseruing Gods honour more intire. For this reason, the Schisma­tikes, as S. Cyprian deliuers, Apud Cy­prian. ep. 55. Hilar. l. 2. de Trinit. solicite nimium ne pa­trem filius ab eo natus eua­cuet. Marc. 2. Quis potest demitte­re peccata niss solus Deus. Matthae 9. vnder collour of exalting God his mercy, communicated with the christians who had sacrificed to Idolls, before they had shewed a lawfull repen­tance. For the same cause, the Arians, as we reade in S. Hilarie, denyed that the sonne was consubstantiall with the Father, least the dignitie of the Father might haue bene exhaus­ted by this honour of the sonne. For the same, the Iewes would not haue [Page 34]Christ to haue power to absolue from sinne; rendring that honour to God, that it might be reserued to him alone. For the same, as we find in S. Amb. l. 1. de poenit. cap. 2. Aiunt (Noua­tiani) se Do­mino deferre reueremiā cui solt remitten­dorum crimi­num potestatē resernent. Ambroise, the Nouatians denyed that the Church had the same power. For the same, saith S. August. l. 32. contr. Faust. Quiae ta ia ibi sunt quae Chri­sta gloriam de­colorent. Augustine, the Manichies, denyed certaine boo­kes of the scripture, which they said contayned thinges which stayned the luster of the glorie of Iesus Christ. To be short, diuers others tooke this colourable cloake, yet were they all condemned by the Fathers, and most iustly; because God in the establi­shing of christian Religion did not search that which was most hono­rable vnto him selfe, especially in our iudgement, but that which was most profitable vnto vs, as we see planely in these words, Philip. 2. v 7. he did for vs exinaniee himselfe taking the forme of a seruant. That of the greater or lesse honour which doth accrue vnto God, is but a bad way to establish one article of Faith, and destroy another. Vvher vpon Hil. l. 1. de Trinit. Reli­giese impius, & l. 4. irreis­giosam de Deo selt [...]tudinem. S. Hilarie tear­mes the Arians, who vse that way of [Page 35]proceeding, Religiously vvicked, peo­ple who doe irreligiously serue God. Other grounds are necessaire. Vve must know what the Church tea­cheth vs: and those that are so care­full of Gods honour, ought to be ve­rie carefull to be in structed in it, least they iniure him in deedes, whom they honour in words; which they doe in expressing things otherwise then they are indeede, it being cer­taine, as saith Cassian. l. 1. de Incarnat. Quod non di­citur it ae vt est etiamsi honor videatur con­tumelia est. Cassian disciple of S. Chrysostome, that that vvhich is not exprest as it is, though it seeme honour­able, is indeede a true contumelie. That which is true, be it of what kinde it will honours God, because he would haue it so, and that all his wills are to his owne aduantage. But what is false, though in apparance aduanta­gious, turnes to disaduantage. And though many things beare no pro­portion with the greatnes of the Al­mightie, yet haue they connection with the infinite perfectiō of his loue, and Charitie, which appeares somuch the more perfect and accomphished by how much, in vertue therof, he [Page 36]descends to things more lowe and abiect. And therfore, it is an abuse to alledge gods honour to dazle and blinde the people. Yet this you doe, while you represent your Religion hated for fiue points, which you esteeme honorable for him, as being honorable, in your opinion, to Iesus Christ: which is but yet so in appa­rance onely.

Hereupon I am forced to tell you with Tertul. l. de pudic. c. 2. ta­lia & tantae sparsilia eorū quious & Deo adulentur & sibi lenocinan­tur, effoemi­nantia magis quam vigorā ­tia disciplinā. Tertullian, that those litle shiftes, by vvhich you become flatterers of God, and your selues, doe rather vvea­ken then strengthen discipline. So con­sidering Religion in the shape you represent it, me thinks I see, not a chaste wife, but a strumpet, (set out with sundrie adulterate colours to seduce the world, and kill you) come from you and become mistresse of your life: which moues me, to the end I may deliuer the people from errour, to vndertake to wash her face, vnmaske her, and discouer her deformitie; following the example and foot stepps of the Prophete who speaking of an Idolatrous Nahu. 3. Propter mu. ti­tudinem for­nicationū me­retricis specio­sa & gratae & habeutis ma­leficiae quae vē ­didit gentes in fornicationi­bus suis & fae­miliaes in mae­leficiis suis, Reuelabo pu­denda tua in facie tua & ostendam gen­tibus nuditae­tem tuam & regnis ignomi­niam tuam. nation [Page 37]vseth these words. For the abundance of the fornications, of a faire charmeing and mischieuous strumpet, vvho hath sold nations in her formcations, families in her diuelish prankes, I vvil discouer thy shame in thy face, and vvill shevv thy nakednes to all nations, and thy ignominie to kingdomes. Which I will doe so much the more willingly, because I haue learnt of Concil. in psal. 36. Tanto magis debe­mus comme­morare vani­tatem haereti­corum quanto magis quaeri­mus salutem eorum. S. Augustine, that by how much more we desire the saluation of Heretikes, by so much more we ought to indeuour to make the vanitie of their errour appeare.

ANSWERE.

IT is false that your Religion is hated for that it admitts no other rule of saluation then the scripture: but true it is that it is worthy of ha­tred for the diuers abuses which it committs in Scripture.

That we teach no other rule of sal­uation then scripture, will be mani­fest to any that knowes, that these words, an other rule, doe importe in proper speach, a Rule of a diuers kind (as I will hereafter proue in the ensuing Section) and withall, an in­tire rule, as I will presently make ap­peare, following your owne tenets, who will not admitte the Ghospell of S. Mathew, to be an other rule then that of S. Marke, considering they are but two parts of the same Rule, and that this word rule simply taken, signifies a compleate rule: for as S. Basile saith a Rule admitts no addition: but things that are imper­fect, are neuer rightly instiled by the [Page 39]name of Rule. Now we nether admitt Rule of any other king then the scripture, nor yet any compleate rule other then it; yea we call it the compleate rule of our saluation, for two reason: both because it contay­nes immediatly and formally the sub­stance of our Faith, all the articles necessarie (necessitate Medij) for mans saluation: and also, because it doth mediately comprehend all that we are to beleeue, in that it doth remitt vs to the Church to learne the same which it assures vs is infallible. Hence it followes, that we draw that truth out of the scriptures, which we receaue by the mouth of the Church, if reason may preuayle, which teach­eth, that whoso euer deputes ano­ther to speake for him, speakes me­diatly by his mouth; and if, Aug. lib. 1. cont. Cresco. c. 33. Quamuis huius rei certè de scripturis Catholicis non proferatur ex­emplum, ea­rundem tamē scripturarum etiam in hacre à nobis tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae placuit Eccle­siae quam ipsa­rum scriptu­rarum com­mēdat autho­ritas. Etsimi lia lib. de vnit Eccles. c. 22. S. Au­gustine, who deliuers it in expresse termes, may gaine beleife: Albeit, saith he, one can produce no example of scripture concerning this matter, yet hold vve in it, the truth of the same scripture, since vve doe that vvhich is conformable to the vniuersall Church, vvhom the autho­ritie [Page 40]of the selfe same scripture doth com­mend vnto vs. Behold in what esteeme the Scripture is with vs, for which cause we also are to be esteemed. Now we will see whether by reason of it, you deserue not hatred, though, not in that sense in which you say you are hated for it. But before we come to that point, permit me, I be­seech you, to extenuate a litle the glorie you hunt after in establishing the Scripture the onely rule of your saluation, by making you share it onely with diuers Here tikes who before your tyme sustayned the same opinion.

So said the Manichies. I can in no sorte, saith Fortunatus in Aug. l. cont. Fortunatum. Nullo genere rectè me crede­re ostendere pessum nisieā ­dem sidē scrip­turarum au­thoritate fir­mauerim. S. Augu­stine, make appeare that I rightly beleeue, vnlesse I confirme my Faith by the authori­tie of Scripture. So saith the August. l. de natura & grat. c. 39. Credamus quod legimus & quod non legimus nefas credamus ad struere quod de cunctis etiā dixisse suffi­ciut. Pela­gians in the same Authour. Let vs beleeue, saith Pelagius, vvhat vve reade, and vvhat vve reade not, let vs be­leeue it vnlavvfull to be established. Let this suffice in all other matters. So the Aug l. post Collationem. Nos sola porta­mus Euig lia. Item concio. 1. in Psal. 32. Nos sola offe­rimus Euan­gelia. Donatists in the same Authour, saying, vve bring vvith vs, and present [Page 41]the Ghospells onely. This was that which Eranistes aymed at, whom Apud Theod. in Dialog. im­mutabilis. Ego enim soli diui­nae scripturae fidem habeo. Theo­doret brings in, in his Dialogues, where condemning all reasons, he saith. For I beleeue in the Ghospell onely. So Lib. 2. cont. ipsum cap. 1. Fratribus no­biscum consti­tutisin sancto Euangelio. Petilianus writing to his bre­thren vnder this title: to our brethren constituted together vvith vs in the holy Ghospell. So the Maximianists; ex­pressing them selues in these termes fighting with vs in the truth of the Ghospell. Finally, so the Arians, Apud S. Aug. In veritate Euangelij no­biscum mili­tantibus. who were so wedded to the Scripture, that they would not onely admit no sense, but euen no word which was not com­prised therin, reiecting this word [...], because it was not found there. Concil. Nice­num. All these auncient Heresiar­kes condemned by the Church and by your selues, had the Scripture as frequently in their mouthes as you. They tearmed themselues Euange­licall men, like you. They made the Scripture the onely rule of their Faith, as you doe: yet wheras they did it in words not in deede, as was fitting, but in publishing its name they abused the authoritie therof [Page 42]they were cōdemned by the Church; their doctrine was iudged worthy of hatred, as yours also is, and will be, I am confident, by the iudgement of the whole world, when I shall haue made manifest, that you abuse the scriptutes to your owne ends.

It is truly worthy of hatred; be­cause, vnder pretext of scripture, the writen word of God almightie, 1. it doth reiect his word not writ­ten. 2. a great part of the written word. 3. it clearely contradicts, in many passages, that which it doth admitt. 4. corrupts it in diuers parts. 5. and lastly, it makes the word of men passe for the word of God, yea euen the word of euery Idiot, establishing vpon them the principall articles of your Faith.

1. Vvorthy of hatred be­cause it reie­cteth the vvord of God not vvritten. If he be worthy of hatred, who in establishing a thinge, destroyes that without which it cannot sub­siste, and which is also commanded by it: your doctrine is by a iust title hatefull for the Scripture, which whilsts it extolls, it destroyes the Traditions commanded by the same [Page 43]Scripture, and without which it can in no sort subsiste. That holy writ cā ­not subsiste without Traditions, it is most cleare, since by them onely we know, that the bookes of Scripture which we haue, came vnto our hands pure and intire, such as they procee­ded from the mouth of the holy Ghost. You beleeue as an article of Faith, that you haue those bookes pure and intire. wherfore, ether the written word affirmethit; (which in­deede is not so) or not affirming it, it followes, that some other word not written doth teach it vs; or els we beleeue that with a diuine Faith, which God neuer spoke; a thing most absurde, seeing that the word of God is the onely fundation of our Faith. That Traditions are commanded by the Scripture, the second to the Cap. 2. Te­nete traditio­nes quas didi­cistis siue per sermonem siue per Epistolam nostram. Thessalonians makes manifest, where the Apostle speakes so cleare­ly of Traditions of Faith not writ­ten, that euen Vvhitat controu 1. q. 6. c. 10. Respon­deo Noui Te­stamenti Ca­nonē non fuisse tune editū at que constitutū cum Paulus hanc Epistolā scriberet.... nō sequitut ergo quando Apo­stolus scripsit ad Thessalon. tum omnia ne­cessaria non sunt scriptae ergo nec postea. your owne men con­fesse, that at he tyme when S. Paule wrote, there were such like tradi­tions, which since, are inserted in [Page 44]holy Vvrite. A thing indeede easily said, but hardly persuaded, especial­ly to such as consider, that it is not to be found in all holy scripture, that those things which were not yet written while S. Paule wrote that Epistle, were afterwards put downe in writing.

2. Vvorthy of hadted be­cause it reiects part of the Vvrittē vvor­de of God. Conc. Carthag. 3. Can. 47. Trullan. can. 2. Rom. sub Gelaesio. Tri­dent. By what authoritie doe you reiect many of the bookes of Scripture, which the Church, at diuerse tymes, in diuerse Councells, in diuers parts of the world, in Greece, Italie, Afri­que, and Germanie; defines to be canonicall and diuine. Vvhat a sense­lesse thing is it, that you of your owne head should establish canons, hau­ing nether Father who doth de­clare, nor Councell that doth define (which is to be noted) the Canon of the bookes of holy scripture, accor­ding to your way? The presumption which you vse in opposing your iudgement against the iudgement of the auncient Fathers, and the autho­ritie of the Church, is truly worthy to be hated.

3. Vvorthy of hatted be­cause it con­tradicts the scripture. He that opposeth what he ought [Page 45]religiously to follow, is he not wor­thy of hatred? And ought not all men to follow the scripture? You make profession of doing so, and yet, directly to deney what it affirmes, and beleeue the contrarie to that which it teacheth in expresse termes (as I haue proued in the precedent Chapter) is not this to contradict it? If a man can be said to esteeme him whom he often belyes, you esteeme the scripture; and if one can hold that for a Rule, to which he fre­quently opposeth his iudgement, you doe vndoutedly hold the scrip­ture for the rule of your saluation. For plainely to affirme that a thingis not, wheras the scripture saith it is, what other thing is it then to giue the lye to the scripture, and to haue a iudgement opposite to the iudge­ment therof?

4 Your corruptions in the scrip­ture are so perfp cuous, Vvorthy of hatred be­cause it cor­rupis the Scripture. that euen your owne men doe reprehend them. Did not Charles du Mullin who is famous amongst you for this cause say, that Molinaesus in suatranslatio­ne Noni Testae­menti. Calui­nus in sua Harmonia textum Euan­gelicum desu­tare facit sur­sum versum vt res ipsain­dicat, vim in­fert literae E­uangelicae & illam multis in locis transpo­nit. & in super additlitterae. Caluin in his Harmonie, puts [Page 46]the text of the Ghospell topsie turuie, as the thing it selfe makes manifest; violates the letter of the Ghospell; transposeth it in many places; addes to it. And speaking of Beza his translation saith he not, Idem Moli­nae. ibidem, de facto mutat textum. that indeede he changeth the text? And doth not Castalio in defensione sua­rum transla­tionum ait, Quo omnes eius (Bezae) errores noia­rentur magno volumine opus esse. Castalion going on in the same sense affirme, that it would re­quire a great volume to put downe all his errour? To conclude, that Great kinge, whose witt did as far surpasse yours, as his person did in­dignitie all his subiects, the king of great Britaignie, whose iudgement ought to be taken for the whole Church of England, both because you esteeme him the heade therof, and for that it is not credible that he would publish opinions which that Church holds not. Saith not this Prince in the conferēce at Hampton Court, that the verie worst version of the Bible was that of Geneua; and further, that he found, the notes of the Geneua Bible, vvonderfull par­tiall, false, seditious, and too much smelling of the designes of a most dangerous and peruerse mynde.

5 That you haue the true canon of scripture: Vvorthy of hatred because it makes the vvord of men passe for scrip­ture. That the bookes which you allow of, are not corrupted: That the body of Iesus-Christ, is onely figuratiuely in the Euchariste: are not these the principall articles of your Faith? And that your onely and absolute Faith, that is, the Faith by which euery one of the Faithfull beleeues to be iustifyed, by the ap­prehension of the iustice of Iesus Christ, doth iustifie you, is it not the ground worke and soule of your Re­ligiō? And yet whereate these tenets found in the holy Scripture? Formall and expresse passages, (such notwithstanding, the ratification of your confession doth oblige you to pro­duce) there are none. Toutes lesdi­tes Eglises Françoises ap­prouuēt & ra­tifient la sus­escrite confes­sion on tous ses chefs & articles com­me estant en­tieremēt fon­dee sur la pure & expresse parole de Dieu. You haue recourse to consequences, which yet are not grounded vpon two diuine Principles contayned in the Scrip­tures, but vpon two Principles, wher­of of the one is drawen from your owne braine. which doth clearely demon­strate (vnlesse I deceaue my selfe) that you propose the word of men for the word of God which is found [Page 48]in holy Vvritt, since that according to your owne tenet, your faith can haue no other fundation then scrip­ture. Lets see whether I be a Liar.

In the third Article of your Conf. you put downe for an article of Faith, that the canon of scriptures, is the onely rule of Faith; you fur­ther accnowledge that all the boo­kes contayned in the said Canon, proceeded from the mouth of the holy Ghost, and are conserued in their originall puritie, besides those you accnowledge none. But by what syllogisme conclude you this? in the margent of the next Article you cite sundrie passages of this nature. The pure and vnspotted vvord of God; Psal. 12. v. 7. Psal. 19. v. 8. The Lavv of God immaculate. The Testi­monie of God Faithfull, giuing vvisdome to litle ones. The Precept of our Lord cleare enlightening the eyes. Out of these passages, which doe not affirme in expresse tearmes that the bookes you admit of are canonicall, you would by consequence inferre it, you forme the maior of your argument as followeth.

The Law of God (say you) is im­maculate pure and vnspotted.

But all the bookes which we hold for Canonicall, and no others, are immaculate pure and vnspotted.

Ergo They alone and no others are the Law of God. Whence, I pray you, doe you draw your Minor? Doth the Scripture affirme that these bookes, and no other are pure and immacu­late? verily no. Vvho doth auerre it then? You of your owne brayne. This proposition therfore is humane, and withall false; which yet I will not now prosequute, being sufficient for my present purpose, to shew that this principle is but the words of men. Vvhence it followes, that ether your word passeth for Gods word; or that your Faith in this point, which vertually compriseth all the rest, (since now the question is touch­ing the Scripture, which you will haue to be the onely fundation of Faith) is not diuine, but onely hu­mane: whence it clearly followes that it is of no other kind, euery con­clusion being of the same nature with [Page 50]the more imperfect part of its cause. But now let vs speake of the Eucha­riste.

You hold as an article of Faith that the words of consecration ought to be vnderstoode figuratiuely, so that the body of Iesus Christ is not really vnder the species of bread, as we sustayne it is. The proofes that you bring of your Faith, are diuers passages of holy Scripture, which teaching, as you dreame, things that are incompatible with the reall pre­sence of Christ in the Eucharist, doe clearely shew, that the words of consecration are figuratiue. Let vs see some of your Arguments.

One body cannot be in two places by Gods omnipotencie, to witt, in heauen, and in the Eucharist which is in earth.

But the scripture teacheth that the body of Christ is in heauen till the day of Iudgement.

Ergo it is not in the Euchariste.

The Maior not being found in all the scripture, it is the word of men, and consequently it is cleare, ether [Page 51]that you make it passe for the word of God; or els that your conclusion cannot be diuine and infallible, for the reason I haue touched aboue. Now let vs examine what your Faith is.

You beleeue that euery one of the faithfull is iustified by that faith wherby he certanely persuades him selfe that he is iustified in Christ Ie­sus. Paraeus l. 3. de iustif. c. 1. l. 1. c. 10. One of your moderne Authours formes this syllogisme.

Vvho so euer beleeues in the sonne of God shall be saued.

But I beleeue in the sonne of God.

Ego I shall be saued.

Not to dispute of the Maior (sup­pose that it were in the scripture, though in deede in your sense it is not.) The Minor can in no sort be found therin: for it is not said in any place, that Luther for example, Cal­uin, Beza, Pereus and others belee­ued, whence it is euident, euen ac­cording to your selues, that it is the word of men, and not of God, whose whole word you will haue to be written.

Now hauing made manifest how you vse the scriptures, all men, I dare assure my selfe, will greatly wonder with what face you dare so highly magnifie the scripture in words which in deedes you so horribly wronge. But they will cease this ad­miration, if they call to mynd how ordinarie a thing it is for heretikes to serue them selues of the scripture and to wrong it withall; nay which is worse, they are in some sort necessa­rily constrayned to doe both. To serue them selues of the scripture: because the true religiō being groun­ded vpon the word of God, it is ne­cessarie for euery sect that pretends a true religion, to pretend also scrip­ture wherin it is contayned. To wrong the scripture: because it is manifestly necessarie, that that which of its owne nature is good, as it is, must needs be changed, before we can draw any euill out of it, as errour for exemple. And indeede we find both these things obserued in the Fathers. For Vincentius Lyren. c. 35. Siue enim apud suos, siue aliencs, siue publicè, siue in sermonibus, si­ue in libris, si­ue in cōuiuijs, siue in plateis nihil vnquam de suo proferūt quod non etiā scripturae ver­bis adumbrare conentur. first, they wittnes that vpon all occasions, at all tymes, vpon [Page 53]all subiects, heretikes haue still the scripture in their mouth, and doe bragge of the authoritie therof; be­cause Tertul. de resurrectione aliūde scilicèt loqui non pos­sent de rebus fidei nisi ex li­teris fidei. they cannot giue a more ap­parant colour to their faith, then the words of faith, nor Ambr. Com. in Tit. Haere­tici illi sunt qui per verbaee legis legem im­pugnant & prop [...]ium sen­sum verbis a­struunt legis, ve peruersitatē mentis sine le­gis authorita­te commendēt. more speciously impugne the law then by the law it selfe, nor more highly cōmend their malice, then by the authoritie of that which is deuoyde of all euill. And againe, they shew that the source of heresies is the Aug. tract. 18. in Ioan. Neque enim natae sunt hae­reses & quae­dam dogmatae peruersitatis illaquiantiae animas & in profundum praecipitaentia: nisi dum scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene & quod in eis non bene intelligitur etiam temere & andacter asseritur. wrong which is done to the scripture, deriuing their gene­ration from its corruption, Aug. de vnit. Eccles. c. 15. cauenda est caliditas Haereti­corum volentium conuertere verba Dei à veritate propter quam dicta sunt adperuersitatem in qua ipsi sunt. conuer­ting ordinarily the vvords of truth in fa­uour of vvhich same truth they are vtte­red, into errours and falsities in vvhich they themselues liue the ^e misteries and words of holie writ into the for­mes and shapes of their owne fan­cies, accomplishing that, which the Apostle in the 2. to the Corinthians, [Page 54]obserues in false Prophetes, who are to walke in the wayes of craft, and to corrupt the word of God.

ANSWERE.

VVe sustaine that there is no other head of the vniuersall Church then Iesus Christ, no other Purgatorie of our sinns then that of his passion; no other merit then his obedience; and therfore it is false that you are hated, for the conside­rations [Page 55]which you pretend. Marrie you are worthy of hatred for decea­seing and abusing the people: while you make them beleeue that what you teach in this behalfe is to the glorie of Iesus Christ, and what we sustayne is iniurious and preiudiciall to the same, which is false, as I will make distinctly appeare, by the exa­mination of all these points one after another.

That we establish no other heade of the vniuersall Church then Iesus Christ, is euident euen by the Pope himselfe, who yet you say is interessed in the matter, who declares that there is but one onely God. Therfore, Bonifacius in extrauagante Vnam sanctā de maio. & obediētia. Ita­que Ecclesiae vnius & vnice vnum corpus, vnum caput non duo capitae quasi monstrū Christus vide­licet & Chri­sti Vicarius. Petrus eiusque successor. saith S. Boniface VIII. there is but one body and one head of one onely Church (not tvvo heades, as though it were a monster) to Witt Iesus Christ and his Vi­tair, S. Peter and his successour.

True it is we sustayne, that there are other persons distinct from the person of Iesus Christ, who beare vnder him, by his vertue and power, the name and condition of heade. Yet this doth not hinder Christ from [Page 56]being the onely head of the vniuer­sall Church, since scripture, Fathers and reason teach vs, that there is a maine difference, betwixt this pro­position, There is no other head then Iesus Christ, and this, no other then Iesus Christ is the head of the Church together with him, because this last (no other then Iesus Christ is the head of the Church together with him) excluds euery man which is not Iesus Christ, from hauing any part in qualitie of heade. And that the first proposition which saith (there is no other heade then Iesus Christ) doth onely import, that though many doe partake of the name and nature of heade, yet is it by subordination of one to another.

The scripture doth clearely teach vs this distinction, in the second of the Et murus ciuitatis habēs fundamenta duodecim, & in ipsis duode­cim nomina duodecim A­postolorum Agni. Apocalypse, and in the second to Vers. 20. Su­peraedificat, super funda­mentum Apo­stolorum & Prophetarum. the Ephesians, where it saith plainely that others then Iesus Christ are the fundation of the Church. And in the first to the Corynthians 3. Chap. saint vers. 11. Fun­damentum aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est quod est Chri­stus Iesus. Paule deliuers in ex­presse tearmes, that there is no other [Page 57]fundation of the Church then Iesus Christ. Vvhence it is euident that these propositions are to be taken in a diuers sense; because otherwise they would be incopatible, as being contradictories. Hence it is that a­mongst the workes of saint In Apocal. 21 Necrepellit nos à nostro intel­lectuillud quod Apostolus di­cit fundamen­tum aliud ne­mopotest pone­re, &c. Non enim aliud fundamentum est Petrus, a­liud Christus Iesus quia Pe­trus membrum est Christi. &c. Am­brose, to wit, in his treatise vpon the Apocalipse, we see that this passage where the Apostle affirmes that there is no other fundation then Iesus Christ, doth not hinder S. Peter from being a fundation: because being a fundation, as he is a member of Iesus Christ by subordination vnto him, he is not another fundation. And this was that which S. S. Leo ep. 89. Hunc enim in consortium in­diuiduae vni­tatis assump­tum id quod ipse erat voluit nominari. Leo aymed at, when he said, that Iesus Christ ad­mitted S. Peter into the societie of an in­diuiduall vnitie and would haue him to be called that which he was; Vvhence it is manifest that the nature and name of (Petrae) a rocke, a fundation, a head, doth so agree and belong to S. Peter, as that yet Iesus Christ re­maynes the onely rocke, the onely fundation, the onely head, sithens S. Peter doth not impeach the indi­uiduall [Page 58]vnitie. This is his ayme againe, whilst in another place he brings in Iesus Christ, saying to S. Peter, S. Le [...]serm. [...]. in a [...]iuer suae [...]ssumptionis. C [...]m ego sim [...] is [...] quoque Pe­ [...]ra es, quia [...]ea virtute solidaris, vt quae inthi pote­state sunt pro­pria sint [...]ibi [...]necum parti­c [...]patione com­munia. Albeit I am the inuiolable Rocke, yet thou art a Rocke too, because thou art supported and confirmed by my vertue, to the end that those things Which are proper to me by povver, might be comon to thee by participation. To the same purpose S. Aug. in Psal. 86 & cum dicuntur duodec [...]m por­tae Hierusalem & vna porta Christus & duodecim por­tae Christus quia in duode­cim p [...]rtis Christus. S. Augustine affirmes, that there are twelue gates of Hierusalem which is the Church, to witt the twelue Apostles, though there is in­deede but one Gate, which is Christ Iesus, because, saith he, Christ is in those twelue gates, for as much as those twelue are subiect vnto Christ, and doe subsist in him alone.

And in verie deede reason doth teach vs, that diuers thinges subor­dinate one to another, doe no wayes destroy their vnitie. Vvhich is eui­dent in this, that the instrument is not tearmed another cause then the principall cause, in vertue wherof it workes. The Mason and his hammar are not two causes of the house, but one onely. The man and the sword [Page 59]which kills, are but one onely cause of death: whence it is manifest, that wheras S. Peter, doth onely partici­pate of Heade by reason of the sub­ordination and reference he hath to Iesus Christ, it doth not any way hinder Iesus Christ to remayne the onely head of the Church; like as the power of Gouernour in a Lieute­nant, doth not constitute two Go­uernours, the Lieutenant participa­ting onely of that power of gouerne­ment by subordination to the Gouer­nour. Nor is it to the purpose to say, that a Lieutenant doth not inferre two Gouernours, because he beares not the name of Gouernour, since it is not the name that makes the thing: and againe to find a true similitude in the things we speake of, it is onely requisite, that like as the power of a Lieutenant is subordinate to that of the Gouernour, so the power which S. Peter inioyes in the Church, may be subiect and subordinate to Christs power in the same Church. That the Lieutenant is not instiled Gouer­nour, causeth no chang at all in the [Page 60]nature of the thing, but doth onely shew an accidentall difference, to witt, that the Lieutenant and Go­uernour doe often chance to meet together, in the same towne or Pro­uince wherof they haue the gouerne­ment: wheras Iesus Christ in his owne species doth neuer meet with his Lieutenant in the visible gouerne­ment of the Church. And hence it is, that though we doe not asscribe the name of Gouernour to his Lieute­nant, to the end we might auoyd confusion (otherwise being both together how should the one be discerned from the other) yet doe we iustly attribute the title of head to the Pope, where the said inconue­nience can haue no place.

Yea Caluine himselfe vpon that passage of S. Mathew, Nolite &c. be not called Rabbis For one is your master Christ. Let no man saith he, sticke or trouble himselfe about wordes. Christ cares not how they be intituled who vnder­take the instruction of others. So there is one onely Pastour, and yet he admitts many Pastours vnder himselfe, so that he may [Page 61]haue preeminencie aboue them all and by them he alone may gouerne the Church. And a litle after. The true sense is, That then the paternall honour is falsely attributed vnto men, when it obscures Gods glorie: which happens as often as a mortall man independently of God, is esteemed father. And in another place, hauing obiected vnto himselfe, that the scripture commands that God onely be called Father, he saith, I Ansvvere, that Paule doth in such sort take the name of Father, that he doth not abragate, or diminish the least particule of Gods glorie. It is a common prouerbe, that what is subor­dinate doth not repugne. Such is the name of Father in Paule being compared to God. God alone is the Father of all the faithfull yet he admitts the Ministers, Whom he im­ployes therin, to the participation of his ovvne honour, Without derogating from the same. God therfore was the spirituall father of Tymothie, and that his onely father too, properly speaking, but Paule, Who was Gods minister in begetting Tymo­thie, doth by a certaine right of subordina­tion chalence to himselfe the title. And againe: It is an ordinarie thing that as [Page 62]far forth as God doth exercise his povver in creatures, so far doth he transcribe his ovvne names vnto them. So he is our onely Lord and Father, and yet fathers and Lords are they too, Whom he daignes with this honour, Whence it is, that as well Angells as Iudges are called Gods. You heare how Christ cares not by what name they be called, who vndertake to preach and teach: That he is so the sole Pastour, that he admitts ma­ny vnder him: That to call a man Father doth not obscure the glorie of God. Vnlesse he be so called inde­pendently of God. That things sub­ordinate doe not repugne. That by the right of subordination S. Paule did chalence vnto himselfe the name of Father. That the name of God, is customarily ascribed vnto creatures, so far forth as by them he doth exercise his power. Finally that the verie name of God is translated vnto men and Angells. And why may not we by paritie of reason af­firme the same of the word heade?

Certainely we may affirme the same, and we learne it of the Apostle, [Page 63]who writiting in the 1. to the Cor. 12. Chap. 1. Corin [...]. [...]. v. 21. That there is a head in the Church, Which cannot say vnto the feete, I haue no neede of you, doth clearely demonstrate, that he speakes of some other head then Iesus Christ, since he might haue vsed that manner of speach to the Faithfull, whose assi­stance indeed he did not stand in need of. It is euident therfore, that the Pope may be called head of the Church, though yet we accnowledge no other head then Christ. And if happily any Authour expresse him by the name of another head, he is to be conceaued to haue spoken of another head subordinated, euen as the instrument, is somtymes tearmed another cause then the principall Agent.

Now we must indeuour to mani­fest vnto all men, that it is no wayes preiudiciall vnto God, that another with, and vnder him, should be the visible and ministeriall head of the vniuersall Church. Vvhich may be shewen by sundrie reasons: for why should it rather derogate from the [Page 64]dignitie of Iesus, that another with and vnder him, should be the head of the Church, then preiudiciall to the Maiestie of God. who is the supreame and principall head of the Church, that Christ as man, vnder him, should partake of the nature and power of head, since it seemes to be more disaduantagious to God that Iesus Christ, as man, should be vn­der him, head of the Church; then preiudiciall to Iesus Christ to admitt another man to be Head vnder him, for so much as he himselfe is man.

Againe why should it more repugne, that another man should be called head of the Church together with Iesus Christ in the law of grace, then in the old law: in which, though Ie­sus Christ was the head of the Church, yet was the High priest also called by that name, as the holy scripture doth remarke, and Calu. 4. insl. cap. 6. Mag­deburg. cent. 1. l. 1. c. 17. Caluin doth acconwledge.

Further, since Iesus Christ is king, Psal. 1. and no lesse king of the faithfull, then head of the Church, how doth the kingly power, wherwith he en­dowes [Page 65]kings stand with his owne royall Maiestie, if the participation of the name of head, be repugnant to the power which is in Christ? And why, he being Ioan. 10. Pastour, 1. Petr. 3. Bi­shope and Ioan. 8. light of the world, doth it not diminish his honour, to consti­tute vnder him, other Pastours, Bi­shops, and lights of the world, if it be absurd that any other then he should be held Head of the Church? Vve maye add to this, that wheras in the scripture, it is not found Christ alone is Head of the Church, but onely, that Christ is head 2. Coloss. [...]. & 2. of the Church, and wheras Gods is Matth. 19. onely good, onely 2. Machab. [...]. iust, onely Apoc. 15. holy, why doe you grant, that both the name and nature of good, iust, holy, may be fund in others then God, and yet that the name and nature of head belongs to God alone. Vvherfore, since Christ is not onely called Pa­stour: but Ioan 10. Erit vnū ouil [...] & vnus pa­stor. one Pastour, which im­ports, one onely Pastour, as vnus Deus one God signifies one onely God in holy Vvrit, why doe you ascribe the essence of Pastours to [Page 66]others, and not that of head?

Now wheras things ranged in a certaine order and subordination, cannot be said to be contradictorie; by consequence the authoritie of S. Peter, ought not to be esteemed preiudiciall to the dignitie of Christ, to which it is not onely subordinate, but inferiour and subiect by many degrees.

Inferiour in its extent, since Christ is head of Angells and men, as it ap­peares by the [...]. of the Ephe. and the first to the Collos. The Pope is onely the head of the Church of men, wheras Christ is the head vniuersally of all men as well those that raigne aboue in heauen, as those who liue below in earth; being the Head of the Church Militant, euen compre­hending therin the Pope himselfe, S. August. in Psalm. 86. Quemadmodū aeperte dicitur Sanctus San­ctorum: si [...] fi­gurate dicitur fundamentum fundament [...] ­ [...]um. whence he may iustly be called Head of the Heade, as S. Augustine instiles him the fundation of Fundations. But the Pope is not heade ouer himselfe, but onely ouer the rest of the body of the Church.

Inferiour in point of dignitie: sinco [Page 67]Christ is not onely the head which doth direct, but also which by his grace, doth infuse life, by whom, as we read in the 2. to the Collos. the whole body doth growe into the augmentation of God. And the Pope [...]sa head which doth not infuse life, but directeth onely: wheras Christ [...]s the Principall head, of himselfe, with power of excellencie, by which [...]e instituted the Sacraments; iusti­fies without sacraments, and finally disposeth of all things in the Church, as in his owne proprieties: But the Pope is onely the Vicaire of Christ and the ministeriall Heade of the Church, nor is he indued with that power of excellencie, nor indeede with any at all, but such as Christ im­parts vnto him.

Inferiour, in the extent of tyme, being Christ was head from all eter­nitie, wheras the Pope is Head onely in tyme.

Inferiour, To conclud in respect of necessitie, sithens Christ is the essentiall Head, without whom the Church is not able to subsiste one [Page 68]onely moment: But the Pope is so head of the same, that without him it could for a tyme subsiste. Moreouer, the Church is the body of Christ, not of the Pope. For Christ being as it were the Hypostasis and basis of this body, he supports all the members therof, and workes all in all. He sees by the eyes, heares by the eares, teacheth by his Doctours, baptiseth by his Ministers; by all he doth all. which doth not suite with the Pope. Noe man now, in my iudgement can apprehend S. Peters authoritie in the Church to be preiudiciall to that of Iesus Christ, since it is wholy of another nature and rancke then his, and his withall, inferiour and subiect to it. Nor can the name of head, any more preiudice Christ, since names doe add nothing to the nature of things, nether doe they signifie the same nature, or equall power with the diuers subiects to which they are attributed, sith euen the least simili­tude and conformitie, is sufficient, to allote the same names to subiects of sundrie natures. Finally, if Christ [Page 69]be iniured, for that, he being the head of the vniuersall Church, yet the name and nature of Heade is conferred vpon S. Peter, his Lieute­nant and Vicaire generall ouer the whole Church; why is there not also iniurie done vnto God, he being as well the head of euerie particular Church, when the same honour is done to his Lieutenants therin? Or if, as well in the one case as the other, his honour be diminished, why doe you, in conseruing him from one in­iurie, permit another to come vpon him? You will happily deney your selues to be called the Heades of your Churches: but the answere is friuolous, Saenderus de Schismate An­glican. Riba­deneira de co­dem. Du Ches­ne in hist An­glic. in vitae Elizabeth. since deney you cannot, that your brethren in England doe accnowledge the king of great Bri­ [...]anie to be the Head of the whole Church of England; yea and that which deserues a diligent remarke) as well tēporall as spirituall. Vvhence may be gathered, that ether the di­gnitie of the Pope, doth not in any sort derogate from the dignitie of Christ; or if it doe derogate, the [Page 70]same honour also in the king of England doth derogate from Gods hononr. But if granting the one, you doe yet impugne the other, I de­mande, (supposing that you meane not to haue your owne will to stand for a reason) a reason of the disparitie. Nor will it a white auayle you, to de­ney the paritie, by affirming, that a particular man is sufficient to go­uerne a particular Church, yet not an vniuersall Church: because the que­stion here is not, of the actiuitie or extent of one mans power, but onely to know, whether, Christ being the head of the Church, one should contumeliously wrong him, by esta­blishing an other head therof. which doth cleately show a paritie betwixt a Particular head being compared to Iesus Christ as such; and an vniuer­sall head compared vnto him in the same nature and qualitie of vni­uersall head. Now whether one man be of sufficient abilitie to gouerne the whole Church, is a new, yet a easie question to be decided, sith that which a man performes by the helpe [Page 71]ef a friend, himselfe is said and esteemed to doe.

But that I may cut of all euasions, [...] demand of you, whether, if the whole Church, which you brauingly pretend to be reformed, were in En­gland, whom you hold to be the head of it, would be also in your opinion the head of the vniuersall Church? If you grant this, why should a qua­litie which is not iniurious in his per­son, be iniurious in the person of Peter? But if you deney it render a reason of your negation. It is not, in that the essence or nature of Head, is, in genere, or generally speaking, contumelious, since you grant it to a prince whom you honour: Nor is it, for that one onely is not sufficient to gouerne the vniuersall Church, be­cause following that supposition the Church is reduced to such circum­stances, that it doth not exceede the abilitie of one man to gouerne it since one man actually in that exten­tion doth gouerne it. And therefore it is manifest, that that which we teach is not iniurious to Iesus Christ: [Page 72]or if it be, impertinently then doe you sustayne the part of a Plaintiue in a crime, wherin you your selues will be conuinced as culpable. Vvhich yet will be made more eui­dent, by the insuing articles, where I will endeuour to shew that it is a greater aduantage of honour, to produce a thing by the assistance of another (though one man alone be able to produce it) permitting ano­ther to haue share in the glorie, which he could reserue to himselfe alone, and will make appeare by consequēce, that it is more honorable to Christ Iesus, who alone is able to gouerne the Church yea thirtie Chur­ches, if so many there could be, to let others share in this gouernement, then wholy to reserue it to himselfe. And euen at this present I will giue you a scantling of it, in that which by the light of faith you haue seene, to witt, that God did repute it a grea­ter laude and glorie, to haue consti­tuted Christ, as man, the Heade of the vniuersall Church vnder him, then to haue retayned, and reserued [Page 73]all that dignitie to himselfe, without communicating it to any other.

In conclusion I would in treate the Reader, diligently to obserue the Ministers subtiltie, which is of this nature; that wheras there are two sorts of questions. The one. Vvhe­ther the Pope be the Heade of the vniuersall Church. The other whe­ther supposing him to be the head of the vniuersall Church, he ought to be called another head of the Church then Iesus Christ, or not. In like manner: whether good workes be meritorious, and supposing them to be meritorious whether that merit ought to be tearmed another merit then that of Iesus Christ? Vvhether the workes of pennane doe cleance from sinne; and supposing they doe cleance from sinne whether they ought to be called another cleance­ing or purgatorie then the blood of Iesus Christ? whether the rite and celebration of the Eucharist be a true sacryfice; and supposing it to be a true sacryfice, whether it is to be called another sacryfice then that of [Page 74]the Crosse? Of which two questiōs, the first belonges to the nature and beeing of the thing and is of Faith. The second, respects the name onely, and is not of Faith, S. Aug. contr. Iulianum cap. c. and therfore, as S. Augustine saith, may be disputed pro &con amongst Catholikes Doctours, without impeachment to Faith.

In these questions, this is the Mini­sters craft. They passe the first which is of faith ouerin silence; The other, which is not of Faith, they discusse. To the end that by reiecting these formes of speach. There is another head of the Church then Christ: another merit, then Christs merit: another sacry­fice, then the sacryfice of the Crosse &c. they may carrie away the Reader to beleeue, that none is head of the Church but Christ: and finally that no action but that which Christ per­formed vpon the Crosse was a sa­crifice.

And be it that following some Ca­tholike Doctours we may vse those kindes of speach, ether meaning, that there is another head of the Church then Iesus Christ, another [Page 75]merit; another sacryfice; &c. not of another kind, but of another order onely: or els, that there is another person then Iesus Christ, who is heade of the Church; other workes, meritorious; another actions, sacry­fice, &c. In which sense somme tymes I call the Euchariste another sacrifice then that of the Crosse; and good workes, other meritorious workes then those of Iesus Christ.

But for as much as I obserued, that the Ministers by this slight of impugnig a manner of speach, ay­med at the vtter destruction of cer­taine Articles of Faith: I thought good to grant them, that we were not barely to sustayne that there is another heade; another merit; another sacryfice &c. therby to make euident, that whether we grant, or we deney them this manner of speach, yet can they thence draw no aduantage against that which is of Faith?

ANSWERE.

IF by the word Purgatorie, you vnderstand not the place where, but the cause wherby we are purged from our sinns, we intirely ioyne hands with you: for in that sense we teach, Aust. l. 2. cont. Crescon. c. 12. Mundantur homines bap­tism [...]. mun­ [...]ātur & ver­ [...]o veritatis, mūdantur & sacrificio con­ [...]riti cordis, mūdantur & [...]leemosynis, mūdantur & [...]sae charitate. that there is no other Purga­torie, then in the blood of Christ.

We say indeede with S. Augustine, that there are other things, as, bap­tisme; the word of truth; the sacryfice of a contrite hart; almes deeds, and Charitie, which doe purge and purifie mens soules: but wheras they doe cleance vs, nether by their owne vertue, nor by the meanes of any other thing, which is distinct from the blood of [Page 77]Christ, but by the power and vertue therof, and that in a far different manner, to witt, inferiour and sub­ordinate to that, by which he doth first purge vs, one ought not to call it another purgatorie: because diuers Purgatories, for the reasons alreadie alleaged, import a purifying (diuersi generis) of another kind, while yet, no such thing is found in mans iusti­fication, there being nothing at all which can purge vs, but by the force and efficacie of the blood of Iesus Christ. This blood it selfe, of it selfe doth expiate our crymes, as being the onely and proper prise of our sinnes, and that wherby our debts are cancelled. But the word of God, Penance, Faith, Charitie, and such like, doe not of themselues expiate, but by the vertue which doth reside in the blood of Christ, but by depen­dancie of that; but by power deri­ued from it. They doe not purge as the prise of our sinnes, but as dis­positions and instruments, instituted to the end the efficacie of the blood of our sauiour Iesus Christ might be [Page 78]applyed vnto vs which doth plainly shew that all these purging prepar­tiues, though they be of another or­der or degree, yet are they of the same kind, and by consequence, that there is but one purgatorie.

Both you and we doe ioyntly hold, that sinnes are forgiuē by the sole and onely mercy of God; yet dare none deney but the same sinnes are remit­ted by the blood of Iesus Christ, which is the fruite and effect of this diuine mercy, and the glorious in­strument by which it is applyed vnto vs: so In like manner, when we say that sinns are forgiuen by the blood of Christ, there is no repugnance, to say also that they are remitted by faith, and the Sacraments which are the wholsome and blessed effects of this blood, and instruments appoin­ted to applie it vnto our wounds. Vvherin if we iniure God, how will you purge your selues of the same crime? for as we sustayne that sinnes are cleanced by Sacraments which applie vnto vs the prise of our sa­uiours precious bloode; so likewise, [Page 79]you hold that by Faith sinnes are abo­lished. Vvhence it is, that though we doe greatly differre in the num­ber of the meanes, which by such application, doe blot out sinnes, yet we agree in the substance of the thing we here defend, which con­sists in this, that we ioyntly confesse, that some things there are which doe cleance vs by the commu­nication of the merits and effi­cacie of our sauiours bloode. Nor will it auayle you to say that you doe far differre from vs; for that we would haue faith to concurre to iustification, by way of a disposition, wheras you hold that it concurrs no otherwise, then that as a hand recea­ues what is presented, so faith doth apprehend or lay hand vpon iustifi­cation which the blood of Christ did intirely produce, For this is said onely, and hath no sufficient ground. And againe, if there be any thing found which doth derogate from the merite of that blood: it is not to be iudged that it is that preparatiue concurse of merits, wherby it is [Page 80]applyed: but euen what euer doth concurre, as your faith, by any way of application, as though it were not sutable to the worth of this bloode that it of it selfe should applie it selfe. And so, euen your concurse of faith doth no lesse derogate from the vertue of Christ his blood then the concurse of Sacraments, because you hold faith to be the meanes, without which that bloode can no wayes be communicated. But euen you your selues, when you please, doe accnowledge diuers meanes, by which the satisfaction of Christ is is applyed vnto vs: Molinaeus in suosento par 1. artic. 19. for thus saith Mo­lins. Behold the meanes which the word of God doth present vnto vs, wherby we may applie vnto our selues Christ. First Baptisme, then the sacred suppar, and lastly faith. Some tymes also you doe ingenuously teach, with vs, that the temporall paynes due vnto our sinnes, are mitigated by our workes, which in verie deede is to accnow­ledge our workes to be expiatorie, or to contayne in them an expiating vertue. Conf. August. cap. de Confess. Conf. Augustana. And withall [Page 81]you are to know, that sinnes are often puni­shed with temporall punishments euen in this life, as Dauid and sundrie others were punished, and we hold that these paynes are mitigated by good workes and all kind of penance. So teacheth S. Paule: if we would iudge our selues, we should not be iudged. Further, Art. 11. we accnovvledge what by good workes our calamities are lessened, acording to that of Isaias. Confessio Saxonica. Conf. Saxonia. Albeit temporall pu­nishments are especially mitigated through the sonne of God, yet we teach withall, that punishments are lessened by meanes of our whole conuersion, since S. Paule doth say, if we iudge &c. Vve Cap. de Purgatorio. are not to call in doubt, saith the same, but that saints haue their fire of purgatorie in this life, as the examples of Dauid, Ezechtel, Ionas and others, giue testimonie. The same also doth the Respons. ad argum. Apologie Conf. Augustanae, In assert. art 2. Luther, and In Catechesi cap. de satis­factione. Et in locis cap de sa­tisfactione, & in disput. tom. 4. p. 529. & sequentib. Melan­cton teach: By how much we are more seuere tovvards our selues, saith euen 1. Instit. c. 3. § 15. &c. 23. § 4. Caluine himselfe, by so much are we to hope for a more easie encrie to Gods mer­cy. And verily, it is impossible that the soule struke with the horrour of iudge­ment, [Page 82]should not preuent gods wrothfull hand, by exacting punishment at her ovvne hands, and a litle after, to appease Gods wroth, we our selues doe exact punishments at our ovvne hands for trespasses com­mitted.

But verily so far is the doctrine of the Catholike Church, from drawing a coutumelie vpon the merit of the blood of Christ, that contrariwise, euen as he should be esteemed iniu­rious to Gods mercy, who should say that our sinnes are so abolished by the meanes therof, that they should not in any sort stand in neede of the blood of Iesus Christ, which yet was disposed by the same diuine mercy, as its instrument, so should one doe an iniurie to the blood of Iesus Christ, to hold that our sinnes are so cleanced by it, that Faith and Sacraments, which the sonne of God instituted in his blood as fitt instru­ments to apply it vnto our soules, did not at all cleance them. Men are in­iurious to their Redeemour, when they change (be in vnder what euer colour of his honour) what by him­selfe [Page 83]was established for their salua­tion. And therfore Catholikes, (as it is cleare by what we haue said) be­ing freed from the aspersions and crimes which tacitly you impose vpon vs of preiudicing the merit of the blood of Iesus Christ, it is dis­couered that your selues are guiltie therof.

But me thinkes I heare you say that the difficultie of the question con­sists in this, to witt whether it was the will of Iesus Christ that his blood shoud be applyed, by the meanes we assigne. To which I replie: firste, that at least it is manifest, that what we teach in this point, is not of its owne nature impossible, as being in­iurious to Iesus Christ, which not­withstanding you pretend, and doe dayly fill the peoples eares with the noyse of it. And then, I will make cleare to all the world, that who­soeuer beleeues the scripture, and giues credit to the Fathers, must ne­cessarily beleeue that there is some other thing besids the blood of Christ, which doth purge, though in [Page 84]the vertue and efficacie therof: for the Act. 3. & 15. Ad Rom. 3. ad Ephes. 3. ad Titum 3. 1. Petr. 1. 1 Iacob. 2. Prou. 15 & 16. Scripture in diuers passages in most formall termes saith, that we are purged, purified, iustified, cleanced by faith, by workes, by Sacraments: and that the Cyprian. de lapsis & epist. 26. & 55. Tertul. de poe­nit. cap. 3. Origen. in Le­uit. cap. 15. Aug. in Enchir. & lib. 1. de symb. c. 6. Hieron. de obi­tu Fabio. Ambr. ep. 82. & de Elia & ieiunio. c. 22. fathers grounding vpon holy Vvrit, teach in a hundred places, that by Baptisme, Penance, teares, workes, Marcyrdome, sinnes are purged, washed, cleanced, remoued, redeemed, blotted out abolished, consumed, expiated. And in diuers others, that God is appeased by workes, that he is made propitious by workes. In a word, as S. Lib. de Elia c. 20. Habemus plura subsidia quibus peccata nestra redima­mus. Et alibi multis locis. Ambrose saith that we haue diuers meanes by which we redeeme our sinnes. And sundrie remedies by which we are washed and purged of our offences.

ANSWERE.

THat we teach no other propi­tiatorie sacryfice then that of lesus Christ, the reason which aboue we deduced at large, doth make good; the word, other, signfying a thing of a diuers kind, when it is ta­ken absolutly, as the Ministers in this place doe take it. So that the Euchariste cannot be called, other, then that of Iesus Christ vpon the Crosse: because being subiect to that, and deriuing from it its force and efficacie, it is not of a diuers kind, but onely of another order, as being farr inferiour; not by reason of the Hoste, which is the same, but in re­gard of the effects, and the visible actiō by which it is immediatly offe­red. This is yet more confirmed in that we doe accnowledge the sacry­fice of the Eucharist to be one and the same with that of the crosse by a triple identitie. Both by reason of the hoste offered, which is one in [Page 86]both; it is one hoste, saith Ambr. in Heb. 10. Vna est hostia non multae. S. Am­brose, and In Heb. 10. Primasius, and not many hostes. Vve offer still the same, saith In Hebr. 9. eumdē semper offerrimus, non nunc quidem alium sed sem­per eundem. S. Chrisostome not now another, but alvvayes the same. And also by reason, of the prime and principall offerer which is Iesus Christ, now Iesus Christ is offered, saith lib. 1. de offi­ciis c. 48. Nunc Christus offer­tur sed offer­tur quasi ho­mo, quasi re­cipiens passio­nem, & offert se ipse quasi Sacerdos, vt peccata nostra dimittat. S. Ambrose, as man: suffering passion, and as preist he offerrs himselfe, to the end he may pardon our sinns. And lastly by reason of the manner of the oblation which is like; for euen as Iesus Christ truly dyed vpon the Crosse, and as his blood was really seperated from his body: so is he dead in the Eucharist in ap­parance as we will explicate more fully in the sixt Chapter. Vvherupon Cypr. ep. 63. Amb. lib de of­ficiis cap. 48. Alex. Papa ep. ad omnes Or­thodoxos. Isych. l. 2. in Lenit. c. 8. Nyssen. erat. 1. de resurrect. Chrys hom. 24 in 1. Cor. Greg. l. 4. dialog c. 38. & hom. 37. in Euang. the Fathers call the sacrifice of the Eucharist the passion of Iesus Christ: the renevved passion of Iesus Christ: yea fur­ther they say, he is slayne, and as it were suffers his passion, for though he ne­ther dy nor suffer indeede, yet doth he both die and suffer in a misticall manner. And therfor, grounding vpon this triple identitie, we feare not to say with Hom 2. in 2 ad Tim. Obla­tio eadem est. S. Chrisostome; [Page 87] that the sacryfice of the Crosse and the Eucharist is one and the same sacryfice; and with In cap. 8. ad Heb. Clarum est nos non aliud sacrifi­cium offerre. Theodorete, that it is ma­nifest that we offer no other sacryfice then that of the Crosse.

And that the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, doth not destroy the propitiation of the sacry­fice of the crosse, it is euident, in that it is not opposite vnto it, but contra­riwise, is substituted, subordinate, and of a far lower degree: the sacry­fice of the Crosse being propitiatorie of it owne vertue as the proper satis­faction for our offences; wheras the Eucharist is onely propitiatorie in vertue of the sacryfice of the Crosse, the fruite of whose propitiation it applies vnto vs. The oblation of the Masse is not propitiatorie, as though the sacryfice of the Crosse were not alone sufficient to appease Gods wroth, and to make him become propitious: but it is onely propitia­torie in vertue of the plentuousnes of the sacryfice of the Crosse, whose vertue is so great, that it can com­municate a part therof to others, and [Page 88]the will of the sacryficed is such, that as he is able, so also he is will­ing to communicate it. Establishing his glorie, not in reseruing the whole propitiation of the sinnes of man to the sacryfice of the Crosse, but also in imparting some part therof, to the sacryfice which men doe cele­brate as his ministers, in memorie of his passion. And like as he who hath an excellent fruite tree, shewes him­selfe far more liberall, if making a present of his ripe fruite, he adde also a young shoot therof which of it selfe may yeeld fruite: so Iesus Christ, is much more bountifull, in bestowing vpon men not onely the fruite of his propitiation which sprung from his owne person in the sacryfice of the Crosse, but euen another sacryfice which as an excellent shoote, is able to bring forth fruites like to those which we gathered vpon the tree of the Crosse. Vvher fore, so farr is the propitiation of the sacryfice of the Eucharist, from preiudicing the propitiation of the sacryfice of the Crosse, that on the contrarie side it [Page 89]makes the perfection and excellen­ce therof more gloriously appeare. Vvhence it followes that you are truly worthy of hatred, by reason of the calumnies which you falsely im­pose vpon vs making vs odious to your adherents; as though, forsooth, we taught some thing in this point preiudiciall to Iesus Christ.

Nor is this all, you are in this bee halfe worthy of hatred for a reason much more odious then that which I haue mentioned aboue.

You make a remonstrance that you are hated for sustayning that there is no other propitiation then that of the death and passion of Iesus Christ: but you are indeede worthy to be abhorred, for holding that the blood and death of Iesus Christ is in no sort propitiatorie; that his death, and pretious blood haue not appea­sed Gods wrath towards mankind: that there was yet need of a more ex­cellent price; and that this price was the torments of a lost, banished, and damned man, which with a sacrile­gious mouth you blasplemously af­firme [Page 90]that Christ endured in his soule. Damnable doctrine! not of men but of diuells! not from Heauen or earth, but issuing out of Hell, whither they that hold it, iustly de­serue to be condemned, vnlesse they roote that doctrine out of their hart, and with their tongue publish a con­trarie. Of these crimes I accuse you, with what iustice I shall make ap­peare. Nothing had bene done, saith Calu. 2. In­stat. c. 1. §. 10. Nihil actum eratsi corporea tantum morte defunctus fuis­set Christus, sed aliud ma­ius & excel­lentius pretiū fuisse, quod diros in anima cruciatus dā ­nati & perdi­ti hominis pertulerit. Caluin, (you know for how great and admirable a prophete Danaus in Anti-Bell. Bezaep. 6. you esteeme him) if Iesus Christ had died onely a corporall death; but it was a greater, and more excellent price to haue suffered in his soule the cruell tortures of a damned and lost man. In this torment, saith Beza in Lu­cam 22. v. 44. In hoc crucia­tu pisita est nestra pacis & cum Deo re­cenciliationis summa. is placed the summe of our Peace and re­conciliation to God. To satisfie in the name of sinners, saith your 10. Sunday. Cathechisme, it was necessarie that he should feele that horrible distresse in his ovvne conscience, as though he had bene forsaken of God, yea euen, as though God had bene wrothfull against him. That is to say, it was ne­cessarie, that he should haue ben­damned, [Page 91]as your ensuing words doe more clearly conuince, signifying his dolours in the word, damnation, and saying, that what is perpetuall to others, whom God in his wroth punisheth, was onely temporall in him. Vvherby is apparent that according to your opi­nion Christ Iesus suffered the paines of the damned, and this to satisfie for the sinns of man, as though his death had not bene of sufficient va­lour.

Scarpus de iustif. contro. 16.Yea one of your owne men re­lates that there were diuers Prote­stants of opinion that those places of scrip. wherin Christ was said to dy for vs, were not to be vnderstood of a corporall death, but onely of the sense of Gods wroth nor indeede did his corporall death contribute any thing at all to the expiation of sinne; nor was it therfore to be esteemed as a part of satisfaction for sinnes. Some peraduentures, may here ap­prehend that you will betake your selues to your old solution which consistes in the libertie you take at your owne liking, to reiect all autho­ritie, [Page 92]and at your pleasure, to deney your owne Masters. Yet seeing, that Vvhitakere, Vvittat. l. 8. cont. Durand. sect. 18 Calui­nus verissime secri sit nihil actum fuisse si mortem tantū corporeā Chri­stus obiisset. one of your prime mo­derns, insteede of vsing this euasion, seconds and sustaynes Caluine in his blasphemie, saying, that he wrote most truly, that nothing had bene done, if Iesus Christ had onely suffered a corporall death. (Nor can I doubt but you will imitate him therin, and therfore take his, as your answere,) I demand of you, whether so many pricking thor­nes, so many stripes, spittings, blowes, derisions, nayles, and to comprehend all in a word, that innumerable num­ber of paynes to which was annected the ignominious and cruell death of the onely sonne of God, did contri­bute nothing to the saluation and re­demption of mankind? Vvhat doth occurre in Sctiptures ether more fre­quently, or clearly, then that we are redeemed by the blood and death of Christ? Matt. 26. this is my blood which shall be povvredout for many for the remission of sinns. Heb. 9. Christ an high Priest by his ovvne blood entred in once into the Holyes, eternall redemption being found. And [Page 93]againe in the same place, if the blood of oxen sanctifieth to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, cleanse our conscience from deade workes. and Apoc. 5. Thou hast redee­med vs to God in thy blood. In the 7. to the Ephes. the first chap. to the Co­loss. In the first of S. Peter the first Chapter. In the first of S. Iohn first Chapter. In the first Chapter of the Apoc. it is said, that we are sanctified, washed, cleansed, by the blood of Iesus Christ. In S. Mathew, S. Marc, Matth. 26. Mars. 22. Luc. 22. Cor. 11. S. Luc and S. Paule, Iesus Christ saith. This is my body, giuen deliuered broken for you. Heb. 10. we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Iesus Christ, and in another place, by one oblation he hath consummated the sanctified for all eternitie. The scripture saith that we are redee­med by the blood, which he shed for the remission of our sinns. That he doth cleanse our conscience of dead wor­kes, that by him we are purged and was­hed, that, the body of Iesus Christ is deli­uered and giuen for vs, that by him we are sanctified. You contrariwise say, that nothing had bene done, without the [Page 94]interposition of some other thing. To which must we giue credit? to the misteries of the scripture, or to your blasphemies? in refutation Vvherof I will spend no more tyme, since they are of the same kind with those of which S. Hierome speakes, when he saith, that to discouer them, is to van­quish them, there being noe neede to conuince that which by it owne con­fession is blasphemous.

ANSWERE.

THat it may be perspecuously vn­derstoode what is in this place in controuersie betwixt vs, we are first to note, that there is a greare [Page 95]difference betwixt saying, there is no other merit but the merit of Christ, and, there are no meritorious workes but the workes of Christ. For he that affirmes that there are no other meri­torious workes but those of Christ, doth exclude the workes of men from all merit: but he that sayes that there is no other then Christs me­rite, is to be vnderstood, not that the workes of men are of no merit, but that they haue no efficacie but in vertue of the merits of Christ, since it is manifest, by the reasons aboue alleaged in the like case, that diuers actions which haue subordination amongst themselues, doe not esta­blish diuers merits. Your religion is not hated for the first point, that is, for that it doth teach, that ther is no other merite before God, but Christ his obedience: for, as we haue said, that we grant; but by reason of the second, for as much as you teach that this obedience of Christ doth contribute no force to any man, wherby he may merit: pretending, forsooth that this is preiudiciall to, [Page 96]the dignitie of Christ, and derogat­ing from the price of his merits, which is not so.

And that we hold no other merit then the obedience of Iesus Christ, it is euidēt because, as we haue shewen out of Scripture, Fathers, and by the light of reason, these words an other metit, importe a merit of another kind, which hath no subordination to the merits of Christ, which is not found in our case, since we openly confesse that mens workes, are of no merit at all but in vertue of those of Iesus Christ; and consequently, ac­cording to vs, speaking simply and absolutly, the obedience of Christ is the onely merit of the whole world. And indeede the workes of the iust, following the phrase of Isa. 26. Om­nia opera no­stra operatus es in nobis. 1. Cor. 10. Idem verò Deus qui operatur om­niainomnibus. Matth. 10. Nō vos estis quilo­quimini sed spiritus Patris loquitur in vo­bis. 2. Cor 13. An experimentum quaeritis eius que in me loqui tur Christus. 1. Cor. 5. Non ego sed gratia Dei mecum. Galat. 2 Viuo ego iā non ego, viuit verò in me Christus. Scripture, and holy Aug in psal. 83. Christus oratin nobis vt caput nostrum. Petrus Chry­sologus serm 11. Deus in te ieiunat in te esurit. Bern. l. de amore Dei est. Tuteipsum amas in nobis. Fathers, being tearmed the workes of God, of the Holy Ghost, yea of Iesus Christ, so that the scripture, to attribute them abso­lutly to God, deneys them to be ours, no man can euen with any shew of reason affirme, that the merit of our actions, is any other then the [Page 97]merit of Iesus Christ.

Now that the meritorious workes of men doe not any wayes derogate from the merit of Christ, is manifest by this, that if it were so, our prayers and impetrations would be imurious to the prayers and impetrations of Christ, for there is paritie of reason in both. Againe it is cleare in this, that when Calu. 2. In­stit. c. 17. §. 1. Inscitè opponi­tur Christi me­ritum miseri­cordiae Dei, re­gula enim vul­garis est quae subalterna sunt non pug­nare. Caluin obserued, that diuers deneyed the merit of Christ, because they apprehened it repug­nant to grace, he affirmed that they did foolishly find opposition in those tvvo things, grounding himselfe vpon this axiome quae subalterna sunt non re­pagnant that things subordinate haue n [...] repugnancy. And Calu. 3. Inst. c. 20. §. 27. Ac tametsi fideles vltro citroque preces pro fra­tribus apud Deum offerunt hoc nihil vnicaa Christi inter­cessioni dero­gare ostendi­mus simul ea subnixi tam se quam alios Deo commen­dant. Item §. 19. Quanquā in­terim & suae Sanctis inter­cessiones relin­quuntur, qui­bus alij aliorū salutē mutuo inter se Deo commendant, de quibus me­minit Aposto­lus, sed tales quae ab vnica illa dependeāt, tantùm abest vt delibent ex ea quippiam. Nam vt à di­lectionis affe­ctu scaturiunt quae nos vltro citroque am­plectimur, ceu vnius corporis membra; ita etiam ad capi­tis vnitatem referuntur, &c. Cap. 14. §. 18. & 19. for the same reason, he deneyed that the inter­cessions of the faithfull did in any sort derogate from the intercessions of Christ, because, saith he, those depend of these and are subiect vnto them: and therfore nether doe our merits derogate, or are they repug­nant to the merits of Christ being subordinate vnto them, no other­wise then his owne merits is subor­dinate [Page 98]to his grace; our prayers and impetrations to his. Wherupon he deneys that the iustice of workes is opposite to the iustice of Faith, be­cause that, is subiect to this. In the same place, and for the same reason, he sustaynes that the hope of salua­tion, which is conceaued by good workes, is not contradictorie to the hope of saluation, which we demand through the mercy of God. But hence it is yet more manifest, that, as the merit of Christ, doth not dimi­nish the glorie of Gods mercy to­wards vs, (for that argues no impo­tencie in his mercy, as though of it selfe it were not powerfull enough, to restore vs what we haue lost) but contrariwise Christs merit, doth commend and extolle the force of the dinine mercy, when it makes ap­parent, that the diuine mercy was not content, to haue brought vs againe in to grace and fauour with God, but moreouer, it would haue Christ to merit this grace for vs, which did farsurpasse that. For none can doubt but one that should haue [Page 99]lost all his fortunes, should be far more obliged to him who would redeeme them, to the end to render them vnto him; then to him, who would otherwise render them, not taking the paines to redeeme them. Vvherfore the merits of men doe not lessen the merits of Christ; nor argue taem of insufficiencie or impotencie, as not being powerfull enough to re­store vnto vs what we had lost: for it is a cleare thing, that wheras they are of an infinite value, euen euery least part therof, could haue merited all. But contrariwise mens merits doe openly proclame the vertue of Christ his merits: fos, as the mercy of God, did bountefully bestow vpon vs the merits of Christ; so Christs merits doe impart vnto vs, ours; and make a more ample demonstration of his goodnes and glorie, in that he would not onely merit that for our benefit, which we of our selues were not ca­pable to merit, to wit, remission of the fault, and satisfaction for the eter­nall paine, but moreouer he would haue vs to merit those things (as the [Page 100]increase of grace) together with him, which doe not exceede the capacitie of our merits. Vvhich is so far from depressing, that it doth euen extolle his glorie, since that there is nothing more glorious, then to admitt ano­ther, freely and of our owne accord, into the participation of that glorie, which we could haue reserued to our selues alone. Thus doth Christ pro­ceede with vs as well in this as in that which he doth impetrate for vs: be­cause he would not onely merit that alone wherof we were incapable, as the first inspirations to good; but he would also merit strength for vs, to demand and obtayne some thinges with him: which is a far greater fa­uour: for in that, he doth not onely impart vnto vs the fruit of his prayers but also bestowes vpon vs the vertue therof; that is, he did not onely make vs capable of receauing what he produced, but also granted vnto vs power with him, to produce, and withall to receaue some thing. The same happens in the production of naturall things, wher God, who of [Page 101]himselfe is able to produce all things, doth yet practise that absolute power, in the production of those things, which are beyond the reach, and acti­titie of secōd causes, as for example, the creation of the world, of An­gells, of reasonable soules, and leaue them to contribute their vertue to all other things that are not placed without their spheere, to manifest therby the excesse of his bountie, and to acquire vnto himselfe a larger pro­portion of honour, by making them not onely partakers of the effects which flow from his power, but of force withall to produce them with him: being a more honorable thing vnto God to endow second causes with force to cooperate in some things with him, then to leaue them without all action in his productions, as though they were altogether in­capable of the same. Howbeit the (ratio) or essence of merit which is found in the actiōs of men, proceeds not from the substāce of their worke, but from the grace alone which they receaue by the metit of Iesus Christ, [Page 102]as S. Augustin obserues, saying, that the merits of the iust are merits, because they are iust, that is, for that they pro­ceed from persōs iustified, and grate­full vnto God, by meanes of his grace which is in them, who will thinke that our merits which are the effectes of the grace of Christ alone, doe disparage the glorie of the me­rits of Christ? yea who will not planely discouer, that the merits of men doe redound to the glorie of Christ his merits? No otherwise then the splendour of rich gemmes, and the brightnes of the moone and starrs, which are effectes of the sunn's Light, doe augment his glorie, so far are they from diminishing it! Vvhich moued Brentius to say, In Apologia, Confess. Vvi­temberg. cap. de contritione. that wee ex­tolled Christ with too great prayses, while wee auerre, that he merited that our workes should be merito­rious. And another Authour, Ericcius l. 4. de Eccles. c. 4. of no smale note, confesseth, that in this thing we make Christ his glorie wonderfull illustrious.

Vvhence it is manifest, that our merits are so far from iniuring tho [Page 103]merits of Christ, that they euen turne to his greater glorie. And indeede, since the operations of the members belong to the head, because this com­mands them, and imparts vertue towards their productiō, how should the dignitie of the workes of the members of Iesus Christ our Heade, become rather contumelious then honorable vnto him? By euery one of our actions, saith In cap 6. Zachariae. Saluator in singulis coronā acci S. Hierome, our heade is crovvned. Our good workes being giftes of God the Father, effe­ctes of the Holy Ghost the princi­pale Agent, fruites of the passion of Iesus Christ, the end for which he suffered, the act of the children of God, and those who are participant of his diuine nature; in conclusion, being rather workes of God, then of men, as the Matth. 20. 1. Cor. 15. Gaelaet. 2. holy scripture doth teach vs; who will repute the digni­tie of such workes contumelious to God? Yea who will not rather iudge those contumelious to God the Fa­ther, the Holy Ghost, to Iesūs Christ, his sufferances, who like to your sel­ues, impugne the merits of good [Page 104]workes, since by impugning them, they doe truly impugne the giftes of God; the operations of the H. Ghost; the fruites of our sauiours passion; the effectes of grace, in fine, the di­gnitie of good workes which proceed rather from God then from men? Vvho will not in contemplation her­of iudge your religion worthy of hatred, yea euen of horrour; and ours for the contrarie, praise worthy? And therfore it is apparent that if your doctrine be hated in respect of that which it teacheth touching me­rit, you cannot, as you pretend, draw any aduantage from it, but contra­riwise it turnes to your disaduantage, since it is hated, not for sustayning a thing which is aduantagious, but preiudiciall to Gods glorie. Vvhich happens not onely in this point, but in all the rest of the points of this Chapter.

It is truly hated for sustayning things preiudiciall to God, not onely in that you deney, as I haue alreadie shewen, the workes of Saints to be meritoriours; but, which is more [Page 105](and indeede a thing causing hor­rour) because your Prime Authours, whose doctrine you imbrace as dis­tending downe from heauen, deney that the workes of Iesus Christ are meritorious. I confesse, saith Caluine, 2. Instit. c. 17. §. 1. Equidem fateor, si quis simpliciter & per se Christū opponere vellet iudicio Dei, nō fore merito lo­cum quiae non reperiretur in homine digni­tas quae posset Deum prome­reri. that if any would oppose Iesus Christ, sim­ply and nakedly considered in himselfe, to God's iudgement, there were no place for merit, because there is no dignitie found in man which can merit God. Vvhence is planely gathered, that you re­pute not the workes of Iesus Christ meritorious before God for their owne dignitie and worth, but one­ly by meanes of God's fauorable acceptance therof.

There rests no more to be done in this Chapter, but to beseech the Rea­der, as I instantly doe, to note by the way, that though you would be thought to haue no other ayme in these Articles but God's honour and glorie, yet is it but a cloake you take, vnder which your end is to seeke your selues, freeing your selues in this world, from all the paine and diffi­cultie which is found in doing well.

For why doe you establish the Scripture the onely rule of your sal­uation, but to deliuer your selues from obedience to the Church, and from subiection to Traditions which are manifestly contrarie vnto you, imitating herin that, Tertul. prae­script. c. 17. Necessario [...] ­lunt agnos [...] ea per quae re­uincuntur. which Tertul­lian, notes in the Heretiques of his tyme, when he saith, that they will in no sort accnovvledge that wherby they are conuinced?

To what end doe you deney that S. Peter was the Heade of the vni­uersall Church vnder Iesus Christ, but onely to cast off the subiection to his Successours authoritie, euen as Rebells, to be freed from the Vice-Roys authoritie, would deney that any other but the king had power ouer him?

Vvhy will you haue the blood of Christ onely to purge you, but onely to auoyd paine and trouble, and to be subiect to no satisfaction?

Vvhat reason haue you to deney the merit of good workes, but onely to flatter your owne sloyth; and to be obliged to no paines-taking for [Page 107]the obtayning of Paradice shewing your selues herin Epicures shollers, who for loue of ease, l. 8. Conf. c. 16. Negauit tra­ctus merito­rum. as S. Augustine notes, denyed the course of merits.

Vvhy doe you reiect the propitia­tion of the sacryfice of the Masse, but by banishing all other propitia­tion, saue that of the sacryfice of the Crosse, to take a way all conceipt that we ought to indeuour to make God propitious? You haue Gods honour in your mouth, but your pri­uate interest in your hart: two spe­cious wayes by which you draw poore sooles to your beleife, but to their owne perditiō, which is indeed that which you will purchace to you and yours, who cannot dy in your errours, but withall they perish eter­nally.

ANSWERE.

YOu continue the guiles which you vsed in the precedent Chap­ter, while you represent your selues as men loaden with hatred for cer­taine considerations which in your conceipt might purchace you loue. Hauing insinuated your selues into the harts of the people by pretend­ing Christs interest, you haue re­course to their owne, with more fa­cilitie to intice and gayne them to your selues. You promis them won­dres, and make shew of great obliga­tions: while yet you doe but delude, deceaue, and leade them to their perdition: impose vpon vs: manifest­ly contradict your selues: condemne in vs, what your selues practise: bragge of things which belong not to you; and affect nouelties.

A vvord is not a vvordex­cept in as much as it si­gnifieth and expresseth the conceiptes of him that spea­keth: and for this reason the scripture, to speake proper­ly, is not the vvord of God, but by reason of the senses vvhich makes vs knovv the conceits or counsels of God. Hieron. Basil. & alij Patres passim. Vvhit. ad rationemAnd since reason, the Fathers, and the comon consent euen of your [Page 110]owne men, 2. Campiani. Ipsa vis & res & quidam­modo anima Sacrarum li­terarum in sententia con­sistit. Rectè Hieronymus non in legendo sed in intelli­gendo scriptu­rae c [...]nsistunt. Et alibi, non in verbis Scriptu­rarum est E­uangeli [...]m, sed in sensu. doe vrge you to grant that the holy scripture doth princi­pally consiste in the sense, not in the bare letter, (though it contayne the one and the other) I shall with faci­litie make manifest vnto all the word, that you doe but deride the people. Because while you proteste to per­mitt them the full and intire know­ledge therof, you grant them no more libertie in point of sense, then the Catholike Church doth her chil­dren: for though all yours haue per­minion to reade the Scripture, yet is it not lawfull for any of them to ex­plicate it in any other sense then that of Caluine, or your owne as is made manifest by sundrie examples, and peculiarly by that of the institution of the Euchariste, where none can explicate these words This is my body, otherwise then figuratiuely.

Vvherin you resemble those that promising a great treasure, giue onely the sight of the coffer wherin it is kept. Nay you giue not yet so much, for doubting of the translation of the scripture, and ingeniously Vvhit. cont. 1. q. 2. c. 7. Nullam nos editionem nisi Hebrateam in [...], & Grae c [...]in n [...]o Te­s [...]un ento au­thenti [...]am fa­ [...]us. cōfessing [Page 111]that there is no version at all au­thenticall, that is, of sufficient cre­dit, the people haue iust reason, not onely to doubt of the sense of the scripture which you deliuer, but euen of the verie letter of the version which you propose vnto them, and consequently of their saluation; it being a cleare case, that they can haue no greater assurance of that then they haue of the meanes wher­by you would conduct them thither. He that promiseth children fruite to eate, and yet giues them onely Amands which they cannot crake, doth but mocke them: yea he mo­ckes them doubly when the Amands are not true but conterfeit onely: So doe you doubly delude those who beleeue you in a matter of impor­tance; since that the letter of the Scripture which you giue them, is not authenticall; not doe you per­mitt them of themselues to gather out of it the true and naturall sense which in their iudgement it contay­nes. You mocke them verily and deceaue them both at once.

You deceaue them, because vnder the name of the word of God, you present vnto them the word of men, sithens you deliuer them the scrip­ture changed by mans inuention, and interpreted against the sense which the words beare as I haue alreadie shewen; and that, as In 1. Gal. Interpretatio­ne peruersa de Euāgelio Chri­sti, hominis fit Euangelium, aut quod peius est diaboli. Luther lib. de Missapriuata. S. Hierome notes, The Gospell of Iesus Christ, is made the Gospell of men by a peruerse in­terpretation, yea which is worse, the Gospell of the Diuell, because, (will I adde) vse is made of it to establish vntruth and errour, wherof he is the father. And this may be more iustly auerred of yours, then of any other; because in certaine passages you ob­serue the sense which Luther recea­ued of the Diuell in a visible shape. You delude the people by persuad­ing them that of all the exteriour meanes vsefull for our saluation, the reading of the Bible is the onely cer­taine one: which is manifestly false, for otherwise the blind which can­not reade; simple and ignorāt people who haue no learning, could not be amongst the number of the faithfull. [Page 113]They that were Christians before the Gospell was written; they that beleeued in the tyme of Lib. 3. c. 4. S. Ire­neus, as he himselfe is witnes, in Carist Iesus, without paper and inke, were not of the faithfull. They againe, who vnderstand not the hebrew and greeke tongue were not capable of faith, since, according to you, no version is authenticall, nor can faith be attayned vnto but by a meanes which is infallible. But if you reply that such people may receaue it from the mouth of their Pastours who doe faithfully preach vnto them the word of God: it followes then that the Scripture is not the onely externe meanes to obtayne Faith, since you your selues adioyne this second, which cannot be sufficient for some, vnlesse it were so for all the rest. And in deede what reason is there so to ty and re­strayne the word of God to paper, to the character and letter, that it can no further be a meanes of saluation, then it is contayned vn­der [Page 114]these signes? Haue they any force of their owne nature? If not, why is not the word of God in the hart and mouth of the Church, and her Pastours, an assured mea­nes of saluation? You deceaue the people, not onely by persuading them that the reading of Scrip­ture is the sole meanes of salua­tion, but moreouer in teaching them that it is a sufficient meanes, and that none ought to looke after any other: which is euidently false for two reasons: first because the Scripture teacheth that faith com­eth by hearing, and that it hath so absolute a dependance of it, that without it, faith cannot be had. How, saith Rom. 10. v. 14. Quomodo credent ei quē non audierūt? Quomodo au­t [...]m audient sine pradican­te? ergo fides ex auditu. saint Paule, shall they beleeue him whom they haue not heard? and how shall they heare without a Prea­cher? Therfore faith is by hearing. Vvherby we see that reading onely is not a sufficient meanes of faith, since according to the Apostle no man can haue assurance ether of the letter, or of the sense of the [Page 115]Scripture vnlesse he learne of the Church how it is to be vnder­stoode.

Secondly, because if this meanes be sufficient for all the world, the Fathers of the Church, the Luthe­rans, Anabaptists, and others, who with great care and diligence made vse of it, erred not in the funda­mentall points of faith as in your writings you vpbrade them. But if you affirme that reading alone, is onely sufficient in qualitie of an ex­terne meanes, and that there is fur­ther required an inward illustra­tion of rhe holy Ghost which is not in them that erre: I demand a text of holy Scripture affirming that Caluine and his followers, had this interiour illustration rather then the others: if you can produce no such text; I demand why you be­leeue it without Scripture? Againe, I demand by what exteriour or inte­riour signe you can be assured to haue this illustration of the holy Ghost in the vnderstanding of these [Page]words This is my body, more then the Catholikes, or Lutherans? Fi­nally since reading onely is not suffi­cient without this internall illu­stration of the holy Ghost, if you cannot by some infallible argu­ment proue that you are assured of this illustration, I beseech you to accnowledge that you haue no certaintie of the sense of Scrip­ture, nor consequently of your faith.

Finally why doth the Eunuke (who had the holy Ghost, and readd diligently that place of Isaye, where the passion of our sauiour is cleary foretold, being asked by Philippe one of the Deacons whe­ther he vnderstood what he readd, answere, Act. 8. Et qu [...]modo pos­sum si non a [...] quis ostenderit mihi. how can I vnlesse some shew it me? If to vnderstand the Scripture a man be to rely vpon the interiour illustration of the holy Ghost, you cannot say as some ty­mes you doe, that your meaning is not, that euery one should vnder­stand all the Scripture, but Vvhit. de perspicuit. script. c. 1. No­strum axioma est omnia quae sunt ad salu­tem necessaria opertis verbis in scripturis prop [...]. onely, [Page 116]that which is necessarie vnto salu­tation, because the passage which the Eunuke confesseth he vnder­standeth not, concernes not the passion of our sauiour Iesus Christ, which is the fundation of mans saluation. Nor will you affirme that the Eunuke was ignorant, sith the simple are as well to vn­derstand that which is necessarie to saluation as the learned. Nor indeede ought he to be rancked a­mongst the ignorant, whom Hieron. ep. 103. Ego nec sanctior sum hoc Eunucho, nec studiosior, & tantus a­mator legis di­uinaeque scien­tiae, cum librū teneret igno­rabat eum, quem in libro nesciens vene­rabatur. saint Hierome represents so studious, and so great a louer of the law, that he himselfe was not more addicted thervnto.

That the Scripture is not easie to all men, it selfe doth witnesse, and the Fathers doe teach. It selfe doth witnesse; 2. Petr. 3. In quibus sunt quaedam diffi­cilia intelle­ctu, quae indo­cti & instabi­les deprauant, sicut & caete­ras scripturas ad suā ipsorū perditionem. for saint Peter sayth that in saint Paules Epistle, there are certaine things hard to be vn­derstood which the vnlearned and vn­stable depraue as also the rest of the Scrip­tures to their ovvne perdition. The Fathers doe teach vs the same. The [Page]Scriptures of the law, saith Aug devtil. ered. c. 6. An istae scripturae legis planisss­mae sunt, in quas isti quasi zulgo exposi­tas impetum faciunt. saint Au­gustine, are they most cleare? And when a certaine person told him that he readd and vnderstood the Scripture of himselfe, he said. Is it so? Thou darst not aduenture vpon Terentianus Maurus Without the helpe of a Master; An infinitie of Authours are required to the vnderstanding of each Poete, and yet thou darst interprise the reading of holy Vvrite without a Guide, and passe thy indgement vpon it without a Master. For the same reason Et cap 7. Te­rentianum Maurum sine Magistre at­tingere non auderes As­per, Ceonutus, Donatus, & alij innume­rabiles requi­runturvt qui­esbet Poetae possit intelli­gs, tu in eos li­bros qui sancti diuinarumque rerum pleni sunt sine duce irruis, & de his sine piaece­prere audes ferre senten­tiam. saint Hierosine apprehends it verie per­nicious, that an old Trott, a Dotterell, a sophisticall pratter, any one aduentures vpon the Scripture, Weares it out, begins to reach before they haue yet learnt it. And Hieron. Epist. 103 ad Pauli. Hanc (scripturam) garrula anus, banc delirus senex, hanc vniuersi praesumunt, lacerant, docent ante­quam discent. Cap. 1. & 2. Duplici modo munire fidem suam Domins adiuuante deberet, primum scilicet diuinae legis authoritate, tum deinde Ecclesiae Cathoiteae traditione: quiae videlicet scripturam laeramproipsasua altitudine non vno ecdemque sensu vniuersi ac­ciptunt. saint Vincent. Leir saith that to auoyd heresie, and to be established in the true faith it is ne­cessarie to adioyne the Tradition of [Page 117]the Church to Scripture: because the Scripture by reason of its depth, is not vnderstood of all in one and the same sort. Therfore it is euident, that the Scripture alone without the expli­tation of the Church, doth but afford vs a part of the rule of faith: and that you, who promis euery one the knowledge of his salua­tion, of himselfe, doe promis him, to speake with the 1. Timot. 6. Apostle, a knovvledge of a false name, and push him on to know more then is be­houffull, in steede of contayning him within the termes of a modest knowledge, and teaching him with Contra E­pistolam fun­dam cap. 2. Caterā quippe turbam non intelligendi vi­uacitas, sed credendi sim­plicitas tutis­simam facit. saint Augustine, that the simpli­citie of beleeuing, not the viuacitie of vnderstanding, is the peoples assu­rance. You haue words at will: but your proofes are thinnesowen. And indeede you doe nothing els but delude the people, as I haue said, and is euident, deceaue them, leade them to perdition.

He that finding a blind man in a bad and rockie way, takes from [Page]him his staffe and Guide not fu­rinshing him with another doth plainly discouer that his designe is the poore mans destruction. Euery one then must needs clearely dis­cerne that you deceaue the people and leade them to their ruine, because depriuing them of their or­dinarie guide, which is the Church, you prouide them not of another. And it is manifest that you com­mitt them to no sufficient Guide, both because the blind, simple and ignorant, can make no vse of the Scripture for their owne di­rection: and also because your ver­sions not being authenticall, as you confesse, the Scripture which you vse, can be no sufficient rule of saluation, euen to the lear­ned.

That the Church is the true Guide, if saint Augustine be be­leeued, whom Luther. in defensio, verbo, Caenae, Meosa­neiudicio post Apostolos Ec­clesia now ha­buit meliorem Augustino. Calu. 3. Instit. cap. 3. §. 10. Ex Augustino sumant lecto­res si quid de sensu antiqui­tatis certi ha­bere volunt. you accnowledge to be a faithfull witnes of anti­quitie, it is a cleare case: August epist, 16. Ait rectis­simā discipli namesseveim­periti nitātur authoritate Ecclesia. It is a most orderly discipline, saith this great [Page 118]light, that the ignorant should rely vpon the authoritie of the Church. There is nothing so behouffull for a soule as to obey, Cone. 2. in Psalm. 70. Nihil tamex­pedit anima quam obedire. he adds in another place. Contra E­plani fundam, cap. 5. Egove­ro Euangelio nen crederem. nisime Catho­licae. Ecclesia commoueret authoritas.... qua infirmatae iamnec Euan­gelio credere potero. And againe, I would not leleeue the Gospell vnlesse the au­thoritie of the Catholike Church did moue me thervnto, and after that: which authoritie being thaken, I should not giue credit to the Gospell; where it is manifest that he speakes of himselfe as a Catholike, not as a Manikie. These words doe make a cleare demonstration, that the Church is the true guide of the faithfull; nor indeede can it be called in question if we consider that the holy Ghost declared it the pillar and strength of truth: that the Fathers August con­tra Epistolam fundam. c. 5. Epist. 118. l. De vtilitate cred. c. 15. & altbi passim. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & 4. Hieron. con­tra Luciferi. doe accnow­ledge it to be infallible; and that Calu. 4. In­stit. c. 1. §. 10. Neque enim parui momentiest, quod vxcatur columna & fundamentum veri­tatis & domus Dei, quibies verbis significat Paulus ne intercidat veritas Deiin mundo Ecclesiam esse fidem eius custodem. Etc. 2. §. 2. Verè Ecclesia columna est ac firmamentum veritatis. Vvhitak. cont. 2. q. 4. c. 1. Nos dicinsus eam quae est Christi Ecclesia. In ab­solute necessariis non posse errare. Id. contra 1. quaest. 3. c. 5 & 7. Fateor & nos & haraticos cogi & conuinciposse authoritate Ecclesia, necasio argumento externo validius ac fortius premi hareticos. yours also allow it to be such [Page]in points necessarie to saluation. And who would now say that a child were not to heare and follow the documents of a mother most louing to her children, and who in things concerning their salua­tion, can teach them nothing but truth? Vve are bound to heare the Church. I will shortly bring your owne Authours to make it good. Now let vs examine, whether, as I haue said, you doe not impose vpon vs.

You doe openly impose vpon vs, while you make your followers beleeue, that we make a generall prohibition of the scripture, as be­ing a dangerous booke. It is true we are not of those, wherof Tertul. Pra­script. c. 41. Omnes tumēt, omnes scientiā pollicētur, ipsa mulieres ha­veticae audent docere conten­dere, &c. Ter­tullian speaketh: they are all puffed vp with pride, they all promis know­ledge, yea the verie hercticall Women dare vndertake to teach and dispute. Vve are not of that sort of people of whom Traet. 47 in Iean. Nihil sic amant isti, ac scientiam pro­mittere & si­dem rerum ve­rarum, quas parunls crede we pracipiun­tur, velut im­peritiam deri­dera. saint Augustine affir­mes, that they are taken with nothing so much as to promis knowledge, and [Page 119]laugh at the beleife of true things which the children were taught to beleeue, as though it had bene a meere ignorance. Vve haue no affinitie with Pela­gius, who will haue women to reade Scripture, as Hieron dial 1. contr. Pelag. saint Hierome doth note, and condamne him for it. Vve are not of your humour who iudge the scripture so easie to be vnderstode, that you make no difficultie to command all the world to reade it. In a word, we cannot allow of your wayes in making Idiots, ignorant persons, and women, their owne Doctors and Prophetes. Yet is it false to affirme that we prohibite the scrip­ture as a perilous booke, we doe not so far forgett the respect which we owe to the spirit that did di­ctate it: nor disaccnowledge the happines and truth which it pro­poseth vnto vs. Marrie we doe boldly affirme, that the Scripture, such as you propose it, that is, changed, or taken according to the letter, without giuing its true [Page]sense, the knowledge wherof de­pends vpon the Church her de­claration, is dangerous for those, who ether by ignorance, vanitie, or malice, would rashly make vse of it.

And in this we doe nothing, to which we are not moued, by the Scripture, the Fathers, and your owne men. By the Scripture 2. Corin 3. Litera occidit. 2. per 3. Quae indocti & in­stabiles depra­uant ad suam ipscrum perdi­tionem. saying in expresse termes, that the letter doth kill, and that the vn­learned doe depraue it to their owne perdition. By the Fathers, Lib. de re­surrect carn. c. 40. Haereses esse non & perpe vam scriptura intelligi pos­sent. Hilarius l. 2. de Trinit. Vi­giltus Martyr. l. 2. contr. Eutych. Ter­tullian saying, that there could be no heresies at all, if the Scripture could not be ill vnderstoode. and saint Hi­latie, shewing by sundrie exam­ples, that they sprung from the false interpretation of the scrip­ture. By your owne, Luther con­fessing, that the scripture is the Heretiques booke.

If it be commendable in a care­full mother to take the knife out of her childs hands with which through want of yeares and discre­tion [Page 120]he might hurt himselfe, and to giue it to one of more ripnes to vse; you ought rather to prayse, then blame vs, sithens we prohi­bite the Scripture in a vulgaire tongue, to some that might abuse it, and permit it to such as may reape commoditie by it.

That we permitt it to some, it is apparent by the verie confessions of Vvhit. con­trou. 1. q. 2. c. 13. Papista hac in re certam exceptionem rationemque temporum lo­corum & per­sonarum habe­ri volunt. Item Status quaestionis hu­iusmodiest, v­trum vernacu­le versiones scripturarum sint omnibus promiscuè pra­ponendae, per­mittendae vel non: illine­gant, nos af­firmamus. your owne men, who doe accnowledge, that in this we make exception of persons, tymes, and pla­ces, and that the question berwixt you and vs is not whether any can reade them or not: but whether we doe indifferently permitt all to reade them or no: which we affirme; saith whitakere, and they (meaning Catho­likes) deney that it ought to be done.

The exception which we make of persons, consists in this, that we permit such onely to reade scripture, as are able to turne it to their owne profit, not such, as would vse it to their owne damage.

The exceptions which we make of tymes and places, consists in this, that we easely permit it in tyme of heresie, and in places that are pestered with it, as in Ger­manie, France, England, Scotland, Polonie, where it is lawfull for Ca­tholikes freely to reade Scripture: marrie in places wher errour hath not gotten footing, there is no such libertie.

To those it is freely permitted: both because being dayly and hourely assalted with Scripture, reason would that the vse of it should be permitted them, that they might defend themselues with the same weapons wherwith they are opposed, while the Scripture well vnderstoode doth heale the wounds receaued by the euill vn­derstanding therof, as the Scor­pion is a cure for her owne sting­ing: and also because (since not­withstanding the persuations and ill examples of errour they stand firme in point of Faith) it is to [Page 121]be hoped they will not abuse this reading; especially sith questions of Faith being dayly handled in ser­mons, they vnderstand the ex­plication of passages which are abused to the disaduantage of truth.

But to these, to witt the con­tries where this necessitie hath no place, licence is not easely gran­ted: because the people not be­ing iustructed by the Preachers touching the sense of Scripture in points controuerted, they may more casely be mistaken.

And in this, The Church imi­tates her Spouse Iesus Christ, who reuealed misteries and secre­tes to his Apostles, S. Aug-Concio 1. inpsal. 36. Non solum si­cut magister aliquid docuit, sed sicut magi­ster aliquid nō totum tanquā magister enim sciebat & do­cere quod pro­derat, & non docere quod aberat. so far forth as he iudged necessarie, As Master saith saint Augustine, he taught some things, not all things: as Master he knew how to teach that which might be profitable, and not that which might be hurtfull. In like manner the Church permitts some thing, not all: she distributes the sense [Page 122]of Scripture, which doth profit, to all men: but to some prohibits the letter which might hurt. And in this againe she followes the example of the good mother, who crakes the nutt for her children, that they may eate the kirnell: or feedes them with her milke, till they be able to disgest more solide meates. But you in steede of imi­tating these good examples follow the Pharisies, who, as Isadore Pelusian obserues, though they cared not whether they accom­plished the law of Moyses or not, yet they would make shew of it, and would haue euery one to haue the booke in their hands. You re­semble a lewde woman, who spea­kes so much more of chastitie, by how much she doth lesse practise it. You imitate the serpent who threw Eue out of Paradice, per­suading her, Genes. 3. that she should be so farr from dying by eating of the forbidden tree (as it is written) that contrariwise she should be [Page 123]like vnto God, knowing good and euill: for you persuade the people, that they will be so far from falling into heresie by read­ing the the holy scripture, which yet the Church doth teach them, that they will by that meanes be­come greate Diuines.

And by their owne helpe alone find out their owne saluation therin, which drawes many headlong in­to errour. This is all the obliga­tion that the people haue vnto you which is like to that of a mother, who through negligence or malice, leaues a knife wherwith her child doth kill himselfe.

Now let vs see whether you doe not contradict your selues. Your contradictions are manifest; for after you haue licenced all sorts of people to reade the bible, and taught them that it is easie to be vnderstoode euen by the simple people, and that they may clearly know their saluation therby, with­out any other assistance then that which the holy Ghost imparts vnto [Page 124]them interiourly; yet you teach in other places that the scriptures are difficult; that the comon people must consult with the learned; and referre themselues to their Pastours, not being capable of themselues to make vse of the holy Scriptures. Pride, contempt, or enuey, saith l. 4. Instit. c. 1. § 5. Multos impellit super­bia vel fasti­dium, velaemu­latio vt sibi persuadeant priuatim legē ­do & meditā ­do seposse satis proficere. Cal­uin, moues some to persuade themselues, that they may make sufficient profitt by reading the scripture priuatly: and Item, Nobis quodex Paulo citauimus te­nendum est, Ecclesiam non aliter edisica­ri, quam exter­na praedicatio­ne. a litle after, we must obserue that which we cited out of S. Paule, that the Church is onely edified by externall preaching. Ther is, saith he in Calu l. 1. Inst. c. 14. Nostri of­ficijest libonter ignorare quae non conducunt. Et 3. Instit. c. 21. §. 2. Neque vero nos pu­deat aliquid in eare nesci­re, vbi est ali­qua docta ignorantia. another place, a certaine learned ignorance. Vve doe not say, saith V [...]hitak. cō ­trou. 1 q. 4. c. 1. Non dicimus quod scriptura per seita aper­ta sit. et sine interpretatio­ne sufficiat ex se ad omnes controuersias fidei dirimen­das. whitakere, that the scrip­ture is of it selfe so cleare, that without interpretation it is sufficient of it selfe to end all controuersies of Faith: because the ignorant, saith the Ibid. q. 5. c. 9. Imperiti quia non possunt, vti rectè his mediis debent illi alios peri­tiores adire. same authour, are not able to make vse of those meanes (which he mentionned before) they must haue recourse to the more lear­ned. Is not this to aggree with vs and to contradict your selues? Is not this to condemne in vs what your selues doe pactise? Is it lawfull for [Page 125]you to teach that the Church and her Pastours ought necessarily to be heard; that the Church is not edi­fed but by preaching, while you iudge vs blame worthy for holding the same thing? Why doe Capito ad Farellū in ep. Cal. ep. 6. Frae­prorsus excus­sit-multitudo, quae assueta est & educata propemodum ad licentiam. Nam clamant teneo satis E­uangelij, ipse scio legere, quorsum mih [...] tua opera? prae­dica volentibus audire, &c. you pre­ach, if credit be not to be giuen to the Church and her Pastours? why doe you impose vpon vs that we affect a voluntarie ignorance, see­ing we teach no other thing in this point, but that which we are taught by the holy Scripture and Fathers, and your owne authours confesse? You doe continually blame vs, yea euen in those things, in which we are laudable according to your owne Principles: and if the crimes wherwhich you loade vs, be crymes indeede, they are found in you, not in vs.

You say we bring God into sus­pition with men: but it appeares that we are innocent and you guiltie of this accusation; for how could one make God more suspected vnto men, then by representing him, as your Authours, Luther. de seru. arbit. Ali­ter de Deovel voluntate Dei nohis praedica­ta, reuelata. oblata culta, & aliter de Deo non prae­dicato, non re­uelato, nō culto disputandum est. Item, Non vult mortem peccatoris ver­bo scilicet, vult autē illam vo­lūtate illa im­per scrutabili. Luther, Cal. de prae­destina. volū ­tas illi (Deo) alia tribuitur quam ea quae abipso in lege patefacta est. Caluine, [Page]and Beza de ae­tern. Deiprae­destina Dici­mus quandam Dei esse volun­tatē nobis pa­tefactam quā ­dam vero oc­cultam. Sic A­phorism. 14. & 20. Martyr. in epist. ad Rom. cap. 1. Quod e­nim attinet ad peccatum, fatemur Deum illud nolle, si eim voluntatem spectemus, quae nobis legibus diuinis & sacris literis est declarata: sed quod omnino & absolutè peccatum non velit, minime concedemus. Calu 3 Instit. c. 23. §. 9. Excusabiles peccando haberi volunt re­probi, quia euadere nequeunt peccandinecessitatem, praesertim cum ex Deierdinatione inticiatur huiusmedi necessitas: nos verô inde negamusexcusari, quandoquidem Deiordinationi sua constet aequi­tas. Paraeus l. 2. de amiss. grat. Necessariò quidem, sed tamex vo­tuntarie, & iustissimo iudicio Dei peccat creatura. Zuingl. lib. de prouid. c. 6. At, inquies coactus est (Latro) ad peccandum, permitto, inquam coactum esse. all the rest doe, as hauing two wills wholie contrarie: the one reuealed in scripture, wherby he de­sires man's saluation, not his sinne, and damnation: The other hidd, wherby he desirs the sinne and dam­nation of man, yea necessitates and forceth him ther to. Doe not such blasphemies make man suspect God? none can deney it, they doe in­deede; and make your beliefe, wher­by they are taught it, abominable in the sight of God. Your beliefe is, and you ought to be suspected by men, not onely vpon this occa­sion, but also, because they doe continually heare from you, that, which they find to be contrario, and that you often vaunt of that, which belongs not to you.

And indeede to what end doe you bragge that you were the first that presented the scripture vnto France in a vulgare tongue; sithens you confesse your selues in the preface of the Bible printed at Ge­neua the yeare 1588. that it had bene translated from the tyme of Charles the V. as our Annalles doe wittnesse. To what pourpose will you make France stand in­debted to you, as though you had brought her to the sight of her Fa­thers will which was hidden from her till then: for so far are you from hauing right to this glorie, that contrariwise you are lyable to blame, for hauing violently de­priued her of it, by taking away the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ, Luc. 22. Hic calix nouum est testamentū in meo sangui­ne. which he himselfe calls his will and Testament? Is it to giue a will, to giue the figure and shadowe therof? Is it to giue a Vvill, to giue it corrupted? to giue it so as it cannot be vnderstoode? So giue you the Eucharist to the people. [Page]so doe you putt the scriptures into their hands; so doe you inlarge them with libertie in that kind! Let vs now examine what bene­fit the people can reape by hauing their publike seruice in french.

ANSWERE.

CAtholike Doctours doe teach, that since God doth promisse re­mission of sinns to conuerted sinners, such as feele no remorse of conscience, which may make them esteeme their repentance defectiue, ought to haue peace of mynd, and are morally certaine of their saluation. And therfore it is not true simply to affirme, that your doctrine is hated for teaching men to die with peace of conscience, and assu­rance of saluation: well might you auer­re that it is worthy of hate for teaching that this certaintie of saluation, which the faithfull may haue, is not onely mo­rall, but euen infallible, as proceeding from diuine faith, which is the doctrine that the Church condemneth, and you sustayne. None can know, saith the [Page 131] Sess. 6. c. 9. Councell of Trent, by certaintie of Divine faith, which is not subiect to de­cei [...]t, that he hath obtayned the grace of God.

Behold, sirs I pray, the true reason for which we may say vnto you with In Ezech. 11. Vae his hae­resibus hisque doctrints quae requiem pol­licentes & omnem aeta­tem sexum­que deci. piuni. S. Hierome: accursed be the heresies, and doctrine, which promiseng repose, deceaue all ages and sexes. Aud with the Ierem. 4. scripture, that which it affirmes of false Prophetes, that hauing peace in their mouth, in effect they haue it not. Peace, Peace, and there is no peace. For one may truly say that you decea­ue the people, seeing you doe assure them that this certaintie is of Faith, and yet following your owne principles, it hath not in scripture sufficient groun­des.

For tell me. (ô Miristers) I beseech you; to you Ispeake in your owne par­ticular, where doe you find in scripture, in expresse termes, that one of you, for example Peter du Moulin, is assured of his saluation? If you find it not, how doe you beleeue it as an article of faith: since you doe not hold the word of God barely, but the expresse word of [Page 132]God to be the fundation of Faith, as appeares by the testimonies of many Calu. Epist. contra Pr [...] ­centorem Lugd. Nihil eredendum est quod non expressum sit in scripturi [...]. Vvhital. con­trou. 1. quaest. 4. c. 1. Omntae quae sunt ad salu­tem necessa­ria apertis verbis in scripturis pro. poni nostrum axioma est. Luth. lib. cont. Reg. Ang Nullum articulum sciat a me admitti nisi apertis scrip­turae verbis munitum. The King of Eugland in his [...]. First Assure your conscience vpon the faundation of the most expressevuord of God: Sadol desacrif. c. [...]. Nos expressa seripturae sacrae testimonia efflagita mus. of yours; and particularly by the The Ratification of the ffrench Confession. All the ffrench (har­ches approoue and ratifie the aboue mentioned Confession in all these heads and articles, as being vuholy grounded vpon the pure and expresse vuord of God. ratification of your confession of faith, signed by the most famous men of your religion, and the most learned Ministers that were then amongst you: wherin you say that your faith is groun­ded intirly vpon the pure and expresse word of God.

You will easily grant that this which I demand is not expressy contayned in scripture: but that you draw it thence by consequence. This answere will appeare friuolous for diuers reasons. First I aske you, out of what passages of the scrip­ture you proue, that it is sufficient to make a thing to be beleeued by diuine faith, that it be inferred out of scripture by discours and consequence, as though forsoth, faith were discursiue and not a simple habit like to that of Principles, becausé as it giues present consent to its [Page 133]obiect, by reason of the euidence therof: so faith without reasoning doth forth­with imbrace the word of God, which is its obiect, by reason of infallible au­thotihe of him who doth reveale it. If you find this supposition in scripture; we are in the wrong; if not; you are ill grounded in your faith: for it is euident that this Principle, to witt, that it is sufficient to make a proposition to be an Article of faith, that it be inferred out of seripture, is purely humaine, and no [...] diuine.

Further, put case it weretrue, and made good by scripture, that an inference were a valide fundation of faith, yet according to your selues, this would onely haue place in consequences dra­wen out of two diuine Principles which are both contayned in the scripture; seeing it is euident, that one of them being humane, the certaintie of the cōclusion cannot be diuine: seeing that euery conclusion is of the same nature with the more imperfect part of its cause; and that that wherby a thing is knowen, ought to be better knowen then the thing it selfe. So that if the [Page 134]Principle wherby a conclusion is kno­wen, be onely knowen by a humane knowledge, the conclusion cannot be knowen by a more perfect knowledge.

Wherfore albeit, that euen an infe­rence of this nature and kind, might serue for a valide fundation of our faith, yet were it nothing to your pourpose, since in the sillogisme by which you conclude the assurance of your salua­tion, euen admitting of your owne ac count, there is but one of the Premi­ses diuine, contayned in the scripture, that who soeuer beleeues is iustified, the other which affirmes that you beleeue, being meerly humane, as not being mentioned in all the scripture, nether in expresse termes, nor yet by conse­quence.

I adde, that though it were granted, which yet is false, that a conclusion drawen out of two principles, the one diuine, the other humane, might be a sufficient motiue to oblige vs to belee­ue: yet should not that be but in regar­de it were drawen by a companie of wise and learned men, no man being of so weake a discourse, as to thinke a con­clusion [Page 135]drawen by an ignorant person, or an Idiote who knowes not what be­longes to a good inference; drawen, I say, from a Principle which he alone tinowes, is a sufficient and valide funda­kon of diuine and infallible faith.

And yet in these termes are you. A poore plough man vpon his death-bed can not be sure of his saluation, vnlesse he inferre it by consequence ont of a Principle knowen to himselfe alone, sith none but himselfe knowes, whe­ther he haue truly faith.

Nor doth it suffice to say that in this behalfe he is interiourly guided by the holy Ghost, who assures him of faith. Because in that case, we were to admitt of another word of God not written; and giuen not to the Church, but onely to e­uery particular man, whō by that meanes you make solewittnes and Iudg in his owne cause. Which you cannot with any appearance sustayne, since, contrarie to your owne principles, you should ad­mitt of another rule of saluation besids the scripture: wheras also there is none but will confesse, that though the ex­presse words of scripture were not ne­cessarie [Page 136]to ground an article of faith, yet in all reason should they be requisite to ground that by which you beleeue you haue faith: since that is the one­ly fundation of your saluation, the end and scope of all those articles which are expressed in holy scripture, which doe onely ayme at the iustification of man.

Is it likely that God who made the scripture, to teach vs therby the mea­nes to become iust in his sight would expressly haue put downe an hundred articles for example, the beliefe wherof iustifies vs not, (and which, according to you might be beleeued by the Di­uells, and by Hypocrites,) and yet would not expresly put downe that, by the beliefe her of walone you teach, that we are iustified, and that wherin you place the essence and fundation of your religion; and which is the crooke the Calu. 3. in­stit. c. 2. §. 16. Hicpraecipuus fidei cardo vertitur. sterne and Vvhita [...]. contro. 2. q. 6. c. 3. Articulus iu­stificationis nostra vide tur omnium praecipuus, & maxime fun­damentalis vipote in quo salutis nostrae prorae & puppis consist it. Caluinus respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 125. sublatae eius (fidei iustificantis) cognitione & Christi gloria extincta est & abolita religio & spes salutis peni­tus euersa, dogma ergo istud quod in religione sū ­mum erat di­cimus a vobis fuisse de­letum. puppe therof, to vse your owne words: but left it to the discourse and inference of euery man, be he lear­ned or ignorant; be he an I diote or such an one as hath no knowledge of the rules which he is to follow to make a [Page 137]good consequence. Let vs see your arguments.

Suppose the Maior to be in scriptu­re, yet the Minor is not found in it, since no mention is made of Peter in it, since no mention is made of Peter in thew scripture: hobeit it is onely kno­wen to Peter sole wittnes in his owne cause. And therfore the certaintie of the conclusion which imports that Pe­ter is saued, for two reasons cannot be in fallible: both because it depends of a medium which is humane, and fallible of its owne nature; and againe because this medium depends vpon the know­ledge of an ignorant fellow.

Nay further, it followes by this argu­ment that euery one beleeues by diuine faith that he is iuste, before he knowes that God doth say so, which cannot possibly be Gods' word which is the onely obiect of Faith.

That this followes, I shew it. Peter, for example knowes not that God calls him iuste, but onely by meanes of a syl­logisme drawen out of scripture; now the Minor, of this syllogisme suppo­seth Peter both to repent and to haue saith, which faith consistes in beleeuing that he is iustified by the apprehension of Christ his iustice; true therfore it is, that Peter beleeues that he is iust, be­fore he knowes that God saith so.

It is therfore manifest out of your owne principles, that your faith is not infallible but humaine, and vaine too. Nor haue you any thing by wh [...]h you may distinguith it from the faith of a re­probate: for though according to you, he can haue no faith, yet he beleeues, as well as you, that saith is in him, and that therby he is iustified. Let vs now see what the scriptures and Fathers say vpon this subiect.

[...] Rom. 11. T [...] [...]tem fi­ae stas [...] sed [...] force [...] tibi par­ [...]as. Thost standest by faith, saith the Apostle, be not too wise, but feare, least God may not spare euen thee. C [...]m meru & trem [...]re [...] And agai­ne, with feare and trembling worke your saluation. Which doth plainly shew that we are not sure by assurance of di­uine [Page 139]faith, of our saluation, for other­wise the Apostle should incite vs to in­fidelitie, in exhorting vs to feare least that might not happen, of which we were certaine, as though he should say, seare that there may be no resurrection, or that there is no life euerlasting: which yet diuine faith doth oblige vs to be­leeue.

Now as for the Fathers, since that in diuers places, and diuers formes of speach they doe clearly deliuer what we sustayne against you, if your doctrine be true, you must needes accuse them of errour.

Thou oughtest not be secure that thy sins are remitted, saith S. Greg. l [...]. Ep. 22. Secu­ra esse non debes de [...]pec­catis demis­sis. Gregorie. We know not, saith S. Amb. serm 5. in Psal. 118. nescimus v. trum peceata nostra ma­neant. Ambrose, whe­ther our sinns remayne. We doe greatly offend through ignorance, saith In Consti [...]. Monast. c. [...]. Mu [...] pecca­mus quand [...] nescimus. S. Ba­sile. We know not our owne workes, saith Cheysost. Hom. 11. in 1. Corinth. Non scimus operae nostra. S. Christome. We know not whether our iustice remayne, Aug. in Psal. 48. Quod non iustitia nostra maneat aut an habeamus bonam con­scientiam. saith S. Augustine, or whether we haue a good conscience. The iust are vncertaine of perseuerance, Aug. 11. de ciuit. c. 12. Iusts sunt iu­certide perse­uerentia. as the same Doctor affirmes in diners places, and with him S. Ambrose. Who of the faith full dare presume that he is of [Page 140]the number of the predestinate? De Correp. & gratias. 13. Quis fide­lium praesu­maise esse in numero prae­destinatorū. saith the same in another place. The opinions of all these fathers condemne you. Yet if all these suffice you not, giue care to Bernard. serm. 1. de 70. Scriptura re­ [...]lamat vt quis dicat. Ego de electis sum, & quod Deus praestet. fiduciam & neget certitudinem, & quod impossibile sit nosse quales futuri sumus. Epist. 107. Quod habeamus spem de beatitudine, non securitatem. Et serm. 2. de Oct. Pas [...]. nem [...] scit vtrum sit dignus amore, certitudo omnino nobis negatur. S. Bernard who, you Illyric. in Catalo. uest. verit. l. 14. Bernardus fuit a Deo ex­s itatus. say, was raysed by God. The scripture, saith he, will haue no man to say I am one of the elect; He addes further: that God giues vs confidence, but denyes vs assurance. And that it is impossibile to know what shall become of vs: that we hope for Beatitude, but are not sure to attayne vnto it: in fine that none knowes, to vse the Apostles words, whether he is worthy of loue; and that certaintie is altogether denyed vs. What more expresse words can be pro­duced, to establith our Beliefe, and to ouerthrow yours, then those which that great sainte, and glorie of France, vseth?

We will now onely make your owne condemnation proceede from your owne mouth, by shewing you to your [Page 141]aduantage, that you haue certaine luci­de interualles, which argue you to be true Heretikes, that is, following Ad Tit. 3. proprio iudi­cio condem­natos. S. Paules phrase, condemned by your owne iudgment? He are therfore Calu. 3. Instit c. 20. §. 11. Fidu­ciam non iu­ [...]go quae s [...]lutam om­ni anxietu­dinis sensu mentem suae­ui & per­fecta quiete demulceat, nam ita plae­cide acquies­cere eo rum est qui rebus cunctis ex voto fluenti­bus nullae tanguntur cura, nullo desiderio viuntur nu­lo timore astuant. Cal­uin and diuers others of your Authours. Caluine, I vnderstand not a confidence, which doth flatter the soule, freed from all sense of anxietie, with a sweete and per­fect repose: for it belongs to them onely to inioy so perfect repose who are touched with no care, possesse a with no defire, agi­tated with no feare. Faith, saith the same in 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 37. Ffide, varijs dubi­tationibus impellitur, vt raro sedate sint eorum mentes saltem non fruantur tranquillo statu. Et in Rom. 5. Nusquam est sic animus stabilitus & quin multum haereat dubitatione. another place, is assaulted with many doubtes, so that the myndes of the faithfull are rarely at rest, at least they inioy not a seatled tranquilitie Pet. Mart. tit. de iustif. a. dubitatio illa qua timemus supplicium aeter­num, in animis nostris vtrunque haeret. Peter Martir in his comon places; Those doub­tes by which we dreade eternall paines, doth still in a centaine sort sticke to our hart. Controu. 4. de Iustif. Non est fides in maxime fidelibus immunis a dubitatione. Scarpius a scotish Minister who liued in France. Faith in the most faith full is not freed from feare. In Cathol. reform controu. 3. c. 1. Docemus quod cum certitudine nostra salutis cōiuncta esse soleat aliqua dubitatio in cordibus nostris, quodque nemo hominum tam sit securus salutis suae vt non aliquando dubitet de illa. Parkins an English Minister: we teach, that toge­ther [Page 142]with the certaintie of our saluation a certaine doubt is wonte to inhabite our hartes: and that no man is so sure of his saluation, that he doth not sometymes doubt of it. Nullus viator sit certitudina­liter sine re­uelatione sibi de hoc facta se esse prae­destinatum, & nes se esse in gratia. Iohn Hus: No Pilgrime knowes certainly, that he is predestina­ted, nor consequently that he is in state of grace, vnlesse he haue had a peculiar re­uelation therof. Noman, sarth Luth. Thesi 30. Nullus se­curus est de veritate suae contritionis, multo minus de consequu­tione plenaria remissionis. Et Tract. 10. praecept, in­certum est homins num sit in statu salutis nec ne. Et Epist. ad Episc. Mogunt. Nec per gratiam Dei infusem fit homo secu­rus desalute, [...]d s [...]mperin [...]more ac tremore iu­ [...]e [...] & salu­ [...]m nostram operari Ap [...] ­stolus. Lu­there, is assured of the truth of his contri­tion, much lesse that it was follo wed with a plenarie remission of sinns, and in ano­ther place, man is vncertaine whether he is in state of saluation, or no. Againe, man is not assured of his saluation euen by the infused grace of God; but the Apostle commands vs to works our saluation with feare and trembling. In Anti-Bellar. Fate­tur quod eo­rum certitu­do non est absoluta quae­lis est in hi­storica fide, aut quae nul­lam dubita­tionem pa­tiatur. Vorstius confes­seth that they haue not an absolute cer­taintie such as is found in fide historica but a credible persuasion in historie, which doth fight with that, perpetu all disquiet and doubt of the soule.

Doth it not hence appeare that you are doubtfull of your saluation, and consequently, that you haue no di­uine [Page 143]faith since that by the doctrine of your 18 Sunday. Catechisme, Faith is a true, certaine, and firme knowledge of God's loue towards vs; wheras that which you haue, is nether certaine nor firme, since it is obnoxious to doubt, as your owne Authoursdoe grant? But I will alleadge no more passages to proue that your selues confesse that you are not sure of your saluation, it being enough to show that you teach, that euen Iesus Christ himselfe, (ô abominable and detestable blasphemie!) was not sure therof.

Seing he did offere vp himselfe to God, saith your Catechisme, 10. Sund [...] to satisfice in the name of sinners, he was to feele in his conscience that horrible distresse, as though he had bene abbandoned of God, yea as though God had bene offended with him. This abisse, saith Caluine, In Harmon. Gall. Matth. 26. [...] and horrible confusion of damnation, did rudely and to the quicke torment him with dread and anguish. And againe, [...]. In [...]tit c. [...]6. [...] 1 [...] in Franc. Death. he was necessarily to fight against the forces of Hell, and as it were in a single combat, to wrastle with the horrour of eternall damnation?

But to what pourpose doe you insi­nuate, that we by meanes of Purga [...] ­rie, [Page 144]escape the horrour of hell at an ea­sie rate; and by temporall, are freed from eternall paines: since we nether teach, nor beleeue, that we are deliue­red by those paines, but by penance and Gods grace: yea and we require far more, then you, to our deliuerie, who by one onely acte of faith, hold your selues to be absolutly freed both from faulte and paine, that God exactes no other paines at your hands, to satisfie his iustice.

To witt, it is in your market, that the saluation of soules is sold good cheape: and where to saue them at too low a rate, you loose them. Againe, what a kind of peace of conscience, and certaine securitie of saluation is that, which the expresse words of scripture doe not show, albeit your principles exact the same: which relyes vpon a humane principle, and that knowen to one onely, be he learned or vnlearned: which also is gathered by humane infe­rence; and that by such men too, as doe not knowor thinke of the lawes of a consequence; which finally is con­trarie to the scripture, the Fathers, yea [Page 145]euen your owne Authours. Bolsecus in vita Caluini, Arenius. Seblussel­bourg l. 2. Theolog. Cal­uin. The chiefe wherof Caluine, that your famous Pro­phete, dyed in deepe desperation, if we will giue credit, not onely to the Lu­therans, whom you doe accnowledge for your bretheren, and whose testi­monies (which is to be noted) were ne­uer authentically refuted, but euen to his owne followers, yea those who did familiarly conuerse with him. Dare you yet affirme, that your religion doth teach men to dy in peace, with infalli­ble assurance of saluation, while the scripture, Fathers, and your owne Doctours, doe teach the contrarie?

Your peace of conscience is a true perturbation, and your assurance of saluation, is indeede, a maine doubt what shall become of you after your de­parture. The peace and tranquilitie, which can be had in this life, is placed in that confidence of hope, which, ac­cording to the counsell of the Apostle, it behoues euery good christian to h [...]ue. We are saued saith he, by hope. And this peace is not found, Rom. 8. v. 24. Spe salui facts, suissus. saue in the Ca­tholike Church, where you ought to seeke it, imitating the doue, which was [Page 146]forced backe to the Arke whence she flow, not finding elswhere a place wher­in she could repose.

Thus you ought to comport your selues, and not rashly, as you doe, to reiect her doctrine, whom you ought to credit and reuerence as your dearest mother.

And indeed what find you reprehen­fible in her discipline, while she tea­cheth that sinns are to be redeemed by almes deeds? The scripture affirmes it in expresse words, and the Fathers doe vnanimously aggree in it. Luke 11. giue almes, and all thnigs are cleane vnto you. Daniel 4. Redeeme thy sinns by almes deeds. Tob. 12. Almes deedes doe free from death. There is no doubt, saith Aug. Serm. 2. de ver. Apost. ora­tronibus san­ctae Ecclesiae & sacrificio salutari & eleemosynts non est du­bium mon­tuos adiu­uari. 2. Hom. 41. in 1. Corinth. Iuneturmer­tuus non la­ch [...]mis sed pr [...] thus, sup­ [...] lieation [...] [...] eleemo­ [...] S. Augustine, but that the soules departed are assisted by the prayers of the Church, the healthfull sacryfice, and almes deedes. And S. Ch ylostome, the deceased is helped, not by teares, but by prayers, by supplications, by almes deedes. The Fathers are full of the like sentences, which for breuities sake I will omitt.

ANSWERE.

You are of those men that would neuer loose if their owne plea might be taken. Christ celebrated the misterie of the Euchariste in a Dining roome you in the Church; he at night you in the morning: he after supper; you before dinner he a litle before his death; you along ty me before yours: he in vnleauened you in leauened brea­de: he with men alone: you with men and women promiscuously; he once in his whole life: you ofen in yours. he after he had washed the Apostles feete whom he did communicate; you without obseruing this ceremonie which yet ho expresly Si ergo la­ui pedes ve­stros domi­nus & ma­gister, sic & vos debetis alter alterū lauare peaes exemplum dedi vobis vt quemad, medum ego fect vobis ita & ves fa­ctatis. cōmanded: he according to the ancient custumelyng; you standing vpright, he permitting his Apostles, if they pleased, to talke together, you commanding silence: he breaking the bread; you cutting it; he blissing the bread; you omitting the same. Is this your imitation of [Page 157]Christ in euery thing? Now wheras the scripture is the rule of your actiōs, produce some one passage by which you are warranted to change, in so many circunstances, what Iesus Christ performed, since you are in euery thinge to follow his footstepps and ex­ample. But if you replie, that you are bound to obserue the essentiall parres of the misteries done by Iesus Christ, yet are permitted to chāge that which he did in indifferent things; it rests that you proue out of scripture why these things which you change are more of that nature, then those which you condemne vs for changing. Or if you cnnnot doe it, Lib. 2. con­tr. aduersa legis. Hoc vanitas & non ueritas dicit. confesse that your words, are, as S. Augustine saith, vanitie, and not veritie, and that vn­iustly accusing vs, you iustly condem­ne your selues. True it is we ate in tirly and throughly to followe our sauiours example in that which is intrinsicall and substantiall in the misteries: in this all disputes and contention being layd aside, we are bound to contayne our selues with in that sobrietie and mo­deration which he prescribed, and are [Page 158]to doe and speake as he did. And. I would to God you did so, then should you confesse that the substace of the Euchariste is the body and blood of our sauiour Iesus-Christ, Matth. 62. Accepit Iesus panem & benedixit acfregit, de­ditque dici­pulis suis & att, accipite & comedite Hoo est cor­pus meum. and not a meere energicall figure of them both. For to what end doth the a scri­pture deliuer in words most expresse, not once onely, but foure tymes, by the mouthes of three Euangelists, and one Apostle that the Eucharist is the body and bloode of Iesus-Christ, Marc. 14 Accepi [...] Iesus panem & benedicens fregit & de­dit eis, & ait sumite. Hoe est cor­pus meum. with­out euer saying, in any one place that it is not his body, but onely a figure; if it intend to haue vs beleeve the oue which it saith not and not the other which it affirmes? If scripture ought to be the rule of faith, Luc. 22. Ac­cepto pane gratias egit & fregit & dedit seis a [...] ­cens, Hoc est [...]rpus meū quod pro vo­ [...]is datur hoc [...]atise mmed [...]ommemera­tionem. 1. Corint 11. Dominum Ieumin qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem & gratias agens fregis & dixst, accepite & manducate. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vo­bis [...]adetur. we are necessarily bound to beleeue that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ which it so often affirmes: nor ought we to be­leeue that it is not the body and blood of Christ, since that is not found in all scripture: nor yet doe we euer find, that it doth frequently and clearly affirme that a thing is that which it is not, with out expressing in somme [Page 159]other place, that it is not the said thing.

If the scripture be instituted to teach vs the connsells of God and of his sonne Iesus-Christ, who by it speakes vnto vs, who will euer be induced to beleeue, that the scripture to teach vs that the sacrament of the Euchari­ste is bread and wine, not the body and blood of Christ who, I say, would euer imagine, that to moue vs to this beliefe, it should so frequently incul­cate that it is the body and blood of Christ, and yet neuer once pronounce that it is nether of them? Who will euer frame this iudgement of it, vnles such as hauing their braynes inuer­ted, will haue euery thing to be vnderstood preposterously and aganist the sense; one contrarie by another; and the negation of a truth, by the affirmarion of the same. Christ is no mo [...]ker of men; nor is he ignorant of the vsuall manner of their speach: he tells them not one thing, to moue them to beleeue another. Wherfor seeing he doth so planely tell the Apostles that what he gaue them in [Page 160]the Eucharist to eate was his body, nor could he find words in which he could more clearly deliurer himselfe, there can be no doubt made, but he deliue­red his owne verie body vnto them; other wise it must needes be said that ether he deludes men, Aug. l. 33. contr ffaust c. 7. Quid ergo eum le­gimus obli­uiscimur quemadmo­dum loqui soleamus? Anscriptu­ra Dei ali­ter nobiscum fuerat quam nostro modo loguutura yea and that in a matter of greatest moment to salua­tion; or verily, that he was ignorant how to expresse his mynd vnto them.

Whervpon you will giue me leaue to make that demande to you in this occasion which as I noted aboue, St Aug, made to the Donatistes in the like occurrence. Why when we reade doe we forgett how we are wonte to spea­ke: aught the scripture of the Almightie to vse any other māner of speach to vs then our owne?

And wheras Iesus Christ doth say plainly and expresly that he giues vs his body, deliuered for vs, then which words we can desire none more signifi­catiue none more cleare, to moue vs to beleeue that it is his owne true body, what can hinder you to beleeue, that it is his true body which he giues vnto vs? Would you haue him to haue [Page 161]said, this is truly, really, properly, substantially, my body. If some one of these aduerbes were necessarily to be added to manifest the truth of the thing affirmed, we should not be obliged to beleeue the most part of the principall misteries of our faith, which notwithstanding you beleeue as well as we; to witt, that Christ was borne of a virgine; that he suffered and dyed: for in deliuering these truthes the scrip­ture makes vse of none of those Aduer­bes: nor had it any more expresse termes then those which it vsed to signifie the presence of the body of Christ in the Euchariste.

As therfore, if one doubted whether a thing appearing a far of were truly a man, it were not necessarie, to giue assurance of the same, to adde these words, truly, really, but it were assu­rance nough to say absolutly, it is a man (for as the Philosophers hold, this word, true, Verum non additenti. addes nothing to the thing) so likewise, that Iesus-Christ might shew his body truly to be in the Eu­charist, it is sufficient to affirme it in plane words, taken in their owne [Page 162]signification. Which was especially to be done here, where he doth not onely say, this is my body, but also, my body giuen and deliuered for you, which words doe designe the true body of Christ, which alone was deliuered for vs. How­beit it is euident, that the nature and beeing of a thing, is more clearly ex­pressed by such words as affirme directly what it is; then by others which doe onely point at it vnder a certaine name, without affirming expresly that it is that thing, vnder whose name it is signified; and consequently, we haue more reason to beleeue, that the Eu­ch r [...]st is the body of Iesus-Christ, be­cause the scripture saith directly that so it is; then to beleeue that it is breade because the scripture signifies it vnder the name of breade; especially sith it addes Ep [...]hites to this name of breade, which remoue it from its owne signifi­cation; and contrariwise when it affir­mes that the Eucharist is the body of Iesus-Christ, it saith it with restrictions, which doe confine as it were, and straig [...]ly ty the word body to signifie the true body of Christ.

The names of things doe not inferre the things themselues, vnlesse they be imployed to expresse the beeing of the things. For example, Christ is said to be Apoc. 5. v. 5. a Lion, a 1. Corinth, 10. v. 4. Rocke, a Ioan. 15. v. 1 vine a Ioan. 10. v. 7. do­ree by analogie and similitude onely, for as much as the effectes, not the nature of these things are in Christ. Psal. 175. Manna is tearmed breade in holy scripture, though it contayne not the substance of breade.

If in one place the scripture comman­de vs to communicate; and in another it propose vnto vs the fruite of commu­nion, and in some pass g s also declare the end: were it not an affected blindnes, to vndertake to inferre out of those places, what the Eucharist were, and not rather to draw it out of the places where the institution therof is contay­ned? I meane, out of these expresse words, this is my body, which God pronounced of set pourpose, planly to declare what the Eucharist was, Lib. de Reli­gio cap. de E [...]d [...]. and yet Zuinglius openly professeth, that he de­pends not vpon these words this is my bo­dy, but vpon this onely proposition, the flesh auayleth nothing. If I should [Page 164]propose these two propositions, a man is a reasonable creature; and this, a man is borne to serue God: I loe more clearly expresse the nature of a man by the first, then the second: for by the first I doe distinctly explicate his beeing by his essentiall partes: Wheras by the se­cond I doe onely declare, to what that beeing hath relation, and to what end it is produced. Yet you will needes run the contrarie way, sustayning contrarie to all reason, that Iesus-Christ did more clearly expresse, what the Eucharist is, when he did onely declare Luc. 22. Hoc sacite in meam com­m [...]oratio­nem. Fr [...]. Cori [...]th. 11. Quottes cunqueman. ducabitis pa­nem hune & calicem bibetis, mor­ [...]en. domini [...]nunciabi­tis. its end, then when he did establish, and expresse it nature and beeing.

Nay you doe yet worse. For you doe not onely choose rather to gather your beliefe out of the words of the scripture, which [...]hew the Ioan. 5. Qui mandu­cat hunc pa­rem, viuet in ae [...]ernum. effect, the Luc. 22. & 1 Corinth. 11 cit. end, or the Panis [...]uem ego da [...]e [...]aro me [...] est. promises of the Eucharist, then those wherin are taught the first institu­tion therof (by which notwithstanding all the rest which concerne this misterie ought to be explicated: but you doe euen ground your faith vpon discourses which make no mention therof: As for example, when you inferre that Iesus-Christ [Page 165]cannot be really in the Sacra­ment, because the scripture teacheh vs, Ephes. 4 [...] that he is asc [...]nded into heauen, and that we ought not to looke him vnder the symboles of the Eucharist, because it is written that Marc. 14. Ioan. 12. we shal not alwayes haue him with vs. What reason, I pray you, nay what apparence or shew of rea­son is there to say, that the scripture speakes more clearly what the Eucharist is, when it speakes not of it at all, or at least but indirectly, then when it vn­dertakes expressly to explicate its nature and beeing.

If diligent notice be taken of the large difference, which is betwixt your man­ner ef proceeding and ours, I doubt not, but by comparison, we should haue quickly gayned our cause, by the iudgement of the whole world. For why should we rather beleeue that Christ is true God; that he assumed hamane nature; that he suffered death and passion, and other the like myste­ries, vpon the scriptures simple affirma­tion therof; then that the true body of Christ is in the Eucharist, it being confirmed by the expresse word of [Page 166]God, and that with such restrictions, as doe oblige vs to vnderstand by this word body, the true body of Iesus-Christ? Why should not credit rather be giuen to the words of the sonne of God, then to the conclusions which you gather out of two principles wher­of the one indeede is scripture, yet speakes not of the Euchariste, nor of its substance; and the other is purely humane, destitute of all probation? A man must nether haue eyes nor braynes in his heade, to giue more credit to your imaginations, then to the words of Iesus-Christ; and follow rather your deceip [...]fall inferēces, then the expresse words of the Gospell. In things that belong vnto God, saith Lib. 1. de p [...]cc [...]t. merit. c. 20. In Dei r [...]bus domi­num audia­mus non [...]oniecturas, suspicioues­que mort [...] ­l [...]. S. Aug. let vs giue eare to our Lord, and not to the coniectures and dreames of mortalls.

Hauing now hand [...]ed this first tru [...]h, now let vs heare the Pastors of Gods ch [...]rch, those especially of the first ages. Doe not they say that the Euchariste, An [...]s. l. 6. de [...]a­ [...]ram c 1. Si ut Chri­ [...]lus verus Deut, i [...]a ve­ [...]aro. Cy­ [...]s A [...] & saluie. is the true and proper body of Christ. truly and properly the H [...]lar. 8. de Trints. Sie [...]im vere verhum caro factam est, & nos vere verbum car­nem cibo do­minico su­mimus. Iustinus in Apolog. Theophyl. in Matth. 26. blood of Christ. That Hilar. 8. de Trinit. in nobis carna­libus ma­nentem per ca [...]nē Chri­ [...]tum habe­mus. Christ i [...] in vs by his flesh? That the Cyril. Hi [...] ­rosol. Cate­chis. 4 hic qus vi [...]e [...]ur a nobis non est nobissed corpus Christi, & vinum non vinum sed sanguis Christi. Ambro l. 4. de Sacrament. Damasc. 4 defide &c. 14. Nec vero panis & vinum corporis Christi sigurasunt, aebsit en [...]m hoc, verum ip­summet domini corpus. Eucharist is not bread, wine, a figure, [Page 167]but the body and blood of Christ? That the Cyrillus tract. 10. in Ioan. Non negamus recta nos side charitateque sy­mera Christo spiritualiter coniungi, sed nullam nohis naturalis coniun­ctionis rationem secundum carnem cum illo esse, id profecto per [...] [...]a­mus, idque diuinis scripturis omnino alienum [...] Augu [...] l [...]. [...]. con [...] aduersa. seg. c. 9. Fidelt corde atque oxe sus [...]pimus mediatorem [...] & hominum Christum Iesum. body of Christ is not onely rec [...]a [...]ed by faith and Charitie, but euen with the mouth? That Christ is Ambros. l. 3. de spirit. sancto c 12. Carnem Christi in mysterijs adoramus quam Apostoli in domino Iesu adorarunt. Aug l 10. contra sfaus [...]am c. 13. adored in the Euchariste? That his Chrys. l. 3. de saerdot. O [...]. [...]raculum [...] ô D [...] be [...]ignitat [...] inqus sursū s [...]d [...] cum Patre, eodem temporis momento omnium manibus per [...]ractatu [...]. body being in the Eu­charist, is also in many other places?

How is it possible that they should posituely say what we beleeue, and that in so diuers kinds of speaches, a [...] of them expresse, cleare, and directly opposite to the words which you vse to destroy it, if they had beleeued what you beleeue? That cannot be said, vn­lesse one would imagine, that the holy fathers, to deceaue vs, would say one thing, and beleeue another.

Nay none dare so much as thinke it: but contrariwise we haue greate occa­sion [Page 168]giuen to accnowledge the diuine prouidence, because, wheras it is suffi­cient to teach a truth, to affirme, and auerre it to be so in ordinarie termes, according to the customarie manner of expression: God to whom all things are present, foreseeing the extreame assaults which would be made against his Church in the dreadfull misterie of the Euchariste, thought it not suffi­cient, that the holy Fathers should onely simply affirme the reall presence of the body of Iesus-Christ therin; but further, he would haue them to teach it in a forme of speach, quite op­posite to that, by which he foresaw this truth would be denyed, Epist. ad Argentin. which is so cleare, that though Luthere im­ployed sixe yeares to inable himselfe to explicate the words of the institution of the Euchariste, figuratiuly, as he him selfe confesseth, yet he accnowledgeth that he was not able to doe it; condem­nes those that doe it as heretikes; and confesseth the reall presence of the body of Iesus-Christ; wherin he is followed by the Cōfession of Ausbourg the first of all yours.