Contrariwise our aduersaries reason thus:

(1) The Scripture hath many obscure things, therefore the Lay people can reade it with pro­fite.

Answ. 1. Although all things be not to euery man plaine: yet the people alwaies finde such things, as they may vnderstand. 1, those things, which seeme hard, by often reading become more easie.

(2) The Lay people by reading the Scriptures misvnderstood, do easily fall into heresie, it were better therefore they should refraine.

Ans. 1. If they fall into heresie, that comes ac­cidentally, not because they reade the Scrip­tures, but because they read them not in such manner, as they should do, and doe preferre [...]heir formerly conceiued opinions before the Scripture, and wrest it to them. 2, On the contrarie side, good men and well minded, [Page 22] hauing been deliuered frō herisie by reading the Scriptures, haue returned to the truth.

(3) To whom it belongeth not to iudge of cō ­trouersies, to them neither doth it belong to read the Scriptures, but it belongeth not to Lay-men to iudge of cōtrouersies, therfore neither to read.

Ans. 1, The Minor or second proposition is most false. 2, Then had the Beraeans done amisse in reading, and from thence deciding a controuersie, then newely sprung vpp. 3, Seeing euery one is bound to answer to God for himselfe, it is needfull for euery Lay-man to proue all things, and keepe that which is good. 1, Thessa: 5, 21.

(4) So should the order, which discerneth be­tweene teachers, & learners, be confounded.

Ans. This we denie: for a Lay hearer may try and examine those things he heareth by the Scripture, & remaine for all that a hearer still: for he doth not therfore take vpon him the office of teaching in the church, because he examineth the thinges, which hee hath heard of his teacher by the touchston of the holy Scriptures. As likewise the Beraeans be­came not therefore of the order of teachers, because they iudged of the Sermons of Paul and Silas.

Contrarily thus our Aduersaryes reason thus.

(1) All the faithfull were bounde to the obseruation of the Councell of Ierusalem, Acts, 15. Therfore they be bound to keepe the coun­cels of Bishops.

[Page 46] Ans, There is great difference between the Councell of the Apostles and the Papall councels. In that there were witnesses with­out all exception, but in these, men do meet, among whom there bee many vnlearned, wicked, in parte Epicures, and such as have sworne homage to the Pope. In the coun­cell at Ierusalem the decrees were made out of the Scripture, but the papall councells make constitutions very often against the Scripture. This is therefore a loose rea­son.

(2) In the councell of the Priests and Scribes, Caiaphas by the holy Ghost prophecied, that it was better that one should dye for the peo­ple, than that all the people should perish. Ioh, 11, 50, Therefore Councells speake by the holy Ghost, and are therefore to be obeyed.

Ans. 1. Although Caiaphas vnnwittingly spake the truth, that that it was better that one man should dye then all the people pe­rish, yet the mind and meaning of Caiaphas was nothing so. But the definitiue sentence of the High Priest and the Councell was, [Page 47] that Christ was an hereticke, a blasphemer, a seducer of the People; a wicked man, and such as well deserued the shamefull death of the crosse. This was the decree of that coun­cell; which if the Papists will subscribe vnto, they shall bee reckoned impious, and blas­phemous Men. And by alleaging this de­vilish councell they shall gaine small credite to their owne, 2, This argument proceeds from a particular to an vniversall, Caiaphas minding an other thing, and vnwittingly spoke a fewe true wordes, therefore all the decrees of their councells are simply in all thinges from the Holy Ghost, and can­not in any case erre, 3. They might with as much truth and better reason conclude that Southsaiers, when they are sought vn­to to speake for a rewarde cannot speake an vntruth, Because that Balaam being consul­ted with of Balak to speake against Israel, did on the contrarie side by inspiration blesse them, and which is more then is sayde of Caiaphas coulde not doe otherwise: and whereas the prophesie of Caiaphas was onely in his wordes, which hee spoke in [Page 48] an other sense, Balaams prophesie was both in his words and his meaning, Numb, 22, and 23.

(3) Thou shalt not remove the ancient bounds, which thy Fathers have made, Pro. 22, 28. Ther­fore the decrees of Councells are to be kept.

Ans, 1, Wee have to deale with Coun­sells, whose decrees are contrarie to the ho­ly Scriptures, the ancientest boundes of all: Therefore are the Councells themselues tyed to this precept. 2, This is an argument drawen from the not changing of antient things well ordained vnto new things con­stituted the last day, & that against right too: 3 And this doe wee at this day against the Papists: we shew men the antient limites and bounds, which the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles have set; but the Bishops of R [...]me haue overturned and cover those most anti [...]t bounds with their new-fangled opinions, & humane Traditions.

(4) Which hee commanded our Fathers to teach their children, that the posteritie might know it, Psal, 78, 6, 7. Therefore councells de­clare to vs those things which they were enioy­ned by this cōmandemēt to teach their childrē.

[Page 49] Answ. 1. There is more in the Conclusion Simil. A Prince bid [...] his servant [...] be faithfull, therefore none of the can bee vn­faithfull. than in the premises: for it followeth not, God commaunded our Elders to deriue the truth to us, therefore of certainty they did so. 2, It is a changing of the manner of speach, for the Antecedent containeth a comman­dement, the consequent a storie or narration of the fulfilling of that commandement.

(5) Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the middest of them. Math: 18, 20. Therefore the decrees of Counsels are sa­cred, &c. for they are gathered together in the name of Christ.

Answ. 1. Heere be foure termes. To be ga­thered together in the name of Christ, is to be gathered according to his word and wil, but this they apply to the companies of them, which decree contrary to the word and will of Christ: 2, It is a begging of the thing in question, for this is the speciall doubt, whe­ther Counsels decreeing contrarie to the Scripture, may be said to bee gathered in the name of Christ: for it is not enough in coun­sels to bragg, and make shew of the name of A protesta­tion contra­rie to thei [...] deeds. Christ, and to recite the wordes of the Apo­stolick Counsell; It seemed good to the holy [Page 50] Ghost, and to vs, &c.

(6) In the assemblies of Counsels inuocation is made to the holy Ghost, that hee would bee their guide:

Answ. 1. That is done with Idolatrous rites It is as if a man should heare one aske aduice of a wise man, but would not obay his ad­uice. of the Papisticall Masse, therefore their prai­ [...]rs are not heard: nay, such as their seruice is, that is Idolatrous, such is the Spirit, which ruleth them. 2, They obay not the Spirit, whom they pray vnto, neither doe they rest content with his pleasure comprised in the Scripture.

(7) But who would say that so many, so great, and so worthie men could all erre at once?

Answ. 1. The Scripture saith, that euerie man is a lyar, therefore it is not a thing im­possible, Psa. 116, 11 that so many and so worthie men should erre. 2, Wee cited before examples of famous Counsels, which haue erred. 3, There is no respect of persons with God. 4, I giue thee thanks, O Father (saith Christ) be­cause thou hast hid these thinges from the wise. (Matthew, 11, 25,) 5, Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called: but God hath cho­sen the foolish thinges of the world to con­found [Page 51] the wise (1, Corinthians, 1, 26, 27,) 6, Onely one Prophet Micha spake the truth, when in the meane time foure hundred false Prophets consented together in a lye, 1, King, 22.

(8) All herisies at what time soeuer they haue sprunge vppe, haue still beene ouerthrowne by Counsels, therefore this honour is as yet due to Counsells.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason thus.

(1) The Church of God hath had the name of the Church euer since the Apostles time: there­fore it is the true Church.

Answ. 1. It followeth not; It was long a­goe, Simil. This woman was long since a Maid, ther­fore nowe she cannot be an harlot. therefore now it is. 2, There is no good argument from the bare name of a thing to the thing it selfe. 3, Neither yet doe wee de­nie, but that there doth at this day remaine some Church in the City of Rome, to wit, of [Page 57] such as bee yong children, girles and simple men, which simply believe in Christ their Saviour, and trust nor in their owne merits. Neither is it to be doubted, but that there be some intelligent and wise men in Rome, who with all their hearts derest the Popes impietie and tyrannie. But all these are not that Roman Church, with the authoririe wherof our Aduersaries do seeke to oppresse and beare vs downe.

(2) The Fathers themselves did account the Roman Church for the true Church.

Ans. 1, Here be foure termes. For in the Antecedent the worde Church is taken for that face or condition of the Church which was in the Fathers time, in the consequent for that state, wherin Antichrist doth raigne Now it followes not, it was so twelue or thir­teene hundred yeares ago or vpward, there­fore it is so now.

(3) The state of the Roman Church is most antient, therefore the Roman Church by reason of his antiquity is the true Church.

Ans. 1, We denie the Antecedent, for the testimonies alleaged before out of Poli­dor Vergill. 2, not simply that which is an­ciēt [Page 58] is to be received, but that which is most ancient. For the Devill is ancient, but God is more ancient. 3, Antiquity cannot make that good, which in it selfe is bad.

(4) The Church of Rome is the Vniversall and Catholicke Church: therefore it is the trve Church.

Ans. Wee denie the Antecedent. For if by the word Catholicke be meant that, which agreeth with the Catholicke and so with the Apostles doctrine, then the Antecedent is absolutely false. But if the Church of Rome be called Catholicke by reason of the multi­tude of those, that take parte and cleave to that side, then the multitude of them that err is no iust defence for the error. Otherwise in the time of Arrianisme, the Apostolicke, CHVRCH as beeing brought to a great paucitie, shoulde not have beene the true and Catholicke Church; but the Arri­ans should have been the Catholick Church for that they far exceeded in nūber the rest, which were the true Christians. In this sence therefore wee deny the consequence. The Antecedent also is not true, because (as be­fore I sayde) the Church of Rome doth not [Page 59] consent with the Church of the Apostles, nor yet with the Church of the Fathers. And therefore they haue not that vniuersali­ty of multitude whereof they boast.

(5) If the Church of Rome bee not the true Church, then for some ages together Christ had beene without a spouse, but Christ never was without a spouse, Therefore, &c.

An, 1. From a speciall to a generall; argu­ments are drawen only affirmatively. It is no good consequence therefore; the church of Rome consisting of Popes, Cardinalls, Bi­shops, Priests, and others of the same ranke, who withstood the heauenly truth, were not the spouse of Christ, therefore Christ had no spouse. 2. I deny the maior or first propositiō. For there were also other Churches, as the Greeke Church, which alwaies gainsayd the Bishop of Rome, and wherein Christ might haue his spouse. The argument therefore proceedes from an insufficient enumeration or reckoning vp of the parts to the whole. 3, In the visible erronious Church of Rome, there was the spouse of CHRIST hidden to the eye of the World (all glorious within Psal, 45, 13) or the inuisible companie of be­lieuers. [Page 60] Ans. so Christ neuerthelesse had his Spouse.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do reason thus.

(1) The Protestants belieue not all thinges, which the Church of Rome dooth. Therefore they are not the true Church.

Ans. 1. There is more in the Conclusi­on, [Page 61] than in the premises For no more follo­weth thence, than that we do not agree with the Church of Rome in all things: which who will deny? But wee may not for that cause be thought not to be the true Church (3) 2, It is a begging of the question. For whe­ther they which gaine-say the Churh of Rome, do gaine-say the true Church, that is the thing in controversie.

(2) The Protestants Church dooth not agree with the Church of the Fathers in all thinges. (4) Therfore they are not the true Church of Christ

Ans, 1. This argument is too common, and agrees to both sides. For by the same reason it may be proved, that the Papists are not the Church; because their Church (which they cannot deny) hath much fallen away from the Church of the Fathers 2, the church of the Fathers is not the sampler of (5) Churches, but the Church of the Apostles; to which it is sufficient that our Church is like.

(3) The Prodestants doctrine is new; It is but few yeares agoe, since it first sawe the light: There­fore their Church is not the true Church.

Answ. 1. This is a begging of the que­stion. [Page 62] For that same is the matter in con­troversie, 2. Our doctrine is not new, but re­nued, 3. There are therefore foure termes in the Argument. For in the Maior proposi­tion the worde Newe, is taken for that which is simply and altogether new: in the Minor, for the refined and renued ministerie of the Word, reformed according to the rule of the most anciēt doctrine of the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles.

(4) The Church ought to have vnitie, but so hath not the Church of the Protestants; for it is rent and devided into parts and schismes.

Ans. 1 Heere be foure termes. For in the Maior proposition by the word Church are meant those, which in truth and deede are the Church: in the minor those which are in the outward company of the Church, or those which have mingled themselves a­mongst our Church, when as in truth they be not of our opiniō: And these sever them­selues from the true Church of them who maintaine the truth, and stirre vp Schismes. Of such sort of men Saint Iohn saith: They went out from vs, but they were not of vs: [Page 63] for if they had been of vs, they would have continued with vs (1, Iohn 2, 19) 2, It is a fal­lacie taking that for a cause, which is not a cause. Because the Church is not the cause of tumults and schismes, but Schismatickes are the cause therof. Otherwise the Church of Corinth had not beene the true church, seeing Paul writeth. There must be heresies among you. 1, Corinth, 11, 19.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason.

(1) Yee are the light of the World; & a City that Note [...] this [...] our Ad­uersaries should proue, that the church is onely vi­sible, but they proue nothing els, but that the church is visible, which is not questi­oned. is set on an hill cannot be hid: also, no man ligh­teth a candle, and putteth it vnder a bushell, &c. Mat. 5, 14, 15. therefore the Church is visible.

Ans. 1. I graunt the whole reason, if by the Church be meant the externall publick Mi­nisterie. 2, It is a fallacie from that which is spoken in some respect to the same taken ab­solutely: for in that the Church is said to be visible, that is true in some respect onely, that is, not in respect of the inward man, but of the outward publick Ministerie.

(2) That the Church is visible, and that the Church is inuisible, be contradictories, therefore if it be granted that the Church is visible, the in­uisible is ouerthrowne.

Ans. Contradictions are not, vnlesse they [Page 68] be spoken of the same things, and in the same respect: but that Church is called visible in one respect, and inuisible in another: for it is visible in respect of the externall compa­nie of them that heare the Word and vse the Sacraments: but it is inuisible in respect of the inward man and true faith, which is knowne to God alone, as before I said.

(3) Vnlesse the Church bee visible, there will not bee an apparent and free accesse to the Church for any man, which ought notwithstan­ding continually to be so.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason thus.

(1) The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. 1, Timothie, 3. 15. Therefore it cannot erre: and consequently the Church of Rome ne­uer did erre.

An. 1. There are heer foure terms: because the Antecedent speakes of the true Church, in which alone is Saluation to bee had, and which is the keeper of the writings of the Prophets and Apostles: but the consequent speaketh of the Church of Rome, which is indeede the company and Church of Babi­lon. 2, It is a fallacie from that which is spoken but in some respect onely, to the same taken absolutely. Because the Church is the pillar and ground of truth; that is, so long as it maintaineth the truth, & followes the direction of Gods word. But and if it swarue aside from the word of God, it can no longer be called the pillar of truth.

(2) Christ promised to the Church the Spirit of truth. Iohn, 14, 16, 17, Therefore the Church cannot erre.

Answer. 1. This promise did principallie pertaine to the Apostles, in whom it was [Page 73] most exactly fullfilled, and secondarily to the Church, which holdeth the doctrine of the Apostles; such as the Church of Rome is not at this day 2, It followeth not, the holy ghost was given to the Church, therefore the Church shall retaine it forever. Or the spi­rit was given to the Church, therefore the Church dooth alwaies follow the direction and guiding of the Spirit. For neither did Christ so promise his holy Spirit, that needs it must abide with the Church, howsoever the Church behaue it selfe, and turne aside from the revealed Word of God. For so the Church of the Galatians coulde never haue been seduced.

(3) Christ prayed for the Church: Father, sanctifie them with thy truth &c, Ioh, 17, 17. therefore it cannot err.

Ans, 1 Here bee foure termes. The An­tecedent speakes of the companie of the E­lect, or the inuisible; as is plaine by the whole text, the consequent of the visible Church. 2. It is a fallacie from that which is spoken but in some respect to the same taken abso­ly. [Page 74] For Christ speakes so, adding withall a condition: Thy Word is truth. Therefore this promise is tyed to the obseruance of that worde, as to a certaine condition.

(4) My Spirit which is vpon thee, and my words, which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seede from henceforth for euermore, Isai, 59, 21.

Ans. 1 If this promise had beene made without condition, then it would follow that God had not kept his promise. For these words doe immediately goe before: They shall feare the name of the Lord from the West, and his glory from the rising of the sunne, or the East: but the Easterne Churches have had a most miserable downe-fall long agoe. This promise therefore is condtionall, as if God should say, I will not forsake thee for ever, if thou forsake not me. It is there­fore a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect to the same taken absolutely. 2, This promise belongeth to the Church which obeieth the word of God, vnto which God will never be wanting with his spirit.

[Page 75] (5) The Comforter shall abide with you for ever, Ioh, 14, 16. therefore the Church of Rome cannot erre.

Ans, 1, What agreement is there between the Apostles, witnesses against whom no exception can be taken, & the present Church of Rome, as now it is vnder the kingdome of the Pope which differeth so much from the Church which Paul taught at Rome, as light dooth from darkenesse. 2 There is no good consequence from that which is spo­ken indefinitely, to the same spoken definite­ly or determinately, but in the Antecedent the speech is indefinite, in the consequent de­finite. There be therfore in this reason foure termes.

(6) Christ sayth that hee will abide with his Church vntil the end of the World. Mat, 28, 20. Therefore the Roman Church cannot erre. Simil. The Husband promised that hee would bee faithfull to his wife all his life lōg therefore she ca [...]not become an adultere

Ans. 1 There is more in the conclusion, than in the Premisses; for it followeth not, Christ remaineth with his Church, therfore the Church can in nothing swarue from Christ. 2, Besides the Argument is from that which is spoken indefinitely to the same [Page 76] taken definitely, 3. And there bee foure termes. For Christ speakes of the true Church wherewith the present Church of Rome (to which our Aduersaries wrest this promise) hath no agreement besides the bare and naked name onely.

(7) The gates of Hell shall not overcome the Church Mat, 16, 18.

Ans. 1, Heere bee foure termes. In the Antecedent the Church is meant, which is built vpon Christ, his Word and Sacramēts: but in the consequent such a Church is meant, as is built vpon the Pope and Traditi­ons of men, 2, As long as the Church remai­neth vpon this Rocke that is, Christ, it is in­uincible: but not so, if it make defection from the Gospell of Christ.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason.

1 From a similitude. A Prince that goes into an other Countrey, hath neede to leave some man behinde him furnished with full and abso­lute power: so wee must beleeve that Christ did, when he was to depart from vs.

Ans, Heere be manie falshoods, and ri­diculous toyes. 1, Similes doe some times [Page 79] illustrate, but never prove, 2 If it were never so true, that Christ had appointed a Vicar, yet it would not follow that the Pope should be hee. 3, Neither is there absolute authority such as is falsely ascribed to the Pope) gran­ted to anie vicar, but authoritie onely, which is bounded and limited by lawes.

2 It is needefull, that some one watch for the whole Church.

Ans. 1. Christ watcheth for the whole: and for the parts and speciall members, let everie Bishop watch amongst his Clergie. 2. It is a thing impossible, that anie one man should watch over and for the whole: this rea­son therefore supposeth an impossibility.

3, In the olde Testament God appointed a Vicar, in deciding controversies, to wit, the high Priest, that hee might bee a visible head in the Church, Deut, 17.

An, 1, They argue from a type, (the significa­tion whereof was accomplished & ended in Christ) to the Pope. Which maketh foure termes in the Syllogisme; for the high Priest was not the type of the Pope, [...]ut of Christ. 2, The Priest was Iudge in civill affaires (between bloud and bloud, &c) [Page 80] therefore from civill affaires to Ecclesiasti­call, no good consequence can be drawen: vnlesse perhaps from the type of Christ to the Pope.

(4) It is needefull that there should be some Vicar of Christ to interprete cōtroversies which arise or fall out in the holy Scriptures.

Ans. If this were granted to bee never so true, (which yet may not be granted) it wold not therefore follow, that the Pope should be that interpreter. 2. The Holy Ghost sen­deth vs back to the Scriptures which is that our firme word of the Prophets (2, Pet, 1, 19.) 3, Wee doo not reiect anie Interpreter, which shall speake according to the law and the testimonie, that is, which shall inter­prete the Scriptures according to the Ana­logie of faith. But the Pope will never suffe [...] himselfe to be tyed to this condition.

(5) It is certaine there should be one and a cer­taine visible heade for the preseruing of the vni­tie of the Church.

Ans, 1 Christ is that heade which gover­neth his Church by the Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments; to whom whosoe­ver joyneth himself, is made one bodie with [Page 81] the Church vnder one head. 2, The Pope draweth vs from this vnitie, whilest he sends vs away from the Scripture to the closer of his breast, which doth very often crosse the holy Scripture directly.

6. A Monarchie is the best state of gouern­ment; but we must thinke that the Church is to haue the best state of gouernment: therefore a Monarchie.

Ans. 1. As concerning a visible head, there [...]s great difference betweene Ciuill and Ec­clesiasticall gouernment. And Christ him­ [...]elfe sheweth a very great vnlikenes between [...]hem, when he saith, The Kings of the Gen­ [...]iles raigne ouer them: but you shall not be so: Luk, 22, 25, 26.) 2, But as concerning an in­ [...]isible head, we haue Christ the only & true Monarch of his Church.

7, In the Church all things ought to bee done Corinth. 1. 14, 40. [...] order: but all Ecclesiasticall Order is contai­ [...]ed vnder the Pope.

Ans. In the Antecedent proposition Paul [...]eats not of the order of inferiour or superi­ [...]ur persons: but of the outward order of Ceremonies, which is to be obserued in the [...]ssembly of the Church for comlinesse sake. [Page 82] Such an order euery Church ought to ob­serue, (as the circumstances of time, person; and place shall require,) though they submit not themselues to the yoke of the Bishop of Rome. The alleadging therfore of that say­ing of Paul, makes nothing at all for the esta­blishing of the Monarchie of the Bishop of Rome: and so heere be foure termes in this argument.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

1. Math: 10, 2. Where the Apostles are recko­ned vp in order, Peter is said to be the first.

[Page 84] Ans. There bee foure termes: in the An­tecedent the word, first, is taken for the or­der of counting or reckoning, and in the Consequent for the order of dignitie or au­thoritie.

2, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church. therefore Peter is the founda­tion of the Church; and thereupon hath power ouer the rest.

Ans. It is a fallacie of Composition, be­cause in the Papists argument, those thinges iointly are spoken of Peter, which Christ spoke distinctly, and seuerally of himselfe & of Peter. 2, Because Christ spoke to all the Apostles vnder the person of Peter, it would follow (arguing as the Papists doe) that eue­rie one of the Apostles was the Prince of the Apostles. Nowe what an absurditie were this?

3, Christ saith to Peter, feede my sheepe; &c. Ioh: 21, 17. Therefore hee made him head of the Apostles.

Ans. 1. Heere is the changing of an indefi­nite proposition, (which in this place is but a particular) into an vniuersall, thus: feede my sheepe, therefore feede all my sheepe▪

[Page 85] 2, Heere are foure termes: The word feede; in the Antecedent is to do the office of a Mi­nister of the Gospell: but in the Consequent it is to be a Prince, and to exercise domini­on.

4, Christ payed tribute for Peter and not for the rest of the Apostles, Matth: 17, 27, Therefore Peter was Prince of the Apostles.

An. This is a Doctor like exposition to pay tribute, that is, to make a Prince; for Peter, that is, Peter. These dotages of the Papists declare, how absurdly, for want of proofes, they scrape together any thing, to bleare the eies of the vnlearned.

5, Peter after the manner of a Prince lifted vp his voice on the day of Pentecost, when the rest of the Apostles held their peace, as it were for re­uerence sake to him: Act: 2, 14, & 4, 8.

Ans. This is a fallacie, putting that for a cause, which is not a cause, because the Apo­stles might giue Peter this honour, either for his age, or eloquence, and not because they acknowledged him for their Prince and head.

6, In the Counsell of the Apostles, Peter first of all gaue his voice: Act: 15, 7: Therefore he was [Page 86] Prince of the Apostles.

Ans. 1, The voice of Peter is described but whether he first of all gaue his voice, or some other before him, that is not written: there­fore there is more in the Consequent, than in the Antecedent, on this wise. Peters voice is the first, that is mentioned, therefore no man gaue any voice before him. 2, It see­meth rather that others spake before him, by these words next going before. When there had been great disputation, &c. Whence it ap­peareth that some had spoken their mindes before Peter. 3, out of this place it might ra­ther be proued, that Iames was the Prince of the Apostles; for that he, their voices being gathered, gaue the definitiue sentence: the argument therefore of the Papists is most fond.

7. The Fathers and Writers of the Church haue acknowledged Peter to bee the Prince of the Apostles.

Answer. If any of them did so, they had it frō vncertaine reports contrarie to the mea­ning of the Scripture. Neither ought the er­ror of a few to be any preiudice to the truth. 2, They gaine-saide the Primacie of Peter. [Page 87] Augustine on the 16 of Matthew. Cyprian in his Epistles, Gregorie the great & others.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason thus.

1, I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the King­dome of heauen. Matth: 16, 19, Therefore Peter had the key of knowledge, and the dominion of faith.

Ans. 1. There is more in the Consequent, than in the Antecedent▪ for it followeth not, [Page 89] the keyes were given to Peter, therefore po­wer was given him to appoint and constitute what he pleased in doctrine & faith. 2, There are foure termes. In the Antecedent the keyes are taken for that part of the ministery, which consisteth in binding and loosing of sinnes: in the consequent it is mistaken for authority to determine and constitute any thing what seemeth good in doctrine. 3 The keyes did not only belong to Peter, but to the rest of the Apostles also; vnto whom Christ promised the keyes vnder the person of Peter, who had answered for all. And Christ gave authority alike to all to retaine & to remit sinnes, Mar, 18, 18, Ioh, 20, 23, which Panormitan also doth aduertise vs of.

(2) Christ prayed for Peter, that his faith should not fayle. Luke, 22, 32, therefore Peter received the Dominion of fayth.

Ans. 1 Christ speaketh of Peters denying of him, from which by his prayer for him, he reclaimed Peter, and did not suffer him to perish with Iudas. To argue then from a particuler case to all the actions of Peter, is very absurde. 2, If to pray for a mans per­severance [Page 90] be all one, as to give him the do­minion of faith then because Christ prayed for the perseverance of all those, that should heare and believe in him through the prea­ching of the Apostles, (Ioh, 17, 20,) it would follow that he had committed vnto all them the dominion of faith, which is absurde. There are therefore in this argument foure termes.

3 Christ sayd to Peter, when thou art conuer­ted, strengthen thy brethren, Luke, 22, 32. Ther­fore the dominion of faith was given to Peter.

Ans. 1, Christ speakes of such a strengthe­ning, whereby he that hath beene tempted, knowes how to strengthen them which are tempted, in the like manner. But concer­ning the dominion of Faith, there is not one title. Againe therfore heer are foure terms: 2, Every man that strengtheneth his brother, should (by the same reason, as the Papists heer argue) have the dominion of faith as­sured vnto him. 3, And so also Peter could not have beene blame-worthy, if hee had Gal, 2, 11 14. obtained the dominion of faith, but hee ought rather to have chid Paul that repro­ved him.

[Page 91] 4 Vpon this Rocke I will builde my Church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it, Math, 16, 18. Therefore it must needes bee, that Peter received an infallible dominion of Faith.

Ans. 1, If Peter had beene that most firme and sure Rock, then that would follow. But we have shewed the contrarie therto before (Chap, 8, quest, 2, obiect: 2.) this is therfore rotten stuffe. 2, Now that Peter is not that rocke, and foundation of the Church, wher­of Christ speaketh in this place, is proued by these reasons.

1, Because the gates of hell prevailed against Peter. (1)

1, When hee denyed Christ; in which his So the gates of hel preuai­led against Pope Mar­cellinus, who sacri­ficed to I­dols, & a­gainst Li­berius, who sell in to Ari­anisme. denying doubtlesse he had perished, vn­lesse by the merites of Christ, he had been pulled from the iawes of hell, Mat, 26.

2, when he was worthie to be blamed, be­ing deceived of Satan to flatter them that were conuerted of the Iewes & to offend them that were conuerted of the Gentils Galat, 2

3, When Christ called him Satan, Ma, 16, 23. Then he would have hindred the passion of Christ, which was no small sinne. [Page 92] Because Christ is the Corner-stone, & not Peter.

1, Christ is the Chiefe Corner-stone, elect and pretious. Peter speakes this of Christ and not of himselfe, 1. Pet. 2, 6.

2, Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is layed, which is Iesus Christ, 1, Corinth, 3, 11.

3, Yee are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets, Iesus Christ himself beeing the chiefe corner-stone. Ephes, 2, 20. Isay, 28, 16. Psalm, 118, 22. Matt, 21. 42.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason thus.

(1) Ecclesiasticall writers and the Fathers doe with one consent agree that Peter was at Rome.

An, 1 Because these Writers doo agree neither amongst themselues (for neither doo the Iesuites denie, but that they disagree very much concerning the time, when Peter came to Rome) seeing I say, that they neither agree amongst themselues, nor with the holy Scriptures, let their authoritie carrie as much waight as may bee, so that lesse bee not ascribed to the truth of the Scripture, than to them. 2, One of them transcribed and took it out of an other, as if a man should tell to o­thers the reports which he hearde. 3, Irenaeus the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Writer of all, whose writings are helde for not-counterfeits, dooth affirme indeed that Peter was at Rome; but hee lived in the yeare after the birth of Christ 185. that is 150, yeares after Christs as­cension into Heaven. Neither was hee the [Page 97] Schollar of Iohn the Euangelist, (who is held to haue liued the longest of all the Apo­stles) but Polycarps Schollar. Wherefore it is no wonder, if Irenaeus. Who was so farre off from the Apostles times, were some­what deceaued in the storie of Peter.

2. The Church which is at Babylon saluteth you. 1, Pet: 5, 13, There Peter calls Rome Babi­lon:

Ans. 1. This is to gather euery thing of a­nie thing: to change Babilon into Rome. 2, Hieron. in his Epistle to Marcella. We grant that Rome at this day is Babilon, but that purple coloured whore, as S. Hierom also thinketh. But out of question the Papists will boast but a little of this appellation of Babilon.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

The Fathers called the Bishops of Rome the successors of Peter.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries reason: thus.

1, Sinne is not sinne, vnlesse it bee volun­tarie; [Page 127] but originall sinne is not voluntarie, ther­fore, &c.

An, 1. We may not leape from one sci­ence See Chap. 13, quest, 2 obiect, 6. to an other, which is done in this argu­ment, whiles in defining what is sinne, the Aduersarie goes from Divinitie to Philoso­phie to fetch the definition thereof from A­ristotle, 2, And so here is a confusion of di­stinct principles and seuerall artes; and a fal­lacie of manie questions as but of one. 3, O­riginall sinne, though it be not voluntarie in vs now, in respect of the present corrupti­on, which wee draw by nature from our Pa­rents yet it was and is voluntarie, in respect of the beginning, principle, and cause therof. Adam and all his posteritie in his loynes cō ­mitted the first sinne of disobedience against God willingly; and thence issued Originall corruption. And this is sufficient even in rea­ [...]on and philosophie to make an action sin­ [...]ull. For a drunken man, though hee knowe [...]ot what hee dooth, yet if hee kill a man in [...]is drunkennesse, is by the Ciuill Lawes [Page 128] of men guiltie of murder, because himselfe was the cause of his drunkennesse.

See more in the place of Renouation, Cap, 13, quest. 2.

Contrariwise our aduersaries do reason thus,

1 Vertuous actions in infidels are not of them­selues Simil: Wine that is of it selfe very good if it bee kept in a corrupt vessell, be­commeth so distastful that it may breed loa­thing or cause vo­miting in them that drinke of it. euill; therefore they may not bee reckoned amongst sinnes.

An. What vertues are of themselues, wee are not heere to dispute; but howe they are to bee esteemed by reason of the faultinesse of them, in whome they are, 2, It is therefore a fallacie making moe questions, where there should be but one: for these two are confusedly shuffled together; what vertues are in thēselues & what in respect of the mā, in whom they be, [Page 130] It is also a fallacie, from that which is spoken in some particular respect; to the same taken absolutely and simply, for these actions are in the former place taken absolutely, and in the later, as they are considered in respect of him that doth them.

2 Vertues in infidels are the gifts of God, ther­fore they are not to be accounted for sinnes.

Ans. 1. As they are the gifts of God, so they are no sinnes: but heere they are considered, not as they proceede from god, but as the good and holy gifts of God are polluted in corrupt instrumēts. 2. Ther are some gifts of god which sanctifie the receiver, and some which doe not: of these later sort, are all the gifts of God in in­fidells. 3. A good thing by abusing of it, may become to be not good.

3. God hath sometimes rewarded the vertues of infidels: therefore they haue pleased him, and haue not beene counted for sinnes.

Ans. God hath commanded outward ho­nestie and civility, and doth bestowe temporall rewards on it, but our question is not of tem­porall, but of spirituall rewards, therefore this is nothing to the purpose.

[Page 131] The Iesuites in the Article of Iustification, doe expound the word Grace for a gift or habite infu­sed into the soule of man from heauen, vvherby he is moved or stirred to worke righteously; and by the which his workes are accepted with God, and this Grace they deuide into the first and seconde Grace, or into a preventing Grace, (whereby a man may prepare himselfe to the grace of Iustification) and a subsequent grace, (whereby a man is actually and habitually made iust) and so they goe about to shift of by this their explication, al the sayings of the scripture concerning the free instification by faith. But we in the Article of Iustification acknow­ledge no signification of the word Grace but such as excludeth all merits of men; and that for these reasons.

Because the word Grace (in the article of iu­stification) is opposed to Merits, workes, and (1) debt.

1 To him that worketh the wages is not ac­counted by fauour, but by debt. Rom: 4. 4.

2 If it be of grace, it is no more of workes: or else grace were no more grace, Rom, 11. 6:

3 Hee hath saued vs, not according to our workes, but according to his owne purpose and grace which was giuen to vs through Christ [Page 132] Iesus, before the world was. 2, Tim: 1: 9,

4 By grace ye are saued through faith, & that not of your selues: it is the gift of God, not of workes, &c. Ephes: 2: 8, 9;

Because it is opposed to the law which cau­seth wrath: we are not vnder the law, but vnder (2) grace: Rom: 6; 14:

Because the Scripture declareth the same by equivalent termes, or words of the same value (3) and signification.

1 They are iustified freely by his grace, Rom, 3, 4.

2 When the bountifulnes, and loue of god our sauiour toward man appeared, not by the workes of righteousnes, which wee had done, but according to his mercy he saued vs, Tit, 3, 4 5:

3 Let vs goe boldly to the throne of grace that we may receiue mercy, Heb, 4, 15.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1 The word grace is oftentimes in the Scripture taken for the gifts of the holy Ghost as. 1: Corin, [...] 4, there are (Diuisiones Gratiarum) diuersities of graces:

Ans 1 The propositions of this reason are [Page 133] meere particulars, and therefore no conclusion followes, 2. Whereas Saint Paul in that place treateth of miraculous gifts, not of iustification, and our question is only of iustification; the ar­gument is frivolous, and not to the present pur­pose: 3. Though wee denie not, but that the worde grace is sometimes in Scripture taken figuratiuely for the free gifts of God bestowed vpon men (for only we deny it to bee vsed in that signification in the article of Iustification any where in the Scripture) yet neither in this place alledged is the word Charis vsed, which properly signifieth grace, but Charisma, which signifieth a gift freely bestowed: and therefore the place is fitly and properly translated. There are diuersities of gifts.

2 Wee haue receiued grace for grace, Iohn 1, 16.

1 This is a Doctour like exposition, made of their meere Doctour like authoritie, without reason: wee haue receiued grace, that is the grace of iustification: for grace, that is, [Page 134] for the first preuenting grace, but the meaning of Saint Iohn is: because the sonne of God was in highest grace and fauour with his hea­uenly father, therfore the father doth embrace vs also with his grace and louing kindnesse for his sonnes sake, in whom we beleeue. 2. That grace in this place is opposed vnto merites, the wordes next following doe declare: for the law was giuen by Moses, but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ; Heere Christ and Moses are opposed betwixt themselues, as it were in the proper differences of their offices, that is of wrath by the lawe and of grace by the Gos­pell.

3 Grace is the gift of God, Ephes. 2. 8. there­fore it is an infused and inherent habite.

Answere, 1: It is a fallacie of composition and diuision, arising from the construction of the words, for the word gift is not simplie and alone construed with the word grace, but with saluation by grace, which if it might should haue been expressed in one word. Brieffely & plainely, the Apostle saith not, Grace is the gift of God, but that ye are saued by grace, that is the gift of God, 2 and for the same cause [Page 135] the gift in this place is not a habite, for gift is opposed there to workes and merites, as being a thing, that is bestowed of meere fauour.

4 It is a good thing that the hart be established with grace: Heb, 13, 9:

Answere, 1: It is a begging of the question; because this is controuersed, whether Grace doe in these wordes signifie an infused habite, 2. In that very place the Apostle opposeth Grace to the vaine confidence of workes, a­gainst them who put confidence in meates, drinkes &c. Therefore by the nature of contra­ries it appeareth, that the worde grace is heere taken for the free fauour and mercy of God, & so the argument hangeth not together, for in the Antecedent Grace is taken for the fauour of God, in the consequent for an infused ha­bite.

Contrariwise our aduersaries do reason.

1 To iustifie by force of grammaticall compo­sition of the word is all one, as to make a man iust, of one, who before was not iust, therefore to iusti­fie is to make iust.

Ans. 1 Heere be foure termes; in the Ante­cedent the signification of the word iustificatiō is taken grammatically, in the consequent it is taken according to that signification, which belongeth properly to Diuinitie. 2. The true signification of the word is to be sought for in the proper science, wherin the question is con­tained.

2 By his knowledge shall my righteous seruant iustifie many. Esai, 53. 11, therefore hee doth iusti­fie them by an infused habite.

[Page 140] Ans. It is a fallacie called ignoratio elenchi, for the necessarie determination or limitation is omitted; which followeth in the next words: for he shal beare their iniquities, which wordes declare, that iustification is to bee vnderstoode heere by imputation, for they are iustified by his bearing their sinnes, as if themselues had borne and wyped away their owne sinnes.

3 Holinesse shall preserue and iustifie the heart, that is shall cause, that the heart bee made iuste. Ecclesiastic. 1. 17.

Answere, 1: The booke is not Canonicall, and therefore in a point of such moment, his authoritie is not sufficient [...] in the Greeke text the word iustification is not found, 3: Neither if to iustifie in this place, & some others, should signifie habituall or inherent righteousnes, would it thence necessarily followe, that it should haue the same signification in the ar­ticle of Iustification.

4 Deferre not vnto death to bee iustified Ecclus. 18. 21, therefore there is habituall righteousnes, [Page 141] gotten by many actions.

Ans. 1 The meaning is: deferre not, to bee conuerted and reconciled with GOD, &c. Therefore this argument hangeth not toge­ther. 2. If to iustifie bee all one with the author of that booke, as of vniust to make iust, then an absurde sense would followe from the same wordes, in the beginning of this chapter. The Lord onely (iustificabitur) shall bee iustified: that is by the former in­terpretation, of an vniust God, shall be made a iust God by an infused habite.

5 Hee that is iust, (iustificetur) let him be iusti­fied still. Revel, 22, 11, therefore iustification con­sisteth of an habite.

Ans. 1 The speach is figuratiue, for by a Sy­necdoche the whole is put for the part, or the cause for the effect, for hee speakes of Reno­vation, (vnder the name of iustification) which the words next following, added by way of ex­plication, doe declare: and hee that is holy, let him be made holy stil (Sanctificetur adhuc) 2. from Renovation to iustification no conclusi­on can be made, but by foure termes.

Contrariwise our aduersaries do reason thus

1 To euery one of vs is giuen grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ Ephes. 4. 7. therefore &c.

Ans. Paull speakes not of Iustification, but of the gifts bestowed vppon them, which are Iustifyed, for the adorning, and edifying of the Church, as the wordes following do declare. There are therefore foure termes in this argu­ment, for in the Antecedent the word grace is taken for a gift of the spirit, in the consequent for iustification:

2 There are diuersities of the gifts of God, 1 cor. 12. 4.

Ans; He speaketh of gifts, which are bestowed vpon them who are iustified; and so iustifi­cation is presupposed to goe before, as alrea­dy hath beene said. And hereof there is no controversie. Iustificatiō is on thing and the strong and weake ap­prehending or laying [...]ould of it, is an other

3 Iustifying faith is stronger in some men, and weaker in others.

Ans. 1 Yet there is the same obiect, totall and not partiall, of faith whether it bee strong o [...] weake; to wit Christ Iesus whole & entire with his most holy merits, which is our righteousnes. Peter [Page 145] calleth faith like precious, (2, Pet. I, 1) because there is the same obiect apprehended or laid hold on by all, although without all doubt▪ all, to whom hee wrote, had not the like strength and firmenesse of faith, which Pe­ter had: and Christ yeelded himselfe to bee receaued or laied holde on by a weake faith. Marke, 9, 23, 24, &c. Isai: 42, 3. as was aforesaid.

4. We are commanded to pray for the increase of Gods gifts: therefore, &c.

Ans: Wee are commaunded to pray for Note. The Papists doe stil cōfound iustification with renovation or san­ctification. the increase of the gifts of renovation or san­ctification, but not of iustification.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do argue thus.

1, Euill works doe condemne, therefore good works doe iustifie.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do reason.

1 Paul maketh an opposition beetweene the law of workes, and the law of faith, Rom, 3. 27. therefore we are to accept of this distinction.

Answere, Paul doth in that place vse the worde law in a generall signification, for a doctrine. And whilest he denieth iustification to the law of workes, hee doth certainly denie it to works, therefore this is nothing to the purpose. And [Page 178] our Aduersaries doe not, or wil not vnderstand the phrase and manner of speach of the He­brewes, whereby the word law, Thorah, is ta­ken for a doctrine.

2 Paul speaketh of some things, that are Ceremo­niall, as of the Sabbaoth, of the new moones, of Circumcision, in the Epistle to the Galatians, ther­fore he vnderstandeth not the morall lawe.

Ans. 1 Paul passeth sometimes from the particular to the generall, and sometime from the generall to the particular, that hee may make it manifest, that no workes of the whole law doe iustifie a man. 2. Wee haue alreadie proued that he speaketh of all parts of the law, and not only of the Ceremoniall.

3 In the Acts of the Apostles Chap; 15, the Ce­remoniall lawes only are handled,

Ans. 1 Be it neuer so true, that the Ceremoniall law is there only hādled, yet we may not argue thus. Iustification is denied to the Ceremoni­all law, therefore it is not denied to the morall. Now in that place the mention was of the Ce­remoniall lawe; because there was expressely [Page 179] moued a cōtrouersie cōcerning the keeping of ceremonies. 2, And yet that that place doth not only treate of the Ceremonial law, is prooued by these words: which wee were neither able to beare, neither our fathers (amongst whom, the fathers that liued before Moses without the Ceremoniall lawe may be understood) but we beleeue through the grace of the Lorde Iesus Christ, to be saued, euen as they (Act, 5, 10, 11.) In which words Saint Peter had reference to the fathers, which were not able to beare the burden of the morall law, so that they might perfectly satisfie and fulfill the same. And Peter doth expressely oppose the grace of Iesus christ and faith in Christ to the fulfilling of the lawe: that which the whole course and order of the place doth manifestly declare to be true.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason,

1 Faith is the gift of God: but the gifts of God are qualities: therefore faith is a qualitie.

Ans. 1 We denie not but it is a qualitie: but it doth not iustifie as a qualitie, but because it layeth hold on Christ. 2. Faith is called in the Scripture a gift, not that it should be defined as a quality, but that we might vnderstand, that it is freely giuen vs.

2 Faith is oftentimes in the Scripture vsed ab­solutely without determination or reference to a­ny other thing: as, Hee that shall beleeue, and bee baptized &c. Mark: 16, 16, if yee beleeue not, sure­ly yee shall not be established: Isai. 7. 9.

Ans. The obiect of faith is alwaies under­stood by the figure Synecdoche: for without it faith doth neither beleeue, neither is it faith:

[Page 182] 2, The Apostles taught their hearers to beleeue not absolutely, without reference to Christ, but to beleeue in Christ, in whom they were bid to beleeue, and to be baptized in his name. Matt, 28, 19,

3 Faith is a worke, Iohn 6: 29: therfore it iustifies, as a worke.

Ans; 1 The question is not, whether faith may be called a worke, but how it is considered in the verie act of Iustificatiō. This (how it is to be considered) Christ declareth in the words next following: This is the worke of God, that yee beleeue in him (See there is the relatiue or res­pectiue acception) whome he hath sent. 2, Be­sides in this argument, there is more in the conclusion, than in the premisses: for the collecti­on they make, is such like, as this, faith is in some sorte a worke, therefore it iustifieth as a worke.

Our aduersaries doe acknowledge nothing in faith but a bare and general knowledge and assent, Condition (2) making it only an historicall faith: but wee, as wee presuppose knowledge and assent, so wee affirme, [Page 183] that in faith there is required a trust or confidence whereby we relie and depende vpon God: & that for these reasons.

Because truste or confidence is the essential (1) and proper difference, whereby the faith of Christians is distinguished from the faith of Diuels; for that Diuells; though they cer­tainely belee [...]e, that Christ died for the sinnes of mankinde, yet they doe not put their trust in him, seeing that benefite doth not be­long vnto them:

Because the Scripture, when it speaketh of faith doth expressely vse such wordes, as be to­ken (2) trust or confidence.

1 By Christ wee haue bouldnesse and en­trance with confidence by faith in him, Eph 3, 12,

2 Let vs goe bouldly vnto the throne of grace Heb, 4, 16,

3 Seeing that by the bloud of Iesus we may be bould to enter into the holy place let vs drawe neare with a true heart in assurance of faith, Hebrewes, 10, 19, 22,

[Page] 4 Herein is loue perfect in vs, that wee should haue boldnes in the day of iudgement, &c. There is no feare in loue: but perfect loue casteth out feare: for feare hath paineful­nes and he that feareth, is not perfect in loue, 1, Ioh: 4, 17, 18. In this saying the ex­cluding of feare presupposeth a trust in Christ:

5. Sonne, be of good comfort, thy sinnes are for­giuen thee. Matth, 9, 2.

6 Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole. Matt, 9: 22.

7 Bee of good comfort: I haue ouercome the world, Ioh. 16, 33.

Contrariwise our aduersaries reason,

Iames acknowledgeth no other faith, but that which consisteth of a meere knowledge and assent Iam. 2.

Ans. 1 This holdes not, Iames founde no other faith in the Diuels; therefore neither did hee finde any other in true Christians. 2. Neither doth this follow. Iames intreateth on­ly of one kind of faith, to wit, of historicall [Page 185] faith; therefore the Scripture teacheth none other kind of faith.

Our Aduersaries affirme, that faith may bee in Condition (3) impenitent and wicked men, in Epicures and adul­terers, &c. but we denie, that faith can be in such men for these reasons.

Being iustified by faith, we haue peace to­wards God, Rom. 5, 1, but euery one that committeth (1) sinne, is of the Deuill, 1, Ioh, 3, 8, there­fore hee hath not peace towards God, & con­sequently, hee wanteth true faith.

All men haue not faith, 2. Thessal, 3, 2, (2)

The hearts of the beleeuers are purified by (3) faith, Acts, 15, 9: therefore true iustifying faith is not in a wicked and impure heart, which is polluted and laden with sinne.

Paule speakes of the wicked ones after an (4) other manner, than our Aduersaries doe:

1 That as concerning faith, they haue made shipwracke, 1, Timoth, 1: 19, of those, which haue bid all conscience farewell,

2 That they haue erred from the faith, 1, Tim; 6, 10, of couetous men;

[Page 186] 3 That they haue denied the faith; 1, Tim, 5 8: of such as are without naturall affection,

Contrariwise our aduersaries do reason thus

1 Wicked men haue wrought miracles in the name of Christ, by faith Matt. 7. 22, 23: therefore there is faith in the wicked ones.

Ans. They haue the faith of miracles, but not iustifying faith:

2 Satan himselfe hath faith: Iames 2, 19.

Ans. Satan hath an historicall faith: but our question is of a iustifying faith, therefore see­ing one kinde of faith is meant in the, Antece­dent, and an other in the consequent, there bee foure termes:

3 Simon Magus beleeued, whose heart notwithstanding was not right: Act: 8: 13. 21,

Answere, He was conuicted in conscience, that the miracles of the Apostles were not ma­gicall but deuine: as the forcerers of Egypt ac­knowledged the finger of God, Exod, 8, 19, Si­mon therefore beleeued, as Saint Luke saith▪ [Page 187] but it was an historicall faith onely, and not a true iustifying faith.

Our Aduersaries dreame, that true faith may be without workes: but wee maintaine, that a true iu­stifying Condition (4) faith cannot want his fruites: and that for these reasons.

A good tree cannot bring forth euill fruite, Matt, 7, 18. (1)

Faith worketh by loue, Galat. 5, 6, (2)

Faith without workes is dead, Iames, 2, 26, (3)

Because Christ shall proue our faith by our (4) workes, as by the in fallible effects therof. Matt. 25.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason,

1 Shew me thy faith without workes, Iam. 2. 18 therefore faith may be without workes.

Ans. That translation is faultie; for accor­ding to the Greek it should be translated: shew me thy faith by, or out of thy works. 2: vnlesse S. Iames thought true faith to be effectual & wor­king by loue, he would not make cōparison between a vaine and true faith: and desire to haue [Page 188] the true faith to bee shewed or proved to bee such by workes, 3. That which hee doth dero­gate from a dead faith is wrongfully wrested to a iustifying faith:

2 Yet the Protestants cannot endure this pro­position: Good workes are necessarie to Saluati­on, therefore they beleeue that iustifying faith is without good workes.

Ans. That which we deny in some respect and consideration only, that our Aduersaries take, as simplie and absolutely spoken in all res­pects. We distinguish between faith & works, as betweene the cause and effects of iustifica­tion: we denie good workes to be necessarie as causes of iustification or saluation; but wee re­quire them as necessarie conditions of them, which are iustified and shall be saued.

Our Aduersaries maintaine that faith is infor­med Condition (5) by charitie, but we say that charitie is rather informed by faith.

Because faith doth not please God in i [...] (1) [Page 189] selfe, but for and because of Christ, whome it layeth hold on:

In euerie Relation two things doe concurre (nowe faith in that respect, in which it iustifi­eth, (2) is in the predicament of Relation) first the foundation, which is the matter or materiall parte, and secondly the forme or formall part, which is the destinating or referring of it to an other thing, which it respecteth. So faith (as it is taken in a generall acception) is the foundation or materiall part, or the thing in which this Relation is: the formall part is the ordaining or referring of it to an other thing, to wit vnto Christ.

Because the efficient cause doth informe (3) the effect, and not contrariwise: therefore be­cause charitie is the effect of faith, and faith the efficient cause of charity, faith cannot bee informed by charity.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

1 Paul makes faith to be of no reckoning with­out charitie, 1. Corinth: 13: therfore charitie doth [...]nforme faith.

[Page 190] Ans. 1. Paul speakes there of the saith of miracles, not of iustifying faith, 2. He doth not say that faith is informed by charitie, but commendeth the necessitie o [...] charitie in some respect, because that the faith, that hath not charitie following it, is not the true and sa­uing faith.

2 Faith worketh by charitie, Galat. 5. 6, therefore charitie doth informe faith.

Ans. 1, Charitie is heere placed for the meanes and instrument, by which saith wor­keth. Now meanes and instruments are not the forme of that thing, by which they are moved: but are said rather to bee informed by that, which moueth or worketh by them, 2. Paul heere describes a true and iustifying faith by the effects thereof.

Therefore our Aduersaries vnderstand not what faith is.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

1. Though the person bee not in favour, yet the worke it selfe is good.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason:

1. VVhatsoever is done with a good intent; cannot displease God; but the service of God; of mans choise and invention is done with a good intention; therefore; &c.

Ans: In the first proposition is the beg­ging of the thing in question: for that pro­position is not onely controversed, but also it is very expresly condemned in the places of Scripture before alleaged.

2. The holy Ghost, which is promised to the Church, will not commaund those things which are contrarie to Gods will: but those services of God are deliuered of the Church from the [Page 200] mouth of the holy Ghost: therefore &c.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason thus

1 Christ sayth: if thou shalt supererogate anie thing, &c. Luke 10, 35. Therefore he had [Page 205] reference heere to workes of supererogation.

Ans, 1, In controuersed points of Reli­gion, wee may not play with allegories, which haue no ground in Scripture, 2. Christ doth there extoll the charitie of the Samari­tan [...], who before had giuen money to the hoste to make prouision for the wounded man, and with all promised him, that if he [...] spent more in prouiding for him, hee would repaie it. But what is this to workes of supe­rerogation?

2 I fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his bodies sake, which is the Church, Colos. 1, 24.

Ans, He speaketh nothing of the per­fecte keeping of the lawe, much lesse of workes of supererogation, but of that par­cell of the Crosse, which God layeth vpon the shoulders of the Church and the mem­bers thereof, to bee borne of them, that they may bee made like to the image of his Sonne (Romans, 8, 29). For the mea­ning of Paul is onely this, since that cer­taine afflictions are allotted to the CHVRCH, that himselfe beareth [Page 206] a great part of them, that the measure of suf­ferings may bee fulfilled in the mysticall bo­die of Christ. And what is this to the works of supererogation?

They faine that Christ hath brought vs a Error: (2) new and more perfect lawe, by adioyning E­uangelicall councells to the lawe, which is very false.

Because manie of those things, which they call councells, are indeed commandements, (1) and the explication of the morall law: wher­of manie also are comprised in the Lawe of Moses, where the tenne Commandements are explained.

Christ was not a Lawgiuer, but a Media­tour. (2)

1, The Lawe was given by Moses, but grace and truth by Iesus Christ, Ioh, 1, 17.

2, And therefore (that hee should not seeme a Law giuer) Christ iudgeth no man Ioh, 8, 15.

3, Therefore the preaching of the Gospell (not of the Lawe) is called the preaching of Christ, and the Ministerie of reconcili­ation. 2 Corinthians, 5, 18, 19, 20.

[Page 207] This false assertion of our Aduersaries sa­voureth (3) of Mahometisme. For Mahomet in his Alcoran saith; that Moses gave not so perfect a law; that Christ gaue a more perfect law (for that no man could bee saued by the [...]awe of Moses:) but that Mahomet hath gi­uen a most perfect and absolute law. Change this last name of Mahomet into the name of S, Francis, Saint Dominicke, &c. and it wil be the verie same thing.

Our Aduersaries reckon Povertie amongst Euangelicall Councells, and workes of supere­rogation, (3) Pouerty. but falsely.

Because it is not a councell, but a com­mandement, (1) that when neede so requireth, we Mat, 8, 19, 20, &c, &. 10, 37, 38, &c. Lu, 18, 29 &c. should part with al the goods of this life, nay life it selfe for Christs sake. But the Moonk­ish pouertie is farre from this.

The Moonkish pouertie is but a mocke­rie. For therein the sweate of the browes (2) (layed vpō everie man in his calling) is chan­ged for yearely and most certaine renenews and pensions for terme of life.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason,

1 CHRIST sayd to the young man, who asked a councell of perfection: If thou wilt bee perfect, goe and sell all &c, Matt, 19, 21. Marke 10, 20.

Ans, The whole text doth make it plaine, that Christ woulde represse and pull downe the proude yong Pharisee, that swelled with perswasion of his owne perfection, and that he meant nothing lesse, than to teach, that perfection did consist in povertie. Neither would Christ by this answer prescribe a com­mon rule of attaining to perfection. But, as God prooued Abrahams obedience, when he commanded him to offer his sonn (which yet he would not haue done) so Christ by en­ioining the young man poverty, would bring to light his disobedience, and idolatrous worshipping of money: That so it might appeare, that hee loued riches more, than God; and that therefore he lyed in bragging that he had kept the lawe.

[Page 209] They ground the counsell of vowed chastitie (4) Cha­stitie. vpon the words of Paul. Concerning virgins, I haue no commaundement of the Lord: but I give counsell. 1. Corint: 7, 25, and, he thas is able to receaue this, let him receaue it. Matthew, 19: [...]2.

Ans, 1. Pauls counsell in this place was not concerning perfection, or of obtaining of eternall life, but his counsell was fitted to the present necessitie; that is, for feare of persecution: it is not then to the purpose. 2, Paul left this counsell free at their owne choise, neither did he lay a snare on their cō ­sciences: Wherein there is no agreement with the moonkish vowed chastitie. 3. Christ (Matthew, 19) handleth nothing of the per­fection of man, but onely teacheth, that the vnmaried man wanteth many molestations, whereunto they which liue in wedlocke, are subiect.

They call Moonkish obedience, vnder the rule of their founder, the third evangelical coun­sell: (5) Obe­dience. but very shamelesly.

For they haue no one word, whereby they (1) [Page 210] can proue it vs out of the Scripture.

Because it is obedience performed not to Christ, but to men, Benedict, Bernhard, Fran­cis, (2) Dominicke: therefore it cannot receaue any reward of Christ.

True obedience, commaunded in the word of God, which is to be performed to (3) God and men is heereby neglected; for by this pretended obedience, the obedience which is by vertue of the fift commaunde­ment, due to Parents and Magistrates, is a­bolished, and hath no place amongst Monkes.

They teach, that these workes of supere­rogation Error. (6) may bee communicated vnto o­thers, for a certaine summe of money, or lands, or other goods of the laitie: which is false.

If one man might communicate perfecti­on (1) to another, what neede was there of Christs incarnation?

Euery man shall giue an account for him­selfe, not for another. Rom. 14. 12. (2)

Simonie is committed, when heaven and heavenly goods are sold for money. Acts. 8. (3) 20.

[Page 211] By this meanes, the poore should bee de­barred from salvation; because they are not (4) able to buy the Moonkes workes of supere­rogation; whereas notwithstanding Christ preached the Gospell to the poore. Matth: 11, 5.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1. He that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the lawe; and loue is the fulfilling of the lawe. Romanes. 13. 8. 10. but the regenerate haue loue: therefore they do perfectly fulfill the law.

Ans. 1. It is one thing to fulfill the law in a certaine manner and after a sort, (that is, ac­cording to the measure of begun and imper­fect obedience) and another thing to fulfill it perfectly. Whereof this latter agreeth to Christ alone, the other to the regenerate: therefore there is more in the conclusion, [Page 217] than is in the premisses. For if our Aduersa­ries can shewe vs perfect loue in anie of the regenerafe (such a loue as is required Luke, 10, 27, Deuteronomium 6. 5.) then will we willingly yeelde vnto them the perfect fulfil­ling of the lawe.

2 God commanded not impossibilities: ther­fore Simile. A rich mer­chant buy­eth a tower of a Noble▪ man at a great pric [...] Now be­fore the buyer p [...]i [...] the mony, he looseth all his wealth by gaming, may hee that so [...]ld it now be [...] accuse [...], a [...] if h [...]e had made a cō tract with the mer­chant, which he [...] was not a­ble to per­forme? wee may perfectly keepe the Commande­ments of God.

Answ, God commanded not impossi­bilities, but to whom were they not impos­sible? to man before his fall, in the integritie [...]f nature, and endued with the Image of God. But Paul sayth that the lawe was impossible to man, after he had fallen, (Romans, 8, 3.) Therefore God is not to be accused, as is hee had commaunded things impossible to bee done, but wee are to bee accused, who haue lost the abilitie and power to performe them.

3 His Commandements are not grieuous, 1, Ioh, 5, 3. and my yoke is easie, and my burden is light, Matt, 11, 30

Ans, 1, The Commaundements of Christ are easie to the faithfull, because the regenerate doo obeye them with a wil­ling [Page 218] motion of the Holy-ghost, and not by constraint, &c. It is therefore a fallacie from that, which is spoken but in some re­spect onely to the same taken absolutely. 2, There is more in the conclusion, than in the premisses. For thus much onely followeth: the Commandements are easie, therefore Christians doe them not with griefe. And yet this willing and readie obedience dooth not comprise in it absolute and full perfec­tion.

4 Those things, which are burden some and impossible in the law, doe not pertaine anie lon­ger to the regenerate, neyther are they tyed to them, but to the possible things onely.

Answer. 1. Seeing, that this is sayde without Scripture, wee may denie it with the same facilitie, that it is affirmed. 2, Paul acknowledgeth himselfe to be bounde to the Lawe of Concupiscence, that forbid­deth luste, which is one of the impossibili­ties in the lawe. Therefore the Antecedent proposition is false.

[Page 219] 5 There bee in the Scriptures examples of perfect men: as, Hezekiah walked with a per­fect heart. 2. King, 20. 3, the heart of Asah the King was perfect. 2. Chron. 15, 17.

Answ, 1, Perfection there is opposed vnto hipocrisie. It is therefore perfection not absolutely, but in some respect 2. This perfection of those Kings was imperfecte, For Hezekiah is in the same Chapter accused of sinne, and the punishments for sinne are denounced against him. And of Asah it is recorded, that he cast the prophet of the Lord into prison, and that he trusted more in the helpe of the Phisitians, than in the Lord, &c, It is then a bad sequele, to conclude from perfection in some respect and sort, to abso­lute perfection, which is without all spot.

6 Zacharie and Elizabeth were both iust, and walked in all the Commandements and or­dinances of the Lord without reproue, Luke 1. 6

Ans, 1. It followeth not, they are sayde to bee iuste: therefore they are sayd to be iust by the workes and perfecte fulfilling of the [Page 220] lawe. 2, For they are sayde to bee iuste in some respect, that is for Christs merite. 3, Their righteousnes in a holy conuersation is opposed to hypocrisie. 4, They liued with­out reproofe before men, but they were sin­ners before God. For Zacharie sinned through vnbeliefe, and therefore was made dumbe. Therfore this reason is many waies faultie.

7 If thou wilt be perfect, &c. Matth, 19, 21, Simile. A sicke man thinketh himselfe [...]ound, and yet cannot stand vpon his feet, his Phisitian, to let him [...]ee his dis­ease, bids him walke, therfore he can walke. therefore we may be perfect.

Answ. Christ in this place by these wordes conuinceth the young man of im­perfection: so farre is he from decreeing and saying that perfection is possible; as was de­clared before Chap, 12.

8 The regenerate are called perfect. Let vs, as manie as be perfect, be thus minded. Philip, 3, 15. Among them that are perfect, 1, Corin, 2, 6, The Scripture maketh a man perfect, 2, Timoth, 3, 17.

Ans, 1, Paul speaketh of them, which do acknowledge Christ, not hypocritically, but truly, and are inflamed, not with an hypocriti­call, but with a true zeale of amending their life, and he speakes of such a perfection, as [Page 221] befalleth the Saints of God, who yet carie a­bout with them the corrupt flesh. There are therefore foure termes; seeing that perfecti­on in this argument is taken two manner of waies, first for sinceritie opposed to hypocri­sie, and then for absolute and full perfection in everie point. 2, As concerning the place, For exam­ple, the law is holy, the law is pro­posed to sinners. Therefore sinners al­so are holy (2. Timoth, 3, 17.) the Scripture containeth perfect instruction of a holy life. But it doth not hereof follow, that the regenerate are perfect. For no man liueth in all things ac­cording to the rule of the Scripture.

9 The sinnes of the regenerate are veniall sinnes, therefore they hinder not their perfecti­on.

Answer, 1, They doe not therefore be­come no sinnes, because they be veniall sins, neither doe therefore cease to be contained vnder sinne as their genus, because they be­come of an other species, than other sinnes bee. 2, They are euen hereby conuicted of imperfection, because they be veniall, & haue neede of pardone, 2, No sinnes are ve­niall, in the Papists sense.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason thus.

1. There is nothing, that bringeth damnation, in them which are in Christ Iesus. Rom. 8. 1. But sinne is a thing that causeth damnation. There­fore sinne is not in the regenerate, and conse­quently Concupiscence, seeing it is in the rege­nerate, is no sinne.

Ans. All sinne deserueth damnation, but it bringeth not damnatiō to any, in whom it is [Page 225] pardoned, as it is in all the children of God, & that is Paules meaning, that there is nothing that shall cause damnation, in them which are in Christ Iesus, because that which is damnable in them of it selfe, is made veniall for Christs sake.

2 Christ hath purged all our sinnes. Heb. 1. 3. Therefore concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne.

Ans. This is a monstrous and misshapen reason; for by the like argumēt, because Christ hath purged all sinnes: therefore neither adul­terie, nor manslaughter should bee sinnes any more.

3 Christians regenerate are sanctified and washed from their sinnes and offences. 1: Cor: 6: 11. therefore they haue no sinne, and consequent­ly Concupiscence in them is no sinne.

Ans. 1. There is more in the Conclusion, than in the premisses, for this only doth follow: they are washed and sanctified: therefore their sins are not imputed to them. For if they were not sinnes, they had no neede to bee washed [Page 226] from them, 2. Washing from sinnes, doth not cause, t [...]at they should not be, but it respecteth the guilt of sin, which is taken away: otherwise the regenerate should not sin any more, which sauoureth of the error of the Anabaptists. And maruaile it is, that our Aduersaries da [...]e come into the light with such toyish foole­ries. The Ana­baptisme of the Pa­pists.

4 Concupiscence, if it be ouercome, as it is in the regenerate, giueth but matter of victorie and glo­rie vnto them, therefore it is not sinnne.

Ans. 1 It were a shamefull argument, for by the like reason, Satan should not sinne, because if hee be ouercome, hee doth but yeeld vs mat­ter of reward, 2. It is a fallacie from that which is a cause by accident; not of it selfe: for we may not say that Concupiscence is not sinne by his owne nature, because the conquest of it yeel­deth vs matter of glorie.

5 If concupiscence be sinne, then all sinnes bee equall, and be a like sinnefull.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason,

1 As there are 7 spirituall diseases, so there must bee 7 remedies and Sacraments. And as there be 7 cardinall vertues; so there must be 7 Sacraments, which conferre the same.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe reason.

1 The Apologie of the Augustane Confession doth admitt absolution and orders into the num­ber of Sacraments, therefore themselues (the Au­tors of the Apologie) doe not obserue the proper­ties proposed.

Ans. 1 They admitte them for Sacraments, in a general acception of the word sacrament, according to which acception, the fathers cal­led all those things Sacraments, whereby the generall promises of God were applied to eue­ry seuerall man; in which the Ministerie may be called a Sacrament: It is therefore a fallacy from that which is spoken but in some respect onely, to the same taken absolutely in all res­pects, 2, But because Absolution and Orcers doe want the visible Element, the Apologie doth protest, that it can endure they should be called by the name of Sacraments, so that they be not made equall to Baptisme and the Lords Supper. Therfore the Apologie doth not speak of that signification of the worde Sacrament, where of wee heere dispute. And therefore there be foure termes in the argument.

[Page 239] 2 The same Apologie protesteth that they will not contend about the word Sacrament, therefore it is friuolous to dispute thereof so exactlie.

Ans. Because the worde Sacrament is a thing not contained in Scripture, therefore the autors of the Apologie doe not brawle about the word: In the meane time the controuersie of the matter and thing signified by it, is not layd aside: that is, whether there bee one and the same reason and dignitie of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, as of the other, which ouer and besides these two, are by our Aduersaries graced with the name of Sacraments: They doe therefore but dallie by a fallacie from that is spoken in some respect only to the same ta­ken absolutely:

Nowe then let vs compare and examine the 5 popish Sacraments seuerally euery one by it selfe, by the proposed properties

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1, In confirmation there is the matter or ele­ment, oile, and the word of the Lord, In the name of the Father, &c. it is therefore a Sacra­ment.

Answere: 1. There is no commaunde­ment of God, whereby wee are enioined to vse oile, to confirme the mindes of the faith­full. 2, By the same reason, when wee say grace at dinner, there is the matter, meate, and the forme, the word of blessing it, or gi­ving thanks: therefore by the same reason wee should eate and drinke nothing but Sa­craments. 3. There wanteth also the com­maundement of God, whereby the word of blessing and consecration is appointed and tyed to the visible element. It is therefore a fallacie taking for a cause, that which is no cause, and heere bee brought partiall causes, not totall: part of those thinges, that are re­quired to a Sacrament, but not all.

2, The Apostles Peter and Iohn confirmed the Samaritanes, and Paul the Ephesians. Act. 8, 15, 17, and 19, 6.

Ans. 1. We reade not one word that they [Page 242] confirmed them with exorcized oile, or gi­ving a blow on the eare, which is the Popish ceremonie. 2. The places alleaged do speake of the wonderfull gifts of the holy Ghost, which are ceased in the Church: but Sacra­ments ought not to cease, but and if our Ad­uersaries can bestow the admirable gifts of the holy Ghost by their confirmation, wee will also receaue their confirmation.

3. Christ instituted the Sacrament of Confir­mation, and the consecration of the Chrisme, the day before he suffered.

Ans: 1. Let them, if they can, shew vs one sillable heereof in the whole storie of the Gospell. 2. Certaine writings, wherein such traditions are recorded, as beeing receaued from Christ, which are thrust vpon vs vnder the name of antiquitie, are counterfaits: neither are they warrant inough to make a new Sacrament.

4: Certaine persons were annointed with oile in the old Testament: therfore Christians ought to be confirmed with it.

Ans. 1. Our Sacraments ought by their beginning to be Sacraments of the new Te­stament. 2. Oile in the olde Testament was [Page 243] a shadowing of the holy Ghost: but sha­dowes are alreadie ceased, therefore this is an inconsequent argument. 3, And, if oile may be translated out of the olde Testament into the new, why should not also all other the ceremonies of the Leviticall law, which Christ hath abrogated at his comming?

5. The beleevers were confirmed by the im­position of the hands of the Apostles.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1, penance is commaunded, Mar: 1, 15: Math: 3, 2. therefore it is a Sacrament.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason thus.

1 The institution of the ministery is contai­ned in the Olde and New Testament. There­fore it is a Sacrament.

Ans. 1. The maior proposition (which our Aduersaries doe not set downe) is mani­festly false, which should be this: whatsoe­uer is instituted in the Olde and New Testa­ment, that is a Sacrament. 2; It is a fallacy [Page 250] from an vnsufficient reckoning vp of the cau­ses; for it is not some one propertie of a sa­crament, that can suffice, vnlesse there bee a sufficient cause brought, that is such a one, as consisteth of all the properties, which con­curre to the making of a Sacrament, 3. There is more in the Conclusion, than in the premisses. For there doth no more follow, but that the Ministerie dependeth not vpon humane but deuine authoritie. 4, And by the like reason, (to answere them by an instance) the ordination of the Magistrate should be a Sacrament For it hath his institution both in the Olde and New Testament.

2 Order hath a visible signe, the imposition of hands as appeareth by the ordination vsed of the Apostles. Therefore it is a Sacrament.

Ans, 1, We answered a little before, that imposition of handes is not the Element or matter of a Sacrament. 2, We doo not reade that that ceremonie was euer commanded of Christ. 3, * Though there be no certain cōmand [...] ­ment for imposition of h [...]des, yet be­cause we And it is now in the liberty of the church to v [...]e it, or not to vse it. But sacramēts haue not Ceremonies which are left to [Page 251] mens liberty. Seeing thē heere be vnderstood sacramentall Ceremonies, both which are see that it was still v­sed of the Apostles their so precise v­sing of it. ought to be vnto vs in steed of a comman dement. Calvin Iustitut. lib. 4. cap. 3 5. 16. How soeuer, there is no thing in it to make it the matter of a Sacra­ment. left, and which are not left to mens choise and libertie, there arise fower termes.

3 The order of the Ministerie hath a promise of grace, that God will work effectually by the ministerie. Therefore it is a Sacrament.

Ans, 1. That promise respecteth ra­ther the hearers, than him, that is ordained. For he may preach vnto others to their sal­uation and himselfe be a cast-away: but the Sacraments doe apply grace to him, that v­seth them.

4 But wee reade that in Ordination grace i [...] bestowed vpon them, which are ordained. As we reade of Timothy, 2, Timoth, 1, 6.

Answer. 1, The Apostles had the gift of miracles, and did giue the Holy-ghost miraculously by the imposition of hands, 2, GOD dooth vsually worke by the good meanes ordained by himselfe: and so dooth bestowe his grace vppon the person which was ordayned at the praier [Page 252] and request of the whole congregation, ga­thered together in his name for so holy an exercise. Yet wee may not therefore thinke, that the imposition of hands is a sacramentall signe, which conferreth grace.

5 Augustine, writing against the Donatistes dooth call Order a Sacrament: as doo other of the Fathers also.

Ans, 1. They did so in some sort and respect, for the excellencie and reuerence of the ministerie, which the Donatistes did debase. 2. The Fathers vsed the word Sacra­ment in a larger signification, than we here take it, as was sayde in the beginning of this Chapter.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe dispute.

Paul calleth matrimonie a Sacrament, Ephes, 5, 32.

Ans, 1, The Papists translation is cor­rupt the worde in the Greeke, signifieth a mysterie or secre [...] [...], Paul sayth not of mariage, that it is a mysterie, but of the spiritual coniunction of Christ & his Church as hee expoundeth himselfe, But I speake concerning Christ and the Church▪

[Page 254] 2 Mariage is honourable among all, and the bed without spott, Hebrewes 13, 4. But the bed should not be without spot, if there were not They bee the wordes of Eckius in his En­chiridion. the Grace of the Sacrament.

Ans, 1, The Ministerie, Magistrates, Parents are honourable, and yet no Sacra­ments. 2, Here is a fallacie taking that for a cause which is not. For the bed is sayde to bee vnspotted, not because matrimonie is a Sacrament, but because the religious Man and Wife dooth not defile the bedde with whoredome and adulterie; as the next words following do declare. 3, If the grace of the Sacrament doo make the bed spotlesse, why do they not grant matrimony to their priests? why doo they esteeme it more tollerable, for a Priest to bee a whoremonger and adulte­rer, than a married man? For such Priests haue they to lerated manie in poperie, when as they will not away with honest mariage.

3 Mariage hath the promise of eternall life For the woman shall bee saued by bearing of children, 1, Timoth, 2. 15.

[Page 255] Ans. 1, By this reason all married per­sons, euen the infidels should bee saued. 2, Paul comforteth women; that their sor­rowes which GOD layeth vpon them for a punishment, do turne to them to bee offi­ces of their calling, & exercises of the crosse, of a Sacrament neuer a word, 3 Paul spea­keth vpon supposition and with limitation; If they continue in faith, &c. Hee dooth not ascribe saluation to matrimony, but onely dooth teach, that those wiues shall be saued in the state of wedlocke, who keep faith, god­linesse, charitie, and chastitie. 4. Godly wo­men, by perseuerance in faith, loue▪ &c. doo sanctifie their matrimonie; but sacraments are not sanctified by man, but on the contra­rie side, men receiue sanctification from the Sacrament.

4 The vnbeleeuing husband is sanctified by the Wife. 1, Cor. 7, 14 Seeing therfore Matri­monie hath the power of sanctifying, it is a Sa­crament.

Answ. 1. If this sanctifying heere spo­ken of, pertaine to saluation, then it fol­loweth, that infidels shall bee saued by their belieuing wines; which is absurde; but if [Page 256] to sanctifie heere signifie an other thing, then the argument falleth to the ground, 2, But there bee fowre termes; For in the Antece­dent holy signifieth (after the phrase of the Hebrues) that which is granted and permit­ted as a thing that is lawfull to be vsed in ho­ly manner (in which sense creeping things are saide to be purified, Acts, 10, 15.) but in the consequent it is taken for sanctitie or ho­linesse and iustification and renouation.

5 Matrimonie hath his institution & blessing from God, Gen. 2, 18, 22, 24. Therefore it is a Sa­crament.

Ans. That promise of blessing is not of the grace of iustification and reconciliation, but onely of a temporall felicitie. It is no­thing therfore to a Sacrament, which is con­uersant onely about the grace of reconcilia­tion.

6 Matrimonie is a remedie or medicine (as the schoole-men speake) of a spirituall disease, to witfornication, 1, Cor, 7, 2,

Ans, 1, This is not sufficient to make it a Sacrament; because it is a remedie against [Page 257] fornication! 2, Faith and praier are remedies against tentations: shall they therefore bee counted Sacraments?

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1. Extreame vnction hath the outward element of oile; therefore it wanteth not the property of a Sacrament.

Ans. Vnlesse to this element there come the word, to destinate it to this purpose, to cō maund it, and to promise the forgiuenes of sinnes, and euerlasting life (of all which our Aduersaries can shew nothing in the Scrip­ture) their oile of the sicke is no more to bee esteemed, than oile Oliue, which is provided to be sawce for a sallet of hearbs.

[Page 258] 2. The Apostles did annoint many sicke men with oile, and healed them. Mark. 6. 13, therefore Extreame vnction is a Sacrament, en [...]oined by Christ to the Apostles.

Ans: 1. That annointing was a tempora­rie thing, neither hath it any commaunde­mēt, that we should do the like. 2. By the same reason the handkerchiefs of Paul (Act: 19. 12. and the shadowe of Peter, whereby manie sicke men were healed (Acts. 15. 15.) should be Sacraments. 3. The text speaketh of mi­raculous gifts, which because they endured but for a time, doe not come within the cō ­passe of Sacraments.

3 Is any man sicke among you? let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray for him, and annoint him with oile. &c. Iames, 5. 14.

Contrariwise our aduersaries doe dispute.

1, That which Christ reached to his Apostles, was the true bodie of Christ. Therfore the bread was turned into his body by Transsubstantiation.

Ans, 1, There is more in the conse­quent, than in the Antecedent. For it fol­loweth not, Christ gaue his body to his dis­ciples; therefore there was his bodie in none other manner, than by Transsubstantiation. For it was in the sacrament by sacramen­tall relation and vnion, and receiued of the belieuers spiritually by faith.

2 Christ sayde not: This breade is my bodie; but he sayde: This, meaning thereby his body: so that the demonstratiue particle, (This) is con­strued and taken, not for the bread, but for the body. Heereby therefore he insinuated, that the [Page 266] bread was not then in the Eucharist.

Ans, 1. Then the speach shall be this: this body shall be my body, which is idle. 2, This explication of Christs words cannot stand with the doctrine of the Papists. For where­as they say, that the power of Transsubstan­tiating is contained in those fiue words pro­nounced Hoc enim est corpus meu [...]. (for this is my bodie) doubtles whē Christ tooke up the breade, and pronounced the word (This) as yet was made no Transsubstantiation, and so the speech should haue bin of a non ens, a thing which had no being.

3 The worde (est, is) is a verbe substantiue, which noteth a beeing, or subsisting; therefore there must needes be Transsubstantiation.

Ans. 1, By the same reason, it will as well follow: Christ saith, I am a vine; but the verbe (sam or I am) is a verbe substantiue, which noteth the beeing and subsisting of a thing. Therefore there must needes bee Transsubstantiation of Christs nature into a vine. 2, It signifieth the beeing, but not the manner of the being. There is Christs body indeed, but not after a naturall manner of be­ing by Transsubstantiation, but after a spiri­tuall by faith and sacramentall vnion.

[Page 267] 4 There must needes bee an Identitie, that the body may truly be predicated of the breade: (for it were not true that breade remaining the same, and a different thing from the body should be the body:) but an Identitie of the breade and body can bee no other way made, but by Trans­substantiation: Therefore, &c.

Ans. There needes no Identitie to make the predication true: for this proposition is true, the Lambe is the Passeouer, and yet the Lambe and the Passeouer bee not the same thing. For some things are affirmed of other, because they are really & formally in­herent in them: & some things again are affirmed of other, because they haue an externall vnion and coherence, which is most vsuall in all the sacramental speeches both of the old & new Testament. Circumcision is the Co­uenant, the Rock was Christ▪ &c.

5 As that predication is vnderstood (Matth, 3) This is my beloued Sonne, that is, whatsoeuer ye see; is my beloued Sonne: so are the wordes of Christ to be vnderstood in the supper: as, This is my body, that is, that which yee see, is my body. So that the bread remaineth no longer bread.

[Page 268] Answer, 1, Howsoeuer the predicati­on be vnderstood (Matthew, 3,) the contrarie will rather follow thereof. For by reason of the neare coniunction of the two natures in Christ, the one is predicated of the other in Concreto, but there is no Transsubstantiati­on or changing of one nature into the other. 2, Christ was the Sonne of God both in re­spect of his deitie and of his humanitie. And therefore this speach is nothing like those of the Sacrament.

6 Seeing that the predication is changed (so that the breade is afterward not called bread, but the Lords bodie) it must needes bee that the sub­iect; (that whereof it is spoken) must bee chan­ged also, & therefore there is Transsubstantiation.

Answer, There is a great change, but it is of vse and qualitie, not of substance. Therefore after the consecration it is called blessed and holy breade, the communion of the body of Christ, and is not common vul­gar breade. But it followeth not, there is a change, therefore by Transsubstantiation.

[Page 269] 7 Tropes and figures are not to bee admitted in the wordes of the supper. For it is to bee sup­posed, that Christ would then speake plainely without figures) but if Transsubstantiation be not granted, there must needes be admttted some fi­gure, Therefore, &c.

Answ, All figures and improper spee­ches are not obscure, but they are, when they be vsuall and knowen, most cleare and signi­ficant. Now there bee no other figures or tropes in the Lords Supper, but such as are, and alwaies were vsuall in Sacraments, and familiarly knowen to the Church, 2, How will the Papists auoid a trope in those words of Christ (Luk 22, 20) This cupp is the New Testament in my bloud? Is the cupp pro­perly the Newe Testament?

8, Breade, before the consecration the Fa­thers call breade; but afterward they call it the body of Christ.

Ans, And so doo wee. For though it be in nature bread, euen after the consecration, [Page 270] as Paul oftentimes calleth it, yet is it sacra­mentally the body of Christ.

9 In the liturgie of Saint Iames Transsubstan­tiation is approued.

Heere follow certaine shiftes of our Aduersaries.

1 Breade, after the phrase of the Hebrues, is often taken for nourishment, so whereas the body of Christ is the nourishment of the soule, it may well be called breade by Paul, euen after the conse­cration.

Ans, It followeth not, breade in some places signifieth nourishment; therefore in the Lords Supper breade dooth not signifie bread. All these propositions be meere par­ticulars: and therefore nothing followeth thereof.

2 Some things which haue beene changed in nature, haue kept their olde name in the scripture; as the Rod of Moses, that was turned into a Ser­pent. So may breade after it is transsubstantiated, keepe the name of breade.

Ans, 1, They should first proue that there is Transsubstantiation, but this argument of the Papists presupposeth Transsubstantiati­on, which we denie. It is therefore a beg­ging of the thing in question. 2, They bee [Page 272] meere particulars, from which nothing will follow.

3, The Ancient Church admitted of the Phrase (Sub specie) that is vnder the shape or Accidents. Therefore they intimate hereby, that the breade and wine remaine not.

Ans, Our Aduersaries trifle with an aequi­uocation of the worde (Species). For the Fathers tooke it, for the one part or kinde of the outward Element in the Sacrament, as it is also meant in that question betweene vs and the Papists, whether the people are to receiue (sub vtraque specie) vnder both kinds, that is both the breade and the wine; not vnder both accidents, which were a sense­lesse speach: but they take the word (Speci­es) for a shape or accident, which the Fa­thers meant not.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1. When Christ pronounced these words (This is my body) the Disciples had not eaten as yet; and yet the words of Christ were true then, before they did eate, therefore it was a Sacrament also e­ven before, and without the vse thereof.

Ans. 1. If we made the action and vse one­lie to consist in eating and drinking, then [Page 275] the argument would follow: but we doe not define that action to consist onely in eating and drinking, but in doing all those thinges, which Christ either by his example or com­maundement bids vs doe: as namely, to re­ceaue the bread, to breake, blesse, distribute and eate it, to giue God thanks, and to shew the Lords death. It was not therefore out of the vse of the Sacrament, when Christ rea­ched the bread to his Apostles.

2. Luke omitteth these wordes; Take, eate; in­timating thereby that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist out of the vse thereof.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

1. Transsubstantiation takes away all occasion of Idolatrie: therefore (say they) wee are vniustly accused of Idolatrie.

Ans. 1. Transsubstantiation is a principle simply false: therefore it is a begging of the question. 2. If Transsubstantiation were granted, yet it could not bee prooved that it should haue place out of the vse of the Sacra­ments: these are therefore rotten and rui­nous foundations.

2. If it bee rightly adored in the vse, why not rightly also out of the vse.

[Page 281] Ans, Because the Sacrament out of the vse, is no Sacrament. As was declared a while agoe.

3, Wheresoeuer Christ is, there hee is to bee adored: but Christ is in the consecrated host▪ there­fore he is to be worshipped in the hoste.

Answer, 1, Wee worshipp Christ in the Eucharist, (for wee say at the Communi­on wee praise thee, wee worship thee &c.) but wee worshipp not the Eucharist, nor CHRIST as there carnally present. 2, The maior proposition (as it is proposed by the Papists) is not simply and in all respects true. For Christ was in Peter the Apostle, yet Pe­ter would not suffer himselfe to be worship­ped, Act, 10, 25, 26.

4 If the manhoode of Christ, (which yet is a creature) bee [...]ightly adored because of the hypo­staticall vnion, why may not the bread be adored too, because of the Sacramentall vnion.

Answere 1, There is great difference betweene the Sacramentall vnion and the personall vnion: the one maketh [Page 282] one person and subsistence, the other dooth not. 2, The flesh of Christ never subsisted by any proper subsistence of his own before the incarnation, but as soone, as it beganne to haue a beeing, it subsisted in the person of the Sonne of God, and that not by any pro­per subsistence of his owne. Hereof it com­meth to passe that whosoeuer doth adore the Sonne of God, that is, the second person in Trinitie, the same dooth also rightly adore the flesh of Christ. which things seeing they be nothing so in the breade and wine of the Euchariste, the case is nothing alike, 3, The Sacramentall vnion is onely by relation, and may bee dissolued, the personall vnion is a most neare ioyning of two natures in one person, which neuer can be dissolued. 4, Con­cerning the worshipping of the flesh of Christ, wee haue the word and examples in the Scripture: but we want both for the wor­shipping of the Eucharist, as was saide a while a goe.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1. It is needfull; that the Church haue some vi­sible sacrifice, to helpe mans infirmitie withall.

Ans. 1 No man denies, that we need visible helps, for the strengthening of our faith: but to faine, choose and appoint such sacrifices, is not in our power, but belongeth to God [Page 292] alone. 2. Such visible helps and staies of our faith, God hath given vs in the Sacraments, wherewith it is meete wee should rest con­tent, and not frame new ones at our owne pleasure.

2; Euery Priest is taken from among men. &c. that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for men. Heb. 5. 1. Therefore it is needfull that the Priests of the Church haue some thing, which they may offer to God for sinnes.

Ans: 1. If the Apostle in this place had compared together the Priests of the olde Testament, and the Priests of the newe Te­stament, then the argument would followe. But he makes the comparison betweene the Priests of the olde Testament, and the Priest Iesus Christ, which was prefigured by them. This then is all that followeth: that it was necessarie that Christ should offer some sa­crifice for our sinnes. And so there is more in the conclusion, than in the premisses. 2, Wee doe not reade any where in the newe Testament that there were Priests appoin­ted, who should offer visible sacrifices: but there were ordained Ministers of the word and Gospell.

[Page 293] 3. Wee haue an Altar. Hebrewes, 13, 10. there­fore it is necessarie that we haue oblations also and sacrifice.

Ans. 1. This is a Paralogisme of all Parti­culars, thus: In our Altar (which is spirituall) is required a sacrifice: therefore it can bee no other sacrifice, but that of the Masse. 2, It is a fallacie from that, which is spoken but in some respect, to the same taken absolute­lie: for the Apostle doth not simply speake of euery sort of sacrifice, but treateth expres­lie of a spirituall sacrifice, saying: let vs offer the sacrifice of praise vnto God, &c. verse, 15. and, to doe good and to distribute, forget not▪ for with such sacrifices GOD is well pleased. verse, 16.

4, Daniel prophecieth of Antichrist, that hee shall take away the daily sacrifice: Dan: 8, 11, and 11 31. But that cannot be vnderstood of spirituall sa­crifices, of praise and thanksgiuing (which Ty­rants cannot raze out of the hearts of men) but of the outward and visible sacrifice, which is the Masse.

Contrariwise our aduersaries do dispute.

1, There is mention made of a priuate commu­nion euen in the histories of the primitiue Church.

Ans, 1, Priuate communion at that time [Page 317] was a thing much differing frō priuate masse now a dayes. For from the beginning whi­lest persecution did still rage, and the Christi­ans were therfore inflamed with great zeale, the whole Church did vse to celebrate the Supper euerie day. But after persecution cea­sed, the zeale of Christians was by little and little abated, so that afterwards they did cō ­municate onely vpon the Lords day. In the meane while they of the cleargy and the mi­nisters of the Church kept the custome of the dayly communion. And this Commu­nion, when they of the laitie were absent, be­gan to be called a priuate Communion, and that which was celebrated on the Lords day, was called a publicke Cōmunion. It is there­fore a frivolous argument, & altogether frō the purpose, whilest our Aduersaries argue from the priuate receiuing of the Lords sup­per to the priuate sacrifices of the Masse (so making foure termes.)

2 Those which are the lookers on in priuate masse, do communicate spiritually. Therfore they want not the fruite of the masse.

Ans, 1. We speake of the sacrament and sa­cramental eating, & our Aduersaries alleadge [Page 318] spirituall eating. There are therefore in this argument foure termes, 2, That spirituall communion may bee by faith alone, euen out of the masse and communion. There­fore it is nothing to the masse.

3, This is the nature of the ministerie, that the benefits of God bee by it applyed vnto men. But priuate masse is a part of the ministerie. Ther­fore by it there is application Made to the standers by.

Ans, 1, The minor proposition is fal [...], It suffiseth not that a Preacher preach to himselfe without hauing any hearers: so neither sufficeth it, that the masse-ma­ker alone communi­cate for o­thers. becavse our aduersaries cannot free their publicke masse, much lesse their priuate masse from idolatrie, and how shall idolatrie then be a part of the ministerie? 2, Sacramentall application doth not consist in a bare specta­cle, but in the vse and fruition, as it is not suf­ficient to saluation that an vnregenerate man bee a beholder of Baptisme, vnlesse himselfe also bee baptized.

4 Priests that doe masse are the mouth of the Church. Therefore if the Priest communi­cate, it is all one as if the whole Church had com­municated.

[Page 319] Ans, 1, The Antecedent hath no ground in the scripture, 2, Neither doo the Papists themselues belieue this which they say, o­therwise the priuate cōmunion of the Priest would bee sufficient for thē, that they should neuer haue neede of anie publicke commu­nion. 3, The mouth of the Church should bee an impure one, when the Priest is pollu­ted with adulterie, whoredome, and such o­ther wickednesse.

The Priests in the Olde Testament did sa­crifice for others, the laitie being present: so in priuate masse the Priest may communicate for them that stand by.

Ans, 1, There is great difference. For the Priest in the Olde Testament in sacrificing and offering did giue something to God, but he that communicateth doth not giue, but receiue some thing. There are therefore foure termes, whiles for one medius terninus, there arise vnto vs two, the one whereof is to offer, the other, to receiue or communi­cate. 2, And hee that brought the sacrifice to the Priest to be offered, was not excluded [Page 320] from the act of sacrificing, but hee also was sayde to haue sacrificed, which also hath no affinitie with priuate masse, in which, the laickes which are present at priuate masse▪ are bare lookers on.

They haue wrested the masse from the end of 2, Abuse the wrest­ing of the supper to other bu­sinesse. Communion to infinite other affaires, and altoge­ther from the purpose: hence haue arisen manie kindes of masses: as namely,

• 1. The Masse of the Crowne of thornes,
• 2. The Masse of the three nayles.
• 3. The Masse of the foreskin of Christ.
• 4, The Masse for sea-faring men.
• 5, The Masse for trauellers on horsebacke, or on foote.
• 6. The Masse for women great with child.
• 7, The Masse for women in trauell of child­birth.
• [Page 321] 8. The Masse for women that bee bar­ren.
• 9. The Masse for those that bee sicke of a quartane or [...]ertian ague, and others of the like sort: which is nothing else, but many waies to prophane the holy Supper.

But they doe also [...]ell those Masses for money to every one that as keth for them. No [...] our Ad­uersaries 3. Abuse. Simonie. themselues doe greatly condemn [...] Si­monie, not marking in the meane while, that the [...]ost of their Priests are Simoniacal: In which rout of men the Pope is mos [...] Simoniacall of all, as by whom, heaven, and God, and all is set to sale, as Mantuan saith.

In the Masse they mingle water with wine (per­haps 4, Abuse. The ming­ling of wa­ter with wine. to fulfill the prophecie of Isaie. Thy wine is mixt with water. Isa: 1, 22.) which, were it helde as an indifferent thing, might bee borne with all; as there bee some coniectures, that the Easterne Churches were wont to mingle water with wine, because of the strongnesse of the wine, and least they might seeme to make feasts in the holy Sup­per, and as wee are not sure that the wine which i [...] bought for the vse of the Sacrament, is not ming­led with water by the Vintners: but because our Aduersaries hold it as [...] thing of necessitie to bee [Page 322] done, therefore it may not be endured.

Because neither the Evangelists, nor Paul (1) makes any mention of this mixture, but mention wine alone.

This mixture of water bringeth the Pa­pists (2) into a maze: for they haue no word, by which the water with the wine should bee transsubstantiated, and in the meane while they may not confesse that the substance ei­ther of the wine, or of the water beside the bare accidents, doe remaine after the conse­cration. Let them looke then howe they may winde themselues out. The Schoole-men haue laboured heerein in vaine.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

1. Wee reade that of ancient time the wine was mixt with water in the supper.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do reason thus.

1. Masse is to be saide in Latine, that they which come to vs out of France, Italy, & England may vnderstand it, and thereby set the vnitie of the Church.

Ans. 1 By the like reason, wee should not preach in the Dutch tongue, but in the La­tine amongst Dutch men, that strangers, which come vnto vs may vnderstand and heare the consent of our doctrine: 2, The whole flocke and company of the godly are not to bee neglected, for the cause of a stran­ger or two; whereas notwithstanding there is often times never a one present. 3, If there be a necessitie, that all strangers should vn­ [...]erstand [Page 338] Masse, how much more needefull, [...]at the whole Church at home should vn­derstand? 4, It is not certaine that all stran­gers doe vnderstand the Latine tongue.

2. The words of some one language (for exam­ple, of the Dutch tongue) are in sund [...]y places of the land, different and disagreeing, which falleth not out in the Latine tongue.

Contrariwise our aduersarie [...] do dispute.

1. Christ saith: Doe this in remembrance of Mee, that is administer the Supper, in remem­brance of Mee; but this agreeth onely to Priests, not to Laicks. Therefore neither doth the Cup belongeth vnto the Laicks, seeing it pertaineth [...]ot to them to administer the Supper.

Ans, 1, By this reason the Laicks should be thrust, not from one but from both kinds of the Sacrament. 2, The word (Doe) hath not only reference to him that administreth, but to the cōmunicants too. Otherwise seeing the apostles did not administer in the 1, supper [Page 348] but onely receiued the Sacrament frō Christ, they also should haue communicated but vn­der one kinde.

2 All the Apostles were Priests; therefore the vse of the Cup and that precept, Drinke ye &c. belong to Priests onely.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do reason.

1, Because all men haue not perfect and firme faith, therefore all after this life cannot perfectly be [...]aued.

Ans, 1, Christ, when he saith, that faith is the instrumentall cause of saluati [...]n, hee speaketh of faith generally, and excludeth neither weake, nor imperfect faith. 2. Christ layed holde on by faith, cannot be deu [...]ded; that he should be said, to be laied hold on but in part; and they which lay holde on him, to be saued but in part; but whole Christ is ap­prehended as well by a weake, as by a strong faith. 3, It is a fallacie, taking that for a cause which is no cause. For the strongnesse or weakenesse of faith (or an accident of faith) is not the cause of apprehending saluation, but of retaining it, Now that which is spoken of retaining, that ou [...] Aduersaries do wrong­fully apply to the apprehending thereof.

[Page 365] 2 No vncleane thing shall enter into the king­dome of Hea [...]en, Reuel, 21, 27. Therfore needs they must be purged by purgatorie.

Contrariwise our aduersaries do dispute.

1 The workes of the dead follow them, Re­uel, 14, 13. Therefore they are [...]ased by good workes in Purgatorie.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute.

1 Wee make not Gods of Saints, because wee worship them with a lower degree of worship, than is Latrîa, or the worship proper to God: [Page 391] namely the saints wee worship with Dulia: the Virgin Mary with Hyperdulîa, &c.

Ans, 1, This is the same, as was the di­uine worship of the heathen; who (as Plato witnesseth) did worship one God, that is I [...] ­piter, for the chiefest God: the rest they cal­led lesser Gods, and worshipped them with a lower degree of worship. 2, There needeth no protestation, where the thing itselfe is e­uident. Now the thing it selfe proclaimeth as before was shewed, that diuine worship is giuen vnto Saints. It is in vaine then to make any protestation. 3, Suppose the names of a thing be changed, and if the thing remain the same, no man can heereby defende his facte.

2 Austin brought in the distinction betweene Dulia and Latria. Therefore the inuocation of Saints is iustly defended by this distinction.

Answ, 1, Augustin by this distinction distinguisheth the obedience of the first and second table, or our obedience towards God, and our obedience toward our parents and Magistrats; granting that obedience is due to both, but in a lower degree to the Magistrate than to [Page 392] GOD as it is Act, 5, 29. Now this is no­thing to the inuocation of Saint [...], whereof Austin sayth nothing in this his distinction. Moreouer Austin speaketh of obedience to be yelded to the liuing: but our Aduersaries of the inuocation of the dead [...]. 2, The Scripture vseth the words Latreuein and douleuein with­out difference. Doule [...]ein is referred to God also. Rom, 7, 25, as also 1. Thes, 1, [...]. so also doule [...]n to [...]uri [...] Acts, 20. 19. and latreuein in the translation of the seuentie interpreters is vsed to signifie seruile workes also. Leu. 23, 8, & 28. 18.

3 Wee doe not pray vnto, but mention and name the Saints.

Ans, The contrarie hath beene alreadie proued. 2, This compellation or naming them hath no ground in Scriptures.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason thus.

1 Euen as in Princes Courts, there is neede [Page 402] of some mediatour to procure accesse to Princes; so when we would pray vnto God, we haue neede of the Saints to be our mediatours

Answ, 1, Similitudes proue nothing. 2, A certaine widowe cal­ling to the Emperour of Rome for justice, when he an­sweared, I am not at leisure to heare thee, then (quoth she) haue no leisure nei­ther to be Emperour. It is a similitude ill befitting this thing: for it is a fault, if Princes themselues refuse to heare their subiects, either for negligence or pride. And if they refuse, because promiscuous ad­mittance of all might bee dangerous to their persons, or because themselues cannot doe all, but leaue many things to their officers, these bee infirmities which belong to men, but no way to God. For God is not as man

2 It is a point of Christian humility, to seeke for a Mediatour, when thou iudgest thy selfe vn­worth [...]e. Hos, 11, 9.

Answ. 1. We haue neede of humility, but of true humility; which is such, that we e­steeme our selues, and the merits of all Saints more vnworthy than we may obtaine mercy for them, but for Christs sake alone. This is true humility, which doth not leade vs from Christ. Seeing then our Aduersaries meane another humility than this, by this ambigui­ty of the word (humility) there arise foure termes, 2, The popish humilitie is repugnant [Page 403] to the commandemēt of God. For God saith Call vpon me in the day of trouble. The Pa­pists wil answer: Lord, humility teacheth me, not to cal vpon thee because I am vnworthy.

3 He that honoureth the friends of the Prince, doth that which is acceptable to the Prince. So the worship of Saints may be acceptable to God.

Ans, 1, Againe our Aduersaries deale by Similitudes and coniectures in a matter of such difficulty. 2, That saints are to bee ho­noured or reuerenced, no man denieth, but they may not so be honoured, as that God be thereby robbed of his honour, which is done by inuocation, but they are honored by pub­lishing the vertues, wherewith God indued them, and by imitating the godlinesse, wher­in they flourished.

4 Christ is of greater dignitie, than that we may dare to come vnto him because hee is made higher than the heauens. Therefore we haue need of the mediation of Saints.

Ans. 1, The Antecedent is false, as hath bin shewed before. And Christ calleth vs, to come vnto him saying▪ Come vnto me al &c. Mat, 11, 28. 2, This is not humilitie, but diffi­dence reproued & condemned by God.

[Page 404] 5 Let my name bee called vpon these children, and the name of my Fathers, Abraham and Isaac. &c. Genes. 48, 16. Therefore the Saints are to bee called vpon in prayer.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute.

1 As wee honour the images of Princes, so it is mee [...]e we should honour the images of Saints.

Ans, 1, He that vseth the princes image with honorable respect, doth not therefore adore him: and all men would count him [...] foole, which should put off his hat to the Princes picture, or kneele thereto, or lying prostrate should vtter these words to the pic­ture which should bee spoken to the Prince. 2, If any man doe not of purpose dishonour or disgrace the Princes image, hee hath ho­noured it sufficiently. 3, Let vs honour the image of GOD in the Saints aliue, on that manner, which Christ hath prescribed, Matth. 25, 36. 40. That is by doing good vn­to the needie saints.

2 The stocke or wood or stone is not wor­shipped amongst the Papists, but the intention is directed vnto him whose image it is.

[Page 416] Answ, 1, Doubtelesse the Israelites were not so senselesse, as to worship the golde, or the [...]umpe that was moulten of the golde (Exo. 32.) But they worshipped in the signe that which they thought was the true God: neuerthelesse God condemned them of Ido­latrie. 2, If they worship not the images, why doe they prostrate themselues before one i­mage of the blessed Virgin, rather than be­fore an other? If this onely bee their purpose, that they may bee put in mind of the blessed Virgin Mary; might not a lesse regarded image pictured at home, or in some more obscure place of the Church bee sufficient therefore? Wherefore seeing they are vsed to do their deuotion before one cer­taine particular image, who wil euer belieue that they giue not that worship to the Idol [...] themselues? And to denie that they worship idols, what is it else, but to desire to pull out mens eyes, that they should not see that, which all that be present, doe beholde with ther eyes.

Now it shall not neede to refute the wor­shipping of idols, seeing our aduersaries thē ­selues do acknowledge it aboundantly refu­ted, [Page] if this worshipping can bee prooued a­gainst them: Therefore they seeke to giue vs the slip, and denie those things, which are most manifest to sense.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute.

1 The vse of Mariage bed after the fall is impure, and not without lust. Therfore priests who ought to bee pure, must abstaine from wed­locke.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute.

1. I would that all men were, even as I my selfe [...]m. 1, Cor. 7, 7.

Ans. The Apostle doth not say this, as if single men were more perfect or acceptable before God, but as Paul saith, I spare you, be­cause [Page 439] of the tribulation of the flesh. It is ther­fore a fallacie from that which is spoken but in part and some respect, to the same taken absolutely, and in all respects.

2. It is good for a man so to bee, that is vnmar­ried. 1, Cor: 7. 26.

Ans: 1. Good is not there opposed to euil: for then this should be the conclusion: Sin­gle life is good; therefore marriage is evilll: but this would turne to the contumely of the Author of Matrimonie. 2, Heere bee foure termes: for the Antecedent speaketh of a corporall felicitie or good, & the consequent of a spirituall.

3. Art thou loosed frō a wife? seeke not a wife. 1. Cor. 7, 27.

Answer, 1. Paul addeth forthwith; If thou take a wise, thou sinnest not: therefore the single man is not more perfect than the mar­ried. 2. Still they commit the fallacie of ta­king that absolutely, which is spoken but in part and some respect onely: neither do they consider the words of Paul, where hee saith; for the present necessitie, not for any future excellencie in heaven.

[Page 440] 4, They which haue wiues, let thē be as though they had none. 1, Cor. 7, 29.

Ans. Paulspeaketh not in this place of the companie of man & wife, but admonisheth the married, that in those perilous times, (wherein the confession of the truth of the Gospell is required) they should not haue more care of their wiues, than of Gods glo­rie, and their owne salvation.

5. The vnmaried careth for the thinges of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the thinges of the world, howe he may please his wife. 1, Cor. 7, 32.

Ans. 1. Hee speaketh not of perfection or imperfection before God, but of commodi­ties and discommodities, or certaine Impe­diments which vse to happen in marriage, for that the maried hath care and charge of providing necessary things of this life for his family: which care who so might bee freed from, without some greater or as great in­convenience on the other side, might haue the more time and opportunity to bestowe himselfe wholly on heavenly Meditations: but the like doth befall in all other estates, wherein menne haue to deale with the [Page 441] affaires of this life: So the Magistrate because of his great businesse in the commonwealth, hath not so much liberty to apply himselfe to religion. 2, A maried man may also ser [...]e God neuerthelesse: Otherwise Zacharie & Elizabeth could not haue beene called iust before God, Luke, 1, 6. Neither doth e [...]ery conueniency in a state make it by and by a more perfect state, for else riches were a more perfect state, than pouerty, because a man hath meanes to prouide necessaries for his profession, the more liberty to intende matters of religion, and may bee liberall t [...] the poore, yet the papists wil not say that the state of rich men is a state of greater perfecti­on, than the state of poore men.

6 The vnmaried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body & spirit, 1, Cor, 7, 34.

Answ, 1, This obiection is all one with that, which went next before, & therfore let the former answere serue for it also. 2, In the meane time, let the vnmaried papists, which vaunt so of their single life, remember that [Page 442] they are commanded to be holy in body and Spirit; that they doe not burne with lustfull cogitations.

7 He that giueth her to mariage doth well, but he that giueth her not doth better, 1, Corinth, 7, 38.

Ans, 1, It is a fallacy taking that absolute­ly, which is spoken but in part and some re­spect. For it is not of it selfe & simply better, but with a restriction, it is better and more commodious, for the present necessity, that they may cleaue to the Lord without hinde­ [...]ance. In the meane while it is say de to all Christians. He that cannot containe, let him mary; and it is better to mary than to burne:

8 Shee (a widow) is more blessed, if shee so continue. 1, Cor, 7, 40.

Answere, Shee is more blessed with a temporall blessing, as Christ calle [...]h the bar­ren blessed, Luk; 23, 29. There are therefore [...]oure termes.

9 The barren is blessed, which is vndefiled, & knoweth not the sinnefull bed: she shall haue frui [...] in the visitation of soules. Wisd, 3, 13. Therefore single life is before God more blessed, than ma [...]ri­mony.

[Page 443] Ans, 1, The text speaketh of a maried woman that is barren: but our Aduersaries speake of one that is v [...]maried: for there ca [...] bee knowen no barrennesse, where there hath not been the companie of man and wo­man. 2, The text speaketh of a woma [...] which refraineth from adultery: this is she­wed by the words: She knoweth [...]ot the sinn [...] ­full bed: Our aduersaries speake of a woman, which abstaineth from lawefull mariage: There is therfore a confusion of many terms, which [...]ang not together, and a fallacie ta­king that absolutely, which is spoken in part onely. 3, And the booke is Apocriphall.

10 Let not the Eunuch say, Beholde I am [...] d [...]y tree. For thus sayth the Lord to the Eunu­ches that keepe my Sabbaths, & choose the thing that pleaseth me, and take holde on my couenant, as if priests & monkes were Eunuches, & did not rather fil the world with bastards▪ euen vnto them will I giue in mine house & with­in my walles a place, &c. Isay, 56, 3, 4, 5. The [...] ­fore single life is before God more excellent tha [...] mariage.

Ans. 1, It is a fallacy taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part only. In the olde Testament those that were barren thought [Page 444] themselues neglected of GOD. These the Prophet comforteth, because before GOD there is no difference betweene the barren and the fruitfull, for that all which belieue, are indifferently receiued into the Kingdome of God. Now that which the Prophet sayth shall not hinder them, that our Aduersaries do fondly turne into a prerogatiue. 2, The contrary rather followeth from this place, to wit, that both the fruitfull and the barren, the maried and the vnmaried are alike estee­med of God, if they belieue on the Messias, and take holde of the Lords couenant.

11 There is no weight to be compared to the continent minde. Eccles, 26, 15.

Ans, The whole text speaketh of an ho­nest & chaste maried woman, who doth not defile her bed with adulterie. This is then a rope of sande. 2, And the booke is Apo­criphall.

12 Who sayde to his Father and to his Mother, I know you not, and to his brethren, I am igno­rant of you; and they knew not their owne sons [Page 445] &c, These haue kept thy Word, Deut, 33, 9.

Heere follow certaine other generall arguments of our Aduersaries for the prerogatiue. of single life.

1 Paul biddeth the maried to abstaine from companying together for a time, that they may giue themselues to prayer. 1, Cor, 7, 5. But pries [...]s and monasticall persons [...]ught to giue themselues at all times to prayer: Therfore they ought alwaies to ab [...]aine from mariage.

Answ. 1. Paul there speaketh not of or­dinary and dayly, but of [...]olemne prayers in the time of perills of imminent persecutions: For which praiers sake the maried priest may abstaine for a time, no lesse then the laick. 2 Though the Laickes also ought as well to pray alwayes, (for, pray alwaies, continually, sayth Paul, Ephes, 6, 18. 1, Thes, 5, 17.) yet they are not bidden therfore to remaine al­waies vnmaried. 3, Heere is a fallacie, taking that for the cause, which is not the cause, For Paul bids thē not abstaine for a time, by rea­son of any vncleannes in matrimony, but that being hindred with none other outward or wordly thing, they might more conuenient­ly giue themselues to prayer.

[Page 448] 2 No man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life, because hee would please him, that hath chosen him to be a Souldi­our, 2, Timo, 2, 4. But priests are Gods Souldi­ours.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe dispute.

1. Vowes are to be kept. And heere they heape vp many sayings to no purpose, Deut. 23, 21. Leui▪ 27; 2, 10. Numb: 6, 2, Psal: 75, 12, Eccles, 5, 3;

Ans. 1. There be foure termes in the argu­ment, because the Maior speaketh of vowes, which are not out of our owne power, but of lawfull and approved vowes, which were not repugnant to the rules delivered, Numb. 6. & 30 Chapter; such as were the vowes of the Nazarites, of offerings, &c. but the minor meaneth a vowe not allowed of, nor com­maunded, and such a vowe as is not in our power to keepe.

2. Though every one haue not the gift of conti­nencie, yet we may obtaine it by prayers; for what soever yee shall aske, yee shall receaue. Iohn, 16. 23, 24.

[Page 454] Ans. 1. If God had appointed, the praying for the gift of continencie, as an effectuall and sufficient remedie against burning, then the argument would followe: but because God hath appointed another remedy, for the avoiding of fornication, to wit, lawfull ma­trimonie (according to these sayings: It is better to marrie, than to burne: if they can­not containe, let them marrie: and for avoi­ding of fornication, let every man haue his wife:) therefore there is no consequence in the Papists argument 2, We haue an assured promise to obtaine those thinges by prayer, which doe directly pertaine to the salvation of our soules; but seeing wee may be saved in honest Matrimonie, without the obtaining of the gift of co [...]tinencie, God is not tyed to heare our praiers, when we desire the gift of continencie. 3, And if every man may ob­taine by prayer the gift of continencie, why not also the gift of tongues? or, why not the gift of healing also?

3. Refuse the younger widowes: for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ, they will marrie, having damnation because they haue broken the first faith (that is their vowe.) 1, Timo. [Page 455] 5, 11. 12. Therefore the vowe of continencie can­not be broken, vpō any pre [...]ense of not being able to containe.

Answer. 1, It cannot by any one word bee prooved, that these widowes made vowes, that they would not afterward marrie: this place then is wrongfully wrested to Popish vowes of continencie. 2, These widowes are not reproved, for that they marrie, but for that they secretly play the harlots, and then seeke for marriage for a pretense to cover their naughtinesse. 3, The first faith is not any vowe, but the first faith that was given to Christ in Baptisme: this is the first faith, which they breake, while they make the members of Christ, the members of an har­lot. 4, And Paul biddeth these younger wi­dowes marrie, in the same place: hee should then bid them breake their vowe, if these wi­dowes had made any vow: which our Aduersaries will not willingly graunt. 5, If this place be vnderstood of vowes, it followeth a­gainst the Papists, that they offend, in laying vowes vpon thē, which are not yet come to three [...]core yeeres of age: for Paul would haue such chosen, as be threescore yeeres old.

[Page 456] 4. The vowe which Priests make of chastitie, is a free vow of their owne accord; neither doth any man compell them to it.

Ans. 1. This wee denie: for those that will be admitted into holy Orders, haue none o­ther entrance, but by vowing. A man that is admitted, if he marrie, is removed from his calling, and is punished in his body: what a kinde of liberty is this? It is therefore a loud lie.

5, Paul (1, Timo. 4, 1, 3.) doth not speake of the Pope, that he holdeth the doctrine of Devils, but he meaneth the Tatian [...] and Encr [...]ti [...]ae her [...]tikes.

Ans. 1. Paul saith of them: forbidding to marrie, but the Pope forbiddeth to marrie: therefore &c. 2, It followeth not, the Tatiani forbad marriage: therefore the Pope, which forbiddeth it too, is not to bee reprooved. There is the like iudgement of like things. 3, Though the Pope doe not forbid mariage to all persons▪ yet hee forbiddeth it; and there­fore hee is rightly condemned by Paul with the Tatiani and Encratitae.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

1 Obedience is due to the Church but the Chu [...]ch hath ordained such fasts. Therefore, &c.

Answer, 1, In customes and indifferent ceremonies for orders sake, obedience is to be performed to the Church, but not in mat­ters of necessity and articles of our beliefe, vnlesse it be vpholden by the authority of the scripture, whereof we haue spoken in the be­ginning of this booke. Thither we referre the Reader. 2, Neither is that rightly ascribed to the Church, which is tyrannously obtru­ded to be obserued of Christians by supersti­tious men vnder the name of the Church.

2 Hee that is weake, eateth herbes, Rom. 14. 2. Therefore the eating of flesh may rightly be for­bidden for the weake ones sake.

Answ, 1, Paul speaketh of those that be weake: but the Church respecteth not the weake, but onely their owne tyranny, which they would establish by such superstitious precepts. 2, Paul addeth presently vpon it, let not him that eateth, despise him that ea­teth [Page 462] not, &c. Now if our Aduersaries think he spoke these words of the choise and diffe­rence of meates, why doe they not leaue the vse of meates in mens libertie? and, why do they not take away the difference betweene him that eateth, and him that eateth not? 3, Seeing Paul speaketh of a thing, which hee leaueth in free choise, and our Aduersaries of a thing not lefte at liberty, this allegation of Paul is impertinent. And there be 4. termes.

3 It is good not to eate flesh, Rom, 14▪ 21.

Ans, 1, Paul speaketh of the moderating of Christian liberty, (wherof there is no con­trouersie) which seeing our Aduersaries doe wrest to the abrogating of Christian liberty, there is more in the conclusion than in the premisses, and there is committed the fallacy of taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part onely. 2, If these words of Paul do binde vs to a choise of meates, then it will follow, that we must not drinke wine neither, For Paul ioyneth these together: It is not good to eate flesh nor to drinke wine. Whence one of the two dooth follow; that either these words are alleaged impertinent­ly, [Page 463] or that the Church of Rome doth erre in not forbidding the vse of wine. The latter our Aduersaries do not grant. Therefore needs they must grant the former.

4 If meate offend my brother, I will eate no flesh while the World standeth that I may not of­fend my brother, 1, Cor, 8, 13.

Ans, 1, Paul doth not speake of the po­pish difference of meates (wherein the vse of all flesh generally is forbidden) but of things sacrificed to idolls. Therefore it is nothing to the purpose. 2 Euen this moderating of our liberty, is it selfe a temporall precept (as ap­peareth Acts. 15, 29) the Popes prohibition then, seeing it is perpetuall, hath no affinity with this precept of Pauls. And seeing there be two termes in this argument, which have equiuocation in them, there arise fiue terms

5 In the Olde Testament there was alwaies a difference made of some meates, before and after the floode, and in the time of the law.

Answ, 1, These for the most part were shadows of things to come. Therfore they be long not to vs in the new Testament. 2, Then [Page 464] there was an expresse commandement of God: which wee doe not onely want in the new Testament, but wee haue also the con­trary commandement of Paul, Coloss, 2, 20. &c.

6 Daniel fasted with choise of meates, Dan, 1, 8, and 10, 3.

Answ, 1, This was partly (Dan, 1, 8.) by the commandement, (Leu, 11.) partly of his owne free accord (Dan, 10. 3) and not of superstition: but it was rather a fast of sobrie­ty and temperance, all which haue no affi­nity with the popish faste, especially seeing Daniel abstained also from wine: which the popish Prelates, Priests and Monkes, would be loth, I warrant you, to obserue.

7 The choise and difference of meates hath ground in scripture, Leuit, 11, Deut, 14.

Answer, 1, They were Leuiticall pre­cepts, abrogated by God. Acts, 10, 15. By the Apostles, Act, 15, 10, 19, 20, &c. By Paul Coloss. 2, 16, 17, 20. &c, and (Heb, 13. 9.) 2, And that Leuiticall difference of meates was not in this, whether it were lawefull to eate flesh or fi [...]h: but there was difference put be­tweene the cleane and vncleane liuing crea­tures. [Page 465] Wherefore that Leviticall difference of meates is fondly wrested to the Popish difference and choise of meates: and there be fiue termes in this argument.

8, The Apostles did forbid to eate bloud, or that which was strangled, Act. 15. 29.

Answ. 1, It was a temporall commaunde­ment for the moderating of Christian liber­tie, vnto the edification of the weake; but the Popish difference and choise of meates doth not moderate, but abrogate Christian liber­tie, neither is it for any weake ones sake, but for obtaining of tyrannie in the Church. 2; The Apostles did not forbid them flesh at all, but bloud & that which was strangled, which many men at this day also by nature thinke abhominable to be eaten. It is nothing ther­fore to the purpose.

9 The Nazarites abstained from certaine meats and drinks, Numb. 6, 3.

Ans. 1. The vowe of the Nazarites did be­long to a certain abstinence for one set time: but heerein it agree [...]h not with the Popish choise and difference of meates. 2. It was a Leviticall ceremonie, which ought to cease among Christians. 3, The law of Nazarites [Page 466] did forbid the vse of wine also, which not­withstanding our Aduersaries doe retaine in their fast▪

10. The Rechabites abstained from wine. Ier. 35. 6. 10.

Answ. 1. They did it not to merite the fa­vour of God: but they had receaued a com­mandement frō their Father, that they might the more easily abstaine from drunkennes & the vices, which follow drunkennes. Neither would their Father prescribe a law to others, but to his sonnes. It is then a fallacie taking that absolutely, which is spoken but in part. 2. We dispute of flesh and they answer of wine:

11. It is not read that Christ did eate flesh, but that he did eate bread and fish, &c.

Answ. 1, As if the Pascall Lambe had not beene flesh. 2. We should not therefore haue an example to imitate, if it were never so plaine, that Christ did abstaine from flesh. 3. But neither doe we reade, that Christ did eate hearbs, nuts, spices, nor that he dranke beere. (3) All these therefore shall be inhibited Christi­ans, if this argument follow.

12. The earth was cursed by God. Genes. 3, 17. but beasts live of the earth: therefore there should [Page 467] be an inhibitio [...], that they be not eaten▪

Ans. 1 By this reason all flesh at all times should be forbidden. 2, That curse is but in part, namely, that it should be barren, and bring forth thornes and thistles. 3, So, should we not eate hearbs neither, which spring im­mediatly out of the earth.

13. Because flesh is most nourishing, and bring­eth forth the pricks of Concupiscence, wee ought to abstaine from flesh at that time, which is appoin­ted for the taming of our flesh.

Answer. 1. These are the precepts which haue a shewe of wisedome in will-worship. (Coloss. 2, 23) and wine should be forbidden rather than flesh; as that which inflameth men to Inst and other vices, as it is said. Prou: 23, 31, 32, &c.

14. The Apostles fasted. Acts. 13, 2. 3▪ and 14. 23. And fasting is commended. Matthew. 6 16: Marke, 9. 29. Io [...]l. 1. 14. Zachar. 7, 5. and 8. 19. Io­nah, 3, 5, 7.

Answer. 1. That Christians should fast in their kinde in due sort and manner, no man denieth, but without the losse of Christian libertie; those things then are brought for ar­guments, which are out of cōtrouersie. 2, But [Page 468] whiles the argument is from a true manner of fasting, to the Popish hypocriticall man­ner of fasting, there arise foure termes. For the fasting of the Apos [...]les did not consist in the difference of meates: but they that fasted in the old Testament, abstained frō all meate, and drinke a whole day vntill evening: Such a fast the Popish Priests and Monkes will ne­ver be perswaded to practise.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute.

1, The Ninivites and others haue by fasting ob­tained a mitigation of punishments: therefore fa­sting is meritorious.

Ans. 1. They that obtained the spirituall grace of God obtained it by faith: for with­out faith no man can please God (Heb. 11. 6.) 2, And whereas others obtained a mitigating or deferring of temporal punishments, it be­longeth not to this disputation, wherein the question is not of temporall grace, but of the grace of iustification. So the wicked King A­hab, by fasting and humbling himself in sack-cloath, obtained the deferring of temporall evils, but escaped not eternall punishments. 1, King. 21, 29.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason.

1. Christ fasted forty dayes. Matth. 4, 2. but e­very action of Christ is our instruction; therefore &c.

[Page 470] Ans. 1. This fast was miraculous, neither is there any thing in it, which agreeth with the Popish fast. But and if every action of Christ be our instruction, then we must worke mi­racles too. 2. We should also in like manner abstaine 40 daies altogether from all meate. 3, We haue no commandement, to imitate this fact of Christ. 4. And, if we must imitate every action of Christ in particular, then wee should with a whip scourge the Popish Mer­chants of holy things out of the temples. But woe to the Pope with his Simoniacal mates, if this dealing should be vsed.

2. Moses and Elias fasted 40 daies.

Ans. 1, If their example should bind others to imitate them, then the fast of Lent should haue beene instituted in the olde Testament also: which seeing it was not done, the vani­tie of this argument is apparent. 2, Both their fastes were miraculous and vnimita­ble.

3, Lent fast is the tithing of the daies of the yeare; Therefore it was well ordained of the Church.

Ans. These be fictions of idle braines, with­out the word of God. Will-worships there­fore [Page 471] to be condemned.

4, The Canons of the Apostles doe commend the fast of Lent.

Ans. 1, They be counterfait Canons: which our Aduersaries themselues dare not altoge­ther denie, vnlesse they they be without both iudgement and shame. 2, There are many things in those Canons, which the Papists themselues at this day doe reiect.

Contrariwise our Aduersaries do dispute.

1 In the Primitiue Church publike confession of [...]innes by circumstances was required.

Answere, 1, It was a part of ec [...]lesiasti­call discipline, which was woont to be per­formed before the whole Church by such [Page 480] persons as had grieuously fallen, before the Church had any Christian Magistrates. But that popish auricular confession was vnkno­wen to all antiquity. There are therefore foure termes.

2 God exercised priuate confession in Adam, when he sayd, Adam, where art thou? & in Cain, when hee asked, where is Abel thy brother? Gen, 3, 9, & 4, 9.

Answ. 1. Those places prooue nothing lesse. For Neither did Adam nor Cain rec­kon vp their sinnes, but endeuour to cloke them. But to prea [...]h to the impenitent the acknowledging of their sinnes, & to receiue confession in the care; are things very far dif­ferent. 2. Neither did either Adam or Cain deserue anie thing by that confession which was with much a doe wrunge from them: For Caine despaired, and Adam belieuing on the promised seede of the woman, was saued by faith. not by the confession of his sinne. The Argument then hangeth not to­gether.

[Page] 3, Hee that hideth his sinnes, shall not prosper: but hee that confesseth and forsaketh them, shall haue mercy. Prou. 28, 13. When I held my tongue, my bones cōsumed, Psal. 32, 3. If we acknowledge our sinnes, &c. 1. Ioh. 1, 9. therefore Auricular con­fession is grounded on the Scripture.

Ans, 1. Seeing there is not one onely man­ner of confession, but diuers, they argue from that which is spoken indefinitely to the same taken definitely, & from a particular as from an vniversall: for there is a confession before God; there is a generall confession, there is a particular, before the Ministers, before the Church, before our brethren, whom we haue offended, &c. All these things our Aduersa­ries do fondly confound together.

4. The Iewes were baptized of Iohn and con­fessed their sinnes; therefore he speaketh of Auri­cular confession. Math. 3, 6:

Answer. 1, There is more in the conclusion than in the Premisses: for it followeth not; they confessed themselues to be sinners ther­fore they confessed every one of their sinnes on the Popish manner. 2, The text saith, that Ierusalem & all Iurie, & all the region about Iordan went out vnto Iohn, &c. of how much time then, and how many tenne yeares had [Page 482] Iohn neede of, if hee would haue heard the particular and secret enumeration of all and every their sinnes: nothing therefore follo­weth.

5. Christ saith: Whosesoever sinnes yee remit, they are remitted vnto them: and whosesoevers sinnes yee retaine, they are retained. Ioh. 20, 23. That it may therefore bee knowne what sinnes ought to be retained, what not; it is needfull there should be a particular enumeration of them.

Answ. 1. There is more in the conclusion than in the Premisses: for sinnes may bee re­mitted to them, which confesse themselues to be sinners, & seriously to repent. Although there be made no particular enumeration of all sinnes, yet wee keepe a good custome in The chur­ches of Germanie. our Churches, thinking it meete, that the Minister, before he giveth absolution, should try whether hee that confesseth, vnderstand the doctrine of the acknowledgement of sin, of Redemption, of Grace, and Iustification, &c, But that this should be done by that auri­cular circumstantiall enumeration of sinnes, there is no whit contained in Christs words▪ Now as concerning retaining of sinnes, that belongeth to impenitent sinners; but we may [Page 483] not practise it vpon them that confesse their sinnes. What needeth then for this retaining of sinnes, any enumeration of sinnes, in them, to whom Christ biddeth vs apply the key of loosing? 2, Against the Popish auricular confession we haue an example of Peter, who having heard the generall and devout confes­sion of the sinnes of the Iewes, did not seeke after particulars any more, but gaue vnto them Absolution & Baptisme. Act, 2, 38, 41.

6. Christ saith to the Leaper: goe, sh [...]w thy self [...] vnto the Priest. Matt [...]. 8, 4. therefore hee biddeth him confesse his sinnes to a Priest.

Ans. 1. There is not any sillable in the text concerning any manner of confession. It is then a rope of sand. 2, The cause of sending him to the Priest was not any confession, but for a witnesse vnto them, that they might not be able afterward to denie or cavill at Christs miracles. 3, And at that time, by the custome and commaundement of the law of Moses; the iudging of leaprous persons belonged to the Priests: which at this day is committed to Physitians. Heere then is a fallacie taking that for the cause, which is not the cause.

7. A [...] the Chirurgion ought first to vie we and [Page 484] search the wounds, that hee may apply necessarie plaisters: so it is needfull that the Priest take a par­ticular view of the wounds of conscience, before he giue absolution.

Ans: 1, Similitudes proue nothing. 2, Here is great difference & vnlikenes: for it is need­full that the Surgeon doe looke vppon the wounds, because hee ought to apply severall plaisters according to the diversitie of the wounds: neither are all plaisters fit for all dis­eases, which in spirituall wounds of consci­ence is not so: for there all and every disease is cured with one & the same plaister, to wit, the bloud of the sonne of God: 1, Ioh: 1, 7, and 2, 2.

8. He that desireth absolution, may deceaue the Minister, therfore auricular confession is better.

Answ. 1, And hee that confesseth may de­ceaue the Priest in auricular confession: fo [...] who can assure the Priest, that he that confes­seth, hath kept back nothing, or that he hath not tolde some vntruth in the circumstances. 2, This evill ought to be met withall, not by auricular confession, but by a graue & serious admonition: namely that God searcheth the hearts of all men, and though the Ministers, [Page 485] his Mess [...]ngers be deceaued, yet that he can­not be deceaved, who will inflict most grie­vous punishments vpon the vnrepentant.

9. Acknowledge your sinnes one to another. Iam. 5, 16.

Ans: 1. It is an argument from a particular, as if it were an vniversall: for it doth not fol­low that Iames doth no [...] speake heere of any other kinde of confession, but of that auricu­lar. 2, He saith, Confesse one to another: he doth not therefore speake of auricular con­fession before a Priest, but of a mutuall con­fession of them, who haue beene offended one by another. And it is all one with that of Christ, concerning reconciling our selues with our brother offended. Matth. 5, 23, 24. Heere are therefore foure termes, and ropes of sande, as are almost all our A [...]uersaries ar­guments.