A Reformed Catholike: OR, A DECLARATION SHEWING HOW NEERE WE MAY COME TO THE PRESENT Church of Rome in sundrie points of Religion: and vvherein we must for euer depart from them: with an Advertisment to all fauou­rers of the Romane religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the Catechisme.

PRINTED BY JOHN LEGAT▪ Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. 1598.


RIght Worshipfull, it is a notable pollicie of the de­uil, which he hath put in­to the heades of sundrie men in this age, to thinke that our religion and the religion of the present Church of Rome are all one for substance; and that they may be reunited as (in their o­pinion) they were before. Writings to this effect, are spread abroad in the French tōgue, & respected of English Protestants more thē is meete, or ought to be. For, let men in shew of moderation, pretend the peace and good estate of the Catholike Church as long as they will; This vnion of the two religions can neuer be made, more then the Vnion of light & darknes. And this shall appeare, if we doe but a litle consider, how they of the Ro­mane [Page] church haue rased the foundation. For, though in words they honour Christ, yet in deede they turne him into a Pseudo-Christ and an Idol of their owne braine. They call him our Lord, but with this condition that the Seruant of Seruants of this Lord may change and adde to his commaundements: hauing so great a power, that he may open and shut heauen to whome he will; & binde the very conscience with his owne laws, and consequently be partaker of the spirituall kingdome of Christ. Againe they call him a Sauiour, but yet in Vs: in that he giues this grace vnto vs, that by our merits we may be our owne Sauiours: and in the want of our owne merits, we may partake in the merits of the Saints. And they acknowledge that he Died and Suffred for vs, but with this ca­ueat, that the Fault beeing pardoned, we must satisfie for the temporall punishment either in this worlde or in Purgatorie. In a word, they make him our Mediatour of In­tercession vnto God; but withal, his Mother must be the Queene of heauen, and by the right of a mother commaund him there. [Page] Thus, in word they crie Osanna, but in deed they crucifie Christ. Therfore we haue good cause to blesse the name of God, that hath freed vs from the yoke of this Romane bon­dage, & hath brought vs to the true light & liberty of the gospel. And it should be a great height of vnthankfulnesse in vs, not to stand out against the present church of Rome, but to yeeld our selues to plottes of reconciliati­on. To this effect and purpose I haue penned this little Treatise, which I present to your Worship, desiring it might be some token of a thankefull minde, for vndeserued loue. And I craue withall, not onely your Wor­shipfull (which is more common) but also your Learned protection; being wel assured, that by skill and arte you are able to iustifie whatsoeuer I haue truly taught. Thus wish­ing to you and yours the continuance and the increase of faith and good conscience, I take my leaue. Cambr. Iune 28. 1597.

Your VVorships in the Lord, William Perkins.

THE AVTHOR TO THE Christian Reader.

BY a Reformed Catholike, I vnderstand any one that holds the same necessarie heades of religion vvith the Romane Church: yet so, as he pares off and reiects all errours in doctrine vvhereby the said religion is corrupted. Hovv this may be done, I haue begunne to make some little declaration in this small Treatise: the in­tent whereof is to shevve howe neere we may come to the present Church of Rome in sun­drie points of religion: and wherein we must for euer dissent.

My purpose in penning this small dis­course is threefold. The first is, to confute all such Politikes as holde and maintaine, that our religion and that of the Romane Church differ not in substance, and consequently that they may be reconciled: yet my meaning is not here to condemne any Pacification that tends to perswade the Romane church to our religion. The second is, that the papists which [Page] thinke so basely of our religion, may be wonne to a better liking of it: when they shall see how neare we come vnto them in sundrie points. The third, that the common protestant might in some part see and conceiue the point of dif­ference betvveene vs and the Church of Rome: an [...] knovv in what manner and hovv far forth, vve condemne the opinions of the said Church.

I craue pardon for the order vvhich I vse, in handling the seuerall points. For I haue set them downe one by one, as they came to minde, not respecting the laws of methode. If any Papist shall say, that I haue not allead­ged their opinions aright, I ansvver that their bookes be at hand, and I can iustifie what I haue said.

Thus crauing thine acceptation of this my paines, and wishing vnto thee the increase of knowledge and loue of pure and sound religi­on, I take my leaue and make an ende.

The places of doctrine handled, are

  • 1 Of Free-will. pag. 11
  • 2 Of Originall sinne. 28
  • 3 Assurance of Saluation. 38
  • 4 Iustification of a sinner. 61
  • 5 Of merits. 103
  • 6 Satisfactions for sinne. 117
  • 7 Of Traditions. 134
  • 8 Of Vowes. 151
  • 9 Of images. 170
  • 10 Of Real-presence. 185
  • 11 The sacrifice of the Masse. 204
  • 12 Of Fasting. 221
  • 13 The State of perfection. 232
  • 14 Worshipping of Saints departed. 245
  • 15 Intercession of Saints. 258
  • 16 Implicite faith. 266
  • 17 Of purgatorie. 278
  • 18 Of the Supremacie. 283
  • 19 Of the efficacie of the Sacraments. 297
  • 20 Of Faith. 305
  • 21 Of Repentance. 316
  • 22 The sinnes of the Romane church. 331
REVELAT. 18. 4.‘And I heard another voyce from heauen say, Goe out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sinnes, and receiue not of her plagues.’

IN the former chapter S. Iohn sets down a descrip­tion of the whore of Ba­bylon, and that at large as he sawe her in a vision de­scribed vnto him. In the sixteenth verse of the same chapter, he fore­tells her destruction: and in the three first verses of this 18. chapter, he goeth on to pro­pound the said destruction yet more direct­ly and plainly; withall alleadging arguments to prooue the same, in all the verses follow­ing. Now in this fourth verse is set downe a caueat seruing to forewarne all the people of God, that they may escape the iudgement [Page 2] which shall befall the whore: and the wordes containe two parts: a commandement, and a reason. The commandement, Come out of her my people, that is, from Babylon. The rea­son, taken from the euent least ye be parta­kers, &c. Touching the commandement, first I will search the right meaning of it, and then set downe the vse thereof and do­ctrine flowing thence. In historie therefore are three Babylons mentioned: one is, Baby­lon of Assyria standing on the riuer Euphra­tes, where was the confusion of languages, and where the Iewes were in captiuitie: which Babylon is in Scripture reproched for Idolatry and other iniquities. The second Babylon is in Egypt standing on the riuer Nilus, and it is now called Cayr; of that men­tion is made 1. Pet. 5. v. 13. (as some thinke) though indeede it is as likely and more com­monly thought, that there is meant Babylon of Assyria. The third Babylon is mysticall, whereof Babylon of Assyria was a type and figure; and that is Rome, which is without question here to be vnderstood. And the whore of Babylon, as by all circumstances [Page 3] may be gathered, is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome and appertaine thereto. This may be proo­ued by the interpretation of the holy Ghost: for in the last verse of the 17. chapter the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be a citty which raigneth ouer the kings of the earth: now in the daies when S. Iohn penned this booke of Reuelation, there was no citie in the world that ruled ouer the kings of the earth but Rome; it then beeing the seate where the Emperour put in execu­tion his Imperiall authoritie. Againe in the seuenth verse shee is saide to sit on a beast ha­uing seuen heades and ten hornes which se­uen heads be seuen hills, v. 9. whereon the woman sitteth, and also they be seuen kings. Therfore by the whore of Babylon is meant a citie standing on seuen hills. Now it is well knowne, not onely to learned men in the Church of God, but euen to the heathen themselues, that Rome alone is the citie built on seuen distinct hills, called Caelius, Aventi­nus, Exquilinus, Tarpeius or Capitolinus, Vi­minalis, Palatinus, Quirinalis. Papists to [Page 4] helpe themselues, doe alledge that old Rome stood on seuen hills, but nowe is remooued further to the plaine of Campus Martius. I answer, that howsoeuer the greatest part of the citie in regard of habitation be not nowe on seuen hills, yet in regard of regiment and practise of religion it is: for euen to this day vpon these hills are seated certaine Churches and Monasteries & other like places where the Papal Authoritie is put in execution: and thus Rome beeing put for a state and regi­ment; euen at this day, it standes vpon seuen hills. And though it be come to passe that the harlot in regard of her later daies euen chan­ged her seate, yet in respect of her yonger times in which shee was bred and borne, shee sate vpon the seuen hills. Others, because they feare the wounding of their own heads, labour to frame these wordes to an other meaning, and say, that by the whore, is meant the company of all wicked men in the world wheresoeuer, the deuil being the head there­of. But this exposition is flat against the text: for in the second verse of the 18. chapter, shee is opposed to the kings of the earth with [Page 5] whome shee is said to commit fornication:) and in the last verse shee is called a citie stan­ding on seuen hills and raigning ouer the kings of the earth (as I haue said,) & therfore must needes be a state of men in some parti­cular place. And the Papists themselues per­ceiuing that this shift will not serue their turne, make two Romes, heathenish Rome, and that whereof the Pope is head: now (say they) the whore spoken of, is heathenish Rome, which was ruled by cruel tyrants, as Nero, Domitian, and the rest: and that Rome whereof nowe the Pope is head, is not here meant. Behold a vaine and foolish distincti­on: for Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state, princely dominion, and crueltie in per­sequuting the Saints of God, is all one with the heathenish Empire: the See of the Bishop beeing turned into the Emperours court, as all histories doe manifest. But let the distin­ction be as they suppose, yet by their leaues, here by the whore must be vnderstood not onely heathenish Rome, but euen the Papall or Ecclesiasticall Rome: for v. 3. of this chap­ter the holy Ghost saith plainely, that shee [Page 6] hath made all natious drunke with the wine of the wrath of her fornication: yea it is ad­ded, that shee hath committed fornication with the kings of the earth, whereby is signi­fied that she hath endeauoured to intangle al the nations of the earth in her spirituall i­dolatrie, and to bring the kings of the earth to her religion. Which thing cannot be vn­derstoode of the heathenish Rome, for that left all the kings of the earth to their owne religion and idolatrie: neithet did they la­bour to bring forraine kings to worshippe their Gods. Againe chapt. 18. v. 16 it is said, that the ten hornes, which be ten kings, shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, which must not be vnderstoode of heathenish Rome, but of popish Rome: for whereas in former times all the kings of the earth did submit themselues to the whore, nowe they haue begun to withdrawe them­selues, and make her desolate; as the king of Bohemia, Denmarke, Germanie, England, Scotland, and other parts: therefore this di­stinction is also friuolous. They further al­ledge that the whore of Babylon is drunke [Page 7] with the bloode of the Saints and Martyrs, chap. 17. 6. shedde not in Rome, but in Ierusa­lem: where the Lord was crucified: and the two prophets beeing slaine lie there in the streets, Rev. 11. [...]8. But this place, is not meant of Hierusalem, as Hierome hath ful­ly taught, but it may well be vnderstoodeo Epist. 17. E [...]st [...]. & Paula ad Marcellam. of Rome: Christ was crucified there, either because the authoritie, whereby he was cru­cified was from the Romane Empire, or els because Christ in his members was and is there dayly crucified, though locally in his owne person he was crucified at Ierusalem. And thus, notwistanding all which hath bin said, we must here by the whore vnder­stand the State and Empire of Rome, not so much vnder the heathen Emperours as vn­der the head thereof the Pope: which expo­sition, besides the authority of the text, hath the fauoure and defence of auncient and lear­nedSerm. in Cāt. 33. Epist. 125. men. Bernard saith, They are the mini­sters of Christ, but THEY SERVE ANTICHRIST. Againe, The beast spoken of in the Apocalyps, to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphe­mies, and to make warre with the Saints of [Page 8] God, is now gotten into Peters chaire, as a ly­on prepared to his praie. It will be said, that Bernard speakes these latter wordes of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation. It is true indeede: but wherefore was he an vsurper? he rendreth a reason thereof in the same place: because the Anti­pope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Almaine, France, England, Scotland, Spaine, Hierusalem, with consent of the whole Cleargie and people in these nations, and the other was not. And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict, that not onely this vsurper, but all the Popes for this many yeres are the beast in the Apocalyps; because now they are onely chosen by the colledge of Cardinalls. To this agreeth the decree ofC. in nomine dist. 23. Pope Nicolas the second, ann. 1059▪ that the Pope shall afterward be created by the suffrages of the Cardinall bishops of Rome, with the consent of the rest of the cleargie and people, and the Emperour himselfe: andreferente Iu­ello 2▪ Thess. 2. all Popes are excommunicate & accursed as Antichristes, that enter otherwise, as al now doe. Ioachimus Abbas saith, Antichrist was [Page 9] long since borne in Rome, and shall be yet ad­uanced higher in the APOSTOLIC [...] SEE. Pe­tracrh saith, Once Rome, now Babylon. And I­reneus booke 5. chap. last, said before all these, that Antichrist should be Lateinus, a Ro­mane.

Again, this cōmandemēt must not so much be vnderstoode of a bodily departure in re­spect of cohabitatiō & presence, as of a spiri­tuall seperatiō in respect of faith & religion. And the meaning of the holy Ghost is, that men must depart from the Romish Church in regard of Iudgememt and doctrine, in re­gard of their faith and the worship of God.

Thus then wee see that the words con­taine a commandement from God, inioy­ning his Church and people to make a sepa­ration from Babylon. Whence I obserue, That all those who will be saued, must depart and seperate themselues from the faith and religion of this present Church of Rome. And whereas they are charged with scisme that seperate on this manner; the truth is, they are not scismatikes that doe so, because they haue the commandement of God for their: [Page 10] warrant: and that partie is the scismatike in whome the cause of this separation lieth: and that is in the church of Rome, namly the cup of abomination in the whores hand, which is, their hereticall and scismaticall religion.

Nowe touching this dutie of seperation I meane to speake at large, not standing so much to prooue the same, because it is eui­dent by the text, as to shew the manner and measure of making this separation: & therin I will handle two things. First how farforth we may ioyne with them in the matter of religion: secondly how farforth and where­in wee must dissent and depart from them. And for this cause I meane to make choice of certaine points of religion, and to speake of them in as good order as I can, shewing in each of them our consent and difference: & the rather, because some harpe much vp­on this string, Examē pa­c [...]q [...], im­primè de nou v [...]u a Caen 1590. that a vnion may be made of our two religions, and that we differ not in substance but in points of circumstance.

The first point wherewith I meane to be­ginne shall be the point of Freewill: though it be not the principall.

1. Our consent.

Free will both by them and vs, is taken for a mixt power in the minde and will of man; whereby discerning what is good and what is euill, he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same.

I. Conclus. Man must be considered in a foure-fold estate, as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renewed, as he shalbe glo­rified. In the first estate, we ascribe to mans will libertie of nature in which he could will or nill either good or euill: in the third, liber­tie of grace: in the last, libertie of glorie. All the doubt is of the second estate: and yet therein also we agree, as the conclusions fol­lowing will declare.

II. Conclus. The matters where about freewill is occupied are principally the acti­ons of men, which be of three sorts, naturall, humane, spirituall. Naturall actions are such as are cōmon to men with beasts, as to eate, drinke, sleepe, heare, see, smell, taste, and to mooue from place to place: in all which we ioyne with the Papists, and holde that man [Page 12] hath free will, and euen since the fall of Adam by a naturall power of the minde doth freely performe any of these actions or the like.

III. Conclus. Humane actions are such as are common to all men good and bad, as to speake and vse reason, the practise of all mechanicall and liberall artes, and the out­warde performance of civill and ecclesiasti­call duties, as to come to the Church, to speake, and preach the worde, to reach out the hande to receiue the sacrament, and to lende the eare to listen outwardly to that which is taught. And hither we may referre the outward actiōs of civill vertues; as name­ly, Iustice, temperance, gentlenes, liberalitie. And in these also we ioyne with the church of Rome, & say (as experience teacheth) that men haue a naturall freedome of will, to put them or not to put them in execution. Paul saith, Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles that haue not the law doe the things of the law BY NATVRE, that is, by naturall strength: and he saith of himselfe, that before his conuersion touch­ing the righteousnes of the law, he vvas vn­blame able, Phil. 3. 6. And for this externall o­bedience, [Page 13] naturall men receiue rewarde in temporall things. Mat. 6. 5. Ezech. 29. 19. And yet here some caueats must be remēbred, I. that in humane actions, mans will is weake and feeble, and his vnderstanding dimme & darke; and thereupon he often failes in them. And in all such actions with Augustine Id Hypogn. 3. vnderstand the wil of man to be onely woū ­ded or halfe dead. II. That the will of man is vnder the will of God, and therefore to be ordered by it; as Ieremie saith, chap. 10. v. 23. O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himselfe: neither is it in man to walke or di­rect his steppes.

IIII. Conclus. The third kind of actions are spirituall more neerely concerning the heart and conscience, and these be two fold: they either concerne the kingdome of dark­nes, or else the kingdome of God. Those that concerne the kingdome of darknes are sinnes properly: and in these we likewise ioyne with the Papists & teach, that in sinnes or euill actions man hath freedome of will. Some peraduenture will say, that we sinne necessarily, because he that sinneth can not [Page 14] but sinne: and that freewill and necessitie can not stand togither. Indeede the necessitie of compulsion or coaction, and freewill can not agree: but there is another kinde of necessitie which may stand with freedome of will: for some things may be done necessarily and al­so freely. A man that is in close prison, must needes there abide and cannot possibly get forth and walke where he will; yet can he mooue himselfe freely and walke within the prison: so likewise, though mans wil be chai­ned naturally by the bonds of sinne, & there­fore cannot but sinne: and thereupon sinneth necessarily, yet doth it also sinne freely.

V. Conclus. The second kind of spirituall actions or things, concerne the kingdome of God; as repentance, faith, the conuersion of a sinner, new obedience, and such like: in which we likewise in part ioyne with the Church of Rome and say, that in the first conuersion of a sinner, mans freewill con­curres with Gods grace, as a fellowe or co­worker in some sort. For in the conuersion of a sinner three things are required: the word, Gods spirit, and mans will: for mans [Page 15] will is not passiue in all and euery respect, but hath an action in the first conuersion and change of the soule. When any man is con­uerted, this worke of God is not done by compulsion, but he is conuerted willingly: and at the very time when he is conuerted, by Gods grace he wils his cōuersion. To this ende saide Augustine, He vvhich made thee Ser. 15. de verb. Apost. without thee, will not saue thee without thee. Again, that is certen, that our wil is required de grat. & [...] arbitr. 1. in this, that we may do any goodthing wel: but we haue it not from our owne povver but God workes to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace, at the same time hePosse velle, & actu velle recipere. giueth a will to desire & will the same grace: as for exāple when God works faith, at the same time he workes also vpon the will causing it to desire faith & willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing. God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will: because no man can re­ceiue grace vtterly against his will, conside­ring will constrained is no will. But here we must remember, that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spi­rit, and the willing of it in man goe togither: [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16] yet in regard of order, grace is first wrought, and mans will must first of all be acted and mooued by grace, & then it also acteth, wil­leth, and mooueth it selfe. And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Ro­mane church touching freewill: neither may we proceede further with them.

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.

III. Our Reasons.

Now for the confirmation of the do­ctrine we hold, namely, that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of him selfe by na­ture either in whole or in part, but by grace wholly and alone; these reasons may be vsed. The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption, which may be distinguished into two parts. The first is the want of that originall righteous­nes, which was in man by creation: the secōd is, a prones and inclination to that which is euill, and to nothing that is truely good. This appeareth Gen. 8. 21. The frame of mans heart (saith the Lord,) is euill euen from his childhood: that is, the disposition of the vn­derstanding, will, affections, with all that the heart of man deuiseth, f [...]rmeth, or imagi­neth, is wholly euil. And Paul saith, Rom. 8. 5. The wisdome of the flesh is ENMITIE against God. Which wordes are very significant: for the word [ [...]] translated vvisdome, sig­nifieth that the best thoughts, the best de­sires, affections, and indeauours that be in a­ny naturall man, euen those that come most [Page 20] neare to true holines, are not onely contrary to God, but euen enmitie it selfe. And hence I gather, that the very heart it selfe, that is, the will and minde, from whence these desires and thoughts doe come, are also enmitie vn­to God. For such as the action is, such is the facultie whence it proceedeth; such as the fruite is, such is the tree; such as the branches are such are the rootes. By both these places it is euident, that in man there is not onely a want, absence, or deprivation of originall righteousnes, but a prones also by nature vn­to that which is euill▪ which prones includes in it an inclination not to some fewe, but to all and euery sinne; the very sinne against the holy Ghost not excepted. Hence therefore I reason thus.

  • If euery man by nature doe both want ori­ginall iustice, and be also prone vnto all euill, then wanteth he natural free­will to will that which is truly good.
  • But euery man by nature wants originall iustice, and is also prone vnto all euil.
  • Ergo: Euery man naturally wants free­will, to will that which is good.

[Page 22]Reason II. 1. Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man PERCEIVETH NOT the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishnes vnto him, neither CAN HE KNOVVE them, because they are spiritually discerned. In these wordes Saint Paul sets downe these points: I that a naturall man doeth not so much as thinke of the things reuealed in the Gospell. II. that a man hearing, and in minde con­ceiuing them; can not giue consent vnto them▪ and by naturall indgement approoue of them, but contrariwise thinketh them to be foolishnesse. III. that no man can giue assent to the things of God, vnlesse he be en­lightened by the spirit of God. And hence I reason thus.

  • If a man by nature doth not knowe and per­ceiue the things of God: and when he shall know them, can not by nature giue assent vnto them: then hath he no pow­er to will them.
  • But the first is euidently true. Ergo.
  • For first the minde must approoue & giue assent, before the will can choose or will: and when the mind hath not power to con­ceiue [Page 22] nor giue assent, there the will hath no power to will.

Reason III. Thirdly the holy Ghost a­uoucheth, Eph. 2. [...]. Colloss. 2. 13. that all men by nature are dead in sinnes and trespasses: not as the Papists say, weak, sick, or half dead. Hence I gather, that mā wāteth naturall po­wer not to will simply, but freely and franck­ly to will that which is truly good. A dead mā in his graue cannot stirre the least finger, because he wāts the very power of life, sense, & motiō: no more can he that is dead in sin, will the least good nay if he could either will or do any good, he could not be dead in sinn. And as a dead mā in the graue, cānot rise but by the power of God; no more can he that is dead in sinne rise, but by the power of Gods grace alone, without any power of his owne.

Reason IV. Fourthly, in the conversion and saluation of a sinner, the scripture ascri­beth al to God, and nothing to mans freewil. Iohn 3. 3. Except a man be borne againe, he cannot see the kingdome of God. Eph. 2. 10. We are his worekmanship CREATED in Christ [Page 23] Iesus to good workes. And c. 4. v. 24. the nevv man is CREATED to the image of God. Nowe to be borne againe, is a worke of no lesse im­portance then our first creation; and there­fore wholly to be ascribed to God as our creation is. Indeede Paul, Philip. 2. 12. 13. bid­deth the Philippians worke out their saluati­on with feare and trembling: not meaning to ascribe vnto them a power of doing good by themselues. And therefore in the next verse he addeth, It is God that worketh both the will and the deede: directly excluding all naturall freewill in things spirituall: and yet withall he acknowledgeth, that mans will hath a worke in doing that which is good, not by nature but by grace. Because when God giues man power to will good things, then he can will them: and when he giueth him a power to doe good, then he can doe good, and he doth it. For though there be not in mans conuersion a naturall coopera­tion of his will with Gods spirit, yet is there a supernaturall cooperation by grace, ena­bling man when he is to be conuerted, to will his conuersion: according to which S. [Page 24] Paul saith, 1. Cor. 15. 10. I haue laboured in the faith: but least any man should imagine, that this was done by any naturall power: there­fore he addeth▪ yet not I, that is, not I by any thing in me, but Gods grace in me, inabling my will to doe the good I doe.

Reason V. The iudgement of the aunci­ent Church. August. de correp. & grat. c. 12. August. The will of the rege­nerate is kindled onely by the holy Ghost: that they may therefore be able because they will thus: and they will thus, because God VVORKES IN THEM TO VVILL. And, Epist. 105. We haue LOST OVR FREEVVILL to loue God by the greatnes of our sinne. Serm. 2. on the words of the Apostle. Man when he was created, receiue a great strēgth in his freewil: but by sinning HE LOST IT. Fulgent. lib. Prad. Fulgētius, God giueth grace freely to the vnvvorthy, whereby the wicked man being iustified is inlightened, VVITH THE GIFT OF GOOD VVILL, and with a FACVLTIE OF DOING GOOD: that by mercy preventing him, he may BEGIN TO VVILL VVEL, and by mercy cō ­ming after he may doe the good he will. Ber­nard saith, Bernard. l. de lib [...]ro ar­bitrio. It is VVHOLLY THE GRACE OF GOD that we are created, healed, saued. Council. [Page 25] Arausic. 2. cap. 6. To beleeue and to vvill is GIVEN from aboue by INFVSION, and inspira­tion of the holy Ghost. More testimonies and reasons might be alleadged to prooue this conclusion, but these shall suffice: now let vs see what reasons are alledged to the cōtrary.

III. Obiections of Papists.

Obiect. I. First they alledge that man by nature may doe that which is good, & ther­fore will that which is good: for none can doe that which he neither willeth nor thin­keth to doe, but first he must will and then doe. Nowe (say they) men can doe good by nature, as giue almes, speake the trueth, doe iustice, and practise other duties of ciuill ver­tue: and therfore will that which is good. I ansvver, that a naturall man may do good workes for the substance of the outwarde worke: but not in regard of the goodnes of the manner: these are two diuers things. A man without supernaturall grace may giue almes, do iustice, speake the truth, &c. which be good things considered in themselues as God hath commanded them; but he cannot [Page 26] doe them well. To thinke good things and to doe good things are naturall workes: but to think good things in a good manner, and to doe them well, so as God may accept the action done, are works of grace. And there­fore the good thing done by a naturall man is a sinne, in respect of the doer: because it failes both for his right beginning, which is a pure heart, good conscience, and faith vn­fained; as also for his ende which is the glory of God.

Obiect. II. God hath commaunded all men to beleeue and repent: therefore they haue natural free wil, by vertue whereof (be­ing helped by the spirit of God) they can be­leeue and repent. Ansvv. This reason is not good: for by such commaundements God sheweth not what men are able to doe; but what they should do, and what they can not doe. Againe, the reason is not well framed, it ought rather to be thus: Because God giues men commaundement to repent and beleeue, therefore they haue power to re­pent & beleeue, either by nature or by grace: & then we hold with them. For when God [Page 27] in the Gospell commaundeth men to repent and to beleeue, at the same time by his grace he inableth them both to will or desire to beleeue and repent, as also actually to repent and beleeue.

Obiect. III. If man haue no freewill to sinne or not to sinne, then no man is to be punished for his sinnes: because he sinneth by a necessitie not to be auoided. Ansvv. The reason is not good: for though man can not but sinne, yet is the fault in himselfe, & there­fore he is to be punished: as a bankrupt is not therefore freed from his debts, because he is not able to pay them: but the bils against him stande in force, because the debt comes tho­rough his owne default.

The second point: of Ori­ginall sinne.

The next point to be handled, is concer­ning Originall sinne after baptisme: that is, how farforth it remaineth after baptisme. A point to be well considered, because hereup­on depend many points of poperie.


I. Our consent.

I. Conclus. They say, naturall corruption after baptisme is abolished, and so say we: but let vs see how farre it is abolished. In origi­nall sinne are three things: I. the punishment, which is the first and second death. II. Guil­tines, which is the binding vp of the crea­ture vnto punishment. III. the fault or the offending of God, vnder which I compre­hend our Guiltines in Adams first offence, as also the Corruption of the heart: which is, a naturall inclination & pronesse to any thing that is euill or against the law of God. For the first we say, that after baptisme in the re­generate, the punishment of originall sinne is taken away: There is no condemnation (saith the Apostle) to them that be in Christ Iesus. Rom. 8. 1. For the second, that is the guiltines, we further condescende and say; that is also taken away in them that are borne anew: for considering there is no condemnation to them, there is nothing to binde them to pu­nishment. Yet this caueat must be remem­bred, namely that the guiltines is remooued [Page 29] from the person regenerate, not from the sinne in the person; but of this more after­ward. Thirdly, the guilt in Adās first offence is pardoned. And touching the corruption of the heart, I auouch two things: I. That, that very power or strength wherby it raig­neth in man, is taken away in the regenerate. II. That this corruption is abolished (as al­so the fault of euery actuall sinne past) so farre forth as it is the fault and sinne of the man in whome it is. Indeede it remaines till death, and it is sinne considered in it selfe, so long as it remaines, but it is not imputed vnto the person: and in that respect is as though it were not; it beeing pardoned.

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.

Obiections of Papists.

The arguments which the Church of Rome alleadgeth to the contrarie, are these. Obiect. I. In baptisme men receiue perfect [Page 34] and absolute pardon of sinne; and sinne being pardoned is taken quite away: and therefore originall sinne after baptisme ceaseth to be sinne. Ans. Sinne is abolished two waies: first in regard of quoadim­putationem. imputatiō to the person: secōd­ly in regard of quoad ex­ [...]tiam. existing and beeing. For this cause, God vouchsafeth to mā two blessings in baptisme, Remission of sinne, and Mortifi­cation of the same. Remission or pardon a­bolisheth sinne wholly in respect of any im­putation thereof vnto man, but not simply in regard of the beeing thereof. Mortification therfore goeth further, & abolisheth in all the powers of bodie and soule, the very concu­piscence or corruption it selfe, in respect of the beeing thereof. And because mortificati­on is not accomplished till death, therefore originall corruption remaineth till death, though not imputed.

Obiect. II. Euery sinne is voluntarie; but original sinne in no man after baptisme is vo­luntarie: and therefore no sinne. Ans. The proposition is a politicke rule pertaining to the courts of men, and must be vnderstoode of such actions as are done of one man to an [Page 35] other: and it doth not belong to the court of conscience, which God holdeth & keepeth in mens hearts, in which euery want of con­formitie to the law is made a sinne. Secondly I answer, that originall sinne was voluntarie in our first parent Adam: for he sinned, and brought this miserie vpon vs willingly: though in vs it be otherwise vpon iust cause. Actuall sinne was first in him, and then origi­nall corruption: but in vs originall corrupti­on is first, and then actuall sinne.

Obiect. III. Where the forme of any thing is taken away, there the thing it selfe ceaseth also: but after baptisme in the rege­nerate, the forme of originall sinne, that is, the guilt is quite remooued: and therefore sinne ceaseth to be sinne. Answ. The guilt, or obligation to punishment, is not the forme of originall corruption, but (as wee say in schooles) an accident or necessarie compa­nion thereof. The true forme of originall sinne, is a defect and depriuation of that which the law requireth at our hands in our minde, will, affections, and in all the powers both of soule and bodie. But they vrge this [Page 36] reason further, saying; where the guilt and punishment is taken away, there is no fault remaining: but after baptisme the guilt and punishment is remooued: and therefore, though originall corruption remaine, it is not as a fault to make vs guiltie before God, but onely as a weaknes. Ans. Guilt is remoo­ued, and not remooued. It is remooued frō the person regenerate, which stands not guil­tie for any sinne originall or actuall: but guilt is not remooued from the sinne it selfe; or, as some answer, there be two kindes of guilt, a­ctuall, and potentiall. The actuall guilt is, whereby sinne maketh man stand guiltie be­fore God: and that is remooued in the rege­nerate. But the potentiall guilt, which is an aptnes in sinne, to make a man stand guiltie if he sinne, that is not remooued: and therefore still sinne remaineth sinne. To this or like ef­fect saith Augustine, contra Iu [...]. l. 6. c. 6. We say that the guilt of concupiscence, not whereby IT IS GVILTIE (for that is not a person) but that whereby it made man guiltie from the beginning, is par­doned, and that the thing it SELFE IS EVILL so as the regenerate desire to be healed of this plague.

Obiect. III. Lastly, for our disgrace they al­ledge that we in our doctrine teach, that ori­ginall sinne after baptisme is onely clipped or pared, like the haire of a mans head, whose roots still remaine in the flesh, growing and increasing after they are cut, as before. Ans. Our doctrine is abused: for in the paring of any thing▪ as in cutting of the haire or in lop­ping a tree, the root remains vntouched, and thereupon multiplieth as before. But in the mortification of originall sinne after bap­tisme, we hold no such paring: but teach, that in the very first instant of the conuersion of a sinner, sinne receiueth his deadly wound in the roote, neuer afterward to be recouered.

The third point: Certentie of saluation.

I. Our consent.

I. Conclus. We holde and beleeue that a man in this life, may be certen of saluation: and the same thing doth the Church of Rome teach and hold.

II. Conclus. We holde and beleeue that [Page 38] a man is to put a certen affiance in Gods mer­cie in Christ for the saluation of his soule: & the same thing by common consent holdeth the foresaide Church: this point maketh not the difference betweene vs.

III. Conclus. We hold that with assu­rance of saluation in our hearts is ioyned doubting: and there is no man so assured of his saluation, but he at some time doubteth thereof, especially in the time of temptation: and in this the Papists agree with vs, and we with them.

IV. Conclus. They goe further and say, that a man may be certen of the saluation of men, or of the Church by catholike faith: and so say we.

V. Conclus. Yea they hold that a man by faith may be assured of his owne saluation through extraordinarie reuelation, as Abra­ham and others were, and so doe we.

VI. They teach that we are to be certen of our saluation by speciall faith in regard ofe Bellar. l. 3. pag. 1129. cl. God that promiseth: though in regard of our selues and our indisposition we can not: & in the former point they consent with vs.

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.

III. Obiections of papists.

Obiect. I. Where there is no worde there is no faith: for these two are relatiues: but there is no word of God saying, Corne­lius beleeue thou, Peter beleeue thou: or thou shalt be saued. And therefore there is no such ordinarie faith to beleeue a mans owne particular saluation. Ans. The proposition is false, vnlesse it be supplied with a clause on this manner. Where there is no vvord of pro­mise, nor any thing that doth counter­vaile a particular promise, there is no faith. But (say they) there is no such particular word. It is true, God doth not speake to men particularly, Beleeue thou, and thou shalt be saued. But yet doth he that which is answe­rable hereunto, in that he giueth a generall promise, with a commaundement to applie the same: and hath ordained the holy mini­sterie of the word to applie the same to the persons of the hearers in his own name: and that is as much as if the Lord himselfe should speake to men particularly. To speake more plainely, in the Scripture the promises of sal­uation [Page 41] be indefinitely propounded; it saith not any where, if Iohn will beleeue he shall be saued, or if Peter will beleeue he shall be saued: but whosoeuer beleeueth shall be sa­ued. Now then comes the minister of the word, who standing in the roome of God, and in the stead of Christ him selfe, takes the indefinite promises of the Gospell, and laies them to the hearts of euery particular man: and this in effect is as much as if Christ him­selfe should say, Cornelius beleeue thou, and thou shalt be saued: Peter beleeue thou, and thou shalt be saued. It is answered, that this applying of the Gospell is vpon condition of mens faith and repentance, and that men are deceived touching their owne faith and re­pentance: and therefore faile in applying the word vnto themselues. Answ. Indeede this manner of applying is false in all hypocrits, heretickes, and vnrepentant persons: for they apply vpon carnall presumption, and not by faith. Neuerthelesse it is true in all the Elect hauing the spirit of grace, and praier: for when God in the ministerie of the word be­ing his owne ordinance, saith, Seeke ye my [Page 42] face: the heart of Gods children truly answe­reth, O Lord, I will seeke thy face. Psal. 17. 8. And when God shall say, Thou art my peo­ple, they shall say againe: The Lord is my God, Zach. 13. 6. And it is a truth of God, that he which beleeueth knoweth that he belee­ueth: and he that truly repenteth knoweth that he repenteth; vnles it be in the beginning of our conuersiou, and in the time of distresse and temptation. Otherwise what thankful­nes can there be for grace receiued.

Obiect. II. It is no article of the Creed, that a man must beleeue his owne saluation: and therefore no man is bound thereto. Ans. By this argument it appeares plainely, that the very pillars of the Church of Rome doe not vnderstand the Creed: for in that which is commonly called the Apostles Creede, e­uery article implieth in it this particular faith. And in the first article, I beleeue in God, are three things contained: the first, to beleeue that there is a God, the second to beleeue the same God is my God, the third to put my confidence in him for my saluation: and so much containe the other articles, which are [Page 43] concerning God. When Thomas said, Ioh. 20. 28. 29. My God, Christ answered, Thou hast beleeued Thomas. Where we see that to be­leeue in God, is to beleeue God to be our God. And Psal. 78. v. 22. to beleeue in God & to put trust in him are all one, They beleeued not in God, and trusted not in his helpe. And the articles concerning Remission of sinnes and Life euerlasting, doe include, and we in them acknowledge our speciall faith con­cerning our owne saluation. For to beleeue this or that, is to beleeue there is such a thing, and that the same thing belongs to me: as when Dauid said, I should haue fainted ex­cept I had beleeued to see the goodnes of the Lord in the land of the liuing. Psal. 27. 13. It is answered, that in those articles we onely professe our selues to beleeue remission of sinnes, and life euerlasting, to be vouchsafed to the people and Church of god. Ans. This indeed is the exposition of many, but it stāds not with common reason. For if that be [...]ll the faith that is there confessed, the deuil hath as good a faith as we. He knoweth and be­leeueth that there is a god: & that this god [Page 44] imparteth remission of sinnes and life euer­lasting to his Church. And to the ende that we beeing Gods children, may in faith goe beyond all the deuils in hell, we must further beleeue, that remission of sinnes and life euer­lasting belongs vnto vs: and vnlesse we doe particularly apply the said articles vnto our selues, we shall little or nothing differ from the deuill, in making confession of faith.

Obiect. III. We are taught to pray for the pardon of our sinnes day by day, Math. 6. 12. and all this were needlesse, if we could be assured of pardon in this life. Ans. The fourth petition must be vnderstoode not so much of our old debts or sinns, as of our pre­sent & new sinnes: for as we go on frō day to day, so we adde sinne to sinne; and for the pardon of them must we humble our selues and pray. I answer againe, that we pray for the pardon of our sinnes: not because we haue no assurance thereof, but because our assurāce is weake & smale; we grow on from grace to grace in Christ, as children do to mans estate by little & little. The heart of euery beleeuer is like a vessell with a nar­rowe [Page 45] necke, which being cast into the sea is not filled at the first; but by reason of the straight passage, receiueth water droppe by droppe. God giueth vnto vs in Christ euen a sea of mercy, but the same on our parts is ap­prehended and receiued onely by little and little, as faith groweth from age to age: and this is the cause why men hauing assurance pray for more.

Our reasons to the contrarie.

Reason. I. The first reason may be taken from the nature of faith on this maner. True faith is both an vnfallible assurance and a particular assurance of the remission of sinns and of life euerlasting. And therefore by this faith, a man may be certenly and parti­cularly assured of the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting. That this reason may be of force, two things must be prooued: first that true faith is a certen assurance of Gods mercy to that partie in whome it is. Secondly that faith is a particular assurance thereof. For the first that faith is a certen assurance, Christ saith to Peter, Mat. 14. 31. O thou of litle faith, [Page 46] wherfore diddest thou doubt. Where he ma­keth an opposition betweene faith & doub­ting: thereby giuing vs directly to vnder­stand, that, To be certen, & To giue assurāce is of the nature of faith. Rom. 4. 20. 22. Paul saith of Abraham, that he did not doubt of the promise of God through vnbeleefe: but was strengthened in faith, and gaue glorie to God, being fully assured, that he which had promised was able to doe it: where I ob­serue first, that doubting is made a fruite of vnbeleefe; and therefore vnfallible certentie and assurance, being contrarie to doubting must needes proceed from true faith; consi­dering that contrary effects come of contra­rie causes: and contrarie causes produce con­trary effects. Secōdly I note that the strēgth of Abrahams faith, did stād in fulnesse of as­surance: for the text saith, he was strengthe­ned in the faith, being fully assured: & againe Heb. 11. 1. true saving faith is said to be the ground and subsistance of things hoped for: & the euidence or demonstration of things that are not seene: but faith can be no groūd or euidence of things, vnles it be for nature [Page 47] certentie it selfe: & thus the first point is ma­nifest. The second, that sauing faith is a parti­cular assurance, is prooued by this, that the propertie of faith is to apprehend and applie the promise, and the thing promised, Christ with his benefits. Ioh. 1. 12. As many, saith S. Iohn, as receiued him, to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God, namely to them that beleeue in his name. In these wordes to beleeue in Christ, and to receiue Christ, are put for one and the same thing. Now to re­ceiue Christ, is to apprehend and apply him with all his benefits vnto our selues, as he is offered in the promises of the Gospell. For in the sixt chapter following, first of all he sets forth himselfe not onely as a Redeemer generally, but also as the bread of life and the water of life: secondly he sets forth his best hearers as eaters of his body and drinkers of his blood: and thirdly he intends to prooue this conclusion, that to eate his bodie and to drinke his blood, and to beleeue in him, are all one. Now then if Christ be as foode, and if to eate and drinke the body and blood of Christ, be to beleeue in him, then must there [Page 48] be a proportion betweene eating and belee­uing. Looke then as there can be no eating without taking or receiuing of meate, so no beleeuing in Christ without a spirituall re­ceiuing and apprehending of him. And as the bodie hath his hand, mouth, & stomack, whereby it taketh, receiueth, and digesteth meate for the nourishment of euery part: so likewise in the soule there is a faith, which is both hand, mouth, and stomacke to appre­hend, receiue, and apply Christ and all his merits for the nourishment of the soule. And Paul saith yet more plainely, that through faith we receiue the promise of the spirit. Gal. 3. 14.

Nowe as the propertie of apprehen­ding and applying of Christ belongeth to faith, so it agreeth not to hope, loue, confi­dence, of any other gift or grace of God. But first by faith we must apprehend Christ, and apply him to our selues, before we can haue any hope or confidence in him. And this ap­plying seems not to be don by any affectiō of the wil, but by a supernatural act of the mind, which is to acknowledge, set downe, and beleeue that remission of sinnes, and life euer­lasting [Page 49] by the merit of Christ, belong to vs particularly. To this which I haue said a­greeth Augustine Tract. 25. on Ioh. why pre­parest thou teeth & belly: BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN. and Tract. 50. How shall I reach my hand into heauen, that I may hold him sitting there? Send vp thy faith, and thou lai­est hold on him. And Bernard saith, homil. in Cant. 76. Where he is thou canst not come now—; yet goe to followe him and seeke him—: beleeue and thou hast found him: for TO BELEEVE IS TO FINDE. Chrysost. on Mark. Homil. 10. Let vs beleeue and we see Iesus present before vs. Ambr. on Luke lib. 6. cap. 8. By faith Christ is touched, by faith Christ is seene. Tertul. de resurrect. carnis. he must be chewed by vnderstanding, and be di­gested by faith.

Reason II. Whatsoeuer the holy Ghost testifieth vnto vs, that we may, yea that we must certenly by faith beleeue: but the holy Ghost doth particularly testifie vnto vs our adoption, the remission of our sinnes, and the saluation of our soules: and therefore we may and must particularly and certenly by [Page 50] faith beleeue the same. The first part of this reason is true, and cannot be denyed of any. The second part is prooued thus: Saint Paul saith. Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare: but the spirit of a­doption, whereby we crie Abba, father: ad­ding further, that the same spirit beareth witnes with our spirits, that we are the chil­dren of God. Where the Apostle maketh two witnesses of our adoption: the spirit of God, and our spirits, that is, the conscience sanctified by the holy Ghost. The Papists to elude this reason, alleadge that the spirit of God doth indeede witnes of our adoption, by some comfortable feelings of Gods loue and fauour, beeing such as are weake and of­tentimes deceitfull. But by their leaues, the testimony of the Spirit is more then a bare sense or feeling of Gods grace: for it is called the pledge and earnest of Gods spirit in our hearts. 2. Cor. 1. 21. and therefore it is fit to take away all occasion of doubting of our saluation: as in a bargaine the earnest is giuen betweene the parties, to put all out of questi­stion. Bernara saith, that the testimony of the [Page 51] spirit is a most sure testimony. Epist. 107.

Reason III. That which we must pray for by Gods commandement, that we must beleeue: but euery man is to pray for the pardon of his owne sinnes, and for life euer­lasting; of this there is no question: therefore he is bound to beleeue the same. The pro­position is most of all doubtfull: but it is pro­ued thus. In euery petition there must be two things: a desire of the things we aske, and a particular faith whereby we beleeue, that the thing we aske shall be giuen vnto vs. So Christ saith, Whatsoeuer ye desire when Mark. 11. 24. you pray, beleeue that you shall haue it, and it shall be giuen vnto you And Saint Iohn fur­ther noteth out this particular faith, calling it our assurance that God will giue vnto vs. whatsoeuer vve aske according to his vvill. 1. Ioh. 5. 14. And hence it is, that in euery petition there must be two grounds: a commandement to warrant vs in making a petition, and a pro­mise to assure vs of the accomplishment thereof. And vpon both these, followes ne­cessarily an application of the things we aske to our selues.

[Page 52]Reason IIII. Whatsoeuer God com­mandeth in the Gospell, that a man must and can performe: but God in the Gospel com­mandeth vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinnes: and life euerlasting: and there­fore we must beleeue thus much, and may be assured thereof. This proposition is plaine by the distinction of the commandements, of the lawe, and of the Gospel. The commā ­dements of the lawe shewe vs what we must doe, but minister no power to performe the thing to be done: but the doctrine & com­mandements of the Gospel doe otherwise; and therefore they are called spirit and life; god with the commandement giuing graceIoh. 6. [...]6. that the thing prescribed may be don. Now this is a commandement of the gospel, to be­leeue remission of sinnes: for it was the sub­stance of Christs ministerie, repent and be­leeue the Gospel. And that is not generally to beleeue that Christ is a Sauiour, and that the promises made in him are true (for so the de­uills beleeue with trembling:) but it is parti­cularly to beleeue that Christ is my Sauiour, and that the promises of saluation in Christ [Page 53] belong in speciall to me, as Saint Iohn saith: This is his commandement, that we beleeue in the name of Iesus Christ: now to beleeue in Christ is to put confidence in him; which none can doe, vnlesse he be first assured of his loue and fauour. And therefore in as much, as we are inioyned to put our confidence in Christ, we are also inioyned to beleeue our reconciliation with him, which standeth in the remission of our sinnes, and our accepta­tion to life euerlasting.

Reason V. Whereas the Papists teach, that a man may be assured of his saluation by hope: euen hence it followes, that he may be vnfallibly assured thereof. For the proper­tie of true and liuely hope is neuer to make a man ashamed. Rom. 5. 5. And true hope fol­loweth faith and euer presupposeth certen­ty of faith: neither can any man truly hope for his saluation vnlesse by faith he be certen­ly assured thereof in some measure.

The popish doctors take exception to these reasons on this manner. First they say, it cannot be proued that a man is as certen of his saluation by faith, as he is of the articles of [Page 54] the creed. I answ. First they proue thus much that we ought to be as certē of the one as of the other. For looke, what commandement we haue to beleeue the articles of our faith; the like we haue inioyning vs to beleeue the pardon of our owne sinns, as I haue proued. Secondly these arguments prooue it to be the nature of essentiall propertie of faith, as certenlie to assure man of his saluation, as it doth assure him of the articles which he be­leeueth. And howesoeuer commonly men doe not beleeue their saluation as vnfallible, as they doe their articles of faith: yet some speciall men doe; hauing Gods word applyed by the spirit as a sure ground of their faith, whereby they beleeue their owne saluation, as they haue it for a ground of the articles of their faith. Thus certenly was Abraham as­sured of his owne saluation: as also the Pro­phets and Apostles, & the martyrs of God in all ages; wherevpon without doubting they haue bin content to lay downe their liues for the name of Christ; in whome they were as­sured to receiue eternall happines. And there is no question, but there be many nowe, that [Page 55] by long and often experience of Gods mer­cy, and by the inward certificate of the ho [...] Ghost, haue attained to a full assurance of their saluation.

II. Exception. Howesoeuer a man may be assured of his present estate, yet no man is certē of his perseuerance vnto the end. Ans. It is otherwise: for in the sixt petition, lead vs not into temptation, we praie that God would not suffer vs to be wholly ouer­come of the deuill in any temptation: and to this petition we haue a promise answerable, 1. Cor. 10. That God with the temptation will giue an issue: and therefore howsoeuer the deuill may buffit, molest, and wound the seruants of God, yet shall he neuer be able to ouercome them. Againe he that is once a member of Christ, can neuer be wholly cut off. And if any by sinne were wholly seuered from Christ for a time, in his recouery he is to be baptised the second time: for baptisme is the sacrament of initiation or ingrafting into Christ. By this reason we should as of­ten be baptised as we fall into any sinn, which is absurd. Againe S. Iohn saith, 1. Ioh. 2. 19. [Page 56] They went out from vs, but they were not of vs: for if they had beene of vs, they would haue continued with vs. Where he taketh it for granted, that such as be once in Christ, shall neuer wholly be seuered or fall from him. Though our communion with Christ may be lessened, yet the vnion & the bond of coniunction is neuer dissolued.

III. Exception. They say, we are indeede to beleeue our saluation on gods part: but we must needs doubt in regard of our selues: because the promises of remission of sinnes are giuen vpon condition of mans faith and repentance. Now we cannot (say they) be as­sured that we haue true faith and repentance, because we may lie in secret sinnes; and so want that indeede, which we suppose our selues to haue▪ Ansvv. I say againe, he that doth truly repent and beleeue, doth by Gods grace know that he doth repent & beleeue: for els Paul would neuer haue said, Proove your selues whither you be in the faith or not: and the same Apostle saith, 2. Cor. 12. We haue not receiued the spirit of the world, but the spirit vvhich is of God, that we might [Page 57] KNOVV THE THINGS VVHICH ARE GIVEN OF GOD: which things are not onely life euer­lasting, but iustification, sanctification, and such like. And as for secret sinnes, they can­not make our repentance voide: for he that truly repenteth of his knowne sinnes, repen­teth also of such as be vnknowne, and recei­ueth the pardon of them all. God requireth not an expresse or speciall repentance of vn­knowne sinnes; but accepts it as sufficient, if we repent of them generally: as Dauid saith, Psal. 19. Who knowes the errours of this life: forgiue me my secret sinnes. And whereas they adde that faith and repentance must be sufficient. I answer that the sufficiencie of our faith and repentance, standes in the truth and not in the measure or perfection therof; and the truth of both where they are, is cer­tenly discerned.

Reason VI. The iudgement of the aun­cient Church. de verbis Dei. serm. 28. August. Of an euill seruant thou art made a good childe: therefore PRE­SVME not of thine ovvne doing, but of the grace of Christ: it is not arrogācy BVT FAITH: to acknowledge what thou hast receiued, is not [Page 58] pride but deuotion. And, Tract. 5. epist. Ioh. Let no man aske an other man, but returne to his owne heart; if he finde charitie there, he HATH SECVRITIE for his passage from life to death. Hilar. on Math. 5. The kingdome of heauen vvhich our Lord professed to be in himselfe, his vvillis that it must be hoped for VVITHOVT ANY DOVBTFVLNES OF VNCERTEN VVIL. Other­wise there is no iustification by faith, if faith it selfe be MADE DOVBTFVLL. Bernard. epist. 107. Who is the iust man but he that beeing loued of God, loues him againe: vvhich comes not to passe but by the SPIRIT REVEALING BY FAITH the eternall PVRPOSE OF GOD of his SALVATION to come. Which reuelation is no­thing els but the infusion of spirituall grace; by which, when the deedes of the flesh are mor­tified the man is prepared to the kingdome of heauen—. Togither receiuing in one spirit that whereby he MAY PRESVME that he is lo­ued and also loue againe—.

To conclude, the Papists haue no great cause to dissent from vs in this point. For they teach and professe, that they doe by a speciall faith beleeue their owne saluation [Page 59] certenly and vnfallibly in respect of God, that promiseth. Now the thing which hindereth them is their owne indisposition and vn­worthines (as they say) which keepes them from beeing certen otherwise then in a like­ly hope. But this hindrance is easily remoo­ued, if men will iudge indifferently. For first of all, in regard of our selues and our disposi­tion we cannot be certen at all, but must de­spaire of saluation euen to the very death. We cannot be sufficiently disposed so long as we liue in this world, but must alwaies say with Iacob, I am lesse then all thy mer­cies, Gen. 32. and with Dauid, Enter not into iudgement vvith thy seruant, O Lord, for none liuing shall be iustified in thy sight: and with the Centurion, Lord I am not worthie, that thou shouldest come vnder my roofe, Matth. 8. Secondly God in making promise of saluation respects not mens worthinesse. For he chose vs to life euerlasting when we were not: he redeemed vs from death bee­ing enemies: and intitles vs to the promise of saluation, if vve acknovvledge our selues to be sinners, Matth. 9. If vve labour and tra­uaile [Page 60] vnder the burden of them. Matth. 11. If we hunger and thirst after grace. Ioh. 7. 37. And these things we may certenly and sen­sibly perceiue in our selues: and when wee finde them in vs, though our vnworthines be exceeding great, it should not hinder our assurance. For God makes manifest his pow­er in our weaknes, 2. Cor. 12. and he will not breake the bruised reede, nor quench the smoking flaxe. Isa. 42. Thirdly if a man loue God for his mercies sake, and haue a true hope of saluation by Christ, he is in Christ and hath fellowship with him: and he that is in Christ, hath all his vnworthines & wants laid on Christ, and they are couered and par­doned in his death: and in respect of our selues thus cōsidered AS VVE ARE IN CHRIST, we haue no cause to wauer, but to be certen of our saluatiō, & that in regard of our selues.

The fourth point: touching the iustification of a sinner.

That we may see how farre we are to a­gree with them and where to differ: first I [Page 61] will set downe the doctrine on both parts: & secondly the maine differences wherein we are to stande against them, euen to death.

Our doctrine touching the iustification of a sinner, I propound in fowre rules.

Rule I. That, iustification is an action of God, whereby he absolueth a sinner, and ac­cepteth him to life euerlasting for the righ­teousnes and merit of Christ.

Rule II. That, iustification stands in two things: first in the remission of sinnes by the merit of Christ his death: secondly in the im­putation of Christ his righteousnes; which is an other action of God whereby he accoun­teth and esteemeth that righteousnes which is in Christ, as the righteousnes of that sinner which beleeueth in him. By Christ his righ­teousnes we are to vnderstand two things: first his sufferings specially in his death and passion, secondly his obedience in fulfilling the law; both which goe togither: for Christ in suffering obeied▪ & obeying suffered. And the very shedding of his blood to which our saluation is ascribed, must not onely be con­sidered, as it is passiue, that is, a suffering, but [Page 62] also as it is actiue, that is, an obedience, in which he shewed his exceeding loue both to his father and vs, and thus fulfilled the law for vs. This point if some had well thought on, they would not haue placed all iustification in remission of sinnes, as they doe.

Rule III. That, iustification is from Gods meere mercie and grace, procured onely by the merit of Christ.

Rule IV. That, man is iustified by faith alone; because faith is that alone instrument created in the heart by the holy ghost, wher­by a sinner laieth holde of Christ his righte­ousnes, and applieth the same vnto himselfe. There is neither hope, nor loue, nor any o­ther grace of God within man, that can doe this, but faith alone.

The doctrine of the Romane Church touching the iustification of a sinner is on this manner.

I. They holde that before iustification there goes a preparation thereunto; which is an action wrought partly by the holy Ghost and partly by the power of naturall freewill, whereby a man disposeth himselfe [Page 63] to his owne future iustification.

In the preparation they consider the ground of iustification, and things pro­ceeding from it. The ground is faith, which they define to be a generall knowledge, whereby wee vnderstande and beleeue that the doctrine of the word of God is true. Things proceeding from this faith are these; a sight of our sinnes, a feare of hell, hope of saluation, loue of God, repentance, and such like: all which, when men haue attained, they are then fully disposed (as they say) to their iu­stification.

This preparation being made, then comes iustification it selfe: which is an action of God, whereby he maketh a man righteous. It hath two parts: the first, and the second. The first is, when a sinner of an euill man is made a good man. And to effect this, two things are required: first the pardon of sinne, which is one part of the first iustification: se­condly the infusion of inward righteousnes, whereby the heart is purged and sanctified: and this habite of righteousnes stands speci­ally in hope and charitie.

[Page 64]After the first iustification, followeth the second; which is, when a man of a good or iust man, is made better and more iust: & this, say they, may proceed from works of grace: because he which is righteous by the first iu­stification, can bring forth good works: by the merit wherof, he is able to make himselfe more iust and righteous: and yet they graunt that the first iustification commeth onely of Gods mercie by the merit of Christ.

1. Our consent and difference.

Now let vs come to the points of diffe­rence betweene vs and them touching iusti­fication.

The first maine difference is in the matter thereof, which shall be seene by the answer both of Protestant and Papist to this one question. What is the very thing, that cau­seth a man to stand righteous before God, and to be accepted to life euerlasting? we answer, Nothing but the righteousnesse of Christ, which consisteth partly in his sufferings, and partly in his actiue obedience in fulfilling the rigour of the law. And heare let vs consider, [Page 65] how neare the Papists come to this answer, and wherein they dissent.

Consent I. They graunt, that in Iustifica­tiō sinne is pardoned by the merits of Christ, & that none can be iustified without remis­sion of sinnes: and that is well.

II. They graunt, that the righteousnesse whereby a man is made righteous before God, commeth from Christ, & from Christ alone.

III. The most learned among them say, that Christ his satisfaction, and the me­rit of his death is imputed to euery sinner that doth beleeue, for Bellar. d [...] Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 7. his satisfaction before God: and hitherto we agree.

The very point of difference is this, we hould that the satisfaction made by Christ in his death, and obedience to the lawe; is imputed to vs and becomes our righteous­nes. They say, it is our satisfaction and not our righteousnes whereby we stand righ­teous before God: because it is inherent in the person of Christ as in a subiect. Now the an­swere of the Papist to the former question is on this manner: The thing (saith he) that ma­keth [Page 66] vs righteous before God, and causeth vs to be accepted to life euerlasting, is re­mission of sinnes, and the habite of inward righteousnes, or charitie with the fruits ther­of. We condescend and graunt that the ha­bite of righteousnes, which we call sanctifi­cation is an excellent gift of God: and hath his reward of God: and is the matter of our iustification before men: because it serueth to declare vs to be reconciled to God, and to be iustified: yet we denie it to be the thing, which maketh vs of sinners to become righ­teous or iust before God.

And this is the first point of our disa­greement in the matter of iustificatiō: which must be marked: because if there were no more points of difference betweene vs, this one alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting of our religiōs: for hereby the church of Rome doth race the very founda­tion.

Now let vs see by what reasons we iusti­fie our doctrine: and secondly answere the contrary obiections.

Our Reasons.

Reason I. That very thing which must be our righteousnes before God, must satisfie the iustice of the lawe, which saith, doe these things and thou shalt liue. Now there is nothing can satisfie the iustice of the lawe but the righteousnes or obedience of Christ for vs. If any alleadge civill iustice it is no­thing: for Christ saith, Except your righte­ousnesse exceede the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharises, you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen. What? shall we say that workes doe make vs iust? that can not be: for all mens workes are defectiue in re­spect of the iustice of the lawe. Shall we say our sanctification, whereby we are renew­ed to the image of God in righteousnes and true holinesse? that also is imperfect and can­not satisfie Gods iustice required in the law: as Isai hath saide of himselfe and the people, all our righteousnes is as a menstruous cloath. To haue a cleare conscience before God is a principall part of inward righteousnes; and of it Paul in his owne person saith thus, I am [Page 68] priuie to nothing by my selfe, yet am I not iu­stified thereby, 2. Cor. 4. 4. Therfore nothing can procure vnto vs an absolution and ac­ceptance to life euerlasting, but Christs im­puted righteousnes. And this will appeare, if we doe consider, how we must come one day before Gods iudgement seate, there to be iudged in the rigour of iustice: for whē we must bring some thing that may counter­vaile the iustice of God: not hauing onely ac­ceptation in mercy, but also approbation in iustice: God beeing not onely mercifull, but also a iust iudge.

II. Reason. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He which knew no sinne, was made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righteousnes of God which is in him. Whence I reason thus. As Christ was made sinne for vs, so are we made the righ­teousnesse of God in him: but Christ was made sinne, or, a sinner by imputation of our sinnes, he being in himselfe most holy; there­fore a sinner is made righteous before God, in that Christs righteonsnes is imputed and applyed vnto him. Now if any shall say, that man is iustified by righteousnes infused; then [Page 69] by like reason, I say Christ was made sinne for vs by infusion of sinne, which to say is blasphemie. And the exposition of this place by S. Hierome is not to be despised. Christ (saith he) beeing offered for our sinnes, tooke the name of sinne that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him, NOT OVRS NOR IN VS. If this righteousnesse of God be nei­ther ours nor in vs, thē it can be no inherent righteousnes, but must needes be righteous­nes imputed. And Chrys. on this place saith, It is called Gods righteousnes, because it is not of works, & because it must be VVITHOVT ALL STAINE or want: & that cannot be inhe­rent righteousnes. Anselme saith, he is made sinne as we are made iustice: not ours but gods, not in vs but in him: as he is made sinne not his owne but ours: not in him selfe, but in vs.

Reason III. Rom. 5. 19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righ­teous: marke here is a comparison betweene the first and second Adam. And hence I rea­son thus. As by the disobedience of the first Adam men were made sinners: so by the [Page 70] obedience of the second Adam, are we made righteous. Now we are not onely made sin­ners by propagation of naturall corruption, but by imputation. For Adams first sinne was the eating of the forbidden fruit: which very acte is no personall offence, but is impu­ted to all his posteritie, in whome we haue all sinned. The Iren. lib. 5. cap. 17. Chrysostom. homil. ad Neoph. Fathers call this very sinne A­dams handwriting, making vs debters vnto God. And therefore in like manner the o­bedience of Christ is made the righteousnes of euery beleeuer, not by infusion but by im­putation.

IV. Reason. A satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires at our hands, is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe. But Christs obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iu­stice or obedience which the law requires, as the Papists themselues auouch. Therefore this satisfaction is our iustice. And me thinks, the Papists vpon this consideration haue litle cause to dissent from vs. For if they make Christs obedience their satisfaction, why should they not fully close hands with vs, and [Page 71] make it their iustice also.

V. Reason. The consent of the auncient Church. Bernard saith, epist. 190. The IV­STICE OF ANOTHER is assigned vnto man: who wanted his owne, man was indebted and man made paiment. The SATISFACTION OF ONE IS IMPVTED to all. And, why may not iu­stice be from an other as vvell as guiltines is from an other. And in Cant. serm. 25. It suf­ficeth me, for all righteousnes to haue him a­lone mercifull to me, against vvhome I haue sinned. And, Not to sinne is Gods iustice, MANS IVSTICE is the MERCIFVLNES OF GOD. And serm. 61. Shall I sing mine owne righteousnes, Lord I vvill remember thy righteousnes a­lone: for IT IS MINE ALSO: in that euen thou art made unto me righteousnes of God. What, shall I feare least that one be not sufficient for vs both? it is not a short cloake that cannot co­uer two: it will couer both thee and me large­ly beeing both a large and eternall iustice. August. on psal. 22. He praieth for our faults, and hath made our faults his faults, that he might make HIS IVSTICE OVR IVSTICE.

Obiections of Papists.

Obiections of the Papists proouing inhe­rent righteousnes to be the matter of our iu­stice before God, are these. I. Obiect. It is absurd, that one man should be made righ­teous by the righteousnes of an other: for it is as much as if one man were made wise by the wisdome of another. Ans. It is true, that no man can be made righteous by the personall righteousnes of an other, because it pertaines onely to one man. And because the wisdome that is in one man, is his altoge­ther wholly, it cannot be the wisdome of an­other; no more then the health and life of one body, can be the health of an other. But it is otherwise with the righteousnesse of Christ: it is his indeede, because it is inherent in him as in a subiect: it is not his alone, but his and ours together by the tenour of the Couenant of grace. Christ as he is a Medi­atour is giuen to euery beleeuer as really and truly, as land is giuen from man to man: and with him are giuen all things that con­cerne saluation; they beeing made ours by [Page 73] Gods free gift: among which, is Christ his righteousnes. By it therfore, as beeing a thing of our owne, wee may be iustified before God, and accepted to life euerlasting.

II. Obiect. If a sinner be iustified by Christ his righteousnes, then euery beleeuer shall be as righteous as Christ: and that can not be. Ans. The proposition is false: for Christ his righteousnes is not applied to vs according as it is in Christ; neither according to the same measure, nor the same manner. For his obedience in fulfilling the law, is aboue A­dams righteousnes, yea aboue the righte­ousnes of all Angels. For they were all but creatures, and their obedience the obedience of creatures: but Christ his obedience is the obedience or righteousnes of God; so tear­med Rom. 1. 17, 18. 2. Cor. 5. 21. not onely be­cause God accepted of it, but because it was in that person which is very God. When Christ obeied, God obeied: and when he suffered, God suffered: not because the god­head suffered or performed any obedience, but because the person which according to one nature is God, performed obedience and [Page 74] suffered. And by this meanes his righteous­nes is of infinite value, price, merit, and effica­cie. Hence also it commeth to passe, that this obedience of Christ serueth not onely for the iustifying of some one person (as namely for himself. Adams did) but of all and euery one of the elect: yea it is sufficient to iustifie many thousand worldes. Now to come to the point, this righteousnes that is in Christ, in this largenes and measure; is pertaining to vs in a more narow skantling▪ because it is onely receiued by faith as any one starre par­takes in the whole light of the Sunne with the rest of the starres; so farforth as the said light makes it to shine. so farforth, as it serueth to iustifie a­ny particular beleeuer. But they vrge the reason further, saying: If Christ his righte­ousnes be the righteousnes of euery belee­uer, then euery man should be a Sauiour: which is absurd. Ans. I answer as before, and yet more plainly thus: Christ his righteous­nes is imputed to the person of this or that man, not as it is the price of redemption for all mankind, but as it is the price of redemp­tion for one particular man: as for example, Christ his righteousnes is imputed to Peter, not as it is the price of redemption for all, but as it is the price of redemption for Peter. [Page 75] And therefore Christ his righteousnes, is not applied to any one sinner in that largenesse and measure, in which it is in the person of Christ: but onely so farforth as it serueth to satisfie the law for the said sinner, & to make his person accepted of God as righteous, and no further.

III. Obiect. If we be made righteous by Christ his righteousnes truly, then Christ is a sinner truly by our sinnes: but Christ is not indeed a sinner by our sinnes. Ans. We may with reuerence to his maiestie in good man­ner say, that Christ was a sinner, and that tru­ly: not by any infusion of sinne into his most holy person; but because our sinnes were laid on him: thus saith the holy Ghost, he which knew no sinne was made sinne for vs, and he was counted with sinners, Isa 53. 13. yet so, as euen then in himselfe he was without blot, yea more holy then all men and angels. On this manner said Chrysostome 2. Cor. 3. God permitted Christ to be condemned as a sinner. Againe, He made the iust one to be A SIN­NER, that he might make sinners iust.

[Page 76] IV. Obiect. If a man be made righteous by imputation, then God iudgeth sinners to be righteous: but God iudgeth no sinner to be righteous, for it is abhomination to the Lord. Ans. When God iustifieth a sinner by Christ his righteousnes, at the same time, he ceaseth in regard of guiltines to be a sin­ner: & to whom god imputeth righteousnes them he sanctifieth at the very same instant by his holy Spirit; giuing also vnto originall corruption his deadly wound.

V. Obiect. That which Adam neuer lost, was neuer giuen by Christ: but he neuer lost imputed righteousnes: therefore it was ne­uer giuen vnto him. Ans. The proposition is not true: for sauing faith, that was neuer lost by Adam, is giuen to vs in Christ: and Adam neuer had this priuiledge, that after the first grace should follow the we haue & posse & velle: he had no more, but posse si vellet, & he wan­ted velle quod posset. August. de corrept. & grat. cap. 11. second; and there­upon beeing left to himselfe, he fell from God: and yet this mercie is vouchsafed to all beleeuers, that after their first conuersion God will still confirme thē with new grace: and by this meanes, they perseuere vnto the ende. And whereas they say, that Adam had [Page 77] not imputed righteousnes: I answer, that he had the same for substance, though not for the manner of applying by imputation.

VI. Obiect. Iustification is eternall: but the imputation of Christ his righteousnesse is not eternall, for it ceaseth in the end of this life: therefore it is not that which iustifieth a sinner. Ansvv. The imputation of Christs righteousnes is euerlasting: for he that is e­steemed righteous in this life by Christ his righteousnes, is accepted as righteous for e­uer: and the remission of sinnes graunted in this life, is for euer continued. And though sanctification be perfect in the worlde to come, yet shal it not iustifie: for we must con­ceiue it no otherwise after this life, but as a fruit springing from the imputed righteous­nes of Christ, without which it could not be. And a good child will not cast away the first garment, because his father giues him a se­cond. And what if inward righteousnes be perfect in the ende of this life, shall we there­fore make it the matter of our iustification? God forbid. For the righteousnes whereby sinners are iustified, must be had in the time [Page 78] of this life, before the pangs of death.

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.

Our reasons.

I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the vvorkes of the lavv. Some answer, that ceremoniall works be excluded here: some, that morall workes: some, works going before faith. But let them deuise what they can for themselues: the truth is, that Paul excludeth all works what­soeuer, as by the very text will appeare. For v. 24. he saith, We are iustified FREELY by his grace: that is, by the meere gift of God: giuing vs to vnderstand, that a sinner in his iustifica­tion [Page 94] is meerely passiue, that is, doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting. and v. 27. he saith, iustifi­cation by faith excludeth all boasting: and therefore all kinde of workes are thereby excluded; and specially such as are most of all the matter of boasting, that is, good workes. For if a sinner, after that he is iustifi­ed by the merit of Christ, were iustified more by his owne workes, then might he haue some matter of boasting in himselfe. And that we may not doubt of Pauls mea­ning, consider and read Eph. 2. 8, 9. By grace (saith he) you are saued through faith: & that not of your selues, it is the gift of God: not of vvorks least any man should boast himselfe. Here Paul excludes all and euery worke, and directly workes of grace themselues: as ap­peares by the reason following, For vve are his workemanship CREATED in Christ Iesus VNTO GOOD VVORKS: VVHICH GOD HATH ORDAINED that vve should vvalke in them. Nowe let the Papists tell me, what be the workes which God hath prepared for men to walke in, and to which they are regene­rate, [Page 95] vnles they be the most excellent works of grace: and let them marke, how Paul ex­cludes them wholly from the worke of iu­stification and saluation.

II. Gal. 5. 3. If ye be circūcised, ye are bound to the vvhole lavv, and ye are abolished from Christ. Here Paul disputeth against such men as would be saued partly by Christ, and part­ly by the workes of the lawe: hence I reason thus. If a man will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law, according to the rigour thereof: that is Pauls ground. I now assume: no man can fulfill the lawe according to the rigour thereof: for the liues and workes of most righteous men are imperfect, and stained with sinne: and there­fore they are taught euery daie, to say on this manner; forgiue vs our debts. Againe our knowledge is imperfect, and therefore our faith, repentance, and sanctification is answe­rable. And lastly the regenerate man is part­ly flesh and partly spirit: and therfore his best works are partly frō the flesh, & in part one­ly spirituall. Thus then for any man to be bound to the rigour of the whole law, is [Page 96] as much as if he were bound to his owne damnation.

III. Election to saluation is of grace without workes: therefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without works. For it is a certen rule, that the cause of a cause is the cause of a thing caused. Now grace without workes is the cause of election, which election is the cause of our iustificati­on: and therefore grace without workes is the cause of our iustification.

IIII. A man must first be fully iustified before he can doe a good worke: for the person must first please God before his workes can please him. But the person of a sinner cannot please God till he be perfectly iustified: and therefore till he be iustified, he can not doe so much as one good worke. And thus good works cannot be any meri­torious causes of iustification, after which they are both for time, and order of nature. In a word, whereas they make two distinct iustifications: we acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification, yet so as iustificatiō is onely one, standing in remission of sinnes [Page 100] and Gods acceptation of vs to life euerlasting by Christ; and this iustification hath no de­grees but is perfect at the very first.

Obiections of Papists.

Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse. Hence they reason thus, if Da­uid be iudged according to his righteousnes then may he be iustified thereby, but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnes: and therefore he was iustified thereby. Ans. There be two kinds of righ­teousnes, one of the person, the other of the cause or action. The righteousnes of a mans person, is whereby it is accepted into the fa­uour of God into life eternall. The righte­ousnes of the action or cause is, when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust. Now Dauid in this psalme, speaketh onely of the righteousnes of the action, or innocency of his cause, in that he was falsly charged to haue sought the kingdome. In like manner it is said of Phineas, Psal. 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie, was imputed to him for righteousnes: not because [Page 98] it was a satisfaction to the lawe, the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke; but because God accepted of it as a iust worke, and as a token of his righteous­nes and zeale for Gods glory.

II. Obiect. The Scripture saith in sun­drie places, that men are blessed which doe good workes. Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart, and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commande­ments. Yet is he not blessed simply, because he doth so; but because he is in Christ, by whome he doth so: and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof.

III. Obiect. When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by praier and fasting, Gods wrath is pacified and staied: therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iu­stification before God. Ans. Indeede men that truely humble themselues by praier and fasting, doe appease the wrath of God: yet not properly by these actions, but by their faith expressed and testified in them, where­by they apprehend that which appeaseth [Page 99] Gods wrath, euen the merits of Christ, in whome the father is well pleased; and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs.

IV. Obiect. Sundrie persons in Scripture are commended for perfection: as Noe, and Abraham, Zacharie, and Elizabeth: and Christ biddeth vs all be perfect; and where there is any perfection of workes, there also workes may iustifie. Ansvv. There be two kinds of perfection: perfection in parts, and perfection in degrees. Perfection in part is, when beeing regenerate, and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues, we endea­uour accordingly to obey God, not in some few, but in al and euery part of the law: as Io­sias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses. Perfection in degrees is, when a man keepeth euery commandement of God, and that according to the rigour there­of, in the very highest degree. Nowe then wheras we are commanded to be perfected, and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture: both commandements and ex­amples must be vnderstood of perfection in parts, and not of perfection in degrees, which [Page 100] cannot be attained vnto in this life; though we for our partes, must daily striue to come as neare vnto it, as possibly we can.

V. Obiect. 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our moment a­ny afflictions worke vnto vs a greater mea­sure of glorie: now if afflictions worke our saluation, then workes also doe the same. Ansvv. Afflictions worke saluation, not as causes procuring it, but as meanes directing vs therto. And thus alwaies must we esteem of workes, in the matter of our saluation, as of a certen way, or a marke therein, directing vs to glory, not causing and procuring it: as Bernard saith they are, VIAREGNI NON CAV­SA [...]Lib. de grat. & lib. arbit. regnandi. The way to the kingdome, not the cause of raigning there.

VI. Obiect. Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged: but we are iudged by our good workes: therefore iustified also. Ans. The proposition is false: for indgement is an act of God, declaring a man to be iust that is already iust: and iusti­fication is an other distinct act of God, wher­by he maketh him to be iust, that is by na­ture vniust. And therefore in equitie the last [Page 101] iudgement is to proceed by workes: because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause, and serue fitly to declare whome God hath iustified in this life.

VII. Obiect. Wicked men are condem­ned for euill workes: therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes. Ans. The reason holdeth not: for there is great diffe­rence betweene euill and good workes. An euill worke is perfectly euill, and so deser­ueth damnation▪ but there is no good work of any man that is perfectly good: and there­fore cannot iustifie.

VIII. Obiect. To beleeue in Christ is a worke, and by it we are iustified: and if one worke doe iustifie, why may we not be iu­stified by al the works of the law. Ans. Faith must be considered two waies: first, as a worke, quality, or vertue: secondly as an In­strument, or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit. And we are iustified by faith, not as it is a worke, vertue, or quali­tie; but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby we are iustified. And therefore it is a figuratiue speach to say, [Page 102] We are iustified by faith. Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous: neither doth the action of faith which is to appre­hend iustifie; but the obiect of faith, which is Christs obedience apprehended.

These are the principall reasons common­ly vsed▪ which as we see, are of no moment. To conclude therefore we hold: that works concurre to iustification, and that we are iu­stified thereby as by signes and effects, not as causes: for both the beginning, middle, and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ: and herevpon Iohn saith, If any man (being alreadie iustified) sinne, vve haue an Aduocate with the father, Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes. And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification, is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe.

The U. point. Of merits.

By merit, we vnderstand any thing or a­ny worke, whereby Gods fauour and life e­uerlasting is procured; and that for the dig­nitie and excellencie of the worke or thing [Page 103] done: or, a good worke done, binding him that receiueth is to repay the like.

Our Consent.

Touching merits, we consent in two con­clusions with them. The first conclusion, that merits are so far forth necessarie, that with­out them there can be no saluation.

The second, that Christ our Mediatour & Redeemer, is the roote and fountaine of all merit.

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.

Our reasons.

The first shall be taken from the proper­ties and conditions that must be in a worke meritorious, and they are fowre. I. A man [Page 106] must doe it of himselfe, and by himselfe: for if it be done by another, the merite doth not properly belong to the doer. II. A man must doe it of his owne freewill and pleasure, not of due debt; for when we doe that which we are bound to doe, we doe no more but our dutie. III. The worke must be done to the profit of an other, who thereupon must be bound to repay the like. IV. The reward and the worke must be in proporti­on equall, for if the reward be more then the worke, it is not a reward of desert, but a gift of good will. Hence followes a notable con­clusion: That Christs manhoode considered a part from his godhead, cannot merit at Gods hand: though it be more excellent euery way then all both men and angels. For being thus considered, it doth nothing of it selfe, but by grace receiued from the godhead; though it also be without measure. Secondly Christs manhoode is a creature, and in that regarde bound to doe whatsoeuer it doth. Thirdly, Christ as man cannot giue any thing to god, but that which he receiued from God: ther­fore cannot the manhoode properly by it [Page 107] selfe merit, but onely as it is personally vni­ted vnto the godhead of the Sonne. And if this be so, then much lesse can any meere man, or any angel merit: yea it is a madnes to thinke, that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby we might attaine to life eternall.

Reason II. Exod. 20 8. And SHEVV MERCIE vpon thousands in them that loue me, and keepe my commandements. Hence I reason thus: where reward is giuen vpon mercie, there is no merit: but rewarde is giuen of mercie to them that fulfill the law: therefore no merit. What can we any way deserue, when our full recompence must be of mer­cie? And this appeares further by Adam: if he had stood to this day, he could not by his continuall and perfect obedience, haue pro­cured a further increase of fauour at Gods hand, but should onely haue continued that happie estate in which he was first created.

Reason III. Scripture directly condem­neth merite of workes. Rom. 6. 23. The vva­ges of sinne is death: but THE GIFT OF GOD IS eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. [Page 108] The proportion of the argument required that S. Paul should haue said: The reward of good workes is eternall life, if life euerlasting could be deserued, which cannot: because it is a free gift. Againe, Tit. 3. 5. We are saued not by vvorkes of righteousnes which vve haue done, but according to his mercie he saued vs. And Ephes. 2. v. 8, 10. By grace you are saued through faith, and that not of your selues, it is the gift of God: not of works which God hath prepared that we should walke in them. If any workes be crowned, it is certen that the suf­ferings of Martyrs shall be rewarded: now of them Paul saith, Rom. 8. 18. The sufferings of this life are NOT VVORTHY of the glorie to come. Where then is the value & dignitie of other works? To this purpose `Ambr. saith, The iust man though he be tormented in the brasen bull is still iust, because he iustifieth God, and saith he suffereth LESSE THEN HIS SINNES DESERVE.

Reason IV. Whosoeuer will merit, must fulfill the whole law: but none can keepe the whole law: For if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues, 1. Ioh. 1. And he that sinnes [Page 109] against one commandement is guiltie of the whole law. And what can he merit, that is guiltie of the breach of the whole law?

Reason V. We are taught to pray on this manner, Giue vs this day our daily bread. Wherein we acknowledge euery morsel of bread to be the meere gift of God without desert; and therefore must we much more acknowledge life eternall to be euery way the gift of God. It must needes therefore be a satanicall insolencie for any man to imagine, that he can by his workes merit eternall life, who cannot merit bread.

Reason VI. Consent of the auncient Church. De interpol­latione Da­vid. 4. v [...]l. ps. 72. Bernard, Those which we call our merits, are the way to the kingdome, and not THE CAVSE OF RAIGNING. August. Manu­ali. cap. 22. All my hope is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit—: my MERIT IS THE PASSION OF THE LORD. I shall not be voide of merits, so long as Gods mercies are not wanting. Basil. on psal. 114. Eternall rest is reserued for them, which haue striuen lavv­fully in this life: not FOR THE MERITS of their doings, but vpon the grace of the most bounti­full [Page 110] God, in which they trusted. August. on ps. 120. He crowneth thee, because he crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merits. And, psal. 142. Lord thou wilt quicken me in thy iustice, not in mine: not because I haue deserued it, but because thou hast compassion.

Obiections of Papists.

Obiect. I. In sundrie places of Scripture, promise of reward is made to them that be­leeue and doe good workes: therefore our works doe merit; for a reward and merit be relatiues. Ans. Reward is twofold: of debt, and of mercie. Life euerlasting is not a re­ward of debt but of mercie, giuen of the good will of God, without any thing done of man. Secondly, the kingdome of heauen is properly an inheritance giuen of a father to a child, and therefore it is called a reward not properly, but by a figure or by resem­blance. For as a workeman hauing ended his labour, receiueth his wages; so after men haue lead their liues & finished their course in keeping faith and good conscience, as du­tifull children; God giueth them eternall life. [Page 111] And herupon it is tearmed a reward. Third­ly, if I should graunt that life euerlasting is a deserued reward, it is not for our works, but for Christs merit imputed to vs, causing vs thereby to merit: and thus the relation stands directly betweene the Reward and Christs Merit applied vnto vs.

Obiect. II. Christ by his death merited that our works should merit life euerlasting. Answ. That is false: all we finde in Scripture is, that Christ by his merit procured pardon of sinne, imputation of righteousnes, and life euerlasting: and it is no where saide in the word of God, that Christ did merit, that our workes should merit: it is a dotage of their owne deuising. He died not for our good workes to make them able to satisfie Gods anger: but for our sinnes, that they might be pardoned. Thus much saith the Scripture, & no more. And in that Christ did sufficiently merit life eternall for vs, by his owne death: it is a sufficient proofe that he neuer inten­ded to giue vs power of meriting the same: vnles we suppose that at some time he giues more then is needefull. Againe, Christ in the [Page 112] office of mediation as he is a King, Priest, and Prophet, admitteth no deputie or fel­low. For he is a most perfect Mediatour, do­ing all things by himselfe, without the helpe of any. And the ministers that dispence the word are not his deputies, but reasonable and voluntarie instruments, which he vseth. But if men by workes can merit increase of grace and happines for themselues, then hath Christ partners in the worke of redemption: men doing that by him, which he doth of himselfe, in procuring their saluation. Nay, if this might stand, that Christ did merit, that our works should merit, then Christ should merit that our stained righteousnes beeing for this cause not capable of merit, should ne­uertheles merit. I call it stained; because we are partly flesh and partly spirit: and therfore in our selues deseruing the curse of the law, though we be regenerate. Againe, for one good worke we doe, we haue many euil, the offence whereof defaceth the merit of our best deedes, and makes them too light in the balance of the law.

Obiect. III. Our workes merit by bar­gaine [Page 113] or couenant, because God hath promi­sed to reward them. Ans. The word of God sets downe two couenants: one legal, the o­ther euangelicall. In the legall couenant life euerlasting is promised to workes, for that is the condition of the lawe; doe these things and thou shalt liue. But on this manner can no man merit life euerlasting, because none is able to doe all that the lawe requires; whe­ther we respect the manner, or the measure of obedience. In the euangelicall couenant, the promises that are made are not made to any worke or vertue in man, but to the worker: not for any merit of his owne per­son or worke, but for the person and merite of Christ. For example, it is a promise of the Gospell, Be faithfull vnto death, and I vvill giue thee the crowne of life. Revelat. 2. 10. Here the promise is not made to the vertue of fidelitie, but to the faithfull person; whose fidelitie is but a token that he is in Christ: for the merit of whose obediēce god promiseth the crowne of life: and therefore Christ saith further: I come quicklie and will giue to euery man according to his workes, marke, he saith [Page 112] not to the worke or for the worke, but to the worker according to his workes. And thus the bōd of al other promises of the Gos­pel, in which god willingly bindes himselfe to reward our workes, doe not directly con­cerne vs, but haue respect to the person, and obedience of Christ, for whose sake alone God bindes himselfe as debter vnto vs, and giues the recompence or reward, according to the measure of our faith testified by our workes. And therefore it cannot be truely gathered: that workes doe merit by any promise or covenant, passed on Gods part to man. Some may say, if workes merit not why are they mentioned in the promises? I answere, not because they merit, but because they are tokens that the doer of the worke is is in Christ, for whose merite the promise shall be accomplished.

Obiect. VI. Good works are perfect and without fault, for they are the workes of the holy ghost, who cannot sinne: therefore they merite. Ans. If workes did proceed onely and immediatly from the holy ghost, there could not be any fault in them: but our [Page 113] works come from the holy ghost, in and by the will and vnderstanding of man: & by this meanes they are tainted with sinne: as water in the fountaine is both cleare and sweete, yet the streames there of passing through the filthy channell, are defiled thereby. Againe they reason thus; That which we are bound to doe hath no fault in it; but we are bound to doe good workes: therefore they are per­fect. Ans. The proposition must be expoun­ded: that which we are bound to doe, in it selfe, according to the intention of the com­mander, hath no fault: or, that which we are bound to doe according as we are bound to doe it, hath no fault, yet in regard of the in­tention of the doer, or in regard of our man­ner of doing, it may be faultie.

Obiect. V. Christ saith Revel. 3. 4. that the faithfull in the Church of Sardis shall walk with him in white: for they are worthy: ther­fore beleeuers merit. Ans. Euery beleeuer is worthy to walke with Christ: yet not wor­thy in himselfe, but in Christ, to whome he is vnited, and made bone of his bone, & flesh of his flesh. And by reason of this coniuncti­on [Page 78] `it is, that men are said to be worthy', be­cause they are inriched with Christs merits and righteousnes.

Obiect. VII. 2. Tim. 4. 8. Euerlasting life is tearmed a crowne, and a crowne of righteous­nes to be giuen of a iust iudge: therefore man for his part by his workes deserues the same. Ans. Euerlasting life is called a crowne one­ly in resemblance. For as he which runneth a race, must continue and runne to the ende, and then be crowned: euen so must we con­tinue to walke in good works vnto the end, and then receiue eternall life. And it is called a crowne of righteousnes, not because it be­longs to any man by due and desert; but be­cause God hath bound himselfe by a pro­mise to giue it, in performing whereof he is tearmed iust: and by vertue of this promise, it is obtained and no otherwise. These are the principall obiections, by which we may iudge what the rest are. And thus we see what is the truth, namely that merit is ne­cessarie to saluation; yet neither merite of mans worke, or person, but the merit of Christ imputed to vs, whereby we beeing [Page 117] in him do procure and deserue the fauour of God and life eternall.

The sixt point. Of satis­faction.

Our consent.

Conclus. I. First, we acknowledge and hold Ciuill or Politike satisfaction: that is, a recompence for iniuries, and damages offe­red any way to our neighbours. This Za­cheus practised, when at his conuersion he restored foure-fold, things gotten by forged cauillation. Againe by ciuill satisfaction I vn­derstand, the imposition of fines, mulcts, and penalties vpon offenders, and the inflicting of death vpon malefactours. For all these are satisfactions to the lawe, and societies of men when they are wronged. All these we maintaine as necessarie, for neither Church, nor common wealth can well be without them: considering they are notable meanes to vphold ciuill peace; and otherwhiles they are fruites of true faith, as the satisfuction of Zacheus was.

[Page 118] Conclus. II. We acknowledge canoni­call or Ecclesiasticall satisfaction: and that is, when any hauing giuē offence to the church of God or any part thereof, do make an o­pen publike testimonie of their repentance. Mirian for murmuring aganst Moses, was striken with leprosie, and afterward by his prayer shee was clensed, and yet for all that shee must go seuen dayes out of the tent and congregation, that shee might make a kinde of satisfaction to the people for her trespasse. And in the old testament, sackcloth and ashes were signes of their satisfaction.

Conclus. III. We hold that no man can be saued, vnles, he make a perfect satisfaction to the iustice of God for all his sinnes: because God is infinite in iustice, and therefore will either exact an euerlasting punishment, or sa­tisfaction for the same.

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.

Our reasons.

I. A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent, is indeede no satisfaction at all. But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect, in that they [Page 120] do adde a supply by humane satisfactions: & thus much a learned schoolman, Biel in plain words confessed. Although (saith he) the pas­sion Super. lib. 3. dist. 19. concl. 5. of Christ be the principall merit, for which grace is conferred, the opening of the kingdome and glorie: yet IS IT NEVER THE ALONE AND TOTAL MERITORIOVS CAVSE: it is manifest, because alwaies vvith the me­rit of Christ, there concurreth some vvorke, as the merit of congruitie or condignitie of him that receiueth grace or glorie, if he be of yeares and haue the vse of reason: or of some other for him, if he want reason. For that which admitts a supply by an other, is imperfect in it selfe. Therefore humane sa­tisfactions cannot stand. Learned Papists make answere, that Christs satisfaction and mans may stand well togither. For (say they) Christs satisfactions is sufficient in it selfe to answer the iustice of God for all sinne and punishment: but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applyed: and it must be ap­plied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporall punishment of our sinnes. But I say againe, that mans satisfaction can be no [Page 121] meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ: and I prooue it thus. The meanes of apply­ing Gods blessings and graces vnto man are twofold: some respect God himselfe, and some respect man. Those which respect God, are such whereby God on his part doth offer and convay his mercies in Christ vnto man: of this sort are the preaching of the word, baptisme, and the Lords supper, and these are as it were the hand of God where­by he reacheth downe and giueth vnto vs Christ with all his benefits. The other meanes of applying on mans part, are those whereby the saide benefites are receiued. Of this sort there is onely one, namely faith, whereby we beleeue that Christ with all his benefits belong vnto vs. And this is the hand of man whereby he receiueth Christ as he is offered, or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments. As for other meanes beside these, in Scripture we finde none. Foolish therefore is the answere of the Pa­pist, that make mens satisfactions meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ vnto vs: for by humane satisfactions, Christs is neither [Page 122] offered on Gods part, nor yet receiued on mans part: let them prooue it if they can. O­thers, not content with this their former an­swer, say; that our satisfactions doe nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ: be­cause our works haue their dignitie & merit from Christs satisfaction: he meriting that our workes should satisfie Gods iustice for temporall punishments. But this is also absurd and false, as the former was. For if Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie, then Christ doth make euery beleeuer to be a Christ, a Iesus, a Redeemer, & a Priest in the same or­der with his owne selfe. But to make sinfull man his owne redeemer, though it be but from temporall punishments, is a doctrine of deuils. For the holy Ghost teacheth that the priesthood of Christ is incommunicable, &Hebr. 7. 24. cannot passe from him to any other. Nowe to make satisfaction for sinne or any part of the punishment thereof, is a dutie, or a part of Christ his priesthood, and therefore to make satisfaction is a worke that cannot passe frō his person to the person of any man. Againe, if Christ by his satisfaction giue power to [Page 123] man to satisfie, then man doth satisfie by Christ, and Christ beside his owne satisfacti­on vpon the crosse, must daily satisfie in man, to the ende of the world: but this cannot be, for Christ vpon the crosse, when death was vpon him, said, It is finished, that is, I haue ful­ly satisfied for all the sinnes of mankind, both in respect of the fault and punishment. As for Christs buriall and resurrection which fol­lowed his death, they serued not to satisfie but to confirme and ratifie the same. Againe Paul saith, 2. Cor. 5. 12. He that knew no sinne was made sinne for vs, that is, the punishment of sinne for vs; but if the Church of Rome say true, that Christ doth daily satisfie, then Paul spake too short, and should haue saide further, that Christ was made sinne for vs, and in vs too: and that God was not onely in Christ but also in vs reconciling the world to himselfe. But Paul neuer knew this lear­ning: and therefore let them turne themselues which way they will, by putting a supple­ment to Christs satisfaction, they doe indeed annihillate the same.

Reason II. In sundrie places of Scrip­ture, [Page 126] especially in the Epistles of Paul: we are are said to be redeemed, iustified, and saued Freely: which word freely, doth import that we are iustified and saued without any thing done on out part or by our selues in the matter of our saluation: and if this be so, then can we doe nothing at all that may sa­tisfie the iustice of God for the least punish­ment of our sinnes. If we satisfie in our own persons we are not saued freely: and if we be saued freely, we make no satisfaction at all.

Reason III. We pray daily, forgiue vs our sinnes: now to plead pardon, & to satisfie for our sinnes be contrary: and for all things, for which we can make satisfactiō, we neede not crave a pardon; but we are taught in the foresaid petition wholly and onely to vse the plea of pardon for our sinnes, and therefore we acknowledge that we cannot make any satisfaction at all.

Reason IV. The iudgement of the aun­cient Church. Tertul. de Baptism. Guiltines beeing taken away, the PVNISHMENT IS ALSO TAKEN AVVAY.Serm. 37. de verbis Apost. August. Christ, by taking vpon him the punishment and not the fault, [Page 125] hath done away both the fault and THE PVNI­SHMENT. And Tom. 10. hom. 5. he saith, when we are gone out of this world, there will re­maine no compunction or satisfaction. Some newe Editions haue foisted in the worde [aliqua] and so haue turned the sense on this manner: There will remaine no compunction or some satisfaction. But this is flatte against Augustines meaning who saith alitle before, that when the way is ended there is no com­pounding of our cause with any. Chrysost. proem. in Esa. Say not to me, I haue sinned: how shall I be freed from so many sinnes? Thou canst not: but thy God can. Yea, and he will so blot out thy sinnes that there shall REMAINE NO PRINT OF THEM: which thing befalls not the body, for when it is healed there remaines a skarre: but God as soone as he exempts thee Luc. 22. Pe­trinegat. from punishment, he giueth thee iustice. Am­brose saith, I reade of Peters teares, but I read De bono mer not OF HIS SATISFACTION. Againe, Let vs adore Christ that he may say vnto vs, feare not thy sinnes of this world, nor the waues of bodily sufferings: I haue remission of sinnes. Hierome saith in Psal. 31. The sinne that is [Page 126] couered is not seene, the sinne that is not seene is not imputed: that which is NOT IMPVTED, IS NOT PVNISHED. Chrysostome in Matth. hom. 44. Among all men, some indure punish­ment in this life and the life to come: others in this life alone: others alone in the life to come: others neither in this life nor the life to come. There alone, as Dives, who vvas not lord so much as of one droppe of vvater. Here alone, as the incestuous man among the Co­rinthians. Neither here nor there, as the A­postles and Prophets, as also Iob and the rest of this kinde: for they indured NO SVFFERINGS FOR PVNISHMENT, but that they might be knowne to be conquerours in the fight.

Obiections of Papists.

I. Obiect. Levit. 4. Moses according to Gods commaundement prescribed seuerall sacrifices for seuerall persons; and they were meanes of satisfaction for the temporall pu­nishments of their daily sinnes. Ans. Those sacrifices were onely signes and types of Christs satisfaction to be offred to his father in his alone sacrifice vpon the crosse: and [Page 127] whosoeuer offered any sacrifice in the olde testament, did thus and no otherwise esteem of it, but as a type and figure of better things. Secondly, the saide sacrifices were satisfacti­ons to the Church, whereby men did testifie their repentance for their offences, and like­wise their desire to be reconciled to God and men. And such kinde of satisfactions, we ac­knowledge.

II. Obiect. Men, whose sinnes are all par­doned, haue afterward sundrie crosses and afflictions laide vpon them, vnto the ende of their daies: therefore in all likelihoode they make satisfaction to God for temporall pu­nishments. As for example, the Israelites for murmuring against the Lord in the wilder­nes were barred all from the lande of pro­mise: and the like befell Moses and Aaron for not glorifying God, as they should haue done at the waters of strife. Ans. Man must be considered in a twofold estate, as he is vn­der the law, and as he is vnder grace. In the first estate, all afflictions are curses or legall punishments, be they little or great: but to them that are in the second estate and be­leeue [Page 128] in Christ, though the same afflictions remaine, yet doe they change their habite or condition, and are the actions of a Father ser­uing to be trialls, corrections, preuentings, admonitions. 1. Cor. 11. 32. When we are iud­ged, we are nurtered of the Lord and Heb. 12. 7. If we indure chastisement, God offereth himselfe vnto you as children. and Chrysost. saith, 1. Cor. hom. 28. When we are corrected of the Lord, it is more for our admonition then damnation: more for a medicine then for a punishment: more for a correction then for a penaltie. And whereas God denyed the beleeuing Israelites, with Moses and Aaron to enter into the land of Canaan, it cannot be prooued that it was a punishment or pe­naltie of the lawe vpon them. The scripture saith no more but that it was an admonition to all men in all ages following, to take heed of like offences, as Paul writeth, All these things came vnto them for ensamples, and were written for our admonition, 1. Corinth. 10. 11.

Obiect. III. Dauid was punished after his repentance for his adulterie, for the child [Page 129] died, and he was plagued in his owne kinde, in the incest of Absolon: and when he had numbred the people he was yet punished in the death of his people after his owne repen­tance. Ans. I answer as before that the hand of God was vpon Dauid after his repen­tance: but yet the iudgements which befell him were not curses vnto him properly, but corrections for his sinnes, and trialls of his faith, and meanes to prevent further sinne, & to renewe both his faith and repentance: as also they serued to admonish others in like case; for Dauid was a publike person and his sinnes were offensive, both within the Church of God and without.

Obiect. IV. The Prophets of God, when the people are threatned with the plague, famine, sword, captiuitie, &c. exhorte them to repent and to humble themselues in sack­cloth and ashes; and thereby they turned a­way the wrath of God that was then com­ming forth against them. Therefore by temporall humiliation, men may escape the temporall punishments of the Lord. Ans. Famine, sword, banishment, the plague, and [Page 130] other iudgements sent on Gods people, were not properly punishments of sinne but onely the corrections of a father whereby he hum­bled them that they might repent: or thus, they were punishments tēding to correctiō, not seruing for satisfaction. And the punish­ments of God are turned from them, not be­cause they satisfie the iustice of God in their owne sufferings, but because by faith they lay houlde on the satisfaction of the Mesias, and testifie the same by their humiliation & repentance.

Obiect. V. Dan. 4. 24. Daniel giueth this counsell to Nabuchadnezar, redeeme thy sinnes by iustice and thine iniquities by almes deedes. Behold (say they) almes deedes are made a meanes to satisfie for mans ini­quities. Ans. The word which they translate to redeeme, (as the most learned in the Chal­de tongue with one consent auouch) doth properly signifie to breake off; as if the Pro­phet should say: O King, thou art a mightie Monarch, & to inlarge thy kingdome thou hast vsed much iniustice & crueltie, therfore now repent of thine iniquitie, and breake off [Page 131] these thy sinnes, testifie they repentance by doing iustice, and giue almes to the poore whome thou hast oppressed. Therfore here is nothing spoken of satisfaction for sinne, but onely of testification of repentance by the fruits thereof.

Obiect. VI. Math. 3. 2. Doe penance; and bring forth fruits worthy of penance, which (say they) are works of satisfaction inioyned by the priest. Ans. This text is absurd: for the word [...], signifieth thus much, change your mindes from sinne to God, and testifie it by good workes, that is, by doing the duties of the morall lawe; which must be done, not because they are meanes to satisfie Gods iustice for mans sinne, but because they are fruits of that faith and repentance which lies in the heart.

Obiect. VII. 2. Cor. 7. 10. Paul setteth downe sundrie fruits of repentance: whereof the last is revenge, wherby repētant persons punish themselues, thereby to satisfie Gods iustice for the temporall punishment of their sinnes. Ans. A repentant sinner must take reuēge of himselfe, & that is onely to vse [Page 132] all means which serue to subdue the corrup­tion of his nature, to bridle carnall affections, and to mortifie sinne: and these kinde of acti­ons are restrainments properly, and not pu­nishments: and are directed against the sinne and not against the person.

Lastly, they make three workes of satis­faction, praier, fasting, and almes deeds. For the first, it is meere foolishnes to thinke, that man by prayer can satisfie for his sinnes. It is all one as if they had said, that a begger by asking of almes should deserue his almes: or, that a debter by requesting his creditour to pardon his debt, should thereby pay his debt. Secondly, fasting is a thing indifferent, of the same nature with eating & drinking, and of it selfe conferreth nothing to the ob­tainement of the kingdome of heauen, no more then eating and drinking doth. Third­ly and lastly almes deedes cannot be workes of satisfaction for sinnes. For when we giue them as we ought, we doe but our dutie, wherevnto we are bound. And we may as well say, that a man by paying one debt, may discharge another: as to say that by doing his [Page 133] dutie he may satisfie Gods iustice for the pu­nishment of his sinnes. These we confesse be fruits of faith, but yet are they no workes of satisfaction: but the onely and all-sufficient sa­tisfaction made to Gods iustice for our sinns, is to be found in the person of Christ, beeing procured by the merit of his death, & his o­bedience. And thus our doctrine touching satisfaction is cleared: and it is to be learned carefully of our common people, because the opinion of humane satisfaction is natural and stickes fast in the heart of naturall men. Herevpon when any haue sinned, and feele touch of conscience any way, their manner is, then to performe some outward humili­ation and repentance, thinking thereby to stoppe the mouth of conscience, and by do­ing some ceremoniall duties to appease the wrath of God for their sinnes. Yea, many thinke to satisfie Gods iustice by repeating the Creede, the Lords prayer, and the tenne Commandements, so foolish are they in this kinde.

The seuenth point. Of Traditions.

Traditions, are doctrines deliuered from hand to hand, either by word of mouth, or by writing, beside the written word of God.

Our consent.

Conclus. I. We hold that the very word of God, hath beene deliuered by tradition. For first God reuealed his will to Adam by word of mouth: and renewed the same vn­to the Patriarkes, not by writing, but by speach, by dreames, and other inspirations: and thus the word of God went from man to man for the space of two thousand and foure hūdred yeres, vnto the time of Moses, who was the first pen-mā of holy scripture, For as touching the prophesie of Enoch, we commōly hold it was not penned by Enoch, but by some Iewe vnder his name. And for the space of this time, men worshipped God & held the articles of their faith by tradition, not from men but immediatly from God [Page 135] himselfe. And the historie of the newe te­stament (as some say) for eightie yeares, as some others thinke, for the space of twenty yeares and more, went from hand to hand by tradition, till penned by the Apostles, or being penned by others was approoved by them.

Conclus. II. We hould that the Pro­phets, our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles, spake and did many things good and true which were not writtē in the scriptures: but came either to vs, or to our ancetours onely by tradition. As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is saide, that Iannes and Iambres were the Magitians that withstood Moses: nowe in the books of the old testament we shall not finde them once named, and therefore it is like, that the Apostle had their names by tradition, or by some writings then extant amōg the Iewes. So Hebr. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle re­cordeth of Moses, that when he sawe a ter­rible sight in Mount Sinai, he saide, I tremble and am afraid: which wordes are not to be found in all the bookes of the old testament. In the Epistle of Iude mention is made, that [Page 136] the deuill stroue with Michaell the Archan­gel about the body of Moses: which point (as also the former) considering it is not to be found in holy writ, it seemes the Apostle had it by tradition from the Iewes. That the Prophet Isai was killed with a fullers clubbe is receiued for truth, but yet not recorded in Scripture: and so likewise that the virgine Marie liued and died a virgine. And in Eccle­siasticall writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recor­ded, and receiued of vs for truth, which ne­uertheles are not set downe in the bookes of the old or new Testament. And many things we hold for truth not writtē in the word, if they be not against the worde.

Conclus. III. We hold that the Church of God hath power to prescribe ordinan­ces rules, or traditiōs, touching time & place of Gods worshippe, and touching order and comelines to be vsed in the same: and in this regard, Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 2. commendeth the Church of Corinth for keeping his traditi­ons, and Act. 15. the Councell at Ierusalem decreed that the Churches of the Gentiles [Page 137] should abstaine from blood, and from things strangled. This decree is tearmed a tradition, and it was in force among them so long as the offence of the Iewes remained. And this kind of traditions whether made by generall Councels or particular Synods, we haue care to maintaine and obserue; these caueats being remembred: first that they prescribe nothing childish or absurd to be done: secondly that they be not imposed as any parts of Gods worship: thirdly, that they be seuered from superstition or opinion of merit: lastly that the Church of God be not burdened with the multitude of them. And thus much we hold touching Traditions.

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.

Our reasons.

Testimonie I. Deutr. 4. 2. Thou shalt not adde to the wordes that I command thee, nor take any thing there from: therefore the written word is sufficient for all doctrines pertaining to saluation. If it be said that this commandement is spoken as well of the vn­written as of the written word, I answere: that Moses speaketh of the written word onely: for these very words are a certen pre­face which he set before a long cōmentatie made of the written lawe, for this ende to make the people more attentiue, & obediēt.

Testimonie II. Isai 8. 20. To the lawe and to the testimonie. If they speake not ac­cording to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Here the Prophet teacheth [Page 139] what must be done in cases of difficultie. Men must not runne to the wizard or south­saier, but to the lawe and testimony, and here he commends the written word as sufficient to resolue all doubtes and scruples in consci­ence whatsoeuer.

Testimonie III. Iohn, 20. 31. These things were written that ye might beleeue that Iesus is the Christ, and in beleeuing might haue euerlasting life. Here is set downe the full ende of the Gospell, and of the whole written word: which is to bring men to faith and consequently to saluation: and therefore the whole scripture alone is suffi­ent to this ende without traditions. If it be said, that this place must be vnderstood of Christs miracles onely: I answere, that mi­racles without the doctrine of Christ and knowledge of his sufferings, can bring no man to life euerlasting, & therefore the place must be vnderstood of the doctrine of Christ and not of his miracles alone, as Paul teacheth, Gal. [...]. 1: 8. If we or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you any thing BESIDE THAT which we haue preached, let him be ac­cursed. [Page 140] And to this effect he blames them that taught but a diuers doctrine to that which he had taught, 1. Tim. 1. 3.

Testimonie IIII. 2. Tim. 3. 16, 17. The vvhole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach, to improoue, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnes, that the man of God may be absolute, beeing made perfect vnto euery good vvorke. In these words be cōtained two arguments, to proue the sufficiencie of Scripture without vnwrit­ten verities. The first: that which is profita­ble to these foure vses; namely, to teach all necessarie truth, to confute all errours, to correct faults in manners, and to instruct in righteousnes, that is, to informe all men in all good duties; that is sufficient to saluation. But Scripture serueth for all these vses: and therefore it is sufficient: and vnwritten tradi­tions are superfluous. The secōd: that which can make the man of God, that is, Prophets, and Apostles, and the ministers of the word, perfect in all the duties of their callings: that same word is sufficient to make all other men perfect in all good workes. But Gods [Page 141] word is able to make the man of God per­fect. Therefore it is sufficient to prescribe the true and perfect way to eternall life, without the helpe of vnwritten traditions.

V. The iudgement of the Church. Ter­tull. de resur. carnis. saith, Take from heretickes the opinions vvhich they maintaine vvith the heathen, that they may defende their questions by SCRIPTVRE ALONE, and they cannot stande. Againe, We neede no curiositie after Christ Iesus, nor inquisition after the Gospell. When we beleeue it, we desire to BELEEVE NOTHING BESIDE: for this we first beleeue that there is NOTHING MORE which we may beleeue. Hie­rome on Matth. 23. writing of an opinion that Iohn Baptist was killed, because hee foretold the comming of Christ, saith thus: This, because it hath not authoritie from Scriptures, may as easily be contemned as ap­prooued. In which wordes, there is a conclusi­on with a minor, and the maior is to be sup­plied by the rules of logick thus. That which hath not authoritie from Scriptures, may as easily be contemned as approoued: but this opinion is so: therefore. Beholde a notable [Page 142] argument against all vnwritten traditions. Augustine booke 2. c. 9. de doct. Christ. In those things which are plainely set downe in Scripture, are found ALL THOSE POINTES VVHICH CONTAINE FAITH AND MANNERS of liuing well. Vicentius Lirinen. saith, the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and fully sufficient to it selfe FOR AL THINGS.

Beside these testimonies, other reasons there be that serue to prooue this point. I. The practise of Christ & his Apostles, who for the confirmation of the doctrine which they taught, vsed alwaies the testimony of Scripture, neither can it be prooued, that they euer confirmed any doctrine by tradi­tion. Act. 26. 22. I continue vnto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying, NONE OTHER THINGS THEN THOSE which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. And by this we are giuen to vnderstand, that we must alwaies haue recourse to the written word, as being sufficient to instruct vs in mattes of saluation. II. If the belee­uing of vnwritten traditions were necessarie to saluation, then we must as well beleeue [Page 143] the writings of the auncient Fathers as well as the writings of the Apostles, because Apo­stolicall traditions are not else where to be found but in their bookes. And we may not beleeue their sayings as the word of God, be­cause they oftē erre being subiect to errour: and for this cause their authoritie, when they speake of traditions, may be suspected: and we may not alwaies beleeue them vpon their word.

Obiections for Traditions.

First they alleadge, 2. Thess. 2. 15. where the Apostle biddes that Church keepe the ordinances which he taught them either by worde or letter. Hence they gather, that be­side the written worde, there be vnwritten traditions, that are indeede necessarie to be kept and obeied. Ans. It is very likely, that this Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first that euer Paul writ to any Church, though in order it haue not the first place; and there­fore at the time when this Epistle was pen­ned, it might well fall out, that some things needefull to saluation were deliuered by [Page 144] word of mouth, not being as yet written by any Apostle. Yet the same things were after­ward set downe in writing, either in the se­cond epistle or in the epistles of Paul.

Obiect. II. That, Scripture is Scripture, is a point to be beleeued, but that is a tradition vnwritten; and therefore one tradition there is not written, that we are to beleeue. Answ. That the bookes of the old and new Testament are Scripture, it is to be gathered and beleeued not vpon bare tradition, but from the very bookes themselues, on this manner. Let a man that is indued with the spirit of discerning, read the seuerall bookes, withall let him consider the professed author thereof which is God himselfe, and the mat­ter therein contained, which is a most diuine and absolute truth full of pietie: the manner and forme of speach, which is full of maiestie in the simplicitie of words. The ende wherat they wholly aime, which is the honour and glorie of God alone, &c. and he shall be re­solued that Scripture is Scripture, euen by the Scripture it selfe. Yea, and by this meanes he may discerne any part of Scripture, from [Page 145] the writings of men whatsoeuer. Thus then scripture proves it selfe to be scripture: and yet we dispise not the vniversall consent or tradition of the Church in this case: which though it doe not perswade the conscience, yet is it a notable inducement to mooue vs to reverence, and regard the writings of the Prophets & Apostles. It will be said, where is it written that scripture is scripture? I an­swer, not in any one particular place or book of scripture, but in euery line and page of the whole bible to him that can read with the spirit of discerning, & can discerne the voice of the true pastour, as the sheep of Christ can doe.

Obiect. III Some bookes of the canon of the scripture are lost, as the booke of the warres of God. Num. 21. 14. The booke of the iust. Iosua. 10, 13. the bookes of Cronicles of the kings of Israel and Iuda. 1. King. 14. 19. the books of certain prophets, Nathan, Gad, Iddo, Ahiah, and Semiah: and therefore the matter of these bookes must come to vs by tradition. Ans. Though it be graunted that some bookes of Canonicall scripture be [Page 146] lost: yet the scripture still remaines suffici­ent because the matter of those bookes (so farforth as it was necessarie to saluation) is contained in these bookes of scripture that are now extant. Again, I take it to be a truth (though some thinke otherwise) that no part of the Canon is lost: for Paul saith, what soe­uer things were written aforetime, vvere written for our learning, that vve through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, &c. Rom. 15. 4. Where he takes it for graunted, that the whole canon of holy Scripture was then extant. For if he had thought, that some books of scripture had beene lost, he would haue said: whatsoeuer was written and is now extant, was written for our learning and comfort. For bookes that are lost serue neither for learning nor comfort. Againe to hold that any▪ bookes of scripture should be lost, calls into question Gods prouidence, and the fidelity of the Church, who hath the bookes of God in keeping, and is therefore called the pillar and ground of truth. And touching the bookes before mentioned, I answere thus: The booke of the warres [Page 147] of God, Num. 21. 14. might be some short bill or narration of things done among the Israelites, which in the daies of Moses went from hand to hand. For sometime a booke in scripture, signifieth a roule or Catalogue, as the first chapter of Mathew, which contai­neth the genealogie of our Sauiour Christ, is called the booke of the generation of Iesus Christ. Againe, the booke of the iust, and the bookes of Chronicles, which are said to be lost, were but as the Chronicles of England are with vs; euen politike recordes of the acts and euentes of things, in the kingdome of Iuda and Israel: out of which the Pro­phets gathered things necessarie to be knowne; and placed them in holy scripture. As for the bookes of Iddo, Ahiah, Semiah, Gad, and Nathan, they are contained in the bookes of the Kings and Chronicles, and in the bookes of Samuel, which were not written by him alone, but by sundry pro­phets, 1. Chr. 29. 29. as also was the booke of Iudges. As for the books of Salomon which are lost, they did not concerne religion and matters of saluation, but were concerning [Page 148] matters of philosophy and such like things.

Obiect. IV. Moses in Mount Sina, be­side the written lawe, receiued from God a more secret doctrine, which he neuer writ, but deliuered by tradition or worde of mouth to the Prophets after him: and this the Iewes haue now set down in their Caba­la. Ans. This indeede is the opinion of some of the Iewes, whome in effect and sub­stance sundrie Papists follow: but we take it for no better then a Iewish dotage. For if Moses had known any secret doctrine beside the written law, he would neuer haue giuen this commandement of the said lawe, thou shalt not adde any thing thereto.

Obiect. V. Heb. 5. 12. Gods worde is of two sortes milke and strong me at. By milke we must vnderstand the word of God writ­ten wherein God speakes plainely to the ca­pacitie of the rudest: but strong meate is vn­written traditions, a doctrine not to be deli­vered vnto all, but to those that growe to perfection. Ansvv. We must knowe, that one and the same word of God is milke and strong meate, in regard of the manner of [Page 149] handling and propounding of it. For beeing deliuered generally and plainely, to the capa­city of the simplest, it is milke; but beeing handled particularly and largely, and so fitted for men of more vnderstanding, it is strong meate. As for example: the doctrine of the creation, of mans fall, and redemption by Christ, when it is taught ouerly and plainely, it is milke: but when the depth of the same is throughly opened, it is strong meate. And therefore it is a conceit of mans braine, to i­magine that some vnwritten word is meant by strong meat.

Obiect. VI. Sundrie places of Scripture be doubtfull: and euery religion hath his seue­rall exposition of them, as the Papists haue theirs, and the Protestants theirs. Now then, seeing there can be but one truth, when que­stion is of the interpretation of scripture, re­course must be had to the tradition of the Church, that the true sense may be determi­nedAug. de doct. Christ. l. 1. & 2. and the question ended. Ans. It is not so: but in doubtfull places Scripture it selfe is sufficient to declare his owne meaning; first by the analogie of faith, which is the summe [Page 150] of religiō gathered out of the clearest places of scripture: secondly, by the circumstances of the place and the nature and signification of the wordes; thirdly by conference of place with place. By these and like helpes contained in scripture, we may iudge which is the tru­est meaning of any place. Scripture it selfe is the text and the best glosse. And the scripture is falsly tearmed the matter of strife, it being not so of it selfe, but by the abuse of man.

And thus much for our dissent concer­ning traditions, wherein we must not be wauering but steadfast, because notwithstā ­ding our renouncing of popery; yet popish inclinations and dispositions be rise among vs. Our common people maruelously affect humane traditions: yea mans nature is incli­ned more to be pleased with them, then with the word of God. The feast of the na­tiuitie of our Sauiour Christ, is onely a cu­stome and tradition of the Church, and yet men are commonly more carefull to keepe it then the Lordes day, the keeping whereof standes by the moral law. Positiue lawes are not sufficient to restraine vs from buying & [Page 151] selling on the sabbath: yet within the twelue daies no man keepes market. Againe see the truth of this in our affection to the ministe­rie of the word: let the preacher alleadge Pe­ter and Paul, the people count it but com­mon stuffe, such as any man can bring: but let men come and alleadge Ambrose, Austine, and the rest of the fathers: oh, he is the man, he is alone for them. Againe, let any man be in danger any way, and straight he sendeth to the wise man or wizzard: Gods word is not sufficient to comfort and direct him. All this argues that poperie denied with the mouth, abides still in the heart: and therefore we must learne to reuerence the written word by ascribing vnto it all manner of per­fection.

The eight point. Of vowes.

Our consent.

Touching vowes this must be knowne, that we doe not condemne them altogea­ther, but onely labour to restore the puritie of doctrine touching this point, which by [Page 152] the Church of Rome from time to time hath bin corrupted and defaced: We hold therefore that a vowe is a promise made to God touching some duties to be perfor­med vnto him: and it is two fold, generall, or speciall. The generall vow is that which con­cernes all beleeuers: and it is made in the couenant both of the lawe, and of the Gos­pell. I will here onely speake of the vowe which is made in the couenant of the Gos­pell, in which there be two actions: one of God, the other of man. God in mercy one his part promiseth to men the remission of sinnes and life euerlasting▪ and man againe for his part promiseth to beleeue in Christ, and to obey God in all his commandements. All men euer made this vowe vnto God, as the Iewes in circumcision: which also they renued so often as they receiued the Passeo­uer: and in the newe testament all that are baptised doe the like. And in baptisme this vow is called the stipulation of a good con­sciēce, wherby we purpose to renounce our selues, to beleeue in Christ, & to bring forth the fruits of true repētance: & it ought to be [Page 153] renued so oft as we are partakers of the sup­per of the Lord. This vowe is necessarie and must be kept as a part of the true worship of God; because it is a promise, wherein we vowe to performe all duties commanded of God either in the lawe or in the Gospell. It may be demanded, considering we are boūd to obedience, how we binde our selues in baptisme thereto. Ans. Though we be alrea­die bound partly by nature and partly by the written word, yet may we renue the same bonde in a vowe, and he that is bound may further binde himselfe, so it be for this ende, to helpe his dulnes for want of zeale, and to make himselfe more forward in duties of loue to men and the worship of God: to this ende Dauid sware to keepe the law of God, psal. 119. 116. though he were bound vnto it by nature and by the written law it selfe.

The speciall vowe is that, which doth not reach to the person of all beleeuers, but onely concernes some speciall men vpon some speciall occasions. And this kind of vowe is twofold. The first, is the vowe of a ceremo­niall dutie in the way of seruice to God: and [Page 154] it was in practise in the Church of the Iewes vnder the olde Testament: examples hereof are two especially, the first was the vowe of the Nazarites, whereto no kind of men were bound by Gods commaundement, but they bound themselues: God onely prescribing the manner and order of keeping the same with rites pertaining thereto, as abstinence from wine, the not cutting of their haire, and such like. The secōd example is of the Iewes, when of their owne accords they vowed to giue God house or land, sheepe, or oxen, or any like things, for the maintenance of the legall worship: and of this also God prescri­beth certaine rules, Levit. 27. Now these vowes were part of the Iewish pedagogue or ceremoniall law, wherein God trained vp the Iewes in the old testament: and being obserued of them they were parts of Gods worship: but now vnder the gospell they are not: beeing all abolished with the ceremoni­all lawe, to which Christ put an ende at his death vpon the crosse. It is true Paul made a vowe, and since kept the same, in the time of the newe Testament, Act. 18. yet not as a part [Page 155] of Gods worship; but as a thing indifferent for the time: wherein he onely condescended to the weaknes of the Iewes, that by this meanes he might bring them the better vn­to Christ. And whereas Christ is called a Na­zarite, Math. 2. 23. we may not thinke he was of that very order, because he did not obstain from wine: but he was so tearmed because he was the veritie and accomplishment of this order. For by it was signified that Gods church was a peculiar people seuered or cho­sen out of the world, & that Christ in respect of holines was also seperated srō all sinners. And the words in S. Matthew, he shalbe cal­led a Nazarite, are borowed from the book of Iudges, cap. 13. where they are properly spoken of Sampson, and in type or figure of Christ. For as Sampson saued Israel by his death, so did Christ saue his Church. And as Sampson killed his enemies more by death then by life, so did Christ. It is plaine therefore that this kinde of vowe bindeth not vs: for there are no more ccremonies to be kept vnder the gospell for parts of Gods worship, but the outward rites of Baptisme [Page 156] and the Lordes Supper. Vowes concerning meates, drinks, attire, touching, tasting, times, places, daies were proper to the Iewes.

The second kinde of speciall vowe is that wherby a man promiseth freely to performe some outward and bodely exercise, for some good ende: and this vowe also (if it be made accordingly) is lawefull, and belongs both to the Church of the olde and newe testament. In the olde we haue the example of the Re­kabites. Ier. 35. who by the appointment of Ionadab their father abstained from strong drinke, and wine, from planting vineyardes and orchardes: whereby Ionadab intended onely to breake them before hand, and to ac­quaint them with their future condition and state, that they should be strangers in a for­raine land; that so they might prepare them­selues to indure hardnes in the time to come. And nowe in the newe testament we haue warrant in like manner to vowe: as if a man by drinking of wine or strong drinke, finde himselfe prone to drunkennes, he may vow with himselfe to drinke no more wine nor strong drinke for so long time, as he feeles [Page 157] the driuking thereof will stirre vp his infir­mitie, and minister occasion of sinning. Of this kind also are the vowes in which we purpose and promise to God, to keepe set times of fasting, to taske our selues in praier and reading of holy scriptures, and to giue set almes for speciall causes knowne to our selues, and to doe sundrie like duties. And that we be not deceiued in making such vowes, certen rules must be remembred: I. that the vow be agreeable to Gods will and word: for if it be otherwise, the making as also the keeping thereof is sinne. Vowes must not be the bondes of iniquitie. II. It must so be made, that it may stand with chri­stian libertie. For we may not make such things necessarie in conscience, which God hath made free. Nowe christian libertie al­lows vnto vs the free vse of all things indiffe­rent, so it be out of the case of offence. Hence it followes that vowes must be made and kept or not kept, so farre forth as in con­science they may stande or not stande with our liberty purchased by Christ. III. The vowe must be made with consent of superi­ours, [Page 158] if we be vnder gouernment. Thus a­mong the Iewes the vowe of a daughter might not stand, vnles the consent of parents came thereunto. IIII. It must be in the power and abilitie of the maker thereof, to doe or not to doe. A vowe made of a thing impossible, is no vowe. V. It must be agree­able to the calling of him that maketh it: that is, both to his generall calling as he is a Chri­stian, and to that particular calling wherein he liueth. If it be against either one or both, it is vnlawfull. VI. It must be made with deliberation. Rash vowes be not lawfull, though the things vowed may be done lawfully. VII. The ende must be good, which is to preserue and exercise the gifts of faith, prayer, repentance, obedience, and other vertues of the minde: as also to testifie our thākfulnes vnto God for blessings recei­ued. These are the principal rules which must be obserued in making of vowes: and here­withall must be remembred that vowes made on this manner, are by themselues no part of Gods worship, but onely helpes and furtherances thereunto: and thus are [Page 159] we to esteeme of all the vowes of the new Testament. And thus much of special vowes, and of our consent herein.

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 ninth point. Of Images.

Our consent.

Conclusion I. Wee acknowledge the ciuill vse of images as freely and truly as the Church of Rome doth. By civill vse I vn­derstand, that vse which is made of them in the common societies of men, out of the ap­pointed places of the solemne worshippe of God. And this to be lawfull, it appeareth: be­cause the arts of painting and grauing are the ordinance of God: and to be skilfull in them [Page 171] is the gift of God, as the example of Bezaleel, and Aholiab declare, Exod. 35. 30. This vse of Images may be in sundrie things. I. In the a­dorning and setting forth of buildings: thus Salomon beautified his throne with the i­mage of lyons. And the Lord commanded his temple to be adorned with the images of palme trees, of pomegranats, of bulls, che­rubes, and such like. II. It serues for the distinction of coynes: according to the pra­ctise of Emperours and princes of all nations. When Christ was asked, Matth. 22. whe­ther it was lawfull to giue tribute to Cesar or no? he called for a penie and said, vvhose image or super scription is this, they said, Ce­sars: he then saide, giue to Cesar the things that are Cesars; not condemning but appro­uing the stampe or image vpon his coyne. And though the Iewes were forbidden to make images in way of representation, or worship of the true god: yet the Sycle of the sanctuarie, which they vsed, specially after the time of Moses, was stamped with the i­mage of the Almond tree, and the po [...]te of Manna. III. Images serue to keepe in me­morie [Page 172] friends deceased whome we reue­rence. And it is like, that hence came one oc­casion of the images that are now in vse in the Romane Church. For in the daies after the Apostles men vsed priuately to keep the pictures of their friends departed: and this practise after crept into the open congrega­tion; and at last, superstition getting head, i­mages began to be worshipped.

Conclus. II. We hold the historicall vse of images to be good and lawfull: and that is, to represent to the eye the actes of histories, whether they be humane, or diuine: & thus we thinke the histories of the Bible may be painted in priuate places.

Conclus. III. In one case it is lawfull to make an image to testifie the presence or the effects of the maiestie of God, namely when God himselfe giues any speciall commande­ment so to doe. In this case Moses made and erected a brasen serpent, to be a type, signe, or image to represent Christ crucified. Ioh. 3. 14. And the Cherubs ouer the mercy seat ser­ued to represent the maiestie of God, to whō the angels are subiect. And in the second [Page 173] commaundement it is not simply saide, Thou shalt not make a grauen image: but with li­mitation, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe, that is, on thine owne head vpon thine owne will and pleasure.

IV. The right images of the new testa­ment, which we hold and acknowledge, are the doctrine and preaching of the gospell, & all things that by the word of God pertaines thereto. Gal. 3. Who hath be witched you that ye should not obey the truth to vvhome Iesus Christ was before DECSRIBED IN YOVR SIGHT AND AMONG YOV CRVCIFIED. Hence it fol­lowes, that the preaching of the word, is as a most excellent picture in which Christ with his benefites are liuely represented vnto vs. And we dissent not from Origen. contra Cels. lib. 8. who saith, We haue no images fra­med by any base vvorkemen, but such as are brought forth and framed by the word of God, namely patternes of vertue, and frames re­sembling Christians. He meanes that Chri­stians themselues are the images of Chri­stians.

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.

Arguments of the Papists.

The reasons which they vse to defend their opinions are these. I. In Salomons temple were erected Cherubins, which were Images of angels, on the Mercieseat where God was worshipped: and thereby was resembled the maiestie of God, there­fore it is lawefull to make images to re­semble God. Ansvv. They were ere­cted by speciall commandement from God. who prescribed the very forme of them and the place where they must be set: and thereby Moses had a warrant to make them; other­wise he had sinned: let them shewe the like warrant for their images if they can. Second­ly the Cherubins were placed in the holy of holies in the most inward place of the Tem­ple, and consequently were remoued from [Page 178] the sight of the people, who onely heard of them: & none but the high priest saw them, and that but once a yeare. And the Cheru­bins without the vayle though they were to be seene, yet were they not to be worship ped. Exo. 20. 4. Therfore they serue nothing at all to iustifie the images of the Church of Rome.

Obiect. II. God appeared in the forme of a man to Abraham, Gen. 18. 1▪ [...]3. and to Daniel, who sawe the auncient of daies sit­ting on a throne, Dan. 9. Nowe as God appeared, so may he be resembled: therefore (say they) it is lawful to resemble God in the forme of a man or any like image in which he shewed himselfe to men. Ans. In this rea­son the proposition is false, for God may ap­peare in whatsoeuer forme it pleaseth his maiestie; yet doth it not followe, that man should therefore resemble God in those formes: man hauing no libcrtie to resemble him in any forme at all: vnles he be comman­ded so to doe. Againe, when God appeared in the forme of a man, that forme was a signe of Gods presence onely for the time [Page 179] when God appeared and no longer: as the bread and wine in the sacrament are signes of Christs body and blood, not for euer but for the time of administration: for afterward they become againe, as common bread and wine. And when the Holy Ghost appeared in the likenes of a dove, that likenesse was a signe of his presence no longer then the ho­ly Ghost so appeared. And therefore he that would in these formes represent the Trini­tie, doth geeatly dishonour God, and do that for which he hath no warrant.

Obiect. III. Man is the image of God, but it is lawfull to paint a man, and therefore to make the image of God. Ans. A very ca­vill: for first a man cannot be painted, as he is the image of God, which standes in the spi­rituall gifts of righteousnes and true holines. Againe, the image of a man may be painted for ciuil or historicall vse, but to paint any man for this ende to represent God, or in the way of religion, that we may the better re­member and worship God, it is vnlawfull. O­ther reasons which they vse, are of small mo­ment, and therefore I omit them.

II. Differ. They teach and maintaine, that images of God and of Saintes may be worshipped with religious worship, speci­ally the crucifixe. For Thomas of Wate­ringf Summ. part 3. quest. [...]5. art. 3. saith, Seeing the crosse doth represent Christ, who died vpon acrosse, and is to be worshipped with diuine honour: it followeth that the crosse is to be worshipped so too. We on the contrarie, hold they may not. Our principall ground is the second comman­dement, which containeth two parts: the first forbiddeth the making of images to re­semble the true God: the second forbids the worshipping of them, or God in them; in these wordes. Thou shalt not bowe downe to them. Now, there can be no worship done to any thing lesse then the bending of the knee. Againe the brasen serpent was a type or Image of Christ crucified. Ioh. 3. 14. ap­pointed by God himselfe: yet when the peo­ple burned incense to it, 2. King. 18. 4. Heze­kias brake it in pieces, and is therefore com­mended. And when the deuill bad our Saui­our Christ, but to bow downe the knee vn­to him, and he would giue him the whole [Page 181] world: Christ reiects his offer, saying, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue, Math. 4. 10. Againe it is law­full for one man to worship another with ciuill worship, but to worship man with re­ligious honour is vnlawfull. For all religious worship is prescribed in the first table: and the honour due to man is onely prescribed in the second table and the first commande­ment thereof, Honour thy father; which ho­nour is therefore ciuill and not religious. Now the meanest man that can be, is a more excellent image of God, then all the images of God or of Saints that are deuised by men.de morib. E­cles cap. 35. lib. 9. epist. 9. Augustine, and long after him Gregorie, in plaine tearmes denieth images to be ado­red.

The Papists defend their opinions by these reasons. I. Psal. 99. 5. Cast downe your selues before his foot stoole. Ans. The words are thus to be read: Bow at his foot stoole; that is, at the Arke and Mercyseat, for there he hath made a promise of his presence: the wordes therefore say not, bovv to the Arke, but to God at the Arke.

[Page 182] Obiect. II. Exod. 3. 5. God saide to Moses, Stand a farre off and put off thy shooes, for the place is holy. Now if holy places must be re­uerenced, then much more holy images, as the crosse of Christ, and such like. Ansvv. God commanded the cermony of putting off the shooes, that he might thereby strike Moses with a religious reuerence, not of the place but of his owne maiestie, whose pre­sence made the place holy. Let them shewe the like warrant for images.

III. Obiect. It is lawfull to kneele downe to a chaire of estate in the absence of the king or Queene: therefore much more to the i­mages of God and of Saints in heauen glori­fied, being absent from vs. Ans. To kneele to the chaire of estate, is no more but a ciuill te­stimony, or signe of ciuill reuerēce, by which all good subiects when occasion is offered, shewe their loyaltie and subiection to their lawfull princes. And this kneeling being on this manner, and to no other end, hath suffi­cient warrant in the word of God. But knee­ling to the image of any Saint departed, is re­ligious and consequently more then ciuill [Page 183] worship, as the Papists themselues confesse. The argument then prooueth nothing, vn­lesse they will keepe themselues to one and the same kind of worship.

III. Differ. The Papists also teach, that God may be lawfully worshipped in images, in which he hath appeared vnto mem: as the Father, in the image of an old man: the Sonne in the image of a man crucified: and the Ho­ly Ghost in the likenes of a doue, &c. But we hold it vnlawfull to worship God in, by, or at any image: for this is the thing which (as I haue prooued before) the second com­mandement forbiddeth. And the fact of the Israelites, Exod. 32. in worshipping the gol­den calfe is condemned as flat idolatrie; albe­it they worshipped not the calfe but God in the calfe: for v. 5. Aaron saith, To morrovve shall be the solemnitie of Iehovah: whereby he doth giue vs to vnderstand, that the calfe was but a signe of Iehouah whome they worshipped. Obiect. It seemes the Israe­lites worshipped the calfe. For Aaron faith, vers. 4. These be thy Gods (O Israel) that brought thee out of Egypt. Ansvv. Aarons [Page 184] meaning is nothing els, but that the golden calfe, was a signe of the presence of the true God. And the name of the thing signified is giuen to the signe, as vpon a stage he is cal­ledad Simplic. lib. 2. q. 3. a King that representes the King. And Augustine saith, that images are wont to be called by the names of things whereofthey are images, as the counterfeit of Samuel is called Samuel. And we must not esteeme them all as madde men to thinke that a calfe made of their earings, beeing but one or two daies olde, should be the God that brought them out of Egypt with a mightie hand many daies before.

And these are the points of difference tou­ching Images▪ wherein we must stand at va­rience for euer with the Church of Rome. For they erre in the foundation of religion, making indeede an idol of the true God, and worshipping an other Christ then we doe, vnder new tearmes, maintaining the Idola­try of the heathen. And therefore haue we departed from them: and so must we still doe because they are Idolaters; as I haue proo­ued.

The X. point. Of reall presence.

Our consent.

I. We holde and beleeue a presence of Christs bodie and bloode in the Sacrament of the Lords supper: and that no fained, but a true and reall presence: which must be con­sidered two waies; first in respect of the signes, secondly in respect of the communi­cants. For the first, we hold and teach, that Christs bodie and bloode, are truly present with the bread and wine, being signes in the sacrament: but how? not in respect of place, of coexistence: but by sacramentall relation, on this manner. When a word is vttered, the sound comes to the eare; and at the same instant, the thing signified comes to the minde; and thus by relation the word and the thing spoken of, are both present toge­ther. Euen so at the Lords table bread and wine must not be considered barely, as sub­stances and creatures, but as outward signes in relation to the bodie and blood of Christ: [Page 186] and this relation, arising from the very insti­tution of the Sacrament, standes in this, that when the elements of bread & wine are pre­sent to the hand and to the mouth of the re­ceiuer; at the very same time the bodie and bloode of Christ are presented to the minde: thus and no otherwise is Christ tru­ly present with the signes. The second pre­sence is in respect of the communicants, to whose beleeuing hearts he is also really pre­sent. It will be said, what kinde of presence is this? Ans. Such as the communion in the sa­crament is, such is the presence: and by the communion must we iudge of the presence. Nowe the communion is on this manner: God the father, according to the tenour of the Euangelicall couenant, giues Christ in this sacrament as really and truly, as any thing can be giuen to man, not by part and peecemeale (as we say) but whole Christ God and man, on this sort. In Christ there be two natures, the godhead, and manhood. The godhead is not giuen in regard of sub­stance, or essence: but onely in regard of effi­cacie, merits, and operation conueied thence [Page 187] to the manhood. And further, in this sacra­ment Christs whole manhood is giuen both bodie and soule, in this order. First of all is gi­uen the verie manhoode in respect of sub­stance, and that really: secondly the merits & benefites thereof, as namely, the satisfaction performed by and in the manhoode, to the iustice of God. And thus the intire manhood with the benefits thereof, are giuen wholly and ioyntly together. For the two distinct signes of bread and wine signifie not two distinct giuings of the bodie apart and the blood apart: but the full and perfect nourish­ment of our soules. Againe the benefites of Christs manhoode are diuersly giuen, some by imputation, which is, an action of God accepting that which is done by Christ as done by vs: and thus it hath pleased God to giue the passion of Christ & his obedience. Some againe are giuen by a kind of propaga­tion, which I cannot fitly expresse in tearms, but I resemble it thus. As one candle is ligh­ted by an other, & one torch or candle-light is conuaied to twentie candles: euen so the inherent righteousnes of euery beleeuer, is [Page 188] deriued from the storehouse of righteousnes which is in the manhood of Christ: for the righteousnes of all the members, is but the fruit thereof, euen as the naturall corruption in all mankinde, is but a fruit of that originall sinne which was in Adam. Thus we see how God for his part giues Christ, and that really. To proceede, when God giues Christ, he giues withall at the same time the spirit of Christ, which spirit creates in the heart of the receiuer the instrument of true faith, by which the heart doth really receiue Christ giuen of God, by resting vpon the promise, which God hath made that he will giue Christ and his righteousnesse to euery true beleeuer. Now then, when God giues Christ with his benefits, and man for his part by faith receiues the same as they are giuen, there riseth that vnion which is betweene e­uery good receiuer and Christ himselfe. Which vnion is not forged, but a reall, true, and neare coniunction; nearer then which, none is or can be: because it is made by a so­lemne giuing and receiuing that passeth be­tweene God and man: as also by the bond of [Page 189] one and the same spirit. To come then to the point, considering there is a reall vnion, and consequently a reall communion betweene vs and Christ, (as I haue prooued) there must needes be such a kinde of presence wherein Christ is truly and really present to the heart of him that receiues the sacrament in faith. And thus farre doe we consent with the Ro­mish Church touching reall presence.

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.

Our reasons.

I. This corporall presence ouerturnes sundrie articles of faith. For we beleeue that the bodie of Christ was made of the pure substance of the virgin Marie, and that but once, namely when he was conceiued by the holy Ghost, and borne. But this cannot stand, if the body of Christ be made of bread and his blood of wine, as they must needes be, if there be no succession or annihilation but a reall conuersion of substances in the sa­crament: vnlesse we must beleeue contrarie­ties, that his bodie was made of the substance of the Virgin, and not of the Virgin; made once and not once but often. Againe, if his bodie & blood be vnder the formes of bread and wine, then is he not as yet ascended into heauen, but remaines still among vs. Neither can he be saide to come from heauen at the day of iudgement: for he that must come thence to iudge the quicke and dead, must be absent from the earth. And this was the aun­cient faith. Augustine saith, that Christ accor­ding Tract. 1. in Iob. to his maiestie and prouidence and grace [Page 191] is present with vs to the end of the world: but according to his ASSVMED FLESH HE IS NOT al­waies with vs. Cyril saith, He is ABSENT INLib. 9. in. cap. 21. BODIE and present in vertue, vvhereby all things are gouerned. Vigilius saith, That he isContra [...] ­tich. lib. 1. & 4. gone from vs according to his humanitie: he hath left vs in his humanitie: in the forme of a seruant absent from vs: when his flesh was on earth, it was not in heauen: being on earth, he was not in heauen: and beeing now in hea­uen, he is not on earth. Fulgentius saith, One Lib. 2. ad Thrasi mun­dum. and the same Christ, according to his humane substance, was absent from heauen vvhen he was on earth: and LEFT THE EARTH when he ascended into heauen.

Reason II. This bodily presence ouer­turnes the nature of a true bodie, whose common nature or essentiall propertie it is, to haue length, breadth, and thicknes, which beeing taken away a bodie is no more a bo­die. And by reason of these three dimensions, a bodie can occupie but one place at once, as cap. de cate­gor. quant. Aristotle said, the propertie of a bodie is to be seated in some place, so as a man may say where it is. They therefore that holde the [Page 192] bodie of Christ to be in many places at once, doe make it no bodie at all: but rather a spirit, and that infinite. They alleadge that God is almightie; that is true indeede, but in this and like matters we must not dispute what God can do, but what he wil do. And I say further because God is omnipotent, therefore there be some things which he cannot doe, as for him to denie himselfe, to lie, and to make the parts of a contradiction to be both true at the same time. To come to the point, if God should make the very body of Christ to be in many places at once, he should make it to be no bodie while it remaines a bodie: and to be circumscribed in some one place and not cir­cumscribed, because it is in many places at the same time: to be visible in heauen and inuisi­ble in the sacrament; and thus should he make contradictions to be true: which to doe is a­gainst his nature, and argues rather impoten­cie then power. Augustine saith to this pur­pose.De Symb. ad Catech. l. 1. cap. 1. If he could lie, deceiue, be deceiued, deale vniustly, he should not be omnipotent. And, Therefore he is omnipotent, because he can not doe these things. Againe, He is called dom­nipotent [Page 193] by doing that which he will, and not by doing that which he will not: which if it should be fal him, he should not be omnipotent.

Reason III. Transubstantiation ouer­turnes the very Supper of the Lord. For in euery sacramēt there must be a signe, a thing signified, and a proportion or relation be­tweene them both. But popish reall presence takes all away: for when the bread is really turned into Christs body, and the wine into his bloode, then the signe is abolished, and there remaines nothing but the outwarde formes or appearance of breade and wine. Againe, it abolisheth the endes of the sacra­ment, whereof one is to remember Christ till his comming againe, who beeing pre­sent in the sacrament bodily, needes not to be remembred: because helpes of remem­brance are of things absent. Another ende is to nourish the soule vnto eternall life: but by transubstantiation the principal feeding is of the body and not of the soule, which is one­ly fed with spiritual food▪ for though the bo­dy may be bettered by the food of the soule, yet cā not the soule be fed with bodily food.

[Page 194]Reason IV. In the sacrament the bodie of Christ is receiued as it was crucified: and his blood, as it was shedde vpon the crosse: but nowe at this time Christs body crucified, remaines still as a bodie, but not as a bodie crucified: because the act of crucifying is ceased. Therefore it is faith alone, that makes Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the sacrament. Again, that blood which ran out of the feet and hands and side of Christ vpon the crosse, was not gathered vp againe and put into the veines: nay, the collection was needelesse, because after the resurrection, he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life: and none knowes what is become of this blood. The Papist therefore cannot say it is present vnder the forme of wine locally: and we may better say it is receiued spiritually by faith, whose property is to giue a beeing to things which are not.

Reason V. 1. Cor. 10. 3. The fathers of the olde testament did eate the same spirituall meat, and drinke the same spirituall drinke: for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ. Now they could not eate his body [Page 195] which was crucified, or drinke his bloode shedde bodily, but by faith: because then his bodie and blood were not in nature. The Papists make answer, that the fathers did eat the same meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke with themselues, not with vs. But their answer is against the text. For the A­postles intent is to prooue, that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians, because they did eat the same spirituall meat, and dranke the same spirituall drinke with the Corinthians; otherwise his reasō prooues not the point which he hath in hand, name­ly that the Israelites were nothing inferiour to the Corinthians.

Reason VI. And it is said, the sabbath was made for man: and not man for the sabbath: so it may be saide, that the sacrament of the Lordes supper was made for man, & not mā for it: & therefore man is more excellent thē the sacrament. But if the signes of bread and wine be really turned into the body and blood of Christ, then is the sacrament infi­nitely better then man; who in his best estate is onely ioyned to Christ, and made a mem­ber [Page 196] of his mysticall bodie: whereas the bread and wine are made very Christ. But the sa­crament or outward elements indeede are not better then man: the ende beeing alwaies better then the thing ordained to the ende. It remaines therefore that Christs presence is not corporall but spirituall. Againe in the supper of the Lord, euery beleeuer receiueth whole Christ, God and man, though not the godhead: now by this carnall eating, we re­ceiue not whole Christ, but onely a part of his manhoode: and therefore in the sacra­ment there is no carnall eating, and conse­quently no bodily presence.

Reason VII. The iudgement of the an­cient Church. Theodoret saith, The same Dialog. 1. immutab. Christ, who called his naturall bodie foode and bread, vvho also called him selfe a vine, he vouch safed the visible signes the name of his owne bodie, NOT CHANGING NATVRE, but putting grace to nature; whereby he meanessame dialog. consecration. And, The mysticall signes after sanctification loose not their proper nature. For they REMAINE IN THEIR FIRST NA­TVRE, and keepe their first figure and forme; [Page 197] and as before, may be touched and seene: and that which they are made, is vnderstood, be­leeued, adored. Gelasius saith, Bread and wine Lib. de duob. nat. Christ. passe into the substance of the bodie and blood of Christ, yet so as the SVBSTANCE OR NA­TVRE OF BREAD AND VVINE CEASETH NOT. And they are turned into the diuine sub­stance, yet the bread and wine REMAIN STIL IN THE PROPERTIE OF THEIR NATVRE. Lumbard saith, If it be asked what conuersion Lib. 4. dist. 11. this is, vvhether formall, or substantiall, or of an other kinde, I am not able to define. And that the Fathers held not transubstantiation, I prooue it by sundrie reasons. First, they v­sed in former timesHesych. lib. 2. c. 8. in Le­viticum. to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lords supper. Secondly by the sacramen­tall vnion of the bread and wine with the bodie and blood of Christ, they vsed to con­firme the personall vnion of the manhood ofTheodore [...]. dialog. 2. Christ with the godhead against hereticks: which argument they would not haue v­sed, if they had beleeued a popish reall pre­sence. Thirdly it was a custome in Constan­tinople, that if many parts of the sacrament [Page 198] remained after the administration thereof was ended, that young children should be sent for from the schoole to eate them; who ne­uerthelesEuang lib. 4. Niceph. l. 17. c. 25. were barred the Lordes table. And this argues plainely that the Church in those daies, tooke the bread after the administra­tion was ended, for common bread. Againe, it was once an order in the Romane church, that the wine should be consecrated by dip­ping Amala. 2. lib. de off. ecc [...]es c. 12. & 15. into it bread, which had bin consecra­ted. But this order cannot stand with the reall presence, in which the bread is turned both into the bodie and bloode. Nicholaus Cabasilas saith, After he hath vsed some speach to the people, he erects their mindes, Lib. de expos. L [...]urg. c. 26. and lifts their thoughts from earth, & saith, Sursum corda, Let vs lift vp our heartes, let vs THINKE ON THINGS ABOVE, and not on things that are vpon the earth. They consent & say, that they lift vp their hearts thither, where is their treasure, and where Christ sits at the right hand of his father.

Obiections of Papists.

I. Their first reason is, Ioh. 6. 55. My flesh [Page 199] is meat indeed, and my blood is drinke indeed: therefore (say they) Christs body must be eaten with the mouth, and his blood drunke accordingly. Ans. The chapter must be vn­derstood of a spirituall eating of Christ: his bodie is meate indeede but spirituall meate, and his bloode spirituall drinke, to be recei­ued not by the mouth, but by faith. This is the very point that Christ here intendes to prooue, namely that to beleeue in him is to eate his flesh and to drinke his bloode are all one. Againe, this chapter must not be vnder­stoood of that speciall eating of Christ in the sacrament: for it is saide generally, v. 53. Ex­cept ye eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood, ye haue no life in you: and if these very words (which are the substance of the chap­ter) must be vnderstood of a sacramentall ea­ting, no man before the comming of Christ was saued: for none did bodily eate or drink his bodie or bloode; considering it was not then existing in nature, but onely was pre­sent to the beleeuing heart by faith.

II. Obiect. An other argument is taken from the wordes of the institution. This is [Page 200] my body. Ans. These wordes must not be vnderstood properly but by a figure: his bo­die beeing put for the signe and seale of his bodie. It is obiected, that when any make their last wills and testaments, they speake as plainely as they cā: now in this supper Christ ratifies his last will and testament; and there­fore he spake plainely, without any figure. Ans. Christ here speaketh plainely and by a figure also: for it hath bin alwaies the vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of sacra­ments, to giue the name of the thing signifi­ed to the signe: as Gen. 17. 10. circumcision is called the couenant of God▪ & in the next v. in way of exposition, the signe of the couenāt. & Exod. 12. 11. the paschal lambe is called the Angels passing by or ouer the houses of the Israelites; whereas indeed it was but a signe thereof; & 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock was Christ 1. Cor. 5. 7. The Passeouer was Christ. And the like phrase is to be found in the institution of this sacrament cōcerning the cup, which the Papists themselues confesse to be figuratiue: when it is said, Luk. 22. This cuppe is the new testament in my blood, that is, a signe, seale, [Page 201] and pleadge thereof. Againe the time when these wordes were spoken must be conside­red, and it was before the passion of Christ, whereas yet his body was not crucified nor his blood shed: and cōsequently neither of thē could be receiued in bodily manner, but by faith alone. Againe, Christ was not onely the author, but the minister of this sacrament at the time of institution thereof: and if the bread had beene truly turned into his bodie, and the wine into his blood, Christ with his owne hands should haue taken his owne bo­die and blood, and haue giuen it to his disci­ples: nay, which is more, he should with his owne hands, haue taken his owne flesh and drunken his owne bloode, and haue eaten himself. For Christ himselfe did eate the bread and drinke the wine, that he might with his own person consecrate his last sup­per, as he had consecrated baptisme before. And if these wordes should be properly vn­derstood, euery man must be a manslaier in his eating of Christ. Lastly by meanes of popish reall presence, it comes to passe, that our bodies should be nourished by naked [Page 202] qualities without any substance, which in all philosophie, is false and erronious. To helpe this & the like absurdities, some Papists make nine wonders in the sacrament. The first, that Ioh. de Com. bis comp. Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 14. Christs bodie is in the Eucharist in as large a quantitie as he was upon the crosse, and is now in heauen, and yet exceedes not the quantitie of the bread. The second, that there be acci­dents without a subiect. The third, that bread is turned into the bodie of Christ, and yet is not the matter of the bodie, nor resolued to nothing. The fourth, that the body increaseth not by consecration of many hosts, and is not diminished by often receiuing. The fifth, that the bodie of Christ is vnder many consecra­ted hosts. The sixt, that when the host is diui­ded, the bodie of Christ is not diuided, but vn­der euery part thereof is vvhole Christ. The seauenth, that when the priest holds the host in his hand, the bodie of Christ is not felt by it selfe nor seene, but the formes of bread and vvine. The eight, that vvhen the formes of bread and wine cease, the bodie and bloode of Christ ceaseth also to be there. The ninth, that the accidents of bread and wine haue the [Page 203] same effects vvith the bread and vvine it selfe, vvhich are to nourish and fill. On this manner it shall be easie for any man to defend the most absurd opinion that is or can be, if he may haue libertie to answer the argu­ments alledged to the contrary by wonders.

To conclude, seeing there is a reall com­munion in the sacrament betweene Christ and euery beleeuing heart, our dutie there­fore is, to bestow our hearts on Christ, en­deauouring to loue him, and to reioyce in him, and to long after him aboue all things: all our affiance must be in him, & with him; wee beeing nowe on earth must haue our conuersation in heauen. And this is the true reall presence, which the auncient Church of God hath commended vnto vs: for in all these liturgies these wordes were vsed, and are yet extant in the popish masse, Lift vp your hearts: we lift them vp vnto the Lord. By which wordes the communicants were admonished to direct their mindes and their faith to Christ sitting at the right hand of God. Thus saide Augustine, If vve ce­lebrate Serm de Ascens. 1. the ascension of the Lord vvith de­uotion: [Page 204] let vs ascend vvith him, and lift vp our hearts. Againe, they vvhich are alreadie risen with Christ in faith and hope are inui­ted Serm. 14. 2. fer. p [...]sc [...]. to the great table of heauen, to the table of Angels, VVHERE IS THE BREAD.

The eleuenth point. Of the sacrifice in the Lords Supper, which the Papists call the sacrifice of the Masse.

Touching this point, first I will set downe what must be vnderstoode by the name Sa­crifice. A sacrifice is taken properly, or im­properly. Properly it is a sacred or solemne action, in which man offereth and consecra­teth some outward bodily thing vnto God for this end, to please and honour him there­by. Thus al the sacrifices of the old testament, and the oblation of Christ vpon the crosse in the new Testament are sacrifices. Impro­perly, that is, onely by the way of resem­blance, the duties of the morall lawe are cal­led sacrifices. And in handling this question, I vnderstande a sacrifice both properly and [Page 205] improperly by way of resemblance.

Our consent.

Our consent I propound in two conclusi­ons. Conclus. I. That the supper of the Lord is a sacrifice, and may truly be so called as it hath bin in former ages; & that in three re­spects. I. Because it is a memoriall of the reall sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, and con­taines withall a thanksgiuing to God for the same, which thanksgiuing is the sacrifice and calves of our lips. Hebr. 13. 15. II. Because e­uery communicant doth there present him­selfe bodie and soule a liuing, holy, and accep­table sacrifice vnto God. For as in this sa­crament God giues vnto vs Christ, with his benefits; so we answerable giue vp our selues vnto God as seruants to walk in the practise of all dutifull obedience. III. It is called a sa­crifice in respect of that which was ioyned with the sacrament, namely the Almes giuen to the poore as a testimonie of our thanke­fulnes vnto God. And in this regard also, the ancient Fathers haue called the sacrament, an vnbloodie sacrifice: and the table, an altar; & [Page 206] the ministers priests: and the whole action an oblation not to God but to the congregation, & not by the priest alone but by the people. A Canon of a certaine Council saith, We de­cree Concil. Ma­ [...]iscon. 2. c. 4. that euery Lords day the oblation of the altar be offered of euery man and woman both for bread and wine. And Augustine saith, thatEpist. 122. vvomen offer a sacrifice at the altar of the Lord, that it might be offered by the priest to God. And vsually in ancient writers the com­munion of the whole bodie of the congre­gation is called the sacrifice or oblation.

Conclus. II. That the very bodie of Christ is offered in the Lordes Supper. For as we take the bread to be the bodie of Christ sa­cramentally by resemblance and no other­wise: so the breaking of bread is sacramen­tally the sacrificing or offering of Christ vp­on the crosse. And thus the fathers haue tear­med the Eucharist an immolation of Christ, because it is a cōmemoration of his sacrifice vpon the crosse. Aug. Epist. 23. Neither doth he lie which saith Christ was offered. For if sacraments had not the resemblāce of things whereof they are sacraments, they should in [Page 207] no vvise be sacraments: but from a resem­blance, they often take their names. Againe Christ is sacrificed in the last supper, in re­gard of the faith of the cōmmunicants, which makes a thing past and done as present. Au­gustineLib. 2. quaest. vet. & Nov. Test. Ad Rom. saith, When we beleeue in Christ, he is offered for vs daily. And, Christ is then slaine for euery one, vvhen he beleeues that he is slaine for him▪ Ambrose saith, Christ is sacri­ficed Lib. 2 de Virg. daily in the mindes of beleeuers, as vpon an altar. Hierome saith, He is alwaies offe­red Ad Damas. to the beleeuers.

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.

III. Our reasons.

Reason. I. Heb. 9. v. 15. and 26: and cap. 10. v. 10. The holy ghost saith, Christ offered himselfe but once. Therefore not often: and thus there can be no reall or bodily offering of his bodie and blood in the sacrament of his supper: the text is plaine. The Papists an­swer thus. The sacrifice of Christ (say they) is one for substāce, yet in regard of the man­ner of offering it is either bloodie or vn­bloodie, and the holy ghost speakes onely of the bloodie sacrifice of Christ: which was indeede offered but once. Ans. But the au­thor of this epistle takes it for graunted, that the sacrifice of Christ is onely one, and that [Page 209] bloodie sacrifice. For he saith, Heb. 9. v. 25. Christ did not offer himselfe often, as the high priests did. & v. 26. For thē he must haue oftē suffered since the foundatiō of the world: but now in the end he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe. and v. 22. VVITHOVT SHEDDING OF BLOOD is NO remission of sinne. By these wordes it is plaine, that the scripture neuer knewe the two fold maner of sacrificing of Christ. And euery distinction in Diuinitie not founded in the written worde, is but a forgerie of mans braine. And if this distinction be good, how shall the reason of the Apostle stand▪ He did not offer himselfe but once, because he suffered but once.

Reason II. The Romish Church holdes that the sacrifice in the Lordes Supper is all one for substance, with the sacrifice which he offered on the crosse: if that be so, then the sacrifice in the Eucharist, must either be a cō ­tinuance of that sacrifice which was begun on the crosse, or els an iteration or repetition of it. Now let them choose of these twaine which they wil: if they say it is a continuance [Page 210] of the sacrifice on the crosse, Christ being but the beginner and the Priest the finisher thereof, they make it imperfect: for to con­tinue a thing till it be accomplished, is to bring perfection vnto it: but Christs sacrifice on the crosse was then fully perfected, as by his owne testimony appeares, when he said, consummatum est, it is finished. Againe, if they say, it is a repetition of Christs sacrifice, thus also they make it imperfect, for that is the reason, which the holy ghost vseth, to prooue that the sacrifices of the old testamēt were imperfect, because they were repea­ted.

Reason III. A reall and outward sacri­fice in a sacrament, is against the nature of a sacrament and especially the supper of the Lord: for one end thereof is to keepe in me­mory the sacrifice of Christ. Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done: and if Christ be daily and really sa­crificed, the sacrament is no fit memoriall of his sacrifice. Againe the principall ende for which the sacrament was ordained, is that God might giue & we receiue Christ with [Page 211] his benefits: and therfore to giue and take, to eate & drink are here the principal actiōs. Now in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ & the priest receiue him of God; but contrariwise he giues & offers Christ vnto God, and God receiues some thing of vs. To helpe the matter they say, that this sacrifice serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God, but rather to apply vnto vs the sa­tisfaction of Christ beeing already made. But this answere still maketh against the nature of a sacrament, in which God giues Christ vnto vs: whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man, and man giues something to god: a sacrifice therefore is no fit meanes to apply any thing vnto vs, that is giuen of God.

Reason IV. Heb. 7. 24. 25. The Holy Ghost makes a difference betweene Christ the high priest of the newe testament, and all Leuiticall priests in this, that they were ma­ny, one succeeding another: but he is onely one, hauing an eternall priesthood, which cannot passe from him to any other. Nowe if this difference be good, then Christ alone in his owne very person must be the priest [Page 212] of the new testament, and no other with, or, vnder him: otherwise in the new testament their should be more priests in number then in the old. If they say, that the whole action remaines in the person of Christ, and that the priest is but an instrument vnder him (as they say) I say againe it is false; because the whole oblatiō is acted or done by the priest himselfe; and he which doth all, is more then a bare instrument.

Reason V. If the priest doe offer to God Christs reall bodie and blood for the pardon of our sinnes, then man is become a media­tour betweene God and Christ. Now the Church of Rome saith, that the priest in his masse is a priest properly, and his sacrifice a reall sacrifice differing onely in the manner of offering from the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse: and in the very Canon of the masse they insinuate thus much, when they request God to accept their giftes and offe­rings, namely Christ himselfe offered, as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noe. Now it is absurd, to thinke that any creature should be a mediatour betweene Christ and God. [Page 213] Therefore Christ cannot possibly be offered by any creature vnto God.

Reason VI. The iudgement of the aun­cient Church. A certaine Counsell held atTolet. Con­cil. 12. c. 5. Toledo in Spaine reprooueth the Ministers that they offered sacrifice often the same day without the holy communion. The wordes of the Canon are these. Relation is made vn­to vs that certaine priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communi­on, as they offer sacrifices in one daie: but in one day, if they offer many sacrifices to God, in ALL THE OBLATIONS, THEY SVSPEND THEM­SELVES FROM THE COMMVNION—. Here marke, that the sacrifices in auncient Masses were nothing else but formes of diuine ser­uice; because none did communicate, no not the priest himselfe. And in an other Counsell the name of the Masse is put onely for aMileue [...] Cap. 12. forme of prayer. It hath pleased vs, that praiers, supplications, Masses, which shall be alowed in the Councel—, be vsed. And in this sense it is taken when speach is vsed ofConcil Tolet 4. c. 12. &c▪ Iacob. de consecr. dip [...] the making or compounding of Masses: for the sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie [Page 214] & blood of Christ admits no composition. Abbat Paschasius saith, because we sinn daily d Lib. de cor­por. & sang▪ dom. cap. 9. Christ is sacrificed for vs MYSTICALLY, and his Passion is giuen in mysterie. These his words are against the reall sacrifice: but yet he expounds himselfe more plainly, cap. 10. The blood is drunke IN MYSTERIE SPIRITV­ALLY: and, it is all SPIRITVAL which we eate. and c. 12. The priest—, distributes to euery one not as much as the outward sight giueth, but as much as FAITH RECEIVETH. c. 13. The FVL similitude is outwardly, and the immacu­late flesh of the lambe is FAITH INVVARDLY—, that the truth be not wāting to the sa­crament, and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that we drinke the blood of a killed man. c. 6. One eates the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinkes his bloode, another seemes to receiue not so much as a mor sell of bread from the hand of the priest: his reason is, because they come vnprepared. Now then considering in all these places he makes no receiuing but spirituall, neither doth he make any sacrifice but spirituall.

IV. Obiections of Papists.

I. Gen. 14. v. 18. When Abraham was comming from the slaughter of the Kings, Melchizedek mette him, and brought forth bread and wine; and he was a priest of the most high God. Now this bread and wine (say they) he brought forth to offer for a sa­crifice; because it is said he was a priest of the most high God: and they reason thus. Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek: therefore as Melchizedek offered breade and wine, so Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine offers himselfe in sacrifice vnto God. Ans. Melchizedek was no type of Christ in regard of the acte of sacrificing, but in regard of his person, and things per­taining thereto, which are all fully expoun­ded, Hebr. 7. the summe whereof is this. I. Melchizedek was both king and priest: so was Christ. II. He was a prince of peace and righteousnes: so was Christ. III. He had neither father nor mother: because the Scripture in setting down his historie makes no mention either of beginning or ending [Page 216] of his daies: and so Christ had neither father nor mother: no father, as he was man; no mother, as he was God. IV. Melchizedek beeing greater then Abraham blessed him, and Christ by vertue of his priesthood bles­seth, that is, iustifieth and sanctifieth all those that be of the faith of Abraham. In these things onely stands the resemblance and not in the offering of bread and wine. Again the ende of bringing forth the breade and wine, was not to make a sacrisice, but to refresh A­braham and his seruants, that came from the slaughter of the Kings. And he is called here a priest of the most high God, not in regard of any sacrifice; but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham, as the order of the wordes teacheth, And he was the priest of the most high God, and therefore he blessed him. Thirdly, though it were graunted, that he brought forth breade and wine to offer in sacrifice, yet will it not follow, that in the sacrament Christ himselfe is to be offered vnto God vnder the naked formes of bread and wine. Melchizedeks bread & wine were absurd types of no-bread and no-wine, or, [Page 217] of formes of bread and wine in the Sacramēt.

II. Obiect. The paschall lambe was both a sacrifice and a sacrament: now the Eucha­rist comes in roome thereof. Ansvv. The paschal lambe was a sacrament, but no sacri­fice. Indeede Christ saith to his disciples, Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the Passeover in, Mark. 14. 12. but the words to offer, or to sacrifice, doe often signifie no more but to kill. As when Iacob and Laban made a co­venant; it is saide, Iacob sacrificed beasts, and called his brethren to eate bread, Gen. 31. 54. which wordes, must not be vnderstoode of killing for sacrifice, but of killing for a feast: because he could not in a good conscience inuite them to his sacrifice, that were out of the couenant, beeing (as they were) of ano­ther religion: secondly, it may be called a sa­crifice, because it was killed after the manner of a sacrifice. Thirdly, when Saul sought his fathers asses, and asked for the Seer, a maide bids him goe vp in hast: for (saith shee) there is an offering of the people this day in the high place, 1. Sam. 9. 12. where the feast that was kept in Rama, is called a sacrifice; in all [Page 218] likelihood because at the beginning thereof, the priest offered a sacrifice to God: and soDeutr. 16. 2. the Passeouer may be called a sacrifice, be­cause sacrifices were offered within the cō ­passe of the appointed feast or solemnitie of the passeouer: & yet the thing it selfe was no more a sacrifice then the feast in Rama was. Againe, if it were graunted that the Passouer was both, it will not make much against vs: for the supper of the Lord succeedes the Passeouer onely in regard of the maine ende thereof, which is the increase of our com­munion with Christ.

III. Obiect. Malac. I. II. The prophet foretelleth of a cleane sacrifice that shall be in the new testament: and that (say they) is the sacrifice of the Masse. Ans. This place must be vnderstoode of a spirituall sacrifice, as we shall plainely perceiue if we compare it with 1. Tim. 2. 8. where the meaning of the pro­phet is fitly expounded. I will (saith Paul) that men pray in all places, LIFTING VP PVRE HANDS, without wrath or doubting. And this is the cleane sacrifice of the Gentiles. Thus Iustin Martyr saith, That supplications and Dialog. eum Triph. [Page 219] thanksgiuings are the ONELY perfect sacrifi­ces pleasing God, and that Christians haue learned to OFFER THEM ALONE. And Tertul­lianAd Scapu, lam. saith, We sacrifice for the health of the Emperour—: as God hath commaunded with pure praier. And Ireneus saith, that thisLib. 4. c. 3 [...]. cleane offering to be offered in euery place, is the praiers of the Saints.

Obiect. IV. Hebr. 13. 10. We haue an al­tar, whereof they may not eate, vvhich serue in the tabernacle. Now (say they) if we haue an altar then wee must needes haue a priest: and also a reall sacrifice. Ans. Here is meant not a bodily, but a spirituall altar; because the altar is opposed to the materiall Tabernacle: and what is meant thereby is expressed in the next verse, in which he prooues that we haue an altar. The bodies of the beasts, whose blood was brought into the holy place by the high priest for sinne, were burnt without the campe; so Christ Iesus, that he might sancti­fie the people with his ovvne blood, suffered vvithout the gate. Now lay the reason or proofe to the thing that is prooued, and we must needes vnderstande Christ himselfe, [Page 220] who was both the altar, the priest, and the sa­crifice.

Obiect. V. Lastly, they say, where alteration is both of law & couenant: there must needs be a new priest and a new sacrifice. But in the new testament there is alteration both of law and couenant: and therfore there is both new priest and new sacrifice. Ans. Al may be granted: in the new testament, there is both new priest and sacrifice: yet not any popish priest, but onely Christ himselfe both God and man. The sacrifice also is Christ as he is man: and the altar, Christ as he is God, who in the new testament offered himselfe a sa­crifice to his Father for the sinnes of the world. For though he were the lambe of God slaine from the beginning of the world, in regard of the purpose of God, in regard of the value of his merit, and in regard of faith which maketh things to come as present, yet was he not actually offered till the fulnes of time came; and once offering of himselfe, he remaineth a priest for euer, & al other priests beside him, are superfluous: his one offering once offered, beeing all-sufficient.

The twelfth point. Of fasting.

Our consent.

Our consent may be set downe in three conclusions. I. We doe not condemne fa­sting, but maintain three sorts therof: to wit, a morall, ciuill, and a religious fast. The first being moral, is a practise of sobrietie or tem­perance, when as in the vse of meates and drinkes, the appetite is restrained, that it doe not exceede moderation. And this must be vsed of all Christians in the whole course of their liues. The second beeing ciuill, is when vpon some particular and politicke conside­rations, men abstaine from certaine meates: as in this our common-wealth the Law in­ioynes vs to abstaine from flesh-meat at cer­tain seasons of the yere, for these special ends; to preserue the breed of cattell, and to main­taine the calling of the fisherman. The third, namely a religious fast, is when the duties of [Page 222] religion, as the exercise of prayer and humi­latiō are practised in fasting. And I doe now specially intreat of this kind.

Conclus. II. We ioyne with them in the alloweance of the principall and right endes of a religious fast, and they are three. The first is, that thereby the minde may become attentiue in meditation of the duties of godlinesse to be performed. The second is, that the rebellion of the flesh may be subdu­ed: for the flesh pampered becomes an instru­ment of licentiousnes. The third, and (as I take it) the cheefe ende of a religious fast is, to professe our guiltinesse, and to testifie our humiliation before God for our sinnes: and for this ende in the feast of Nineve, the very beast was made to abstaine.

Conclus. III. We yelde vnto them, that fasting is an helpe and furtherance to the worship of God: yea & a good worke also if it be vsed in a good manner. For though fasting in it selfe being a thing indifferent, as eating and drinking are: is not to be tearmed a good worke, yet being applyed, and consi­dered in relation to the right endes before [Page 223] spoken of, and practised accordingly; it is a worke allowed of God, and highly to be e­steemed of all the seruants and people of God.

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 thirteenth point. Of the state of perfection.

Our consent.

Our consent I will set downe in two con­clusions. I. All true beleeuers haue a state of true perfection in this life. Math. 5. 48. Be you perfect as your father in heauen is per­fect. Gen. 6. 9. Noah was a iust and perfect man in his time, and walked with God. Gen. 17. 1. Walke before me and be perfect. And sundrie kings of Iuda are said to walke vp­rightly before God with a perfect heart, as Dauid, Iosias, Hezekias, &c. And Paul ac­counteth himselfe with the rest of the faith­full to be perfect, saying, Let vs all that are perfect, be thus minded, Phil. 3. 15. Now this perfection hath two partes. The first is the imputation of Christs perfect obedience, which is the ground and fountaine of all our perfectiō whatsoeuer. Heb. 10. 14. By one of­fering, that is, by his obedience in his death [Page 233] and passion, hath he consecrated, or made perfect, for euer them that beleeue. The se­cond part of Christian perfection is synceri­tie, or, vprightnes, standing in two things. The first is, to acknowledge our imperfecti­on and vnworthines in respect of our selues: and hereupon, though Paul had said he wasPhil. 3. 13. & 15. perfect, yet he addeth further, that he did ac­count of himselfe, not as though he had at­tained to perfection: but did forget the good things behinde, and indeauoured himselfe to that which was before. Here therefore it must be remembered, that the perfection whereof I speake, may stande with sundrie wants and imperfections. It is saide of Asa2. Chr. 15. 17. that his heart vvas perfect vvith God all his daies, and yet he pulled not dovvne the high places: and beeing diseased in his feete he put & 16. 12. his trust in the Physitians and not in the Lord. Secondly this vprightnes standes in a constant purpose, endeauour, and care to keepe not some fewe, but all and euery com­maundement of the lawe of God, as Dauid saith psal. 119. 6. Then should I not be confoun­ded, when I haue respect to AL THY COMMAN­DEMENTS. [Page 234] And this endeauour is a fruite of perfection, in that it proceedes from a man regenerate. For, as all men through Adams fall, haue in them by nature the seedes of all sinne; none excepted, no not the sinne against the holy Ghost: so by grace of regeneration through Christ, all the faithfull haue in them likewise the seedes of all vertues needefull to saluation: and hereupon they both can and doe indeauour to yeelde perfect obedience vnto God, according to the whole law. And they may be tearmed perfect, as a childe is called a perfect man: though it want perfe­ction of age and stature and reason; yet hath it perfection of parts: because it hath all and euery part and faculty both of body & soule, that is required to a perfect man.

Conclus. II. There be certaine works of supererogation: that is, such works as are not onely answerable to the law, and thereupon deserue life euerlasting: but goe beyonde the lawe, and merit more then the lawe by it selfe can make any man to merit. But where may we finde these works? not in the person of any meere man, or angel, nor in all [Page 235] men and angels: but onely in the person of Christ God and man: whose workes are not onely answerable to the perfection of the law, but goe farre beyond the same. For first the obedience of his life cōsidered alone by it selfe, was answerable euen to the rigour of the lawe: and therefore the sufferings of his death and passion, were more then the lawe could require at his hand: considering it requireth no punishment of him, that is a do­er of all things conteyned therein. Secondly, the very rigour of the lawe requireth obe­dience onely of them that are meere men: but the obedience of Christ was the obedi­ence of a person that was both God & man. Thirdly, the lawe requires personall obedi­ence, that is, that euery man fulfill the lawe for himselfe, and it speaks of no more. Now the obedience which Christ performed, was not for himselfe alone, but it serueth al­so for all the elect: and considering it was the obedience of God (as Paul signified whē he said, feede the Church of God, which HE purchased VVITH HIS BLOOD) it was suffici­ent for many thousand worlds: and by rea­son [Page 236] the law requireth no obedience of him that is God; this obedience therefore may truely be tearmed a worke of supererrogati­on. This one we acknowledge, and beside this we dare acknowledge none. And thus farre we agree with the Church of Rome, in the doctrine of the estate of perfection; and further we dare not goe.

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.

Obiections of Papists.

I. Isaie. 56. 4. The Lord saith, vnto Eu­nuches that keepe his sabbath and choose the thinge that pleaseth him, will he giue a place & a name better then the sonnes and daugh­ters. Now (say they) an Eunuch is one that liues a single life, and keepes the vow of cha­stitie, & herevpon he is said to deserue a grea­ter measure of glory. Ans. If the wordes be well considered, they prooue nothing lesse: for honour is promised to Eunuches, not be­cause they make and performe the vowe of single life, but because (as the text saith) they obserue the Lordes Sabbath, and chose the [Page 242] thing that pleaseth God, and keepe his coue­nant, which is to beleeue the word of God & to obey the commandements of the morall lawe.

Obiect. II. Mat. 16. 12. Christ saith, There are some which haue made themselues chast for the kingdome of heauen: therefore the vowe of single life is warrantable, and is a worke of speciall glorie in heauen. Ans. The meaning of this text is, that some ha­uing receiued the gift of continencie, doe willingly content themselues with single estate, that they may with more libertie without distraction further the good estate of the Church of God, or, the kingdome of grace in themselues and others. This is all that can be gathered out of this place: hence therefore cannot be gathered the merit of e­uerlasting glorie by single life.

Obiect. III. Math. 9 21. Christ saith to the young man. If thou wilt be perfect goe sell that thou hast and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen. Therefore say they, a man by forsaking all may merit not onely heauen, but also treasure there, that is [Page 243] an exceeding measure of glorie. Ans. This young man beeing in likelihoode, a most strickt Pharise, thought to merit eternall life by the workes of the law, as his first question imporieth; Good master, what shall I doe to be saued: and therefore Christ goeth about to discouer vnto him the secret corruption of his heart▪ and herevpon the words alledg­ed are a commandement of triall not com­mon to all, but special to him. The like com­mandement gaue the Lord to Abraham, saying, Abraham take thine onely sonne I­saac: and offer him vpō the mountaine which I shall shewe thee, Gen. 12. 2.

IV. Obiect. 1. Cor. 7. 8. Paul saith, It is good for all to be single as he was: and v. 38. he saith, it is better for virgins not to marry: and, this he speakes hy permission not by com­mandement, v. 26. Ans. Here single life is not preferred simply, but onely in respect of the present necessitie, because the Church was then vnder persecution: and because such as liue a single life, are freed from the cares and distractions of the world.

V. Obiect. 1. Cor. 9. 15. 17. 18. Paul prea­ched [Page 242] [...] [Page 243] [...] [Page 246] [...] that excelled in faith in the times of the olde and new testament. II. They are to be honoured by giuing of thankes to God for them, and the benefits that God vouchsafed by them vnto his Church. Thus Paul saith, that when the Churches heard of his con­uersion, they glorified God for him, or, in him Gal. 1. 13. And the like is to be done for the Saints departed. III. They are to be ho­noured by an imitation of their faith, hu­militie, meekenesse, repentance, the feare of God, & all good vertues wherin they excel­led. For this cause the examples of godly men in the old and new testament, are called a cloud of witnesses by allusion: for as the cloud did guide the Israelites through the wilder­nes to the land of Canaan: so the faithful now are to be guided to the heauenly Canaan by the examples of good men, that haue belee­ued in God before vs, and haue walked the strait way to life euerlasting.

Concl. II. Againe their TRVERELIQVES that is, their vertues and good examples left to all posteritie to be followed, we keepe and respect with due reuerence. Yea if any [Page 247] man can shewe vs the bodily relique of any true Saint: and prooue it so to be though we will not worship it, yet will we not despise it but keepe it as a monument, if it may conue­niently be done without offence. And thus farre we consent with the church of Rome. Further we must not goe.

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.

Our reasons.

Reason I. All true inuocation and praier made according to the will of God, must haue a double foundation; a commaunde­ment, and a promise. A commaundement, to mooue vs to pray: and a promise, to assure vs that we shall be heard. For all and euery prai­er must be made in faith▪ & without a com­maundement or promise there is no faith. Vpon this vnfallible ground I conclude, that we may not pray to Saints departed: for in the Scripture there is no word, either com­maunding vs to praie vnto them, or assuring vs that we shall be heard when wee praie. Nay we are commanded, onely to call vpon God, Him onely shalt thou serue, Matth. 4. 10. And, How shall we call vpon him in whome we [Page 251] haue not beleeued? Rom. 10. 14. And we haue no promise to be heard but for Christs sake. Therefore praiers made to Saints de­parted are vnlawfull. Answer is made, that inuocation of Saints, is warranted by mira­cles and reuelations, which are answerable to commandements and promises. Ansvv. But miracles and reuelations had an ende be­fore this kind of inuocation tooke any place in the Church of God: and that was about three hundred yeares after Christ. Againe to iudge of any point of doctrine by miracles, is deceitfull; vnlesse three things concurre: the first is, doctrine of faith and pietie to be confirmed: the second is praier vnto God, that some thing may be done for the ratify­ing of the saide doctrine: the third is the ma­nifest edification of the Church by the two former. Where any of these three are wan­ting, miracles may be suspected: because o­therwhiles false prophets haue their mira­cles to trie mē whether they wil cleaue vnto God or no. Deut. 13. 1, 3. Againe, miracles are not done, or to be don for them that beleeue, but for infidels that beleeue not: as Paul saith, [Page 252] 1. Cor. 14. 22. Tongues are a signe not to them that beleeue, but to vnbeleeuers. And to this agree Chrysostome, Ambrose, and Isidore, who saith, Behold a signe is not necessarie to beleeuers which haue alreadie beleeued, but to infidels that they may be conuerted. Lastly, our faith is to be confirmed not by reuelati­ons and apparitions of dead men, but by the writings of the Apostles and prophets, Luc. 16. 29.

Reason II. To praie vnto Saints depar­ted, to bowe the knee vnto them while they are in heauen, is to ascribe that vnto them which is proper to God himselfe: namely, to know the heart, with the inward desires and motions thereof: and to know the speaches and behauiours of all men in all places vpon earth at all times. The Papists answer, that Saints in heauen see and heare all things vpō earth, not by themselues (for that were to make them Gods) but in God, and in the glasse of the Trinitie, in which they see mens praiers reuealed vnto them. I answer first, that the Saints are still made more then crea­tures; because they are saide, to knowe the [Page 253] thoughts and all the doings of all men at all times, which no created power can well comprehend at once. Secondly I answer, that this glasse, in which all things are saide to be seene, is but a forgerie of mans braine: and I prooue it thus. The angels themselues, who see further into God then men can doe, ne­uer knew all things in God: which I con­firme on this manner. In the temple vnder the lawe, vpon the arke were placed two Cherubins, signifying the good angels of God: and they looked downward vpon the merciese at couering the arke, which was a figure of Christ; and their looking downe­ward figured their desire to see into the my­stery of Christs incarnatiō, & our redemptiō by him; as Peter alluding, no doubt, to this type in the olde Testament saith, 1. Pet. 1. 12. which things the angels desired to behold and Paul saith Eph. 3. 10. The manifold wisdom of God is reuealed by the Church vnto principa­lities and powers in heauenly places, that is, to the angels: but how and by what meanes? by the Church; and that two waies, first by the Church, as by an example, in which the an­gels [Page 254] saw the endles wisdome and mercie of God in the calling of the Gentiles. Secondly by the Church, as it was founded & honou­red by the preaching of the Apostles. For it seemes that the Apostolicall ministerie in the newe testament reuealed things touching Christ, which the angels neuer knew, before that time. Thus Chrysostome vpon occasi­onProlog. in Iob. of this text of Paul saith, that the Angels learned some things by the preaching of Iohn Baptist. Againe, Christ saith, that they know not the houre of the last iudgement, Math. 24. 23. much lesse doe the saints know all things in God. And hence it is that they are saide to be vnder the altar, where they crie: How long Lord, holy and true! wilt thou Rev. 6. 9. not reuenge our bloode? as beeing ignorant of the daie of their full deliuerance. And the Iewes in affliction confesse Abraham was ignorant of them and their estate. Isa. 63. v. 16.

Reason III. Matth. 4. 10. Christ refused so much as to bow the knee to Sathan vpon this ground, because it was written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt [Page 255] thou serue. Hence it was, that Peter would not suffer Cornelius so much as to kneele vn­to him, though Cornelius intended not to honour him as God. Therfore neither Saint nor Angel is to be honoured so much as with the bowing of the knee: if it carrie but the least signification of diuine or religious honour.

Reason IV. The iudgement of the aunci­ent Church. August. We honour the Saints de vera re­lig. c. 53. with charitie, and not BY SERVITVDE: neither doe vve erect Churches to them. And, Let it NOT BE RELIGION for vs to vvorship deade men. And, They are to be honoured for immi­tation, and not to be adored for religion. Epi­phan.h [...]res. 79. Neither Tecla nor any Saint is to be ADORED: for that auncient ERROVR may not ouerrule vs, that vve should leaue the liuing God, and adore things made by him. Againe, Let Marie be in honour; let the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost be adored: let NONE A­DORE MARIE: I meane neither vvoman nor man. Againe, Marie is beautifull and holy and honoured, yet NOT TO ADORATION. Whē Iulian obiected to the Christians that they [Page 256] worshipped their Martyrs as God, CyrilLib. 9. & 10. graunts the memorie and honour of them, but denies their adoration: and of inuocati­on, he makes no mention at all. Ambrose on Rom. 1. Is any SO MADDE that he vvill giue to the Earle the honour of the King—? yet these men doe not thinke them selues guiltie, who giue the honour of Gods name to a crea­ture, and leauing the Lord, ADORE THEIR FELLOVV SERVANTS, as though there vvere any thing more reserued for God.

Obiections of Papists.

I. Gen. 48. 16. Let the angel that kept me blesse thy children. Here (say they) it is a prai­er made to angels. Ans. By the angel is meant Christ, who is called the angel of the coue­nant, Malac. 3. 1. and the angel that guided Is­rael in the wildernes, 1. Cor. 10. 9. compared with Exod. 23. 20.

Obiect. II. Exod. 23. 13. Moses praieth that God would respect his people, for A­brahams sake, and for Isaac and Israel his ser­uants, which were not then liuing. Ans. Mo­ses praieth God to be mercifull to the peo­ple, [Page 257] not for the intercession of Abraham, Isa­ac, and Iacob, but for his couenants sake which he had made with them, Psal. 123. 10 11. Againe by popish doctrine, the fathers de­parted knewe not the estate of men vpon earth, neither did they pray for thē: because then they were not in heauen but in Limbo patrum.

III. Obiect. One liuing man makes in­tercession to God for another: therefore much more doe the Saints in glorie, that are filled with loue pray to God for vs: and we pray to them no otherwise then we desire liuing men to pray for vs. Ans. The reason is naught: for we haue a commandement, one liuing man to pray for another, and to desire others to pray for vs: but there is no warrant in the word of God, for vs to desire the praiers of men departed. Secondly there is great difference betweene these two: To request our friend either by word of mouth or by letter to pray for vs: and by Inuocati­on to request them that are absent from vs and departed this life to pray for vs: for this is indeede a worshippe, in which is giuen [Page 258] vnto them a power to heare and helpe all that call vpon them, at what place or time soeuer, yea though they be not present in the place in which they are worshipped: and consequently the seeing of the heart, presence in all places, an infinite power to helpe all that pray vnto them: which things agree to no creature but God alone. Thirdly when one liuing man requests an other to pray for him, he onely makes him his com­panion and fellowe member in his prayer made in the name of one mediatour Christ: but when men inuocate Saints in heauen, they beeing then absent, they make them more then fellowe members euen media­tours between Christ and them.

The XU. point. Of interces­sion of saints.

Our consent.

Our consent with them I will set downe in two conclusions. Conclus. I. The saints de­parted pray vnto God, by giuing thankes [Page 259] vnto him for their owne redemption, and for the redemption of the whole Church of God vpon earth, Rev. 5. 8. The foure beasts and the foure and twentie Elders fell dovvne before the lambe—, 9. and they song a new song, Thou art worthie to take the booke and to open the seales thereof: because thou wast killed and hast redeemed vs to God—. 13. And all the creatures which are in heauen—, heard I saying, Praise and honour and glorie and povver be vnto him that sitteth vpon the throne and vnto the Lambe for e­uermore.

II. Conclus. The Saints departed pray generally for the state of the whole Church, Rev. 6. 9. And I savv vnder the Altar, the soules of them that were killed for the vvord of God—▪ & THEY CRIED, 10. How lōg Lord holy and true! dost thou not iudge and auenge our blood on them that dvvell on the earth? whereby we see they desire a finall deliue­rance of the Church, and a destruction of the enemies thereof; that they themselues with all the people of God might be aduan­ced to fulnesse of glorie in bodie and soule. [Page 260] Yea the dumbe creatures, Rom. 8. 23. are said to grone and sigh, waiting for the adoption e­uen the redemption of our bodies: much more then do the Saints in heauen desire the same. And thus farre we consent.

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.

Obiections of Papists.

I. Rev. 5. 8, 9. The foure and tvventie El­ders fall downe before the lambe, hauing eue­ry one harpes and golden vyals, full of odours vvhich are the prayers of the Saints. Hence the Papists gather, that the Saints in heauen receiue the praiers of men on earth, and of­fer them vnto the Father. Ansvv. There by prayers of the Saints, are meant their owne [Page 264] prayers, in which they sing prayses to God and to the lambe, as the verses following plainely declare. And these prayers are also presented vnto God onely from the hand of the angel, which is Christ himselfe.

II. Obiect. Luc. 16. 27. Diues in hell prai­ethcap. 8. v. 4. for his brethren vpon earth, much more doe the Saints in heauen pray for vs. Ans. Out of a parable nothing can be gathered, but that which is agreable to the intent and scope thereof: for by the same reason it may as well be gathered that the soule of Diues beeing in hell had a tongue. Againe, if it were true which they gather, we may ga­ther also that the wicked in hell haue com­passion and loue to their brethren on earth, and a zeale to Gods glory: all which are false.

III. Obiect. The angels in heauen know euery mans estate: they know when any sin­ner repenteth and reioyceth thereat: & pray for particular men: therefore the Saints in heauen doe the like, for they are equall to the good angels, Luc. 20, 36. Ans. The place in Luke is to be vnderstood of the estate of ho­ly [Page 265] men at the day of the last iudgement: as appeares, Matth. 22. 30. where it is saide, that the seruants of God in the resurrection are as the angels in heauen. Secondly they are like the angels not in office and ministerie, by which they are ministring spirites for the good of men: but they are like thē in glorie.

Secondly we dissent from the Papists: be­cause they are not content to say that the Saints departed pray for vs in particular; but they adde further, that they make intercessi­on for vs by their merits in heauen. New Ie­suits denie this: but let them heare Lumbard,Lib. 4. dist. 45. p. 6. I thinke (saith he, speaking of one that is but of meane goodnes) that he as it were passing by the fire shall be saued by the MERITS and in­tercessions of the heauenly Church; vvhich doth alwaies make intercession for the faith­full by request and merit, till Christ shall be compleate in his members. And the Romaneon second Command. Catechisme saith as much. Saints are so much the more to be worshipped and called vpon; be­cause they make prayers daily for the saluati­on of men: and God for their merit and fa­uour bestowes many benefits upon vs. We de­nie [Page 266] not, that men vpon earth haue helpe and benefit by the faith and pietie which the Saints departed shewed, when they were in this life. For God shewes mercy on them that keep his commandements to a thousand ge­nerations. And Augustine saith, it was good for the Iewes, that they were loued of Mo­ses,q. 149. super Exod. whome God loued. But we vtterly deny, that we are helped by merits of Saints either liuing or departed. For Saints in glory haue receiued the full reward of all their merits; if they could merit: and therefore there is no­thing further that they can merit.

The sixteenth point. Of im­plicite, or infolded faith.

Our consent.

We holde that there is a kinde of im­plicite or vnexpressed faith; yea that the faith of euery man in some part of his life, as in the time of his first conuersion, and in the time of some grieuous temptation or distresse, is implicite or infoulded. The Samaritans are [Page 267] said to beleeue, Ioh 4. 14. because they took Christ for the Messias, and therevpon were content to learne and obey the glad tidings of saluation. And in the same place, v. 51. the Ruler with his family is said to beleeve, who did no more but generally acknowledge that Christ was the Messias, & yeelded him­selfe to beleeue and obey his holy doctrine; beeing mooued therevnto by a miracle wrought vpon his young sonne. And Rahab Heb. 11. 13. is said to beleeue, yea shee is com­mended for faith euen at the time when shee receiued the spies. Nowe in the worde of God we cannot finde, that shee had any more but a confused, general, or infoulded faith, whereby shee beleeued that the God of the Hebrwes was the true God & his word to be obeyed. And this faith (as it seemes) was wrought by hir by the report and rela­tiō of the miracles done in the land of Egipt: whereby shee was moued to ioyne hir selfe vnto the people of God and to beleeue as they did. By these examples then it is mani­fest that in the very seruants of God, there is and may be for a time an implicite faith. For [Page 268] the better vnderstanding of this point, it is to be considered that faith may be infolded two waies: first in respect of knowledge of things to be beleeued: secondly, in respect of the ap­prehension of the obiect of faith, namely Christ and his benefits. Now faith is infol­ded in respect of knowledge, when as sundry things that are necessarie to saluation are not as yet distinctly knowne. Though Christ cō ­mended the faith of his disciples, for such a faith, against which the gates of hell should not preuaile; yet was it vnexpressed or wrapped vp in regard of sundrie points of religion: for first of all, Peter that made con­fession of Christ in the name of the rest, was at that time ignorant of the particular means wherby his redemption should be wrought. For after this, he went about to disswade his master from the suffering of death at Hieru­salem, whereupon Christ sharply rebuked him, saying, Come behinde me Sathan, thou art an offence vnto me. Againe, they were all ignorant of Christs resurrection, till certaine women who first sawe him after he was ri­sen againe, had told them: and they by expe­rience [Page 269] in the person of Christ had learned the truth. Thirdly, they were ignorant of the ascension: for they dreamed of an earth­ly kingdome, at the very time when he was about to ascende: saying, Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdome to Israel? Act. 1. 6. And after Christs ascension, Peter knew no­thing of the breaking downe of the partiti­on wall betweene the Iewes and Gentiles, till God had better schooled him in a vision, Acts 10. 14. And no doubt, we haue ordinary examples of this Implicit faith in sundry per­sons among vs. For some there be, which are dull and hard both for vnderstanding and memorie, and thereupon make no such pro­ceedings in knowledge as many others doe: and yet for good affection and conscience in their doings, so far as they know, they come not short of any; hauing withall a continuall care to increase in knowledge, and to walke in obedience according to that which they know. And such persons though they be ig­norant in many things, yet haue they a mea­ning of true faith: and that which is wanting in knowledge is supplied in affection: and in [Page 270] some respects they are to be preferred be­fore many that haue the glibbe tongue, and the braine swimming with knowledge. To this purpose Melancthon said well, We must [...]. phil. [...]. de g [...]ad. delict. acknowledge the great mercie of God, vvho puts a difference betvveene sinnes of igno­rance, and such as are done vvittingly; and forgiues manifold ignorances to them, that know but the foundation and be teachable; as may be seene by the Apostles, in whome there was much want of vnderstanding before the resurrection of Christ. But, as hath bin saide, he requires that we be teachable, and he will not haue vs to be hardned in our sluggishnes and dulnes. As it is said, psal. 1. he meditateth in his law day and night.

The second kinde of implicite faith, is in regard of Apprehension; when as a man can not say distinctly and certenly, I beleeue the pardon of my sinnes, but I doe vnfainedly de­sire to beleeue the pardon of them all: and I desire to repent. This case befalls many of Gods children, when they are touched in conscience for their sinnes. But where men are displeased with themselues for their of­fences, [Page 271] and doe withall constantly from the heart desire to beleeue, and to be reconciled to God; there is faith and many other graces of God infolded: as in the little and tender budde, is infolded the leafe, the blossome, and the fruit. For though a desire to repent and to beleeue, be not faith and repentance in na­ture, yet in Gods acceptation it is, God accep­ting the will for the deede. Isai 42. v. 3. Christ will not quench the smoking flaxe, which as yet by reason of weakenesse giues neither light nor heate. Christ saith, Math. 6. 6. Blessed are they that HVNGER AND THIRST after righteousnes: for they shall be satisfied: where by persons hungring and thirsting are meant al such, as feele with grief their owne want of righteousnes, and with­all desire to be iustified and sanctified. Rom. 8. 26. God heares & regards the very grones and sighes of his seruants: yea, though they be vnspeakeable by reason they are often­times little, weake, & confused; yet God hath respect vnto thē, because they are the worke of his owne spirit. Thus whē we see that in a touched heart desiring to beleue, there is an [Page 272] infolded faith. And this is the faith which many of the true seruants of God haue: and our saluation standes not so much in our ap­prehending of Christ, as in Christs compre­hending of vs: and therefore Paul saith, Phi­lip. 3. 12. he followeth, namely after perfecti­on, if that he might comprehend that, for vvhose sake he is comprehended of Christ. Now if any shall say, that without a liuely faith in Christ none can be saued; I answer, that God accepts the desire to beleeue for liuely faith, in the time of temptation, and in the time of our first conuersion, as I haue saide. Put case, a man that neuer yet repented, falls into some grieuous sicknes, and then be­ginnes to be touched in conscience for his sinnes, and to be truly humbled: hereupon he is exhorted to beleeue his owne reconciliati­on with God in Christ, & the pardon of his owne sinnes. And as he is exhorted, so he en­deauoureth according to the measure of grace receiued, to beleue; yet after much stri­ [...]ing he cannot resolue himselfe, that he doth distinctly and certenly beleeue the pardon of his owne sinnes: onely this he can say, that he [Page 273] doth heartily desire to beleeue: this he wish­eth aboue all things in the world: and he e­steemes all things as dung for Christ: & thus he dies. I demand now, what shall we say of him? surely, we may say nothing, but that he died the child of God, and is vndoubtedly sa­ued. For howsoeuer it were an happy thing if men could come to that fulnesse of faith which was in Abrahā, and many seruants of God: yet certen it is, that God in sundrie cases accepts of this desire to beleeue, for ttue faith indeede. And looke as it is in nature, so is it in grace: in nature some die when they are children, some in olde age, and some in full strength, and yet all die men: so againe, some die babes in Christ, some of more perfect faith: and yet the weakest hauing the seeds of grace, is the child of God: & faith in his infan­cie is faith. Al this while, it must be remēbred I say not, there is a true faith without all ap­prehension, but without a Distinct apprehē ­sion for some space of time: for this very de­sire by faith to apprehend Christ & his me­rits, is a kind of apprehension. And thus we see the kindes of implicite or infolded faith.

[Page 274]This doctrine is to be learned for two causes: first of all it serues to rectifie the con­sciences of weake ones, that they be not de­ceiued touching their estare. For if we thinke that no faith can saue, but a full per­swasion, such as the faith of Abraham was, many truly bearing the name of Christ must be put out of the role of the children of God. We are therefore to knowe that there is a growth in grace, as in nature: & there be dif­ferences & degrees of true faith, and the least of them al is this Infolded faith. This in effect is the doctrine of master Caluin: that, when we begin by faith to knowe somewhat, andIust. lib. 3. c. 2. 9▪ 5. haue a desire to learne more, this may be tearmed an vnexpressed faith. Secondly this point of doctrine serues to rectifie and in part to expound suudrie catechismes, in that they seeme to propound faith vnto men at so high a reach, as fewe can attaine vnto it: defining it to be a certen and full per­swasion of Gods loue and fauour in Christ: whereas, though euery faith be for his na­ture a certen perswasiō yet onely the strong faith is the full perswasion. Therefore faith is [Page 275] not only in general tearms to be defined, but also the degrees and measures thereof are to be expounded, that weak ones to their com­fort may be truely informed of their estate. And though we teach there is a kinde of implicite faith, which is the beginning of true and liuely faith: yet none must herevpon take an occasion to content themselues ther­with, but labour to increase and go on from faith to faith: and so indeed will euery one do that hath any beginnings of true faith, be they neuer so little. And he which thinks he hath a desire to beleeue, and contents him­selfe therewith: hath indeede no true desire to beleeue.

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 seuenteenth point. Of Purgatorie.

Our consent.

We holde a Christian Purgatorie, accor­ding as the word of God hath set downe the same vnto vs. And first of all by this Purga­torie we vnderstand the afflictions of Gods children here on earth, Ier. 3. The people af­flicted say, thou hast sent a fire into our bones. Psal. 65. 12. We haue gone through water and fire, Malach. 3. 3. The children of Levi must be purified in a purging fire of affliction. 1. Pet. 1. 7. Afflictions are called the fierie triall wherby men are clensed from their corrup­tions, as gold from the drosse by the fire. Se­condly, [Page 279] the bloode of Christ is a purgatorie of our sinnes, 1. Ioh. 1. 7. Christs bloode PVR­GETH vs frō all our sinnes. Hebr. 9. 14. It PVR­GETH our consciences from deade workes. And Christ baptiseth with the holy Ghost and with fire; because our inward washing is by the blood of Christ: and the holy Ghost is as fire to consume and abolish the inward corruption of nature. To this effect saith O­rigen.in Levit. l. 9. apud Cyril. Without doubt, vve shall feele the vn­quenchable fire, vnles wee shall novv intreat the Lord to sende downe from heauen a pur­gatorie fire vnto vs, vvhereby vvorldly de­sires may be vtterly consumed in our mindes. de Act. Fa­lic. c. 21. August. Suppose the mercy of God is thy pur­gatorie.

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 eighteenth point. Of the supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall.

Our consent.

Touching the point of supremacie Ec­clesiasticall, I will set downe how neare we may come to the Romane Church in two conclusions. Conclus. I. For the founding of the primitiue Church, the ministerie of the word was distinguished by degrees not one­ly of order but also of power, and Peter was called to the highest degree. Ephes. 4. vers. 11. Christ ascended vp on high and gaue gifts vnto men, for the good of his Church: as some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some E­uangelists, some Pastors and Doctors. Now, howsoeuer one Apostle, be not aboue an­other, or one Euangelist aboue another, or one pastour aboue another: yet an Apostle was aboue an Euangelist: and an Euangelist aboue all pastours and teachers. And Peter was by calling an Apostle, and therefore a­boue [Page 280] all Euangelists and Pastors: hauing the highest roome in the ministerie of the new Testament, both for order and authoritie.

Conclus. II. Among the twelue Apostles Peter had a threefold priuiledge or preroga­tiue. I. The prerogatiue of authoritie. II. Of primacie. III. Of principalitie. For the first, by the priuiledge of authoritie, I meane a preheminence in regard of estimatiō, wher­by he was had in reuerence aboue the rest of the twelue Apostles, for Cephas with Iames and Iohn are called pillers, and seemed to be great. Gal. 2. v. 6, 9. Againe he had the prehe­minence of primacie, because he was the first named, as the forman of the quest. Math. 10. 2. The name of the twelue Apostles are these, THE FIRST IS Simon called Peter. Thirdly he had the preheminence of principality among the twelue, because in regard of the measure of grace, he excelled the rest: for when Christ asked his disciples whome they said he was; Peter as beeing of greatest abilitie and zeale answered for them all. Math. 16. 16. I vse this clause, among the twelue, because Paul excel­led Peter euery way, in learning, zeale, vnder­standing, [Page 225] as farre as Peter excelled the rest. And thus neere we come to popish supre­macie.

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 nineteenth point, Of the efficacie of the sacraments.

Our consent.

Conclus. I. We teach and beleeue that the sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits vnto vs.

Conclus. II. We teach further, that the sacraments are indeede instruments, where­by God offereth and giueth the foresaid be­nefits vnto vs. Thus farre we consent with the Romane Church.

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.

Our reasons.

Reason I. The word preached and the sa­cramēts differ in the māner of giuing Christ and his benefits vnto vs: because in the word the spirit of God teacheth vs by a voice con­vaied to the minde by the bodily cares; but in the sacraments annexed to the word, by certen sensible and bodily signed viewed by the eye. Aug. lib. 19. contra Faust. cap. 16. Sacraments are nothing but visible words and promises. Otherwise for the gi­uing it selfe they differ not. Christ himselfe saith, that in the very word, is eaten his owne flesh, which he vvas to giue for the life of the vvorld: and what can be saide more of the Lords supper. Augustine saith, that beleeuers Serm. ad in­fant. ad al­ [...]ar. de Sacr. are partakers of the bodie & blood of Christ in baptisme: and Hierome to Edibia, that in baptisme vve eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ. If thus much may be saide of baptisme, why may it not also be saide of the word preached. Againe Hierome vpon Ec­clesiastes saith, It is profitable to be filled with cap. 3. [Page 301] the bodie of Christ and drinke his bloode, not onely in mysterie but in knovvledge of holy Scripture. Now vpon this it followes, that seeing the worke done in the word preach­ed conferres not grace, neither doth the work don in the sacramēt confer any grace.

Reason II. Math. 3. II. I baptize you with water to repentance: but he that commeth af­ter me is stronger then I,—he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire. Hence it is manifest, that grace in the sacrament pro­ceedes not from any action in the sacrament: for Iohn, though he doe not disioyne him­selfe and his action from Christ, and the acti­on of his spirit: yet doth he distinguish them plainely in number, persons, and effect. To this purpose Paul, who had saide of the Gala­tians, that he traueled of them & beget them by the Gospel, saith of himselfe that he is not 1. Cor. 7. 3. any thing, not onely as he was a man, but as he was a faithfull Apostle: thereby excluding the whole Euangelicall ministerie whereof the sacrament is a part, from the least part of diuine operation, or, efficacie in conferring of grace.

[Page 302]Reason III. The blessed Angels, nay the very flesh of the sonne of God hath not any quickning vertue from it selfe: but all this ef­ficacie or vertue is in and from the godhead of the sonne: who, by meanes of the flesh ap­prehended by faith, deriueth heauenly and spirituall life from himselfe to the members. Nowe if there be no efficacie in the flesh of Christ, but by reason of the hypotasticall v­nion: howe shall bodily actions about bodily elements conferre grace immediatly.

Reason IV. Paul, Rom. 4. standes much vpon this, to proue that iustification by saith is not conferred by the sacraments. And from the circumstance of time he gathereth that Abraham was first iustified, and then af­terward receiue circumcision, the signe and seale of this righteousnes. Now we knowe that the generall condition of all sacraments is one and the same, and that baptisme suc­ceeded circumcision. And what can be more plaine then the example of Cornelius, Act. 10. who before Peter came vnto him, had the commendation of the feare of God, and was indued with the spirite of prayer: [Page 303] and afterward when Peter by preaching o­pened more fully the way of the Lord, he & the rest receiued the holy Ghost. And after all this they were baptized. Now if they re­ceiued the holy Ghost before baptisme, then they receiued remission of sinnes, and were iustified before baptisme.

V. Reason. The iudgement of the church. Basil. If there be any grace in the water, it is Lib. de Sp. sanct. c. 15. not from the nature of the vvater, but from THE PRESENCE OF THE SRIRITE. Hierome saith, Man giues vvater but God giues the in Esa. 14. holy Ghost. Augustine saide, Water toucheth the bodie and washeth the heart: but he shews his meaning elsewhere. There is one vvater (saith he) of the Sacrament, an other of the Tract. 6. in epist. Ioh. Spirit: the water of the sacrament is visible, the water of the Spirit invisible. That vva­sheth the body AND SIGNIFIETH what is done in the soule. By this the soule is purged and sealed.

Obiect. Remission of sinnes, regenerati­on, and saluation is ascribed to the sacrament of baptisme, Act. 22. 21. Eph. 5. Gal. 3. 27. Tit. 2. Ans. Saluation and remission of sinnes is [Page 304] ascribed to baptisme and the Lords supper, as to the word; which is the power of God to saluation to all that beleeue: and that, as they are instruments of the holy Ghost to signi­fie, seale, and exhibit to the beleeuing minde the foresaid benefits: but indeede the proper instrument whereby saluation is apprehē ­ded is faith, and sacraments are but proppes of faith furthering saluation two waies: first because by their signification they helpe to nourish and preserue faith: secondly because they seale grace and saluation to vs: yea God giues grace and saluation when we vse them wel: so be it, we beleeue the word of promise made to the sacrament, whereof also they are seales. And thus we keepe the middle way, neither giuing too much nor too little to the sacraments.

The XX. point. Of sauing faith: or, the way to life.

Our consent.

Conclus. I. They teach it to be the pro­pertie of faith, to beleeue the whole word of God, and especially the redemption of mankind by Christ.

Conclus. II. They auouch that they be­leeue and looke to be saued by Christ and by CHRIST ALONE, and by the MEERE MERCY of God in Christ.

Conclus. III. Thirdly, the most learned a­mong thē hold and confesse, that the obedi­ence of Christ is imputed vnto them for the satisfaction of the lawe, and for their recon­ciliation with God.

Conclus. IV. They auouch that they put their whole trust and confidence in Christ, and in the meere mercy of God, for their saluation.

[Page 306] Conclus. V. Lastly they hold that euery man must apply the promise of life euerla­sting by Christ, vnto himselfe: and this they graunte we are bound to doe. And in these fiue points doe they and we agree, at least in shewe of wordes.

By the auouching of these 5. Conclusions, Papists may easily escape the hands of many magistrats. And vnles the mysterie of popish doctrine be well known, any common man may easily be deceiued, and take such for good protestants that are but popish priests. To this ende therefore that we may the bet­ter discerne their guile, I will shewe wherein they faile in each of their conclusions, and wherein they differ from vs.

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 XXI. point. Of Re­pentance.

Our consent.

Conclus. I. That, repentance is the conuer­sion of a sinner. There is a twofold conuersi­on, passiue, and actiue: passiue, is an action of God whereby he conuerteth man beeing as yet vnconuerted. Actiue is an action wherby man beeing once turned of God, turnes him­selfe: and of this latter must this conclusion be vnderstood. For the first cōuersion, conside­ring it is a worke of God turning vs vnto himselfe, is not the repentance whereof the Scripture speaketh so oft, but it is called by the name of regeneration: and repentance, whereby we beeing first turned of God doe turne our selues, and doe good works, is the fruit thereof.

Conclus. II. That, repentance standes specially for practise, in contrition of heart, [Page 317] confession of mouth, & satisfaction in work or deede. Touching contrition there be two kinds thereof; Legal, and Euangelical. Legal contrition is nothing but a remorse of con­science for sinne in regard of the wrath and iudgement of God, and it is no grace of God at all; nor any part, or, cause of repentance: but onely an occasion thereof, and that by the mercie of God: for of it selfe, it is the sting of the law and the very entrance into the pit of hell. Euangelical contrition is, when a repen­tant sinner is greeued for his sinnes, not so much for feare of hell, or, any other punish­ment; as because he hath offended & displea­sed so good & mercifull a God. This contriti­on is caused by the ministerie of the Gospell, and in the practise of repentance it is alwaies necessarie, and goes before as the beginning thereof. Secondly we holde, and maintaine that confession is to be made, and that in sun­drie respects: first to God, both publikely in the congregation, and also priuately in our secret and priuate prayers. Secondly to the Church, when any person hath openly of­fended the congregation by any crime, and is [Page 318] therefore excommunicate. Thirdly to our priuate neighbour, when we haue vpon any occasion offended and wronged him, Mat. 5. 23. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee, goe first and be reconciled to him: now reconciliation presupposeth confession. Lastly in all true repentance, we holde and acknowledge there must be satis­ction made; first to God, and that is when wee intreate him in our supplications to ac­ecpt the death and passion of Christ, as a full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for all our sinnes. Secondly it is to be made vnto the Church, after excommunication for publike offences; and it stands in duties of humiliatiō that fitly serue to testifie the truth of our re­pentance. Thirdly satisfaction is to be made to our neighbour: because if he be wronged, he must haue recompence and restitution made, Luc. 19. 8. and there repentance may iustly be suspected, where no satisfaction is made, if it lie in our power.

Conclus. III. That in repentance we are to bring forth outward fruites worthie a­mendment [Page 319] of life: for repentance it selfe is in the heart, and therefore must be testified in all manner of good workes; whereof the principall is, to endeauour day by day by Gods grace to leaue and renounce all and e­uery sinne, and in all things to doe the will of God. And here let it be remembered, that we are not patrones of licentiousnes and e­nemies of good workes. For though we ex­clude them from the acte of our iustification and saluation: yet we maintaine a profitable and necessarie vse of them in the life of eue­ry Christian man. This vse is threefold, in re­spect of God, of man, of our selues. Workes are to be done in respect of God, that his commandements may be obeied, 1. Ioh. 5. 12. that his will may be done, 1. Thess. 4. 3. that we may shew our selues to be obedient chil­dren to God our father, 1. Pet. 1. 14. that we may shewe our selues thankefull for our re­demption by Christ, Tit. 2. 14. that we might not grieue the spirit of God, Eph. 4. 30. but walke according to the same, Gal. 5. 22. that God, by our good workes may be glorified. Math. 5. 16. that we may be good followers [Page 320] of God. Eph. 5. v. 1. Againe, workes are to be done in regard of men: that our neighbour may be helped in worldly things, Luc. 6. 38. that he may be wonne by our example to godlines, 1. Pet. 3. 14. that we may preuent in our selues the giuing of any offence, 1. Cor. 10. 32. that by doing good, wee may stop the mouthes of our aduersaries. Thirdly & last­ly, they haue vse in respect of our selues: that we may shew our selues to be new creatures, 2. Cor. 5. 17. that we may walke as the chil­dren of light, Eph. 5. 8. that we haue some as­surance of our faith, and of our saluation, 2. Pet. 1. 8, 10. that we may discerne deade and counterfait faith, from true faith. I am. 2. 17. that faith and the gifts of God may be exerci­sed and continued vnto the ende, 2. Tim. 1. 6. that the punishments of sinne both temporall & eternall may be preuented, psal. 89. 32. that the rewarde may be obtained, which God freely in mercie hath promised to men for their good works. Gal. 6. 9.

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.


An advertisment to all fauou­rers of the Roman religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Ca­tholike principles and grounds of the Catechisme.

GReat is the number of them that embrace the religion of the present church of Rome, being deceiued by the glori­ous titles of Vniuersalitie, An­tiquity, Successiō. And no doubt, though sōe be wilfully blinded, yet many deuoted this way, neuer saw any other truth. Nowe of them and the rest I desire this fauour, that [Page 354] they will but way and ponder with them­selues this one thing, which I will nowe of­fer to their considerations, and that is, That the Romane religion nowe stablished by the councell of Trent, is in the principall points thereof, against the very grounds of the Cate­chisme, that haue beene agreed vpon euer since the daies of the Apostles, by all Chur­ches. These groundes are fowre: the first is the Apostles Creede: the second is the deca­logue or ten cōmandements: the third is the forme of praier called the Lords praier: the fourth is the Institutiō of the two Sacramēts baptisme and the Lords supper. 1. Cor. 11. 23.

That I may in some order manifest this which I say, I will beginne with the Symbo­le or Creed. And first of all it must be consi­dered, that some of the principall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome are, that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ, & the head of the Catholike church: that there is a fire of purgatorie after this life: that images of God and Saints are to be placed in Churches and worshipped: that praier is to be made to Saints departed and [Page 355] their intercession to be required: that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the masse for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead. These points are of that moment, that without them the Roman religion cannot stand: & in the councel of Trent the curse A­nathema is pronounced vpō all such as deny these or any of them. And yet marke: the Apostles creede which hath bin thought to containe all necessarie points in religion to be beleeued: and hath therefore beene called the Kay and rule of faith: this creed I say, hath not any of these points: nor the Expositions made thereof by the ancient fathers, nor any other creed or confession of faith made by any councell or Church for the space of ma­ny hundred yeares. This a plaine proofe to any indifferent man, that these be new arti­cles of faith neuer known in the Apostolike Church: and that the fathers and Councells could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the olde and new Testement. Answere is made: that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the articles, I beleeue the Catholike Church: the meaning [Page 356] whereof, they will haue to be this, I beleeue all things which the catholike Church hol­deth and teacheth to be beleeued. If this be as they say, we must needes beleeue in the Church: that is, put our confidence in the Church, for the manifestation and the cer­tentie of all doctrines necessarie to saluation: and thus the eternall truth of God the Crea­tor, shall depend on the determination of the creature; and the written word of God in this respect is made vnsufficient; as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of do­ctrine, pertaining to saluation. And the anci­ent Churches haue bin farre ouerseene, that did not propounde the former points to be beleeued as articles of faith, but left them to these latter times.

2. In this Creede, to beleeue in God, and to beleeue the church, are distinguished. To be leeue in, is pertaining to the Creatour: to be­leeue, to the creature: as Ruffinus hath no­ted,Ruff. in Sym. when he saith, that by this proposition in, the Creatour is distinguished from the creature, and things pertaining to God from things pertaining to men. And Augustine [Page 357] saith, It must be knowne that we must beleeue Ser. 131. de tempore. the Church, & NOT BELEEVE IN THE CHVRCH: because the church is not God, but the house of God Hence it followes, that we must not beleeue in the Saints, nor put our confidenceRhem. Test. on Rom. 10. 14. Euseb. Emiss. hom. 2. ae Symb. in our workes, as the learned Papists teach. Therefore Eusebius saith, We ought of right to beleeue Peter and Paul, but to beleeue in Peter & Paul, that is, to giue to the seruants the houour of the Lord, we ought not. And Cyprian saith, He doth not beleeue in God which doth not place in him alone the trust of his whole felicitie.

3. The article, conceiued by the holy ghost, Cypr. de dup▪ Martyr. is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the masse, into the body and blood of Christ. For here we are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnati­on of Christ, beginning in his conception, and neuer ending afterward: and we ac­knowledge the truth of his manhoode, and that his bodie hath the essentiall properties of a true bodie, standing of flesh and bone: hauing quantitie, figure, dimensions, namely length, breadth, thicknes: hauing part out of [Page 358] part, as head out of feet, and feet out of head, beeing also circumscribed, visible, touchable: in a word, it hath all things in it, which by order of creation, belong to a bodie. It will be said, that the body of Christ may remaine a true bodie and yet be altered in respect of some qualities, as namely circumscription. But I say againe, that locall circumscription can no way be seuered from a bodie, it re­maining a bodie. For to be circumscribed in place, is an essentiall propertie of euery quan­titie: and quantitie is the common essence of euerie bodie. And therefore a bodie in re­spect of his quantitie must needes be circum­scribed in one place. This was the iudgement of Leo, when he saide. The bodie of Christ is Epist. 70. by no meanes out of the truth of our bodie. And Augustine, when he saide: ONELY God Tract 31. in Ioh. in Christ so comes, that he doth not depart; so returnes, that he doth not leaue vs: but man according to bodie is in place, and goes out of the same place, and when he shall come vnto an other place, HE IS NOT IN THAT PLACE VVHENCE HE COMES. To helpe the matter, they vse to distinguish thus. Christs bodie in [Page 359] respect of the t [...]talitate essentia, non t [...]lalitate quantitatis. whole essence thereof may be in many places; but not in respect of the whole quantitie, whereby it is onely in one place. But as I haue saide, they speake contra­ries: for quantitie (by all learning) is the es­sence of a bodie, without which a bodie can not be.

4 In the Creede we confesse that Christ is ascended into heauen, and there after his ascension sits at the right hand of his Father, and that according to his manhoode. Hence I conclude, that Christs bodie is not really and locally in the Sacrament, and in euerie Host, which the priest consecrateth. This ar­gument was good when Vigilius againstLib. 4. Eutyches said, Whē it (the flesh) was on earth, it was not in heauen: and because it is now in heauen, it is not on earth: and he addes after­ward that this is the Catholike faith & con­fession. And it was good when Fulgenti [...]sad Thr [...] saide, According to his humane substance he was absent from earth, when he vvas in hea­uen, and he left the earth, vvhen he ascended into heauen. And, The same in seperable Christ, according to his whole manhood LEA­VING [Page 360] THE EARTH, locally ascended into hea­uen, and sits at the right hand, and according to the same whole manhoode, he is to come to iudgement. And it was good, when Cyril said, No man doubts but that when he ascen­ded into heauen, though he be alwaies present by the power of his spirit, HE VVAS ABSENT INCyril. lib. 9. in Iob. RESPECT OF THE PRESENCE O [...] HIS FLESH. And it was good, when Augustine said, Ac­cording to the flesh, which the Word assumed, he ascended into heauen, HE IS NOT HERE, there he sits at the right hand of the father: and he is here according to the presence of his maiestie. And, He went as he was man, and he aboad as he vvas God: he went by that whereby he was in one place: he aboad by that whereby he was euery where.

5 Again, in that we beleeue the Catholike church, it follows that the Catholike church is inuisible: because things seene are not be­leeued▪ And the answer commonly vsed, that we beleeue the holines of the Church, will not serue the turne. For the words are plain, and in them we make confession that we be­leeue not onely the holines of the church, but [Page 361] also the church it selfe.

6 Lastly the articles, Remission of sinnes, Resurrection of the bodie, and Life euerla­sting, containe a confession of speciall faith. For the meaning of them is thus much: I beleeue the remission of mine owne sinnes, and the resurrection of mine owne bodie to life euerlasting: and that by the iudgement of learned Antiquity. Augustine saith, If thou Symb ad Ca­tech. lib. 4. c. 7. & lib. 2. cap. 10. also beleeue that thou shalt rise againe and ascend into heauen (because thou art sure of so great a patrone) thou art certen of so great a gift. And, Make not Christ lesse, who brings thee to the kingdome of heauen, for re­mission of sinnes. Without this faith, if any come to baptisme, he shuts the gate of mercie against himselfe. And, Whosoeuer faithfully beleeueth, and holdes this profession of his faith (in vvhich all his sinnes are forgiuen him) let him prepare his will to the wil of God, Serm. 115. de Temp. and not feare his passage by death. And, The whole Sacrament of baptisme stands in this, that we beleeue the resurrection of the bodie and remission of sinnes to be giuen vs of God. And, He gaue these kaies to the Church—, [Page 362] that whosoeuer in his Church, should not be­leeue de Doctr. Christ. l. 1▪ cap. 18. his sinnes to be forgiuen, they should not be forgiuen vnto him: and whosoeuer belee­ued▪ and turned from them abiding in the lap of the said Church, at length shalbe healed by faith and amendment of life. And, That Serm. 123. de Temp. vvhich thou hast heard to be fulfilled in the glorious resurrection of Christ, beleeue that the very same shall be fulfilled in thee, in the last iudgement and the resurrection of thy flesh, shall restore thee for all eternitie. For vnlesse thou shalt beleeue that thou art to be repaired by death, thou canst not come to the reward of life eternall. And in auncient time the article of the resurrection hath beene re­hearsedRuffin. in Symb. August. de Symb lib. 1. c. 6. ad Cate­chu▪ & En­ [...]i. c. 44. on this manner, The resurrection of THIS FLESH: and the last applied vnto it, TO EVERLASTING LIFE. Hence then two maine opinions of the church of Rome are quite ouerthrowne, one that we cannot by special faith be certen of the remission of our sinnes, and the saluation of our soules: the o­ther, that a man truly iustified may fall away and be damned. Now this cannot be, if the practise of the auncient Church be good, [Page 363] which hath taught vs to beleeue euerlasting life ioyntly without remission of sinnes.

To come vnto the decalogue, first of all it is a rule in expounding the seuerall com­mandements, that where any vice is forbid­den, there the contrarie vertue is commaun­ded, and all vertues of the same kind, with all their causes, occasions, furtherances. This rule is graunted of all: and hence it followes, that counsells of perfection, if they haue in them any furtherance of vertue, are inioyned in and by the law, and therefore prescribe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the law.

Secondly the commandement, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, &c. hath two seuerall parts. The first forbiddes the making of carued or grauen images: the second forbids the adoration of them. Now the first part is notably expounded by Mo­ses, Deutr. 4. 16. Take good heede vnto your selves, that ye corrupt not your selves and make you a grauen image or representation of any figure in the likenesse of male or fe­male. Marke the reason of this prohibition [Page 364] in the same place: for (saith he) ye savv no i­mage in the day the Lord spake vnto you in Horeb. and v. 15. Ye heard the voice of the vvordes but savv no similitude saue a voyce. Now the reason beeing vnderstood of the i­mage of God himselfe: the prohibition must needes be so vnderstood. Againe there is no question; that God directs his commaunde­ment against a sinne in speculation, but a­gainst some common and wicked practise of the Iewes, and that was to represent God himselfe in likenesses and bodily formes. E­sai 40. 18. And that was also the practise of the Gentiles, that were farre more grosse in this kinde then the Iewes. Rom. 1. 23. This then is plaine to any indifferent man, that the first part of the commandement forbids the making of grauen images or likenesses of the true Iehova: & thus the Romane Cate­chisme vnderstands the wordes. As for the second part, it must be vnderstoode accor­ding to the meaning of the first: and there­fore it forbids vs, to bowe downe to any i­mage of God. Hence then it followes, that to worship God or Saints in, or, at images, & [Page 365] to worship images with religious worship is abhominable idolatrie. And common rea­son might teach vs thus much. For they that adore and worship the true God in images, doe bind the presence of God, his operation, grace, and his hearing of vs, to certen things, places, signes, to which he hath not bounde himselfe, either by commaundement or pro­mise: and that is, otherwise to worship God, and to seeke for his blessings, then he hath commanded himselfe to be worshipped, or promised to heare vs. Vpon this ground, is plainely ouerthrowne the excuse which they make, that they worshippe not images but God and Saints in images: for neither God nor the Saints doe acknowledge this kinde of honour, but they abhorre it. Whence it followes necessarily, that they worshippe nothing beside the image, or, the deuise of their owne braine, in which they faine to them selues such a God as will be worshipped, and receiue our praiers at ima­ges. It will be saide, that the Papists doe no otherwise tie the worship and inuocation of God to images, then God tied himselfe to [Page 366] the sanctuarie and the temple of Salomon. And I say againe, it was the will of God that he would shewe his presence, and be wor­shipped at the Sanctuarie, and the Iewes had the warrant of Gods word for it: but we haue no like warrant, either by promise or commandement to tie Gods presence to an image or crucifix. Againe, reason yet further may discouer their idolatrie. They, which worship they know not what, worship an i­dol: but the Papists worship they know not what: I proue it thus. To the cōsecratiō of the host, there is required the intention of the priest, at the lest vertually, as they say, & if this be true, it follows that none of thē can come to the Masse, or praie in faith, but he must al­waies doubt of that which is lifted vp by the hāds of the priest in the masse: whether it be bread or the body and blood of Christ. For none can haue any certēty of the intention of the priest in consecrating this bread and this wine: but rather may haue a iust occasion of doubting by reason of the common igno­rance and loosenes of life in such persons.

Thirdly the commaundement touching [Page 367] the Sabbath, giues a libertie to worke sixe daies in the ordinarie affaires of our callings: and this libertie cannot be repealed by any creature. The Church of Rome therfore er­reth, in that it prescribeth set and ordinarie [...]stiuall daies, not onely to God but also to Saints: inioyning them as straitly and with as much solemnitie to be obserued, as the Sab­bath of the Lord.

Fourthly, the third commandement, or (as they say) the fourth, inioynes children to o­bey father and mother in all things, specially in matters of moment, as in their marriage and choise of their callings: and that euen to death: and yet the Church of Rome against the intent of this commandement, allowes that clandestine marriages, and the vowe of religion shall be in force, though they be without, and against the consent of wise and careful parents.

Fiftly, the last commandement of lust, forbids the first motions to sinne, that are before consent. I prooue it thus. Lusting is forbidden in the former commandements as well as in the last, yea lusting that is ioyned [Page 368] with consent: as in the commandement, thou shalt not commit adulterie, is forbidden lu­sting after our neighbours wife; and in the next, lusting after our neighbours goods, &c. Now if the last commandement also forbid no more but lust with consent, it is confoūded with the rest: and by this meanes there shal not be ten distinct words, or, com­mandements: which to say is absurd: it re­maines therfore that the lust here forbidden goes before consent. Againe, the Philoso­phers knewe that lust with consent was euil, euen by the light of nature: but Paul a lear­ned Pharise and therefore more then a phi­losopher, knewe not Lust to be sinne, that is forbidden in this commandement, Rom. 7. Lust therefore that is forbidden here, is without consent. Wicked then is the do­ctrine of the Romane Church teaching, that in euery mortall sinne is required an act com­manded Molan [...]act. c. 27. con. 4. of the will: and hence they say many thoughts against faith and vncleane ima­ginations are no sinnes.

6 Lastly, the words of the second com­mandement. And shew mercy to thousands [Page 369] on them that loue me and keepe my comman­dements, ouerthrowes all humane merits. For if the reward be giuen of mercy to them that keepe the lawe, it is not giuen for the merit of the worke done.

To come to the third part of the Cate­chisme: the Lords praier is a most absolute and perfect forme of praier. For which cause it was called of Tertullian, the Breuiarie of the Gospell: and Caelestinus saith, the lawe of praying is the law of beleeuing and the lavv of vvorking. Nowe in this praier we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone, Our father, &c▪ and that onely in the name and mediation of Christ. For God is our fa­ther onely by Christ. It is needles therefore, to vse any inuocation of Saints, or to make them our Mediatours of intercession vnto God: and it is sufficient, if we pray onely vn­to God in the name of Christ alone.

2. In the fourth petition, we say thus, Giue vs our daily bread. In which words, we ac­knowledge that euery morsell of bread is the meere gift of God. VVhat madnes then is it, for vs to thinke that we should merit [Page 370] the kingdome of heauen by works, that can not merit so much as bread?

3 In the next petition, Forgiue vs our debts, foure opinions of the Romane religi­on are directly ouerthrowne, The first is concerning humane Satisfactions. For the childe of God is here after his conuersion taught, to humble himselfe day by day, and to praie for the pardon of his daily sinnes: now to make satisfaction and to sue for par­don be contrary. The second opinion here ouerthrowne, is touching merits. For we doe acknowledge our selues to be debters vnto God, yea bankrupts: and that beside the maine summe of many thousand talents, we daily increase the debt: therefore we can not possiby merit any of the blessings of God. It is meere madnes to thinke, that they which cannot pay their debts, but rather in­crease them day by day, should deserue or purchase any of the goods of the creditors, or the pardon of their debts: & if any fauour be shewed them, it comes of merre good­will without the least desert. In a word, this must be thought vpon, that, if al we can doe, [Page 371] will not keepe vs from increasing the maine summe of our debt, much lesse shall we be a­ble by any merit to diminnish the same. By good right therefore doe all the seruants of God cast downe themselues and praie, For­giue vs our debts. The 3. opinion is that punishment may be retained, the fault being wholly remitted: but this cannot stand, for here sinne is called our debt: because by na­ture we owe vnto God obedience, & for the defect of this paiment, we further owe vnto him the forfiture of punishment. Sinne then is called our debt in respect of the pun­nishment. And therefore when we pray for the pardon of sinne, we require the pardon not onely of fault, but of the whole punish­ment. And when a debt is pardoned, it is ab­surd to thinke that the least paiment should remaine. The fourth opinion is that a man in this life may fulfill the lawe, whereas in this place euery seruant of God is taught to aske a daily pardō for the breach of the law. Answer is made, that our daily sinnes are ve­niall and not against the lawe but beside the lawe. But this which they say is against the [Page 372] petition: for a debt that comes by forfiture is against the bond or obligation. Nowe eue­ry sinne is a debt causing the forfiture of pu­nishment: and therefore is not beside, but di­rectly against the lawe.

4. In this clause, as we forgiue our deb­ters, it is taken for granted, that we may certenly knowe that we are in loue and cha­ritie with me [...] ▪ when w [...] make reconciliati­on: why then may not we knowe certenly that we repent and beleeue and are reconci­led to God: which all Romane Catholikes denie.

5. In the last wordes, and lead vs not into temptation, we pray not, that God should free vs from temptation (for it is other whiles good to be tempted, Psal. 26. 1.) But that we be not left to the malice of Sathan, and held captiue of the temptation, for here to be bed into temptation, and to be deliuered, are opposed. Now hēce I gather, that he which is the child of God truely iustified and sancti­ed, shall neuer fal wholly and finally from the grace of God: and I conclude on this man­ner. That which we aske according to the [Page 373] will of God, shall be graunted, 1. Ioh. 5. but this the child of God asketh, that he might neuer be wholly forsaken of his father, and left captiue in temptation. This therefore shal be graunted.

6 This clause Amen, signifies a speciall faith touching all the former petitions, that they shall be graunted: and therefore a special faith concerning remission of sinnes: which the Romane Church denieth.

To come to the last place, to the Institu­tion of the sacrament of the Lords Supper. 1. Cor. 11. v, 23. In which first of all the Reall presence is by many circumstances ouer­throwne. Out of the wordes, he tooke and brake, it is plain that, that which Christ took was not his body: because he cannot be said with his owne handes to haue taken, held, and broken himselfe, but the very bread. A­gaine Christ said not: vnder the forme of bread, or in bread: but This, that is, bread is my body. 3. Bread was not giuen for vs but onely the body Christ: and in the first insti­tution, the body of Christ was not thē really giuen to death. 4. The cup, is the newe testa­ment [Page 374] by a figure: why may not the bread be the body of Christ by a figure also? 5. Christ did eate the supper, but not himselfe. 6. We are bidden to doe it, till he come: Christ then is not bodily present. 7. Christ bids the bread to be eaten in a remembrance of him: but signes of remembrance are of things absent. 8. If the Popish reall presence be granted, then the body & blood of Christ are either seuered or ioyned together. If se­uered, then Christ is still crucified If ioyned together, then the bread is both the body & blood of Christ: whereas the institution saith the bread is the body, and the wine is the blood.

2 Againe, here is condemned the admi­nistration of the sacrament vnder one onely kind. For the commandement of Christ is, drinke ye all of this, Math, 26. 27. And this commandement is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these wordes, do this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me. v. 25. And no power can rehearse this commande­ment: because it was established by the soue­raigne head of the Church.

[Page 375]These fewe lines, as also the former trea­tise, I offer to the vewe and reeding of them, that fauour the Romane religion: willing them with patience to consider this one thing, that their religion, if it were Catho­like and Apostolike (as they pretend) it could not be contrarie so much as in one point, to the groundes of all Catechismes, that haue beene vsed in all Churches, confessing the name of Christ, euer since the Apostles daies. And whereas it crosseth the said grounds in sundrie points of doctrine, (as I haue prooued) it is a plaine argument that the present Romane religion, is degenerate. I write not this dispising or hating their persōs for their religion, but wishing vnfainedly their con­uersion in this world, and their saluation in the world to come.


To the Reader.

Pag. 235. l. 20. I say, that Christ obaied the law for him selfe, not because he did by his obedience merit his own glorie: but because he was to be a perfect and pure high priest, not onely in nature but also in life: and as he was a creature, he was to be conformable to the law.

Faults to be amended thus.

Pag. 1. l. 1. for 3. read 4. p. 9. l. 2. read Apostolicke. p. 19. l. 17. read formeth. and l. 23. read indeauour. p. 39. l. last, read, too. p. 48. l. 18. read, or. p. 55. l. 2. read, holy. p. 126. l. 2. read, be. p. 138. l. 13. read, pertaining. p. 142. l. 23. read, matters. p. 161. l. 5. read, containe. and l. last, read, chastitie. p. 168. l. 5. read, persecution. p. 187. l. 7. read, men. p. 192. l. last. read, cannot. p. 222. l. 5. read, right. p. 260. l. 9. read, particular. p. 265. l. 14. read, I thinke. p. 284. l. 2. read, deputies.

Faults escaped in the places of Scripture.

Pag. 1. v. 3. pro 4. p. 4. c. 18. pro 17. p. 6. c. 18. pro 17. p. 7. v. 18. pro 8. p. 19. v. 5. pro 7. p. 22. v 2. pro 1. p. 43. v. 20. pro 28, & 29. p. 50. v. 21. pro 22. p. 52. v. 36. pro 63. p 75. v. 13. pro 12. p. 127. v. 12. pro 21. p. 135. v. 20. pro 8. p. 139. c. 8. v. 1. pro c. 1. v. 8. p. 164. v. 38. pro 37. p. 227. v. 18. pro 29.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.