II. The dissent or difference.

The point of difference standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spiritu­all matters, which concerne the kingdome of God. The Papists say, mans will concur­reth & worketh with gods grace in the first conuersion of a sinner by it selfe, and by it owne naturall power; and is onely helped by the holy Ghost. We say, that mans will wor­keth with grace in the first conuersion, yet not of it self, but by grace. Or thus; They say, will hath a naturall cooperation: we denie it, & say it hath cooperation onely by grace, beeing in it selfe not actiue but passiue; wil­ling well onely as it is mooued by grace, whereby it must first be acted and mooued, [Page 17] before it can act or will. And that we may the better conceiue the difference, I will vse this comparison: The Church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condi­tion of a prisoner, and so do we: marke then the difference. It supposeth the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foote with chaines & fetters, and withall to be sicke and weake, yet not wholly dead but liuing in part: it sup­poseth also that being in this case, he stirreth not himselfe for any helpe, & yet hath abili­tie and power to stirre. Herevpon if the kee­per come and take away his bolts and fetters, and hold him by the hand and helpe him vp, he can and will of himselfe stand and walke and goe out of prison: euen so (say they) is a sinner bound hand and foote with the chaine of his sinnes; and yet he is not dead but sicke, like to the wounded man in the way be­tweene Ierico and Ierusalem. And therefore doeth he not will and affect that which is good; but if the holy Ghost come and doe but vntie his bands, and reach him his hand of grace, then can he stand of himselfe and will his owne saluation, or any thing els that [Page 18] is good. We in like manner graunt, that a prisoner fitly resembleth a naturall man, but yet such a prisoner must he be, as is not one­ly sicke and weake but euen starke dead; which cannot stirre though the keeper vn­tie his boltes and chaines, nor heare though he sound a trumpet in his eare; and if the said keeper would haue him to mooue & stirre, he must giue him not onely his hand to help him, but euen soule and life also: and such a one is euery man by nature; not onely chai­ned and fettered in his sinnes but starke dead therein; as one that lieth rotting in the graue, not hauing any ability or power to mooue or stirre: and therefore he cannot so much as desire or doe any thing that is truly good of himselfe, but God must first come and put a newe soule into him, euen the spirit of grace to quicken and reuiue him: and then beeing thus reuiued, the will beginneth to will good things at the very same time, whē god by his spirit first infuseth grace. And this is the true difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome in this point of free will.

II. The dissent or difference.

Thus farre we consent with the Church of Rome: now the difference betweene vs stands not in the abolishment, but in the man­ner, and the measure of the abolishment of this sinne.

Papists teach, that Original sinne is so farre forth taken away after baptisme, that it cea­seth to be a sinne properly: and is nothing els [Page 30] but a want, defect, and weaknes, making the heart fit and readie to conceiue sinne: much like tinder, which though it be no fire of it selfe, yet is it very apt and fit to conceiue fire. And they of the church of Rome denie it to be sinne properly, that they might vpholde some grosse opinions of theirs, namely, That a man in this life may fulfill the law of God; and doe good workes voide of sinne: that he may stande righteous at the barre of Gods iudgement by them.

But we teach otherwise, that though ori­ginall sinne be taken away in the regenerate, and that in sundrie respects: yet doth it re­maine in them after baptisme, not onely as a want and weaknesse but as a sinne, and that properly: as may by these reasons be proo­ued.

Reason I. Rom. 7. 17. Paul saith direct­ly: It is no more I that doe it, but sinne that dwelleth in me: that is, originall sinne. The Pa­pists answer againe, that it is so called impro­perly: because it commeth of sinne and also is an occasion of sinne to be done. But by the circumstances of the text, it is sinne properly: [Page 31] for in the words following, Saint Paul saith, that this sinne dwelling in him, made him to doe the euill which he hated. And v. 24. he crieth out, O wretched man that I am, vvho shall deliver me from this bodie of death? whence I reason thus.

That which once was sinne properly, and still remaining in man maketh him to sinne, and intangleth him in the punish­ment of sinne, and makes him misera­ble: that is sinne properly.

But originall sinne doth all these. Ergo.

Reason II. Infants baptised and regene­rate, die the bodily death before they come to the yeares of discretion: therefore origi­nall sinne in them is sinne properly; or else they should not die, hauing no cause of death in them: for death is the wages of sinne, as the Apostle saith, Rom. 6. 23. and Rom. 5. 12. Death entred into the world by sinne. As for actuall sinne they haue none, if they die pre­sently after they are borne before they come to any vse either of reason, or affection.

Reason III. That which lusteth a­gainst the spirit, and by lusting tempteth, and [Page 32] in tempting intiseth and draweth the heart to sinne, is for nature sinne it selfe: but concu­piscence in the regenerate lusteth against the spirit, Gal. 5. 17. and tempteth as I haue saide, Iam. 1. 14. God tempteth no man, but euery man is tempted when he is drawne avvay by his owne concupiscence, and is intised: then when lust conceiueth, it bringeth forth sinne. And therefore it is sinne properly: such as the fruit is, such is the tree. Aug. contra Iul. l. 5. cap. 3. August. Concupis­cence against vvhich the spirit lusteth IS SINN [...], because in it there is disobedience a­gainst the rule of the minde: and it is the pu­nishment of sinne because it befalls man for the merits of his disobedience: and it is the cause of sinne.

Reason V. The iudgement of the aunci­ent Church. August. epist. 29. Charitie in some is more, in some lesse, in some none: the highest degree of all which cannot be increa­sed, is in none, as long as man liues vpon earth. And as long as it may be increased, THAT VVHICH IS LESSE THEN IT SHOVLD BE, IS IN FAVLT: by which fault it is, that there is no iust man vpon earth that doth [Page 33] good and sinneth not: by which fault none li­uing shalbe iustified in the sight of God: for which fault, if we say we haue no sinne, there is no truth in vs: for which also, though vve profit neuer so much, it is necessarie for vs to say, forgiue vs our debts, though al our words, deedes, and thoughts be alreadie forgiuen in baptisme. Indeede August. in sundrie places seemes to denie concupiscence to be sinne af­ter baptisme: but his meaning is, that concu­piscence in the regenerate is not the sinne of the person in whome it is. For thus he ex­poundes himselfe, ad Valer. lib. 1. c. 24. This is not to haue sinne, not to be guiltie of sinne. And, Lib. 2. con­tra Iul. The lavv of sinne in baptisme is remitted and not ENDED. And, Tract▪ 42. in Ioh. Let not sinne raigne: he saith not, let not sinne be, but let it not raigne. For as long as thou li [...]est, of necessitie sinne will be in thy members: at the least, looke it raigne not in thee, &c.

II. The dissent or difference.

The very maine point of difference lies in the manner of assurance.

I. Conclus. We hold that a man may be certen of his saluation in his own conscience euen in this life, and that by an ordinarie and speciall faith. They hold that a man is certen of his saluation onely by hope: both of vs hold a certentie, we by faith, they by hope.

II. Conclus. Further, we hold and auouch that our certentie by true faith is vnfallible: they say, their certentie is onely probable.

III. Conclus. And further though both of vs say, that we haue confidence in Gods mercie in Christ for our saluation: yet we doe it with some difference. For our confi­dence commeth from certen and ordinarie faith: theirs from hope, ministring (as they say) but a coniecturall certentie.

Thus much of the difference: now let vs see the reasons two and fro.

II. Difference about the man­ner of iustification.

All, both Papists and Protestants agree, that a sinner is iustified by faith. This agree­ment is onely in word, and the difference be­tweene vs is great indeede. And it may be re­duced to these three heads. First, the Papist saying that a man is iustified by faith: vnder­standeth a generall or a Catholike faith, whereby a man beleeueth the arcicles of re­ligion to be true. But we hold that the faith which iustifieth, is a particular faith whereby we apply to our selues the promises of righ­teousnes and life euerlasting by Christ. And that our opinion is the truth: I haue proued before: but I will adde a reason or twaine.

I. Reason. The faith whereby we liue, is that faith whereby we are iustified: but the faith whereby we liue spiritually, is a parti­cular faith whereby we apply Christ vnto our selues, as Paul saith, Gal. 2. 20 I liue, that is, spiritually, by the faith of the sonne of God: [Page 79] which faith he sheweth to be a particular faith in Christ, in the very words following, who hath LOVED ME and giuen himselfe FOR ME, particularly: and in this manner of be­leeuing Paul was and is an example to all that are to be saued, 1. Tim. 1. 16. and Phil. 3. 15.

II. Reason. That which we are to aske of God in praier, we must beleeue it shall be giuen vs, as we aske it: but in praier we are to aske the pardon of our owne sinnes, and the merit of Christs righteousnes for our selues: therefore we must beleeue the same particularly. The proposition is a rule of Gods word, requiring, that in euery petition we bring a particular faith, whereby we be­leeue, that the thing lawfully asked, shall be giuen accordingly. Mark. 11. 24. The minor is also euident, neither can it be denyed: for we are taught by Christ himselfe to pray on this manner, Forgiue vs our debts: and to it we say, Amen, that is, that our petitions shall without all doubt be graunted vnto vs. Aug. serm. de Temp. 182.

And here note, that the Church of Rome in the doctrine of iustification by faith cuts [Page 80] off the principall part and propertie thereof. For in iustifying faith two things are requi­red: first Knowledge reuealed in the word touching the meanes of saluation: secondly an Applying of things knowne vnto our selues, which some call affiance. Nowe the first, they acknowledge, but the second, which is the very substance and principall part thereof, they denie.

III. Reason. The iudgement of the aun­cient Church. de verbis Dei. serm. 7. August. I demand now, doest thou beleeue in Christ, O sinner? Thou saist, I beleeue. What beleevest thou? that all THY SINNES may freely be pardoned by him. THOV HAST THAT VVHICH THOV HAST BEELEEVED. Serm. 1, de Annunc. Bern. The Apostle thinketh that a man is iu­stified freely by faith. If thou beleeuest that thy sinnes cannot be remitted but by him a­lone against whome they were committed: but goe further and beleeue this too, that by him THY SINNES ARE FORGIVEN THE [...]. This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost giueth in the heart, saying: thy sinnes are forgiuē thee. Serm. de Natal. Cyprian. God promiseth thee immortalitie, vvhen thou goest out of this vvorld, and [Page 81] DOEST THOV DOVBT? This is indeede not to knowe God, and this is for a member of the church in the house of faith not to haue faith. If we beleeue in Christ, let vs beleeue his wordes & promises, and we shall neuer die, and shall come to Christ with IOYFVL SECVRITIE. with him to raigne for euer.

The II. difference touching faith in the act of iustification, is this. The Papist saith, we are iustified by faith, because it disposeth a sinner to his iustification after this maner: By faith (saith he) the minde of man is inligh­tened in the knowledge of the law and gos­pell: knowledge stirres vp a feare of hel with a consideration of the promise of happines, as also the loue and feare of God, and hope of life eternall. Now when the heart is thus prepared, God infuseth the habite of charitie and other vertues, whereby a sinner is iusti­fied before God. We say otherwise, that faith iustifieth because it is a supernaturall In­strument created by God in the heart of man at his conuersion, whereby he appre­hendeth and receiueth Christs righteousnes for his iustification.

[Page 82]In this their doctrine is a twofold error: I. that they make faith which iustifieth, to goe before iustification it selfe, both for or­der of nature as also for time: whereas by the word of God, at the very instant, when any man beleeueth first, he is then iustified and sanctified. For he that beleeueth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ, and is alreadie passed from death to life, Iohn 6. 54. The second is, that faith beeing nothing else with them but an illumination of the minde, stirreth vp the will; which beeing mooued and helped, causeth in the heart ma­ny spirituall motions: and thereby disposeth man to his future iustification. But this in­deed is as much as if we should say, that dead men onely helped, can prepare themselues to their future resurrection. For we are all by nature dead in sinne, and therefore must not onely be inlightened in minde, but also re­newed in will, before we can so much as will or desire that which is good. Now we (as I haue said) teach otherwise: that faith iustifi­eth as it is an instrument to apprehend & ap­ply Christ with his obedience; which is the [Page 83] matter of our iustification. This is the truth, I prooue it thus. In the Couenant of grace▪ two things must be considered; the substance thereof, & the condition. The substance of the couenant is, that righteousnes and life e­uerlasting is giuen to Gods Church and people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our parts, are by faith to receiue the foresaid be­nefits: and this conditiō is by grace as well as the substance. Now thē, that we may attaine to saluation by Christ, he must be giuen vnto vs really, as he is propounded in the tenour of the foresaid couenant. And for the giuing of Christ, God hath appointed speciall ordi­nances, as the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments. The word preached is the power of God to saluatiō to euery one that beleeues: and the end of the sacraments is to communicate Christ with all his benefites to them that come to be par­takers thereof: as is most plainely to be seene in the supper of the Lord, in which the gi­uing of bread and wine to the seuerall com­municantes, is a pledge and signe of Gods particular giuing of Christs bodie and blood [Page 84] with all his merits, vnto them. And this gi­uing on Gods part cannot be effectuall with­out receiuing on our parts: and therefore faith must needes be an instrument or hand to receiue that which God giueth, that we may finde comfort by this giuing.

The III. difference concerning faith, is this: the Papist saith, that a man is iustified by faith; yet not by faith alone, but also by o­ther vertues, as hope, loue, the feare of God, &c. The reasons which are brought to maintaine their opinion are of no moment:

I. Reason. Luk. 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiuēher, Particula non causalis: sed illatiua vel ratio na lis. BECASE shee loued much. Whēce they gather that the woman here spoken of, was iustified and had the pardon of sinnes by loue. Ans. In this text, loue is not made an impulsiue cause to mooue God to pardon her sinnes, but onely a signe to shew and ma­nifest that God had already pardoned them. Like to this is the place of Iohn, who saith, 1. Ioh. 3. 14. We are translated from death to life, BECAVSE we loue the brethren: where loue is no cause of the change, but a signe and consequent thereof.

[Page 85]II. Reason. Gal. 5. 6. Neither circumci­sion, nor vncircumcision auaileth any thing, but FAITH THAT VVOEK [...]TH BY LOVE. Hence they gather that faith doth instifie together with loue. Ans. The propertie of true faith is, to apprehend and receiue something vnto it selfe: and loue, that goes alwaies with faith, as a fruite and an vnseperable companion thereof, is of another nature. For it doth not receiue in, but as it were giue out it selfe in all the duties of the first and second table to­wards God and man: and this thing faith by it selfe cannot doe: & therefore Paul saith that faith worketh by loue. The hand hath a pro­pertie to reach out it selfe, to lay hold of any thing: and to receiue a gift: but the hande hath no propertie to cut a peice of wood of it selfe without saw or knife, or some like in­strument; and yet by helpe of them, it can ei­ther deuide or cut. Euen so it is the nature of faith, to goe out of it selfe and to receiue Christ into the heart: as for the duties of the first and second table, faith cannot of it selfe bring them forth; no more then the hand can deuide or cut: yet ioyne loue to faith, and [Page 86] then can it practise duties commanded con­cerning God and man. And this I take to be the meaning of this text, which speaketh not of iustification by faith, but onely of the pra­ctise of common duties, which faith putteth in execution by the helpe of loue.

III. Reason. Faith is neuer alone, there­fore it doth not instifie alone. Ans. The rea­son is nought, and they might as well dispute thus. The eye is neuer alone from the head, and therefore it seeth not alone; which is ab­surd. And though in regard of substance the eye be neuer alone, yet in regard of seeing, it is alone: & so though faith subsist not with­out loue and hope and other graces of God, yet in regard of the act of iustification it is a­loue without them all.

IV. Reason. If faith alone doe iustifie, then we are saued by faith alone: but we are not saued by faith alone: and therefore not iustified by faith alone. Ans. The propositi­on is false: for more things are requisite to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes. And the assumption is false: for we are saued by faith alone, if we speake of faith [Page 87] as it is an Instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation.

V. Reason. We are saued by hope: therefore not by faith alone. Ans. We are saued by hope, not because it is any cause of our saluation. Pauls meaning is onely this; that we haue not saluation as yet in possessi­on, but waite patiently for it, in time to come to be possessed of vs, expecting the time of our full deliuerance: that is all, that can iustly be gathered hence.

Nowe the doctrine which we teach on the contrarie is, That a sinner is iustified be­fore God by faith: yea, BY FAITH ALONE. The meaning is, that nothing within man, and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustifi­cation before God, as any cause thereof, ei­ther efficient, materiall, formall, or finall, but faith alone. All other gifts & graces, as hope, loue, the feare of God, are necessarie to salua­tion, as signes thereof, & consequēts of faith. Nothing in mā concurrs as any cause to this worke but by faith alone. And faith it selfe is no principall but only an instrumentall cause [Page 88] by we receiue, apprehend, and apply Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification.

Reason I. Iohn. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse, so must the sonne of man be lift vp: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish but haue e­ternall life. In these wordes Christ makes a comparison on this manner: when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fie­ry serpents: his cure was not by any phisicke surgery, but onely by the casting of his eye vp to the brasen serpent, which Moses hade­rected by Gods commandement: euen so in the cure of our soules, when we are stung to death by sinne, there is nothing required within vs for our recouery, but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eye of our faith on Christ and his righteousnes.

Reason II. The Exclusiue formes of speach vsed in scripture proue thus much. We are iustified freely, not of the lawe, not by the lawe, wiihout the lawe, without workes, not of workes, not according to workes, not of vs, not by the workes of the lawe but by faith. Gal, 2. 16. Alboasting excluded: onely beleeue. [Page 89] Luc. 8. 50. These distinctions, wherby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iu­stification, doe include thus much: that faith alone doth iustifie.

Reason III. Very reason may teach thus much: for no gift in man is apt and fit as a spi­rituall hand to receiue and applie Christ and his righteousnes vnto a sinner, but faith. In­deede loue, hope, the feare of God and repen­tance, haue their seueral vses in men, but none serue for this ende to apprehende Christ and his merits; none of them all haue this recei­uing propertie: and therefore there is no­thing in man, that iustifieth as a cause but faith alone.

Reason IV. The iudgement of the aun­cient Church. Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whome VVITHOVT ANY LABOVR OR VVORKE DONE, iniquities are remitted and sinne couered: NO VVORKES OF REPENTANCE required of them, but ONELY THAT THEY BE­LEEVE. & cap. 3. Neither working any thing, nor requiting the like, are they iustified by FAITH ALONE through the gift of God. And, 1. Cor. 1. This is appointed of god that whosoeuer [Page 90] beleeueth in Christ, shalbe saued without any worke BY FAITH ALONE, freely receiuing re­mission of sinnes. de verbis D [...]. ser. 40. Augustine, There is ONE propitiation for all sinnes, to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc▪ on Levit. lib. 1. c. 2. Grace vvhich is of mercy is APPREHENDED BY FAITH ALONE, and not of workes. Bern. supra Cant. serm. 22. Whosoeuer is pric­ked for his sinnes and thirsteth after righte­ousnes, let him beleeue in thee, who iustifieth the sinner, and beeing iustified by FAITH A­LONE, he shall haue peace with God. Chrysost. on Gal. 3. They said, he which resteth on faith alone, is cursed: but Paul shevveth, that he is blessed vvhich resteth ON FAITH ALONE. Basil. de humil. Let man acknovvledge him­selfe to want true iustice, and that he is iusti­fied ONELY BY EAITH in Christ. Origen. on c. 3. Rom. We thinke that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law: and he saith that iustification by faith alone suffi­ceth, so as a man onely beleeuing may be iu­stified. And, Therefore it lieth vpon vs—, to search who was iustified by faith vvithout workes. And for an example, I thinke vpon the theefe who beeing crucified with Christ [Page 91] cried vnto him, Lord remember me vvhen thou commest into thy kingdome: and there is no other good worke of his mentioned in the Gospell: but for this alone faith, Iesus saith vnto him, This night thou shalt be with me in Paradise.

III. Difference.

The third difference about iustification is concerning this point, namely how farforth good works are required thereto.

The doctrine of the Church of Rome is, that there be two kindes of iustification: the first and the second, as I haue saide. The first is, when one of an euill man is made a good man: and in this, workes are wholly exclu­ded, it beeing wholly of grace. The second is, when a man of a iust man is made more iust. And this they will haue to proceed from works of grace: for (say they) as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man, though he could not at the first make himselfe a man: euen so a sinner hauing his first iustification, may afterward by grace make himself more [Page 92] iust. Therefore they hold these two things: I. That good workes are meritorious cau­ses of the second iustification, which they tearme Actuall: II. that good workes are means to increase the first iustificatiō, which they call Habituall.

Now let vs see how farreforth we must ioyne with them in this point. Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions.

I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God, and are approo­ued of him, and therefore haue a reward.

II. Good workes are necessarie to salua­tion two waies: first, not as causes thereof, ei­ther conseruant, adiuvant, or procreant: but onely as consequents of faith: in, that they are inseperable companions and fruits of that faith, which is indeede necessarie to saluati­on. Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way, and as the way it selfe directing vs vn­to eternall life.

III. We hold and beleeue, that the righ­teous man, is in some sort iustified by works: for so the holy Ghost speaketh plainely and truly, Iam. 2. 21. that Abraham vvas iustified by works.

[Page 93]Thus farre we ioyne with them: and the very difference is this. They say, we are iusti­fied by works, as by causes thereof: we say, that we are iustified by workes as by signes & fruits of our iustification before God, and no otherwise: and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstoode, that Abraham was iustified, that is, declared and made ma­nifest to be iust indeede by his obedience, and that euen before God. Nowe that our do­ctrine is the truth, it will appeare by reasons on both parts.

The dissent or difference.

The popish Church placeth merits with­in man, making two sorts thereof: the merit of the person, and the merite of the worke. The merite of the person, is a dignitie in the person, whereby it is worthy of life euerla­sting. And this (as they say) is to be found in Infants dying after baptisme, who though they want good workes, yet are they not voide of this kinde of merite, for which they receiue the kingdome of heauen. The merit of the worke, is a dignitie or excellencie in the worke, whereby it is made fitte and ina­bled [Page 104] to deserue life euerlasting for the doer. And workes (as they teach) are meritorious two waies: first, by couenant, because God hath made a promise of reward vnto them: secondly, by their owne dignitie, for Christ hath merited, that our workes might merit. And this is the substance of their doctrine. From it we dissent in these points.

I. We renounce all personall merits, that is, all merits within the person of any meere mā. II. And we renonuce al merit of works, that is, all merit of any worke done by any meere man whatsoeuer. And the true merit whereby we looke to attaine the fauour of God, & life euerlasting, is to be found in the persō of Christ alone: who is the storehouse of all our merits: whose prerogatiue it is, to be the person alone in whō God is wel plea­sed. Gods fauour is of infinite dignitie, & no creature is able to doe a worke that may countervayle the fauour of God, saue Christ alone; who by reason of the dignitie of his person, beeing not a meere man but God­man, or Man-God, he can doe such workes as ate of endlesse dignitie euery way answera­ble [Page 105] to the fauour of God: and therefore suf­ficient to merit the same for vs. And though a merit or meritorious worke agree onely to the person of Christ, yet is it made ours by imputation. For as his righteousnesse is made ours, so are his merits depending ther­on: but his righteousnes is made ours by im­putation, as I haue shewed. Hence ariseth an other point, namely that as Christs righte­ousnes is made ours really by imputation to make vs righteous: so we by the merit of his righteousnes imputed to vs, doe merit and deserue life euerlasting. And this is our doctrine. In a word, the Papist maintaineth the merits of his owne workes: but we re­nounce them all, and rest onely on the merit of Christ. And that our doctrine is truth, and theirs falshoode, I will make manifest by sundrie reasons; and then answer their argu­ments to the contrarie.

The dissent or difference

The points of our difference and dissent are these. The Church of Rome teacheth and beleeueth, that Christ by his death hath made a satisfaction for all the sinnes of men, [Page 119] and for the eternall punishment of them all: yet so, as they themselues must satisfie the iu­stice of God for the temporall punishment of their offences, either on earth or in pur­gatorie. We teach and beleeue, that Christ by his death and passion hath made a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men, and for the whole punishment thereof both eternal and temporall. Thus we differ, and herein we for our parts must for euer stand at difference with thē so as if there were no more points of variance but this one, it should be suffici­ent to keepe vs alwaies from vniting our re­ligions, and cause vs to obey the voice of Christ, Come out of her my people. For as in the former points, so in this also, the Papists erre, not in circumstance, but in the very foundation and life of religion.

The difference.

Papists teach, that beside the written word, there be certain vnwritten traditions, which must be beleeued as profitable and necessarie to saluation. And these they say are two fold; Apostolicall, namely such as were deliuered by the Apostles and not written; and Eccle­siasticall, which the Church decreeth as oc­casion is offered. We holde that the Scrip­tures [Page 138] are most perfect, containing in them all doctrines needfull to saluation, whether they concerne faith or manners: and therefore we acknowledge no such traditions beside the written word, which shall be necessarie to saluation; so as he which beleeueth them not, cannot be saued.

The dissent or difference.

The points of difference betweene vs touching vowes are especially three. I. The Church of Rome teacheth that in the newe testament we are as much bound to make vowes, as was the Church of the Iewes, and that euen in externall exercises. We say no: considering the ceremoniall lawe is now a­bolished: and we haue onely two ceremo­nies by commaundement to be obserued, baptisme, and the supper of the Lord. Againe we are not so much bound to make or keepe vowes as the Iewes were; because they had a commaundement so to doe, and we haue none at all. But they alleadge to the contrarie the Prophet Esay, cap. 19. 20. who speaking of the time of the gospel, saith, the Egyptians shall knovv the Lord, and shall vowe vnto him and keepe it. I answer two waies: first, that the Prophet in this place expresseth and sig­nifieth the spirituall worshippe of the newe [Page 160] testament by ceremoniall worship then vsed: as he doth also in the last chapter where he calleth the minsters of the newe testament Priests and Levites. Secondly, we graunt, the Church of the newe testament makes vowes vnto God, but they are of morall and euangelical duties: which must not be left vn­done and if vowing will indeed further thē, it is not to be neglected. And therefore so oft as we come to the Lordes Table, we in heart renewe the vow and promise of obedience. And though vowes be made of things and actions indifferent, yet are they not any parts of Gods worships which is the point to be proved.

Againe they alleadge. Psal. 75. 11. Vowe vnto God and performe it. And they say that this commandement bindes all men. Ans. That commandement first bindes the Iewes to the making of ceremonial vowes. Againe Dauid here speakes of the vowing of praise and thankesgiuing vnto God: and so he ex­poundes himselfe, Psal. 56. 12. My vowes are vpon me, I will offer praises vnto God; and this vow indeede concerneth al men because [Page 161] it respects a moral duty, which is to set forth the praise of God.

II. Point of difference. They also hold that vowes made euen of things not com­manded, as meates, drinkes, attire, &c. are partes of Gods worship, yea that they tende to a state of perfection, in that the keeping of them brings man to an higher estate then the keeping of the lawe can doe. We flatly say, no: holding that lawefull vowes be cer­taineadminicul [...] cultus diun [...]. staies and props of Gods worship, and not the worship it selfe. For Paul saith plainly 1. Tim. 4. 8. Bodily exercise profiteth little, but godlines is profitable for much. Againe, as Gods kingdome is, so must his worship be: and Gods kingdome standeth not in out­ward things, as in eating, drinking, and such like actions: and therefore his worship stan­deth not in outward things.

III. Point of difference. They maintaine such vowes to be made, as are not agreable to the rules before named: and herein also we are to dissent from them. The first and principal is, the vowe of continencie, where­by a man promiseth to God to keepe cha­stitie [Page 162] alwaies in single life, that is, out of the e­state of wedlocke. This kind of vowe is flat against the worde of God: aud therefore vn­lawfull. For Paul saith, 1. Cor. 7. 9. If they can not continue let them marry. 1. Tim. 4. 1. It is a doctrine of deuills to forbid to marry. Heb. 13. 4. Marriage is honour able among all, and the bedde vndefiled. Againe, this vowe is not in the power of himselfe that voweth: for continencie is the gift of God, who giueth it not vnto all, but to whome he will and when he will, and as long as he will. They alleadge, that in the want of continency, fa­sting and prayer obtaine it. Ansvv. It is not so: Gods giftes be of two sorts some are common to all beleeuers, as the gift of faith, repentance and the feare of God, &c. others are peculiar to some onely, as the gift of con­tinence, 1. Corinth. 7. 7. I would that all men were as I my selfe am, but euery man hath his proper gift of God, one this way, an other that way. Nowe, if we fast and pray for the increase of the commō giftes of God, as faith, repentance, and all such as are needfull to sal­uation, we may obtaine them in some mea­sure, [Page 163] but the like can not be said of particular gifts. The child of God may pray for health or wealth, and not obtaine either of them in this world; because it is not the will of God to vouchsafe these blessings to all mē: & Paul praied three times to be deliuered from a temptation, and yet obtained not his suite. And so may we likewise praie for chastitie in single estate, and yet neuer obtaine it: be­cause, it may be, it is the will of God to saue vs without it. This vowe therefore we ab­horre as a thing that hath heretofore and doth still bring forth innumerable abhomi­nations in the worlde. Yet here marke in what manner we doe it. First of all, though we mislike the vowe; yet we like and com­mend single life. Marriage indeede is better in two respects: first because God hath or­dained it to be a remedie of continencie to all such persons as cannot containe: secondly because it is the seminarie both of church and common wealth; and it bringeth forth a ▪seede of God for the inlarging of his kingdō. Yet single life in them that haue the gift of continencie, is in some respects to be prefer­red. [Page 164] First because it brings libertie in perse­quution. Thus Paul saith, 1. Cor. 7. 26. I sup­pose it to be good for the present necessitie for a man so to be. Secondly, because it frees men from the common cares, molestations, and distractions that be in the family, v. 2. 28. Such shall haue trouble in the flesh, but I spare you. Thirdly because single parties doe com­monly with more bodily ease and libertie worship God; it being still presupposed, that they haue the gift of continencie. v. 34. The vnmaried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that shee may be holy both in bodie and spirit.

Againe though we mislike the vowe, yet we hold and teach, that men or women bee­ing assured that they haue the gift of conti­nencie, may constantly resolue and purpose with themselues to liue and lead a single life, 1. Cor. 7. 38. He that standeth firme in his owne heart that he hath no neede, but hath power of his owne will, and hath so DECREED IN HIS HEART that he will keepe his virgin, he doth vvell. And we embrace the say­ing of Theoderet. on 1. Tim. c. 4. For he [Page 165] doth not (saith he) blame single life or conti­nencie, but he accuseth them that by LAVVE INACTED COMPEL men to follow these. And men made themselues chast for the king­dome of heauen. Math. 19. 12. not by vowe, but by a purpose of heart, which is farre lesse then a vowe, and may be changed vpon oc­casion, whereas a vow cannot, vnles it doe e­uidently appeare to be vnlawfull.

Thirdly, for such persons as are able to containe, to liue single for the endes before named, indeede we hold it to be no counsell of perfection, yet doe we not denie it to be a Counsell of expedience, or outward ease; ac­cording to that which Paul saith, v. 25. I giue mine advise—, and 35. I speake this for your cōmodity not to intangle you in a snare.

Lastly, we thinke that if any hauing the gift of continencie, doe make a vowe to liue single and yet afterward marry (the said gift remaining) they have sinned. Yet not because they are married but because their vowe is brokē. And thus said Augustine of widowes that married afrer their vow. lib. de bono vi­duit. cap. 9.

[Page 166]The second is the vowe of pouertie and monasticall life, in which men bestowe all they haue on the poore: and giue themselues wholly and onely to prayer and fasting. This vowe is against the will of God, Act. 20. 35. It is a more blessed thing to giue thē to receiue. Prov. 28. 7. Giue me neither riches nor po­vertie. Deut. 28. 22. Pouertie is numbered a­mong the curses of the lavv; none whereof are to be vowed. And it is the rule of the holy Ghost, 2. Thess. 3. 10. He that will not la­bour, namely in some speciall and warrant­able calling, must not eate. And v. 12. I exhort that they worke with quietnes and eate their owne bread. Now when as men liue apart from others, giuing themselues onely to praier and fasting, they liue in no calling. And it is against the generall vowe made in baptisme, because it freeth men from sundrie duties of the morall law, and changeth the proper end of mans life. For euery man must haue two callings. The first is the gene­rall calling of a christian, by vertue of which he performeth worship vnto God, and du­ties of loue to men. The second is a particu­lar [Page 167] calling, wherein according to his gift he must doe seruice to men in some function, partaining either to the Church or common wealth whereof he is a member. And the first of these twaine must be performed in the second: and the second in and with the first. The end of mans life is, not onely to serue God by the duties of the first table, but by seruing of man in the duties of the second table of serue God. And therefore the loue of our neighbour is called the fulfilling of the whole law, Rom. 13. 10. because the lawe of god is practised not apart; but in and with the loue of our neighbour. This beeing so, it is manifest that vowed pouertie in mon­kish life makes many vnprofitable members both of Church and common wealth.

And though we mislike this vow also, yet we doe it, holding these conclusions. I. that a man may forsake all his goods vpon special calling; as the Apostles did, when they were sent to preach the gospel through the whole world. Secondly goods may be forsaken, yea wife, children, parents, brethren, and all, in the case of confession, that is when a man for the [Page 168] religion of Christ is persequuted and con­strained to forsake all he hath. For then the second table giues place to the duties of the first. Mark. 10. 29. II. That, for the time of peesequution, men may withdrawe them­selues (iust occasion offered) and goe apart to wildernesses or like places, Heb. 11. 37. yet for the time of peace I see no cause of solita­rie life. If it be alleadged that men goe apart for contemplation and spirituall exercises, I say again that Gods grace may as well be ex­ercised in the family as in the cloister. The family is indeed as it were a schoole of God, in which they that haue but a spark of grace may learne and exercise many vertues, the acknwoledgement of God, inuocation, the feare of God, loue, bountifulnesse, patience, meekenes, faithfulnes, &c. Nay here be more occasions of doing or taking good, then be or can be in a cloister. III. That, we con­demne not the olde and auncient Monkes, though we like not euery thing in them. For they liued not like idle-bellies, but in theZozom lib. 1. cap. 13. sweate of their owne browes, as they ought to doe: and many of them were married: Epiph. bar. 78. & [Page 169] in their meate, drinke, apparell, rule, vow, andAugust. de mon. Eccl. l. 1. c. 31. & de opere Mo­nach. cap. 17 whole course of life, differed frō the Monks of this time; euen as heauen from earth.

The third vowe is of regular obedience, whereby men giue themselues to keep some deuised rule or order, standing most com­monly in the obseruation of exercises in out­ward things, as meates and drinks, and appa­rell, &c. This vowe is against christian liber­tie, wherby is graunted a free vse of all things indifferēt, so it be without the case of offence. Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast in the libertie vvherein Christ hath made you free. Coloss. 2. 16. Let no man iudge you in meate and drinke. To conclude, whereas the Papists magnifie these their vowes, and yet make no such ac­count of the vowe in baptisme: we for our parts must be contrarie to them, not onely in iudgement, but also in practise: & we ought to haue speciall care to make good the vows we haue plight to God according to his cō ­mandement. In our creation we made vowe of obedience: and beeing receiued into the couenant of grace, we vowed to beleeue in Christ, and to bring forth fruits of new obe­dience, [Page 170] and this vow is renewed as oft as we come to the Lords table: our dutie therefore is, to performe them also to God, as Dauid saith, Vow vnto God and keepe it: and if we keepe them not, all turnes to our shame and confusion. Men stand much on the keeping of that word which they haue passed to mē, and it is taken for a point of much honesty, as it is indeede. Now then, if there be such care to keep touch with men, much more should we haue care to keepe couenant with God.

The difference.

Our dissent from them touching images stands in three points: I. The Church of Rome holdes it lawfull for them to make i­mages to resemble God, though not in re­spect of his diuine nature; yet in respect of some properties & actions. We on the con­trarie, hold it vnlawfull for vs to make any i­mage, any way to represent the true God: or, to make an image of any thing in way of religion, to worship God, much lesse the creature thereby. For the second comman­dement saith plainly, Exod. 20. 4. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, or the likenes of anything in heauen, &c. The Papists say the commandement is meant of the images of false Gods. But, will they nill they, it must be vnderstood of the images of the true Iehouah: and it forbids vsso saith Romane Catech. on 2. Com. to resem­ble God, either in his nature, properties, or works, or to vse any resemblance of him for any sacred vse; as to helpe the memorie, whē we are about to worship God. Thus much the holy Ghost who is the best expounder [Page 175] of himselfe, teacheth most plainly, Deut. 4. 15, 16. Thou sawest no image at all (either of false or true god) and therfore thou shalt not make any likenes of any thing. And again the Pro­phet Esay, chap. 40. 18. reproouing idolaters, asketh to whome they will liken God, or, what similitude will they set vpon him. And v. 21. Know ye nothing? haue you not heard? hath it not bin TOLDE you FROM THE BEGINNING? as if he should say, haue ye forgotten the se­cond commaundement, that God gaue vnto your fathers? And thus he flatly reprooues all them that resemble the true God in ima­ges. But they say further, that by images in the second commandement are meant idols, that is (say they) such things as men worship for gods. Ans. If it were so, we should con­found the first & second cōmandements. For the first, Thou shalt haue no other gods be­fore my face, forbids all false gods, which man wickedly frames vnto himselfe, by gi­uing his heart and the principall affections thereof, to them: and therefore idols also are [...]here forbidden, when they are esteemed as gods. And the distinction they make that [Page 176] an Image is the representation of true things, an Idol of things supposed, is false. Tertullian de Idol. [...]. 3. saith, that euery forme or representation is to be tearmed an Idol. And Isidore Etym. l. 8. saith, that the heathen vsed the names of image and idol indifferently in one and the same sig­nification. And S. Steuen in his apologie, Act. 7. 41. calls the golden calfe an Idol. Hierome on Isa. 37. saith, that idols are images of dead men. An­cient Diuines accorde with all this which I haue said. Lactantius saith, Inst. lib. 2. cap. 19. Where images are for religions sake, there is no religion. The Councel of Elibera, can. 36. decreed, that nothing should be painted on the walls of Churches, which is adored of the peo­ple. contra Cel­sum. lib. 7. Origen. We suffer not any to worship Ie­sus at altars, images, and temples: BECAVSE IT IS VVRITTEN, Thou shalt haue none other Gods. And Epiphanius saith, It is against the Epist. ad Ioh. Hierus. authoritie of the Scriptures to see the image of Christ, or of any Saints hanging in the Church. In the seauenth Councel of Con­stantinople these wordes of Epiphanius are cited against the Encratitae. Be mindfull belo­ued children not to bring images into the [Page 177] Church, nor set them in the places where the Saintes are buried, BVT ALVVAIES CARRIE GOD IN YOVR HE ARTS: neither let them be suffered in any common house: for it is not meete that a Christian should be occupied by the eyes but by the meditation of the minde.

The dissent.

We differ not touching the presence it selfe, but onely in the maner of presence. For though we hold a reall presence of Christs bodie and bloode in the sacrament, yet doe we not take it to be locall, bodily, or substan­tiall, but spirituall and mysticall; to the signes by sacramentall relation, and to the commu­nicants by faith alone. On the contrarie the Church of Rome maintaines transubstanti­ation, that is, a locall, bodily, and substantiall presence of Christs bodie and bloode, by a chaunge and conuersion of the bread and wine into the saide bodie and blood.

II. The difference.

They make the Eucharist to be a reall, ex­ternall, or bodily sacrifice offered vnto God: holding and teaching, that the minister is a priest properly: and that in this sacrament he offers Christs bodie and blood to God the father really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine. We acknow­ledge no reall, outward, or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sinnes, but onely Christs oblation on the crosse once offered. Here is the maine difference betweene vs, touching [Page 208] this point: and it is of that waight and mo­ment, that they stiffely maintaining their o­pinion (as they doe) can be no Church of God. For this point raseth the foundation to the very bottom. And that it may the better appeare that we auouch the truth, first I will confirme our doctrine by scripture, and se­condly confute the reasōs which they bring for themselues.

The difference or dissent.

Our dissent from the Church of Rome in the doctrine of fasting standes in three things. I. They appoint & prescribe set times of fasting, as necessarie to be kept: but we hould and teach that to prescribe the time of a religious fast, is in the libertie of the Church and the gouernours thereof as spe­cial occasiō shall be offered. When the disci­ples of Iohn asked Christ, why they and the Pharises fast often, but his disciples fasted not, he answered, Can the children of the marriage chamber mourne as long as the bridegrome is with them: but the daies will come when the bridgrome shall be taken away from them, and THEN SHALL THEY FAST. Math. 9. 15. where he giues them to vnder­stand, that they must fast, as occasiōs of mour­ning are offered. Where also I gather, that a set time of fasting is no more to be inioy­ned [Page 224] then a set time of mourning. It was theEpist. 86. opinion of Augustine, that neither Christ Contra Psychicos. nor his Apostles, appointed any times of fa­sting: and Tertullian saith, that they of his time fasted of their owne accords freely, with­out lawe or commandement, as occasions and times serued. And Eusebius saith, that Mon­tanus Hist. l. 5. c. 17. was the first that made laws of fasting. It is obiected, that there is a set time of fa­sting prescribed, Lev. 16. 29. Ans. This set and prescribed fast was commanded of God as a part of the legall worship, which had his ende in the death of Christ: therefore it doth not iustifie a set time of fasting in the new te­stament, where God hath left man to his owne libertie, without giuing the like com­mandement. It is againe alleadged, that Za­charie, 7. 5. there were set times appointed for the celebration of religious fasts vnto the Lord, the fifth and the seauenth moneths. Ans. They were appointed vpon occasion of the present afflictions of the Church in Babylon, and they ceased vpon their deliue­rance. The like vpon like occasion may we appoint. It is further obiected, that some [Page 225] Churches of the Protestants obserue set times of fasting, Ansvv. In some Churches there be set daies and times of fasting, not vpon necessitie or for conscience or religi­ons sake, but for politicke or ciuill regardes: whereas in the Romish Church it is held a mortall sinne, to deferre the set time of fa­sting till the next day following.

Secondly we dissent from the Church of Rome touching the manner of keeping a fast. For the best learned among them allow the drinking of wine, water: electuaries, &d Navar c. 21 num. 27. that Molan. tract. 3. c. 11. often within the compasse of their ap­pointed fast: yea they allowe the eating of one meale on a fasting day at noon tide, and vpō a reasonable cause, one houre before: the time of fasting not yet ended. But this pract­iseIud. 20. 26. 2. Sam. 1. 12. indeede is absurd, & contrarie to the pra­ctise of the old testament: yea it doth frustrate the end of fasting. For the bodyly abstinence is an outward meanes and signe whereby we acknowledge our guiltines and vnwor­thines of any of the blessings of God. Againe they prescribe a difference of meates, as white-meat onely to be vsed on their fasting [Page 226] daies, and that of necessity and for conscience sake in most cases. But we hold this distincti­on of meates both to be foolish and wicked. Foolish: because in such meats as they pre­scribe, there is as much filling and delight, as in any other meates; as namely in fish, fruits, wine, &c. which they permit. And its against the end of a religious fast to vse any refresh­ing at all; so farre as necessitie of health and comelines will permit. Thus the Church in times past vsed to abstain not onely frō meat & drinke, but from all delights whatsoeuer, euen from soft apparel and sweet ointments. Ioel 2. 15.—Sanctifie a fast—: let the BRIDGROME GOE FORTH OF HIS CHAMBER, and the bride out of hir bride chamber. Dan. 10. 3. I eate no PLEASANT bread, neither came FLESH NOR VVINE within my mouth, neither did I ANNOINT my selfe at all, till three weekes of daies were fulfilled. 1. Cor. 7. 5. De­fraud not one an other, EXCEPT it be with con­sent for a time, that ye may giue your selues to FASTING and praier.

Againe, we hold this practise to be wic­ked, because it taketh away the libertie of [Page 227] Christiās: by which, vnto the pure all things are pure. And the Apostle, Gal. 5. bids vs to standfast in this libertie, which the Church of Rome would thus abolish. For the better vnderstanding of this, let vs consider howe the Lord himselfe hath from the beginning kept in his owne handes as a master in his owne house; the disposition of his creatures for the vse of man, that he might depend on him and his word for temporall blessings. In the first age, he appointed vnto him for meate euery hearb of the earth bearing seed, and euery tree wherein there is the fruite of a tree bearing seed. Gen. 1. 18. And as for flesh, whether God gaue vnto him libertie to eate or not to eate, we hold it vncerten. After the flood the Lord renewed his grant of the vse of the creatures, and gaue his peo­ple libertie to eat the flesh of liuing creatures: yet so as he made some things vncleane: and forbad the eating of them: among the rest,Act. 10. 6. 1. Tim. 4. the eating of blood. But since the comming of Christ he hath inlarged his word, and gi­uen libertie to all both Iewes & Gentiles, to eate of all kindes of flesh. This word of his, [Page 228] we rest vpon; holding it a doctrine of deuills, for men to commaund an abstinence from meates, for conscience sake; which the Lord himselfe hath created to be receiued with thanksgiuing. Socrates a Christian histo­riographer saith, that the Apostles left it Trib. hist. lib. 9. cap. 38. free to euery one to vse what kinde of meate they would on fasting daies, and other times. Spiridion in lent dressed swines flesh, and set Hist. trip. l. 1. c. 10. [...]. it before a stranger, eating himselfe and bid­ding the stranger also to eat: who refusing & professing him selfe to be a Christian, there­fore (saith he) the rather must thou doe it: for to the pure all things are pure, as the word of God teacheth vs.

But they obiect Ier. 35. where Ionadab commanded the Rechabites to abstain from wine: which commandement they obeyed, and are commended for doing well in o­beying of it▪ therefore (say they) some kinde of meates may lawefully be forbidden. Ans. Ionadab gaue this commandement not in way of religion, or merit, but for other wise and politicke regardes. For he inioyned his posteritie not to drinke wine, not to build [Page 129] houses, not to sowe seede, or plant vineyards, or to haue any in possession: but to liue in tents to the ende they might be prepared to beare the calamities, that should be fall them in time to come. But the Popish abstinence from certaine meates, hath respect to consci­ence and religion; and therefore is of another kind, and can haue no warrant thence.

II. Obiect. Dan. 10. 3. Daniel beeing in heauines for three weekes of daies, abstained from flesh: and his example is our warrant. Ans. It was the manner of holy men in an­cient times, when they fasted many daies to­gether of their owne accordes freely to ab­staine from sundrie things, and thus Daniel abstained from flesh. But the Popish absti­nence from flesh is not free, but stands by cō ­mandement, and the omitting of it, is mortal sinne. Againe, if they will follow Daniell in abstaining from flesh, why doe they not al­so abstaine from all pleasant bread and wine: yea from ointments: and why will they eate any thing in the time of their fast; whereasTract. 3. c. 11. concil S. they cannot shew that Daniel eate any thing at all till euening. And Molanus hath noted [Page 230] that our ancetours abstained from wine and dainties, and that some of them ate nothing for two or three daies together.

Thirdly they alleadge the diet of Iohn Baptist: whose meate was Locusts and wild honie; and of Timothy, who abstained from wine. Ans. Their kinde of diet, and that ab­stinence which they vsed, was only for tem­perance sake; not for conscience, or, to merit any thing thereby: let them prooue the con­trarie if they can.

Thirdly and lastly, we dissent from them touching certaine endes of fasting. For they make abstinence it selfe in a person fitly pre­pared, to be a part of the worship of God: but we take it to be a thing indifferent in it selfe: and therefore no part of Gods wor­ship:Mark. 7. 6. and yet withall, being well vsed, we e­steeme it as a proppe or furtherance of the worship, in that we are made the fitter by it to worship God. And herevpon some of the more learned sort of them say, Not the worke of fasting done, but the deuotion of the worker, is to be reputed the seruice of God. Againe, they say, that fasting in, or, with [Page 231] deuotion, is a worke of satisfaction to Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of our sinnes. Wherein we take they doe blasphe­mously derogat from Christ our Sauiour, who is the whole and perfect satisfaction for sinne; both in respect of fault and punish­ment. Here they alleadge the example of the Ninevites, and Achabs fasting, wherby they turned away the iudgements of God de­nounced against them by his Prophets. We answer, that Gods wrath was appeased to­wards the Ninevites not by their fasting but by faith laying holde on Gods mercy in Christ, and thereby staying his iudgement.Mat. 12. 41. Their fasting was onely a signe of their re­pentance: their repentance a fruite and signe of their faith, whereby they beleeued the preaching of Ionas, As for Ahabs humiliatiō it is nothing to the purpose: for it was in hy­pocrisie: if they get any thing thereby, let thē take it to themselues. To conclude, we for our parts doe not condemne this exercise of fasting, but the abuse of it: and it were to be wished, that fasting were more vsed of all Christians in all places: considering the Lord [Page 232] doth daily giue vs new and special occasions of publike and priuate fasting.

The difference.

The Papists hold (as the writings of the learned among them teach) that a man being in the state of grace, may not onely keepe all the commandements of the law, and thereby deserue his owne saluation: but also goe be­yond the law and doe workes of supererro­gation which the lawe requireth not: as to performe the vow of single life, and the vow of regular obedience, &c. And by this means (they say) men deserue a greater degree of glorie then the law can afoard. Of perfection they make two kinds: one they cal necessarie perfection, which is the fulfilling of the law in euery commandement, whereby eternall life is deserued. The second, is profitable per­fection, [Page 237] when men do not onely such things as the lawe requires, but ouer and besides, they make certen vowes, and performe cer­taine other duties which the lawe inioynes not; for the doing whereof they shall be re­warded with a greater measure of glorie, then the lawe designeth. This they make plaine by comparison: Two soldiers fight in the field vnder one and the same captaine: the one onely keepes his standing, and thereby deserues his pay: the other in keeping of his place, doth also winne the enemies standard; or doe some other notable exploit: now this man besides his pay deserues some greater reward. And thus (say they) it is with all true Catholickes in the state of grace: they that keepe the lawe shal haue life eternal: but they that doe more then the law, as workes of su­pererrogation, shall be crowned with grea­ter glorie. This is their doctrine. But we on the cōtrarie teach, that albeit we are to striue to a perfection as much as we can, yet no man can fulfill the lawe of God in this life: much lesse do works of supererrogation: for the confirmatiō wherof, these reasons may [Page 238] be vsed. I. In the moral law two things are commanded. First the loue of God and man. Secondly, the manner of this loue, now the manner of louing God is to loue him with all our heart and strength. Luc. 10. 27. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soule, & with all thy strength, AND VVITH ALL THY THOVGHT, &c. As Ber­nard saide, the measure of louing God, is to loue him vvithout measure, and that is to loue him with the greatest perfectiō of loue that can befall a creature. Hence it followes that in louing God, no man can possibly doe more then the lawe requireth: and therefore the performance of all vowes whatsoeuer, and all like duties, comes short of the intenti­on or scope of the law.

II. Reason. The compasse of the law is large, and comprehendeth in it more then the minde of man can at the first conceiue: for euery commaundement hath two parts, the negatiue and the affirmatiue. In the ne­gatiue is forbidden not onely the capitall sinne named, as murther, theft, adulterie, &c. but all sinnes of the same kinde, with all oc­casions [Page 239] and prouocations thereto. And in the affirmatiue is commanded not onely the contrarie vertues, as the loue of God, and the loue of our neighbours honour, life, chasti­tie, goods, good name, but the vse of all helps and meanes, wherby he said the vertues may be preserued: furthered, and practised. Thus hath our Sauiour Christ himselfe expoun­ded the lawe, Math. chap. 5. and 6. vpon this plaine ground I conclude, that all duties per­taining to life and manners, come within the list of some morall commaundement. And that the Papists making, their workes of su­pererogation meanes to further the loue of God and man, must needs bring them vnder the cōpasse of the lawe. Vnder which, if they be, they can not possibly goe beyond the same.

Reason III. Luc. 17. 20. When ye haue done all those things that are commanded vs we are vnprofitable seruantes▪ we haue done that which was our duty to doe. The Papists answere that we are vnprofitable to God but not to our selues: but this shift of theirs is beside the very intent of the place. For a [Page 240] seruant in doing his dutie is vnprofitable e­uen to himselfe, and doth not so much as de­serue thankes at his masters hand, as Christ saith, v. 9. Doth he thanke that seruant. Se­condly they answer, that we are vnprofita­ble seruants in doing things cōmaunded: yet when we doe things prescribed in the way of counsell, we may profit our selues, and merit therby. But this answer doth not stand with reason▪ For things commanded, in that they are commaunded, are more excellent then things left to our libertie; because the will and commaundement of God giues ex­cellencie and goodnes vnto them. Againe counsells are thought to be ha [...]der then the commandements of the law: and if men can not profit themselues by obedience of moral precepts, which are more easie; much lesse shall they be able to profit thēselues by coun­sells which are of greater difficultie.

Reason IV. If it be not in the abilitie and power of man to keepe the law, then much lesse is he able to doe any worke that is beyond and aboue all the law requireth: but no man is able to fulfill the lawe, and [Page 241] therefore no man is able to supererrogate. Here the Papists deny the proposition: for (say they) though we keepe not the lawe, yet we may doe things of counsell aboue the lawe, and thereby merit. But by their leaues, they speake absurdly: for in common reason. if a man faile in the lesse, he cannot but faile in the greater. Now (as I haue said) in popish doctrine, it is easier to obey the moral lawe then to performe the counsells of perfection.

The dissent.

Our difference stands in the manner of worshipping of Saints. The Papists make two degrees of religious worshippe. The highest they cal Latria whereby God him­selfe is worshipped▪ and that alone. The se­cond lower then the former, is called Dou­lia, whereby the Saints and Angells that be in the speciall fauour of God, and glorified with euerlasting glorie in heauen, are wor­shipped. This worshippe they place in out­ward adoration, in bending of the knee, and bowing of the bodie to them beeing in hea­uen: in invocation whereby they call vp­on them: in dedication of Churches and hou­ses of religion vnto them: in sabbathes and festiuall daies: lastly in pilgrimages vnto [Page 248] their reliques & images. We likewise distin­guish adoration or worship: for it is either religious or civill. Religious worship, is that which is done to him that is Lord of all things, the searcher and trier of the heart, omnipotent, euery where present, able to heare and helpe them that call vpon him e­uery where, the author and first cause of eue­ry good thing: and that simply for himselfe, because he is absolute goodnes it selfe. And this worship is due to God alone, being also commaunded in the first and second com mandements of the first table. Ciuill wor­ship is the honour done to men set above vs by God himselfe, either in respect of their excellent gifts, or in respect of their offices: & authoritie whereby they gouerne others. The right ende of this worship is to testifie and declare that we reuerence the giftes of God, and that power which he hath pla­ced in those that be his instruments. And this kinde of worship is commanded onely in the second table & in the first commande­ment thereof Honour thy father and mother. Vpon this distinction we may iudge, what [Page 249] honour is due to euery one. Honour is to be giuen to God, & to whom he commandeth. He commandeth that inferiours should ho­nour or worship their betters. Therfore the vnreasonable creatures, & among the rest i­mages are not to be worshipped, either with ciuill or religious worship: beeing indeed far baser then man himselfe is. Againe vncleane spirits the enemies of God, must not be wor­shipped: yea to honour them at all, is to disho­nour God. Good angels, because they excell men both in nature and gifts, when they ap­peared were lawfully honoured: yet so, as when the least signification of honour was giuen that was proper to God, they refused it. And because they appeare not now as in former times, not so much as ciuil adoration in any bodily gesture is to be done vnto them. Lastly, gouernours and Magistrates haue ciuill adoration as their due: and it can not be omitted without offence. Thus Abra­ham worshipped the Hittites, Gen. 23. and Ioseph his brethren, Gen. 50. To come to the very point: vpon the former distinction, we denie against the Papists that any civill [Page 250] worship in the bending of the knee or pro­strating of the bodie, is to be giuen to the Saints, they being absent from vs; much lesse any religious worship, as namely Invocation signified by any bodily adoratiō. For it is the very honour of God himselfe; let them call it latria, or doulia, or by what name they will.

The dissent or difference.

They holde and teach, that the Saints in heauen, as the virgin Marie, Peter, Paul, &c. doe make intercession to God for particalar men, according to their seuerall wants: and that hauing receiued particular mens prai­ers, they present them vnto God. But this do­ctrine we flatly renounce vpō these grounds and reasons.

I. Isai 63. 16. The church saith to God, doubt­les thou art our father, though ABRAHAM BE IGNORANT of vs, and Israel KNOVVE VS NOT. Now if Abraham knewe not his posteritie: neither Marie, nor Peter, nor any other of the Saints departed knowe vs and our estate: and consequently they cannot make any par­ticular intercession for vs. If they say that A­braham & Iacob were thē in Limho, which they will haue to be a part of hell: what ioye [Page 261] could Lazarus haue in Abrahams bosome, Luc. 16. 25. and with what comfort could Ia­cob say on his death bed: O Lord I haue wai­ted for thy saluation. Gen. 46. 18.

II. Reason. 2. King. 22. 20. Huldah the prophetesse telleth Iosias, he must be gathe­red to his fathers, and put in his graue in peace, that his eyes may not see all the euill which God would bring on this place. There­fore the Saints departed see not the state of the Church on earth, much lesse doe they knowe the thoughts and prayers of men. This conclusion Augustine confirmeth at large.

III. Reason. No creature, Saint, or an­gell can be a mediatour for vs to God, sauing Christ alone, who is indeede the onely Ad­uocate of his church. For in a true and suffici­ent Mediatour there must be three proper­ties. First of all, the worde of God must re­ueale and propound him vnto the Church, that we may in conscience be assured, that praying to him and to god in his name, we shall be heard. Nowe there is no scripture that mentioneth either Saints or Angels as [Page 262] mediatour in our behalfe, saue Christ alone. Secondly, a mediatour must be perfectly iust, so as no sinne be found in him at all, 1. Ioh. 2. 1. If any man sinne we haue an advo­cate with the father Iesus Christ THE RIGH­TEOVS. Now the Saints in heauen, howsoe­uer they be fully sanctified by Christ, yet in themselues they were conceiued and borne in sinne: and therefore must needes eternally stand before God by the mediation and me­rit of an other. Thirdly, a mediatour must be a propitiatour, that is, bring something to God, that may appease and satisfie the wrath and iustice of God for our sinnes: therefore Iohn addeth, and he is a PROPITIATION for our sinnes. But neither Saint nor Angel can satisfie for the least of our sinnes: Christ onely is the propitiation for them all. The virgin Marie and the rest of the Saints being sinners, could not satisfie so much as for thē ­selues.

IV. Reason. The iudgement of the church. Augustine, All Christian men commend each Lib. 3. contra Parmen. c. 3. other in their prayers to God. And vvho PRAIES FOR AL, and for whom NONE PRAIES, [Page 263] he is that one and true mediatour. And, This Tract. in Ioh. 22. saith thy Sauiour, thou hast NO VVHITHER to goe but to me, thou hast NO VVAY to goe BVT BY ME. Chrysostome, Thou hast NO NEED OFDe perfectu Euang. PATRONS to God, or much discour se that thou shouldest sooth others: but though thou be a­lone and want a patrone, and by thy selfe pray vnto God, thou shalt obtaine thy desire. And on the saying of Iohn, If any sinne, &c. Thy praiers haue no effect vnlesse they be such as THE LORD COMMENDS vnto thy Father. And August. on the same place hath these words, He beeing such a man saide not, ye have an Advocate, but if any sinne vve haue: he saide not ye haue, neither said he, YE HAVE ME.

The difference.

The pillars of the Romish Church laies downe this ground: that faith in his owne nature, is not a knowledge of things to be beleeued: but a reuerent assent vnto them whether they be knowne or vnknowne. Herevpon they build: that if a man knowe some necessarie points of religion, as the doctrine of the godhead, of the trinity, of Christs incarnation, and of our redemption, [Page 276] &c. it is needelesse to knowe the rest by a particular or distinct knowledge, and it suffi­seth to giue his consent to the church, and to beleeue as the pastors beleeue. Beholde a ruinous building vpon a rotten foundation: for faith containes a knowledge of things to be beleeued, and knowledge is of the nature of faith: and nothing is beleeued that is not knowne. Isai 53. 11. The knowledge of my righteous seruant, shall iustifie many. & Ioh. 17. 2. This is eternall life, to knowe the e­ternall God, and whome thou hast sent Iesus Christ. In these places, by knowledge is meant faith grounded vpon knowledge, whereby we knowe and are assured that Christ and his benefits belong vnto vs. Se­condly this kinde of assent is the mother of ignorance. For when mē shall be taught, that for sundrie points of religion they may be­leeue as the Church beleeues Mol. tract. 3. c. 27. con­clus. 15. that the stu­die of the Scriptures is not to be required of them: yea that to their good they may be barred the reading of them, so be it they know some principall things contained in the articles of saith, that [...]onauētura & Duran­de. common beleeuers [Page 277] are not bound expressely to beleeue all the articles of the Apostles Creed: Bann [...]s. [...]. q. 2 art. 7. as­cribes this opinion to Gul. Parisi­ensis, & to Altisiodo­ransis. that it suffi­seth them to beleeue the articles by an impli­cite faith: by beleeuing as the Church belee­ueth, fewe or none will haue care to profit in knowledge. And yet Gods commaunde­ment is that we should grow in knowledge and that his word should dwell plenteously in vs, Col. 3. 16. Again, the Papists say, that the deuotion of the ignorant, is often seruice bet­ter accepted then that which is done vponRhem. Test. on 1. Cor. 14 knowledge. Such (say they) as pray in latine, pray with as great consolation of spirit, with as little tediousnes, vvith as great deuotion and affection, and oftentimes more then the other, and alwaies more then any scismaticke Molam▪ tract 5. c. 30. con. 12. or hereticke in his owne language. To con­clude, they teach that some articles of faith are beleeued generally of the whole Church onely by a simple or implicite saith, which afterward by the Authoritie of a ge­nerall Counsell are propounded to be belee­ued of the Church by expresse faith. Rof­sensis against Luther giues an example ofCantra a [...]er. Iu [...]. [...]. 8. this, when he confesseth that Purgatorie [Page 278] was little knowne at the first, but was made known partly by Scripture and partly by re­uelation in processe of time. This implicite saith touching articles of religion we reiect; holding that all things concerning faith and manners necessarie to saluation, are plainely expressed in Scripture, and accordingly to be beleeued.

The difference or dissent.

We differ from the Papists touching purgatorie in two things. And first of all, for the place. They holde it to be a part of hell, into which an entrance is made onely after this life: we for our parts denie it, as hauing no warrant in the worde of God; which mentioneth onely two places for men after [Page 280] this life, heauen and hell, with the two-folde condition thereof, ioy and torment. Luk. 16. 25, 26. Ioh. 3. 36. Apoc. 22. 14, 15. and 21. 7, 8. Matth. 8. 11. Nay we finde the contrarie, Rev. 14. 13. they that die in the Lord are said to rest from their labours: which cannot be true, if a­ny of them goe to purgatorie. And to cut off all cauills, it is further said, their works, that is, the reward of their works, follow them, euen at the heeles, as an Acoluth or seruant doth his master. Augustin saith wel, After this life Homi. 50. iom. 10. there remaines no compunction or SATISFAC­TION. And, Here is all remission of sinne: Enchir. c. 115 here be temptations that mooue vs to sinne: lastly here is the euill from which we desire to be deliuered: but there is NONE OF AL THESE. And, We are not here without sinne, but vve de verbis A­post. serm. 31. shall GOE HENCE VVITHOVT SINNE. Cyril saith, They which are once dead can adde no­thing Lib. 3. in Es. to the things which they haue done, but shall REMAINE AS THEY VVERE LFFT, and vvaite for the time of the last iudgement. Chrysostome, After the ende of this life, ad pop. Anti▪ och. bo [...]. 22. there be NO OCCASIONS of merits.

Secondly, we differ from them touching [Page 281] the meanes of purgation. They say, that men are purged by suffering of paines in purgato­rie, whereby they satisfie for their veniall sinnes, and for the temporall punishment of their mortal sinnes. We teach the contrarie, holding that nothing can free vs from the least punishment of the smallest sinne, but the sufferings of Christ, and purge vs from the least taint of corruption, sauing the bloode of Christ. Indede they say, that our sufferings in themselues considered, doe not purge, and sa­tisfie, but as they are made meritorious by the sufferings of Christ: but to this I oppose one text of scripture, Hebr. 1. 3. where it is saide, that Christ hath purged our sinnes BY HIMSELFE: where the last clause cuts the throat of all humane satisfactions and merits: and it giueth vs to vnderstand, that whatsoe­uer thing purgeth vs from our sinnes, is not to be found in vs but in Christ alone: other­wise it should haue bin saide, that Christ pur­geth the sinnes of men by themselues, as well as by himselfe: and he should merit by his death, that we should become our owne Sa­uiours in part.

[Page 282]To this place I may well referre prayer for the dead: of which I wil propound two con­clusions affirmatiue, and one negatiue. Con­clus. I. We hold that Christian charitie is to extend it selfe to the very deade; and it must shew it selfe in their honest buriall, in the pre­seruation of their good names, in the helpe and releefe of their posteritie, as time and oc­casion shall be offered. Ruth. 1. 8. Ioh. 19. 23.

II. Conclus. We praie further in general manner for the faithfull departed, that God would hasten their ioyfull resurrection, and the full accomplishment of their happinesse, both for the bodie and soule: and thus much we aske in saying, Thy kingdome come, that is, not onely the kingdome of grace, but also the kingdome of glory in heauen. Thus farre we come; but nearer the gates of Babylon we dare not approch.

III. Conclus. To pray for particular men departed: and to praie for their deliuerance out of purgatorie, we thinke it vnlawfull: because we haue neither promise nor com­mandement so to doe.

The difference.

The Church of Rome giues to Peter a supremacie vnder Christ aboue all causes and persons: that is, full power to gouerne & order the catholik Church vpon the whole earth both for doctrine & regiment. This su­premacie stands (as they teach) in a power, or, iudgement, to determine of the true sense of all places of Scripture: to determine all cau­ses of faith: to assemble generall councells: to ratifie the decrees of the said councels: to ex­communicate any man vpon earth, that liues within the Church, euen princes and nati­ons: properly to absolue and forgiue sinnes: to decide causes brought to him by appeale from all the parts of the earth: lastly to make lawes that shall binde the conscience. This fulnes of power with one consent is ascribed to Peter, and the Bishops of Rome that fol­low him in a supposed succession. Nowe we holde on the contrarie, that neither Pe­ter [Page 286] nor any Bishop of Rome hath any supre­macie ouer the Catholike Church: but that all supremacie vnder Christ, is pertaining to kings and princes within theire dominions. And that this our doctrine is good & theirs false and forged, I will make it manifest by sundrie reasons.

I. Christ must be considered of vs as a king two waies. First as he is God: and so is he an absolute king ouer all things in heauen and earth, with the Father & the holy Ghost by the right of creation. Secōdly he is a king as he is redeemer of mankinde: and by the right of redemprion he is a soueraigne king ouer the whole Church, and that in speciall manner. Now as Christ is God with the Fa­ther and the holy Ghost, he hath his deputies on earth to gouerne the worlde: as namely kings & princes, who are therefore in scrip­tures called gods. But as Christ is Mediatour, and consequently a king ouer his redeemed ones, he hath neither fellow, nor deputie. No fellow: for then he should be an imperfect mediatour. No deputie: for no creature is capable of this office to doe in the roome and [Page 287] stead of Christ that which he himselfe doth: because euery worke of the Mediatour is a compound worke, arising of the effects of two natures concurring in one and the same action, namely the godhead and the man­hood: and therefore to the effecting of the said work there is required an infinite pow­er, which farre exceedes the strength of any created nature. Againe, Heb. 7. 24. Christ is said to haue a priesthood which cannot passe from his person to any other: whence it followes, that neither his kingly nor his propheticall office can passe from him to any creature, either in whole or in part: because the three offices of mediation in this re­gard be equall. Nay, it is a needlesse thing for Christ to haue a deputie, to put in exequuti­on any part of his mediatourship: conside­ring a deputy onely serueth to supply the absence of the principall: whereas Christ is alwaies present with his Church by his word and spirit: for where two or three be gathered together in his name: he is in the middest among them. It may be saide, that the ministers in the worke of the ministerie [Page 284] are deputies of Christ I answer, that they are no deputies but actiue instruments. For in the preaching of the word there be two actions: the first is the vttering or propoun­ding of it to the eare: the second is, the in­ward operation of the Holy Ghost in the heart: which indeede is the principall and belongs to Christ alone: the action of spea­king in the minister being onely instrumen­tall. Thus likewise the church of God in cutting off any member by excommunica­tion, is no more but an instrument perfor­ming a ministerie in the name of Christ, and that is to testifie and pronounce whome Christ himselfe hath cut off from the king­dome of heauen: whome he also will haue for this cause, to be seuered from the compa­ny of his own people till he repent. And so it is in all ecclesiasticall actions: Christ hath no deputie, but onely instruments: the whole in­tire actiō being personal in respect of Christ. This one conclusion ouer throwes not one­ly the Popes supremacy, but also many other points of popery.

Reason II. All the Apostles in regard [Page 289] of power and authoritie were equall: for the commission apostolicall both for right and exequution was giuen equally to them all, as the very wordes import: Math. 28. v. 19. Goe teach all nations baptizing them, &c. and the promise, I will giue to thee the k [...]es of the kingdome of heauen, is not priuate to Pe­ter, but is made in his person to the rest, ac­cording as his confession was in the name ofin Mar. 16. the rest. Thus saith Theophylact. They haue the power of committing & binding that re­ceiue in Psal. 38. the gift of a bishop as Peter. And Ambr. saith, What is said to Peter, is said to the A­postles. Therfore Peter had no supremacy o­uer the rest of the Apostles in respect of right to the cōmission: which they say belōged to him onely, and the execution thereof to the rest. But let all be granted, that Peter was in commissiō aboue the rest, for the time of his life: yet hence may not any superioritie be gathered for the Bishopps of Rome: because the authoritie of the Apostles was personall, & consequently ceased with them: without being conueyed to any other: because the Lord did not vouchsafe the like honour to [Page 290] any after them. For first of all, it was the pri­uiledge of the Apostles to be called immedi­atly, and to see the Lord Iesus. Secondly, they had power to giue the gift of the holy ghost by the imposition of handes. Thirdly, they had such a measure of the assistance of the spirit, that in their publike sermons and in writing of the word, they could not erre: and these things were all denied to those that fol­lowed after them. And that their authoritie ceased in their persons, it stands with reason also, because it was giuen in so ample a man­ner for the founding of the Church of the new Testament▪ which being once founded, it was needfull onely that there should be pa­stours and teachers for the building of it vp vnto the ende of the world.

Reason III. When the sonnes of Zebede­us sued vnto Christ for the greatest roomes of honour in his kingdome (deeming hee should be an earthly king) Christ answers them againe, ye knovv that the Lords of the Gentiles haue dominion and they that are great exercise authoritie over them: but it shall not be so vvith you. Bernard applieth [Page 291] these very wordes to Pope Eugenius on thisDe consider. ad Eugen. lib. 2. maner. It is plaine, saith he, that here domini­on is forbidden the Apostles. Goe to then: dare if you will, to take vpon you ruling an Apostle­ship, or in your Apostleship rule or dominion: if you will haue both alike, you shall loose both. O­therwise you must not thinke your selfe ex­empted from the number of them, of vvhome the Lord complaineth thus: they haue raigned but not of me: they haue beene and I haue not knowne them.

Reason IV. Eph. 4. mention is made of gifts which Christ gaue to his Church after his ascension, whereby some were Apostles, some prophets, some Euangelists, some pa­stours and teachers. Now if there had beene an office in which men as deputies of Christ should haue gouerned the whole Church to the ende of the world, the calling might here haue beene named fitly with a gift thereto pertaining; and Paul (no doubt) would not here haue concealed it, where he mentioneth callings of lesser importance.

Reason V. The Popes supremacie was iudged by sentences of Scripture and con­demned [Page 292] long before it was manifest in the world: the spirit of prophesie foreseeing and foretelling the state of things to come. 2. Thess. 2. v. 3, 4. The man of sinne (which is that Antichrist) shall exalt himselfe aboue all that is called God, &c. Now this whole chap­ter with all the circumstances thereof, most fitly agrees to the sea of Rome and the Head thereof: and the thing which then staied the reuealing of the man of sinne, vers. 6. is of most expounded to be the Romane Empe­rour. I will alleadge one testimonie in the roome of many. Chrysostome saith on this place, As long as the Empire shall be had in awe, no man shall straitly submit himselfe to Antichrist: but after that the Empire shall be dissolued, Antichrist shall invade the state of the Empire standing voide: and shall labour to pul vnto himselfe the Empire both of man and God. And this we finde now in experi­ence to be true: for the See of Rome neuer flourished, till the Empire decaied, and the seat thereof was remooued from the citie of Rome. Againe Rev. 13. mention is made of two beasts, one comming out of the sea, [Page 293] whome the Papists confesse to be the hea­thenish Romane Emperour: the second cō ­ming out of the earth; which doth all that the first beast could doe before him: and this fitly agreeth to the Popes of Rome, who doe and haue done all things that the Emperour did or could doe, and that in his vety sight.

Reason VI. The iudgement of the aun­cient Church. Cyprian saith, Doubtlesse the De simplicit. Praelat. same were the rest of the Apostles that Peter was: indued vvith EQVAL fellowshippe both of honour and of POVVER; but a beginning is made of vnitie, that the Church may appeare to be one. Gregorie saith, If one be called vni­versall In Registro lib. 6. c 118. Bishop, the vniversall Church GOETH TO DECAY. And chap. 144. I say boldly, that whosoeuer calleth or desireth to call himselfe vniuersall priest, in his pride is a FORERVN­NER OF ANTICHRIST. And, Beholde, in the Lib. 7. cap. 30 preface of the Epistle which ye directed vnto me, you caused to be set a PROVVD TITLE, cal­ling me vniversall Pope. Bernard. Consider ad Eugen. l. 3 that thou art not a lord of Bishops, but one of them. Churches are MAIMED, in that the Ro­mane Bishop draweth all povver to himselfe. [Page 294] Again Gregorie himselfe being Pope saith to the Emperour I which AM SVBIECT TO YOVR COMMANDEMENT—; haue euery way discharged that which was due, in that I haue performed mine allegiance to the Emperour, and haue not concealed vvhat I thought on Gods behalfe. And Pope Leo the fourth af­ter Gregorre 200. yeares, acknowledged the Emperour Lotharius for his soueraigne prince, and professed obedience withoutC▪ de capitu­lis. dist. 10. gainsaying, to his Imperial commandemēts.

To conclude, whereas they say that there is a double head of the Church, one imperi­all which is Christ alone, the other ministe­rial, which is the Pope, gouerning the whole Church vnder Christ, I answer, this distin­ction robbeth Christ of his honour, because in setting vp their ministeriall head, they are faine to borrow of Christ things proper vn­to him, as the priuiledge to forgiue sinnes Alen. book of priest­hood.properly, and the power to gouerne the whole earth, by making of lawes that shall as truly binde conscience as the lawes of God, &c.

The difference.

The difference betweene vs standes in sun­drie points. First of all, the best learned a­mong them teach, that sacraments are phisi­call instruments, that is, true and proper in­strumentallBellarmin. [...] Sacr. l. 2▪ 6▪ causes, hauing force and effica­cie in them to produce and giue grace. They vse to expresse their meaning by these com­parisons. When the scriuener takes the pen [Page 296] into his hande and writes, the action of wri­ting comes from the penne, mooued by the hand of the writer: and in cutting of wood or stone, the diuision comes from the sawe, mooued by the hand of the workman: euen so the grace (say they) that is giuen by God, is conferred by the sacrament it selfe. Nowe we for our parts holde, that Sacraments are not physicall but meere voluntarie instru­ments. Voluntarie, because it is the will and appointment of God, to vse them as certen outward meanes of grace. Instruments: be­cause when we vse them aright according to the institution, God then answerably con­ferres grace from himselfe. In this respect on­ly take we them for instruments and no o­therwise.

The second difference is this: They teach that the very action of the Minister dispen­sing the sacrament, as it is a worke done giues grace immediatly, if the partie be prepared: as the very washing or sp [...]inkling of water in baptisme, and the giuing of bread in the Lords supper: euen as the orderly moouing of the penne vpon the paper by the hand of [Page 297] the writer causeth writing. We hold the contrarie: namely that no action in the di­spensation of a Sacrament conferreth grace as it is a worke done, that is, by the effica­cie and force of the very sacramentall action it selfe, though ordained of God: but for two other waies. First by the signification therof. For God testifies vnto vs his will and good pleasure partly by the word of promise, and partly by the sacrament: the signes represen­ting to the eyes that which the word doth to the eares: beeing also types and certen images of the very same things, that are pro­mised in the worde and no other. Yea the e­lements are not generall and confused, but particular signes to the seuerall communi­cants, and by the vertues of the Instituti­on: for when the faithfull receiue the signes from God by the handes of the Minister, it is as much as if God himselfe with his owne mouth should speake vnto them seuerally, and by name promise to them remission of sinnes. And things said to men particularly, doe more affect, and more take away doub­ting, then if they were generally spoken to [Page 290] an whole companie. Therefore signes of graces are as it were an applying and bin­ding of the promise of saluation to euery particular beleeuer: and by this meanes, the oftener they are receiued, the more they help our infirmitie, and confirme our assurance of mercie.

Againe the sacrament conferres grace in that the signe thereof confirmes faith as a pledge, by reason it hath a promise annexed to it. For when God commaundes vs to re­ceiue the signes in faith, and withall promi­seth to the receiuers to giue the thing signi­fied, he bindes himselfe, as it were in bonde vnto vs, to stand to his owne word; euen as men binde themselues in obligations putting to their handes and seales, so as they cannot go backe. And when the signes are thus vsed as pledges, & that often: they greatly increase the grace of God: as a token sent from one friend to another, renews and confirmes the perswasion of loue.

These are the two principall waies wher­by the sacraments are said to conferre grace namely in respect of their signification, [Page 299] and as they are pledges of Gods fauour vnto vs. And the very point here to be considered is, in what order and manner they confirme. And the manner is this. The signes and visi­ble elements affect the senses outward and inward: the senses conuay their obiect to the minde: the minde directed by the holy Ghost reasoneth on this manner, out of the promise annexed to the sacramen [...]. He that vseth the elements aright, shall receiue grace thereby: but I vse the elements aright in faith and repentance, saith the minde of the belee­uer: therefore shall I receiue from God in­crease of grace. Thus then, faith is confirmed not by the worke done, but by a kind of rea­soning caused in the minde, the argument or proofe whereof is borrowed from the ele­ments, beeing signes and pledges of Gods mercy.

The third difference. The Papists teach, that in the sacrament by the worke done, the very grace of iustification is conferred. We say no: because a man of yeares must first beleeue and be iustified, before he can be a meete partaker of any sacrament. And the [Page 300] grace that is conferred, is onely the increase of our faith, hope, sanctification, &c.

The difference.

Touching the first conclusion, they be­leeue indeede all the written word of God, and more then all: for they also beleeue the bookes Apocriphal, which antiquitie for many hundred yeares hath excluded from the canō: yea they beleeue vnwrittē traditiōs receiued (as they say) from Councils, the [Page 307] writings of the Fathers, and the determina­tions of the Church: making them also of e­quall credit with the written worde of God, giuen by inspiration of the spirit. Nowe we for our partes dispise not the Apocripha, as namely the bookes of the Macchabees, Ec­clesiasticus and the rest, but we reuerence them in all conuenient manner, preferring them before any other bookes of men, in that they haue bin approued by an vniuer­sall consent of the Church: yet we thinke them not meete to be receiued into the Ca­non of holy scripture, and therefore not to be beleeued, but as they are consenting with the written word. And for this our doing we haue direction from Athanasius, Ori­gen, Hierome, and the Councel of Laodicea. As for vnwritten Traditions they come not within the compasse of our faith, neither can they: because they come vnto vs by the hāds of men, that may deceiue and be deceiued. And we hold and beleeue, that the right Ca­non of the books of the old and new Testa­ment, containes in it sufficient direction for the Church of God to life euerlasting, both [Page 308] for faith an manners. Here then is the point of difference, that they make the obiect of faith larger then it should be, or can be: and we keepe our selues to the written word; be­leeuing nothing to saluation out of it.

In the second conclusion, touching salua­tion by Christ alone, there is a manifest de­ceit: because they craftely include and couch their own works vnder the name of Christ. For (say they) workes done by men regene­rate, are not their owne, but Christs in them; and as they are the workes of Christ; they saue, & no otherwise. But we for our partes looke to be saued onely by such workes as Christ himselfe did in his owne person: and not by any worke at all done by him in vs. For all workes done, are in the matter of iu­stification & saluation, opposed to the grace of Christ: Rom. 11. 6. Election is of grace not of workes: if it be of workes, it is no more of grace. Againe whereas they teach that we are [...]aued by the workes of Christ, which he worketh in vs, and maketh vs to worke; it is flatte against the word. For Paul saith, We are not saued by such works as God hath or­dained [Page 309] that men regenerate should walke in. Eph. 2. 10. And he saith further, that he coun­ted ALL THINGS euen after his conuersion losse vnto him, that he might be founde in Christ, not hauing his ovvne righteousnesse which is of the lawe. Phil. 3. 8. Again Heb. 1. 3. Christ washed away our sinnes by himselfe: which last wordes exclude the merit of all workes done by Christ within man. Thus indeede the Papists ouerturne all, that which in word they seeme to holde touching their iustification and saluation. We confesse with them that good workes in vs are the workes of Christ: yet are they not Christs a­lone, but ours also, in that they proceed from Christ by the minde and will of man: as wa­ter from the fountaine by the channell. And looke as the chanel defiled, defiles the water, that is without defilement in the fountaine: euen so the minde and will of man defiled by the remnants of sinne, defile the workes, which as they come from Christ, are vnde­filed. Hence it is that the workes of grace which we doe by Christ, or, Christ in vs, are defectiue: and must be seuered from Christ [Page 310] in the act of iustification, or, saluation.

The third conclusion is touching the im­putation of Christs obedience, which some of the most learned among them acknow­ledge: and the difference betweene vs stands on this manner. They hold that Christs o­bedience is imputed onely to make satisfa­ction for sinne, and not to iustifie vs before God. We hold & beleeue that the obediēce of Christ is imputed to vs, euen for our righ­teousnes before God. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 1. 30. Christ is made vnto vs of God, vvisedome, RIGHTEOVSNES, SANCTIFICATION, and redemption. Hence I reason thus. If Christ be both our sanctification, and our righte­ousnes: then he is not onely vnto vs inherent righteousnes, but also righteousnes imputed. But he is not onely our sanctification (which the Papists themselues expound of inherent or habituall righteousnes) but also our righ­teousnes: for thus by Paul are they distin­guished. Therefore he is vnto vs both inhe­rent and imputed righteousnes. And very reason teacheth thus much. For in the end of the worlde at the barre of Gods iudgement, [Page 311] we must bring some kinde of righteousnesse for our iustification, that may stande in the rigour of the lawe according to which wee are to be iudged. But our inherent righte­ousnesse is imperfect and stained with mani­fold defects and shall be as long as we liue in this world, as experience tells vs: and conse­quently it is not sutable to the iustice of the law: and if we goe out of our selues we shall finde no righteousnesse seruing for our turnes either in men or Angels, that may or can procure our absolution before God and acceptation to life euerlasting. Wee must therefore haue recourse to the person of Christ, and his obedience imputed vn­to vs, must serue not onely to be a satis­faction to God for all our sinnes, but also for our perfect iustification: in that God is content to accept of it for our righteous­nesse, as if it were inherent in vs, or perfor­med by vs.

Touching the fourth conclusion, they hold it the safest and surest course to put their trust and confidence in the mercie of God alone for their saluation: yet they con­descend, [Page 312] that men may alsoBellar. l. 5. [...]. 7. de iustif. put there confi­dence in the merit of their owne works, and in the merits also of other men, so it be in so­brietie. But this doctrine quite marres the conclusion: because by teaching that men are to put confidence in the creature, they ouer­turue all confidence in the Creatour. For in the very first commandement, we are taught to make choise of the true God for our God, which thing we do whē we giue to God our hearts: and we giue our hearts to God, when we put our whole confidence in him for the saluation of our soules. Nowe then to put confidence in men, or, in workes, is to make them our Gods. The true and an­cient forme of making confession was on this manner: I beleeue in God the Father, In Iesus Christ, and In the holy Ghost, without mentiō making of any confidence in works or creatures: the anciēt Church neuer knew any such confession or confidence. CyprianDe duplici Martyr. saith, He beleeueth not in god, who putteth not affiance concerning his saluation in God a­lone. And indeede the Papists them-selues when death comes, forsake the confidence [Page 313] of their merits, and flie to the meere mercie of God in Christ. And for a confirmation of this I alleadge the testimonie of one Vlin­bergiusLib. de causis cur Evang. p. 436. of Colen, who writeth thus. There was a booke found in the vestrie of a certain parish of Colen, writtē in the Dutch tongue in the yeare of our Lord 1475. which the Priests vsed in visiting of the sicke. And in it these questions be found.Supposed to be que­stions of Anselme. Dost thou beleeue that th [...]u canst not be saued but by the death of Christ? The sicke person ansvvered, Yea. Then it is said vnto him, Goe too then, while breath remaines in thee, put thy confidence in this DEATH ALONE: haue affiance in no­thing else▪ commit thy selfe vvholly to this death: with it alone couer thy selfe: dive thy selfe in euery part into this death; in euery part pearse thy selfe with it: infold thy selfe in this death. And if the Lord wil iudge thee, say: Lord, I put the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betweene me and thy iudgement, and BY NO OTHER MEANES I contend with thee. And if he shall say vnto thee, that thou art a sinner; say, Lord the death of my Lord Iesus Christ, I put betweene thee and my sinnes. If he [Page 314] shall say vnto thee, that thou hast deserued damnation, say: Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betweene thee and my euill merits, and I OFFER HIS MERIT FOR THE MERIT VVHICH I SHOVLD HAVE, AND HAVE NOT. If he shall say, that he is angrie vvith thee, say: Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betvveene me and thine anger. Here we see, what Papists doe, & haue done in the time of death. And that which they hold and practise, when they are dying; they should hold & practise euery day while they are liuing.

In the last cōclusiō they teach that we must not onely beleeue in generall but also apply vnto our selues the promises of life euerlast­ing. But they differ from vs in the very man­ner of applying. They teach that the promise is to be applied, not by faith assuring vs of our owne saluation; but onely by hope, in likelihood coniecturall. We hould that wee are bound in dutie to apply the promise of life by faith without making doubt thereof, and by hope to continue the certentie af­ter the apprehension made by faith. We doe not teach that all and euerie man liuing [Page 315] within the precincts of the Church, profes­sing the name of Christ, is certen of his salua­tion, and that by faith: but that he ought so to be, and must indeauour to attaine thereto. And here is a great point in the mysterie of iniquitie, to be considered: for by this vncer­ten application of the promise of saluatiō, and this wauering hope they ouerturne halfe the doctrine of the gospell. For it inioynes two things: first to beleeue the promises therof to be true in themselues: secondly to beleeue, & by faith to applie them vnto our selues. And this latter part, without which the former is voide of comfort, is quite ouerturned. The reasons which they alleadge against our do­ctrine, I haue answered before: now therfore I let them passe.

To conclude, though in coloured tearmes they seeme to agree with vs in doctrine con­cerning faith; yet indeed they deny & abolish the substance therof, namely, the particular & & certen application of Christ crucified and his benefits, vnto our selues. Again they faile in that they cut off the principall dutie & of­fice of true sauing faith, which is to appre­hend and to applie the blessing promised.

The difference.

We dissent not frō the Church of Rome [Page 321] in the doctrine of repentance it selfe: but in the damnable abuses thereof, which are of two sorts, generall and speciall. Generall are these which cōcerne repentance wholly cōsi­dered: & they are these. The first is that they place the beginning of repentance partly in themselues, and partly in the holy Ghost, or, in the power of their naturall freewill be­ing helped by the holy ghost: whereas Paul indeede ascribes this worke, wholly vnto God. 2. Tim. 2. 15. Proouing if God at any time will giue them repentance. And men that are not weake but dead in trespasses and sinnes, can not do any thing, that may further their conuersion, though they be helped ne­uer so: no more then dead men in their graues, can rise from thence. The second a­buse is, that they take pennance, or rather re­pentance for that publike discipline and or­der of correction that was vsed against no­torious offenders in the open congregation. For the scripture sets downe but one repen­tance, and that common to all men without exception: and to be practised in euery part of our liues for the necessa [...]ie mortification [Page 322] of sinne: whereas open ecclesiasticall corre­ction pertained not to all and euery man within the compasse of the Church, but to them alone that gaue any open offence. The third abuse is, that they make repentance to be not onely a vertue, but also a sacrament: whereas for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ, and vpward, it was not reckned among the sacraments: yea it seemes that Lumbard was one of the first that called it a sacrament: and the schoole-men after him di­sputed of the matter and forme of this sacra­ment: not able any of them certenly to de­fine, what should be the outward element. The fourth abuse is touching the effect and efficacie of repētance, for they make it a me­ritorious cause of remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting flat against the word of God. Paul saith notably. Rom. 4. 24. We are iusti­fied freely by his grace through the redemptiō which is in Christ Iesus whome God hath sent to be a reconciliation by faith in his blood. In these words these formes of speach, redemption in Christ, reconciliation in his blood, by faith, freely by grace, must be obser­ued [Page 323] and considered: for they shewe plaine­ly that no part of satifaction or redemption is wrought in vs, or, by vs: but out of vs only in the person of Christ. And therefore we e­steeme of repentance only as a fruit of faith: & the effect, or, efficacie of it, is to testifie re­mission of our sinnes, and our reconciliation before God. It will be said that remission of sinnes and life enerlasting are promised to re­pentance. Ans. It is not to the worke of re­pentāce, but to the person which repenteth, and that not for his owne merits or worke of repentance, but for the merits of Christ, which he applyeth to himselfe by faith. And thus are we to vnderstand the promises of the gospel, in which workes are mentioned: presupposing alwaies in them the reconcili­ation of the person with God, to whome the promise is made. Thus we see wherefore we dissent from the Romane Church tou­ching the doctrine of repentance.

Speciall abuses, doe concerne Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction. The first a­buse concerning contrition is, that they teach it must be sufficient and perfect. They [Page 324] vse now to helpe the matter by a distinction: saying that the sorrowe in contrition, must be in the highest degree in respect appretiati­vènon in­tensivé. of value and estimation, and not in respect of intenti­on. Yet the opinion of qu 2 de paenit ar. 2. & quodlib. 5. ar. 3. Adrian was other­wise, that in true repentance a man should be grieued according to all his indeauour. And the Romane Catechisme saith as much, that the sorrowe conceiued of our sinnes, must be so cap. de Sacr. paeni [...]. great, that NONE CAN BE CONCEIVED TO BE GREATER: that we must be contrite in the same manner we loue God, and that is vvith all our heart and strength in a most VEHE­MENT SORROVVE: and that the hatred of sinne must be not onely the greatest but also MOST VEHEMENT and perfect, so as it may exclude all sloth and slacknes. Indeed afterward it fol­lowes, that true contrition may be effectuall though it be imperfect: but how can this stand, if they will not onely commend but also prescribe and auouch, that contrition must be most perfect and vehememt. We therefore onely teach, that God requires not so much the measure, as the trueth of any grace: and that it is a degree of vnfained con­trition [Page 325] to be grieued, because we cannot be grieued for our sinnes as we should. The se­cond abuse is, that they ascribe to their con­trition the merit of congruitie. But this can­not stand with the all-sufficient merite of Christ. And an auncient Conncell saith, God inspires into vs first of all the faith and loue of himselfe, NO MERITS GOIN [...] BFORE, that we may faithfully require the sacrament of baptisme, & after baptisme doe the things that please him. And we for our parts hold, that God requires contrition at our hāds, not to merit remission of sinnes: but that we may acknowledge our owne vnworthines, & be hūbled in the sight of God, & distrust all our owne merits: & further, that we may make the more account of the benefits of Christ, whereby we are receiued into the fauour of God: lastly, that we might more carefully a­uoide all sinnes in time to come, whereby so many paines & terrors of consciēce are pro­cured. And we acknowledge no cōtrition at all to be meritorious, saue that of Christ: whereby he was broken for our iniquities. The third abuse is, that they make imperfect [Page 326] contrition or attrition arising of the feare of hell, to be good and profitable: and to it they applie the saying of the Prophet, The feare of God is the beginning of vvisdome. But ser­uile feare of it selfe is the fruite of the lawe, which is the ministerie of death and con­demnation: and consequently it is the way to eternall destruction, if God leue men to themselues: and if it turne to the good of a­ny, it is onely by accident: because God in mercie makes it to be an occasion going be­fore, of grace to be giuē: otherwise remorse of conscience for sinne is no beginning of re­pentance, or the restrainment of any sinne: but rather is & that properly the beginning of vnspeakable horrours of conscience, and euerlasting death, vnlesse God shew mercie. And yet this feare of punishment, if it be tem­pered and delaied with other graces & gifts of God in holy men: it is not vnprofitable: in whō there is not onely a sorrow for puni­shment, but also and that much more for the offence. And such a kinde of feare, or, sorrow is commanded, Malac. 1. 6. If I be a father, where is my feare? if I be a Lord, where is my [Page 327] feare? And Chrysostome saith, that the feare of hell in the heart of a iust man, is a strong man armed against theeues and robbers, to driue them from the house. And Ambr. saith, that Martyrs in the time of their sufferings, confirmed themselues against the crueltie of persecuters by setting the feare of hell before thier eyeis.

Abuses touching Confession are these. The first is, that they vse a forme of confessi­on of their sinnes vnto God, vttered in an vnknown language, being therefore foolish and ridiculous, withall requiring the aide and intercession of dead men and such as be ab­sent: whereas, there is but one Mediatour between God & man the man Iesus Christ. The second is, that they in practise make cō ­fession of their sinnes not onely to God but to the Saints departed: in that they make praier to them, in which they aske their in­tercession for the pardon of their sinnes: and this is, not onely to match them with God in seeing and knowing the heart, but also to giue a part of his diuine worship vnto them. The third and principall abuse is, that they [Page 328] haue corrupted Canonicall confession by turning it into a priuate auricular confession: binding all men in conscience by a lawe made, to confesse all their mortall sinnes, withall circumstances that change the kinde of the sinne (as farre as possibly they can re­member) once euery yeare at the least, and that to a priest, vnlesse it be in the case of ex­treame necessitie. But in the word of God there is no warrant for this confession, nor in the writings of Orthodoxe antiquitie for the space of many hūdred yeares after Christ as one of their owne side auoucheth. And the commandement of the holy Ghost; con­fesse one for an other, and pray one for an o­ther, Beatus Rhe­ [...]anus on Tertullib▪ de paenis. Iam. 5. 17. bindes as well the priest to make confession vnto vs, as any of vs to the priest. And whereas it is said, Math 3. that many were baptised confessing their sinnes: and Act. 19. 18. Many that beleeued came and confessed and shewed their workes, the confes­sion was voluntarie and not constrained: it was also generall and not particular of all and euery sinne, with the necessarie circumstan­ces thereof. And in this libertie of confession [Page 329] the Church remained 1200. yeares till the Councell of Lateran; in which the lawe of auricular confession was first inacted: beeing a notable inuention seruing to discouer the secrets of men, and to inrich that couetous and ambitious See, with the reuenewes of the world. It was not knowne to AugustineConf [...]ss. lib. 10. c. 3. when he saide, What haue I to doe with men that they should heare my confessions, as though they should heale all my diseases: nor to Chrysostome, when he saith, I do not com­pell De deinat hom. 5. [...]om. 5. thee to confesse thy sinnes to others. And, If thou be ashamed to confesse them to any man, Hom. 2. in psal. 50. because thou hast sinned; say them daily in thine ovvne minde. I doe not bidde thee con­fesse them to thy fellow seruant, that he should mocke thee: confesse them to God that cureth them.

The abuse of satisfaction is, that they haue turned canonicall satisfaction which was made to the congregation by open of­fenders, into a satisfaction of the iustice of God for the temporall punishment of there sinnes. Behold here a most horrible propha­nation of the whole Gospell, and specially of [Page 330] the satisfaction of Christ, which of it selfe without any supplie is sufficient euery way for the remission both of fault and punish­ment. But of this point I haue spoken before.

Hitherto I haue handled and prooued by induction of sundrie particulars, that we are to make a seperatiō from the present church of Rome, in respect of the foundation and substance of true religion. Many more things might be added to this uery purpose, but here I conclude this first point: adding onely this one caueat, that we make separati­on from the Romane religion without ha­tred of the persons that are maintainers of it. Nay we ioyne in affection more with them, then they with vs. They die with vs not for their religion (Deut. 13. 5. though they deserue it) but for the treasons which they intend and en­terprise: we are readie to doe the duties of loue vnto them inioyned vs in the word: we reuerence the good gifts of God in many of them; we pray for them, wishing their re­pentance and eternall saluation.

Now I meane to proceede, and to touch briefly other points of doctrine contained in [Page 331] this portion of Scripture, which I haue now in hand. In the second place therefore out of this commaundement, Goe out of her my peo­ple, I gather that the true Church of God is and hath bin in the present Romane church, as corne in the heape of chaffe. Though Po­perie raigned and ouerspread the face of the earth for many hundred yeares; yet in the middest thereof, God reserued a people vnto himselfe, that truly worshipped him: and to this effect the holy Ghost saith that the dra­gon, which is the deuill caused the woman, that is, the Church to flie into the wildernes, where he sought to destroy hir but could not, and shee still retaines a REMNANT OF HIRRev. 12. 17. SEEDE which keepe the commaundements of God, and haue the testimonie of Iesus Christ. Now this which I speake of the Church of Rome, cannot be saide in like manner of the congregations of Turkes and other infidels, that the hidden Church of God is preser­ued among them: because there is no meanes of saluation at all: whereas the church of Rome hath the Scriptures, though in a strange language; and baptisme for the out­ward [Page 332] forme: which helpes God in all ages preserued, that his elect might be gathered out of the middest of Babylon. This serues to stop the mouthes of Papists, which demand of vs, where our church was fourscore years agoe, before the daies of Luther: whereby they would insinuate to the world, that our church and religion is greene or newe: but they are answered out of this very text, that our Church hath euer beene since the daies of the Apostles, and that in the very middest of the papacie. It hath bin alwaies a Church, & did not first begin to be in Luthers time: but onely then began to shew it selfe, as ha­uing bin hid by an vniuersall Apostasie, for many hundred yeares together. Againe we haue here occasion to consider the dealing of God with his owne Church and people. He will haue them for externall societie to be mixed with their enemies, and that for speci­all purpose; namely, to exercise the humilitie and patience of his few seruants. When Elias saw Idolatrie spred ouer all Israel, he went a part into the wildernes, and in griefe desired to die. And Dauid cried out: Woe is me that I [Page 333] am constrained to dvvell in Mesheck, and to haue my habitation in the tents of Kedar, Psal. 120. 5. And iust Lot must haue his righ­teous soule vexed with seeing and hea [...]ing the abhominations of Sodome.

Thirdly by this commandement we are taught, what opinion to carrie of the present Church of Rome. It is often demaunded, whether it be a Church or no; and the an­swer may hence be formed on this manner. If by this Church be vnderstoode a state or regiment of the people, whereof the Pope is head: and the members are all such as doe ac­knowledge him to be their head, and doe be­leeue the doctrine established in the Councel of Trent, we take it to be no Church of God. Because Babylon, which I haue prooued to be the Church of Rome, is here opposed to the Church or people of God: and because we are commanded to come out of it▪ wher­as we may not wholly forsake any people till they forsake Christ. Some will happely say, the Church of Rome hath the Scriptures and the Sacrament of baptisme. I answer first of all; they haue indeede the bookes of holy [Page 334] Scripture among them: but by the rest of their doctrine they ouerthrowe the true sense thereof in the foundation, as I haue prooued before. And though they haue the outward forme of baptisme, yet they ouer­turne the inward baptisme, which is the sub­stance of all, standing in the iustification and sanctification of a sinner. Againe I answer, that they haue the word and baptisme, not for themselues but for the true Church of God among them: like as the lanterne hol­deth the candle, not for it selfe but for others. Secondly, it may be and is alleadged, that if the Pope be Antichrist, he then sittes in the temple, that is, the Church of God, and by this meanes the Romane Church shall be the true Church. Ans. He sittes in the temple of God, but marke further how: AS GOD, that2. Thess. 2. vers▪ 4. is, not as a member but as a manifest vsurper: like as the thiefe sittes in the true mans house. For the popish Church and Gods Church are mingled like chaffe and corne in one heape: and the Church of Rome may be said to be in the Church of God: and the church of God in the church of Rome; as we say the [Page 335] wheat is among the chaffe, and the chaffe in the wheat. Againe he is said to sit in the t [...]m­ple of God; because the Romane Church, though falsly, takes vnto it selfe the title of the true Catholike church. Some goe about to delaie and qualifie the matter, by compa­ring this Church to a man lying sicke full of soares, hauing also his throat cut, yet so as bo­die and soule are ioyned together, and life is remaining still. But all things wel considered, it is rather like a dead carkasse, and is voide of all spirituall life; as the popish errours in the foundation doe manifest. Indeede a knowne harlot may afterward remaine a wife and be so tearmed: yet after the bill of diuorcement is giuen, shee cease [...]h to be a wife, though she can shew her marriage ring: now the church hath receiued the bill of her diuorcement in the written word, namely 2. Thess. 2. and Rev. 13. 11, 12, &c.

Furthermore in this commaundement we may see a liuely portraiture of the state of all mankinde. Here we see two sorts of men: some are pertaining to Babylon, a people running on to their destruction: some againe [Page 336] are a people of God seuered from Babylon, and reserued to life euerlasting. If any aske the cause of this distinction; I answer, it is the very wil of God vouchsafing mercy to some, and forsaking others by withdrawing his mercie from them, for the better declaration of his iustice. Thus saith the Lord, Rom. 11. 4. I HAVE RESERVED seauen thousand that ne­uer bowed the knee to Baal: and the prophet Isai saith, Vnles the Lord had reserued arē ­nant, we had beene as Sodom and Gomorrha. By this distinction we are taught, aboue all things to seeke to be of the number of Gods people, and to labour for assurance of this in our owne consciences. For if all should be sa­ued, lesse care would suffice: but this mercie is not common to all: and therefore the more to be thought vpon.

Lastly, here I note the speciall care that God hath ouer his owne children. He first giueth them warning to depart, before he beginne to execute his iudgement vpon his enemies, with whome they liue; that they might not be partakers of their sinnes or pu­nishments. Thus, before God would punish [Page 337] Ierusalem, an angel is sent to marke thē in theEx [...]h. 9. forehead that mourned for the abominatiōs of the people. And in the destruction of the first born of Egypt, the angel passed ouer the houses of the Iewes, that had their posts sprin kled with the blood of the paschal lambe: and this passing ouer be [...]okneth safetie & preser­uation in the cōmon destructiō to those that haue their hearts sprinkled with the blood of Christ. This blessing of protection should moue vs all, to becō true & hartie seruants of God. Men vsually become mēbers of those societies and corporations, where they may inioy many freedomes & priuiledges. Well, behold; in the societie of the Saints of God, which is the true church, there is the freedō frō danger in all cōmon destructions, & from eternal vengeance at the last day. VVhen He­ster had procured safetie for the Iewes, & li­bertie to reuenge themselues vpon their ene­mies: it is said, that many of the people of the land became Iewes. Euen so, cōsidering Christ hath procured freedom from hell, death, and damnation for all that beleeue in him; we should labour aboue all things to become new creatures, ioyning our selues alwaies to [Page 338] the true Church of God.

Hitherto I haue spoken of the comman­dement: now followeth the reason thereof drawne from the ende, that they be not par­takers of her sinnes: and that they receiue not of her plagues. Here I might stande long to shewe what be the sinnes of the Church of Rome: but I will onely name the principall. The first sinne is Atheisme: and that I prooue on this manner. Atheisme is twofold, open, coloured. Open Atheisme is, when men both in word and deede denie God and his Word. Coloured Atheisme is not so mani­fest: and it hath two degrees. The first is, when men acknowledge God the creatour and gouernour of heauen and earth, and yet denie the father, sonne, and holy ghost. Thus the Ephesians before they receiued the gos­pel,Eph. 2. 12. are saide to be vvithout God whome in their naturall iudgement they acknowled­ged: because they denied Christ, and conse­quently worshipped an Idol of their owne braine, in that they worshipped God out of Christ. And in this respect though the Sa­maritans worshipped the God of Abraham, yet our Sauiour Christ saith, they worshipped Ioh. 5. 46. [Page 339] they knevv not vvhat. And the PsalmistPsal. 96. 3. saith of all the Gentiles that their Gods are Idols. In this degree of Atheisme are placed Turks and Iewes at this day: the Anti-Trini­taries, and Arians, and all that conceiue and worship God out of the trinitie. The second degree is, when men doe rightly acknow­ledge the vnitie of the god head in the Trini­tie of persons: yet so, as by other necessarie consequents partly of their doctrine, and partly of the seruice of God: they ouerturne that which they haue well maintained. And thus I say, that the very religiō of the church of Rome is a kind of Atheisme. For whereas it makes the merit of the workes of men to concurre with the grace of God, it ouer­throwes the grace of God. Rom. 11. In word, they acknowledge the infinite instice and mercie of God: but by consequent both are denied. Howe can that be infinite iustice, which may any way be appeased by hu­mane satisfactiōs? And how shall Gods mer­cie be infinite, when we by our owne satis­factions must adde a supply to the satisfacti­on1. Ioh. 2. 23. of Christ? Againe, He that hath not the [Page 340] Sonne, hath not the Father: and he that hath neither Father nor Sonne, denies God. Now the present Romane religion hath not the Sonne, that is, Iesus Christ, God and man, the Mediatour of mankinde: but hath transfor­med him into a Fained Christ. And I shew it thus. For one Iesus Christ, in all things like vnto vs in his Humanitie, sinne onely excep­ted; they haue framed a Christ, to whome they ascribed two kinds of existing: one na­turall, whereby he is visible, touchable, and circumscribed in heauen: the other not one­ly aboue, but also against nature; by which, he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of euerie priest, in euerie host, and in the mouth of euerie communicant, invisi­ble, vntouchable, vncircumscribed. And thus in effect they abolish his manhood. Yea they disgrade him of his offices. For one Iesus Christ, the onely king, lawgiuer, and head of the Church; they ioyne vnto him the Pope not onely as a Vicar but also as a Fellowe: in that they giue vnto him power to make lawes binding conscience, to resolue and de­termine vnfallibly the sense of holy scripture, properly to pardon sinne both in respect of [Page 341] fault and temporall punishment, to haue au­thoritie ouer the whole earth and a part of hell: to depose kings, to whome vnder Christ euery soule is to be subiect, to absolue sub­iects from the oath of allegiāce, &c. For one Iesus Christ the onely reall priest of the new Testament, they ioyne many secondarie priests vnto him, which offer Christ daily in the masse for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead. For one Iesus Christ the all­sufficient Mediatour of intercession, they haue added many fellows vnto him to make request for vs, namely as many Saints as be in the Popes Kalender. Lastly for the onely me­rits of Christ, in whome alone the Father is well pleased, they haue deuised a Treasurie of the Church containing beside the merits of Christ, the ouerplus of the merits of saints to be dispensed to men, at the discretion of the Pope. And thus we see, that Christ, and consequently God himselfe to be worship­ped in Christ, is transformed into a phantasie or Idol of mans conceite. Againe there is al­waies a proportion betweene the worship of God, and our perswasion of him: and men [Page 342] in giuing vnto God any worship, haue re­spect to his nature, that both may be sutable, and he well pleased. Let vs then see what ma­ner of worship the Romane religion affor­deth. It is for the greatest part meere will­worship, without any allowance or com­maundement from God, as Durande in his Rationale in effect acknowledgeth. It is a carnall seruice standing of innumerable bo­dily rises and ceremonies, borrowed partly from the Iewes, and partly from the heathē: it is diuided betweene God and some of his creatures; in that they are worshipped both with one kinde of worship: let them paint it as they can. Thus then, if by their manner of worshipping God, we may iudge howe they cōceiue of him, as we may: they haue plainly turned the true God into a phantasie of their own. For God is no otherwise to be cōcei­ned thē he hath reuealed himselfe in his crea­tures & word, & specially in Christ: who is the ingrauē image of the persō of the father.

The second sinne is Idolatrie: and that as gros [...]e as was euer among the heathen. And it is to be seene in two things. First that they worship the Saints with religious worship, [Page 343] which without exception is proper to God. Yea they transforme some of them into de­testable idols, making them in truth media­tours of redemption, specially the virgine Marie, whome they call a Ladie, a goddesse, a queene whome Bellar. lib. 1. de sanct. c. 16. Missali & Br [...]uiari [...] refor. Christ her sonne obeyeth in heauen a mediatresse: or life, hope, the medi­cine of the diseased: and they pray vnto her thus: Prepare thou glorie for vs: defende vs from our enemies, and in the houre of death receiue vs, loose the bon [...]s of the guilty, bring light to the blinde, driue away all deuills—. [...]HEVV THY SELFE TO BE A MOTHER, let him receiue the praiers. Againe their idolatrie is manifest, in that they worship God in, at, be­fore images: hauing no commandement so to doe, but the contrarie. They alleadge that they vse and worship images onely in a re­membrance of God. But this is all one, as if an vnchast wife should receiue many louers in to her house in the absence of her husband: and beeing reprooued, should answer: that they were the friends of hir husband, and that shee kept them onely in remembrance of him. Thirdly, their Idolatrie exceedes [Page 344] the Idolatrie of the heathen, in that they worship a Breadengod, or, Christ in and vn­der the formes of bread and wine. And if Christ according to his humanitie be absent from the earth, as I haue prooued, the popish Hoste is as abominable an Idol as euer was.

The third sinne is the maintenance of a­dulterie. And that is manifest: first of all, in the Toleration of the Stewes flat against the cō ­mandement of God. Deut. 23. 17. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel: nei­ther shal there be a whore keeper of the sonnes of Israel. And this toleration is an occasion of vncleanes to many young men and women, that otherwise would abstaine from all such kinde of filthines. And what an abomination is this, when brother and brother, father and sonne, nephew and vncle, shall come to one and the same harlot, one before or after the other. Secondly, their Law beyōd the fourth degree allowes the marriage of any persons:Greg cap. 9 de co [...]sang. and by this meanes, they sometime allow in­cest. For in the vnequall collaterall line, the person next the common stocke is a father or mother to the brothers or sisters posteri­tie, [Page 345] as for example.

• 1 Nicholas Anne
• 2 Thomas
• 3 Lewes
• 4 Roger
• 5 Anthonie
• 6 Iames

Here Anne and Nicho­las are brother and si­ster, and Anne is distant frō Iames sixe degrees, he beeing her neece a farre of [...]: and the mari­age between them is allowed by the church of Rome, they not beeing within the com­passe of foure degrees: which neuerthelesse is against the law of nature. For Anne beeing the sister of Nicholas, is in stead of a mother to all that are begotten of Nicholas, euen to Iames and Iames posteritie. Yet thus much I graunt, that the daughter of Anne may law­fully marie Iames or Anthonie, the case bee­ing altered: because they are not one to an o­ther as parents and children.

The fourth sinne is Magicke, sorcerie, or witchcraft, in the consecration of the host in which they make their Breaden-god: in ex­orcismes ouer holy bread, holy water & salt; in the casting out or driuing away of deuils,Molan. tract. 2. c. 4. con. 3. by the signe of the crosse, by solemne coniu­rations, by holy water, by the ringing of bels, [Page 346] by lighting tapers, by reliques, and such like. For these things haue not their sup­posed force, either by creation, or by any institution of God in his holy worde: and therefore if any thing be done by them, it is from the secret operation of the deuill himselfe.

The fift sinne is, that in their doctrine they maintaine periurie: because they teach with one consent, that a Papist examined may an­swerMolan. tract. 2. c. 7 con. 1 prop 6 idem communiter [...]mnes. doubtfully against the direct intention of the examiner: framing an other meaning vnto himself in the ambiguitie of his words. As for example, when a man is asked, whe­ther he saide or heard Masse in such a place: though he did, they affirme, he may say, No; and sweare vnto it: because he was not there, to reueale it to the examiner: whereas in the very lawe of nature; he that takes an oath, should sweare according to the intention of him that hath power to minister an oath: & that in truth, iustice, iudgement. Let them cleare their doctrine from all defence of per­iurie, if they can.

The sixt sinne is, that they reuerse many of [Page 347] Gods commādements, making that no sinne which Gods word makes a sinne. Thus they teach, that if any man steale some litle thing, Molan tract. 2. c. 9. con. 1. prop. 5. idem caetera. that is thought not to cause any notable hurt, it is no mortall sinne: that, the officious lie, and the lie made in sport are veniall sinnes: that, to pray for our enemies in particular is no precept but a counsell: and that none is bound to salute his enemie in the way of friendship, flat against the rule of Christ, Matth. 5. 47. where the worde [...], signifieth all manner of dutie and curtesie: that, rash iudge­ment, though consent come thereto is regu­larly but a veniall sinne: that, it is lawfull o­ther whiles to faine holines that, the painting of the face is ordinarily but a veniall sinne: that, it is not lavvfull to forbid begging: whereas the Lord forbad there should be a­nyDeut. 15. begger in Israel. Againe, they teach thatGreg. de V [...]l. tom. 3. dis. 1. 9. 13. & Ca­ietane. men in their choller, when they are chiding, and sweare, vvounds and blood, are not in­deede blasphemers.

Lastly their writers vse manifest lying, to iustifie their doctrine. They plead falsly that all antiquitie is on their side; whereas it is as [Page 348] much against them as for them: and as much for vs as them. Againe their manner hath bin and is still to prooue their opinions by for­ged and counterfait writings of men, some whereof I will name.

• 1 Saint Iames Liturgie.
• 2 The Canons of the Apostles.
• 3 The bookes of Dionysius Ariopagita, and namely De Hier archia Ecclesiastica.
• 4 The Decret all Epistles of the Popes.
• 5 Pope Clements workes.
• 6 Some of the Epistles of Ignatius.
• 7 Origens booke of repentance. His home­lies in diversos sanctos. Commentaries on Iob: and booke of Lamentation.
• 8 Chrysostomes Liturgie.
• 9 Basils liturgie and his Ascetica.
• 10 Augustines booke de 8. quest. Dul [...]itij. A booke of true and false repentance. Ser▪ de festo commemorationis animarum. booke de dogm. Ecclesiast. Sermon ad fratres in Heremo. Sermon of Peters chaire. Booke of visiting the sicke, &c.
• 11 Iustin Martyrs Questions and Answ.
• 12 Athanasius epistle to Pope Foelix.
• [Page 349]13 Bernards sermons of the Lords Supper.
• 14 Hieromes epistle ad Demetriadem sa­uouring of Pelagius.
• 15 Tertullian de Monogamia.
• 16 Cyprian de Chrismate & de ablutione pe [...]um.
• 17 In the Councel of Sardica the 3, 4, and 5, canons are forged.
• 18 In the Councel of Nice all saue 20. are forged.
• 19 Certaine Romane Councels vnder Syl­vester are forged. For he vvas at this time dead, and therefore could not con­firme them. Sozom. lib. 2.
• 20 To the sixt canon of the Councel of Nice are patched these words, That the Romane Church hath alwaies had the supremacie.
• 21 Lastly, I will not omit that Pope Sozi­mus, Bonifacius, ana Coelestinus falsified the canons of the councell of Nice, to prooue appeales from all places to Rome; so as the Bishops of Africke were forced to send for the true copies of the saide Councell from Constantinople and the [Page 350] Churches of Greece.

I might here rehearse many other sinnes which with the former call for vengeance vpon the Romane Church, but it shall suffice to haue named a few of the principall.

Now in this reason, our Sauiour Christ prescribes another maine dutie to his owne people: and that is, to be carefull to eschewe all the sinnes of the Church of Rome, that they may withall escape her deserued plagues and punishments. And from this pre­scribed dutie I obserue two things. The first is, that euery good seruant of God, must care­fully auoide contracts of marriage with pro­fessed Papists, that is▪ with such as hold the Pope for their head, and beleeue the doctrine of the Councel of Trent. For in such matches men hardly keepe faith and good consci­ence, and hardly auoide cōmunication with the sinnes of the Romane Church. A further ground of this doctrine I thus propound. In Gods worde there is mentioned a double league betweene man and man, countrie and countrie. The first is the league of concord, when one kingdome bindes it selfe to liue in [Page 351] peace with an other, for the maintenance of traficke without disturbance: and this kinde of league may stand betweene Gods church and the enemies thereof. The second is the league of amity: which is when men, people, or countries binde themselues to defend each other in all causes: and to make the warres of the one, the warres of the other: and this league may not be made with those that be enemies of God. Iehosaphat, otherwise a good king, made this kinde of league with Ahab: and is therfore reprooued by the pro­phet, saying, wouldest thou helpe the wicked and loue them that hate the Lord? 2. Chron. 19. 2. Now the mariages of protestants with Papists are priuate leagues of amitie, be­tweene person and person: and therefore not to be allowed. Againe, Malac. cap. 2. vers. 11. the Lord saith, Iudah hath defiled the holi­nes of the Lord which he loued, and hath mar­ried the daughters of a straunge god: where is flatly condemned marriages made with the people of a false god: nowe the Papists by the consequents of their doctrine and re­ligion, turne the true Iehova into an idol [Page 352] of their owne braine, as I haue shewed: and the true Christ reuealed in the written word into a fained Christ made of breade. Yet if such a marriage be once made and finished it may not be dissolued. For such parties sinne not simply in that they marrie, but be­cause they marrie not in the Lord, beeing of diuers religions. The fault is not in the sub­stance of marriage but in the manner of ma­king it: and for this cause, the Apostle com­maunds the beleeuing partie, not to forsake or refuse the vnbeleeuing partie, beeing a ve­ry infidel (which no papist is) if he or she will abide. 1. Cor. 7. 13.

The second thing is, that euery seruant of God must take heede how he trauells in­to such countries where popish religion is stablished, least he partakes in the sinnes and punishments thereof. Indeede to goe vpon ambassage to any place, or to trauell for this ende, that we may performe the necessarie duties for our speciall or generall callings, is not vnlawfull: but to trauell out of the pre­cincts of the church onely for pleasures sake and to see strange fashions, hath no warrant. [Page 353] And hence it is, that many men which goe forth in good order well minded, come home with crased consciences. The best tra­ueler of all is he, that liuing at home or a­broad, can goe out of himselfe, and depart from his own sinnes & corruptions by true repentance.