WHat is Christian Re­ligion?

It is that worship and seruice which euery good & godly man ought by ver­tue of bond and obligation to ten­der vnto God himselfe.Theologia disciplina est non contem­pla [...]rix [...] sed practica Syst [...] Theol. pag. 2. I [...] diuinas scripturas recte legit, qui vertit verbain ope­ra. Bern. Wherein is chalked out vnto vs the way as wel of liuing heere honestly, as liuing hereafter happily; as Augustine saith in his booke of true Religion, the first Chapter. The onely course of liuing well and happily consists in true Religion, whereby we know the onely true God, and [Page 2] worship him in holy purenesse. Hoc Philoso­phiae genus in [...]ffectibus si­tum verius, quam in Syl­logismis, vita est magis quā disputatio, &c. Eras. in Paracles. ad studiis Christi­an. Philosoph. For by re­ligion the soule of man, which be­fore by sin was separate from God, being now reconciled, is againe ti­ed and re-vnited to God, from whence Religion hath its very name: For when we re-lige, as it were; that is, oblige and binde ouer againe our soules vnto God, then we empty our selues of all supersti­tious worship contrary to Gods seruice. So saith Lactant. lib. 4. ca. 28. & l. 6. c. 1. We are by the tye of Religi­on bound and obliged vnto God, Syst. Theol. pag. 4. whereup­on it is called re-ligion, not as Cicero wil haue it, of relection, but of religation, in as much as God doth heereby binde vs o­uer to his seruice, whom it is our part to serue as our Lord, and to obey as our Fa­ther. For in very deed this is the dutie of man, wherein the sum of all, and the sum­mitie of a blessed life doth consist. This is the very first step in wisdome, to know what it is for God truely to be a Father vnto vs, and him with all sanctitie to worship and re­uere, obeying his will, and wholy deuoting our selues to his seruice.

[Page 3] Which be then the principall parts wher­in Christian Religion, or, the speciall actions wherein the worship of God standeth.

There be three of them. 1. The meditation of the word of God, and consequently of faith in Christ our Sauiour, which is especially com­prehended in the word of God, to whom wee must referre all in our meditation. 2. The vse of the Sa­craments instituted by Christ. 3. Inuocation of Gods holy name ioy­ned with the loue of God, and our neighbour. Of the formost and last part of Christian religion, we haue spoken elsewhere, and at another time; at this opportunity it is our purpose only to treat of the middle or second Branch of Christian Re­ligion, or the seruice of God, and therin touching the vse of the prin­cipall Sacrament of the new Te­stament, namely the Lords Supper, which is called commonly the holy Communion, as also the Eucharist, that is, a most eminent sacrifice of thanksgiuing to Christ our Sauiour.

[Page 4] Wherein consisteth the true vse and due preparation to the holy Com­munion?

In two things; to wit, in Know­ledge, and Deuotion.

Of what sort is that knowledge, which appertaineth to our commendable preparation vnto, and our lawfull vsing of the holy Communion?

It is of two sorts, Generall, and Particular.

Of how many kindes is our generall knowledge?

Of two, either it is Primary and independant, or Secondary, and a­rising from the former.

How many parts hath the former kind?

It consists of a double doctrine, the one of God, the other of Gods Word.

What is God?

God is a spirituall essence,Syst. Theol. pag. 10. 1. be­fore all,Ibid. p 93. most perfect, eternall, 2. in­finite, 3. almighty,Ibid p 105. & seqq. of incomprehen­sible wisedom, goodnesse, 4. mercy, 5. Iustice,Ibid. p. 116 subsisting in three per­sons, the Father,Ibid p. 117 the Sonne, and the holy Ghost.

[Page 5] What are we to consider in God?

Two things, the Essence, and Person.

What, and of what sort is the Essence of God? Si non est v­nus, non est. Tertul. Deus est vnus imo, si dici potest, vnis­simus, Bern. Syst. Theol p. 14. contra Tritheitas & Manichaeos.

It is most simple, and onely one, so that God, in regard of his Es­sence, is simply one, as the Scrip­ture witnesseth, Deuter. 6. vers. 4. Heare oh Israel, the Lord our God is one God. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. One God, and one Mediatour.

What is the Person?

It is the maner of being in God, whereby Gods Essence is made re­latiue, [...] Iustin. Mar. & Damasc. Syst. Theol. pag. 19. De Deo loqui etiam vera periculosissi­mum est. Arnob. S. Th. p. 56. & 58. and respectiue; which rela­tion notwithstanding neither mul­tiplieth the Essence, nor diuides it into parts, which may in some sort appeare by the degrees of light and heat. For in the Sunnes light, there are certaine degrees, as morning, or twilight, and noon-light, or per­fect sunne-shine. And yet for all those degrees, the light is the same. So in heate luke-warm, and scalding hote, though they make two de­grees, yet they make vp but one [Page 6] numericall caliditie,Ibid. p. 16. which in a higher degree is in boyling water now, before being in the same wa­ter inclining to feruent heat, in a lower degree. So then, that we may apply this instance to our present purpose,In Deo èst alius & alius non aliud & aliud. Vinc. Lerinens. Meus Deus tam non ha [...]bet hoc & i [...]lud. quam non haec & il [...]a. Bern. in some resemblance, the Persons of the Deitie, or these di­uers maners of Gods being, do not multiply the diuine essēce, no more then the diuers degrees of heate or light, do multiply the light or heat: so that I speak right whē I say there are mo persons in the diuine essence but it cannot bee vttered without blasphemy, to say there are in God more Natures, or mo Gods thē one.

How many persons are there?

[...]. Nazianzin. Qui n [...]scis Trinitatem, i [...]o ad Io [...]danem. Mat. 3. Aug. Syst. Th p. 46. vide etiam p. 35. & seqq. Dicamus tres sed non ad praeiudicium vnitatis, di­camus vnum sed non ad con [...]sionem Trinitatis. Bern. v. Syst. Theol p. 49. [...]. Na. Quomodo pluralitas in vnitate sit, aut ipsa vnitas in plurali [...]tate, scrutari hoc tomeritas est, credere pietas est, nosse vita, & vit [...]aeterna est. Bern.Three, the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost, which is prooued by manifest Testimonies of holy Writ. Matt. 28.19 Goe teach all nati­ons, baptizing them in the name (so by the authoritie and appoyntment) of the Father, the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. Iohn 15.26. When that Com­forter shall come, whom I will send to you from the Father, euen the Spirit of truth, [Page 7] who proceedeth from the Father, hee will testifie of me: where they are all three plainly named; The Father, from whome the holy Spirit is sent; the Sonne, who sendeth; and the holy Ghost who is sent, 1. Ioh. 5.7. There bee three which beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in essence or nature

How prooue you that these three Per­sons be that one God?

First, I must haue it granted, that these three persons are distinct, be­cause he that sendeth, is distingui­shed from him that is sent, & he frō whō, is distinguished frō him that is sent. Now Io. c. 15. plainly saith, that Christ is hee that sendeth, the Holy Ghost him that is sent, and the Fa­ther, from whom the Sonne sendeth the holy Ghost. Whence I doe ne­cessarily infer, that these three man­ners of being in God are distinct: [Page 8] which being graunted, I shall easily prooue this three-fold manner of being, or these three Persons in the diuine Essence, to be that true God. For first, as touching the Father, the very aduersaries themselues yeeld, that he is truely God.Christus est Deus [...] contra [...] [...] contra Apo­lina [...]. [...] contra Ne­stor. [...] contra Eutych. Syst. Theol. pag. 52. & seqq. And touch­ing the Sonne, we haue manifest te­stimonies of the Scripture, Rom. 9.5. Of whom (namely the Israelites) are the fathers, of whom Christ came as concerning the flesh, who is God aboue all, blessed for euer. If aboue all, therfore aboue those, who by reason of their excellent guifts are called Gods That the holy Spirit is God, these Sentences of Scripture plainely prooue: Acts 5.3. Peter saith to A­nanias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart, that thou shouldest lye against the holy Ghost? And presently he addeth v. 4 Thou hast not lyed vnto men, but vnto God Therefore the holy Ghost is God. Another place is 1. Cor. 2.10. The Spirit searcheth all things, euen the profound things of God: And the verse following, For who knoweth the things &c. Whence we may thus reason, [Page 9] whosoeuer knoweth the secrets, the profound secrets of God; or which is all one, whosoeuer is omniscient, is God: but the holy Ghost is Om­niscient. Ergo. The Maior is euident, the Minor is expressely in the Text. Secondly, whatsoeuer is in God, is God: but the holy Ghost is in God: Ergo. The Proposition is of certaine truth, for that God, who is a most simple essence, voyd of all difference and composition, cannot consist of any thing which is not God. The assumption is in the text, vers. 10. where it is said; As the reasonable soule is in man: that is, of the es­sence of man, so the holy Spirit is in God. Hitherto may that testimony 1. Cor. 3.16.v. August. Enchirid. cap. 56. be referred; Know yee not that ye are the Temple of God, and that the holy Spirit dwelleth in you? where the latter words do expound the former: for it is all one, as if the Apostle had said; Know ye not that yee are the Temple of God, seeing that the holy Ghost dwelleth in you, who is God? But if the aduer­saries say, that the spirit is nothing [Page 10] else, saue the effects and gifts of God, they are most manifestly con­futed, and confounded by the words of the Scripture, 1. Cor. 12.4, 5, 6. There are diuersities of gifts, but the same spirit; there are diuersities of ministrati­ons, but the same Lord, &c. And verse 11: All these gifts worketh that one and selfe same spirit distributing, &c. Whence ariseth this argument; He that distributeth a gift, is not him­selfe that gift that is distributed, but the holy Ghost is the distribu­ter of all those gifts: Ergo. The Pro­position is cleare enough. The As­sumption is plaine in the text, where it is said, that the spirit work­eth, and distributeth all those gifts. Another argument out of the same text may be this: He that is endued with a will, he cannot be a bare ver­tue or accidēt, but is a substāce sub­sisting by it self, but the holy Ghost, &c. Ergo. The Maior is cleare: for whosoeuer willeth, he vnderstādeth, and whosoeuer willeth and vnder­standeth, he must be a substance by it selfe subsisting. The Minor is [Page 11] clearely set down in the text, where it is said; The Spirit distributeth to euery one as he will

I haue heard the doctrine concerning God, Fuit principium es [...]endi DEVS, se­quitur cog­noscendi principium VEREVM DEI. non [...] Verbum Christus, sed [...] Verbum Christi. Syst. Th. p. 167. Qui Scrip­turam igno­rat, 'Christum ignorat, Hieronym. tell me now besides what the holy Scripture is?

It is that testimony and witnesse which God hath giuen to Mankind, as touching his owne nature and will, and as touching those things which appertaine to the saluation of man.

How is the holy Scripture diuided?

Three manner of waies: first, by reason of the time wherein it was reuealed: secondly, by reason of that authority it hath in prouing: third­ly, by reason of the matter which it handleth.

How is the Scripture diuided in re­spect of the time wherein it was re­uealed?

Into the Old and New Testa­ment. The old Testament therefore is that part of the Scripture, which God reuealed to the first of man­kind, and people of the Iewes which liued vntill the Ministery of Christ, [Page 12] which he reuealed, I say, by the Pro­phets, as by his Scribes and Nota­ries. But the New Testament is called that part of the Scripture which God hath reuealed to man­kind after the birth of Christ, by the Euangelists and Apostles, as by his Pen men or Notaries.

How is the Scripture diuided, in respect of that authoritie it hath in prouing?

So it is diuided into the bookes which are Canonicall, and those which are not Canonicall, but Apo­cryphall?

Which do you call the Canonicall Books?

S. Th. p. 169. item p 173. Hi constitu­unt [...]. Chrysost.Those which are of vndoubted authoritie, in prouing the Articles of Faith, or which are the square, and rule of our faith: for Canonical is deriued from Canon, which signi­fieth as much as a rule or square.

Of what sort are the Canonicall books?

Of two sorts, either of the old, or of the new Testament.

VVhich bookes of the old Testament are Canonicall?

The Canonicall Scripture of the S. Th. p. 82.old Testament is deuided into foure [Page 13] rancks; the first containeth the fiue Bookes of Moses; the second, those Bookes which are called Histori­call, as these; Ioshua, Iudges, Ruth, the two Bookes of Samuel, the two Bookes of Kings, the two Bookes of the Chronicles, the Books of Esdras, Nehemiah, Ester. The third, Bookes which are written in verse, which are called Poeticall, as these; Iob, the Psalmes of Dauid, the Prouerbs of Salomon, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs: the fourth comprehendeth the Prophets, which are either grea­ter Prophets, in number foure, or lesser, to wit, twelue.

Which Books of the new Testament are Canonicall?

The Canonicall Scriptures of the new Testament is diuided into the history of the Euangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostles Epistles, and the Prophecy, or Reuelation of Iohn.

Which are called Apocryphall, or not Canonicall?

Which are not of infallible truth and authority in prouing the Arti­cles of faith,S. Th. p. 190. & consequently which [Page 14] are not the rule, and square of our beliefe, but containe precepts of life, and historicall instructions.

Which are those Apochriphall Books?

Among the Books of the old Te­stament, as wee haue before said, there are some found not to bee Ca­nonicall, such as the Booke of Tobias, Iudith, Wisdome, which falsely is as­cribed to Salomon; Ecclesiasticus, or Syracides, the third and fourth books of Esdras, all the bookes of the Mac­cabees, Baruch with Ieremy his Epistle, the Prayer of Manasses, the frag­ments of Ester, the additions to Da­niel, as is the Song of the three Chil­dren, the Historie of Susanna, the Hi­storie of Bell and the Dragon. None of all these bookes are to bee found in the Hebrew tongue, in which Language onely God would haue the bookes of the old Testament to be written, neither were they writ­ten by the Prophets, or any person immediately called of God. Neither doth Christ, the Euangelists, or the Apostles cite them at any time: and to conclude, there be many vntruths [Page 15] in them. Wherefore when the Pa­pists vrge any thing out of these bookes against vs, we must answer, that those bookes containe not the infallible Word of God, and conse­quently that they haue no firme force, or validity in prouing.

How is the Scripture diuided, in respect of the matter it handleth?

Into the Law and the Gospell: for that part of Gods word is called the Law, wherein wee are taught what we ought to doe, but the Gos­spell is that part of Gods Word. wherein we are taught, what wee ought to belieue, and consequently wherein we haue the remission of our sinnes promised vs by faith in Christ.

I haue heard sufficiently touching the diuision of the Word of God, I pray you also instruct mee in the proprie­ties of it?

That will I willingly do, so I first admonish you, that hereafter wee shal alwaies take the holy Scripture for the Canonicall bookes only, and not at all for the Apocryphall.

[Page 16] VVhat is the first proprietie of the holy Scripture?

S. Th p. 171.The first proprietie is, that it de­riues all its authority from God a­lone, not from the assembly of godly men, which is called the Church

How prooue you this?

I prooue it by these reasons: first, the testimony of God hath not any authoritie from men. The Scripture is the testimony of God alone: Ergo It hath none authority from men; yea, the most holy men that be; and consequently not from the Church, which is nothing else but a compa­ny of godly and sanctified men. The force and pith of the argument you shall find, 1. Ioh. 5. If we receiue the witnesse of men, the testimony of God cer­tainely is greater. Secondly, that must needs be before the Scripture in na­turall order, of which the authoritie of the Scripture dependeth: But the Church is not before the Word of God: Ergo. The Maior proposition is euident, because that which de­pendeth of another, must needs come after that, on which it depen­deth. [Page 17] The Minor is thus prooued: That which is gathered, gouerned, regenerated by the Word, or by the Scripture, that is in order after the Scripture. But the Ch. Ergo. The Maior is plaine, the Minor is proo­ued by 1. Pet. 1.23. VVee are regene­rated, & borne a new by the word of God. Iames 1.18. Hee hath begotten vs by the word of truth. Ioh. 17.20. VVhich by their word shall belieue in me. Third­ly, the foundation of any building depends not on the roofe, or vpper roomes, which are built vpon the foundation, but contrarily those same vpper roomes, and the roofe depend vpon the foundation: but the Word of God is the foundation: Ergo. The Maior is plaine in it selfe. The Minor is confirmed by that, Ephes. 2.20. You are built vpon the foundations of the Prophets and Apostles. The Papists obiect to vs that place,Obiect. 1. Tim. 3.15. VVhere the Church is said to be the pillar and ground of truth. Answ. Whereto we answer, that this ar­gument is sophisticall, or a fallacie,1 commonly called a Dicto secundum [Page 18] quid ad dictum simpliciter: For the Church is not called the piller and ground of truth, in regard of it selfe, but in regard of Christ the head, 2 who is that corner stone. And fur­ther it is so called,S. Th. p. 181. in regard it is the keeper of the Scripture, forsomuch as God hath made the Church onely to haue to doe with the treasurie of his Word, and in the Church, as on the pillar and doore of his house, or pallace, he hangeth those holy Ta­bles, which euery man must go thi­ther to reade. No otherwise then the Magistrate hangeth vp on pil­lars, and gates of his Court, Tables, containing in them his Lawes and Decrees, to the end that his subiects may there reade them, as in a pub­like 3 place. Lastly, the Church is called the Pillar of truth in this re­spect, because that God vseth the te­stimony of the Church as his instru­ment, and meanes for the proposing, teaching, and expounding of the ho­ly Scripture vnto men: for the Mi­nisters of the Church are the con­seruers of truth, and the interpre­ters [Page 19] of the Scriptures, yet not so, as if the authority of the Scripture did depend on them, but because God v­seth them as his seruants and Mini­sters to propound, and to beate into the memories of men his holy Scrip­ture; euen as a Prince vseth a Cryer for the promulgation of his lawes vnto his subiects. And here take this similitude with you: a man go­eth to the Vniuersitie, as vnto the very shop and store-house of lear­ning, yet herevpon it followeth not, that the truth of that learning we are taught there in the Vniuer­sitie, doth depend on the authoritie of the Vniuersity. Besides, this must 4 also bee obserued, that whatsoeuer the Papists say, touching the autho­ritie of the Church aboue the Scrip­ture doth nothing at all profit them, but that they manifestly begge the point in question, whilest they thus argue: The Church hath authoritie aboue the Scriptures: The Pope of Rome is the Church: Ergo. For sup­pose wee grant them their Maior (which notwithstanding is false, as [Page 20] wee haue manifestly prooued), yet they are neuer able to proue their Minor, as shal be showne anon more distinctly.

VVhat is the second propriety of the Word of God, or the holy Scripture?

S. Th. p. 176.That it be entire, perfect, and suf­ficient to saluation, which is proued by that, Ioh. 20.30. Many other signes did Iesus which are not written in this Booke; but these things are written that you may belieue, that Iesus is the Christ, that Sonne of God; and that you belie­uing, might haue life by his name. Out of which place I thus reason: That which is so written, that by it wee may belieue in Christ Iesus, and so obtaine eternall life, that, I say, is sufficient to life eternall: But the Scripture is so written: Ergo. Againe thence I thus argue: The holy Scrip­ture was written to this end, that wee might belieue in the Sonne of God, and get eternall life: Ergo, Whatsoeuer Word is not written, profiteth, or auaileth vs nothing to faith, and to eternal life, which must diligently be noted against the er­rour [Page 21] of the Papists,Quod non legi, vsur­pare non debeo. Amb. Non sum aliorum ser­monum dis­cipulus, nisi co [...]lestium, Origen. which say, there are two words of God, the one writ­ten, the other vnwritten; vpon which pretence they will needs ob­trude vnto vs Traditions, which they call Apostolicall, the Decrees of the Popes, and the custome of the Church. Of which the Councell of Trent in the fourth sessiō thus spea­keth: VVhosoeuer doth not with like af­fection of mind, reuerence the Traditions of the Church, as he doth the holy Scrip­tures, let him be accursed. But against these Traditions, first, note the suf­ficiency of the Scriptures. Second­ly, this argument: The Traditions of the Church either agree with the holy writ, or they dissent from it. If they be consonant to it, then they say the selfe same thing the Scrip­ture saith, and so they are Scripture: for that ought not in all reason to be done by moe, which may be perfor­med by fewer. Or they dissent from the Scripture (as all the traditions of the Popes, as namely, that tradi­tion, whereby the Cup in the Lords Supper is prohibited to be admini­stred [Page 22] vnto the lay people, and such like). And if they disagree with the Scripture, they cannot fill vp the Scripture, for that which is repugnant to any thing, doth not fil vp, but rather quite ouerthrow it. Another testimony of the perfecti­on of the holy Scripture is most ma­nifest, in the 2. Tim. 3.6. The whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration from God, and is profitable to teach, to reproue, to correct, to instruct; that the man of God may be perfect, and perfectly instructed to euery good worke. From whence wee may frame these arguments. First, the Scripture is a totum, an entire thing: Ergo, it is perfect; for a to­tum is that, which wanteth no ne­cessary parts. Secondly, that which sufficeth vs for doctrin,Adoro ple­nitudinem Scriptura­rum. Tertul. for reproof, for correction, and instruction, that is full and compleate: for there is none that can shew any thing be­sides, wherunto the scripture should be profitable. But the Scripture is sufficient to those things: Ergo. Thirdly, that which maketh a man perfect, and furnished to euery good [Page 23] worke that same must needs be per­fect: but the Scripture doth so. Ergo. The Maior is therefore true, because there is no effect which is more perfect then its cause, or be­cause a perfect effect presupposeth the cause to be perfect, and nothing can giue that to another, which it hath not it selfe, if the Scripture therefore make men perfect, then it must also be perfect.

VVhat is the third proprietie of the holy Scripture?

That in the Articles of faith,S. Th. p. 199. which are necessary to saluatiō it be plaine, easie and perspicuous; easie, I say, and perspicuous; first, in respect of them to whom it ought to bee a light for their saluation, according vnto that, 2. Cor. 4.3. If our Gospell be hid, it is hid to thē which perish: whence it necessarily followes, that the Gos­pell is not hid, but cleare, and open to those which do not perish, as Pe­ter saith, 2. Pet. 1.19. You doe well, in that you attend to the word of the Pro­phets, as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place, Psal. 19.15. The word of [Page 24] God is cleare. Psal. 119. The word of God is a light to our feete and steppes. Secondly, the Scripture is easie, as it is an instrument, which it hath de­riued to it from the principal guide, the holy Spirit, who is that true teacher and interpreter of the Scrip­ture, Ioh 14.26. The aduocate which is the holy Ghost, he shall teach you althings. 1. Ioh. 2 27. That anointing, that is, the holy spirit, teacheth vs of all things. Also, Ioh. 16.13. VVhen that Spirit of truth shall come, he shall leade you in all truth. Lastly, it is easie, if that in the handling of it wee vse conuenient meanes, and expound one place by another, according to the rules of good and lawfull exposition, which you may reade in the 201 page of my Systeme of Diuinitie.S. Th. p. 201. If then any shall demand, who hath the au­thoritie to interpret the Scripture, if the Pope of Rome bee hee? I an­swere, that euery one is the best in­terpreter of his owne words, where­as therefore the Scripture is the Word of God, & of the holy Ghost, and not of the Pope of Rome, there­fore [Page 25] the holy Spirit hath the autho­ritie to interpret, as that true aduo­cate and teacher of verity. But why then doth the Bishop of Rome cha­lenge to himselfe this authority to interpret the Scriptures? I answer; because hee knowes well enough, how bad his cause is, and therefore dares not submit his Tenents to the Word of God, or the Scripture, if it be rightly vnderstood, and therfore will he wrest, and stretch the Scrip­tures at his owne pleasure. Touch­ing which point, I would haue you note the words of a certaine Apo­state from the faith, Caspar Schoppius Papist, who is now at Rome with the Pope; he in that Epistle he wrote touching his defection from vs vn­to the Papists, about sixe yeares a­goe, set out at Ingolstadium, in the 24 page, saith thus, The summe of all con­trouersies betwixt the Catholikes & the Lutherans consists in these two things; That besides the holy Scripture, the Tra­ditions of the Apostles, & of the Church, are necessary to be belieued. And that the holy Scriptures themselues, neither can, [Page 26] nor ought to be interpreted of any with authoritie, saue of the Catholike Ro­mane Church. In which two Doctrines, if one be once perswaded and setled, he will easily yeeld and adioine himselfe to the Church of Rome in the rest of the chiefe points of faith: For if I were to dispute with the Heretikes, about any ar­ticle of faith, it must needes be that there be somewhat set downe in the Bible, tou­ching my opinion, or that there be nothing at all to be found for it. If there be no­thing in the Bible for me, presently then I say, that it was wont so to be obserued by tradition from the Apostles, in the Church of Rome. But if there be some­what contained in the Bible, touching mine opinion, and the Heretike will inter­prete it another way then might serue my turne, then presently I oppose to him, the Church of Rome, that it hath so inter­preted it: so that euery Dispute ought to be reduced to these two heads. Thus farre he. And truly this is it that the Pope of Rome labours for, that he may wrest the Scripture as see­meth him good; and then it is, as if any offering to fight with another, [Page 27] and the weapon should be a sword, he would fight vpon this condition, that he may be suffered to weild his aduersaries sword as he will. And so it is likewise, as if any would haue a suit in Law, tryed before the Iudge according to the lawes, but vpon this conditiō, that it may be lawfull for him to interpret the law on his owne side; iust so the Pope doth, for he saith, I will dispute with you out of the Scripture, but so, that it may be lawfull for me to interpret the Scripture on mine owne behalfe. I would haue this also noted, that if the Papists demand, who is the Iudge in the controuersies of faith? Wee answer,S. Th. p. 174. item p. 203. that the chiefe and highest Iudge of controuersies of faith, is he who is the Author, both of faith and of the Scripture, to wit, the holy Ghost. According to that of Ioh. 16. When the comforter shall come, he shal reprooue, he will iudge the world of sin. And then only the Scripture to be the Law and Sentence of this iudge, according whereunto iudgement must be giuen concerning contro­uersies [Page 28] of faith, as it doth most ma­nifestly appeare by Iohn 5.45. There is one who accuseth you, euen Moses, i. e. the writings of Moses which giue iudgement against you; and yet more manifestly, Iohn. 18. vers. 48. He that reiecteth and receiueth not my words, hath one that iudgeth him. This word, &c. It is not true therefore which the Pope of Rome saith, that he is the chiefe Iudge and decider of controuersies: for he is not fit to be a iudge who is accused and found guiltie of deprauing and falsifying the word of God.

I haue heard you sufficiently about the former sort of knowledge of Christian Religion, or touching the principles of Diuinitie, to wit, God and Gods word: Now I desire to be instructed in the second kinde of knowledge, arising from the for­mer, that is touching the parts of this heauenly Doctrine which doth spring from the Doctrine which is of God and of the holy Scriptures?

You tell me right, and I perceiue you well vnderstand the method [Page 29] and progresse, which ought to be obserued in vnderstanding the do­ctrine of Religion, and therefore now will I instruct you touching the parts of Diuinitie or Christian Religion.

How many parts hath this secondarie or deriued knowledge?

Two: whereof the former, is of the end it selfe, the latter is of the meanes that leade vs to that end.

What is the end of Diuinitie?

Saluation, or life euerlasting.

How many waies is the saluation of man considered?

Two manner of waies: either as it is perfect and complete, or as it is but begun and imperfect: or, either in respect of the life to come, or of this present life.

What is perfect & eternall saluation?

It consisteth in 3. things.S. Th p. 210. First, In most absolute perfection of bo­die and soule. Secondly, In that vn­vtterable ioy wherewith we shall triumph before God, the holy An­gels, and godly men. Thirdly, In that most euident Maiesty, glory, [Page 30] and honour, wherein we shall tri­umph ouer death, Sathan, sinne and sinfull men. And this is that which Peter saith, 2. Pet. 1. v. 4. We shall be made partakers saith he, of the diuine nature, of diuine perfection, ioy and glory. And Phil. 3. v. 21. Christ shall transforme our base body, that it may be like the glorious body of Christ. Esay 64. v. 4. 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. The things which eye hath not seene, nor the eare heard, nor euer entred into the heart of man to conceiue, are those which God hath prepared for them that loue him.

What is imperfect saluation, or that which is begun only?

S. Th p. 211.It is a taste of eternall saluation, or that comfort and ioy of consci­ence which we haue in this life ari­sing from the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, and from that confidence we haue towards God, whom we cer­tainly know to be reconciled vnto vs by Christ Iesus: so that no cala­mitie whatsoeuer can be able to se­parate vs from his loue, no not death it selfe, or that anxitie and horror which vsually we feele at the houre [Page 31] of death. Of this the Apostle spea­keth, Rom. 5. v. 1. Therefore being iu­stified by faith, we haue peace, i. e. a ioyfull and merry conscience in the very midst of calamitie and death, Rom. 8. v. 35. Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ? shall oppression? shall anguish? &c.

I see now what the end is I may ex­pect to reape from this heauenly doctrine, which how much the more it is desirable, so much the more I long to know the meanes, by which I may be conducted to this end?

The meanes whereby thou mayst come to this most desired end,Partes Theo­logiae duae, [...] & [...]. S. Th. p. 212. are two. First, the knowledge of thy misery. Secondly, thy redemption out of that misery;

The former part of this heauenly sci­ence touching the diseases of the Soule.

How may I come by the right know­ledge of my misery, or of the sores of my soule?

If thou shalt weigh well with thy selfe these foure things. 1. That [Page 32] which went before thy misery. 2. The efficient cause of thy misery▪ 3. The parts of it. 4. The exempla­ry cause, or glasse wherein thou hast represented vnto thee thy misery.

What is that which went before the misery of mankinde?

Quanto vi­demus ma­iora fuisse bona, qua a­misimus; tan­to gra [...]iora cognoscemus esse mala in quae incidi­mus Vrsm. S. Th p. 218.That happy and blessed estate wherein man was inuested by God before his fall, or the image of God which was in man.

What is the image of God in man, or rather what was it?

It was nothing else but that absolute and perfect estate be­fore the fall, consisting in the per­fection of the vnderstanding and the will of man, and further in the maiesty of man whereby hee farre excelled all other of the crea­tures; or, that I may speake yet more plainly, the Image of God in man was either prime and prin­cipall, or secondary and depending of the former. The prime Image was both in his minde and in his body.S. Th. p. 224. In his body there was per­fect health and safety. In his minde [Page 33] there was vnderstanding without errour; will without staine of sinne. That other image which depended or arose from this, was that maiestie and alacritie was in man, springing from the perfection of his body and soule; touching which, the Scrip­ture speaketh, [...]. Nazianzen. Gen. 1. v. 26 Let vs make man according to our image, and according to our likenesse: Ephes. 4. v. 24. Paul cals true righteousnesse and holinesse the Image of God. Hither­to must be referred the whole do­ctrine touching the state of Man before the fall, and touching his li­uing in Paradise, anent which, you may reade Gen. 1. v. 27, 28, 29. and all the second Chapter of that Booke.

What is the cause of mans miserie?

The fall of our first Parents, or the defection of Adam and Eue, S. Th. p. 233. from God in their first estate of innocen­cy, which was by the eating of the forbidden fruit.

What haue we to doe with the fall of Adam and Eue, seeing then wee had no being at all?

[Page 34] Adam and Eue did represent all mankind, and therefore they had gi­uen them felicitie and the Image of God for all mankinde; wherefore in regard, they by their offence lost that which they had receiued for all mankinde, they lost it not in them­selues alone, but in all their posteri­tie. Euen as if a King should giue any one some Priuiledges for him­selfe and his post [...]ritie, and he that had these Priuiledges granted, should be attainted of Treason a­gainst the King, then surely he him­selfe should loose all those priuiled­ges which hee had gotten of the king, and his posteritie should get no benefit of them neither.

And was this so great a matter to bite an Apple, and to eate of it?

The eating of the Apple was a most grieuous offence not in regard of the Apple it selfe, the losse there­of was but small, for there were Apples good store in Paradise: but because that eating flowed and is­sued as it were from the fountaine of most horrible sinnes,V. Aug En­chind ad L [...]ur [...]t ca 4 [...]. & 46. to wit, from [Page 35] pride, man thereby affecting the seate and Maiestie of God,Qui mandu­couerunt vt essent quasi Dii, perdi­derunt quod eran [...] facti homines im­mortales. Augustin. and so became guiltie of high treason a­gainst Gods Maiestie, as God mockingly casts man in the teeth, Gen. 3. Behold Adam is made like vnto one of vs, that is, he is made as it were one of the persons in the Sacred Trinitie. Another sinne is vnbeleefe, in that our first Parents did not be­leeue Gods words to be true, when he said, in what day soeuer ye shall ea [...] of it, ye shall die the death. But con­trariwise, in that they readily belee­ued the diuell, who spake vnto them by the Serpent as by his instrument, and told them, that they should not die at all, and so they gaue more credit to him then vnto God. The third sinne is contemptuousnesse, and disobedi­ence, for we ought to obey God in all his commands, euen in those which wee thinke are but of little reckoning. The fourth sinne is vn­thankefulnesse, for man was created after the likenesse and Image of God, and therefore it was his duty to obey Gods Commandements in [Page 36] token of his thankfulnesse for the benefit. The fift and most grieuous sinne was that apparant reuolt and fal­ling from God to the diuell, namely when man went about to attaine to be like vnto God by the Counsell and helpe of the diuell, and so con­spired as it were with the diuell a­gainst God.

I haue also heard of the cause of mise­rie, or of the diseases of the soule, tell me now further, what be the parts of our misery?

They be two: Sinne, and the pu­nishment for sinne; for in these two things our misery consisteth. First, that we are sinners: And secondly, that we for sinners are lyable to tem­porall and eternall punishments.

What is sinne?

S. Th. p. 247. Geminū pec­cati formale, pugnantia cum lege & ordinatio ad poenā. Vrsin. [...], 1. Io [...]. 3.4. Est dictum factū concu­pitum contra [...]ogem De [...]. Augustin. It is a stepping aside from that rule of perfection and righteous­nesse which God requireth at our hands. Or it is whatsoeuer is re­pugnant to the Law of God.

What sorts of sinne be there?

Two: Originall and Actuall.

What is Originall sinne?

[Page 37]It is that staine and corruption of humane nature,S. Th. p 251. Nihil pecca­to originali ad praedican­dum notius, nihil ad in­telligendum secretius. August. Peccatum originis est carentia iu­stitiae origi­nalis d [...]bitae inesse. Aug. Peccatum originis est, quod trohi­mus à nati­uitate per ignorantiam in mente, & per concupiscentiam in carne, Hugo. of the vnderstan­ding and will of man, whereby a man euen from his very birth is carryed, and haled along to sinfull actions; of this sinne speaketh the Scripture, Gen. 6.5. The imaginati­ons and thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually: Psal. 51.7. In iniqui­tie was I formed and conceiued, and in sinne hath my mother brought me forth. that is, My sinne was conceiued and borne with me. Rom. 5.12. By one man sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne. Also; By the disobedi­ence of one man, many were made sinners.

What is actuall sinne?

It is that obliquitie or prauity,S. Th. p. 268. Committen­do quae ve­tantur vel omit [...]endo, quae man­dantur nam boni virte [...]t non tantum rectè [...]gere, sed etiam rectè ociari. by which the actions and doings of a man, are carried in a course contra­rie to the Law of God, or else when a man offends against the will of God, not onely in inclination and pronenesse, but in deed it selfe.

I haue heard of the former part of mans miserie, namely, of sinne; what [Page 38] is the other part of humane misery?

The punishment of sinne.

How many kinds of punishments for sinne be there?

Two, Temporary and Eternall.

Temporary punishment, what is it?

S. Th. p. 285.It is that misery which a man en­dures in this life, as pouerty, dis­grace, diseases, and at the last death it selfe, which is called, the wages of sinne, Rom. 6.

What is eternall punishment?

It is that vnspeakable sorrow, torment, and disgrace, which the damned shall suffer in hell with the diuell and his Angles.S. Th. p. 286.

I conceiue now the parts of mans mise­rie, shew mee also the exemplarie cause▪ whereby as in a glasse, I may come to the knowledge of my mise­rie?

The glasse wherein we may per­fectly see our misery, is that high and strict rigour of the law of God, both in exacting that righteousnes, which wee are neuer able to per­forme, and also in threatning most grieuous punishments which they [Page 39] must abide, which doe not satisfie the Law of God, either by them­selues, or by another.

Whence may wee know that rigour of Gods Law?

First, euen by euery Commande­ment of the Decalogue, of which wee cannot in this life performe so much as one perfectly; the summe of which Commandements are con­tained in those words, which Saint Matthew hath, Chap. 22. Luke▪ 10 Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God, &c. Secondly, by those grieuous com­minations, which are added to these Commandements: Cursed is euery one that abideth not, &c Deut. 27.26. Gal 3.10. This then is our grea­test misery, that wee cannot satisfie the Law of God, sithence wee are not able nor apt of our selues to thinke any good: 2. Cor. 3.5. and consequently that according to Gods word wee must be cursed both in this life, and in the life to come, vnlesse wee can obtaine from the great mercy of God, redemption and remission of our sinnes; which is another thing, [Page 40] euen an excellent remedy agaist our misery, that this heauenly disci­pline setteth out vnto vs, and which we meane now to handle.

The second part of this cele­stiall Science, which is touch­ing the freeing of Man from his misery, that is, from sinne, and the punishment of sinne.

I Know well my misery, I would gladly know how I may be freed from this mi­sery, or what remedy there is for these diseases of my soule?

The remedy is two fold, either prim [...] and independant, or secondarie, and depending of the former.

Which is the prime, or independant re­medie?

S. Th. p 296.It is our free predestination and election, whe [...] by God hath decreed from all eternity, to redeeme and saue euerlastingly some certaine men by his Son, of which these say­ings of the scripture beare witnesse; [Page 41] Ephes. 2.4, 5. Hee hath elected vs in Christ before the foundations of the world were layd. Hee hath predestinated vs, whom he might adopt for sonnes in Christ Iesus, [...] euen out of the good pleasure of his owne will. Rom 8 vers. 30. Whom he hath predestinated, them also he called. Rom. 9.Disputare vis mecum [...] mirare mecū & exclama, O altitudo! Augustin. I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy: therefore election is not in him that willeth, or in him that run­neth, but in God which sheweth mercie, Psalm. 15.16. Acts 13. vers. 4, 5. And so many of them as were predesti­nated vnto life eternall belieued Mat. 20. vers. 16. Many are called, but few elec­ted.

I haue heard, as touching the prime remedy of our misery, to wit, electi­on vnto life eternall, now instruct me in the other kind of remedy?

That is diuided into three heads, 1. Redemption: 2. Iustification: 3. Sanctification.

What is Redemption?

It is the setting of vs free from sinne, and the punishment of sinne, wrought by Christ Iesus, the Son of God our Redeemer.

[Page 42] How many things offer themselues to be considered about our Redemption?

Two: the efficient cause, or Au­thor of Redemption: Secondly the obiect of it, whereunto redemption appertaineth.

Who is our Redeemer?

Iesus Christ: for he is made vnto vs of God Wisdome, righteousnesse, sanctifi­cation and redemption. 1 Cor. 1.36. 1. Tim. 3 16. There is one Mediatour betwixt God and man, euen the man Christ Iesus.

How many things are we to consider in Christ our Redeemer?

Two: his person, and his office.

How many things are there to bee con­sidered in the Person of Christ?

Two: to wit, the parts of it, and there Vnion.

Of how many parts doth the person of Christ consist?

S. Th. p. 312.Of two: the diuine nature, and the humane. And this I proue, that Christ consisteth on these two Na­tures, because hee is true God, and true man. That he is true God, wee haue spoken before, when wee pro­ued [Page 43] the Son to bee God. And truly that there is another Nature in the Son of God, besides the humane na­ture, may bee proued by two mani­fest arguments, the former whereof is this: In what person soeuer there is made a distinction & limitation, so that one thing is attributed to it, by reason of one part, and another thing agreeth vnto it, by reason of another part, in that person of ne­cessity there must be two natures: but in the Person of Christ there is such a limitation: Ergo. The Minor is proued out of Rom. 1.3. where the Apostle saith, that the Son of God was made the seed of Dauid according to his flesh. Whereupon it necessarily fol­loweth, that there is another thing in Christ besides his flesh; for when as I say, that man is immortall ac­cording to his soule, it must needs follow, that there is som other thing in man beside his soule: for euery li­mitation, argueth a diuersity in that which is limited. The other ar­gument is, to whom many things are attributed, which can in no [Page 44] wise agree to humane nature, in him there must needes be another nature or essence distinct from the humane nature. But vnto Christ many things are so attribu­ted: Ergo. The minor is proued by that, Iohn 8. v. 19. Verely, Verely, I say vnto you, Before Abraham was I am. This can by no meanes be vnder­stood of the humane nature, because Christs Natiuity was two thousand yeares after Abraham. That tri­fling exposition which the Samosa­teuian Heretikes giue of this place, before Abraham was, to wit, the father of the faithfull, I am, is alto­gether vnsound, and not sounding with the text, neither with the scope and intention of Christ in this place; For he was to answer to the obiection of the Iewes, who had said in the verse going before, Thou art not yet fiftie yeares old, and hast thou seene Abraham? Now what an an­swer should this haue beene, if he had said, Before Abraham was the father of the faithfull, I am; for that should haue beene as ridiculous an [Page 45] answer, as if when one should say to me, thou art not yet forty yeares old, and hast thou seene Sigismund king of Polonia? and I should an­swer, Before my sonne shall get a sonne, and be a father, I am; would not all laugh at such an answer, gi­uen to that question? and that Christ is Man, it needes no prouing, because all grant it.

Why is not the sole humane nature of Christ, Persona est 1. substantia 2. singularis 3. Intelligens 4. Non pars alterius. 5. Non susten­tata ab alio. 6. Incommu­nicabilis. v. Syst. Th. l. [...]. c. 5. Totus totum me assumpsit ut toti mihi salutem gra­tificaretur: quod n. inas­sumptibi [...]e est incurab [...]le est. Lumbard. called a Person as well as euery one of vs be called persons?

Although the humane nature of Christ consisteth of a soule and a body, euen as we doe, notwithstan­ding it can not subsist a part by it selfe, without adioyning it to the diuine nature, whereas we can sub­sist euery one by himselfe seuerally; otherwise he is like vnto vs in other things, sinne only excepted, as the Scripture witnesseth, Heb. 2. v. 14. Because therefore the children are parta­kers of flesh and blood, euen Christ also was made partakers of them. And v. 16. He tooke not the Angels, but the seede of Abraham, whereupon hee ought to bee [Page 46] made like vnto all his brethren in sub­stance; namely, according to his soule and body:S. Th. p. 320. Which may be ob­serued against the Vbiquitaries, who conceit there was another kind of humane substance in Christ, then such as we haue; namely, such a one as can be in one, and the selfe-same instant of time euery where in all places both in heauen and earth, and so they confound the diuine and humane nature one with the other.

I haue heard what be the parts of Christs Person: now shew me what is the vnion of those two parts in Christs Person?

It is that indissoluble knot, wher­by the humane nature is so surely ti­ed vnto the diuine, and the diuine nature so linked to the humane, that of them two is made but one Per­son, and that those natures for euer cannot be dis-ioyned the one from the other.

What are we to consider in this vni­on?

Two things, to wit, The cause of the vnion of the two natures in [Page 47] Christ, and then the proprieties of this vnion?

What is the cause of the vnion of these two natures in Christ?

The conception of the humane nature in the Virgin Maries wombe wrought by the Holy Ghost,S. Th. p 323. Assumpsit quod non e­rat, non a­misit quod e­rat. August. and then the Natiuitie and Incarnati­on, whereby after that most straite coniunction of the humane nature with the diuine in the Virgin Ma­ries wombe,S. Th. p. 316. [...]. Cyril. Salua propri­etate vtrius­que naturae, suscepta est à maiestate hu­militas, à virtute infiro mitas, ab [...] ­teruitate mortalitas. Leo. V. Pet. Lumbard. l. 3 sent. di­stinct. 2 [...]. the man Christ was borne and brought forth into this light, See Syst. Theolog pag. 323.

How many proprieties hath this v­nion?

Three: First, that it is exceeding fast and sure. Secondly, that it can not possible be dissolued. Thirdly, that by reason thereof, those things that agree only to the one nature, are notwithstanding attributed to the whole Person, because of either of those two natures. See Syst. Theo­log. pag. 320.

I haue heard as touching the Person of Christ, now it remaines, that I be instructed in the office of Christ, [Page 48] and first of all that you tell mee how the office of Christ is called generally?

S. Th. p. 326.It is in generall termed the office of a Mediatour.

What is a Mediatour?

Generally a Mediatour impor­teth such an one as doth reconcile the party offending to the party of­fended, which reconciliation consi­steth in these three things. 1 The Mediatour must take intercession for him that hath grieued the partie offended. 2. He must satisfie the partie offended for the iniurie and wrong done 3. He must promise and likewise prouide that the offen­der shall not offend any more.Non media­tor homo prae­ter de itatem, non media­tor Deus prae­ter humani­tatem sed inter diuini­tatem solam & humani­tatem solam mediatrix est humana diuinitas & diuina hu­mmitas. Au­gust. And therefore when we say Christ is a Mediatour, it is as if we say that Christ is that Person that hath ap­peased God, whom Mankinde by their sinnes had most grieuously of­fended, and who hath giuen satis­faction to the iustice of God by his Passion and Death, who prayeth for sinners, and applyeth his merit vn­to them by faith, who regenerateth [Page 49] them by his holy Spirit, that they may begin in this life to hate sinne, and to be warie that they offend God no more.

Of how many sorts is the office of Christ our Mediatour?

Of three sorts. Propheticall, Sa­cerdotall, and Regall, in regard wherof our Sauiour is called Christ, i. e. anointed and appointed vnto this triple office, because in the Old Testament by Gods own command, there were anointed Prophets, Priests, and Kings.

Which is the Propheticall office of Christ, and in what doth it con­sist?

It consists in two things.S. Th. p. 333. 1. In the Office of teaching: And 2. in the Efficacie of his teaching: for Christ is called a Prophet. 1. Be­cause hee hath reuealed God and Gods will vnto Angels and vnto men. For God could no otherwise be knowne, then by the Sonne, ac­cording vnto that: The Sonne who is in the bosome of the Father, he hath re­uealed him vnto vs. 2. Because hee [Page 50] hath appointed and preserued in his Church the Ministery of the Gospel, and bestoweth on his Church able Teachers and Ministers, fitting and furnishing them with gifts necessa­rie for teaching, Ephes. 4. v. 3. Christ hath giuen some to be Prophets, other to be Apostles, and Teachers. 3. Because he is powerfull by the Ministerie of the Word, and inclineth the hearts of such men as are elect, to beleeue and obey the Gospell, Luk. 24. v. 25. Then he opened their vnderstanding, that they might vnderstand the Scriptures, Act. 16. v 14. The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, to attend vnto those things which were spoken by Paul.

Which is the Priestly Office of Christ, and wherein doth it consist?

S. Th. p. 340.It consists in three things. 1. In the purging of our sinnes 2 In the vertue and applying of that purga­tion. 3. In his Intercession for vs: for as the Priest in the Old Testa­ment had two Officers, the one to make attonement for sinne, and the other to pray for the people. So likewise the Priestly Office of [Page 51] Christ heerein consisteth. 1. That he should offer himselfe as a Sacri­fice to his eternall Father for our sinnes. 2. That he should make in­tercession for vs vnto his eternall Father.

What are there to be considered in the first part of Christs Priestly Office, to wit, in the satisfaction for our sinnes?

There be two: namely, the causes or meanes whereby Christ wrought this expiation, and so satisfied for our sinnes, and 2 the Proprieties of that Expiation.

What be the causes by which Christ wrought this expiation?

These be of two sorts, either Prime, or arising from the prime causes.

What is the prime cause?

The obedience of Christ in that he humbled himselfe,S. Th. p. 342. and was sub­iect to the Law, to the end that he might satisfie for vs, who had bro­ken the Law. According to that, Rom. 5. v. 19. As by the disobedience of one man, to wit, of Adam, many were [Page 52] made sinners; so by the obedience of one, to wit, of Christ, many shall be made righteous.

What is the other cause arising and springing from this prime cause?

It is twofold. The Passion; and the Death of Christ.

Of what sort is the Passion of Christ?

It is of two sorts. Externall, and Internall.

What is the Externall Passion?

It is both that anguish which Christ endured in his most Sancti­fied body; and also that ignominy and shame which hee sustained for our sakes.

Which was the Internall Passion?

That wonderfull sadnesse, and heauinesse,S. Th. p. 347. which Christ felt in his soule for our sinne; Of which it is said,Deum pati plus est quam omnes homi­nes in omne aeternitatem pati. Math. 26. v. 38. My soule is heauy euen vnto the death, where by death hee vnderstandeth not only corporall death, but eternall, as if he had said, my soule is as heauy and sorrowfull, as their soules are which must for euer be damned.

[Page 53] How many were the torments of Christ in soule?

Two.

Which is the former?

The former was in the GardenS. Th. p. 348. before he was apprehended and led to publike iudgement:Audi vtram­que vocem, tum carnis iu [...]mae, Pater, si possibile sit, transeat à me calix: tum prompti animi, Non tamen vt ego volo sed vt tu v [...]s fiat. Am­bros. for there be­gan he to be affraid of himselfe, lest God should leaue and forsake him, whom he then beheld as one who was grieuously offended by the sins of Mankinde, and consequently who was extremely angry with him that had taken and translated vpon him­selfe the sinnes of the whole world.

Whereby doe you know the great­nesse of these torments, and suffe­rings in the soule of Christ?

By two tokens. First, in that Christ there needed Angels to com­fort him, and to hold him vp, lest be­ing too much affraid by that horri­ble sight of the angry and wrathfull God, he should haue fainted, See Luk. 22. v. 13. and hence it was that he vttered that speach, My soule is heauy vnto death, euen to eternall death.

[Page 54] What is the other token of those most grieuous torments in the soule of Christ?

His bloody sweat: for this was a manifest signe that all the naturall forces in Christ were much weake­ned and as it were bound from do­ing their office, by reason of that great torment and terrour, so that nature could not keepe the blood any more in the veines, but was faine being congealed, and clotted, to cast it out as it were, and driue it to the exteriour parts, of which great violence and terrour, the like example can no where be read in any Historie.

Which is the other suffering or torment of Christ in soule?

The latter was that which a little before his death hee felt vpon the Crosse, when he stroue against that temptation of his perpetuall sepa­ration and abiection from the face of God, whereupon hee sent forth that dolefull cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? where by a Metonymy he calleth that feare­full [Page 55] temptation (wherewith those are wont to be troubled whom God hath cast from his sight, and quite forsaken) desertion or forsaking. For requisite it was, that Christ should endure such a temptation, that hee might deliuer vs from eternall dam­nation.

I haue seene the Passion of Christ, now tell me his death?

The death of Christ,S. Th. p. 355. is the sepa­ration of his Soule from his Body, whereby he satisfied for, and pur­ged our sinnes and deliuered vs from eternall death. And so much the very shedding of blood and wa­ter out of Christs side did manifest, of which Iohn speaketh, Iohn 19. v. 34. One of the souldiers (saith he) pear­ced his side, and presently issued out blood and water; by the blood, Christ sig­nified that our sinnes were ranso­med, and satisfied for: by the water, that we are washed from the filth of our sinnes.

It followeth now in order that you in­struct me as touching the proprie­ties and benefits of Christs Passion, [Page 56] tell me therefore what is the first proprietie of Christs Passion?

This it is, that it was altogether necessary, in regard that mankinde could no way else be freed from eternall death, but by the death of the Sonne of God: And that for this reason, because the most high God is most iust, and therefore ne­uer remitteth sinnes without satis­faction; sithence, that by nature he hateth sinnes, and can in no wise en­dure them: for he that is iustice, most eminently, cannot away with iniustice, euen as the fire cannot a­bide water. As it is said, Psal. 5. Thou art not a God that willeth wicked­nesse. Againe, plaine places of the Scripture doe testifie the same, Rom. 8. v. 3. That which was impossible to the Law, that hath God done by sen­ding his Sonne, i. e. that which by no other meanes could haue beene per­formed, was done by the death of the Sonne of God, Heb. 2. v. 14. Therefore because the children are parta­kers of flesh and blood, he also in like man­ner was made partaker of them, that hee [Page 57] might abolish by death him that had the power of death, that is, the Deuill; and in the verse following, and might set at libertie those which through the feare of death were subiect vnto bondage all their life long, that is, that he might redeeme those which otherwise should haue perished eternally, vn­lesse Christ had wrought their Re­demption. And truly if there had beene any other way to haue satisfi­ed for sinne, then that might haue beene performed, either by our selues, or by some other creature. But we could not haue done this for our selues. 1. Because whatsoeuer good we doe, we doe already owe it vnto God, and that which wee owe vnto God, is not the price of Redemption or satisfaction: but it is due debt. 2. Because wee adde somewhat to the score of our debts euery day, and therefore wee can neuer bee able to satis­fie and pay them. And that wee doe daily adde sinne vnto sinne, See Iohn 15. vers. 15, 16. Psal. 130. v. 3. Math. 6. v. 12. Math. 18. [Page 58] v. 25. Thirdly, Because sinne is a hurt and iniurie to God, and so an infinite euill, and therefore also de­serueth either eternall punishment, or one equall thereunto, out of which (if it had beene laid vpon vs) we could neuer haue beene a­ble to haue freed ourselues. No o­ther creature could satisfie for vs, for example, Not the Angels: first, Because man, and no other creature may be punished for that sinne man had committed, the Iustice of God requiring that it should be so, as it is said, Ezech. 18. v. 30. That soule that hath sinned, euen that shall die. Se­condly, Because no creature, no not the Angels are able to escape and free themselues out of eternall pu­nishment.Homo debuit sed no potuit, Deus potuit sed non de­buit, &c. O sapientia potens attin­gens vbique fortiter [...] ô potentia sa­piens, dispo­nens omnia suauiter Bern. Whereupon it followeth, that it was requisite, that hee who should satisfie the Iustice of God for our sinnes, should be truly God, and truly man. Man he was to be, because man had sinned, and there­fore Gods Iustice so requiring, he that should pay and smart he must be man, as it is said, Heb. 9.22. [Page 59] Without shedding of blood, Non satia­bar dulcedi­ne mirabili, considerare altitudinem consilii tui super salutē generis hu­mani. Aug. Opus sine ex­emplo, gratia sine merito, charitas fine modo Bern. O foelix cul­pa, quae talē & tantum meruit re­demptorem! there is no remission of sinnes: wherefore that Christ might shedde blood, it was meete he should be man. And he was to be God too: First, that by the power of his diuinitie, he might vn­dergoe the infinite anger of God a­gainst the sinne of mankinde, with which anger Christ should certainly haue beene ouerwhelmed, if he had beene but bare man; Because God is a consuming fire, Deut. 4. v. 24. and therefore as man he desireth the cup of his Passion might be taken away frō him, as being that which he could not beare, as he was man: And as man he cryeth out vpon the Crosse, Oh God why hast thou forsaken me? Secondly, It was needfull that hee should be truly God, who would sa­tisfie for our sinnes, that his suffe­ring and punishment might be of in­finite worth, and so equiualent to e­ternall damnation: For, because we by our sinnes had deserued not only Temporall put Eternal punishment, it was necessary that he who would take in hand our deliuerance, should [Page 60] vndergoe not the temporall punish­ment alone, but the eternall too; the eternall not by reason of the ex­tent and continuance of it, but in value and equiualence, that is, his punishment was to be equiualent to eternall punishment, or to haue an equall proportion with eternall pu­nishment, But no mans punishment can equiualize eternall punishment, but only of him who is himselfe eternall who is truly God, where­upon the Fathers said very right and deuoutly. For God to suffer it is more, then for all men to be damned eternally. 3. Because the satisfaction must needes haue beene of infinite worth and valour, to the end it might sufficiently serue for the purging and ransoming of all mens sins. But none there is that can work such a satisfaction of infinite valour, vnlesse he himself be infinite, that is God.

What is the 2. propriety of Christs passi­on?

That it was truly expiatory, and satisfactory, that is, our sins by ver­tue [Page 61] of Christs expiation were for­giuen vs, which must be noted, 1. a­gainst the Samosatenians, who blas­phemously say, that the Passion of Christ was only exemplary, that is, that Christ by his Passion would giue vs onely an example to obey God in all things, and to beare the Crosse which God shall lay vpon vs patiently, as Christ before vs pati­ently did beare his Crosse. This dan­gerous doctrine, that throweth our consciences headlong into the pit of despaire, arose from no other spring, then the deniall of the God­head of the Sonne of God. For, because there was none could sa­tisfie for our sinnes, except hee were God, as wee haue also a little before prooued, and the Samosa­tenians deny Christ to bee truely God, therefore no farly was it, if they thought, that the Passion of Christ was not satisfactory but on­ly exemplarie But to their blasphe­mies we oppose; First, the Diuinity of the Son of God, proued and euict­ed already by euident testimonies, [Page 62] to wit, when we necessarily infor­ced that Christ who suffered for vs was the Sonne of God, and hence it will follow that his suffering was of infinite valour, and consequently, that it was satisfactory. Secondly, most apparent testimonies of holy writ, Esay 53. v. 4. He himselfe car­ried and bare our infirmities truly, and v. 5. He was tormented for our sinnes, and hee was broken for our iniquities, Rom. 5. v. 9. Now then being iustified by his blood, we shall be saued. 2. Cor. 5. v. 18. All these things are of God, who hath reconciled vs vnto himselfe by Iesus Christ, and vers. 21. He made him who knew no sinne to be sinne for vs. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5, 6. There is one God, one Media­tour of God and men, euen the man Christ Iesus who gaue himselfe, a price of our Redemption. An example is one thing, and a price or ransome is ano­ther thing, Galat. 2. v. 20. The Sonne of God hath giuen himselfe for me, for if righteousnesse be by the Law, then Christ died with out a cause; as if he had said, Christ dyed to that end, that by his death he might bestow on vs righte­ousnesse, [Page 63] in satisfying Gods iustice thereby for our offences: but there is a very plaine place, Gal. 3. v 13. Christ redeemed vs from the curse of the Law, when he was made a curse for vs: for it is written, cursed is he that hangeth on the tree. 1. Iohn 1. v. 7. The blood of Iesus Christ, the Sonne of God, pur­geth vs from all our sinnes. 1. Iohn 2. v. 2. He is the propitiation for our sinnes. These are the most pregnant places of Scripture for this point, where­unto wee may adde this argument. If the Passion of Christ was but ex­emplary, surely he would neuer haue cryed out with a loud voice, My God▪ my God, why hast thou forsaken me? for those words are not set down as an example for vs to follow, nay ra­ther we ought to do quite contrary to them, euen to haue alwaies sure cōfidence in God, & neuer to thinke, or cry out, that we are forsaken of him, as it is said, Rom. 8. v. 15. wee must Cry Abba Father, in thee doe I settle my soule. Againe, if the Pas­sion of Christ was but exemplary, how were then the Fathers saued [Page 64] which were before Christ, and so had not his example? and how was the thiefe saued, that could not imi­tate Christ in his example, whereas he was now hanged on the Crosse as well as Christ, and that before his conuersion. Secondly, this same propriety of Christs Passion must be noted against all such, as attri­bute the purging of their sinnes, and the merit of the forgiuenes of them to almes-deeds, or other workes of their owne: for if so bee that there is no remission of sinnes, but by shedding of bloud, as wee haue showne before, and almes-deeds, or other workes, euen the best of them shed no bloud, certainely then by no workes of ours whatsoeuer can there be wrought expiation or re­mission of sinne.

What is the third proprietie of Christs Passion?

That it was most sufficient, nei­ther need wee any more expiation, which is proued by that Heb. 9. Verse 26 Now was hee in the ende of the World made manifest by that [Page] that offering vp of himselfe once to take away sinne. Per Christum hominem iu­stitiae Dei plenissimè sa­tisfactum progenere huma­no Bellarm. lib de ascens­ment▪ in De­um, grad. 13. cap. 3. And Vers. 28. Christ was once offered vp, that he might take away the sinnes of many. And yet more eui­dently, Heb. 10.12. This Man after the offering of his sacrifice, sitteth for euer at the right hand of the Father. And vers. 14. By his one oblation; that is, by that his oblation, which onely is most perfect and sufficient.Obiect. Now that is said, Col. 1.24. I fulfill the re­mainders of Christs suffering or passion in the flesh;Solu. It must not bee so vnder­stood, as if the passion of Christ were not of it selfe sufficient, [...] Christi sunt duplicia quaedam [...] in carne, sua, quaedam [...] in membri [...], quae sunt Chrsti, quia membrorum. Zanch. but needed some additament to fil it vp, but there by a Synecdoche, the pas­sions of Christ he calleth all such, as the members of Christ were to suf­fer: as if he said; I must also endure those afflictions, which Christ shall feele in his members, as he expresly annexeth; I fulfill the remnant of Christs passion in the flesh, for the body of Christ which is his Church: that he might plainely shew, that hee spake not of that passion which Christ suffered for our sinnes, but of the crosses and [Page 66] afflictions which the Church must sustaine in this world,Omnes sanctorum affectiones, vel sunt [...], quibus puni­untur pecca­ta, vel [...] quibus pro­batur fides, vel [...] quibus confirmatur doctrina, & de his loqui­tur. Melanct. which church by a metaphorical kind of speaking is the body of Christ. And this which wee haue spoken about the sufficiency of the passion of Christ, wee must note againe against the Papists, who teach and say, that ex­piation and purging of sin, is partly by good workes, which shall be confu­ted in the doctrine of iustification, partly by the Masse, which shal like­wise be confuted in the point of, and concerning the Lords Supper, and partly by Purgatory, which (they say) is a fire, in which the soules of men after this life are tormented with temporall paines, and are purged from sinnes, and from which the soules of such as are aliue by fauour and by prayers, may be deliuered, as the Councell of Trent saith in the fifth Session. Against which ob­serue these reasons: First, in the sa­cred Volume there is no one testi­mony of Purgatory, no not so much as one example of any one that was in that Purgatorie fire: Ergo, it is a [Page 67] nice inuention of their own braine; They vrge a place,Obiect. 1. Co. 8. vers. 13. where it is said, that by the fire shall be made manifest, and proued, euery mans worke of what sort it is. But they ap­ply this to Purgatory very foolish­ly:Solut. for the Apostle speaketh as tou­ching the edification of the Church, and saith, that the time shall come, when it shal be tried and examined, how much euery one hath profited in edifying the Church by the word of God, and the holy Spirit, which two he calleth fire, by a metaphor. He addeth further, Vers. 15. He shall be saued but euen as it were by the fire: where abiding still in the metaphor and similitude, hee saith, that not all those who haue not edified aright, shall straightway bee damned for euer, but that they shall suffer a try­all in their own conscience, because they haue not so faithfully dischar­ged their office as they should. Se­condly, obserue two manifest say­ings of the holy Writ, wherein you shall find but two places only that must bee in the next world pointed [Page 68] out vnto you, the one for the bles­sed, the other for those, who are eter­nally damned. Mark the last. Ioh 5. Verely, verely, I say vnto you, who so hea­reth my word, and belieueth in him that sent mee, shall not come into iudgement; and by consequence not into Purga­torie, which is a part of Iudgement; but shall passe from death to life. Reuel. 4 vers, 14. Blessed are they henceforth which die in the Lord. Henceforth; that is, frō the very moment where­in they die. There is also a plaine place, Luke 23.43. where Christ saith to the thiefe; To day shalt thou bee with mee in Paradice: whereas he (if any) needed this Purgatorie fire.

I haue heard sufficiently, as concerning the first part of Christs Priestly of­fice, namely, the purging away of our sinnes; tell me what is the se­cond part of the Priestly Office of Christ?

S. Th. p. 357.It is that effectuall application, whereby Christ doth all sufficiently and powerfully apply that his pur­ging performed by him vnto the [Page 69] faithfull, so that by it they may ob­taine remission of sinnes, reconci­liation and peace.

What is the third part of this Office of Christ.

It is his intercession for vs.

What doe you meane by intercession?

I doe not meane any prayer, or sute, whereby Christ would get vn­to vs againe the fauour of God, as one man is said to interceed for an other, that he may procure him som­what; but I vnderstād, first that per­petuall value & force of the Sacri­fice of Christ, namely, in that Christ presenteth his passion, which he suf­fered for vs, vnto the eternall Fa­ther. Secondly, the Fathers consent resting in this Passion of Christ, contented and agreeing, that this Passion of Christ shall bee of force for vs for euer.

Which is the third office of Christ?

His Regall office:S. Th. p. 359. for Christ is not only a Prophet, and a Priest vn­to vs, but he is also a King.

In what points consisteth the Regall Office of Christ?

[Page 70]In foure: First, in that he gouer­neth the Church by his Spirit, and by his Word; and doth not onely shew vnto vs by his Word what we ought to doe, but by the worke of the Spirit in vs, enableth vs to doe them. Secondly, in that hee defen­deth vs against our enemies, Satan, sinne and death, that they haue no power to hinder our saluation. Thirdly, in that hee beautifieth his Church with excellent gifts, and appointeth the Ministerie of his Word, making men obedient vnto this his owne ordinance. Fourthly, In that at the end of the world hee shall appeare to be iudge of all men, and shall condemne the wicked to eternall punishments,S. Th. p. 368. but shal make the godly to shine with eternal glo­rie.

I doe already conceiue the Office of Christ what it is, and of how diuers sorts it is: now I would haue you tell me what the obiect is about which Christ exercises this his Office?

It is the Church.

[Page 71] How many waies is Church taken.

Two waies: in a large, or in a more strict signification.

What is the Church taken in the large acception?

It is the multitude or company of all such men,S. Th. p. 371. as haue the word of God preached vnto them, in which company there be many hypocrites which doe not belieue truly, and therefore are damned for euer.

What is the Church as it is strictly taken?

It is that number and company of men,S. Th. p. 38 [...]. which are elect of Christ by faith vnto eternall life. And this company is wont to be parted into two rankes, the one Militant, the other Triumphant. That company of the elect and godly is called the Militant Church, which remaineth yet on earth; but the Triumphant is that company of the faithfull that is already in Heauen. And so the rule of the Fathers is to be vnderstood:Non peruenit ad pramia Christi qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. Cypr. He shal neuer be a member of the Church Triumphant, that hath not been a mem­ber of the Church Militant. But where­as the Church is diuided into the vi­sible [Page 72] and inuisible Church,Non Deus buic pater est, cui non Ec­clesia mater. [...]. that is no true diuision to speake properly, but onely a distinction of diuers re­spects in the church. For the church is said to be visible, in respect of the men themselues which are in the Church, and may be seene, and inui­sible, in respect of the internall gra­ces, to wit, of faith, and other gifts of the holy Spirit, which are not so obuious to the senses. Which must be noted against the Papists, who would haue the Church to be a glo­rious appearing company, which may by the very senses bee pointed out, and acknowledged by the ex­ternall pompe of ceremonies, as Bellarmine affirmeth: The Church is as visible, as the common wealth of Venice. Contrary whereunto our Sauiour speaketh, Luk. 17.20. The kingdome of God commeth not with obseruation; where it is apparent enough out of the text, hee speaketh of the Church in this world, namely, that it shall bee no such glorious company, as should be knowne by externall ce­remonies and obseruations, or by [Page 73] solemnities, apparrelling of Sena­tours, of Counsellors, and other such like

What are to bee considered about the Church?

The Head, the Members, and the Proprieties.

Who is the Head of the Church?

Christ alone is the Head of the Church aswell of the Millitant,S. Th. p. 374. as of the Triumphant, which is confir­med, first by a apparāt testimonies of holy writ, Eph. 1.22. God hath put all things vnder the feete of Christ, and hath appointed him ouer all to bee the Head to the Church, which is his body. And Eph. 4.15. Christ is the Head, by whom the whole body is coupled and knit together. Col. 1.18. Christ is the head of his body, the church A like place there is, Col. 2.19. It is proued, secondly, by rea­son, because euery head ought to in­fuse vigor and liuely vertue into all the mēbers, as our head for instance infuseth vitall spirits into euerie part of our bodie for sence and mo­tion: but Christ alone can infuse that liuely vigour into the mem­bers: [Page 74] Ergo. True (say the Papists) Christ is the head of the Church but he is the inuisible Head,Obiect. therefore there is neede of another visible Head, who must be Christs Vicar on earth, and Peter the Apostles suc­cessor; to wit, the Pope of Rome. Whereunto we answer, that in this strange doctrine of the Papists,Solut. there are contained many pud­dles of errour. The first errour is, that Christ hath need of a Vicar, or Deputie in earth, whereunto wee oppose these arguments. First, there 1 is no Vicar, but implyeth the weak­nesse of the principall Regent, or Gouernor, for therefore Kings haue their Deputies, because they be but weake men, not able to looke vnto all their subiects by themselues, but Christ is an omnipotent King. Se­condly, He needeth a Deputie, who cannot vpon all occasions be euery where present with his subiects, but Christ is alwaies euerie where present with his members, as hee promiseth, Matthew 28. Whereso­euer two or three are gathered together [Page 75] in my name, there am I in the midst of them: that is, immediately am I 2 present with them,Ego fidenter dico, quia quisquis se vniuersalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desi­derat, in ela­tione sue An­tichristum praecurrit. Greg Mag. as the Hebrew phrase teacheth. The second error is, that they thinke it a righteous thing for some one man, and hee a Bishop, or Minister of the Church, to attribute vnto himselfe this po­wer, to bee the vniuersall Head and Governour of the whole Church, whereunto wee oppose these argu­ments: First, because Christ doth plainely forbid primacie in the Church, Matth. 20. Luk. 22. Second­ly, because the Apostles themselues diuided the Office of the Apostle­ship among themselues, for that they saw, that one man could not be ouer all Churches, as the Scripture wit­nesseth, Gal. 2.7, 8, 9. where Paul saith; When they saw that the Gospell of Vncircumcision was committed vnto me, as the Gospell of Circumcision vnto Peter, and when Iames, and Cephas, and Iohn, which were counted Pillars, knew of the grace giuen vnto me, they gaue vnto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should doe the [Page 76] Office of the Apostles among the Gentiles, and they execute the same Office among the Iews 3. Moses, who was a far grea­ter mā thē Pope, could not beare the burden of iudging the people of Israel alone, but was constrained to part it, as it is Exod. 18. much lesse therefore can the Pope gouerne the 3 whole Church. The third errour is, that they faine Peter to haue bin head of the church,Planum est, Apostolis in­terdicitur dominatus, Bern. Quicunque desiderauerit primatum in terra, inue­niet confu­sionem in cae­lo. Distinct. 40. cap. multi. whereas notwithstan­ding, 1. Christ flatly forbiddeth Pe­ter and his other Apostles, to seek af­ter this headship; and 2. Paul to the Gal. 2.7. in plaine termes saith, that Iames and Peter and Iohn were coun­ted, or thought to be pillars, that is, by an erroneous conceit they were taken to be such by thē, who might by the abuse of that title, deceiue the Galath.Obiect. They obiect that place, Mat 16. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock, super hanc Petrā, will I build my Church. Solut. Whereunto we answer, that he saith not, and vpon thee (Peter) will I build my Church; but we say this is the intention and scope of Christs speech namely, to commend [Page 77] the confession of Peter, Tu es Petrus & supra hanc pe­tram, &c. saepius ex­posui, vt su­per hunc in­telligeretur, quem confes­sus est Petrus dicens, tu es Christus fili­us Dei viui. Non enim dictum est ei, Tu es Petra, sed tu es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus, quem confes­sus Simon dictus est Petrus Aug. which hee setteth out by a Paranomasie, or al­lusion vnto the name of Peter; as if he said, I rightly set vpon thee the name of Peter (see the first Chapter of Iohn, where Christ gaue Peter his name), because thou in the name of the other Apostles, hast made such a confession, and vttered such a doc­trine, as vpon which, as it were on a Rocke my Church shall bee buil­ded. First then, Christ commen­deth Peter, and in the person of Pe­ter, all the Apostles, for that they be­lieued Christ to be the Son of God. Secondly, he sheweth the profit and fruit of that confession, to wit, for that this doctrine and confession was to be the foundation whereup­on Christs Church should bee built, so that it should neuer bee ouertur­ned by Satan. Otherwise that Peter neuer vnderstood these wordes of himself, as if he were that stone, vp­on which the Ch. is reared▪ he himself professeth openly, 1. Pet. 2.4. where he saith, that Christ is that very stone, vp­on the which the Church was to be built. [Page 78] The fourth errour is, that they take for certaintie, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and so consequently, that he was at Rome, which notwith­standing is vncertaine, neither can it be firmely proued, that Peter was euer at Rome, but the contrary; for that place which before wee cited, Gal. 2. is very remarkeable; namely, in that Paul did so deuide the Apostleship, and part it with Peter, they shaking hands of the mo­tion, that Paul should goe to the Gentiles, to conuert them, and Pe­ter should labour in the conuersion of the Iewes: This promise, the right hand being giuen vpon it, Peter should haue broke, if he had gone to Rome to conuert the Gen­tiles; neither doe we reade that two Apostles went into the same Citie, especially, it being so farre off, to preach the Gospell. Wherefore sithence by the confession of all, it is apparent, that Paul preached the Gospell at Rome; what neede was there that Peter should come thither, especially at the very same time, as [Page 79] the Papists say that they were both at Rome in Nero his time. II. Out of the last Chapter of the second to Timoth. v. 16. In my first defence, saith Paul, when I appeared before Nero, there was none that stood to me, but all forsooke me, I pray God it bee not laid to their charge: But if Peter had then beene Bishop of Rome, as the Papists will haue it, what a disgracefull thing had it been and vnworthy a Bishop to forsake his brother and his owne companion? Bellarm. saith, that Pe­ter was at that time gone abroad to visit the Churches. But we answer, that it was not meete that he should go away, then when hee should haue assisted his brother, but should ra­ther haue put off the visitation vnto some other time, which hee would haue done, doubtlesse, if he had been at Rome. Againe I say, that Bel­larm. coines that answer of his, be­cause he neither backs it with any place of Scripture, nor of any Hi­storian, but speaketh it out of his owne braine. III. This may be con­cluded by the circumstance of time, [Page 80] for they say that Peter was 25 yeares at Rome, and 7 yeares at Antio­cheia, which he make 32 yeares, and yet they say that Peter was crucified at Rome vnder Nero, and that hee came to Rome the 2 of Claudius the Emperour. Now Claudius raigned but 13 yeares, and Nero 13, so that both their Regiments lasted but 26 yeares;Secundum Hieronim. how then could Peter come the 2 of Claudius, and continue 27 yeares Bishop of Rome, and yet be crucified vnder Nero. IV. We say that Eusebius and Hierome who are of that opinion, do not agree with themselues; yea, and Hierome especi­ally manifestly contradicts himself. For when as hee in one place had said, that Peter was crucified vnder Nero, afterward expounding those words of Christ, Matt. 23. Luke 11 Behold I send vnto you Prophets, &c. Flatly affirmes that Peter was cruci­fied by the Iewes at Ierusalem. When the Ancients therefore are opposite vnto themselues, hereby it may appeare that they knew not certainely in this point, and conse­quently [Page 81] how much we are to detest the impudency of the Popes, which set downe for certainty, that Peter was Bishop of Rome. The fifth er­rour 5 is, that they inferre the Pope of Rome to be Peters successour: for first, there is no sure ground to euince that Peter was euer at Rome; how then could the Pope of Rome succeede Peter. Secondly, if wee grant this to the Papists out of pit­ty, that Peter was at Rome, yet it doth not follow, that the Pope of Rome was Peters successour: for the Turke also hath his seate at Con­stantinople, notwithstanding it doth not follow, that the Turke is the lawfull Emperour of the East, or of Greece, the Emperours before hauing their lawfull residency, and abode at Constantinople: for the place makes not the succession law­full, but two things there bee which make lawfull succession: first, the power giuen of God; secondly, the imitation of the Predecessors in life and manners. As Cyprian saith in a certaine place, and after him Am­brose [Page 82] and Hierome: True succession is succession in doctrine, and hee cannot bee said lawfully to hold the Chaire of Peter, who holdeth not the doctrine of Peter. But neither of these the Pope of Rome hath: first, whence will hee proue, that God hath giuen him that power to sit at Rome, as the Mo­narch of the Church? surely he can­not bring so much as one letter out of the Scripture of God, to proue this; nay, Christ enioyned the con­trary to his Disciples, to wit, that one of them should not desire to bee aboue another. 2. The true succes­sion, which is in doctrine, the Pope of Rome hath not: for if the De­crees of the Pope, and the Epistles of Peter be compared together, there will appeare as great difference be­twixt them, as betwixt light and darknes: yea, we are about to proue by and by, that the Pope of Rome is the Ringleader of idolaters, so farre is he off from being Peters successor in doctrine.

Which bee the Members of the Church?

[Page 83]They be all the faithfull which do belieue in Christ vnto eternall life; for they all are vnited to Christ, euen as the members of our body vnto their head. They are vnited, I say, by the holy Spirit, who produ­ceth such like motions in them, as are in the humane nature of Christ assumed; that is, he maketh that the faithful become partakers of the Sa­cerdotall, Propheticall, and Regall power which is in Christ. About which matter Peter, epist. 2. c. 2. v. 9. speaketh most sweetly, You are a cho­sen generation, a royall Priesthood, a holy Nation, a people whom God hath chosen as peculiar to himselfe, that the virtues of him might be manifest, who hath cal­led you out of darknes into his admirable light. See concerning this most com­fortable doctrine, to wit, the vnion of the members with Christ the Head, in the Syst. of Diuinitie. pag. 376.

What sorts be the members of Christ?

They be of two sorts, the Mini­sters of the Word, and the hearers. Here the Papists challenge vs, that [Page 84] wee haue no lawfull Ministers in the Church, and by consequence that there be no lawfull sheepe, be­cause (say they) where there are no lawfull and true Pastors and Shep­heards, there can be there no lawful or true sheepe.Solut. But wee deny the Antecedent, where they say, that in our Churches there bee no lawfull Pastors, because he is a right Pastor, who rightly and lawfully executes his charge, which is don by the pure preaching of the word, & the admi­nistration of the Sacraments. But (say they) from whom had your Lu­ther and Caluin their callings? We answere: That we depend not on Caluin and Luther, but of the Pro­phets themselues, and the Apostles. As for Luther and Caluin, they were neither Prophets nor Apostles; but if they would know what kind of calling Caluins and Luther his was, we answere; It was ordinarie: for Luther by the publike authoritie of the Vniuersitie at Witenberg, was created Doctor of Diuinity, and so was hee called to teach by an ordi­nary [Page 85] vocation. Yea, but the Vni­uersity at Witenberg, it was Papisti­call? Answere; True, it was so at that time, yet it called Luther to the sincere preaching of the Gospell. For the Papists themselues say not, that when Luther was called by them to teach, that he was called to teach heresies, but to teach the Truth. Therefore when after­wards he taught the truth, he taught it, being ordinarily called thereun­to, although he taught it not accor­ding to the Popes mind and his Bi­shops. Yea, but hee taught errou [...]s of Papistrie before? I answer: that that fault of Luther made not his vo­cation voyd; the same we say of Zwinglius, Caluin, and others, which were created by Bishops; where notwithstanding it must bee consi­dered, that vnto that ordinarie cal­ling, there was somewhat extraor­dinary adioined, to wit, in that God set forth, and adorned those first Mi­nisters of the dostrine of the Gospel with a singular vertue to discouer the terrible abominations of Pope­rie, [Page 86] for the rest of our Ministers, which haue, and yet doe teach in the Reformed Church: they were cal­led ordinarily by them who haue authoritie, and as yet to this day are so called

Now I much desire to heare of the propri­eties of the Church, & first tel me what kinds be the proprieties of the Church of?

They bee of two kinds, some of them doe notifie and point out vnto vs where the Church is, other are proprieties.

How many demonstratiue proprieties of the Church be there, or how many be the true markes of the Church?

There be onely two; first, the pu­ritie of doctrine and sacraments Secondly, obedience and sanctity of conuersatiō answerable to the word of God, which is proued out of the tenth of Iohn: My sheep heare my voyce. Mat 28. Go, and teach ye all nations, bap­tising thē. Ioh. 5.4. Ye are my friends, &c. Ioh. 13.32. By this shall all men know, that ye are my disciples, &c. The Papists say, these are not the notes [Page 87] of the true Church:Obiect. for, say they, all heretic [...]s can challenge to them­selues thus much,S. Th. p. 393. that they haue the pure word of God, and the lawfull vse of the Sacraments.Solu. Therefore I answer; that that which is but by an accedent, doth not take away that which is per se. Now it is but by ac­cedent, that the heretiques take this vsurpation on themselues: for what is there more excellēt in the Church then the pure Word of God, and the lawfull vse of the Sacraments? But in setting downe the markes of the Church, they doe not agree among themselues. See the 396 page of my Syst. of Diuinitie. Yet generally they say, that these are those marks, 1. Antiquitie.Obiect. Whereto I answere; that if they brag of antiquity sim­ply,Solut. the Diuell also is a most an­cient Serpent, neither is he in that regard any whit the better;Id est verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis. Tertul. there­fore wee ought to seeke after an­tiquitie of true doctrine, which wee say and affirme to bee in our Church, in that, namely, her Note and Marke is the pure [Page 88] Word of God, then which nothing is more anciēt. But your Church (do they obiect) began but with Luther some 80 yeeres agoe, therefore it is not the true Church? I answer: that it is an vntruth that our Church did but begin then. For our Church be­gun presently in Paradice, and was also in the time of the Prophets. The second marke they make a con­tinuall succession,Obiect. Pietatis suc­cessio proprie successio est aestimanda. Greg Naz. Non habent haereditatem Petri, qui si dem Petri non habent. Ambros. or a perpetuitie of doctrine in the Church, and so condemning our Church, as in which there hath been no such con­tinuall succession, they insult o­uer vs saying; Where were your Churches before Luther those 600 yeares, wherein you say, the world was obscured by the darkenesse of Poperie?Solut. Whereto we answer, that the Church is somtime more cleare­ly manifest, sometime it is more ob­scurely apparant; if therefore by succession they vnderstand the state of the Church alwaies alike flou­rishing, then wee say, that it is false that such a succession is a propriety and mark of the true Church: for the [Page 89] visible state of the Church consist­eth in religious worship,Ecclesia est quae aliquan­do obscura­tur & tan­quam obnu­bilatur mul­titudine scandalo­rum, ali­quando tri­bulationum & tentatio­num flucti­bus operitur atque turva­tur. Cum Arriani &c. August and in do­ctrine, wherein the Church is not alwaies like vnto it self, hauing her obscurings, and as it were eclipses, such as the Sunne and Moone haue; and sometimes it is wrapped about with errours, so that it cannot shew its head by any visible estate, or mi­nisterie, whereunto the Scripture beares manifest testimony, 2. Chro. chap. 28. where it is plaine, that the estate of the Church was altoge­ther obscured, insomuch that Elias thought with himselfe, that he alone was left aliue of all the members of the Church, being priuie to none beside himselfe, that worshipped God purely; yet euen then the Lord said vnto him,S. Th. p 389. I haue reserued vnto my selfe seuen thousand, which haue not bowed their knees before Baal. So in the time of Christ his liuing vpon the earth, the state of the Church was a most corrupt state, so that beside Christ and his Apostles, there were very few members of the true Church; yea, and before Christs [Page 90] birth a little, Marie, Ioseph, Zacharie, and Elizabeth, and a few more, which lay so secret, that there was no shew of them to any man, made vp the true Church. Such like vnto these was that estate of the Church those 600 yeares vnder the Papacie, of which time there was expresse pre­diction before, Reuel. 12. that the time, to wit, should come, that the Church should be obscure, as it were hid in the wildernesse. But therefore can any conclude, that there was no Church? No surely, no more then it doth follow; This man is hid, therefore hee is not a man. There were in that most thicke darkenesse of Poperie, and vnder the Kingdome of that Antichrist of Rome,S. Th. p. 408. true members of the Church, although by reason of that cruell tyrannie of the Pope they lay hid, neither was there so few of them as the Papists faine, which at that very time vnder Po­perie had the pure doctrine and the Sacraments, but there were verie many of them, euen whole Coun­tries [Page 91] that were not defiled by the corrupt Doctrine of the Papists, as the Albingenses, and the Val­denses, and they of Picardie, who propagated the holy Truth in Bo­hemia, and Polonia, in spite of all the Popes resistance. As also a hundred yeares before Luther, there were the Hussites, Brethren of Bohemia, who maintained the true Doctrine of the Gospell,Etsi Papatus non sit eccle­sia vo [...]uit ta­men Deu [...] in Papatu ser­uare eccle­siam. Theod. Beza. as those times would giue them leaue. Yea, and further in all and eue­rie of those yeares, there were by Gods working, continually raised vp Witnesses and Teachers, who openly, and before all, shewed their detestation of the Pope, and Po­pish errours, which Witnesses of the Truth, euen in the time of Papacie, they are all gathered together in a Booke most wor­thie the perusing, which we ought alwaies to oppose to the Papists, which hath for its Title, Catalo­gus testium veritatis: that is; A Catologue of the Witnesses of the Truth. The third Note the Papists [Page 92] do make vniuersality,Obiect. because for­sooth the Church dispersed ouer all the world,S. Th. p. 404. ought to bee Catholike? I answer:Solut. That the Papists here do contradict themselues, when they say, the Church of God must be Ca­tholike, and yet the Romish Church must be that Church of God; which is all one, as if I should say; the Church must be the vniuersall Dan­tiscan Church, or the vniuersal Cra­couian Church, or a particular vni­uersall Church; for to bee the Ro­mish Church, and to be a particular one, is all one. Againe, we answer, that we doe not denie, that the Church ought to be Catholike, in that sence wherein the word is vsed in the Creed, as afterward it shalbe made plaine. And we say, that our Church hath alwaies been, and now also is Catholike, because that after the Apostles had gathered the Church out of all Nations, there did alwaies from time to time remaine some reliques of the true Church in all Nations, although those reliques were hid and obscured, as that book [Page 93] Catalogus testium veritatis, which wee haue a little before cited, doth testi­fie, that in the very time of Popery, there was alwaies in Greece, Italie, Spaine. Germany, Bohemia, Polonia, some found that opposed and resist­ed the Pope. But whereas the Ie­suites obiect vnto vs, that in Ame­rica, and in the East Indies, there are no Protestant Preachers of the Gos­pell as yet, but all Papists, and espe­cially Iesuites labouring the con­uersion of the people? I answere them: first, that the Pharisies also did run about both by sea and land, to draw men vnto their faith, and yet for all that, their religion was not true. Secondly, I say, that the Papists haue slaine moe in the Indies then they haue conuerted, as you may see by a place, which I haue ci­ted in my politiques l. 1. c. 4. that in a very short time a hundred fortie thousand men were murdered by them. Thirdly, I am sure the Diuell also goes a compassing the whole world, and seduceth many, yet is hee for that neuer a whit the better. [Page 94] Fourthly, I auerre, that our Mi­nisters also haue taught the true Gospell in America: inasmuch as Calum sent thither two Ministers of the Church from Geneua, the one whereof was Ioannes Lerius, who committed that storie to wri­ting. And at this day there are Orthodoxe Ministers in the East Indies▪ which do publikely preach the true Doctrine of the Gospell, carried ouer thither by the Mer­chants of the Low-Countries And doubtlesse toward the end of this world, the true Religion shall be in America; as God now is pre­paring the way for it by the Eng­lish and Low-Countrie Merchants; that that of Christ may bee ful­filled, Matth. 23. The Gospell shall bee preached throughout the whole World, that it may bee a witnesse to all Nations. For GOD in all his workes is wont to effect a thing successiuely, and therefore first hee sends vnto those nations some light of his essence and his truth, by the Papists, and afterward will make [Page 95] these things shine more clearely vn­vnto them by the true and faithfull Ministers of the Gospel.Obiect. The fourth note the Papists say, is vnitie and good agreement?Solut. I answere: Con­sent and vnitie is but so farre a marke of the Church,Vt est eccle­sia Dei vna, sic est Dia­boli vna Ba­bylon Aug. as the consent is in truth and goodnesse, and not in euill and falsehood: for such an a­greement in euill and falsity is a­mong the very Deuils, and what greater agreement & consent then among robbers? so also among the Turkes, there is very great consent, so that Mahometisme is farre and neare by them propagated; yet doth it not hence follow, that Mahome­tisme is the true Church. Secondly, I answer, that in our Church there is great consent in the truth; for how­soeuer after Luthers time, there arose many Churches, the Diuel being al­waies busie to cast his plots against the true Church, and to stirre vp in it diuers hearts; yet the Ortho­doxe Professours are at good a­greement about the Articles of Faith, as that excellent Booke, [Page 96] called, the Harmony of Confessions, doth testifie; wherein it is manifestly prooued, that there is exceeding great consent betwixt the Church­es of France, England, Scotland, Bohe­mia, and those which are in Germany neere vnto Rhene, and in other Pro­uinces: for that disagreement which is betwixt the Lutherans and the Orthodoxe Professours, doth not straightway quite dissolue the vni­tie which is betwixt the true church. Thirdly, I deny that there is so great agreement in the Romish Church, as they boast of, for it can bee easily showne, that the popish Writers agree not in any one Arti­cle among themselues, as it doth ap­peare out of Bellarmine, who ordi­narily disputed against other Pa­pists, and alleageth their oppositi­ons, and contradictions to them­selues: this may further appeare by Ioh. Pappius and Matthias. Iohn his booke of the Sects and Dissentions, and contradictions among Popish Doctours, printed at Basil, 1565; whereunto the Papists haue not as [Page 97] yet answered. Andr. Chrastouius like­wise hath written a book he cals Bel­lum Iesuiticum, The good agreement the Iesuits haue among themselues, who neither is as yet cōfuted. That same booke of Chrastouius was prin­ted at Basil in quarto 1593, & it con­tains 205 Iesuiticall contradictions.

Which is that bare, or secondary pro­prietie of the Church?

To the Church of the new Testa­ment, this propriety doth also agree that it is Catholick & that first in re­spect of places, S. Th. p. 404. not because it pos­sesseth many kingdoms, but because it is scattred ouer the whole world, & not tied to any certain place, to a­ny determinate country, or city. Se­condly, in respect of men, because it doth consist of men of all sorts, ga­thered out of the conditiō of all men of al nations, Act. 10. Thirdly, in re­spect of times, because it shall conti­nue all times, euen vnto the end of the world, as it is said, Mat. 28. I will be with you euen vntill the end of the world. Fourthly, in respect of vnitie, because the Catholike Church is at [Page 98] all times but one, to wit, in vnity of doctrin, & consent in that doctrine. And thus much wee haue spoken of the proprieties of the Church. Now if we shall examine and trie the Po­pish Church by these proprieties, it will appeare to be no pure Church, but be very corrupt, euen as a rot­ten apple is an apple corrupted, and no otherwise, then a man that is in­fected with the plague, is a man, but no sound man. And that the Popish Church is not the pure Church, I will prooue it by two manifest rea­sons: the first, an idolatrous Church is not the true & pure Church, but such a one is the Popish Church, Er­go. The proposition is euident, be­cause God doth abhorre nothing more then idolatrie; therefore hee saith, Flie from idols; and, No Idolater shall bee saued. The assumption I confirme thus: That Church which giues that honor, which Dauid giues vnto God the Creator, in the very same words vnto the creature, to wit, the Virgin Marie, that same Church is idolatrous. But the [Page 99] Church of Rome doth so goe now, that the Church of Rome doth at­tribute that honour which is due vnto God, vnto the Virgin Marie: I proue it by a most euident testimo­nie out of that same Psalter of Ma­rie the Virgin, which was compiled by Bonauentura, who liued 250 yeres agoe, and canonized of the Pope of Rome, so that hee is accounted a­mong the Saints, and the title of a Seraphicall Doctour, which is more then Angelicall, giuen vnto him. This same Psalter was by the permission of the higher powers printed in Latin at Brixia, and Bo­nonia in Italy eight yeares since, being before printed at Ingolstadi­um in the Dutch tongue some 20 yeares agoe: in the Preface where­vnto it is expressely said, that it was compiled, the holy Ghost inditing and dictating it. And further, that very Psalter is in speciall vse in the Romish Church, but especially is it currant among the Monkes of Saint Bennets Order, which are called Ci­stercians. Now in this Psalter, all [Page 100] those things which Dauid attributes to the high and most mighty God,Ye haue this Psalter in Bonauen­tures works printed in seauen Tomes at Rome 1588 vol. 6. pag. 502 in La­tin, in Eng­lish ye haue diuers passa­ges of it, and amongst the rest, these in Foxes Mar­tyrology, printed 1583. fol. 1600. Missale Ro­man. edit. Salmanticae A.D. 1588. feria 6. in parasceue p. 223. are by them put vpon the Virgin Marie, as Psal. 51. Haue mercy vpon me, O Lady, and cleanse me from all mine offences. But that of all other is most blasphemous, which they apply vn­to her out of the Psa. 109. according to that distinctiō, The Lord said vnto my Lady, sit thou mother mine at my right hand; where Mary is made the mother of God the Father, as though the Fa­ther had bin incarnat, & made man, that I may not say further, that to be set on the right hand of God, is to haue a like power, and equall glory with God himselfe. Againe, that the Romish Church is an idolatrous as­sembly, I proue it out of the Romish Masse booke, where in the Seruice appointed for Good Friday, it is said, that the Priest so soone as hee hath put off his shooes, and then ap­procheth to adore the Crosse, shall kneele three times, before he kisse the Crosse, and then afterward the Ministers of the Altar, they must al­so kneele, and three times adore the [Page 101] Crosse. II. Arg. That Church which approueth manifest crimes, is not the pure Church: but the Church of Rome is such. Ergo. The Propositi­on is herein manifest, for that the Papists themselues do yeeld sancti­ty and holinesse of manners to be a note of the Church. The assumpti­on I confirme, for that the Pope doth dispence for Incest, Sodomy, and other most grieuous crimes. See the Taxes, Fines, or Nundinations of the Court of Rome described at large in Musculus his Common Pla­ces. 2. It is confirmed out of Costers Enchiridion, where you shall find it written,Coster. Enchi­rid. c. 5. propos. 9. that a Priest committing forni­cation, or keeping a concubine in his house, does not so grieuously sinne, as he that doth marrie. This doth Gretzer allow of in his History of the Iesuiticall or­der: pag 115.Gritzer In­go [...]flad. A.D. 1594. Most truly wrote our Co­ster, that a Priest should not so grieuously offend, if hee should commit Fornica­tion, then if hee should marrie. And hee addeth; Yea, it is truly spoken, that a Priest doth lesse sin in committing Adulterie, then in marrying a Wife. [Page 102] Bellar. 2. lib. de Monach. cap. 30. It cannot be truly said of a Nun that hath vowed continence, that it is better to bee married, then to burne, for both in her is euill, to bee married, and to burne; yea, worse it is to bee married, then to burne, whatsoeuer our aduersaries say to the con­trarie, that it is written, 1. Cor. 7. It is better to marry, then to burne. Here that is worthy marking, which Sleidan sets downe in his first booke, that a certaine Italian Bishop, Casa by name, hath written a whole booke in the praise of filthy Sodomy: where we may note for a conclusion, that although al those things be granted to the Papists, which they most glo­riously dispute about the Church, yet they can gaine nothing hereby, because they ought to make it plaine first vnto vs, that the Pope­dome is the true Church; which in that they haue not as yet prooued, nor shall euer bee able to prooue it, they do but delude themselues with a vaine title of the Church. And whereas they say, that it is absurd, before the point of the Church bee [Page 103] discussed, to take in hand to dispute of any of the Articles of faith; that also can little auaile them, because wee doe dispute, and iudge of doc­trine and faith by the word of God, and it may so bee disputed, although that point of the Church be not be­fore handled:S. Th. p. 390. for the Word of God is before the Church, and aboue the Church, neither hath the Church a­ny authoritie to wrest the Scrip­ture, as we haue formerly proued in the common place of Scripture. But here I would haue noted the excee­ding fraud of the Popish Writers, that when they haue made a great stirre about the Church, and stood long vpon it, at length they con­clude, the Church to be a Councell, consisting of the Pope, the Cardi­nals, and Bishops; and so exclude all other, which are neither Cardinals nor Bishops, from the Church; at least remouing them so farre, that they shall not make vp the Church, properly so called, and principally, that hereby they might the more establish the insolent pride of their [Page 104] Spiritualtie, against the manifest Word of God.

You haue made plaine the Doctrine of Redemption vnto mee, now it fol­lowes, that you instruct me in the matter of Iustification of man be­fore God; wherfore shew me I pray you what is Iustification?

S. Th. p. 413.It is the absoluing of sinfull man from his sinnes; or it is a forgiuing of sinnes by the meere grace and fa­uour of God for the merits of Christ imputed and applied vnto vs by faith.

What are to bee considered about Iu­stification?

Foure things: 1. the principall cause: 2. the instrumentall cause: 3. the effect and fruite: and lastly, the necessary adiunct.

What is the principall cause of Iustifi­cation before God?

The principal cause is either pri­marie, or secondary: the prime cause, is the grace and mercy of God, the other cause is the merit of Christ, or the death and passion of Christ made ours, imputed vnto vs, [Page 105] or appropriated vnto vs, so truely, that the Passion of Christ should be­steede vs as much, as if we our selues had hanged on the Crosse, and had died for our owne sinnes▪ Hereof wee haue manifest testimonies of the Scripture,Ipse pecca­tum & nos iustitia▪ nec nostra sed Dei, nec in nobis sed in ipso, sicut ipse pecca­tum non su [...]um s [...]d no­strum, nec in [...]e sed in nobis. Sic ergo sumus iusti­tia Dei in ipso, vt ille est peccatum in nobis, nempe impu­tatione. Aug. S. Th. p. 420. Rom. 5. vers. 8. As by one man many were made sinners, &c. Rom. 4. vers. 5, 6. Blessed is that man, vnto whom God imputeth righteousnesse, without the workes of the Law. 2. Cor. 5. vers. 8. He made him which knew not sin, to be sinne for vs that we might bee made the righteousnesse of God in him. Gal. 3.15. Christ hath re­deemed vs from the curse of the Law, whilest hee was made a curse for vs. Philip. 3. vers. 8. That I may bee found not hauing my owne righteous­nesse, but that which is by the faith of Christ. Now there is no oppo­sition in this wee say, that a sin­ner is iustified by the meere grace of God, and yet by the merit of Christ, because it was brought a­bout by the meere mercie and grace of God, that Christ performed that meritorious worke for vs: [Page 106] for Christ was in no wise bound vnto vs, to die for vs, but hee out of his meere grace and mercy did vn­dergoe death for vs.

What is the instrumentall cause of Iu­stification?

Onely faith in Christ, insomuch as by faith, euen as by a hand and instrument we lay hold on, and ap­ply vnto vs the merit and satisfacti­on which Christ hath performed for vs.

What is faith?

S. Th p. 427.Faith is not onely a bare know­ledge of the Historie of Christ, but it is also a sure confidence of the heart, whereby we set downe in our selues for certainty, [...] and be perswa­ded that our sinnes are forgiuen vs of God for the death and passion of Christ. Note here two maine er­rors of Poperie, whereof the first is, that faith is onely a certaine Histo­ricall knowledge, and no true and sure confidence of the heart: where­unto the Scripture it selfe directly speaketh, Rom. 8.20. where faith is called a sure trust and perswasion. [Page 107] See my Gymnasium logicum, wherein you haue this in that Theame Fides, somewhat opened. The second er­rour is that we come by the remis­sion of sinnes, not by faith alone, but also by the merit of good workes; contrary vnto those say­ings in the Scripture, Ephes 2.8. By the grace of God you are saued through faith, and not of your selues. Rom. 4. A­braham belieued, and that was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse. Againe, Vn­to him not that worketh, but that belie­ueth in him, which iustifieth the wicked, his faith is counted for righteousnesse. Luk. 8 Mark. 6. saith Christ, onely belieue: Si credis, fi­dei cur alia infer [...]? quasi iustificare non suffi­ciat sola. Chrysost. which is all one, as if he had said; By faith alone thou shalt ob­taine euerlasting life. So then al­though these words bee not mani­festly extant, By faith alone we are iustified, yet the sense is manifestly put downe, and other words there­vnto equiualent are contained in the Scripture: for whereas the A­postle saith, Rom. 3.28. We conclude, that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law. Certainely it is [Page 108] all one, as if he said, Wee conclude that a man is iustified only by faith; for a man must needs be iustified ei­ther by faith, or by workes; a third way none can be able to shew, Paul plainely saith to the Galath.Gal. 3.15. Non opus est lege, quando impius per solam fidem iustificatur. Ambros. Ephes. 2. Tit. 3.5. We know that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law, but by the faith of Iesus Christ. Not By those righteous deeds which wee haue done, but by his owne mercy he hath saued vs through the Lauer of regenerati­on, and renewing of the holy Spirit. Ther­fore it remaineth that we say, that faith alone doth iustifie a man. And that no man is iustified by workes, and so consequently, that our works doe not merit for vs forgiuenesse of sinnes, I prooue it by euident testi­monies of holy Writ, I. Tit. 3.5. Eph. 2.8. By grace are ye saued through faith, Quantaelibet fuisse virtu­tis antiquos praedices iustos, non eos saluos fecit nisi fides. Aug. & that not of your selues, it is the gift of God, not of workes, lest any should boast. Secondly, Philip. 3.9. Rom. 3.24. II. We are iustified before we do any works, as S. Paul expressely wit­nesseth of Abraham, that before hee had done any good work, he was iu­stified before God. Rom. 4.2. where [Page 109] he saith;Non praece­dunt iustifi­candum sed sequuntur iustificatum. Aug. If Abraham had been iustifi­ed by workes, he had wherein to boast, but not with God. To him that worketh, the wages is not giuen vpon fauour, but debt: but he that worketh not, but belieueth on­ly in him, who iustifieth the wicked, his faith is imputed vnto him for righteous­nes. III. Arg. is taken from the pro­prietie of our works. Our works are debts, therfore by them can we de­serue nothing. Antec. is confirmed by Luk. 17.Nihil es per te, Deum inuoca. tua peccata sunt, merita Dei sunt, supplici­um tibi debe­tur, & cum praemium ad venerit, sua dona co­ronabit non merita tua. Aug. V [...] etiam laudabili ho­minum vitae, si remota misericordia, eam discu­tias. Aug. When you haue done all that you can do &c. 2. Good works are not ours, but Gods; now by that which is anothers, and not our owne, wee can merit nothing. Antecedent is proued, Phil 2.13. God it is who work­eth good in you, and perfects it, Eph. 2.10 We are his workmanship, created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which hee hath prepared, that we should walke in them. Thirdly, our good workes are not perfect, therefore wee can merit nothing by them; for three things there bee required of him that will merit; first, that hee hath that, by which he will merit of his owne: secondly, that it be no debt: thirdly, [Page 110] that that bee perfect:Ipsa nostra iustitia, quamuis ve­ra sit, talis ta­men est, vt potius pecca­torum re­missione con­stet quam virtutum perfectione. Idem. Nostra siqua est hu­milis iustitia, recta forsan, sed non pura; nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros, qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter dicebant. Omnes iustitiae nostre sunt tanquam pannus mulieris menstruatae. Bern. which three conditions our good workes haue not, as it is said, Esay 6. All our righ­teousnesse is like vnto a menstruous cloath. And Philip. 3.8. Paul calleth his workes dung.

I vnderstand what iustifying faith is, now tell mee the cause thereof whereby it is begotten in vs?

The principall cause whereby sa­uing faith is ingendred, is the holy Spirit, the instrumentall cause or meanes is either ordinarie, or extra­ordinarie.

What is the ordinarie meaner, where­by the holy Spirit worketh faith in vs?

S. Th. p. 436.It is twofold, namely, the Word of God, and the Sacraments.

The Word of God you haue already touched, now tell mee what is a Sacrament?

S. Th. p. 439.It is a holy signe instituted of [Page 111] God, whereby God maketh the be­lieuers sure of his fauour, the for­giuenesse of their sinnes, and other benefits likewise by Christ his pas­sion and death to be bestowed vpon them.

Of what sorts are the Sacraments?

Of two sorts, Sacraments of the old and new Testament.

How many Sacraments were there in the old Testament?

Two,S. Th. p. 448. to wit, Circumcision, and the Paschall Lambe.

How many Sacraments be there in the new Testament?

Two onely,S. Th. p. 451. Baptisme, and the Supper of the Lord?

What is Baptisme?

It is a Sacrament of the new Te­stament, whereby sprinkling of the water in the name of Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost being made, we are initiated & grafted into the church, and whereby there is sealed vnto the faithfull forgiuenesse of sinnes by the bloud of Christ, and regene­ration vnto life eternall. See more in my Syst. of Diuin. pag. 451. and [Page 112] in the Comment on Vrsins Cate­chisme, pag. 429. according to the last Edition.

What is the Lords Supper?

This wee shall handle afterward in the opening of our particular knowledge, wherewith wee must furnish our selues, in regard that the knowledge hereof comes nearest vnto our lawfull and seemely pre­paring of our selues to the Lords Supper. Here onely would be no­ted that e [...]rour of the Papists, who haue made seuen Sacraments of the new Testament, to wit, Baptisme, Confirmation, Pennance, the Eu­charist, Extreeme Vnction, Orders and Matrimony. But that number of Sacraments is neither vpholden by any testimonie of holy Writ, neither is it propped by the autho­ritie of any of the ancient Fathers, but it is a new deuise, hatched not aboue 200 yeares agoe in the time of Lombard, the Master of the Sen­tences. Besides, euery Sacrament should haue a signe and thing signi­fied; but Pennance, Orders, Matri­mony [Page 113] haue no signes at all. Further yet, euery Sacrament hath annexed promise of grace, and appertaines to all belieuers in the Church: and to conclude, it is more then mani­fest, that all Sacraments ought to be instituted by Christ; euery of which markes of a Sacrament cannot bee auerred, and truly attributed vnto those fiue Sacraments the Papists faine, no, to none, saue Baptisme and the Lords Supper.

What is the extraordinarie meanes of Faith?

Miracles,S. Th. p. 465. which are extraordina­rie signes, wherby God after a won­derfull manner,Miracula necessaria erant vt cre­deret mun­dus, post quam vero tam mundus cre­didit, qui miraculum quaerit mag­num est ipse prodigium. Aug. wrought and confir­med faith in the time of the Primi­tiue Church And here must be ob­serued a double error of the Papists; First, in that they are of opinion, that now there is neede of miracles; whereas this is onely the vse of Mi­racles, namely, to confirme doctrine at the beginning, and first setting a broach of it; and therefore must cease after the doctrine bee suffici­ently confirmed. Second errour is, [Page 114] in that they thinke, that miracles is a marke of the true Church,Quasi hoc nō scriptum es­set venturos qui maximas virtutes edēt ad corrum­pendem ve­ritatem. Tertullian. when as euen very Hypocrites of­tentimes haue done miracles; yea, and can doe them, Marke 13. v. 22. Luke 21. where it is plainly told vs, that toward the ende of the World, there shall arise false Pro­phets, which shall worke miracles But 2. Thess. 2. v. 9. is a notable place a­gainst the Papists that doe so brag of their miracles. The comming of Antichrist is in the power of Satan, with all power and signes, and lying won­ders; whence it may appeare, that before the end of the World to doe many miracles, is a marke of An­tichrist; and the Apostle cals those miracles lying wonders; time and long experience testifi­eth so much: for in the Mona­steries, how many sleights and in­uentions doe the Monkes finde out to deceiue the common people and make them beleeue that they worke miracles.

I haue heard the causes of Iusti­fication, tell mee also what [Page 115] is the fruit of Iustificati­on?

It is that peace of conscience,S. Th. p. 41 [...]. by which a man is made sure of the grace and fauour of God, and of eternall life, which must especi­ally bee noted against that dete­stable errour of the Papists; who in their Trent Councell, Session 6. boldly affirme, that a man can­not heereof bee certaine in this life, but ought alwaies to doubt of it; and they adde, that there can bee no greater sinne before God, then that a miserable sinner, should assure himselfe of Gods fauour; yea, and further they adde, that whoso­euer shall hold that opinion, ought to bee accursed. To this their abomi­nable errour, wee oppose most plaine places of holy writ, Rom. 8. vers. 15. Yee haue not receiued the spirit of bondage, but that spirit of adoption, by which we cry Abba, Fa­ther; which spirit beareth witnesse to our spirit, that we are the sonnes of God: This is a very horrible impiety that we will not receiue the testimonie [Page 116] of the Spirit, but doubt of the truth, and certaintie thereof▪ 1. Iohn 5. He that belieueth in the Sonne of God hath the Testimonie in himselfe. And surely if God would haue had vs to haue doubted,Hoc dixit Deus, hoc promisit, si parum est, hoc iurauit. Aug. he would neuer haue sworne, that hee would bee com­passionate vnto vs. But now hee hath sworne thus much very eui­dently, Ezech. 18. As I liue (saith the Lord), that is, as truly as I am, and liue, I will not the death of a sinner, but that he liue. Also, Iohn 5. Verely, ve­rely, I say vnto you, whosoeuer belieueth in the Sonne, hath eternall life? And, Woe be to thee then (saith Saint Austine) if thou belieue not God, when he sweares to thee. Obiect. But the Papists obiect; They that are weak,Tria conside­ro, in quibus tota spes me a consistit, Cha­ritate adop­tionis, Veri­tatem pro­missionis, Potestatem redditionis, &c. Bern. are subiect to falling, and they cannot be sure of the grace of God. Answ. Who so are weake they may easily fall, I limit the pro­position thus, vnlesse there bee one that is mightier, who vpholdeth them. Now God it is that holds vs vp, and that helpeth our infirmities. And therefore certaine we may bee of the forgiuenes of sins, & of the [Page 117] grace of God, not by our owne na­ture indeed, which is weake but by the helpe, and assistance of the holy Ghost, making vs strong according to those sayings of holy Writ, Psal. 37. vers. 24. Though the righteous fall, he shall not bee cast off, because the Lord putteth vnder his hand. Iohn 10.38. I giue vnto my sheepe eternall life, neither shall they perish for euer, neither shall any one take them out of my hand, my Father which hath giuen mee them, is greater then all; that is, he can supply their wants readily, and vphold them mightily. Rom. 8.38. I am perswa­ded, that neither life nor death, neither things present, nor things to come, shall be able to separate vs from the loue of God, which is in Christ. Obiect. Againe, they ob­iect that place, 1. Cor. 10. Hee that standeth, let him take heed that hee fall not. Solut. I answere: That the Apostle there speaketh of hypocrites, which doe perswade themselues falsly that they stand; & further he speakes also of the weakenesse of men, touching which we cannot be enough admo­nished, to the end that we may think [Page 118] saluation not to lye in our owne strength, but in the grace of GOD onely. They vrge also that place,Obiect. Eccles. 9. A man knoweth not whether he is worthy loue or hatred. Whereto I answere, First,Solut. that this is a fallacie not be­ing limmited, wee ought then thus to limet it; A man knoweth not of himselfe, but hee may knowe it, God reuealing it vnto him, and the holy Spirit witnessing it. Secondly, a man knoweth not by those humane causes, and by the euent of Fortune, and the chan­ces and changes of these outward things. And therein the Text it selfe is a mouth to expound it selfe, for there it is said, that a man by externall changes, such as are riches, pouerty, health, sicke­nesse, honour, contempt, that a man cannot by these things nor any other externall estate, iudge, and certainely know, whether hee bee in the fauour of God, or be hated by him. And therefore that there argument is not sound, [Page 119] which argue thus, as many doe, I am rich, Ergo. I am the sonne of God: or, I am poore, Ergo. God doth hate mee. This iudge­ment then whether wee bee in the fauour of GOD or not, we must take from Gods Word. Sithence therefore it is certaine that a faithfull soule may bee as­sured of the fauour of God, and the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and may bee made partaker of the peace of Conscience, as it said, Romans 5. verse 1. Being iustified by Faith wee haue peace: thence another thing doth necessarily fol­low, to witt, That a man when hee is once receiued into the fa­uour of GOD, and hath obtai­tained remission of his sinnes, that hee (I say) cannot fall a­way from the grace of GOD, nor loose his Faith, nor bee ob­noxious vnto eternall damnation For because wee ought not to doubt of the grace of GOD, therefore, neither can wee fall away from the Grace [Page 120] of God: for if wee could fall away from it, then wee might doubt of it; but wee being once receiued into the grace and fauour of God, that wee cannot altogether loose that grace of God, the Scripture wit­nesseth, Rom. 8.1. There is no condem­nation to those which are in Christ Iesus: if no condemnation, then perpetuall fauour, and if no condemnation, then also no time is there wherein they may slide from the grace of God, and fall into condemnation: for by no condemnation, is exclu­ded both all the kinds thereof, and all occasions of falling thereinto. Hitherto appertaineth that place, which before we haue cited, Ioh. 10 My sheepe, none shall take out of my hand, Ipse ergo eos facit perseue rare in bono, qui facit bo­nos: qui autē cadunt & per [...]unt, in Praedestinato­rum numero non fuerunt. August. which is all one, as if hee had said, My sheepe shall neuer be taken out of my hand; which must bee di­ligently noted against the Papists, who affirme, that a man after that he is taken into the fauour of God, may fall againe out of his fauour, e­uen as if hee had neuer been in fa­uour, but may haue of a mercifull [Page 121] God, an vncompassionate, and irre­conciliable God, euen as when one falles out of the fauour of the King in stead of a gentle and kind master, hee hath now an angry and cruell King But here they obiect that place in the 51. Psalme,Obiect. where Dauid after that horrible sinne of his was committed, prayeth, Restore vnto me the ioy of my saluation, therefore, say they, he had lost the fauour of God. I answere,S [...]lut. that the Papists doe not halfe well enough looke into the text, for it is not said, Restore vnto me my spirit which I had lost; but he saith, restore my ioy, my comfort againe to me. Therefore that text makes against themselues; for if Dauid had lost that grace and spi­rit of God, then had he lost that his saluation, but he speakes otherwise, he saith onely restore comfort vnto me; for a true belieuer, when that he falleth into sinnes, the holy spirit for all that remaineth in him, yet it doth not cherish his conscience, but it groweth sad and heauy, and so ceaseth to bee glad, and merry be­fore [Page 122] times he vsed to be, he doth ther­fore desire of God that hee would take away this sadnesse and heaui­nesse of heart from him, and that hee would restore vnto him a ioyfull and gladsome spirit.

I haue heard as touching the fruit of Iustification, what is that you told me was necessarily conioyned and annexed thereunto?

Not [...] only, but [...].Because the iust man falls seuen timeseuen in a day, therefore to Iu­stification there must alwaies bee ad­ioyned Repentance.

True repentance of what parts doth it consist?

Of two parts, one of them as it were contrary vnto the the other; to wit, griefe, or sorrow for sinnes com­mitted, and the offending or displea­sing of God, and then comfort and confidence of the forgiuenesse of sinnes, which is to be had, by and for the merits of Christ. See the 467. page of my Syst. of Diuinity, and in the comment vpon Vrsins Catechisme, page 640. Here note a double error of the Papists, whereof the first is, [Page 123] That vnto true repentance there is required Confession to a Priest.Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus vt audiant con­fessiones me­as, quasi sa­naturi sint omnes lan­guores meos. Curiosum genus ad cog­noscendum vitam alie­nā, desidio­sum ad corri­gendum suā Quid à me quaerunt au­dir quisum qui nolunt à te audire qui sint. Aug To which error we oppose our iudge­ments: First, because such a Confes­sion is no where commanded of God. Secondly, because there is no one ex­ample for it of any Saint throughout the whole booke of God▪ no example I say, but which teacheth vs to make confession of our sinnes only to God: So doth Dauid Psalm. 51. Against thee onely haue I sinned O Lord. And the Publicane Luke 18. Standing in th [...] Temple confessed his sinnes onely to God, and thence went away iustified: Where­upon (saith Chryst.) Confesse thy sinnes to God, for to doe this to man it is not safe for thee, for that men may either discouer them or vpbrayd thee with them. Non gloria­bor quia iustu sum, sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum. Gloriabor non quia va­cuus peccati sum, sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata. Non glo­riabor quia profui, neque quia profuit mihi quisquam, sed quia pro me aduocatus apud Patrem Christus est, sed quia pro me Christs sanguis effusus est. Ambros. The other Popish error is, that Repen­tance which they call Pennance is sa­tisfactory, as if wee by our repen­tance did satisfie for our sinnes: vn­to which detestable errour, those pla­ces [Page 124] of the holy Bible are to be oppo­sed, by which we haue before made cleare that the passion of Christ doth sufficiently satisfie for all our sinnes.

You haue already sufficiently instru­cted me about Redemption: now take the paines, I pray you, to in­struct me about sanctification?

Sanctification, Regenaration, and new Obedience, or conuersion vnto God, are all one in signification. And it is nothing els saue the changing of our depraued, or corrupt nature into better, and then a setled resolution to auoyd sinne hereafter, and to frame our liues to some newe course which may bee pleasing vnto God, and be­seeming our profession of Faith and Religion;S. Th. p. 471. which regeneration in this life certainely cannot bee perfect, but onely inchoate, and alwaies con­ioyned with a combating, and a re­luctance against sinne, or of the flesh and the spirit, As the Apostle very largely setts it downe, Rom. 7. Galat. 5. The good (saith he) that I would, I doe not. But in that other life we shal [Page 125] perfectly be regenerated, sanctified, and reformed vnto the Image of God; yet for all this, Gods will it is our regeneration should bee begun in this life, and that good workes bee done by vs, as our Sauiour comman­deth, Math. 5. Let your light so shine before men, &c. 2. Peter 1.16. Labour to make your vocation and election sure by good workes, that is, Labour to giue vnto your selues a sure, and to others, an euident testimonie, that you haue true Faith from whence doe spring and arise good workes; for Faith without workes is dead, and in­deed is no Faith. 1. Thess. 4. This is the will of God euen your Sanctification. Rom. 6.12. Make your members hencefoorth weapons of righteousnesse. And most dreadfull is that speach. Heb. 13. Without holinesse none shall see God: Wherefore if it be demanded whether good workes are necessary vnto Saluation. I answer, That if wee take Saluation for our first entry thereunto: namely, Remission of sinnes, and iustification; then good workes are not necessary: because it [Page 124] [...] [Page 125] [...] [Page 126] is most necessarily required, that first our sinnes, be forgiuen vs, before wee can doe any good works pleasing vn­to God: good workes therefore are of no force to procure remission of sinnes, which we doe obtaine onely by Faith, contrary to the Papists te­nent: but if the word be not taken for the remission of sins, but for life eter­nall, which hereafter we shal be posses­sed of: there is neede then of good works, as a meane and way, but not as any meritorious cause of saluation; for then indeede shall we bee cloathed vpon, if we be not found naked: that is, in that other life, we shall be fully re­newed & conformed, if that we begin that reformation and sanctification in this life. And this is that which the A­postle speaketh, Heb. 7.14. Follow peace with all men, and holinesse without which none shall see the Lord.

How many parts are there of our San­ctification.

Two: Good workes, and Pray­er; For in these two standeth our whole Regeneration and conuersion; namely, to doe good workes, and [Page 127] dayly to call vpon God by Prayer.

What are good Workes, or what things are required vnto Works which are good, or pleasing vnto God?

Three things be requisit to good workes: First, that they spring from a true Faith: For Whatsoeuer is not of Faith, is sinne. Rom. 14.23. Heb. 11.6. Without Fath it is impossible to please God, &c. Secondly, that they bee commanded by God; for what works soeuer are enioyned by men, and not by God, those are not good works. Ezech. 9.19. You must walke in my Commandements, and not in the Com­mandements of your Fathers. Matth. 18.9. They worship me in vaine, teaching for doctrines mens precepts. Thirdly, that our good works bee alwaies referred to the glory of God; and not vnto vaine glory & hypocrisie. 1. Cor. 11.31. Doe all vnto the glory of God. Mat. 5.16. That men seeing your good workes, may glorifie your Father which is in heauen. Hereby may easily be discerned, what is to bee thought of the most of the Papists workes, wherewith they thinke that they worshippe GOD, [Page 128] such as are their Watchings, and Pil­grimages to holy places, and adoring of Churches with Shrines and Ima­ges: for such workes are no good workes; First, because they are not done out of Faith, but out of a most pestilent opinion of meriting and sa­tisfying for sinnes. Secondly, because they are not commanded by God, but inuented and appointed by Popes and Bishops against the expresse com­mandement of God: as that of Fa­sting and abstaining from Flesh on Friday; which manner of Fasting and difference of meate is expressely a­gainst the Word of God. Matt. 15. That which entreth into the mouth doth not defile the man; but that which com­meth out of the mouth, that defileth the man. 1. Tim. 4. The Apostle expres­sly and plainely nameth the Forbid­ding of certaine meates, and so of Flesh, among the doctrines of Diuels. Colos. 2. Let no man condemne you in meate and drinke, or in respect of Holydaies. Rom. 14. I am perswaded by our Lord Iesus Christ that nothing is vncleane, or common of it selfe; but to him that thin­keth [Page 129] any thing to be common or prophane: for the Kingdome of God is neither meate nor drinke, but righteousnesse, peace and ioy in the holy Ghost.

What is then the rule and square of our good workes, and so consequently whence doe we know what works be commanded by God?

The Morall Law, or the Deca­logue is the onely square of our good works,S. Th. p. 475. wherby we may know, what workes are acceptable vnto God. This law is reduced to two heads, to wit, the true worship of God,S. Th. p. 480. and then the works of charity, which wee performe to our neigh­bour. The worship of God is set downe in the former part of the Decalogue; and the loue of our neighbour, with the workes of cha­ritie, is comprised in the second ta­ble.

Which is the other part of sanctifica­tion?

Inuocation of Gods name.

How many waies is God inuocated, or called vpon?

Two waies;S. Th. p. 487. the first way is Pe­tition, [Page 130] or begging of those things whereof we stand in need: and the second is Thanksgiuing for those which we haue receiued: both which kinds of Inuocation is either pub­like or priuate. As touching both of them, reade my Syst. of Diuinity, pag. 487.Honorandi sunt sancti propter imi­tationem, non adorandi propter reli­gionem, & Angelos ho­noramus choritate non seruitute, nec eis tem­pla construi­mus No [...]unt enim sic se ho­norari à no­bis, quia nos ipsos quum boni sumus, templum summi dei esse noue­runt. Aug. And here must be obser­ued two maine errours of Poperie: First is, touching the Inuocation of Saints: secondly, about the wor­shipping of Images, and adoring of reliques. As touching the former of these twaine, wee in opposition thereunto maintaine, that God a­lone is to be called vpon in Prayer; that is, the deuout affection of our mind, is to bee directed euen vnto God, and not vnto Angels, nor vnto the Virgin Mary, nor vnto the Apo­stles, nor yet vnto those fourteene Helpers, as they call them; by whose mediation and merits, the Papists doe most blasphemously say, that they are rid, and deliuered from all aduersities; as are, George, Erasmus, Basil, Pantaleon, Vitus, Christopher, Dennis, In Anto­ninus his time, vnder Pauls picture was written, Per hunc itur ad Christum: and vnder Dominicks, Sed per istum sicilius. Flac. Illyric. Dominick, Achatius, Eusta­chius, [Page 131] Gyles, Margaret, Barbara, and Catherine. Hence is the Masse of the fourteene Helpers. But vnto this their praying vnto Saints, wee op­pose the plaine Word of God: whereby will bee conuinced▪ that we owe [...]he deuout affection of our mindes onely vnto God: Deut. 6. The Lord thy God shalt thou worship, &c. Which place Christ repeating, Matth. 4. expounds thus: And him onely shalt thou serue; producing it a­gainst Satans▪ temptation. See the like places, Exod. 20. Psal. 50. v. 15. Psal. 95. v. 6. Psal. 90.9. & 10. The Angels themselues forbid this, and refuse to bee worshipped, as being idolatrous▪ Iudg. 13.16. where the Angell saith vnto Ma [...]oah: Martyribus no [...] sacrifi­camus sed [...]ni Deo. Aug. If thou wilt make a burnt Offering, offer it vp vn­to the Lord▪ and not vnto me? Reuel. 19 Vers. 20. also the 22. v. 9. the Angell forbiddeth Iohn and stayes him from falling downe before him, and wor­shipping of him. Whereupon hee saith to him; See thou doe not this, for I am thy fellow seruant: that is, I am also a creature as well as thy selfe. [Page 132] Paul, Coloss. 2. expressely condemnes worshipping of Angels. Ab alio orare non possum, quam a quo sciam me consecutu­rum: quoni­am & ipse est q [...]i solus prae­stat▪ & ego sum cui im­petrare debe­tur, famulus eius, qui eum solum obser­u [...], qui ei offero opimam hostiam, quam man­dauit oratio­nem de [...]arne pudica, de anima inno­cen [...]i, de spiritu sancto profectam. Tertull. And note I pray you a very plaine place, Rom. 10. How shall they call on him, in whom they haue not belieued? Whence thus I ar­gue: Wee ought not to belieue in the Saints; therefore neither ought wee call, or pray to them. And the Apostle further in his Epistle to the Galathians, Chap. 4. vers. 5. blameth the Heathen, for that they called on them, which by nature are not Gods. Whence I also argue: Reuera Sanctum erat corpus Ma­riae, non ta­men Deus: reuera virgo crat Maria & honorata, sed non ad ado­rationem nobis data. Epiphan. The saints are not by nature Gods: Ergo, they are not to be called vpon: or if they be called vpon, then is committed most filthy idolatrie. Yea, but the Saints may mediate for vs, therefore they are to be called vpon. Whereto wee answere, denying the Antece­dent, that the Saints can mediate for vs with God: First, because we haue one onely Mediator, to wit, Christ Iesus, as it is written; There is one Mediatour betwixt God and man, euen the man Christ Iesus. 1. Tim. 2. v. 5. [Page 133] like places hereunto, see Ioh. 19.11.13. Rom. 3.35.Ibi sunt spi­ritus defun­ctorum, vbi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut eueniunt in ista vita ho­minum. Aug. Rom. 8.34. Heb. 2.17 Heb. 7.25. Heb 9 12. Second­ly, the Saints cannot be mediators, for that they doe not know the gro­nings, and sighes of our hearts, and vnderstand not our priuate trou­bles and afflictions: for these be the conditions of an aduocate or media­tor; first, that our mediatour be no­minated and commended vnto vs by plaine and euident testimonies: se­condly that that same intercessour bee perfectly righteous and holy: thirdly, that hee also know the gro­nings and afflictions of him, for whom he meanes to mediate: none of al which agreeth vnto the saints; for the Saints are neither appointed vnto vs by God to be our interces­sours, neither haue wee any com­mand in holy Scripture, that we are to make the Saints mediatours for vs, or to call on them. Nay, rather quite contrary precepts hereunto, which we haue before cited. Againe wee find not through the whole vo­lume of Gods booke, any one exam­ple [Page 134] of any Saint, that hath prayed vnto a Saint, and entreated him to play the mediatour for him. Neither does the second condition agree to them, for that they are not altoge­ther pure before God, that they may mediate for others: but they them­selues rather haue need of a media­tour: as it is said, Iob. 15. Yea, in his Saints he found vncleannesse. Thirdly, the Saints are ignorant of our af­flictions and affections, how can they therefore interceede for vs, if they wo [...] not what wee aske? for God alone challengeth this priui­ledge to himselfe, to be the searcher of the heart, and the discouerer of the thoughts and groanings of men. Yea, but (say the Papists) the Saints as the friends of God haue all our groanings and praiers disclosed vn­to them in the glasse of the Trinitie.Note Si quando homines exo­rare opo [...]tet, ianitorib. pri­us occurre­re oportet &c. In Deo nihil tale, ad quem confugies? ad Abrahamum? non te audiet. Ille s [...]lus precandus & exorandus qui & scriptam in te da [...] [...]ationem delere potes [...] & incendium res [...]inguere. Chry­s [...]. Whereto I answere: first, that if the Saints come to the knowledge of [Page 135] our groanings by God, what need is there, that first wee should call on the Saints, and to what end is it to haue any such mediators with God, sithence he to whom they mediate, knoweth better what is wanting to vs, then the mediators themselues? For it should seeme to be a preposte­rous course to vse any intercessour vnto a King, if the King knew the party, for whom the mediatour would interceed,Solent tamen pudor [...]m passi miserà vti excusa­tione per i [...]os posse in ad Deum, sicut per comites peruenitur ad regem; age nunquid tam demens &c. v. Amb. in 1. cap. epist. ad Rom. better then the mediator himselfe. And how absurde should it bee, if the intercessour should say: Tell me, I pray you, O my King, what this fellow asks, for whom I am to mediate? Secondly, I say, that the Scripture hath broken that prospectiue glasse al to shiuers. Esay 62. Heare from heauen thine holy dwelling place: for thou art our Father; Abraham heareth vs not, and Israel is ignorant of vs: but thou art our Father, thy name is from euerlasting. Where it is plainely affirmed, that Abraham and Israel, which long agoe were dead, and whose soules rested with God in the Heauens, did not in any [Page 136] glasse behold and know the gro­nings and afflictions of the Church militant on earth; and indeed that the Saints departed are not priuie to our affaires done vpon the earth, nor know any thing in specialtie, what happeneth among the liuing, that place in the 2. of Kings, Chap. 22. witnesseth, where God saith vn­to Iosiah, a most religious and holy King: I will gather thee vnto thy Fa­thers, that thine eyes may not see all the euils: which I will bring vpon this place, Esay 57. The iust and the righteous are taken away from the sight of the euill, that in his yeares he may not behold the calamities, which are to be sent vpon the land for wretched impie­ty. Eccl. 9. The dead know nothing any more, to wit, of those things, which are done vpon the earth. Hence therefore is it rightly inferred, that the Saints cannot be mediators And indeed we haue no need of them to be our intercessours: first, because God knoweth our afflictions better then they, yea, better then the An­gels: secondly, because God is more [Page 137] mercifull then any Saint, and more desirous that we should liue,Ideo ad re­g [...]m per tri­bunos aut comites itur, quia homo vtique est rex, & nesci [...], quib. debeat rempub. cre­dere. Ad De­um au [...]m, quem vtique nihil latet, &c. [...]. Amb. vbi supra in 1. cap. ad Rom. then a­ny Saint can be. Now that we do vse the intercession of some Noble man, or great man vnto Kings (which is their most plausible argu­ment), it is for the great defect and weakenesse that is in man: for that Princes are not acquainted with all mens grieuances: secondly, because Princes are more affected vnto one man, then vnto another; but no such respect of persons is there with God, as it is said, Acts 10. The Pa­pists bring vs in a distinction be­twixt [...] seruice, and [...] ado­ration: and say that the one, to wit, Seruice is due to Saints, the other, that is, adoration is due to God. A­gainst which distinction, you may reade a most cleare disputation in the exposition of Vrsins Catechisme, pag. 739. where it is proued by ho­ly Scripture, that [...] and [...] both the one and the other agrees vnto God, and neither of them both vnto Saints. Onely this one thing I will not let passe, that the Pa­pists [Page 138] themselues break downe their owne distinction, which I proue by this reason: All those things which Dauid in the Psalmes giues vnto God, he giues them all by the way of adoration: but all those very things which Dauid giues vnto God, are attributed vnto the Virgin Marie in Bonauentures Psalter: Ergo. The other errour of the Papists is, about the worshipping of Images, and so also of that worship, which they make vnto the Reliques of the Saints. And first of all the Papists hold, that those prayers which are made in, or at certaine set Chappels and Churches, and before the Ima­ges of the Saints, are of greater effi­cacie, and greater worth, then those which are in other places powred forth before God: quite against the holy Word of God, Ioh. 4. The time shall come, when the true worshippers shall neither be at Ierusalem, nor in this moun­taine, but in spirit and truth worship the Father. Matth. 6. Christ bids, goe into our chamber, and there the doores being shut, to powre out our prayers. [Page 139] 1. Tim. 2. The Apostle willeth men to pray in euery place, lifting vp pure hands. Now against reliques and images, let that place bee well obserued, Esay 24. My glory will I not giue vnto another, nor mine honour vnto the grauen images. But we (say the Papists) doe not worship images, and we know, that it is said in the second com­mandement; Thou shalt not how downe thy selfe vnto them, &c. To this what shall we answere, but that they say one thing, and doe another: for we haue already prooued, that they fall downe, and worship the crosse; Be­hold the signe of the Crosse, come and let vs worship it. Againe, it is impos­sible, that ones whole affection should bee bent and settled on an image, and yet that hee should not direct some deuotion vnto the I­mage;Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere: i. e. quod co­litur, aut a­doratur, in parietib. pin­ga [...]ur. Concil-Elibert. as one of the Ancients hath well said: It cannot possible be that the affection should be withdrawne from that, where on our whole sense is fixed, and fast­ned. Therefore Lactunirus saith, that there can bee no true worship performed, where it is done with respect vnto images. [Page 140] Thirdly, we say, that both these are equally forbidden of God, namely, the worshipping of the image it selfe, [...]. Atha. Quis ergo iste honor Dei est. per lapideas & ligneas for­mas discur­rere, & in­anes atque examines figuras tan­quam nu­mina venerari, & hominem, in quo vere imago Dei est, spernere. Clem. Rom. and the worshipping of God at, or before an image. For this you haue a plaine place, Leuit. 26. 1. You shall make you none idols, nor grauen image, neither reare you vp any pillar, nei­ther shall you set vp any stone or image within your land to worship before it: for I am Iehouah, the Lord your God. But images (say they) are Lay-mens Bi­bles, and therefore they may bee borne with, as certaine historicall documents for the good of lay peo­ple: whereto I answere: first, that it is no little blasphemy to affirme, that images are Bibles, that is, the Word of God: for the authoritie of Gods Word, and of the Bible, is the greatest that may bee, and it is vn­speakable: But who dare say, that the authoritie of images is as diuine and eternall, as that of God himself. Secondly, Images cannot be Lay-peoples Bibles, because the Bible [Page 141] containes the true doctrine of God: but Images are deceitfull and lying Teachers, teaching lyes, as it is ma­nifestly written by Ier. 10. and by Habb. 2.18, 19. Further, wee ought not to be wiser then God, who hath instituted, that his Church should be taught, not by dumbe Pictures and Images, but by the liuely prea­ching of his Word, and the lawfull vse of the Sacraments. And these things be spoken also, as touching the adoration of Reliques, for the worshipping of them is confuted by those very same places of Scrip­ture, by which the worshipping of Images hath been ouerthrowne.

You haue led mee by the hand through all Diuinitie, and so haue holpen mee to some ge­nerall knowledge, whereby I may insome sort be prepared vn­to the holy Supper of our Lord: now it remaines that you furnish me with some particular know­ledge about the same Supper of the Lord, whereunto I desire to prepare myselfe?

[Page 142] S. Th. p. 449.You say well indeed, and I will doe it very willingly, so be that, be­fore all, you note that the word Sa­crament is no where extant in holy Scripture, but there are diuers words aequiual [...]nt vnto it; as Romans 4. the word Signe or Seale; where Paul calleth Circumcision the seale of the righteousnesse of Faith. A Sacra­ment then is a holy signe or seale an­nexed to the word of God, as vnto tables and letters, wherein God pro­miseth vnto vs his fauour, and the forgiuenesse of sinnes by the death and suffering of our mediatour▪ Ie­sus Christ. Now signes be of three sorts: Some there bee, which are onely Significatiue, [...] and noting out somewhat, as the Meare-stone signi­fieth the fields, which it parts, to be diuers: [...]. Some are Memoratiue, re­presenting vs the memory of some­what, and exciting our affection and will, thankefully to thinke on it: as when one friend giues vnto another some excellent booke, or a piece of Gold to be a signe vnto him of his friendly remembrance. Lastly, some [Page 143] Signes are Confirmatiue, [...]. whereby some benefit or other promised vnto vs by any man, is made certaine vn­to vs. As the seale hanging at the Kings Letters Patents doth not onely signifie and put the party in remem­brance of some benefit, but it doth especially certifie him; as namely, by which he, to whom the letters are granted, is certainely assured to ob­taine that benefit or good thing, which is promised him in the Letters. A Sacrament then is a Seale or Signe assuring vs the forgiuenesse of sinnes, promised in the Letter Pattens of the Gospell. In which short and plaine description, the whole nature of Sacraments doth consist; neither is it here any whit needfull that the godly heart should bee troubled or molested with any subtilties either of Papists, [...]. or of Vbiquitaries.

I conceiue what a Sacrament in gene­rall is, I would haue you to shew me what the Supper of the Lord is?

It is a Sacrament of the New Te­stament,S. Th. p. 454. or, it is a holy signe ordained [Page 144] by Christ in the new Testament, that by bread broken and eaten, wee may be admonished and certified, that the body of Christ was broken vpon the Crosse, and giuen for vs: and by wine powred out, and drunke, wee may bee remembred & assured, that the blood of Christ was shed for vs, for the re­mission of sinnes.

How many things are we to consider in the Lords Supper?

S. Th. p. 440.Three things, as in euery other re­lation; first, the two termes of the re­lation, the Relate, and the Correlate: secondly, the foundation and ground of this relation: thirdly, the end or fi­nall cause of this relation.

What is the Relate in the Lords Sup­per, and what is it called?

It is called the signe, or the thing, which puts vs in mind, and giues vs assurance of some other matter.

How many kind of signes be there in the Lords Supper?

The Relatum or signe in the Lords Supper is twofold, Substantiall and Accidentall.

Which is the Substantiall?

[Page 145]It is true bread,Sub vtraque specie sumi­tur ipse totus Christus, sed si in altera tantum sumeretur, ad alterius tantum, id est, animae vel corporis, non viriusque pariter tuitionem valere significaretur. Ambros. Aut integra Sacramenta percipi­aut, aut ab integris arceantur, quia diuisio vnius eiusdemque my­sterii sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest. Gelasius. and true wine.

Which is the Accidentall?

It is the breaking of the bread, and the taking of it; likewise the pow­ring out of the wine, and the taking of it.

What is the Correlate in the Lords Supper?

It is called the thing signified, or that thing whereof wee are put in mind, and assured in the Lords Sup­per. The ancient Church called the Relatum, the earthly matter, as is bread and wine, for both of them spring from the earth; and the thing signifi­ed, it called the heauenly matter; where­upon it rightly and religiously taught that the Supper of the Lord did con­sist in two things, a terrene or earthly, and a celestiall or heauenly matter; and therefore that it behooued those which came vnto the Lords Supper, to [Page 146] thinke that there they should receiue two things, to wit, an earthly thing af­ter an earthly fashion; that is, bread and wine with the mouth of the bo­dy, and an heauenly thing after an heauenly manner, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ by a true faith.

What bee the things signified in the Lords Supper?

The thing signified is of two sorts, substantiall, or accidentall.

What is the substantiall?

Euen whole Christ our Mediator, according to both natures, diuine & humane, but especially according to his body and bloud, inasmuch as in his body, as the subiect of his pasiō he suffered for our sinnes, and by his blood shed he purged our sins. And this it is which Christ saith, This is my body which is giuen for you; that is, in the Supper of the Lord you are pu [...] in remembrance, and assured of my body, as it hung vpon the crosse, and also of my bloud which was she [...] likewise for you vpon the crosse.

What is the accidentall?

Euen all those benefits, which do [Page 147] accrew vnto vs by the passion and death of Christ, as the forgiuenes of sins, regeneration, sanctification, & in fine life euerlasting; as Christ saith, My blood which is shed for you for the remission of sinnes.

I haue heard of both the termes in the Lords Supper to wit, the Relate and the Correlate: now I would bee instructed about the foundation & ground of that holy admonition and certification, as you calld it?

The fundamētall or efficient cause of the Lords upper is,S. Th. p. 446. partly in re­spect of the thing it selfe, or the Sa­crament, partly in respect of vs which doe vse the sacrament.

What is the foundation, in respect of the Sacrament it selfe?

It is twofold, the institution of Christ, and the agreement or corre­spondencie betwixt the signe, and the thing signified.

What are to be considered in the in­stitution of Christ?

Two things: First, the Hi­storie of the institution of the LORDS Supper, set downe [Page 148] by the Euangelists: secondly, the es­peciall wordes of the institution, which are, This Bread is my Bodie which is giuen for you: This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood.

How are those words to bee vnder­stood?

S. Th. p. 457. Dominus non dubita­uit dicere hoc est corpus meum, cum signum da ret corporis sui. Aug. Hoc est cor­pus meum, id est, hoc est figura corpo­ris mei. Tert. Panis dicitur corpus suo modo, cum sit sacra­mentum; non autem dicitur rei veritate sed mysterio sig­nificante. August.They are to bee construed accor­ding to the nature of signes or sa­craments, which are not transub­stantiations of things, but as wee haue a little before noted, significa­tions and seales of things. These words therefore are not substantial­ly to be vnderstood, as if the Bread were the substance of the Bodie of Christ, for by that reason bread should haue been crucified for vs, bread should haue been giuen to die for vs; and so the Cup likewise should haue been shed for vs vpon the Crosse, the Cup should haue is­sued out of Christs side. Neither are they to be vnderstood consubstanti­ally, as if the body of Christ were included in the bread, and the bloud of Christ included in the wine; for Christ saith not, in this bread is my [Page 149] body, or in this wine is contained my blood, neither would our Sauior teach his Disciples,Vt quid pa­ras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Idem. Antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus; diuina au­tem illa san­ctificante gra liberatus est ab appel­latione panis, dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis ap­pellatione, etsi natura panis in eo romansit. Chrysost. [...]. Macar Seruator noster nomina cōmutauit, & corpori quidem id, quod erat symboli ac signi, nomen imposuit; sym­bolo autem, quod erat corporis, causa mutationis manifesta est iis, qui &c. Theodoret. where his body or his blood was, for they saw that well enough, in that Christ was sit­ting with them at the Table. But those words are to be vnderstood in a commemoratiue, or certificatiue signification: as if Christ had said, the bread doth for a certaintie sig­nifie vnto you, and giues you notice of my body, which is deliuered vn­to death for you; and the wine doth most certainely notifie and assure you of my bloud which is shed for you, for the remission of sinnes. Christs speech then is altogether the like, as if when a Prince hath granted to any one a faire Mannor, and he giue withal vnto the Graunt [Page 150] his letters with his Broad seale, and deliuering the man these his letters with the seale, hee should say, Loe, theres your Mannor. Now he giues not the land substantially into his hands; & by consequēt it wil follow, that that speech of the Prince must not be vnderstood substantially, as if those letters & the sealewere the ve­ry substāce of the demain or because the demaine were inclosed in the seale, but it is a significatiue & cer­tificatiue kind of speaking, which must be thus vnderstood & interpre­ted these letters of min [...], & this seale do import and assure thee of the cer­taine hauing and possessing of that Manor, farme, or demain. Wherfore we conclude, that the body & bloud of Christ according to the substāce therof, is neither in the bread, nor in the place where the Supper of the Lord is administred; but in truth in heauen, as it is vsually said, he ascen­ded into the heauens, from whence he shal only come at the last Iudge­ment; but that the bread & wine do giue vs notice & assurāce, that the ve­ry [Page 151] body which now is in heauen, was giuen for vs on the crosse, and that the bloud of Christ was shed for vs: which must be obserued against the Papists & Vbiquitaries, who seeke after the body and bloud of Christ in that very place where is the bread and wine.

What is the other foundation, in respect of the Sacrament?

It is the agreement or meet analogie betwixt the signe,Si sacramen­ta aliquam similitudi­nem earum rerum qua­rum sunt sa­cramenta non habe­rent ne sacra­menta qui­dem essent. Aug. & the thing signifi­ed, or it is that fi [...]nes, wherby the bread may signifie & certain vs of C. body gi­uen for vs, & the wine may notifie and assure vs of the bloud of C. shed for vs. Wherin consists that fitnes which true bread hath to signifie the body of Christ?

It consists in 3 things: 1 that like as the bread is broken, so the body of C. was broken & torne vpō the crosse for vs: as Paul saith This bread it is the com­munion of the body of Christ. 2 That like as bread hath the force of nourishing, so the body of Christ giuen for vs vnto death, hath power to refresh our cōsci­ences fo [...]lorne, & almost spent & pin'd away, by reason of sin. 3. Like as bread doth not only nourish, but it doth also [Page 152] strengthen our body; so the body of Christ in like manner deliuered vn­to death for vs, hath power conti­nually to cherish and sustaine our drooping miserable consciences.

Wherein consists the correspondencie that Wine hath vnto the Blood of Christ?

In three things also; first, euen as the wine is poured out into the cup, and poured also out of the cup: so the bloud of Christ sprung out of his body, and was shed vpon the crosse. Secondly, euen as wine hath the power of reuiuing and quick­ning, or of heating and moystening of our body, and of increasing vitall and animall spirits; so the bloud of Christ, or the merit of the bloud of Christ hath the power of quickning our benummed & drie consciences, by reason of sinne. Thirdly, euen as wine maketh glad the heart of man, and hath great vertue in it to cheare vp the mind: so the merit of Christ, or the bloud of Christ worketh an vnspeakable ioy in our soules: whereof Dauid speaketh, Psalm. 51. [Page 153] Restore vnto me my ioy againe.

I haue heard what the foundation of the Lords Supper is in respect of the Sacrament it selfe, or the things themselues; now tell mee what is their ground and founda­tion which do vse it, or the founda­tion in respect of vs?

It is true Faith, whereby wee doe so looke vpon these signes, as they signifie, remember, and assure vs of the body of Christ,Siquis man­ducauerit ex ipso non mori etur in eter­num. Hoc pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti non ad visi­bile Sacra­mentum. Qui mandu cat intus, non [...]oris; qui manduca [...] corde, non qui premit dente. Aug. Quasi non possit tangi quum iam ascenderit, at vtique poterit, sed affectu, non manu; voto, non oculo; side, non sensibus. Be [...]. of the bloud of Christ, and so consequently of his whole merit: and so likewise of cer­taine remission following vpon that merit. For in the Supper of the Lord remission of Sinnes is not granted vnto vs, neither hath the Bread or the Wine any power to purifie from sins, as the Papists peruresly do imagine. But our Faith is confirmed and strengthned by these signes in the re­mission of sinnes, which was granted and giuen vnto vs, before that we ap­proached the Supper.

[Page 154] Wherein consists that Faith, which we must bring to the Lords Sup­pur, thereby to bee confirmed and strengthned.

It consists in two things: First in a sure trust and confidence, whereby we beleeue for certaintie, that Christs body was giuen and his bloud shedde for vs: that is, for that person that commeth to be partaker of the Lords Supper. Secondly, it consisteth in application, whereby we appropriate vnto our selues Christs passion, stead­fastly beleeuing that wee as Christs members are so made one with Christ our head, that as he suffered for our sinnes, euen so the pardon for all those sinnes for his passion sake we should as certainely bee perswaded of, as if we our selues had been crucified, and there haue giuen our owne proper bodies, and shedde our owne hearts bloud.

I haue heard as concerning the foun­dation and ground of the Lords Supper; it remaineth that I learne somewhat of the end or the finall cause, for which the Lords [Page 155] Supper was instituted, and for which it becommeth mee to com­municate at the Lords Table?

The end or finall cause is first in respect of Christ, then in respect of our selues In respect of Christ,Reliquit no­bis Christus [...] i. e. Monumenta suae salutaris passionis, quae proposu­imus iuxta [...]iu▪ manda­ta. Basil. the ende is the commemoration of that his most bitter Passion, which he en­dured for vs both in his soule, and in his body. A commemoration (I say) that is a gratulatorie remembrance, to the ende that for that so great a benefit, and vnutterable loue towards vs, we should in the publike assembly and congregation, in the very face of the Church, yeeld together with that remembrance most hearty thankes. As Christ saith, Doe this in remem­brance of me, in an Eucharisticall or thankefull wise. Whereupon this Sa­crament is also called the Eucharist, for this principall vse of the Lords Supper. In respect of our selues the vse of the Lords Supper is either Primary or Secondarie.

What is the Primarie vse of it in re­spect of our selues?

It is two [...]old: First, the confir­ming [Page 156] and establishing of our faith as touching the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, for Christs body giuen vnto death for vs, and for his blood shed vpon the Crosse likewise for vs. The other vse is the nourishing, strengthening, reuiuing, and chea­ring of our consciences, which were by the burthen of sinne oppressed, dried vp, and disconsolate.

Which is the secondary vse arising from the former?

It is threefold: first, the conse­cration of our selues, that euen as Christ offered himselfe once vpon the Altar of the Crosse for vs; so we should in this publike action of the Church offer vp our selues, and our whole life, euen all that are ours vn­to God and his sonne. Secondly, the publike confession of our faith, to wit, that by these external symboles and tokens, as by a militarie marke and signet wee may testifie, vnto what company we belong, and to what religion wee adioyne our selues. Thirdly, the obligation of our selues, that wee should also by [Page 157] this publike action in the sight of the Church, bind our selues to loue our neighbour, and to do the works of charitie, especially to them that are partakers with vs in the same beliefe and religion. And hereupon it was, that the Ancients called this Supper of the Lord [...], that is, a loue-feast; and that they were al­waies wont, which came vnto the Supper, to giue some almes vnto the poore, that so they might testi [...]ie, how that by the vse of the Lords Supper, they were obliged to per­forme workes of loue and charitie towards their neighbours. And this is the true doctrine of the Lords Supper, drawne out of the onelie Word of God, and taken from the nature of Sacraments.S. Th. p. 459. But contra­riwise, the Masse is an horrible monster, an idoll composed by An­tichrist, & consisting of diuers hor­rible blasphemies; whereby the whole dignitie and excellencie of the Lords Supper is defaced, and quite taken away, namely, while they say, that Christ in the institu­tion [Page 158] of the holy Supper, before that euer he gaue his body and blood vn­to his disciples, did vnder the bread and wine offer vp himselfe truly, though after an vnbloody manner, for the honour of his Father, and that he did appoint then his disci­ples, and all Ministers afterward to doe the like. As the Masse-priests indeede after a few words vttered, like Magical Spels and Charmes, & after a few histrionicall gestures and ceremonies doe beare vs in hand that they doe. And further they blush not to affirme, that this Sacrament is a sacrifice, a most true propitiatorie sacrifice for the sins, punishments, and all wants not on­ly of the liuing,Si Deus di­misit peccata per vnam hostiam nec dum iam opus est se­cunda. Chrys. Saluatoris hostia semel oblata absoluit omnia fidaque in omne tēpus ꝓdurat. Aaroni suc­cessores dati fuerunt; Dominus autem sine transitione & successi­re sacerdotium obtinit in aeternum. Athanas. but of the dead too. And so most blasphemously tread, as it were, vnder foote the Passion of Christ, which as formerly we haue prooued, is the alone and only pro­pitiation for our sinnes, which was onely to bee made and performed [Page 159] by Christ, and not often to be re­iterated, as are the expresse words of the Apostle against that idoll of the Masse worthy to bee obserued. Heb. 10.12. Christ hauing made that one onely offering for sinnes for euer sitteth at the right hand of God: And vers. 14. By that one oblation hath he consecrated for euer those which are iustified. You may reade more abuses and abomi­nations of the Popish Masse very plainely propounded in the expli­cation of Vrsins Catechisme, at the eightieth question.

You haue fitted mee for the Lords Supper by knowledge, both gene­rall and particular: now it re­maineth, that you prepare mee also by true deuotion. What things then, I pray you, doe ap­pertaine vnto that true Deuo­tion?

Two things: first, that you bethink with your selfe, how oft you are to vse the Lords Supper▪ secondly, that you consider well, how you may vse it worthily.

How oft must I vse the Lords Supper?

[Page 160] Non est au­daciae saepiús accedere ad Dominicam mensam sed indigné ac­cedere, etiā ­sisemel tan­id fiat in to­ta vita. Chrys Scio Romae hanc esse con­suetudinē, vt fideels sem­per Christi corpus acci­piant Hiero. Accipe quo [...]tidie, quod quotidie tibi prosit: sic vine vt merearis quotidi ac­cipere. Qui non meretur quotidie ac­cipere, non mer [...]tur post annum acci­pere. Ambr.Very often; where truely there can bee no certaine number of times prescribed vnto any man: because e­uery one out of his godly vnderstan­ding, is to set downe that with him­selfe. But in the Primitiue Church, the Christians surely did vse the Lords Supper, as often as euer they came together to heare the Word of God; as may appeare out of the 3. of the Acts, where the Christians are said to haue met to heare the word of God, and to the breaking of Bread, that is, the Supper of the Lord. But it would be very conuenient foure times in the yeare, or twise at the least euery yeare to approach the Lords Table; and that for these reasons. First, Because frequent and solemne thankesgiuing is by vs to bee performed for that so excellent benefit which was affoorded vnto vs by Christs passion. Secondly, because Christ in expresse termes commands. How often soeuer you shall doe it in remembrance of me; where the word how often soeuer, enforceth an of­ten vsage: that is, So often, as often as you shall come; so that it pre­supposeth, [Page 161] that wee are often to come. 3. And thus farre are wee in­debted to our faith, that wee often strengthen it, so much we owe vnto our consciences,Qui vu [...]nus habet, medi­cinam quae­rit; vulnus habemus dum sub pec­ca [...]o sumus, medicina est Sacramen­tum. Bern. that we may often hereby cherish, quicken and cheare them vp: for by this good helpe and meanes, wee stirre our selues vp to leade a new life, whilest that we con­secrate and offer vp our selues to God by the vse of the Lords Supper. Thus much we owe likewise to the Ch. that we may hereby make open profession, and giue a publike testi­mony, that we be fellowes & mem­bers of it. Lastly, thus much we are bound to performe for the auoiding of corporal punishments: for 1 Cor. 11.30. it is said, For this cause many are weak & sick among you, & many sleep, &c. where the Apostle teacheth, that God punisht many in the Ch. of Co­rinth with diseases & death, because they did not rightly vse the L. Sup­per. Now if God did lay his punish­ing hand on thē by diseases & death for the wrong vse, how much more will he punish for the rare vse of the L. Supper.

[Page 162] Teach me now further how I may wor­thily vse the Lords Supper, and so how my deuotion must be qualified?

Qui sibi nul­lius maliest conscius, hūc oportet sin­gulis diebus accedere: qui vero peccatis occupatus est neque poeni­tet, ei nec in festis accede­re tutum est. Nec. n. se­mel in anno accedere li­berat nos à peccatis, si indignè ac­cesserimus: quin hoc ip­sum auget damnationē, quod cum se­mel tantum accedamus, ne tum qui­dem pu [...]è ac­cedimus. Chrysostom.That indeed is it, which aboue all other is most necessary, because of that most sharp sentence pronounced by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. v. 7. Who­soeuer therefore eateth this bread or drinketh this Cup vnworthily, he is guil­tie of the body and bloud of Christ; that is, he is held guiltie of the violating of this sacred signe and seale, where­by the body and bloud of the Lord is represented, and withall assured vnto vs. Whereupon hee further addeth; Let euery man therefore examine him­selfe, and so let him eat of this Bread and drinke of this Cup; for who so eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drin­keth his owne damnation, not discerning the Lords body, that is, not vsing with reuerence those most holy signes and pledges, whereby wee are assured of the Lords body, and so consequently not discerning, or putting any diffe­rence between common bread, which wee eat euery day at our tables, and this bread, which by reason of the vse [Page 163] and office of certifying and assuring is made holy; and so likewise of the Wine.

Of what sorts is that deuotion, I pray you tell me?

It must be of two sorts: either An­tecedent, going before the receiuing, or Concomitant, and ioyned to the receiuing of those holy mysteries.

How is the Antecedent deuotion cal­led?

It is called, The examining of a mans selfe, according to that wee erst­while vrged out of the Apostle; Let euerie man therefore examine him­selfe, &c.

What is the true trying of a mans selfe, & of what parts does it consist?

The examination, or proouing of a mans selfe, is nothing else but the sifting of ones conscience, what a man thinketh of himselfe; and this exa­mination is threefold.

Which is the first examination?

The first examination is as touch­ing our misery, which againe is ei­ther general, namely, when we con­sider with our selues the misery of [Page 164] whole mankind; which did betide vs by the fal of our first Parents, which doth consist in sin, & the punishment of sin; or special, when our thoughts are occupied about our own peculi­ar misery; which examinatiō stands in 2 things: first, in the acknowledg­ing of those sins, which thou euery day hast committed, either by omit­ting good things, which should haue beene done, or committing euill, which should haue beene left vn­done, and that both in respect of Good workes, which wee ought to doe, as also in respect of praiers, and daily inuocating on Gods Name, which hath beene either altogether neglected, or but coldly performed, together with a due and diligent consideration of those punishments both corporall and eternall, which we might for those our sinnes feare would iustly fall vpon vs. Secondly, In a serious griefe and repenting sor­row for those our sinnes. It were, me thinkes, very meet to make such an examination of our selues on the third day (as it were) for examples [Page 165] sake, on Friday before the celebrati­on of the Lords Supper; and on that day to bee read both the first part of sacred Theologie, and also the 20. Chapt. of Exod. the 28. of Deut. and thereunto to be added that pray­er of Dauid out of the 51. and 38. Psalmes.

Which is the second examination?

The second is concerning our faith,Apprehensio. Applicatio. Si credis pec­cata tua non posse del [...]ri, nisi ab eo [...]ui soli peccasti & in quem peccatum non cadit, benè facis: sed adde ad­huc vt cre­das quia per ipsum tibi peccata di­mittuntur. Hoc enim est testimonium Spiritus Sāc­ti, dimissa sunt Tibi peccata. Bern. namely, whereby wee recouer our selues out of our former sorrowfull meditation, fixing our faith and be­liefe on Christ, thinking on his per­son, his office, and especially his pas­sion and death, and applying that his passion and death to our selues, eue­ry one of vs assuring our selues, that for that his passion all our sinnes are forgiuen. Where it will also be expe­dient to read ouer the whole doctrine of the remedies against our miseries, euen vnto the doctrine of Iustificati­on, and thereunto to adioyne the 26. and 27. chapters of Matthew the 17, 18, 19. of Iohn; the 53 of Esay, and likewise the 8. of the Epistle vnto the Romanes.

[Page 166] Which is the third examination?

The third must be occupied about our sanctification, or new life; which consideration is absolued by a double resolution, and steady pur­pose of hart: the first, of doing those good workes hereafter, which are to bee performed either towards GOD, or towards our Neigh­bour. The second, of daily calling on God by prayer, where it shal not be impertinent to recall the whole doctrine of sanctification, and to reade the fith and sixth Chapters of Matthew; the 12, and the following Chapters of the Epistle to the Ro­mans; the 12 of the Epistle to the Hebrews; the latter Chapters of the Epistle to the Galath. the Epistle to the Col. to the Eph. both the Epist. of Iohn and of Iames. And this may be done vpon the sabbath day.

Thus farre I haue heard of that deuo­tion which ought to goe before the vse of the Lords Supper: now tell me also somwhat of that deuotion, which I ought to vse at the recei­uing of the holy Communion?

[Page 167]That deuotion is either externall, namely, that we doe soberly and re­uerently approach vnto this holy action, in regard of our outward ge­sture, or internall and principall, which consists in these foure points, First, that thou render vnto Christ most deuout and hearty thanks for that his passion and death, which for thy sake hee suffered and sustained. Secondly, that thou taking the sa­cred bread doe make sure thy faith and appropriate vnto thy selfe the merit of Christs passion, and so of the breaking of his body vpon the Crosse, cherishing and strengthe­ning thy conscience with that assu­rance; and then taking the wine, that thou bethinke with thy selfe, how that the blood of Christ was shed for thy sinnes, and so withal re­uiuing and filling with ioy thy drooping conscience. Thirdly, this deuotion must bee also in considera­tion of thine owne selfe, that thou do hereafter dedicate & consecrate thy self wholly both in soule and in body, and all thy works vnto God. [Page 168] Fou [...]thlie, that thou doe also remem­ber the Church, in whose sight thou vsest the Lords Supper, firmelie re­soluing with thy selfe to abide al­waies in that Church, and to do the works of charity vnto the brethren. For the better effecting of these 4 points of this internall deuotion, e­uerie one may vse some pithy forme of prayers about the verie act of re­ceiuing. And so haue wee finished the doctrine of true preparation vnto the Lords Supper, and toge­ther with it haue laid downe the summe and epitome of all Diuinity. Now what remaineth, but that wee earnestly entreate of God, that si­thence his Word is a Lanthorne vn­to our feet, and a light to our paths, that he would illuminate and open our harts, that wee may vnderstand the vndoubted truth of his holy word, and be piously transformed vnto those things which wee vnder­stand, so that wee may not in any thing displease his heauenly Maie­sty, and that for Christ Iesus sake our Lord. Amen.